Teaching and Learning Guide for: Singapore English
Authors: Leimgruber Jakob R. E. 
Published: July 2011

This guide accompanies the following article: Jakob R. E. Leimgruber, ‘Singapore English’, Language and Linguistics Compass 5/1 (2011): 47–62. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749‐818x.2010.00262.x

Author’s Introduction

This article describes the English(es) spoken in Singapore in four major parts. The first three (Phonology, Grammar, Vocabulary) are a linguistic description, based on previous literature on the topic and on recent findings. While by necessity selective, they contain the main features usually thought to be typical of Singapore English. The fourth part, Variation, is concerned with the various forms that English can take in the country: Singlish, Standard English, colloquial, formal, etc. The interaction between these forms, and the ways this interaction has been described, are investigated in this section. It concludes with a look at the indexicality model, which recasts variation as a speaker‐centric process that enables users to select features of Singlish or of Standard English in order to index particular social meanings. This Teaching and Learning Guide aims to increase the article’s value as an educational resource, by showing how it can be used in a classroom context.

The Author Recommends

Ho, Mian‐Lian, and John T. Platt. 1993. Dynamics of a contact continuum: Singaporean English. Oxford: OUP.

A good place to start for an overview of early studies of Singapore English. The book is based on extensive fieldwork research by Platt and his associates. A major theme throughout the book is the continuum hypothesis, which forms the theoretical framework against which the data is analysed. The description and analysis is solely grammatical (with only little phonology), but all the more detailed.

Gupta, Anthea Fraser. 1994. The step‐tongue: children’s English in Singapore. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Another basic book for those interested in Singapore English. The author recorded the ‘children’ the title refers to, and reports their acquisition of various features of the variety. The early chapters comprise a thoroughly researched history of the island‐state and the languages used therein. The book was instrumental in championing the diglossia model for Singapore.

Low, Ee Ling, and Adam Brown. 2005. English in Singapore: an introduction. Singapore: McGraw‐Hill Education.

An excellent overview of the variety, both linguistically and in terms of the variationist models proposed for it. The book is organised as a textbook, with chapter summaries, suggested readings and exercises in each chapter (and answer keys at the end of the book). In addition to a thorough linguistic description, it also features definitions and discussions of bilingualism, language attitudes, language and literature and language policy.

Deterding, David. 2007. Singapore English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Another more recent book, of manageable size (92 pages of text), mostly concerned with the linguistic description of Singapore English. Phonetics and phonology, being the author’s speciality, is the largest chapter, with in‐depth analyses on various processes from segmental phonology to rhythm, stress and intonation. Two chapters on grammar follow, covering tenses, modals, discourse particles and borrowing, among many others. Another chapter is dedicated to variation and change, and a final one to an annotated bibliography. A transcript of the interview data used is given in the appendix.

Alsagoff, Lubna. 2010. English in Singapore: culture, capital and identity in linguistic variation. World Englishes 29(3). 336–48.

A critical review of previous models of variation for Singapore English, with a proposal for a new, culture‐based model. This article and its list of references is a valuable source of information on the themes of variation, attitudes, and policy with regards to English in Singapore. The cultural orientation model is described, as is its grounding in previous approaches. The central role of speaker agency in this model makes this article an important contribution to the field.

Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4). 453–76.

Eckert explains in this article the workings of indexicality, and gives it a further tool, the indexical field: a range of social meanings indexed by a particular linguistic variable. Together with the other studies referenced, her analyses are enlightening, and may hold key answers for variation in Singapore English, although this is not explicitly present in the article.

Online Materials

 http://www.singlishdictionary.com

 This site is the personal project of Jack Tsen‐Ta Lee, and aims ‘to record actual usage in published material’. Its format is based on the Oxford English Dictionary, and the entries, etymologies, definitions, etc., are of a very high standard. Each entry has quotations from printed sources. Highly recommended for those obscure Singlish words.

 http://www.leeds.ac.uk/english/staff/afg/singeb2.html

 Anthea Fraser Gupta’s ‘Important Readings’ on Singapore English. Includes links to other websites and a bibliography.

 http://videoweb.nie.edu.sg/phonetic/books/singapore‐english‐bibliography.htm

 David Deterding’s vast annotated bibliography. Listed by topics (phonetics, grammar, diglossia, speech therapy, etc.) and divided into books, overviews and articles.

 http://www.goodenglish.org.sg/

 The website of the Singapore government’s Speak Good English Movement. Information about the campaign, English quizzes, examples of ‘commonly mispronounced words’, Singlish–English sentence pairs.

Sample Syllabus

What follows is a suggestion of two weeks’ teaching on Singapore English, which would ideally be part of a term‐long course on varieties of English. Readings are suggested for each week, as well as study questions and exercises. What is labelled as ‘Week 1’ need not be at the beginning of the term; in fact it would benefit from introductory sessions on the study of World Englishes.

Week 1: The linguistics of Singapore English

This first session looks at the linguistic shape of English in Singapore, especially its Singlish part. Phonology, grammar, lexicon and discourse have all something to contribute to an engaging class. Exercises can include comparisons with other varieties, etymological lookup of loanwords, and ‘translations’ from English into Singlish and vice versa (e.g. rephrasing the discourse particles).

Suggested readings

Leimgruber, Jakob R. E. 2011. Singapore English. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(1). 47–62.

Deterding, David. 2007. Singapore English (Chapters 2–4). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Low, Ee Ling, and Adam Brown. 2005. English in Singapore: An introduction (Chapters 6–12). Singapore: McGraw‐Hill Education.

Sample exercises

 Consider the following Singlish lexical items: kiasu, ah beng, tahan, MC king, tikam‐tikam. Identify the language they come from and their meaning. Use Lee’s online Singlish dictionary (http://www.singlishdictionary.com), and cross‐check with a reputable English dictionary (e.g. the OED).

 Having learned the semantic and pragmatic scope of Singlish discourse particles, rephrase the hypothetical exchange below into Standard English, rendering its semantic and pragmatic meaning as closely as possible.

 Compare the grammar of Chinese and that of Singlish. Focus on word order, tense and aspect marking, as well as morphological processes. Discuss the similarities, and highlight the differences.

Week 2: Variation in Singapore English

In this second class, students can get a more theoretical feel of how variation is analysed in World Englishes. The models used for Singapore English will come in particularly useful if other varieties have been taught previously: the continuum model, for instance, is also used for Jamaican English, and indexicality has been applied to American English as well as other languages.

Suggested readings

Leimgruber, Jakob R. E. 2011. Singapore English. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(1). 47–62.

Alsagoff, Lubna. 2010. English in Singapore: Culture, capital and identity in linguistic variation. World Englishes 29(3). 336–48.

Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4). 453–76.

Low, Ee Ling, and Adam Brown. 2005. English in Singapore: an introduction (Chapters 3 and 4). Singapore: McGraw‐Hill Education.

Sample exercises

 Select a passage from the data in Deterding’s (2007) appendix. Task students with identifying elements typical of Singlish and of Standard English. Challenge them to find a pattern. Guide them to consider topic, surrounding features, and interview setting.

 Do an internet‐based class where students have to find online examples of Singapore English from blogs, discussion boards, etc., that show the use of English in the framework of Alsagoff’s cultural orientation model. Plenty should be available; see Deterding (2007: 102–3) for a list of Singapore‐based blogs.

Focus Questions

 Discuss the differences between the continuum found in post‐creole situations and that arising out of Alsagoff’s cultural orientation model?

 Singapore is a country that is made up of essentially one large city. In what ways has this city‐state setting influenced language policy?

 Consider the list of models proposed to explain variation in Singapore English. Why do so many linguists think such a model is important?

 The framework of indexicality has the potential to explain variation in Singapore English. It does so by also accounting for the use of non‐English varieties. What does this mean for the analysis of other World Englishes?

Seminar Activity

Form four groups and assign them one of the variationist models proposed for Singapore English: the post‐creole continuum, diglossia, the cultural orientation model and indexicality. Have them develop the theory, understand it and apply it to data in the group. Then ask each group to present theirs in turn, arguing for their respective models as the most suitable approach. Prevent debate until a final discussion round, when the arguments can be questioned and counter‐arguments presented.