A Movement Away From Colloquial Singapore English :: Singapore Language Papers

A hunting expedition Away From Colloquial Singapore face The contract for intelligibility and the postulate for identity often pull people and countries in opposing directions. The occasion motivates the learning of an international language, with English as the front superior in most cases the last menti mavend motivates the promotion of ethnic language and husbandry (David Crystal, 1997). wording planning policies in Singapore have often been characterised by the propensity to achieve a ease between the national conceit of lingual ownership and the bring for international intelligibility (Khoo 1993 67). This is evident, for instance, in the states sure move to promote the use of Standard English (particularly the garland cognize as Standard Singaporean English, or SSE) and to discourage that alteration cognise as Colloquial Singapore English (CSE, or Singlish as it is popularly known), although in this case, the states desire to achieve a balance between intel ligibility and identity annul outs to be one involving conflict quite an than via media one in which these two principles (embodied by SSE and CSE respectively) appear to be opposing lingual forces, and in which the former appears to be espoused and the latter (at to the lowest degree in the case of CSE, though not that of the ethnic render tongues) denigrated. This evidence will study whether (and if so, why) these two principles are truly fence to separately other, as seemingly implied by both the David Crystal honorable mention and the English language policy in Singapore, and in what way the coating of these principles may result (as stated in the Crystal quotation) in the drag isolated of people and countries, especially in the sense of socio-economic inequality and marginalization on both international and intra-national levels and all these will in turn be related to the present-day situation in Singapore. At first sight, the need for identity and intelligibility appear to be irreconcilable on a linguistic level, the former requiring the adherence to a dominant language form (such as Standard English) as well as its set of linguistic norms in order for speakers to maintain mutual comprehension, and thus implicitly demanding the non-usage or horizontal abandonment of alternate varieties (Leith and Graddol, 1996 139) the latter demanding, by contrast, the use of languages or varieties unconnected from this dominant variety as a way of identifying with ones culture and distinguishing it from the rest (Crystal 1997 133134) languages and varieties that are, however, incomprehensible to a large harmonize of the creation population and will therefore (as some perceive e.A Movement Away From Colloquial Singapore English Singapore Language papersA Movement Away From Colloquial Singapore English The need for intelligibility and the need for identity often pull people and countries in opposing directions. The former motivate s the learning of an international language, with English as the first choice in most cases the latter motivates the promotion of ethnic language and culture (David Crystal, 1997).Language planning policies in Singapore have often been characterised by the desire to achieve a balance between the national pride of linguistic ownership and the need for international intelligibility (Khoo 1993 67). This is evident, for instance, in the states current move to promote the use of Standard English (particularly the variety known as Standard Singaporean English, or SSE) and to discourage that variety known as Colloquial Singapore English (CSE, or Singlish as it is popularly known), although in this case, the states desire to achieve a balance between intelligibility and identity appears to be one involving conflict rather than compromise one in which these two principles (embodied by SSE and CSE respectively) appear to be opposing linguistic forces, and in which the former appears to be es poused and the latter (at least in the case of CSE, though not that of the ethnic mother tongues) denigrated. This essay will study whether (and if so, why) these two principles are truly opposed to each other, as seemingly implied by both the David Crystal quotation and the English language policy in Singapore, and in what way the application of these principles may result (as stated in the Crystal quotation) in the pulling apart of people and countries, especially in the sense of socio-economic inequality and marginalisation on both international and intra-national levels and all these will in turn be related to the present-day situation in Singapore. At first sight, the need for identity and intelligibility appear to be irreconcilable on a linguistic level, the former requiring the adherence to a dominant language variety (such as Standard English) as well as its set of linguistic norms in order for speakers to maintain mutual comprehension, and thus implicitly demandi ng the non-usage or even abandonment of alternate varieties (Leith and Graddol, 1996 139) the latter demanding, by contrast, the use of languages or varieties apart from this dominant variety as a way of identifying with ones culture and distinguishing it from the rest (Crystal 1997 133134) languages and varieties that are, however, incomprehensible to a large proportion of the world population and will therefore (as some perceive e.