Cordelia Yang

Diglossia describes, in sociolinguistics, two languages, varieties or dialects which coexist in a society but are used in two different contexts/spheres. These varieties are known as the “high” (H) and “”low” (L) versions, with the high being the (governmentally) dictionarised, institutionalised version of the language, or the prestige version.

While the prestige version is marked high in the prestige scale, and is usually connotated with intelligence and professionalism, hence giving it credence in job interviews, presentations and situations which are “worked based”; it is usually marked low on the social scale, or emotional connectivity.

Conversely, although the low version is marked low on the prestige scale, it is usually marked high on the social scale. The result is use of the prestige version, barring slang, gives off an effiecient, upper-class and intelligent air but is somehow cold, clinical, and rather detached. In contrast, the use of the low variety emphasizes and highlights solidarity, although because it usually lacks institutional support, is often denigrated.

This brings us to Singapore, where a diglossic situation occurs between Standard Singapore English or SSE (H) and Colloquial Singapore English, or Singlish (L), where for a very long time, the Singapore Government has been trying to stamp out Singlish, with little success. I argue that this current approach of eradication of Singlish is counterproductive.

Should speaking “Good English” or SSE be encouraged? Yes! There is no denying that English is becoming the global lingua franca, and that the versions of English being used are some variation of British or American Standard English. To improve communications with other international speakers of English, we indeed need to improve the standards of grammar when using SSE, but not at the cost of Singlish, because SSE is unable to replace Singlish as a language variety for socialisation, with its current low marking in the social scale.

The current Speak Good English campaign, which gives a straight association of Singlish= Ungrammatical English is also counter-productive, precisely any institutional campaigns against a variety can only push it down on the prestige scale, while not moving it down on the social scale: which does not affect the vitality of a language which survives due to its high social scale marking.

In fact, the institutional pushes may instead increase the vitality of a language by pushing it up on the social scale. And indeed, the reactions of various Singaporeans (many of whom traverse the diglossic linguistic situation in Singapore effortlessly), have shown that the Speak Good English campaign has lead more people to fiercely defend Singlish. Worse still, it has pushed SSE down the social scale, while having negligible effect on its prestige scale.

This leads to the ridiculous situation in which the more the Government tries to encourage the use of SSE in daily life, the less people want to do so. Pitting a well-loved language variety (Singlish) against a high-prestige language (SSE) variety will not help increase the standards of SSE; and may conversely decrease the standards of SSE, since those who are proponents of Singlish may choose to use Singlish over SSE even in spheres where SSE used to dominate.

“Speak Good English when you need to” would be a more sensible and balanced approach to go about encouraging the use of proper SSE. By separating the two varieties into its two spheres, acknowledging that both exist; that both have value, albeit in different arenas, and most importantly, that both NEED to exist, the campaigners can then focus on what really matters: Speaking proper SSE when SSE is used.

__
Photo courtersy of the Speak Good Singlish Movement