Abstract
Building upon the observations and the assertions made in these previous chapters, this chapter examines the standard English language ideology the immigrant students had to negotiate at Oak. The chapter starts with an investigation of the linguistic practices that were valued and denigrated at Oak and the language ideologies which were embedded in them. These ideologies, as I will illustrate, were sustained through a tight language management policy that favored standard English. Following this discussion, I examine the investments of my focal students in learning English and explore how they negotiated the school’s monoglot standard English ideology (Silverstein, Monoglot ‘standard’ in America: Standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In D. Brennis & R. H. S. Macaulay (Eds.), The matrix of language: Contemporary linguistic anthropology (pp. 284–306). Boulder: Westview Press, 1998). The chapter closes with a call to view these students as social actors who had to balance structural language ideological forces while attempting to exercise a sense of agency.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Following Table 6.2, Sp = Spelling.
- 2.
Following Table 6.2, ^^ = Missing words.
- 3.
Following Table 6.2, T = Tense.
- 4.
Following Table 6.2, Exp = Weak expression.
- 5.
The composition paper (Paper 1) included a free writing (Part 1) and situational writing (Part 2) component (see Table 6.1).
- 6.
Daphne got the order of the sections in Paper 1 of the English examination format reversed (see Table 6.1). Part 1 is free writing where she has a choice of five topics, while no choice is available for Part 2 (situational writing).
- 7.
Except for the token personal recount question in the end-of-the-year English examination, which was styled on the national examination format, narratives and personal recounts were never covered by Mdm. Tay in the mainstream English lessons.
- 8.
A Singlish expression to denote resignation.
- 9.
Entry to the junior college (Grades 11 and 12) was determined by how the students performed for the “O” level examinations. Their L1R5 score refers to their first language (L1) grade and their grade for five other subjects (R5).
- 10.
The term hand phone is arguably the more colloquial unmarked lexical choice in the Singapore context. The fact that “mobile phones,” a term more commonly used in Britain, is used in this classroom activity is a further indication of the exonormative influence that British English norms have on standard Singaporean English. As a standard Singapore English speaker myself, I have chosen to adopt the term “mobile phones” in my analysis.
- 11.
HDB = Housing Development Board, a statutory public housing organization in Singapore. In this context, Jenny is referring to the public housing depicted in the background of the picture.
- 12.
Another Singlish particle, with an equivalent meaning to “okay” in English.
- 13.
P1 = Primary 1.
- 14.
According to this model, Inner Circle countries (e.g., the U.S. and the U.K) are norm producing, Outer Circle countries (e.g., Singapore and India) are norm developing, and Expanding Circle countries (e.g., China and Vietnam) are norm dependent countries where English is concerned.
References
Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alsagoff, L. (2007). Singlish: Negotiating culture, capital and identity. In V. Vaish, S. Gopinathan, & Y. Liu (Eds.), Language, capital, culture (pp. 25–46). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Bachman, L. F., & Purpura, J. F. (2008). Language assessments: Gate-keepers or door-openers? In B. Spolsky & F. Hult (Eds.), Handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 456–468). Malden: Blackwell.
Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. (1990). Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 59–88.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert, J. (2009). A market of accents. Language Policy, 8, 243–259.
Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert, J., Leppänen, S., & Pietikänen, S. (2009). Media, multilingualism and language policing: An introduction. Language Policy, 8, 243–259.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (trans: Raymond, G. & Adamson, M.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Clegg, J. (1992). The cognitive value of literate talk in small-group classroom discourse. Thames Valley Working Papers, 1, 1–22.
Corson, D. (1999). Language policy in schools: A resource for teachers and administrators. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56.
Foley, J. A. (2001). Is English a first or second language in Singapore? In V. B. Y. Ooi (Ed.), Evolving identities: The English language in Singapore and Malaysia (pp. 12–32). Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Gal, S., & Irvine, J. (1995). The boundaries of languages and disciplines: How ideologies construct difference. Social Research, 62(4), 967–1001.
Hymes, D. H. (1996). Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality: Toward an understanding of voice. London: Taylor & Francis.
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kanno, Y., & Norton, B. (2003). Imagined communities and educational possibilities: Introduction. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2(4), 241–249.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston: Heinle.
Lin, A. (1999). Doing-English-lessons in the reproduction or transformation of social worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 393–412.
Miller, E. R. (2012). Agency, language learning and multilingual spaces. Multilingua, 31(4), 441–468.
Miller, E. R. (2014). The language of adult immigrants: Agency in the making. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ministry of Education. (2001). English language syllabus 2001 for primary and secondary school. Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education.
Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 25–43). London: Longman.
Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language and educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 589–613.
Park, J. S.-Y., & Bucholtz, M. (2009). Introduction: Public transcripts: Entextualization and linguistics representation in institutional contexts. Text & Talk, 29(5), 485–502.
Park, J. S.-Y., & Wee, L. (2009). The three circle redux: A market-theoretic perspective on World Englishes. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 389–506.
Pennycook, A. (2006). Postmodernism in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 60–77). Oxford: Blackwell.
Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. New York: Routledge.
Rampton, B. (2006). Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rubdy, R. (2005). Remaking Singapore for the new age: Official ideology and the realities of practice in language-in-education. In A. M. Y. Lin & P. Martin (Eds.), Decolonization, globalization: Language-in-education policy and practice (pp. 55–73). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York: Routledge.
Shohamy, E. (2007). Reinterpreting globalization in multilingual contexts. International Multilingual Research Journal, 1(2), 127–133.
Silverstein, M. (1998). Monoglot ‘standard’ in America: Standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In D. Brennis & R. H. S. Macaulay (Eds.), The matrix of language: Contemporary linguistic anthropology (pp. 284–306). Boulder: Westview Press.
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication, 23, 193–229.
Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallace, C. (2002). Local literacies and global literacy. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 101–114). London: Routledge.
Young, R. F. (2009). Discursive practice in language learning and teaching. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
De Costa, P.I. (2016). Language Ideologies at Oak. In: The Power of Identity and Ideology in Language Learning. Multilingual Education, vol 18. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30211-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30211-9_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-30209-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-30211-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)