I mentioned above Monica Heller’s work (1999a,b) on the impact of global-ization on language and identity. Heller’s work is an ethnographic study of the language practices of a French-language minority school in predominantly English-speaking Ontario, and she suggests (1999b: 336), following Giddens (1990) that as part of current processes of globalization, the following phe-nomena can be observed:
the commodification of language
pressures towards standardization for international communication; and
the opposite, the valuing of local characteristics in order to legitimate local control over markets, and in order to attach a value of distinction to linguistic commodities in world markets of culture and tourism.
A recent application of Heller’s ideas to the status of the Spanish language in the USA (Pomerantz 2002) also shows that while proficiency in Spanish is seen as a resource for the English-speaking elite, it is a detriment to the social mobility of working class US Latinos for whom the language is simply a
z z z
‘heritage’ marker (Pomerantz 2002: 281). Given Pomerantz’s analysis of the language ideologies surrounding Spanish in the USA, Heller’s work on French in Canada and the discussion of Singapore presented above, I would like to tentatively suggest some possible features of linguistic instrumentalism.
One feature of linguistic instrumentalism is that ‘the question of norms is subject to different, and sometimes countervailing, tendencies’ (Heller 1999b:
343). For example, there is a tension between the representations of French or Spanish as markers of cultural authenticity and integrity and the emerging globalizing orientation which treats these languages as economic resources (Heller 1999b: 336; Pomerantz 2002: 276). Similarly, in Singapore, as the gov-ernment aims, in the case of Mandarin at least, to take advantage of China’s open-door policy, its earlier emphasis on the mother tongues as markers of cultural identities has had to accommodate the shift towards a more instru-mentalist orientation, resulting in a tension that has yet to be fully resolved.
Another feature is that the vernaculars are ‘the simultaneous source of stigma-tization and authenticity’ (Heller 1999b: 343). Speakers from working-class French Canadian families tend to ‘feel that the linguistic resources they possess are devalued by the school’ (Heller 1999b: 353). Similar observations obtain in the case of Latino families in the USA. (Pomerantz 2002: 281). And in Singapore, while the mother tongues are still considered important for local cultural expressions, there is a danger that, in time, local varieties will also no longer be as valued. We saw an indication of this in the speech by George Yeo, where, despite the claim that Mandarin is important for expressing ‘our own social cultural instinct’, there is also the suggestion that for standards of Mandarin to improve, students must travel overseas to China or Taiwan.
A final feature is that the value of French or Spanish in the marketplace is based on the assumption that these languages adding to an existing English language proficiency so that the speakers are aiming for an English–French or English–Spanish bilingualism. The goal is not to displace English, whose importance remains undisputed. In Canada, speakers aim for the construction of a specific type of bilingualism, a bilingualism which is essentially two uni-lingualisms, one French and the other English, stuck together (as opposed to a code-switched or mixed variety)’ (Heller 1999b: 353). Likewise, in Pomerantz’s study (2002), Spanish is valued mainly as an added resource for the English-speaking elite. This is similar to Singapore where the goal is not to promote Mandarin at the expense of English, but to maximize the chances of social mobility or economic success by attaining an English–Mandarin bilingualism.
The Canada, USA and Singapore situations should therefore be seen as part of general picture of change where perceptions of what it means to be
globally competitive have led to particular languages being reconstructed on instrumentalist grounds. And here, the particular context of Singapore, with its commitment to a policy of multiracialism, presents an interesting challenge since intra-linguistic considerations (reconciling a language’s function as bearer of authenticity with its economic value) need to be dealt with alongside inter-linguistic ones (the desire to maintain parity or equal status among the official mother tongues). Important similarities, however, are discernible, which I summarize below:
1. Linguistic instrumentalism is a later addition to a previously existing view that treats the language as a marker of cultural identity and authenticity, resulting in a tension that is not yet reconciled.
2. One consequence, though, is the tendency to devalue or marginalize local vernaculars.
3. Linguistic instrumentalism assumes the continued importance of multi-/bilingualism, so that the language whose economic value is being championed is acquired in addition to English, never in place of it.
Conclusion
A prominent feature of the narratives of Asian modernity is the repositioning of endogenous cultural elements with respect to Western modernity. The pri-mary change has been to assert that endogenous elements are not only com-patible with Western modernity, but rather, in concert can act as the main engines of social and economic development. In Singapore, this attempt to accommodate the presence of both the mother tongues and English has led to a policy where the former are primarily expected to function as markers of cultural identity while the latter is expected to provide access to Western sci-ence and technology, and economic competitiveness. However, the need to adopt a more global outlook, and in particular, the developments in China, have led the Singapore government to assert the linguistic instrumentalism of Mandarin, opening the way for an even more radical rethinking of the narrative of Asian modernity, one where a mother tongue such as Mandarin is treated, like the English language, as also having a strong economic value.
But the price to be paid for this move may be that it compromises the carefully laid policy of multiracialism that has been so fundamental to way in which Singapore manages its ethnically diverse population, since the question is then raised concerning the economic values of Malay and Tamil. Finally, while these reflect problems peculiar to Singapore, it has also been possible, by compari-sons with Canada and the USA, to suggest a number of general features of the discourse of linguistic instrumentalism.
Notes
1 An extended version of this chapter was first published in 2003, in the Journal of Multilingual and Multilingual Development 24(3). I thank Multilingual Matters for permission to reproduce the article.
2 For a detailed discussion of these problems, see Gupta (1994), PuruShotam (1998) and Siddique (1990).
3 The ‘Nantah generation’ refers to the Chinese-educated elites, who were graduates from the Chinese language Nanyang University. In 1980, the Singapore government merged Nanyang University with the University of Singapore to form the National University of Singapore. This move upset a large portion of the Chinese community who felt that the government was not truly supportive of the Chinese language and culture.
References
Benjamin, Geoffrey (1976), ‘The cultural logic of Singapore’s “multiracialism”’ in Riaz Hassan (ed) Singapore: Society in Transition (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press), pp. 115–33.
Bokhorst-Heng, Wendy (1998), Language and imagining the nation in Singapore. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.
Chua, Beng Huat (1995), Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore (London: Routledge).
Edwards, John (1985), Language, Society and Identity (London: Blackwell).
Giddens, Anthony (1990), The Consequences of Modernity (Stanford: Stanford University Press).
Gupta, Anthea F. (1994), The Step-tongue: Children’s English in Singapore (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters).
Heller, Monica (1999a), Linguistic Minorities and Modernity: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography (London:
Longman).
Heller, Monica (1999b), ‘Alternative ideologies of la francophonie’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 3(3):
336–59.
May, Stephen (2001), Language and Minority Rights (London: Longman).
Ong, Aihwa. (1999), Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logic of Transnationality (USA: Duke University Press).
Pennycook, Alistair (1994), The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language (London:
Longman).
Phillipson, Robert (1992), Linguistic Imperialism (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Pomerantz, Anita (2002), ‘Language ideologies and the production of identities: Spanish as resource for participation in a multilingual marketplace’, Multilingua 21(2/3), 275–302.
PuruShotam, Nirmala (1998), Negotiating Language, Constructing Race (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter).
Riney, Timothy (1998), ‘Toward more homogeneous bilingualisms: Shift phenomena in Singapore’, Multilingua 17(1): 1–23.
Siddique, Sharon (1990), ‘The phenomenology of ethnicity: A Singapore case study’, Sojourn: Social Issues in Southeast Asia 5(1): 35–62.
This chapter traces the historical development behind Malay’s special status in Singapore as its national language. It examines the ideological debates surrounding the status of Malay as one of the three ethnic mother tongues in Singapore and for-wards a stand that Malay does in fact continue to occupy a special place in Singapore policy, despite shifts in the politics of Singapore. It argues against a simplistic evalua-tion, in the commodifi cation framework, of the three mother tongues as having equal status as cultural repositories of the different races, and argues that Malay holds a special signifi cance for Singapore, both historically, as well as in the present day, in relation to its political value for ensuring the future of Singapore’s political stability.
Introduction
In speaking of the commodification of language in Singapore, the issue that is most often raised is the contrast between English as a language valued for its