Language Shift in the Teochew Community in Singapore

This article was downloaded by: [Hong Kong Polytechnic University]On: 15 March 2012, At: 03:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Multilingualand MulticulturalDevelopmentPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

Language Shift in theTeochew Communityin Singapore: A FamilyDomain AnalysisLi Wei Vanithamani Saravanan & Julia NgLee Hoon

Available online: 29 Mar 2010

To cite this article: Li Wei Vanithamani Saravanan & Julia Ng Lee Hoon(1997): Language Shift in the Teochew Community in Singapore: A FamilyDomain Analysis, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,18:5, 364-384

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434639708666326

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434639708666326

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied ormake any representation that the contents will be complete oraccurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae,and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Hon

g K

ong

Poly

tech

nic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:47

15

Mar

ch 2

012

Language Shift in the TeochewCommunity in Singapore: A FamilyDomain Analysis

Li WeiDepartment of Speech, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, King George VIBuilding, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK

Vanithamani Saravanan and Julia Ng Lee HoonNational Institute of Education and Ministry of Education, Singapore

Much of the research literature on language maintenance and language shift (LMLS)has focused on minority communities, especially immigrants who may also be sociallyand/or economically disadvantaged. A different perspective which examines ongoingvariations and change in the language use patterns of the majority and the socially andeconomically powerful groups may provide interesting insights into the socio-culturalprocesses of LMLS. This paper presents a small case study of language shift in theTeochew Chinese community in Singapore, the second largest sub-group within thedominant Chinese community. The study highlights the complex relationships be-tween societal change processes, government policy, people’s attitude and languageuse. It argues that language shift is rarely across the board, but differential, being morerapid and far-going in some domains and in some sub-populations than in others andthat no single factor alone determines the process of LMLS. The study hopes tocontribute towards the ‘better informed evaluation of LMLS’ which Fishman (1991) hascalled for.

IntroductionSince Fishman’s seminal paper in 1964, language maintenance and language

shift (LMLS) has become a pivotal topic in sociolinguistics. There now exists alarge body of literature documenting the linguistic fortunes of a range ofcommunities in different parts of the world (e.g. Dorian, 1989; Dow, 1987, 1988;Fase et al., 1992; Williamson & van Eerde, 1980). Much of this literature, however,focuses on the experiences of minority groups, especially immigrants who mayalso be socially and/or economically disadvantaged. Although considerableprogress has been made from that vantage point, a different perspective whichexamines ongoing variations and change in the language use patterns of themajority and the socially and economically powerful groups may provideinteresting insights into the socio-cultural processes of LMLS. In this paper, wepresent a small case study of language shift in the Teochew Chinese communityin Singapore.

Bilingualism in Singapore is not associated with minority groups, or withimmigrants. It is characteristic of the majority group — the Chinese. While thevast majority of Singaporeans are bilingual or multilingual, the most multilingualindividuals are likely to be from the Chinese community who make up over 78%of the population. The aim of the current study is to document, in a principledway, the changes in the language behaviour of different generations of speakers

364

0143-4632/97/05 0364-21 $10.00/0 © 1997 L. Wei et al.JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT Vol. 18, No. 5, 1997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Hon

g K

ong

Poly

tech

nic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:47

15

Mar

ch 2

012

within the Teochew Chinese community in Singapore and to demonstrate howsuch changes are associated with the socio-cultural changes which are simulta-neously taking place in the country as a whole.

In reviewing the studies of LMLS over some 30 years, Fishman (1991) suggeststhat there are three key aspects which an ‘informed evaluation’ of LMLS shouldconsider: habitual language use, behaviour towards language, and socio-culturalchange processes. He argues that most progress has been made in conjunctionwith the measurement of habitual language use, and least in conjunction withsocio-cultural change processes. This, in Fishman’s opinion, ‘reflects the greaterprecision of scholarly work with language as a result of the more highlysystematic nature of language and language behaviour’, while the ‘social sciencesin general and sociology in particular simply have not reached the same level ofprecise and systematic analysis’ (1989: 253). Whether or not one acceptsFishman’s assertion, the only coherent analytic model which has been widelyused in the study of LMLS has been Fishman’s domain analysis which focuses onthe habitual language use of individual speakers. In contrast, no similar modelis available for analysing the socio-cultural processes underlying LMLS.

Research to date has been primarily concerned with isolating those factorswhich accelerate language shift from those which inhibit it and favour mainte-nance. A fairly comprehensive list of the factors is given by Conklin and Lourie(1983), which have been grouped under three headings: political, social anddemographic factors, cultural factors, and linguistic factors (see also Baker, 1993).While such lists may help clarify what contributes to LMLS, they do not revealthe processes and mechanisms of LMLS or the relative importance of the factors.What seems to be required is an integrated approach which addresses the social,political and economic changes taking place in the society at large as well as thelinguistic and psychological processes of individual speakers in social inter-action. A number of recent book-length publications have presented suchanalyses (e.g. Edwards, 1994; Fishman, 1991; Heller, 1994; Romaine, 1992). In thispaper, we shall attempt to provide a relatively comprehensive account of thesocio-cultural processes of language shift in the Teochew Chinese community inSingapore.

The structure of the paper is as follows: we begin by outlining the macro-so-cietal language shift which is evidently taking place in Singapore today. We shalllook at the government policies towards language use and the institutionalsupport for those languages the government is promoting. We shall then examinethe historical and socio-economic situation of the Teochew Chinese community.Using data collected through participant observation and ethnographic inter-views, we shall present a case study of 17 Teochew families and examine in somedetail such variables as age, socio-economic status, educational level, andreligion. We shall also comment on speakers’ attitudes towards languagemaintenance and shift. The final section of the paper summarises the mainfindings of the study and highlights the key factors which are associated with thelanguage shift process.

Societal Language Shift in SingaporeSingapore is a city-state of 226 sqare miles and a population of three million.

Language Shift in the Teochew Community 365D

ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

The population consists of 78% ethnic Chinese, 14% Malay, and 7% Indian. Eachof these three main ethnic groups can be further distinguished into sub-commu-nities according to ancestral geographical and language/dialect affiliations. TheChinese group, for example, comprises Hokkien (43.1%), Teochew (22.1%),Cantonese (16.4%), Hakka (7.4%), Hainanese (7.1%) and smaller communities ofFoochow, Henghua, Shanghainese, and Hokchia. Each of these sub-communitieshas its own ‘dialect’, some being more closely related to each other (in linguisticstructural terms) than others. The official languages of Singapore are English,Mandarin Chinese, Malay, and Tamil.

Until the mid 20th century, a resident of Singapore could sustain a lifestylewhich operated largely in a mono-ethnic enclave. It was even possible to live andwork within a community that was virtually mono-dialectal (Gupta, 1994). Thiswas particularly true in the Chinese community, where different ‘dialect’ groupshad their own identifiable settlements in various parts of the country. The earlyTeochews, for example, settled in Sembawang, Upper Thompson and Punggolareas, all in the north of Singapore, while the Hokkiens lived in the southernareas, along the Singapore River. Members of the Malay community, whoseancestors had emigrated from what is now Indonesia, also lived in communitiesthat were almost exclusively Buginese or Javanese.

Such geographical compartmentalisation was reinforced in the 19th centuryby a policy of segregation, which was laid down by Stamford Raffles in hisoriginal plan for Singapore. This gave rise to areas such as Chinatown and LittleIndia, which were intensely urban, and the kampongs (from the Malay kampung,‘village’), which had a more rural character. There were some mixed areas too,but they tended to be English-oriented, in the sense that the English languagewas used as the lingua franca for communication among people of differentethnicities. Clarke (1992), for example, described some neighbourhoods in whichEurasians and Jews lived side by side and where major English-medium schoolscongregated.

For the Chinese at least, the segregated settlement reinforced their ‘bang’, orclan, consciousness. Members of a ‘bang’ usually had the same surname andplace of origin and spoke the same dialect. They grouped themselves together tomaintain their ethnic tradition and promote their group culture. An importantoffshoot of the ‘bangs’ were the language schools, which served not only as aplace to educate their children but also as a centre for mutual support, exchangeof information and organisation of community activities among their members.Admission to these schools was strictly according to dialect divisions. The ‘bang’structure was institutionalised in 1889 with the establishment of the ChineseAdvisory Board and further strengthened in 1906 with the setting up of theSingapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Among the various‘bangs’, the Hokkiens were by far the most powerful economically andconsequently played a leading role in the Chamber as well as within the Chinesecommunity generally. Second in position were the Teochews (see Cheng, 1985,for a historical view of the Chinese communities in Singapore).

Over the course of the 20th century, mono-ethnic living has become progres-sively harder. Now virtually all Singaporeans live in ethnically mixed areas.According to the 1990 census, 86% of all households live in HDB flats — flats built

366 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural DevelopmentD

ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

and controlled by the Housing Development Board. The policy in these vastestates is, as it has been since the 1960s, to mix the racial groups, preventing theformation of ethnic ghettos (Gupta, 1994). Limits have been placed on thepercentage representation of the races in each neighbourhood, which presum-ably reflect the ethnic ratio of the country as a whole (87% Chinese, 25% Malayand 10% Indian and others). Multi-ethnic living provided the opportunity forextensive contacts between different groups, which in turn led to bilingualismand multilingualism.

Yet, bilingualism and multilingualism have different meanings for differentethnic groups in Singapore. A bilingual speaker of the Malay or Tamilcommunity, for instance, is normally proficient in English and either Malay orTamil, all of which are official languages of Singapore. A typical bilingual speakerof the Chinese community, on the other hand, would be someone who speakshis/her ethnic ‘dialect’ (e.g. Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese, etc.) and eitherMandarin, the officially sanctioned Chinese language, or English, while a typicalmultilingual Chinese would speak one or more ‘dialects’ and both Mandarin andEnglish. As in mainland China, the notion of ‘dialect’ in Singapore is not basedon any sound linguistic ground. Rather, it is a status symbol i.e. only MandarinChinese is recognised officially as the national language and languages other thanMandarin are assigned the status of ‘dialects’ whose use is discouraged in publicdomains. We shall see shortly the government policies towards languages andlanguage varieties in Singapore. Before that, let us look at some facts and figuresof the recent changes in language use in Singapore.

Over the last two decades, Singapore has undergone phenomenal socio-eco-nomic changes, rising to become a major international economic power. Parallelto the socio-economic changes has been a massive language shift from ethnic tonational and international languages. An illustration of this shift can be seen inTable 1 which is taken from the 1990 Census of Population.

Problematics of official statistics in Singapore notwithstanding (see Gupta,1994: 24–32 for a discussion), this set of data suggests that the use of English andMandarin as home languages has increased. The percentage of householdsspeaking English at home increased from 12% to 20% between 1980 and 1990 andthat of households speaking Mandarin more than doubled from 10% to 26% in a

Language Percent1980 1990

English 11.6 20.3Mandarin 10.2 26.0Chinese dialects 59.5 36.7Malay 13.9 13.4Tamil 3.1 2.9Others 1.7 0.7Total 100.0 100.0

Source: Department of Statistics, Singapore. Note: 1990 data were based on 10% sample.

Table 1 Predominant household language, 1980 and 1990


ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

decade. Given the way in which the census was conducted and questions phrased(as discussed in Gupta, 1994), these figures must represent the minimumpercentages of households that use English and Mandarin as home language. Inthe meantime, the percentage of households in Singapore with predominant useof ‘Chinese dialects’ declined from 60% in 1980 to 37% in 1990.

The changes in household language use have been more significant for theChinese and Indians than for the Malays. Further details of the differentiallanguage shift are given in Table 2.

While all three communities have increased their use of English, the Malayshave maintained their overall language use pattern. The Chinese have shiftedsignificantly from ‘dialects’ to Mandarin, and the use of Malay has apparentlyincreased in the Indian community partly due to the absorption of IndianMuslims into the Malay culture through intermarriage.

Within each of the three main ethnic groups, there are some interestingvariations in the extent of language shift in different sub-communities. In theMalay community, for example, members of the Javanese and Boyanesesub-groups have shifted to English more significantly than the Bahasa Malayspeakers. The extent to which different sub-groups of the Chinese communityhave been affected by language shift is illustrated in Table 3.

Bearing in mind that there has been no significant in-migration to Singaporesince the early 1960s, such large-scale, complex changes in the sociolinguisticpatterns in Singapore can be attributed largely to the deliberate and oftenforcefully-implemented government policies towards language and languagevarieties.

Language Percent1980 1990

Chinese householdsEnglish 10.2 20.6Mandarin 13.1 32.8Chinese dialects 76.2 46.2Others 0.5 0.4Malay householdsEnglish 2.3 5.5Malay 96.7 94.3Others 1.0 0.2Indian householdsEnglish 24.3 34.8Malay 8.6 13.5Tamil 52.2 43.7Others 14.9 8.0Source: Department of Statistics, Singapore.Note: 1990 data were based on 10% sample.

Table 2 Predominant household language by ethnic group 1980 and 1990


ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

Language Shift and Language PolicyIn reviewing the language policies of the Singaporean Government since

independence, Gopinathan (1988) points out two key factors which seem to haveinfluenced the government’s thinking: the first is the need for social and politicalstability in a highly multi-racial society, and the second is the need for rapideconomic growth.

It is clear from the literature that in many multilingual societies, language-bredhostility is a major source of social tension (e.g. Edwards, 1994). DuringSingapore’s colonial years, there was already some awareness among theordinary people as well as the government that some means for linguisticinteraction must be found, given the multi-ethnic and multilingual nature of theSingapore society. It was assumed that English had the most potential as a linklanguage. However, the colonial authorities were not prepared to expandEnglish-medium schooling, and after 1920 a sizable proportion of the Chinesepopulation demanded Chinese-medium education. The government then facedbuilding Chinese schools, training teachers and the like.

Since independence, the Singaporean Government has successfully trans-formed English from a colonial language and an object of suspicion amongordinary citizens into a de facto national language. This transformation has beenachieved by identifying English not simply as a ‘neutral’ link language betweenthe various ethnic groups, but as a major source of economically valuableknowledge and technology. From the early 1970s to the late 1980s, theSingaporean Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, repeatedly argued that knowledgeof an international language such as English would give the nation access toworld markets and the people better living standards. Over the years, thegovernment has sought to shape a vision of Singapore as a rational, modernisingsociety. Rapid economic growth since the 1980s seems to have helped convincethe vast majority of the population that knowledge of English provides betteropportunities for them as individuals, as well as for the country as a whole. Thereis now remarkable acceptance of English as, in effect, the national language ofSingapore. We shall look more specifically at people’s attitudes towardslanguage later in the paper.

As Singapore moves towards a more centralised administrative structure,

Language claimed as principal language tospouse

% of Chinese living in same household asspouse

1980 1990Hokkien 34 26Teochew 17 11Cantonese 15 10English 12 20Mandarin 13 28Other Chinese dialects 9 5

Source: Department of Statistics, Statistical Release No. 8 (1991), and Statistical Release No. 3 (1990).

Table 3 Language shift among the Singaporean Chinese


ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

with an economy dominated by multinationals and power in the hands of anEnglish-educated technocratic elite, traditional power brokers such as familybusinesses, clan associations, and trade unions are likely to feel alienated. Thegovernment is fully aware that the retention and promotion of ethnic heritage,including ethnic language, at this time is likely to ensure, as Gopinathan (1988:397) puts it, ‘that these groups will have something to hold on to and, if notsupport, at least acquiesce in large-scale social engineering’. Language is thusseen as a valuable tool for managing the effects of social dislocation broughtabout by modernisation.

What is particularly interesting, however, is that, with regards to the Chinesepopulation, the government has chosen to promote Mandarin, which is not theancestral language of any of the ethnic Chinese groups in Singapore, instead ofother Chinese languages which are more closely associated with the Chinesepopulation. In 1978, the Singaporean Government launched the well-known‘Speak Mandarin Campaign’. Once again, the need for ethnic unity and the needfor economic development combined in influencing the government policy. Itwas argued that using the so-called ‘dialects’ would fragment the Chinesecommunity and would prevent the nation from accessing the growing, poten-tially huge market of mainland China (It is interesting to note that the SpeakMandarin Campaign coincided with the Open Door Policy in China in 1978). Thegovernment has repeatedly emphasised Singapore’s fundamental nature as anAsian society and the importance of playing a leading role in the developingeconomies of Asia. To be able to speak Mandarin, as Prime Minister Lee puts it,would give ‘confidence to a people to face up to and overcome great changes andchallenges’ (as quoted in The Straits Times, 22 September 1984). The SpeakMandarin Campaign has since been an annual event and has become moreforceful over the years. Among the measures taken have been public campaignswhich aimed at service personnel (e.g. postmen, government office clerks, busconductors), as well as the more ordinary workers (e.g. taxi drivers and hawkers),the organisation of public forums, panel discussions, seminars on the SpeakMandarin theme, and eradication of television and radio programmes andcommercials in ‘dialects’ and dubbing popular Cantonese programmes fromHong Kong into Mandarin. Mandarin is now widely spoken in domains whichwere once reserved for ‘dialects’ (e.g. family) or English (e.g. schools).

So far we have outlined the general context of language shift in Singapore. Ashas been noted earlier, the extent of language shift differs in the three main ethniccommunities of Singapore as well as in the various sub-groups within thesecommunities. We shall now present a case study of one of the sub-groups of theChinese community in Singapore and examine the internal variations and changein language use patterns and the factors associated with them. The group we areconcerned with is the Teochew Chinese community, the second largest Chinesegroup in Singapore.

The Teochew Community in SingaporeThe Teochews, sometimes known as the ‘Swatow people’, originated from the

prefecture of Chaochow in the southeast of China, particularly from eight of theten districts near the Fujian border. In the early 19th century, the Teochews


ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

constituted the largest Chinese group in Singapore. They were, however, aneconomically rather weak community, compared to the other smaller Chinesegroups. The Teochews were more represented in agriculture than in the moreprofitable trade and commerce. Gambier and pepper plantation seemed to betheir main occupation.

From the 1850s onwards, the Hokkiens from Fujian in China began to establishthemselves as a strong economic power in Singapore. They expanded from pettytraders and go-betweens to importers and exporters, manufacturers, andbankers. By the end of the 19th century, the Hokkiens almost monopolisedcommercial activities in Singapore. Although the Hokkiens and Teochews camefrom virtually the same geographic area in China and the languages they spokewere mutually comprehensible, being two sub-varieties of the Southern Mindialectal group, the Teochews in Singapore were never in a position to competewith the Hokkiens in terms of economic and social influence. Cheng (1985)reports that the Teochews were generally perceived as conservative andrisk-adverse, while the Hokkiens were regarded as more entrepreneurial andself-sufficient. The Hokkien community is now the largest Chinese communityin Singapore and the Teochews are the second largest.

Nevertheless, the Teochews had a strong ‘bang’ or clan consciousness. Untilthe late 1970s, almost all the members of the Teochew community in Singaporebelonged to a clan association, usually based on place of origin and surname. Asin other Chinese communities, the Teochew clan associations ran a number ofTeochew schools where children learnt the Teochew language and culturalcustoms. The schools were usually in the same buildings as the clan associations,and as such acted as community centres for members of the associations.Although the government has never specifically demanded the closure of clanassociations, urbanisation and multi-ethnic living led to the establishment of neworganisations such as the Residents’ Committee in newly-built HDB estates andthe government sponsored Citizens’ Consultative Committees and CommunityCentres, which have gradually made the clan associations seem redundant. Sincethe 1980s, clan associations of the Teochew as well as other Chinese communitieshave reoriented themselves, moving towards pan-Chinese cultural activitiessuch as martial arts, lion dance, folk opera, Chinese calligraphy and ink painting.The ‘dialect’ schools also gave way to classes on Chinese history and culturalheritage, which are usually conducted in Mandarin.

More recently, there seems to be an upsurge of interest in traditional Teochewculture. In June 1995 a new Teochew Cultural Centre was built in Tank Roadwhere Teochew artifacts have been displayed and Teochew operas staged. TheTeochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan, the umbrella body of Teochew clan associations inSingapore, organised a Teochew week. The impact of such activities, however,is rather limited, as they have been initiated by the older generations of theTeochew community and while participating in the activities, many youngpeople of Teochew descent no longer identify themselves as Teochews but asSingaporean Chinese or simply Singaporeans.

The StudyThe data of the current study were collected by Ng, a native speaker of


ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

Teochew and a member of the community, using a combination of participantobservation and in-depth interview. We chose to focus on one single domain,namely the family, and investigate variations and change in language use withinand across families. The decision to focus on the family domain was based on therationale that the family is not only a central, and perhaps the most important,unit for social interaction, especially amongst the Chinese, but also a traditionallyTeochew speaking domain. As such it would offer an interesting setting forinvestigating the ongoing language shift process within the Teochew commu-nity.

The study was made up of 72 speakers (36 male and 36 female) from 17 familiesof differing socio-economic and educational backgrounds. The families weresampled through personal contacts by Ng. Therefore, no special effort was madeto balance the number of speakers in each age-group (see details in Table 7below). The observation and interview questions focused on the ‘dominantlanguage’ (defined here as the most frequently used language) versus ‘preferredlanguage’ in the family domain. The first set of data, given in Table 4, presentsthe dominant language choice in the family domain.

The fact that not all speakers have claimed Teochew to be their mother tongue(defined here as the first language learnt since birth) is very interesting, as wetook great care in selecting only those families who identified themselves asnative Teochews. It seems to suggest that at least some members of the Teochewcommunity in Singapore regard language and ethnicity as separate. In otherwords, one could learn languages other than Teochew as mother tongue and usethem as the primary language of communication but still claim to be Teochews.Or, to put it more strongly, one can maintain one’s ethnic identity without theethnic language. We shall look at our interviewees’ specific comments on thisissue after we have examined their language choice patterns.

As we can see in Table 4, people on the whole use their mother tongue as theirprimary language of communication in the family domain. This is particularlytrue for the three speakers who claim English as their mother tongue. All of themuse English as the dominant language at home. Three of the four Hokkien mothertongue speakers also use it as the dominant language at home, with one shiftingto Mandarin. In contrast, five of the eleven Mandarin mother tongue speakers

Dominant language(s) athome

Mother TongueTeochew Hokkien Mandarin English

No. % No. % No. % No. %Teochew 30 55.56 0 0 0 0 0 0Teochew & Mandarin 7 12.96 0 0 1 9.09 0 0Mandarin 7 12.96 1 25 5 45.45 0 0Hokkien 5 9.26 3 75 0 0 0 0Mandarin & English 1 1.85 0 0 4 36.36 0 0English 4 7.41 0 0 1 9.09 3 100Total 54 4 11 3% (75) (5.55) (15.28) (4.17)

Table 4 Dominant language choice in the family domain (N = 72)


ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

have shifted towards English, with one using English only as the dominantlanguage at home. One Mandarin mother tongue speaker claims to use Teochewas the dominant language.

There are greater variations among the Teochew mother tongue speakers. Ofthe 54 who claim Teochew as their mother tongue, only 30 (55.56% of nativeTeochew speakers, 41.67% of the total sample) use it as the dominant languageof communication in the family domain. Seven speakers use both Teochew andMandarin at home. A further seven choose to use Mandarin. One speaker claimsto use both Mandarin and English and four English only.

What is particularly intriguing, however, is that five of the speakers whoclaimed Teochew as their mother tongue seem to have shifted their dominanthome language to Hokkien, another Chinese ‘dialect’ which, like Teochew, is notofficially recognised. As has been mentioned earlier, Teochew and Hokkien aretwo closely related, mutually intelligible varieties of the South Min dialectalgroup, originated in the Fujian province of China. Yet both in Fujian and inSingapore, there are more Hokkien speakers than Teochew speakers and, moresignificantly perhaps, the Hokkien-speaking communities tend to be economi-cally more powerful than the Teochews. Even in the early days of Singapore whenthe Teochews outnumbered the Hokkiens, the Hokkiens dominated the moreprofitable occupations such as trade and commerce, whereas the Teochews wereconfined to agriculture and other traditional, labour-intensive professions. Oneof the legacies of the economic history of the two communities seems to be thatthe Teochew language is often associated with backward traditions, low inprestige and status, and stigmatised with little economic and instrumental value.Such public perception, together with a smaller population, seem to havecontributed to the shift to Hokkien among a small number of Teochew mothertongue speakers. One other possibility for some Teochew mother tonguespeakers to shift to Hokkien is intermarriage with members of the Hokkiencommunity, although our sample consisted of Teochew families only.

As well as dominant language in the family domain, we asked the speakerswhat language(s) they would prefer to use at home, if they were given a choice.Remarkably, only 12 said Teochew, while 10 speakers said they would preferboth Teochew and Mandarin. Eighteen preferred Mandarin only; four of themwere Mandarin mother tongue speakers. Only one Teochew mother tonguespeaker preferred Hokkien. A total of 17 said Mandarin and English; nine of themwere Teochew mother tongue speakers; four were Hokkien mother tonguespeakers, and five English. Eleven speakers said they would prefer to speakEnglish only at home; eight of them were Teochew mother tongue speakers; oneHokkien and two English mother tongue speakers. Details of the preferredlanguages by the 72 speakers are given in Table 5.

The reported differences in the dominant versus preferred language, asrevealed in Tables 4 and 5, reflect the speakers’ attitudes towards their ownlanguage choice. In the ethnographic interviews we conducted with the speakers,many claimed that they spoke Teochew purely for pragmatic reasons (e.g. tocommunicate with elderly family members). They would very much prefer tospeak a language of wider communication, such as Mandarin or English. We shallreturn to this point later.


ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

Although a significant proportion of the speakers reported that they usedlanguages other than Teochew, or would prefer to do so, in the family domain,the figures in Table 4 nevertheless show remarkable maintenance of the mothertongue. The picture is very different, however, if we consider the language choicepatterns of speakers of different generations. Table 6 below gives language choicepatterns of speakers of three generations, grandparents, parents and children(vertical), when they are interacting with members of their own and othergenerations (horizontal).

Preferred language(s) athome

Mother TongueTeochew Hokkien Mandarin English

No. % No. % No. % No. %Teochew 12 22.22 0 0 0 0 0 0Teochew & Mandarin 10 18.52 0 0 0 0 0 0Mandarin 14 25.93 0 0 4 36.36 0 0Hokkien 1 1.85 0 0 0 0 0 0Mandarin & English 9 16.67 3 75 5 45.46 0 0English 8 14.81 1 25 2 18.18 3 100Total 54 4 11 3% (75) (5.55) (15.28) (4.17)

Table 5 Preferred language choice in the family domain (N = 72)

Speaker InterlocutorGrandparents Parents Children

Languagesspoken

% of users Languagesspoken

% of users Languagesspoken

% of users

Grandparents(2 speakers)

T 100 T 100 T 100

Parents(26 speakers)

T 100 TTMTMEHEM

46268884

TMTMTMEMEE

312619 8 8 8

Children(44 speakers)

THMETM

85 6 6 3

TMTMMEHHMETME

27231611 7 7 7 2

TMEMEETTEHMHMEHE

262321 9 7 7 5 2

T = Teochew; H = Hokkien; M = Mandarin; E = English

Table 6 Patterns of language choice within and across generations


ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

A number of interesting patterns emerge from Table 6. There is no variationin language choice pattern of the two grandparents in our sample. They are bothTeochew monolinguals. They speak only Teochew, whoever the interlocutormay be. Their ability to vary their language choice is clearly constrained by theirlanguage proficiency, or lack of it, in languages other than Teochew. In themeantime, there are considerable variations in the language choice patterns ofthe other two generations and the variations seem to be closely associated withthe interlocutor type. Broadly speaking, the use of Teochew decreases as theinterlocutor gets younger. All the parents speak only Teochew with thegrandparents generation; 46% with their spouse; while only 26% with theirchildren. In contrast, only 85% of the children claim to speak Teochew to thegrandparents despite the fact that Teochew is the only language the grandparentsunderstand; 23% of the children claimed to speak only Teochew to their parents,and only 9% to their peers.

This set of data seems to suggest that changes in habitual language use havestarted in the parents generation. In particular, Teochew is no longer transmittedas the primary language of family communication to the children, with only 26%of the parents speaking Teochew exclusively to their children. The main languagethe parents use to children seems to be Mandarin, and a significant proportionof the parents (altogether 38%) use Mandarin together with other languages withmembers of their own generation. We can see the result of the changes moreclearly in the child generation, as the majority of them speak Mandarin andEnglish with their peers.

These findings combined lend support to Fishman’s proposition that languageshift is very rarely ‘across the board’, but differential, being more rapid andforgoing in some connections and in some sub-populations than in others (1991:45). In order to the language shift which is taking place in the Teochew Chinesecommunity in Singapore, we have examined a range of individual as well asfamily factors. Here, we shall look at age and educational level of individualspeakers and economic status and religion of the families.

Table 7 presents the use of Teochew by speakers of different age groups.

Age No. Mothertongue

Dominant language Preferred language

11–20 16 0 0 (0) 0 (0)21–30 27 27 12 (44) 4 (15)31–40 2 1 1 (100) 0 (0)41–50 12 11 9 (82) 6 (55)51–60 9 9 9 (100) 7 (78)60 & over 6 6 6 (100) 5 (83)Total 72 54 37 22

Table 7 Use of Teochew by age-grouping (figures in brackets indicate percentage ofmother tongue speakers)


ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

Recall that there were 54 speakers in our sample who claimed Teochew as theirmother tongue. Thirty-seven of them use Teochew as the dominant language athome. These include 30 who use Teochew only and seven who use Teochew withMandarin. Twenty-two speakers said they would prefer to use Teochew at home,including 12 who preferred Teochew only and 10 Teochew with Mandarin. Theage-related differences in the dominant and preferred language choice patternsare quite striking. All those above the age of 50 use Teochew as the dominantlanguage at home, but only 44% of the speakers between 21 and 30 years of agespeak Teochew as the dominant language in the family domain. Even among the41–50-year-olds, two Teochew mother tongue speakers have ceased to use it asthe dominant language at home. The ‘preferred language’ shows even greatercontrasts between the ages. While there are speakers in every age group whowould prefer to use languages other than Teochew in the family domain, only15% of the 21–30-year-olds said they would prefer the ethnic language. Thesefigures confirm the general trend in Singapore society today that youngergenerations have given up their ethnic languages and adopted the ‘national’language such as Mandarin and English as their primary language of communi-cation, even in the family domain.

Table 8 gives the use of Teochew by speakers of different educational levels.Again, we focus on Teochew mother tongue speakers.

With regard to dominant language in the family domain, on the whole thehigher one’s educational level is, the less dominant is Teochew in one’s familycommunication. The differences though are not as sharp as the preferred choiceof language. An average of 82% of those at or below primary school level saidthey would prefer Teochew; only 35% of those at secondary and post-secondarylevel preferred Teochew, and none at all at tertiary level or above. This is hardlysurprising, given that the educational policies in Singapore since the 1980s havequite explicitly demanded the replacement of ethnic languages with Mandarinand English. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see that language planning in thepublic domain (e.g. schools) has now affected language practice in the domesticdomain.

In addition to individual variables such as age and educational level, we haveexamined economic status and religion of the families. Figure 1 gives thecorporate choice of dominant language by the 17 families according to their

Educational level No. Mothertongue

Dominant Preferred

Below primary 8 5 5 (100) 5 (100)Primary 14 12 9 (75) 9 (75)Secondary & post-secondary

32 23 17 (74) 8 (35)

Tertiary & above 18 14 6 (43) 0 (0)Total 72 54 37 22

Table 8 Use of Teochew by educational level (figures in brackets indicate percentageof mother tongue speakers)


ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

economic status (as judged by their monthly household income in Singaporedollars).

We can divide the 17 families we have studied into three sub-groups accordingto their household income: the high-income group (those with over S$4000 permonth (N = 2)), the middle income group (between S$2000 and S$4000 per month(N = 11)), and the low-income gruop (S$2000 or less per month). It should benoted that this division is purely for the purpose of our study, and does not inanyway reflect the socio-economic divisions in Singapore society at large.

As we can see in Figure 1, the two high-income families are both Englishdominant, while the four low income families are Teochew dominant. While wedo not suggest a causal relationship between language and economic status, thefact of the matter is that higher income families in Singapore have shiftedsignificantly towards English. It has already been documented that manySingaporean families are now bringing up their children speaking English astheir mother tongue and that such families tend to be of higher economic status(e.g. Gupta, 1994).

The middle-income families in our sample, in contrast, show quite a range ofvariations. Four families claimed to be Teochew dominant, and four Mandarindominant, while three claimed to be English dominant. It seems that with thesemiddle-income families, other factors may be more important in determiningtheir language choice patterns than their economic status.

We have also examined the preferred language of the families, which ispresented in Figure 2.

It is particularly interesting if we compare this figure with Figure 1 above. Thetwo high-income, English-dominant families both said they would prefer to useMandarin as the language of family communication, whereas the four low-in-come, Teochew-dominant families preferred English. It seems that all the lowerincome families aspire to be English dominant, because, rightly or wrongly, theyassociated the English language with higher socio-economic status. For thosewho have already achieved higher socio-economic status, Mandarin seems tohave some additional, perhaps unique, symbolic value. They would rather speakMandarin than English as their dominant language, or at least they say theywould. We shall see the speakers’ comments on this issue shortly.

Over 4000(2)

2001-4000(11)

Below 2000(4)

0 1 2 3 4

English

Mandarin

Teochew

Figure 1 Dominant language according to family economic status


ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

The middle-income families in our sample once again show considerablevariations in their preferred language, with three families preferring to maintainTeochew as their dominant language of family communication, three preferringMandarin and five wanting to change to English. The general trend, however, isto move away from the ethnic language to the languages of wider communica-tion, even in the family domain.

Last but not least, we examined the relationship between religion andlanguage choice of the family.

As we can see in Table 9, two of the 17 families were ‘free-thinkers’, fouridentified themselves as Christians, and 11 said they believed in some kind ofChinese religion. Looking at the dominant language, it seems that religion doesplay an important role in the families’ choice of language, as seven out of 11 ofthe traditional Chinese believers used Teochew and four used Mandarin as theirdominant language at home. None used English. The four Christian families allused English as the dominant language. The preferred language presents acomplex picture, as two of the English-dominant Christian families said theywould rather use Mandarin for family communication, and there is a clearpreference for English among the traditional Chinese believers. We can onlyspeculate that these families associated Teochew with traditional, ethnic culture,whereas English was seen as a symbol of modernity.

Over 4000(2)

2001-4000(11)

Below 2000(4)

0 1 2 3 4 5

English

Mandarin

Teochew

Figure 2 Preferred language according to family economic status

Religion No. Dominant language Preferred languageT M E T M E

TraditionalChinese religions*

11 7 4 0 2 3 6

Christianity 4 0 0 4 0 2 2‘Free-thinkers’ 2 1 0 1 1 0 1Total 17 8 4 5 3 5 9

T = Teochew; M = Mandarin; E = English.*The so-called Chinese religions are not always clearly defined. The traditional Chinese religiouspractices usually contain elements of Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucian teaching.

Table 9 Family language choice according to religion (N = 17)


ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

The analyses so far have revealed greater complexities in language choicepatterns than we had expected for a relatively small sample of speakers in a singledomain. They highlight the need for the greater contextual specificity and morerefined measures which Fishman has called for, measures that can focus uponparticular combinations of degree and location of bilingualism (Fishman, 1989;1991). It is clear from the data we have presented that the language environmentin Singapore has drastically changed in recent years and that the linguisticrepertoires of families and individuals have been significantly altered. Officiallyrecognised national languages which were not associated with any ethnic groupswithin the population have now moved into the traditionally ‘dialect’-speakingdomestic territory, a clear sign of language shift. This shift is accompanied byrising living standard and is closely and intricately associated with such factorsas speaker age, educational level and religion (see similar findings in a recent,larger survey conducted by Chew, et al, 1996).

At various points of our discussion, we alluded to the speakers’ attitudestowards languages and language varieties. We shall now comment specificallyon this issue, using data collected through ethnographic interviews.

Language Attitude and Language ShiftWe have commented earlier in the paper on the Singaporean Government’s

language policies to promote English as the language of international contact,modern technology and high living standard and Mandarin as the language ofChinese cultural heritage and Asian connections. The social system of Singaporehas a pronounced degree of centralisation and the government has never beenreluctant to engage in extensive social engineering to bring about social change.Nevertheless, abundant examples show that ordinary people will not readilyaccept the government’s policies unless they see some personal gain. The strategyof the Singaporean government to implement its language policies has been toemphasise the socio-economic benefits English and Mandarin could bring toindividuals and their families.

The children’s upbringing and welfare are at the forefront of families’consideration. The Singaporean Government has gone all out to convince itspeople that knowing English and Mandarin is an invaluable avenue ofeducational success of their children and upward social mobility of the family.This strategy seems to have borne fruit. A number of parents we haveinterviewed commented specifically on the importance of English and Mandarinfor their children’s future. The following remarks by one of the parents is quitetypical:

Actually when my first child was born, my husband and I used to speakTeochew to her. But later we switched to Mandarin, because of the ‘SpeakMandarin’ campaign. Also, we decided to send her to an English-mediumschool, better prospects mah1 I was afraid my daughter couldn’t cope in abilingual environment. So must prepare her first, Must teach her Mandarinand English. Can’t wait till she can’t catch up in school.

When asked why they thought they had to speak English and Mandarin, themajority of the speakers repeated the government line that they were the


ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

languages of wider communication and they would help provide betteropportunities for education and employment in the future. While cynicaloutsider observers may question the genuineness of these statements, the fact ofthe matter is that a Singaporean born after the war who does not speak Englishis widely regarded as socially handicapped; his or her contribution to the nationis very limited. Singaporean Chinese who do not speak Mandarin are seen asdisloyal to their Chinese ancestry and are culturally deprived. Almost every adultand child in Singapore can quote at least one example of somebody, genuine orfictional, who is a failure, an outcast, because of an inability to speak English andMandarin. In a society which is obsessed with success, loyalty and filial piety, itis hardly surprising perhaps that the language policies of the SingaporeGovernment have been implemented almost exactly as it intended.

As well as successfully transforming people’s attitudes towards Mandarin andEnglish as the language of wider communication, the Singaporean Governmenthas made continued efforts to eradicate the use of ‘dialects’ in both public anddomestic domains. Apart from associating them with under-development andunder-achievement, the government has presented ‘dialects’ as a key fragment-ing factor which would damage the Chinese population as a whole and lead tosocial and ethnic conflicts (see also Kuo & Jernudd, 1994). It is now widelyaccepted that Mandarin should be the language of the Singaporean Chinese.

This leads to an important and highly complex issue — the inter-relationshipbetween language and identity. Earlier studies of LMLS repeatedly emphasisedthe intrinsic links between language and ethnic identity. One of the reasons formaintaining a particular language was, it was argued, that it was an essential partof its speakers’ identity. More recently, leading researchers in the field of LMLShave questioned such simplistic formulation (see especially Edwards, 1994;Fishman, 1989). In our study, we specifically asked the speakers to comment onthe relationship between their ethnic identity and their apparent shift towardsMandarin and English. Bearing in mind that we only selected those families whoidentified themselves as Teochews, an overwhelming 94.44% believed thatwhether or not one could speak Teochew had little to do with one’s ethnicidentity. The other 5.56% (four speakers) thought it would strengthen theirTeochew identity if they spoke Teochew, but it was not essential. During theinterviews, we heard over and over again comments like the following:

I don’t really feel anything if the Teochew language is lost. I don’t havemuch opportunity to speak Teochew anyway. I think it is sufficient to beable to speak Mandarin and English.

I am a Teochew. That’s that. I was born a Teochew. I can’t change it. I don’tspeak the language but I am still a Teochew. The Teochew language has notmuch use in society. So why waste time learning it?

These remarks seem to suggest that the speakers put the instrumental valueof a language above the sentimental or symbolic value. As the public domains(e.g. school, public transaction, etc.) are now dominated by Mandarin andEnglish, the majority of speakers do not see any need to hang on to Teochew. Asfor their Teochew identity, many speakers commented that there were other,more important indicators, such as family descent, food, and festivals. One of the


ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

interviewees pointed to a traditional Teochew handicraft in her bookcase andsaid, ‘That’s Teochew. I love it. I’m a Teochew, even though I don’t speak thelanguage’.

Such pragmatic views of language and ethnic identity are also shown in theyoung children’s remarks. One of the children said,

I am more comfortable speaking English. All my friends speak English. Athome I use Mandarin to communicate with my parents. My Teochew ishopeless. I can forget about using that language; always get stuck halfway.But I try when I talk to my grandparents, because they can’t understandEnglish. If my grandparents are not here, I won’t speak Teochew at all.

Another child commented:

I speak a mixture of Teochew, Hokkien, Mandarin and English, anything,to my grandparents. I try to let them understand. I learnt some Hokkienfrom friends. They understand Hokkien. So I sometimes speak Hokkien tothem.

It seems inevitable that attitudes towards the various languages as representedin these remarks have contributed to the language shift from Teochew toMandarin and English in the Teochew Chinese community in Singapore.

Summary and ConclusionSince the late 1970s, Singapore has undergone large-scale language shifts from

a multiplicity of ethnic languages to a selective, small number of nationallanguages. These changes have been accompanied by phenomenal socio-eco-nomic development of the country. Our purpose in this paper has been toelucidate the relationship between changes in habitual language use of individ-ual speakers and the economic, social, and cultural change processes at themacro-societal level. As different ethnic groups and sub-groups have beenaffected differently by the language shift, we have examined in some detail thecase of the Teochew Chinese community, the second largest Chinese group inSingapore.

On the whole, the Teochew Chinese community has moved away from its ownethnic language to the officially recognised national languages. Mandarin andEnglish are now used extensively in the family domain, which was previouslyoccupied by Teochew. The extent to which individuals in the community havechanged their habitual language use varies considerably accordingly to a rangeof factors. The following is a summary of the key factors which have contributedto the language shift process in the Teochew community, which we have groupedunder four headings — institutional, status, sub-cultural, and sociocultural.

Institutional factors· Government policies

Demolition of ethnic enclaves through the physical integration of all theethnic groups in public housing.‘Speak Mandarin Campaign’ to promote the use of Mandarin to unify the


ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

otherwise fragmented Chinese community.Promoting English as the language of wider communication.

· Mass media supportNewspapers, television, radio and other communication networks heavilydominated by the official languages, but particularly English.

· Clan associationsReorientation of roles and activities of the clan associations, leading to thepromotion of pan-Chinese culture.Closure of ‘dialect’ schools and establishment of ‘cultural classes’ inMandarin.

Status Factors· Socio-historical and socio-economic status

Weak economic power and numerical strength of Teochews, relative toother Chinese groups in Singapore.Teochew has been associated with backward traditions.

· Language statusStigmatised language with no economic or instrumental value.Low prestige and status.

Subcultural factors· Age and generational differences

Teochew is not transmitted as the main language to children.Increasingly more younger speakers shifting to Mandarin and English.

· Educational levelBetter educated younger generations are becoming Mandarin/Englishbilingual and speaking national languages.

· Socio-economic statusHigh income families seldom use Teochew.Relatively low income families aspire to speak Mandarin and Englishinstead of Teochew.

Sociocultural factors· Attitudes

Pragmatic attitude towards the instrumental value of English and Manda-rin resulting in the lack of Teochew transmission.Separation between language and ethnic identity.

It is important to remember that the Teochews in Singapore are not a minoritygroup. They are the second largest group within the Chinese community whichdominates the Singapore population. However, as our study has highlighted, thesocial, political and economic environment of the country as a whole has changedso much in the last two decades, largely as a result of the government’s socialengineering, even the majority groups feel they have to give up their traditionalways of living, including their ethnic language, in order to maintain an influentialrole in the society.

As the world’s social, political and economic patterns continue to change,


ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

LMLS will continue to be an important topic for academic researchers as well asfor ordinary people. It is clear from the existing literature that some communitieswill maintain their traditional language patterns better than other and that eachcommunity is different with its own significant factors relatable to the LMLSprocess. Any support we can give to the communities that wish to maintain theirlanguages needs to be based on careful considerations of these factors. While weare not optimistic about the future of Teochew in Singapore, we hope that ourstudy can help alert other communities about the various factors, and thecombinations of them, which lead to LMLS.

AcknowledgementsThis paper wawritten as a result of a joint research project between the

University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK and the National Institute of Education,Singapore, on language maintenance and language shift in Singapore. Theauthors wish to thank the British Council for their financial support. S.Gopinathan has been instrumental in setting up the project and has contributedmuch to its planning and administration. Anthea Gupta, Xu Daming, PaulFoulkes and Zhu Hua have read and commented on earlier drafts of the paper.Their support is gratefully acknowledged here.

Notes1. Mah is a Chinese utterance particle, here functioning similarly as the English tag

question isn’t it? or you know? This and the other quotes which follow have beentranscribed according to the way the interviewees said them, which were recorded ontape.)

ReferencesBaker, Colin (1993) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.Cheng, Lim-Keak (1985) Social Change and the Chinese in Singapore. Singapore: Singapore

University Press.Chew, Cheng Hai, Xu, Daming and Chen, Songcen (1996) A survey of language use and

language attitudes in the Singapore Chinese community. Paper presented at theSociolinguistics Symposium 11, Cardiff. Manuscript available from the authors at theCentre for Chinese Language and Culture, Nanyang Technological University,Singapore.

Clarke, Louise (1992) Within a stone’s throw: Eurasion enclaves. In M. Braga-Blake (ed.)Singapore Eurasions (pp. 51–65). Singapore: Timese Editions.

Conklin, N. and Lourie, M. (1983) A Host of Tongues. New York: The Free Press.Dorian, Nancy (ed.) (1989) Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and

Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Dow, J.R. (ed.) (1987) Language maintenance and language shift revisited II. International

Journal of the Sociology of Language, Special issue no. 68.Edwards, John (1994) Multilingualism. London: Routledge.Fase, W., Jaspaet, K. and Kroon, S. (eds) (1992) Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Fishman, J.A. (1964) Language maintenance and language shift as a field of inquiry.

Linguistics 9, 32–70.Fishman, J.A. (1989) Language and Ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic Perspective.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Fishman, J.A. (1991) Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Gopinathan, S. (1988) Bilingualism and bilingual education in Singapore. In C. Bratt


ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

Paulston (ed.) International Handbook of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education (pp.391–404). New York: Greenwood Press.

Gupta, A. F. (1994) The Step-Tongue: Children’s English in Singapore. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters.

Gupta, A.F. and Siew, Pui Yeok (1995) Language shift in a Singapore family. Journal ofMultilingual and Multicultural Development 16 (4), 301–14.

Heller, M. (1994) Crosswords: Language, Education and Ethnicity in French Ontario. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.

Kuo, E.C.Y. and Jernudd, B. (1994) Balancing macro- and micro-sociolinguisticperspectives in language management: The case of Singapore. In S. Gopinathan, A.Pakir, W.K. Ho and V. Saravanan (eds) Language, Society and Education in Singapore (pp.25–46). Singapore: Times Academic Press.

Romaine, S. (1992) Language, Education and Development: Urban and Rural Tok Pisin in PapuaNew Guinea. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Williamson, R.C. and ven Eerde, J.A. (eds) (1980) Language maintenance and languageshift. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, Special Issue No. 25.


ownl

oade

d by

[H

ong

Kon

g Po

lyte

chni

c U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 1

5 M

arch

201

2

Documents

Language Shift in the Teochew Community in Singapore