Upload
tangxinning90
View
175
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Graduation Thesis (2013) : BA in Linguistics & Multilingual Studies
Citation preview
NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
“You sound like you’re from Raffles!”
A Closer Look at School Prestige as a Social Class
Variable in Singapore
Name: Tang Xin Ning (U0930250H)
Supervisor: Asst Prof James Sneed German
A Final Year Project submitted to the School of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Nanyang Technological University in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Linguistics & Multilingual Studies
2012
1
Declaration of Authorship
I declare that this assignment is my own original work, unless otherwise
referenced, as defined by the NTU policy on plagiarism. I have read the NTU
Honour Code and Pledge.
No part of this Final Year Project has been or is being concurrently submitted for
any other qualification at any other university.
I certify that the data collected for this project is authentic. I fully understand
that falsification of data will result in the failure of the project and/or failure of
the course.
Tang Xin Ning ____________________ 19th November 2012 Name Signature Date
2
Acknowledgments
I would first like to thank my supervisor, Assistant Professor James Sneed German,
whose guidance, support and advice was invaluable in the completion of this project.
Thank you for your illuminating analogies, for your patience and tolerance of my silly
questions, for your encouragement, for seeing the potential in this project and not giving
up on this student. Thank you very much for everything - I truly appreciate it.
I would also like to thank my family - my father, for staying up with me all those nights
and ensuring I was well-fed; my mother, for all her hugs and unconditional care; my
sister, for her understanding, cheering up, and quiet support, and especially for her help
in recruiting survey respondents. I love you – you are the best family ever and I am
blessed to have your support.
I would like to take this chance to thank my friends as well. Jia and Sheefa, thank you for
your company and support. Wanxuan, thank you for listening to so many 'the's and
'then's for me. Jiakang, thank you for always being here. Drew, thank you for your
constant prayers, and for teaching me to be strong. Mervyn, thank you for all your
advice, and for staying up online. Narcissus, thank you for always asking about my FYP
and cheering me up! Shijie, Hang, Yangmei, my cell group, beloved friends and Laoshis -
thank you for your concern, encouragement and prayers. I thank God for all of you.
Of course, this project would not have been possible without all the helpful participants.
I would like to thank them sincerely for responding to my messages, for their
willingness and cooperation, and for their encouragement and well-wishes. I would also
like to extend my gratitude and appreciation to all who have helped me throughout this
project.
Most importantly, I would like to thank God for being my refuge and hope. It was God's
love and mercy that sustained me throughout this entire process, and I am thankful to
have experienced the sweetness of His grace each and every day. Thank God for all the
strength He granted daily, and for His miraculous providence and guidance throughout.
His grace is sufficient. Soli Deo Gloria.
3
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................. 6
1. Introduction & Literature Review .................................................................................................. 7
2. Rationale ................................................................................................................................................ 15
3. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 16
a. Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 16
b. Phase 1: The Prestige Survey ..................................................................................................... 16
i. Instrument .................................................................................................................................... 16
ii. Participants .................................................................................................................................. 16
iii. Procedure ...................................................................................................................................... 17
c. Phase 2: Collection of Speech Samples .................................................................................. 18
i. Phonetic Variables ..................................................................................................................... 18
ii. Participants .................................................................................................................................. 18
iii. Research Procedure ................................................................................................................... 19
iv. Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 21
d. Expectations of Results ................................................................................................................ 21
4. Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 23
a. Results of Phase 1 ........................................................................................................................... 23
i. Participants .................................................................................................................................. 23
ii. Rating of Schools ........................................................................................................................ 23
iii. Individual School Profiles ....................................................................................................... 25
iv. Overview of the Tiers ............................................................................................................... 27
b. Results of Phase 2 ........................................................................................................................... 28
i. Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 28
ii. By Phonetic Feature .................................................................................................................. 30
iii. Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 37
5. Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 38
6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 43
4
References ...................................................................................................................................................... 45
Appendices ..................................................................................................................................................... 55
Appendix A: The Prestige Survey ...................................................................................................... 55
Appendix B: Reading Passage ............................................................................................................ 60
Appendix C: Breakdown of Phonetic Items .................................................................................. 62
Appendix D: Questionnaire ................................................................................................................. 63
Appendix E: Instruction Slideshow Sample .................................................................................. 64
5
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: PART 2 DETAILED PARTICIPANT BREAKDOWN BY SCHOOL, LEVEL & GENDER ...................... 18
TABLE 2: PART 1 BREAKDOWN OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS BY SCHOOL ................................................... 23
TABLE 3: HIGHEST RATED SCHOOLS WITHIN EACH TIER .......................................................................... 24
TABLE 4: LIST OF SCHOOLS BY TIER .............................................................................................................. 25
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: BREAKDOWN OF SCHOOLS BY TIERS ........................................................................................... 24
FIGURE 2: TOTAL NO. OF [Ð] & /R/ BY SCHOOL ......................................................................................... 28
FIGURE 3: AVERAGE VOWEL DISTANCE BY SCHOOL .................................................................................. 28
FIGURE 4: TOTAL NO. OF [Ð] & /R/ BY HOUSING ........................................................................................ 29
FIGURE 5: AVERAGE VOWEL DISTANCE BY HOUSING .................................................................................. 29
FIGURE 6: AVERAGE NO. OF [Ð] BY SCHOOL & INCOME .............................................................................. 30
FIGURE 7: AVERAGE NO. OF [Ð] BY SCHOOL & DOMINANT LANGUAGE .................................................... 31
FIGURE 8: AVERAGE NO. OF /R/S BY SCHOOL & ENGLISH PROFICIENCY ................................................. 33
FIGURE 9: AVERAGE VOWEL DISTANCE BY SCHOOL & INCOME ................................................................. 35
FIGURE 10: MANDARIN DOMINANT (F1 - F2) MEASUREMENT BY VOWEL & SCHOOL ......................... 36
6
Abstract
This study puts forth the variable of school prestige as a potential social class variable in
Singapore. As Singapore grows more affluent, traditional indices of social class may not
be adequate in capturing and accounting for linguistic variation within each class. This
study thus turns to the variable of school prestige, which has become increasingly
salient in recent years, serving as a status symbol, as a potential social class variable.
Beyond that, it has also become part of how students define themselves, suggesting that
language could have a role to play in the indexing of this part of their social identities. In
this study, 48 students from 4 schools with differing levels of prestige were recorded
reading a passage aloud, and analyzed in their treatment of three phonetic features: [ð]-
production, rhoticity and vowel distance. It was found that school prestige has a
significant effect on both [ð]-production and vowel distance, showing that it has become
a relevant social class variable. Future research on this variable and its effects on other
sociolinguistic aspects may thus yield significant results. This study also established [ð]-
production and vowel distance as relevant sociophonetic variables in Singapore,
marking a step forward in the study of Singapore English.
7
1. Introduction & Literature Review
“You have no idea how frightfully interesting it is to take a human being and change her
into a quite different human being by creating a new speech for her. It's filling up the
deepest gulf that separates class from class and soul from soul.”
– Henry Higgins, in George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion
George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion tells the story of a phonetics professor, Higgins, who
aims to transform the social class, and even the soul, of flower girl Eliza Doolittle, simply
through changing the way she speaks. The implication, of course, is that language and
social identity are intertwined. The way Eliza speaks immediately indicates her
membership in the working-class, and Higgins’ acknowledgment of that leads to his idea
of changing her speech style to one that reflects upper class membership. Yet, even as
Eliza takes on a new speech style and by extension, identity, she switches back to her old
style both unconsciously and consciously – the former when she slips up and swears
(“Walk? Not bloody likely!”), the latter when she sets herself apart from Higgins and
asserts her independence.
Indeed, the relationship between language and identity works both ways. While
language marks our identities and often serves to stratify us (Blot, 2003), these
boundaries are not constants, but “communicatively produced” (Gumperz & Cook-
Gumperz, 1982:1) We are active participants in using language “to conform to the
behavior of those social groups we wish to be identified with” (Auer, 2007:4). It is
therefore natural to conclude that linguistic variation is very much linked to social
factors.
Yet, though we take this notion for granted nowadays, this key tenet of modern
sociolinguistics was in fact a radically new idea in the study of linguistic variation in the
1960s. The study of linguistic variation in relation to social factors only began following
Labov (1963)’s groundbreaking study on the underlying reasons for phonological
variation in Martha’s Vineyard. Previous research had always attributed variation to
geographical division (Romaine, 2002), and speech variation across individuals was
seen as “a random, individual, irregular, unstructured, arbitrary phenomenon” (Beeman,
8
1976). Labov (1963) was the first study that established without doubt that linguistic
variables in fact varied based on social stratification, laying the foundation for future
research on sociolinguistics.
However, a major hurdle facing the first sociolinguists was the problem of defining
social class, which was necessary for empirical research. Labov’s solution was to
develop “objective, quantifiable measures of social class” (Guy, 1988:42), by adopting a
combined index of three objective characteristics - education, income and occupation -
as a measure of what he called socioeconomic class (SEC), or status (SES). Following this
study, this measure of socioeconomic class was adopted as the standard, and other
similar studies were soon done in other countries, such as the United Kingdom (Trudgill,
1974).
To date, Labov’s index of education, income and occupation has become a standard
measure for socioeconomic class in linguistic research, and is widely used in
sociolinguistic studies worldwide. Nonetheless, this approach is not without its flaws.
Rickford (1979)’s study on Canewalk, Guyana found that simply transplanting this index
of occupation, education and income to the village was inadequate, and in fact obscured
the actual situation of social stratification, since almost all the villagers fell under one
category with this index. A class division unique to the village was only revealed through
closer ethnographic examination, and this class division differentiated between the
Estate class of cane-cutters on sugar plantations, and the non-Estate class. Clearly,
traditional measures of socioeconomic class are “not tailored to the local speech
community, and might miss or misrepresent the realities of social stratification therein”
(Rickford, 1986:216).
As such, it is imperative for any research study to take the local context into account
when coming up with definitions of class for the purpose of sociolinguistic analysis.
While the traditional measures are relevant in countries such as the US and UK, with
long histories of industrialization, they might not hold in other non-industrial countries.
Multilingual societies, third world countries or ex-colonies all have drastically different
nation-building processes, resulting in drastically different social situations (Guy, 1988).
Locally relevant measures of socioeconomic class are thus crucial. Otherwise,
9
misrepresentation of social distinctions might result in the failure to account accurately
for linguistic variation, or even obscure certain variation patterns entirely.
In Singapore, most sociolinguistic studies have adopted Labov’s notion of socioeconomic
class, using a combination of the traditional ‘triumvirate’ of education, income and
occupation, with the addition of housing type (e.g. Bokhorst-Heng & Caleon, 2009; Vaish
& Tan, 2008). Even the most large-scale sociolinguistic study done so far, the
Sociolinguistic Survey of Singapore (Aman et al., 2006), focused on income, housing type,
occupation and the highest qualification attained. Social class, as defined by all these
measures, has been linked with variation in aspects such as language attitudes
(Bokhorst-Heng & Caleon, 2009), patterns of language use (Kwan-Terry, 1991) and
language shift (Li, Saravanan & Ng, 1997; Zhao & Liu, 2007). Clearly, all these measures
are relevant to Singapore.
However, the question now is whether relying solely on these measures to index social
class is adequate and would best reflect Singapore’s social reality right now. Singapore
is a multiracial, post-industrial nation with a large number of immigrants, and the social
class dynamics in Singapore might be influenced by these factors. The presence of a
“burgeoning middle class” (Lam, 1999; cited in Lee, 2008:641) with more wealth might
also mean that previously workable measures of socioeconomic status would tend to
group the majority within one single category instead.
Additionally, a key aspect of Singapore’s progress is its development of the education
system, and the government has been working on the increase of educational
opportunities, such as the founding of new universities to allow more to earn degrees
(See, 2012). With the rise in the number of university graduates, simply using the old
scale of ‘highest educational qualification attained’ leaves researchers unable to account
for variation within the ever-growing group of degree-holders.
These examples show that while Singaporean society has changed and is still changing,
the traditional social class indices do not seem to have caught up with this rapid pace of
change. It appears that the population in Singapore is being stratified along different
lines, and the failure to recognize and identify new lines of social stratification is also a
10
failure to understand how Singaporeans construct their social class identities. If that is
the case, how are we to understand the interplay between language, class and identity in
Singapore, and by extension, the ways it manifests itself in linguistic variation?
Recently, Singapore’s Ministry of Education (MOE) decided to abolish the secondary
school banding system, “to ensure that ‘every school is a good school’” (Kotwani, 2012).
The system ranks secondary schools into bands based on their GCE O’ Levels
performance, and the MOE initiative to scrap it has been met with much praise from
many who laud it as an important step towards reducing segregation and competition
(Ng, 2012). However, some question whether it will make a difference since the notion
of ranking is already firmly entrenched in the minds of Singaporeans, and “it will take
much more than just removing the banding, ranking, etc. to reverse the psyche”
(Singaporean, 2012). Others point out that simply abolishing the system does not make
elite schools non-elite, nor does it make all schools equal (Barrie, 2012). The
controversy over this suggests that school prestige, branding and ranking are
increasingly salient in Singaporean society today.
Indeed, despite government officials proclaiming that “elite school or not doesn’t [sic]
matter” (Chew, 2010), the fact remains that there is much differentiation “both among
and within schools” (Sun, 2012:118), be it overt or covert. After taking the Primary Six
Leaving Examination (PSLE), students are sorted into four different streams: Normal
(Academic), Normal (Technical), Express, and Special. The two Normal streams entail
five years of secondary education, and are designed for slower students with poor
results, while Express and Special stream students graduate in four years. Secondary
schools have differing cut-off points for admission, depending on each school’s past
academic performance, and the better performing schools do not offer the two Normal
streams.
There exists much differentiation between schools as well, as the government confers
special statuses on certain schools. Some schools are classified as ‘independent’, a status
only given to the “most prestigious high schools” (Tremewan, 1994:136), which entitles
them to greater funding and autonomy. Schools classified as ‘autonomous’ come a close
second to the independent schools (Lee, 2006), and receive the same privileges. A select
11
eleven schools are also in the Special Assistance Plan (SAP), under which schools take in
the top 10% of students and provide them with a Mandarin-speaking environment, so as
to foster effective bilingualism and “inculcate in them traditional [Chinese] values”
(MOE, 2005).
In terms of covert differentiation, schools in Singapore are very much stratified by
prestige, as evidenced by the widening gap between elite and non-elite schools. At one
end are the elite schools, which tend to be “single sex secondary schools with colonial
pedigrees” (Goh, 2009:2), such as the Raffles, Anglo-Chinese, and Hwa Chong families of
schools (Barr & Skrbis, 2008). While these schools also tend to be independent or
autonomous schools, the converse does not hold true, particularly as the government
continues to increase the number of autonomous schools (Liaw, 2009). Also, simply
having excellent academic performance does not make an elite school. In fact, Anglo-
Chinese School (Independent), an acknowledged elite school, has a lower PSLE cut-off
point compared to non-elite schools such as Cedar Girls’ School (Ace Tutors, 2012).
Selvaraj (2011) is thus careful to emphasize that other important traits such as the clear
display of superiority contribute much to one’s “elite aura” (2011:76).
At the other end of the spectrum are the ‘neighbourhood schools’. While the term seems
innocuous enough in referring simply to public schools serving students in the
neighbourhood, it actually carries the negative connotations of having poor discipline
and poor academic performance (Lim, 2002). Even though many neighbourhood schools
have progressed greatly over the years in many niche areas, the negative perceptions
and stigma still exist (Wong, 2012).
It is thus the covert differentiation of schools by prestige that is most prominent in
Singaporean society, and it is not hard to understand why. After all, prestige in itself is
conferred by the public (Tatar, 1995), and accumulated over long periods of time
(Selvaraj, 2011), both of which make it firmly entrenched in public consciousness. As
such, school prestige does not merely differentiate between schools, but is also tightly
linked to social stratification in the larger society.
12
One important way school prestige is closely linked to social stratification is in its
increasing connection with social class and status. School prestige was found to
correlate with socioeconomic status. Ramesh (2011) reported that 72.3% of students
from Raffles Girls’ School (RGS), the premier girls’ school, have degree-holder fathers,
while only 10% of neighbourhood school students do. Also, schooling is “designed to
perpetuate cultural and social systems through the preparation of young people for
roles in those systems” (Eckert, 1989:7), and especially in Singapore, where education is
seen as the key to success (Tan, 1998), the school one’s children go to is now becoming
an established status symbol (Under the Willow Tree, 2012). By extension, owning
landed property is no longer sufficient as a status symbol. What matters is the distance
of one’s residence from a good elite school (Gee, 2012).
School prestige is also intertwined with social stratification as it grows more influential
in determining one’s future career opportunities. A recent study by Goh (2009) found
that out of 66 male Members of Parliament (MPs), an overwhelming 54 were from elite
schools. Selvaraj (2011) also highlights that many Raffles Institution (RI) alumni
eventually enter public service while those from Anglo-Chinese School (ACS) seem
particularly prolific in banking and finance. A non-elite school interviewee in Barr &
Skrbis (2008) also testifies to the extra opportunities afforded only to elite school
students in the Singapore Armed Forces, stating that these students were “pre-
identified… targeted for overseas scholarships”(2008:197) even before entering
National Service. The strong alumni network and special treatment granted to elite
school graduates all make getting into an elite school even more attractive and
important for many.
Furthermore, there appears to be a widening social and perceptual divide between
students of elite and non-elite schools. In October 2006, a major controversy erupted
when an 18-year old student Wee Shu Min made highly insensitive and derogatory
remarks in response to Derek Wee’s personal blog-post voicing his opinion on job
security and age discrimination (Wee, 2006). The backlash against her was tremendous,
because she was “the elite of the elites” (Tay, 2006), being a Gifted Education
Programme (GEP) student in the prestigious Raffles Junior College (RJC), and a MP’s
daughter. This, coupled with her elitist remarks to “get out of my elite uncaring face”
13
(TR Emeritus, 2010), prompted many to worry about a complete “class disconnect”
(Kitana, 2006) in the light of “the divide between Wee Shu Min and the Common Man”
(Chasingidledreams, 2006). While she cannot be taken to represent all elite students,
the controversy nonetheless revealed the extent to which many elite students are
greatly removed from the concerns and perspectives of non-elite students.
School prestige itself is even a factor by which society is divided. An inevitable question
upon meeting new acquaintances would be, “What school are you from?” Whatever
answer given would then automatically subject one to a slew of stereotypes (Rajes,
2011). Neighbourhood school students are known as Neighbourhood School Kids
(NSKs), and defined by Urban Dictionary as those with “low intellect… commonly
associated with Ah bengs1 and stupid people who mistaken [sic] poor english and
hokkien as being cool” (“NSK”, 2010). One neighbourhood school graduate tells of a
teacher who even made the statement, “"why can't you neighbourhood school kids
pronounce your words properly!” in anger once (Tay, 2009). Clearly, non-elite school
students are on the receiving end of much discrimination simply because of their
schools’ low prestige. Elite school students also receive much discrimination, as they are
often accused of being supposedly snobbish and elitist (Allentyb, 2007; Jownsftw, 2012),
to the extent that some even feel “almost apologetic for coming from such schools” (Lim,
2012). The divide is so great that a four-month debate over inter-school dating was
sparked in 2004 when it was mentioned online that an RGS girl was dating a
neighbourhood school boy. Some even criticized the boy as simply “trying to climb the
social ladder” (Seah, 2004).
An important element in the relationship between society and individual is that of social
identity, and indeed, school prestige also forms a large part of students’ social identities.
The fact that the Facebook community “Proud to be from a neighbourhood school in
Singapore” (Facebook, 2010) has over 1000 members suggests that for these students,
being neighbourhood school students is fast becoming not only what others define them
as, but what they identify themselves as too – “non-elite, but happy” (Tan, 2009). For
elite school students, the ability to enter an elite school is often cause for joy, and many
1 “In Singapore, the term 'Ah Beng' is normally used describe gangster wannabes who cannot speak fluent
English and have very low education. They commonly speak in Mandarin or Hokkien.” (“Ah Beng”, 2012)
14
consider their school identity as part of their life-long identity, as reflected in statements
such as “once a Rafflesian, always a Rafflesian” (Melodily, 2011) and “now an ACSian,
forever an ACSian” (Sarah_onering, 2007).
The intricate interplay between school prestige and social stratification thus suggests
that school prestige may very well be a new line along which social classes are stratified.
By extension, it stands to reason that to the extent that language reflects social hierarchy,
then students will also use language as a tool to index and mark their school identities.
15
2. Rationale
Given the limitations of existing class variables in the local context, this study aims to
break new ground and underscore the crucial need for locally relevant measures of
social class, by positing the variable of school prestige as a potential class variable
relevant to Singapore, and comparing its effects with that of other traditional
socioeconomic variables. It is hoped that this study will spur not only the establishment
of school prestige as a new class variable in other aspects such as language attitudes or
usage, but also the exploration of other potential class variables relevant to the local
context.
Most research on variation in Singapore English has focused on the grammatical aspect,
and explanations for such variation can be sorted into three main models (Leimgruber,
2012), where variation is either within a post-creole continuum (Platt, 1975), a diglossic
framework (Gupta, 1994; Bao & Hong, 2006), or a continuum of cultural orientation
(Alsagoff, 2010). However, phonetic variation has been largely neglected due to the
gradual evolution of Singapore English, which has prompted most phonetic research to
concentrate on determining the features of Singapore English (Bao, 2003a; Deterding,
2007; Wee, 2004a). The few sociophonetic studies done have focused mainly on
rhoticity (Tan & Gupta, 1992; Tan, 2011), while variation within other phonetic features,
though acknowledged, is left unexplained.
This study thus seeks to firmly establish that variation within [ð]-production and vowel
distance, previously unaccounted for, is correlated with social stratification, and that
these variables mark social class in Singapore. In doing so, this study hopes to capture
the situation of linguistic stratification in Singapore such that it can become a baseline
for future studies to compare to.
16
3. Methodology
a. Overview
This research study involved two phases. The first phase was a survey with the purpose
of ranking all the secondary schools in Singapore according to perceived prestige, while
the second involved collecting speech samples of students from a few secondary schools
with differing levels of prestige, as identified in the first phase.
b. Phase 1: The Prestige Survey
i. Instrument
The survey aimed to rank all secondary schools into four differing levels of prestige.
Since prestige is an attribute conferred by the public (Tatar, 1995), the survey required
participants to rate the general perceived level of prestige of the 160 schools in
Singapore on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being the ‘Most Elite’ and 4 being the ‘Least Elite’.
An even-numbered scale was chosen so as to exclude a neutral mid-point which might
possibly bias results (Garland, 1991), and it was decided to have only four points, as six
might be unnecessarily fine-grained. The order of schools was randomized each time so
as to prevent any bias. Participants were also asked for their previous secondary school
and age.
ii. Participants
Participants involved were 18 to 20 year old Singaporean secondary school graduates.
Instead of getting current secondary students to participate, 18 to 20 year olds were
chosen as they would be sufficiently removed from the system in order to provide a
more objective perspective. At the same time, since they would only be one cycle (four
years) away from the current students, they would still have an accurate idea of the
system itself.
17
iii. Procedure
30 students in total participated in the survey spanning a week. They were recruited
through word of mouth, and asked to fill in an online survey at surveymonkey.com after
giving their consent. Collation and result tabulation were done through the website.
18
c. Phase 2: Collection of Speech Samples
i. Phonetic Variables
This survey focused on three phonetic features of Singapore English (Bao, 2003a):
1) Word-initial and word-medial [ð]-stopping
2) Rhoticity: Non-prevocalic ‘r’ usage
3) Distance between the vowels /i/ and /ɪ/
ii. Participants
Participants consisted of secondary 3 and 4 Singaporean Chinese secondary school
students from the Express stream, studying in six specific schools selected following
Phase 1. The schools representing each tier were identified based on the absolute
number of votes they received in Phase 1. For example, the school that had the most
Tier 1 (‘Most Elite’) votes represented Tier 1. Both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 schools
pinpointed by Phase 1 were single-sex institutions. The decision was made to include a
correspondingly rated school of the opposite gender to compensate for gender bias,
resulting in a total of six schools. Due to time and practicality constraints, the number of
respondents was limited to 48 in total.
Below is the detailed participant breakdown:
Secondary 3 Secondary 4
Tier Boys Girls Boys Girls
1
(Most Elite) 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3
4
(Least Elite) 3 3 3 3
Table 1: Part 2 Detailed Participant Breakdown by School, Level & Gender
19
iii. Research Procedure
Due to time constraints, it was decided to recruit participants informally. As such,
recruitment was done through word of mouth and social media. The researcher also
visited each school and approached students in the vicinity to participate. Due to the
informal nature of recruitment, the location of each recording differed depending on the
situation. For the two Tier 1 schools, the researcher was able to enter school premises
as an ex-student, so recordings were done in a quiet school classroom. In cases of other
schools, the recordings were generally done in a quiet area, such as a public library or
HDB void deck. However, some surrounding noise was inevitable. In all cases, parental
consent was first sought and collected prior to participation.
Recording was done with a Zoom H2 Handy recorder in the WAV 44.1/16Hz format. The
research materials were presented in a slideshow on an iPad for easy scrolling and
portability. Instructions were provided in the slideshow rather than orally given, so as
to minimize any research speech influence on participants.
Task 1: Reading Passage
Participants were first asked to read a children’s story of around 500 words aloud into
the recorder. Participants were given one minute to scroll through the passage prior to
recording. Simple vocabulary was used throughout the passage to ensure all
participants understood the story. 10 items for each phonetic variable were included in
the passage. For items which had more than one token within the passage, the first
token in the passage was chosen for analysis. A reading passage was chosen instead of a
wordlist since the speech style would be more natural and closer to that of spontaneous
speech (Poedjosoedarmo, 2000a).
Task 2: Giving Directions
Secondly, participants were asked to give directions to a nearby landmark for around 30
seconds, and were recorded doing so. The purpose of this task was to elicit more natural
speech, in particular for the production of [ð], which occurs often in grammatical
morphemes with a high frequency of usage, such as ‘there’ and ‘the’ (Yavas, 2011).
Indeed, it was observed that participants tended to concentrate on giving directions
20
accurately instead of paying attention to their pronunciation, showing that the task
succeeded in simulating natural speech styles accurately.
Task 3: Questionnaire
Finally, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire asking for their particulars.
Home language, languages spoken, self-rated English spoken proficiency, average
monthly household income, housing type, father’s occupation, ethnicity, gender, and
school stream, were asked for. These particulars were collected so as to measure the
extent of influence school prestige has, in comparison to other social and linguistic
variables, such as traditional SES, or one’s language background.
In terms of language background, participants were asked to list the languages used at
home in order of frequency, as Gaffoor (1999) found that both home languages and the
frequency of usage influence the learning of English. Participants were also required to
list the languages they speak in order of fluency, since fluency in other languages could
influence one’s pronunciation. Self-rated English spoken proficiency was also asked for,
since it could also influence students’ pronunciation towards the perceived ‘standard’
pronunciation in British and American English. Exam standards differ across schools,
and asking for one’s recent English grades would be unfair, while the only state-exam
common to all students would be the Primary Six Leaving Examination (PSLE), which
would only measure their English standard prior to entering secondary school. As such,
it was decided to ask for participants’ self-rating.
Income, father’s occupation, and housing type (Aman, 2009) were adopted as
socioeconomic variables, with the scales for housing and income taken from Tan (2004).
Mother’s occupation was not asked for since Bokhorst-Heng & Caleon (2009) found that
it has no significant bearing. However, in data analysis, father’s occupation was not
analyzed as a variable, as many participants did not know their fathers’ occupations and
chose to leave the question blank.
21
iv. Data Analysis
Recordings of the reading passage were first broken down into individual words for
further analysis. For the vowel distance items, F1 and F2 were measured by inspection
using PRAAT. However, instead of comparing both F1 and F2, each vowel was given a
single value of F2 - F1 so as to normalize for differences in vocal tract length. Vowel
distance between /i/ and /ɪ/ was calculated by subtracting the F2 - F1 value of /ɪ/ from
/i/.
For the fricative and non-prevocalic ‘r’ items, auditory analysis was used. A Linguistics
graduate was asked to listen to the items and judge if they were fricatives and non-
prevocalic ‘r’ items or not. To avoid any possible listening bias, the identity and schools
of the different participants were not made known to her. Her answers were then
compared with the researcher’s, and ambiguous cases were discussed. For items where
a consensus could not be reached, PRAAT analysis was used to see if the waveform and
spectrogram patterns were more characteristic of stops or fricatives, before the items
were classified in one category.
For Task 2 recordings of directions, the fricative items were first picked out for further
auditory analysis. Once again, PRAAT analysis was used for ambiguous cases.
All phonetic, linguistic and socio-demographic data was then collated into an Excel sheet
and subsequently analyzed with SPSS. However, since the number of fricative items
produced by each speaker in Task 2 recordings varied widely, there was some difficulty
in using the data for further analysis. As such, during result analysis, Task 2 recordings
served mainly as a reference for the informal versus formal style of each speaker.
d. Expectations of Results
It is expected that all three phonetic features of [ð]-production, rhoticity and vowel
distance will exhibit variation, which will be stratified by social variables, and higher
social class will be associated with high occurrence of [ð] and non-prevocalic /r/, and
wide vowel distance.
22
Out of all the social variables, school prestige is expected to have the most significant
effect, while both housing and income are expected to have significant effects on all
phonetic features as well.
High performance in all three phonetic features is also expected to be linked
significantly with English dominance, proficiency and English as one’s home language.
23
4. Results
a. Results of Phase 1
i. Participants
On the whole, the 30 participants came from a wide range of schools. Even though there
were quite a few participants from the same few schools, such as Nan Hua High School,
these schools happen to be Tier 2 and Tier 3 schools, which can be said to be relatively
neutral.
Breakdown of Participants by School
School Number of Participants
Nan Hua High School 12
Methodist Girls’ School 6
CHIJ St. Nicholas Girls’ School 2
Kent Ridge Secondary School 1
Cedar Girls’ Secondary School 1
Clementi Town Secondary School 1
New Town Secondary School 1
Bukit Panjang Government High 1
Queenstown Secondary School 1
Fairfield Methodist School (Secondary) 1
Bukit Batok Secondary School 1
NUS High School 1
Unknown 1
Total 30
Table 2: Part 1 Breakdown of Survey Participants by School
ii. Rating of Schools
Each school was first sorted into the tier where it had been placed by the majority of the
respondents, resulting in 8 Tier 1, 17 Tier 2, 13 Tier 3 and 120 Tier 4 schools. However,
two schools, Methodist Girls’ School and St. Anthony’s Canossian Secondary had an
24
equal number of ratings in Tiers 1 and 2, and Tiers 3 and 4 respectively. As expected,
most secondary schools fell into the last tier.
Figure 1: Breakdown of Schools by Tiers
Highest Rated Schools Within Each Tier
No. Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
1 Raffles Institution
100.0% (30)
Maris Stella High
76.7% (23)
Fuhua Secondary
56.7% (17)
Chestnut Drive
Secondary
93.3% (28)
2
Raffles Girls’
School
96.7% (29)
Crescent Girls’
School
73.3% (22)
- Coral Secondary
93.3% (28)
3
Hwa Chong
Institution
96.7% (29)
- -
Marsiling
Secondary
93.3% (28)
4 - - -
Orchid Park
Secondary
93.3% (28)
Table 3: Highest Rated Schools Within Each Tier
Within Tier 1, Raffles Institution was unanimously rated as ‘1: Most Elite’, followed by
Raffles Girls’ School and Hwa Chong Institution with 29 out of 30 ratings each. In Tier 2,
Tier 1 5% Tier 2
11%
Tier 3 8%
Tier 4 76%
Secondary Schools by Tiers
25
Maris Stella High was the highest rated school with 23 ratings, followed by Crescent
Girls’ Secondary. Fuhua Secondary was the highest rated within Tier 3, with 17 ratings,
while 4 schools all tied within Tier 4 for the highest rated, with 28 ratings.
Since both Raffles Institution and Maris Stella High are boys’ schools, it was decided to
include the second highest rated schools for Tiers 1 and 2, which happened to be girls’
schools, so as to avoid any gender bias. Marsiling Secondary was chosen as the
representative Tier 4 School since the other schools were less accessible geographically.
As such, the six schools eventually chosen were:
Tier Schools
1 Raffles Institution
Raffles Girls’ School
2 Maris Stella High
Crescent Girls’ School
3 Fuhua Secondary
4 Marsiling Secondary
Table 4: List of Schools by Tier
iii. Individual School Profiles
Tier 1: Raffles Institution & Raffles Girls’ School
Both Raffles Institution (RI) and its sister school, Raffles Girls’ School (RGS), are well-
known ‘brand name’ (Bharwani, 2009) schools, and boast of long histories, with RI
being the oldest secondary school in Singapore, founded in 1823 by Singapore’s founder
Sir Stamford Raffles, and RGS branching out as a separate school for girls in 1844. In
Singapore, the name Raffles is “synonymous with the gold standard” (SPRING Singapore,
2011), and just the mention of Raffles immediately makes a student ‘desirable’
(Drunkenhammie, 2008) to many top schools and companies. Raffles Junior College, the
junior college that RI and RGS feed into, is known as the ‘Gateway to the Ivy League’, and
even dubbed as an ‘Ivy League machine’ by the prestigious Wall Street Journal (Prystay
& Bernstein, 2004). Many notable public figures in Singapore are also RI and RGS alumni,
26
among them Minister Mentor (MM) Lee Kuan Yew, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, and
Honourable Justice Judith Prakash.
Tier 2: Maris Stella High & Crescent Girls’ School
Maris Stella High is an all-boys Catholic secondary school founded in 1958, while
Crescent Girls’ School was founded in 1956. Both are officially autonomous schools and
have received multiple accolades from MOE for their achievements (MOE, 2011). While
these two schools are also perceived generally as relatively prestigious and “good in its
[their] own right” (Shaber, 2011), it is also acknowledged that they “cannot compare
with ACS, RI” (Silver88, 2011) and other branded schools in Singapore, and are “clearly
two different categories of schools” (Shaber, 2011). Also, Maris Stella High is one out of
the 11 Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools, which some have described as a “second
tier of elites” (Tan, 2011).
Tier 3: Fuhua Secondary
Fuhua Secondary was established in 2000, and has indeed within twelve short years
“emerged as a popular school of choice in the Jurong community” (Fuhua Secondary,
2012). Forum posts show that it is fast being seen as a good school within the West
region, being “among the highest AGGREGRATE [sic] entry” (Masry, 2011) in the area.
Parents have commented that it is a “value-added school” (Bigfoot, 2010) and “not bad”
(Ngbrdad, 2011). Nonetheless, Fuhua Secondary is still considered a typical
‘neighbourhood school’ (Davie, 2010), since it offers the two Normal streams.
Tier 4: Marsiling Secondary
Marsiling Secondary was first founded in 2001, and can be said to be a stereotypical
‘neighbourhood school’, even being named after its neighbourhood. Poor discipline and
gangsterism have been associated with the school (Marsiling Secondary, 2012), fitting in
with the image of neighbourhood schools as schools with “lousy behavior” [sic]
(Kvc_king, 2007) in students. In terms of results, less than half of its graduates qualified
for junior college in 2009 (Marsiling Secondary, 2009), and while results have seen a
marked improvement, the general performance of Marsiling Secondary is still within the
lower range, as reflected in its PSLE cut-off point of 190 in 2011, a far cry from the
27
highest cut-off point of 262. A straw poll done found that most students come from
within the neighbourhood, contrasting to the situation in more prestigious schools
where students come from all over the country (Tan & Tan, 2008).
iv. Overview of the Tiers
From the above profiles, a picture thus starts to emerge as to the types of schools the
four tiers represent. Tier 1 is clearly made up of the long-established branded elite
schools with both local and international recognition. Tier 2 represents lesser-known
schools on the periphery (Bokhorst-Heng, 1999), which are nevertheless known as elite.
These schools tend to have long histories as well. Tier 3 then, is made up of
neighbourhood schools that, while still relatively young, are gradually making a name
for themselves within the larger region, and starting to attract students from beyond the
immediate neighbourhood. Finally, Tier 4 schools are typical ‘neighbourhood schools’,
fulfilling all the connotations and stereotypes associated with the term, such as poor
academic performance and discipline (Lim, 2002).
28
b. Results of Phase 2
i. Overview
As a whole, the variable of school prestige was significant in both [ð]-production and
vowel quality. The bar graphs below show the clear stratification of both phonetic
features by school. When one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed, the
variable of school prestige was found significant (p < 0.05) for vowel quality, and while
initial analysis found school prestige to be insignificant (p = 0.106) in [ð]-production,
when the schools were merely split between top two and bottom two tiers, school
prestige was found significant (p = 0.023). However, school prestige did not have a
significant effect (p = 0.874) on non-prevocalic /r/ usage, which will be discussed
subsequently.
Figure 2: Total No. of [ð] & /r/ by School Figure 3: Average Vowel Distance by School
In terms of social factors, both gender and the schooling level of the participants did not
produce any significant effect on any of the three phonetic features. The socioeconomic
variable of housing was found to stratify all three features when separated into two
large tiers of high versus low-end housing, as evident in the graphs below. Nonetheless,
one-way ANOVA did not reveal any significant effect at all.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
ð /r/
Total No. by School
School1
School2
School3
School4
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Vowel
Average Vowel Distance (Hz) by School
School1
School2
School3
School4
29
Figure 4: Total No. of [ð] & /r/ by Housing Figure 5: Average Vowel Distance by Housing
On the other hand, income was also found to have a significant effect (p > 0.05) for both
the interdental fricative [ð] and vowel distance. It thus appears that income is a
somewhat reliable predictor of linguistic variation, corroborating studies such as Li,
Saravanan & Ng (1997).
In addition, English dominance, proficiency, and English as one’s home language
correlated strongly with high performance in all three phonetic features, suggesting that
these three phonetic features tend to mark one’s level of English knowledge, which is
also a status symbol in itself (Alsagoff, 2010).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ð /r/
Total No. by Housing
High Housing
Low Housing
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
High Housing
Low Housing
Average Vowel Distance (Hz) by Housing
Vowel
30
ii. By Phonetic Feature
1) Word-initial & Word-medial [ð] Production
a. Overview: Best Goodness-of-Fit Model
It was found that the combination of school prestige, gender, level, housing, income and
English proficiency gave the highest goodness-of-fit, with coefficient of determination R2
= 0.998 and adjusted R2 = 0.964, suggesting that this model best explains the situation of
[ð]-variation. Within the model, school prestige was found to have a significant effect on
[ð]-production since p < 0.005, while English proficiency approached significance at p =
0.051. Housing was non-significant at p = 0.265 while income was non-significant at p =
0.360. Clearly, school prestige most accurately describes the linguistic stratification in
[ð]-production. Closer examination also reveals interesting trends in the interaction
between school prestige and income, and with language dominance.
b. School Prestige & Income
When the variable of income was controlled for, the effect of school prestige was
noticeable in both the high income and low income groups. For the high-income group,
while overall variation was not as wide, there was still a distinction between the first
two and last two schools.
Figure 6: Average No. of [ð] by School & Income
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
High Income Low Income
Average No. of [ð]
School1
School2
School3
School4
31
The low-income group though, shows a more interesting trend, where School 1 showed
a marked spike in [ð]-production, even higher than those in the high-income group. This
shows the evident influence of school prestige, and also suggests a conscious effort on
the part of low-income School 1 students to fit in into the high-income group by using
what is seen as a high-income norm, leading to an even higher number of [ð] than actual
high-income speakers. Furthermore, this spike is only made by students from School 1,
the most elite school, which may well indicate that [ð]-production is also viewed as a
norm for prestigious schools, since school prestige correlates with high income and SES
(Lee, 2011) and within the participant set, 11 out of 12 School 1 students come from
high-income backgrounds. As such, it seems that the only low-income School 1 student
uses increased [ð]-production to fit in not only the high-income group, but the high
school-prestige group.
c. School Prestige & Language Dominance
Figure 7: Average No. of [ð] by School & Dominant Language
Within those dominant in English, while there is an overall decrease in [ð]-production
with school prestige, School 3 has a drastically lower average number of [ð] in
comparison to even School 4. The unevenness of the decrease in production may
suggest that the prestige of Tier 3 schools is not yet settled.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
English Dominant Chinese Dominant
Average No. of [ð]
School1
School2
School3
School4
32
Within those dominant in Chinese, there is in fact a reversal of trend, since [ð]-
production increases with school prestige. However, analysis of the informal directions
recordings found that this trend did not exist with informal [ð]-production, suggesting
that [ð]-production is seen as a prestige norm, and those not dominant in English may
choose to use this ‘good’ or ‘standard’ feature in a more formal setting such as when
reading a passage.
33
2) Rhoticity: Non-prevocalic /r/ Usage
a. Overview
As mentioned earlier, school prestige did not have a significant effect on rhoticity, and
even when other variables were controlled for, few significant results for school
prestige or any other variable was found. Even the accuracy of the results is questioned,
due to the presence of two outliers. Nonetheless, certain results still shed light on the
state of rhoticity as a sociophonetic variable in Singapore.
b. School Prestige & English Proficiency
Both school prestige and English proficiency show a significant effect, where p < 0.05.
The interaction of the two variables, though, is also significant (p < 0.01).
Figure 8: Average No. of /r/s by School & English Proficiency
However, the bar chart shows that this high significant effect is most likely due to the
high average number of /r/s produced by School 4 highly proficient students. It is also
worth mentioning that English proficiency in this case is self-rated. In other words,
School 4 students who consider themselves highly proficient in English also produce
more non-prevocalic /r/s, whereas those in Schools 1 to 3 do not do so. This suggests
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
High Proficiency Low Proficiency
Average no. of /r/s
School1
School2
School3
School4
34
that for School 4, the least elite school, the usage of non-prevocalic /r/ marks one’s
English proficiency, and the non-prevocalic /r/ is seen by them as a prestige feature.
c. Outliers
The two outliers were a School 4 Secondary 3 female, Linda, and Pamela, a School 1
Secondary 4 female. Yet, the socioeconomic profile of both individuals were markedly
different, with Linda2 coming from a low-income, low-housing, low-school-prestige
background, while Pamela3 came from a high-income, high-housing, high-school-
prestige background. Income, housing, or school prestige were unable to account for the
high number of /r/s used in both cases.
As such, this researcher turned to the informal Task 2 recordings for reference, and it
was found that while Linda used non-prevocalic /r/ consistently even in informal
speech, Pamela only showed evidence of /r/s in formal speech. This suggests that both
use non-prevocalic /r/ for very different reasons. It appears that Pamela views the
phonetic feature as a ‘standard’ or formal norm, resulting in her unusually high usage of
it during formal speech, while she does not use it in casual speech. On the other hand,
the feature is part of Linda’s natural phonetic repertoire, which explains why she uses it.
It is also interesting to note that Linda was one out of only two people who rated their
spoken English proficiency at the highest of ‘1’. By extension then, it is possible that
Linda sees the feature as a ‘standard’ form as well, and so prides herself on her natural
usage of it.
These two results thus suggest that for the least elite School 4, rhoticity is seen as a
marker of English proficiency and as such, it is a prestige symbol as well. However, this
view of rhoticity does not appear to have been taken up by many other students, with
Pamela from School 1 as the only exception.
2 Not her real name. School 4, Sec 3, Female 2.
3 Not her real name. School 1, Sec 4, Female 1.
35
3) Vowel Distance: Between /i/ and /ɪ/
a. Overview: Best Goodness-of-Fit Model
One-way ANOVA found that when school prestige, schooling level, housing, income,
English proficiency and one’s home language were combined, the coefficient of R2 was
the highest at 0.997 while adjusted R2 = 0.932. This implies that this model, taking into
account the above variables, best explains the variation in vowel distance. Within the
model, only school prestige and income were significant (p < 0.05). Housing was non-
significant at p = 0.263. Further analysis also shows an intriguing interaction between
the two significant variables.
b. School Prestige & Income
Figure 9: Average Vowel Distance by School & Income
As can be seen, the distance between /i/ and /ɪ/ is minimal for low-income participants
in Schools 2 to 4. According to Deterding & Hvitfeldt (1994), this is a prominent
phonetic feature of Singapore English, and so the result is to be expected. However, the
variation between vowel distance by school prestige and income would suggest that this
feature is starting to take on social significance.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
School1 School2 School3 School4
Average Vowel Distance (Hz) by School & Income
High Income
Low Income
36
Furthermore, similar to the situation for [ð]-production, the distance for School 1 low-
income participants is especially high, even wider than that of any high-income
participants. This suggests that distinguishing between /i/ and /ɪ/ is seen as a prestige
feature, which the low-income School 1 student once again uses to fit in with both the
high-income and high-school-prestige groups.
c. School Prestige & Language Dominance
When language dominance is controlled for, school prestige has a significant effect on
vowel distance. However, what is more noteworthy is that within some Mandarin-
dominant participants, the F1-F2 value is in fact larger for /ɪ/ than for /i/, meaning that
for these participants, their /ɪ/s sound more like /i/s, than the /i/s themselves.
Figure 10: Mandarin Dominant (F1 - F2) Measurement by Vowel & School
This is particularly pertinent when we consider that Mandarin has no phonemic
distinctions between /i/ and /ɪ/, which often results in confusion for Mandarin learners
of English (Zhang & Yin, 2009). For all the Mandarin-dominant participants in this study,
Mandarin is also their home language, and by extension, one would assume, their first
language. It is thus possible that for many of these participants, the mixing up of /i/ and
/ɪ/ may be due to the influence of Mandarin.
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
2050
2100
2150
2200
/i/ /ɪ/
Mandarin Dominant: (F1 - F2) Measurement (Hz) by Vowel & School
School1
School2
School3
School4
37
iii. Summary
The results thus indicate that [ð]-production and vowel distance are clearly stratified by
social variables, key among which is the variable of school prestige. It was found that
low-income students from the most elite school felt the need to emphasize both [ð]-
production and vowel distance even more than any high-income students, showing the
extent to which the prestigious school environment has created an unconscious
pressure in its students to use the prestige norms. It also shows how the usage of these
two features has been used to distance oneself from one’s low-income background as
well. Furthermore, [ð]-production and vowel distance was found to be influenced by
one’s dominance in Mandarin negatively, suggesting great implications for language
shift and attitudes.
On the other hand, rhoticity was found to have no clear stratification by any social
variable, and its usage is dependent on individuals. Yet, there are some hints that this
feature is increasingly seen as a prestige or standard feature, suggesting that it might be
stratified in the future.
38
5. Discussion
A key contribution of this study was the finding that vowel distance and [ð]-production
variation occurred not randomly but along social lines, whereby high status in income
and school prestige was marked by wide vowel distance and high [ð]-production. This
thus clearly establishes the place of vowel distance and [ð]-production as sociophonetic
variables in Singapore’s society, marking a great step forward in the study of Singapore
English.
Previously, any variation in the distance between /i/ and /ɪ/ was said to be “sporadic”
(Wee, 2004a:268), and Hung (1995) even implied that any distinction between vowels
would merely be mimicry. Nonetheless, this study has shown that vowel distance is in
fact a highly salient sociophonetic feature with strong social underpinnings for variation.
As for [ð]-production, while Bao (2003a) and Moorthy & Deterding (2000) have
suggested that [ð]-stopping is stigmatized, no research had been done to confirm or
account for this observation. This study thus corroborates their suggestion that [ð]-
production is indeed a sociophonetic variable, and goes further in seeking to account for
variation within. Also, this study has shown that rhoticity is on its way to becoming a
sociophonetic feature as perceptions of the feature continue to change, thus supporting
Tan & Gupta (1992)’s suggestion that rhoticity is still in the midst of a sound change.
More importantly, the establishment of sociophonetic variables in Singaporean society
reflects that speech is indeed already stratified by social variables, which will only
develop further since language is constantly in flux. Future sociophonetic research thus
needs to recognize this, and move beyond the constant focus on Singapore English
features onto accounting for variation within these different features. If future research
continues in this direction, this study will then be essential in serving as a baseline for
future studies to gauge how linguistic stratification in Singapore has changed over time.
Furthermore, the results of this study challenge both the adequacy of current measures
of social class in Singapore, and highlight the pressing need for locally relevant social
class measures. It cannot be denied that the traditional socioeconomic variables of
housing and income are relevant, since their effects are visible in all three phonetic
39
features, thus corroborating research such as the Sociolinguistic Survey of Singapore
(Aman et al, 2006). Clearly, these tried-and-tested variables are sound predictors of
linguistic traits. At the same time, this study has pointed out a stark flaw of these
variables – the fact that by themselves, they are unable to account for much of the
linguistic variation present, particularly in the adolescent sector. As such, it is
imperative to look to locally pertinent class-related variables in order to explain the
variation that occurs.
This, then, is precisely what the study has done. This study put forth the variable of
school prestige as a predictor of linguistic variation for testing, and the results show that
indeed, school prestige explains and predicts linguistic variation to a significant extent.
In both [ð]-production and vowel distance, school prestige was the most significant, and
particularly in the most elite School 1, we see that the school environment in fact
prompted low-income students to produce the prestige norms even more markedly
than high-income students.
One reason this may be so is because school is a very important speech community for
most adolescents (Spolsky, 1974), and speech communities after all influence one’s
language attitudes and usage. Since more students of higher income tend to congregate
in elite schools (Lee, 2011), with a higher number of high-SES classmates from English-
speaking homes, students might feel pressured to use English to fit in. Public perception
is that the main difference between elite and neighbourhood schools is the language
used, as summed up in a forum post, “Elite school students scold "Fark you, sir",
Neighborhood school students scold "Chao Chee Bye4”” (Dr.Bonadaly, 2012). This
perception of elite school students as “Ang Moh pai”5 (MatrixFanatic, 2012), might also
reinforce the pressure for even low-income students in these elite schools to use
prestige norms in English, in order to conform.
In certain ways, the new model of school prestige may pose problems. It was found that
the prestige of Tier 3 schools had not yet settled. This is unsurprising since School 3 was
originally a neighbourhood school which has only recently attained a level of prestige 4 A crude Hokkien vulgarity
5 Ang moh is a racial slur describing Caucasians. Pai is a word in Mandarin Chinese describing a sect. Put
together, Ang Moh pai is used to refer to the English-speaking sector.
40
within the neighbourhood. This was most likely why the effect of school prestige only
tested significant in [ð]-production when the schools were split into only two tiers. It
thus seems that the social and resultant linguistic differences between Tiers 3 and 4 are
currently minimal. A better model would perhaps have three tiers instead – the elite, the
average, and the neighbourhood schools. Nonetheless, this study has broken new
methodological ground in attempting to separate schools by perceived prestige rather
than academic rankings, adopted by past studies such as Kwan-Terry (1991) and The
Straits Times (2007). Selvaraj (2011) pointed out that school prestige is not simply
defined by good academic performance, and this study’s method of asking the public to
rate schools on their perceived prestige level can be said to better reflect the reality of
school prestige, which in itself is not an innate attribute, but conferred by the public
(Tatar, 1995).
This study has thus pioneered the introduction of a new social class variable relevant to
Singapore, with great implications not only for research, for also for society at large.
Since school prestige has been found to correlate strongly with sociophonetic variation,
it stands to reason that it will also be an important variable in language usage, attitudes,
and other sociolinguistic aspects. As such, this study has opened up a new realm of
possibilities for research regarding this variable and its influence.
The ramifications for language shift in Singapore are also evident. It was found that
usage of the two sociophonetic features is associated with high English proficiency and
hence social status. This therefore suggests the already-marked move towards English
away from other languages in Singapore (Li, Saravanan & Ng, 1997; Zhao & Liu, 2007)
will only worsen. Moreover, the fact that not one student from the most elite school was
more dominant in Mandarin suggests that in fact, the reverse trend may occur with
Mandarin or other vernaculars. Mandarin might therefore become stigmatized as a
marker of low social status instead, especially when low Mandarin proficiency is seen an
attribute of elite schools. “In ACS, no one spoke Mandarin — not even in Chinese class,”
states non-constituency MP Gerald Giam (Giam, 2009), and a widespread stereotype is
that “many of the elites [sic] schools canot [sic] speak chinese either” (RockeY, 2005).
This may then spark a further shift away from Mandarin both in attitude and usage.
41
Ultimately, the link between language and society is not one-sided. A major implication
of this study is therefore that linguistic stratification has also served to reinforce social
stratification. For example, forum commenter Fairlady_xoxo (2008) cast doubt on a
complaint made by another commenter about his elite school, simply because “you don't
sound like you're from an elite school” (Fairlady_xoxo, 2008). Furthermore, blogger
Rajes’ identity as a “NHSK” (NeighbourHood School Kid) was challenged by his friends
on the basis of his high English proficiency, when they said, “But you’re nothing like a
NHSK! You’re very decent and speak English well” (Rajes, 2011). It thus appears that
English proficiency is increasingly defining one’s status as an elite or neighbourhood
school student. We thus see hints that linguistic stratification is feeding back into social
stratification, worsening the situation by far and leading to further discrimination.
One possible solution to reduce discrimination by speech then, is to make phonetics
compulsory in education from a young age, such that all children are able to learn the
‘standard’ way to pronounce words. Brown (2000) found that in Singapore,
pronunciation is not seen as a main priority by educators. For many from low-income
families, their home and first language tends not to be a non-English language (Chew,
2011), which may lack certain phonetic features which English has. For example, a
common problem pertinent in this case would be the lack of interdental fricatives in
Mandarin, which cause many to read /ð/ as [d] instead (Zhang & Yin, 2009). As such, the
compulsory learning of phonetics in primary or kindergarten education may help these
students. In this case then, education may be able to rectify rather than exacerbate the
situation.
Yet, this study is not without its limitations as well. A key limitation is the high variance
found due to the small sample size, which may have obscured certain trends. Moreover,
recruitment through word of mouth also had its drawbacks, since sampling selection
bias could have occurred, as participants often ended up being from the same circles of
friends. Eckert (1989) found that within schools, the social categories of students
influenced their speech variation, but this study was unable to take this variable into
account. As such, future studies may consider getting participants from a wider range of
schools, and recruiting participants officially through the MOE and individual schools
instead. Nonetheless, for this preliminary study investigating the variable of school
42
prestige, the sample size, though small, was still sufficient in the discovery of some
intriguing trends.
43
6. Conclusion
This study set out to test the potential of school prestige as a locally relevant social class
variable affecting phonetic variation. The results revealed that school prestige is indeed
highly salient in the stratification of society, and of language, and the implications of
such a finding are numerous and far-reaching.
Rickford (1979)'s study of villagers in Canewalk found that class distinctions affect not
just phonetic variation, but also influence one's entire view of language itself. It is hence
possible that students from schools at different ends of the spectrum will see language
itself very differently, and future studies may wish to look into that. The school
environment has also proven to be crucial in not just language learning but also the
instilling of language attitudes, and it is important for future educators to take that into
account. In addition, the role of pronunciation in social stratification may also suggest
that increased emphasis on pronunciation as a priority is a must for the education
system, such that discrimination can be reduced.
Moreover, the findings have challenged Singapore's identity as a meritocratic nation, in
particular the effectiveness of the education system, which has been much lauded as a
shining example of how meritocracy has increased social mobility (Cheong, 2011). The
results of this study show that education has in fact increased social immobility, since
the whole hierarchical system based on school prestige has manifested itself even in
speech, which ends up reinforcing one’s place in the system such that it is even harder
to move up the social ranks.
The fact that linguistic stratification only feeds into social stratification further
exacerbates the situation, since the vicious cycle will only continue and deepen the
social and linguistic divide between the elite and non-elite schools. As Tan (2008) points
out, meritocracy often promotes elitism in practice, and it seems like this is coming true
in Singapore. It is therefore imperative for the government to reevaluate this core
principle of Singapore society and ensure that meritocracy is truly implemented. If not,
the cycle of linguistic and social stratification may result in the solidification of social
classes in Singapore, making the society even more divisive.
44
However, not all is dark and dreary. The non-prestige forms may in fact increase in
positive value as a marker of Singaporean identity as time passes. Eckert (2012) points
out that in many cases, while the vernacular is stigmatized on a global level, it has local
value in giving a sense of solidarity. Sentiments brought forth by the Wee Shu Min
scandal still hold today, where there is widespread worry and resentment that the elite,
"jiak kantang"6 (Av98m, 2006) government is increasingly disconnected from the
common masses (Goh, 2012). As such, the vernacular may become a symbol of common
Singaporean identity on the ground level and gain covert prestige in this case. In this
sense then, language may be able to unite rather than divide society.
Language and society are irrevocably intertwined, and as Singapore’s society continues
to evolve, the role that language plays in it will be a crucial one. It will be extremely
interesting to see how the changing dynamics of society will play out in language, and
how language in turn will influence society, particularly in a multilingual country such
as Singapore. Future sociolinguistic studies in Singapore will have much to work on and
investigate, as we seek to document and understand the linguistic and social situation
over time.
6 Literally means eat (jiak - Hokkien) potato (kantang - Malay), used in Singapore to refer to those who are
Westernized and English-speaking.
45
References
Ace Tutors. (2012). Secondary School Ranking 2012 Based on PSLE Intake. Retrieved
October 15, 2012, from http://www.acetutors.com.sg/Secondary-School-Ranking-
2012-Based-On-PSLE-Intake
Ah Beng. (n. d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ah_Beng
Allentyb. (2007, September 17). Re: RJC Sucks......... [Online forum comment]. Retrieved
October 15, 2012, from http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/279070?page=2
Alsagoff, L. (2010). English in Singapore: Culture, Capital & Identity in Linguistic
Variation. World Englishes, 29(3):336-348.
Aman, N. (2009). The Linguistic Practices of Bilingual Singapore Malay Students: A Tale
of Language Maintenance. Jurnal e-Utama, 2:47-68.
Aman, N., Vaish, V., Bokhorst-Heng, W., Jamaludeen, A., Durgadevi, P., Feng, Y. Y., Khoo, B.
S., Roslan, M., Appleyard, P. & Tan, T. K. (2006). The Sociolinguistic Survey of
Singapore. Singapore: Centre of Research for Pedagogy & Practice.
Auer, P. (2007). Introduction. In P. Auer (ed.), Style & Social Identities: Alternative
Approaches to Linguistic Heterogeneity (pp. 1-24). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Av98m. (2006, October 11). Re: Club 30's "Kill the Boredom Demon" Jive Pad, 19th
Edition. [Online forum comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://sgforums.com/forums/1769/topics/209988?page=79
Bao, Z. (2003a). Social Stigma & Grammatical Autonomy in Nonnative Varieties of
English. Language in Society, 32:23-46.
Bao, Z. & Hong, H. (2006). Diglossia & Register Variation in Singapore. World Englishes,
25(1):105-114.
Barr, M. D. & Skrbis, Z. (2008). Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity & the Nation-
Building Project. Copenhagen: NIAS Press.
Barrie. (2012, March 9). MOE created elite schools, now asks parents to change
perception. [Web Log Post]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.sg/2012/03/moe-created-elite-schools-now-
asks.html
Beeman, W. O. (1976). Status, Style & Strategy in Iranian Interaction. Anthropological
Linguistics, 18(7):305-322.
46
Bharwani, V. (2009, December 25). Top students don't have to come from 'branded'
schools. The New Paper. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20091223-187667.html
Bigfoot. (2010, November 26). Re: PSLE 2010 Results Report Here. [Online forum
comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?p=303375
Blot, R. K. (2003). Introduction. In R. K. Blot (ed.), Language & Social Identity (pp. 1-10).
Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.
Bokhorst-Heng, W. (1999). Bilingual education and the dialectics of national integration.
Georgetown University Round Table on Languages & Linguistics, 356-370.
Bokhorst-Heng, W. D. & Caleon, I. S. (2009). The Language Attitudes of Bilingual Youth in
Multilingual Singapore. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development,
30(3):235-251.
Brown, A. (2000). Priorities in pronunciation teaching: responses from Singaporean
trainee teachers and international experts. In A. Brown, D. Deterding & L. E. Ling
(eds.), The English Language in Singapore: Research on Pronunciation (pp. 121-132).
Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics.
Chasingidledreams. (2006, October 29). The Divide between Wee Shu-Min and the
Common Man. [Web Log Post]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://tomorrow.sg/trackback/url/5631
Cheong, W.Y. (2011, February 23). Singapore's Meritocratic Education System Promotes
Social Mobility. [Forum Letter Reply]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/forum/2011/02/singapores-meritocratic-
education-system-promotes-social-mobility.php#social-immobility
Chew, C. (2010, June 2). Elite school or not doesn't matter: PM. The Straits Times.
Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.pioneerjc.moe.edu.sg/cos/o.x?c=/wbn/pagetree&func=view&rid=1163
767
Chew, P. (2011). The Emergence, Role, and Future of the National Language in Singapore.
In J. A. Fishman & O. Garcia (eds.), Handbook of Language & Ethnic Identity: The
Success-Failure Continuum in Language & Ethnic Identity Efforts, Vol. 2 (pp. 204-217).
New York: Oxford.
47
Davie, S. (2010, April 12). From Poly to NUS Medicine. The Straits Times. Retrieved
October 15, 2012, from
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20100412-209774.html
Deterding, D. (2007). Singapore English. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
Deterding, D. & Hvitfeldt, R. (1994). The features of Singapore English Pronunciation:
Implications for teachers. Teaching and Learning, 15 (1):98-107.
Dr.Bonadaly. (2012, June 10). Re: Is elite school behaviour and environment very
different from neighbourhood schools? [Online forum comment]. Retrieved October
15, 2012, from http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-
16/elite-school-behaviour-environment-very-different-neighbourhood-schools-
3765410-9.html
Drunkenhammie. (2008, May 29). Re: Why are RJC graduates so "desirable"?? [Online
forum comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://forum.brightsparks.com.sg/showthread.php?t=352
Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks & Burnouts: Social Categories & Identity in High School. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Fairlady_xoxo. (2008, June 11). Re: My school MAD SUCKS [sic]. [Online forum
comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://sgforums.com/forums/2155/topics/320578
Fuhua Secondary. (2012). School History. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.fuhuasec.moe.edu.sg/cos/o.x?c=/wbn/pagetree&func=view&rid=1113
322
Gaffoor, S. M. A. (1999). An Exploration of Factors that Help or Hinder the Successful
Learning of the English Language among Secondary School Students. (Masters
Dissertation). Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://repository.nie.edu.sg/jspui/bitstream/10497/1212/1/SyedMohamedAbdulG
affoor.pdf
Garland, R. (1991). The Mid-Point on a Rating Scale: Is it Desirable? Marketing Bulletin,
2:66-70.
Gee, C. (2012). The Educational 'Arms Race': All for One, Loss for All. IPS Working Papers
No. 20. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/ips/docs/publications/wp20.pdf
48
Giam, G. (2009, November 18). My struggle with Chinese. [Web Log Post]. Retrieved
October 15, 2012, from http://geraldgiam.sg/2009/11/my-struggle-with-chinese/
Goh, D. (2009, April). Elite Schools, Chineseness, & Anxieties of Postcolonial Masculinities
in Singapore. Paper presented at Political Studies Association Annual Conference
2009, Manchester. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2009/Goh.pdf
Goh, G. (2012, August 30). 7 Reasons why Singaporeans Are Becoming Dangerously
Xenophobic. Transitioning. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.transitioning.org/2012/08/30/7-reasons-why-singaporeans-are-
becoming-dangerously-xenophobic/
Gumperz, J. J. & Cook-Gumperz, J. (1982). Introduction: Language and the
communication of social identity. In J. J. Gumperz (ed.), Language & Social Identity
(pp. 1-21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gupta, A. F. (1994). The Step-Tongue: Children’s English in Singapore. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Guy, G. R. (1988). Language & Social Class. In F. J. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The
Cambridge Survey: Volume 4 Language: The Socio-Cultural Context (pp. 37-63).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hung, T. (1995). Some aspects of the segmental phonology of Singapore English. In S. C.
Teng & M. L. Ho (eds.), The English Language in Singapore: Implications for Teaching
(pp. 29-41). Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics.
Jownsftw. (2012, June 9). Re: Is elite school behaviour and environment very different
from neighbourhood schools? [Online forum comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012,
from http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/elite-school-
behaviour-environment-very-different-neighbourhood-schools-3765410.html
Kitana. (2006, October 21). Class Disconnect. [Web Log Post]. Retrieved October 15,
2012, from http://intelligentsingaporean.wordpress.com/wee-shu-min/
Kotwani, M. (2012, September 12). MOE scraps secondary school banding system and
cuts awards. Channel News Asia. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1225528/1/.
html
49
Kvc_king. (2007, December 18). Re: What defines a neighbourhood school? [Online
forum comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://talkback.stomp.com.sg/forums/showthread.php?t=29777
Kwan-Terry, A. (1991). The Economics of Language in Singapore: Students' Use of
Extracurricular Language Lessons. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 2(1):69-
89.
Labov, W. (1963). The Social Motivation of a Sound Change. Word, 9:273-309.
Lee, E. (2008). Singapore: The Unexpected Nation. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
Lee, M. H. (2006). Social Development or Social Inequality: Comparing Education Policies
and Reforms in Hong Kong and Singapore. Paper presented at the GDPism and Risk:
Challenges for Social Development and Governance in East Asia Conference, Bristol.
Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/ceas/events/conferences/gdp/abstracts/g/papers/micha
el_h_lee_paper.doc
Leimgruber, J. (2012). Singapore English: An Indexical Approach. World Englishes,
31(1):1-14.
Li, W., Saravanan, V. & Ng, J. (1997). Language Shift in the Teochew Community in
Singapore: A Family Domain Analysis. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural
Development, 18(5):364-384.
Liaw, W-C. (2009, May 27). More funds for autonomous schools. The Straits Times.
Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20090526-143945.html
Lim, E. (2012, January 14). Coming to Terms with being "Elite". [Web Log Post].
Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://arafflesinstitutionlife.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/coming-to-terms-with-
being-elite-singapore/
Lim, M. H. (2002). An Exploratory Investigation of Choice of Secondary School by Parents
and Pupils in a Singapore Girls' Secondary School. (Masters Dissertation). Retrieved
October 15, 2012, from
https://repository.ntu.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10356/13770/NIE-
THESES_151.pdf
Marsiling Secondary. (2009). Speech for 2009 Achievement Day. Retrieved October 15,
2012, from
50
http://www.marsilingsec.moe.edu.sg/marsiling/main/make_your_mark/achieveme
nt_day_2007.html
Marsiling Secondary. (2012). School History. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.marsilingsec.moe.edu.sg/marsiling/main/about/school_history.html
Masry. (2011, October 24). Re: Fuhua Secondary School. [Online forum comment].
Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php&t=17816
MatrixFanatic (2012, June 10). Re: Is elite school behaviour and environment very
different from neighbourhood schools? [Online forum comment]. Retrieved October
15, 2012, from http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-
16/elite-school-behaviour-environment-very-different-neighbourhood-schools-
3765410-9.html
Melodily. (2011, November 16). Once a Rafflesian, Always a Rafflesian. [Web Log Post].
Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://melodily.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/once-a-rafflesian-always-a-rafflesian/
Ministry of Education. (2005). Glossary. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www3.moe.edu.sg/corporate/contactonline/2005/Issue15/glossary/glossar
y.htm
Ministry of Education. (2011). Recipients of School Distinction Award from 2004 to 2011.
Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/files/2011/moa-annex-a2.pdf
Moorthy, S. M. & Deterding, D. (2000). Three or tree? Dental fricatives in the speech of
educated Singaporeans. In A. Brown, D. Deterding & L. E. Ling (eds.), The English
Language in Singapore: Research on Pronunciation (pp. 76-83). Singapore: Singapore
Association for Applied Linguistics.
Ng, G. (2012, September 13). Parents, school cheer scrapping of secondary school
banding. My Paper. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story201209
13-371221.html
Ngbrdad. (2011, November 26). Re: Which school is better for COP 210-230? [Online
forum comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=27702&p=646
298&hilit=fuhua#p646298
51
NSK. (n. d.). In Urban Dictionary. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nsk
Platt, J. (1975). The Singapore English Speech Continuum and its Basilect 'Singlish' as a
'Creoloid'. Anthropological Linguistics, 17:363-374.
Poedjosoedarmo, G. (2000a). The Media as a Model and Source of Innovation in the
Development of Singapore Standard English. In A. Brown, D. Deterding & L. E. Ling
(eds.), The English Language in Singapore: Research on Pronunciation (pp. 112-120).
Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics.
Proud to be from a Neighbourhood School in Singapore. (2010, May 18). In Facebook
[Group page]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Proud-to-be-from-a-Neighbourhood-School-in-
Singapore/104563202923423
Prystay, C. & Bernstein, E. (2004). Gateway to the Ivy League: Prestigious Singapore
School Sends Droves to Top Colleges; Just $15 a Month in Fees. The Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2004/05/raffles_junior_.html
Rajes. (2011, March 3). NHSK. [Web Log Post]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://blog.nus.edu.sg/el32512011/2011/03/03/nhsk/
Ramesh, S. (2011, January 24). MM Lee says students' background plays a role. Channel
News Asia. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1106597/1/.
html
Rickford, J. R. (1979). Variation in a Creole Continuum: Quantitative & Implicational
Approaches. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses. (Accession Order No. AAT 7928172).
Rickford, J. R. (1986). The Need for New Approaches to Social Class Analysis in
Sociolinguistics. Language & Communication, 6(3):215-221.
RockeY. (2005, September 15). Re: ACS Boys-Pros and Cons. [Online forum comment].
Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://sgforums.com/forums/8/topics/152356?page=16
Romaine, S. (2002). Language & Social Class. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (eds.),
International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 8308-8312).
Oxford: Pergamon.
52
Sarah_onering. (2007, May 13). Now an ACSian, forever an ACSian. [Photo Caption].
Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.flickr.com/photos/78346542@N00/648183599/
Seah, C. N. (2004, February 15). Shaping Elitist Mindset: Streaming helps create arrogant
elitism among students. Sunday Star. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.littlespeck.com/content/education/CTrendsEdu-040215.htm
See, S. (2012, August 26). Singapore to have two more universities. Channel News Asia.
Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1222253/1/.
html
Selvaraj, C. N. (2011). The Making of Elite Schools in Singapore, 1940s-1980s. (Masters
Dissertation, National University of Singapore). Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10635/34344/Chris%20Selvaraj.
Shaber. (2011, July 5). Re: SCGS vs Cresent [sic] Girls. [Online forum comment].
Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=22964&p=470
437&hilit=crescent+girls+school+elite#p470437
Silver88. (2011, January 11). Re: Maris Stella High School. [Online forum comment].
Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=6298&start=3
40
Singaporean. (2012, September 12). Re: MOE scraps banding in secondary schools.
[Online Comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/moe-scraps-banding-in-secondary-schools-.html
Spolsky, B. (1974). Speech Communities & Schools. TESOL Quarterly, 8(1):17-26.
SPRING Singapore. (2011). Raffles Institution: Singapore Quality Award Executive
Summary. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.spring.gov.sg/QualityStandards/be/Documents/BEAW/SQA_RI_2011_S
ummary_Report.pdf
Sun, S. (2012). Population Policy & Reproduction in Singapore: Making Future Citizens.
New York: Routledge.
53
Tan, A. (2009, April 29). Non-Elite, But Happy. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 15,
2012, from http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20090428-
137924.html
Tan, C. H. & Gupta, A. F. (1992). Post-Vocalic /r/ in Singapore English. York Papers in
Linguistics, 16:139-152.
Tan, E. S. (2004). Does Class Matter? Social Stratification and Orientations in Singapore.
Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Tan, J. (1998). Education in the Early 21st Century: Challenges and Dilemmas. In Da, D.
(ed.), Singapore in the New Millennium: Challenges Facing the City-State. Singapore:
ISEAS.
Tan, K. P. (2008). Meritocracy and Elitism in a Global City: Ideological Shifts in Singapore.
International Political Science Review, 29(1):7-27.
Tan, O. (2011, October 29). A Special Assistance Plan for the Elite? [Web Log Post].
Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.perspectivist.com/politics/education/a-special-assistance-plan-for-
the-elite
Tan, P. & Tan, D. (2008). Attitudes towards Non-Standard English in Singapore. World
Englishes, 27(3/4):465-479.
Tan, Y. Y. (2011, Aug). To r or not to r: A Sociophonetic Analysis of /r/ in Singapore
English. Paper presented at The 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences,
Hong Kong. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.icphs2011.hk/resources/OnlineProceedings/RegularSession/Tan/Tan.
Tatar, M. (1995). The Prestige of the High School as Viewed by Parents. British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 16(1):93-108.
Tay, J. (2009, March 7). Logic Will Break Your Heart. [Web Log Post]. Retrieved October
15, 2012, from http://x-juveniledelinquent.xanga.com/694914478/item/
Tay, W. K. (2006, October 19). Looking Back Home. [Web Log Post]. Retrieved October
15, 2012, from http://weikiatblog.blogspot.sg/2006/10/looking-back-home.html
The Straits Times. (2007, May 18). The 10 Top Schools in Singapore. Retrieved October
15, 2012, from
http://www.edupoll.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2520&sid=3d933c0ae6c4028c80
4df768d1ec4e0b
54
TR Emeritus. (2010, November 13). Wee Shu Min Elitism Scandal (Revisited). [Web Log
Post]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.tremeritus.com/2010/11/13/wee-shu-min-elitism-scandal-revisited/
Tremewan, C. (1994). The Political Economy of Social Control in Singapore. London:
Macmillan Press.
Trudgill, P. (1974). The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Under The Willow Tree. (2012, March 7). Tuition Obsession: A Singaporean Dysfunction.
[Web Log Post]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://utwt.blogspot.sg/2012/03/tuition-obsession-singaporean.html
Vaish, V. & Tan, T. K. (2008, March). Language & Social Class: Linguistic Capital in
Singapore. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New York. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://repository.nie.edu.sg/jspui/bitstream/10497/3339/1/CRP22and23_04AL_C
onf08%28AERA%29_VaishTan.pdf
Wee, D. (2006, October 3). Future of Singapore. [Web Log Post]. Retrieved October 15,
2012, from http://www.derekwee.blogspot.sg/
Wee, L. (2004a). Singapore English: Phonology. In E. W. Schneider, K. Burridge, B.
Kortmann, R. Mesthrie & C. Upton (eds.), A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 1:
Phonology (pp. 1017-1033). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wong, G. (2012, March 16). A School by Any Other Name? The Straits Times. Retrieved
October 15, 2012, from http://gpish.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/a-school-by-any-
other-name/
Yavas, M. (2011). Applied English Phonology, 2nd Ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Zhang, F. & Yin, P. (2009). A Study of Pronunciation Problems of English Learners in
China. Asian Social Science, 5(6):141-146.
Zhao, S. & Liu, Y. (2007). Home Language Shift and its Implications for Language
Planning in Singapore: From the Perspective of Prestige Planning. The Asia Pacific-
Education Researcher, 16(2):111-126.
55
Appendices
Appendix A: The Prestige Survey
1. What is your age this year? _______
2. How elite do you think the following schools are perceived as, in general? Please
rate the secondary schools below in terms of their general perceived eliteness, on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being the most elite, and 4 being the least elite. There are no right or wrong answers!
Secondary School Most Elite Least Elite
Queensway Sec 1 2 3 4
Chung Cheng High (Yishun) 1 2 3 4
Clementi Town Sec 1 2 3 4
Balestier Hill Sec 1 2 3 4
Anglican High 1 2 3 4
Yishun Sec 1 2 3 4
Canberra Sec 1 2 3 4
Seng Kang Sec 1 2 3 4
Westwood Sec 1 2 3 4
St Margaret's Sec 1 2 3 4
West Spring Sec 1 2 3 4
Ping Yi Sec 1 2 3 4
Zhenghua Sec 1 2 3 4
Juying Sec 1 2 3 4
Greendale Sec 1 2 3 4
Woodgrove Sec 1 2 3 4
Shuqun Sec 1 2 3 4
East Spring Sec 1 2 3 4
Chestnut Drive Sec 1 2 3 4
Yuhua Sec 1 2 3 4
St Patrick's 1 2 3 4
Raffles Girls' (Sec) 1 2 3 4
National Junior College 1 2 3 4
Christ Church Sec 1 2 3 4
Clementi Woods Sec 1 2 3 4
Xinmin Sec 1 2 3 4
Crescent Girls' 1 2 3 4
St Andrew's Sec 1 2 3 4
Serangoon Garden Sec 1 2 3 4
Hong Kah Sec 1 2 3 4
56
Kranji Sec 1 2 3 4
Ang Mo Kio Sec 1 2 3 4
Bishan Park Sec 1 2 3 4
Peirce Sec 1 2 3 4
Edgefield Sec 1 2 3 4
Jurong Sec 1 2 3 4
Raffles Institution 1 2 3 4
Bukit Merah Sec 1 2 3 4
Bedok Green Sec 1 2 3 4
Commonwealth Sec 1 2 3 4
Ahmad Ibrahim Sec 1 2 3 4
MacPherson Sec 1 2 3 4
Orchid Park Sec 1 2 3 4
CHIJ Katong Convent 1 2 3 4
Fuchun Sec 1 2 3 4
Junyuan Sec 1 2 3 4
Bedok North Sec 1 2 3 4
Queenstown Sec 1 2 3 4
Hwa Chong Institution 1 2 3 4
Bedok Town Sec 1 2 3 4
Hua Yi Sec 1 2 3 4
Nanyang Girls' High 1 2 3 4
Greenridge Sec 1 2 3 4
Yuying Sec 1 2 3 4
Gan Eng Seng 1 2 3 4
CHIJ St Theresa's Convent 1 2 3 4
Bukit Batok Sec 1 2 3 4
Ngee Ann Sec 1 2 3 4
Woodlands Sec 1 2 3 4
Zhonghua Sec 1 2 3 4
Henderson Sec 1 2 3 4
Bowen Sec 1 2 3 4
Chua Chu Kang Sec 1 2 3 4
CHIJ Sec (Toa Payoh) 1 2 3 4
Yishun Town Sec 1 2 3 4
Coral Sec 1 2 3 4
Chong Boon Sec 1 2 3 4
Cedar Girls' Sec 1 2 3 4
Swiss Cottage Sec 1 2 3 4
Kent Ridge Sec 1 2 3 4
57
Anderson Sec 1 2 3 4
Nan Hua High 1 2 3 4
Mayflower Sec 1 2 3 4
Serangoon Sec 1 2 3 4
Jurong West Sec 1 2 3 4
Springfield Sec 1 2 3 4
Teck Whye Sec 1 2 3 4
Woodlands Ring Sec 1 2 3 4
Dunman High 1 2 3 4
Anglo-Chinese (Independent) 1 2 3 4
Yio Chu Kang Sec 1 2 3 4
Whitley Sec 1 2 3 4
Admiralty Sec 1 2 3 4
Greenview Sec 1 2 3 4
Nan Chiau High 1 2 3 4
Riverside Sec 1 2 3 4
Northbrooks Sec 1 2 3 4
Fajar Sec 1 2 3 4
Evergreen Sec 1 2 3 4
Pasir Ris Crest Sec 1 2 3 4
St Gabriel's Sec 1 2 3 4
Holy Innocents' High 1 2 3 4
Tanjong Katong Sec 1 2 3 4
Hai Sing Catholic 1 2 3 4
Bukit View Sec 1 2 3 4
First Toa Payoh Sec 1 2 3 4
Bendemeer Sec 1 2 3 4
Chung Cheng High (Main) 1 2 3 4
CHIJ St Joseph's Convent 1 2 3 4
Tanjong Katong Girls' 1 2 3 4
Hougang Sec 1 2 3 4
St Anthony's Canossian Sec 1 2 3 4
Paya Lebar Methodist Girls' (Sec) 1 2 3 4
Jurongville Sec 1 2 3 4
St Hilda's Sec 1 2 3 4
Tanglin Sec 1 2 3 4
Marsiling Sec 1 2 3 4
Dunearn Sec 1 2 3 4
Dunman Sec 1 2 3 4
Yusof Ishak Sec 1 2 3 4
58
Deyi Sec 1 2 3 4
River Valley High 1 2 3 4
Manjusri Sec 1 2 3 4
Assumption English 1 2 3 4
Broadrick Sec 1 2 3 4
East View Sec 1 2 3 4
Beatty Sec 1 2 3 4
Catholic High 1 2 3 4
Pioneer Sec 1 2 3 4
Peicai Sec 1 2 3 4
Maris Stella High 1 2 3 4
North View Sec 1 2 3 4
Tampines Sec 1 2 3 4
Anglo-Chinese (Barker) 1 2 3 4
Montford Sec 1 2 3 4
Unity Sec 1 2 3 4
Singapore Chinese Girls' 1 2 3 4
Guangyang Sec 1 2 3 4
Compassvale Sec 1 2 3 4
Punggol Sec 1 2 3 4
Pasir Ris Sec 1 2 3 4
Bedok South Sec 1 2 3 4
Yuan Ching Sec 1 2 3 4
Si Ling Sec 1 2 3 4
Methodist Girls' 1 2 3 4
Temasek Sec 1 2 3 4
Geylang Methodist School (Sec) 1 2 3 4
Boon Lay Sec 1 2 3 4
Northland Sec 1 2 3 4
Loyang Sec 1 2 3 4
Kuo Chuan Presbyterian 1 2 3 4
Siglap Sec 1 2 3 4
Bedok View Sec 1 2 3 4
Hillgrove Sec 1 2 3 4
North Vista Sec 1 2 3 4
St Joseph's Institution 1 2 3 4
Bartley Sec 1 2 3 4
Victoria School 1 2 3 4
New Town Sec 1 2 3 4
Outram Sec 1 2 3 4
59
Pei Hwa Sec 1 2 3 4
Naval Base Sec 1 2 3 4
Damai Sec 1 2 3 4
Sembawang Sec 1 2 3 4
Fuhua Sec 1 2 3 4
Bukit Panjang Government High 1 2 3 4
Changkat Changi Sec 1 2 3 4
Regent Sec 1 2 3 4
Presbyterian High 1 2 3 4
CHIJ St Nicholas Girls' 1 2 3 4
Fairfield Methodist (Sec) 1 2 3 4
3. What is your secondary school? ______________________________________________________
Thank you very much for your participation
60
Appendix B: Reading Passage
Legend: /i/ items: italicized
/ɪ/ items: squared
Interdental fricative items: bold Non-prevocalic [r] items: underlined
Today, my baby sister was born! Early this morning, I was dreaming of sheep, when I
heard a voice cutting through my sleep. It was my father, and he was telling me that we
needed to leave. We were going to the hospital. My mother was going to give birth! I
was so excited! But my teacher had also told me it would hurt a lot to give birth and
some mothers might even die from it! So, just to keep her safe, I changed into my lucky
shirt that was green. We got into the car and left. It was a special day, so guess where I
was allowed to sit? In the front seat! I was very happy.
We were there in fifteen minutes, since the hospital is not far from where we live. I was
allowed to talk to my mother before she went into the operation room. The doctor
taking care of her had a long beard and looked very friendly! I asked him to take care of
my mother and he promised me that he would. My father decided to go in together with
her so he asked a nurse to watch over me, and told me not to bother her too much. At
first, I read a book but by the time it was twelve, I was bored. When the nurse was busy,
I snuck away and wandered around until I saw a playground with a very big ship! There
was another boy there so we played hide-and-seek. His name was Tim. I asked him why
he was in the hospital and he said his father was sick. Other children soon gathered and
we decided to form teams and race one another to the nearby bin. To win, a team had to
be the first to touch the lid. Tim and I were in the same team. Another boy, Sid, led the
other team. At first, we were in the lead. But, while running, Tim stepped on a bean! He
was just going to slip, when a hand shot out and caught him from falling. It was the
nurse! She turned to me sternly. “So this is where you have been! I was looking for you.
Your mother has given birth!” “Hurray,” I shouted happily, and ran back to the room as
quickly as I could.
61
When I got back, my mother was sitting up with a big grin. She was carrying my baby
sister, Julie! Julie was so cute and tiny. Each of her eyes was as small as a seed! I
promised myself I would be the best brother ever. It was getting late so my father
decided to bring me home. I waved goodbye to my mother and Julie before we left. My
father was in such a good mood that when we got home, I was allowed to watch my
favourite TV show before sleeping. What a wonderful day! I can’t wait to see my baby
sister again!
62
Appendix C: Breakdown of Phonetic Items
Vowel Quality Items
/i/ /ɪ/
1 Bean Bin
2 Green Grin 3 Lead Lid
4 Leave Live 5 Seat Sit
6 Seed Sid 7 Seek Sick
8 Sheep Ship 9 Sleep Slip
10 Team Tim
[ð]-Production Items
Word-initial Word-medial
1 This Father
2 That Mother
3 The Together
4 There Bother
5 The Gathered
Rhoticity Items
1 Birth
2 Beard 3 Bored
4 Born 5 Heard
6 Hurt 7 Morning
8 Nurse 9 Shirt
10 Wandered
63
Appendix D: Questionnaire
School: ___________________________________ Gender: F / M Age: __________
Father’s Occupation: ________________________ Secondary: 3 / 4
1) What languages (including dialects) do you speak at home? (Please rank in order
of how often you use it at home e.g. English, Mandarin, Cantonese.) ________________________________________________________________________ 2) What languages (including dialects) do you speak? (Please rank in order of how
fluent you are in speaking it.) ________________________________________________________________________ 3) On a scale of 1 to 5, how well do you think you speak English? Very well Average Very badly 1 2 3 4 5
4) What type of housing do you live in? (Please circle when applicable)
a) 1-room flat b) 2-room flat
c) 3-room flat d) 4-room flat
e) 5-room flat f) Executive HDB flat/Mansionette
g) Condominium h) Landed property
5) What is your average monthly household income? (Please circle when applicable)
a) Less than $2000 b) $2000 to <$3000
c) $3000 to <$4000 d) $4000 to <$5000
e) $5000 and above
Thank you very much for your participation