Language Shift in The Teochew Community in Singapore

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

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20
Language Shift in the Teochew Community in Singapore: A Family Domain Analysis

Li Wei Vanithamani Saravanan & Julia Ng Lee Hoon Available online: 29 Mar 2010
To cite this article: Li Wei Vanithamani Saravanan & Julia Ng Lee Hoon (1997): Language Shift in the Teochew Community in Singapore: A Family Domain Analysis, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18:5, 364-384 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434639708666326
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:47 15 March 2012
Language Shift in the Teochew Community in Singapore: A Family Domain Analysis

Li Wei
Department of Speech, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, King George VI Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
Vanithamani Saravanan and Julia Ng Lee Hoon

National Institute of Education and Ministry of Education, Singapore Much of the research literature on language maintenance and language shift (LMLS) has focused on minority communities, especially immigrants who may also be socially and/or economically disadvantaged. A different perspective which examines ongoing variations and change in the language use patterns of the majority and the socially and economically powerful groups may provide interesting insights into the socio-cultural processes of LMLS. This paper presents a small case study of language shift in the Teochew Chinese community in Singapore, the second largest sub-group within the dominant Chinese community. The study highlights the complex relationships between societal change processes, government policy, peoples attitude and language use. It argues that language shift is rarely across the board, but differential, being more rapid and far-going in some domains and in some sub-populations than in others and that no single factor alone determines the process of LMLS. The study hopes to contribute towards the better informed evaluation of LMLS which Fishman (1991) has called for.
Introduction
Since Fishmans seminal paper in 1964, language maintenance and language shift (LMLS) has become a pivotal topic in sociolinguistics. There now exists a large body of literature documenting the linguistic fortunes of a range of communities in different parts of the world (e.g. Dorian, 1989; Dow, 1987, 1988; Fase et al., 1992; Williamson & van Eerde, 1980). Much of this literature, however, focuses on the experiences of minority groups, especially immigrants who may also be socially and/or economically disadvantaged. Although considerable progress has been made from that vantage point, a different perspective which examines ongoing variations and change in the language use patterns of the majority and the socially and economically powerful groups may provide interesting insights into the socio-cultural processes of LMLS. In this paper, we present a small case study of language shift in the Teochew Chinese community in Singapore. Bilingualism in Singapore is not associated with minority groups, or with immigrants. It is characteristic of the majority group the Chinese. While the vast majority of Singaporeans are bilingual or multilingual, the most multilingual individuals are likely to be from the Chinese community who make up over 78% of the population. The aim of the current study is to document, in a principled way, the changes in the language behaviour of different generations of speakers
0143-4632/97/05 0364-21 $10.00/0 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 1997 L. Wei et al. Vol. 18, No. 5, 1997
364
Language Shift in the Teochew Community
365
within the Teochew Chinese community in Singapore and to demonstrate how such changes are associated with the socio-cultural changes which are simultaneously taking place in the country as a whole. In reviewing the studies of LMLS over some 30 years, Fishman (1991) suggests that there are three key aspects which an informed evaluation of LMLS should consider: habitual language use, behaviour towards language, and socio-cultural change processes. He argues that most progress has been made in conjunction with the measurement of habitual language use, and least in conjunction with socio-cultural change processes. This, in Fishmans opinion, reflects the greater precision of scholarly work with language as a result of the more highly systematic nature of language and language behaviour, while the social sciences in general and sociology in particular simply have not reached the same level of precise and systematic analysis (1989: 253). Whether or not one accepts Fishmans assertion, the only coherent analytic model which has been widely used in the study of LMLS has been Fishmans domain analysis which focuses on the habitual language use of individual speakers. In contrast, no similar model is available for analysing the socio-cultural processes underlying LMLS. Research to date has been primarily concerned with isolating those factors which accelerate language shift from those which inhibit it and favour maintenance. A fairly comprehensive list of the factors is given by Conklin and Lourie (1983), which have been grouped under three headings: political, social and demographic factors, cultural factors, and linguistic factors (see also Baker, 1993). While such lists may help clarify what contributes to LMLS, they do not reveal the processes and mechanisms of LMLS or the relative importance of the factors. What seems to be required is an integrated approach which addresses the social, political and economic changes taking place in the society at large as well as the linguistic and psychological processes of individual speakers in social interaction. A number of recent book-length publications have presented such analyses (e.g. Edwards, 1994; Fishman, 1991; Heller, 1994; Romaine, 1992). In this paper, we shall attempt to provide a relatively comprehensive account of the socio-cultural processes of language shift in the Teochew Chinese community in Singapore. The structure of the paper is as follows: we begin by outlining the macro-societal language shift which is evidently taking place in Singapore today. We shall look at the government policies towards language use and the institutional support for those languages the government is promoting. We shall then examine the historical and socio-economic situation of the Teochew Chinese community. Using data collected through participant observation and ethnographic interviews, we shall present a case study of 17 Teochew families and examine in some detail such variables as age, socio-economic status, educational level, and religion. We shall also comment on speakers attitudes towards language maintenance and shift. The final section of the paper summarises the main findings of the study and highlights the key factors which are associated with the language shift process.
Societal Language Shift in Singapore

Singapore is a city-state of 226 sqare miles and a population of three million.
366
The population consists of 78% ethnic Chinese, 14% Malay, and 7% Indian. Each of these three main ethnic groups can be further distinguished into sub-communities according to ancestral geographical and language/dialect affiliations. The Chinese group, for example, comprises Hokkien (43.1%), Teochew (22.1%), Cantonese (16.4%), Hakka (7.4%), Hainanese (7.1%) and smaller communities of Foochow, Henghua, Shanghainese, and Hokchia. Each of these sub-communities has its own dialect, some being more closely related to each other (in linguistic structural terms) than others. The official languages of Singapore are English, Mandarin Chinese, Malay, and Tamil. Until the mid 20th century, a resident of Singapore could sustain a lifestyle which operated largely in a mono-ethnic enclave. It was even possible to live and work within a community that was virtually mono-dialectal (Gupta, 1994). This was particularly true in the Chinese community, where different dialect groups had their own identifiable settlements in various parts of the country. The early Teochews, for example, settled in Sembawang, Upper Thompson and Punggol areas, all in the north of Singapore, while the Hokkiens lived in the southern areas, along the Singapore River. Members of the Malay community, whose ancestors had emigrated from what is now Indonesia, also lived in communities that were almost exclusively Buginese or Javanese. Such geographical compartmentalisation was reinforced in the 19th century by a policy of segregation, which was laid down by Stamford Raffles in his original plan for Singapore. This gave rise to areas such as Chinatown and Little India, which were intensely urban, and the kampongs (from the Malay kampung, village), which had a more rural character. There were some mixed areas too, but they tended to be English-oriented, in the sense that the English language was used as the lingua franca for communication among people of different ethnicities. Clarke (1992), for example, described some neighbourhoods in which Eurasians and Jews lived side by side and where major English-medium schools congregated. For the Chinese at least, the segregated settlement reinforced their bang, or clan, consciousness. Members of a bang usually had the same surname and place of origin and spoke the same dialect. They grouped themselves together to maintain their ethnic tradition and promote their group culture. An important offshoot of the bangs were the language schools, which served not only as a place to educate their children but also as a centre for mutual support, exchange of information and organisation of community activities among their members. Admission to these schools was strictly according to dialect divisions. The bang structure was institutionalised in 1889 with the establishment of the Chinese Advisory Board and further strengthened in 1906 with the setting up of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Among the various bangs, the Hokkiens were by far the most powerful economically and consequently played a leading role in the Chamber as well as within the Chinese community generally. Second in position were the Teochews (see Cheng, 1985, for a historical view of the Chinese communities in Singapore). Over the course of the 20th century, mono-ethnic living has become progressively harder. Now virtually all Singaporeans live in ethnically mixed areas. According to the 1990 census, 86% of all households live in HDB flats flats built
367
and controlled by the Housing Development Board. The policy in these vast estates is, as it has been since the 1960s, to mix the racial groups, preventing the formation of ethnic ghettos (Gupta, 1994). Limits have been placed on the percentage representation of the races in each neighbourhood, which presumably reflect the ethnic ratio of the country as a whole (87% Chinese, 25% Malay and 10% Indian and others). Multi-ethnic living provided the opportunity for extensive contacts between different groups, which in turn led to bilingualism and multilingualism. Yet, bilingualism and multilingualism have different meanings for different ethnic groups in Singapore. A bilingual speaker of the Malay or Tamil community, for instance, is normally proficient in English and either Malay or Tamil, all of which are official languages of Singapore. A typical bilingual speaker of the Chinese community, on the other hand, would be someone who speaks his/her ethnic dialect (e.g. Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese, etc.) and either Mandarin, the officially sanctioned Chinese language, or English, while a typical multilingual Chinese would speak one or more dialects and both Mandarin and English. As in mainland China, the notion of dialect in Singapore is not based on any sound linguistic ground. Rather, it is a status symbol i.e. only Mandarin Chinese is recognised officially as the national language and languages other than Mandarin are assigned the status of dialects whose use is discouraged in public domains. We shall see shortly the government policies towards languages and language varieties in Singapore. Before that, let us look at some facts and figures of the recent changes in language use in Singapore. Over the last two decades, Singapore has undergone phenomenal socio-economic changes, rising to become a major international economic power. Parallel to the socio-economic changes has been a massive language shift from ethnic to national and international languages. An illustration of this shift can be seen in Table 1 which is taken from the 1990 Census of Population.
Table 1 Predominant household language, 1980 and 1990
Language English Mandarin Chinese dialects Malay Tamil Others Total
Source: Department of Statistics, Singapore. Note: 1990 data were based on 10% sample.
Percent 1980 11.6 10.2 59.5 13.9 3.1 1.7 100.0 1990 20.3 26.0 36.7 13.4 2.9 0.7 100.0
Problematics of official statistics in Singapore notwithstanding (see Gupta, 1994: 2432 for a discussion), this set of data suggests that the use of English and Mandarin as home languages has increased. The percentage of households speaking English at home increased from 12% to 20% between 1980 and 1990 and that of households speaking Mandarin more than doubled from 10% to 26% in a
368
decade. Given the way in which the census was conducted and questions phrased (as discussed in Gupta, 1994), these figures must represent the minimum percentages of households that use English and Mandarin as home language. In the meantime, the percentage of households in Singapore with predominant use of Chinese dialects declined from 60% in 1980 to 37% in 1990. The changes in household language use have been more significant for the Chinese and Indians than for the Malays. Further details of the differential language shift are given in Table 2.
Table 2 Predominant household language by ethnic group 1980 and 1990
Language 1980 Chinese households English Mandarin Chinese dialects Others Malay households English Malay Others Indian households English Malay Tamil Others
Source: Department of Statistics, Singapore. Note: 1990 data were based on 10% sample.
Percent 1990 20.6 32.8 46.2 0.4 5.5 94.3 0.2 34.8 13.5 43.7 8.0
10.2 13.1 76.2 0.5 2.3 96.7 1.0 24.3 8.6 52.2 14.9
While all three communities have increased their use of English, the Malays have maintained their overall language use pattern. The Chinese have shifted significantly from dialects to Mandarin, and the use of Malay has apparently increased in the Indian community partly due to the absorption of Indian Muslims into the Malay culture through intermarriage. Within each of the three main ethnic groups, there are some interesting variations in the extent of language shift in different sub-communities. In the Malay community, for example, members of the Javanese and Boyanese sub-groups have shifted to English more significantly than the Bahasa Malay speakers. The extent to which different sub-groups of the Chinese community have been affected by language shift is illustrated in Table 3. Bearing in mind that there has been no significant in-migration to Singapore since the early 1960s, such large-scale, complex changes in the sociolinguistic patterns in Singapore can be attributed largely to the deliberate and often forcefully-implemented government policies towards language and language varieties.
369
Table 3 Language shift among the Singaporean Chinese

Language claimed as principal language to spouse Hokkien Teochew Cantonese English Mandarin Other Chinese dialects % of Chinese living in same household as spouse 1980 1990 34 26 17 11 15 10 12 20 13 28 9 5
Source: Department of Statistics, Statistical Release No. 8 (1991), and Statistical Release No. 3 (1990).
Language Shift and Language Policy

In reviewing the language policies of the Singaporean Government since independence, Gopinathan (1988) points out two key factors which seem to have influenced the governments thinking: the first is the need for social and political stability in a highly multi-racial society, and the second is the need for rapid economic growth. It is clear from the literature that in many multilingual societies, language-bred hostility is a major source of social tension (e.g. Edwards, 1994). During Singapores colonial years, there was already some awareness among the ordinary people as well as the government that some means for linguistic interaction must be found, given the multi-ethnic and multilingual nature of the Singapore society. It was assumed that English had the most potential as a link language. However, the colonial authorities were not prepared to expand English-medium schooling, and after 1920 a sizable proportion of the Chinese population demanded Chinese-medium education. The government then faced building Chinese schools, training teachers and the like. Since independence, the Singaporean Government has successfully transformed English from a colonial language and an object of suspicion among ordinary citizens into a de facto national language. This transformation has been achieved by identifying English not simply as a neutral link language between the various ethnic groups, but as a major source of economically valuable knowledge and technology. From the early 1970s to the late 1980s, the Singaporean Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, repeatedly argued that knowledge of an international language such as English would give the nation access to world markets and the people better living standards. Over the years, the government has sought to shape a vision of Singapore as a rational, modernising society. Rapid economic growth since the 1980s seems to have helped convince the vast majority of the population that knowledge of English provides better opportunities for them as individuals, as well as for the country as a whole. There is now remarkable acceptance of English as, in effect, the national language of Singapore. We shall look more specifically at peoples attitudes towards language later in the paper. As Singapore moves towards a more centralised administrative structure,
370
with an economy dominated by multinationals and power in the hands of an English-educated technocratic elite, traditional power brokers such as family businesses, clan associations, and trade unions are likely to feel alienated. The government is fully aware that the retention and promotion of ethnic heritage, including ethnic language, at this time is likely to ensure, as Gopinathan (1988: 397) puts it, that these groups will have something to hold on to and, if not support, at least acquiesce in large-scale social engineering. Language is thus seen as a valuable tool for managing the effects of social dislocation brought about by modernisation. What is particularly interesting, however, is that, with regards to the Chinese population, the government has chosen to promote Mandarin, which is not the ancestral language of any of the ethnic Chinese groups in Singapore, instead of other Chinese languages which are more closely associated with the Chinese population. In 1978, the Singaporean Government launched the well-known Speak Mandarin Campaign. Once again, the need for ethnic unity and the need for economic development combined in influencing the government policy. It was argued that using the so-called dialects would fragment the Chinese community and would prevent the nation from accessing the growing, potentially huge market of mainland China (It is interesting to note that the Speak Mandarin Campaign coincided with the Open Door Policy in China in 1978). The government has repeatedly emphasised Singapores fundamental nature as an Asian society and the importance of playing a leading role in the developing economies of Asia. To be able to speak Mandarin, as Prime Minister Lee puts it, would give confidence to a people to face up to and overcome great changes and challenges (as quoted in The Straits Times, 22 September 1984). The Speak Mandarin Campaign has since been an annual event and has become more forceful over the years. Among the measures taken have been public campaigns which aimed at service personnel (e.g. postmen, government office clerks, bus conductors), as well as the more ordinary workers (e.g. taxi drivers and hawkers), the organisation of public forums, panel discussions, seminars on the Speak Mandarin theme, and eradication of television and radio programmes and commercials in dialects and dubbing popular Cantonese programmes from Hong Kong into Mandarin. Mandarin is now widely spoken in domains which were once reserved for dialects (e.g. family) or English (e.g. schools). So far we have outlined the general context of language shift in Singapore. As has been noted earlier, the extent of language shift differs in the three main ethnic communities of Singapore as well as in the various sub-groups within these communities. We shall now present a case study of one of the sub-groups of the Chinese community in Singapore and examine the internal variations and change in language use patterns and the factors associated with them. The group we are concerned with is the Teochew Chinese community, the second largest Chinese group in Singapore.
The Teochew Community in Singapore

The Teochews, sometimes known as the Swatow people, originated from the prefecture of Chaochow in the southeast of China, particularly from eight of the ten districts near the Fujian border. In the early 19th century, the Teochews
371
constituted the largest Chinese group in Singapore. They were, however, an economically rather weak community, compared to the other smaller Chinese groups. The Teochews were more represented in agriculture than in the more profitable trade and commerce. Gambier and pepper plantation seemed to be their main occupation. From the 1850s onwards, the Hokkiens from Fujian in China began to establish themselves as a strong economic power in Singapore. They expanded from petty traders and go-betweens to importers and exporters, manufacturers, and bankers. By the end of the 19th century, the Hokkiens almost monopolised commercial activities in Singapore. Although the Hokkiens and Teochews came from virtually the same geographic area in China and the languages they spoke were mutually comprehensible, being two sub-varieties of the Southern Min dialectal group, the Teochews in Singapore were never in a position to compete with the Hokkiens in terms of economic and social influence. Cheng (1985) reports that the Teochews were generally perceived as conservative and risk-adverse, while the Hokkiens were regarded as more entrepreneurial and self-sufficient. The Hokkien community is now the largest Chinese community in Singapore and the Teochews are the second largest. Nevertheless, the Teochews had a strong bang or clan consciousness. Until the late 1970s, almost all the members of the Teochew community in Singapore belonged to a clan association, usually based on place of origin and surname. As in other Chinese communities, the Teochew clan associations ran a number of Teochew schools where children learnt the Teochew language and cultural customs. The schools were usually in the same buildings as the clan associations, and as such acted as community centres for members of the associations. Although the government has never specifically demanded the closure of clan associations, urbanisation and multi-ethnic living led to the establishment of new organisations such as the Residents Committee in newly-built HDB estates and the government sponsored Citizens Consultative Committees and Community Centres, which have gradually made the clan associations seem redundant. Since the 1980s, clan associations of the Teochew as well as other Chinese communities have reoriented themselves, moving towards pan-Chinese cultural activities such as martial arts, lion dance, folk opera, Chinese calligraphy and ink painting. The dialect schools also gave way to classes on Chinese history and cultural heritage, which are usually conducted in Mandarin. More recently, there seems to be an upsurge of interest in traditional Teochew culture. In June 1995 a new Teochew Cultural Centre was built in Tank Road where Teochew artifacts have been displayed and Teochew operas staged. The Teochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan, the umbrella body of Teochew clan associations in Singapore, organised a Teochew week. The impact of such activities, however, is rather limited, as they have been initiated by the older generations of the Teochew community and while participating in the activities, many young people of Teochew descent no longer identify themselves as Teochews but as Singaporean Chinese or simply Singaporeans.
The Study
The data of the current study were collected by Ng, a native speaker of
372
Teochew and a member of the community, using a combination of participant observation and in-depth interview. We chose to focus on one single domain, namely the family, and investigate variations and change in language use within and across families. The decision to focus on the family domain was based on the rationale that the family is not only a central, and perhaps the most important, unit for social interaction, especially amongst the Chinese, but also a traditionally Teochew speaking domain. As such it would offer an interesting setting for investigating the ongoing language shift process within the Teochew community. The study was made up of 72 speakers (36 male and 36 female) from 17 families of differing socio-economic and educational backgrounds. The families were sampled through personal contacts by Ng. Therefore, no special effort was made to balance the number of speakers in each age-group (see details in Table 7 below). The observation and interview questions focused on the dominant language (defined here as the most frequently used language) versus preferred language in the family domain. The first set of data, given in Table 4, presents the dominant language choice in the family domain.
Table 4 Dominant language choice in the family domain (N = 72)
Dominant language(s) at home Teochew Teochew & Mandarin Mandarin Hokkien Mandarin & English English Total % Teochew No. % 30 55.56 7 12.96 7 12.96 5 9.26 1 1.85 4 7.41 54 (75) Mother Tongue Hokkien Mandarin No. % No. % 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9.09 1 25 5 45.45 3 75 0 0 0 0 4 36.36 0 0 1 9.09 4 11 (5.55) (15.28) English No. % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 100 3 (4.17)
The fact that not all speakers have claimed Teochew to be their mother tongue (defined here as the first language learnt since birth) is very interesting, as we took great care in selecting only those families who identified themselves as native Teochews. It seems to suggest that at least some members of the Teochew community in Singapore regard language and ethnicity as separate. In other words, one could learn languages other than Teochew as mother tongue and use them as the primary language of communication but still claim to be Teochews. Or, to put it more strongly, one can maintain ones ethnic identity without the ethnic language. We shall look at our interviewees specific comments on this issue after we have examined their language choice patterns. As we can see in Table 4, people on the whole use their mother tongue as their primary language of communication in the family domain. This is particularly true for the three speakers who claim English as their mother tongue. All of them use English as the dominant language at home. Three of the four Hokkien mother tongue speakers also use it as the dominant language at home, with one shifting to Mandarin. In contrast, five of the eleven Mandarin mother tongue speakers
373
have shifted towards English, with one using English only as the dominant language at home. One Mandarin mother tongue speaker claims to use Teochew as the dominant language. There are greater variations among the Teochew mother tongue speakers. Of the 54 who claim Teochew as their mother tongue, only 30 (55.56% of native Teochew speakers, 41.67% of the total sample) use it as the dominant language of communication in the family domain. Seven speakers use both Teochew and Mandarin at home. A further seven choose to use Mandarin. One speaker claims to use both Mandarin and English and four English only. What is particularly intriguing, however, is that five of the speakers who claimed Teochew as their mother tongue seem to have shifted their dominant home language to Hokkien, another Chinese dialect which, like Teochew, is not officially recognised. As has been mentioned earlier, Teochew and Hokkien are two closely related, mutually intelligible varieties of the South Min dialectal group, originated in the Fujian province of China. Yet both in Fujian and in Singapore, there are more Hokkien speakers than Teochew speakers and, more significantly perhaps, the Hokkien-speaking communities tend to be economically more powerful than the Teochews. Even in the early days of Singapore when the Teochews outnumbered the Hokkiens, the Hokkiens dominated the more profitable occupations such as trade and commerce, whereas the Teochews were confined to agriculture and other traditional, labour-intensive professions. One of the legacies of the economic history of the two communities seems to be that the Teochew language is often associated with backward traditions, low in prestige and status, and stigmatised with little economic and instrumental value. Such public perception, together with a smaller population, seem to have contributed to the shift to Hokkien among a small number of Teochew mother tongue speakers. One other possibility for some Teochew mother tongue speakers to shift to Hokkien is intermarriage with members of the Hokkien community, although our sample consisted of Teochew families only. As well as dominant language in the family domain, we asked the speakers what language(s) they would prefer to use at home, if they were given a choice. Remarkably, only 12 said Teochew, while 10 speakers said they would prefer both Teochew and Mandarin. Eighteen preferred Mandarin only; four of them were Mandarin mother tongue speakers. Only one Teochew mother tongue speaker preferred Hokkien. A total of 17 said Mandarin and English; nine of them were Teochew mother tongue speakers; four were Hokkien mother tongue speakers, and five English. Eleven speakers said they would prefer to speak English only at home; eight of them were Teochew mother tongue speakers; one Hokkien and two English mother tongue speakers. Details of the preferred languages by the 72 speakers are given in Table 5. The reported differences in the dominant versus preferred language, as revealed in Tables 4 and 5, reflect the speakers attitudes towards their own language choice. In the ethnographic interviews we conducted with the speakers, many claimed that they spoke Teochew purely for pragmatic reasons (e.g. to communicate with elderly family members). They would very much prefer to speak a language of wider communication, such as Mandarin or English. We shall return to this point later.
374
Table 5 Preferred language choice in the family domain (N = 72)

Preferred language(s) at home Teochew Teochew & Mandarin Mandarin Hokkien Mandarin & English English Total % Teochew No. % 12 22.22 10 18.52 14 25.93 1 1.85 9 16.67 8 14.81 54 (75) Mother Tongue Hokkien Mandarin No. % No. % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 36.36 0 0 0 0 3 75 5 45.46 1 25 2 18.18 4 11 (5.55) (15.28) English No. % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 100 3 (4.17)
Although a significant proportion of the speakers reported that they used languages other than Teochew, or would prefer to do so, in the family domain, the figures in Table 4 nevertheless show remarkable maintenance of the mother tongue. The picture is very different, however, if we consider the language choice patterns of speakers of different generations. Table 6 below gives language choice patterns of speakers of three generations, grandparents, parents and children (vertical), when they are interacting with members of their own and other generations (horizontal). Table 6 Patterns of language choice within and across generations
Speaker Interlocutor Grandparents Parents Children Languages % of users Languages % of users Languages % of users spoken spoken spoken T 100 T 100 T 100 T 100 T TM TME H E M TM T M ME H HM E TME 46 26 8 8 8 4 27 23 16 11 7 7 7 2 TM T M TME ME E TME ME E T TE HM HME HE 31 26 19 8 8 8 26 23 21 9 7 7 5 2
Grandparents (2 speakers) Parents (26 speakers)
Children (44 speakers)
T H ME TM
85 6 6 3
T = Teochew; H = Hokkien; M = Mandarin; E = English
375
A number of interesting patterns emerge from Table 6. There is no variation in language choice pattern of the two grandparents in our sample. They are both Teochew monolinguals. They speak only Teochew, whoever the interlocutor may be. Their ability to vary their language choice is clearly constrained by their language proficiency, or lack of it, in languages other than Teochew. In the meantime, there are considerable variations in the language choice patterns of the other two generations and the variations seem to be closely associated with the interlocutor type. Broadly speaking, the use of Teochew decreases as the interlocutor gets younger. All the parents speak only Teochew with the grandparents generation; 46% with their spouse; while only 26% with their children. In contrast, only 85% of the children claim to speak Teochew to the grandparents despite the fact that Teochew is the only language the grandparents understand; 23% of the children claimed to speak only Teochew to their parents, and only 9% to their peers. This set of data seems to suggest that changes in habitual language use have started in the parents generation. In particular, Teochew is no longer transmitted as the primary language of family communication to the children, with only 26% of the parents speaking Teochew exclusively to their children. The main language the parents use to children seems to be Mandarin, and a significant proportion of the parents (altogether 38%) use Mandarin together with other languages with members of their own generation. We can see the result of the changes more clearly in the child generation, as the majority of them speak Mandarin and English with their peers. These findings combined lend support to Fishmans proposition that language shift is very rarely across the board, but differential, being more rapid and forgoing in some connections and in some sub-populations than in others (1991: 45). In order to the language shift which is taking place in the Teochew Chinese community in Singapore, we have examined a range of individual as well as family factors. Here, we shall look at age and educational level of individual speakers and economic status and religion of the families. Table 7 presents the use of Teochew by speakers of different age groups.
Table 7 Use of Teochew by age-grouping (figures in brackets indicate percentage of mother tongue speakers)
Age 1120 2130 3140 4150 5160 60 & over Total No. 16 27 2 12 9 6 72 Mother tongue 0 27 1 11 9 6 54 Dominant language 0 12 1 9 9 6 37 (0) (44) (100) (82) (100) (100) Preferred language 0 4 0 6 7 5 22 (0) (15) (0) (55) (78) (83)
376
Recall that there were 54 speakers in our sample who claimed Teochew as their mother tongue. Thirty-seven of them use Teochew as the dominant language at home. These include 30 who use Teochew only and seven who use Teochew with Mandarin. Twenty-two speakers said they would prefer to use Teochew at home, including 12 who preferred Teochew only and 10 Teochew with Mandarin. The age-related differences in the dominant and preferred language choice patterns are quite striking. All those above the age of 50 use Teochew as the dominant language at home, but only 44% of the speakers between 21 and 30 years of age speak Teochew as the dominant language in the family domain. Even among the 4150-year-olds, two Teochew mother tongue speakers have ceased to use it as the dominant language at home. The preferred language shows even greater contrasts between the ages. While there are speakers in every age group who would prefer to use languages other than Teochew in the family domain, only 15% of the 2130-year-olds said they would prefer the ethnic language. These figures confirm the general trend in Singapore society today that younger generations have given up their ethnic languages and adopted the national language such as Mandarin and English as their primary language of communication, even in the family domain. Table 8 gives the use of Teochew by speakers of different educational levels. Again, we focus on Teochew mother tongue speakers.
Table 8 Use of Teochew by educational level (figures in brackets indicate percentage of mother tongue speakers)
Educational level Below primary Primary Secondary & postsecondary Tertiary & above Total No. 8 14 32 18 72 Mother tongue 5 12 23 14 54 Dominant 5 9 17 6 37 (100) (75) (74) (43) 5 9 8 0 22 Preferred (100) (75) (35) (0)
With regard to dominant language in the family domain, on the whole the higher ones educational level is, the less dominant is Teochew in ones family communication. The differences though are not as sharp as the preferred choice of language. An average of 82% of those at or below primary school level said they would prefer Teochew; only 35% of those at secondary and post-secondary level preferred Teochew, and none at all at tertiary level or above. This is hardly surprising, given that the educational policies in Singapore since the 1980s have quite explicitly demanded the replacement of ethnic languages with Mandarin and English. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see that language planning in the public domain (e.g. schools) has now affected language practice in the domestic domain. In addition to individual variables such as age and educational level, we have examined economic status and religion of the families. Figure 1 gives the corporate choice of dominant language by the 17 families according to their

Over 4000 (2) 2001-4000 (11) Below 2000 (4) 0 1 2 3 4 English Mandarin Teochew
377
Figure 1 Dominant language according to family economic status
economic status (as judged by their monthly household income in Singapore dollars). We can divide the 17 families we have studied into three sub-groups according to their household income: the high-income group (those with over S$4000 per month (N = 2)), the middle income group (between S$2000 and S$4000 per month (N = 11)), and the low-income gruop (S$2000 or less per month). It should be noted that this division is purely for the purpose of our study, and does not in anyway reflect the socio-economic divisions in Singapore society at large. As we can see in Figure 1, the two high-income families are both English dominant, while the four low income families are Teochew dominant. While we do not suggest a causal relationship between language and economic status, the fact of the matter is that higher income families in Singapore have shifted significantly towards English. It has already been documented that many Singaporean families are now bringing up their children speaking English as their mother tongue and that such families tend to be of higher economic status (e.g. Gupta, 1994). The middle-income families in our sample, in contrast, show quite a range of variations. Four families claimed to be Teochew dominant, and four Mandarin dominant, while three claimed to be English dominant. It seems that with these middle-income families, other factors may be more important in determining their language choice patterns than their economic status. We have also examined the preferred language of the families, which is presented in Figure 2. It is particularly interesting if we compare this figure with Figure 1 above. The two high-income, English-dominant families both said they would prefer to use Mandarin as the language of family communication, whereas the four low-income, Teochew-dominant families preferred English. It seems that all the lower income families aspire to be English dominant, because, rightly or wrongly, they associated the English language with higher socio-economic status. For those who have already achieved higher socio-economic status, Mandarin seems to have some additional, perhaps unique, symbolic value. They would rather speak Mandarin than English as their dominant language, or at least they say they would. We shall see the speakers comments on this issue shortly.
378
Over 4000 (2) 2001-4000 (11) Below 2000 (4) 0
English Mandarin Teochew
Figure 2 Preferred language according to family economic status
The middle-income families in our sample once again show considerable variations in their preferred language, with three families preferring to maintain Teochew as their dominant language of family communication, three preferring Mandarin and five wanting to change to English. The general trend, however, is to move away from the ethnic language to the languages of wider communication, even in the family domain. Last but not least, we examined the relationship between religion and language choice of the family.
Table 9 Family language choice according to religion (N = 17)
Religion Traditional Chinese religions* Christianity Free-thinkers Total No. 11 4 2 17 Dominant language T M E 7 4 0 0 1 8 0 0 4 4 1 5 Preferred language M E 3 6 2 0 5 2 1 9
T 2 0 1 3
T = Teochew; M = Mandarin; E = English. *The so-called Chinese religions are not always clearly defined. The traditional Chinese religious practices usually contain elements of Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucian teaching.
As we can see in Table 9, two of the 17 families were free-thinkers, four identified themselves as Christians, and 11 said they believed in some kind of Chinese religion. Looking at the dominant language, it seems that religion does play an important role in the families choice of language, as seven out of 11 of the traditional Chinese believers used Teochew and four used Mandarin as their dominant language at home. None used English. The four Christian families all used English as the dominant language. The preferred language presents a complex picture, as two of the English-dominant Christian families said they would rather use Mandarin for family communication, and there is a clear preference for English among the traditional Chinese believers. We can only speculate that these families associated Teochew with traditional, ethnic culture, whereas English was seen as a symbol of modernity.
379
The analyses so far have revealed greater complexities in language choice patterns than we had expected for a relatively small sample of speakers in a single domain. They highlight the need for the greater contextual specificity and more refined measures which Fishman has called for, measures that can focus upon particular combinations of degree and location of bilingualism (Fishman, 1989; 1991). It is clear from the data we have presented that the language environment in Singapore has drastically changed in recent years and that the linguistic repertoires of families and individuals have been significantly altered. Officially recognised national languages which were not associated with any ethnic groups within the population have now moved into the traditionally dialect-speaking domestic territory, a clear sign of language shift. This shift is accompanied by rising living standard and is closely and intricately associated with such factors as speaker age, educational level and religion (see similar findings in a recent, larger survey conducted by Chew, et al, 1996). At various points of our discussion, we alluded to the speakers attitudes towards languages and language varieties. We shall now comment specifically on this issue, using data collected through ethnographic interviews.
Language Attitude and Language Shift

We have commented earlier in the paper on the Singaporean Governments language policies to promote English as the language of international contact, modern technology and high living standard and Mandarin as the language of Chinese cultural heritage and Asian connections. The social system of Singapore has a pronounced degree of centralisation and the government has never been reluctant to engage in extensive social engineering to bring about social change. Nevertheless, abundant examples show that ordinary people will not readily accept the governments policies unless they see some personal gain. The strategy of the Singaporean government to implement its language policies has been to emphasise the socio-economic benefits English and Mandarin could bring to individuals and their families. The childrens upbringing and welfare are at the forefront of families consideration. The Singaporean Government has gone all out to convince its people that knowing English and Mandarin is an invaluable avenue of educational success of their children and upward social mobility of the family. This strategy seems to have borne fruit. A number of parents we have interviewed commented specifically on the importance of English and Mandarin for their childrens future. The following remarks by one of the parents is quite typical: Actually when my first child was born, my husband and I used to speak Teochew to her. But later we switched to Mandarin, because of the Speak Mandarin campaign. Also, we decided to send her to an English-medium 1 school, better prospects mah I was afraid my daughter couldnt cope in a bilingual environment. So must prepare her first, Must teach her Mandarin and English. Cant wait till she cant catch up in school. When asked why they thought they had to speak English and Mandarin, the majority of the speakers repeated the government line that they were the
380
languages of wider communication and they would help provide better opportunities for education and employment in the future. While cynical outsider observers may question the genuineness of these statements, the fact of the matter is that a Singaporean born after the war who does not speak English is widely regarded as socially handicapped; his or her contribution to the nation is very limited. Singaporean Chinese who do not speak Mandarin are seen as disloyal to their Chinese ancestry and are culturally deprived. Almost every adult and child in Singapore can quote at least one example of somebody, genuine or fictional, who is a failure, an outcast, because of an inability to speak English and Mandarin. In a society which is obsessed with success, loyalty and filial piety, it is hardly surprising perhaps that the language policies of the Singapore Government have been implemented almost exactly as it intended. As well as successfully transforming peoples attitudes towards Mandarin and English as the language of wider communication, the Singaporean Government has made continued efforts to eradicate the use of dialects in both public and domestic domains. Apart from associating them with under-development and under-achievement, the government has presented dialects as a key fragmenting factor which would damage the Chinese population as a whole and lead to social and ethnic conflicts (see also Kuo & Jernudd, 1994). It is now widely accepted that Mandarin should be the language of the Singaporean Chinese. This leads to an important and highly complex issue the inter-relationship between language and identity. Earlier studies of LMLS repeatedly emphasised the intrinsic links between language and ethnic identity. One of the reasons for maintaining a particular language was, it was argued, that it was an essential part of its speakers identity. More recently, leading researchers in the field of LMLS have questioned such simplistic formulation (see especially Edwards, 1994; Fishman, 1989). In our study, we specifically asked the speakers to comment on the relationship between their ethnic identity and their apparent shift towards Mandarin and English. Bearing in mind that we only selected those families who identified themselves as Teochews, an overwhelming 94.44% believed that whether or not one could speak Teochew had little to do with ones ethnic identity. The other 5.56% (four speakers) thought it would strengthen their Teochew identity if they spoke Teochew, but it was not essential. During the interviews, we heard over and over again comments like the following: I dont really feel anything if the Teochew language is lost. I dont have much opportunity to speak Teochew anyway. I think it is sufficient to be able to speak Mandarin and English. I am a Teochew. Thats that. I was born a Teochew. I cant change it. I dont speak the language but I am still a Teochew. The Teochew language has not much use in society. So why waste time learning it? These remarks seem to suggest that the speakers put the instrumental value of a language above the sentimental or symbolic value. As the public domains (e.g. school, public transaction, etc.) are now dominated by Mandarin and English, the majority of speakers do not see any need to hang on to Teochew. As for their Teochew identity, many speakers commented that there were other, more important indicators, such as family descent, food, and festivals. One of the
381
interviewees pointed to a traditional Teochew handicraft in her bookcase and said, Thats Teochew. I love it. Im a Teochew, even though I dont speak the language. Such pragmatic views of language and ethnic identity are also shown in the young childrens remarks. One of the children said, I am more comfortable speaking English. All my friends speak English. At home I use Mandarin to communicate with my parents. My Teochew is hopeless. I can forget about using that language; always get stuck halfway. But I try when I talk to my grandparents, because they cant understand English. If my grandparents are not here, I wont speak Teochew at all.
Another child commented: I speak a mixture of Teochew, Hokkien, Mandarin and English, anything, to my grandparents. I try to let them understand. I learnt some Hokkien from friends. They understand Hokkien. So I sometimes speak Hokkien to them. It seems inevitable that attitudes towards the various languages as represented in these remarks have contributed to the language shift from Teochew to Mandarin and English in the Teochew Chinese community in Singapore.
Summary and Conclusion

Since the late 1970s, Singapore has undergone large-scale language shifts from a multiplicity of ethnic languages to a selective, small number of national languages. These changes have been accompanied by phenomenal socio-economic development of the country. Our purpose in this paper has been to elucidate the relationship between changes in habitual language use of individual speakers and the economic, social, and cultural change processes at the macro-societal level. As different ethnic groups and sub-groups have been affected differently by the language shift, we have examined in some detail the case of the Teochew Chinese community, the second largest Chinese group in Singapore. On the whole, the Teochew Chinese community has moved away from its own ethnic language to the officially recognised national languages. Mandarin and English are now used extensively in the family domain, which was previously occupied by Teochew. The extent to which individuals in the community have changed their habitual language use varies considerably accordingly to a range of factors. The following is a summary of the key factors which have contributed to the language shift process in the Teochew community, which we have grouped under four headings institutional, status, sub-cultural, and sociocultural.
Institutional factors Government policies Demolition of ethnic enclaves through the physical integration of all the ethnic groups in public housing. Speak Mandarin Campaign to promote the use of Mandarin to unify the
382
otherwise fragmented Chinese community. Promoting English as the language of wider communication. Mass media support Newspapers, television, radio and other communication networks heavily dominated by the official languages, but particularly English. Clan associations Reorientation of roles and activities of the clan associations, leading to the promotion of pan-Chinese culture. Closure of dialect schools and establishment of cultural classes in Mandarin.
Status Factors Socio-historical and socio-economic status Weak economic power and numerical strength of Teochews, relative to other Chinese groups in Singapore. Teochew has been associated with backward traditions. Language status Stigmatised language with no economic or instrumental value. Low prestige and status. Subcultural factors Age and generational differences Teochew is not transmitted as the main language to children. Increasingly more younger speakers shifting to Mandarin and English. Educational level Better educated younger generations are becoming Mandarin/English bilingual and speaking national languages. Socio-economic status High income families seldom use Teochew. Relatively low income families aspire to speak Mandarin and English instead of Teochew. Sociocultural factors Attitudes Pragmatic attitude towards the instrumental value of English and Mandarin resulting in the lack of Teochew transmission. Separation between language and ethnic identity. It is important to remember that the Teochews in Singapore are not a minority group. They are the second largest group within the Chinese community which dominates the Singapore population. However, as our study has highlighted, the social, political and economic environment of the country as a whole has changed so much in the last two decades, largely as a result of the governments social engineering, even the majority groups feel they have to give up their traditional ways of living, including their ethnic language, in order to maintain an influential role in the society. As the worlds social, political and economic patterns continue to change,
383
LMLS will continue to be an important topic for academic researchers as well as for ordinary people. It is clear from the existing literature that some communities will maintain their traditional language patterns better than other and that each community is different with its own significant factors relatable to the LMLS process. Any support we can give to the communities that wish to maintain their languages needs to be based on careful considerations of these factors. While we are not optimistic about the future of Teochew in Singapore, we hope that our study can help alert other communities about the various factors, and the combinations of them, which lead to LMLS.
Acknowledgements This paper wawritten as a result of a joint research project between the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK and the National Institute of Education, Singapore, on language maintenance and language shift in Singapore. The authors wish to thank the British Council for their financial support. S. Gopinathan has been instrumental in setting up the project and has contributed much to its planning and administration. Anthea Gupta, Xu Daming, Paul Foulkes and Zhu Hua have read and commented on earlier drafts of the paper. Their support is gratefully acknowledged here. Notes
1. Mah is a Chinese utterance particle, here functioning similarly as the English tag question isnt it? or you know? This and the other quotes which follow have been transcribed according to the way the interviewees said them, which were recorded on tape.)
References
Baker, Colin (1993) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cheng, Lim-Keak (1985) Social Change and the Chinese in Singapore. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Chew, Cheng Hai, Xu, Daming and Chen, Songcen (1996) A survey of language use and language attitudes in the Singapore Chinese community. Paper presented at the Sociolinguistics Symposium 11, Cardiff. Manuscript available from the authors at the Centre for Chinese Language and Culture, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Clarke, Louise (1992) Within a stones throw: Eurasion enclaves. In M. Braga-Blake (ed.) Singapore Eurasions (pp. 5165). Singapore: Timese Editions. Conklin, N. and Lourie, M. (1983) A Host of Tongues. New York: The Free Press. Dorian, Nancy (ed.) (1989) Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dow, J.R. (ed.) (1987) Language maintenance and language shift revisited II. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, Special issue no. 68. Edwards, John (1994) Multilingualism. London: Routledge. Fase, W., Jaspaet, K. and Kroon, S. (eds) (1992) Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fishman, J.A. (1964) Language maintenance and language shift as a field of inquiry. Linguistics 9, 3270. Fishman, J.A. (1989) Language and Ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J.A. (1991) Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gopinathan, S. (1988) Bilingualism and bilingual education in Singapore. In C. Bratt
384
Paulston (ed.) International Handbook of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education (pp. 391404). New York: Greenwood Press. Gupta, A. F. (1994) The Step-Tongue: Childrens English in Singapore. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gupta, A.F. and Siew, Pui Yeok (1995) Language shift in a Singapore family. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 16 (4), 30114. Heller, M. (1994) Crosswords: Language, Education and Ethnicity in French Ontario. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kuo, E.C.Y. and Jernudd, B. (1994) Balancing macro- and micro-sociolinguistic perspectives in language management: The case of Singapore. In S. Gopinathan, A. Pakir, W.K. Ho and V. Saravanan (eds) Language, Society and Education in Singapore (pp. 2546). Singapore: Times Academic Press. Romaine, S. (1992) Language, Education and Development: Urban and Rural Tok Pisin in Papua New Guinea. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Williamson, R.C. and ven Eerde, J.A. (eds) (1980) Language maintenance and language shift. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, Special Issue No. 25.

Language Shift in The Teochew Community in Singapore

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Language Shift in The Teochew Community in Singapore

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

This article was downloaded by: [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] On: 15 March 2012, At: 03:47 Publisher:

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development