Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:07:58.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Characteristic lexical choices in Singaporean English

A discussion of the ongoing lexical changes in Singaporean English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2012

Extract

In a widely cited paper, Schneider (2003) offers a model of the developmental phases undergone by new Englishes. One important feature of this model is reference to exonormative and endonormative standards, and Schneider suggests (2003: 264) that Singapore currently finds itself at stage four on this developmental journey – a stage at which local norms may be beginning to gain acceptance and literary creativity in English by local writers is abundant. In this paper I would like to provide a few examples of distinctively Singaporean use of English and raise the question of when (if ever) Singapore will move to an endonormative, Singaporean English, as the standard variety taught in schools.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

British National Corpus. Online through Brigham Young University at http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/. (Accessed November 28, 2011).Google Scholar
Graddol, D. 2006. English Next. UK: British Council.Google Scholar
Nihalani, P., Tongue, R. & Hosali, P. 1979. Indian and British English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, B. 2009. ‘English railway announcements in Singapore.’ English Today, 25(2), 40–2.Google Scholar
Saraceni, M. 2009. ‘Relocating English: towards a new paradigm for English in the world.’ Language and Intercultural Communication, 9(3), 175–86.Google Scholar
Schneider, E. 2003. ‘The dynamics of new Englishes: from identity construction to dialect birth.’ Language, 79(2), 233–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar