“You sound like you’re from Raffles!”: A Closer Look at School Prestige as a Social Class...

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.

http://www.acetutors.com.sg/Secondary-School-Ranking-2012-Based-On-PSLE-Intake

http://www.acetutors.com.sg/Secondary-School-Ranking-2012-Based-On-PSLE-Intake

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ah_Beng



http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.sg/2012/03/moe-created-elite-schools-now-asks.html

http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.sg/2012/03/moe-created-elite-schools-now-asks.html

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.


http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?p=303375

http://tomorrow.sg/trackback/url/5631

http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/forum/2011/02/singapores-meritocratic-education-system-promotes-social-mobility.php#social-immobility

http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/forum/2011/02/singapores-meritocratic-education-system-promotes-social-mobility.php#social-immobility



47

Davie, S. (2010, April 12). From Poly to NUS Medicine. The Straits Times. Retrieved

October 15, 2012, from


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


http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/elite-school-behaviour-environment-very-different-neighbourhood-schools-3765410-9.html



http://forum.brightsparks.com.sg/showthread.php?t=352

http://sgforums.com/forums/2155/topics/320578



http://repository.nie.edu.sg/jspui/bitstream/10497/1212/1/SyedMohamedAbdulGaffoor.pdf

http://repository.nie.edu.sg/jspui/bitstream/10497/1212/1/SyedMohamedAbdulGaffoor.pdf

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

http://geraldgiam.sg/2009/11/my-struggle-with-chinese/

http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2009/Goh.pdf

http://www.transitioning.org/2012/08/30/7-reasons-why-singaporeans-are-becoming-dangerously-xenophobic/

http://www.transitioning.org/2012/08/30/7-reasons-why-singaporeans-are-becoming-dangerously-xenophobic/

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/elite-school-behaviour-environment-very-different-neighbourhood-schools-3765410.html

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/elite-school-behaviour-environment-very-different-neighbourhood-schools-3765410.html

http://intelligentsingaporean.wordpress.com/wee-shu-min/

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1225528/1/.html


49

Kvc_king. (2007, December 18). Re: What defines a neighbourhood school? [Online


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.


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.



Lim, E. (2012, January 14). Coming to Terms with being "Elite". [Web Log Post].


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

http://talkback.stomp.com.sg/forums/showthread.php?t=29777

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/ceas/events/conferences/gdp/abstracts/g/papers/michael_h_lee_paper.doc

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/ceas/events/conferences/gdp/abstracts/g/papers/michael_h_lee_paper.doc


http://arafflesinstitutionlife.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/coming-to-terms-with-being-elite-singapore/

http://arafflesinstitutionlife.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/coming-to-terms-with-being-elite-singapore/

https://repository.ntu.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10356/13770/NIE-THESES_151.pdf

https://repository.ntu.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10356/13770/NIE-THESES_151.pdf

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].


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].


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.


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


http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=27702&p=646

298&hilit=fuhua#p646298

http://www.marsilingsec.moe.edu.sg/marsiling/main/make_your_mark/achievement_day_2007.html

http://www.marsilingsec.moe.edu.sg/marsiling/main/make_your_mark/achievement_day_2007.html

http://www.marsilingsec.moe.edu.sg/marsiling/main/about/school_history.html

http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php&t=17816




http://melodily.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/once-a-rafflesian-always-a-rafflesian/

http://www3.moe.edu.sg/corporate/contactonline/2005/Issue15/glossary/glossary.htm

http://www3.moe.edu.sg/corporate/contactonline/2005/Issue15/glossary/glossary.htm

http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/files/2011/moa-annex-a2.pdf

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20120913-371221.html

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20120913-371221.html

http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=27702&p=646298&hilit=fuhua#p646298

http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=27702&p=646298&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


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].



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.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nsk

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Proud-to-be-from-a-Neighbourhood-School-in-Singapore/104563202923423

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Proud-to-be-from-a-Neighbourhood-School-in-Singapore/104563202923423

http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2004/05/raffles_junior_.html

http://blog.nus.edu.sg/el32512011/2011/03/03/nhsk/




52

Sarah_onering. (2007, May 13). Now an ACSian, forever an ACSian. [Photo Caption].


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.



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.

pdf

Shaber. (2011, July 5). Re: SCGS vs Cresent [sic] Girls. [Online forum comment].


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].


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.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/78346542@N00/648183599/

http://www.littlespeck.com/content/education/CTrendsEdu-040215.htm



http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10635/34344/Chris%20Selvaraj.pdf

http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10635/34344/Chris%20Selvaraj.pdf

http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=22964&p=470437&hilit=crescent+girls+school+elite#p470437

http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=22964&p=470437&hilit=crescent+girls+school+elite#p470437



http://sg.news.yahoo.com/moe-scraps-banding-in-secondary-schools-.html

http://www.spring.gov.sg/QualityStandards/be/Documents/BEAW/SQA_RI_2011_Summary_Report.pdf

http://www.spring.gov.sg/QualityStandards/be/Documents/BEAW/SQA_RI_2011_Summary_Report.pdf

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].


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.

pdf

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



http://www.perspectivist.com/politics/education/a-special-assistance-plan-for-the-elite

http://www.perspectivist.com/politics/education/a-special-assistance-plan-for-the-elite

http://www.icphs2011.hk/resources/OnlineProceedings/RegularSession/Tan/Tan.pdf

http://www.icphs2011.hk/resources/OnlineProceedings/RegularSession/Tan/Tan.pdf

http://x-juveniledelinquent.xanga.com/694914478/item/

http://weikiatblog.blogspot.sg/2006/10/looking-back-home.html

http://www.edupoll.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2520&sid=3d933c0ae6c4028c804df768d1ec4e0b

http://www.edupoll.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2520&sid=3d933c0ae6c4028c804df768d1ec4e0b

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.

http://www.tremeritus.com/2010/11/13/wee-shu-min-elitism-scandal-revisited/

http://utwt.blogspot.sg/2012/03/tuition-obsession-singaporean.html

http://repository.nie.edu.sg/jspui/bitstream/10497/3339/1/CRP22and23_04AL_Conf08%28AERA%29_VaishTan.pdf

http://repository.nie.edu.sg/jspui/bitstream/10497/3339/1/CRP22and23_04AL_Conf08%28AERA%29_VaishTan.pdf

http://www.derekwee.blogspot.sg/

http://gpish.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/a-school-by-any-other-name/

http://gpish.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/a-school-by-any-other-name/

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

64

Appendix E: Instruction Slideshow Sample

“You sound like you’re from Raffles!”: A Closer Look at School Prestige as a Social Class...

Documents

Transcript of “You sound like you’re from Raffles!”: A Closer Look at School Prestige as a Social Class...