3.1 Introduction
The varieties of English in Malaysia and Singapore must be studied against the backdrop of the very complex linguistic environments in the region that have arisen out of ethnic, socioeconomic and educational factors as well as language policies adopted by both countries. Both countries share common historical roots before independence in 1957 and 1965, respectively, and as such, earlier scholars used to classify the English spoken in this region as one variety, Singapore and Malayan English (SME) (Platt and Weber Reference Platt and Weber1980). Post-independent Malaysia has positioned English as a second language (Asmah Reference Asmah, Low and Hashim2012: 160) while Singapore has moved towards an ‘English-based bilingualism policy’ (Tickoo Reference Tickoo, Fishman, Conrad and Rubal-Lopez1996: 438). Consequently, the differences in the language policies of both countries have impacted the development of English in both countries.
This chapter essentially focuses on the linguistic policies adopted post-2010 since Low (Reference Low2010) has traced the historical development of English in Singapore and Malaysia and examined the different post-independent language policies leading to the emergence of two distinct varieties of English.
The present chapter briefly traces the historical background of the development of the use of different languages in Malaysia and Singapore from the arrival of the Portuguese, Dutch and British colonizers in the sixteenth and seventeenth century through to the post-independence era. The chapter then focuses on the development of the varieties of English in the region from their shared common beginnings up to when they were considered distinct varieties. The different language policies adopted in both countries in the post-independent period, especially post-2010, will be reviewed to shed light on how the distinctive varieties of English in both countries have emerged. The chapter will then highlight latest research on the phonological features of English in both countries before ending with suggestions for future research that can help elucidate further the development of English in both countries.
3.2 Shared beginnings
The favourable geographical position of the Malay Peninsula allowed it to be a maritime trade hub from as early as the eighth century. This robust position attracted not just different ethnic groups to settle in Malaya but also led to the advent of European traders, which led to colonization later. The Portuguese came in 1511, the Dutch in 1641 and the British in 1786. The linguistic footprints left by the Portuguese and Dutch may be considered to be minimal and is evidenced mainly in the creole known as Kristang spoken by the Eurasian community who are descendants of the Portuguese and Dutch who married local people. English has had a greater presence in both countries as the educational system allowed for the learning of the language formally. In the nineteenth century, large-scale migration from South China and India was encouraged by the colonial government and the immigrants settled mainly in Singapore, Malacca and Penang. Both countries shared similar social, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds. However, from the time Malaysia and Singapore gained their independence in 1957 and 1965, respectively, they have moved in different directions with regard to language policies. Malaysia chose to have Malay as the national language and consequently the language of instruction in national schools as it is the language of the majority race while Singapore chose English as the co-official language, along with Malay, Mandarin and Tamil and later made it the sole medium of instruction (henceforth MOI) in all schools from 1987 onwards. This crucial difference in policy stance and direction marks the beginning of a divergence from each other in the development and use of English in Singapore and Malaysia.
3.3 English in post-independent Malaysia
It has been observed by previous scholars working on English in Malaysia that the positions of the different languages in Malaysia, English, Malay and the minority languages are in a ‘dichotomous sociopolitical situation’ (Kärchner- Ober, Mukherjee and David Reference Karchner-Ober, Mukherjee, David, Mukherjee and David2011: 174). Additionally, in the post-independent period, the language policies for Malaysia’s minority languages which include the Indian languages (Tamil and Malayalam, for example) and Chinese dialects (Hokkien, Cantonese and Teochew, for example) have become marginalized in favour of either Malay or English and to some extent Mandarin Chinese among the Chinese population as these languages are perceived to offer social or economic advantages. The complex relationship between politics, economic and social needs has resulted in a linguistic dilemma due to the need to balance the importance of nation-building and the pragmatic need to prepare Malaysians to be competitive in the global arena that uses English as an international language. This dilemma has resulted in ‘shifting policies’ with regard to the use of English for educational purposes (Azirah and Leitner Reference Hashim and Leitner2014).
The language policies or government decisions that have had a major bearing on English in Malaysia are:
1. The Razak report (1956) and Education Ordinance (1957)
2. The Education Bill (1995)
3. Teaching of Maths and Science in English (2003) (Pengajarandan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik Dalam Bahasa Inggeris, PPSMI)
4. To uphold Bahasa Malaysia, to strengthen the English language (‘Memartabatkan Bahasa Malaysia, Memperkukuh Bahasa Inggeris’, MBMMBI) (2010)
Quick snapshots of the main recommendations of these policies will be provided herewith.
Upon gaining independence, Malaysia pursued the twin goals of building a strong sense of national identity and national unity/cohesiveness signaled via the implementation of the language policies of the country (Azirah Reference Hashim2009). Malay was promoted as the MOI in schools following the Education Ordinance (1957), which was based on the recommendations of the Razak report. Malay as MOI was phased in gradually from 1968 starting from Standard One (first grade) in primary schools. By 1983, English gradually became far less important and was just a subject to be learnt at school. There was not even a need to obtain a pass in English in the national examination known as the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) taken at the end of secondary education. Vernacular schools known as National Type schools were allowed to function at the primary school level but these schools continued to have either Mandarin or Tamil as the MOI with Malay and English as compulsory subjects (Phan, Kho and Chng Reference Phan, Kho and Chng2013). Students from the National Type schools switched to mainstream schools at the secondary level or moved to private schools using English as MOI if they could afford the school fees (Asmah Reference Asmah, Low and Hashim2012). Students from Chinese National Type schools also had the option of continuing their secondary school education at Chinese Independent schools where the MOI was Mandarin. The Chinese Independent schools are private schools which have a different syllabus from the national curriculum and students in these schools are prepared to sit for a different end of secondary education examination, called the United Examination Certificate (UEC). With the national language policy in education actively promoting the use of Malay as the MOI, Malay gained prominence in official domains and was used for purposes of official governmental administration and for official state ceremonies. However, in the private sector, due to the existence of private schools that continued to use English as the MOI, English continued to be the de facto official language within the private sector.
The 1980s saw the advent and establishment of many multinational companies in Malaysia, leading to a need for skilled workers who are able to communicate in English for purposes of carrying out international trade and businesses (Phan, Kho and Chng Reference Phan, Kho and Chng2013). Malaysia’s labour and infrastructure costs were considered low by international standards and still are and this accounts for why many multinational companies have decided to locate their offices and factories in Malaysia. In 1995, the government introduced the Education Bill which allowed for the teaching of technical subjects in Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) in English. Following this, the Private Higher Education Institute Act in 1996 allowed for the use of English in twinning programmes between a Malaysian institute and a foreign university.
The next major language policy change was introduced in 2003. This involved changing the MOI of Mathematics and Science in schools to English. The government felt that the change was necessary in order to fulfill Malaysia’s vision of becoming an industrialized country by 2020. English, being an international language, was seen as key to helping Malaysia to realize this vision as it is the language of international trade and business. However, the implementation of PPSMI met with many challenges and this has been documented by other scholars (Phan, Kho and Chng Reference Phan, Kho and Chng2013). First, it was not legislated as a real change in language policy because, officially, Malay was still the main MOI for the national education system. Second, PPSMI (Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik Dalam Bahasa Inggeris) was a policy that met with resistance from the Chinese schools (see Gill Reference Gill2007 for a fuller account). Finally, some Malay non-governmental organizations and teachers in schools were not able to deliver the content of their courses in English because of their own limited proficiencies in the language. As a result of these difficulties, the PPSMI policy was reversed in 2009 and subsequently the MBMMBI policy, which adopted a much broader approach to English, was announced in 2010. It was also announced that by 2016, a pass in English will be made compulsory for the SPM examinations. The Ministry of Education later announced on 19 August 2015 that the decision will be put on hold indefinitely to give teachers and students more time to prepare for this (Khor Reference Khor2015).
3.4 Malaysia’s response to the challenge of nation-building and global competitiveness after 2010
The Malaysian linguistic landscape has seen many exciting changes in the last four years and it is important to discuss some of these latest policy changes and shifts in strategic directions. An analysis of the different language policy changes shows that the policies appear to promote the supremacy of one language over another and there does not appear to be a mid-way compromise position where two or more languages co-exist with fairly equal status assigned. English appears to be viewed as a direct competitor to Malay rather than a complementary language to enhance the nation’s global competitiveness (Kärchner-Ober, Mukherjee and David Reference Karchner-Ober, Mukherjee, David, Mukherjee and David2011). The government appears to be conscious of the need to put in place policies to enable the citizens to be competitive in the global arena but faces the dilemma of balancing that with the need to preserve a strong national identity which they associate to be tied to the predominance of the Malay language. At the same time, some factors in recent years, particularly in Higher Education, have appeared to favour language policies that promote English. Global reform in terms of education has meant that rankings such as QS World University and Times Higher Education rankings have influenced the actions and decisions of Malaysian universities as well as the Ministry of Education since these rankings are very often used as indicators by potential students selecting their universities for pursuing further education (Azirah and Leitner Reference Hashim and Leitner2014). To boost rankings, universities need to ensure that they have good facilities as well as the ability to attract foreign talent (staff and students) and have faculty that publish widely in academic journals or contribute significantly to academia. The majority of these scientific journals are in English. The push towards higher university rankings has meant that there is a need to have staff and students who are proficient in English as well as to adopt English as the MOI since international staff especially will not be able to deliver content instruction in Malay. Driven by Malaysia’s strong desire to be an education hub, policies have been amended so that foreign institutions such as Monash University, Nottingham University and Heriot-Watt University can set up branch campuses and function effectively.
While Malaysia has embraced language policies that focus on creating and preserving a national identity, resulting in the lack of emphasis on English, the reality is that English is still very much needed as the working language if Malaysia aspires to have a workforce that enables the country to achieve the status of being a developed country. The lack of proficiency in the English language of Malaysian IHL graduates is evident as the lack of employability, especially among graduates from public universities, has become a cause of concern for the government. The National Graduate Employability Blue Print 2012–2017 cites a number of reasons why graduates are not employed and lack of proficiency in English is the top reason given by the employers for not employing a graduate (Ministry of Higher Education 2012: 9). The document goes on to suggest actions to be taken to ensure that graduates develop the necessary skills but stops short of advocating action to be taken to improve the English proficiency level of students. There appears to be awareness on the part of the policy makers that there is a gap between the level of English proficiency the school system prepares them for and the actual English proficiency expected in the workplace.
In response to the different challenges faced, the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025 was formulated. As expressed by the prime minister in the foreword of the preliminary report of the policy, the government recognizes the need to transform the educational system in order to remain competitive in the global arena (Ministry of Education 2012). Reference was made to PISA 2007 results (Programme for International Student Assessment) where the average Malaysian students’ score was in the bottom-third for literacy. This was in contrast to Singapore, which emerged in the top five in PISA 2009 and again in PISA 2012. The Blueprint makes reference to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and has set the target of between B2 (vantage level) and C1 (effective operational efficiency) for English upon completing secondary school education (Azirah and Leitner Reference Hashim and Leitner2014). The target level of achievement in Europe is higher, at C2 (mastery). More recently, in 2014, the Minister of Education announced that a pass in English will be made compulsory for all students at public universities (Mun Reference Mun2014).
The Malaysian government’s move to reverse the policy of having English as the MOI for Mathematics and Science and instead to have it taught as a ‘strong and compulsory’ subject right up to university level (Azirah and Leitner Reference Hashim and Leitner2014: 24) appears to be positive, given the constant dilemma Malaysia has in balancing between preserving national identity through the dominance of the Malay language and looking after the national interest via using English to connect successfully with the rest of the world.
3.5 English in post-independent Singapore to the present
Singapore’s post-independent language policy scene is a lot more stable compared to Malaysia and the brevity of this section compared to the previous one reflects this. Since the 1960s, Singapore has practised a policy of English-knowing bilingualism (English and mother tongue) as English was considered essential for economic survival (Gopinathan Reference Gopinathan, Gopinathan, Pakir, Kam and Saravanan1998: 20) while the preservation of the mother tongue was seen as an essential link to traditional culture (Pakir Reference Pakir, Choon, Pakir and Kiong2004).
When Singapore and Malaysia established their independence from British colonial rule, there was a brief period when both countries functioned administratively as a merged country and the period was known as ‘the merger’, namely, from 1963 to 1965. This merger was short-lived, partly due to the ideological differences in terms of multiculturalism and multilingualism. Singapore, which supports four co-official languages viz. Malay, Mandarin Chinese, Tamil and English, differed from Malaysia, which supported Malay as the sole national language. Singapore practised a policy of pragmatism; as the Chinese were the largest ethnic group in Singapore, there was a need to find a working language that is ethnically and culturally neutral (Alsagoff Reference Alsagoff, Low and Hashim2012: 142). In 1965, Singapore became a fully independent island city-state. According to Bolton and Ng (Reference Bolton and Ng2014), the sociolinguistic scenario of Singapore today has been strongly influenced by four main language policies, namely
(i) the Official Languages and National Language policies (1950s–1960s);
(ii) the Bilingualism Policy (1966);
(iii) the Speak Mandarin Campaign (1979 to present);
(iv) the Speak Good English Movement (2000 to present).
The consequence of the bilingual policy introduced in the 1960s was that the different ethnic groups tended to use English for inter-ethnic communications, as it was deemed to be ethnically neutral, since no Chinese, Malay or Indian can be deemed to ‘own’ the English language. The position of English was thus being strengthened and the status of the indigenous languages weakened gradually. The indigenous languages promoted in the schools are often the standard languages and not the actual mother tongue of the pupils. For example, the ‘Speak Mandarin’ movement, which was introduced in 1979, successfully promoted Mandarin at the expense of other Chinese dialects (Bolton and Ng Reference Bolton and Ng2014). Tamil is officially listed as the mother tongue of Indian students, yet in reality, there are many other mother tongue languages spoken by Indians, such as Hindi and Malayalam, for example, as the Indians have come to Singapore from different parts of India (Pakir Reference Pakir1991: 168). Bolton and Ng have also noted that between 1980 and 2010, there has been a significant shift in the home language of Indians and Malays to English (Reference Bolton and Ng2014: 312). The Singapore population census has also, through the years, found that an increasing percentage of Singaporeans, particularly among the younger generation, speak English as their main household language. For example, in the Census of Population 2010 (Department of Statistics, Singapore 2010: 27), it was found that English was becoming more prevalent as the home language, especially among the younger generation aged between five and fourteen years of age. In particular, 52 per cent of Chinese, 26 per cent of Malays and 50 per cent of Indians in this age group used English as their home language. The figures for those aged five years or older who used English as their most frequently spoken language stand at 32.6 per cent for the Chinese, 17 per cent for the Malays and 41.6 per cent of the Indian population (Department of Statistics, Singapore 2010: 26).
Unlike in post-independent Malaysia, English in post-independent Singapore gained increasing importance, and in 1987 English became the MOI for all schools in Singapore and this policy has remained in place ever since. The struggle Singapore faces is that as English is widely used as the lingua franca among Singaporeans, just like in all language contact situations, a local variety, Singlish or Singapore Colloquial English (SCE) with strong substratum influences from the locally spoken languages such as Mandarin, Hokkien and Malay has become more commonplace (Bolton and Ng Reference Bolton and Ng2014). This development has had a polarizing effect among Singaporeans. Some recent studies have found that Singaporeans tend to rate Standard Singapore English (SSE) higher than SCE although many Singaporeans feel that SCE represents the Singaporean identity and are positive about its use in informal situations (Cavallaro and Ng Reference Cavallaro and Chin2009; Cavallaro et al. Reference Cavallaro, Chin and Seilhamer2014). This ‘acceptance’ of SCE is also seen in the present stance taken by the Speak Good English movement which aims to equip Singaporeans with ‘the basics of good English’ so that they can ‘code switch’ from SCE to standard English and vice versa depending on the context of the communicative situation (Cavallaro et al. Reference Cavallaro, Chin and Seilhamer2014: 394.)
While this and previous sections have documented the differences in the language policies in post-independent Singapore and Malaysia, the final section of this chapter explores, from a study of latest research on the phonological features of English in Singapore and Malaysia, whether the impact of these differing language policies has led to the development of two phonologically divergent varieties of English and highlights the phonological areas of convergence that still exist.
3.6 Pronunciation of English in Malaysia and Singapore
Many models for linguistic variation have been put forward in discussing the situation concerning English in Singapore. The present chapter will adopt the description put forward in Pakir (Reference Pakir1991) and Low and Brown (Reference Low and Brown2005) which look at variation in Singapore English as comprising of two main varieties: Standard Singapore English (SSE) that is used for formal and official purposes of communication and Singapore Colloquial English (SCE) that is used for informal purposes of communication or when communicating with close friends and family members. Variation in Malaysian English has been noted by scholars such as Baskaran (Reference Baskaran2005) who notes the existence of standard Malaysian English, colloquial Malaysian English and broken Malaysian English that is spoken. The situation regarding colloquial Malaysian English is extremely complicated due to the fact that there exists variation according to different levels of proficiency and also according to whether the variety is spoken by Malaysians residing in rural or urban areas, or in West or East Malaysia. In the absence of further research, it is impossible to document an agreed set of features of colloquial Malaysian English without having to go into the detailed study of all the sub-varieties that may exist within this variety. As such, this chapter chooses to document the pronunciation features of standard Malaysian English only. The other varieties that will be described are SSE and SCE that have been well documented in previous research. The description focuses on research done in the last five years and, where possible, highlights those which have been acoustically (experimentally) validated.
3.7 Segmentals of Malaysian English (MalE) and Singapore English (SgE)
While impressionistic descriptions of Malaysian English (MalE) vowels abound (see Zuraidah Reference Zuraidah, Ng and Said2000; Baskaran Reference Baskaran, Schneider, Burridge, Kortmann, Mesthrie and Upton2004; Rajdurai 2006; Azirah and Tan Reference Hashim and Tan2012), acoustic validation of vowel formants have been scarce. To date, only Tan and Low (Reference Tan and Low2010) and Pillai, Zuraidah, Knowles and Tang (Reference Pillai, Zuraidah, Knowles and Tang2010) have conducted a thorough acoustic analysis of MalE, and for this reason their findings will be discussed herewith. Tan and Low (Reference Tan and Low2010) measured the vowel formants of ethnically Malay speakers of MalE (five males and five females). Additionally, the MalE vowel durations for long/short vowels in citation forms were also measured. It was found that the MalE female speakers had an overlap between the long/short vowel pair /ɑː/ and /ʌ/. In terms of vowel length measurements, however, it was found that durationally, the long/short vowel pair /ɔ:/ and /ɒ/ were conflated. Pillai et al.’s (Reference Pillai, Zuraidah, Knowles and Tang2010) acoustic study of vowel monophthongs recorded 47 female MalE speakers. When the vowel formants were plotted, there was overlap between /iː/ and /ɪ/, /e/ and /æ/ and /ɑː/ and /ʌ/. There is thus agreement with the findings made by Tan and Low (Reference Tan and Low2010) for the five female MalE speakers, which also found that there was overlap between the /ɑː/-/ʌ/ pair. Durationally, it was also found that there was conflation between the vowel pair /ɔː/ and /ɒ/, just like what was found for the Tan and Low (Reference Tan and Low2010) data.
Turning to vowels in SgE, Low (Reference Low2012) presents a comprehensive overview of the impressionistic and acoustic studies that have been done in the last decade validating the vocalic features of SgE. However, what is of relevance in this chapter is to discuss them in relation to the findings for MalE. Tan and Low (Reference Tan and Low2010) compared the vowel formant plots for MalE and SgE speakers. The vowel quadrilaterals of both the male and female speakers plotted appeared to show no overlap or evidence of conflation between vowel pairs. Durationally, both SgE males and females distinguished between the long and short vowels, thus showing further evidence of non-conflation of long/short vowel pairs.
A t-test showed that the overall vowel space was significantly more compact for MalE males than SgE males, which tended to be more peripheral. This indicates that SgE males tend to use more full vowels that cluster peripherally compared to reduced ones.
Research on the consonants of MalE presents a similar picture where impressionistic studies exist (see Brown Reference Brown and Foley1988; Baskaran Reference Baskaran2005; Azirah and Tan Reference Hashim and Tan2012). However, to date, two acoustic studies appear to have attempted to provide empirical evidence to support the impressionistic observations. The first is made by Phoon, Abdullah and MacLagan (Reference Phoon, Abdullah and MacLagan2013) who have attempted an auditory analysis based on the recordings of five Chinese, five Malay and five Indian MalE speakers. Seven phonological features were judged to be shared by all three ethnic sub-varieties of MalE. These are final stop cluster reduction, devoicing of final fricatives and affricates, devoicing of /ʒ/ in medial position, final stop devoicing, TH-stopping, unaspirated voiceless stops and glottalization of stops. The second acoustic study was conducted by Yamaguchi and Pḗtursson (Reference Yamaguchi and Pḗtursson2012) who commented that the replacement of voiceless dental fricatives with the voiceless alveolar plosive [t] showed that this version is shorter than the original /t/ found in words that have voiceless dental fricatives, such as take, in terms of having significantly shorter voice onset time (VOT) values.
More acoustic studies have been done to validate the consonantal features of SgE. Beginning with the most recent, Tan (this volume) studied the speech of Chinese, Malay and Indian Singaporeans from two different generations, those above forty years of age and those aged between twenty and twenty-five years old and examined whether any of these groups of speakers showed evidence of American influence in their phonological realizations of four segmental features: the postvocalic-r, taps, the pronunciation of the vowel [æ] in dance and the vowel [eɪ] in tomato. The results show that the younger speakers exhibited more AmE features than the older speakers. Interestingly, Chinese SgE speakers exhibited the most Americanized features.
Low (Reference Low2012) documented the consonantal features found in initial and final positions in the conversational standard English of SgE speakers. Conflation of sounds between alveolar plosives and dental fricatives in initial position has been observed. Similarly, in final position, conflation of sounds between alveolar plosives and labiodental as well as dental fricatives has been found. Comparing the consonantal features of SgE with the description provided by Phoon, Abdullah and MacLagan (Reference Phoon, Abdullah and MacLagan2013), it is evident that both MalE and SgE share similar consonantal features. However, in the absence of an acoustic study studying MalE and SgE consonantal features using directly comparable data, it is difficult to state with precision whether MalE or SgE consonantal features are more divergent than they appear to be as reported in separate studies.
3.8 Rhythmic patterning of MalE and SgE
While there exists many recent studies covering different aspects of the suprasegmental features of MalE and SgE, such as Gut, Pillai and Zuraidah (Reference Gut, Pillai and Zuraidah2013) and Gut and Pillai (Reference Gut and Pillai2014) on prosodic marking of information in MalE, this chapter will discuss the results of a recent study comparing the rhythmic patterning of MalE and SgE (Tan and Low 2014). The intention of this chapter is to consider whether the phonological features are converging or diverging given the different language policies adopted by the two countries post-independence.
Tan and Low (2014) represents the first acoustic work attempting to validate the impressionistic descriptions of the rhythmic patterning of MalE. Ten MalE and ten SgE speakers read a passage and engaged in spontaneous conversation. Analysis was done using two well-established rhythmic indices that have been shown to be capable of capturing differences in rhythmic patterning across different varieties of English and different languages. These are the pairwise variability index (PVI) designed by Low, Grabe and Nolan (Reference Low, Grabe and Nolan2000), which measures how much variation exists durationally between successive vowels in an utterance, and VarcoV devised by White and Mattys (Reference White and Mattys2007), which is a measurement of the normalized standard deviation of vocalic interval durations divided by the mean vocalic duration. The PVI was selected because it has been shown to be capable of robustly capturing the difference between stress-based and syllable-based languages with a high correlation with the perception of rhythm. VarcoV was selected because it has been shown by White and Mattys (Reference White and Mattys2007) to be robust for controlling against speech rate variation rather than rhythmic differences per se. Furthermore, it was shown to be able to capture rhythmic differences between languages perceived to be different rhythmically and to discriminate between first and second language speakers. It was felt that a combination of the two measures can give a better insight into the rhythm of MalE in relation to SgE. Results were obtained for MalE and SgE for the two rhythmic measures used, PVI and VarcoV, and across the different data sets (full and reduced vowel sentence sets), the read text known as ‘the Wolf passage’ and conversational speech. A significant difference was found between the full and reduced vowel sentence sets for SgE (PVI), while no significant difference was found between the MalE full and reduced vowel sentence sets. A significant difference was also found between MalE and SgE for ‘the Wolf passage’ (PVI and VarcoV) and the conversational speech (PVI).
It is clear that both varieties differed significantly from each other in the rhythmic findings for the read passage, whether measured by the PVI or VarcoV. This finding is important in giving us an understanding of the divergence that is occurring in the rhythmic patterning of SgE and MalE that is acoustically validated. Overall, the PVI and VarcoV values obtained for SgE compared to MalE also point towards SgE being more stress-based compared to MalE.
3.9 Discussion and conclusion: convergence or divergence?
We started this chapter charting clearly the divergent language policy directions with regard to the supremacy of the English language taken by both countries in the post-independent era. One can reasonably predict that this divergence is likely to create concomitant linguistic divergences in the varieties of English spoken in both countries. We focused on the pronunciation of English in Singapore and Malaysia, specifically on acoustic studies done on the segmental features of both MalE and SgE and on one aspect of suprasegmentals that is rhythmic patterning. This section discusses the implications of the phonological findings described and reflects upon the possible washback effects from the divergence in the strategic directions of the language policies adopted in both countries.
The overall picture that emerged from the comparison of the vocalic features of MalE and SgE is that some differences can be noted between MalE and SgE though many similarities are still evident. The vowel spaces of the male speakers of the two varieties were significantly different. As far as consonantal features are concerned, there appears to be many areas of convergence although no study, to date, has directly compared SgE and MalE consonants using comparable data; hence, no firm conclusions can be reached for the consonantal features across the two varieties. In terms of rhythmic patterning, the PVI and VarcoV values show that the two varieties differed significantly in their production of the read passage and, additionally, that overall SgE exhibits more features of stress-based timing compared to MalE.
The subtle differences found in the vowel formant space and the rhythmic patterning, at least for read speech, could indicate that both varieties are now perhaps in different developmental phases, as observed by previous scholars. Schneider (Reference Schneider2007), in applying his Dynamic Model of Postcolonial Englishes, has suggested that MalE is in Phase 3 of development, which is characterized by nativization of the variety, and is therefore showing evidence of greater phonological innovations; whereas SgE is in Phase 4 of development where there is endonormative stabilization motivated by the process of nation-building, thus creating greater homogeneity in the variety. While no acoustic studies have been able to provide support for validating the phonological homogeneity in one variety versus the other, what is clear is that both varieties are clearly diverging, as can reasonably be predicted from their divergent English language policies adopted. However, it is impossible to make any firm conclusions in the light of much more research needing to be conducted on both varieties of English under tightly controlled experimental circumstances. The following are some urgent areas requiring further investigation: carefully designed experiments using exactly the same set of test items investigating consonantal features, lexical stress placement and the marking of intonational form and function in SgE and MalE. Moving beyond pronunciation features, there is a need to extend the investigation to other aspects of the linguistic structure of the two varieties with regard to the syntax and lexicon of both varieties of English. Perhaps more evidence of divergence will emerge from examining the syntactic and lexical features of both varieties of English. Ethnic and cross-generational sub-varieties within MalE and SgE should also be examined and compared.
Considering the forces of globalization in the twenty-first-century workplace and society, it is not difficult to predict that English will continue to play a predominant role as an international language and there will be mounting pressure to ensure that countries prepare their young to function effectively in English. How countries manage this tension and indeed, what impact the policies taken might have on the linguistic features of English spoken and used generate issues and research areas worthy of future investigation.
