NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

You sound like youre 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

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 Name

____________________ Signature

19th November 2012 Date

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.

Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 1. 2. 3. a. b. i. ii. Introduction & Literature Review .................................................................................................. 7 Rationale ................................................................................................................................................ 15 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 16 Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 16 Phase 1: The Prestige Survey ..................................................................................................... 16 Instrument .................................................................................................................................... 16 Participants .................................................................................................................................. 16

iii. Procedure ...................................................................................................................................... 17 c. i. ii. Phase 2: Collection of Speech Samples .................................................................................. 18 Phonetic Variables ..................................................................................................................... 18 Participants .................................................................................................................................. 18

iii. Research Procedure ................................................................................................................... 19 iv. Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 21 d. 4. a. i. ii. Expectations of Results ................................................................................................................ 21 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 Results of Phase 1 ........................................................................................................................... 23 Participants .................................................................................................................................. 23 Rating of Schools ........................................................................................................................ 23

iii. Individual School Profiles ....................................................................................................... 25 iv. Overview of the Tiers ............................................................................................................... 27 b. i. ii. Results of Phase 2 ........................................................................................................................... 28 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 28 By Phonetic Feature .................................................................................................................. 30

iii. Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 37 5. 6. Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 38 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 43

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

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 [] & /R/ BY SCHOOL ......................................................................................... 28 FIGURE 3: AVERAGE VOWEL DISTANCE BY SCHOOL .................................................................................. 28 FIGURE 4: TOTAL NO. OF [] & /R/ BY HOUSING ........................................................................................ 29 FIGURE 5: AVERAGE VOWEL DISTANCE BY HOUSING .................................................................................. 29 FIGURE 6: AVERAGE NO. OF [] BY SCHOOL & INCOME .............................................................................. 30 FIGURE 7: AVERAGE NO. OF [] 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

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: []production, rhoticity and vowel distance. It was found that school prestige has a significant effect on both []-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 []production and vowel distance as relevant sociophonetic variables in Singapore, marking a step forward in the study of Singapore English.

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 Shaws Pygmalion George Bernard Shaws 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 & CookGumperz, 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 Marthas 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,

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. Labovs 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, Labovs 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,

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 Labovs 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 Singapores 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 Singapores 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, Singapores 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 doesnt [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 schools 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, AngloChinese 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 ones 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 ones 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 ones residence from a good elite school (Gee, 2012). School prestige is also intertwined with social stratification as it grows more influential in determining ones 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 preidentified 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 Wees 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 MPs 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 []-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 []-stopping 2) Rhoticity: Non-prevocalic r usage 3) Distance between the vowels /i/ and //

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 Tier 1 (Most Elite) 2 3 4 (Least Elite) Boys 3 3 3 3 Girls 3 3 3 3 Boys 3 3 3 3 Secondary 4 Girls 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 childrens 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 [], 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, fathers 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 ones 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 ones 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 ones 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, fathers occupation, and housing type (Aman, 2009) were adopted as socioeconomic variables, with the scales for housing and income taken from Tan (2004). Mothers occupation was not asked for since Bokhorst-Heng & Caleon (2009) found that it has no significant bearing. However, in data analysis, fathers 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 // was calculated by subtracting the F2 - F1 value of // 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 nonprevocalic 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 researchers, 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 []-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 [] 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 ones 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 Nan Hua High School Methodist Girls School CHIJ St. Nicholas Girls School Kent Ridge Secondary School Cedar Girls Secondary School Clementi Town Secondary School New Town Secondary School Bukit Panjang Government High Queenstown Secondary School Fairfield Methodist School (Secondary) Bukit Batok Secondary School NUS High School Unknown Total
Table 2: Part 1 Breakdown of Survey Participants by School

Number of Participants 12 6 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30

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. Anthonys 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.

Secondary Schools by Tiers

Tier 1 5% Tier 2 11% Tier 3 8%

Tier 4 76%

Figure 1: Breakdown of Schools by Tiers

Highest Rated Schools Within Each Tier No. 1 Tier 1 Raffles Institution 100.0% (30) Raffles Girls 2 School 96.7% (29) Hwa Chong 3 Institution 96.7% (29) 4 Tier 2 Maris Stella High 76.7% (23) Crescent Girls School 73.3% (22) Tier 3 Fuhua Secondary 56.7% (17) Tier 4 Chestnut Drive Secondary 93.3% (28) Coral Secondary 93.3% (28) Marsiling Secondary 93.3% (28) 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,

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 1 2 3 4 Schools Raffles Institution Raffles Girls School Maris Stella High Crescent Girls School Fuhua Secondary 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 wellknown brand name (Bharwani, 2009) schools, and boast of long histories, with RI being the oldest secondary school in Singapore, founded in 1823 by Singapores 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 []-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 []-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.

Total No. by School

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 /r/ School1 School2 School3 School4 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Average Vowel Distance (Hz) by School

School1 School2 School3 School4

Vowel
Figure 3: Average Vowel Distance by School

Figure 2: Total No. of [] & /r/ 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.

29

Total No. by Housing

100
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 /r/ High Housing 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Average Vowel Distance (Hz) by Housing

Low Housing

Vowel

High Low Housing Housing

Figure 5: Average Vowel Distance by Housing

Figure 4: Total No. of [] & /r/ by Housing

On the other hand, income was also found to have a significant effect (p > 0.05) for both the interdental fricative [] 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 ones home language correlated strongly with high performance in all three phonetic features, suggesting that these three phonetic features tend to mark ones level of English knowledge, which is also a status symbol in itself (Alsagoff, 2010).

30 ii. By Phonetic Feature

1) Word-initial & Word-medial [] 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 []-variation. Within the model, school prestige was found to have a significant effect on []-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 []-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.

Average No. of []
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 High Income Low Income School1 School2 School3 School4

Figure 6: Average No. of [] by School & Income

31

The low-income group though, shows a more interesting trend, where School 1 showed a marked spike in []-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 [] 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 []-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 []-production to fit in not only the high-income group, but the high school-prestige group.

c. School Prestige & Language Dominance

Average No. of []
4.5 4 3.5

3
2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 English Dominant Chinese Dominant

School1 School2 School3 School4

Figure 7: Average No. of [] by School & Dominant Language

Within those dominant in English, while there is an overall decrease in []-production with school prestige, School 3 has a drastically lower average number of [] 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.

32

Within those dominant in Chinese, there is in fact a reversal of trend, since []production increases with school prestige. However, analysis of the informal directions recordings found that this trend did not exist with informal []-production, suggesting that []-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).

Average no. of /r/s

5
4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 High Proficiency Low Proficiency School1 School2

School3
School4

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

34

that for School 4, the least elite school, the usage of non-prevocalic /r/ marks ones 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 Pamela 3 came from a high-income, high-housing, high-schoolprestige 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 Lindas 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 possibl e 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 3

Not her real name. School 4, Sec 3, Female 2. Not her real name. School 1, Sec 4, Female 1.

35 3) Vowel Distance: Between /i/ and // a. Overview: Best Goodness-of-Fit Model

One-way ANOVA found that when school prestige, schooling level, housing, income, English proficiency and ones 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 nonsignificant at p = 0.263. Further analysis also shows an intriguing interaction between the two significant variables.

b. School Prestige & Income

Average Vowel Distance (Hz) by School & Income

800 700 600 500 400 300 High Income Low Income

200
100 0

School1

School2

School3

School4

Figure 9: Average Vowel Distance by School & Income

As can be seen, the distance between /i/ and // 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.

36

Furthermore, similar to the situation for []-production, the distance for School 1 lowincome participants is especially high, even wider than that of any high-income participants. This suggests that distinguishing between /i/ and // 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 Mandarindominant participants, the F1-F2 value is in fact larger for // than for /i/, meaning that for these participants, their //s sound more like /i/s, than the /i/s themselves.

Mandarin Dominant: (F1 - F2) Measurement (Hz) by Vowel & School

2200 2150 2100 2050 2000 1950 1900 1850 1800 1750 1700 /i/ //

School1 School2 School3 School4

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 //, 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 // may be due to the influence of Mandarin.

37 iii. Summary

The results thus indicate that []-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 []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 ones low-income background as well. Furthermore, []-production and vowel distance was found to be influenced by ones 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 []-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 []-production. This thus clearly establishes the place of vowel distance and []-production as sociophonetic variables in Singapores society, marking a great step forward in the study of Singapore English. Previously, any variation in the distance between /i/ and // 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 []-production, while Bao (2003a) and Moorthy & Deterding (2000) have suggested that []-stopping is stigmatized, no research had been done to confirm or account for this observation. This study thus corroborates their suggestion that []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 []-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 ones 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 Englishspeaking 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 pai5 (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 5

A crude Hokkien vulgarity 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 []-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 studys 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 youre nothing like a NHSK! Youre very decent and speak English well (Rajes, 2011). It thus appears that English proficiency is increasingly defining ones 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 // 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 ones 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 Singapores 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.

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-Ranking2012-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 NationBuilding 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-nowasks.html Beeman, W. O. (1976). Status, Style & Strategy in Iranian Interaction. Anthropological Linguistics, 18(7):305-322.

46

Bharwani, V. (2009, December 25). Top students don't have to come from 'branded' schools. The New Paper. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20091223-187667.html Bigfoot. (2010, November 26). Re: PSLE 2010 Results Report Here. [Online forum comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?p=303375 Blot, R. K. (2003). Introduction. In R. K. Blot (ed.), Language & Social Identity (pp. 1-10). Connecticut: Praeger Publishers. Bokhorst-Heng, W. (1999). Bilingual education and the dialectics of national integration. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages & Linguistics, 356-370. Bokhorst-Heng, W. D. & Caleon, I. S. (2009). The Language Attitudes of Bilingual Youth in Multilingual Singapore. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 30(3):235-251. Brown, A. (2000). Priorities in pronunciation teaching: responses from Singaporean trainee teachers and international experts. In A. Brown, D. Deterding & L. E. Ling (eds.), The English Language in Singapore: Research on Pronunciation (pp. 121-132). Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics. Chasingidledreams. (2006, October 29). The Divide between Wee Shu-Min and the Common Man. [Web Log Post]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://tomorrow.sg/trackback/url/5631 Cheong, W.Y. (2011, February 23). Singapore's Meritocratic Education System Promotes Social Mobility. [Forum Letter Reply]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/forum/2011/02/singapores-meritocraticeducation-system-promotes-social-mobility.php#social-immobility Chew, C. (2010, June 2). Elite school or not doesn't matter: PM. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.pioneerjc.moe.edu.sg/cos/o.x?c=/wbn/pagetree&func=view&rid=1163 767 Chew, P. (2011). The Emergence, Role, and Future of the National Language in Singapore. In J. A. Fishman & O. Garcia (eds.), Handbook of Language & Ethnic Identity: The Success-Failure Continuum in Language & Ethnic Identity Efforts, Vol. 2 (pp. 204-217). New York: Oxford.

47

Davie, S. (2010, April 12). From Poly to NUS Medicine. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20100412-209774.html Deterding, D. (2007). Singapore English. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. Deterding, D. & Hvitfeldt, R. (1994). The features of Singapore English Pronunciation: Implications for teachers. Teaching and Learning, 15 (1):98-107. Dr.Bonadaly. (2012, June 10). Re: Is elite school behaviour and environment very different from neighbourhood schools? [Online forum comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman16/elite-school-behaviour-environment-very-different-neighbourhood-schools3765410-9.html Drunkenhammie. (2008, May 29). Re: Why are RJC graduates so "desirable"?? [Online forum comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://forum.brightsparks.com.sg/showthread.php?t=352 Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks & Burnouts: Social Categories & Identity in High School. New York: Teachers College Press. Fairlady_xoxo. (2008, June 11). Re: My school MAD SUCKS [sic]. [Online forum comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://sgforums.com/forums/2155/topics/320578 Fuhua Secondary. (2012). School History. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.fuhuasec.moe.edu.sg/cos/o.x?c=/wbn/pagetree&func=view&rid=1113 322 Gaffoor, S. M. A. (1999). An Exploration of Factors that Help or Hinder the Successful Learning of the English Language among Secondary School Students. (Masters Dissertation). Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://repository.nie.edu.sg/jspui/bitstream/10497/1212/1/SyedMohamedAbdulG affoor.pdf Garland, R. (1991). The Mid-Point on a Rating Scale: Is it Desirable? Marketing Bulletin, 2:66-70. Gee, C. (2012). The Educational 'Arms Race': All for One, Loss for All. IPS Working Papers No. 20. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/ips/docs/publications/wp20.pdf

48

Giam, G. (2009, November 18). My struggle with Chinese. [Web Log Post]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://geraldgiam.sg/2009/11/my-struggle-with-chinese/ Goh, D. (2009, April). Elite Schools, Chineseness, & Anxieties of Postcolonial Masculinities in Singapore. Paper presented at Political Studies Association Annual Conference 2009, Manchester. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2009/Goh.pdf Goh, G. (2012, August 30). 7 Reasons why Singaporeans Are Becoming Dangerously Xenophobic. Transitioning. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.transitioning.org/2012/08/30/7-reasons-why-singaporeans-arebecoming-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: Childrens 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-schoolbehaviour-environment-very-different-neighbourhood-schools-3765410.html Kitana. (2006, October 21). Class Disconnect. [Web Log Post]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://intelligentsingaporean.wordpress.com/wee-shu-min/ Kotwani, M. (2012, September 12). MOE scraps secondary school banding system and cuts awards. Channel News Asia. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1225528/1/. html

49

Kvc_king. (2007, December 18). Re: What defines a neighbourhood school? [Online forum comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://talkback.stomp.com.sg/forums/showthread.php?t=29777 Kwan-Terry, A. (1991). The Economics of Language in Singapore: Students' Use of Extracurricular Language Lessons. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 2(1):6989. Labov, W. (1963). The Social Motivation of a Sound Change. Word, 9:273-309. Lee, E. (2008). Singapore: The Unexpected Nation. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing. Lee, M. H. (2006). Social Development or Social Inequality: Comparing Education Policies and Reforms in Hong Kong and Singapore. Paper presented at the GDPism and Risk: Challenges for Social Development and Governance in East Asia Conference, Bristol. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.bristol.ac.uk/ceas/events/conferences/gdp/abstracts/g/papers/micha el_h_lee_paper.doc Leimgruber, J. (2012). Singapore English: An Indexical Approach. World Englishes, 31(1):1-14. Li, W., Saravanan, V. & Ng, J. (1997). Language Shift in the Teochew Community in Singapore: A Family Domain Analysis. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 18(5):364-384. Liaw, W-C. (2009, May 27). More funds for autonomous schools. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20090526-143945.html Lim, E. (2012, January 14). Coming to Terms with being "Elite". [Web Log Post]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://arafflesinstitutionlife.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/coming-to-terms-withbeing-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/NIETHESES_151.pdf Marsiling Secondary. (2009). Speech for 2009 Achievement Day. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from

50

http://www.marsilingsec.moe.edu.sg/marsiling/main/make_your_mark/achieveme nt_day_2007.html Marsiling Secondary. (2012). School History. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.marsilingsec.moe.edu.sg/marsiling/main/about/school_history.html Masry. (2011, October 24). Re: Fuhua Secondary School. [Online forum comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php&t=17816 MatrixFanatic (2012, June 10). Re: Is elite school behaviour and environment very different from neighbourhood schools? [Online forum comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman16/elite-school-behaviour-environment-very-different-neighbourhood-schools3765410-9.html Melodily. (2011, November 16). Once a Rafflesian, Always a Rafflesian. [Web Log Post]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://melodily.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/once-a-rafflesian-always-a-rafflesian/ Ministry of Education. (2005). Glossary. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www3.moe.edu.sg/corporate/contactonline/2005/Issue15/glossary/glossar y.htm Ministry of Education. (2011). Recipients of School Distinction Award from 2004 to 2011. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/files/2011/moa-annex-a2.pdf Moorthy, S. M. & Deterding, D. (2000). Three or tree? Dental fricatives in the speech of educated Singaporeans. In A. Brown, D. Deterding & L. E. Ling (eds.), The English Language in Singapore: Research on Pronunciation (pp. 76-83). Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics. Ng, G. (2012, September 13). Parents, school cheer scrapping of secondary school banding. My Paper. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story201209 13-371221.html Ngbrdad. (2011, November 26). Re: Which school is better for COP 210-230? [Online forum comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=27702&p=646 298&hilit=fuhua#p646298

51

NSK. (n. d.). In Urban Dictionary. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nsk Platt, J. (1975). The Singapore English Speech Continuum and its Basilect 'Singlish' as a 'Creoloid'. Anthropological Linguistics, 17:363-374. Poedjosoedarmo, G. (2000a). The Media as a Model and Source of Innovation in the Development of Singapore Standard English. In A. Brown, D. Deterding & L. E. Ling (eds.), The English Language in Singapore: Research on Pronunciation (pp. 112-120). Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics. Proud to be from a Neighbourhood School in Singapore. (2010, May 18). In Facebook [Group page]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.facebook.com/pages/Proud-to-be-from-a-Neighbourhood-School-inSingapore/104563202923423 Prystay, C. & Bernstein, E. (2004). Gateway to the Ivy League: Prestigious Singapore School Sends Droves to Top Colleges; Just $15 a Month in Fees. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2004/05/raffles_junior_.html Rajes. (2011, March 3). NHSK. [Web Log Post]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://blog.nus.edu.sg/el32512011/2011/03/03/nhsk/ Ramesh, S. (2011, January 24). MM Lee says students' background plays a role. Channel News Asia. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1106597/1/. html Rickford, J. R. (1979). Variation in a Creole Continuum: Quantitative & Implicational Approaches. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (Accession Order No. AAT 7928172). Rickford, J. R. (1986). The Need for New Approaches to Social Class Analysis in Sociolinguistics. Language & Communication, 6(3):215-221. RockeY. (2005, September 15). Re: ACS Boys-Pros and Cons. [Online forum comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://sgforums.com/forums/8/topics/152356?page=16 Romaine, S. (2002). Language & Social Class. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 8308-8312). Oxford: Pergamon.

52

Sarah_onering. (2007, May 13). Now an ACSian, forever an ACSian. [Photo Caption]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.flickr.com/photos/78346542@N00/648183599/ Seah, C. N. (2004, February 15). Shaping Elitist Mindset: Streaming helps create arrogant elitism among students. Sunday Star. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.littlespeck.com/content/education/CTrendsEdu-040215.htm See, S. (2012, August 26). Singapore to have two more universities. Channel News Asia. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1222253/1/. html Selvaraj, C. N. (2011). The Making of Elite Schools in Singapore, 1940s-1980s. (Masters Dissertation, National University of Singapore). Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10635/34344/Chris%20Selvaraj. pdf Shaber. (2011, July 5). Re: SCGS vs Cresent [sic] Girls. [Online forum comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=22964&p=470 437&hilit=crescent+girls+school+elite#p470437 Silver88. (2011, January 11). Re: Maris Stella High School. [Online forum comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=6298&start=3 40 Singaporean. (2012, September 12). Re: MOE scraps banding in secondary schools. [Online Comment]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://sg.news.yahoo.com/moe-scraps-banding-in-secondary-schools-.html Spolsky, B. (1974). Speech Communities & Schools. TESOL Quarterly, 8(1):17-26. SPRING Singapore. (2011). Raffles Institution: Singapore Quality Award Executive Summary. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.spring.gov.sg/QualityStandards/be/Documents/BEAW/SQA_RI_2011_S ummary_Report.pdf Sun, S. (2012). Population Policy & Reproduction in Singapore: Making Future Citizens. New York: Routledge.

53

Tan, A. (2009, April 29). Non-Elite, But Happy. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20090428137924.html Tan, C. H. & Gupta, A. F. (1992). Post-Vocalic /r/ in Singapore English. York Papers in Linguistics, 16:139-152. Tan, E. S. (2004). Does Class Matter? Social Stratification and Orientations in Singapore. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. Tan, J. (1998). Education in the Early 21st Century: Challenges and Dilemmas. In Da, D. (ed.), Singapore in the New Millennium: Challenges Facing the City-State. Singapore: ISEAS. Tan, K. P. (2008). Meritocracy and Elitism in a Global City: Ideological Shifts in Singapore. International Political Science Review, 29(1):7-27. Tan, O. (2011, October 29). A Special Assistance Plan for the Elite? [Web Log Post]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.perspectivist.com/politics/education/a-special-assistance-plan-forthe-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

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-anyother-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 PacificEducation Researcher, 16(2):111-126.

55

Appendices
Appendix A: The Prestige Survey
1. What is your age this year? _______ 2. How elite do you think the following schools are perceived as, in general? Please rate the secondary schools below in terms of their general perceived eliteness, on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being the most elite, and 4 being the least elite. There are no right or wrong answers! Secondary School Queensway Sec Chung Cheng High (Yishun) Clementi Town Sec Balestier Hill Sec Anglican High Yishun Sec Canberra Sec Seng Kang Sec Westwood Sec St Margaret's Sec West Spring Sec Ping Yi Sec Zhenghua Sec Juying Sec Greendale Sec Woodgrove Sec Shuqun Sec East Spring Sec Chestnut Drive Sec Yuhua Sec St Patrick's Raffles Girls' (Sec) National Junior College Christ Church Sec Clementi Woods Sec Xinmin Sec Crescent Girls' St Andrew's Sec Serangoon Garden Sec Hong Kah Sec Most Elite 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Least Elite 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

56

Kranji Sec Ang Mo Kio Sec Bishan Park Sec Peirce Sec Edgefield Sec Jurong Sec Raffles Institution Bukit Merah Sec Bedok Green Sec Commonwealth Sec Ahmad Ibrahim Sec MacPherson Sec Orchid Park Sec CHIJ Katong Convent Fuchun Sec Junyuan Sec Bedok North Sec Queenstown Sec Hwa Chong Institution Bedok Town Sec Hua Yi Sec Nanyang Girls' High Greenridge Sec Yuying Sec Gan Eng Seng CHIJ St Theresa's Convent Bukit Batok Sec Ngee Ann Sec Woodlands Sec Zhonghua Sec Henderson Sec Bowen Sec Chua Chu Kang Sec CHIJ Sec (Toa Payoh) Yishun Town Sec Coral Sec Chong Boon Sec Cedar Girls' Sec Swiss Cottage Sec Kent Ridge Sec

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

57

Anderson Sec Nan Hua High Mayflower Sec Serangoon Sec Jurong West Sec Springfield Sec Teck Whye Sec Woodlands Ring Sec Dunman High Anglo-Chinese (Independent) Yio Chu Kang Sec Whitley Sec Admiralty Sec Greenview Sec Nan Chiau High Riverside Sec Northbrooks Sec Fajar Sec Evergreen Sec Pasir Ris Crest Sec St Gabriel's Sec Holy Innocents' High Tanjong Katong Sec Hai Sing Catholic Bukit View Sec First Toa Payoh Sec Bendemeer Sec Chung Cheng High (Main) CHIJ St Joseph's Convent Tanjong Katong Girls' Hougang Sec St Anthony's Canossian Sec Paya Lebar Methodist Girls' (Sec) Jurongville Sec St Hilda's Sec Tanglin Sec Marsiling Sec Dunearn Sec Dunman Sec Yusof Ishak Sec

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

58

Deyi Sec River Valley High Manjusri Sec Assumption English Broadrick Sec East View Sec Beatty Sec Catholic High Pioneer Sec Peicai Sec Maris Stella High North View Sec Tampines Sec Anglo-Chinese (Barker) Montford Sec Unity Sec Singapore Chinese Girls' Guangyang Sec Compassvale Sec Punggol Sec Pasir Ris Sec Bedok South Sec Yuan Ching Sec Si Ling Sec Methodist Girls' Temasek Sec Geylang Methodist School (Sec) Boon Lay Sec Northland Sec Loyang Sec Kuo Chuan Presbyterian Siglap Sec Bedok View Sec Hillgrove Sec North Vista Sec St Joseph's Institution Bartley Sec Victoria School New Town Sec Outram Sec

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

59

Pei Hwa Sec Naval Base Sec Damai Sec Sembawang Sec Fuhua Sec Bukit Panjang Government High Changkat Changi Sec Regent Sec Presbyterian High CHIJ St Nicholas Girls' Fairfield Methodist (Sec) 3. What is your secondary school?

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

______________________________________________________

Thank you very much for your participation

60

Appendix B: Reading Passage

Legend: /i/ items: italicized // 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 cant wait to see my baby sister again!

62

Appendix C: Breakdown of Phonetic Items

Vowel Quality Items /i/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Bean Green Lead Leave Seat Seed Seek Sheep Sleep Team Bin Grin Lid Live Sit Sid Sick Ship Slip Tim []-Production Items Word-initial Word-medial Father Mother Together Bother Gathered //

1 2 3 4 5

This That The There The

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: ___________________________________ Fathers Occupation: ________________________ Gender: F / M Secondary: 3 / 4 Age: __________

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 1 2 3 4 4) What type of housing do you live in? (Please circle when applicable) a) 1-room flat c) 3-room flat e) 5-room flat g) Condominium b) 2-room flat d) 4-room flat f) Executive HDB flat/Mansionette h) Landed property

Very badly 5

5) What is your average monthly household income? (Please circle when applicable) a) Less than $2000 c) $3000 to <$4000 e) $5000 and above b) $2000 to <$3000 d) $4000 to <$5000

Thank you very much for your participation

64

Appendix E: Instruction Slideshow Sample

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72