Past research on Singapore English (SgE) has shown that there are specific segmental and prosodic patterns that are unique to the three major ethnic groups, Chinese, Malay, and Indian in Singapore. These features have been highlighted as the “stereotypical” ethnic markers of SgE speakers, assuming substrate influence from the speakers’ “ethnic” languages (Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil). However, recent research suggests that Singaporeans are becoming increasingly English dominant and has challenged the position of the ethnic languages as true “mother tongues” of Singaporeans. Hence, this study seeks to question if such “stereotypical” ethnic features exist, and if so, the extent to which a less dominant ethnic language would affect the phonology of speakers’ English. This study looks specifically at the production of consonants /f/, /θ/, /t/, /v/, and /w/ as salient segmental features in SgE. Participants’ phonetic behavior of /θ/, which was produced similarly across the three ethnic groups, disputed substrate influence. Tamil speakers were the most disparate, particularly with the /v/-/w/ contrast production. However, these deviations were often sporadic phonetic changes, which scarcely reflect robust speech patterns in the community. As a result, consonantal production in SgE is found to be largely independent of substrate influence and relatively uniform across the three ethnicities. The homogeneity observed in this study sheds light on bilinguals’ acquisition of sounds, and it also provides phonological evidence toward the understanding of the evolutionary process of postcolonial Englishes.
AnsaldoU. (2009). Contact languages: Ecology and evolution in Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BakerW.TrofimovichP. (2005). Interaction of native-and second-language vowel system(s) in early and late bilinguals. Language and speech, 48(1), 1–27.
3.
BaoZ. (2003). Social stigma and grammatical autonomy in nonnative varieties of English. Language in Society, 32(1), 23–46.
4.
BaoZ. (2005). The aspectual system of Singapore English and the systemic substratist explanation. Journal of Linguistics, 41(2), 237–67.
5.
BaoZ. (2010). A usage-based approach to substratum transfer: The case of four unproductive features in Singapore English. Language, 86(4), 792–820.
6.
BaoZ.WeeL. (1998). “Until” in Singapore English. World Englishes, 17(1), 31–41.
7.
BaoZ.WeeL. (1999). The passive in Singapore English. World Englishes, 18(1), 1–11.
8.
BarlowJ. A.BransonP. E.NipI. S. (2013). Phonetic equivalence in the acquisition of/l/ by Spanish–English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 68–85.
9.
BirdsongD.GertkenL. M.AmengualM. (2012). Bilingual Language Profile: An Easy-to-Use Instrument to Assess Bilingualism. COERLL, University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from https://sites.la.utexas.edu/bilingual
10.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2018): Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.37. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/
11.
Bokhorst-HengW. (1998). Language planning and management in Singapore. In FoleyJ. A.KandiahT.BaoZ., et al. (Eds.), English in new cultural contexts: Reflections from Singapore (pp. 287–309). Singapore: Oxford University Press.
12.
BrannenK. (2002). The role of perception in differential substitution. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 47(1–2), 1–46.
13.
BurnhamD. K. (1986). Developmental loss of speech perception: Exposure to and experience with a first language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 7(3), 207–239.
14.
ChangC. B. (2012). Rapid and multifaceted effects of second-language learning on first-language speech production. Journal of Phonetics, 40(2), 249–268.
15.
ChenC. Y. (1976). Pronunciation of English by students from the Chinese stream in Singapore: Some salient features. RELC Journal, 7(2), 54–60.
16.
ChenY.GussenhovenC. (2015). Shanghai Chinese. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 45(3), 321–337.
17.
ClementsG. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In KingstonJ.BeckmanM. (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech (pp. 283–333). Cambridge University Press.
18.
ClynesA.DeterdingD. (2011). Standard Malay (Brunei). Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 41(2), 259–268.
19.
DeterdingD. (2007). Singapore English. Edinburgh University Press.
20.
DiehlR. L.KluenderK. R. (1989). On the objects of speech perception. Ecological Psychology, 1(2), 121–144.
21.
FlegeJ. E. (2007). Language contact in bilingualism: Phonetic system interactions. Laboratory Phonology, 9, 353–382.
22.
GuptaA. F.SiewP. Y. (1995). Language shift in a Singapore family. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 16(4), 301–314.
23.
HanulíkováA.WeberA. (2012). Sink positive: Linguistic experience with th substitutions influences nonnative word recognition. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(3), 613–629.
24.
HashimS. BBrownA. (2000). The [e] and [æ] vowels in Singapore English. In BrownA.DeterdingD.LowE. L. (Eds.), The English language in Singapore: Research on pronunciation (pp. 84–92). Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics.
25.
IversonP.EkanayakeD.HamannS.SennemaA.EvansB. G. (2008). Category and perceptual interference in second-language phoneme learning: An examination of English/w/-/v/ learning by Sinhala, German, and Dutch speakers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(5), 1305–1316.
26.
JamesA. (1984). Phonic transfer: The structural bases of interlingual assessment. In CohenA.van den BroeckeM. P. R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 691–695). Dordrecht: Foris.
KartushinaN.FrauenfelderU. H.GolestaniN. (2016). How and when does the second language influence the production of native speech sounds: A literature review. Language Learning, 66(S2), 155–186.
29.
KeaneE. (2004). Tamil. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 34(1), 111–116.
30.
LehmannW. P. (1992). Historical linguistics: An introduction (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
31.
LennebergE. H. (1967). The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice, 2(12), 59–67.
32.
LimL. (1996). Prosodic patterns characterising Chinese, Indian and Malay Singapore English. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Reading, UK.
33.
LimL. (2000). Ethnic group differences aligned? Intonation patterns of Chinese, Indian and Malay Singaporean English. In BrownA.DeterdingD.LowE. L. (Eds.), The English language in Singapore: Research on pronunciation (pp. 10–21). Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics.
34.
LimL. (2004). Singapore English: a grammatical description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
35.
LimL. (2009). Beyond fear and loathing in SG: The real mother tongues and language policies in multilingual Singapore. AILA Review, 22(1), 52–71.
36.
LiskerL.AbramsonA. S. (1964). A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Word, 20(3), 384–422.
37.
LockeJ. L. (1983). Phonological acquisition and change. New York: Academic Press.
38.
LombardiL. (2003). Second language data and constraints on manner: Explaining substitutions for the English interdentals. Second Language Research, 19(3), 225–250.
39.
MaddiesonI. (1984). The effects on F0 of a voicing distinction in sonorants and their implications for a theory of tonogenesis. Journal of Phonetics, 12(1), 9–15.
40.
MassaroD. W. (1987). Categorical partition: A fuzzy-logical model of categorization behavior. In HarnadS. (Ed.), Categorical perception: The groundwork of cognition (pp. 254–283). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
MoorthyS. M.DeterdingD. (2000). Three or tree? Dental fricatives in the speech of educated Singaporeans. In BrownA.DeterdingD.LowE. L. (Eds.), The English language in Singapore: Research on pronunciation (pp. 76–83). Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics.
43.
MufweneS. (1990). Transfer and the substrate hypothesis in creolistics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(1), 1–23.
44.
PakirA. (1991). The range and depth of English-knowing bilinguals in Singapore. World Englishes, 10(2), 167–179.
45.
PakirA. (2000). Singapore. In HoW. K.WongR. (Eds.), Language policies and language education: The impact in East Asian countries in the next decade (pp. 259–284). Singapore: Times Academic Press.
46.
PlattJ. T.WeberH. (1980). English in Singapore and Malaysia: Status, features, functions. Oxford University Press.
SaravananV. (1994). Language and social identity amongst Tamil-English bilinguals in Singapore. In KhooR.KreherU.WongR. (Eds.), Towards global multilingualism: European models and Asian realities (pp. 79–94). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
49.
SandlerW.MeirI.PaddenC.AronoffM. (2005). The emergence of grammar: Systematic structure in a new language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(7), 2661–2665.
50.
SchneiderE. W. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge University Press.
51.
ShahidiA. H.RahimA. (2011). An acoustical study of English plosives in word initial position produced by Malays. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 17(2): 23–33.
TanY. Y. (2001). Acoustic correlates of stress in the ethnic subvarieties of Singapore English. Working Papers in Language, Literature and Theatre. Singapore: Department of English Language and Literature, National University of Singapore.
55.
TanY. Y. (2002). The acoustic and perceptual properties of stress in the ethnic subvarieties of Singapore English. Doctoral Dissertation. Department of English Language and Literature, National University of Singapore. Retrieved from https://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/yytan/phd-tanyy-2002.pdf
56.
TanY. Y. (2010). “Singing the same tune? Prosodic norming in bilingual Singaporeans”. In MadalenaC.F. (ed), Multilingual Norms (pp.173–194). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
57.
TanY. Y. (2012). Age as a factor in ethnic accent identification in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(4), 1–19.
58.
TanY. Y. (2014). English as a “mother tongue” in contemporary Singapore. World Englishes, 33(3), 319–339.
59.
TanY. Y. (2017). “Singlish: An Illegitimate Conception in Singapore’s Language Policies?”. European Journal of Language Policy, 9(1), 85–103.
60.
TayM. W. (1982). The phonology of educated Singapore English. English World-Wide, 3(2), 135–145.
61.
ThomasonS.KaufmanT. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
WeeL. (2002). Lor in colloquial Singapore English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 711–725.
64.
WeeL. (2013). Governing English in Singapore: Some challenges for Singapore’s language policy. In WeeL.GohR.LimL. (Eds.), The politics of English: South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Asia Pacific (pp. 105–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
65.
WeinreichU. (1953). Languages in contact. New York, NY: Linguistic Circle of New York.
66.
WesterF.GilbersD.LowieW. (2007). Substitution of dental fricatives in English by Dutch L2 speakers. Language Sciences, 29(2–3), 477–491.
67.
WolframW. (2013). The contact dynamics of socioethnic varieties in North America. In SchreierD.HundtM. (Eds.), English as a contact language (pp. 106–130). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
68.
WolframW.ChildsBTorbertB. (2000). Tracing language history through consonant cluster reduction: evidence from isolated dialects. Southern Journal of Linguistics, 24(1), 17–40.
69.
WongK. Z. H.TanY. Y. (2017). Being Chinese in a global context: Linguistic constructions of Chinese ethnicity. Global Chinese, 3(1), 1–23.
70.
YamaguchiT.PéturssonM. (2012). Voiceless stop consonants in Malaysian English: Measuring the VOT values. Asian Englishes, 15(2), 60–79.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
