1. The Hegemony of English in Multilingual Singapore

This is another article focusing on power and the hegemony of English. English serves as cultural capital (cf. Bourdieu) and is the gateway to economic prosperity. Other languages don't have much of this function; Chinese has some, others little or none.

Unclarity about mother tongue and ethnicity. Mother tongue is not negotiable, because ethnicity is not; one inherits the ethnicity of o's father so that ethnicity defines o's mother tongue. Question: how does the child learn about the material environment, social relations, cultural values and emotional experiences? Through English or through the Mo-To? Earlier, the idea was that English would be the path to economic and technical success, but that emotions, values etc. would be kept alive through the Mo-To . Is this working?

Language policy and educational policy have been tinkered with constantly, and the outcomes have begun to change. First goal of the educ. policy was to eradicate illiteracy but as this has been effective, the goal now seems to be to create a cultural elite who will see to it that Singapore's various goals are kept on target. English is supposedly neutral, because it is available to all. But in fact not everybody succeeds in the educ. system, so not everybody gets the goodies. Constant evaluation and screening of students at P4, P6, other stages, to sift out the gold from the silver and the bronze. Very little individual agency left in Singapore; few personal choices as in the west.

James then brings in Bernstein's (1990) theory of code Orientation and Classification (C) and Framing (F). Code is defined as a "regulative principle, tacitly acquired, which selects and integrates" (the following things):

• relevant meanings
• forms of their realization
• evoking contexts
In Singapore, language policies take place of class relations and language takes the place of codes.

  			Language Policies
			(Class relations)
			/		\		
		       /		 \		
		      /			  \	 
		Distribution               Principles
		 of Power		    of Control
		     \			   /		
		      \			  / 	
		       \		 /
			    Language
			     (codes)
				|
				|
			     Ideology
				|	
			    Subjects

Classification and Framing are used by Bernstein (1973) to analyze the underlying structure of the 3 message systems: curriculum, pedagogy, and evaluation, which are evaluations of the knowledge code.

• curriculum: defines what counts as valid knowledge
• pedagogy: defines what counts as valid transmission of knowledge
• evaluation: defines what counts as valid realization of this knowledge on the part of the taught.
This imples that Bernstein sees that classification and framing are in effect gradient and can be given values: +C, ++C, -F, +F, etc.

Fig. 5.2 gives classification and framing of various lgs. in relation to bilingualism. In other words, PM Lee's idea that "everybody competes in a neutral medium" is not true. Acc. to Joyce, relationship between ideology and language are "clearly traced." Language policies and uses of lgs. are both "strongly classified and framed." Joyce quites Tham (1980) as providing empirical evidence for the operation of Bernstein's "symbolic violence." (sigh.)

English has taken on elite meanings, privileged meanings; rewards are tied to achievement and performance (thru English). Intentions of leaders are equity and excellence, but these are not the outcomes. The ideologies underlying the insistence on cultural and moral values (through ethnic lgs.) "lack immediacy" (i.e. are less tangible.) Furthermore the various cultural groups lack coherence, do not nec. share values: no unifying system of social, cultural, religious system to rationalize these values. Except maybe "thrift, hard work, group cohesion"? (which are really Chinese values.)

English is the elaborated code (Bernstein) and the other lgs. are the restricted codes . Symbolic control is related through the educ. institution that specializes in "discursive codes". (unquote).

The separatist policy of "strongly classified" codes (cf. fig. 5.2) is form of symbolic control, masked by a cloak of legitimacy. [HS: my covert policy?]

• Bilingual policy (says J.) is a form of selective bilingualism (some people get it, others don't?)
• SAP scheme favors Chinese-English bilinguals, so favors English-Mandarin bilingual: superior over others.
• Language choices (officially determined) have different social consequences. [HS: she said earlier there weren't any choices about language???]

  Streaming is seen as a mainstream sort of approach, though it results in elitism, and is seen as equitable and for the best of each. (Note that the ME3 stream, which supposedly allows for mother-tongue as lg. of instruction in 5-6, tho given as an option, does not really exist.)

  From here on, confusion: Further sections on all the other streams and streaming seem to sift and filter people out, directing them to what they can do best, while allowing some options to reenter the higher system and get higher rewards, e.g. O-levels and A-levels. Table in Fig. 5.5 seems to leave out some arrows. It also indicates options that are not in fact offered, e.g. the SAP for higher Malay/Tamil.

  Conclusion: S. has two codes of operation, elaborated code (E.) for dominant functions, and restricted codes (other tongues) for other functions. But some restricted codes are more r. than others. Exams filter people out, are supposedly fair. But access, time etc. allowed may not be. Ultimate conclusion: This system isn't fair!

  See appendix A for an overview of the "new education system".

  ---

last modified 3/31/99