Sounding Local and Going Global

10 Sounding local and going global:
Current research and implications for

pronunciation teaching1
Ee-Ling Low
All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.
This chapter summarizes recent research on the pronunciation of Singapore

English, which has provided empirical support for earlier impressionistic
observations made by the first-generation scholars in the 1980s on
Singapore English such as Tongue (1979), Platt and Weber (1980) and Tay
(1982). These empirical studies appear to have two distinct trends. One
essentially still uses auditory analysis but is backed up by empirical evidence
provided by collection of speech corpora (Lim 2004; Wee 2004; Brown
and Deterding 2005; Deterding 2007). The other set employs acoustic and
statistical analyses to either validate or offer new perspectives about previous
auditory research (e.g., Low and Grabe 1999; Brown, Deterding and Low
2000; Low, Grabe and Nolan 2000; Deterding 2001, 2003, 2005; Deterding,
Brown and Low 2005). An exploration of the intelligibility of Singapore
English worldwide will then be discussed by making reference to recent
studies on perceptual experiments to speakers from outside Singapore.
The reason for exploring the intelligibility of Singapore English worldwide
is to consider the issue of how viable it is for Singaporeans to maintain
local features of pronunciation while remaining competitive in a globalized
world. Finally, recommendations for a realistic pronunciation teaching
model will be offered based on insights given by scholars working on world
Englishes. An achievable target for classroom teachers in Singapore, given
their own pronunciation patterns, will also be discussed.
Any attempt to describe Singapore English needs to take into account
the variation that exists in this variety of English. In order to understand
variation in Singapore English, I will highlight the main theoretical models
designed by different scholars to account for the variation observed in
Copyright 2010. Hong Kong University Press.
Singapore English. However, it is not my intention to evaluate here which

model is best for describing the pronunciation of Singapore English;
rather, this is meant to provide a context on which the description of the
pronunciation of Singapore English can be based.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/20/2020 3:01 AM via ATENEO DE MANILA UNIV
AN: 359445 ; Wee, Lionel, Pakir, Anne, Lim, Lisa.; English in Singapore : Modernity and Management
Account: s5027820.main.eds
236 Ee-Ling Low
One of the earliest models for the description of Singapore English is

the lectal continuum model first suggested by Platt (1977) (also described
in Platt and Weber [1980]). At the opposite ends of the continuum lie the
lowest variety, known as the basilect, and the highest variety, the acrolect.
In between these two varieties rests the middle variety known as mesolect.
The division of speakers into different lects is based solely on educational
criteria. Speakers using the basilectal variety have received only primary
or, at best, a few years of secondary education while the speakers using the
mesolectal variety have either ‘O’ or ‘A’ level qualification.2 Speakers using
the acrolect possess tertiary education.
Another approach is the diglossic model suggested by Gupta (1986)
which acknowledges the existence of a high (H) and a low (L) variety of
English in Singapore. Both varieties have distinct functions. The low variety
is generally used for speaking to young children outside of a classroom
context and during informal situations while the high variety carries
prestige and is used for literary expression and formal domains.
Pakir’s (1991) model may be considered as one of the most widely
adopted models by scholars wishing to describe variation in Singapore
English. According to Pakir, English in Singapore varies according to two
clines: the formality and proficiency clines which in turn determine the
type of variety spoken, viz. Singapore Colloquial English (SCE) or Standard
Singapore English (SSE). In other words, the level of formality of the
situation coupled with a speaker’s proficiency level (defined in terms of
years spent on studying English) define which triangle of expression a
speaker uses. Her model is represented by the idea of ‘concentric triangles’,
in which smaller triangles are encased within a large triangle and the
difference between each triangle is determined by the size of their base.
In her model, the speaker with the highest proficiency in English has the
largest triangle of expression and is able to move effortlessly between the
colloquial and standard varieties of English, depending on the formality
of the communicative domain. Conversely, the lowest educated have the
smallest triangle of expression since they are constrained, by virtue of their
proficiency level, from moving upwards to speak standard Singapore English
even when the occasion calls for it.
Deterding and Poedjosoedarmo (2000) consider a model of inverted
triangles of ethnic variation in Singapore English. In their model, all
inverted triangles share a common inverted base but they each have
different vertices. They suggest that, based on the results of their perceptual
research on the ethnic identification of speakers, ethnic features of
Singapore English only appear in informal situations and this leads to each
inverted triangle possessing a distinct vertex. In formal situations, however,
ethnic variation disappears and therefore the inverted triangles share a
common base.
EBSCOhost - printed on 12/20/2020 3:01 AM via ATENEO DE MANILA UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Sounding local and going global 237
Alsagoff (2007) suggests the cultural orientation model (COM) to

explain language variation in Singapore (see also Alsagoff in this volume).
Her model views language variation in terms of the language having to
fulfil two functions: as a global language and as an agent of intraethnic
communication and social networking. Consequently, to remain globally
competitive in economic terms, Singaporeans speak a variety which she
terms International Standard English (ISE), which is used purely for
utilitarian and pragmatic purposes. On the other hand, Singaporeans also
speak Local Singapore English (LSE) which is meant for the expression
of Singaporeans’ local identities. As stated by Alsagoff, ‘COM posits that
speakers of Singapore English vary their style of speaking by negotiating
fluidly within a multidimensional space framed by bipolar cultural
perspectives’, one that is global and the other local. The use of ISE is
associated with formality, distance, authority and symbolizes educational
attainment and economic value. Conversely, the use of LSE has associations
with informality, camaraderie, equality, membership within a community
and has value as socio-cultural capital. The use of ISE or LSE is determined
by the speakers’ competence in the language and also out of choice, that is,
whether they choose to use English for global or local purposes.
In the rest of the chapter, the description of the latest pronunciation
research on Singapore English is based broadly on ‘Standard Singapore
English’ (SSE) and ‘Singapore Colloquial English’ (SCE) since these
terms (SSE and SCE) have been used widely in the past few decades prior
to Alsagoff’s framework. However, it does not imply that I am ignoring
the important insights offered by COM; instead, as this chapter reviews
previous research done on pronunciation, it is important to adopt the same
terminology that most previous research has alluded to. Consequently,
it becomes important to define what I mean by SSE and SCE. These two
terms will be defined according to a definition provided by Low and Brown
(2005: 11): SSE is ‘the variety of English (spoken and written) used by
educated Singaporeans for formal purposes, that is, for education, law
and the media’, and SCE is the ‘informal, colloquial variety of Singapore
English with its own unique linguistic features, used whether by those who
have limited proficiency in the language or by proficient speakers who
choose to use it for informal purposes’ (Low and Brown 2005: 12). In many
ways, the definition I have chosen to adopt corresponds closely to Alsagoff’s
ISE and LSE varieties. As for ethnic variation in Singapore English, studies
which focus specifically on particular ethnic subvarieties of English will be
highlighted. Note also that, as a convenient reference point, features of
British English may sometimes be referred to in the discussion of features
of SSE and SCE. This variety of British English is Southern Standard British
English (SSBE) and is defined according to Low and Brown (2005: 13) as
‘the variety of British English used by educated speakers mainly residing
238 Ee-Ling Low
and working in the south of England’. The comparison is not meant to

place any normative judgement on what Singaporeans ought to sound like,
but is included as a reference point for comparative analysis.
The report on the acoustic findings will rely, as far as possible, on
published works rather than unpublished dissertations and theses.
Research on SE pronunciation
Segmental research: Vowels

In providing a phonemic inventory of vowels of Singapore English, I will be
using Wells’ (1982) standard lexical sets. This approach has also been used
in Schneider et al. (2004) for describing the vowels of varieties of English
around the world. I will contrast the lexical sets provided by Lim (2004),
Wee (2004), Low and Brown (2005) and Deterding (2007), together with
the lexical sets for British English in Lim (2004).
Note that the dashes for some of the lexical items for Low and Brown’s
(2005) inventory indicate that they have not commented on the realization
of the vowels in these words. From Table 10.1, we can surmise that the
variety that Deterding (2007) was investigating is closer to SCE than SSE.
This is evident as the phonemic inventory he has listed closely matches that
of the CSE features listed by Lim (2004) and Wee (2004).
Deterding (2005) talks about the emergent patterns in some vowels
in Singapore English which are more representative of SSE since subjects
were recorded reading carefully prepared sentences. Interestingly, he found
that there were at least two different realizations of the vowel in DRESS
based on his acoustic measurements of the first and second formants of the
vowels, one which rhymed with the diphthong in FACE and another which
rhymed with the vowel found in TRAP. This same vowel is represented by
Lim (2004) in SSBE as [‫]ܭ‬, i.e., a vowel quality close to cardinal vowel 3, a
representation also used by editors of the new Oxford Pronouncing Dictionary
edited by Upton et al., but otherwise, it is far more commonly denoted by
the symbol matching cardinal vowel 2 [e]. Based on the results of his study,
Deterding (2005) groups the following words together: vague, made, grade,
egg, bed, dead (which are realized with the diphthong in FACE in SSBE),
while another group comprises the following words: peg, beg, fed, bread, bag,
bad (which are realized with the vowel in TRAP in SSBE).
Adopting Low and Brown’s (2005) proposed vowel inventory as a
starting point, I will highlight acoustic studies that are focused on the vowel
pairs which have been observed to be conflated in previous auditory studies.
On the conflation of the long and short vowels for the lexical sets
FLEECE and KIT, Deterding (2003) measured the first two formants
(F1 and F2) for the conversational vowels of five male and five female
Table 10.1 Phonemic vowel inventory of Singapore English
SSBE SSE SCE SCE SE Spoken SE Keywords

(Lim 2004) (Lim 2004) (Lim 2004) (Wee (Low and (Deterding
2004) Brown 2007)
2005)
ܼ ܼ i i i i KIT
‫ܭ‬ ‫ܭ‬ ‫ܭ‬ æ ‫ܭ‬ ‫ܭ‬ DRESS
æ æ ‫ܭ‬ ‫ܭ‬ ‫ܭ‬ ‫ܭ‬ TRAP
‫ܥ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܧ‬ ‫ܧ‬ ‫ܧ‬ ‫ܧ‬ LOT
‫ݞ‬ ‫ݞ‬ a ‫ܤ‬ ‫ݞ‬ ‫ݞ‬ STRUT
‫ݜ‬ ‫ݜ‬ u u u u FOOT
‫ޝܤ‬ ‫ޝܤ‬ a ‫ܤ‬ – ‫ܤ‬ BATH
‫ܥ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܧ‬ ‫ܧ‬ – ‫ܧ‬ CLOTH
‫ޝܮ‬ ‫ޝܮ‬ ԥ ԥ ԥ ԥ NURSE
i‫ޝ‬ i‫ޝ‬ i i i i FLEECE
eܼ eܼ e e e e FACE
‫ޝܤ‬ ‫ޝܤ‬ a ‫ܤ‬ ‫ݞ‬ ‫ݞ‬ PALM
‫ޝܧ‬ ‫ޝܧ‬ ‫ܧ‬ ‫ܧ‬ ‫ܧ‬ ‫ܧ‬ THOUGHT
o‫ݜ‬ o‫ݜ‬ o o o‫ݜ‬ o GOAT
u‫ޝ‬ u‫ޝ‬ u u u ‫ݜ‬ GOOSE
aܼ aܼ ai ai aܼ ‫ܤ‬i PRICE
‫ܼܧ‬ ‫ܼܧ‬ ‫ܧ‬i ‫ܧ‬i ‫ܧ‬i ‫ܧ‬i CHOICE
a‫ݜ‬ a‫ݜ‬ au au au au MOUTH
ܼԥ ܼԥ iԥ iԥ iԥ iԥ NEAR
‫ܭ‬ԥ ‫ܭ‬ ‫ܭ‬ æ ‫ܭ‬ ‫ܭ‬ SQUARE
‫ޝܤ‬ ‫ޝܤ‬ a ‫ܤ‬ – ‫ݞ‬ START
‫ޝܧ‬ ‫ޝܧ‬ ‫ܧ‬ ‫ܧ‬ – ‫ܧ‬ NORTH
‫ޝܧ‬ ‫ޝܧ‬ ‫ܧ‬ ‫ܧ‬ – ‫ܧ‬ FORCE
‫ݜ‬ԥ ‫ݜ‬ԥ uԥ uԥ uԥ uԥ POOR
Similar Similar Similar
‫ܧ‬ – ‫ܧ‬ CURE
to ‘poor’ to ‘poor’ to ‘poor’
ܼ i i i – ܼ HAPPY
ԥ ԥ ԥ ԥ ԥ ԥ LETTER
ԥ ԥ ԥ ԥ ԥ ԥ COMMA
Singaporean student teachers. All were below 35 years of age. It is likely

that the students were trying to use SSE since they were communicating
with their lecturer of British nationality. Deterding found that there was
evidence of conflation for the long/short vowels /i:/ and /ܼ/ and /e/ and
/æ/. He showed evidence of this by plotting the F1–F2 scatter plots of each
of these vowel pairs for the male subjects. There were clear cases of overlap
for these vowel pairs. For the long/short vowel pair /‫ޝܧ‬/ and /‫ܥ‬/, while
there were some overlapping areas, the two vowels were generally distinct
240 Ee-Ling Low
from each other. Deterding’s (2003) findings on the conflation between the
/e/ and /æ/ vowels further confirm an earlier acoustic study conducted by
Suzanna and Brown (2000). They measured these vowels in citation form,
in both formal and informal conversations produced by eight Singaporeans
(four Chinese, two Malays, one Indian and one Eurasian). Their results
suggest that all subjects made a distinction between the two vowels in
citation form, but the distinction was not as significant in conversational
data, whether formal or informal. The Indians and Eurasians showed the
greatest differentiation between the two vowels, the Malays the least and the
Chinese were in between.
In a study comparing Singapore English with Malaysian English
speakers of Malay ethnicity, Tan and Low (forthcoming) found that in
citation form, while the scatter plots for the vowel pairs /i:/ and /ܼ/ and
/e/ and /æ/ showed some degree of overlap, the vowel pairs /‫ޝܤ‬/ and /‫ݞ‬/ and /
u:/ and /‫ݜ‬/ showed some evidence of being differentiated in terms of having
minimal overlap in their scatter plots. When the vowels were produced
in a read text, there appeared to be a very clear distinction for the vowels
/‫ޝܧ‬/ and /‫ܥ‬/. This finding concurs with Deterding’s (2003) study.
In summary, acoustic evidence shows conflation between the vowel
pairs /i:/ and /ܼ/ and /e/ and /æ/. However, the conflation of the other
long/short vowel pairs /‫ޝܤ‬/ and /‫ݞ‬/, /u:/ and /‫ݜ‬/ and /‫ޝܧ‬/ and /‫ܥ‬/ is not
supported by acoustic analysis.
As far as the monophthongization of diphthongs are concerned, studies
by Deterding (2000) and Lee and Lim (2000) found evidence that the
closing diphthongs /eܼ/ and /ԥ‫ݜ‬/ were significantly more monophthongal
when produced by Singaporeans compared to their British counterparts.
They proved this by measuring the rate of change (ROC) of the formants
which is the difference in the formant values at the end of the vowel
compared to the beginning and dividing it by the duration of the vowel.
Lim and Low (2005) studied triphthongs in Singapore English. The
status of triphthongs is highly debatable since there is little consensus about
whether vowel sequences with three phonetic symbols, for example /eܼԥ, aܼԥ,
‫ܼܧ‬ԥ, a‫ݜ‬ԥ, ԥ‫ݜ‬ԥ/, are regarded as single phonemes or as diphthongs followed
by a schwa. Their perceptual experiment showed that the respondents
perceived the Singaporean subjects to be producing triphthongs with a
glide insertion between the diphthong and the schwa.
Segmental research: Consonants

A convenient reference point to talk about latest research on consonants in
Singapore English is Low and Brown’s (2005: 143) consonantal inventory
for initial and final positions (see Tables 10.2a and 10.2b below). Note that
the lines linking different consonants are meant to indicate conflation of

these sounds in Singapore English.
Table 10.2a Inventory for consonants in initial position

(adapted from Low and Brown 2005: 143)
Bilabial Labio Alveolar Dental Palato Palatal Velar Glottal

dental alveolar
Plosives p–b t–d k–J
Affricates ‫ݶݹ‬
Nasals m n
Fricatives f v s–z ‫ ڧ‬ð ‫ݤݕ‬ h
Approximants w l r j
Table 10.2b Inventory for consonants in final position

(adapted from Low and Brown 2005: 143)
Bilabial Labio Alveolar Dental Palato Palatal Velar Glottal

dental alveolar
Plosives p–b t–d k–J
Affricates ‫ݶݹ‬
Nasals m n
Fricatives f v s–z ‫ ڧ‬ð ‫ݤݕ‬ h
Approximants w l r j
Low and Brown (2005) agree with Bao’s (1998) analysis that at the acrolectal
level, the consonantal inventory hardly differs from SSBE but for informal
purposes of communication and for basilectal speakers, conflation between
consonantal sounds as illustrated in Tables 10.2a and 10.2b are highly likely.
Note also that the conflation between the voiced and voiceless plosives is
indicative of the lack of aspiration for voiceless plosives in Singapore English.
Lim (2004) describes final nasal deletion and the preceding vowels
being nasalized. For example, time is pronounced as [taܼ ]Ѻ . All three scholars
(Lim 2004; Wee 2004 and Deterding 2007) mention final consonant cluster
simplification, for example, brand being pronounced as [bræn]. However,
Lim (2004) also mentions final consonant deletion or replacement.
She observes this to be restricted to obstruents, normally plosives; for
example, not is pronounced as [n‫]ܧ‬. The replacement of final consonants
is described by both Wee (2004) and Deterding (2007) as the final glottal
stop. The replacement of final consonants with glottal stops appears to be
most common with voiceless final plosives, a pattern also noted by Brown
and Deterding (2005). All three scholars also note that presence of the
242 Ee-Ling Low
vocalization of [l] where dark [l] is often vocalized, i.e., turned into a vowel
instead. For example, school is pronounced as [sku].
Deterding (2007) notes the presence of extra final [t] and is found
most commonly after words ending with [n] and may be related to the
release of this nasal stop. He also hypothesizes that the extra final [t] may
be a means of including a spurious -ed suffix which is not meant to be
present. Deterding also notes the occurrence of non-prevocalic [r] where [r]
does not occur before vowels as one would expect but is clearly pronounced
in a rhoticized fashion; for example, for is pronounced as [f‫ܧ‬r].
Both Lim (2004) and Deterding (2007) describe different realizations
of the palato-alveolar realization of [r]. Lim (2004) describes its realization
as a voiced alveolar tap, most commonly found among Malay Singaporeans.
For example, rod is pronounced as [‫ܥݐ‬d]. Deterding (2007) talks about the
labiodental [r] which is represented by the symbol [‫ ]ݝ‬where very is realized
as [ve‫]ܼݝ‬.
Moorthy and Deterding (2000) investigated the use of dental fricatives
in Singapore English but found it very difficult to establish the exact
acoustic correlates of the realization of [t] compared to [‫]ڧ‬. Apart from
the higher overall intensity for the plosive compared to the dental fricative
and the period of silence indicative of the closure for an aspirated voiceless
plosive, the acoustic correlates were extremely difficult to pin down
particularly because of the lack of aspiration common for Singaporean
speakers for initial voiceless plosives.
Gut (2005) conducted a detailed study on the realization of final
plosives in Singapore and investigated whether all final plosives were
realized in the same way, i.e., as unreleased or replaced by glottal stops as
documented by different studies. Her findings confirmed that word-final
plosives were either unreleased or replaced by glottal stops as noted by
previous researchers. The realization of a single coda plosive was found to
be influenced by its phonetic environment. Final plosives tended to have
a higher chance of realization if they were preceding a word beginning
with a vowel compared to a consonant. When the final plosive preceded
words beginning with non-sibilant fricatives, their chance of being realized
was also higher. Consonant clusters with two consonants tended to be
reduced to just one. When a plosive was followed by /s/, it was less likely
to be simplified. Furthermore, lateral + plosive clusters also experienced
consonant cluster simplification. Three-consonant clusters tended to be
reduced to either two or one consonant. Non-Chinese speakers retained
final plosives more than their Chinese counterparts and two-consonant
clusters were never reduced in entirety for non-Chinese speakers.
Lim and Deterding (2005) showed that the extra final [t] occurred
mostly in formal conversations. When they did occur, they posited that
its realization appeared to be motivated by the fear of missing out the
pronunciation of the -ed suffix. There also appeared to be no logical

articulatory reason for its appearance in formal conversations.
Tan (2005) investigated the vocalization of [l] in Singapore English.
His perceptual test confirmed that Singaporeans did vocalize dark /l/.
The tendency to vocalize dark /l/ appeared not to be affected by gender
or differences in speaking style. There was a marginal effect of speaking
rate where faster speech inspired more realizations of vocalized versions of
dark [l]. The differences in vocalization frequency appeared to be speaker-
dependent, where some speakers simply used this feature more than others.
Suprasegmental research: Lexical stress placement

In terms of lexical stress placement, Bao (1998) notes that the following
phonological rules govern word stress placement in Singapore English:
(i) Heavy syllables (those containing a long vowel/diphthong or a coda)
tend to be stressed.
(ii) Stress occurs on alternate syllables.
(iii) If a word has more than one stressed syllable, it is the last syllable that
carries primary stress.
Low and Brown (2005) further point out, in agreement with Tay
(1982), that stress occurs one syllable later than one would find in British
English. For example, while SSBE has stress on the first syllable for calendar,
Singapore English stresses the second syllable.
Previous researchers have also noted that stress appears to be on final
syllables of polysyllabic words like carefully and hopelessly (Tongue 1974;
Platt and Weber 1980; Tay 1982; Deterding 1994). Low (2000), testing
this claim acoustically, designed test sentences which placed the words in
both final and medial positions in order to test whether the perception of
stress on the final syllables was a result of sentence position. Her subjects
were considered to be speakers of SSBE and SSE since they were all
undergraduates speaking in a very formal situation. Both durational and
fundamental frequency (F0) measurements were taken for all syllables of
test words. The durational results showed that there was significantly more
phrase-final lengthening in SSE compared to SSBE. However, when the
words were placed in medial position, this lengthening effect disappeared.
F0 measurements corroborated the durational measurements since there
was a substantial drop in F0 for SSBE for the initial syllable compared to the
following syllables which was absent for SSE. However, in medial position,
this difference was not found between the two varieties. Collectively, the
duration and F0 measurements showed that SSE speakers marked phrase
boundaries more prominently compared to SSBE speakers.
244 Ee-Ling Low
In terms of words distinguished only by a difference in stress placement

to indicate a change in grammatical category, it is observed that SSE does
not show this distinction via stress placement. Thus, there is no difference
for stress placement for a word like convert pronounced as a noun or as
a verb. Low (2000) further tested whether Singaporeans distinguished
between stress placement for compounds and phrasal nouns. It was found
from the duration and F0 results that while the British speakers clearly
distinguished between stress placement for compounds and phrases, the
Singaporeans did not.
Deterding and Poedjosoedarmo (1998) note that the effects to stress
placement of adding suffixes to words in Singapore English are different
compared to British English. For example, -ic is stress-shifting in SSBE but
stress-preserving in SSE, and -ism is stress-preserving in SSBE but stress-
shifting in SSE.
Suprasegmental research: Rhythm

Traditional classification of rhythmic variation in the world’s languages
has tended to classify languages as being syllable-timed (where syllables are
nearly equal) or stress-timed (where stresses are nearly equal). It is now far
more common to talk about languages being more stress-based or syllable-
based or mora-based (as one would classify Japanese) or even rhythmically
mixed. In Brown’s (1988) work, he suggests some features of Singapore
English that might lead to the perception of a staccato-effect or a ‘machine-
gun’ rhythm of Singapore English:
(i) absence of features associated with stress-timed rhythm such as reduced
vowels in unstressed words;
(ii) absence of linking between words;
(iii) absence of a distinction between long and short vowels.
There has been evidence in recent acoustic studies supporting earlier

observations made by Brown and other researchers, who have labelled
Singapore English as syllable-timed. Based on suggestions by Taylor
(1981) and Brown (1988), Low et al. (2000) measured vowel durations in
Singapore English and compared them with British English for two sets of
specially designed sentences. One set of sentences contained only full vowels
while the other contained full and potentially reduced vowels as they would
be realized in a stress-timed language like British English. Using the Pairwise
Variability Index (PVI) which measures the difference in variability between
successive vowels in a sentence and which is normalized for speaking
rate, their study showed that Singapore English had a significantly lower
PVI compared to British English. This finding provides acoustic evidence
to validate the perception of there being more nearly equal duration in

successive vowels in Singapore English, thus contributing to the perception
of syllable timing in Singapore English. To provide further acoustic evidence
for the nearly equal vowel timing found in Singapore English, Low et al.
(2000) went on to measure first and second formants of all the potentially
reduced vowels found in the sentence sets for both Singapore English and
British English. Their measurements showed that potentially reduced vowels
in Singapore English were significantly further from the central point (the
centroid) compared to those vowels in British English.
The lack of reduced vowels was further investigated by Heng and
Deterding (2005). They studied the occurrence of reduced vowels in
the first syllable of polysyllabic words in Singapore English. Based on
a perceptual experiment, it was found that Singaporean speakers used
fewer reduced vowels than British English speakers. For words with o in
the spelling, for example, words beginning with com or con, Singaporeans
tended to produce full vowels. Unfortunately, the presence of a following
nasal in many of the test words made the acoustic measurements of the first
and second formants highly unreliable.
Deterding (2001) measured syllable durations in Singapore English
compared to British English. He devised the variability index (VI) to
the successive syllable durations and found that British English had a
significantly higher VI compared to Singapore English.
Suprasegmental research: Some intonational features

Lim (2004) has provided a corpus-based description of the main forms
and functions of intonational tones in Singapore English, phrase-final
prominence, the intonation of discourse particles, focus and prominence.
Wee (2004) makes very brief mention about the lack of pitch variation
and syllable-final lengthening. Low and Brown (2005) talk about the
difficulty of applying the British model of intonation to the description
of Singapore English as there is great difficulty in locating a nucleus of
greatest prominence since many syllables are perceptibly prominent. This
is a view that is shared by Levis (2005) who calculated the number of
prominent syllables to be 46% more in Singapore English compared to
American English. Goh (2005) notes that the level tone which normally has
little communicative value in British English is, in fact, used for a variety
of important communicative functions in Singapore English, such as tonic
syllables in terminal position. Deterding (2007) mentions the tendency to
assign prominence to pronouns, the lack of deaccenting, the presence of
the early booster and some functions of intonational tones that he observes
to be different from British English. In particular, he also mentions the
246 Ee-Ling Low
characteristic final rise-fall tone which indicates an extra degree of emphasis

in Singapore English.
Two intonational features have been the subject of close acoustic
measurement and analysis: the presence of an early booster in utterances
and the lack of deaccenting in Singapore English.
Low (2000) measured the pitch range of the early booster in Singapore
and compared this with the early marker found in British English. In both
varieties, there is evidence of a syllable or lexical item, rather early on in an
utterance, which is produced at an extremely high pitch compared to its
surrounding. Normally, this syllable or lexical item signals a new topic. Low
(2000) found that there was a significantly larger pitch excursion for the
early booster compared to the early marker found in British English.
Low and Brown (2005) and Low (2006) report on acoustic
measurements that provide empirical evidence for the lack of deaccenting
in Singapore English for old or given information. The data comprised
three main categories of given information, namely, repeated lexical items,
anaphoric reference, and sentences that cued deaccenting by inference.
Results indicate that in Singapore English, there appears to be no acoustic
evidence of prosodically attenuating (weakening) given information either
in terms of duration (length) or pitch (fundamental frequency), unlike
what one finds in British English. In fact, there is evidence for reaccenting
given information in Singapore English.
Pedagogical implications
The previous sections have provided a summary of the latest research

on the pronunciation of Singapore English. It is clear that Singapore
English pronunciation has very distinctive characteristics compared to an
Inner Circle variety such as British English. This section will explore what
this means for pronunciation teaching in the context where speakers of
Singapore English need to function in the global arena but at the same
time are constrained by the need to maintain a local identity.
One guiding principle: Intelligibility

Since Jenkins’ seminal work (2000) on the phonology of English as an
international language, in which she studied exactly which phonological
features caused a breakdown in communication when two non-native
speakers were communicating with each other, the notion of a lingua franca
core (LFC) comprising minimal features of pronunciation required for
international intelligibility has sparked off much interest. However, it has
also generated much debate and controversy in the field. Jenkins advocates
that the goal of intelligibility ought to be towards fellow non-native speakers
rather than native interlocutors as traditional pronunciation syllabi have
implicitly assumed. Based on this goal, she has sketched the minimal
features of pronunciation necessary to preserve international intelligibility
in communication amongst non-native speakers of English. These features
are shown in Table 10.3, and have been adapted from Jenkins (2002: 9). I
have only selected those features which we have discussed with reference to
Singapore English earlier in this chapter.
Table 10.3 What a Lingua Franca Core pronunciation syllabus should focus on
Pronunciation feature Lingua Franca Core syllabus

1. Consonantal inventory All sounds except for /‫ڧ‬, ð, l/
Aspiration after /p, t, k/
2. Phonetic realizations
Appropriate vowel length before fortis/lenis consonants
3. Consonant clusters Preserve word initially and medially
4. Vowel quantity All long-short vowel contrasts
5. Vowel quality Consistent regional qualities can be preserved
6. Weak forms Not necessary
7. Stress-timed rhythm Unnecessary
8. Word stress Hard to teach
9. Nuclear (tonic) stress Critical
Based on Jenkins’ list, one can predict the areas where distinctive
features of Singapore English pronunciation might pose a problem to
international intelligibility. Such a list is drawn up in Table 10.4.
Looking at Table 10.4, it appears that the potential pronunciation
features that may cause unintelligibility are rather few; they are, namely,
lack of aspiration for voiceless plosives, lack of long/short vowel contrasts
and the fact that it is difficult to identify tonic stress in Singapore English.
It is important to consider what recent research has shown about the
intelligibility of Singapore English worldwide.
Four recent studies were conducted on the intelligibility of Singapore
worldwide and here is what they found. 3 Gupta (2005) compared the
intelligibility of the recording of a male British and a male Singaporean
subject during an informal interview by a British interviewer. It was found
that listeners found it much easier to understand their own varieties
respectively. However, when British subjects were asked to listen to
Singaporean speech and vice versa, it was the Singaporean speech that
was more intelligible cross-varietally. Setter (2005) set out to examine how
differently Singaporean speech was perceived by two British listeners and
248 Ee-Ling Low
Table 10.4 Possible areas causing problems for international intelligibility based on
research on Singapore English pronunciation
Pronunciation feature Lingua Franca Core Syllabus Problem for international

intelligibility in Singapore
English
1. Consonantal inventory All sounds except for /‫ڧ‬, ð, l/ No.
2. Phonetic realizations Aspiration after /p, t, k/ Yes, since /p, t, k/ tend to
be conflated with /b, d, J/
respectively.
Appropriate vowel length No, as there is evidence
before fortis/lenis consonants provided at least for a
distinction in vowel length
between seize and cease shown
by Deterding (2005).
3. Consonant clusters Preserve word initially and No, although no acoustic
medially study has validated this.
4. Vowel quantity All long-short vowel contrasts Yes.
5. Vowel quality Consistent regional qualities No, as Singapore English has
can be preserved rather consistent regional
qualities.
6. Weak forms Not necessary No.
7. Stress-timed rhythm Unnecessary No, even though Singapore
English is clearly syllable-
timed.
8. Word stress Hard to teach Arguable.
9. Nuclear (tonic) stress Critical Yes, since tonic stress is simply
the last stress in Singapore
English.
to what this difference was attributable. They were also asked to point out
factors which helped to make Singaporean speech intelligible. The results
showed that final consonant clusters appeared to be missing in Singapore
English and that this posed a problem for intelligibility. Suprasegmental
features were also rated to be the most different from British English. What
helped intelligibility was the context of the utterance. Kirkpatrick and
Saunders (2005) played six excerpts of Singapore English speech (three
males and three females) to listeners from Australia, Norway, Bhutan,
Canada, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, Vietnam, China, England, Germany,
Iraq, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, South Africa, Singapore, Taiwan and
the USA. Using Smith’s (1992) benchmark of intelligibility at 60%, the
listeners who scored less than 60% were from Bhutan, Norway, Iraq, Japan,
Taiwan and China. What is extremely interesting about these results is that
listeners from the Inner Circle countries like Australia, Canada, Ireland,
England and the USA had little problem understanding Singapore English,
while those from geographically closer regions to Singapore (with the
exception of Norway) found it far harder to understand Singapore English.
Their findings are corroborated by Date (2005), a Japanese phonetician,
who identified the main features of Singaporean speech that hampered
his ability to understand Singapore English both at the segmental and the
suprasegmental levels. Segmentally, the following features posed a problem
for him: replacing dental fricatives with alveolar plosives, reduction of final
clusters, absence of linking following final plosives, conflation of vowel
length and monophthongization of the diphthongs /eܼ/ and /ԥ‫ݜ‬/. In
the suprasegmental realm, these were the absence of a nuclear syllable,
different stress placement, lack of deaccenting, the use of a narrow pitch
range, and the functions of some intonational tones such as the high-level
tone in place of a falling tone and the use of a falling tone in a question
tag like ‘right’ rather than a rising tone. What is interesting is that Date
lists many more features that posed problems for intelligibility compared
to Jenkins’ proposed list shown in Table 10.3. This suggests that non-native
speakers from the Expanding Circles appear to require more adherence
to a standard native speaker pronunciation model than native speakers of
English when attempting to understand Singapore English. Another reason
why Expanding Circle speakers find Singapore English difficult to understand
may be because of their own relative lack of proficiency in English.
Beyond intelligibility
Hung (2007) argues for a pragmatic approach to the teaching of
pronunciation and his approach is defined mainly by the following framing
questions:
(i) How useful is the feature in distinguishing between words?
(ii) How frequent is its occurrence?
(iii) How difficult is it for speakers to acquire?
(iv) How appropriate is it in terms of either enhancing or impeding
intelligibility?
I would argue that most of his questions except for (iii) are still
ultimately linked to the notion of intelligibility. This was the approach
also adopted by Low and Deterding (2002) and Low and Brown (2005).
Questions (i) and (ii) were represented by the notion of functional load
and frequency of occurrence respectively. Questions (iii) and (iv) were
indirectly represented by the question ‘occurrence elsewhere’, meaning that
a particular pronunciation feature also occurs in other standard varieties
of English; it is probably not worth fussing about. I would like to propose
250 Ee-Ling Low
here a pronunciation model that is sensitive to the socio-cultural identity of

its speakers. In discussing the socio-cultural identity of speakers, one needs
to take cognizance of the dual roles that English plays in Singapore as
documented in Alsagoff (2007) (also mentioned earlier in this chapter). In
order to stay globally competitive, Singaporeans need to speak international
standard English (ISE), but for expressing our local identities, Singaporeans
have to speak local Singapore English (LSE). Alsagoff (2007: 39) further
talks about the different orientations between globalism and localism.
While globalism represents economic capital, authority, formality, distance
and educational attainment, localism represents socio-cultural capital,
camaraderie, informality, closeness and community membership. Applying
Alsagoff’s cultural orientation model for pronunciation modelling, I would
argue that the desire to be internationally intelligible caters to the globalist
orientation, and for a long while, researchers have concentrated their
efforts on how pronunciation norms must ultimately allow Singaporeans to
compete in the global arena educationally, economically and commercially.
However, in considering the local orientation in relation to pronunciation
norms, it is then necessary to consider issues beyond the realm of
intelligibility.
In line with accommodation theory or ‘accommodative processes’ as
it is sometimes referred to, as espoused by Giles and Coupland (1991),
speakers often manipulate language styles in order ‘to maintain integrity,
distance or identity’ (Giles and Coupland 1991: 66). It should be noted that
accommodative processes may be both convergent or divergent depending
on whether speakers choose to associate or disassociate themselves from
their interlocutors. One example where divergence may take place when
Singaporeans are expressing their localist orientation is described by Low
and Deterding (2002) and Low and Brown (2005) as ‘the shibboleth
value’ of pronunciation features. This refers to a pronunciation feature
that speakers may want to avoid as it carries a certain stigma; for example,
it may give rise to the perception that a teacher is not able to speak
English well. One such feature in Singapore English is the replacement
of dental fricatives with alveolar plosives. Harking back to Tables 10.3
and 10.4, I would like to propose in Table 10.5 features of Singapore
English pronunciation which should be preserved in order to maintain a
distinctively Singaporean identity.
This preliminary listing of features can be further refined to include
examples of structural inclusivity, as advocated by Alsagoff (2007); ethnic
and educational barriers are broken down when one uses particular
features. For example, Deterding and Poedjosoedarmo (2000) showed that
more ethnic-like features appeared in the speech of Chinese, Malays and
Indians during informal speech situations. There might be a conscious
choice to reduce these ethnic features if Singaporeans want to truly express
a localist orientation in their speech.
Table 10.5 Combination of features of Singapore English that

might compromise intelligibility and those that need to be maintained for
the expression of a local identity
Pronunciation Lingua Franca Core Problem for international Needed to preserve

feature syllabus intelligibility in Singapore local identity
English
1. Consonantal All sounds except for No All regional qualities
inventory /‫ڧ‬, ð, l/ to be maintained.
2. Phonetic Aspiration after /p, t, Yes, since /p, t, k/ tends All regional qualities
realizations k/ to be conflated with /b, to be maintained.
d, J/ respectively.
Appropriate vowel No, as there is evidence
length before fortis/ provided at least for
lenis consonants a distinction in vowel
length between seize and
cease shown by Deterding
(2005).
3. Consonant Preserve word No, although no acoustic All regional qualities
clusters initially & medially study has validated this. to be maintained.
4. Vowel All long-short vowel Yes. All regional qualities
quantity contrasts to be maintained.
5. Vowel Consistent regional No, as Singapore English All regional qualities
quality qualities can be has rather consistent to be maintained.
preserved regional qualities
6. Weak forms Not necessary No. All regional qualities
to be maintained,
i.e., relative absence
of weak forms in
Singapore English.
7. Stress-timed Unnecessary No, even though Syllable timing to be
rhythm Singapore English is preserved.
clearly syllable-timed
8. Word stress Hard to teach Arguable. Phrase-final
lengthening,
different lexical stress
placement, etc.
9. Nuclear Critical Yes, since tonic stress is Lack of clear tonic
(tonic) stress simply the last stress in stress, reliance
Singapore English perhaps on particles.
Implications for pronunciation syllabus implementation

So far, I have argued why it is very important for Singaporeans to preserve
both their global and local orientation in their pronunciation. However,
what does this mean for a pronunciation syllabus? How can pronunciation
curriculum designers take cognizance of such sensitivities?
252 Ee-Ling Low
1. Teaching of two varieties and factors governing their use
It is of absolute importance that a pronunciation syllabus includes both

varieties of English discussed above, one that can enable students to
function in a global arena (Standard Singapore English) and another
that allows them to express their local identities (Singapore Colloquial
English) if they so wish. Starting off with a table such as Table 10.5 above
is important. However, translating this into teachable materials is of prime
importance since good theoretical concepts are very often lost in actual
classroom practice simply because they are too difficult to implement.
One practical method I have used in class is to play a recording of a
Singaporean using SSE and another of a Singaporean using SCE. I then
elicit responses from the students by asking what they perceive of the two
speakers in terms of intelligence, pretentiousness, sincerity, friendliness,
etc. I also include a question asking students for the circumstances in which
they would want to project an identity associated with one speaker versus
the other. Another variation of the same task is especially useful for student
teachers as I make them ‘moral judges’ of the two varieties and ask them to
decide on which variety they would want their students to speak, to whom,
when, where and why. After this simple attitudinal exercise, I then hand
out a checklist of pronunciation features (as listed in Table 10.5 but drawn
up with greater specificity). For instance, as a regional feature, initial /‫ڧ‬/
is replaced with initial /t/. I then ask students to pick the pronunciation
features associated with the two speech samples played to them, one
representing SSE and the other SCE. The purpose of this second exercise is
to help students to identify pronunciation features associated with SSE and
SCE respectively.
What is of utmost importance is spending time discussing when students
might want to express their global identity and when they would want to
express their localized selves. The teacher should bear in mind the official
governmental stance as expressed in the Speak Good English Movement
launched in 2000. The movement is meant ‘to encourage Singaporeans to
speak grammatically correct English that is universally understood’ (SGEM
2008). The main aims of the movement, as outlined in the movement’s
official website (SGEM 2008), are to get Singaporeans to:
1. Speak in Standard English so as to be understood by all English
speakers in this globalized and highly-interconnected world.
2. Pay attention to accurate pronunciation. However, this is not about
acquiring a new foreign accent.
This further reinforces the argument I have raised earlier about the
preservation of all local features of pronunciation to express our local
identities.
2. Focus on communicative competence
The goal of a forward-looking pronunciation syllabus must, at the heart,

lie in the development of communicative competence of its learners. By
communicative competence, I am referring first of all to Hymes’ (1972)
original definition, i.e., the ability to use language not just grammatically
but appropriately as well. I am also talking about the elaboration of the
concept by Canale and Swain (1980) which proposes four competence areas
that make up communicative competence: (a) grammatical: knowledge
of linguistic rules of a language; (b) sociolinguistic: how to use language
appropriately according to whom one is communicating with, when, where,
etc.; (c) discoursal: where both cohesion (how a text links) and coherence
(whether the text is logical) are important; and (d) strategic: how to
appropriately use communicative strategies to achieve communicative goals
or to help repair breakdowns in communication.
I should point out that both the 1991 and the 2001 English Language
syllabi do, at their core, advocate a model for teaching oral communication
that generally embraces communicative competence. However, what
is noteworthy is Goh et al.’s (2005) finding that the time allocated for
listening and speaking activities were the least compared to that allocated
for the other language skills. Their study surveyed 2,681 primary and
secondary English language teachers. Thus, even before we can talk about
the approach to pronunciation instruction, the need to focus on the
development of what Goh (2005) calls oracy competence is most urgent.
3. Exemplification of each pronunciation feature via sound files
Since the arrival of the interactive digital media age, it has become
commonplace to play sound files of different pronunciation features
to international audiences when giving public lectures, seminars and
conferences. However, what I would advocate is that teachers should play
particular features in both ISE and LSE to students so that they get to hear
and understand how different they sound. Resources for such files can be
found either online or in CDs accompanying books on Singapore English,
such as Deterding, Brown and Low (2005) and Deterding (2007). It is
one thing to provide a technical description of a particular pronunciation
feature such as ‘syllable timing’ and quite another to play an example to
students immediately after describing that feature. After this ‘awareness-
raising’ practice on the different features of ISE and LSE, the discussion
about which variety to use for which communicative situations (as described
under points 1 and 2 in this section) should then be carried out.
254 Ee-Ling Low
4. Conduct attitudinal surveys on students
Suppiah (2002) surveyed eight pupils each from two primary schools (total
of sixteen) and asked them about whether they wanted to sound like
their teacher who was a local Singaporean and who exhibited features of
Standard Singapore English. In School A, there was 100% agreement and
in School B, there was 75% agreement showing that these pupils do indeed
want to sound like their teacher.
Such a survey is useful as it can ascertain the type of pronunciation
model to which pupils themselves aspire, instead of imposing a particular
standard on them. Such a survey can be adapted considerably for older
students in secondary schools and include questions that help to elicit their
attitudes towards other established varieties of English (such as British and
American English) and other regional varieties of English (such as Hong
Kong and Philippine English). The findings can inform teachers as to which
variety of English is highly regarded, and why. However, finding out the
variety that students prefer is just the beginning of the journey. The idea is
not to simply pander to the model to which students aspire, but to explore
in greater depth with them why they look up to certain models. Again, a
class discussion, a web forum discussion or a reflective essay can be used
for this purpose. As a follow-up activity, the teacher can expose students
to a range of literature about ‘attitudes towards accents’, particularly those
done on Singapore English, and summarize some key findings for further
discussion. For example, Lee and Lim (2000) found that their British
subject was consistently rated highly on traits such as unpretentiousness,
sincerity, class, intelligence, naturalness and friendliness. However, their
Singaporean subjects, who spoke with diphthongal guises (a pronunciation
feature that is considered non-Singaporean), were judged to be more
pretentious, insincere and unnatural than when using monophthongal
guises. Lee and Lim (2000) conclude that while Singaporeans may look
up to British model of pronunciation, they also feel that locals who speak
in that manner are pretentious. It is therefore important to highlight
such studies to students as the discussion would give them opportunity to
reflect on the model they wish to adopt and the image they associate with
particular models of pronunciation. The teacher should not be adopting a
normative stance but allow students to reach conclusions on their own.
5. Adopting a realistic model
Suppiah’s (2002) close acoustic comparison of the vowel spectral patterns

and rhythmic properties of speech between teachers and their pupils
showed that pupils in School A produced similar vowel spectral patterns
compared to their pupils for all vowels except for /‫ޝܧ‬/. However, one
can argue that the value of this back vowel is variable even in British
English and may not be a real difference. School B’s pupils pronounced
six out of the eight vowels in the same way as their teachers did. In the
rhythmic domain, no significant differences emerged in the PVI readings
for pupils and their teachers. Also, the PVI value was closer to syllable-
timed language rather than a stress-timed one. Because of the absence of
more data and investigation, we are unable to surmise whether the pupils
in Suppiah’s (2002) study were accommodating to their teachers’ speech
or vice versa. However, we can conclude that pupils and teachers exhibit
similar pronunciation features and that these features are characteristic of
Standard Singapore English. Given that the majority of the 28,500 teachers
(Shanmugaratnam 2006) in Singapore are local and the majority of the 2,500
student teachers in Singapore are also local, it is therefore only realistic that
the pronunciation model, for pragmatic reasons at least, has to be local.
Concluding remarks
Research on appropriate methodologies for teaching English as an

international language points towards the need for local teachers to take
ownership of designing and implementing the curriculum and to decide
on pedagogies that are culturally appropriate to adopt according to the
teachers’ own ‘sense of plausibility’ (Canagarajah 2006; McKay 2006).
Sense of plausibility is defined as the teachers’ own reflection of what is
appropriate based on reflection of their own practice (Prabhu 1990).
Considering the arguments I have put forward in this chapter, which
subscribe to Alsagoff’s (2007) globalist and localist orientation to English
language use in Singapore, it is clear that the pronunciation syllabus to be
designed by local teachers has to clearly delineate the features which pose
a problem for international intelligibility and those local features necessary
for maintaining a local identity. Whichever model is used, it should be one
that helps negotiate and reflect the multiplicity of roles and identities that
Singaporeans need to adopt for communicative purposes.
Notes
1. The author gratefully acknowledges two sources of funding for this chapter. At
the point of writing the chapter, she was a visiting Fulbright research scholar at
the Lynch School of Education, Boston College, USA, under the funding of the
J.W. Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board. She would also like to acknowledge
the research funding provided by the Academic Research Fund from the
National Institute of Education, Singapore, entitled RI 01/3 Theoretical Speech
Research and its Pedagogical Applications.
256 Ee-Ling Low
2. The examinations referred to here are the General Certificate of Education

(GCE) ‘Ordinary’ (‘O’) level examinations taken at the end of Grade 10, and
the GCE ‘Advanced’ (‘A’) level examinations taken at the end of Year 12. Both
examinations are set by the Cambridge University Local Examinations Syndicate
and used widely in Britain and other Commonwealth countries.
3. Note that the speaker sample size for Gupta’s (2005) study and the listener
sample size for Setter’s (2005) study are extremely limited, both being very
small.
References
Alsagoff, Lubna (2007) Singlish. In Language, Culture, Capital. Edited by Viniti Vaish,
S. Gopinathan and Y. Liu. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, pp. 25–46.
Alsagoff, Lubna (2010) Hybridity in ways of speaking: The glocalization of Singapore
English. In English in Singapore: Modernity and Management. Edited by Lisa Lim,
Anne Pakir and Lionel Wee. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp. 109–30.
Bao, Zhiming (1998) The sounds of Singapore English. In English in New Cultural
Contexts: Reflections from Singapore. By Joseph A. Foley, Thiru Kandiah, Bao
Zhiming, Anthea F. Gupta, Lubna Alsagoff, Ho Chee Lick, Lionel Wee, Ismail
Talib and Wendy Bokhorst-Heng. Singapore: Oxford University Press, pp. 152–74.
Brown, Adam and Deterding, David (2005) A checklist of Singapore English
pronunciation features. In English in Singapore: Phonetic Research on a Corpus.
Edited by David Deterding, Adam Brown and Low Ee Ling. Singapore: McGraw-
Hill (Education) Asia, pp. 7–13.
Brown, Adam (1988) Vowel differences between Received Pronunciation and
the English in of Malaysia and Singapore: Which ones really matter? In New
Englishes: The Case of Singapore. Edited by Joseph Foley. Singapore: Singapore
University Press, pp. 129–47.
Brown, Adam, Deterding, David and Low, Ee Ling (eds.) (2000) English in Singapore:
Research on Pronunciation. Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied
Linguistics.
Canagarajah, Suresh (2006) Negotiating the local in English as a lingua franca.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 197–218.
Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.
Curriculum Planning and Development Division (1991) English Language Syllabus
1991. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Curriculum Planning and Development Division (2001) English Language Syllabus
2001. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Date, Tamikazu (2005) The intelligibility of Singapore English from a Japanese
perspective. In English in Singapore: Phonetic Research on a Corpus. Edited by David
Deterding, Adam Brown and Low Ee Ling. Singapore: McGraw-Hill (Education)
Asia, pp. 173–83.
Deterding, David (1994) The intonation of Singapore English. Journal of the
International Phonetic Association, 24(2), 61–72.
Deterding, David (2000) Measurements of the /eܼ/ and /ԥ‫ݜ‬/ vowels of young
English speakers in Singapore. In The English Language in Singapore: Research
on Pronunciation. Edited by Adam Brown, David Deterding and Low Ee Ling.
Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics, pp. 93–9.
Deterding, David (2001) The measurement of rhythm: A comparison of Singapore
and British English. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 217–30.
Deterding, David (2003) An instrumental study of the monophthong vowels of
Singapore English. English World-Wide, 24(1), 1–16.
Deterding, David (2005) Emergent patterns in the vowels of Singapore English.
English World-Wide, 26(2), 179–98.
Deterding, David (2007) Singapore English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Deterding, David, Brown, Adam and Low, Ee Ling (eds.) (2005) English in Singapore:
Phonetic Research on a Corpus. Singapore: McGraw-Hill (Education) Asia.
Deterding, David and Poedjosoedarmo, Gloria (1998) The Sounds of English: Phonetics
and Phonology for Teachers in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Prentice-Hall.
Deterding, David and Poedjosoedarmo, Gloria (2000) To what extent can the ethnic
group of young Singaporeans by identified from their speech? In The English
Language in Singapore: Research on Pronunciation. Edited by Adam Brown, David
Deterding and Low Ee Ling. Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied
Linguistics, pp. 1–9.
Heng, Mui Gek and Deterding, David (2005) Reduced vowels in conversational
Singapore English. In English in Singapore: Phonetic Research on a Corpus. Edited
by David Deterding, Adam Brown and Low Ee Ling. Singapore: McGraw-Hill
(Education) Asia, pp. 54–63.
Giles, Howard and Coupland, Nikolas (1991) Language: Contexts and Consequences.
Keynes: Open University Press.
Goh, Christine (2005) Discourse intonation variants in the speech of educated
Singaporeans. In English in Singapore: Phonetic Research on a Corpus. Edited by
David Deterding, Adam Brown and Low Ee Ling. Singapore: McGraw-Hill
Goh, Christine, Zhang, Lawrence, Ng, Chiew Hong and Koh, Guat Hua (2005)
Knowledge, Beliefs and Syllabus Implementation: A Study of English Language Teachers
in Singapore. Singapore: National Institute of Education.
Gupta, Anthea F. (1986) A standard for written Singapore English? English World-
Wide, 7(1), 75–99.
Gupta, Anthea F. (2005) Inter-accent and inter-cultural intelligibility: A study of
listeners in Singapore and Britain. In English in Singapore: Phonetic Research on a
Corpus. Edited by David Deterding, Adam Brown and Low Ee Ling. Singapore:
McGraw-Hill (Education) Asia, pp. 138–52.
Gut, Ulrike (2005) The realisation of final plosives in Singapore English:
Phonological rules and ethnic differences. In English in Singapore: Phonetic
Research on a Corpus. Edited by David Deterding, Adam Brown and Low Ee Ling.
Singapore: McGraw-Hill (Education) Asia, pp. 14–25.
Hung, Tony (2007) English as a global language: The teaching of pronunciation. In
On-Demand Internet Course Book: World Englishes and Miscommunications. Edited by
Michiko Nakano. Japan: Waseda University International, pp. 3–12.
Hymes, Dell (1972) On communicative competence. In Sociolinguistics. Edited by
John Pride and Janet Holmes. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 269–93.
258 Ee-Ling Low
Jenkins, Jennifer (2000) The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2002) What standard for English as an International Language?
In The Teaching and Use of Standard English. Edited by Low Ee Ling and Teng Su
Ching, Singapore: Singapore Association of Applied Linguistics, pp. 25–32.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2006) Current perspective on teaching World Englishes and
English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157–81.
Kirkpatrick, Andy and Saunders, Neville (2005) The intelligibility of Singaporean
English: A case study in an Australian university. In English in Singapore: Phonetic
Research on a Corpus. Edited by David Deterding, Adam Brown and Low Ee Ling.
Singapore: McGraw-Hill (Education) Asia, pp. 138–52.
Lee, Ee May and Lim, Lisa (2000) Diphthongs in Singaporean English: Their
realizations across different formality levels, and some attitudes of listeners
towards them. In The English Language in Singapore: Research on Pronunciation.
Edited by Adam Brown, David Deterding and Low Ee Ling. Singapore:
Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics, pp. 100–11.
Levis, John (2005) Prominence in Singapore and American English: Evidence from
reading aloud. In English in Singapore: Phonetic Research on a Corpus. Edited by
David Deterding, Adam Brown and Low Ee Ling. Singapore: McGraw-Hill
Lim, Lisa (ed.) (2004) Singapore English: A Grammatical Description. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lim, Siew Hwee and Deterding, David (2005) Added final plosives in Singapore
English. In English in Singapore: Phonetic Research on a Corpus. Edited by David
Asia, pp. 37–42.
Lim, Siew Siew and Low, Ee Ling (2005) Triphthongs in Singapore English. In
English in Singapore: Phonetic Research on a Corpus. Edited by David Deterding,
Adam Brown and Low Ee Ling. Singapore: McGraw-Hill (Education) Asia,
pp. 64–73.
Low, Ee Ling (2000) A comparison of the pitch range of Singapore English and
British English speakers. In The English Language in Singapore: Research on
Pronunciation. Edited by Adam Brown, David Deterding and Low Ee Ling.
Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics, pp. 46–52.
Low, Ee Ling (2006) A review of recent research on speech rhythm: Some insights
for language acquisition, language disorders and language teaching. In Spoken
English, Applied Linguistics and TESOL: Challenges for Theory and Practice. Edited by
Rebecca Hughes. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 99–125.
Low, Ee Ling and Brown, Adam (2005) English in Singapore: An Introduction.
Singapore: McGraw-Hill (Education) Asia.
Low, Ee Ling and Deterding, David (2002) Recent research into the pronunciation
of Singapore English. In Englishes in Asia: Communication, Identity, Power and
Education. Edited by Andy Kirkpatrick. Australia: Language Australia Ltd,
pp. 179–90.
Low, Ee Ling and Grabe, Esther (1999) A contrastive study of prosody and lexical
stress placement in Singapore English and British English. Language and Speech,
42(1), 39–56.
Low, Ee Ling, Grabe, Esther and Nolan, Francis (2000) Quantitative

characterisations of speech rhythm: Syllable-timing in Singapore English.
Language and Speech, 43(4), 377–401.
McKay, Sandra L. (2006) Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: Re-examining
common ELT assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1),
1–22.
Moorthy, Shanti M. and Deterding, David (2000) Three or three? Dental fricatives
in the speech of educated Singaporeans. In The English Language in Singapore:
Research on Pronunciation. Edited by Adam Brown, David Deterding and Low Ee
Ling. Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics, pp. 76–83.
Pakir, Anne (1991) The range and depth of English-knowing bilinguals in
Singapore. World Englishes, 10(2), 167–79.
Platt, John (1977) The sub-varieties of Singapore English: Their sociolectal and
functional states. In The English Language in Singapore. Edited by William Crewe.
Singapore: Eastern Universities Press, pp. 83–95.
Platt, John and Weber, Heidi (1980) English in Singapore and Malaysia: Status,
Features, Functions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prabhu, N.S. (1990) There is no best method — why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161–76.
Schneider, Edgar, Burridge, Kate, Kortmann, Bernd, Mesthrie, Rajend and Upton,
Clive (eds.) (2004) A Handbook of Varieties of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Shanmugaratnam, Tharman (2006) Keynote Address by Mr Tharman
Shanmugaratnam, Minister for Education and Second Minister for Finance,
at the Teachers’ Mass Lecture 2006 on Monday 4 Sep 2006 at 2.30 pm at the
Singapore Expo, Hall 8. Ministry of Education, Media Centre, Speeches. Singapore:
Ministry of Education. http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2006/
sp20060904.htm. Accessed 7 February 2008.
Setter, Jane (2005) Listening to other Englishes: British listeners on Singapore
speakers. In English in Singapore: Phonetic Research on a Corpus. Edited by David
Asia, pp. 163–72.
Smith, Larry (1992) Spread of English and issues of intelligibility. In The Other
Tongue: English Across Cultures. Edited by Braj Kachru. Chicago: University of
Illinois Press, pp. 75–90.
Speak Good English Movement (2007) Background. Speak Good English Movement.
Singapore: Speak Good English Movement. http://www.goodenglish.org.sg/
site/about-the-movement/background.html. Accessed 28 September 2008.
Straits Times. 18 August 1977.
Suppiah, Selvarani (2002) A comparison of the pronunciation features of primary
school teachers and pupils: Implications for pronunciation modeling.
Unpublished MA thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore.
Suzanna Hashim and Brown, Adam (2000) The /e/ and /æ/ vowels in Singapore
English. In The English Language in Singapore: Research on Pronunciation. Edited
by Adam Brown, David Deterding and Low Ee Ling. Singapore: Singapore
Association for Applied Linguistics, pp. 84–92.
Tan, Rachel and Low, Ee Ling (forthcoming) The sounds of Malaysian English. In
Malaysian English: Language and Literature. Edited by Kingsley Bolton and Azirah
Hashim. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
260 Ee-Ling Low
Tan, Kah Keong (2005) Vocalisation of /l/ in Singapore English. In English in

Singapore: Phonetic Research on a Corpus. Edited by David Deterding, Adam Brown
and Low Ee Ling. Singapore: McGraw-Hill (Education) Asia, pp. 43–53.
Tay, Mary (1982) The phonology of educated Singapore English. English World-Wide,
3(2), 135–45.
Taylor, D.S. (1981) Non-native speakers and the rhythm of English. International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 19, 219–26.
Tongue, Ray (1979) The English of Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore: Eastern
Universities Press.
Wee, Lionel (2004) Singapore English: Phonology. In A Handbook of Varieties of
English. Edited by Edgar Schneider, Kate Burridge , Bernd Kortmann, Rajend
Mesthrie and Clive Upton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1017–33.

Sounding Local and Going Global

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sounding Local and Going Global

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 Sounding local and going global:

Current research and implications for

This chapter summarizes recent research on the pronunciation of Singapore

Singapore English. However, it is not my intention to evaluate here which

One of the earliest models for the description of Singapore English is

Alsagoff (2007) suggests the cultural orientation model (COM) to

and working in the south of England’. The comparison is not meant to

Segmental research: Vowels

Table 10.1 Phonemic vowel inventory of Singapore English

SSBE SSE SCE SCE SE Spoken SE Keywords

Singaporean student teachers. All were below 35 years of age. It is likely

Segmental research: Consonants

the lines linking different consonants are meant to indicate conflation of

Table 10.2a Inventory for consonants in initial position

Bilabial Labio Alveolar Dental Palato Palatal Velar Glottal

Table 10.2b Inventory for consonants in ﬁnal position

Bilabial Labio Alveolar Dental Palato Palatal Velar Glottal

pronunciation of the -ed suffix. There also appeared to be no logical

Suprasegmental research: Lexical stress placement

In terms of words distinguished only by a difference in stress placement

Suprasegmental research: Rhythm

There has been evidence in recent acoustic studies supporting earlier

to validate the perception of there being more nearly equal duration in

Suprasegmental research: Some intonational features

characteristic ﬁnal rise-fall tone which indicates an extra degree of emphasis

The previous sections have provided a summary of the latest research

One guiding principle: Intelligibility

Pronunciation feature Lingua Franca Core syllabus

Pronunciation feature Lingua Franca Core Syllabus Problem for international

here a pronunciation model that is sensitive to the socio-cultural identity of

Table 10.5 Combination of features of Singapore English that

Pronunciation Lingua Franca Core Problem for international Needed to preserve

Implications for pronunciation syllabus implementation

1. Teaching of two varieties and factors governing their use

It is of absolute importance that a pronunciation syllabus includes both

2. Focus on communicative competence

The goal of a forward-looking pronunciation syllabus must, at the heart,

3. Exempliﬁcation of each pronunciation feature via sound ﬁles

4. Conduct attitudinal surveys on students

5. Adopting a realistic model

Suppiah’s (2002) close acoustic comparison of the vowel spectral patterns

Research on appropriate methodologies for teaching English as an

2. The examinations referred to here are the General Certificate of Education

Jenkins, Jennifer (2000) The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford:

Low, Ee Ling, Grabe, Esther and Nolan, Francis (2000) Quantitative

Tan, Kah Keong (2005) Vocalisation of /l/ in Singapore English. In English in

You might also like