International Journal of Multilingualism

ISSN: 1479-0718 (Print) 1747-7530 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmjm20

Linguistic landscape in Singapore: what shop

names reveal about Singapore’s multilingualism

Guowen Shang & Libo Guo

To cite this article: Guowen Shang & Libo Guo (2016): Linguistic landscape in Singapore: what
shop names reveal about Singapore’s multilingualism, International Journal of Multilingualism,
DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2016.1218497

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2016.1218497

Published online: 26 Aug 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 61

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmjm20

Download by: [University of California, San Diego] Date: 25 September 2016, At: 04:50
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2016.1218497

Linguistic landscape in Singapore: what shop names reveal

about Singapore’s multilingualism
Guowen Shanga and Libo Guob
a
School of International Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; bEnglish Language & Literature
Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The visibility and salience of specific languages in public spaces are Received 17 March 2016
important parameters of their ethnolinguistic vitality in a society. Accepted 19 July 2016
Drawing upon data from first-hand fieldwork, this paper explores
KEYWORDS
the display of multiple languages in shop names presented in Shop names; linguistic
Singapore’s neighbourhood centres in order to reveal how local landscape; multilingualism;
shop owners address multilingualism in this ethnically language policy; Singapore;
heterogeneous and linguistically hybrid society. In addition to Chinese characters
spelling out the commercial drive to seduce potential clients,
shop names also serve to mark off shop owners’ identity and
prioritisation of relevant languages. It is found that English is
prevalent in all types of shop signs, though Chinese is the
preferred code on bilingual and multilingual signs and tends to
be used to represent the primary shop names. The other official
languages are rarely presented on shop signs. We argue that the
disparate vitality of languages might result from a mixture of
social factors such as the state’s macro language policy,
demographic structure, as well as ethnic and cultural identity
construction. The linguistic landscaping in Singapore’s
neighbourhood centres suggests that for grassroots individuals,
pragmatic and affective adequacies are top priority in their
discourse construction.

Introduction
The past decade has witnessed a conspicuous upsurge of research interests in linguistic
landscape (LL) research in sociolinguistics and applied linguistics (Backhaus, 2007;
Gorter, 2006; Gorter, Marten, & van Mensel, 2012; Hult, 2014; Shohamy & Gorter, 2009).
What this emerging field concerns most is the social meanings associated with the
display of linguistic signage in material environment. Apparently, public signage serves
as a carrier of information oriented for readers’ attention or reference, and the specific
language used for information transmission spells out the availability of this language
for communication in a region. On the other hand, languages presented on the signs
are symbolic in function in that they may indicate the value and status of such languages
vis-à-vis other languages as well as the social identity and power of their speakers as com-
pared to other language speakers (Landry & Bourhis, 1997). In other words, the language

CONTACT Libo Guo libo.guo@nie.edu.sg English Language & Literature Academic Group, National Institute of
Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, 637616 Singapore, Singapore
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 G. SHANG AND L. GUO

used on official signs can deliver messages about the importance, power, significance and
relevance of this language in the community or society (Shohamy, 2006), which may have
significant implications for the existence of other languages.
In multilingual regions where no official policy is mandated regarding the language
presence on public signage, the language use patterns, especially in non-governmental
domains, tend to be manifold. We focus in this paper on the case of Singapore, a well-
known multilingual metropolis. Here official policies barely touch upon the language
choice on public signs. Although the official signs seen in public space are mainly pre-
sented in English to accord with the country’s macro language policy, the private/non-offi-
cial signs display a variety of language use patterns that are remarkably different from
official signs. An exploration of Singapore’s LL can shed some light on the identity and
status of different languages in the society.
A review of the literature shows that the language use patterns in Singapore’s LL have
received some scholarship. For instance, Tan (2011) explored the language use in Singa-
pore’s building names, showing that such private signs are predominantly represented
in English, though there is an increasing tendency to use languages such as French,
Spanish and Italian in the main elements of building names. Ong, Ghesquière, and
Serwe (2013) examined the French-English blended shop names in Singapore, arguing
that the French linguistic fetish in beauty and food shop names indicates a French prestige
and quality that appeals to local customers. Moreover, Tan (2014) identified some patterns
in official public signs in selected key locations in Singapore. These pioneering scholarly
explorations of the LL in Singapore make clear the diversity and complexity of language
practices in the cosmopolitan city.
In this study, the shop name signs in Singapore’s neighbourhood markets are exam-
ined. As a typical form of non-official or bottom-up signs (Gorter, 2006), shop names are
an ideal venue to exhibit the business owners’ way to address the language issues in
face of the multilingual audience. A study of the language choice on bottom-up linguistic
signs may shed some light on people’s views and perceptions of Singapore’s languages
and language policies. Moreover, the language practice in physical environment can
demonstrate how multilingualism is addressed by individual shop owners in the multilin-
gual society. Finally, such an empirical study may reveal some gaps between the language
practice and macro language policy, serving as a reference for the government to re-
examine or reformulate its language policies.
The organisation of the ensuing sections is as follows. First, Singapore’s sociolinguistic
context and its policy on language use on public signs are introduced. Then, the method-
ology of this study is presented. Next, a section is devoted to the analysis and findings,
followed by a discussion about the potential factors for the language use patterns in Sin-
gapore’s lower-end market places. Finally, we summarise the study and suggest areas for
future research in the conclusion.

Sociolinguistic context in Singapore

Singapore is a multi-ethnic and multilingual city-state in Southeast Asia. Covering an area
of 716 square kilometres, this island country off the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula is
inhabited by over 5.5 million people from three major ethnic groups, namely Chinese,
Malay and Indian. The remaining is categorised under ‘Others’, which include Eurasians,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 3

Europeans, Arabs, Japanese, etc. In this racially diversified society, Chinese form the largest
ethnic group or community, making over 74.3% of the resident population, while Malay,
Indian and other groups account for 13.3%, 9.1% and 3.2%, respectively (Department of
Statistics, 2015). The local ethnolinguistic configuration is fundamental to Singapore’s for-
mulation of its overall language policy. Malay is the de jure national language of the
country, and there are four official languages that the Singapore government recognises:
English and three indigenous ethnic languages (Mandarin, Malay and Tamil). The quadri-
lingual matrix is deliberately structured by the government as a means to manage ethnic
diversity in the country and maintain socioeconomic mobility (Gopinathan, 2001). English,
conceived to be ethnically neutral, serves not only as an official language but also the
lingua franca of the distinctive ethnic communities. Mandarin, Malay and Tamil are also
given official status because equal treatment needs to be accorded to different ethnic
groups to reduce the risk of racial tensions. However, the four official languages are by
no means equal in pragmatic functions and social status (Wee, 2014). Privileged as the
language of government, business, administration and the medium of instruction in
schools, English takes an unwavering predominant role in Singapore and is the de facto
national language. The other official languages, in contrast, are designated as mother
tongues of the three major ethnic groups (Mandarin for Chinese, Malay for Malays and
Tamil for Indians), and are positioned secondary, and complementary to the English
language (Silver, 2005; Wee, 2014).
In the education sector, Singapore enacts a bilingualism education policy and takes it as
the cornerstone of its education system. Under this policy, all Singaporean students are
required to learn English as their first language and the designated mother tongues as
their second language. A bilingual competence is rationalised as a unique advantage of
Singaporeans to keep a competitive edge in the globalised market. As is often reiterated
in official discourses (e.g. Heng, 2012; Ng, 2010), English is the language of modernity and
mother tongues function as ‘cultural ballast’ that connects individuals to the traditional
values of each ethnic community; proficiency in English and mother tongues thereby
enables Singaporeans to get access to advanced science and technology, and maintain
their Asian identity and cultural tradition as well. Since it was mandated in the 1960s,
this policy has helped Singapore foster a large body of English-knowing bilinguals.
Overall, Singapore adopts a fundamentally pragmatic approach to multi-ethnic and
multilingual diversity, seeking to maintain its economic competitiveness in the globalised
market and racial and social harmony within the country, a model known as ‘pragmatic
multilingualism’ (Rubdy, 2005; Tan, 2006).

Singapore’s current policy on language use on public signs

In view of the numerous rules and regulations formulated by the government over big or
small matters in people’s lives, Singapore’s firm style of management has earned it a repu-
tation of a ‘nanny state’ (McCarthy & Ellis, 1999). However, when it comes to the language
management in public signs, Singapore’s governing approach is rather lenient and gener-
ally takes a laissez-faire attitude to the languages displayed on private signs. Unlike many
countries or regions where ad hoc laws or decrees are enforced to maintain the prominent
role of certain languages in public space, Singapore merely issued some guiding principles
for the naming practices. For instance, the Street and Building Names Board, an official
4 G. SHANG AND L. GUO

organisation under the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) responsible for approving
the application of building/estate names, requires that each development can have only
one name, and that a building can be given a Chinese name only if it has an approved
English name (see URA website www.ura.gov.sg). These principles are adopted to
ensure the unicity of the names for registration. Otherwise, so long as the language use
is not intended or has the potential to incur ethnic tensions, the government usually
does not interfere in the language practice exercised in public signs.

The current study

Purpose and research questions
In this paper, the shop name signs in Singapore’s neighbourhood centres are investigated
in order to find out how the grassroots individuals construct symbolic meanings and
address linguistic complexity in the ethnically heterogeneous society. More specifically,
this study is intended to reveal the language use patterns on shop name signs and
provide explanations for local shop owners’ language choice in Singapore’s private
domain. As the language use on bottom-up signs has received scanty scholarship, the
current inquiry can add up to the revelation of LL for sociolinguistic researchers. The
research questions to be answered in this paper are as follows:

1. Which language(s) or code(s) is (are) preferred on shop name signs displayed in Singa-
pore’s market places?
2. How is (are) the language(s) or code(s) laid out on the shop name signs?
3. What factors influence business owners’ choice of languages on shop signs?

The investigation to these questions may present us with a broad picture of the LL in
Singapore’s neighbourhood centres, and unveil the status of the official languages and the
relative linguistic presence of various ethnic groups in the society.

Methodology
Research sites
In this study, we set our targets at the shop names displayed in Singapore’s neighbour-
hood centres. Neighbourhood centres, as hubs of commercial shops and service organis-
ations, are usually established in residential areas as an agglomeration of retailer outlets to
meet people’s personal and domestic needs. These centres are usually within walking dis-
tance for the residents living nearby, and constitute the main venues for them to purchase
daily necessities. Unlike shopping malls, that is, commercial complexes developed and
managed by private developers, neighbourhood centres are set up by the government
and managed by the official organisations such as Town Councils and the Housing Devel-
opment Board (HDB). The stores operating in neighbourhood centres can be divided into
two broad categories according to the scope of business: shops selling goods and shops
providing services. The goods sold in these shops may include electronics, garments, bags,
footwear, furniture, medicine, food, drinks and the like. The services neighbourhood shops
may provide include laundry, hairdressing, tuition, banking, health care, pawn broking,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 5

renovation, etc. Owing to the high intensity of various types of outlets and the numerous
shop signs displayed, neighbourhood centres can be an ideal venue for LL studies.
As for the research sites, we focus on the neighbourhood centres located in the western
part of Singapore. This choice is made partly out of consideration of its geographical acces-
sibility for our researchers. On top of that, compared to other regions in Singapore such as
the central, the east and the north, the west region is the largest and most populated one,
inhabited by over 1 million Singaporean residents. Of these residents, over 90% live in HDB
flats, that is, public housing developed and managed by the HDB (Department of Statistics,
2010). Although there is no statistics about the ratios of different ethnic groups dwelling in
this region, it is clear that a relatively balanced ethnic mix among the various ethnic com-
munities is maintained pursuant to the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP)1 implemented by
HDB since 1989. That is, the residential proportion of the major ethnic population is con-
trolled in each neighbourhood so that no unplanned ethnic enclaves would be formed.
Thus, the neighbourhood centres in this region are typical in that they are not set up in
any ethnic enclaves or aimed at any particular customer groups. Thus we may view the
language use patterns identified in the shop signs appearing in this area as representative
of ordinary neighbourhood centres across the island.
It should be noted that numerous neighbourhood centres have been developed in the
west region. Confined by time and manpower, we sampled ten neighbourhood centres for
investigation rather than looking into all the neighbourhood centres in this region. Here
proximity to a Mass Rapid Transit (MRT, Singapore’s metro system) station was one of
the major criteria for the selection. Altogether 10 stations were selected in this region
(namely Dover, Clementi, Jurong East, Bukit Batok, Bukit Gombak, Choa Chu Kang,
Chinese Garden, Lakeside, Boon Lay and Pioneer), and one neighbourhood centre adja-
cent to each MRT station was chosen for data collection. That is, the shop name signs fea-
tured in ten neighbourhood centres are the focus of our investigation.

Data collection
The photos of shop name signs in these neighbourhood centres were taken in Decem-
ber 2013 and January 2014. In order to present a full picture of the quantitative distri-
bution of various types of shop signs, we tried our best to capture the shop name of
every store in our photo shoot.2 In our data collection, we noticed that some shops
may display more than one name sign at the outer space of their establishments
(such as the shop front, side or back). These signs, more often than not, contain iden-
tical contents, though their sizes may differ. In such cases, only one sign was photo-
graphed and counted for analysis. This ‘one-shop-one-sign’ principle is adopted to
ensure impartiality of data collection: despite the size of the shop or the number of
signs in display, one major name sign is sufficient for us to identify its language
choice and use patterns. Specifically, the name sign presented on the shop front,
usually also the most conspicuous shop sign, was the one to be photographed.
However, when the shop front sign could not be collected for certain reasons, the
name presented on the side or back of the store would be photographed.
A total of 1097 shop names appearing in the neighbourhood centres were collected,
and the languages appearing on these photos constitute the database of our analysis.
For a glimpse of the data, Table 1 shows the number of shop signs in various
6 G. SHANG AND L. GUO

Table 1. Number of stores in neighbourhood centres.

Neighbourhoods Goods Services Total
Dover 22 53 75
Clementi 89 142 231
Jurong East 16 68 84
Bukit Batok 29 57 86
Bukit Gombak 41 34 75
Choa Chu Kang 21 40 61
Chinese Garden 44 79 123
Lakeside 103 95 198
Boon Lay 42 33 75
Pioneer 29 25 54
Total 436 626 1062
Note: Of the total of 1097 shop signs, there are 35 shops whose nature of business cannot be identified due to the lack of
supporting evidence.

neighbourhood centres and their distribution in two types of business, that is, stores
selling goods and stores providing services.

Data processing
After the data were collected, we grouped the photos as per the geographical location,
and then coded them in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. In the process of data coding, par-
ticular attention was placed to the following six aspects of a shop name sign:

1. full shop names in all languages;

2. business scope of the shop;
3. number of languages presented in the sign;
4. the font sizes of different codes;
5. code layout, namely which language appears on the top or left;
6. forms of Chinese characters (i.e. traditional or simplified).

These aspects can help us appreciate the shop owners’ language choice and code prefer-
ence in the neighbourhood areas. Our statistics and analysis below are based on the
coding results of the photos.

Analysis and findings

In this section, the language use patterns on the shop name signs are analysed, with an
emphasis on the relationship between the quantity of linguistic codes and priority of
language varieties.

Languages used on shop name signs

To name their stores, shop owners first need to make a code choice from their language
repertoire. In light of the number of languages/scripts presented to readers, three types of
signs can be identified: monolingual, bilingual and multilingual signs. Here ‘multilingual’
signs refer to those signs presented in three or more languages. In the neighbourhood
centres, however, these three types of shop name signs are not equally favoured by
shop owners. The number of languages on shop name signs is shown in Table 2.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 7

As can be seen in this table, the bilingual signs are slightly more than monolingual
signs, with the former appearing in 541 signs and the latter in 533 signs, accounting for
49.3% and 48.6%, respectively of all the shop name signs. The two types of shop names
take up nearly 98% of all the shop names, showing that in the neighbourhood centres,
monolingual and bilingual shop names constitute the overwhelming majority. This quan-
titative distribution clearly shows that business owners in Singapore prefer to use one or
two languages to represent their shop names. In contrast, multilingual shop names are
presented only on 23 signs, accounting for 2.1% of all shop signs. In these multilingual
signs, 17 (or 74%) of them are written in four languages and 6 (or 26%) use three
languages. The low percentage of multilingual signs is readily understandable because
having three or more languages crammed into the display sometimes may make the pres-
entation style of shop names highly awkward and even confusing.
As for the types of languages that appear in the shop names, overall, our statistics
shows that English names appear in over 96% of all types of shop signs. However,
although English is highly visible on shop signs, it is not necessarily the most visually
salient code when two or more codes are displayed (see discussions below). Moreover,
over half of the observed signs display Chinese shop names, be they as a sole linguistic
code or in combination with other languages. Malay and Tamil, in contrast, are few and
far between in neighbourhood centres, presenting only on 40 signs (or 3.6% of all
signs). As will be shown below, the visibility and salience of specific languages may be
motivated by a number of factors.

Languages on monolingual shop names

As for the monolingual shop names, the languages found on shop signs in our data
include English, Chinese, Malay, Tamil, French, Japanese and Korean. The number and pro-
portion of the shop names in various languages are shown in Table 3.
It is clear that the vast majority of monolingual shop names are written in English, which
accounts for nearly 94% of the monolingual signs. This distribution may be closely related
to the fact that English is the lingua franca of the whole society and the majority of the
population are literate in English. As such, using English monolingual signs can be a
direct and simple way to address all the potential customers. The shop names using
only Chinese language (either traditional or simplified scripts) are 22 in number, account-
ing for about 4% of all monolingual signs. In view of the number of Chinese-speaking
population, this figure is unexpectedly low. The signs using sole languages of Malay,
Tamil or other non-official languages are even less. The rare use of Chinese, Malay,
Tamil and other non-official languages here contrasts with the shop names displayed in
ethnic enclaves (such as Chinatown, Malay Village and Little India) where many more
ethnic languages are presented by merchants. The shop owners and merchants there
may use the monolingual signs to mark off their ethnic identity, thus attracting customers
from the same group.

Table 2. Number of languages on shop name signs.

Monolingual Bilingual Multilingual Total
Number 533 541 23 1097
Percentage 48.6% 49.3% 2.1% 100%
8 G. SHANG AND L. GUO

Table 3. Languages on monolingual signs.

English Chinese Malay or Tamil Others Total
Number 500 22 7 4 533
Percentage 93.8% 4.1% 1.3% 0.8% 100%

Code combinations on bilingual and multilingual signs

The non-monolingual shop signs may be presented in various code combinations. For the
bilingual signs, English-Chinese shop names are the most frequently seen language pairs,
while other official language pairs such as English-Tamil and English-Malay are rare, as
shown in Table 4.
It can be seen that nearly 97% of the bilingual signs are written in a combination of
English and Chinese, showing that when shop owners want to use two languages to
present the shop name, it is highly probable that the English-Chinese pair is chosen
instead of other combinations. Other possible code combinations may include English–
Tamil, English–Malay, English–Korean, English–Japanese, Chinese–French and Tamil–
Malay, though the percentages of these pairs are rather low.
As far as the multilingual signs are concerned, the vast majority (90.9%) of them include
English and Chinese on the shop signs. All the quadrilingual signs in our data are pre-
sented in the four official languages of the country, namely English, Chinese, Malay and
Tamil. We also notice that most of the shops displaying multilingual signs are pawn-
brokers. In Figure 1, for instance, the red and blue scripts in the middle of the pawnshop
sign are Chinese and English respectively, while the white scripts at left and right ends are
Malay and Tamil respectively. Here the Malay shop name, literally meaning ‘Joo Chong
pawn shop private limited’, presents equivalent information with the English name. In
comparison, the Chinese and Tamil shop names, both meaning ‘Joo Chong pawnshop’,
present only core information to readers. The multilingual signs here may be indicative
of the pawnbrokers’ strategy to attract clients from all ethnic groups to sustain their
business.

Chinese characters on shop name signs

The writing system of Chinese characters is composed of two closely related script forms:
simplified Chinese (or jianti zi in Chinese) and traditional Chinese (or fanti zi in Chinese).
Simplified Chinese characters, as the standard forms in Mainland China, are officially
adopted as standard characters in Singapore. That is, simplified Chinese characters are
taught in schools and are used in Singapore official publications. However, in other
domains, the official orthography policy may not be implemented. In this study we find
that for the shop names with Chinese scripts, the Chinese characters may be presented
in traditional or simplified forms in monolingual, bilingual or multilingual signs. The distri-
bution of Chinese characters on shop names is shown in Table 5.

Table 4. Code pairs on bilingual signs.

English-Chinese English-Tamil English-Malay Other pairs Total
Number 523 7 3 8 541
Percentage 96.7% 1.3% 0.5% 1.5% 100%
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 9

Figure 1. A quadrilingual sign in the LL.

The numbers of Chinese shop names presented in traditional and simplified charac-
ters are 344 and 221 respectively, showing that traditional characters are preferred over
the simplified version in Chinese shop name signs. Although simplified Chinese charac-
ters are standard forms in official policy, the statistics provides empirical evidence that
traditional characters prevail in bottom-up signs. Especially for the stores doing business
characteristic of Chinese culture and tradition, such as traditional Chinese medicine,
tonics and pawn broking, traditional Chinese characters are more likely to be used in
their shop names. In our data, nine out of ten of such stores use traditional Chinese
scripts to present their shop names. On the other hand, the Chinese names of
private schools and learning centres are more likely to be presented in simplified
scripts. This might be because the simplified characters are the standard form in edu-
cation domain.
Moreover, we notice that there are some signs where Chinese shop names are written
in a converse text vector (i.e. from right to left). Interestingly, on the same sign, the English
version is in the normal left-to-right order, as shown in Figure 2. Here the traditional
Chinese name ‘大菖貿易’ is written in a right-to-left order, while the English name ‘Da
Chang Trading’ is in a normal left-to-right order.
Historically, the right-to-left text vector was a writing convention for traditional
Chinese, which was written vertically as a rule. However, in modern times, the left-to-
right horizontal writing has become dominant, though the right-to-left horizontal
writing can still be seen in Chinese-speaking areas, especially in signs. In the shop
names, shop owners may use the right-to-left text order to indicate their allegiance
to the Chinese tradition.

Table 5. Chinese characters on shop name signs.

Monolingual Bi-/Multilingual Total
Traditional 17 327 344
Simplified 5 216 221
Total 22 543 565
10 G. SHANG AND L. GUO

Figure 2. A shop sign with Chinese written in right-to-left order.

Code preference in shop names: sizes and layout

Now we will look at what language or languages are chosen as the dominant form for shop
names, a system known as code preference in Scollon and Scollon’s (2003) place semiotics.
Here our discussion concentrates on the font size and the layout sequence of the
languages presented on shop signs. For the different versions of names presented on
bilingual or multilingual signs, the font sizes of the different languages/scripts may be
similar or different. For instance, in Figure 1 the Chinese font is the biggest, followed by
the English font, and the Malay and Tamil fonts are the smallest. In Figure 2 the
Chinese and English fonts are nearly the same. Generally speaking, using a larger font
size is a typical way to make a specific language more prominent in comparison to
other languages/scripts.3 In a shop sign, the prominent name can be seen as the
primary name, while other versions are additional or supplementary in function. In this
study, we compared the font sizes of different versions of names in bilingual and multilin-
gual signs, and the result is presented in Table 6.
In this table, a remarkable tendency is that Chinese names are presented in larger fonts,
making them the primary names on the bilingual and multilingual signs. In such cases,
names presented in English or other languages are probably supplementary in function.
This seems to indicate that shop owners identify with Chinese language more than
others and wish to use it to convey essential information to customers. Moreover, there
are 39% of the bi- and multilingual shop signs presenting the different versions of
names in the same font size. The same sizes of the scripts seem to convey a symbolic
meaning that the two or more language varieties are equally emphasised. As regards

Table 6. Font size on shop name signs.

Same Chinese > English > Others > Total
Number 220 237 101 6 564
Percentage 39% 42% 17.9% 1.1% 100%
Note: The symbol ‘>’ stands for ‘bigger than (others)’. For instance, ‘Chinese >’ means the font of Chinese script is bigger
than other scripts.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 11

the English names, our data show that only 101 or about 18% of bi- and multilingual shop
signs present the English shop names as the sole primary name, suggesting that although
English is prevalent in all types of shop name signs, it is not necessarily the preferred
language for shop owners.
Apart from bigger font sizes, the layout of different languages can also mark off the
shop owners’ code preference. Scollon and Scollon (2003) claimed that the preferred
code tends to be placed above the secondary or peripheral codes when they are vertically
aligned, and placed in the left position when they are horizontally aligned. To verify
whether this pattern is followed in Singapore’s shop signs, we examined the Chinese–
English bilingual signs, and the result is shown in Table 7.
It can be observed from the table that shop owners prefer to place the two languages in
an upper-lower alignment rather than in a left-right sequence. Of all the English–Chinese
shop signs, more than half of them placed the Chinese name on the top position,
suggesting that shop owners tend to reserve the top of signs for Chinese names. As for
the left and right positions, English and Chinese names were presented nearly equally
on the two positions, showing that no particular preference can be identified for the
two positions.
The previous discussion has made it clear that the preferred code tends to be presented
in bigger fonts. Now the question is: where are the font-prominent codes placed on the
signs? To answer this question, we explored the English-Chinese signs on which the
Chinese fonts are bigger, and the location of Chinese names is shown in Table 8. We
can see that there is a clear tendency that the prominent Chinese names are placed on
the top position, as exemplified in Figure 3. A similar tendency can be identified for the
English names, namely top position reserved for English names with salient fonts. Taken
together, it can be concluded that the preferred code tends to appear at the top position
in Singapore’s shop name signs. This is quite different from the code preference patterns
in Hong Kong, where, under the regulation of the Government, English is often placed
above Chinese in street signs (Scollon & Scollon, 2003).

Summary
To summarise our findings, the signage language use in Singapore’s neighbourhood
markets frequented by multilingual clients demonstrates at least four notable patterns
or tendencies. First, English is almost de rigueur on all types of shop name signs, be
they monolingual, bilingual or multilingual. Second, Chinese has a high rate of presence,
and serves as the most preferred language code on bilingual signs. That is, shop owners
prefer to place Chinese name on the top position in larger fonts to make it the prominent
and primary shop name. Third, contrary to the official policy of promulgating simplified
Chinese characters, traditional Chinese characters are preferred by local shop owners.
Fourth, Malay and Tamil have low presence on shop name signs despite their status as

Table 7. Code layout on English-Chinese bilingual signs.

Chinese Left English Left Chinese Top English Top Total
Number 93 94 275 82 544
Percentage 17.1% 17.2% 50.6% 15.1% 100%
12 G. SHANG AND L. GUO

Table 8. Location of Chinese names on signs with bigger Chinese fonts.

Left Right Top Bottom Total
Number 17 11 199 8 235
Percentage 7.2% 4.7% 84.7% 3.4% 100%

official languages. Possible explanations for the LL in Singapore’s market places will be
provided in the following sections.

Discussion
The vitality of various languages
The LL formed by shop names provides empirical evidence about the linguistic vitality of
the different languages in Singapore. As mentioned earlier, although official status is
bestowed on four different languages in Singapore to minimise the risk of interethnic ten-
sions, these languages are by no means equal in functions (Wee, 2014). Our statistical
analysis of the language use in shop names demonstrates that English and Mandarin
are the most vibrant languages in Singapore’s neighbourhoods, while Malay and Tamil
are rarely seen in market places. This linguistic choice in the displayed shop names may
well reflect the mass perception of the social and economic values of ethnic languages.
That is, English and Mandarin Chinese play a central role in people’s lives, whereas
other languages assume relatively minor significance in the society.
The disparate vitalities of the official languages in neighbourhood centres may result
from several social and psychological factors. First, the prevalence of English in LL is
readily understandable. English is positioned as the lingua franca and the master language
(Lee, 2011a) of the country, and plays a predominant role in almost all aspects of the social
life of the nation-state (Lim, Pakir, & Wee, 2010). In market places, English shop names are
pervasive in monolingual, bilingual and multilingual signs, showing that shop owners are
fully aware of the prestige associated with the English language in Singapore. Moreover,
the government’s continuous planning efforts to establish the preponderance of the
English language have made the use of English in shop signs always ‘politically correct’

Figure 3. A shop sign with Chinese on a top position.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 13

for shop owners. As well, the nation-wide English proficiency has been enhanced owing to
the English-knowing bilingual policy. Since English literacy has been developed in all
ethnic groups, shop signs written in English provide necessary information accessible to
potential customers from various linguistic communities. In this sense, English shop
names serve as a universal advertisement delivered to all customers. In addition, in the
era of globalisation, English is the language of modernity, thus shop signs in English
may fulfil the symbolic function that the shop owners can keep abreast of the business
trends in the world. These factors might be the reasons why the overwhelming majority
of shop signs have a space, big or small, reserved for English shop names.
The vitality of the other official languages largely hinges on the demographic structure
in Singapore. Since Chinese is the largest ethnic group in Singapore, and Chinese shop
owners form the majority in neighbourhood centres, it is understandable that these
business owners use their own language as shop names to attract customers in the
same ethnic group. Moreover, it should be noted that neighbourhood stores are operated
in lower-end market places and target residents living nearby. Among the potential cus-
tomers, a large proportion of them are housewives or aged people who are not proficient
in English. In this connection, shop names in Mandarin can provide factual information to
them. Therefore, Mandarin is the most practical language both for shoppers and for shop
owners.
Malay and Tamil, in contrast, are spoken by two language communities whose popu-
lation are much less than the Chinese community in the society. The relatively small pro-
portion of shop owners from the two groups can be the major reason why the two
languages are presented much less on shop signs, as shown in Tables 3 and 4 above. In
addition, the low presence of Malay and Tamil in public space may have something to
do with the language shift of the two ethnic groups. Some studies concerning the main-
tenance of ethnic languages in Singapore have demonstrated that the spread of English
may have tampered with the linguistic loyalty to the Malay and Tamil languages. For
instance, Saravanan (2003) found that English is the preferred code for the elite and edu-
cated Tamils, while Tamil is mainly used by lower-class speakers. Similarly, Abdullah and
Ayyub (2003) observed that English speaking Malay families are increasing, and the use
of Malay language has been restricted to the family, neighbourhood and religious
domains only. The popularity of English among the ethnic communities has thus
encroached the space for Malay and Tamil, which may threaten the viability of the two
languages in the society. Another possibility is that Malay and Indian shop owners may
choose English-only names to attract customers from all ethnic groups. While ethnic
languages in shop names may establish solidarity with customers from the same group,
they may simultaneously be a factor to dispel potential customers from other groups.
Therefore, it might be an ironic fact that Malay and Indian store owners have to de-empha-
sise their ethnic languages in shop names in order to sustain their business in neighbour-
hood markets.

Code choice and identity construction

Bilingual signs are the most frequently seen signs in our data, which shows that bilingu-
alism is the preferred language use pattern in individuals’ language practice. When two
codes are used, they usually perform different functions: one is used to provide major
14 G. SHANG AND L. GUO

and factual information for customers, while the other is used for symbolic purposes.
However, both codes can be employed to construct identities (Haarmann, 1986).
Which code(s) to use is thus not a simple and random choice, but a calculated move to
construct particular identities for shop owners. One typical illustration of this is to use
language in public signs to mark off ethnic identity, as language is seen as the most
immediate element of ethnic identity for ordinary people (Haarmann, 1986). Particularly
for the Chinese community, the willingness to use Chinese to indicate their ethnic identity
is partly determined by the ascending social role of the language in local and international
communities. According to Xu, Chew, and Chen’s (2003) survey, of the 915 respondents
from all walks of life in Singapore, 60–70% regarded Mandarin as a prestigious or author-
itative language, and a vast majority of them (about 90%) feel a closeness towards it in
comparison to English. Particularly in recent years, with the rapid development of
China, Mandarin is no longer a language with low social and economic value (Kwan-
Terry & Luke, 1997) or a mother tongue merely associated with symbolic capitals. Singa-
pore’s official discourse has been reiterating that Mandarin Chinese can be an additional
advantage of Singaporeans to benefit from China’s economic rewards (See, for instance,
Heng, 2012; Lee, 2011b). In such contexts, people appear to be willing to present their
identity as members of Chinese-speaking people.
The use of English in shop names also contributes to the construction of desirable iden-
tity. In neighbourhood market places, the significance of English as identity markers is fully
appreciated by shop owners, even to the extent of creating pseudo-English names, as
shown in Figure 4 below.
Here these signs may appear as duplicating shop names (one name in English and the
other in English), but a closer look reveals that the alphabetic scripts, ostensibly English
names, are actually Pinyin annotation of the Chinese names. Such pseudo-English
names are largely symbolic or decorative in function, as no English speakers could
figure out the meaning of the shop names when they only look at the ‘English’ texts on
the signs. This English fetish may be attributed to the pervasive kiasu culture in Singapore,
that is, people are afraid of losing out in comparison with others (Ho, Ang, Loh, & Ng, 1998;

Figure 4. Shop signs with pseudo-English names.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 15

Hwang, Ang, & Francesco, 2002). This well-recognised cultural characteristic ‘encompasses
winning at all costs, an unwillingness to lose out in any aspect of life, whether in education,
career or parenting’ (Ellis, 2014, p. 240). The kiasu culture or attitude probably has an influ-
ence on the code choice on language signs. In a utilitarian Singapore, English is the pre-
dominant language which is often associated with meritocracy, economic advantage, and
upper class in social hierarchy. In contrast, those with low English proficiency tend to be
categorised as members of lower social class who are marginalised in the society. In the
kiasu culture, few can afford to be deemed illiterate in English. This may also be true for
shop owners. Even if they know little English, they may still wish to present an English-lit-
erate image, thus an English shop name can somehow help them keep face in this respect.
In Figure 4, shop owners may wish to use the linguistic symbols to identify themselves as
in-group members of the English-literate majority. As such, the ‘face’ associated with
English-speaking persons can be maintained.

Traditional Chinese characters and cultural psychology

In Singapore’s education system, simplified Chinese characters are designated as standard
orthography due to its ease of learning. In the shop names studied here, however, the offi-
cial orthography policy seems to have little binding force. The vitality of traditional Chinese
characters in shop names might be caused by at least two factors. On the one hand, for
Chinese Singaporeans in middle-age or above, there is an emotional attachment to tra-
ditional characters. Singapore started to promote the use of simplified Chinese characters
in education in 1969. Before that, Chinese students learnt traditional Chinese characters in
schools. In this regard, people educated in such a context may feel more comfortable to
read and write traditional Chinese characters. Especially for those Singaporeans in their 50s
or beyond, their literacy of traditional Chinese characters is presumably higher than that of
simplified Chinese characters. Moreover, for those shop owners who treasure Chinese tra-
ditions, using traditional characters may be a representation of their Chinese cultural
values. Therefore, when they run shops in neighbourhood centres, they tend to use tra-
ditional Chinese characters in shop names to show their emotional clinging to the
writing system. This may also be a business strategy to attract customers of similar age
and/or educational backgrounds.
On the other hand, traditional Chinese characters may be deemed to have higher pres-
tige than simplified characters. The People’s Republic of China had a prolonged history of
political separation from the outside world in the 1950s through the 1970s. In that period,
the country experienced severe poverty and turmoil. In contrast, the other Chinese-speak-
ing communities, such as Hong Kong and Taiwan, where traditional Chinese characters
were used, achieved great economic success. Since the polities using traditional Chinese
characters were economically more developed than Mainland China, traditional characters
procured symbolic values like modernity and internationality (Zhao & Baldauf, 2008).

Marketplace language practice shaped or unshaped by language policy?

In Singapore’s unique bilingual policy, the official signs such as road names, street names
and government building names are usually written in English. The other official
languages on governmental signs are much less frequently seen except in ethnic enclaves
16 G. SHANG AND L. GUO

like Chinatown, Geylang Serai (also known as Malay Village) and Little India, where both
English and mother tongue languages tend to appear on official signs.
In the private domain, as what we investigate here, the LLs are also shaped, at least par-
tially, by the national language policy. On the shop name signs presented in the neighbour-
hood markets, English names are universally found in almost all types of businesses. Here
English used as a language of prestige in market places is closely related to its prominent
role in domestic communication as well as its symbolic meanings in a globalised world
(such as modernity, internationalisation, sophistication and vogue). This prioritisation of
English may suggest that the policy of promoting English as a predominant language at
the national level has taken root in the private domains as well. Moreover, we find that bilin-
gual name signs are prevalent in neighbourhood centres, which is in consonance with the
bilingual education policy, which emphasises the bilingual competency of the language
users. Thus the major clients of neighbourhood shops, immersed in such an educational
system, tend to be assumed as bilingual readers. Such language practice may be understood
as the shop owners’ way of response to the national language policy.
However, given the fact that language choices on non-official signs are not statutory in
language policy, we found that some divergences exist between the language uses and
the officially adopted standards or practices. A good example is the extensive use of tra-
ditional Chinese characters on shop name signs, which goes against the promotion of sim-
plified characters in Singapore’s education. In addition, though English is highly visible on
shop name signs, it is not necessarily the most salient code on bilingual or multilingual
signs. This is in contrast to the official signs where English is dominant and often squeezes
out the other codes. These discrepancies may suggest that while business operators
recognise the official bilingual policy promoted by the Singapore government, they also
occasionally deviate from the suggested language practice by making their own responses
to the linguistic diversity.

Conclusion
The LL in a region can be a window into its actual linguistic ecology, and the visibility and
salience of specific languages in LLs are closely related to their vitality and even their sus-
tainability in the society. In this paper, we have examined the shop name signs displayed
in Singapore’s neighbourhood centres, and revealed the strategies employed by grassroots
businessmen to engage customers and construct identity in the pluralistic society. The Sin-
gapore government currently adopts a hands-off policy to the language use in shop name
signs, and gives freedom to business owners in their shop sign design and code choice.
Thus, the language practice in shop signs is constructed out of individual owners’ personal
interests and identification with the values of particular language varieties. Our analysis
shows that English is prevalent in monolingual, bilingual and multilingual signs, which is
in accordance with the state’s language ideology to prioritise English as first language.
This fact may indicate that the utilitarian value of English in the ethnolinguistically hetero-
geneous society has been fully appreciated by the general business owners. As noted
above, Singapore’s pragmatic macro language policy was formulated as a strategy to
manage its multi-ethnic and multilingual population and steer its economic development.
The shop name practice explored in this study, particularly the utilisation of the instrumental
function of English to address all potential customers, shows that the pragmatic philosophy
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 17

espoused in official ideology has translated into non-official discourse. Unlike the high-end
shopping malls, neighbourhood stores set targets at the residents living nearby who stand
for rational consumption. Thus it is understandable that the discourses in shop signs are
mainly constructed to address the customers’ practical needs. Moreover, shop names are
often employed to manifest the shop owners’ attachment to their ethnic languages and/
or traditional cultures. It is found that although English is highly visible, Chinese is the pre-
ferred code and Chinese names tend to be established as the primary shop names, showing
that the Chinese community cherishes their linguistic and cultural legacies and take practi-
cal measures to preserve them in their language practice.
Taken together, Singapore’s LL in ordinary neighbourhood markets reveals that the dis-
course constructed in bottom-up signs mainly seeks to achieve pragmatic and affective/
cultural identification adequacy, whereas the multilingualism practiced in non-official
domains may indicate the relative viability, power and values of different language var-
ieties in mass perceptions.
It should be noted, however, that our analysis here is intended to provide a general
picture of the LL constructed by shop names in Singapore’s ordinary neighbourhood
centres, and thus some very specific issues are not touched upon in this paper, though
they are by no means trivial in Singapore’s language planning. For instance, the tension
between Mandarin and dialect use in the Chinese community is a long-standing issue
(Bokhorst-Heng & Wee, 2007; Rappa & Wee, 2006; Wee, 2014). In the shop names where
pinyin is used, one might wonder whether the pinyin reflects the Mandarin pronunciations
or those of the Chinese dialects. Such specific issues deserve further exploration.
Finally, we would note that this study showcases preliminary results of the data and our
interpretation of the findings need further verification and exploration. For instance, the
language use patterns on shop name signs may be indicative of the shop owners’ attitudes
towards the linguistic codes. In our discussion, we have drawn some speculative conclusions
based on our prolonged life experience in Singapore’s communities, daily interactions with
the local residents, and our careful reading of relevant literature. However, we admit that in
order to identify the actual motivation for the language presence on shop signs, more
research efforts (such as face-to-face interview with shop owners) are required.

Notes
1. According to HDB, EIP policy was implemented to ensure a good mix of residents of different
races in different neighbourhoods and blocks, thus promoting racial integration and harmony
(Refer to HDB website at http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10321p.nsf/w/BuyResaleFlatEthnicInte
grationPolicy_EIP?OpenDocument for more details).
2. Due to certain unforeseen reasons (e.g. antipathy of the shop staff), a small number of shop
names failed to be included in our data set.
3. It should be noted that font size is not the only way to index prominence. In fact, prominence
can be projected to some elements of a shop name via bold colours or special fonts.

Acknowledgments
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their comments and
suggestions.
18 G. SHANG AND L. GUO

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was partially supported by National Social Science Foundation of China [grant number:
15BYY050].

References
Abdullah, K., & Ayyub, B. J. (2003). Malay language issues and trends. In S. Gopinathan, A. Pakir, W. K.
Ho, & V. Saravanan (Eds.), Language, society and education in Singapore: Issues and trends (pp. 179–
190). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
Backhaus, P. (2007). Linguistic landscapes: A comparative study of urban multilingualism in Tokyo.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bokhorst-Heng, W., & Wee, L. (2007). Language planning in Singapore: On pragmatism, communitar-
ianism and personal names. Journal of Current Issues in Language Planning, 8(3), 324–343. doi:10.
2167/cilp118.0
Department of Statistics. (2010). Census of population 2010 statistical release 1: Demographic charac-
teristics, education, language and religion. Singapore: Ministry of Trade & Industry.
Department of Statistics. (2015). Population trend 2015. Singapore: Ministry of Trade & Industry.
Ellis, N. J. (2014). Afraid to lose out: The impact of kiasuism on practitioner research in Singapore
schools. Educational Action Research, 22(2), 235–250. doi:10.1080/09650792.2013.859088
Gopinathan, S. (2001). Macro-policy: Globalisation, the state and education policy in Singapore. In J.
Tan, S. Gopinathan, & W. K. Ho (Eds.), Challenges facing the Singapore education system today (pp.
3–17). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Gorter, D. (Ed.). (2006). Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Gorter, D., Marten, H. F., & van Mensel, L. (Eds.). (2012). Minority languages in the linguistic landscape.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Haarmann, H. (1986). Verbal strategies in Japanese fashion magazines: A study in impersonal bilin-
gualism and ethnosymbolism. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 58, 107–121.
doi:10.1515/ijsl.1986.58.107
Heng, S. K. (2012). Speech by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the Launch Ceremony of
the Speak Mandarin Campaign 2012 on Friday, 27 July 2012, at 11am at the Mochtar Riady
Auditorium, Singapore Management University. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/
speeches/2012/07/27/speech-by-mr-heng-swee-keat-at-26.php
Ho, T. S., Ang, C. E., Loh, J., & Ng, I. (1998). A preliminary study of kiasu behaviour – is it unique to
Singapore? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 13 (5/6), 359–370. doi:10.1108/02683949810220015
Hult, F. (2014). Drive-thru linguistic landscaping: Constructing a linguistically dominant place in a
bilingual space. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18 (5), 507–523. doi:10.1177/
1367006913484206
Hwang, A., Ang, S., & Francesco, A. M. (2002). The silent Chinese: The influence of face and kiasuism
on student feedback-seeking behaviours. Journal of Management Education, 26(1), 70–98. doi:10.
1177/105256290202600106
Kwan-Terry, A., & Luke, K. K. (1997). Tradition, trial, and error: Standard and vernacular literacy in
China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia. In A. Tabouret-Keller (Ed.), Vernacular literacy: A re-
evaluation (pp. 271–315). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23–49. doi:10.1177/0261927X970161002
Lee, K. Y. (2011a, September 19). It’s possible with English as a master language: LKY. The New Paper.
Retrieved from http://education.asiaone.com/content/its-possible-english-master-language-lky
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 19

Lee, K. Y. (2011b). Lee Kuan Yew says families should speak Mandarin at home. Retrieved from http://
news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20111008-303955.html
Lim, L., Pakir, A., & Wee, L. (2010). English in Singapore: Policies and prospects. In L. Lim, A. Pakir, & L.
Wee (Eds.), English in Singapore: Modernity and management (pp. 3–18). Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
McCarthy, T., & Ellis, E. (1999 July 19). Singapore lightens up. Time Asia. Retrieved from http://edition.
cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/asia/magazine/1999/990719/cover1.html
Ng, E. H. (2010). Keynote Address by Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister for Education and 2nd Minister for
Defence at the ‘Building Blocks for Education: Whole System Reform’ International Education
Summit on Tuesday, 14th September 2010 at 11.30 am in Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2010/09/14/keynote-address-by-minister-at-internation
al-education-summit.php
Ong, K. K. W., Ghesquière, J. F., & Serwe, S. K. (2013). Frenglish shop signs in Singapore. English Today,
29 (3), 19–25. doi:10.1017/S0266078413000278
Rappa, A., & Wee, L. (2006). Language policy and modernity in Southeast Asia: Malaysia, the Philippines,
Singapore, Thailand. New York, NY: Springer.
Rubdy, R. (2005). Remaking Singapore for the new age: Official ideology and the realities of practice
in language-in-education. In A. Lin & P.W. Martin (Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-
education policy and practice (pp. 55–73). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Saravanan, V. (2003). Language maintenance and language shift in the Tamil-English community. In
S. Gopinathan, A. Pakir, W. K. Ho, & V. Saravanan (Eds.), Language, society and education in
Singapore: Issues and trends (pp. 155–178). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourse in place: Language in the material world. London:
Routledge.
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge.
Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (Eds.). (2009). Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery. London:
Routledge.
Silver, R. E. (2005). The discourse of linguistic capital: Language and economic policy planning in
Singapore. Language Policy, 4, 47–66. doi:10.1007/s10993-004-6564-4
Tan, C. (2006). Change and continuity: Chinese language policy in Singapore. Language Policy, 5, 41–
62. doi:10.1007/s10993-005-5625-7
Tan, P. K. W. (2011). Subversive engineering: Building names in Singapore. In S. D. Brunn (Ed.),
Engineering earth (pp. 1997–2011). New York: Springer.
Tan, P. K. W. (2014). Singapore’s balancing act, from the perspective of the linguistic landscape.
Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 29 (2), 438–466. doi:10.1355/sj29-2g
Wee, L. (2014). The minoritization of languages in Singapore. In P. Sercombe & R. Tupas (Eds.),
Language, education and nation-building: Assimilation and shift in Southeast Asia (pp. 181–199).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Xu, D., Chew, C. H., & Chen, S. (2003). Language use and language attitudes in the Singapore Chinese
community. In S. Gopinathan, A. Pakir, W. K. Ho, & V. Saravanan (Eds.), Language, society and edu-
cation in Singapore: Issues and trends (pp. 133–154). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
Zhao, S., & Baldauf, R. B. (2008). Planning Chinese characters: Reaction, evolution or revolution?
New York: Springer.