Applied Linguistics 29/3: 381–403 ß Oxford University Press 2007

doi:10.1093/applin/amm050

Language Policy, Language Teachers’

Beliefs, and Classroom Practices
1
THOMAS S. C. FARRELL and 2SERENA TAN KIAT KUN
1
Brock University and 2Jurong Primary School

The widespread use of a local variety of English, Singapore Colloquial English, or

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

Singlish, has become somewhat of a controversial issue in Singapore especially
in the eyes of the Singapore government. For example, in 2002 the Singapore
government launched The ‘Speak Good English Movement’ (SGEM) with
the objective of promoting the use of Standard English among Singaporeans.
Furthermore, Singapore’s newspapers have recently suggested that the
responsibility for halting the deterioration (perceived or real) of the standards
of English rests with Singapore’s English language teachers. The case study
presented in this paper offers one lens from which to view a policy-to-practice
connection by outlining the impact of language policy on the beliefs and
classroom practices of three primary school teachers concerning the use of
Singlish in their classrooms. The results confirm those of previous studies that
teachers’ reactions to language policy is not a straightforward process and
as such it is important to understand the role teachers play in the enactment
of language policy.

INTRODUCTION
Since 1956, English, Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil have been designated
as the four official languages in Singapore (Gopinathan 1980), and in 1987,
English became the medium of instruction in the Singaporean school system,
with one of the other official languages designated as a second school
language (Bokhorst-Heng 1998). Over the years a local variety of Singapore
English, known as Singapore Colloquial English (SCE) or Singlish, has also
evolved but has become somewhat of a controversial topic especially from
the government’s point of view because, in terms of Haugen’s (1987) model
of language planning, they have ‘deselected’ Singlish in favor of a British/
American model of English. Controversy followed because those who favor
the use of Singlish (e.g. Rubdy 2001; Wee 2005) argue that it is a form of
national identity and as such should not be discouraged, while those in
the government, and more recently the press, suggest a language policy that
promotes English as a language for international communication outside
Singapore and they maintain that Singlish is not globally comprehensible
(Fong et al. 2002). In fact, in a recent concerted effort to halt the use of
Singlish, the Singapore government launched ‘The Speak Good English
Movement’ (SGEM) in 2000 with the objective of promoting the use of
‘good’ English among Singaporeans but with the real intent, as Wee (2005)
382 LANGUAGE POLICY, TEACHERS’ BELIEFS, AND CLASSROOM PRACTICES

has recently suggested, of eliminating Singlish altogether. Moreover,

the Singapore press has also and specifically pointed an accusing finger at
Singapore’s English language teachers stating that they should play a more
active role in halting the alleged deterioration of the standard of English
in Singapore although they do not provide any evidence that this is in fact
the case in Singapore’s classrooms.
The purpose of this paper is to explore what is actually happening in
English language classrooms in Singapore by investigating what English
language teachers not only believe about the use of Singlish in their classes
but also how they actually react (if they do) when students (and they

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

themselves as teachers) use Singlish during English language lessons.
Specifically, this paper details a case study that provides a ‘lens from which to
view a policy-to-practice connection’ (Stritikus 2003: 34) by examining the
actual impact of a top-down imposed English language policy on the beliefs
and classroom practices of three primary school English language teachers.
It should be noted that the focus of this paper is not to discuss the merits
or demerits of such language policies in linguistic or political terms (see Wee
2005 for a full discussion of this matter); rather, the intent of the study is to
examine teachers’ perspectives in actual classrooms where various forms
of English are used.

The English language in Singapore

In recent times, while increasing numbers of people around the world are
now using English for international communication purposes, they are also
beginning to emphasize their own local variety of English in order to protect
their identity and values (Warschauer 2000). This recent recognition of new
local varieties of English in many countries has, in turn, given rise to the
birth of new varieties of English in the world such as Singlish in Singapore.
Three models that have explained the variation in English in Singapore,
and that have dominated much of the research on Singlish, are the lectal
continuum (Platt 1977; Platt and Weber 1980), the diglossia framework (Gupta
1989, 1994), and the expanding triangles model (Pakir 1991).
In an early description of Singapore English, Platt and Weber (1980)
suggested the idea of a speech continuum of Singapore English that ranges
from the ‘lowest’ variety, the basilect, through the medium range, the
mesolect, to the ‘highest’, the acrolect, maintaining that the acrolect is the
variety closest to Standard British English while the basilect is a distinct non-
British Standard English variety. Later, Gupta (1994) adopted Ferguson’s
(1959) use of diglossia as a framework in her description of Singapore
English. Gupta (1994) suggested that the High (H) variety of English in
Singapore is the same as Standard English used in the rest of the English-
speaking world and explained that this H-variety is used in formal
circumstances such as education, politics, and business. She described the
Low (L) variety, or Singapore Colloquial English (SCE), as being distinct from
 THOMAS S. C. FARRELL and SERENA TAN KIAT KUN 383

Standard English, especially in terms of syntax and morphology, and she also
maintained that it is used outside most pedagogical situations such as the
home and in casual conversations (Gupta 1994). Using yet a different
approach, Pakir (1991) developed a model that synthesized the previous
researchers’ descriptions of Singapore English (the lectal continuum and the
diglossic model) and explained a speaker’s proficiency in terms of expanding
triangles. According to Pakir’s (1991) description, highly educated English
speakers are placed at the apex of the triangle and have access to the greatest
variety of styles, from the most formal to the most intimate, while those at
the base of the triangle are described as less proficient English speakers who

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

are usually restricted to using the colloquial forms of Singapore English.
English in Singapore today is seen by the government as the key to economic
success. The government has therefore entrusted the Ministry of Education
to mainitain an acceptable standard of English in the school system that does
not include the use of Singlish.
As the medium of instruction in its schools, the Ministry of Education
(MOE) in Singapore has again recently emphasized that only Standard
English, which they define as ‘internationally acceptable English that is
grammatical, fluent and appropriate for purpose, audience, context and
culture’ (Ministry of Education [MOE] 2001:3), should only (with the strong
implication that it was not, Kramer-Dahl 2003) be used by Singapore’s
teachers. As Kramer-Dahl (2003: 172) has noted, MOE officials positioned
‘their teachers guilty as charged’ citing such comments as: ‘some of them
[primary school teachers] start talking like the children because they use very
simple English’ (head of a primary school’s English department). Around this
time, all teachers in Singapore were given a top-down directive by the MOE
to attend grammar classes (mandatory), with many of these teachers ‘finding
out about it from the Sunday morning paper’ (Kramer-Dahl 2003: 174).

Teacher beliefs and attitudes towards Singapore English

Research on teacher beliefs, defined by Kagan (1992: 65) as ‘unconsciously
held assumptions about students, classrooms, and the academic material to
be taught,’ shares three basic assumptions: (1) teachers’ beliefs influence
perception and judgement; (2) teachers’ beliefs play a role in how
information on teaching is translated into classroom practices; (3) under-
standing teachers’ beliefs is essential to improving teaching practices and
teacher education programs (Johnson 1994). A limited number of studies,
mostly large surveys, have been conducted on teacher beliefs and the use of
Singlish in Singapore school classrooms. For example, Saravanan and
Poedjosoedarmo (1997) surveyed 326 Singaporean trainee teachers regarding
their beliefs towards the use of Singlish in class and revealed that in general,
many of the teachers believed that Standard English was the only
appropriate model of English that should be used in classrooms although
they noted that the occasional use of Singlish to establish rapport or to mark
384 LANGUAGE POLICY, TEACHERS’ BELIEFS, AND CLASSROOM PRACTICES

solidarity was acceptable. Teh (2000) also surveyed the beliefs of twenty
teachers concerning the use of Singlish in schools and indicated that,
although these teachers felt that Singlish can be used for general
communication, it should not be used for communication in the school
context. The respondents also suggested that the use of Singlish in classrooms
might have detrimental effects on the students’ written work.
As illustrated by the findings of these two surveys, most educators believed
that the use of Singlish should be discouraged in classrooms and schools.
Because many of the previous studies on teacher beliefs of the use of Singlish
only involved surveying Singaporean teachers’ about their espoused beliefs

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

on the use of Singlish in schools, they may not be a reliable guide as to what
actually happens in the classrooms. Consequently, the study reported on in
this paper not only sought to document and understand the stated beliefs of
three English language teachers in Singapore but also sought to observe their
actual classroom practices regarding the usage of Singlish to see if there was
convergence or divergence between their beliefs and classroom practices.

THE STUDY
Context
The study was conducted in three Singapore Elementary schools (government-
funded schools). The schools have a heterogeneous multi-ethnic make up
that reflects the composition of Singapore’s population of 3.44 million
people, which is composed of 76.25 per cent Chinese, 13.78 per cent Malays,
8.26 per cent Indians, and 1.71 per cent of other racial groups (Singapore
Department of Statistics 2003). The three participating Singaporean teachers
in this study have been assigned pseudonyms, Jake, Ken, and Liv, to ensure
their anonymity. The study focused on their primary (P3) English language
lessons and they each only allowed observers access to two of their classes,
because they considered any further observations to be disruptive.

Data collection
A qualitative, descriptive research case-study approach was adopted in this
study to investigate the relation between the three teachers’ beliefs about
the use of Singlish in their classrooms and their actual classroom feedback
practices—in terms of frequency, immediacy, and strategy—regarding their
students’ oral usage of Singlish in their English language classes (Patton
2002). The two initial research questions were:
1 What are the three primary (Elementary) School teachers’ beliefs
regarding their students’ use of Singlish in English language classes?
2 What are the feedback practices (defined in terms of frequency, strategy,
and immediacy (Lyster 1998)) exhibited by the teachers when dealing
with their students’ use of Singlish during English language lessons?
 THOMAS S. C. FARRELL and SERENA TAN KIAT KUN 385

Two classroom observations were conducted over a 2-month period for

each teacher and each observation was coded using a lesson observation
checklist (see Appendix A) adapted from the work of Alsagoff and Ho (1998)
who acknowledge the autonomy of Singlish as a separate code. Audio-
recordings of the lesson observations were transcribed and also used to
generate enquiries during the interviews, which took place directly after the
lesson observations. The semi-structured interviews (see Appendix B) were
the primary research tool used to obtain information about the teachers’
beliefs regarding their students’ oral usage of Singlish in English classes. The
interviews were fully transcribed and analyzed before they were returned

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

to the teachers to verify the accuracy of the content and to check for
misinterpretation of the teachers’ views (Lincoln and Guba 1985).

Data analysis
Data from the teachers’ interviews and the classroom observations were
compared for evidence of convergence or divergence between the teachers’
stated beliefs and their actual practices (Cohen and Manion 1989). The
classroom data were transcribed using transcriptions adapted from Richards
(2006) (see Appendix C) only for examples on Singlish and the reliability of
the data analysis was enhanced by having two independent data coders
(McDonough and McDonough 1997) as a check for inter-coder reliability.
These coders also functioned as external audits to examine and assess the
accuracy of both the process and product of the data collection (Creswell
1998). The classroom observation data was analyzed for frequency, strategy,
and immediacy of feedback, that is the response provided by the teachers
when attempting to modify a particular Singlish feature in their students’
utterances. The following feedback strategies (adapted from Lyster (1998)
and Leo (1986)) were used as coding categories for the different strategies the
teachers used when giving feedback (see Appendix D for definitions of
different feedback strategies): rephrasing, elicitation, metalinguistic feedback,
emphasis, and localization.

FINDINGS
Generally, the findings show that all three teachers seem to be very
supportive of their students’ learning of English and all three seem to use
appropriate techniques for their students to develop appropriate skills in
Standard English. The findings also indicate that all three teachers favor a
philosophy of encouraging their students to learn rather than being punitive
or paying attention to minor details. This was demonstrated through the
infrequent correction of the students’ oral usage of Singlish during most of
the lesson observations and reflects their expressed belief that students
should not be corrected each time a Singlish feature occurred in their speech.
386 LANGUAGE POLICY, TEACHERS’ BELIEFS, AND CLASSROOM PRACTICES

We now report in more detail on the teachers’ specific beliefs, classroom

practices, and a comparison of these stated beliefs and classroom practices.

Teachers’ beliefs
Table 1 provides a summary of all three teachers’ beliefs concerning eighteen
different aspects of Singlish. All three teachers seem to have similar ideas

Table 1: Summary of teachers’ beliefs

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

Stated beliefs Jake Ken Liv

1 Singlish is acceptable in informal situations. X X X

2 Singlish is acceptable in classroom situations. X X

3 Students’ use of Singlish is due to insufficient exposure to X X X
Standard English.
4 Students are aware of the differences between Singlish and



Standard English.
5 Students are always expected to speak Standard English

X
in class.
6 Acceptability of the student’s use of Singlish in class varies X X 
with their level of proficiency in English.
7 British English is the Standard English in Singapore. X X X
8 Students need to be proficient in Standard English because X X 
they are taking Cambridge papers in future.
9 Students need to be proficient in Standard English because   X
they need to be able to speak and write well in English
in order to do well in Singapore.
10 Teachers are responsible for correcting students when they X X X
speak Singlish.
11 Teachers are responsible for modeling the oral usage of X X X
Standard English.
12 Feedback should always be provided whenever students



speak Singlish.
13 Frequent correction of students’ oral usage of Singlish X X X
affects students’ confidence.
14 Frequent correction of students’ oral usage of Singlish   X
affects the flow of the lesson.
15 Rephrasing is the most appropriate feedback strategy to use X X X
when dealing with students’ oral usage of Singlish.
16 Students’ standard of English can be improved by reading X X X
more English books.
17 Singlish should be abolished.



18 Singlish is a form of Singaporean’s identity. X X X

X

Key: Agree; Not agree; Not stated.
 THOMAS S. C. FARRELL and SERENA TAN KIAT KUN 387

of what they perceived Singlish to be, as well as similar interpretations of what

they perceive as Standard English. For example, Jake defined Singlish as a
form of English that he said is ‘ungrammatical, with a lot of ‘‘lahs’’ and ‘‘lehs’’’
(Interview, 5 September). Jake also said that he regards British English as the
Standard English, citing as his reason the fact that he was taught British
English and that he assumes that he is expected to teach British English
because his students will be taking ‘O’ Level Cambridge papers in the future.
Jake remarked:
Perhaps Standard English is more like British English whereby
it is more formal. We are taking ‘O’ Level Cambridge. So, I think

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

the ministry would like us to follow British English although
American English is acceptable. But perhaps our form of Standard
English is British English. (Interview, 5 September)

Ken defined Singlish as ‘a combination of English and a bit of Hokkien,

Malay, and other languages’ (Interview, 19 September). He added that for
him a main feature of Singlish was the shortening of sentences; he explained,
‘Singaporeans are a bit ‘‘kiasu’’ so they want everything to be done in the
shortest time. Singlish is carried out using that kind of attitude’ (Interview,
19 September). ‘Kiasu’, according to Brown (1999: 123), means ‘fear or
dislike of losing out to others’ so Ken suggested that Singaporeans may
shorten sentences in order to speed up oral communications. Like Jake, Ken
asserted that for him British English is the Standard English because he was
taught British English as a student and like Jake, Ken also suggested that
because the examinations that the students would take would be
administered by Cambridge, he said that he has the responsibility to follow
the standards of British English. He continued:
Probably British English is the Standard English because we were
under the British rule and I think my teachers taught using British
English when I was young. Since they will be taking Cambridge
papers in future, I think we should follow British English.
(Interview, 19 September)

Liv defined Singlish as being ‘grammatically incorrect [English] but under-

standable by Singaporeans’ (Interview, 21 September). Similar to Jake and
Ken, Liv also expressed her strong view that the only Standard English for
her is British English. However, Liv went further and also proposed that the
perceived deteriorating standards of English in Singapore might be due to the
many influences from the students’ mother tongues, dialects, and even
American English. The following interview segment suggests that, similar to
the other two teachers, Liv may not be correctly informed about Standard
English, and in fact may be biased against American English:
British English is Standard English. American English is not
because our system is adopting British English. So if they spell
colour as ‘c-o-l-o-r’, I think it’s wrong, but you see ‘c-o-l-o-r’
388 LANGUAGE POLICY, TEACHERS’ BELIEFS, AND CLASSROOM PRACTICES

everywhere, even in Microsoft Word, they change it to ‘c-o-l-o-r’

when you write ‘c-o-l-o-u-r’. . . . I think the media is not exposing
them to Standard English, they are exposed to American English.
(Interview, 21 September)
All three teachers said that they also believed that most of their students
might not be aware of the differences between Singlish and Standard
English. Jake remarked that as most of his students come from non-English-
speaking families, they have had very few opportunities to converse in
English and as a result, Jake maintained: ‘When they try to translate their
thoughts into English, some features from their mother tongue can usually

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

be observed in their sentences’ (Interview, 5 September). Ken also said that
he believes his students do not know the differences between Singlish and
other types of English including Standard English. He explained:
I don’t think they are aware of the differences . . . they are exposed
to so many types of English like Singlish, British English,
American English that they may not know which is the Standard
English. As a result, they just mix here and there. (Interview,
19 September)
Liv also said she believes that her students might not be aware of the
differences between Singlish and Standard English. She explained, ‘You have
to tell them what is right and what is wrong’ (Interview, 21 September).
Regarding the acceptability of the use Singlish in their classes (by both
students and the teacher), each teacher seems to exhibit contradictory beliefs.
For example, Jake espouses both respect for Singlish and derision of the
language as deficient, which is an interesting and contradictory combination
that Braj Kachru (1996: 11) has referred to as ‘linguistic schizophrenia’,
which can include a concern for the reimposition of the older standard
British English norm used in the past in Singapore. Jake said that while
Singlish would be acceptable to him in informal situations, it should not be
used in formal situations. Jake considered lessons (including both lessons
observed in this study) that involve ‘lots of interactions among students and
teachers’ as informal and that his use of Singlish in such lessons helps him
create rapport with the students. Jake explained:
[Singlish] may be appropriate when you want to bond with
someone because when you use Singlish, it is very personal . . .
when people are joking or having a relaxing moment with some
close friends, I think this sort of situation can allow the usage of
Singlish. In formal occasions, like business meetings, the situation
requires more professional behavior [and] requires proper English
to be spoken. (Interview, 5 September)
Although Jake said he felt that it was important for students to acquire
Standard English, he said that he does not believe in correcting his students
every time they use Singlish in class, because as he says, it is more important
for students to develop their confidence in speaking. He maintains that ‘It’s
 THOMAS S. C. FARRELL and SERENA TAN KIAT KUN 389

ok for them to speak Singlish in class as the main thing is for them to speak
up in class and build confidence’ (Interview, 5 September). He believes that
Singlish should not be abolished, as he says it is a unique characteristic of
Singaporeans. However, Jake added that he believes that there is still a need
for students to be able to switch to the proper form of English when the
situation arises. He continued:
I think Singlish is part of us. We shouldn’t totally force everyone
to follow the Standard English like British English or American
English. We should know our own English but we should be able
to switch from one Standard English to another form easily.

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

(Interview, 5 September)
Jake agrees that he believes that he uses Singlish in class: ‘Sometimes, it’s
a slip of the tongue, sometimes it’s on purpose’ (Interview, 5 September).
He said that he uses Singlish occasionally in class to build rapport as he said
he felt it was ‘more intimate; it’s like a bond between us’ (Interview,
5 September). In addition, Jake said he believes that teachers should
not be too obsessive in correcting their students’ usage of Singlish. He
explained:
I feel that we shouldn’t be so obsessive in correcting their
mistakes, we should allow them to speak so that they are more
confident, then slowly as they get influenced by proper English,
I think they will change slowly, so we should not force upon
them. (Interview, 5 September)
He also expressed that students should learn about the differences between
Singlish and Standard English in a more interesting way. Jake revealed that
he had been adopting a reward system to encourage his students to speak
better English. He explained this as follows:
I told them, if they can spot my mistakes, I’ll add points to their
groups. If they can catch me saying a particular Singlish phrase,
I’ll give them points and if they catch someone else speaking in
Singlish, they will also get some points. (Interview, 5 September)
When asked how successful this strategy was, Jake replied that it was
relatively effective and elaborated that, ‘most of them have stopped saying
‘‘I finished, I finished’’, they are starting to say ‘‘I’ve completed my work’’ or
‘‘I’m done’’’ (Interview, 5 September). So, on the one hand, the interview
data show that Jake does not feel it is important correct Singlish features
every time (a claim corroborated by the classroom observation data).
However, the interview data also show that he wants students to ‘catch’ him
using Singlish, and to eventually make a transition to more standard
language use in the classroom, thereby removing Singlish from the classroom
context. Similarly, Liv revealed somewhat contradictory beliefs in that,
although the use of Singlish is generally acceptable to her (although she did
not mention if this was for the teacher and/or the students), its use should
390 LANGUAGE POLICY, TEACHERS’ BELIEFS, AND CLASSROOM PRACTICES

not be encouraged in class. She said, ‘Singlish is always not ok to me in class’

(Interview, 21 September).
Ken said that he believed that English language teachers should assume the
main responsibility to ‘correct’ their students when they speak in Singlish and
explained that teachers ‘are in a better position to correct them’ (Interview,
19 September). He added that he would usually paraphrase his students’
utterances immediately when there was a total loss of meaning. However,
Ken expressed his view that teachers should not provide feedback on their
students’ use of Singlish too frequently as this may affect their confidence and
they may eventually avoid the use of English. He explained:

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

If it has lost the total meaning, I’ll try to paraphrase for them
immediately. For example ‘so and so, is this what you mean?’ and
hopefully, they’ll learn from it. If I correct them, it’ll be like ‘the
teacher is trying to scrutinize the way I speak, everything I say, he
will analyze bit by bit.’ As a result, he or she may be very
withdrawn and dare not speak English. (Interview, 19 September)
Like Jake and Ken, Liv revealed that although she said she tries to model the
use of Standard English while teaching, she believes that she uses Singlish
but only when she joked with her students. She remarked, ‘I use Singlish
when I joke with them but I try to avoid using Singlish when I’m teaching.’
(Interview, 21 September). Liv also said she does not believe in correcting
her students’ utterances every time they speak Singlish in favor of getting on
with encouraging her students to learn. She explained:
In class, if you start correcting everyone, then when are you going
to continue the lesson? Let’s say, when we are having a
discussion, you discover that they speak Singlish, but you cannot
be correcting every one of them. If not, your discussion will not be
flowing smoothly. (Interview, 21 September)
When Liv has to correct, similar to Jake and Ken, she said she prefers to
promptly rephrase her students’ sentences when they speak Singlish in class:
When they say ‘I finish already, I’ll rephrase their sentence at
once by saying, ‘You mean, I have finished my work?’ When I
rephrase, I’m correcting them in a subtle way. If I were to be more
direct, some pupils may feel embarrassed that their friends will
laugh at them when they are corrected. (Interview, 21 September)

Classroom practices
The following section reports the findings regarding the teachers’ classroom
practices and is summarized in Table 2.
Each of Jake’s two observed lessons were interpreted as being learner-
centered in that students were engaged mostly in ‘interactive and
communicative activities’ (Ow and Ho 1993: 8), a similar observation for
Liv’s two lessons indicated that they were interactive; in contrast the two
 THOMAS S. C. FARRELL and SERENA TAN KIAT KUN 391

Table 2: Summary of teachers’ practices

Feedback practices Jake Ken Liv

1 Feedback was provided whenever a Singlish feature was

present in the students’ utterances.
2 Whenever feedback was provided on students’ oral usage X X X
of Singlish, it was always immediate.
3 Rephrasing was the most frequently feedback strategy X X X
adopted.
4 Singlish features were present in teacher’s speech. X# X X

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

X
#
Key: Observed; Not observed; Less than three occurrences.

observed lessons conducted by Ken were interpreted as being more teacher-

centered in nature. In the first observed lesson in Jake’s class, it was noted
that Jake provided feedback to students on five occurrences in which Singlish
features occurred in utterances. Each time his feedback was immediate and
he rephrased his students’ sentences. For example, Jake responded promptly
to his students’ utterances twice when their sentences showed an absence
of past tense marking as illustrated in the following (in all the examples
S ¼ student and T ¼ teacher):

Example 1: Absence of past tense marking

S: 4Then the crocodile run away.5
T: Then the crocodile ran(?) away?
S: Ya::, then run away.
T: After the noose was loosened, the crocodile swam away.
Jake also rephrased two of his students’ sentences when their utterances
showed subject deletion, as shown in the following examples (although it
should be noted that the researchers recognize that the notion of ‘deletion’ is
highly problematic as it conveys the notion that ‘good speakers’ speak only
in complete and ‘whole sentences’ which is not acceptable in the study of
spoken discourse):

Example 2: Subject deletion

S: Ya, then ^ run away.
T: After the noose was loosened (0.5), the crocodile swam away.
Example 3: Subject deletion
S: ^ Never die lah::.
T: No, it went into the sewage, then it went up the toilet bowl(!).
In the second observed lesson, Jake provided feedback for twelve of the forty-
one instances in which Singlish features occurred in his students’ utterances.
392 LANGUAGE POLICY, TEACHERS’ BELIEFS, AND CLASSROOM PRACTICES

The Singlish feature that was most frequently responded to by Jake was
subject deletion, followed by the use of ‘got’ as ‘there is’. Jake attended to
the use of the former four times and the latter three times respectively as
outlined in the following examples:

Example 4: Subject deletion (and verb deletion)

T: Why do you want to cut out this article?
S: (1.0) ^ Very interesting.
T: This article(?) is very interesting.

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

Example 5: Subject deletion
T: How about the hair?
S: 4^ Brown color5
T: Ok(.), tell me (..) so ‘The hair . . .’
S: The hair is brown in color
T: Ok
Example 6: Use of ‘got’ as ‘there is’
S: Got many meat_.
T: There are shops that sell meat?
Example 7: Use of ‘got’ as ‘there is’
S: Got playground lah::, you don’t anyhow say.
T: Ok, so that means there is a playground somewhere in the
neighborhood, right?
The two feedback strategies adopted by Jake in the second observed lesson
were rephrasing and elicitation; he used rephrasing fifteen times and
elicitation twice when he responded to his students’ usage of Singlish (see
Appendix C for definitions of feedback strategies). The only Singlish feature
observed in Jake’s speech during the observed lessons was the use of the
generalized ‘is it’ tag. To illustrate, when a student could not answer a
question in the first observed lesson, Jake asked, ‘Cannot say anything, is it?’
In Ken’s first observed lesson he provided feedback in only two out of the
twenty-one instances in which his students used Singlish in their oral speech.
He rephrased one student’s sentence when the student failed to show past
tense marking and later when another student used a borrowed word
from another language such as Malay. The following examples illustrate
the instances in which Ken provided immediate feedback in response to his
students’ usage of Singlish:

Example 8: Absence of past tense marking

S: Teacher(?), just now (0.5) F come but K ask her to go home,
then she go home.
T: She went home? How come?
 THOMAS S. C. FARRELL and SERENA TAN KIAT KUN 393

Example 9: Use of borrowings

S: N always kacau her::.
T: What does kacau mean?
S: Kacau means disturb.
As shown in Example 9 above, Ken tried to elicit the appropriate English
word when one of his students used the borrowing ‘kacau’, a Malay word for
‘disturb’ (Brown 1999: 120).
During the second lesson, Ken rephrased his students’ sentences in two out
of the eleven occasions in which Singlish features appeared in their speech.
The two events included when a student’s sentence demonstrated ‘be’

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

deletion, and another when a student used ‘never’ as ‘did not’, both outlined
as follows:

Example 10: ‘Be’ deletion

T: Who will be playing football after school?
S: Teacher::, he ^ playing
T: ((To H)) You are playing with A?
Example 11: Use of ‘never’ as ‘did not’
S: ((To P)) 4Why you never bring your body?5
T: ((To P)) Did you bring anything today?
As noted from the lesson observations, Ken seldom corrected his students
when features of Singlish occurred in their speech but when he did,
Ken either rephrased his students’ utterance or tried to elicit the correct
standard form from the students. Specifically, Ken only provided feedback
(immediate) four times when Singlish features occurred in his students’
speech in the two observed lessons. Several instances of absence of subject–
verb agreement and an instance of the absence of past tense marker were
noted in Ken’s own classroom speech. His utterances also included a
conditional clause without the subordinating conjunction ‘if’. Some of the
examples are illustrated in the following:

Example 12: Absence of subject–verb agreement

T: He do not know.
Example 13: Absence of past tense marking
T: So far, H give me one good way and one bad way.
Example 14: Conditional clauses without subordinating conjunction
T: You give the answer . . . you must support with reasons what.
In Liv’s first observed lesson, she provided feedback using the strategy of
rephrasing on each occasion for the absence of subject–verb agreement in her
394 LANGUAGE POLICY, TEACHERS’ BELIEFS, AND CLASSROOM PRACTICES

students’ oral English, as she promptly rephrased two out of the three
occurrences in her students’ speech outlined as follows:

Example 15: Absence of subject–verb agreement

S: The ghost want to eat the old man ((giggles)).
T: (0.5) The ghost wants to eat the old man?
Example 16: Absence of subject–verb agreement
S: No::, teacher(?), I thought the skeleton want to eat the
sausage(?)?

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

T: The skeleton wants to eat the sausage?
Liv also provided immediate feedback when another Singlish feature, ‘be’
deletion, was present in one of her students’ utterances as follows:

Example 17: ‘Be’ deletion

T: Why do you think the boy wants another sausage?
S: Because he ^ still hungry::.
T: Because he is still hungry(?)?
In the second observed lesson, Liv provided immediate feedback in four
instances when her students used Singlish in their utterances. Of the four,
subject deletion occurred twice as in example 18:

Example 18: Subject deletion and use of particles

S: 4^ Like model ah?5
T: It’s not model, something like that.
The other instance in which Liv provided immediate feedback was when
there was ‘be’ deletion in one of her students’ utterances as follows:

Example 19: ‘Be’ deletion

S: Teacher(?), S ^ correct?
T: S is correct.
Liv’s speech during her interactions with her class had few instances of
Singlish; only two examples of conditional clauses without ‘if’ or ‘when’ and
one occurrence of the use of particles were observed. The absence of subject–
verb agreement and the use of the generalized ‘is it’ tag also occurred once
each in Liv’s speech. Some examples are outlined below:

Example 20: Conditional clauses without subordinating conjunction

T: You open your mouth unnecessarily, you can leave the class.
You want to talk, you raise your hand.
 THOMAS S. C. FARRELL and SERENA TAN KIAT KUN 395

Example 21: Absence of subject–verb agreement

T: Because the boy is not scared, so he don’t talk?
Example 22: Use of particle
T: Where’s Ali ah?

Comparison of beliefs and practices

On the face of it, the findings seem to reveal that most of the teachers’

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

practices were in alignment with their stated beliefs. Jake’s actual feedback
practices in class regarding the oral usage of Singlish seem generally
consistent with his stated beliefs. As observed from the two lessons, Jake
seldom corrected his students’ utterances, which contained Singlish features.
This practice concurred with his belief that students should not be corrected
every time they speak Singlish in English classes. Jake’s stated preference for
the feedback strategy of rephrasing the Singlish features in his students’
sentences was also reflected in his actual classroom practices; as illustrated
from the lesson observations, the feedback strategy that Jake used most
frequently when he responded to his students’ oral usage of Singlish was
rephrasing.
Like Jake, Ken’s actual classroom feedback practices regarding his
students’ oral use of Singlish were in line with his stated beliefs. As
observed from the two lessons, the frequency of Ken providing feedback
when his students used Singlish features was low. This practice corresponded
with his belief that students should ‘not be corrected’ every time they spoke
Singlish in class and could also be explained by Ken’s teaching style, which is
more teacher-centered than Jake’s, that is, it is more likely to create a
context in which less feedback would generally take place. Similar to Jake,
whenever Ken provided feedback it was immediate. Moreover, observation
of his classroom practices revealed they were in line with his claim that
rephrasing his students’ Singlish utterances was his preferred method of
feedback.
Like Jake and Ken, Liv’s actual classroom feedback practices regarding the
oral usage of Singlish were also generally consistent with her stated beliefs.
Liv’s preference for the feedback strategy of rephrasing the Singlish features
in her students’ sentences was also reflected in her actual classroom practices.
However, it is interesting to note that although all three expressed the
belief that teachers should be responsible for correcting students’ oral usage
of Singlish, the frequency of their provision of feedback in response to
the students’ oral usage of Singlish was low. It can be suggested that
the teachers’ consideration of their students’ confidence and the flow of the
lessons have a substantial degree of influence on their beliefs about error
correction, which consequently, direct the teachers’ final instructional
decision to avoid the frequent provision of feedback.
396 LANGUAGE POLICY, TEACHERS’ BELIEFS, AND CLASSROOM PRACTICES

DISCUSSION
The findings of this study demonstrate how the many complex beliefs held
by teachers can sometimes be in conflict with each other and how these
beliefs exert different degrees of power and influence on the teachers’ final
classroom practices. For example, the conflict that Jake exhibited concerning
teaching Standard English, and both his own use and his students’ use of
Singlish in class highlights a complexity that many educators experience
when teaching students who speak a non-standardized variety (and who
speak that variety themselves as well), and has implications for language
policy makers not only in Singapore but also in other postcolonial settings.

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

This dilemma was further enhanced by the tension the teachers in this study
felt between ‘solidarity’ and rapport-building, and the pressures of academic
contexts to produce academic language create a complex response. Although
the three teachers in this study may not have talked much about the
language policies of the MOE, the SGEM, or the Singapore government,
results from the interviews suggest that all three teachers were somewhat
confused about the language policies of not only the SGEM, but also the
government policy of advocating a Standard Singapore English. For example,
although all three teachers agreed that it is teachers who should bear
the main responsibility of modeling the use of Standard English, it is also
interesting to note that all three teachers unanimously named British English
as their Standard English, citing the same reason that they were taught
British English when they were young. This is in contrast to the Singapore
government’s view which promotes Singapore Standard English. The SGEM
(2005) webpage clearly states that the Standard they aspire to is ‘Singapore
Standard English that follows the basic rules on international English in
terms of grammar, and vocabulary while still maintaining its own identity
such as accent and some distinctive vocabulary items as American and
Australian English does.’
The results of this small case study also seem to confirm previous case
study research on this topic (e.g. Jennings 1996; Stritikus 2003) in that
teachers’ reactions to language policy implementation can be ‘a messy
process’ (Stritikus 2003: 50) at best, especially if the teachers themselves
have not been consulted (as was shown through the study reported in this
paper) as to how such policy should be implemented in classrooms, and even
more so if such language policies are in conflict with the reality of its usage
within communities. As such, one obvious but vitally important recommen-
dation that stems from the study reported here is that language policy makers
in Singapore (and elsewhere) should consult the very teachers who are
entrusted to carry out language policy changes in their classes or, as Stritikus
(2003: 33) has suggested, ‘in a recursive relationship with the environments
in which they work’. This consultation (possibly in the form of workshops)
should, at the very least, provide clear guidelines to teachers in Singapore
on exactly what Standard English is, what is acceptable and what is not,
 THOMAS S. C. FARRELL and SERENA TAN KIAT KUN 397

why these examples are acceptable, and why other examples are not.
Teacher training institutes in Singapore (which are controlled by the MOE
for the most part) could also do more in the initial preparation of its future
teachers (not only English language teachers, because the medium of
instruction is English in all schools) by providing clear guidelines to trainee
teachers on exactly how the SGEM can be realistically implemented in all
Singapore classrooms. It should be said that the three teachers reported on in
this case study are not failing to implement the language policies of the
Singapore government in terms of the use of Standard English in their
classes; far from it, if anything, they appear to have a stricter interpretation of

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

the SGEM idea in part because they have been left to interpret these policies
on their own. Although all three teachers are recent graduates from a
teaching institute in Singapore, they do not seem to have had any training in
how to implement the SGEM ideas in their classrooms. Clearly, a closer
connection between top-down implemented language policies and the
realities of the classroom in which such policies must be implemented needs
to be made and a research priority undertaken concerning the reality of the
Singapore classroom. As Kramer-Dahl (2003: 164) has observed:
What has remained grossly under researched and poorly under-
stood, as a result, is the nature of the challenge that Singapore
teachers, especially those in neighborhood schools, face when they
have to provide English-medium instruction for students, most
of whom live in a social world where English, especially in its
standard form, is rarely used in the family and community.

In addition there may also be a need for the teachers themselves to com-
municate more clearly about their expectations of their students to speak in
Standard English. As illustrated in the case study, although the teachers
expressed the idea that the use of Singlish be discouraged in class, they
seldom provided feedback in response to their students’ usage of Singlish in
the observed lessons perhaps, as was pointed out above, because they
themselves are confused with what Standard English is and why Singlish
has been deselected. Hence, it can be suggested that teachers increase not
only their students’ awareness but also their own knowledge about the
differences between Standard English and Singlish. To do so, Fong et al.
(2002) have suggested the use of a contrastive analysis approach to teach
grammar by showing students the differences between the colloquial and
the standard variety. According to Taylor (1989), the contrastive analysis
approach will also enable students to make more informed choices about the
appropriate variety to use given different contexts and interactions.
Another aspect of pedagogical consideration concerns the type of feedback
strategies employed by the teachers in the observed lessons. As indicated in
the case study, the three teachers preferred the use of rephrasing when
dealing with their students’ usage of Singlish as they felt that this strategy
was subtler and less hurtful to the students’ confidence. However, studies by
398 LANGUAGE POLICY, TEACHERS’ BELIEFS, AND CLASSROOM PRACTICES

Allwright (1975), Chaudron (1988), and Lyster (1998) have shown that this
implicit strategy is less effective than more explicit strategies as the students
may have difficulties recognizing the strategy as a corrective feedback.
As with all forms of research, limitations are inherent in this present study.
Serving a mainly descriptive function, it attempts to identify some of the
primary English teachers’ beliefs about their students’ oral usage of Singlish
in English lessons. Due to the nature of the study and time constraints, the
study is limited in its scope as it investigates the beliefs and feedback practices
of a small sample size of only three teachers of English language, in three
Singapore neighborhood schools. The small sample size, in addition to the

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

low number of permitted classroom observations indicates that the choice of
teachers for this study may not have been optimal: they considered more
observations to be disruptive, and this is also implies that any generalization
based on the results of the study may not be as reliable as it could have been.
In addition, the teachers were only asked to comment on their students’
use of Singlish during oral activities and not about their beliefs or feedback
practices on student writing, where their views may have been very
different. Future research in this context could include teachers’ beliefs about
student writing.
One final word related to limitations regarding the research methodology
reported on in this paper is that when teachers attempt to articulate their
beliefs and classroom practices, they may not be able to verbalize why they
have made a particular decision partly because these beliefs are forever
changing (Senior 2006), and even when these beliefs have been articulated,
they may be an unreliable guide to the reality of their classroom actions
(Pajares 1992). As such, when beliefs have been stated, future researchers
(and teachers) should monitor classroom practices to see if there is evidence
of these beliefs in actual classroom practices (deductive approach) or,
alternatively, teachers can look at their teaching first and then stand back
and examine what beliefs are being manifested through actual classroom
practices (inductive approach). That said, all attempts have been made to
minimize the effects of the limitations of the study to increase the validity,
reliability, authenticity, as well as the ethics of the study.

CONCLUSION
The study presented in this paper discussed the impact of a top-down
imposed language policy on the beliefs and practices of three Primary school
teachers concerning the use of non-Standard English in their classrooms
and confirmed those of previous studies that teachers’ reactions to language
policy is a complicated process. Although it was only a small scale study
of three teachers in Singapore and, as such, may not provide the basis
for prescription for all language policy makers, the point of the paper is not
to discuss whether these language policies are correct or not. As illustrated, it
can be speculated that the teachers’ thoughts and decisions can be filtered
 THOMAS S. C. FARRELL and SERENA TAN KIAT KUN 399

through their belief systems before the final observable instructional practices
are manifest. Rather, our intent is to examine what is happening on the
ground in the classrooms and to show how vitally important it is for
language policy strategists to understand the crucial role that teachers play
in the enactment of language policy and that therefore they should be
recognized as an integral part of any government language policy efforts.

Final version received 29 June 2007

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

The authors would like to acknowledge the most helpful suggestions of the three anonymous
reviewers as well as the editors of Applied Linguistics.

APPENDIX A: LESSON OBSERVATION CHECKLIST

Occurrence
Singlish features 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Absence of past tense marking

2. Absence of subject–verb agreement
3. Absence of singular–plural distinction
4. Absence of possessive ‘-s’ inflection
5. Be-deletion or copula deletion
6. Subject deletion
7. Object deletion
8. Verbless sentences
9. Conditional clauses without ‘if ’ or ‘when’
10. Use of ‘-ing’ forms as the finite verb
11. Missing articles
12. Inversion for questions with ‘can’
13. Generalized ‘is it’ tag
14. Wh-in situ questions
15. Do-deletion in direct questions
16. Comparison and intensification
17. Use of aspectual marker ‘already’
18. Use of ‘never’ as ‘did not’
19. Use of particles like ‘lah’, ‘ha’ etc.
20. Use of borrowings from other language

Teacher’s feedback strategy

A Absent
O Absent, P’s error overlooked
400 LANGUAGE POLICY, TEACHERS’ BELIEFS, AND CLASSROOM PRACTICES

S Supply the correct answer in its entirety, P to repeat

M Modelling, rephrasing P’s answers
L Localizing P’s error, providing explanation
R Repeating P’s answer, with emphasis on error in P’s utterance
E Elicitation
T Metalinguistic feedback, use of technical language to refer to an error
(e.g. incorrect tense)
H Highlight common error to class
C Peer correction

Promptness of feedback

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

I Immediate
D Delayed

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1 What do you understand about the term ‘Singlish’? Can you describe some
features of Singlish?
2 How appropriate and acceptable is Singlish to you?
3 Which feature of Singlish is least acceptable to you?
4 What is Standard English to you?
5 Do you think students are aware of the differences between Singlish and
Standard English?
6 How important do you think it is for students to speak Standard English in
English classes? Why do you think so?
7 What do you think are the factors that contribute to your students’ usage
of Singlish in class?
– Do you think the factors are related to one another or is there a major
contributing factor to the pervasive use of Singlish?

8 Who do you think should model the speaking of Standard English? Why do you
think so?
9 Who do you think should be responsible for correcting students when they speak
Singlish? Why do you think so?
10 How do you think teachers should correct their students when they speak
Singlish in class? (e.g. If they say ‘I am very boring leh.’ ‘You go where?’ or ‘She
so pretty.’)
11 What do you think is the most effective strategy to improve students’ spoken
English? Why do you think so?
12 How often do you think teachers should correct their students when they speak
Singlish in class?
13 Do you correct your students every time they speak Singlish? Why?
14 Do you use Singlish in class?
– If yes, why and when do you do so?
– If no, why not?
 THOMAS S. C. FARRELL and SERENA TAN KIAT KUN 401

APPENDIX C: TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS

. falling intonation contour
, ‘continuing’ intonation contour
! animated tone
? rising intonation contour
: lengthening of preceding syllable
- abrupt cut-off
italics emphasis
CAPS louder than surrounding talk
45 quicker than surrounding talk

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

(1.5) Silence, timed in seconds and tenths of a second
(()) additional information, e.g. non-verbal actions
(XXXX) Unclear talk
... pauses of varying lengths
^ word deleted
(Adapted from Richards 2006)

APPENDIX D: TEACHER FEEDBACK STRATEGIES:

DEFINITIONS

Rephrasing
This strategy involves the teacher’s provision of the grammatically correct form of the
students’ utterance without necessarily expecting it to be repeated.

Elicitation
This method refers to the teacher’s use of prompts or questions to draw out the
desired response from the students.

Metalinguistic feedback
This technique involves the teacher’s use of technical language to refer to a Singlish
feature.

Emphasis
When this method is adopted, the teacher repeats and emphasizes the inappropriate
Singlish feature in the students’ utterances. Students may be expected to provide the
appropriate form.

Localization
In this feedback technique, students’ use of Singlish features is identified immediately
and the teacher explains its unacceptability to the particular student who produced
the utterance.
402 LANGUAGE POLICY, TEACHERS’ BELIEFS, AND CLASSROOM PRACTICES

Highlight Singlish feature to class

The teacher identifies a Singlish feature that is commonly used by the students and
explains its unacceptability to the class. This strategy differs from ‘Localization’ in that
the feedback is usually delayed and the explanation is addressed to the whole class.

Peer correction
This strategy is one in which the teacher asks the class or another student to identify
and provide the correct form for the inappropriate Singlish feature in their peer’s
utterance.

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

REFERENCES
Allwright, R. 1975. ‘Problems in the study of the Gupta, A. F. 1989. ‘Singapore colloquial English
language teacher’s treatment of learner error,’ in and Standard English,’ Singapore Journal of
M. Burt and H. Dulay (ed.): On TESOL’75: New Education 10/2: 33–9.
Directions in Second Language Learning. Washing- Gupta, A. F. 1994. ‘A framework for the analysis of
ton, DC: TESOL, pp. 96–112. Singapore English’ in S. Gopinathan, A. Pakir,
Alsagoff, L. and C. L. Ho. 1998. ‘The grammar of W.K. Ho, and V. Saravanan (eds): Language,
Singapore English’ in J. Foley, T. Kandiah, Society and Education in Singapore: Issues and
Z. Bao, A. F. Gupta, L. Alsagoff, C.L. Ho, Trends. Singapore: Times Academic Press,
L. Wee, I. Talib, and W. Bokhorst-Heng (eds): pp. 119–32.
English in New Cultural Contexts: Reflections from Haugen, E. 1987. Blessings of Babel. Amsterdam:
Singapore. Singapore: Oxford University Press, Mouton.
pp. 127–51. Jennings, N. E. 1996. Interpreting Policy in Real
Bokhorst-Heng, W. 1998. ‘Language planning Classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
and management in Singapore’ in J. Foley, Johnson, K. E. 1994. ‘The emerging beliefs and
T. Kandiah, Z. Bao, A. F. Gupta, L. Alsagoff, instructional practices of preservice English as a
C. L. Ho, L. Wee, I. Talib, and W. Bokhorst-Heng second language teacher,’ Teaching & Teacher
(eds): English in New Cultural Contexts: Reflections Education 10/4: 439–52.
from Singapore. Singapore: Oxford University Kachru, B. 1996. ‘World Englishes: Agony and
Press, pp. 287–309. ecstasy,’ Journal of Aesthetic Education 30/2:
Brown, A. 1999. Singapore English in a Nutshell: 136–55.
An Alphabetical Description of its Features. Singa- Kagan, D. M. 1992. ‘Implications of research on
pore: Federal. teacher belief,’ Educational Psychologist 27: 65–90.
Chaudron, C. 1988. Second Language Classrooms: Kramer-Dahl, A. 2003. ‘Reading the ‘‘Singlish
Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Debate’’: Construction of a crisis of language
Cambridge University Press. standards and language teaching in Singapore,’
Cohen, L. and L. Manion. 1989. Research Methods Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 2/3:
in Education. London: Routledge. 159–90.
Creswell, J. W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Leo, A. 1986. ‘Teacher treatment of error,’
Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions. Guidelines 8/2: 37–44.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lincoln, Y. S. and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic
Ferguson, C. A. 1959. ‘Diglossia,’ Word 15: 325–40. Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Fong, V., L. Lim, and L. Wee. 2002. ‘‘‘Singlish’’: Lyster, R. 1998. ‘Negotiation of form, recasts, and
Used and abused,’ Asian Englishes 5/1: 21–39. explicit correction in relation to error types
Gopinathan, S. 1980. ‘Language policy in educa- and learner repair in immersion classrooms,’
tion: A Singapore perspective’ in E. Afendras Language Learning 48/2: 183–218.
and E. C. Y. Kuo (eds): Language and Society in McDonough, J. and S. McDonough. 1997.
Singapore. Singapore: Singapore University Press, Research Methods for English Language Teachers.
pp. 175–202. London: Arnold.
 THOMAS S. C. FARRELL and SERENA TAN KIAT KUN 403

Ministry of Education. 2001. English Language Saravanan, V. and G. R. Poedjosoedarmo. 1997.

Syllabus 2001 for Primary and Secondary Schools. ‘An exploration of attitudes towards various
Available online (PDF format). Retrieved models of English pronunciation among Singa-
1 October 2003 from http://www1.moe.edu.sg/ porean teachers: Some methodological consid-
syllabuses/doc/English.pdf erations’ in A. Brown (ed.): English in Southeast
Ow, A. and W. K. Ho. 1993. ‘Teachers’ views of Asia 96: Proceedings of the First ‘English in Southeast
English language teaching.’ Paper presented at Asia’ Conference, National Institute of Education,
the 7th Educational Research Association’s Singapore, 21–23 November 1996, pp. 67–79.
Conference on Education and the Environment, Senior, R. 2006. The Experience of Language
Singapore, 23–25 September. Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pajares, M. F. 1992. ‘Teachers’ beliefs and educa- Singapore Department of Statistics. 2003.
tional research: Cleaning up a messy construct,’ Singapore Residents by Age Group and Ethnic

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rutgers University on May 30, 2014

Review of Educational Research 62: 307–32. Group, End June 2003. Retrieved 28 October
Pakir, A. 1991. ‘The range and depth of English- 2003 from www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/
knowing bilinguals in Singapore,’ World Englishes mqstats/mds/mds21a.pdf.
10/2:167–79. Stritikus, T. T. 2003. ‘The interrelationship
Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and of beliefs, context, and learning: The case of
Evaluation Methods 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, a teacher reacting to language policy,’ Journal of
CA: Sage.
Language, Identity, and Education 2: 29–52.
Platt, J. 1977. ‘The sub-varieties of Singapore
Taylor, H. U. 1989. Standard English, Black
English: Their societal and functional status’
English, and Bidialectalism: A Controversy.
in W. Crewe (ed.): The English Language in
New York: Peter Lang.
Singapore. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press,
Teh, J. L. 2000. A study on attitudes of teachers
pp. 83–95.
and educators towards Singlish: Don’t pray,
Platt, J. and H. Weber. 1980. English in Singapore
pray. Unpublished Honours Thesis. Singapore:
and Malaysia: Status, features, functions. Kuala
National Institute of Education.
Lumpur, Malaysia: Oxford University Press.
Warschauer, M. 2000. ‘The changing global econ-
Richards, K. 2006. ‘‘‘Being the Teacher’’: Identity
omy and the future of English teaching,’ TESOL
and classroom conversation,’ Applied Linguistics
Quarterly 34/3: 511–35.
27/1: 51–77.
Wee, L. 2005. ‘Intra-language discrimination and
Rubdy, R. 2001. ‘Creative destruction: Singapore’s
linguistic human rights: The case of Singlish,’
speak good English movement,’ World Englishes
Applied Linguistics 26/1: 48–69.
20/3: 341–55.