Abstract
This paper proposes the notion of choreographed multilingualism to describe the top-down dimension of Singapore's linguistic landscape. Using a range of examples of official multilingual discourse, including public signage, exhibition artefacts, and print texts, it identifies a quadrilingual constellation that reiterates across different modalities, stabilizing into a visual-spatial formula. As a semiotic feature, the quadrilingual formula is an indexical that calls up the trope of neat multilingualism, whereby the four official languages of Singapore (English, Chinese, Malay, Tamil) are construed in a relation of equilibrium and equitability, while nonofficial/nonstandard languages, language varieties, and Chinese dialects are relegated to oblivion. The trope of neat multilingualism in turn evokes a larger sociolinguistic ambiance shaped by the official language policy and the language education system in Singapore. The paper theorises this situation in respect of Michel de Certeau's spatial theory, arguing that official discourses in Singapore corroborate the multilingual “place” produced by technologies of choreography.
-
Conflict of interest: The author reports no conflict of interest.
References
Backhaus, Peter. 2006. Multilingualism in Tokyo: A look into the linguistic landscape. International Journal of Multilingualism 3(1). 52–66. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599170-004.Search in Google Scholar
Backhaus, Peter. 2007. Linguistic landscapes: A comparative study of urban multilingualism in Tokyo. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853599484Search in Google Scholar
Ben-Rafael, Eliezer & Miriam Ben-Rafael. 2015. Linguistic landscapes in an era of multiple globalizations. Linguistic Landscape 1(1/2). 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1075/ll.1.1-2.02ben.Search in Google Scholar
Ben-Rafael, Eliezer, Elana Shohamy, Muhammad Hasan Amara & Nira Trumper-Hecht. 2006. Linguistic landscape as symbolic construction of the public space: The case of Israel. International Journal of Multilingualism 3(1). 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710608668383.Search in Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. 2015. Chronotopes, scales, and complexity in the study of language in society. Annual Review of Anthropology 44(1). 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-014035.Search in Google Scholar
Cook, Vivian. 2013. The language of the street. Applied Linguistics Review 4(1). 43 – 81. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0003.Search in Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2012. Bilingualism on display: The framing of Welsh and English in Welsh public spaces. Language in Society 41(1). 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404511000893.Search in Google Scholar
de Certeau, Michel. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven Rendall. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar
Department of Statistics, Singapore. 2019. Population Trends, 2019. https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/publications/population/population2019.pdf (accessed 3 January 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Heller, Monica. 2002. Globalization and commodification of bilingualism in Canada. In David Block & Deborah Cameron (eds.), Globalization and language teaching, 47–64. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Jaworski, Adam. 2018. Writing as spectacle: Between aesthetics and politics. In Sociolinguistics Symposium 22, University of Auckland (29 March 2018).Search in Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwan. 2006. Reading images: The grammar of visual design, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203619728Search in Google Scholar
Landry, Rodrigue & Richard Y. Bourhis. 1997. Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16(1). 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x970161002.Search in Google Scholar
Leeman, Jennifer & Gabriella Modan. 2009. Commodified language in Chinatown: A contextualized approach to linguistic landscape. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13(3). 332–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2009.00409.x.Search in Google Scholar
Reh, Mechthild. 2004. Multilingual writing: a reader-oriented typology – with examples from Lira Municipality (Uganda). International Journal of the Sociology of Language 170. 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2004.2004.170.1.Search in Google Scholar
Reiss, Katharina. 1989[1977]. Text-types, translation types and translation assessment, trans. Andrew Chesterman. In Andrew Chesterman (ed.), Readings in translation theory, 105–115. Helsinki: Finn Lectura.Search in Google Scholar
Scollon, Ron & Suzie Wong Scollon. 2003. Discourses in place: Language in the material world. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203422724Search in Google Scholar
Sebba, Mark. 2012. Multilingualism in written discourse: An approach to the analysis of multilingual texts. International Journal of Bilingualism 17(1). 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006912438301.Search in Google Scholar
Shohamy, Elana. 2015. LL research as expanding language and language policy. Linguistic Landscape 1(1/2). 152–171. https://doi.org/10.1075/ll.1.1-2.09sho.Search in Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1992. The indeterminacy of contextualization: When is enough enough? In Peter Auer & Aldo di Luzio (eds.), The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.22.05silSearch in Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication 23. 193–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0271-5309(03)00013-210.1016/s0271-5309(03)00013-2.Search in Google Scholar
Wee, Lionel. 2018. The Singlish controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316855331Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston