A CRITIQUE OF LANGUAGE USE SURVEYS IN SINGAPORE
YAP PAK OI
YAP PAK OI
Citations
Altmetric:
Alternative Title
Abstract
This dissertation presents a critical account of various studies
to acquire data on linguistic behavior in Singapore. The data
will be discussed within a framework of the limitations to the validity
of various kinds of performance data on language while acknowledging
within these limitations the contributions which the surveys have
made.
This dissertation reviews surveys which have sought to collect
and analyze information on language and ethnicity in Singapore.
The dissertation then examines the field and analytic techniques
used in the surveys. This examination is undertaken for two reasons:
First, to help arrive at an appraisal of what themes and areas
are understood; and which, by implication remain to be illuminated.
Second, to attempt to contribute to subsequent surveys both
by summarizing difficulties notable in those under review and, where
possible, by suggesting how the difficulties may be avoided or overcome.
Three sources of limitation affect the validity of various
kinds of performance data on language.
One is what utterances are properly called and constitute
samples of a language. This difficulty is discussed.
Another is the extent to which data collection and analysis
reflect the investigators rather than their topic; in any single
study these two are necessarily interwoven, accordingly, a comparative
review, like this one, has some hope of augmenting more empirical
work.
The remaining source of limitation is the kind(s) of performance
data employed: eg. text, speech, self-reports, transcriptions, entirely
public language or more domestic utterance.
Not withstanding the limitations of the surveys considered,
we should recognize their strengths. These surveys present certain
data which is consistent and reliable. They give us a fair understanding
of generational change and why people do not speak a language even
though they can.
Keywords
Source Title
Publisher
Series/Report No.
Collections
Rights
Date
1985
DOI
Type
Thesis