Reading group discussion 2 (Revised): Heller & Wee on linguistic instrumentalism

• The article by Wee describes linguistic instrumentalism, its features, and its presence in a particular community (i.e. Singapore). Based on the features given by Heller, Wee views linguistic instrumentalism as a struggle between a language’s old identity and a new pragmatic view of that language. As such, Mandarin has been a co-equal language of Tamil and Malay in Singapore. However, the rise of China as an economic powerhouse made Singaporeans view language from a different perspective, that is, from a bearer of cultural legacies of China to a language of business and economy.

• The features of linguistic instrumentalism as described by Heller are the following: (1) it is a commodification of language, in which, Mandarin has been used for purposes other than cultural, that is, for materialistic and/or economical purposes. (2) it is a pressure towards standardization for international communication. With this, it is believed that Singapore’s Mandarin might be different from China’s Mandarin; the one which has more economic power becomes the standard, and (3) it is a valuing of local characteristic to attach a value of distinction to linguistic commodities in world markets of culture and tourism (Heller).

• Linguistic Instrumentalism boosts an economy and it gives food on the table for many people. However, it commodifies and stratifies languages, authenticity, and even identity. In effect, certain languages are valued and devalued. This is what happens now in Singapore, in which, Mandarin is preferred over Tamil and Malay.


Elaboration/Clarification of Points (Insights/ Random Thoughts):

In this age of globalization that has made countries more interconnected politically, economically, and culturally, many countries including Asian nations have chosen to open their doors to linguistic instrumentalism. Language is not just seen as a marker of identity, but it is now considered as a valuable tool for economic progress. For example, in the Philippines, language skills have become useful in establishing and maintaining call centers. Many Asian countries who were not so eager to learn English in the past now see the need for their people to learn what is considered the international language to increase their business edge. The flourishing of call centers and English language learning centers catering to foreign language learners in the Philippines has caused several issues to surface among educators: What variety of English should be taught? How should English be taught? Why should English be taught? While call centers and English language teaching centers have caused a stir especially in ELT because of the controversial issues that have emerged, the reality is that they are income-generating mechanisms that help many Filipinos survive. This is a dilemma that many of us face, and it reflects the many complex faces of linguistic instrumentalism.