Chapter2 ReviewofLiteratureonPlanning forLanguage
Abstract ThischapterprovidesaframeworkforstudyingtheSpeakMandarin CampaigninSingapore.Itdrawstogetherthefollowingdisparatethemesoflanguageplanningactivitiesinherentingovernmentinvolvement:thegoalsoflanguageplanning,languageplanninginnewandemergingstates,forcesagainst governmentinterventioninlanguageplanning,themacrosociologicalandthe microlinguisticperspectivesonlanguageplanning,statusplanningaswellasthe top-downversusbottom-upapproachtolanguageplanning.Someofthesethemes arenotexclusivetoeachotherandthereareinstanceswheretheyoverlap.To enhanceourunderstandingofhowindividualdialectspeakersperceivetheuseof differentlanguagesinmultilingualSingapore,therewillalsobeadiscussiononthe sociolinguisticsoflanguageuse.
Keywords Policies Practice Government Ideology Management Society Individual
2.1LanguagePlanning:WorkofGovernment
Weinstein(1980)explicitlyattributeslanguageplanningtotheeffortsbyagovernmentauthoritybyexplicitlystatingthatlanguageplanningisagovernmentauthorized,long-term,sustained,andconsciousefforttoalteralanguage’sfunction inasociety.JernuddandGupta(1971)observethattherecognitionoflanguageasa societalresourceresultedingovernmentalinterventioninlanguageplanning.As suggestedbyJernuddandGupta(1971,p.20):Ourunderstandingoflanguage planningimpliesthatdecision-makerschooseasatisfactory,orevenoptimalcourse ofactionbutwithinlimitsofgivenamountsofresourcesandonlyinordertoreach thegoalsthathavebeenapprovedbythepoliticalauthority.Theyaspireto find effectivesolutionstotheirplanningtasks.
© TheAuthor(s)2017
P.C.L.Ng, AStudyofAttitudesofDialectSpeakersTowardstheSpeak MandarinCampaigninSingapore,SpringerBriefsinLinguistics, DOI10.1007/978-981-10-3443-5_2
AccordingtoAger(2001),theabilitytousealanguageasamajoreconomic resourcerequiresthegovernmenttocoordinatetheplanningoflanguagefor societaldevelopment.Inaddition,languageplanningbygovernmentisalsomotivatedbyproblemsinlanguageuse.KaplanandBaldaufstatethatsomeofthe problemsthatrequirelanguageplanningarerathercomplex,rangingfromadesire tomodernizealanguagetoaneedtostandardizealanguagetoachievepolitical unification.However,notallscholarsagreethatgovernmentinvolvementinlanguageplanningwillnecessarilyleadtosocialandpoliticalprogress.AsEdwards (1994,p.189)explains:Ifweacceptthatlanguageplanninginvolvestheselection andcodi ficationofalanguagevariety,thenweshouldrealizethattheimplementationoflanguageplanningisusuallydependentuponpowerfulpolicymakers. Bloomaert(1996)observesthatlanguagepoliciesandpracticesimplementedby officiallanguageplannersusuallydevelopwithinthecontextofasetofdeepandfar rangingideologicalpresuppositions,andthusareneverpurelyrational,economic, orbenevolentchoicesforthegoodofsociety.
KrishnaandAbiodun(2002)specifi edfourtypicalideologiesthatmaymotivate actualdecision-makingbythegovernmentinlanguageplanninginanygivensociety: linguisticassimilation,linguisticpluralisation,vernacularisation,andinternationalism.Linguisticassimilationisthelearningofthedominantlanguage.Thisisbest illustratedinthelearningofEnglishintheUS,althoughtheconstitutiondoesnot specifyanofficiallanguage.Ontheotherhand,linguisticpluralismisthecoexistence ofdifferentlanguages.Forinstance,Switzerlandmaintainsfourofficiallanguages withequalstatus:German,French,Italian,andRomansch.Vernacularisationisthe restorationorelaborationofanindigenouslanguageanditssubsequentadoptionasan officiallanguage.HebrewinIsraelisacase.Internationalismistheadoptionofa nonindigenouslanguageofwidercommunicationforthepurposesofeducationand trade.AnexampleistheofficiallanguagestatusaccordedtoEnglishinSingapore (KrishnaandAbiodun 2002,p.243)duetoitsroleasawiderlanguageofcommunication,trade,andcommerce.InSingapore,languageplanningisbasedonthe ideologicalassumptionthatlanguageisaproblemandthusnecessitatesgovernmental interventioninlanguageplanning.SilverandBokhorst-Heng(2016)reportedthat languageisviewedasaproblemwhenthereisaperceptionthatstudentsarenot masteringtheofficiallanguagetothelevelrequiredbytheeducationalsystem. TheSMCwaslaunchedin1979asofficiallanguageplannersinSingaporebelieved thatitwouldbeimpossibleforSingaporeanstoachieveahighlevelofMandarinif theycontinuedtolearnarangeofdialects(SpeakMandarinCampaign 2015).
Inaddition,languageplanninginthenewandemergingcountriesisshapedby globalization.Asaresultofglobalization,thechoiceofalanguageisnotdictated byalocalplanningauthority,butbyforcesoutsidethecontrolofnationalpolitical makers.ThecurrentspreadofMandarinistheresultofglobalizationwiththe emergenceofChinaasaneconomicpowerhouse.Asaresult,MandarinChinese wasgivenahigherprofileinSingaporeasitwasperceivedthatChinawouldbea lucrativestrategicandeconomicpartner(Tan 2009).Since1985,asaresultofthe growthofChinaasaneconomicpowerhouse,theSMCbegantochartanewcourse withtheslogan, “SpeakMandarin.It’sanasset.” Thegovernmentbelievedthat
2.1LanguagePlanning:WorkofGovernment11
knowingMandarinwouldgiveSingaporeacompetitiveedgeover Cantonese-speakingHongKongaswellashelptoimproveandfacilitatetradewith China.TheglobalspreadofMandarinalsohasculturalimplicationsforSingapore. OnthefutureimportanceofMandarin,formerforeignministerGeorgeYeostated thatitisimportantforChineseSingaporeanstocontinuetouseMandarintopreservetheirculturalroots.Theyshouldbeproudtobetheinheritorsof5000yearsof Chinesecivilization,thelongestcontinuouscivilizationinhumanhistory(Latifand Lee 2016).HewarnedthatifyoungChineseSingaporeansallowtheirmother tongue(Mandarin)todegenerateintoasecondlanguage,theywouldlose “muchof theirinternalstrengthandbecomeaweakpeoplewithshallowroots.” (p.284). However,itisuncertaintowhatextentcurrentyounggenerationsofChinese SingaporeansviewMandarinasarepositoryofChineseculturalvalues.
Anothersocietalforcethatworksagainstgovernmentalinterventioninlanguage planningisindividualchoiceanddecisioninlanguageuse.AccordingtoPakir, ‘invisiblelanguageplanning’ mayarisewhenindividualsinterferenondeliberately withplannedchangestothesystemsofalanguagecode(Pakir 1994,p.165).The individualsidentifi edbyPakirareparents,children,andteachers.Tollefson(1991, p.36)cogentlyarguesthatindividualsmayresistlanguageplanningeffortsby governmentalauthorityaslanguagechangeinvolvesrealpeoplelivinginhistory andtheirpersonalideologiesmaynotcorrespondtotheeconomiclogicofcostor benefit.
2.2TwoPerspectivestoLanguagePlanning:The MacrosociologicalandtheMicrolinguistic
Intheliteratureoflanguageplanning,therearetwoperspectivestolanguage planning:macrosociologicallanguageplanningandmicrolinguisticlanguage planning.KaplanandBaldauf(1997)definemacrosociologicallanguageplanning asthebodyofideas,lawsandregulations,changerules,beliefsandpractices intendedtoachieveaplannedchangewithinacommunity.Someofthe macrosociologicalgoalsoflanguageplanningincludelanguagepurification,languagerevival,languagereform,languagestandardization,languagespread,lexical modernization,terminologicalunification,andlanguagemaintenance(Kaplanand Baldauf 1997,p.59).Ager(2001)observesthatmanymacrosociologicalgoalsof languageplanningarecarriedouttoachieveratherabstractobjectivesrelatedto nationalpolicygoals.KuoandJernudd(1994,p.83)suggestthatmacrosociologicallanguageplanningismotivatedbyideologicalbeliefsandthusjustifythe needforthegovernmentalinterventioninaproactivefashion.
Ontheotherhand,themicrolinguisticperspectiveonlanguageplanningconstitutescorrectionofinadequaciesthatarenotedbyindividuals,anddoesnot requirethatlanguageproblemshavealreadyoccurredindiscoursetocreatea demandforlanguageplanning(JernuddandNeustupny 1987).Neustupny(1994) pointsoutthatbecausethisapproachexploresthelinkbetweenindividualconduct
indiscourseandgroupbehaviorincommunication,thisapproachisalso microsociologicallyoriented.Thisstudyadoptsboththemacrolinguisticand microlinguisticperspectivestolanguageplanning.Foranationallanguageplanning policyliketheSMC,thereisaneedtocometotermswiththelinguisticneedsatthe microlinguisticlevel.AsChuaandBaldauf(2011)suggested,a ‘micro’ approach willrequireoffi ciallanguageplannerstofactorinthevariousareasoflanguage learningsuchastheacquisition,retention,anduseoflanguage.Itisalsoimportant toconsiderthemotivationofindividualsinlearningMandarinandparents’ attitudestowardMandarin.Atthefamilylevel,parentsmustbewillingandableto transmitthelanguagetotheirchildren.
2.3LanguagePlanningandLanguageManagement
Mosttheoriesoflanguageplanninghaveconcentratedexclusivelyonsolving languageproblemsbutfailedtoconsiderlanguageplanninginthemoregeneral contextoflanguagemanagement.Spolsky(2004)defineslanguagemanagementas theestablishmentofanexplicitplanorpolicy,usuallywritteninaformaldocument aboutlanguageuse.However,Spolskycautionsthattheexistenceofanexplicit policydoesnotguaranteethatlanguagemanagementwillbeimplementedandwill besuccessfulifimplemented.Spolskyexplainsthatlanguagemanagementefforts maygobeyondorcontradictthesetofbeliefsandvaluesthatunderlieacommunity’suseoflanguageandtheactualpracticeoflanguageuse.Ricento(2000) observesthatlanguageplanningconceivedaslanguagemanagementwillnotresult intheintendedoutcomeastherearemanyuncontrollablevariablesinvolved. Ricentoarguesthatlanguageplanningshouldfocusonthestatusandrelationsof speechcommunitiesindefinedcontexts,inparticularwhyalanguagehasaparticularstatusandtheconsequencesofthisstatusforindividualsandthecommunities(Ricento 2000).Therearetwotypesoflanguagepoliciesthatarisefrom languageplanningbygovernment:statusplanningandcorpusplanning.Kaplan andBaldauf(1997)definestatusplanningaslanguageplanningactivitiesthat reflectsocialissues.Theyalsosuggestthatstatusplanninginvolvesthepositioning oflanguagesinrelationtoeachother.InthecaseofSingapore,theRepublicof SingaporeIndependenceActof1965decreedthatMandarinshallbeoneofthefour officiallanguagesinSingapore.However,althoughtheSingaporegovernmenthas grantedanofficialstatustoMandarin,ZhaoandLiu(2010)observedthatoverthe years,MandarinhaslostitsprestigeduetotheunbridleddominanceofEnglishas anofficialandadministrativelanguage.Theycogentlyarguedthattheascriptionof MandarinastheofficialmothertongueofChineseSingaporeanswouldnotarrest thedeclinestatusoftheMandarinChinese.Insteadtheybelievedthatthereisa needtostrikeabalancebetweenEnglishandMandarinChinesethroughthewider useofthelanguageingovernmentdepartmentsandotherpublicdomains. However,theSingaporegovernmenthastotreadgingerlytheinterestsofthe Chinesecommunity.AsSingaporeisamultiracialnation,otherminorityethnic
groupsmayviewthepromotionofMandarinasapreferentialtreatmentaccordedto theChineseethnicgroup.
AccordingtoKaplanandBaldauf(1997),therearetwoapproachesadoptedin theimplementationoflanguageplanning:top-downversusbottom-up.Mosttraditionallanguageplanningactivitieswereimplementedusingthe ‘top-down’ approach,whichinvolvesdecision-makingatthenationallevel,andgovernments solvingcomplexproblemsastheirpointofdeparture.However,Kaplanand Baldauf(1997)believethatlanguageplanningandpolicyshouldideallyfollowa bottom-upratherthanatop-downapproachastheybelievethatnoamountof languageplanningcan ‘forcepeople’ tochangetheirlinguistichabit.TheSingapore governmentisawareoftheneedtoadopta ‘bottom-up’ approachtopromotethe SMC.Toensurethatthecampaigniseffectiveatthegrassrootslevel,theSMC committeehasenlistedthehelpofprivateorganizationsandprominentleadersin theChinesecommunity.
2.4SociolinguisticsofLanguageUse
Toenhanceourunderstandingofindividualchoiceinabilingualormultilingual society,thereisaneedtoreviewsomerelevantconceptsassociatedwiththe sociolinguisticsoflanguageuse:domainsoflanguageuse,codeswitching,and languageshiftandmaintenance.Inamultilingualsociety,anindividualmayuse differentlanguagesindifferentsituationsknownasdomainsoflanguageuse.There arevariousdomainsoflanguageusesuchasfamily,friendship,religion,education, andadministration.Codeswitchingisacommonoccurrenceinmanybilingualor multilingualsocietiessuchasAfricaorIndiaoramongstimmigrantslivingin EuropeortheUnitedStates.Codeswitchingcanbedefi nedastheuseof2or3in thesameconversationorutterance.Thereareotherfactorswhypeoplechosea particularcodewhentheyspeak:participants,situations,contentofdiscourse,and functionsofinteractions(Grosjean 1982).AccordingtoKaplanandBaldauf(1997), therearevariousforcesatworkinalanguageplanningactivity.AsGarcia(2009, p.80)remindsus,languageshiftormaintenancedoesnothappeninavacuum;it occurswhenthereiscoexistenceofmorethanonelanguage,orwhenthereare differencesinpower,value,andstatusconferredonlanguages.May(2012) observesthatinmultilingualsocieties,amajoritylanguage,usuallysynonymous withgreaterpoliticalpower,privilege,andsocialprestige,willeventuallyreplace therangeandfunctionsofaminoritylanguage.
Duetotheinternalizationovertimeofnegativeattitudestowardtheirethnic mothertongue,youngergenerationofSingaporeanstendtoregardEnglishasa languageofuseandpreference.Sincegainingindependence,theSingaporegovernmenthaspursuedabilingualschoolpolicy.Chinesestudentshavetolearn Englishasa ‘FirstLanguage’ andChineseasa ‘SecondLanguage.’ Attheinitial implementationoftheEnglish-knowingbilingualpolicy,thefunctionalallocation ofEnglishandtheethnicmothertonguewasclearlydefined.However,the
functionalallocationhasnowslippedwithEnglishincreasinglygainingmore domainsandtheethnicmothertonguegraduallyemployedinfewerdomainsinthe Singaporesociety(Ng 2016).Despitetheconcernsoverthelackofinterestamongst Chinesestudentsinlearningthemothertonguesubjectinschools,anoverwhelminglylargemajorityofthepopulationcontinuestosupportthesocioeconomicimportanceofEnglish.
2.5LanguageandIdentity
Itisimportanttounderstandthelinkbetweenlanguage,identity,andculturein termsofhowspeakersallocatetheirlinguisticresourcesforidentityconstruction, maintenance,andchange(TollefsonandTsui 2007).Leungetal.(1997)suggest thattherearethreetypesofrelationshipsthatlanguageidentityhaswiththemeans ofcommunication:languageexpertise,languageaffiliation,andlanguageinheritance.Languageexpertiseistheknowledgeofalanguagewhilelanguageaffiliation istheindividual’sattitudesandaffectiveconnectiontoalanguage,dialect,or sociolect(Leungetal. 1997).Languageaffi liationisaboutthelanguageofthe familyoneisbornintoorthecommunityoneisassociatedwith.Althoughan individualmayinheritalanguageordialect,thereisnoguaranteeofapositive affiliationtowardthelanguageasonecaninheritalanguageordialectandyethave noaffiliationswithit.
Anotherimportantconceptrelatedtolanguageidentityisthemothertongueas thebasisforsociolinguisticidentity.Themothertongueisdefinedasthelanguage usedtodecidewhetheroneisanativespeaker(Skutnabb-Kangas 2000).The mothertongueisalsothelanguageapersonhaslearnedfrombirthorwithinthe criticalperiod,andthelanguageapersonspeaksthebest.Itisoftenthebasisfor sociolinguisticidentity.Insomecountries,themothertonguereferstothelanguage ofone’sethnicgroup.However,inthecontextofSingapore,themothertongueis definedasthelanguageofone’spaternalancestry,ratherthanthelanguageofone’s socializationexperience(Tan 2007).Singapore’slanguageplanningpolicytendsto ignoreanindividual’slinguisticexperienceonthepremisethatlinguisticownership isbasicallyapublicconcernthatjustifiesinterventiononthepartofthegovernment.However,inrecentyears,therehavebeenconcernsthatChinesestudentsare losingtheirproficiencyintheirmothertonguelanguage(Ng 2014).Despiterecent governmentinitiativestomaintaintheuseofthemothertonguelanguage,young ChineseSingaporeanscontinuetoregardEnglishasalanguageofhabitualuse.
2.6Conclusion
Thischapterdiscusseslanguageplanningframedwithinthecontextofgovernmentalinvolvement.Languageisperceivedasasocietalresourceandthusnecessitatesgovernmentinterventioninthemanagementoflanguageresources.Some
languageplanningpracticesbygovernmentmaybemotivatedbyideological beliefssuchaslinguisticassimilation,linguisticpluralism,vernacularisation,and internationalism.Inaddition,languageplanningcanalsobeinfluencedbyglobalizationandindividualsmayinterfereinlanguageplanningbygovernment.Thereis asuggestionbysomescholars(Ricento 2000;KuoandJernudd 1994)thatboththe microlinguistic(thesociolinguisticsoflanguage)andthemacrosociological approaches(thesociolinguisticsofsociety)needtobeintegratedandshouldbe complementaryforsuccessfulimplementationoflanguageplanningpolicies.
TheSingaporegovernmenthasadopted ‘abottom-up’ approachtoensurethe SMCiseffective.However,inorderforMandarintobeconsolidatedasalanguage forsocialinteractionswithintheChinesecommunity,thegovernmentwillhaveto ensurethatMandarinisestablishedasalanguageusedbydialect-speakingChinese inallspheresoflife.ThereisalsoaneedtoraisetheprestigeofMandarinasa premierlanguageinadditiontoEnglish.However,althoughoffi cialrhetorichas constantlyemphasizedtheimportanceofMandarininmaintainingcloseeconomic andpoliticaltieswithChina,itisuncertainwhetherthelureofChinacannurturean environmentthatwillsustainthelearninganduseofMandarinbeyondtheformal school-goingyears(Ng 2014).OfficiallanguageplannersinSingaporenowfacesa dauntingtaskinmaintainingahigherprofileofChinesenessinSingapore’ssociety andensuringlargesegmentsoftheChineseSingaporeanpopulationthatMandarin hasenduringrelevanceinthelocallinguisticlandscape.TheSMCisafascinating storyofhowpoliticalleadersinSingaporetriedtochangeadeeplyentrenched sociolinguistichabitofChineseSingaporeansthroughdeliberatelanguage planning.
References
Dennis.A.(2001). Motivationsinlanguageplanningandlanguagepolicy.MultilingualMatters GreatBritain:CromwellPressLtd. Bloomaert,J.(1996). Thepoliticsofmultilingualismandlanguageplanning.Antwerppapersin Linguistics.Antwerp:UniversityofAntwerp. Chua,C.S.K.,&Baldauf,R.B.,Jr.(2011).Microlanguageplanning.InE.Hinkel(Ed.), Handbookofresearchinsecondlanguageteachingandlearning (Vol.2,pp.936–951).New York:Routledge. Edwards,J.(1994).LanguageplanningandeducationinSingaporeandMalaysia.InA.Hassan (Eds.), LanguageplanninginSoutheastAsia (pp.176–190).KualaLumpur,Malaysia: PercetakanDewanBahasadanPustaka. Garcia,O.(2009). Bilingualeducationinthe21stcentury.UK:Wiley-Blackwell. Grosjean.(1982). Lifewithtwolanguages:AnintroductiontoBilingualism.Cambridge, Massachusetts,London:HavardUniversityPress. Jernudd,B.H.,&Gupta,J.D.(1971). Towardsadefinitionoflanguageplanning,Reprintedinhis editedadvancesinlanguageplanning.TheHague:Mouton. Jernudd,B.H.,&Neustupny,J.V.(1987). Languageplanning:ForWhom?Québec:LesPresses del’Université Laval
Kaplan,R.B.,&Baldauf,R.B.(1997). LanguageplanningfromPracticetotheory.Philadelphia: MultilingualMattersLtd. KrishnaandAbiodun.(2002).Thecaseforlanguagepoliciesinmultinationalcorporations. CorporateCommunications:AnInternationalJournal,4(7),241–251. KuoEddie,C.Y.,&Jernudd,B.H.(1994).BalancingMacroandMicro-Sociolinguistic PerspectivesinLanguageManagement:TheCaseofSingapore.InT.Kandiah& J.Kwan-Terry(Eds.), EnglishandLanguageplanning:ASoutheastAsiancontribution (pp.70–89).Singapore:TimesAcademicPress. Laforge,L(Eds.).(1986). ProceedingsoftheinternationalColloquimonlanguageplanning, Ottawa,25–29.May1986 (pp.71–84).Ottawa:LesPressesdel’Universitelaval. Latif,A.,&Lee,H.H.(2016). GeorgeYeoonBonsai,BanyanandtheTao.Singapore:World ScientificPublishingCompany.
Leung,C.,Harris,R.,&Rampton,B.(1997).Theidealizednativespeaker,reifiedethnicities,and classroomrealities. TESOLQuarterly,31(3),543–560. May,S.(2012). Languagepolicyandminorityrights.UK:Routledge. Neustupny.(1994).Problemsofenglishcontactdiscourseandlanguageplanning.InT.Kandiah& J.Kwan-Terry(Eds.), EnglishandLanguageplanning:ASoutheastAsiancontribution (pp.50–69).Singapore.TimesAcademicPress. Ng,P.(2014).MothertongueeducationinSingapore:Concerns,issuesandcontroversies. Journal ofCurrentissuesinLanguagePlanning,15(4),1–15. Ng,P.(2016).Singapore’sEnglish-knowingbilingualpolicy:Acriticalevaluation.InR. Kirkpatrick(Ed.), EnglishlanguageeducationpolicyinAsia (pp.265–280).Switzerland: SpringerInternationalPublishing. Pakir,A.(1994).Educationandinvisiblelanguageplanning:ThecaseofenglishinSingapore. InT.Kandiah&J.Kwan-Terry(Eds.), Englishandlanguageplanning:ASoutheastAsian contribution (pp.158–179).Singapore:TimesAcademicPress. Ricento,T.(2000).Historicalandtheoreticalperspectivesinlanguagepoliciesandplanning. JournalofSociolinguistics,2(4),196–213.
SilverandBokhorst-Heng.(2016). QuadrilingualeducationinSingapore.Singapore:Springer International.
Skutnabb-Kangas.(2000). Linguisticgenocideineducationorworldwidediversityandhuman rights?Mahwah.NJ&London,UK:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates. SpeakMandarinCampaign(2015). Amandarinanchorinachangingworld http://mandarin.org. sg/en/content/anchor .Retrieved30September2016. Spolsky,B.(2004). Languagepolicy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Tan,K.B.(2007).Themultilingualstateinsearchofthenation:Thelanguagepolicyand discourseinSingapore’snationbuilding.InH.G.Lee&S.Leo(Eds.), Languageand developmentinSouthEastAsia (pp.75–95).Singapore:InstituteofSouthEast. Tan,K.B.(2009).Chinese-Singaporeanidentity:Subtlechangeamidstcontinuity.InB.Welsh, J.Chin,A.,Mahizhnan,&T.T.How(Eds.), ImpressionsoftheGohChokTongyearsin Singapore (pp.324–335).Singapore:NUSPress.
Tollefson,J.W.(1991). Planninglanguage,planninginequality.London:Longman. Tollefson,W.,&Tsui,A.(2007). Languagepolicy,culture,andidentityinAsiancontexts. Mahwah,NewJersey:LawrenceErlbaum. Weinstein,B.(1980).LanguageplanninginFrancophoneAfrica. LanguageProblemsand languagePlanning,1(4),55–77.
Zhao,S.,&Liu,Y.(2010).ChineseeducationinSingaporeConstraintsofbilingualpolicyfrom theperspectivesofstatusandprestigeplanning. LanguageProblems&LanguagePlanning,34 (3),236–258.
Chapter3
Singapore:TheContextualBackground
Abstract Singapore’sracialdiversityistheresultofearlyimmigrationtrends broughtaboutbypastcolonialcommercialpractices.UnderBritishadministration, itbecameavibrantmetropolisattractingalotforeignworkersfromregionsas diverseasChina,India,Malaya,andpartsofSoutheastAsia.Therearecurrently threemajorethnicgroupsresidinginSingapore:Chinese,Malay,andIndians.The dominantethnicgroupistheChinesewhocompriseapproximatelymorethan74% oftheresidentSingaporepopulation.However,theChinesecommunityin Singaporeisfarfrombeingculturallyorlinguisticallyhomogeneous.Withinthe Chinesecommunity,therearevarioussubgroupssuchastheHokkiens,Teochews, Cantonese,Hainanese,Hakkas,Hokchiu,Henghua,Hockchia,Shanghainese,and Foochows.ThischapterexplainsthesociopoliticalbackgroundandthesociolinguisticsituationinSingapore.Italsodescribesingeneralthelanguage-planning policiesadoptedbythegovernment.TheimportanceofEnglishinthelinguistic ecologyofSingaporewillalsobediscussedinthereviewofthelanguagepolicies.
Keywords Sociopolitical Sociolinguistic Languageplanning Multilingual Bilingualpolicy
3.1TheSociopoliticalBackgroundofSingapore
Singaporeisasmallisland(712km2)statelocatedatthetipoftheMalaypeninsula.Withapopulationofapproximately5.08million(DepartmentofStatistics 2010),itisayoungcountryofmanyraceswhoseforefathersarefromSoutheast Asia,China,India,andtheEuropeancountries.Singapore’sracialdiversitycanbe tracedtoimmigrationtrendsformedasaresultofcolonialcommercialpractices. WhenSingaporewasfoundedbytheBritishcolonialadministrator,Stamford Rafflesin1819,itwasa fishingvillagewithaboutahundredresidentslivingonthe island.StamfordRafflessoonrealizedthatSingapore’slocationisacenterpointfor tradeandthusdecidedtoleaseitfromtheSultanofJohore.Singaporethenbecame apartoftheStraitsSettlements(acollectionofMalaystates)from1867to1942.
© TheAuthor(s)2017
P.C.L.Ng, AStudyofAttitudesofDialectSpeakersTowardstheSpeak MandarinCampaigninSingapore,SpringerBriefsinLinguistics, DOI10.1007/978-981-10-3443-5_3
AlthoughSingaporehadnonaturalresourcestoexport,itsoonrosefroma down-and-outtropicaloutposttoavibrantmetropolisattractingalotofmerchants, entrepreneurs,andindenturedlaborersfromregionsasdiverseasChina,India, Malaya,andpartsofSoutheastAsia.Thisledtothedevelopmentofapopulation characterizedbymultiracialism,multiculturalism,andmultilingualism (Bokhorst-Heng 1998).In1959,ledbythePeople’sActionParty(PAP)underthe leadershipofLeeKuanYew,Singaporeachievedself-government.Since self-government,thePAPhasruntheparliamentarydemocracyinSingaporeasa tightandwell-orderedsociety.UndertheleadershipofthePAP,Singaporehas transformedintoacommercialportofentryforcommerceand finance,andhasone ofthehigheststandardsoflivinginAsia.
3.2TheSociolinguisticSituationinSingapore
Asmentionedearlier,Singaporehasbeenaplaceofsettlementformanyethnic groupsaroundtheregionsinceitsfoundingasagreattradingportbyStamford Raffles.TherearethreemajorethnicgroupsresidinginSingapore:Chinese,Malay, andIndians.
ThedominantethnicgroupistheChinesewhocompriseapproximatelymore than74%oftheresidentSingaporepopulation.However,theChineseinSingapore arefarfrombeingculturallyorlinguisticallyhomogeneous.Singapore’sChinese residentsarethedescendantsofimmigrantsfromcoastalsoutheasternChinawho spokevariousmutuallyunintelligibleChinesedialects.AsmentionedinChapter one,theterm ‘Chinesedialect’ referstoavernacularvarietyoftheChineselanguage,andisspokenbyvarioussubgroupsoftheChinesecommunity.ThefollowingaresomemajordialectsinSingapore:Hokkiens,Teochews,Cantonese, Hainanese,Hakkas,Hokchiu,Henghua,Hockchia,Shanghainese,andFoochows. Inadditiontotheirowndialects,manySingaporeanChineseacquiresome knowledgeofotherdialectsthroughtheirparents,relatives,friends,andneighbors.
TheHokkiensarethelargestChinesedialectgroupsinSingapore.About40%of theChineseareclassifi edasHokkiens.Thenexttwolargestgroupsarethe TeochewsandCantonese(Wong 2011).Inthepast,duetothemultiplicityof languagesspokeninSingapore,itwasnecessaryforanindividualChineseto communicateinseveralspeechrepertoiresindifferentsocialsettings.Forexample, whenspeakingtoahawkeratahawkercenter,anindividualChinesewouldspeak theHokkiendialect themainlanguageforintra-ethniccommunicationwithinthe Chinesecommunity.Inothereventssuchasattendingfuneralwakesorwhen participatinginChingMingfestival(afestivalthatmarkstheremembranceofthe dead),thehomeancestraldialectwouldbespokenamongfamilymembersand relatives.Thefollowingsectionwillprovideanoverviewoflanguageplanningin Singapore.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
Cost of maintenance.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (JUNE).
KIEL: Opening of the Baltic Canal.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1895 (JUNE).
KIENNING, Anti-missionary riot at.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1899.
KIMBERLEY, Siege of.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR): A. D. 1899 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER); (OCTOBER-DECEMBER); and 1900 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
KINGSHIP BY DIVINE RIGHT: German revival of the doctrine.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1894-1899.
KIS, The city of.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA: AMERICAN EXPLORATION.
KITCHENER, Major-General Sir Herbert (afterwards Lord): Sirdar of the Egyptian army.
Expedition to Dongola.
See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1885-1896.
KITCHENER, Major-General Sir Herbert (afterwards Lord): Final campaigns against the Dervishes.
See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1897-1898.
KITCHENER, Major-General Sir Herbert (afterwards Lord): Dealing with the French expedition at Fashoda.
See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1898 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
KITCHENER, Major-General Sir Herbert (afterwards Lord): In the South African War.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR): A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY), and after.
KLONDIKE GOLD FIELDS, The.
"Many years ago gold was known to exist on the Yukon. The Hudson Bay Company's men tested the bars of the main river, and found 'the color,' but not in sufficient quantity to warrant working. The reason is, that, in the disintegration of the rocks by the smaller streams and the action of frost and melting snow, the metallic burden of the waters is dropped in the causeway of the smaller tributaries; only the finest float gold and the lighter sand and gravel being carried as far as the Yukon itself. In 1880, after years of fruitless search on the main stream, a body of prospectors under the protection of Captain (now Admiral) Beardsley, United States Navy, landed at
the head of Lynn Canal, crossed the divide, and proceeded to explore the head-waters. Not much being found at first in Canadian territory, the prospectors descended the river to the region near the lower end of the Upper Ramparts. In this region lies the boundary, formed by the one hundred and forty-first degree of west longitude from Greenwich. Here the Yukon receives from the southwest a tributary called Forty-Mile Creek. A few miles of the lower part of this creek, including its mouth, are on the Canadian side of the line: the head-waters on which the gold is chiefly found are, for the most part, on the American side. In this vicinity the first substantial deposits were discovered, many of which are still worked. …
"The site of the new diggings which have produced an excitement recalling the 'Fraser River rush' of 1857 is on a stream tributary to the Yukon from the northeast, wholly in Canadian territory, and entering the main river about fifty miles eastward from the boundary. Here a mining camp, called Dawson City, after the head of the Dominion Geological Survey, has been established. … The stream above referred to has been named the Klondyke, signifying 'reindeer': on some of the older maps it is designated Reindeer River. It is said however that the name should really be Throndak, a Tinneh term meaning 'plenty of fish.' The existence of gold on this stream and its branches appears to have been first made known by Indians. One of the first prospectors to locate upon it with success was J. A. Carmich, who staked out his claim in August, 1896, and with two helpers, in a few weeks, washed out over $14,000."
W. H. Dall, Alaska and the New Gold-Field (Forum, September, 1897).
KNIGHTHOOD: Victorian Order.
See (in this volume)
VICTORIAN ORDER.
KNOSSOS, Archæological excavations at.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: CRETE.
KOKANG: Cession to Great Britain.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1897 (MAY-JUNE).
KOREA: A. D. 1895-1898. Nominal independence of Korea. Japanese influence supplanted by Russian.
On the 7th of January, 1893, the independence of Korea (see, in this volume, CHINA: A. D. 1894-1895) was formally proclaimed at Seoul. For a time, Japanese influence prevailed, and the party favorable to it controlled affairs. But Russian jealousy gave encouragement to the opposing faction, headed by the queen, and the latter succeeded at length in thwarting most of the aims of the Japanese. The result was a revolutionary conspiracy in October, carried out by a murderous band which broke into the palace and killed three women, one of whom was supposed to be the queen. The assassins were dressed in Japanese costume, and were said to belong to the "soshi," or hireling cutthroats, of that country; but the Japanese government indignantly repudiated the crime, recalled and arrested its Minister, who was suspected of complicity, and forbade its subjects to enter Korea without special permission. Russian influence, nevertheless, became dominant soon after; the king yielded to it completely, and obtained riddance of opposing ministers with Russian support. In the end, Russia and Japan came to an agreement, nominally establishing a joint protectorate over
Korea; but practically the Japanese seemed to be fairly shouldered out.
{289}
In the later part of 1897, the Russian Minister to Korea brought about the dismissal of an English official, Mr. Brown, who had been the financial adviser of the Korean government and its commissioner of customs, putting a Russian in his place, and secured a written agreement that none but Russians or Koreans should fill that important post in future. The vigorous remonstrance of the British government, however, caused this action to be reversed.
Russia and Japan came to a new understanding in 1898, more favorable to the interests of the latter in Korea. This was embodied in a protocol, signed at Tokyo on the 25th of April, 1898, in terms as follows:
"I. That the Governments of Japan and Russia, recognizing the sovereignty and complete independence of Korea, shall in no way directly interfere with the domestic government of that country.
II. That in order to avoid misunderstandings in the future, whenever either Japan or Russia is applied to by Korea for advice or assistance, neither contracting party shall take any steps toward the appointment of military instructors or financial advisers without previous consultation with the other.
III. That Russia, recognizing the great progress made in commercial and industrial enterprises by Japan in Korea, and the great number of Japanese subjects residing in the settlements, will do nothing to injure the development of the commercial and industrial relations between Japan and Korea."
United States Consular Reports, August, 1898, page 591.
A reform party had begun to manifest influence at this time, even aspiring to representative institutions in the government. Various progressive measures were undertaken in 1898; the gold monetary standard was adopted; American engineers were engaged to plan roads, bridges, etc., and new ports were opened.
KOREA: A. D. 1900. Strategic importance of Korea to Russia and Japan. Japanese jealousy of Russian encroachments in Manchuria and its grounds.
"Considerable as are the material interests which Japan is building up in Korea, it is still from the strategical point of view that she is most deeply concerned with the future of the Korean peninsula, which, in the hands of a great military Power like Russia, would be a permanent threat to her safety. And the Japanese appear to be firmly convinced that, when once Russia is firmly seated in Northern China, she must inevitably seek to absorb Korea. In any other hands but her own the Korean peninsula would always be a wedge inconveniently driven in between her older acquisitions on the Pacific seaboard and her more recent acquisitions in the Gulf of Chi-li, nor could she regard her strategical position in the Far East as thoroughly secured so long as she did not command one shore of the straits through which lies the natural waterway between her two naval bases at Vladivostok and at Port Arthur. … Port Arthur is situated practically on an inland sea to which the approaches can be dominated not only by positions already in the hands of other European Powers, such as Wei-hai-wei and Kiaochau, but by the Korean peninsula and islands as well as by the Japanese archipelago, from Tsushima down to Formosa. With Port Arthur as her main base Russia's position as a naval Power in the Far East would
be subject to natural limitations not altogether unlike those which hamper her in the Black Sea and the Baltic.
"Considered in this light the question of Russian aggrandisement in Northern China is so closely interwoven with that of the future of Korea that it must necessarily wear a much more serious aspect for Japan than for any other Power so serious, indeed, that not a few Japanese deem the time to be close at hand when Japan should retort upon Russia in precisely the same terms which the latter used in 1895 and demand the evacuation of territories where her presence must be a permanent threat to the independence of the Chinese Empire and the peace of the Far East."
London Times, Tokio Correspondence, December 27, 1900.
KOTZE, Chief-Justice:
Conflict with President Kruger of the Transvaal.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1897 (JANUARYMARCH); and 1898 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
KROONSTAD: Temporary seat of Orange Free State government.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR): A. D. 1900 (MARCHMAY).
KRUGER: President Stephanus Johannes Paulus.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1885-1890, and after.
KUANG HSU, Emperor of China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER), and after.
KUMASSI, or COOMASSIE:
Occupation by the British. Siege and relief.
See (in this volume) ASHANTI.
KURAM, The:
Inclusion in a new British Indian province.
See (in this volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY).
KURRAM VALLEY, British-Indian war with tribes in the.
See (in this volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1897-1898.
KWANGCHOW WAN, Lease of, to France.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-AUGUST).
KWANG-SI, Rebellion in.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-JULY).
{290}
L.
LABOR COLONIES: In Australia.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRALIA; RECENT EXTENSIONS OF DEMOCRACY.
LABOR CONFLICTS.
See (in this volume) INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES.
LABOR LEGISLATION: Compulsory insurance in Germany.
See (in this volume) GERMANY: A. D. 1897-1900.
LABOR LEGISLATION: Eight-hours day in Utah.
See (in this volume)
UTAH: A. D. 1895-1896.
LABOR LEGISLATION: New Zealand Labor Laws.
See (in this volume))
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1891-1900.
LABOR LEGISLATION: Workmen's Compensation Act in Great Britain.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (MAY-JULY).
LABOR LEGISLATION: The United States Industrial Commission.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JUNE).
LABRADOR, Recent exploration of.
See (in this volume) POLAR EXPLORATION, 1893-1900, 1896.
LABYRINTH, The Cretan: Its supposed discovery.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: CRETE.
LADRONE ISLANDS: Sale by Spain to Germany.
See (in this volume)
CAROLINE AND MARIANNE ISLANDS.
LADYSMITH, Siege of.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR): A. D. 1899 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER); and 1900 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
LAGAS, The ancient city of.
See (in this volume) ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH; BABYLONIA: AMERICAN EXPLORATION.
LAGOS.
See (in this volume) NIGERIA: A. D. 1899.
LA GUASIMA, Battle at.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JUNE-JULY).
LAKE SUPERIOR CONSOLIDATED IRON MINES: In the United States Steel Corporation.
See (in this volume) TRUSTS: UNITED STATES: THE CLIMAX.
LAND BILL, Irish (1896).
See (in this volume)
IRELAND: A. D. 1896.
LAND SYSTEM, The New Zealand.
See (in this volume)
NEW ZEALAND; A. D. 1891-1900.
LAND TAXATION: In Australia and New Zealand.
See (in this volume) AUSTRALIA: RECENT EXTENSIONS OF DEMOCRACY.
LANDLORDS, Irish, New League against.
See (in this volume)
IRELAND: A. D. 1900-1901.
LATTIMER, Conflict of striking coal miners with sheriffs' deputies at.
See (in this volume)
INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES: A. D. 1897.
LAURIER, Sir Wilfrid: Prime Minister of Canada.
See (in this volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1890-1896, and after.
LAWS OF WAR.
See (in this volume) PEACE CONFERENCE.
LAWTON, General Henry W.: Command at Santiago de Cuba.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JULY-AUGUST: CUBA).
LAWTON, General Henry W.: Military operations in the Philippine Islands.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY-NOVEMBER).
LAWTON, General Henry W.: Death.
See (in this volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899-1900.
LECHER, Dr.: Twelve-hours speech.
See (in this volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
LEE, General Fitzhugh: U. S. Consul-General at Havana.
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1897-1898 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY); and (DECEMBER-MARCH).
LEE, General Fitzhugh: Command at Havana. Report.
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1898-1899 (DECEMBER-OCTOBER).
LEICHAU PENINSULA, Leases in, to France.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-AuGUST).
LEO XIII., Pope,
See PAPACY.
LÈSE MAJESTÉ.
A hurt to Majesty. Any offense or crime against the sovereign. For lèse majesté in Germany,
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1898; and 1900 (OCTOBER).
LEX FALKENHAYN, The.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
LEX HEINZE, The.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (MAY).
LEXOW INVESTIGATION, The.
See (in this volume)
NEW YORK CITY; A. D. 1894-1895.
LIAOTUNG PORTS: A. D. 1895. Russo-Chinese Treaty relating to.
See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1895.
See, also, references from PORT ARTHUR; TALIENWAN; and FÊNG-TIEN PENINSULA.
LIBRARIES, The gifts of Mr. Andrew Carnegie to.
Of neither the manifold items nor the stupendous total of the gifts made by Mr. Andrew Carnegie for the founding or for the assistance of public libraries in America and Great Britain is there any authentic account; but a tentative record of them, compiled mainly from the news columns of the "Library Journal," and published, on the 17th of March, 1901, in the "Buffalo Illustrated Express," is probably not far from correct. It begins in 1881, with the founding of a public library at Dunfermline, Scotland, the birthplace of Mr. Carnegie, who then gave for it $40,000. Two years later, he is said to have given $50,000 to a library at Inverness. In 1885 the New York Free Circulating Libraries were helped by him to the extent of $5,000. In the following year his benefactions were raised to their larger scale by his gift of $250,000 to the Free Public Library of Edinburgh; besides which he gave $28,000 to the Workmen's Library of the Keystone Bridge Works,
and smaller donations elsewhere. In 1889 he founded the Carnegie Library at Braddock, Pennsylvania, at a cost of $300,000.
{291}
In 1890 he contributed $325,000 to the founding of the Carnegie Free Public Library at Allegheny, Pennsylvania, which the city undertook to support; he replaced the Cambria Library, which the great flood at Johnstown had destroyed, expending $65,000 in that kindly work; gave $40,000 to a library at Fairfield, Iowa, and $9,000 to another at Augusta, Maine. Five thousand dollars to a library in Airdrie, $50,000 to one in Ayr, and $2,500 to a third at Jedburgh, all three in Scotland, are the gifts recorded in 1893 and 1894.
In 1895 Mr. Carnegie seemed to be crowning his munificence by the creation, at Pittsburg, of the great institution, combining library, art gallery, and museum, on which, between that year and 1899 he is said to have expended no less than $3,860,000. In the same year he founded a small library at Wick, in Scotland. In 1897 the donations appear to have been small. In 1898 Dumfries, in Scotland, received for a public library $50,000 from his open purse, and $250,000 went from it to the creation of the Carnegie Library at Homestead, Pennsylvania, the seat of the Carnegie works.
Hitherto the stream of Mr. Carnegie's bounty to public libraries had been a rivulet: it now, in 1899, began to pour like the fertilizing flood of the Nile, and that first twelvemonth of the amazing tide was celebrated by American librarians, at the annual meeting of their Association, as "the Carnegie year." In reality, it but opened a series of "Carnegie years," which have filled the period since, and may still go on. As compiled by the "Express," supplemented by a later record in the "Library Journal" for April, 1901, the list of the library gifts and offers of Mr. Carnegie, from the beginning of 1899 until March, 1901, includes $5,200,000, tendered to the city of New York for branches to its Public
Library (see below); $1,000,000 tendered to St. Louis; $350,000 to the city of Washington; $260,000 to Syracuse; $125,000 each to Atlanta and Louisville; $100,000, or $150,000 (there seems to be uncertainty as to the sum) to Seattle; $100,000 each to Richmond, Conneaut, Grand Rapids, Ottawa, Ont., and the State College in Pennsylvania; $75,000 each to Lincoln, Nebraska, Springfield, Illinois, Davenport, Iowa, Tacoma, Washington, and the Bellevue Medical College, New York; $50,000 each to San Diego, Oakland, Duluth Sedalia, East Liverpool, Ohio, Steubenville, Sandusky, Connellsville, McKeesport, Beaver, Beaver Falls, Tyrone, Pennsylvania, Clarion, Oil City, Fort Worth, Dallas, Cheyenne, Dubuque, Ottumwa, Emporia College, East Orange, York, Coal Center and Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania, Chattanooga, Houston, San Antonio, Vancouver, British Columbia., Aurora, Illinois, Lewiston, Maine, Niagara Falls, Yonkers, Canton, Ohio, Montgomery, Alabama, Marion, Indiana, Galesburg, Illinois, Schenectady, New York, and Hawick, Scotland; besides a great number of lesser sums, ranging from a few hundred dollars to $40,000. The total of the library gifts and proffers of Mr. Carnegie, from the beginning to March, 1900, is thought to exceed $23,000,000.
To many other educational institutions Mr. Carnegie has been munificently generous, giving, for example, $500,000 for the Manual Training School of Cooper Institute, New York; $250,000 to Birmingham University; $50,000 to the engineering laboratory of Stevens Institute, Hoboken; $50,000 to the Edinburgh Technical School, and making other gifts of like kind.
LIBRARY,
New York Public, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations. Andrew Carnegie's offered gift.
"The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations, was formed by the consolidation, on the 23d of
May, 1895, of the three corporations, 'The Trustees of the Astor Library,' originally incorporated January 18, 1849, 'The Trustees of the Lenox Library,' originally incorporated January 20, 1870, and 'The Tilden Trust,' originally incorporated March 26, 1887. … In the agreement for consolidation it was provided that the name of the new corporation should be 'The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations'; that the number of its trustees should be twenty-one, to be selected from the thirty-three members of the separate boards; and that 'the said new corporation shall establish and maintain a free public library and reading room in the city of New York, with such branches as may be deemed advisable, and shall continue and promote the several objects and purposes set forth in the respective acts of incorporation of 'The Trustees of the Astor Library,' 'The Trustees of the Lenox Library,' and the 'Tilden Trust.' … In December, Dr. John Shaw Billings, United States Army (retired), was chosen Director, but he did not enter fully upon his duties until June, 1896. …
"At the time of the consolidation the Astor library owned its site and buildings, had an endowment fund of about $941,000, producing an annual income of about $47,000, and contained 267,147 volumes. The Lenox library owned its site and building, had an endowment fund of $505,500, producing an annual income of $20,500, and contained about 86,000 volumes. The Tilden Trust possessed Mr. Tilden's private library, containing about 20,000 volumes, and an endowment fund estimated at $2,000,000, making the total number of volumes in the New York Public Library 373,147, and the total endowment fund about $3,446,500. … The joint libraries now contain about 500,000 volumes and 175,000 pamphlets."
Immediately upon the completion of the consolidation of the three libraries, the city of New York was asked to provide a suitable building for the great institution contemplated, and the ground covered by the old reservoir, on Fifth Avenue,
between Fortieth and Forty-second Streets, was suggested as an advantageous site. "The result of this appeal, which met with cordial public support, was that an act was passed by the legislature and approved May 19, 1897, giving the necessary authority to the city to issue bonds for the construction of a library building, the result of which was that on November 10, 1897, the plans prepared by Messrs. Carrère & Hastings, of New York City, were selected and approved, and were laid before the Board of Estimate and Apportionment of the City of New York on December 1, 1897. These plans were approved by the Board of Estimate and on December 8 a contract was entered into between the City of New York and the New York Public Library, by which the library building to be erected upon Bryant Park was leased to the New York Public Library. … The sketch plans provide for a building about 350 feet in length and about 250 feet in width from east to west, giving shelving for about 1,500,000 volumes and seating capacity for about 800 readers in the main reading room. …
"Plans and specifications for the removal of the Forty-second Street reservoir and laying the foundations for the new building having been approved the contract for this work was awarded to Mr. Eugene Lentilhon, and the work of removing was begun on June 6th, 1899."
Handbook to the New York Public Library, 1900.
In October, 1900, it was stated in the newspapers of the city that Mayor Van Wyck, Controller Coler, and the other members of the Board of Estimate had come to an understanding regarding the consolidation of all the libraries of the Greater New York under the New York Public Library. "It was announced officially that all the smaller libraries would be allowed about the same amount of money for maintenance this year as was allowed last year. A practical plan of
consolidation will be perfected, and when the matter comes up before the Board of Estimate next year it was agreed that the libraries would be put under one head. … It is proposed to spend $5,000,000 on the New York Public Library now in course of erection in Bryant Park on the site of the old reservoir. It will be four years before the building can be completed. Controller Coler's idea is to gradually merge the smaller libraries so that when the new building is completed New York will have the largest and best equipped library for sending out books of any city in the world."
On the 12th of March, 1901, Mr. Andrew Carnegie addressed the following letter to Dr. Billings, the Director of the New York Public Library, making a proposal of unparalleled munificence:
"Dear Dr. Billings: Our conferences upon the needs of greater New York for branch libraries to reach the masses of the people in every district have convinced me of the wisdom of your plans. Sixty-five branches strike one at first as a very large order, but as other cities have found one necessary for every sixty thousand or seventy thousand of population, the number is not excessive. You estimate the average cost of these libraries at, say, $80,000 each, being $5,200,000 for all. If New York will furnish sites for these branches for the special benefit of the masses of the people, as it has done for the central library, and also agree in satisfactory form to provide for their maintenance as built, I should esteem it a rare privilege to be permitted to furnish the money as needed for the buildings, say, $5,200,000. Sixty-five libraries at one stroke probably breaks the record, but this is the day of big operations, and New York is soon to be the biggest of cities.
Very truly yours, ANDREW CARNEGIE."
In communicating this extraordinary proposal to the New York Public Library Board, Dr. Billings made the following statement of the plan contemplated in the suggestions he had made:
"In the conferences referred to by Mr. Carnegie the suggestions which I have made have related mainly to a free public library system for the boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx. I have stated that such a system should include the great central reference library in Forty-second street and Fifth avenue, about forty branch libraries for circulation, small distributing centres in those public school buildings which are adapted to such purpose, and a large travelling library system operated from the central building. Each of the branch libraries should contain reading rooms for from 50 to 100 adults and for from 75 to 125 children, and in these reading rooms should be about 500 volumes of encyclopædias, dictionaries, atlases and large and important reference books. There should be ample telephone and delivery arrangements between the branches and the central library.
"To establish this system would require at least five years. The average cost of the branch libraries I estimated at from $75,000 to $125,000, including sites and equipment. The cost of maintaining the system when completed I estimated at $500,000 a year. The circulation of books for home use alone in these boroughs should amount to more than 5,000,000 of volumes a year, and there should be at least 500,000 volumes in the circulation department, with additions of new books and to replace worn out books of at least 40,000 a year.
"With regard to the other boroughs of greater New York I have made no special plans or estimates, but have said that about twenty-five libraries would be required for them."
LIBRARY, The Temple, of ancient Nippur.
See (in this vol.)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA: AMERICAN EXPLORATION.
LIBRARY, The U. S. House of Representatives:
