Article published In:
Chinese Language and Discourse
Vol. 16:1 (2025) ► pp.55–80

Creating individual styles through discourse variation in Singapore Mandarin

ORCID logo | Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
 | Nanyang Technological University
By applying the concepts of indexicality and enregisterment, this paper demonstrates how different discourse particles and their collocations index various personae in Singapore Mandarin and how media representations enregister them within the community. The theory of persona is shown to explain the majority of seemingly random individual differences in discourse particle usage exhibited by two TV hosts. Finally, it is important to note that not all variation between the two hosts can be attributed to the enactment of personae. Psychological factors, such as bilingual lexical activation, should also be considered influences on linguistic variation, alongside linguistic and social factors.
Keywords: Singapore Mandarin, discourse variation, discourse particles, style, personae, indexicality, enregisterment
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Theoretical framework
  • 2.Data and methods
    • 2.1Data
    • 2.2Methods
  • 3.Discourse particles
    • 3.1General overview of sentence-final particles in Singapore Mandarin
    • 3.2Individualized usage of sentence-final particles
    • 3.3Individualized usage of English discourse particles
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 September 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.24014.teo
References (42)
References
Agha, Asif. 2003. “The social life of cultural value.” Language and Communication 23 (3–4): 231–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael. 2013. “Individual differences and usage-based grammar.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18 (4): 443–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, Kara. 2014. “The social motivations of reversal: Raised BOUGHT in New York City English.” Language in Society 43 (4): 395–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chatman, Seymour. 1967. “Stylistics: Quantitative and qualitative.” Style 11: 29–43.Google Scholar
Chua, Chee Lay. 2003. The emergence of Singapore Mandarin: A case study of language contact. PhD Dissertation. USA: The University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Coupland, Nikolas. 1980. “Style shifting in a Cardiff work setting.” Language in Society 9 (1): 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1985. “‘Hark, hark, the lark’: Social motivations for phonological style-shifting.” Language and Communication 5 (3): 153–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “Language, situation and the relational self: Theorizing dialect-style in sociolinguistics.” In Style and sociolinguistic variation, ed. by Penny Eckert, and John R. Rickford, 185–210. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cutillas-Espinosa, Juan Antonio, Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy, and Natalie Schilling-Estes. 2010. “Hyper-vernacularisation and speaker design: A case study.” Folia Linguistica 44 (1): 31–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Onofrio, Annette. 2020. “Personae in sociolinguistic variation.” WIREs Cognitive Science 11(6). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Campos, Manuel, and Pollock, Matthew. 2023. “The future of usage-based sociolinguistics.” In The handbook of usage-based linguistics, ed. by Manuel Diaz-Campos, and Sonia Balasch, 509–526. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2001. “Style and social meaning.” In Style and sociolinguistic variation, ed. by Penelope Eckert, and John J. Rickford, 119–126. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Variation and the indexical field.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 12 (4): 453–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 2006. “Towards an understanding of approaches to discourse particles: Introduction to the volume.” In Approaches to discourse particles, ed. by Kerstin Fischer, 1–20. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Chong. 2015. “Identity construction in weibo communication Chinese overseas students’ experiences in Australia.” In Contemporary Chinese discourse and social practice in China, ed. by Linda T. H. Tsung, and Wei Wang, 143–162. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Howard, Darlene V., and James H. Howard. 1977. “A multidimensional scaling analysis of the development of animal names.” Developmental Psychology 13 (2): 108–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara. 2000. “The individual voice in language.” Annual Review of Anthropology, 29 (1): 405–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Dialect enregisterment in performance.” Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15 (5): 657–679. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Characterological figures and expressive style in the enregisterment of linguistic variety.” In Language and a sense of place, ed. by Chris Montgomery, and Emma Moore, 280–300. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Cher Leng. (Forthcoming). “Xinjiapohuayu yuqici yanjiu [A study of Singapore Mandarin sentence final particles].” In Global Variation of Chinese Grammar, Singapore Edition. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Lee, Junwen. 2012. Separating meaning and function: A relevance-theoretic analysis of discourse particles in Colloquial Singapore English. MA thesis. Singapore: National University of Singapore.
McClelland, James L., and Timothy T. Rogers. 2003. “The parallel distributed processing approach to semantic cognition.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4 (4): 310–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pak, Xin Yan. 2014. Xinjiapohuayu jumo yuqici: Zai yuliaoku jichushang yu Putonghua de duibi tongji [Statistical comparison of Singaporean and Mainland Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study on sentence final particles]. BA(Hons) thesis. Singapore: Nanyang Technological University of Singapore.
Popov, Vencislav, and Lynne M. Reder. 2020. “Frequency effects on memory: A resource-limited theory.” Psychological Review 127 (1): 1–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ronan, Patricia, and Martin Schweinberger. 2024. “An introduction to sociopragmatic variation.” In Socio-pragmatic variation in Ireland: Using pragmatic variation to construct social identities, ed. by Martin Schweinberger and Patricia Ronan. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, Brian H., and Gregory L. Murphy. 1999. “Food for thought: Cross-classification and category organization in a complex real-world domain.” Cognitive Psychology 38 (4): 495–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schilling-Estes, Natalie. 1998. “Investigating ‘self-conscious’ speech: The performance register in Ocracoke English.” Language in Society 27 (1): 53–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharma, Devyani. 2018. “Style dominance: Attention, audience, and the ‘real me.’” Language in Society 47 (1): 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shi, Heidi H., and Zhuo Jing-Schmidt. 2020. “Little cutie one piece: An innovative human classifier and its social indexicality in Chinese digital culture.” Chinese Language and Discourse. An International and Interdisciplinary Journal 11 (1): 31–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storm, Christine. 1980. “The semantic structure of animal terms: A developmental study.” International Journal of Behavioral Development 3 (4): 381–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teo, Ming Chew. 2020. Crosslinguistic influence in Singapore English: Linguistic and social aspects. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Unger, Layla, Olivera Savic, and Vladimir M. Sloutsky. 2020. “Statistical regularities shape semantic organization throughout development.” Cognition 1981: Article 104190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Wei. 2015. “Co-construction of migrant workers’ identities on a TV talk show in China.” In Contemporary Chinese discourse and social practice in China, ed. by Linda T. H. Tsung, and Wei Wang, 125–142. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasserscheidt, Philipp. 2015. “Constructions do not cross languages: On cross-linguistic generalizations of constructions.” Constructions and Frames 6 (2): 305–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wee, Lionel. 2004. “Singapore English: Morphology and syntax.” In A handbook of varieties of English. Volume 2: Morphology and syntax, ed. by Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar W. Schneider, and Clive Upton, 1058–1072. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in contact, findings and problems. New York, NY: Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 2013. “Social factors in contact languages.” In Contact languages: A comprehensive guide, ed. by Peter Bakker, and Yaron Matras, 363–416. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, Suet Ying. 2006. Xinjiapohuayu huihua Zhong de yuciqi ‘leh’ zhi yanjiu [The ‘leh’ particle in Singapore Mandarin]. BA(Hons) thesis. Singapore: National University of Singapore.
Yuan, Xuelian, and Jingxia Lin. 2016. “Classifiers in Singapore Mandarin Chinese: A corpus based study.” In Chinese Lexical Semantics (Selected Papers of CLSW 2016), ed. by Minghui Dong, Jingxia Lin, and Xuri Tang, 65–75. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhu, Xiaohong. 2008. Xinjiapohuayu yufa bianyi yanjiu [A study of grammatical variation in Singapore Mandarin]. PhD Dissertation. Guangzhou: Jinan University.