After several decades of strong and sustained economic growth, members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) make up almost half of the world’s best-performing developing economies

– Outperformers, Maintaining ASEAN Countries’ Exceptional Growth, Mckinsey Global Institute

This monolithic conception of English stands in contradistinction, not only to the actual plethora of Englishes in the world today but also, more importantly, to their… use in furthering cross-communication

– Stephan May, The problem with English(es) and linguistic (in)justice. Addressing the limits of liberal egalitarian accounts of language

An assumption underpinning learning, mastering and maintaining a purist approach about a Standard English is that there is a standard. As linguists point out, among other conceptualizations, English is at once a lingua franca, lingua academia, lingua emotiva, lingua cultura and lingua economica. In each of these domains, English is used differently from what we learn as the standard.

The national English syllabus refers to economic and employment trends and is prefaced with a call for us to be mindful that “the increasingly competitive international environment calls for an even greater need for linguistic and communicative competence, adaptability and flexibility”. It states that “language is a system with rules, patterns and conventions” and that one of its aims is for students to use language in ways which are “intelligible and appropriate for different purposes, audiences, contexts and cultures”.

Given how, in different domains, there exist different patterns and conventions, users of English would need to be flexible (deviate from ‘standard’) within acceptable bounds, to achieve their purpose. The bounds serve to preserve intelligibility and not some nebulous notion of a standard. In other words, language serves us, we are not at its service.

When the use of language differs within one country across domains, we would expect even more variation across national boundaries. Such differences can be understood generally through the study of Pragmatics and with more specificity through Hall’s Theory of High/Low Context Cultures and Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory. English users need an awareness of these differences to be effective especially in their interactions with interlocuters from other countries.

The recent Committee of Supply Debate on education evinces an increased focus on Asia and Southeast Asia in particular which has been described as our “natural hinterland” and “backyard”. This is in line with regional efforts to effect greater ASEAN integration through the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in 2015 and adoption of AEC Blueprint 2025. Students will be “equipped with the relevant knowledge, language and cultural skills” to engage the region to unlock new value.

Much of this relevant knowledge is tacit which according to Polanyi, the author of The Tacit Dimension is knowledge acquired through experience (interaction) rather than received through explicit transmission. Experience is influenced and interpreted to a large extent by the lens one wears. When interacting with those who use English differently from ourselves, the wrong lens would result in miscommunication and missed opportunities.

Asia is a region of pronounced cultural diversity. English is not native to the region; it is a lingua franca – a product of negotiation. To the extent that culture is embedded in language, we can expect diversity also in the use of English across this region. What is considered polite in a standard version of English might be interpreted as impolite in some non-standard version.

Much if not all of Southeast Asia has been described to be collectivist and high context. While we teach students to be explicit, direct and succinct in tasks such as Situational Writing and Stimulus Based Conversation, such an approach to communication is valued more in low context, typically Western cultures and might be considered curt and nakedly instrumental in Asian cultures. Some cultures require a meandering preamble and copious use of symbolic references especially for business correspondence in speech if not also in writing.

In high context cultures, meaning is conveyed through what is not said, as much if not more than, what is said. There is a premium on shared context and nuances of relational dynamics. Such nuances, as Hofstede elucidates, exist along different cultural dimensions such as Power-Distance, Individualism- Collectivism, Masculinity-Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Long Term Orientation and Indulgence-Self Restraint.

For effective communication with counterparts in Southeast Asian countries, knowledge only of a standard form – rules, patterns and conventions, of English may not be sufficient. One has to take into account Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and be mindful of, for example, the power differential vis a vis his interlocutor – in hierarchical societies as most Asian societies tend to be, it is not wise to be more succinct and direct than a superior or a valued customer for that matter in an email, regardless of how proficient one is in the language. The principle of consensus is a distinguishing and fundamental characteristic of ASEAN. Therefore, in relating to counterparts in this region, one has to rely more on conciliatory styles of communication rather than on argumentum, which is characteristic of expository writing styles.

In light of the foregoing, students must be made aware of the existence of different forms of English and one way to do this would be to adopt a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach to teaching. There needs to be a mindset shift about the standard, from one of an end point to reach, to one which forms a starting point from which nuances in other forms can be recognized and understood. Students need to understand the implicit together with the explicit. To achieve this, they could be trained to think critically about how culture is embedded in language and to communicate meaning in a contextually mindful way.

In coming out to play, one must learn to play well with others.

The Brain Dojo