can we use proper english?
-
By the way Lee Kuan Yew, you tell me honestly lah, you got rig the 1963 elections or not?
You got rig the elections or don't have rig?
You ah, Lee Kuan Yew, everything want to hide.
Peranakan also want to hide, WWII worked for Japs also want to hide.
Why can't you just be honest?
Why must hide hide hide?
Your fucking name is Harry Lee also want to hide, use Lee Kuan Yew.
Hide hide hide, hide my lan pa lah kan ni na chee bye lan jiao bin.
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
By the way Lee Kuan Yew, you tell me honestly lah, you got rig the 1963 elections or not?
You got rig the elections or don't have rig?
You ah, Lee Kuan Yew, everything want to hide.
Peranakan also want to hide, WWII worked for Japs also want to cover.
Why can't you just be honest?
Why must hide hide hide?
Your fucking name is Harry Lee also want to hide, use Lee Kuan Yew.
May I know what personal grudges you have with LKY?
-
May I know what personal grudges you have with LKY?
He messed up the languages in Singapore and suppresses my dialect and also indirectly insults it by saying it is useless.
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
He messed up the languages in Singapore and suppresses my dialect and also indirectly insults it by saying it is useless.
Then, work hard to overthrow him so that you can change things around.
If not, you might want to stick to cable tv for now.
-
Ah Chia,
in this book 《我的妈妈》
written by Sim Wong Hoo's sister 沈秀梅
she wrote about the sad but true phenomenon
she talks about how the women who were already looked down upon in our olden society, after the Speak Mandarin Campaign was launched, it virtually eliminated any chances for these monolingual dialect-speaking women to express their views
quote:
她也说：“亚洲女性很多时候都没有声音，尤其是讲å�Žè¯è¿�动之å�Žï¼Œè®²æ–¹è¨€çš„妈妈没有声音”
translate: Traditionally, Asian women has been given little rights to speak out for their own, and especially so after the Speak Mandarin Campaign, these women who could only speak their dialect, loses even their last chance to be heard
-
Originally posted by Bangulzai:
Ah Chia,
in this book 《我的妈妈》
written by Sim Wong Hoo's sister 沈秀梅
she wrote about the sad but true phenomenon
she talks about how the women who were already looked down upon in our olden society, after the Speak Mandarin Campaign was launched, it virtually eliminated any chances for these monolingual dialect-speaking women to express their views
quote:
translate: Traditionally, Asian women has been given little rights to speak out for their own, and especially so after the Speak Mandarin Campaign, these women who could only speak their dialect, loses even their last chance to be heard
Nice book....
-
Traditionally, Asian women has been given little rights to speak out for their own, and especially so after the Speak Mandarin Campaign, these women who could only speak their dialect, loses even their last chance to be heard
She suffered so much under Lee Kuan Yew's rule.
Now she turns on the TV also understands nothing.
Can only suffer in silence.
This is all due to that bastard Lee Kuan Yew and his filth.
Everything is due to him.
after the Speak Mandarin Campaign was launched, it virtually eliminated any chances for these monolingual dialect-speaking women to express their views
Lee Kuan Yew didn't care.
His aim is to annihilate off all dialects in Singapore to secure rule of PAP.
Such evil.
-
----------------------------------------------------
For the average person, to master two languages is already a problem. ... If I only learn English and, say, I reach 100%, when I learn Malay, Mandarin and Hokkien, I cannot score 100% in each. The more I learn for the next language, the lower my score in my first language. .. if you want good Chinese, you must be prepared to let your English go down to 90, 80 odd percent. Then, you can reach 50, 60 or 70% in Chinese. Or, you can go to Chinese schools and do English as a second language, then your Chinese can go up to 80%, and your English will go down to 50 or 60%. Very few can do both at the same level; 100% for each, I'd say that's possible only for a few who are specially gifted...
----------------------------------------------------
i fuckingly agreed with the above statement!
-
For the average person, to master two languages is already a problem.
Since he knows that then why he still go and implement the bullshit bilingual policy?
Result of the bilingual policy?
Singlish; mother tongue cannot speak properly without using english terms, english also low standard.
This is the result of that mother fucker's bilingual policy.
The corruption and bastardisation of all the languages in Singapore.
His filthy dirty policies.
Lee Kuan Yew and ALL of his FILTH.
Lee Kuan Yew, you must atone for all of your rubbish policies and projects.
-
Lee Kuan Yew we know you are a banana.
But WE are NOT banana.
Please don't come and make policy try to turn us into banana like you.
You think what, one big happy banana family ha ha ha?
Fuck you lah, fucking banana.
Lee Kuan Yew you banana, you enjoy sucking angmoh cock, you go and suck by yourself, don't spread your filth around.
-
if singapore give rise to mandarin as commercial language instead of english during the 70s. then the malay indian had to accept and learn mandarin.
but this will engulf in some riot( ibelieve) if it is push ahead aggressively during the 70s. guess LKY will not risk the political instability then.
so my point is,,the strong man is LKY at that time. so what he decide, we no choice had to follow. but had mandarin gain prominent, arh,,,,shiok la.
the PAP in the 70s is different from the PAP now...please bear in mind.
-
Originally posted by mh2:
if singapore give rise to mandarin as commercial language instead of english during the 70s. then the malay indian had to accept and learn mandarin.
but this will engulf in some riot( ibelieve) if it is push ahead aggressively during the 70s. guess LKY will not risk the political instability then.
so my point is,,the strong man is LKY at that time. so what he decide, we no choice had to follow. but had mandarin gain prominent, arh,,,,shiok la.
the PAP in the 70s is different from the PAP now...please bear in mind.
Don't understand the relationship of Englisn, dialects or Mandarin?
To me all are useful.
-
Lee Kuan Yew's most famous quote on his view on Hokkien
Hokkien
It [Hokkien] is not congruent with the written Chinese script. Present-day written Chinese is Mandarin reduced into script. Spoken Hokkien cannot be put into 'bai-hua' [白�, colloquial language]. If Hokkien prevails, then the standard of written Chinese will go down.
23 Dec 1977 -
It [Hokkien] is not congruent with the written Chinese script. Present-day written Chinese is Mandarin reduced into script. Spoken Hokkien cannot be put into 'bai-hua' [白�, colloquial language]. If Hokkien prevails, then the standard of written Chinese will go down.
I am extremely disturbed by Lee Kuan Yew's fanatical hatred of hokkien dialect and his ludicrous views on language.
I never realised that his hatred is so deep and thinking so insane on this issue.
Banana is banana, feel insecure ruling over majority of hokkien people then must come and think of various filthy excuses to go and suppress and weaken them.
Plus the japanese collaboration issue some more, once blown up, career gone.
Day and night worry about this issue, become like that, mind filled with insane ideas on how to suppress hokkien.
I have totally and completely lost all respect of this Lee Kuan Yew.
This person is worse than a dog to me.
-
ah chia since when you respect him to begin with lol.
-
His hatred of hokkien dialect is so deep, hell bent on suppressing it, wiping it out in Singapore.
This crazy banana bastard, mind filled with envy, petty hatred, insecurity and fears.
It was then when the beacon of Lim Chin Siong shined brighter than Lee Kuan Yew’s. James Puthucheary, who was in charge of PAP publicity for the elections recalled the first rally held in a remote Chinese village.
“Toh Chin Chye spoke first, in English! No response from the crowd. Ong Eng Guan was next, in Hokkien, but not very good. The crowd was restless. Then, Chin Siong stood up. He was brilliant and the crowd was spellbound.”
http://singaporegovt.blogspot.com/2006/07
If Hokkien prevails, then the standard of written Chinese will go down.
This insane bastard.
-
ah chia since when you respect him to begin with lol.
Last time I still respected him because he helped to develop Singapore economy, raise standards of living etc.
Now, he is worse than a dog to me, because he is bent on destroying and suppressing my hokkien dialect and ultimately the culture.
How can I show respect to someone who is bent against my dialect group?
That is impossible.
-
Compare Lee Kuan Yew to a dog is an insult to the dog.
-
why is the a PAP emblem on your avatar ah chia?
-
why is the a PAP emblem on your avatar ah chia?
I like it. Why?
-
If Hokkien prevails, then the standard of written Chinese will go down.
If english language prevails, the standard of mother tongue will go down.
-
Shit! I forgot to do it!
大便，我忘了�那件事�
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
Since he knows that then why he still go and implement the bullshit bilingual policy?
Result of the bilingual policy?
Singlish; mother tongue cannot speak properly without using english terms, english also low standard.
This is the result of that mother fucker's bilingual policy.
The corruption and bastardisation of all the languages in Singapore.
His filthy dirty policies.
Lee Kuan Yew and ALL of his FILTH.
Lee Kuan Yew, you must atone for all of your rubbish policies and projects.
Ah Chia and mh2
Since we are also on the topic of Singlish, I shall post some non-political-oriented article for more light-hearted reading :)
Singapore English: Learning and Use
Language Acquisition and Development, Christine C. M Goh & Rita Elaine Silver
[ Introduction ]
Singapore English (Singlish) is one of several international varieties of English that have evolved through a process of colonization, contact and localization. These new varieties of English may have a unique place in the local society, but their growth and use are sometimes considered to be problematic by those who encourage English language learning for commercial and political purposes. An 'international standard' of English is important for the latter purposes (as opposed to the use for communication within family, for example). However, it's difficult to determine what an international standard might be.
This chapter looks at Singapore English, the local variety that has grown and developed over the years, how it is learned and used within Singaporean society. The chapter will be more of a 'peek' than a 'look' because we cannot hope to cover all that has been learned about developing varieties of English or even about Singapore English. Instead, this chapter will cover basic issues that are of most immediate interest to English language teachers in local schools.
The chapter will address three broad questions which are related to sociolinguistic issues:
1. Where does Singapore English come from?
2. What are some of its most basic features?
3. Who uses Singapore Colloquial English, when and where?
Based on the information from these two questions, we will also briefly consider two questions that are more psycholinguistic and pedagogical:
4. What is the impact of this development (historical and descriptive) on individual English language learning in Singapore?
5. What does this mean for English language classroom teaching?[ Historical Background ]
Colonization by the British is a well-known feature of Singapore's history. In colonizing Singapore, the British established English as a language of government, commerce and education. It also became a language with status as those who knew English were able to rise to more lucrative and powerful positions in society. However, English was not used in isolation. Singapore has always been a multilingual society with many of its residents using multiple language varieties in their daily lives. In the 1960s and 1970s, a Singapore or Malaysia Chinese might have spoken three or four language varieties to varying degrees of proficiency. Other languages might have been used as well. English may or may not have been one of the most proficient varieties for an individual. It usually includes the native Chinese dialect, the dominant Chinese dialect, one or more additional Chinese dialects, Bahasa Pasar. It may include English, Baba Malay, Bahasa Malaysia/Malay, Mandarin ( - typical verbal repertoire of a Singaporean or Malaysian Chinese, 1980).
The national education system, established after Singapore became an independent nation in 1965, has changed the language mix that Singaporeans know and use in their daily lives. It usually includes English, Mandarin, the native Chinese 'dialect'. It may include another Chinese dialect, a foreign language (Japanese, French), Malay (- typical verbal repertoire of a Singaporean Chinese Undergraduate, 1990). However, the educational system has also consistently promoted bilingualism through instruction in English and one of the other national languages (i.e., Mandarin, Malay, Tamil). This sort of bilingualism, with English as one of the key languages, is common enough internationally to have its own name, "English-knowing bilingualism" (Kachru, 1982a, p. 42).
As English in Singapore came in contact with other, local languages, it was influenced by the features of those other languages. Not all change is due to contact with other languages, however. There is historical change in every language as well as adaptation to new circumstances, new ideas and new cultural patterns. A common example nowadays is applying general-use terms to specific meanings related to computers (e.g., memory, mouse, surf, web) and the use of specialized computer terms as part of everyday speech to accompany the everyday use of computers (download, e- [e-mail, e-commerce, etc.]). If a person in Singapore, Hong Kong or Malaysia said they spent the evening 'surfing', most of us would imagine the person sitting at a computer, not at the ocean with a surfboard. Thus, it is not surprising that localised varieties of English have taken on features, especially the adoption of lexical items, which are relevant to the local context.[ Features of Singapore English ]
What, then, are some of the common linguistic features of English in Singapore? It's difficult to address this topic by pure description without reference to other Englishes. This also leads to questions about our assumptions. If we compare Singapore English (SE) with British English (BE) based on BE being an older variety, are we claiming that British English is better or highlighting ways in which SE doesn't measure up? This goes against basic linguistic principles which presuppose that all language varieties are equal in the sense that all languages complex systems making use of language form, semantics, phonology and pragmatics;, all are rule-governed systems and all have communicative value.
Equally problematic, a comparison of SE with BE assumes that BE is a monolithic linguistic code, when we know that it has a great deal of variety (e.g. Cockney English, Received Pronunciation [RP], etc.). In fact, there are two problems here: determining a standard and determining a norm (Kachru, 1982b). Determining a standard as well as determining similarity to or deviation from that standard, has to do with prescriptive ideas about language: what is right, what is proper. However, determining a norm has to do with description: establishing what is accepted, common practice within a specific context. Knowledge of SE norms is still developing with current research projects including, for example, The NIE Corpus of Spoken Singapore English (Deterding & Low, 2001) and the Grammar of Singapore English Corpus (Lim, Fong, Ni & Wee, n.d.).
With reference to standards, two forms of SE are commonly referred to: Singapore Standard English (StdE) and Singapore Colloquial English (SCE). StdE is a 'high variety' of English which, in this chapter, is intended to indicate that it is the more formal, more educated variety. (See Chapter 17.) It is very similar to other standard forms of English (Gupta, 1986). SCE, on the other hand, can be distinguished between StdE and SCE especially in syntax and morphology. Both of them may share a similar 'Singaporean' phonology which is somewhat different to other standard Englishes. both make use of some localized lexical items, including borrowings from other local languages.
We will describe features of StdE and SCE following major categories described by Gupta (1991, 1994). As she notes, "These are not the only differences between the two varieties, but are analytically straightforward salient features" (1994, p. 9). As such, they are perhaps readily identifiable to language teachers in EL classrooms. Gupta's classification relies on describing each variety, StdE and SCE in its own right, so the comparison is not completely balanced.[ Language Form ]
Gupta (1994) describes two features of SCE and two of StdE that are related to syntax. Other forms relate to morphology. As you will see in the discussion, it is not easy to completely separate some of the syntactic and morphological patterns because they influence each other.
Syntax
Question forms with inversion are part of StdE syntax. These can be used with yes/no questions, wh-questions and questions with two verbs. In SCE, only two verbs are commonly used with inversion, 'be' and 'can'. In addition, fronting is possible with all wh-words in StdE. However, the rules for SCE questions with fronting are more complex: 'why' and 'how' are always fronted; 'what', 'where' and 'who' are sometimes, but not always, fronted, and, 'which' and 'how many' are normally not fronted (see Gupta, 1994, for detailed discussion).
As we saw in Chapter 3, there is a developmental sequence for question forms in English, including stages for fronting and inversion. Although Gupta does find a developmental sequence for question forms ('interrogatives' in her terms) in SCE, this sequence is somewhat different to the sequence normally found for English first language children and the one for L2 English learners, as summarized in Table 3.3 (Chapter 3). The acquisition of wh-words ('what', 'why', etc.) is similar cross-linguistically for children and Gupta reports that it is similar in SCE for the four children she studied.
However, the acquisition of word order and question forms is more complex. As noted above, there are some similiarities to and differences from StdE, at least partially because other features of SCE interact with question forms. One feature of SCE is verbless and subjectless sentences. If it is possible to understand the grammatical subject of the sentence from the context, it is not necessary to state it. In Example 1, you can see that when the grammatical subject is necessary for comprehension ('mummy' and 'papa') the child includes them. However, when the grammatical subject is understood from the context ('then [I] no eat loh'), it is omitted.Example 1 Subjectless sentences in context
A: Have you eaten sushi before?
C: No
A: Why?
C: Mummy no buy, then no eat loh. Papa also no buy.Likewise, verbs are not always necessary, especially copula 'be'. In addition, 'ing' forms can be used as the finite verb (e.g., "Today I going swimming.').
If we take this information together, we can see that SCE learners cannot use inversion in some cases. Clearly, you cannot invert the grammatical-subject and the verb to form a question if the sentence does not use a grammatical subject (e.g., 'Why got it?'). However, we also saw in Example 1 that even with a grammatical subject, SCE speakers sometimes do not invert (e.g., 'Why he don't want?'). Likewise, SCE speakers are unlikely to use complex questions that make use of relative clauses with wh-words because SCE constructs relative clauses differently.
Another feature of StdE syntax is the use of complex verb groups including modal auxiliaries other than 'can' (which is also used in SCE), auxiliary 'do' and 'have' (e.g., 'why do you keep on opening and closing the door?' or 'Listen, C., I don't want you to spend hours watching the VCDs.'). This is unusual in SCE. Finally, SCE can form conditional and temporal clauses without subordinating conjunctions 'if' or 'when' (see example 2).Example 2
C is a Singaporean pre school child. She is speaking with an adult.
A: What are you doing?
C: I put table, people can sit.
A: How to 'sit'?
C: Put here, people come to sit, you know.Morphology
We've seen several broad categories of differences in StdE and SCE syntax, what about morphology? In this area too, we find some differences. StdE uses inflectional morphology more than SCE. In StdE, morphemes for third person singular 's' and past tense are used. This is not required in SCE. StdE also uses noun inflections to mark plurals and possessives; this is generally done with pronouns in SCE but not with nouns.
As we saw in Chapter 6, morphemes are commonly used to track English development of first language children. However, SCE does not require inflectional morphology in some case. As with the developmental sequences related to syntax, we cannot assume that morphological models such as Brown's (1973) exactly fit Singaporean children who grow up with SCE as their first language. Therefore, development sequences for English from other contexts must be applied carefully when teaching Singaporean children. Developmental sequences from research on children in contexts such as the US and the UK may indicate broad trends for comparison with Singaporean children. However, we cannot expect a perfect match. Stage of English development, developing biligualism (with interactions between the two languages) and access to SCE all influence normal development in English for Singaporean children. Again this indicates, as stated elsewhere in this book, that some knowledge of the child's home language background may be useful to classroom teachers.Semantics
It is difficult to talk about sematic differences in SCE and StdE because vocabulary is very similar. If we speak about SE, however, there are clearly some special vocabulary items that relate to the local context. Some of these vocabulary item refer to cultural aspect of Singapore ('hawker centre', 'void deck'); others are loan words from other local languages ('karang guni', 'kiasu'). In some cases we even find both: 'Maggie mee' is borrowed from the name of the company and includes the loan item 'mee' from Hokkien. There are also a few new creations, or coinages, such as 'Singlish' and 'handphone'. All of these phenomena for creating vocabulary words are common in other languages and especially in other varieties of English. As Strevens points out, "English" is inherently a borrowing and an Anglicizing language" (1992, p. 31). All forms of English make use of borrowing, loans and coinages.
In some cases, the same words are used in different English varietis but with different meanings. With the examples above, of vocabulary items that reflect local contexts, it would be possible to explain the word meanings. However, when two individuals use the same word with two meaning, the situation is potentially more confusing. The American author of this book recalls being surprised the first time a student reported that her homework was 'spoilt'. It was possible from the context to understand that there was some sort of problem, but 'spoilt' for the American conjured up images of going bad due to natural processes (such as spoilt food). Undoubtedly the student did not mean that her homework became bad due to natural processes!
One feature of SE that is noticed by all who come for even a short stay is the heavy use of acronyms as part of everyday speech. All highways, many companies and schools, all government departments are referred to by their acronyms. It may be that in many cases individuals are not certain what the acronyms mean. Acronyms are not uncommon in other forms of English, so again, this is a difference of degree rather than an absolute distinction.Phonology
According to Gupta (1994), the phonology of SCE and StdE are not distinctly different. However, observation will show that there is a wide variety in the phonology of Singaporeans speaking English (e.g., Poedjosoedarmo, 2000). We cannot deal with all of that variety here. Suffice to say that there is phonological variation in all language varieties. There are not only the well-known differences such as British English as compared with American English as compared with Singaporean English, but also variations within British English and withing American English. (See Chapter 17.) Therefore, variation within Singaporean English is not surprising.
If we compare SE with BE or American English, we find differences in vowels and consonants (especially vowels), stress and rhythm and intonation. Extended discussion of this topic can be found in Brown, Deterding and Low (2000) and an overview can found in Brown & Low (2003). Only a few details are noted here.
Long vowels tend to be shorter in SE than in BE (Brown & Low, 2003), so some word pairs may not be as distinctly different in SE. For example, 'bit' /bIt/ and 'beat' /bit/ may sound very similar. Vowel length interacts with voiced consonants in at the end of words. In some words, like 'leak' and 'league', the final consonant is slightly different in BE. This slight difference may be characterized as voiced or voiceless but Brown and Low point out that the real difference is the influence on the vowel: the /k/ sound of 'leak' makes the vowel sound shorter. In BE, the /g/ sound of 'league' would make the vowel longer; however, in SE, it may also sound like a short vowel. With the shortened vowel, the distinction between the two words is lost.
Stress and rhythm is another area of difference if we compare SE and BE. In Chapter 9, we discussed literacy development and the role of morphophemics. One part of that is learning the changing stress patterns for some word families. For example, exPLAIN becomes explaNAtion. However, this sort of change in stress does not always occur in SE. For example, 'academy' may be similar in both SE and BE: aCAdemy. However, 'academic' shows a difference between the two:
a. SE aCAdemic
b. BE acaDEmic
In BE, the stress shifts, but in SE it does not (Deterding & Poedjosoedarmo, 1998).
Goh (2000) has investigated the use of intonation in discourse in SE. Her findings showed that prominence is often given to the final word of a 'tone unit'. Tone units are "perceptible phonological chunks in continuous speech" (p. 36, based on Brazil, 1997). This is especially true for the last unit of a stretch of speech, for example: //your adVICE// is absoLUTEly SOUND// (p. 37). In this case, the speaker gives prominence to 'advice' and to 'sound'. Generally, prominence is assigned to new information. However, Goh notes that in SE, "...it is sometimes difficult to determine whether assigning prominence is motivated by the speakers' intent to present matter as new or for other reasons, such as to reiterate a point or to signal the end of an utterance" (p. 38).
Goh (2000) makes two other observations. SE makes use of level tones, rising tones, and falling tones - as do other forms of English. However, SE seem to have a high frequency of level tones. This is also true of Malaysian English. Goh notes that this may be due to the influence of Chinese. In addition, SE tends not to use a fall-rise tone (common in BE). Instead SE tends to use a rising intonation pattern. For example: //(rising)WHAT KIND of// (rising)WRIting SYStem// (rising)do we USE// (rising)when we WRITE ENGlish// (Goh, 2000, p. 41)
These uses of intonation and tone patterns might create comprehension problems for non-Singaporean English-speakers. Goh presents four possible problems due to SE discourse intonation patterns (p. 43). Two are summarized here:
- If speakers believe that prominence highlights new information; the use of prominence when information is not new might be confusing.
- Also, the frequent use of rising tone by give the impression that the speaker is trying to dominate the conversation.Pragmatics
Perhaps one of the most noticeable features of SE is the use of pragmatic particles (Example 3). Gupta (1994) classifies these according to assertiveness with some, such as 'ah', being the least assertive, and others, such as 'lah', being more assertive. Two particles, 'mah' and 'what' can be used to indicate contradiction.Example 3
K: Everyday hor after I eat my lunch at recess at school . . . I finish already huh . . . I go to the drink stall and buy the 30 cents guava.
S: 30 cents guava . . . fruit is it?
M: How big is the guava?
L: Very small lah. Like that. Like that lah. (shows with her hands)
S: You eat every day is it?
K: Yes. Not every day.
S: So healthy huh?Many Singaporeans would claim that whenever these pragmatic particles are used, the speaker is using SCE. However, it is not always easy to draw a line between SCE and StdE. 'Lah' for example, is sometimes used even in relatively formal lecture settings. In addition, it is often combined in sentences that might be considered StdE based on language form (Example 4) or within conversations that have relatively standard forms elsewhere (Example 5).
Example 4
A boy reiterating a point in a story with a fish as the main character:
Child: Everyone has one scale lahExample 5
A young adult (A) conversing with a child (C):
Adult: Then why didn't you ask your brother to go to class?
Child: He don't want.
Adult: Why he don't want? You are the jie jie (elder sister) right? Jie Jie should ask him to go to class lor so that he can know about maths mah? Correct or not?It is interesting to note that up to this point in the conversation, the adult in Example 5 had used mostly StdE forms. However, after this exchange she continued to use for SCE forms for several exchanges, going back to using more StdE forms when she introduced a new topic to the child. Thus we see code-switching (refer to Chapter 4) between StdE and SCE as well as between languages (English and Mandarin, for example). It is difficult to categorically state that a Singaporean is an 'SCE speaker' or an 'StdE speaker'. It is common for individiauls to switch depending on the topic, who they are speaking with, etc.
This brings us to the question of who uses StdE or SCE, when and where. That will be discussed in the next section. First, let's review some of the features that distinguish StdE and SCE. Bear in mind as you look that these are generalizations about StdE and SCE. The lines between the two are not absolute; instead they are somewhat fluid.[ Language Use ]
In the last section, we noted that individuals might shift from StdE to SCE (or vice versa) depending on the topic, the person they are speaking with, the situation, etc. In other words, there are many variable that can influence the use of SCE if a person knows both varieties. This section considers some of the research on who uses SCE, and which variables might influence the use of StdE or SCE. To discuss this point, we must also consider who uses English in Singapore. Several factors come into play in identifying SE speakers: ethnicity, education and social class, religion and age.
Ethnicity
Overall, the number of people who use English at home is increasing in Singapore. However, there is some variation by ethnic group. Indians are the most likely to use English at home; almost 50% of the Indian population claim to use English as a home language. This is followed by the Chinese, about 16% say they use English at home. Among the Malays, home use of English is much lower, less than 10%. Although people report using more English at home, this doesn't mean that they don't use other languages as well.
Chinese (1990 - 23.3%) (2000 - 35.8%)
Malay (1990 - 8.3%) (2000 - 9.4%)
Indian (1990 - 39.6%) (2000 - 43.6%)
[Increase in Home Use of English by Ethnic Group]Education and Social Class
Education is a very important factor in who uses English. Not surprisingly, since higher education (i.e. university instruction) in Singapore is conducted in English, those who have higher education are more likely to use English, even at home. Since higher education usually translated into more professional jobs and higher income, there is a close connection between more education and higher social class. There is, in turn, a link between social class and English use: higher social class tends to be an indicator of English use at home (Gupta, 1994, p. 29).Religion
Religion and ethnicity tend to overlap in Singapore, and there are close connections with language choice. Muslims generally come from Malay, Indian or Arab ethnicities and tend to speak Malay. Arabic is known by very few. Among the Chinese, there is both linguistic and religious diversity. The most common religious affiliations among the Chinese are Buddhist, Confucian and Taoist with an increasing number of 'free thinkers' who profess no religious affiliation. However, Christians tend to speak English (Clammer, 1980). Religion also tends to overlap with education.Age
Above and beyong all the factors mentioned above, the younger a person is, the more likely he/she speaks English in Singapore. In addition, those in the younger, educated segment of the population are more likely to be literate in English. They might also be biliterate in English plus one other official language.
However, Gupta (1994) asserts that the English used at home is most likely SCE rather than StdE. She suggests that even when parents speak StdE, the language they use with children is SCE and thus SCE is the first language of these Singaporean children. StdE is generally not the language of the home in her view, but of the school.StdE, SCE and Diglossia
Gupta (1991) finds that users of SCE and StdE can be described as diglossic. (See Chapter 17). From the discussion above, you can see that there are differences in language form but vocabulary and phonology are largely shared. An important question is whether StdE and SCE are distinct in their use. Turning again to Gupta, she states:the H variety can be described as a Standard English, which is to be used in writing, is the medium of formal education, and is used in formal situations, ...the L variety ...is the normal language to use with children (outside of an educational setting), is the language of the home, and the language of informal interactions (p. 124)
The lines between formal and informal are blurry, however. When a teacher speaks to a child at school in the playground, is that a situation of formal or informal use? Anecdotally, some primary teachers report that in this situation, they would be more likely to use SCE, even though they are teachers. On the opposite side of the coin, parents helping children with homework are more likely to use StdE (Gupta, 1991, 1994). Thus, there does seem to be a separation is uses.
In addition, there may well be a distinction depending on conversational participants. Speaking to a non-Singaporean, would you be more likely to use SCE or StdE? Issues of identity and community membership come into play as well because SCE is also used to establish personal identity and group rapport.[ SCE and Singaporean Identity ]
From the discussions in Chapter 4 and 13, you know that language is not simply a matter of language form, semantics, etc. Language is also part of our identity and part of how we present ourselves to the world. Over the past few years, the Singaporean government has encouraged Singaporeans to speak more 'standard' English for the sake of international intelligibility. The purpose of English learning is considered to be communication across national and ethnic lines, especially for economic development and international trade (see Silver, 2002, for discussion). While many Singaporeans seem to agree with this, there are some who feel that SCE is the true language of Singapore.
For example, in letters written to the editor of the Straits Times, readers said:Seriously, what is wrong with Singlish? We must understand that every language is unique in its own way....In fact, I see quite a number of good reasons for using Singlish. One reason is that it forges a national identity. Freddie Sng Lai Yong, Nov 16, 1998
Part of the cultural evolution here in Singapore is the pervasive use of Singlish among Singaporeans. This has been a feature of life since I was a student here before we gained independence. With the development of local theatre and television productions, Singlish has been brought to life more obviously than before....Somehow, "don't pray, pray" and "blur" seems to say it all. People feel understood. They are not alienated. Bonding is enhanced. Anthony Yeo, September 7, 1999Two points are noteworthy about these comments. The first is that the writers refer to the power of Singlish (SCE) as a marker of Singaporean identity and of community bonding. The other is that all of the writers are readers of the newspaper and clearly able to use StdE for writing. Thus, we can speculate that they are proficient in both StdE and SCE. Being able to use both H and L varieties is obviously advantageous. However, as one government official has said:
Will we then write our own school and university textbooks in Singlish? Will Singlish help you to write a business proposal? Will mNCs [multi-national corporations], banks or even local companies prefer to hire you if you speak Singlish instead of Standard English? (Lee H. L., April 5, 2001)
This raises a question about those who are not proficient in both varieties.
[ Standard English, SCE and Proficiency ]
While Gupta has discussed StdE and SCE in terms of diglossia, others have taken different approaches. One approach explicitly considers the implications of different contexts for use of StdE/SCE and for different levels of proficiency. Pakir (1991) has described these variables or use of StdE/SCE in terms of embedded triangles. In her analysis, StdE (what she labels as 'SSE') forms the apex of the triangles. Speakers at this point are 'advanced' in proficiency (the right side of that triangle) and adept at using StdE in the 'formal' style. Beyond that, the model assumes that those who are adept at using the formal style are also able to use the styles below it (careful, casual, etc.).
The model implies that those who speak StdE (SSE) have access to the greatest variety of styles (from the most formal to the most intimate) while those who speak only SCE have the least access to the different styles, as well as lower overall proficiency. If so, this would be disadvantageous to those who speak only SCE. Other models have been proposed to take into account SCE speakers with limited SCE (e.g. Poedjosoedarmo, 1995) and ethnic differences (Deterding & Poedjosoedarmo, 2000). However, our purpose here is not to critique all sides of this mode, but to highlight that proficiency is not based solely on language knowledge (the right side of the triangles); it is also based on ability to use that knowledge appropriately in different situations (the left side of the triangles).
This might remind you of Bialystock's model for bilingualism (Chapter 4) because in that model Bialystock also tries to account for different dimensions of knowledge. However, her dimensions are largely psycholinguistics. Pakir's model (1991) includes sociolinguistic considerations of language use.
It is also worth noting that this model has some similarities with an international assessment standard for English oral proficiency, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language (ACTFL) Oral Proficiency Test. Models of proficiency used for setting standards in that test refer to a cone-like proficiency - an inversion of the triangle. Speech styles (called 'language functions' in their terminology), contexts (e.g., topics related to abstract ideas, professional interests, immediate personal matters, etc.) and accuracy of language form are taken into account (Omaggio, 1986). These different models of proficiency share three principles:
- proficiency includes language use as well as knowledge about language
- proficiency varies according to different contexts and situations
- gains in proficiency are not strictly linear (growing vertically); they also expand (gaining dimension).[ SCE and Learning 'Standard English' ]
How is it that some Singaporeans become proficient in StdE while others do not? Consider the environments for use of StdE and SCE in Singapore.
child/home (with peer - SCE) (with adult - SCE) (with teacher - not applicable)
child/lower primary (with peer - SCE) (with adult - SCE) (with teacher - SCE/StdE)
adolescent/secondary (with peer - SCE) (with adult - StdE?) (with teacher - StdE)
young adult/university (with peer - SCE) (with adult - StdE) (with teacher - StdE)
[ Environments for Use: StdE and SCE ]If SCE is the language of home and childhood and StdE is the language of higher education and professions, schools (especially primary and secondary schools) must provide the facilitating environment for the development of StdE. This is the stance taken by government policies and by teachers in the local schools.
While government policy and school curricula are aligned in terms of teaching 'standard' English as a goal, the problem of defining a 'standard' remains. Insisting on instruction of BE could be construed as a sort of continuing colonialism. It would also ignore current influences of American English through international business and the proliferation of American media. Above, we have referred to StdE and provided a very brief overview of some features that distinguish StdE from SCE from a linguistic point of view. However, decisions about the standard to teach in schools are based on policy decisions and public opinion rather than linguistic analysis.
The Singapore Ministry of Education in creating a new English syllabus for primary and secondary teaching has referred to "internationally acceptable English" as the goal. The new syllabus states, " 'Internationally acceptable English that is grammatical, fluent and appropriate for purpose, audience, context and culture' refers to the formal register of English used in different parts of the world, that is, standard English" (2001, p. 3). Although the definition is somewhat circular, the intention is clear:
- children should learn both language form and language use
- children must learn a formal variety of English.
It would seem that the form of StdE described by Gupta (1994) and modelled by Pakir (1991) would meet the goals for the most part, especially in terms of language form. Semantics, phonology, and pragmatics would also have to be addressed.[ Conclusion ]
As we saw in the chapters on language development in primaru amd secondary school, children and adolescents continue their linguistic development throughout those years. The new environments of school provide new environments for using language. Many of these new environments require formal English, thus providing an excellent context for learning a formal variety. Instruction can facilitate acquisition of that variety.
The learning of a formal variety is not necessarily speedy. As with other language learning, it is developmental and requires time. In addition, it is subject to all of the conditions and constraints that have been discussed in this book so far: normal developmental; individual differences; home environment for language and literacy; other languages that the child knows; other languages in the environment; cognitive processing; language socialization. -
Originally posted by Bangulzai:
Ah Chia and mh2
Since we are also on the topic of Singlish, I shall post some non-political-oriented article for more light-hearted reading :)
Singapore English: Learning and Use
Language Acquisition and Development, Christine C. M Goh & Rita Elaine Silver
[ Introduction ]
Singapore English (Singlish) is one of several international varieties of English that have evolved through a process of colonization, contact and localization. These new varieties of English may have a unique place in the local society, but their growth and use are sometimes considered to be problematic by those who encourage English language learning for commercial and political purposes. An 'international standard' of English is important for the latter purposes (as opposed to the use for communication within family, for example). However, it's difficult to determine what an international standard might be.
This chapter looks at Singapore English, the local variety that has grown and developed over the years, how it is learned and used within Singaporean society. The chapter will be more of a 'peek' than a 'look' because we cannot hope to cover all that has been learned about developing varieties of English or even about Singapore English. Instead, this chapter will cover basic issues that are of most immediate interest to English language teachers in local schools.
The chapter will address three broad questions which are related to sociolinguistic issues:
1. Where does Singapore English come from?
2. What are some of its most basic features?
3. Who uses Singapore Colloquial English, when and where?
Based on the information from these two questions, we will also briefly consider two questions that are more psycholinguistic and pedagogical:
4. What is the impact of this development (historical and descriptive) on individual English language learning in Singapore?
5. What does this mean for English language classroom teaching?[ Historical Background ]
Colonization by the British is a well-known feature of Singapore's history. In colonizing Singapore, the British established English as a language of government, commerce and education. It also became a language with status as those who knew English were able to rise to more lucrative and powerful positions in society. However, English was not used in isolation. Singapore has always been a multilingual society with many of its residents using multiple language varieties in their daily lives. In the 1960s and 1970s, a Singapore or Malaysia Chinese might have spoken three or four language varieties to varying degrees of proficiency. Other languages might have been used as well. English may or may not have been one of the most proficient varieties for an individual. It usually includes the native Chinese dialect, the dominant Chinese dialect, one or more additional Chinese dialects, Bahasa Pasar. It may include English, Baba Malay, Bahasa Malaysia/Malay, Mandarin ( - typical verbal repertoire of a Singaporean or Malaysian Chinese, 1980).
The national education system, established after Singapore became an independent nation in 1965, has changed the language mix that Singaporeans know and use in their daily lives. It usually includes English, Mandarin, the native Chinese 'dialect'. It may include another Chinese dialect, a foreign language (Japanese, French), Malay (- typical verbal repertoire of a Singaporean Chinese Undergraduate, 1990). However, the educational system has also consistently promoted bilingualism through instruction in English and one of the other national languages (i.e., Mandarin, Malay, Tamil). This sort of bilingualism, with English as one of the key languages, is common enough internationally to have its own name, "English-knowing bilingualism" (Kachru, 1982a, p. 42).
As English in Singapore came in contact with other, local languages, it was influenced by the features of those other languages. Not all change is due to contact with other languages, however. There is historical change in every language as well as adaptation to new circumstances, new ideas and new cultural patterns. A common example nowadays is applying general-use terms to specific meanings related to computers (e.g., memory, mouse, surf, web) and the use of specialized computer terms as part of everyday speech to accompany the everyday use of computers (download, e- [e-mail, e-commerce, etc.]). If a person in Singapore, Hong Kong or Malaysia said they spent the evening 'surfing', most of us would imagine the person sitting at a computer, not at the ocean with a surfboard. Thus, it is not surprising that localised varieties of English have taken on features, especially the adoption of lexical items, which are relevant to the local context.[ Features of Singapore English ]
What, then, are some of the common linguistic features of English in Singapore? It's difficult to address this topic by pure description without reference to other Englishes. This also leads to questions about our assumptions. If we compare Singapore English (SE) with British English (BE) based on BE being an older variety, are we claiming that British English is better or highlighting ways in which SE doesn't measure up? This goes against basic linguistic principles which presuppose that all language varieties are equal in the sense that all languages complex systems making use of language form, semantics, phonology and pragmatics;, all are rule-governed systems and all have communicative value.
Equally problematic, a comparison of SE with BE assumes that BE is a monolithic linguistic code, when we know that it has a great deal of variety (e.g. Cockney English, Received Pronunciation [RP], etc.). In fact, there are two problems here: determining a standard and determining a norm (Kachru, 1982b). Determining a standard as well as determining similarity to or deviation from that standard, has to do with prescriptive ideas about language: what is right, what is proper. However, determining a norm has to do with description: establishing what is accepted, common practice within a specific context. Knowledge of SE norms is still developing with current research projects including, for example, The NIE Corpus of Spoken Singapore English (Deterding & Low, 2001) and the Grammar of Singapore English Corpus (Lim, Fong, Ni & Wee, n.d.).
With reference to standards, two forms of SE are commonly referred to: Singapore Standard English (StdE) and Singapore Colloquial English (SCE). StdE is a 'high variety' of English which, in this chapter, is intended to indicate that it is the more formal, more educated variety. (See Chapter 17.) It is very similar to other standard forms of English (Gupta, 1986). SCE, on the other hand, can be distinguished between StdE and SCE especially in syntax and morphology. Both of them may share a similar 'Singaporean' phonology which is somewhat different to other standard Englishes. both make use of some localized lexical items, including borrowings from other local languages.
We will describe features of StdE and SCE following major categories described by Gupta (1991, 1994). As she notes, "These are not the only differences between the two varieties, but are analytically straightforward salient features" (1994, p. 9). As such, they are perhaps readily identifiable to language teachers in EL classrooms. Gupta's classification relies on describing each variety, StdE and SCE in its own right, so the comparison is not completely balanced.[ Language Form ]
Gupta (1994) describes two features of SCE and two of StdE that are related to syntax. Other forms relate to morphology. As you will see in the discussion, it is not easy to completely separate some of the syntactic and morphological patterns because they influence each other.
Syntax
Question forms with inversion are part of StdE syntax. These can be used with yes/no questions, wh-questions and questions with two verbs. In SCE, only two verbs are commonly used with inversion, 'be' and 'can'. In addition, fronting is possible with all wh-words in StdE. However, the rules for SCE questions with fronting are more complex: 'why' and 'how' are always fronted; 'what', 'where' and 'who' are sometimes, but not always, fronted, and, 'which' and 'how many' are normally not fronted (see Gupta, 1994, for detailed discussion).
As we saw in Chapter 3, there is a developmental sequence for question forms in English, including stages for fronting and inversion. Although Gupta does find a developmental sequence for question forms ('interrogatives' in her terms) in SCE, this sequence is somewhat different to the sequence normally found for English first language children and the one for L2 English learners, as summarized in Table 3.3 (Chapter 3). The acquisition of wh-words ('what', 'why', etc.) is similar cross-linguistically for children and Gupta reports that it is similar in SCE for the four children she studied.
However, the acquisition of word order and question forms is more complex. As noted above, there are some similiarities to and differences from StdE, at least partially because other features of SCE interact with question forms. One feature of SCE is verbless and subjectless sentences. If it is possible to understand the grammatical subject of the sentence from the context, it is not necessary to state it. In Example 1, you can see that when the grammatical subject is necessary for comprehension ('mummy' and 'papa') the child includes them. However, when the grammatical subject is understood from the context ('then [I] no eat loh'), it is omitted.Example 1 Subjectless sentences in context
A: Have you eaten sushi before?
C: No
A: Why?
C: Mummy no buy, then no eat loh. Papa also no buy.Likewise, verbs are not always necessary, especially copula 'be'. In addition, 'ing' forms can be used as the finite verb (e.g., "Today I going swimming.').
If we take this information together, we can see that SCE learners cannot use inversion in some cases. Clearly, you cannot invert the grammatical-subject and the verb to form a question if the sentence does not use a grammatical subject (e.g., 'Why got it?'). However, we also saw in Example 1 that even with a grammatical subject, SCE speakers sometimes do not invert (e.g., 'Why he don't want?'). Likewise, SCE speakers are unlikely to use complex questions that make use of relative clauses with wh-words because SCE constructs relative clauses differently.
Another feature of StdE syntax is the use of complex verb groups including modal auxiliaries other than 'can' (which is also used in SCE), auxiliary 'do' and 'have' (e.g., 'why do you keep on opening and closing the door?' or 'Listen, C., I don't want you to spend hours watching the VCDs.'). This is unusual in SCE. Finally, SCE can form conditional and temporal clauses without subordinating conjunctions 'if' or 'when' (see example 2).Example 2
C is a Singaporean pre school child. She is speaking with an adult.
A: What are you doing?
C: I put table, people can sit.
A: How to 'sit'?
C: Put here, people come to sit, you know.Morphology
We've seen several broad categories of differences in StdE and SCE syntax, what about morphology? In this area too, we find some differences. StdE uses inflectional morphology more than SCE. In StdE, morphemes for third person singular 's' and past tense are used. This is not required in SCE. StdE also uses noun inflections to mark plurals and possessives; this is generally done with pronouns in SCE but not with nouns.
As we saw in Chapter 6, morphemes are commonly used to track English development of first language children. However, SCE does not require inflectional morphology in some case. As with the developmental sequences related to syntax, we cannot assume that morphological models such as Brown's (1973) exactly fit Singaporean children who grow up with SCE as their first language. Therefore, development sequences for English from other contexts must be applied carefully when teaching Singaporean children. Developmental sequences from research on children in contexts such as the US and the UK may indicate broad trends for comparison with Singaporean children. However, we cannot expect a perfect match. Stage of English development, developing biligualism (with interactions between the two languages) and access to SCE all influence normal development in English for Singaporean children. Again this indicates, as stated elsewhere in this book, that some knowledge of the child's home language background may be useful to classroom teachers.Semantics
It is difficult to talk about sematic differences in SCE and StdE because vocabulary is very similar. If we speak about SE, however, there are clearly some special vocabulary items that relate to the local context. Some of these vocabulary item refer to cultural aspect of Singapore ('hawker centre', 'void deck'); others are loan words from other local languages ('karang guni', 'kiasu'). In some cases we even find both: 'Maggie mee' is borrowed from the name of the company and includes the loan item 'mee' from Hokkien. There are also a few new creations, or coinages, such as 'Singlish' and 'handphone'. All of these phenomena for creating vocabulary words are common in other languages and especially in other varieties of English. As Strevens points out, "English" is inherently a borrowing and an Anglicizing language" (1992, p. 31). All forms of English make use of borrowing, loans and coinages.
In some cases, the same words are used in different English varietis but with different meanings. With the examples above, of vocabulary items that reflect local contexts, it would be possible to explain the word meanings. However, when two individuals use the same word with two meaning, the situation is potentially more confusing. The American author of this book recalls being surprised the first time a student reported that her homework was 'spoilt'. It was possible from the context to understand that there was some sort of problem, but 'spoilt' for the American conjured up images of going bad due to natural processes (such as spoilt food). Undoubtedly the student did not mean that her homework became bad due to natural processes!
One feature of SE that is noticed by all who come for even a short stay is the heavy use of acronyms as part of everyday speech. All highways, many companies and schools, all government departments are referred to by their acronyms. It may be that in many cases individuals are not certain what the acronyms mean. Acronyms are not uncommon in other forms of English, so again, this is a difference of degree rather than an absolute distinction.Phonology
According to Gupta (1994), the phonology of SCE and StdE are not distinctly different. However, observation will show that there is a wide variety in the phonology of Singaporeans speaking English (e.g., Poedjosoedarmo, 2000). We cannot deal with all of that variety here. Suffice to say that there is phonological variation in all language varieties. There are not only the well-known differences such as British English as compared with American English as compared with Singaporean English, but also variations within British English and withing American English. (See Chapter 17.) Therefore, variation within Singaporean English is not surprising.
If we compare SE with BE or American English, we find differences in vowels and consonants (especially vowels), stress and rhythm and intonation. Extended discussion of this topic can be found in Brown, Deterding and Low (2000) and an overview can found in Brown & Low (2003). Only a few details are noted here.
Long vowels tend to be shorter in SE than in BE (Brown & Low, 2003), so some word pairs may not be as distinctly different in SE. For example, 'bit' /bIt/ and 'beat' /bit/ may sound very similar. Vowel length interacts with voiced consonants in at the end of words. In some words, like 'leak' and 'league', the final consonant is slightly different in BE. This slight difference may be characterized as voiced or voiceless but Brown and Low point out that the real difference is the influence on the vowel: the /k/ sound of 'leak' makes the vowel sound shorter. In BE, the /g/ sound of 'league' would make the vowel longer; however, in SE, it may also sound like a short vowel. With the shortened vowel, the distinction between the two words is lost.
Stress and rhythm is another area of difference if we compare SE and BE. In Chapter 9, we discussed literacy development and the role of morphophemics. One part of that is learning the changing stress patterns for some word families. For example, exPLAIN becomes explaNAtion. However, this sort of change in stress does not always occur in SE. For example, 'academy' may be similar in both SE and BE: aCAdemy. However, 'academic' shows a difference between the two:
a. SE aCAdemic
b. BE acaDEmic
In BE, the stress shifts, but in SE it does not (Deterding & Poedjosoedarmo, 1998).
Goh (2000) has investigated the use of intonation in discourse in SE. Her findings showed that prominence is often given to the final word of a 'tone unit'. Tone units are "perceptible phonological chunks in continuous speech" (p. 36, based on Brazil, 1997). This is especially true for the last unit of a stretch of speech, for example: //your adVICE// is absoLUTEly SOUND// (p. 37). In this case, the speaker gives prominence to 'advice' and to 'sound'. Generally, prominence is assigned to new information. However, Goh notes that in SE, "...it is sometimes difficult to determine whether assigning prominence is motivated by the speakers' intent to present matter as new or for other reasons, such as to reiterate a point or to signal the end of an utterance" (p. 38).
Goh (2000) makes two other observations. SE makes use of level tones, rising tones, and falling tones - as do other forms of English. However, SE seem to have a high frequency of level tones. This is also true of Malaysian English. Goh notes that this may be due to the influence of Chinese. In addition, SE tends not to use a fall-rise tone (common in BE). Instead SE tends to use a rising intonation pattern. For example: //(rising)WHAT KIND of// (rising)WRIting SYStem// (rising)do we USE// (rising)when we WRITE ENGlish// (Goh, 2000, p. 41)
These uses of intonation and tone patterns might create comprehension problems for non-Singaporean English-speakers. Goh presents four possible problems due to SE discourse intonation patterns (p. 43). Two are summarized here:
- If speakers believe that prominence highlights new information; the use of prominence when information is not new might be confusing.
- Also, the frequent use of rising tone by give the impression that the speaker is trying to dominate the conversation.Pragmatics
Perhaps one of the most noticeable features of SE is the use of pragmatic particles (Example 3). Gupta (1994) classifies these according to assertiveness with some, such as 'ah', being the least assertive, and others, such as 'lah', being more assertive. Two particles, 'mah' and 'what' can be used to indicate contradiction.Example 3
K: Everyday hor after I eat my lunch at recess at school . . . I finish already huh . . . I go to the drink stall and buy the 30 cents guava.
S: 30 cents guava . . . fruit is it?
M: How big is the guava?
L: Very small lah. Like that. Like that lah. (shows with her hands)
S: You eat every day is it?
K: Yes. Not every day.
S: So healthy huh?Many Singaporeans would claim that whenever these pragmatic particles are used, the speaker is using SCE. However, it is not always easy to draw a line between SCE and StdE. 'Lah' for example, is sometimes used even in relatively formal lecture settings. In addition, it is often combined in sentences that might be considered StdE based on language form (Example 4) or within conversations that have relatively standard forms elsewhere (Example 5).
Example 4
A boy reiterating a point in a story with a fish as the main character:
Child: Everyone has one scale lahExample 5
A young adult (A) conversing with a child (C):
Adult: Then why didn't you ask your brother to go to class?
Child: He don't want.
Adult: Why he don't want? You are the jie jie (elder sister) right? Jie Jie should ask him to go to class lor so that he can know about maths mah? Correct or not?It is interesting to note that up to this point in the conversation, the adult in Example 5 had used mostly StdE forms. However, after this exchange she continued to use for SCE forms for several exchanges, going back to using more StdE forms when she introduced a new topic to the child. Thus we see code-switching (refer to Chapter 4) between StdE and SCE as well as between languages (English and Mandarin, for example). It is difficult to categorically state that a Singaporean is an 'SCE speaker' or an 'StdE speaker'. It is common for individiauls to switch depending on the topic, who they are speaking with, etc.
This brings us to the question of who uses StdE or SCE, when and where. That will be discussed in the next section. First, let's review some of the features that distinguish StdE and SCE. Bear in mind as you look that these are generalizations about StdE and SCE. The lines between the two are not absolute; instead they are somewhat fluid.[ Language Use ]
In the last section, we noted that individuals might shift from StdE to SCE (or vice versa) depending on the topic, the person they are speaking with, the situation, etc. In other words, there are many variable that can influence the use of SCE if a person knows both varieties. This section considers some of the research on who uses SCE, and which variables might influence the use of StdE or SCE. To discuss this point, we must also consider who uses English in Singapore. Several factors come into play in identifying SE speakers: ethnicity, education and social class, religion and age.
Ethnicity
Overall, the number of people who use English at home is increasing in Singapore. However, there is some variation by ethnic group. Indians are the most likely to use English at home; almost 50% of the Indian population claim to use English as a home language. This is followed by the Chinese, about 16% say they use English at home. Among the Malays, home use of English is much lower, less than 10%. Although people report using more English at home, this doesn't mean that they don't use other languages as well.
Chinese (1990 - 23.3%) (2000 - 35.8%)
Malay (1990 - 8.3%) (2000 - 9.4%)
Indian (1990 - 39.6%) (2000 - 43.6%)
[Increase in Home Use of English by Ethnic Group]Education and Social Class
Education is a very important factor in who uses English. Not surprisingly, since higher education (i.e. university instruction) in Singapore is conducted in English, those who have higher education are more likely to use English, even at home. Since higher education usually translated into more professional jobs and higher income, there is a close connection between more education and higher social class. There is, in turn, a link between social class and English use: higher social class tends to be an indicator of English use at home (Gupta, 1994, p. 29).Religion
Religion and ethnicity tend to overlap in Singapore, and there are close connections with language choice. Muslims generally come from Malay, Indian or Arab ethnicities and tend to speak Malay. Arabic is known by very few. Among the Chinese, there is both linguistic and religious diversity. The most common religious affiliations among the Chinese are Buddhist, Confucian and Taoist with an increasing number of 'free thinkers' who profess no religious affiliation. However, Christians tend to speak English (Clammer, 1980). Religion also tends to overlap with education.Age
Above and beyong all the factors mentioned above, the younger a person is, the more likely he/she speaks English in Singapore. In addition, those in the younger, educated segment of the population are more likely to be literate in English. They might also be biliterate in English plus one other official language.
However, Gupta (1994) asserts that the English used at home is most likely SCE rather than StdE. She suggests that even when parents speak StdE, the language they use with children is SCE and thus SCE is the first language of these Singaporean children. StdE is generally not the language of the home in her view, but of the school.StdE, SCE and Diglossia
Gupta (1991) finds that users of SCE and StdE can be described as diglossic. (See Chapter 17). From the discussion above, you can see that there are differences in language form but vocabulary and phonology are largely shared. An important question is whether StdE and SCE are distinct in their use. Turning again to Gupta, she states:The lines between formal and informal are blurry, however. When a teacher speaks to a child at school in the playground, is that a situation of formal or informal use? Anecdotally, some primary teachers report that in this situation, they would be more likely to use SCE, even though they are teachers. On the opposite side of the coin, parents helping children with homework are more likely to use StdE (Gupta, 1991, 1994). Thus, there does seem to be a separation is uses.
In addition, there may well be a distinction depending on conversational participants. Speaking to a non-Singaporean, would you be more likely to use SCE or StdE? Issues of identity and community membership come into play as well because SCE is also used to establish personal identity and group rapport.[ SCE and Singaporean Identity ]
From the discussions in Chapter 4 and 13, you know that language is not simply a matter of language form, semantics, etc. Language is also part of our identity and part of how we present ourselves to the world. Over the past few years, the Singaporean government has encouraged Singaporeans to speak more 'standard' English for the sake of international intelligibility. The purpose of English learning is considered to be communication across national and ethnic lines, especially for economic development and international trade (see Silver, 2002, for discussion). While many Singaporeans seem to agree with this, there are some who feel that SCE is the true language of Singapore.
For example, in letters written to the editor of the Straits Times, readers said:Two points are noteworthy about these comments. The first is that the writers refer to the power of Singlish (SCE) as a marker of Singaporean identity and of community bonding. The other is that all of the writers are readers of the newspaper and clearly able to use StdE for writing. Thus, we can speculate that they are proficient in both StdE and SCE. Being able to use both H and L varieties is obviously advantageous. However, as one government official has said:
This raises a question about those who are not proficient in both varieties.
[ Standard English, SCE and Proficiency ]
While Gupta has discussed StdE and SCE in terms of diglossia, others have taken different approaches. One approach explicitly considers the implications of different contexts for use of StdE/SCE and for different levels of proficiency. Pakir (1991) has described these variables or use of StdE/SCE in terms of embedded triangles. In her analysis, StdE (what she labels as 'SSE') forms the apex of the triangles. Speakers at this point are 'advanced' in proficiency (the right side of that triangle) and adept at using StdE in the 'formal' style. Beyond that, the model assumes that those who are adept at using the formal style are also able to use the styles below it (careful, casual, etc.).
The model implies that those who speak StdE (SSE) have access to the greatest variety of styles (from the most formal to the most intimate) while those who speak only SCE have the least access to the different styles, as well as lower overall proficiency. If so, this would be disadvantageous to those who speak only SCE. Other models have been proposed to take into account SCE speakers with limited SCE (e.g. Poedjosoedarmo, 1995) and ethnic differences (Deterding & Poedjosoedarmo, 2000). However, our purpose here is not to critique all sides of this mode, but to highlight that proficiency is not based solely on language knowledge (the right side of the triangles); it is also based on ability to use that knowledge appropriately in different situations (the left side of the triangles).
This might remind you of Bialystock's model for bilingualism (Chapter 4) because in that model Bialystock also tries to account for different dimensions of knowledge. However, her dimensions are largely psycholinguistics. Pakir's model (1991) includes sociolinguistic considerations of language use.
It is also worth noting that this model has some similarities with an international assessment standard for English oral proficiency, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language (ACTFL) Oral Proficiency Test. Models of proficiency used for setting standards in that test refer to a cone-like proficiency - an inversion of the triangle. Speech styles (called 'language functions' in their terminology), contexts (e.g., topics related to abstract ideas, professional interests, immediate personal matters, etc.) and accuracy of language form are taken into account (Omaggio, 1986). These different models of proficiency share three principles:
- proficiency includes language use as well as knowledge about language
- proficiency varies according to different contexts and situations
- gains in proficiency are not strictly linear (growing vertically); they also expand (gaining dimension).[ SCE and Learning 'Standard English' ]
How is it that some Singaporeans become proficient in StdE while others do not? Consider the environments for use of StdE and SCE in Singapore.
child/home (with peer - SCE) (with adult - SCE) (with teacher - not applicable)
child/lower primary (with peer - SCE) (with adult - SCE) (with teacher - SCE/StdE)
adolescent/secondary (with peer - SCE) (with adult - StdE?) (with teacher - StdE)
young adult/university (with peer - SCE) (with adult - StdE) (with teacher - StdE)
[ Environments for Use: StdE and SCE ]If SCE is the language of home and childhood and StdE is the language of higher education and professions, schools (especially primary and secondary schools) must provide the facilitating environment for the development of StdE. This is the stance taken by government policies and by teachers in the local schools.
While government policy and school curricula are aligned in terms of teaching 'standard' English as a goal, the problem of defining a 'standard' remains. Insisting on instruction of BE could be construed as a sort of continuing colonialism. It would also ignore current influences of American English through international business and the proliferation of American media. Above, we have referred to StdE and provided a very brief overview of some features that distinguish StdE from SCE from a linguistic point of view. However, decisions about the standard to teach in schools are based on policy decisions and public opinion rather than linguistic analysis.
The Singapore Ministry of Education in creating a new English syllabus for primary and secondary teaching has referred to "internationally acceptable English" as the goal. The new syllabus states, " 'Internationally acceptable English that is grammatical, fluent and appropriate for purpose, audience, context and culture' refers to the formal register of English used in different parts of the world, that is, standard English" (2001, p. 3). Although the definition is somewhat circular, the intention is clear:
- children should learn both language form and language use
- children must learn a formal variety of English.
It would seem that the form of StdE described by Gupta (1994) and modelled by Pakir (1991) would meet the goals for the most part, especially in terms of language form. Semantics, phonology, and pragmatics would also have to be addressed.[ Conclusion ]
As we saw in the chapters on language development in primaru amd secondary school, children and adolescents continue their linguistic development throughout those years. The new environments of school provide new environments for using language. Many of these new environments require formal English, thus providing an excellent context for learning a formal variety. Instruction can facilitate acquisition of that variety.
The learning of a formal variety is not necessarily speedy. As with other language learning, it is developmental and requires time. In addition, it is subject to all of the conditions and constraints that have been discussed in this book so far: normal developmental; individual differences; home environment for language and literacy; other languages that the child knows; other languages in the environment; cognitive processing; language socialization.
You power lehh my eye now @_@ -
wah.. from one person trying to tell ppl to use proper english become gahmen bashing..
lyk that also can ah..