Singapore English: A grammatical description [1 ed.] 9789027294807, 9789027248930

Citation preview

Singapore English: A grammatical description

Varieties of English Around the World

General Editor Edgar W. Schneider Department of English & American Studies University of Regensburg Universitätsstraße 31 D-93053 REGENSBURG Germany [email protected] Editorial Assistants Alexander Kautzsch, Magnus Huber (Regensburg) Editorial Board Laurie Bauer (Wellington); Manfred Görlach (Cologne); Rajend Mesthrie (Cape Town); Peter Trudgill (Fribourg); Walt Wolfram (Raleigh, NC)

General Series Volume G33 Singapore English: A grammatical description Edited by Lisa Lim

Singapore English A grammatical description

Edited by

Lisa Lim University of Amsterdam

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Cover picture: The sculpture ‘The River Merchants’ (sculptor: Aw Tee Hong) is located at the mouth of the Singapore River, and portrays Alexander Laurie Johnston, Scotsman and prominent merchant, interacting with a Chinese trader and Malay chief. It is in encounters of this type where different languages meet that innovative linguistic features – such as those found in Singapore English – arise.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Singapore English : a grammatical description / edited by Lisa Lim. p. cm. (Varieties of English Around the World, issn 0172–7362 ; v. g33) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. English language--Singapore--Grammar. 2. English language--Variation-Singapore. 3. English language--Dialects--Singapore. 4. Singapore-Languages. I. Lim, Lisa. II. Series. PE3502.S5S56 427’.95957-dc22

2004 2004057688

isbn 90 272 4893 1 (Eur.) / 1 58811 576 3 (US) (Hb; alk. paper) © 2004 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents

Acknowledgements Tables & Figures Chapter  English in Singapore and Singapore English Background and methodology . Preamble  .2 A brief history 2 .2. English arrives in Singapore 2 .2.2 English in education 3 .2.3 And English in the home and streets 5 .3 A brief history of Singapore English scholarship 7 .4 The Grammar of Spoken Singapore English Corpus (GSSEC) 0 .4. Collecting the data  .4.2 Who are the Singapore English speakers?  .4.3 The resulting corpus 2 .4.4 Transcription 3 .5 Outline of volume 4 .6 Concluding remarks 6 Chapter 2 Sounding Singaporean 2. Introduction 9 2.2 Vowels 20 2.2. Inventory 20 2.2.2 Monophthong realisation and distribution 20 2.2.3 Diphthongs, and triphthongs? 23 2.2.4 Rhotacisation 25 2.2.5 Vowel substrate influence? 25 2.3 Consonants 27 2.3. Voiceless plosives 28 2.3.2 Voiced obstruents 29

XI XIII  

9

vi

Table of contents

2.3.3 Dental fricatives 29 2.3.4 Nasal deletion 30 2.3.5 Liquids and glides 3 2.3.5. l vocalisation 3 2.3.5.2 r, taps and flaps 3 2.3.5.3 r deletion 3 2.3.5.4 v ~ w alternation 32 2.3.6 Syllable structure processes 32 2.3.6. Syllabic consonants 32 2.3.6.2 Final consonant deletion or replacement 32 2.3.6.3 Consonant cluster reduction 33 2.3.7 Liaison 34 2.3.8 Consonantal substrate influences? 34 2.4 Prosodic features 37 2.4. Intonation forms and functions 39 2.4.. Declaratives 39 2.4..2 Interrogatives 39 2.4..3 Imperatives 4 2.4..4 Exclamatives 4 2.4.2 Characteristic CSE forms 42 2.4.2. Sustained level steps 42 2.4.2.2 Phrase-final lengthening 43 2.4.2.3 Particles 45 2.4.2.4 Pitch patterns and particles from the substrates? 47 2.4.3 Focus and prominence 49 2.4.3. Focus placement 49 2.4.3.2 Prominence cues 52 2.4.3.3 Substrate prosody? 52 2.5 Conclusions 53 Chapter 3 Nouns and noun phrases 3. Introduction 57 3.2 Nouns and definiteness 58 3.2. Indefinite articles 58 3.2.2 Definite articles 60 3.2.3 Premodifiers as heads 62

57

Table of contents

3.3

3.4

3.5 3.6 3.7

Number and agreement 63 3.3. Number 63 3.3.2 Agreement 65 Different ‘ones’ 66 3.4. Relative one? 67 3.4.2. Reifier one? 68 3.4.3 More on ‘singulative’ 70 PRO-drop 7 Heavy NP shift 72 Conclusions 73

Chapter 4 The verbal cluster 4. Introduction 75 4.2 Verb forms 77 4.2. Optionality of verbal inflections 77 4.2.2 Verb forms and their uses 79 4.3 The copula be and other predicate phrases 82 4.4 Be as an auxiliary 85 4.4. The progressive auxiliary be 85 4.4.2 The passive auxiliary be 86 4.4.3 Be as part of be supposed to 87 4.5 Factors determining the (co-)occurrence of auxiliaries 87 4.5. Auxiliary clusters 87 4.5.2 Subject NPs, negation, and the auxiliary 88 4.5.3 Wh-interrogatives and subject-auxiliary inversion 9 4.5.4 ‘Do-support’ 9 4.6 Verb reduplication and aspectual classes of events 92 4.6. Verb reduplication 92 4.6.2 Tests for aspectual classes in CSE 93 4.6.3 Constraints on verb reduplication 95 4.7 Passive constructions 97 4.7. Four types of passive constructions 97 4.7.2 The kena passive 98 4.8 Conclusion 99

75

vii

viii

Table of contents

Chapter 5 Reduplication and discourse particles 5. Introduction 05 5.2 Reduplication 06 5.2. Nouns 06 5.2.2 Adjectives 08 5.2.3 Verbs 09 5.2.3. Attenuation 0 5.2.3.2 Continuity 0 5.2.4 Adverbs 2 5.3 The possibility of substratal influence 3 5.3. Other cases of substratal influence 3 5.3.2 Substratal influence in the case of CSE reduplication 4 5.4 Discourse particles 7 5.4. lah 8 5.4.2 ma 9 5.4.3 wat 20 5.4.4 meh 2 5.4.5 leh 22 5.4.6 lor 22 5.4.7 hor 23 5.4.8 hah 25 5.5 A brief summary of the particles 25 5.6 Conclusion 26 Chapter 6 The evolution of Singapore English: Finding the matrix 6. Introduction 27 6.2 Problems of classification 29 6.3 Sources of hybridity in SE 3 6.3. The lexifier 32 6.3.2 Substrates and adstrates 32 6.3.2. Reduplication patterns 33 6.3.2.2 Copula & property verbs 35 6.3.2.3 TMA system 36 6.3.2.4 ‘Passives’ 38 6.3.2.5 Nouns and polyfunctionality 39 6.3.3 Final remarks 40

05

27

Table of contents

6.4 Origins of English in Singapore 4 6.5 Conclusions 45 References

5

Name index

65

Subject index

67

ix

Acknowledgements My first expression of appreciation is for Umberto Ansaldo, who one day got me to see that I could put this volume together, and who all days got me to keep at it and to believe it would be worth it. I also owe my thanks to Joe Foley for having invited me to be Co-P.I. on the project whose data formed the basis of this book; and the other members of the research project team and authors of chapters in this volume for being integral and interested parties in both endeavours, and for enduring the numerous delays both have encountered, always with good cheer: I hope it’s been worth it. I am especially beholden to Lionel Wee and Umberto Ansaldo for their extra little contribution, stepping in when things seemed at a stand-still. I am grateful to Salikoko Mufwene for his enthusiasm over the volume and his thoughts and feedback on earlier drafts of some chapters; and to Edgar Schneider for his critical eye and constructive comments on later drafts of the manuscript: I am glad that he felt this a volume that would make a valuable contribution to the Varieties of English Around the World series, and trust that it does not disappoint. I am also thankful for the incredible patience and good humour that Kees Vaes at John Benjamins must certainly possess, and his fortunately-not-misplaced faith that the manuscript would ultimately come in. The descriptions in this volume would not be without the data. I acknowledge the support provided by the National University of Singapore’s Academic Research Grant R-103-000-003-112 which funded the research project Towards a Reference Grammar of Singapore English in which the Grammar of Spoken Singapore English Corpus (GSSEC) database was collected. Our students at the Department of English Language and Literature at the National University of Singapore, too numerous to mention by name, also played no small part in this. For toiling over the orthographic and phonetic transcriptions, we are obliged to the Honours and postgraduate students. I am particularly indebted to Diane Chang who, amongst many other tasks, digitised the data and checked and standardised the transcripts, and whose technological know-how with recordings and webpages has been invaluable. Finally, where would we be if not for our native Singapore English speakers and their friends and family who put up with having their otherwise private lives recorded, and who provided

xii

Acknowledgements

conversations which not only comprise a precious resource but which are, above all, animated, amusing, and utterly Singaporean. Thanks, hor. LL Amsterdam & Singapore; June 2004

Tables & Figures Table 2.1. Standard Lexical Sets for SSBE, GA, SSE and CSE. Table 2.2. Monophthongs of CSE. Table 2.3. Monophthongs of Hokkien. Table 2.4. Monophthongs of Cantonese. Table 2.5. Monophthongs of (Singapore) Mandarin. Table 2.6. Monophthongs of Malay. Table 2.7. Monophthongs of Tamil. Table 2.8. CSE (merged) phonemes matched with vowels of local languages. Table 2.9. Consonants of CSE. Table 2.10. Consonants of Hokkien. Table 2.11. Consonants of Cantonese. Table 2.12. Consonants of (Singapore) Mandarin. Table 2.13. Consonants of Malay. Table 2.14. Consonants of Tamil. Table 2.15. A summary of the INTSINT symbols, adapted for SE. Table 5.1. Reduplication in CSE. Table 5.2. Reduplication in Malay. Table 5.3. Reduplication in Mandarin Chinese. Table 5.4. Similarities in reduplication functions in CSE, Malay and Chinese. Table 6.1. Reduplication patterns and functions in SE and the substrates. Figure 2.1. Figure 2.2. Figure 2.3. Figure 2.4.

Gradual fall: third year. Rise-fall: yes. Level tune: you told me. Fall-level: (I think) happier.

2 2 26 26 26 26 26 27 28 35 35 36 36 36 38 4 4 5 6 36 40 4 44 44

Chapter 

English in Singapore and Singapore English Background and methodology Lisa Lim† and Joseph A. Foley‡ †University

of Amsterdam Asian Ministers of Education Organisation (Regional Language Centre), Singapore ‡Southeast

. Preamble There are not many these days who are not acquainted with Singapore English (SE) – often fondly referred to as Singlish:1 much scholarly research has been published on it; it figures in current surveys of varieties of English as well as in textbooks; it has a listing in dictionaries, and even has dedicated websites. What is the need then for yet another volume on Singapore English? This volume is particular because its description of structural features of Singapore English is based on a large corpus of naturally-occurring spontaneous speech of young, native speakers of Singapore English, and hence what the reader will find in this volume is a description of a vibrant, current, contemporary, colloquial Singapore English, spoken by the Singapore English speaker of today, that is, those young Singaporeans who grew up during a period where, for all their school-going years, they have had to be what has been referred to as “English-knowing bilinguals” (Pakir 1992), that is, they have had to be proficient in English and their ‘mother tongue’ (these notions to be expounded upon in Section 1.2.2). This volume will describe not just the features which distinguish SE from other varieties of English and, indeed, which characterise it as SE, but will also highlight the many aspects that it does share with other varieties. Singapore English has, since first written about three decades ago (Tongue 1974), morphed into quite a different animal, and it still continues to change. This is in no small way because of the speed at which language policies are implemented, and the speed at which the country and its community has developed. The next section will provide a historical and sociolinguistic background to place the variety in perspective.

2

Lisa Lim and Joseph A. Foley

.2 A brief history .2.

English arrives in Singapore

In a small island of 4 million people made up of 76.8% Chinese, 13.9% Malay, 7.9% Indian and 1.4% persons of other races (Leow 2001), it may seem strange that English, the language of the colonial rulers, should have the dominance and scope that it commands in the day-to-day life of Singaporeans. The situation is partly the legacy of colonial history and partly the effect of post-independence policies in which English has been recognised as a resource to increase the country’s rate of economic and social development. 1819 tends to be recognised as marking the first significant event,2 when Sir Stamford Raffles acquired the island for the British East India Company. Singapore consequently became part of the Straits Settlements, which at that time consisted of Penang and Malacca. Singapore’s location at the crossroads of the trade routes in Southeast Asia and China made it an effective counter to Dutch trading operations in Indonesia, and in less than a year, more than five thousand people had settled on the island, including, in addition to those that came with the colonial power, migrants from the neighbouring countries. The most important groups were the Malays from Malaya, the Javanese, Balinese, Bataks and Buginese from Indonesia, the Tamils, Malayalees, Punjabis, Sikhs and other ethnic groups from India, and the Hokkiens, Cantonese, Teochews, Hakkas, Hainanese and Chinese from other dialect groups from China; other minorities included Arabs and Filipinos. It should be noted that, even prior to this influx of settlers, the British administration already found on arrival a heterogeneous population of local Malays and Indonesians, Southern Chinese and Indian traders, and some mixed ethnic groups such as the Peranakans and possibly Eurasians. Also already in place was a capitan (‘captain’) system, which divided the society into three groups: the Malays, Chinese, and Indians, plus a capitan-less group of ‘others’, and each ethnic community had in effect its own legal system under the jurisdiction of its own capitan (Bloom 1986: 352). The British found it to their advantage to preserve this ethnically-based division, and to this day, it constitutes the cultural logic of Singapore’s “multiracialism” (Benjamin 1976) that underpins its current language policy (see Section 1.2.2). While as a whole the ethnic Malays were the largest single group in peninsular Malaysia, they did not form a majority in the main urban areas of Singapore, Penang, Malacca, Kuala Lumpur and Kuching. The Chinese settled

English in Singapore and Singapore English

the urban areas, and the Malays’ small majority of 52% in the Straits Settlements in 1871 was gradually eroded by the influx of Chinese, as reported in the Straits Settlements Censuses (Gupta 1994: 34). Two decades later in 1891, the Chinese had grown from 34% to 44% of the population, creeping past the Malays’ 42%. By 1931, the Chinese had attained a strong majority of 60% compared to the Malays, comprising now only 26%. In spite of this, Bazaar Malay (Bahasa Pasar), a pidginised form of Malay, was always the main lingua franca. Many of these migrants came with the intention of making their fortunes and then returning home, but some stayed on and thus contributed to the cultural mix of racial and linguistic groups in early Singapore. .2.2 English in education As the British came to Singapore primarily to trade, education was of little importance. Although English-medium education in the Straits Settlements began in Penang in 1816, it was only in 1834, under Crawford, the second governor of Singapore, that a Singapore Free School was established to give “instruction in Asian languages as a means of reconciling the Natives to European education and ensuring them to regular habits of subordination and study, and beyond this, the Institute should concentrate on providing an elementary education in the three Rs [reading, ’riting and ’rithmetic] in English” (Bloom 1986: 351). It appears though that the British were nonetheless keen to cultivate a group of English-educated elites, and by the 1830s there was some English-medium education in all three settlements of Penang, Malacca and Singapore; these were either government schools or schools run by church missions (‘mission schools’). However the actual meaning of the term ‘English-medium’ changed over time: in the early years, in fact, some of these ‘English-medium’ schools used or taught other languages, principally Malay (Gupta 1994). Indeed, in 1870, the British reported having produced young men “competent to earn a livelihood in Government and mercantile offices, but it is much to be regretted that the majority of these clerks know only how to read, write and speak English imperfectly” (cited in Bloom 1986: 358). What is crucial is that English had been established as the language for socio-economic mobility, and by 1900, this group of elites had come to enjoy a much greater degree of English language proficiency and to also cover a much wider occupational range. In the mid-nineteenth century, the number enrolled in the English-medium schools was only 922. In 1872 there were 1,722, and this enrolment remained constant for the next twenty years, rising to 2,883 in 1891. The enrolment then

3

4

Lisa Lim and Joseph A. Foley

began to go up much more rapidly such that by the end of the century, the students enrolled in the English-medium schools totalled 7,264. Whatever may have been the attitude of the various ethnic groups in the Straits Settlements and the other Malaysian States to British Colonial policy or to European culture, it was obvious that English-medium education had many material advantages. By 1937 the total enrolment in the Federated Malay States was 17,161 (Loh 1974), and in Singapore, the enrolment just before the Japanese occupation was 27,000 (Doraisamy 1969). Non-English-medium schools, that is, those which were Malay- or Chinese-medium, did not teach English at all in the early years, but by the 1920s and 1930s, many of these schools were at least teaching English as a subject. After the hiatus of the second world war (1942–1945), English became even more the lingua franca of the more elite sections of society, partly due to the growing importance of the United States as a global power in the region. Indeed, in these pre-independence days in the 1940s to 1950s, the British still sought to promote English-medium schooling among the elite, while subsidising the Malay language streams (Tickoo 1996: 434); this lead, however, to discontent amongst the majority Chinese who continued sending their children to Chinese-medium schools. In 1947, about 32% of students were enrolled in Englishmedium schools. In 1950s’ Singapore, education became effectively universal, and English-medium education became more and more the norm. By 1952, 43% of the school enrolment was English-medium, with the numbers registering for English-medium education overtaking those registering for Chinesemedium education by the end of that decade (Doraisamy 1969). The language education policy in 1959 strove for equality among the four language streams, and recommended Malay as the national language (Tickoo 1996: 435). When the People’s Action Party (PAP) government came into power – first in 1959 with Singapore self-governed, followed by a brief period of unification with Malaysia, and finally independence in 1965 – and, additionally, with the withdrawal of British military in 1967, economic and sociopolitical insecurity necessitated an overhaul of the system (Tickoo 1996: 436). Measures were implemented to create national unity and forge national identity and consciousness that transcended ethnic boundaries (Chiew 1983: 45ff.). One of these measures was the institutionalisation of English as a compulsory language in schools. The economic consideration of this move was that a usable competence in English, the language of science and technology, and of international trade and commerce, was seen as a basic need; the political consideration was that, being a neutral non-native language, not associated with any of the Asian

English in Singapore and Singapore English

cultures, and not the mother tongue of any of the ethnic groups, it gave none of the ethnic groups an advantage (Kuo 1980: 59ff.). English education thus became the lynchpin of a bilingual policy, and standards in its use began to receive attention at the highest levels of decision-making (Tickoo 1996: 437). In other language-medium schools then, English was learnt as a second language; in English-medium schools, alongside English as a ‘First Language’, the ‘Second Language’ learnt was a child’s ‘mother tongue’ (Bokhorst-Heng 1998). It should be pointed out that the term ‘mother tongue’3 as used in Singapore policy making does not reflect linguistic reality in many cases, since it is the practice to assign an official language, either Mandarin, Malay or Tamil, to a person, depending on the ethnic group they are categorised as belonging to, respectively Chinese, Malay and Indian (though note too that ‘ethnicity’ is a vague concept and an arbitrarily assigned designation in Singapore); this is regardless of their actual mother tongue which could be any one of the Chinese or Indian languages or Malay, or even English. The label ‘ethnic mother tongue’ (Pakir 1993: 23–24) or ‘ethnic mother tongue Second Language’ (Foley 1998: 130–131) is thus more appropriate. In the Singapore situation then, the ethnic mother tongue for some is often not their mother tongue in terms of origin but is so in terms of ascription and external identification.4 By the 1980s, enrolment in the other language-medium schools became low, less than 20%. The then Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education recommended a national school system with English as the medium of instruction in all schools, with the ‘mother tongue’ taught as a subject, and by 1987, all schools were converted to become English-medium. As a result, children are schooled to become what has been referred to as “English-knowing bilinguals” (Pakir 1992), that is, they have to be proficient in English and their ‘mother tongue’. .2.3 And English in the home and streets As a consequence of these language policies, by the 1970s English was recognised as having become the primary working language in Singapore, the de facto national language (Llamzon 1977), used in the government, in commerce and business, in legislation and the law courts, and in science and technology, as well as being the main medium of instruction in schools and tertiary institutions and serving as the lingua franca for international communication and diplomacy. It has more recently also become the lingua franca for inter-ethnic communication, especially among the younger and more educated, particularly

5

6

Lisa Lim and Joseph A. Foley

in more formal settings, effectively replacing the ubiquitous Bazaar Malay and Hokkien which performed such service in previous generations (although Mandarin, promoted by the government, is certainly a language of choice for many younger Chinese Singaporeans’ intra-ethnic communication). A rise in the literacy rate for English has been observed in the population: from 46.7% in 1970 to 55% in 1980 (Tay 1983: 63) to 63% in 1990, and to 71% in 2000 (Leow 2001). Concurrent with the rise in the level of English literacy, the usage of English has also been reported to have become more prevalent at home. While the principal languages most commonly reported to be spoken at home are still, for the respective ethnic groups, Mandarin or a Chinese dialect, Malay and Tamil, there has, in fact, been a shift in all groups towards English as the predominant home language between 1980, 1990 and 2000: the Chinese from 10% to 19% to 24%, the Malays from 2% to 6% to 8%, and the Indians from 24% to 32% to 36% (Leow 2001; Ng 1995). Overall, while English was the language most frequently spoken at home for 12% of resident households in 1980 (Foley 1998: 130), this rose to 19% in 1990 and continued rising to 23% in 2000 (Leow 2001). It is clear too that English is emerging as the language of the young. In the 1990 Census of Population, 26% of six-year-old school children claimed English as the most frequently spoken home language, higher than the national average of 20% (Pakir 1994). In 2000, 36% of Chinese children aged 5–14 years spoke in English, compared to 22% of those aged 15–24 years and 25% aged 25–54 years (Leow 2001). Tay (1979), three decades ago, describes six characteristic uses of English in Singapore, namely, as an official language, a language of education, a working language, a language of inter- and intra-ethnic communication, a language for the expression of national identity, and an international language. To this, a decade later, Bloom (1986: 388) adds its uses as a language of religion, and as a home language; in other words, English is not used only in public domains, but also in the more private domains of family and friendship (Platt & Weber 1980). Indeed, by the late 1980s and 1990s, it has been noted that “Singapore is, in fact, well on the way towards becoming a largely English-speaking country” (Newbrook 1987: 12), certainly one that is English-dominant (Schneider 1999: 193); for many young people, English is the only language spoken confidently. There is thus a growing body of English users for whom English has gone beyond the lingua franca stage, who are native speakers of the language, following the simple definition that a native speaker is a fluent speaker of the language, typically after having learned the language as a child (Pakir 1994).

English in Singapore and Singapore English

What is to be noted as well is that the English that these Singaporeans are native speakers of is one that has gone through what has been referred to as a process of structural nativisation (Schneider 2003: 265). While the more standard variety of English is the variety taught in schools, alongside it has developed a variety which has a distinctive phonology, syntax and lexicon, which shows a high degree of influence from other local languages such as Hokkien, Cantonese, Malay and Tamil (Platt & Weber 1980: 18). Some scholars believe this colloquial variety to have developed at the English-medium schools, though more in the playgrounds than in the classrooms (Platt & Weber 1980), a contact variety pioneered by children (Gupta 1994: 47). But Mufwene (2001) strongly asserts that children do not make language; adults do; Ansaldo (this volume) will expound on this in the final chapter of this volume. .3 A brief history of Singapore English scholarship Singapore English has been described in various ways, and it would seem that prescriptive views of SE were the starting point of attempts at describing the language. Bloom (1986) identifies three phases. The first concentrated on what was wrong with Singapore English, and research mainly consisted of finding errors of various kinds and trying to account for them. Lim (1986) identifies a meeting that Lee Kuan Yew, the then Prime Minister of Singapore, called on 27 February 1979 as a landmark in the prescriptive approach to the English language and its use in Singapore. The meeting was to discuss the falling standards of written English in the Civil Service. The discussions that followed in various ministries as a consequence of this meeting had far-reaching effects, especially within the education system. Emphasis was placed on ‘error analysis’, and researchers produced work which was mainly a tabulation of errors. However error analysis does not seem to have contributed a great deal to the description of Singapore English. Perhaps the failure lay in the fact that it was an unconscious attempt at getting rid of anything that was ‘Singaporean’, meaning non-standard, in the language. It was and possibly still is part of the uncertainty about status and solidarity that Lim (1986) describes, in spite of the assumption of Singapore having moved into the phase of endonormative stabilisation by the 1960s and 1970s (Schneider 2003: 264). Though its beginnings chronologically pre-date the first stage, the second stage was the debate launched by the publication of Tongue’s (1974) classic, regarded as trailblazing and revolutionary, which proposed that there were

7

8

Lisa Lim and Joseph A. Foley

forms of English spoken in Singapore and Malaysia which might be considered standard in their own right. What Tongue called ‘standard’ was that variety used by educated Singaporeans and Malaysians in contexts where a standard form would be considered appropriate. It would be the kind of English used by those people born or brought up in the once colonial Malaya who had been educated in the English medium, where the teachers would have been ‘native’ English speakers, i.e. more often than not, Irish priests or nuns in the Catholic schools and American missionaries in the American missionary schools. Tongue also identified what he refers to as a ‘substandard’ variety which would be used by Singaporeans and Malaysians, whether they had been educated in the English, Chinese, Malay or Tamil medium, used in informal situations with their peers or as a lingua franca within the community. Tongue seemed to suggest that a Standard Singapore English exists and the only thing missing to make it a legitimate standard is some form of codification. Along similar lines, Crewe (1977a, b), categorising Singapore English as a ‘non-native dialect’, also identified two varieties of English spoken in Singapore, one formal and the other informal. The formal one he described as something like a standard but which not everyone could speak proficiently, while the informal variety, which a great number of people knew, was definitely non-standard. Crewe saw the school system as playing the major role in any future codification of the language. But probably the most significant studies undertaken at the time were those of Platt and colleagues (Platt 1975, 1977; Platt & Weber 1980; Platt et al. 1983, 1984). It was in particular Platt and Weber’s (1980) description that became the de facto authority on a number of areas relating to English in Singapore and Malaysia, leading to such epithets as Lowenberg’s (1984: 114): “[t]he most detailed account of this variation, and therefore the best point of departure for the analysis of this study, is that of Platt and Weber (1980)”. Platt (1977) and Platt and Weber (1980) described the development of English in Singapore and Malaysia in terms of a ‘lectal continuum’ within a ‘post-creole continuum’. The range was seen as extending from the basilect at one end, which it was claimed showed many features of creoles, to the acrolect at the other, which approximated to Standard (superstrate) English. The mesolect mediated transitionally between the former and the latter. The linguistic differences in the usage of socially and educationally differentiated groups of people were represented by the place this usage took on the lectal range. However, those people whose usage generally figured at the acrolectal end could also move to the mesolectal or even to basilectal usage. While most linguists have recognised that the basilectal is rule-governed, there was a strong feeling

English in Singapore and Singapore English

in government bodies that it was unacceptable and even wrong. This feeling was reinforced by the association of the basilect with minimal educated users, meaning that these users only controlled the basilect, so that they were unable to move along the continuum to mesolectal or acrolectal usage. Later researchers, in particular Tay (1993), Gupta (1994) and Foley et al. (1998), identified a number of weaknesses in using the lectal continuum model based on Bickerton’s (1981) theory of the development of Creole. The English in Singapore and Malaysia was claimed then to never have been a creole, as its development did not follow the established patterns identified in the Creole model. The alternative was to call it a creoloid (Platt 1975). This may have been even more misleading in that the variety of English found in Singapore and Malaysia was spread through the formal school system. Also Platt and Weber did not seem to distinguish between uneducated speech and the informal variety of an educated speaker. Thus their different lects were difficult to identify in actual discourse because they lacked sociolinguistic and psychological reality. Further, such a classification may be considered obsolete, creole studies having been readdressed and old labels having acquired new readings in recent decades (see Ansaldo this volume). The third stage was an attempt at describing Singapore English as a variety in its own right; here we can more clearly see Schneider’s phase 4 in place, viz. the gradual adoption and acceptance of an indigenous linguistic norm, supported by a new, locally rooted linguistic self-confidence (2003: 249). The first step in this direction was the work of Tay and Gupta (1983). Their research set out to define Singapore English mainly in terms of who speaks it, and secondly in terms of its context of use. Tay and Gupta rejected using an exonormative standard for their description, opting for what they termed an endonormative one. The main reasons given were the functions English serves in Singapore, the multiplicity of foreign standards so that whichever one was chosen would not be backed up by the linguistic environment, and finally the fact that the English-educated Singaporean wanted to sound like a Singaporean. What they were attempting to do was summarised in a final paragraph: Research on Standard Singapore English has at last begun. A start has been made to collect examples of non-standardisms but a data bank on deviations from general Standard English needs to be built up. By engaging a team of competent researchers, the data can be built up and by testing these deviations with several subjects for their acceptability, a fuller description than what has been presented in this paper will emerge. (Tay & Gupta 1983: 188)

9

0

Lisa Lim and Joseph A. Foley

Their publication pointed in the direction of establishing a database and a possible codification of what could be Standard Singapore English. The terms used at that time were often still couched in deviationist language much as one found in the earlier error analysis type of research. But there was emerging another picture, that of a variety of English having an existence in its own right, with subvarieties and its own registers to be used according to the context of culture and situation that is appropriate. Since Bloom’s (1986) original description of the three stages of research into English in Singapore and Malaysia, we have what may be seen as developments within the third stage, involving a move away from the description of the local variety as a post-creole continuum. An approach which caught on with and was expanded upon by many researchers in the 1990s was that of considering the situation in Singapore as diglossic, where a single language or variety is seen to have two subvarieties, a High and a Low, each serving different functions and domains in society (Ferguson 1959). Many proposed that what is seen in the Singapore English speech community is a form of diglossia with Standard Singapore English (SSE) constituting the High variety and Colloquial Singapore English (CSE) the Low variety (Foley et al. 1998; Gupta 1994; Richards 1977). If this may be seen as too simplistic and inadequate an account (see Ansaldo this volume), a more complex tridimensional model (Tay 1993) was also proposed, which built on the dimensions of user, usage and use, involving respectively the speaker’s language background, the microlinguistic codes used for multilingual communication, and the factors which make up the context in which English is used. .4 The Grammar of Spoken Singapore English Corpus (GSSEC)5 As has become evident, various characterisations of Singapore English have been made in the past three decades, and it is important to note that over this time, socioeconomic circumstances have changed, as have language policies, and, consequently, inevitably, so has the language itself. It is considered timely to produce a description of the English used by these young Singaporeans who – as outlined in Section 1.2 – are from a generation where being a native speaker of (Singapore) English is the norm, where a speaker of English is not from an elite stratum of society, and is one who uses Singapore English in different situations, ranging from the most formal to the most informal. The corpus upon which the description in this volume is based is also a spoken one (cf. Biber et

English in Singapore and Singapore English

al. 1999; Carter & McCarthy 1997); variation from standard usage (if we accept talking about variation from a standard) is after all more marked in spoken English than written English, and it is the former which we are interested in describing here. The creation of the Grammar of Spoken Singapore English Corpus (GSSEC) involved an extensive collection, in the period 1998–1999, of naturally-occurring conversational data from native speakers of SE. .4. Collecting the data Thirteen undergraduates at the National University of Singapore were equipped with portable audio cassette recorders which they carried on their person and which, whenever they were with friends, or, on a few occasions, with family, they switched on, and the ensuing conversations were recorded. While this may sound almost too simplistic, the method actually worked very well. These data collectors returned with recordings of naturally-occurring conversation, both dialogues and group interactions, both single-sex and mixed-sex interactions. The recordings were made amongst friends or family, and occurred at home, on campus, in shopping centres, in food courts, even in cars. Extraneous noise in such environments naturally made the transcription of the recordings less than easy, but the high return was in the naturalness of speech. A common concern with such data collection is that of informant accommodation to the standardising influences of the interviewers or researchers, thus obscuring their vernacular. However, these recordings were made by the young Singaporeans themselves, within the social networks of their family and/or their peers, so accommodation is not an issue here. And although the interlocutors were aware that they were being recorded, one only has to listen to the recordings to see that speakers were not caught in an observer’s paradox (Labov 1972a), with speakers sounding completely at ease and uninhibited, and often extremely involved and animated. .4.2 Who are the Singapore English speakers? The data collectors were deliberately drawn from Chinese, Malay and Indian ethnic groups, and although the majority of data collected by them, as expected, were intra-ethnic interactions, a number of recordings included inter-ethnic interactions as well. The corpus is thus satisfying in that it is representative of SE as spoken by the different ethnic groups in Singapore, and not solely of Chinese Singapore English, as many studies on SE tend to be. Additionally, many of the intra-ethnic interactions included instances of code mixing, which, while not



2

Lisa Lim and Joseph A. Foley

the focus of this volume, are a rich and invaluable inclusion in any corpus of a variety found in a bi- or multilingual community. The following provides a general description of the speakers comprising the corpus, with the first three forming the criteria for the speakers to be considered native speakers of Singapore English: i. ii.

iii. iv.

v. vi.

They are Singaporean, having been born in Singapore and having lived most, if not all, of their lives in Singapore. They use English as their main language at home, with friends, at school or at work; at the same time, most also speak other languages at home, at work, and with friends. They have been educated in English as a first language. They have educational qualifications ranging from Cambridge GCE ‘A’ level (General Certificate of Education Advanced level) to a bachelor degree at a local university. They are between 20 and 40 years old. They are of Chinese, Malay or Indian origin.

.4.3 The resulting corpus The Grammar of Spoken Singapore English Corpus (GSSEC) can be seen to be distinctive from other existing corpora of Singapore English on at least two significant counts. First, as mentioned earlier, the speakers in our corpus are young Singaporeans from a generation where being a native speaker of (Singapore) English – a variety of English which has undergone endonormative stabilisation – is the norm, where a speaker of English is not from an elite stratum of society, but is one who has had education up to post-secondary or tertiary level, in English, and is one who uses Singapore English in different situations, ranging from the most formal to the most informal. This contrasts, in particular, with a published corpus as that of Platt et al. (1983). There, the authors regard their samples as representing “typical English (SgE [Singapore English]) [as] spoken by the English-medium educated sector of the community, particularly those who use it in everyday verbal interactions” (1983: 12), apart from two of their spoken texts which they highlight as examples of ‘borderline cases’, the speakers having had non-English-medium education. However one in fact finds that the speakers had at most English-medium education up to their fourth year in secondary school, with the majority having only three to six years of Englishmedium education in primary school; further, all speakers do not use English

English in Singapore and Singapore English

as a home language at all. Although considered the “English-medium educated sector of the community” of two decades ago, their background is markedly different from that of the speakers in our GSSEC corpus. Given this then, the Singapore English described in their volume is quite different from that which has undergone endonormative stabilisation and that which is spoken by native speakers. If we instead consider Singaporeans with a comparable background from one or two generations back, we find that they would speak a variety that is more acrolectal (see Ansaldo this volume, note 2). The point is that the “English-medium educated sector of the community” of two decades ago – whether we use Platt et al.’s definition, or whether we match speakers by their social indices – is substantially different from now. Second, the corpus recordings are made of spontaneous speech in the speakers’ natural environments, where interlocutors are all Singaporeans and have close network ties with each other, being family or friends. In other words, we have access to the vernacular, which is a most precious asset. This again sets our corpus apart from other corpora which may have used contemporary native Singapore English speakers but are composed of less natural data elicited under laboratory conditions (additionally, with a non-Singaporean interlocutor), for example, as in the NIE Corpus of Spoken Singapore English (Deterding & Low 2001). While this certainly affords recordings of greater clarity which, for example, lend themselves much better to instrumental acoustic phonetic analyses, the speech is certainly not the same as what one would find in a more natural, Singaporean environment. Both these considerations make our GSSEC a valuable and rich source, complementing other existing corpora such as those mentioned above; other qualitative aspects of the data in our corpus are described in Ansaldo (this volume). Comprising 32 recorded extracts, coming to approximately 8 hours of conversation, totalling over 60,000 words, the audio recordings and their orthographic transcriptions making up GSSEC are available for use by other scholars. .4.4 Transcription Recordings were orthographically transcribed by a number of undergraduate and postgraduate students who were provided with written and verbal instructions for transcription conventions and whose initial transcriptions were checked and verified by a member of the project team. These transcriptions

3

4

Lisa Lim and Joseph A. Foley

were then double-checked by a number of English Language Honours and postgraduate students. Phonetic transcriptions were made by the trained phonetician of the project team, as well as by three students (two Master’s students and one English Language Honours graduate) who had all previously received training in phonetic transcription and were deemed competent in it. Students’ transcriptions were checked by the phonetician. .5 Outline of volume This first chapter has acquainted the reader with various sociolinguistic and historical aspects which are vital to understanding, appreciating and placing the study in its context. The history of scholarship in the area of Singapore English is also outlined, noting the kind of shifts in emphasis that SE studies have undergone through the decades, from an error analysis approach to regarding SE as non-standard, to the more recent descriptions of SE as a variety in its own right. The background to the corpus of SE on which the structural descriptions in the rest of the volume is based is also presented, and its significance highlighted. The next four chapters take up the more significant structural aspects of CSE, describing patterns in detail. The description in this volume is meant as a coherent one, in that the evidence on which its various structural descriptions are based is kept consistent, drawing upon the corpus for its data. In addition to the corpus data, the authors also at times supplement their observations with examples or findings from other sources; when this occurs, it is explicitly stated where these derive. In Chapter 2, Lisa Lim describes the sound system of CSE and the phonological processes that occur, addressing both segmental and suprasegmental aspects. The latter, often only given passing mention in most descriptions, is described in detail: this is significant as it has often been said that it is the stress, rhythm and intonation which are extremely characteristic of SE. In Chapter 3, Lionel Wee and Umberto Ansaldo provide an account of the noun phrase in CSE, highlighting, in particular, characteristic CSE features involving number and subject-verb agreement, and the use of one as the head of a nominal in various syntactic environments. In Chapter 4, Vivienne Fong describes the grammatical patterns in the verb and auxiliary cluster in CSE, focusing on main clauses, and highlighting structures characteristic of CSE, including zero

English in Singapore and Singapore English

copula, verb reduplication and passive constructions. Lionel Wee in Chapter 5 looks at the two more salient semantic and pragmatic features of CSE, namely, reduplication and discourse particles, which have often been held up as symbols of – what is ‘bad’ about – CSE. In the final chapter, Chapter 6, Umberto Ansaldo looks at Singapore English from a diachronic aspect, tracing the origins of this variety and identifying its core ingredients by looking at the original ethnic groups that were responsible for its very emergence. The structural observations presented in the preceding chapters are thus contextualised here, being related to the socio-historical and cultural background in which SE evolved, as well as to creolisation studies in general. As will become evident in the reading of this volume, all the chapters which provide a structural description do so in a consistent manner: they are all highly descriptive and informative, are systematic in coverage of structures, and are rich in convincing examples. It is nonetheless inevitable, since the different chapters are contributions by different individuals, that the authors, coming from different linguistic backgrounds, should naturally also draw upon their own training and schools of thought. Such a combination of various methodological approaches in a somewhat eclectic manner is, we feel, making the best of all worlds. Fong, for example, in her chapter on the verb cluster, supplements her observations based on the corpus data with native speaker judgements. This is in fact also seen as a consequence of the area of study: with the verb phrase where, it is believed (see Fong this volume, but also cf. Wee & Ansaldo this volume), there is often code switching between dialects of the more Standard Singapore English and colloquial Singapore English, Fong feels that she has to develop other diagnostics to help establish if the features she highlights are indeed those characteristic of the colloquial variety. On the other hand, a chapter like Wee’s on reduplication and particles addresses what one might refer to as ‘core features’ of colloquial Singapore English, and there is thus no need to double-check the ‘validity’ of the features as CSE. In engaging with the data, the different authors at times propose slightly different analyses for structures, for example, Wee vs. Ansaldo on the source of reduplication patterns. Again, this is not felt to make the volume any less coherent; on the contrary, the reader’s understanding of the complex issues and even more complex possibilities of interpretation can only be enriched by a range of well-argued and solidly-supported views.

5

6

Lisa Lim and Joseph A. Foley

As mentioned in Section 1.4 above, the data on which the descriptions are based are those of naturally-occurring spontaneous speech of native speakers of Singapore English in informal situations. To use a term commonly found in recent scholarship, we will be largely referring to the variety as colloquial Singapore English (CSE) or occasionally simply as Singapore English (SE), and by this we mean the colloquial variety of SE used by English-speaking, Englisheducated Singaporeans.6 Some scholars (in this volume, Ansaldo) prefer to refer to this variety of English found in Singapore as mesolectal Singapore English (or mesolectal Singlish); the acrolectal/mesolectal/basilectal classification is so preferred as it takes into account a greater range of varieties and more obviously recognises a cline than the SSE/CSE approach does. For our purposes in this volume, these two labels, CSE and mesolectal SE, may be seen as interchangeable and encompass the same variety. What is termed basilectal SE is also common in Singaporeans and is used by less highly-(English-)educated groups, and, in fact, quite possibly also by our young English-educated group, as another variety of SE in which they operate that is lower along the lectal continuum (see Ansaldo this volume for elaboration). It is a relevant point to be made, because variation within the corpus is certainly noted (see Lim; Wee & Ansaldo this volume), and should be noted – linguistic homogeneisation is after all not a feature of SE (Schneider 2003: 266). .6 Concluding remarks While there have been a number of recent publications of language use in Singapore (e.g. Foley et al. 1998; Ooi 2001; Ooi et al. 1997), no single volume provides a comprehensive grammatical description of a corpus of Singapore English in combination with an insightful diachronic perspective. This description goes beyond older accounts, such as Platt and Weber’s (1980) description, to name but one, which, in categorising SE into acrolect, mesolect and basilect, according to speakers’ socioeconomic status, is an account which while valid two decades ago does not have quite the same contemporary reality. Taken together, such descriptions clearly illustrate significant shifts in language use from a longitudinal perspective. This description also departs in the extent and depth of structural analysis from previous accounts that mostly focus on issues of sociolinguistic nature.

English in Singapore and Singapore English

The value of this grammar for linguists is obvious, from theoretical linguists interested in the linguistic patterns highlighted, to variationists, typologists and creolists interested in the features characterising this particular English variety and the possible sources of such features, to people interested in English as a global language: all will find this description useful and relevant. The implications of such a grammatical description for pedagogy (cf. Greenbaum & Quirk 1990) are also obvious: a more effective language pedagogy is possible only if attention is given to the use of language in spontaneous speech, and, consequently, to the need to develop descriptive tools for analysing spoken language. This volume is also particularly significant in the context of Singapore’s language policies, the most recent being the Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) whose goal is to raise the level of consciousness of the public to speaking a more standard English instead of a ‘bad’, ‘ungrammatical’ Singlish (see endnote 1; for discussions on Singlish, see Fong et al. 2002; Rubdy 2001). This volume in fact illustrates that Singapore English does have its rules and grammar, and this can be an insightful and instructive example for other ‘non-standard’ varieties of English. It also suggests that the evolution of such a variety is a perfectly natural linguistic phenomenon which best reflects the multiethnic and multilingual society that Singapore is and has been for the past two centuries. Indeed, although this volume does involve analyses at a fairly technical and sophisticated level, the grammatical descriptions herein should still be accessible to the layperson and to teachers. Indeed it is hoped that individuals in the government and education will read this and, in so doing, realise that colloquial Singapore English is not a deviant, substandard variety of English, but rather that it does have its own rules and regulations, and is a viable, indeed crucial, variety of English for Singaporeans.

Notes . We have deliberately avoided the use of the term ‘Singlish’ in this volume, even though it has more common, more popular currency, and is surely more pithy than the more cumbersome ‘Singapore English’. This is because the term is used in at least two different ways, viz. either (i) to colloquial Singapore English (CSE), the interpretation found in current academic discussions; or (ii) to the ‘ungrammatical’, ‘non-standard’ variety of Singapore English – this more common, derogatory interpretation is found in most public and official (government) discussions. For

7

8

Lisa Lim and Joseph A. Foley

further discussion of this, see Fong et al. (2002). It should be pointed out that the term is nonetheless preferred by some scholars, e.g. Ansaldo (in prep a); Gil (1994, 2003). 2. Though it is observed that some variety of English was already existent prior to the arrival of the British in 1819; see Ansaldo et al. (in prep). 3. The idea of ‘mother tongue’ is essentially a construction or an artefact that has grown up in monolingual societies, where linguistic focusing is much stronger than in multilingual communities, where it is more diffused. The identification and operation with one language is therefore not so clear in a multilingual community as it is in a monolingual country. 4. Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson (1989: 452–453) define ‘mother tongue’ according to the criteria of origin, competence, function, or internal or external identification, and state that (a) a person can have several mother tongues, (b) the same person can have different mother tongues, depending on which definition is used, and (c) a person’s mother tongue can change during one’s lifetime, even several times, leaving out the criterion of origin. 5. The Grammar of Spoken Singapore English Corpus (GSSEC) was collected for the project Towards a Reference Grammar of Singapore English (Lim 2001), which was funded by a National University of Singapore Academic Research Grant R-103-000-003-112 (Joseph A. Foley and Lisa Lim, Principal Investigators; Vivienne Fong, Ni Yi-Bin and Lionel Wee, project members). Researchers are welcome to use the corpus, as long as they acknowledge the source.

6. The classification of Standard Singapore English (SSE) and Colloquial Singapore English (CSE), as pointed out in Section 1.3, really only takes into account usage in proficient English speakers in Singapore.

Chapter 2

Sounding Singaporean Lisa Lim University of Amsterdam

2. Introduction The colloquial variety of Singapore English (CSE)2 or mesolectal SE has a number of characteristic phonological features, which have been noted to be quite distinct from Standard Singapore English (SSE)3 or acrolectal SE, the latter said to be similar or identical to that of RP (e.g. Brown 1988; Tay 1982). This chapter will describe both segmental and suprasegmental features of CSE observed in the GSSEC database, with all the examples being derived from the corpus. Particularly characteristic prosodic patterns, such as those associated with particles and focus and prominence, will also be highlighted. It should be noted at the outset that there is a range of variation observed in GSSEC of two kinds. First, some speakers show realisations which are closer to a more acrolectal or SSE pronunciation than others. Second, features particular to certain ethnic groups are also observable. Neither of the above types of variation is problematic, as it is in fact quite common to find features typical of different levels of a lectal continuum co-existing in one and the same variety (see also Wee & Ansaldo this volume) as well as ethnic features in multiethnic communities. While instances of both will be mentioned where relevant, the more stable and characteristic pan-Singaporean features which all Singaporeans do share is what is central to the description here. The chapter will in addition suggest possible reasons for the features observed in CSE. The scope of this chapter does not afford great depth and detail in addressing this issue, but a quick survey will be conducted of some of the phonological systems of the more common local languages spoken by the majority of Singaporeans, viz. Mandarin, Hokkien, Cantonese, Malay and Tamil, to be able to suggest possible substrate influences. The rationale for the choice of five of the many Asian languages spoken by the Singapore population to account for substratal influence is as follows. Mandarin, because of its

20

Lisa Lim

official institutionalisation through language policies (see Lim & Foley this volume), has now become the language most frequently spoken at home for the Chinese (Leow 2001: 98). However, as the vast majority of the ethnic Chinese Singaporeans are descendants of immigrants from Southern China, mainly the provinces of Fujian and Guangdong, Hokkien and Cantonese are still dominant home languages for them (third and fourth, after Mandarin and English). In fact, Hokkien was until recently the most frequently understood and spoken Chinese language, followed by Cantonese and Mandarin, particularly in the 1970s (Lock 1982: 302) when Singapore English was developing. Malay is by far the most frequently spoken language at home for the ethnic Malays; and for Indians, it is Tamil, although English is a very close second for them (Leow 2001: 98). 2.2 Vowels 2.2. Inventory Perhaps the clearest way to examine the vowel phonemes of CSE is to present them in Standard Lexical Sets (see Wells 1982), as in Table 2.1. Standard Southern British English (SSBE) and General American (GA) are included as the two more widely-documented English varieties, and are useful as models of comparison. We also include Standard Singapore English (SSE)4 for comparison, though our discussion will primarily focus on CSE. It can be clearly seen that many of the vowel oppositions found in SSBE and in GA, as well as in SSE, are absent in CSE.5 In Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, we go on to look in greater detail at the realisations and distributions of CSE monophthongs and diphthongs, and in 2.2.5 we briefly examine the contact influence which accounts for the system and realisation of vowels. 2.2.2 Monophthong realisation and distribution Table 2.2 places the CSE vowels in a traditional vowel quadrilateral to provide an indication of their actual quality. The contrast between tense-lax vowel pairs, as seen in varieties such as SSBE and GA, tends to be neutralised in CSE, with the distinction both in quality and quantity being reduced, such that the following pairs of words are produced as virtual homophones: beat and bit as [bit], cart and cut as [kat],

Sounding Singaporean

Table 2.1. Standard Lexical Sets for SSBE, GA, SSE and CSE. SSBE

GA

SSE

CSE

set number

keyword

I 7 æ # % ~ "˜ # 8˜ i˜ eI "˜ f˜ o~ u˜ aI fI a~ I6 76 "˜ f˜ f˜ ~6 I 6 6

I 7 æ "˜ % ~ æ f˜ 8 i˜ eI "˜ f˜ o˜ u˜ aI fI a~ ir eIr "r fr or ur i 6r 6

I 7 æ # % ~ "˜ # 8˜ i˜ eI "˜ f˜ o~ u˜ aI fI a~ I6 7 "˜ f˜ f˜ ~6 i 6 6

i 7 7 f a u a f 6 i e a f o u ai fi au i6 7 a f f u6 i 6 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

KIT DRESS TRAP LOT STRUT FOOT BATH CLOTH NURSE FLEECE FACE PALM THOUGHT GOAT GOOSE PRICE CHOICE MOUTH NEAR SQUARE START NORTH FORCE POOR/CURE6 HAPPY LETTER COMMA

Table 2.2. Monophthongs of CSE. front high high-mid low-mid low

i e 7

central

6 a

back u o f

2

22

Lisa Lim

caught and cot as [kft], and pool and pull as [pul]. In SSE which still appears to have these tense-lax pairs as separate phonemes, the quality of the tense vowels is less in the extremities of vowel space, such that, for example, [i] is not as front and high in quality as that in SSBE, and so the quality of the two vowels [i] and [I] are further apart in SSBE, closer in SSE, and significantly indistinguishable in CSE (Lim in prep a). In CSE, then, the kit and fleece sets have the same vowel, represented by /i/, as illustrated by these examples from GSSEC: (1) lis (2) titëw

list teach

cf. SSBE lIst cf. SSBE ti˜tëw

The vowel in the strut, palm and start sets is the same in CSE. As indicated in Table 2.2, this vowel in CSE, represented by the symbol /a/, is low and central: lower in quality than the strut vowel in SSBE, and certainly much less low and back than the palm and start vowel in SSBE. (3) laki (4) as

lucky ask

cf. SSBE l%ki cf. SSBE "˜sk

The lot, cloth, north and thought sets all have the same vowel in CSE. CSE /f/ is much less low and back than the lot/cloth vowel in SSBE, and while similar in vowel height, has a quality that is less back than the north/thought vowel in SSBE. While it has rounding to a lesser degree than that found in the vowels in SSBE, this vowel is not unrounded like the lot vowel in GA. (5) nft (6) sfs

not sauce

cf. SSBE n#t, GA n"˜t cf. SSBE sf˜s

The vowel in the nurse, letter and comma sets is the same in CSE, produced with minimal tenseness and duration, with no length distinction as that found between the vowels in nurse and letter in SSBE or GA. This is particularly evident in example (7). (7) n6v6s (8) h6d

nervous heard

cf. SSBE n8˜v6s cf. SSBE h8˜d

It has previously been suggested that the vowels /7/ and /æ/ are neutralised to /7/ (e.g. Bao 1998), and indeed the vowel in the dress and trap sets is the same in CSE, as seen with a low-mid realisation in examples (9) and (10).

Sounding Singaporean

(9) sw7t (10) p7mfl6t

sweat pamphlet

cf. SSBE sw7t cf. SSBE pæmfl6t

A small number of lexical items, such as extra and elegant, do have a particular realisation where what would normally be a vowel of the dress set is pronounced with a much more open realisation, as [ækstpa] and [æl6:6nt] in CSE. These may be considered instances of hypercorrection. There is however also a regular realisational difference between these two sets. The trap vowel /æ/ certainly has a less open realisation as [7], compared to SSBE, in all environments. However, while the dress vowel /7/ is realised as [7] in most environments, it is realised as [e] when followed by a voiced plosive, suggesting that the two phonemes have not conflated. So while bat and bad are respectively [b7t] and [b7d] with same vowel quality, we find bet realised as [b7t], while bed is realised as [bed]. We find instances of this in GSSEC, in examples (11) and (12): (11) le: (12) flpedi

leg already

cf. SSBE l7: cf. SSBE 6lp7di

This pattern also results in the neutralisation of an otherwise consistent contrast. As the vowel in the face sets is regularly a monophthong, compared to the diphthong in SSBE and GA (see 2.2.4), in the context of preceding voiced plosives then, the contrast between /7/ of the dress set and /e/ of the face set is suspended, leading to bed and bade being homophonous in CSE. Finally, there is a tendency for full vowel quality to be maintained, which in general appears to conform to orthography, particularly orthographic o, with no reduction to schwa even in unstressed position: (13) (14) (15) (16)

kfp7k poziw6n kfmfft l7]:wetëw

correct position comfort language

cf. SSBE k6Áp7kt cf. SSBE p6ÁzIw6n cf. SSBE Ák%mf6t cf. SSBE Álæ]:wIdëŠ

2.2.3 Diphthongs, and triphthongs? As indicated in Table 2.1, the vowels in the face, goat and square sets, which are diphthongs /eI/, /o~/ and /76/ in SSBE, are regularly reduced to a more monophthongal quality of the sort closer to [e], [o] and [7] respectively in much of GSSEC, illustrated in the following examples.

23

24

Lisa Lim

(17) l7s mekap (18) don(t) (19) kfmp7d

less makeup don’t compared

cf. SSBE meIk%p cf. SSBE do~nt/d6~nt cf. SSBE k6mp76d

In other work which examines data in different formality modes (Lee & Lim 2000), it is found that, while these three diphthongs undergo monophthongisation in more informal contexts such as in spontaneous picture description, diphthongal quality is still maintained in more formal or structured modes of discourse, such as in carrier frames and read passages. The price vowel in CSE, as seen in Table 2.1, is a diphthong not dissimilar to that in SSBE or GA. Certain lexical items however have [a] instead; this seems to be in syllables whose coda is [l]. (20) wal

while

cf. SSBE waIl

Diphthongs found in other accents such as SSBE are falling diphthongs, that is, the first element of the diphthong is more prominent than the second (Cruttenden 2001: 129). The centring diphthongs of the near and poor/cure sets in CSE tend instead to be rising diphthongs, that is, the second element of the diphthong is the more prominent one, and the first element is realised as a glide,7 as in (21) and (22). In contexts where the poor/cure diphthong is preceded by /j/, as in (23), the diphthong is completely monophthongised to [f]. (21) hj6 (22) ww6 (23) kjf

here sure cure

cf. SSBE hI6 cf. SSBE w~6 cf. SSBE kj~6

CSE does not have any triphthongs – and whether other English varieties have them as well is arguable (cf. Cruttenden 2001; Roach 2000). Syllables that are considered, at least by some, as triphthongs in SSBE, are in CSE produced as two syllables, as in (24) and (25). This resyllabification seems the preferred process in CSE, rather than, as in SSBE, having the triphthongs smoothed and reduced to a diphthongal glide by losing the middle element, or reduced even further to a monophthong. (24) aw6 (25) taj6d

hour tired

cf. SSBE a~6 > "˜6 > "˜ cf. SSBE t"I6d > t"˜6d > t"˜d

Sounding Singaporean

2.2.4 Rhotacisation Rhotacised vowels are sometimes, though not often, observed in the GSSEC corpus, as in (26). They are, however, documented in SE in more formal situations (Lim in prep a) and in public domains, such as in the speech of DJs on local radio stations (Schneider 1999). In other work involving elicited material and perceptual tests, rhotacisation is found in the speech of Singaporeans judged in identification tests to be Malay-sounding, but not in those judged as non-Malay-sounding (Lau 2002). All the above suggest that this is a variable which is still very much in flux, possibly largely to the more recent and increasing status of GA, which does retain such post-vocalic (both pre-consonantal and prepausal) usage of /r/, compared with non-rhotic SSBE (Cruttenden 2001: 208). (26) pft

port

2.2.5 Vowel substrate influence? Tables 2.3 to 2.7 sketch the vowel inventories of the five local languages that the majority of speakers of the three main ethnic groups in Singapore speak, the rationale for this having been presented in the introduction of this chapter. As there is no good description of the system of the Singaporean varieties of these languages, these are based on Bodman 1955; Chiang 1940; Deterding & Poedjosoedarmo 1998; Killingley 1993; Lim 1988; Lock 1982. There are, of course, obvious differences between the vowel systems of the languages: nasalisation is phonemic in Hokkien, while in Cantonese and Mandarin, vowel rounding is phonemic, and Tamil has phonemic vowel length. However, we should also note two things which are relevant: (i) as far as vowel height and backness are concerned, all the languages depicted have no more than a 6-way distinction between vowels; and (ii) none of them have the distinctions in terms of quality that are found in varieties such as SSBE and GA where vowels are differentiated in terms of the extent of vowel height and front-backness, as with /I/ and /i˜/, /~/ and /u˜/, and /#/ and /f˜/, for example. Although no one-to-one correspondence between each of these languages and CSE can be established, it is obvious that the vowel inventory of CSE, as seen in Table 2.2, is much closer to those of the local languages than it is to the 20vowel inventory of SSBE. Where diphthongs are concerned, we note that, while both Malay and Tamil do not have diphthongs, the diphthong inventories of both Cantonese (Killingley 1993: 4–5) and Mandarin do include /ei/ and /ou/, and one of

25

26

Lisa Lim

Table 2.3. Monophthongs of Hokkien. front high mid mid-low low

central

i ĩ e e˜ a ã

back u ũ o õ f ˜f

Table 2.4. Monophthongs of Cantonese. front high mid low

iy eø

central 6 a

back u o

Table 2.5. Monophthongs of (Singapore) Mandarin. front high mid low

iy e

central 6 (6) a

back Yu o

Table 2.6. Monophthongs of Malay. front high mid low

i e

central 6 a

back u o

Table 2.7. Monophthongs of Tamil. front high mid low

central

i i˜ e e˜

back u u˜ o o˜

a a˜

Sounding Singaporean

Table 2.8. CSE (merged) phonemes matched with vowels of local languages. Lexical sets

CSE

Mand.

Hokk.

Cant.

Mal.

Tam.

KIT, FLEECE

i

i

i

i

i

i

FACE

e

e

e

e

e

e

DRESS, TRAP, SQUARE

7

e

e

e

e

e

STRUT, PALM, START

a

a

a

a

a

a

LOT, THOUGHT

f

–

f

–

–

–

GOAT

o

o, ou

o, ou>o

o, ou

o

o

FOOT, GOOSE

u

u

u

u

u

u

additional contrast:

–

round.

nasal.

round.

–

length

Hokkien’s seven diphthongs is /ou/. What is interesting for our discussion is that Hokkien /ou/ is noted to be much less markedly diphthongised in Hokkien than in (Standard) English (Bodman 1955: 2) and indeed is suggested to be a monophthong (Deterding & Poedjosoedarmo 1998: 204). Let us examine again the CSE vowels in those lexical sets which have distinct vowels in SSBE, and lay them against the vowels in the systems of the local languages, as in Table 2.8. Taking into consideration also that Malay does not have the additional contrastive features of vowel rounding, nasalisation or length, and that vowel nasalisation does occur in CSE after the loss of a syllable-final nasal (see Section 2.3.4), we can see that the mergers of the various sets correspond most closely to the vowels in Hokkien and Malay. In other words, Hokkien and Malay could be the more influential local languages on CSE in terms of vowel inventory and realisation. Indeed, this would sit comfortably with the sociohistorical facts. Malay and Hokkien are the varieties that have been involved in the evolution of CSE from the beginning and in a most prominent way. Tamil has always been a minority; Cantonese and, even more so, Mandarin are more recent additions (see Ansaldo this volume). 2.3 Consonants At the phonemic level, the consonant inventory of CSE appears no different from that of SSBE, as can be seen in Table 2.9. The phonetic realisation of the

27

28

Lisa Lim

Table 2.9. Consonants of CSE. Bilabial Plosive

Nasal

p

Labiodental

Dental Alveo- Palato- Palatal Velar lar alveolar

b

t

m

n

Fricative

f

v

θ

ð

s

d

: ]

z

Affricate Approximant

k

Glottal

w

h

Š

tëw dëŠ (w)

p

Lateral approximant

j

w

l

phonemes, however, does show some variation which will be elaborated on in the following sections. 2.3. Voiceless plosives Voiceless plosives in syllable-initial position in CSE show an alternation between being aspirated and being unaspirated, with a preference for the unaspirated or weakly aspirated realisation. This contrasts with the regular allophonic distribution in accents like SSBE, where they are always aspirated when initial in an accented syllable, and, in other positions, such aspiration as may occur is relatively weak (Cruttenden 2001: 151). In more formal situations though (Lim in prep a; Ng & Lim 2004), it has been found that Singaporeans produce syllable-initial voiceless plosives with significant aspiration, with Chinese speakers having larger Voice Onset Times (VOT) compared to Malay and Tamil speakers.8 (27) tek (28) 6pfinm6n

take appointment

cf. SSBE theIk cf. SSBE 6phfIntm6nt

There is also some evidence to suggest that the aspirated voiceless alveolar plosive is one of the realisations of the voiceless dental fricative (see also Section 2.3.3 below). In syllable-final position, voiceless plosives tend to be unreleased, often with glottal reinforcement, even if followed by a vowel, an environment in which the plosive would normally be released for liaison; two instances occur in (29):

Sounding Singaporean

(29) batÐ 7kÐtëwi it khwaitÐ imppuvi] la but actually it quite improving lah

2.3.2 Voiced obstruents The partial devoicing of voiced obstruents when not occurring between two voiced segments is a process that is found in other Englishes (e.g. RP, Cruttenden 2001: 152). In CSE, in syllable-final position, this phenomenon appears to be carried even further such that the voiced segment is realised as completely voiceless, as seen in (30)–(32). In conjunction with this, vowels, particularly long vowels and diphthongs, even when followed by voiced obstruents, are shortened, as when preceding a voiceless consonant, and this adds to the perception of voicelessness of the obstruent.9 (33) shows an instance where devoicing occurs even when the obstruent is between two vowels. (30) (31) (32) (33)

aif tu put fn fpais tëwentëw juw6li

I’ve to put on fries change usually

cf. SSBE aIv cf. SSBE fpaIz cf. SSBE tëweIndëŠ cf. SSBE ju˜Š6li

In syllable onsets, however, the voicing distinction is maintained, though, because there is a tendency for the voiceless plosives to be unaspirated (as outlined in Section 2.3.2), the difference in terms of VOT between them and their voiced counterparts is smaller than it is in an accent like SSBE. 2.3.3 Dental fricatives Many researchers report the avoidance of dental fricatives as a distinctive feature of CSE, and have even suggested their absence in the CSE consonant inventory. In GSSEC, one in fact finds a wide range of realisations. In syllable-initial position they are most regularly realised as alveolar plosives (also see Platt & Weber 1980; Tongue 1979), as in (34)–(37), a realisation which has been found to occur more in more informal situations (see Moorthy & Deterding 2000; Tan 1989). These alveolar plosives are at times dentalised (also see Brown 1991). If voiceless, they are also at times aspirated, as in (38) and (39) (also see 2.3.1). (34) (35) (36) (37)

d6 ti] is tauz6n w7d6 dos

the thing is thousand whether those

cf. SSBE ð6 θI] cf. SSBE θa~z6nd cf. SSBE w7ð6 cf. SSBE ð6~z

29

30

Lisa Lim

(38) th6d (39) thauz6n

third thousand

cf. SSBE θ8˜d cf. SSBE θa~z6nd

Their realisation as dental fricatives is, however, still existent, as is clear in examples (40)–(43): (40) (41) (42) (43)

θri θauz6n ð7z ð6 w7ð6

three thousand there’s the whether

In syllable-final position, dental fricatives alternate with labiodental fricatives (also see Bao 1998; Deterding & Poedjosoedarmo 1998) so that one hears both (44) and (45), as well as pronunciations with fricative realisations: (44) fff (45) wif

fourth with

cf. SSBE ffθ cf. SSBE wiθ/ð

Some previous work documents only the realisations of dental fricatives as alveolar plosives and concludes that dental fricatives have conflated with alveolar plosives in CSE and are consequently no more part of the CSE phonemic inventory. It is clear from examples (40)–(43) and especially (44)–(45) that the dental fricatives do have a different distribution from the plosives, and therefore do still exist as phonemes in CSE (also see Bao 1998). 2.3.4 Nasal deletion When followed by a nasal, vowels become phonetically nasalised; this is a usual occurrence of assimilation. What is characteristic in CSE is that the post-vocalic nasal – most commonly, the alveolar nasal – at times subsequently gets deleted, leaving the preceding vowel nasalised, as in (46)–(48). In (47) and (48), consonant cluster simplification occurs as well (see Section 2.3.6.3), with the final voiceless plosive being deleted. (46) taĩ (47) dõ (48) 6paũ

time don’t around

Sounding Singaporean

2.3.5 Liquids and glides 2.3.5. l vocalisation In CSE, /l/ is pronounced clear in initial positions, and elsewhere it is velarised, the latter allophone more commonly referred to as ‘dark’ /l/. There is also a tendency for velarised l to become vocalised, where there is no tongue-tip contact for /l/ and the allophone is realised as a vowel of a high back quality in the region of [ö] or [?] with more or less lip rounding respectively.10 Vocalised /l/ in CSE11 appears to be in free variation with a ‘dark’ /l/ realisation, occurring regardless of the vowel preceding it. (49) (50) (51) (52)

sti? jfs7?f oso instf?m6n

still yourself also installment

cf. SSBE stIR cf. SSBE jf˜s7Rf cf. SSBE 6~Rs6~ cf. SSBE InstfRm6nt

2.3.5.2 r, taps and flaps In CSE, /r/ is regularly found as a voiced post-alveolar approximant. In the speech of Malay Singaporeans, however, the realisation of /r/ alternates between this and as a voiced alveolar tap; the following examples show the latter. In Refined RP, this may be a variant, though more commonly in intervocalic positions, e.g. very, forever, or following dental fricatives, e.g. three (Cruttenden 2001: 207). As can be seen from the examples, a tap is not limited to just these positions in Malay SE. (53) (54) (55) (56)

nod nevju min6 stnet di:ni

road rearview mirror straight degree

It may also be noted at this point that alveolar tap or flap is observed on occasion in CSE, more commonly in Tamil Singaporeans, as the realisation of the alveolar plosives /t, d/ when they undergo neutralisation in intervocalic position; this phenomenon is commonly associated with GA. (57) b7n6 (58) ban af bIn bpfn ap d7t we

better but I’ve been brought up that way

2.3.5.3 r deletion In syllable-initial position, there is an occasional tendency for /r/ to be deleted, most often when occurring in a consonant cluster.

3

32

Lisa Lim

(59) (60) (61) (62)

ffm pfbl6m 7vide v7.i

from problem everyday very

cf. SSBE fp#m cf. SSBE pp#bl6m cf. SSBE 7vpIdeI cf. SSBE v7pi

2.3.5.4 v ~ w alternation In the CSE of Tamil Singaporeans, but not in the Chinese and Malay speakers, an alternation is observed where /v/ is sometimes realised either as the voiced labial-velar approximant or the voiced labiodental approximant. (63) w7pi (64) n7w6/n7‚6/n7v6 (65) wiwa/wi‚a/siva

very never Shiva

2.3.6 Syllable structure processes 2.3.6. Syllabic consonants Syllabic consonants are not observed in CSE: the syllable retains the vowel schwa in its nucleus, with the lateral approximant or nasal occupying coda position. (66) lfdëŠik6l (67) hinduiz6m (68) :iv6n

logical Hinduism given

cf. SSBE l#dëŠIklŸ cf. SSBE hInd~IzmŸ cf. SSBE :IvnŸ

2.3.6.2 Final consonant deletion or replacement The syllable-final consonant is sometimes deleted; this appears to be restricted to obstruents, most commonly with plosives: (69) (70) (71) (72)

nf disai fai wi

not decide five with

If the syllable-final consonant is a plosive, then it is at times replaced by glottal stop, as illustrated in (73)–(76). This affects both voiceless and voiced plosives – though it may be postulated that the voiced plosive is first devoiced (see Section 2.3.2) and it is the now voiceless plosive which is replaced by glottal stop. Glottal replacement occurs most frequently with the alveolar plosive, and as seen in example (76) is also found word-medially.12

Sounding Singaporean

(73) (74) (75) (76)

wf‘ wa‘ sk7‘ 7‘tëw6li

shop what scared actually

2.3.6.3 Consonant cluster reduction As is common in connected speech, consonant clusters in coda position tend to be simplified. In CSE, this process also occurs in less rapid speech, even in citation forms. Final plosives, particularly alveolar plosives, tend to be deleted when preceded by nasals, /s/, or /l/, as (77)–(82) show. (77) (78) (79) (80) (81) (82)

lam pis6nli ti] as 6t7n hol

lump recently think ask attend hold

Reduction obviously affects both mono- and bimorphemic stems: an example of the latter is seen in (78), and also consistently affects the past tense morpheme, as (83) and (84) show, such that no distinction is made or perceived between verbs marked and unmarked as past (also see Fong this volume). It would be interesting to investigate if this is primarily a case of phonetic reduction or syntactic simplification. (83) tëw7k (84) s6pos

checked supposed

Other reductions involve the deletion of the voiceless alveolar and voiceless dental fricatives and voiceless palato-alveolar affricate when occurring finally in a consonant cluster (preceded by /n/, /t/, or /k/), as in (85)–(90), with (87) showing reduction in a bimorphemic environment. There may also be reduction of more than one consonant, as in (90). (85) (86) (87) (88) (89) (90)

lais6n pil7k siks man tëwen las

license relax sixth month change lasts

33

34

Lisa Lim

Consonant cluster simplification may affect the penultimate consonant rather than the final one, illustrated in (91)–(94) which all involve alveolar plosives. With the exception of (91), these may in fact be analysed as having the final consonant in the cluster deleted before the addition of the suffix. (91) (92) (93) (94)

ð7s f7ks p7p6ns dip7ns

that’s facts parents depends

Cluster reduction may also occur even when resyllabification after the addition of a suffix would have actually already removed the existence of a cluster, as in (95). This suggests that the underlying form of the item exists in its reduced form, with no final consonant cluster. (95) faini]

finding

2.3.7 Liaison Although most descriptions of CSE mention its syllable-timed or ‘machinegun’ rhythm, attributing this to a number of factors, including an absence of liaison (Brown 1988), a certain amount of linking is in fact observed in the corpus. It is apparent, though, that the insertion of linking or intrusive /r/, or linking /j/ or /w/, found in RP (Cruttenden 2001: 288–290), is not used, as seen in (98) where in SSBE a linking /r/ would occur between there and is. (96) laikç6 (97) wan siksç6 wan faiv® (98) 7n d7çizçonli wan :fd

like a one six or one five and there is only one god

2.3.8 Consonantal substrate influences? Tables 2.10 to 2.14 sketch the consonant systems of the local languages (again based on Bodman 1955; Chiang 1940; Deterding & Poedjosoedarmo 1998; Killingley 1993; Lim 1988; Lock 1982; see comment in Section 2.2.5). Symbols in parentheses are those which are peripheral or are noted not to be realised in the Singaporean variety of the language, such as the retroflex segments of Mandarin. Syllable structure in the languages is as follows: In Hokkien, there is an optional initial consonant, an optional approximant, a vowel, and an optional final consonant. The syllable-final consonant can be a nasal, an unaspirated voiceless

Sounding Singaporean

Table 2.10. Consonants of Hokkien. Bilabial

Plosive

Labiodental*

ph p b

Nasal

Alveolar Dental* Palatoalveolar*

Palatal* Velar

th t

m

Glottal

kh k : ‘ n

Fricative

s

Affricate

tësh tës dëz

] h

Approx* Lateral flap/ approximant

l

* Categories are maintained in the tables (space permitting) even if no sounds exist in that particular language for the sake of consistency and comparison across the languages.

Table 2.11. Consonants of Cantonese. Bilabial

Plosive Nasal Fricative

Labiodental

ph p

Alveolar

Palatal

th t m

Velar

Glottal

kh k (‘) kwh kh n

f

] ç tëçh

Affricate Approximant Lat. approx.

Dental* Palatoalveolar*

h tëç w

j l

plosive which is unreleased, or a glottal stop; in fast speech, the plosives are occasionally replaced by glottal stop (Bodman 1955: 206). In Cantonese, there is an optional initial consonant, a vowel, and an optional final consonant. The syllable-final consonant can be a nasal, or an unaspirated voiceless plosive which is unreleased and therefore similar to a glottal stop. In Malay there is an optional initial consonant, an obligatory vowel, and an optional final consonant, which gets resyllabified into the next syllable if a word has the structure CVCV or CVCVC. Voiced plosives, palatal consonants and approximants never occur in syllable-final position, and consonant clusters are not allowed.

35

36

Lisa Lim

Table 2.12. Consonants of (Singapore) Mandarin. Bilabial

Plosive

Labiodental

ph p

Alveolar Retroflex

Palatal

th t n

s

f

Fricative

Velar

tësh

Affricate

Glottal*

kh k

m

Nasal

Palatoalveolar*

] (‰ )

tës

(

të‰h

x

ç tëçh

ë‰ )

tëç

Approx* l

Lat. approx.

Table 2.13. Consonants of Malay.

Plosive

Bilabial Labiodental

Alveolar Dental* Palatoalveolar

p b

t

Nasal

m

d

k

n f

Fricative

Palatal Velar

s

\

z

Glottal

: ]

h

w tëw

Affricate

‘

dëŠ

r

Trill

j

Approximant

w

l

Lat. approx.

Table 2.14. Consonants of Tamil. Bilabial

Plosive Nasal

Labiodental

p

Dental

Alveolar Retroflex

t m

z n

Palatal

Velar

c

k

^

\



j

Fricative Affricate* r

Trill Approximant Lat. approx.

‚

p l

T

Glottal*

Sounding Singaporean

The first thing that can be pointed out is that the Chinese languages have a phonemic distinction between aspirated and unaspirated plosives. Since English does not have this phonemic distinction, it is understandable that in CSE these two sounds may then be used in free variation with impunity, as noted in Section 2.3.1 above. However one should also note that in Malay, voiceless plosives are not aspirated in any position (Othman & Atmosumarto 1995). This difference is in fact reflected in the realisation of aspiration in the ethnic varieties: as mentioned in 2.3.1, in other work which used highly controlled and comparable read data, it is found that in syllable-initial voiceless plosives in English of Singaporean Chinese and Chinese-sounding13 Malay speakers, voice onset time (VOT) is significantly larger than the VOTs of Malay and Indian Singaporeans, and Malay- or Indian-sounding Malay speakers (Huang 2003; Lau 2002; Ng & Lim 2004). Dental fricatives are not present in any of the local languages’ inventories, and so it is understandable that other realisations are sought in CSE: (dentalised) alveolar plosives in initial position, and fricatives in a labio-dental place of articulation in coda position, as noted in Section 2.3.3. At this point we do not have an explanation for the different choices in onset and coda. We can also understand from a language contact viewpoint the processes that occur in CSE codas. First, our observations on consonant cluster reduction in Section 2.3.6.3 can be explained by the fact that none of the local languages allow for more than one consonant in the coda. For that consonant in the coda, Malay does not allow voiced plosives, while the Chinese languages, in addition to nasals, only allow unaspirated voiceless plosives in coda position which are usually unreleased or realised as glottal stop. The parallels cannot be ignored in the CSE processes of the devoicing of final voiced obstruents, and glottal reinforcement or replacement of plosives, described in Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.6.2. Finally the ethnic-specific features noted in Sections 2.3.5.2 and 2.3.5.4 can be accounted for by the fact that in Singaporean Malay, orthographic r is pronounced as a tap, and that Tamil does not have a phonemic difference between labio-dental fricative and labial-velar approximant, but a labio-dental approximant does exist in the inventory of sounds. 2.4 Prosodic features There are a large number of prosodic features of SE; those that will be addressed here are forms and functions of certain utterance types, phrase-final lengthening, and focus and prominence. It has been recognised in much recent work

37

38

Lisa Lim

Table 2.15. A summary of INTSINT symbols, adapted for CSE. Tones

Symbol Name

Definition

Absolute tones ⇑ [ ⇒ ⇓

Top Mid Level Bottom

Top of the speaker’s pitch range Unmarked initial boundary as a mid initial pitch Sustained level pitch, usually mid Bottom of the speaker’s pitch range

↑ ↓ → ]

Higher Lower Same Same

< >

Upstep Downstep

Target higher than both immediate neighbours Target lower than both immediate neighbours Target not different from preceding target Unmarked final boundary same as preceding target Target in a rising sequence Target in a falling sequence

Relative tones

Intonation unit […] boundaries [[…]]

Normal boundary

To mark the boundaries of intonation units

Resetting boundary

To mark the resetting boundaries of intonation units in continuous texts or dialogues

on SE intonation that it is in fact not appropriate to use the traditional British model of intonation for analysis or description (e.g. Deterding 1994; Lim 1997; Low 1994). This is largely due to the observation that there is no one single most prominent syllable in a tone group – this is described as there being multiple nuclei in a tone group (Ayampillay 1983; Tay & Gupta 1983; Yeow 1987). Furthermore, prominence is not always indicated by means of pitch, and therefore this poses a problem with the identification of the traditional nucleus or tonic syllable. In the discussion in the following sections, reference will not be made to the tone on a nuclear syllable, but instead to the significant pitch movements in an utterance which may certainly be more than one. The transcription system INTSINT (an INTernational Transcription System for INTonation) (Hirst & Di Cristo 1998) is used to narrowly represent pitch movements; this is summarised in Table 2.15, based on Hirst & DiCristo 1998, slightly adapted for CSE. To better represent certain features of prosody found in SE, the symbols are at times combined (also see Zhu 2003 for elaboration on the adaptation of INTSINT for CSE); for example, to express movement when the pitch falls and is held equally significantly at a level pitch, ↓→ is used. In the examples in this section, syllables given in upper case indicate prominence, equivalent to what is interpreted as focal stress; note that there can be more than one instance of this in an intonation group in CSE (see Section 2.4.3). .

Sounding Singaporean

2.4. Intonation forms and functions This section provides an overview of the forms and functions of intonation in SE. (For a more detailed account, see Zhu (2003); Zhu & Lim (2002).) 2.4.. Declaratives In declaratives, as expected, the most common final pitch movements are falls and rise-falls. Sharp falls – which display a quick drop – are usually associated with a clear and definite finality, e.g.: (99) THEN ASK ManJU FOLlow the LIGHT. ↓ ↑ → > ⇓ ] [ ⇑

Gradual falls tend to display slow and often lengthened fall in pitch, as illustrated in Figure 2.1. In addition to an indication of finality, they also convey emotions or attitudes such as disappointment, as in (100): (100) I THOUGHT there WEREN’T any MORE. ⇑ > ⇒ ⇓ ] [⇓

Rise-falls, the least common nuclear tone in RP (Cruttenden 2001: 269), are not rare in CSE, found in approximately 21% of declaratives. We see a clear example of a rise-fall over the single-syllable utterance yes in Figure 2.2. Similar to SSBE, rise-falls in CSE convey strong approval, strong disapproval and surprise, as in examples (101) to (103): (101) YEAH. [I’m serious.] [ ⇑⇓ ] (102) A: No, I thought you heard the alarm and you didn’t want … B: I didn’t HEAR the aLARM at ALL. ⇑ ↓ ↑⇓ ] [ (103) Still RAIN NOW. [I didn’t know that!] ⇑↓ ↑⇓ ] [

2.4..2 Interrogatives Wh-interrogatives. The more common pitch movement on Wh-interrogatives is a fall (65%) or rise-fall (10%), contrary to previous claims that falling tones are less preferred in SE Wh- interrogatives (Goh 2000; Tay 1982). One finds low gradual falls, as in (104), or high sharp falls which are usually associated with strong feelings of surprise, disagreement or irritation, as in (105). Rises are also used, as in (106).

39

40

Lisa Lim

Figure 2.1. Gradual fall: third year.

(104) WHAT do you CALL THAT? > ⇓ ] [ ⇑ (105) WHAT you WANT to SAY? ↓ ⇑⇓ ] [ ↑ (106) WHEN did you SEE the viDEO? ⇓ → ⇑ ] [ ↑

Yes/no interrogatives. As in RP (Cruttenden 2001: 270), a rise or fall-rise is used most commonly in yes/no interrogatives in CSE, as in (107). A small number of instances of yes/no interrogatives using a fall is found, and the example (108) suggests that, again as in RP, this conveys a more demanding or impatient attitude: (107) Have YOU EATEN? ⇑ ⇓ ↑ ] [ (108) A: Shall WE GO MaRIna? ⇑ > ⇓ ↑] [ B: What? A: Shall we GO MaRINA? ⇑ > ⇓ ] [

Sounding Singaporean

Figure 2.2. Rise-fall: yes.

2.4..3 Imperatives A large majority (75%) of imperatives use a fall or rise-fall as in (109), while about 16% use a rise or fall-rise, as in (110). Whereas in RP, a rising tone makes an imperative more polite (Cruttenden 2001: 271), this seems less systematic in CSE, and it is more the inclusion of a pragmatic particle such as lah, ah or lor which softens the imperative (see Section 2.4.2.3 below and Wee this volume). (109) DON’T QUEStion ME. ⇑ ⇓ ] [ (110) Then USE your OWN WORDS. ⇑ ↓ ↑ ⇓ ↑] [

2.4..4 Exclamatives A fall or rise-fall is preferred for exclamatives, as in RP (Cruttenden 2001: 271), though it should be noted that there are very few formal exclamatives in CSE which begin with an initial question word, compared to RP (Quirk et al. 1972 in Cruttenden’s (2001: 271) examples). Low falls seem to convey an unexcited expression of genuine emotion, e.g.: (111) SO SWEET of YOU! ⇑ > ⇓ ] [

4

42

Lisa Lim

High falls are usually used with individual words to express surprise, e.g. (112) GOSH! [⇑ ⇓]

Rise-falls tend to be found on individual words as well, and express strong feelings of disapproval or surprise; notice how in both examples the rise-fall is in fact found on the second syllable which is not lexically stressed in SSBE: (113) BORING! [I don’t like working at home!] [ ⇒ ⇑⇓ ] (114) CRAZY! [ ⇒ ⇑⇓ ]

2.4.2 Characteristic CSE forms 2.4.2. Sustained level steps A striking feature of CSE intonation is the tendency for the pitch to move in terms of sustained steps or level tones, rather than gliding more gradually from one pitch level to another; a frequent use of level tones has been noted in previous work (e.g. Goh 1998). While in Figure 2.3 we have an entire series of level tones making up a level tune, we also see illustrated in Figure 2.1 earlier that even while there are gradual falls over both words in the utterance third year, the transition from one word to the other is like a step down before the next gradual fall, rather than a single fall across both words. In Figure 2.4, there is quite a distinct step up from one level to another from think to happier, and not a rise, whether gradual or sharp, between the two words. With movements in sustained levels of pitch, it is understandable that previous descriptions have referred to SE intonation as being ‘singsong’. In the corpus, 16% of declaratives end in a level tone: either a simple level or a complex fall-level or rise-level. As with level tones in SSBE, in CSE level tones in phrase-final position convey incompleteness, e.g.: (115) I TOLD my TUItion STUdent RIGHT THAT er … ⇑ > → ⇓ ⇒ ⇒ ] [ NOW I DON’T CHARGE her MORE than Usual ⇑ ↓ < ⇒ ] [ ⇒ beCAUSE of the ecoNOmic CRISIS ⇑ > → ⇒ ⇒] [

Sounding Singaporean

Interesting variants of the level tones found in CSE are the fall-level and riselevel tones. Fall-level tones are distinct from both falling and level tones as they start with a sharp fall and continue into a relatively lengthened level tone, as illustrated in Figure 2.4. They are used to express the speaker’s viewpoint that he believes is right (indicated by the fall) but still expects the listener to make further comments (indicated by the level), e.g.: (116) I THINK HAppier. ⇓ ⇒] [ ⇑

Rise-level tones are rarer but do occur, associated with a clear indication of incompleteness of the utterance, e.g.: (117) Don’t KNOW if can GET in. ⇑ ⇓ ↑⇒ ] [ [

In exclamatives, lengthened level-fall pitch movements – the reverse in form – are used for more emphatic emotions, e.g.: (118) SO IRriTATING! [ [ ⇑ ⇒ →⇓ ] (119) WOW! You went for rock-climbing. [ ⇒⇓ ]

2.4.2.2 Phrase-final lengthening These lengthened level tones described in Section 2.4.2.1 above can be interpreted as lengthening of the phrase-final syllable, a common occurrence in CSE. In many cases it seems to be an indication of prominence, even if the prominence is to be found within the rest of the phrase. This is found particularly in Malay CSE, and also noted in Indian CSE. As evident in the latter examples (122) to (124) below, syllables which are lexically unstressed are not excluded from this phenomenon either. (120) (121) (122) (123) (124)

o mai :f˜˜d ba‘ i kfs 6 bf˜˜m d7ts d6 ppfbl6˜˜m v7pi impft6˜˜n wan wik fpi7ntew6˜˜n

oh my God but it cost a bomb that’s the problem very important one week orientation

This echoes observations made in previous work, where syllables or words in phrase- or sentence-final position in CSE show syllable lengthening, increased

43

44

Lisa Lim

Figure 2.3. Level tune: you told me.

Figure 2.4. Fall-level: (I think) happier.

loudness and a change in vowel quality, though not a change in pitch (Low & Grabe 1999; Platt & Weber 1980), and consequently tend to be perceived as prominent (see Section 2.4.3).

Sounding Singaporean

2.4.2.3 Particles Discourse particles warrant a section on their own, not only as they are a very salient feature of CSE (see Wee this volume), but also because a significant pitch movement is always found on them; this in turn is significant because, as particles are always phrase-final, their pitch obtrusion gives the impression of prominence in that position. In declaratives, falls are found when an utterance ends in certain discourse particles, such as what (given as wat in Wee this volume) or lah. With a particle like what, pronounced [wat], a usually sharp drop to a low tone is the default pitch movement and no other is used, although lengthening can occur. The use of what presents a piece of information that is obvious and carries the force of a contradiction to something that has previously been asserted (see Wee this volume): (125) conveys the speaker’s objection to an action or viewpoint attributed to a third party, and (126) expresses the speaker’s assertion of a certain right: (125) A: Why do we need sensitive ears? B: You can HEAR the ENGINE WHAT. ↓ ⇑ > ⇓ ] [ (126) A: But this one is only for those matriculated students. B: I’m matricuLAted WHAT. ⇑ ⇓ ] [

In general, lah, pronounced [la], functions as a solidarity marker (see Wee this volume), but it can occur with at least two kinds of pitch movements. A low falling lah helps to establish “a positive rapport between speakers and an element of solidarity” (cf. Richards & Tay 1977: 145), as in both instances in (127), while a high falling lah in most cases is additionally associated with a strong emotion, as in the first phrase in (128) or indication of obviousness in (129): (127) A: I THINK maybe I GO lah. ⇑ > → ⇓] [ B: NOT BAD lah. [ > > ⇓] (128) I DON’T KNOW lah. I VERy BLUR lah. → ⇓ ][ ⇑ → ⇓ ] [ ⇑ (129) ONE by ONE CALL LAH. > ⇑ ⇓ ] [ [ ‘We have to phone them one by one, we don’t have a choice.’

45

46

Lisa Lim

In imperatives, the presence of lah as a solidarity marker is also used to soften a command (see Wee this volume), as in (130): (130) You WAIT lah. ⇑ ⇓ ] [

The particle ah, pronounced [a], uttered with a rise, may be used simply to check that the interlocutor is following: (131) SEE ah [ ⇒ →⇑ ]

When used with an imperative, a rise on ah softens the command: (132) You hold on ah. [ [ < → →⇑ ] ‘Hold on, if that’s okay with you.’

The particle ah is also commonly found at the end of declarative interrogatives. The interrogative itself tends to state something that is known to interlocutors, but if the particle has a mid fall or low pitch as in (133) and (134), a response is required from the interlocutor. If the particle has a rise as in the example constructed in (135), then the interrogative is usually just to reiterate a fact but no response is needed from the interlocutor. (133) Like THAT AH? ⇑ ⇓ ] [ (134) THEN you GOT to DO THOSE papers aGAIN ah? ↓ < → ⇓ → ] [ ⇑ (135) THEN you GOT to DO THOSE papers aGAIN ah? ↓ < → ⇓ →↑ ] [ ⇑

This may in fact be contrasted with SSBE tag questions, where a rise on the question tag requires a response ((136) compared to (134)), while a fall on the tag does not or expects one involving the listener’s agreement ((137) compared to (139)). (136) You’ve got to do those papers again, ´do you? ‘Do you have to do those papers again?’ (needing a response) (137) You’ve got to do those papers again, `do you? ‘You have to do those papers again (as we both well know)’

Sounding Singaporean

Another particle commonly used with declarative interrogatives is leh, pronounced [le], which usually has an upstepped level pitch, e.g.: (138) My parents very old fashioned ah? THEN your PArents leh? ⇓ < < ⇒ ] [ ⇑ ‘Are you saying that my parents are old fashioned? Then what about your parents?’

The discourse particle lor, pronounced [lf], is always used with a (usually lengthened, usually mid) level tone, the same pitch which the preceding syllable attains, interestingly; this indicates a sense of obviousness as well as resignation (Wee 2002, this volume): (139) The MOST I have FEwer KIDS lor. ⇑ > → →] [ ‘At the very worst, I’ll have fewer children then.’ (140) You BUY lor. [if you think the flat is so good.] ⇑ →] [ ‘Why don’t you buy it then, if you think the flat is such a good buy.’

2.4.2.4 Pitch patterns and particles from the substrates? What follows now is a discussion of pitch patterns as well as an identification of possible particles in the Chinese languages which match those in CSE in terms of meaning and form, particularly tone. This section addresses the issues involved only briefly, as a more extensive investigation is beyond the scope of this chapter (but see Lim in prep b). Lah particles are found in both Hokkien and Cantonese. In Hokkien final particles are almost always said with weak stress, and lah always occurs in the neutral tone which, at the end of a phrase, has a pitch most resembling that of the low tone but said with very weak stress (Bodman 1955: 45). Apart from a completive meaning, lah also has an exclamatory or confirming force (Bodman 1955: 182). In Cantonese, a high-level la55 in both declaratives and imperatives seems to indicate a general lack of definiteness and denote a lack of forcefulness such that, in the latter, the command becomes more like a request (Kwok 1984: 79). This latter is reflected in SE lah, as in example (125). A different particle la33 with mid-level tone makes the speaker less suppliant (Kwok 1984: 81). The particles ah, leh and lor can potentially be traced to Cantonese, the evidence being particularly convincing for the latter two. In interrogatives, one finds in Cantonese low-falling a21 which when attached to declarative interrogatives makes it more strictly a yes/no question (Kwok 1984: 87). The

47

48

Lisa Lim

Cantonese high level ne55 is frequently pronounced as le55 (as initial /l/ and /n/ are in free variation (Kwok 1984: 12)), can be suffixed to a declarative stem to form a question, and has a comparative function, used to compare one thing with something else (Kwok 1984: 91). Both the tone, form and meaning can be seen quite clearly in CSE’s leh in example (133). It should be noted that Hokkien also has a ne (or ni) particle which serves to emphasise contrasts (Bodman 1955: 45), and a le particle which is most often used in conversation between intimates, marking lack of formality (Bodman 1984: 204), but the fact that both these are usually with neutral tone and weak stress, while SE’s leh is decidedly accompanied by a mid or high-level tone, would suggest its origin more from Cantonese than Hokkien. The particle lo33 with mid-level tone is found in Cantonese declaratives with an intensifying function to give a meaning ‘of course …’ and the sense of inevitability and irrevocability (Kwok 1984: 48, 49). High-level lo55 has the function of pointing out what appears to be obvious but with a less severe attitude than low-rising lo21 (Kwok 1984: 57–59). Either of the former two appears to match CSE’s mid or high level lor both in form and meaning of obviousness, as seen in examples (134) and (135). It is fairly convincing that the majority of CSE particles have been assimilated into CSE from the Chinese languages: this alone is not especially interesting as we see similar processes in the phonological and grammatical systems. What is striking – and quite unique in world Englishes – is how they exhibit a maintenance of their tone as in their language of origin (interacting with intonation in the rest of the utterance (cf. Loke & Low 1988)), even though they are being used in a variety of English. It is irrelevant whether the current speakers of SE speak these languages or are even aware of the original tones on the particles, as their use is already part of the system of CSE. A question which has been posed (see Platt 1987) is whether the particles have an independent lexical tone and/or whether they are the nuclei of their respective tone units, carrying the major pitch movement. I believe that as a consequence of their maintaining their original lexical tone, particles in CSE tend to become one of the more prominent syllables in an utterance. Furthermore, because the tone they carry is fixed (as with e.g. leh) or is chosen from a small, closed set (as with e.g. ah), and because particles, together with their tone, determine the pragmatic meaning of the utterance, their presence in an utterance does affect the possibilities of pitch movement on the rest of the utterance.

Sounding Singaporean

2.4.3 Focus and prominence The phenomena of focus and prominence exhibit characteristic behaviour in SE (also see Lim 2002). We first look at the distinctive placement of focus in SE, and then at the phonetic correlates which act as cues for indicating prominence in SE. 2.4.3. Focus placement While new information is at times stressed, given information is often hardly destressed, as illustrated in example (141), rough paper being the reaccented given information in B’s turn. (141) A: Use them for rough paper lah. B: I’ve alREAdy got aNOther WHOLE DRAWer of ⇑ > ↑↓ ↑↓ [ ROUGH PAPER. ⇒ ⇒ ]

In many cases, the reaccenting of given information occurs at the end of a tone group or at the end of a turn; it has been suggested that this serves to indicate an end of an intonation phrase or turn (Deterding 1994; Zhu 2003). In example (142), house, in the second and third instances is old information which would not normally receive prominence. However, what one finds is that, while the contrastive items reach and left are still made prominent (though largely in terms of loudness, not pitch), a number of other non-contrastive/old items in the utterances are also just as prominent: for example, the second and third instances of house, particularly the final instance on which a high fall is found, making it sound like the nucleus. (142) B: Sorry? The guy gave the girl a bouquet of flowers and… A: With a message ah. To say that he was sorry … they had to end like that. B: He gave her ah? A: He SENT her … to her HOUSE ... ⇑ ⇓ ] [ [ ][ but beFORE the bouQUET REACH the HOUSE ⇑ > → → ] [ the COUple had already LEFT the HOUSE. → ⇑ ⇓ ] [ [

49

50

Lisa Lim

In comparison to the previous example, instances are also found in the corpus where prominence is not given to contrasted items in an utterance. In the conversation in (143) between two Chinese females, in B’s second turn, neither your nor my, contrasting with each other, is given prominence, both being said with low pitch and loudness. On the other hand, both instances of the noncontrastive information parents, are said with increased loudness and a rise in pitch. Notably, the discourse particles ah and leh carry very prominent pitches (see Section 2.4.2.3). (143) B: My parents will disown me lah if I marry someone Caucasian or Indian. My parents very what. ‘My parents would disown me if I married someone Caucasian or Indian. My parents are really impossible.’ A: *** old fashion ah. ‘(They are simply) old fashioned.’ B: My parents are very old fashion ah? THEN your PArents leh? ⇓ ↑ → ] [ ⇑ ‘Are you saying that my parents are old fashioned? Then what about your parents?’

We see a similar instance in example (144) where two Indian females are talking about various friends, including B herself, going on trips to India. A’s response in the third turn does not have I, the item supposedly in focus, being emphasised; instead, utterance-final go is uttered with a high fall and increased duration. Likewise in the conversation in (145) between two Malay speakers, emphatic is in B’s response is not given prominence, but phrase-final tested is, with pitch prominence and length being used, notably on the second syllable which would be unstressed in SSBE. (144) A: Everyone’s going India lah, ennai thavirae. ‘except me’ (Tamil) B: Why? A: I also want to GO:. ⇑⇓→ ] [ (145) A: That one is not tested during the test. B: That is tesTE:D, everything. ⇑→ ] [

Sounding Singaporean

We do however also find instances in the corpus where contrastive information is indeed given prominence, in terms of pitch and loudness. In example (146), B’s response to A’s suggestion that someone has gone back to India contrasts the items back, went, and back with a low fall, a rise-fall, and a fall, respectively. Later in the conversation, in B’s response in example (147), brother is contrasted with cousin using a high fall. Finally in (148), both instances of have, evidently in focus, are made prominent with falls. (146) A: Do you know that Sri Devi eh Sri Devi went back to India? B: Went BACK ah? She WENT to India. ⇑⇓ ][ ⇑⇓ ] [ She didn’t went she didn’t go BACK to India. ⇑⇓ ] [ She’s from SINgapore what. ⇑↓ ↑⇓ ] [ (147) B: When is she coming back? A month later right? A: A month later. Her brother’s wedding ah? B: No lah. Not her BROther’s wedding. ⇑⇓ ] [ Her COUsin’s…wedding. ⇑⇓ ] [ (148) A: I don’t want to attend the class. B: You HAVE to listen. You HAVE to attend. ⇑↓ ][ ⇑↓ ] [

These findings may be compared to patterns noted by Goh (2000) in data from read passages, on-air interviews and conversations, and informal exchanges: that although SE speakers do assign prominence to highlight new information, they also often assign prominence to non-selective words in utterance-final position. Investigations into contrastive stress have also been carried out using elicited utterances (Lim to appear; Lim & Tan 2001), as in the following example where the investigator asked a series of three questions (Q1 to Q3) and the responses (A) were given by the Singaporean subjects (upper case indicates the expected position of prominence, as in SSBE; bold indicates the actual realisation in the SE speakers):

5

52

Lisa Lim

(149) Q1: A: Q2: A: Q3: A:

Which cake do you want? I want the LEMON cake. You want the banana cake? I want the LEMON cake. Which lemon product do you want? I want the lemon CAKE.

As can be seen, SE speakers do not make the item in focus prominent (Lim to appear; Lim & Tan 2001). When the same material is tested with an older generation of English-educated SE speakers, however, contrasted items are given their accorded prominence (Fong & Lim 2000). It appears then that a change in prosodic patterns in SE may have occurred over a single generation. 2.4.3.2 Prominence cues As can be inferred in the previous section, a variety of phonetic cues are used in SE to make a syllable prominent. Pitch and loudness can be the more significant cues, as in examples (146) to (148), though it is also clear that length, together with loudness or pitch, can act as the more dominant cue which attracts prominence, as in examples (144) and (145). This is obviously relatable to the prominent phrase-final lengthening described in Section 2.4.2.2. In other work which used highly-controlled elicited data (Lim & Tan 2001; Tan 2001), it is shown that Chinese, Indian and Malay Singapore English have different acoustic and perceptual cues for stressed syllables (as opposed to unstressed syllables): Chinese SE seem to use loudness and length,14 Indian SE uses pitch and loudness, and Malay SE uses all three parameters of pitch, loudness and duration. While Chinese and Malay SE do not distinguish between neutral stress and emphatic stress, Indian SE uses duration as a cue for emphatic stress, which interestingly is the parameter not used by this group for neutral stress. 2.4.3.3 Substrate prosody? Unfortunately there is very little in the literature which documents comprehensively patterns of focus or phonetic cues for prominence in the local languages in question. The little information that can be gleaned includes the following. While in Hokkien, the most common way of emphasising a part of an utterance is to place the item in focus in utterance-initial position (Bodman 1955), Mandarin likes end focus. Similarly, in some varieties of Malay, the accent is on the final word of the focussed phrasal category, with the focal information unit tending to come at the end of an utterance (Deterding & Poedjosoedarmo

Sounding Singaporean

1998), and narrow focus is not possible; additionally, listeners appear to prefer final focus. This already suggests that word order preferences in the local languages do have some influence on which part of an utterance in CSE is produced and/or considered in focus and therefore prominent. As for how prominence is cued, while pitch movement appears to be utilised in Malay and Tamil (Asher 1985; Deterding & Poedjosoedarmo 1998), because the Sinitic languages are tonal, they cannot rely as much on pitch dynamics and need to turn to loudness and length to indicate prominence. In addition, as already suggested (in Section 2.4.2.4), the significant pitch movement on particles affects the relative effect of pitch prominence perceived in any other part of the utterance. Taken together, these observations already start to account for the tendency for a relatively prominent item in phrase-final position, and the use of length and loudness as much as, or more than, pitch as prominence cues. These would also account for the phrase-final prominence described in Section 2.4.2.1. The fact that Sinitic languages are tone languages may also be a clue for the pattern of sustained level steps noted in 2.4.2.1. More systematic and detailed investigation is obviously needed in this area, but it does seem clear that the morphological, grammatical and prosodic devices used in the different local languages must have a bearing on focus strategies in CSE. 2.5 Conclusions This chapter has described the sounds and sound system as well as patterns of prosody of colloquial Singapore English. It is evident that there are systematic characteristic features of CSE which set it apart from more standard Englishes. At the same time, one does still observe – in this young, English-educated, English-speaking generation – quite a variation in realisation which would suggest that these speakers straddle a range of accents and seem perfectly comfortable mixing them, even when operating in the same informal domain. This chapter has also included an examination of the sound systems of some of the more significant local languages, and this has allowed us to place the CSE accent in perspective and obtain a keener understanding of its features, particularly from a more typological perspective.

53

54

Lisa Lim

Notes . I am grateful to Umberto Ansaldo and Edgar Schneider for their suggestions and constructive criticisms: they have helped me refine my thinking and writing of this chapter. What shortcomings remain are, of course, attributable to myself alone. 2. While – as their names suggest – CSE is generally defined as being the variety of more colloquial speech, found in informal situations, and SSE the more standard variety used in more formal contexts, this division, which works with features of syntax, semantics and pragmatics, is not so neat where the sounds and sound system are concerned. In present-day Singapore, a relatively small minority of Singaporeans does have within their repertoire a ‘standard’, ‘English-educated’ or acrolectal pronunciation, one that more closely approximates a standard (southern) British English (SSBE) or, these days, General American (GA) accent. These include, for example, the Senior Minister, some university faculty, an everdecreasing number of television broadcast journalists, essentially those who come from ‘English-speaking’ homes and/or mission schools. These speakers would use this accent in more formal situations, and would have in their repertoire another accent, one which would be considered more colloquial and more ‘Singaporean’, for more informal situations. However, the majority of Singaporeans nowadays, including university graduates and most of the government ministers and Members of Parliament, regardless of whether they are speaking their most standard variety in a formal situation or a colloquial variety in informal contexts, tend to exhibit a set of similar features in their accent. In other words, English-educated English-speaking Singaporeans’ pronunciation in their standard variety possesses features which are documented as being those of CSE. For them then, the distinction between their SSE and CSE pronunciation is much smaller, or absent. In other words, the accent which is classified as ‘colloquial’ is really their stable accent, in both colloquial and non-colloquial domains. This suggests that we may perhaps need to use a different term for this typically Singaporean accent; the term ‘mesolectal’ may in this case be more appropriate. For the purposes of consistency in this volume, however, the term ‘Colloquial Singapore English’ will still be used. (Also see note 3.) 3. In a recent study under my supervision (Ng 2003), it was found that even in a sample of English-educated, tertiary-level Singaporeans, speaking in more formal domains, one obtains a range of realisations of phonetic features; what is significant for our discussion is that those speakers judged by other Singaporeans as being ‘good’ speakers show features closer to SSBE, and speakers judged as ‘weak’

Sounding Singaporean

show features normally characterised as being features of Colloquial Singapore English. (Also see note 2.)

4. The SSE referred to here is intended as that of the more acrolectal pronunciation, and not the SSE of those speakers which is not distinguished from their CSE; see note 2. 5. The SSE vowel inventory, on the other hand is almost identical to that of SSBE, though the actual realisation of the vowels is somewhat different. 6. The original CURE set is modified to POOR/CURE because of the particular realisation of a subset of CURE words, as outlined in Section 2.2.4. 7. As the vowels /i/ and /u/ and their corresponding glides /j/ and /w/ are phonetically equivalent, the difference in representation is a matter of phonetic realisation and not of phonemic significance, and so the two diphthongs /i6/ and /u6/ are still recognised as phonemes in CSE. 8. Experiments on Voice Onset Time (VOT) using other highly-controlled read material suggest that speakers of Mandarin, Hokkien and Cantonese have larger VOT, that is, greater aspiration, for aspirated plosives in English, as well as in their ethnic languages, compared to speakers of Malay and Tamil (Ng & Lim 2004). See also 2.3.8. 9. It is a feature of RP that syllables closed by voiceless consonants are considerably shorter than those which are open, or closed by a voiced consonant (Peterson & Lehiste 1960, in Cruttenden 2001: 152–153). 0. Acoustically, ‘dark’ l has a different formant structure from ‘clear’ l: the former shows no stark change in formants, with the second formant particularly low, which is not at all unlike the formant pattern for a high back vowel. . ‘Clear’ and ‘dark’ /l/ distribution is found in many accents, e.g. RP (Cruttenden 2001: 201). The phenomenon of l vocalisation has also been documented in accents such as Cockney and Estuary English, the newly emerging variety found in Southeastern England among the young (Cruttenden 2001: 203; Kerswill 1996). 2. In RP, increasingly (though stigmatised until recently), /t/ in syllable-final position is reinforced or replaced by a glottal closure, e.g. late, chutney, unless a vowel or syllabic /l/ or /n/ follows, but the use of [‘] for /t/ preceding /l/ and in unaccented intervocalic positions, e.g. kettle, butter, later, is more typical of regional varieties such as Cockney and Glasgow; the replacement of final /p/ and /k/ by glottal stop is also less frequent in RP (Cruttenden 2001: 170–171).

55

56

Lisa Lim

3. In a recent study under my supervision (Lau 2002), Singaporean listeners in a perceptual test judged speakers as being Chinese-, Malay- or Indian-sounding Singaporeans. The listeners were not made aware that all the speakers were ethnic Malay Singaporeans. 4. The results for the Chinese subjects fell just short of being statistically significant at the level of p < 0.05.

Chapter 3

Nouns and noun phrases Lionel Wee† and Umberto Ansaldo‡ † National University of Singapore ‡ University of Amsterdam

3. Introduction When compared to other aspects of CSE, the grammatical properties of nouns and noun phrases have been tackled in only a handful of studies. A recent description of the CSE noun phrase can be found in Alsagoff and Ho (1998: 143–147), which deals with three main categories: the count/non-count distinction, the absence of articles, and the structure of the relative clause. A more in-depth analysis of CSE NPs can be found in Gil (1994, 1995, 1998, 2003) where various semantic properties are analysed and also discussed in the light of substrate influences. In this chapter, we will have occasion to draw upon these earlier works, though our discussion is more comprehensive. We will also question some specific claims of Alsagoff and Ho concerning the status of one as a relative pronoun in CSE; and in the latter part of this chapter, we will touch on the notion of polyfunctionality in CSE. Our goal, then, is to present a comprehensive analysis of the more commonly noted features as well as the more subtle aspects of CSE nouns and noun phrases. We organise our discussion as follows. We begin with a discussion of the distribution of indefinite articles, followed by the usage of definite articles as well as premodifiers functioning as heads. We then move on to the issues of number and number agreement followed by the claim that one is a relative pronoun in CSE. Finally, our discussion moves on to nominal properties that interface with clause-level properties such as pro-drop and heavy NP shift, and we end our chapter with a discussion of the topic-comment structure of NPs in CSE.

58

Lionel Wee and Umberto Ansaldo

3.2 Nouns and definiteness Of the constituents in the NP, only the head noun is obligatory, although we will discuss below examples where an adjectival premodifier appears to act as the head, standing in for a contextually understood noun. In this section, however, we focus on the marking of (in)definiteness. Though CSE makes use of indefinite and definite articles such as a and the, we often find that such articles are omitted. The more basilectal the variety, the more prominent is the absence of articles. Below, we consider their usage and variation. 3.2. Indefinite articles In CSE, nouns that appear to be count and that would hence require the presence of articles are instead sometimes not accompanied by any articles at all. Some examples are shown below, where in standard varieties an indefinite article would have been used. In (1), A uses the phrase watch movie rather than watch a movie; in (2), A uses going holiday as opposed to going on a holiday; and finally in (3), B uses passed message instead of passed a message. (1) A: OK, you want to go to watch movie or you want to go to *** (2) A: Eh, how come … I heard you are not going holiday. (3) B: So what’s a real man? Because he has more than one wife. I didn’t know he has two wives, you see. I mean his sister passed message to me. She says he has more than one wife.

In (1)–(3), the absence of indefinite articles, we suggest, is due to a process of noun incorporation. All three examples involve verbs that are expected to select an NP or PP as complement, and where the lexical noun that is present in the NP or PP appears to have become semantically bound to the preceding verb so that the entire verb-noun complex is treated as representing a single activity. Noun incorporation is occasionally observed in more standard varieties of English, as illustrated by the following set of sentences. (4) a. He went hunting for a bear. b. He went hunting for bears. c. He went bear-hunting.

In (4), noun incorporation is semantically facilitated by the use of the generic plural (4b), which diminishes both the referentiality and discourse salience of the noun (Mithun 1984, 1986; but see also the objections in Sadock 1986).

Nouns and Noun Phrases

In the CSE example (1), the individual salience and referentiality of movie as a separate entity from the verb watch has been reduced so that the speaker is highlighting the activity of ‘movie-watching’. The same considerations apply to (2) and (3). However, when incorporation does actually occur in Standard English (4c), the incorporated noun precedes the incorporating verb. This differs from the CSE noun incorporation where the noun continues to follow its verb. This difference in sequence may be due to influence from the substrate, as it presents us with a clear Sinitic pattern (see Ansaldo this volume for a detailed discussion of this matter). While the absence of articles in (1)–(3) can be explained via noun incorporation, this is not the case with the following. In (5), three friends are discussing going for a blood test while in (6), A is talking about using a sports facility at a local university. Notice that in (5), both B and A do not make use of indefinite articles (go for blood test, got headache, for blood test only as opposed to go for a blood test, got a headache, for a blood test only), and in (6), A uses sports facility with no article present. (5) B: They assume, yah, people will have money when they go for blood test. That’s why I told her just tell the doctor you got headache or something simple, you know? C: I can’t lie. I seriously can’t lie. A: For blood test only. (6) A: That’s it. So it’s like, you want sports facility, then you have to go down the school …

These examples constitute a fairly heterogeneous collection, and they cannot be treated as cases of noun incorporation for various reasons. First, the preposition is retained (go for blood test), suggesting that the complement retains its status as a PP separate from the verb. Second, the verb is stative rather than dynamic. For example, got headache and want sports facility indicate possession and desire respectively. In contrast, it appears that verbs that participate in noun incorporation are typically dynamic verbs often describing observable behaviors or activities (bear-hunting, watch movie, going holiday, passed message) rather than states (cf. Mithun 1984: 848–850). Third, there is no verb present in cases such as for blood test only. We are thus left with the observation that in CSE, in addition to cases of noun incorporation, articles still do tend to be omitted. However, as with our discussion of number and number agreement (see Section 3.3), we urge caution in positing patterns or hypothesising conditioning factors that might predict

59

60

Lionel Wee and Umberto Ansaldo

the presence and absence of the indefinite article, as such a move might be premature. As the following extracts from a conversation among friends about looking for jobs demonstrate, speakers occasionally leave out articles and, at other times, make use of them. Note that this variation in article usage is not merely an inter-speaker phenomenon as it occurs at the intra-speaker level as well. In (7), C uses an article with temp agency but D does not; and A does not use one with temp job. The same speaker D uses an article with job, though. (7) C: You mean you brought your I/C to a temp agency? [I/C = identity card] A: Yes, I was calling up for temp job. D: That means you can get such a job through temp agency.

In (8), C doesn’t use an article with interview, but A does. (8) C: You went for interview, where? SC itself? A: But, but, but the boss saw the interview.

Finally, in (9), C does not use an article with agency and unknown company. (9) C: Oh, then I don’t mind calling up agency. I always thought like, you know, you’re going to give me some crappy job, like unknown company and all that. D: Not necessarily lah.

We do not rule out the possibility that there might in fact be grammatical or sociolinguistic factors that might be said to condition the use of indefinite articles in CSE. However, it has to be recognised that, given the low status accorded to CSE by native speakers, notions of grammaticality are not as easily perceived as in the case of speakers of more clearly codified standard varieties. Even when asked to give judgments of acceptability, speakers tend to show high variation. The same observation has also been made in Gil (1995). Thus, at this point, we have to entertain the very real possibility that there may not be any rule or pattern governing the use of indefinite articles; CSE may simply not have conventionalised this particular aspect of its grammar. 3.2.2 Definite articles While definite articles appear to be almost entirely omitted in the basilectal variety of CSE (cf. Gil 1998), in the GSSEC corpus the usage of definite articles is much more frequent, as illustrated by the following:

Nouns and Noun Phrases

(10) You remember the joke about afraid that I’m your supervisee? (11) Ya, tell me, do you like the scene when they first kiss?…The boy, the small boy and the small girl.

This is probably due to the fact that, as noted by Ansaldo, and Lim and Foley (this volume), the variety of CSE represented in the GSSEC corpus is primarily a mesolectal rather than basilectal variety. In the basilectal variety, sentences of the following type are much more common, where the definite article has been omitted. (12) Canteen food better. ‘(The) canteen’s food is better.’ (13) Please open window. ‘Please open the window.’

It seems to us that instances such as (12) could be treated as generic, i.e. they lack a distinction between definite and indefinite (Carlson 1977), and this generic reading could be a reason why no article is present. Because CSE can be defined as a continuum of varieties, it may be that the contrast between definite and indefinite NPs will be more salient at the acrolectal level, following Standard English, but minimal at the basilectal level, most likely as a result of substrate influence since generic ‘bare’ NPs can be found in Sinitic varieties, as can be seen for example in Cantonese and Mandarin (Matthews & Pacioni 1998; see also Ansaldo this volume). This appeal to genericity is, however, not a sufficient explanation since there are other cases, such as (13), which do not allow a generic reading. And in (13), the definite article, too, is absent. Once again, as with our earlier discussion of indefinite articles, we think it is worth taking seriously the more modest possibility that the use of definite articles in CSE is not yet conventionalised. A caveat should be borne in mind, though. One should not perceive the suggested lack of stability as being in conflict with lectal variation. It is in fact a common feature of lectal continua to show variation across the varieties while closer, synchronic investigations of one specific and well-defined variety, as attempted in this volume, may also show how features typical of different levels of the continuum are often present within one and the same variety. This matter is discussed more fully in Ansaldo (this volume).

6

62

Lionel Wee and Umberto Ansaldo

3.2.3 Premodifiers as heads In a number of instances, we find that the head noun in a CSE noun phrase is ellipted and instead, the premodifier itself appears to function as the head. Standard English allows something similar to take place but typically only when the adjectival premodifier can be taken to refer to a generic group, as in The poor need more help or The strong can take care of themselves. In contrast, CSE allows the premodifier to stand in for the noun even when the intended reading is non-generic rather than generic. In (14), both A and B use private to refer to the private course, where arguably, the intended reading is a generic one contrasting private courses with non-private (or government-run) ones. And in (15), A uses private in place of private tutors, where a generic reading seems to have been intended; this generic reading is indicated by A’s subsequent use of the generic pronoun they to refer to private tutors in general. So far, the pattern seems to follow that of Standard English. However, the latter part of A’s utterance seems to suggest that private can also be used where a non-generic reading is intended. Thus, A’s use of You have private now seems to refer to a specific individual tutor (i.e. You have a private tutor now). (14) A: My husband is intending to do the private, go through private. B: Yah, private is like, is much cheaper because you don’t have to go through all this centre centre thing you know. (15) A: Oh, you mean private won’t teach you that? A: Ah, they, they, they teach you about meter also. And must show your meter, like that, like that. You have private now, private teach you all this.

This use of the premodifier to stand in for the head noun even where a nongeneric reading is intended can also be seen in (16). In (16), the basic is used instead of the basic test. (16) A: OK, so you no need to take the basic. You just attend the class. So you just listen ah.

At this point, it seems safe to say that, in CSE, speakers quite readily use the premodifier in place of an ellipted head noun under a number of circumstances. They do this where a generic reading is intended, which is quite similar to what happens in Standard English; but they also do this where a non-generic reading is intended.

Nouns and Noun Phrases

3.3 Number and agreement A look at the GSSEC corpus of CSE data easily reveals a notable absence of number and agreement marking. While this may be surprising when contrasted with the features of Standard English, from a typological and areal perspective this makes perfect sense. Below we discuss some aspects of variation and distribution of these markers, where they occur. 3.3. Number According to Anderson (1985: 174): Probably the most widespread inherent category realized in nouns in the languages of the world is that of number. Most languages provide some formal way of marking nouns or noun phrases as singular or plural. As with most categories, this may be done by any of the formal devices of morphology, including … reduplication.

In the case of CSE, it is worth noting that even though reduplication is present as a productive morphological process, and even though nouns can reduplicate to indicate affection or intimacy, there is no use of noun reduplication to indicate number (see Wee this volume). Number marking, however, in the form of an inflectional suffix is common and in this sense, when number marking is realised in CSE, it is much like that found in more standard varieties of English. However, CSE differs in the kinds of nouns that can actually be pluralised as it tends to treat non-count nouns as count, thus resulting in forms like luggages, equipments, and furnitures. Conversely, in a number of instances, count nouns, which would otherwise require the plural marker in more standard varieties, are typically left unmarked in CSE. Consider the following examples taken from GSSEC. (17) is taken from a conversation concerning the design of webpages for churches; notice the absence of the plural marker for webpage. (18)–(20) are extracts from a conversation dealing with passing a driving test; notice that, in (18) and (19) respectively, technique is used instead of techniques, and schedule instead of schedules. (20) is taken from Alsagoff and Ho (1998: 143). (17) A: A lot of churches design webpage. The church got its own web space lah.

63

64

Lionel Wee and Umberto Ansaldo

(18) B: Easy to pass, right? A: Easy to pass. More safer … Then they teach you all the technique lah. But you have to go for the class, you know … (19) A: OK, they give you one month, you know, all the schedule. You can come to this day, this day. Ok, lesson one, what day, what day … (20) She queue up very long to buy ticket for us.

To account for such examples, Alsagoff and Ho (1998: 143) make the suggestion that these should not be analysed as a lack of plural inflection: This sort of analysis wrongly presupposes that ticket …is a count noun, and thus amenable to plural affixation. We would like to suggest here that it may in fact be used as a non-count or mass noun in such instances. Evidence for this postulation can be seen in the following pattern: when ticket is used with a quantifier, e.g. four, many, it is always inflected; where it is uninflected, it always appears alone, without premodification. Most nouns that are, in Standard English, only classified and used as count, can in CSE be used both as count and non-count.

There are actually two separate claims being made here. One is that nouns that are count in standard varieties are either count or non-count in CSE. The other is that the presence of a plural quantifier is a reliable diagnostic of the count/non-count feature because it will obligatorily trigger the use of the plural inflectional suffix. The second claim is however not supported by the GSSEC examples. In (18) and (19), the speakers use noun phrases such as all the technique and all the schedule. Under Alsagoff and Ho’s suggestion, we would expect the presence of the quantifier all to reliably lead nouns like technique and schedule to be treated as count and to thus take on the plural inflection (e.g. all the techniques). This is plainly not the case. In fact, the GSSEC even contains an example that directly contradicts this claim. In (21), A is talking about applying, along with many other fellow undergraduates, to be a teacher. Notice that despite the quantifier ten thousand, there is no plural inflection on friend. (21) A: Like ten thousand of my friend already applied and went for interview.

While we think the first claim is possibly correct, in the absence of further evidence, it is also worth being cautious and considering a more modest, though admittedly less interesting, proposal. This would be that number marking in CSE is essentially sporadic or optional, as also suggested in Gil (2003). Based on a questionnaire admittedly aiming for a more basilectal variety than the

Nouns and Noun Phrases

one represented in our corpus, Gil notes that bare, unmarked nouns can be interpreted as either plural or singular; this obviously follows the structure of substrate languages of Singapore, such as Hokkien, Cantonese and Malay (cf. Platt & Weber 1980). In other words, it is entirely possible that number marking in CSE has not yet stabilised or been conventionalised to the point where it can be said to be clearly conditioned by either grammatical or sociolinguistic factors. If this is indeed the case, then we might expect number agreement to also be similarly sporadic, an issue to which we now turn. 3.3.2 Agreement While the phenomenon of number agreement in English ostensibly involves both nouns and verbs, it is more typologically useful, as Anderson (1985: 188) points out, to bear in mind that “[r]ules of agreement in most languages function to copy inherent or relational features from nouns onto other parts of the structure, rather than the other way around, and it is thus quite rare to find a situation in which nouns are marked for some feature to agree with something else.” Anderson’s observation implies that if the number feature is itself sporadically marked on the noun, as was suggested in the previous section, then the copying of this number feature onto the verb would also be sporadic. The result would then be, as the following examples (also from GSSEC), demonstrate, that number agreement in CSE is also sporadic in its appearance. In (22), A and B are discussing a movie version of the novel Great Expectations. Notice that B’s first utterance shows no sign of number agreement (…the benefactor appear…). But in the later parts of B’s conversation, B demonstrates her ability to indicate such agreement, both in the past and present tense (He was confused, it’s very sad). (22) B: B: A: B: A: B:

And how the benefactor appear in the first and the last part … He was confused already. He was like part of the upper class but … Mmm… At the brink of it. Ya. Just, ya, it’s very sad.

(23) contains various utterances from a speaker, A, who is chatting with two other girls. The first of A’s utterance shows no agreement while the subsequent ones do. Again, this would suggest that the appearance of number agreement is random rather than patterned.

65

66

Lionel Wee and Umberto Ansaldo

(23) A: OK, let’s see how she talk to her boy. … A: But she called her. She’s already earning the money, you know. … A: They’re staying together ah.

One possibility, of course, is that speakers are code-switching from CSE to Standard English when they make use of number agreement in their utterances (if we believe in this type of code-switching). And this does raise the rather tricky issue of when a particular utterance can be said to be colloquial rather than standard. Fong (this volume) does consider this question in some detail and suggests that if discourse particles are present, then we can reasonably treat the utterances as CSE. If we adopt Fong’s suggestion, then the code-switching hypothesis fails since, as the following extract indicates, number agreement does co-occur with CSE discourse particles. In (24), B’s response to A shows number agreement being used in conjunction with the particles lah and hor. (For a discussion of these and other particles, see Wee this volume.) This would then suggest that the absence or presence of number agreement does not necessarily correlate with the switch from CSE to a more standard variety; rather, internal to CSE itself, number agreement is sporadic, a consequence of the lack of conventionalisation. (24) A: But it’s beautiful in that … how … I mean, Finn got, got a chance to realise himself, right? B: He’s quite innocent, lah, hor, innocent?

It is also possible that there is a statistical correlation involved where, the higher the variety on the lectal continuum, the more frequent number and agreement become. And probably the converse would then be true in the case of the particles (cf. Platt & Ho 1989).1 3.4 Different ‘ones’ A particular feature of NPs in CSE is the use of predominantly phrase-final one. Gil (2003: 480) describes one as a ‘reifier’, which is essentially an attempt on his part to avoid using the syntactic term ‘nominaliser’. In contrast, Alsagoff and Ho (1998: 145; see also Alsagoff 1995) view ‘one’ as a relative clause pronoun, where the relative clause has a structure resulting from substrate influence. We first turn to Alsagoff and Ho’s claim below.

Nouns and Noun Phrases

3.4. Relative one? Examples from Alsagoff (1995) are given below. (25) a. The boy pinch my sister one very naughty. b. The cake John buy one always very nice to eat.

Alsagoff ’s claim is that, as in Standard English, the CSE relative clause follows its nominal head. But unlike Standard English, the relative pronoun one follows rather than precedes the modifying clause. Thus (25a), for example, needs to be understood as consisting of the head (The boy) followed by the modifying clause (pinch my sister), which is, in turn, followed by the relative pronoun (one). The predicate (very naughty) is obviously not part of the relative clause construction. This contrasts with the Standard English version of the relative clause, which would be The boy who pinched my sister. However, the treatment of one as a relative pronoun appears problematic since it is most commonly found in utterance/sentence-final position, as shown in (26). While it is true that Standard English does allow for the relative clause itself to be ‘shifted’ away from the head (A man who was smoking entered the room/A man entered the room who was smoking), it is unlikely that the relative pronoun itself can be moved from its position at the end of the relative clause all the way to the end of the predicate. (26) a. The boy pinch my sister very naughty one. b. The cake John buy always very nice to eat one.

Examples (27)–(30) from GSSEC suggest that the utterance-final position is preferred for one, a fact confirmed by other data such as Gil (1994, 1998, 2003); examples with one in the position shown in (25) are in fact absent from the GSSEC corpus. In (27), A and B are discussing the design of a piece of jewellery. Note that in A’s utterance, one comes after the predicated are/is surrounded. (27) A: The rays are, actually, is surrounded one. B: A lot, ah. I don’t like the design so I told her took out then set it again.

(28)–(30) are extracts from a casual conversation among some friends. In (28), A and C are discussing a boy whom C considers ‘cute’. As with (26), in (27) too, the one comes after the predicate one kind. The phrase one kind is an idiomatic CSE expression indicating that the predicated entity is unique; it is analogous to the Standard English phrase one of a kind.

67

68

Lionel Wee and Umberto Ansaldo

(28) A: Ah, this boy … the way he looks one kind one. C: Yah.

In (29), A and C are discussing a Hindi movie star named Vasoo. A describes Vasoo as a songwriter whose lyrics are full of double entendres, using one after the predicates got double meaning and got connotation. (29) A: You know got this Vasoo guy or not? C: P. Vasoo? A: No, Vasoo writes also ***. I tell you, always write got double meaning one. Always got connotation one. [Quotes Tamil lyrics]. His song always got double meaning one, I tell you.

Finally, in (30), C is explaining that her grandfather has a colourful past. In CSE, the word havoc is used to describe someone as being ‘wild’. As with the other examples, one occurs after the predicate, in this case damn havoc. (30) C: B: C: B: A:

My grandfather damn havoc one. … *** So he came back and married again? My grandmother *** Ah. So your grandfather had three wives something like that ah?

3.4.2. Reifier one? Gil (2003: 480ff.) claims that one is a reifier (or nominaliser, though as mentioned earlier, he prefers to avoid syntactic characterisations). The following examples are from Gil (2003: 480): (31) a. b. c. d.

Ah Chew buy Jamil one Ah Chew buy expensive one Ah Chew buy in Jurong one Ah Chew buy yesterday Lisa choose one

Based on examples such as those in (31), Gil (2003: 480) suggests that the reifier one can occur in a wide range of constructions, involving possessives, property words, locative expressions and event expressions. Because Gil wishes to treat one as a reifier, he is committed to the claim that the phrases Jamil one, expensive one, in Jurong one, and yesterday Lisa choose one are all NPs (2003: 480). While this claim may work for expensive one, it seems rather counter-intuitive in the case of in Jurong one and yesterday Lisa choose one. What we want to point out

Nouns and Noun Phrases

is the fact that one is obligatory in (31a,b,d), but optional in (31c), as shown in (32). This optionality, it seems to us, is at odds with the claim that one is indeed functioning as a reifier/nominaliser. (32) a. *Ah Chew buy Jamil b. *Ah Chew buy expensive c. Ah Chew buy in Jurong d. *Ah Chew buy yesterday Lisa choose

The problem for Gil’s analysis of one as a reifier is further compounded by examples such as (33a), which he acknowledges (2003: 481) are less obviously characterisable as reifiers. Instead, one here seems to be performing a more pragmatically oriented function. Also, one here is optional (33b): (33) a. Oi, that car got no number one. b. Oi, that car got no number.

In fact, examples such as (33a) are highly common so that rather than attempting to absorb them under the ‘reifier’ analysis as Gil hopes to do (Gil 2003: 506, endnote 37), we suggest that one is more likely being used by the speaker to emphasise that the subject is a particularly salient – and perhaps unique – member of the category described by the predicate. Hence, the preference for one to be in utterance-final position, since this would reflect that one has scope over both the subject and the predicate. A similar use of one is noted in Heine and Kuteva (2002: 223), who point out that in East Cushitic and Akatek, the numeral meaning ‘one’ has grammaticalised into a ‘singulative’, that is, “a marker that restricts the reference to a single entity.” We think therefore that Gil is probably right to treat some cases of one as performing a reifier/nominaliser function. But in addition to this, one also performs the more pragmatically-oriented function of highlighting a unique or salient property of the subject. Since grammaticalisation is a gradual process in the course of which linguistic markers may well be polysemous or polyfunctional, there appears to be no contradiction in claiming that in examples such as (32), one is primarily a reifier but its singulative function is also emerging. As one becomes more optional, it is becoming more of a singulative rather than a reifier. This account of course assumes that singulative one is the more recent development in relation to the reifier one. We make this assumption on the grounds that grammaticalisation patterns do tend to show a development from describing relatively objective and concrete meanings (e.g. reifier one) to more subjective ones, which serve to indicate the speaker’s assessment or construal of

69

70

Lionel Wee and Umberto Ansaldo

the world (e.g. singulative one) (cf. Hopper & Traugott 1993: 85–86). A similar point is made in Yap et al. (2004), where it is argued that further grammaticalisation, including subjectivisation, may have taken place, turning one into a pragmatic particle, indicating what they call stance. 3.4.3 More on ‘singulative’ one Some further examples of singulative one are given below. (34) a. You always late one! b. The car very expensive one! c. The coffee nicer than the tea one!

Coming back to Gil’s reifier analysis, if one is a reifier, we need to ask where the NP is in (34a). Either we appear to have a discontinuous NP (You … one) or the entire clause is just a single NP. However, given that one is optional, as in (35), this indicates that we are looking at singulative, rather than reifier, uses of one. (35) a. You always late! b. The car very expensive! c. The coffee nicer than the tea!

This use of one as a singulative, that is, where the speaker emphasises the status of an entity as a particularly salient member of a category, can also be found with possessive pronouns. CSE optionally allows the use of one together with a possessive pronoun; the difference between the absence and presence of one seems to be a matter of emphasis. (36) a. b. (37) a. b.

That book is his. That book is his one. Yours is nicer. Your one is nicer.

Notice that one here is not a quantifier since it is not possible to express the nominal referent. Thus, if someone were to utter (36a) or (36b) with reference to a book, for example, as the ungrammaticality of (38b) shows, the noun book itself must remain unexpressed. (38) a. Your book is nicer. b. *Your one book is nicer.

Nouns and Noun Phrases

Our discussion of one indicates that for a more holistic treatment of the grammar of CSE, we may have to take a step away from a more Eurocentric perspective, in which we directly compare features of Singapore English with Standard varieties, and think more in terms of cross-linguistic semantic and grammatical patterns. In many languages of mainland Southeast Asia, it has been observed that grammatical markers can exhibit surprising patterns of polyfunctionality.2 Polyfunctionality is particularly common in languages with isolating morphology, where the boundaries between lexical and grammatical items are not always as clear-cut as in morphologically more complex languages. Where typical grammaticalisation effects such as phonetic reduction, semantic bleaching etc. cannot be observed, we often find that grammatical functions coexist side by side with the original lexical function (cf. e.g. Ansaldo 1999; Ansaldo & Lim 2004; Enfield 2003). The item one in CSE can therefore be treated as a polyfunctional marker of the following functions:3 i. nominaliser; and ii. singulative. 3.5 PRO-drop CSE has been described as being a pro-drop language (Alsagoff & Ho 1998; Gupta 1994; Platt & Weber 1980) in that the subject and/or object are often left unexpressed, particularly when the identities of the pro-dropped elements can be recovered from the context. In (39), A is talking about not getting involved in an argument with a neighbour. Notice that the subject NP has been left out. (39) A: What for? Don’t want to get involved already lah. ‘I don’t want to get involved already lah’

In (40)–(41), the object NPs have been omitted. (40) A: This is not the Chinese sea cucumber, you know. What you call worms. People eat raw, you know. ‘… People eat them raw, you know.’ (41) A: In fact, er, if you shake the coke okay, I can still open. ‘… I can still open it.’

As has been already noted above, this aspect of CSE is easily traceable to the substrate languages and can be therefore treated as an areal feature. In both Sinitic and Malay subject and object NPs are regularly omitted when present

7

72

Lionel Wee and Umberto Ansaldo

in the general context or situation. If present they usually receive emphatic intepretation. 3.6 Heavy NP shift In a phenomenon sometimes referred to as ‘Heavy NP Shift’ (Ross 1967; Soames & Perlmutter 1979), ‘heavy’ NPs appear in clause-final position. Conversely, if the NP is too ‘light’, as with pronouns, then this shifting is disallowed. (42) and (43) illustrate this with respect to Standard English. (42) a.

I sent the book that I found in that really nice bookstore to your father. b. I sent to your father the book that I found in that really nice bookstore. (43) a. I sent it to your father. b. *I sent to your father it.

CSE displays a similar phenomenon, particularly noticeable in equative clauses where the subject and complement NPs are co-referential (44)–(45). In CSE, the copula is typically omitted in such clauses (see Ansaldo this volume for a discussion of the copula). (44) a. b. c. d. (45) a. b. c.

That man my neighbour. [= That man is my neighbour] My neighbour that man He my neighbour *My neighbour him. Those guys your buddies? They your buddies? *Your buddies them?

(44c) is acceptable since the complement NP is heavy enough; but (44d) is not possible since, as a pronoun, it is too light. More precisely though, it appears that it is not the complement NP per se whose metaphorical weight matters; rather, it is the weight of the predicate as a whole, since the presence of the copula suffices for (44d) and (45c) to be grammatical, as seen in (46). (46) a. My neighbour is him. b. Your buddies are them?

Nouns and Noun Phrases

Thus, the tendency for CSE speakers to omit the copula contributes to the ‘lightness’ of the predicate, resulting in cases where complement NPs cannot be pronominalised. 3.7 Conclusions Nouns and NPs in CSE, as shown above, can be characterised by the following features: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Variable marking of definiteness and indefiniteness Optional number marking Sporadic agreement marking Polyfunctionality between nominaliser and singulative marking Pro-drop (for both SUBJ and OBJ) Heavy NP shift

It is important to bear in mind that features 1 to 4 in particular typically show much variation in the CSE speech community. This has been attributed to various things, such as instability of the new emerging variety (or dialect), code-switching or continuum effects (cf. Foley 1988; Platt 1975; etc.). As will be argued in Ansaldo (this volume), we prefer to see this high degree of variation as a typical feature of any lectal continuum of this type, one which is reinforced by the typological diversity of the local languages involved in the Singaporean linguistic community. Another interesting aspect emerging from this chapter is the relationship between framework and depth of analysis. In looking at NPs in CSE we have tried to engage in semantic and grammatical analysis by always bearing in mind the typological context in which this variety is situated. This approach, exemplified in the studies by Gil and developed further in Ansaldo (this volume), allows a deeper and more powerful type of explanation for CSE than a more traditional approach that focuses only on the dimension of variation between the standard and the local variety.

73

74

Lionel Wee and Umberto Ansaldo

Notes . We thank Stephen Matthews for this observation. 2. ‘Macrofunctionality’ in Gil (1995). 3. See Gil (1995, 1998) for an alternative take on polyfunctionality.

Chapter 4

The verbal cluster Vivienne Fong Stanford University

4. Introduction This chapter describes grammatical patterns in the verbal cluster in Colloquial Singapore English (CSE). By verbal cluster, I mean the cluster comprising the main (or lexical) verb and its auxiliaries, if any, as highlighted in the following examples from the Grammar of Spoken Singapore English Corpus (GSSEC):2 (1) a. Yesterday I saw the advertisement. b. Have you watched it yet or not? c. We’re not going over and over again…

Before proceeding further, I should first comment on the sources of my data. I draw on the recordings of spontaneous speech in the GSSEC and the International Corpus of English – Singapore (ICE-SIN) to discover patterns of use, and to generate examples.3 The corpus data, however, may present only a subset of the possible structures in CSE. In this study therefore, I also elicit the judgments of informants. All the data drawn from GSSEC/ICE-SIN, or constructed by me, were tested against a group of eight native speakers of CSE, all of whom have at least undergraduate training in linguistics. In the discussion below, a sentence that is judged acceptable by fewer than half of the speakers is indicated by a ‘*’ before the sentence,4 and one that is judged acceptable by more than half, but not all, the speakers is indicated by a ‘?’. Although we cannot entirely rule out the effects of hyper- and hypo-correction in asking for speaker judgments about a colloquial variety (see Labov’s Principle of Subordinate Shift, 1972b: 111), this problem is minimised by comparisons with the spontaneous speech data in GSSEC and ICE-SIN (see also Rickford 1974; Sells et al. 1996; Wolfram 1986). Investigating the language system of a group of educated speakers of English raises another methodological question. Given that these are bidialectal speakers of CSE and Standard English (StdE), how do we ascertain that the

76

Vivienne Fong

particular linguistic patterns we establish are patterns of CSE, and not (informal) StdE? For example, the naturally occurring data from GSSEC in (1) could very well be informal StdE, and may imply that the speakers are code-switching between two dialects. As a practical solution to this hard question, I have decided that a particular example can be classified as CSE if we can add a CSE discourse particle to it, and speakers find that the string remains acceptable in casual conversational discourse. For the sentences in (1), notice that they are acceptable with discourse particles attached:5 (2) a. Yesterday I saw the advertisement leh. b. Have you watched it yet or not hah? c. We’re not going over and over again leh.

In contrast, the addition of a CSE discourse particle to the formal legalese in (3a) is infelicitous (see (3b)): (3) a.

The Leave and Passage Rules for the time being in force, a copy of which the Appointee acknowledges having received, shall form part of this Agreement for Service. (excerpt from a National University of Singapore contract) b. *The Leave and Passage Rules for the time being in force, … shall form part of this Agreement for Service lor/hor.

The sentences in the discussion below that have structures similar to (informal) StdE are treated as examples of CSE, given that they pass this test. The Appendix to this chapter illustrates this test by providing examples of these sentences occurring with an appropriate discourse particle. The reader will thus see from the description of verbal grammatical patterns below that CSE and (informal) StdE share some similar structures. The discussion in this chapter is organised as follows. In Section 4.2, I introduce the CSE verb forms and their uses. Section 4.3 describes the behaviour of be as a copula (or main) verb, and Section 4.4 the behaviour of be as an auxiliary. Section 4.5 considers the interaction of different auxiliaries when they co-occur in a cluster, and the interaction of auxiliaries with subject noun phrases and negation, and with wh-elements in interrogatives. Section 4.6 discusses verb reduplication and the constraints on this word-formation process, including a related discussion of aspectual classes of events in CSE. Section 4.7 looks at the passive constructions found in CSE.6 Section 4.8 concludes with notes on areas that need further study and description.

The verbal cluster

4.2 Verb forms The verb forms that are found in CSE are given in Table 4.1.7 Table 4.1. Verb forms in CSE. Verb form

Examples

Present tense Past tense Present participle Past participle Infinitival

is, are was, were being been be

climbs, climb climbed climbing climbed climb

writes, write wrote writing written write

4.2. Optionality of verbal inflections A salient characteristic of the verb in CSE is the apparent optionality of tense, number and person marking on the verb. (4) a.

She goes to market everyday. ‘She goes to the market everyday.’ b. She go to market everyday.

In the attested utterances in (5) and (6) from GSSEC below, tense marking on the verb is variable even within a single utterance. (5) ?…they were on their way, then quarrel and then left her at ECP and then go off. ‘They were on their way, then they quarrelled, and then he left her at the ECP and went off.’ (6) ?We went in, take half an hour to come out. ‘We went in, and took half an hour to come out.’

In (5) and (6), the verbs be, leave, go, and take, which take irregular inflections for tense (e.g. leave/left; go/went) exhibit this variation, just as verbs like quarrel, which have regular inflections. As these examples show, the optionality of morphological marking seems not to be dependent on whether the verb takes regular or irregular inflections for tense.8 Yet the presence or absence of tense marking on the verb is not entirely random (see also Fong et al. 2002), as shown in (7) and (8). When the reference time is marked by adverbials (e.g. yesterday, everyday), tense marking on the verb cannot clash with the time expressed by the adverbial.

77

78

Vivienne Fong

(7) a. b. c. (8) a. b. c.

Yesterday, she went to market. ‘Yesterday, she went to the market.’ Yesterday, she go to market. *Yesterday, she goes to market. She goes to market everyday. She go to market everyday. *She went to market everyday. Intended meaning: ‘She goes to market everyday.’ (Habitual present)

In (7c), the present tense form of the verb go (goes) clashes with the past time indicated by the adverbial yesterday, and the sentence is unacceptable. Notice, however, that the verb form go in (7b) is acceptable. If we assume that the tense of the verb cannot clash with the time reference of the adverbial, then go in (7b) must be unmarked for tense (i.e. it is non-finite). Because the non-finite form of a verb is acceptable as the main verb of the sentence, we find a related variability in subject-verb agreement: –

Verb showing agreement with Subject noun phrase (from GSSEC): (9) When you drive, everybody is scared, … (10) Everybody wants to…

–

Verb without agreement morphology ((11) and (14) from GSSEC, (12) and (13) from ICE-SIN): (11) Ya, then everybody bring. (12) As far I’m concerned everybody come one day okay. (13) …and that’s why I enjoy teaching the first years…even though everybody find it such a drag you know. (14) Erm, something evil has happened and God don’t seem to be doing anything at all.

However, we do find the third person singular form of the verb be in existential constructions (there is or there’s), whether or not the following NP is singular or plural, all examples from GSSEC:9 (15) (16) (17) (18)

There’s a trick, you know. But there is no religious connotations to not eating beef, right? …there’s always leaves falling, even though you don’t see trees… Ya lah,10 Robert DeNiro did a lot of bad things but he said that there’s one good thing he did.

The verbal cluster

4.2.2 Verb forms and their uses Here, I briefly describe the range of tense and aspect meanings that each verb form is compatible with, with examples from GSSEC unless otherwise stated. The present tense form of verbs is found in contexts that refer to the present (utterance) time, and the habitual present. –

Reference to present time (19) Now she is in Dunman Secondary. (20) But he doesn’t know you all.

–

Habitual present (21) It’s very painful every time of the month, you see. (22) Actually, you father leads a good life, he wakes up at ten o’clock, goes to office at twelve o’clock…

The past tense form is found in contexts referring to events that took place prior to the current utterance time. –

Reference to past time (23) Yesterday I saw the advertisement. (24) And I went much later, just recently, you know.

The present participle form is used for expressing events in progress at a given time. –

Reference to an event in progress at present time (25) She is looking for a job. (26) We’re not going over and over again…

–

Reference to an event in progress at a past time (27) That’s the guy I was telling you about, remember? (28) And after like doing whatever thing, mm, they were coming back to the shop to sleep.

Expressions that are used to refer to future time include: clusters with ‘be going to + infinitival verb’ (29), modal will (30), the progressive ‘be + present participle verb’ (31), and the simple present (32).

79

80

Vivienne Fong

–

Reference to future time (29) (30) (31) (32)

Hey I’m going to get into trouble. A person like you will go to hell. When are you going to Australia? Oh, I see. She’s back tomorrow. ‘…She will be back tomorrow.’

The traditional description of the Perfect form (‘have + past participle verb’) is that it is used to refer to a state of affairs that has ended, but whose consequent state is of ‘current relevance’ (Quirk et al. 1985). This form is also used to describe a state of affairs that existed for a period of time, and continues to exist up to the utterance time (Biber et al. 1999). In CSE, we find in (33)–(36) the use of have in similar contexts. –

Reference to a (consequent) state relevant at present time (33) Have you watched it yet or not? (34) And we haven’t gone back together you know.

–

Reference to a (consequent) state relevant at a past time (35) …the couple had already left the house. (36) They all had been hard cover. ‘They had all been hard cover.’

As noted above, tense marking is optional in CSE, and this is reflected in the examples below ((37)–(48)) showing the non-finite forms of the verb (infinitival, present participle, past participle) in each category. –

Reference to present time (37) Let’s not talk for the next uh five minutes if she don’t switch off (ICE-SIN) ‘Let’s not talk for the next five minutes if she doesn’t switch [the tape recorder] off.’

–

Habitual present (38) She go to market everyday. ‘She goes to market everyday.’

The verbal cluster

–

Reference to past time (39) Last time the photo they don’t have the technology you see. ‘In the past, for photos, they didn’t have the technology, you see.’

–

Reference to an event in progress at present time (40) …why you going so slow? ‘…why are you going so slowly?’

–

Reference to an event in progress at a past time (41) ?That day I talking to Shyamala about getting the trip to… ‘That day I was talking to Shyamala…’

–

Reference to future time (42) So I going on Friday night, Sunday morning come back. ‘So I am going on Friday night; I come back on Sunday morning.’ (43) So she going on Friday night, Saturday morning come back. ‘So she is going on Friday night; she comes back on Saturday morning.’

For the expression of a state of affairs that has ended, but whose consequent state is of ‘current relevance’, the auxiliary have is optional: –

Reference to a consequent state relevant at present time (44) She beaten the eggs. (Lim 2001) ‘She has beaten the eggs.’ (45) B: Because they sold the house what. My sister-in-law. A: Oh, they sold already ah? ‘Oh, they have already sold [the house]?’ (46) She beat the eggs already. (Lim 2001) ‘She has (already) beaten the eggs.’

–

Reference to a consequent state relevant at a past time (47) …the couple already left the house. ‘…the couple had already left the house.’ (48) By the time she put up the banner, the guest of honour arrive already. ‘By the time she put up the banner, the guest of honour had already arrived.’

8

82

Vivienne Fong

Notice, however, that absence of the auxiliary have is only possible if one of the following conditions is met (see also Lim 2001): (i) the main verb is in the past participle (-en) form (see (44), (45) and (47)); or (ii) already is obligatory if the main verb is in the infinitival form (see (46) and (48)). So (46) can express the meaning ‘she has beaten the eggs’, but the infinitival form of the verb alone cannot: (49) *She beat the eggs. Intended meaning: ‘She has (already) beaten the eggs.’

4.3 The copula be and other predicate phrases I term the main verb be the copula be. The copula be is found in equative and attributive clauses (see (50)–(55) below), and in existential clauses (see (56)), all from GSSEC. Informally, an equative clause is one where the noun phrase following the copula stands in an identity relation with the subject noun phrase; an attributive clause is one where the role of the adjectival phrase following the copula is an attribute of the subject noun phrase. (50) Today is Saturday ah? ‘Is today Saturday?’ (51) She was the one who taught me, I told you right? (52) Oh, he was the one who said [you looked like a raisin]. (adapted from GSSEC) (53) Saturday and Sunday afternoons are not crap… (54) …if you have to be alone at home. (55) Actually, you should be quite assured, right? (56) I mean there are options still available.

The copula is obligatory in clauses with a dummy subject (e.g. it/there), which include existential clauses (57), as well as it-cleft constructions (58) from GSSEC: (57) a. There are options available. b. *There ___ options available. (58) a. It was the pilot who saw it ah? ‘Was it the pilot who saw it?’ b. *It ___ the pilot who saw it ah?

The verbal cluster

Also, if the copula occurs with other auxiliaries in a verbal cluster, the copula cannot be omitted. (59) *Today must ___ Saturday. Intended meaning: ‘Today must be Saturday.’ (60) *…if you have to ___ alone at home. (cf. (54)) Intended meaning: ‘…if you have to be alone at home.’ (61) *You should ___ quite assured, right? (cf. (55)) ‘You should be quite assured, right?’ (62) *You are ___ difficult. Intended meaning: ‘You are being difficult.’ (63) *I have ___ alone. Intended meaning: ‘I have been alone.’

Notice that the pattern in (59)–(63) is not equivalent to what has been called V′ ellipsis (see Green 1998; Warner 1993): (64) You should be quite assured, and Pat should ___ too. (65) John may come on Tuesday, but I don’t think Paul will ___. (Warner 1993)

In (64) and (65) the auxiliary appears ‘in elliptical constructions without [its] normal complement, where the sense of the complement is to be retrieved from the linguistic context of the utterance.’ (Warner 1993: 5) In (59)–(63), on the other hand, only the main verb is omitted, not the main verb and its complements. In the following equative and attributive constructions below, with (66), (68) and (70) from GSSEC, however, there is no unit like a verb phrase headed by be in the clause (see also Alsagoff & Ho 1998; Platt & Weber 1980): (66) Maybe your standard a bit high lah. ‘Maybe your standard is a little high.’ (67) Cos I lazy, I don’t want to draw the curtain. ‘Because I am lazy, I don’t want to draw the curtain.’ (68) Colour not very good. ‘The colour is not very good.’ (69) Ali tired already. ‘Ali is already tired/Ali has become tired.’ (70) He quite poor thing also lor, come to think of it. ‘He is quite a poor thing, come to think of it.’ (71) But this one not your car, it’s mine.

83

84

Vivienne Fong

‘But this one is not your car, it’s mine.’ (72) Ali in the kitchen. ‘Ali is in the kitchen.’ (73) Ali not here. ‘Ali is not here.’

We see that the adjective phrase ((66)–(69)), noun phrase ((70)–(71)), prepositional phrase ((72)), and adverb phrase ((73))11 can function as what I will call the predicate phrase in the clause. The predicate phrase is the constituent that can be dropped in constructions involving also (cf. Lim 2000), as shown below: (74) John run already. I also. (i.e. I run already.) (Lim 2000) ‘John has run. So have I.’ (75) A: …they got six months’ bonus, you know. (GSSEC) ‘They received six months’ bonus, you know.’ D: SIA also, right. (i.e. SIA (employees) also got six months’ bonus.) ‘So did SIA (employees), right?’ (76) Cos I lazy, my brother also. ‘Because I am lazy, and so is my brother.’ (77) He quite poor thing. His sister also. ‘He is quite a poor thing. So is his sister.’ (78) Ali in the kitchen, Fatimah also. ‘Ali is in the kitchen, so is Fatimah.’ (79) Ali not here. Fatimah also. ‘Ali is not here, and neither is Fatimah.’

Thus, the copula is not obligatory in non-existential, non-cleft constructions like the ones in (66)–(73).12 In addition, predicate phrases of this type show a correlation with tense interpretations. Alsagoff (2001) notes that a clause with such predicate phrases must always refer to the present time. For example, in uttering a sentence like (80), ‘we must mean that at the time of utterance, the girl is in school’ (Alsagoff 2001: 82): (80) The girl in school. ‘The girl is in school.’

For a past time reference, there must be an overt marker of tense, as shown in the examples in (81) (from Alsagoff 2001: 83). (81) a.

The girl was in school.

The verbal cluster

b. The girl in school just now. Now, go home already. ‘The girl was in school. She has gone home now.’

The same is true for future time reference. (80) is unacceptable for future time reference; a future marker like tomorrow is required if such predicate phrases are used: (82) Today I cannot play mahjong – I have to look after the kids. But tomorrow, my son in school and my daughter at piano lesson, so I can come. ‘…But tomorrow, my son will be in school, and my daughter will be at her piano class, so I can come.’

4.4 Be as an auxiliary Auxiliaries are the verbs that optionally occur before the main verb in the verbal cluster. Auxiliaries in CSE can be distinguished from main verbs by the following properties:13 –

Auxiliaries undergo subject–auxiliary inversion; main verbs do not. (83) a. Was she telling you about this guy? b. *Tell she you about this guy?

–

Negation occurs after auxiliaries, but not after main verbs: (84) a. b. c. (85) a.

She wasn’t telling/didn’t tell you about this guy. *She telln’t you about this guy. *She tell not you about this guy. So if you don’t want me to do, ... (GSSEC) ‘So if you don’t want me to do it, …’ b. *You wantn’t me to do it? c. *You want not me to do it?

4.4. The progressive auxiliary be The progressive be takes a present participle verb after it, as seen in GSSEC. (86) That’s the guy I was telling you about, remember? (87) Then I was talking to that woman y’know.

The auxiliary can be omitted, as the minimal pair in (88) from GSSEC shows:

85

86

Vivienne Fong

(88) A: They trying to kill {the, the benefactor. B: {Ya, he’s trying to kill him.

Other examples, from GSSEC except when indicated, include the following: (89) Hey, I think the driver trying to be funny, you know. ‘Hey, I think the driver is trying to be funny, you know.’ (90) ?That day I talking to Shyamala about getting the trip to… the cruise lah… ‘That day I was talking to Shyamala about getting…the cruise.’ (91) Robot coming. (Gupta 1998) ‘The robot is coming.’

The auxiliary is not obligatory in interrogatives, and so subject-auxiliary inversion for interrogatives is not always observable in CSE as seen in GSSEC:14 (92) Then how you going to dance. ‘Then how are you going to dance?’ (93) …what you talking about, how long can you last… ‘…what are you talking about…’

4.4.2 The passive auxiliary be In a main clause, the passive auxiliary be takes a past participle verb after it, as seen in the following from GSSEC. (94) Eh! Liquid nitrogen is minus hundred and sixty degrees. Cannot be taken out from a flask… ‘[Liquid nitrogen] cannot be taken out from a flask.’ (95) That plot was taken from Midsummer Night’s Dream (96) …once the weed is grown in, the roots cannot be taken. (97) And milk is also given by the mother.

The passive be is optional, as shown below: (98) … That plot ___ taken from Midsummer Night’s Dream. ‘That plot was taken from Midsummer Night’s Dream.’ (99) And milk ___ also given by the mother. ‘And milk is also given by the mother.’

The verbal cluster

4.4.3 Be as part of be supposed to The be in the idiomatic phrase be supposed to is also optional, as the discourse in (100) from GSSEC shows. (100) You know the roundabout where you ___ supposed to go one big round to make a U-turn. [Contrast the speaker’s repetition in a later part of the discourse:] You know the roundabout, you’re supposed to go around the roundabout and make the U-turn, she just made the U-turn, before the roundabout!

Additional examples, all from GSSEC, are given below: (101) (102) (103) (104) (105)

…when they were, like, supposed to land, right... The whole essence of human mankind? What is that supposed to mean? And you’re supposed to keep left on the left lane, ok? A: Uh, ___ supposed to have orientation in the first week of July. So **** remember we ___ supposed to do this, this plus thing.

4.5 Factors determining the (co-)occurrence of auxiliaries 4.5. Auxiliary clusters In Section 4.4, we saw the optionality of be in progressive and passive constructions. In those cases, be is the only auxiliary in the verbal cluster. Consider now how auxiliary clusters (such as the ones in GSSEC examples (106) and (107)) behave. (106) The roots cannot be taken. (107) …they’ve been staying at the same place.

Here, I will not take into account the deletion of modal auxiliaries such as can/could/may/might, since this type of deletion results in a loss of semantic content (modal meanings), and hence would be unacceptable for independent reasons. The examples below show that a non-initial element in the auxiliary cluster cannot be deleted. (All the sentences in each of the sets in (108)–(110) are meant to have the interpretation of the sentence in (a).) (108) a. The roots cannot be taken. b. *…the roots cannot ___ taken.

87

88

Vivienne Fong

(109) a. b. c. (110) a. b. c. d.

The tree must have been pruned. *The tree must ____ been pruned. *The tree must have ____ pruned. The cat has been hunting all day. ?The cat ___ been hunting all day. *The cat has ___ hunting all day. The cat ___ hunting all day.

Notice that the passive auxiliary be, which is optional if it is the sole auxiliary in the verbal cluster (see Section 4.2.2, (98) and (99)), cannot be omitted if it occurs with other auxiliaries, as shown in (108b) and (109c). The same is true of the progressive auxiliary be in (110c). Notice that the unacceptable cases in (108)–(110) all involve the omission of a medial auxiliary. We can account for the unacceptable forms in (108)–(110) as follows. Auxiliaries and the main verb can only occur in the order given in (111): (111) modal < have < be (progressive) < be (passive) < main verb

Crucially, only the left-most auxiliary (or auxiliaries) can be omitted. This condition accounts for why an intervening auxiliary in a string of auxiliaries cannot be omitted, and also why the omission of the main verb be when it is preceded by an auxiliary is impermissible (see (59)–(63) above). 4.5.2 Subject NPs, negation, and the auxiliary The auxiliaries be and have show some interesting interactions with subject noun phrases (NPs), and negation.15 First, consider affirmative sentences. When the subject NP is omitted, the auxiliaries be and have cannot occur, as seen in (112d) and (113f). (In the examples below, the dash indicates omission of the subject NP and/or the auxiliary.) (112) (In reply to ‘What is she doing?’) a. She is singing this song. b. She ___ singing this song. c. ___ Singing this song. d. *___ Is singing this song. (113) (In reply to ‘Have you finished the project?’) a. We have finished the project. b. We ___ finished the project. c. We ___ finished the project already.

The verbal cluster

d. *___ Finished the project.16 e. ?___ Finished the project already. f. *___ Have finished the project.

Now, consider negative sentences, which show a different pattern. The auxiliary is behaves differently from the auxiliary have in the presence of negation. When the subject NP is omitted, be cannot occur, as seen in (114d,e) and (115d,e): (114) (In reply to: ‘Are they visiting his place tomorrow?’) a. They are not visiting his place. b. They ___ not visiting his place. c. ?___ Not visiting his place. d. *___ Are not visiting his place. e. *___ Aren’t visiting his place. (115) (In reply to: ‘Is she singing this song at the concert?’) a. She is not singing this song. b. ?She ___ not singing this song. c. ?___ Not singing this song. d. *___ Is not singing this song. e. *___ Isn’t singing this song.

However, have can be found when the subject NP is omitted, as shown in (116) and (117) below. The relevant examples are (116g,h,i,j) and (117g,h,i,j). (116) (In reply to: ‘Have you finished the project?’) a. We have not finished. b. We have not finished yet. c. We ___ not finished. d. We ___ not finished yet. e. ?___ Not finished. f. ___ Not finished yet. g. ?___ Have not finished. h. ?___ Have not finished yet. i. ?___ Haven’t finished. j. ___ Haven’t finished yet. (117) (In reply to: ‘Has baby finished his dinner?’) a. He has not finished. b. He has not finished yet. c. He ___ not finished.

89

90

Vivienne Fong

d. e. f. g. h. i. j.

He ___ not finished yet. ___ Not finished. ___ Not finished yet. ?___ Has not finished. ?___ Has not finished yet. ___ Hasn’t finished. ___ Hasn’t finished yet.

Notice also that in (117) above and (118) below, the contracted negation form hasn’t and haven’t are acceptable to more speakers than the non-contracted counterparts has not and have not. This is especially clear in (118), where all speakers find the examples in (118e–h) acceptable, as opposed to the varied judgments on (118a–d). (118) (In reply to: ‘Has baby finished his dinner?’) a. ?He have not finished. b. ?He have not finished yet. c. ?___ Have not finished. d. ?___ Have not finished yet. e. He haven’t finished. f. He haven’t finished yet. g. ___ Haven’t finished. h. ___ Haven’t finished yet.

Contrast also the difference between (113d) on the one hand, and (116e) and (117e) on the other (examples repeated below). While one might attribute the unacceptability of (113d) to the absence of the auxiliary have, together with the absence of any other temporal adverbial like already, these omissions are possible under negation. (113) (In reply to: ‘Have you finished the project?’) d. *___ Finished the project. (116) (In reply to: ‘Have you finished the project?’) e. ?___ Not finished. (117) (In reply to: ‘Has baby finished his dinner?’) e. ___ Not finished.

The verbal cluster

4.5.3 Wh-interrogatives and subject-auxiliary inversion In wh-interrogatives, the wh-element can occur ‘in-situ’ in CSE, as seen in GSSEC: (119) So you get what? ‘So what do you get?’ (120) Talking about who? ‘Who are you talking about?’ (121) What’s this ****? Ok. The other one is what? ‘…What is the other one?’

The pattern that concerns us here, however, is the occurrence of the wh-element in initial position. As noted in Section 4.4 above, subject-auxiliary inversion for interrogatives is not always observable in CSE, given that auxiliaries are optional. Yet when auxiliaries do occur, the patterns of subject-auxiliary inversion in wh-interrogatives vary from speaker to speaker. For some speakers, subject-auxiliary inversion is compulsory: that is, they judge the (b) versions in (122)–(125) to be unacceptable, the (a) examples being from GSSEC. Other speakers find the (b) versions in (122)–(124) to be either acceptable, or marginally acceptable. Example (125b), however, is unacceptable. (122) a. b. (123) a. b. (124) a. b. (125) a. b.

What is that thing called? ?What that thing is called? Why are you laughing? ?Why you are laughing? What foods don’t you eat? ?What foods you don’t eat? Who is that walking by…? *Who that is walking by?

4.5.4 ‘Do-support’ ‘Do-support’ occurs in interrogatives and negation contexts, when no other auxiliary is present, as seen in GSSEC: (126) Do you still want them? (127) I like the scenes lah, I don’t know why. (128) What do you think, [YS]?

For interrogatives, ‘do-support’ is optional, as shown below, also from GSSEC:

9

92

Vivienne Fong

(129) You still want them? ‘Do you still want them?’ (130) What you want me to say? ‘What do you want me to say?’

For negation, ‘do-support’ is not obligatory if the negative marker occurs before the main verb, as in this GSSEC example: (131) We not visit his place. ‘We do not visit his place.’

However, a sentence is unacceptable if the main verb occurs before the negative marker: (132) *We visit not/visitn’t his place. (133) *I like the scenes lah, I know not/known’t why.

4.6 Verb reduplication and aspectual classes of events 4.6. Verb reduplication Verb reduplication (see also Wee this volume) is a productive and systematic word-formation process in CSE (see examples below; (134) is from GSSEC, (135)–(137) are from Ho (1998), with my glosses). (134) You walk-walk halfway, think this is the route out. ‘You walk halfway, thinking/and think this is the route out.’ (135) The two of them together sure gossip-gossip one lah. ‘When the two of them are together, they will surely gossip.’ (136) Mix-mix a bit can already. ‘It will be okay to just mix (this) a little.’ (137) Aiyoh! He’s so cute, must pinch-pinch his cheek. ‘Goodness! He’s so cute, I must pinch his cheek.’

The following discussion looks at the constraints on verb reduplication of the type in (138): (138) [Base-verb + COPY] e.g., walk-walk, gossip-gossip, mix-mix, pinch-pinch

Only monosyllabic and disyllabic verbs allow reduplication, and forms such as participate-participate and continue-continue are unacceptable (Lim 1996). As

The verbal cluster

already alluded to in (138), only the base form of the verb undergoes reduplication, and inflected forms of the verb like the ones in (b) below are unacceptable (examples from Ho (1998), glosses mine). (139) a. b. (140) a. b. (141) a. b.

He plays for a while only lah. ‘He is only playing for a while.’ *He plays-plays for a while only lah. She danced for a while then tired already. ‘She danced for a while, and then became tired.’ *She danced-danced for a while then tired already. The phone rang for a while then stop already. ‘The phone rang for a while, and then stopped.’ *The phone rang-rang for a while then stop already.

In addition, the reduplicated verb cannot be inflected for tense, and forms like dance-dances, dance-danced, and dance-dancing, are unacceptable. Ho (1998) argues that verb reduplication is crucially dependent on the aspectual class denoted by the verb, and the verb phrase (VP). Before going into the specifics of Ho’s findings, I will need to briefly discuss how we can identify the different aspectual classes of events in CSE. 4.6.2 Tests for aspectual classes in CSE Dowty’s (1979) well-known tests for the aspectual classes – State, Activity, Accomplishment, Achievement – are based on Standard (American) English.17 When we look at other varieties of English, it is important that we do not simply apply these tests without first checking if they are indeed reliable. Indeed, in her study of aspectual classes of VPs in CSE, Lim (2000) has found several of Dowty’s tests to be unreliable for CSE. She proposes several new diagnostics specifically for CSE, which have a local flavour that CSE speakers can relate better to, and which avoid certain pitfalls that some of Dowty’s tests have in relation to CSE data. The diagnostics proposed by Lim (2000) that are relevant for our present discussion are given below.18 For illustration, I will use only attested VPs of each aspectual class from Lim (2000). –

To distinguish State and Achievement VPs from other VPs: – A VP that can co-occur with go or go and is either an Activity or an Accomplishment. – A VP that cannot co-occur with go or go and is either a State or an Achievement.

93

94

Vivienne Fong

(142) *You go and know (the answer). [State] (143) I go and swim later. [Activity] ‘I will go and swim later.’ (144) *I go and notice the painting. [Achievement] (145) She go and paint finish a picture. [Accomplishment] ‘She will go and complete painting a picture./She goes and completes painting a picture.’

Notice, however, that some States and Achievements can occur with go or go and. Lim (2000) points out that these are used for special rhetorical or pragmatic effect, and we must be alert to such interpretations: –

If a verb can co-occur with go and go and, and the sentence it is contained in is semantically odd unless it is used for special rhetorical or pragmatic effect, it is either a State or an Achievement.

(146) Who ask you to go and believe him? [State] ‘It’s your fault for believing him.’ (147) My hamster go and die today. [Achievement] ‘My hamster died on me today.’

–

To distinguish Accomplishment and Achievements VPs from other VPs: – If a VP cannot take for a while, it is an Achievement.

(148) *I notice the painting for a while. [Achievement]

–

If a VP has only a wide scope reading with for a while (i.e., for a while modifies the entire event; the whole event lasts for a while) it is either a State or an Activity.

(149) I know the answer for a while. [State] ‘I knew the answer for a while (and then forgot it).’ (150) I swim for a while. [Activity] ‘I swam for a while.’

–

If a VP has only a narrow scope reading with for a while (i.e., for a while has scope over the resultant state – if there is one; the result state lasts for a while), it is either an Achievement or an Accomplishment.

(151) I lost my wallet for a while. [Achievement] ‘The state of my wallet being lost lasted a while.’ (152) Mary go to John’s house for a while. [Accomplishment]

The verbal cluster

‘Mary went to John’s house, and stayed there for a while.’

With the help of the tests described above, four distinct aspectual classes (State, Activity, Accomplishment, and Achievement) emerge. The discussion to follow shows that aspectual class distinctions determine the patterns of verb reduplication in CSE. 4.6.3 Constraints on verb reduplication Not all monosyllabic and disyllabic verbs reduplicate, as can be seen below (data from Ho 1998, with my glosses). (153) …She sweep-sweep the floor only what. ‘She merely swept the floor.’ (154) Push-push a bit can? ‘Can you push this a bit?’ (155) *Don’t bother to ask him lah. He only know-know a bit. Intended meaning: ‘Don’t bother asking him. He knows very little.’ (156) *So fierce for what? Forget-forget a bit only what. Intended meaning: ‘Why are you so fierce/angry? (I) merely forgot something trivial.’ (157) *…Can walk-walk to the beach. Intended meaning: ‘We/One can walk to the beach.’

While the underlined VPs in (153) and (154) denote Activities, those in (155)–(157) do not. Notice that as Activity VPs, sweep the floor and push a bit satisfy Lim’s (2000) two tests for Activities: the VPs can occur with go and (go and sweep the floor; go and push a bit), and they have wide scope readings with for a while (for a while has scope over the entire event of sweeping or pushing). Know in (155) is a State: it cannot occur with go and (*go and know), and has a wide scope reading with for a while (see 149 above). Forget in (156) is an Achievement: it cannot occur with go and (*go and forget), and has narrow scope reading with for a while (for a while has scope over the result state following the forgetting event: e.g. in I forgot the keys in the car for a while, the keys remained in the car for a while after the event of forgetting). Walk to the beach in (157) is an Accomplishment: it can occur with go and (go and walk to the beach), and has narrow scope with for a while (She walk to the beach for a while is interpreted as her being at the beach for a while, and not that the walking took a while) (see also Lim 2000).

95

96

Vivienne Fong

To account for such patterns as (153)–(157) above, Ho (1998) has proposed that only verbs found in VPs that denote unbounded processes (what I call Activity VPs here) can reduplicate. However, Ho (1998) also notes that not all verbs found in Activity VPs can undergo reduplication. Consider the VPs in the (a) sentences below ((158)–(159)) that have bare plural object NPs, and thus denote Activities. As the (b) counterparts show, verb reduplication is unacceptable in such contexts. (158) (In reply to: ‘What did you do in the afternoon hah?’) a. Make cards (for a few hours/*in a few hours) lor. ‘I made cards.’ b. *Make-make cards lor. (159) a. Build model aeroplanes for so many years already, not bored meh? ‘After building model aeroplanes for so many years, aren’t you bored?’ b. *Build-build model airplanes for so many years already, not bored meh?

It cannot be the case that the (b) sentences in (158)–(159) are unacceptable because of the bare plural object NPs. With a different class of verbs as in (160), reduplication is allowed, with bare plural NPs, or with mass NPs: (160) a.

Draw-draw pictures. ‘Draw pictures for a while.’ b. Drink-drink beer. ‘Drink beer for a while.’

Notice though that none of the verbs (make, build, draw, drink) allow reduplication in Accomplishment VPs: (161) a. Make a card lor. b. *Make-make a card lor. (162) a. Can build a model-airplane in two days not bad already. ‘Building a model-airplane in two days is already not bad.’ b. *Can build-build a model-airplane in two days not bad already. (163) a. Drink a glass of beer (in one minute/*for one minute) only what. ‘I am only drinking/only drank a glass of beer.’ b. *Drink-drink a glass of beer only what.’ (164) a. Draw a picture in twenty minutes (*for twenty minutes) and you call this slow ah?

The verbal cluster

‘You call drawing a picture in twenty minutes slow?’ b. *Draw-draw a picture in twenty minutes and you call this slow ah?

The reason why Activity VPs like those in (158) and (159) disallow verb reduplication must be because verbs like make and build are different from verbs like draw and drink. The CSE data suggest that the Aktionsart of the verbs (i.e. the inherent aspectual properties of the verb) must be taken into account. In this case, make and build express inherently bounded events (with inherent end points), while draw and drink are unbounded processes (depicting actions that can go on indefinitely).19 Ho (1998) thus proposes that for verb reduplication is possible only when the following two conditions (phrasing mine) are satisfied: i. Only verbs in Activity VPs can reduplicate. ii. Only verbs that denote unbounded processes can reduplicate. 4.7 Passive constructions This section summarises Bao and Wee’s (1999) description of the passive constructions in CSE, with additional examples from GSSEC and ICE-SIN. 4.7.

Four types of passive constructions

Four types of passive constructions are reported in CSE. The regular passive with the auxiliary be, as well as the get passive are found in both CSE and Standard English: (165) John was scolded by his boss. (166) a. John got scolded by his boss. b. That day she got shocked…(GSSEC) c. How many got arrested? (ICE-SIN) d. He was there before and he used to sell satay on outside the shop and he got chased away a number of times. (ICE-SIN) e. So this Chinese man got scared walked away. (ICE-SIN) ‘So this Chinese man got scared and walked away.’

The constructions peculiar to CSE (examples from Bao & Wee 1999) include: (167) John kena scolded by his boss. ‘John was scolded by his boss.’

97

98

Vivienne Fong

(168) John give his boss scold. ‘John was scolded by his boss.’

The passive construction with give in (168) is rare, and not attested in the corpora. I will not discuss it here. 4.7.2 The kena passive According to Bao and Wee (1999), the kena passive is subject to the following constraints: –

The lexical verb can either be in the infinitival form, or the past participial form.

(169) The durian kena eat by him already. (Bao & Wee 1999) ‘The durian was eaten by him.’20 (170) Prabhudeva kena cheat in the movie lah. (GSSEC) ‘Prabhudeva was cheated in the movie.’ (171) The thief kena catch by the police. (Bao & Wee 1999) ‘The thief was caught by the police.’ (172) His tail like like kena caught in the in the ratchet (ICE-SIN) ‘His tail was caught in the ratchet.’

–

The agentive by-phrase is optional.

(173) I mean they’re like there is guy who must be about sixty over then always kena teased by this other guy (ICE-SIN) ‘…there is this guy who must be over sixty and is always teased by this other guy.’ (174) …Come to think of it, okay lah…he also kena play out lor. (GSSEC) ‘…He was also played out.’ (175) He kena sabotage what, the airport…last minute, they send him to Brunei, you know, instead of Taiwan. (GSSEC) ‘He was sabotaged at the airport at the last minute…’

–

The subject must be adversely affected by the action denoted by the verb. For example, being played out can be interpreted as adversely affecting the subject, but being praised usually cannot (unless an adverse interpretation is forced – e.g., being praised makes one unpopular among one’s peers (Bao & Wee 1999)).

(176) …he also kena play out lor. (GSSEC)

The verbal cluster

‘He was played out.’ (177) She made a police report, the fella kena charge. (GSSEC) ‘She made a police report, the fellow was charged.’ (178) *John kena praised by his boss. (Bao & Wee 1999)

–

Stative verbs like believe and know cannot be passivised with kena.

(179) *The man kena known by everyone. (180) *The thief kena believed by the police.

4.8 Conclusion In Section 4.1 to 4.5 of this chapter, I have provided the beginnings of a systematic description of the CSE verbal cluster, which so far has not been described in detail. In Section 4.6 and 4.7, I have brought together some previous work on more well-known CSE verbal constructions, reduplication and passives. While the account in this chapter is explicitly descriptive, I have tried to highlight phenomena that seem to me to be of interest both from the point of view of current syntactic and semantic theories, and from the point of view of further descriptive work on CSE. From the theoretical perspective, the CSE verbal patterns discussed above point to the following areas for future work: – – – –

Accounting for variation in the English auxiliary system (comparing CSE with e.g., Standard English and African American Vernacular English). The structural representation of the verb phrase that derives the patterns discussed in this chapter. Capturing the relation between the expression of subject, Negation Phrase, and auxiliaries. Capturing variation in the expression of a given tense/aspect semantics. (See e.g. Fong to appear.)

Several issues have not been dealt with in this work, among them the following: – – –

A comparison of the verbal cluster patterns in main clauses and subordinate clauses. A description of modal meanings in CSE. The interaction between aspectual meaning denoted by the verb phrase and temporal operators, such as already and yet, as well as a study of

99

00

Vivienne Fong

–

other aspectual types such as the irrealis, the inchoative, and the hot-news perfect. Determining the frequencies of the alternations observed (e.g. copula deletion; optionality of tense marking), and providing an analysis for such variation observed in the CSE data. This is only possible after corpora have been tagged specifically for such purposes.

Notes . This research was supported in part by a National University of Singapore Academic Research Grant R-103-000-003-112 for the project, Towards a Reference Grammar of Singapore English (Joseph A. Foley and Lisa Lim, Principal Investigators). I am indebted to my informants, without whose patient cooperation this study would not have been possible. For helpful discussions in the early stages of this work, I thank Arto Anttila, K.P. Mohanan, Tara Mohanan, and Lionel Wee. For comments on a draft of this paper, I am grateful to Arto Anttila, Lisa Lim, K.P. Mohanan, Salikoko Mufwene, and Edgar Schneider. Many thanks go to Chin Seok Koon for crucial help in counter-checking the corpus data, and for constructing the examples in the first version of the Appendix. All inadequacies are mine. 2. The verb and its auxiliaries are termed the ‘verb phrase’ in Quirk et al. (1985); I avoid this term as it is also often used to refer to the phrasal unit comprising the verb and constituents that follow the verb. 3. The Grammar of Spoken Singapore English Corpus (GSSEC) database was developed under the National University of Singapore Academic Research Grant R-103-000-003-112 for the project, Towards a Reference Grammar of Singapore English (Lisa Lim, Joseph A. Foley, Vivienne Fong, Ni Yi-Bin, and Lionel Wee). I am grateful to Ni Yi-Bin for facilitating access to the International Corpus of English-Singapore (ICE-SIN), developed by the Department of English Language and Literature, National University of Singapore. 4. In fact, the sentences that are starred (marked with ‘*’) are judged unacceptable by a large majority of the speakers throughout, with the exception of the patterns described in Section 4.5.2. Because of the greater variability in judgments there, I come down on the conservative side and say that starred sentences indicate acceptability by fewer than half of the speakers. 5. According to Wee (this volume), leh marks a tentative assertion or request; hah is a question marker; lor indicates a sense of resignation; hor asserts and

The verbal cluster

elicits support for a proposition. See also Wee’s chapter for further discussion of discourse particles.

6. The data in Section 4.6 and 4.7 are largely based on work by other authors. 7. There is a reduplicated form (e.g. climb-climb) that I will discuss in Section 4.6. 8. I have not, however, measured the frequencies of the alternations. Platt and Weber (1980) have noted that the rate of tense marking is dependent on the phonological conditions determined by the verb stem. 9. This pattern is also noted by Biber et al. (1999) in conversational British English. 0. The particle lah has been described as a marker of solidarity (Wee this volume; see also Besemeres and Wierzbicka (2003) and references therein). More specifically, Besemeres and Wierzbicka (2003: 21) propose that ‘what lah expects from the addressee is a capacity to understand the speaker’. . Describing (71) and (73) as having a noun phrase and an adverb phrase, respectively, simplifies somewhat the role of the negative not here. 2. Whether these constructions involve copula deletion at all is a question that will be left for future work. 3. Here, I ignore the main verb be, which exhibits auxiliary-like behaviour, as in: (i) a. She is happy. b. How is she? (GSSEC) c. This is not her phone number. (GSSEC)

4. An investigation of the patterns of subject-auxiliary inversion – when wh-elements and auxiliaries are present – will be left for future work. 5. Only seven informants completed the questionnaire for this section. A ‘*’ indicates sentences that are unacceptable to four or more of the informants, and a ‘?’ indicates sentences that are found to be unacceptable by fewer than four informants. 6. The unacceptability of (113d) will be discussed below.

0

02

Vivienne Fong

7. It is not totally clear in Dowty (1979) (nor in Vendler 1957) whether the aspectual classifications pertain to the verb, or to the VP. We are concerned with the VP here. 8. Of course, the robustness of Lim’s (2000) diagnostics needs to be checked against a larger pool of CSE speakers. 9. In the domain of aspectual composition, Verkuyl (1993) suggests that the only relevant lexical semantic information contributed by the verb is the feature [±ADD TO], where the [+ADD TO] property ‘roughly expresses a going on in time’ (Verkuyl 1993: 27). However, this feature cannot distinguish between verbs like build versus verbs like walk, since both do express ‘a going on in time’, and nonstativity (compare also Verkuyl 2002). 20. The CSE examples in Bao and Wee (1999) are not glossed, and I have provided the glosses here. The kena examples from Bao and Wee, if I have interpreted them correctly, seem most naturally to refer to past time. My consultation with 4 CSE speakers reveals that the kena passive is also possible for reference to present utterance time, as in examples such as: (i) Teacher, help! Ah-Seng kena bullied/bully by his friends now! ‘...Ah-Seng is being bullied by his friends now.’ (ii) We cannot use Ah-Seng as our thief in disguise. He is very lousy. Whenever we send him on assignment, he kena caught/*catch! Intended meaning: ‘…he gets caught (i.e., he is always getting caught).’

However, notice that in (ii) the non-inflected form of the verb is rejected by the same speakers. I have not looked into the systematicity of this pattern with this set of speakers.

Appendix As discussed in the introduction to this chapter, one way to determine whether sentences with structures similar to (informal) Standard English are indeed also examples of Colloquial Singapore English is to check whether they felicitously take CSE discourse particles. Here, I provide an example with an appropriate discourse particle for all the relevant sentences that appear in the main text. The meanings of the various discourse particles used below are as follows (see Wee this volume):

The verbal cluster

ma meh leh lor hor hah

indicates information as obvious; indicates scepticism; marks a tentative suggestion or request; indicates a sense of resignation; asserts and elicits support for a proposition; is question marker.

The sentences are numbered here according to their occurrence in the main text. (1) (1) (1) (9) (10) (15) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (24) (25) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (34) (35) (51) (52) (53) (54) (55) (56) (81) (83) (84)

a. Yesterday I saw the advertisement leh. b. Have you watched it yet or not hah? c. We’re not going over and over again leh. When you drive, everybody is scared leh! Everybody wants to meh? There’s a trick ma, you know? …he said that there’s one good thing he did leh. Now she is in Dunman Secondary meh? But he doesn’t know you all leh. It’s very painful every time of the month leh … Actually, your father leads a good life leh, he wakes up at ten o’clock, goes to office at twelve o’clock. And I went much later lor, just recently, you know. She is looking for a job meh? That’s the guy I was telling you about lor, remember? …they were coming back to the shop to sleep lor. Hey I’m going to get into trouble leh. A person like you will go to hell leh. When are you going to Australia hah? And we haven’t gone back together leh, you know. The couple had already left the house leh. She was the one who taught me lor. Oh, he was the one who said you looked like a raisin hah? Saturday and Sunday afternoons are not crap leh. If you have to be alone at home hor, … Actually, you should be quite assured hor, right? I mean there are options still available leh. a. The girl was in school leh. Was she telling you about this guy hah? She wasn’t telling you about this guy leh.

03

04

Vivienne Fong

(87) (88) (95) (96) (97) (100) (101) (102) (103) (107) (109) (110) (112) (113) (114) (115) (116) (117) (122) (123) (124) (125) (126) (127) (128) (129) (165) (166) (166) (166) (166)

Then I was talking to that woman leh, y’know. …he’s trying to kill him lor. That plot was taken from Midsummer Night’s Dream leh! …the roots cannot be taken leh. And milk is also given by the mother lor. …you’re supposed to go around the roundabout and make the U-turn ma … …when they were, like, supposed to land hor,… What is that supposed to mean hah? And you’re supposed to keep left on the left lane hor, ok? …they’ve been staying at the same place leh. a. The tree must have been pruned leh. a. The cat has been hunting all day leh. a. She is singing this song lor. a. We have finished the project lor. a. They are not visiting his place leh. a. She is not singing this song leh. a. We have not finished leh. a. He has not finished leh. a. What is that thing called hah? a. Why are you laughing hah? a. What foods don’t you eat hah? a. Who is that walking by hah? Do you still want them hah? I like the scenes lah, I don’t know why leh. What do you think, hah, …? You still want them meh? John was scolded by his boss leh. a. John got scolded by his boss lor. b. That day she got shocked hah? c. How many got arrested hah? d. …he got chased away a number of times lor.

Chapter 5

Reduplication and discourse particles Lionel Wee National University of Singapore

5. Introduction Colloquial Singapore English (CSE) is popularly characterised by its use of reduplication and discourse particles. For example, the phrase ‘Don’t play-play’, became a symbol of what is ‘bad’ or ungrammatical about CSE in the initial stages of the Speak Good English Movement, a campaign initiated by the Singapore government in April 2000 to improve the standard of English. And the particle lah (discussed in Section 5.4.1) has recently gained entry into the online edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. In this chapter, we focus on both reduplication and the discourse particles, focusing primarily on their semantics and pragmatics. Regarding the former, we will deal particularly with the kinds of words that can undergo reduplication, indicating that the process is sensitive to grammatical categories such as adjective or verb. Although there are some phonological constraints on CSE reduplication, we will not have much to say about them in this chapter. Regarding the discourse particles, we note that the actual number of such particles in CSE is not clear. Gupta (1992) claims that there are eleven such particles, though some of her particles (such as ge and na) are not recognised as distinct particles by some speakers. On the other hand, Gan (2000) suggests that what is often treated as a single particle, such as hah, is in fact better understood as three different particles sharing the same phonological form. In this chapter, we will focus only on the better-known particles and their less controversial properties. These better-known particles include lah, hor, meh, among others. A complete list is given below. The chapter is organised as follows. We begin with reduplication. Here, we first offer a description of nominal reduplication. Over the next three sections, we extend our discussion to patterns of reduplication with respect to other grammatical categories such as adjectives and verbs. Verbal reduplication,

06

Lionel Wee

not surprisingly, is sensitive to aspect, and the reader is referred to Fong (this volume) for a discussion of this. We then consider the possibility of substrate influence. We then move on to the discourse particles. Because our focus is on those particles whose identities as CSE particles are relatively uncontested, we will treat CSE as having eight different particles. They are lah, ma, wat, meh, leh, lor, hor and hah. The rest of the chapter discusses the properties of the particles individually. 5.2 Reduplication 5.2. Nouns Nominal reduplication in CSE is actually highly limited, primarily occurring with names of close friends or family members. It also occurs with common nouns that when reduplicated, refer to someone considered close or intimate. The following are examples of nominal reduplication in CSE. (1) a. Where is your boy-boy [= boyfriend/son]? b. We buddy-buddy [= close male friends]. You don’t play me out, OK? c. Say who told you my mummy-mummy is a graduate? She study more than you, she knows better than you.

In (1), the nominal bases (boy, buddy and mummy) undergo reduplication. The resulting forms are still nominal (indicating that the reduplication process preserves the lexical category of the base). The difference here is that the reduplicated forms seem to mark affection or intimacy. Thus, when boy reduplicates, we get the meaning ‘boyfriend’ or ‘son’. Likewise, when buddy and mummy reduplicate, buddy-buddy and mummy-mummy both draw attention to the close relationship that exists between the male friends, and between parent and child respectively. Thus, a speaker uses nominal reduplication to indicate affection for or intimacy towards the referent of the nominal reduplication process. Because the reduplication of nominals serves to indicate affection or intimacy, it is not surprising that names, too, can reduplicate so long as the names are those of close friends of the speaker’s. Examples are given below. (2) a. I’m looking for Ry-Ry [= Henry] b. Have you seen Yeoh-Yeoh? [= Choon Yeoh] c. Jeff-Jeff, come and see this [= Jeffrey]

Reduplication and discourse particles

d. I’m going with Qun-Qun [= Meiqun]

In (2), names of individuals, such as Henry and Choon Yeoh, are shortened to a single syllable. The monosyllabic form then acts as a base for reduplication. This shortening is crucial since the base forms cannot be reduplicated otherwise, as shown in (3). However, the requirement of monosyllabicity seems to apply mainly to names. As (1b-c) show, disyllabic common nouns can be reduplicated. (3) a. b. c. d.

*Henry-Henry *Choon Yeoh- Choon Yeoh *Jeffrey-Jeffrey *Meiqun-Meiqun

As with (1), the reduplication of names indicates affection. The fact that affection is being signaled can be seen from the fact that in (2a), for example, the speaker would not be referring to Henry as Ry-Ry if the relationship between them was a hostile one. The reduplication of names to indicate affection is not restricted to humans. (4) shows that names of pets can also reduplicate with the same effect. Once again, the name has been made monosyllabic. (4) Su-Su, come here

[Suzie is a dog]

Common nouns for which a feeling of affection is unlikely to hold do not reduplicate. Thus, the forms in (5) are anomalous. (5) a. b. c. d.

*Monday-Monday *cow-cow *water-water *tea-tea

We can summarise the process of nominal reduplication in CSE as follows: (6) (BASE + COPY) N

N

[AFFECTION/INTIMACY]

(6) shows that: i.

A nominal base (represented by the subscript ) has a copy added to it. N While the evidence at present does not allow us to decide with certainty that the copy is on the right (rather than the left), we make the assumption, purely as a matter of presentational convenience, that the reduplication process is suffixing.

07

08

Lionel Wee

ii. The reduplicated form consisting of the base and copy is also nominal. iii. The meaning associated with the reduplicated form is that of affection or intimacy. 5.2.2 Adjectives Adjectival reduplication in CSE results in an intensification of the meaning of the base adjective. Examples are shown below. (7) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Don’t always eat sweet-sweet [= very sweet] things. Why the vege got bitter-bitter [= very bitter] taste? I like hot-hot [= very hot] curries. Why I never see you wear those short-short [= very short] skirts one ah? Ee ... come and see the lizard’s tail – black-black [= very black] one. A: Fragile-fragile ah okay um. B: Well, I suppose like um they [= men] have this sort of belief dreams that they want their women to be this way. (ICE-SIN)

The adjectives in (7) are semantically simple in the sense that they do not indicate either the comparative or superlative meanings. And as (7) shows, these semantically simple adjectives can undergo reduplication. On the other hand, the data in (8) suggest that while comparatives are able to reduplicate (8a-b), superlatives are unable to do so (8c-d). (8) a. b. c. d.

That one! That greener-greener one. Make it smaller-smaller. That one! That *greenest-greenest one. Make it *smallest-smallest.

We can explain why comparatives are able to reduplicate and superlatives are unable to if we think of adjectives as coding properties on a scale, and intensification as moving the properties higher up along the scale. Comparatives are not located at the end-point of the scale, and can move further up along the scale. We therefore should not be surprised that comparatives are able to reduplicate. This argument, obviously, also applies to the semantically simple adjectives in (7) which would be considered even lower on the scale than comparatives. But if the adjective is coding a property that is already at the end-point of the scale, which is what a superlative does, then it will be unable to move up any further. We would therefore expect superlatives not to reduplicate.

Reduplication and discourse particles

Of course, not all comparatives reduplicate. Reduplication takes a single word as its base. For a comparative adjective to reduplicate, it must meet this criterion. This means that only -er forms (such as blacker, hotter, etc) are potential candidates for reduplication. Periphrastic comparative constructions (such as more selfish, more stupid) cannot reduplicate because the base consists of more than one word. (9) summarises the process of adjectival reduplication in CSE. (9) (BASE + COPY) A

A

[INTENSIFICATION]

As with nominal reduplication, adjectival reduplication preserves the lexical category of the base. In this case, the base is an adjective, and the resulting reduplicated form is still adjectival. The meaning associated with the process is that of intensification. 5.2.3 Verbs In both nominal and adjectival reduplication, there is a single copy of the base. With verbal reduplication (also see Fong this volume, Section 4.6), we need to distinguish two different sub-types. The first, as with nominal and adjectival reduplication, involves only a single copy of the base. However, there is another process of verbal reduplication where two copies of the base are involved, schematised in (10a). (10) a.

BASE + COPY + COPY

The two sub-types convey different meanings. When a single copy is involved, the meaning is that of attenuation. When two copies are involved, the meaning is that of continuity. Rajendra Singh (p.c.) has suggested that the two sub-types are related rather than completely independent processes, where the output of attenuative reduplication serves as the input to continuity reduplication. This would imply that (10a) needs to be revised so that we now have a nested structure, as in (10b), and the advantage is that this avoids the need to posit a reduplication process with two copies. (10) b. ((BASE + COPY) + COPY)

We will consider this possibility below after having discussed the two types of verbal reduplication separately. We begin our discussion with attenuative verbal reduplication.

09

0

Lionel Wee

5.2.3. Attenuation In attenuative verbal reduplication, the action described by the base verb is made more casual or less sustained. Examples are given below. In (11a), for example, reduplication of walk results in the meaning ‘stroll’, where the activity is now less directed or oriented towards a specific destination. In the rest of the examples, the reduplication is accompanied by adverbials such as a while, or a bit to indicate that the activity is less sustained so that it is performed over a relatively short period of time. The reduplication of walk to mean ‘stroll’ can also be seen as involving a relative short time period since a stroll can be considered a short walk, and hence does not typically involve strenuous physical activity. Thus, we suggest that the semantics of attenuative reduplication is really that of an activity performed over a short time frame, and a meaning such as ‘casualness’ is an implicature rather than part of the semantics per se. (11) a. Don’t always stay in the house. Go outside walk-walk [= stroll]. b. No traffic police ... stop-stop [= make a short stop] a while. c. Don’t have to cut all [of the cake]. Cut-cut [= make a small cut] a bit can already. d. Let her be. She cry-cry [= cry a little bit] a while then she’ll be alright. e. Ya, I was sick but really, nothing serious. Cough-cough [= minor coughing] a bit then no more already.

We summarise this sub-type of verbal reduplication as follows. (12) (BASE + COPY) V

V

[ATTENUATION]

According to (12), a verbal base can be reduplicated (with a single copy). The result is another verbal form whose meaning is that of attenuation. 5.2.3.2 Continuity Verbs can also be reduplicated to indicate that the action is continuous or ongoing. Compared with the examples in (11), where a single copy of the base is made, the examples in (13) below involve two copies of the base. (13) a. b. c. d. e.

I walk-walk-walk [= was walking] then I fall down. Take bus no good, always stop-stop-stop [= keeps on stopping]. Don’t like that stare-stare-stare [= keep on staring] at people. They down there choose-choose-choose [= in the act of choosing] so long already. Why you cough-cough-cough [= keep on coughing] whole day long?

Reduplication and discourse particles

The difference between the sub-types of verbal reduplication becomes clearer when we compare (11e) with (13e), for example. Both are repeated in (14) for convenience. (14) a.

Ya, I was sick but really, nothing serious. Cough-cough [= minor coughing] a bit then no more already. b. Why you cough-cough-cough [= keep on coughing] whole day long?

The examples in (14) involve reduplication of the verbal base cough. In (14a), with a single copy, the act of coughing is given an attenuative interpretation, thus conveying that the coughing was minor or not serious. On the other hand, in (14b), with two copies of the base, the act of coughing is given an interpretation of continuity, thus conveying that it was an activity that kept on recurring. We may schematise this other sub-type of verbal reduplication in the following manner. (15) a.

(BASE + COPY + COPY) V

[CONTINUITY]

V

(15a) brings out the fact that a verbal base may be copied twice to indicate continuity. We now consider Singh’s suggestion that the two types of verbal reduplication are related, with the output of attenuative reduplication acting as the input to continuity reduplication. This suggestion, which appears to be correct, would mean revising (15a) to (15b): (15) b. ((BASE + COPY) + COPY) V

V

V

[CONTINUITY]

This raises the issue of how the semantics of the two types of verbal reduplication may be related, that is, how attentuation is semantically relatable to continuity. One possible way to construe this semantic relationship is to recall that attentuative reduplication involves reducing the time period for which an action is performed. This is similar to Li and Thompson’s ‘delimitative aspect’, which can be glossed as ‘doing an action “a little bit” or for a short period time’ (Li & Thompson 1981: 232), a point also noted in Ho (1998). This shortening of the time period can then act as the input to the other verbal reduplication process where, by indicating continuity, the time period for the action is performed is now extended rather than reduced. The crucial point here is that the unreduplicated verb carries no semantic implication of a time period. Attenuative reduplication introduces a time period over which the action described by the verb is performed, albeit for a



2

Lionel Wee

relatively short time frame. But once the notion of a time period is introduced, attenuative reduplication can then act as the input to another reduplication process where the time frame is now extended. Notice that here we have a case of morphological iconicity where the longer morphological form is used to convey the semantics of a longer time period. Dressler and Barbaresi (1994: 46) refer to this form of iconicity as constructional diagrammaticity, by which they mean that ‘operations of concatenative morphology (composition, affixation, and other additive operations)’ are more iconic than ‘operations of modification (e.g. ablaut, umlaut), of zero morphology, and of subtraction.’ So far, we have discussed reduplication in CSE with respect to three lexical categories: nouns, adjectives, and verbs. It does not appear that adverbs can reduplicate in CSE. This raises the question of why not. Another question that needs to be asked is this: Why is it that verbs should have two different types of reduplication processes, one where a single copy of the base is made and one where two copies are made? In the next Section 5.2.4, we discuss reduplication of adverbs. We deal with the second question later in Section 5.3.2. 5.2.4 Adverbs In CSE, it appears that adverbs do not reduplicate. Thus, the following forms are anomalous. (16) a. *loudly-loudly b. *quickly-quickly c. *happily-happily

Exactly why adverbs do not reduplicate is unclear. Here, we offer a tentative hypothesis. We suggest that CSE does not actually have a distinct lexical category of adverbs, which is why there is no separate reduplication process for adverbs. Rather, CSE tends to use adjectives where Standard English uses adverbs. Support for this comes from the following data. (17) a. b. (18) a. b. (19) a. b.

You walk so slow. (CSE) You walk so slowly. (StdE) Why you look at me so angry? (CSE) Why do you look at me so angrily? (StdE) Don’t laugh so loud. (CSE) Don’t laugh so loudly. (StdE)

Reduplication and discourse particles

In (17)–(19), the (a) sentences come from CSE while the (b) sentences are from Standard English. As can be seen, where Standard English uses a distinct adverb, CSE uses a form that is adjectival in nature for an adverbial function. While further research is needed to confirm the kinds of lexical categories present in CSE, the data in (17)–(19) allow us to tentatively suggest that there is no separate lexical category of adverb, and hence no distinct process of adverb reduplication. 5.3 The possibility of substratal influence So far, we have presented a list of various reduplication processes in CSE, along with the different kinds of meanings associated with each process. Since Standard English does not generally make use of reduplication as a productive process, this raises the question of where reduplication in CSE comes from. In this section, we explore the possibility of substratal influence, specifically from Malay and Chinese, as the source of CSE reduplication. 5.3.

Other cases of substratal influence

As has been shown in a number of studies, CSE contains a number of grammatical constructions which can only be understood by acknowledging the influence of languages such as Chinese and Malay. For example, Bao and Wee (1998) show that in CSE, until is used slightly differently when compared to Standard English. In Standard English, until only indicates that two situations are sequential or consecutive. That is, a construction like X until Y in Standard English is interpreted to mean that when the situation described by Y holds, the situation described by X will have ceased. There is no temporal overlap between X and Y. In CSE, however, until has an additional meaning where it can be interpreted to mean that two situations are holding simultaneously or concurrently so that there is an overlap. Bao and Wee show that this additional meaning of simultaneity parallels the use of Chinese dao, and argue that dao has influenced the use of until in CSE. Another study on relative clause constructions in CSE establishes the influence of both Standard English and Chinese on the construction. Alsagoff (1995) shows that a CSE relative clause construction like The boy pinch my sister one combines features of StdE where the head precedes the relative clause, and features of Chinese where the modifying clause follows the relative pronoun. As Alsagoff puts it, the study demonstrates that CSE is best understood as a “rather

3

4

Lionel Wee

complex amalgamation of grammars of the substrate languages” (1995: 87) (but see Wee & Ansaldo this volume). What these studies have established is that to understand the grammar of CSE, it is necessary to acknowledge the influence of substrate languages. And as we shall see in the case of CSE reduplication, it is not merely a single substrate language that is the source of the influence; more than one substrate language could be at work. 5.3.2 Substratal influence in the case of CSE reduplication In the previous sections, we discussed the various reduplicative functions found in CSE. These are summarised in Table 5.1. Table 5.2 and 5.3 present the kinds of reduplicative functions found in Malay (Mintz 1994) and Mandarin Chinese (Li & Thompson 1981) respectively. (Tone marks have been omitted in the Mandarin examples.) As a comparision of the tables shows, CSE reduplication of nouns to indicate affection or intimacy is also found in Mandarin Chinese. The reduplicaTable 5.1. Reduplication in CSE. Lexical category

Reduplicative function

nouns adjectives verbs verbs

affection/intimacy intensification continuity attenuation

Table 5.2. Reduplication in Malay. Lexical category

Reduplicative function

nouns e.g. pelabuhan ‘port’

plurality pelabuhan-pelabuhan ‘ports’

interrogative pronouns e.g. siap ‘who’

indefiniteness siapa-siapa ‘whoever, anyone’

adjectives e.g. cantik ‘beautiful’

intensification or emphasis cantik-cantik ‘very beautiful’

verbs e.g. teriak ‘shout’

continuity teriak-teriak ‘to keep on shouting’

verbs e.g. ber-jalan ‘to walk’

attenuation ber-jalan-jalan ‘to walk around’

Reduplication and discourse particles

Table 5.3. Reduplication in Mandarin Chinese. Lexical category

Reduplicative function

verbs e.g. shuo ‘say’

attenuation shuo-shuo ‘say a little’

adjectives e.g. hong ‘red’

intensification hong-hong ‘very red’

nouns –

affection/intimacy e.g. jie-jie ‘elder sister’

tion of verbs to indicate continuity is also found in Malay. The reduplication of adjectives for intensification and verbs for attenuation is also found in both Malay and Mandarin. Of course, we would not expect CSE to faithfully and completely borrow every single reduplication process from Malay and Chinese. Thus, the reduplication of interrogative pronouns to indicate indefiniteness is not borrowed into CSE. This is not surprising since interrogative pronouns are actually a sub-class of the category of nouns, and are therefore not as salient. In a process of borrowing then, the borrowing language (in this case, CSE) would be more likely to be sensitive to processes involving the more salient lexical category (noun) than its sub-class (pronoun). Less clear is the reason why the reduplication of nouns to indicate plurality (found in Malay) is not borrowed into CSE. We leave this as a mystery for future investigation. Concerning the reduplication of nouns in Mandarin Chinese, Li and Thompson (1981: 35) note that they tend to involve mainly kinship terms. The following are some examples taken from Li and Thompson (1981: 36). ba-ba ‘father’ bo-bo ‘elder brother of father’ gong-gong ‘husband’s father’

ma-ma ‘mother’ jiu-jiu ‘maternal uncle’ ge-ge ‘elder brother’

Because of the association with kinship terms, it is not surprising that these reduplicated nouns carry an overwhelming sense of affection or intimacy. In CSE, while this sense of affection or intimacy has been retained, the possible set of nominal candidates for reduplication has been extended, as we saw earlier, to include close friends as well as pets. Table 5.4 summarises the similarities between the various reduplication functions found in CSE, Malay and Chinese.

5

6

Lionel Wee

Table 5.4. Similarities in reduplication functions in CSE, Malay and Chinese. CSE reduplication of:

Found also in:

nouns, to indicate affection/intimacy verbs, to indicate continuity verbs, to indicate attenuation adjectives, to indicate intensification

Chinese Malay Malay and Chinese Malay and Chinese

The similarities between CSE reduplication and the reduplication found in Malay and Mandarin strongly suggest the possibility of substratal influence. The reduplication of nouns to indicate affection or intimacy probably comes from Chinese, and the reduplication of verbs to indicate continuity from Malay. In the latter two cases – the reduplication of verbs to indicate attenuation and the reduplication of adjectives to indicate intensification – both Malay and Chinese are possible sources of substrate influence and it would be useless, at this point, to try to choose between the two. We close this section by addressing a question raised earlier, namely: Why is it that CSE verbs should have two different types of reduplication processes, one where a single copy of the base is made and one where two copies are made? This question is interesting because although the similarities in reduplicative functions between CSE, on one hand, and Malay and Chinese, on the other, provide support for the substrate hypothesis, neither Malay nor Chinese show any evidence of reduplication involving two copies of the base. All the reduplication processes noted so far in Malay and Chinese only make use of a single copy. Why then should there be such a process in CSE? It is possible that the use of two copies is a disambiguating device in CSE. That is, it is an innovation within CSE itself. The function of the innovation is to allow CSE speakers to distinguish between the two different meanings conveyed through the reduplication of verbs. Without this innovation, verb reduplication would be ambiguous between the ‘attenuation’ and ‘continuity’ meanings. Of course, Malay verbs can reduplicate to indicate either attenuation or continuity, and Malay has not introduced any formal disambiguating device. Why then should CSE have a need for disambiguation when Malay does not? An answer to this question comes from considering the kinds of verbs that can serve as bases for reduplication. Malay tends to be fairly specific about which verbs can reduplicate to indicate attenuation and which verbs can reduplicate to indicate continuity. For example, when teriak ‘shout’ is reduplicated, the resulting form tends to be interpreted as indicating continuity rather than attenuation. Likewise, when jalan ‘walk’ is reduplicated, the resulting form

Reduplication and discourse particles

tends to be interpreted as indicating attenuation rather than continuity. This is not to say that reduplicated jalan can never indicate continuity. Given the appropriate context, this may be possible. But it seems clear that Malay speakers typically associate specific reduplicated meanings, as a kind of default, with specific verbs. So, in Malay, the kind of base being reduplicated serves as a fairly good indicator of the specific meaning that is intended. CSE, on the other hand, does not appear to have this sort of specificity. In CSE, the same base verb is just as likely to reduplicate to indicate attenuation as well as continuity. Examples are given below. (20) a.

stroll: Go to the park and stroll-stroll until dinnertime. [attenuation] Late for lecture already still stroll-stroll-stroll. [continuity] b. cut: Don’t have to cut all (of the cake). Cut-cut a bit can already. [attenuation] Take the potatoes cut-cut-cut then mix-mix-mix with the rest. [continuity]

Given this situation, the need for disambiguation is greater. This, we suggest, provides the motivation for the innovation in CSE, resulting in two formally distinct processes of verbal reduplication, one where a single copy of the base is made and one where two copies are made. The formal distinction between single and double copies allows CSE to clearly indicate whether attenuation or continuity is intended. This ends our discussion of reduplication in CSE. We now move on to the discourse particles. 5.4 Discourse particles The CSE particles typically occur in sentence-final position and are syntactically optional in that their omission does not affect the grammaticality of the sentence. For example, (21) Have some more food lah! ‘Have some more food!’ (22) This is a good book meh? ‘This is a good book?’

7

8

Lionel Wee

These particles are sometimes referred to as ‘pragmatic particles’ (Gupta 1992) or ‘discourse particles’ (Platt & Ho 1989). The use of these terms indicates a general recognition that the particles perform various discourse-pragmatic functions such as indicating the informational status of a proposition as ‘obvious’ or as indicating skepticism on the speaker’s part toward the validity of an earlier proposition. (Also see Lim this volume for prosodic patterns on the particles.) The most widely used and frequently encountered of these particles is lah. The other particles that are discussed here include ma, wat, meh, leh, lor, hor, and hah. In the rest of this section, we discuss the individual properties of the particles. 5.4. lah Some examples below, taken from GSSEC, show the use of the particle lah. (23) A: B: (24) A: B: (25) A: (26) A: (27) A: B: A: B:

What do you want to talk about? Anything under the sun lah. Come lah! Where? Make it a bit louder lah. I dunno lah. Oh, you haven’t heard about my… The story of her life. Not the story of my life lah. Not yet lah. That one didn’t reach lah.

There are a number of claims about the properties of lah. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary Online (1997) describes lah as ‘a particle used with various kinds of pitch to convey the mood and attitude of the speaker’, giving examples like Come with us lah to indicate persuasion, Wrong lah to show annoyance, and No lah to demonstrate strong objection. This attributes to the particle a maximally general characterisation – it is simply used to convey a certain mood or attitude of the speaker. Exactly what mood or attitude is being conveyed will depend on specific contextual factors, from which the addressee will have to infer. On the other hand, it is clear that for native speakers of CSE, an objection like No without the particle would be perceived as being much ruder than one with the particle present. Similarly, Come with us and Wrong are respectively requests and assertions that are made more polite by the presence of lah. This

Reduplication and discourse particles

has led some scholars to suggest that the particle is best treated as a marker of solidarity (Platt 1987; Richards & Tay 1977) occurring frequently with expressions of agreement or acceptance such as OK lah or Yeah lah. As a solidarity marker, the particle can under specific circumstances function to mitigate face-threatening speech acts. Expressions of annoyance and objection both threaten the addressee’s positive face while attempts at persuasion threaten the addressee’s negative face. The presence of lah as a solidarity marker is often used to ‘soften’ the force of a speech act. We suggest that one way to reconcile these different accounts of lah is to combine them and to treat the particle as having a two-part function. The particle draws the addressee’s attention to some mood or attitude of the speaker, and in doing so, also appeals to the addressee to act in such a way as to accommodate this mood or attitude. The first part of this characterisation treats lah as a highly general particle, while the second part, by appealing to the addressee, is consistent with the impression that lah is a solidarity marker. There are, however, some interesting constraints on the use of lah. (28) (29) (30) (31) (32)

*Is that your hat lah? *That’s his car lah? Where’s the car lah? What’s inside the box lah? Who’s your friend lah?

Here, we see that the particle cannot appear with a polar interrogative, nor can it appear with a declarative functioning as a question. But lah can appear with Wh- interrogatives. At present, it is not clear how these constraints can be accounted for. 5.4.2 ma Wong (1994)2 gives the following examples of ma. According to Kwan-Terry (1991), the particle presents a piece of information or advice as ‘obvious’ to the addressee. Thus, in (33), B’s use of ma indicates to A that the reason why B called A should be obvious to A: B is merely returning A’s page. (33) A: How come you call me? B: You page for me ma.

Likewise, in (34), by using the particle, B indicates that A should know that the birthday is too far away to be celebrated.

9

20

Lionel Wee

(34) A: She said cannot celebrate birthday. B: Still early ma.

And in (35), the use of the particle presents the suggestion as being a relatively simple solution to A’s situation, and hence, one that should have been obvious to A herself. (35) Context: A stands in the train while her toddler grandson sits. B offers a suggestion to A. B: Sit down and let him sit on your lap ma.

5.4.3 wat Like ma, the particle wat presents a piece of information as being obvious. The difference between ma and wat is that when wat is used, the obvious information also carries the force of a contradiction to something that has previously been asserted. This force of contradiction is not present in the case of ma. The following examples are taken from the GSSEC. C has suggested buying sandals with buckles. This is rejected by both B and A. In particular, A’s utterance points out that salt causes rusting, and that this is the reason for rejecting C’s suggestion. Thus, A’s use of wat both indicates that it should be obvious to C that salt will cause rusting, and that this very fact makes C’s suggestion to ‘buy a bucket type’ unworkable. C, however, fails to see the relationship between salt and the suggestion. This leads A to repeat the utterance, using the particle yet again, and to also elaborate further by pointing out that salt is present in sweat. (36) C: B: A: C: A:

Then buy a buckle type lah! Buckle will break because it rusts. Salt wat! Ah? Salt wat! … Your sweat got salt, you see. Salt will make it corrode even faster.

Consider the next example. A regrets having stopped dance classes, with the implicature that it is now difficult or impossible to start the classes again. B’s use of wat indicates that the obvious solution is to start the class again, and that this solution is also a rejection of A’s implicature that starting the classes is somehow difficult. (37) A: I dam stupid lah! I shouldn’t have stopped. B: You can start now wat!

Reduplication and discourse particles

Finally, in (38), A has made a claim that the timetable is now available. This claim is challenged by B. A counters the challenge by reminding B of something that B should be aware of, namely, that a mutual friend, Rupesh, has a timetable clash. The implication is that Rupesh would not have been aware of the clash unless the contents of the timetable were in fact publicly accessible. (38) A: Timetable out you know. B: Is it? Who said? A: That’s how Rupesh know his clash wat!

5.4.4 meh The meh particle is generally used to express skepticism. A nice example of this, adapted from a television advertisement for a mobile phone, has a young man talking about his girlfriend. His buddy then responds with You got girlfriend, meh?, expressing doubt about the existence of this girlfriend. More examples are provided below. Example (39) comes from the GSSEC, (40) and (41) are adapted from Gupta (1992) and Wong (1994) respectively. In (39), the use of meh at the end of you don’t know indicates that A is surprised at B’s apparent ignorance that a mutual acquaintance is using Pirelli tyres. (39) A: No lah! He’s using Pirelli, you don’t know meh? B: Really? Don’t bluff.

In (40), A is asking B for the location of a coloured pencil, and B has indicated that B does not know where it is. A’s use of the particle indicates skepticism at B’s ignorance and shows that A in fact thinks that B should know where the pencil is. (40) Context: A has asked B where the colour pencil is twice. A: You don’t know meh? B: No, I don’t know. Didn’t see.

And finally, in (41), A uses the particle to express doubt about the correctness of B’s proposed solution. (41) Context: B demonstrates how a mathematical problem is to be solved to A, who seems unconvinced. A: Like that one meh? B: Ya lor.

2

22

Lionel Wee

5.4.5 leh The particle leh marks an assertion or request as being tentative, thus working as a pragmatic softener. For example, in (42) from GSSEC, A provides an opinion about a movie, but by using leh, signals that this opinion is a relatively weak one. (42) A: Actually… come to think about it actually, er, this movie speaks very badly about men leh.

And in (43), A is requesting that his father or mother give him his vitamin C drink.3 Given the asymmetrical power relations that exist between parent and child, the use of the particle softens the force of A’s request, which otherwise might be perceived as a demand or command. (43) A: I want to drink leh. I want to take my vitamin C. (Gupta 1992)

Finally, (44) from GSSEC shows a discussion about a movie that has not been well-attended. A thinks this is because the movie has been showing for quite some time. B doesn’t agree, suggests that two weeks is not really a long time, and uses leh to soften the disagreement. (44) (A and B are talking about a movie) A: But so few people lah, maybe because it has been running for quite some time lah. B: Actually two weeks only leh.

5.4.6 lor The following examples of lor are all taken from GSSEC. The lor particle is polysemous. It can indicate that piece of information should be obvious to the addressee, and it also indicates a sense of resignation. (Wee (2002) shows how these two uses of lor are related.) The following (from Platt & Ho 1989) shows how lor marks obviousness. A is asking a question about the kinds of things sold at the market, and B’s answer takes the form of a list. Platt and Ho describe the particle as being used by B to ‘stress the obvious’, to refer ‘to matters which the speaker assumes the addressee to know already’. Here, B is indicating that A should already know what things are sold at the market. (45) A: What do they sell at the market? B: Sell fish lor, vegetable lor, meat lor, all this lah.

Reduplication and discourse particles

By attaching lor to an utterance, the speaker can also indicates that the situation described by the utterance is one over which nothing can be done (i.e. the situation cannot be helped). And because nothing can be done, one has to simply accept the situation or its implied consequences. For example, in (46), A and B are discussing their personality differences, and A turns out to be more family-oriented than B. This leads B to ask A why A is so family-oriented. A’s use of lor in her reply conveys that she cannot help being the way she is since this is due to her upbringing. (46) B: How come you are so family-oriented ah? My mum would like you for a daughter. A: I think it’s quite… It’s the way I’ve been brought up lor. B: For me it’s always career first, career first, career first. Never family first. (Laughing)

In (47), A and B continue their conversation from (45). Here, it is B rather than A who uses the lor particle. Both A and B recognise that having children might require them to stop working. B’s initial use of lor suggests that she cannot bring herself to stop working, and her subsequent uses suggest that she is willing to accept the consequences of working, which are to not marry and to not have children (47) A: But, um, I might stop working for a while if I need to, if I need to lah, especially for looking after kids. B: But for me, I won’t stop working lor. The most I won’t give birth to kids lor. For the most I don’t marry lor. (Laughing)

5.4.7 hor When attaching the hor particle to a proposition, a speaker both asserts a proposition and also tries to garner support for the proposition. (48) comes from GSSEC, while the rest are adapted from Gan (2000). In (48), B proposes that a character in the movie is innocent, and explicitly tries to get A to agree by both using the hor particle as well as by repeating the word innocent. (48) A: But it’s beautiful in that…how… I mean, Finn got, got a chance to realise himself, right? B: He’s quite innocent, lah, hor, innocent?

In (49), while talking about their group project, A makes a request to B and uses the particle to elicit a positive response from the latter.

23

24

Lionel Wee

(49) A: Remind me to tell Jim about the group meeting hor. B: Sure. No problem.

(50) shows hor being used in a question. A and B are talking about what A has bought from a shopping trip. B’s question makes the assumption that A is very rich, and uses the particle to make clear that a positive response is expected, even though a negative response is ultimately given. Because the use of hor requires that the speaker assert a proposition, hor is only found with questions which have a declarative form. It is never found with Wh- interrogatives or with polar interrogatives where the auxiliary has been fronted, as shown in (51). (50) A: I bought a Prada wallet yesterday. B: You are very rich hor? A: No lah. Got sale wat. (51) *Where’s the box hor? *Is the box empty hor?

In (52), C’s use of the particle indicates that (i) unless there is contradictory evidence, C assumes that A and B have no problems with having the meeting on Tuesday, and further (ii) that C expects A and B to indicate their agreement with C’s assumption. (52) A: Tuesday should be fine, right? B: Yes. C: If you have no problems with Tuesday hor, then I will reschedule my tuition session.

Finally, because in using hor, the speaker is garnering support for a proposition, when there is no response to an asserted proposition, hor can be used as a repair device, conveying the speaker’s insistence that there be a response, preferably a supportive one, of course. In such cases, the particle can by itself constitute a conversational turn. It need not be explicitly attached to a proposition; this proposition is understood to be an assertion that was previously made. We see this in (53) where A asserts that a mutual friend often takes advantage of others. When B fails to respond to the assertion, A uses the particle to elicit a response. (53) A: B: A: B:

That guy is always trying to take advantage of others. (no response) Hor? Yah lor. Don’t bother about him. He will get his just desserts one day.

Reduplication and discourse particles

5.4.8 hah The examples below come from Gan (2000). The hah particle is used mainly to mark a question which can either take the form of a Wh- interrogative (54) or a declarative (55). (54) Context: A is asking B about the guests for a party. A: Who shall I invite for the BBQ hah? B: The usual people lor. (55) Context: A is supposed to meet B for lunch. A is late. A: Sorry I am late. You have eaten lunch hah? B: Eat already lah!

Hah never appears with auxiliary fronted interrogatives, as shown in (56). (56) *Is he going hah?

(57) shows that as a question marker, hah can also stand alone to mark a specific kind of question, namely, it asks that an earlier utterance be repeated. Thus, like hor above, hah can also constitute a complete conversational turn. (57) Context: It is noisy and B has problems hearing A. A: How did you spend your weekend? B: Hah? A: How did you spend your weekend? B: Oh, I went to Sentosa with my family.

5.5 A brief summary of the particles We present a brief summary of the various properties of the CSE particles discussed in this chapter. We note that there are three particles, ma, wat and lor, that indicate a piece of information as being obvious. However, there are differences between them. The particle ma is perhaps the most ‘neutral’ in that other than indicating obviousness, it does little else. The other two particles, wat and lor, in addition to obviousness, also convey, respectively, a challenge to some earlier proposition or a sense of resignation. lah ma wat

indicates speaker’s mood/attitude and appeals to addressee to accommodate the mood/attitude indicates information as obvious indicates information as obvious and contradictory

25

26

Lionel Wee

meh leh lor hor hah

indicates skepticism marks a tentative suggestion or request indicates obviousness or a sense of resignation asserts and elicits support for a proposition question marker

5.6 Conclusion This chapter has tried to provide a brief description of aspects of CSE reduplication as well as properties of various CSE particles. While both reduplication and the use of particles are often taken to be emblematic of CSE, there are relatively few studies that focus on providing sustained and comprehensive analyses of these phenomena. We hope that this chapter will serve to draw attention to these phenomena and encourage further work on them.

Notes . The discussion of reduplication draws on an earlier paper by Lim and Wee (2001). The discussion of particles has benefited from conversations with Vivien Ler. I also thank Paul Bruthiaux, Rajendra Singh, and Christopher Stroud for their comments. Any errors that remain are, of course, my own, 2. Wong (1994: 66) suggests that there may be two types of ma: one which attaches to declaratives and one which attaches to imperatives. He analyses the former as being attached to a proposition in order to indicate that the proposition is justified, while the latter is attached to a suggestion which is presented as being a better alternative. We find the distinction rather tenuous since all Wong’s examples are also compatible with Kwan-Terry’s treatment in terms of marking obviousness. Thus, based on current evidence, we prefer to treat CSE as having a single ma particle rather than two. 3. This is taken from Gupta’s data, which contain, among others, a recording with a Chinese family with two boys. In this example, A is the elder boy, who is presumably speaking to either his father or mother. Gupta does not elaborate on the context other than to say that here, the particle “expresses a commitment that an interlocutor is expected to act upon” (1992: 42).

Chapter 6

The evolution of Singapore English Finding the matrix Umberto Ansaldo University of Amsterdam

6. Introduction In the previous chapters we have been looking at structural features of Singapore English (SE) that characterise this variety and differentiate it from other varieties of English.2 It is obvious that SE presents us with features which, from a typological perspective, are rather alien to Standard English. They may not be altogether alien to heavily restructured varieties of English spoken in other parts of the world where English-based pidgins and creoles have developed, characterised by structures which are derived from substrate languages and usually differ typologically from English dialects. It is these structures that I refer to as hybrid structures, i.e. derived from the interference of typologically different linguistic systems and universal tendencies of shift that can be observed in contact situations. Hybridisation of structure is present in language change at large, whether the language is labelled as Creole or not (as argued in Ansaldo 2001; Mufwene 2001; Whinnom 1971). Linguistic creolisation, I suggest, can be equated to contact-induced change that reflects innovation and replication partly based on substratal features (cf. Croft 2000; Hull 1998; Mufwene 2001). What is typical of creolisation, I claim, is that the replication is heavily based on typologically diverse languages and not necessarily related to normative tendencies. In such a context the frequency of hybrid structures will be higher than in a non-creolised scenario. It is important to bear in mind that the mechanisms involved in creole and non-creole evolution are fundamentally the same: the difference is only in the relevance of the different factors involved (for more see Ansaldo 2001; DeGraff 1999, 2003; Mufwene 2001). In the evolution of any language, I claim, single ancestry is partly the result of an idealised view of language still frozen in 19th century desire for linguistic and racial purism. A more

28

Umberto Ansaldo

linguistically realistic approach to linguistic evolution, in particular evolution of languages with a strong history of contact, would present a given language as evolved out of a ‘matrix’ consisting of a number of interacting varieties, derived from careful socio-historical as well as typological observation. It is such an approach that is attempted below. In this chapter I will try to account for what I believe to be the most interesting hybrid features presented in this book as characteristic of SE. I do not claim these to be the only such features, as the data, as well as the space, set limitations to the depth and width of investigation. I will however present a number of hybrid features representative of the different sources involved in the evolution of such structures. In linguistic contexts such as the one in which SE evolved, a series of questions typically emerges (see Lim & Foley this volume): some (for example, question 1 below) have already been addressed in the literature and will therefore only be referred to here; others remain unanswered – or have not been asked yet – and it is to these I will turn in the rest of this chapter. Here is a list of typical questions arising in the study of a contact variety, which SE undoubtedly is a good example of: 1. How should we classify SE? Is it a Creole, a pidgin or a New Variety of English (NVE)? 2. How can SE be characterised from a typological perspective? 3. What are the most significant linguistic influences on the grammar of SE? 4. How does the emergence of SE relate to theories of language change and language contact? The first question has been widely addressed in the literature of SE and will only receive minor treatment in this study. It is moreover one of those questions that hardly bears relevance to our understanding of structural issues, to which this book is devoted, as it originates and can ultimately only be answered in terms of ideological perspectives.3 Questions 2 to 4 are more interesting for our purpose. Question 2, to my knowledge, has not been asked yet. I believe however that this is possibly the most important question to answer as (a) it may solve the problems typically discussed in question 1 from a structural, rather than ideological, perspective, and (b) it has direct relevance in answering question 3. The latter has been partly addressed in previous literature and I will refer to the relevant studies when necessary (see Section 6.3). The answers to questions 2 and 3, together, provide the keys to answering the fourth and last question, perhaps the most important one from a theoretical linguistic perspective as SE provides an

The evolution of Singapore English

ideal testing ground for our current understanding of contact phenomena. SE is relatively young as a linguistic system and as such enables us to take a close look at the dynamics of contact-induced change as they happen. Before tackling these various questions I would like to clarify that the features of SE examined in this book do not exist in isolation but rather in what can be characterised as a lectal continuum (cf. Ho & Platt 1993; Platt 1975, Section 6.2 and 6.5 below). In particular I would like the reader to be aware of the fact that the variety of SE discussed here can be best characterised as a mesolectal variety (as pointed out by Lim & Foley this volume), mainly because this is the variety on which most studies of SE have been based and the speech that the bulk of the data in the GSSEC corpus is most characteristic of. There are, in other words, other varieties of SE, more acrolectal, i.e. more modeled on English, as well as more basilectal, i.e. almost entirely modeled on non-English syntax. More basilectal features of SE will be presented in future work (Ansaldo in prep a) but are already touched upon in previous chapters, in particular in the discussion of bare NPs (see Wee & Ansaldo this volume, Section 3.2.2). 6.2 Problems of classification So what is SE? There is plenty of literature out there dealing with this issue so that only a brief summary will be given here (also see Lim & Foley this volume). The earliest denomination of linguistic relevance is to be found in Platt (1975) who labels SE a creoloid, i.e. a creole-like variety which may not have undergone pidginisation. This classification may be seen as obsolete simply on the grounds that, in the past 25 years, creole studies have undergone major rethinking, and (a) the term ‘creoloid’ is rather controversial as it has not been properly developed as a useful concept, and (b) a pidgin ancestor is no longer taken for granted in most informed approaches to creole genesis (see for example DeGraff 1999). On the other side of the debate, many researchers have labelled SE an NVE (cf. Pakir 1991), a solution that may satisfy political requirements but adds little to the understanding of SE as a linguistic system (cf. Mufwene 2001; Watts & Trudgill 2002 among others). The problem here is that neither ‘Creole’ nor ‘NVE’ constitute structurally definable classes. While it has been at times argued that creoles do constitute such a class (most recently in McWhorter 1998), the arguments put forward have ultimately failed to convince the majority of creolists (cf. Ansaldo & Matthews 2001; DeGraff 2003; Gil 2001; etc). In the case of NVE, the term is purely sociohistorical and political

29

30

Umberto Ansaldo

in nature and therefore has no claims of structural relevance. Without dwelling too much on these issues (a good synopsis is given in Bao 2001a), let us just consider the following points: 1. SE has, as the previous chapters show, its own grammar that marks it as a distinctive language: some of its structure is derived from English, some of it is not. 2. SE is the native tongue of Singaporeans, an ethnically mixed though predominantly Chinese community, largely multilingual and/or multilectal. 3. SE may have spread through English-medium schools (cf. Gupta 1994) but a variety of restructured English must have been in place before the colonial history of Singapore. However, no documents are available which would confirm this account. The above points yield two questions that will be addressed below: I. What are the linguistic sources of SE (mesolectal variety)? II. What are the socio-historical origins of restructured English in Singapore? The former will be tackled in Section 6.3, while the latter will be dealt with in Section 6.4. The answers to these questions, I hope, will help us to better situate the variety of SE in the appropriate linguistic space and time. For this purpose, these answers need to look at, but also beyond, typological structure. In particular we need to situate, or contextualise, the typological observations in a sociocultural context as well as a historical dimension in order to make sense of the structural influences we observe. Only then is it possible to assess whether, say, a certain innovation is more likely to be of internal nature, independent of external influences, or very much motivated by language contact. Moreover, by attempting to map the most likely original group of speakers, we may find clues to understand how the more central, stable features of this variety developed, along the lines of the Founder Principle outlined in Mufwene (1996). In looking at newly emerged, contact varieties, several things should be kept in mind: a. Very commonly a contrastive approach is taken, typically comparing the contact variety to the putative lexifier, usually taking the standard as the point of departure, in our case StdE. This approach has been criticised in Mufwene (2001) and others as it is usually never the case that a standard variety has been involved as a lexifier in a contact situation. In Singapore, likewise, the type of English that must have been present from the begin-

The evolution of Singapore English

ning as the possible target language for the community of people interested in speaking some form of English would have been most frequently a colloquial, possibly dialectal, variety (or varieties), as well as some form of trade English, Malaysian English, Eurasian English or the like. This casts doubt on the view that SE did not undergo a pidgin stage. A local variety of English may well have been there in the Eurasian or Baba Malay community (see Section 6.4); and b. When talking about creolisation, it may appear that the process is treated as a special type of language evolution, different in nature from what is referred to as ‘normal’ language acquisition. It is this and other authors’ view (cf. Ansaldo & Matthews 2001; DeGraff 1999; Mufwene 2001) that there is no inherent difference in the nature of the processes involved in creole or non-creole language acquisition. The difference may be found in the degree in which the different factors involved in any kind of language contact interact with each other; these factors can be described as: (i) autonomisation of the system vs. lack thereof; (ii) linear linguistic evolution vs. contact-induced changes; and (iii) degree of internal innovation (see Chaudenson 2001: 144–145 for a discussion of these factors). 6.3 Sources of hybridity in SE In the evolution of SE it is safe to assume that language contact played a significant role given the diversity of the languages involved in the highly multilingual environment in which SE was and is spoken. Because of the lack of historical documentation it is difficult to say whether a pidginised form of English existed in the region. In this region the lingua franca had for centuries been a variety of Trade Malay, Bazaar Malay, Baba Malay or other (cf. Holm 1988). Such a variety, which can be described as a restructured or pidginised variety of Malay (cf. Adelaar & Prentice 1996), is still spoken throughout insular Southeast Asia albeit with local variation. The existence of such a stable, widespread medium of interethnic communication would render the evolution of an English pidgin unnecessary. However, we will see that a vernacular variety of English would develop among the Peranakans4 that was in an ideal position to influence the development of English in Singapore (see Section 6.4 below and Ansaldo et al. in prep.). Considering the above it is clear that the type of Malay that influenced the development of SE must have been such a restructured variety of Malay and not standard or High Malay (e.g. Bazaar Malay, cf. Gupta 1998b).5

3

32

Umberto Ansaldo

A second source of linguistic influence must have come from Chinese varieties, in particular Southern ones such as Hokkien and Cantonese, respectively Min and Yue languages. Settlers from Min-speaking areas are found throughout the region since, at least, the 15th century, but likely from earlier on, i.e. they pre-date the first European colonists (Pan 2000). More recently, Yue-speaking immigration has inflated the population of Singapore, and Cantonese is, despite government claims, extremely vital in Singapore to this date. The following thus can be regarded as a potential matrix for SE structure: a. b. c. d.

Lexifier: English vernacular Substrate: restructured Malay (Bazaar or Baba Malay) Early adstrates: Min varieties: Hokkien, Teochew, Hainanese Later adstrates: Yue varieties: Cantonese

Together with these, we need to factor in the possibility of internal innovation as well as possible borrowings (in the sense of Thomason & Kaufman 1988) from other languages such as Tamil, varieties of Indonesian, Dutch, more recently Mandarin, etc. In the rest of this section we will discuss structural and functional innovations of SE: these, it will be argued, can be explained as contact-induced changes which have a clear matrix in the substrate and adstrate languages (i.e. Hokkien and Malay). 6.3. The lexifier It seems obvious to treat SE as an English-lexifier language since a quick look at any of the data reveals that the bulk of the lexicon is derived from English. Though loanwords from Hokkien, Malay and at times Tamil are frequent, the language undoubtedly builds heavily on English vocabulary. The interesting question is from what kind of English it derives, i.e. was it Standard English, and therefore in schools or, more likely, a local variety of English that was spreading already before the advent of a general education system? Partial answers have been suggested for these questions and they will be reviewed in Section 6.4. 6.3.2 Substrates and adstrates As already mentioned above, identifying a single source is not always easy, and may ultimately not be realistic. This is because of the typological similarity that Malay and Sinitic can display in some structural aspects; reduplication, for example, is a case in point. As both Malay and Sinitic varieties show productive

The evolution of Singapore English

reduplication patterns, identifying the correct source is not always easy and perhaps absolutely necessary. 6.3.2. Reduplication patterns In Wee (this volume), we saw that reduplication is a rather productive morphological process in SE, unlike StdE which makes very little use of it; in this sense, reduplication is one of the most prominent innovations of SE. Both Malay varieties and Sinitic varieties show reduplication patterns. Among the latter both Yue and Min varieties allow for reduplication of most word-classes (cf. Matthews & Yip 1994: 44–48; Tsao 2001). Examples of verbal and adjectival reduplication are given below, from Tsao (2001: 299, 296): (1) and (2) from Southern Min6 show respectively verbal reduplication, expressing casualness, and adjectival reduplication, with intensifying function: (1) saan kín sué-sué chieng khì clothes quick wash-wash clean ‘wash the clothes very quickly’ (2) in khin-khin khiãm-khiãm teh kùe jit cí 3pl thriftily-thriftily dur pass day ‘they lived very thriftily’

Examples (3) and (4), from Cocos Malay, show adjectival reduplication, this time with attenuating function and verbal reduplication, again indicating casualness: (3) ikan ini besar-besar fish(es) dem big-big ‘this fish/these fishes are rather big’ (4) saya jumput untok minum-minum I invite for drink-drink ‘I invite you for just a drink’

Recall that, in Wee (this volume), we saw that SE exhibits verbal triplication, i.e. for reduplication patterns where the base is copied twice, a typologically rather rare phenomenon (cf. Blust 1999). These structures, we were shown, express continuity, and they are given a very plausible internal explanation in that chapter (see Section 5.2.3). Interestingly, some Min varieties do allow triplication (Tsao 2001: 305; Zhang 1998). The fact that Min offers the structural possibility of triplication, albeit for property verbs (a marginal point, as the distinction between adjectives and verbs is only semantic in SE, see next Section 6.3.2.2), as

33

34

Umberto Ansaldo

can be seen below, could offer a possible adstrate explanation for the emergence of what are typologically rather rare constructions. (5) is from Xiamen (Zhang 1998) and (6) is from Southern Min (Tsao 2001: 296): (5) peh-peh-peh white-white-white ‘extremely white’ (6) i kin-a-jit chng kah suí-suí-suí dress comp pretty-pretty-pretty 3sg today ‘she is dressed up very beautifully today’

In this case, the most plausible conclusion is to say that adstrate and internal explanation complement each other. To the best of my knowledge, triplication is not found in other restructured English varieties. If internally motivated change were the only explanation for triplication in SE, we would expect this to have occurred in at least some other case. The fact that triplication exists in the most significant adstrate of SE, however, explains why this feature would appear in SE and apparently no other English-based varieties.7 Regarding the other types of reduplication, we can map the findings of Wee (this volume) with possible sources as given below. Note that all the reduplication patterns of SE are found in the main substrate/adstrates but with different semantic functions. Table 6.1. Reduplication patterns and functions in SE and the substrates. Structure

SE function

Bazaar Malay

Min (Hokkien)

Cantonese

N+N

intimacy

plurality

intimacy

intimacy

V+V

attenuation

attenuation, continuation

attenuation

attenuation, continuation

Vprop+V8prop

intensification

intensification9

intensification

intensification

V+V+V

continuity

Ø

continuity

Ø

As Table 6.1 shows, there is a complete match between the patterns of reduplications and their functions in SE and Hokkien. As amply illustrated in Thomason and Kaufman’s (1988) work on mechansisms of contact, external explanations should not be discriminated against when plausible. In our case, Hokkien seems to account for the full set of reduplication displayed in SE. Therefore, even in the case of triplication, though an internal explanation is viable, the pre-existence of the structural possibility needs to be taken as a concomitant cause for the

The evolution of Singapore English

evolution of this structure in SE. In the case of reduplication of property verbs, because of typological convergence between Sinitic and Malay, it is impossible and, as pointed out by Wee (this volume), unnecessary to reflect on the most accurate origin of the pattern. We need to recognise however the relevance of Hokkien in the emergence of SE reduplication as opposed to a more vague ‘Chinese’. In particular we can see the importance of correctly identifying the variety of substrate in our case as it provides us with additional, illuminating information. Mandarin, as argued in Bao (2001a) was not spoken by the early immigrants, though it may have played a minor role as the language of education. Therefore, the influence of Mandarin in SE has to be relatively recent, though no doubt increasingly significant. 6.3.2.2 Copula & property verbs Of the different constructions in which the copula can be found in the SE corpus (see Fong this volume, Section 4.4), it is interesting to note that existential sentences and sentences with dummy subjects are indeed characterised as requiring the copula. Copula is however absent in equative constructions. The absence of the copula in equative constructions is typically related to languages that code the semantic notion of adjective predicates or property verbs (PV). In languages such as these there is no clear grammatical distinction between verbs and adjectives but rather a subcategory of ‘attributive verbs’ or PVs (cf. Ansaldo 1999; Wetzer 1995). Sinitic languages clearly lack a distinction of the type made in StdE (Li & Thompson 1981) and may be regarded as the direct source for zero-copula equative constructions. In these languages, subject and PV are simply juxtaposed, e.g.: (7) keoi5 hou2 leng3 s/he very beautiful ‘she is very beautiful’ (8) anak kecil child small ‘the child is small’

(Cantonese)

(Malay)

If we assume, as suggested above, that restructured Malay was the original substrate of SE, then Malay could be the source of these equative structures without copula, a property that would be reinforced by the Sinitic adstrates.

35

36

Umberto Ansaldo

6.3.2.3 TMA system As has been shown by Fong (this volume), there is a considerably reduced system of tense inflection in SE compared to StdE. Tense inflection is only optional and speakers tend to rely on time adverbials such as yesterday, tomorrow, etc. This situation is not unique to SE; quite the contrary it is often the case in European lexifier varieties that come into contact with languages of a different morphological type. In particular, the fact that both Malay and Sinitic are isolating in nature and therefore do not mark tense (nor anything else) via inflection must be taken into account here. There may well be varieties of English that fail to mark 3rd person present, for example, though they are not exposed to substrate influence of a different morphological type (see Alsagoff 2001). This however does by no means constitute evidence against the influence of substrates in the case of SE: in most known cases of contact such as the one characterising SE, morphology is lost because of two concurrent reasons: a. the restructuring process typical of the ‘creolisation’10 process (i.e. ‘universal’); and b. substrate/adstrate influence. This loss is usually pervasive, i.e. it affects number, gender (where applicable) as well as tense (cf. McWhorter 1998; Thomason & Kaufman 1988). Claiming that substratal influences cannot be invoked because of the existence of varieties that show occasional reductions but do not have a substrate to account for them (cf. Alsagoff 2001) is not supported by the basic principles of language change and language contact (on the role of substrate in language change, see, for example, Muysken & Smith 1986). Though not extensively described in Fong (this volume), Aspect provides us with more interesting evidence for instances of change that remind us of Creole languages. From studies by Alsagoff (2001), Bao (1995), Gupta (1994), Platt (1982), Platt and Weber (1980), Tongue (1974), as well as this author’s observations based on our GSSEC corpus, we can observe five aspectual classes: Anterior, Perfective, Progressive, Irrealis and Habitual. In other words, SE shows the classic TMA system that has been observed in Creole languages (cf. e.g. Bakker et al. 1995; Bickerton 1981; Ho & Platt 1993). However, as also pointed out in Bao (cf. 2001b), all the aspectual categories found in SE can be systematically traced back to Sinitic substrate. In Bao (2001b) the aspectual system of SE is explained as emerging from the congruence of the substrate’s semantic categories and the lexifier’s lexical input. Below we give examples of the most frequent TMA markers found in the GSSEC corpus:

The evolution of Singapore English

i.

Anterior, marked by last time, e.g.: (9) Last time got mango trees you know. ‘There were mango trees in the past, you know’ (10) Last time it came out in the newspaper again. ‘It did come out in the newspaper once before’

ii. Perfective, marked by sentence-final already, cf. examples (45) and (46) in Fong (this volume), reproduced here: (11) B: Because they sold the house what. My sister-in-law. A: Oh, they sold already ah? ‘Oh, they have already sold [the house]?’ (12) She beat the eggs already. (Lim 2001) ‘She has (already) beaten the eggs.’

iii. Irrealis, marked by would which indicates tentativeness, rather than politeness,11 e.g.: (13) So if you don’t get it, then what would happen? (14) Oh, yeah. Amid is going overseas. The place that I would go.

iv. Non-punctual, marked by either durative still or habitual always. The Durative still can also be easily found; it is interesting to note that in examples (15) and (16) the verb is also marked for continuous aspect, though this is not obligatory, as (17) shows: (15) They still give my hoping lah. (16) So I’m still keeping open. (17) Still rain now.

And the habitual always is very commonly found: (18) Always seated at the cashier old lady you know. (19) I always like think you know. (20) She, she always doing that.

The development of particular aspect markers along the lines summarised above, markers which will be most often found even where residual English morphology would already provide TMA information (e.g. (10), (16)), supports the idea of hybridisation, i.e. contact-induced change that reflects shift based

37

38

Umberto Ansaldo

on substratal features (a) and ‘universal’ innovation process typical of contact situations (b), as given below: a. morphological reduction due to isolating typology of the substrate; b. reanalysis of time adverbials into aspect markers. 6.3.2.4 ‘Passives’ The kena passive is another product of typological convergence. Kena is a Malay verb meaning ‘to strike, to get’ and functions as passive marker in preverbal position. This type of ‘get-passive’ typically bears adversative connotation, i.e. it is not used to express passives if the patient is not somewhat negatively affected by the event (cf. Bao & Wee 1999). As shown in Fong (this volume), the semantic function of adversative, the salient property of kena passive constructions, is replicated in the SE pattern from Malay. As noted in Bao and Wee (1999), a Sinitic influence is also possible as passive constructions in these languages typically have adversative semantics. This influence is however not likely to come from Mandarin or Cantonese; these varieties are only superficially identical but, while semantically adversative, they are the product of a different grammaticalisation path and, in the case of Cantonese, require an agent which kena does not (cf. Matthews et al. 2001). Hokkien12 too, has a passive construction of the give-type, also found in SE, typologically different from the kena-construction, e.g.: (21) i55>33 ho33>21.lang24>33 me33 s/he pass scold ‘s/he got scolded’

What is interesting is that another passivising construction can also be found in some Fujian dialects (Min group): in these, the morpheme tioh8 ‘to get’ is highly polysemous and appears in a construction not unlike a kena or ‘get’ passive (cf. Lien 2001: 192); note also that tioh8 has exactly the same meanings as kena: ‘to strike, to get’:13 (22) tioh8 siong1 ‘get wounded’ (23) tioh8 ka1.chak8 ‘get choked’

So, while it is impossible to decide beyond doubt which of the substrates or adstrates may be the exact source for the emergence of this structure, it seems

The evolution of Singapore English

likely that the kena-passives are an innovation based on partial replication of Malay features, possibly reinforced by a similar structure in Hokkien, as in the case of triplication.14 6.3.2.5 Nouns and polyfunctionality In Wee and Ansaldo (this volume), various aspects of NPs in CSE have been discussed. This is a relatively well-researched area, a fact that enables us to relate to and develop previous analysis of features of NPs as found in the GSSEC corpus. As is often the case in contact varieties, morphology marking number and agreement is readily dispensed with, or at least reduced. This is clearly the case in CSE though there is variation that we attribute to the lectal continuum found in the Singapore English speech community. At least two aspects of CSE NPs reveal what by now is clearly a salient aspect of this variety, namely the fact that, though considered a variety of English, it is really typologically closer to languages of East and Southeast Asia. The first feature is yet another aspect in which CSE clearly is influenced by Sinitic; the second feature is a typical trait of isolating languages of Southeast Asia. i.

Noun incorporation, described in Wee and Ansaldo (this volume, Section 3.2.1), appears as a straightforward calque of Sinitic structures such as in Mandarin:15 (24) wo3 qu4 tu2.shu1.guan3 kan4 shu1 I go library read book ‘I go to the library to read’

In the sentence above, kan shu can be read as ‘read book(s)’ or ‘book-reading’, i.e. (24) translates as ‘I go to the library to read’. This is a well-known feature of Sinitic varieties that seem to require transitive verbs to be followed by an object which receives a neutral reading, e.g. (25) ta1 chi4 fan4 s/he eat rice ‘s/he eats (food)’

ii. As noted in Wee and Ansaldo (this volume, Section 3.4.3), the item one covers a series of functions that have been interpreted in slightly different ways by different authors. What is relevant to our discussion here is the issue of polyfunctionality, a common feature of isolating languages of Southeast Asia (cf. 3.4.3). It is interesting to note that the functions of one in

39

40

Umberto Ansaldo

CSE correspond to those of similar markers in other languages of East and Southeast Asia, namely Japanese no, Mandarin de, Cantonese ge and Malay empunya (cf. Yap et al. 2004). What all these markers share in common are the multiple functions of relative marker (26), pronominal/nominaliser (27) and (28), and stance (29), as illustrated below with data from Cantonese (in Yap et al. 2004). (26) gaaze maai ge je sister by rel thing ‘thing(s) that Sister bought’ (27) gaaze maai ge sister buy pron ‘one that Sister bought’ (28) hai gaaze maai ge is sister buy nom ‘it was Sister who bought it’ (29) gaaze wui maai ge sister will buy stance ‘Sister will buy it (for sure)’

The parallelism with the functions of one described by Wee and Ansaldo (this volume) is rather striking and the specific areal pattern as well as the existence of polyfunctionality per se position CSE with Southeast Asian typological structure. 6.3.3 Final remarks In the previous section we have discussed the following hybrid structures of SE (language contact effects in sound patterns are discussed in Lim this volume): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Reduplication processes TMA system Equative constructions Passives V-N structures (noun incorporation) Polyfunctionality

These features, it has been argued, can be explained along two, interrelated lines:

The evolution of Singapore English

A. They are innovations typical of language shift, in particular the types of shift observed in typologically complex language-contact scenarios. B. They are replications based on substrate (and adstrate) structures rather than on the transmission of a normative language of education. These two threads, I have argued, should constitute the essence of what we call creolisation. At this point it should be added that these processes occur necessarily over a prolonged period of time. The notion of ‘abrupt’ language change as opposed to gradual change has fallen progressively out of fashion in recent creolist studies and is to some extent always been an ideological construct (cf. Lightfoot 1999; Mufwene 2001 for different perspectives on the faults of ‘gradualism’). The hybrid features analysed above appear as regular features of SE and if variation arises this is more likely to be explained along the lines of variation between different registers of the continuum than by lack of regularity (cf. Section 6.5). It would be implausible from a diachronic perspective to suggest that a set of features such as these arises in a linguistic community over a period of time as short as a generation; and it would be linguistically untenable to claim that such features emerge because of erroneous acquisition of the target variety. Recent research shows that innovative replication is a fundamental factor behind language change (e.g. Croft 2000; Lass 1997), and only from a prescriptive perspective can one actually talk about failed acquisition. In the following section I offer a brief socio-historical sketch of English in Singapore which will help us contextualise and therefore properly interpret the discussion of the data presented above (also see Lim & Foley this volume). 6.4 Origins of English in Singapore As already noted in previous scholarship (cf. e.g. Platt 1982), there is no clear historical evidence that an English-based pidgin existed in Singapore at any point in time. This has usually been explained by the fact that the established, widely known lingua franca of the region was, and still is, a form of restructured Malay usually known as Bazaar Malay. It has been assumed that even the European colonial traders and settlers would have been fluent in this variety and therefore no need for an English-based trade language arose. This can be confirmed by sound historical evidence of various nature. For example, in tracing the origins of Cocos Malay, historical evidence can be found that the colonial agents in the service of the East India Company, as well as merchants actively trading for this and other companies, were fluent speakers of Malay, which

4

42

Umberto Ansaldo

most likely means restructured Malay, though they may have been competent in High Malay as well (cf. Ansaldo in prep b). This situation is likely to have been most common in the early days of Singapore as well where, as we are told in Lim and Foley (this volume), a system of middlemen called ‘captains’ already existed before the arrival of British administrator, a fact that implies the existence of interethnic communication for commercial purpose. Moreover, in Singapore as well as in other relevant ports of the region (e.g. Malacca), at least two groups of ethnically mixed origin had developed who would act as go-between for the British colonial power: they are usually referred to as Babas and Eurasians respectively. The Babas, or Baba Malays, are the descendants of Hokkien traders and Malay women: they speak a restructured Malay variety and exhibit cultural creolisation (cf. Ansaldo & Matthews 1999). The Eurasians are the descendants of mixed-marriages between Asians and Europeans (Rappa 2000), predominantly between Portuguese and people of Indian, Malay or mixed Asian origins. In places like Malacca, which may well be their ultimate origin, they too developed into culturally and distinctive communities such as the one known as Kristang (cf. Baxter 1988). These groups are very likely to have been the most established trading communities with the typical cultural and linguistic advantages that their position could bring; they had access to the colonial powers and therefore, among others, to English, as well as to the different local trading communities and their languages, i.e. Malay, Chinese, Tamil etc. The Eurasians had been instrumental in establishing English schools in Penang, at the request of British authorities, as early as 1787 (Khoo 1996: 113). A form of English, therefore, must have been present in Singapore before the first schools were established, probably brought over from Malacca (and other trading ports) by the ethnically mixed communities mentioned above (see also Gupta 1998b). It was after all the language that could open the way to contacts and jobs with British merchants (Pakir 1986) and thus one that was highly valuable. As already pointed out in Lim and Foley (this volume), Bloom (1986) finds evidence of the existence of an ‘imperfect’ variety of English in official records around 1870. Likewise, as early as the mid-19th century, George Windsor Earl (1837, reported in Rudolph 1998: 313) “remarked that many of the ‘Melacca-born Chinese’ who have been educated at the Malacca College speak English tolerably well”. Attestations such as these are familiar and most significant within creole studies, as they usually reveal the existence of an English-based linguistic system independent of the standard variety, typically referred to as imperfect, lacking or even bastardised. This kind of documentary evidence, fragmentary as it may be, is exactly the kind of evidence we may hope

The evolution of Singapore English

to find in scenarios such as the one in which SE has evolved. Since the children of Baba and Eurasian families were the first to be exposed to English education they must be seen, together with their parents’ generations, as the nucleus of speakers to spread the traits of early SE (Ansaldo et al. in prep).16 In Singapore, the first English-medium schools were typically funded and patronised by elements of these communities. Gupta (1994) notes for example how a large proportion of children enrolled in English-medium schools were Eurasians in the 19th century. At the turn of the century there were many English-educated Babas, in particular males having been educated at institutions such as Raffles for generations (Rudolph 1998: 317). In the light of Mufwene’s Founder Principle (Mufwene 1996), Babas and Eurasians can be regarded as the most influential groups in transmitting a set of linguistic features bound to become the stable core of what constitutes SE. Extending what has been pointed out in Mufwene (2001), that children do not make languages but adults do, we may want to take into serious consideration the innovation and replication of features from the parents as well as educators of these children as fundamental traits of the early variety of English spoken in Singapore (cf. also Ansaldo et al. in prep.). The point I am trying to make here is that, though the existence of an English-based pidgin is not proven nor necessary, the existence of an early English variety pre-dating SE, probably modelled on the Peranakans’ English, is plausible from a careful interpretation of the historical and literary documents of the early years of Singapore. This also explains why it is ultimately irrelevant to establish whether the substrate origins are to be found in Hokkien or Malay: they are more likely to be found in Bazaar Malay, i.e. typological convergence had already taken place before the formation of SE, which explains even better the hybrid structures observed so far (cf. Ansaldo & Matthews 1999; Ansaldo et al. in prep.). In my view, it is historically untenable to think of SE as a nativised variety of StdE of the 20th century (cf. Gupta 1994: 46). Let us recollect the dubious nature of accounts of ‘abrupt’ or drastic language change touched upon in the previous section. The entire content of this volume shows us, in a diachronic take of its hybrid structure, the depth of typological divergence between SE and any StdE variety in phonology, morphology and syntax alike. Recent creole studies clearly maintain that such a typological gap is not achieved overnight (McWhorter 2000). For all these reasons, it may be more appropriate to describe SE as a ‘creolised’ variety of an early colonial English, if by that we mean something like ‘undergone a type of shift due to heavy contact mechanisms as can be typically observed in Creoles, that brings about a typological shift’. I cannot stress enough the fact that this does not imply that creolisation

43

44

Umberto Ansaldo

is seen as a different type of language change from that observed in non-creole languages. It simply indicates the degree to which contact-induced shift plays a role as opposed to regular transmission, or else it suggests that in the interplay of innovation and replication that defines language change (Mufwene 2001), the replication pool is much more varied typologically than in other contexts. SE is the product of an evolution that pre-dates the arrival of the standard English medium by at least a century, in the sense that its seeds were present in Singapore and the region much earlier than that. English-medium schools may have contributed to the speed of development and spread of SE, but they could have hardly been the actual birthplace of it as is often portrayed in the literature. SE, in other words, is older than English in the ecolinguistic system of Singapore and as such functionally more flexible and socially more stable as the structural analysis in this volume has shown. The stability that SE now enjoys has also been most recently captured from a socio-historical perspective in the dynamic model for the emergence of new English varieties presented in Schneider (2003). While the model is indeed vast enough to capture adequately evolutionary stages of different varieties, in the specific case of Singapore one should point out that there are a few controversial points: it is certainly true that there is a relative stability within SE as well as perception of linguistic homogeneity in the SE community. This may well be one of the reasons why, though advocating Standard English, local politicians tend to converge more and more towards a mesolectal variety (cf. Schneider’s (2003) ‘endonormative’ phase). The stability and perceived homogeneity is indeed accompanied by, at least to some extent, identification between being Singaporean and speaking the new localised variety. However, and here the endornormative predictions are not met, there is no support, but in fact opposition, at the official, political level, for this new variety. This is mainly due to the fact that, within the complex web of policies that makes up language planning in Singapore, the government has yet to understand that (a) bilectalism, i.e. competence in basilectal English and Standard English is viable, and (b) basilectal English does indeed represent ‘national’ and Asian values so dear and sought after by the leadership in other, more costly and less successful programmes, such as the various campaigns implemented in the past three decades.

The evolution of Singapore English

6.5 Conclusions It is now time to answer the questions posed in the opening section of this chapter. Questions 2 and 3 can be answered as follows. As shown in Section 6.3, typologically the mesolectal variety of SE17 we have examined in this volume can be characterised as having an English lexifier base and an otherwise isolating typology with mainly Austronesian (Malay) and Sinitic (Hokkien + Cantonese) substrate influences. Though it is true that contact languages are no supermarket in which to shop for commonalities (Gupta 1994: 47), it is also true that substrate features should, when the socio-historical environment supports them, be treated seriously and not secondary to any ‘invisible-hand theory’ of language change (Chaudenson 2001; Mufwene 2001). It is also true that today we know more about features of Cantonese, Hokkien and Trade Malay than we did ten years ago, which allows us to understand how the hybrid structures of SE find their sources predominantly in contact-induced change or in innovation as a result of replication and reanalysis of substrate features. While it is difficult to assess, in some cases, whether the sources of a given construction should be seen in Malay rather than Sinitic, a problem common to contact varieties of this area (cf. Ansaldo & Matthews 2004), it is plausible as argued in Section 6.4 to suggest that SE is a language that has developed from early 20th century colonial English restructured through contact with predominantly Trade (or Bazaar) Malay and Hokkien, and possibly Cantonese. Today this language comprises different varieties, or lects, showing strong resemblance to StdE at the acrolectal level and almost complete relexification of Sinitic traits at the basilectal level (cf. Ansaldo in prep a). This brings us back to question 1. Diglossia (and bilingualism), commonly invoked in accounting for the sociolinguistic environment of SE (cf. e.g. Gupta 1994, 2001), appear as rather simplistic and somewhat inadequate (outdated) descriptions for the ecolinguistic environment of Singapore. In that sense, the older characterisations given by Platt (1977, 1980) in terms of polyglossia better fit the Singaporean reality. As noted in Romaine (1995), cases such as Singapore are linguistically too complex to be reduced to a binary system. Moreover, some of the defining traits of diglossia (cf. Ferguson 1972) do not apply to the case of SE vs. StdE in Singapore. Firstly, the extent of compartmentalisation, for example, is much reduced compared to standard diglossic societies. Secondly, it is surely not the case that bilingualism in Standard English and SE is institutionally supported (cf. Fishman 1980). If local politicians often converge to SE in their official addresses, this is because they too, as the rest of the society, are losing the boundaries

45

46

Umberto Ansaldo

between the two varieties. This in its turn supports a third point, that the relationship between the two varieties is quite recent and so far unstable, unlike what Ferguson advocates for classic diglossia (Ferguson 1959). Singapore has at least three parallel and constantly interacting polylectal systems, specified below in what can be seen as a potential matrix for contemporary SE:18 1. StdE – Standard/Colloquial SE – Acrolectal/Basilectal Singlish19 2. Standard Mandarin – Singapore Mandarin – Sinitic languages (Cantonese) 3. Standard Malay – Colloquial Malay – Bazaar Malay Note that this matrix appears more complex, though maybe less diverse, than the one given in Section 6.3 earlier. The matrix of any language must be understood as a continuously evolving system in order for us to be able to make sense of language change at large. Moreover, we will always be able to portrait more accurate evolutionary scenarios of recent varieties than of older ones, purely because of availability and quality of sources. But this is not the time, nor the place, to venture into a detailed description of the interaction of varieties and lects that characterise the ecolinguistic environment of Singapore. It will suffice to note that, as the list above reveals, Singaporeans exist and function in a complex multilingual and multilectal dimension in their everyday environment, a situation that may appear abnormal from a typically monolingual, anglocentric perspective but is in fact most frequent, and possibly increasingly so (Christopher Stroud p.c.) world-wide. In this sense it is not strange nor deviant that the languages acquired as standards have, over time, been influenced by the local substrates; this brings us to the fourth and final question. This study has shown that SE is the product of a most ‘normal’ process of acquisition, which consists of a combination of replication of features and innovation processes (cf. Mufwene 2001). We have seen that such a framework, with careful consideration for contact phenomena and serious attention to socio-historical detail, is a powerful one for a proper understanding of language evolution. In particular, I have suggested that we may retain the notion of creolisation when looking at the evolution of language in which contact involving typologically divergent varieties has played a dominant role, as long as we are aware that we are not talking about a process different in nature from other aspects of language change but rather in degree: the degree to which factors such as linear normative transmission and shift through contact interact. These two forces are always present in the process of development under language shift. In contact situations, especially where the contact varieties are typologically

The evolution of Singapore English

diverse, it has been argued, the latter force has the upper hand in shaping the linguistic output (cf. Ansaldo 2001). Creolisation, in the sense described above, is a process endemic to multilingual and multicultural societies that, as the rather limited successes of prescriptive language planning in Singapore repeatedly show, cannot be altered. In a society that believes and practises what is elegantly termed ‘social engineering’, this may yet prove to be one of the hardest lessons to learn. Languages go their own ways, whether we like it or not.

Notes . I wish to thank Bao Zhiming, Lisa Lim, Stephen Matthews and Lionel Wee for their useful feedback to this chapter. 2. The variety presented in this book can be easily identified as the restructured English spoken by young, medium-to-well educated Singaporeans. Their generation tends, broadly, to use SE more frequently and in more contexts than older generations; it also tends to be less proficient in Standard English, mainly due to changes in the school curriculum that undermine the traditional teaching of English language and literature. In this sense, these young students offer us a less acrolectal variety than speakers of similar background of previous generations: for these students, the contrast between StdE and SE is often blurred. They are, however, university students and therefore reasonably well educated. In this sense, they are nowhere near to the basilect that is spoken by, say, Singaporean taxi-drivers, which is much more restructured in terms of grammar as the latter’s access to standard English is far more restricted than that of university students. 3. Though not everyone agrees with it. For a different perspective cf. McWhorter (1998) for whom the question of whether a variety like SE is a Creole can be answered on structural grounds alone. For the theoretical implications of this question see also Ansaldo (in prep a). 4. The Peranakans or Babas are descendants of an early Chinese community that settled in the Malay archipelago at least since the 17th century and married nonMuslim local women of the Malay archipelago. Also see Section 6.4. 5. Gupta (1998) suggests Baba or Bazaar Malay as possible influences in SE. 6. In the Sinitic examples which are drawn from other sources (with the exception of (21), see note 12), tones are indicated or omitted according to their

47

48

Umberto Ansaldo

representation in the source; where indicated, they are in the form of tone numbers for that particular language.

7. I am grateful to Stephen Matthews for his views on this point. 8. Property verbs are given here as a subcategory of verbs. 9. But note that in Colloquial Malay varieties the attenuating function is also found. 0. Intended as the set of changes that a language undergoes in a contact situation involving typologically diverse varieties. . Where typically English varieties would use will (Platt 1982). 2. In this Hokkien example, tones are represented in pitch level numbers, showing sandhi patterns. 3. Lien does not call this passive, probably because it occurs with a wide range of predicates including intransitives: tioh8 pn ‘get sick’, tioh8 kau5 ‘get hysterical’. 4. For an extensive discussion of kena and give-passives in SE, refer to Bao and Wee (1999). 5. Examples (24) and (25) show tones in tone numbers for Mandarin. 6. They would probably also become part of the future teaching establishment typically complemented by teachers from India. 7. More commonly referred to as Singlish, perhaps a more appropriate name as it dissociates itself more decisively from English, a reality that is supported by the linguistic evidence. (But see Lim & Foley this volume, note 1; and Fong et al. 2002.) 8. Tamil and other varieties spoken in the communities of Indian origin are obviously present too. Given the minority status they have occupied and still occupy, it is doubtful that they have any significant influence on SE. 9. If this appears to be too sophisticated a differentiation, it may be interesting to note that it still falls short of capturing all the varieties on the continuum between Standard English and Basilectal Singlish found in the Singapore speech community (e.g. Malay English in Singapore, Tamil English in Singapore etc.). In short, Basilectal Singlish is a form of relexified Chinese, i.e. Sinitic structure with high degree of English lexical items. When this variety is spoken to speakers of Standard English it assumes acrolectal features, i.e. more English lexemes, reduced use

The evolution of Singapore English

of final particles etc. Colloquial SE is close to the variety described in this book, i.e. educated, younger generation’s speech. Standard SE is a high register of the latter, used for example by the Prime Minister (for more see Ansaldo in prep. a). Unfortunately, little research carried on English in Singapore is informed about the role of substrates/adstrates and the variation within local speech community. I am sure that such research would show that there are many, yet undetected varieties of English spoken in the community.

49

References

Adelaar, K. A. & D. J. Prentice. 1996. “Malay: Its history, role and spread”. In S. A. Wurm, P. Muhlhausler & D. T. Dutton, eds. Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia and the Americas. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 673–693. Afendras, Evangelos A. & Eddie C. Y. Kuo, eds. 1980. Language and Society in Singapore. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Alsagoff, Lubna. 1995. “Colloquial Singapore English: The relative clause construction”. In Teng Su Ching & Ho Mian Lian, eds. The English Language in Singapore: Implications for Teaching. Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics, 77–87. ———. 2001. “Tense and aspect in Singapore English”. In Ooi, ed., 79–88. ——— & Ho Chee Lick. 1998. “The grammar of Singapore English”. In Foley et al., 127–151. Anderson, Stephen R. 1985. “Inflectional morphology”. In Timothy Shopen, ed. Language Typology and Syntactic Description III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 150–201. Ansaldo, Umberto. 1999. “Comparative constructions in Sinitic. Areal typology and patterns of grammaticalization”. Ph.D., Stockholm University. ———. 2001. “The hybridity cline hypothesis. On language change and hybridization”. Paper presented at the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 13–17 August 2001. ———. in preparation a. “Singlish – a typological take”. ———. in preparation b. “Cocos Malay. A contact language of the Indian Ocean”. ——— & Lisa Lim. 2004. “Phonetic absence as syntactic prominence: Grammaticalization in isolating tonal languages”. In Fischer et al., eds, 345–362. ———, ——— & Salikoko S. Mufwene. in preparation. “The Peranakans as Southeast Asia’s creoles”. Ms. ——— & Stephen J. Matthews 1999. “The Minnan substrate in Baba Malay”. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 27(1): 38–68. ——— & ———. 2001. “Typical creoles and simple languages”. Linguistic Typology 5(2): 311–324.

52

References

——— & ———. 2004. “Origins of Macanese reduplication”. In Genevieve Escure & Armin Schwegler, eds. Contacts Worldwide: Creoles and Other Linguistic Outputs. (Creole Language Library Series). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Asher, R.E. 1985. Tamil. (Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars). Kent: Croom Helm Ltd Publishers. Ayampillay, Rathi Devi. 1983. “Form and function(s) of intonation in Singapore English: An auditory and instrumental study”. M.A., National University of Singapore. Bakker, Peter, Marike Post & Hein van der Voort. 1995. “TMA particles and auxiliaries”. In Jacques Arends, Pieter Muysken & Norval Smith, eds. Pidgins and Creoles: An Introduction. (Creole Language Library Series). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 247–258. Bao, Zhiming. 1995. “Already in Singapore English”. World Englishes 14: 181–188. ———. 1998. “The sounds of Singapore English”. In Foley et al., 152–174. ———. 2001a. “The origins of empty categories in Singapore English”. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 16(2): 275–319. ———. 2001b. “The aspectual system of Singapore English and the systemic substratist explanation”. Paper presented at the Society of Pidgin and Creole Linguistics Conference on Creole Languages (SPCL2001), University of Coimbra, Portugal, 26–27 June 2001. ——— & Lionel Wee. 1998. “Until in Singapore English”. World Englishes 17(1): 31–41. ——— & ———. 1999. “The passive in Singapore English”. World Englishes 18(1): 1–13. Baxter, A. 1988. A Grammar of Kristang. Canberra: Australian National University. Benjamin, Geoffrey. 1976. “The cultural logic of Singapore’s multiracialism”. In R. Hassan, ed. Singapore: Society in Transition. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 115–133. Besemeres, Mary & Anna Wierzbicka. 2003. “The meaning of the particle lah in Singapore English”. Pragmatics and Cognition 11: 3–38. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Essex: Pearson Education Limited; New York: Longman. Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Karoma Publishers.

References

Bloom, David. 1986. “The English language in Singapore: A critical survey”. In Basant K. Kapur, ed. Singapore Studies: Critical Surveys of the Humanities and Social Sciences. Singapore: Singapore University Press, 337–458. Blust, Robert. 1999. “Thao triplication”. Oceanic Linguistics 40(2): 324–335. Bodman, Nicholas Cleaveland. 1955. Spoken Amoy Hokkien. Kuala Lumpur: The Government, The Federation of Malaya. Bokhorst-Heng, Wendy. 1998. “Language planning and management in Singapore”. In Foley et al., 287–309. Brown, Adam. 1988. “Vowel differences between Received Pronunciation and the English of Malaysia and Singapore: Which ones really matter?” In Foley, ed., 129–147. ———. 1991. Pronunciation Models. Singapore: Singapore University Press. ———, David Deterding & Low Ee Ling, eds. 2000. The English Language in Singapore: Research on Pronunciation. Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics. Carlson, G. 1977. “A unified analysis of the English bare plural”. Linguistics and Philosophy 1:413–457. Carter, Ronald & Michael McCarthy. 1997. Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chaudenson, Robert. 2001. Creolization of Language and Culture. (Translated and revised in collaboration with Salikoko S. Mufwene). London: Routledge. Chiang, Ker Chiu. 1940. Hokkien (Amoy) for Beginners. Book One Part Two. Singapore: The Chin Fen Bookstore. Chiew, Seen Kong. 1983. “Ethnicity and national integration: The evolution of a multi-ethnic society”. In Peter Chen, ed. Singapore: Development and Trends. Singapore: Oxford University Press, 29–64. Crewe, William J., ed. 1977a. The English Language in Singapore. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. ———. 1977b. Singapore English and Standard English: Exercises in Awareness. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Longman. Cruttenden, Alan. 2001. Gimson’s Pronunciation of English. 6th ed. of Gimson, A. 1962. An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English. London: Edward Arnold. DeGraff, Michel, ed. 1999. Language Creation and Language Change: Creolization, Diachrony and Development. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. ___. 2003. “Against creole exceptionalism”. Language 79(2): 391–404.

53

54

References

Deterding, David. 1994. “The intonation of Singapore English”. Journal of the International Phonetics Association 24(2): 61–72. ——— & Low Ee Ling. 2001. “The NIE Corpus of Spoken Singapore English”. SAAL Quarterly (56): 2–5. Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics. ——— & Gloria R. Poedjosoedarmo. 1998. The Sounds of Singapore English. Phonetics and Phonology for English Teachers in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Simon & Schuster (Asia) Pte Ltd. Doraisamy, T.R., ed. 1969. 150 Years of Education in Singapore. Singapore: Publications Board, Teachers’ Training College. Dowty, David R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Dressler, Wolfgang & Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi. 1994. Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and other Languages. Berlin: Mouton. Enfield, N. J. 2003. Linguistic Epidemiology: Semantics and Grammar of Language Contact in Mainland Southeast Asia. London/New York: Routledge/Curzon. Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. “Diglossia”. Word 15: 325–340. ———. 1972. “Diglossia”. In P. Giglioli, ed. Language and Social Context. Penguin, 232–251. Fischer, Olga, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon, eds. 2004. Up and Down the Cline – The Nature of Grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fishman, Joshua. 1980. “Bilingualism and multiculturalism as individual and societal phenomena”. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 1: 3–17. Foley, Joseph A., ed. 1988. New Englishes. The Case of Singapore. Singapore: Singapore University Press. ———. 1998. “Code-switching and learning among young children in Singapore”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 130: 129–150. ———, T. Kandiah, Bao Zhiming, A. F. Gupta, L. Alsagoff, Ho Chee Lick, L. Wee, I. Talib & W. Bokhorst-Heng. 1998. English in New Cultural Contexts: Reflections from Singapore. Singapore: Oxford University Press. Fong, Vivienne. To appear. “Unmarked already: Aspectual expressions in two varities of English”. In Angeliek van Hout, Henriëtte de Swart & Henk Verkuyl, eds. Perspectives on Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ——— & Lisa Lim. 2000. “Minding our P’s and Q’s: Pronunciation and related questions in the classroom”. Workshop conducted at the STU (Singapore Teachers’ Union) – SAAL (Singapore Association of Applied Linguistics) Colloquium on ‘The Teaching and Use of Standard English’, Singapore, 26–27 May 2000.

References

———, ——— & Lionel Wee. 2002. “‘Singlish’: Used and abused”. Asian Englishes 5(1): 18–39. Gan, Lee Meng. 2000. “A study of the ‘hah’ and ‘hor’ particles in Colloquial Singapore English”. B.A. Honours, National University of Singapore. Gil, David. 1994. “Genitives, number and (in)definiteness: Some data from English, Singlish, Mandarin and Malay”. In Frans Plank, ed. Agreement Gender Number Genitive &. (EUROTYP Working Papers VII/23). Berlin: The European Science Foundation, EUROTYP Programme, 109–131. ———. 1995. “Multiple (in)definiteness marking in Hebrew, Mandarin, Tagalog, Indonesian and Singlish”. In Frans Plank, ed. Overdetermination. (EUROTYP Working Papers VII/24). Berlin: The European Science Foundation, EUROTYP Programme, 189–227. ———. 1998. “Patterns of macrofunctionality in Singlish noun phrases: A questionnaire survey”. In S.L. Chelliah & W.J. de Reuse, eds. Papers from the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. Tempe: Arizona State University, 147–182. ———. 2001. “Creoles, complexity and Riau Indonesian”. Linguistic Typology 5(2): 325–370 ———. 2003. “English goes Asian; Number and (in)definiteness in the Singlish noun-phrase”. In Frans Plank, ed. Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, EUROTYP Working Papers VII/20). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 467–514. Goh, Christine C.M. 1998. “The level tone in Singapore English”. English Today 14(1), 50–53. ———. 2000. “A discourse approach to the description of intonation in Singapore English”. In Brown et al., eds, 35–45. Green, Lisa. 1998. “Aspect and predicate phrases in African-American Vernacular English”. In S.S. Mufwene, J.R. Rickford, G. Bailey & J. Baugh, eds. AfricanAmerican English: Structure, History, Use. London: Routledge, 37–68. Greenbaum, Sidney & Randolph Quirk. 1990. A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. Essex: Longman Group UK Ltd. Gupta, Anthea Fraser. 1992. “The pragmatic particles of Singapore Colloquial English”. Journal of Pragmatics 18: 31–57. ———. 1994. The Step-tongue: Children’s English in Singapore. Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. ———. 1998a. “A framework for the analysis of Singapore English”. In S. Gopinathan, A. Pakir, W. K. Ho & V. Saravanan, eds. Language, Society and Educa-

55

56

References

tion in Singapore: Issues and Trends, 2nd edition. Singapore: Times Academic Press, 119–132. ———. 1998b. “The situation of English in Singapore”. In Foley et al., 106–126. ———. 2001. “English in the linguistic ecology of Singapore”. Paper presented at The Cultural Politics of English as a World Language, Freiburg, 6–9 June 2001. Heine, Bernd & Tanai Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hirst, Daniel & Albert Di Cristo, eds. 1998. Intonation Systems: A Survey of Twenty Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ho, Hung Yee Ivy. 1998. “A study of reduplication in Singapore Colloquial English”. B.A. Honours, National University of Singapore. Ho, Mian Lian & John Platt. 1993. Dynamics of a Contact Continuum: Singaporean English. (Oxford Studies in Language Contact). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Holm, John A. 1988. Pidgins and Creoles (2 volumes). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huang, Shu Jun Vivien. 2003. “Distinguishing between the Chinese, Malay and Indian ethnic varieties of Singapore English: A study of Voice Onset Time”. B.A. Honours, National University of Singapore. Hull, David L. 1998. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kerswill, Paul. 1996. “Milton Keynes and dialect levelling in South-Eastern British English”. In David Graddol, Dick Leith & Joan Swann, eds. English: History, Diversity and Change. London/New York: Routledge, 292–300. Khoo, Joo Ee. 1996. The Straits Chinese: A Cultural History. Amsterdam/Kuala Lumpur: The Pepin Press. Killingley, Siew-Yue. 1993. Cantonese. (Languages of the world/Materials 06). München/Newcastle: LINCOM Europa. Kuo, Eddie C. Y. 1980. “The sociolinguistic situation in Singapore: Unity in diversity”. In Afendras & Kuo, eds, 39–62. Kwan-Terry, Anna. 1991. “Through the looking glass: A child’s use of particles in Chinese and English and its implications on language transfer”. In Anna KwanTerry, ed. Child Language Development in Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Kwok, Helen. 1984. Sentence Particles in Cantonese. (Centre of Asian Studies Occasional Papers and Monographs, No. 56). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.

References

Labov, William. 1972a. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ———. 1972b. “Some principles of linguistic methodology”. Language in Society 1:97–120. Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lau, Wen Li. 2002. “Distinguishing a Malay speaker of Singapore English: A phonetic study”. B.A. Honours, National University of Singapore. Lee, Ee May & Lisa Lim. 2000. “Diphthongs in Singaporean English: Their realisations across different formality levels, and some attitudes of listeners towards them”. In Brown et al., eds, 100–110. Leow, B.G. 2001. Census Population 2000 Statistical Release 2: Education, Language and Religion. Singapore: Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade & Industry. Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lien, C. 2001. “The semantic extension of tioh8 in Taiwanese Southern Min”. Language and Linguistics 2(2): 173–202. Lightfoot, David. 1999. The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change and Evolution. Basil Blackwell. Lim, C. 1986. “English in Singapore: A study of its status and solidarity and attitudes to its use”. Ph.D., Regional Language Centre, Singapore. Lim, Choon Yeoh. 1996. “Reduplication in SCE”. B.A. Honours, National University of Singapore. ——— & Lionel Wee. 2001. “Reduplication in Colloquial Singapore English”. In Ooi, ed., 89–101. Lim, Li San. 2001. “Semantic puzzles of time in Colloquial Singapore English”. B.A. Honours, National University of Singapore. Lim, Lisa. 1997. “Intonation patterns characterising three ethnic varieties of English in Singapore: Observations and implications”. In Antonis Botinis, Georgios Kouroupetroglou & George Carayannis, eds. Intonation: Theory, Models and Applications. Proceedings of an ESCA Workshop. Athens: ESCA & University of Athens, 207–210. ———. 1998. “We talk like that meh? No lah!: Intonation patterns on pragmatic particles in Singapore English – Preliminary observations”. In SPoSS: Sound Patterns in Spontaneous Speech. Proceedings of an ESCA Workshop. Aix-enProvence, France: Laboratoire Parole et Langage, 131–134.

57

58

References

———. 2001. “Towards a reference grammar of Singapore English”. Final Research Report, Academic Research Fund, National University of Singapore. ———. 2002. “Focus and prominence in Singapore English”. Paper presented at the NUS-Lund Linguistic Symposium, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 29–30 October 2002. ———. to appear. “Everything you wanted to know about how stressed Singaporean Englishes are”. In Somsonge Burusphat, ed. Papers from the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. Arizona: Program for Southeast Asian Studies, Arizona State University. ———. in prep a. “Illustrations of the IPA. Singapore English”. To be submitted to Journal of the International Phonetic Association. ———. in prep b. “Come from which language ah? Chinese lor! Ya lah! Prosodic clues to the origins of discourse particles in Singapore English”. ——— & Tan Ying Ying. 2001. “How are we stressed?! Phonetic correlates and stress placement in Singaporean English”. In John A. Maidment & Eva Estebas i Vilaplana, eds. Proceedings of PTLC2001: Phonetics Teaching & Learning Conference 2001. London: University College London, 27–30. Lim, Sonny. 1988. “Baba Malay: The language of the ‘Straits-born’ Chinese”. In Hein Steinhauer, ed. Papers in Western Austronesian Linguistics 3. (Pacific Linguistics A78). Australia: Department of Linguistics/Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University, 1–61. Lim, Su Tsi Jacqueline. 2000. “A study of aspectual classes in Colloquial Singapore English”. B.A. Honours, National University of Singapore. Llamzon, A. 1977. “Emerging patterns in the English Language situation in Singapore today”. In Crewe, ed. 1977a, 34–45. Lock, Graham. 1982. “The Chinese language in Singapore – Status and features”. Language Learning and Communication 1(3):233–344. Loh, P.F.S. 1974. “A review of the educational developments in the Federated Malay States to 1939”. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 5(2): 225–238. Loke, K.-K. & J. M.-Y. Low. 1988. “A proposed descriptive framework for the pragmatic meanings of the particle la in Colloquial Singapore English”. In Regional Papers Presented at the 8th World Congress of Applied Linguistics. (Asian-Pacific Papers, Occasional Papers No. 10). Sydney, 150–161. Low, Ee Ling 1994. “Intonation patterns of Singapore English”. M.Phil., University of Cambridge. ——— & Esther Grabe. 1999. “A contrastive study of prosody and lexical stress placement in Singapore English and British English”. Language and Speech 42(1): 39–56.

References

Lowenberg, P. H. 1984. “English in the Malay archipelago: Nativization and its functions in a sociolinguistic area”. Ph.D., University of Illinois. Matthews, Stephen & Patrizia Pacioni. 1998. “Specificity and genericity in Cantonese and Mandarin”. In L. Xu, ed. The Referential Properties of Chinese Noun Phrases. Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Centre de Recherches Linguistiques en Asie Orientale, 45–59. ——— & Virginia Yip. 1994. Cantonese. A Comprehensive Grammar. London/New York: Routledge. ———, H. Xu & Virginia Yip. 2001. “On Chaozhou ‘intransitive passives’: Passive and unaccusative in Jieyang”. Ms., University of Hong Kong. McWhorter, John. 1998. “Identifying the creole prototype: Vindicating a typological class”. Language 74: 788–818. ———. 2000. The Missing Spanish Creoles: Recovering the Birth of Plantation Contact Languages. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press. Mintz, Malcolm W. 1994. A Student’s Grammar of Malay and Indonesian. Singapore: EPB Publishers. Mithun, Marianne. 1984. “The evolution of noun incorporation”. Language 60: 847–893. ———. 1986. “On the nature of noun incorporation”. Language 62: 32–37. Moorthy, Shanti Marion & David Deterding. 2000. “‘Three or tree? Dental fricatives in the speech of educated Singaporeans”. In Brown et al., eds, 76–83. Mufwene, Salikoko. 1996. “Creole genesis: A population genetics perspective”. In P. Christie, ed. Caribbean Langue Issues: Old and New. Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press, 168–209. ———. 2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Muysken, Pieter & Norval Smith, eds. 1986. Substrata versus Universals in Creole Genesis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Newbrook, Mark, ed. 1987. Aspects of the Syntax of Educated Singaporean English: Attitudes, Beliefs and Usage. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Language GmbH. Ng, Poey Siong, ed. 1995. Singapore Facts and Pictures 1995. Singapore: Ministry of Information and the Arts. Ng, Sandy. 2003. “‘Espla-Naid or Espla-Nard?’: A phonetic study on distinguishing “good” and “weak” speakers of Educated Singapore English”. B.A. Honours, National University of Singapore. ——— & Lisa Lim. 2004. “Voice Onset Time of 5 Asian languages and their substratum influence on Singapore English”. Paper presented at the 14th Annual

59

60

References

Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (SEALS14), Bangkok, Thailand, 22–24 May 2004. Ooi, Vincent B. Y., ed. 2001. Evolving Identities: The English Language in Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore: Times Academic Press. ———, L. Alsagoff, Z. Bao, P. Tan & L. Wee, eds. 1997. Times-Chambers Essential English Dictionary. Singapore: Federal Publications (S) Pte Ltd. By arrangement with E. Higgleton, A. Seaton, P. Hands, K. Cullen & H. Sargeant, eds. Times-Chambers Essential English Dictionary. Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd. Othman, Z. & S. Atmosumarto. 1995. Colloquial Malay. London: Routledge. Oxford English Dictionary Online. 1997. 2nd ed.: Additions 1997. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2003]. Available: http://80-dictionary.oed.com.libproxy1. nus.edu.sg/entrance.dtl Pakir, Anne. 1986. “A linguistic investigation of Baba Malay”. Ph.D., University of Hawai’i. ———. 1991. “The range and depth of English-knowing bilinguals in Singapore”. World Englishes 10(2): 167–179. ———. 1992. “English-knowing bilingualism in Singapore”. In K. C. Ban, A. Pakir & C.K. Tong, eds. Imagining Singapore. Singapore: Times Academic Press, 234–262. ———. 1993. “Spoken and written English in Singapore”. In Anne Pakir, ed. The English Language in Singapore: Standards and Norms. Singapore: UniPress, 19–31. ———. 1994. “Making bilingualism work: Developments in bilingual education in ASEAN”. In Rosemary Khoo, Ursula Kreher & Ruth Wong, eds. Towards Global Multilingualism: European Models and Asian Realities. Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, 13–27. Pan, Lynn, ed. 2000. The Encyclopaedia of the Chinese Overseas. Singapore: Chinese Heritage Centre; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Platt, John. 1975. “The Singapore English speech continuum and its basilect ‘Singlish’ as a ‘Creoloid’”. Anthropological Linguistics 17(7): 363–374. ———. 1977. “The sub-varieties of Singapore English: Their sociolectal and functional status”. In Crewe, ed. 1977a, 83–95. ———. 1980. “Multilingualism, polyglossia and code selection in Singapore”. In Afendras & Kuo, eds, 63–83. ———. 1982. “English in Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong”. In R. W. Bailey & M. Görlach, eds. English as a World Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 384–414.

References

———. 1987. “Communicative functions of particles in Singapore English”. In R. Steele & T. Threadgold, eds. Language Topics: Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday, Vol. 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 391–401. ——— & Ho Mian Lian. 1989. “Discourse particles in Singaporean English: Substratum influences and universals”. World Englishes 8(2): 215–221. ——— & Heidi Weber. 1980. English in Singapore and Malaysia – Status: Features: Functions. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. ———, ——— & Mian Lian Ho. 1983. Singapore and Malaysia. (Varieties of English Around the World T4). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ———, ——— & ———. 1984. The New Englishes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Rappa, Antonio. 2000. “Surviving the politics of late modernity. The Eurasian fringe community of Singapore”. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 28(2): 153–180. Richards, Jack C. 1977. “Variation in Singapore English”. In Crewe, ed. 1977a, 68–82. ——— & Mary W. J. Tay. 1977. “The ‘La’ particle in Singapore English”. In Crewe, ed. 1977a, 141–156. Rickford, John. 1974. “Carrying the new wave into syntax: The case of Black English BÍN”. In R.W. Fasold & R.W. Shuy, eds. Analyzing Variation in Language. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 162–183. Roach, Peter. 2000. English Phonetics & Phonology, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Romaine, Suzanne. 1995. Bilingualism. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishers. Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D., MIT, Cambridge. Rubdy, Rani. 2001. “Creative destruction: Singapore’s Speak Good English Movement”. World Englishes 20: 341–355. Rudolph, Jurgen. 1998. Reconstructing Identities: A Social History of the Babas in Singapore. Ashgate. Sadock, Jerrold M. 1986. “Some notes on noun incorporation”. Language 62: 19–31. Schneider, Edgar. 1999. “Notes on Singaporean English”. In Uwe Carls & Peter Lucko, eds. Form, Function and Variation in English. Studies in Honour of Klaus Hansen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 193–205. ———. 2003. “The dynamics of New Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth”. Language 79(2): 233–281.

6

62

References

Sells, Peter, John Rickford & Thomas Wasow. 1996. “An Optimality Theoretic approach to variation in negative inversion in AAVE”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 591–627. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & R. Phillipson. 1989. “‘Mother Tongue’: The theoretical and sociopolitical construction of a concept”. In U. Ammon, ed. Status and Function of Languages and Language Varieties. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 450–477. Soames, Scott & David M. Perlmutter. 1979. Syntactic Argumentation and the Structure of English. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press. Tan, Ee Lyn. 1989. “The use of dental stop in Singaporean English and its relation to the mother tongue”. B.A. Honours, National University of Singapore. Tan, Ying Ying. 2001. “Acoustic correlates of stress in Chinese, Malay and Indian varieties of Singapore English”. Working Papers in Language, Literature & Theatre Studies. Department of English Language & Literature, National University of Singapore. Tay, Mary W.J. 1979. “The uses, users and features of English in Singapore”. In Jack C. Richards, ed. New Varieties of English: Issues and Approaches. (RELC Occasional Papers 8). Singapore: Regional English Language Centre (RELC), 91–111. ———. 1982. “The phonology of Educated Singapore English”. English World-Wide 3(2), 135–145. ———. 1983. Trends in Language, Literacy and Education in Singapore. Singapore: Department of Statistics. ———. 1993. The English Language in Singapore: Issues and Developments. Singapore: Unipress. ——— & Anthea Fraser Gupta. 1983. “Towards a description of Standard Singapore English”. In Richard B. Noss, ed. Varieties of English in Southeast Asia. (RELC Anthology Series No. 11). Singapore: Regional Language Centre (RELC). Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press. Tickoo, M. L. 1996. “Fifty years of English in Singapore: All gains, (a) few losses?” In Joshua A. Fishman, Andrew W. Conrad & Alma Rubal-Lopez, eds. Postimperial English: Status Change in Former British and American Colonies, 1940–1990. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 431–456. Tongue, Ray K. 1974. The English of Singapore and Malaysia. 1st ed. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. ———. 1979. The English of Singapore and Malaysia. 2nd ed. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.

References

Tsao, Feng-fu. 2001. “Semantics and syntax of verbal and adjectival reduplication in Mandarin and Taiwanese Southern Min”. In H. Chappell, ed. Sinitic Grammar. Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 285–308. Vendler, Zeno. 1957. “Verbs and times”. The Philosophical Review 66: 143–160. Verkuyl, Henk J. 1993. A Theory of Aspectuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2002. “Aspectual composition: Surveying the ingredients”. Proceedings of the conference Perspectives on Aspect. Available online: http://www-uilots.let. uu.nl/conferences/Perspectives_on_Aspect/P_o_A_index.html Warner, Anthony. 1993. English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watts, Richard & Peter Trudgill, eds. 2002. Alternative Histories of the English Language. London/New York: Routledge. Wee, Lionel. 2002. “Lor in Colloquial Singaporean English”. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 711–725. Wells, John C. 1982. Accents of English: Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wetzer, H. 1995. Nouniness and Verbiness. A Typological Study of Adjectival Predication. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen. Whinnom, K. 1971. “Linguistic hybridization and the special case of pidgins and creoles”. In Dell Hymes, ed. Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 91–115. Wolfram, Walt. 1986. “Good data in a bad situation: Eliciting vernacular structures”. In J.A. Fishman, A. Tabouret-Keller, M. Clyne, B. Krishnamurti & M. Abdulaziz, eds. The Fergusonian Impact, Volume 2: Sociolinguistics and the Sociology of Language. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 3–22. Wong, Jock Onn. 1994. “A Wierzbickan approach to Singlish particles”. M.A., National University of Singapore. Yap, F. H., S. J. Matthews & K. Horie. 2004. “From pronominaliser to pragmatic marker: Implications for unidirectionality from a crosslinguistic perspective”. In Fischer et al., eds, 137–168. Yeow, Kok Liang. 1987. “Stress, rhythm and intonation in educated Singapore English: An auditory and instrumental study”. M.A, National University of Singapore. Zhang, M. 1998. “A cognitive semantics approach”. Paper presented at the Joint meeting of the 7th International Association of Chinese Linguistics

63

64

References

(IACL-7) and the 10th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-10), Stanford University, California, USA, 26–28 June 1998. Zhu, Shenfa. 2003. “Intonation patterns of four sentence types in Singapore English”. Ph.D., National University of Singapore. ——— & Lisa Lim. 2002. “Intonation in Singapore English declaratives: An auditory and acoustic analysis”. Paper presented at the 13th World Congress of Applied Linguistics (AILA2002), Singapore, 16–21 December 2002.

Corpus The Grammar of Spoken Singapore English Corpus (GSSEC) (funded by a National University of Singapore Academic Research Grant R-103-000-003-112 for the project Towards a Reference Grammar of Singapore English). Lisa Lim, Joseph A. Foley, Vivienne Fong, Yibin Ni & Lionel Wee. Department of English Language & Literature, National University of Singapore.

Name index

A Adelaar, K. A. 131 Alsagoff, Lubna 57, 63, 64, 66, 67, 71, 83, 84, 113, 136 Anderson, Stephen R. 63, 65 Ansaldo, Umberto 7, 9, 10, 13–16, 18, 19, 27, 59, 61, 71–73, 114, 127, 129, 131, 135, 139, 140, 142, 143, 145, 147, 149 Asher, R. E. 53 Atmosumarto, S. 37 Ayampillay, Rathi Devi 38

D DeGraff, Michel 127, 129, 131 Deterding, David 13, 25, 27, 29, 30, 34, 38, 49, 52, 53 Di Cristo, Albert 38 Doraisamy, T. R. 4 Dowty, David R. 93, 102 Dressler, Wolfgang 112

B Bakker, Peter 136 Bao, Zhiming 22, 30, 97–99, 102, 113, 130, 135, 136, 138, 148 Barbaresi, Lavinia Merlini 112 Baxter, A. 142 Benjamin, Geoffrey 2 Besemeres, Mary 101 Biber, Douglas 10, 80, 101 Bickerton, Derek 9, 136 Bloom, David 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 142 Blust, Robert 133 Bodman, Nicholas Cleaveland 25, 27, 34, 35, 47, 48, 52 Bokhorst-Heng, Wendy 5 Brown, Adam 19, 29, 34

F Ferguson, Charles A. 10, 145, 146 Fishman, Joshua 145 Foley, Joseph A. 5, 6, 9, 10, 16, 20, 61, 73, 128, 129, 141, 142, 148 Fong, Vivienne 14, 15, 17, 18, 33, 52, 66, 77, 99, 106, 109, 135–138, 148

C Carlson, Greg 61 Carter, Ronald 11 Chaudenson, Robert 131, 145 Chiang, Ker Chiu 25, 34 Chiew, Seen Kong 4 Crewe, William J. 8 Croft, William 127, 141 Cruttenden, Alan 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 34, 39–41, 55

E Enfield, N. J. 71

G Gan, Lee Meng 105, 123, 125 Gil, David 18, 57, 60, 64–70, 73, 74, 129 Goh, Christine C. M. 39, 42, 51 Grabe, Esther 44 Green, Lisa 83 Greenbaum, Sidney 17 Gupta, Anthea Fraser 3, 7, 9, 10, 38, 71, 86, 105, 118, 121, 122, 126, 130, 131, 136, 142, 143, 145, 147 H Heine, Bernd 69 Hirst, Daniel 38 Ho, Chee Lick 57, 63, 64, 66, 71, 83 Ho, Hung Yee Ivy 92, 93, 95–97, 111 Ho, Mian Lian 66, 118, 122, 129, 136 Holm, John A. 131 Hopper, Paul J. 70 Huang, Shu Jun Vivien 37

66

Name index

Hull, David L. 127 K Kaufman, Terrence 132, 134, 136 Kerswill, Paul 55 Khoo, Joo Ee 142 Killingley, Siew-Yue 25, 34 Kuo, Eddie C. Y. 5 Kuteva, Tanai 69 Kwan-Terry, Anna 119, 126 Kwok, Helen 47, 48 L Labov, William 11, 75 Lass, Roger 141 Lau, Wen Li 25, 37, 56 Lee, Ee May 24 Leow, B. G. 2, 6, 20 Li, Charles N. 111, 114, 115, 135 Lien, C. 138, 148 Lightfoot, David 141 Lim, C. 7 Lim, Choon Yeoh 92, 126 Lim, Li San 81, 82, 137 Lim, Lisa 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 28, 37–39, 47, 49, 51, 52, 55, 61, 71, 118, 128, 129, 140–142, 148 Lim, Sonny 25, 34 Lim, Su Tsi Jacqueline 84, 93–95, 102 Llamzon, A. 5 Lock, Graham 20, 25, 34 Loh, P. F. S. 4 Loke, K.-K. 48 Low, Ee Ling 13, 38, 44 Low, J. M.-Y. 48 Lowenberg, P. H. 8 M Matthews, Stephen J. 61, 74, 129, 131, 133, 138, 142, 143, 145 McCarthy, Michael 11 McWhorter, John 129, 136, 143, 147 Mintz, Malcolm W. 114 Mithun, Marianne 58, 59 Moorthy, Shanti Marion 29 Mufwene, Salikoko 7, 127, 129–131, 141, 143–146 Muysken, Pieter 136

N Newbrook, Mark 6 Ng, Poey Siong 6 Ng, Sandy 28, 37, 54, 55 O Ooi, Vincent B. Y. 16 Othman, Z. 37 P Pacioni, Patrizia 61 Pakir, Anne 1, 5, 6, 129, 142 Pan, Lynn 132 Perlmutter, David M. 72 Phillipson, R. 18 Platt, John 6–9, 12, 13, 16, 29, 44, 48, 65, 66, 71, 73, 83, 101, 118, 119, 122, 129, 136, 141, 145, 148 Poedjosoedarmo, Gloria R. 25, 27, 30, 34, 52, 53 Prentice, D. J. 131 Q Quirk, Randolph 17, 41, 80, 100 R Rappa, Antonio 142 Richards, Jack C. 10, 45, 119 Rickford, John 75 Roach, Peter 24 Romaine, Suzanne 145 Ross, John Robert 72 Rubdy, Rani 17 Rudolph, Jurgen 142, 143 S Sadock, Jerrold M. 58 Schneider, Edgar 6, 7, 9, 16, 25, 144 Sells, Peter 75 Singh, Rajendra 109, 111 Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 18 Smith, Norval 136 Soames, Scott 72 Stroud, Christopher 146 T Tan, Ee Lyn 29 Tan, Ying Ying 51, 52

Name index

Tay, Mary W. J. 6, 9, 10, 19, 38, 39, 45, 119 Thomason, Sarah Grey 132, 134, 136 Thompson, Sandra A. 111, 114, 115, 135 Tickoo, M. L. 4, 5 Tongue, Ray K. 1, 7, 8, 29, 136 Traugott, Elizabeth C. 70 Trudgill, Peter 129 Tsao, Feng-fu 133, 134 V Vendler, Zeno 102 Verkuyl, Henk J. 102 W Warner, Anthony 83 Watts, Richard 129 Weber, Heidi 6-9, 16, 29, 44, 65, 71, 83, 101, 136

Wee, Lionel 14–16, 19, 41, 45–47, 63, 66, 92, 97–102, 113, 114, 122, 126, 129, 133–135, 138–140, 148 Wells, John C. 20 Wetzer, H. 135 Whinnom, K. 127 Wierzbicka, Anna 101 Wolfram, Walt 75 Wong, Jock Onn 119, 121, 126 Y Yap, F. H. 70, 140 Yeow, Kok Liang 38 Yip, Virginia 133 Z Zhang, M. 133, 134 Zhu, Shenfa 38, 39, 49

167

Subject index

A accommodation 11 acrolect(al) 8, 9, 16 see also Standard Singapore English (SSE) adstrate(s) 132, 134, 135, 136, 138, 141, 149 affection 63, 106–108, 114–116 agreement see number agreement; subjectverb agreement Aktionsart 97 Anterior 136, 137 aspect 79, 99, 106, 111, 136–138 aspectual class 76, 92–95 aspectual composition 102 see also TMA attenuation (-ive) 109–112, 114–117, 134 auxiliary (-ies) 14, 75, 76, 81–83, 85–91, 97, 99–101, 124, 125 auxiliary system, English 99 B Baba(s) 131, 142, 143, 147 see also Peranakans; (Baba) Malay Bahasa Pasar 3 see also (Bazaar) Malay basilect(al) 8, 9, 16, 58, 60, 61, 64, 129, 144–148 bilingual(ism) 1, 5, 12, 145 C Cantonese 2, 7, 19, 20, 25–27, 35, 47, 48, 55, 61, 65, 132, 134, 135, 138, 140, 145, 146 Chinese 2–6, 11, 12, 20, 28, 32, 37, 47, 48, 52, 56, 113–116, 130, 132, 135, 142, 147, 148 Chinese-medium 4, 8 code switching/ mixing 11, 15, 66, 73 Colloquial Singapore English (CSE) 1, 10, 14–20, 38, 45, 48, 53–55, 57, 66, 73, 75, 76, 99, 100, 102, 105, 106, 139, 140, 149 see also mesolect(al); Singapore English

(SE); Singlish; Standard Singapore English (SSE) comparative 48, 108, 109 consonants 27–37, 55 continuity 109–111, 114–117, 133, 134 count/ non-count 57, 63, 64 Creole/ creole(s) 8–10, 127–129, 131, 136, 142–144, 147 creole genesis 129 creolisation 15, 127, 131, 136, 141–143, 146, 147 creoloid 9, 129 D declarative(s) 39, 42, 45, 47, 48, 119, 124–126 definite articles 57, 58, 60, 61 definiteness 58, 73 diglossia (-ic) 10, 145, 146 discourse particle(s) see particle(s) ‘do-support’ 91, 92 duration 22, 50, 52 see also length Durative 137 Dutch 2, 132 E education 3–7, 12, 17, 132, 135, 141, 143 see also policy(-ies), language/ education; English-medium; Chinese-medium endonormative 9, 144 endonormative stabilisation 7, 12, 13 English-medium 3–5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 130, 143, 144 error analysis 7, 10, 14 ethnic(-ity) / (group) 2, 5, 10, 15, 19, 142 Eurasian(s) 2, 131, 142, 143 exclamative(s) 41, 43 existential clauses/ constructions 78, 82, 84, 135 exonormative 9

70

Subject index

F focus 19, 37, 49–53 Founder Principle 130, 143 G General American (GA) 20–25, 31, 54 Grammar of Spoken Singapore English Corpus (GSSEC) 10–13, 18, 75, 76, 100, 129 H Habitual 78–80, 136, 137 Hainanese 2, 132 Hokkien 6, 7, 19, 20, 25–27, 34, 35, 47, 48, 52, 55, 65, 132, 134, 135, 138, 139, 142, 143, 145, 148 hybridisation 127, 137 I iconicity 112 imperative(s) 41, 46, 47, 126 implicature 110, 120 incorporation, noun 58, 59, 139, 140 indefinite article(s) 57–61 indefiniteness 58, 73, 114, 115 Indian 2, 5, 11, 12, 37, 43, 50, 52, 56, 142, 148 Indonesia(n)(s) 2, 132 intensification 108, 109, 114–116, 134 International Transcription System for Intonation (INTSINT) 38 interrogative(s) 39, 40, 46, 47, 76, 86, 91, 119, 124, 125 wh- interrogative(s) 39, 40, 76, 91, 101 yes-no interrogative(s) 40, 47 declarative interrogative(s) 47 question tag(s) 46 intimacy 63, 106, 108, 114–116, 134 intonation 14, 38–49 Irrealis 100, 136, 137 K Kristang 142 L lectal continuum 8, 9, 16, 19, 61, 66, 73, 129, 139

length 22, 25, 27, 50, 52, 53 see also duration lexicon 7, 132 lexifier 130, 132, 136, 145 lingua franca 3–6, 8, 131, 141 linguistic homogeneisation 16 literacy 6 loudness 44, 49–53 M Malacca 2, 3, 142 Malay(s) 2–8, 11, 12, 19, 20, 25–28, 31, 32, 35–37, 43, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 65, 71, 113– 117, 131–133, 135, 136, 138, 139–143, 145–148 Baba Malay 131, 132, 142, 147 Bazaar Malay 3, 6, 131, 132, 134, 141, 143, 145–147 Cocos Malay 133, 141 restructured Malay 131, 135, 141, 142 Trade Malay 131, 145 Mandarin 5, 6, 19, 20, 25–27, 34, 36, 52, 55, 61, 114–116, 132, 135, 138–140, 146, 148 mesolect(al) 8, 9, 16, 19, 54, 61, 129, 130, 144, 145 see also Colloquial Singapore English (CSE); Singlish Min 132–134, 138 mother tongue 1, 5, 18 multilingual(ism) 10, 12, 17, 18, 130, 131, 146, 147 N native speaker 6, 10, 12, 15 nativisation 7 negation 76, 85, 88–92, 99 New Variety of English (NVE) 128, 129 Non-punctual 137 noun incorporation see incorporation noun phrase(s) (NP) 14, 57–74, 78, 82, 84, 88, 89, 96, 101, 139 bare NPs 61, 65, 129 head noun 62 heavy NP shift 57, 72, 73 see also object (NP); subject (NP) nucleus (-ei) 38, 48, 49

Subject index

number 14, 57, 59, 63–66, 73, 77, 136, 139 number agreement 57, 59, 63, 65, 66, 73, 139 O object 71, 96, 139 object NP(s) 71, 96 observer’s paradox 11 official language 5, 6 one 14, 57, 66–71, 113, 139, 140 P particle(s) 15, 19, 41, 45–48, 50, 53, 66, 70, 76, 101, 102, 105, 106, 117–126, 149 ah 41, 46–51, 62, 66–68, 81, 82, 96, 97, 102, 108, 123, 137 hah 76, 96, 100, 103–106, 118, 125, 126 hor 66, 76, 100, 103–106, 118, 123–126 lah 29, 41, 45–47, 49–51, 60, 63, 64, 66, 71, 78, 83, 86, 91–93, 95, 98, 101, 104–106, 117–125, 137 leh 47, 48, 50, 76, 100, 103, 104, 106, 118, 122, 126 lor 41, 47, 48, 76, 83, 96, 98, 100, 103, 104, 106, 118, 121–126 ma 103, 104, 106, 119–120, 125, 126 meh 96, 103–106, 117, 118, 121, 126 wat/ what 45, 50, 51, 95, 96, 106, 118, 120, 121, 124, 125, 137 passive(s) 15, 76, 86–88, 97–99, 102, 138–140, 148 kena passive 97–99, 102, 138, 139, 148 Penang 2, 3, 142 Peranakan(s) 2, 131, 143, 147 see also Baba(s); (Baba) Malay Perfective 136, 137 person 77, 78, 136 phrase-final (position) 42, 43, 45, 50, 53 see also sentence-final position; utterance-final position phrase-final lengthening 37, 43, 52 pidgin(s) 127–129, 131, 141, 143 pitch 38, 39, 42–53, 118 plurality 115, 134 policy (-ies), language/ education 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 17, 20, 144 polyfunctional(ity) 57, 69, 71, 73, 74, 139, 140

polyglossia 145 post-creole continuum 8, 10 pragmatic particle(s) see particle(s) predicate phrase(s) 82, 84, 85 pro-drop 57, 71, 73 Progressive 79, 85, 87, 88, 136 prominence 19, 37, 38, 43–45, 49–53 prosody (-ic) 19, 37–53 R reduplication 15, 76, 105–117, 126, 132– 135, 140 adjectival reduplication 108, 109, 114–116, 133 nominal reduplication 63, 106–108, 114–116 verb(al) reduplication 15, 76, 92, 93, 95–97, 99, 109–112, 114–116, 133 relative clause 57, 66, 67, 113 Received Pronunciation (RP) 19, 29, 31, 34, 39–41, 55 see also Standard Southern British English (SSBE) S sentence-final position 43, 67, 117 see also phrase-final; utterance-final position Singapore English (SE) 1, 7–18, 127–147 see also Colloquial Singapore English (CSE); Standard Singapore English (SSE) Singlish 1, 16, 17, 146, 148 see also Colloquial Singapore English; mesolect(al); Singapore English (SE); Standard Singapore English (SSE) Sinitic 53, 59, 61, 71, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138, 139, 145–148 solidarity 45, 46, 101, 119 Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) 17, 105 standard 7–9, 11, 14, 17, 54, 105, 130 Standard English (StdE) 8, 9, 17, 27, 53, 58–64, 66, 67, 71–73, 75, 76, 93, 97, 99, 102, 112, 113, 127, 130, 132, 133, 135, 136, 142–148 Standard Lexical Sets 20, 21

171

72

Subject index

Standard Singapore English (SSE) 8–10, 15, 16, 18–22, 54, 55 see also Colloquial Singapore English (CSE); Singapore English (SE) Standard Southern British English (SSBE) 20–25, 27–32, 34, 39, 42, 46, 50, 51, 54, 55 see also Received Pronunciation (RP) Straits Settlements 2–4 stress 14, 38, 47, 48, 51, 52 subject 69, 98, 99, 135 subject-auxiliary inversion 85, 86, 91, 101 subject NP(s) 71, 72, 76, 78, 82, 88, 89 subject-verb agreement 14, 78 substandard 8, 17 substrate(s)/ substratal influence 19, 25, 27, 34–37, 47, 48, 52, 53, 57, 59, 61, 65, 66, 71, 113, 114, 116, 127, 132, 134–136, 138, 141, 143, 145, 146, 149 superlative 108 superstrate 8 syllable 27–32, 38, 39, 42, 43, 47, 50, 52, 55, 107 syllable structure 34, 35, 37 T Tamil 5–8, 19, 20, 25-28, 31, 32, 36, 37, 50, 53, 55, 68, 132, 142, 148 tense 33, 65, 77-82, 84, 93, 99–101, 136 see also TMA Teochew 2, 132 TMA 136, 137, 140 see also aspect; tense tone(s) 38–53 in Chinese languages 47, 48

in INTSINT 38 in RP 39, 41, level tone(s)/ steps 42, 43, 47, 48, 53 tone (-al) languages 53 topic-comment 57 triplication 133, 134, 139 typological convergence 135, 138, 143 U utterance-final position 50, 51, 69 see also phrase-final; sentence-final position V verb(s) 14, 15, 33, 58, 59, 75–104, 133, 135, 137, 139 copula 14, 15, 76, 82–84, 100, 101, 135 property verbs 133, 135, 148 verb forms 76–78 verb phrase(s) (VP) 83, 93–97, 99, 100, 102 verbal inflection(s) 77 vernacular 11, 13, 131, 132 Voice Onset Time (VOT) 28, 29, 37, 55 vowel(s) 20–27, 28, 30–32, 44, 55 diphthongs 20, 23–25, 27, 29, 55 monophthongs 20–23 W wh- element/ interrogative see interrogative(s) world Englishes 48 Y Yue 132, 133

In the series Varieties of English Around the World the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: G1 LANHAM, Len W. and C.A. MACDONALD: The Standard in South African English and its Social History. (Julius Groos) Heidelberg, 1979. 96 pp. Out of print G2 DAY, Rita (ed.): Issues in English Creoles. Papers from the 1975 Hawaii Conference. (Julius Groos) Heidelberg, 1980. iii, 188 pp. Out of print G3 VIERECK, Wolfgang, Edgar W. SCHNEIDER and Manfred GÖRLACH (comps.): A Bibliography of Writings on Varieties of English, 1965–1983. 1984. iv, 319 pp. G4 VIERECK, Wolfgang (ed.): Focus on: England and Wales. 1984. iv, 304 pp. (includes 40 maps). G5 GÖRLACH, Manfred (ed.): Focus on Scotland. 1985. iv, 241 pp. Out of print G6 PETYT, K.M.: 'Dialect' and 'Accent' in Industrial West Yorkshire. 1985. viii, 401 pp. G7 PENFIELD, Joyce and Jack ORNSTEIN-GALICIA: Chicano English. 1985. vii, 112 pp. Out of print G8 GÖRLACH, Manfred and John HOLM (eds.): Focus on the Caribbean. 1986. viii, 209 pp. G9 GÖRLACH, Manfred: Englishes. Studies in varieties of English 1984–1988. 1991. 211 pp. G10 FISCHER, Andreas and Daniel AMMAN: An Index to Dialect Maps of Great Britain. 1991. iv, 150 pp. G11 CLARKE, Sandra (ed.): Focus on Canada. 1993. xii, 302 pp. G12 GLAUSER, Beat, Edgar W. SCHNEIDER and Manfred GÖRLACH: A New Bibliography of Writings on Varieties of English, 1984–1992/93. 1993. 208 pp. G13 GÖRLACH, Manfred: More Englishes. New studies in varieties of English 1988–1994. 1995. 276 pp. G14 McCLURE, J. Derrick: Scots and its Literature. 1996. vi, 218 pp. G15 DE KLERK, Vivian (ed.): Focus on South Africa. 1996. iv, 328 pp. G16 SCHNEIDER, Edgar W. (ed.): Focus on the USA. 1996. vi, 368 pp. G17 PATRICK, Peter L.: Urban Jamaican Creole. Variation in the Mesolect. 1999. xx, 329 pp. G18 SCHNEIDER, Edgar W. (ed.): Englishes around the World. Studies in honour of Manfred Görlach. Volume 1: General studies, British Isles, North America. 1997. vi, 329 pp. G19 SCHNEIDER, Edgar W. (ed.): Englishes around the World. Studies in honour of Manfred Görlach. Volume 2: Carribbean, Africa, Asia, Australasia. 1997. viii, 358 pp. G20 MACAULAY, Ronald K.S.: Standards and Variation in Urban Speech. Examples from Lowland Scots. 1997. x, 201. G21 KALLEN, Jeffrey L. (ed.): Focus on Ireland. 1997. xviii, 260 pp. G22 GÖRLACH, Manfred: Even More Englishes. Studies 1996–1997. With a foreword by John Spencer. 1998. x, 260 pp. G23 HUNDT, Marianne: New Zealand English Grammar – Fact or Fiction? A corpus-based study in morphosyntactic variation. 1998. xvi, 212 pp. G24 HUBER, Magnus: Ghanaian Pidgin English in its West African Context. A sociohistorical and structural analysis. 1999. xviii, 322 pp. + CD rom. G25 BELL, Allan and Koenraad KUIPER (eds.): New Zealand English. JB/Victoria UP, 2000. 368 pp. G26 BLAIR, David and Peter COLLINS (eds.): English in Australia. 2001. vi, 368 pp. G27 LANEHART, Sonja L. (ed.): Sociocultural and Historical Contexts of African American English. 2001. xviii, 373 pp. G28 GÖRLACH, Manfred: Still More Englishes. 2002. xiv, 240 pp. G29 NELSON, Gerald, Sean WALLIS and Bas AARTS: Exploring Natural Language. Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English. 2002. xviii, 344 pp. G30 ACETO, Michael and Jeffrey P. WILLIAMS (eds.): Contact Englishes of the Eastern Caribbean. 2003. xx, 322 pp. G31 THOMPSON, Roger M.: Filipino English and Taglish. Language switching from multiple perspectives. 2003. xiv, 288 pp. G32 HACKERT, Stephanie: Urban Bahamian Creole. System and variation. 2004. xiv, 254 pp. G33 LIM, Lisa (ed.): Singapore English. A grammatical description. 2004. xiv, 172 pp.

T1 TODD, Loreto: Cameroon. (Julius Groos) Heidelberg, 1982. 180 pp., 1 map. Out of print T2 HOLM, John: Central American English. (Julius Groos) Heidelberg, 1982. iv, 184 pp., + tape. Out of print T3 MACAFEE, Caroline: Glasgow. 1983. v, 167 pp. T4 PLATT, John, Heidi WEBER and Mian Lian HO: Singapore and Malaysia. 1983. iv, 138 pp. T5 WAKELIN, Martyn F.: The Southwest of England. 1986. xii, 231 pp. T6 WINER, Lise: Trinidad and Tobago. 1993. xii, 368 pp. T7 MEHROTRA, Raja Ram: Indian English. Texts and Interpretation. 1998. x, 148 pp. T8 McCLURE, J. Derrick: Doric. The dialect of North-East Scotland. 2002. vi, 222 pp. T9 MÜHLHÄUSLER, Peter, Thomas E. DUTTON and Suzanne ROMAINE: Tok Pisin Texts. From the beginning to the present. 2003. x, 286 pp.