Talk:Singlish

[Untitled]

Not sure, but looking at the following from the article:

The English-educated in Singapore received their English pedagogical instruction through missionary schools and convents such as the Anglo-Chinese School (ACS), Methodist Girls' School (MGS), Marymount Convent School, Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus (CHIJ), Canossa's Convent (Located in Ajunied). However, as decolonization occurred, many expatriate English returned to Britain; and the post-65 generation - those that were born with the nationality as "Singaporean" rather than as "British subjects" - were increasingly taught by non-native teachers. In the late 1990s, due to budget constraints and the privatization of public schools, the standard of English language instruction fell, leading to confusion of grammar and vocabulary. Hence, in an unregulated socio-linguistic environment, the spontaneous varieties of a creolized English began to form after the 1960s. English language began to be taught by native Malay teachers as many affluent middle-class Singapore-born Chinese found careers in banking and corporate sectors or abroad, and Singapore-born European, Eurasian and Indian communities (the group most fluent in colonial English due to the long history of colonization in India) built legal careers that were more commercially viable.

In the two sentences that I bolded should 1990s be changed to 1960s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.239.147 (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Phonology

Who wrote this nonsense? "English pronunciation in the pre-1965 class is derived from Standard Queen's English, unlike the later phenomenon of Received Pronunciation which influenced later British society through mass media like the BBC, which contains modification due to Scottish, Welsh and Irish influences."

Total rubbish. And it goes on: "For example, the pre-1965 English-educated class in Singapore pronounce the word "home" with a slight diphthong akin to the vowel located in present-day Queen's English, whereas Received Pronunciation has modified the vowel to a single vowel."

The worst bit is that the author has actually linked RP to the relevant article. If s/he had bothered to check, s/he would have noted that RP is based on Southern British English, typically a Home Counties sort of accent. Nothing to do with Scottish/Welsh/Irish whatsoever! And of course "home" has a diphthong, both for the Queen and for RP speakers, as well as for a majority of Southern British speakers.

I'm also sceptical about geographical variation. If the East Coast speaks more acrolectally, then surely that's due to the socio-economic background of the population there? It may well be that some families who have always lived there for generations continue to do so to this day, but my guess is this is a minority. Social and geographical mobility are huge on this crowded island, and no doubt even this exclusive area has seen a lot of coming and going in the past two or three decades. And if you meet a pre-65er in a Woodlands condo, speaking what's here termed "Queen's English", you'd certainly not assume first thing that he's from Katong. Just imagine: "Nice accent, mate. Where about on the East Coast are you from?" Kinda weird. JREL (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

incorrect

i deleted the following:

English pronunciation in the pre-1965 class is derived from Standard Queen's English, unlike the later phenomenon of Received Pronunciation which influenced later British society through mass media like the BBC, which contains modification due to Scottish, Welsh and Irish influences. For example, the pre-1965 English-educated class in Singapore pronounce the word "home" with a slight diphthong akin to the vowel located in present-day Queen's English, whereas Received Pronunciation has modified the vowel to a single vowel.

this appears to make no sense. the statement about the RP pronunciation of "home" is simply false, and the supposed distinction between "Queen's English" and "RP" is nonsense -- note that the former is a link to the latter. Benwing 06:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Translations for the Curious?

For the graph showing the differences between the three different "classes" if you will of Singlish, what about a translation of what the first two were intending. I think this would give a clue as to the common use and speech patterns of those two groups. --DaedalusMachina 15:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well written, but is it true?

As a long time writer for Wikipedia, I am impressed by the quality of writing presented here. Every contributor should be proud of your collective achievements.

However, I am also disheartened by the complete lack of references in this entry. A Wikipedia article without references is not much more than talk cock, to borrow a Singlish expression. While it seems that at least some of the claims can easily be supported, others seem to be based on nothing more than the writer's mere conjectures or personal experience. Wikipedia is not a place for claims based on one's own "research" [1] or point of view [2] statements .

Even if not much independent research exists, there are still vast linguistic sources that can be utilized, such as IDEA [3] and Ethnologue [4].

I have added some initial references and marked particularly strong statements that require support. I look forward to seeing more factual evidence. Together, we can expand the knowledge on Singlish.

Please feel free to delete this comment when more references are added.

Sslevine (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Is "Lah" of Chinese or Malay Origin?

The section states "[i]t originates from the Chinese character (啦, Pinyin: Lè/Là)", but also that "...in the Malay, 'lah' is appended to the end of the word and is not a separate word by itself."

It seems that the word is represented by the said Chinese character, but does not originated from it. However, I could not find evidence of the word in a Malay dictionary [5] or Min Nan (Hokkian). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sslevine (talk • contribs) 04:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, if only we knew. There's as many suggestions for lah's origin out there as there are authors. Lisa Lim for example found similar particles in Bazaar Malay, Mandarin, and Cantonese, at least at a surface-phonetic level. She does point out though that Cantonese seems to have a counterpart for all eight particles she looks at -- you'd be tempted to say that this is some kind of systemic substratist influence, whereby the complete set of Cantonese particles was transferred into Singlish. The problem with that is the absence of so many Cantonese particles in Singlish. Go figure. Good thing is, there's still scope for a whole lot of research out there. JREL (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I took it to mean that it ultimately derives from Chinese and was borrowed in to Malay. --86.135.176.52 (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• More on "lah"

If it is taken from Bazar Malay, it is possible that Malay took it from Hadhrami Arabic (HA). In HA, "lah" (literally "No") is used as a question tag which means something like "Isn't it". There are other HA words in Hokien Chinese. These include "garam" < HA gharaam (madness) and "akai" < HA "'aql" wisdom, sanity". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.153.212 (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

RP is not the same thing as Standard English

There is still some confusion in this article between Received Pronuncation and Standard English. They are two entirely different things. RP is, as its name implies, a particular way of speaking the words. (The Queen still speaks it, but not many people in Britain do any more, even on the BBC.) Standard English is about the words themselves rather than how they are pronounced. Most better-educated people in Britain speak Standard English most of the time, but many of them don't speak RP.

The idea that Lee Kuan Yew speaks RP is completely absurd. But he does speak something approximating to Standard English.

I have tinkered with, or simply deleted, some of the more egregious howlers in this article but I suspect that it still needs a lot of work. There remain several unsourced assertions that seem to me rather dubious. Alarics (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Singlish vs Singapore Standard English

There was a disambig and red links pointing to variants of "Singapore Standard English", as if such a standard existed. It doesn't, and the Singlish article already goes into much detail about the registers of English in Singapore: the "formal official" English is acrolectal Singlish, and the creolized version is basilectal. Jpatokal (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is a need to differientiate between the two. Singlish is generally known to be "bad" English as opposed to standard English used in official context (e.g. in news reporting). As far as I can understand, the word "Singlish" is NOT synonymous with standard/official English in the Singaporean context, otherwise it would make no sense for the authorities from explicitly discouraging the use of Singlish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.243 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We all agree that "Singlish" exists. However, there is no standard for "proper" Singaporean English as far as I can tell, as in Singapore "proper English" is equated with the Queen's English. Jpatokal (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Jpat, you are very confused. I will copy the register for you here.

Basilect ("Singlish") "Dis guy Singrish si beh powderful sia."

Mesolect "Dis guy Singlish damn powerful one leh."

Acrolect ("Standard") "This person's Singlish is very good."

The register is a register of Englishes in Singapore, not a register of Singlish. Singlish and Singapore Standard English are two different languages. The register is just a way of simplifying things, it allows you to visualise things.

Singlish is the basilect on the register. See the word "Singlish" on the left of the register? Singapore Standard English is the acrolect, see the word "standard" on the right of the register? They are two different languages at different ends of the register.

The "acrolectal Singlish" you keep harping on is the mesolect on the register, the middle ground - "dis guy Singlish damn powerful one leh". It is not the acrolect, because the acrolect is standard English, see the word "standard" on the right of the register?

Singlish is a creoloid with many languages inside it. Singapore Standard English is a language with only one language - English - inside it. They are not the same. Singlish is only used to to describe the basilectal form of English in Singapore. Below Singlish is pidgin English, which is not shown on this register.

And it is the status of Singlish that is in doubt not Singapore Standard English. There is much debate over whether it is fully formed and whether it is a creole. Singlish is actually not a fully formed stable creole despite what many people claim. It is still in flux. And it is technically a creoloid not creole.

The status of Singapore Standard English has never been in doubt, ask any academic that. SSE is basically similar to the standard varieties of English in the UK. However, there is no standard Singaporean accent because the accent is still standardising. It is currently in stage 3, which means it is almost standardised. You can say it is on the cusp on being standardised.

I won't go into your other posts below because if you can understand this, you will see that all your posts are wrong.

The main article is very poorly written. Half of it should probably be deleted. 5 million Singlish speakers? There are only 3 million Singapore citizens. And not all of them speak Singlish. Singlish is also frowned upon by many in Singapore. Smilingfrog (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Enlighten me, oh master -- what exactly is the difference between my statement of "there is no standard for "proper" Singaporean English as far as I can tell, as in Singapore "proper English" is equated with the Queen's English" (which redirects to Standard English), and your statements of "SSE is basically similar to the standard varieties of English in the UK. However, there is no standard Singaporean accent"? Jpatokal (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't responding to that post. I was responding to your first post in this thread and your other posts in the threads below.

"There was a disambig and red links pointing to variants of "Singapore Standard English", as if such a standard existed. It doesn't, and the Singlish article already goes into much detail about the registers of English in Singapore: the "formal official" English is acrolectal Singlish, and the creolized version is basilectal" - Jpatokal

"Actually, since Singlish is defined as "English as spoken in Singapore", by definition all English-speakers in Singapore are using some form of Singlish" - Jpatokal

You obviously do not understand what Singlish is. I am not the first one to point this out to you, JackLee and ter890 have pointed this out to you as well.

And Singapore Standard English is not equal to British Standard English (BSE). It approximates it. Australia Standard English, Belize Standard English, NZ Standard English all approximate BSE but they are not equal to BSE. There are always slight differences, especially in vocabulary. There are also huge differences in terms of the "standard" accent.

Hope that helps. Smilingfrog (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there is a universally agreed definition of what "Singlish" means: there isn't, and the article should reflect this more clearly. Some randomly picked definitions from Google Scholar:

"the colloquial variety of Singapore English (known as Singlish)" [6]

"Singlish, the homegrown colloquial variety of Singapore English" [7]

"Singlish (English used in Singapore)" [8]

"Singlish, the (mesolectal/basilectal) variety of English spoken in Singapore" [9]

"Singlish, the more colloquial and home-grown variety of English in Singapore" [10]

" Singlish, the variety of local English with the lowest social status (the basilect)"

" Singlish is the home dialect of Singaporean English speakers." [11]

" the local Singapore form of English (Singlish)"[12]

"There are not many these days who are not acquainted with Singapore English (SE) - often fondly referred to as Singlish" [13]

So is Singlish a) the basilectal variety, b) the mesolectal/basilectal variety, c) the "colloquial" variety, d) the "local/home" variety, or e) any form of English spoken in Singapore? Take your pick. Jpatokal (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk about scraping the barrel. I should have known better than to feed you. Smilingfrog (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Is that a tacit acknowledgement that you were wrong? Jpatokal (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It was a tribute to your intellect. If one can find articles on the internet with contrary views, or deliberately quote things out of context, it definitely has to be true, how could it be false? Only someone as smart as you could have managed to find those 10 articles there. People of average intellect like myself could only manage to find 8 articles stating that Australia was in Africa. Of course that is debatable...I mean while Australians do share many similarities with Africans, it might be classified as another continent. I don't know, this is a tough one.

Enjoy your meal, this is my treat. Yum yum!

Smilingfrog (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement that "lah" cannot be used at the end of a question

In the section on the use of "lah", it is claimed that "lah" cannot be used at the end of a question. However, "lah" is indeed used at the end of questions where one tries to solicit an answer in a slightly more aggressive manner, e.g. "So you think he can do it lah?" This can in no way be considered a rhetorical question as an answer is indeed required.

What about 'tio'?

The not so commonly used and not so well-known tio has the same meaning as 'Kena', but i am still not sure wether u can use it the same way as 'kena'. For example 'I tio ban' (i got banned). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Choo chng (talk • contribs) 12:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not claiming to be an expert in linguistics, but my take on that is "the nuance". From Hokkien, "tio" implies something received which can either be positive or negative, while "kena" is almost always used in in the negative sense.

When both are used in the negative sense, "kena" seems to stress the suffering/regret/disappointment on the part of the recipient slightly more, whereas "tio" almost always has some degree of indignation/indifference/anger or resistance to it on the part of the subject.

Again, I don't claim to be an expert. Just personal opinion 203.171.196.29 (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not put things that you are unsure of into the page

I Erased this line: It is the first language of many Singaporeans, and the second language of nearly all the rest of the country's citizens.

Singlish is NOT the first language for singaporeans and second for others. Singapore's education system teaches ENGLISH as the first language and MOTHER TONGUE as the second. Therefore, Singlish is NOT a language that Singapore's education system teaches.~ter890~ 12:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ter890 (talk • contribs)

A first language is the language you first learn at home from your parents, and has nothing to do with what is taught in school. Jpatokal (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Still, we cannot be sure that MANY Singaporeans learns Singlish as first language, and others as second language. We have no proof. So there. ~ter890~ 06:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ter890 (talk • contribs)

Please take a look at this, courtesy of the Ministry of Education: [14] "In 2008, of six and seven-year-olds from Chinese and Indian families entering the formal school system, 60 percent came from predominantly English-speaking homes. Of Malay children, about 35 percent." [15] In other words, well over half of Singapore's children are now using Singlish as a first language ("predominantly English-speaking"). Jpatokal (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a brief look at the speech. The sentence you quoted is not directly from the speech, but seems to be from a Yawning Bread article. What the Minister for Education said at para. 14 was this:

Only 1 in 10 of Primary 1 Chinese students in 1982 (quarter century, age 33 today) came from homes that used English — the figure today is nearly 6 in 10. For Indians it has moved from 3 in 10 to 6 in 10; Malays — 0.5 in 10 to 3.5 in 10. A seismic shift in language environment has occurred within one generation. Those above 40 years of age today would have grown up in homes that spoke their MTL, either predominantly or partly, either with parents, grandparents or siblings. But increasingly, children of all races now come from homes that speak English predominantly or only.

The Minister for Education spoke of "English", not "Singlish". I think what he meant was that Singaporean children of all races now come from homes where English is spoken all or more of the time than other languages. I do not think one can conclude from the speech that well over half of Singapore's children are now using Singlish as a first language. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since Singlish is defined as "English as spoken in Singapore", by definition all English-speakers in Singapore are using some form of Singlish -- which doesn't necessarily mean sounding like Phu Chu Kang, since acrolectal ("good English") Singlish is Singlish as well. But I've changed the ref to the 2000 census and noted the Garmen's policy of sticking its fingers in its ears and pretending Singlish doesn't exist. Jpatokal (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think one can draw from the 2000 census report the conclusion that you made in the first sentence. It just isn't apparent enough from the report and, in my view, is therefore an unsourced opinion. I'd want to see a better source for this if you had mentioned it in the article, but you haven't so the current edit is fine. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The census report a) gives the 71% literacy figure, b) uses the words "lingua franca" and c) does not distinguish between English and Singlish. What other conclusions am I making? Jpatokal (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

jpatokal is obviously a someone who knows nothing about singapore and thinks he knows everything. he is just out to belittle and bash singapore. calling all the varieties of english spoken in singapore as singlish is just like calling the english spoken in britain as glasglowdian english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.249 (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Consider removing lines without citications

I have seen the peer review for Singlish Some sentences in the article contains weasel words. Maybe we should look at them and discuss whether we should keep them or not? User:Ter890 (talk) ~ter890~ 16:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Typo or not?

I believe this entry in the table on the article page to contain a typographical error:

• Indifference/ Questioning in a clam manner

It appears that 'clam' ought to be 'calm' or not? (See, I have been reading the article) --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:51, 9 Aug

IPA

Considering all those words like kena and lah are obviously non-standard spellings, it may be helpful to get IPA transcriptions of them. 60.242.48.18 (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)