Tutorial 1 (B) - Additional question not found in worksheet
What do you think the
speaker means when she concludes that ‘We all speak English. But some
English is more English than others’? Do you agree with her?
(Sorry in advance for the lengthy, at times reiterative post and for any possible misuse of linguistic terms.)
We all speak English, or varieties of English. That part is more or less clear. The second statement, that some varieties of English are more 'English' than others, is definitely debatable. Despite the instinctual response to say, " No, that's not fair! We shouldn't downplay the significance or value of any dialect!", I think I agree, within the context of the statement.
The first thing that comes to mind is obviously the quote in the lecture, "A language is a dialect with an army and navy." (Max Weinreich) In the context of English in Singapore, there would be a few varieties, i.e. the acrolectal, mesolectal and basilectal. In the case of Singapore the differing versions of English are variations, but with not as much change, say, as chinese dialects such that different groups would not be able to understand each other. Hence, unlike the theory in which the different chinese dialects emerged due to differing locations and cultures, (and the 'standard mandarin' was enforced by the group with the 'army and navy'), I think the different versions of English we speak differ according to situation and context, and originated out of economy and practicality, rather than regional variation.
Hence, we are able to code-switch between the different varieties, because we use all of them all the time. That is the key difference between the chinese dialects example and the english dialects(?) in singapore - that the chinese dialects are much more diverse and mostly mutually unintelligible,while the english varieties in Singapore are more mututally intelligible (to a certain extent, unless too much other-language words are used in Singalish, such as in Pidgin Singlish.)
However, in the context of Singapore and amongst Singaporean speakers, we can safely say that the acrolect, mesolect and basilect is largely mutually intelligible. Hence I would agree that, going by this model of differentiation 'away' from the 'superstrate' language (a closely related language whose speakers assert dominance of some sort. Wikipedia!:)then yes, Formal, British Acrolect would be the most "English" English compared to any degree of Singlish, not only because of the fact it came from there, but because it is the least changed by its 'stay' in pragmatic Singapore.
Of course, in the context of English as a global language, many more varieties would come into play making the statement far more debatable and would probably delve into historical issues, the origins of English,colonialization etc, and that makes it much more complicated which is why I chose to talk about it in a Singaporean context because the video was mostly about Singapore too.
In my opinion, there is not one standard accent that has been adopted as the proper norm in Singapore. As Ruby Pan pointed out, news presenters in Singapore speak in fake BBC English, radio DJs in fake American accents and teachers with a ‘stiff upper lip’. But beyond these ‘standard’ accents, because of the diversity present in Singapore, we have a plethora of other accents that arguably would not be regarded as the ideal manner of speaking.
Similarly to Jeremy, I agree that the principles behind the quote by Max Weinreich are strongly related to the comment Ruby Pan makes about some English being more English than others. Although she does not explicitly talk about different dialects of English in her speech and instead focuses largely on accents, I think the notion that some particular styles of speaking English have been set as more ideal over other differing accents is definitely true. This notion arises from various contributing factors such as the origins of English and maybe, as Jeremy pointed out, the impacts of colonization. However, it is exactly this notion that I feel Ruby Pan was indirectly and sarcastically criticizing when she said that ‘some English is more English than others’. I agree with her strongly as well as I feel that ultimately as long as one speaks in grammatically correct – and in the context of Singapore, Singlish-free – English, one’s accent is of little importance – it does not make one person’s English more ‘English’ than another’s.
Not sure if I interpreted her statement correctly... but just my two cents worth (:
I agree with what Jeremy and Nathaniel have mentioned.
It would be quite difficult to pinpoint which varieties of English are more English than others.
Unlike rather more ancient languages like Chinese or Tamil, English is a language that has a huge number of loan-words. It's hard to claim that English in and itself is very English because it takes originated from Germanic dialects and absorbed words from Celtic languages, French, Latin, and so on.
Due to the various invasions of Britain, the expansion of the British empire and globalization today, English has gained a huge number of words from other languages as well.
For example, the word "barbecue" comes from a language of the Taino people in the Caribbean. Yet this is a word that is commonly used and is accepted as an English word. Who knows, maybe in 50 years time, "lepak" would be accepted internationally as an English word as well.
My point is that English is heavily influenced by a number of other languages which then modifies the variety of English spoken in a particular area. However, these words are often still passed on and used internationally. All words have the potential to become a part of the English lexicon.
Therefore, it is difficult to claim that certain English words are more English than others and similarly, that certain varieties of English are more English than others.
Please correct me if I've analysed or reasoned wrongly in any way.
To break down the claim, the key word that she has chosen to use was 'more', in comparison to the measurement of 'English'. How exactly does one 'measure' English? Following the discussion, it has been mentioned that there are a few ways to sort of 'measure' or distinguish the 'variations' of English. Two main aspects mentioned by classmates Jeremy and Nathaniel and Naomi are by pronunciation and by content.
Ruby Pan, in my opinion, was as much concerned with the differing pronunciation as she was with the differing word choices, as seen from the examples she gave in her speech. Thus like the Jeremy and Nathaniel, I think her conclusion had very much to do with both these parts of speech. In her conclusion, she noticeably uses the generalization of the language as a whole, by simply using the word 'English' itself, and not defining or making distinctions among the different 'variations' of the 'true' English (original). This simplicity seems to point to her intention of classifying the measurement of English against the backdrop of the original British English (the exact original). So by inference, she is probably measuring the similarities between any 'variations' of English to the exact original English, but in what aspect did she made an intention to measure in? The vagueness of this conclusion may very well be the point of discussion, rather than a point of agreement. It is here that the first question lies: In what aspect do we compare the 'variations' of English against the original? Secondly, must we compare all 'variations' against the original English, or is it much more realistic and relevant to compare the variations of English to the most widely-used one, or the most widely-accepted one (etc.)?
More importantly, one should see that Ruby has made a bad assumption: how does one compare an 'English' to another 'English' by content (for example) if 'English' by itself is a global language and has terms being created out of nowhere, or in Naomi's example, borrowed from other languages? Is it possible to compare a 'variation' to a stagnant English, or an ever-changing English?
So until we qualify 'English', we cannot decide anything. So far, the other suggestions for qualifying 'English' are:
1) The measure of 'most English' should be based on how far it is from the 'original'. (Jeremy)
“...not only because of the fact it came from there, but because it is the least changed by its 'stay' in pragmatic Singapore”
It is a very credible measuring criteria, because the basis of any language stems from the root origins, and all variations (if we look in the perspective of the original) would not have existed unless the original had been created. So among these evolved variations, surely some must have been 'less changed' than others.
2) the social standing/which English is in 'power' (Nathaniel)
'"A language is a dialect with an army and navy." (Max Weinreich)'
The theory of influence that allocates certain ideals to certain 'variations' seems more relevant. But those this measure of 'English' now suggest a class-type value that must be considered? Thus between the two, based on what one chooses to measure the variations against, the discussion could go either way.
Alternatively, we should consider the question: is it even feasible for us to compare any one 'variation' against the rest? Is Ruby's structure of comparison workable logically?
I apologize if some parts have already been mentioned, and for my inability to answer my own constant questioning, whether relevant or not. Still hope this helps the discussion (:
I think in Ruby's saying some English is more English than others she was talking about the authenticity of the language we speak, in comparison to the origin of that language for us (colonialism lah)- so whether or not the mode of delivery is judged by pronunciation or grammatical..ness? ...ity? ...grammar, it's all about how authentic our spoken English is.
which I guess then begs the question- should language be more valuable the closer its authenticity to its source, or should it be more valuable based on how well its able to communicate its message, taking into account both message and audience?
so for example the impetus of your conversation with an English-educated housewife at the hawker centre would be entirely different from that of your scholarship interview- does it make sense to say that the English you are speaking at your scholarship interview is necessarily more English than that of the conversation you're having with the housewife? certainly the language you're speaking while you're trying to be impressive at your interview is more authentically English- chances are its completely grammatical and you're putting in a lot of large words and trying to sound as close to BBC reportership as possible- on the other hand trying to talk like that to a housewife at the hawker centre, while still comprehensible, would probably render you a complete nitwit in her eyes.
I agree with Ruby because I understand where she's coming from and you can't deny that some forms of English are more authentic than others- on the other hand like Naomi said English in itself is a rojak language full of borrowed words, and so constantly going back to the authenticity argument may not even hold a lot of water when you think about it. if I could paraphrase what Ruby's saying I would say we all speak some form of English- but different registers of English vary in authenticity and formality based on our intended message, audience and context, and its very important to comprehend the latter so as to best select what register to use.
I don't believe in a fixed value, or that acrolects are necessarily superior or basilects inferior- you cannot equivocate a language to social standing, but you can certainly look at their evolution and assess their appropriateness and suitability in the relaying of different messages! is it actually necessary for us to rank language haiyo
okay for example (sorry I talk so much) I realize that here I'm consciously trying to keep things conversational and informal and so I am continuously slipping into Singlish (without even meaning to!)- this doesnt necessarily make my argument any less in value (er, I hope) or shatter my credibility as a linguistics student (ditto)- I think the study of linguistics is about the accordance of equal appreciation to different variations and registers of language, based on how well they're relaying their message :)
(Sorry in advance for the lengthy, at times reiterative post and for any possible misuse of linguistic terms.)
ReplyDeleteWe all speak English, or varieties of English. That part is more or less clear. The second statement, that some varieties of English are more 'English' than others, is definitely debatable. Despite the instinctual response to say, " No, that's not fair! We shouldn't downplay the significance or value of any dialect!", I think I agree, within the context of the statement.
The first thing that comes to mind is obviously the quote in the lecture, "A language is a dialect with an army and navy." (Max Weinreich) In the context of English in Singapore, there would be a few varieties, i.e. the acrolectal, mesolectal and basilectal. In the case of Singapore the differing versions of English are variations, but with not as much change, say, as chinese dialects such that different groups would not be able to understand each other. Hence, unlike the theory in which the different chinese dialects emerged due to differing locations and cultures, (and the 'standard mandarin' was enforced by the group with the 'army and navy'), I think the different versions of English we speak differ according to situation and context, and originated out of economy and practicality, rather than regional variation.
Hence, we are able to code-switch between the different varieties, because we use all of them all the time. That is the key difference between the chinese dialects example and the english dialects(?) in singapore - that the chinese dialects are much more diverse and mostly mutually unintelligible,while the english varieties in Singapore are more mututally intelligible (to a certain extent, unless too much other-language words are used in Singalish, such as in Pidgin Singlish.)
However, in the context of Singapore and amongst Singaporean speakers, we can safely say that the acrolect, mesolect and basilect is largely mutually intelligible. Hence I would agree that, going by this model of differentiation 'away' from the 'superstrate' language (a closely related language whose speakers assert dominance of some sort. Wikipedia!:)then yes, Formal, British Acrolect would be the most "English" English compared to any degree of Singlish, not only because of the fact it came from there, but because it is the least changed by its 'stay' in pragmatic Singapore.
Of course, in the context of English as a global language, many more varieties would come into play making the statement far more debatable and would probably delve into historical issues, the origins of English,colonialization etc, and that makes it much more complicated which is why I chose to talk about it in a Singaporean context because the video was mostly about Singapore too.
In my opinion, there is not one standard accent that has been adopted as the proper norm in Singapore. As Ruby Pan pointed out, news presenters in Singapore speak in fake BBC English, radio DJs in fake American accents and teachers with a ‘stiff upper lip’. But beyond these ‘standard’ accents, because of the diversity present in Singapore, we have a plethora of other accents that arguably would not be regarded as the ideal manner of speaking.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly to Jeremy, I agree that the principles behind the quote by Max Weinreich are strongly related to the comment Ruby Pan makes about some English being more English than others. Although she does not explicitly talk about different dialects of English in her speech and instead focuses largely on accents, I think the notion that some particular styles of speaking English have been set as more ideal over other differing accents is definitely true. This notion arises from various contributing factors such as the origins of English and maybe, as Jeremy pointed out, the impacts of colonization. However, it is exactly this notion that I feel Ruby Pan was indirectly and sarcastically criticizing when she said that ‘some English is more English than others’. I agree with her strongly as well as I feel that ultimately as long as one speaks in grammatically correct – and in the context of Singapore, Singlish-free – English, one’s accent is of little importance – it does not make one person’s English more ‘English’ than another’s.
Not sure if I interpreted her statement correctly... but just my two cents worth (:
Nathaniel
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Jeremy and Nathaniel have mentioned.
ReplyDeleteIt would be quite difficult to pinpoint which varieties of English are more English than others.
Unlike rather more ancient languages like Chinese or Tamil, English is a language that has a huge number of loan-words. It's hard to claim that English in and itself is very English because it takes originated from Germanic dialects and absorbed words from Celtic languages, French, Latin, and so on.
Due to the various invasions of Britain, the expansion of the British empire and globalization today, English has gained a huge number of words from other languages as well.
For example, the word "barbecue" comes from a language of the Taino people in the Caribbean. Yet this is a word that is commonly used and is accepted as an English word. Who knows, maybe in 50 years time, "lepak" would be accepted internationally as an English word as well.
My point is that English is heavily influenced by a number of other languages which then modifies the variety of English spoken in a particular area. However, these words are often still passed on and used internationally. All words have the potential to become a part of the English lexicon.
Therefore, it is difficult to claim that certain English words are more English than others and similarly, that certain varieties of English are more English than others.
Please correct me if I've analysed or reasoned wrongly in any way.
ReplyDeleteTo break down the claim, the key word that she has chosen to use was 'more', in comparison to the measurement of 'English'. How exactly does one 'measure' English? Following the discussion, it has been mentioned that there are a few ways to sort of 'measure' or distinguish the 'variations' of English. Two main aspects mentioned by classmates Jeremy and Nathaniel and Naomi are by pronunciation and by content.
Ruby Pan, in my opinion, was as much concerned with the differing pronunciation as she was with the differing word choices, as seen from the examples she gave in her speech. Thus like the Jeremy and Nathaniel, I think her conclusion had very much to do with both these parts of speech. In her conclusion, she noticeably uses the generalization of the language as a whole, by simply using the word 'English' itself, and not defining or making distinctions among the different 'variations' of the 'true' English (original). This simplicity seems to point to her intention of classifying the measurement of English against the backdrop of the original British English (the exact original). So by inference, she is probably measuring the similarities between any 'variations' of English to the exact original English, but in what aspect did she made an intention to measure in? The vagueness of this conclusion may very well be the point of discussion, rather than a point of agreement. It is here that the first question lies: In what aspect do we compare the 'variations' of English against the original? Secondly, must we compare all 'variations' against the original English, or is it much more realistic and relevant to compare the variations of English to the most widely-used one, or the most widely-accepted one (etc.)?
More importantly, one should see that Ruby has made a bad assumption: how does one compare an 'English' to another 'English' by content (for example) if 'English' by itself is a global language and has terms being created out of nowhere, or in Naomi's example, borrowed from other languages? Is it possible to compare a 'variation' to a stagnant English, or an ever-changing English?
So until we qualify 'English', we cannot decide anything. So far, the other suggestions for qualifying 'English' are:
1) The measure of 'most English' should be based on how far it is from the 'original'. (Jeremy)
“...not only because of the fact it came from there, but because it is the least changed by its 'stay' in pragmatic Singapore”
It is a very credible measuring criteria, because the basis of any language stems from the root origins, and all variations (if we look in the perspective of the original) would not have existed unless the original had been created. So among these evolved variations, surely some must have been 'less changed' than others.
2) the social standing/which English is in 'power' (Nathaniel)
'"A language is a dialect with an army and navy." (Max Weinreich)'
The theory of influence that allocates certain ideals to certain 'variations' seems more relevant. But those this measure of 'English' now suggest a class-type value that must be considered? Thus between the two, based on what one chooses to measure the variations against, the discussion could go either way.
Alternatively, we should consider the question: is it even feasible for us to compare any one 'variation' against the rest? Is Ruby's structure of comparison workable logically?
I apologize if some parts have already been mentioned, and for my inability to answer my own constant questioning, whether relevant or not. Still hope this helps the discussion (:
Joshua Lee
13S05B
hey everyone :)
ReplyDeleteI think in Ruby's saying some English is more English than others she was talking about the authenticity of the language we speak, in comparison to the origin of that language for us (colonialism lah)- so whether or not the mode of delivery is judged by pronunciation or grammatical..ness? ...ity? ...grammar, it's all about how authentic our spoken English is.
which I guess then begs the question- should language be more valuable the closer its authenticity to its source, or should it be more valuable based on how well its able to communicate its message, taking into account both message and audience?
so for example the impetus of your conversation with an English-educated housewife at the hawker centre would be entirely different from that of your scholarship interview- does it make sense to say that the English you are speaking at your scholarship interview is necessarily more English than that of the conversation you're having with the housewife? certainly the language you're speaking while you're trying to be impressive at your interview is more authentically English- chances are its completely grammatical and you're putting in a lot of large words and trying to sound as close to BBC reportership as possible- on the other hand trying to talk like that to a housewife at the hawker centre, while still comprehensible, would probably render you a complete nitwit in her eyes.
I agree with Ruby because I understand where she's coming from and you can't deny that some forms of English are more authentic than others- on the other hand like Naomi said English in itself is a rojak language full of borrowed words, and so constantly going back to the authenticity argument may not even hold a lot of water when you think about it. if I could paraphrase what Ruby's saying I would say we all speak some form of English- but different registers of English vary in authenticity and formality based on our intended message, audience and context, and its very important to comprehend the latter so as to best select what register to use.
I don't believe in a fixed value, or that acrolects are necessarily superior or basilects inferior- you cannot equivocate a language to social standing, but you can certainly look at their evolution and assess their appropriateness and suitability in the relaying of different messages! is it actually necessary for us to rank language haiyo
okay for example (sorry I talk so much) I realize that here I'm consciously trying to keep things conversational and informal and so I am continuously slipping into Singlish (without even meaning to!)- this doesnt necessarily make my argument any less in value (er, I hope) or shatter my credibility as a linguistics student (ditto)- I think the study of linguistics is about the accordance of equal appreciation to different variations and registers of language, based on how well they're relaying their message :)
ReplyDelete