Talk:Singapore English

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Singaporean words: mistaken[edit]

The article says: "There are also some Singaporean words in Standard Singapore English. Examples include "Fish ball noodles" and "Esplanade"." Fish ball noodles is three words, all of which exist in International English as does the word esplanade. I'm removing that sentence. --Duncan (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yoong[edit]

Cenwin88lee (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems you're trying to "show me the door". You do not WP:OWN this article. Also, I read the Yoong reference and that is not what he says. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

read it again, that is what he says. i would love to help you to read but i cant. sorry about that.

I have reversed your edit because it is not true, yoong DID put forward that argument.

http://www.latrobe.edu.au/rclt/ALS2009/abstracts/Yoong.pdf

Yoong -> "the same socially motivated reason can also be said of pro–Singlish advocates. Singaporeans who subscribe to Singlish and have a positive attitude towards the code sees Singlish as a language that transcends social barriers. To them, Singlish can be used to forge rapport and perhaps more importantly, the Singaporean identity, that users of Singlish can associate with."

please read before you hijack the articles. this is not the first time it has happened.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Singaporean English or Singlish, as it is better known to the local populace, is an English creole that

has long been a contesting issue between pro–Singlish and anti–Singlish proponents. This paper uses Fairclough’s (1995) 3–dimensional framework, which has been originally developed for critical discourse analysis, to show how discourses and texts have been used by pro–Singlish and anti–Singlish advocates to impart their attitude and in some cases, to promote their values of Standard English and Singlish to the masses. Culling examples from the Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) and Talking Cock websites, one is able to see how attitudes are reflected through discourse and text. Entertainment discourse seems to be a common means that both groups use to enact their attitude towards Singlish. With the exception of Mr. Kiasu, the SGEM and TalkingCock.com both push one step further from merely expressing their general attitude towards Singlish to encouraging others to either avoid Singlish (the SGEM) or to embrace the code (TalkingCock.com). The SGEM uses various discourses to achieve this objective, and that includes eliciting the support of younger generations through entertainment means. Also, Singlish is commonly criticised, mocked and stigmatised in the official SGEM website in one form or another. TalkingCock.com uses discourses such as a ‘declaration’ (manifesto), satire and humour journalism, and a dictionary amongst others to propagate the use of Singlish. Essentially, the real clash between both anti– and pro–Singlish advocates is one of values. Anti– Singlish advocates strive for economic pragmatism whilst pro–Singlish advocates strive for identity. Gupta (in Burnside 2000) states that anti–Singlish advocates resist Singlish because of socially motivated reasons. According to her, ‘[Singapore] has a tradition of elitism and perfectionism… [hence]… Singapore must be perfect, and Singlish is seen as an imperfection.’ But the same socially motivated reason can also be said of pro–Singlish advocates. Singaporeans who subscribe to Singlish and have a positive attitude towards the code sees Singlish as a language that transcends social barriers. To then, Singlish can be used to forge rapport and perhaps more importantly, the Singaporean identity, that users of Singlish can associate with.''''"

Tell me which sentence there says what you claim Yoong said - where does he make any argument for or against the use of Singlish? Please, tell me the specific sentence. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read the bold part of your own passage. Thanks.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice how it says "Singaporeans who...have a positive attitude...sees", "To them". He is explaining the opinions of others, not himself. Yoong does not take a position for or against Singlish in his article. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yoong puts forward the argument in his thesis that that pro Singlish Singaporeans feel that Singlish could be used to forge the Singaporean identity.

Even after reading it you don't comprehendo?

Cenwin88lee (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do "comprehendo" - he says that pro-Singlish Singaporeans feel that - notice he's talking about other people's opinions rather than his own. That's the problem here. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second revision done[edit]

I have deleted all the opinion peices and added in references.

For foreigners who are unfamiliar with Singapore, please note that calling Singapore English Singlish is just like calling American English valley girl or British English Geordie or Broad Scots.

While these dialects (like SInglish) are part of British/American English, they are certainly not representative of British/American English as a whole. Same for Singlish and Singapore English.

Hopefully with such a wiki to draw the distinction between Standard Singapore English and Singlish, people can differentiate between the varieties (high/low) of English in Singapore.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Singlish in the media[edit]

I have deleted "I not stupid" from the list of Singlish films because it is a predominantly Mandarin film, not English film. And any English used in the film is mainly broken English, not Singlish, and not a good representative of Singlish. The actors and actresses are obviously very weak in English.

I felt "Army daze" is a very good representative of Englishes in Singapore. The film showcases everything from Pidgin English (spoken by the ah beng) to Singlish (spoken by the gay boy and fat yuppie) to Standard Singapore English (spoken by the jc boy and a few others). Nice Singaporean film indeed.

Cheers Cenwin88lee (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unacceptable[edit]

It is not acceptable to just revert another person's changes, particularly with regard to adding {{fact}} tags. You may not simply delete them. In addition, as I have noted above, in spite of your constant assertion to the contrary, the information you claim does not appear in the Yoong source. If you continue to revert, I will solicit the involvement of a neutral administrator to help us sort this out. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Percentage of Malay speakers[edit]

The article uses the same reference to claim that 13.2% of Singaporean use Malay as the "language most frequently spoken at home" (likely) and also that only 13.2% are able to speak Malay (very unlikely). Any better figures, or should we just nuke the 2nd claim? Jpatokal (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is very unlikely there are better figures than this. This figure does provide a reasonable gauge of the number of Singaporeans who can speak Malay fluently, therefore, in my opinion, it should be kept. I will edit this line to portray a more accurate picture.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cenwin88lee, as you know, Singapore is a multilingual society. Many Singaporeans can speak more than one language outside of their mother tongue language. Following this, and especially considering the history of Singapore, it is unreasonable to infer from the percentage of people who use Malay predominantly at home that this is the same as the percentage of people who can speak OR understand Malay fluently. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are showing your ignorance here once again.

There are no reliable figures on the total number of Singaporeans who are fluent in Malay. Given this lack of reliable statistics, the 13.2% figure is the best ball park figure that is available. The real number of fluent Malay speakers would definitely be higher, but not by much, probably by 5-10%. You have to understand the second language policy in Singapore's education system first, which you don't.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is about facts and real numbers, not "the best ballpark figure available". Also, school is not the only place where language is acquired, especially in a multiethnic society. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to this official govt census, around 15% of Singaporeans are literate in Malay. So that figure wasn't that far off. Use a calculator and calculate it youself. Look up the percentage of various races in Singapore first.

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/c2000adr-literacy.pdf

Cenwin88lee (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two problems. First of all, speaking a language is not equal to literacy in it, especially in the case of a multilingual society where people may have various degrees of fluency in a language which do not necessarily equate to reading ability. Second of all, there is no statistic in that article for ALL Singaporeans, merely percentages for different ethnic groups. To calculate using numbers from a different source for ethnic groups is WP:OR and raises the potential for inaccuracies, given that the two numbers you'd use were most likely calculated at different times, and population statistics are not static. I've reverted accordingly. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I lived in Singapore for one year before, and I go back there nearly every year. I have numerous Singaporean friends. And while, if I wrote a number based on my "guess" of how many Malay speakers there were, that would be "original research" or just plain "speculation", instead, I'll just say that the figure of 13.2% for the percentage of Malay speakers is wrong and leave it at that. The sentence should merely be deleted, which is what I'll do. The only citation is from the same source cited many times before, including in the chart, for people who speak Malay as their main language at home. I know numerous Chinese and others who can speak Malay. As "Node.ue" said, many Singaporeans are multilingual. Some know English, Mandarin, Hokkien, Cantonese, and Malay. Others know Tamil, English, and Malay. Malay is known by some people who do not speak it as their first language at home. And even if the percentage of people who can speak Malay is only 15-20%, that's still not 13.2%. My experience backs this up, but even if I didn't have experience living there, the sentence should be removed anyway, because the citation that is purported to back it up does no such thing. If someone wants to see the proportion of first-language Malay speakers, then they can easily see it in the chart in the article. --Riction (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yoong, for the last time[edit]

I am revisiting this "Yoong" issue for the last time.

Here is what Yoong writes in his thesis, I quote:

"But the same socially motivated reason can also be said of pro–Singlish advocates. Singaporeans who subscribe to Singlish and have a positive attitude towards the code sees Singlish as a language that transcends social barriers. To then, Singlish can be used to forge rapport and perhaps more importantly, the Singaporean identity, that users of Singlish can associate with"

From here, it is clear that Yoong has made an argument that "Singaporeans who subscribe to Singlish see Singlish as a language that can be used to forge rapport"

It does not matter if Yoong uses the word "Singaporeans who subscribe to Singlish" or "Myself", that is irrelevant. The relevant thing is that he has put forward an argument for Singlish, based on the views of "pro- Singlish Singaporeans". It is the act of putting forward an argument which is essential and which he has done so.

Here is what the Singapore English article writes:

Singaporeans such as linguist David Yoong have put forward the argument that Singlish can be seen as an integral part of the identity of the people, just as any language variety of any country.[1][2][3][4].

For the above reason, I have reverting the edit by "node"

Cenwin88lee (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That wording makes it sound like it's Yoong himself saying so, which according to your quote is specifically not the case. Why not just quote him directly? Linguist David Yoong has put forward the argument that "Singaporeans who subscribe to Singlish and have a positive attitude towards the code see Singlish as a language that transcends social barriers" and that the language can be used to "forge rapport and, perhaps more importantly, the Singaporean identity". Jpatokal (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My wording is extremely clear. In fact, it is not dissimlar to yours. Cenwin88lee (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, just when I thought we had agreed on something, you changed your mind [1]. Must be tough when everybody else is always wrong ;) Jpatokal (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi I thought it through and decided my original sentence was fine, hence I stuck to it. As for agreeing with people, I do agree with a lot of people like "dave" (the mod) etc. Because unlike some wannabes on wiki, they actually know about Singapore.

Thanks for your concern but my life is fine, it is not tough by any measures. How do I know my life is fine? I mean, I don't stalk people online from wikipages to wikipages or leave messages furiously on a daily basis or solicit my friends to stalk others online; so I guess I should be doing alright. Indeed, there are a few disadvantaged and mentally ill people in this world that we should all show compassion for. Take care.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cenwin88lee, I'm glad to hear you decided to stick to your original sentence. However, in Wikipedia we strive for consensus, which cannot be forged by a single person alone. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC on User:Cenwin88lee's conduct[edit]

Hello,

An RfC has been initiated to discuss Cenwin88lee's recent conduct. I invite all interested editors to come give their input at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cenwin88lee. Thanks! --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bizarre[edit]

"Like in most Commonwealth countries, the accents of most well-educated Singaporeans who speak English as their native language approximates British Received Pronunciation (RP).[8]" -- What a strange claim. Australians, Canadians, Indians, and Jamaicans have the same accent as people in southern England?? Scales (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pckandtheothersmaincharacters2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Pckandtheothersmaincharacters2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 16 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

e This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

American vs British spelling[edit]

This article says "Standard Singapore English follows American spelling[6] and grammar.[5] For example, the word "tyre" is used over "tire".[7] Shopping malls are called "centres" and not "centers"." But the words tyre and centres are British spellings, not American. So does SSE use American spellings (tire and centers) or British (tyre and centres)?Canine virtuoso (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The Classification of Singapore English" section[edit]

The use of the terms "sociolect," "acrolect," "mesolect," and "basilect" are too academic, especially considering that the links for them do not comprehensively explain what they mean. Instead, consider explaining the distinctions in plain English rather than using the technical terms. Also, editing for grammar would be helpful, as some of the wording is a little awkward.

The "Malay, Chinese, and Indian Influences" section could use editing for grammar and clarity as well. --BePuzzling (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similar to the comment above, if available, could 'topolect' also be linked in this sentence: "For example, in 2005, among Chinese Singaporeans, nearly a third speak English as their main language at home while almost half speak Mandarin and the rest speak various mutually unintelligible Chinese topolects." In the following sentence, could 'medium form' be clarified? "The English language is now the most medium form of communication among students from primary school to university." If it means most frequently use, medium could be replaced with something like 'most frequent form.' Most everything else in this article is easy to understand and informative. Jyk7 (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response[edit]

Thank you for the comment. It's really constructive. I understand your concern about the use of Acrolect, Mesolect, and Basilect. To clarify those ideas, I have linked those terms into their Wikipedia page; hopefully, readers can get their definitions on those specific pages, which are dedicated to explain them. I also apologize for confusions due to grammatical errors. I have done my best to fix them. Once again, thank you. =) — Preceding Timothyfilipi

References[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Singapore English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 7 May 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close as already moved. (non-admin closure) Music1201 talk 02:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


People do not say "Britain English" or "America English", do they?
-tetrahydrate Wikipedia:Singaporean EnglishSingaporean English – Being an article it should be in the article namespace, not in Wikipedia namespace. — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This seems non-controversial - guessing that Tetrahydrate just made a mistake. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Actually I have seen both terms "Singapore English" and "Singaporean English" being used, but the former is used more often. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This can be closed now - My proposal was simply to move it back into the proper namespace, now that hat has been done this discussion can be closed, I just don't know how to close it. — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Tetrahydrate: I see your point about British/American English. But in this case, "Singapore English" is a term that has been legitimately used more often, particularly in Singapore. There are 2 varieties of Singapore English - SSE(Standard Singapore English) and CSE(Colloquial Singapore English). See [2],[3],[4],[5],[6] for some examples. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment they don't say 'Britain Airways' either. Pincrete (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support: Basic English grammar and usage. The noun form is only used when the adjectival form would be forced and awkward, usually with two-part names (New Zealand English) or when the adjectival form is virtually unknown and thus to most readers unrecognizable (can't think of an example relating to English), or an adjectival form is disputed (e.g. people from Arkansas prefer "Arcansawyer", I'm told, and eschew both "Arkansian" and "Arkansinian", among other variants, but the rest of the world is reluctant to go along with the local preference, less so than they are for, e.g. "Glaswegian" and "Liverpudlian", despite being equally silly.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The case of Singapore English is slightly different though. It is not simply that local usage favours one particular form. I have seen "Singapore English" being used in scholarly works more often as compared to "Singaporean English". (See search results on scholar singapore english and singaporean english) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Singapore English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Singapore English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How are you[edit]

How are you 197.47.68.211 (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“Proper” english[edit]

In the subheading about Singlish, the article says that Singaporeans are encouraged to learn “proper” English, which should instead be standard. 92.233.52.101 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]