Aug 9, 2009
I had written about this, too
Interesting that another Singaporean touch also involves the verb "to have". I have noticed that it is remarkably common for undergraduates to use the past perfect tense in a context that requires the perfect tense instead. Both tenses use the auxiliary verb "to have", but the meaning conveyed by one vs. the other is quite distinct.
For example, say a student has just left an assignment in my pigeon hole and wishes to notify me of this fact. More often than not, they will express themselves by saying, "I had left my report in your pigeon hole." What they should have written is, "I have left...". But from what I can tell, for many Singaporean undergrads, the perfect tense (I have left; I have washed; I have written) just doesn't exist.
By the way, I like English grammar. Consequence of getting old, I guess. But I'm no whiz at the nomenclature. I can hear that something is wrong when someone uses the past perfect when they should be using the perfect. But to identify each of these tenses by name? I had to look them up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ha ha, that is really picky.
ReplyDeleteI recall that when I was in Edmonton the local students weren't too happy about my use of "queue up" instead of "line up".
Here in Singapore, I met a scientist who didn't like the Singaporean lack of distinction between "where you live" and "where you stay".
Another who didn't like the use of "going back" when talking about "going home".
I also recall an Irish postdoc who was very annoyed with old Singaporean uncles and aunties who say "off the TV" instead of "turn off the TV".
English usage in Singapore has gradually evolved since the colonial days. Its structure has changed because of the need to communicate between multilingual speakers of vastly variable English ability.
The British were the originators of this language of course (setting aside its Low German heritage for the moment), but what's interesting is that when the Americans botch it up, it becomes American English (and/or Ebonics). When we botch it up though, it's simply ungrammatical.
Actually to be even pickier, Bahasa Melayu and Bahasa Indonesia are significantly different (such as nouns eg. kereta vs mobil) and Singaporean Hokkien is different from Penang Hokkien which is again different from Mainland China's Minnanyu or even Taiwanese (eg. money is called Lui vs Puat vs Tsi).
Any language can have a local dialect except English, I guess.
As I wrote in one of my columns, I am very much impressed by the countless Singaporeans who speak multiple languages, and I'm sure you're right that one language influences the other.
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely that some people are awfully picky about English usage. I just roll my eyes when someone starts on the distinction between farther and further. And the examples you give are even more pedantic.
But the use/misuse of the past perfect doesn't fit nicely into the picky category. Here we are talking about two entire verb tenses, which have very specific meanings and very broad usage -- by which I mean that these tenses are not fossils that nobody uses or distinguishes. They are used and understood, and their misuse grates on the ear like fingernails on a blackboard. (Does anyone remember blackboards?)
So to use the past perfect where the perfect is required, and to drop the use of the perfect all together, is to impoverish the language and deprive its speakers of a means of expression.
Another point: all languages are beautiful, at least to their native speakers. But an inability to distinguish between tenses will necessarily impair one's ability to appreciate a fine piece of prose or poetry.
The attitude that can be summed up by, "That's how we speak English and it's good enough for us and too bad for you," is not a persuasive argument. There are dialects, and then there is bad English. I wouldn't want to justify one by confusing it with the other.
By the way, very few Americans, including African-Americans, will defend the now dying cause of ebonics.
Having said all that, Singlish in all its manifestations, just as for ebonics, must be a fascinating study for a linguist. Determining how one language influences the use of another must be very rewarding.
"And the examples you give are even more pedantic."
ReplyDeleteNot to them it wasn't merely pedantic, they expressed their opinion to me clearly and emphatically. And I am sure that they would also defend their views strongly.
"The attitude that can be summed up by, "That's how we speak English and it's good enough for us and too bad for you," is not a persuasive argument. There are dialects, and then there is bad English. I wouldn't want to justify one by confusing it with the other."
That is not really my view; I try my best to avoid making these errors myself. I was pointing out that multilingual speakers tend to display interference or insensitivity to the rules of the languages, such that they may end up relatively poorer in all of them compared to a proficient speaker of one language.
For example in Singaporean Mandarin there is a often lack of distinction between tui3 腿 (usually means thigh) and jiao3 脚 (usually means foot) and between zhi1 dao4 知道 (to know) and xiao3 de2 晓得 (to comprehend) which to many Mainland Chinese is worse than fingernails on a blackboard.
Your criticism is valid - poor language skills due to interference means that some multilingual speakers will always fall short of expectations.
I believe that high expectations are an important aspect of this; if the expectation is for a person to appreciate fine poetry in 3 languages, then the person is compelled to have strong proficiency (and not just clear communication ability) in all of those languages.
I'm just rushing off to work, but I wanted to apologize for seeming to put words in your mouth. I have met (or, rather, received nasty email from) people who express themselves even more harshly than my "quote". But that's not you.
ReplyDeleteYour examples from Mandarin are fascinating. I'll try to toss in a couple more, maybe this evening. It would be interesting to discuss how these differences arise.
OK, sorry for the delay. Here are a couple of differences in the Mandarin spoken in China vs. Singapore that my wife has picked up.
ReplyDeletebu4 dong3: In mainlaind China this means "don't understand" but in Singapore means "don't know".
shao1: In PRC means "cook" but in S'pore means "hot".
Any errors are mine, not my wife's!
Have you noticed these? Do they truly represent differences in the Mandarin spoken in Singapore vs China, or could it be more north/central China vs southern China?
Yup I've been corrected by a Chinese colleague in your first example. In the second example I suppose that the Mainland Chinese term for hot should be tang4 烫, but we use shao1 烧 too broadly and too often.
ReplyDeleteNot sure about the source of these differences, but I've had more northern Chinese colleagues correct my Mandarin than southern Chinese colleagues.
I've been taken to task for saying, "Have you got", rather than, "Do you have", by a Brazilian!
ReplyDeleteAnd Americans love to mock the Canadian accent which, to their ears, turns the word "out" into "Ouwwwwt" and "egg" into "ayyyg".
Oh, and I mustn't forget the Canadian "eh", which can variously mean:
1) Dont' you agree?: Bloody hot today, eh?
2) I didn't understand. Please repeat. "Your music's too loud." "Eh?"
3) You must be joking!: "Did you know that Canada has to import snow." "Eh?!"