Recently, I’ve had a couple of experiences which have made me start wondering about the –ing verb, and aspect, in general. So, I’ll be writing three blogs this week about the –ing more generally, something called ‘aspect’. I’ll start off telling you what the ‘problem’ is, and then follow this up with what the grammar is behind these interesting examples.
Most of us would have learnt or at least heard about the continuous (or as most linguists refer to it, progressive) tense of the verb, for example, ‘She is reading this blog’. Actually, more accurately, we refer to the –ing continuous construction not as tense, but as aspect. The verb string ‘is reading’ is in the present tense, as you can tell from ‘is’ – this tells you the event occurs at the time of speaking; in addition, the verb also tells you that the action is still going on at the time of speaking (or writing): this is the continuous aspect. So, in brief, tense refers to when something happened; aspect tells you how the action takes place. So, we can contrast the continuous with the perfective, for example, which is used to indicate that an action has been completed, e.g. ‘I have written a blog’.
Well, my interest in the –ing form actually began over four years ago. In 2007 - 2009, I worked with three wonderful colleagues on a small project, resulting in three published papers. The project was based on Christina Higgins’ (2007) paper in TESOL Quarterly that examined the ownership of English by speakers outside of the so-called ‘native’ English speaking countries. Participants were paired and asked to judge a set of sentences for their acceptability; recordings were also made of the discussions they had with each other. There were many interesting findings about the judgements in terms of how they reflected the participants’ sense of confidence over grammaticality judgements. Christina’s original study, held in a university setting, which included Singaporeans, showed that these students displayed a strong sense of ownership over English, and had clear opinions about what was acceptable and what was not.
For our study, we used more or less the same set of sentences that Christina did, with her permission of course, and out of these, one in particular struck me as interesting:
I am having a cold.
While the other sentences in our experiment received mixed judgements, all of our informants, including those who belonged to the most well-educated and socioeconomically privileged group, unequivocally judged this sentence as grammatically correct. In fact, one of our informants went so far as to say that “I have a cold” is not correct. You’ll hear this sentence and others like it very commonly, spoken by a good number of Singaporeans – well-educated ones, at that, as I did in this past month, what with the flu season:
I’m having a cough, but I haven’t really seen the doctor.
I’m having the flu this past week.
My interest further piqued when I then overheard a very well-spoken elderly Singaporean woman say very formally, in a crisp and proper manner, to the cashier at a rather posh supermarket who handed her some stamps for an in-store promotion. And in case you think it was a slip of the tongue, she repeated this very same sentence when the cashier failed to hear her the first time:
I wouldn’t be needing the stamps, thank you.
What do you think of these sentences? Let’s compare these –ing sentences with ones without the –ing:
1A. I am having a cold.
1B. I have a cold.
2A. I wouldn’t be needing the stamps, thank you.
2B. I won’t need the stamps, thank you.
(‘Don’t’ is probably better in 2B, but I want to keep as close to the original as possible.)
Would you use the –ing constructions, or the ones without? And, which of these would you accept as ‘correct’ or acceptable – the sentences marked (A) or those marked (B), or both?
Finally, let me tell you about the second thing I heard that inspired me to write this set of blogs. William Xavier, a very well-known DJ, who, I think, speaks English very well, announced one morning:
Expect heavy traffic along Bukit Timah Road. A car broke down just before Hua Guan Avenue
(or some other road ... it doesn’t matter).
How does this sound to you? Do you think he should have said it like this? Could he have said it in a different way, or a better way? How would you have phrased the morning traffic announcement? (Hint: it's the second sentence that's interesting).
I’ll share my thoughts on these sentences in my next two blogs ...
Comments
Comment by Dennis Chew on Monday
have is a stative verb, isn't it? That would make 1A wrong?
. Comment by Dennis Chew on Monday
Expect heavy traffic along Bukit Timah Road. A car broke down just before Hua Guan Avenue. I would prefer to use a car has broken down... sounds more "current" / active to me.
. Comment by Lubna Alsagoff 17 hours ago
Great, Dennis! Absolutely spot on!
. Comment by Dennis Chew 12 hours ago
oh...there's a link to a song that I used to help my students spot grammar rules as a short game or quiz. They really enjoy it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky4CdN0x58A&ob=av2e
I printed out the lyrics and we deconstructed together and found at least 13 rules.
. Comment by Pierre Fong 2 hours ago
I prefer the has broken down (present perfect) because it happend in the past and I do not know when it happened exactly.
The sentence I have a cold seems to be a definite statement - meaning that the cold is going to be permanent. I have it now and I am going to have it in the future. The sentence I am having a cold seem to suggest that it is for a period of time.
. Comment by Yeo Sze Min 3 minutes ago
Hey Pierre! Yes, that's the exact notion I get with the -ing form of a verb, a continuation of the action for a period of time.
the -ing form has a sense of a continuation of the time period in its form. be needing. (at some point in time you might need the stamps after all?) won't need has a more definitive feel, succinct and to the point, stating that one won't need the stamps.
I have a question though. It appeared in one of the practice papers and if i don't remember wrong,
-Last week, John bought some clothes before the store closed down.
-Last week, John had bought some clothes before the store closed down.
Is there a way I am able to explain the choice of the correct answer to students at the p4 level?
Thanks :)
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Teaching English to Gifted Students
From http://www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content2/english.gifted.3.html
How Should Gifted Students Be Identified?
Definitions of gifted/talented students are numerous. Many are similar to that in the 1978 House of Representatives resolution on education, which defines gifted students as "children, and, when applicable, youth, who are identified at the preschool, elementary, or secondary level as possessing demonstrated or potential abilities that give evidence of high performance capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, specific academic or leadership ability, or in the performing and visual arts..." (Nazarro, 1978).
The use of only grade point averages and IQ scores to classify students as gifted/talented has led to growing concern about procedures for identifying gifted students. Howard Gardner, noted Harvard neuropsychologist, has suggested that although the IQ test measures the linguistic and logical/mathematical intelligences, it does not account for at least five more: (1) the kinesthetic, (2) the musical, (3) the spatial, (4) the interpersonal, and (5) the intrapersonal (Scherer, 1985). Clearly, methods other than IQ tests and grade point averages must be used for identifying gifted/talented students for English and language arts programs (Collins and Aiex, 1995). Warnock and Holt (1985) and Delisle and Berger (1990) further note that gifted/talented students include not only students who do well in school but others who may not do well and who may not display easily observable talent.
William W. West expresses a similar point of view. In Teaching the Gifted and Talented in the English Classroom (1980), West not only identifies obvious characteristics of the verbally gifted, such as reading avidly, writing frequently and fluently, and participating in oral communication activities, but also stresses the importance of observing students who exhibit signs of disruptive behavior, pointing out that these students may simply be bored or unchallenged.
Criteria for determining gifted/talented students for exemplary programs vary, as may be seen in two programs cited in 1985 by the National Council of Teachers of English as Centers of Excellence. Students identified as gifted/talented for the Eleventh Grade Honors Program at Temple High School (Temple, Texas) are selected chiefly by means of grade point average, writing skills, and teacher recommendations, although IQ scores are also considered (Post, 1986). At Princeton High School (Princeton, Illinois), admission to the five-course Independent Study Curriculum is based on a number of criteria. These include not only grade point average and an intelligence test, but also a critical thinking evaluation (Watson-Glasser Thinking Appraisal), achievement test scores (SRA and Gates-MacGinitie), and two teacher evaluations (Scher, 1986). Clearly, some successful programs for the gifted in English and language arts do not restrict admission criteria to IQ scores and grade point averages.
Back to the Table of Contents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Are Some Key Principles In Developing An Effective English and Language Arts Program For the Gifted/Talented?
Frederick B. Tuttle, Jr. (1979), writing about English programs for gifted students, identifies four principles for developing an effective program.
Design a curriculum that builds upon the characteristics of the intellectually gifted. While all students need to develop "basic skills," gifted students can often acquire these as they develop their other, more advanced abilities.
Provide for continuity. Teachers and administrators at all grade levels should arrive at a consensus regarding the different components of the program and the procedures for carrying it through the grades.
Select teachers on the basis of their ability to work with the intellectually gifted and the talented. These teachers should be vitally interested in the gifted, highly intelligent, and emotionally secure, and possess advanced knowledge of their subject matter.
Evaluate success within the program on the quality of the work produced rather than by tests of mastery of lower level skills. This will often necessitate the design of new evaluation instruments and procedures, since most of the tests currently being used measure acquisition of knowledge rather than ability to apply knowledge in creative ways.
These principles may be applied to the development of English and language arts programs for gifted students. As Scher (1986) points out, "A gifted program not only gives students a sound foundation in verbal, reading, and critical thinking skills but allows them to use these skills in an interdisciplinary fashion." Or, as another teacher puts it in a slightly different way: "The time is ripe for teachers to work relentlessly to create classroom situations in which students are tempted, cajoled, seduced, provoked and firmly rewarded not for being excellent, but for thinking" (Peterson et al., 1992).
What Specific Resources Exist For Teaching English and Language Arts To Gifted/Talented Students?
A number of publications may assist the English and language arts teacher in identifying gifted/talented students and developing an appropriate program for them. For example, the aforementioned text by West explores the identification of gifted students' verbal fluency, originality, flexibility, and ability to elaborate, synthesize, and reach closure. A design for a lesson sequence and an example of a teaching sequence are included, as well as suggestions for selecting unit themes.
Jane D. Reed's Teaching Gifted Students Literature and Language in Grades Nine through Twelve (1978) discusses topics related to English programs for gifted high school students: philosophical principles, the study of literature, specific examples of subject matter content in literature, the relationships among various phases of language, descriptions of kinds of gifted English students, procedures for conducting literature and language programs for the gifted, and the evaluation of English programs for the gifted student. Looking for a practical way to help gifted English students in a lower socioeconomic high school setting, Alice Shipman-Campbell (1994) developed a practicum to increase the number and success rate of junior Honors English students taking the English Advanced Placement (AP) examinations. The majority of the students were Latino and African American and somewhat fearful about tests. Shipman-Campbell designed test-taking strategies to allay students' fears and held academic pep rallies to motivate the students. Meanwhile, she taught them style analysis of language and literature. Other key elements that contributed to student success were daily collaborative learning groups and motivational guest speakers in the classroom. Outcomes were positive--not only did the number of juniors taking the test increase, but students also demonstrated more confidence in themselves as English students and as test takers. An added benefit was the students' newfound pleasure in reading, analyzing, and writing about literature.
How Should Gifted Students and English and Language Arts Programs For the Gifted Be Evaluated?
Gifted students, like any other students, must be evaluated. Although it is possible to use traditional methods of evaluation, more innovative methods are also appropriate. Not all practitioners agree, however, on the best methods of evaluation. Scher says that students in the Princeton (Illinois) High School program are not given objective tests, since they have already demonstrated their ability to do well on such tests. Instead, evaluations are based on the writing process, with precision and accuracy as primary evaluation criteria. Students enrolled in a research and analysis course must apply their knowledge of logic, reasoning, and research methods to an investigation of their choice and produce a project in a form compatible with the topic.
Reed (1978) notes a method of evaluation in which the teacher evaluates not only individual students but also the program itself by carefully observing the class during the course or during a unit to determine whether or not students are progressing satisfactorily. One technique involves having each student maintain a manila folder containing descriptions of projects in progress or completed, lists of things read, and written papers that have been graded. These folders will allow the teacher to do a simple check of the accomplishments of each student.
Program evaluation is often conducted through external tests, from standardized achievement tests, to SAT verbal test scores, to advanced placement tests. Reed cautions, however, that such tests are imperfect tools in the evaluation process and so should not be heavily considered.
Evaluation can also be conducted by having students evaluate a course while they are participating in it. Although student surveys may exhibit some bias, they are worthwhile because gifted students tend to be able to cite strengths and weaknesses of programs in which they participate. Finally, program evaluation may be conducted after students leave school by sending evaluation forms to former students or by interviewing them.
References
Collins, Norma Decker, and Nola Kortner Aiex (1995). "Gifted Readers and Reading Instruction." ERIC Digest. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication. ED 379 637
Delisle, James, and Sandra Berger (1990). "Underachieving Gifted Students." ERIC EC Digest #E478. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children. ED 321 483
Nazarro, Jean, Ed. (1978). "ERIC/EC Newsletter, 2." Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children.
Peterson, Nancy Ruth, et al. (1992). "Being Special (A Symposium)." English Journal, 81(6), 34-43. EJ 451 323
Post, Linda Williams (1986). Telephone interview, March 4, 1986.
Reed, Jane D. (1978. Teaching Gifted Students Literature and Language in Grades Nine through Twelve, updated edition. Sacramento, CA: State Department of Education. ED 157 075
Scher, Bruce E. (1986). Telephone interview, March 4, 1986.
Scherer, Marge (1985). "How Many Ways Is A Child Intelligent?" Instructor, 94(5), 32-35. EJ 310 778
Shipman-Campbell, Alice (1994). "Increasing the Number and Success Rate of Junior Honors English Students in Taking English Advanced Placement Examinations." Ed.D. Practicum, Nova University. ED 376 496
Tuttle, Frederick B., Jr. (1979). "Providing for the Intellectually Gifted." SLATE Starter Sheet. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Warnock, John, and Sue Holt (1985). "Gifted and Talented Education." SLATE Starter Sheet. Urbana, IL: NCTE. ED 263 624
West, William W. (1980). Teaching the
How Should Gifted Students Be Identified?
Definitions of gifted/talented students are numerous. Many are similar to that in the 1978 House of Representatives resolution on education, which defines gifted students as "children, and, when applicable, youth, who are identified at the preschool, elementary, or secondary level as possessing demonstrated or potential abilities that give evidence of high performance capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, specific academic or leadership ability, or in the performing and visual arts..." (Nazarro, 1978).
The use of only grade point averages and IQ scores to classify students as gifted/talented has led to growing concern about procedures for identifying gifted students. Howard Gardner, noted Harvard neuropsychologist, has suggested that although the IQ test measures the linguistic and logical/mathematical intelligences, it does not account for at least five more: (1) the kinesthetic, (2) the musical, (3) the spatial, (4) the interpersonal, and (5) the intrapersonal (Scherer, 1985). Clearly, methods other than IQ tests and grade point averages must be used for identifying gifted/talented students for English and language arts programs (Collins and Aiex, 1995). Warnock and Holt (1985) and Delisle and Berger (1990) further note that gifted/talented students include not only students who do well in school but others who may not do well and who may not display easily observable talent.
William W. West expresses a similar point of view. In Teaching the Gifted and Talented in the English Classroom (1980), West not only identifies obvious characteristics of the verbally gifted, such as reading avidly, writing frequently and fluently, and participating in oral communication activities, but also stresses the importance of observing students who exhibit signs of disruptive behavior, pointing out that these students may simply be bored or unchallenged.
Criteria for determining gifted/talented students for exemplary programs vary, as may be seen in two programs cited in 1985 by the National Council of Teachers of English as Centers of Excellence. Students identified as gifted/talented for the Eleventh Grade Honors Program at Temple High School (Temple, Texas) are selected chiefly by means of grade point average, writing skills, and teacher recommendations, although IQ scores are also considered (Post, 1986). At Princeton High School (Princeton, Illinois), admission to the five-course Independent Study Curriculum is based on a number of criteria. These include not only grade point average and an intelligence test, but also a critical thinking evaluation (Watson-Glasser Thinking Appraisal), achievement test scores (SRA and Gates-MacGinitie), and two teacher evaluations (Scher, 1986). Clearly, some successful programs for the gifted in English and language arts do not restrict admission criteria to IQ scores and grade point averages.
Back to the Table of Contents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Are Some Key Principles In Developing An Effective English and Language Arts Program For the Gifted/Talented?
Frederick B. Tuttle, Jr. (1979), writing about English programs for gifted students, identifies four principles for developing an effective program.
Design a curriculum that builds upon the characteristics of the intellectually gifted. While all students need to develop "basic skills," gifted students can often acquire these as they develop their other, more advanced abilities.
Provide for continuity. Teachers and administrators at all grade levels should arrive at a consensus regarding the different components of the program and the procedures for carrying it through the grades.
Select teachers on the basis of their ability to work with the intellectually gifted and the talented. These teachers should be vitally interested in the gifted, highly intelligent, and emotionally secure, and possess advanced knowledge of their subject matter.
Evaluate success within the program on the quality of the work produced rather than by tests of mastery of lower level skills. This will often necessitate the design of new evaluation instruments and procedures, since most of the tests currently being used measure acquisition of knowledge rather than ability to apply knowledge in creative ways.
These principles may be applied to the development of English and language arts programs for gifted students. As Scher (1986) points out, "A gifted program not only gives students a sound foundation in verbal, reading, and critical thinking skills but allows them to use these skills in an interdisciplinary fashion." Or, as another teacher puts it in a slightly different way: "The time is ripe for teachers to work relentlessly to create classroom situations in which students are tempted, cajoled, seduced, provoked and firmly rewarded not for being excellent, but for thinking" (Peterson et al., 1992).
What Specific Resources Exist For Teaching English and Language Arts To Gifted/Talented Students?
A number of publications may assist the English and language arts teacher in identifying gifted/talented students and developing an appropriate program for them. For example, the aforementioned text by West explores the identification of gifted students' verbal fluency, originality, flexibility, and ability to elaborate, synthesize, and reach closure. A design for a lesson sequence and an example of a teaching sequence are included, as well as suggestions for selecting unit themes.
Jane D. Reed's Teaching Gifted Students Literature and Language in Grades Nine through Twelve (1978) discusses topics related to English programs for gifted high school students: philosophical principles, the study of literature, specific examples of subject matter content in literature, the relationships among various phases of language, descriptions of kinds of gifted English students, procedures for conducting literature and language programs for the gifted, and the evaluation of English programs for the gifted student. Looking for a practical way to help gifted English students in a lower socioeconomic high school setting, Alice Shipman-Campbell (1994) developed a practicum to increase the number and success rate of junior Honors English students taking the English Advanced Placement (AP) examinations. The majority of the students were Latino and African American and somewhat fearful about tests. Shipman-Campbell designed test-taking strategies to allay students' fears and held academic pep rallies to motivate the students. Meanwhile, she taught them style analysis of language and literature. Other key elements that contributed to student success were daily collaborative learning groups and motivational guest speakers in the classroom. Outcomes were positive--not only did the number of juniors taking the test increase, but students also demonstrated more confidence in themselves as English students and as test takers. An added benefit was the students' newfound pleasure in reading, analyzing, and writing about literature.
How Should Gifted Students and English and Language Arts Programs For the Gifted Be Evaluated?
Gifted students, like any other students, must be evaluated. Although it is possible to use traditional methods of evaluation, more innovative methods are also appropriate. Not all practitioners agree, however, on the best methods of evaluation. Scher says that students in the Princeton (Illinois) High School program are not given objective tests, since they have already demonstrated their ability to do well on such tests. Instead, evaluations are based on the writing process, with precision and accuracy as primary evaluation criteria. Students enrolled in a research and analysis course must apply their knowledge of logic, reasoning, and research methods to an investigation of their choice and produce a project in a form compatible with the topic.
Reed (1978) notes a method of evaluation in which the teacher evaluates not only individual students but also the program itself by carefully observing the class during the course or during a unit to determine whether or not students are progressing satisfactorily. One technique involves having each student maintain a manila folder containing descriptions of projects in progress or completed, lists of things read, and written papers that have been graded. These folders will allow the teacher to do a simple check of the accomplishments of each student.
Program evaluation is often conducted through external tests, from standardized achievement tests, to SAT verbal test scores, to advanced placement tests. Reed cautions, however, that such tests are imperfect tools in the evaluation process and so should not be heavily considered.
Evaluation can also be conducted by having students evaluate a course while they are participating in it. Although student surveys may exhibit some bias, they are worthwhile because gifted students tend to be able to cite strengths and weaknesses of programs in which they participate. Finally, program evaluation may be conducted after students leave school by sending evaluation forms to former students or by interviewing them.
References
Collins, Norma Decker, and Nola Kortner Aiex (1995). "Gifted Readers and Reading Instruction." ERIC Digest. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication. ED 379 637
Delisle, James, and Sandra Berger (1990). "Underachieving Gifted Students." ERIC EC Digest #E478. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children. ED 321 483
Nazarro, Jean, Ed. (1978). "ERIC/EC Newsletter, 2." Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children.
Peterson, Nancy Ruth, et al. (1992). "Being Special (A Symposium)." English Journal, 81(6), 34-43. EJ 451 323
Post, Linda Williams (1986). Telephone interview, March 4, 1986.
Reed, Jane D. (1978. Teaching Gifted Students Literature and Language in Grades Nine through Twelve, updated edition. Sacramento, CA: State Department of Education. ED 157 075
Scher, Bruce E. (1986). Telephone interview, March 4, 1986.
Scherer, Marge (1985). "How Many Ways Is A Child Intelligent?" Instructor, 94(5), 32-35. EJ 310 778
Shipman-Campbell, Alice (1994). "Increasing the Number and Success Rate of Junior Honors English Students in Taking English Advanced Placement Examinations." Ed.D. Practicum, Nova University. ED 376 496
Tuttle, Frederick B., Jr. (1979). "Providing for the Intellectually Gifted." SLATE Starter Sheet. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Warnock, John, and Sue Holt (1985). "Gifted and Talented Education." SLATE Starter Sheet. Urbana, IL: NCTE. ED 263 624
West, William W. (1980). Teaching the
Monday, October 3, 2011
British or American, it's still English
By Lee Siew Hua, Senior Writer
More crucial is the need to ensure reliable and effective communication
Professor Koh Tai Ann has a bit of irreverent advice for anyone agitated over Mr Lee Kuan Yew's remarks that schools may have to teach American English.
'We needn't get our knickers in a twist,' says the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) literature don, using the quirky British expression for being unduly upset.
She flips playfully to the American equivalent: 'Or get our panties all in a bunch.'
Background story
SHE CHAIRED SPEAK GOOD ENGLISH MOVEMENT
Professor Koh Tai Ann is a senior associate at the Nanyang Technological University's (NTU) Centre for Liberal Arts and Social Sciences.
She began her academic career at the Department of English at the former University of Singapore in 1971.
In 1994, she joined NTU as dean of its new School of Arts at the National Institute of Education (NIE), and this was the first of three deanships. She was appointed NIE's Dean (Academic) in 2000, and NTU's first Dean of Students in 2003.
She completed her BA Hons and PhD in English at the former University of Singapore.
Active in public service, she chaired the Speak Good English Movement from 2005 to 2008. She has served on the advisory committees or boards of the National Arts Council, National Book Development Council of Singapore, Singapore Art Museum, Institute of Policy Studies, Media Development Authority, and the Government Parliamentary Committee for education.
She was also a founding member of the Fulbright Association of Singapore.
She is married with two children.
Background story
Q&A
Are there qualities of American English that are appealing or distinctive?
Americans are less rule-bound and that's why they seem to be creating new words all the time. There is a certain egalitarianism and an exuberant individual creativity in American culture. Thus, anyone can coin neologisms or deviations which rapidly become fashionable, for example, 'megastars', 'irregardless', even a non-word, '24/7'.
Cultural factors such as political correctness or American media contribute to this, too - so when they say 'hello guys' it includes girls. What I'm concerned about in American English is a lazy tendency to flatten out meanings, for example, 'eaterie'. English has a range of differentiating words for that - restaurant, cafe, bistro, and we have food courts, hawker centres and, in Singlish, 'zi char'.
Can we tell if English standards are declining?
All over the world, people talk about a decline, even the British. It depends on which standards we measure this decline against. More Singaporeans are using English, and those born after 1960 are English-educated, but not all were well-taught or learnt the language well.
We also live in one of the most linguistically diverse societies in the world, compounded by demanding official language policies.
In 1979, at the then University of Singapore, we English Literature lecturers noticed that the standard of English had started to decline among students and worsened that year.
It was only recently while researching for a paper on English and identity in Singapore that it hit me that the 1978-79 cohorts were among the first who had started school in 1966, when bilingualism was officially introduced throughout the school system. Linguists can tell you, few people acquire high proficiency in two or more languages.
What was your language learning journey like as a child?
English was taught as a second language and very thoroughly by our British-trained teachers. We sang English songs, read English literature, listened to lots of stories in English and had 'reading periods'.
We started learning phonetics from Primary 4. It was great fun to look into small mirrors, make perfect 'Os' and roll our tongues.
It was only after establishing a secure proficiency in English that we started learning our mother tongues from Primary4.
Incidentally, I don't know why Mr Lee Kuan Yew and policymakers think that if you speak a Chinese dialect, you will find it difficult to speak or learn good Mandarin, or that Chinese culture is best accessed only through Mandarin and the Chinese written language.
In fact, I found it easier to learn Mandarin as a child because I spoke Chinese dialects and was thus familiar with Chinese syntax, idioms, proverbs and even literary allusions, as the Chinese have a common written language.
Certainly, nobody should be kiasu enough, in Singaporean parlance, to switch quickly to American English just because the former prime minister expressed a personal view that American English is prevailing globally and may have to be taught in schools, she says.
There is little cause to 'strictly delineate American and British English' as Mr Lee seemed to suggest recently when he launched the English Language Institute of Singapore, she tells The Sunday Times.
'Americanisms have been creeping into British English for as long as these two varieties have existed', although the pace has intensified and thus become more noticeable in recent years, she says.
She points to research done in the late 1980s which showed that the speech of Singaporean children was even then being influenced willy-nilly by American pronunciation - especially in the rolling of R's after vowels.
With language varieties seeping easily across borders like colours running together in laundry, as she sees it, there is little to gain from setting up American English classes.
'Language is often caught rather than taught, and learning American English might not be much different,' she reasons.
What is most vital is to communicate in Standard English. This is governed by largely shared rules and conventions - most basically, grammar.
'The important thing to keep in mind is that whether it is British, American or Singaporean, each variety of English in its written form, and in formal contexts when spoken, should be recognisably Standard English,' says Prof Koh, a senior associate at NTU's Centre for Liberal Arts and Social Sciences.
'Otherwise, reliable and effective communication would be impossible across nations and among peoples who use English.'
Other features - accent, spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary, idioms, slang - have to do with the local, the historical, the cultural or the merely fashionable and idiosyncratic, she says. These elements are 'not so onerous' that they cannot be picked up or looked up.
For example, people have picked up many Americanisms such as 'touch base', which is derived from baseball.
Alongside Standard English, which is used in formal realms such as education and government administration, colloquial varieties have developed in different countries. These spoken forms, such as Singlish, are more casual, and have their own rules and conventions. 'Linguists and native users will know, for instance, that the usage of lah, leh, hor, meh in Singlish is not random.'
While it is the job of schools to teach Standard English, she feels Singaporeans should be wary of turning into 'grammar terrorists' to such a point that those who speak primarily Singlish feel ashamed and silenced. Then Singlish would become an undesirable class marker.
'Singlish should not be regarded as broken or deviant and not 'proper' English, but as a spoken variety that has developed alongside the standard 'proper' English learnt in schools,' she maintains.
'Otherwise, we do ourselves a disservice by giving Singlish an odour of inferiority and shame.'
Bosses can send Singlish-speaking shop assistants or front-line staff to classes in English for Specific Purposes, which zero in on the language they need to use in their work environments.
Outside work, if shop assistants speak Singlish with friends, 'you don't want to be a grammar terrorist', she counsels.
She does not want anyone to be so wary of speaking improperly in some contexts that they clam up - as Shakespeare once lamented, 'art made tongue-tied by authority' is a sorry thing.
So Singlish is here to stay. The reality is that Singlish, which is really a local dialect and indigenous to the nation, plays communicative and sociocultural roles.
'Singaporeans of any educational level can and do speak Singlish when it is appropriate, and it is thus part of their unique identity,' says Prof Koh, who chaired the Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) from 2005 to 2008.
Politicians have waged constant war against Singlish, and indeed, the SGEM formed part of the arsenal when it was launched by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 2000.
Since Prof Koh is keenly cognisant of the fact that Singlish is one living component of Singapore's national identity - albeit not the only or even principal identifier - it is worth noting that she reconciled her SGEM leadership with the official disdain for Singlish.
What she did as chair was to re-commend that the ability to code- switch between Standard English and Singlish be acquired, and that Singlish, which might be the true mother tongue of many children, not be demonised.
'The SGEM focuses only on the speaking of English, hence its opposition to the colloquial variety, Singlish. The issue should really be which form of English is appropriate for which occasion and for what purpose, and the ability to code-switch accordingly and not code-mix,' she says.
Code-switching is the ability to move back and forth between two registers of the same language, say, Singapore Standard English and Singlish. Code-mixing occurs when these are mixed indiscriminately in speech.
'If English is well-taught and well-learnt at school and reinforced by writing and reading both at and after school, and recreationally, then all Singaporeans who've been through the Singapore school system should not need the SGEM,' she says, adding: 'Its tagline is Speak Good English, and we could well ask: 'Good enough for what?' '
To answer that question, she notes: 'The ability to write good English is as, if not more, important. Language is an instrument of thought. It's an instrument of critical thinking. It's an instrument of intellectual analysis. It is an instrument through which you obtain knowledge and articulate a culture.
'If you don't have enough of the resources of language at your disposal, then you cannot perform these functions well. If your language is not up to performing these functions, it is not good enough.'
As SGEM chair, she also consciously sought the partnership of schools to raise each child's English competence to the highest level possible. This is still part of the SGEM strategy.
'A command of Standard English is still achievable for the young, for every child in Singapore who has to go to school. As English is the sole medium of instruction, there is no reason and no excuse why they cannot learn to code-switch from Singlish to the Standard English they learn in school whenever the occasion warrants.'
In the quest for world-class English, Singapore should not be distracted by any American-or-British debate either. She says: 'The real problem is why so many of the wholly English-educated are still not able to speak and write effectively in Standard English when necessary.'
It is timely for Singapore to look afresh at what has happened to English language teaching in primary and secondary schools that has caused so many students to leave school still inarticulate, she indicates.
She wonders why students leave school and tertiary institutions still speaking ungrammatical, truly 'broken' English - not to be confused with Singlish - and with a limited vocabulary and range of expression.
'More seriously, why do they still write with careless unconcern or in blissful ignorance of the meanings and import of the words they use?' she continues. 'Many still write error-ridden minutes, reports, notices and essays.'
Her observation is that the English language might not have been well-taught for decades because of competing curricular demands - especially the arduous learning of mother tongues - and the decline in time spent on the humanities.
Nevertheless, American English cannot come to the rescue.
She says: 'American English is after all still English, and not that basically different a variety.'
siewhua@sph.com.sg
More crucial is the need to ensure reliable and effective communication
Professor Koh Tai Ann has a bit of irreverent advice for anyone agitated over Mr Lee Kuan Yew's remarks that schools may have to teach American English.
'We needn't get our knickers in a twist,' says the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) literature don, using the quirky British expression for being unduly upset.
She flips playfully to the American equivalent: 'Or get our panties all in a bunch.'
Background story
SHE CHAIRED SPEAK GOOD ENGLISH MOVEMENT
Professor Koh Tai Ann is a senior associate at the Nanyang Technological University's (NTU) Centre for Liberal Arts and Social Sciences.
She began her academic career at the Department of English at the former University of Singapore in 1971.
In 1994, she joined NTU as dean of its new School of Arts at the National Institute of Education (NIE), and this was the first of three deanships. She was appointed NIE's Dean (Academic) in 2000, and NTU's first Dean of Students in 2003.
She completed her BA Hons and PhD in English at the former University of Singapore.
Active in public service, she chaired the Speak Good English Movement from 2005 to 2008. She has served on the advisory committees or boards of the National Arts Council, National Book Development Council of Singapore, Singapore Art Museum, Institute of Policy Studies, Media Development Authority, and the Government Parliamentary Committee for education.
She was also a founding member of the Fulbright Association of Singapore.
She is married with two children.
Background story
Q&A
Are there qualities of American English that are appealing or distinctive?
Americans are less rule-bound and that's why they seem to be creating new words all the time. There is a certain egalitarianism and an exuberant individual creativity in American culture. Thus, anyone can coin neologisms or deviations which rapidly become fashionable, for example, 'megastars', 'irregardless', even a non-word, '24/7'.
Cultural factors such as political correctness or American media contribute to this, too - so when they say 'hello guys' it includes girls. What I'm concerned about in American English is a lazy tendency to flatten out meanings, for example, 'eaterie'. English has a range of differentiating words for that - restaurant, cafe, bistro, and we have food courts, hawker centres and, in Singlish, 'zi char'.
Can we tell if English standards are declining?
All over the world, people talk about a decline, even the British. It depends on which standards we measure this decline against. More Singaporeans are using English, and those born after 1960 are English-educated, but not all were well-taught or learnt the language well.
We also live in one of the most linguistically diverse societies in the world, compounded by demanding official language policies.
In 1979, at the then University of Singapore, we English Literature lecturers noticed that the standard of English had started to decline among students and worsened that year.
It was only recently while researching for a paper on English and identity in Singapore that it hit me that the 1978-79 cohorts were among the first who had started school in 1966, when bilingualism was officially introduced throughout the school system. Linguists can tell you, few people acquire high proficiency in two or more languages.
What was your language learning journey like as a child?
English was taught as a second language and very thoroughly by our British-trained teachers. We sang English songs, read English literature, listened to lots of stories in English and had 'reading periods'.
We started learning phonetics from Primary 4. It was great fun to look into small mirrors, make perfect 'Os' and roll our tongues.
It was only after establishing a secure proficiency in English that we started learning our mother tongues from Primary4.
Incidentally, I don't know why Mr Lee Kuan Yew and policymakers think that if you speak a Chinese dialect, you will find it difficult to speak or learn good Mandarin, or that Chinese culture is best accessed only through Mandarin and the Chinese written language.
In fact, I found it easier to learn Mandarin as a child because I spoke Chinese dialects and was thus familiar with Chinese syntax, idioms, proverbs and even literary allusions, as the Chinese have a common written language.
Certainly, nobody should be kiasu enough, in Singaporean parlance, to switch quickly to American English just because the former prime minister expressed a personal view that American English is prevailing globally and may have to be taught in schools, she says.
There is little cause to 'strictly delineate American and British English' as Mr Lee seemed to suggest recently when he launched the English Language Institute of Singapore, she tells The Sunday Times.
'Americanisms have been creeping into British English for as long as these two varieties have existed', although the pace has intensified and thus become more noticeable in recent years, she says.
She points to research done in the late 1980s which showed that the speech of Singaporean children was even then being influenced willy-nilly by American pronunciation - especially in the rolling of R's after vowels.
With language varieties seeping easily across borders like colours running together in laundry, as she sees it, there is little to gain from setting up American English classes.
'Language is often caught rather than taught, and learning American English might not be much different,' she reasons.
What is most vital is to communicate in Standard English. This is governed by largely shared rules and conventions - most basically, grammar.
'The important thing to keep in mind is that whether it is British, American or Singaporean, each variety of English in its written form, and in formal contexts when spoken, should be recognisably Standard English,' says Prof Koh, a senior associate at NTU's Centre for Liberal Arts and Social Sciences.
'Otherwise, reliable and effective communication would be impossible across nations and among peoples who use English.'
Other features - accent, spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary, idioms, slang - have to do with the local, the historical, the cultural or the merely fashionable and idiosyncratic, she says. These elements are 'not so onerous' that they cannot be picked up or looked up.
For example, people have picked up many Americanisms such as 'touch base', which is derived from baseball.
Alongside Standard English, which is used in formal realms such as education and government administration, colloquial varieties have developed in different countries. These spoken forms, such as Singlish, are more casual, and have their own rules and conventions. 'Linguists and native users will know, for instance, that the usage of lah, leh, hor, meh in Singlish is not random.'
While it is the job of schools to teach Standard English, she feels Singaporeans should be wary of turning into 'grammar terrorists' to such a point that those who speak primarily Singlish feel ashamed and silenced. Then Singlish would become an undesirable class marker.
'Singlish should not be regarded as broken or deviant and not 'proper' English, but as a spoken variety that has developed alongside the standard 'proper' English learnt in schools,' she maintains.
'Otherwise, we do ourselves a disservice by giving Singlish an odour of inferiority and shame.'
Bosses can send Singlish-speaking shop assistants or front-line staff to classes in English for Specific Purposes, which zero in on the language they need to use in their work environments.
Outside work, if shop assistants speak Singlish with friends, 'you don't want to be a grammar terrorist', she counsels.
She does not want anyone to be so wary of speaking improperly in some contexts that they clam up - as Shakespeare once lamented, 'art made tongue-tied by authority' is a sorry thing.
So Singlish is here to stay. The reality is that Singlish, which is really a local dialect and indigenous to the nation, plays communicative and sociocultural roles.
'Singaporeans of any educational level can and do speak Singlish when it is appropriate, and it is thus part of their unique identity,' says Prof Koh, who chaired the Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) from 2005 to 2008.
Politicians have waged constant war against Singlish, and indeed, the SGEM formed part of the arsenal when it was launched by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 2000.
Since Prof Koh is keenly cognisant of the fact that Singlish is one living component of Singapore's national identity - albeit not the only or even principal identifier - it is worth noting that she reconciled her SGEM leadership with the official disdain for Singlish.
What she did as chair was to re-commend that the ability to code- switch between Standard English and Singlish be acquired, and that Singlish, which might be the true mother tongue of many children, not be demonised.
'The SGEM focuses only on the speaking of English, hence its opposition to the colloquial variety, Singlish. The issue should really be which form of English is appropriate for which occasion and for what purpose, and the ability to code-switch accordingly and not code-mix,' she says.
Code-switching is the ability to move back and forth between two registers of the same language, say, Singapore Standard English and Singlish. Code-mixing occurs when these are mixed indiscriminately in speech.
'If English is well-taught and well-learnt at school and reinforced by writing and reading both at and after school, and recreationally, then all Singaporeans who've been through the Singapore school system should not need the SGEM,' she says, adding: 'Its tagline is Speak Good English, and we could well ask: 'Good enough for what?' '
To answer that question, she notes: 'The ability to write good English is as, if not more, important. Language is an instrument of thought. It's an instrument of critical thinking. It's an instrument of intellectual analysis. It is an instrument through which you obtain knowledge and articulate a culture.
'If you don't have enough of the resources of language at your disposal, then you cannot perform these functions well. If your language is not up to performing these functions, it is not good enough.'
As SGEM chair, she also consciously sought the partnership of schools to raise each child's English competence to the highest level possible. This is still part of the SGEM strategy.
'A command of Standard English is still achievable for the young, for every child in Singapore who has to go to school. As English is the sole medium of instruction, there is no reason and no excuse why they cannot learn to code-switch from Singlish to the Standard English they learn in school whenever the occasion warrants.'
In the quest for world-class English, Singapore should not be distracted by any American-or-British debate either. She says: 'The real problem is why so many of the wholly English-educated are still not able to speak and write effectively in Standard English when necessary.'
It is timely for Singapore to look afresh at what has happened to English language teaching in primary and secondary schools that has caused so many students to leave school still inarticulate, she indicates.
She wonders why students leave school and tertiary institutions still speaking ungrammatical, truly 'broken' English - not to be confused with Singlish - and with a limited vocabulary and range of expression.
'More seriously, why do they still write with careless unconcern or in blissful ignorance of the meanings and import of the words they use?' she continues. 'Many still write error-ridden minutes, reports, notices and essays.'
Her observation is that the English language might not have been well-taught for decades because of competing curricular demands - especially the arduous learning of mother tongues - and the decline in time spent on the humanities.
Nevertheless, American English cannot come to the rescue.
She says: 'American English is after all still English, and not that basically different a variety.'
siewhua@sph.com.sg
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)