Have you noticed the meaning change in the word branded in Singapore in the electronics market? Each day when I see a print advertisement from electronics and appliances stores, I can’t help but notice how they pitch their items as Branded TV, Branded Camera, and these items proceed to be sold at incredibly low price. Chances are, they are not branded in the normal sense, they are more euphemistic for “I have a brand which you may not have heard of”. In this vein, branded as a word in electronics print advertisements have lost the ameliorated connotation; it has now picked up a negative connotation.

Is it a matter of time that we see this meaning change shift to other markets?

Consider words like 的 and 大. In Hanyu Pinyin (HYPY) the transcription is “de” and “da”. Does that translate to a /d/ sound in IPA? No it does not. As a matter of fact, a HYPY “d” is an unreleased [t] in IPA. Try saying “dee” (as in D for dog) and 的, you should be able to tell the difference, unless you’re too using this crazy Americanized Mandarin accent. So what’s the difference between unreleased and released in Mandarin? Consider 大 and 他. Put a sheet of tissue paper or your palm in front of your mouth and you can distinctly feel a puff of air in the latter, which is the released [t] sound. There is no puff of air (i.e., unreleased) in the former.

So back to this crazy accent – it arises due to interference from the speakers’ first language, in this case, English. In English, all the plosive phones in the word initial position are released, think take, talk, time. (Sorry, this phenomenon is entirely absent in Singlish). Also, aspiration (release of air) does not serve to distinguish meaning of words in English, unlike in Mandarin. So, when faced with an unreleased phone, native English speakers tend to voice it (e.g. unreleased [t] to [d]). Things like that.

Now my question, why is that some MandoPop singers, whom we know grew up speaking at least both Mandarin and English, insert those funky voiced [d], among others, into their diction? I postulate that they think faking an ABC Mandarin accent is cool, that somehow it has more value. Which is quite a shame, really, because their mindset is possibly very much based on what the masses feel, and in this case, ABCs are attributed some kind of glory status in the Far East resulting in an exaltation of their accent.

Frankly I don’t give a shit but since I’m trying to listen to some MandoPop and I keep hearing this crap turn up, I am pissed off. Stop it you phoneys!

So, who is it recommended for? I don’t think pure beginners should listen to this. You should at least have some basic French, for example knowing how a basic sentence is formed in French, pronouns, simple verbs, that sort of things.

If you clicked the link above, you can go to their official subscription website where you can pay to get the transcripts, exercises and pdfs. I didn’t, I just listen to the podcast and I think that’s enough for me. Five minutes of French a day and I’m happy.

I saw something funny on Facebook. A friend’s friend’s album description is so … wrong. The troublemaker word of the day – spike in the third line, used in the context of “purposely to spike u” (i.e. some actions taken to intentionally make someone irate). I balked when I saw the wrong word spike instead of spite. Was the writer thinking of spiking a drink, or was he really intending to drive a spike through my friend?

Being the smart aleck who has an explanation for everything, I indeed have an explanation for this. See, in Singlish (or Colloquial Singapore English), many speakers do not properly innunciate the last sound in a word. To speak technically – the coda of the final syllable of words are unreleased. For example, words involving sounds like p, t, k are most susceptible to omission. Consider how one says lip, shit and lick in Singlish; there is no final puff of air at the end of the word. This is the abovementioned bad pronunciation. Unreleased sounds are really, not fully realised and it is difficult to tell two sounds apart, like lap and lab. The t and k sound roughly sound like each other when unreleased, resulting in a propensity to treat one as the other, as in the case of spite and spike. Hence the gaffe.

This is a video made from one of Stephen Fry’s podcasts on Language. It essentially touches on the topic of Grammar Nazis and how people no longer use language to derive pleasure.

Listening to the podcast, I sometimes am guilty of being a Grammar Nazi, at least for the fun of it. Some grammar mistakes crack me up, and I joke about it. I’m not a crazy pedant armed with sharpies to correct signs – I believe that is bordering on illegal in this country. From a linguist’s perspective, Grammar Nazis invariably swear by Prescriptivism. What authorities and grammar books dictate as correct and therefore the only forms that should exist. I love how Fry said – correctness has nothing to do with clarity. How true. Which reminds me of sometimes how people claim I always sound like I know what I’m talking about, since I’m so clear, that they can’t tell if I’m correct or not. To that I jokingly reply I don’t know if I’m correct either. Self deprecating for group solidarity. What a shame, what a shame.

Pardon my digression. Fry goes on to talk about how the dichotomy of right and wrong language is at best similar to right and wrong clothes – guided by context, convention and circumstance. In light of that if you can argue that the context of being on the internet demands Netspeak, I will accept that and stop mocking teenagers.

In the past year, Singaporeans have been increasingly vocal on the linguistic poverty of migrant workers, particularly those in the service and retail industry. The main grievance pertains to service staff not knowing enough, or in fact, any English. Anecdotally, a friend of a friend went to an up market retail store in Ion Orchard where jeans are sold at 300 dollars a pop. He asked the sales staff if she knew there were other colours, she replied asking if he knew Mandarin. Perhaps it was a case of bad luck that he had to approach the Mandarin-speaking sale staff who was presumably employed primarily to serve Mainland Chinese shoppers, but isn’t it a little jarring that one can’t buy a pair of expensive jeans in Orchard Road without having to know the Mandarin equivalent for “stone-washed” and “cigarette fit”?

The language problem may be just one of the factors for our seeming rejection of the migrant population, but it’s a crucial one. We are told we should embrace the migrant population and help them adjust to the Singapore culture. Yet how are we supposed to achieve those without a common language? Yes, one can argue that our Asian mother tongues serve as common languages for the new residents from China, parts of India and the Malay Peninsula. But therein lies a blindspot – are we polarizing races by language? For the past 45 years of nation building we’ve pride ourselves on establishing English not only as a language of commerce and access to economic goods but also a common language to bind the four (or more) races together. Now, if we can only converse to new residents using non-English languages, it appears that will mark the end of inter-racial mixing, and the start of the breakdown of the cohesive social fabric we’ve tried so hard to weave in the past 45 years.

It is undeniable that English is a language of power. Based on Bourdieu’s theory of linguistic capital and economic system, English can be considered a language of high value in Singapore. With English in one’s repertoire, one can exchange it for social goods such as job advancements and (perceived) higher social status. Contrastingly, Mandarin and the other Asian languages do not have the same value in this economy. Our Asian languages are meant to ground us to our Asian roots and be harbinger of values and culture – not the same kind of social goods English can give us. So we’ve come to equate English to a certain desired lifestyle, and regard English as a language of power. Knowing that with English under our belts we can achieve more in this country, surreptitiously creeps in the stereotypes – English speakers lead a certain lifestyle (read: richer), are more educated, are more culturally refine… et cetera. Regardless if those have any truth in them, English nonetheless has a good name in this country. Brought up in such a system, I find it hard to fault those Singaporeans who regard English as their first language and the default language to be used in this country. Yet the complication arises – if English is default, is it still an active choice to use English and reject the other languages? Should we be apologizing for assuming people around us speak English?

Or is it really a situation of “I speak English because you can’t”?

We ask why our citizens don’t seem to be able to handle both languages well – lapsing into some form of bastardized English AND Mandarin. Is it a policy failure? Evidently not – see, National Education in the form of Social Studies taught us that countries like Switzerland exist, and in these countries the common people on th street speaks anything from 2-4 languages pretty well. So is it a policy failure? Doesn’t seem that way.

Let’s consider this – if six years of primary school education where the second language is learnt like a foreign language (at best), and if students still fail to pick it up and wield it skilfully, it speaks either of teaching methods or language aptitude.

I’d go with language aptitude. From age 6 to 12, that’s the critcial period. If a child can’t learn a second language despite formal education of at least 4 hours a week, then I’d say perhaps there’s no need to force feed him/her anymore – clearly s/he has no flare for languages. So perhaps policy-wise we should just relinquish the insane control streak and leave them to be. Oh by the way, I maintain the same belief – if a child can’t handle a 2nd language, what makes you think s/he can handle a third?

Without bilingualism we are infinitely less cool, less unique and less at the forefront. In my view, bilingualism itself is not a mistake. The language-ethnicity link is.

I was on the bus on Wednesday and I was joylessly glancing at yet another Just For Laughs program on TVMobile when I spotted this insane quotation running on the footer:

“Freedom is the emancipation of the arbitrary rules of other men.”

One, is this quote addressing men only?

Two, arbitrary rules come only from men?

Three, what’s wrong with using Man?

Four, what’s wrong with using other people?

Clearly someone working in there choosing quotes to showcase isn’t very smart.

Her: What is it?
Me: This is for the mooncake.
Her: Where is the moon?

All right. How do I explain that there’s no moon in a mooncake? Like how a shortcake isn’t short, and how a fairy cake has no fairy in it?

And if you’re wondering why I took out the mooncake mould, it COULD be because I will be attempting to make mooncakes. :D

In the book I am provided space to practise my penmanship. I feel like a nursery student all over again when learning to pick up a new writing system. Perhaps the verb “pick up” trivializes matters; it certainly is not easy trying to learn another writing system. I’m so far past the critical age of language acquisition already this is beginning to resemble an impossible mission.

Nonetheless I will press on. I may have some aptitude for languages, who knows.