Dear list members,
THE truth? In my opinion, if in Christina's opinion I am even entitled
to one, truth is an approximation of reality that can be understood by
one, a few, or many. It is not something about which one can solicit
and cast votes. I offer no statements or claims that I am not prepared
to back up, and would be very happy to reply to something more
tangible from Christina, if indeed, she has something. Unfortunately,
however, Anthea is first in line, and I will respond to her as soon as
I have the opportunity.
Sincerely,
Hamo
HelveticaR. A. Stegemann, A.B., M.A., M.A.
EARTH's Manager and HKLNA-Project Director
EARTH - East Asian Research and Translation in Hong Kong
http://homepage.mac.com/moogoonghwa/earth/
Tel/Fax: 852 2630 0349
On 22 Mar 2005, at 23:31, Harold F. Schiffman wrote:
I am forwarding this message to the list at the request of
Christina
Paulston:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:02:31 -0500
From: Christina Paulston <
To: lgpolicy-list@ccat.sas.upenn.edu
Subject: Re: Singapore's pseudo mother tongues - 2002.
I thought the languagepolicy- list was for sharing news, interesting
new publications, policies, etc. I am tired of Stegemann's opinionated
proclamation of THE truth. Christina Bratt Paulston
On Mar 19, 2005, at 11:29 AM, R. A. Stegemann wrote:
Dear list members,
I am responding to Anthea's recent message with regard to my website
about my brief, but factually supported comparison of Hong Kong and
Singapore. Before I begin, I must, once again, apologize that I am
still unable to upload my Quicktime movie. As I have finally secured
additional online disk space for my website I will try again on
Tuesday, when I make my next visit to the Central Library, for there
they have broadband, and I now know how to connect.
Firstly, with the exception of the Ethnologue data that relies on a
variety of sources of varying dates, all of my census data is far more
recent than Anthea's 1994 book _The Step-tongue_. Although I like the
title of her book, I would not recommend its use as a defense against
data published in 2002; even a national bureaucracy can undergo
significant change within eight years. In a similar light, I am at a
loss about how to respond to claims of speculation on anyone's part
with regard to the interpretation of data. One is nearly always forced
to read between the numerical lines. What I appear to have, that
others apparently do not, is a compelling socio-economic model to
guide me through my interpretation.
Secondly, I am having particular trouble with Anthea's claim that the
structure of Singapore' education system is somehow a separate issue
from that of mother tongues. I find these two items inextricably
woven, not only in Singapore, but most of East Asia. What is at stake
here is how language is employed by governments as a form of social
engineering and what ramifications this has on the efficient
allocation of human resources, the ability of a society to communicate
with itself and others, the preservation of local communities, and the
personal damage suffered by large swaths of people.
Thirdly, I would very much like Anthea to provide hard evidence with
regard to her own claims about Singaporeans' English language
competence. Personally, I could not find primary measures of
competence in Singapore and after many hours scouring the internet
finally concluded that this is one of Singapore's best kept secrets.
In contrast, I did find some hard facts for Hong Kong and have
included these in the HKLNA-Project's forthcoming, first, Quicktime
movie.
Fourthly, with regard to Anthea's inability to imagine a society
without a single unifying national language, perhaps a brief look at
the following URL will help her get started
<. If this does not work, then maybe a
closer look at
< under the heading "Switzerland - Ethnic homogenization
en style occidental". Well, neither is exactly Winnie, the Pooh, but
the first one does come somewhat close to Disneyland.
Sincerely,
R. A. Stegemann (Hamo)
EARTH's Manager and HKLNA-Project Director
EARTH - East Asian Research and Translation in Hong Kong
http://homepage.mac.com/moogoonghwa/earth/
Tel/Fax: 852 2630 0349
p.s. By the way, Anthea, you never did answer my question with regard
to Starbuck's. Has it made it to England?
On 18 Mar 2005, at 08:43, Anthea Fraser Gupta wrote:
As usually I am in extreme disagreement with R A Stegemann.
Stegemann's paper draws on the figures from Singapore's past
censuses. I have written extensively on this topic and have made a
full critique of census data in my 1994 book, *The Step-tongue*. They
require considerable interpretation. The figures for school
enrollment also need to be further developed, and, especially, a
distinction must be made between Singaporean and non-Singaporean
children. The interpretation at the moment is too speculative. I do
agree that Singapore's education system is highly competitive and
exam-oriented, but this is a different issue from the language one.
The term 'native language' is normally used to refer to a language
learnt before any other. The term 'mother tongue' is sometimes used
in that sense, but is often given a sociopolitical definition which
is (in some way) important for a particular place. It is often used
to mean 'the language of the ancestors'. Singapore has provided a
sociopolitical definition of mother tongue which is specific to
Singapore.
It has to be understood that people do not necessarily speak the
languages of their ancestors as a native language (as a casual glance
at Queen Elizabeth II, Benjamin Zephaniah, and Lee Kuan Yew, all
native speakers of English, will show). Singapore has undergone
considerable language shift over the years, and especially since
independence. The ancestral varieties of Chinese (and all Indian
languages and also languages such as Javanese and Boyanese) have all
lost native speakers, while Mandarin Chinese and English have gained
them. In people under 30 Mandarin and English are the two most
common native languages, and over half of all children come to
nursery school already able to speak both school languages. One
effect of the way in which the census questions were asked is that
the number of speakers of ALL languages is fewer than it should be.
For example, it is common in Malay households for both Malay and
English to be used, very much in that order. If all the Malay
families in Singapore said they spoke (say) Malay 70% of the time and
English 30% of the time, they would appear to be monolingual Malay
speakers on the census figures. I explain this in full (for the 80
and 90 censuses) in my book.
Stegemann says "the reason that most Singaporeans speak such poor
English is very similar to that found in Hong Kong. I would not
recommend that every Singaporean be compelled to study English". I
strongly dispute both the premise that "most Singaporeans speak ...
poor English" and the recommendation. By any reasonable measure (such
as performance in UK examinations, or in international tests) the
standard of English in Singapore is very high indeed. I cannot
imagine what measures Stegemann could use to reach any other
conclusion. A unified education system with one language studied by
everyone is a vital part of national unity. I find it hard to imagine
a state education system in which there was not a common language,
and the choice of English for this common language is eminently
sensible and well-accepted by the population.
I do not see how comments favourable to English in Singapore are
taken as negative. The Washington source quoted should not have
confused Singlish and Singapore English -- these are not the same,
any more than Ozark is the same as 'American English' or Geordie the
same as 'British English'. And quite what Stegemann means by "In
short, there are likely few members of the US English Foundation that
would tolerate having to listen to a speech from any but Singapore's
best educated English speakers with substantial overseas experience"
I do not know. English is diverse. I don't know what Stegemann's
English is like but it won't be like mine, and mine isn't like Hal
Schiffman's. English varies and we need tolerance and acceptance not
normative prejudices.
Anthea
<