Wong, Jock Onn (2004). Cultural scripts, ways of speaking and perceptions of personal autonomy: Anglo English vs. Singapore English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(2), 231-248. DOI: 10.1515/iprg.2004.1.2.231
A more recent publication building on this one is chapter 5 (pp. 139-179) of:
Wong, Jock O. (2014). The culture of Singapore English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139519519
Every language variety embodies a set of culture-specific ways of thinking that can be articulated with maximal clarity and minimal ethnocentrism in the form of ‘cultural scripts’ using Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM). In this study, perceptions of ‘personal autonomy’ in Anglo culture and in Singapore culture are explored on the basis of linguistic evidence using NSM. These Anglo and Singaporean attitudes to personal autonomy are articulated in the form of cultural scripts, and are thus compared and contrasted. The proposed cultural scripts show that even though Anglo English speakers and Singapore English speakers can both be said to speak the same ‘language’, the cultural values reflected by the two varieties can be radically different from and even at odds with each other.
Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners
See also: (S) doing things willingly, (S) helpfulness, (S) independent thinking, (S) influencing other people’s way of thinking, (S) requests, (S) wanting someone to do something
Wong, Jock (2005). “Why you so Singlish one?” A semantic and cultural interpretation of the Singapore English particle one. Language in Society, 34, 239-275. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404505050104
A more recent publication building on this one is chapter 6 (pp. 180-229) of:
Wong, Jock O. (2014). The culture of Singapore English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139519519
The particle one of Singapore English is widely used in Singapore culture, but it is little mentioned and its invariant meaning has not been described, so that not much is known about its meaning and the cultural norms it reflects. This article provides a detailed semantic analysis of this particle, articulates its meaning in the form of a reductive paraphrase using Natural Semantic Metalanguage, and argues that its use reflects Singapore English speakers’ tendency to speak definitively and exaggeratedly. The discussion of Singaporean speech norms reflected by this particle includes reference to relevant Anglo English speech norms for comparison and contrast.
See also: (E) one (particle)
Wong, Jock (2005). Singapore English: A semantic and cultural interpretation. PhD thesis, Australian National University.
Wong, Jock (2006). Contextualizing aunty in Singaporean English. World Englishes, 25(3/4), 451-466. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2006.00481.x
A more recent publication building on this one is chapter 4 (pp. 94-138) of:
Wong, Jock O. (2014). The culture of Singapore English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139519519
Presumably, in any culture, people who are perceived to be different from some ‘mainstream’ majority are categorized in some way and assigned a label. Such ‘cultural’ categories can be complimentary or, usually, pejorative and are therefore good indicators of cultural attitudes and values. We can learn a lot about a culture through the semantic study of its cultural categories. In Singapore English, the social honorifics aunty and uncle are used by extension as cultural categories to refer, somewhat unflatteringly, to a distinct kind of people. Yet, ironically, the use of these terms also reflects deference for age and thus indicates the speakers’ mixed feelings towards the objects of their reference. In this paper, the meaning of the word aunty is described in the form of a reductive paraphrase using Natural Semantic Metalanguage. On the basis of meaning, the contrastive cultural attitudes reflected by the use of the word are explored.
Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners
See also: (E) aunty
Wong, Jock Onn (2006). Social hierarchy in the “speech culture” of Singapore. In: Cliff Goddard (Ed.), Ethnopragmatics: Understanding discourse in cultural context (pp. 99-125). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110911114.99
A more recent publication building on this one is chapter 3 (pp. 57-93) of:
Wong, Jock O. (2014). The Culture of Singapore English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139519519
The linguistic evidence of forms of address in Anglo English suggests that one of the prominent values of Anglo culture is that of egalitarianism. People from Anglo culture are inclined to view fellow interlocutors as social equals, rather than placing them at various levels on a social hierarchy. Many parents who consider themselves progressive encourage and accept being addressed by their children by means of their first names. This may be part of the general trend towards the suppression of asymmetric (non-reciprocal) relations which can be observed throughout the Western world.
The linguistic evidence in Singapore English, on the other hand, points to something quite different. The use of certain cultural key words suggests that in Singapore culture a person’s generational status in relation to oneself is culturally significant and determines the kind of interaction that would take place between two speakers. This means that when two Singapore English speakers of different generations interact, subject to other sociolinguistic factors such as social status, the younger interlocutor would be expected to exhibit deference for age through the use of appropriate forms of address and other linguistic devices. These two interlocutors would normally not interact on an equal footing.
This study examines three Singapore English cultural key words that reflect this emphasis on generational status with respect to self. They are the social honorific Aunty, the Singapore English-specific speech act verb call, and the child-oriented adjective guāi, roughly ‘well behaved’. The meaning of each of these words is stated in the form of a reductive paraphrase using Natural Semantic Metalanguage. On the basis of meaning, the cultural values reflected by the use of these words are discussed.
Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners
See also: (E) Aunty (vocative), (E) Aunty + personal name, (E) call, (E) guāi 乖, (S) interaction, (S) relationships
Wong, Jock (2008). Anglo English and Singapore English tags: Their meanings and cultural significance. Pragmatics & Cognition, 16(1), 88-117. DOI: 10.1075/p&c.16.1.06won
A more recent publication building on this one is chapter 6 (pp. 180-229) of:
Wong, Jock O. (2014). The culture of Singapore English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139519519
This study investigates a few Anglo English and Singapore English tags. The focus is on their meaning and the ways of thinking they reflect, rather than their forms and functions. The study contrasts the so-called Anglo English tag questions and the Singapore English tag is it? and tries to show that their semantic and pragmatic differences relate to differences in ways of thinking in the two cultures. For the purposes of this research, meaning is articulated in a paraphrase couched in Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM), which comprises a set of empirically established semantic primes and a universal grammar.
See also: (E) It is like this is it?, (E) It is like this isn't it?, (E) It is/isn't like this is it?, (S) alternative viewpoints, (S) disclaiming knowledge
Wong, Jock (2010). The “triple articulation” of language. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 2932-2944. DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.013.
In this paper, I argue that a language has three ‘‘faces’’ – form, meaning, and culture – and hence pragmemes are best analysed with respect to a cultural context. Using examples of culturally embedded pragmemes from Singapore English, I demonstrate how their use is intimately associated with culture-specific ways of thinking, which in many instances go against widely accepted paradigms like Grice’s maxims and Brown & Levinson’s politeness principles. My data suggest that Singapore English routinely blurs the distinction between opinion and fact and that opinions are often presented as if they are facts, which goes against the maxim of quality, which requires people not to say that for which they lack evidence. I additionally show how some of these culture-specific ways of thinking may be articulated in ways that reflect an insider perspective. Finally, I propose that we go one step further to talk about the ‘‘triple articulation’’ of language, which views language as a three-tiered entity, comprising form, meaning, and culture. This idea of what language is about goes beyond lexicon and grammar to include non-formal features like conversational routines, frequency of use of certain expressions, the avoidance of certain ways of speaking, pragmemes, etc., which can only be satisfactorily explained with reference to culture. A person who is supposed to have learned a language without understanding its culture has at best mastered its lexicon and grammar. They have not mastered the ‘‘essence’’ of the language.
Wong, Jock (2013). Child-raising values and practices: Looking from the inside. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 42(4), 361-375. DOI: 10.1080/17475759.2013.848224
This introduction to a special forum on the linguistic aspects of child-raising practices discusses the ethnocentric bias inherent in every natural language and proposes a way to minimize this bias. English is not culturally neutral. Words like ‘ love’ and ‘happy’ are not suitable for cross cultural description because they reflect an English-specific perspective. However, while most words in any language are language-specific, research suggests that a small number of words and various combinations of these words to form clauses are universal. These words, called semantic primes, and their universal combinations constitute a meta-language that is minimally ethnocentric.
Wong, Jock O. (2014). The culture of Singapore English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139519519
This book provides a fresh approach to Singapore English, by focusing on its cultural connotations. The author, a native Singaporean, explores a range of aspects of this rich variety of English – including address forms, cultural categories, particles, and interjections – and links particular words to particular cultural norms and values. By using the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) approach, which is free from technical terminology, he explains the relationship between meaning and culture with maximal clarity.
An added strength of this study lies in its use of authentic examples and pictures, which offer a fascinating glimpse of Singaporean life. Through comparisons with Anglo English, it also explores some difficulties associated with Standard English and cultural misunderstanding.
Table of contents
- English in Singapore
- The language of culture and the culture of language
- Singlish forms of address
- Cultural categories and stereotypes
- The discourse of can in Singlish
- Expressions of certainty and overstatements
- The tonal particles of Singlish
- The enigmatic particle lōr
- Interjections: aiya and aiyo
- Making sense of Singlish
Chapter 3 builds on: The reduplication of Chinese names in Singapore English (2003); Social hierarchy in the ‘speech culture’ of Singapore (2006)
Chapter 4 builds on: Contextualizing aunty in Singaporean English (2006)
Chapter 5 builds on: Cultural scripts, ways of speaking and perceptions of personal autonomy: Anglo English vs. Singapore English (2004)
Chapter 6 builds on: Why you so Singlish one? A semantic and cultural interpretation of the Singapore English particle one (2005); Reduplication of nominal modifiers in Singapore English: A semantic and cultural interpretation (2004); Anglo English and Singapore English tags: Their meanings and cultural significance (2008)
Chapter 7 builds on: The particles of Singapore English: A semantic and cultural interpretation (2004); To speak or not to speak? The ‘a’ particles of Singlish (2001)
Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners
Tags listed below are in addition to those listed at the end of the entries for the earlier work on which this book builds.
See also: (E) able, (E) Ah, (E) Ah Beng, (E) Ah Lian, (E) Aiya!, (E) Aiyo!, (E) can already, (E) Can you do this?, (E) can?, (E) lōr, (E) Oh-oh!, (E) oops, (E) Ow!, (E) permission, (E) possible, (E) right? (tag), (E) sarong party girl (SPG), (E) tai tai, (E) uncle, (E) wink, (E) X can Y cannot, (E) You do this, (S) Asking people to do things, (S) attitude towards someone older, (S) being easy to please, (S) feeling good and showing it, (S) good feelings in verbal interactions, (S) honorific deference, (S) marking what one thinks from what one knows, (S) names, (S) not sounding excessively negative, (S) offering suggestions, (S) offering to do something for someone, (S) parental obligation, (S) presenting certainties as uncertainties, (S) saying something good about something, (S) sounding positive, (S) use of an address form when interacting with older people, (S) use of the imperative
Wong, Jock (2016). The academic practice of citation. In Alessandro Capone, Ferenc Kiefer, & Franco Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 189-209). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-21395-8_10
It is proposed in this paper that citation is primarily about (i) the use of evidence and data to support one’s ideas, and (ii) the sharing of resources and building up of knowledge. It is further hypothesized that how a citation is worded can reflect its strength of claim. Learners of academic English, who need to learn how to use the citation style applicable to their discipline, should ideally also learn what the invariant meaning of citation is about and how to use it to express the strength of claim of what they want to say.
In the discussion of the meaning of citation, this paper showcases a methodology, NSM, which allows us to state meaning with maximal clarity and precision. The NSM methodology has been used extensively to explicate lexical, grammatical and pragmatic meanings. As this paper shows, it can in fact be used to describe anything that has meaning, even if the ‘expression’ cannot fall neatly into any of these linguistic categories.
See also: (E) academic citation, (E) use of surname in academic citation
Wong, Jock (2016). The pragmatics of kéyĭ (“can”) in Singapore Mandarin. In Alessandro Capone & Jacob L. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 857-876). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_33
This chapter deals with the pragmatics of kéyĭ, the non-Standard Singapore Mandarin equivalent of English can. It describes some of the speech acts it is associated with and represents some of the associated speech norms in the form of cultural scripts formulated in Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM). It is hoped that the cultural scripts will facilitate a better understanding of the cultural values underlying the use of this word.
The chapter also contrasts some of the speech norms described in it with their English counterparts to highlight their culture-specificity. It further examines examples from standard Mandarin to explain their cultural significance. It is shown that speech acts are often culture-specific, and speech acts specific to one language (in this case, English) cannot adequately describe speech acts specific to another (in this case, Singapore Mandarin). The proposed solution is NSM, which can clearly explain Singapore Mandarin speech acts associated with the word kéyĭ and, in doing so, clarify the language-specific use of the Singapore Mandarin semantic equivalent of the English can.
A number of authentic examples are studied. They suggest that the relationship between Singapore Mandarin speakers is often marked by social obligations (among other things). These obligations have to do with priority given to what one is able to do over what one wants to do. Speakers tend to de-emphasize what one (either the speaker or someone else) wants to do and, in doing so, go against some of Grice’s maxims and Brown and Levinson’s politeness principles. Singapore Mandarin culture, which has a strong presence in Singaporean society, may thus be considered “collectivist”, which means that personal autonomy is not a high-ranking value and may not be something that people, at least among the older generations, are generally familiar with.
It is also noted that some of the Singapore Mandarin ways of speaking associated with kéyĭ have found their way into Singapore English, used also by non-Mandarin speakers, including native English speakers who have lived in Singapore for a substantial period of time. This observation seems to suggest that the speech norms in question are a Singaporean feature rather than merely a feature of Singapore Mandarin.
Explications are proposed for Singapore Mandarin phrases that can be loosely translated as ‘sorrowful’ (lit. ‘can sorrow’; kébēi), ‘lovely’ (lit. ‘can love’; kéài), ‘pitiful’ (lit. ‘can pity’; kélián), ‘suspicious’ (lit. ‘can suspect’; kéyí).
Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners
See also: (E) kéài, (E) kebei, (E) kélián, (E) kéyí, (S) “suggestion” or “advice”, (S) doing something for someone, (S) evaluation, (S) getting someone to do something, (S) interpretation of “you can do this”, (S) making an “offer”
Wong, Jock (2016). A critical look at the description of speech acts. In Alessandro Capone, & Jacob L. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 825-855). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_32
For John Searle, philosophy of language was the attempt to come up with philosophically illuminating descriptions of some of the general features of language. It was to concern itself only incidentally with particular elements in a particular language. The problem is that understanding the general features of language requires a metalanguage that contains general features of language; a metalanguage that contains particular elements associated with particular languages (or, in other words, an ethnocentric metalanguage) does not fit the bill. Yet, this is precisely how the study of speech acts, which originally came under the ambit of language philosophy, is often conducted – with an ethnocentric metalanguage. It seems paradoxical that while scholars who study speech acts directly or indirectly engage in the pursuit of language universals, the metalanguage they use often effectively prevents them from reaching that goal.
This chapter argues that, if we want to fruitfully study speech acts in world languages, we should employ an analytical tool that is minimally ethnocentric, such as the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM). It helps us recognize speech acts from any language, even if there is no English word for them, and it allows us to understand them from the inside.
This chapter also argues that we should refrain from “comparing” speech acts by asking how people in various cultures perform the same speech act because this would necessitate the use of a language-specific speech act verb (e.g., request, apologize). A more fruitful way might be to formulate a generic situation using NSM and ask how people in various cultures respond in/to that situation.
Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners
See also: (E) (assertives), (E) (commissives), (E) (declaratives), (E) (directives), (E) (expressives)
Wong, Jock (2017). The ‘emes’ of linguistics. In Keith Allan, Alessandro Capone, & Istvan Kecskes (Eds.), Pragmemes and theories of language use (pp. 567-583). Berlin: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_29.
The three formal ‘emes’ of linguistics, phonemes, morphemes and lexemes, are among the things all first year linguistics students learn. However, while most linguistics students know what the formal emes are, the idea of a pragmeme, a concept conceived by preeminent scholar Jacob Mey, may be less familiar. A pragmeme has been defined as ‘a situated speech act’ by Alessandro Capone. One may ask whether it is a pragmatic analogue to the formal memes and how helpful the concept is for our understanding of pragmatics. This paper explores the notion of a pragmeme. It argues that it is indeed a helpful notion for analytical and pedagogic purposes, provided it is expressed in irreducible semantic elements and given a cultural interpretation.
See also: (E) greet, (E) request
Wong, Jock (2017). The culture of language. In Keith Allan, Alessandro Capone, & Istvan Kecskes (Eds.), Pragmemes and theories of language use (pp. 537-566). Berlin: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_28.
This paper examines several English forms and their interconnectedness in a cultural context. It describes the cultural values or ways of thinking they embody in the form of cultural scripts. The focus is on words, phrases and grammatical forms (especially the pragmeme usually but inaccurately referred to as a ‘request’) that express the Anglo respect for personal autonomy. It is argued that these English forms should not be taught separately to English learners, as is the norm, but collectively as a set of forms that express a certain value. Language users are cultural beings and the understanding of the culture underlying a language and the cultural interconnectedness of forms is crucial to anyone learning the language, especially the English language, given that it is the lingua franca of the world. The relationship between language and culture cannot be over-emphasized.
See also: (E) lĭmào, (E) please, (E) rude, (E) thank you, (S) ‘asking’ people to do something, (S) a “suggestive” approach to influencing others, (S) An Anglo attitude linked to the interrogative-directive pragmeme, (S) autonomy, (S) avoiding pressuring the addressee, (S) certainty, (S) coach a child to do good things in a self-deterministic manner, (S) do not impose, (S) doing things for people, (S) egalitarianism, (S) free will, (S) how to say ‘no’ to an interrogative-directive, (S) illocutionary effect of the use of the imperative, (S) not taking people for granted, (S) personal autonomy, (S) routine use of the imperative, (S) rudeness, (S) uncertainty, (S) understanding “helpful suggestions”, (S) use of the hypothetical question form in the interrogative-directive pragmeme, (S) use of the interrogative-directive, (s) using language to express the value of egalitarianism, (S) what one wants
Wilkins, David P. (1981). Towards a theory of semantic change. BA(Hons) thesis, Australian National University.
Wilkins, David P. (1986). Particles/clitics for criticism and complaint in Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda). Journal of Pragmatics, 10(5), 575-596. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(86)90015-9
This paper examines a set of five particle/clitics which are used for criticizing and complaining in Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda) – a Central Australian Aboriginal language. It describes how the illocutionary force of criticism and/or complaint achieved by each particle/clitic is a function of their meaning, culture-specific pragmatics, and both the linguistic and extra-linguistic contexts of use. The value of natural language definition is demonstrated through practical application. It is also argued that conversational implicatures may be conventional and, further, that such conventional implicatures can be semantically explicated. The meaning of the implicature is generated as part of an utterance by regular pragmatic rules.
Research carried out in consultation with or under the supervision of one or more experienced NSM practitioners
See also: (E) iknge, (E) itanye, (E) kathene, (E) kwele, (E) me (clitic)
Wilkins, David P. (1989). Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): Studies in the structure and semantics of grammar. PhD thesis, Australian National University. PDF (open access)
This thesis is essentially a description of the grammar of Mparntwe Arrernte, the traditional language of Alice Springs, in Central Australia. The main aims of the thesis are two-fold: (i) to provide a comprehensive descriptive overview of the language and (ii) to give some indication of how the language conveys, reflects and responds to the socio-cultural concerns of its speakers. To fulfil these aims, chapters surveying broad areas of the grammar are interleaved with chapters that survey particular grammatical and semantic phenomena in detail. A major concern of the thesis is to describe the semantic, as well as the structural, details of the grammar. Where possible, natural language definitions are provided for grammatical elements and structures.
Wilkins, David P. (1992). Interjections as deictics. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(2/3), 119-158. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90049-H
Reissued in an abridged format as:
Wilkins, David P. (1995). Expanding the traditional category of deictic elements: Interjections as deictics. In Judith F. Duchan, Gail A. Bruder, & Lynne E. Hewitt (Eds.), Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective (pp. 359-386). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
The paper examines some of the semantic and pragmatic consequences of a form being both a lexeme (i.e. a simple sign) and a conventional utterance. The approach presented here has far-reaching consequences for the manner in which interjections are identified, analyzed, and subclassified. In particular it it suggested that interjections have all the features attributed to utterances, including the facts that they convey complete propositions and have an illocutionary purpose. Given that interjections are context-bound, it is possible to observe that the referential arguments in the propositions conveyed by interjections are provided by context. As lexemes, interjections have ‘real’ semantic (i.e. propositional/conceptual) content, and within the decomposition of all interjections are basic deictic elements. These ‘primitive’ deictic elements are not tied referentially to any entities until they are placed in context. In this sense both a pragmatic and a semantic approach are required to account for interjections. Interjections are, therefore, shifters (indexicals) by virtue of being built semantically out of basic deictic elements and so should be considered a reasonable topic within the study of deixis.
Definitions, using the Natural Semantic Metalanguage approach to lexical decomposition, are proposed for a varied range of interjections from English, Mparntwe Arrernte (Central Australia), American Sign Language, and Italian.
Research carried out in consultation with or under the supervision of one or more experienced NSM practitioners
See also: (E) Cincin!, (E) me (interjection), (E) Ngke!, (E) Ow!, (E) To'!, (E) Wow!
Wilkins, David P. (1995). Expanding the traditional category of deictic elements: Interjections as deictics. In Judith F. Duchan, Gail A. Bruder, & Lynne E. Hewitt (Eds.), Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective (pp. 359-386). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
The bulk of this chapter is an abridged and re-edited version of an earlier paper (Wilkins, 1992). The primary purpose of that paper and, hence, this chapter is to argue that the traditional American linguistic view of deictic elements must be expanded to embrace interjections alongside the more standard members such as pronouns and demonstratives. To rescue interjections from the periphery of linguistic concerns requires a demonstration of two points: (a) that interjections share specific linguistic and communicative properties with more standard deictic elements, and (b) that it is possible to render a convincing account of the semantic structure and pragmatic usage of interjections. I attempt to expand this argument, and extend the demonstration of the two forementioned points by tying interjections in with the narrative and deictic center concerns that form the focus of the book in which the new version appears, but that were not explicitly covered in the original paper.
Research carried out in consultation with or under the supervision of one or more experienced NSM practitioners
See also: (E) Cincin!, (E) me (interjection), (E) Ngke!, (E) Ow!, (E) To'!, (E) Wow!
Wilkins, David P. (2000). Ants, ancestors and medicine: A semantic and pragmatic account of classifier constructions in Arrernte (Central Australia). In Gunter Senft (Ed.), Systems of nominal classification (pp. 147-216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This study employs a descriptive method “in the mould of Natural Semantic Metalanguage as advocated by Wierzbicka and her colleagues” (p. 163).
