Ho and Platt (1993:1) argue that Singaporean English is a particularly interesting
indigenized, or nativized, speech variety because it is so widely used and fills so many
functions. I can confirm Ho and Platt’s statement, since I was in Singapore in 2004. It was not
difficult to notice Singapore English as a speech variety. This sparked my interest in
participating in the proseminar ‘English in Singapore’ and consequently in researching into a
certain grammatical phenomenon in Singapore English, namely the passive voice.
In this term paper, a short analysis of the two passive structures specific to Colloquial
Singapore English (the so-called kena passive and the give passive) will be presented. Further
on, we the get passive will be examined. We will show that give- and kena-constructions are
derived from the languages of Chinese and Malay, respectively. The bigger part of this paper
will be to examine the overall frequencies thereof. Which of the two passive constructions
will be closer in structure to the standard form? A personal analysis will help us to answer this
question, always with the hidden desire to finally come up with a reasonable conclusion
towards the end of the paper. We will probably have a winner of the competing substrate form
and we will hopefully find out which passive construction is the most productive one in
Singapore English.
Moreover, we want to compare the frequency of the kena-passive with the getpassive’s
frequency in a corpus-based analysis. Admittedly, the corpus-based study will be
relatively restrictive and not quite large in size. In addition, the give-passive will be ignored
due to its rarity.
Further on, we want to compare passive voice in Singapore with the passive in
Standard English. To manage this, after having presented the development of Singapore, its
multilingualism and English as its most common language, we will define some basic terms,
which will be used in this term paper. After that, we will explain the corpus and the
methodology used. In the end, we will sum up the findings and we will discuss my own study.
Perhaps, there are possibilities how to do it better next time or there are other things that could
be done.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Passive Structures in Singapore English and its Frequencies
2.1 Singapore
2.2 A Short Overview of Passive Constructions used in Singapore
2.3 The Kena Passive
2.3.1 Malaysia and the Use of Kena
2.4 The Give Passive
2.4.1 Mandarin and the Use of Passive Voice
2.5 The Get Passive
2.6 The International Corpus of English – The Singapore Corpus
3. Conclusion
4. Bibliography
Objectives and Research Themes
This research paper aims to examine and analyze specific passive structures found in Colloquial Singapore English, specifically focusing on the kena, give, and get passive constructions. The primary objective is to investigate the usage, productivity, and frequency of these structures, and to determine how they relate to substrate languages like Malay and Chinese, as well as their proximity to Standard English forms through a corpus-based study.
- The linguistic characteristics of Colloquial Singapore English (Singlish).
- A comparative analysis of kena, give, and get passive constructions.
- The influence of substrate languages (Malay and Chinese) on Singaporean grammar.
- Corpus-based frequency analysis using the ICE-Singapore Corpus.
- Evaluation of productivity and adversity connotations in passive markers.
Excerpt from the Book
2.3 The Kena Passive
As already mentioned, we can find the kena passive in Singapore English. This variety uses kena as an auxiliary to mark the passive voice (Lim, 2004:138). It should be mentioned that it is not easy to find much information about give and kena passive constructions in that language. There are some sources regarding the kena passive but far less material where the give passive is analysed.
To illustrate the kena passive, we use a study that has been carried out by Bao and Wee. They found that the agentive by-phrase could be omitted. The phrase “The durian kena eaten by him already” would be a good example for this purpose. It is grammatically correct to cut out “by him” and to shorten it into “The durian kena eaten already”. Another property of the kena passive is the fact that the lexical verb does not necessarily have to appear in the past participial form. This means that Singaporeans produce sentences like “The durian kena eat by him already”. The verb appears in its base form, even though strong verbs keep their irregular inflection in the majority of cases.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction outlines the research interest in indigenized speech varieties and defines the goal of analyzing kena, give, and get passive structures in Colloquial Singapore English.
2. Passive Structures in Singapore English and its Frequencies: This chapter provides a socio-linguistic context for Singapore, followed by a detailed grammatical examination of different passive constructions and a quantitative corpus-based study of their usage.
3. Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the findings of the corpus study, highlighting the relative productivity of these structures and noting that the frequency of these passive forms is quite low.
4. Bibliography: This section lists all academic sources, linguistic studies, and web resources cited throughout the paper.
Keywords
Singapore English, Singlish, Passive Voice, Kena Passive, Give Passive, Get Passive, Corpus Linguistics, ICE-Singapore Corpus, Malay Substrate, Chinese Substrate, Grammar, Linguistic Variation, Adversity, Language Contact, Sociolinguistics
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on analyzing passive structures within Colloquial Singapore English, specifically examining the unique usage of kena, give, and get passive markers.
What are the primary linguistic topics addressed?
The study addresses grammatical indigenization, the role of substrate languages like Malay and Chinese, passive construction productivity, and the semantic role of adversity in specific passive forms.
What is the primary research goal?
The main goal is to determine the frequencies and structural productivity of the kena, give, and get passives compared to Standard English forms using a corpus-based approach.
Which methodology is employed for this analysis?
The author uses a corpus-based methodology, specifically utilizing the ICE-Singapore Corpus, to count occurrences and evaluate the usage of these passive structures across different text types.
What content is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body covers a socio-linguistic introduction to Singapore, detailed definitions and syntactic properties of the three passive types, and a quantitative analysis based on empirical data from the Singapore Corpus.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Singapore English, Singlish, Passive Voice, Kena Passive, Give Passive, Get Passive, and Corpus Linguistics.
What is the semantic significance of the kena passive?
The kena passive typically carries an implication of adversity or a negative connotation affecting the subject, which is rooted in its Malay origin.
Why was the give-passive excluded from the corpus analysis?
The author noted that the give-passive was excluded from the corpus-based study due to its extreme rarity in the data analyzed.
What conclusion does the author draw about passive usage?
The author concludes that the occurrence of these specialized passive structures is remarkably low and that the structures more similar to Standard English tend to be more frequent.
- Quote paper
- Dominik Lorenz (Author), 2006, Passive Structures in Singapore English, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/73033
