Search

The problem of the absence of lexicalisation of the O-corner of the Aristotelian Square of Oppositions has challenged the field of pragmatics for many decades, and various explanations have been offered in an attempt to resolve it. The majority of the recent explanations have referred to the operation of Gricean or neo-Gricean scalar implicatures, though few have taken into consideration the significance of reanalysis of adjacent constituents. The present study looks at the interaction between negation and quantifiers in Singapore English, in which the tendency is for (universal) quantifier scope to hold precedence over negative scope, even when the quantifier follows the negation in the clause. A brief spontaneous survey of Singaporean speakers containing a passivization task and comparing a range of universal quantifiers reveals that the syntactic adjacency of the negation and the quantifier is the most likely factor affecting the presence or absence of O-corner lexicalisation in the Aristotelian Square. This is particularly relevant in the case of quantifiers of time, such as always . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: 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. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The Singapore English particles constitute one of the most distinctive features of this cultural dialect. These highly interactive particles play a major role in the integrity and cohesiveness of the Singapore English speech community and offer invaluable insights into Singapore culture. The semantic study of these particles could therefore pave the way for a better understanding of this culture. This study investigates the meanings of several of these particles—three particles la which come in different lexical tones (but are otherwise homophones), the particle wut (commonly spelt as what), and the particle meh—within the Natural Semantic Metalanguage framework. The meaning of each of these particles is stated in the form of a reductive paraphrase couched in simple and universal human concepts so that it can be readily understood by both insiders and cultural outsiders. This study shows that the Singapore English particles are loaded with interactional or pragmatic meanings. It also suggests that the high frequency of use of some particles, including wut and the particles la, is motivated by a cultural norm of interaction. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Colloquial Singapore English contains a number of pragmatic particles. This paper focuses on the particle lor. Previous analyses have suggested either that it marks a piece of information as being obvious, or that it indicates that an utterance has the pragmatic force of a ‘weak’ suggestion. In this paper, I show that examples of the latter are better analysed with lor as expressing a sense of resignation. I then show how, by adopting a grammaticalization-based approach, the resignation sense of lor can be related to its use as a marker of ‘obviousness’. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]