Our very own Education Minister made the remark that MOE is going to employ native English speakers in an attempt to teach Singaporeans perfect English.
While that sounds to be a good idea, I am apprehensive of
- How perfect the English of what is so-called native English Speakers can be.
- Define what you mean by native English speakers.
For point number 1, perhaps it is important to point out that the evolution of language from what was known as English to a more colloquial form, known as a creole (in the case of Singapore: Singlish) is NOT unique to Singapore. Even in what are so-called Native English speaking countries, there is their own unique form of creole. To illustrate, let us assume that England is the perfect example of native English speaking country. Examine the simple word – weed. Most of us will be able to point out that the term weed is used to describe an unwanted plant growing in the midst of a harvested crop. However, in colloquial usage in England, the word weed also means marijuana. Does that mean that for those who do not know that weed also mean marijuana are poorly informed as the alternative meaning of weed should is also perfect English? After all, the term comes from a Native English speaking country, so, weed to mean marijuana must be correct and perfect English? I beg to disagree if that is what you think. If Native English speaking countries sets the standards for what is so-called perfect English, it means that Native English speakers cannot be wrong as they speak only perfect English. Whatever comes out of their mouth is perfect English. That assumption, obviously, is invalid. Obviously no matter how native a speaker of English may be, he is still capable of making a statement that is not perfect English.
What exactly is a native English Speaker? Do they belong to a special breed of human beings from America or England? Perhaps. So, Americans and Bristish should understand each other perfectly since they both speak perfect English. If you think this is the case let me offer a counter example. If one from England made the following remark, “Sir, please queue up.” in USA, most Americans will not understand what the one from England means. The remark, “sir, please queue up” consists of four words, grammatically correct. It contains a noun – “sir”, contains a verb – “queue up” and it satisfies what is so called perfect English in a grammatically sound, perfect sentence. So, why is the American unable to understand what the British means? To me, queue up and line up are both as easy to understand. In any sense, queue up is neither a more obscure version nor a more difficult version of English to me. It is because in USA, they don’t use “queue up”, rather, they use “line up”. Which is correct? Do I hear you people saying both are correct? If the remark is both are correct, then can I ask who sets the standards for what is so called perfect Language of English? Is there a double standard here? If both are correct, should we as Singaporeans learn both perfect English since we are… ermz… more… kiasu?
In other words, my position is we do NOT need native speakers from native countries to teach us perfect English. If we think native speakers teaches native perfect English, allow me to say that we are native naive.
# posted by dreamy_panda @ 2:56 AM
