This article investigates the origins of the word-final high tone in Chinese speakers’ Colloquial Singaporean English (CSE). Uniquely among Chinese Englishes, high tone is not attracted to stress, but to word-final position, e.g., hiˈbiscus [LˈMH]. Since this tonal pattern has no convincing match in Singapore’s major Chinese varieties, the author proposes that its ultimate source is indigenous Malay speakers’ phrase-final intonational rise. New recordings provide evidence for transfer via the formerly widespread Malay-based pidgin known as Bazaar Malay, reinforced by the Baba Malay creole of earlier Chinese settlers as well as Indian English. This proposed path of transmission from indigenous Malay > Bazaar Malay > Chinese CSE begs two questions: why did transfer occur from a non-native language, and why did the final high boundary tone become more frequent with each transfer? The author discusses these issues in the light of findings from SLA, third language acquisition, and creole studies, which show that the emergence of this highly marked feature was in fact favoured by a number of known constraints on transfer. Thus CSE tone provides not only a test case for rigorous investigation within a highly multilingual context, but also appears to constitute the first documented case of L2 to L3 prosodic transfer.
Amran Halim (1974). Intonation in relation to syntax in Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Djambatan.
2.
AndersenR. W. (1983). The transfer to somewhere principle. In GassS.SelinkerL. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 177–201). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
3.
AndersenR. W. (1984). The one to one principle of interlanguage construction. Language Learning, 34, 77–95.
4.
AnsaldoU. (2004). The evolution of Singapore English: Finding the matrix. In LimL. (Ed.), Singapore English: A grammatical description (pp. 127–149). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
5.
AnsaldoU.LimL.MufweneS. S. (2007). The sociolinguistic history of the Peranakans: What it tells us about ‘creolization’. In AnsaldoU.MatthewsS.LimL. (Eds.), Deconstructing creole (pp. 203–226). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin.
6.
AveryP.EhrlichS.YorioC. (1985). Prosodic domains in foreigner talk discourse. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 5, 1–30.
7.
BaoZ. (1999). Tonal contour and register harmony in Chaozhou. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 485–493.
8.
BauerR. S.BenedictP. K. (1997). Modern Cantonese phonology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
9.
BayerJ. M. (1986). A sociolinguistic investigation of the English spoken by the Anglo-Indians in Mysore City. Hyderabad: CIEFL.
10.
BloomD. (1986). The English language and Singapore: A critical survey. In KapurB. K. (Ed.), Singapore studies: Critical surveys of the humanities and social sciences (pp. 337–458). Singapore: Singapore University Press.
11.
BloomfieldL. (1933). Language. New York: Holt.
12.
BodmanN. C. (1955). Spoken Amoy Hokkien (Vol. 1). Kuala Lumpur: Government of the Federation of Malaya.
13.
CavallaroF.NgB. C. (2009). Between status and solidarity in Singapore. World Englishes, 28, 143–159.
14.
ChenM. Y. (2000). Tone Sandhi: Patterns across Chinese dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
CheungW. H. Y. (2008). Span of high tones in Hong Kong English. HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies, 12, 19–46.
16.
ChiaS. H. (1977). An investigation into language use among Secondary Four pupils in Singapore: Pilot project. In CreweW. (Ed.), The English language in Singapore (pp. 157–170). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
17.
De LacyP. (2002). The interaction of stress and tone in Optimality Theory. Phonology, 19, 1–32.
18.
De SouzaD. (1980). The politics of language: Language planning in Singapore. In AfendrasE. A.KuoE. C. Y. (Eds.), Language and society in Singapore (pp. 203–232). Singapore: Singapore University Press.
19.
DeterdingD. (1994). The intonation of Singapore English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 24, 61–72.
20.
DeterdingD. (2007). Singapore English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
21.
DevonishH. (2002). Talking rhythm, stressing tone: The role of prominence in Anglo-West-African Creole Languages. Kingston: Arawak Publications.
22.
FryD. B. (1958). Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech, 1, 205–213.
23.
GilD. (2001). Escaping Eurocentrism: Fieldwork as a process of unlearning. In NewmanP.RatliffM. (Eds.), Linguistic fieldwork (pp. 102–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
GilD. (2008). Intonation and thematic roles in Riau Indonesian. In LeeC.GordonM.BüringD. (Eds.), Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation (pp. 41–68). Dordrecht: Springer.
25.
GoodenS.DraytonK.-A.BeckmanM. (2009). Tone inventories and tune-text alignments: Prosodic variation in ‘hybrid’ prosodic systems. Studies in Language, 33, 354–394.
26.
GrosjeanF. (2011). An attempt to isolate, and then differentiate, transfer and interference. The International Journal of Bilingualism.
27.
GuptaA. F. (1994). The step-tongue: Children’s English in Singapore. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
28.
GuptaA. F. (1998). The situation of English in Singapore. In FoleyJ. A.. Englishes in new cultural contexts: Reflections from Singapore (pp. 41–72). Singapore: Oxford University Press.
29.
GutU. (2005). Nigerian English prosody. English World-wide, 26, 153–177.
30.
GuyG.HorvathB.VonwillerJ.DaisleyE.RogersI. (1986). An intonational change in progress in Australian English. Language in Society, 15, 23–51.
31.
HammarbergB. (2001). Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production and acquisition. In CenozJ.HufeisenB.JessnerU. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 21–41). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
32.
Hashim Musa (1981). Intonasi dalam Bahasa Melayu. In Bengkel Intonasi Bahasa Malaysia Bahagian Pembinaan Bahasa (pp. 18–21). Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
33.
HatchE. M. (1983). Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
34.
van HeuvenV. J.RoosmanL.van ZantenE. (2008). Betawi Malay word prosody. Lingua, 118, 1271–1287.
35.
HickeyR. (2007). Irish English: History and present-day forms. Cambridge, UK & New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
HolmJ. A. (1989). Pidgins and creoles (Volume II): A reference survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Hudson KamC. L.NewportE. L. (2005). Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and Development, 1, 151–195.
38.
JarvisS. (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning, 50, 245–309.
39.
KeaneE. (forthcoming). Tamil. In JunS.-A. (Ed.), Prosodic typology II: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40.
KellermanE. (1983). Now you see it, now you don’t. In GassS.SelinkerL. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 112–134). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
41.
KhanS. D. (2008). Intonational phonology and focus prosody of Bengali. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, UCLA.
42.
KuoE. C. Y. (1977). The status of English in Singapore: A sociolinguistic analysis. In CreweW. (Ed.), The English language in Singapore (pp. 10–33). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
43.
KuoE. C. Y. (1980). The sociolinguistic situation in Singapore: Unity in diversity. In AfendrasE. A.KuoE. C. Y. (Eds.), Language and society in Singapore (pp. 39–62). Singapore: Singapore University Press.
44.
LefebvreC. (1998). Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar: The case of Haitian creole. Cambridge, UK & New York: Cambridge University Press.
45.
LimL. (2000). Ethnic group differences aligned? Intonation patterns of Chinese, Indian and Malay Singaporean English. In BrownA.DeterdingD.LowE. L. (Eds.), The English language in Singapore: Research on pronunciation (pp. 10–21). Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics.
46.
LimL. (2008). Dynamic multilingual ecologies of Asian Englishes. Asian Englishes, 11, 52–55.
47.
LimL. (2011). Tone in Singlish: Substrate features from Sinitic and Malay. In LefebvreC. (Ed.), Substrate features in creole languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
48.
LimR. (2008). An Irish tour of Singapore. Singapore: Two Trees.
49.
LorentzO. (1997, January). Stress and prominence in Indonesian Malay. Presentation at the First Symposium on Malay and Indonesian Linguistics, Penang, Malaysia.
50.
LowE. L. (1998). Prosodic prominence in Singapore English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cambridge University.
51.
MatthewsS.YipV. (1994). Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge.
52.
MohananK. P. (1986). The theory of lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.
53.
MufweneS. S. (2008). Language evolution: Contact, competition and change. London & New York: Continuum.
54.
NaroA. J. (1978). A study on the origins of pidginization, Language, 54, 314–347.
NgE.-C. (2008, July). Malay meets Chinese meets English: Where does Colloquial Singaporean English word-level tone come from?Presentation at Interdisciplinary Approaches to Transfer, Crosslinguistic Influence and Contact-Induced Change Workshop, UWE, Bristol.
57.
NgE.-C. (2009). Non-plateaus, non-tonal heads: Tone assignment in Colloquial Singaporean English. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS), 45.
58.
NgE.-C. (2010). Reduction, frequency and morphology in Singaporean English prosody. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University. Rutgers Optimality Archive #1102.
59.
NgE.-C. (2011). Reconciling stress and tone in Singaporean English. In ZhangL. J.RubdyR.AlsagoffL. (Eds.), Asian Englishes: Changing perspectives in a globalised world. (pp.48–59). Singapore: Pearson Longman.
60.
KarimNik SafiahOnnFarid M.MusaHashim HajiMahmoodAbdul Hamid (1996). Tatabahasa Dewan, Edisi Baharu. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
61.
PakirA. (1991). The range and depth of English-knowing bilinguals in Singapore. World Englishes, 10, 167–179.
62.
PienemannM. (2005). An introduction to processability theory. In PienemannM. (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 1–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
63.
PitrelliJ. F.BeckmanM. E.HirschbergJ. (1994). Evaluation of prosodic transcription labeling reliability in the ToBI framework. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (Vol. 2, pp. 123–126). ICSLP.
64.
PlattJ. (1980). Multilingualism, polyglossia, and code selection in Singapore. In AfendrasE. A.KuoE. C. Y. (Eds.), Language and society in Singapore (pp. 63–83). Singapore: Singapore University Press.
65.
SawS.-H. (2007). The population of Singapore (2nd ed.). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
66.
SchwartzB. D.SprouseR. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.
67.
SelkirkE. O. (1995). The prosodic structure of function words. In BeckmanJ.DickeyL. W.UrbanczykS. (Eds.), University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory (pp. 439–469). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
68.
SeurenP. A. M.WekkerH. (1986). Semantic transparency as a factor in creole genesis. In MuyskenP.SmithN. (Eds.), Substrata versus universals in creole genesis (pp. 57–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
69.
SiegelJ. (2008). The emergence of pidgin and creole languages. New York: Oxford University Press.
70.
Singapore Department of Statistics. (2006). General Household Survey 2005, Statistical release 1: Socio-demographic and economic characteristics. Retrieved August 25, 2009, from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/ghsr1.html
71.
SinglerJ. V. (1988). The homogeneity of the substrate as a factor in pidgin/creole genesis. Language, 64, 27–51.
72.
SirajP. (2008, September). Stress-dependent word tone in Singaporean English. Poster presentation at TIE 3, Lisbon.
73.
SundaraM.PolkaL.BaumS. (2006). Production of coronal stops by simultaneous bilingual adults. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 97–114.
74.
TanY. Y. (1999). Intonation patterns of the Chinese, Malay and Indian varieties of Singapore English: A substratist analysis. Academic Exercise, National University of Singapore.
75.
TayM. W. J.GuptaA. F. (1983). Towards a description of Standard Singapore English. In NossR. B. (Ed.), Varieties of English in Southeast Asia (pp. 173–189). Singapore: RELC.
76.
ThomasonS. G.KaufmanT. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, Los Angeles, & Oxford: University of California Press.
77.
TongueR. K. (1974). The English of Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
78.
ValentineE. (1978). Some non-segmental features of Anglo-Indian English. In ManuelM.PanikerK. A. (Eds.), English and India: Essays presented to Professor Samuel Mathai on his seventieth birthday (pp. 190–212). Madras: Macmillan.
79.
WaltersJ. R. (2003). On the intonation of a South Wales ‘Valleys accent’ of English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 33, 211–238.
80.
WangQ. (2008). Perception of English stress by Mandarin Chinese learners of English: An acoustic study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria.
81.
WeeK. S. G. (2000). Intonation of the Babas: An auditory and instrumental study. Academic Exercise, National University of Singapore.
82.
WeeL.-H. (2008). More or less English: Two phonological patterns in the Englishes of Singapore and Hong Kong. World Englishes, 27, 480–501.
83.
WiltshireC. R.HarnsbergerJ. D. (2006). The influence of Gujarati and Tamil L1s on Indian English: A preliminary study. World Englishes, 25, 91–104.
84.
WolffJ. U.OetomoD.FietkiewiczD. (1992). Beginning Indonesian through self-instruction (2nd ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Southeast Asia Program Publications.
85.
YeowK. L. (1987). Stress, rhythm and intonation in educated Singapore English: An auditory and instrumental study. Unpublished MA thesis, National University of Singapore.
86.
YipM. (2002). Necessary but not sufficient: Perceptual influences in loanword phonology. In KubozonoH. (Ed.), Special issue on aspects of loanword phonology [Special issue]. The Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan, 6, 4–21.
87.
ZhangY.NissenS. L.FrancisA. L. (2008). Acoustic characteristics of English lexical stress produced by native Mandarin speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123, 4498–4513.
88.
ZuraidahMohd. Don (1996). Prosody in Malay discourse: An analysis of broadcast interviews. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Malaya.
