Letter to the Editor of Sunday Observer: Racism and editorial incompetence
This letter was published in the Sunday Observer of 4 July 2010. In it Michael Meyler responds to Malinda Seneviratne’s recent articles in the Sunday Observer and the Lakbima.
Dear Sir,
I am writing in response to Malinda Seneviratne’s article “Language standards: whose version of our reality should we inhabit?” (Sunday Observer, 20 June 2010).
My own article, “A Snooty English Speaker’s reply”, was published on www.groundviews.org in response to Malinda Seneviratne’s article “Sri Lankan English: another snooty English speakers’ project?” (Sunday Oberver, 23 May 2010). My article subsequently appeared in the Sunday Observer of 6 June 2010. It was published without my consent, with a different heading, with numerous typographical errors, and with a key half-sentence missing in the final paragraph. Most importantly, it was published without acknowledging Groundviews as the source. I wonder how such an editorial oversight could have happened?
Aspects of Malinda Seneviratne’s subsequent replies, “Let’s dissect the ‘our’ of English ‘Our’ Way” (Lakbima, 13 June 2010) and “Language standards: whose version of our reality should we inhabit?” (Sunday Observer, 20 June 2010) are little more than a racist rant and an unwarranted personal attack on me. I believe in free speech, but I question the editorial wisdom of employing columnists to write this type of material in the name of informed opinion. By twisting the argument in this way Malinda is filling column inches while obscuring the fact that he has little coherent to say on the subject. Everybody knows what the three asterisks in “f***” stand for: this is abusive language which has no place in a respectable newspaper. Is there no editorial control over what he is allowed to write?
The only thing that Malinda has made abundantly clear is that he has absolutely nothing constructive to contribute to the Sri Lankan English debate. He implies that there is something mysterious about me and my “crusade” (his word). If he had read the introduction to my book or the profile on my website, he would know quite enough about who I am (and if he hasn’t, on what basis is he making such rash assumptions about my agenda?). For the record, I am neither an academic nor a consultant; no one invited me to write about Sri Lankan English, and no one is paying me to do so. I work for the British Council as an hourly-paid language teacher, but the time I spend on Sri Lankan English is entirely my own. My book was self-funded and self-published; proceeds from book sales are all I have to gain.
I am not aware that Malinda has any reason to hold a personal grudge against me. We have met briefly on one or two occasions. I do not recall treading on his toe or insulting his mother. So I can only conclude that the motive for his stance is pure racism. What right does a suddha have to come to our country and tell us how to speak English? There are of course Sri Lankans all over the world holding responsible positions and writing with authority on many subjects. In the same way, I do not see why anyone should question my right to write about a subject which I have researched for over 20 years, and on which I have published a book that has been endorsed by several respected members of the English language teaching field in Sri Lanka. Without such endorsement, I would never have published my book, and I would not be writing this. On what grounds Malinda considers himself better qualified to expound on this subject is not clear.
Malinda writes that “concerns have been raised on this subject in several newspapers”. True: Malinda Seneviratne has written about it in the Sunday Observer, Malinda Seneviratne has written about it in The Nation, and Malinda Seneviratne has written about it in the Lakbima. Dilshan Boange has also written about it in the Observer, but he’s the one who observed that “Shakespearean grammar would befuddle us today, but the words are pronounced the same,” so we may safely assume that he has little specialist knowledge of the subject.
Malinda writes “Meyler is enjoying our hospitality”. Let’s dissect the “our” in “our hospitality”. The Seneviratne’s never invited me round for tea. But I have enjoyed a great deal of Sri Lankan hospitality, and I am pleased to say that in 25 years I have never once encountered bigotry and racism of the sort purveyed by Malinda Seneviratne.
No doubt Malinda will find plenty of ammunition in this letter for a couple more columns. I hope you will exercise your editorial authority over the content of whatever he chooses to submit. Personally I shall continue to write about Sri Lankan English on the Groundviews website, but I hereby request you not to publish any more of my articles in the Sunday Observer.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Meyler
38 Comments
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Content Updates
iPhone app
You go ting ting a little bit, maybe den you will get answer. (Go and think over it for a while, and then you might understand.)
Singlish the Singaporean varient!
Oops, the suggestion was to Malinda!
“My article subsequently appeared in the Sunday Observer of 6 June 2010. It was published without my consent, with a different heading, with numerous typographical errors, and with a key half-sentence missing in the final paragraph. Most importantly, it was published without acknowledging Groundviews as the source. I wonder how such an editorial oversight could have happened?”
Well DUH- the Sunday Observer is a state-run newspaper and therefore it is entirely legal for it to appropriate your work without your permission or Groundviews. Intellectual Property Rights is yet another “suddha” form of oppression against us. Just ask Malinda!
Although the Sunday Observer and Daily News are partly state-owned, at least until the mid-nineties it had editors who were veterans like Manik De Silva, H.L.D.Mahindapala, the late Leslie Dahanayake among many other earlier journalists. They were in a predicament being forced to toe the government line, and I think Manik was the best journalist with integrity who worked under pressure from the governments but still maintained excellent media ethics. I believe he was at Lake House since 1964.
Then I remember Pramod De Silva, a lad in his twenties for whom English was not his forte but following President Premadasa around and writing the press releases verbatim was made editor of the Daily News. They also made another joker Dinesh Weerawansa, again he was a junior sports correspondent who was not comfortable speaking in English never mind writing it.
Given this scenario you are not just reading government propaganda but shoddy journalism to boot.
Malinda’s writings ooze sycophancy. Enough said.
Dear Michael, nobody takes them seriously anymore.
Prompted by this post, I read Malinda Seneviratne’s Sunday Observer article and thought it was a bit OTT in its presentation (“White Man’s Burden” type comment not at all necessary).
But I do have a lot of sympathy with MS’s point. We should never accept culture (or origin) driven low standards under pretext of “this is our way, look they have even been collected in a dictionary,”. The example of the two Columbia applicants is a pretty accurate illustration of reality.
I want to speak English like Sir Trevor McDonald… and am still working on it:-)
Ou là là !!!
This is one twisted debate. I don’t know either MS or MM personally. I have been reading stuff by MS, and I definitely have a truckload of problems with many of his views. Be that as it may, & concerning MM (the writer of this article), I have communicated with him a couple of times via email a couple of years ago, during my brief tenure at the Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales (INALCO) in Paris as a Chargé de Cours for Sinhala. The impression I got from MM was that he is indeed a dedicated teacher, and someone who knows what he’s on about.
Reading the article above, I took a wee minute to go through the stuff MS had written, and it is clear enough that MS has not been respecting basic etiquette of serious journalism such as being diplomatic and objective. Whether MM is Sri Lankan or English or Welsh or Spanish or God knows what is of no importance here. What matters is what he has to say in terms of SL English. I do agree that MM has been ethnically & racially catalogued, and this is no good….in my own work I have been through roughly similar experiences in FR and UK and I know how bad one feels when this type of thing happens.
Instead of treading the path of personal attacks. MS could maybe adopt a more objective stance in his writing. If not, discerning readers (except the darlings of the Sinhala nationalist far right) are very likely to progressively ignore his writing.
Brilliant reply, Michael. Thank you for stating your position so clearly. You have codified and recorded English the way we speak it. I grew up in a home where English and Sinhala were both spoken and consider myself a co-ordinate bilingual. I dont know which is my first language, but I consider both Sinhala and English my first languages. I am of Sinhalese ethnicity, but consider myself Sri Lankan. As a first language speaker of Sri Lankan English, (NOT British English) my language is understood and accepted wherever I go. My professors in the UK where I completed my PhD always commented on the fact that my English was excellent and comprehensible but that it was a different variety, and acknowledged that a Sri Lankan English existed, and that I was one of its speakers.
I use your dictionary with my students and sometimes when I want to clarify something. Thank you for writing it, and thank you for CARING enough about MY language, Sri Lankan English, to not only write a dictionary about it, but to brave the racist remarks by Malinda Seneviratne. For your information, Everyone knows that he is racist, so dont worry too much.
There was at time when I used to read MS’s articles. But now I do not. I find that his articles are boring, shallow, rehashed and now with his attacks on MM racist. In this political climate MS might be the darling of the powers that be – and it is a good indication of where our country is headed. It worries me that the vision of Sri Lanka that MS wants his children to inherit would be an intrinsically racist, Sinhala chauvinist, dictatorial country where if one doesn’t toe the line, then you are in trouble. MS might want to consider that if he perpetuates such attacks and low levels of journalism, he will only set the stage for a worse country for his own children to live in.
I recently happened to inadvertently tune into a tv interview of Malinda Seneviratne by another Sri Lankan moderator whose name I forget. One thing struck me immediately. MS may have a mastery of words as far as written English is concerned but Im sorry to say that his spoken english is of kennel-show grade. By comparison,the interviewer spoke lucid and cultured English in a local accent which was a pleasure to listen to. Current day Swabasha educated Lankans will surely yearn for and envy this sort of delivery but are doomed to failure because ( becos) of their pro-nationalist, anti-western and mostly racial bias. Who do you blame when they tighten the noose around their necks,themselves? Just see the spate of recent articles on the issue. A majority of them upholding the Puran Appu type of nationalism in discarding anything western and non-Sinhala. If English is such an isuue (or rather, speaking it the English way) then why bother speaking it at all? Surely, there is no compulsion for them to do so.Im really perplexed. Go ahead, bastardize the language but dont throw pie on the faces of those who wish to maintain standards. Standards not only limited to language, but in general to the broader ethics and morality in life. It is only then can we Sri Lankans collectively rise above petty class and ethnic divisions which are so cancerous to our multi-racial society. I really feel sorry fpr MS at times. He seems to be a good guy and I tend to like him. But unfortunately it appears that his roots leave him shackled to puerile class ideologies above which he finds it an effort to rise. This often gives rise to something more dangerous ….. sinhala nationalism. As Pearl said, forget MS because he oozes sycophancy. Id like to add ‘sinhala nationalism’ to that unsavoury drip. Good luck all YE Lankans, young and OLDE (Pun intended). English)
MM, don’t bother with the views of MS. Racism is a disease that resides in human beings with inferiority complexes. There is little you can do to change MS’ bigoted opinions. The rest of us Sri Lankans don’t have any identity crisis and are proud to be speakers of Sri Lankan English while at the same time writing good standard English. Your dictionary and promotion of Lankan English is the result of a lifetime’s passion and is a commendable effort.
MS has no right to challenge your credentials either as a professional English teacher or as non-Sri Lankan. With 20 years of residence in this country you definitely deserve Sri Lankan citizenship more than he does, although he might have been born here. One is a brahmin by deeds not by birth.
Racists are also hypocrites. They wouldn’t send their kids to a state Sinhala Buddhist school, for example. Oh no. And they would trash everything “foreign” including Englishmen who write dictionaries, but they themselves would ensure that their own qualifications are from the Anglo-American world.
Travelling Academic,
Re:
“But I do have a lot of sympathy with MS’s point. We should never accept culture (or origin) driven low standards under pretext of “this is our way, look they have even been collected in a dictionary,”. The example of the two Columbia applicants is a pretty accurate illustration of reality.”
MS’ argument is based on a complete misunderstanding of MM’s project. MM is promoting the need to recognize Sri Lankan Standard English whereas MS attacks him for promoting Sri Lankan pidgin and creole English (which imports vernacular grammar and syntax into English, and is the English spoken by those who don’t have much formal education in English). The difference between the two types is that Standard Sri Lankan English, because it is minimally different from Queen’s English, can be comprehended by non-Sri Lankan users of English. Few outside Sri Lanka will grasp Sri Lankan creole English.
MS asks “Are there any standard bearers for ‘Sri Lankan English’ who are neither Snooty English Speakers nor loath to speak or work ‘Sri Lankan English’ in non-Orientalist and snooty ways.” He asks it as a rhetorical question and assumes there are none.
Actually there are. I have yet to read a Sri Lankan novel in English that does not use Standard Sri Lankan English in its narration (as opposed to merely in dialogue). And certainly, they are non-Orientalist. Groundviews is full of examples of Standard Sri Lankan English used by those who obviously have a high standard of education in formal English. The English used by forummers such as Wijeyapala, SomewhatDisgusted, Heshan, Pearl Thevanayagam, Dr. Jayatilleke, and by Groundviews staff such as Sanjana and Dr. Saravanamuttu is unlike what you would find in American forums in terms of vocabulary, idiom and phrasing, yet it is perfectly comprehensible to international readers, and conforms to the highest standards. A Sri Lankan user of English who has learned the language formally in Sri Lanka to a high level cannot but help use Standard Sri Lankan English. No matter how hard he tries, he cannot purify his expression from influences and perspectives of his ethnic community. Even if he does not know his own vernacular language, he will have learned English from those who do know the vernacular language, and his usage of English will have been shaped by them.
On the other hand, MS thinks he is using Queen’s English (the Snooty English he speaks about) but it is garbled and incoherent. He doesn’t even seem to recognize that. There’s an object lesson here in trying to speak/write in British English when you have grown up elsewhere. MS is his own best example of why he is so terribly wrong to oppose Standard Sri Lankan English.
The example he gives of the two scholars is highly unrealistic. The superior learning and reasoning ability of the higher-scoring student would be very evident in his use of language whereas the lesser capabilities in reasoning of the lower-scoring student would be conveyed in his inevitable garbling of British English.
One could even say that there are probably different variants of Standard Sri Lankan English, all perfectly comprehensible. The generation that grew up in Sri Lanka under colonial education speak quite a different variety from younger speakers. I find the ‘voice’ of Tamil Sri Lankan writers here also different from the Sinhalese ‘voice’. The former tend to be hard-hitting in use of vocabulary and rhetoric, more earthy, whereas the latter tend to be more even-toned and use more abstract phrasing.
There is an excellent book – English Grammar and Exercises Books I to IV – by LRH Chapman published in the late sixties.
Book I first chapter is on ‘be’ – the verb and its usage, I remember.
There are exercises at the end of each chapter.
I taught english to my son at age 5, using this book, a half hour a day, three times a week. We finished Book I in a month, and proceeded to the other three. After Book II he wanted english books to read and I took him to the British Council library.
He learned to write english too, at the same time.
I would recommend this book to all interested, and also to all schools.
After reading Malinda Seneviratne’s article, I like to ask, why is he using the label Yak-English for Sri Lankan English? Isn’t this a denigration of the language we speak? Or is Seneviratne trying to say that he speaks British or American English? Doesn’t this make him superior to everyone else?
@wisheswerehorses:
You are absolutely right. Mr Seneviratne, which school do your children go to? Sinhala Buddhist or Colombo 7 Christian with a long tradition of Anglo education????
Looks like Mr Seneviratne himself went to Divulgane MMV, Galgamuwa.
To everyone who has referred to me……thanks for all the love!
What’s wrong with going to Divulgane MMV, Galgamuwa?
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with going to Galgamuwa or any schools in the village which do not have enough trained and able teachers.
Those parents who send their children to better schools do not necessarily have more wealth; rather they choose better education over other things such as keeping the lands they possess so that their children would have enough dowry to land a bridegroom with enough wealth.
Everything is relative.
I know of many hardworking Tamils who skimped on the children’s education to save money to give to the bridegroom who to their utter disappointment waste the dowry on lavish spending, drinking and finally beating up their daughters.
A good education changes all these things. It leberates people and make them stand on their own two feet. Sadly, Sri Lankans are still hung up on caste and acquiring wealth over bradening their horizons.
There’s a huge world out there. Much much larger than Sri Lanka.
As I have mentioned in my comments on earlier articles in the debate, I personally think that Michael Meyler has done something good by compiling his book, and I appreciate the awful lot of work that must have gone into it. His comparisons of Sri Lankan expressions with British, and sometimes American, usage let the Sri Lankan reader understand the differences between them and their counterparts elsewhere.
MM has said in several instances – in the introduction to his book as well as in articles on Groundviews – that he has taken a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in deciding what to include in the book. And he has pointed out the necessity of identifying a Standard Sri Lankan English. However, Malinda Seneviratne seems to have missed this point. I think MS is of the opinion that MM is one of those people who seem to want anything and everything uttered here accepted as our standard. This is a sad misunderstanding.
Whats wrong with going to Divulgane MMV, Galgamuwa? Ask Malinda Seneviratne. He should know, because he has used it as a reference point in his example of the step-motherly treatment (imagined or otherwise) meted out to students from rural schools as opposed to those from the city, based on their proficiency of the English language. The morale, as Malinda may have realised by now: If you cant beat em, join em.
Dear Belle,
I am touched by your compliments. But I am no patch on Drs Dayan or Saravanamuttu.
I don’t even have a formal degree. Just fellowship and scholarships and experience in journalism.
Thanks anyway.
Why has so much venom been spewed against Malinda? Is everyone blind to the fact that he is only trying to point out that something disingeneous is being perpetrated on the lankans under the pretext of a project aimed at benefitting them? To put it politely, Michael Mayler really has no business trying to advocate a brand of english that is sub-standard for local usage, however convenient it may be for the users and however prestigious a project it may be for Meyler himself. The strength of a language and that of the people speaking it needs to be embellished and refined instead of being bastardized and degraded under flimsy pretexts. Who wants lankans to be identified with our own brand of singlish? Arent the West Indians ridiculed enough for their creole english or the (y)indians mocked at for their own brand of indian english and “a thousand apologies, sir” mentality? Come on everybody, we are a proud race and deserve better. Show the world your mettle. We have done well for ourselves so far as the language is concerned We dont need anyone codifying a brand of english specifically for us. Eventually, we will be left speaking it only among ourselves while being regarded as paraiahs by the western world for speaking non- standard queens language in a competitive, global world. This is the domination that Malinda was referring to and his example of the Columbia applicants speaking different dialects of the same language yet being treated differently is nothing but a reality. So be warned. You will get what you ask for. We dont need anyone coughing their own brand of english down our throats, however honest their intentions may be. We shall not fall into the trap of becoming anybody,s laughing stock. I hope we have more lankans of the calibre of Malinda Seneviratne who visualize matters far beyond their noses would permit them to see.
Im reminded of a famous boarding school joke during my college years.
It goes like this:
” The British taught us cricket and we beat them at it.
They taught us homosexuality and we beat them at it.”
Now, go for it guys….. show them that you can beat them at speaking their own language.
We dont need no Meylers to do that.
Oh, yeah, we may need a few more Malindas, by the way.
I agree with the comments above that Malinda has made some valid points, as I mentioned in a comment on an earlier article here. It’s misleading to tell the poor rural youth to learn only Sri Lankan English while the more affluent learn to master both that and internationally accepted English.
Whatever we think of our Sri Lankan English, there’s little chance that expressions like “I will go and come” and “Take the book and go” will ever be considered proper English by anybody, and those who know the standard equivalents of them will have a definite advantage – socially as well as professionally. That’s why even Sri Lankan writers of fiction restrict their usage of such terms to the dialogue of certain characters and opt for “proper” English for their narration. Anyway this doesn’t mean we have to speak just like the British upper class do or have impeccable RP in speech. But why shouldn’t we learn to use the language as good Sri Lankan speakers of it do, which would be acceptable anywhere in the world? Why can’t we take people like Dr. Dayan Jayathilleke as our role models?
However, blaming Michael Meyler for this movement behind “Sri Lankan English Only” is unfair. He has recognized the need for identifying Standard Sri Lankan English, and clearly mentioned that not everything included in his book would qualify for that status. As far as I know, those who propose “Sri Lankan English Only” are some Sri Lankans and Indians. The involvement of the Indians is understandable because they probably think they would then be able to sell us their Indian text books, claiming that Sri Lankan English is much closer to Indian English than British English – rather like they sold us their two-stroke three-wheelers until recently. I can also imagine seeing commercials like “Learn Sri Lankan English at Indian English Academy,” where Indian teachers would teach our kids to say “I am coming to school every day.” But it’s hard to imagine a slogan like “Learn Sri Lankan English at the British Council,” where Michael Meyler would proceed to teach “Sri Lankan English Only”.
Are you really crazy to debate about the “sudda’s language”? Whether you think you are a snooty speaker of English or not these Suddas will anyway talk about you nothing else, but “baboons from the third world” when you are in their countries! This is my own experience.
My public apology to Michael Meyler will appear (hopefully) in the Sunday Observer of July 11, 2010.
To those who hide behind pseudonyms and attack me personally on this forum, all i can say is that you clearly lack the courage of your convictions. If you are not the cowards you clearly are, then you would accord me the opportunity to do a background check so I can respond in the same manner. My daughters go to Ladies College. I send them there to get a decent education. It is a good school. It is the best I can afford. I am not sending them there to be converted or anything. A lot of people who make such ‘points’ are, i noticed very anti-Rajapaksa/UPFA. Well, that IS your President/Government. Why live here, then? That kind of black-white logic is dumb, I think. I am not against things that are good/useful, regardless of source. My politics is about doing my best to make sure everyone gets to enjoy whatever privileges that I might have, English included.
Those who call me names…I pity them because they really have no clue what they are talking about and I doubt they’ve read a fraction of what i’ve written over the past 17 years or, for that matter, have the intelligence to understand.
I thank those who have defended me. I don’t know anyone here, except Sanjana.
Good day to you all.
Belle,
You are right that there is a difference between what MM wants to standardize and what MS attacks. But if, as you say, the SL English that is being standardized by MM is only minimally different from that of Her Majesty, why would one bother? If, on the other hand, it is sufficiently different to be standardized/codified/documented/recommended to teachers, then my belief is we should try and learn from BBC R4 than hold onto “ours”. My sympathy with MS’s view comes from sentiments entrenched from childhood — those of hating the sight of Tamil characters on the corners of triangles in translated geometry texts — enforced Swabhasha education for local folks with the then PM’s kids sent to study in Cambridge and Paris! When I visit the uncle next door I am happy to use SL English slang/standard (“I will go and come, uncle”), but in front of a class I teach in the English medium I do my very best to aim at standards of BBC R4 (I may not achieve it, but I try).
On your point about being able to tell Tamil and Sinhalese authors in this forum apart from the way they write English — I am intrigued by the assertion, but remain sceptical.
Huh! Malinda seems to have got snooty now. More to the point, he is showing his sense of unbridled arrogance, which in his usual style of writing meanders towards a weak attempt at reductio-ad-absurdum. Unknown to himself, his argument itself invariably ends up being utterly absurd. He is sure hurt by the comments made here. Writers need to be man enough to expect such things if nothing else but as mere occupational harzards. Not so with him. So, beware the bite of a wounded cur! What logic is there in his linking independant comments made here with the political shades of its makers? Nothing! Nothing at all! This also seems to have brought out the vindictive side of the guy. Oh, if only he knew the ‘true identities” of his masquerading ‘attackers”, he would do a background check of them. Doesnt it smack of commie-style intrusion -more akin to our current day politico reprisals? I certainly expected a more cultured and refined response from him instead of resorting to using uncouth and irrelevant logic. One does not need intelligence to understand the writings of a nincompoop. He may have written for over 17 years or so like he claims. But that surely does not make him less of a nincompoop. Enough said. He now needs to be relegated to the backyards of our minds and conscience. Lest you get me wrong, I was a supporter of Malinda a few comments ago. Im now beginning to wonder. Humility is something that comes with good breeding and cannot be acquired by just attending ‘good’ schools. And this breeding is also reflective of the manner in which you respond to what you perceive as an ‘attack’, however unsavoury it may seem. I hope I got my point across clearly.
It looks like Michael and Malinda have got enough publicity for their books to sell more than before. Now readers and commentators would rush to the bookshps to find out why there is such a heated debate.
This kind of promotion is hugely popular in the UK as Michael would know. Best of luck to both of you.
Adverse publicity is better than no publicity at all.
Travelling Academic,
I think speaking BBC English in Sri Lanka is similar to wearing a suit in the tropics–it’s inappropriate, out of place. I am not sure these days that there is actually anything that is recognized as THE Standard English. In England itself there have been a lot of challenges to the notion that one dialect of English is superior to another. How sad it would be if we had to junk the new englishes of the ex-colonies cos we would have to also throw out the writings of some of the best writers in the world like Salman Rushdie, Chinua Achebe, Patrick White, Amitav Ghosh, J M Coetzee, Margaret Atwood, and Romesh Gunasekara as they don’t use this ‘pure’ form of stuffy English. Actually, they’ve lent new vitality to the language.
English dictionaries are constantly updated to reflect customary usage of new words and idioms and new meanings of older words. Language is a social form, and it is accepted that English usage changes with the times, even in its birthplace. This doesn’t mean that the language is becoming inferior. Dictionaries acknowledge shifts in language usage, but also set standards and dictate usage. It would be a shame if only the English are allowed to update the language but its far larger number of global users are kept out of the game.
I don’t know why there’s an assumption that SL English is inferior. It’s simply Sri Lankan–neither inferior nor superior to BBC English. There’s nothing ungrammatical in “We will go and come”. (The English too have a structurally similar expression, “come and go”.) If repeated often enough by large numbers of people, “go and come” will become standard usage.
Jaffna Tamil is different from Tamil spoken in India. How come we don’t insist that Jaffna Tamils stick to the standards of the parent language?
Perhaps it’s because everyone who speaks a language well feels that they have ownership of that language that there are such heated debates about Sri Lankan English and the English that is spoken in SL. Do you hear anyone who is NOT a good speaker of Sri Lankan English debating these points in this forum or in the English newspapers? So arent we all Snooty English speakers then, including MS?
Some people are obviously confused, like Reeza, who went from defending MS and criticising MM, to the exact opposite position. Reeza, have you looked through MM’s Dictionary? Read his introduction? If you have, you will see that he is not trying to tell us how to speak, or what type of English to speak. He is merely pointing out interesting things in the language we speak, in contrast to British English. I am grateful for this, because it reinforces to me even more strongly that the English I speak, as a Sri Lankan, is not British English, thank God. I am happy that someone has pointed this out to me because we can now truly say that we have a unique Sri Lankan identity, not only because of our language, but because of the English we speak. Why can’t we be content with this?
Of course there will be sub-standard varieties and dialects of Sri Lankan English, as there are of American English and British English. But this can;t be avoided. And let me tell all you paranoid people out there–one Britisher who wrote a Dictionary can’t create or destroy standards for us–it is we, the speakers, who do that. So all of you who want to uphold standards for Sri Lankan English, if you think you are good speakers and you have good standards, stop throwing brickbats at a book, and go out into our schools and do some volunteer English teaching, MS included. This will have a more productive and positive outcome on maintaining standards than vilifying each other in public forums, and showing the international community including Britain and America, that we are still confused about who we are and what we speak, 50+ years after Independence. Shame on us!
As I was composing my next edition of Sri Lankan English the debate has descended to casting aspersions on Malinda and Michael.
I am now putting this on hold until the passions subside.
I do have more funny and pithy Sri Lankan phrases which tickle me no end.
Currently Wimal Werawansa is holding forth and drawing attention to the media.
I’ll be back.
@Belle
You’re absolutely right in that we Sri Lankans don’t necessarily have to speak English as they do on BBC. In fact, the Oxford English dictionary – that foremost authority on British English – admitted some time back that the centre of gravity of the English language is now in America (although other sources say RP carries prestige even there). And the rest of the English-speaking world has contributed immensely to the enrichment of this international medium of communication. The readiness of English to absorb new usage, and to borrow from other languages it comes into contact with, has perhaps been the greatest factor in its richness today. So good dictionaries update themselves regularly to reflect this reality.
However, for a new expression to be recognized as mainstream usage even at the informal level, it should first come to be used by a considerable proportion of those who are proficient in it. That’s why patterns like ‘I ain’t got nothin” just occupy a twilight zone despite them being used by some native speakers. So good dictionaries categorize usage with terms like ‘informal,’ ‘slang,”non-standard,”vulgar’ etc.
Therefore, when it comes to Sri Lankan English too, we need to clarify what can be considered standard SLE and what is just sub-standard. I think Michael Meyler himself has pointed this out. There are Sri Lankan forms – like our replacing English diphthongs with monophthongs, and saying ‘no?’ in place of question tags in informal settings – that have been adopted by almost everybody here, while others – like saying ‘p’ for ‘f’ or vice versa – are generally avoided by the educated speakers of English in this country. It’s also worth noting that the kind of English used by our best speakers doesn’t deviate so much from what would be considered ‘good English’ anywhere in the world.
I don’t see much chance of expressions like ‘I will go and come’ – whether they are grammatically correct or not – entering mainstream usage here as even today’s youngsters who don’t know much English are familiar with ‘See you’ and ‘Bye’, which they abundantly use instead. Ditto for ‘Border catch and go,’ which is hardly heard today. Trying to hang on to them because somebody has used them is just like clinging to Colonial-era British English.
@Not Confused
Not all of us here are vilifying each other. People like me also see MM’s book as something positive rather than negative, though, by the author’s own admission, what’s included in it shouldn’t all be seen as part of standard Sri Lankan English. What he has done is to chronicle Sri Lankan usage on the basis of ‘It has been used’ rather than ‘It should be used’.
Your exhortation to do something to improve standards here is good, but doesn’t it sound a bit patronizing? Well, I’m writing a blog to help Sri Lankans with their English (http://ingirisi.blogspot.com/), and I’m interested in knowing what you’re doing to that effect.
@Sujeewa de Silva
Let me make a correction–I didn’t mean to imply that everyone who has expressed an opinion here is vilifying somebody. Of course they aren’t. But I’m old enough (and old-fashioned enough) to take exception to Malinda Seneviratne’s article in which he uses the f-word very thinly disguised. In a post here he (Malinda) says people who use pseudonyms and attack him are cowards. I think I’m expressing dissent, not “attacking” him, but even expressing dissent with him is something I hesitate to do, if his response is to throw the f-word and worse at me in a public forum. If this is cowardice, yes, I’m a coward. But I’d like to think that I’m not afraid of constructive criticism. Unfortunately what I’m seeing is not constructive criticism, its downright disgusting name-calling. Whatever happened to respectful debates and disagreements?
What have I done to try and improve standards of English? I have taught ESL for 20 years to university undergraduates, a group that desperately needs functional English skills. Does this make me sound patronizing? You be the judge, Mr De Silva!
Sujeewa de Silva,
“You’re absolutely right in that we Sri Lankans don’t necessarily have to speak English as they do on BBC.”
That’s not quite what I mean. I’m saying that Sri Lankans shouldn’t speak English as they do on BBC because it is out of place. They should feel free to allow their own cultural context to inform their usage of English. And yes, I agree with you that Standard Sri Lankan English is not that much different from Standard English elsewhere in that it is comprehensible to global audiences.
I agree also with the rest of what you said, and have made those same points here in my two previous posts.
With regard to the expression “come and go”, I am not suggesting that one should cling to it. My point was simply that if it enters common usage, it could one day be deemed standard usage in Sri Lanka.
@Not Confused
Oh la la! I had no idea you were a university don. In that case I offer my humble apologies. But then, one can claim to be anything when writing under a pseudonym. I admit it was foolish of me to ask in the first place.
my comment on pseudonyms was QUALIFIED. i referred to those who make PERSONAL ATTACKS hiding behind pseudonyms. They are cowardly. in other instances, it’s perfectly fine with me…..i try to go with the point and not the author of the point.
the subsequent black-white comment (referring to political convictions) flowed from that qualification. sorry if i offended anyone. i wish people were more attentive.
much love to the person who called me a nincompoop. the person implies i am not of ‘good breeding’. well, i never made the claim…and if he/she is well bred, how wonderful! since i have been called a nincompoop, uncouth etc..i will try to be better. i wonder if anyone engaging in such name-calling can be considered to have been well bred. maybe some well-bred person will enlighten me. i know, a lot of people don’t like me, but consider my an absolute fool….humour me…and educate me.
the issue is NOT meyler, as someone pointed out. meyler was turned into puppet by Sunimal Fernando, i am quite sure against his (meyler’s) wishes. my issue is with the English Our Way programme. My purpose was to get Sunimal out of his closet. He has come out. meyler offered himself as ‘bait’ when he wrote the first article, unconsciously, i am sure. he mentioned me in that piece. and he made some really naive comments about things he has no clue about (the language-use in english theatre in Sri Lanka — and didn’t respond to my objections on this matter, but never mind that). I used meyler (thanks michael), and sunimal bit.
i have no personal issues with anyone on this forum. would be glad to meet and chat over a cup of tea anywhere in sri lanka. any time.
cheers.
I am repeating (with some changes) a comment I made sometime ago on face book and and trying to add my opinion as well but I do not mean to ‘personally’ attack any party and I regret that I am quite late to join this debate and thank you Mr. Senevirathne for opening my eyes.
Dear Dr. Meyler:
You certainly did not write a dictionary of Sri Lankan English. If you think you did, it shows a problem in how you define Sri Lankan English.
But you did write something which I really appreciate but it is a collection of Lankanisms (a back-formation from Hector Passe’s Ceylonisms.) I can positively look at your publication as a development of Pasee’s concept. If you name your book as a Dictionary of Sri Lankan English, it’s critical implicature is that you portray Sri Lankan English as a collection of linguistic vulgarisms, even if you do not mean it.
No doubt we are in need of a Dictionary of Contemporary Sri Lankan English but I am sorry it need not come from you, but from a body of English academics and practitioners who can conduct extensive research on the Contemporary English usage in Sri Lanka based on a corpus of authentic Sri Lankan English. In simple terms, those who seek to institutionalise and standardise Lankan English (which in fact is a good thing) should come up with such an extensive lexicon of the language as it is used in Sri Lanka by Sri Lankans.
As far as I am concerned, the Standard Variety of Sri Lankan English that academics like Kandaiah (1981) and Gunasekara (2005) speaks of is a more prestigious variety of English, which can be seen as a direct descendant of the so called Queen’s English. So it’s another form of ‘snooty’ English. Many Sri Lankans who are highly proficient users/ native speakers of English use this variety and the SSLE speaking community include many professionals and scholars. The accent of SSLE is closer in many ways to the RP at segmental level but when it comes to tone and intonation and certain articulations, it differs because it has become Lankan its flavour.
So Standard Sri Lankan English deserves to be a standard of its own, and is in fact a clearly understood variety. Its development is similar to that of what is known as Estuary English in the UK.
I would like to repeat myself: the most disappointing thing about your lexicon is the picture it paints of Sri Lankan English: a collection of odd linguistic vulgarisms and archaisms which makes it difficult for foreigners to understand the English Language Spoken in Sri Lanka. Whatever said and done and intended, this publication clearly implies that Sri Lankan English is interesting but still inferior to British English (Sadly this is what I felt and many people concerned feel)
Therefore, my opinion (which is not advice) is: if you think of coming up with a second edition of your work, the title needs to be reworded, something like:
A Collection of Lankanisms in English: a foreigner’s guide. would do very well,
or you can be more creative to call it ‘ Kadu Hatan’ ( I am referring to the role of English as ‘Kaduwa’ in Sri Lanka.
I am afraid, I don’t mean to hurt you or disappoint you and I apologise in advance for any hard feelings arising from this letter.
Cheers and good luck.
Rusiru