A-Z of Sri Lankan English: F is for for
Before reading on, try this short test. Which of the following sentences do you consider to be grammatically correct?
1. They have over a thousand visitors for a month.
2. They get angry for the slightest thing.
3. Can you give this for Mohan?
4. We couldn’t sleep for the racket.
5. That was my third bath for the day.
6. I woke for the sound of the alarm.
7. He gave me a book for my birthday.
8. This area floods even for the slightest rain.
9. The A level exam has been put off for June.
10. They ripen quickly for the sun.
Despite being couched in prescriptive terms (“grammatically correct”), there is no clearcut answer to the exercise. The sentences focus on the use of the preposition for. You will probably agree that no. 7 is correct, and that no. 3 is wrong (it should be: Can you give this to Mohan?). The others might cause more thought or disagreement. My own response is that they are all perfectly acceptable in a Sri Lankan context – certainly in speaking, and arguably in writing as well. They are commonly used in Sri Lankan English, and there is no ambiguity in the meaning they convey.
But these sentences might be considered errors in British or American English, a fact which is useful for Sri Lankan speakers of English to be aware of, especially if they are planning to study in the UK or another English-speaking country, or if they are sitting for an international English exam such as IELTS. It is this kind of awareness (and the ability to adapt one’s language according to the context) which characterises the language competency of a native or near-native speaker of English.
Of course, many speakers of standard Sri Lankan English would no doubt use the “standard British/American” version of these sentences (see below), and would almost certainly recognise them as being correct, even if they would (consciously or subconsciously) choose the ““Sri Lankan English” version in colloquial situations.
The standard British or American versions of the sentences (omitting nos. 3 and 7) would require the use of a much wider range of prepositions:
1. They have over a thousand visitors a month (or per month, or every month).
2. They get angry at the slightest thing.
4. We couldn’t sleep because of/due to the racket.
5. That was my third bath of the day.
6. I woke at/to the sound of the alarm.
8. This area floods even with the slightest rain.
9. The A level exam has been put off until June.
10. They ripen quickly in the sun.
A general observation from these examples is that the preposition for tends to be used more frequently and more flexibly in SLE than in so-called “standard” English. One possible reason for this is the influence of Sinhala and Tamil – both of which manage with around 4 common case endings (-ge, -ta, -e, -eng in Sinhala) which cover most of the common uses of at least 8 prepositions in English (in, on, at, of, to, for, from, by). This arguably makes SLE a more user-friendly variety of English, by doing away with some of the complexities of the English preposition system, but without necessarily compromising on clarity of meaning.
A-Z of Sri Lankan English is an all-new, occasional alphabetical dip into the variety of English spoken in Sri Lanka, published exclusively on Groundviews. The original A-Z of Sri Lankan English was published in the travelsrilanka magazine, and can be found here.
19 Comments
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Content Updates
iPhone app
I am grammatically wrong even in SLE!
Good for you Margerata! We are all grammatical aberrations, as human beings.
And that’s why these demarcating and classifying pronouncements are all wrong, even if they are stated in a naively supercilious tone.
Sumathy
A good observation of Sri Lankan English “for” a foreigner! What about this, “I told it for lies, ane!” ?
The Sumathy said,
“And that’s why these demarcating and classifying pronouncements are all wrong, even if they are stated in a naively supercilious tone.”
What for the telling!
Hi Michael,
Thanks for this informative article. Reading these specific examples were quite useful. As you said, it did require a bit of thought in certain instances to figure out the grammatically incorrect sentences.
However, the main reason I thought of commenting was to get your opinion as an English educator on the following.
RE: “This arguably makes SLE a more user-friendly variety of English, by doing away with some of the complexities of the English preposition system, but without necessarily compromising on clarity of meaning.”
I think you might agree that the English language is a decidedly quirky language, with very few clearly discernible rules (or depending on how you look at it, an unnatural abundance of them, with exceptions to the exceptions to the rule). This makes it rather charming, but from a utilitarian perspective, a very serious impediment to learning.
Apart from the idiosyncrasies of its grammar, the biggest problem, IMHO, stems from the lack of a phonetic system of writing. The amount of confusion this creates, compared to a language like Sinhalese, is truly staggering. It is probably safe to say that there’s no person alive who can pronounce every word in the English language without recourse to a dictionary.
Compare this to a phonetic writing system, such as that used in Sinhalese, where it is impossible to have ambiguities in pronunciation so that by the age of 10, most children will have no problem at all pronouncing any given word. With a slightly greater degree of training, they will be able to spell almost any word too.
It would appear to me therefore, that the amount of effort and rote learning required to learn the English language is simply not justified, especially when thinking about enabling ease of communication on a global scale, as opposed to scuttling it due to sheer complexity.
My question is, what efforts have/are being taken to standardize a phonetic system of writing in English? Wouldn’t this be a rather useful and important undertaking that English educators must think of seriously? It would be good to hear your opinion on this.
There cannot be different versions of the english language. “Inventing” another version for whatever purpose is wrong. Learning proper pronunciation and usage depends on the teacher. Any student of average intellligence can be taught proper pronunciation and grammar.
There were excellent books in the forties, authored by teachers from both UK and sri lanka which enabled us as students to learn the language with minimum effort.
One was English Grammar and Exercises Books I to IV by Chapman, and another was Practical English by Samaranayake.
For the subject of English Literature, we had English Book of Lively Verse which had poems by well known old english authors, The Tempest and Merchant of Venice by Shakespere – with review and commentary by Verity, King Soloman’s Mines, Huckleberry Finn and Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling.
I am sure that present day students could learn using these or similar books.
SD,
IMHO, the objective of English language education in Sri Lanka should be to give people adequate skills to engage with other English speakers and with written English, and in order to do this it is not necessary to be able to pronounce *every* word in the English language. So I don’t think a phonetic way of writing English is going to be that useful – since it is unlikely to be adopted by native English speaking countries such as the UK and USA who manage with the standard (complex!) phonetic alphabet used in dictionaries.
Ultimately, I think familiarity and proficiency in spoken English will come when students have opportunities to converse with other (sympathetic!) English speakers as often as possible. Similarly, reading and writing can be developed through the exchange of correspondence with more those more proficient in the language. In the past many students have benefited from correspondence with pen pals in English speaking countries to improve their English. I think ICTs have a large role to play here in putting English students in countries like Sri Lanka in touch with students who are proficient in English. These ‘English-buddies’ could be students from the same country who are more advanced in their English, or students from English speaking countries. The communication could be both written and oral (via video recordings) thus giving students to improve both their spoken and written communication skills. The role of the ‘English-buddy’ is to point out the student’s mistakes whether they be in pronunciation, spelling or grammar. The buddy could also suggest interesting things to read (or listen to / watch) as topics for future conversations, thus helping the student’s comprehension of written English. In this way students in Sri Lanka will have more opportunities to interact with those more proficient in English, and thus raise their own ability level.
Justitia,
“There cannot be different versions of the english language.”
But there are so many versions of English already – American English, Australian English, British English and Indian English to name but a few – and I think Sri Lankan English should also be recognised and celebrated rather than shunned.
Dear Arosha,
RE: “So I don’t think a phonetic way of writing English is going to be that useful – since it is unlikely to be adopted by native English speaking countries such as the UK and USA who manage with the standard (complex!) phonetic alphabet used in dictionaries.”
I quite agree with your critique. The chances of something like this flying are minimal. The question was asked purely out of personal interest in knowing about measures taken in this area. The International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) for example, is commonly used in pronunciation guides. I was wondering whether any attempts had been made to integrate such systems into mainstream English education.
The reason, as I mentioned, is that looking ahead on a global scale, it would appear that we are stuck with a rather illogical system of pronunciation which can probably account for a significant percentage of learning overhead. This is a problem not just for us, but for younger native speakers as well.
The effects of this are felt not just in day-to-day usage but also in computer-aided systems. Text-to-speech synthesis, for example, is a much harder problem in the English language that it is in Sinhalese. Using an intermediate phonetic representation is more or less standard, but even then, it actually requires computers to be fairly smart, because the pronunciation can change contextually.
To take a rather macabre example:
“The lead was poured on a party.”
“The lead was injured in the process.”
The pronunciation of “lead” in the above example, would change contextually depending on whether you meant the metal or the individual. Clearly, these are hard problems for a computer to solve, which is why text-to-speech systems are floundering to this day. Devoid of such ambiguities, it would be a completely solved problem!
I agree with you that it would be mostly unrealistic to expect mainstream adoption. Nevertheless, I was rather curious to find out whether it had ever been attempted. A few diacritical marks alone could greatly ease the problem without creating significant comprehension problems for long-term users, while minimizing difficulties for learners. Clearly however, the leadership must come from native English speakers, not us!
RE: “I think ICTs have a large role to play here in putting English students in countries like Sri Lanka in touch with students who are proficient in English.”
This sounds like a good idea, and perhaps what’s needed is an online match-up service that helps pair students together, provided adequate measures are taken to provide parental supervision. Computer based word-games are another, possibly more easily adoptable approach. Chat-bots might also be an option, but unlike humans, chat-bots are far less capable of dealing with spelling and grammar mistakes, where we humans might still manage. On the plus side however, chat-bots do have infinite patience.
I think English should be a ” spanner” (tool) rather than a ” sword” (kaduwa) or a ” necklace” (ornament).
Thanks!
Dear Arosha,
RE: “But there are so many versions of English already – American English, Australian English, British English and Indian English to name but a few – and I think Sri Lankan English should also be recognised and celebrated rather than shunned.”
Personally, I’m not sure Sri Lanka has the kind of critical mass required to get away with inventing our own version of English. IMHO, good English skills and speaking an internationally recognized variant of English helps a great deal in inviting foreign investment. Having a higher standard of English automatically ensures that we can be tasked with jobs of international significance, rather than be relegated to do support work due to poor language skills. In an increasingly globalized setup, this is of critical importance.
That’s why I see no use in either celebrating or encouraging the proliferation of a home-grown variant of English. The main use I see for Michael’s book, is that it will raise awareness of incorrect usage so that remedial measures may be taken. Embracing this travesty, on the other hand, is possibly the worst thing we can do.
Dear SD,
“That’s why I see no use in either celebrating or encouraging the proliferation of a home-grown variant of English.”
By saying we should recognise and celebrate Sri Lankan English, I am not advocating that it should be taught in schools. It is absolutely right that students should be taught standard English and encouraged to reach a level of proficiency that allows them to be clearly understood on the international stage.
However, I do think that in any society where English is spoken in parallel with other languages (in our case Sinhala and Tamil) there are always going to be little quirks of pronunciation, idiom and sentence construction that evolve – and these quirks give spoken English a flavour of the richness of the culture in which it is being used. I don’t think this is anything to be ashamed of.
So, I think we agree that Sri Lankan English should not be a substitute for proficiency in standard English. However, I don’t think it should be ignored either.
“…that the preposition for tends to be used more frequently and more flexibly in SLE than in so-called “standard” English. One possible reason for this is the influence of Sinhala and Tamil – both of which manage with around 4 common case endings (-ge, -ta, -e, -eng in Sinhala)…”
This may well be true when Sri Lankans speak to each other in a market square, but in written form there is very little difference in the distribution over the use of prepositions. Click the link below to see a graph comparing a small random subset of GV authors with Andrew Rawnsley, a columnist for the UK Guardian:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~mn/PrepositionUsage.pdf
Many non-native English students use SkyPe to learn/hear natively spoken English. I’ve heard of random chat requests just to hear English spoken – both ‘as spoken by native English speakers with RP’ and also ‘as spoken with international variants and British regional accents’. There is also satellite television now that helps.
Michael’s book is an interesting academic exercise in noting the particular quirks in our English usage, particularly grammar and colloquial. I called it ‘SL creole’ on an earlier post but realise that many upmarket SLs get rather angry at that!
Another interesting analysis is to examine the origins of the many words and expressions we mis-pronounce – ie. to study how they originate from Sinahalese or Tamil native phonetics, and a mistaken notion that the correct English pronunciation is incorrect! I mentioned these examples – ‘Niv York’ for ‘New York’ (because pronouncing ‘love’ as ‘lau’ is considered to be ‘godey’) and ‘late’ in SL does not rhyme with ‘eight’. Another one, ‘floor’, ‘flaw’ and ‘flow’ (in SL the 1st and the 3rd rhyme which is incorrect. Correct is 1st and 2nd rhyme)
Having said that, I’m amused when I still come across SL people arriving abroad with this lament about native English speakers – ‘I can’t understand a word they are saying. why can’t they speak like us Sri Lankans’?!
(Slightly off topic as Michael’s piece is more to do with grammar and usage)
SD, you’re right – it won’t fly. Native speakers of any language have no difficulty with the quirks and inconsistencies, lack of pattern. Esparanto anyone? A friend of mine teaches it.
Language is something highly political and we will always be excluded from the so called “standard English” inner circle. The whole idea is to always keep us outside the inner circle. However, now with many other “Englishes” being recognized world over there is a move to accept our own Sri Lankan English as well. However, there is such a thing as formal and informal use of language as well. We are quite clever (I think) when it comes to moving from the formal to the informal. When we write we are generally able to observe rules of grammar without much problem, but when we talk we have a way of making a comfortable zone with our own tag words like “ane” and “no”. Interesting how we are able to slip into this and out of it.
justita
You have missed the whole point, once again! Michael is not talking about the “correctness” of English spoken by the Sri Lankans. When a person whose mother tongue is a language other than English (or French for that matter) learns a second language, the sentence pattern, grammer and the prounciation of the second language is affected by those of his mother tongue. This is what we call a ‘varient’ of English(or any other language) and an “accent” in pronounciation. It’s very hard to avoid the accent factor, however hard you try, unless you are brought up in an English speaking country! I don’t know whether you, Mr.Justita pronounce certain words the way a native English speaker does, even with your knowledge of Shakspere’s works! If you do, I don’t mind meeting you personally to see!
If you don’t put the stress on certain syllables as an Egglishman(or an American or an Australian) does, you are speaking nothing but Sri Lankan English only! That’s what Michael wants to put forward as a valid varient of English!
Hahahaha, I don’t know how you speak, but going by what you have written, I can tell that you too use the ‘Sri Lankan’ variety of English as most of us do(including myself)! For example you say: “Learning proper pronunciation and usage depends on the teacher.” Is it grammertically correct?
And then you say: “…… UK and sri lanka which……” May I ask why “U.K.” in capitals and “Sri Lanka” in simples?
Then you say this in the last para:” For the subject of English Literature, we had English Book of Lively Verse which had poems by well known old english authors, The Tempest and Merchant of Venice by Shakespere – with review and commentary by Verity, King Soloman’s Mines, Huckleberry Finn and Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling”. This is a typical sentence of “Sri Lankan English”. By the way I thought ‘poems’ and ‘verses’ mean the same thing!
How far is it right to educate small children in Elocution Classes?
There is a lot of talk abt SLE nowadays with a number leading intellectuals promoting it. But what I see is that they, while promoting it for use by the village godayas, still seem to use a form which closely resembles the so-called standard British variety in every sense except pronunciation.
Soon we will have an elite SLE and a godey SLE.
Dear Michi!
Your thoughts on this post is the most valuable of all the a-z Sri Lankan English… I suffer this…