A few months ago, I mentioned very briefly about having read this article on the Web. Well, tonight I finally managed to stumble upon it again, and this time am capturing its URL:
http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Pub ... shText.htm
Most of it is stuff that we all already know (even if it is sub-conscious). The parts that were of interest - and more of lament - to me, were the parts where Lewis spoke about the heavy code-switching (underpinned by the example dialogue) and the part where he says:
“...the Penang variety of Hokkien as an oral language is inherently bound up in trading and marketing activities, in practical affairs of the home, kinship, domestic management, cooking, familial relationships and in religious practices and beliefs. It is not a language to be used for intellectual abstraction, scientific theorization, refined discussion of the more subtle or sublime feelings or resonance's in the world, or for the romantic elaboration of the affairs of heart. When Hokkien Chinese wish to talk about these things, they invariably "switch-out" of Hokkien...” (the emphases are my own).
English-Hokkien Reference by Hugh M. Lewis (1996)
English-Hokkien Reference by Hugh M. Lewis (1996)
Last edited by Mark Yong on Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: English-Hokkien Reference by Hugh M. Lewis (1996)
Hi Mark,
Thanks for posting this. I came across his articles many years ago. They seem very interesting (particularly as he writes some stuff about Baba culture, and the whole S.E.Asian region, with respect to the Chinese), but I haven't really managed to work out his background. The content seems quite good, but what is the backing for his research? Is he just an "amateur" (like most of us, except Ah-bin)?
There's nothing wrong with being an amateur, obviously, but the style and content in his writing is more something I would expect from an academic. Most of us here - as amhoanna modestly said of himself in reply to one of my postings - just ramble about our own perceptions and experiences, and speculate about this or that possibility in history. We may even read quite a number of articles on the subject, but our presentation is hardly that of a well structured "thesis", with introduction, arguments, conclusion. His articles aren't quite that either, but they are closer in that direction than what we normally post here on the Forum. On the other hand, he doesn't give references (at least, not in the bits that I looked at) - which makes his work "less academic" again.
Thanks for posting this. I came across his articles many years ago. They seem very interesting (particularly as he writes some stuff about Baba culture, and the whole S.E.Asian region, with respect to the Chinese), but I haven't really managed to work out his background. The content seems quite good, but what is the backing for his research? Is he just an "amateur" (like most of us, except Ah-bin)?
There's nothing wrong with being an amateur, obviously, but the style and content in his writing is more something I would expect from an academic. Most of us here - as amhoanna modestly said of himself in reply to one of my postings - just ramble about our own perceptions and experiences, and speculate about this or that possibility in history. We may even read quite a number of articles on the subject, but our presentation is hardly that of a well structured "thesis", with introduction, arguments, conclusion. His articles aren't quite that either, but they are closer in that direction than what we normally post here on the Forum. On the other hand, he doesn't give references (at least, not in the bits that I looked at) - which makes his work "less academic" again.