DOI: 10.1111/weng.

12536

PA P E R

Basically in Singapore English

Claudia Lange

Institute of English and American Studies,

Technische Universität Dresden, Germany
Correspondence
Claudia Lange, Institute of English and Ameri-
can Studies, Technische Universität Dresden,
Wiener Str. 48, 01219 Dresden, Germany.
Email: claudia.lange@tu-dresden.de
Abstract
While much has been written about the unique set of dis-
course particles in colloquial Singapore English, other dis-
course markers which belong to the common core of English
have been neglected. This paper deals with basically, a rather
recent addition to the paradigm of discourse markers which
typically move along the following clines in their develop-
ment: clause-internal adverbial > sentence adverbial > dis-
course particle; scope within the proposition > scope over
the proposition > scope over discourse. This paper will
use the evidence from the Singaporean subcorpus of the
International Corpus of English (ICE) to trace the functions
and contexts for basically and to determine whether the
grammaticalization clines proposed on the basis of British
English also hold for an Outer Circle variety such as Sin-
gapore English with its rich array of indigenized discourse
particles.

1 INTRODUCTION

A special issue devoted to discourse markers and world Englishes would simply be incomplete without reference to
Singapore English (SgE) in general and/or colloquial Singapore English (Singlish). After all, ‘[d]iscourse particles are
a stereotypical feature of Colloquial Singapore English’ (Leimgruber, 2012, p. 84), and ‘[e]specially the particle lah has
become something of an icon of Singlish and of Singaporean-ness’ (Leimgruber, 2012, p. 96). The set of contact-induced
particles including lah, hor, leh, and meh has been extensively described (Lim, 2007) but has not ceased to command
researchers’ attention. Research on other discourse markers which are common across Englishes is scarce, with some
exceptions: Tan (2010) is a corpus-based study of right as a discourse marker, while Kuteva et al. (2018) investigate
sentence-final what from a synchronic and diachronic perspective. There are also some comparative studies on tag

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits
use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or
adaptations are made.
© 2021 The Authors. World Englishes published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

World Englishes 2021;1–14. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/weng 1

2 LANGE

questions (Columbus, 2009; Hoffmann et al., 2017; Takahashi, 2014) but none on other staples in the literature on
discourse markers such as well, so, anyway, you know, or like.
This paper focuses on basically, a largely under-researched member of the paradigm of adverbial discourse markers
in any variety of English. Accordingly, this paper has two main goals: first of all, to present an historical account of the
development of basically from adverbial to discourse marker, and second, to give an overview of its distribution and
function in Singapore English in comparison to British English (BrE). More specifically, the paper is geared towards
tackling the following set of guiding questions:

∙ How did basically join the paradigm of discourse markers, that is, how does the development of basically fit in with
existing accounts for other discourse markers such as actually?
∙ What does a comparison of the frequencies and functions of basically in British and Singapore English tell us about
its entrenchment as a discourse marker in both varieties?
∙ Based on the similarities and differences between usage patterns for basically in BrE and SgE, are we justified in
assuming variety-specific developmental trajectories in the Outer Circle? In other words, does basically follow an
altogether different path in the Singaporean linguistic ecology?

As we will see, basically occurs more frequently in the spoken ICE-Singapore (ICE-SIN) subcorpus (252.99 per million
words [pmw]) than in the parallel ICE-Great Britain (ICE-GB) section (174.95 pmw), and its frequency for Singapore
ranks second highest among the varieties represented in the Corpus of Global Web-based English (GloWbE; 71.67 pmw
against the average of 58.52 pmw, only topped by American English (AmE) with 76.53 pmw; BrE with 58.18 pmw
slightly below average). However, these figures represent all instances of basically, that is all forms on the cline from
adverbial modifier via sentence adverb to discourse marker as mentioned above. Such a repurposing of adverbials is
also evident in the use of already as an aspect marker (Bao, 2015, p. 38; Ziegeler & Lee, 2020), representing a classic
case of grammaticalization, defined as ‘the process whereby lexical material in highly constrained pragmatic and
morphosyntactic contexts becomes grammatical, and already grammatical material become[s] more grammatical’
(Traugott, 1995, p. 15). Processes of grammaticalization typically lead to ‘layering’, the ‘persistence of older forms and
meanings alongside newer forms and meanings, whether derived by divergence from the same source or by renewal
from different sources’ (Hopper & Traugott, 2003, p. 124). In other words, diachronic layering results in synchronic
polysemy, or the other way round: polysemy is an indicator of previous layering. That is, a simple lexical search of
basically will retrieve the form in (possibly all) its different functions, which can then be ordered on a scale from less
to more grammaticalized. If we take British English as the reference variety, the question then is whether basically
in Singapore English matches the developments in its historical input variety. There are indications that this may
not be the case, as will be discussed later on in section 4. The upcoming section 2 will provide a brief sketch of the
development of adverbial discourse markers; section 3 will focus on the trajectory of basically. Section 4 introduces
the data from the spoken section of the Singapore component of the International Corpus of English, comparing them
to ICE-GB. A final section will summarize the findings and place them in a wider research context.

2 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DISCOURSE MARKERS

As already indicated above, this paper assumes that the development of basically follows a well-described trajectory in
grammaticalization theory,1 namely

From predicate adverb to sentential adverb to discourse marker

In this development, a predicate adverb (e.g. a manner adverb), which has narrow syntactic scope
and evaluates the predicated event, is dislocated from clause-internal position to the position typical
for wide-scope sentential adverbs (typically sentence-initial position). Here it comes to evaluate the
LANGE 3

TA B L E 1 The development of in fact and actually

in fact (examples from Schwenter & Traugott, actually (examples from Traugott & Dasher,
2000, pp. 11−20) 2005, pp. 169−173)
Stage I: manner Humanity, comfortably engaged elsewhere in To cure it actuale whilez it is introduct but ys not
adverb the business of living, is absent in fact but conferned. (To cure it effectively while it is in
everywhere present in feeling. initial stages but is not yet confirmed (1425))
Stage II: (sentence) The levels of the dioxin appear to be small, but Mr. Perry had been to Mrs. Goddard’s to attend
adverb, epistemic in fact they have been found to be higher in to a sick child, and . . . found to his great
adversative paper tissues and in paper towels than in surprise that Mr. Elton was actually on his
some other things. road to London, and not meaning to return till
the morrow.
Stage III: discourse ‘I was wrong,’ he continued, ‘in talking of its It was now his object to marry. He was rich, and
marker being broke to you. I should not have used the being turned on shore, fully intended to settle
expression. In fact, it does not concern you — as soon as he could be properly tempted;
it concerns only myself.’ (1815 Austen, Emma, actually looking around, ready to fall in love . . .
vol. 3 ch. 10) (1818 Austen, Persuasion, vol. 1 ch. 7)
Stage IV: discourse Funny. We really quite enjoyed it in fact. No, I was determined to get married actually.
marker, hedge
(examples from
Traugott & Dasher,
2005, p. 173)

content of the entire proposition. Over time, it may acquire new pragmatic functions, in the process
assuming scope over larger chunks of discourse. When these functions become conventionalized, it has
acquired discourse-marker status. (Brinton, 2010, p. 299)

Traugott (1995) firmly placed discourse markers derived from adverbials on the agenda of grammaticalization theory.
Her sketch of the emergence of the forms indeed, in fact, and besides highlighted that they all originated as full lexical
nouns and then developed from their use in an adverbial phrase via sentence adverb to discourse marker.2 This paper
adopts Brinton’s notion of the functions of discourse markers, which ‘can be understood as serving “interpersonal”
as well as “textual” functions’ (Brinton, 2010, p. 286). The textual functions involve different ways of ‘structuring dis-
course as text’ (Brinton, 2010, p. 286); the interpersonal functions may either be speaker-oriented and thus subjective,
or intersubjective, focusing on the relation between the participants in the discourse and involving strategies of posi-
tive or negative politeness.
A more detailed account for the development of actually by Traugott and Dasher (2005, pp. 169−170) may serve
as a template for basically later and will thus be considered in more detail. Traugott and Dasher’s account (2005,
pp. 159−200) focuses on the historical trajectory of indeed, in fact, and actually. The latter two are more similar in their
meanings and functions (Traugott & Dasher, 2005, p. 173) despite their quite separate origins: fact as a borrowed noun
from Latin occurred in the prepositional phrase in fact from the late 17th century onwards (Traugott & Dasher, 2005,
p. 166), while actually, derived from French actual, came into use as an adverb in English in the 15th century (Traugott
& Dasher, 2005, p. 169). Both then develop an ‘epistemic adversative’ meaning which becomes widespread by the mid-
18th century (Traugott & Dasher, 2005, pp. 167, 170), expressing ‘epistemic certainty despite expectations’ (Traugott
& Dasher, 2005, p. 170) as in the examples for stage II in Table 1. Both sentences convey a contrastive reading; in fact
co-occurs with concessive but, openly marking the contrast between the expected and the real levels of dioxin. The
context for actually in the relevant example likewise spells out the contrast between an expected and the actual state
of affairs. Stage II in the development typically involves a positional shift to the periphery of the clause and acquiring
a wide scope reading. As discourse markers, the forms indicate ‘that q is argumentatively related to p as an elabora-
tion or clarification’ (Traugott & Dasher, 2005, p. 171). In fact as discourse marker ‘functions at the discourse level to
4 LANGE

express the speaker’s attitude to the appropriateness of the discourse itself’ (Traugott & Dasher, 2005, p. 168). Actu-
ally in the relevant example from Jane Austen’s Persuasion ‘confirms fully intended and introduces specific evidence of
that intention (was looking around)’ (Traugott & Dasher, 2005, p. 170; emphasis in the original). The three forms singled
out by Traugott and Dasher (2005) now part ways in that only in fact and actually develop a further function as hedges,
then frequently in clause-final position.
Before turning to the story of basically, it is worth highlighting the main stages in the development of adverbial dis-
course markers as sketched by both Brinton (2010) and Traugott and Dasher (2005). Several factors come together in
this particular grammaticalization cline. A shift from clause-internal to a peripheral (first to initial, later also to final)
position goes along with an increase in syntactic scope: an adverb modifying a particular constituent in the clause
becomes a sentence adverb with scope over the whole clause. In this position, the form is liable to further semantic
bleaching, another process typical of grammaticalization: the original lexical meaning becomes secondary to inter-
textual and inter-personal meanings in discourse. A final positional shift to the end of the clause also involves phono-
logical reduction. What becomes clear from this trajectory is that any corpus-based analysis of potential adverbial
discourse markers has to be highly context-sensitive. Position alone is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for
assigning discourse marker status to a form: only forms in sentence-final position are definitely discourse markers,
while initial forms may be either sentence adverbs or discourse markers, depending on the wider conversational and
interactional context. We further need to keep in mind that this particular grammaticalization cline is predicated upon
the history of British English. Even though there is ample evidence for the universality of grammaticalization across
languages (Kuteva et al., 2019), we might still do well to keep an open mind for potential varietal differences within a
specific cline, for example concerning the preferred form and position of discourse markers.

3 THE HISTORY OF BASICALLY

Unlike actually (Aijmer, 2002, pp. 251−273, 2013, pp. 103−123; Traugott & Dasher, 2005, pp. 169−170), basically has
so far failed to attract researchers’ interest, the only exceptions being the synchronic studies by Watts (1988) and
Butler, 2008a, 2008b). Watts (1988, p. 251) covers basically alongside actually and really, rather generally defining their
common meaning as follows: ‘All three lexemes relate what the speaker is contributing to the topic, the assumptions
s/he is making, to previous or already held assumptions and thus help to guide the further development of the topic’.
His analysis draws on his own corpus of 10 hours of recordings during ‘family gatherings’ (Watts, 1988, p. 250). Consid-
ering the three forms in four separate syntactic slots (sentence-internal modifier, sentence-initial and sentence-final
‘discourse brackets’ (Watts, 1988, p. 251), and parenthetically), he finds that ‘it is in the sentence internal position that
subtle differences can be discerned [. . . ] For basically we may posit that the assumption within its scope is more or less
valid, but that the hearer should allow for a certain amount of variability’ (Watts, 1988, pp. 254−255).
Butler, 2008a, 2008b) examines basically together with fundamentally and essentially. The data for both studies come
from the British National Corpus (BNC 1994) and make reference to the notion of subjectivity in Traugott’s (1995) sense
(see section 1). According to Butler (2008b, p. 42), all three forms ‘contain, even in their straightforward meanings, a
component which involves the speaker or writer, in that the propositional content is presented in the light of his or her
assessment’. Butler (2008b) charts in detail the distribution and functions of basically in the spoken and written part of
the BNC. His overall frequencies for basically are represented in Table 2 below(Butler, 2008b, p. 47). His analysis of a
randomized subset of all tokens of basically derived from the BNC resulted in 21 separate categories for the position
of basically in the clause, ranging on a scale from clearly modifying, clause-internal uses to peripheral (initial or final)
positions, associated with scope over the whole clause. The three forms fundamentally – essentially – basically can also
be arranged on a scale from less to more subjective, with an increase in semantic bleaching as well as in syntactic scope
(Butler, 2008b, p. 56). Butler’s (2008b) study indicates that the concept of subjectivity can also be useful for a purely
synchronic investigation. In the following, I will sketch a likely grammaticalization cline for the meanings of basically.
LANGE 5

TA B L E 2 Frequencies of basically

ICE-GB tokens/pmw/relative ICE-SIN tokens/pmw/relative BNC tokens/pmw ( Butler,

freq. freq. 2008b, p. 47)
All 126 / 118.38 190 / 173.42 3116 / 31.2
Spoken 114 / 178.78 / 90.5% 168 / 252.99 / 88.4% 1389 / 138.9
Written 12 / 28.1 / 9.5% 22 / 50.98 / 11.6% 1727 / 19.21

The original lexical meaning according to the OED online is: ‘As a basic or fundamental principle, condition, mat-
ter, etc.; essentially; fundamentally’. The first attestations in the OED for basic and basically are from 1846 and 1903,
respectively. The forms are ultimately derived from French base and were borrowed in Middle English. A quick scan
of common historical corpora fails to turn up any further earlier tokens:3 neither the Helsinki Corpus nor the Cor-
pus of English Dialogues (CED) nor the Old Bailey Corpus yield any instances of basic/basically; a search in the Repre-
sentative Corpus of Historical English Registers (ARCHER) retrieves seven attestations from 1957 to 1975. However,
the first OED attestation for basically can be predated by three years with example (1) from the British Periodicals
Collection:

(1) It is not the natural environment of the body, but the natural environment of the soul that Mr. Watts shows us.
Every imaginative writer, we fancy, has at the back of his mind a type of landscape, in which flower naturally like
the trees all his ethics and his aims. It is not difficult to feel that there was basically a landscape of Whitman and
a landscape of Blake. It is of this environment that Mr. Watts’ backgrounds are painted. (Chesterton, Gilbert, ‘The
Literary Portraits of G. F. Watts, R.A.’ The Bookman Dec 1900; vol. 19, issue 111; British Periodicals pg. 80)

The fact that basically is a rather recent addition to the English lexicon does not in itself preclude further development
along a grammaticalization cline. This lack of historical depth might turn out to be an advantage, as sources are more
readily available for documentation. Further, since basically is a comparatively young form, explaining its behaviour in
Singapore English can do away with the notion of ‘colonial lag/retention’ from the outset.
The following stages can be discerned in the development of basically.

3.1 Stage I: basically1 : clause-internal manner adverb

Examples for basically in its first stage as clause-internal manner adverb are not difficult to come by. In both (2) and (3),
basically can be paraphrased by the synonyms suggested by the OED definition, namely essentially or fundamentally:

(2) Germany as a national individual has entered on a new savagery entirely surpassing all the former qualifications
of savagery. She has basically abandoned Christianity. (The Review of Reviews, 1916, p. 558 (British Periodicals Col-
lection))
(3) If we examine these two elements of our literature in an effort to defeat them in future, we find that they are only
the superficial signs of a basically wrong attitude to art and life. (The Bookman, Dec. 1934, p. 173 (British Periodicals
Collection))

Interestingly, some of the earliest examples for basically already show the potential for further development. Equa-
tional constructions where the subject complement is a Noun Phrase (NP) or a Prepositional Phrase (PP) provide the
contexts for syntactic scope expansion, giving rise to pragmatic ambiguity as in examples (4) to (6). This ambiguity
6 LANGE

has also been noted by Butler (2008b, p. 50): ‘Examples in this category are ambiguous as between a reading where
basically modifies the AdjP [Adjective Phrase] or NP, and one in which they are sentence adverbs’.

(4) Basically he is the typical Englishman; shrewd, homely, beef-nourished common-sense, looking squarely at what
is before his eyes, rootedly order-loving and practical. But into that competition has miraculously fallen a germ of
the seventeenth-century fancy, in all its unexpectedness [. . . ] (The Academy and Literature, 28.2.1903, p. 198 (British
Periodicals Collection))
(5) Lighthearted and light on its feet, ‘Buffy’ is basically a one-joke affair – Dracula’s age-old nemesis, Dr. Van Helsing,
reimagined as a vacuous Valley Girl. But it’s handled with airy aplomb by everyone involved. (FROWN C08 76−79)
(6) Basically he’s a simple man, is Chirak Chatterjee. He doesn’t drink, doesn’t smoke and doesn’t have any girlfriends.
And, being a devout Hindu, he doesn’t eat meat. The thing he likes best is making money and he’s very good at that.
(FLOB K26 125−128)

The examples illustrate the pragmatic ambiguity between presentational focus (‘X is basically (a kind of) Y’) and con-
trastive focus (‘basically, X is (a kind of) Y, but. . . ’): examples (4) and (5) assert a specific quality, expressing a contrast or
adding an evaluation in the next clause introduced by but. This contrastive interpretation is lacking in example (6).

3.2 Stage II: basically2 : clause-external sentence adverb (clause-initial)

The next step in the development of basically involves a shift outside of the clause to clause-initial position. As a ‘stance
adverbial’ (Biber et al., 1999, p. 764) or ‘content disjunct’ (Quirk et al., 1985, p. 621) it has scope over the whole clause.
Basically in stage II may still convey a contrastive or concessive reading as in example (7), but we also find examples
where it adds elaboration to the clause, as in (8):

(7) The ultimate trustee nature of our ownership means that we are inclined to be cautious in our policies and con-
servative in our approach to new activities < „ > tending to stick to the things that we think we know something
about < , > Basically we avoid too much risk although I believe that as we have demonstrated over the past twenty
years this does not mean that growth and expansion cannot play an important part in our strategy < „ > (ICE-
GB:S2A-045 #63f.)
(8) There are many ways of producing a foamed urethane product. The foam can be made into slab stock and cut to
shape, it can be molded, it can be poured-in-place, it can be applied by spray guns, etc. &. Slab stock is still one of the
most important forms of urethane end-product in use today. Basically, the foam machines that produce such stock
consist of two or more pumping units, a variable mixer, a nozzle carriage assembly, and, in many cases, a conveyor
belt to transport and contain the liquid during the reaction process and until it solidifies into foam. (BROWN J76
1430–1510)

Basically in both examples can be paraphrased by ‘as a basic principle’, the synonym suggested by the OED. For the next
step towards discourse marker status, we would expect that this literal meaning is not altogether lost, but superseded
by meanings arising out of speakers’ stances in the actual discourse. In Traugott and Dasher’s terms (2005, p. 155):
‘Because DMs [discourse markers] are pragmatic markers signaling local connectivity that connect individual utter-
ances in ways that are anaphoric and cataphoric at the utterance level [. . . ] they are to be distinguished from what have
been called “speech act adverbials” [. . . ] or “stance adverbs”’.
LANGE 7

3.3 Stage III: basically3 : discourse marker

The following example from the BNC by Butler and his interpretation may serve to illustrate how the discourse func-
tionality of basically overlaps with its lexical meaning, indicating the transition from sentence adverb to discourse
marker:

I’m sending a tape recorder to my dad. I I I was delayed a little in that. Basically I I’ve got a l a l a whole
list of things that I didn’t get done this week either. (BNC F8U 0221–0223) (Butler, 2008b, p. 44)

Butler points out that ‘basically is being used within a context where the dominant discourse function is strongly related
to the speaker’s interactional aims at this point, rather than just to the content of the proposition in which basically
appears’ (Butler, 2008b, p. 44). The core meaning of basically is readily apparent in the example, ‘but in order to under-
stand why the speaker would say this, we have to assume that s/he was presenting an excuse for the delay in sending
the tape recorder’ (Butler, 2008b, p. 44). The speaker expresses that he or she had such a demanding week that not
sending the tape recorder was just one of the items still on his/her to-do list.
Examples (9) and (10) illustrate further semantic bleaching: a paraphrase with ‘as a basic principle’ or ‘fundamen-
tally’ appears awkward:

(9) B: How does he

I mean how does he
Does he work hard on
A: Yeah I know yeah
Yeah
Basically he left school at sixteen so he’s always had a sort of guilty feeling
B: He’s always made up for it though (ICE-GB:S1A-045 #257ff.)
(10) A: That horrible girl’s got my coat
I’m so embarrassed
B: What horrible girl
A: Alex
She’s got exactly the same coat in red
B: Alex who
A: Sort of blond but you know < unclear-word > blond < „ > Uhm sort of funny accent
I think she’s Italian but < , >
Yeah < , > and uh basically I can’t wear it any more (ICE-GB:S1A-074 #41ff.)

3.4 Stage IV: basically4 : discourse marker hedge (softener), clause-final, deaccented

The final stage in the development of basically involves another change in position. Basically has moved to clause-final
position and thus become a deaccented hedge or softener, as in examples (11) to (13). The hedging function is quite
obvious in all examples, involving the mitigation of potentially face-threatening speech acts.

(11) A: Well < , > we miss out < , > we miss out we should miss out the notes that are in the solo
D: Exactly
C: That’s right
8 LANGE

A: Aren’t they So what does that mean The person that’s affected is me basically isn’t it So what would I sing if I if
we’re < , > filling holes in that chord < , > (ICE-GB:S1A-026 #0070ff.)
(12) So I I as I say I mean let’s just j just take it at face value
No-one’s going to make any fuss about it basically
It’s just < , > everybody ignores them anyway (ICE-GB:S1A-069 #191ff.)
(13) B: This guy at college
He’s in my class
But only because I’m so bored at the moment
Uhm
But but nobody very interesting
A: I see
You just want somebody for the capacity of hot water bottle basically
B: Oh well no
A: Sorry (ICE-GB:S1A-091 #243ff.)

To summarize, the grammaticalization clines proposed for the development of adverbial discourse markers cater very
well for basically. The form moved along the cline in a remarkably short time when compared with, for instance, actually;
and, unlike actually, it displayed pragmatic ambiguity in specific syntactic contexts early on, as witnessed by examples
(3) to (5) above. A closer examination of such contexts would certainly be worthwhile.

4 BASICALLY IN SINGAPORE ENGLISH

This section is devoted to the findings derived from the Great Britain and Singaporean subcorpora of the International
Corpus of English (ICE) project. Beyond providing an overview of the frequency and distribution of basically in both
varieties, it will also discuss the question of how far a corpus linguistic approach can go in analysing the functions of
(potential) adverbial discourse markers. Both ICE-Singapore and ICE-GB are first generation ICE corpora, compiled in
the early 1990s. That is, even though they both capture the current usage of about one generation ago, an unwanted
diachronic dimension is avoided which crops up when comparing data from first and second generation ICE corpora
(Hundt, 2015).
Initially, a simple lexical search for basically with the concordance program WordSmith 7.0 was carried out for both
subcorpora, yielding the figures presented in Table 2.4 The two main observations that emerge from this very basic
descriptive level are not surprising but are nonetheless worth spelling out: basically is more common in SgE than in
BrE, and very much a feature of spoken language in both varieties. Butler’s (2008b) BNC data confirms the dominance
of basically in the spoken language, but shows much lower frequencies in overall tokens. This matter cannot be pursued
here further, but would be an interesting topic in its own right, especially when taking the new BNC 2014 into account.
Since discourse markers are typical of spoken language, we would expect a higher frequency of basically in the spoken
registers. However, we should keep in mind that this first lexical search captured all tokens of basically regardless of
function. In a second step, each token was coded for position and function. Position in the clause was marked by IN
(initial), MED (medial), FIN (final), and UN (unclear). The first three categories were deemed sufficient to proceed to
a later stage which would have involved matching each token’s position with a specific function, rather than going
for Butler’s 21 separate positions (see above). The label ‘initial’ also applies when basically is only preceded by other
discourse markers and/or conjunctions, for example:5

(14) So basically have something to say and say it clearly (ICE-SIN:S2A-036#37:1:A)

(15) Well basically a very significant reason is uh financial reason (ICE-SIN:S1B-025#49:1:I)
LANGE 9

Following the developmental cline sketched above, a medial position would definitely correspond to non-discourse
marker status and any token of basically in final position would definitely be a discourse marker, whereas any clause-
initial token of basically could either be a sentence adverb or a discourse marker, requiring closer scrutiny of contexts.
However, there are two brief comments about basically in the literature on SgE which throw a quite different light on
its grammaticalization cline. One comes from a general survey of SgE by Low:

Standard SingE favours the use of certain adverbs, especially as hedgers. Examples are, She basically left
the room because she was unhappy and My name is actually Sarah. In both sentences, the use of basically
and actually do not add to their meaning. The meaning might even be distorted! For example, in the sen-
tence, My name is actually Sarah, the speakers of BrE or AmE might (understandably) misunderstand her
intended meaning and presume that Sarah has all along been using another pseudonym and is clarifying
this point to her interlocutors. (Low, 2012, p. 49; emphasis in the original)

Low’s observation effectively throws a spanner in the works: it seems that the gradual development of basically
towards discourse marker status does not hold for SgE. Her examples indicate that basically can be a discourse marker
even as a clause-internal adverb, irrespective of a shift to clause-initial or clause-final position. This would have con-
sequences for a corpus-based quantitative analysis of the positions and functions of basically in the clause – if every
instance of basically represents a potential discourse marker, then the coding for position can be dispensed with, and
each single token has to be examined in context.
The second comment comes from Deterding’s (2007) textbook on SgE:

There is a tendency for prominent high pitch to occur at the start of an utterance in Singapore, some-
thing that has been termed ‘boosted pitch’ [. . . ] and an early ‘booster’ [. . . ]. This can be illustrated by the
pitch found on actually and basically. These words occur about as often as in British English, but they
become especially salient in Singapore partly because they tend to occur early in the utterance, in con-
trast with their quite common occurrence in final position in British English, and especially because of
the sharply rising pitch they often carry in Singapore. [. . . ] In fact, although actually, basically, I think and I
guess seem to be especially common carriers of this early booster, it can occur on any word. (Deterding,
2007, pp. 35–36)

His data are derived from one hour of ‘the speech of one ethnically Chinese female university undergraduate recorded
on a single occasion while she was being interviewed by her close friend’ (Deterding, 2007, p. 6), the full transcript is
included in his book (pp. 104−129). Overall, his informant utters actually 19 times and basically 36 times throughout
the recording. Deterding’s (2007, p. 35) example in (16) indicates the ‘substantial rise in pitch over the course of the
word’ with an arrow symbol:

(16) maths basi↑cally is about doing tutorials {iF13-g:54} (Deterding, 2007, p. 35)

Deterding (2007, p. 83) asks with respect to the use of actually and basically by his informant: ‘Is this overuse? And is
it a feature of Singapore English?’. These questions can be put into perspective by comparing his data with the figures
from ICE-GB and ICE-SIN in Table 3. The figures confirm that Deterding (2007, p. 84) is quite right in assuming that
the forms in focus possibly ‘constitute part of the speech of young English speakers around the world’, if their common
occurrence in both ICE-subcorpora is anything to go by. A second observation concerns Deterding’s informant, whose
preference for basically appears as quite idiosyncratic when compared with the dominance of actually over basically
in the two subcorpora. Moreover, his informant’s preference for basically in initial position is much more pronounced
than in the other varieties, as can be seen in Tables 4–6.
10 LANGE

TA B L E 3 Actually and basically in ICE-GB, ICE-SIN, and Deterding’s (2007) data (absolute figures)

ICE-GB ICE-SIN Deterding (2007)

(spoken/written) (spoken/written) (spoken)
actually 975 / 93 927 / 90 19
basically 114 / 12 168 / 22 36

TA B L E 4 Position of basically in Deterding’s (2007) data (absolute and relative frequencies)

Position Deterding (2007, pp. 104−129)

Initial 24 / 66.6%
Medial 6 / 16.6%
Final 6 / 16.6%

Note: that the definition of what constitutes an ‘initial’ instance of basically differs slightly between Table 4 and Tables 5 and 6:
since Deterding listed example (16) as an example of initial basically, I diverged from the narrower definition outlined above
and included this and one more example in his ‘initial’ category which I would otherwise have considered ‘medial’.

Two further assumptions on the preferred position of basically in SgE can be tested, namely whether ‘they tend
to occur early in the utterance, in contrast with their quite common occurrence in final position in British English’
(Deterding, 2007, p. 35). ICE-SIN indeed features a slightly higher relative percentage of initial tokens than ICE-GB
(44.6% as against 38.6% in the spoken sections). Tables 5 and 6 also display figures in brackets in the spoken columns,
indicating the relative frequencies when leaving out unclear cases. Further, clause-final basically is indeed more com-
mon in BrE than in SgE (14.0% as against 3.0% in the spoken sections). Butler’s BNC data support this claim; he
finds 28 final tokens out of his sample of 232 tokens overall in the spoken section, that is 12.1% (Butler, 2008b, p.
54). However, the preference for initial basically in the ICE-SIN data is not so pronounced that it fully accounts for
the scarcity of clause-final basically. Two explanations suggest themselves: if we still assume that basically followed
the same grammaticalization cline in SgE as in BrE, then fewer final tokens would indicate that the discourse marker
hedge-function associated with that position is not as entrenched in SgE yet. On the other hand, the highly frequent

TA B L E 5 Position of basically in ICE-GB, absolute and relative frequencies

Position ICE-GB spoken ICE-GB written All

Initial 44 / 38.6% (40.4%) 4 / 33% 48 / 38.1%
Medial 49 / 43.0% (44.9%) 8 / 66% 57 / 45.2%
Final 16 / 14.0% (14.7%) – 16 / 12.7%
Unclear 5 / 4.4 % (-) – 5 / 4.0%

TA B L E 6 Position of basically in ICE-SIN, absolute and relative frequencies

Position ICE-SIN spoken ICE-SIN written All

initial 75 / 44.6% (45.5%) 6 / 27.3% 81 / 42.6%
medial 85 / 50.6% (51.5%) 16 / 72.7% 101 / 53.1%
final 5 / 3.0% (3.0%) – 5 / 2.6%
unclear 3 / 1.8% – 3 / 1.6%
LANGE 11

indigenous SgE discourse particles typically occur clause-finally and might thus block that particular slot. Example (17),
one of the five examples of utterance-final basically in ICE-SIN, shows that the two forms can be combined:

(17) So they are they are they’re in their final process of getting their house ready lah basically (ICE-SIN:S1A-
053#80:1:B)

That is, indigenous discourse particles do not per se block other discourse markers. Considering the final tokens in
context, we do not get an unambiguously hedging function. Only in examples (17) and (20) is basically definitely on
the periphery of the clause, following another discourse marker in (17) and vocative man in (20). Example (17) is more
of a statement of the facts of the matter, where interpreting basically as a final hedge would not make sense. In (18),
basically modifies nothing, and in the lecturer’s monologue in (19) no hedging function is discernible. In (20), speaker E
wants to persuade speaker D of the qualities of a specific venue, here basically can be interpreted as politely hedging
his claims.

(18) Let’s say you don’t go into R and D okay

You spend three years you become five years you’ll become a manager
By the time you reach thirty your lifestyle goes up
Hit thirty-five director of company appointed the the G M or director of company
By the time you reach forty you’re a heavy weight earning twelve thousand fifteen thousand a month
What have you got
Nothing basically
All you have is your P R
When recession comes who do you think the boss will sack first (ICE-SIN:S2A-043#91-99)
(19) [. . . ] Okay no further questions we move on to our letters of credit and firts [sic] question you are now employed
by this bank very progressive bank It wants to entertain the customers’ wish If you can solve the problems that
the requests ah raise So now we want to discuss these problems and see whether it can accede to the cus-
tomers’ requests Okay so Mr Big your customer first request electronic communication facilities for credit Can
you accede to that request Would you Are there any problems Mr Big just wants communication facilites [sic] to
apply for credits to notify his beneficiary to notify himself that his credit has been opened basically that Can you
do it Yes No Yes or no (ICE-SIN:S1B-006#X81:1:A)
(20) E: Aiyah went that place lah the other day
D: How
E: Aiyoh
I don’t know man
I don’t know
That place uh is okay lah
Not too bad
It’s it’s a it’s karaoke man basically
D: Uhm (ICE-SIN:S1A-096#256-264)

This brief look at examples with clause-final basically in the Singaporean data has revealed that at least in this respect,
the grammaticalization cline proposed above does not hold unequivocally for SgE. Clause-final position should go
along with loss of lexical meaning, use as interpersonal softener or hedge, and deaccenting; the examples show that
meanings and distribution are not as clearly aligned with each other in SgE as we came to expect from the BrE evi-
dence outlined in section 3.
In order to test Low’s (2012) claim that even modifying, clause-internal basically can be a discourse marker, I exam-
ined all the examples for medial use of basically in the subsection S1A 1−100 (direct conversations), which yields 18
12 LANGE

tokens. What is striking is that if Deterding’s (2007) notion of ‘initial’ were applied, then the majority of these examples
(13 out of 18) would have to be reclassified, for example:

(21) It’s basically that one section that has been rewritten right (ICE-SIN:S1A-089#134)
(22) So other things include the very famous ice-cream < unclear > word < /unclear > and uh you basically eat a lot
you see and the service is very good (ICE-SIN:S1A-074#149:1:B)
(23) And so Bob drafted this questionnaire and gave it to Dick
And Dick basically said he didn’t like it because it was there were questions like were you given enough guidance
and were your personal tutors good enough (ICE-GB:S1A-008 #111-112)

Reclassifying ‘initial’ as allowing one noun or pronoun in examples (22) and (23) or a short sequence such as ‘it’s’ in
example (21) does yield considerably higher numbers of tokens for ICE-SIN spoken, but there is also an increase for the
corresponding ICE-GB section: from 75 to 101 tokens (relative frequency now 60.11%) for ICE-SIN and from 44 to 62
for ICE-GB (relative frequency at 53.38%). However, the 18 tokens chosen for closer scrutiny do not lend themselves
to a discourse marker reading. Example (24) features the lexical meaning of basically, and basically in (25) appears in a
contrastive context.

(24) A: Why why do you call her a bamboo

C: She is basically bamboo
Very skinny (ICE-SIN:S1A-043#278-280)
(25) A: You you could no you could you could hate the guy but you eventually ended up liking him at the end of the
show
B: Yah ah
A: Because he actually basically was just doing his job (ICE-SIN:S1A-081#245-247)

This casts some doubt upon Low’s pronouncement, but does not fully refute it. Overall, we are left with the impression
that the different functions of basically in SgE parallel those predicated upon BrE, but that they do not fall out neatly
from a grammaticalization cline which connects semantic changes with positional changes. The reason for this may
be variety-specific: the preference for an ‘early booster’ position at the beginning of the clause, as Deterding (2007)
argues, or the availability of a rich paradigm of indigenous final discourse particles which are liable to interact with
‘common core’ discourse markers in interesting – but as yet unknown – ways.

5 CONCLUSION

This paper has, first, proposed a grammaticalization cline for basically from modifying adverbial to clause-external dis-
course marker, and second considered the meaning and distribution of basically in ICE-GB and ICE-SIN. The first sec-
tion has shown that basically has developed discourse marker functions in largely expected ways, but with two note-
worthy quirks which might even be interrelated: basically proceeded along its grammaticalization cline much faster
than comparable forms such as actually, and it displayed pragmatic ambiguity in specific syntactic contexts early on, as
was noted in section 3. Further research on the history of basically might single out these contexts for closer scrutiny,
as the potential triggers for a shortcut towards speedy grammaticalization. Trying to map the trajectory of basically
onto Singapore English turned out to be less straightforward than expected. To advance the analysis of basically in
ICE-SIN, it would be highly desirable to have access to recordings, so that the proposed association of initial basically
with prominent pitch, the ‘early booster’, could be verified. Another next step would be to bring actually into the pic-
ture, and ultimately also to include the indigenous discourse particles in the analysis. If a variety has its indigenous
LANGE 13

set of discourse markers, then this may affect not only the frequency, but also the meaning of other ‘common core’
discourse markers – a hypothesis worth testing beyond the context of this paper.

NOTES
1
For a general introduction to grammaticalization see Hopper and Traugott (2003), Narrog and Heine (2011); for a discus-
sion of the question whether discourse markers are the outcome of grammaticalization or rather pragmaticalization see
Onodera (2011), Brinton (2010, pp. 302–306).
2
For a discussion of terminology with respect to ‘discourse particle/discourse marker/pragmatic marker’ see the introduction
to this special issue as well as Lange (2009, pp. 208–210).
3
The COHA (Corpus of Historical American English) raised false expectations by listing one token of basically for 1894, which on
closer inspection turned out to be from a journal article published in 1962, namely ‘Sacco-Vanzetti: The missing fingerprints’
appearing in The Nation, 12/22/1962, Vol. 195 Issue 21, pp. 442–451. The original text is not accessible from the COHA
site, and the relevant token of basically appears in a garbled line, probably produced by faulty character recognition. The
EEBO (Early English Books Online) database that is accessible via the same website (English-corpora.org) suffers from similar
problems: an unexpected early instance of ‘basic time’ in a play from 1662 turned out to be ‘busie time’ on closer inspection
of the original.
4
The difference between the number of tokens in the spoken and the written ICE-subcorpora is not statistically significant,
but the low frequencies of written tokens might have skewed the data. I thank Asya Yurchenko for her generous R-support.
5
See Butler (2008b, p. 49): ‘The adverb is put in this [initial] category even if it is preceded by a coordinating or subordinating
conjunction or by a discourse item such as you know, I mean’.

REFERENCES
Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bao, Z. (2015). The making of Vernacular Singapore English: System, transfer, and filter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow:
Longman.
Brinton, L. J. (2010). Discourse markers. In A. H. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (Eds.), Historical pragmatics (pp. 285–314). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Butler, C. S. (2008a). ‘Basically Speaking’: A corpus-based analysis of three English adverbs and their formal equivalents in
Spanish. In M. de los Angeles Gómez González, J. Lachlan Mackenzie, & E. M. González Alvarez (Eds.), Current trends in
contrastive linguistics: Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 147–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Butler, C. S. (2008b). The subjectivity of basically in British English: A corpus-based study. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics
and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente (pp. 37–64). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Columbus, G. (2009). A corpus-based analysis of invariant tags in five varieties of English. Language and Computers, 69, 401–
414.
Deterding, D. (2007). Singapore English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Hoffmann, S., Blass, A., & Mukherjee, J. (2017). Canonical tag questions in Asian Englishes: Forms, functions, and frequencies in
Hong Kong English, Indian English, and Singapore English. In M. Filppula, J. Klemola, & D. Sharma (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of world Englishes (pp. 697–714). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hundt, M. (2015). World Englishes. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics (pp. 381–
400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuteva, T., Heine, B., Hong, B., Long, H., Narrog, H., & Rhee, S. (2019). World lexicon of grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kuteva, T., Rhee, S., Ziegeler, D., & Sabban, J. (2018). On sentence-final ‘what’ in Singlish: Are you the Queen of England, or
what? Journal of Language Contact, 11, 32–70.
Lange, C. (2009). ‘Where’s the party yaar’: Discourse markers in Indian English. In T. Hoffmann & L. Siebers (Eds.), World
Englishes: Problems, properties and prospects (pp. 207–225). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Leimgruber, J. R. E. (2012). Singapore English: Structure, variation, and usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lim, L. (2007). Mergers and acquisitions: On the ages and origins of Singapore English particles. World Englishes, 26, 446–473.
Low, E. L. (2012). Singapore English. In E. L. Low & A. Hashim (Eds.), English in Southeast Asia: Features, policy and language in use
(pp. 35–53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Narrog, H., & Heine, B. (Eds.) (2011). The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
OED: The Oxford English Dictionary online. (2020). Retrieved from www.oed.com
14 LANGE

Onodera, N. (2011). The grammaticalization of discourse markers. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of gram-
maticalization (pp. 614–624). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Schwenter, S. A., & Traugott, E. C. (2000). Invoking scalarity: The development of in fact. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1, 7–25.
Takahashi, M. (2014). A comparative study of tag questions in four Asian Englishes from a corpus-based approach. Asian
Englishes, 16, 101–124.
Tan, A. (2010). Right in Singapore English. World Englishes, 29, 234–256.
Traugott, E. C. (1995). The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented
at the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, UK. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/
∼traugott/ect-papersonline.html

Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2005). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Watts, R. J. (1988). A relevance-theoretic approach to commentary pragmatic markers: The case of actually, really and basically.
Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 38, 235–260.
Ziegeler, D., & Lee, S. (2020). Lexical retention in contact grammaticalisation: Already in Southeast Asian Englishes. Journal of
Language Contact, 12, 737–783.

CORPORA
ARCHER: A representative corpus of historical English registers. Retrieved from https://www.projects.alc.manchester.ac.uk/
archer/
British Periodicals Collection. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/britishperiodicals/index.
Brown: A standard corpus of present-day edited American English, for use with digital computers (Brown). (1964, 1971, 1979).
Compiled by Francis W. N. , & Kučera H., Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University.
CED: A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. (2006). Compiled under the supervision of Merja Kytö (Uppsala University)
and Jonathan Culpeper (Lancaster University).
COHA: Corpus of historical American English. Retrieved from https://www.english-corpora.org/coha/
EEBO: Early English books online. Retrieved from https://www.english-corpora.org/eebo/
Frown: The Freiburg-Brown corpus (‘Frown’) (original version). Compiled by Christian Mair, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.
GloWbE: Corpus of global web-based English. Retrieved from https://www.english-corpora.org/glowbe/
Helsinki Corpus: The Helsinki corpus of English texts. (1991). Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki. Compiled
by Matti Rissanen (Project leader), Merja Kytö (Project secretary); Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, Matti Kilpiö (Old English); Saara
Nevanlinna, Irma Taavitsainen (Middle English); Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (Early Modern English).
ICE: The International Corpus of English. Retrieved from http://www.ice-corpora.uzh.ch/en.html
ICE-GB. Retrieved from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/projects/ice-gb/
ICE-SIN. Retrieved from https://www.ice-corpora.uzh.ch/en/joinice/Teams/icesin.html
Old Bailey Corpus: (2012). The Old Bailey corpus. Spoken English in the 18th and 19th centuries. Compiled by Huber M., Nissel M.,
Maiwald P., & Widlitzki. Retrieved from www1.uni-giessen.de/oldbaileycorpus

How to cite this article: Lange C. Basically in Singapore English. World Englishes. 2021;1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12536