With the spread of English around the globe, academics increasingly seek to figure out what global English means to the world. Some accept English globalisation as a reality and take it as natural, neutral and beneficial for international and intercultural communication (Crystal, 2003). Some recognise English skills as important linguistic capital and must-have global literacy (Park & Wee, 2012; Tsui & Tollefson, 2007). However, others associate the global expansion of English with linguistic imperialism and the death of indigenous languages (Phillipson, 2009). Some regard globally spread English as native English varieties, particularly American and British English (Modiano, 2001; Trudgill, 1999), others argue for the rise of local varieties of World Englishes (WE) (Bolton, 2005; Kachru, 1986) and the international use of English as a lingua franca (ELF) (Jenkins, 2007; Seidlhofer, 2011). Although these generic interpretations of English have solid arguments from their own perspectives, none is sufficient to elucidate all the ‘complexity of ideological ramifications of the spread of English in [any] particular locality’ (Pan, 2011: 79).

There has been much discussion on the use of particles (also referred to as ‘discourse particles’ or ‘pragmatic particles’) as a key feature of Singapore English. Wong (2004) has pointed out that particles are essential in the Singapore speech community, and in order to pass as a functional member of the speech community a speaker needs to have a proficient knowledge of the meanings and functions of particles in spoken (and increasingly in texted) discourse. There is no doubt that the use of particles in Singapore Colloquial English is prevalent in the language use of speakers in Singapore, as attested by the numerous studies conducted on the topic since the 1970s (including Tongue, 1974; Richards & Tay, 1981; Kwan–Terry, 1978; Platt & Weber, 1980; Platt, Weber & Ho, 1983; Platt & Ho, 1989; Gupta, 1992; Wong, 2004, 2005; Wee, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2010; Liemgruber, 2016; Botha, 2018). Despite the fact that particles have been studied extensively, very few studies have investigated which particular particles can be considered prototypical in Singapore English in general, as well as more specifically in the vernacular speech of Singaporeans. Not only that, there appears still to be a lot we do not know about the functions and uses of many of these particles, specifically in the vernacular speech of Singaporeans.

The analysis of punctuation in philology is mainly carried out with a view to better understand the meaning of the literature concerned. Punctuation is generally believed to play the role of ‘assisting the written language in indicating those elements of speech that cannot be conveniently set down on paper: chiefly the pause, pitch and stress in speech’ (Markwardt, 1942: 156). Most of us often ignore the importance of punctuation in writing systems and tend to believe that punctuation only depends on tradition and the personal styles of writers. In fact, punctuation marks may contribute significantly to the clarity of expression. Many linguists associate punctuation with intonation, but the truth is more complex than that – punctuation marks may affect orthography, morphology, syntactic relations, semantic information, and can even influence textual structure.

When can a hyphen be described as ‘intrusive’? As with many other ‘rules’ of grammar and of punctuation, use of the hyphen is limited to a specific syntactical context. Hence, to use a hyphen where it should not be used makes it intrusive. Just like the apostrophe, it cannot be used arbitrarily. There is, for instance, a tattooist parlour in the English town of Oldham whose shopfront advertises Inkcredible Tatoo's (sic) and, with it, both the owner's or owners’ ability to play on words in writing and their inability to sign a plural form correctly – the rule being that apostrophes are not used to mark the plural of either common or proper nouns in written English.

Because standard English lacks a true a gender-neutral singular pronoun, there has long been debate over how to refer to generic persons whose genders are unknown, or those who reject binary male or female identities. Singular (or epicene) ‘they’ has a long history as a pronoun to refer to individuals of unknown gender (Balhorn, 2004), and has also been adopted as a personal pronoun by those who identify as neither male nor female. Borthen (2010) argues based on a corpus study of Norwegian that, crosslinguistically, plural pronouns allow for vague reference, and that their lexical features (e.g., number, person) need not match their interpretation in context, which makes these pronouns prime candidates to be used in gender-neutral contexts. Chen and Wu (2011) contend that this is true for both singular and plural pronouns, but Borthen (2011) disputes this, arguing that the data show that for definite plural pronouns, but not singular, the antecedent need not be activated in the speaker's or addressee's mind, and thus can be inferred.

Previous research on the grammar of English has led to the development of a number of useful reference books (e.g. Quirk et al., 1985; Biber et al., 1999; Huddleston & Pullum, 2002; Berry, 2012), which have substantially contributed to the teaching and learning of English language in EFL contexts. However, I found that from an (advanced) EFL learner's perspective, EFL learners are often left to our own choices when we want to express a specific meaning in spoken and/or written communication, such as acknowledgement-making for example (Hyland & Tse, 2004). One major reason for this is that these reference books have mainly focused on discussing issues such as word classes, types of clauses, tense and aspects, etc. They have not attempted to document systematically the lexicogrammatical means by which specific meanings can be expressed, though they do have selectively described some. This stimulated me to think whether it is possible to develop, what I tentatively call, a meaning-based grammar of English, i.e. a grammar which is primarily concerned with meanings and their typical lexicogrammatical realisations.