Creole?

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Hello, I may have some useful information on the legitimacy of the written “Creole” in the brochures mentioned in you article. Many moons ago, when I was a Jehovah’s Witness, (don’t worry I’m better now.) I had a chance to puruse their magazine “The Watchtower” in a simlilary written form of island dialect. It’s structure very closely matched that of the excerpt in your column. I think they refered to it as pigeon english. The Jehovah’s Witnesses developed a computer system many years ago called MEPS. MEPS was designed to translate written english into about 200 other written languages. The process was quite revolutionary and they were able to sell the design to many other interested parties, possible even the goverment agency in question. I can assure you that the magazine I saw was not meant to be a joke or a slur on the people who speak this language. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are many messed up things, but they are not racist in any way, nor are they so disorganized as to let something like this slip by unintentionally. You might try contacting them about MEPS and finding out how they chose to treat certain island languages in this manner.

anonymous.

2

I think I remember seeing on a TV show “The Story of English” that there was a movement in Jamaica (or possibly Bermuda) to make English Creole the official language of the island. They even showed a proposed sign that would replace “No Parking” signs–“No park between da signs, mon.”

(I think that’s what the sign said. Somebody please correct me if I am wrong…

3

There have been some attempts to standardize Jamaican patois, as has been done with Haitian Creole, so that it could be used as a formal written language. So far these have not met with much success. Educated Jamaicans, both black and white, tend to dismiss patois as a slangy peasant language. Until patois is formalized and taught in the schools, it is useless as a medium for written communication. Even for a speaker of patois, it’s easier to read standard English.

4

[[Educated Jamaicans, both black and white, tend to dismiss patois as a slangy peasant language.]]

Some of them may tell you that, but they’re lying if they tell you they don’t understand and speak it themselves.
Jill

5

(Sent to me via email)

Dear JillGat:

I’m not a registered member of “The Straight Dope,” but a grad student in
the course on “Style and Language Ideology” which I’m coordinating this
quarter sent us a copy of the query about a HUD document in Creole and
Cecil’s reply. In reponse to this, I sent the class a long comment with
my own thoughts on the issue, which I’ve edited slightly to pass on to you
now, for possible inclusion in your “Comments on Cecil’s Columns” forum.
Apologies for the length. I hope you can still include it.

John R.

– I think the issues are more complex than the story suggests.

(1) It’s not clear that this IS a form of “mock creole,” parallel to
Hill’s “Junk Spanish” (Pragmatics 5.2:197-212) or Ronkin and Karn’s “Mock
Ebonics” (J. of Sociolinguistics 3.3:360-380). To begin with, there are
authentic linguistic elements, not only the ones Mufwene refers to, but
also the grammatical continuative marker “ah,” found in Jamaican, Guyanese
and other varieties, as in “HUD ah provide” (=HUD is providing). If
someone is pulling a prank, it is someone with more “insider” knowledge
than those who created the internet Ebonics sites or the translation
filters that they utilize.

(2) One of the features that makes this sample look suspect is its
inconsistent and non-phonemic orthography. Contrary to “Cecil’s” reply,
there is a widely accepted phonemic spelling system for English-based
creoles–the one developed by Frederic Cassidy in Jamaica Talk in the
1960s, and subsequently adapted for other Caribbean varieties (Guyanese,
Barbadian, Trinidadian, and so on) in many publications since. University
of the West Indies linguist Hubert Devonish has for years been advocating
that a standardized version of the Cassidy orthography be used throughout
the Anglophone Caribbean to increase the amount of public writing in
Creole (see his 1986 book, Language and Liberation: Creole Language
Politics in the Caribbean). At the same time, we should not assume that a
consistent phonemic orthography is what non-linguists like best and
understand most easily. On the contrary, “lay” readers sometimes find
phonemic spellings (e.g. /kou/ for “cow”) too far removed from the regular
spellings they’re accustomed to, and they like the slightly modified
versions of the latter that they encounter in novels and the like. In
this respect, whoever wrote the HUD document might not have been
completely off the mark.

(3) To assume that Creole and other “vernacular” varieties that are
primarily spoken CANNOT or SHOULD not ever be written–as Cecil’s reply
seems to suggest–is to foreclose the possibilities of change and to
kowtow to the strictures of the “standard language ideology” that Rosina
Lippi-Green writes about in English with an Accent (1997), denying full
access, understanding and enjoyment to those who do not command the
legitimated variety. If similar strictures had been accepted in the
history of English, writing and formal discourse in England (and its
“Empire” around the globe) would still be conducted only in French (or
Latin). If similar strictures had been accepted more recently in Haiti,
the use of Haitian Creole in schools and in writing would never have
occurred.

(4) So far as English-based Creoles and dialects are concerned, a number
of innovators have, for the past several decades, been flaunting
convention and producing written works in the vernacular. Not
unexpectedly, this has sometimes led to controversy, but this new
creole/dialect writing has also won praise for the increased clarity,
vitality and authenticity it has yielded. Examples come primarily from
literary genres (poetry, short stories, novels, plays), but also from
bible translations, and school texts (remarkably effective in boosting
reading scores to the extent that their experimental use has been
allowed). Two American examples that my Russell Rickford and I cite in our
forthcoming book (Spoken Soul) are P.K. McCrary’s translation of bible
passages into African American Vernacular, and the American Bible
Society’s translation of the Book of Luke into Gullah or South
Carolina/Georgia Sea Island Creole (De Gud News Bout Jedus Wa Luke
Write). Rev. Ervin Greene, an African American pastor on St. Helena
Island who assisted with the Gullah translation, said that an old Gullah
speaker thanked him effusively for it, saying “Rev, fuh de firs’ time–God
talk to me de way I talk!” Prize-winning poets and writers from the
Caribbean, African America and Hawaii have drawn not only on mainstream
English, but also on their English creoles and dialects in their work.
The list includes Nobel Prize Winners Derek Walcott (St Lucia) and Toni
Morrison (USA) and Pulitzer and Tony Prize winner August Wilson (USA).

(5) It is striking–and evidence of the force of the dominant language
ideology faced by vernacular-writers and users that HUD’s English creole
version was withdrawn after a single complaint was filed. It is even more
striking, that the Haitian Creole version was ALSO withdrawn even though
no complaint was directed at that version and even though there is an
established tradition of writing, reading and teaching in Haitian Creole.
This is a pattern that has occurred repeatedly in the Caribbean and the US
at least since the 1950s, and it has the effect of preserving and
protecting the status quo, and stymieing efforts to enfranchise and
include the masses in policy-making, communication, education and the
arts. What if we took another approach, and upheld innovations in the
vernacular when a single commendation is received, like the one from the
Gullah speaker who was delighted that in De Good News Bout Jedus Christ
Wa Luke Write God spoke to her for the first time, in her language?
Even though it was written in a different creole than the one I speak
natively (Guyanese Creole), the first time I read a translation of a
portion of the bible into West African Pidgin English (similar to Guyanese
Creole in a number of respects), I understood it with a clarity and
immediacy than I never had before, despite my fluency in mainstream or
standard English.

(6) In sum, the HUD translation may not have been a hoax, but an attempt
to convey whatever HUD intended to convey with a clarity and forcefulness
that speakers of English-based creoles (quite numerous in New York, LA,
Miami, Toronto, and elsewhere in North America) might well get most
readily in their own vernacular. Its effectiveness as a translation is
open to evaluation (as any translation might be), but let’s not jump to
the conclusion that ANY translation of a HUD document, or ANY use of
creole for serious expository or expressive writing is out of the
question. Several successful examples already exist.

–John R. Rickford, Professor of Linguistics, Stanford University

6

And here I thought Jar Jar Binks wrote it.

Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana

7

My only comment on the columns is that I laughed my ass off at them both. Ladies and gentlemen, your tax dollars at work!

8

Must immediately post again to clarify that the humor is not in the pamphlet itself, which is clearly offensive, but in the idiocy of the government in printing and distributing it. Just wanted to step back out of the line of fire there.

9

“Must immediately post again to clarify that the humor is not in the pamphlet itself, which is clearly offensive, but in the idiocy of the government in printing and distributing it. Just wanted to step back out of the line of fire there.”

Why do you think it was offensive? Cecil’s column that was released today seemed to indicate that the intent was to communicate, not offend. And John Rickford’s letter settles any doubt in my mind that such an attempt is reasonable.

10

Also, I don’t think anyone should feel guilty about finding joy or humour in the translation examples, english language variants in general or creoles in particular. I myself once pestered an old Jamacian guitar player in Key West for about an hour once simply because I loved the way he expressed himself - and a big part of that was blended language he spoke.

Enjoying the differences between people and cultures is what is meant by the phrase “embracing diversity” - and if sometimes those differences make us laugh then so much the better!

11

I don’t think the folks at HUD are “idiotic” and I am certain that they don’t mean to offend. Take a look at their website sometime, or visit one of their offices (there’s one in my building, and I stopped in to chat with them while this column was being researched). The people who work there are from very diverse backgrounds and seem to really to bend over backwards to help others and “meet people where they are.” They certainly were misguided and misinformed in publishing this brochure in Creole, but I think their motivation and hearts were in the right place.
Jill

12

Jill, have you ever heard the expression, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”? And being an atheist, I use that expression metaphorically.

In other words, good intentions aren’t enough. You should also know what you’re doing.

I’m from Texas and if HUD or any other government agency wrote a pamphlet in Texas slang, they’d be implying that Texans are incapable of reading and comprehending correct English. It’s condescending.

What if that pamphlet had been written in “Ebonics” and sent to South-Central L.A., or Compton or Harlem?

I’m not saying insult should be felt if it was not intended. I’m saying expect better from the people you’re trying to help. Just because they may need your help does not necessarily mean they’re ignorant.

Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana

13

Jab1, I’m confused. I don’t think the HUD made a mistake publishing that pamphlet. Why do you think they did?

As Professor Rickford pointed out it was a reasonable translation to a language spoken by a significant number of people. Such things are not unheard of are they?

14

[[As Professor Rickford pointed out it was a reasonable translation to a language spoken by a significant number of people. Such things are not unheard of are they?]]

You might want to read over Cecil’s column, if you haven’t. The problem with this particular translation (an inaccurate translation, at that), was that this Creole is spoken, but not usually written. And the native speakers of Creole (or in this case, Caribbean patois speakers)learn to read and write in standard English, NOT Creole. In fact, this would be harder for them to read and understand than the English version would be.
Jill

15

Jill, I understand this. But Rickford’s point was that languages evolve, and should be allowed to evolve. The woman who was so happy that ‘God talked the way I do’ probably learned to read and write standard english as well. Now, should the government be on the bleeding edge of language evolution? Probably not.

16

But the further complication is that HUD wanted a different language called “Creole” than the one they got, due to the confusion of going through two levels of subcontractor. And I have not seen any comment as to whether the intended “Creole” A) is a creole in the linguist’s sense or B) has a written form. Whether Jamaican English Creole has a written form doesn’t come into the question of whether HUD’s original intentions made sense or not.

John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams

17

To reply to Prof. Rickford point by point:

(1) We’ve now established that this was not mock Creole, a racist parody, etc., but a genuine attempt (on the part of the translator, anyway) to reproduce Jamaican patois.

(2) The spelling system may be “widely accepted” among linguists, but I see little evidence that it is widely used by ordinary folk. One sees a fair amount of variation in spelling in the notes posted in patois on the Jamaica Gleaner’s Website, and the variation in spelling in HUD’s document (which, as I say, was a bonafide attempt to reproduce patois) suggests that if there’s a standardized orthography, it hasn’t filtered down to the rank and file. What’s more, even among linguists I see debate about whether standard English words ought to be written in the traditional way or phonetically.

(3) I never suggested that Creole cannot and should be not written. I merely pointed out that Jamaican patois is not a practical means of communication in formal documents since it is not taught in the schools, where most people learn to read. Haitian Creole, which is French-based, has been systematized and is taught in the schools and is commonly (and rightly) used for formal documents.

(4) If patois speakers want to develop a written literature in their language, get it added to the school curriculum, etc., this is OK by me.

(5) I agree it was foolish to withdraw the Haitian Creole translation. The Jamaican patois translation, however, was ridiculed by everyone I showed it to or asked about it, including a couple linguists, numerous HUD tenant activists, the guy at the Jamaican embassy, etc. I think this has less to do with “dominant language
ideology” than with the impracticality of trying to produce a written document in what is primarily a spoken language. The “masses” in Jamaica are taught standard English and it is condescending to suggest that they are incapable of understanding it and can only communicate in patois.

(6) I have tried and obviously failed to make a basic point: it is harder for a Jamaican to understand a document written in patois than in standard English. Both O’Neil Hamilton and Prof. Mufwene commented that they had to vocalize the “Creole” translation to understand what was being said–as indeed did I. This was not a carefully thought out attempt by HUD to communicate with Jamaicans; it was a screw-up, pure and simple.

18

Go, Cecil.
Mi trus yu ave de trut, mon. Di problem yaso is oonu nah wan fi unnerstan.

19

Cecil isa bombad. Ja Ja liken dis.

20

bump – a cecil post