Teaching English as a second language Pt I
October 19, 2003
by Dr Winford James
Fellow columnist Yusuff Ali invited me last Sunday to say what I think about teaching English as a foreign language in the English-speaking Caribbean. He had heard a BBC report on apparent difficulties Jamaicans, the younger ones especially, had in speaking English since most of them spoke 'creole', and he was shocked at the idea, coming from some academics, that English should be taught as a foreign language. What, he wondered, were my views on the matter?
In essence, I think Standard English should be taught as a second language since it shares more or less the same vocabulary with (Jamaican) Creole but is different in a number of areas such as pronunciation, intonation, grammar, and discourse. It is not a foreign language in the English-speaking Caribbean because practically everybody understands it at the conversational, non-academic level and, in fact, produces a significant amount of its vocabulary and structure in routine daily communication.
In developing this position, I will start off with some observations about some of the notions and attitudes in Yusuff's column. First, he begins with a contrast between English as the official language of Jamaica and Creole as the language of the majority of Jamaicans. What is the relevance of the contrast? He seems to be implying that that is a contradictory state of affairs; if English is the official language, then it should be the language spoken by the majority of the population. If that is his thinking, then he is confusing 'official' with 'actual' or 'real'. The actual language of Jamaica, that is, the language of general informal social interaction, is Creole, while English is the language of formal contexts, which, by comparison with the multitude of informal contexts, are decidedly few and limited. Given these facts, we must ask, Why hasn't Creole been designated an official language too?
Second, Yusuff writes 'English' with a capital 'E' within the relevant sentences, but does not extend the same courtesy to 'Creole', which he writes with a common or lower-case 'c' - much like the biblical distinction between 'God' and 'god'. Given my knowledge of the use of the alphabet, I get the signal, even though it may not have been consciously sent, that he is downgrading Creole - not attributing to it the same linguistic status as he does to English. But if he were to take a scientific view of the situation, he would see that Creole is as much language as English is.
Third, Yusuff seems to agree with the teacher in the BBC report that Jamaicans 'like to let loose and do what they want to do' and 'don't like too many rules and regulations so they find speaking English a drag.' I say this because he comments on the teacher's observation by saying that he 'couldn't help thinking' that what was being said of Jamaica was 'easily' true of 'almost any other Caribbean island' (it would be interesting to know which island(s) he exempts!), and goes on to say that it is not only the Caribbean that is 'struggling' with English, but England itself as well. Both he and the teacher are sounding as if English has language rules and regulations but Creole doesn't. But how, they must ask themselves, could people converse and exchange ideas, effortlessly and unconsciously, if you please, if there were no rules governing the exchange?
Finally, Yusuff uses the label 'English-speaking Caribbean' (at the end of his column), but does it occur to him that, if it is that most people in the area do not speak English, that the label is therefore a misnomer?
I make these observations to point to two general facts: 1) most people simply do not understand the nature of language; and 2) in respect of language in the English-speaking Caribbean, most people think, erroneously, that English is good, authentic language but that Creole is not.
This ignorance and the consequent misguided attitudes, which unfortunately reside in people who should know better (like teachers), are a critical part of the problem of teaching Standard English in our part of the world. The situation is so bad that nothing short of a public campaign of sensitisation and re-education about the linguistic status of Creole versus Standard English is needed.
People need to be shown, systematically, that Creole has its own rules and regulations, just as English, in pronunciation, intonation, grammar, discourse, and much else. They need to be shown that it shares the stock of vocabulary with English. They need to be shown that they produce a lot of language that is materially English, only that the accent is different. They need to be shown the ways in which Creole differs from English, especially the grammatical ways; there is Creole grammar and there is English grammar. And they need to be shown that the fact they speak Creole does not mean that it must or will prevent them from speaking and writing English.
It is because Creole shares a number of similarities with English that the latter is better seen as a second language than as a foreign language (like, say, Spanish or French). The facts strongly suggest that it should be taught as a second language, with no attempt made to replace Creole with it. English would then be another language resource that Creole speakers would have.
I close with one more observation on Yusuff's column. Go back to his reported dialogue between teacher and pupil. What do you notice? What does he want you to notice? I notice at least three things: 1) vocabulary-wise and grammatically, the teacher's speech is Standard English, while the student's is Creole, grammatically, and substantially English, vocabulary-wise; 2) the student obviously understands the teacher's Standard English; and 3) the teacher seems to be correcting the student's speech.
In respect of the last matter, it is absolutely wrong to correct something that is right. What should be done is to arrange lessons in which children are taught to notice that messages are said one way in English and another way in Creole. Incontestably, it is not that the English way is right and the Creole way wrong, just that they are two different ways of grammatically expressing the same message.
'De phone a ring' is not inferior in any way to 'The phone is ringing' in terms of expressing the message that too many think only English can legitimately express. But this way of thinking is so hard to convert people to!
Pt I | Pt II | Pt III
Archives / Winford James Homepage / Previous Page
^^ Back to top
|