Annie Kitchin | Mr Espeut’s linguistics faux pas

I have had it with people like Peter Espeut who cast aspersions on the specialist writing system for Jamaican Creole which was devised more than half a century ago by the famous linguist Frederic Cassidy. It has been slightly amended more recently by the Jamiekan Langwij Yuunit (JLU) at The University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona.

Espeut claims to be a sociologist and human development scientist. How, exactly, this qualifies him to pass judgement on the internationally recognised work of the linguists at UWI, I cannot imagine. He says he took Spanish and Latin at high school, and (Ancient) Greek at university. He appears to believe that the “different tenses, moods and voices” with which he became superficially acquainted in these studies are all that is required for him to pontificate about human language in general and Jamaican Creole in particular.

Unlike Peter Espeut, I’m a linguist in both the popular and academic sense of the word. I speak several languages – French, German, Portuguese, Modern Greek and Jamaican Creole. I worked as an international conference interpreter at the European Union for over three decades. I have taught languages, as well as consecutive and simultaneous interpreting. All of these specialisations would be classified as Applied Linguistics.

I am also currently studying Theoretical Linguistics at UWI with the same researchers whom Espeut blithely denigrates. He is, apparently, unaware that they are in the mainstream of Linguistics research worldwide, as practised, for example, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, Cambridge University, the Max Planck Institute and the Sorbonne. Despite the usual problems faced by all UWI departments, such as lack of financial and human resources, these UWI academics have produced scholarly work that is highly respected by their peers.

HODGEPODGE OF MISCONCEPTIONS

Espeut’s article is such a hodgepodge of misconceptions and inaccuracies that only the most glaring errors can be highlighted here. First, the specialist writing system for Jamaican Creole is NOT difficult to learn. But you do have to learn it! Nor is there anything “esoteric” about it. There are videos on YouTube showing people working out the system for themselves, and doing a very good job of it too! The JLU itself organises teaching sessions via ZOOM. If Espeut really tried to learn the system, he would discover how extraordinarily easy it is and how quickly he would get the hang of it.

Second, Espeut claims that “Jamaican Creole is best listened to rather than being written down and read.” Says who, and on what grounds? That statement reveals that Espeut – like many Jamaicans, unfortunately – is uncomfortable with the idea of Jamaican being taken seriously as a written language. It should not be accorded the same prestige as any other language, notwithstanding his pride in it as a marker of identity. He cannot possibly conceive of Jamaican Creole as a language of written literature, abstract thinking, or global use, due to the “mental slavery” from which he and his ilk still suffer.

According to Espeut, our linguistic specialists are “linguistic purists who have applied their esoteric notation to our idiom”, and who “lack appreciation for the beauty of the transliterated Creole words which match the equivalent English notation and sounds”. This statement is pompous, self-contradictory, meaningless and 100 per cent wrong. What is obvious here is Espeut’s desperate need to attach Jamaican Creole to English by insisting on English spelling. Even though he acknowledges the fact that Jamaican Creole is NOT English!

CODSWALLOP

But then comes the really jaw-dropping piece of nonsense. According to Espeut, UWI linguists “would never suggest that written Spanish or French or English itself should be reduced to its standard phonetic notation for common use”. What codswallop! He might be interested to know that (i) the German writing system was overhauled in 1996 to reflect people’s actual speech; (ii) the French writing system was revised in 1990, with the changes becoming obligatory in schools as of 2016; (iii) the Portuguese writing system was updated in 1990; (iv) the Russian system was adapted much earlier, in 1917; and I could go on.

When languages are first written down, the transcribers’ aim, obviously, is to reflect actual speech exactly. If they are trained linguists, they will produce a completely consistent system (like Cassidy-JLU). But then, despite the inevitable changes in speech, the writing system remains stuck in the past. This is due to strong conservative forces (i.e. people like Espeut) militating against change. Bernard Shaw famously demonstrated the absurdity of English spelling, showing that the word “fish” can perfectly well be spelled “ghoti”, if you take the -gh from enough, the -o from women (as pronounced by British/American speakers), and the -ti from station.

Finally, I could scarcely contain myself at Espeut’s complacent advice from the heights of his ignorance to the linguists at UWI about not confusing every departure from Standard Jamaican English with Creole. Who does he think he’s speaking to? These are scholars whose entire careers are devoted to the study of human languages, who earned their PhDs and did their post-doctoral research decades ago, have published articles and books, and are in constant dialogue with their colleagues and counterparts at the top universities across the world.

On what basis does Peter Espeut think he is qualified to instruct these academics in their own area of specialisation? The mind boggles. The moral of this story? When you are uninformed and unqualified to talk about a subject, ask questions, or be quiet and listen; that way, your ignorance remains a secret. Selah.

Annie Rose Kitchin is an international conference interpreter, linguist and teacher. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com