Hubert Devonish, Contributor
The following is the final in a series that continues the on-going debate about using patois as a basis for teaching English.
WHAT would public bodies be required to do? When people interact with public bodies in Jamaica, it is in the area of spoken information that there is the greatest need and demand for efficient and effective communication. Therefore, for each public entity, priority will be given to spoken communication with the public.
Public servants who deal with the public will have to be trained to render courteous and efficient service orally in both the languages in which they are required to operate. Written material in Jamaican would not, in the first instance, be a priority for communicating with the public. This is so since, in Jamaica, nearly everyone who is literate exercises their literacy in English.
However, officials who interact with the public will themselves need to be literate in Jamaican. They would use this literacy to consult technical wordlists and Jamaican language versions of documents, the contents of which they need to communicate to the public.
Public bodies will have to be especially creative. This is because, given the general absence of literacy in that language, almost the entire provision of services in Jamaican will have to be done orally. Jamaican language versions of public documents could be prepared, not for direct use by the public but for public officials to read to members of the public with limited understanding of English. Forms to be filled out could be made available through sound recordings accessible via telephone lines.
The questions on the form could be asked orally by way of a sound recording. Answers to the questions, e.g. name, address, date of birth, etc. given orally on the telephone could be entered into the records of the public body either through speech recognition technology or by subsequently playing back the recorded answers.
This practice has been in place for over a decade, employed by public utilities in places such as California, not just for speakers of minority languages such as Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese and Chinese, but for speakers of English as well.
Because all literacy developed in Jamaica is developed in English, there would be little demand for Jamaican language documents for the direct use of members of the public. Any demand which there might be could be satisfied if public bodies commit themselves to providing documents in Jamaican, on request, in a reasonable time after such a request is made.
Public signs in Jamaican, alongside those in English present a trickier problem. Signs, by their very nature, cannot be made available on individual demand. The way around this is by applying again the 10 per cent principle. Jamaican language signs could be made available when it could be ascertained that at least 10 per cent of the users of the services of public body desire such signs.
And how will the different varieties of Jamaican be dealt with?
Would the differences in the varieties of Jamaican spoken across the country pose a problem for public agencies trying to implement the proposed provision in the Charter of Rights? Jamaican does, like any other language, have regional dialects. There is also variation in relation to a fairly small number of vocabulary items as well as in the area of pronunciation.
Speakers of the various dialects of Jamaican can be identified by the form they use to signal a verb as continuous, as in mi de go, versus mi a go versus mi da go meaning 'I am going'. The first of these forms, de, is typical of speakers from parts of Western Jamaica, notably St. Elizabeth, St. James and Trelawny.
The second form, a, is the form typical of Kingston, St. Andrew and neighbouring parishes. Its use has spread to other parishes because of the influence of the capital. The last, da, is an older form of a, and is found in pockets across the country, but in particular in some parts of Western Jamaica.
And then there is the variation in the form used to mark verbs as occurring in the past prior to some other event. Thus, we have mi ben go versus mi wen go versus mi men go versus mi en go versus mi did go meaning 'I had gone'. The form ben, is the oldest of these, and has been reported for nearly all the parishes. It is regarded as slightly old fashioned in some areas.
MOST PRESTIGIOUS
The other forms, which are, in reality, reduced versions of ben, are reported as favoured in different areas. The final form, did, typical of the dialect of Jamaican which shows increased influence from English, is regarded as most prestigious, being typical of usage in Kingston.
In the area of vocabulary, we find similar kinds of differences across the country. A word which has a particular meaning in one area, may have a quite different meaning elsewhere.
Sometimes, words which are quite common in one area, are unknown in another. What is pini-wali 'peenie-wally' in one area is kitibu or blingki elsewhere, what is flag, becomes 'sugar cane flower' in some areas and is tasl in others. And there are, of course, the differences in pronunciation which require listeners unfamiliar with the particular speech variety to listen very carefully.
The differences between de/da/a or ben/wen/men/en are well known by most Jamaicans who, when they hear a form that they do not normally use, conclude that the speaker is from area X or Y. They, however, understand what is being said. Vocabulary differences sometimes produce problems of understanding, as do differences in pronunciation. However, context and, where necessary, asking questions for clarification, result in very high levels of communication taking place across all dialects of Jamaica.
A public servant who says, mi da go, to a member of the public who would normally say, mi de go, will be easily understood. So too would the member of the public when he or she responds to the public servant. The same is true for the users variously of ben, wen, men, en and did.
The dialects of Jamaican have a very high degree of mutual intelligibility, higher in fact than, for example, regional dialects of English in Britain. A modern translation of the Bible into Lowland Scots or Lallans, in which the Pharisees say to Jesus' disciples, 'What for taks your Maister his mait wit tax - uplifters and siclike outlans', speaks for itself.
This level of difference does not exist between the varieties of Jamaican spoken across the country. Public agencies in Jamaica, therefore, can be confident that communication between its officers and the public will not break down because of differences between the regional dialect of Jamaican used by the public officer and that used by the person being served.
Will public bodies have to conduct their internal business in both English and Jamaican? The answer is that English is the sole official language. This is the language used officially by all public entities to conduct their internal business, communicate within the organisation, keep its records, etc. The issue of non-discrimination on grounds of language has to do with the relationship between a public entity and the public that it serves. It is in its outreach to the public that it serves, not in its internal functioning, that the entity would be required to function in both English and Jamaican.
Would the requirement to know English in order to perform certain jobs be discriminatory and in violation of the constitution? English is the official language, the language by which public authorities carry out their internal business and their communication with other official bodies and would continue to be so.
Persons without an adequate knowledge of English would, therefore, be unable to carry out many of the job functions in such an organisation. Potential employees would have to be able to use English effectively if they are to be able to perform properly in administrative and clerical positions within public authorities. It would be irresponsible of a public body not to require English language competence of its employees who perform certain functions. Such an expectation would be the equivalent of requiring that someone being employed as a medical doctor have a degree from a recognised medical school.
Having the qualification is directly linked to the function one is being employed to perform. Requiring English language competence, in such circumstances, could not possibly constitute an act of discrimination.
Would private bodies and citizens be bound by the constitution prohibiting discrimination on grounds of language? However much we think that any kind of discrimination is bad, the answer to the question in the caption is, 'No'. The Draft Charter does not, in its present form, concern itself with the behaviour of citizens and private bodies.
Citizens and private entities are free, according to the provisions of the Draft Charter, to be discriminatory on any grounds, be they religion, gender, race, colour or, as is being proposed here, language. The Charter of Rights covers government ministries, departments and agencies, local government authorities, statutory boards and authorities along with certain other bodies which Parliament may, under certain conditions, bring within the scope of the Charter. It is, therefore, these and only these bodies that would, if the current draft were amended along the lines I suggest, be blocked from discriminating on grounds of language.
The only feature of the language issue greater than its complexity is the extremes of emotion it evokes. Fortunately, humour exists as a way to deal with an excess of emotion. Newspaper cartoonists have applied humour to the language issue very effectively, even when, perhaps understandably, their cartoons have not always stayed within limits set by the facts.
I really do hope they take a shot at the issue of language rights in the constitution. The language rights issue is a significant enough mater, however, for me to recommend greater than normal care in dealing with it. I realise that it is a delicate and difficult task to remain within the bounds set by the facts while trying to evoke laughter. I am, however, quite sure our local cartoonists are up to the task.
Hubert Devonish is Professor of Linguistics and Head of the Department of Language, Linguistics and Philosophy at UWI, Mona.
