Jamaar Watson
Dr. Garley
English 470: Pidgins and Creoles
3/29/2018
Writing So and Talking So: A Sociolinguistic Analysis Trinidadian and Guyanese Literature
“Language has always been the consort o empire and shall forever remain its mate. Together the come into being, together they grow and flower and together they decline.” (Sebba, 7). Despite being culturally sufficient pidgins and creoles are disregarded and considered to be lesser forms of language. The effects are most evident within post-colonial nations such as those in the Caribbean where authors especially in their writing attempt to retain genuine elements of Caribbean creole in the orthography and morphosyntax. Authors Earl Lovelace and Eric Walrond are both Caribbean authors who write short stories crafting the Caribbean experience. Joebell & America” by Lovelace and “Drought” by Walrond are prominent pieces are written using the acrolectal forms of English with attempts to pay ode to their Caribbean heritage. Lovelace’s narrates a Caribbean man attempting to replicate American ideology through language and behavior using the morphosyntax of TEC. However, his command over TEC’s orthography the is miniscule. Walrond uses orthographic elements of GEC and SE’s morphosyntax as he romanticizes drought in Guyana. Both authors have succumbed to quell the systematic beast that is the imperialistic standard of SE. In doing this the authors have vandalized the Caribbean English creoles language culture, as they replace key orthographic and morphosyntatic elements. This happens not because the authors lack ingenuity or aptitude in understanding their culture, but unjust language conditioning that teaches SE is a necessity in political correctness and global acceptance.
The composition of “Joebell & America” by Lovelace within his narrative shy’s away from the orthography of Trinidadian Creole. The usage of TEC has an extensive vocabulary unique to the region which Lovelace does command this within his tale. This diglossia is apparent in the use of TEC morphosyntax and the lack of the creolized vocabulary. Lovelace uses STE to write his narrative as he leans away from the conventional spellings of the TEC. Within STE, the spelling of words is the same as that of SE. Lovelace’s form throughout the text sticks to STE as there is little ode paid to the rich culture of the TEC. For example, the words the, saysand enoughare known to be spelled differently when examining STE and TEC as two separate entities. According to Solange Anduze James in her piece “Trinidad English Creole Orthography: Language Enregisterment and Communicative Practices in a New Media Society” she notes that “Examples commonly used in English include sez for the word ‘says’ and enuff for the word ‘enough’.” (James, 31). Lovelace’s text does not employ the shift in spelling throughout his text as he consistently uses STE spelling for words. It may be acceptable within the narrative to use STE to narrate but he retains the usage of STE within dialogue. This seems to counteract the authenticity and veneration in regard to TEC and its speakers. For example, Lovelace writes “And I smile ’cause I see enough war pictures to know. “Nor’Carolina,” I say.” (Lovelace). The text lacks the TEC form of the word enough consistently as the characters native to the island who are expected to be speaking TEC are using STE and saying enoughinstead of enuff. Other examples include the word ‘says’ which is absent in the plural form within the text in both STE and TEC, as well as its TEC spelling, sez. Furthermore, words such as theoccurs often. In realizing such heavy usage of the, there are several realizations when the TEC version is not used other than the lack of staying true to TEC orthography. James writes that “The copula or forms of ‘to be’ are usually absent and are generally deleted after pronouns, for example, /di bwai dɛm wrkrd/ “De boy dem wicked” (TEC) ‘The boys are very wicked or mischievous’ (STE)” (James, 13). There is an obvious difference in the orthography of the in STE and de inTEC. The difference in spelling the words theand dealso cause phonetic shifts in the pronunciation. The would be pronounced with the dental stop being a major part of its pronunciation, as the tongue hits the upper teeth. De on the other hand utilizes the alveolar ridge to pronounce the d, which also gives birth to the sing “songish” pronunciation of both the d paired with e in the TEC. Despite there being a lack of TEC orthography Lovelace does accurately use TEC morphosyntax in the composition of sentences. Lovelace writes “But, a couple years earlier, Joebell make prison for a wounding, and before that they had him up for resisting arrest and using obscene language.” (Lovelace). The grammatical rules of TEC can be identified in the usage of make. The perfective past according to Michaelis et. al is a key feature of TEC.The tense usage aligns with the morphosyntax of the creole. Another instance is described by Shondel Nero who says,“Another grammatical feature in CE speaker’s use of the modal would, where in many cases Americans would say will” (Nero, 4). Lovelace’s writing does the opposite, as he uses will to indicate the future tense instead of would. Lovelace writes “If Joebell don’t go to America now, he will never go again.” (Lovelace). It is clear that Lovelace does not command the orthography of the language as expected TEC should, and despite using TEC’s morphosyntax there are inconsistencies within that element as well.
Coupled with Eric Walronds text there is a drastic difference between the two in how they devalue the Caribbean creole. Walrond’s narrative “Drought” possesses very little creolized morphosyntax. GEC morphosyntax was very difficult to find except in rare instances of Walrond using GEC orthography. Perhaps it is in the composition of the characters where Walrond attempts to strike balance as he too appeases to the language of the colonizer within his narrative. Because of the use of very romanticized Standard English, it can be assumed Walrond was writing in this fashion in order for the writing to gain acceptance by the prestigious SE speaking community. For example, Walrond writes “Hunger – pricks at stomach inured to brackish coffee and cassava pone – pressed on folk, joyful as rabbits in a grassy ravine, wrenching themselves free of the lure of the white earth”. (Walrond, 26). What can be analyzed is the choice that Walrond’s text provides no subversion to the traditional forms of writing and does not allow his Caribbean literature to exist as a unique authentic cannon. There is very little usage of the grammatical features of the creole unless he is using dialogue which entails a separation of the narrative and characters as two separate independent entities outside of a Caribbean whole. According Muhammad Raji Zughol there may be the pressure of the driving force of “hegemonic and imperialistic” natures and “English is unilateral in vision and it forms a real threat to other languages and cultures”. In appeasing to the imperialistic SE system for acceptance Walronds methods confirms Zughol’s ideology in “Globalization and EFL/ESL Pedagogy in the Arab World” that “the English language is a corrosive influence on individual self-esteem and collective cultural identity because it conveys and Anglo-Saxon or Judeo-Christian worldview alien to societies or cultures to which English is spreading” (Zughol, 1). However, despite having little of the GEC morphosyntax within the narrative itself, the orthography within the dialogue highlighted GEC. There are instances where Walrond is found, though inconsistently doing so, using de in replacement of the SE/GSE the. Walrond writes “under de bed m’m” (Walrond 32), and “Massie come hay, an’ see de gal picknee” (Walrond, 33). The use of delike TEC is an orthographic staple in GEC. Alex M. Balgóbin writes “One aspect to note right away is the absence of the verb “to be” in present tense, which is not uncommon in languages such as Russian. The determiners “these” and “those” simplify to “them” in GC and is pronounced as /dem/. To clarify their distance away from the speaker, /dis/, deriving from “this”, or /de/, deriving from “there” are used. /he/ can also be used as a derivative of “here”.” (Balgóbin, 8). A prime example of this is the absence of are the present tense form of the verb to be. Within the dialogue Walrond writes “wha’ a mattah, sick?” (Walrond, 34). The dialogue may offer elements in of morphosyntax in the usage of verbs, but the text inconsistently does so, as the orthography compensates for the morphosyntax within the text.Other example includes, the spelling of youras yo’ and overas as ovah.
There is evident reason to believe that composition of the text conveys that the characters just like the authors undergo a degree of language pressure. And as Shondel Nero states there is an “assumption that only standardized English counts as English” (Nero, 4). We can see that in the form and the literary content of the narratives of the narrative in both Lovelace and Walrond’s text. Joebell a Caribbean man succumbs to Anglo-Saxon worldview as he gives in to a Caucasian pop culture, and the determiner of acceptance would be the English languages culture and difference. Walrond’s form within “Drought” shows the soundness in the ideology that the oppressor wields language as a tool for social control. Both narrative use methods of the Anglo cannon and become a byproduct of “whiteness” as opposed to being subversive pieces that are to create niches for authentic pure versions of Caribbean cannon.
Works Cited
Balgóbin, Alex. “Guyaene English Creole: A Sociolinguistic Analysis”. 2011, pp. 1-10
Lovelace, Earl. “Joebell & America”. 1994.
Michaelis, Susanne Maria et.al “Survey Chapter Trinidadian English Creole” The Atlas Of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online.
Nero, Shondel. “Language, Identity, and Education of Caribbean English Speakers.” World Englishes25.3-4, 2006, pp. 501–511.
Walrond, Eric. “Drought”. 1926.
Zughoul, Muhammad Raji. “Globalization and EFL/ESL Pedagogy in the Arab World.” Journal of Language and Learning 1.2, 2003, pp.106–143.
