Editor for this issue: Lydia Grebenyova <lydia
linguistlist.org>
In a message dated 99-11-28 10:09:28 EST, you write: << 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. >> I agree with your response to Cecil's discussion and the point by point discussion of the argument. However, the relationship of written representation of varieties other than standard to particular communities of speakers is often problematic and not necessarily seen as empowering (although the well-chosen examples show that it can be for some speakers). The choice of orthography can index various social relationships that emerge through linguistic and other practices. As Lippi-Green points out, some of the most vociferous critiques of AAVE come from African-Americans themselves; additionally the development of standard orthographies in Haitian creole has not taken place without much discussion among Haitians about what different orthographies index, that is, what relationships both within the Haitian community are shown by and reproduced through the standardization process as well as the relationship of Haiti to the French colonial experience. For a fuller discussion of this point, see Schiefflin and Doucet "The 'Real' Haitian Creole: Ideology, Metalinguistics and Orthographic Choice" in Schiefflin, Wollard and Kroskrity, eds. _Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory_ (Oxford: Oxford UP 1998) . We do not know who lodged the complaint, and although it appears that this brochure was an attempt at the representation of English Creole, the appearance of documents in Creole may be contested within Creole-speaking communities and may appear as parody to speakers who speak similar and intelligible varieties of English (such as AAVE); the comments of the HUD tenants' union director may be as indicative of unfamiliarity with a written Creole as well as of an unspoken ideology that the distinguishing of a difference (in this case of language differing from the standardized norm) is racist. Should the brochure (to assume that it is Creole, or an informed attempt at Creole) have had a warning label to standard speakers that this really was a kind of English different from the supposed standard and only for consumption by some? I am not suggesting that Creole should not be a productive language in print; rather, I am suggesting that the appearance of print versions and various orthographies may be more problematic for speakers themselves and for other reasons than one might realize at first glance. Despite regional similarities and commonalities of culture and speech, there may be more variety among communities of speakers (or differences salient to speakers) than those who propose a standard orthography through the region might wish to believe, especially since the oppositional community for linguistically oriented academics is the dominant standard, which may not be true for all speakers. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the appearance of print materials in a variety, for some speakers for the first time, should have various responses that are not, however, predictable in advance. It would be a fascinating project to document various responses to written Creole and its uptake by various communities of speakers. John ThielsMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue