We do not have to apologise for not speaking "proper English"...

Rod MacKenzie’s comments about the standard of English on Thought Leader (see the box, below) are well taken. It is, sometimes, difficult to follow contributions by bloggers and commentators, not all of which can be explained by actual language skills, or lack thereof. Some of it may have to do with a lack of reading skills. I want to suggest that much of the difficulty in following contributions is that some commentators tend to misread posts and comments and submit their views based on misperception … Nonetheless I want to make two points.

The first is that one ought, perhaps, not be too pedantic about language; it is, as surely it has to be, a dynamic living thing that tends to change over time. The second point is that English may well be the second, or even the third language of most contributors to Thought Leader. This latter point is complicated even further, of course, by the imperialist status of English. Let me start with the inherent dynamism of language.

Language is Adopted and Adapted

Language tends to be inherently part of culture. On the basis that culture is usually inherited, handed down or acquired through secular processes, we can say that humans adopt habits and language from other people either willingly (as adults) or unwillingly (as children) and adapt both to match changing social conditions. The way we speak is usually, therefore, quite dynamic. Some languages change quite significantly over time; others have retained important continuities. From a United States National Science Foundation project I recently picked up the following passage:

“Before a language can change, speakers must adopt new words, sentence structures and sounds, spread them through the community and transmit them to the next generation. According to many linguists … children serve as agents for language change when, in the process of learning the language of previous generations, they internalise it differently and propagate a different variation of that language.”

The relevant points in the above passage are “new words”, new “sentence structures” and generational changes and variations. Now, across time generational changes may be marginal, in other instances they may be quite dramatic… For example, while Japanese is thought to have changed relatively little over several centuries, English evolved quite rapidly in just a few centuries -– in some ways beyond recognition. With regard to Japanese, it is possible, for instance, to read some of the oldest written forms of Japanese from the 7th century. Since then, however, Japanese has changed, but retained important continuities, to the extent that one can draw the conclusion that basically the same language is spoken among the Japanese people today. In terms of English, very many English speakers may find 16th century texts by Shakespeare rather difficult. Worst still, Chaucer’s original (14th century) Canterbury Tales is almost impossible to read. It becomes difficult, therefore, to be too pedantic about English.

Linguistic Research has established that language change spreads through and develops pari passu with populations. One such project, which looks at almost 1 000 years of English and which includes detailed examination of at least 4-million words/texts has helped researchers track changes in language and establish language learning patterns among different groups. This research helps locate language shifts in a historical context and examines links between language learning and social change.

So, to apply a single basis, or a particular set of criteria for evaluating language, which I assume MacKenzie has done, one that is socially determined in a polyglot cultural environment like South Africa, becomes problematic. It is safe to state that at least 80 percent of South Africans do not speak English as a first language. To evaluate the way we, South Africans, speak on the basis of standard or pedantic English, as assumed to be spoken by the English, is unfair. The English people speak in different countries around the world differs significantly and outside the Wenao (Western Europe, North America and Oceania), a very small population speak English as their first language

English as a Second Language

Speaking only for myself, English is not my first language. Afrikaans is my moeder taal, but I acquired some language skills in Xhosa (from my childhood in eRhini), in Arabic (my family are Muslim), a smattering of early Melayu (through familial perceptions of an Ethnic identity) some Portuguese (our neighbours for a while were from Mozambique) and, of course, touches of English through various media. It was not until I was 18 or 19 that I began to formally teach myself and receive any meaningful instruction in English -– by which time it was probably “too late”.

According to Helen Neville, a cognitive neuroscientist, “If we leave language learning too late, then these systems will not develop normally.” For complete fluency, she found, exposure to a second language needs to occur before the age of 11. So, I even though I may write and teach in English, and may seem comfortable with the language, I can not/will not claim to be fluent. And then there is the issue of imperialism …

By imperialism I refer to two issues, the one being the way that English dominates the world, and the other is that way in which discourse is set on what counts as “proper” English. In the first instance, we can look very briefly at the way that English has become fairly unchallenged as the main language of academia around the world. Such is the near complete hegemony of English in higher learning that scholars and institutions that do not use English face serious problems with funding, exposure, knowledge-sharing and credibility. This might change, of course. We may recall that during the 13th century Latin was once the exclusive language of teaching and scholarship at universities in Europe. This dominance helped internationalisation of universities and (on the downside) allowed the Catholic Church to dominate intellectual and academic life almost completely. That was until Martin Luther and the rise of nationalism challenged and then displaced Latin with national languages.

Finally, moving more directly to McKenzie’s concerns, I suspect he may be particularly unhappy with the English writing style of some of the best writers from Africa and Asia; people like Arundhati Roy -– especially in The God of Small Things -– have turned aspects of English pedantry on its head. As one person (I forget whom) said of Roy’s book: “The great pleasure of The God of Small Things flows from its language and its delight in verbal comedy.”

If MacKenzie has problems with the misuse/abuse of English, he may be denying himself the pleasure of some of the best English writing -– not much of which is by people who speak English as a first language, or hail from pukka English families in Britain. I sincerely hope I misunderstood his complaints about our lack of English language skills. I suspect I may well have done so….