Hubert Devonish, ContributorThe following is part one of a series that opens up the on-going debate about using patois as a basis for teaching English.
Is there such a thing as language rights?
Is discrimination on grounds of language a violation of individual rights? And does it rank with other grounds for discrimination such as race, gender or religious belief? The numerous international treaties and charters to which the Jamaican Government is a signatory, give a clear answer. For example, the United Nations Charter, Chapter 1, Article 1.4, states that one of the goals of that organisation is "To achieve international co-operation in...promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction to race, sex, language or religion". We see language rights here ranked alongside those of gender, race and religion.
There is an important draft piece of legislation currently before Parliament. This is the Draft Charter of Rights and Freedoms to replace Chapter III of the Jamaican Constitution. The draft states in 13)2 that "Parliament shall pass no law and no public authority or any essential entity shall take any action which abrogates, abridges or infringes -- (j) the right to freedom from discrimination on the ground of - (i) gender; (ii) race, place of origin, social class, colour, religion or political opinions". It goes on to say in 24.(8), "In this section the expression "discriminatory" means affording different treatment to different persons attributable wholly or mainly to their respective descriptions by gender, race, place of origin, social class, political opinions, colour or religion whereby persons of one such description are subjected to disabilities or restrictions to which persons of another such description are not made subject or are accorded privileges or advantages which are not accorded to persons of another such description."
The Draft Charter protects the citizen from being discriminated against by public authorities and essential entities on grounds of gender, race, place of origin, social class, colour, religion and political opinions. It, however, makes no reference to language. Why? Because, I suggest, there is the feeling that everybody in Jamaica in fact understands English even if they cannot speak it well.
ARE THERE REALLY JAMAICANS WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND ENGLISH?
Some years ago, a student at UWI, Denise Smalling, decided to research the extent to which Jamaicans indeed understood English. She ran a test in which she played four news items from a regular news broadcast to 30 beginning students in a literacy class run by JAMAL. At the end of each news item, each informant was asked, orally, questions which tested understanding of the news item. The item was played over again any time an informant was unsure or felt the need for clarification. The questions tested understanding in areas affected by knowledge of the meanings of words and syntax. The JAMAL informants, on average, answered accurately only 50.2 per cent of the time. This would show a shortfall in understanding of 49.8 per cent. This figure had to be adjusted to take account of the weaknesses in the test itself, identified through the responses of a control group who had a good command of English. Even so, the final figure shows a shortfall in understanding of 43 per cent amongst her JAMAL informants.
These results, though based on language use in radio news, can be applied to the use of spoken English in any of the public services provided by Government agencies. Is it fair that some citizens should end up being able to benefit from 43 per cent less of the services provided by Government because of their poor command of English? Isn't this a clear case of discrimination and violation of individual rights? In this context, is freedom from discrimination by state bodies on grounds of language not a relevant right, one worthy of protection in the Charter of Rights in the Jamaican constitution?
ON THE IMPORTANCE OF ENGLISH
There is clear national consensus on the importance of English. Everyone in Jamaica should learn it. The public is rightly concerned to ensure that English is learnt. This leads to the periodic outbreak of heated debate in the press about the most effective way to teach English in schools.
The fact is that anyone who lives in Jamaica and cannot use English is at a severe disadvantage. Such persons are denied access to the flood of knowledge, information and entertainment which comes to us from overseas through the medium of English. English is also a vital means of communication within Jamaican society itself. It is the official language of Jamaica and is the medium through which most public and formal communications takes place.
Debates in Parliament, prime time television and radio news broadcasts, the broadcast of hurricane warnings from the Meteorological Office, and so on, all take place mainly in English. All of the agencies of the state providing services t the public do so in English. They make little or no provision for persons with limited knowledge of English. Thus, if you wish to access services of the public health system, the passport office, tax offices, the legal system or the Ministry of Agriculture, and you don't have an effective command of English, you have a serious handicap, 'yu kaana daak'.
Those who are currently in the school system have to develop effective control of English if they are going to have the power to communicate and be communicated with, which comes from knowing English. English should, therefore, not only be taught in schools in Jamaica but it should be taught using the most effective means available to us. However, language learning and language teaching are very complex activities.
From the language teaching research done around the world and within the Caribbean, as well as all of the language education policy changes and public discussion within Jamaica, it is obvious that there are no quick fixes. Improvements in the teaching and learning of English will take time.
BUT WHILE THE GRASS IS GROWING...
By focusing on the issue of teaching English in schools, we express an understandable anxiety for the welfare of our children, the workforce of tomorrow. What, however, about the often overlooked adults, those who are currently producing and who make up the workforce of today? Many such persons have, through no fault of their own, moved through or past the education system without developing an adequate knowledge of English.
Too often, such persons find that the services of public bodies are provided to them in a language with which they are not familiar, English, and no other. To add insult to injury, such persons, in the course of trying to understand and make themselves understood, are often made to feel stupid by others because of their lack of control of English. The benefits of improvements in English language teaching cannot be made retroactive.
So, even as we take steps to fix the education system and improve the teaching of English, there will continue to be hundreds of thousands of citizens of Jamaica who have long left school or never been to school, and who lack effective control of English. These people, many in the 50s, 60s and 70s, are not likely to learn much more English than they already know. they will, however, continue to suffer because of their lack of control of English. While the grass is growing, the proverbial horses, in very large numbers, are starving.
Do we accept that hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens should pay for public service through their tax dollars and yet have problems accessing those services because of the language in which those services are provided? Are such persons not entitled to the same level of services from government offices and other public bodies, to which they contribute by way of taxation, as are persons fortunate enough to speak, read, write and understand English? Do all members of the public have the right to the same level of courteous service from public bodies, irrespective of their language? Ought language discrimination not to be treated in the same way as discrimination on grounds of gender, race, colour or creed?
BUT, DON'T PUBLIC SERVANTS 'HELP OUT'?
Of course, as you read this, your mind flashes to the last time you were n the tax office or the passport office, and you saw some public servant manfully trying to explain to someone the process which had to be followed. Surely the problem is being handled by well thinking officials who help the public by using language members of the public can understand? Again, however, let us look at some research on this question recently done by Hilma Linton and Cameleta Ffrench in six financial institutions in the Half Way Tree area of St. Andrew.
A researcher visited each institution in the Half Way Tree area of St. Andrew. A researcher visited each institution and speaking to the customer service personnel in Jamaican (Creole)/Patois, asked for information on how to open an account with the institution. In four of the six cases, the overall pattern was for the customer service personnel to be indifferent, unfriendly and sometimes directly rude. The investigator had to ask several questions in order to get the information needed.
Four days later, the same researcher, dressed in exactly the same way, entered the same institutions making the same inquiry, but this time using English. The responses were polite and helpful. Information that had not been asked for was given voluntarily, inclusive of detailed directions to the relevant section of the institution to which the customer was being sent.
On the positive side, in two of the cases, the same helpful and friendly service was accorded the researcher when she spoke in Jamaican and when she spoke in English. This tells us that if there is the will, staff providing services to the public can be selected and/or trained to provide bilingual services to the public in a non-discriminatory manner.
The unsatisfactory behaviour of the four other persons dealt with in this study makes it clear that the issue of ensuring fair treatment to the public cannot be left to whims of the individual officer who deals with a member of the public. Even though this piece of research was directed at private enterprises in the main, there is no doubt that the same pattern of language use exists in the public sector which is the focus of our discussion.
How can we promote language rights in Jamaica?
One way to promote language rights for persons who do not know English is to ensure that public agencies provide service to members of the public in a language they can understand. This means providing the same quality of service in Jamaican as is provided in English. One way to make this happen is to insert into the constitution a provision guaranteeing freedom from discrimination on grounds of language. This would allow citizens some redress if they felt that they could not receive from public bodies, in a language in which they are competent, information to which they are entitled.
It was with this in mind that I have made representations to the Joint Select Committee of the Houses of Parliament set up to consider a bill in the form of a Draft Charter of Rights which would become part of the Jamaican Constitution. In a presentation made on 31st May, 2001, I addressed 13-(2) of the Draft Charter of Rights which currently states that 'Parliament shall pass no law and no public authority or any essential entity shall take any action which abrogates, abridges or infringes... (j) the right to freedom of discrimination on grounds of (i) gender, (ii) race, place of origin, social class, colour, religion or political opinions' was incomplete. I proposed the addition here of '(iii) language'.
If Parliament accepts this proposal, it would be granting the right to freedom from discrimination on grounds of language on the same basis as freedom from discrimination on grounds of gender, place of origin, social class, colour, religion or political opinions. Parliament would be prevented by the constitution from passing any law, and any public authority or essential entity taking any action which 'abrogates, abridges or infringes' the right to freedom from discrimination on grounds of language.
The Draft Charter defines discriminatory in 1, 24-(8) as, '...affording different treatment of different persons attributable wholly or mainly to their respective descriptions by gender, race, place or origin, social class, political opinions, colour or religion...' Language would have to be added to this list. My suggested modifications to the Draft Charter would serve to strengthen an already existing provision, in 13-(2).(i), which blocks Parliament, public authorities and essential entities from taking action which interferes with '... the right to fair and humane treatment by any public authority...' This would guarantee not just the right to receive, from a public body, service in a language in which the citizen is competent, but ensure that this is provided in a courteous and respectful manner.
Part two next week
Hubert Devonish is Professor of Linguistics and Head of the Department of Language, Linguistics and Philosophy at the UWI, Mona.
