On the Speak English "Our way" enterprise - Towards a cockney of our own? (Part two)

Part one of the article appeared on July 11:

By Dilshan BOANGE

In critiquing my article in the Sunday Observer (06/06/2010) in an article posted on the website Groundviews [by the title B is for Balls (and bowls)] Mr. Michael Meyler has outlined four varieties of the O vowel spoken by Sri Lankans. Meyler must be thanked in this regard for his helpfulness.

These are aspects of phonology that must be shown and taught the children of rural Sri Lanka rather than let them find their own way of speaking it. In his article to the Sunday Observer (04/07/2010) MM has dismissed me as not competent on the subject by stating - "...we may safely assume that he has little specialist knowledge of the subject." I have never made pretensions of being a specialist of the subject.

I am not a linguist. MM's dismissal of my views (in his article to the Observer) is substantiated mainly quoting a line from my article which is - "Shakespearean grammar would befuddle us today, but the words are pronounced the same." What I meant was to show the importance of phonology over grammar in the rudiments that build vernaculars.

On the matter of Shakespearean grammar and pronunciation is in the context of Standard SLE. The befuddlement that would happen amongst the general populace of English speakers in Sri Lanka if Shakespearean grammar were to be standardized needs no 'specialist' explanations does it? Let me leave that to the reader.

Would the general populace of English speakers in Sri Lanka (not Buckingham palace) find troublesome the grammatical structuring found in lines like "Get thee to a nunnery" "When comest thou?" Generally the citizens of our country would not find this to be the English they were taught in terms of 'grammar.' It is in that context that I used the word 'us'.

When I said the words are "pronounced the same," the intention was not to suggest from a 'global perspective' of how speakers of English the world over may pronounce in a phonology of oneness "Friends Romans countrymen". Far from it, my focus was of a much smaller geographical setting.

My focus is entirely on Sri Lanka. The speakers of Standard SLE from three generations before us would still produce the same pronunciation be it from Shakespeare, Shaw, or Lalitha Withanachchi. And yes their progeny would very likely produce a greatly similar phonology. This, what some term as the 'elite' English should not be restricted to a select few.

It is the tool of power that allowed them to make socio-economic headway. Would SWRD's 'silver tongue' which outdid the best of the Brits in Oxford become legendary in the Oxford Union if he had spoken 'not-pot' English? The rural masses must be given similar opportunities to grasp basic key tenants of Standard SLE pronunciation, rather than being given a 'solution' of convenience.

In his article in Groundviews MM dismisses my views on pronunciation of the O vowel saying "context is everything". True there is much truth to it, but practicality proves the level of communicational efficacy could become low. But then MM dismisses my true life examples as mere anecdotes. And yes MM certainly knows contextualization, and how best to employ it, for he has quoted me of the Shakespearean grammar bit, but what of the sentence preceding it? - "Phonology after all is the foundational building block of any spoken language." Can anyone dismiss this as 'nonsense'? Since this is speak English "Our Way" and might I ask what is the mettle of the foundation that the rural English learner would be given? I will once again say it I am not a specialist on this subject.

But might I plead for the readers' generosity to at least consider that I do have a Special degree in English from the Colombo varsity (where I was a third generation student from my family) and that my ideas may not be entirely haphazard to just 'make some noise.'

I do not claim to be an academic, but then neither does MM. But he is a language teacher at the British council paid by the hour. I use to at times sit for hours at the canteen and 'yellow commons' in Colombo campus and provide my two cents worth (without charging a cent) to fellow students (not of English speaking backgrounds) who were eager to develop competency in getting the O vowel right, and sought my assistance.

I have not been a researcher who has compiled dictionaries. My only academically valid piece so far is my BA dissertation - a textual study of Michael Ondaatje's craft of lyricism in novels. That is far from making me a 'specialist' in Sri Lankan English teaching methods and pronunciation. Referring once again to MM's article title "B is for balls (and bowls)" yes B is for balls, bowls, bonbons, bottles, boys and so on, we 'natives' know that, its elementary.

But what of the "O" sounds in them? That was and is one of the concerns. MM believes lingual diversity is to be celebrated. Yes we in Sri Lanka do celebrate our varieties of Sinhala and Tamil. There are pockets of speakers of Portuguese and African origin dialects that we can very truly celebrate as forming a mosaic of lingual diversity in Sri Lanka. But then none of them carry the potency of being a tool of power like English in the international sphere.

A dialectical oneness in English the world over may not be possible, but within Sri Lanka, surely we can achieve a great deal than fragmentation. We don't have the population of a billion like in India. And English isn't the mother tongue of the masses here like in England. We don't need to make their baggage ours. And then revel in the accomplishment of 'lingual diversity' in Sri Lanka's English in the course of executing English 'any which way'.

It is the Standard SLE that will truly empower the rural youth of our country who can offer a great wealth of skills and talents to strengthen our country's human capital. May I ask the readers, when some child from the rural areas of the Northern province moulded in the non-correcting ways of teaching "Our way" English, is called to give a speech on "Myself" and innocently says "I leet lice" do we pop the champagne for having achieved 'lingual diversity'?! One could do so, if the programme was for a cockney of our own.

Sri Lankans two generations from now don't need to face possible vilification (from people domestic or foreign) for 'trying' to speak the number one international language and then producing an incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo. Please note that does not suggest that 'not-pot' English is total mumbo-jumbo but what could come from the non correcting methods of "our way" English enterprise.

So then, are Indians and natives of South Dakota ridiculed for their accents? That need not be our concern. This is not Britain (which now seems to have lost is prefix 'Great'.) and this is certainly not India. We can achieve much more if we put our efforts in to it. Do not make this a mere 'Lanka', for we are SRI Lanka.