HCE and cognition Hawai‛i Creole English

30

3.2 Language attitudes

Negative attitudes towards HCE have persisted both within and without the HCE speaking community. For many ‘haoles’, HCE was that “unintelligible gibberish which passes for English” which is “born of pure laziness” Perlman 1973:3. It is estimated Grimes 1992 that between 100,000 and 200,000 speakers of HCE have a limited command of Standard English SE. It is therefore not surprising that HCE, like many nonstandard low- prestige languages, has not, in general, endeared itself to the well-intentioned members of the educational establishment. Consider the Department of Education’s 1943, quoted in Chang 1976:1 stand on HCE: Pidgin [i.e. HCE] has NOTHING to offer for the future. Because it is a backward, degenerate, parasitic language, our community should disapprove its use by those who are dependent on it. Students were required to “purge” Perlman 1973:3 HCE from their speech, and prejudicial attitudes towards HCE became institutionalized in Hawai‛i’s school system Sato 1985:264. Thus, HCE became stigmatized as the language of the poor, the low class, and the unintelligent Sato 1989:197. In fact, many locals 2 have succumbed to the notion that HCE is nothing more than “bad English” Sato 1985:267 and are ashamed of the language they speak. Only fairly recently have attitudes begun to shift. Tourism, the wave of foreign investment, the inevitable skyrocketing real estate prices, and the resulting economic pressure on local families already stressed by Hawai‛i’s high cost of living have all contributed the growing perception of ‘haoles’ and foreigners as outside threats to local people. Local people, once again feel a need to assert their identity and solidarity. HCE is, of course, an indispensable part of local culture. In 1987, Hawai‛i’s Board of Education’s attempt to ban HCE from the classroom actually served to solidify and mobilize the growing, albeit dormant, resentment against attacks aimed at local culture Sato 1989:202. The public outcry forced the Board of Education to substantially moderate its intended policy while bringing the issue to the attention of the general public. The recent resurgence of literary readings in HCE and the remarkable success of local plays conducted in HCE also bear testimony to this shift in language attitudes. Sato’s discussion 1989:209 suggests that perhaps there is justification for proposing yet another stage in Hawai‛i’s linguistic history: Stage 7: 1987–present Resurgence of Hawai‛i Creole It is difficult to predict whether current economic and political trends will continue in the long run. It is therefore premature to conclude whether this will be yet another major phase in Hawai‛i’s linguistic history or not.

3.3 HCE and cognition

Language attitudes which have become embodied in some modern theories of cognition and officially sanctioned by the scholarly establishment are a much deadlier strain of language prejudice. The so-called “deficit model” of educational psychologists also known as “culturelanguageverbal deprivation” places the blame for the minority child’s poor academic performance on the child’s language and possibly 2 The terms ‘locals’ or ‘local people’, as used locally, generally refer to local non-Caucasians who were born and raised in Hawai‛i. The Portuguese are an exception to this rule and are considered ‘locals’. ‘Haole’ and ‘local’ are essentially contrastive terms. 31 culture, which is claimed to inhibit his cognitive development. This was initially presented as a more politically acceptable alternative to the genetic deficit model. But Harkins 1994:110 warns us that both models essentially amount to the same thing: racial prejudice. A restrictive or restricted code, according to Bernstein 1964:259, limitsundermines the speaker’s ability to both to express himself and organize his thinking, by the considerably reduced inventory of linguistic options it makes available to its speakers. 3 Hess and Shipman 1965:871 explain that “restrictive” codes are “stereotyped, limited, condensed, lacking in specificity and the exactness needed for precise conceptualization and differentiation”. Bereiter and Siegfried 1966 refer to Black English as a restricted code and by implication the label also applies to other nonstandard varieties. In fact, Bierman et al. 1971:60 specifically apply the term to HCE, claiming: It [i.e., HCE] has a primitive grammar and word structure, uses simple, concrete verb-noun, verb-pronoun combinations, is repetitive, and makes extensive use of expressive vocal features. and furthermore: Early and consistent exposure to this type of language can lead to less abstraction and more simple relational responses, ... For Bierman et al. 1971:60, growing up in a HCE-speaking home is tantamount to language deprivation. Thus, they are in hearty agreement with Hess and Shipman’s position 1965 that “the meaning of deprivation [i.e., language deprivation] is the deprivation of meaning”. These are strong words. Their conclusion that is the semantically-challenged HCE speaker has no or limited access to complex, logical, or abstract sorts of meanings. The HCE speaker is thus deprived both verbally the ability to express these meanings in words and cognitively the ability to think using these concepts.

3.4 Standard English and cognitive development