OSO. Tijdschrift voor Surinaamse Taalkunde, Letterkunde en Geschiedenis. Jaargang 4

[p. 213]

The 1830 defence of Sranan: William Greenfield's gift to the Creole-speaking world
John W. Harris

In 1830, William Greenfield published A defence of the Surinam Negro-English version of the New Testament founded on the history of the Negro-English version, a view of the situation, population and history of Surinam, a philological analysis of the language, and a careful examination of the version; in reply to the animadversions of an anonymous writer in the Edinburgh Christian Instructor. Having served its original purpose, Greenfield's Defence was forgotten and now perhaps as few as five copies exist. Along with Schuchardt and Hesseling, whom he long predated, Greenfield should have been recognised as a pioneer creolist. Until Reinecke's memorial paper in 1983, I know of only one modern linguist who has mentioned Greenfield at all (Stewart, 1974: n.30).

I first became interested in Greenfield's Defence in 1980 when I commenced researching the history of Kriol, an English-based creole spoken in a large number of Aboriginal communities in parts of North Australia. Kriol has, in some places, been the primary language of five generations since it arose by the creolization of Northern Territory Pidgin English in 1908 (Harris, 1984). Like most creoles, Kriol, over the years, has been subjected to a great deal of criticism. Dismissed as a ‘marginal’ language by the English-speaking world, Kriol has been said to be ‘corrupt English’, ‘childlish babbling’, ‘ridiculous gibberish’ and ‘lingual bastardization’.^1. Now, however, that Kriol is the primary language of perhaps 20.000 people, it can no longer be arbitrarily dismissed.

In particular, there are two contexts in which controversies have arisen about the nature and status of Kriol. One of these is education. There are now schools in virtually all Aboriginal communities. In most places where traditional Aboriginal languages are spoken, there are bilingual education programmes in vernacular languages and English. When it was proposed that bilingual education be introduced in Kriol-speaking communities, educational administrators were sceptical and the status of Kriol as a language was questioned. Although approval was finally given for a trial programme, the debate continues.

The second major context of controversy is in the Christian Church. Although Kriol was certainly not the creation of a Christian mission, it was in a Christian mission that it first arose, so that like many creole-speaking communities throughout the world, the Christian church is still an important institution in the community. Some whites have objected to the use of Kriol and, furthermore, their denigration of the language had convinced some Aboriginal people of its inferiority. The last decade, however, has seen increased use of Kriol in church services, in religious songs and in Bible translation. This movement has been a significant part of Kriol-speaking people's growing pride in their identity, but it continues to be criticised by those convinced of Kriol's

1. See, for example, Turner (1966: 202) and Baker (1966: 316).

[p. 214]

inferiority.

I have been one of those who has written in defence of Kriol, both in education (Harris and Sandefur, 1984) and in Bible translation (Harris, 1985). Thus I became particularly interested in the linguistic, philosophical and historical arguments raised with respect to creoles and other despised languages, both in attacking and in defending them. It was this interest which led me to Greenfield's defence of Sranan or, as it was then termed, Negro-English. Fortunately, the Defence had been listed in Voorhoeve and Donicie's Bibliographie du négro-anglais du Surinam (1963: 6) and had thus been listed again in the bibliography of pidgin and creole languages edited by Reinecke et al. (1975: 442). Searching this volume for materials relating to the creole language controversy, I was intrigued by an editorial comment on the sophistication of Greenfield's Defence and was finally able to obtain photocopies both of the Defence itself and the materials to which it was replying.^2. Around about the same time, Reinecke was researching the Greenfield Defence and it is very fortunate that the results of his research have been published as Reinecke (1983), his last paper before his death. Reinecke's paper and the original materials I have this far located, although incomplete, nevertheless provide sufficient information to enable us to understand this long-forgotten yet still pertinent debate.

Born in London in 1799 of Scottish parentage, William Greenfield, after studying languages, became a good scholar of both biblical and living languages. In 1830 he was made superintendent of the editorial department of the British and Foreign Bible Society.^3. In 1829, the Society published for the Moravian mission in Surinam, the New Testament in Negro-English (Sranan). Almost immediately, in December of the same year, a short, unsigned attack upon the Negro-English translation and its sponsors was published in the Edinburgh Christian Instructor. Reinecke's research (1983: 2) reveals that the writer was almost certainly Dr. Andrew Thomson, an eminent theologian and the journal's founder and chief contributor. An immediate response defending the Negro-English translation was forwarded by the Rev. C. Ign. La Trobe but Thomson did not publish La Trobe's reply until May 1830, when he inserted it in his own lengthy condemnation of the Negro-English New Testament, the Moravians, La Trobe and the Bible Society. In his earlier criticism, Thomson said that the attempted legitimising of Negro-English was

... very preposterous and absurd withall. (The Moravians)...are creating a new language. They are putting the broken English of the Negroes and Creoles in Surinam into a written and permanent form. Instead of teaching these people the language of their masters - that in which they are spoken to by their superiors - that with which there are the associations of respectability and civilised life...the united Brethren are at the pains to embody their barbarous, mixed, imperfect phrase, in the pages of school books, and to perpetuate all its disadvantages and evil consequences by shutting them up to it as the vehicle of God's word...Had it been the spoken language of a district, however defective and uncouth, we should have thought the enterprise wise as well as benevolent. But as it is only the blundering phraseology of foreigners when attempting to leave off their original tongue, and to adopt that which is used by the people among whom they have come to dwell...we protest against it as utterly ludicrous...why are not the children taught English? (Edinburgh Christian Instructor, Dec. 1829: 851).

La Trobe's reply carefully analysed and answered Thomson's criticism, phrase by phrase. The Negro-English language was not ‘created by the brethren.’ It was the language of the negroes before they arrived, almost 100 years ear-

2. I am indebted to Paul Ellingworth of the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, through whom these materials were finally obtained.

3. Details of Greenfield's life are from The Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. VIII (1890).

[p. 215]

lier. The Moravian missionaries had succeeded ‘by learning the only language intelligible to the negroes.’ This Negro-English, La Trobe argued, was a language ‘compounded of Portugese, Dutch, Negro and English, and might well be called “broken” Dutch.’ It was not ‘the blundering phraseology of foreigners but the language of 60.000 negroes.’ The children are not taught English ‘because English is not the language of the country.’ La Trobe noted Thomson's admission that translation into a spoken dialect would be ‘wise as well as benevolent.’ Responded La Trobe

This is, in fact, a sufficient apology for our missionaries; for, as it is the spoken language of almost the entire population of the country, they appear, by your own testimony, to be fully justified in their work (Edinburgh Christian Instructor, May 1830: 353).

Embedding La Trobe's letter in his long, satirical diatribe, Thomson simply used it as a starting point for his extended and detailed attack. Trying to justify his own term ‘broken English’, Thomson attempted to prove at considerable length that Negro-English was not compounded of English, Dutch and other languages, even going so far as to provide over four pages of parallel passages of Negro-English, a literal English translation of it and the words of the English and Dutch Bibles. He challenged La Trobe to add a ‘broken Dutch’ translation to demonstrate his contention that Negro-English could equally as well be called ‘broken Dutch’ as ‘broken English.’ This argument was advanced because it was important to Thomson that Negro-English be an elementary jargon. To acknowledge the importance of other languages in the development of Negro-English was to grant Negro-English a history. However in the final analysis the lexical sources of Negro-English were not really at issue. Rather, what concerned Thomson was the fact that as far as he was concerned, Negro-English was an improper language, unfit for education and unsuitable for the Bible. Thomson called it ‘babyish lingo’ and ‘gibberish’.

The Negro-English was not the original language of those who spoke it; it was not the language of any tribe or nation upon earth; it had no status as a separate language...and consisted chiefly of English and Dutch...with a small sprinkling of Portuguese. But this mongrel sort of articulation, the Brethren have thought proper to reduce to a permanent form, and they have given it stability and importance by making it the vehicle of all that is most useful and sacred among men...The Brethren...ought to have converted the broken English into good English...They had everything in their power for this purpose. They had the composition of the school books. They had the teaching of the children and adults. They had the direction of all the education...There was scarcely any old Negro or modern Portuguese to extirpate. A great proportion of the Dutch was so exceedingly like the English, that a complete conversion of the one into the other would have been attended with no difficulty. And what remained of unchangeable Mynheer, could have been got rid of by the expenditure of a little birch and patience. Then the Bible could have been put into the hands of the Negroes...in a language not only good, copious and expressive but connected with all those ideas of freedom, intelligence, civilisation and greatness, which would have helped to rescue them from their debasement, and elevate them in the scale of humanity. (Edinburgh Christian Instructor, May 1830: 361).

[p. 216]

Here, of course, was Thomson's essential argument. Negro-English was not a proper language. It was a ‘mongrel sort of articulation’, not fit for education, not fit for anything useful or holy. English, on the other hand, was a fit language, full, expressive, a language of civilisation and greatness. This kind of argument was not new. The same kinds of things were said when progressive-minded people began advocating education in English, French, Italian and the other European vernaculars in preference to Latin. In a controversy spanning centuries, the European languages were said to lack grammar and vocabulary. They were said to be ‘broken’ or ‘corrupt’ whereas Latin was said to be a pure language, the language of learning and of civilisation.^4.

These arguments have always been particularly persuasive. Then, as now, an ill-informed public was all too ready to believe that languages could be so categorised. Therefore, having stated these arguments, Thomson felt at liberty to drop all pretence at scholarly discussion, lapsing into cheap satire by affecting a new-found ‘passion’ for Negro-English, using phrases from the language and mocking it - ‘the love of this beautiful language is growing upon us’; ‘by and by we find that we shall even think in the Negro-English.’ (1830: 363-4)

Greenfield and the Bible Society felt compelled to answer the criticisms and to do so in a more substantial manner than a letter to a journal. Greenfield, therefore, rapidly prepared and, in the same year, published as a book his Defence of the Surinam Negro-English version of the New Testament.

After explaining the purpose of his book (p. 1-10), Greenfield gives a brief history of Surinam (p. 10-16). This historical sketch is important because it establishes that Surinam had been under Dutch control and influence since 1669.^5. This undeniable fact enables Greenfield to demonstrate that the possibility of English lexical influence ended at that time and that the essentially English-based language which then existed had undergone 150 years of Dutch influence and had borrowed extensively from Dutch during that period. In other words, Negro-English had a long history covering many generations and was not an ad hoc attempt by slaves to imitate the broken English spoken to them by their masters. It was not a recent unstable jargon used by newly arrived slaves. Relying heavily on Captain J.G. Stedman's Narrative of an Expedition to Surinam, from the Year 1772 to 1777, Greenfield demonstrates that the language Stedman recorded was the same language used over half a century later in the Negro-English New Testament (p. 17-21). In other words, Negro-English had achieved stability.

Greenfield (p. 23-25) using anecdotal evidence from Stedman, then shows that Negro-English ‘is not merely broken English or broken Dutch’ which would be intelligible to English or Dutch speakers but a language in its own right ‘unintelligible to Dutchmen or Englishmen, while English and Dutch are unintelligible to the Negroes’. Greenfield supports this (p. 23-33) with comprehensive tables of Negro-English parts of speech including all inflections of pronouns and verbs. Not only does this illustrate the distinctiveness of Negro-English with respect to English and Dutch, it also serves to demonstrate that it is a rule-governed language - i.e. that it does not ‘lack grammar’.

Greenfield then provides substantial textual and lexical data in support of his contentions. The first (p. 34-41) is a parallel rendering of the first chapter of the Gospel of John in English, Negro-English, Dutch and the Dutch creole of the Danish West Indies (now the Virgin Islands). The second set of data (p. 43-46) lists all Negro-English words from the previous extract with their equivalents in English, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese and French. The third set of data (p. 58-62) gives interlinear renderings of various New Testament sentences in Negro-English, Broken Dutch and Literal English. Using this data, Greenfield is able to demonstrate that there is nothing about Negro-English which is not true of other languages.

4. See, for example, the discussion of the vernacular in Western education in Bowen (1975).

5. According to Greenfield (p. 13), the English ceded Surinam to the Dutch in 1669, when most of the English left for Jamaica. Surinam had then remained Dutch except for two brief recent occasions in which the British temporarily took it, restoring it to the Dutch when hostilities ceased.

[p. 217]

From this comparison it will be manifest, that the Negro-English language is...chiefly composed of Dutch and English, with a sprinkling of Spanish, Portuguese, French and Negro or Indian.... Some of them, also, have undergone such changes in the... pronunciation, as well as in the signification, that it is with great difficulty they can be recognised... it will be seen from the preceding tables that it is quite as dissimilar to English or Dutch as these languages are to each other.... Out of these materials is the Negro-English language constructed; and out of similar materials is formed nearly every language now spoken on the face of the earth... it is thus that our own mother tongue has its origin and formation.... Upon its original Gothic base, the Anglo-Saxon, and a few British or Welsh words, was partially superinduced the Norman; and subsequently it has borrowed largely from the Latin, Greek, French, and other languages (1830: 48-50).

Greenfield then goes on to make a very important observation which is as true today of critics of creole languages as it was in 1830.

All these languages must at one time have presented to those who spoke the languages from which they are derived in their purity, the same ludicrous appearance which the Negro-English now does to us; and indeed we know that such was actually the case. The present English language, so much celebrated for its copiousness, energy and precision, was spoken of by the Norman conquerors of the country, as a barbarous jargon, neither good French nor pure Saxon, and which they only condescended to use for the convenience of being readily understood by their dependents and boors.^7. (1830: 50-51).

Greenfield then dismisses vehemently any suggestion of racial inferiority, and, in doing so, is probably the first to have proposed an idea that is thought by many linguists to be a particularly modern invention - the concept of universal language acquisition strategies.

The human mind is the same in every clime; and accordingly we find nearly the same process adopted in the formation of language in every country. The Negroes have been proved to be in no degree inferior to other nations in solidity of judgement, or fertility of imagination; and therefore it may be fairly presumed that they are capable of forming a language from the materials with which they are furnished, qualified for expressing with accuracy and precision the ideas presented to their mind. (1830: 51).

Greenfield does acknowledge that Negro-English could be deemed ‘comparatively rude and uncultivated’. By this he is referring, not to any reduced powers of expression, but to the fact that it has thus far been a spoken language and has not yet undergone the standardisation and stylistic change which literacy brings. Greenfield (p. 52) compares Negro-English to the English of Wycliffe which may be said to have been ‘uncultivated’ in the same sense that Negro-English may be said to be ‘uncultivated’ but was capable of expressing ‘clear and definite ideas’.

Greenfield's final linguistic argument concerns Thomson's selection of Negro-English words and phrases which seemed (to him) to be childish or comical, for objects of satire or derision. Having shown that the same can be done in any language (p. 64-65), Greenfield dismisses Thomson's technique as ‘incorrect as it is unfair, betraying either a gross ignorance, or a wilful blinking at the truth’. After all, asks Greenfield, does it matter what Europeans think about Negro-English? Only the opinion of its speakers matters.

7. Greenfield acknowledges portion of this section to be a quotation from ‘an able writer, in the Fife Herald’. I have not yet been able to obtain this item.

[p. 218]

At all events, it (Negro-English) certainly can neither be deemed barbarous or ludicrous; and, therefore, the sacred Scriptures cannot be degraded and rendered riduculous in the eyes of the Negroes, who are the only persons concerned, by the Negro-English version (1830: 65).

Greenfield concludes his scholarly Defence with a summary of his main arguments.

1.	Negro-English is a language with a history, a language in its own right, like English or Dutch.
2.	Negro-English is the only language intelligible to the Negroes.
3.	Negro-English had achieved stability as the language of over 90.000 people. No amount of language engineering could now reverse the direction of that change.^8.
4.	Negro-English is a full language, capable of expressing ideas with accuracy and precision.
5.	Negro-English is no more ‘barbarous nor ludicrous’ than any language is to those unacquainted with it.
6.	Because of all the above, the Negro-English New Testament ‘is a faithful representation of the original’, the meaning being correctly conveyed.
7.	The people for whom the translation was intended, the Negro-English speakers, welcomed it and valued it.

With the hindsight of 155 years, we could, if we wished to be petty and small-minded, criticize some minor aspects of Greenfield's Defence. It is unashamedly a book with a polemical purpose and Greenfield, particularly in his introductory and concluding remarks, employs emotive language, begging his readers' sympathy for these ‘sable sons of Africa’ (p. 75). We must, however, bear in mind the people for whom the Defence was written and whom Greenfield was trying to convince.

As Reinecke (1983: 4) observes, there are a few historical and sociological inaccuracies but none are cogent to the main arguments. More importantly, Reinecke (1983: 8) points out that Greenfield, in defending Negro-English as ‘the language, in which the Negroes think and which they love’, was not aware of the degree to which the translators had ‘elevated’ their version from ‘vernacular Sranan’.

Before commenting on this, I should make it clear that I do not have a detailed knowledge of Sranan and I am not qualified to support or refute such a statement from specific linguistic data. I do, however, know something of the origin and development of other creoles and from this general background there are a few observations I would like to make.

It is obviously true that the reduction of an oral language to writing must change that language. Not only do oral and written registers tend to differ but linguists and translators must of necessity make choices. It is happening in Australia today with Kriol. Linguists must select a particular dialect or they must attempt the standardisation of several dialects. In translation, they must often choose one word when several alternatives are available. When there is no word available, they may borrow or coin one, hopefully (but regrettably not always) with the advice of native speakers. In other words, they develop a formal code and crystallize the language at a specific point in time and in it they may well perpetuate some of their own mistakes. There is, therefore no doubt that this newly written Negro-English would have differed from the spoken code (or codes) in use at the time. The extent to which it may have differed is another matter. Given the marked difference between what has been called Church creole (Voorhoeve, 1971) and modern Sranan, it may be tempting to suggest that a similar gulf may

8. As Reinecke (1983: 7) points out, this third argument is an afterthought. Although obviously true, it was not actually developed earlier in the Defence.

[p. 219]

have existed between the creole of the Negro-English New Testament and the everyday vernacular. It is here that a word of caution is necessary, a caution that Stewart has already voiced and which Reinecke (1983: n. 51) acknowledges.

1985 is one hundred and fifty-five years later than 1830, one hundred fifty-five years of language change. It may thus well be that the difference between Negro-English as spoken in 1830 and the language of the Negro-English New Testament may not have been nearly as great as the difference between modern Sranan and Church creole.

Whatever the answer to these questions, we know that Greenfield believed he was defending the spoken language of 90.000 people in Surinam while his detractors would have denied the language of those people any status at all.

In defending the language that he believed he was defending, Greenfield provided a scholarly and systematic set of principles which are still as sound today as they were then. He provided a model of argumentation supported by copious data which those of us who attempt the defence of creoles elsewhere would do well to emulate today. His courageous attack on linguistic imperialism is an inspiration to us all. Greenfield did not live very long after the publication of his Defence but he left a gift to the creole-speaking world which will no longer be forgotten.

[p. 220]

References

Baker, S.J. 1966. The Australian Language. Sydney, Currawong.

Bowen, J. 1981. A History of Western Education. London, Methuen.

Greenfield, W. 1830. A Defence of the Surinam Negro-English version of the New Testament... London, Samuel Bagster.

Harris, J. 1984. Contact Languages, Pidgins and the Rise of Kriol in the Northern Territory: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives. Ph.D. thesis, University of Queensland.

Harris, J. 1985. Bible translation, the question of creole languages - a Northern Territory case study. Nungalinya Occasional Bulletin 21.

Harris, J. and J. Sandefur 1984. The creole language debate and the use of creoles in Australian schools. The Aboriginal Child at School. 12 (1): 8-29.

Reinecke, J. 1983. William Greenfield, a neglected pioneer creolist. In: Carrington, L. (ed.), Studies in Caribbean Language. Trinidad, Society for Caribbean Linguistics. 1-12.

Reinecke, J. et al. 1975. A bibliography of Pidgin and Creole Languages. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press.

Stewart, W.A. 1974. Acculturative processes and the language of the American negro. In: Gage, W. (ed.), Language in its Social Setting. Washington, Anthropological Society of Washington. 1-46.

Turner, G.W. 1966. The English Language in Australia and New Zealand. London, Longmans.

Voorhoeve, J. and A. Donicie 1963. Bibliographie du négro-anglais du Surinam... 's-Gravenhage, Martinus Nijhoff.