A harmonized writing system for

the Mauritian Creole Language

Grafi-larmoni

Vinesh Y Hookoomsing

September 2004

CONTENTS

Terms of reference

Acknowledgements

1. Introduction

2. Writing Mauritian Creole: a brief historical perspective

3. Independence: from Creole patois to Morisyen. The standardization process (1970s – 1980s)

4. MCL orthographies viewed in the broader context of Creole language standardization

5. Standardized writing systems proposed for MCL

I Dev Virahsawmy

II Philip Baker

III Ledikasyon Pu Travayer

IV The Church’s Choice

6. A harmonized orthography for MCL

7. “…making use of MCL in the education of young Mauritians”

8. By way of conclusion

References

Annexes

Acknowledgements

The Ledikasyon Pu Travayer Team

Alain Ah Vee

Lindsey Collen spokespersons

Cindy Clelie

Veena Dholah

Rada Kistnasamy members

Devianand Narrain

The Church Team

Father Patrick Fabien

Father Alain Romaine

Father Georges Cheung

Dev Virahsawmy

Philip Baker

John Clark

Rodney Phillips

Terms of reference

In a letter dated 31 March 2004, the Ministry of Education and Scientific Research informed the University of Mauritius that the

Government had agreed to “a proposal of this Ministry to entrust to the University of Mauritius and the Mauritius Institute of

Education, under the responsibility of Prof. Vinesh Y Hookoomsing, Pro Vice-Chancellor of the University of Mauritius, the task of

proposing a harmonized way of writing Mauritian Kreol with a view to making use of that language in the education of young

Mauritians”.

A team of collaborators comprising of linguists and educators from the University of Mauritius and the Mauritius Institute of

Education was set up as follows:

University of Mauritius Mauritius Institute of Education

Dr Arnaud Carpooran Dr Rada Tirvassen

Dr Daniella Police-Michel Mrs Nita Rughoonundun

The team met for the first time on 26 April 2004 to discuss procedural matters and more importantly matters related to the object of

the assignment.

On the first point, it was agreed that weekly technical meetings would be held on a regular basis, followed by consultative meetings

with representatives of relevant institutions and organizations as well as with informed individuals. On the second point, it was agreed

that the formulation of a harmonized orthography would take into account the various standardized writing systems proposed for MCL

and currently in use.

The team was also of the opinion that it was empowered by its terms of reference as well as by its composition and institutional basis

to give due attention to the implications of the immediate objective for which the proposed harmonized orthography would be used,

namely its introduction in the school.

Prof. Vinesh Y Hookoomsing

University of Mauritius

Introduction

In the history of humanity, language codification in written form goes back to the early days of civilization when the first writing

system was invented in Mesopotamia. At about the same time, the Egyptian hieroglyphs and the Chinese ideograms represented

advanced systems of written communication. Then came the invention by the Phenicians of the first alphabet.

From the parchment to the printed book: the first knowledge revolution that started the slow but steady process of democratization

of knowledge and information is attributed to Gutenberg‟s invention of printing. But well before Gutenberg, the first printed book

appeared in China around 1390.

From the printed to the eletronic medium: the latest knowledge revolution has abolished the barriers of time and space, making

information and communication immediately accessible in real time anywhere, any time.

From the first printing machine in 18thC

Mauritius to desktop publishing: several millennia of language and technological

evolution have been compressed in three centuries, the time it took for the Mauritian Creole language (MCL) to free itself from the

shackles of history and become the most popular SMS and internet medium. A product of language contact, innovation and creativity

in extreme human and social conditions, MCL evolved rapidly to become within such a short time the first language par excellence of

the Mauritian linguistic community. Independence and the need for national symbols gave a new destiny to MCL as the language of

national unity and the marker of our distinctiveness. Ever since, the task of codification and standardization of MCL has been on our

agenda. The work accomplished through individual and group initiatives has already taken the language quite a long way on the road

towards formal recognition. It represents a considerable achievement which must be duly acknowledged

Writing Mauritian Creole: a brief historical perspective

How best to write Mauritian Creole? The relevance of Philip Baker‟s question, raised in 1978, was self-evident (see below for more

details). No one would imagine that in the early years of 19th

century Mauritius, such an idea would come to the mind of a colonial

writer naturally belonging to the dominant Francophone group. Indeed the earliest written traces of MCL and comments on the

language invariably referred to the language as the slave‟s patois or broken French. As early as 1749, Baron Grant1 in one of his

letters from 18th

century Ile de France, refers to a group of slaves pointing towards the horizon and exclaiming “in their corrupted

French, ça blanc là li beaucoup malin; li couri beaucoup dans la mer là-haut; mais Madagascar li là.”

Bernardin de St Pierre2, in his letters contained in the Voyage à l‟Ile de France published in 1773, gives a brief account of his

encounter with a slave boatman : “Le Patron me dit dans son mauvais patois : „ça n‟a pas bon Monsié‟. Je lui demandai s‟il y avoit

quelque danger, il me répondit : „Si nous n‟a pas gagné malheur, ça bon‟.”

C Thomi Pitot3(1805), in his refutation of B de St Pierre‟s account of slavery in Voyage à l‟Ile de France, has recourse to an

imaginary conversation in Creole with a slave to portray the latter, „un noir mozambique, entre la fleur et la vigueur de l‟âge, paré

d‟un simple langoutis (un linge autour des reins)‟, as a happy man well treated by his master.

Freycinet4 (1827), who visited Mauritius in 1818, refers for his part to the „patois inventé par les noirs‟ and comments on the potential

linguistic value of „les règles de cette langue‟:

1Source: “The History of Mauritius, or the Isle de France, etc., composed principally from the papers and memoirs of Baron Grant, who resided twenty years in

the island, by his son Charles Grant, Viscount de Vaux”.1801, London. Reprinted by Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 1995, p. 297 2 Bernardin de St Pierre, Voyage à l‟Ile de France, I, 257, Paris, 1773.

3 C. Thomi Pitot, “Quelques observations sur l‟ouvrage intitulé Voyage à l‟Ile de France par un officier du Roi” presented to the Société d‟Emulation de l‟Ile de

France on 3 August 1805. 4 Louis de Freycinet, Voyage autour du monde, tome 1, vol. 2, p. 406, Paris, 1827.

Indépendamment du français, qui forme la base du langage à l‟Ile de France, une sorte de patois a été inventé par les noirs, qui,

ne pouvant se plier à notre syntaxe, prononcer nos mots difficiles, et saisir la valeur propre de quelques-unes de nos

expressions., les ont travestis à leur manière. Peu à peu l‟usage a fait loi ; et peut-être ne seroit-il pas sans intérêt aujourd‟hui

d‟examiner les règles de cette langue créole, qui n‟est pas dénudée de charmes.

His remarks on the varieties of MCL are also extremely interesting from a sociolinguistic perspective, with the Malagasy variety

occupying one extreme and the European variety (« usité, par goût et par habitude, parmi les mulâtres et les personnes riches de

l‟île ») at the other extreme.

To the visitors, Creole is unquestionably the language of the slaves, whereas Thomi Pitot, a colon settled on the island, does not even

state the language in which his conversation takes place, which would imply that the language is shared by both slave and master.

The relation thus established with Creole appears to indicate a process of nativisation confirmed by another colon, François

Chrestien5, author of the first collection of songs and poems as well as adaptations of La Fontaine‟s fables in MCL. His reflexions on

the difficulty of writing in Creole are worth quoting as they constitute the first orthographic statements on the language:

Il est fort difficile d‟écrire le Créole; surtout de façon à en conserver la prononciation, qui en fait une partie du mérite, et à le

plier aux règles de la poésie …. Il m‟a donc fallu créer une espèce d‟orthographe et écrire dans le genre des Vadé ; mais plutôt

pour me rapprocher de la prononciation que du français, comme dans ces mots :

Çanté (chanté), la-bousse (la bouche), la-sasse (la chasse).

Ein‟ jour, prononcez Ei-n‟zour (un jour).

Ein‟ coup-là, id. Ei-n‟coup là (dans le moment).

5 François Chrestien, Essais d‟un bobre africain, Isle Maurice, 1822. The extract appears in the “Avant-propos nécessaire” p. 3-4, reproduced in the 1998 edition

by Norbert Benoît, p. 112.

Ein‟ béf, id. Ei-n‟béf (un bœuf)

Pour chaqu‟en‟ id. pour chaquène (pour chacun) sans faire marquer l‟e muet dans la mesure du vers etc. ce qui d‟abord

présente quelque difficulté pour la conception rapide, je pense cependant que cette note et une légère attention suffiront.

Baissac’s monumental work on MCL (language, 1880; and folklore, 1888) is well known. The orthographic conventions adopted by

the author are explained at length in his introduction to Etude sur le patois créole mauricien. While being explicitly etymological, they

are based on a number of principles that are worth quoting :

Pour dérouter le moins possible l‟œil habitué à la physionomie du mot français, nous la lui avons conservée partout où nous

l‟avons pu. Nous avons, cependant, toujours réuni l‟article au substantif, avec lequel il fait corps, ainsi que nous l‟avons

établi. Nous avons, de même, pour être conséquent avec notre analyse, donné aux verbes en er la terminaison é du participe

passé, duquel est provenu le verbe créole ; et nous écrivons d‟après le même principe, couderoce, coudepoing pour coup de

roche, coup de poing, la préposition de étant devenue partie intégrante d‟un mot composé.

A l‟aide de l‟accent aigu, de l‟accent circonflexe, du tréma et de l‟e muet, nous avons figuré de notre mieux la prononciation

créole, sans hésiter, dans certain cas, à nous affranchir complètement de l‟orthographe française : c‟est ainsi que nous

écrivons fére pour faire, lhére pour l‟heure, léquére pour le cœur, laliquére pour la liqueur, tranzé pour étranger, zoréye pour

oreille, Zôrze pour Georges, maïe pour maïs, àçthére pour à cette heure. Enfin, quoique le pluriel ne se manifeste jamais en

créole dans la forme des mots, nous avons, pour guider l‟œil du lecteur, conservé l‟s du français, mais au substantif seulement.

(1880:LIV-LVI)

For all his erudition, Baissac had a very poor opinion of MCL and of its potentialities as a language. Many decades later, in his

Chroniques du pays créole, Clément Charoux6 reacted strongly against some of Baissac‟s derogatory statements on MCL:

Charles Baissac, expert philologue, le compare à un mur en pierres sèches ne permettant que l‟érection d‟une bâtisse de quelques

pieds de haut: bâtisse si l‟on veut, ma « bâtisse » m‟est chère!

before ending on a more lyrical, though ambiguous note :

6 Clément Charoux, Chroniques du Pays Créole, Maurice, 1953.

l‟âme profonde et collective du pays créole s‟émeut au contact de notre vieux parler colonial – peut-être peut-on dire national.

Independence: from Creole patois to Morisyen. The standardization process (1970s – 1980s)

The 1960s ushered in a new era not only for the country but also for MCL. With independence at the crossroads, the country needed

symbols and markers that could function at national level and bring the diverse Mauritian population together. MCL was one of them.

Thus, in 1965, after the successful outcome of the final round of constitutional conferences that paved the way to independence, Sir

Seewosagur Ramgoolam is reported to have addressed from London the following message through BBC to the nation in the making:

Mo banne frères hindous, musulmans, créole, chinois, franco-mauriciens, zotte tout travaille ensemble. Faire Maurice paisible

et prospère dans l‟intérêt publique.7

The role and function of MCL as the medium of national unity was developed by Dev Virahsawmy in a series of pioneering articles

which appeared in the local press in 1967. Combining the drive of nationalism, the insights of Linguistics and the power of rhetoric,

Dev Virahsawmy was the first to set the agenda for the recognition, development and standardization of MCL. Its major items may be

summarized as follows:

- MCL is the language par excellence of our national unity and identity

- It is distinctively Mauritian and therefore should be called Morisyen rather than Creole, to avoid the confusion between

the language and the ethnic marker

- Morisyen is neither a patois nor a broken variety of French. It is a language in its own right with a distinct system of

pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary

- The linguistic structures of Morisyen must be studied and described in view of the standardization of the language

7 Quoted in Moonindranath Varma, The Struggle of Dr Ramgoolam, Mauritius, 1975, p. 210

- A standard orthography must be devised for Morisyen to be developed as a full-fledged written language

- Morisyen should become the vehicle for the production of a new truly Mauritian literature

Another pioneer creolist emerged more or less at the same time: Philip Baker. He developed a standard orthography for MCL which

differed from the one proposed by Dev Virahsawmy on several points and more importantly on nasal vowel transcription. Philip Baker

also developed a correspondence course in MCL. In 1972 he published the first comprehensive description of MCL which has

remained a reference until now. The initial work of compiling MCL words in view of the first MCL dictionary, which subsequently

became a joint Baker/Hookoomsing publication, also goes to his credit.

From the mid 1970s onward, the Ledikasyon Pu Travayer (LPT) movement emerged as the main if not the sole organisation actively

involved in the standadization of MCL, using it for literary contests and promoting it as a literary medium.

The first decades of the post-independence period represent indeed MCL‟s golden era, during which the creative power of a new

generation of writers and cultural artists is unleashed in a variety of media: songs and short stories, poems and plays, pamphlets and

manifestos, novels and translations, readers and educational materials.

To complete this brief overview of the early initiatives that paved the way for the recognition and promotion of MCL, mention must

be made of the first post-independence creative publication, Tention Caïman, by René Noyau8 in 1971. Written in the non-standard

French-based orthography, Tention Caïman represents a solitary attempt to revive the traditional Creole narrative and recast it into a

literary mode of expression of popular wisdom and clairvoyance. It is also a stark reminder of the complex and conflicting language-

culture-identity link that was to resurface in the 1990s in the form of the collective “malaise créole”.

8 René Noyau, Tention Caïma, Mauritius, 1971. He writes in his introduction: “Quand nous fini lire so créole, éna éne commentaire qui nous lire avec réflexion.

Après ça, nous lire so français zistoire-la”; and in his end notes: “…nous bisin prend plime comance écrire cé qui nous conné…nous écrire pou travailleur coma

nous…nous aprane lire…nous aprane pou nous capave écrire bien dans nous langaze…Soi-disant nous langaze créole-la, éne langaze bébête…Tout cé qui parmi

nous qui capave écrire éne ti livre, faire li.

4 MCL orthographies viewed in the broader context of Creole language standardization

The process of standardization of MCL was initiated in the late 1960s in the favourable context of independence. However it must be

borne in mind that the standardized orthographies proposed for MCL were not created ex nihilo. Indeed the theoretical and practical

issues related to the transformation of Creole languages from oral to written languages have been on the agenda of Creole-speaking

societies for quite some time. Creolists working in isolation came together for the first time at the international conference on Creole

languages held at the University College of West Indies in Mona, Jamaica in March 1959. It was hailed as a historic meeting which

gave birth to Creole Studies as a field of study. The conference ended with an open session during which the role of Creole in the

schools was lengthily debated with members of the public.

Well before the Mona Conference, an American Methodist priest, McConnell, had proposed a standardized orthography for Haitian

Creole. His diacritic model with the circumflex accent as nasalizer was already in use in Haiti in the 1940s and was subsequently

replaced by the “n/nn” model in the 50s.

The “circumflex accent” model known in Haiti as the McConnell-Laubach orthography comprised:

the following eighteen symbols based on the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA): a, b, d, f, g, I, k, l, m, n, o, p, r, s, t, v, w,

z;

the following eight symbols based on the French alphabet: ch, é, è, gn, j, ou, u (representing the semi-vowel found in uit,

réuni) and y (as in payer);

the following nasal vowel symbols: â, ê, ô, and the oral vowel ò.

Following criticisms from a group of Haitian intellectuals led by C-F Pressoir, a governmental committee was set up in 1951 to review

the McConnell-Laubach orthography. The committee proposed the following changes:

the nasal vowels /ã/, /ẽ/, /õ/, represented by â, ê, ô should be replaced by the following digraphs: an, in, on;

the sequence vowel + pronounced nasal consonant n, represented by ân, ên, ôn, should be represented as follows: ann, inn,

onn;

the semi-vowel w (as in wi, bwat) should be replaced by ou (as in oui, bouat);

the semi-vowel /j/ represented by y in certain positions (as in words ending in –yon) should be replaced by i (-ion).

The revised orthography, known as the Faublas-Pressoir orthography, and later as the ONAAC orthography (Office National pour

l‟Alphabétisation et l‟Action Communautaire), was adopted and used by the government for its literacy projects, by religious bodies

and by organisations and individuals as well as by political groups.

Some twenty years later, Haitian orthography was again the object of fresh debate as a result of variations, divergences and

inconsistencies noted in actual usage. A team of linguists from l‟Université Paris-V, in collaboration with the local Institut

Pédagogique National (IPN) revisited the ONAAC orthography and proposed several modifications. The revised orthography, known

as the IPN orthography, was adopted by the government as the official writing system to be used for Haitian Creole in the 1979

legislation introducing the language as medium of instruction in the primary school.

The IPN orthography brought several significant modifications, such as:

the nasal vowel /ẽ/ is now represented by en instead of in;

consequently, /ẽ/ + n is represented by enn, instead of inn;

the sequence i+n is made up of the oral vowel /i/ and the nasal consonant /n/ as in the given example: bekasin;

the oral vowel /e/ is represented by e instead of é;

the semivowels /j/ and /w/ are represented exclusively by y and w;

the digraph gn is replaced by y.

Haitian orthography went through a process of experimentation and harmonization that lasted more than half a century. The

problematic aspects presented above are very similar to those encountered in the course of writing MCL in a standardized

orthography. An additional feature shared by both Haitian Creole and MCL is that the standardization process was initiated not by the

state but by motivated individuals and NGOs.

Seychellois Creole language (SCL) too experienced a similar process of harmonization during the early years of the post-1977

revolutionary period. In 1978 Annegret Bollée and Danielle d‟Offay proposed a new standardized orthography for SCL, presented as

“une sorte de compromis entre une transcription purement phonémique et l‟orthographe traditionnelle en usage aux Seychelles” (p.

12).

The major features of the compromise concern:

Mute e and é: the two forms are used word-finally in a number of words, and their distribution is determined by a set of more

or less complex rules;

The nasal vowels represented by an, en, on, become oral vowels+pronounced n with the addition of final mute e, (e.g., bane,

zene, zone);

The digraphs ou, oi, ui, as in“fou, fouet, lafoi, fuite” have the same values as their French equivalents;

i and y as complementary semi-vowels: e.g., lipié, nasion, yer, veyé, may;

gn as in gagne/gagné.

In 1983, the Bollée-D‟Offay orthography is replaced by a modified orthography from which most of the above features are absent.

Thus:

é is eliminated;

the sequence oral vowel+ne is replaced by oral vowel+nn (e.g., bann, zenn);

the distinction between i and y as semi-vowels is removed: thus, lipye, nasyon;

the digraph ou is maintained as (in fou), but not oi and ui: the latter two are replaced by w+ oral vowel, as in: aswar, lerwa,

fwet, lafwa, fwit;

gn is replaced by ny, as in gany/ganyé.

A new feature, reflecting automatic nasalization of the vowel preceding a nasal consonant, has been added, as a result of which the

written form is unnecessarily burdened, e.g., fanm (femme), zanmen (jamais), konnen (connais).

The 1983 revised orthography was made official and is still in force.

Writing Creole in a standardized orthography is now an accepted principle in the Creole speaking world, particularly in the case of

French-based Creole languages. In the French “Départements d‟Outre-mer”, linguists and creative writers played a crucial role,

whereas in independent Haiti and the Seychelles, the decisive factor has been state recognition and taking over from individual and

group initiatives.

Mauritius has followed a liberal middle road with the standardization process left into the hands of private initiative while the state

continues to acknowledge the national role and function of MCL and its practical importance as the natural language for

communicating with the people. Thus when the Mauritian government was approached in the early 1990s to host the 7th

Colloque

International des Etudes Créoles, it accepted and entrusted the organisation to a committee presided by the Minister of Culture and

Arts, rather than Education. In other words, it gave its blessing as part of its cultural policy of promoting diversity of languages and

cultures. Significantly, there was no follow up on a proposal submitted within the context of the hosting of the Coloque for the setting

up of a technical committee in view of the standardization of MCL (see Annex 1).

5 Standardized writing systems proposed for MCL

I. Dev Virahsawmy: (1967-1998)

As mentioned earlier, the first proposal for a standardized orthography for MCL goes back to 1967. In an article entitled Defence of an

orthography, published in l‟Express of 8 September 1967, Dev Virahsawmy writes:

The orthography which writes Mauricien as Morisiê (pronounced Morisien) is not based on English but on the sound system of

the language. It is an attempt to write down the language as it is spoken using a standard, accurate, regular and economical

system. Every sound is given a symbol which is used for that and only that particular sound and by this device uniformity is

achieved. The alphabet used is that which has been devised by the “l‟Association Phonétique Internationale”.

The new orthography is illustrated by a story taken from Baissac‟s Folklore de l‟Ile Maurice and rewritten in the phonemic-based

“modern Morisiê” instead of Baissac‟s “highly gallicized one”. The pronunciation of some of the vowels used in the new orthograph

is explained thus:

i as French “i” in “pli” ê as French “ain” in “bain”

e as French “é” in “fée” â as French “an in “banc”

u as French “ou” in “tout” ô as French “on” in “bon”

In 1985 Dev Virahsawmy revisits his “grafi aksan sirkonfleks”, as it was commonly called, and discusses lengthily the need to take

into account the orthographic environment. Variations in pronunciation and phonetic values, quoted as being part of the

multilingual/multicultural context, make it impossible to have an orthography based on purely phonemic principles. To illustrate his

point he raises a number of orthographic issues and proposes several new symbols justified by the fact that “le mauricien devient de

plus en plus la matrice et le véhicule du Mauricianisme pluriculturel” (l‟Express, 4 April 1985).

The new symbols proposed are:

- h to transcribe the increasing number of borrowed English and Indian words containing the aspired “h”;

- sh to cater for the corresponding sound in words and names such as sherif, shakti, Shanti, Shoba;

- double vowels to cater for long vowels, e.g., ee, as in kees (from English case), ii as in diil (English deal), aa as in

haarr (Hindi haar)

- double rr to cater for the rolled r found in Indian words, thus rroti, horrni, surr;

- x and q could also be introduced as non-phonemic symbols, to be used for the teaching of Maths.

Restyled graphie d‟accueil, the revised writing system is revisited again in 1988 in a further attempt to emphasize the pluricultural

nature of MCL. In an article entitled La sacro-sainte graphie, (l‟Express, 3 September 1988), Dev Virahsawmy refers the reader back

to the issues raised in his previous article and makes a series of bold proposals for a writing system which, among other things, would:

- respect the specificity of the Mauritian language;

- take into account the lexifier languages (French, English and “autres langues du terroir”);

- facilitate the shift from “Morisiên” to the other languages and vice-versa.

His most far-reaching proposal is to abandon the circumflex nasaliser and adopt the “n/nn” convention popularised by Ledikasyon Pu

Travayer (LPT). The following modifications are added to those already made in 1985:

- a mute „e‟ is added to words ending in er to help the reader who is competent in French, and also to facilitate the shift

to French, e.g., santere, lalimiere;

- the acute accent is introduced in word-final position, as in santé (song);

- the “trema” is used where necessary, as in peï (“pays”), aïr (“haïr”); zeän (“géant”);

- u is replaced by ou;

- The clusters ks (but not kz) and kw are replaced by x and qu respectively, as in exkiz (“excuse”), axepté (“accepter”),

quen (“coin”), qui (cuire);

- [t] and [d] are palatalised when followed by i; they should therefore be represented by ch and j, respectively (e.g.,

chipchi instead of tipti; jiri instead of diri);

- s in final position is doubled to make sure it is pronounced, as in kess (“caisse”), keess (Eng. “case”).

This new graphie consensuelle will be subjected to yet further changes during the early 1990s. Thus:

- the grave accent is introduced on final èr to differentiate è, as in lèr and e, as in miter (from English metre);

- the palatalised [t] and [d], that were represented by ch and j are now transcribed as tch and dj (e.g., tchiptchi instead of

chipchi, djiri instead of jiri)

The following extract from his Testaman enn Metchiss (1999), written in the graphie consensuelle, gives an idea of the ideological

confusion between graphic signs and cultural symbolism:

Grafi Morisien, si li bien pran ankonsiderasion tou bann faktèr ideolozik, kiltchirel ek pratchik, pou sertennman kontribié pou

devlopman enn kiltchir Morisien djinamik ek progresiss…(p. 11).

The cumbersome nature of the graphie consensuelle became soon obvious even to its author. It was later repudiated and replaced by

the new orthography proposed by a team of Catholic priests in collaboration with Dev Virahsawmy. The new Grafi Legliz, associated

with the Catholic Church, is discussed later below.

II. Philip Baker

Philip Baker‟s book, KREOL: A Description of Mauritian Creole, published in 1972, is a landmark in the history and development of

MCL. The only other detailed and comprehensive description of MCL goes back to Baissac‟s Etude sur le patois créole de Maurice,

published in 1880.

His description of the sounds of MCL (chapter 3) lists a total of twenty-six MCL phonemes or sounds which form part of MCL‟s

pronunciation system. This is followed by a chapter on “writing Kreol” in which “a practical orthography for Kreol” is presented.

Based on the principle defined by the linguist Kenneth Pike, according to which “a practical alphabet should be chosen in such a way

as to obtain an acceptable balance between phonemic principles and general sociological situations”, Baker considers in the then

prevailing social context that “the nearest to „an acceptable balance‟ which could be devised would be a substantially phonemic

transcription:

(i) which avoided adopting symbols for Kreol which are usually accorded very different phonetic values in English and/or

French;

(ii) which adopted only those symbols which are available on local presses and typewriters.

Based on these considerations, he establishes a list of twenty-one symbols representing consonants, vowels and semivowels

(“approximants”) for the proposed MCL alphabet. The remaining five phonemes (that is, sounds forming part of the language‟s

system) are all nasal vowels and consonants. Choosing an appropriate and acceptable representation of nasalization has been a

stumbling block for most Creole orthographic systems proposed up to now. While being aware of this, Baker surprisingly proposes a

solution by adopting h from among the remaining unused Roman letters. The explanation given is that “its shape recalls that of n

while a written „h‟ is very uncommon in post-vowel position in both English and French”. Thus eh, ah, oh would correspond to

French ein, an, on. The fourth nasal symbol, yh, representing a nasal semivowel would correspond to French gn.

What Baker considers as “the only apparent disadvantage of this use of h”, namely that “this symbol would be assigned a value in

Kreol unknown in any major language”, turned out to be the major disadvantage of his otherwise practical orthography.

Six years later, in a draft paper entitled How best to write Mauritian Creole? (1978), Baker acknowledges the inappropriateness of h

as nasaliser and suggests a more elaborate solution based not on one but two nasalizers: a diacritized m and and a diacritized n. After

lengthy discussion on the choice of diacritic, consensus was reached on a revised orthographic system which was finalised and

adopted in view of the MCL dictionary jointly authored by Baker and Hookoomsing (1987).

The new system, named Lortograf-linite, has not attracted many users, but it has the merit of having attempted to respond adequately

to some of the more complex orthographic issues, particularly the problem of nasal transcription and that of verb variation. Defined by

its authors as “en lortograf komeṅ pu kreol (Moris, Rodrig ek Sesel) ek bhojpuri, baze lor zot prop sistem soṅ ek reg gramatikal”, its

innovative aspects deserve a brief presentation.

As already pointed out, a major preoccupation of the search for a standardized orthography for MCL has been the representation of

nasalized vowels. The solutions proposed ranged from the circumflex accent (Virahsawmy) to “vowel+n” (LPT). Dev Virahsawmy

maintained his diacritic nasalizer for more than a decade after finally adopting the “n/nn” convention. Lortograf-linite reintroduces the

diacritic, with a notable innovation. Indeed the chosen diacritic is a dot, placed not on the vowel but on the nasal consonant which it

precedes, and that consonant may be either ṁ or ṅ. The choice of ṁ is determined by etymological and/or derivational considerations.

Thus ṁ is used when:

- the nasal vowel is followed by „b‟ or „p‟, e.g.: aṁbarase, lalaṁp, lapoṁp, loṁbraz, taṁbav, bileṁbi, rezeṁbe, zaṁblon

- the nasal vowel is present in the radical word (or in word final position) e.g., noṁ, (prenoṁ) but is converted into vowel

+ consonant „m‟ in the derived words: noṁ/nome, nomini, nominasyon

- the nasal vowel is present in the radical of a word and also in its derived forms, e.g.: kaṁ, kaṁpe, kaṁpman; taṁ, letaṁ,

taṁporer

- the nasal vowel is derived from the consonant „m‟ present in the radical of a word and followed by „b‟ or „p‟:

“tom/toṁbe/toṁbaz; tom/toṁbalis/toṁbo; laflam/flaṁbo; bom/boṁbarde; tem/teṁbre

Another new feature worth mentioning is the proposal to include an additional symbol to transcribe the median vowel / / found in

words of English origin such as „sir, first-aid, freezer, computer, girl-friend, cutter, burger‟ which are commonly used in MCL. The

additional symbol proposed is the diacritic vowel ë and ër for its long form, e.g.: sër, fërsted, frizër, kompyutër, gërlfren, këtër,

bërgër.

III. Ledikasyon Pu Travayer (1977 to date): the “n/nn” continuity

The various avatars of Dev Virahsawmy‟s and Philip Baker‟s orthographic systems outlined above clearly demonstrate the

evolutionary nature of language standardization. It is also a dynamic process in which the contribution of the linguist and the creative

writer is significant. But it has to be sustained and, in the absence of state support and recognition, as is generally the case for Creole

languages, the importance of collective and organisational backup is crucial for the consolidation and progress of the standardization

work. In this respect, the role played by Ledikasyon Pu Travayer (LPT) has been a determining factor.

LPT‟s standard writing system for MCL goes back to the mid 1970s and coincides with its own creation. In an article published in Le

Militant of 3 September 1977, commenting on its own experience of literacy work in MCL, LPT states:

Nu kwar dan Moris nu ankor dan enn lepok rodaz kot buku konvansion ankor akseptab. (…). LPT anvi met li o-kler ki nu pa

fanatik lor konvansion ki nu pe servi aktielman. Si dime pu bann rezon istorik, nu bizin adopte enn diferan konvansion, ki par

nu lexperians, nu truve pli fasil pu bann dimunn aprann lir-ekrir, nu va zanz nu system ekrir.

Details of LPT‟s “n/nn” orthography with accompanying examples have been compiled from its booklet, How to write KREOL

properly. They are presented below.

Vowels Examples

a

arwi

lasam

farata

a+y = ay may payanke lapay

a+r = ar far lamar larmwar

a+n = an ban disan plan

a+nn = ann bann banann lamann

a+e = ae laen

a+o = ao baobab

a+i = ai laik

a+u = au laul

y+a = ya sinnyal lalyann Nyaz

E eskiz tete lete

e+y = ey lapey butey soley

e+r = er ler laswer lantern

e+n = en byen lyen

e+nn = enn senn lantenn labalenn

e+a = ea sineas teat

e+I = ei pei

e+o = eo feodal reorganiz

e+e = ee kree zweer* reelir

There may also be “e” plus “u”, but we cannot think of an example. There are two main problems with “e”; firstly, people have

difficulty pronouncing an “e” at the end of a word, when it has not got an “accent aigu” on it; secondly, the nasalised “e” (as in

“byen”) can also be expressed by “in” (“byin”); both forms persist, for the time being.

* Note: this word does not correspond to any word in MCL. The closest to it would be zwer (player).

I lili imam Layti

I+r = ir lir lanpir lasir

I+n = in insilt inklir inperyalis

i-nn = inn minn lalinn jinn

I+a - ia Jiad

O zot poto Lapolis

O+r = or lor stor lenor

O+y = oy bonoy boy amoy

O+n diplon bon selon

O+nn konn sonn bobonn

O+a = oa boa

O+e = oe poet boem

O+i = oi eroik eroinn

U tutu ule Matu

U+r = ur fur lur tur

U+y = uy muy fuy suy

U+nn = unn dimunn mifunn

U+a = ua ruaz

U+e = ue suez

U+i = ui chopsui

Consonants Examples We will look at the “easy” consonants first; we say they are easy, not for any inherent reason, but because they are less controversial for social-historic reasons.

B bebet baba rob

D dadi ladu malad

F laf mofinn fet

L lalo alal malad

M mama dilem fim

P papa pipet jip

S farus solda lasann

T mat tamtam plato

V

vavang mov Liv

Rare consonants

There are four consonants which are rare:

- h as in Holi, Hema, haldi (also as “oli”, and “aldi”)

- ch as in chacha, chalni

- j as in jip, japni, jalsa

- w as in wanntann, warning, arwi

Consonants with points to ponder

There are a number of consonants which need a short explanation:

- G: while in French, we write (and say) “garage”, in Kreol the second “g” is

replaced by a “z”; we thus get “garaz”. This is not a real problem; it is just

an “interference” from French.

- K: the consonant “k” is very common in Kreol, and is used for all sounds of “k”

whether root words are written with a “k”, a “c” or a “q”.

- N: the sound “n” has only one complication. At the beginning of words “n” is

easy. At the end of a word (or syllable) however, the “n” needs to be doubled

to have the same sound. A single “n” at the end of a word (or a syllable), as

we found in the “vowel” section, nasalises the vowel. Note, however, that

“u” does not take a single “n”, but only a double.

- R: the sound “r” at the beginning and at the end of a word (or syllable) is

pronounced differently. The different pronunciation is at its most evident in

the word „rar”.

- X: the consonant “x” is used for the sounds “ks”, as in: expilse; expropriye.

- Y: the letter “y”, like “r”, has a different value at the end of syllables from at the

beginning.

In a paper submitted by LPT members, they welcome the idea of harmonization rather than uniformization when it comes to

recommending a writing system in a context where several converging standard orthographic systems are in use. A number of their

comments are quoted below because of their potential implications from an educational point of view:

Si ena enn sistem ekri ki pe itilize depi 28 an, pena buku nesesite pu modifye li tro buku kan pu servi enn grafi onivo nasyonal.

Pena gran itilite pratik pu sanz seki pe deza servi. Grafi ki LPT servi fin itilize parmi plizir milye dimunn dan nu kur lir-ekrir e

lezot kur an KM.

Nu sistem ekrir li marse. Dapre nu lexperyans dimunn ki vinn anprann lir ekrir penan problem pu adopte e servi grafi n/nn. E

zot reysi anprann lir-ekrir.

Anprann literesi li enn zafer e anprann enn langaz li enn lot zafer. Donk, kan nu pe travay lor grafi li pa vremem itil pu gete

kimanyer li kapav resanble plis u mwins ar lekritir Angle, Franse u lezot langaz.

Enn lot problem se pu get literesi kuma nek enn mwayen pu al ver enn 2yem langaz. Alor lerla ena tandans pu gete kuma KM

pu pli pros ar sa 2yem lang-la.

Devlopman enn sistem ekri li bizin osi lye ar plezir lektir. Sirtu pu zanfan ki pe kumans al lekol.

IV. The Church’s Choice

Bringing the word of God to the people of the world, particularly during the colonial times, created the need to translate the Scriptures

in the indigenous languages. Thus began a process of language description and codification, as a result of which many oral languages

of the world were endowed with a writing system. The history of MCL from a socio-religious perspective has yet to be written, but it

is known from historical records that the first translation of the catéchisme in MCL goes back to 1828. According to Baker (1976), it

was published by Richard Lambert “for the benefit of the Réduit school for slaves” (p.41). A rare, and most probably the only existing

copy of the translated version is a reprint published in the Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris (1885:122-32) and

reproduced in Chaudenson (1981). The opening lines of the Catéchisme en créole give a fair idea of the adapted etymological

orthography used:

St. Demande. – Mon cher zanfant vous connéz qui vous?

R. – Oui, moi un criatire de Bon Dieû, pass qui li qui faire moi, mon le côr et mon name.

In 1884, the Anglican priest, Samuel Anderson, translated the New Testament into Creole using a more or less „phonetic‟ system, as

illustrated by his Creole rendering of the title of St Matthew‟s Gospel: L‟Evangil selon S. Matthié dan langaz créol Maurice.

Criticised for his deviations from French orthography and his use of „k‟ instead of „c‟ or „qu‟, Anderson replied:

I (…) hasten to say that I studied the question very carefully before deciding to write the Creole Gospel phonetically. Were I to

write for some ten thousand French scholars who do not require the Creole Gospel I would keep to the French orthography

and the task would be the more easy for me, but as my purpose is to give the Gospel to more than 350,000 souls who do not

read French and yet use Creole…I determined to write phonetically.9

A little more than a century later, a Catholic priest made history by choosing the 1st of February 1993, the anniversary date of the

abolition of slavery, and the celebration of the commemorative mass to speak of the malaise créole. The understatement from Father

Roger Cerveaux triggered a collective expression of long contained frustration and resentment against the Church and the State for the

social and cultural marginalization of the poorer sections of the Christian/Creole community.

Two years later, the controversial issue of Oriental languages and the CPE examinations brought the malaise créole to the forefront of

Mauritian ethnic politics in the context of general elections. The scene was set for the emergence of a new Creole consciousness, with

at its core the recognition of the specificity of the Creole language, culture and identity in Mauritian society and institutions, starting

from the Church itself and the school.

That was the context in which a group of Catholic priests, with the collaboration of Dev Virahsawmy, initiated action for the

introduction of standardized written Creole in the Church. The outcome was a new orthographic system which took over from where

Dev Virahsawmy had left his graphie consensuelle.

9 Quoted by Philip Baker, Towards a Social History of Mauritian Creole, Bphil dissertation, University of York, 1976, p.67.

The proposed Graphie standard pour le Kreol is presented in a two-page document with an introductory note which reads as follows:

Une graphie standard pour le kreol est aujourd‟hui une necessité pour l‟Eglise en particulier et pour la république de Maurice

en general. Il nous faut rendre la bible et l‟enseignement religieux plus accessible aux chrétiens et en même temps donner aux

Mauriciens un outil plus fiable pour la maîtrise de l‟écriture afin qu‟ils deviennent „literate‟ et „numerate‟, deux compétences

indispensables dans un monde moderne. La graphie que nous proposons veut répondre à un besoin pressant. C‟est un outil

simple, pratique et économique, facile à enseigner. Nous tenons à préciser que le but premier est d‟enseigner la lecture et

l‟écriture à ceux qui en ont grandement besoin et non pour faciliter la lecture en kreol à ceux qui sont déja „literate‟ en

français. Deuxièmement nous voulons faciliter l‟usage du computer et le passage à l‟anglais, deux compétences extrêmement

utiles de nos jours, surtout aux plus défavorisés parmi les chrétiens en particulier et les Mauriciens en général.

For his part, Dev Virahsawmy, in Chapter 1 of his Aprann lir ek ekrir morisyen (presented in his website), introduces the writing

system that he too has adopted, as follows:

Grafi ki pe servi isi se seki Legliz Katolik ek so lagazet, La Vie Catholique, servi; se seki bann tradikter Levanzil dapre Sin

Mark finn servi; seki websayt literatir Morisien, Boukie Banane, servi. Fale pa koir ki li enn prodwi fini, fixe, met dan boit.

Grafi li dinamik e atraver letan li pou konn enn pake ti sanzman. Me kouma li fin devini aster li donn nou enn bon zouti travay

pou fer literesi dan Repiblik Moris avanse.

Details of the adopted orthography, as they appear on Dev Virahsawmy‟s website, are presented in the following extracts :

Titlet Kapital Divan Damilie Danbout

A A a, abe, ade,

ale, amize,

azoute

bat, kat, mat,

pat, rat, sat,

tat, zat

ba, pa

batana, gaga,

yapana,

An An anvi, anler,

ankor, anpe kanf, zans,

dans, rans,

pans, lans,

andan,

anpandan,

azan, bayan

mans,kanz

B B bat,bal bet,

bit, bek,

bout, bouk,

bol, bel

laba, leba,

taba, tablo,

tablet, baba,

tabou,

kab, sab,

krab, tab,

meb, zeb,

gob, job, lib,

lerb

c(h) C(h) cham,

chombo,

choula,

chachi, chok

machak,

machann,

macho,

machour,

machapa

mach

D D dal, de, dilo,

dop, doz,

douk, dous,

douz, dra,

kado, lede,

model, rado,

sede, pedal,

soda, souder

kad, led,

lamod, larad,

lasid, foud,

soud

E E ede, eg, eze,

epe, ere,

espere

bet, det, fet,

get, let, met,

set, zet

de, pe, se,

mete, rode,

manze

en get 'in'

F F Fat, fet, fit,

fot, fout,

flote, frote

lafin, bafon,

kifer, gafe,

gonfle, grife

bef, laf, maf,

mouf, touf,

souf, sif, sef

G G gaf, get, gos,

gou, glob,

grif, gram

lagam, figir,

longann,

lagon

bag, meg,

peg, boug,

reg, tig,

koleg

h [get 'ch']

I I Isi, ibiskis,

ibou, imans,

ize

lib, zip, tib,

sil, pik, fiz,

klib, pit

bi, ki, li, tifi,

zi, poli, giji,

kri, pri

In In inpe, inbesil,

inkapab,

indesan

pint, krint,

sinp, kinz,

pins, prins,

sint

koin, poin,

sin, bin, lin,

fin, divin

J J jam, jim, jos,

job, jaz, jati,

joukal

maja, baja,

kajal, raja, baj

K K Ka, koi, ki,

koko, kime,

kouma,

ketrin

lakaz, baka,

bakle, bake,

pake, pike

bak, lak, pak,

jak, sak,

larak, fek,

pik, flouk

L L la, li, lay, lot,

lav, laz, lez,

loz, loup

balo, pali,

pouli, pile,

koulou,

zalou

bal, kal, fel,

mil, sil, mel,

moul

M M mo, me, mal,

mol, mou,

map, mas,

lame, lime,

limon,

diaman

lam, tam,

lazam,

tamam, ram,

jam

n, nn N nana, nene,

ni, nou,

noze, navet

dine, dane,

done, pone, pon, ponn,

fin/fen, finn,

pan, pann,

pin/pen,

penn, pinn

dimoun,

kloun

O O oja, ozonn,

otin, okouran bol, mol, tol,

rol, fol, kol,

bom, rom

loto, moto,

foto, kado,

rato

On On onte, onz,

ons, onziem mont, kont,

bronz, sonz,

ponp, mons

bon, gon,

son, pon,

ron, ton, zon,

fon

P P Pa, pe, po,

pi, pou, plat,

plan, plon

lape, sape,

tape, zape,

rape

bap, kap,

flap, grap,

pop, sap, zip,

trip

R R ras, ros, ris,

rouz, res,

rasi, riban

laraz, lerim,

deranz, aroz bar, tar, rar,

par, lar, zar,

kar, far

S S Sa, so, si,

sou, set,

souk, sime,

sit

lasas, lasos,

lasam, lasid bas, kas, fas,

las, mas, ras,

tas, vas

T T Ta, ti, to tou,

teti, tinte,

tante

bate, bato,

rate, sante,

manter

bat, kat, sat,

rat, mat, nat,

dat, fat,

U (ou) ouver,

oumem,

ounnde, ourit

bout, koute,

dout, gout,

rouz

kou, dou,

fou, gou,

mou, nou,

pou, sou

V V Va, vit, ver,

voun, vas,

vis, vaz, viz

lavi, lavaz,

pavaz, lever,

neve, leve

lalev, manev,

rev, sov,

mov, biv

W W wat, waya,

wi, wok, wit,

wiski,

tawa, bawa,

kawal, sawal sew, baw,

taw, biw,

paw,

biwbaw,

X/ks taxi/taksi,

maxi/maksi, tax/taks,

tex/teks,

mix/miks,

Y Y yapana,

youpi, yoga, yeye, yoyo,

youyou, travay, bay,

lekay, revey

Z Z zaza, zes,

zozo,

zouzou, zako

baze, bizin,

bouze, raze,

rouze, manze

baz, faz, gaz,

jaz, laz, maz,

paz, labriz

An explanatory note states that “'an, en/in ek on' ” should be considered as a single “alfabet” even if they are represented by two

letters and that “'en' ek 'in' ” represent “the same sound”.

The details presented above appear to be incomplete in terms of symbols as well as explanations. For example, “oi”, “ng” “gn” are not

listed, while “c(h)”, “x/ks” and “u/ou are not explained.

To know more about the missing symbols, one has to refer to the document Graphie standard pour le Kreol, where they are presented

with appropriate comments where necessary. They are explained by reference to French, as follows:

- In/in: comme en français (fin, lin, desin…). En français il y a plusieurs formes pour le son „in‟ (ain, ein, eint) mais en

kreol „in‟ sera la règle mais parfois quand „in‟ est suivi de „n‟ il s‟avère nécessaire de l‟écrire „enn‟ pour le distinguer de „inn‟

(venn/vinn, lalenn/lalinn; lasenn/Lasinn;(…)

The semi-vowel, „y‟ alternates with „i‟ and their distribution is based on their position in relation to the word or syllable:

- Y/y: est utilisé en position initiale et finale dans une syllabe ou un mot mais non à l‟intérieur d‟une syllabe ou mot où il est

remplacé par „i‟ („yap-yap‟, „yenn‟, „mayo‟, „travayer‟, mais „lipie‟, „lizie‟, „lesiel‟, „ledikasion‟ (…).

The same rules apply to the semi-vowel „w‟, which alternates with „oi‟ or „ou‟:

- W/w: est utilisé en position initiale et finale dans une syllabe ou un mot mais non à l‟intérieur d‟une syllabe ou mot où il est

remplacé par d‟autres signes („wiski‟, „piaw‟, „waya‟, „siaw‟; mais „twa‟, „mwa‟, „swa‟, „zwa‟, „bwa‟, „dwa‟, „pwa‟, etc.

deviennent „toi‟, „moi‟, „soi‟, „zoi‟, „boi‟, „doi‟, „poi‟, etc.; „kwenn‟ devient „kouenn‟, „kwi‟ devient „koui‟, „kwin‟ devient

„koin‟, „kwar‟ devient „koir‟, „vwar‟ devient „voir‟…).

Consonant graphemes considered to be problematic are presented as follows:

- C/c: est utilisé en combinaison avec „h‟ dans des mots comme „chombo‟, „cholo‟, „chacha‟, „makacha‟, „cheke‟, „choula‟, „

chake‟, „chok‟, etc.

- H/h: est utilisé dans des emprunts venant d‟autres langues (haldi, halim, horl)

- J/j: est utilisé dans des mots comme „jaz‟, „ jal‟, „janaza‟, „ jamalgota‟, „jaldi‟, „jos‟, „jam‟, „jim‟, „jerikann‟, etc.

- X/x: est parfois utilisé à la place de „ks‟ comme dans „exkiz‟, au lieu de „ekskiz‟, „sex‟, au lieu de „seks‟, etc.

- ng: est utilisé dans des mots tels que „tang‟, „bang‟, „sang‟, „leng‟, „long‟, „rong‟.

- gn: est utilisé dans des mots tels que „pegn‟ (peigne), „pagn‟ (pagne), „sign‟ (signe), „segne‟ (saigner), etc.

In a paper summarising his personal thoughts on Les acquis et aménagements de la graphie que l‟Eglise utilise, Father Patrick Fabien

writes:

La graphie actuelle, tout en privilégiant une approche phonétique, tient compte du français dans une certaine mesure. Dans ce

texte je voudrais approfondir ce „midway‟ entre phonétique et l‟expérience visuelle de la graphie française pour élaborer une

graphie créole cohérente.

While acknowledging that the new orthography has obtained consensus and acceptance generally, he proposes the replacement of „ou‟

as an equivalent of „w‟ (see above) by „u‟. The examples he gives illustrate his point better than his explanation:

Le son „u‟ est utile dans les voyelles doubles comme dans „minuit‟, „cuit‟, „fruit‟,. Il faut le maintenir avec le „i‟. Ce qui

donnerait „minui‟, „frui‟, „kui‟, et non „minoui‟, „froui‟, ou „koui‟.

His other suggestions concern „x‟ (see above) and „s‟. The guiding principle being the need for simplicity, he would prefer „ex‟ as in

„exsite‟, rather than „eksite‟, and „ek‟ as in „ekzanp‟, instead of „exzanp‟. In the case of „s‟, it should be reduplicated in final position

to make sure that it is pronounced.

His final proposals call for an imperative review of „w‟ and final „e‟. The replacement of „w‟ by „oi‟ in certain word contexts may

complicate the learning of French. The examples quoted are „roiyom‟ and „moiyin‟. Rewriting them as „royom‟ and „moyin‟ would

mean having two symbols, „oi‟ and „oy‟ for the same sound. To simplify matters, it would be preferable to opt for „w‟, but then, writes

Father Fabien: “Ceci risque d‟apporter un blocage pour la lecture du créole car cette graphie paraît „barbare‟”.

In the case of the final „e‟, the proposal is to introduce the “accent aigü”. The argument put forward in support is:

Les gens ont de la peine à reconnaître dans le „e‟ un „é‟. Je suggère que le „e‟ final soit écrit avec un accent aigü. En

introduisant le „é‟ on faciliterait de 100% la lecture du créole. Pour le pratiquer quotidiennement avec des groupes, c‟est une

des grosses pierres d‟achoppement. Cette simple modification offrirait une graphie accessible et visuellement agréable.

The points raised in his paper are not new. There are plenty of similar examples in the debate that has been going on for decades on

how far or how close should Creole standardized orthography be in relation to French. At one extreme we find the French Caribbean

creolists who adopted the principle of “déviance maximale”, and at the other the functionalists, like Annegret Bollée and Danielle

D‟Offay, whose new orthography for Seychellois Creole was presented as a compromise between the phonemic orthography and the

traditional, that is, the etymological usage.

At the end of the day, the fundamental issue to be addressed is quite straightforward: any orthography must serve a purpose and

respond to the needs of the potential users.

6 A harmonized orthography for MCL

After more than thirty years of experimentation and usage, MCL has now reached a remarkably high degree of convergence and

stability in terms of orthographic standardization. The time has come for the elaboration of a harmonized orthography based on a

palette of symbols currently in use and on the expectations of potential users, particularly in the educational system.

Before proceeding, some words of caution are necessary. Our task is to propose an orthographic system, that is, a set of symbols,

conventions and rules to be used for switching over from spoken utterances to their written counterparts. An orthographic system

therefore is to be viewed as a bridge between the oral and the written norms of a language. It should not be confused with the written

language or the written norm of language. The latter develops over time through a gradual process of elaboration of the written code.

To quote one of the leading specialists of written language, Joseph Vachek:

“a language community which has not yet developed its written norm has not yet developed the latent possibilities of the language to

the full”.10

Furthermore, a strictly phonemic orthography, based on a one to one correspondence between the phoneme, that is, a sound belonging

to the pronunciation system, and the written symbol, does not promote readability. To achieve this, a certain amount of redundancy is

necessary.

Finally, language, including its orthography, is a flexible and dynamic system. It evolves and is subject to variation. Orthographic

harmonization, as rightly pointed out, does not mean uniformization, which is particularly true in the case of MCL.

10

Joseph Vachek, Written language revisited, John Benjamin Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1989, p.20.

In addition to the plural context of Mauritius, there are also the specific linguistic and cultural realities of Rodrigues that must be taken

into account. There has not been up to now a significant volume of writing in Rodrigues Creole Language (RCL), as a result of which

orthography does not appear to have been an issue for RCL. MCL and RCL are considered as varieties of a common shared language

and their regional/dialectal differences should not be an obstacle to the adoption of the proposed harmonized orthography for both

MCL and RCL.

The harmonized orthography presented below is not a closed system. Based on the standardized writing systems currently in use, it

will inevitably go through a period of test and trial. In other words, it too will evolve with time and practice.

TABLE 1 COMMON CONSONANTS AND VOWELS

Consonants

Phoneme Symbol/letter Examples Remarks

p p pake, aprann, rap

b b bato, kaba, rob

m m mama, semen, bom

n n nam, zanana, yenn See vowel+n in T2

t t tanto, later, zalimet

d d dilo, ledo, larad

k k koki, lakaz, lamok

g g gidon, lagitar, grog

s s sat, lasal, fos

z z zako, biznes, baz

f f fami, lafnet, bef

v v volan, lavey, lagrev

l l lavil, talan, bal

r r ros, lartik, lamar

Vowels

a a alert, balon, beta

e e eskiz, egrer, dite

o o oter, zoli, loto

i i itil, plim, mari long i: diil („deal‟)

TABLE 2 HARMONIZED CONSONANTS, VOWELS AND SEMIVOWELS

Phoneme Symbol Examples Remarks

ɲ gn gagn, gagne,

pagn, konpagne

LPT: gayn, ganye,

payn, konpanye

ŋ ng long, lapang, miting

gunga,

tʃ ch chak, kucha, chacha ba(t)ch, ma(t)ch?

ʤ di/j media, diab, diaman

baj, baja, jukal, jus

h h haj, halim, dahi,

hom, horl

ks/gz x/xs exit, existe exsite,

sex, taxi, axsidan

DV: x/ks used freely

ʃ sh shoping, ofshor,

kash, shanti

u ou koulou, louke, koul LPT: kulu, luke, kul

ẽ in fin, linz, rinte, rezin LPT:fin/fen

linz/lenz, rinte/rente,

ã an anz, larzan, lavantir

õ on onz, konter, dekon

^ œ bœrgœr, kompyutœr gœrlfrenn, kœtœr

This vowel is not

part of MCL system

j y/i yer, vwayel, karay,

lion, nasion

LPT: lyon, nasyon

w w wit, labwet, lerwa Grafi Legliz: w/ou

Comments

The consonants and vowels presented in Table 1 are generally shared by the various standardized orthographies presented in Chapter

5. The only problematic comment concerns the doubled ii, used to transcribe a long i, as in the example given: „diil‟. („deal‟). Another

example, quoted by Dev Virahsawmy, is kes/kees („caisse/case‟). Since there are very few such cases, the need for representing long

vowels is debatable.

Table 2 contains symbols that are not all shared by the various standardized orthographies presented in Chapter 5. They are proposed

as part of the harmonization process. Thus:

- gn has been chosen from Grafi Legliz. LPT uses yn, which has a disadvantage: the order of the combined letters has to be changed in

the case of the verbal long form, e.g., gayn, ganye; or in the case of a derived form, e.g., montayn, montanyar.

- ch is a shared symbol. There are however one or two common words borrowed from English, e.g., batch, match, written with a „t‟.

Removing it would affect their readability.

- di/j. Standardized usage hesitates on their distribution. The argument of degree of palatalization is rather subjective. It would seem

that various factors come into play, e.g., position in the word, word origin, readability.

- x/xs. x has the value of „ks‟ as in „taxi‟, „sex‟, and the value of „gz‟, as in „lexame‟, „exose‟; xs is proposed for the sake of

readability. Compare: „exit‟ and „exsite‟.

- ou is proposed instead of u. However, considering the fact that u has been in use for a much longer period through LPT‟s

orthography, there will have to be some flexibility in the use of ou and u.

- in, an, on. The representation of nasalization by the n/nn formula is now well established. However, some flexibility will have to be

observed since en is also used with the same value as in.

- œ is a new symbol, equivalent to the English pronunciation of „er‟, as in leader. It is found in a number of words of English origin,

some of them well established in MCL, e.g., „gœrlfrenn‟ (‘girlfriend’), ‘marstœr’ (‘master’) while others form part of the office

vocabulary or are more recent, e.g., „ofisœr’ (‘officer’), ‘printœr’, ‘mixœr’. It is generally word-final and is therefore followed by „r‟ for the

sake of readability. There has been much debate not just on the choice of the symbol itself, but even on the need to have the sound

represented as it concerns a specific set of words. It is being included on trial basis.

- y/i. The complementary use of y/i has been in use for long, with the semivowel y being replaced by i whenever it is found between a

consonant and a vowel, as in tansion, kamion, etc. The same is true for the generalized use of y as semivowel by LPT, which makes

sense since i in this position has the same value as the semivowel y. Nevertheless, the complementary use of y/i is proposed for the

sake of readability.

- w. This semivowel symbol has been in use right from the beginning. Grafi Legliz hesitates between w and ou, because w makes the

MCL word look foreign to the reader used to French orthography. On the other hand, the use of the digraph ou very often results in a

sequence of three vowels, e.g, „louin‟ („loin‟), „soue‟ („souhait‟), „mouins‟ („moins‟)

Orthographic conventions

In addition to the letters, there are established conventions governing punctuation and related matters that have to be addressed. A

number of them are presented below:

Punctuation system: the English and French systems have much in common. English punctuation has the advantage of being

more widely used as a result of its status as the written official language of administration. It is proposed that MCL punctuation

be based on it;

The hyphen: it is already used to connect a word and its definite marker, e.g., tifi-la. But when the post-posed la refers to an

expanded noun group, e.g., sa tifi ki paret dan televizion la, it is proposed not to use the hyphen. It is used in certain types of

compound words: words functioning as a single word, e.g., karo-kann; words combined with dimunitive„ti‟: ti-baba, ti-piman.

It is also found in reduplicated words, e.g., mars-marse, roul-roule, bat-bate;

The apostrophe: the established usage of the apostrophe to indicate various forms of elision has already been adopted in

standardized MCL orthographies, e.g., mo‟n koz ar li, li‟a koz ar twa, nu ti‟a kontan zwenn twa. It is proposed to maintain

them. (In actual spoken usage, the contracted forms often contain a semivowel: moyn, lya (or just ya), tya. However, the

difficulty of extending the elision to such contracted spoken forms as mwale (mo ale), anwale (anou ale) or just wale (ou ale)

illustrates the need to formulate more precise elision rules;

Numbers, hours and years: their combination in MCL reproduces a number of variations based on their French counterparts.

Compare:

Enn kut, de kut, kat kut, sis kut

Enn er, dezer, katrer, sizer, dizer

Enn an, dezan, katran, sizan, dizan

In PB/VH‟s dictionary, dezan and dezer are treated as single words; same for katran and katrer, sizer and dizer, but not for

sizan and dizan.

These few cases are just a sample of conventions currently in use. There are many more to be discussed and agreed upon.

One more issue, perhaps the most difficult one since it concerns names and proper nouns, will have to be addressed. Up to now, place

names, whether local or foreign, have been written in standardized MCL orthography in the dictionary. What would be the reaction of

people to a proposal recommending that names of people too should be written according to the norms and conventions of the

harmonized orthography? The names of Jesus and his apostles as well as other proper names are already being written in the

standardized orthography in a series of documents produced by the Church.

It is recommended that a technical committee be set up to look into these and other related orthographic issues.

7 “…making use of MCL in the education of young Mauritians” There is nothing new in the above extract from the terms of reference of the present report. Teachers have been using MCL in the

classroom all the time because it is the first language of the average Mauritian child when s/he steps into the world and begins to relate

to it by using words and phrases meaningfully. This is the language that he brings into the school.

What is new is the first part of the terms of reference, which sets the prerequisite: a harmonized way of writing the language with a

view to…The objective is thus to introduce MCL as a written language, to be learned as such and to be used for reading and writing,

and probably for learning other subjects.

MCL would thus be part of the school curriculum. That means an MCL syllabus will have to be prepared, and curriculum materials

developed: pedagocical grammars and dictionaries, textbooks and readers for the learners, guides, handbooks and training

programmes for teachers.

Mauritius has a fairly long history of experimenting with languages in the education of its children. There are therefore lessons to be

drawn from our own experience of language learning/teaching by trial and error. What makes the challenge more risky is the fact that

the process of introducing MCL as a written language triggers simultaneously the complex process of developing the written norm of

the language. The prospects of benefiting from outside input are limited, so are our own resources and facilities. Even if we had all the

linguistic, educational and resource requisites, there still looms the dark cloud of language politics that could overnight wash away les

plus belles intentions. The social implications will also have to be carefully studied. In a socially differentiating school system

comprising government, confessional, ZEP, French/English medium private local and international schools, language can be a

powerful instrument of inequality.

A harmonized writing system for MCL is just one, important but small, element of a strategic plan with a time frame for the most

rewarding but also the most challenging educational reform because it is more than just a language issue. The proposed introduction of

MCL within the educational system means respecting a fundamental right of the child: the right to learn and be taught in his first

language. But the Mauritian child must also learn and master a multiciplity of languages which form part of the historical, cultural and

modern setup of his country.

The proposed introduction of MCL will inevitably have a bearing, not only on the present setup of language teaching but, more

importantly, on the whole policy of languages in education in Mauritius and Rodrigues. It must indeed be recalled that the debate on

the language and education issue with reference to MCL has been going on ever since the process of standardizing MCL was initiated.

It took an institutional dimension in the mid 1970s when the first comprehensive plan for an integrated educational language reform

was prepared by a team of enthusiastic linguists and educators at the nascent Mauritius Institute of Education. The little known

initiative followed a Unesco Consultants‟ report on educational development in Mauritius and the role of the Institute of Education.

Known as the Marcastel report, the Unesco document expressed serious concern on the situation of language teaching and outlined

ways and means for improvement. It recommended a national organizational framework for language teaching reform and the creation

of a language centre at the MIE which would act as the “professional arm” for research and planning of the reform proposal. Papers in

view of implementing the Unesco recommendations were prepared by the MIE team, in which possible solutions were proposed for

the introduction of MCL and for the staggering of languages in the school

curriculum (see extracts in Annex 2).

In 1979, the Report of the Richard Commission on pre-primary and primary education, Laying the Foundations, devoted one full

chapter to the language policy issue and proposed “two alternatives though it realises that ultimately the decision is a political and

socio-cultural one”:

Alternative A. Since the language of the home is recommended for the pre-primary with a gradual transition to spoken French,

the Commission feels that for year 1 age 5+ of the the Infant School, the language of the environment should be used still with

Oral French and an oral Oriental Language. That in Standard II French and an oral Oriental Language be introduced

gradually in the written form and English in the Oral Form; that in Standard III, the three languages be taught formally. The

Commission would like to see facilities being made available to all children to learn an Oriental Language from start, subject

to parental choice being considered.

Alternative B. The language of the environment should be used in Standards I and II and French should be introduced in an

Oral form in standard II; and in Standard III French and English be studied in formal form and an Oriental Language in the

oral form, the faculty to learn an Oriental Language being offered to all at their parental option.

The Commission‟s final recommendations were:

- The Ministry should study the alternatives proposed;

- Consideration should be given to the risk interest in the simultaneous presentation of several languages at Primary

level;

- It is advisable to have a National Language Commission to study Language Teaching.

The same year, in a discussion paper on Language in Primary Education, Rodney Phillips, who was then a member of the English

Section at the MIE, presented a proposal in which the three major first and/or second languages, namely MCL, Bhojpuri and French

are at the base of the system (See relevant extracts in Annex 3):

French is carried through to the end, whereas Kreol and Bhojpuri, having been exploited in their oral mode, are then phased

out when literacy skills gain ascendancy. Bhojpuri gives way to an Oriental Language during Year 3 and Kreol gives way to

English in Year 4 (Numeracy) and Year 5 (Environment Studies).

8 By way of conclusion

Viewed in its historical perspective, the decision of the government to commission a harmonized standard orthography for MCL

constitutes a landmark in the process of recognition of the language and of its formal introduction in the educational system. The

standard orthography proposed will evolve with time and usage along with the development of MCL‟s written norm. It should

therefore be seen as a dynamic and flexible system. The fact that it will be put to test in the school is in itself a challenging task, since

new words and terminology will have to be borrowed and adapted, or coined. They will also have to be validated, which is another

argument in favour of creating a body to look into the development of MCL, more particularly of its written norm.

At the national education level, the inclusion of MCL will inevitably entail a reformulation of the language policy. The various

scenarios proposed over the last thirty years or so represent as many variations on the theme of mothertongue (L1) and second/foreign

languages (L2/3) and that of language staggering. In an introductory statement on “the general feeling of malaise about the present

state of languages and language teaching in the present Mauritian educational framework”, the authors of MIE project proposal,

Languages in Education in Mauritius, referred to earlier, write:

This malaise is a three-fold one. Firstly it is generally admitted that there are too many languages competing for the child‟s

attention in the early years of the primary school. Secondly the sociolinguistic and educational roles that these languages

should have in the educational framework have yet to be clearly worked out. Thirdly, and as a direct result of the second, it is

generally agreed that the methods of language teaching in Mauritius require radical review leading to harmonisation between

languages wherever possible.

In this context, one of the proposed scenarios (see Annex 2) introduces a novel concept of integrated blocks of subjects linked by a

common language of instruction. In our multilingual school context, this proposal has the merit of opening a new and interesting

perspective of more than one language of instruction. This together with many other potentially valuable proposals that have been put

forward over the last decades necessitate the setting up of a national body to look into all aspects of the formulation and

implementation of a language policy responsive to the needs and interests of the Mauritian child and of the plural Mauritian society.

References

Baissac (1880) Etude sur le patois créole mauricien. Genève, Slatkine reprints, 1976.

Baker, Philip (1972) Kreol. A Description of Mauritian Creole. London, C. Hurst & Co.

Baker, P. (1976) Towards a Social History of Mauritian Creole. BPhil Dissertation, University of York.

Baker, P & Hookoomsing V.Y. (1978) Lortograf-Linite. Moris.

Baker, P. & Corne C. (1982), Isle de France Creoles. Origins and Affinities. Anne Arbor, Karoma publications.

Baker, P. & Hookoomsing, V.Y. (1987) Diksyoner Kreol Morisyen. Paris, L‟Harmattan.

Bentolila, Alain (1984) Le créole haïtien : la longue marche vers la modernité in I. Fodor & C. Hagège (ed) : La réforme des langues.

Hamburg, Helmut Buske, Verlag.

Bernabé, J. (1976) Propositions pour un code orthographique intégré des créoles à base lexicale française, Espace Créole, no.1.

Bollée, A. & D‟Offay, D. (1978) Apprenons la nouvelle orthographe. Cologne & Mahé.

Chaudenson, Robert (1981) Textes Créoles Anciens, Hamburg, Helmut Buske Verlag.

Chaudenson, Robert (1987) Pour un aménagement linguistique intégré : Le cas de la graphie des créoles français, Etudes Créoles,

Vol. X, No. 2.

Chrestien, François. (1822) Les Essais d‟un Bobre Africain. Isle Maurice (ré-édité par N. Benoît, 1998).

Dejean, Yves (1980) Comment écrire le créole d‟Haïti. Quebec, Collectif Paroles.

Hazaël-Massieux, M-C (1993) Ecrire en Créole. Paris, L‟Harmattan.

Jean, Georges (1987) L‟écriture, mémoire des hommes. Paris. Découvertes Gallimard.

Ledikasyon Pu Travayer (1981) Alfa-ennbuk; (1985) Diksyoner Kreol-Angle; (1990) How to write Kreol properly; (2002) Langaz

Kreol Zordi.

Pudaruth, B. L. (1993) Le créole mauricien. Maurice, Editions Le Printemps.

Tirvassen (2000) Créole et école dans les îles du sud-ouest de l‟Océan Indien, Etudes Créoles, Vol XXIII, No. 1.

Valdman, Albert (ed) (1979) Créole et Enseignement Primaire en Haïti, Port-au-Prince.

Valdman, Albert (1978) Le Créole : structure, statut, origine. Paris, Klincksieck.

Vernet, P. (1980) Techniques d‟écriture du créole haïtien. Port-au-Prince.

Virahsawmy, Dev (2004) Aprann lir ekrir Morisyen, Moris, Boukié Banané.

ANNEX 1

Proposition soumise au Ministre de la Culture et des Arts, en sa qualité de Président du Comité organisateur local, dans le cadre du

7eme

Colloque International des Etudes Créoles

Proposition pour la création d‟un comité technique en vue de l‟élaboration d‟une graphie standard pour le créole mauricien

Vinesh Y. Hookoomsing

La République de Maurice accueillera du 30 septembre au 5 octobre prochain le 7eme

Colloque International des Etudes Créoles. Outre

son caractère éminemment scientifique, cet événement revêt une importance particulière sur le plan symbolique de la valorisation de

la langue. Il traduit en effet notre volonté réelle d‟assumer le créole mauricien, pour ne pas dire le mauricien tout court, et de

reconnaître en cette langue du terroir, un patrimoine qui nous relie au monde créolophone de l‟Océan Indien et de la Caraïbe.

Cela fera bientôt vingt-cinq ans depuis que la langue créole mauricienne assume ce rôle si nécessaire de véhicule d‟unité nationale

dans une société indépendante et plurielle. Portée par la volonté populaire, toute une génération de créateurs, de chercheurs et de

linguistes a travaillé au développement de cette langue pour lui permettre à son tour de contribuer à l‟épanouissement et au

développement de notre société. Aujourd‟hui, la langue créole mauricienne est l‟instrument par excellence du dialogue, de la

communication et – par voie de conséquence – de la compréhension, entre le gouvernement et le peuple.

Le gouvernement mauricien a démontré son attachement à notre pluralisme linguistique en accueillant régulièrement des rencontres

mondiales sur les langues de notre patrimoine. Ce signe de reconnaissance a enfin été accordé à la langue créole. Le geste est

important, mais il n‟est pas suffisant pour aider cette langue à assumer pleinement toutes les fonctions qu‟elle est appelée à remplir

quotidiennement dans la société.

Il est bon de rappeler ici les efforts entrepris pour faire du créole mauricien une langue de plein droit, et qui ont été pour l‟essentiel

l‟œuvre d‟individus et d‟organisations privées : formulation des règles de la langue, établissement d‟orthographes standardisées,

fabrication de dictionnaires, publication d‟œuvres littéraires, traduction de grands chefs-d‟œuvre mondiaux (Otelo, le dernier en date,

se joue en ce moment au théâtre du Plaza), traduction de textes sacrés (Mahabharata, le Coran, l‟Evangile), de textes de lois, ré-édition

d‟œuvres importantes (e.g. le Folkore de l‟Ile Maurice, de Baissac).

A l‟heure des bilans, il est malheureux de constater que l‟état n‟a pas grand‟chose à son actif à part quelques déclarations d‟intention.

Ainsi, de toutes les langues reconnues au sein de notre pluralisme, seule la langue créole – paradoxalement celle qui nous est

commune – n‟est prise en charge par aucune institution digne de ce nom. (Le Centre Culturel Africain ne peut, de par sa vocation

particulière, assumer une telle responsabilité.)

Par conséquent, et pour marquer en même temps de manière concrète la venue du Colloque International des Etudes Créoles, je

voudrais réitérer ma proposition en faveur de la création d‟un comité technique en vue de dégager un consensus autour d‟une graphie

standard pour le créole mauricien.

Il est bon de rappeler que, dans ce domaine, Maurice a acquis au cours des dernières décennies une expérience considérable en matière

de réflexions, de propositions et de pratiques. Il faut aussi souligner que, contrairement à l‟opinion couramment entretenue, il n‟existe

à ce jour que deux ou trois systèmes graphiques standards en usage, qu‟ils ne diffèrent pas sur l‟essentiel et enfin qu‟ils ne sont pas

concurrentiels, bien que celui utilisé par Ledikasyon Pu Travayer soit de toute évidence le plus répandu. La proposition réitérée ici

n‟a donc rien de révolutionnaire ni d‟original. Elle s‟inscrit tout simplement dans la logique de l‟évolution du créole mauricien. Cette

langue est aujourd‟hui parvenue à un point avancé de son développement : elle est mûre pour une graphie cohérente, standard et

communément acceptée.

Dans le monde parlant un créole à base lexicale française, il y a trois pays indépendants où cette langue est une réalité incontournable :

Haïti, Seychelles et Maurice. La République haïtienne compte à elle seule une population créolophone de six millions d‟habitants. Le

créole y jouit du statut de langue nationale et de langue co-officielle avec le français. Dans la République des Seychelles, le nombre

importe peu et la pratique d‟un multilinguisme officiel reconnaissant le créole, l‟anglais et le français est bien ancrée dans la société.

En termes d‟importance numérique, la République de Maurice vient après Haïti. Mais elle est la plus complexe quand on considère la

diversité de sa population, de ses langues et de ses cultures.

Ma proposition en vue d‟une graphie standard tient compte de cette complexité. Elle porte sur la technicité de l‟orthographe et ne

touche pas au statut de la langue. Je dois aussi ajouter qu‟en ce qui concerne la codification écrite, l‟essentiel a déjà été fait. Il ne

manque que des retouches et, surtout, le consensus autour d‟une orthographe commune. La tenue du Colloque offre une occasion tout

indiquée pour qu‟enfin l‟état assume sa part de responsabilité en matière d‟aménagement du créole mauricien. Cette part est d‟autant

plus grande que, langue du terroir, le créole n‟a pas de références ancestrales ailleurs qu‟ici et que, par conséquent, son devenir dépend

entièrement de nous.

17 août 1992

ANNEX 2

Languages in Education in Mauritius (Extracts)

Language Centre, MIE, 1975-6

Introduction

1.1 This paper attempts to provide guidelines for the planning of language teaching within the school curriculum.

2. Summary of main reasons for a review of the present language policy

2.1 Too many languages competing for the child‟s attention in the early years of the Primary school resulting in cross-language

interferences, and future illiteracy among those who cannot cope with the situation.

Education failure at the Primary level due in part to insufficient attention being paid to the problems of the medium of

instruction.

Impossibility of planning a new lasting curriculum or of working out syllabuses, particularly at Primary level, until the

language problems are resolved.

3. Aims of language and teaching in Mauritius

3.1 No clearly defined Mauritian Government aims have been discovered. Nevertheless the majority of Mauritians would seem to

share the following aims:

3.2 English

The effective learning of English as a medium of communication with other countries for purposes of trade, information,

politics, professions, culture, etc.

The effective learning of English as an official language for government and business purposes.

The effective learning of English as a medium of instruction at school and as a means of studying after school.

3.3. French

The effective learning of French as a medium of communication with France and other Francophone countries for various

purposes.

The effective learning of French since it is a language widely used in Mauritius.

3.4 Oriental Languages

The effective learning of Oriental Languages by all who wish to, in order to maintain communicative and cultural links

with their countries of origin.

The effective learning of Oriental Languages by all who wish to, because they are used in Mauritius.

3.5 Creole

There is at present no government specified aim for Creole, but there is considerable pressure and aspiration for the

acceptance and development of Creole as the only truly national language. At all levels, including Government, its use is

becoming more and more common. The necessary consequence of such an aspiration is to ensure through education that

children can express themselves effectively through this their mother tongue.

3.6 Implications of these aims for the education system

English, French and Oriental Language must find a place within the educational system. It does not necessarily follow

that all three languages should be started at the same time, or taught to everybody.

The ever-increasing role of Creole in the national life of Mauritius should be recognized, and educational provision made

for this language and for its development.

(…)

6. Diagrams of possible solutions (see charts)

6.2 Possible Solution 1

Standards

Forms

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3

English E E E E E E English E E EE

Maths C C C E E E French/Oriental

Language

F/OL F/OL F/OL

Environmental Studies

(Agri. + Geog. + Nature Study)

C C C Core Maths E E E

Integrated Science E E E Integrated

Science

E E E

Social Studies E E E Social Studies E E E

Art, Craft, PE etc

C

C

C

C

F

E

C

F

E

C

F

E

Electives

(sample)

Practical

subjects

E E E

French F F F French O/L F/OL F/OL F/OL

Oriental Language OL OL OL Physical Education E E E

Creole (Expression, Drama etc) C C C

Advantages

(a) Creole for everything in Standards 1-3 and English for nearly everything from 4-6, therefore possibility of

integrating all subjects within the curriculum through the same languages.

(b) Staggered start for French and Oriental Language leading to less interference, and fewer language demands on

very young child.

Disadvantages

(a) Transfer from Creole to English is abrupt.

6.3 Possible Solution 2

Standards

Forms

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3

English E E E E E E English E E EE

Maths E E E E E E French/Oriental

Language

F/OL F/OL F/OL

Environmental

Studies

(Agri. + Geog. +

Nature Study)

C C C Core Maths E E E

Integrated Science E E E Integrated

Science

E E E

Social Studies E E E Social Studies E E E

Art, Craft, PE etc

C

C

C

C

F

E

C

F

E

C

F

E

Electives

(sample)

Practical

subjects

E E E

Creole C C C French O/L F/OL F/OL F/OL

French F F F Physical

Education

E E E

Oriental Language OL OL OL

Advantages

Allow for integration of subjects in two blocks (Standard 1 – 3) and in one block (Standard 4 – 6).

Requires integration of syllabuses and materials.

Staggered start for French and Oriental Language leading to less interference and fewer language demands on very

young child.

Disadvantages

Inte

gra

te

d

Engli

sh

Blo

ck

Inte

gra

ted

Cre

ole

Blo

ck

Inte

gra

ted

Eng

lish

Blo

ck

Transfer from Creole to English for Science and Social Studies abrupt, but Maths has paved the way by being

entirely in English from the start.

6.4 Possible Solution 3 (long-term solution when Creole has developed a written system)

Standards

Forms

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3

English E E E E E E English E E EE

Maths E E E E E E French/Oriental

Language

F/OL F/OL F/OL

Environmental

Studies

C C C Core Maths E E E

Integrated Science E E E Integrated

Science

E E E

Social Studies C C C Social Studies E E E

Art, etc C C C C C C Electives

(sample)

Practical

subjects

E E E

Creole C C C C C C French O/L F/OL F/OL F/OL

French F F F Physical

Education

E E E

Oriental Language OL OL OL

Advantages and Disadvantages, as in 6.3 with the only difference that Social Studies can be continued in the Creole Block if

required after Standard 4.

Inte

gra

te

d

Engli

sh

Blo

ck

Inte

gra

ted

Cre

ole

Blo

ck

I

nte

gra

ted E

ngli

sh

B

lock

Inte

gra

ted

Cre

ole

Blo

ck

ANNEX 3

Language in Primary Education : a paper for discussion

(Extracts)

Rodney Phillips

D The proposal has been formulated in the light of the various principles and present language situation as described above. In

addition, the recommendations of the Richard Report have been taken into account, and will be quoted at appropriate junctures

in the argument. The nature and scope of the new Certificate of Primary Education (CPE) examination have also been borne in

mind in the design. The proposal takes the form of a chart where language in the Primary curriculum can be seen in operation,

year by year, in terms of both horizontal and vertical relationships. The chart must be seen, not in terms of a „model‟, with all

the idealistic implications of that word, but more in terms of a paradigm or pattern requiring further articulation and

specification as one moves from proposal to implementation.

The Chart: General Comments

1. The three major L1s/L2s are at the base of the system. French is carried through to the end, whereas Kreol and Bhojpuri,

having been exploited in their oral mode, are then phased out when literacy skills gain ascendancy. Bhojpuri gives way to an

Oriental Language during Year 3 and Kreol gives way to English in Year 4 (Numeracy) and Year 5 (Environmental Studies).

2. The possibility of studying an Oriental Language exists throughout the Primary cycle, on an optional basis. This is in keeping

with the following recommendation:

“The Commission would like to see facilities being made available to all children to learn an Oriental Language from

the start, subject to parental choice being considered”

The Richard Report

(Chapter 5, The Language Problem, page 52)

Since Bhojpuri is included in year 1 because of its L1 status, parental choice will be considered as from year 2. In year 3, the

choice of a specific Oriental Language will once again require parental intervention. The option should be closed after the

fourth year in order to allow for adequate preparation for literacy. Parents could opt out at any time during the five-year span.

The optional nature of the Oriental Language component is already reflected in the regulations for CPE.

3. The role of English in the curriculum becomes clearly defined as a medium of instruction. Although the 4 skills are developed,

the content of the course is geared first by numeracy, then by environmental studies, then by both. The integration of language

skills and subject content will both vitalise the teaching of English and aid the learning of other subjects through the medium

of English. The teaching of English will be for Specific Purposes (ESP), and in keeping with a whole new movement in

English Language Teaching.

4. Each literate language (English, French and Oriental Language) goes through three phases – Pre-Reading and Pre-Writing,

Reading and Writing, and Developing the 4 skills. However in the scheme proposed, these three phases are staggered so that the

transfer of skills is made possible. Hence, due consideration has been given “to the risk interest in the simultaneous presentation

of several languages at Primary level” (Richard Report: Summary of recommendations 18.2.1, page 145)

5. The Commission also felt that “Language is badly taught, that too many languages are taught at the same time and that

children do not have time to master the mechanic of reading. Paradoxically enough, teachers are in too great a hurry to start

reading, and do not devote enough time to oral acquisition” (page 51). In the proposed structure, pre-reading and oral work

always precede the teaching of reading proper. Pupils are allowed at least 2 years to prepare for reading in French and an

Oriental Language, and one year before reading English.

6. Non-examinable subjects such as Creative Arts and Movement have been included in the paradigm from the beginning. At

some point, religious studies will have to be introduced in the category. The exact point of entry would be decided by specialists

in the field. However, in keeping with the conclusions of the Richard Report, language studies and religious education will have

to be dissociated. (Summary of Recommendations, 18.7.1, page 150)

7. A three-language formula has been adopted – both at the beginning of the cycle in the case of the 3 major L1s (Bhojpuri,

Kreol, French); and at the end of the cycle in the case of the 3 literate languages (English, French and Oriental Language). The

transition from the first 3 to the second 3 has been conceived and designed in terms of a structured changeover, with due

respect for both reading-readiness and medium-readiness. Each language progresses, at staggered intervals, along a continuum

from oral initiation to literacy; at the same time there is increasing importance given to English as it gradually assumes its

function as medium of instruction. The approach proposed involves close collaboration between linguists and subject

specialists, in order that the notion of an integrated curriculum, noticeable absent in the present system, becomes a working

reality. (“The curriculum has not shown a movement towards integration, and has remained compartmentalized”, Richard

Report, Chapter III, The Primary School Curriculum, page 45).

What is being suggested does not alter the conditions and regulations of the CPE examination, nor does it affect the curriculum

presently operational at Secondary level.

8. Taking into account the pace at which the reading skill proceeds, the paradigm makes provision for the gradual replacement of

a “resources only‟ approach to classroom presentation by an approach which gives increasing importance to the written word

or „text‟ as the main channel of information. This does not mean that resources must be phased out altogether in the upper

strata of the scheme. In year 5 and 6, the resources-text distinction becomes a matter of emphasis only.

Rodney Phillips

The English Section

Mauritius Institute of Education

30 August 1979

Year

English Mathematics Environmental Studies French Optional:One

Oriental Language

Non-Examinable

6 English

Developing the 4 Skills

(T)

Mathematics in

English

(T)

Environmental Studies

English

(T)

French

Developing the

4 Skills

(T)

One Oriental

Language

Developing the 4

Skills

(T)

Creative Arts &

Movement

(R)

5 English for Mathematics &

Environmental Studies based

on Year 5.

Developing the 4 Skills

(T)

Mathematics in

English

(T)

Environmental Studies

English

(T)

French

Developing the

4 Skills

(T)

One Oriental

Langauge

Reading & Writing

(T)

Creative Arts and

Movement

(R)

4 English

Emphasis on Environmental

Studies (based on Years 1-4

and in preparation for 5)

Reading & Writing

(T)

Numeracy in English

(R) & (T)

The Environment in

Kreol

(R) & (T)

French

Developing the

4 Skills

(T)

One Oriental

Language

Pre-Reading/Pre-

Writing

(R)

Creative Arts &

Movement

(R)

3 Introduction of English

Emphasis on Numeracy

(Based on Years 1, 2 and 3

and in preparation for 4)

Pre-Reading & Writing

(R)

Numeracy in Kreol

(R)

The Environment in

Kreol

(R)

French as a

subject

Reading and

Writing

(T)

Transition year

between Bhojpuri and

Hindi or Urdu or one

other Oriental

Language

(R)

Creative Arts &

Movement

Kreol/French

(R)

2 Numeracy concepts and the

Environment in Kreol

(R)

French as a subject

Pre-Reading, Pre-Writing

(R)

Bhojpuri: An

extension of Year 1

with more advanced

story-telling &

Language Learning

Activities

(R)

Creative Arts &

Movement

Kreol

(R)

1 An oral, playgroup approach to Language, Numbers and the Environment (including art &

movement)

Kreol

(R)

French

(R)

Bhojpuri

(R)

R = Resources

T + Text