Correct language

I had no idea that anyone had criticised Labour MP George Vella recently for having spoken in the European Parliament in English. Nor have I learned whether he was targeted privately or publicly. He did not and had no need to detail that when he spoke during the second reading discussion of the Maltese Language Bill on Monday (The Times, May 18).

The telling and relevant point he made on the issue was fashioned on his observation that Malta would make considerable savings should the Maltese members of the European Parliament declare that they prefer to speak in English and listen to other speeches in English.

That the former deputy leader of the MLP made such a proposal in no way implies that he loves our language any less than he should or is known to do. Criticising is an occupational habit in our society. Those who practise it will jump at any excuse to indulge, and if there is no justifiable basis, they will jump in anyhow.

I too knew I was risking that when, while the debate about the pros and cons of membership was raging away before the 2003 general election, I commented in this column that the fears then being drummed up that our language would be threatened by membership were groundless. I concentrate on using the Maltese language as a writer of short stories and poetry. My published efforts are at times utilised to exercise the critical skills of Matsec students.

Was I not, therefore, an ingrate to appear not to wield a cudgel against what some honestly feared or feigned to dread there would be a euro erosion of the language that has enabled me to become a minor literary figure, some of whose writings will last far more than my already forgotten interventions in 21 years of parliamentary life, and several thousand articles in the media?

Not at all, is my reply. I hardly gave such open or implied opprobrium a second thought. My love of and passion for my native tongue remain as strong as when the poet Karmenu Vassallo inculcated them in me and other students right from our first day at the Lyceum in the autumn of 1949. My views on the use of Maltese in the EU, like those of George Vella and others, imply no disregard whatsoever for the proper place of my mother tongue, or any lesser respect for it.

The important factor in the EU context was and remains that EU directives and what arises from them are available in Maltese as well. Otherwise when it comes to speaking in the European Parliament or any other union forum it makes little sense to speak in Maltese, rather than in English.

I was and still am convinced of that position for reasons unrelated to the fact that English, alongside Maltese, is recognised as an official language in the Malta Constitution. That arrangement does not diminish the abiding desirability to nurture our language. We are lucky to have it, and must retain it.

It is the means of oral communication common to all Maltese, whatever their level of education. It is a beautiful and expressive language. It has allowed Maltese writers to build up a body of literature that is remarkably strong for such a small island, in quality as well as quantity. It has survived, despite determined conscious and unconscious attacks upon it.

Ironically these came, and are still originating, not from those who do not have a reasonable formal education, or the ten per cent who still stagnate in illiteracy. That percentage was a great deal higher, before beginning to come down after the first Labour government, led by Pawlu Boffa, introduced compulsory education, initially at a primary level.

Nor did it come along because of British colonial rule, which gradually brought about widespread use of the English language. That phenomenon displaced the supremacy of Italian as the language among the professional and (part of) the commercial classes, the Judiciary, the Church, to the benefit of the Maltese language itself, albeit, on the English side and part of those who supported it, not out of love for it but for calculated political reasons.

The corruption of the Maltese language originated with those who belong or at least presume to appertain to the more educated layers of our society, fuelled also by social mobility. The process of degeneration continues to be pushed along too by various elements within the media, in particular radio and television.

As various members of Parliament participating in the debate on the Maltese Language Bill emphasised, it is important that the process of enriching the language with judicious and necessary assimilation is not to be misshaped by the way English is displaced by unnecessary partial use of English, by horrible corruption of English words to fit them into a pidgin style that jars on the discerning listener and shames those who use it, and also by an incorrect use of the English language itself.

In all regards, but nowadays particularly in the latter case just mentioned, using English as my medium as a columnist I live in a glass house. For any stone I were to be foolish enough to throw at others, one could fling back any multiple at me to point out my own failings.

Yet I can say without running for cover, that in spoken English as well as in its written form, whether in the media or private and public bureaucracies, errors that can be easily be detected and excised occur and are repeated with abandon, indicating that they have as taken as a norm.

For instance, many write 'with regards to' (instead of 'with regard to') when they are referring to something or other, not send any warm regards to anyone. There is frequent (mis)use of the description of unexpected happenings as coming 'out of the blues' (instead of 'out of the blue'). So many, including some who possess a fine grasp of the English language, say 'don't stay doing that' (etc.), as if one were staying in a hotel, or indoors or outside.

I would not dare comment much about pronunciation. My own spoken English is something to plug one's ears against. But basic differences, such as between 'wonder' and 'wander' should not take much to learn. Not even sending the hugely gifted Ira Losco to achieve wonders without wandering about to any neighbouring country at the Eurovision Song Festival, with her successful Seventh Wonder, helped much in that regard.

And the fact that Sliema Wanderers achieved a football double this year has so far provided further incidental evidence that more radio and TV sports commentators need to pause and reflect when they pronounce the club's name.

I believe our early English teacher at the Lyceum inserted the difference in our head quite neatly by advising us to recall William Wordsworth wandering lonely as a cloud in the Lake District, whatever he may have been wondering about before he saw his host of daffodils.

There is clearly much need and opportunity for an exercise in double-glazing:

- keep the Maltese language in, but encourage better use of it, without attempting to impose unintelligible anachronisms in the name of purity; and

- keep the English language out of misuse, so that it can be deployed with the understanding and respect that it deserves.

Continuing with the increasing trend to develop a hybrid language that makes its users laughing stocks in discerning Maltese and English circles simply allows standards to slip further.

The heat that went into the debate over choosing Malta's relationship with the EU deviated attention from how best to tackle such a trend. The resumption of the discussion on the Maltese Language Bill is bringing back an essential sharper focus.

Although the Opposition feels that the bill does not go far enough, it has confirmed that it will be supporting its passage, though Oppo-sition Leader Alfred Sant forecast that the eventual Act would have to be revisited.

Where does all that leave the issue of the use of Maltese in the European Parliament? Dr Vella's view, wherever else it was criticised, attracted surprising disagreement from the government benches. There is room for further reflection, but it would help not to lose the proper perspective of the proposal.

My own experience alongside MPs from both sides of the House was invariably that they were totally at ease making their point in English. And surely no MEP, no average Maltese, really, would need to have an intervention translated into his ear in Maltese, rather than in English, or - if English was the primary language of the speaker - from English into Maltese.

Conceivably there could be Maltese MEPs who would feel more at ease speaking in Maltese. I doubt, though, how much that will be the case. One does not have to speak perfect English to make an intervention in that language. One speaks to communicate, whether one does that from a set text, or off the cuff.

Communicating directly in English to a non-Maltese audience, I should think, is more effective than making a point of speaking in Maltese for one's words to be translated into English. In a European or more international forum there would tend to be more listeners who will show an interest and follow someone using the English language, than if they have to plug into a translation from Maltese.

As George Vella put it pithily to the House on Monday: he preferred to get his message across in the clearest possible way, and to the greatest audience, without leaving it to translators. So, I should think, would the bulk of those who try to get their views across to a foreign audience.

It would be more constructive and productive to move away from ooh-aahing about the scarcity and quality of translators of Maltese to concentrate on raising the level of spoken of written Maltese and English.

While the roots of our language start from the soil of the heart to contribute massively to the concept of national identity, the justification of good English starts from practical considerations, aside from the wealth of literature to be found through it as well.

Each has its great worth. Each has its specific utility.