A Critical Response to Sharpe and Cunningham
The most creolized tongue and spoken in different forms by people in the world is English. Liguists defines
Creole as a language that is formed from several languages by the same mechanism, without geographic
restriction or ethnic implication. In an article entitled “Hybrids Have to Go : The Vital Need to Preserve Standard
English” (2005), Sharpe argues that Creole should be stopped as it is damaging the standard of English. On the
contrary, Cunningham, an author of “Local English” (2006) states, that Creole languages are harmless to English.
This essay will respond to both of the author’s points of view.
Sharpe begins by explaining that Creole is no longer the same as it used to be. It is now different and
definitely more toxic, and can quickly spreading over large areas whereas in the past it didn’t have any impact on
standard English. The author declares that Modern Creole is “created through laziness and inadequate education”.
Moreover, Sharpe argues that the role of English as lingua franca will be destroyed and damaged. As these new
form of English doesn’t have consistent grammar, syntax, and structure. Sharpe declares “uniform grammar and
structural roles are two things that glue that holds a language together and enables it to be universally
understood”.
On the other hand, Cunningham asserts that instead of bringing negative impacts to language, Creole
offers many advantages. She backs up his arguments with a statements from Meyer, Professor of Linguistic at
Oxford University, who claims “studying creoles can greatly help our understanding of how languages develop and
how they learnt’ and “many academics enjoy studying and analysing creoles”. In contrast to Sharpe, Cunningham
believes that Creole has a complex systems grammar and syntax. Cunningham also adds that these recent days,
Creoles are being widely used in literature and media and are now part of some education systems.
Sharpe uses quite aggressive and negative emotive language such as “toxic”, “inadequate education”, and
“laziness”. Moreover, Sharpe point of view isn’t objective as he’s being overly exaggerating the impact that may
result on the standard English as lingua franca and prejudice the people that use the Creole language. Compare to
Sharpe, Cunningham is fairly neutral. She provides many quotes from credible sources to back up her arguments.
Secondly, Sharpe states that Creole is language that is only used for spoken and informal speaking. Thus,
it would be appropriate if it’s used for academic process and media. Sharpe strongly suggests that government
shouldn’t let the use of Creole language in government or education system, as it’s a “low form of English” and
carry connotation of “poor education” and “low intelligence”. Therefore, for those who brought up by their parents
who speak Creole, it will lead to a hard time to find a job.
Cunningham puts forward a strong argument. The author asserts that modern creoles are now developing
and getting more exciting. Moreover, every different place has their own form of Creolized English. For exapmple,
in Philippines, where the Creole is called Taglish, is widely spoken by highly educated people. She also adds that
among young people Creole language is considered “cool and cosmopolitan”, and use it as a method of
communication between friends.
Sharpe is overly negative and exaggerating the effect of Creole Language. He doesn’t provide any reliable
sources to back up his statements. His arguments are generally based on personal opinion. His use of language
such as “sound stupid” and “unsophisticated” doesn’t sound academic and gives impression of narrow minded
point of view. Whereby, Cunningham gives credible and trustworthy evidence from different sources eventhough
he ignores the possible drawbacks of Creole language. Compares to Cunningham, Sharpe is being illogical,
anecdotal, and rude.
In Conclusion, Cunningham and Sharpe has entirely different mind frame. Overall, Cunningham is the
more convincing writer, as she generally adopts a more neutral one and provides believable evidence whereas
Sharpe provides illogical evidences. After all, Creole language, there’s no way one can force someone to stop
speaking a language they prefer to, even though there may be an official moves that want to boycott. In the future,
probably the numbers of creole language will increase whereas English will still be the lingua franca.
Grace Wirawan
E7