A number of letters have appeared in the press discussing the orthography of loanwords in Maltese. The main question is whether loanwords should be integrated into the Maltese orthographic system or not, i.e. whether, e.g. the English word ‘hockey’, for which, as yet, no Maltese alternative exists, should be written hoki or left in its original English and placed in inverted commas.

This discussion is by no means trivial and definitely requires serious discussion. I would like to contribute to this discussion for three reasons: I am a linguist by profession and my job is to study and carry out research on languages and to teach linguistics; I am a member of the National Council for the Maltese Language and therefore am directly involved in the debate about issues related to the Maltese language; and I was mentioned by name, together with my colleague, Prof. Albert Borg, in a letter published in this newspaper (TMIS, 22 January) by Tony Sammut, a language purist who, oddly, teamed up with Daphne Caruana Galizia, an Anglophile and proud speaker of Maltese English. Taking my cue from some comments by Tony Sammut in his contribution, I will try to clarify a few points from my own perspective as linguist. I thus hope to place the discussion within a wider linguistic context than has been the case up to now.

One very important principle of modern linguistics is that a linguist should have a descriptive, as opposed to a prescriptive, approach to the study of language. This means that a linguist’s job is to observe language “out there”, i.e. the way native speakers actually use language, and then to describe, analyse and look for theoretical explanations for what he/she observes. It is not a linguist’s job to tell native speakers how to speak or use their language. Which brings me to Tony Sammut’s first point of criticism of Prof. Albert Borg, who, in his talk, among other things, described a variety of spoken language that is widely used in Malta, namely, a form of motherese (language used by mothers/fathers; call it parentese if you prefer) that is very common and in which English words are mixed with Maltese by parents talking to their children. This produces things like: Fejnu d-dogi? Or: Ara kemm hu gut boj! (I can clearly see Tony Sammut cringe in desperation at this orthographic representation! Sorry Tony! More about this below.) This form of motherese seems to be replacing older forms of “baby language” which make use of words like cejca “sweet” (which, note, is of Sicilian origin).

There are several observations that one can make about this variety (sociolect) of the language. For example, it is intuitively obvious that this variety is indeed extremely common. Also, this variety is used neither by your typical Maltese-English speaker of the Daphne-Caruana Galizia type, nor by those who speak mixed Maltese English, but by speakers who, among themselves, normally speak exclusively in Maltese, i.e. are real native speakers of Maltese, in many cases indeed also of a local dialect (which is a regional variety of Maltese). From an objective, linguistic point of view, any language variety is an object worth of study. Albert Borg was giving examples of this kind of motherese to an audience that consisted largely of professional linguists and language specialists, who are always fascinated by such creations since they have important theoretical implications for language theory. For a linguist to ignore any variety of language would be a sign of professional dishonesty.

What is certainly uncontroversial is that motherese is, by no means, Standard Maltese. That, however, does not mean that it should be ignored, or even ridiculed. It also does not mean that we should actively encourage people to use this form of motherese. People should have the right to make their own linguistic choices, as long as they are aware of the conditions under which they can use their varieties. Thus, for example, motherese (of any kind) obviously has no place and should not be allowed to occur in children’s schoolwork. But, then, all this should really be obvious.

The next directly related question raised by Tony Sammut is that of orthography, in particular to the writing of loanwords, including words borrowed in the motherese variety, such “doggy” (dogi) or “flaggy” flegi. Recall that what so terribly sent shudders of disgust and horror down poor Tony’s back was the way Albert Borg wrote wejvi. Shouldn’t he have written “wavy” instead? The problem is that “wavy” with that meaning (nominal form of the verb “to wave”) does not exist in English, either, but is a purely local creation. The question is about how loanwords should be written, if at all, in Maltese. Note that this is a very serious issue, especially since it has important educational implications, namely, that people who write in Maltese, in particular schoolchildren and their teachers/examiners, need to know what is acceptable and how to write Maltese properly.

One needs to keep apart two main issues here. The first is the status of loanwords, i.e. whether, and to what extent, loan words should be accepted as an integral part of the Maltese language. The second, related question is that of orthography, i.e. how such words should be written, if at all.

It has already been pointed out by many, and it should be obvious even to the layperson, that languages constantly borrow words from other languages. English speakers do it, German speakers do it, Italians do it and, believe it or not, French speakers do it as well! Modern Maltese does it extensively. This, of course, is not a new phenomenon. Many words that we now feel are pure Maltese, like kitla and ixxottja, are of foreign (in this case, English) origin. The problem is that it usually takes a long time for borrowed words to be accepted and integrated in the language, and sometimes they never take root and simply disappear. However, once they are accepted, speakers do not feel that they are foreign. The fact is that it is simply impossible, and not desirable, to stop loanwords from entering the language.

Of course, like any other language, Maltese has its own productive linguistic resources for the creation of new words. Often new words are created by the (conscious or unconscious) application of a rich source of word formation processes. A good example in Maltese is tisliba for “crossword”, but also the slang word ziblata used by young people to mean something like “get sloshed”. This should be and is encouraged, for example by the National Council for the Maltese Language, and can be a very rich source indeed. Moreover, it also makes sense to try first and use local terms, which sometimes have been in use and known by specialists (e.g. tradespeople, like fishermen, farmers, builders etc.) since time immemorial. (In this context, see the recently published book Fil-Ponta ta’ Lsieni by Guzi Gatt.)

However, it does not make sense to eradicate a specific form just because it is obviously a loanword rather than a local creation. Thus, for example, it is futile to find alternatives for a word like “kompjuter”, which has become an integral part of our vocabulary. This applies especially when words are fully integrated morphologically (as word forms) in the system, for example by being conjugated. The classic example is ixxotja but more recent ones are issejvja or iffajlja. Note that such loans undergo semantic shift (meaning change) and often do not mean the same as the original, borrowed words. They are more restricted in meaning, so that, for example, ixxotja only means “kick a ball” (and not e.g. “shoot somebody”) and tissejvja only means to save computer data on disc/CD, and not, say, “to save money”. This restriction in meaning is a typical property of loanwords. The point is, therefore, that we have to accept the obvious fact that new words have and always will enter our language and become an integral part of our vocabulary.

Which brings us to the final and perhaps more controversial issue I would like to tackle briefly, namely, the spelling of loanwords. Should we distinguish between loans that have been accepted and fully integrated (perhaps frigg, kitla, serrep, fajjar – from English “fire”) and those that have not (perhaps seksi, hoki)? The problem here is that 1) it’s not clear who should decide whether a word is fully integrated or not, and 2) there are no clear objective criteria that can be used to define an integrated loanword in the first place. Subjective, emotional judgements like “it looks/sounds ugly/silly” or “it is a corruption” or “an impurity” cannot be taken seriously. The rule that has been established by the Akkademja tal-Malti (or should it be “Accademia” tal-Malti?!) is that if no local word already exists (e.g. estmi for bagit), the spelling of loanwords should reflect their pronunciation in Maltese (see Taghrif fuq il-Kitba Maltija 2004, pp. 120 ff). This rule was not invented by Albert Borg or myself. This means that the English words “taxi” and “hockey” should be written as taksi or hoki. It is true that such new forms need some getting used to. Anything new tends by its very nature to look unfamiliar to people at first, but generally, once they are used consistently, people start accepting them and recognising them without hesitation. For example, I do not think that Tony and Daphne or anyone who reads Maltese find it extremely difficult to read and understand a word like futbol, which has now been in use for a long time. In the same way, they will get used to forms like taksi and seksi. By the way, on a recent trip to Wales, I had absolutely no problems reading, recognising and understanding the word “taxi” written taksi in Welsh. Why should Maltese be any different?

I must conclude although I have not touched upon every single point that I found interesting or irritating in Tony Sammut’s letter. (One example is his rather supercilious use of the term “pidgin”.) The issues involved are numerous and complex, indeed too complex to be trivialised by gimmickry or misplaced patriotism. I do hope that the discussion continues; however, it should be carried out in the serious and scholarly manner it deserves.

Dr Ray Fabri, Senior Lecturer, Institute of Linguistics