| The study reported here examined attitudes toward Crucian Creole among students and educators at the University of the Virgin Islands in St. Croix. Questionnaires were administered to 200 students and 30 instructors in varying departments. In addition, six students and three local intellectuals participated in personal interviews.;The results were first analyzed as a whole and then by the four major academic departments (Education, Nursing, Business Administration, and Psychology). Overall, although the majority of the students spoke Crucian, their ratings of Crucian and Crucian speakers were low. Standard English was valued as the socially prestigious language, while Crucian was devalued as the dialect of the uneducated. Consequently, most students concluded that Crucian did not belong in the schools. More detailed analysis revealed that age, year of study, gender, and parents' place of birth played no significant role in students' responses. However, there was some evidence that the students' majors influenced their negative or positive assertions about Crucian. Contrary to predictions, Psychology majors, and not Education majors, showed the most resistance to integrating Crucian into the curriculum.;As for educators, the results revealed that they did not favor Crucian as a language of learning but did appreciate it as a language of folklore and oral tradition. To educators, the appropriate vehicle of classroom discourse was Standard English* (SE), not Crucian.;*Although I am aware of the variation implicit in the term standard English, from here on I will use SE to refer to the standard English spoken in St. Croix. In addition, it is important to note that since the Virgin Islands are part of the U.S., the model for SE in St. Croix is American Standard English, not British English. |
