By now every cricket organisation, cricket enthusiast, people with a passing interest in the sport, those who espouse feminism, people who like to see good manners displayed, apologists, sexists, or the man in the street would have heard of the “Chris Gayle saga” that took place in Australia this past week. Here is my take from a sociolinguistic point of view.

Appropriateness of language use

By merely opening one’s mouth, or through paralanguage or non-verbal communication, listeners/viewers can sometimes infer information about a person’s socio-economic background, level of education, nationality, among other things. Consequently, people who are au fait with this knowledge sometimes deliberately manipulate language to manage impressions.

There is a feature of language called pragmatics which deals with, inter alia, the “political correctness” of language use. Knowledge of its tenets helps speakers to avoid making language faux pas. When one examines the speech act surrounding the comments West Indian and Jamaican cricketer Chris Gayle made, it becomes apparent that pragmatics was nowhere at play by Gayle in that speech act, and apologists should not make any attempt to excuse his behaviour.

Because effective communication is impacted by timing, context, subject and relationship, it is imperative that people know how to manage all the above to get the desired results; otherwise, we may have a major fall needing damage control as with what is happening now.

Having listened to and watched the interview repeatedly, and observed nuances in verbal and non-verbal communication, including paralanguage, it is my opinion that Gayle did several things wrong during that interview.

(1) The interview was a formal one. It was being broadcast via mass media to millions of people around the world. The setting was not a small group nor dyad, where there is some amount of privacy between the two. In addition, it was happening in real time and on live TV, which means there was no time to edit. Gayle should not have thrown in a casual invitation to the interviewer to “have a drink” into that speech act. That is where things started to slide downhill, as from there the reporter began to show signs of discomfort. Pragmatics would have helped Gayle read the reporter’s body language and, hopefully, he would have curtailed the personal dialogue.

(2) A blush usually creeps over a person’s face. People of a lighter hue show this by a shade of red (caused from heat by a rush of blood) spreading from neck upwards to cheeks and forehead. Others, with more melanin, turn darker and feel the heat as well. It doesn’t happen instantaneously. Following the ill-timed invitation, there was not enough time to “see” a blush; consequently, Gayle’s “Don’t blush” was crass, in poor taste, and was somewhat boorish.

(3) The interviewer was acting in a professional capacity. The biggest error (in my opinion) was where Gayle referred to her as ‘baby’. That is a huge no-no. That is an endearment reserved for intimate level of communication. And by “intimate” I draw reference to Dr Martin Joos’ fifth level of formality in communication, where elliptical communication and other endearments such as honey, darling and sweetheart are used and are accepted because of the high level of intimacy among/between speakers at this level. These should never be used in a placatory manner, as use of this nature can connote a derogatory attitude, insensitivity and superciliousness.

I love Chris Gayle, but his context and timing (paramount to effective communication) are grossly inappropriate and downright unacceptable. Who knows? Said in a different place and time, were the subject of the discussion and the relationship between the two of a different nature, Gayle would probably have the reporter “mel”ting and “laughing”. And she probably would have fielded an acceptance or an invitation of her own. Gayle is, after all, a celebrity.

Who knows, too, if she had given him any sign that she would love to “have a drink’ with him? Well, I don’t know, but we have to remember that some things imply different meanings in different cultures, and what is acceptable in one culture may be offensive in another.

And what makes things worse for cricketer Gayle, his behaviour seems to follow a pattern, as more stories of this nature are being unearthed. If they are true, I think this underscores the fact that he is either ignorant of how to conduct himself or that he is a profligate.

As a Jamaican, dare I think both are true? I will not make any excuses for the young man, but maybe he just does not know better. And if that were true, then this is an indictment on us as a people; not just him. It would be sacrilegious to think our general society lacks gentlemen and that all ‘Jamaican men are reprobates or old lustful goats, but we must admit that far too often, based on the approach that some of our men take in public or private spaces, it is clear they were not taught better. And the sad reality is that some of our women are no better. Some are as crude as they come by both accepting/condoning this behaviour or perpetuating it themselves.

I am not happy with the “saga” and I sincerely hope that, as a people, as a country, as a nation, as a society, as families, as individuals, whether here in Jamaica, the rest of the Caribbean, Australia or other parts of the world, we take a militant stance to mitigate and eventually decimate this antisocial conduct.

Teach social graces and decorum

We need to have a radical shift in thinking and behaviour. We should begin by teaching social graces and respect and demonstrating decorum in our homes and insisting on displays of this in our social spaces. We must stop this nonsense that men who display orderly conduct are sissies. It only serves to emasculate our men. Men need to act like men… like gentlemen when the situations call for it and women need to act like women… like ladies when the situations call for it. We must teach these practices from our children are young and impressionable so that they become second nature and are done without much thought.

Witch-hunt?

Besides that, though, I hate the fact that these “stories” about Gayle are emerging almost as if there is a witch-hunt. It is almost a “Bill Cosby” conundrum. I know Gayle erred big time with the reporter, but the attention it has brought to him is excessive.

Let us call a spade a spade. He is very wrong for having issued an invitation to the reporter and for calling her “baby” and for reducing her to fumbling and stuttering during the interview. I was aghast at this and certainly didn’t like it. But, for heaven’s sake… teach Chris a lesson. Castigate him; not “castrate” him! Let him pay. Let him sit out a game or a tournament, but do not kill the man’s career.

When he is in his heyday, who can ignore his bravado? His braggadocios, bold, audacious, fearless, confident self when he stares down those daunting bowlers and then hits that ball from slips to gullies and beyond all boundaries to continents far and wide and down under! On the field, there is nothing “crampy” about him.

So, to correct his actions and ensure no repeat of the situation from him and others, teach him and others there is a difference to hitting a cricket ball and hitting on a female, or anyone for that matter. After all, the game of cricket is called “A gentleman’s game”. Should I consider that this is now a misnomer?

And finally, I can’t help this one… We really ought to look at the names we give to our sports teams lest they start acting like the names. The man’s team is called “The Melbourne Renegades”… I’ll leave this as an elliptical statement. Umpire, how’z that?

Alcia Morgan Bromfield, MEd, is a teacher of linguistics and literature, communication specialist, author, and poet. Send comments to Observer or amorganbromfield@yahoo.com