Additional theoretical considerations

There is general agreement in the literature regarding the outcome of the processes described in 2.7.1 to 2.7.9. Interaction between these processes and the evolving societal and cultural dynamics leads fairly rapidly, within two or three generations, to the emergence of a shared linguistic variety that is relatively uniform and distinct from its original input dialects. The variety naturally exhibits evidence of its linguistic origins. NZE for example, shares many features with BrE and AusE, but with sufficient exposure individuals are able to identify NZE as distinct from either AusE or BrE. The variety is a badge of New Zealand identity.

One factor that is often overlooked in discussions of new-dialect development in the New Zealand context is language contact between English and Maori¹ (but see Schneider 2007).

The literature suggests that the effects of the Maori language on English were limited to the borrowing of lexical items (e.g. Trudgill 2004: 4-5; Gordon at al. 2004: 69; Schneider 2007;

but see Bauer 1994a: 386-387). Schreier (2003) has also analysed consonant cluster reduction and concluded that any substratum effects did not persist for long.

1 The word Maori is often written with a macron (i.e. Māori) in order to emphasise its Maori language pronunciation. However, the word is used extensively in NZE and receives a variety of

pronunciations. Since I am writing in English, I do not use the macron in this thesis.

There is insufficient evidence available to evaluate the extent of Maori language influence on NZE during its formation. Maori people were settled in New Zealand several centuries before Europeans arrived in the late 1700s. Familiarity with the Maori language and culture would have facilitated negotiations around trade and shared occupation of the land (Belich 1996; Sinclair 2000). By the early 1800s a Maori grammar and vocabulary was being compiled by missionaries (Rusden 2006 [1883]: 108). Gordon et al. (2004: 69) note that “a good number of Europeans became more or less fluent in Maori” but suggest this did not influence NZE, other than lexically. Sidney Baker (1941) suggests that Maori did influence NZE and Benton (1985: 111) also claims that:

up to the early 1960s at least Maori had a much bigger impact on the way most Maori children spoke English when they were young, than English did on the way they spoke Maori.

There are also suggestions of a pidgin-like language in the early 1900s (Clark 1990) but no descriptions of it are available.

There was significant language shift towards English for Maori people once the numbers of Europeans began to exceed those of Maori (Spolsky 2003). Using English provided social advantages for Maori in a social climate that was changing dramatically under the influence of Europeans. Efforts towards Maori language revival since the 1970s appear to be slowing this language shift. However, in the 21^st century Maori is seldom heard outside of traditional Maori events and English is the first language of the majority of Maori people (Kuiper & Bell 2000).

Increasing Maori cultural awareness in present day New Zealand society is accompanied by an increasing use of Maori greetings and lexical items in the media, in advertising and in workplaces. The incorporation of Maori vocabulary into MNZE is contributing to its

distinctiveness as an English variety. In addition, certain MNZE features have come to be associated with Maori cultural identity (Holmes 2005). There is debate concerning whether such features comprise a distinct Maori English (see Benton 1985; Bauer 1994a; Holmes 2005; Warren & Bauer 2004). It has been suggested that the variety is a nonprestigious social dialect of MNZE rather than an ethnic one (cf. Bell 2000; Warren & Bauer 2004) since such

features are also frequent in Pakeha² speech. I discuss phonological features associated with Maori ethnicity in 2.9.2.

It seems unlikely that the Maori language has not been influential on NZE from the start.

Given what is known about the “messy reality” of language contact (Thomason 2001: 60;

Hickey 2010) and the challenges associated with identifying contact induced change after the event (Thomason 2001: 91-95), present-day Maori influence on NZE may reflect a

continuation of historical contact interference. As Bell (2000: 224) notes, some Maori influence is intergenerational transmission of Maori speakers‟ L2 acquisition of English.

Hickey (2010: 8) refers to “delayed effect contact” in which “gradual and imperceptible”

influence occurs. Maori influence on NZE may have progressed unnoticed due to a focus on homogeneity (Bauer & Bauer 2002a: 171-172). In addition, features could have been

influenced by Maori language contact and subsequently undergone reallocation within general NZE.

Issues of identity (such as ethnicity) are acknowledged to be important in dialectological research. However, within the new-dialect formation literature, different models attach different levels of importance to sociocultural processes. Trudgill‟s model for example, attaches primary importance to the “demographic strength” of features in the mixture. The linguistic input determines the outcome. Mufwene‟s (2001, 2008) theory of language evolution provides some support for this deterministic account.

Gordon et al. (2004) take a more flexible approach. They provide considerable information on the socio-cultural context surrounding the development of NZE. They acknowledge (2004: 36) that “[t]he connections between language, history and social setting are important and complex…” and argue (2004: 257-258) that there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the relative influence of social factors during the emergence of NZE.

Britain (1997: 40-42) on the other hand, provides a compelling discussion of

“regrounding,” a process during which locally based identities are (re)established in dialect contact contexts. Schneider‟s (2007) model (described in 2.9) places the negotiation of identities at the core. He describes changes to the ideological outlook and identities of the restructured population and mutual influence between the evolving society and the evolving linguistic variety. Kerswill (2002: 673) agrees that:

2 Pakeha is a term used in New Zealand to refer to New Zealanders of European descent.

for a koine to form, the speakers must waive their previous allegiances and social divisions to show mutual solidarity. Where they do not, koineisation is slowed, or may not result at all

It seems reasonable to assume that speakers‟ attitudes and identity constructions play a role in attaching social meanings to variables within the evolving variety. This would support the development of a new collective sociolinguistic competence.

However, Trudgill (2004: 93, 127) asserts that issues of salience and social meaning are not relevant in “tabula rasa” situations such as new-dialect formation. This seems unlikely.

As Holmes & Kerswill (2008) point out, settlers would have brought a variety of

preconceptions about language with them. These would have had to be readjusted in light of the dramatic changes to the sociocultural dynamics (e.g. the presence of an indigenous

population). Trudgill (2004: 20) employs the following cake-baking analogy in relation to the formation of new dialects in colonial situations:

If you bake cakes, I suggest, from roughly the same ingredients in roughly the same proportions in roughly similar conditions for roughly the same length of time, you will get roughly similar cakes.

However, I would like to suggest an alternative perspective on this analogy; that cakes with roughly the same ingredients in roughly the same proportions can become quite dissimilar due to even small differences in the ovens in which they are baked and the cooks which bake them.

The issue of salience is an important one for dialect development more generally, but it is problematic. There is no clear definition of salience. Some features appear to have greater psychological or cognitive significance (see Trudgill 1986; Britain 2010 and especially Kerswill and Williams 2002a). However, it is not clear how linguistic features become salient. The phonetic discreteness, frequency, pragmatic and semantic / semiotic properties of features may all play a role.

Salience of a linguistic feature does not by itself determine adoption versus avoidance.

Furthermore, it is not necessary for features to be salient in order for people to use them in accordance with their appropriate social meanings (Johnstone et al. 2006: 80). However, explicit reference to features seems more likely to occur when social meanings are firmly

established. Kerswill and Williams (2002a) suggest that speakers‟ responses to variants which are salient are affected by their social evaluation of those features.

The salience of a linguistic variable may also involve incorrect judgments about it.

Kerswill and Williams (2002a: 101) show that speakers may consider a particular feature to be a local speech characteristic when in fact, it is not. Perhaps this phenomenon applies to variables which become stereotypes (i.e. the 3^rd indexical order) in relation to particular speaker groups, but then subsequently undergo change. The development of salience may involve a gradual evolution of shared agreement on the connection between a linguistic variable and its social meaning. Likewise, it may also take considerable time for entrenched connections and stereotypes to be discarded (research by Dyer 2002, 2010 supports this view, see 2.8). I return to issues of salience and social evaluation in chapter 6. In the next section I consider the findings of contemporary dialectological investigations which take into account speakers‟ social evaluations of dialect variation.