School-based adolescent spoken data

As noted in chapter 3, adolescent speakers have been identified in many sociolinguistic studies as constituting an informant group whose linguistic behaviour exhibits progressive forms of vernacular speech (Kerswill 1996b; Eckert 2000). Innovative sound changes can typically be identified in the speech of young people. Since my focus was on current variation and change in NZE phonology I hypothesised that adolescent speech data provided a

potentially profitable source of linguistic variation.

My “outsider” status in terms of age, nationality and spoken language variety presented challenges for my opportunities to approach New Zealand adolescent speakers. I decided that schools were likely to provide the most convenient data collection point. I therefore obtained ethics approval for a research project in which I outlined my research goals, my proposed participants and my intended methods of data collection. A copy of my ethics approval is provided in appendix 1a.

Since I lacked insider contacts at any New Zealand schools there was a high risk of school resistence to the research. In town N only one high school was available from which data could be collected. Following initial email and telephone contact with the Deputy Principal of this school (henceforth “school N”), the school willingly agreed to accommodate the

proposed research. The decile 2 status of school N was considered an advantage for carrying out fieldwork there.

In New Zealand, schools are classified by New Zealand‟s Ministry of Education according to a decile rating of 1 to 10. Deciles provide an indication of the socioeconomic status of the school. Decile 1 corresponds to the lowest socioeconomic status and 10 to the highest. Decile ratings are revised according to each 5-yearly Census of Population and Dwellings (cf. Statistics New Zealand: http://www.stats.govt.nz/). The decile calculations are based on 5 characteristics of students‟ residential address locations. The 5 characteristics are:

1. Household income: the percentage of households with income in the lowest 20%

nationally.

2. Occupation: the percentage of parents at the 2 lowest of 5 occupational skills levels on the Australia and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO).

3. Household crowding: the percentage of parents who surpass a particular “crowding index” level.

4. Educational qualifications: the percentage of parents with no tertiary or school qualifications.

5. Income support: the percentage of parents recieving a support allowance.

According to the New Zealand‟s Ministry of Education website (http://www.minedu.govt.nz/):

A school‟s decile indicates the extent to which the school draws its students from low socio-economic communities. Decile 1 schools are the 10% of schools with the highest proportion of students from low socio-economic communities, whereas decile 10 schools are the 10% of schools with the lowest proportion of these students. A school‟s decile does not indicate the overall socio-economic mix of the school.

School N is a decile 2 school, which indicates that a high proportion of its students are from the lower end of the New Zealand socioeconomic continuum. This was considered an advantage in relation to phonological variation. Although socioeconomic class is not an uncomplicated factor in sociolinguistic variation (cf. Labov 2001), the findings of many sociolinguistic studies demonstrate that vernacular / casual speech styles are more readily encountered amongst lower socioeconomic communities. Several of the MNZE sound changes identified in chapter 2 show greater frequencies of use amongst speakers of relatively lower socioeconomic status. It seemed a reasonable expectation that a low decile school would provide better opportunities for identifying locally specific vernacular variants and / or sound changes than a higher decile school.

I decided that as far as possible, it would be useful to exclude social class as a

differentiating factor in any phonological variation identified in the research. It was therefore important to identify a central region school / location with a similarly low decile for

comparison with town N. In addition to its low decile, school N had a relatively large

proportion of students identifying as Maori. In order to isolate region and regional identity as a variable influencing phonological variation as much as I could, I aimed to compare 2 schools with the same decile and with a similar ethnic composition.

The identification of an appropriate school in the central region was more challenging than in the case of the northern region. In the lower North Island the response from schools was considerably less accommodating than it had been for the one school in the northern region. The initial response from school N was one of interest in the research and a

willingness to provide assistance. There was very little anxiety expressed about the presence of a researcher at the school. Schools closer to Wellington however, did not respond

enthusiastically to initial enquiries. This issue demonstrates the value of social network contacts when embarking on such research (cf. Eckert 2000). In fact, an introduction to one central region school was made possible through a mutual contact. However, following initial consultation, it was decided by the principal that there was little benefit for the school in participating in the research. There was also a degree of anxiety about the level of interference that the research might have on the educational routine of the students. This draws attention to the need for linguists to consider the potential benefits of data collection from the participants‟ perspective. Volunteering beneficial services within the research

environment is a reasonable approach in order to establish the mutual benefits of the research.

However, some schools did not respond to initial contact attempts and following my repeated enquiries, eventually stated that they were too busy to discuss the research.

It is possible that these differences in school responses reflect a difference in outlook between schools located closer to a major urban centre (i.e. Wellington) and schools with a more rural outlook. My first approach to a school situated in the Horowhenua-Manawatu area, approximately 100 kilometres north of Wellington, responded in a similar positive manner to that of school N. This school was situated in a semi-rural area within the central region and was a highly compatible match for school N. The school principal was willing to accommodate the research project.

The map in figure 3.2 shows the approximate locations of the data collection points in relation to the Bauer northern and central region division. Since I am dealing with small community populations in this thesis, in order to protect the anonymity of my participants, I avoid identifying the specific data collection points or town names throughout.

The central region school (henceforth “school C”) was comparable with the northern region school in terms of population size and the ethnic mix of the student populations (demographic information for the schools is provided in appendix 1b). Both schools were decile 2 schools. It seemed that a comparison of phonological variation involving the teenagers at these two schools provided an opportunity to explore regional phonological variation in MNZE as well as seeking additional evidence for the Bauer regions. Since both school communities were situated in rural areas, any phonological differences identified between the adolescents at these two schools could potentially provide strong evidence of regional differences since such differences could not be attributed to a rural versus urban distinction.

The main difference between the two schools is that school N has a larger student population than school C. This difference does not reflect an actual difference in the size of the two community populations. Table 3.1 shows population information for the two towns.

The population of town C is larger than that of town N. One reason for the larger student population in school N is that town N is situated a greater distance way from a major urban area than town C. Consequently, families living in and around town N have more limited options for their children‟s secondary school education (school N is the only secondarly school in town N and its surrounding suburbs). In contrast, town C parents have the options of enrolling their children at a school in a neighbouring town, or in the nearest city, which is approximately 30 minutes away by car or bus. The substantial difference between the two towns in terms of distance from a major city is potentially significant for any phonological differences found between the two communities.

Figure 3.2: Data collection points within the Bauer northern and central regions (the shaded areas show the district in which the towns / schools are located).

Table 3.1: Population information for town N and town C Population characteristics Town N Town C 1996 usually resident population^† 3003 2874 2001 usually resident population^† 2640 2724 2006 usually resident population^† 2619 2715 Distance from closest city 160km 40km Population figures obtained from Statistics NZ (2006,

http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage.aspx)

It is important to consider how far any data collected from adolescents in the two schools is representative of the two speech communities as a whole. A number of qualitative

sociolinguistic studies focusing on adolescents‟ linguistic behaviour have collected data in a school setting (e.g. Eckert 1988 and in New Zealand, Drager 2009). Eckert‟s research

illustrated the influential role that adolescent social networks and social identitites play in the trajectory of linguistic changes through space and time. An analysis of distinct adolescent friendship groups at Belten High School in a suburb of Detroit revealed that recent and ongoing vowel changes in the wider community had been adopted predominantly by adolescent “burnouts” who were most strongly oriented away from the values of their educational / institutional systems and most strongly oriented towards city life. Conversely, adolescent “Jocks” who were more educational / institution oriented, tended to be the least likely to adopt these changes. Although concerned with a limited set of individuals within a single school, Eckert‟s findings highlighted the significant contribution that adolescents make to the dynamic patterns of linguistic variation in the wider community.

Schools often play an important role in local community life, especially in rural areas. For school age children (and arguably for school staff also), school comprises the focal point of their daily lives. This is where young individuals use language to develop important

friendships, to construct their individual identities and to develop interpersonal

communication while negotiating their social group membership. A student‟s linguistic behaviour at school is unlikely to be identical to her or his linguistic behaviour at home.

Nevertheless school going individuals do the majority of their socialising at school and school provides the primary arena in which local linguistic norms are negotiated and

established. Outside of school hours, schools are often also the focal point of students‟ social activities and friendship groups. School trips within and outside of the local area serve to facilitate school based social relationships. In addition, relatives of school age children often have frequent contact with schools and older members of the local community who do not have school age children may be involved in community related meetings, employment at the school or may voluntarily support the school. Especially in small towns schools often play an important role within the local community and it became evident during fieldwork that this was the case for school N and school C.

Providing they do not leave the area prior to the onset of secondary education, the vast majority of young people residing in town N and its surrounding areas attend this high school until they are at least sixteen. A few families who are fortunate to have the financial means

may send their children to a private boarding school some distance away from the town, but this is not a typical choice.

The school N students who participated in this study are therefore treated as

representative of younger speakers in the town N community in general and their linguistic behaviour is considered a good representation of 21^st century MNZE phonological variation in town N.

Although school C is also the only secondary school available within town C, students also have the option of attending a secondary school in a neighbouring town, or alternatively, travelling to a school in the nearest city approximately thirty minutes distant (by car / bus).

However, this was not usual. Ethnographic research at the school (discussions with the principal and other staff members and with students) revealed that shool C was a desirable educational choice. It had high standards of educational achievement which often surpassed higher decile schools. School C had a good reputation and parents from the neighbouring town often chose to send their children to school C, rather than vice versa. In addition, some students who had previously resided in town C and had subsequently moved with their families to the nearest city, continued to attend school C despite the daily 40 kilometre bus journey.

School C is thus also considered to provide a representative sample of the town C

adolescent community. Nevertheless, there is a difference in the geographical composition of the two school populations that has potential consequences for any patterns of phonological variation identified in the two communities. The student population at school N is comprised almost entirely of students who reside either in town N itself or in slightly more remote rural suburbs very close by. School C is located at a greater proximity to surrounding urban areas than school N (including the capital, Wellington city). The school C population, while also primarily comprised of individuals who reside in town C, includes students from a wider geographical range of locations, which also tend to be less remote / rural. These are social and geographical mobility issues which may impact on the social network dynamics of the participants and, in turn, have consequences for their use of MNZE phonological variables. It is important to attend to these community specific factors during the interpretation of the linguistic results.

I do not claim that the two towns represent the linguistic behaviour of the wider

geographical regions as a whole. A more detailed comparison of individual towns throughout the regions would have to be made in order to make such a claim. However, if linguistic differences between the two towns were identified in the study, this would lend additional

support to a hypothesis of linguistic differences between a northern versus central region of New Zealand. Further research would be needed to determine the geographical extent of the differences.