Salud y Bienestar:

The factors that affect the maintenance or shift of a traditional language of a speech community, such as te reo Māori, collectively indicate the “vitality” of a language (Landweer, 2000). A number of tools to assess linguistic vitality have been developed; the most recognisable internationally is probably the Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale associated with Fishman (1991). In sociolinguistic research, the vitality of a language can be considered by factors including status, institutional support, intergenerational language transmission, absolute number of speakers and shifts in domains of language use (Baker, 2002). While Landweer (2000) cautioned against assessing the vitality of a language according to one factor, the status of a language and its speakers is a significant determinant of whether speakers choose to speak and/or support the language (Clement, 1986).

4.2.1 Changes in political power and social prestige

When colonisation began in Aotearoa/NZ in the early 1800s, Māori and Pākehā developed ideas and beliefs about one another’s language. During the colonial period, European attitudes to te reo Māori would have been influenced by certain assimilationist, hegemonic beliefs and attitudes about indigenous languages (Reagan, 2009). According to Dorian (1998),

The Western language ideology of assimilation comprised a system of beliefs based on three central premises: the certainty that bilingualism is onerous; contempt for subordinated, non-standard languages and a belief in linguistic “survival of the fittest”; and a social Darwinian view of language which encouraged people of European backgrounds to assume a correlation between the adaptive and expressive capacity in a language and the potential (or otherwise) of that particular language’s survival. (p. 10)

Examinations of both overt and covert te reo Māori LPP in Aotearoa/NZ reveal that each of the three components of European linguistic ideology as outlined by Dorian (1998) was clearly present. Examples are provided throughout this chapter.

When Europeans first arrived in Aotearoa, te reo Māori served as the language of wider communication for some time—a lingua franca between Māori and Pākehā. In these initial encounters it was the Europeans who made an effort to learn te reo Māori because in many cases their survival in the new environment depended on it (Belich, 1996). As the years passed, Europeans became established in the new country and gained political control, and through both overt (English-language-only schooling policy) and covert (English-language-only workplaces) action ensured the dominance of the English language (Chrisp, 2005). As a result, the English language gained prestige, quickly taking over as a language of wider communication and as the dominant language of Aotearoa/NZ. This development also probably ended any hopes of Aotearoa/NZ becoming a pluralistic society, demonstrated by the ongoing dominance of English to the present day (May, 2012). LPP strategies that aim for pluralism support the “coexistence of different language groups and their right to maintain and cultivate their languages on an equitable basis” (Cobarrubias & Fishman, 1983, p. 65), something demonstrably lacking from English- dominant contexts (May, 2012).

4.2.2 Te reo Māori status: Economic and demographic factors

Language choices are influenced, consciously and unconsciously, by social changes that disrupt the community in numerous ways, and include external pressures or “dislocations” (Fishman, 1991). Dislocations can be divided into different categories, including economic, social and demographic (Fishman, 1991). One significant demographic factor in Aotearoa/NZ was the migration of Māori from rural to urban areas (Benton, 1991; May & Hill, 2005). During the 1800s and early 1900s, most Māori people lived in linguistically isolated rural communities where te reo Māori was the principal language (Fishman, 1991). Once migration of rural people to urban areas occurs, there is an increased chance of the minority language losing its everyday communicative functions (Baker & Jones,

1998). In industrialised nations, the dominant language in the office and the factory is more likely to be the majority language, with the minority language being devalued and/or ignored. In rural areas, the language of work and cultural activity is more likely to be the historical language of the area and of daily interactional use (Baker, 2011). This is exemplified in Benton’s (1991) seminal research showing te reo Māori to be strongest in the isolated rural communities of Aotearoa, for example, Bay of Plenty (Tuhoe iwi), Northland (Te Rarawa iwi) and East Coast (Ngāti Porou iwi). While these isolated rural communities were, in general, more resistant to the pressures that caused language shift in other areas of Aotearoa/NZ, ultimately, even these communities were not immune, particularly when faced with English-only schooling policies (Harlow, 2007). This was also the case in relation to my own personal experiences in such a community (see Chapter 1).

From the 1950s onwards, the Māori population rapidly became urbanised8

in response to economic and social struggles in rural areas (Benton, 1991). Of significance was a series of explicit social, educational and employment policies related to a wider economic drive for a larger labour force, generally to be located in towns and cities (Barber, 1986). Once Māori migrated to urban areas, there was a greater likelihood of Māori mixing with English-language speakers in most (if not all) workplaces, as English was the only language permitted (Chrisp, 2005).

The external forces of industrialisation, urbanisation and overt and covert LPP created internal forces that inevitably discouraged Māori families from speaking te reo Māori to their children or grandchildren (Ratima & May, 2011). As Ratima and May (2011) noted, sometimes parents decided not to speak their L1 to their children because they perceived an economic or educational advantage for their children in talking the “other” language, English. Many Māori, including my grandmother (see Chapter 1) and others of her generation from working-class backgrounds, believed opportunities for employment and commerce would be open only to those fully proficient in the dominant language, English. It was not that they did

8 _{In 1956, the majority of Māori (76%) lived in rural areas; by 1976, 78% of Māori}

not support the learning of te reo Māori, but the belief that English-medium education was important for their children and grandchildren for employment was by then pervasive. By speaking only in English at home, they believed they were supporting the acquisition of English by their children and grandchildren, thus optimising opportunities for future work and careers. While it is understandable that Māori thought this way, in reality, the factors behind economic disadvantage were not necessarily linguistic. As May (2003) pointed out, lack of knowledge of the dominant language is not the only reason for being stuck on the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder. Minority groups have faced the wider issue of structural disadvantage, including racism and discrimination (May, 2005). All Māori now speak English, and for the vast majority, it is their L1, but socio-economically, Māori are still disproportionately disadvantaged (Cram, 2012).

The socio-economically disadvantaged status of Māori, a minority group in Aotearoa/NZ since the 1900s, has been a key element in determining overall te reo Māori vitality (de Bres, 2008) and supporting linguistic assimilation. Such a view is consistent with international research by Baker and Jones (1998), who found that the vitality and, consequently, the status of a language is often determined by the socio-economic status of its speakers. While this may suggest a rather instrumentalist function for the learning of te reo Māori, experience shows that effective LPP is bound to fail, if elevating a vernacular—for example, an indigenous language, as is the case here—to an instructional language in education does not also support people’s economic standing (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997).

4.2.3 Social status of te reo Māori

The social status of a language, that is, its prestige value, is closely related to the economic status of the language, and is also a powerful factor in language vitality and, conversely, in promoting linguistic assimilation to the dominant language (Baker, 2011). In the Aotearoa/NZ context, when a majority language such as English is seen as giving higher social status and more political power, the shift to English from Māori is exacerbated. Attitudes towards language are strongly influenced by attitudes towards people (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981). If people such as

Māori have little power and low prestige, their language is unlikely to be well thought of by others (Boyce, 2005; Dorian, 1998). Holmes (1999), in his study of attitudes towards Māori, found that most people rated Māori lower than Pākehā on a number of variables, particularly status in regard to income, education, social class and intelligence. He suggested that reducing these negative attitudes requires the achievement of greater equity between Māori and Pākehā, thus promoting more positive views of the Māori language (Holmes, 1999). However, this is not likely to happen soon, as research into current perceptions of Māori in the media reveal that the image portrayed of Māori is still negative (Nairn et al., 2012).

The following section examines the second dimension of LPP in relation to te reo Māori—corpus planning. The modernising of the arithmetic terminology for everyday functional use will be used to exemplify the transition of te reo Māori from an oral to a written language (graphisation), and to provide a contrast with the strategies used to develop the pāngarau lexicon, post-1980s.