Language Practices, Preferences and Policies: Contrasting Views of Pakeha, Maori, Pasifika and Asian students

This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]On: 09 October 2014, At: 00:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

Language Practices, Preferences andPolicies: Contrasting Views of Pakeha, Maori,Pasifika and Asian studentsGary Barkhuizen a , Ute Knoch a & Donna Starks aa Department of Applied Language Studies and Linguistics , University ofAuckland , Auckland, New ZealandPublished online: 22 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Gary Barkhuizen , Ute Knoch & Donna Starks (2006) Language Practices, Preferencesand Policies: Contrasting Views of Pakeha, Maori, Pasifika and Asian students, Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural Development, 27:5, 375-391, DOI: 10.2167/jmmd450.1

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/jmmd450.1

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in thispublication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.2167/jmmd450.1

http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/jmmd450.1

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Language Practices, Preferences andPolicies: Contrasting Views of Pakeha,Maori, Pasifika and Asian students

Gary Barkhuizen, Ute Knoch and Donna StarksDepartment of Applied Language Studies and Linguistics, University ofAuckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Although the majority of New Zealanders speak English, and only English, the 1987Maori Language Act and immigration from both Asia and the Pacific have had asignificant impact on New Zealand society. Because increasing numbers of childrenare entering school with limited English language ability, students are arguably thegroup with the most exposure to New Zealand’s changing social and linguisticdemography. Yet little is known about how these emerging members of NewZealand society view the languages within their midst, and the effect of ethnicity ontheir views. This paper examines the language attitudes, preferences and languageuse of intermediate and high school students from various ethnic backgrounds. Thefindings point to a society where ethnicity plays a strong role in languagepreferences, and where students from the dominant ethnic group, New ZealandEuropean, show conservative views on multilingualism. After discussing how thesefindings highlight issues of language diversification within the New Zealandcontext, we conclude that students can serve as a useful resource both for under-standing language issues and for informing language policy in the New Zealandcontext.

doi: 10.2167/jmmd450.1

Keywords: language attitudes, language in education, language policy, New Zealand,ethnic diversity

IntroductionAlthough New Zealand has been categorised as one of the world’s most

monocultural and monolingual countries (Holmes & Bell, 1991), increases inimmigration from Asia since the mid 1980s and steady immigration from thePacific since the 1950s have had a significant impact on New Zealand society.The New Zealand 2001 Census (Statistics New Zealand) now reports NewZealand is a more diversified country, with 80% European, 14% Maori, 6%Asian and 5% peoples from the Pacific islands � an increasing number ofwhom claim mixed ethnic backgrounds. The changing demography has hadan impact on New Zealand society, most notably in classrooms, whereincreasing numbers of children are entering school with English as theiradditional language (Barnard & Glynn, 2003). The changes are most evident inthe largest urban centres, particularly Auckland, the preferred location ofmany new immigrants.

The changing status of Maori has also had an impact on New Zealandsociety (Benton & Benton, 2001; Christensen, 2001). Since the 1970s there has

0143-4632/06/05 375-17 $20.00/0 – 2006 G. Barkhuizen et al .J. OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT Vol. 27, No. 5, 2006

375

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

0:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

been a raising of awareness of the role and potential loss of New ZealandMaori, with the result that in 1987 Maori became an official language of NewZealand. With this change in status, there has been an expansion of Maoripreschools (kohanga reo) and Maori bilingual and immersion programmes atthe primary school level. Although these classes are aimed primarily at theMaori community, the programmes are sometimes located within mainstreamschools. Within mainstream classrooms, Maori language instruction hasremained largely in the form of Maori cultural studies, Maori signage andlimited Maori language instruction, again mainly at the primary school level.The elevated status of Maori has, however, had a positive effect on languageawareness within the Pasifika communities in New Zealand. The changingrole of Maori is widely acknowledged to have contributed to the increase in thedesire for preschool and primary level language programmes in Samoan andTongan in order to promote the maintenance of these languages.

The focus on language issues in New Zealand has concentrated on thedevelopment of language education programmes (e.g. Glynn & Berryman,2003; McCaffery & Tuafuti, 1998; Watts et al ., 2001), the views of teachers,parents and administrators in these schools (Barnard & Rauf, 1999; Haworth,2003; Te Puni Kokiri, 2001), and on the understanding of languagemaintenance and shift (e.g. Holmes et al ., 1993; Hulsen et al ., 2002; Shameem,2000), primarily in Maori and Pasifika communities (Bell et al ., 1999).To a lesser extent, Asian languages maintenance has also been investigated(e.g. Nakanishi, 2000; Starks & Youn, 1998; Zheng, 1998). There is relativelylittle information, however, available on the views of both the dominant NewZealand European community, and perhaps more importantly, on thelanguage attitudes and preferences of Auckland school students (see Starks& Barkhuizen, 2003).

This paper sets out to examine the language attitudes, preferences andlanguage use of over 900 Auckland intermediate and high school students andcompares their views with their stated ethnic identity. More specifically, thefindings reported here aimed to determine the students’ (1) attitudes to thelanguages they hear around them and to societal bilingualism, (2) preferencesfor language use in various domains, including immigrant communities,(3) preferences for their own use of, and proficiency in, various languages and(4) attitudes to and preferences for language policies concerning the languageof the government. After discussing how the findings highlight issues oflanguage diversification within the New Zealand context, we consider thebroader issues of how students can serve as a useful resource for under-standing language issues, and how such information could help informlanguage policy in the New Zealand context.

Language Maintenance and Language PolicyThe family unit and home domain have been and will continue to be

important in language maintenance efforts (Garcı́a, 2003; Pauwels, 2004).Fishman (2000) in fact identifies the most important point of intergenerationallanguage transfer as the use of the ethnic language at home by women ofchild-bearing age to their children. Much research on language maintenance

376 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

0:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

and shift has thus focused on the family, particularly on intergenerationalshift, and more recently on the importance of the association betweenpsychological factors and language maintenance. Tannenbaum and Howie’s(2002: 420) research, for example, focused on Chinese immigrant children inAustralia, and concluded that ‘family relations play a significant role inlanguage maintenance in immigrant children.’

Their research and that of others (e.g. Mesthrie, 2003, in South Africa;Sandor, 2000, in Romania; Sneddon, 2000, in the UK; Wong-Fillmore, 1991, inthe USA) has focused specifically on children in families. Arua and Magocha(2002) examined children’s patterns of language use and language preferencein Botswana, as perceived by their parents. They did so because they believethat children are indicators of shifts in the functional roles of language inthe country, and claim that ‘shifts in the roles of the languages would haveimplications for language planning’ (Arua & Magocha, 2002: 450). Children,however, are not only members of particular families, they are obviously alsomembers of school communities, circles of friends, recreational groups andpossibly the church. They are observers, therefore, of language practices in anumber of different contexts. The children in our study are from intermediate(i.e. upper primary) and high school students in Auckland. It is probably inthese settings where the children will be most exposed to the other languagesof the region, though some schools are more multilingual than others in termsof student population.

Notwithstanding the fact that no national language policy exists in NewZealand (Benton, 1994, 1996; Kaplan, 1994; Peddie, 2003), language planningactivities in schools and within more macro systems have taken place, with anumber of very significant initiatives over the past decade or so contributing tothinking about languages in the country. Although this thinking has notalways been translated into action, New Zealand society has become moreaware of its increasing multilingual nature, of the shifts in language use ofvarious sections of the population, and of the necessity for appropriatelanguage planning in order to accommodate these changes. One such initiativewas the Maori Language Act of 1987, which recognised Maori as an officiallanguage and which established the Maori Language Commission, the corefocus of its work being the maintenance of te reo Maori (the Maori language).English, however, functions as the de facto language of government admin-istration (e.g. parliamentary debate and the publication of official documenta-tion). Maori is used, but to a far lesser extent, in these domains. A secondmajor initiative was the Ministry of Education’s discussion document on apossible national language policy for New Zealand. The report, Aoteareo:Speaking for Ourselves (Waite, 1992), identified a number of priority areas fordevelopment, but on the whole it received somewhat mixed reviews, andPeddie (1997), who provides a useful background to the report, remarks that itis unclear what planning moves relating to the report have been made since itsrelease.

Further Ministry of Education guidance for language planning and policycomes in the form of curriculum documents such as The New ZealandCurriculum Framework (Ministry of Education, 1993) which, in showing ‘anopenness to linguistic diversity’ (Benton, 1996: 75), makes statements about,

Language Practices, Preferences and Policies 377

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

0:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

inter alia , choice of medium of instruction, second language learning, andgender and cultural inclusiveness in language and resources. The framework,which allows for a good deal of flexibility in its interpretation, openlypromotes its adaptation to suit the various local conditions and needs ofschools.

It is within the context of these ‘loose’ policy and planning systems (Kaplan,1994; Takala & Sajavaara, 2000) that our study is located. It focuses on theattitudes and preferences of children who are not only members of familiesliving in Auckland but are also school students. The data were collected inschools, during school time, so the school as the immediate environment musttherefore have played an important part in the students’ conceptualisation oftheir attitudes and preferences (Roer-Strier, 2000). In other words, we are notinvestigating individual language/ethnic communities as separate entities oras more or less dominant groups within a larger society. Our focus is on theschool students as members of more or less multilingual educational settings.We believe that what the students have to say is vitally important not only forunderstanding current language policies and practices in Auckland, but forconsidering what the possible implications of this situation are for the future.When the students in this study finish school they will become socio-economically active adults in New Zealand society. Their attitudes andpreferences now will thus determine who they will be language-wise in thefuture (Olshtain & Kotik, 2000).

Although they have an insider’s view of what is going on in schools, theirperceptions of what they observe and experience are seldom taken intoaccount; their place is seen to be the receiving-end of other people’sdeliberations. Barkhuizen (2002), for example, found in an extensive surveythat isiXhosa students in South Africa had a diverse range of opinions andpreferences with regard to the nature of their learning, classroom activities, thecurriculum, languages of instruction and broader policy issues in the country,many of which did not match those of teachers, curriculum designers andpolicy makers. Rudduck (1991: 30) refers to ignoring students’ views as ‘ourblind spot’. In order for students’ perceptions to be taken into account, that is,before intervention can take place, we need to discover what they are. One wayof getting their voices heard is for researchers to gather data on theirobservations and attitudes, and to report their findings in an accessible formto those who have the power to make final decisions about language main-tenance efforts and language policy. This study is one example of this process.

The StudyThe data reported below are part of a larger-scale study undertaken in 2001

and 2002, which set out to investigate the language awareness and languageattitudes of intermediate and high school students in the wider Aucklandregion by means of a self-report questionnaire (see Starks & Barkhuizen, 2003).The questionnaire was divided into four sections asking the students abouttheir language awareness of their own and other people’s language use, theirlanguage attitudes, their attitudes towards language policy issues anddemographic information.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

0:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

This method of data collection was chosen in order to canvas a relativelylarge number of students from a wide range of social, ethnic and regionalbackgrounds. The questionnaire items were made up of closed (e.g. yes/no)and short answer questions (e.g. what languages do you think should be usedfor government purposes in New Zealand?). These types of questions wereselected to simplify the completion of the questionnaire by younger adoles-cents and to facilitate its administration.

Nine hundred and seventy-eight students, aged between 11 and 19 years,from 13 schools in the greater Auckland region participated in the research.The schools were selected opportunistically on the basis of region, decileranking, school type (private, religion-based, public) and ethnic composition toensure a wide range of schools were represented in the study. The schools’decile rankings ranged from 1 to 91; each number representing a broadcorrelate of the socioeconomic status of the student population. The ethniccomposition of the schools varied considerably, often in direct proportion tothe school’s decile ranking. That is, schools with a low decile ranking had ahigher proportion of Maori and Pasifika students. For further details refer toStarks and Barkhuizen (2003). Six of the schools were extended primaryschools, two intermediate schools, two mixed intermediate/high schools andtwo high schools. The questionnaire was aimed at students in their final yearof intermediate school (or final year of extended primary school) and atstudents in their final year of high school.

Students were asked to identify themselves with one or more ethnic groups.Figure 1 presents the overall ethnic composition of the participants. Over athird identify themselves as Pakeha2 (317 students), just under a third asPacific Islanders3 (252 students), just over 10% as Asian4 (113 students) andless than 10% as Maori (75 students). Initially students that stated more thanone ethnicity were grouped together into a ‘mixed’ category, but furtheranalysis made it clear that a large proportion of these identified as part Maori.It was therefore decided to group these students into a new category called‘Mixed Maori’ (101 students) and group all other students of mixed ethnicityinto the category ‘other’ (56 students). The ‘other’ category included a number

Pakeha35%

Maori8%

Mixed Maori11%

P.I.28%

Asian12%

Other6%

Figure 1 Ethnicity of participants


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

0:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

of immigrant groups, mainly from Africa and the Middle East. Sixty-fourstudents did not answer the question on ethnicity and were excluded in anyfurther analysis.

The data from each participating school were coded and analysed usingSPSS, version 12.0.1 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). Chi squarestatistics, a simple procedure for investigating frequency counts of categoricaldata, were performed to discover any significant differences between theethnic groups.

ResultsThe following section presents a summary of the findings grouped into four

topics. The first focuses on the students’ opinions of the role of English in NewZealand as well as their attitudes to bilingualism. The second sectionconcentrates on the students’ attitudes to immigrant languages and theimportance of their maintenance over one or more generations. The thirdsection presents the students’ own language preferences and abilities withregard to (1) what languages they would like to speak and (2) which languagesthey claim they can have a conversation in. The final topic focuses on languagepolicy issues. Here, students were asked which government language theywould find most suitable for New Zealand.

Perspectives on English and bilingualism in New Zealand

In this section, students were asked if they believe that all New Zealandersshould be able to speak English. A breakdown of ethnic groups whoparticipated in this questionnaire shows that there are no major differencesbetween the groups with respect to this question, with answers ranging from77% (Maori) to 86% (mixed Maori) with an average of 79%. There are nostatistically significant differences between the groups, x2(5)�/5.049, p�/0.410,which indicates that school students from all ethnic backgrounds are verymuch in favour of having English as a major language in New Zealand.

English seems to be very important to the students, but when asked if NewZealand should be a multilingual society, the responses were less conclusive.

Table 1 All New Zealanders should be able to speak more than one language

Ethnicity Yes (n ) Percentage

Pakeha 137 44*

Maori 38 52

Pasifika 164 67**

Asian 54 50

Other 24 44

Mixed Maori 47 48

*Adjusted residual of B/-2.0.**Adjusted residual of �/2.0.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

0:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

On average only 50% of all the students surveyed were in favour of thestatement ‘All New Zealanders should be able to speak more thanone language.’ A closer examination of the data discloses, however, thatthe ethnic groups were divided over this issue (Table 1). A statisticallysignificant difference between the six different ethnic groups was found,x2(5)�/32.533, p�/0.000. This showed that the Pakeha students are least infavour of a multilingual New Zealand (44%) whilst Pasifika students are mostin favour (67%).

Perspectives on immigrant languages

Because of the overwhelming support for English in New Zealand and therather varied interest in a multilingual New Zealand, it was important toascertain the students’ views about immigrant languages, and in particulartheir thoughts on maintenance of these languages. The Auckland schoolstudents were asked if they believed that the children of immigrants shouldspeak the language of their parents well. This question investigates theiropinions on language maintenance within immigrant families over onegeneration. Although the majority of the students were in favour of languagemaintenance within immigrant families, a more fine-grained analysis of thedifferent ethnic groups shows a mixed picture (Table 2), with Pasifika studentsbeing significantly more interested in language maintenance (84%) and Pakehaand Other being significantly less concerned with maintenance of immigrantlanguages (68% and 60% respectively), x2(5)�/27.392, p�/0.000.

When questioned about sustained language maintenance, fewer than half ofthe students (47%) support language maintenance over two generations,indicating that the student population is divided over this issue. A detailedanalysis (Table 3) reveals that there is less interest in language maintenance ofgrandparents’ languages. The Pasifika students are the most pro-maintenance.Sixty-six per cent of the Pasifika students want to maintain the languageof their grandparents while only 34% of the Pakeha students are in favourof this, x2(5)�/63.912, p�/0.000. These opinions resemble those reported inTables 1 and 2.

Table 2 Children of immigrants should speak the language of their parents well


Pakeha 209 68*

Maori 51 69

Pasifika 205 84**

Asian 88 79

Other 33 60*

Mixed Maori 67 68



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

0:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Personal language preferences and abilities

Whilst the previous sections focused on a range of students’ perceptionsand opinions of language practices in New Zealand, the next set of questionslooked at the students’ own linguistic interests and abilities. When asked theopen-ended question concerning what languages they would like to speakwell,5 the students showed a relatively low level of interest in languages otherthan English, with 46% nominating a European language like German, French,Spanish or Italian, 24% a Pasifika language, 22% Maori and only 18% an Asianlanguage. The greater appeal of European languages is likely a pragmatic onebased on potential economic benefits. It is interesting to note, however, howthese language preferences change when the results are analysed for ethnicgroup differences. Table 4 shows the breakdown for each ethnic group.

Table 4 illustrates quite clearly that students have a preference for learning alanguage of their own ethnic group; i.e. Maori and Mixed Maori aresignificantly more interested in learning Maori than other ethnicities, Pasifikastudents are more interested in learning one or more Pasifika languages andAsian students are more interested in Asian languages. The only group oflanguages that Pakeha are clearly more attracted to is European languages. Aninteresting point also relates to the relative non-selection of Maori. DespiteMaori having been an official language for almost 20 years, a part of the corecurriculum for almost 30 years and a language with symbolic associationswith New Zealand identity for much longer (Benton & Benton, 2001;Christensen, 2001; Peddie, 2003), it seems that for this group of students atleast, only the Maori or Mixed Maori want to speak it well.

As attitudes to language do not necessarily have a positive relationship tolanguage use, the students were also asked in which languages other thanEnglish they can have a conversation. Figure 2 clearly shows that the studentssurveyed have very little ability to hold a conversation in another language.The most common languages mentioned in this question were Pasifikalanguages, with 18% of students noting proficiency in one or more of these.Only 6% of the students are proficient enough to have a conversation in theonly official language of the country, Maori.

Table 3 Grandchildren of immigrants should speak the language of their grandparentswell


Pakeha 104 34*

Maori 40 56

Pasifika 160 66**

Asian 63 57

Other 22 40

Mixed Maori 42 43



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

0:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

As illustrated earlier, there is a steady link between responses to languageand ethnicity. Table 5 shows that a similar picture to the previous questionemerges when the results are analysed according to ethnic group. Very fewstudents report that they are able to have a conversation in a language otherthan languages specific to their own language group. It is interesting toobserve that more Asian students are able to have a conversation in an Asian

Table 4 What languages would you like to speak well? � breakdown per ethnic group

Ethnic group Language Percentage

Pakeha Maori 18*

Pasifika language 5*

Asian 22

European language 58**

Maori Maori 65**

Pasifika language 27

Asian 12*

European language 28*

Pasifika Maori 14*

Pasifika language 51**

Asian 11*


Asian Maori 9*


Asian 32**

European language 45

Other Maori 11*


Asian 12


Mixed Maori Maori 56**


Asian 21




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

0:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

language than Pasifika students in a Pacific language and Maori students inMaori. This may be due to the recent influx of Asian immigrants as well as alarge number of international students from Asian countries studying in NewZealand (Ministry of Education). Many of the latter students are firstgeneration immigrants, whilst the former, for example Pasifika students, aresecond or third generation.

Perspectives on government language and government funding

With regard to government language(s) students were asked the followingquestion: ‘what languages do you think should be used for governmentpurposes in New Zealand?’ Seventy-one per cent of the students namedEnglish, 37% Maori and only 9% nominated a Pasifika language or an Asianlanguage. A further analysis according to ethnic group reveals (see Table 6)that although the majority of students nominated English as the governmentlanguage of their choice, Pakeha students are significantly more in favour ofthis than other ethnic groups.6 They are also in favour of Maori as an officiallanguage. Maori and Pasifika students appear to be interested in their own andeach other’s languages as government language, whilst Asians are generallymore opposed to both than are all the other ethnicities. Whilst very fewstudents think that an Asian language would be suitable as a governmentlanguage for New Zealand, Pasifika students are a lot less interested in thisoption.

Students were then asked two questions about their opinions on govern-ment funding for immigrants. The first question centred around the issueof whether or not the New Zealand government should fund programmesto help immigrants improve their English. There was general supportfor government funding, with 80% of all students in favour of this idea.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Series1 6% 18% 12% 8%

Maori PI Asian European

Figure 2 What language(s) other than English can you have a conversation in?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

0:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

A chi square statistic reveals more support from Pasifika students and lesssupport from Maori students x2(5)�/21.260, p�/0.001, perhaps because manyPasifika students have had such language help.

The second question in relation to government funding asked the studentsif the New Zealand government should finance programmes that wouldenable immigrant children to learn the language of their parents. There

Table 5 What language other than English can you have a conversation in by ethnicity

Ethnic group Language Percentage

Pakeha Maori 1*

Pasifika 0*

Asian 3*


Maori Maori 39**

Pasifika 1*

Asian 1*

European language 3

Pasifika Maori 1*

Pasifika 64**

Asian 6*


Asian Maori 0*

Pasifika 1*

Asian 81**

European language 8

Other Maori 0*

Pasifika 4*

Asian 7


Mixed Maori Maori 26**

Pasifika 10*

Asian 1*

European language 4



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

0:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

was more opposition to this kind of government subsidy from the respon-dents, with only 54% of all students being in favour of this kind of financialsupport. A chi square statistic reveals that Pakeha students are statis-tically significantly less interested in this kind of government funding, whilstPasifika students are significantly more in favour of this proposal, x2(5)�/

15.146, p�/0.010.

Table 6 Government language

Ethnic group Government language Percentage

Pakeha English 78**

Maori 45**


Asian language 11

Maori English 67

Maori 52**


Asian language 9

Pasifika English 71

Maori 20**


Asian language 4*

Asian English 80

Maori 20*


Asian language 11

Other English 63

Maori 29


Asian language 14

Mixed Maori English 67

Maori 42


Asian language 10



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

0:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

DiscussionThe student responses show strong support for the role of English at the

individual, community and national levels, but mixed support for the role ofother languages. At the national level, these findings indicate that in the viewof the students surveyed, English should remain as the language of govern-ment. Maori should perhaps have some status, but no other official language isrequired. Student views on societal bilingualism are ambivalent. There is nostrong overwhelming desire amongst the students to learn more than onelanguage, few speak languages other than English, and those with a secondlanguage tend to speak a language associated with their ethnic identity.Although there has been an increase in rhetoric about linguistic diversitywithin New Zealand society, it seems to have had little impact on the languageattitudes, language use and language preferences of many of these young NewZealanders whose views about the importance of English outweigh their viewson other languages. These views also transcend ethnic boundaries. Students ofall ethnic groups have similar views about many aspects of English in NewZealand.

When ethnicity was examined in further detail, the findings show that thegreatest differences are between the dominant Pakeha community andstudents from other ethnic groups. Pakeha are conservative in their viewsboth towards societal bilingualism and community language maintenance andshow strong interest in English as a government language. If New Zealandwishes to become a truly multilingual nation, change at the individual,community and national levels must take place. Giles et al . (1985), amongothers, have shown that minority communities are affected by the views of thewider, dominant society. Thus, Pakeha views may be a contributing factor tostrong positive views about English, ambivalent attitudes about communitylanguages and weak language retention amongst the non-Pakeha students.Although positive attitudes do not necessarily equate with language main-tenance, negative and ambivalent attitudes such as those expressed by thesestudents have been shown to have an adverse effect (Pauwels, 2004; Trudgill,1983, among others).

In a recent review paper on language maintenance, Garcı́a (2003: 28) claimsthat there are three vital areas for successful language maintenance: the school,the community and the home. Although there has been considerable workon these areas in isolation, more emphasis is needed on the links bet-ween language use in these domains (see, for example, Roer-Strier, 2000).Tannenbaum and Howie (2002), in an analysis of the Australian Chinesecommunity, have shown that unified families have a positive impact on mothertongue maintenance, which can counter the effects of the dominant languageamongst primary school students. Kulick (1992) (as cited in King, 2001: 20)argues that conceptions about language, children and self are important keysto language maintenance. It is perhaps here that schools can make a difference.Children’s views of themselves and their languages develop in schools throughcontact with other children. The school is a place to foster the student’s view ofself as one which is both accepting of linguistic difference and interested inlinguistic diversity. To ensure that this occurs, language-in-education policies


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

0:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

need to be developed that extend between homes and schools to promotelinguistic diversity and positive attitudes towards societal and individualbilingualism (Corson, 1999). This study suggests that students can serve as auseful resource both for understanding language issues and for informinglanguage policy in the New Zealand context.

We also need to consider the role of language-in-education planning in NewZealand schools. Although there is a push for greater emphasis on language inthe curriculum from both governmental and community organisations (see, forexample, the chapters in Barnard & Glynn, 2003), in many schools theemphasis is on the teaching of international languages rather than on theconsolidation of home language use and the promotion of positive languageattitudes. Perhaps as a consequence of this, many students have a strongerinterest in learning languages other than Maori or a Pasifika language.

ConclusionThe above findings compare language preferences and attitudes of inter-

mediate and high school students in the Auckland region. The responses showstrong support for the role of English at individual, community and nationallevels, but mixed support for the role of other languages. When examined infurther detail, the findings suggest that ethnicity has an effect on languagepreferences with the dominant Pakeha community having the most conserva-tive views and the Pasifika community the greatest interest in languagemaintenance.

Students have an important, but often ignored, role to play in languagepolicy developments. It is important that more information be gathereddirectly from students who are a part of a changing multicultural NewZealand. Student views need to be included, as they are the link between homeand school, and as Khoo (1995) aptly notes, our link to the future.

CorrespondenceAny correspondence should be directed to Dr Ute Knoch, Department of

Applied Language Studies and Linguistics, University of Auckland, PrivateBag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand ([email protected]).

Notes1. New Zealand schools are ranked from decile 1 (lowest) to decile 10 (highest).2. Pakeha is a label used for ‘New Zealanders of (mainly) British descent’ (Bayard,

1995: 18).3. The 2001 Census (Statistics New Zealand) revealed that there are just over 115,000

Samoans, over 50,000 Cook Island Maori, about 40,000 Tongans, more than 20,000Niueans, over 7000 Fijians, 6000 Tokelauans and just under 2000 Tuvalu Islandersliving in New Zealand.

4. The 2001 Census (Statistics New Zealand) revealed that there are just over 104,000Chinese, 61 Indians (includes Indo-Fijians), 19,000 Koreans, 11,000 Filipinos, 10,000Japanese and 6,000 Sri Lankans living in New Zealand.

5. This was an open-ended question. Students were therefore able to mention morethan one language. If they put down more than one language in a section(e.g. European languages), they were only recorded once, however if they wrote


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

0:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

down languages belonging to different groups (e.g. Maori and a Pasifikalanguages), they were recorded once in each of these categories.

6. Although a higher percentage of Asian students chose English as a possiblegovernment language, due to smaller numbers these did not reach a level ofstatistical significance in comparison to the other groups.

References

Arua, A.E. and Magocha, K. (2002) Patterns of language use and language preference ofsome children and their parents in Botswana. Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment 23 (6), 449�461.

Barkhuizen, G.P. (2002) Language-in-education policy: Students’ perceptions of thestatus and role of Xhosa and English. System 30 (4), 499�515.

Barnard, R. and Glynn, T. (eds) (2003) Bilingual Children’s Language and LiteracyDevelopment . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Barnard, R. and Rauf, P.J. (1999) Non-English speaking background pupils in Hamiltonprimary schools: A survey of learners, teachers and ESOL provision. The TESOLANZJournal 7, 36�47.

Bayard, D. (1995) Kiwitalk: Sociolinguistics and New Zealand Society. Palmerston North:Dunmore Press.

Bell, A., Davis, K. and Starks, D. (1999) Language of the Manukau Region: A Pilot Study ofUse, Maintenance and Educational Dimensions of Languages in South Auckland . Report toWoolf Fisher Research Centre. University of Auckland.

Benton, R. (1994) Towards a languages policy for New Zealand education. New ZealandAnnual Review of Education 4, 161�173.

Benton, R. (1996) Language policy in New Zealand: Defining the ineffable. InM. Herriman and B. Burnaby (eds) Language Policies in English-Dominant Countries(pp. 62�98). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Benton, R. and Benton, N. (2001) RLS in Aotearoa/New Zealand. In J.A. Fishman (ed.)Can Threatened Languages be Saved? (pp. 423�450). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Christensen, I. (2001) Maori language revitalisation and maintenance: Issues andinsights. New Zealand Studies in Applied Language Studies 7, 15�40.

Corson, D. (1999) Language Policy in Schools: A Resource for Teachers and Administrators .Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fishman, J.A. (2000) Reversing language shift: RLS theory and practice revisited. InG. Kindell and M.P. Lewis (eds) Assessing Ethnolinguistic Vitality: Theory and Practice(pp. 1�25). Dallas: SIL International.

Garcı́a, M. (2003) Recent research on language maintenance. Annual Review of AppliedLinguistics 23, 22�43.

Giles, H., Rosenthal, D. and Young, L. (1985) Perceived ethnolinguistic vitality: TheAnglo and Greek Australian setting. Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment 3, 17�40.

Glynn, T. and Berryman, M. (2003) A community elder’s role in improving and writingfor Maori students. In R. Barnard and T. Glynn (eds) Bilingual Children’s Language andLiteracy Development (pp. 36�58). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Haworth, P. (2003) Students from diverse language backgrounds in the primaryclassroom. In R. Barnard and T. Glynn (eds) Bilingual Children’s Language and LiteracyDevelopment (pp. 136�165). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Holmes, J. and Bell, A. (1991) New Zealand. In J. Cheshire (ed.) English Around theWorld: Sociolinguistic Perspectives (pp. 153�168). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Holmes, J., Roberts, M., Verivaki, M. and Aipolo, A. (1993) Language maintenance andshift in three New Zealand speech communities. Applied Linguistics 14, 1�24.

Hulsen, M., de Bot, K. and Weltens, B. (2002) ‘Between two worlds’: Social networks,language shift, and language processing in three generations of Dutch migrants inNew Zealand. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 153, 27�52.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

0:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Kaplan, R.B. (1994) Language policy and planning in New Zealand. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics 14, 156�176.

Khoo, S.E. (1995) Language maintenance amongst second generation. People and Place 3,9�12.

King, K.A. (2001) Language Revitalisation Processes and Prospects: Quichua in theEcuadorian Andes . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

McCaffery, J. and Tuafuti, P. (1998) The development of Pacific Islands bilingualeducation in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Many Voices 13, 11�16.

Mesthrie, R. (2003) Children in language shift: The syntax of fifth generation, pre-school, Indian South African English speakers. Southern African Linguistics andApplied Language Studies 21, 119�126.

Ministry of Education (1993) The New Zealand Curriculum Framework . Wellington:Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education. On WWW at http://www.minedu.govt.nz Accessed 18.2.05.Nakanishi, N. (2000) Language maintenance and shift in the Japanese community of

Auckland. A study of the interaction between the sojourners and the immigrants.Unpublished MA thesis, University of Auckland.

Olshtain, E. and Kotik, B. (2000) The development of bilingualism in an immigrantcommunity. In E. Olshtein and G. Horenczyk (eds) Language, Identity, and Immigra-tion (pp. 210�217). Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press.

Pauwels, A. (2004) Language maintenance. In A. Davies and C. Elder (eds) TheHandbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 719�737). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Peddie, R. (1997) Why are we waiting? Language policy development in New Zealand.In W. Eggington and H. Wren (eds) Language Policy: Dominant English, PluralisticChallenges (pp. 121�146). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Peddie, R. (2003) Languages in New Zealand: Population, politics and policy. In R.Barnard and T. Glynn (eds) Bilingual Children’s Language and Literacy Development(pp. 8�35). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Roer-Strier, D. (2000) Socializing immigrant children: Home and school coping withcultural differences. In E. Olshtein and G. Horenczyk (eds) Language, Identity, andImmigration (pp. 65�80). Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press.

Rudduck, J. (1991) Innovation and Change . Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Sandor, K. (2000) National feeling or responsibility: The case of the Csango language

revitalization. Multilingua 19 (1�2), 141�168.Shameem, N. (2000) Factors affecting language gain and loss in young immigrants and

the case of the Wellington Indo-Fijians. Prospect 15, 48�64.Sneddon, R. (2000) Language and literacy: Children’s experiences in multilingual

environments. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 3 (4),265�284.

Starks, D. and Youn, S.H. (1998) Language maintenance in the Auckland Koreancommunity. Many Voices 12, 8�11.

Starks, D. and Barkhuizen, G. (2003) Students as fact gatherers in language-in-education planning. In R. Barnard and T. Glynn (eds) Bilingual Children’s Languageand Literacy Development (pp. 247�272). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Statistics New Zealand (2001) Census 2001. On WWW at http://www.stats.govt.nz/census.htm. Accessed 7.3.05.

Takala, S. and Sajavaara, K. (2000) Language policy and planning. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics 20, 129�146.

Tannenbaum, M. and Howie, P. (2002) The association between language maintenanceand family relations: Chinese immigrant children in Australia. Journal of Multilingualand Multicultural Development 23, 408�424.

Te Puni Kokiri (2001) Survey of Attitudes Towards and Belief and Values About the MaoriLanguage: Final Summary Report . Wellington: Te Puni Kokiri.

Trudgill, P. (1983) On Dialect: Social and Geographical Perspectives . Oxford: Blackwell.Waite, J. (1992) Aoteareo: Speaking for Ourselves . Parts 1 and 2. Wellington: Ministry of

Education.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

0:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Watts, N., White, C. and Trlin, A. (2001) English Language Provision for Adult Immigrantsand/or Refugees from Non-English Speaking Backgrounds in Educational Institutions andTraining Establishments in New Zealand . Palmerston North: New Settlers Programme,Massey University.

Wong-Fillmore, L. (1991) When learning a second language means losing the first. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly 6, 323�346.

Zheng, B. (1998) Language shift in a group of young Chinese immigrants in Auckland,New Zealand. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Auckland.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

0:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Language Practices, Preferences and Policies: Contrasting Views of Pakeha, Maori, Pasifika and Asian students