Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:54:55 +0100 From: Gerhard Leitner Subject: New Zealand English: Its Origin and Evolution
AUTHORS: Gordon, Elizabeth; Campbell, Lyle; Hay, Jennifer; Maclagan, Margaret; Sudbury, Andrea; Trudgill, Peter TITLE: New Zealand English SUBTITLE: Its Origin and Evolution PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press YEAR: 2004
Gerhard Leitner, Free University of Berlin
The book under review (henceforth NZE-Origin) is the result of a long-term research program on the early, formative history of NZE. It is based on gramophone recordings of speakers of NZE who were born between the early period of colonization in 1840 and the first years of the 20th century. The oral history recordings were made by the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation during the late 1940s and lay dormant for decades until they were discovered, so to speak, by NZ linguists and used for linguistic purposes. The data have a somewhat similar history to those used by Bailey et al. (1991) for the study of Afro-American English: neither data were elicited for linguistic purposes and both have proven fruitful for that purpose - with limitations. Being confined to the accent and excluding all other levels of language, NZE-Origin paints a sophisticated picture of its sources and of what happened thereafter until a recognizably New Zealand accent emerged. The data have been used in many publications and, recently, by Trudgill (2004). That book, interestingly, differs not only in its particular focus on the idiolectal development of several of the interviewees, but also in a number of aspects of theory and explanation. Some of them will be mentioned later.
STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THE BOOK
NZE-Origin consists of eight chapters, several appendices, an impressive bibliography, and an index. Following the Introduction, chapters 1 to 7 focus on NZE; chapter 8 turns to implications on language change theory. Chapter 2 reviews past local and overseas research but is extremely selective, ignoring non-British and non-American studies (e.g. Görlach 1999). The little early research there is does not go back further than the late 1880s, though Leitner/Taylor/Fritz (in progr.) will yield a little more. The main source is in fact a newspaper article by a Scottish singing teacher and school principal, Samuel McBurney, which was published in 1887; it is used extensively by Australian linguists, who can, however, look back to a tradition of public comments from the 1820s. As to recent research, Trudgill (2004) must have been available but is not discussed, though, admittedly, the gist of that book was published elsewhere and is discussed. The next section reviews current NZE phonology, which is intended as the background against which the so-called ONZE data should be measured. I will turn to some features below but want to point to those that differentiate NZE from AusE, its close neighbour. There is, for one, the closed /I/, which is centralized to schwa, the merger of the vowel of 'bed' and the front /a/ common in AusE, NZE and the north of England. There is the retention of a level of rhoticity in some areas, that of the /w/~/hw/ distinction and l- vocalization (which is recent in AusE). These features play a role in the explanation of the divergence of NZE from AusE.
Chapter 3 surveys the demography of New Zealand, focusing on countries- of-origin (again ignoring non-British migrants), regions of origin inside the UK, types of settlement, etc. It includes a discussion of the reference of terms like 'English', which may but need not have included Welsh and other Celtic speakers. The authors mention the unofficial settlements from Australia prior to 1839, which led to the "Treaty of Waitangi" (1840) that made NZ a de facto colony and triggered a growth in settlements thereafter. Settlement history is divided into several brief periods. The first dates from 1840 to 1852 and brought whole migrant communities that reflected the middle range of British society along with military people. While these "Wakefield settlements" were not an immediate success, they provided stability and account for six provinces. Apart from planned migration, there was a level of unplanned migration from Britain, Ireland and Australia. The gold rush period between 1853 and 1870 marks the second period and led to a tenfold increase of Anglo-Irish migrants, reaching the figure of 250,000. Social unrest and mobility were key elements, as in Australia, and led to a high level of mixing and, by implication, linguistic diffusion. The years from 1871 to 1900 saw government-assisted programs but, due to the depression at the end of the century, large-scale emigration. The regional background and settlement patterns of migrants from Britain, Scotland and Ireland are relevant for an understanding of accent patterns and are dealt with in detail. As to settlement, relatively homogeneous Scottish, English and mixed settlements turn out to be relevant. Section 3 turns to social stratification and education and is provides data for chapters 7 and 8, where the respective role of social factors as against phonetic ones is contrasted. That section looks at the relationship with Australia, the role of trade unions, the growth of nationalism around the 1880s after a short colonial period, if compared with Australia.
Chapter 4 surveys previous approaches to the history of NZE and reviews the well-known Cockney hypothesis, the denigration of NZE as 'bad' English, the role of Australia, dialect transplantation, etc. As they are evaluated in chapter 7 in light of the findings of the detailed data investigation, I will come to details later. What is worth singling out here is a point quoted from Ellis (1889: 236), i.e. that "The English alters in generations, and is MUCH INTERFERED WITH BY CONSTANT IMMIGRATION FROM THE MOTHER COUNTRY. AND NOW, WHEN EDUCATION IS SO PROMINENT BOTH IN THE MOTHER COUNTRY AND THE COLONIES, THE SPEECH OF COLONISTS IS MODIFIED ARTIFICIALLY..." (my emph.; cf. p 67). That role of on-going immigration after the formative period is lost altogether and the effects of education are downplayed, though sociolinguists concerned with codification and the growth of standards always show its importance.
Chapter 5 elaborates on the history of the data and the methodologies used to analyze them. As said above, the data have come from a national employment program for returned servicemen. A group was sent on three tours to nearly forty towns, small towns and other locations between 1946 an 1948 to record oral histories from locals who had lived in the area for most of their lives. Interviewees wrote notes on the social, regional or educational backgrounds of the interviewees but these notes have often been lost or were unusable for other reasons. Those that could be used function as a criterion to select some 115 speakers from the total of 201 speakers. Those 115 are fall into unequal groups, representing gender, age, the two islands, and a range of background in England, Scotland, Ireland and Australia. They cover the period from 1851 to 1905. Interviews were transcribed, digitized and subjected to three overlapping methods. A broad auditory study was done with 95 speakers; an auditory quantitative study with 59 and an acoustic one with ten speakers. NZE-Origin used high- level statistical methods in all areas and focuses on those that could be shown to be highly significant in chapters 7 and 8.
Chapter 6 turns to the study of nineteen variables: (i) short and long monophthongs, (ii) rising diphthongs, (iii) centring diphthongs, (iv) the central strong and weak vowel, (v) rhoticity (in light of close-knit Scottish settlements), (vi) h-dropping, (vii) the role of the /w ~ wh/ distinction, and, finally, (viii) the articulation and loss of /l/. As to social variables, gender, age, country/region-of-origin, type of settlement (urban~rural and ethnically cohesive~mixed) and a few other factors are investigated. As to time, a distinction between the period before 1875 and thereafter is found useful. The former period covers an older layer of the native-born, who are supposed to show more conservative features than the latter but that is not argued cogently. Turning to presentation, sections start with a summary of English in England, Scotland and Ireland during the 19th century and turn to the likely source of the input into NZE. They move on to commentaries found in NZ, though, sadly, the only relevant early source is McBurney. A wider spectrum is found after 1900. NZE-Origin then shifts to the results of the three methods of analysis. The whole study builds up to highly complex set of findings and hypotheses that crystallize into a discussion of the origin of NZE and the development from the 1840s in chapter 7. I cannot do justice to the detailed data, analyses and interpretations and will select a few that reflect the time line, the role of the diversity of inputs, and bear upon the underlying theory of the study.
Crucial to NZE is the quality of short and long monophthongs and rising diphthongs. Short vowels are, as in AusE, relatively close and have been seen as being involved in a Second Great Vowel shift. NZE-Origin explores the situation in BrE at the time of and prior to the formation of NZ. The vowel in 'bed', for instance, was shown to have been relatively high in the south-east of England from the end of the 18th century but acquired that quality only towards the end of the 19th century in London. It is found that close variants were available at the beginning of settlement. As to NZ, some 36 per cent of tokens were raised to an open [e]; the remainder were low. Close variants were found all over NZ, in all settlements types and above all by women. There was an increase after 1875. All settlements underwent raising, but especially Scottish and English ones. But the authors suspect that individuals may play a significant idiosyncratic role. Yet, I would suggest that the patterns of Scottish and English background migrants are still relevant. Regarding the vowel in 'cat', a raised variant was apparently common in London but not in ScotE. Yet, /e/ was not raised much in NZ. Overall, nearly 60 per cent of all tokens were low and it was, interestingly, speakers with Scottish parents that used raised variants more than anybody else. A clear sign of 'focussing', one might think, and of accommodation, most of all by the Scots who had none of it in their native accent. There was also some progression in terms of time and all groups participated, which eventually led to the level today.
As the KIT vowel marks a significant difference from today's AusE, it is important to know if that difference was foreshadowed at the formative period or was a later development. A relatively close variant was apparently common in much of 19th century England, while it was centralizing somewhat in ScotE and a few southern EngE accents. In NZE there were two trends, one was the centralization towards an early start of a schwa, the other one was raising as in AusE. The authors found no strong centralizing trend but did reveal a slightly higher level among the Scottish and Irish background NZers, in Scottish settlements and women in these groups. Raised types were common among the Irish and English and in English settlements. Incidentally, Australian background also showed a high level of raised variants. On balance, the authors argue that early NZE may have been similar to AusE but that centralization was beginning to show up. In light of what will be said later I should point out that if centralization eventually took over, raising had to be reversed!
I will be brief on long monophthongs and rising diphthongs, which are so typical of NZE and AusE. (There is no quantitative break-down of the data.) The dating of a low onset in /i:/ and /u:/ in EngE is difficult and there is little clear evidence in MacMahon (1998) or other studies. Both appear to be late developments, though it appears that a slight onset in /u:/ preceded that in /i:/. NZE-Origin maintains that diphthongized /u:/ was present around the 1880s, /i:/ was raised but not diphthongized. Closing diphthongs had begun to develop a shift of their onset at various periods of time during the 19th century, starting with /aU/ and /aI/. Both are found in the data. Alas, there is no break-down of data for the periods distinguished. One must assume that the there was an increase over time. The /eI/ vowel was barely shifted and, if so, not much. In fact, it could still be found as a monophthongs in some areas. Apart from McBurney (1887) who mentioned a few shifts, public comments came only after the beginning of the 20th century and typically as complaints. And the ONZE data show scant evidence of today's quality. These findings are important to chapter 7 and suggest the possibility of effects of later migrations, as I argued in Leitner (2004b; section 3.6). The authors never raise such a possibility.
Let me add a few notes on other findings. HAPPY tensing is a late and restricted phenomenon in EngE but was found sporadically in both Australia and NZ from the late 19th century. Could it have formed part of the 1840 input, one wonders? Rhoticity is fascinating since it is still found in parts of the Southern Island and some other areas as a dialect feature; it is, however, recessive. NZE-Origin highlights the speed of it disappearing as well as the parameters that favoured its retention, i.e. type of settlement and birthplace of parents.
The findings create, as I have said earlier, a complex picture and permit a range of explanatory factors: Period of birth, gender, ethnic background (esp. Scottish, Irish, English and Australian), settlement type (especially mixed, Scottish and English), and some linguistic contextual factors, which I have not mentioned, often play a statistically relevant role (cf. Table 7.1, p 217). Ignoring many details, I turn to the claim that, for all but one variable, "women are leading men in terms of moving forwards modern forms" (p 211). Women were even in the lead of the diphthong shift that was later stigmatized. Was it not stigmatized at the formative period? Have women reduced the level of shifting later? There are lots of leads for further study.
As mentioned above, the complex findings lead into a critical discussion of the origin and development of NZE in chapter 7 that links up with the survey in chapter 4. The well-known Cockney hypothesis is rejected and is shown to have been no more than a convenient label of abuse (p 222f), as in Australia. But other hypotheses, such as a formative role of AusE, of ScotE and of south-east EngE are discussed, as is the lack of impact of IrE. As none of them are able to unify the diversity of findings, they are seen as components of a range of explanatory approaches like 'drift' and, to a lesser extent, 'swamping', or of 'theories' such as 'determinism' - an outgrowth of the dialect-formation framework (cf. Trudgill 1986). Like it, it presumes a three-stage development that corresponds to generational shift. 'Rudimentary levelling' of the over-abundance of choices in a transplanted dialect situation occurs during the initial period and amongst first generation adults. That cannot be shown by the ONZE data, which - using the second generation, native-born - already shows stage two, an interdialect situation with what is called 'extreme variability'. Children at that stage have a vast amount of choice - based on the input found amongst adults. The third stage levels out and focuses the choices and reduces variability further and provides a focused, weakly normative variety that the subsequent generations can adapt to. The unmarking of marked variants, the reallocation of some variants to signal other values, etc., are common at that stage. Most of the input from ScotE or IrE will have disappeared at stage two and has only survived in the special situation of close-knit settlements on the Southern island.
'Determinism' is a much stronger version of these three stages and argues that a mechanistic version of variability reduction that rests on demographic strength and similar non-social factors is able to explain satisfactorily the nature of colonial varieties of English (pp 239-241). Trudgill's (2004) book- length argues that it can explain the development of other language varieties in similar contexts. While NZE-Origin does summarize that theory it gives greater and independent emphasis to factors like drift and, above all, to social ones and is, in other words, not as biased. (One wonders a bit about Trudgill's role as co-author.) The role of children, the founder effect, 'swamping' (its opposite), standardization, education and socio- psychological attitudes are indeed social factors or, at least, factors to do with behavioural patterns such as settlement types. Let me add some detail to this broad summary.
There is a variant to determinism, if the explanatory weight is shifted from mere demographic factors (in which case it relies on greatest number of speakers in some scenario) to a linguistic one. It would then take note of frequencies in terms of frequency of occurrences or tokens - which is done by the authors. They maintain that "the data here provide preliminary support for determinism, provided that the notion of 'majority' is considered token-wise, rather than (...) speaker-wise" (p 241). Drift, a well- known concept, is appealed to when the determinism or dialect formation paradigm fail. It is used for types of change that continue patterns not found in the variety of origin at the formative period of time. But they do occur both in the original and transplanted varieties. Cases in point are diphthong shift, the fronting of the vowel in 'hat', and 'happy' tensing. (It should be added that such cases often permit competing explanations, a fact that is discussed at length in NZE-Origin. Drift also amounts to a contradiction of the determinism approach since drift supports minority linguistic patterns that should be levelled out by determinism. Is there an inescapable linguistic force at work that could only be resisted by strong socio-psychological factors (which Trudgill (2004) denies)? There are two other opposing pairs, i.e. the role of children, the founder effect and swamping.
The role of children in new dialect formation (or of creoles) is well-known and has been discussed in relation to AusE by Mitchell (1995; 2001), Bernard (1969) and others. Their role is confirmed in NZE-Origin. Children must have contributed to what is called the founder effect that resists in a situation of massive demographic change. Forms of both NZE and AusE, the authors claim, have survived despite the fact that the number of new arrivals exceeded that of the native born many times (p 245). What is worth noting, though, is that their claim that "parental origin is often an important predictor of aspects of individual's speech" (p 246) logically contradicts an over-emphasis of an independent role of children. Swamping, too, works against the founder principle. It says that large numbers of new migrants may push out or 'swamp' features of those born locally. However, the authors argue that potential cases of swamping, such as the regression of rhoticity, can be explained equally well by levelling at stage 2 of dialect formation. True, they believe, there were mass immigrations by the mid- 1870s but about half the population was already native-born and compulsory education had started. Both may have promoted change in the direction observed. (But the model taught was standard English and RP at the time, not a levelled range of popular dialects, after all. Exo-normativism was the hallmark of the period!) Great weight is given to standardization, education, social factors, including mobility, and socio-psychological attitudes. The role of status is mentioned in a footnote on p 247. The authors conclude that "some social factors need to be taken into account" (p 257) - in contrast to the tenor of Trudgill (2004).
Instead of summing up chapter 8, I will take it as the starting point of a critical evaluation. Chapter 8 turns to the implications of the study on language change in general and mainly uses Labov (1994; 2000), Hickey (2002) and a few other recent studies. In the context of real- and apparent- time studies, the authors turn to problems about the validity of the data and acknowledge the fact that they may both over- and underestimate the real usage of some features at the time investigated. Centralizing patterns of /I/, for instance, are cases in point. "Caution is required", they conclude (p 262), but insist they have made "considerable inroads into the understanding of the input to New Zealand English" (p 262). Their discussion of the role of the family - as against the peer group and the independent role of children - is equally informative here. Parental influence is often stronger, at least when children are as language shift studies have shown (cf. Leitner 2004c). But there is a conflict between parental and peer group influence and the conflict between these potentially opposing forces is not resolved, but discussed. If these factors are broadly social, the discussion of vowel shift and of push as a against pull chains turns to phonetic factors and theory. NZE-Origin argues that the data confirm the existence of push chains, which have generally been rejected as they would imply teleological arguments. The NZE data, it is claimed, suggest that as the TRAP vowel rose and it pushed /e/ upward, etc. /I/ began to centralize as a result:
... there is no significant degree of DRESS raising without also TRAP being raised, and there are very speakers who have a close TRAP but not close DRESS and speakers with close DRESS who do not have centralised KIT. The correlations point to a causal connection, a push chain. (p 267)
There are at least nine such speakers, most of them born between 1866 and 1874 and of a range of parental backgrounds, though often of Gaelic descent (cf. App. 1 and 6). The vowel /e/ had a particularly raised variant amongst those of Scottish background though ScotE did not have it (p 113). Over-accommodation is a concept that springs to mind. At least those of Scottish background born after 1875 outdid all other groups in shifting to a raised variant (p 107). It is hard to argue with the authors who know their data so much better but close scrutiny does raise questions of this sort. There is another point. In their discussion of TRAP, they argue that it "should be noted that by 'TRAP raising' we mean the incidence of relatively close tokens of the TRAP vowel" (p 105). At least here, they are not talking of a chain shift at all. The centralization of KIT was, as the authors say, a late change, but some level of centralization was brought in. What is forgotten is that speakers with raised variants, and there are a few, would have had to lower and centralize them. Two changes, not one! Was that done or was it analogical change? There is no answer but the case for push chains is not entirely convincing.
As to vowel shift, Labov's rejection of functional as against mechanical changes is well-known. But the data on the movement of short vowels - the push chain upwards - suggests that his view and the various 'default' mechanisms he posited cannot be accepted without modification. Equally interesting is the discussion of the preference for, or avoidance of, mergers. There are no complete mergers in the data but there are a few candidates such as the vowels in 'ear', the reversal of h-dropping and the ups and downs in the use of the /w/ ~ /hw/ distinction. H-dropping is particularly relevant since it was not a feature of IrE - undoubtedly a non-standard accent - and avoided for social reasons in EngE. It acquired the sub- standard connotations in both AusE and NZE, while the neutral attitudes of IrE did not win out. NZE-Origin logically argues that the data do reflect the role of social factors and doubt a purely mechanistic explanation even if it seems to be supported by language acquisition data. The role of the family and the peer group should also warn against such a simplistic view. I pass over other factors such as the role of gender, lexical diffusion of change rather than phonemic change, etc., and come to some evaluative points.
Multiple causation is a concept the authors mention several times but do not develop further. One would have liked to see the cumulative effect of, say, regional background (of parents), education and phonetic factors. The authors fail to consider in this context the possibility of the role of on- going migrations, the 'second wave, that Ellis (1889) already referred to (cf. Leitner 2004a/b). Why the authors take such an isolationist, single origin stance remains a mystery in light of the data. Why cannot, to give an example, diphthong shift have been co-produced on the basis of some precedents and on-going change in England? Why could h-dropping not have been reversed under the influence of education and the fashions brought in by more middle-class migrants. In fact, it is highly questionable that it was used a lot in NZE at the time and it certainly could have regressed in AusE earlier. It must have been brought in later, as I argued in Leitner (2004a/b). In fact determinism would have to rule out such features as they must have been minority features, unsupported by large numbers. The authors do consider the possible conflict between local formations and exo- normativism (which, after all, facilitates the adoption of the linguistic fashions of new migrants), etc.
I will turn to problems with the comparison of NZE and AusE. NZE-Origin assumes an interaction as a result of migration and political control from New South Wales and a common heritage in southern EngE. All that is acknowledged by the authors. However, there are two issues that warrant scrutiny. The first is the dating of the origin of AusE since it bears upon the second point, i.e. the nature of the influence. I will begin with the dating. NZE-Origin implies a late date for AusE, a point that is made more dogmatically by Trudgill (2004). NZE-Origin claims that Alexander (not "Alex") G. Mitchell said that AusE originated around 1861 and refers to a paper he gave in 1993. That paper was circulated by the University of Sydney in 1995 and has been published in the Australian Journal of Linguistics 23 (2), 2003. NZE-Origin quotes correctly that Mitchell put forward an early date of 1831 but then, wrongly, concludes that he settled on 1861. I quote from Mitchell:
'There are persistent references from about the end of the Macquarie era [...] to a distinctive manner of speaking among the Australian born. Some scholars, notably Bernard favour the view that a distinctive Australian style of speech emerged quite early among the young, and hold that the peer group is the most powerful agent ....' [abbrev. quote from Mitchell 1995: 25; p 224]
NZE-Origin goes on to argue that Mitchell settled on a later date on the basis of demographic data:
Mitchell arrives at the 1861 date because that is when the number of native born was approaching being half the total population (...). If Bernard's earlier date [of the early 1830s, GL] ... is accepted, Australian English was firmly established at the time of the first European settlement of New Zealand. Moreover, Mitchell's later date of 1861 still allows the possibility of an already focused variety of English in Australia affecting the newly forming variety of New Zealand after 1860. (p 224)
Unlike Trudgill (2004: 23f), the authors do not insist on that reading. But it is wrong to even argue that Mitchell dated the rise of AusE at 1861. Shortly after the passage quoted by NZE-Origin, Mitchell says
'We now have the benefit of a thorough study of the first generation of Australians - Portia Robinson's The hatch and brood of a time (1985). It is clear from that they [the native born kids of the earliest period, GL] were well capable of exercising a strong influence on the transmission of language. The quality of their lives and their abilities and initiative as revealed by Robinson adds strength to Bernard's argument.' (Mitchell 1995: 26)
He sides with Bernard's early dating. What is worse is the fact that the authors do not quote Mitchell's (2001) ms that he left after his death and which was the basis of the Mitchell symposium at Macquarie University in 2002. That ms makes it clear that AusE emerged in the 1820s and 1830s and that a distinction between what was (later) called Broad AusE and General AusE developed between the 1860s and 1880s:
Broad Australian had emerged in 1828, that is after forty years, and General Australian emerged about the 1870s or 1880s, that is after another forty or fifty years. General Australian was a consequence of a coincident surge of the two forces that have produced the Australian population immigration and natural increase. (ms 2001: 62; cf. Leitner 2004b)
Broad and General had "coexisted in the 1850s (possibly earlier) and continued to coexist", he had said earlier (2001: 58). Regarding Victoria, he suggested that the emergence [of an Australian speech, GL] was not sudden but very gradual, in an unbroken continuity going back to the First Fleet, given a powerful impetus in the 1840s with the first achievement of a solid platform for national increase of population (ms 2001: 37).
Though the General grew out of the Broad, the two differed in their demographic base:
Broad Australian developed as a mostly rural and male speech; and General Australian developed as mostly an urban speech in a demographic pattern of a good balance of the sexes and rising rate of natural increase. (ms 2001: 72)
Why NZE-Origin and Trudgill (2004) could ignore that document is a mystery, but it is clear that a very general AusE base emerged early. The impact of that is far-reaching, as I argued in Leitner (2004a). A number of significant features of AusE (as well as of NZE) did not exist at that time and could not be imported. Paraphrasing Leitner (2004b; section 3.6.1), the diphthongal onset of /i:/ was mentioned at the end of the 19th century. Jones (1909: 34) refers to a diphthongal quality of /i:/ but implies that it must have been a late 19th century phenomenon. He believes that /i:/ is regularly diphthongized in London English and may begin with the vowel in 'kit' or with what he describes as 'ei', i.e. a low version of the vowel in 'kit'. There is uncertainty about short /e/. Some experts say it was a mid-high vowel like very close or Cardinal /e/, others that it was open and close to Cardinal /e/. MacMahon (1998: 453) suggests that there was a wide array of variation in EngE by the middle of the 19th century and that EngE and, above all, RP had a somewhat closer vowel quality. It follows that /æ/ was variable up to the 1830s and that thereafter there was some lowering in EngE accents. Lowering to an [a] quality in RP is recent. The diphthong /e(/, which derived from /e:/, was said to be frequent after 1800 in BrE and AmE, but not the only option and not with a low onset. Ellis, who observed that vowel closely in London, found both monophthongal and diphthongal realizations in regular use in London at around the late 1860s and the early 1870s (1874: 1109; fr. MacMahon 1998: 451). Writing at about the same time, Sweet (1877) drew attention to the lowering of the starting point
'I find that boys under twelve speak a different language from mine: they broaden the vowels, making take almost into tike, no almost into now, see almost into say' (letter by Sweet to Sayce, April 3, 1880). (fr. MacMahon 1998: 451)
It is of course interesting to note ONZE evidence that these features were used by some speakers born around the middle of the 19th century. But the frequencies permit alternative explanations such as accommodation or language change among adult speakers with regard to highly salient features.
NZE-Origin is a major contribution to the origin and development of NZE and one that has significant implications on language change theory. The origin of the project, the discovery of the oral history tapes at the NZBC, was a chance find and what was done with them is most impressive and admirable. The book has a sound structure, is well argued and progresses from the local NZ perspective to that of theory, never losing sight of potential conflicts between explanatory paradigms. The fact that a such wide range of often opposing forces have been identified leads to the question if there could not be a clearer socio-historical theory. It is a virtue of the book that it shows that opposing forces reflect the fact that society is never homogeneous, always full of conflicts, etc.
Bailey, G., N. Maynor, and P. Cukor-Avila, ed., 1991. The emergence of Black English: Text and commentary. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bernard, John, 1985. On the uniformity of spoken Australian English, Orbis 18(1), 62-73.
Görlach, Manfred, 1999. English in 19th century England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hickey, Raymond, 2002. How do dialects get the features they have?, in: Raymond Hickey, ed., Motives for language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 257-282.
Labov, William 1994. Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
Labov, William, 2000. Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
Leitner, Gerhard, 2004a. Beyond Alexander Mitchell's views on the history of Australian English, Australian Journal of Linguistics 24(1), 99-126.
Leitner, Gerhard, 2004b. Australia's Many Voices. Australian English - The National language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Leitner, Gerhard, 2004c. Australia's Many Voices. Ethnic Englishes, Indigenous and migrant languages. Policy and education. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Leitner, Gerhard, Brian Taylor, Clemens Fritz, in progress. Language in Australia and New Zealand. A bibliography 1788-2003. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
MacMahon, Michael, 1998. Phonology, in: Suzanne Romaine, ed., The Cambridge history of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 373-535.
Mitchell, Alexander, 1995. The story of Australian English. Dictionary Research Centre, The University of Sydney [reprinted in Australian Journal of Linguistics 23(2), 2003].
Mitchell, Alexander, 2001. The story of Australian English [= draft edited by Colin Yallop from the original manuscript. Macquarie University, Sydney].
Trudgill, Peter, 1986. Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.
Trudgill, Peter, 2004. New-dialect formation. The inevitability of colonial Englishes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER:
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Professor of English linguistics. Research interests: English worldwide, esp. in Australia, Asia; studies of language habitats such as Australia's; mass media language(s), language policies in the European Union, Australia, ASEAN. Recent publications "Australia's Many Voices. Australian English - The National Language" (=Contributions to the Sociology of Language 90- 1) and "Australia's Many Voices. Ethnic Englishes, Indigenous and Migrant Languages. Policy and Education" (=Contributions to the Sociology of Language 90-2), both published by Mouton de Gruyter.