Tutu's Hawaiian and the Emergence of a Neo-Hawaiian Language

[galaxyrocker]

https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/h ... 0125/21194

I read this thesis a while ago, and thought it was fairly interesting and poignant. The same issue, for instance, is happening in Irish (something I just ranted about in my log, for those interested; really, it involves a lack of want by learners to interact with natives) and just thought others might be interested in discussing it and throwing in comments. I admit it's one thing I struggle with when it comes to Irish, as, to me, native speech is to be valued above all else, but many don't feel that way (and some don't see natives as proper linguistic models). Instead, we're seeing what could be a new language evolve. But we can leave that on my log, if you wish.

Anyway, I was just wondering any comments/thoughts y'all had about this article. I'm also wondering if the issue has arisen in any other minority language (Chung? Henkkles? what about N. Sami/Basque?) and, if not, how it has been avoided. Generally, I'd say it comes down to where the push to support the language comes from -- i.e. if it's inside the community, there won't be much shift; if it's outside, they might not even be mutually intelligible.

[iguanamon]

I can't access the paper. Can you post some relevant excerpts? I think I know what you're addressing here, the changing of a language into an anglified version with the original language vocabulary super-imposed on an English- grammatical structure... in other words "not the Hawaiian of the native-speakers" but a new and different language- a shadow of its former self taken to be the real thing by those who are its new speakers and advocates.

[galaxyrocker]

I can't access the paper. Can you post some relevant excerpts? I think I know what you're addressing here, the changing of a language into an anglified version with the original language vocabulary super-imposed on an English- grammatical structure... in other words "not the Hawaiian of the native-speakers" but a new and different language- a shadow of its former self taken to be the real thing by those who are its new speakers and advocates.

Sorry about that! I found it on Scribd, so you can likely access it that way (it's easy to get a month's free trial, and the document is publicly available, so I don't see any legal issues with downloading it from there) if you're interested in reading it.

But, yes, you're exactly correct in your assumption. Perhaps the best part is that he gives 17 clear examples of differences, and it's easy to see that the non-natives' variety is greatly influenced by English. I'll quote a few of these (they're in a side-by-side format in the paper, so I apologize that it won't be a fully accurate citation). Examples are omitted.

Neo-Hawiian:


1. An American or Hawi'i English accent

[2-7 and 17, omitted, deal with other areas of pronunciation]

8. Consistent use of ua (verb) in expressing English past tense in the active voice...

9. Consistently using traditional expressions that are very seldom or never used by today's native speakers...

10. Using words in ways that are inconsistent with typical native usage ...

[11-12 also talk about common usage differences]

13. High value placed on limited, prescriptive set of grammatical structures and rules, as studied in the classroom and/or grammar texts. High value placed on the training and knowledge of course instructors.

14. High usage of recently invented terms that are unknown to native speakers..

15. A shallow inventory of traditional vocabulary

16. Preference for certain traditional expressions or vocabulary based on one experience interacting with one, two or three native speakers (as opposed to many interactions with many native speakers) or on 19th century texts or Pukui & Ebert

Now for his corresponding statements on traditional Hawiian

Traditional Hawiian:

1. A distinct accent that is relatively consistent among native speakers.

8. Eight ways to express the past tense and/or aspect.

9. Such Neo-Hawaiian expressions are almost or never heard among native speakers ... [Here he lists some alternatives that natives would say]

10. Typical usage ...

13. High value placed on spoken Hawiian lexical usage that sometimes contradicts scholastic thought. High value placed on learning from fellow traditional speakers, especially family members.

14. Use of traditional Hawaiian terms and expression for various concepts.

15. A deep vocabulary inventory with keen understanding of nuances.

16. Tendencies towards using certain expressions and vocabulary based on interaction with many native speakers over the period of a lifetime. This gives rise to the usage of many expressions with a keen understanding of the many possible contexts and nuances for each.

(NeSmith 2002, 21-26)

He even mentions, right after that list he says that it's relatively easy to hear the difference just by listening to recordings of natives v. non-natives. He also mentions that cultural things from English transport over, such as calling a baby cute when traditional Hawiians would call the baby "ugly" to avoid making an unwelcome hearer jealous and hostile towards the baby and/or parents. Sometimes, this tendency has gone so far that Neo-Hawiian speakers use the same word for "cute" in all situations, whereas native speakers would use different phrases when talking about a cute puppy versus a cute child (ibid. 26-27, 30)

Pages 31-33 bring to light the crux of the issue -- the attitude differences. He lists three common excuses he hears for these changes.

1. All languages evolve; therefore, the language that is spoken and passed on by the second-language speakers is still Hawiian despite the distinguishing characteristics between traditional and second-language speakers.

2. There are not enough native speakers to convey native-like speech, but Hawiian language courses utilize nineteenth and twentieth century Hawiian texts and audio cassette recordings of native speakers; therefore, the language of second language speakers is as genuine as that of native speakers.

3. The time of the native speaker has passed and second-language speech is all that is left; but there's no question the language is still Hawiian

(Side note: 1 and 3 are what I hear most in regards to Irish)

He then offers a rebuttal for each of these, a quick summary of which is:

1. Languages evolve by native speakers, and now that's being changed; therefore, it's not really natural language evolution

2. Textbooks and old audio recordings can't convey tone, nuance, etc. between two people on in conversations; they're "sterile" and most speakers don't follow prescriptive grammar rules.

3. I believe this is his best rebuttal, and it's fairly short so I'll quote it in full"

I believe this argument represents a defeatist attitude. It represents a sense of frustration and futility in tying to acquire the speech of native speakers. It represents hopelessness and argues for a need to create a new language based on the inventions of our minds. If we allow for this argument, then the question "What is Hawaiian?" becomes crucial. If we are admitting to ourselves that the speech of native speakers is unknowable and different from the speech of neo-Hawiian speakers, we are admitting that the two different languages exist, or at least, two different forms of the same language. In either sense, there is a difference between the two.

In actuality, native speakers are not all dead. They are rare and the greatest concentration of them is among the Ni'ihau community. Whether one seeks out the naive speakers to learn their manner of speech is a responsibility of the learner. But to say it is no longer possible to learn the speech of the native Hawiian speaker is not true. Although difficult, it is possible.

He also talks about the interaction between the two groups in various ways -- social, political, educational, etc. But, really, it all sums up to how iguanamon expressed it: "a shadow of its former self taken to be the real thing by those who are its new speakers and advocates." It's a shame that it is happening, but it is interesting to see this study about it.

[nooj]

I've read this paper before, and I agree with him for the most part.

I watched a recent video of his and he seems to be more positive about this whole thing. I certainly think he thinks that these language activists are coming from the right place, it's just the methodology that is wonky. He's not as grumpy as some people can be about this issue. He actually grew up in a town that got a lot of people from Ni'ihau visiting, so he grew up around the language, even though he is not a native speaker. Most people have to go back to their grandparents or even their great grandparents to find native speakers of the language.

I've said this before on reddit. You should never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER let your language die in the first place. The Hawaiians were dealt an awful deal (see the Wikipedia entry for the sad history of Hawai'i), but even so, it was ultimately the parent's responsibility to teach the language to their children. Unfortunately they thought they were doing something good for their children in raising them as monolinguals, but they were wrong.

Revitalising a language is so bloody hard in the first place, and by the time you are at that point, you will have entirely new problems on your plate. Just better to never let your language die. But if you do happen to get to that point, revitalisation must have a clear goal from the outset, because it will be a generational endeavour, and if you mess it up from the start, it will take decades to undo if ever, and that's time that an endangered language doesn't have. If there had been far more input from the folk from Ni'ihau from the start, most of these problems would not exist.

I personally think it comes down to goals. Yes, new forms of revitalised languages are sometimes very different from the old languages, I think it's almost inevitable although its worst excesses can be avoided with sound planning and community wide consultation.

However, if your aim to try to differentiate yourself from the rest and reacquire a sense of national or ethnic or linguistic identity that you never knew personally, then any form of Hawaiian is still very effective. English speakers don't give a damn if your Hawaiian is like the one your great grandfather spoke: it's still Chinese to them. If you want to differentiate yourself from the English speakers, then neo-Haiwaiian serves that goal, reasonably well.

[Josquin]

Unfortunately, I can't contribute to the discussion, but it would be interesting to hear Teango's opinion on the matter...

(He's living on Hawaii and has studied some Hawaiian in the course of his PhD studies.)

[vonPeterhof]

I personally think it comes down to goals. Yes, new forms of revitalised languages are sometimes very different from the old languages, I think it's almost inevitable although its worst excesses can be avoided with sound planning and community wide consultation.

However, if your aim to try to differentiate yourself from the rest and reacquire a sense of national or ethnic or linguistic identity that you never knew personally, then any form of Hawaiian is still very effective. English speakers don't give a damn if your Hawaiian is like the one your great grandfather spoke: it's still Chinese to them. If you want to differentiate yourself from the English speakers, then neo-Haiwaiian serves that goal, reasonably well.

I'm reminded of this blog post by a person who was involved with several revitalization projects, talking about a paradigm shift that he thinks is necessary in the relationship between the language and its traditional domains in order for the revitalization to truly succeed.

[nooj]

Alan R King is quite well known! I've got several of his books on Basque.

Clearly then, the initial growth of the language movement was not causally dependent on any sort of official political backing, and was not generated, instigated or supported from above but from “below” from the sixties onwards. Subsequently the new institutions formed in the eighties took the Basque language movement on board mainly because there was strong social pressure to do so. If the grassroots movement had not happened first I am very doubtful that the new Basque authorities in the eighties would have addressed language recovery anything like as vigorously, and this is a cautionary tale to those tempted to think that we should delegate to government institutions and politicians responsibity and initiative for somehow making language recovery happen. Languages stay alive because people want them to.

Couldn't agree more.

If we look at the most successful example of language revitalisation, there was no state support whatsoever for Hebrew at first. It was in the beginning one man, and then a core group of fanatical followers who shared his desire. They moved from their homes to a distant land, they gave up comforts, family, jobs, in order to do this. Maybe you don't need this level of fanaticism, but I would argue that what is necessary is far closer to this kind of craziness, than a merely lukewarm interest. Too often this lukewarmness manifests in an over reliance on the state. Don't get me wrong, the government can and must help, but the original core comes from grassroots efforts. Governments change their minds as they are beholden to temporary, transient concerns. They answer to the voters, and in many cases the voters don't care about a minority, endangered language.

So worst case: the government is the one persecuting you in which case of course you can't rely on them. Best case: they support you, but that could change 10 years down the road.

It's like a pyramid. If the base is not there, then it's very rickety. Imagine what will happen when the government support is taken away (millions of dollars of funding, public education etc): can your language survive? It doesn't matter how much money the government throws into it, if people are not willing to speak the language to their children, to their friends, in the streets, then no force on Earth can save the language.

The flip side to that is that a passionate, motivated language speaker is an unmovable rock. Ben Yehuda was the point around which the world had to move, because he would not. And thanks to that determination, Hebrew has millions of native speakers today.

Imagine if every single Irish speaker today was as stubborn, egotistical, brash, in your face, violent (?), passionate, determined as Ben Yehuda!

Perfectly stated:

The adult generation which realises that the survival of their ancestral language depends on them is a generation that, in a sense, sacrifices itself for future generations, because this generation adopts a language it speaks imperfectly so that their children and grandchildren can speak it perfectly, it works hard to achieve what future generations will achieve effortlessly thanks to them. These are people who will give up time and resources that could be spent on other voluntary or economic activities to devote that time and those resources to the LR movement. People who will voluntarily decide not to speak to their own children in their native language in order to make their children native speakers of the language undergoing LR.

Galaxyrocker, I'd like your opinion on this statement, given your strong support for the Gaeltacht:

f) The stronghold of our language is the countryside and the rural population, so that is where language recovery should be centred.

Experience shows that LR movements do not initially take off in the heart of the traditional language community, but what might be considered its edges. Typically, the heart of the language community is in the remote countryside; yet typically, LR movements take off in urban centres where the language is not generally spoken, because that is where the social conditions arise to motivate the movement and provide the social and other resources for it to get started.

This often comes as a surprise and may even lead to some attempts to reject the nascent movement as unauthentic or alien, but it seems that it cannot be any other way and all we can do is try to avoid and reconcile any such conflict. Thus, the traditionally rural language suddenly finds itself in an urban setting. But in the long perspective of LR, that is actually coherent because LR is about the language expanding into new domains. You don’t have to be poor to speak language X - not any more. You no longer need to live far away from civilization to speak X. You no longer need to belong to the lower social classes. You don’t have to lack education to speak it. It can even be spoken in the city. In fact, up to a point, it must be spoken in the city to stop it from dying in the countryside. It may be a contradiction, but it is how it works.

[Chung]

Anyway, I was just wondering any comments/thoughts y'all had about this article. I'm also wondering if the issue has arisen in any other minority language (Chung? Henkkles? what about N. Sami/Basque?) and, if not, how it has been avoided. Generally, I'd say it comes down to where the push to support the language comes from -- i.e. if it's inside the community, there won't be much shift; if it's outside, they might not even be mutually intelligible.

As far as I know there's nothing like this in the Saamic languages that I'm familiar with (Northern, Inari, Skolt). On a related note, I haven't encountered a pidgin language that stems from a Saamic language either, but just Russenorsk which combines Norwegian and Russian.

This is different though from the language contact that's been affecting Saamic languages for a couple of thousand years already at least. As it relates to the observations about Neo-Hawaiian, the most that I can come up with Saamic languages is this discussion on possessive suffixes that I started on Unilang. In short, it seems that Saamic possessive suffixes tend to be uncommon in speech probably under the influence of Norwegian and Swedish which don't use them, and I suspect because of the amount of "mental bureaucracy" surrounding their use with all of the consonant gradation, vowel mutation, and knowing which set of possessive endings to draw on. See here for a summary of the possessive suffixes in Northern Saami. Even though Finnish has a full set of possessive suffixes, Skolt Saami who speak Finnish (near-)natively don't seem to be influenced to use the possessive suffixes of Skolt Saami more in speech. I suspect that this applies to Northern Saami too; indeed my copy of the Finnish edition of "Davvin" never shows the technique for marking possession with suffixes even though a Finnish readership is familiar with the concept thanks to knowing it as used in Finnish.

According to one post in that thread on Unilang, a speaker of a Saamic language can show how good of a Saami he/she is by using the suffixes. I'm apt to think of it somewhat rather as grandstanding akin to using elements of legalese in everyday speech or just long, complex sentences with 5-dollar words or doublets of empty precision (e.g. "each and every", "part and parcel").

---

The speech communities for Inari Saami and Skolt Saami are so puny (about 350 speakers each, give or take) that they're going through revitalization via language nests a bit like what was used for Maori. Unlike Northern Saami which has had (just) enough kids learning the language at home to head off the need for nests, the same couldn't be said for the other two languages. If you want some idea of what's being done in Finland, check out this master's thesis on revitalizing Skolt Saami (in English). There're a couple of books on revitalizing Inari Saami in this downloadable one hosted by the Finno-Ugrian Society (you got to know Finnish to read this book) and this one (in English - paperback edition costs about $25 US).

In general, if you look up "revitalization Sami language" on Google, you should find a few other links or downloadable articles/studies/theses but not all of them will be in English.

[galaxyrocker]

If there had been far more input from the folk from Ni'ihau from the start, most of these problems would not exist.

I personally think it comes down to goals. Yes, new forms of revitalised languages are sometimes very different from the old languages, I think it's almost inevitable although its worst excesses can be avoided with sound planning and community wide consultation.

However, if your aim to try to differentiate yourself from the rest and reacquire a sense of national or ethnic or linguistic identity that you never knew personally, then any form of Hawaiian is still very effective. English speakers don't give a damn if your Hawaiian is like the one your great grandfather spoke: it's still Chinese to them. If you want to differentiate yourself from the English speakers, then neo-Haiwaiian serves that goal, reasonably well.

I completely agree that if there had been more input from Ni'ihau then most of the problems wouldn't exist, and I also agree that the majority of the issues could be avoided with solid planning.

As for the final paragraph, I personally have nothing against neo-X, when used as an identity marker. I do, however, have an issue when speakers start ignoring the living native ones, and refuse to learn that. Especially when it gets to the point (as it's fast approaching in Irish) where the two groups can't understand each other when speaking the same "language" (well, the natives often can, but they have to go through English as an intermediary first).

I'm reminded of this blog post by a person who was involved with several revitalization projects, talking about a paradigm shift that he thinks is necessary in the relationship between the language and its traditional domains in order for the revitalization to truly succeed.

Very interesting blog post but I'm not sure how much of what he says is applicable elsewhere, as it seems the Basque LR movement got its start from lots of contact with native speakers while it was still "underground" during the Franco area. That said, there are still lessons that can be learned, and I think part of Irish's problem is that the government forced it to be taught in schools nationwide despite there not being enough teachers with a competent level of Irish.

And, at least, comparing the two cases: a lot of Irish don't believe the language is actually close to death, because of the census-inflated numbers. It leads to a sense of nonchalance about it, which is why the "pop-up Gaeltachts" exist, but few people use the language daily in their community. It's also part of why I don't have much hope; it's become a hobby in real life for people and usually only used consistently online, which does nothing to revitalize a language on its own.

As to point f, which nooj asked about, I recognize that the language needs to spread into new areas of use. My issue with Urban-Irish is that it's being done without any contact/input from the native speakers. Kids are learning it (poorly) in schools, from non-native teachers, and, as such, it's quickly becoming different enough that native speakers struggle to understand them. Or, worse, the New Speakers struggle to understand the natives. And then they blame the native speakers for speaking an old form and not keeping up with the times, and that the language now belongs to the New Speakers instead of the actual native speakers who grew up with the language and have continued the unbroken line of speaking it. That's where my biggest issue lies. If the New Speakers would realize that they speak a neo-Irish that often seems to bare more similarities to English than traditional Irish, I'd have no problem with them choosing to use it as an identity marker. But they don't, yet still really don't interact much with the native speaking community, and that's where my issues lie.

Plus, there's a huge issue with regards to Irish in that it probably hasn't even reached a full stage 1 yet, as there are plenty of Irish who refuse to acknowledge that the language is dying because 1m people say they can "speak" Irish on the census...

Chung,

Thanks! I'll look into that English one and some of the other things you've suggested. One thing I've noticed is, for Irish, it seems to be how many "Irish" words you can use that determines how good you are. Now, this is mostly among the New Speakers, but they seem to vehemently dislike borrowings, yet the grammar can often be majorly different. But, as long as you use few English words/borrowings, you're a good speaker. It's kinda interesting to see, and makes me wish more research was being done into it.

[Xmmm]

Hawaiians are also chucking the traditional "Hawaiian sound" (ukeleles, etc.) in favor of reggae. Sic transit gloria mundi.