Tok Pisin and English in Papua New Guinea – the Value of Census Data

SPCL 2011- Accra

Tok Pisin and English in Papua New Guinea – the value of Census data

Adam Blaxter Paliwala University of Sydney

Adam Blaxter Paliwala University of Sydney [email protected] 1 Sources of Census Data 1966-1971 : Laycock, D. (1985b). Tok Pisin and the census. The Handbook of Tok Pisin. S. A. Wurm and P. Muhlhausler: 223-231. Sankoff, G. (1980). Mullingualism in Papua New Guinea. Social Life of Language. G. Sankoff: 95-132. 1980 : Romaine, S. (1992). Language, educaon, and development : urban and rural Tok Pisin in Papua New Guinea. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Jenkins, R. S. (2000). Language Contact and Composite Structures in New Ireland, Papua New Guinea. PhD, University of South CarolinaRomaine Naonal Stascal Office, C. (1994). Report on the 1990 Naonal Populaon and Housing Census in Papua New Guinea. Port Moresby, Naonal Stascal Office: 397 1990 : Naonal Stascal Office, C. (1994). Report on the 1990 Naonal Populaon and Housing Census in Papua New Guinea. Port Moresby, Naonal Stascal Office: 397 2000 : Naonal Stascal Office, C. (2002a). 2000 Census Basic Tables - Naonal Level. Port Moresby, Naonal Stascal Office. Sankoff, D. (2008). How to predict the evoluon of a bilingual community. Social lives in language. M. Meyerhoff and N. Nagy. Amsterdam, John Benjamins: 179-194.

[email protected] 2 Papua New Guinea language situaon

• Populaon 2000 : PNG ≈ 5.14 million 10+ Years old : ≈ 3.7 million

• Extreme case of Indigenous Linguisc Diversity

• 800+ Indigenous Languages

• Pidgin ‘Naonal Langauges’: • Urban Centres: • Rural Areas • Educaon • Tok Pisin (TP) • Tok Pisin • Indigenous • Tok Ples • Hiri Motu • English • Tok Pisin • English (HM) • ‘Oﬃcal Language’: • English (Eng) 3 Quesons of Interest

• I. Spread of a pidgin/creole language – Number of users * • II. First-language usage – ‘creole’ speakers * • III. Mullingualism with Indigenous Vernaculars – ‘substrate’ effects * • IV. Mullingualism with Lexifier – ‘superstrate’ effects & ‘decreolizaon’ *

[email protected] 4 PNG Census History - Summary • Early: 1966-1971 : – Restricted to urban and 10% of rural populaon – Spread of ‘naonal’ languages • Tok Pisin – spoken/wrien • Hiri Motu – spoken/wrien • English – spoken/wrien – Literacy in other languages • Post-Independence: 1980 – ‘long form’ queson for urban populaon mainly – Domains of language use – Spread of English, Creole Tok Pisin • Naonal Census : 1990-2000 – Naonal Census – Literacy skills : United Naons Educaon Index [email protected] 5 Papua New Guinea Census Changing Quesons Quesons: Spoken / Wrien Home & Market Ability to Read & Write Languages language 1966, 1971 1980 1990, 2000, 2011 1961 1965 1967 1968 1969 1971 1975 1977 1978 1979 1981 1985 1987 1988 1989 1991 1995 1997 1998 1999 2001 2005 2007 2008 2009 2011 2000 2002 2003 2004 2006 2010 1960 1962 1963 1964 1966 1970 1972 1973 1974 1976 1980 1982 1983 1984 1986 1990 1992 1993 1994 1996

Australian Independence = 1975 Administraon Sample: ‘long form’ & Naonal Census Urban + 10% Rural ‘short form’ Competence Domains Literacy / Use [email protected] 1990 ‘Literacy’ focus • UN Index requires literacy rates • No measure of verbal vs literate competence in the community. • 1990: asked if literate in English, Tok Pisin, Motu, or any other language. – read and write simple messages or leers in a language – No speciﬁc language skills tested • "it was assumed that as in most cases the enumerator was appointed from the locality, he also knew who was able to read and write with understanding.” (Naonal Stascal oﬃce 1994)

[email protected] 7 Census 2000 Naonal Literacy Populaon over 10 years ≈ 3.7 million • The 2000 census was conducted using a single one-page form, printed enrely in English. • The task of interpreng the quesons for non-English-literate informants was le to English-speakers in individual households or the community at large, or to the census enumerators. • Literacy Queson: – Language skills were only assessed for persons over 10 years of age, along with advanced educaonal aainments and details of employment. • Queson 14 asked “Which languages can the person read and write with understanding?”. – The four opons given were: English, Pidgin, Motu, Tokples. – Yes/No answers were provided by check-box.

8 Changing Quesons = Changing Data

• Data Differences: – Different Sample sizes – Different Quesons – Different tests applied – Different Polical Agendas • Quesons: – Compable Data? – Tok Pisin & English : change over me? – What can ‘literacy’ tell us?

[email protected] Census 2000 Naonal Literacy Populaon over 10 years ≈ 3.7 million 3%

Total Literate in any language 42% Total not literate 55% Total literacy not reported

[email protected] 10 2000 Literate – Hiri Motu 180,000 ≈ 5%

Literate in Hiri Motu

Literates without Hiri Motu

[email protected] 11 2000 Literacy - English 1.4 million ≈ 39%

Literate in English

Literate without English

[email protected] 12 2000 Literacy – Tok Pisin 1.6 million ≈ 44%

Literate in Tok Pisin

Literate without Tok Pisin

[email protected] 13 Literacy as a measure of Competence?

(45% illiterate populaon must be speaking something…) Census Data 1966 – Literacy (non-indigenous languages)

Tok Pisin

Tok Pisin, English

Police (Hiri) Motu

English

[email protected] 15 Census Data 1966 – Competence (non-indigenous languages)

Tok Pisin

Tok Pisin, English

Police (Hiri) Motu

English

[email protected] 16 Census Data 1971 – Competence (non-indigenous languages)

Tok Pisin

Tok Pisin, English

Police (Hiri) Motu

English

[email protected] 17 Comparing Census Data

• Papua New Guinea Census ﬁgures : Combined (literacy ﬁgures indicated)

Laycock 1985 Source Laycock 1985 Table 3 Laycock 1985 Romaine 1992 Romaine 1992 Report 1994 Report 2002 (Literacy) (Literacy) (Literacy) (Literacy) 1966 1966 1971 1980 1980 1990 2000 English 13.27 11.41 20.37 22.34 20.17 29.1 39.2 Tok Pisin 36.5 12.23 44.49 45 20.2 30.7 43.9 Motu 8.14 3.38 9.48 9.4 4.5 6 4.9

Other 15.93 14.23 38.5 40.5

[email protected] 18 Literacy % 1966-2000

30 English

25 Tok Pisin

20 Motu

15 Other

0 1966 1980 1990 2000

[email protected] 19 Census Data 1966 – Literacy (non-indigenous languages)

Tok Pisin

Tok Pisin, English

Police (Hiri) Motu

English

[email protected] 20 Census Data 2000 – Literacy (non-indigenous languages)

Tok Pisin

Tok Pisin, English

Police (Hiri) Motu

English

[email protected] 21 Calculang Literacy 1980-1990

• Literacy Rates : 1966 : 22% à 1990 : 45% à 2000 : 55%

• 1994 Report : 1980 figures were esmated on the assumpon that cizens over 10 years who had completed grade 3+ were literate. – Naonal Stascal office 1994 report calculaon of 27.7% • Romaine obtained literacy figures around 32.3% for 1980 census = 5% higher – 1980-1990 : Literacy growth rate per annum at 6.4% is much higher than populaon growth rate of 2.3%

[email protected] 22 Census 2000 – ‘Literacy Gap’ • ≈ 500,000 more cizens reported reading and wring ability (literacy) at queson 14 than who had completed grade 3 educaon. – Grade 3+ ≈ 1.64 million – Q14 Literate ≈ 2.15 million • This represents approximately 10% of the populaon of Papua New Guinea – Even though Grade 3+ ﬁgures include 5-9 y/olds who were not included in Q14

[email protected] 23 ‘Literacy Gap’ - Quesons

• Q1. How does this gap eﬀect literacy growth rates? • Q2. Why is there a gap? – i. D. Sankoﬀ’s account – ii. Alternave explanaon

24 1. Growth in Literacy over me Esmated Literacy Rates for 2000 are 10% lower than reported rates. PNG Naonal Census Literacy Rates Reported and Calculated 1966-2000

60.00%

50.00% 10%

40.00% 10% 30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00% 1966 1971 1980 (Grade 3+) 1990 2000 (Grade 3+ of C2) 2000

[email protected] 25 2.i. D. Sankoﬀ : connuing educaon

• Argued that the post-school age growth in literacy was due to acquision of skills in the workplace/adulthood • One explanaon for diﬀerence between Grade 3+ ‘literacy’ and reported literacy (‘literacy gap’) in 2000 census

[email protected] 26 2.i. D Sankoﬀ’s Late-literacy

90%

80%

70%

60% Rural % English 50% Rural % Tok Pisin 40% Urban % English 30% Urban % Tok Pisin

20%

10%

0% 14 19 24 29 39 49 59 69 70+ • REM: under 18s = Mühlhäusler’s (1985g: 238) earliest category of Tok Pisin speakers

[email protected] 27 2.ii. Alternave Explanaon I looked at the high levels of Tokples ‘Other’ language literacy reported in 2000 Census: • 1.5 million people • A remarkable success for the Tokples Educaon Program? • Siegel 1998 : – 1994 Government Secretariat Report : 2,309 vernacular preschool programs with 4,581 teachers and 79,445 students in over 200 languages – Adult literacy programs : 330, with 449 teachers and 7,543 students – These included Tok Pisin as an accepted Tokples • Nb. many Tokples with limited orthographies

[email protected] 2.ii. 2000 Literacy – ‘Other’ 1.5 million ≈ 40%

Literate in 'Other'

Literates without 'other'

[email protected] 29 Tokples Educaon • A (very) rough (over-) esmate : • 80,000 Preschool students each 2 years 1980-2000 => 800,000+ Vernacular literates

– Sll well short of the Reported Census figures of 1.5 million • Nb. Esmate would include Tok Pisin literates also => An even larger ‘literacy gap’? • Where does all this ‘Other’ language literacy come from? 30 2.ii. Explanaon: Answering the Queson • Was the Census 2000 Language Queson interpreted as a queson on language Ability, rather than Literacy? – 50% of informants in Port Moresby Households could not recall if there was a language queson 2 years later – 1:3 of them recalled it as a queson about reading/wring skills – Suggests that reported ‘literacy’ figures may represent overesmaons: • People misunderstood the queson • Literate cizens included all the languages they knew • High figures for vernacular literacy compared to formal educaon/ orthographies etc. “care needs to be exercised in how the figures are to be interpreted.” (Crowley 1994: 2)

[email protected] 31 Recap: Quesons of Interest

[email protected] 32 Interpretaons : Literacy ‘Literacy’ ﬁgure may be higher or lower than reading and wring skills, but presumably lower than speaking skills Census Data 1966 – Literacy Census Data 1966 – Competence (non-indigenous languages) (non-indigenous languages) Tok Pisin Tok Pisin

Tok Pisin, Tok Pisin, English English Police (Hiri) Police (Hiri) Motu Motu English English

Tok Pisin, Hiri Tok Pisin, Hiri Motu, English Motu, English Hiri Motu, Hiri Motu, English English

33 Interpretaons I

• Number of Users of Tok Pisin Census 2000 Literacy – Tok Pisin 1.6 million ≈ 44%

Literate in Tok Pisin

Literate without Tok Pisin

[email protected] 35 Interpretaons II

• ‘Creole’ ‘Creole’ Literacy – Tok Pisin Mono-literates : 136,000 ≈ 4%

Tok Pisin Mul-literate

Tok Pisin Mono- literate

[email protected] 37 Interpretaons III

• ‘Substrates’

• Assuming those reporng ‘literacy’ in a Tokples are able to speak it to some degree: – Potenal for ‘substrate’ or L1 eﬀects Substrate Eﬀects? Hiri Motu with ‘Other’

Mono-literate

Bi-literate with 'Other'

Mul-literate with 'Other' Mul-literate without 'Other'

39 Substrate Eﬀects? Tok Pisin with ‘Other’

Mono-literate

Bi-literate with 'Other'

Mul-literate with 'Other' Mul-literate without 'Other'

[email protected] 40 Substrate Eﬀects? English with ‘Other’

Mono-literate

Bi-literate with 'Other'

Mul-literate with 'Other' Mul-literate without 'Other'

[email protected] 41 ‘Substrate’?

• 800+ ‘Other’ languages = ‘Substrate’? • English a signiﬁcant language in mullingualism • Big overlap of ‘Other’ with Hiri Motu • ‘Substrate’ Eﬀect arguably present on English as well as Tok Pisin • REM: Over-esmaon of Tokples literacy? • REM: Literacy and Competance

[email protected] 42 Interpretaons IV

• ‘Superstrate’ Superstrate Eﬀects? Tok Pisin Literates ≈ 1.6 million

Mono-literate

Biliterate with English Mulliterate with English Multliterate without English

[email protected] 44 Tok Pisin and English

• Conclusions for my work on Bilingual eﬀects on Tok Pisin from English: – Mul-literate Tok Pisin / English frequent – As many people bi-literate in Tok Pisin and English as literate in Tok Pisin without English • ‘Literacy’ ﬁgure may be higher or lower than reading and wring skills, but presumably lower than speaking skills

[email protected] 45 Interpretaons : Summary Tok Pisin in 2000 Census – I. Tok Pisin Community > 44% – II. Tok Pisin Creole community? : 4% – III. Substrate Eﬀects? : 37% – IV. Superstrate eﬀects? : 33% • Bi-literacy Tok Pisin / English : 7% of populaon

[email protected] Census Data 2000 – Literacy (non-indigenous languages)

Tok Pisin

Tok Pisin, English

Police (Hiri) Motu

English

[email protected] 47 Comments

• Census data on literacy is only the p of the iceberg • 1 million strong community of Tok Pisin / English mul-literates • An underlying greater non-literate community? • Census 2000 data establishes English and Tok Pisin as key growth languages in Papua New Guinean • Community featuring Post-pidgin ‘superstrate’ eﬀects?

[email protected] Goroka Market - Signage

[email protected] 49 References I.

Crowley, T. (1994). "Linguisc demography: Interpreng the 1989 census results in Vanuatu." Journal of Mullingual and Mulcultural Development 15(1): 1-16. Extra, G. (2010). Mapping linguisc diversity in mulcultural contexts: demolinguisc perspecves. Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identy. J. A. Fishman and O. Garcia. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 102-122. Jenkins, R. S. (2000). Language Contact and Composite Structures in New Ireland, Papua New Guinea. PhD, University of South Carolina. Laycock, D. (1985b). Tok Pisin and the census. The Handbook of Tok Pisin. S. A. Wurm and P. Muhlhausler: 223-231. Mühlhäusler, P. (1985g). Variaon in Tok Pisin. The Handbook of Tok Pisin. S. A. Wurm and P. Muhlhausler: 233-273. Naonal Stascal Office, C. (1994). Report on the 1990 Naonal Populaon and Housing Census in Papua New Guinea. Port Moresby, Naonal Stascal Office: 397. Naonal Stascal Office, C. (2002a). 2000 Census Basic Tables - Naonal Level. Port Moresby, Naonal Stascal Office.

[email protected] 50 References II.

Noel, J. (1975). Legimacy of Pidgin in the Development of Papua New Guinea toward naonhood. Tok Pisin i Go We? K. A. McElhanon. Port Moresby, Linguisc Society of Papua New Guinea: 76-84. Romaine, S. (1992). Language, educaon, and development : urban and rural Tok Pisin in Papua New Guinea. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Sankoff, D. (2008). How to predict the evoluon of a bilingual community. Social lives in language. M. Meyerhoff and N. Nagy. Amsterdam, John Benjamins: 179-194. Sankoff, G. (1977). Creolizaon and Syntacc Change in New Guinea Tok Pisin. Sociocultural dimensions of language change. B. G. Blount and M. Sanches. New York, Academic Press Inc: 119. Sankoff, G. (1980). Mullingualism in Papua New Guinea. Social Life of Language. G. Sankoff: 95-132. Siegel, J. (1998). "Literacy in Melanesian and Australian pidgins and creoles." English World-Wide 19(1): 104-133. Smith, G. P. (2002). Growing up with Tok Pisin - Contact, creolizaon, and change in Papua New Guinea's naonal language. London, Balebridge.

[email protected] 51