Aspects of Change in the Syntax of Māori - a Corpus-Based Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Aspects of change in the syntax of Māori - a corpus-based study BY KARENA GWEN KELLY A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Victoria University of Wellington (2015) i ABSTRACT In the current climate of Māori language revitalisation, there is ample anecdotal evidence to suggest that not only the vocabulary, but also the syntax of modern Māori is markedly different from its traditional roots, and that it shows significant influence from English syntax. However, syntactic change in Māori has not hitherto been rigorously studied. This thesis aims to provide material evidence of change in Māori syntax, through a corpus-based study of grammatical change in te reo Māori over the period of contact with English. My methodology involved the compilation and comparison of two synchronic corpora representing the two ends of the contact period to provide a diachronic perspective on the language. Each corpus consists of approximately 102,000 running words of material written originally in Māori. The early corpus contains items published pre-1900. The modern material was written post-1990. The thesis is not only an exploration of the possibility of documenting syntactic change through the use of such corpora, but also tests whether it is possible to do this using corpora significantly smaller than the multi-million word corpora typical in corpus linguistics. The scope of this methodology is tested by examining three distinct types of grammatical features: a grammatical particle (the preposition mō), a pair of semantically related lexemes that appear to be undergoing a process of grammaticalisation (the verbs taea and āhei), and a widespread grammatical construction (certain types of relative clauses). In each instance, the two corpora are compared for features such as the frequency of occurrence, the associated constructions, and the contexts of use. In relation to the methodological questions, the thesis concludes that while these corpora are too small to provide adequate data on individual lexical items like taea and āhei, the methodology did make it possible to document change in the other, relatively high-frequency grammatical features. i The thesis also raises the questions of whether the changes identified result from the direct adoption of English usages and constructions, whether they result from insufficient exposure to traditional Māori as a result of the dominance of English, or whether they are perhaps instead the result of internally-motivated Māori language evolution. This leads to a discussion of the likely implications of the changes documented here for the future of the language and the language community. I argue that acceptance of all such change as natural and unavoidable is likely to be detrimental to the future of te reo Māori. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Kei ngā rangatira o te tuaka, ko te reka o ō koutou reo e kōhimuhimu tonu mai ana i ngā whārangi o ā koutou nā tuhinga. E kui mā, e koro mā, okioki mai rā. Kei ngā rangatira o te pene, o te papa pātuhi, mokori anō kia rere a mihi ki a koutou e hiki nei i te hoe kua mahue mai i a rātou mā, me te urungi atu i tō tātou waka reo ki te pae tawhiti e muramura mai nei. Kei ngā kaitiaki o te karahipi a Philippa rāua ko Morvyn Williams, tēnā rā koutou i tā koutou tautoko i puare mai ai te tatau ki te ao rangahau - ko te tuhinga nei tētahi anō o ngā tini hua o ō koutou whakaaro rangatira ki te hunga akoako pēnei me au nei. Kei ngā tini manu kai mātauranga, kei taku kāhui hōmiromiro i tutuki ai tēnei tuhinga, me te manutaki, a Winifred, i ora ai tēnei kaupapa, tēnei au e mihi kau atu nei. I would like to acknowledge a number of people for their assistance and support during the long journey that concludes with the submission of this thesis. Firstly to Dr Winifred Bauer, without whom this study never would have been undertaken, and on whose linguistic foundation this thesis was built, I am indebted to you for your support, and your generosity in sharing your expertise and passion for this subject with me. Both my reo and my career are profoundly changed for having met and worked with you. I also thank Associate Professor Meredith Marra and Emeritus Professor Janet Holmes for their guidance and support as secondary supervisors, and Associate Professor Paul Warren for his administrative support, especially throughout the latter stages of this PhD. I am grateful for the tautoko offered by my colleagues at Te Kawa a Māui, and for the support of te whānau o Te Herenga Waka in the many years since I first began to learn te reo under the shelter of our whare, Te Tumu Herenga Waka. To my teachers and my students who have so often guided the course of this research, and whose love and enthusiasm for te reo reinforces mine, I thank you. Dr Jennifer Martin, Dr Catherine Trundle, Fiona Leathart, Kelly Keane-Tuala, Nadia Te Huia, Naoko Yui, mei kore ake koutou. To my other friends and colleagues iii who I have not named, but who have encouraged and supported me throughout the duration of this marathon of a task, I send my heartfelt appreciation. Lastly to my family, I send my love – e taku kati taramea, e taku toka tū moana - this is for you. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT.................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES.............................................................. vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................... viii 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 2. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 6 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 6 CORPUS CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................... 8 SELECTION CRITERIA........................................................................... 10 THE DATA COLLECTION PROCESS .................................................... 16 THE ANALYSIS PROCESS .................................................................... 21 3. CASE STUDY ONE: MŌ......................................................................... 23 DATA SELECTION AND CATEGORISATION ....................................... 23 Category 1: Future possessor............................................................... 23 Category 2: Benefactive........................................................................ 24 Category 3: Topic of discourse ............................................................. 25 Category 4: Reason .............................................................................. 25 Category 5: Position.............................................................................. 27 Category 6: Transaction........................................................................ 28 Category 7: Duration............................................................................. 29 Category 8: Purpose ............................................................................. 29 Category 9: Future location................................................................... 30 Category 10: Performer of intransitive nominalisation .......................... 31 Category 11: Emphatic refusal.............................................................. 31 RESULTS................................................................................................. 32 4. CASE STUDY TWO: TAEA & ĀHEI....................................................... 44 TAEA........................................................................................................ 45 v ĀHEI......................................................................................................... 54 5. CASE STUDY THREE: RELATIVE CLAUSES ...................................... 57 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 58 PARAMETERS FOR RELATIVE CLAUSE ANALYSIS.......................... 65 The sentence function relativised on .................................................... 65 The relativisation strategy used ............................................................ 65 The TAM used in the relative clause..................................................... 66 The particle used in the relative clause................................................. 66 RELATIVISATION STRATEGIES ........................................................... 67 The deletion strategy ............................................................................ 67 The particle strategy ............................................................................. 68 The pronoun strategy............................................................................ 69 The possessive strategy ....................................................................... 70 DATA SELECTION.................................................................................. 72 RESULTS FROM THE DATA ANALYSIS............................................... 75 Sentence function relativised on ........................................................... 75 Relativisation strategy used .................................................................. 82 Subordinate TAM .................................................................................