The hierarchy of minority languages in New Zealand

Abstract

This article makes a case for the existence of a minority language hierarchy in New Zealand. Based on an analysis of language ideologies expressed in recent policy documents and interviews with policymakers and representatives of minority language communities, it presents the arguments forwarded in support of the promotion of different types of minority languages in New Zealand, as well as the reactions of representatives of other minority language communities to these arguments. The research suggests that the arguments in favour of minority language promotion are most widely accepted for the Māori language, followed by New Zealand Sign Language, then Pacific languages, and finally community languages. While representatives of groups at the lower levels of the hierarchy often accept arguments advanced in relation to languages nearer the top, this is not the case in the other direction. Recognition of connections between the language communities is scarce, with the group representatives tending to present themselves as operating in isolation from one another, rather than working towards common interests.

Keywords:

• minority languages
• language policy
• language ideologies
• New Zealand

Acknowledgements

I thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article, as well as Joris de Bres for useful insights and editing assistance.

Notes

1. Similar considerations were later drawn by Nelde (2007, 74), who observed that: ‘there is limited cooperation between indigenous [national minority] and non-indigenous (immigrant) groups in demanding linguistic rights. This is replicated to some extent in the scholarship surrounding these groups … The need of this kind of cooperation, however, should be obvious, as comparable disadvantages require common solutions … In contact linguistics, only very few researchers have investigated both types of linguistic minorities together in spite of the positive effects that might be entailed by common action’.

2. I thank one of the anonymous reviewers for providing this characterisation.

3. The exception in this regard was the TTW interviewee, who expressed very positive attitudes towards community language promotion.