No Pidginisation for Maori

First of all, JBW (let's use initials for brevity) clearly wants to have his cake and eat most of it up at the same time. The question "Isn't this getting dangerously near pidgin?" seems to me (to be intended to be?) dangerously near saying that in fact Maori is a pidgin language. It's rather like saying "no no no Maori isn't a primitive language but it is a very under-developed language isn't it."

And HP is absolutely right in his feeling that there are those who have indeed been trying to inculcate the notion that Maori is a decidely inferior kind of language. Take for example this passage from page 42 of Maori Children and the Teacher, re-issued in 1972 by the Department of Education: "The finer shades of meaning of words are often blurred for Maori children, perhaps because their home language uses one expression for a group of allied meanings. Perhaps the word 'road' has to serve for 'path', 'highway', 'track', 'motorway'. Their vocabulary is partirularly inadequate when they want to express ideas. They are used to getting by with a minimum of words and they are lost when they have to express anything more complex than actual reality. There is also a cultural factor involved here, exemplified by the difference in humour of Maori and Pakeha. Many Pakeha jokes depend on an understanding of subtleties in semantics, that is subtleties of human activities and relationships. Thus, semantics is important for Pakehas, but not very important for Maoris."

Note how the writer has effected a seemingly easy transition from the loss of "finer shades of meaning" for Maori children, through to inadequacy in expressing "ideas", then to inadequacy in expressing "anything more complex than actual reality", then to "a cultural factor", and finally to Maoris and their language in general with the statement that "semantics is important for Pakehas but not very important for Maoris". Now since the word semantics means "meaning" (of all kinds), this particular writer is asserting that meaning is not very important for Maoris. And this, it seems to me, is very close indeed to saying that the Maori language itself is not exactly—how shall we put it?—not exactly very meaningful. Which is absolute and unadulterated rubbish (the whole of the quoted paragraph is rubbish—for more comments you could take a look at my forthcoming article entitled "Maori children and Bernstein: a linguistic appraisal", in Education).

We are dealing here in effect with a large set of terms, each one carrying its own connotations, vaguely defined though these may be. You could say that language x is a "primitive" language (in fact there is no such thing), or "not language at all" (ditto), or a "pidgin", or "under-developed", or "tribal", or a (mere) "vernacular", or a kind of "patois", or maybe just a "dialect", or... etc. One of the many difficulties in labelling like this is often that of locating cut-off points on a continuum, indeed in realising in the first there is indeed a kind of "basic English adapted to the indigenous patterns of thought" in many parts of West Africa (as BW points out), but this type (or types) of very non-standard English is not by any means the only alternative to vernaculars on the one side and (regional) standard English on the other side. The most authoritative brief statement to this effect is probably the following, from J. Berry "Pidgins and creoles in Africa (in "Current Trends in Linguistics," Vol. 7, p. 513): "In nearly all the areas where creoles and pidgins are spoken in Africa, a European language is also learned in more or less substandard form." And in fact, West Africa (though to a lesser extent than in some other parts of the world )present a picture of various language continua in this case from regional standard English (or Englishes) at the one end to vernacular African languages at the other. Pidgin languages are very frequently almost unintelligible to native speakers of their European "parent" language. But what exactly pidgins are, how exactly they arose (and still arise), what arc the social and linguistic significances of language continua, how to analyse them, how they change, these are difficult theoretical problems which bear upon the very nature of language itself.

Finally, on borrowing and development. First of all, who is to say that Maori is not very much better off if it can't manage "computer-assisted systems engineering" without borrowing? And to suggest that in any language which can't do this is therefore "dangerously near pidgin" amounts to saying that many thousands of other vernacular languages in the world today are also "dangerously near pidgin".

JBW chooses a phrase which for him must be in some way critical, a sort of yardstick, for language development. But it is, after all, a merely lexical (vocabulary) yardstick that he's using, and HP is quite correct in pointing to English as having borrowed in its time a vast number of lexical items from other languages while being (at the time of borrowing) grammatically and phonologically and semantically otherwise fully developed (did Chaucer write in "dangerously near pidgin'?). Again, processes of borrowing are linguistically complex and culturally rather subtle; one fairly dogmatic point that seems however (on the evidence) to be defensible is that the language that does not reach outside itself for new words is either already very widely used indeed (like English) or in real danger of stagnation. But of course English does still borrow; it borrows concepts for the most part (rather than forms), and tries (often unsuccessfully) to achieve "translation equivalents" Even so, my feeling is that Maori could render JBW's phrase, and other computer-assisted analogues, if it really wanted to. Somali is an interesting language for this sort of thing: for example, the Somali word for "tying the leading rope of a camel to the tail of the preceding camel in a caravan" plus definite article plus the Somali word for "deceit" plus another definite article gives you the Somali phrase meaning "diplomatic relations". How long Somali can keep up this sort of thing I don't know; one could surmise that the Somali's insistence on retaining the "purity" of their language in this way will do it no good in the long run...Correspondingly, Maoris would be well advised not to listen to those who, on the one hand, would urge them not to borrow, or on the other hand, would taunt them with having to borrow. Maori will survive only if it docs borrow; pidginisation will not necessarily be the price to be paid.

Theft and......

There are many contradictions in our laws regarding stealing. In thousands of cases, these, laws are being bypassed. Any survey will show that many arc not. It all depends on the thief's circumstance; his status in society, is he a landlord, tenant, speculator, shoplifter, vandal etc? This is obviously unfair and results in the exploitation of the poor, the homeless besides other social disorders.

But should we abolish laws against theft? No!!!!!

Wait a minute, didn't we hear this same faulty argument used in support of abortion reform? Rather, the laws should even be tightened and better policed.

Thank you for listening.

Chuck-le

Who the hell is Chuck Wagon? And why is he saying those nasty things about me?

I think your record reviewer Chuck Wagon deserves high praise for his courageous attack on 'Wake of the Flood' (Salient March 6). It's about time somebody told the truth about the Grateful Dead. I mean, and let's face it, it's plain to see they've popped their poopsy.

I think your record reviewer Chuck Wagon (an unlikely name if ever I heard one) misses an important point in his assessment of 'Wake of the Flood'. Whatever else, it is Grateful Deads' best album since Abbey Road.

Salient News....

Looking through last year's Salients I could not help being impressed with your consistent support of causes shunned or suppressed by the papers. Issues such as Zimbabwe, facts of the Vietnam peace settlement, TPA, Gay Lib, and Vorster's Reich, not to mention your unique (I liked it) Court Reports, need to be published.

Even your ideology makes some sense after churning through a constant stream of pedantic commentaries in 30 consecutive Salients (all in one sitting, phew). Like, it takes a while for that stuff to get through the pre-conceived notions gained from an unquestioning intake of my hometown's "Daily News" for the last 15 years.

I am dismayed at the attitude you show towards religious groups on campus. Why? I'd certainly like to know your reasons for this.

What are they to you?

Thank you for publishing news I want to hear about.

Union Fees for what?

In the only issue of 'Salient' last year which had any meat in it some foreign student (Kiwi students are too supine to complain about anything) drew attention to the large number of Union officials and ancillary staff getting soft cushy jobs with fat salaries at student expense

Student union fees are now increased to an all time high of $25.50 this year.

I think it is a scandal that poor students (and that is the majority) are blackmailed into having to go to the upper storey cafeteria to get a decent balanced meal at a cost of $1.10 minimum, without sweets or third course.

This compares with 56 cents at Wellington Polytechnic where the meals are not heroic but do at least contain some vegetable or vitamin c.

Congratulations to your new 'catering manager' Graeme sombody or other whose picture appears in the Handbook for 1974.

Even a School Certificate student knows that the human being needs vitamin c in a decent balanced meal. About 90% of students are forced to patronise the lower cafeteria. When I had my $1 meal on the upper storey cafeteria (which is there for the rich students as distinct from the common herd) I saw the House Manager and others of his cronies eating there. They are so well paid that-they can afford to patronise this expensive restaurant. I cannot afford to pay $1.10 for a two course meal even if it is balanced. Even the station caf at the Railway does not charge so much to railway passengers.

Secondly, being a member of NZUSA at such terrific cost does not entitle the poor student to join various clubs, tramping clubs etc, without paying still further. He has to pay 50c to join each club. Why?

Thirdly, travel concessions. Fifty per cent "concession" for travel is provided for NAC travel only, i.e. to go and see Mt Cook. Who would have the money (or the time) to go and see Mt Cook? Once again the rich students are favoured, the poor students are ignored.

It would be some good if students could get rail concessions travelling to and from Petone or Lower Hutt for example. No luck. Only students below the age of 18 or 19 are entitled to rail concessions from the Polytechnic, I don't think the University offers even that.

Fourth, complaining about the arbitary charges at the University bookshop. These are also galling to students. I mentioned the fact that students pay more than $5 for a set of German textbooks which is purchasable at Whitcoulls for only $2.40 or $3 at the most. Nobody will explain. The German lecturers say "tut-tut, what a scandal" but nothing is done.

I sign this article because I know it will never be published as it might offend the new catering manager.

Oiling the Wheels of Profit

Isn't it funny how the fuel crisis has subsided as headlines or even news material. Maybe its because the fuel crisis is really a jack-up although the Arabs were a factor. We've had huge reports of "Arab blackmail". Now quietly tucked away in a few column inches is even more newsworthy material. Royal Dutch Shell increased their profit 153% (March 2, Dominion), Its such a jack-up of a fuel crisis that Holland and Sweden have lifted their rationing. Definitely not as newsy as those Arabs blackmailing us poor westerners.

Racial Stereotyping

You obviously don't watch TV. In your article on racial stereotypes you missed the most blatant example around. I refer to the Lemon and Paeroa advertisement. Trendy young whites guzzle Lemon and Paeroa and eat hangi kai. The latter is provided by overalled Maoris who appear to be too busy to do any of the eating. The advertising industry's message is obvious: happiness is Lemon and Paeroa, having workers at your party and being white.

A Craccum Fan

At last a student publication worthy of those it is meant to represent.

Pity it had to come all the way down from Auckland.

Shorn-but-not-forgotten

Zeffirelli's Home Brew

David Tripe in his review of "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" sees Zefferelli advocating the rerilence of the Catholic Church. Zefferelli is an advocate of simple rather than papal Christianity. You can't miss the hammered comparisons between the pure pastoral simplicity of the lovely Franciscian church and the rich decadence of the established church. Ask Barry McGuire to give you the word later this year, brother Dave.

Perhaps there was even a moment of doubt when Innocent meet Francesco. Maybe Innocent thought that there was a little more in Francesco's god-grooving way of copping out.

Inevitably the Franciscians got sucked into the mainstream church. Zefferelli did not film the inevitable sucking in and corruption of the movement. Serfdom and enforced real poverty continued with renewed spirituality. Wait oh pure joy! Yes that's it! Lets ail pray. Lets all groove on nature and reject material pursuits from an affluent exploitative position. Zefferelli made it look so gorgeous I'll just have to find the Lord in some pretty countryside. I hope the poor will support me.

The last line on David Tripe's reviews of Brother Sun, Sister Moon gives him away immediately. Talking of the "ordinary working masses" of the 14th Century he says of their choice between St Francis and the Pope "They might be better off if they got rid of the whole system". Naievity of this sort can only belong to the Editor of the People's Voice or a 'university marxist' who like most of his sort forgets once in a while to relate his comments to concrete conditions which is the well known condition for concrete analysis. There are two ways you can take this statement: The first is that it is 14th Century Italy that the film is about. In which case the whole system he talks about is feudalism and the only real choice open to the masses then was within the church for existence without ordained Roman Catholic religion was unthinkable and unliveable. This is why St Francis had to go to the Pope for acceptance. As a heretic he would have lost his followers as they feared their 'eternal souls'. Removal of feudalism was offered neither by St Francis's mysticism or the mainline church but the development of a mercantile class which eventually toppled the Church, becoming the new ruling class with the rise of capitalism. Under the Holy Roman Empire both spiritual rule and temporal rule was in Rome. With large influences of wealth the Church's riches became embarrassing and St Francis wanted only the spiritual to be the concern of the church. This offered no real solution apart from offering the merchant class a free hand. Zeffirelli's options were roughly the only options open to the people then and divisions (surface) did not appear along these lines.

However these are not the only options open to the working masses today and the second way to take the film is as an allegory. In fact just about everything that could be changed while still retaining the historical period was changed by Zeff the biff who wanted the film to be more relevant to the contemporary scene. So we have the soldiers returned from a useless and costly crusade. Francis is one of them and turns mystic etc etc and the others follow him one by one. They end up as overstereotyped hippies-all hardship and happiness etc. Given the period he chose Zeffirelli could not have changed it any more without losing the historical context of the film yet this is what was needed to avoid the pathetic ending he was forced to adopt. Here Tripe again misjudges the options opened up by the film. Zeffirelli constricts choice of period and does not let his allegory develop past superficiality and therefore does not allow the destruction of the whole system. At first you thought he could make something of the film by developing its references to Vietnam veterans, radicalisation etc but here he falls flat on his face offered a nicely manufactured solution. It is a cowardly film that could only convice the Children of Crud of its realism. St Francis in the end is like a young 'live off the land' type who is going to Norm Kirk to get a Kibbutz licence...when he goes to the pope asking for acceptance as a valid part of the RC Church. What Tripe should be attacking is the purposeful narrowing down of options that Zeffirelli indulges in because he is too scared to admit the possibility of real change of people seizing control of their own destinies.

Fransesco offers only rehashed mumblings of the new testament and simpering innocence of spirit (and politics) which is not really the reflection of a cinematic genius. All we are left with is a paper thin lily growing in a WW2 bomb crater and a Zeffirelli with his pockets full and definitely not throwing it away to anyone.