Why Pa¯keha mangle te reo
Retired senior lecturer in French and Spanish language from Massey University
The thoughtful and dispassionate editorial (June 26) on the correct pronunciation of Ma¯ ori place names provided a useful reminder of the need for all Kiwis to take more care over this ‘‘small but important’’ indicator of the health of our bicultural and bilingual society.
But before we pillory the ‘‘unfortunate Dunedin woman’’ who insists on pronouncing Opoho like ho-ho-ho, or detect racial bias in other apparent mispronunciations, we should reflect a little further on the process of linguistic transfer of verbal forms from one language to another. Understanding that process may then enable us all to determine the best way to correct these errors.
All languages are primarily oral in essence and each has developed its own norms of vocalic and consonantal production and its own tonic register. These forms are initially acquired aurally by young children learning their first language and become hard-wired in the brain.
Then, when children learn the written forms of these aurally acquired norms, the linkage between spelled forms and oral expression of these becomes equally hard-wired.
Granted, within any one language, there are variations in the way certain words come to be pronounced, according to the geographical or social environment these are learned in. These variations we call ‘‘accents’’ but, at least within one country, the differences are generally slight enough so as not to hinder effective oral/aural communication too much.
A problem arises, nevertheless, when first-language speakers attempt to pronounce words or forms drawn from a second language of whose pronunciation norms they may have little or no awareness. Place names are a frequent case in point. If one is unsure how the word is pronounced by its native speakers, then it is understandable that we attempt to fit it into the norms of the language we know.
That happens all the time with our naming places in foreign countries. We call Paris ‘‘Parris’’, not ‘‘Pa-ree’’, we say ‘‘Ma-drid’’, not ‘‘Madreeth’’ as the Spanish do, we pronounce ‘‘Mexico’’ with an intervocalic ‘‘x’’ sound instead of a guttural aspirated ‘‘h’’, we named Moscow variously ‘‘Moss-co’’ or ‘‘Moss-cow’’ instead of ‘‘Moskva’’ as the Russians do. As for ‘‘Bei-jing’’, well, it is closer than ‘‘Pe-king’’, but our pronunciation is still far from the Chinese.
And anyway, to attempt these ‘‘native’’ pronunciations in an otherwise English language discourse may come across as mannered and pretentious, as well as impeding easy comprehension.
Still, given that te reo is not a foreign language, it is still incumbent on the New Zealand language community to try to integrate its pronunciation norms into Kiwi English as far as possible. But that will remain difficult to do so absolutely, simply because by adulthood our ears are no longer sufficiently attuned to pick up the subtle differences of vocalic and consonantal enunciation. M a¯ ori vowels are ‘‘pure’’ and more tightly shaped than English ones, all of which tend towards diphthongs and are pronounced with loose lips, and are reduced even more to a schwa (a short ‘‘i’’ sound) when not accentuated.
There is some crossover with consonants, but forms like ‘‘ng’’ and ‘‘wh’’ have no exact equivalent in the English sonic palette and in fact vary within Ma¯ ori dialects, while the ‘‘r’’, which is not rolled as the editorial claimed but formed by a palatal tap, is closer to the English ‘‘d’’ than the standard or the rolled ‘‘r’’.
So should we not be prepared to accept a close approximation to these sounds which still enables communicative effectiveness?
It is arguable, however, that more important than precise pronunciation is giving the appropriate intonation and vowel length to Ma¯ ori words and phrases.
It is in this area that I fear Pa¯ keha¯ Kiwis are more at fault, and could do more to improve. Still, significant progress has been made by the now broad adoption in print forms of the macron, indicating a long vowel.
But this has yet to thoroughly translate into the spoken forms of these words. Certain RNZ announcers introducing themselves in te reo still say ‘‘ko … ‘‘tennay’’ (short –e-) for ‘‘te¯ nei’’, or misplace the long vowel, as in pronouncing ‘‘Wha¯ ngarei’’ instead of ‘‘Whanga¯ rei’’, where the macron on the second ‘‘a’’ is really a coalescing of two short ‘‘a-s’’ – ‘‘Whanga-a-rei’’ (the harbour of Rei).
But still, we have largely got beyond the horrors of ‘‘Horrorfernua’’ or the contractions of ‘‘Paraparam’’ and ‘‘Ota-hoo’’, and ‘‘Waitemata¯ ’’ is gradually replacing ‘‘Why-te-matter’’. And it is gratifying to hear on the intercom of Hutt Valley trains the stations of E¯ puni and Po¯ mare’’ being given their correct intonation.
Yet RNZ announcers continue to accentuate ‘‘Mo¯ rena’’ (a transliteration of English ‘‘mor-ning’’) as ‘‘More¯ na’’ and ‘‘Kia ora’’ as ‘‘Ki-ora’’ rather than ‘‘Ki –a´ ora’’, or introduce a certain programme as ‘‘tangata o te mo-a´ na’’ instead of ‘‘mo´ -ana’’.
So we still have a way to go to get things right. But these slips are not principally, I contend, due to racial biases as much as unconscious conditioning from our first language. The emphasis, I think, should go on getting the accentuation right first.
Once that is done appropriately, the infelicities of less than accurate pronunciation will be less apparent.
Colin Anderson is an MA graduate in Classics from Victoria University. He speaks four international languages reasonably fluently, and also studied te reo for three years at tertiary level. Of original English and Scottish extraction, he also has a slender whakapapa link to Te Ati Awa.