This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 21 October 2014, At: 15:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Language, Identity &EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hlie20

Being a Niuean or Being Niue? AnInvestigation into the Use of IdentityLabelsDonna Starks aa La Trobe UniversityPublished online: 10 May 2010.

To cite this article: Donna Starks (2010) Being a Niuean or Being Niue? An Investigation intothe Use of Identity Labels, Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 9:2, 124-138, DOI:10.1080/15348451003704842

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348451003704842

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 9: 124–138, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1534-8458 print / 1532-7701 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15348451003704842

Being a Niuean or Being Niue? An Investigationinto the Use of Identity Labels

Donna Starks

La Trobe University

Identity labels are used by in-group and out-group members to define themselves both referentiallyand socially. This article explores the use of identity labels in interview data from the PasifikaLanguages of Manukau Project, a project that examined the language maintenance and use ofSamoan, Tongan, Cook Island, and Niuean peoples in Auckland, New Zealand. Fourteen 1 hourinterviews were analysed and 3,162 instances of the 2 terms Niuean and Niue were extracted fromthe speech of the interviewer and her participants. Although the findings show a strong preferencefor the use of Niuean, the interviewer and the majority of her participants use both labels. For mostof the participants in the study, Niue is a marked form used to express solidarity. The article contraststhis use with that of another participant who associates the label Niuean with out-group use. Extractsfrom the latter interview show how the Niuean label is used both for “othering” and for express-ing solidarity. The article ends with commentary on the potential effects of these in-group labels onlanguage planning initiatives in the New Zealand Niuean community.

Key words: Niuean, Niue, language maintenance, language policy, identity labels, othering

There are a number of approaches to the investigation of the relationship between identity,language, and talk. Many researchers have taken a microlevel analysis of phonological andgrammatical features (i.e., Buchlotz, 1999; Fought, 2002; Johnstone & Kiesling, 2008; Schilling-Estes, 2004), while others have considered a more macro approach, considering the content ofthe talk and how it is expressed (Eades, 2006; Winter & Pauwels, 2000). One such device in talkis identity labels. The latter area is concerned with several issues including the appropriateness(or not) of pan-ethnic labels. Much has been written about pan-ethnicity in general (Hall, 1997;Jenkins, 1996, 1994; Sebba & Tate, 2002), as well as specific terms such as Asian or NativeAmerican, and in the New Zealand context “Pasifika” (Anae, 2001; Pavlenko & Blackledge,2004). There is also considerable literature on change in identity labels over time, particularlythe shift from Black to Afro-American (i.e., Anglin & Whaley, 2006; Baugh, 1991; Ghee, 1990).Research into changes in identity labels is often intertwined with work on the appropriatenessand use of in-group solidarity labels by both in- and out-groups. Examples include the use of, forexample, Newfie for a Newfoundlander (see King & Clark, 2002) and the use of terms such ascoconut and freshie to refer respectively to the more assimilated and less acculturated members

Correspondence should be sent to Donna Starks, Faculty of Education, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria,3086, Australia. E-mail: d.starks@latrobe.edu.au

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 15:

03 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

NIUEAN OR NIUE? USE OF IDENTITY LABELS 125

of the New Zealand Pasifika community. Discussion of identity labelling often revolves aroundthe use in migrant and minority communities, exemplified by Zilles and Kings’s (2005, p. 76)description of labels in the Brazilian German community in which one might choose to be calledAlemano or Alemana (German) or gaucho (a person from Rio Grande do Sul) or Brasileiro(Brazilian). Recent work has also considered the use of labels in a range of community types(Goldschmidt, 2003; Rinderle, 2005; Zuckermann, 2006). A related area of study is the use ofanglicised forms of identity labels which members of some communities have come to associatewith colonialism and its cultural underpinnings. Arguments of this type have been put forwardin a number of indigenous communities including New Zealand Maori. In the latter case discus-sion has considered the use of the macron (e.g., in Maori versus Maori, without the macron) andthe English plural inflection (e.g., 2 Maoris versus 2 Maori) (see Gordon & Deverson, 1998).Similar arguments could also be presented when considering the use of the English derivationaland plural suffixes in the identity labels Cook Islander/Cook Islands to refer to residents of theCook Islands archipeligo, the derivational suffix -an in the Niuean community, and the Spanishsuffix -ano amongst the Cebu/Cebuano and Iloka/Ilocano communities in the Philippines.

Discussion to date has centered on the inappropriateness of one over the over rather than ontheir actual use in the community. Tabouret-Keller (1997) has argued that identity focusses onthe relation between individuals and groups that is represented in talk. This article considersthe use of one important lexical devise—identity labels by members of the New ZealandNiuean/Niue community in the Pasifika Languages of Manukau Project—and investigates howthe use of identity labels in these interviews can be seen as a sign of both “otherness” andin-group solidarity. The article also considers how identity labels and their variable meaningsinteract with language maintenance and language policy initiatives in this community, and whatthis might indicate for other communities considering the introduction of new identity labels aspart of language policy initiatives.

BACKGROUND

Niue is a small self-governing atoll in the South Pacific that has close political associations withNew Zealand. The population in the island of Niue is relatively small with 1,679 permanentresidents most of whom are ethnically Niuean (Statistics Niue, 2006).The largest Niueanpopulation live in New Zealand and, in 2006, numbered 22,500 individuals (Statistics NewZealand, 2008). Of these, one quarter (or 5,190) claim to be fluent enough to hold a conversationabout an everyday topic in the Niuean language. The majority of Niueans born in New Zealandare monolingual English speakers, raising concerns over the long-term survival of the Niueanlanguage. This has resulted in a renewed interest in the revival of the Niuean language, theinclusion of Niuean on the UNESCO endangered list and the development of audio materialsfor the teaching of the language. Advocates for language maintenance have also been staunchsupporters for a change from Niuean to Niue and their attempts to change the identity labelhave resulted in a strong divide between the two sectors of the community. Advocates for thestatus quo see little wrong with the use of the original term, viewing opponents as radicals,while proponents for Niue view the former term as a sign of the colonial past. The perspectivesof both parties are often so cemented that documents printed with one or the other term areviewed as problematic and proponents of the two camps have difficulty working for a common

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 15:

03 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

126 STARKS

cause (i.e., language preservation). Researchers are caught in the middle and are labelled asaligning with one segment of the community on the basis of their linguistic terminology. Inprevious single-authored research I have sometimes chosen to use the conservative term with allof its colonial underpinnings because I felt that the alternative perspective is generally viewedas more radical. I have been a little uneasy about this choice, as the radicals are the languagemaintenance movers and shakers in the community, a group that I strongly support. At othertimes I have used the term Niue to express solidarity with the community, but I have used theNiue label somewhat sparingly. Coauthored research with the Niue/Niueans on the PasifikaLanguages of Manukau research project has presented the greatest challenges. Although theteam were united in the use of the term Niuean for data-collection purposes, the Niue membersof the team were uncomfortable about the use of the term Niuean in publications in which theywere listed as coauthors. To publish the results of the project, we split our usage using Niuepeople but the Niuean language, a compromise uncomfortable to myself, my Niue and Niueancoauthors, my reviewers, and even the editor (Starks, Tuhipa, Williams, Ikiua, & Lui-Heka,2003). This article describes the use of the two terms in the Pasifika Languages of ManukauProject and its potential implications for language maintenance and language policy inititatives.

METHODOLOGY

The article draws on interview data collected as part of the Pasifika Languages of ManukauProject between 2000 and 2002 in Manukau, a region located in the south of Auckland,New Zealand. The project focussed on the language maintenance of the four largest Pasifikacommunities in Manukau: Samoan, Tongan, Cook Islands, and Niuean. Each community wasassigned to its own microresearch team consisting of a researcher from outside the communityand 4 community members: an elder, a language advisor, an interviewer, and a research assistant.

One-to-one interviews were completed with the help of a bilingual Niuean interviewer. Bornin Niue, the interviewer had moved to New Zealand 3 years prior to the commencement of theresearch project. She was in her late 20s at the time. The interviewer claimed to use only theidentity label Niuean. As a result of her linguistic preference, and informal observations in thecommunity, the research team made a decision to employ the term Niuean in the interviews.

The interviews were recorded on a Sony TCM-5000 with a lapel microphone and tookapproximately 1 to 2 hours to complete. They were recorded in a location of the participant’schoice, usually the participant’s own home. The project aimed to interview individuals from allsegments of the New Zealand community. Participants differed in age, gender, socioeconomicclass, place of birth, and language abilities. Each participant was given the option of conductingthe interview in either English or Niuean and 14 participants chose to be interviewed in English.The present article considers the labels used by the interviewer and her participants. An interviewis a particularly rich genre for the investigation of identity labels as it is a discourse that involvesconsiderable turn-taking, facilitating the use of full noun phrases rather than the use of pronouns.This would allow for the expression of a greater proportion of identity expressions than in otherdiscourse contexts.

The interviews followed a strict written interview schedule that covered life history, languageproficiency, language use and attitudes, and views toward language maintenance. The inter-view schedule was available to the interviewer but not given to the participants. The schedule

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 15:

03 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

NIUEAN OR NIUE? USE OF IDENTITY LABELS 127

was, however, within sight of the participants during the interview and it is possible that theparticipants may have seen all or part of it especially at times when the interviewer tickedresponses to yes-no questions on the interview schedule.

FINDINGS

The present study considered the participants’ use as well as the interviewer’s. There were a totalof 3,162 contexts in which Niuean/Niue were interchangeable (see Table 1). This included alladjectival uses of the terms (Niue/an mats, the Niue/Niuean language, I am Niue/Niuean). Thedata was analysed for lexical collocations and no patterns in the data were apparent.

The number of identity labels in the interviews varied from 134 to 331, with the total numberof tokens roughly equivalent to the word counts in the interviews. Those individuals who talkedmore used the terms more often. The overall results show a preference for the label Niueanby both the interviewer and the participants. There were 2,997 instances of Niuean and 165 ofNiue. All bar one of the participants preferred the use of the term Niuean rather than Niue in thisinterview context. It is important to acknowledge that their choices are due in part to the particularcontext of the talk. It is likely that the interviewer’s use and the written script had an impact onthe use of Niuean rather than Niue, and that in other contexts these same participants might havemade different decisions over the use of their identity labels. It is important to acknowledge thatthe interviewer may have also been affected by the interview context. In other situations, shemay have conformed to her reported self-identification as a Niuean. The collection of a range ofdiscourse types at the time of the original study would be needed to confirm label use in othercontexts.1

TABLE 1The Use of Niue by Interviewer and Participants in the Pasifika

Languages of Manukau Interviews

Interviewer Participants Total

NYFZE1 0 0 0NYFZE5 2 2 4NYMZE3 2 4 6NMFZE10 3 2 5NYMZE8 3 2 5NYFIE4 (Tala) 3 0 3NYFZE2 3 1 4NYFZE9 3 3 6NYMZE7 3 2 5NMMZE2 (Tama) 4 81 85NMMIE7 6 1 7NMFIE1 7 2 9NYMZE10 7 1 8NMFIE8 7 11 18TOTAL 53 112 165

1The data for the original study was collected in 2000–2002. In an informal conversation with the interviewer in2006, she self-reported that she now alternates between the labels, Niue and Niuean. She attributes this to her new socialnetworks.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 15:

03 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

128 STARKS

The analysis of interviewer speech revealed that even though the interviewer stated that sheused the term Niuean rather than Niue, the interviewer was not consistent in the use of her identitylabels. Although she preferred to use the term Niuean, she produced 53 tokens of Niue in her14 interviews. As illustrated in Table 1, this represents one third of all Niue tokens in the 14interviews. Further, the interviewer showed considerable variation in her usage, producing 0 to 7tokens of Niue per interview, and in most of the interviews she used the label Niue with greateror equal frequency to that of most of her participants. There were only 3 interviews in which theparticipants use the label Niue more frequently than the interviewer. The 3 participants were amiddle-aged female who had 11 tokens of Niue (the interviewer had 7), a young male who had4 tokens (the interviewer had 2), and, most noteably, a middle-aged male, Tama, who had 81tokens (the interviewer had 4).

Table 1 is arranged according to the number of tokens of Niue per interview. The second 2digits in the coding represent the age (young or middle) and gender (male or female) of theparticipants. Although it appears that middle-aged speakers may be prone to using more Niuethan younger speakers, there were exceptions, such as NYMZE10 and NMFZE10. The youngmale NYMZE10 used more Niue than expected, and the middle-aged female NMFZE10 used lessthan might be expected. It should also be noted that the Niue label did not cluster into particularsegments of the interviews, nor did it appear to be affected by short-term accommodation. Theuses of the Niue label were separated by multiple turns and tended to occur in different parts ofthe interview. This distribution requires the examination of the individual contexts in which Niueand Niuean occur.

In the interviewer’s speech, there are examples that indicate that the interviewer may be unsureof which term to use with middle-aged speakers. Two examples are presented below.2 In (1) theinterviewer uses both terms in the same sentence, using Niuean in the first clause and Niue inthe second. In (2), in her interaction with another middle-aged female, she repeats the sameinformation, using Niue in the first clause and Niuean in the second.

(1) Int: you have.. you dress Niuean or or have Niue mats an’ things [inaudible] balls orNMFZE10: those plates are Niuean over there..

Int: oh okay [laughs] oh yeah they are NiueanNMFZE10: just little things

(2) Int: yeah, okay cool.. mm next one, now the next part is in your family. are there anypeople who have a special interest in the Niue language? in the Niuean language? umdo do you have like um.. do you have any um members of your family for examplelike . . .?

NMFIE1: yeah my grandfather

In many instances other factors are at play. To illustrate this, we concern ourselves with themost intriguing cases, the interview with the Niue-preferring middle-aged male (Tama) and theinterview with the young exclusively Niuean using female (Tala). The latter 2 interviews aresimilar, yet strikingly different. Both are lengthy interviews with considerable talk from both theinterviewer and the participant. In the female interview there is considerable back channelling,overlapping speech (to the point that the interviewer appears to be leading the interview in places)

2In the interview excerpts, // indicates speech segments containing overlapping speech; ? signals a rising intonationcontour; and a full stop is an estimate of pause length. No measurements of pause length were undertaken.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 15:

03 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

NIUEAN OR NIUE? USE OF IDENTITY LABELS 129

and laughter. The male interview has less laughter and back channelling and far less overlappingspeech, a typical characteristic of the male interviews (see Starks, Thompson, & Christie, 2008for details). The style of the 2 interviews are different. The interviewer does not have control ofthe interview with Tama and the interviewer’s postinterview remarks confirm that the interviewwas difficult. This is important as the interviewer’s use of Niue in the 2 interviews is remarkablydifferent.

To illustrate, we consider extracts from the two interviews. The interview with Tama is riddledwith excerpts such as (3). In this example, the interviewer asks two questions both containing thelabel Niuean, and in both instances Tama responds using the label Niue.

(3) Int: or there’s some NiueanTama: depends on who it is. if it’s my mother it would be Niue outside of my mother to it—you

it’d be English but my mother would be the only one that I would confidently converse inNiue with

Int: or would you say . . . mostly English with some Niuean?Tama: mostly English with some Niue

Int: mmm that would be number fourTama: yeah

Int: is that right?

The asymmetrical choice in labels is particularly striking when, toward the end of the inter-view, the interviewer asked Tama if he would describe himself “mainly as a Niuean or a NewZealander.” There is a lengthy noticeable pause before Tama’s response, after which he describeshimself as Niue. Tama clearly, not only avoids the term Niuean, but is uncomfortable with thelabel in defining who he is. The interviewer response in this excerpt is also of interest. WhenTama responds Niue, the interviewer repeats Tama’s answer verbatim. This is one of 4 instancesin the interview in which the interviewer uses the term Niue. All 4 instances of Niue by the inter-viewer are in contexts, such as in this example, in which the interviewer repeats the exact wordsof the participant. For this reason, one might best consider the interviewer’s uses of Niue in theinterview with Tama all as instances of “quotes.”

(4) Int: right okay page 22 would you describe yourself mainly as a Niuean or a New Zealander?Tama: . . .Niue

Int: NiueTama: mmm

Int: why?Tama: um. . . it identifies who I am

Int: mmmTama: um I-I acknowledge that I’m New Zealand born

Int: mmmTama: but that doesn’t identify who I am

Int: okayTama: it just identifies where I was born

Int: okay

What is particularly interesting is the fact that the interviewer does not “quote” often. In the3 other instances in the interview with Tama, one of which is presented in (5). The interviewer’suse of Niue could have easily been replaced with Niuean.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 15:

03 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

130 STARKS

(5) Int: uh just by the list—just by listening to the way they speak English uh first of all Niuean. . .can you tell if it’s a Niuean that’s on the phone?

Tama: yeahInt: yes

Tama: somet- yeah mostlyInt: mmm okay how ..how do you tell?

Tama: uh. . .sort of like an accent kind of thingInt: yeah

Tama: um and usually and usually they also they half speak English half speak Niue.Int: Niue .yeah so.

Tama: yeah

Tama’s interview is insightful in that it provides explicit insights into the reasons for the choiceof identity label. In (6) Tama makes an overt comment about the two identity labels. He is theonly participant to do so.

(6) Tama: Oh uh uh a simple e- e- example is the use of the word Niue and Niuean. Niuean is goodEnglish

Int: mmmTama: but Niue is the proper n—

Int: yeahTama: name because it’s singular and plural but palagis y-you keep telling them all you like an’

they still wanna keep using NiueanInt: mmmInt: okay

Tama: mmmInt: mmm

Tama: um. . . when they’re outside of their own group of peopleInt: okay

Tama: when they’re amongst when we’re amongst our ownInt: yeah

Tama: an’ I think everybody’s like thatInt: yeah

Tama: when we’re amongst our own we’ve got our own actions thatInt: yeah

Tama states that his argument for Niue is based on the fact that the term Niuean is an anglicisedform, as the Niue language does not mark plural agreement on the noun. This comment refers tothe fact that the Niue language marks plural agreement elsewhere in the noun phrase either onthe article or through a numeral. His argument is similar to that put forward by the New ZealandMaori community several decades earlier. The English plural was widely used in the late 1970sin New Zealand by Maori and non-Maori population (e.g., two Maoris), but a change in politicalclimate has seen the gradual loss of the English plural suffix. The Reed New Zealand Dictionary(Orsman, 2001) lists both Maori and Maoris as the plural of Maori but provides no differencesin meaning between the two forms. Amongst many segments of the New Zealand population, theuse of the plural morpheme now evokes negative images of the referent. The plural morphemeis also no longer prevalent in written usage. There is however, surprisingly little written aboutthe loss of the plural morpheme in the academic literature. The current language maintenanceinitiatives in the New Zealand Pasifika communities have also been influenced by those in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 15:

03 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

NIUEAN OR NIUE? USE OF IDENTITY LABELS 131

New Zealand Maori community (Tuafuti & McCaffery, 2005) and Tama’s argument is likely tohave come directly or indirectly through this outlet, especially since his argument is based on theplural suffix, and not the use/non-use of the derivational morpheme -an.

In the same extract, Tama expands on the use of the two terms, claiming that Niuean is anout-group term, even though he is well aware of the interviewer’s use of Niuean throughout theinterview. Part of this argument may be based on the fact that Tama is aware that the researchteam is run by anglo–New Zealanders, referred to in the Niuean community as palagi. It isof note that the comment concerning palagi is marked with the plural inflection -s. This is asophisticated use of language, as Tama uses his term palagi in its uninflected form on 10 separateoccasions elsewhere in the interview, one of which is provided in (7) below. Tama may havedeliberatively chosen to inflect palagi with the English plural inflection -s in this excerpt toreinforce his argument on the “rightful” place of the English plural inflection and to linguistically“other” the research team who, although not physically present at the interview, are present inabsentia via the tape recording.

(7) Int: yes. . . okay now when Niueans are talking do you think they express themselves differentlyuh with the..with their faces an’ hands than the palagi do?

Tama: // uhInt: // yes or no?

Tama: yesInt: yes okay if yes how?

Tama: now. . . mmm [inaudible]. . . I can understand their gesturesInt: mmm

Tama: so um but I uh that’s. . . um. . . and also our people do things like. . . they’ll gesture differentdif- when they’re in front of palagi than when they’re on their own

Int: mmmTama: um

Int: [inaudible]Tama: oh it’s. . . no oh it’s hard to describe mmm but I do know that I can recognise when they’re

through their body language when they’re an’ it. doesn’t even have to be palagi

It is also likely that this comment is used to partly “other” the interviewer, assigning hermarginal community status as a result of her perceived role in a project whose chief investiga-tors are New Zealand Europeans. Tama comments explicitly on this association in postinterviewcomments with the interviewer at which time he states that he is not happy with an Anglo-ledresearch team and would not have participated in the interview if the interviewer were not ofNiuean ancestry. The interviewer’s use of the label Niuean, rather than Niue, is a point of con-tention, reinforced by the use of the printed term on the questionnaire. It is a verbal signal ofthe interviewer’s hydridity as a member of the Anglo-led research team and as a member of theNiue community. Tama is aware of this hybridity. In this excerpt he plays on this fact when hementions that the term Niuean is considered “good English.” Good English is a compliment inthe New Zealand Niuean community where English skills are highly valued and widely acknowl-edged as the key to academic and personal success (Starks, 2006). In this excerpt, however, it canalso be viewed negatively, as widespread English language use in the Niuean community is thereason for Niuean language loss.

Tama’s interview surprisingly also contains 4 instances of the label Niuean. These are scat-tered throughout the interview. Two appear to be “quotes,” as illustrated in (8) and (9). These

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 15:

03 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

132 STARKS

appear to be unmarked and remarkably similar to the interviewer’s use of the label Niue describedearlier.

(8) Tama: . . .it’s mostly EnglishInt: okay

Tama: mmmInt: with some Niuean?

Tama: with some Niuean mmm

(9) Int: would be always Niuean or both or uh Niuean with some English uh or both equally uh ormostly English with some Niuean?

Tama: mostly English with some NiueanInt: some Niuean . . . that’s when you’re speaking to them

Tama: yeahInt: and what about they speak to you?

Tama: mostly Niue with some English

Tama’s third and forth use of the label Niuean are different. Neither can be considered tobe direct quotes. Instead they appear to occur in excerpts of the interview which involve anincreased expression of solidarity between the interviewer and the participant. This is reflectedin the pronoun choice. In (6), the predominant pronouns are exclusive forms such as you/themwhile in (10) Tama uses the pronoun we. In the latter, Tama is engaged in a discussion aboutswitching between cultures. One potential explanation for his use of the Niuean label is that itagain functions as a hybrid term to signify the “bouncing” between of the 2 cultures. Later in theexcerpt, where Tama separates his 2 worlds into the “English world” and the “Niue world,” Tamareverts back to the Niue label.

(10) Int: yeahTama: we could see it as being somewhat Niuean but it really would bounce from one to the

otherInt: yeah

Tama: when we’re left. when we’re out of the home we were in the English world and we’re inthe Niue world

Int: yeah okay you were somewhere between themTama: yeah

In (11), the interviewer also appears to be using the Niuean label in a more positive light. Inthis excerpt, the interviewer is asking about whether Tama reads the Niuean newspaper. Tamaresponds to the first part of the question with the unexpected response that he usually goes to aWeb site rather than reading it in hard copy. This catches the interviewer off guard, and perhapsbecause she is now close to the end of the interview, the interviewer makes the decision to skipthis question rather than to pursue the issue further. The interviewer verbalises her decision: “I’mjust gonna pass that one.” Tama’s subsequent use of Niuean could perhaps be seen as a rewardfor that decision. This token occurs in one of the 4 instances in which the interviewer and theparticipant engage in overlapping speech. In this respect, the use of the identity label Niuean(together with a more rapid speech style and overlapping speech) could be seen as an expressionof solidarity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 15:

03 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

NIUEAN OR NIUE? USE OF IDENTITY LABELS 133

(11) Int: always English. . . now how often do you um do the following in Niuean, first of all reada Niuean newspaper. would that be every day at least or once a week at least or less oftenor never?

Tama: less, less oftenInt: yeah

Tama: and it’s um there’s a uh a web site I go to a web site on. . .Int: oh okay, ye? we–Int: // I’m just gonna pass that one

Tama: // Niuean newsInt: . . .yeah

To summarise in Tama’s interview, Niue is the unmarked term for Tama and Niuean is theunmarked term for the interviewer. Both the interviewer and the participant use each other’smarked labels as a quoting device, to repeat back what the other has just said. Instances of thisare, however, rare in the speech of both the interviewer and the participant. The interviewer doesnot have any other use of Niue in her interview. Tama has other marked uses of the labels. Insome instances, he appears to use the label Niuean to other the interviewer and the researchteam; at other times, he appears to use the label Niuean to achieve the opposite effect, as a signalof solidarity.

Tama’s latter use is observable in other interviews with participants—but in the opposite direc-tion. Both the interviewer and the other participants use the label Niuean as their unmarked form,and use Niue as an expression of solidarity. This use is best illustrated in the interviewer data inthe interview with Tala, the only participant not to produce a single token of the term Niue in herinterview. Thus tokens of Niue by the interviewer could not be due to accommodation. In Tala’sinterview, the interviewer produces 3 tokens of Niue. All 3 tokens are remarkably similar in theiruse. The three tokens occur when the interviewer became personally involved in the interview asin the following excerpt in which the participant is talking about life in Niue and what it meansto be a traditional Niuean. Note that in (12), the pace of the interview increases, as does the useof overlapping speech. Both features are associated with vernacular use and increased solidarity.

(12) Int: what other other than the language there are like what kinds of things other than likeNiuean food

Tala: um like hair cuttingsTala: // sort of

Int: // yeahTala: yeah just um. . . just going plant . . . you know um plantationTala: // the work

Int: // this is Niue lifeTala: yep

Int: you’d go to theTala: bush an’

Int: bush gardensTala: yep

Int: andTala: yep

A second example occurs when Tala and the interviewer are talking about differences betweenNiuean-born and New Zealand-born Niueans, and again the interview interjects to express herviewpoint. The pace of the interview is quite rapid in comparison to most other parts of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 15:

03 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

134 STARKS

interview. As in the previous excerpt, the interviewer appears to use the term Niue to align herselfwith the participant as a mark of shared common background.

(13) Tala: comparing with the Niuean-born, and I think as as like I was born in Niue I was broughtup strongly with um. . .

Int: Niue ways?Tala: yeah with the way yeah our cultures an’ and things. . . but over here um it’s quite hard for

the for the um children here to [clears throat] to know about our culture

The third example is illustrated in (14). In this example there is again overlapping speechand a number of discourse markers to signal the inclusive nature of the talk, such as “sort of,”and “like.” It is of note that this type of collaborative discourse is absent in the parts of Tama’sinterview in which the interviewer uses the label Niue. Thus although the reverse pattern appearsto be occurring in the 2 interviews, the linguistic variables that co-occur with the labels are notidentical.

(14) Tala: like just expressing my feelings towards my partner sort of easier in EnglishInt: // in English

Tala: // thanInt: than in Niuean?

Tala: in Niuean?Int: okay

Tala: so it takes longer to, sort of . . .Int: come up with Niue wordsInt: // to use when you’re trying

Tala: // yeah yeahInt: to sort of express to how you feel?

Tala: mmm yeah

This Niue use is observable in many other interviews as in the following example with amiddle-aged female. This example focuses on the participant’s language use in apologies. Forthis task, the participant is asked to rank her language use on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5.Based on previous information about other patterns of language use, the interviewer makes thesuggestion that the participant might use “mostly English.” The interviewer then adds “with someNiue.” This additional information overlaps with that of the participant’s response. The additionalinformation can be viewed as an expression of solidarity, rather than as an explicit request forinformation, since it does not have any transactional value. If the speaker uses “mostly English,”then the speaker is bilingual, her language use in apologies should be “with some Niuean.” Theinterviewer immediately follows up with a check on the validity of this response, and, in thiscase, uses Niuean rather than Niue.

(15) Int: okay what about when you are apologising to someone w’ that be mostly English//with some Niue

NMFZE10: //yeah mostly EnglishInt: mostly English with some Niuean? four?

NMFZE10: no NiueanInt: no Niuean

NMFZE10: it dependsInt: okay

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 15:

03 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

NIUEAN OR NIUE? USE OF IDENTITY LABELS 135

In another example, with NYFZE2, the interviewer starts with an information-seeking ques-tion from the questionnaire. The participant has difficulty interpreting the question and asksthe interviewer to give an example. The interviewer’s response contains the identity label Niue,preceded by the solidarity building discourse marker, you know.

(16) Int: okay, 4:15, do you meet Niueans at other places?NYFZE2: . . .for example?

Int: well, uh, uh, shopping ce—, shopping malls, or um. . .NYFZE2: mhmmm

Int: uh, sports, athletics events, you know Niue sports orNYFZE2: um

Int: like that?NYFZE2: yeh, I would say yes, I’d, like probably, yeah, through work

Int: okay

The above excerpts illustrate the dilemma on identity use in the Niue/Niuean community andhighlight the ways in which community members use identity labels. It also raises a number ofconcerns about how the differing uses of identity labels might affect language policy initiativeswithin the community.

DISCUSSION

There are 2 distinctive uses of Niue in this community. For Tama, the use of Niue is close tocategorical. He has made a deliberate and conscious choice to label himself as Niue. It is thedefault term for this speaker. Tama, however, does also employ the occasional use of Niuean. Insome cases this may simply be a case of quoting, but there are also instances in his interviewwhere there appears to be a deliberate choice of labels. He appears to choose the label Niueanto express solidarity with the interviewer. He also uses the term Niuean to achieve the exactopposite effect to “other” the Niuean interviewer and the New Zealand European-led researchteam.

Others in the community (including Tala) use Niuean as their default term and appear notto vary in their use. However the majority, including the interviewer, have variable use of bothNiuean and Niue. When interacting with Tama, the interviewer uses Niue only for quoting, butwhen interacting with Tala, the Niuean-user, the interviewer selectively employs the label Niueas an in-group solidarity marker. The findings reaffirm that identity is multilayered and multi-faceted and show that identity labels in the community may be used to reflect this variation. Inother words, two individuals in the same community may use the same form to achieve differ-ent purposes. Differences exist both within the speech of individuals and within and across thecommunity, and in some instances labels appear to be used for contradictory purposes.

The findings suggest that labels are not fixed for many in the Niuean community and may beused variably as marked forms for in-group solidarity. The marked use of Niue in this contextprovides insight into the means by which labels change over time. It is not the case that indi-viduals and communities switch from one term to the other, but rather both terms co-occur, withdifferent affective uses. The differing contemporary uses provide a potential avenue for languageshift. However, the categorical use of marked labels by certain segments of the community, such

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 15:

03 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

136 STARKS

as Tama’s use of Niue, may cause speakers to resist change, especially if Niue users employthe label Niuean as a means of othering. The employment of a categorical use of any label alsomeans that it loses its ability to be used as a subtle marker of identity.

There are, in addition, 2 broader issues here. The first is the use of labels by the leaders in theNiue community. As mentioned earlier, the Niue label is central to proponents concerned withlanguage maintenance movements in the Niue community. The label is a positive affirmation oftheir Niue language and culture, and an affirmative break from issues to do with colonial past,particularly language shift. This group of Niue have raised awareness of the endangered status oftheir language on the worldwide stage. They have successfully argued that Niue should be placedon the UNESCO Red Book of endangered languages. They have developed language materialsfor the promotion of the Niue language (Head, 2000) and have provided and are providing vitalresources for members of the Niue community who wish to transfer their language to the nextgeneration.

It is a well-known fact that individuals and communities may define themselves differentlywhen they learn a language later in life, especially if that language is associated with ethnicidentity. It is possible that as the Niue segment of the community promotes the greater use of theNiue language, one may see a greater societal shift toward the use of the term Niue. However, thedual focus of this Niue language group, to maintain the language and to relabel the communityas Niue, may not be in the immediate interests of the overall community. The individuals whoidentify as Niuean are often those who have only a passive knowledge of the Niuean language.These same individuals are often looking for ways to express the Niuean aspect of their identity,and many long to pass on knowledge of the Niuean language and culture to their children andgrandchildren. For many, being Niuean is part of who they are. Those Niueans seeking ways toimprove their skills are often forced to look for help by those in the community who wish toredefine them. The use of labels may be the deciding factor as to whether Niueans take that extrastep to work with individuals in the Niue movement to promote their own personal languageinitiatives. As we saw in the interview with Tama, labels can be divisive and used to other, andthis may have the undesired effect of causing Niueans to disassociate with those most active inthe language movement. The way around this may be through the selective use of Niue, as asolidarity in-group marker, rather than through the tidier exclusive use of terms that define “us”versus “them.” This has implications for language policy.

Although a change in label may signal a new beginning and provide a stimulus for those inter-ested in making other changes in their lives, it may not always have positive effects. Advocatingfor a categorical use of a new identity label may divide communities and, thereby, preventlanguage maintenance initiatives from achieving their full potential. In an immigrant context,individuals and communities have affinities with both their homeland and their new country.Their hybrid identities are complex and intertwined. Although a new label may provide a meansof accentuating links with the homeland and the ancestral language, the categorical use of anidentity marker may also have the effect of promoting division within the community and, inad-vertently, forcing individuals to draw a link between language and identity that they may notwish to make for themselves. The creation of a new term in this context may also create a linguis-tic means by which alternate terms may be used to “other” members of their own community.At the same time, labels which highlight Niue identity provide an avenue for expressing sol-idarity within the community. The use of identity labels in the Niue/an community suggests

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 15:

03 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

NIUEAN OR NIUE? USE OF IDENTITY LABELS 137

that the variable use of identity labels may be more useful than the categorical use of one termbecause all speakers need a range of resources for, not only separating self from other, but alsofor distinguishing from time to time within and between themselves.

Identity labels have been associated with well-being and personal self-image (Ghee, 1990;Mitchell, 1997) and are often linked with language use (Aspinall, 1997; Kvernmo & Heyerdahl,1996). They are considered to be a fundamental importance for self-identification and are writteninto the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights (1996). The use of European-coined labels(Henry & Bankston, 2001, p. 1037) and fully blended terms such as African American arewell-attested. In the latter case, researchers have shown that such terms highlight the dualityof different ancestry and cultural ownership (Larkey, Hecht, & Martin, 1993). Little attention hasbeen given to the use of partly blended terms, such as Niuean, Cook Islander, and Cebuano. Thereis a need to document how blended and unblended terms are used within communities, but also toconsider how self-identity labels may empower and disempower individuals within these ethniccommunities. Diasporic communities experience both physical and cultural hybridity, and thismultiplexity is, at least in part, what defines them (Rinderle, 2005). Forcing individual membersof any community to choose one identity label, “without considering, context, nor consequences”is a form of disempowerment (Rinderle, 2005, p. 311). In diasporic contexts, individuals fromethnic groups identify with both their ethnic group and the current society in which they reside,and this may vary in intensity depending on context (Phinney, 1990, p. 509). The use of a newidentity label can be an important form of empowerment, but the categorical use of that or anyother identity label restricts how individuals in diasporic communities portray multiplex andchanging identities. These findings suggest that if new identity labels are introduced as part of alanguage policy initiative, such terms should be introduced gradually, with a degree of tolerancefor those who chose to use alternative identity labels.

REFERENCES

Anae, M. (2001). The new “Vikings of the sunrise”: New Zealand-borns in the information age. In C. MacPherson,P. Spoonley, & M. Anae (Eds.), Tangata o te Moana Nui. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press,pp. 101–121.

Anglin, D. M., & Whaley, A. L. (2006). Racial/ethnic self-labelling in relationship to group socialization and identity inAfrican descended individuals. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25, 457–463.

Aspinall, P. J. (1997). The conceptual basis of ethnic group terminology and classifications. Social Science and Medicine,45, 689–698.

Baugh, J. (1991). The politicization of changing terms of self-reference among American slave descendents. AmericanSpeech, 66, 133–146.

Buchlotz, M. (1999). “You da man”: Narrating the racial other in the linguistic production of white masculinity. Journalof Sociolinguistics, 3, 443–460.

Eades, D. (2006). Lexical struggle in court: Aborginial Australians vs. the state. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10, 153–180.Fought, C. (2002). Ethnicity. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), Handbook of language variation

and change (pp. 444–472). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Ghee, K. L. (1990). The psychological importance of self-definition and labeling: Black versus Afro-American. Journal

of Black Psychology, 17, 75–93.Goldschmidt, M. M. (2003). Identifying labels among university students in the new South Africa. Journal of Black

Studies, 34, 204–221.Gordon, E., & Deverson, T. (1998). New Zealand English and English in New Zealand. Auckland, New Zealand: New

House Publishers.Hall, S. (1997). The spectacle of the “other.” In S. Hall, D. Helde, & T. McGrew (Eds.), Modernity and its futures

(pp. 223–279). London, UK: Sage and Open University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 15:

03 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

138 STARKS

Head, B. (2000). Keeping the Niue Leo (language) alive? In S. R. Fischer & W. B. Sperlich (Eds.), Leo Pasifika:Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Oceanic Linguistics (pp. 142–155). Auckland, New Zealand:Institute of Polynesian Languages and Literature.

Henry, J. M., & Bankston III, C. L. (2001). Ethnic identification and symbolic stereotyping: The portrayal of LouisianaCajuns. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24, 1020–1045.

Jenkins, R. (1994). Rethinking ethnicity: Identity, categorisation, and power. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 17, 197–203.Jenkins, R. (1996). Social identity. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.Johnstone, B., & Kiesling, S. F. (2008). Indexicality and experience: Explaining the meanings of /aw/ monophthongisa-

tion in Pittsburgh. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12, 5–33.King, R., & Clark, S. (2002). Contesting meaning: Newfie and the politics of ethnic labelling. Journal of Sociolinguistics,

6, 537–556.Kvernmo, S., & Heyerdahl, S. (1996). Ethnic identification in aboriginal Sami adolescents: The impact of family and the

ethnic community context. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 453–463.Larkey, L. K., Hecht, M. L., & Martin, J. (1993). What’s in a name? African American terms and self-determination.

Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 302–317.Mitchell, K. (1997). Different diasporas and the hype of hybridity. Environment and Planning, 15, 533–553.Orsman, H. W. (Ed.). (2001). The Reed Dictionary of New Zealand (3rd rev. ed.). Auckland, New Zealand: Reed.Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (Eds.). (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Clevedon, UK:

Multilingual Matters.Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adults and adolescents: A review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108,

499–514.Rinderle, S. (2005). The Mexican diaspora: A critical examination of signifiers. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 29,

294–316.Schilling-Estes, N. (2004). Constructing ethnicity in interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8, 163–195.Sebba, M., & Tate, S. (2002). “Global” and “local” identities in the discourses of British-born Caribbeans. International

Journal of Bilingualism. 6, 75–89.Starks, D. (2006). The changing roles of language and identity in the New Zealand Niuean community: Findings from the

Pasifika Languages of Manukau Project. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 374–391.Starks, D., Thompson, L., & Christie, J. (2008). Whose discourse particles? New Zealand eh in the Niuean migrant

community. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1279–1295.Starks, D., Tuhipa, T. T., Williams, N., Ikiua, O., & Lui-Heka, M. A. (2003). Niue language maintenance in Manukau: A

preliminary report. The TESOLANZ Journal, 11, 23–31.Statistics New Zealand. (2008). Pacific profiles. Retrieved from http//www/stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/pacific-

profiles-2006/niuean-peoples-in-new-zealand.htmStatistics Niue. (2006). Population. Retrieved from http//www.spc.int/prism/Country/NU-Publications/Population-

Estimates/QTR%201%202006.pdfTabouret-Keller, A. (1997). Language and identity. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 315–326).

Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Tuafuti, P., & McCaffery, J. (2005). Family and community empowerment through bilingual education. International

Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5, 480–503.Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights. (1996). Retrieved from http://www.linguistic-declaration.org/decl-gb.htmWinter, J., & Pauwels, A. (2000). Gender and language contact research in the Australian context. Journal of Multilingual

and Multicultural Development, 21, 508–522.Zilles, A. M. S., & King, K. (2005). Self-presentation in sociolinguistic interviews identities and language variation in

Panambi Brazil. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9, 74–94.Zuckermann, G. (2006). A new vision for Israeli Hebrew: Theoretical and practical implications of analyzing Israel’s

main language as a semi-engineered Semito-European hybrid language. Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, 5, 57–71.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 15:

03 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014