1.1 Context, motivation, relevance, research questions, advancement, scope

Why speakers make linguistic choices is a fundamental question in the science of linguistics (Coulmas 2013 [2005]). Of particular interest is why certain linguistic constructions are chosen over others (Croft 2014). The answer to this may lie in the construal of the linguistic scene. That is, how speakers construe the situation in their minds and, thus, use specific constructions to describe that situation (Langacker 1990). An example that we focus on for research is the choice of what we will refer to as multiple-marking constructions: the use of multiple markers (such as double negation or comparison) or multiple construals (there’s / there is + NPpl). Our motivation is to find out whether multiple-marking exists in NZE; what multiple-marking constructions are more prominent in NZE; and whether there is a distinction in the frequency of occurrence of multiple-marking constructions in the subvarieties of NZE.

As mentioned, the variety of NZE has been chosen for the study. The main reason for this is to compare and contrast a standard variety of English (PE) with an Indigenous one (ME) and attempt to find tendencies between these two groups. Moreover, we will explore whether multiple-marking constructions can be prominent features of NZE, what possible combinations exist in NZE, and what variety (indigenous or standard) is more productive in multiple-marking.

This paper seeks to find answers to the following questions:

1. Is multiple-marking a frequent phenomenon in NZE?

2. Does the Māori language have an effect on the English construction?

3. Is there a distinction between ME and PE in the productivity of multiple-marking constructions?

4. What social factors contribute to the productivity of multiple-marking constructions?

Limitations can be observed in the overall size and length of the corpus. It is rather small (containing only one million words). Moreover, a small number of Māori speakers represents another limitation for the study. A further drawback is that the corpus data appears to be outdated since it was developed between the 1980s and 1990s.

This paper is organised as follows: The next section gives an overview of the literature to establish the context. In the third section we present our hypotheses. We continue with the explanation of the corpus study and data collection. This is followed by the discussion of the findings. The paper concludes by revisiting our research questions and providing suggestions for further research.

2.1 Multiple-marking constructions

Construction is a term coined by the field of Construction Grammar (CxG). Contrary to generative grammars, CxG is a usage-based approach (language is learnt through experience; language emerges from language use). Speakers acquire constructions provided that they interact with other language users. Such linguistic interaction triggers the formation and entrenchment of constructions (Goldberg 2006 [2005]). The central notion of a construction is based on the Saussurean linguistic sign; that is, a pairing of form or sound and a meaning or mental concept (Hoffmann and Trousdale 2013: 1). As a way of illustration, please refer to Table 1 below. In addition, constructions are found in all levels of linguistic description (from morphemes to sentences); and, depending on the position they take, they can be regarded as substantive or schematic. Idioms, like spill the beans, are considered substantive constructions since “their phonological form is fixed.” Schematic constructions, on the other hand, can be filled with greater flexibility (Hoffmann and Trousdale 2013: 2), such as the resultative construction he shrieked himself unconscious (Hoffmann 2022: 8).

Hoffmann (2022) explains that most constructions tend to be partly schematic and partly substantive. This is the case of the constructions shown below (Table 1). In the there-existential construction, the substantive elements are there and the clitic ‘s; and the schematic element would be the plural noun slot. In the double negative construction, the substantive items are the pronoun nothing and the negative morpheme not or its contraction n’t, whereas the schematic element is the verb. Finally, in the double comparative construction, we find the substantive element more and the bound comparative morpheme -er, while the schematic element is the adjective.

According to Dixon (2012: 102), “multiple marking of a negation” refers to “the multiple realizations of a single underlying negation [as in] you couldn’t not realize that he was lying (…) A single negation realized twice by two distinct negators.” Consistent with this theory, in this paper, I will adopt the term MULTIPLE-MARKING to refer to constructions such as double or multiple negation (e.g. he’s not never going to do it), double or multiple comparison (e.g. much more browner), and nonagreement in there-existentials (e.g. there’s a lot of restaurants). As well, I will use “multiple-marking” in this paper as an umbrella term to describe constructions that either a) use multiple linguistic elements (e.g. multiple or double negative and comparative markers such as you won’t hear nothing on the tape, cash is more easier to handle) to intensify the negative or comparative construction (see Section 2.4.); or b) describe the projection of multiple construals (as is the case of there-existentials; see Section 2.2.) In this definition, I include two categories: multiple markers and multiple construals. By “multiple markers” I refer to the use of various linguistic elements in the construction, such as negative auxiliaries or modal verbs (e.g. won’t, haven’t, etc.); the negative pronoun nothing; adjectives in comparative forms; the periphrastic form more – which intensify the negation or comparison (see Section 2.4.). And by “multiple construals” I refer to different projections or perspectives of a linguistic scene; speakers can portray multiple linguistic scenarios depending on the different constructions they use (see Section 2.2.). What these two categories have in common is the multiple use of linguistic elements to emphasise what speakers want to express or give a different perspective of the linguistic situation they have in mind. Consider the following examples:

There’s people around me <WCSNZE # DPC229: 1180: DI>

There’s a lot of problems <WCSNZE # DGZ114: 0755: CG>

It ain’t seen nothing <WCSNZE # DPC 330:1650: AY>

You won’t hear nothing <WCSNZE # DPC082: 0505: BB>

They are a bit more looser <WCSNZE # DPC162:0210:TR>

I was just more browner <WCSNZE # DPC195: 0725: BN>

Although our study focuses on the variety of NZE, it is important to note that multiple-marking exists in different varieties of English – including double negation in African American English (also known as Vernacular Black English) (Hickey 2004: 608). It should be noted that this paper will only examine three constructions. Other multiple-marking constructions, such as multiple/double modals (e.g. I might could help you <GlobWeb # 293434 GB>) ^[1] will not be included in the present study. One reason for this is that multiple or double modals are characteristic of other varieties of English – mainly, Scottish, northern English, southern American, and Caribbean English varieties (Schneider 2004: 285-286). Second, the aim of this paper is to investigate the most distinguishing features of NZE and see whether there is a distinction in the frequency of occurrence in PE and ME.

2.2 Multiple construals

Cognitive grammar has shown how important conceptualisation is for understanding how language works. Conceptualisation is a mental representation. As Langacker (1990: 12) puts it, “when speakers use a particular construction, [they] select a particular image to structure the conceived situation for communicative purposes.” It is how meaning is constructed in the mind of the speaker, how they view a particular scene. There can be several ways of perceiving the same experience (Langacker 1990; Tomasello 2014). Construal of a linguistic scene might be influenced by past experiences. Tomasello (2014: 11), for example, argues that a particular situation can be perceived differently by each individual since we all have different “ways of life.” Additionally, in using linguistic constructions, speakers “invite recipients to view or imagine situations from a particular perspective” (Tomasello 2014: 100). There can be different perspectives for different scenes.

Because of this, we are interested in examining the projection of multiple construals in there-existential constructions. This is represented in Figure 1 below. Speakers can choose to employ there is restaurants or there’s restaurants. While the former construes the postverbal NP as a single collective entity (i.e. a selective group of restaurants, e.g. a group of Bavarian restaurants), the latter construes the postponed subject as a plural count noun to refer to different types of restaurants (e.g. Argentine, Greek, etc.).

Figure 1

Conceptualisation of the linguistic scene in there-existential constructions

2.3 Agreement in there-existentials

There- existentials in these (and other) varieties allow for different construals:

1. There are restaurants.

2. There is restaurants.

3. There’s restaurants.

As indicated by agreement marking, in (1) the construction construes the postverbal NP as a plural count noun while in (2) the construal focuses on the NP as a collective single entity; (3) previous studies make a point about a third variant: there’s + NPpl. In prescriptive grammar, this construction is generally not deemed correct as it does not follow standard rules of grammar. Yet it is considered to be an accepted and standard feature of most varieties of spoken English (Hilton 2016).

Hilton (2016: 61) argues that the use of nonagreement (e.g. there’s dishes in the sink) has increased in standard varieties of English – making a distinction between there is + NPpl and there’s + NPpl. While the latter seems to be widely accepted in many varieties of English and described as “a unique variant, it may convey a different set of social meanings”, the former is still deemed as being outright wrong. Furthermore, Hilton (2016: 61) points out that while “standard grammatical features have become linked to education, intelligence, wealth, power, nonstandard grammatical features have come to be associated with the opposite.” As a result, those speakers who make use of there is + NPpl construction are assumed to possess “less formal education” and have a lower socio-economic background. Besides this, the construction appears to be “used in less formal registers and more common in spoken than in written English.” To capture the social meanings connected to these existential constructions, Hilton (2016: 63) carries out a matched guise technique (a sociolinguistic technique to interpret speakers’ perceptions towards language, social class, and education). Her participants, native speakers of American English, are required to read or listen to a simple sentence containing the there-existential construction. Additionally, they have to give their personal information: “their age, gender, occupation, as well as how much on a scale from 0 to 10, it bothers them when other people make grammar mistakes” (Hilton 2016: 63). Her predictions are supported; she finds out that there is a clear distinction between these two constructions. Her participants regard the there is + NPpl construction as unintelligent and having lower economic status. The analysis leads to the following conclusions: while there is + NPpl is considered a nonstandard grammatical feature, there’s + NPpl is viewed as a standard feature of the speakers’ language.

Starks and Thompson (2009: 319) investigate agreement in there-existential constructions (e.g. there’s not many Niueans) in a Niuean community in New Zealand. While the elderly are said to be bilingual in both languages (English and Niuean), the younger generations are considered to be “passive bilingual” and only able to understand some Niuean (Starks and Thompson 2009: 320). Niueans are reported to be “critical of each other’s spoken English […] and these attitudes are likely to affect both the perception and use of vernacular features” (Starks and Thompson 2009: 321). Their study consists of fourteen participants who differ in age. All participants come from a lower socio-economic region in Auckland. The interviews reveal “variability in there existential constructions” and that “younger Niuean speakers use more singular forms” (Starks and Thompson 2009: 324, 333). In summary, this paper argues that “Niueans [employ] there existential constructions with plural NPs and singular verbs at levels lower than those found in other studies” (Starks and Thompson 2009: 333). Researchers suggest that their findings should be taken with caution due to their small sample size.

In the same vein, Eisikovits (1991) shows how a group of adolescents from Sydney tends to use singular verb agreement with plural NPs in there-existential constructions. Her study consists of forty teenagers who have a lower socioeconomic background and come from the inner city of Sydney. Ages range from thirteen to sixteen years; half of the subjects is male and the other half female. As far as the method is concerned, recorded conversations are gathered for the study. The researcher concludes that there’s + NPpl and there was + NPpl are widely used in AuE and that young males tend to use more vernacular forms than young females. At the same time, she recommends that further research on other varieties of English should be conducted.

Moreover, Meyerhoff and Walker (2013: 407-408) explore existential constructions in Bequia English. This variety of English is situated on “the island of Bequia (St. Vincent and the Grenadines) in the Eastern Caribbean.” Their study involves two levels of analysis: the individual and community level. Those individuals who work and live overseas for some time are referred to as “urban sojourners” (Meyerhoff and Walker 2013: 410). The authors wish to investigate whether these urban sojourners retain the linguistic norms of their natal villages or if there is a change in the linguistic pattern used. Sociolinguistic interviews are conducted for the study and the speech of thirty speakers is analysed. In addition, the data are collected from five villages in Bequia. Findings show that at the community level nonagreement is the norm, but, at the individual level, urban sojourners only make use of nonagreement in one of the five villages. In conclusion, it appears that assimilation to cultures overseas can trigger this result.

Finally, Hay and Schreier (2004) conduct a diachronic analysis of subject-verb concord in there-existentials in NZE. The data analysed are based on three archives. The first, labelled Mobile Unit (MU), is “the only collection of spoken data from 19^th c.” (Hay and Schreier 2004: 213) and consists of recordings of New Zealanders born between the 1850s and 1900s. The second, Intermediate Archive (IA), offers “recordings of about 150 New Zealanders born between 1896 and the early 1930s” (Hay and Schreier 2004: 214). And the third, Canterbury Corpus (CC), is composed of spoken data of 370 speakers. Students from the University of Canterbury are asked to find instances of the verb BE followed by a plural subject in the transcripts. It is discovered that nonagreement between the verb and the postponed subject declines in the first half of the 19^th c. and “reverse[s] this trajectory to become a well-established feature of modern NZE” (Hay and Schreier 2004: 233). Overall, the study demonstrates that nonagreement declines in the 19th c. due to a levelling process, “a new dialect formation which involve[s] the loss of a marked or minority variant” (Hay and Schreier 2004: 228), and that there is a low tendency for nonagreement to increase with the distance between the verb and postverbal NP.

2.4 Multiple negation and comparison

In former times, multiple negation and comparison (e.g. they won’t never do it, more easier) were frequently heard in spoken language and considered features of the upper class. Today, this language scenario has changed, and these constructions have become nonstandard. Yet they are found in the speech of most varieties of English (Palacios Martinez 2003).

To express negation, it is usual for the speaker to opt for the full or contracted form of the adverb not together with an auxiliary or modal verb as in he doesn’t eat meat, he will not do it (Quirk et al. 1985: 122). The use of multiple negatives has increased in PDE. Indeed Crystal (2019 [1995]: 346) notes, for example, the use of “quadruple negatives in the English spoken in the north of Manchester” as in I am not never going to do nowt, we couldn’t see nowt ^[2], I’ve never hardly done it. We will use the label MULTIPLE NEGATION to refer to the use of two or more negatives within the same clause.

To Palacios Martinez (2003), the existence of more than one element of negation in the same clause illustrates reinforcement of the negation or emphasis. Moreover, the Spanish linguist notes that multiple negation becomes frequent in the Old, Middle and Early Modern English period, but its use declines around the 17^th c. Apart from that, Palacios Martinez (2003: 479) explains that even though multiple negation is nowadays frowned upon and regarded as nonstandard, most infants when trying to acquire their mother tongues develop these constructions (e.g. I don’t want it no more) regardless of what is available in the input.

We are interested in investigating whether the following combinations are prominent in NZE:

• AUX/MOD_NEG + never (e.g. haven’t never, won’t never)

• AUX/MOD_NEG + verb + nothing (e.g. couldn’t hear nothing)

• AUX/MOD_NEG + verb + nothing + ADV_NEG (couldn’t hear nothing nowhere)

Comparisons are expressed by using gradable adjectives. These can take inflections (such as -er, -est) or periphrastic forms (e.g. more, most). Consider: he is the cleverest boy I’ve ever known, my brother is older than me. Additionally, there exists a small set of irregular adjectives “which have comparative and superlative forms with stems that are different from the base.” These include good, bad, far (Quirk et al. 1985: 458).

The multiple use of comparative elements has become a widespread feature of the English language. Gonzalez-Diaz (2008: 290) reports on the evolution of double comparison and underlies that “first instances [are] found in Latin translations [around] the [9^th – 10^th c.]” They become frequent between the Late Middle and Early Modern English period. At this time, double comparatives are associated with nobility. The number of instances drops “around 1620[, but] they reappear in 18^th c.” and are considered “features of nonstandard speech and […] markers of social class” (Gonzalez-Diaz 2008: 291, 293). What is more, Corver (2005: 167) regards double comparison as the “co-occurrence of a free comparative morpheme and a bound comparative morpheme.” Yet this definition seems to avoid certain constructions such as most worst, betterer, worser.

For the present analysis, I will adopt the label MULTIPLE COMPARISON to indicate the use of two or more comparative elements in the construction. Multiple comparison cannot be just the combination of a free comparative morpheme and a bound comparative morpheme. Irregular adjectives like good, bad undergo a morphological process known as “suppletion” where “the allomorph resulting from the grammatical conditioning neither bears any resemblance to the root morpheme nor is it etymological related to the latter” (Kortmann 2005: 92). Still, there appears to be an additional morphological process to reinforce the comparison as in betterer. We would like to examine whether the possible combinations exist in NZE:

• MORE + ADJ + -er (e.g. more cleverer)

• MOST + ADJ + -est (e.g. most cleverest)

• Irregular ADJ + -er (e.g. betterer, worser)

• MOST/MORE + irregular ADJ (e.g. more worse, most worst)

• LESS + ADJ + -er (e.g. less cleverer)

• LEAST + ADJ + -est (e.g. least cleverest)

• MORE + irregular ADJ + -er (e.g. more betterer)

• MOST + irregular ADJ + -est (e.g. most worstest)

2.5 Post-colonial Englishes (PCEs)

Research has drawn attention to the evolution of postcolonial Englishes (PCEs) (Schneider 2007). Different varieties of English result from the expansion of the British Empire into diverse colonies and countries. In these territories, the coloniser’s language (English) comes into contact with Indigenous languages. And throughout the colonial period, English evolves into different varieties with their own grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary – representing the current culture, identity and inhabitants. The evolution of NZE can be explained by taking into account Schneider’s Dynamic Model (DM). This model proposes sociolinguistic factors (accommodation) to account for how new varieties of English develop their distinguishing features. The PCEs are distributed across five phases of evolution in the DM (Schneider 2007). NZE is situated in phase V – which indicates the birth of a new variety of English with its distinctive lexical, grammatical, and phonological features, as well as a new social identity (that of being a member of a new nation separated from its former coloniser). Moreover, local varieties within the country have emerged and become important integrative aspects of their culture and nation (e.g. ME, PE).

2.6 Socioliguistic factors

Authors, like Holmes and Wilson (2022 [1992]: 8), Croft (2000: 54), have considered social factors – such as age, gender, social setting, ethnicity – important contributors to why and how speakers make linguistic choices. For example, Eisikovits (1991) shows that young males are more prone to be using nonstandard forms than females. To reinforce this, Holmes and Wilson (2022 [1992]: 228, 230) discuss the fact that “women tend to use more of the standard forms than men, while men use more of the vernacular forms than women; [e.g.] in Detroit, multiple negation is more frequent in men’s speech.” In addition, Holmes and Wilson (2022 [1992]: 229) also note that gender differences in speech or language use might be due to social class differences. It is believed that women “use more standard forms than men because they are more status-conscious than men” (Holmes and Wilson 2022 [1992]: 232). Another explanation for why women may use more standard forms might be because of social pressure; women are expected to be more polite or better than men (Holmes and Wilson 2022 [1992]: 233).

When it comes to age, it has been found that the older someone becomes the more standard his or her language is. Research, however, shows that the opposite is true of younger generations. The younger someone is the more likely it is for the individual to use more vernacular forms of language (Holmes and Wilson 2022 [1992]: 246).

Another factor influencing language use is that of ethnicity. Holmes and Wilson (2022 [1992]: 258-259) note that speakers can denote their ethnic background by simply making specific linguistic choices (such as phrases, fillers, etc.) in their speech.

A final factor may be that of context or style. Speech may vary from context to context. It is assumed that when speakers are in an informal or familiar setting (with relatives, friends, acquaintances) they may use specific linguistic items or phrases – which may differ from those of more formal or unfamiliar contexts (workplace, colleagues, boss, clients, etc.) (Holmes and Wilson 2022 [1992]: 354).

In this paper, we will examine the social factors of age, gender, context of usage, and language background.

2.7 English in New Zealand

Two local varieties coexist in New Zealand, Māori and Pākehā English. PE is defined as the English spoken and used by New Zealanders of European descent, while ME alludes to the English variety employed by New Zealanders who come from a Māori background.

ME is mainly characterised by double negation (e.g. he’s not never going to do it), Māori lexical items (such as Aotearoa, kia ora, tamariki), and substitution of plural forms for singular forms (e.g. there’s people at work who can help me), among others (Warren 2012), whereas PE features include mixed tenses, double comparisons (e.g. more cleverer, more easier), transitivity of intransitive verbs (e.g. farewell someone), to name a few (Bauer 2007; Warren 2012).

Moreover, Holmes (1997) states that ME emerges between the 1960s and 1970s due to the poor performance of Māori children at Pākehā schools. Now, such variety is associated with middle or low classes of New Zealanders who have Māori roots.

Hay et al. (2008: 105) add that ME is more commonly perceived on the North Island – namely, due to a larger number of Māoris. Besides this, some linguists, like Richards (1970: 31), go even further to separate ME into various kinds. For instance, “ME2” is spoken by the lower Māori classes while “ME1” is employed by well-read Māori speakers – making a point about vernacular and nonvernacular patterns of language.

Today, Māoris constitute approximately 16.5% of the entire New Zealand population. Even though its Indigenous language is seen in various social spheres – such as schools, universities, the press – the English language prevails as the dominant language of New Zealand (Stats NZ Tatauranga Aotearoa 2018; Stubbe and Holmes 2000 [1999]).

2.8 Grammar of the Māori language

Since our point of interest is multiple-marking phenomena, the following description will be about number, there-existentials, comparison, and negation in Māori.

Bauer (2003 [1993]) claims that there-existentials in Māori have neither verb forms nor an overt there. To signal number, there are other options. First, there is a small set of nouns to make singular-plural distinction such as whaea, whāea – where the plural form is marked by a macron in the spelling and there is a change in the pronunciation. The vowel that carries the macron is lengthened. Second, there are determiners that mark plural form, such as ētahi, ēnei, ēwhea, ngā, he. Third, mass nouns in Māori can be pluralised by using a certain plural determiner like ngā. Depending on the context, ngā can either refer to (a) the abundance of the substance or (b) the containers of that substance. Consider:

Claiming the Māori language can signal a difference between a collective single entity and types of that entity, it is believed that NZE speakers apply the Māori Indigenous grammatical knowledge in the English construction and take there’s as a particle just like ngā to project multiple construals of the postverbal NP (e.g. there’s water, there’s glasses of water).

To express negation, the Māori language resorts to particles which can have different positions in the sentence (Bauer 1997, and 2003 [1993]; Harlow 2015 [2001]). In addition, Bauer (2003 [1993]: 148) mentions that double negation is unusual in the Māori language; nonetheless, the use of double negatives in the sentence may be considered grammatically correct. Concerning comparison, the Māori language does not have the bound inflectional morphemes -er or -est. Instead, it makes use of independent particles – such as ake, atu, iho, rawa atu – to make a comparison. Along with this, there can be more than one comparative element or intensifier in the sentence and gerundive nominalisations can be repeated (Bauer 2003 [1993]: 189, 1991).

5.1 Analysis

We observe that all constructions researched can be found in NZE. A considerable distinction is perceived between there-existentials and multiple negation and comparison. The productivity of nonagreement in there-existentials appears to be more prominent in NZE.

In addition, PE and ME show similar productivity in multiple-marking – which indicates the validity of our H3. Only a significant difference is found in the occurrence of multiple negation among ethnicities. Its use seems to be more prominent among ME speakers. As a result, the LL test cannot indicate the validity of our H2.

As far as gender is concerned, the analysis confirms that there is a significant difference in the frequency of occurrence of the there’s + NPpl construction between females and males. Males appear to use it more regularly.

Concerning age, a significant difference is noted in the constructions there is + NPpl and there are + NPpl among age groups. The over 40s seem to be using these constructions more frequently.

Taken as a whole, social factors (such as age, context, gender) appear to contribute to language use – as it is revealed in the LL tests. This would indicate the validity of our H4. The most significant difference can be detected in the context of usage. For example, it is observed that multiple comparison is more present in informal contexts while the constructions there is + NPpl and there are + NPpl are more regularly employed in more formal contexts. It would appear that speakers make different linguistic choices based on the social setting they are in.

5.2 Discussion

As hypothesised, our study shows that PE and ME show similar productivity in multiple-marking. However, the analysis did not identify any Māori language influence on NZE. Aside from that, the findings reveal that males use more vernacular forms than females.

As predicted, the productivity of multiple-marking constructions can be affected by social factors. The context of usage, for example, has a striking effect on how speakers make linguistic choices.

As indicated by the literature (Holmes and Wilson 2022 [1992]), the evidence we found points to the fact that social factors do influence language use. The values on gender and context of language use show that males tend to employ more nonstandard features than females and that speakers opt for different linguistic choices depending on the social setting they are in. Nevertheless, and in contrast to earlier findings (Holmes and Wilson 2022 [1992]), the over 40s interestingly show signs of vernacular forms of speech such as the productivity of there is + NPpl.

What is surprising is the fact that older speakers use nonstandard forms of speech in formal contexts. The reason for this rather contradictory result is still not entirely clear, but it is possible to assume that the influence of the Indigenous language on NZE can trigger this result – as explained in Section 2.8.

Contrary to expectations, the number of the there is + NPpl construction is lower than the value we anticipated. As a result, our research fails to give an explanation for the projection of multiple construals in there-existential constructions.

We are aware that our research consists of some limitations. The first is the overall size and length of the corpus. The second is the small number of Māori speakers. And the third limitation is the fact that the corpus is outdated. To improve further research on multiple-marking, it is observed that an updated corpus with more accurate and colloquial language is needed.

This study suggests that dissimilarities between PE and ME might start to fade in favour of a common language variety which represents both groups. Language is not static; time allows the features of a language variety to become stronger and more observable. It is believed that the number of Māori speakers and the exchange between PE and ME speakers has increased in recent years. With time, one would expect to find that the difference between the English spoken by these two ethnic groups becomes smaller while the difference to other English varieties becomes more significant.

To support our claim, further work needs to be performed to establish whether the Māori language influences NZE.