mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== source url: http://humanities.byu.edu/classes/ling450ch/australia.html /* *The Australian Language Family* Kirstin Michener Linguistics 450, Section 1 Dr. Cynthia Hallen 29 January 1998 The Aboriginal languages of Australia are magnificent and mysterious. Australia is one of many parts of the world that until relatively recent times has carried no written record of itís native people. Until it was settled by the English in the late 1700ís it had remained a very secluded society and so had its languages. The native languages of mainland Australia and Tasmania make up one of the largest language families in the world, the Australian language family. With many known dialects, little or no written records, and a people of nomadic culture, it is difficult to say exactly how many languages potentially belong to this language family. There are anywhere from one hundred and fifty to six hundred and fifty. To even call it a language family at this point is still a pretty bold assumption. Very little is known of the history of these people before the British and even less is known of their language. There are very few or no true established genetic links between this wide array of potential siblings. Many of the relationships that have been established to this point are based on surface similarities and almost solely on lexical comparisons. Here we will discuss the influence of history on the Australian language, its possible genetic family, what we know of proto-Australian, and the fields of research that have brought us to our modern conclusions. *_The History of Linguistics in Australia _* The first records of an Australian language of which we are aware was recorded in 1770 by Sir Joseph Banks. While exploring Australia with Captain Cook, his ship stopped in the Endeavour River area of Australia. In this area they encountered an aboriginal tribe and Banks made a record of their language. In total he recorded nearly 180 words and their meanings. After returning to England, he used this information to develop a dictionary of the "The Australian Language". This was the first time that an Englishman had attempted to understand "The Australian Language" (Dixon 8). Eighteen years latter while establishing a convict colony near Sydney Bay Governor Arthur Phillip brought with him a copy of Bankís Australian "dictionary" in the hopes of successful communication with the natives. Unfortunately Governor Phillip soon discovered that the natives of the Sydney area did not understand or use any of the words in his dictionary. At this time in history it was believed that only one language existed in the whole of Australia and so the governor simply assumed that Bankís dictionary was useless. It was not until years later, on an excursion to the north, that it was discovered that there was more than one language in Australia and that Bankís dictionary had been sound after all (Dixon 8-9). The misconception that there was only one native language in Australia was just one of many that would hinder the acceptance of the aboriginal people and the study of their languages. Among others was the idea that these natives and their languages were primitive. It was believed that they used only rudimentary grunts and sounds to convey the simplest of ideas. Their languages were thought to consist of vocabularies ranging from 100 to 300 words and incapable of discussing abstract thoughts (Dixon 4-5). As we know, no language is simple or primitive. Lack of ability to understand that which is unfamiliar is what perpetuated this idea. For example, in English we have generic terms for things like snake or tree. Generic terms donít serve the hunter-gatherer lifestyle of the aborigine so they have a specific name for each type of snake or tree that lets you know all of its traits as well. If I was out hunting and someone were to say, "Look there is a snake," that would not be nearly as helpful as using a word for snake that would tell me what it looked like, whether it was poisonous, or if it was a threat or a scenic object (Dixon 5). The British, unfamiliar with this kind of system, so unlike there own, assumed because there were not abstract words that these peopleís languages were incapable of abstract thought. The British believed the people themselves were backward and inferior. Unfortunately many of these misconceptions, although demeaning and disastrous, still exist today (Dixon 5). The belittlement of the aborigine has made serious linguistic study in Australia an unpopular field of study. But as with all unfavorable subjects there are always a few who try. Many of the first linguists in Australia, as in other parts of the world, came in the form of missionaries. Their main focus was to understand the languages of these "barbaric" people so they could translate the Bible. Using the teachings from the Bible the missionaries hoped to civilize the aborigines. Although maybe not of the purest linguistic intentions, the efforts of these missionaries documented the vocabularies and grammars of many languages that would come to be extinct. We may also credit much of linguistic documentation to the early explorers in Australia. These rugged men would go where few others would, into the bush, and hence came in contact with not just a few but several different tribes. It was one of these explorers, Captain George Grey, who first noticed strong similarities among all the languages with which he came in contact. Grey was the first to propose genetic relationships among the Australian languages and to even go so far as to develop a comparison of the lexicon of several native languages by using their cognates. He was trying to make a family tree (Dixon 11-12). After Grey there was little linguistic work done until the late 1870ís. At this time in Australian history many of the once hostile feelings toward the aborigines were changing . Dixon describes the reasons for the new interest: A doctrine of Social Darwinism provided ëthe basis for an evolutionary theory of social development in which fitness to survive was measured by technological sophistication... The effect of the theory was to foster the notion that the Aborigines were a relic of a lower order of evolution, a relic which could not withstand contact with a superior race and for whom there was no room in the dawning twentieth century.í It was thought inevitable that the Aborigines would soon die out..." (12-13) However wrong this way of thinking may have been, it was of great benefit to the Aborigines both socially and linguistically. There were many linguists and anthropologists who began to focus on the preservation of this unique people. Some of the key linguistic contributors of the time included E.M. Curr, James Dawson, and R.H. Matthews. These men created some of the most comprehensive comparisons of Australian languages that we still use today. Their research includes some of the first written records we have for many of the languages of Australia. Many of the languages they compiled for study have since died; along with the people that spoke the languages. We are left only with the research done by these pioneering linguists (Dixon 13-15). This linguistic "Golden Age" was short lived and a "Dark Age" began. In 1913 the government of Queensland again repressed the Aborigines. They were forced to leave there homes and were placed in settlements that resembled penal colonies. They were not permitted to travel outside these areas without permission. They were once again being treated as prisoners and outcasts in their own land. This new, negative, perspective of the Aborigines caused linguistic interest to dry up (Dixon 16). During this drought of linguistic study very few took an interest in the Aboriginal languages. The only linguist of note during this time was Arthur Capell of the University of Sydney. In 1956 he published his years of research in a comprehensive look at Australian languages called_ A New Approach to Australian Linguistics_. This book was a much needed look at the phonetic and grammatical features of the Australian Aboriginal languages. Although his work rekindled interest in the field of linguistics "down under", it has still been slow going since then (Dixon 16). *_Lexical Analysis of the Australian Languages_* Most of the linguistic research until now has been based solely on lexicostatistics. Lexicostatistics is a method of comparison that uses only the vocabulary of the languages. First a list of relatively standard vocabulary terms is developed. This list includes words that are likely to occur in all languages. This may include words for, "pronouns, numerals, body parts, geographical features, basic actions and basic states" (Crowely 168-169). Linguists then use these selective samples of the lexicons in the hopes of finding cognates that would support the theory of genetic relationship. This method is contingent on two basic ideas holding true; the selected vocabulary will be found in all the analyzed languages and the rate of change for these words will be the same for all observed languages (Crowley 168-169). The method of lexicostatistics is most commonly used among languages where the data is very limited. This is found among the Australian languages. The data here is so limited that even lexicostatistics has failed to create stable genetic links. Many problems have arisen in the research of these languages (Crowely 168). The first of these problems lies in developing the cognates themselves. Yallop tells us that, "In Australia...there are only about 50 nouns, verbs, and adjectives which are at all common and none of these can be described as exhibiting cognate forms across the continent" (35). He then shares this example taken from the work of Capell. The words for eye occur in the following similar forms: /mil, miyil, mir, mee /or/ meere. /It also holds true that in other Australian languages the word for eye is represented as /ampul, atnnga, alknga/ or /wun/. With no explanations for such wide varieties it is hard to call them cognates and to say that their languages are related (Yallop 35). Some of these seemingly misplaced words may be accounted for by the drastic and swift evolution of the Australian language lexicons due to contact, isolation, and deliberate manipulation. In aborigine customs when a person dies their name and anything that sounds like it can never be used again. When these words are suddenly and deliberately removed from the lexicon, the idea of constant rate of change in the lexicon is destroyed. This may account for some of the wide diversity seen in the comparison above. New words must be created or borrowed to fill in the gaps created by the removal of these words and makes cross language comparisons difficult to validate (Yallop 38). Another influence is language contact. Both Aborigine myth and history support the theory of at least two other invasions of the Australian continent before the English. We do not know by whom or even what time period. This makes it very difficult to say what influences they might have had on language. We also must remember that most of the tribes we are discussing were nomadic and it is unknown where they went and what other tribes they came in contact with (Dixon 19). When analyzing lexical information in the various languages it is also important to recall that many of the Aborigine do not use abstract terms for common objects. They name things according to their specific needs. This further complicates a cross language comparison as there may be no one word that represents the comparable meaning. Many languages have several synonyms to represent one possible cognate (Yallop 35). The inadequacy of this method in practice can most clearly be seen in the work of Father Wilhelm Schmidt of Vienna. He created the first family tree of Australia in 1919 based on these lexical findings. He himself new that his proposed relationships were based on inadequate information. But as he had no knowledge of Australian languages he was totally dependent on others research. The language tree he proposed, although modified, is still used today (Dixon 15). We know that more than cognate comparison is needed to determine genetic relationship. Many linguists have contributed more details to his classification but only recently have there been more detailed comparisons begun. *_Additional Fields of Analysis _* In the _Handbook of Australian Languages_ many of these new fields of comparison are discussed in detail. Here we will outline the criteria used by most modern linguists in studying the Australian languages as presented by Dixon and Blake in the _Handbook of Australian Languages_. The first similarities between the Australian languages were found in their case relationships. It was discovered that while word order was of significance in some of the Australian languages in most it was not. Even in examples of discernible word order the word order did not seem to mark syntactic relationships. Much of the syntactic marking that occurred was found to occur through the use of affixes (6-7). Further trends were discovered when analyzing pronouns, verbs, the word building process, particles and clitics, phonology, and auxiliary forms. The pronouns are used to represent the singular and plural as with many other languages but their plural has an added dimension it distinguishes between two person plural and three or more. All of these are represented in first, second, and third person. The forms of these pronouns across languages are also similar for example, the first person singular in many Australian languages is represented by the root /na/ as in nata, naya, or nayu (11-12). Australian verbs show there similarities in construction and conjugation. Almost all verb roots end in a vowel to which a consonant conjugational ending is attached. Australian languages have anywhere from two to six verb conjugations. In most of the Australian languages verbs can be represented in past present and future while some are limited to past and non-past. Many of these verbs also can use derivational affixes o derive transitive from intransitive verbs, form reflexes, or change semantics (13-14). In word building all Australian languages use derivational suffixes. They all contain groups of nominal and verbal roots to which these suffixes may be added. You will not usually find a nominal root that may serve as a verbal root as well or vice versa. The derivational suffixes most commonly found are suffixes that denote ëhavingí those that denote ëlackingí, suffixes that form intransitive verbs from nominal roots, those that form transitive verbs from nominal roots, and those that from transitive verbal roots from intransitive verbal roots. Compounding among the Australian languages is seen but not very common while reduplication is frequently used to show intensity or to derive adjectives from nominal roots (15-17). Particles and clitics are most often used among the Australian languages to form , "negation, interrogation, uncertainty, emphasis, direction or orientation." Often they are pronounced as part of the proceeding word and are perceived as suffixes and in some cases they can only occur as suffixes (17-18). Some of the most unique similarities among the Australian languages can be seen in their phonetic makeup. The consonants range from four to six points of articulation with the most common being five. The vowels range from three to seven in number with the most common being three.(Yallop 66-67) An example of a typical phoneme chart may be seen below. (The following charts are taken from both Yallop 59 and Blake Dixon 18-19) *__* *_Consonants:_* Bilabial Apico-alveolar Apico-domal Laminal Dorso-velar Stops p t rt ty k Nasals m n rn ny n Laterals l rl ly Flap r Semi-vowels (w) rr y w *__* *_Vowels:_* Front Mid Back High i u Low a The last area that the_ Handbook of Australian Languages_ discusses for us are the auxiliary forms. In certain environments and particularly among certain relations, namely in-laws an almost new language is spoken. Verb forms and nouns are generalized and the language becomes simple and respectful. New phonemes may enter this auxiliary speech and forms that would be found in day to day conversations are abandoned. This goes beyond a simple change of register that is typical among other languages outside of Australia (24). *_Establishing proto-Australian _* Using the criteria discussed above as presented in the _Handbook of Australian_ _Languages_ linguists have begun to establish the beginnings of a proto-Australian language. Much of what will ever be known about proto-Australian is limited, guesses at best because the methodology used to derive it is still linguistically incomplete (Crowely 180). There is also no way of knowing when this proto language may have existed. Many scientists have hypothesised about the arrival of people in Australia but it is still undetermined. Archaelogical work shows that man has been in Australia for over 30,000 years...it also indicates that the wild Australian dog, the dingo, was brought to the continent perhaps only 4,000 years ago, suggesting that thee must have been at least two wves of invasion before the Europeans. We have no way of telling whether proto-Australian was spoken 30,000 years or longer ago, or much more recently than that. There are many possibilities...(Dixon 19) At best we can create a proto language that filters out some of the more recent (last several thousand years) contact by other languages. In comparison to a study of proto-Indo-European proto-Australian is relatively crippled without written records dating before the 1780ís. It would be like trying to create proto-Indo-European from only the records of itís posterity since the Revolutionary War in the United States. It is a lot of assumption, based on new data, at best. Very few linguists have attempted to make assumptions about a proto-Australian language. Many feel there is not enough evidence to create genetic relationships; let alone recreate a proto-language. However R. M. W. Dixon is one who has developed some conclusions from the data we currently have. Dixon begins his discussion of proto-Australian with the basic syllable structure. He theorizes that the basic syllable appeared as C_1 V(C_2 ). These syllables were used as monosyllabic roots that could be added to by derivational affixes. The phonemeís of this system consisted of stops, /b, d, j/ and /g/, nasals, /m, n, ny/, and /n/, semi-vowels, /w/ and/ y/, rhotics, trill /rr /and semi-retroflex continuant /r/, apico alveolar lateral /l/ and laminal lateral /ly/. These consonants were limited in their use. In the position C_1 , /ly/, and /rr /did not occur and /n/ did so rarely. In addition only /n, l, rr, ny/, and /ly/, could occur in the position C_2 (Dixon 469). The vowel system in proto-Australian only contained three vowels but the exact phonemes for these are unknown. It is most likely that they were a representation of front mid and back vowels. He believes there were only four nominal cases and that the verb roots were monosyllabic with affixes used for inflection (Dixon 470-471). As we can see there are many things still unknown about proto-Australian. The main field of work currently still belongs to creating genetic links between the known families. *_The Family Tree of the Australian Language Family _* It was mentioned earlier that there are an estimated 150 - 650 Australian languages. While this is true I have found that most linguists settle around 250. Yallop presents the most concise breakdown of those groups. Of those 250 languages only 5 have more than 1,000 speakers today, 10 have 500-1,000 speakers, 10 have 250-500 speakers, 45 have 50-250 speakers, 130 have less than 50 speakers but are not limited in use and 50 have become extinct. (As may be apparent those that have less than 50 speakers are also on their way to extinction. Many of them are only spoken by the very old. There are currently programs being implemented to preserve these languages among the young.) These languages all fall under the heading of proto-Australian (30). The next subgroups (as defined by Yallop) are ëMainlandí and ëTasmaniaí. The Tasmanian language group consisted of five dialects that have been extinct since the early twentieth century.(Yallop 38-39) The table from Yallop in Appendix A allows us to see the further breakdown of the mainland languages to suffix and prefix languages and to the 27 language groups. The Australian language family is a diverse and unfamiliar linguistic realm. There is much we have learned and hypothesized about this family but still little is /known/ about it. This is a great area for research because it is a relatively fresh field of study. Many languages have been studied for thousands of years. The Australian language family has only been studied sporadically for two hundred years. Much research needs to be done to more concretely establish genetic links within the family as well as to establish links to other language families. *Appendix A * *Table 2.4: Classification of mainland Australian Languages (Yallop 45-47)* Family/Group Principle languages still spoken Total no. of languages Major location or area 1 TIWIAN Tiwi 1 Bathurst I. 2 IWAIDJAN Maung, Iwaidja 5 Goulburn Is. 3 GUNABIDJIAN Gunabidjian 1 Maningrida 4 NAKARAN Nakara 1 Maningrida 5 GUNWINYGUAN Gunwinygu, Gunbalang, Ngal- 11 N.W. Arnhem Land kbun, Rembarunga, Ngandi 6 BURARRAN Burarra 2 Maningrida 7 NUNGGUBUYAN Nunggubuyu 1 Numbulwar 8 ANINDILYAKWAN Anindilyakwa 1 Groote Eylandt 9 MARAN Alawa, Warndarang, Mara 3 E. Arnhem Land 10 MANGARAIAN Mangarai 1 Mataranka, Elsey 11 YANYULAN Yanyuwa 1 Borroloola 12 MANGERIAN 2 W. Arnhem Land 13 KAKADJUAN 1 W. Arnhem Land NGEWINAN? inadequately recorded 14 MURINYPATAN Murinypata 1 Port Keats 15 LARAKIAN 2 Darwin area 16 KUNGARAKANYAN 1 N.W. Northern Territory 17 WARRAIAN 1 N.W. Northern Territory 18 DALY: MOILIC Ngankikurungkurr 1 BRINKEN- Maringarr, Brinken 6 Daly River area WAGATJ MULLUK Malak-Malak 3 19 DJAMINDJUNGAN Ngaliwuru, Nungali 4 N.T./W.A. Border 20 DJERAGAN Kitja, Miriwung 5 Hall's Creek, Kununurra 21 BUNABAN Bunaba, Gunian 2 Fitztroy Crossing 22 WORORAN Ngarinyin, Worora, Wunambal 12 Derby, Wyndham 23 NYULNYULAN Bardi (Nyulnyul) 4 Derby, Lombardina 24 DJINGILIWAMBAYAN Djingili 3 Newcastle Waters, Elliott 25 GARAWAN Garawa 2 Borroloola 26 MINKINAN 1 N.W. Queensland 27 PAMA-NYUNGAN South-Western Watjari (Nyungar), Western 46 Roghly the south-western Desert (incl. Pitjantjatjara, Pin- quarter of Australia tupi, etc.), Wanman, Nyangu- marda, Yindjibarndi, Pandjima, Ngarluma, Gurindji, Mudbura, Ngarinman, Djaru, Walmatjari, Warlpiri Arandic Aranda (incl. Alyawarra), 2 Central Australia Kaititj Waramangic Waramanga 1 Barkly Tableland Wakaya- Wakaya 2 Barkly Tableland Warluwaric Kallatungic 6 W. Queensland Pitta-Pittic etc. (5 groups) Arabanic & Dieric 8 N.E. South Australia Darling (Bagundji) 1 Darling River area Narrinyeric 3 Lower Murray River area Kulinic, Kurnic, etc. 12? Victoria (4 groups) Yuin-Kuric 10 South and Central Coast of New South Wales Wiradjuric 8 Central West of N.S.W. Gumbainggaric, 12+ Northern N.S.W., Bandjalangic, etc. S.E. Queensland (at least 4 groups) Pama-Maric Wik-Munkan, Kuuk-Thaayorre, 30+ Cape York - Central Kunjen, Koko-Bera, Yir-Yoront, Queensland Kuku-Ya'u, Gugu-Yalanji, Guugu-Yimidhirr Dyirbalic, eyc. Dyirbal 8 Atherton Tableland, (4 groups) Cairns area Lamalamic 5 E. Cape York Other Gulf Languages 5? Gulf of Carpentaria (4 groups?) (southern coast) Mabuyagic Mabuyag 1 W. Torres Strait Is. Murngic Yuulngu = Dhuwala (incl. 9 N.E. Arnhem Land Gupapuyngu, Gumatj), Dhuwal, (incl. Djambarbuyngu), Dhiya- kuy (incl. Ritharngu), Dhangu (incl. Galpu, Wan'guri), Djangu (incl. Waramiri), Djinang, Djining (incl. Ganalpingu) Total number of PAMA-NYUNGAN languages 175 Families 1 - 23 are prefixing languages, Families 24 - 27 are suffixing languages *Works Cited* Crowley, Terry. _An introduction to Historical Linguistics_. New Zealand: Oxford University Press, 1992. Dixon, R.M.W., Barry J. Blake, eds. _Handbook of Australian Languages_. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1979. Dixon, R.M.W. _The Languages of Australia_. London: Morrison & Gibb, 1980. Yallop, Colin. _Australian Aboriginal Languages_. Ed. David Crystal. London: Andre Deutsh Limited, 1982. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Instructor | Textbook & Materials | Course Objectives | Major Learning Activities | Course Requirements & Grading Scheme | Resources | Language Reports | Home ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1998 © Dr. Cynthia L. Hallen Department of Linguistics Brigham Young University Last Updated: Wednesday, April 1, 1998