Degree and type of proficiency

The typologies of speakers cited above concern the overall proficiency of indi-vidual speakers. But it may be sometimes useful to specify the degree of profi-ciency in terms of each of the components of language, such as phonology, mor-phology, syntax, lexicon, and register/style.

[1] Classification in terms of register, grammar, lexicon, and receptive skills Voegelin and Voegelin (1977) proposed a speaker typology in terms of syntax, vocabulary, and receptive ability. Speakers may be classified as follows, exhib-iting a continuum of proficiency.

9.4. Proposed classifications 123

(a) Special style speakers.

(b) Ordinary style speakers: (b-i) running text speakers, (b-ii) complex sen-tence speakers, (b-iii) simple sensen-tence speakers, (b-iv) phrase speakers, (b-v) word speakers.

(c) Passive users.

We shall look at each of these categories.

(a) Special style speakers

As seen in 8.3 and 8.4.4.7, one of the first things that ceases to be transmitted in language endangerment seems to be a/the special style(s) of speech, such as Jalnguy (the avoidance style) of Warrungu. In the classification proposed here, the most fluent speakers are special style speakers, who have a command of a/the special style(s) as well as the ordinary style. Special style speakers will no doubt have a full command of the ordinary style as well, as is seen among many of the speakers the writer has interviewed in Kimberley, Western Aus-tralia.

(b) Ordinary style speakers

Ordinary style speakers do not know a/the special style(s) and speak the ordi-nary style only. They may be termed monostyle speakers (cf. Dressler's 1972:

454-455 term "monostylism"), while special style speakers may labeled bistyle speakers (if there is one special style) or multistyle speakers (if there are two or more special styles).

A division of special style speakers and ordinary style speakers within a community is reported by Hill (1983: 266), and Hill and Hill (1980: 336) re-garding the use of honorifics in Nahuatl of Mexico: when speaking of the dead, among others, broad honorific users (i.e. special style speakers) use honorif-ic markers, while narrow honorifhonorif-ic users (i.e. ordinary style speakers) employ forms unmarked for honorifics.

Ordinary style speakers may be classified in terms of their production of texts, syntax, and vocabulary of the ordinary style.

(b-i) Running text speakers are able to produce running texts. An example is Alf Palmer, a Warrungu speaker (cf. 8.3, 8.4.4.7). He did not know Jalnguy (the avoidance style), but he was highly proficient in the ordinary style, and he pro-duced about six hours of running texts.

(b-ii) Complex sentence speakers are unable to produce connected speech, but can form complex sentences. This category seems possible, but the writer has not come across any such speaker as yet. Schmidt (1985a, 1985b) provides an account of Dyirbal speakers who can produce complex sentences (8.2.5.2), but it is not clear whether they can produce running texts. If they cannot, they will be classified as complex sentence speakers.

As noted in 8.4.4.4, Hill (1973, 1983, 1989) reports the presence of speak-ers who undspeak-erstand complex sentences, but who use them at an extremely low rate. In our classification, they may be termed "latent speakers" (9.2.1) of com-plex sentences.

(b-iii) Simple sentence speakers are unable to produce complex sentenc-es, but can form simple sentences. (The late) Eddie Barker, a speaker of Bin of Queensland, Australia, probably belongs to this category. He produced simple sentences, most of them short, but he did not yield complex sentences.

(b-iv) Phrase speakers are unable to form sentences, but can utter phras-es, often cliches or frozen expressions. (The late) Reggie Palm Island (men-tioned in 5.1-[7], 8.4.4.3), a speaker of Buluguyban of Queensland, may be assigned to this category. Thus, he produced about 50 words, but apparently he was not able to form a sentence. He only remembered what appear to be frozen expressions such as "You man", "I to the camp", "You stand up", and

"Lie down".

It is possible to set up a category between (b-iii) simple sentence speak-ers and (b-iv) phrase speakspeak-ers. One possible example is (the late) Harry Bunn, who was probably a speaker of Warrungu of Queensland. He was able to

con-struct simple sentences that appear to be almost grammatical, but often he was not certain of the correct verbal suffix, and a given verbal suffix

exhibit-ed a fluctuation between what appear to be correct and incorrect forms. That is, he was able to produce simple sentences, but with a low degree of gramma-ticality.

(b-v) Word speakers are unable to form phrases, but they know and use some vocabulary. This category of speakers survive long after the language ceases to be actively spoken. Thus, (as of 2002), many descendants of the peo-ple mentioned in (b-i) through (b-iv) belong to this category. They occasionally include isolated words in their English.

(c) Passive users cannot speak the language, but they have its passive knowl-edge. (Voegelin and Voegelin 1977: 333 use the terms "comprehenders, under-standers" for this category.) An example from Western Australia is provided be-low. One day in 1998, Maggie Scott, a Wanyjirra speaker (Wanyjirra names:

Dalyngarri, Dangayi), and the writer were listening to the tape of a story nar-rated by the late Nyun.gaja Paddy in Wanyjirra. Kathleen Cox (Maggie Scott's daughter) was sitting nearby and listening to the tape. The writer had never seen or heard Kathleen Cox speak Wanyjirra, so he had assumed that she did not know the language. Now, the story was truly amusing and humorous, and Maggie Scott and the writer burst into laughter, which Kathleen Cox joined immediately. A discussion afterwards showed that Kathleen Cox understands Wanyjirra, although she cannot speak it.

9.4. Proposed classifications 125

Thus far, we have proposed a classification that concerns register, grammar, lexicon, and receptive skills. In addition, other criteria, too, are possible, and they may be sometimes useful.

[2] Other criteria: phonology, morphology, and lexicon

(a) Phonology. For instance, some of the young Dyirbal speakers retain the opposition of Λτ/and /r/, while others have merged them (8.2.2.2). The former may be termed "phonemic opposition retainers", and the latter "phonemic op-position losers".

(b) Morphology. Speakers may be divided into those who have a command of allomorphic alternations and those who do not (cf. 8.2.4.1). Also, they may be divided between those who have retained word-formation rules and those who have lost them (cf. 8.4.4.3, Dressler 1982: 325).

Hill (1983: 267) classifies Nahuatl speakers in terms of their use of mor-phology. In Classical Nahuatl, nouns in noun-number constructions such as two dogs, three hats were usually not pluralized, while, in Spanish, nouns must be pluralized with numbers. Now, Spanish numbers have entered Nahuatl, and this has created three groups of Nahuatl speakers. The most conservative speakers use some Spanish numbers, but they pluralize only a few market words (peso, kilo, etc.) and learned words (oraciones). "Splitters" always pluralize nouns with Spanish numbers, but only allow singular nouns with Nahuatl numbers.

"Mixers" allow almost any combination of Spanish and Nahuatl numbers with either singular or plural Spanish and Nahuatl nouns.

(c) Lexicon. As seen in 8.2.7.2 and 8.4.4.6, some speakers may retain a good knowledge of the lexicon, while other may have lost a fair portion of it. Some retain the knowledge of specific terms, while others only retain generic terms.

The former may be termed "generic lexicon users", and the latter "specific lex-icon users".

9.4.1.2. Period of proficiency

Speakers may be classified according to the period during which they were/are proficient in the language. Proposed terms include the following. Most of them additionally refer to the degree of proficiency that is retained.

Campbell's (1994: 1960) term "forgetters"; Elmendorfs (1981: 36) and Swadesh's (1948: 231) "former speakers"; and Dorian's (1994a: 639, fn. 11, 1999a: 108) and Menn's (1989: 342) "formerly fluent speakers" appear to re-fer to much the same category of speakers: those who were proficient in the language formerly, but who are now not fully competent (Dorian 1994a: 639, fn. 11).

Menn (1989: 345) coined the term "rusty speakers" to refer to speakers who have to expend a great deal of energy on retrieving words and putting sentenc-es together.

A possible example of a former speaker, of a formerly fluent speaker, and also of a rusty speaker, is sketched by Haas (1968: 77). This concerns Mrs.

Emma Jackson, a speaker of the southern US language Biloxi. Haas writes:

"she had not spoken the language for 21 years", but "We succeeded in elicit-ing 54 words from her". "It seems clear that she had once known the language quite well".

A category similar to "forgetters" and "former speakers" is what may be termed "recollecters" or "recallers". Thus, Kirikae (1997: 173) provides an ex-ample from Japan: "The present author has had many chances to meet Ainu in-dividuals who at first denied their Ainu language ability, but who neverthe-less recalled many words and phrases when submitted to patient and persistent questioning. After several sessions of work, some of these persons have even begun to speak Ainu". Dorian (1982: 26-27) reports a similar instance concern-ing a Scottish Gaelic speaker.

9.4.2. Classification in terms of acquisition of the language

There are two relevant criteria: (i) age of acquisition, and (ii) order of acquisi-tion.

f l ] Age of acquisition

Speakers may be classified in terms of the age at which they acquired the lan-guage, e.g. childhood learners, adolescence learners, and adulthood learners.

Instances of childhood learners and of adolescence learners are no doubt com-mon and familiar. The cases of adulthood learners may appear uncomcom-mon, but they do exist, e.g. adult learners of Maaori (5.2-[9], 11.5.2) and adult learners of Irish (11.5.3). Both are instances of learning of a second language.

Nancy Dorian (p.c.) points out, however, that learning of a second lan-guage may proceed intermittently in childhood, adolescence and/or adulthood, and that it is not always justifiable to place acquisition in just one of the three phases.

[2] Order of acquisition

Speakers may be classified as to whether the language in question is the first language acquired or the second acquired (or any other additional language ac-quired): first language speakers, second language speakers, and so on.

Naturally, people acquire their first language in childhood (under normal circumstances). They are native speakers of the first language (5.2-[6]).

9.4. Proposed classifications 127

In many parts of the world, monolingualism is the exception, and a person may have more than one first language (Dimmendaal 2001: 61). Thus, around the border between Jaru and Kija in Kimberley, Western Australia, many peo-ple speak both languages fluently, although these two languages are as differ-ent from each other as English and Russian are (as noted in 6.2-[2]-(j)). It seems that the people around the border grew up hearing and speaking both Jaru and Kija. It then seems possible to say that they have two first languages and that they are native speakers of both. In such a case it is difficult to determine which language is a given person's first language.

Note that a person's first language is not necessarily the one in which he/she is most proficient later in his/her life (referred to as "primary language" by Mil-ler 1971: 116), as can be seen from Figure 9-1. MilMil-ler (1971: 116) provides an example from Shoshoni of the USA.

The distinction between first language speakers and other speakers (such as second language speakers) is relevant in defining language death, as seen in 5.2-[6], [8],

9.4.3. Classification in terms of use of the language

There are variables, such as (i) period and length of use, (ii) frequency, and (iii) functional domains.

[ 1 ] Period and length of use

It is relevant to enquire when a speaker started using the language, when he/

she stopped using it, and during what period of life he/she uses/used it. For ex-ample, it appears that Alf Palmer acquired Warrungu as a child (probably late in the 19th century and early in the 20th century), that he used it actively until about 1920, but that he did not use it actively for about 50 years (cf. 5.2-[3]), from about 1920 to 1971, when he started participating in the writer's field-work.

There are terms that ostensibly refer to the period of use of the language, e.g.

Elmendorfs (1981: 36) and Swadesh's (1948: 231) "former speakers". How-ever, as seen in 9.4.1.2, on a close inspection they turn out to concern the peri-od of proficiency (rather than periperi-od of use) and also the degree of proficien-cy that is retained.

[2] Frequency of use

People vary according to the frequency with which they speak the language in question (cf. Grinevald 2001: 303). There are people who speak the language everyday. They may be called daily speakers. Also, there are people who speak the language less frequently. If there are people who speak their language on

their weekly visit, monthly visit, or yearly visit to their family or friends, they may be labeled weekly speakers, monthly speakers, and yearly speakers, re-spectively. Actual situations are not really neat and clear-cut, but there are sit-uations that approximate this classification. Thus, Maggie Scott, a Wanyjirra speaker who lives in Halls Creek of Western Australia, may be termed a year-ly speaker. It seems that she does not speak Wanyjirra often, and that the onyear-ly time she speaks it frequently is the period when the writer works with her on his annual visit.

[3] Functional domains

Speakers may be classified according to the range of functional domains (7.2.2) in which they use the language in question. Thus, those who speak it inside the family, but not outside it, may be termed family speakers; those who speak it for secrecy only are secrecy speakers; and so on.

9.4.4. Classification in terms of the age of speakers

It is possible to classify speakers in terms of age, e.g. (i) child speakers, adult speakers, and so on, (ii) young speakers, old speakers, and so on, and (iii) speakers under 10, those under 20, those under 30, and so on. A classification that refers to the age of speakers is necessary when examining the degree of endangerment (or conversely viability) of the language, as seen in 2.2 and 6.2-[2]-(g).

As seen in 9.3, most of the previously proposed speaker typologies refer to the age in addition to the proficiency of speakers. This is no doubt because these two factors often correlate with each other.

We have seen classifications that concern proficiency, acquisition of the lan-guage, use of the lanlan-guage, and age of speakers. There are still other possibil-ities.

Thus, speakers may be classified in terms of sex. Rouchdy's classification, cited in 9.3-[2], employs this as one of the criteria. This classification in terms of sex is also relevant to languages such as Gros Ventre of Montana, which ex-hibit a difference between men's and women's speech (6.3-[9]-(b-ii)).

Also, speakers may be classified in terms of domicile, e.g. rural speakers and urban speakers. Again, this is employed in Rouchdy's classification.

Domicile and sex, too, are relevant when considering the degree of endan-germent (or conversely viability) of the language, as seen in [l]-(c) and 6.2-[2]-(h).

Im Dokument Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data (Seite 149-156)