Language as a gift from the ancestral beings

According to the belief of Aboriginal Australians, people, language, and land are closely connected. Thus, Sutton (1991: 50) states: "It is a general rule in Aboriginal Australia that languages are held to have originated when Dream-ings (Ancestral BeDream-ings, totemic heroes) invested the land with meaning and human beings". Rumsey (1993: 200) provides a specific example concerning the Jawoyn language of Northern Territory: "language was directly installed or 'planted' in the landscape by Nabilil 'Crocodile', a Dreamtime creator fig-ure who moved up the Katherine River, establishing sites and leaving names for them in the Jawoyn language". See also Dalton et al. (1995: 84), Evans (2001: 253), Hudson and McConvell (1984: 37), McKay (1996: 226-227), Na-than (1996: 26), and Rumsey (1993: 201-204). According to this belief, people

"own" their language (Evans 2001: 253; Nathan 1996: 26). As a consequence, to keep the traditional language "is a sacred duty given to each group by the Cre-ator Dreamings" (Hudson and McConvell 1984: 37).

10.2. Concern for language endangerment 137 Stories of how North American languages were given by Creators are found in Hinton (1994). Native Americans (cited by Yamamoto 2001: 339), too, con-sider it their duty to keep their languages: "If we don't use it, we are not fulfill-ing our responsibility. If we don't give life to it, we are neglectfulfill-ing to perform our duties. Our Creator has created for us the world through language. So, if we don't speak it, there is no world".

The belief that people own their language, points to the need to distinguish between "language owners" and "language speakers" (Evans 2001: 251). Thus, many Aboriginal Australians consider they own their ancestral language even if they do not speak it (Amery 1994: 140, 2000: 44; McKay 1996: 101; Nathan 1996: 26, 1999: 1). They are owners, but not users, of their language. In contrast,

"another-group language speakers", who speak the language of another group (5.2-[8]), are users, but not owners, of that language. See 11.5.15 for examples of language owners and language users.

The conviction of language ownership constitutes a strong motivation for language revival. Language revival will be discussed in Chapter 11. Also, lan-guage ownership needs to be taken into account when choosing a lanlan-guage to revive, as seen in 11.5.15.

10.2.2.3. Language as a connection to the ancestors and land

Based on the view expounded above is the view that the language connects the people with their ancestors and land. Thus, Bonnie Deegan, a Jaru person and the former chairperson of Kimberley Language Resource Centre, Western Aus-tralia, states {Keeping Language Strong KLRC Newsletter 1996: 1): "Language is a very big part of the culture of Aboriginal people in the Kimberley. We know who we are by the language we speak. It joins us to our past and our old people, right back to the dreamtime. It ties us to our land, and it makes us proud and strong". Similar views are expressed by Velma Hale (a Navajo person (?), the USA) (Reyhner and House 1996: 134) and by Simon Ortiz, an Acoma person of the USA (Wallace 1996: 105).

Hudson and McConvell (1984: 37-38) report a specific manifestation of the connection of language to the land, from Kimberley, Western Australia: "Lan-guage expresses a strong link to the land. People should talk to the spirits in cer-tain places in their own country in the old language shared by the [traditional, i.e. Aboriginal] owner and the spirit, to make sure he does them no harm. Young people who lose this ability could be in danger". Thus, in 1999, the writer re-corded a brief speech (consisting of just three or four sentences) in the Jaru lan-guage that was uttered by Ruby (Aboriginal names: Janyjiwug and Yurun), a traditional owner of a sacred place called Nanggurru Lake, near Kimberley. The

speech was addressed to the spirit of the lake. Such a message is believed to en-sure the safety of visitors to the lake.

What will happen to the land if the language is lost? Littlebear (1999: 2) states: "Our land base and sacred practices are passed on through our languag-es, not by English, the language spoken by people who killed our people and oppressed our language". Therefore, "once our language disappears, ..., land ceases to be sacred and becomes looked on as only a commodity to be bought and sold".

In view of the strong link among people, land, and language (in Australia and elsewhere), place names will embody immeasurable significance for the people concerned, and they will play an important role in language revitaliza-tion activities (see 11.5.13, Place name method). Naturally, their study should not be neglected in fieldwork (13.1.3).

Views similar to "language as a connection to the ancestors and land" are held by scholars as well. See Tovey, Hannan, and Abramson (1989: iv, 28) re-garding Irish.

10.2.2.4. Language as irreplaceable cultural knowledge, and as a conveyor of culture

The two views discussed above naturally lead to the view: language constitutes

"irreplaceable cultural knowledge" (Needs and Rationale Group 1996: 2), for it encodes "Indigenous knowledge, perceptions, and strategies" (Jocks 1998:

230). That is, it is "a conveyor of culture and ceremonies" (Theresa Yazzie, a Navajo person, cited by Reyhner and House 1996: 134). Thus, Lorraine Dalton, Sandra Edwards, Rosaleen Farquarson, and Sarah Oscar, who are members of the Gurindji group of Australia state: "We want to keep our language because we want to pass on the Law (Yumi) to our grandchildren. The Law includes all our ceremonies and the stories of the Dreamings (creator beings), as well as the rules of how people should behave toward each other, and toward land" (Dal-ton et al. 1995: 83). Note again that here the people are stressing the link of peo-ple, land, and language.

As Hudson and McConvell (1984: 38) point out, the meaning of words and the way of expressing things in Aboriginal languages are very different from English, and there is a deep and wide vocabulary to do with ceremony, stages of knowledge and such things which is almost impossible to translate. Likewise, Jocks (1998: 224-226), a Mohawk person of the USA, points out the limitations of English translations, giving three specific examples. One of them is the noun onhwentisa. It is usually translated 'nation'. However, it "is rooted in ideas of land, earth, or ground. The noun root, -onhwentsi-, is used in many words

in-10.2. Concern for language endangerment 139 volving land, topography, and cultivation, conveying the unmistakable impres-sion that in Iroquois tradition, nationhood is an inalienable component of a peo-ple's relationship with the land they live upon" (Jocks 1998: 225).

What will happen to the culture if the language is lost? Greymorning (1999:

6), an Arapaho person of the USA, states: "I believe if Indians lose their lan-guage it will be bad for all people. I am really worried if we lose our lanlan-guage we won't be able to think in the Arapaho way. If we lose our language we will lose our ceremonies and ourselves because our life is our language, and it is our language that makes us strong". A similar view is expressed by Damon Clarke (1996: 93), a Hualapai person of the USA, and by Nisga'a people of Canada (cited by Daniel Rubin 1999: 18).

The importance of language for ceremonies is elaborated on by Jocks (1998:

231, see also 219): "the ceremonial life of a traditional people is threatened by language erosion ... when the most deep- and far-reaching forms of expression the people possess - and the critical relationship they enliven, especially with Other-than-human beings - grow pale, lose significance and coherence, and be-gin to die". This phenomenon Jock calls "cartooning". That is, Jocks argues that without their language, they and their culture become cartoons.

The strongest view expressed by community members, on language and cul-ture, is: "If you don't speak the language, ..., you can't understand the culture"

(Oneida elders of the USA, cited by Jocks 1998: 219, 233). This belief in effect maintains that language and culture are inseparable. There is, however, an op-posed view - observed among some community members as well as scholars - that language and culture are independent from each other. This controversy

will examined in 10.4.2 and 10.4.3.

The view of "language as irreplaceable cultural knowledge, and as a conveyor of culture" is shared by linguists as well, e.g. Dconveyorian (1993b: 578, 1999b: 3 1 -33), Fishman (1991: 20), Miyaoka (2001: 7-10), Rigsby (1987: 371), Tsunoda (1997: 12, 1998a, 1999b), and not to speak of Sapir (1951: 219-220). Fishman (1996a: 81) says that "most of the culture is in the language and is expressed in the language".

10.2.2.5. Language as ethnolinguistic skills

This is closely related to the issue of language as a conveyor of culture, in par-ticular, to the near impossibility of translation. Jocks (1998: 219) emphasiz-es the value of what he calls language skills, which include "storiemphasiz-es and jokemphasiz-es and all the richness of human experience they carry", such as humorous devic-es (Jocks 1998: 231). Hinton (1994: 4 5 - 4 7 ) ddevic-escribdevic-es a humorous - but impos-sible to translate - aspect of the phonology of Yahi of the USA.

A similar example of (near?) impossibility of translation is given below. It also exemplifies humorous effects that are (almost) impossible to translate.

The pattern of behaviour of Jaru people of Western Australia is determined by kin relationship. For example, a man (EGO) and his mother's brother (MB) are in the so-called joking relationship, which is no doubt based on the fact that the MB is a guardian of the EGO. They often joke at each other, but they do not just use any words or phrases. Specifically, a man would say to his MB as

fol-lows (Tsunoda 1988b: 32-33, 1999a: 46-47):

(10-1) gurnrdu-0 yambi-0.

penis-ABS big-ABS '[You have a] big penis.'

And the MB would say to the man as follows:

(10-2) gura-0 yambi-0.

anus-ABS big-ABS '[You have a] big anus.'

For example, the late Jack Jugayarri was the writer's classificatory MB. When he walked by where the writer was interviewing someone, he would say (ΙΟ-Ι) to the writer (his classificatory sister's son), and the writer would say (10-2) back to him. These joking expressions can be translated into English, as shown above. But the English translations in no way express their implications and connotations embedded in the kin-related patterns of behaviour. Nor do they fully convey the humorous tone of these expressions.

10.2.2.6. Language as a determiner of identity

Another, related view places emphasis on identity: a "language is insepara-ble from cultural identity and spirituality" (Family and Community Group 1996b: 76). Thus, Schmidt (1990: 27) reports on a Ngarinyin man of Kimber-ley, Western Australia, who said, "Them young fella, he dry, spilt. He empty.

Without identity, without language, he got nothing left". Rachel Cummins, a Warrungu person of Australia, said to the writer: "Language is important for identity, to know who I am". Similar views are held by Sylvia Wadsworth and by Theresa Yazzie, both Navajo persons (Reyhner and House 1996: 133-134), by Selena Ditmar (1999: 65), a Nakoda person of the USA, and by Nisga'a people of Canada (Daniel Rubin 1999: 18). Maguire (1991: 94, 98) on the re-vival of Irish in Belfast (cf. 11.5.3), and Jones (1998: 128) on the revitaliza-tion of Welsh, report that one of the motivarevitaliza-tions of these movements con-cerns identity.

10.2. Concern for language endangerment 141

Sawai (1998: 185), an Ainu person of Japan, reports that the sense of ethnic identity is rising among Ainu people, accompanied by an increasing motivation to reactivate the language. It is relevant to mention in this connection that Mä-her (1995: 91) notes that an ambivalent attitude regarding their ethnolinguistic identity is apparent among Ainu people. Thus, a young Ainu person said, "I'm both. I'm Ainu-Japanese". Krauss (2001: 32) argues that ambivalent ethnolin-guistic identity should be respected and fostered. Specifically, he says:

there is no real or justifiable reason to sacrifice Navajo in order to add English, or ... Ainu for Japanese, or Basque for French and/or Spanish. ... it will have to be-come possible for one to be linguistically and competently both ... an Ainu and Japanese, a Basque and Spanish or French, Navajo and American, and a loyal one too, if things are done right, [italics in the original]

The view of language as an identity marker is shared by researchers, e.g.

Bradley (2001: 152), Crowley (1993: 67), Dixon (1980: 79, 476), Dorian (1999a: 31), Edwards (1984: 289), Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor (1977: 22), Rouchdy (1989a: 95-96), Thieberger (1990: 337-341), andTovey, Hannan, and Abramson (1989).

10.2.2.7. Language as a source of pride and self-esteem

Minority languages have been denigrated and stigmatized (6.3-[8], [9]). How-ever, the tide is beginning to turn (Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977: 338). Hud-son and McConvell (1984: 38) report from Kimberley, Western Australia: "The speakers of the languages are proud of their languages". Similarly, Jocks (1998:

222-223) reports the view of Mohawk people of the USA: "the mere fact of speaking [Mohawk] even in rudimentary form is a potential source of pride and identity". Also, see Jones (1998: 328) on Welsh. People may be proud of not just their language in general, but a specific aspect thereof. Thus, as we shall see in 11.5.14-[2], some Warrungu people's pride of their linguistic heritage has been enhanced by the knowledge that their ancestral language had a phenom-enon that linguists call syntactic ergativity - a phenomphenom-enon that is rare among the world's languages.

Views similar to "language as a source of pride and self-esteem" are held by scholars as well. See Tovey, Hannan, and Abramson (1989: 33) regarding Irish.

10.2.2.8. Language as a source of solidarity

An example of language as a factor enhancing solidarity is reported by Suwilai (1998: 155), regarding So (Thavung) of Thailand: "One woman said that she

will teach her children to speak So (Thavung) so that when they grow up and have some problems in their lives they will be able to come back and with the parents and other elderly people".

10.2.2.9. Language as a source of sovereignty

Littlebear (1999: 2), a Cheyenne person of the USA, states: "language is basis of sovereignty", and "Our land base and sacred practices are passed on through our languages, not by English, the language spoken by people who killed our people and oppressed our languages". Note Littlebear's wish to avoid the use of English. Rachel Cummins, a Warrungu person of Australia, clearly states that one of the reasons why she wishes to revive her ancestors' language is because

"English is invaders' language".

10.2.2.10. Beauty of the language

Hudson and McConvell (1984: 38) report from Kimberley, Western Australia:

"To each group their language is beautiful to speak and listen to, versatile and expressive. Many are proud of the complexity of their languages, although this is not so appealing to learners!". Recall also that, as noted in 10.2.2.7, some Warrungu people are proud of the rare phenomenon that was observed in their

ancestral language.

10.2.2.11. For future generations

For the reasons listed above, many people consider it important to transmit their language for posterity. Thus, Topsy Chestnut, of Kimberley, Western Australia, states: "Young people don't care about their language, but when they get older they feel sorry about it. That's why we want to keep it" (cited by Hudson and McConvell 1984: 37; see also p.38, and McConvell 1991: 155). The writer met a fair number of people, during his fieldwork in North Queensland in the ear-ly 1970s, who said that, as children, they used to hear old people speaking their language around the camp but that they did not try to learn it. They now regret-ted this irrecoverable loss (Tsunoda 1997: 13-14).

In the case of languages that seem to have no chance of survival, the last speakers often wish, and indeed make every effort, to have their language re-corded. This heartfelt desire and commitment were best expressed by the late Alf Palmer, the last fluent speaker of Warrungu of North Queensland, Austra-lia. His statement, cited in 8.3, is worth reiterating: "I'm the last one to speak Warrungu. When I die, this language will die. I'll teach you everything I know, so put it down properly". Indeed, Alf Palmer made admirable efforts to teach

10.2. Concern for language endangerment 143

the writer everything he knew. More than a quarter century later a group of Warrungu people, including Rachel Cummins (cited in 10.2.2.6 and 10.2.2.9), who is Alf Palmer's granddaughter, started the revival activities of their ances-tral language and culture (11,5.14-[2]), and the results of Alf Palmer's devoted efforts have proven to be an invaluable asset to his people.

Thus far we have seen community members' views on the importance of their linguistic heritage. Also, we have seen instances of their lament over its loss - particularly, the poem, cited in 10.2.2. This is the grief felt by people who have been prevented from acquiring their ancestral language and also the grief of people who have not been able to transmit their ancestral language to their children (Hale 1993: 25, 1998: 213). It is the very existence of this grief that is one of the most important reasons why languages should be kept alive.

In order to avoid the recurrence of such a grief, there are important roles to be played by the older members of the community and by linguists.

(a) Role of the older members of the community: "So it is up to the middle aged and older people to put them [i.e. young people] on the right track now so that they can get the benefit later" (Topsy Chestnut, cited by Hudson and Mc-Convell 1984: 38).

(b) Linguists need to inform the community people (if they have not lost their language yet) of the grief felt by those people who have already lost their language. The role of linguists will be further discussed inl0.3.2-[2], and 12.3.2 through 12.3.4.

10.2.3. Language activist's view: Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights Indigenous communities are becoming conscious of linguistic rights (or lan-guage rights), and they are beginning to assert them. Thus, Hudson and McConvell (1984: 39) state: "Aboriginal people throughout Australia ... be-lieve the indigenous people should have language rights including above all the right to maintain their language in addition to English". See Maher (1995: 80, 90) for Ainu people, and Craig (1993: 35, 38-39) and Yamamoto (2001: 337) for the Americas.

On the whole, linguistic rights seem to be most vocally advocated by lan-guage activists. But they are supported by linguists as well, e.g. Krauss (1993:

46, 1996:20, 2001:29), Pawley(1991: 11), Tsunoda (1998a, 1999b), and Yama-moto (2001: 337).

The concept of linguistic rights is often put forward for protection of minor-ity languages against the spread of so-called English language imperialism. As Trudgill (1991: 64) puts it, "English is an obvious 'killer language'".

Perhaps the most important result of activities regarding linguistic rights is the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights, at the World Conference on Linguistic Rights, in Barcelona, in June 1996. The book entitled Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights was prepared by the Universal Dec-laration of Linguistic Rights Follow-up Committee in April 1998. (The book is not for sale, but it is available at http://www.linguistic-declaration.org/index-gb.htm.) The main points of the Declaration may be summarized as follows.

The Declaration is based on "the basic principle of the equality of all peoples and languages. Neither economic, social, religious, cultural, demographic, etc.

features nor linguistic features justify any sort of discrimination; therefore, all linguistic communities are entitled to the same rights" (pp. 12-13).

"This Declaration takes language communities and not states as its point of departure...". It then "takes as its point of departure the principle that linguistic rights are individual and collective at one and the same time" (p. 23).

At the level of individuals, Article 3 states (p. 24):

This Declaration considers the following to be inalienable personal rights which may be exercised in any situation:

the right to be recognized as a member of a language community;

the right to the use of one's own language both in private and in public;

the right to the use of one's own name;

the right to interrelate and associate with other members of one's language community of origin;

the right to maintain and develop one's own culture;...

Article 3 continues (p. 24):

the collective rights of language groups may include the following, in addition to the rights attributed to the members of language groups in the foregoing para-graph,

the right for their own language and culture to be taught;

the right for their own language and culture to be taught;

Im Dokument Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data (Seite 163-184)