University of Adelaide Press

Chapter Title: An Ecological Approach to Language Revival

Book Title: Warraparna Kaurna!

Book Subtitle: Reclaiming an Australian language
Book Author(s): Rob Amery
Published by: University of Adelaide Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.20851/j.ctt1sq5wgq.12

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

University of Adelaide Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Warraparna Kaurna!

This content downloaded from

200.3.145.12 on Fri, 04 Feb 2022 19:37:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
3
An Ecological Approach to
Language Revival
With all the problems involved in language maintenance, the most difficult is
that concerned with the control of the passing of a language from parents to
children as a 'mother' tongue ... If the chain is once broken, to repair it takes not
just a major effort but ... a miracle.
(Spolsky, 1995: 178)

To this point we have looked at language in isolation. However, language

revival is fundamentally a social process. Our main task in reviving a language
'no longer spoken' is to reunite the language with its community. An ecological
approach lends itself to addressing this task.
Almost all writers view the attainment of 'intergenerational transmission' as
the main, if not sole criterion for success of language revival efforts.1 I would
argue that more modest goals, such as reintroducing formulaic expressions,
public speeches, signage and so on, are important steps along the way. Even if
intergenerational transmission is never achieved, programs might be judged
highly successful and the progress made might be highly meaningful within the
context of the language community. Whilst some like Fishman (1991: 397, 408)
might devalue or condemn these lesser goals for diverting attention away from
the 'main game', in the case of languages 'no longer spoken' they could be
viewed as remarkable achievements in their own right.
In fact, the lesser goals are the 'main game' for a language like Kaurna, at
least at this stage. The establishment of formal language programs in schools,
using the language in cultural tourism etc. are achievable goals. The re-
establishment of 'intergenerational transmission' is desired, but everyone
realises that this is a more distant, less achievable goal. There are many hurdles
to be overcome first, including the need to develop the language to a point
whereby it can function in these contexts. Nor would people feel defeated if this
ultimate goal were never realised.

Language ecology
The notion of language ecology, a useful and insightful metaphor, is a major
theoretical construct underpinning the approach taken to reviving Kaurna. It not
only aids in our understanding of the language as it was spoken in the
nineteenth century, but also underpins the task of language reclamation in the
1990s. In order to attempt to maintain or revive a language, an understanding of

This content downloaded from

200.3.145.12 on Fri, 04 Feb 2022 19:37:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
42 Chapter 3

the wider context in which the language exists is helpful. It is simply not enough
to know all there is to know about the language per se.
Haugen (1972: 325) coined the term ecology of language in a paper first
presented in 1970. He defined it simply 'as the study of interactions between any
given language and its environment' and defines the environment of a language
in the following way:

The true environment of a language is the society that uses it as one of its codes.
Language exists only in the minds of its users, and it only functions in relating these
users to one another and to nature, i.e. their social and natural environment. Part of its
ecology is therefore psychological: its interaction with other languages in the minds of
bi- and multilingual speakers. Another part of its ecology is sociological: its interaction
with the society in which it functions as a medium of communication. The ecology of a
language is determined primarily by the people who learn it, use it, and transmit it to
others. (Haugen, 1972: 325)

The language reclamation process brings the language into existence in

Haugen's terms, transforming it from purely a written record, a material cultural
artefact, into a living, dynamic entity in the minds of people. As Haugen aptly
points out, the very nature of the language will be shaped by the learners, and,
in the case of Kaurna, by linguists working with them to reclaim and reassemble
the language. It is worth distinguishing between the psychological and
sociological dimensions as Haugen does. The ecological approach, then, unlike
'orthodox' linguistics (see, for instance, Hudson, 1981), focuses on human
agency in shaping the language. Haugen further illuminates his concept of
'language ecology' through a series of pertinent questions:
For any given 'language', then, we should want to have answers to the following
ecological questions:
1) What is its classification in relation to other languages? This answer would be given
by historical and descriptive linguists.
2) Who are its users? This is a question of linguistic demography, locating its users with
respect to locale, class, religion or any other relevant grouping;
3) What are its domains of use? This is a question of sociolinguistics, discovering
whether its use is unrestricted or limited in specific ways;
4) What concurrent languages are employed by its users? We may call this a problem of
dialinguistics, to identify the degree of bilingualism present and the degree of overlap
among the languages;
5) What internal varieties does the language show? This is the task of a dialectology that
will recognize not only regional, but also social and contactual dialects;
6) What is the nature of its written traditions? This is the province of philology, the study
of written texts and their relationship to speech;
7) To what degree has its written form been standardized, i.e. unified and codified? This
is the province of prescriptive linguistics, the traditional grammarians and
lexicographers;
8) What kind of institutional support has it won, either in government, education, or
private organizations, either to regulate its form or propogate it? We may call this study
glottopolitics;
9) What are the attitudes of its users towards the language, in terms of intimacy and
status, leading to personal identification? We may call this the field of ethnolinguistics;

This content downloaded from

200.3.145.12 on Fri, 04 Feb 2022 19:37:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
An Ecological Approach 43

10) Finally we may wish to sum up its status in a typology of ecological classification,
which will tell us something about where the language stands and where it is going in
comparison with the other languages of the world. (Haugen, 1972: 336-337)

These questions are all pertinent in relation to the Kaurna language, both in
terms of its status in the nineteenth century, and its incipient revival in the
1990s. We have addressed some of these questions which deal with the corpus
of the language already in Chapter 2. Others are more relevant to this chapter,
especially 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9. For Kaurna, questions of identity are paramount, thus
question 9 takes on heightened importance.
Moreover, Haugen's questions stimulate consideration of a number of more
specific issues in relation to the particular ecology of the Kaurna language.
Especially important to consider in the nineteenth-century ecology is the
disruption brought about by disease, environmental degradation, population
movements, desecration of sacred sites and the undermining of Kaurna social
institutions and political structures. In addition, the ecology was shaped by the
policies of the colonial administration and the efforts of the German
missionaries.
In the 1990s, important elements of Kaurna language ecology include
historical documents, neighbouring and related languages, government and
education policies, the Kaurna language teaching programs, KACHA, the nature
of Kaurna society (especially demography and residence patterns), attitudes to
the language within the Kaurna community and within the wider community,
public and private domains of language use, the World Indigenous Peoples
Movement and the reassertion of Kaurna rights, current events such as the
Native Title debate, Nunga politics, KPS, Tauondi and the role of key
individuals. These are just a few facets of contemporary Kaurna language
ecology.2
In the linguistic ecology of a 'dormant' language we need to think more in
terms of 'potential users' of the language and in terms of persons connected to
the language. In Haugen's formulation there is no specific question about
territory, but this is fundamental to Kaurna language ecology. As Harré et al.
(1999: 164) point out, Haugen's questions are concerned with interrelationships
and largely ignore the nature of the habitat or environment needed for languages
to survive. A more specific set of additional questions we need to ask in this
context might read:
• What is the territory associated with the Target Language (henceforth TL)?
• Who are the owners or custodians of the TL?
• What is known of the neighbouring Indigenous languages and how are they related to
the TL?
• What Indigenous placenames survive? What can they tell us about the TL?
• How can the TL be used as a key for understanding the environment, geography and
early contact history associated with territory of the TL?
• How can a knowledge of the TL aid in developing understandings of its associated
culture, religion, ceremonial practices and Dreamings?
• How can ancient knowledges be transformed so as to have relevance in the present
time?

This content downloaded from

200.3.145.12 on Fri, 04 Feb 2022 19:37:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
44 Chapter 3

• How do we ensure authenticity, integrity and acceptance of the TL by members of the

TL community?
• Who are the potential users of the TL?
• For what purposes will the TL be used? By whom?
How can networks be set up between learners and users of the TL?
• What is the relationship between the TL and the dominant language?
• What is the relationship between the TL and the social dialect (e.g. Nunga English)
spoken by the owners or custodians?
• How can ownership and control of the TL be reasserted by its owners or custodians?
• How can we ensure access to the TL by all members of the TL community?
• What role can outsiders play in support of language reclamation efforts?

Whilst some of Haugen's concerns have been addressed by sociolinguists, it is

only recently that his ecological model has been taken up in a concerted and
systematic fashion. The emergence of ecological linguistics as a field of study
has been promoted primarily by Peter Mühlhäusler in a series of papers
(Mühlhäusler, 1992, 1994) culminating in the publication of the book Linguistic
Ecology (Mühlhäusler, 1996a).
Both Haugen and Mühlhäusler indicate the proactive nature of an ecological
approach to language. Rather than simply being objective observers of
languages, linguists are encouraged to become actively involved:

One may even venture to suggest that ecology is not just the name of a descriptive
science, but in its application has become the banner of a movement for environmental
sanitation. The term could include also in its application to language some interest in the
general concern among laymen over the cultivation and preservation of language.
Ecology suggests a dynamic rather than a static science, something beyond the
descriptive that one might call predictive and even therapeutic. What will be, or should
be, for example, the role of 'small' languages; and how can they or any other language be
made 'better', 'richer', and more 'fruitful' for mankind? (Haugen, 1972: 329)

Mühlhäusler (1996a: 2) takes this one step further:

The ecological metaphor in my view is action oriented. It shifts the attention from
linguists being players of academic language games to becoming shop stewards3 for
linguistic diversity, and to addressing moral, economic and other 'non-linguistic' issues.

However, while the role of the linguist in language reclamation is a vital and
legitimate one, as Crawford (1996: 64) warns, 'language shift cannot be
reversed by outsiders, however well-meaning. ... If language preservation
efforts are to succeed, they must be led by indigenous institutions,
organizations, and activists'. This theme will be taken up in more detail later in
the book.
A linguist, Mark Fettes (1997; forthcoming) in his work with Indigenous
peoples in Canada, has attempted to apply an ecological approach to language
revival. Fettes talks of 'reweaving the 'triple braid' of language renewal', where
three strands, 'critical literacy', 'local knowledges' and 'living relationships' are
developed concurrently. Language revival involves reshaping the language
ecology through a process of consciousness-raising and rebuilding relationships.
The process advocated by Fettes begins with people. The language itself is a

This content downloaded from

200.3.145.12 on Fri, 04 Feb 2022 19:37:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
An Ecological Approach 45

secondary concern. Although Fettes has in mind languages like Inuktitut,

Mohawk or Maori, which are still spoken, many of the points he raises resonate
well with my own experiences of working with Kaurna and other Indigenous
languages of South Australia.
An ecological approach to language planning seeks long-term sustainable
solutions. In the Kaurna case, this means rebuilding the support systems for the
language and carving out niches4 in which the language performs useful
functions and fulfills needs in the lives of those who care to learn it. It means
creating situations and establishing networks within which the language can be
used. It means changing behaviour.

On the nature of language

In order to further understand the ecological approach, it is important to explore
the nature of 'language' itself. Although languages are traditionally viewed as
objective, tangible entities which exist independently of their users (Coulmas,
1997: 42-43), Coulmas and integrational linguists denounce this perspective. As
Toolan (1996: 2) observes:
The majority view within linguistics [adheres to] ... an understanding of languages as
coherent and complete systems, essentially autonomous of direct influence from other
mental, social or cultural influences, enabled by the arbitrariness of the sign (the sound-
meaning nexus), and structured by complex patterns of rules.

Toolan goes on to argue that the notion of a 'language' which the majority of
linguists appeal to is in fact a second-order construct, though they consistently
treat it as a first-order one (see also Grace, 1981: 15). Viewing language as a
first-order construct allows linguists and others to regard language as 'natural'.
However, the 'natural' characteristics of language are simply a result of its
having been fostered long enough within a culture for it to be regarded as
'natural' (Toolan, 1996: 12). Yet there is nothing very 'natural' about any
language. All are created by humans. All are cultural constructs. As Coulmas
(1997: 43) says:

every language is the result of human language-work ... every individual word in every
language traces back to an individual act of coining.

This view is reiterated by Toolan (1996: 318-319):

Too often, linguistics uncritically attributes 'possession' of the language to the

community, neglecting the fact that the community is in essence an aggregation of
individuals of finite life span. It is the individual who creates language, and it is the
individual who, in dying, ceases to do so; it is not, ultimately, in the power of the
community either to 'give' language to the individual or to take it away.

As Coulmas (1997: 43) points out, the contribution of each individual is 'more
conspicuous in demographically small languages whose continuation is
threatened than in language communities numbering in the millions'. In the case
of newly invented languages, such as Esperanto, the role of individuals is far-

This content downloaded from

200.3.145.12 on Fri, 04 Feb 2022 19:37:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
46 Chapter 3

reaching and decisive, as it is for languages subject to intervention in the form

of standardisation, or making a language conform to a particular ideology as in
Turkish under Ataturk (Landau, 1993), and for 'revived' languages such as
Hebrew. The case of Kaurna, too, brings the contributions of individuals sharply
into focus. Up to this point practically every user of Kaurna is known,
practically everything written in the language is known and the majority of
utterances made in the language are known to me. The contributions of these
individuals are identifiable. Practically every new word and every new usage
can be tracked down to specific individuals and to specific events and
occasions. The circle of language users, enthusiasts or adherents is much
smaller in the Kaurna situation than in most others.
In keeping with the view that languages are autonomous and exist
independently of their users, linguists have often taken a dim view of the efforts
of language planners and language enthusiasts who might 'meddle' with
languages, attempting to influence their course of development, labelling
languages like Katharevousa, Norwegian, Cornish etc. as 'artificial inventions'
or 'fabrications' (see, for example, Hall, 1950). Attempts to create new artificial
languages such as Esperanto or Volapük have been damned outright. Linguists
have traditionally taken a strict 'hands-off' stance in relation to language, seeing
their role to be objective observers and analysts, free of any particular ideology
or value system. A recent example of this is Ladefoged's (1992) response to the
'endangered languages' issue raised by Hale (1992), Krauss (1992) and others.
By contrast, within an ecological approach language is seen as a 'dynamic,
ever changing set of interrelationships' and an 'entire ecological system of
communicative strategies rooted in time and place, history, and the land' (Fettes,
1997: 302). In the context of language revival, this tends to shift attention away
from language to people and their society.
Ecological approaches are much more in keeping with Nunga perspectives
on language. Indigenous peoples tend to view languages holistically, as an
integral part of their culture and way of life. In the Kaurna context, there is
extreme reluctance to disassociate the language from issues of land, heritage,
the Dreaming etc.5 Whilst linguists see a language primarily as an autonomous,
coherent and complete system where the grammar is more important or more
central than the lexicon (Chomsky, 1982: 14), it is evident that Nungas hold
onto a very different notion of what a language is. It is not uncommon to hear
Nungas claim 'I speak Ngarrindjeri' or 'I speak Narungga', meaning not just that
they are a Ngarrindjeri or Narungga person or that they identify with the
Ngarrindjeri or Narungga language, but they actually believe that they speak
Ngarrindjeri or Narungga. Their use of Ngarrindjeri or Narungga is in fact
limited to the use of words from those languages within English.
In a survey conducted by Peter Gale in 1991, out of 14 Nunga parents who
responded to the questionnaire, most with Point Pearce origins or affiliations,
ten claimed to speak Narungga, seven claimed to speak Ngarrindjeri, four
Pitjantjatjara, two Kaurna and two another Nunga language. However, when
asked 'Could you write a letter in any of these Nunga languages?' only one
respondent claimed to be able to write a letter in Narungga, whilst none claimed

This content downloaded from

200.3.145.12 on Fri, 04 Feb 2022 19:37:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
An Ecological Approach 47

to be able to write a letter in any other Indigenous language. Contrary to

appearances, this discrepancy is to be accounted for by a lack of language
competency rather than a lack of literacy skills.
It is interesting that Gale's Narungga informants claimed the Narungga
language as the high point or the strength of Narungga culture, admitting to
having lost other aspects of their culture: 'we lost the song and the dance ... the
body painting and all that, but I think that other stuff is still strong, the language'
(Interview in Gale, 1991: 194). Point Pearce School runs a Narungga language
and culture program. They speak in all seriousness, in the context of choosing a
program type from amongst the AILF categories, of their program being a
language maintenance program. In reality it is basically a language awareness
program, but to Nungas, being able to use some words of a language is to be
able to speak it. In this respect their views contrast sharply to those of linguists
and to a lesser extent with views held by the general public.
Nungas generally do not see their languages as 'dead'. As noted earlier,
people now refer to Kaurna as having been 'sleeping' (Cherie Watkins in
Warranna Purruna video; Alice Rigney, interview with Jenny Burford, 29
October 1997). On a radio interview, a young Kaurna woman claimed that:

It's still alive and well and thanks to lots of committed people in terms of retrieving the
language program. The basis of the Kaurna language as it was documented by the early
German missionaries in South Australia is very strong.
(Katrina Power, interview on 5UV, 23 April 1997)

Communicative vs. symbolic functions of language

When an ethnic group loses its traditional mother tongue, the language may still
play an important role in the group's sense of identity. In Ireland, despite the
'failure' of language revival, the Irish language is still an enduring emblem of
Irish identity. Language may sometimes be relegated to the status of a material
artefact as in a grammar book or dictionary, but the knowledge that 'this is ours;
this is our language, even if we don't know it and can't speak it' may still be a
very potent force. Even the knowledge of the language name and knowing that
the group once spoke a distinctive language may be an important pillar of
identity. Eastman & Reece (1981) and Eastman (1984) refer to this symbolic
aspect of language as 'associated language', which they see as a durable aspect
of ethnic identity. Eastman argues that ethnic identity has two aspects, the
primordial belief component and the social behaviour aspect, which includes
language use. According to Eastman (1984: 271):

the language we name as an emblem of our ethnic identity when we associate ourselves
with a group of people does not change, as long as it remains an aspect of the belief level
of our identity.

Furthermore, 'a change in primordial beliefs can only change over a long period
of time' (Eastman, 1984: 272). I question this latter assertion. The situation in
Belize (see Le Page & Tabouret-Keller, 1985) and the current developments
amongst Aboriginal people of Adelaide demonstrate that not only behavioural

This content downloaded from

200.3.145.12 on Fri, 04 Feb 2022 19:37:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
48 Chapter 3

aspects of identity but the very belief systems themselves are capable of
changing rapidly. Certainly behaviour is more readily suppressed and changed,
but beliefs can also change surprisingly quickly.
According to Jordan (1984: 274) 'Aboriginal people assert that a crucial
contemporary problem for them is the need, after centuries wherein their culture
has been destroyed, to build Aboriginal identity'. Jordan (1988a: 109) quotes
sociologists, Berger & Luckman, who claim that 'identity is formed by social
processes. Once crystallized, it is maintained, modified, or even reshaped by
social relations'. Many Aboriginal identities are in a state of flux and are
currently being redefined and transformed in response to new-found rights and
freedoms obtained since 1967. As a result, the experiences of younger
generations of Aboriginal people are radically different from those of the older
generation. This theme will be taken up in detail in Chapter 10.
In accordance with Eastman & Reece's 'associated language', Edwards (1984,
1985) argues that languages have both 'communicative' and 'symbolic' value.
These values coexist in majority language situations, though, according to
Edwards, in certain minority language contexts, the two are separable and it is
possible that the communicative value of a language may be lost whilst its
symbolic value persists.
The question should be asked, 'Are we attempting to revive the 'symbolic
value' of the language or are we trying to revive communication functions or
both?' Edwards argues that a failure to make this distinction can result in
misdirected efforts. He elaborates:

Ignorance of the communicative-symbolic distinction can lead to lack of clarity and

misdirected effort. If language revivalists or restorationists conceive of language in
communicative terms alone, and if their appeals are directed towards groups in which
communicative shift has occurred, then they may (a) be unsuccessful in their attempts to
promote language use; (b) reintroduce, under the mantle of pluralism, a sort of anomie ...
; (c) promote a cynical view of any and all efforts on behalf of group identity.
(Edwards, 1984: 290)

In the reclamation of Kaurna, the symbolic functions of language are coming

back first. The communicative value of Kaurna is a more distant goal, more
elusive and more difficult to achieve.
Fettes (1997: 309), too, acknowledges the importance of religious and
symbolic functions as key areas for beginning language revival:
Religious or, more broadly, spiritual discourses seem often to hold on to the language
longest; they may also be where it can also most readily be brought back. Names can
provide another focus of resistance. . . formulaic expressions and ceremonial texts can be
deliberately reintroduced in appropriate settings, including everyday acts such as
greetings, welcomes, introductions, and so forth.

These observations are confirmed by the Kaurna experience. Bentahila &

Davies (1993: 368, 372) also suggest that use of the language in new domains in
symbolic ways is a much more achievable goal than immediate
intergenerational transmission (366).6

This content downloaded from

200.3.145.12 on Fri, 04 Feb 2022 19:37:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
An Ecological Approach 49

Esoteric vs. exoteric languages

Societies differ in the ways in which they regard their own languages and the
languages of others. These attitudes may change substantially over time as
societies become more open or closed, as the case may be, to outside influences.
Thurston (1987, 1989) first proposed the esoteric-exoteric dichotomy,
following work on Anêm, spoken in West New Britain in PNG (Thurston, 1982:
11). Anêm is virtually a secret language, considered too difficult for
neighbouring people to learn, and further complicated by the deliberate creation
of 'secret code lexemes' for common items.
Esoteric languages like Anêm belong solely to insiders. Typically there is a
strong sense of ownership. An esoteric language is regarded as property. The
language community may resist outsiders learning or using it, and permission
may need to be sought to teach it.
Exoteric languages on the other hand are not regarded as belonging to any
particular individuals or groups. Anyone is free to learn or speak an exoteric
language with impunity. Major world languages are highly exoteric, with
English being the exoteric language par excellence.7 No one minds if people
learn English. In fact, there is great pressure on speakers of other languages to
do so. Nor is anyone concerned about the ethnicity of those who teach English.
Of course, every language has areas of vocabulary and usage which are
relatively esoteric. Within the English language there are professional jargons
which are used, sometimes deliberately, to exclude non-members of the
profession. There are varieties of English which are associated with certain
minority groups or subcultures, which are also used to exclude non-members.8
Australia's Indigenous languages are generally located toward the esoteric
end of the spectrum. But even amongst Australian languages there is a wide
range, and within each language community there are different views expressed.
Some members of the language community may encourage outsiders to learn
the language, others resent this.
Last century, Japanese was a highly esoteric language. To teach Japanese
was a capital offence (Mühlhäusler, 1996c: 259). Now, of course, with the
opening up of Japan to the West, Japanese lies towards the exoteric end of the
spectrum with the Japanese government actually promoting and funding the
teaching of Japanese outside of Japan. Kaurna has shifted in the opposite
direction. Sentences recorded by Teichelmann (1857) indicate that the Kaurna
were keen for Europeans to learn and use Kaurna. Note for instance:

Ngadluko warra nindo paianintyidla nindo, warra meyu pulyunnurlo wonggai´nki.

RS Ngadluku warra ninthu payarnintyidla ninthu warra miyu pulyunurlu wangka-inki
'Whenever you understand the black man's language, then you must speak in it.'

Ngaii tangka waierendi manti ninna wongganintyerla.

RS Ngai tangka wayarrinthi manti niina wangkarnintyarla
'I am sorry that you cannot speake <sic> (the language)'

As we shall see, there is now considerable resistance towards outsiders learning

and using Kaurna. The more languages are threatened the further they shift

This content downloaded from

200.3.145.12 on Fri, 04 Feb 2022 19:37:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
50 Chapter 3

towards the esoteric end of the continuum. The profane becomes sacred and the
language tends to be regarded more and more as a tangible cultural artefact. The
portion of the language which is accessible only to the initiated may expand
when the language is threatened.
Much of the prevailing language planning, language policy and linguistic
literature has failed to take this dimension into account. The Draft Declaration
on Linguistic Human Rights formulated in Barcelona in 1996 makes no mention
of the rights of Indigenous minorities to restrict access to their languages. This
is a major failure of the Declaration. Progressive and enlightened authors, such
as Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson (1994) have similarly ignored this dimension.
The reader is referred to Mühlhäusler's (1996c) review of this otherwise
informative and insightful work.
An understanding of the esoteric-exoteric dichotomy helps explain
Indigenous peoples' attitudes and behaviours towards their languages. These
attitudes are a major component of the language ecology and drive Nunga
language politics. Language ownership and copyright issues will be addressed
in Chapter 10.

Language as cultural artefact

In 1968 Einar Haugen wrote an article titled The Scandinavian Languages as
Cultural Artifacts (Haugen, 1972) in which he noted the role played by
language in the social fabric of Scandinavian nations, in forging distinctive
political entities within the respective nation states and in embodying separate
identities. In the use of the term 'cultural artifact', Haugen was paying attention
to the high level of conscious activity that contributed to the development of
standard languages in Scandinavia:

By the time a norm has been codified and elaborated by its users, it has become virtually
impossible to identify its base. It has become an independent artifact in the culture, one
of the devices by means of which a particular group, usually a power elite, manages to
maintain or assert its identity and, when possible, its power.
....
If we adopt the metaphor of the traditional family tree for languages, SLs [Standard
Languages] are artifacts that result either from pruning or grafting the tree. The gardeners
are a special priesthood of taste and learning, who are entrusted by society with the
codification and elaboration of a code that is part of the conscious heritage of the social
establishment. (Haugen, 1972: 266)

Within the context of language revival in Aboriginal Australia, I view language

as a cultural artefact in a different, though related way. Australian languages are
owned, in the same way that art designs are owned by particular groups or
clans. Certain senior individuals are recognised as the owners or custodians of
the language. For instance, one generally needs to obtain their permission to
teach the language within a language course.
In some parts of Australia, there is strong resistance towards non-Aboriginal
people learning Aboriginal languages or even having access to them. In
Tasmania, the position of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, as enunciated by its

This content downloaded from

200.3.145.12 on Fri, 04 Feb 2022 19:37:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
An Ecological Approach 51

spokesperson Jim Everett in 1993, is that the 'Tasmanian language' should not
be taught in schools. The Tasmanian Aboriginal community wishes to keep the
language for itself. Only when it is known by, and secure within, their
community will consideration be given to its being taught more widely (Minutes
AILF National Steering Committee meeting, 1 April 1993).9
A number of recent dictionaries have been kept in-house. For instance, the
Butchulla Dictionary, recently produced with funding from the Dictionaries for
Reconciliation project, has not been released for general consumption. Rather
its circulation has been restricted to the Butchulla community in south-east
Queensland (Jeanie Bell, pc 1995).
Aboriginal people in Adelaide talk about their languages having been 'stolen'
and linguists and anthropologists are sometimes accused of 'stealing' by virtue
of having recorded the languages and deposited the wordlists, linguistic
descriptions, tapes etc. in a museum or archive. Linguists and anthropologists
like Tindale have been blamed for taking the languages away. In the
contemporary era of language revival and language retrieval, some people talk
of their resentment at having to 'buy back' their linguistic heritage in the same
way that they are having to buy back artefacts from museums overseas.
There is a certain uneasiness about borrowing words from other Aboriginal
languages into Kaurna, for fear of offending the owners and custodians of the
source language. Where words are borrowed, there is a felt need to seek
permission first. Of course borrowing and diffusion of lexemes is a process that
occurs between practically all languages in contact with each other, whether or
not those languages are related or not. All Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
languages spoken today have borrowed large numbers of words from English,
and English has borrowed a number of words from these languages (see Dixon
et al. 1990). Furthermore, Australian languages have borrowed a significant
number of words from each other. See, for instance, Heath's (1978) study of
Linguistic Diffusion in Arnhem Land. People, even within the Arnhemland
context, don't normally seek permission to borrow a word from a neighbouring
language. It is something that just happens, and people are mostly quite unaware
of the process even at the time of borrowing. In a situation like reclaiming the
Kaurna language, however, language use is highly monitored and all decisions
about lexical choice are made consciously during this early phase. In fact, it is
highly likely in the climate of language revival and retrieval that Kaurna people
would indeed be accused of 'stealing' if, for instance, they borrowed well known
Ngarrindjeri icons such as ponde 'Murray Cod' or pilaki 'callop' and started
using them within their Kaurna speech and Kaurna language materials.10
Written language, especially that on signs, in books and elsewhere in the
public eye is something tangible. In the language revival context, languages take
on qualities similar to other artefacts (e.g. woomeras, boomerangs, paintings,
carvings etc.) and the tangible language products are viewed as cultural artefacts
in much the same way as other artefacts.
Language as artefact manifests itself in the purposes to which the Kaurna
language is being put. Kaurna is often used within a public display of Kaurna
culture. Songs, speeches of welcome, signs, names (of institutions,

This content downloaded from

200.3.145.12 on Fri, 04 Feb 2022 19:37:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
52 Chapter 3

organisations, programs, magazines and journals etc.), posters, books and other
material language products are particularly important. In fact, these are far more
important outcomes of the Kaurna language program than is communicative
competence at this stage in its delivery within Inbarendi College.
Aboriginal people's attitudes to copyright issues, as we shall see in
Chapter 10, also serve to reinforce the notion of language as cultural artefact.
Suggestions have been made by some Kaurna people that the entire language
should be copyrighted under heritage legislation. If this were possible, it would
be done word by word, including all known spelling variants appearing in
historical materials. It is not seen as appropriate for non-Aboriginal people to
write and produce materials in Aboriginal languages and even less appropriate
for non-Aboriginal people to copyright such materials, unless in collaboration
with Indigenous authors. Copyrighting the materials is often viewed as
copyrighting the language itself.11 There is also a perception that linguists and
anthropologists have made a significant amount of money out of Aboriginal
languages, money which is not considered rightfully theirs as the languages do
not belong to them.
So within the context of language revival in Aboriginal Australia, I am
referring to language as a cultural artefact in a much more direct and literal way
than Haugen.12

Language planning issues

As mentioned earlier, the main task confronting us in language reclamation is to
reunite the dormant language with owners, custodians and potential speakers.
But who are the potential speakers and what rights do they have to the
language? What rights do I have, as a non-Indigenous linguist, to shape and
promote the Kaurna language? These are immediate issues confronting us as
language planners. Obviously some kind of accommodation must be reached
which recognises the right of the owners and custodians to control the process,
but also acknowledges the skills and expertise that outsiders may bring to the
enterprise. This collaboration is crucial.
I am mindful of my role as a 'language maker' and as a 'lame' (see below). As
a 'language maker' (to use a term promoted by Roy Harris, 1980) I am in a
similar position to Jay Powell in the development of the Quileute 'artificial
pidgin', Aasen with Norwegian, Ben Yehuda with Hebrew, Korais with
Katharevousa and Mihalic with Tok Pisin to mention just a few individuals who
have had a major role in deciding the shape of specific languages. Added to
these are the many missionaries over the past few centuries who have had a
major influence on the development of many Indigenous languages.
Many of those mentioned above, such as Ben Yehuda, are members of the
speech community and ethnic group associated with the language in question.
Others, such as Jay Powell and most missionaries, are outsiders like myself. As
an outsider, there are added responsibilities. I must recognise the primacy of
Indigenous ownership over the language and the right of the group to have the
final say as to how the language should develop. I can present various options

This content downloaded from

200.3.145.12 on Fri, 04 Feb 2022 19:37:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
An Ecological Approach 53

and offer advice, but in the final analysis I must work at the direction of the
Kaurna Elders and Kaurna community.
On the one hand, I am at the very centre of the Kaurna language revivalist
efforts, and in many ways responsible for the ways in which the language is
developing and being used. On the other hand, as a non-Indigenous person, I am
an outsider. Unlike the kind of participant research carried out by an
anthropologist in Papua and New Guinea, I do not live in a Nunga household.
Whilst I am involved to some extent in Nunga social and political activities, I
am not a member of the Nunga or Kaurna community. The nature of my
research would be quite different if I were a Kaurna person.
My situation leads to a rather extraordinary kind of participant observation. I
am generating much of the subject matter of the research, whilst at the same
time being an outsider. Labov (1972: 255-292) discusses 'The Linguistic
Consequences of Being a Lame'. A 'lame' is an outsider, an isolated individual,
who speaks the vernacular code but not quite in the same way that insiders or
full group members do. Labov applies the concept to linguists who often use
themselves as 'informant' and use their own intuitions as data and gives us a
salutary warning:

To refine the intricate structure of one's own thoughts, to ask oneself what one would say
in an imaginary world where one's own dialect is the only reality, to dispute only with
those few colleagues who share the greatest part of this private world — these academic
pleasures will not easily be abandoned by those who were early detached from secular
life. The student of his own intuitions, producing both data and theory in a language
abstracted from every social context, is the ultimate lame. (Labov, 1972: 292)

I am in a position where I am 'producing both data and theory in a language

abstracted from every social context', though not in the same way that Labov
originally intended when he wrote this passage. I am a 'lame' in a double sense:
that of a non-Aboriginal outsider and that of a linguist generating and
abstracting Kaurna language data in a situation somewhat divorced from its
community.
In this role, I bear considerable responsibility for my part in the development
of the Kaurna language, which in turn has an impact on the construction of
Kaurna identity and Kaurna culture. This could potentially have far-reaching
implications for the future, not only for the Kaurna community, but for the role
of Indigenous languages in formal education and the relationships between
black and white Australians in Adelaide. As Jordan says:

Academics must take responsibility for their part in the construction of Aboriginal worlds
and for the directions in which their writings and their deliberation unwittingly contribute
to Aboriginal identity by the very way in which their research topics are conceptualised.
(Jordan, 1988a: 128)

Under these circumstances, it is imperative that I continually refer back to the

Kaurna community. I must be prepared to listen and take direction from them
and defer to the Kaurna Elders, particularly in relation to matters of cultural
significance.

This content downloaded from

200.3.145.12 on Fri, 04 Feb 2022 19:37:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
54 Chapter 3

As a general principle, language planning measures that work with, rather

than against, societal trends are far more likely to succeed. Therefore, we need
to be clear about the ways in which Kaurna people are making use of the
language on their own initiative, and work in those directions. We need to watch
how the community reacts to various initiatives and pursue those which are
well-received and be prepared to abandon others.
Status planning strategies are central within an ecological approach. Kaurna
language enthusiasts have been working on multiple fronts to seek recognition
for the language and, conversely to some extent, use the language to gain
recognition for the Kaurna as a separate identity with links to their ancestral
lands on the Adelaide Plains. The language has been actively promoted within
education (see Chapter 7 for a detailed discussion) and a range of public
domains (see Chapter 8). As a result, during the 1990s Kaurna has gained
widespread recognition within Nunga society and is becoming better known
within mainstream society.
A range of specific language functions, such as conducting weddings,
christenings and funerals in the target language, might be promoted, as is the
case with Cornish and Breton for instance. More traditional ceremonies might
be reinstituted and likewise conducted in the target language. But it would not
be wise to proceed too hastily down this path without widespread support and
involvement from members of the target language community.
Use of the target language in new domains necessarily entails language
development and often coinage of neologisms. Too much haste in these areas,
however, runs the risk of alienating the language from the community. The
situation needs to be carefully managed. Understandings about the nature of
language and language change need to be cultivated within the community by
means of forums and workshops that allow people to voice their opinions and
concerns.
There is a constant tension between viewing the target language as a static,
historical relic and seeing it as a dynamic resource for the future. It is essential,
therefore, that we proceed carefully to ensure that these two aspects are kept in
balance to ensure both authenticity and relevance.

Notes
1
Dorian (1987), whilst still adhering to this view, points to the value of language programs,
such as East Sutherland Gaelic, which are unlikely to succeed in these terms.
2
Even though the Kaurna language movement is small and most of the use of Kaurna is known,
the ecology is still very complex. There are many more factors than we can control or
adequately account for.
3
Mühlhäusler notes that the 'shop steward' metaphor is used in contemporary discourse on
environment issues.
4
Fettes (1997: 307) writes of the need to create a 'discursive space' within the 'invading
language' for the use of the Indigenous language.
5
Indeed, I have been criticised at times for focusing too much on the language and ignoring or
paying insufficient attention to other aspects of culture and identity. Guest lectures delivered by
Kaurna Elders typically draw on much broader perspectives than the set topic would seem to
warrant from an academic perspective.

This content downloaded from

200.3.145.12 on Fri, 04 Feb 2022 19:37:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
An Ecological Approach 55

6
It was noted earlier that Fishman (1991) downplays the importance of the symbolic use of
language in the institutional domain.
7
Whilst the roots of English are widely known and its original territory recognised by the
general public as the United Kingdom and ultimately Denmark and Northern Germany, it now
has many focuses, with ever-increasing numbers of new indigenised varieties emerging, such as
Singlish or Singaporean English.
8
There is a body of literature on 'secret English' relating to some Aboriginal perceptions that
they are being denied access to the 'real' English, the language of power (see Martin, 1990).
9
There has been much debate within the AILF project as to whether Australian languages
should be taught to non-Indigenous Australians or not, and whilst the general consensus has
been that they should be open to all, the decision will be made on a local level as to whether a
particular language should be taught and to whom it should be offered. In teaching the
languages, there are some concerns within the local Nunga community of a subtle takeover by
the system, the schools, the government, linguists and the dominant society.
10
It would, however, be expected for Kaurna to borrow such words from Ngarrindjeri were the
languages fully viable as ponde and pilaki are riverine species of fish prominent within the
Ngarrindjeri environment, diet and mythology. However, these species were probably not found
in Kaurna territory itself, hence the motivation to borrow them.
11
Strictly speaking according to Australian law, copyright applies only to the particular
arrangement of words, not the language itself, but Aboriginal people do not always see it in
these terms.
12
We have already seen how linguistics has treated language as an 'object' through its approach
to linguistic description. Now we see Aboriginal people treat language as an object in quite a
different sense, through its being likened to an artefact or relic.

This content downloaded from

200.3.145.12 on Fri, 04 Feb 2022 19:37:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms