Languages of Australia and Tasmania 9783110808292, 9789027921840

Citation preview

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA Series

Critica,

1

edenda curai WERNER WINTER

LANGUAGES OF

AUSTRALIA AND

TASMANIA by S. A. WURM

1972 MOUTON THE HAGUE • PARIS

© Copyright 1972 Mouton & Co. N. V., Publishers, The Hague. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without ivritten permission from the publishers.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 75 - 159 473

Printed in Hungary

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

9

2. Notes on the History of Research in Australian Languages 2.1. First Period 2.2. Second Period 2.3. Third Period

13 13 17 21

3. The Special Nature of Australian Languages . . .

30

4. Phonologically Aberrant Languages

38

5. Phonetic Symbols Employed in Australian Language Materials

42

6. Phonological Features of Australian Languages . . 6.1. General Phonological Features 6.1.1. Linear Distinctions 6.1.2. Number of Stop Series 6.1.3. Fricatives 6.1.4. Flaps and Retroflex Glide 6.1.5. Other Glides 6.1.6. Gemination 6.1.7. Vowels 6.1.8. Phoneme Inventories

48 48 48 50 52 52 52 52 53 53

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6.1.9. Syllable Types and Phonotactic Features 6.1.10. Stress 6.1.11. Tone

55 57 57

6.2. Regional Phonological Features and Types . 6.2.1. Cape York Peninsula Languages . . . 6.2.2. Languages with More than One Stop Series 6.2.3. Languages with only Four Linear Distinctions among Stops and Nasals . . 6.2.4. Southern Languages with Word-initial Consonant Clusters

58 58

59

7. Morphosyntactic Features of Australian Languages

60

7.1. General tures 7.1.1. 7.1.2. 7.1.3. 7.1.4. 7.1.5. 7.1.6. 7.1.7. 7.1.8. 7.1.9.

or Widespread Morphosyntactic

58 59

Fea-

General Remarks on Morphology . . . Gender and Class Systems Relational Markers with Nouns . . . Personal Pronouns Number Marking with Nouns . . . . Numerals Possession Demonstratives General Remarks on Bound Person Markers 7.1.10. Tenses 7.1.11. Reflexive and Reciprocal 7.1.12. Free Word Order

7.2. Regional Morphosyntactic Features 7.2.1. Prefixing Languages 7.2.2. Gender and Class in Prefixing Languages 7.2.3. Inclusion of the Noun Object in the Verb Complex 7.2.4. Gender and Class in Suffixing Languages

60 60 61 61 62 63 63 64 64 64 66 67 67 68 68 69 71 72

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7

7.2.5. Regional Distribution of Bound Person Markers 7.2.6. Forms of the Bound Subject Markers 7.2.7. Structure and Form of the Personal Pronouns 7.2.8. Indication of the Exact Time of an Action during the Day with the Verb . . . . 7.2.9. Indication of Tense with non-Verbs . 7.2.10. Passive Voice 7.2.11. Utterance-Medial Verbal Forms . . . 8. Vocabulary

73 80 81 83 83 84 84 85

8.1. General Remarks 8.2. Common Australian

85 85

Map: Distribution of Common Australian Reflexes 8.3. Marginal Vocabulary 8.4. Regional Vocabularies

91 92 93

9. Classification of Australian Languages 9.1. General Remarks

95 95

9.2. Earlier Classifications 9.3. Typological Classifications 9.4. Historical-Comparative Classifications . . . 9.5. Lexicostatistical Classification 9.5.1. Introductory Remarks 9.5.2. Spelling of Australian Language Names 9.5.3. Nature of the Classification 9.5.4. Criteria and Presentation 9.5.5. The Classification Map: Australian Languages . . . . between

96 96 .104

106 106 . . 106 109 110 112 112-113

10. External Relationships of the Australian Languages 152

8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11. Australian Linguistic Prehistory 153 11.1. Introductory Remarks 153 11.2. Conclusions based on Linguistic Evidence . . 153 11.3. Interdisciplinary Evidence 160 11.3.1. Prehistory 160 11.3.2. Physical Anthropology 161 11.4. The General Picture 162 Map: Spreading of Languages 166 12. The Tasmanian Languages Map: Tasmanian Languages 13. Bibliography Index of Languages Names Index of

168 169 175 191 194

1 INTRODUCTION

On the Australian continent, around 260 distinct languages are, or were, spoken — many of them consisting of a considerable number of dialects. They are now known to be all genetically interrelated, though some of them only rather tenuously, and to constitute a single large phylum, the Australian Phylum, which is confined to Australia and the western islands of Torres Strait. The extinct Tasmanian languages are probably not related to the Australian Phylum (see 12). No genetic link between the Australian languages and languages outside Australia can, in the light of our present knowledge, be with any degree of certainty assumed to exist (see 10). At the same time, most Australian languages appear to have been free from outside linguistic influence for many thousands of years. This constitutes a linguistic situation unique in the world, and parallels the special situation observable in other realms in the Australian biosphere, such as much of the flora and fauna. Only in parts of north-eastern Australia, particularly on Cape York Peninsula, is there evidence of quite strong non-Australian linguistic influence, obviously from New Guinea, and the languages of t h a t area, though basically Australian, show highly aberrant features and characteristics, especially in their phonologies (see 4). The Australian languages as a whole have a rather special nature in showing very considerable structural similarities in many instances, with accompanying markedly low percentages of shared vocabulary in a great number of such

10

INTRODUCTION

cases. This low cognate density is even manifested by the dialect extremes of individual languages: mutual intelligibility chains which can run for enormous distances, may show only as little as 45% shared vocabulary in them. Other special features of Australian languages are remarkably similar phonological systems even in cases of only very distantly related languages (see 3), peculiar features of these phonological systems themselves (see 6), and special ways of marking person with verbs (see 7.1.9 and 7.2.5) which apparently led to the development of several language types within the Australian Phylum, in places with such extreme divergences as the development of languages showing only suffixes, and others having a large number of prefixes besides suffixes (see 7.2.1 and 9.3). Another interesting feature of the Australian linguistic situation is the geographical distribution and regional imbalance of language families: of the twenty-six families definitely recognised within the Australian Phylum to date, twenty-five are located in the northern and northwestern part of the Australian continent and occupy only one-eighth of its total area (see map). The remaining seveneighths contain the languages belonging to the twentysixth family. However, there are indications that the relatively close interrelationship of the languages constituting this large twenty-sixth family may to some extent be secondary in nature, and attributable to the super-imposition of a homogeneous, rapidly spreading language upon earlier, probably only distantly related languages (see 9.3 and 11). I t is remarkable t h a t recent findings of both prehistory and physical anthropology tend to corroborate this in providing evidence for the spreading of cultural and population elements in the areas and directions in which such a linguistic spread may be assumed to have taken place (see 11.3). This fact makes it possible to date such a presumed spread as having taken place about 5000 — 6000 years ago.

INTRODUCTION

11

The number of speakers of Australian languages is nowadays quite small: the total number of fullblooded Australian Aborigines — (1966 figure) — is 46,356 (revised estimate in T A T Z 1968 = 47,698), excluding the Torres Strait Islanders who number about 8000. The Aborigines are now increasing in number, though the present-day population dropped from an estimated 300,000 in 1788, the year of the establishment of the first European settlement in Australia. The total number of the Aboriginal mixed-blood population is 77,495 (1966) (revised estimate in T A T Z 1968 = 82,190). However, many of the present-day Aborigines, including some fullbloods, no longer possess any knowledge of an Australian language at all, and the language knowledge of many of the remaining Aborigines is only fragmentary or, at best, imperfect. Perhaps 40,000 or so Aborigines on the continent itself may still have at least some knowledge of an Australian language, but many of these are very old people. To this figure, around 7,000 speakers of the Australian language of the western islands of Torres Strait can be added. However, in the last few years a very considerable number of languages, long believed extinct, have been found to be still spoken by some individuals, and it can well be expected that the present very active interest taken in Australian languages by quite a few linguists who work under the auspices of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies in Canberra, the Australian universities, and the Summer Institute of Linguistics, may lead to the revival of several half-forgotten languages, or at least retard their extinction. The recent decided swing of public opinion in Australia towards a better appreciation of and greater interest in Aboriginal culture and all matters pertaining to the Aboriginal sphere can also be expected to have a beneficial effect upon matters connected with the revival and continued existence of Australian Aboriginal languages. At this stage, well over two hundred Australian languages may still be known, to some extent, by at least one native

12

INTRODUCTION

speaker each, b u t only very few languages have a comparatively large number of speakers. The numerically largest Australian language existing today, the multi-dialectal Western Desert language, has around 4,000 speakers, b u t most of the other numerically strong languages have only a few hundred speakers each.

2 NOTES ON T H E H I S T O R Y OF R E S E A R C H I N A U S T R A L I A N LANGUAGES 2.1. FIRST P E R I O D

In t h e study of Australian languages, three main periods can be distinguished. The first period began in 1770 with the first recording of an Australian language, Koko-Yimidir on t h e south-eastern coast of Cape York Peninsula, b y an officer of Captain Cook's "Endeavour", and gained momentum a f t e r 1788 when the first European settlement was established at P o r t Jackson, the present-day Sydney. This first period is chiefly characterised b y t h e collection of wordlists in a great variety of languages and the compilation of very short, sketchy descriptions of a considerable number of languages largely following a set p a t t e r n of description on the basis of Latin grammar. Most of t h e wordlists are short, inaccurate, a n d presented in adaptations of the English orthography which makes their interpretation rather difficult, particularly in view of certain characteristics of the Australian phonologies (see 5. and 6.1.). The most notable collection of such wordlists was produced by E. Curr (1886-7) who published Aboriginal equivalents of his one-hundred and twenty item wordlist in nearly five hundred languages a n d dialects. I n a few instances, he gave materials additional to his basic word-list, including sentences. His publication was the result of a monumental survey b y questionnaire, a n d embraces the greater p a r t of the Australian continent. I n spite of its numerous shortcomings, CURB'S work is of great importance in giving a t least some documentation of m a n y languages and dialects which have since become extinct.

14

R E S E A R C H I N AUSTRALIAN

LANGUAGES

The most prolific contributor of grammatical sketches in this period was R. H. M A T H E W S (1892) who published a very considerable number of them, including wordlists, covering in the main large portions of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Much of his materials has remained in manuscript form, but a good portion of these manuscripts are now in the hands of E . E L K I N and A . C A P E L L , both retired from the University of Sydney. Another compendium compiled by R. B. S M Y T H (1878) on the languages of Victoria may be mentioned here. While its size is impressive, its quality is unfortunately appallingly bad, and it is of only very limited value. I t may be mentioned that many of the writers of the first period, especially in the earlier days, were greatly concerned with the question of the origin of the Australian Aborigines, and were trying to use language data to support their respective views about the Aborigines' origin from various parts of the world, such as for example, Africa and Inc^a. Apart from the sketchy and limited multiple compendia materials mentioned above, some writers, mainly missionaries, produced some, in certain cases quite sizable and detailed, descriptions and dictionaries of individual languages in this first period which can be regarded as extending until around 1930. The earliest of these, and at the same time one of the best, was L. E. T H R E L K E L D who, as early as 1827, published an introduction to the now extinct Awabakal language ( T H R E L K E L D 1827) then spoken in the area of Lake Macquarie on the New South Wales coast, south of present-day Newcastle. This was followed by a grammar of Awabakal ( T H R E L K E L D 1834) and later by a quite remarkable attempt at a theoretical analysis of the language ( T H R E L K E L D 1850). Most of T H R E L K E L D ' S work, including a lengthy, though incomplete, vocabulary, was republished by John F R A S E R in one book ( T H R E L K E L D , 1892).

RESEARCH IN AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

15

Other notable contributors on individual languages in the first period were the following: TEICHELMANN and SCHURMANN ( 1 8 4 0 ) who produced a grammar and lengthy vocabulary of the now long extinct Kaurna language of the present-day Adelaide area. MEYER ( 1 8 4 3 ) who wrote a grammar and extensive vocabulary of the Narrinyeri language of eastern South Australia. SCHURMANN (1844) who wrote an extensive vocabulary, with a short grammar, of Pangkala (Parnkala, Pankarla), on the western coast of Spencer's Gulf in South Australia. R I D L E Y ( 1 8 7 5 ) who published a good book on Kamilaroi of northern central New South Wales, and included sketchy information on a number of other New South Wales and Queensland languages in it. TAPLIN ( 1 8 7 4 ) who, in his book on the Narrinyeri of eastern South Australia, gave a lengthy vocabulary of the language, and also wrote grammars of the language (TAPLIN 1 8 7 8 , 1 8 7 9 ) . MOORE ( 1 8 8 4 ) who published a long vocabulary of Wadjuk (i.e. central Nyungar) of the present-day Perth area in Western Australia. KEMPE (1891) who wrote a grammar of Aranda of Central Australia. ROTH ( 1 8 9 7 ) who, along with other linguistic materials, gave a grammar of the Pittapitta language of the Boulia area of western Queensland, and followed it ( 1 9 0 1 ) by a grammar and vocabulary of Koko-Yimidir on the southeastern coast of Cape York Peninsula. RAY (1907a) who published an extensive grammar and vocabulary of Mabuiag, the language spoken on the western island of Torres Strait, and a long vocabulary of it (RAY 1907b). PLANERT (1907) who compiled a grammar of the Aranda language of Central Australia, and followed it by a grammar of the Dieri language of north-eastern South Australia (PLANERT 1908).

16

RESEARCH I N AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

At the end of this first period, large-scale studies concerned with the internal classification of the Australian languages were undertaken, especially by SCHMIDT (1919a, 1919b), and to a lesser extent by K R O E B E R (1923). SCHMIDT'S work, inadequate as it may be in the light of our present-day knowledge, constitutes a mile-stone in Australian linguistics as far as it goes, and has laid the foundation for much of the work undertaken at a later date. His main conclusion, i.e. the postulate t h a t the northern Australian languages were unrelated to each other and to the languages in the remaining part of the continent, is now known to be erroneous. His error in this is primarily attributable to his approach which is in the light of the culture-history method of GRAEBNER (1911) and presupposes that several distinct migrations into Australia have taken place, each of them bringing into Australia one or more languages. To a lesser extent, his erroneous assumption may have been caused b y the scantiness and inadequacy of the materials in the northern Australian languages available at the time of the compilation of his studies, though this scantiness did not prevent KROEBER (1923) (see below) from recognising the overall unity of Australian languages throughout the continent. However, SCHMIDT'S classification of the southern languages, and the groups established by him, are quite good as far as they go, and they bear a marked similarity to the findings arrived at b y modern lexicostatistical methods, even in areas in which considerable additional materials have become available for classificatory studies during the last f i f t y years. SCHMIDT'S information on typological and structural features of the languages considered by him was very limited in many cases, and non-existent in even more. Nevertheless, he attempted a systématisation and elaboration of his typological findings in relation to the pronominal systems mentioned in his study, and his resulting separate work (SCHMIDT 1919b) has, as far as it goes, been largely accepted as still valid (CAPELL 1956).

RESEARCH IN AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

17

based his classification of Australian languages mainly on CTTRR'S vocabularies, and studied the geographical occurrence of individual vocabulary items in Australia. On the basis of this, he arrived at the conclusion t h a t lexically, there was no reason for the assumption p u t forward by SCHMIDT t h a t t h e northern Australian languages were unrelated to each other and to those in the south, and he suggested t h a t there was linguistic unity throughout the continent. At the same time, he admitted t h a t in northern Australia, there was very much less linguistic homogeneity t h a n in the south, and t h a t even adjacent languages often differed profoundly in the north. He was also the first to draw attention to the widely scattered, and often marginal, occurrence of a variety of cognate items from the Common Australian vocabulary (see 8.3.). KROEBER

(1923)

2.2. S E C O N D

PERIOD

The second period in the study of Australian languages begins about 1 9 3 0 with the entry of A. CAPELL into the Australian field. This period is characterised by three major developments: (a) the surveying and in many cases quite detailed study of the languages of northern Australia which had been largely neglected until t h a t time (CAPELL 1 9 4 0 , 1942), and the recognition of their special characteristics, as well as the discovery of an enclave of languages, in north-eastern Arnhem Land, which belong to a t y p e located south of Arnhem Land, (b) the strong focus of attention on structural and typological features of Australian languages as a counterbalance: to the earlier concentration on lexical studies, and (c) the full recognition of the fact foreshadowed by KROEBER ( 1 9 2 3 ) t h a t the Australian languages are ultimately one, both in the light of the establishment of a common

18

RESEARCH I N AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

Australian lexical and grammatical element, and of the realisation t h a t the present-day typological and structural diversity of the Australian languages can be explained in terms of a typological development from the simple to the complex (CAPELL 1 9 5 6 ) . At the end of this second period which can be regarded as extending to the beginning of the nineteen sixties, a new language type was discovered by K . H A L E in northern Australia (CAPELL 1 9 6 1 ) which confirmed CAPELL'S earlier assumptions about the lines followed b y the typological development of Australian languages. In this second period, the phenomenon of the mother-inlaw language — i.e. a specialised language form used by Aborigines in many tribes when speaking to, or in the vicinity of, persons to whom they are related in certain ways — received detailed attention for the first time (CAPELL 1962b, THOMSON 1955), and the question of the secret language which had been known to be used in Aboriginal society in connection with ritual life also received further attention (e.g. O ' G R A D Y 1956). This resulted in the discovery of special phonological phenomena in one of the secret languages, including Africantype click sounds (HALE, in the Lardil tribe of Mornington Island, Gulf of Carpentaria — personal communication to the present writer). Mention may in this connection also be made of SOMMERFELT'S (1938) attempt at demonstrating the existence of correlations between the language type exemplified by Aranda, and the nature of the culture of its speakers. Into this second period falls the carrying out of large surveys of languages, both in areas previously touched upon during the first period, and in new areas. Apart from CAPELL'S work in northern Australia which has already been referred to above and which embraced over ninety languages, the following may be mentioned as examples: N E K E S — W O R M S (1953), mainly in northwestern and northeastern Australia;

RESEARCH I N AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

19

N. T I N D A L E in m a n y p a r t s of Australia; W . DOUGLAS in languages of South and Western Australia; G. O ' G R A D Y in the same states and on Cape York Peninsula; S. W U R M in central and northern New South Wales and southern Queensland; and K . H A L E in Western Australia, especially the northern west coast and the north-west, the Northern territory — mainly south of Arnhem L a n d —, t h e Gulf Country, and Cape York Peninsula. A peculiarity of this second period is t h e fact t h a t almost all of the detailed results of the work carried out in it were not published, and have for the most part remained unpublished to the present day. All t h a t has been made public and generally accessible were, in most cases, short summaries of findings, and quotes from the extensive materials in some general studies. In this period, a number of studies in considerable depth were also carried out in individual Australian languages. Again, most of these have remained in manuscript form, though some have appeared in print. A few may be mentioned here: C A P E L L studied several northern Australian languages in detail, and a few of his studies dealing with Walbiri of northern Central Australia, Karadjeri of north-western Western Australia, Dalabon of central and Yiwaidja of northern Arnhem Land, were published later ( C A P E L L 1962a). S T R E H L O W wrote a grammar of Aranda (1942-44) in Central Australia, DOUGLAS one of the Western Desert language (1958), M C C O N N E L a phonetics of Wik Munkan on Cape York Peninsula (1945), O ' G R A D Y a grammar of Nyangumarda on the north-west coast of Western Australia which was published later (1964). K . H A L E carried out studies in considerable depth in several languages of the Northern Territory, the Gulf Country, and north-western Western Australia, in particular in Walbiri, Gunwinggu, Wambaya, Alyawarra (or Iliaura), K a i t i t j , Lardil, Yanyula, and Ngarluma. W U R M did the same in some languages of northern New South Wales and south-

20

RESEARCH I N AUSTRALIAN

LANGUAGES

eastern Queensland, especially in Guwamu, Kamilaroi dialects, Dungidjau, and Kabi, as well as in Gayardilt of Bentinck Island in the Gulf of Carpentaria. G . O ' G R A D Y undertook thorough studies of Yulbaridja and Walmatjari in northern and of Bayungu in western Western Australia, and of Umpila on north-eastern Cape York Peninsula. J . L O V E studied Worora of the northern Kimberleys in Western Australia (outlines of his results were published in 1 9 3 2 - 3 3 and 1 9 3 8 ) , and B. L O W E did thorough work in Gubabuyngu of north-eastern Arnhem Land. S M Y T H E ( 1 9 4 9 ) published a grammar and short dictionary of Gumbainggar of north-eastern New South Wales, and also compiled a manuscript grammar and dictionary of Bandjalang of the same area; J . F L Y N N produced a manuscript grammar of Murinbata of southwestern Arnhem Land etc. A large amount of lexicographic work was undertaken in this second period, but again, only very little of the results was published. One interesting and valuable work to appear in print is D O U G L A S (1959) which, in addition to being a good contribution to the lexical description of the Western Desert language, has proved to be of great value in lexical eliciting work elsewhere in Australia. Several of the manuscript dictionaries compiled in this second period are quite extensive — the largest being T. S T R E H L O W ' S Aranda dictionary which, with over 30,000 entries, is the largest Australian dictionary in existence. Of other manuscript dictionaries compiled in this second period, the following may be mentioned here as examples: O ' G R A D Y ' S Nyangumarda, Yulbaridja, Walmatjari, Bayungu, and Umpila; H A L E ' S Walbiri, Gunwinggu, Wambaya, Alyawarra (or Iliaura), Kaititj, Lardil, Yanyula, and Ngarluma; W U R M ' S Guwamu, Dungidjau, and Kabi; L O V E ' S Worora; L O W E ' S Gubabuyngu; and S M Y T H E ' S Bandjalang dictionaries. The locations of these languages have already been mentioned above. Other examples are M . M E G G I T T ' S Walbiri,

RESEARCH I N AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

21

Nunggubuyu (south-eastern Arnhem Land) and (U)ngarinyin (Northern Kimberleys), and COATE'S (U)ngarinyin and Wunambal (Northern Kimberleys) dictionaries, as well as E . H U G H E S ' Nunggubuyu dictionary with a grammatical outline — but there are quite a few more. Mention must also be made for this second period of T . S T R E H L O W ' S and R . and C . B E R N D T ' S large collections of texts, the former in Aranda of Central Australia and in Western Desert dialects, the latter in a variety of languages predominantly from Arnhem Land. CAPELL'S

2.3. THIRD PERIOD

The third period in the study of Australian languages was ushered in by the establishment of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies in Canberra in 1961, and of the Australian Branch of the Summer Institute of Linguistics in the same year. Soon after its foundation, the Institute began playing a very major role in the study of Australian languages, both directly through giving research grants to linguists working on research projects under the auspices of the Institute, and indirectly through financing research scholarships and staff positions in Australian linguistics in Australian universities. This gave Australian linguistic studies a tremendous impetus, and several universities expanded their activities in this field beyond the work sponsored by the Institute. At the same time, the Summer Institute of Linguistics, after a modest beginning, enlarged its sphere of activity, and the study of a considerable number of languages was taken up in detail under its auspices. In addition to activities sponsored by the Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Australian Universities, and the Summer Institute of Linguistics, research in Australian linguistics was carried out by linguists largely or exclusively supported

22

RESEARCH I N AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

from United States and Canadian sources, especially by K . H A L E , G . O ' G R A D Y , T . KLOKEID, a n d C. a n d F . VOEGELIN.

Apart from featuring a very large increase and expansion of work in Australian languages, this third period is characterised by the following: (a) the establishment of a lexicostatistical classification of the Australian languages and of their preliminary overall genetic subgrouping, (b) the beginning of detailed comparative-historical linguistic studies in some parts of Australia, (c) the establishment of the fact that several highly aberrant languages and language groups in Australia were undoubtedly Australian and could demonstrably be linked with other Australian languages and language groups, (d) the carrying out of more or less thorough depth studies in a considerable number of Australian languages, and the compilation of extensive dictionaries of several languages, (e) the carrying through of large-scale linguistic survey work in a number of areas in Australia, predominantly in regions in which the languages are dying, and the re-discovery of quite a few languages which were believed long extinct, (f) increased utilisation of the services of interested amateurs in the collection of language materials on tape, (g) archiving of all available recorded materials in Australian languages at the Institute of Aboriginal Studies, (h) more detailed establishment and study of special features and typological characteristics of Australian languages on an Australia-wide, and individual, basis, (i) a clearer understanding of Australian linguistic prehistory through studies following an interdisciplinary approach, and (j) the rapid publication of research results, mainly under the auspices of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, but also in journals and publication series like Pacific Linguistics, Oceanic Linguistics, Oceania, and others.

R E S E A R C H I N AUSTRALIAN L A N G U A G E S

23

The individual studies and projects coming under some of the headings listed above are very numerous, and only a selection of them can be given here. Important contributions to the lexicostatistical classification and the overall subgrouping of the Australian languages have been made in O ' G R A D Y — V O E G E L I N — V O E G E L I N (1966) and O ' G R A D Y — W U R M — H A L E (1966), with modifications by W U R M (1970a). Detailed comparative-historical work was undertaken by H A L E in languages of Cape York Peninsula, with important results for the classification of Australian languages as a whole ( H A L E 1964, 1966). O ' G R A D Y (1966) carried out a comparable study in languages in western Western Australia. H A L E ( 1 9 6 4 , 1 9 6 6 ) also demonstrated the undoubtedly Australian nature of the highly aberrant northern Cape York Peninsula languages, and D I X O N ( 1 9 6 5 , 1 9 6 6 , 1 9 7 0 ) proved the same for the Mbabaram language of north-eastern Queensland which had been thought to be un-Australian. H A L E also demonstrated the extent of connection between the aberrant Arandic languages and other Australian languages ( H A L E 1 9 6 1 , 1 9 6 2 , and personal communication) There has been a very heavy concentration on detailed studies in greater or lesser depth of individual languages in this third period. The following may be mentioned as examples: C. G. VON B R A N D E N S T E I N ' S study of Ngarluma, Palygu (or Nyiyapali), and Yindjibarndi in the north-west of Western Australia along with his less detailed work in several other languages of the area; K . H A L E ' S work in Walbiri in northern Central Australia; D I X O N ' S study of a number of the rain forest languages in north-eastern Queensland, especially Dyirbal, with extensive work done in the mother-in-law language version of the latter ( D I X O N 1 9 6 8 ) ; D. T R E F R Y ' S work in Dieri in north-eastern South Australia which included acoustical studies, a type of study rarely undertaken in Australian linguistics to date; P L A T T ' S ( 1 9 6 7 , 1 9 6 8 ) work in Gugadja

24

RESEARCH I N AUSTRALIAN

LANGUAGES

and Gugada in western South Australia which also extended to Wirangu; B L A K E ' S (1969) study of Kalkatungu in western Queensland; B. A L P H E R ' S study of Yir Yoront in western Cape York Peninsula; H. COATE'S work in (U)ngarinyin, Bunaba, and Gunian in the Kimberleys area of northern Western Australia; N. CHADWICK'S (1968a, 1968b) study of the Djingili language, south of Arnhem Land; CAPELL'S study, together with H . H I N C H , of Maung of Goulburn Island off the coast of northern Arnhem Land; H. H I N C H ' S work in Iwaidja, and in Maung (1964); HOLMER'S (1966) work in K a t t a n g and Thangatti in north-coastal areas of New South Wales; L A M O N T W E S T ' S work in Dalabon of central Arnhem Land; C . OSBORNE'S study of Tiwi of Bathurst and Melville Islands of northwestern Arnhem Land; P. CHAKRAVARTI'S study of Waramungu of northern Central Australia; L. O A T E S ' (1964) work in Gunwinggu of northern central Arnhem Land; C. Y A L L O P ' S study of Alyawarra (or Iliaura) of Central Australia; D. T R Y O N ' S work in Maranunggu, Mullukmulluk, and Pungupungu in western Arnhem Land; D. LAYCOCK'S (1969) work in Lamalamic languages (mainly in kankanda) of eastern Cape York Peninsula; J . CLEVERLY'S study of Djamindjung of the Kimberley area of northwestern Western Australia; L. H E R C U S ' (1969) study of Wembawemba of north-western Victoria which also extended to other Victorian languages; M. C . CUNNINGHAM'S study of Yugumbir (or Yugambe) of northeastern New South Wales (1969), and of Alawa of southeastern Arnhem Land; H. K E R R ' S work in Nyigina in northwestern Western Australia; J . D E ZWAAN'S (1969) study of Koko-Yimidir of north-eastern Cape York Peninsula; A. H A L L ' S work in Thaayorr (or Taior) of south-western Cape York Peninsula; J . K I N S L O W — H A R R I S ' study of Gunbalang in central Arnhem Land; A. M U R T O N E N ' S (1969) workinPintubi in western Central Australia; J . B R E E N ' S work in Warluwara in western Queensland; S. N E W L A N D ' S work in Yugula (or Ganggalida) in the Queensland Gulf of Carpentaria Country;

RESEARCH IN AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

25

study of Andilyaugwa on Groote Eylandt, western Arnhem Land; W. H. DOUGLAS' (1968) study of Nyungar in southwestern Western Australia; B. SOMMER'S (1969) and B. and E. SOMMER'S (1967) studies in Kunjen (Kundjen) in southern central Cape York Peninsula; T . J . KLOKEID'S (1969) study of Thargari in western Western Australia and his work in Nyamarl in the north-west of that state; work by W. and L . OATES (1964a), H . HERSHBERGER (1964a, 1964b, 1964c), R . HERSHBERGER (1964a, 1964b, 1964c, 1964d, 1970), and R . HERSHBERGER and E . P I K E (1970) in Gugu Yalanji (or Koko Yelandji) in south-eastern Cape York Peninsula; J . KIRTON'S (1964, 1967, 1970) and E . MACDONALD'S (1964) studies in Yanyula in the western part of the Gulf of Carpentaria area; work by M. GODFREY (1964, 1970), B. SAYERS (1964), B. SAYERS and H . K E R R (1964), andM. GODFREY and H . K E R R (1964) in Wik Munkan in central western Cape York Peninsula; K . GLASGOW'S (1964a, 1964b), D . and K . GLASGOW'S (1967), and D . GLASGOW'S and H . K E R R ' S (1964) studies in Burera of northern Arnhem Land; B. GEYTENBEEK'S (1964) and H . GEYTENBEEK'S (1964) work in Gidabal of north-eastern New South Wales; C. MORE'S work in Garawa on the Queensland-Northern Territory border in the Gulf country; work by A. GLASS and D . HACKETT (1969) in the Ngaanyatjara dialect, by M . MARSH in the Mantjiltjara and K a t u t j a r a dialects, and by K. H A N S E N in the Pintupi dialect, all of the Western Desert language of Western Australia; work by J . H U D S O N in Walmatjari (or Wolmeri) of north-western Western Australia; and there are quite a few more. The greater part of the studies listed as not yet published are either ready for the press, and will be published in the foreseeable future, or are being prepared for publication, and further studies on some of these languages by the authors named are in preparation. J . STOKES'

At the same time, extensive lexical work has been carried out in this third period, and a considerable number of die-

26

RESEARCH IN AUSTRALIAN

LANGUAGES

tionaries of varying sizes compiled. Amongst the largest of these are C. G. V O N B R A N D E N S T E I N ' S Ngarluma and H . C O A T E ' S re-worked (U)ngarinyin dictionaries, the former with over 10,000 entries, and the latter not much smaller. V O N B R A N D E N S T E I N also compiled a substantial dictionary of Yindjibarndi, and Co ATE sizable dictionaries of Bunaba and Gunian (cf. pp. 23, 24). Some other examples of dictionaries compiled in this third period may be mentioned here (the locations of the languages will only be given if they do not appear in the above paragraphs): R . D I X O N ' S Dyirbal dictionary and his extensive collection of Dyirbal mother-inlaw vocabulary; M. W E S T ' S Dalabon, Koko-Ya'o, and Umpila (both in north-eastern Cape York Peninsula); T. K L O K E I D ' S Thargari and Nvamarl; W. and L . O A T E S ' (1964b) Gugu Yalanji (or Koko Yelandji); L . R E E C E ' S Walbiri; P. C H A K R A V A R T I ' S Waramungu and J . S T O K E S ' Andilyaugwa dictionaries; H . K E R R ' S extensive comparative vocabularies of eleven languages of north-western Western Australia, almost all of the Nyulnyulan Family; B. and E. S O M M E R ' S K u n j e n (or Kundjen); and B. and H. G E Y T E N B E E K ' S Gidabal dictionaries; L . H E R C U S ' (1969) Wembawemba, Wergaia, and Madimadi (north-western Victoria) dictionaries, with vocabularies of several other Victorian languages; W. D O U G L A S ' Nyungar dictionary (1968) a n d his unpublished dictionaries of several dialects of the Western Desert language; N . H O L M E R ' S (1967) K a t t a n g and Thangatti; D. and K . G L A S G O W ' S Burera; M . M A R S H ' S K u t u t j a r a ; J . H U D S O N and E . R I C H A R D S ' Walmatjari; B. S A Y E R S ' , M. G O D F R E Y ' S , and C H . K I L H A M ' S Wik Munkan; and J . K I R T O N ' S Yanyula dictionaries. Quite a few of the dictionaries listed as unpublished are being considered, or have been accepted, for publication, and are expected to appear in print in the not too distant future. Others are being prepared for publication. Large-scale linguistic survey activities in several areas have been carried out in this third period, either as independ-

RESEARCH IN AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

27

ent projects or as side issues of more detailed work in given areas. Interested amateurs provided by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies with tape-recorders and working guides such as C A P E L L (1945), AI AS (1965), and W U R M (1967a) have also made valuable contributions in this field, and an archive of recordings in several hundred Australian languages and dialects has been established at the Institute. A few of these surveys may be mentioned here: L . H E R C U S carried out several extensive surveys in Victoria, central and western New South Wales, and eastern and north-eastern South Australia. Especially in Victoria, she found a number of languages, long believed extinct, still spoken to some extent, and could collect extensive materials (e.g. H E R C U S 1 9 6 5 , 1 9 6 6 , 1 9 6 9 ) ; R . H . M A T H E W S did survey work on the south coast of New South Wales, and in the north-west of that state, with good results; J . B R E E N collected survey materials in a spectacular number of languages in northern New South Wales and western Queensland; S. N E W L A N D carried out a survey in the Gulf country of northwest Queensland; G . O ' G R A D Y , together with T . K L O K E I D , added to his earlier survey materials from Western Australia, especially from the north-west and west of that state; M. W E S T collected extensive survey materials in numerous languages in Cape York Peninsula, northern Queensland, and parts of the north of the Northern Territory; D . T R Y O N carried out surveys in parts of western Arnhem Land, with important results for the classification of languages in the Daly River area ( T R Y O N 1 9 6 8 ) . D O U G L A S surveyed parts of the Western Desert language area, and also the south-west of Western Australia ( D O U G L A S 1 9 6 8 ) ; N. C H A D W I C K the Barkly Tablelands area in northwestern Queensland, and adjacent parts of the Northern Territory; W. D I X O N the rain forest area of northeastern Queensland; and F . A G U A S parts of the same country. B. S C H E B E C K carried out a survey in South Australia in the area east of Lake Torrens, and com-

28

RESEARCH IN AUSTRALIAN

LANGUAGES

pleted a very detailed and extensive dialect survey in northeastern Arnhem L a n d ; B. A L P H E R surveyed p a r t s of Cape York Peninsula; M. C U N N I N G H A M p a r t s of south-east Queensland; H . K E R R Dampier L a n d a n d adjoining areas in northwestern Australia; J . K I N S L O W - H A R R I S p a r t s of northern Arnhem L a n d ; a n d members of t h e Summer I n s t i t u t e of Linguistics p a r t s of Cape York Peninsula, t h e Gulf Country of northern Queensland, a n d of Arnhem L a n d and Western Australia. Also under t h e heading of surveys comes t h e compilation of guides t o existing knowledge of, and information available about, Australian languages. An i m p o r t a n t contribution in this field is C A P E L L ( 1 9 6 3 ) which lists all Australian languages and dialects known a t t h a t time, with information as t o their location, brief references t o materials e x t a n t on t h e m until 1963, a n d also gives hints as t o t h e n a t u r e of s t u d y needed for individual languages a n d dialects, a n d its urgency in view of t h e state of t h e languages, m a n y of which were already headed towards extinction in 1963. T h e Australian I n s t i t u t e of Aboriginal Studies has since added considerably to C A P E L L ' S list of languages and dialects, a n d has compiled, and is constantly adding to, maps of tribal (and language) names covering various p a r t s of Australia. Another i m p o r t a n t project on this line was s t a r t e d b y W. O A T E S and is now continued b y L . O A T E S . I t consists of the compilation of maps and legend materials giving information on t h e nature, extent a n d reliability of linguistic information available on individual Australian languages a n d dialects. The special features of Australian languages, and problems of general Australian linguistic typology have a t t r a c t e d attention during this third period. I n V O E G E L I N — V O E G E L I N etal. (1963), and in O ' G R A D Y — V O E G E L I N — V O E G E L I N (1966), the phonological pecularities characterising Australian languages as a whole are discussed; C A P E L L (1967a) details t h e

RESEARCH IK AUSTRALIAN

LANGUAGES

29

phonological features of Australian languages and (CAPELL 1961, 1962a, 1967b, 1970) presents his views about the typological development of Australian languages. W U R M (1970a, 1969) discusses special and general features of the typological development of Australian languages. Typological questions have also been touched upon by several of the linguists working in individual languages and language areas in this third period. The linguistic prehistory of Australia has recently come into focus, and the views of linguists have received valuable corroboration in the findings of prehistory ( M U L V A N E Y 1966, 1969) and lately also of physical anthropology (SANGHVI—KIRK—BALAKRISHNAN 1970). Questions of Australian linguistic prehistory, in part on an interdisciplinary basis, have been discussed by W U R M (1970a, 1970b) and T R Y O N (1971), in part on the basis of CAPELL'S (1956) earlier views. In addition to the studies and work briefly reviewed above, a large number of other research and study projects are either in hand, or planned for the near future, and it is to be expected that our knowledge of the languages of Australia will continue to increase very rapidly both in volume and depth.

3 THE SPECIAL NATURE OF AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

The usual step in an introductory book on a given language area would be at this point to give a listing, grouping and classification of the languages in the area under discussion. However, the, in several ways, rather special nature of the Australian languages makes it necessary to discuss some of their features and peculiarities first because these have a strong bearing on their grouping and classification and must be properly understood before the problems of the classification of the Australian languages can be fully appreciated. One important paradox in the Australian linguistic situation is constituted by the fact that in many Australian languages, adjacent dialects show neighbour intelligibility, whereas the cognate density within such a language in its entirety — i.e. when considering all its dialects — is of the same order as that usually encountered between DIFFERENT LANGUAGES in other LANGUAGE FAMILIES in the world. For this reason, such Australian languages may well be referred to by the term FAMILY-LIKE LANGUAGES (VOEGELIN—VOEGELIN et al. 1963). Such family-like languages have, in some cases, as little as 45% shared vocabulary between dialect extremes, with dialect chains linked by unbroken neighbour intelligibility running for great distances: the longest known chain extends for over nine hundred miles from north-western Western Australia southeastward almost as far as the Great Australian

SPECIAL NATURE OF AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

31

Bight. At the same time, such family-like languages show very similar, if not almost identical, structures throughout their various dialects. The situation concerning the family-like member languages of actual language families in Australia is comparable: they usually display structural similarities of an order as may be expected to be found between member languages of one language family elsewhere in the world. At the same time, their lexical sharing is as low as that met with within phyla elsewhere — cognation between languages at the geographic extremes of a family has been found to be as low as 8%, though languages adjacent to each other within a family usually show comparatively high cognate densities. The term PHYLIC LANGUAGE FAMILY has been proposed for such Australian language families ( V O E G E L I N — V O E G E L I N et al. 1 9 6 3 ) . Another striking feature of Australian languages is their remarkably undifferentiated structure and great typological similarity which manifests itself to the highest degree in their phonological systems. Even languages belonging to different phylic families and showing only very low vocabulary sharing, have similar and often identical phoneme inventories and interphonemic specifications. Only a very small number of Australian languages, most of them located in the Cape York Peninsula area, have highly aberrant phonemic systems. In all these instances, however, disturbing influences from non-Australian languages seem likely, and comparative reconstructive work has shown in the case of some of these languages that their aberrant features can be explained in terms of regular changes from the usual Australian phonological patterns (see 4.). Details of the phonological structure of Australian languages will be given below in 5. and 6. However, at this stage, it may be of interest to demonstrate the great similarity of the Australian phonological systems in the light of a mathematical approach ( V O E G E L I N — V O E G E L I N et al. 1963). This approach

32

SPECIAL N A T U R E OF A U S T R A L I A N

LANGUAGES

aims at establishing an index of synchronic diversity on the basis of the construction from a given sample of languages, (a) of a maximum non-existent phonemic system showing every linear distinction found in any of the languages in the sample, and (b) of a minimum phonemic system showing no linear distinction absent from any of the languages in the sample. From this minimax pair of non-existent phonemic systems for the given sample of languages, the particular intervals between the fewest and most stops, nasals, laterals, etc. are then computed and listed, and these particular intervals added up in the end to yield what is referred to as the general interval which constitutes an index of the synchronic diversity of the languages of the given sample. When applying this method to the languages of the PamaNyungan Family which covers seven-eighths of the Australian continent, including in this also its phonologically aberrant member languages which have been referred to briefly above (see also 4.), the general interval figure arrived at is 19. If the sample is expanded to include the languages of the other twenty-six definitely established Australian phylic families which occupy the remaining one-eighth of the continent, this figure would still be only 19 which gives evidence of the great similarity of phonemic systems in Australia. I t shows two facts: (a) that the phonological differentiation between all languages of the Australian Phylum is not greater than that existing within the largest phylic family of this Phylum, and (b) that the degree of phonological differentiation within the entire Australian Phylum is of an amazingly low order. By way of contrast, the general intervals of the Athapaskan and Uto-Aztecan Amerindian Families for instance are 22 and 23, whereas that of the Aztec-Tanoan Phylum is around 3 0 ( V O E G E L I N — V O E G E L I N et al. 1 9 6 3 ) . In other words, the phonological diversity within a single Amerindian language family is greater than that existing within the entire Australian Phylum.

SPECIAL NATURE OF AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

33

In addition to the strikingly undifferentiated nature of the Australian phonological systems, considerable similarities also exist between the Australian languages on the morphosyntactic levels, though the typological differences on these levels are greater than on the level of the phonological systems. At the same time, distinct regional types stand out more clearly and are considerably more numerous on the former levels than is the case with the latter, and a geographically scattered occurrence of some morphosyntactic features can be observed (see 7.2.). Some attempts have been made to put forward explanations for the unusual nature of the Australian languages as indicated above. I t has been thought conceivable that the culture of multilingualism which is characteristic for much of Australia may have had something to do with the development of the family-like languages and phylic language families in Australia ( V O E G E L I N — V O E G E L I N et a\. 1 9 6 3 ) . As regards this question, the suggestion has been made that as an explanation for the low degree of structural differentiation characterising Australian languages today, the assumption of convergence may be just as reasonable as that of common retention ( O ' G R A D Y — V O E G E L I N — V O E G E L I N 1 9 6 6 ) , and it is felt that multilingualism may well have been an important factor in such a convergence. This assumption may well be strengthened by the fact that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to show by reconstruction and attestation by cognates, that the often very similar features of present-day Australian languages are the result of common retention from a proto-language, because the cognates required for such a line of study are insufficient in number for the western half of the north of the continent where most of the Australian phylic families are located. has recently put forward some views on the question of the interrelationship of Australian languages which follow a comparable line of argument. His main tenets are the unusually high rate of vocabulary replacement (often DIXON ( 1 9 7 0 )

34

SPECIAL N A T U R E OF A U S T R A L I A N

LANGUAGES

through borrowing f r o m t h e dialect of a neighbouring tribe) in Australia as caused b y word-taboos for which he cites some evidence, a n d t h e p a t t e r n of tribal movements, splits, a n d mergers which, he feels, m a y be responsible for the apparently r a n d o m distribution of the admittedly considerable structural similarities between Australian languages. H e assumes, a t t h e same time, t h a t t h e isolation for m a n y millennia, of most Australian tribes f r o m external cultural or linguistic influences m a y be responsible for the great similarity of several basic structural features throughout t h e continent. D I X O N considers t h a t t h e main word-taboo leading t o rapid vocabulary replacement lies in the fact t h a t persons are n a m e d a f t e r common objects, a n d t h a t upon their deaths, t h e words for these objects become taboo a n d have t o b e replaced b y new ones. H e suggests t h a t t h e reason for t h e retention of u p to around f i f t y Common Australian roots (see 8.2.) through most of t h e Australian communalects m a y perhaps lie in t h e fact t h a t people m a y be rarely n a m e d a f t e r t h e objects referred t o b y these Common Australian vocabulary items. On t h e basis of these tenets and assumptions, D I X O N argues t h a t in t h e case of a tribe splitting into two, with t h e two p a r t s remaining in contiguity with each other, t h e originally identical dialects of t h e two p a r t s will quickly diverge as a result of lexical borrowing f r o m other neighbouring tribes until t h e percentage of their shared vocabulary has reached t h e equilibrium figure (see below). A t t h e same time, he suggests t h a t two communalects which have originally only very little vocabulary sharing will rapidly build u p a common vocabulary upon moving into contiguity with each other, through borrowing f r o m each other t o replace proscribed items. H e believes t h a t t h e equilibrium figure for shared vocabulary in all these cases is around 4 0 % t o 60%. On these grounds, he feels t h a t neighbouring dialects showing significantly more t h a n 60% vocabulary sharing are

SPECIAL NATURE OF AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

35

likely to have originally been in quite close genetic relationship. Conversely, adjacent languages sharing significantly less than 40% vocabulary are likely to have no close original genetic relationship to each other, and could be assumed to have moved into close geographical proximity only comparatively recently. In cases of neighbouring communalects sharing between 4 0 % and 6 0 % common vocabulary, D I X O N feels that the lexical evidence constitutes no reliable grounds on which to base an assumption or denial of close genetic relationship between the two communalects. He argues that in such cases, grammatical similarity or dissimilarity is the only valid criterion in view of the comparative slowness of grammatical change. Grammatical criteria may, according to D I X O N , also have to be taken into account in the case of non-contiguous languages showing only low lexical sharing. The shared vocabulary of closely related dialects, once they have moved out of geographical proximity, is, in his view, likely to drop to a very low figure — the further away they are located from each other, the lower this figure will be —, but the grammatical similarity between them is likely to persist much longer. Similarly, non-contiguous communalects sharing 40% or more common vocabulary may constitute communalects which have only recently moved out of contiguity with each other, and may or may not have been originally closely related genetically, as will be evidenced by the degree of grammatical similarity or dissimilarity between them. In considering such grammatical evidence, D I X O N mentions the necessity of comparing both grammatical categories and grammatical form. In view of the great similarity of basic structural features such as case systems with nouns and pronouns, pronominal roots, verb conjugations, interrogatives, basic syntax, and others in most Australian languages, D I X O N states that only percentage figures of shared grammatical features which are considerably in excess of or below certain

36

S P E C I A L N A T U R E OF AUSTRALIAN

LANGUAGES

norm figures are significant. These norm figures are comparable to his equilibrium figure of shared common vocabulary between adjacent communalects (see above) and are quite high: in the case of languages of the rain forest area of northeastern Queensland, he postulates 70% as the norm figure for shared grammatical categories, and 25% to 30% as that for shared grammatical forms. D I X O N ' S views go quite some way towards offering an explanation for the often very considerable discrepancy between lexical and structural similarities in Australian languages, and the existence and nature of the family-like languages and phylic families in Australia. At the same time, they indirectly question, for the Australian linguistic scene, the basic assumptions on which the lexicostatistical approach rests, and put its value and applicability in Australia into serious doubt (see also 9.5.3.). The factors taken into consideration by D I X O N may well have played an important part in producing the recent Australian linguistic picture, but he may perhaps be suspected of taking a rather radical view, especially with regard to the rapidity and thoroughness of vocabulary replacement. While there are records of drastic instances, vocabulary replacement and borrowing does not in general appear to have been very excessive in a number of other instances in Australia in which early records, and the persistence of the languages to the present day, allow comparisons to be made which embrace timespans of one, or in one instance even two, centuries. At the same time, D I X O N ' S suggestion that the long isolation of most Australian languages from external linguistic influence may be the reason for their great structural similarities, is of considerable interest and probably reflects a good measure of truth. I t may well be that the absence of such external influences, aided by the levelling pressure of the high degree of communicative interchange, in the light of the prevalence of multilingualism between speakers of various Australian

SPECIAL NATURE OF AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

37

communalects, has greatly contributed to the preservation of the basic features of the morphosyntactic patterns as well as to the persistence of the basic phonological structure. The few phonologically aberrant languages in Australia, especially those located on the Cape York Peninsula, appear to furnish indirect proof of this assumption: their aberrant phonological systems which, at least in the case of some languages, can be shown to be the result of regular innovations affecting the usual Australian phonological base, are undoubtedly the result of external influences, probably from New Guinea, which in the areas in question also manifest themselves in other fields such as racial features for instance. I t seems plausible to presume that, if external linguistic influences affecting the phonologically aberrant Australian languages have brought about such sometimes quite profound deviations of their phonologies from the Australian norm, the striking phonological similarity of most other Australian languages is attributable to the absence of such external influences upon them.

4

PHONOLOGICALLY ABERRANT LANGUAGES

Repeated mention has been made so far of phonologically aberrant Australian languages. Most of these languages are located in the Cape York Peninsula area, and are characterised by having apparently quite un-Australian phonological inventories containing two stop series in contrast to the usual single stop series in most Australian languages, a number of fricative phonemes which contrast with the complete absence or great rarity of such phonemes in most Australian languages, and a glottal stop phoneme appearing with great frequency. At the same time, their syllable structures and phonotactic features are entirely at variance with those encountered in most other Australian languages, and their supra-segmental systems tend to be unusual as well. The individual morphemes show little surface similarity to those of other Australian languages. These languages, especially those of northern Cape York Peninsula, had been thought to be largely un-Australian, or at least basically very different from the other Australian languages, and probably heavily influenced by Papuan languages from New Guinea (CAPELL 1 9 5 6 ) . However, H A L E ( 1 9 6 4 , 1 9 6 6 ) could demonstrate as a result of his detailed work in languages of northern Cape York Peninsula that those languages at least owed their non-Australian phonological characteristics to comparatively recent common innovations manifesting themselves in extensive sound changes affecting an originally quite typically Australian phonological

PHONOLOGICALLY ABERRANT LANGUAGES

39

system. H A L E ' S reconstruction of this original system yielded local lexical proto-forms of which a considerable n u m b e r were quite obviously cognate with lexical items of phonologically non-aberrant languages on Cape York Peninsula, and of languages outside t h e Peninsula. The lexical connections of these northern Cape York Peninsula languages with languages belonging t o a large group in eastern and north-eastern Australia was close enough to allow t h e lexicostatistical inclusion of t h e former as a subgroup — called t h e Northern P a m a Subgroup — into t h e latter group which has been n a m e d t h e Pama-Maric Group. I n spite of this fact, a p a r t of t h e vocabulary of t h e Northern P a m a languages stands a p a r t f r o m the Pama-Maric and general Australian vocabulary a n d constit u t e s a regional vocabulary (see 8.4.). Similar observations have recently been made b y S O M M E R (1969) with regard t o languages in central Cape Y o r k Peninsula which are also very highly aberrant on t h e phonological level, b u t which could now also be included in the P a m a Maric Group as t h e Central P a m a Subgroup. Other phonologically highly aberrant languages in t h e Princess Charlotte B a y area of eastern Cape York Peninsula which had been classified in O ' G R A D Y — V O E G E L I N — V O E G E L I N ( 1 9 6 6 ) as constituting the B a y P a m a Subgroup of the Pama-Maric Group, have recently been studied in some detail b y L A Y C O C K ( 1 9 6 9 ) a n d appear to be linked less closely with the other languages of t h e Pama-Maric Group t h a n those of t h e Northern P a m a and Central P a m a Subgroups. They have tentatively been classified as constituting the Lamalamic Group within t h e P a m a - N y u n g a n Family. Another highly unusual Australian language called Mbabar a m and located a t t h e base of Cape York Peninsula had until recently been regarded as being one of t h e two languages on t h e Australian mainland which were possibly unrelated to t h e languages constituting t h e Australian P h y l u m ( T I N D A L E — BIRDSELL

1941;

O'GRADY—VOEGELIN—VOEGELIN

1966).

40

PHONOLOGICALLY ABERRANT

LANGUAGES

However, recent work by D I X O N ( 1 9 6 5 , 1 9 6 6 , 1 9 7 0 ) has shown the undoubtedly Australian nature of Mbabaram, and has also demonstrated the fact that the not very distant relationship of this language to other languages of the Pama-Nyungan Family and in particular to other languages of the same area has been obscured by extensive phonological as well as some other structural innovations. The other mainland language believed to be un-Australian ( O ' G R A D Y — V O E G E L I N — V O E G E L I N 1 9 6 6 ) , Aniwan in northeastern New South Wales, resembles other languages of the same area typologically and in the form of some of its bound morphemes, but shows hardly any definite lexical cognates with them which may not be loans. I t seems probable that the same situation involving extensive innovations prevails with regard to Aniwan as has been found to be the case with Mbabaram (see above), though no immediate reasons for such a phenomenon can be guessed at at this stage. Unfortunately, this assumption is unlikely ever to be provable because only very little material is extant on the language which is almost certainly extinct: in spite of concerted efforts during recent years, no surviving speaker could be found. The Arandic Group in Central Australia constitutes another case of phonologically aberrant languages, though the deviations of its member languages from the usual Australian phonological pattern are less pronounced than in the case of the Cape York Peninsula languages mentioned, and manifest themselves predominantly in extensive sound changes which greatly obscure the lexical links between Arandic and other Australian languages ( W T J R M 1 9 6 3 ) . Nevertheless, a number of phonological features occur in them which are rare in Australian languages, such as the presence of nasally released stop phonemes which outside Arandic are found only in languages adjoining Arandic in the south. H A L E ( 1 9 6 1 , 1 9 6 2 , and personal communication) could show that it was possible to recognise a number of the apparently

PHONOLOGICALLY A B E R R A N T LANGUAGES

41

isolated Arandic lexical items and bound morphemes as cognate with their counterparts in other parts of Australia if far-reaching regular sound changes were postulated. A regional vocabulary (see 8.4.) is nevertheless present in Arandic. The fact that Arandic is at present located in an area far removed from any conceivable non-Australian linguistic influence which could be held responsible for its aberrant phonological nature constitutes a problem, and seems to militate against the assumption made above (see also 3.) that aberrant phonological features in some Australian languages may be attributable to such outside linguistic influences. The second fact that Arandic is largely surrounded by languages which correspond more closely to the Australian phonological norm further aggravates this problem. However, S O M M E R (personal communication; WXJRM 1970b) has recently found that some phonological innovations are shared by Arandic and the phonologically very highly aberrant languages of central Cape York Peninsula, which suggests some possible original connection between the two. Corroborative interdisciplinary evidence for such an assumption is available (see 11.3.), and this assumption may serve as an explanation for the phonologically aberrant nature of the Arandic languages. A few other Australian languages have somewhat unusual individual phonological features in possessing for instance two phonologically contrasting orally released stop series, nasally or laterally released stop phoneme series, etc. Such features could perhaps be regarded as local innovations. This may be borne out by the fact that some of them, such as the contrast between two orally released series, usually carry only very low functional loads in such languages. At the same time, it is not impossible that they constitute an archaic residue (see 11.2.). In general, the presence of these individual phonological peculiarities in given languages does not veil the fact that such languages are more or less closely related to other Australian languages.

5

PHONETIC SYMBOLS E M P L O Y E D I N

AUSTRALIAN

LANGUAGE MATERIALS

A number of different sets of symbols has been used by various authors to represent Australian phonemes, and there seems little hope of standardisation in the foreseeable future. Several of the characteristic features of what can be regarded as the Australian phonological norm, especially the usual occurrence in individual languages of one stop series only, contribute considerably to the broadening of the range of plausible symbols which could be chosen for the representation of certain phonemes. This proliferation of symbols affects only the representation of consonants. The paucity of distinct vowel phonemes in most Australian languages has lead to a remarkable uniformity in their representation by symbols. In TABLE I, the symbols used by a number of authors for stops and nasals will be listed (O'GRADY 1970). For this book, the author has decided to adopt the system of which the symbols under 1 in the following table form a part. This choice is arbitrary, but in making it he has been guided by the fact that it is widely used by a number of authors, and at the same time constitutes the official system adopted by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. There may be some inconsistency in this choice in view of the arguments put forward by the author in his discussion of the spelling of language names as adopted by him for this book (see 9.5.2.) in which he gives preference to the spelling

PHONETIC SYMBOLS EMPLOYED TABLE

43

I

Stops Bilabial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

b P P P b P b b

Interdental»

Dentalalveolar b

d t t t

d t t t d t d d

tj dh

Retroflex0 d t t t

Palatal"

Velar«

dj ty c c dy

K k k k

j dj

g g

nj ny

f| q n n q ng q ng

t dd

g k

Nasals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

m m m m m m m m

n n ^ n ny nh

n n n n n n n n

n n n n

n

ny

ny

n nn

n nj

Notes: 1 Symbols used by A. C A P E L L in his numerous publications, and by m a n y members of t h e Australian Branch of t h e Summer Institute of Linguistics. They also constitute p a r t of the system a t present adopted by t h e Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. 2 Symbols used by K . H A L E in his publications. 3 Symbols used by O ' G R A D Y in his more recent publications. 4 Symbols used in K L O K E I D (1969). 6 Symbols used by R . D I X O N in his publications. * Symbols used by W . D O U G L A S in his publications. ' Symbols used in O A T E S — O A T E S (1964a, 1964b). 8 Symbols constituting p a r t of t h e practical orthography recommended by t h e Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Linguistic Group in 1968.

44

PHONETIC SYMBOLS EMPLOYED

I . e . l a m i n o - i n t e r d e n t a l (or l a m i n o - d e n t a l ) . I . e . a p i c o - d e n t a l or a p i c o - a l v e o l a r . c I.e. apico-domal. d I . e . l a m i n o - a l v e o l a r or l a m i n o - p a l a t a l . e I.e. dorso-velar. T h e g a p s in t h e r a n g e s are a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e m i s s i n g p h o n e m e s d o n o t o c c u r in t h e l a n g u a g e s d e a l t w i t h b y t h e r e s p e c t i v e a u t h o r s , a n d n o a l l o w a n c e h a d t o b e m a d e b y t h e m for t h e i r representation . a

b

used by various authors over that adopted by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. His reasons for this inconsistency are the following: (a) A number of language names are exclusively or almost exclusively known from the publications of certain authors in the spelling adopted by them. Replacing these spellings completely by a standardised one which may look rather different on the surface may render them difficult to recognise immediately. (b) The spelling of Australian language names is rarely phonemically accurate, and the names constitute mere labels. In view of this, the choice of a given system of symbols in writing them becomes a matter of relatively minor importance. (c) To use, in the language materials given in this book, the varied symbol systems of the different authors from whose publications and materials the present writer may quote, would lead to great confusion in the minds of the readers. In the case of language names however which constitute only labels, any such confusion may be expected to be of a lower order than that arising over the wholesale adoption of a standardised spelling system for language names which on the surface would veil the forms of a great many language names used recently by a variety of authors. The present writer has strong sympathies for using, in actual language materials, the system followed by him in rendering palatals in the spelling of language names, or to use V consistently to indicate palatalisation, and y for the palatal glide. However, so as not to add to the proliferation of symbol sys-

PHONETIC SYMBOLS

45

EMPLOYED

tems already met with in Australian language materials, he has decided to follow the system chosen by him here without modification. The symbols used in that system to represent phonemes are given in table II: TABLE

II

Consonants Bilab- Inter- Dental- Retroial dental alveolar flex Palatal STOPS v o i c e d

(lax)

voiceless (tense) nasally released laterally released NASALS

FRICATIVES

voiced

b P pm m 13

d t tn X n à

voiceless i

LATERALS FLAPS GLIDES

&

TRILLS

w

d t tn X n z s 1 r

d t tn X n

dj tj tjnj >j

1 r V

lj

Velar g k ki]

Giotto

?

q Ì

j

Notes: Of t h e s e c o n s o n a n t p h o n e m e s , t h e n a s a l l y a n d l a t e r a l l y released s t o p s a r e v e r y r a r e a n d o c c u r o n l y in a f e w l a n g u a g e s in a c o h e r e n t a r e a m a i n l y l o c a t e d in C e n t r a l a n d S o u t h A u s t r a l i a a n d o v e r l a p p i n g into south-western Queensland. T h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n " v o i c e d " a n d " v o i c e l e s s " s t o p s is of relevance only for t h e few languages which h a v e t w o contrastive orally released s t o p series. I n m o s t of t h e s e l a n g u a g e s , t h e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n t h e t w o series is b a s e d m o r e o n a t e n s e - l a x d i s t i n c t i o n t h a n o n a voiceless-voiced d i s t i n c t i o n . I n o n e i n s t a n c e , in W a r a m u n g u in n o r t h e r n C e n t r a l A u s t r a l i a , t h e c o n t r a s t h a s b e e n f o u n d t o b e b a s e d on a l e n g t h d i s t i n c t i o n , a n d in K u n j e n in c e n t r a l C a p e Y o r k P e n i n s u l a , it is b a s e d on a n aspirated-unaspirated distinction. I n languages w i t h one orally released s t o p series, voiced (lax) a n d voiceless (tense) a l l o p h o n e s of s t o p s a r e p h o n e m i c a l l y c o n d i t i o n e d , o r a r e in f r e e v a r i a t i o n . F r i c a t i v e s o c c u r o n l y in s o m e l a n g u a g e s of C a p e Y o r k P e n i n s u l a , a n d a v e r y f e w other, mainly n o r t h Australian, languages. T h e situation concerning v o i c i n g a n d voicelessness w i t h f r i c a t i v e s is c o m p a r a b l e t o t h a t prevoiling w i t h s t o p s in l a n g u a g e s c o n t a i n i n g o n l y a single o r a l s t o p series.

46

PHONETIC

SYMBOLS

EMPLOYED

O n l y one language, M a b u i a g of t h e western Torres Strait Islands, shows a phonemic contrast between a voiced and voiceless f r i c a t i v e , i.e. /z/ and /s/. H o w e v e r , this language h a s quite clearly been strongly influenced b y t h e P a p u a n Miriam language of t h e eastern Torres Strait Islands w h i c h shows this feature in its phonology. I n m o s t languages only /r/ and /r/ occur o u t of /r/, /r/ and /r/, and in a n u m b e r of publications, r h a s been adopted for such languages b y their a u t h o r s t o represent the phoneme rendered b y r in t h e a b o v e table. I n addition t o t h e phonemes represented b y t h e s y m b o l s given above, glottalised stop phonemes (/p?/, /t?/, /k?/) seem t o occur in some languages of northeastern A r n h e m L a n d , t h o u g h t h e p r o b l e m is still under s t u d y . A t t h e same time, a f e w other phonemes h a v e t e n t a t i v e l y been reported in a f e w instances (e.g. retroflex /s/; or /t/ w i t h a voiced or voiceless retroflex fricative release, i.e. a r e t r o f l e x affricate w h i c h could be rendered b y f, c, or 6; etc.). N o materials containing such t e n t a t i v e phonemes w i l l be given in this book.

The remarks made above may perhaps seem somewhat out of place in a discussion of the symbols used for writing Australian materials in this book, and to belong more appropriately to chapter 6 on phonological features of Australian languages. However, they were added here to forestall the possible misconception, on the part of readers, that the table given may represent a consonant system characteristic of a good many of the Australian languages. In fact, the following consonant symbols would be adequate for the very great majority of the Australian languages: TABLE

III

Consonants Bilabial

Inter- Dentaldental alveolar

Retroflex

Palatal

Velar

STOPS

b

d

d

d

dj

g

NASALS

m

p

n

n

nj

0

1

1

1

lj

LATERALS FLAPS & GLIDES

r

TBILLS w

f

(or

j

r)

PHONETIC

SYMBOLS

EMPLOYED

47

Vowels i

1 e

u o

u o a

a

Notes: /ii/ and /o/ are rounded front vowels. They are very rare and only found in some northern Australian languages, especially on Cape Y o r k Peninsula, /I/ and /a/ are nasal vowels, only reported from one Cape Y o r k Peninsula language. A few other tentative vowel phonemes have been reported for some languages (i.e. /se/ and /a/ ~ /¿/)- The very great majority of the Australian languages has only three vowel phonemes, and the following vowel symbols would be adequate for them: u

i

a Phonemic length of vowels is present in many Australian languages, but is mostly of low statistical frequency. Stress is rarely phonemic. Tones have been reported for three languages, but their phonemic status is in doubt. No examples of them will be given in this book. Phonemic and non-phonemic syllabic nasals occur in a few languages, especially in phonemically aberrant ones of Cape Y o r k Peninsula. The following symbols will be used for the phenomena referred to: : length (e.g. a:) ' s t r e s s ( e . g . 'tjaba)

' syllabicity (e.g. n )

6 PHONOLOGICAL F E A T U R E S OF AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

The strikingly undifferentiated phonological structure of Australian languages which manifests itself in very similar and often identical phoneme inventories and inter-phonemic specifications even in the case of languages belonging to different phylic families with very low percentages of shared cognates, has repeatedly been mentioned above (see 3.). Quite a few of its features are almost universal, and some of them are even characteristic of the few phonologically aberrant languages in Australia discussed in 4. I n contrast to morphosyntactic types (see 7.), regional phonological types are few and mostly not very clearly defined in Australian languages. 6.1. GENERAL PHONOLOGICAL FEATURES

A few of the general phonological features of Australian languages have already been briefly indicated in the chapter on Phonetic Symbols (see 5.). The following features are basic to the very great majority of Australian languages ( C a p e l l 1967a; O ' G r a d y — V o e g e l i n — V o e g e l i n 1966). 6.1.1. Linear

Distinctions

The number of linear distinctions, i.e. of phonemically significant points of articulation, as found amongst nasals is vir-

PHONOLOGICAL FEATURES

49

tually always the same as that present amongst oral stops. (The only known exception to this rule — according to HERc u s (1969) — is Wembawemba of the Kulinic Group in Victoria in which the linear distinctions among nasals are one fewer than among stops). The number of such linear distinctions is four to six, with five or six occurring much more frequently than four. Only one language, the Papuan-influenced Mabuiag of the western Torres Strait Islands, has just three linear distinctions among oral stops, which mirrors the phonological system of the Papuan Miriam of the eastern Torres Strait Islands. The maximally six points of articulation referred to above are: bilabial, interdental (i.e. lamino-dental), dental or alveolar (i.e. apico-dental or apico-alveolar), retroflex (i.e. apicodomal), palatal (i.e. lamino-alveolar or lamino-palatal), and velar (i.e. dorso-velar): b m

d n

d n

d n

dj nj

g ij

In languages with only five linear distinctions among oral stops and nasals, the interdental point of articulation tends to be lacking or to be subphonemic, but in some languages, e.g. in some dialects of the Western Desert language in Western Australia, the palatal point is absent: b m or:

b m

d n

d n

d n

d n

d n

dj nj

g g g i]

I n Cape York Peninsula languages with five linear distinctions amongst oral stops, the retroflex point is lacking. Most of these languages have two contrasting stop series, e.g.

50

PHONOLOGICAL FEATURES

b P m

a t n

d t n

dj tj nj

g k 5

I n languages with four linear distinctions, the retroflex point is absent, and the interdental is either lacking or subphonemic: b m

d n

dj nj

g g

A few languages have a glottal point, and some languages of the Pama-Nyungan Family (e.g. Gubabuyngu of the Murngic Group, Nanda of the Kardu Subgroup (Southwest Group), and Linngithig of the Northern P a m a Subgroup (PamaMaric Group) have the total possible maximum of seven linear distinctions with stops: b

d

d

d

dj

g

?

The linear distinctions with laterals match the apical and laminal distinctions with stops and nasals in a number of languages, resulting in maximally four distinctions, i.e. 1

1

1

lj,

but in many languages only one or two points are distinguished. 6.1.2. Number

of Stop

Series

Most Australian languages have only one oral stop series with voiced (lax) and voiceless (tense) allophones phonemically conditioned or in free variation. The presence of two orally released stop series is characteristic of a number of the phonologically aberrant Cape York

PHONOLOGICAL F E A T U R E S

51

Peninsula languages (also of Mabuiag of the western islands of Torres Strait), and of some languages — all members of the Pama-Nyungan Family — located in a relatively narrow central strip of land stretching from the Spencer Gulf in South Australia, in the south, to north-eastern Arnhem Land, in the north. Some languages of the same area have nasally and laterally released stop series, in addition to an oral series, and the existence of an incomplete glottalised series has been suspected for some languages of north-eastern Arnhem Land, but these special series appear largely in mutually exclusive distribution with the occurrence of two oral stop series in individual languages. The number of linear distinctions in the laterally released stops always matches that of the laterals in a given language. (The occurrence of two oral and/or one or two special series has been mentioned with individual languages in 9.5.5., in part based on oral communication by K . H A L E , B . S C H E B E C K , B . L O W E , and K . H A L E quoting work by P. CHAKRAVABTI). A few examples may illustrate this phenomenon:

Aranda (Arandic Group): b pm

4 tn

d tn

d tn

dj tjnj

g kg

Gubabuyngu (Murngic Group): b P ?p?

a i

d t

?t?

d

dj tj

g k ?k?

d tn

dj tjnj

g kD

1

lj

t

Arabana (Arabanic Group): b pm