Koch, Harold, and Simpson, Jane. 2020. .Junior skin names in Central Australia: function and origin In More than mere words: Essays on language and linguistics in honour of Peter Sutton, eds. Paul Monaghan and Michael Walsh, 165-191. Adelaide: Wakefield Press., 2020
Many north Australian speech communities have a system of social classification, the subsection o... more Many north Australian speech communities have a system of social classification, the subsection or ‘skin’ system. This is a closed terminology set of 16 terms (8 female, 8 male). It interacts in complex ways with the local kinship systems to influence the way people relate to one another, the ways in which they refer to each other, and in some groups, the ways they address each other. Adoption of the system in some communities was quite recent and quite rapid (Reay 1962). Koch (2018) shows (using evidence from Gillen (1968)) that Arrernte people learned the system from their northern neighbours, adopted it around 1880, and by 1895 were using it quite often. This rapid adoption by adults of a terminology set has implications for linguists working on historical change. Terminology sets may show the general tendencies of broad sound changes, but they may also undergo specific changes, due to internal pressures to regularise patterns within the terminology set (Koch 2015). Particularly important for the study of historical change is the fact that, in communities where subsection systems are used, they can be very high frequency items, used as standard forms for address and reference in everyday speech. This brings them close to grammatical paradigms in terms of frequency in input.
In this paper we discuss an extension of the 16-term subsection system to a 32-term system, achieved by adding a further division between junior and adult terms. The division between junior and adult terms expands the possibility for internal regularisation, because each set can be seen either on its own (how to regularise all the junior terms) or in comparison with the other set (how to differentiate junior from adult terms).
We consider the uses of junior terms, and the historical attestation of their presence. We then consider further questions such as:
What are they used for?
How long have these forms been in these languages?
Where did they get them from? That is, what is their origin and route of spread?
How can we account for the relationship between the form of the junior terms and that of corresponding adult terms?
What social mechanisms were involved in their adoption? How has their usage changed during the historical period?
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Jane Simpson
Indigenous women taught many people their languages, but their contributions are often anonymous. Brief accounts are given of six settler women who did document languages: Eliza Dunlop (1796-1880), Christina Smith (1809? –1893) (‘Mrs James Smith’), Harriott Barlow (1835–1929), Catherine Stow (‘K. Langloh Parker’) (1856–1940), Mary Martha Everitt (1854–1937) and Daisy May Bates (1859–1951). Their contributions are discussed against the background of 44 other settler women who contributed to language study, translation, ethnography or language teaching. Reasons for the relative absence of women in language documentation included family demands, child raising and lack of education, money and patrons, as well as alternative causes such as women’s rights. Recording Indigenous languages required metalinguistic analytic skills that were hard to learn in societies that lacked free education, and which were virtually inaccessible to Indigenous women. Extra obstacles for publication were remoteness from European centres of research, and absence of colleagues with similar interests.
Indigenous women taught many people their languages, but their contributions are often anonymous. Brief accounts are given of six settler women who did document languages: Eliza Dunlop (1796-1880), Christina Smith (1809? –1893) (‘Mrs James Smith’), Harriott Barlow (1835–1929), Catherine Stow (‘K. Langloh Parker’) (1856–1940), Mary Martha Everitt (1854–1937) and Daisy May Bates (1859–1951). Their contributions are discussed against the background of 44 other settler women who contributed to language study, translation, ethnography or language teaching. Reasons for the relative absence of women in language documentation included family demands, child raising and lack of education, money and patrons, as well as alternative causes such as women’s rights. Recording Indigenous languages required metalinguistic analytic skills that were hard to learn in societies that lacked free education, and which were virtually inaccessible to Indigenous women. Extra obstacles for publication were remoteness from European centres of research, and absence of colleagues with similar interests.
In this paper we discuss an extension of the 16-term subsection system to a 32-term system, achieved by adding a further division between junior and adult terms. The division between junior and adult terms expands the possibility for internal regularisation, because each set can be seen either on its own (how to regularise all the junior terms) or in comparison with the other set (how to differentiate junior from adult terms).
We consider the uses of junior terms, and the historical attestation of their presence. We then consider further questions such as:
What are they used for? How long have these forms been in these languages? Where did they get them from? That is, what is their origin and route of spread? How can we account for the relationship between the form of the junior terms and that of corresponding adult terms? What social mechanisms were involved in their adoption? How has their usage changed during the historical period?
Language is used both to communicate ideas (communicative rights) and to express associations (identity rights). Communication rights include the right to access information in a language one understands. People cannot make the most of self-determination if they do not have access to the best information to make the best decisions for themselves and their family, because it is only presented in a language they do not understand.
Since the beginning of the self-determination policy, identity rights have been strengthened. Governments and communities are investing in Indigenous language revival, and in emblematic gestures such as naming places with Indigenous names and using Indigenous languages at public events. However, with respect to communication rights, the picture is patchier. Major polices, such as the Intervention, were implemented without proper consideration of communication needs. Subsequently, interpreter services in Indigenous languages have expanded, and governments have made more effort to put information in Indigenous languages. But children still have only limited access to education in their mother-tongue along with proper explicit teaching of English. e move to monolingual English immersion education has been accompanied by the reduction of opportunities for remote Indigenous communities to obtain tertiary training (whether as teachers, interpreters or health workers) in their home communities. These two factors have greatly reduced the opportunities for people living in remote Indigenous communities to access information in order to make the best decisions for themselves and their families. At the same time, the aims of giving children good access to English, and to the content of education, have not so far been achieved.