Claiming vitality: How identification with territory and language influences language vitality CHRISTINA RINGEL This article appears in: Endangered languages and the land: Mapping landscapes of multilingualism Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Foundation for Endangered Languages (FEL XXII / 2018) Vigdís World Language Centre, Reykjavík, 23–25 August 2018 Editors: Sebastian Drude, Nicholas Ostler, Marielle Moser ISBN: 978-1-9160726-0-2 Cite this article: Ringel, Christina. 2018. Claiming vitality: How identification with territory and language influences language vitality. In S. Drude, N. Ostler & M. Moser (eds.), Endangered languages and the land: Mapping landscapes of multilingualism, Proceedings of FEL XXII/2018 (Reykjavík, Iceland), 4–13. London: FEL & EL Publishing. First published: December 2018 Link to this article: http://www.elpublishing.org/PID/4002 This article is published under a Creative Commons License CC-BY-NC (Attribution-NonCommercial). The licence permits users to use, reproduce, disseminate or display the article provided that the author is attributed as the original creator and that the reuse is restricted to non-commercial purposes i.e. research or educational use. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Foundation for Endangered Languages: http://www.ogmios.org EL Publishing: http://www.elpublishing.org Claiming vitality: How identification with territory and language influences language vitality Christina Ringel University of Cologne Christian-Rohlfs-Str. 41 • 58089 Hagen • Germany [[email protected]] Abstract Speakers of Aboriginal languages identify not only with their languages but also the country they belong to. Since colonization, both connections have been weakened by actions of individual settlers and the Australian Government. As a result, language vitality has drastically declined. Linguists can play a variety of roles in countering this trend: In combination with revitalisation projects, documentary linguists can help strengthen speaker’s ties to their languages. The preparation of linguistic evidence for Native Title Claims can foster speaker’s connection to country both in itself and when it facilitates the success of the claim. However, the effectiveness of revitalization efforts crucially depends on the financial and political support of the government. This paper addresses that inheritance of land/territory is organized among the Miriwoong (non-Pama-Nyungan, Jarragan) along kinship lines and cultural beliefs and practices. In addition, the role of linguistic evidence put forward in land claims, such as the study of archaic elements in place names and ethnonyms, will be examined. Finally, it will be asserted that the Australian government has a particular responsibility to play a supportive role with respect to the vitality of Aboriginal Australian’s languages. Keywords: language vitality, identity, Aboriginal Australians, land rights, place names Introduction than the time span between first settlement by non- Indigenous people and today. It works in the favour of Aboriginal Australians are renowned for the importance the claimants that due to the tight connection between they attach to the connection between their ancestral language, land and people in Aboriginal society, in many country and the language(s) that belong to it. Speakers of cases it is possible to show that a language and thereby Aboriginal languages identify both with their country and its speakers have been connected to the claimed area for 1 the languages they own. ‘Caring for country’ is a a very long time. primary objective for every member of the society. Not only in the face of environmental changes induced by the In this paper the perspective of the Miriwoong people destruction of Australian landscape through mining, with respect to land rights is summarized. The dumping and nuclear tests initiated by (multi)national Miriwoong language is a non-Pama-Nyungan language companies and the government but also in response to the of the Jarragan language family. Miriwoong is classified theft of traditional lands by individuals and the state for as ‘severely’ to ‘critically endangered’ (Brenzinger et al. financial benefit and the expansion of the sphere of 2003) as it is spoken fluently by no more than 20 influence of white settler culture, this cultural given of individuals who are all older than 60 (Olawsky 2010a/b). Aboriginal connectedness to and responsibility for The traditional Miriwoong country lies in the Kununurra country has been reinforced in recent generations. Thus, area in the north of Western Australia and also stretches many Aboriginal Australians strive to have their country for about 100 kilometres beyond the Northern Territory 2 legally recognized in Native Title Claims. border (Olawsky 2010a). The Miriwoong people were granted partial traditional ownership rights to their The role of language and land in land claims is complex. traditional land by the High Court in 2002 after a Native From one Aboriginal perspective, claimants strive for Title court case. land rights since restrictions to their access to land is a key factor in endangering language vitality. From a legal The analysis underlying this paper has first been perspective, proving a continuation of language – presented in a joined publication prepared by a Miri- interpreted as a continuation of cultural practices – is woong Elder and a linguist who has spent 10 months in deemed necessary to warrant land rights because the the community (Ringel & Newry 2018). It relies on con- claiming party has to prove that their connections to the tributions by both male and female Elders and middle- country being claimed has existed for a period longer aged Miriwoong people who have shared their views 1 Ringel & Newry (2018) discuss the notion of language own- can also find details on why languages are seen as belonging ership in more detail: A number of scholars working in the to specific places on country: In the Dreamtime languages Australian context (e.g. Rumsey 1993:199) stress the were planted by spiritual beings at locations where they lived distinction between language usership/fluency in a language or at certain sites along their paths as they travelled through and ownership (see Sutton & Palmer, 1980:30f). In Walsh’s country (Ringel & Newry 2018 and references therein). (2002:233) words, Indigenous Australians own language by 2 The Gajirrabeng (Gajerrong) people who traditionally lived to birthright; ownership is non-voluntary, permanent and rule- the north of Miriwoong country and speak a sister language governed. In contrast to Western conceptions it is non- were equally involved in the land claim. controllable (Aikhenvald 2013:51). Here the interested reader 1 about the culture of possession during two fieldtrips Palmer 2003:103). In order to legitimately identify as dedicated to documenting linguistic structures marking Miriwoong all three elements need to align.3 Thus, possession in Miriwoong. The paper addresses how Miriwoong people draw a distinction between mere inheritance of land/territory is organized along kinship language usership and language ownership: “you may lines and cultural beliefs and practices. For example, a learn the language but that does not make you a person’s gooning (totem) plays a major role in the Miriwoong person” (Newry & Palmer 2003:104, determination of the country that this person belongs to. Joolama p.c.). Their relationship to country can be Further, it will be shown how linguistic evidence has described as a sense of belonging to country rather than 4 been used successfully in Native Title Claims alongside ownership in a legal Western sense: “We can say evidence from anthropology, history, archaeology and Ngayangeng dawang ['My country'] but that does not geography and oral evidence given by the claimants. mean we own the country.” “We are part of the country.” Following a discussion about the analysis of word lists, “We respect the country.” “What we get from the country phonological and morphological properties of place [e.g. bush food and game] is ours but we don’t own it.” It names and ethnonyms, i.e. names for ethnic groups, will is a “belonging of country” (Joolama p.c.). This exemplify kinds of linguistic evidence put forward in belonging entails immediate rights and obligations to the land claims. It can be attested that linguistic research country for every individual such as the obligation to done in preparation of these claims has led to increased look after certain sites and the right to tell the stories funding of the linguistic study of Indigenous languages connected to those sites: as well as the refinement of analyses and techniques. Dawawang (traditional owners) of areas or estates of Finally, the paper will assert that in addition to the country have rights and responsibilities for those involvement in land claims the Australian state has a estates. These include the right to tell and paint the particular responsibility to play a supportive role with stories that belong to those areas: ownership of an respect to the vitality of Aboriginal Australian’s area […] in turn leads to a sense of ownership of the languages. Governments are notorious for actively language that is part of the stories. (Newry & Palmer discouraging all but national or global languages, but 2003:104) even where financial and institutional support for In order to further explore the connection between the minority languages exists – such as in Australia – funding Miriwoong language and territory, this section will is often much too limited to make a real difference in survey the factors that determine language and land reversing language shift. ownership among the Miriwoong people. The findings As a result, the situation in Australia has been described emerged from conversations with various members of the as the most critical case of endangerment world-wide community. First, the place where a Miriwoong person (Nettle & Romaine 2000:4): The majority of the 250 to and was conceived or born and grew up are argued to be 300 languages that were spoken in Australia before relevant to the question of which country they consider colonization are no longer in use (Tsunoda 2006:20).