WELL-BEING & INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE ECOLOGIES (WILE): A STRENGTHS-BASED APPROACH Literature Review. National Indigenous Languages Report, Pillar 2. Report commissioned by the Australian Government Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications (formerly the Department of Communications and the Arts). Denise Angelo, Carmel O’Shannessy, Jane Simpson, Inge Kral, Hilary Smith and Emma Browne Final draft FeBruary 26, 2019 Revised OctoBer 2019 Australian National University ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper was commissioned By the Australian Government Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications (formerly the Department of Communications and the Arts) to inform the 2019 National Indigenous Languages Report. The National Indigenous Languages Report is envisaged as part of the Australian Government’s commitment to Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages and their speakers. The authors are grateful for the support of staff from these departments. We thank Susan Poetsch, Michael Jarrett, MuurrBay ABoriginal Language and Culture Cooperative, Marie Rhydwen, Jackie van den Bos, Ngukurr Language Centre and Greg Dickson for their contriButions to the case studies, and Erika Charola, Henry Fraser, Cassy Nancarrow, Jason Lee, John Mansfield, Douglas Marmion, Frances Morphy for expert advice on the categorisation of language ecologies. We thank Brenda Thornley for designing the map. We thank Justine Curnow, Eilleen Eugenio, Kylie Nelson, Jane Carter and Sheridan Williams from DoCA and DoITRDC for initiating the NILR and seeing it through to puBlication. We also particularly acknowledge useful advice in the early stages of our research received from the Indigenous Field Officers with the Indigenous Languages and Arts (ILA) program, then administered by DoCA. For much informative discussion we thank our colleagues at the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Jacqueline Battin, Jason Lee and Doug Marmion, and at the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Heather Crawford, Yonatan Dinku, Tony Dreise, Janet Hunt, Francis Markham and Danielle Venn, as well as Katharine Blackwell and Stephen Haslett, former director of the Statistical Consulting Unit, Australian National University. Finally we received valuaBle suggestions from audiences at the Foundation for Endangered Languages (2018), the Aboriginal Languages Workshop (2019) and attendees at discussions in November-DecemBer 2018 organised by the Australian Government Department of Education and Training, in December 2018 by the Department of Prime Minister and CaBinet and August 2019 By the National Indigenous Australians Agency. All opinions and any errors in this report are the sole responsiBility of the authors. COPYRIGHT © Commonwealth of Australia 2019 The material in this Report is licensed under a Creative Commons AttriBution—4.0 International licence, with the exception of: • the logo of the Australian National University • any third party material • More information on this CC BY licence is set out as follows: • Creative Commons weBsite— www.creativecommons.org • AttriBution 4.0 international (CC By 4.0)— www.creativecommons.org/licenses/By/4.0 CITATION This report was produced By memBers of the Australian National University’s Pillar 2 research team for the National Indigenous Languages Report. It could be cited as: Angelo, Denise; O’Shannessy, Carmel; Simpson, Jane; Kral, Inge; Smith, Hilary & Browne, Emma. 2019. Well-being & Indigenous Language Ecologies (WILE): A strengths-based approach. Literature Review for the National Indigenous Languages Report, Pillar 2. CanBerra: The Australian National University. ISBN 978-0-6480548-0-1. doi 10.25911/5dd50865580ea. Available from http://hdl.handle.net/1885/186414. RELATED WORKS Members of the ANU’s Pillar 2 research team also produced this working paper: Dinku, Yonatan; Markham, Francis; Venn, Danielle; Angelo, Denise; Simpson, Jane; O’Shannessy, Carmel; Hunt, Janet; Dreise, Tony. 2019. Indigenous languages use is connected to indicators of well-being: Evidence from the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey 2014-15. CAEPR Working Paper 132. CanBerra: The Australian National University. doi 10.25911/5ddB9fd6394e8. AvailaBle from http://hdl.handle.net/1885/186511. This report was prepared in association with the National Indigenous Languages Report: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications (DoITRDC), Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) and Australian National University (ANU). 2020. National Indigenous Languages Report. CanBerra: Australian Government. AvailaBle from https://www.arts.gov.au/what-we- do/indigenous-arts-and-languages/national-indigenous-languages-report. Well-being & Indigenous language ecologies (WILE): A strengths-based approach | 2 Table of Contents Definitions .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 AbBreviations ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 9 1.1 Historical Background ......................................................................................................................... 11 2 The Well-being and Indigenous Language Ecologies (WILE) framework ................................................ 12 2.1 A strengths-based framework ............................................................................................................ 13 2.1.1 Key themes and interpretation ................................................................................................... 13 2.1.2 Different kinds of languages ...................................................................................................... 13 2.1.3 Some important clarifications of terminology ............................................................................. 14 1.2 Diverse language ecologies ............................................................................................................... 15 3 Language ecologies: WILE Dimension 1 ................................................................................................. 16 3.1 Traditional Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Languages ................................................................. 16 3.2 New Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages ........................................................................ 17 3.3 Englishes ............................................................................................................................................ 18 3.4 Multilingualism .................................................................................................................................... 19 3.5 Why language ecologies matter ......................................................................................................... 19 3.6 Existing data, large data sets and language ecologies ...................................................................... 19 3.7 Issues and limitations in using language data from large language surveys ..................................... 20 3.8 Rationale for a language ecology approach ....................................................................................... 23 3.9 Individual language repertoires .......................................................................................................... 24 4 Contexts of use: WILE Dimension 2 ........................................................................................................ 25 4.1 Languages for being ........................................................................................................................... 25 4.2 Languages for engagement and access ............................................................................................ 26 4.3 Languages and livelihoods ................................................................................................................. 26 4.3.1 Land and sea management ....................................................................................................... 27 4.3.2 Arts and culture .......................................................................................................................... 27 4.3.3 Tourism ...................................................................................................................................... 27 4.3.4 Language services ..................................................................................................................... 27 4.3.5 Translation and interpreting ....................................................................................................... 27 4.3.6 Languages in education ............................................................................................................. 28 4.3.7 Unpaid/volunteer work ..............................................................................................................