Wed 22 Aug 2007
Truth in Numbers
Posted by jangari under Culture, Indigenous, Languages, Linguistics
[3] Comments
Apparently pre-colonial New South Wales had 200 languages, that is, according to NSW Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Paul Lynch. It seems a few too many to me, given that best estimates (from linguists and anthropologists, not politicians) count somewhere between about 250 and 400¹ languages for the entire country, mostly concentrated in the north.
I’m all for greater recognition of the diversity and complexity of Australian languages, but let’s not have so much hyperbole.
~
¹The variation in figures depends on where you draw the line between language and dialect, and even then there are problems; dialect chains, lack of data and so on.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Well at least they are now calling Gamilaraay and others in NSW “original Aboriginal languages” rather than the usual “dialects”. Gotta be a step forward.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Absolutely. Besides, he probably meant to say one of just 20 remnants out of 200 original Aboriginal languages that once existed in Australia. In that case he’d merely be on the conservative side.
September 5th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
“The variation in figures depends on where you draw the line between language and dialect”
There is no line.
Guessing at numbers is a colonial/scientific misunderstanding of the nature of the languages.
Each individual person has many languages, those of the different branches of their families as well as friends and associates.
Each “tribe” (I’ll get to thet next) has many languages operating at the same time. Other different languages exist also such as mens language, womens language and transcendent (secret) language. Sign language and other non-verbal communication is thrown into the mix.
In one “tribe” their may be sub groups (e.g. north south east and west) who could be considered to speak the same language but they pronounce things differently e.g. some linguists identify that some words of a particular language can be pronounced with either a “k” or a G”,which is technically true but each subgroup will deliberately use just one of them, effectively multiplying the number of distinct languages by the number of sub groups, within the one language group – their pronunciations identifying who they belong to within the group in the same way that images in painting do.
So there has never been one language per tribe, instead an intricate interweaving of an infinite number of elements – manifesting differently from place to place and occaison to occasion.
Now, “tribe” – this notion is a construction of colonial science. It is a method of categorisation and exclusion – a filing system similar to the Linean categorising of species.
Colonial science disects things and looks for the points of separation and difference. Native title is the logical conclusion of this notion of tribe which draws artificial lines between organic family structures.
Aboriginal law and notions of identity (and language) is inclusive, it is about connnectedness and relationship – not delineation, exclusion, difference, separation and categorisation.
There never were “tribes” – they are just figments of anthropologist’s imaginations. This is what the scientific observer thought they saw.
What there allways was and still is is extended families, which like what I said about languages, are infinitely intertwined with each other. One individual is a part of many extended families, not just one.
John T.