AAA - Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik Band 32 (2007) Heft 2 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen Language policy issues involved in the reclamation of Narungga in South Australia Ulrike Haslinger This article deals with some of the complex issues involved in language policy for Indigenous languages in South Australia. For many languages which are endangered at present, past language policies are responsible for deliberately putting them aside. However, today’s language policy documents, both universal and specifically Australian, are highly appreciative of the linguistic, cultural, social and political benefits of Indigenous language maintenance and revival. Nevertheless, the reality concerning Indigenous languages in Australia is not satisfactory, as the case study of the Narungga language of Yorke Peninsula, South Australia, shows. In particular, this article focuses on the development of the Narungga language project, which was initiated by the Narungga Aboriginal Progress Association Inc. (NAPA) in 2001. Narungga is one of the South Australian languages which suffered extremely from English language imperialism in Australia. Up until the NAPA project, Narungga was considered extinct, and little interest was shown to reclaim the language. NAPA proved that much more language material had been documented than was initially thought, which now raises hopes of a total revival of the Narungga language and culture. This article presents the NAPA language project with its difficulties and laudable successes from a language policy point of view. 1. The significance of Aboriginality First Nation Australians have managed to preserve their cultural and linguistic heritage for more than 200 years in a world that has been created and dominated by Anglo-Australian mainstream culture and monolingualism. This world has proved extremely hostile towards Aboriginal languages and culture. Even today Aboriginal Australians have to assert themselves in a society that is based on Anglo-Australian ethnocentrism. The fact that linguis- Ulrike Haslinger 302 tic heritage has survived oppression to various extents makes us realise that the Indigenous will to survive is alive and Aboriginality still plays a significant role in the lives of First Nation Australians. 2. Language policy and the dominance of English For many languages which are endangered at present, past language policies are responsible for deliberately putting them aside. Language policies were always imposed on languages of minor importance with negative consequences. In the case of Australia, British colonisers did not only conquer the Aboriginal continent physically but also linguistically, i.e. they have promoted and insisted upon the use of English since their arrival. Even though a great variety of community languages are spoken in Australia, English is one of the major languages of every day conversation - at least in the urban centres. In addition, many governmental actions and programmes in favour of Indigenous languages rely on English as the medium of transmission. According to Lo Bianco and Freebody, it was due to this secure position of English that embracing multilingualism has become feasible and the Australian language policy has become more public and more accountable with “a national interest in the cultivation of the linguistic resources of the population for the economic, cultural, and educational benefit” (Lo Bianco/ Freebody 1997: 109). Past language policies in Australia naturally affected languages other than English causing many native tongues to disappear altogether and left others with poor documentation and at best a handful of fluent speakers: maltreatment and marginalisation forced these native languages into either silence or states from which they have never fully recovered. In Australia, this affected around 250 distinct languages and approximately 600 dialects which were spoken by a few hundred to a few thousand individuals per language when the Europeans landed in the eighteenth century (cf. Walsh 1993: 6; Dixon 1980: 18). According to the data used by Walsh in 1993, 160 Aboriginal languages are extinct, 70 are considered endangered and only 20 are maintained. Only 10% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, as Aboriginal Australians are officially called, living in present-day Australia, who comprise approximately 1% - 1.5% of the total population, speak their native tongues (cf. Schmidt 1990: 1; House of Representatives 1992: 15). The Northern Territory is home to most of the surviving languages. Indigenous languages have survived more often in remote areas, in areas ‘off the beaten track’ where they were not confronted with European interference (cf. Schmidt 1990: 3). By being exposed to English as the sole official language since the arrival of the Europeans, much pressure was and still is being put on Aboriginal languages (cf. House of Representatives 1992: 22-23). This Language policy issues involved in the reclamation of Narungga 303 1 a. Universal Documents • Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1976) • Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (1992) • Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (1995) • Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights (1996) b. Papers related to Australia • Australian Linguistic Society: linguistic rights (1984) • A National Language Policy (1984) • National Policy on Languages (1987) • The Language of Australia. Discussion Paper on an Australian Literacy and Language Policy for the 1990s • Australia’s Language: the Australian Language and Literacy Policy (1991) • Recognition Rights and Reform (1995) • Principles and Recommendations Arising from the Review of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander language maintenance and development needs and activities (1996) • A National Strategy for the Education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (1996-2002) monolingual pressure is regarded by Fishman (cf. 2001b: 6) as the major obstacle in the preservation of Indigenous languages. Aboriginal people’s concern for their endangered Indigenous languages was well expressed in the 1992 survey carried out by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. At various levels, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people made a strong claim for the maintenance, revival or reclamation of their native languages (cf. House of Representatives 1992: 33) and they were especially worried about “the non-transmission to children, simplification or pidginisation of the language, and the encroachment of English, Creole or another traditional language” (House of Representatives 1992: 33). 3. Dealing with linguistic diversity The Australian language policy for Aboriginal languages is a vivid example of the controversial nature of language policy. This controversy refers to the discrepancy between language policy as text and language policy as discourse (Ball 1993; accessed at www.nlconference.org/ docs/ LoBianco_ paper.doc, 14 April, 2006). Language policy discourse happens during the language planning phase. For this study, however, it was crucial to expand Ball’s theory of language policy as text and discourse by including an investigation of a third phase involved in successful language policy, namely that of its implementation. Up until the present, innumerable resource documents on Indigenous languages have been produced in Australia and a considerable number of those texts 1 have been analysed carefully for the case study of the Narungga Ulrike Haslinger 304 • Economic, social and cultural rights of Indigenous peoples in Australia. Indigenous Rights in the Commonwealth project (2001-2004) • “Keep That Language Going! ” A Needs-Based Review of the Status of Indigenous languages in South Australia (2002) • Rigney, Lester-Irabinna, “Bread versus Freedom: treaty and stabilising Indigenous Language” (2002a) • Rigney, Lester-Irabinna, “Re-imagining a Reconciled Australia: The Catastrophe before Us in Stabilising Indigenous Languages”. Key Note address at the ‘Sharing the Space’ Conference in July 2002, at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, (2002b) • Summary of AIATSIS’ Keep that Language Going! report and its implications • Regional Plan 2004-2005 • Commission Decision, Paper No. 3444 on Endangered Languages • Program Guidelines 2004-05, Maintenance of Indigenous Languages and Records • ATSIC strategic policy to keep Aboriginal languages alive in SA • ATSIC State Executive Committee’s partnership policy • Actions from the inter-agency meeting held 25 February 2004 to discuss cooperative support of Indigenous languages in SA • Language Strategic Goals (Figures) • Treaty - let’s get it right, booklet language presented in this article. Narungga is one of the Aboriginal languages native to South Australia. Narungga people lived on and travelled through Yorke Peninsula a long time before European settlement. Records of their presence on Yorke Peninsula can be found everywhere (accessed at: http: / / www.fatsil.org/ LOTM/ mar02.htm, 25 July, 2003). Knowledge about the Narungga nation can be restored through accounts of early European travellers, settlers and missionaries; through documented interviews between Narungga people and anthropologists from the late 1800s and early 1900s, through stories transmitted through generations, and through the study of the materials left by past generations of Narungga. Before the extinction of the nomadic Narungga life the habits of the tribe were studied by Rev. Julius Wilhelm Kühn and a number of others (T.M. Sutton, Thomas Giles, William Fowler, Edward McEntire, J. Howard Johnson, A.W. Howitt, R.H. Mathews, R.M. Berndt, and T.D. Campbell, cf. Hill 1975: 5-6), who were among the first white scholars to investigate the Narungga language and culture on Narungga land. The first European contact with South Australian Indigenous people was amicable. In the 1840s, Teichelmann and Schürmann believed that studying Indigenous languages would facilitate communication between Aboriginals and Europeans as well as favour positive attitudes and respect towards the capacity of the languages (cf. Teichelmann and Schürmann 1840; cited in Amery 1995: 69). However, these good intentions were soon to be overshadowed by conflict over land causing not only the disintegration of the Narungga culture but also a dramatic decline of its people, which had devastating effects on the traditional Aboriginal society. Wanganeen (cf. 1987: 1) argues that by 1900, the Narungga traditions had been destroyed due to the interference of the Europeans by deliberately mixing different Aboriginal Language policy issues involved in the reclamation of Narungga 305 nations in a place on Yorke Peninsula which is now known as Point Pearce. This mixing of different cultural backgrounds is also referred to as the institutionalisation of Aboriginal people (cf. Lesley Wanganeen pers. comm., 11 November, 2003). Point Pearce was a mission set up by the Moravian church in 1868, where the approximately one hundred detribalised Narungga people, who by that time lived on the fringe of mining settlements, were finally institutionalised (cf. Wanganeen 1987: 1). The mission was maintained until it was taken over by the government in 1915, and was then continued as an Aboriginal reserve until 1972. Only then was the management of the reserve finally handed back to its rightful Indigenous residents (accessed at: http: / / www.yorke.sa.gov.au/ history/ indigenous.html, 25 July, 2003). It only took Europeans 50 years to dispossess, depopulate and detribalise the Narungga people, who had lived in harmony with each other and their land for more than forty thousand years (cf. Wanganeen 1987: 1). Due to this institutionalisation, the speed at which the Narungga language was getting lost was devastating, though no precise information about the time scale is available. The various sources used for the reconstruction of the language will be discussed in section 5. At the stage of revitalisation, where Narungga finds itself at present, access to Narungga language material for non-Indigenous individuals is a very sensitive topic. Protocols of dealing with the Narungga language have to be met. Formal requests need to be stated if a linguist wishes to access documents on Narungga. For example, the author’s request to access Moravian documents on Narungga for this study was denied by the NAPA Board. This reluctance of giving access to language material also explains why there are no details on the process of Narungga language revitalisation (e.g. language lessons and language materials) to be found in this study. Even though the author attended various Narungga meetings including one language class, an agreement with NAPA does not permit the author to use any Narungga language material and current data on Narungga. Without the permission to penetrate deeper into the Narungga language project, it was problematic or rather impossible to portray the implementation of language policy in more detail. Therefore, this study unfortunately cannot give information about, for example, speaker numbers at the present time or the progress of Narungga teaching, nor on attitudes towards the Narungga language. However, the Narungga language project nevertheless serves as a good example of how an Indigenous language is struggling for revitalisation and survival in Australia. Understandably, the Narungga people now want to excersise their right to decide on what is best for their language and culture in order to avoid having it ravaged again. The time will come for NAPA when a complete profile of Narungga can be drawn up for non-Narunggas. Besides Narungga, there are many other languages indigenous to South Australia. Like elsewhere in Australia, their use varies greatly: some of them Ulrike Haslinger 306 are regularly used in daily life, some are hardly spoken at all, some appear in singular words only, some are being reclaimed and some are extinct (cf. ATSIC SEC partnership policy paper; for reference see footnote no. 1). Apart from marginalising the Indigenous languages, the most distressing aspect of the European invasion is that Europeans were entirely ignorant of Aboriginal culture (cf. Wanganeen 1987: 21). The fact that European settlement had disastrous effects on Aboriginal cultures has also been acknowledged in the National Policy on Languages: Systematic denigration by non-Aborigines for most of Australia’s European history has led to gross ignorance about Aboriginal languages, some of which are among the most structurally complex languages in the world. In addition, these languages are of indispensable value for expressing the complex human ideas and emotions which the Aboriginal peoples of Australia can and have contributed to the body of human knowledge and thought (Lo Bianco 1987: 75). European invaders underestimated the traumatic effects of their civilisation efforts leaving Aboriginal people with nothing to identify with in the new culture. If the European intention was to do ‘good’ for Aborigines then what they achieved was the exact opposite. Aboriginal Australians were not only alienated from their own culture but by witnessing the violation of their land, their laws and their culture, they remained forever reluctant to adapt to the European ways and at the same time they were led into dependency on European settlements (cf. Wanganeen 1987: 21-22). Unsurprisingly, every single paper among the documents selected for this study recognises and appreciates the linguistic, cultural, social and political benefits of Indigenous language maintenance and revival. Moreover, the significance of Indigenous languages has not only been ascribed to both the individual and collective levels of the Indigenous communities, but also to language diversity on national and international scales. For example, the National Policy on Languages declares that it is a major objective of this policy to stimulate, co-ordinate and initiate significant long and short-term activity to assist in the preservation, continued use and appreciation of and salvage work on Aboriginal languages. […] The role of policy is to determine realistic priorities for intervention and to encourage the growth of Aboriginal pride in and management of resources and programmes in Aboriginal languages. (Lo Bianco 1987: 105) Nevertheless, in comparison to the policy positions, which are generally positive, the reality of Aboriginal languages in Australia is far from satisfactory. Even the most enthusiastic statements of politicians on the importance of linguistic diversity cannot make up for the insufficient support for Indigenous languages. Language policy issues involved in the reclamation of Narungga 307 2 Lesley and Michael Wanganeen direct the NAPA language project on Yorke Peninsula, which will be explained in further detail in section (5). 4. Language policy implementation Effective language policy implementation requires more than politically correct language. It is insufficient to have eloquent documents produced by a group of exclusive academics and to have their implementation filtered through the mainstream assumption of what is thought to be best for Indigenous communities and their languages. Language policies must be established in cooperation with Indigenous communities and for Indigenous communities. White and Brands (cf. 1999: 25) emphasise that linguistic support of Indigenous languages must be given in an open-handed way. Indigenous communities must be provided with programmes and strategies which can easily be carried out by Indigenous individuals themselves, i.e. linguists have to step back in order “to allow Indigenous people to take their rightful place directing the debate” (White and Brands 1999: 26; also Cameron et al. 1992 and Wilkins 1992). Taking the rightful place also implies defining the status of a language. In fact, languages which enjoy official status are usually embedded in a healthy ecosystem. However, given that there is no Commonwealth legislation declaring an ‘official status’ of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages, the protection and promotion of these languages cannot be guaranteed, although there is a strong call for language legislation especially in South Australia to safeguard language rights and language use (cf. Keep that Language Going 2002: 40; for reference see footnote no. 1). From a legislative point of view, the position of Indigenous Australian languages as locally and globally endangered languages has been strengthened abroad by United Nations (UN) conventions and international laws (cf. Rigney 2002b: 9; for reference see footnote no. 1). According to Lesley and Michael Wanganeen 2 (cf. pers. comm., 11 November, 2003) and Lester- Irabinna Rigney (cf. 2002b: 9), Indigenous languages need to be legally and constitutionally protected in Australia. Only through legislation and constitutional change can Indigenous languages and cultures be stabilised and safeguarded for future generations. In particular, Rigney argues that the State, Territory and local governments have to adopt the recommendations for Indigenous languages that have been made by linguists and Indigenous organisations throughout the country (cf. Rigney 2002: 3). Rigney further suggests “that if these principles are enshrined in legislation, departments and their agencies are mandated in these measures, and are therefore obligated to fulfill their objectives” (Rigney 2002b: 3). In addition, one of the major obstacles in successful language policy implementation is the fact that language policy is generally a short-lived affair Ulrike Haslinger 308 and every new government interprets language policy differently (Peter Mühlhäusler pers. comm., 5 November, 2003). In the case of Indigenous languages, language policy is even more complex because it has to embrace not only language maintenance, but also all stages of language revival and language reclamation to a large extent. Moreover, language revival becomes most difficult when the language has been ‘sleeping’ over a long period of time as it has in the case of Narungga (cf. Amery 2000: 18). The South Australian Government is willing to support the language, but apparently only according to its own conditions. Again, the resources studied in the context of South Australian languages offer exquisite state-of-the-art recommendations for language revival in the state based on the current conditions the languages are in. They have been created by linguistic authorities such as the University of South Australia, Adelaide University, the Department of Education of South Australia, regional and state-level language centres in close cooperation with Indigenous communities in order to document best the languages indigenous to South Australia as well as to develop adequate strategies how to preserve languages most effectively in the long run. The South Australian resource documents also repeatedly recall the fact that it is every individual’s right to speak his/ her mother tongue and have this mother tongue protected and maintained. However, the issue of legality is problematic: despite the Australian Government’s intention to promote Indigenous language revival, Indigenous languages have not been adopted into the Constitution of Australia, which means that the Australian policy papers only have the status of resource documents and that it is left to the government whether it responds to them or not. For successful language maintenance in the long run, the government needs to acknowledge language policy papers as government policy papers (Wallace McKitrick pers. comm., 19 May, 2004). Understanding the concept of the implementation of recommendations is highly complex and is explained by Mr Wallace McKitrick, who used to work for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and has been transferred to the Department of Communication, Information, Technology and the Arts (DCITA) in 2004, as follows: recommendations serve as a resource document, i.e. irrespective of their positive intentions, recommendations are not necessarily implemented. However, recommendations may be implemented according to priorities, funds and staff available. On a more general level, McKitrick puts recommendations into three categories: 1. political and legal recommendations 2. recommendations for an improvement of cooperation between resource bodies 3. procedural recommendations. Language policy issues involved in the reclamation of Narungga 309 Firstly, political and legal arrangements have to be developed in order to safeguard Indigenous languages. Secondly, strategies have to be worked out how the different resource bodies (e.g. universities, language centres, schools, etc.) can better work together and finally, procedural recommendations have to be improved. These procedural recommendations, for example, refer to cross-border arrangements. As there is good will to work more effectively, the procedural recommendations can be implemented. Some of the recommendations have been enacted, others have not been implemented at all, but the status of most of them is not clear (Wallace McKitrick pers. comm., 19 May, 2004). Without a legal status of Indigenous languages, the implementation of recommendations becomes even more difficult because the constitutionalisation of language implies the government’s acknowledgment of taking full responsibility for the Indigenous linguistic and cultural heritage. This means that if the government takes full responsibility, it has to respond to resource documents in order to provide best opportunities for language revival and language maintenance in the long run. 5. Language maintenance in South Australia: the Narungga language Each state government of Australia deals with linguistic issues such as language maintenance or language protection in its own way. The Narungga Language Reclamation Project of Yorke Peninsula has been chosen to give an insight into the complexities of language policy and its implementation in South Australia. The project was launched by the Narungga Aboriginal Progress Association Inc. (NAPA) on November 30, 2001, on NAPA’s own initiative. The idea of Narungga reclamation is largely based on the 1980s reclamation movement. Back in the 1980s, Narungga was formally taught to children at Point Pearce School. The Narungga Community College began collecting historical material during 1982 for the National Aborigines Week. It was only then that Narungga people started to explore the wealth of historical material around them and a concern for their children growing up without Narungga history emerged. With this concern in mind, written, oral and photographic material was made accessible for use in the language community and its schools. Oral histories were particularly treasured because they were regarded as first-hand historical records. In their attempts to learn more about their linguistic and cultural heritage, Narungga people now consult the archival documentation produced by missionaries in the past. Hence, Narungga people have begun to access archives with great success as the Narungga language project shows. In fact, Narungga people have become very committed to search for Narungga material especially when they found Ulrike Haslinger 310 3 (1) Narungga Aboriginal Progress Association (Compilers) (In press: 2006). Nharangga Warra: Narungga dictionary, Wakefield Press: Adelaide. (2) Wanganeen, Tania, and Christina Eira (In press: 2006). The fragments of Budderer’s waddy: A new Narungga grammar Vol.1 Community and school resource. Wakefield Press: Adelaide. 4 Tindale used spelling according to the rules of the Geographical Society of London, known as Geographic II. The system of Geographic II was officially used by cartographers in the spelling of native place names (cf. Tindale 1936: 60-70) out that much more language material was available than initially believed. Narungga people have gone on a journey, as Lesley Wanganeen (pers. comm., 11 November, 2003) puts it, in order to gain knowledge about linguistic and cultural heritage. As explained by Lesley Wanganeen, for a long time speaking Narungga only meant the use of single, isolated words, i.e. Narungga words were interspersed while speaking English. However, NAPA’s vision goes beyond singular word usage. The project aims at an independent use of Narungga, i.e. speeches, stories, conversations and written language should be achieved in Narungga at some stage in the future. The project is successfully managed by Lesley Wanganeen, who wants to make the language accessible to all Narungga people and their descendants. Hence, Lesley Wanganeen is striving to provide resources whereby children can claim their language heritage. Furthermore, the NAPA project is comprised of a number of key Narungga people as well as some non-Narungga people. The latter do not have voting rights but they are nevertheless of significance. The non- Narungga linguist working with NAPA is Dr Christina Eira. The NAPA project was intermittently funded for nearly two years through Yaitya Warra Wodli Language Centre and through a base office which was provided by the Aboriginal Research Institute at the University of South Australia. During this first period, the project conducted a comprehensive search for data on the Narungga language. For example, Narungga Elders were consulted and museums and libraries across Australia were inspected. An analysis of the materials found will be published in the forthcoming grammar and dictionary written by Christina Eira 3 in cooperation with NAPA. The original wordlist 4 produced by Louisa Egginton and Norman B. Tindale incorporates idiomatic phrases and grammatical particles attached to them. However, there are many sources for the Narungga language. Apart from Egginton/ Tindale, Newchurch/ Black serve as the main source for phrases (Christina Eira pers. comm., 19 June, 2006). The careful analysis of the materials will restore more grammatical knowledge than previously thought possible. Thus, grammatical gaps can be filled to a certain extent as unfortunately the Narungga language has largely been left unrecorded (accessed at: http: / / www.fatsil.org/ LOTM/ mar02.htm, 25 July, 2003). Language policy issues involved in the reclamation of Narungga 311 In terms of internal linguistic work, the NAPA people have been doing incredibly well. However, the prospects of continuous Narungga reclamation are seriously endangered in other areas. The five main problems that hinder Narungga language revival are: • the abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission • lack of funding (e.g. language documentation, production of teaching materials, linguistic training of Aboriginal people, etc.) • scarcity of advice/ expertise • the education system and • the deprivation of ownership. These five points will be explained in more detail in the subsequent sections. 6. The abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) With the abolition of ATSIC, the direct contact between Aboriginal communities and the governments of Australia has been cut off, because ATSIC operated as a mediator between the Indigenous communities and the governments. Aboriginal people now fear that the attitudes towards the status of Indigenous languages will decline since ATSIC was officially recognised by the Australian public as an institution for Indigenous affairs (Lesley Wanganeen pers. comm., 11 November, 2003). This, of course, will have detrimental effects on the revitalising process of Narungga. In the past, Aboriginal communities could directly address themselves to ATSIC. Hence, the organisation served as a platform for Aboriginal matters, and elected representatives communicated all urgent matters on behalf of the Indigenous communities to the Australian Government. This interface between Aboriginal people and the government through their elected representatives has certainly vanished with ATSIC, and various departments have now taken over the responsibility for Aboriginal matters. These are usually departments which are inexperienced in dealing with Aboriginal affairs. Until these departments have come to terms with their new responsibilities for the Aboriginal communities, precious time will be lost in which linguistic activities for Indigenous languages could be fostered. More importantly, “these departments never will be ‘representatives’ of the communities as ATSIC was set up to be” (Christina Eira pers. comm., 19 June, 2006). The strategies of these departments how to deal with Aboriginal affairs should be the subject of further study in the field of Indigenous language revival in Australia. Ulrike Haslinger 312 In response to the abolition of ATSIC, the South Australian Indigenous Languages Policy Council (SAILPC) has been founded. This SAILPC has been recommended both by the KLG Report and in the SA Government paper Actions from the inter-agency meeting held 25 February 2004 to discuss cooperative support of Indigenous languages in SA (hereafter as Actions 2004) and is supposed to have a great impact on the maintenance of Indigenous languages. Its four main fields of activity are: • research • policy development, language planning, and advocating legislation • supporting community planning and community based-projects • interpreter services across the public sector (Actions 2004: 2; for reference see footnote no. 1). However, as pointed out by Guy Tunstill, Policy and Program Officer for Aboriginal Languages at the South Australian Department of Education and Children’s Services, “it is early days yet […]. And so, we muddle on as Aboriginal languages continue to die…” (Guy Tunstill pers. comm., 10 August, 2004). There is no doubt that the demise of ATSIC will have serious impact on the development and future prospects of Indigenous languages in Australia. On the other hand, there are the linguists from the tertiary sector, e.g. Rob Amery, Peter Mühlhäusler and also Guy Tunstill, who were not satisfied with the lack of cooperation between ATSIC and the tertiary research. 7. Funding Indigenous language projects Language revitalisation on a larger scale is not possible without funding. Thus, funding policy for Indigenous language revitalisation programmes needs to be re-organised. Funds can be granted based on language prioritisation. However, in terms of saving languages, prioritisation should be reversed: more money should be given to language communities whose languages are in immediate danger of dying because of the lack of language documentation and/ or language activities. If the largest sum of grants continues to go to the strongest language communities, chances are that weaker language groups will gradually disappear. It is, however, legitimate that the Australian Government wishes to monitor the distribution of public money. The allocation of public grants implies that the public wants to know what the money has been used for. Supporting Indigenous language heritage is not a “waste of tax payers’ money”, but records should be kept to follow the development of Indigenous language programmes. For example, the development Language policy issues involved in the reclamation of Narungga 313 of language programmes could be monitored by language centres. If, as in the case of the Narungga project, Aboriginal communities wish to seek linguistic advice on their revitalisation programmes, organisations should be established and made accessible in order to provide linguistic expertise in every Australian state. Those language centres would not only provide adequate support but also help raising the status of the (reviving) languages. However, the NAPA group was not satisfied with the help provided by Yaitya Warra Wodli language centre, which explains why NAPA sought assistance from an external linguist (Lesley Wanganeen pers. comm., 11 November, 2003). 8. The education system in Australia The impact of colonial education systems on Indigenous ones - under which the Australian education system falls - has been criticised by Baldauf and Luke (cf. 1990: foreword) not only for imposing colonial ideology and exogenous languages but also for creating an élite among Indigenous social and economic structures which emerged from the different levels of oracy and literacy in the new colonial languages; in addition, they argue that the need for language policies has been driven by tourism, trade relations, scientific knowledge and expertise. Therefore, the Australian education system needs to become more open to other ways of learning, i.e. NAPA explicitly says that it does not want to follow the English model of education for the simple reason that it does not conform to the Aboriginal perception of schooling. Thus, Aboriginal parents do not want their children to be put into a curriculum which is not only foreign to them but which also alienates them from their linguistic heritage rather than encouraging Indigenous language revival with all its accompanying effects. However, in the context of schooling, a compromise needs to be found. Like children of other cultural backgrounds, Aboriginal children should have the option of doing extra curriculum activities in Aboriginal languages if they wish to maintain their community languages. Children should be encouraged to participate in those language activities by promoting positive attitudes towards Aboriginality and Aboriginal languages. What the Australian education does need to understand is the wish of Aboriginal communities to have their own Aboriginal teachers respected and employed in Aboriginal language matters even though they do not necessarily conform to the Australian perception of formal teachers. In essence, it is Aboriginal language speakers who can best teach their own languages. However, this is slightly problematic in the case of language revitalisation if there are no fluent speakers. In this context, the NAPA approach to language reclamation and revitalisation gives insight into how Indigenous people wish to conduct the Ulrike Haslinger 314 teaching of Aboriginal languages: although none of the NAPA project staff members currently speaks Narugga fluently, and even though the linguist working for NAPA is non-Indigenous, it is always the individuals of Indigenous heritage who make the decisions on language matters and finalise the outcomes of the project. This approach reveals that people of Narungga heritage, who are largely represented by NAPA, wish to remain the proprietors of the Narungga language on all levels. They wish to revive the language among themselves and they wish to pass on the language according to what they have agreed upon together. This exclusiveness fills Indigenous people with pride and enables them to enjoy and appreciate their Indigenous heritage (cf. Lesley Wanganeen pers. comm., 11 November, 2003). Narungga people, at least those involved in the NAPA project, are very proud of their Narungga heritage and this pride should be fostered through all channels available. The importance of ownership of language for Aboriginal people will be explained in the next section. 9. The ownership of language The ownership of a language must in any case remain with its speakers, because it is only the speakers who should possess the authority to decide on how the traditions and protocols of the language are exercised (Lesley and Michael Wanganeen pers. comm., 11 November, 2003; this view is also held by Christina Eira, Lester-Irabinner Rigney and Tauto Sansbury; cf. Haslinger 2005: 121-125). Until the new funding scheme of 2004, the ownership of Narungga was in the hands of the NAPA group. However, since NAPA has signed the revised funding policy for 2004, the organisation has agreed to ascribe copyright laws of language products such as books and resources to the South Australian Government. Handing over ownership of language material produced with South Australian governmental grants was the condition for continuous funding for the Narungga language. Now the South Australian Government is not only in the position to control and assess the Narungga language development, but it is also entitled to use Narungga language materials for various purposes. Again, Aboriginal people fear that through the loss of ownership the revitalising process will not be as effective as desired and language material might be used for inappropriate purposes (Lesley Wanganeen pers. comm., 11 November, 2003). This funding policy is certainly incompatible with the Aboriginal perception of language possession, i.e. that language must not leave the land. It would also be an interesting topic for further study, to explore the impact of the shift in ownership for the development of the Narungga language. In essence, Lesley Wanganeen feels that the success of Narungga revitalisation is entirely in the hands of NAPA, whose staff members all Language policy issues involved in the reclamation of Narungga 315 started the project as linguistic amateurs by Western linguistic standards. However, NAPA has become like an “island for Narungga language and culture”, as Wanganeen puts it. As experience has shown, it will be only due to the thriving efforts of NAPA that Narungga will continue to develop in the long run. 10. Factors conducive to a positive language policy Now which factors are conducive to positive language policy for Indigenous languages? In this context, Phillipson (2003: 68; see also Ozolins 1993, Lo Bianco/ Freebody 1997, KLG Report 2002) argues that language policy is the result of “a coming together of key constituencies in the political, commercial, and minority and Indigenous rights worlds”, and furthermore, the Australian language policy is based on four guiding principles: • Enrichment (cultural and intellectual) • Economics (foreign trade and vocations) • Equality (social justice and overcoming disadvantages) • External (Australia’s role in the region and the world) However, these four principles have to be taken with caution in the case of Narungga. In fact, a language in a position as unfortunate as that of Narungga is affected only partially by these so-called four E’s. By dwelling on Phillipson’s parameters, Narungga has to be given full credit for cultural and intellectual enrichment. For example, NAPA found out that much more of the language had been documented than was initially believed, with the result that two Narungga grammar books and two Narungga dictionaries were produced. These resource books do not only enrich the field of linguistics by giving insight into the system of the Narungga language, but they also contribute significantly to re-animating Narungga traditions such as songs, poems and folktales, as they allow Narungga to be learned again. Thus, the newly gained knowledge about Narungga enhances the revival by ascribing cultural and intellectual value to the language as well as giving Narungga individuals a tool for expressing their Narungga identity and heritage. As far as the economic and external principles are concerned, however, Narungga plays an insignificant, if not non-existing, role. Speaker numbers are hard to grasp given that ‘fluent speakers’ are no longer available. It is a fact that Narungga speakers at one stage occupied Yorke Peninsula solely and entirely. As argued by Christina Eira (pers. comm., 12. March, 2005) the statistics of Narungga people from Point Pearce mission in the 1860s do not appear to be a reliable source because this is not by any means the number Ulrike Haslinger 316 of Narungga people/ speakers. In her opinion, speaker numbers remain a guessing game. How can a language with no fluent speakers contribute to the Australian economy? Apart from the domain of tourism, the revival of Narungga is not lucrative at present. Tourists can ‘walk the country’ with Narungga guides, who give a demonstration of the life and traditions of Narungga people on their land, but other than that it is only of interest for a handful of people involved in the NAPA language project and a number of area schools, where school children are engaged in learning Narungga, which leads to the principle of Equality: according to the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights (for reference see footnote No. 1), every individual has the right to use his/ her heritage language in education. 11. Future prospects The fear of a deterioration of the status of Indigenous languages is great on the Aboriginal side, but there is also hope that the Australian Government will pay its due respect to First Nation Australians by granting correct treatment to Indigenous languages. The Australian Government must realise that it is lagging far behind other nation-states which have acknowledged their Indigenous languages in legislative terms (e.g. see the constitutions of New Zealand, South Africa, and Canada). The question remains what prevents Australia from finally following these examples, especially because the legal recognition of Indigenous languages is regarded as a milestone in the reconciliation process in Australia. There is no doubt that without language policy there is no constitutionalisation. However, language policy is not only a catalogue of recommendations that are implemented (or not) according to the government’s goodwill or availability of funds. It is rather an entity that covers a vast number of different agents and levels - from the little Aboriginal boy at an Aboriginal primary school to the Federal Government of Australia, and the vitality of language policy is very much dependent on the participation of these agents. It is, however, impossible to please all these participants. It is also impossible to make past injustices undone. Thus, for a vital language policy the Australian Government and Indigenous people have to meet halfway. However, Wallace McKitrick argues that the policy environment for Indigenous languages as of August, 2004, is unpredictable in the next few years. Without a doubt it is too early to make predictions for the development of Aboriginal languages in the next few years since enough data is not yet available. According to information obtained by McKitrick, the Australian Government builds on stronger partnerships of all parties involved in the preservation of Indigenous languages, but cooperation among the various key agents con- Language policy issues involved in the reclamation of Narungga 317 cerning Indigenous language maintenance is still lacking. A more cost-effective operation of maintenance programmes does not necessarily have to curtail the quality of projects. On the contrary, the restructuring of funding and organisation can mark the beginning of a more effective approach to Indigenous language preservation. References: 1. Bibliography Amery, Rob (2000). Warrabarna Kaurna! Reclaiming an Australian Language. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Amery, Rob (1986). “Languages in Contact: The Case of Kintore and Papunya (with Particular Reference to the Health Domain)”. Language in Aboriginal Australia 1. 13-38. Amery, Rob (1995). “It’s ours to keep and call our own: reclamation of Nunga languages in the Adelaide region, South Australia”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 113. 63-82. Baldauf, R. / B. Luke (eds.) (1990). Language Planning and Education in Australasia and the South Pacific. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Black, Paul (1993). “New Uses for Old Languages”. In: Walsh and Yallop, (eds.) (1993). 207-223. Cameron, D. / E. Frazer et al. (1992). Researching language: Issues of power and method. London: Routledge. Dixon, R.M.W. (1980). The Language of Australia. Cambridge: CUP. Fishman, J.A. (2001b). “Why is it so Hard to Save a Threatened Language? (A Perspective on the Cases that Follow)”. In: Fishman (ed.) (2001). Can Threatened Languages Be Saves? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited - A 21 st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 1-22. Haslinger, Ulrike (2005). Language Policy and its Impact on the Maintenance and Loss of Indigenous Languages in Australia: A Study of the Narungga Language of Yorke Peninsula, South Australia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graz. Hill, D.L. / S.J. Hill (1975). Notes on the Narangga Tribe of Yorke Peninsula. Adelaide: Lutheran Publishing House. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1992). Language and Culture - A Matter of Survival. Report of the Inquiry into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Language Maintenance, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Lo Bianco, Joseph (1987). National Policy on Languages. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Lo Bianco, Joseph / Peter Freebody (1997). Australian literacies: informing national policy on literacy education. Belconnen, ACT: Language Australia. Mühlhäusler, Peter et al. (edited draft 2002). Ecological issues in language revival (D RAFT ). South Australian Department of Education and Employment (DETE) in association with The University of Adelaide, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Published in: Department of Education and Children’s Services (2003). South Australian Curriculum, Standards and Accountability Framework. Languages. Australian Indigenous Languages. The State of South Australia, Adelaide: Hype Park Press. Ulrike Haslinger 318 Ozolins, Uldis (1993). The Politics of Language in Australia. Cambridge: CUP. Phillipson, Robert (2003). English-Only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. London: Routledge. Rigney, Lester-Irabinna, (2002). “Re-imagining a Reconciled Australia: The Catastrophe before Us in Stabilising Indigenous Languages”. Key Note address at the ‘Sharing the Space Conference’ in July 2002, at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. Schmidt, Annette (1990). The Loss of Australia’s Aboriginal Language Heritage. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. Tindale, Norman B. and Lindsay, H.A. (1936). Aboriginal Australians. Brisbane, Melbourne: Jacaranda Press. Walsh, Michael (1993). “Languages and their status in Aboriginal Australia”. In: Walsh/ Yallop (eds.) (1993). 1-13. Walsh, Michael and Yallop, Colin (eds.) (1993). Languages and Culture in Aboriginal Australia. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. Wangeneen, Eileen (1987). Point Pearce: Past and present. Researched by Narungga Community College, Adelaide: Aboriginal Studies and Teacher Education Centre, SACAE. Wanganeen, Tania and Christina Eira (2006; in press). Nharangga Warra: Narungga Diuctionary. Adelaide: Wakefield Press. White, Ely / Jenny Brands (1999). An ecology of relationship: language, understanding and education. Produced by Curriculum and Research Unit, Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education. Wilkins, David (1992). “Linguistic research under Aboriginal control: a personal account of fieldwork in central Australia”. Australian Journal of Linguistics 12: 1. 171-200. 2. Webliography Ball (1993). www.nlconference.org/ docs/ LoBianco_paper.doc [accessed 14 April, 2006]. District Council of Yorke Peninsula (n.d.). http: / / www.yorke.sa.gov.au/ history/ indigenous. html [accessed 25 July, 2003]. Federation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Languages (FATSIL) (n.d.). http: / / www.fatsil.org/ LOTM/ mar02.htm [accessed 25 July, 2003]. I would like to thank the following for valuable information on specific points: Christina Eira, Wallace McKitrick, Peter Mühlhäusler, Lester-Irabinna Rigney, Guy Tunstill, Tauto Sansbury, Lesley and Michael Wanganeen. Ulrike Haslinger Salzburg College Salzburg