The Influence and Importance of Documentary Linguistics on Revivalistics

In his 2021 paper Revivalistics is Not Documentary Linguistics, Israeli linguist Zuckermann distinguishes (in no uncertain terms) between the roles of revivalists and documentary linguists, and places the latter as explicitly “ineffective” in a revival situation. Yet how can one revive a language that is undocumented? The following endeavours to explore the ways in which documentary linguistics (and the linguists within of this field) actually play an invaluable role in a language revival movement, beginning with a discussion on the value of language documentation.

Different languages are documented to different extents. The fact of the matter is that languages which are more prominently spoken, and more prestigious in the perspective of the common people, are more likely to have greater extent of documentation. For example, Talbot (2022) states that the anglophone U.S. produces roughly 2,700 newly published titles per day. One can may rightfully assume that the vast majority of these works (whether fiction or non-fiction) are in the English language. However, this does not even account for all 3.7 million videos uploaded to YouTube daily (YouTube Stats n.d.), a large percentage of which are in the English language, and the near countless blogs, tweets, comments, posts, and other uploads placed in our digital infrastructure. It is safe to say, I think, that English (and the other global languages) are highly documented.

Minority (and especially endangered or worse) languages are not so fortunate. Hammarström (2010) lists 27 entire language families as being having minimal documentation, specifically excluding families with even one reasonably documented language, though Hammarström does note that many of these families are language isolates. The majority of the languages Hammarström presents are from Papua New Guinea or the Indonesian controlled area of the Island of Papua. This trend of minimal documentation extends to Indigenous Australian languages, with 568 languages and language varieties having what Austlang determine to be minimal (or no) language documentation (Thieberger 2023, pp. 25-26).

The effect of no documentation to language revival is obvious, but for linguists, comparing these levels and varieties of documentation is less obvious. So, we ask the following questions; firstly, how easy is it for linguists to access this documentation? Second, how does this help the language adapt to the modern landscape? And third, how do community members engage with the documentation? Such things are unclear, yet a prime series of languages to use as comparatives in such an analysis are the Thura-Yura family of languages of Southern Australia, each in differing states of documentation and revival.

Documentation Extent

The earliest linguistic documentation of the Thura-Yura family of Australian Indigenous languages dates to 1826, ten years prior to the founding of the South Australia colony (Amery 2000, p. 50). Since then, numerous revival movements for the region have sprung up-- each with varying states of success and separate resources available for use, all allowing for a useful comparison regarding the effects of documentary linguistics on such movements.

The extent of documentation is, one might argue, the core of whether a revival of a language at an EGIDS Stage 8a (“Moribund”) or lower is feasible. Amery (2000) comments that the extent of the documentation present on Kaurna is a key aspect responsible for the success of the Kaurna revival movement, yet describes the difficulty faced in determining what phonetic values different documents were attempting to convey. This might be determined (in such cases where audio recordings are unavailable) by a comparative analysis of different instances of documentation for the same word, and applying the comparatively understood phonetic values onto the rest of such authors’ documentation (Amery 2024). These induced documentation problems are an example of an extended usage of the ‘Founder Principle’ (Zuckermann 2021, pp. 30-34, 38-43), in which the phonemic values of the documented language are superimposed upon the phonemic system of the documenter, resulting is such varied transcriptions as IMG.1 (below).

This influence of documentation extent can be viewed in a negative form, too. Hercus & Simpson (2001) detail the virtual non-existence of previous in-depth commentary of the Nauo language, in which they find only 13 definitive words from the language (alongside a smattering of placenames), with a further series of words of nebulous origin, but likely belonging to a dialect of Barngarla or Wirangu. This relative non-existence of language documentation would make any revival effort entirely unfeasible, were it not for the work of the MLT in compiling a Nauo word-list with over three hundred entries, primarily expanded out of Schürmann’s list of 10 Nauo words (Nauo Wordlist n.d.).

To extend the horror of a lack of documentation further, the Peramangk language has such limited documentation, with just a few place names and some uncertain word lists, that there is yet to be an academically backed consensus as to the family for which the language belongs to (Peramangk n.d.) (Simpson 2011). Such minimal documentation greatly limits, if not outrighte nullifies, the ability for a Peramangk revival movement to take shape.

Language Elements and Lexical Expansion

When comparing documentation levels, it is important to differentiate different forms of documentation. As described above, Amery partially attributes the success of the Kaurna revival to the extent of the documentation, yet, when breaking it down, there are clearly different forms of sources. Teichelmann & Schürmann (1840) produced not simply a word list, but a functional grammar of the Kaurna language, providing a basis for new words to be neologised (or perhaps re-logised) within, and further grammatical elements to be rediscovered and expanded upon in the modern revival. So too was the case with Barngarla, in which Schürmann wrote a work detailing both a grammar and vocabulary (Schürmann 1844), the former element being analysed and expanded upon by Mark Clendon (2015, later revised in 2018). Gale (2023) states that revival ventures in these languages have been successful “largely because they have been able to build on the quality sketch grammars produced in the early nineteenth century by the German missionaries who came to SA in the very early days of the colony” (p. 744).

Understanding the grammar of a language (and related languages) can help one piece lost elements of a language back together. For instance, though the dative case for the majority of singular pronouns was not preserved in Barngarla documentation, they were able to be reconstructed using available data, via analysing the patterns present in the system (including a comparison between the nominative and dative 1PS pronoun) and assuming a standardised conversion method between these pronoun cases (Clendon 2018, p. 35).

In comparison to Clendon’s lexical and grammatical expansion through analysis of documentation, Zuckermann argues that the search for authenticity is futile and potentially disruptive to a revival project, preferring a hybrid revived language. Such a language contains the known elements of the traditional language, alongside elements of the documenter’s language and the language of the revivalist/revival community, which would be an influence regardless for the quest for authenticity (Zuckermann & Monaghan 2012, p. 120). Later, Zuckermann would define this phenomenon of influence as the “Congruence Principle” (Zuckermann 2020, pp. 38-43).

The acceptance of these influences allows for a more varied approach, accepting whatever choices about the language are made by the community, whether fitting with the understanding of researchers or not (Zuckermann 2021, p. 10). Further, the use of loan-words as a primary source of lexical enrichment can be hidden via methods such as phono-semantic matching and multi-sourced neologisms (Zuckermann 2003, p. 62). This is his approach with Barngarla, and may reflect the natural development of languages, through loans and grammatical influence and development, but taken to the extreme would likely create a pidgin language.

With regards once more to Nauo, the limited documentation has allowed for a minimal understanding of the grammar of the language. The difference between the extents of the historic and current documentation (as described above) indicates that there may have been morphological-grammatical elements discerned from the historic documentation, but the MLT are yet to produce a publicly available document concerning as such, nor have they responded to my questioning via email. Syntactically, minor elements may be discerned from the likely Nauo sentence Schürmann documented (Schurmann 1987, pp. 136-137), though it appears to be a sentence of exclamation, rather than simply conversational in nature. Once more, no study on this has been conducted, to my knowledge.

Forms of Documentation

All of the above, however, are purely written documents, subject to the benefits and drawbacks of the medium. The most salient drawback to the medium of writing is the inability to convey an exact description of a phonetic structure, as detailed in IMG.1, above. The historic (and modern) documenters of languages are reliant upon their own understandings and interpretations of the structures and sound systems, all while perhaps only hearing a word in passing. I experienced this phenomenon first-hand when interacting with members of the Australo-Cypriot community, and by the time I got ready to document the word, the conversation had shifted. An audience exercise in a lecture by Theatre (2024) proved this issue beyond doubt.

The few audio recordings of dead languages may play an extensive part in understanding said languages. Audio recordings of Nukunu speakers taken between 1955 and 1971 have provided invaluable information on Nukunu vowel length, distinctions between rhotics, prestopping, and more (Hercus 1992 p. 3). Similar accounts can be seen in the study and revival of Ngarrindjeri, which resulted in the documentation of over five hundred words before the deaths of a series of elders (Gale 2016, pp. 542, 544), and the documentation of the Tiwi dialects (Osborne 1974, p.7).

Recordings further allow future researchers to reanalyse a language, and draw conclusions potentially missed by documenters, long after a language has been “knocked out” (Theatre, 2024).

Furthermore, the recording of speakers can have an important impact on the community, assisting in engaging potential speakers with the language of their ancestors, and connecting them between generations, as was described by the community run Dhurga revival project (ABC Indigenous 2019).

Cultural Documentation

Differing cultural factors preserved within the language documentation may allow for greater or lesser community engagement in both the revival movement and the language itself. Amery (2000, pp. 209-212) details the use of what he coins “the Formulaic Method”, in which small elements of the lexicon of a reviving language (in his case, Kaurna) are slowly introduced to the body of learners. This may begin with words such as greetings, pronouns, curses, and other such simple utterances, and can be expanded further to eventually include the entirety of the reviving language. This functions as a form of relexification and “re-morphification” (Theatre 2024), used in a specific

manner as to avoid the creation of pidgins and encourage the continued expansion of knowledge of the reviving language. Gale (2016) describes this process as a development of useful and meaningful dialogues, first and foremost, and further attests to its effectiveness in Pitjantjatjara and Ngarrindjeri language courses that she has worked in (p. 550).

IMG.4 Comparative Birth-Order Names Recorded Before the Revival of Each Thura-Yura Language
	Kaurna^{^[1]}	Nukunu^{^[2]}	Nauo^{^[3]}	Barngarla^{^[4]}	Narungga^{^[5]}	Wirangu^{^[6]}	Ngadjuri^{^[7]}
1^st Child Male	Kartamiru Kuyata	Pirtiya	Birdiya	Biri	Birridya	Birdiya	Birriya
1^st Child Female	Kartanya Kartani Kartiartu	Kartinya		Gardanya	Gardidu		Gardanya
2^nd Child Male	Warritya Yaraitya	Warriya	Warriya	Warri Wari	Warriya	Wariya	Warritya
2^nd Child female	Warruyu Warri-artu Yarartu	Warrika		Warooyoo	Warridu		Warrardu
3^rd Child Male	Kudniyuita	Kuni	Guniya	Gooni		Guni^{^[8]}	Gunaya
3^rd Child Female	Kudnartu	Kunartu		Goonda			Gunardu
4^th Child Male	Munaitya	Muniya	Muniya	Mooni			Muniya
4^th Child Female	Munartu			Moonaga			Munardu
5^th Child Male	Midlaitya	Marriya	Marruyu	Marri			Marriya
5^th Child Female	Midlartu	Marritu		Marroogoo			Marridu
6^th Child Male	Marrutya	Wangiya		Yarrri
6^th Child Female	Marruartu	Wanguta		Yarrranda
7^th Child Male	Wangutya	Yariya		Mili			Mila
7^th Child Female	Wanguartu	Yarrinda		Milaga			Miladu
8^th Child Male	Ngadlaitya	Miliya		Wanggooyoo
8^th Child Female	Ngadlartu	Milatu		Wangoordoo
9^th Child Male	Pauwani			ngarlayi
9^th Child Female	Pauwani			ngarlaga
Other		Mawanha “last child, male”					Midji-waganha “11^th child or over (of either sex)”

[1] Kaurna terms sourced from Amery, R., Greenwood, S. and Morley, J. (2022)
[2] Nukunu terms sourced from Hercus, L.A. (1992)
[3] Nauo terms sourced from Mobile Language Team: Nauo Wordlist (no date)
[4] Barngarla terms sourced from Barngarla language Dictionary (no date)
When comparing to the Barngarla App, the words for sixth-child (male and female) only use one ‘r’. I am unsure as to why Zuckermann chose to alter the spelling for the app, but have chosen to continue the original spelling here.
[5] Narangga terms sourced from NHARANGGA Warra (2006)
The Narungga Dictionary states that word lists detailing the names for the 3^rd-8^th child all disagree, and the modern words present in the Dictionary were developed from these varying accounts in community workshops. As they are new terms, they will not be included here.
[6] Wirangu terms sourced from Hercus, L.A. (1999)
All of these terms present with Hercus’ updated spellings. Original spellings are discussed in the source.
[7] Ngadjuri terms sourced from Waria-Read, P. et al. (2009)
[8] According to Hercus 1999, Povis states that this is the term for ‘eldest son’ but it shows greater correspondence to the term for ‘third child, if male’ in other Thura-Yura languages. Hercus, following this logic, places it here

This method is reliant upon adequate documentation of elements the community will find engaging and easy to use in conversation, over extended periods. Amery (2000, p. 209) details the use of terms such as ‘paitya’ (positive exclamative; lit: deadly) and ‘yakko’ (lit: no), simple, common phrases as initially learnt utterances. Understandably, the use of the language specific pronouns is also detailed in Amery’s description of the Formulaic Method (2000, pp. 209-212). I would add elements such as the Birth-Order-Names distinct to Each Thura-Yura language (see IMG.4) as elements which might be transitioned most easily into the lexicons of revival language learners, due to their ability to be applied to anyone (Kaurna or not), and can function as an important cultural framework. Such facets of the language can be used as a method of enticing otherwise undedicated individuals, who will find value in such cultural allusions.

Accessibility

Documentation is of no use if it is not available for researchers or community to access. Over the course of his life, Ronald Berndt wrote a staggering 31 published books, many of which were co-authored by his wife, Catherine (Berndt, Ronald Murray n.d.). Perhaps, however, the most famous (or infamous) production of Ronald and Catherine Berndt are their over 45,000 pages of field notes which have been placed under an embargo since 1994 by the will of Catherine Berndt (Berndt Field Notes Archive n.d.). These notes detail their interaction with indigenous communities across Australia and Papua New Guinea, describing dress, ceremony, and (most importantly for our discussion) language, yet have remained entirely inaccessible to both researchers and indigenous communities, including the direct descendants of those written about in the texts. Only this month (June, 2024) have the Berndt notes been made available.

Most famously, information on the Ngadjuri people, provided by the last known initiated Ngadjuri man, Barney Waria, has been withheld in accordance with the will of Catherine Berndt, much to the distress of the Ngadjuri community as a whole, and the descendants of Waria in particular (Smaith et al 2018).

Access to documents such as these, having been locked away or lost in the vastness of our literary and digital collections, will allow both communities and those studying the language to expand greatly upon their knowledge, and, in all hope, stop (and reverse) the decline of their languages at greater pace.

Conclusion

What has been written above barely scratches the surface of the interconnection between documentary linguistics and revivalistics, yet allows a glance at the depth of the latticed web connecting these sub-disciplines. In such times as these, where languages are dying like flies, it is important not to assign strict definitions to those assisting in the documentation and revival of a language, and limit them as such. The Berndts chose to document, Clendon chose to analyse and expand previous documentation, Zuckermann allowed the community to do as they wished in accepting or altering their ancestral language, and Amery chose a middle ground between all of these. While Zuckermann raises many points about the facets of revivalistics (Zuckermann 2021, p. 3-4), after all this, saying that documentary linguistics is not a major facet of language revival, and therefore of revivalistics, cannot be argued. Instead, one might look at the revivalist as a documentary linguist with further responsibilities.

Bibliography

ABC Indigenous (2019), Reviving Aboriginal language of south coast elders, YouTube, 27 May, viewed 11 June 2024, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XweKYLjr414>

Amery, R. (2000) Warrabarna Kaurna!: Reclaiming an Australian language. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.

Amery, R. (2024) ‘Linguistic Challenges in Kaurna Language Reclamation’, lecture, University of Adelaide, on 13 March 2024

Amery, R., Greenwood, S. and Morley, J. (2022) Kaurna warrapiipa = Kaurna dictionary: Kaurna to English, English to Kaurna. Mile End, South Australia: Wakefield Press.

Barngarla language Dictionary (no date) barngarla. Available at: https://www.barngarla.com/dictionary (Accessed: 25 April 2024).

Berndt, Ronald Murray (2019) Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation. Available at: https://www.eoas.info/biogs/P005374b.htm#related (Accessed: 13 June 2024).

Berndt Field Notes Archive (no date) The University of Western Australia. Available at: https://www.uwa.edu.au/industry-and-community/arts-and-culture/berndt-museum/field-notes (Accessed: 13 June 2024).

Clendon, M. (2015) Clamor Schürmann’s barngarla grammar: A commentary on the first section of a vocabulary of the Parnkalla language. 1st edn. Adelaide, SA: The University of Adelaide, University of Adelaide Press.

Clendon, M. (2018) Clamor Schürmann’s barngarla grammar: A commentary on the first section of a vocabulary of the Parnkalla language. 2nd edn. Adelaide, SA: The University of Adelaide, University of Adelaide Press.

Gale, M. (2016) ‘A Hitch-Hikers Guide to Aboriginal Language Retrieval and Revival’, Language, Land & Song: Studies in Honour of Luise Hercus, pp. 539–554.

Gale, M. (2023) ‘Chapter 64: Language Revival’, in The Oxford Guide to Australian languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 738–753.

Hammarström, H. (2010) ‘The status of the least documented language families in the world’, Language Documentation & Conservation, 4, pp. 177–212. Available at: https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/f3ca00f7-679d-4145-80f4-b6231e1b5b07/content (Accessed: 12 June 2024).

Hercus, L.A. (1992) A nukunu dictionary. Canberra, ACT: L.A. Hercus.

Hercus, L.A. (1999) A grammar of the Wirangu language from the West Coast of south australia. Canberra, ACT: Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.

Hercus, L.A. and Simpson, J. (2001) ‘The Tragedy of Nauo’, Forty years on: Ken Hale and Australian languages, pp. 263–290. doi::10.15144/PL-512.263.

Methodology (no date) Ethnologue. Available at: https://www.ethnologue.com/methodology/ (Accessed: 04 June 2024).

Mobile Language Team: Nauo Wordlist (no date) Mobile Language Team | Nauo Wordlist. Available at: https://portal.mobilelanguageteam.com.au/lessons/nauo-wordlist/ (Accessed: 25 April 2024).

NHARANGGA Warra = Narungga Dictionary. 1st edn (2006). Maitland, S. Aust., South Australia: Narungga Aboriginal Progress Association.

Osborne, C.R. (1974) The tiwi language: Grammar, myths and dictionary of the tiwi language spoken on Melville and Bathurst Islands, Northern Australia. Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Peramangk (no date) Mobile Language Team | PERAMANGK. Available at: https://mobilelanguageteam.com.au/languages/peramangk/ (Accessed: 12 June 2024).

Schurmann, E. (1987) I’d rather dig potatoes: Clamor Schurmann and the Aborigines of South Australia 1838-1853. Adelaide, South Australia: Lutheran Pub. House.

Schürmann, C.W. (1844) A vocabulary of the Parnkalla language. Adelaide, SA: George Dehane, Morphet Street.

Simpson, P. (2011) Peramangk: A social history of the Aboriginal people of the southern Mount Lofty Ranges. Adelaide, South Australia: Paul Simpson.

Smith, C, Jackson, G, Gray, G, Copley, V (2018), ‘Friday essay: who owns a family’s story? Why it’s time to lift the Berndt field notes embargo’, The Conversation, 14 September, viewed 11 June 2024 < https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-who-owns-a-familys-story-why-its-time-to-lift-the-berndt-field-notes-embargo-94652>

Talbot, D. (2023) Dean Talbot, Word Finder by WordsRated. Available at: https://wordsrated.com/number-of-books-published-per-year-2021/#:~:text=Based%20upon%20a%20total%20annual,11%2C000%20books%20are%20published%20daily. (Accessed: 12 June 2024).

Teichelmann, C.G. and Schürmann, C.W. (1840) The aboriginal language of South Australia. Adelaide: Thomas and Co.

Theatre, C (2024) ‘Wurrung Mirring-ngu: Language from Country Reconstructing and revitalising The languages of Victoria’, lecture, University of Adelaide, on 15 May 2024

Thieberger, N. (2023) ‘Documentation of Australian languages’, The Oxford Guide to Australian Languages, pp. 23–30. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198824978.003.0003.

Waria-Read, P. et al. (2009) Ngadjuri Wordlist. Trial. Davoren Park, S. Aust.: Ngadjuri Walpa Juri Lands and Heritage Association.

YouTube Stats: Everything You Need to Know In 2024! (no date) Wyzowl. Available at: https://www.wyzowl.com/youtube-stats/#:~:text=How%20many%20videos%20are%20uploaded%20to%20YouTube%20every%20day%3F,average%20length%20of%204.4%20minutes. (Accessed: 12 June 2024).

Zuckermann, G. (2003) ‘The case of Israeli: Multisourced neologization (MSN) as an ideal technique for lexical enrichment’, Language Contact and Lexical Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew, pp. 63–86. doi:10.1057/9781403938695_3.

Zuckermann, G. (2020) Revivalistics: From the genesis of Israeli to language reclamation in Australia and beyond. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Zuckermann, G. (2021) ‘Revivalistics is not documentary linguistics’, Sustainable Multilingualism, 18(1), pp. 1–13. doi:10.2478/sm-2021-0001.

Zuckermann, G. and Monaghan, P. (2012) ‘Revival Linguistics and the New Media: Talknology in the Service of the Barngarla Language Reclamation ’, Language Endangerment in the 21st Century: Globalisation, Technology and New Media, pp. 119–126.

Search This Blog

Linguist's Library