Gaby, Alice & Ruth Singer. 2014. Semantics of Australian Aboriginal languages. In Rachel Nordlinger...

Alice Gaby and Ruth Singer¹7 Semantics of Australian Aboriginal

Languages

1 IntroductionGenetic relatedness among all of Australia’s languages will probably never be proven. Nevertheless, recurring patterns of meaning – in the absence of lexical cognates – re-veal cultural connections stretching right across the continent. There is meaning to be found at almost every level of grammar, from sublexical morphemes and processes, to individual words and the relationships between them, to larger constructions. As such, this chapter touches on a wide range of phenomena, revealing the intercon-nectedness of language and its contexts of use. Among these heterogeneous topics, there are nevertheless a number of recurring themes. The fi rst of these themes is how people use language to divide the world and their experiences of into categories. This includes ontologies and classifi cation of the natural world (§ 2.1 & § 2.2), familial re-lations and kinship (§ 4.1), as well as the overt and covert meaning of grammatical systems of noun and verb classifi cation (§ 2.2, § 2.3, cf. Bowern this volume). A sec-ond theme concerns the organisation of meaning within categories themselves. This includes the identifi cation of prototypes and delineation of categorical boundaries (§ 2.2, § 3.3, § 4.1). A third theme explores the meaning relationships that obtain be-tween categories, including antonymy, metonymy, meronymy, hyponymy, metaphor and the distinction between polysemy and vagueness (§ 3.1–3.3, § 4.1, § 4.3, § 4.4). A fourth theme is the mapping between distinct semiotic systems, for instance between language and gesture, diff erent linguistic registers and so on (§ 3.2, § 4.1, § 4.5, § 7). And fi nally, there emerges a theme of the embedding of semantics in communication, such that meaning structures cannot be understood in isolation from language use and language change (§ 3, § 4.1, § 5.1.1, § 6, § 7, § 8).

We begin in § 2 by considering classifi cation of the natural world, choosing eth-nobiology as a quintessentially Australian illustration. § 2.2 and 2.3 consider the se-mantic implications of the grammatical systems of nominal and verbal classifi cation respectively. Here we see metaphor and metonymy exploited to justify the system’s macro-categories. This thread is picked up and elaborated on in the following sec-tion 3, which considers the nature of the lexical sense relations antonymy, metonymy, metaphor, polysemy and vagueness. § 4 goes on to consider fi ve conceptual domains

1 For their suggestions for literature to include in this survey, thanks to Jenny Green, Harold Koch and Joe Blythe. They should not be blamed for omissions. Neither should the authors – there’s a lot out there!

001_Koch_Text_002.indd 293001_Koch_Text_002.indd 293 28.02.2014 14:07:3928.02.2014 14:07:39

294 Alice Gaby and Ruth Singer

that have received particular attention from Australian semanticists, whether because of their exceptionally high or low degree of elaboration (e.g. kinship and mathematics respectively). The thread of metaphorical and metonymic linkages continues to run through this section. § 5 revisits the semantic signifi cance of grammatical systems introduced in § 2.2–2.3. § 5.1.1 considers how speakers exploit case marking to ex-press secondary meanings, while § 5.1.2 emphasises the diffi culty of analysing subtle semantic categories such as mood, especially as a non-native speaker. § 5.2 reveals semantic analysis to be a valuable tool in syntactic analysis, using the illustration of identifying secondary predicates in the absence of other diagnostic morphology. In § 6 we take a diachronic perspective, highlighting the role of semantics and pragmat-ics in language change. Finally, § 7 zooms in to look at these pragmatic processes in synchronic interaction, considering how these may best be studied. At a number of points in the chapter we note strikingly common patterns in semantic structure found across Australia, which seem to derive from a uniquely Australian indigenous world-view (Hale 1986; Hiatt 1978).

2 Categorisation and classification

2.1 Ethnobiology

Most Australian Aboriginal groups we re traditionally hunter-gatherers who moved from place to place within an area around their clan territory. This way of life, adapted to the vagaries of the Australian climate, required an intimate understanding of the land and its cycles. The signifi cance of fl ora and fauna is highlighted by their central place in Aboriginal religion, song, dance and stories. The names given to plants and animals in Australian languages refl ect a system of classifi cation of the natural world. As elsewhere these operate at three main levels: the species level (e.g. ‘Silver Bream’) and one level one up from this; the generic level (e.g. ‘bream’) and above these the superordinate terms such as ‘fi sh’, ‘animals’ etc.

Systems of classifi cation in Australian languages present a number of challenges to Berlin’s (1992) claims about universals in ethnobiological classifi cation. Firstly, Berlin claims that binomial terms are most commonly used to refer to species cross-linguistically. Binomial terms combine a species level term with a genus level term such the English common name Spotted Gum or its scientifi c name Corymbia macula-ta. However, among Australian languages monomial species terms are the norm and genus level terms rare (Baker 2007; Heath 1978). Baker (2007) explains this with refer-ence to the large genera that dominate the Australian fl ora; Eucalyptus and Acacia. Brown (1985) on the other hand argues that monomials are used more commonly by hunter-gatherers, binomials by agriculturalists. The Australian data generally sup-port this theory, though McKnight (1999) points out one exception: while monomial


Semantics of Australian Aboriginal Languages 295

terms are the norm in ordinary Lardil, the associated initiation language Damiin uses binomial terms.²

Berlin (1992) also claims that the genus level is psychologically primary in all systems of ethnobiological classifi cation. However, genus level terms are rather rare in Australian languages (Heath 1978). For example in Mawng, there is a superordi-nate term referring to turtles and dugongs, inyarlgan, and at least twenty specifi c terms for turtle species. And yet there is no generic term for turtles in Mawng. Instead the species name of the most psychologically salient turtle manpiri ‘Green turtle’ is used much like what Heath (1978) describes as a “quasi-generic” in Nunggubuyu (Wubuy). These terms, spanning two levels of the taxonomic hierarchy, are common in Australian languages but rare elsewhere.

A handful of genuine generics are found in each language, such as Mawng arukin ‘snake’ and kiyap ‘fi sh’, but these tend not cover the full range of specifi c terms, leav-ing the majority without a corresponding generic. For example, there is no generic term for shellfi sh, although these are an important source of food for Mawng speak-ers.³ This does not necessarily mean, however, that speakers do not conceptualise higher level categories – other areas of the language can reveal covert patterns of classifi cation. However even covert categories tend to distinguish categories at the family level or above rather than the genus level. For example in Mawng there is a specifi c idiom for ‘hunt yams’ – the verb -wu ‘hit, kill’ is used with with Edible gen-der object agreement – although there is no generic for yams. The category ‘yam’ refl ects traditional interactions with the natural world rather than a genetic family or genus. Nominal classifi cation systems of Australian languages also usually distin-guish superordinate categories; in Mawng all yams and edible fruit are Edible gen-der, crabs are Feminine gender and most other animals are Masculine gender (Singer 2010).

The account of classifi cation in Yanyuwa in Bradley et al. (2006) is one of the most detailed descriptions of a system of ethnobiological classifi cication available for an Australian language. For example, they show a large number of terms for male and female dugongs of diff erent ages. They also give a detailed account of superordinate terms for types of fi sh. Bradley et al. (2006) argue that it is the interactions people have with their environment that have the primary infl uence on Yanyuwa plant and animal classifi cation rather than any universal principles. The classifi cation of plants and animals can also relate directly to social organisation. Waddy (1982), Povinelli (1990), Bradley et al. (2006) inter alia, discuss how plants and animals are classi-fi ed relative to kinship and clans. In addition to work on classifi cation, many more practically-oriented books on traditional ethnobiological knowledge have been com-

2 See section for more discussion of the Damiin special register.3 But see Douglas (1976) for a discussion of the Western Desert language, which appears to have quite a large number of generics for snakes and insects.



piled by Northern Territory botanist Glenn Wightman in collaboration with linguists, anthropologists and Aboriginal communities. See Puruntatameri et al. (2001) and Wightman et al. (1992) for examples.

2.2 Nominal Classification

Among Australian languages we fi nd a wide variety of systems of nominal classifi ca-tion (Dixon 1968, 1982, 1986; Harvey and Reid 1997; Sands 1995). These systems divide the world up into diff erent classes which must be treated diff erently by the grammar (Aikhenvald 2006). The North Queensland language Dyirbal uses four groups, which Dixon (1982) refers to as “noun classes”. When using a noun, speakers of Dyirbal must select the correct noun class marker to go with each noun.

(1) Dyirbal noun classes

Masculine bayi jaja ‘boy baby’ Feminine balan jaja ‘girl baby’ Vegetable balam mirrany ‘black bean tree’ Neuter bala gajin ‘yamstick’

Nominal classifi cation systems vary in terms of how transparently they are organised. In Australian languages they typically have a strong semantic basis, which means that the membership of each class can be described with reference to a list of se-mantic properties. This contrasts with the nominal classifi cation systems of European languages, usually referred to as gender systems, whose membership is better ex-plained with reference to form rather than meaning. However, nominal classifi cation systems are rarely completely tidy; there are always many classifi cations that are dif-fi cult to explain. Metaphorical links between members of a class can explain some of the exceptions. For example, Dixon (1982) argues that the Feminine class in Dyirbal includes both women, fi re, snakes, scorpions and the ‘hairy mary grub’ because these are all considered “dangerous”.⁴ The semantics of the Dyirbal system is used as a key example in Lakoff ’s (1987) Women, fi re and dangerous things to demonstrate the im-portance of metaphor in language and cognition.

The nominal classifi cation systems of Australian languages can be divided into those which exhaustively classify everything – generally referred to as genders or noun classes⁵ – and those which do not, generally referred to as “classifi er systems”.

4 See Plaster and Polinsky (2010) for a recent reanalysis of Dyirbal classification. They argue that only a small set of simple semantic features are required to explain Dyirbal classification, in combina-tion with some morphophonemic features.5 The terms “noun class” and “gender” are used interchangeably in the literature (see Corbett 1991).



Languages with classifi er systems may have a large number of classes but some nouns do not co-occur with a class marker. For example, Murrinh-Patha has ten classifi ers (Walsh 1993) whereas Mawng has fi ve genders. Within classifi er systems it is normal for there to be some cross-classifi cation, i.e. the same noun can take more than one classifi er. Cross-classifi cation and generally more creative uses of classifi cation are also found in semantically-based gender systems as Singer (2010) shows for Mawng. An example of cross-classifi cation from Bininj Gun-wok is given in (2).

(2) Bininj Gun-wok

Masculine na-bang dangerous man Feminine al-bang dangerous woman Vege table an-bang dangerous food, poison Neuter gun-bang grog

A key diff erence between gender systems and classifi er systems is that classifi ers are oft en homophonous with generic nouns whereas gender markers tend to be further grammaticalised. In Mparntwe Arrernte, all classifi ers also occur as generic nouns, so Wilkins (2000) argues the language is better analysed as having “classifi er construc-tions” which the generic nouns participate in rather than having a distinct part of speech “classifi er”.

2.3 Verb classification

In addition to the elaborate nominal classifi cation systems found in many Australian languages we can also fi nd systems of verb classifi cation. These involve complex verbs which have two parts: one plays the role of the classifi er while the other com-bines with it to provide more specifi c information. The reader is referred to Bowern (Chapter 6 of this volume) for a discussion of the semantics of complex predicates and the extent to which light verbs may be considered to classify the coverb.

3 Lexical sense relationsThe meanings of words are only understood in relation to the meanings of other words. In each language, meanings are distributed among word forms in slightly diff erent ways, which is one reason that attempts at perfect translations will always fail. Even if a language appears to divide up the domain of experience similarly to English, there will always be subtle diff erences once we look in depth. For example in the central Australian language Pitjantjatjara there are three separate words for ‘sit’, ‘stand’ and ‘lie’ to describe the most common human postures, just as in English.



However in Pitjantjatjara the word lie can also mean ‘sleep’ (Goddard and Harkins 2002). Interestingly, the verb meaning ‘lie’ -u also means ‘sleep’ in Mawng, thousands of kilometres away. Despite the low level of lexical cognates between Australian lan-guage families, common patterns of lexical sense relations can stretch right across the continent.

The categorisation of the colour spectrum is notoriously variable across languag-es. Australian languages tend to have very few basic colour terms – terms which are only ever used in reference to colour. Kay (2003) gives the Warlpiri term walyawalya as a good example of a non-basic colour term. It is derived from the term walya ‘earth’ by reduplication and covers the range of colours found in the earth of the central desert: brown, red, yellow etc. Davis (1982) argues that the colour terms of the Yolngu-Matha language group contrast mainly in terms of brightness, rather than hue, which is the primary contrast between English colour categories. Hargrave (1982) supports this, comparing studies of four traditional Australian languages, which suggest that the only true basic colour terms are ‘black’ and ‘white’ which diff er in brightness but not in hue. Hill (2011) points to work which discusses the importance of luster, irides-cence and illuminance in Aboriginal perception of the visual domain. These proper-ties are closely allied to brightness and their presence or absence seems to be much more important to visual perception than a notion of colour that is based on hue.

Applied semantic analysis is illustrated by the many dictionaries produced (e.g. Kilham et al. 1986, Laughren et al. forthcoming) and several grammars provide a detailed analysis of at least some semantic domains. Dixon (1972), for example, has a chapter devoted to the “semantics” of Dyirbal, while Dixon (1977) has a de-tailed discussion of Yidiny lexical semantics in a chapter dedicated to the “lexicon”. The literature also abounds in detailed, insightful analyses of various verbal do-mains in Australian languages. In addition to Goddard and Harkins’ (2002) work on Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara posture verbs mentioned above, Reid (2002) inves-tigates how the language Ngan’gityemerri divides up the domain of “posture”. Riemer (2005) shows that Warlpiri verbs of percussion and impact can be more simply de-fi ned with reference to the result they produce such as ‘produce point-like depression in a surface’, rather than the action they involve (c.f. English hit, punch, slap). Rumsey (2001) analyses the semantics of ‘trying’ in Ungarinyin (Ngarinyin) and Yidiny, Wilkins (2004) looks at the expression of motion in Mparntwe Arrernte narratives, Evans (2007b) discusses expressions for remembering in Dalabon, and Gaby looks at verbs for ‘cutting’ and ‘breaking’ (2007) and ‘putting’ and ‘taking’ (2012) events in Kuuk Thaayorre.

The next few subsections look at recurring patterns in lexical sense relations found across Australian languages.



3.1 Polysemy, metonymy and metaphor: recurring linkages

Patterns of polysemy found among distantly related Australian langua ges capture common metaphors rooted in the culture of their speakers. Evans (1992a) argues that cultural similarities combined with widespread multilingualism has led to deep parallels in semantic structure right across the continent. One common type of poly-semy found in Australian languages has been referred to as actual/potential poly-semy (Dixon 1980: 102–103). Examples include the Yolngu-Matha term gurtha ‘fi re, fi rewood’ (Lowe 2004: 95). The same word is used to refer both to something in one stage of transformation and also in a later stage. This pattern is found not only in the nominal domain but also in the verbal domain, where it can be seen in verbs that refer not only to a process but also to its result such as the much discussed Warlpiri verb pakarni ‘hit, kill by hitting’ (e.g. Riemer 2005).

Patterns of polysemy found in Australian languages are oft en strikingly diff erent to those found elsewhere. In English we can ask Do you see what I mean? – using the verb see to mean ‘understand’ or ‘know’. Sweetser (1990) suggests the extension of the meaning ‘see’ to ‘know’ refl ects a universal tendency to prioritise visual percep-tion as a source of knowledge over other modes of perception. However, Evans and Wilkins (2000) show that the extension of the meaning ‘see’ to ‘know’ is very rare among Australian languages, instead the most common source for ‘know’ is ‘hear’. Evans and Wilkins use synchronic polysemy, pragmatic implicatures and diachronic data as evidence. For example, they point to refl exes of the Proto-Pama-Nyungan term *pina ‘ear’ such as Warlpiri pina ‘wise, knowing experienced’. Evans and Wilkins argue that a stage in which there was polysemy between ‘hear’ and ‘know’ provided the bridging context for this pathway of semantic change. The underlying motivation for the Australian metaphor hear=know is a cultural conceptualisation that places hearing as the primary source of knowledge rather than vision (Evans 2002). This is not to say, however, that the eye and seeing do not also feed knowl-edge metaphors in Australia (cf. Warlpiri ngurrju=rna nyangu ‘I saw/realised that it was good’). Future research in linguistics and related fi elds (such as anthropology and cognitive psychology) is required to evaluate the relative importance of visual and aural modalities in the conceptualisation of knowledge in indigenous Australian cultures.

Another sense relation that is common among Australian languages is that of “sign metonymies” (Evans 1992a), usually involving pairs of plant and animal spe-cies which share the same name. For example in Kunwinjku, a dialect of Bininj Gun-wok, the Spangled grunter fi sh and the native White Apple tree both have the name bokorn. In Ndjebbana the unrelated word nja-murdibidj is used to refer to the same two species. The metonymic relation between the two species – i.e. their proximity in time and/or place – is well understood by speakers of these languages: the fruits of the White Apple tree are eaten by the Spangled Grunter. The tree is a sign that the Spangled Grunter may be present, for example in a watercourse which a White Apple



tree overhangs. § 4.3 and 4.5 introduce several patterns of metaphorical linkage that are common in the Australian context

3.2 Relationships between registers

The majority of Australian languages have associated varieties such as avoidance registers, initiation languages and auxil iary sign languages. Avoidance registers are used in the presence of relatives – such as a mother-in-law or son-in-law – with whom one must be particularly respectful. As well as being interesting in their own right, these registers can be invaluable tools for semantic analysis. For example Damiin, the avoidance register used by Lardil speakers, has only around 250 words. The rela-tionship between most Damiin and Lardil words is one of hyponymy (Evans 1992a). Thus the Damiin term n!2u⁶ ‘liquid’ includes the meanings of a large range of Lardil terms such as nguka ‘water’, mela ‘sea, seawater’ and kaldirr ‘urine’. There is no corre-sponding general term for liquids in ordinary Lardil. The meaning of terms in the spe-cial registers of other languages can also be related to the ordinary term by metaphor, metonymy and synecdoche (Evans 1992a). Hale (1971) discusses an initiation register used by Warlpiri speakers – known as Tjiliwirri – which is formed through a process of antonymy, using Warlpiri words with (for the most part) the opposite meaning. So to say ‘I am sitting on the ground’ speakers say something that would mean ‘You are standing in the sky’ in ordinary Warlpiri. Other work on avoidance registers includes (Dixon 1971; Haviland 1979; McGregor 1989).

3.3 Vagueness

Australian languages are known for their classifi catory kinship systems in which kinship terms are extended even to those who are not genetic relatives (cf. § 4. 1 be-low and McKnight 1999). Kin terms extend in certain characteristic ways in almost all Australian languages. For example, in Mawng the term for ‘mother, kamu is also used to refer to ‘mother’s sister’. This works reciprocally too, so while I call my mother and her sisters all kamu they also all refer to me as their child. The rather broad denotational ranges of basic kinship terms – combined with various observa-tions such as that sisters sometimes breastfed one another’s children – was taken by late nineteenth century anthropologists as evidence for the existence of “group marriage”. Group marriage was an idea popular briefl y as a system anthropologists thought was as a primitive form of family structure, intermediate between an origi-

6 Damiin has unusual phonology in that it is the only Australian variety which has click conso-nants, in fact nasal clicks.



nal system of total promiscuity and the ideal system: monogamous marriage (Hiatt 1996 chapter 3). They believed sets of sisters who were married to sets of brothers raised their children together. However, it is clear that children do know who their biological parents are, and the lifelong bond between a parent and their child is mani-fested in multiple ways. This raises an interesting question regarding the lexical se-mantics of the kinship terms. Are terms that denote multiple biological categories (e.g. FATHER as well as FATHER’S BROTHER) simply vague regarding the diff erences between them (much as the English term sister is vague with respect to the diff er-ence between elder and younger sisters), or are they polysemous, with the prototypi-cal sense of the word (FATHER) extended to refer to others who occupy a socially, biologically and/or culturally analogous role (FATHER’S BROTHER, much as the English term uncle might be used to address a male friend of one’s parents)? The dif-ference between polysemy and vagueness – as well as tests for teasing the two apart – is considered in detail by Riemer (2005), who considers the semantics of Warlpiri (and English) verbs in the semantic domain of percussion. (Cf. Eades, Chapter 10 of this volume, for discussion of a courtroom misunderstanding fed by diff erences be-tween the Aboriginal English and Standard Australian English semantic ranges of father).

3.4 Lexicography

Developing dictionaries for Australian languages presents a number of challenges. Not least is the challenge of capturing “meaning”, which persists regardless of de-velopments in technology. As Evans and Sasse (2007: 66) note, “the search for mean-ing in any language is best seen as a never-ending stringing together of hypertextual commentary which gradually leads to a better understanding of the utterances under study”. An additional challenge in the Australian context is making dictionaries of Australian languages accessible to speakers of the language and their descendants. Simpson (1993) gives a historical perspective on dictionaries of Australian languages. She observes changes in the purposes dictionaries are intended for. Early dictionar-ies were designed for White adults with an interest in Aboriginal languages. More recently dictionaries have been designed for use by Aboriginal children, learning to read and write their own languages in bilingual schools. Dictionaries may also be designed for language revival, or a range of other purposes. McConvell et al. (1983), for instance, discuss how a project developing a Meriam Mir dictionary was combined with providing linguistics training to a group of Meriam Mir speakers. Along with this shift in intended audience, there has been a concomitant shift in format. Recent paper dictionaries (including, e.g., Turpin and Ross 2012, Mackman and Irra Wangga Language Centre 2011) are being joined by an increasing number of dictionaries pro-duced for online and mobile phone platforms (e.g. S. Wilson and Harvey 2001, cf. A. Wilson 2010; McElvenny 2008).



Corris et al. (2004) report on a study of how dictionaries of Australian languages are actually used by speakers and their descendants. They discuss some of the pos-sibilities of electronic dictionaries, such as off ering a range of interfaces for diff erent groups of users. However, as both Simpson and Corris point out, many issues remain for Aboriginal dictionary users regardless of the technology involved. Depending on the Aboriginal community involved, these may include: low levels of literacy, few computer skills, the eff ects of the codifi cation of language variation and issues of cred-ibility: whether a dictionary is seen as a legitimate source of information by the com-munity. For a historical perspective on the production of dictionaries of Australian languages and specifi c mention of some dictionaries of Australian languages see Goddard and Thieberger (1997), Evans (2007a) and Austin (2003), an updated ver-sion of Austin (1983). Walsh’s chapter of this volume also discusses some limitations of dictionaries, particularly vis-à-vis information on the semantic ranges of lexemes.

4 Conceptual domainsAmong the languages of Australia there is a tendency for particular semantic fi elds to be highly elaborated in particular ways. § 2.1 gave examples of the fi ne distinctions made in lexifying the natural world in taxonomies, with many Australian languages possessing large numbers of specifi c terms for plant and animal species. In § 4.1we will likewise see the precision with which kin relationships are traced. On the other hand, the numerical system has traditionally been cited as a gap in the lexica of Australian languages. § 4.2 considers some recent literature that seeks to move beyond a defi cit model of traditional mathematical systems, acknowledging their original complexity and future potential. In § 4.3 we discuss the human body’s value as a model for the investigation of semantic extension, meronymy, vagueness and polysemy, as well as a ubiquitous source domain for metaphor and metonymy. In § 4.4 we consider the realm of emotion, one of the target domains most oft en metaphorically described in bodily terms. Finally, § 4.5 considers the culturally central domain of the land and location, which has been a particular focus of work exploring the parallelism between seman-tic and cognitive categories.

4.1 Kinship

Refl ecting its social importance, kinship is arguably the most highly elaborated se-mantic domain in many Australian languages (Heath et al. 1982). In most cases, both blood relatives and unrelated social contacts are integrated into a complex classi-fi catory kinship system, in which every member of the social universe has a place. So someone speaking Kuuk Thaayorre would use the term nganin to refer to their



own father, but they would also use nganin to refer to their father’s brother(s), their mother’s sisters’ husbands, their wife’s father’s sister’s husband, and so on, as well as any unrelated outsiders who are calculated to best fi t this “father” category. In ad-dition to the terms used to address kin directly, Kuuk Thaayorre (like many Australian languages) also has a set of terms used in conjunction with a propositus term to refer to people in the third person (e.g. ‘X’s father’ as opposed to vocative terms in which the propositus may be suppressed, such as ‘hey, Dad!’), a set of kinship hand signs (for use when hunting, over long distances, or when speech is otherwise proscribed), and a set of kin terms used to refer to people bereaved of particular categories of kin (analogous to English orphan and widow, but far more extensive).

Speakers of other languages have ways of dividing kin into even broader catego-ries. These categories are commonly referred to as “skins”, and every member of a society that uses this system is assigned a “skin name” which is commonly used in place of a personal name (Stanner 1979). Skins are organised in a paradigm that de-termines marriageability and descent, as well as conferring certain rights and respon-sibilities vis-à-vis land management, language, songs, stories, totems and ceremonies (cf. Breen 2002). Thus a Pintupi woman with the skin name Napaltjarri should pref-erentially marry a man with the Tjakamarra skin. Their son would then have the skin Tjupurrula, and would inherit certain rights and responsibilities through the matri-line (female descent line) of his mother and others through the patriline of his father. The system is cyclical, in that – given the preferred marriage – a man should always have the same skin as his son’s son, and a woman the same skin as her daughter’s daughter’s daughter’s daughter. The Pintupi skin system has eight diff erent categories (each of which has a male and a female version of the skin name, totalling sixteen skin terms), also known as a “subsection” system. It is also common for skin systems to distinguish just four “sections”. Indeed, McConvell (1985) proposes that subsec-tion systems were born out of contact between speakers of languages with diff erent section systems. Still more general kin groupings are also possible. For instance, the Yolngu divide the social and natural world into two groups (the Yirritja and Dhuwa patrimoieties) in addition to their subsection system (Morphy 1977). Membership in one or the other moiety has linguistic implications as well as cultural and material ones, since there are distinct Yirritja and Dhuwa Yolngu dialects.

There are other complex and unusual ways of expressing kin relationships. Nyangumarta, Bininj Gun-wok, Iwaidja, Mawng, Warlpiri, Banyjima, Pintupi, Gurindji, Wardaman and Yir Yoront, for instance, possess a class of “trirelational” kin terms (Evans 2012; Heath 1982; Laughren 1982; McConvell 1982; Garde 2003, O’Grady and Mooney 1973; Singer 2006). These terms specify how the person referred to is re-lated to two other people, usually the speaker and addressee. Thus a Gurindji speaker would use the term kuyarri-marnany to refer to the addressee’s brother if and only if they were speaking to their own mother’s mother (McConvell and Obata 2006). If they were speaking to their sister about their brother, they would instead use the term ngarumpa-marnany (where –marnany is a special trirelational suffi x meaning ‘your’).



In some languages – for instance Arrernte, Martuthunira, Lardil, Wangkangurru and Noongar – kinship fi nds its way even into the grammatical paradigm of pro-nouns (cf. Hale 1966, Hercus and White 1973, Schebeck 1973, Dench 1982, Koch 1982, McConvell and Obata 2006). For example, in Lardil all pronouns referring to more than one person must also indicate whether the people in question are separated by an odd or even number of generations. So to refer to a father and daughter in Lardil, you would need use the pronoun for two people separated by an odd number of gen-erations (i.e. one), niinki (Ngakulmungan Kangka Leman and Hale 1997). To refer to a grandmother and grandson, you would use the pronoun for two people separated by an even number of generations (i.e. two), birri. To talk about three sisters, you would use the pronoun for three or more people separated by an even number of generations (i.e., zero), bili. Many languages have a more expansive set of “dyadic” forms (usually morphologically derived from kin terms themselves) which are used to refer to a pair of individuals while also specifying the kin relationship that obtains between them. So the Gooniyandi dyadic form garingilangi refers to a husband and wife pair, or more precisely, two people, one of whom calls the other one garingi ‘wife’ (McGregor 1996a; cf. Merlan and Heath 1982; Evans 2006).

Much of the work done on the language of kinship in Aboriginal Australia has been somewhat anthropological in orientation, explicating the intricate web of rela-tions that make up the classifi catory system, including any “skewing” rules which collapse particular categories together in a systematic way (e.g. Meggitt 1962, Burling 1970, Scheffl er 1978, Wafer 1981, Rumsey 1981, Dench 1982, Geytenbeek 1982, Heath 1982, Laughren 1982, Yallop 1982, Dixon 1989, McKnight 1999). There is great scope here for a fi ner semantic analysis of the category-internal make-up of the terms them-selves. For example, in the case of nganin ‘father’ above, is this word vague across all the biological and social relations it subsumes, perhaps with a prototypical meaning of ‘biological sire’? Or are the various senses semantically distinct, related through polysemy? This kind of fi ne-grained semantic research remains to be fully pursued, notwithstanding some excellent work addressing such questions (e.g. Wierzbicka 1986; Dixon 1989; and Tonkinson’s 1978 exploration of the meaning of ‘father’ vis-à-vis competing biological and spiritual explanations of conception).

There is also call for further variationist research in the model of Morphy’s (1977) research on the moiety-based dialects of Yolngu-Matha, Smith and Johnson’s (1986, 2000) descriptions of the Kugu Nganhcara “patrilects” (dialects inherited through the male descent line), and Garde’s (2008b) study of the formation of new Bininj Gun-wok patrilects through intentional language change. As the pressures of post-colonial language contact and language obsolescence oft en favour standardisation, it is dif-fi cult to tell just how widespread clan- or moiety-based dialectal diff erences might have been.



4.2 Numbers

It is oft en claimed that Australian languages lack labels for numbers beyond three, four or fi ve (e.g. Blake 1987). This in turn has fostered a misapprehension that tradi-tional Aboriginal mathematics was unsophisticated or “primitive” (e.g. Trewin 1971). However, Harris (1982, 1987) points out several fl aws in such a view. Firstly, there are the languages that do label higher numbers (e.g. ogripulung ‘twenty’ in Anindilyakwa), and/or possess productive quinary (base fi ve) numerical systems (Wurm 1972: 64). Secondly, Harris argues that it is a mistake to dismiss numerical terms derived from or etymologically related to terms for body parts (typically hands, feet or fi ngers), or non-verbal techniques of counting and abstractly representing number (such as body-marking). Moreover, as Hale (1975: 296) points out, though “conventionalized counting systems, i.e., numerals, are for the most part lacking, […] counting itself is not lacking, in the sense that the principle of addition which underlies the activity of exact enumeration is everywhere present”.

Taking a rather diff erent tack, Cooke (1996) makes the point that the intricate kinship system of the Yolngu is akin to a “mathematics without numbers”, following Kenneth Hale’s observation that the Warlpiri’s “algebra of kinship plays an intellec-tual role similar to that which mathematics plays in other parts of the world” (quot-ed in Dixon 1980: 108). The fact remains, however, that the fi t between traditional Australian languages and the current-day Australian school curriculum is seldom seamless, and many linguists and educationalists have pondered how traditional nu-meracy should best inform classroom teaching of mathematics (see, e.g., Sayers 1982; Stokes 1982; Watson 1988; Graham 1990; Wilkinson 2011). These papers underline the importance of understanding the traditional use of mathematical concepts, rather than the simple translation of number terms. It is likewise increasingly evident that how numerals were used – and how quantities were otherwise judged and recorded – likely represents a gap in Australianist research, more than a gap in Australian lan-guages.

4.3 Body

The human body off ers a rich vein for semantic miners. As a (more-or-less) universal of human experience, it off ers fi eldworkers a readily-available, concrete tool for ex-amining questions of extension (what words map on to in the real world) and inten-sion (how the meaning of one word relates to the meaning of other words). So, for example, how do the physical boundaries of the English arm map onto those of its Wagiman translation, lari (Wilson and Harvey 2001)? The uppermost border with the shoulder varies from language to language, as does its inclusion or exclusion of the hand. Some semanticists (e.g. Schebeck 1978; Laughren 1984; Gaby 2006) have thus focused on cataloguing the inventory of body part terms, examining their respective



extensions to actual portions of the body, and/or the meronymic (part:whole) rela-tionships between them. Yet another analytical opportunity aff orded by the corporal semantic fi eld is the investigation of metaphor. Being so central to human experience of the world, the body serves as a source domain for the metaphorical description of more abstract ideas in quite possibly every language of the world (cf. Lakoff and Johnson 1999). To give just a few examples, body part terms are invoked in: both ver-bal reference to and manual signs for kin (e.g. pointing to the shin to refer to a sibling in many parts of Australia, cf. Kendon 1988); expressions of cognition (particularly the ear, cf. § 3.1); labelling features of the landscape (e.g. lari ‘arm’ above also being used to refer to creeks and roots); or even unexpected mappings like ‘eye’ > ‘no good’, which nevertheless recur in a number of Australian languages (Sommer 1978).

Body part terms also occupy a privileged position in the grammatical systems of many Australian languages (cf. Walsh 1996; McGregor 1996b; Hosokawa 1996; McKay 1996; Evans 1996; Leeding 1996; Harvey 1996). For instance, they are frequently among the only nouns that may be incorporated into verbs (e.g. in Kayardild, Evans 1996), or may appear as an apparently transitive direct object in otherwise intransitive refl exive/reciprocal clauses (as in the Diyari example 3).

(3) nganhi mara rdama-thadi-rna warra-yi 1SG.S hand.ABS cut-REFL-PTCP AUX-PRS ‘I cut my hand’ (Diyari: Austin 1981: 152)

4.4 Emotions

The meanings of emotion terms vary widely from language to language. Though their intangibility makes them diffi cult to study, emotion terms provide key insight into the culture of their speakers. A common pattern found in Australian languages is to use a single term for both ‘fear and ‘shame’. Hiatt (1978) fi rst documented this polysemy in Gidjingali (a Burarra dialect) and Warlpiri.⁷ The two emotions ‘shame’ and ‘fear’ have in common that they create a desire to remove oneself from the situation at hand. Hiatt observes the Gidjingali verb -gurakadj being used for situations of fear, situa-tions that involve shame or embarrassment, as well as situations that involve both. For example, to behave inappropriately towards one’s mother-in-law would invoke shame and embarrassment but also oft en fear of the repercussions of breaking tradi-tional rules. Thus the meaning of emotion terms does not simply relate to how people feel and how they respond to diff erent situations but also how people are expected to feel and respond to diff erent situations from a cultural perspective.

7 See also Myers (1986) on shame.



White teachers oft en describe Aboriginal students as “shy” because they seem uncomfortable when singled out in class, irrespective of whether it is to be admon-ished or praised. Harkins (1990) analyses the meaning of the concept of shame in Aboriginal culture with a view to improving intercultural understanding in the class-room. She argues that shame is not simply a negative emotion that people feel aft er doing something wrong, but is also a positive concept guiding proper behaviour, root-ed in the egalitarian ethos of Aboriginal society. She writes that the concept of shame is a key to understanding how Aboriginal students approach classroom behaviour (cf. Eades, Chapter 10 of this volume, for further discussion of the cultural underpinnings of “shame” and the pragmatics of silence). Also in a practical vein, Morice (1978) sur-veys some of the main Pintupi terms for emotions, with a view to facilitating better diagnoses of psychiatric conditions in Aboriginal communities.

Like shame, anger is an emotion that comes from an evaluation of social rela-tions. Anger contrasts with shame in that it is a feeling that others have not behaved as they ought to. Myers (1988) argues that anger in Pintupi culture is best understood in relation to the importance of being compassionate, ngaltutjarra, towards ones kin. When somebody is not compassionate towards a family member, that person can feel rejected and become angry. Similarly, when a person feels angry, they lack compas-sion towards the object of that anger. Drawing on discussions with Dalabon speakers, Ponsonnet (2010) also gives culturally specifi c accounts of Dalabon emotions. But she contests a number of Myers’ claims, including his idea that there is always a clear distinction between private feelings and publicly expressed emotions.

Goddard (1991) argues that although situations in which people become angry diff er from culture to culture, the core meaning of emotion terms can be described in basic, universal terms. Drawing on the theory of Natural Semantic Metalanguage, Goddard and a growing number of researchers have striven to capture both the uni-versal and the culturally particular aspects of how the experience of emotion is lexi-calised by explicating emotion words in terms of a restricted set of semantic primes. Australian languages so analysed include Arrernte (Harkins 2001), Yankunytjatjara (Goddard 1991), Burarra (Wierzbicka 1999) and Kayardild (Evans 1994; Wierzbicka 1999). Other researchers, meanwhile, have observed that emotions are oft en meta-phorically described in terms of the parts of the body where they are felt to be expe-rienced, oft en the belly or the throat (cf. Turpin 2002; Gaby 2008; Walsh 1996, § 4.3).

4.5 The land and spatial relations

The land looms large in Australian indigenous cultures, and the interconnectedness of people, language and the land is a leitmotif that runs through much of the anthro-pological and linguistic literature. Stories abound of ancestral (or “Dreamtime”) be-ings who created the landscape, imbuing it with the languages that would come to be spoken thereon (Merlan 1981; Rigsby and Sutton 1982; Rumsey 1993; but cf. Bowern



2009: 335 for a counter-example). In the present era, then, people are linked to the languages they speak through the tracts they occupy and/or hold ritual obligations toward. Given the cultural primacy of land and people’s interaction with it, it is hardly surprising that this has also been an area of great interest to researchers.

Placenames have been a prominent focus, with two recent books assembling pa-pers that detail: (i) the hierarchical relationships between names of diff erent sized tracts of land; (ii) the etymology and spiritual meaning behind traditional place-names; and (iii) how those placenames have been appropriated, interpreted and re-stored in post-colonial Australia (cf. papers in Hercus et al. 2002; Giacon 2004; Furphy 2001, 2002, and papers in Koch and Hercus 2009).

Placenames are of course an invaluable navigational aid, especially in tradi-tionally nomadic and/or hunter-gatherer societies. But in addition to the lexicon of named places, all societies employ some number of more general terms that allow them to navigate the surrounding terrain and to locate the relative position of people, places and things in space. Speakers of Australian languages are renowned for em-ploying the same geographically-based, “absolute” directional terms (oft en translat-ing to English north, south, east and west) for both large-scale navigation (e.g. Sydney is to the north of Melbourne) and to locate objects on a small scale (e.g. the scissors are in the eastern drawer), whereas for the latter case most English-speakers would use viewer-based “relative” terms (e.g. the scissors on the shelf to your left ) or reference object-based “intrinsic” terms (e.g. the scissors are in the top drawer of the bureau).

Most languages, like English, furnish their speakers with a choice of absolute, relative and/or intrinsic spatial terms, but one system tends to predominate over the others in everyday use. Proponents of linguistic relativity (who argue that language infl uences thought) have amassed a wealth of experimental data that demonstrate broader cognitive consequences of speaking a language with a predominately rela-tive/egocentric spatial reference system, as opposed to an absolute/geocentric one (cf. Pedersen et al. 1998; Levinson 2003; Levinson and Wilkins 2006). Australian Aboriginal languages by and large privilege the absolute frame of reference, and have been instrumental in developing the typology of spatial reference. Absolute spatial reference systems include both directional systems based on compass points (usually anchored by the sun’s trajectory and a perpendicular axis, as with north, south, east and west) and the similarly geo-centric riverine systems (e.g. Jaminjung manamba ‘upstream’, buya ‘downstream’, thangga ‘up’, thamirri ‘down’; Schultze-Berndt 2006: 67). Though such terms may also include relative frame of reference information (e.g. referring to a location ‘nearby’ or ‘far away’) and/or intrinsic frame of reference infor-mation (e.g. referring to a location ‘inside’ or ‘below’ some reference point), the organ-ising principle of the system is usually clearly absolute. Speakers of these languages are renowned for their “dead reckoning” abilities in navigation, a fact oft en credited to the language they speak. Indeed, people who speak languages with a dominant ab-solute frame of spatial reference have been shown to draw on this absolute system in both experimental memory tasks and spontaneous co-speech gesture (Haviland 1993,



Levinson 1997, 2003). Though there are Australian languages that privilege a relative – rather than absolute – spatial frame of reference (e.g. Murrinh-Patha), there is very little research detailing the use and cognitive consequences of these systems. This is an obvious avenue for future research.

Like the body, physical space is commonly drawn on as a concrete source do-main for more abstract metaphorical targets. We might therefore expect diff erences in the ways in which target domains such as time are conceptualised by speakers of languages with dominant absolute and relative spatial systems respectively. Though research in this domain is still in its infancy, initial results would seem to bear out this expectation. For instance, Boroditsky and Gaby (2010) fi nd Kuuk Thaayorre speak-ers represent time as fl owing from east-to-west when asked to arrange photo cards depicting stages in a temporal sequence (e.g. a chick hatching from an egg), or when drawing in the sand to represent sequentially-related points in time (cf. Gaby 2012).

5 The semantics and pragmatics of grammarThis section looks at three examples of the insights that semantics and pragmatics can provide in analysing aspects of morphosyntax. The fi rst two subsections look at sublexical semantics: case systems and verbal infl ections. It is worth noting, however, that not all semantic phenomena respect a neat division of syntax, morphology and the lexicon. Take for example the semantic notion of reciprocity, where two or more individuals direct their actions towards one another. If we begin with a functional – rather than formal – defi nition of the domain of investigation, we fi nd quite diff erent structures encoding a more or less similar semantic range. For instance, Australian languages are found to mark reciprocity by means of verbal morphology (e.g. Kuuk Thaayorre, Gaby 2011; Murrinh-Patha Nordlinger forthcoming), special auxiliary (e.g. some Nyulnyulan languages McGregor 2000) or a clause-level construction that is transparently a contraction of a biclausal construction (e.g. Mawng, Singer 2011; and Iwaidja, Majid et al. 2011). Another area that is not neatly divided between verbal morphology and syntactic constructions is quantifi cation. Australian languages may express quantifi cation through verbal morphology or through free quantifi ers (Bittner and Hale 1995; Evans 1995). There is great scope for further research on the meaning components of morphological and syntactic processes, such as Wilkins’ (1984) tanta-lising study of the semantics and pragmatics of reduplication, Austin’s (1982) paper on cognate objects in Australian languages and Evans’ (1997) paper on whether it is the semantic role or ontological properties of arguments that determine whether they can be incorporated into verbs.



5.1 Case systems

In addition to marking core syntactic functions such as “object”, case systems can have a range of semantic and pragmatic functions. For example, ergative case mark-ing – prototypically used to mark the subject of a transitive clause – is optional in a range of Australian languages. In these languages, not all transitive subject NPs carry ergative case marking and/or some subjects of intransitive clauses do (McGregor 2010). Optional ergativity may be sensitive to semantic factors such as animacy and pragmatic factors such as topicality (Verstraete 2010). The non-syntactic functions of case are sometimes considered as evidence of grammaticalisation in progress. But, as the level of detail in descriptions of Australian languages improves, it may turn out to be the norm for cases to combine a range of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic functions.

There may be multiple pathways leading to this polyfunctionality in ergative case markers. Gaby (2010) suggests that a pragmatic focalising function predates the syntactic function of some Kuuk Thaayorre ergative markers, while Pensalfi ni (1999) and Meakins and O’Shannessy (2010) report on grammaticalisation in the opposite direction: ergative case markers which have recently developed pragmatic functions (see also Meakins, Chapter 9 of this volume, for a more detailed exploration of case-marking systems being restructured under the pressure of language contact). These examples coming from distant parts of the continent illustrate that optional ergative marking is not restricted to any one area or family and is not necessarily the result of contact between traditional Australian languages and English.

The prevalence of case among Australian languages, particularly among the Pama-Nyungan languages and their neighbours, has led to many unusual develop-ments, not frequently attested elsewhere. See Nordlinger (Chapter 5 of this volume) for a discussion of the re-purposing of case morphology to mark diff erent types of subordinate clause.

5.2 Verbal inflections

Verbal infl ections are found in most Australian languages and they can be relatively complex, particularly in non-Pama-Nyungan languages. This section focuses on the expression of tense, aspect and mood in the verb. The meaning of TAM infl ections can be n otoriously diffi cult for non-native speaker linguists to pin down. Granites and Laughren (2001) discuss the late Ken Hale’s technique for eliciting semantic de-scriptions from native speakers. Their examples attest to the complex semantics that guides native speakers’ usage of Warlpiri verbal morphology.

One way to deal with the insecurity of being a non-native speaker working on such subtle semantics is to look at what is common across a number of languages. Taking this path, Verstraete (2005, 2006) applies his substantial insight into the se-



mantics and pragmatics of mood to the task of understanding the expression of mood in non-Pama-Nyungan languages. He describes mood marking in non-Pama-Nyungan languages as “composite” because it is spread between verbal prefi xes and suffi xes such that it is the combination of prefi x and suffi x morphology that is associated with particular mood meanings. For example in a sentence expressing a meaning such as “They wanted to get the fi re back.” as in (4) from Bunuba, the category “irrealis” is marked in the verb prefi x and past tense is marked in the verb suffi x.⁸

(4) winthali baburru bada iywirrunugu fi re below seize IRR.3s<3nsg.WU2.PST.PL ‘They wanted to get the fi re back.’ (Bunuba: Rumsey 2000: 129, cited by Verstraete 2005: 229)

Verstraete (2006) argues that irrealis infl ection on examples like these, previously described as counterfactual if the events described as intended in the past did not actually take place, is better analysed with reference to intentionality as the counter-factual meaning is implicated rather than entailed.

Building on Verstraete’s work, the current TAMEAL (Tense, Mood, Aspect and Evidentiality in Australian Languages) project brings European specialists in seman-tics together with specialists in the description of Australian languages with the spe-cifi c aim of making comparisons regarding the expression of tense, aspect, mood and evidentiality between Australian languages, and between Australian languages and better known languages. Initial work, published as a special edition of the Australian Journal of Linguistics 32(1) (2012) takes the fi rst steps: identifying new semantic cat-egories and new combinations of known categories in order to incorporate the TAME infl ections of Australian languages into what we understand about those categories elsewhere (Stirling and Dench 2012).

Let us close this section by pointing out that the separation between case-marking and verbal morphology is not always as clear-cut as one might expect. Dench (2003) shows how the past tense verb suffi x in a number of Pilbara languages has developed from a suffi x which marked a verb as being the head of a nominal purposive subordi-nate clause. Evans (2003b) discusses the curious case of “modal case” in Kayardild, whereby both nouns and verbs can take similar suffi xes. He explains how these suf-fi xes developed from case suffi xes to verbal TAM suffi xes. Blake (1993) likewise traces the source of present day verbal suffi xes to originally nominal case-markers.

8 Counterfactual type meanings are expressed in two places in Warlpiri too. The past tense marking is found in the auxiliary and the mood marking on the verb (Legate 2003).



6 Semantic changeAustralianist linguists have discussed a wealth of examples of semantic change, lexicalisation and grammaticalisation of all kinds. In many cases, evidence from Australian languages has provided counterexamples to universalist claims. Evans and Wilkins’ (2000) st udy of perception verbs discussed in § 3.1 showed that terms for knowing tend to develop from terms for hearing in Australian languages rather than terms for seeing, which had been claimed to be universal. It is clear that the unique-ness of Australian Aboriginal cultures has oft en led to characteristic ways of seeing the world (Evans 2003a). Despite the lack of a written record of Australian languages there is ample evidence that similar semantic changes happen again and again in diverse languages (Evans 1990). Evans and Wilkins (2000) suggest a rigorous method for studying semantic change using cross-linguistic data; a change from meaning A to meaning B is only postulated where there is an example in another language of an intermediary word that is polysemous for both meanings A and B. The other impor-tant type of evidence used in their work is the “bridging context” – a context in which a word or construction is ambiguous between meaning A and meaning B; this pro-vides a snapshot of semantic change in progress (see also Evans 1992a; Evans 2003a; Wilkins 1996). This method highlights the role of culture and pragmatics in language change, while also revealing how Australia as a whole forms a Sprachbund in which the same types of semantic change recur across diverse lexemes and pathways.

7 Pragmatics and interactionGiven the close relation between research on semantics and pragmatics it is worth briefl y mentioning some of the important work on pragmatics in Australian languag-es. There has been a recent blossoming of work on interaction, looking at both natural conve rsation and multi-modal communication. An entire chapter could be devoted to research on these topics, but this short section will give a few pointers to recent literature. Walsh (Chapter 8 of this volume) and Eades (Chapter 10) also discuss the documentation of conversation and interactional norms.

David Wilkins and Nicholas Evans have been responsible for a large proportion of the work on the pragmatics of Australian languages. Evans (1992b) is an account of some pragmatic particles in the Mayali (Bininj Gun-wok) while Wilkins (1986) looks at some pragmatic particles in Mparntwe Arrernte. Evans (1993) focusses on the role of inference in dealing with indeterminacy in grammar. Wilkins pioneered work on multi-modal interaction in central Australia. His work includes the nature and use of pointing by Mparntwe Arrernte speakers (Wilkins 1999, 2003), the semantic rela-tions between handsigns and spoken language (Wilkins 1997) and how sand drawing is linked to other forms of communication (Wilkins 1997). The most detailed work



on sign and gesture in Australian languages is Kendon (1988). Work on multi-modal communication has expanded its fi eld of vision with Green (2009), which integrates an analysis of central Australian sand drawings with the narratives they accompany and the signs and gestures used by speakers.⁹

Walsh (2009) summarises various contributions Michael Walsh has made to the development of an account of Aboriginal conversational style since getting the topic on the table in Walsh (1991). Murray Garde has detailed how to refer to people in Bininj Gun-wok from an anthropological perspective (2003; 2008a). Like Garde, Blythe also looks at on how people are referred to in conversation but draws more on Conversation Analysis methodology (Blythe 2009a, 2009b, 2012). Together, their work shows how kin relations form the basis for a highly developed creative art in re-ferring to people, sometimes motivated by taboos on referring to certain kin, at other times motivated by humour. Ilana Mushin draws on the Conversation Analysis tradi-tion in her work on multilingual conversations in which Kriol, Aboriginal English and Garrwa are used, looking at turn-taking, silence and code-switching (see Gardner and Mushin 2007; Mushin and Gardner 2009 and many others).¹⁰

8 ConclusionOf all the subfi elds of linguistics, semantics is perhaps the least amenable to analysis in isolation from a language’s context of use. The topics discussed in this chapter reveal close associations between semantics, culture, cognition and speakers’ way of life. For example, it is impossible to imagine that the complex inventories of kinship terms found in Australian languages (discussed in § 3.3 and § 4.1) are unrelated to the central place kinship takes in social relations in Aboriginal cultures. The work by Garde and Blythe on the use of kinship terms in conversation discussed in § 7 shows that this kinship terminology is not some rarefi ed aspect of culture that is brought out to impress outsiders but is an essential part of everyday language use. Similarly, the absolute systems of spatial orientation discussed in § 4.5 are not reserved only for travelling long distances across inhospitable terrain. Mention of directional terms equivalent to English west or upriver is obligatory in utterances as mundane as ‘Pass the salt’ in many Aboriginal languages. The choice of a spatial orientation system in

9 Some of the work in Green’s thesis will soon be published as a book by Cambridge University Press.10 There is not space to discuss how speakers draw on multilingual resources in interaction here un-fortunately. There is much work on pragmatics and interaction in Aboriginal Languages in Baker et al (2010). A special issue of the Australian Journal of Linguistics (volume 30, number 4, 2010) is dedicated to Studies in Australian Indigenous Conversation and brings together work on a number of Aboriginal languages from a predominantly Conversation Analysis approach.



language is even refl ected in non-verbal tasks, revealing the strength of the link be-tween semantic structure in language and cognition.

The constant sensitivity to the landscape in everyday talk is a feature of all Aboriginal languages, regardless of what system of spatial orientation is used. This clearly relates to the way Aboriginal people interacted with their environment right across Australia. The hunter-gatherer way of life entails reliance on a wide range of fl ora and fauna as well as movement between varied ecosystems over the course of a year. This way of life is refl ected by systems of ethnobiological classifi cation (dis-cussed in § 2.1) and also systems of nominal classifi cation (discussed in § 2.2). The artifi ciality of isolating semantic analysis from its cultural and ecological context is highlighted by Hill’s (2011) work on Umpila colour terms, which reveals that gaps in the Umpila colour system are fi lled by the use of kinship terminology to refer to col-ours that are similar to one another and references to things in the natural world that have a distinctive colour.

Semantic analysis not only draws on our understanding of culture, cognition and the natural world but is also an invaluable tool for improving our understanding of these fi elds. Eff orts to understand social relations in Aboriginal society are greatly improved by analyses of the complex systems of kinship terms, and by combining linguistic analyses of emotion terms with insights from anthropology (Ponsonnet 2010). Our understanding of the environment of northern Australia characterised by its wet/dry seasons and inaccessibility has been improved by thoroughly document-ing Aboriginal terms for seasons (there are oft en 6–10 identifi ed) and new species of yam and oysters have been identifi ed through detailed work on Aboriginal plant and animal names. The recurrence of similar patterns of semantic structure right across the Australian continent suggests widespread social networks that lessened the ef-fects of large distances and low population density. The lack of lingua francas prior to White contact provides evidence that widespread multilingualism enabled communi-cation between groups and this multilingualism would have also enabled the spread of semantic structures between languages (Harvey 2011).

The fi eld of semantics is so vast and work on the semantics of Australian lan-guages has begun so recently that there is still much to do both at the language par-ticular level and the cross-linguistic level. Recent blooming of work on some topics discussed earlier is likely to bear much fruit in time to come. These include the work on conversation and multimodal interaction discussed in § 7 as well as the work on tense, aspect and mood in Australian languages mentioned in § 5.1.2. There are many topics that have barely been discussed in relation to Australian languages. We will canvass here just a few examples chosen more or less at random. Firstly, there is the question of semantic variation. Most Australian languages have quite a large degree of sociolinguistic variation, be it between dialects, clanlects or generations, and there has been little work on semantic variation between speech varieties. There is also plenty of room for work on semantic typology, comparing similar categories across languages in a rigorous and systemic way. For example, many Australian languages



have semantic case. To what extent is a case with the same label, such as locative case, used in the same way across languages? In a similar vein we could compare the systems of nominal classifi cation across Australian languages. We know that certain patterns of classifi cation – such as the existence of a ‘plant’ category – are fairly wide-spread. Does a common set of semantic principles form the basis for most nominal classifi cation systems in Australia? In a very diff erent domain, work on intonation and meaning in Australian languages is also still at an early stage. The importance of intonation in discourse has been vastly underestimated, due to an assumption that languages with free word order do not need to use intonation to package information. However this does not seem to be the case, so there is much scope for investigating the contribution of intonation to creating meaning in Australian languages (Blythe 2009b). Fletcher and Butcher (Chapter 3 of this volume) discuss the pragmatics of intonation and prosody in more detail.

A signifi cant barrier to systematic, large-scale semantic typology is the lack of detailed semantic analysis off ered by most grammars and other descriptive work on Australian languages. Phonological, morphological and syntactic analysis has been privileged in the descriptive tradition, or at least seen as a necessary precursor to semantic and pragmatic analysis. As a result, detailed semantic work is largely re-stricted to extant languages with available fi eldworkers. As semantic descriptions of individual languages grow, and fi eldworkers increasingly turn their attention to questions of meaning and use, there will be greater scope for balanced and rigorous typological comparison. Both individual and the comparative studies of semantics in Australian languages off er a wealth of exciting discoveries to be made.

ReferencesAikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006 Classifi ers and noun classes, semantics. In: Keith Brown (ed.),

Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 463–470. Oxford: Elsevier.Austin, Peter 1982 Transitivity and cognate objects in Australian languages. In: Paul J. Hopper and

Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Studies in Transitivity (Syntax and Semantics 15), 37–47. New York: Academic Press.

Austin, Peter (ed.) 1983 Australian Aboriginal lexicography (Papers in Australian Linguistics 15) Canberra: Australian National University.

Austin, Peter 2003 Australian Aboriginal Lexicography. In: R.R.K. Hartmann (ed.), Lexicography: Critical concepts in linguistics, 288–294. London: Routledge.

Baker, Brett 2007 Ethnobiological classifi cation and the environment in Northern Australia. In: Andrea C. Schalley and Drew Khlentzos (eds.), Mental states. Volume 2: Language and cognitive structure (Studies in Language Companion Series), 239–266. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Baker, Brett, Rod Gardner, Mark Harvey and Ilana Mushin (eds.) 2010 Indigenous language and social identity: Papers in honour of Michael Walsh (Pacifi c Linguistics 626) Canberra: Australian National University.

Berlin, Brent 1992 Ethnobiological classifi cation: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.



Bittner, Maria and Kenneth Hale 1995 Remarks on defi niteness in Warlpiri. In: Emmon W. Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer and Barbara H. Partee (eds.), Quantifi cation in natural languages (Studies in linguistics and philosophy 54), 81–105. Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Blake, Barry J. 1987 Australian Aboriginal Grammar. London: Croom Helm.Blake, Barry 1993 Verb affi xes from case markers: Some Australian examples. La Trobe Working

Papers in Linguistics 6. 33–58.Blythe, Joe 2009a Doing referring in Murriny Patha conversation. Sydney: Sydney University PhD

Thesis.Blythe, Joe. 2009b. Prosodic person reference in Murriny Patha reported interaction. In: Dagmar

Barth-Weingarten, Nicole Dehe and Anne Wichmann (eds.), Where prosody meets pragmatics (Studies in Pragmatics 8), 23–52. Bingley (UK): Emerald.

Blythe, Joe 2012 From passing-gesture to ‘true’ romance: Kin-based teasing in Murriny Patha conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 44. 508–528.

Boroditsky, Lera and Alice Gaby 2010 Remembrance of times East: Aboriginal Australian representations of time. Psychological Science 21(11). 1635–1639.

Bowern, Claire 2009 Naming Bardi places. In: Harold Koch and Luise Hercus (eds.), Aboriginal Placenames: Naming and re-naming the Australian landscape (Aboriginal History Monograph 19), 327–346. Canberra: ANU E Press and Aboriginal History Incorporated.

Bradley, John, Miles Holmes, Dinah Norman Marrngawi, Annie Isaac Karrakayn, Jemima Miller Wuwarlu and Ida Ninganga 2006 Yumbulyumbulmantha Ki-Awarawu (All Kinds of Things from Country): Yanyuwa Ethnobiological Classifi cation. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press.

Breen, Gavan 2002 Making your “skin” fi t properly. In: John Henderson and David Nash (eds.), Language in Native Title (Native Title Research Series), 291–310. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.

Brown, Cecil H. 1985 Mode of subsistence and biological taxonomy. Current Anthropology 26: 43–64.

Burling, Robbins 1970 Man’s Many Voices. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Cooke, Michael 1996 Yolngu Kinship: A mathematics without numbers. In: Michael Cooke (ed.),

Aboriginal Languages in Contemporary Contexts: Yolngu Matha at Galiwin’ku (Contemporary Uses of Aboriginal Languages Research Project). Batchelor: Batchelor College.

Corbett, Greville G. 1991 Gender (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Corris, Miriam, Christopher Manning, Susan Poetsch and Jane Simpson 2004 How useful and usable are dictionaries for speakers of Australian indigenous languages? International Journal of Lexicography 17. 33–68.

Davis, Stephen L. 1982 Colour classifi cation and the Aboriginal classroom. In: Graham McKay and B.A. Sommer (eds.), Applications of linguistics to Australian Aboriginal contexts (Occasional Papers 5), 68–79. Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.

Dench, Alan 1982 Kin Terms and Pronouns of the Panyjima Language of Northwest Western Australia. Anthropological Forum 5 (1). 105–200.

Dench, Alan 2003 From purposive/future to present: Shift ing temporal categories in the Pilbara languages of north west Western Australia. In: Barry J. Blake and Kate Burridge (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2001: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 237), 87–103. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dixon, R. M. W. 1968 Noun classes. Lingua 21. 104–125.Dixon, R. M. W. 1971. A method of semantic description. In: Danny D. Steinberg, & Leon A.

Jakobovits (eds.) Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, 436–471. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



Dixon, R. M. W. 1972 The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dixon, R. M. W. 1977 A Grammar of Yidiny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Dixon, R. M. W. 1980 The languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Dixon, R. M. W. 1982 Noun classes. Where have all the adjectives gone? And other essays in

semantics and syntax (Janua Linguarum. Series Maior 107), 159–183. New York: Mouton.Dixon, R. M. W. 1986. Noun classes and noun classifi cation in typological perspective. In Craig,

Colette (ed.), Noun classes and categorization, 105–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Dixon, R. M. W. 1989 The Dyirbal kinship system. Oceania 59. 245–268.Douglas, W. H. 1976 Aboriginal Categorisation of Natural Features. The Aboriginal Child in School 4.

51–63.Evans, Nicholas. 1990 Without this child: Some regularities of semantic change in the Australian

linguistic area. In: Peter Austin, R. M. W. Dixon, Tom Dutton & Isobel White (eds.), Language and history: Essays in honour of Luise A. Hercus (Pacifi c Linguistics Series C 116), 137–155. Canberra: Australian National University.

Evans, Nicholas 1992a Multiple semiotic systems, hyperpolysemy and the reconstruction of semantic change in Australian languages. In: Günter Kellerman, & Michael D. Morrissey (eds.), Diachrony within synchrony: Language history and cognition: Papers from the international symposium at the University of Duisburg, 26–28 March 1990 (Duisburger Arbeiten zur Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 14), 474–508. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Evans, Nicholas 1992b ‘Wanjh! Bonj! Nja!’: Sequential organisation and social deixis in Mayali interjections. Journal of Pragmatics 18. 225–244.

Evans, Nicholas 1993 Code, inference, placedness and ellipsis. In: Willam A. Foley (ed.), The role of theory in language description, 243–280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Evans, Nicholas 1994 Kayardild. In: Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Semantic and lexical universals – Theory and empirical fi ndings (Studies in Language Companion Series 25), 203–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Evans, Nicholas 1995 A-quantifi ers and scope in Mayali. In: Emmon W. Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer & Barbara H. Partee (eds.), Quantifi cation in natural languages (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 54), 207–270. Dordrecht, The Netherlands & Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Evans, Nicholas 1996 The syntax and semantics of body part incorporation in Mayali. In: Hilary Chappell and William McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part–whole relation (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 14), 65–110. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Evans, Nicholas 1997 Role or cast? Noun incorporation and complex predicates in Mayali. In: Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan & Peter Sells (eds.), Complex predicates (CSLI Lecture Notes 64), 398–430. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Evans, Nicholas 2002 Some distinctive characteristics of the vocabulary in Australian languages. In: D. Alan Cruse, Franz Hundsnurscher, Michael Job & Peter Rolf Lutzeier (eds.), Lexicology: An international handbook on the nature and structure of words and vocabularies (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 21), 147. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Evans, Nicholas 2003a Context, culture and structuration in the languages of Australia. Annual Feview of Anthropology 32. 13–40.

Evans, Nicholas 2003b Typologies of agreement: Some problems from Kayardild. Transactions of the Philological Society 101. 203–234.

Evans, Nicholas 2006 Dyadic constructions. In: Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 24–28. Oxford: Elsevier.



Evans, Nicholas 2007a Warramurrungunji undone: Australian languages in the 51st millennium. In Matthias Brenzinger (ed.), Language diversity endangered (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 181), 342–373. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Evans, Nicholas 2007b Standing up your mind: The semantic fi eld of thinking, remembering and forgetting in Dalabon. In: Mengistu Amberber (ed.), The language of memory in a crosslinguistic perspective (Human Cognitive Processing 21), 67–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Evans, Nicholas 2012 Anything can happen: The verb lexicon and interdisciplinary fi eldwork. In: Nicholas Thieberger (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic fi eldwork, 183–208. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Evans, Nicholas & Hans-Jürgen Sasse 2007 Searching for meaning in the Library of Babel: Field semantics and problems of digital archiving. Archives & Social Studies: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Research 1.

Evans, Nicholas & David Wilkins 2000 In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76: 546–592.

Furphy, Samuel 2001 Aboriginal Place Names and Settler Australian Identity. Melbourne Historical Journal 29. 71–78.

Furphy, Samuel 2002 British Surveyors and Aboriginal Place Names: New South Wales and Port Phillip, 1828–1851. In: Tracey Banivanua Mar and Julie Evans (eds.), Writing colonial histories: Comparative perspectives (University of Melbourne Conference and Seminar Series 11), 23–38. Melbourne: R.M.I.T. Publishing.

Gaby, Alice 2006 The Thaayorre ‘true man’: Lexicon of the human body in an Australian language. Language Sciences 28. 201–220.

Gaby, Alice 2007 Describing cutting and breaking events in Kuuk Thaayorre. Cognitive Linguistics 18. 263–272.

Gaby, Alice 2008 Gut feelings: locating emotion, life force and intellect in the Thaayorre body. In Farzad Sharifi an, Rene Dirven, Ning Yu & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Body, culture and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 7), 27–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Gaby, Alice 2010 From discourse to syntax and back: The lifecycle of Kuuk Thaayorre ergative morphology. Lingua 120. 1677–1692.

Gaby, Alice 2011 Reciprocal-marked and marked reciprocal events in Kuuk Thaayorre. In: Nicholas Evans, Alice Gaby, Stephen C. Levinson and Asifa Majid (eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology (Typological Studies in Language 98), 251–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gaby, Alice 2012 The Thaayorre think of time like they talk of space. Frontiers in Cultural Psychology. (accessed 11 March 2012).

Garde, Murray 2003 Social deixis in Bininj Kun-wok conversation. Brisbane: University of Queensland PhD Thesis.

Garde, Murray 2008a Person reference, proper names and circumspection in Bininj Kunwok conversation. In: Ilana Mushin & Brett Baker (eds.), Discourse and grammar in Australian languages (Studies in Language Companion Series 104), 203–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Garde, Murray 2008b Kun-dangwok: ‘clan lects’ and Ausbau in western Arnhem Land. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 191. 141–169.

Gardner, Rod & Ilana Mushin 2007 Post-start-up overlap and disattentiveness in talk in a Garrwa community. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 30. 1–14.

Geytenbeek, Helen 1982 Nyangumarta kinship: A woman’s viewpoint. In: Susanne Hargrave (ed.), Language and Culture (Work Papers of SIL-AAB SeriesB Volume 8), 19–31. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics.



Giacon, John 2004 Walgett: High hills, cracks in the ground or meeting of the waters. Placenames Australia 4. 8–9.

Goddard, Cliff 1990 The lexical semantics of ‘good feelings’ in Yankunytjatjara. Australian Journal of Linguistics 10 (2). 257–292.

Goddard, Cliff 1991 Anger in the Western Desert: A case study in the cross-cultural semantics of emotion. Man 26. 265–279. Goddard, Cliff & Jean Harkins 2002 Posture, location, existence, and states of being in two Central Australian languages. In: John Newman (ed.), The Linguistics of Standing, Sitting and Lying (Typological Studies in Language 51), 213–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Goddard, Cliff & Nicholas Thieberger 1997 Lexicographic research on Australian languages 1968–1993. In: Michael Walsh & Darrell Tryon (eds.), Boundary rider: Essays in honour of Geoff rey O’Grady (Pacifi c Linguistics Series C 136), 175–208. Canberra: Australian National University.

Graham, Beth 1990 Language and mathematics in some Aboriginal classrooms. In: Christine Walton & William Eggington (eds.), Language: Maintenance, power and education in Australian Aboriginal contexts, 160–165. Darwin, NT: Northern Territory University Press.

Granites, Robin Japanangka & Mary Laughren 2001 Semantic contrasts in Warlpiri verbal morphology: A Warlpiri’s verbal view. In: Jane Simpson, David Nash, Mary Laughren, Barry Alpher & Peter Austin (eds.), 151–159. Forty years on: Ken Hale and Australian languages (Pacifi c Linguistics 512) Canberra: Australian National University. [AQ: page no.s]

Green, Jennifer 2009 Between the earth and the air: Multimodality in Arandic sand stories. Melbourne: University of Melbourne PhD Thesis.

Hale, Kenneth L 1966 Kinship reflections in syntax: Some Australian languages. Word 22 (1–2-3). 318–324.

Hale, Kenneth 1971 A note on a Walbiri tradition of antonymy. In: Danny D Steinberg & Leon A. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, 472–482. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hale, Kenneth 1975 Gaps in grammar and culture. In: M. Dale Kinkade, Kenneth L. Hale & Oswald Werner (eds.), Linguistics and anthropology. In honor of C.F. Voegelin, 295–315. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press.

Hale, Ken 1986 Notes on world view and semantic categories: Some Warlpiri examples. In: Pieter Muysken & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Features and projections, 233–254. Dordrecht: Foris.

Hargrave, Susanne 1982 A report on colour term research in fi ve Aboriginal languages. In Susanne Hargrave (ed.), Language and culture (Work papers of the SIL-AAB Series B Volume 8), 201–226. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Harkins, Jean 1990 Shame and shyness in the Aboriginal classroom: A case for ‘practical semantics’. Australian Journal of Linguistics 10. 293–306.

Harkins, Jean 2001 Talking about anger in Central Australia. In: Jean Harkins & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Emotions in crosslinguistic perspective (Cognitive Linguistics Research 17), 201–220. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Harris, John 1982 Facts and fallacies of Aboriginal number systems. In: Susanne Hargrave (ed.), Language and culture (Work papers of the SIL-AAB Series B Volume 8), 158–181. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Harris, John 1987 Aboriginal and Islander mathematics. Australian Aboriginal Studies 5(2). 29–37.Harvey, Mark 1996 Body parts in Warray. In: Hilary Chappell and William McGregor (eds.), The

grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part–whole relation (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 14), 111–154. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Harvey, Mark & Nicholas Reid (eds.) 1997 Nominal classifi cation in Aboriginal Australia (Studies in Language Companion Series 37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.



Harvey, Mark 2011 Lexical change in pre-colonial Australia. Diachronica 28. 345–381Haviland, John 1979 Guugu Yimidhirr brother-in-law language. Language and Society 8.

365–393.Haviland, John 1993 Anchoring, iconicity and orientation in Guugu Yimithirr pointing gestures.

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3(1): 3–45.Heath, Jeff rey 1978 Linguistics approaches to Nunggubuyu ethnozoology and ethnobotany. In:

L.R. Hiatt (ed.), Australian Aboriginal concepts, 40–55. Canberra & New Jersey: AIAS /Humanities Press.

Heath, Jeff rey 1982 Introduction. In Jeff rey Heath, Francesca Merlan & Alan Rumsey (eds.), Languages of kinship in Aboriginal Australia (Oceania Linguistic Monographs 24), 1–18. Sydney: University of Sydney.

Heath, Jeff rey, Francesca Merlan & Alan Rumsey (eds.) 1982 Languages of kinship in Aboriginal Australia (Oceania Linguistic Monograph 24). Sydney: University of Sydney.

Hercus, Luise A. and I.M. White 1973 Perception of kinship structure reflected in the Adnjamathanha pronouns. In: B. Schebeck, L.A. Hercus &I.M. White, Papers in Australian Linguistics No.6 (Pacifi c Linguistics A-36). Canberra: Australian National University.

Hercus, Luise, Flavia Hodges and Jane Simpson (eds.) 2002 The land is a map: Placenames of Indigenous origin in Australia. Canberra: Pandanus Books & Australian National University.

Hiatt, L. R. 1996 Arguments about Aborigines: Australia and the evolution of social anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hiatt, L. R. 1978 Classifi cation of the emotions. In L. R. Hiatt (ed.), Australian Aboriginal concepts, 183–187. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Hiatt, L. R. (ed.) 1978 Australian Aboriginal concepts. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Hill, Clair 2011 Named and unnamed spaces: Color, kin and the environment in Umpila. The Senses and Society 6. 57–67.

Hosokawa, Komei 1996 “My face am burning!”: Quasi-passive, body parts, and related issues in Yawuru grammar and cultural concepts. In: Hilary Chappell and William McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part–whole relation (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 14), 155–192. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kay, Paul 2003 NSM and the meaning of color words. Theoretical Linguistics 29. 237–245.Kendon, Adam 1988 Sign languages of Aboriginal Australia. Cultural, semiotic and communicative

perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kilham, Christine, Mabel Pamulkan, Jennifer Pootchemunka & Topsy Wolmby 1986 Dictionary and

sourcebook of the Wik-Mungkan language. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Koch, Harold 1982 Kinship Categories in Kaytej Pronouns. In: Jeff rey Heath, Francesca Merlan &

Alan Rumsey (eds.), The languages of kinship in Aboriginal Australia. (Oceania Linguistic Monograph 24), 64–71. Sydney: University of Sydney.

Koch, Harold & Luise Hercus 2009 Aboriginal placenames: Naming and re-naming the Australian landscape (Aboriginal History Monograph 19), 327–346. Canberra: ANU E Press and Aboriginal History Incorporated.

Lakoff , George 1987 Women, fi re, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff , George & Mark Johnson 1999 Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.

Laughren, Mary 1982 Warlpiri kinship structure. In: Jeff rey Heath, Francesca Merlan & Alan Rumsey (eds.), The languages of kinship in Aboriginal Australia (Oceania Linguistic Monograph 24), 72–85. Sydney: University of Sydney.



Laughren, Mary 1984 Remarks on the semantics of body part terminology in Warlpiri. Language in Central Australia 1. 1–9.

Laughren Mary, Kenneth Hale & Robert Hoogenraad forthcoming) Warlpiri dictionary. Unpublished data fi les. Brisbane: University of Queensland.

Leeding, Velma J. 1996 Body parts and possession in Anindilyakwa. In: Hilary Chappell and William McGregor (eds.), The Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on body part terms and the Part–Whole Relation (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 14), 193–250. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Legate, Julie Anne 2003 The morphosemantics of Warlpiri counterfactual conditionals. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 155–162.

Levinson, Stephen C. 1997 Language and cognition: The cognitive consequences of spatial description in Guugu Yimithirr. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 7(1). 98–131.

Levinson, Stephen C. 2003 Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity (Language, Culture and Cognition 5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, Stephen C. & David Wilkins 2006 Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity (Language, Culture and Cognition 6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lowe, Beulah 2004 Yolngu – English Dictionary. Darwin: Aboriginal Resource and Development Services Inc.

Mackman, Doreen & Irra Wangga Language Centre 2011 Wajarri dictionary: The language of the Murchison Region of Western Australia. Rangeway, Geraldton, W.A.: Irra Wangga Language Centre.

Majid, Asifa, Nicholas Evans, Alice Gaby & Stephen C. Levinson 2011 The grammar of exchange: A comparative study of reciprocal constructions across languages, Frontiers in Cultural Psychology 2. 1–15.

McConvell, Patrick 1982 Neutralisation and degrees of respect in Gurindji. In: Jeff rey Heath, Francesca Merlan, & Alan Rumsey (eds.), The languages of kinship in Aboriginal Australia. (Oceania Linguistic Monograph 24), 86–106. Sydney: University of Sydney.

McConvell, Patrick 1985 Time perspective in Australian Aboriginal culture: Two approaches to the origin of subsections. Aboriginal History 9. 53–80.

McConvell, Patrick, Ron Day & Paul Black 1983 Making a Meriam Mer dictionary. In: Peter Austin (ed.), Papers in Australian Linguistics 15: Australian Aboriginal lexicography (Pacifi c Linguistics A-66), 19–30. Canberra: Australian National University.

McConvell, Patrick & Kazuko Obata 2006 A higher order of kinship semantics: Trirelational kinship terms and kin-based pronouns in Australia. Poster presented at the Third Oxford-Kobe Linguistics Seminar: The linguistics of endangered languages, Kobe, Japan, 2–5 April.

McElvenny, James 2008 Mobile phone dictionaries. blogs.usyd.edu.au/elac/2008/07/mobile_phone_dictionaries.html (accessed 9 May 2011).

McGregor, William1989 Gooniyandi Mother-in-Law Language: Dialect, register, and/or code? In: Ulrich Ammon (ed.), Status and function of languages and their varieties (Foundations of Communication), 630–656. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

McGregor, William 1996a Dyadic and polyadic kin terms in Gooniyandi. Anthropological Linguistics 38(2). 216–247.

McGregor, William 1996b The grammar of nominal prefi xing in Nyulnyul. In:: Hilary Chappell and William McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part–whole relation (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 14), 251–292. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

McGregor, William 2000 Reflexive and reciprocal constructions in Nyulnyulan languages. In: Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci Curl (eds.), Reciprocals: Forms and functions (Typological Studies in Language 41), 85–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.



McGregor, William 2010 Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 120. 1610–1636.

McKay, Graham 1996 Body parts, possession marking and nominal classes in Ndjébbana. In: Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part–whole relation (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 14), 193–326. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

McKnight, David 1999 People, countries and the rainbow serpent: Systems of classifi cation among the Lardil of Mornington Island. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Meakins, Felicity & Carmel O’Shannessy 2010 Ordering arguments about: word order and discourse motivations in the development and use of the ergative marker in two Australian mixed languages. Lingua 120. 1693–1713

Meggitt, M. J. 1962 Desert people: A study of the Walbiri Aborigines of Central Australia. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.

Merlan, Francesca 1981 Land, language and social identity in Aboriginal Australia. Mankind 13.133–148.

Merlan, Francesca & Jeff rey Heath 1982 Dyadic kinship terms. In: Jeff rey Heath, Francesca Merlan & Alan Rumsey (eds.), Languages of kinship in Aboriginal Australia (Oceania Linguistic Monographs 24), 107–124. Sydney: University of Sydney.

Morice, Rodney 1978 Psychiatric diagnosis in a transcultural setting: The importance of lexical categories. British Journal of Psychiatry 132. 87–95.

Morphy, Frances 1977 Language and moiety: Sociolectal variation in a Yu:lngu language of north-east Arnhem Land. Canberra Anthropology 1(1). 51–60.

Mushin, Ilana & Rod Gardner 2009 Silence is talk: Conversational silence in Australian Aboriginal talk-in-interaction. Journal of pragmatics 41. 2033–2052.

Myers, Fred R. 1988 The logic and meaning of anger among Pintupi Aborigines. Man 23. 589–610.Ngakulmungan Kangka Leman & Kenneth L. Hale 1997 Lardil dictionary: A vocabulary of the

language of the Lardil people, Mornington Island, Gulf of Carpentaria, Queensland: with English–Lardil fi nder list. Gununa, Qld: Mornington Shire Council.

Nordlinger, Rachel forthcoming) Reciprocals in Murrinh-Patha.O’Grady, Geoff rey N. & Kathleen A. Mooney 1973 Nyangumarda kinship terminology.

Anthropological Linguistics 15 (1). 1‐23Pederson, Eric, Eve Danziger, David Wilkins, Stephen C. Levinson, Sotaro Kita & Gunter Senft

1998 Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language 74. 557–589.Pensalfi ni, Robert J. 1999 The rise of case suffi xes as discourse markers in Jingulu – A case study of

innovation in an obsolescent language. Australian Journal of Linguistics 19. 225–240.Plaster, Keith & Maria Polinsky 2010 Features in categorization, or a new look at an old problem. In:

Anna Kibort & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Features: Perspectives on a key notion in Linguistics, 109–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ponsonnet, Maı̈a 2010 Aspects of the semantics of emotions and feelings in Dalabon (south-western Arnhem Land, Australia). The Australian Journal of Anthropology 21. 367–389.

Povinelli, Elizabeth 1990 Emiyenggal and Batjemal folk classifi cations, Cox Peninsula, Northern Territory: Figuring continuity and contingency. Australian Aboriginal Studies 1990/2. 53–59.

Puruntatameri, Justin, Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory & Tiwi Land Council 2001 Tiwi plants and animals: Aboriginal flora and fauna knowledge from Bathurst and Melville Islands, northern Australia. Darwin: Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory & The Tiwi Land Council.

Reid, Nicholas 2002 Sit right down the back: Serialized posture verbs in Ngan’gityemerri and other Northern Australian languages. In: John Newman (ed.), The linguistics of sitting, standing and lying (Typological Studies in Language 51), 239–268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.



Riemer, Nick 2005 The semantics of polysemy: Reading meaning in English and Warlpiri (Cognitive Linguistics Research 30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Rigsby, Bruce & Peter Sutton 1982 Speech communities in Aboriginal Australia. Anthropological Forum 5. 8–23.

Rumsey, Alan 1981 Kinship and Context among the Ngarinyin. Oceania 51. 181–192.Rumsey, Alan 1993 Language and territoriality in Aboriginal Australia. In: Michael Walsh & Colin

Yallop (eds.), Language and culture in Aboriginal Australia, 191–206. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.

Rumsey, Alan 2001 On the syntax and semantics of trying. In: Jane Simpson, David Nash, Mary Laughren, Barry Alpher & Peter Austin (eds.), Forty years on: Ken Hale and Australian languages (Pacifi c Linguistics 512), 353–363. Canberra: Australian National University.

Sands, Kristina 1995 Nominal classifi cation in Australia. Anthropological linguistics 37. 247–346.Sayers, Barbara J. 1982 Aboriginal mathematics concepts: A cultural and linguistic explanation for

some of the problems. In Susanne Hargrave (ed.), Language and culture (Work Papers of SIL-AAB SeriesB Volume 8), 183–200. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Schebeck, B. 1973 The Adnjamathanha personal pronoun and the “Wailpi kinship system”. In: B. Schebeck, L.A. Hercus & I. M. White, Papers in Australian Linguistics No.6 (Pacifi c Linguistics A-36), 1–45. Canberra: Australian National University.

Scheff ler, Harold 1978 Australian kin classifi cation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Schultze-Berndt, Eva 2006 Sketch of a Jaminjung grammar of space. In: Stephen C. Levinson &

David Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity (Language, Culture and Cognition 6), 63–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Simpson, Jane 1993 Making dictionaries. In: Michael Walsh & Colin Yallop (eds.), Language and culture in Aboriginal Australia, 123–144. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.

Singer, Ruth 2006 Agreement in Mawng: Productive and lexicalised uses of verbal gender agreement in an Australian language. Melbourne: University of Melbourne PhD thesis http://eprints.infodiv.unimelb.edu.au/archive/00003242/ (accessed 18 February 2013)

Singer, Ruth 2010 Creativity in the use of gender agreement in Mawng: How the discourse functions of a gender system can approach those of a classifi er system. Studies in Language 34. 382–416.

Singer, Ruth 2011 Strategies for encoding reciprocity in Mawng. In: Nicholas Evans, Alice Gaby, Stephen C. Levinson and Asifa Majid (eds.), Reciprocals and Semantic Typology (Typological Studies in Language 98), 233–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Smith, Ian 1986 Language contact and the life or death of Kugu Muminh. In: Joshua A. Fishman, Andree Tabouret-Keller, Michael Clyne, Bh. Krishnamurti and Mohamed Abdulaziz (eds), Sociolinguistics and the sociology of language, 513–532. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Smith, Ian & and Steve Johnson 2000 Kugu Nganhcara. In: R. M. W. Dixon and Barry J. Blake (eds.), The Handbook of Australian Languages Vol. 5, 357–489. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sommer, Bruce 1978 ‘Eye’ and ‘no-good’ in semantic extension. In: L. R. Hiatt (ed.), Australian Aboriginal concepts, 178–181. Canberra & New Jersey: AIAS & Humanities Press.

Stanner, W. E. H. 1979 Durmugam on kinship and subsections. Canberra Anthropology 2(2). 46–56.

Stirling, Lesley & Alan Dench 2012 Tense, aspect, modality and evidentiality in Australian languages: Foreword. Australian Journal of Linguistics 32. 1–6.

Stokes, Judith 1982 A description of the mathematical concepts of Groote Eylandt Aborigines. In: Susanne Hargrave (ed.), Language and culture (Work Papers of SIL-AAB SeriesB Volume 8), 33–152. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Sweetser, Eve 1990 From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



Tonkinson, Robert 1978 Semen versus spirit-child in a Western Desert culture. In: L. R. Hiatt (ed.), Australian Aboriginal concepts, 81–92 Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Trewin, Arthur 1971 Mathematics with a diff erence. Melbourne: Macmillan.Turpin, Myfany 2002 Body part terms in Kaytetye feeling expressions. Pragmatics and Cognition

10(1). 271–305.Turpin, Myfany & Alison Ross (compilers.) 2012. Kaytetye to English dictionary. Alice Springs: IAD

Press.Verstraete, Jean-Christophe 2005 The semantics and pragmatics of composite mood marking: The

non–Pama-Nyungan languages of northern Australia. Linguistic Typology 9. 223–268.Verstraete, Jean-Christophe 2006 The nature of irreality in the past domain: Evidence from past

intentional constructions in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 26. 59–80.Verstraete, Jean-Christophe 2010 Animacy and information structure in the system of ergative

marking in Umpithamu. Lingua 120. 1637–1657.Waddy, Julie 1982 Biological classifi cation from a Groote Eylandt Aborigine’s point of view. Journal

of Ethnobiology 2(1). 63–77.Wafer, James 1981 A simple introduction to Central Australian kinship systems. Alice Springs:

Institute for Aboriginal Development.Walsh, Michael 1991 Conversational styles and inter-cultural communication: An example from

northern Australia. Australian Journal of Communication 18. 1–12.Walsh, Michael 1993 Classifying the world in an Aboriginal language. In: Michael Walsh & Colin

Yallop (eds.), Language and culture in Aboriginal Australia, 107–122. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.

Walsh, Michael 1996 Body parts in Murrinh-Patha: Incorporation, grammar and metaphor. In: Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part–whole relation (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 14), 327–382. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Walsh, Michael 2009 Some neo-Gricean Maxims for Aboriginal Australia. Paper presented at the Australian Languages WorkshopAustralian National University Kioloa Campus, 20–22 March 2009.

Watson, H. 1988 Language and mathematics for Aboriginal-Australian children. Language and Education 2. 255–273.

Wierzbicka, Anna 1986 Semantics and the interpretation of cultures: the meaning of alternate generations devices in Australian languages. Man 21. 24–49.

Wierzbicka, Anna 1999 Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wightman, Glenn, Jessie Garalnganjak Roberts & Lorraine Williams 1992 Mangarrayi ethnobotany: Aboriginal plant use from the Elsey area, northern Australia. Palmerston, NT: Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory.

Wilkins, David P. 1984 Nominal reduplication in Mparntwe Arrernte. Language in Central Australia 1. 16–22

Wilkins, David P. 1986 Particles/clitics for criticism and complaint in Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda). Journal of Pragmatics 10. 575–596.

Wilkins, David P. 1996 Natural tendencies of semantic change and the search for cognates. In: Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change, 264–304. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wilkins, David P. 1997 Handsigns and hyperpolysemy: Exploring the cultural foundations of semantic association. In: Darrell Tryon & Michael Walsh (eds.), Boundary rider: Essays in honour of Geoff rey O’Grady (Pacifi c Linguistics C 136), 413–444. Canberra: Australian National University.



Wilkins, David P. 1999 Spatial deixis in Arrernte speech and gesture: On the analysis of a species of composite signal as used by a Central Australian Aboriginal group. In: Elizabeth André, Massimo Poesio, and Hannes Rieser (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Deixis, Demonstration and Deictic Belief in Multimedia Contexts, 30–42 Utrecht: Eleventh European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information.

Wilkins, David P. 2000 Ants, ancestors and medicine: A semantic and pragmatical account of classifi er constructions in Arrernte (Central Australia). In: Gunter Senft (ed.), Systems of nominal classifi cation (Language, Culture and Cognition 4), 147–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wilkins, David P. 2003 Why pointing with the index fi nger is not a universal (in sociocultural and semiotic terms). In: Sotaro Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, 171–215. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Wilkins, David P. 2004 The verbalization of motion evens in Arrernte. In: Sven Stroemqvist & Ludo Verhoeven (eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives, 143–157. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wilkinson, Melanie 2011 Number and two languages in the early years: Report on a project with paraprofessional indigenous teachers in two NT North East Arnhem Yolŋu schools. Paper presented at the Australian Linguistics Society Annual Conference, Australian National University, Canberra, 1–4 December.

Wilson, Aidan 2010 Electronic dictionaries for language reclamation. In: John Hobson, Kevin Lowe, Susan Poetsch & Michael Walsh (eds.), Re-awakening languages: Theory and practice in the revitalisation of Australia’s Indigenous language, 339–347. Sydney: Sydney University Press.

Wilson, Stephen & Mark Harvey 1999 Wagiman Online Dictionary [Online]. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. www.arts.usyd.edu.au/departs/linguistics/research/wagiman/ (accessed 6 May 2011).

Wurm, Stephen 1972 Languages of Australia and Tasmania (Janua Linguarum, Series Critica 1). The Hague: Mouton.

Yallop, Collin 1982 Australian Aboriginal languages.London: André Deutsch.


Gaby, Alice & Ruth Singer. 2014. Semantics of Australian Aboriginal languages. In Rachel Nordlinger...

Documents

Transcript of Gaby, Alice & Ruth Singer. 2014. Semantics of Australian Aboriginal languages. In Rachel Nordlinger...