Culture, Interaction and Person Reference in an Australian Language: An Ethnography of Bininj Gunwok Communication by Murray Garde

Abstract

Reviewed by: Culture, Interaction and Person Reference in an Australian Language: An Ethnography of Bininj Gunwok Communication by Murray Garde William B. McGregor Culture, Interaction and Person Reference in an Australian Language: An Ethnography of Bininj Gunwok Communication. Murray Garde. Culture and Language Use 11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2013. Pp. xx + 274. $149.00 (hardcover). This book makes a very welcome and important contribution to the study of personreference in the Australian language Bininj Gunwok (non-Pama-Nyungan, Arnhem Land). It addresses from ethnographic and linguistic perspectives the problem of how speakers of the language know who is being referred to in discourse. The author himself is especially well placed to undertake this study, having extensive and rich experience in the field with speakers of the language extending over a couple of decades–“the envy of any true ethnographer,” as John Haviland puts it on the dust jacket–and a high level of speaking control of the language. The book comprises nine chapters, the first of which presents background information on the language, the language situation, and contact history. This chapter also sets the scene for the investigation by overviewing the approach taken and delimiting the domain of investigation. Chapter 2 presents the kinship systems and social categories (principally moieties and subsections) of Bininj Gunwok, some of which differ markedly across the regional varieties. As in Australian Aboriginal societies generally, kinship is universal in the sense that everyone in the known social universe is incorporated. There is detailed discussion of the kinship system, the Crow-style generation skewing that is deployed, the system of basic (binary) kinship terms, and the social categories. The indexical functions of these terminologies in person reference are discussed, as is how variation in the systems can be deployed by speakers for purposes of affiliation and disaffiliation. Chapter 3 surveys the linguistic means of referring to people in Bininj Gunwok, including the use of basic kin terms, dyadic kin terms (i.e., kin terms that denote two referents in the specified relationship), kinship verbs, subsections, clan names, nicknames, etc. Extensive and illuminating discussion is provided of examples of use of these types of expression. It is shown that reference to persons is often achieved via the enumeration of clues to the referent’s identity, not in response to repair initiation but in a progression from less precise to more precise specification that constructs an increasingly precise recognitional profile of the referent. Different sex siblings are in an avoidance relation, and there is especially interesting discussion of reference to and address of cross-sex siblings–the brother typically uses a range of malonisms (or dysphemisms), [End Page 453] while the sister employs circumspection. The conventions can be flouted for interactive purposes; an instructive example is discussed of a husband shouting out to his wife the personal name of her brother in an expression of frustration and anger (pp. 85–87). This problematic kinship relation is returned to on a number of subsequent occasions. The kun-debi system of “triadic” kin terms–i.e., kin terms that index the kin relations between three persons rather than two (as in the case of basic binary kin terms), also known as “triangular” and “ternary” terms–is the topic of chapter 4. (The term “triadic” is somewhat unfortunate: “dyadic” is employed for kin terms that specify two referents, whilst “triadic” terms specify just one referent, not three, although they do imply three kin relations.) Bininj Gunwok has a very extensive set of triadic kin terms, numbering about 170–many more than documented for most other Australian languages (e.g., O’Grady and Mooney 1973; McConvell 1982; McGregor 1996). The forms and meanings of these terms are discussed in detail, including the factors motivating choice of center (propositus) and perspective. So also is their use in establishing reference. Garde shows that they have limited value as recognitionals, and suggests (p. 134) that a factor motivating their employment may be to encode multiple perspectives on the referents. Chapter 5 highlights the (apparent) referential obscurity that is typical of Bininj Gunwok conversation and narrative. The applicability of pragmatic maxims and conversation analytic preferences across the board, in all interaction types, is questioned, and it...