.LQVKLS�DQG�&ROOHFWLYH�$FWLYLW\�LQ�WKH�1JD\DUGD�/DQJXDJHV�RI�$XVWUDOLD$XWKRU�V���$ODQ�'HQFK5HYLHZHG�ZRUN�V��6RXUFH��/DQJXDJH�LQ�6RFLHW\��9RO������1R�����6HS����������SS���������3XEOLVKHG�E\��Cambridge University Press6WDEOH�85/��http://www.jstor.org/stable/4167857 .$FFHVVHG������������������

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Languagein Society.

http://www.jstor.org

Lang. Soc. i6, 321-340. Printed in the United States of America

Kinship and collective activity in the Ngayarda languages of Australia* ALAN DENCH

Department of Anthropology University of Western Australia

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the functions of a verbal derivational suffix found in the Ngayarda languages Panyjima, Martuthunira, Yinyjiparnti, and Kur- rama. This suffix, which appears at first blush to be an essentially syntactic device very like the reciprocal suffix found in other Australian languages, may be used to indicate the existence of a particular kin relationship be- tween participants involved in the action described by a verb. The paper presents firstly the more general functions of the suffix in the Ngayarda languages and then discusses the use of the suffix to mark kin relationships. It is argued that the general "collective activity" meaning of the suffix has generalised to the marking of certain kin relationships through the recogni- tion that collective activity is a feature of these particular relationships. The successful analysis of the data thus relies on a knowledge of the social uses to which utterances involving the suffix are put. (Anthropological lin- guistics, sociolinguistics, syntactic theory, cultural anthropology, Aus- tralian linguistics)

REFLEXIVE AND RECIPROCAL SUFFIXES IN AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

Most of the nonprefixing languages of Australia have verbal derivational suffixes which derive an intransitive verb with reflexive or reciprocal meaning from a transitive verb. For example, Dyirbal has separate reflexive (I) and reciprocal (2) derivational suffixes, as illustrated in the following sentences taken from Dixon (I980:303, 433),1

(1) bayi yara gunba-y:rri-nyu baagu barri-ggu. HE-ABS man-ABS cut -REFL-PRES IT-INST axe -INST The man is cutting himself with an axe.

(2) bayi yara-rrji gunbal-gunbal -nbarri -nyu barri-ggu. HE-ABS man-PLURAL-ABS cut -REDUP-RECIP-PRES axe -INST The men are cutting each other with axes.

Dixon notes that "[r]eflexive and reciprocal verbs occur only in intransitive constructions - the single core NP is in S (intransitive subject] function" (I980:433). Generally, reciprocal and reflexive clauses are considered to be derived from constructions involving both subject and object arguments, the C) I987 Cambridge University Press 0047-4045/87 $5.oo+ .oo

321

ALAN DENCH

resulting intransitive clause having a subject which is at once deep transitive subject and deep transitive object. The essential features of the suffixes are their intransitivising function and their reflexive and/or reciprocal meaning.

Morphy (1983), in a grammar of the Djapu dialect of the Yolngu language, questions the general assumption that reflexive/reciprocal suffixes affect (ex- clude) transitivity. She presents a number of arguments against the conventional treatment of the unitary reflexive/reciprocal suffix, -mi, in Djapu. Two of the arguments are relevant here. First, inherently intransitive verb stems may also take the reflexive/reciprocal suffix. Further, when attached to intransitive verbs the suffix describes an activity which the participants (denoted by a nonsingular subject NP) engage in together, rather than an action performed by one partici- pant on another. This reading is also available for transitive verb stems, and thus the meaning of the suffix is not strictly reflexive/reciprocal. Second, reflex- ive/reciprocal verbs may take object arguments. The appearance of objects in reflexive/reciprocal constructions is more difficult to explain but in any case suggests that a straightforward description of the way in which the Djapu suffix alters the argument structure of verbs is not possible. Morphy concludes, "The use of the -mi construction simply indicates that the participants are engaged in the activity together. The assigning of particular roles, and hence of syntactic cases, to the participants is not part of the meaning of the construction" (Morphy I983:1 9). As we shall see, equivalent arguments can be used to show that the corresponding verbal suffix in the Ngayarda languages does not affect the argu- ment structure of verbs, and indeed the suffix has a core meaning very similar to that suggested for the Djapu -mi suffix. For this reason, I label the Ngayarda suffix "collective" rather than "reciprocal."

In the following sections I will outline the range of functions of the collective suffix. First, I will describe the more conventional uses of the collective suffix and justify the use of the label "collective" rather than "reciprocal." Then I will introduce the role of the suffix in marking kin relationships and show how this use can be related to the more general collective meaning. Finally, I discuss how a unified description of the collective suffix in the Ngayarda languages must be approached through an understanding of its semantics rather than its syntax.

THE MAIN FUNCTIONS OF THE NGAYARDA COLLECTIVE SUFFIX

This section describes the main uses of the collective suffix in the Ngayarda languages. Unlike the reflexive/reciprocal suffix described above for Djapu, the collective suffix in the Ngayarda languages does not have a reflexive function. Reflexives are handled by a separate reflexive nominal in Martuthunira and Yinyjiparnti, and by a postinflectional clitic to verbs in Panyjima.

Although the Ngayarda languages fonn a subgroup, it is not clear at what level the various forms of the collective suffix are related. Table I lists the forms of the collective suffixes in Martuthunira, Panyjima (Dench I98I), and Yinyjiparnti

322

KINSHIP AND COLLECTIVE ACTIVITY

TABLE I. Collective suffix forms

Conjugation

Y/0 L R N

Martuthunira -marri -yarri -yarri n/a -yarria -lwarrib

Panyjima -nyayi -nmayi n/a n/a Yinyjiparnti -marri -nmarri -rnmarri -nmarri

.nyjarriC

aThe -yari Y-conjugation variant in Martuthunira is restricted to three transitive stems which each have a final u vowel. These are kangku- 'carry', yungku- 'give', and nhawu- 'see'. All three verbs are derived from the old future forms of monosyllabic verbs. bThfe choice between the forms of the collective suffix in the L-con- jugation are conditioned by the length of the verb stem. Dimoric mono- morphemic verb stems take the -yarri suffix while monomorphemic stems of more than two mora take the -lwarri suffix. cThe -nyjarri Y-conjugation variant in Yinyjiparnti also appears to be quite restricted. Wordick (1982:90) suggests that it is the form chosen for transitive verbs with a fmal i or u vowel. His dictionary only lists two verbs which take this suffix: yungku- 'give' and wanyjaarri- 'hear, listen'. The verb ngarrku-Y 'eat' which would appear to fit Wordick's criteria for -nyjarri takes the more general -marri form. Wordick de- scribes a further variant of the -nyjarri form which appears on twansitive verbs of the Y-conjugation having a final a vowel. Again, he lists only the one example wangka- 'speak'.

(Wordick I982).2 The Kurrama data are incomplete but appear to most resemble Yinyjiparnti. While the suffixes in the different languages appear to be cognate, it is not clear that a single set of forms should be reconstructed for proto- Ngayarda.3

The suffix forms in all three languages are subject to some morphophonemic alternation. First, the L-conjugation form is shortened to the syllable -rril-yi following the causative derivational suffix -ma-L. Second, the Martuthunira forms merge with a following Relative same-subject inflectional suffix -rra. For example, these two rules in Martuthunira can produce the following derivational sequence:

*muthumuthuma -yam -rra cool -CAUS-COLL-RELss

* muthumuthu -ma -rri- rra *Muthumuthu-ma-rra muthumuthumarra cool+CAUS+RECIP+RELss

The collective suffix in Martuthunira usually indicates that the activity de- scribed by the verb stem is performed together by the participants denoted by the nonsingular subject NP. The following examples illustrate the collective suffix

323

ALAN DENCH

on intransitive verb stems (in all examples that follow, collective verbs will be underlined).

(3) kulhampa-ngara puni-marri -layi tharrwa-lu thawura-la -rru. fish -PLURAL go -COLL-FUT enter -PURPss net -LOC-NOW The fish will all swim together into the net.

(4) ngaliwa nyina-marri -layi wangkarnu-marra. lpl(inc) sit -COLL -FUT talk-COLL -RELss We'll sit around and have a talk.

Where the verb is transitive, a reciprocal reading is possible but is not obligatory. In example (5), the informant gave a reciprocal reading in translation. By con- trast, the transitive verb in (6) and (7) is given a collective interpretation.

(5) nhartu-npa-lha-lwa ngula? marrari-wirraa ngalal nhawu-yarra what-INCH-PAST-ID IGNOR word -PRIV just look-COLL-RELss marrari-wirraa, kamparta-ma-rri-nguru. wantharni-ma -rri -layi? word -PRIV angry-CAUS-COLL-PRES how -CAUS-COLL-FUT parrungka-marri-layi wiyaa. shout -COLL -FUT maybe What happened? They're just looking at each other without a word, making each other angry. What will they do next? Maybe they'll start shouting at each other.

(6) nganarna murla-a wantha-lwayara pawulu-ngara -a mungka-yarri-waa. lpl(exc) meat-ACC leave -HABIT child-PLURAL-ACC eat -COLL-PURPs=o We used to leave the kids some meat so they could have a feed.

(7) wiruwanti yirla karlwa-marri-layi, ngartil waruul mungka-yarri -layi ngurnu morning only get up-COLL -FUT again still eat -COLL -FUT thatACC tharnta-a. euro -ACC In the morning we'll all get up, and we'll still have another feed of that euro (hill kangaroo).

Since the transitive object of the verb may remain unchanged when the collective suffix is added, it is clear that the suffix has no intransitivising properties in Martuthunira. The suffix performs the purely semantic function of specifying that the verb action is performed by a group.

In Panyjima and Yinyjipamti the usual interpretation of the collective suffix is slightly different. While on intransitive stems the usual reading is collective activity, on transitive verb stems it is reciprocal. Although there are many exam- ples in Martuthunira where a transitive verb marked with the suffix is given a collective interpretation, this is very rare in Panyjima. Wordick (I982) makes a similar assertion for Yinyjiparnti, noting that his data included no example of a collective marked transitive verb interpreted other than as reciprocal. The follow- ing examples illustrate the functions of the Panyjima collective suffix on intran- sitive (8 & 9) and transitive (io & i i) verb stems.

(8) ngunha-kutha marlpa-kutha karri-nyayi-ku. that -DUAL man -DUAL stand-COLL-PRES Those two people are standing together.

(9) ngatha wiya-rna nhupalukuru-ku panti-nyayi -jangu. lsgNOM see-PAST 2pl -ACC sit -COLL -REL I saw you all sitting together.

324

KINSHIP AND COLLECTIVE ACTIVITY

(10) ngatha wiya-rna ngunha-kutha -ku jilya-kutha -ku lsgNOM see-PAST that -DUAL-ACC child-DUAL-ACC thali-nmayi-jangu. kick -COLL -REL I saw those two kids kicking each other.

(11) nyiya-kutha warlipi-kutha pinyarri-ku katama-yi-ku. this -DUAL boy -DUAL fight -ACC hit-COLL-PRES These two boys are fighting, hitting each other.

Panyjima makes little use of the collective reading. Even the appearance of the suffix on intransitive stems, which require the collective reading, is relatively infrequent. Nevertheless, the use of the label "collective" is justified, given the extended uses of the suffix to be discussed in the next section.

To summarise so far, we have identified a verbal suffix in the Ngayarda languages which lends a general collective reading to the verb to which it is attached. We might best describe this suffix as a morpheme deriving a new verb lexeme which requires a nonsingular subject and has the added meaning that the activity is performed together by the participants denoted by the subject NP. Because the collective suffix may occur on intransitive verb roots, and because a transitive object may appear with a verb bearing the suffix, it cannot be described as an intransitivising device like reflexive/reciprocal suffixes in other Australian languages.

This departure from an expected pattern is due in part to the status of tran- sitivity as a syntactic category in the Ngayarda languages generally. Now, tran- sitivity has been the subject of much attention in recent linguistic theoretical discussion. In particular, an influential paper by Hopper and Thompson (I980) has questioned the traditional view that it is possible to make a clear division between transitive and intransitive constructions. They argue that transitivity, which is properly a feature of clauses, is affected by a number of different properties of a predicate and its arguments. This results in a cline whereby particular constructions can be considered more or less transitive in comparison with other constructions. It follows, also, that transitivity contrasts will assume greater or lesser importance in different languages, depending on the degree to which inherent transitivity factors are reinforced and employed in the organiza- tion of syntax.

In most Australian languages transitivity is an extremely pervasive syntactic category, largely due to the fact that these languages have an ergative type case- marking pattern, in which transitive subjects are marked in one way, intransitive subjects and transitive objects in another (the same) way. However, unlike most Australian languages, those of the Ngayarda group have evolved a nomi- native/accusative case-marking system (Dench I982b), a change which has re- sulted in a reduction in the importance of transitivity in these languages. The loss of a strong transitivity contrast has meant that the reciprocal suffix has no important part to play in syntactic organization, and this freedom has allowed the

325

ALAN DENCH

extension of the suffix function into an area largely unaffected by syntactic phenomena, the marking of kinship relationships.

KINSHIP-DEFINED COLLECTIVE ACTIVITY

A large number of examples appearing in the Panyjima and Martuthunira data do not conform to the general characterisation of the "collective" suffix given in the last section. The following Panyjima examples show that the collective suffix may appear on verbs in clauses with singular subjects and for which no clear collective meaning is understood.

(12) nyinta wiya-nmayi -nha marrkara-ngarli -ku -rla? 2sgNOM see -COLE-PAT brother -PLURAL-ACC-FORE Did you see your younger brothers?

(13) nyinta jartunta -ku wangka-nyayi -rta, ngatha yana-rta ngunha -yu 2sgNOM Bro-in-law-ACC tell -COLL-FUT IsgNOM go -FUT that -ACC walypala -ku. white man-ACC You tell that brother-in-law of yours (my son-in-law) that I'm going to see the whitefellow.

(14) marrkara -ku wantha-nmayi-nha ngartimama -a -ku wantha-nmayi-nha, brother -ACC leave -COLL-PAST Mo & Fa -LOC-ACC leave -COLL-PAST yikakula yana-rta mantu-yu watharri-ku. alone go -FUT meat -ACC look for -PRES He left his younger brother with their parents, so he could go looking for meat on his own.

(15) nyiya karipa-nyayi-ku wiya-larta panti-jangu karnti-ka -ku. this cimb ICOLLFPRES see -FUT sit -REL tree -LOC-ACC This one is climbing up to see that one sitting in the tree.

While it may be possible to read some notion of collective activity into (I2 & 13), perfonned by the subject together with the object of the verb, this is clearly not possible for (14 & I5). The following Martuthunira (I6 & 17) and Kurrama (i8) examples illustrate the same pattem.

(16) ngunhu -lwa ngathu kartatha-rnu, ngurnu -marta-lu -lwa thatNOM-ID IsgEFF carve -PASSP thatACC-PROP-EFF-ID thani-yarri -Iha ngurnu wartirra-a ngunhu kanyara. hit -COLL-PAST thatACC woman -ACC thatNOM man That one was carved by me. That's the one that the man hit the woman with.

(17) kartu wuraal yungku-marri -layi yarta-a yirnala -a? kayarra -maria 2sgNOM well give -COLL-FMT other-ACC thisDEF-ACC two -PROP warnu, kalika-a ngawurr -marta-a yungku -layi kalika-a. ASSERT one -ACC foam -PROP-ACC give -FUTone -ACC Well can you give one to this other fellow here? You've got two haven't you? Well give him one cake of soap.

(18) muntikuria -wa, yayi -warri-nha yanku-nba -wa true enough-TOP aunty-DEC-PN go -PAST-TOP parntaya-nmarri-lu ngunyjaatpa meet -COLT-PURP themACC True enough, old aunty that we lost went off to meet up with those people (her brothers).

326

KINSHIP AND COLLECTIVE ACTIVITY

The collective suffix in the above Panyjima, Martuthunira, and Kurrama exam- ples serves to indicate the existence of a particular kin relationship between different participants in the clause. Put simply, the appearance of the suffix indicates that the participants are in the same set of alternating generations. Wordick (I982) does not mention this function of the collective suffix in his Yinyjiparnti grammar. However, the fact that such uses occur in Kurrama texts, and given that the Yinyjiparnti form part of a wider cultural group with the Panyjima and Kurrama, we might expect that such uses occur in this language also.

To understand this function of the collective suffix it is necessary, first, to discuss the essential features of the Panyjima and Martuthunira kinship systems. This will involve a description of the principles of the systems as well as some discussion of the role of kinship in organising social interaction in the Panyjima and Martuthunira speech communities. NGAYARDA KINSHIP SYSTEMS

In this section I will describe the main features of the kinship systems of the Ngayarda language group, using as a starting point the Panyjima system. The Panyjima kinship system is quite different from the Martuthunira system in important ways, but these differences do not affect the analysis of the collective suffix. A brief comparison of the two systems will be made in the latter part of this section.

The Panyjima kinship system, like those of its neighbours Yinyjiparnti and Kurrama, can be classified as of the Kariera type, and incorporates four named sections (for a succinct introduction to Australian systems see Heath [1982:2- 91). The four sections are set out in Figure i. All members of the community fall into one or another section, and the preferred marriage patterns (for the Kariera system ego marries a classificatory mother's brother's child) can be reckoned in terms of section names. Similarly, the section membership of children can be reckoned from the section membership of their parents. For example, a Panaka man will marry a Karimarra woman. From Figure I, a Panaka man's children will be in the Milangka section. A Panaka woman will typically marry a Ka- rimarra man, and her children will be in the Purungu section.

Section membership is determined unilaterally, that is through both father and mother. While in many areas it is the custom to ignore the father in determining the section membership of children of "wrong marriages," the Panyjima give at least token recognition to the father in such cases. That is, where a person marries outside of the preferred section, the couple's children will have dual section membership. For example, the children of a male Milangka and female Panaka union will be both Panaka and Purungu. However, for the purposes of reckoning marriageability, matrilineal ties are the most important.

The four sections can be grouped into two pairs, or couples, in three possible ways. First, we can see that all kin linked by patrilineal descent will fall into just

327

ALAN DENCH

Panaka Karimaffa

Milangka == = Purungu

FIGURE I: Panyjima sections. Horizontal lines indicate marriage; vertical lines indicate patrilineal descent; diagonal lines indicate matrilineal descent.

two sections. For example, the agnatic kin of a person in Panaka section will be in either Panaka section or Milangka section. Thus the Panaka/Milangka couple comprises one patrimoiety, the other patrimoiety being Karimarra/Purungu. Similarly, a Panaka person's uterine kin will be in the Panaka/Purungu couple. The Panaka/Purungu versus Karimarra/Milangka division corresponds to a divi- sion into two matrimoieties.

Finally, the four sections can be grouped into two couples on the basis of generation membership. From Figure i we can see that in any generation only two sections will be represented. For example, all members of a Panaka person's generation - siblings, parallel cousins, and cross cousins - will be in either Panaka or Karimarra sections. All members of a Panaka person's parents' gener- ation will be in either Milangka or Purungu sections, and similarly for the Panaka person's children's generation. However, a Panaka person's grandparents and grandchildren will be in the same generation couple: Panaka/Karimarra. This division gives two merged alternate generation sets, the first comprising ego's siblings, cousins, grandparents, and grandchildren, the other comprising ego's parents and children as well as their siblings, cousins, grandparents, and grand- children. We can talk of people as being in the same set of merged alternate generations or in different sets.

To turn this discussion on its head, we see that the four-section system results from the interaction of the two principal divisions into patrimoieties and matri- moieties, and yields the important division of kin into two alternating generation sets. In analysing complex kinterms, kinship-sensitive pronominal use, and also in describing institutionalised social interaction, it is found that section mem- bership by itself is relatively unimportant. Instead, the important categorisations are moieties and the alternate generation couples. This will be discussed further in the section on ethnographic explanations.

The Martuthunira kinship system involves the same important divisions into moieties and generation sets as does the Panyjima system. However, where the

328

KINSHIP AND COLLECTIVE ACTIVITY

Panaka Karimarra

Pal. yarri === Purungu

FIGURE 2: Martuthunira sections.

Panyjima, Yinyjiparnti, and Kurrama systems are classified as of the Kariera type, on the basis of terminology and the preferred marriage pattern, the Mar- tuthunira system is of the Aranda type. The basic difference between the two systems lies in a terminological distinction among patrilines. In particular, the Aranda system distinguishes the four patrilines into which a person's grandparent falls (although usually with some terminological merging within patrilines). The Kariera system, on the other hand, merges parallel grandparental patrilines. Thus, in the Kariera system, no distinction is made between equivalent kin in ego's patriline and ego's mother's mother's (brother's) patriline (Heath I982:6), and similarly between kin in ego's mother's father's and father's mother's (brother's) patrilines. The Aranda system makes a terminological distinction between these patrilines. The preferred marriage within the Aranda system is between kin related as mother's mother's brother's son's children. Within the Kariera system these kin will be terminologically equivalent to mother's broth- er's children.

The essential difference between the Martuthunira and Panyjima systems thus lies in the fact that the Martuthunira make a terminological distinction between kin in different patrilines within the one patrimoiety while the Panyjima do not. Unfortunately, there is little ethnographic information available for the Mar- tuthunira, and so we are not able to investigate the possible sociocultural corre- lates of this difference.

Like the Panyjima, the Martuthunira have a four-section system. The section names are the same with one exception; the section named milangka in Panyjima is called pal.yarri by the Martuthunira. The Martuthunira system is set out in Figure 2.

The Yinyjiparnti and Kurrama, like the Panyjima, have a Kariera kinship system and a four-section system. The Kurrama naming of the four sections is equivalent to the Martuthunira naming except that the term pal.yarri surfaces in Kurrama as palyirri. The Yinyjipamti terms are the same as the Kurrama though their distribution is different. Compare Figure 2 with Figure 3, which sets out the

329

ALAN DENCH

Purungu = - Panaka

Kafimarra = = = = Palyim FIGURE 3: Yinyjiparnti sections.

Yinyjiparnti section system. In the Yinyjiparnti system a Panaka man marries a Purungu woman and their children are Palyirri. A Panyjima, Kurrama, or Mar- tuthunira person, crossing the Fortescu River into Yinyjiparnti territory, changes section name. Figure 3 can be mapped onto Figures I and 2. Thus a Panyjima man in Panaka section will be called Purungu by the Yinjiparnti and will marry a Yinyjiparnti woman in Panaka section. While this switching of section names causes considerable confusion to all parties, it does not interfere with people's perceptions of their kin relationships.

Linguistic reflections of the kinship systems We can now return to a discussion of the kinship marking function of the collective suffix. As noted above, the collective suffix can be used to indicate that participants in the clause are in the same alternating generation set. With this in mind we can reinvestigate a number of the examples listed earlier. In examples (12), (13), and (14) the same generation set membership of the participants is obvious from the use of kinterms. For example, (12) is given here as (I9).

(19) nyinta wiya-nmayi-nha marrkara-ngarli -ku -rla? 2sgNOM see -COLL-PAST brother -PLURAL-ACC-FORE Did you see your younger brothers?

In this example the use of the collective suffix reflects the fact that the subject of the sentence is in the same generation set as his younger brother. If a kinterm such asfather or daughter were to be used instead, then the use of the collective suffiix in this sentence would not be acceptable. For example:

(20) * nyinta wiya-nmayi-nha mama-ngarli -ku -rla? 2sgNOM see -COLL-PAST father-PLURAL-ACC-FORE

Did you see your fathers? (21) * nyinta wiya-nmayi-nha kurntal -ngarli-ku -ra?

2sgNOM see -COEI-P-AST daughter-PLURAL-ACC-FORE Did you see your daughters?

By contrast, in sentences (i5), (i6), and (17), the collective suffix is the only indication that the participants are in the same set of alternating generations. For

330

KINSHIP AND COLLECTIVE ACTIVITY

TABLE 2. Martuthunira first person pronouns

Singular Dual Plural

Same generation (inclusive) ngali ngaliwa (exclusive) ngayu ngaliya nganarna

Different generation nganajumarta nganajumartangara

example, in (I5), repeated as (22), the subject is linked to the participant sitting in the tree. If it were known that these two participants were not in the same generation set, then the sentence would be inappropriate.

(22) nyiya kq4a-nyayi -ku wiya-larta panti-jangu karnti-ka -ku. this climib-COLL-PRES see -FUT sit -REL tree -LOC-ACC This one is climbing up to see that one sitting in the tree.

The linguistic coding of the same/different generation relationship is not re- stricted to the use of the collective suffix in these languages. Like many other Australian languages, those of the Ngayarda group have a set of special pronouns appropriate to certain groups of kin. The most important determining factor in the choice of the appropriate pronoun in many of the languages that have such a set is the same/different generation relationship between the pronoun referents (see, for example, Hale [I966]; Alpher [I982]). Table 2 presents the Mar- tuthunira first person pronouns which clearly illustrate the generation split.

The pronoun paradigms of both Panyjima and Yinyjiparnti show an identical organisation. In addition, second person pronouns in both Yinyjipamti and Pany- jima have kin-determined altematives and, in Yinyjiparnti, dual demonstratives have separate fonrs determined by generation (for an extensive analysis of the Panyjima system see Dench [1982a]).

Ethnographic explanation While it is possible to show the importance of alternate generation sets in the organisation of the grammars of the Ngayarda languages, this in itself does not explain why the collective suffix in these languages has come to reflect this pattern. We must explain how a suffix which typically encodes an action per- formed collectively by a number of participants has spread to the coding of a particular kin relationship. As a starting point, we might suggest that people in the same generation set typically engage in collective activity. Although this rather simplistic hypothesis turns out to be essentially correct, we must begin by treating it as an empirical question.

It was noted in earlier discussion that the four named sections allowed the easy reckoning of three couples corresponding to patrimoieties, matrimoieties, and the merged altemate generation sets. We must now ask whether the named sections and the three classes are at all important in defining groups for whom certain types of social interaction are required or preferred. While we would not

331

ALAN DENCH

expect these large superclasses to determine interpersonal interaction at the indi- vidual level, where people are organised into groups, for the performance of ritual for example, then we might expect institutionalised patterns of behaviour reflecting group divisions.

Tonkinson (1978), in discussing the social organisation of the Mardudjara (who have a kinship system very like the Panyjima and with whom the Panyjima interact), makes the following general statements.

Nowhere in the Western Desert are matrimoieties found, and there are neither corporate groups nor social entities based on this kind of dual division. At large gatherings, the Mardudjara group their camps into two patrimoiety "sides," also used in the seating arrangements for certain men's rituals and seen in intergroup gift exchange. But the most important division is the merged alternate generation levels, which figure prominently in many re- ligious activities (Tonkinson 1978:57).

As for the sections, section names are used as terms for address and reference but groups comprising only members of one section are not of great importance in any ritual activity. With regard to the Ngayarda situation I know of only one, very restricted, context in which groups are organised on the basis of mem- bership of the one section.4

Tonkinson's general statements with regard to Mardudjara social classes also hold for the Ngayarda groups. Matrimoieties as distinct social groups are not found although, as mentioned above, matrilineal relationships are important in organising marriage. Patrimoieties are in evidence in a number of areas: tradi- tional camping arrangements are determined by patrimoietal affiliation, and ac- cess to certain increase sites is occasionally dependent on patrimoiety mem- bership. However, as with the Mardudjara, the merged alternate generation sets form the most important division in the organisation of ritual interaction in the Ngayarda language area. The clearest example of this appears in the religious activities organised around male initiation, which is still practised by the Pany- jima and Yinyjiparnti. A brief outline of the activities involved in a typical Pilbara initiation meeting will serve to illustrate the relationship between the two groups.5

During the period leading up to' initiation ceremonies and throughout the period during which these ceremonies are continuing, the kin of the novice initiate organise themselves into two groups almost directly corresponding to the merged alternate generation sets (see Tonkinson [I978:581 for discussion of the Mardudjara system). Kin of the same generation set as the initiate are called (in Panyjima) jinyjanungu 'workers', while those of the other generation set are called karnku 'bosses'. Tonkinson uses an alternative spelling for the Mardudjara terms, which are identical to the Panyjima, and labels the two groups "Activ- ists" and "Mourners" respectively.

332

KINSHIP AND COLLECTIVE ACTIVITY

The djindjanungu group is active in the mechanics of actually organizing and carrying out the appropriate ritual tasks. Members of the large garngu group . . . make most of the preliminary plans and are consulted on the con- duct of activities, but play no active role during the proceedings because its members are too "sorry" for the initiate (Tonkinson 1978:58).

This division of labours is not restricted to actual ritual tasks. The everyday activities of camp life during an initiation meeting are similarly divided into jinyjanungu and karnku work. For example, a typical day in the "meeting camp" will begin with the jinyjanungu lighting the fires and cooking a meal, feeding children and members of the karnku "mob." The most important morn- ing activity is the body painting of all people in the camp. The principal jiny- janungu males, after painting each other, will file to each family camp in turn to collect other male workers. The group will then proceed to prepare ochres, charcoal, and so on, before, together with their jinyjanungu sisters, painting designs on the bodies of the karnku group. From this point on the jinyjanungu will work as a group and largely keep out of the way of the karnku mob. The karnku retire to the shade to spend the day in the comfort of talk while the jinyjanungu attend to the tasks of carrying water, hunting, replenishing stocks of firewood, cooking meals, and, most importantly, caring for the well-being of the initiates and preparing for the ceremonies to be held throughout the night.

There is very clearly a strong division into two groups who try to give the public impression of avoiding each other. Any interaction is typically restrained and may extend to open hostility (usually displeasure on the part of the karnku at the way the jinyjanungu are running things). Within the two groups, interaction is very relaxed. The jinyjanungu, in particular, spend much of the day convulsed with laughter as a result of the continuous horseplay and joking (well out of earshot of the karnku, of course). For the weeks, and even months, that the community live in the meeting camp, this division of labour continues, although membership of the two groups will change as new initiates, at the center of new kinship networks, become the focus of attention.

We see then that the division into generation sets reflected in the grammar of the languages is an important principle also reflected in much social interaction within the speech community. During initiation business, this principle defines two groups who interact in a restrained manner but whose members operate as a collective. It is the perception of this contrast between open collective activity and relative restraint that reinforces the division between the two groups, rather than the abstracted principle of generation harmony. For the collective suffix to be used to mark this contrast is thus not at all surprising. In fact, the collective suffix with this kinship marking function is perhaps most often used during initiation business. Certainly, most examples I have collected from observation (rather than from text or elicitation) were gathered during initiation business and

333

ALAN DENCH

typically involved the karnku giving orders to the jinyjanungu. The following Panyjima example (in the Paathupathu avoidance style) demonstrates the extent to which an awareness of this ethnographic context is crucial in interpreting particular instances of the collective suffix.

(23) kungama-yi -ma nyirntiji ngunhawali karri-ku karntinmarra-la. get -COLL-IMP hair belt that stand-PRES tree -LOC Get that belt hanging in the tree.

This order was given to a jinyjynungu man by a karnku man. The relationship between them and the context of utterance required the use of the avoidance style. The subject of the sentence, the implied "you," is linked to the direct object, the belt, by the use of the collective suffix on the verb. Although the belt cannot be thought of as being related to the addressee through a kinship link, it plays a vitally important role in initiation business. It is the exclusive business of the jinyjanungu to handle and use human hair belts in the ritual context, and the speaker is making this point very strongly by linking the addressee to the object through the use of the collective suffix.

Of course, not all social interaction takes place in the initiation camp, and not all interaction involves the division of people into groups who can rightly be said to engage in collective activity. However, the alternate generation sets can be seen to provide a guide to the sorts of relationships that may hold between members of the opposing groups. To cite Tonkinson's discussion once again:

[They] are useful because they separate into opposite groups some kin categories between whose members restraint or avoidance relationships ex- ist .. . [A] person's "own side" . . . has a majority of kin with whom rela- tively unrestrained interaction is possible, whereas "other side" is composed mainly of people with whom one interacts asymmetrically (Tonkinson I 978:57-58). Many of the examples involving the collective suffix conform to the spirit of

this generalisation. The use of the suffix marks the existence of the particular relationship between the participants but at the same time invokes the contrast between interaction typical of membership of the same generation set and that typical of membership of different sets.

DISCUSSION

Having explained the use of the collective suffix to mark a kinship relationship between participants in the clause, we can return to the wider syntactic and semantic issues raised by the data.

As we have seen, verb stems derived with the collective suffix allow three different interpretations: that the action is performed by a group acting together (collective), that the action involves members of a group each acting on the other (reciprocal), or that the action involves persons in the same generation set (kin

334

KINSHIP AND COLLECTIVE ACTIVITY

TABLE 3. Interpretations of Martuthunira collective suffiLx

Verb Subject Object Interpretation

reciprocal collective kin group

Transitive Singular no yes Transitive Singular yes yes Intransitive Nonsingular - yes yes Transitive Nonsingular no yes yes yes Transitive Nonsingular yes yes yes

group). The reading of a particular instance of the suffix partly depends on the verb to which it is attached and on the syntactic context in which that verb occurs. The range of syntactic contexts and associated interpretations of the suffix in Martuthunira are summarised in Table 3.

Where the subject of the clause is singular, the suffix may only have the kin group interpretation. This does not imply that the subject of the clause must be one of the participants linked by the use of the suffix. For example, in the following sentence the participants linked by the suffix as belonging to one generation set do not include the subject of the clause (the speaker): One is the object of the verb and the other part of an adverbial NP construction.

(24) ngayu kangku-yarri -iha panaka-ngurni karimarra-wuyu-u IsgNOM take -COLL-PAST section-BEHIND section -SIDE-ACC marrari -mulyarra, martuthunira -a nhuura-npa-waa. language-ALL language name-ACC know-INCH-PURPs=o I took the karimarra section boy along behind the panaka boy towards the language, to learn Martuthunira. (I taught two boys who are together in the same generation set.)

There is no syntactic context which forces a reciprocal reading for the suffix. Although a reciprocal reading is available where a transitive verb appears with no object and the subject is nonsingular, a collective reading is always possible here given the frequent ellipsis of arguments. To some extent, interpretation as re- ciprocal or collective depends on the particular verb. For example, (25) will always give a collective reading, while (26) will usually yield a reciprocal reading:

(25) ngaliwa mungka-yarri -nguru. Ipl(inc) eat -COLL-PRES We're eating together. (??We're eating one another.)

(26) ngaliwa thani-yarri -nguru. lpl(inc) hit -COLL-PRES We're hitting one another. (??We're hitting together.)

This suggests that we need not establish separate collective and reciprocal mean- ings for the suffix. Rather, a single collective meaning will allow a reciprocal interpretation in certain syntactic contexts and with certain verbs.

335

ALAN DENCH

While a clause with a nonsingular subject will allow a kin group reading as well as a possible collective or reciprocal reading, the suffix itself does not require that members of the group be in the same generation. This is made clear in the following example in which the nonsingular subject is a pronoun from the different generation set and hence only the collective (or reciprocal) reading is possible.

(27) ngunhaa mir.ta waruul kuliya-rnuru nganajumarta-a thatNOM not still hear -PRES Idl(different) -ACC wangkarnu-marri -nyila -a. talk -COLL-REEts-ACC He still can't hear us talking together (to one another).

Clearly, the kin group meaning of the suffix must be independent of the collec- tive meaning and we must describe the suffix as polysemous between these two meanings. On the one hand, the suffix indicates that the action is performed together by members of a group. On the other hand, the suffix indicates that participants involved in the action denoted by the verb are in the same alternating generation set.

Since very few sentences with a nonsingular subject are like (27) in clearly indicating the relationships among participants, there is some potential for ambi- guity in clauses with nonsingular subjects. Although such clauses are usually given a collective reading, in some cases the suffix may serve to emphasise the kin relationships of t'ie participants. While the collective interpretation is ob- viously dependent on a nonsingular subject, it is not so easy to decide on the availability of the kin group interpretation, and thus the possibility of ambiguity, from formal features in the clause. First, as we have seen from examples (15)- (17), overt specification of kin relationships in the form of pronouns or kinterms need not occur in the utterance. Second, there are no syntactic rules determining which of the available participants in the clause are linked by the suffix appearing on the verb (see example (24)). Deciding which of a number of participants are linked by the use of the verbal suffix, and whether the collective reading of the kin group reading is intended in any particular instance depends on close atten- tion to other cues in discourse and in extralinguistic context.

The suffix rarely adds any information about kin relationships that is not already known. In the social context in which the Martuthunira and Panyjima languages are spoken every person with whom one is ever likely to interact is fitted into a complex and fluid kinship network which situates every individual in relation to every other individual. Strangers, such as visiting Aboriginal people from farther afield, and of course the occasional linguist or anthropologist, must be fitted into this system before any "real" interaction can take place. The collective suffix rarely, if ever, functions to uniquely identify a participant in discourse. Typically the individuals referred to are known to both speaker and addressee, and their kin relationships to one another and to the speech act participants are also known. The suffix, then, adds no new information. Its use

336

KINSHIP AND COLLECTIVE ACTIVITY

serves only to indicate to the addressee that the speaker recognises the existence of a particular relationship, is focussing on the existence of that relationship, and so is asking the addressee to think about the implications of that relationship. The addressee will know the relationships that hold among the participants in the clause and so will be able to interpret the use of the collective suffix correctly.

CONCLUSION

This paper has investigated the functions of a verbal derivational suffix in the Ngayarda languages of Western Australia. At first blush the suffix appears to be very like the reflexive and reciprocal suffixes described for many Australian languages. However, in the Ngayarda languages the central meaning of the suffix is one of collective activity rather than reflexive or reciprocal action. Further, the suffix does not affect the transitivity of the clauses in which it occurs.

In addition to its role as a marker of collective action by a group, the suffix may be used by speakers to mark their recognition of the existence of a particular kin relationship between participants in the clause: that the participants are in the same merged alternate generation set. This use of the suffix was explained in terms of the kind of social interaction seen as typical of this kin relationship. It was suggested that people in the same generation set can be thought of as interacting in a collective fashion. The perception that collective activity is typical of same generation set membership has led to the use of the collective suffix to mark this relationship.

Finally, the implications for a unified account of the suffix in the Ngayarda languages was discussed. It was suggested that the suffix be described as poly- semous between the meanings of collective activity, on the one hand, and mem- bership of a particular kin group, on the other. Although interpretation of the suffix depends partly on the structure of the clause in which it occurs and on the verb stem to which it is attached, complete comprehension of any particular example is dependent on a clear knowledge of the kinship system and its role in mediating social intercourse, and on an understanding of the possible pragmatic function of verbally expressing knowledge of certain kinship relationships. Thus, the analysis presented in this paper is yet another witness to the truth of Mal- inowski's assertion that, "language is essentially rooted in the reality of the culture, the tribal life and customs of a people, and . . . cannot be explained without constant reference to these broader contexts of verbal utterance" (Mal- inowski I923:305).

As well as demonstrating the extent to which the linguist must be sensitive to the wider social context in which the language under investigation is spoken, this paper shows how linguistic analysis can be an invaluable tool for the anthropolo- gist and sociologist alike. Close attention to linguistic detail can yield important insights into the culture and social interaction of a people.

337

ALAN DENCH

NOTES * The data were collected with the assistance of Percy Tucker and Herbert Parker (Panyjima) and Algy Paterson (Martuthunira and Kurrama). I also thank Dell Hymes, Harold Koch, Bob Tonkinson, Anna Wierzbicka, and David Wilkins for their very helpful comments and suggestions. Any errors remain solely my responsibility. I. The following list expands abbreviations used in sentence examples in the paper: X (first person), 2 (second person), ABSolutive (intransitive subject and transitive object), ACCusative, ALLative, ASSERTedly, REFLexive, PRESent, Bro(brother), CAUSative, COLLective, DECeased, DEFinite, dl (dual), ds (different subject), EFFector (passive actor), exc (exclusive), Fa (father), FOREgrounding clitic, FUTure, HABITual, IDentifying clitic, IGNORantly, inc (in- clusive), INCHoative, INSTrumental, LOCative, Mo (mother), NOMinative, NOW (temporal clitic), PASSP (passive perfective), pi (plural), PN (proper nominal marker), PROPrietive, PRIVative, PURPosive, RECIProcal, REDUPlication, RELative, SIDE (establishes an opposition with a number of "sides"), ss (same subject), s=o (subject coreferential with object), TOPic clitic. 2. The collective suffix in Yinyjiparnti is glossed as "collective/reciprocal" (Wordick 1982:82). I have previously described the Panyjima suffix as "reciprocal" (Dench I98I:I20), reserving the label "collective" for a more restricted suffix with a somewhat similar function. This second suffix is not relevant to the present discussion. 3. There is a remarkable degree of cognacy among reflexive/reciprocal forns across the Aus- tralian continent. For example, notice the similarity among the Ngayarda forms -yarri, -lwarri, and -nmarri, and the Dyirbal forms -yirri (reflexive) and -nbarri (reciprocal). 4. As part of the purntut/purntulpa ceremony, men of the one section operate as a marauding group "capturing" their "fathers." While the members of these groups need not be in the one generation, they usually comprise men who call each other brother. Nevertheless, the groups are referred to by section names. S. Initiation for the Panyjima, Yinyjiparnti, and Kurrama typically involves circumcision. The Martuthunira did not practice circumcision and, according to informants, did not practise the "ann- tying" initiation ritual common to the Ngarluma to their north (Radcliffe-Brown 11913]) and the Mantharta peoples to their southeast. While it is asserted that the Martuthunira did initiate young men, the details of the initiation process are not known.

The initiation law practised in the Pilbara today is in many ways a rationalisation of the many different laws originally practised in the area; borrowing from Yinyjiparnti law, Panyjima law, and from the desert law of the Mardudjara people of Jigalong. Martuthunira law, like the other noncir- cumcising laws of the coastal groups has effectively died out. However, the descendents of the coastal communities continue to resist the pressure to conform to the circumcising law of the inland groups (Gray 1978).

REFERENCES

Alpher, B. (I982). Dalabon dual-subject prefixes, kinship categories, and generation skewing. In Heath et al., 1982. I9-30.

Dench, A. C. (I981). Panyjima phonology and morphology. Master's thesis, Australian National University.

(i982a). Kin terms and pronouns of the Panyjima language of northwest Western Australia. Anthropological Forum 5:105-20.

(i 982b). The development of an accusative case marking pattem in the Ngayarda languages of Western Australia. Australian Journal of LinguistiCs 2:43-59.

Dixon, R. M. W. (I980). The languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gray, D. (1978). "Identity" amongst the Camarvon Reserve Mob. Unpublished Master's thesis,

University of Western Australia. Hale, K. L. (I966). Kinship reflections in syntax: Some Australian languages. Word 22:318-24. Heath, J. (I982). Introduction. In Heath et al., 1982. i-i8. Heath, J., Merlan, F., & Rumsey, A. (eds.) (1982). The languages of kinship in Aboriginal Aus-

tralia. Oceania Linguistic Monograph 24. Sydney.

338

KINSHIP AND COLLECTIVE ACTIVITY

Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56:25 I -99.

Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (eds.), The meaning of meaning. ioth ed. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 296-336.

Morphy, F. (1983). Djapu, a Yolngu dialect. In R. M. W. Dixon & B. Blake (eds.), Handbook of Australian languages 3. Canberra: Australian National University Press. i-I88.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. (I913). Three tribes of Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Anthropolog- ical Institute 43:I43-94.

Tonkinson, R. (1978). The Mardudjara Aborigines. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Wordick, F. J. F. (1982). The Yindjibarndi language. Pacific Linguistics C. 71. Canberra.

339