speaking of clans: language in awyu-ndumut communities of ...eprints.jcu.edu.au › 23751 › 1 ›...

0165–2516/12/0214–0005 Int’l. J. Soc. Lang. 214 (2012), pp. 5 – 26©WalterdeGruyter DOI10.1515/ijsl-2012-0018

Speaking of clans: language in Awyu-Ndumut communities of Indonesian West Papua

LOURENS DE VRIES

Abstract

The place of language in Awyu-Ndumut speech communities of the Indonesian province of West Papua is investigated from the point of view of the parallel but interconnected worlds of clan lands and nation-state sponsored settlements, with institutions such as schools and churches. First, language and identity, language names, multilingualism, linguistic ideologies and special speech reg-isters are discussed from the perspective of clan-based cultural and linguistic practices. Second, the relationship between Papuan languages and Indonesian is investigated from the perspective of the dynamics of the clan land/settlement opposition. Indonesian is talked about by Awyu-Ndumut speakers both posi-tively and negatively. Positively, they speak of it as an interethnic lingua franca. Negatively, they speak of it as the language of “demonsˮ, that is people outside the boundaries of Awyu-Ndumut social personhood.

Keywords: Papuan; Indonesian; Awyu-Ndumut; attitudes; domains.

1. Introduction

Awyu-NdumutspeechcommunitiesofWestPapua’sDigulRiverbasinpro-videafascinatingwindowonkeyaspectsoftherelationshipbetweenlanguageandsocietyinthelinguisticareaofNewGuinea.1Clanbasedculturalandlin-guisticpractices,associatedwithclanlandsinthejungle,co-existandinteractwith linguisticandculturalpracticesof recentsettlements (Indonesiankam-pung‘village’).DutchandlaterIndonesianrulersofWestPapuainitiated(orencouraged)suchsettlementsandtriedtorelocatepeoplefromtheirclanlandstothesesettlements.Missionariesusuallysupported,andoftenalsoinitiated,suchprocessesofsettlementformation. Institutionssuchasschools,clinics,churches, shops or government offices can be found in these settlements.Peopleofdifferentclans,andoftenalsoofdifferentlanguages,livetogetherin

Brought to you by | James Cook UniversityAuthenticated | 137.219.5.13

Download Date | 10/25/12 8:24 AM

6 L. de Vries

thesesettlements.ButmostofthetimeAwyu-Ndumutspeakersdonotliveinthekampungbutontheirclanlands.ThisisespeciallytrueforNorthKorowaiandNorthKombaiclanswholivealmostallthetimeintheirhightreehousesontheancestrallands.Clansandclan-basedlandrightsarenotjustafactorofthepre-colonialpast,

theyarestillessentialforsurvivalsincemostAwyu-Ndumutspeakersdependfortheirfoodandmanyotherthingsontheirclanlands.Buttheclanandclanlandsarealsoemotionallycrucialastheygivepeopleaverystrongsenseofplace,originandcontinuity.ThepictureinmuchofinteriorNewGuinea,cer-tainlyintheAwyu-Ndumutarea,isoneofparallelbutinterconnectedworldsofclanlandsandsettlements.ThePapuanlanguagesoftheAwyu-Ndumutfamilyarespokeninsouthwest

NewGuinea,ontheIndonesianhalfoftheisland,fromtheupperpartofthe525kilometerlongDigulRivertoitsestuaryintheArafurasea,butalsobe-tween theDiguland theMapiRiver,andfromtheborderareanear theFlyRivereastofDigulallthewaytothesouth-westoftheWildemanRiver.Thisvastexpanseoflowlandcoveredwithswampsandrainforestsisthehomeofaround35,000speakersofAwyu-Ndumutlanguages.Forthisstudy,thefollowinglanguagesareclassifiedasAwyu-Ndumutlan-

guages:Kaeti,North-Wambon,South-Wambon,Axu,Syiaxa,Pisa,Korowai,Sawuy,Kombai.Notallofthisisbasedonreconstructivework(Healy1970,Voorhoeve 2001, 2005), but the precise classification of these languages isirrelevanttotheoverallargumentofthisarticle.Intheearly1980s,whenIstartedmylinguisticresearchinthearea,Awyu-

Ndumut speakers in north-west lived permanently on their clan lands andforeignershadnotyetbeguntoestablishsettlementsclosetotheirlands,butin the periphery of their world, small, embryonic and unstable settlementshadstarted toformaroundmissionstationswithairstrips. InotherpartsoftheAwyu-Ndumut lands, to the south and east, processes of integration innation-stateshadcommenceddecadesearlier,forexampleKombaiclansliv-ing close to theDigul River had seenDutch efforts to relocate them fromclanlandstosettlementsinthe1950s.Theprocessofmovingfromtheirtradi-tionalhightreehousesontheclanlandstothelowhousesinmulti-clanvil-lages was not always voluntary. Older Wambon men told me that Dutchpatrolsinthe1950ssometimesburneddowntreehouseswhenpeoplerefusedtomovetothestate-initiatedsettlements.Aroundtheyear2009most,ifnotall,Awyu-Ndumutclans lived in theparallelworldsofsettlementsandclanterritories.First,IwilldescribelanguageasitfunctionsinAwyu-Ndumutclanworlds,

basedonbothlinguistic(deVriesandWiersma1992;vanEnkanddeVries1997;deVries1993,1995,2005,2006,2010)andanthropological research(Stasch2001,2007,2008,2009).



Speaking of clans 7

ThefirstsectionstartswithadiscussionofclansasfundamentaltoAwyu-Ndumutsociety,especiallyinrelationtoland,andthenlooksatthefollowingtopicsfromthisclanperspective:languageandidentity,languagenames,lin-guisticideology,lexicalsubstitutionregistersand“secretˮpartsofthevocabu-lary,multilingualismandborrowing.Inthesecondpart,theperspectiveshiftsfromclanworldsinthejungletothesettlementsandtotheinteractionbetweentheworldsofsettlementsandclanlands.TheretherelationshipbetweenIndo-nesianandAwyu-Ndumutlanguagesisthecentraltheme.

2. LanguageinAwyu-Ndumutclanworlds

2.1. Clans

SpeakersofAwyu-Ndumutlanguagesconceptualizesocietyprimarilyintermsofnamedpatriclans,eachwithitsownclanland.Clanstendtobesmall,withrarelymorethan80people,anditisnotuncommontofindclanswithlessthan15people.Somehavediedout.Landandterritorialityformtheheartofclanbased conceptualizations of social life (Boelaars [1970: 16] for Mandobo;Stasch [2009: 26 –36] for Korowai). Prolonged co-residence on clan land“tends tomakepeopleowners, andco-residence tends tomakepeopleclanmates, [and] as non-agnates over time become identifiedwith a homeland,growcomfortable residing there” (Stasch2001:308).Theclan landsaresoessentialthat:

Landownership tightly joins three categories: “place”, “clan,” and “owner”.Aplacebolüp ... isusuallyacontiguous,irregularlyshapedsegmentofland,typicallyaboutasquaremileinexpanse.Aplaceisbydefinitiontheterritoryofaparticularnamedclan,andallclanshaveplaces.Korowaiubiquitouslyspeakofdifferentpartsof the land-scapebycombiningclannameswith the termbolüp.Forexample,dambol-bolüp isʻplaceofDambolʼ.(Stasch2009:28)

Althoughclanshaveacentralroleinrelationtolandownership,givepeopleaplaceinlife,andarethehighestpoliticalunits,Stasch(2009:9)emphasizesthattheyshouldnotbethoughtofasclosed,tight-knitface-to-facecommuni-tiesthatdoanddecideallsortsofthingsasclans.Infact,apartfrom(pigorsagogrub)feaststhatrequiretheeffortsofthewholeclanandthatareorga-nized at clan level, life on the clan lands is livedmostly in smaller familygroups,forexampleamanwithhiswivesandtheirchildrenintheirtreehouseortwobrotherswiththeirwivesandchildren.Majordecisionsarenottakenontheleveloftheclanbutratheronthelevelofthefamily,ortheindividual,manorwoman.Marriagechoice,forexample,isnotaclandecision,mostlybased



8 L. de Vries

onindividualchoicesandattractionbetweenindividuals,withinnormsofclanexogamy and genealogical distance (Stasch 2009: 173–207). Individual au-tonomyinalldomainsishighlyvaluedinAwyu-Ndumutcommunities.Theoverallpictureisoneofdispersion(Boelaars1970:64;Stasch2009:

25).DispersedovertheAwyu-Ndumutlandswefindthousandsofsmallclansthatinturnconsistoffamiliesandindividualslivingscatteredovertheclanland.Thestrongtendencytowardpoliticalautonomyandegalitarianismfavorsdispersion.Residentialmobilityattheindividualandfamilylevelisveryhigh.Peoplemoveoftenforshorterorlongerperiodstotheirmother’sbrother’sclanlands,couplesmayliveforawhilewithclanpeopleofthewife.Familiesmoveregularlyfromonetreehousetoanotherontheclanland.Stasch(2001:70)writesoftheKorowai“thissituationofextremeresidentialmobilityandresi-dentialdispersionisoneofthemoststrikingaspectsofKorowaisociallife”.Thecompositionofahouseholdinatreehouseaccordinglyishighlyvariableandchangesallthetime.Clanmembership divides people into categories of people (Stasch 2009:

34).TheKorowai noun for patriclangun is also used to denote species ofplantsoranimalsand“peopledoreadilycomparethediversityofanimalandplantspeciestothediversityofnamesofhumanclans”(Stasch2001:303).Clans tend to have animals or plants asmythic founding fathers. Speakingthenamesoftheseplantsoranimalsaretaboointhepresenceofmembersofclanswiththeseplantsoranimalsasforefathers(vanEnkanddeVries1997).Clanmemberswill not eat theplantsor animals considered tobe foundingfathers.Awoman normallymoves to the clan lands of her husband andwill be

buriedthere,butherlinkswithherfather’sandbrothers’clanremainstrong.Thechildrenofthewomanhaveclosetiestotheirmother’speople,especiallyboystotheirmother’sbrothers,alinkinstitutionalizedintheavunculate,thedyadicrelationofmother’sbrotherandsister’sson,foundinmanyvariationsinNewGuinea,usually in thecontextofOmaha-typekinshipsystems(e.g.Manambu,Aikhenvald[2008:17]).Boyswilloftenstaywiththeirmother’sbrothers,demandindemnitypaymentsuponsuchuncles’deaths,protecttheiruncles(and they in turnprotect theirsisters’sons) incaseofaccusationsofwitchcraftandotherconflicts.Theseunclesoftenhelpfindabridefortheirsisters’sonsamongtheirown

classificatory daughters or among thewomen of their uncles’ clans (grand-parentalclanbrides:manyKorowaimenmarryawomantheycallmaxwhosecommonreferentincludes‘grandmother’intheirOmaha-typekinshippatterns,stillusingthistermaftermarriage).ThepictureofKorowaiclancommunitiesdrawnbyStasch(2001,2009)is

representativeofwhat I saw inKombai andWambonareas andpatternsofclanlifeobservedbyBoelaars(1970)intheMandoboarea.Idonotclaimthat



Speaking of clans 9

allAwyu-Ndumutgroupshavethesamecultureoreventhesamenotionsof“clanˮ,butonlythattheyshareanumberofculturalpracticeswithfarreachinglinguistic implications.Themost important of these shared elements is theextreme political fragmentation into verymany and very small exogamousunits,called“clansˮfor thepurposesof thisarticle, thatregulatecommunalandinalienableancestrallandownership.(Theseclanshavenoformofsocialorpoliticalintegrationhigherthanunitsclans.)Exogamyacrosslinguisticandculturalborders,theavunculate,theloveofindividualfreedom,egalitarianismandautonomyofclans,dispersion,andresidentialmobilityareothersharedelementsofAwyu-Ndumutclans.Again, theseelementsoccuralloverNewGuinea in various permutations and configurations but it seems that in thecoastal plains, both north and south of the central mountain range, social,politicalandlinguisticfragmentationismostintense.

2.2. Clans, language and identity

Clanmembershipisthemostcentralelementinaperson’sidentity.ClannamesdominateeverydaytalkofAwyu-Ndumutpeoplebecausethedefaultwaytorefertopeopleis“theXpersonˮwhereXisaclanname(Stasch2001:304).Whenaskingsomeonewhoheorsheis,theanswerwillcontainaclanname.Theclanlandsareperhapsthemostfocalelementintheclannotion.Theyareliterally andfigurativelyyourplace in life (e.g.Kombaimbürümeansboth‘place’and‘clanterritory’).Languagetranscendsclanlands;peopleofmanydifferentclanlandsmaysharealanguage.ButamongtheAwyu-Ndumut,lan-guageasaclantranscendingentityisneverthefocusofidentityconstruction.Not languagebut clan affiliationsdeterminewhoyouare.First of all, yourfather’sclan;throughyourfatheryoushareinthecommunalownershipofahomeland,thelandthatfeedsyouandgivesyouaplacewhereyoubelong.Butyouarealsoachildofyourmotherandshecomesfromanotherclan,theclan of yourmother’s brothers.The important institution of the avunculateensuresthatthelinkwithmother’speoplestronglyco-determineswhoyouare.Andthentherearethegrandparentalclansandtheclansofyourwives.Thisnetworkofclan links,with thefather’sclan in thecentre,provides identity,tellsyouwhoyouareandwhereyoubelong.Thefather’sclanisbyfarthemostimportantinidentityconstruction,especiallyformenwhostayontheirancestrallandsaftermarriage,becauseoftheall-importantissueoflandandlandrights.However,otherclanlinks,firstofallthemother’sbrother’sclan,must bementionedbecauseof the relational nature of identity constructioninMelanesian contexts, persons as clusters or bundles of relationships (seebelow,sociocentricor relationalnotionsof identity).Aperson isnotonlyason but also a husband and a cross-cousin and this brings the other clans



10 L. de Vries

into the identityequation.Thesedifferentdyads implynumerous rightsandobligations.Peopleofunrelatedclansare“theothersˮ,eveniftheyspeakjustlikeyou.

Andpeoplethatspeaka(very)differentlanguagemaybeyourownpeopleintheAwyu-Ndumutworldwhereyourmother’speopleoftenspeakadifferentlanguageoradifferentdialect.Thishappensbecausewithsomanylanguages,spoken by very small numbers of people (around 1500 perAwyu-Ndumutlanguage),exogamousclanswilloftenreceivebrideswitha(very)differentlanguage.ThesewomentendtotakethelanguageoftheiroriginalclanwiththemtotheclanterritoryoftheirhusbandsandmanyAwyu-Ndumutchildrengrowupwithmother’sandfather’slanguage.Thisdoesnotmeanthatwomendonotadoptandusethelanguageordialect

oftheirhusband’sclan.Butinabilateralclanworld,itisvitalforachildtoestablishandmaintainlinkswithfather’speopleandmother’speopleandnor-mallyawomanwillpassonatleastsomeofherlanguage.Childrenarekeentolearnthelanguageoftheirmother’sbrothersbecausetheyplayakeyroleintheirlifeandtheywilloftenspendalotoftimeontheirmaternaluncles’clanlands,andtheretheyadjusttheirlanguageasmuchaspossibletothelanguageoftheirmaternalrelatives.EverywhereintheAwyu-NdumutareaImetpeoplewho had grown up with two or three languages or dialects, for exampleKorowai-Kombai-local Malay and Korowai-Citak-local Malay speakers inYaniruma.ThesociolinguisticsurveyofSusanto(2004:16)observes:“PeopleinBomaIIunderstandKombai,also,sincethereisalotofintermarriageinthisvillagebetween Jair andKombai.” In theborder areaswithAsmat,OkandMarindlanguages,Awyu-Ndumutspeakersfrequentlymarryspeakersofthoseotherlanguagefamilies.Although language as a clan transcending entity therefore has a modest

placeintheconstructionofidentity,thereareatleasttwowaysinwhichlan-guagedoesplayaroleinidentityconstructioninAwyu-Ndumutcommunities.Ithappensinpartsofthelexiconthatarelinkedtooriginofclansandofindi-viduals.And second, it happens in the frameworkof sociocentric linguisticconstructionsofpersonhood(Foley1997:266).First,Iwilldiscusssomeexamplesofwordsandnamesinthelexiconthat

are linked toorigin and identityof clans andof individuals.Awyu-Ndumutclans commonly have oral traditions that describe a plant or animal as themythical totemicancestorandfoundingfatherof theclan. It is taboo toeattotemic plants or animals. For example, the origin story of the Korowai-speakingKhomeiclan,publishedbyvanEnkanddeVries(1997:170 –173),tellshowtheirancestor,alizard,determinedwherehisoffspringshouldliveandhowsomeoftheoffspringofthelizardbecameKombaiandothersCitak-speaking clans.Citak is a neighbor ofKorowai but of a different languagefamily,Asmat-Kamoro.Thetotemicclannamesarecalledkhondum fi ‘hidden



Speaking of clans 11

names’bytheKorowai(Stasch2001:310).Hiddennamescanonlybeknowntoandutteredbyadultmenofclanswhoowntheoriginstoriesandwhotellthemonlyduringthenight,onspecialoccasionsandneverinthepresenceofoutsiders.Origin,identity,andpowerarecloselylinked:toknowtheoriginofsomethingorsomeoneistoknowtheidentityandtruenatureofthatpersonorthing.Toknowthenamesoforiginalbeingsorpersonsgivespowerbecauseinutteringthosenamestrueidentitiesareexposedandpossiblydamagedordestroyedincertaincontexts.AmongKorowai, personal names given to babies are likewise based on

notionsoforiginandtrueidentityembeddedinreincarnationbeliefs(vanEnkanddeVries1997:40 – 41).Everybabyisbornasareincarnationofadeadrelativeandaspiritmediumdeterminesthenamestobeavoidedinthepresenceofthechild.Besidescallingtheseavoidedtermstheperson’skhokhulop,Ko-rowaialsocallareincarnationidentitytheperson’s‘hiddenname’(khondum-fi),tobeavoided(lakhap)inhisorherhearing.Implicitinthesereincarnationbeliefsoforiginandidentityisthenotionofclan.Clanmembershipdoesnotstopatdeath.Thereisakindofparallelworldofclansinthelandofthedead.These dead ancestors decidewho among themwill return to the clan landofthelivingbyenteringthebodyofababyjustbeforebirth(vanEnkanddeVries1997:41).Whatentersthatbodyistheyanop-khayan‘trueperson’or‘soul’ofthedeadancestorNotsurprisingly,inmythsoforiginofAwyu-Ndumutspeakersweencounter

many‘hiddennames’.Forexample,Drabbe(1959:10)observesthatMandobooriginmythscontaintwokindsofnames,namesthatmaybeknownbyevery-oneandnamesthatareketpon‘taboo/secret’.Womenandchildrenarenotal-lowedtoknowthese‘hiddennames’andthereforeareexcludedfromlisteningtotheseoriginstories.Forexample,theketponnameofthePapuanhornbillAceros plicatus (Indonesian burung tahun), isTüot-Kejenip (Drabbe 1959:70).These‘hiddennames’,thepartofvocabularylinkedtoclanorigins,clanidentitiesandoral traditionsof theclan, reflectandexpressclan identity inlanguage.The secondway inwhich languageplays a role in expressing identity is

related tosociocentricor relationalconceptsofpersonhood, thepersonasacluster of dyadic relations. Both the person and the clan are perceived asclustersofrelationshipsandeachrelationshipcontributestowhoyouare,isanelement of your personal or clan identity. Foley (1997: 266) speaks in thiscontextofasociocentricconstructionofidentity.Theserelationshipsarede-fined in terms of rights and obligationswithin dyadic relationships such asmother’sbrotherandsister’sson,brotherandsister,husbandandwife,maleegoandwife’smother.Ceremonialexchangeofwealthitems,compensation/indemnitypaymentsandotherritualformsofexchangeareusedtoexpressandmaintainthesedyadicrelationships.



12 L. de Vries

New Guinean conceptualizations of personhood are radically different: a partitiveamalgamationofvarioussubstancesfromthedifferentexchangeinteractionsthatoneisultimatelybuiltupfrom.Fromsuchavantagepoint,theunderstandingofaspeaker,thearticulationofpersonhoodthroughlanguageisalsoradicallydifferent.Thishasfunda-mentalimplicationsforhowNewGuineansthinkaboutlanguageandquestionsoflan-guagevarietiesandlanguagepurism(thelatternotioninfactunintelligibleinsuchascheme).(Foley2005:163)

Whentwoclansortwoindividualswithdifferentlanguagesordialectshavearelationshipinthecontextoftrade,marriage,orotherwise,thepartnersnotonlyexchangegoods tosymbolise their relationshipbut theyalsoexchangealsoelementsoflanguage.Byborrowingelementsfromthelanguageofpart-nersandrelations,thesesociocentricconceptionsofidentityareexpressedinlanguage.Forexample,bylearningthelanguageofitsmother’speople,inad-ditiontothelanguageofitsfather’speople,achildexpressesitsbilateraliden-titythatislinkedwithfather’sandmother’sclan.Inotherwords,notonlyapersonoraclanbutalsolanguageitselfis“apartitiveamalgamationofvarioussubstancesfromthedifferentexchangeinteractions”(Foley2005:163).

2.3. Clans, language names and linguistic ideologies

Thetwoparallelworldsoftheclanlandsinthejungleandthekampong settle-ments,withtheirnation-staterelatedinstitutions,arereflectedinthelanguagenamesforAwyu-Ndumutlanguages.Therearetwotypesofnamesforthem,names that reflect thesettlementperspectiveandnames that reflect theclanperspective.Butlanguagenamesarejustapartofamuchwiderfieldofmeta-language,ofhowlanguageistalkedandthoughtabout.Themetalanguageofclanpeopleandoftheforeignersthatinteractedwiththemwasverydifferentbecausetheyhaveverydifferentlinguisticideologies.ThenamesofAwyu-Ndumutlanguagesasfoundinlinguisticpublications

(Korowai,Kombai,Aghu,etc.)areallexonyms,namesthatreflectthesettle-ment perspective, names given bymissionaries, government people, or lin-guistsforarbitrarysectionsofAwyu-Ndumutdialectchainsthathappenedtobespokenaroundgovernmentormissionpoststhatformedthecoreofmajorsettlements.Therewereofcoursenoindigenousnamesfortheselanguages.Awyu-Ndumut speakers themselves talked about the languages they spokewithexpressionssuchas“people’slanguageˮ,“ourlanguageˮ,“languageofclansuchandsuchˮ,“howwepeoplespeakˮ.Awyu-Ndumutspeakersdesig-natedthemselvesconsistentlyas“personsˮor“peopleˮ(seeSection3.2forthemeaningof these“personˮ terms in relation toboundariesof socialperson-hood),insomecontextsqualifiedbyclannames(“weareWerembapeopleˮ)




orexpressionssuchas“thatbelongtothisplaceˮ(“wearepeoplethatbelongtothisplace/clanlandˮ.)Whenclanpeopleidentifythemselves,theyneverdosointermsoflanguagebutintermsoftheclanlandswheretheybelong.ExonymssuchasKorowaiandKombaithereforedidnotdenotelinguistic

entitiesrecognisedornamedbyAwyu-Ndumutclans,theywerepurelycon-structsofoutsidersandthetermsAwyu-Ndumutspeakersusedfortheirownlanguagedidnotrefertothesameentitiesasthetermsoftheoutsiders.Forexample,thenormalKorowaiself-designationisbolü-anop‘place/clanterri-toryperson’ (Stasch2009:41), that is ‘people thatbelong to thisplace/clanland’.“Thetermsbolü-aup‘homelandlanguage’andbolü-an-aup‘homeland-LOC-language’ areKorowai speakers’mainnominations for their own lan-guage...beingsomewhatmorefrequentthankolufo-aup” (Stasch2001:60).The latternamekolufo-aup is in fact anexonym thatmeans ‘upstream lan-guage’ (Stasch 2009: 43) and is an example of a stream-based name givenbyoutsiderswhoIndonesianizedthetermkolufo‘upstream’intotheexonymKorowai.Thenounsglossedas“languageˮshouldbeunderstoodagainst theback-

groundoflocalperceptionsandconceptsof“languageˮasactionandassound.For example, the noun lu in theKombai expression khombaye-lu ‘person’sspeech’maymean ‘voice’, ‘word’, ‘promise’, ‘message’, ‘question’, ‘utter-ance’.Itreferstoactionsperformedthroughspeaking.Khombaye luasself-designationbasicallymeans‘(howwe)peoplesound’;justasdifferentkindsofbirdsproducedifferentcalls(lu),peopleofdifferentplacessounddifferently.Whenotherpeoplehaveadifferentpronunciation,evenwithmutualintelligi-bility,theyhaveadifferentlu‘speech’.Manyofthese“person/peopleˮbasedself-designations,notunderstoodand

mispronouncedbyoutsiders,wereinIndonesianizedformstakentobenamesforthe“languagesˮor“ethnolinguisticgroupsˮthatoutsidersconstructedforpartsofdialectchainsspokenaroundnewlyestablishedsettlements.That iswhyseveralAwyu-Ndumutlanguagenamescanbetracedbacktoexpressionsthatmean‘people’or‘person’ortonamesofclans.Forexample,thelanguagenameKombaiisbasedonanIndonesianversionoftheexpressionkhombaye lu‘people’sspeech’(deVries1993:1).ThelanguagenameKaetistemsfromtheethnicself-designationküap kaeti‘true/realperson’(Drabbe1959:4).ThelanguagenameAghucomesfromaghu‘person’(Drabbe1957:1).Since cultural geography is stream-based, sometimes names of rivers or

streams or terms like ‘upstreamers’ (e.g. kolufo ‘upstream’, IndonesianizedasKorowai,Stasch[2009:43])becameexonymsforAwyu-Ndumutdialectsspokenalongthoserivers.Kaeti(orMandobo)isalsoknownasNdumut,thenameofariveralongwhichtheylive.MandobospeakerstoldBoelaarsthatgovernmentpeoplewhostarted theTanahmerahpostcalled themMandobo,anexonymthatmightbeacombinationofMandupandWambon(Boelaars



14 L. de Vries

1970:27),termsMandobospeakersuseforpeopleontherightandleftbanksoftheKaoRiver.SjiaghaandJenimuarestream-basednames(Drabbe1950:93)givenbythelinguistFatherDrabbetothedialectofclanslivingclosetothosestreams.Missionaries,linguists,andgovernmentpeopleoftenhadlinguisticideolo-

gies that originated innation-stateswithnational languages, ideologies thatcorrelatelanguages,cultures,andpoliticalentitiesinakindofunholytrinity.Theytendedtoconstruebothlanguageandculturesashomogeneous,boundedentitieswithlanguageasexpressingcultureandasstronglylinkedtoidentity.For example, they assumed that the languages (which they themselves hadconstructedaslinguisticunits)suchasMandoboorKombai,expressedMan-doboandKombai“culturesˮ.However, therewerenoMandoboorKombaicultures.Clansthatspeakthesamelanguageoftenhavedifferentculturalprac-tices based on different histories of contact,marriage and tradewith otherclans,acrosslinguisticandculturalborders.Linguisticandculturalhomogeneityandtheideaofbound,discreteentities

called“Kombai languageˮor“Korowaicultureˮ is theveryoppositeof thelinguisticandculturalrealitiesofNewGuineaclancommunities,wherepeoplemayhaveamothertongueandafathertongue,wherespeakers’identitiesarenotthreatenedbymultilingualism,borrowing,mixingandadjustinglinguisticandculturalpracticestocross-languagepartnersincommunication,butratherthe opposite, since relationally conceived identities are expressedbymulti-lingualism,borrowing,andmixing.Nation-stateagentsexpressedtheirlinguisticideologiesintheorganization

of the settlements and in the local administrative system.Themultilingualsettlementsweredividedintosections,eachsectionwithitsown“language”and itsownheadmen.Awyu-Ndumutpeople living in those settlements ad-optedthetermssuchassuku Korowai‘Kombaitribe’andbahasa Kombai‘theKombailanguage’thattheforeignershadintroducedtotalkaboutthemandtoorganizethesettlements.Inkampungcontexts,Awyu-NdumutspeakerslearnedtotalkandthinkaboutthemselvesinIndonesianasorang Kombai ‘Kombaipeople’ororang Mandobo‘Mandobopeople’.Languagefunctions indeedverydifferently inclanworlds than itdoes in

nation-stateswithunifyingandstandardizednationallanguages.Accordinglydifferent linguistic ideologiesemerged inAwyu-Ndumutclanworlds.Foley(2005:157)defineslinguisticideologyas“thatclusterofbeliefsthataparticu-larspeechcommunityholdsabouttheformandfunctionoflanguage”.Theseideological beliefs do not form theories of language per se “but rather thebackgroundoflargelyunexaminedassumptionsthatguidetheconstructionofspecifictheories,betheyfolktheoriesorscientificones”(Foley2005:157).Linguists andmissionaries tended to do their research in the settlements

ratherthanonclanterritoriesandtheyviewedlinguisticrealityfromthatkam-




pung perspective rather than looking at linguistic and cultural reality fromaclanperspective.OneoftheexceptionswasHeeschen(1998:24)whoob-serves in his description of the Eipo language of the eastern highlands ofIndonesianPapua:“When it is stated: theEipo languagehas the rulex, thereader should bear inmindwhat has been stated here about the smallnessof the speechcommunityand itsnorms.The rule shouldproperly read: thespeakeryorthegroupofmenfromsuchorsuchaclan...say‘x’undercertaincircumstances.”InclancontextsofAwyu-Ndumutspeakerslinguistic,culturalandpolitical

unitsarenotperceivedascorrelated.Theycannotbeperceivedascorrelatedinclan societieswhere languages transcend theboundariesof theclan, andspeakersof thesame language liveonadifferentclan territoryandmaybeyourenemies.Perhaps thesharpestdifference in the linguistic ideologiesofAwyu-Ndumutclansandtherepresentativesofnation-stateswhostudiedtheirlanguagesresidesintheconceptualnetworkofclannotionsoforigin,identity,iconicity, spiritualpowerand secretknowledge.From thatperspective, lan-guageisnotjustaninstrumenttorefertothings,andwordsarenotarbitrarylabelsforthings.Rather,incertaincontexts,wordsareperceivedaselementsintrinsically,causallyandiconicallylinkedwiththeorigin,essenceandhiddennatureofthings(Stasch2008:9–11),andwiththespiritualpowerandpresenceof the things or persons named.That iswhy pronouncingwords in certaincontexts is a dangerous and undesired act because itmay have all sorts ofconsequences,suchasevokingthepresenceandpowerofpersonsorthings;diminishing the spiritual power of these things andpersons;weakening theclan;diseases;earthquakesandotherdisruptionsofthenaturalorder.Thatisalsowhyavoidingcertainwordsispartandparcelofeverydaylanguageuse,aconstantandcentralpartoflinguisticbehaviour.Thisleadstolexicalsubstitu-tionregisters,institutionalizedlinksbetweenwordpairsinthelexiconsofclanlanguages.Lexical substitution registers with various forms and functions occur all

overNewGuinea(andAustralia).Registersofvocabularysubstitutionsmayhavepoeticfunctions,artisticfunctions,ritualfunctions,functioninkinshipcontextsormayhavepragmatic functionsof indirection,humor,persuasionorfunctiontoexpressangerandfrustration(Stasch2008:7).TheseregistersoftenrevealkeyaspectsoflinguisticideologiesofNewGuineaclans.TheKorowai khokhulop register described by Stasch (2008) exemplifies

someoftheseaspectsoflinguisticideologiesemerginginAwyu-Ndumutclancontexts.StaschcomparestheKorowaikhokhulop lexicalsubstitutionregisterwith the substitution practices of the neighboringAsmat (Stasch 2008: 7).AccordingtoStasch(2008:8),khokhulop isacompoundnounconsistingofkhokhu ‘root, origin, cause,meaning’ and -lop ‘location, site’whichmeanssomethinglike‘underlyingidentity’.BoththeAsmatandKorowaisubstitutive



16 L. de Vries

pairingsarebasedoniconicity(Stasch2008:10):AsmatandKorowaispeakersperceiveresemblancesbetweenthepaireditems.Certainpairs,e.g.‘moon’asthesubstitutefor‘sun’andcertainmarsupialspeciesnamesfordogs,aresharedbyKorowaiandAsmat.Korowai speakers often talk about the khokhulop register of which they

have a highmetalinguistic awareness and say things like ‘A, itskhokhulopisB’,withexamplesofkhokhulop substitutions inTable1 (Stasch2008:6,10 –13).AccordingtoStasch(2008:16)theforceofthesepairingsgoesbeyondmet-

aphoricalcorrespondenceoriconicresemblanceandisultimatelybased“onontological,causalclosenessthatisfelttobebehind[it]thatmanifestsiconicsimilarity.Vinesoriginallyweresnakesandsaying‘snake’aroundvinescausesthemtobreak”.Stasch(2008:6)writes:“Speechisnotonlyaboutthephenom-enalworldbutof it.Languageisanalogoustotouchandothersensorychan-nels,andanalogoustoformsofinteractioninthosephysicalchannelssuchasbodilyharm.”Persons also have khokhulop names and “personal khokhulop correspon-

dencesunderscoretheforceofsoundalone....Anindividualdoesnotneedtoknowhisorherkhokhulop inordertobedamagedbyhearingituttered....Even accidental utterance of a homonym or near-homonym of a person’shiddenname is enough” (Stasch2008: 20).This leads to elaborate linguis-tic avoidance behaviour as people constantly try to talk around khokhulopnouns.

3. Languageofdemonsandhumans

3.1. Domains of Indonesian and Awyu-Ndumut languages

Intheprocessofsettlementformation,speakersofAwyu-NdumutlanguagescameintocontactwithlocalvarietiesofIndonesian,mostlyPapuanMalay.Both the Catholic missionaries and the Protestant missionaries of the

mission of theDutchReformedChurches (ZGK) used local PapuanMalayvarieties of Indonesian in their school, health and church activities, under

Table1. Korowai words with their khokhulop substitutions

Normaldesignation Khokhulopsubstitution

nan‘rattan’ yanop-khul‘humanintestine’dul‘penis’ wafol ‘earthworm’laun‘pandanussauce’ khi-ol-akh‘dysentery’melil‘fire’ bun-kha‘blood’




both Dutch and Indonesian rule. Missionaries tended to be the first for-eignersthatsettledinAwyu-Ndumutlands;theywerefollowedbygovernmentpeople,usuallyveryfewandconfinedtomainstationsintheinterior,andbypettytraders,oftenBugineseorMakassarese,whoopenedshopsinthemainstations.Alltheseforeignpeopleandinstitutionsareassociatedwithkampung settle-

ments,notwithclanlands.Mostforeignershadverypredictablepatternsofmovementandlocation;theywouldtraveleitherbyboatorbyplane,fromonekampungtoanother.TheyhardlyevertravelledoverlandtotheclanterritoriesofAwyu-Ndumutpeople to interact therewith them.Rather,Awyu-Ndumutpeoplewere invitedorpressed tocometo thenewlyestablishedkampungs,usuallyconsistingofanairstriporasmallharborsuitabletomotorizedboats,withachurch,sometimesaclinic,aschooloragovernmentbuilding,andoneor two rowsofkampunghouses for locals.The languageof the institutionsfoundinkampungswasIndonesian,alsousedintheshops,inmostchurches,intheschoolandintheclinic.Inpractice,sincepeoplehavenomeanstosubsistinthekampungs,depen-

dentastheyareforfoodandbuildingmaterialsontheclanlands,mostofthetimethekampungsaredesertedorsemi-deserted,withahandfulofpeoplewhoneed tobe in thekampung for various reasons, for example togetmedicaltreatment,togotoschoolsortovisitthechurchorshops.Butsincetheteach-ers, health careworkers and other foreigners often leave their posts in theinterior to go the coastal cities, for example to receive their salaries,manykampungareghosttownsmuchoftheyear.Thefactthatforeignersnormallystayedinkampungs andexpectedpeople

tocometothesekampungssuitedlocalpeopleverywell,giventheirprefer-ence tobe autonomous individualson their clan lands, inhighlydispersed,loose, egalitarian clan communities.Outsiders settling inkampungswas anadvantage to theAwyu-Ndumutbecause itprotected themfromunwelcomevisitorsontheirclanlandsandledtominimalinterferencefromforeigninstitu-tionsontheclanlands.Thissetupasystemwithtwoparallelworlds,theworldofthekampunganditsinstitutionsandtheworldoftheclanlandsinthejungle. Theseworldsareconnectedandco-evolveinthecourseoftime,andthedy-namicsoftheinteractionbetweenthesetwoworldsvarieswithtimeandplaceinAwyu-Ndumutcommunities.Peopleareverymuchawareofthefactthattheyliveinthesetwoworlds,

eachwith itsownlinguisticandculturalpractices. In the late1980swhenIlivedintheKombaikampungofWanggemaloandtheKorowai-Kombaikam-pungYaniruma,peoplehadbeguntoadopttwopersonalnamesthattheycalledin Indonesiannama gelap ‘dark name’ andnama terang ‘light name’.Thenama terangwastheirIndonesianname,oftentakenfromtheBibleorfromobjectsassociatedwithforeigners,forexampleapersonwouldbecalledPetrus



18 L. de Vries

orPilotorMaik(afterapilot’sname).Thesenameswereusedexclusivelyormostlywhentheywere in thekampung.Whileon theclan lands, theyusedindigenouspersonalnamessuchasMbürüfareinreferencetopersons.(ThiswastheKombainameofoneofmylanguageconsultants,anamethatmeans‘clanlandman’;whileinthesettlementofWanggemalopeoplewouldrefertohimasPetrus;personalnamesaremostlyused in reference, avoided in thepresenceofthepersonwiththatname.)Interestingly,quiteafewwouldonlywearIndonesianstyleclothingwhilein

thekampungandchangeintograssskirt/penisgourdwhileontheclanlands.The dichotomy of kampung versus clan lands was also reflected in otherculturalpractices,forexamplewitchexecutionsasaruletookplaceonclanlands, not in kampungs where the Indonesian justice systemwas supposedtobe in force.Similarly, sagogrubfeastswerealwaysonclan lands,neverin thekampung.Church serviceswereneveronclan lands, always inkam-pungs.Sickpeoplewouldusewesternmedicinewhileinthesettlementsandtraditionalcuresandplantmedicinewhileontheclanlands.Mostpeople,in-cluding thosenot interested at all inChristianity, go to churchwhen in thesettlementsandperform traditional ritualsandancestor-related sacrificesontheclanlands.Theoppositionbetweenclanlandsandsettlementscreatedacleardivision

of domains forAwyu-Ndumut languages and localPapuanMalayvarieties.PapuanMalayisusedinkampungcontextsasinterethniclinguafrancaandaslanguageofcertain(nation-statelinked)institutionsandshops,Awyu-NdumutlanguagesareusedbothinkampungcontextsbetweenAwyu-Ndumutspeakersandonclanlands.Interactioninschool,shopsandgovernmentofficesinthevillagesisinvarietiesofIndonesian,rangingfrombasilectsofPapuanMalaytoacrolectsthatapproachstandardIndonesian.ChurchservicesmaybeeithermostlyorexclusivelyinlocalMalayvarietiesorinAwyu-Ndumutlanguages,withintermediateformsthatemployboth.Most Awyu-Ndumut speakers have some command of Papuan Malay.

Roughlyspeaking,age,genderanddistancetothecoastdeterminetheextenttowhichpeopleknowPapuanMalay.MostinteriorvillageshaveelementaryschoolswherechildrenlearnIndonesianbut teachers tendtobeawaymanymonthsayearwhichreducestheactualteachingtimeconsiderably.MenspeakPapuanMalaygenerallybetterthanwomen,andyoungerpeoplespeakitbetterthanolderones.Sincewomenbringtheirlanguageswiththemtotheclansoftheir husbands and also learn the languages of their husbands, women are“sometimes particularly associatedwithmultilingualism in languagesotherthan Indonesian” (Stasch 2007: 101). Towards the foothills of the centralmountainrangeswherekampungs openedeitherveryrecently(thelastdecade)orwherepeoplestillliveexclusivelyonclanlandsintreehouses(e.g.somepartsofNorthKorowai),peopleknowverylittlePapuanMalay,ifatall.To




give an ideaof the advanceof Indonesian in relation to the start of villageformation,theKombai-KorowaivillageYanirumawasbegunin1979,whenhardlyanyoneof theKorowaiaroundthemissionstationspokeIndonesian.But“asof2002,about5percentofKorowaispokeIndonesianwellenoughthattheywoulddosoregularlyinthepresenceofmorethanjustoneperson,andthenumberofIndonesianspeakerswasgrowingquickly”(Stasch2007:100).There is onemajor exception to the rule that varieties of Indonesian are

not used on clan lands: during sago grub or pig feasts where hundreds ofpeoplefromawideareacometogether,PapuanMalaymaybeusedaslinguafrancawhenpeoplecannotunderstandeachother.WhenAwyu-Ndumutpeo-plewith different languagesmeet eachotherwhile travelling in the jungle,theywillalsousePapuanMalay.FormostAwyu-Ndumutspeakersthisinter-ethniclinguafrancafunctionisveryuseful,reflectedinhowtheycallIndone-sianbahasa umum ‘general language’ in Indonesia.But the terms they useforIndonesianwhenspeakingAwyu-Ndumutlanguagesmakeveryclearthatthere are other, much more negatives elements in their attitudes towardsIndonesian.

3.2. Language attitudes

TheanalysisthatStasch(2007)presentsofKorowaiattitudestowardsIndone-sianisvalidforAwyu-Ndumutcommunitiesingeneral:afundamentallyam-bivalentattitudethathasitsrootsinambivalencetowardsthesettlementsorkampungs thatontheonehandgiveaccesstothewiderworldandontheotherhandbringthatsameworldthreateninglyclosetotheclanworldswiththeirautonomyandcherishedclanlands.WhenAwyu-Ndumutspeakersreferto“Indonesian”inIndonesian,theysay

bahasa umum ‘general language’andhardlyever thestandard termBahasa Indonesia,‘Indonesianlanguage’(Stasch2007:99).TheavoidanceofthetermBahasa Indonesia,atermmanyAwyu-Ndumutspeakerslearnedinelementaryschool, shouldnot be interpreted as a reflectionof anti-Indonesianpoliticalsentiments (Stasch 2007: 98); rather, the term bahasa umum reflects whatAwyu-Ndumutspeakersseeasitsbasicfunction,namelyaslinguafranca,ameanstocommunicateacrosslinguisticboundaries,includingwithneighbour-ingPapuangroups.LongbeforeIndonesiastartedtoruleoverWestPapuain1963,varietiesof

Indonesian,thencalledMalay,functionedaslinguafrancainNewGuinea.TheDutchalsousedMalayintheircommunicationwiththeinhabitantsofDutchNewGuinea following a practice dating back to pre-colonial times. In thesouthernpartsofAwyu-Ndumut, towards thecoast,Awyu-Ndumutspeakers



20 L. de Vries

havebeenusedtoMalayasalinguafrancaeversincethefirstDutchmission-ariesandgovernmentpeoplearrivedinthe1920sand1930s.Forambitiousyoungmenwhowanttobuythethingstheyseeintheshops

inthesettlementsandwhowantjobs,learningIndonesian,bahasa umum,isarequirementtogetaccesstojobsandmoneyandtothewiderworld.Youngbachelorshaveahighresidentialmobilityandareoverrepresentedinthesettle-ments.Theyhaveapragmaticattitudetowardsthebahasa umumasatooltoimprove their life. Given the sociocentric practices of identity expression,discussedabove, it isnaturalfor(usuallyyoungerandmale)Awyu-Ndumutspeakerswhohavevaluedtieswithforeignersinkampungcontexts,toreflectthesepersonal relationships in their languageuse,bothby speakingbahasa umum andbymixing in lexical andgrammatical elements from Indonesianwhen speakingAwyu-Ndumut languages, evenwhen they are on their clanlands.Bydoingso, theysignal theirvaluedrelationshipswith thesebahasa umum speakingpeople, relationships thatarepartof theirpersonal identity,alongsideclanandotherrelationships.However,PapuanMalayisnotonlyseenasthebahasa umum,alanguage

forinterethniccommunication,itisalsostronglyassociatedwiththeworldoftheforeignersinthesettlements.Fromtheverybeginning,theforeignersatthekampungs,whethermissionariesorgovernmentofficials,explicitlyorimplic-itly, triedtointegrateclanpeopleintothewiderIndonesiansociety,withitsinstitutions of school, clinics, churches and government.At the same time,foreigners needed clan lands for airstrips, mission stations, kampungs, andsometimesforeconomicactivities(oilcompanies,logging).Inotherwords,theworldofthesettlements,withallitsattractionsofshops

withdesirable things, jobopportunities, clinicsand schools, is alsoa threattotheworldsofegalitarian,autonomy-loving,individualsand,mostofall,athreattoclansandtheirlandrights.Thisisthebasisfortheambivalentattitudeof most Awyu-Ndumut speakers towards Indonesian. It is also why theyalwaysuseverynegative terms for Indonesian inAwyu-Ndumut languages,termsthatreflecttheaspectsof“otherness”(Stasch2007),ofunwelcomein-trusionintoclanlandsandofexistentialthreattoclanlifeitself.Forexample,the name for the Indonesian language in Korowai is laleo-aup ‘demon-language’(vanEnkanddeVries1997:103)andinKombaikhwaye-lu ‘demon-language’(deVries1993:2).TounderstandwhyspeakerschosethisnamefortheIndonesianlanguage

weneedtounderstandnotionsofsocialpersonhood,andespeciallythe(chang-ing) boundaries ofAwyu-Ndumut social personhood.WhenAwyu-Ndumutspeakersrefertotheirownlanguagestheydoso(seeSection2.3)withphrasesorcompoundscontaininganounthatmeans‘person’inthesenseof‘normal’person,atermreservedforpeoplewithintheboundariesofsocialpersonhood,e.g.Kombaikhombaye-lu‘persons’language’.ButwhentheytalkaboutIndo-




nesian,theyalwaysuseexpressionscontainingatermreservedforpeopleout-sidetheboundariesofsocialpersonhood.Therearetwomaintermsintheselanguagesforpeopleoutsidethebound-

ariesofsocialpersonhood:‘demons’and‘witches’.FollowingtheanalysisofStasch(2001,2009),therelationshipbetweenthetermsfor‘person’,‘demon’and‘witch’canbedescribedasfollows.Thesimplestwaytounderstandtherelationbetween these threenotions is to seexaxua ‘witch’as thecause ofdeathofyanop‘person’andlaleo‘afterdeathdemon’astheresultofdeath.Alldeathsofyanop‘person’areinprinciplecausedbyxaxua‘malecannibalisticwitches’andallyanopbecomelaleo‘after-deathdemon’oncetheyaredead.InthewordsofStasch(2001:444):“Thus,Korowaiexperienceofdeathisdomi-natednotbyonemonstrousfigurebuttwo.Death’soutcomeispersonifiedinthefigureofthelaleo‘demon’,whiledeath’ssourceispersonifiedinthefigureofthexaxua‘witch’....Itisdifficulttoexaggeratethescaleandintensityofpeople’sdailypreoccupationswiththesetwomonsters.”Letusstartwiththedemonconcept,Korowailaleo.Wefindlaleoinatleast

fivecontexts:itisappliedto‘afterdeathdemons’(aghost-likebutcorporealformthatyanopturnintoafterdeath),tonewbornbabies,inswearwordsandoaths, to foreigners,and itoccurs innumerousnounsdenoting things intro-ducedbyforeigners.Thefirstandmostbasicmeaningofthedemontermsisafter-deathdemon

orzombie.AccordingtoStasch(2001:324)“demonsaretheprincipalthinghumansbecomeafterdeath.Peopledescribethesedemonswithvividhorror,andworrydailyaboutthepossibilityofthesemonstersinterferingwiththeirlives.”Theinterferenceelement,mentionedbyStasch,isimportanttonoticebecauseforeignersarealsoseentointerferealotbyAwyu-Ndumutspeakers.Thegloss‘demon’ isonlyanapproximationthatobscures thecorporealbutintenselyputridnatureoflaleo.Theyhaverotting,disfigured,stinkingbodies,withfleshslidingdownfromtheirbodies,theirbodiesaredecayingcorpses(Stasch2001:327).Becauselaleoarehumanschangedintosomethingdisgustingandrepulsive,

thetermisextendedtoothercategoriesofbeingsthatarefoundtoberepulsivebecauseof their otherness, such asnewbornbabies and foreigners, becausethey look likehumansbuthavesomanydisgustingproperties that theyaredeniedsocialpersonhood.Newbornbabies,withthebloodoftheirbirthonthem,thereforebegintheir

livesaslaleo‘demon’,withalltheassociationsofdisgustingothernessof‘de-mons’,ratherthanyanop‘person’.Theycanbegraduallyandrituallyturnedintoyanopinthecourseofthefirstweeksandmonthsoftheirlives,thatis,ifthemotherdecidestokeepthenewbornbaby.The(repulsive)othernessofforeigners,bothphysicallyandculturally(such

astheirstrangesmells,paleskins,weirdhabits),thefactthattheyintrudeon



22 L. de Vries

clan territoriesandclaimclan landforairstripsandsettlements—all thesethingscontributetotheideathatforeignersarenotyanop‘(normal)person’.Foreignersarenotwithintheboundariesofsocialpersonhoodandthismakesthemetaphoricalextensionofthetermkhwai(Kombai)orlaleo(Korowai)toforeignersunderstandable.TheskinisimportantculturallytoAwyu-Ndumutpeople,inmanycontexts

andalsoinrelationtothe‘demon’concept.Intheearly1980sKorowaiandKombaipeoplewouldofteninspectmyskin,feelitandconcludefromitspale-nessanduglinessthatIwasindeeda‘demon’andthatmyskinwastheskinofadeadperson(asmyKombaifriendGeyoWerembalatertoldme,somewhatembarrassed).Verymany of the unknown and strange objects associated with the for-

eignersenteredthelexiconoftheselanguagesthroughanextremelyproduc-tiveformationofnouncompoundswiththedemontermasmodifyingnoun,asinTable2.Theveryproductivityof thisprocessmitigatedthenegativeaspectof the

demon terms since many of the things denoted by demon compounds arehighly desirable and not repulsive at all, such as flash lights andmatches.Among younger speakers, those who live in kampungs and have gone toschoolandwithaspirations tomove tocities suchasMeraukeor Jayapura,thedemon terms laleo andkhwai have lostmuchof their original negativeforcewhenapplied to foreigners,meaningprobably just ‘foreigner’ (Stasch2007:105).Stasch(2007:105)evenobservesthatsomespeakersexperimentwithcompoundssuchasamerika-anop‘Americans’,Indonesia-anop‘Indone-sians’,tulis-anop‘tourists’totalkaboutcategoriesofforeigners.Thisissig-nificantbecausethenoun(y)anop‘person’impliessocialpersonhood,some-thingpreviouslydeniedtoforeigners.However,asStasch(2007:105)pointsout, “it is important to acknowledge the severe intellectual and emotionalshocksthattheKorowaihaveexperiencedintheirinvolvementwiththenewforeigners.SomeKorowaiwhohavenotinteractedmuchwithforeignerscon-

Table2. Noun compounds formed with the word for ‘demon’

Kombai

doü ‘sago’ khwai-doü ‘rice’(demon-sago)riya ‘torch’ khwai-riya ‘flashlight’(demon-torch)lu ‘sound,voice,language’ khwai-lu ‘Indonesian’(demon-language)

Korowai

aup ‘word,language’ laléo-aup ‘Indonesianlanguage’(demon-language)ndaü ‘sago’ laléo-ndaü ‘bread’(demon-sago)khal ‘skin’ laléo-khal ‘clothing’(demon-skin)




tinuetopositarelationofliteralidentitybetweenforeignersandthedemonicdead.”Stasch(2007:105)isalsocorrectinpointingoutthatwhereaselsewherein

NewGuinea(white)foreignershavebeenassimilatedtodeadkin,ancestorsordivinities,the‘demon’metaphorofAwyu-Ndumutspeakersisexceptionallynegative,becauseitisacomplimenttobeassimilatedtodivinitiesorancestralspiritsinmostotherpartsofNewGuinea.Theverynegativecontextsinwhichthe‘demon’termsareusedinAwyu-Ndumutlanguages—swearwords,infan-ticideandputridcorpses—telladifferentstory.GiventhefactthatformostAwyu-Ndumutspeakersintheinteriorthereis

noeconomicalternativetotheirclanlandsandgiventhestrongemotionaltiesto the ancestral lands, it is to be expected that evenwithmitigation of theoriginalforceofthe‘demon’nounstodenoteforeigners, theforeignerswillcontinue to beperceived as a threat to clan lands, land rights, survival andidentity, with the concomitant ambivalence towards the ‘demon-language’,Indonesian.ItisimportanttoreiteratethatcallingIndonesian‘demon-language’initself

isnotanexpressionof specificanti-Indonesianpolitical sentiments; all for-eigners,irrespectiveoftheirnationality,are‘demons’andallforeignersspeakPapuanMalaywheninteractingwithAwyu-Ndumutspeakers,andtheyhavedonesolongbeforeIndonesiatookcontroloverWestPapua.Thereis,how-ever,apoliticalelementinthe‘demon’terminology,inanothersense,becauseclans are also political units inAwyu-Ndumutworlds: every foreigner thatentersaclanland,crossesaterritorialborder,andisathreattotheclanlandinheritedfromtheancestors.Papuan languages such as Awyu-Ndumut languages are vital and un-

endangeredonlywhentheirhabitat,dispersedandsmallscaleclansocietieswith clan lands in the jungle, is intact. Interactionwith kampungs and theIndonesian language is no threat to Awyu-Ndumut languages as long asclan based living is allowed to continue. Speakers will just add anotherlanguage,PapuanMalay,totheirrepertoireastheyalwayshaveinmultilin-gualclan-basedNewGuinea.ButeverywhereinNewGuinea,bothinIndone-sianPapua and in the independent state of PapuaNewGuinea,where clanbasedpatternsoflifebrokedownandpeoplewereintegratedinwiderpolit-ical and social frameworks of nation-states, linguistic diversity decreasedrapidly.Letusnowturntothe‘witch’term,theothermajortermappliedtopeople

outsidetheboundariesofsocialpersonhood.TheKorowaitermxaxua‘witch’andtheKombaitermkhakhwa-rumu‘witch-male’ areusedformalecannibal-isticwitches.TheKombaitermmakestheculturalnormexplicitthatwitchesaremales,althoughbothKorowaiandKombaiacknowledgethatoccasionallywomencanbewitches.



24 L. de Vries

Inprinciple,everydeathofayanop‘(social)person’iscausedbywitchcraft.Sinceaverysmallchildisnotyetfullya‘socialperson’andverymanyofthemdie before their first birthday, their death often does not trigger witchcraftaccusations.Theoutsideworld,foreignersandanythingtheybrought,fromflashlightsto

theIndonesianlanguage,werenevertalkedaboutin‘witch’terms,alwaysandonlyin‘demon’terms.Both‘demon’and‘witch’termsdenotepeopleoutsidetheboundariesofsocialpersonhoodbut‘witches’aretheenemywithin,andrestrictedtomales.Foreignerswereneveraccusedofbeing‘witches’,fortu-natelysoinmypersonalcase.

4. Conclusion

Summarizing we can say that the politically fragmented, dispersed, small,loose-knit,openclancommunitiesofAwyu-Ndumutspeakers,withastrongtendency towards individual and clan autonomy, gave language a specificplaceinsociallife.Thisisreflectedintheroleoflanguageinidentityconstruc-tion, in languagenames, inhowlanguageis talkedabout, inborrowingandmultilingualismasawaytoexpressone’sidentityasaclusterofrelations,inthepresenceofmother’slanguage/dialectandfather’slanguage/dialectinthesocializationofchildrentoreflectbilateralidentity,andinlinguisticideologiesasexpressedinspecialspeechregisters.TherelationbetweenAwyu-NdumutlanguagesandvarietiesofIndonesian

canalsobeunderstoodmuchbetteroncethatrelationisviewedfromthepointofviewofclancommunitiesandthedynamicsofclanlandandkampung.In-donesianisthelanguageofthekampunganditsinstitutionsanditisthebahasa umum,thelinguafranca.SinceIndonesian,initslocalPapuanMalayvariety,wasalreadythelinguafrancainNewGuineacenturiesbeforeIndonesiatookcontrol,itishardlyassociatedwithIndonesiaasthecontrollingnation-state;rather, it is the language used by outsiders, ‘demons’, people outside theboundariesofsocialpersonhood,thathavedisgustinghabits,skinsandsmellsandwhointerferewiththelivesofnormal‘persons’andmayevenintheendclaimclanlands.TheAwyu-Ndumutlanguages,bycontrast,arelanguagesof‘humans’,peoplewithintheboundariesofsocialpersonhood,andaboveallthelanguagesoftheclanlands,ortousetheKorowaitermbolü-aup‘clanlandlanguage’.

Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

Correspondenceaddress:[email protected]




Note

1. IwasenabledtowritethisarticlebecauseofagenerousinvitationtobeavisitingscholarattheCairnsInstituteofJamesCookUniversity,Cairns,Australiain2010.ThanksareduetoprofessorsDixonandAikhenvaldfortheinvitationandstimulatingdiscussions.Iextensivelyused Stasch’s dissertation (2001, 2009) for the first part of the article and his article onKorowaiambivalentperceptionsofIndonesian(Stasch2007)forthesecondpart.Many,manyhours of conversations with Gert van Enk and GeyoWeremba on key concepts such as“demonsˮ,“witchesˮand“clanlandsˮhavealsofoundtheirwayintothisarticle.

References

Aikhenvald,Alexandra. 2008. Language contact along the Sepik River, Papua New Guinea.Anthropological Linguistics50(1).1– 66.

Boelaars, Jan. 1970. Mandobo’s tussen de Digoel en de Kao. Bijdragen tot een etnografie. [MandobosbetweentheDigulandKao.Contributionstoanethnography].Assen:VanGorcum.

Drabbe, Peter. 1950. Twee dialecten van deAwju-taal. [Two dialects of theAwju language].Bijdragen van het Koninklijk Instituut106.92–147.

Drabbe, P. 1957. Spraakkunst van het Aghu-dialect van de Awju-taal. [Grammar of theAghudialectoftheAwjulanguage]. RoyalInstituteofLinguisticsandAnthropology(KITLV).TheHague:Nijhoff.

Drabbe,P.1959.Kaeti en Wambon. Twee Awju-dialecten. [KaetiandWambon.TwoAwjudia-lects].TheHague:KITLV.

Enk,vanGerritJ.&LourensdeVries.1997.The Korowai of Irian Jaya: their language in its cultural context.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Foley,WilliamA.1997.Anthropological linguistics: an introduction.Oxford:Blackwell.Foley,WilliamA. 2005. Personhood and linguistic identity, purism and variation. Language

Documentation and Description 3.157–180.Healy,Alan.1970.Proto-Awyu-Dumutphonology.InStephenA.Wurm&DonaldC.Laycock(eds.),Pacific linguistic studies in honour of Arthur Capell (PacificLinguisticsC-13),997–1061.Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversity.

Heeschen, Volkert. 1998. An ethnographic grammar of the Eipo language. Berlin: DietrichReimer.

Stasch,Rupert.2001.Figures of alterity among Korowai of Irian Jaya: kinship, mourning and festivity in a dispersed society. Chicago:UniversityofChicagodissertation.

Stasch,Rupert. 2007.Demon language.The otherness of Indonesian in a Papuan community.InMikiMakihara&BambiB.Schieffelin(eds.),Consequences of contact: language ideology and sociocultural transformations in Pacific societies, 96 –124. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Stasch,Rupert.2008.Referent-wreckinginKorowai:aNewGuineaabuseregisterasethnosemi-oticprotest.Language in Society37(1).1–25.

Stasch,Rupert.2009.Society of others: kinship and mourning in a West Papuan place. Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Susanto,Yunita.2004.Report on the Mapi River survey. South coast of Irian Jaya. Indonesia.Dallas: SIL International. http://www.sil.org/silesr/abstract.asp?ref=2004 – 003 (accessed 23May2010).

Voorhoeve, Clemens L. 2001. ProtoAwyu-Dumut phonology II. InA. Pawley, M. Ross andD.Tryon(eds.),The Boy from Bundaberg. Studies in Melanesian Linguistics in Honour of Tom Dutton.Canberra:PacificLinguistics,361–381.



26 L. de Vries

Voorhoeve,ClemensL.2005.Asmat-Kamoro,Awyu-DumutandOk:anenquiryintotheirlinguis-ticrelationships.In:AndrewPawley,RobertAttenborough,JackGolsonandRobinHide(eds.),Papuan Pasts. Cultural, linguistic and biological histories of Papuan-speaking peoples,145–167.Canberra:PacificLinguistics.

Vries,Lourensde&RobiniaWiersma.1992.An outline of the morphology of Wambon of the Irian Jaya Upper-Digul area.RoyalInstituteofLinguisticsandAnthropology.Leiden:KITLV.

Vries,Lourensde.1993.Forms and functions in Kombai, an Awyu language of Irian Jaya.(PacificLinguisticsB-108).Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversity.

Vries,Lourensde.1995.Demonstratives, referent identificationand topicality inWambonandsomeotherPapuanlanguages.Journal of Pragmatics24.513–533.

Vries,Lourensde.2005.Towardsatypologyoftail-headlinkageinPapuanlanguages.Studies in Language29(2).363–384.

Vries,Lourensde.2006.ArealpragmaticsofNewGuinea:thematization,distributionandreca-pitulativelinkageinPapuanlanguages.Journal of Pragmatics38.811–828.

Vries,Lourensde.2010.Fromclauseconjoining to clausechaininginDumutlanguagesofNewGuinea.Studies in Language34(2).327–349.



speaking of clans: language in awyu-ndumut communities of ...eprints.jcu.edu.au › 23751 › 1 ›...

Documents