used for the cash games is 1 either the same one that is used for the betel nut games—and can therefore be understood as “traditional” with the corollary that
cash games do indeed tap traditional decision-making—or 2 the two exchange media trigger two different decision-making strategies which, by coincidence
produce the same results. Until or unless there is evidence for the latter, Occam and I prefer the former explanation.
6 Conclusion
The use of cash in experimental games can, on conceptual grounds, be challenged along the lines of an argument that asserts, a priori, that money
evokes a specialized capitalistic decision-making module. Following this line of reasoning, the use of cash cross-culturally in such games reveals little about pan-
human exchange strategies, and would most likely be seen to be an artifact of globalization. The results presented here, however, constitute a preemptive
empirical strike against such ideas. The foregoing account of the controlled comparative use of both cash and a
traditional medium of exchange shows that the results of experimental games using cash cannot be rejected unless it can be shown, using the same sort of
approach demonstrated in the foregoing, that for a particular site, cash is an unworkable and confounding medium.
The one question that still has no answer—and which will have to remain unanswered—is the one that addresses exchange strategies on the part of those
populations for whom money is a largely novel exchange medium. Certainly, Karl Franklin would be in a position to suggest an educated guess about how the
Kewa would have carried out Dictator and Ultimatum cash games in his early days among them and how that would have compared to traditional, local
exchange media.
References
Bolyanatz, Alexander H. 2000. Mortuary feasting on New Ireland: The activation of matriliny among the Sursurunga
. Westport, Connecticut: Bergin Garvey. Boyd, Robert, Herbert Gintis, Samuel Bowles, and Peter J. Richerson. 2003. The
evolution of altruistic punishment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
1006:3531–3535. Fehr, Ernst, and Simon Gachter. 2000. Cooperation and punishment in public
goods experiments. The American Economic Review 90:980–994. Gintis, Herbert. 2003. The hitchhikers guide to altruism: Gene-culture
coevolution, and the internalization of norms. Journal of Theoretical Biology 220:407–418.
Henrich, Joseph, Robert Boyd, Samuel Bowles, Colin Camerer, Ernst Fehr, and Herbert Gintis, eds. 2004. Foundations of human sociality: Economic
experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies . New
York: Oxford University Press.
Henrich, Joseph, Richard McElreath, Abigail Barr, Jean Ensminger, Clark Barrett,
Alexander Bolyanatz, Juan Camilo Cardenas, Michael Gurven, Edwins Gwako, Natalie Henrich, Carolyn Lesorogol, Frank Marlowe, David Tracer,
and John Ziker. 2006. Costly punishment across human societies. Science
213 5781:1767–1770.
Jackson, Stephen A. 1995. Exchanging help: Death, self-similarity, and social responsibility in a New Ireland community, Papua New Guinea. Ph.D.
dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Virginia. Lesorogol, Carolyn K. 2007. Bringing norms. In The role of context in experimental
dictator game . Current Anthropology 48:920–927.
Strathern, Andrew. 1971. The rope of Moka: Big-men and ceremonial exchange in Mount Hagen
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tracer, David. 2004. Market integration, reciprocity, and fairness in rural Papua
New Guinea: Results from a two-village ultimatum game experiment. In Henrich, et al., 232–259.
Young, Michael W. 1971. Fighting with food: Leadership, values, and social control in a Massim society
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
351
20
Land-Language Link
M. Lynn Landweer ABSTRACT
The phenomena of language maintenance and language shift are dependent upon social mechanisms that substantiate a speaker’s choice to maintain his or her language
repertoire intact or facilitate shift to another language or other languages. But at a deeper level, those social mechanisms themselves are founded in motivations endemic to the
society in question. In research on the mechanisms for language shift in Melanesia, I studied two
ethnolinguistic groups, the Gabobora and Doga, speakers of the Anuki and Doga languages respectively. These two groups live adjacent to one another along the north
coast of the Cape Vogel Peninsula, Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea. They share remarkable similarities in terms of external characteristics, not only location, but also
missionization history, education, potential for trade, natural resources, and even profiles of conflict. Yet, in spite of these similarities, their languages occupy opposing ends of the
viability spectrum. Anuki, the language of the Gabobora, appears to be viable, while the Doga language is not.
This paper proposes an internal mechanism that is contributing to the divergent language outcomes differing patterns of marriage alliances and suggests the motivation
behind that mechanism postulating a link between land security and language choice, concluding with a hierarchical template that may be used assess relative language
viability.
1 Introduction
From April 2000 to March 2001, I lived on the Cape Vogel peninsula, Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea in order to do a comparative study of two
ethnolinguistic groups: the Gabobora and the Doga. My purpose was to pursue research on the mechanisms of language maintenance and shift in Melanesia
Landweer 2006. During my study I found that enclaves of the Gabobora and Doga, speaking
Anuki and Doga respectively,
1
hop-scotch one another along the coast and hinterland of the North Cape Vogel peninsula. The two groups have shared
equivalent opportunities and challenges to a remarkable degree due to their relative locations, common history of missionization, expatriate-led education,
potential for trade, natural resources, and even profiles of conflict with the same ethnic groups as enemies.
2
Yet, in spite of these similarities, the Gabobora and Doga people evidence very different outcomes in terms of language
prioritization. The Gabobora language, Anuki, is viable while the Doga language is endangered. The issue at hand was to determine what contributed to the
difference. Anuki and Doga are distinct, but related, Austronesian languages within the
Papuan Tip Cluster of Western Melanesian Oceanic languages. Genetically, they fall under the Proto North MainlandD’Entrecasteaux segment of the Nuclear
Papua Tip Network, Anuki directly as a member language, and Doga through its connection to the Are-Taupota Chain Ross 1988:193. They, and nine other
related languages, are spoken in the region of the Cape Vogel peninsula and islands adjacent to the mainland.
At the time of the research there were 892 Gabobora and 257 Doga. Both communities practice subsistence gardening, supplemented by what they hunt
and gather. In addition to these means of land-based subsistence, some of the Doga also augment their diet with sea fish, which are speared or caught with
hook and line. Both the Gabobora and Doga societies function under a dual system of leadership. Traditionally, elders among the Gabobora hold positions of
shared authority—coming to decisions by consensus, whereas, among the Doga, leadership is inherited. However, regardless of the traditional form of leadership,
both groups also function under an introduced system of elected government. Local government councils are elected not necessarily from the ranks of
Gabobora eldership or the Doga designated leaders to represent various wards within the broader context of regional politics. Thus layers of local, regional,
and provincial government have been added to the traditional systems of leadership.
1Although the Gabobora people are referred to as Anuki in linguistic publications such as the Ethnologue Gordon 2005, they distinguish the name of their spoken language Anuki from the name associated with themselves as a people
group Gabobora. In deference to their wishes, I am maintaining that distinction. By contrast, the Doga people refer to themselves and their language as Doga.
2The use of the term “ethnic” here and elsewhere is to distinguish groups of people who share common ancestry andor nativity with concomitant identification to a distinct cultural collectivity. This definition is abstracted from
Hutchinson and Smith 1996:5
Research for this paper was conducted on the use of the Anuki and Doga languages through face to face interviews held in public venues in villages
throughout the two speech communities over the period of the year of my residence with them. Interviews were conducted in the Anuki language, in
which both the Gabobora and Doga respondents were fluent. Respondents were asked to identify the names of ascending and descending generations within
their personal family tree, and for every individual identified hisher marital status, the identity and ethnicity of hisher spouse, language repertoire,
educational standard attained, and whether, when, and how long each person had traveled outside of the region. Initial interviews with family heads were
cross-checked for accuracy in separate interviews with siblings or first cousins of the same generation. The resultant data set of 2031 individuals was narrowed to
1149 subjects who were still living. These subjects represent an equivalent five generations of Gabobora and Doga populations. To be included within this
narrowed data set, each subject had to be demonstrably either Gabobora or Doga in heritage, but not both. The final tally was 892 Gabobora and 257 Doga.
I was solely responsible for the collection, checking, documentation and all computerization of the data.
The discussion to follow briefly describes the Gabobora and Doga ethnolinguistic groups in terms of their location, their subsistence base, the
populations who prioritize their heritage languages as L1,
3
the social differences between the two groups, and the impact those difference seem to have on their
language profiles, i.e., the mechanism for language shift. The link between land and language is proposed, with a summary of findings, and finally, a practical
application for the land-language link hypothesis is put forward as a means of assessing language viability.
2 Ethnolinguistic profiles
2.1 Gabobora 2.1.1 Location
The Gabobora ethnolinguistic group has lived on the Cape Vogel peninsula since before the coming of the Australian Anglo-Catholic mission in 1898 Wetherell
1977:86. Oral genealogies collected by myself place them on the north side of the peninsula for at least seven generations. Furthermore, colonial records of the
patrols of Assistant Resident Magistrate ARM O. J. Atkinson 1924-1925 document a verbal claim to the land extending back beyond the memory of that
current generation of elders. Historically, the Gabobora lived in the hills to the south, behind the coastal
plain, as well as on the slopes of Mt. Murakoiya and Mt. Kwarubogi. While settled on higher ground, the Gabobora forefathers also laid claim to land along
3I.e., their primary language.
the coast below their settlements. With the advent of colonial administration in 1924 and the oversight of Atkinson, the Gabobora people were persuaded to
settle on their coastal land in order to work coconut plantations for income to pay a head tax. This move also placed them within proximity of the track that
circumnavigated the peninsula which was a convenience for colonial
administrators 9.
4
The major landmarks of Gabobora territory include the Okoanuba River and Tapio Bay in the east and Posa Posa Harbour to the west, with the Dabi River
splitting the eastern and western contingents of the ethnic community. Other landmarks include the limestone cliffs of Mt. Gwagwame to the southwest of
Woruka, the slopes of Mt. Kwarubogi southwest of Pem and due south of Tototo, and the dominating Mt. Murakoiya, located south and slightly east of Pem, from
which the Dabi River rises, see map. The Gabobora tend to live in non-nucleated family hamlets. There are, however,
a few larger groups of families that can be considered villages. Those villages, including associated hamlets, are as follows: i Tapio with Nuabiina, Yagoa, and
Kivikivivi hamlets, ii Woruka with Kwarebu, Taritari, Putumwara and Anata hamlets in the east, iii Pem with Sisikorokoro, Besima, Siapa, and Busaianaki
hamlets, iv Tototo with Sisirokii hamlet, and v Tapiasanu with Yabuyabusanu hamlet shared with Dimadima speakers at the western margin of Anuki territory.
All of these sites are located on the north side of the Cape Vogel Peninsula.
2.1.2 Subsistence base
The Gabobora were gardeners traditionally. When I asked various Gabobora elders for the most important lesson taught to the younger generation, without
fail they mentioned the gardening calendar and the skills associated with gardening. Everything else is secondary. Thus, for the Gabobora, land for
gardening is of utmost importance. Further, their ownership of the land they occupy is secure. Historic evidence suggests that they have been tied to the land
they occupy for generations. In fact, they typify themselves as simake bubuna, i.e., ‘they have stayed well’ on their own land 5, 2.
Gabobora land holdings seem adequate to meet subsistence needs for the present. Most of their nutritional needs are met through their garden produce,
supplemented by what they can hunt and gather from the bush or by the fish a handful of skilled fishermen take from the sea. However, because the Gabobora
value education and school fees are required for the access to a market economy, they have come to depend on excess garden produce and the
production and sale of copra for cash. Thus, the Gabobora report a dual economic system: garden subsistence supplemented by hunting and fishing for
the majority of their nutritional needs, and marketing ventures for modern goods and services, including education.
4Reference numbers in parentheses indicate that the data have come from specific interviews in personal communication and correlate with the “Individual Respondent” section preceding the “References.” Thus, reference 9
refers to Thomas Luai. Luai is the archives reference officer working at the National Archives of Papua New Guinea. The first reported trip of O. J. Atkinson to the north Cape Vogel peninsula occurred from 16 January to 2 February 1924.
