This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Walsh, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

"Which Way?"

Difficult Options for Vulnerable Witnesses in Australian Aboriginal Land Claim and Native Title Cases

University of Sydney, Australia

For thirty years, Australian Aboriginal witnesses have been subjected to varying degrees of oppression in land claim and native title cases. Each legal arena requires Aboriginal witnesses to demonstrate their traditional connections to Aboriginal land. Some witnesses appear reticent or even inarticulate, despite their actual, considerable knowledge of Aboriginal traditions. However, there are also highly acculturated Aboriginal witnesses; ironically, such witnesses may be criticized by opposing counsel essentially for their Anglo-Australian cultural literacy, so that such witnesses will be depicted as not, or less, "traditional" than their less acculturated counterparts and, therefore, have their status as Aboriginal traditional owners of land discounted—or at least questioned. For these vulnerable witnesses, there is a Catch-22 cleavage: if you are articulate, you appear less traditional; if you are inarticulate, you may appear traditional, but it is difficult for the tribunal to assess your claim to traditional ownership of land.

Key Words: Aboriginal English • forensic linguistics • land claims • literacy • native title

Journal of English Linguistics, Vol. 36, No. 3, 239-265 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0075424208321142


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?