• introduction – the telling part one – normal as a concept – how narrative therapy offers a different view o double storied conversations o absent but implicit – my use of narrative in journey of learning language – personal journey of learning language o australia’s early political relationship  exemption choice  language illegal o my language journey to the phd question  formal • limited perspective given from the people who answered the language questions • languages were collected because they thought we would die out • and you and us and them leant on that knowledge to live in the world. Institutional knowledge making, and how this holds fixed certain stories of self, but also of peoples. has the impact of clouding future studies and ??? of future knowledge holders.  informal • data pigeon hold on collection, power at play that articulates a different world than actually was – how language works o language influences perception  must do otherwise they wouldn’t have brought in a law against it o not the phonology or grammar, it’s the narrative – language influences perception o what needs to be known before we can translate a language – texts o 1838 Major Thomas Mitchell o 1873 Harriet Barlow o 1905 K Langloh Parker o discrepancies Influences of Interpretation Many believe that language is fixed and to a point it is, like verbs or commas or when to use ‘Maam’. Accepted rules exist, some if only for moments in time. But the ways in which we interpret those moments and the impact that interpretation has on how we understand our world, is far less rigid. There are many influences and choices vying for our attention while we are constructing our perception of language, even if we are following all the ‘rules’. This essay shares my experience of some of those influences while deciphering English recordings of Yuwaalaraay history and the strategies that I learnt could help. I descend from the Yuwaalaraay people, and like many Australian language groups who are engaging and extending their language, learning opportunities exist at various academic and community levels. I am currently in the Certificate III at Dubbo TAFE and to extend my connection to my Ancestors experience, I also seek out historically written resources. I find that language is like a time machine (Tan, 2018), enabling an insight into a familial world that I could never grieve firsthand. In 2018, I was reading The Euahlayi Tribe (Langloh Parker, 1905). Like many books of the day, it couldn’t be confirmed if the Author understood the Yuwaalaraay context in which they were recording so sometimes it seemed that certain interpretations were being privileged over others. This is not the same concession as say that given in Australian Aboriginal Language teaching where lessons are built around the historical needs of Ancestors. For example, there is no Yuwaalaraay word for Kangaroo, but there are words for Grey Kangaroo, Red Kangaroo etc., differences that would have affected how a hunting party prepares for a kill and affects how I understand my Ancestors use of the language. At the time, my reading practices were coming into line with Indigenous research methods, that is to understand people within their own social context, and then the global and local influences inside of that (Chilisa, 2012). I felt that Langloh had it turned around and was making choices about what she saw, ultimately losing or deferring certain aspects of the story along the way. I was also exposed to Hartley & Benington’s (2000) model of co-research where there is a tri-relationship in collecting information. To apply the model to Langloh’s book had Langloh as the contributor of the ‘outsider view’, the Yuwaalaraay interviewed contributing the ‘insider knowledge’ and I, as the reader with a century more experience, the co-researcher alongside Langloh and the Yuwaalaraay. The model further unpacked Langloh’s interpretation and highlighted how dominant plots were being maintained. Shortly after, I put the book away not only because of my time poor University study but also because I felt I had gained as much as I could, interpreting as the co-researcher. A few months ago though, levelling up in my Yuwaalaraay study exposed me to the tool of Linguistics, and Langloh once again sits on my desk. Combining Linguistics with my knowledge of Yuwaalaraay, has brought to me, a knowledge of the substance of language. For instance, I had not considered that Langloh may have recognised words, but may not have understood what was important in the sentence as the Syntax in Yuwaalaraay is reversed to that of English. To say, “I will eat meat” is “Dhinggaa ngaya dhal-li” which directly translates as “Meat I will eat”. It is the meat that is of importance, not the eating. Semantics may also have played a part because of its culturally dependant nature (National Center for Homeless Education, 2004). Mawu-gi, for example, is a verb that means to scratch or to dig, in Yuwaalaraay it’s the same action. Langloh’s interpretation may only have been based on the first use of the word that she heard. Other possible Linguistics differences include dialects and phonetics. Yuwaalaraay people are from the Gamilaraay nation which also encompasses the Yuwaalayaay and Gamilaraay. Guduu is the Yuwaalaraay word for fish, e.g. “guduu galgaa” means “many fish”. Guya is the equivalent in Gamilaraay, same syntax, different use of the mouth and throat. Sounds also affected questions. For instance, there is no Yuwaalaraay question word such as ‘Who’ but to ask “Who is that woman?”, I would say “Yinarr” while increasing my voice and motioning my face and my mouth towards the person. My journey with Langloh has been like the peeling of an onion. What I thought was the only layer had Langloh as a secondary source of information. My Narrative Practice gave some voice to the primary source but couldn’t get me passed story interpretation. Linguisitics handed me the peeler and shown me the core of language, the possibilties of understanding that existed before the words were even shared. I am very excited.