Yankunytjatjara is one of the many dialects of the Western Desert language and is very similar to the better known, more widely spoken Pitjantjatjara. According to a study carried out mainly in Coober Pedy where many speakers of both varieties reside, young speakers of Yankunytjatjara often borrow words from English and also from Pitjantjatjara. Yankunytjatjara shows some variation across its range with, for example, Northern Yankunytjatjara sharing features with Southern Luritja.
Phonology
Vowels
are realized as when preceding laminal consonants.
Consonants
can be trilled when pronounced emphatically, or may also occur as voiceless in word-final position.
Name
The name used for Yankunytjatjara is based on a single prominent word, the verb for ‘come/go’, which distinguishes it from its near neighbour, Pitjantjatjara. The latter has pitjantja for this verb while Yankunytjatjara has yankunyta. The ending -tjara is the comitative suffix, and means ‘having’ or ‘with’. Thus Yankunytjatjara means 'to have yankunytja ' as opposed to Pitjantjatjara which has pitjantja. Alternatively, the northernmost Yankunytjatjara and parts of Southern Luritja both have the wordmaṯu 'true' and so are sometimes grouped together as Maṯutjara to contrast them with the Southern Yankunytjatjara who use mula for 'true' and so can be referred to as Mulatjara. Another classification used by speakers groups Yankunytjatjara and Pitjantjatjara together as Nyangatjatjara as they both use nyangatja for the demonstrative 'this' or 'this one'; this contrasts them with Ngaanyatjara, which has ngaanya for the demonstrative and Nyanganyatjara varieties which have nyanganya.
Pronunciation
The name Yankunytjatjara is usually pronounced with one of the repeated syllables -tja-deleted, thus: yankunytjara. In slow, careful speech all syllables will be pronounced.
Status
There seems to be no exhaustive evidence on the vitality of Yankunytjatjara. McConvell & Thieberger found Yankunytjatjara to be endangered based mainly on the Census of 1996. In 2005 the National Indigenous Language Survey, based on a more comprehensive survey, concluded that Yankunytjatjara was ‘definitely endangered’. Naessan, using the 2003 UNESCO framework, gave a mark of 22/23 out of 35, quite a low score. If some factors that Naessan feels are unimportant in most indigenous languages are ignored, Yankunytjatjara scores 14/15 out of 20. However, he argues that since recent surveys have included these factors, they may be more helpful for cross referencing. To a lesser extent he feels that, since Western Desert people own some media sources, such factors should be included. He concludes a 57-65% vitality. Both schemas indicate that Yankunytjatjara shows symptoms of endangerment, which coincides with the beliefs of the Yankunytjatjara elders that Naessan spoke with, as well as with the assessments of most linguists who have worked in the area.
