Volume 2017, Issue 245 - Special Issue: Language diversity and endangerment in Tibet, Issue Editor: Gerald Roche

Tibet’s linguistic diversity is undergoing drastic transformations in the twenty-first century. In this article, I begin my examination of this issue by outlining the extent of Tibet’s linguistic diversity, including not only its numerous Tibetic languages, but also its non-Tibetic minority languages. Using a “language ecology” approach, I examine the mechanisms that have produced and maintained this diversity, as well as the ways this diversity was spatially and socially patterned. I argue that these processes and patterns were largely maintained up until the twenty-first century, when the Chinese state’s program to “Open the West” unleashed an ideologically driven modernization program on Tibet, radically altering its language ecology. I argue that the present trends emerging from this process are likely to continue throughout the twenty-first century, resulting in both language loss and the emergence of new languages, leaving the overall language ecology fundamentally altered by the beginning of the twenty-second century. It is hoped that this article will not only provide a useful framework for future discussions on linguistic diversity in Tibet, but will also focus attention on the challenges facing individual languages in Tibet today.

Henan Oirat is a severely endangered dialect of the Mongolian language spoken by only a handful of individuals in Henan Mongol Autonomous County (MAC), the southernmost of Huangnan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture’s (TAP) four counties. Over 90 % of Henan’s population is registered as belonging to the Mongol ethnic group, however the most widely used language in the county is Amdo Tibetan. The predecessors of the Henan Oirats were a part of Güüshi Khan’s Oirat Mongols, commonly referred to as Deed Mongols, who came to Qinghai in the seventeenth century. The investigation of the history and language of the Henan Oirats, however, is inseparable from the history and language of the numerous groups of Mongols who had lived in the region prior to Güüshi’s Oirats. I believe these groups could not have left the region before the Oirats’ arrival without leaving any traces. For this reason, I think it is essential to dwell a little upon the Mongol groups that have lived in Qinghai and to clarify the origin of the Henan Oirats.

Lhagang Tibetan is a dialect of Khams spoken in central Lhagang [ lHa-sgang ] Town, in the area surrounding Lhagang Monastery in Kangding Municipality, Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, western Sichuan Province. The region where this dialect is spoken was traditionally called Minyag Rabgang [ Mi-nyag Rab-sgang ], and is where Darmdo Minyag, a Qiangic language regarded as a minority language by linguists, is spoken. Previous studies have identified the Tibetic languages as its cultural superstratum. However, Lhagang Tibetan is one of the local Tibetic varieties which is least influenced by Darmdo Minyag. Instead, it is in greater contact with Amdo, which is spoken by Tibetans living around Lhagang Monastery. In this unique sociolinguistic situation, Lhagang Tibetan has become a minority language of the Minyag Rabgang area. The linguistic situation of the Tibetic languages in Minyag Rabgang is complicated, and only a few studies have dealt with this issue. In this article, we will discuss: (1) the geographical definition of Minyag Rabgang and the distribution of languages within it; (2) the current situation of the Tibetic languages spoken around Lhagang Monastery, and; (3) the ongoing language evolution and vitality of the sedentary Khams variety of Lhagang Tibetan.

This article describes Tibetan dialect standardization due to rural-urban migration and participation in formal schooling in Yul shul Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture. As socio-economic development of China’s Tibetan regions accelerates in the twenty-first century, rural people travel and relocate to regional urban centers more frequently, and are thus exposed to a variety of dialects. Meanwhile, participation in formal state-sponsored schooling is also increasing. Both these phenomena create new sociolinguistic environments in which regiolect standardization is occurring. To investigate this situation, I conducted a survey of one middle school class and one associate diploma class at two different educational institutions in Khams, in order to investigate how students’ accents shift to standard regional regiolects, such as Sga ba regiolect in Yul shul.

This article offers the first overview of the recent emergence of Tibetan Sign Language (TibSL) in Lhasa, capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), China. Drawing on short anthropological fieldwork, in 2007 and 2014, with people and organisations involved in the formalisation and promotion of TibSL, the author discusses her findings within the nine-fold UNESCO model for assessing linguistic vitality and endangerment. She follows the adaptation of this model to assess signed languages by the Institute of Sign Languages and Deaf Studies (iSLanDS) at the University of Central Lancashire. The appraisal shows that TibSL appears to be between “severely” and “definitely” endangered, adding to the extant studies on the widespread phenomenon of sign language endangerment. Possible future influences and developments regarding the vitality and use of TibSL in Central Tibet and across the Tibetan plateau are then discussed and certain additions, not considered within the existing assessment model, suggested. In concluding, the article places the situation of TibSL within the wider circumstances of minority (sign) languages in China, Chinese Sign Language (CSL), and the post-2008 movement to promote and use “pure Tibetan language”.

The purpose of the paper is twofold. First, I describe the vitality of rTa ' u – one of the languages of the Ethnic Corridor region of Western Sichuan Province. Using UNESCO’s nine-factor model of language vitality, the analysis finds rTa ' u to be endangered and in urgent need of documentation. Secondly, this article argues that linguists have a role to play in supporting this endangered language, by using glottonyms that are salient to the community and coherent with their professed ethnic identity. After analyzing the two most commonly used names for the language used in the literature – Ergong and Horpa – I suggest that linguists should from now on use the preferred glottonym rTa ' u.

This article discusses dialectal diversity in Amdo Tibetan using a sociohistorical linguistic framework in which typological variation in related speech varieties is explained as a function of social network structure. It is argued that morphosyntactic and phonological complexity are functions of the complexity of network ties that characterize the community in which languages are spoken. Social network structure influences linguistic development in three ways: a network’s size and constituency determine the synchronic variation that members of the network are exposed to as a whole and that are available to become sources of diachronic change. The nature of the relationships characterizing different network types contributes to the context in which communication takes place, influencing the content of linguistic exchanges. Over time, biases in the interactional functions that linguistic expressions are used to perform favor the selection and development of some features over others. Finally, different social network types are associated with different language attitudes, including awareness and enforcement of linguistic norms. Network type interacts with other social factors to influence the direction of language change.

This article describes and analyses language management and language managers at local and micro-interactional levels in Breacbhaile. Breacbhaile is a pseudonym which is not named for ethical reasons and refers to a Gaeltacht community (an officially designated Irish language territory in Ireland) where the Irish language is spoken to a limited extent. Based on extensive ethnographic fieldwork over four years, a classification of Irish language managers is proposed according to their practices and motivations. This article examines the organic and institutional language management processes which are taking place every day in Breacbhaile , detailing the dynamics of language management as well as discussing the local agents and agencies of language management. This study bridges a gap in the current lack of discourse and data surrounding the “actors” or agents of language management. The following questions underpin this study; who are the Irish language managers? Who is changing the language behaviour of others? Who is trying to manage the language practices or beliefs of others? What motivates them? What influences their practices? Why are they so important in the Gaeltacht today? This investigation into localised language management offers ample evidence of vitality and agency in a Gaeltacht community undergoing latter stages of language shift to English. This ethnographic case-study showcases the decline of Irish as the dominant vernacular at community level in Breacbhaile while simultaneously profiling various language managers and their resistance to this language shift at an individual level, and thereby advancing our knowledge of the Irish language case. Considerations and implications for future language management efforts in such communities are offered. In an Irish context, these managers are asserting their authority despite widespread language shift to English in their community. The retreat at macro level and delegation of power to language communities through new legislation (i. e. Gaeltacht Act 2012) has created not only space but an integral role for language activism, managers and agencies at micro and local levels.