Linguistic Diversity and Endangerment among Tibetans

Gerald RocheAustralian Research Council DECRA Fellow

Asia Institute, University of Melbourne

International Association for Tibetan Studies June 19-25, 2016. Bergen, Norway.

Outline

• Define, count, measure• Linguistic diversity and social justice.– Define: identify the affected group– Count: breadth of the issue (individuals and

communities)– Measure: the depth of the issue

‘Minor’ Languages?

• Territorial/ genetic/ (+ethnic) definition… • Social meaning.

Languages

oral

excluded

elided

derided

low

Speakers

Othered

inegalitarian multilingualism

monitored

stigmatized

Intersectionality/ vulnerability

How Many?

In Tibet

How Many?

In Tibet

14 33 43 59Minzu

paradigmChinese

reference literature

Ethnologue Non-referenceliterature

more conservative less conservative

How Many?

Among Tibetans

0 14 15 26Minzu

paradigmChinese

reference literature

Ethnologue Non-referenceliterature

3.97% 3.77%

How Endangered?

Ethnologue

40% threatened20% shifting

Roche and Suzuki

60% 100%

Among Tibetans

How Endangered?• Rta’u = “clearly endangered” (TIBETAN)• Nyagrong Minyag = “hanging from a precarious

ledge” (TIBETAN)• Doxu = “terminally endangered” (CHINESE)• Namuyi = “very much an endangered language”

(CHINESE/ NUOSU)• Manegacha = ~20% shift to Tibetan (TIBETAN)• Gochang = “clearly endangered… the fate of Gochang

appears to be one of slow decrease in the number of speakers and constriction of the area where the language is spoken. ” (CHINESE)

Conclusion

• Tibet is linguistically diverse.• This diversity includes ‘minority languages’.• These minority languages are endangered.• We Tibetologists have a role to play.

① Write② Teach & outreach③ Support

• Please send feedback/ questions: g.roche@unimelb.edu.au

• Facebook: Minority Languages of the Chinese Tibetosphere

• Keep an eye out for the forthcoming special issue of the International Journal of the Sociology of Language

Thanks! བཀའ་དྲི ན་ཆེ