A triage process for prioritizing language documentation in Tibet

Documentary Linguistics: Asian Perspectives, HKU, April 6-9, 2016

Gerald RocheARC DECRA Fellow

University of Melbourne

The Project

• ARC DECRA Project: Ethnicity and Assimilation in China: The Case of the Monguor in Tibet

• Speakers of Manegacha on the Northeast Tibetan Plateau– Post-2000 & Develop the West (state integration)– Post-2008 & Tibetan ‘awakening’

• Within the context of linguistic diversity in Tibet

Linguistic Diversity in Tibet

• Tibet’s minority languages• Linguists have described 59 minority languages

spoken in the Tibetan areas of China• Ethnologue recognizes 43• Chinese linguists recognize 33• The Chinese state recognizes 14• About 4% of Tibetans speak a minority language

65% endangered

11%

32%57%

Moribund Shifting Threatened

0. International1. National2. Provincial3. Wider Communication4. Educational5. Developing6a. Vigorous6b. Threatened7. Shifting8a. Moribund8b. Nearly Extinct9. Dormant10. Extinct

Language Endangerment in Tibet:Ethnologue (43)

Language Endangerment in Tibet:Sociolinguistic Typology (59)

• Recognized (extraterritorial, enclave) • Unrecognized = 40• Tibetan unrecognized = 25

Triage

Triage Vitality

Fast Slow

Context dependent Context independent

Indicators Holistic description

Language ecology Language

Proximity to shift Proximity to ‘death’

• Medical triage; biological triage; linguistic triage

• Hierarchy• Does not imply ‘letting some languages die’ (which

order, not which)• Tags (OA publication; Wikipedia; Ethnologue?;

Glottolog?)

Triage Survey Tool - Criteria

• Yes/ no• Non-numerical evaluations• <20 questions• Yes & no positive• Should produce simple numerical scores which

can be ranked in a hierarchy• Answerable by ‘informed local’ with minimal

consultation with others (M.Y.R.P.)• Based on vitality models (UNESCO, EuLaViBar) but

modified for local salience

Non-Salient

• Official policy• Literacy/ Education• Domains• Intergenerational transmission• Absolute and relative number

Salient

• Post-2000 infrastructure boom, marketization, emigration and immigration

• Post-2008 Tibetan ‘awakening’• ‘Pure Tibetan’ organizations (Pha skad gtsang ma ཕ་སྐད་གཙང་མ)

• Compulsory 9-year schooling post-2006• School centralization post-2010• Urbanization/ resettlement (comfortable housing) • Religious institutions

Categories

• Demography• Ideology• Language products

Process

• Iterative process: list->sort/edit->list• Test• Share• [Revise]• [Translate]• [Implement]

DEMOGRAPHY

IDEOLOGY

PRODUCTS

Test & Outcomes

• Tested with 1 speaker of four languages: Khroskyabs; Gochang; Rta’u; Manegacha

• Test could be completed quickly (5 minutes) with minimal consultation

• But it did not enable differentiation of languages! Each test returned identical scores.

Next Steps

• Scores can be differentiated by giving criteria different weight

• Pair-wise differentiation is possible by producing qualitative descriptions from test results

• Using Lickert scales rather than yes/no answers might aid differentiation

• Salience needs reviewing; perhaps by structured feedback mechanism

• Samuel Beckett: “Try again. Fail again. Fail better.” (Wostward Ho)

Thanksg.roche@unimelb.edu.au

https://unimelb.academia.edu/GeraldRoche — Vitality of Tibet’s Minority Languages in the 21st Century: Preliminary Remarks— The Transformation of Tibet’s Language Ecology in the 21st Century

YouTube: Linguistic Diversity on the Tibetan PlateauFacebook: Minority Languages of the Chinese TibetosphereTwitter: @GJosephRoche