Sociolinguistic Survey of Mpi in

Ramzi W. Nahhas

SIL International 2007

SIL Electronic Survey Report 2007-016, August 2007 Copyright © 2007 Ramzi W. Nahhas and SIL International All rights reserved

2

Abstract

Ramzi W. Nahhas, PhD Survey Unit, Department of Linguistics School of Graduate Studies Payap University/SIL International , Thailand

Mpi is a language spoken mainly in only two villages in Thailand, and possibly in one location in , as well. Currently, Mpi does not have vernacular literature, and may not have sufficient language vitality to warrant the development of such literature. Since there are only two Mpi villages in Thailand, and they are surrounded by Northern Thai communities, it is reasonable to be concerned about the vitality of the . The purposes of this study were to assess the need for vernacular literature development among the Mpi of and to determine which (if any) Mpi varieties should be developed. This assessment focused on language vitality and bilingualism in Northern Thai. Additionally, lexicostatistics were used to measure lexical similarity between Mpi varieties.

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted under the auspices of the Payap University Linguistics Department, Chiang Mai, Thailand. The research team consisted of the author, Jenvit Suknaphasawat (SIL International), and Noel Mann (Technical Director, Survey Unit, Payap University Linguistics Department, and SIL International).

The fieldwork would not have been possible without the assistance of the residents of Ban Dong (in ) and Ban Sakoen (in ). A number of individuals gave many hours to help the researchers learn about the and about their village, and to introduce us to others in their village. Indeed, all the people of Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen were very friendly and helpful. It was a pleasure to spend time with them and learn about their language and culture.

For the research team,

Ramzi W. Nahhas, PhD October 2005

Summary Mpi ([m̩ ˧ pi˥˧], มป) is a language spoken in Thailand in two villages: Ban Dong (บานดง ม.4 และ ม.8, ต.สวนเขื่อน อ.เมือง จ.แพร) and Ban Sakoen (บานสะเกิน ม.1 ต.ยอด อ.สองแคว จ.นาน). In Ban Sakoen, they call the language [kɔ˥˧] (กอ). The Mpi came to Thailand from Sipsongpanna in China about 300 years ago. There may still be some Mpi speakers in Sipsongpanna, in Mengla.

The Mpi language is only spoken. It does not have a . Some have attempted to write Mpi using the Thai , but have not been satisfied with the results. Since there is no writing system, Mpi does not have any vernacular literature. However, Mpi may not have sufficient language vitality to warrant the development of such literature.

3 Since there are only two Mpi villages in Thailand, and they are surrounded by Northern Thai communities, it is reasonable to be concerned about the vitality of the Mpi language. In many ways, the Mpi are very similar culturally to the Northern Thai, and they speak Northern and Central Thai with outsiders. While Mpi is still used in Ban Dong, there are many children there who do not speak it. In Ban Sakoen, the language shift from Mpi to Northern Thai is more advanced, with Mpi proficiency limited to some older people.

This language survey investigated factors related to language vitality (language use, language attitudes, and ethnolinguistic identity) as well as self-reported bilingual proficiency in order to assess the need for vernacular literature in the Mpi language. Additionally, words were compared between the two villages to assess how similar or different their vocabularies are.

The conclusions of the report are as follows:

• Because many children in Ban Dong seem to have only a passive understanding of Mpi, it seems likely that, if nothing changes, Mpi might not be spoken in Ban Dong in the future.

• Because only a few people in Ban Sakoen have the ability to speak Mpi proficiently, Mpi might not be spoken in Ban Sakoen in the future.

• Mpi people have no negative feelings toward Northern and culture. Thus, they would have no problem accepting literature written in Northern Thai if it were available.

• Mpi people in Thailand can speak Northern and Central Thai proficiently.

• Based on the comparison of words between villages, and on the reports of Mpi people, the Mpi varieties spoken in Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen are different varieties of the same language, differing only in some vocabulary and a few systematic pronunciation differences.

Based on these conclusions, from a practical point of view, there may not be a need to develop a writing system for Mpi. They have adequate access to literature in Central and Northern Thai. However, the Mpi people themselves have expressed a desire to preserve their language. Development of a writing system for Mpi might increase pride in the language and provide a motivation for people to use Mpi more. Mpi people could then write down Mpi stories, history, and culture in their own language. Also, future generations would then know how to accurately pronounce Mpi words.

4

Contents

Abstract Acknowledgments Summary List of Tables List of Figures 1 Introduction 1.1 Geography 1.2 Peoples 1.3 History 1.3.1 Based on Previous Research 1.3.2 Based on This Survey 1.4 Previous Linguistic Research 1.5 Previous Sociolinguistic Research 1.5.1 Intelligibility with Bisoid Languages 1.5.2 Grammar Questionnaire 1.5.3 Sociolinguistic Questionnaire 2 Purposes, Goals, and Research Questions 3 Methodology 3.1 Timeline 3.2 Sample Selection 3.2.1 Questionnaire Subject Selection 3.2.2 Wordlist Consultant Selection 3.3 Instruments 3.3.1 Sociolinguistic Questionnaires 3.3.2 Wordlist 3.3.3 Observation and Informal Interview 3.4 Analysis 3.4.1 Summary of Sociolinguistic Data 3.4.2 Wordlist Comparison 3.4.3 Criteria for Answering Research Questions 4 Results 4.1 Summary of Individual SLQ Results 4.2 Summary of Village Leader SLQ Results 4.3 Summary of Wordlist Comparison 4.4 Towards Answers to the Research Questions 4.4.1 Language Vitality 4.4.2 Attitude toward Northern Thai 4.4.3 Northern Thai Proficiency 4.4.4 Intelligibility between Mpi Varieties 4.4.5 Reported Groupings of Mpi Varieties 5 Conclusions 5.1 Need for Vernacular Literature 5.2 Relationship between Mpi Varieties 6 Recommendations Appendix A Generalizing from the Sample to the Population of Mpi in Thailand

5 Appendix B Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire – Thailand Appendix C Village Leader Sociolinguistic Questionnaire – Thailand Appendix D Sociolinguistic Data Appendix E Summary of Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire Results E.1 Background Information E.2 Inventory of Languages Spoken E.3 Domains of Language Use E.4 Other Mpi Villages E.5 Dialect Perceptions E.6 Comparison of Villages – Where is Mpi spoken the best? E.7 Comparison of Villages – Which village has higher status? E.8 Stopped Speaking Mpi E.9 Inventory of Children’s Languages E.10 Language of Play E.11 Mpi in 20 Years E.12 Feelings about Language Decline E.13 Children’s Speech Quality E.14 Marriage with Non-Mpi Speakers E.15 Cultural Differences E.16 Ethnolinguistic Identity E.17 Feelings about Literacy E.18 Reported Bilingualism Appendix F Mpi Phones Appendix G Wordlist Comparison Criteria Appendix H Wordlist References

6

List of Tables

Table 1 - Mpi (Ban Dong) - Akha Wordlist ...... 16 Table 2 - Sample Size by Location, Gender, and Age...... 20 Table 3 - Summary of Language Vitality Criteria...... 23 Table 4 - Summary of Village Leader SLQ Answers...... 25 Table 5 - Regular Sound Correspondences Observed ...... 26 Table 6 - Summary of Indicators of Language Vitality...... 32 Table 7 - Self-Reported Bilingualism - Northern Thai...... 61 Table 8 - Self-Reported Bilingualism - Central Thai...... 61 Table 9 - Self-Reported Mpi Proficiency...... 62 Table 10 - Occupation by Location, Gender, and Age ...... 67 Table 11 - Educational Attainment by Location, Gender, and Age...... 67 Table 12 - Language Names by Location...... 68 Table 13 - People Group Names by Location...... 69 Table 14 - Languages Spoken by Location...... 69 Table 15 - Languages Spoken by Domain and Location [Ban Dong only]...... 70 Table 16 - Inventory of Children’s Languages [Ban Dong only]...... 74 Table 17 - Language of Play [Ban Dong only]...... 74 Table 18 - Mpi in 20 Years [Ban Dong only]...... 75 Table 19 - Self-Reported Bilingual Proficiency [Ban Dong only] ...... 79 Table 20 - Mpi Consonants...... 80 Table 21 - Mpi Initial Consonant Clusters...... 80 Table 22 - Mpi ...... 80 Table 23 - Feature Differences for Creaky and/or Nasalized Vowels ...... 84 Table 24 - Criteria for Lexical Similarity ...... 84 Table 25 - Full 436-Item Wordlist...... 85 Table 26 - Comparative Wordlist (100 words)...... 104

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Thailand and Neighboring Countries...... 9 Figure 2 - Northern Thailand ...... 9 Figure 3 - Phrae and Surroundings ...... 10 Figure 4 - Northern Nan Province ...... 10 Figure 5 - Map to La (not to scale) ...... 11 Figure 6 - Probable Location of Mueang La, China ...... 12 Figure 7 - Mpi Vowels...... 83 Figure 8 - Mpi Phonetically Similar Consonants...... 83

7

1 Introduction Mpi is a language spoken in two villages in Thailand. The Mpi came to Thailand from Sipsongpanna in China about 300 years ago. There may still be some Mpi speakers in Sipsongpanna, in Mengla. Currently, Mpi does not have vernacular literature, and may not have sufficient language vitality to warrant the development of such literature. Since there are only two Mpi villages in Thailand (Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen), and they are surrounded by Northern Thai communities, it is reasonable to be concerned about the vitality of the Mpi language. In many ways, the Mpi are very similar culturally to the Northern Thai, and they speak Northern and Central Thai with outsiders (Bradley 1979:47:48). Northern Thai1 is used as a language of wider communication in Northern Thailand. The national language, Standard Thai2, is also widely used in this region. Mpi children who attend school are instructed in Standard Thai. In Ban Dong, according to Bradley (1997:46), “All Mpi are now bilingual in Northern Thai and culturally assimilated, but the village maintains the language.” While Mpi is indeed still used in Ban Dong, there are many children there who do not speak it. In Ban Sakoen, the language shift from Mpi to Northern Thai is more advanced, with Mpi proficiency limited to some older people.

This survey investigated factors related to language vitality (language use, language attitudes, and ethnolinguistic identity) as well as self-reported bilingual proficiency in order to assess the need for vernacular literature in the Mpi language. Additionally, lexicostatistic comparison was used as a screen for lack of intelligibility between the varieties of Mpi spoken in Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen.

1.1 Geography The political divisions of Thailand are (from smallest to largest) the Village (หมูบาน, numbered and abbreviated as M.# or ม.#); (ตําบล, abbreviated ต.); or District (อําเภอ, abbreviated อ.); and Province (จังหวัด, abbreviated จ.). In Thailand, the Mpi live in two communities: Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen. A few Mpi also live in nearby villages as well as in .

Ban Dong consists of M.4 and M.8 in Tambon Suan Khuean, Amphoe Mueang, Phrae Province (บานดง ม.4 และ ม.8 ต.สวนเขื่อน อ.เมือง จ.แพร). Just east of Phrae city is the intersection of highways 101 and 1101 (the Rong Fong intersection – รองฟอง). To get to Ban Dong, go east on highway 1101 at this intersection for about five kilometers to kilometer post 6. About 200 meters past this kilometer post is a sign3, written in Thai, for Ban Dong (บานดง). Turn right at this sign and follow the road a short distance into Ban Dong.

According to Caw Athikanniyom et al.4 (2002), the “Dong” in “Ban Dong” has two possible derivations. One is that the area was named based on the fact that the original area of the village was a tropical forest, or [paa˩ doŋ˧ dip˩] (ปาดงดิบ). The other is that others living in the surrounding area considered the people of Ban Dong to be inferior, as wanderers who hired themselves out rather than cultivating the land. Thus, they were like forest people, or [kʰon˧ doŋ˧] (คนดง). The word [doŋ˧] (ดง) in each of these possible derivations is a Thai word for “forest” or “jungle.”

Ban Sakoen consists of M.1 in Tambon Jod, Amphoe Song Khwae, Nan Province (บานสะเกิน ม.1 ต.ยอด อ.สองแคว จ.นาน). From Chiang Kham in , drive east on highway 1148 for

1 Northern Thai is the regional variety of Thai spoken in Northern Thailand. It is also called [kʰam mʉaŋ]. 2 Standard Thai is a standardized form of Central Thai that serves as the national language of Thailand. 3 During this survey, the sign was difficult to see due to overhanging trees. 4 The first author is Mpi and is the monk at Dong Neua, one of two temples in Ban Dong.

8 about one hour. Ban Sakoen is located very close to the Phayao-Nan provincial boundary. There is a white sign marking “Sakoen Cave” (ถ้ําสะเกิน, or Tham Sakoen) and off to the north is a striking looking mountain. The entrance to the village is just after the sign for the cave. There is a sign for the village as well, but coming from the west, the sign marking the village cannot be seen as it faces east. The entrance to the village also leads to the cave, as well as to Tham Sakoen National Park.

The following maps show the locations of Mpi villages in Thailand. Figure 1 shows Thailand and its neighboring countries in mainland . Figure 2 shows the approximate locations of Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen in Northern Thailand.

9

Figure 1 - Thailand and Neighboring Countries

Ban Sakoen

Ban Dong

Figure 2 - Northern Thailand

10 (With arrows pointing to approximate locations of Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen)

Figure 3 - Phrae City and Surroundings

Approximate location of Ban Sakoen Approximate location of Ban Dong

Figure 4 - Northern Nan Province (Note: the black line is the Thailand- border with Laos to the north)

Figure 3 and Figure 4 (above) provide more detail regarding the locations of Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen, respectively.

11 In addition to the communities in Thailand, there is reported to be an Mpi community in China, in Mueang La5 which is said to be located adjacent to Laos in Jinghong County, Sipsongpanna Prefecture, Province, China. The source of this information is a Tai Lüe woman and her Chinese husband who report to have had contact with the Mpi in Mueang La6. Figure 5 shows a hand-drawn map of the route from Thailand through Laos to Mueang La in China written on the back of a page from a Chinese desk calendar.

Kunming (คูนมิง)

Chiang Hong (เชียงโฮง) Nam Thaa (น้ําทา) Mueang La (เมืองลา)

Huay Saay Nam Naa (หวยไซร) (น้ําหนา)

Chiang Khong (เชียงของ)

Figure 5 - Map to Mueang La (not to scale) (The bottommost black line is the Thailand-Laos border. The next black line up is the Laos-China border. Above that is the border of Sipsongpanna Prefecture. The circles represent Tai “” of which Mueang La is one. The place names were originally written in Chinese, then in native Thai handwriting. Additionally, they were written again by a non-native writer of Thai with arrows pointing to the native Thai handwriting.)

5 [mʉaŋ˧ la˥˧] 6 This contact was reported to have taken place when they lived in China over 50 years ago, and at times since when they have visited Mueang La, the last time being approximately 1994.

12 Figure 5 is not to scale, but it does give a rough idea of where Mueang La might be. Comparing the names as given on the hand-drawn map with those on an actual map of the region leads one to believe that Mueang La is the same as Mengla, a city in Yunnan, China. Figure 6 shows Chiang Khong, Ban Houayxay (which is probably the same as Huay Saay in Figure 5), Louang Namtha (which could be the same as Nam Thaa in Figure 5), and Mengla.

Chiang Khong, Ban Houayxay, Louang Namtha, Mengla, Thailand Laos Laos China

Figure 6 - Probable Location of Mueang La, China

13

1.2 Peoples There are two Mpi communities in Thailand, one that is predominantly Mpi in Ban Dong and one that is a mixture of Mpi and in Ban Sakoen. In Ban Dong, the people we spoke with call themselves and their language [m̩ ˧ pi˥˧]. They report that some outsiders call them [kɔ˥˧] but they do not want to be called that as they feel it is a confusion with Akha (mispronounced [i˧ kɔ˥˧] by some in the area)7. Caw Athikanniyom et al. (2002) discuss the differences between the Mpi of Ban Dong and the Akha and note three reasons why these groups should not be confused. First, the ancestors of the current residents of Ban Dong came to Thailand over 200 years ago while the first Akha came less than 100 years ago. Second, while there are similarities between the Mpi and Akha languages, these can be explained by the fact that both are in the same and that they used to live near each other in Yunnan, China (the argument seems to be that similarities do not imply that the two groups are the same). Third, Akha and Mpi religion, customs, and traditions differ.

Interestingly, the Mpi of Ban Sakoen call themselves and their language [kɔ˥˧] or [pu˧ kɔ˥˧], reporting that the fuller, older name is [kɔ˧ pii˥˧ dao˧]. The Tai Lüe woman living in Chiang Kham who has reportedly been in contact with the Mpi in Mueang La (see Section 1.1, page 11) said that the name for the people is [pu˧ kɔ˥˧ kin˧ dao˧] where [pu˧] means “mountain.” In Mueang La they are called [pu˧ kɔ˥˧] to distinguish them from the Akha, who are called [kɔ˥˧] in that area. In this paper, the name “Mpi” will be used for both the language and the people. Where [kɔ˥˧] is referred to, it will be rendered “Kaw” while [i˧ kɔ˥˧] will be rendered “Ikaw.”

Sittichai (1984:8–9) gives a different explanation for why some Northern Thai refer to the Mpi as [kɔ˥˧], namely that it comes from the Thai word for “to build” [kɔɔ˩], because they were involved in the construction of a temple (Wat Luang) near the of Phrae and were skilled builders. Ruengdet (1988:212) mentions that some Northern Thai refer to the Mpi in Ban Dong as [kɔɔ˥˧ doŋ˧].

According to a 1969 survey conducted by Mr. Blobaum, an American Peace Corps volunteer, there were 234 households with about 1,250 people in Ban Dong (Srinuan 1976). Sittichai (1984) reports that by 1984 there were approximately 300 households and 3,300 people. During the present research, the village leaders of Ban Dong reported 206 houses and about 800 people in M.4, and 128 houses and 506 people in M.8, for a total of 334 houses and about 1,300 people. The village leaders did not distinguish between Mpi people and others in this count. However, while some Northern Thai live in Ban Dong, the vast majority are Mpi, with others coming to Ban Dong mainly through intermarriage with Mpi.

Ban Sakoen, on the other hand, is almost half Northern Thai, with the village leader reporting 115 houses, 60 of which are Mpi. He did not specify a population total. Given that the ratio in Ban Dong is about four people per house, it is estimated that there are 240 Mpi people in Ban Sakoen.

Thus, rounding down a bit to account for the few Northern Thai people in Ban Dong, an estimate of the total number of Mpi in Thailand is about 375 houses with around 1,500 people.

Culturally, the Mpi in both Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen are very similar to the Northern Thai. Dress, food, occupation (rice farming), and religion (Buddhism) are essentially the same (Bradley 1979:47–48). A notable exception is the form of spirit worship in Ban Dong. While many Thai Buddhist houses have a spirit shrine in the house, these are meant for worship of the spirit particular to that dwelling.

7 It was not clear if the name “k” came about from confusion with Akha, and so is disliked, or if it was their name, but is disliked because it results in confusion with Akha.

14 However, in Ban Dong, all the spirit shrines in houses are meant for worship of one common spirit, or angel, which also has a shrine elsewhere in the village. While most Thai houses additionally have a spirit house somewhere on the property outside the house, these were not seen in Ban Dong. The form of spirit worship found in Ban Dong was not found in Ban Sakoen, however. Further investigation is needed to determine if this is a real difference in worship practices since this was not the main focus of the research.

The Mpi of China are reported to be Buddhists who live in the mountains near the town of Mueang La. In the past, there were three Mpi villages, but now there is only one small village. They still use Mpi in the village, but it is mainly the old who use it; the children are learning Chinese. The villagers speak Chinese more than Mpi. It is not known if the children are able to speak Mpi. Again, all this information about the Mpi in China was reported by the aforementioned Chinese/Tai Lüe couple who have had only sporadic contact with the Mpi in Mueang La. Further investigation is needed to confirm their report.

1.3 History

1.3.1 Based on Previous Research According to Srinuan (1976:ix), the Mpi came to Thailand sometime between 1676 and 1736 (approximately; he says “250 to 300 years ago”). He says that the reason for this migration is not known; however Sittichai (1984:8) claims that the reason was that they were captured in the village of “Kong Meng Si-tue” in Sipsongpanna, China (in Yunnan Province), and, presumably, brought to Thailand as prisoners. Upon arrival in Thailand, they were taken first to the village of Suea Kuen (an older name for what is now Ban Sakoen). While some Mpi escaped from there, six couples were taken to Ban Dong.

Caw Athikanniyom et al. (2002) agree that the Mpi are from Sipsongpanna. He says that there was much fighting among the small groups of that area and the Mpi area was invaded. A group of Mpi fled to Muang Phon Hom (เมืองพรหม) in Laos. The Lao called them ชนมป  (this could be pronounced [tɕʰon˧ m̩ ˧ pi˥˧], meaning “Mpi person,” or [tɕʰa˧ nom˧ m̩ ˧ pi˥˧] as some in Ban Dong seem to pronounce it). Around 1682, the King of Phrae (in what is now Phrae Province of Thailand) raised an army and attacked Muang Phon Hom. He brought a group of Mpi back to Phrae as captives. On the way to Phrae, the King had some of them build houses in what is now Ban Sakoen (then called Ban Suea Kin - บานเสือกิ๋น). Only six couples were brought to Phrae. They were allowed to farm as they pleased. However, their main responsibility was to look after the elephants, horses, and goats of the King of Phrae. During the reign of King Rama V, there was a rebellion of the Shan in Phrae (supported by other groups) which caused the King of Phrae to flee with his retinue to Luang Prabang in Laos. The Mpi in Ban Dong were not taken along so from then on they were free to make a living however they chose.

Whether it is in Muang Phon Hom or elsewhere, there may be some Mpi speakers in Laos as well as those in Thailand and those reported to still be in Yunnan. Were all the Mpi in Laos captured and taken to Thailand or did some remain behind? Did any ever escape from Thailand? If so, did they return to Laos or to Sipsongpanna? These are questions that call for further investigation.

1.3.2 Based on This Survey Informal interviews during this survey revealed historical information that is basically consistent with what has been published. The following are some interesting comments from three residents of Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen.

15 In Ban Dong, when asked where the Mpi came from, an older man answered “.” He said he learned this when he was a monk in a temple a long time ago. It was written in and on a [bai lan], a kind of leaf for writing on.

An older woman in Ban Sakoen was told by her grandparents that 15 families came from China. There was [din˧ fai˧] (ดินไฟ) (a substance used in making gun powder) in Ban Sakoen and they were forced to live there in order to mine it in the caves.

An older man in Ban Sakoen said that the Mpi moved from China to Luang Prabang in Laos, together with Tai Lüe people, to escape from war. About 250 years ago, the King of Phrae and the King of Nan brought them from Luang Prabang to mine [din˧ fai˧]. Some were brought to Ban Sakoen, others to Phrae. Only Mpi were brought, no Tai Lüe. In all, 11 Mpi families were brought to Ban Sakoen and they lived near the cave in which they mined.

1.4 Previous Linguistic Research Mpi8 is a Tibeto-Burman language sub-classified as Southeastern, Burmese-Lolo, Loloish, Southern, Bi- Ka (Bradley 1997:40). Khatu and Piyo share the same classification. Other languages in Thailand in the Southern Loloish branch include Akha, Akeu, Bisu, and Phunoi.

The first published work on Mpi was an Mpi-Thai-English dictionary by Srinuan in 1976. This also contained a description of the consonants, vowels, and tones of the language. Matisoff (1978) made use of Srinuan’s work and found many examples in Mpi that aid in the understanding of Lolo-Burmese historical linguistics. Bradley (1979) included Srinuan’s data in an 836-item wordlist along with Burmese, Lisu, Phunoi, Bisu, and Akha in a historical reconstruction of Proto-Loloish. Sittichai (1984) studied Mpi phrases and clauses. Caw Athikanniyom et al. (2002), in the context of discussing the cultural distinctiveness of the Mpi and the Akha, present a 19-item Thai-Mpi-Akha wordlist (in ).

Table 1 gives this list, along with English glosses and phonetic equivalents for the Thai. Since Mpi and Akha both differ in their phonetic inventory from Thai, phonetic transcriptions for their words based on the Thai script would not be accurate. For Mpi, the phonetic transcriptions are from Srinuan (1976)9. For Akha, the phonetic transcriptions are from Lewis (1968). It seems that the purpose of this list was to point out that while Mpi does have some similarities with Akha, the two are not the same language.

8 Ethnologue code [mpz] (Gordon 2005). 9 Note that some items from Srinuan (1976) differ from Caw Athikanniyom et al. (2002). Thus, for some of the entries, the Thai and the phonetic are not as similar as for other entries.

16 Table 1 - Mpi (Ban Dong) - Akha Wordlist

Mpi English Standard Thai Akha 11 (Ban Dong) 10

I ฉัน tɕan˩˧ โง ŋo˥ งา ŋa˥ 12 he/she/it เธอ tʰəə˧ นอ ɲ̩˩ tɕʰõ˩ นอ nɔ˥ to know รู ruu˧˥ สื่อ sɯ˩˧ สิ si˩ to give ให hai˥˧ เป  pɛ˥˧ บิ bi˩ * knife มีด miit˥˧ เหมียว mjo˧ หมีแช mi cæ * month เดือน dʉan˧ ปโล pi˩ lo˧ มาหลา ma la * to farm 13 ยาแหง ทําไร tʰam˧ rai˥˧ โยจุ jo˥ โหม ja ŋæ mo* kɪn˧ to eat rice กินขาว หอโจ  hõ˩ tɕo˩˧ หอจะ hɔ˩ ca˩̰ kʰaaw˥˧ to live อย ู yuu˩ ยี yii * ยอ yɔ˧ one หนึ่ง nʉŋ˩ ถ ึ tʰo˩ ถิ / ต ิ tḭ˩ two สอง sɔɔŋ˩˧ หยิ ɲḭ˩ นยิ ɲḭ˩ three สาม saam˩˧ ซิง sĩ˥ ซุง sm˥ (none four สี่ sii˩ สี li˥ given) oe˩ five หา haa˥˧ โหง ŋo˩ หงา ŋa˩ (none six หก hok˩ คอ kʰo̰˩ given) ko̰˩ (none seven เจ็ด tɕɛt˩ ซี้ sḭ˩ given) ʃḭ˩ (none eight แปด pææt˩ เฮอะ hɤ̰˩ given) yɛ˩̰ (none nine เกา kaw˥˧ กุย kwi˥ given) ɣö˩ (none ten สิบ sɪp˩ เทอ tʰɤ˥ given) tse˥

10 The Thai transcription is from Caw Athikanniyom et al. (2002) and the phonetic transcription is from Srinuan (1976). A * indicates an item that the author was unable to locate in Srinuan (1976). For items with a *, the phonetic transcription is taken directly from the Thai (with omitted). 11 The Thai transcription is from Caw Athikanniyom et al. (2002) and the phonetic transcription is from Lewis (1968). The Akha tones for “oral” vowels are high (˥), mid (˧), and low (˩). Those for “laryngealized” vowels are just high (˥) and low (˩), and those vowels are marked here as, for example, o.̰ A * indicates an item that the author was unable to locate in Lewis (1968). For items with a *, the phonetic transcription is taken directly from the Thai (with tone omitted). 12 In Lewis (1968:219), this word has the gloss “you (singular)” rather than being the third person singular pronoun as indicated by Caw Athikanniyom et al. (2002). 13 In Srinuan (1976:333), this word has the gloss “field.” The author was unable to locate the word for “to farm.”

17

1.5 Previous Sociolinguistic Research Kirk Person and Noel Mann (Payap University Linguistics Department faculty members), Kitjapol Udomkool and Linda Markowski (Payap MA students), and two Bisu men traveled to Ban Dong on September 9, 2002, to investigate comprehension of Bisu among Mpi speakers (Person 2002). This investigation was initiated based on the Ethnologue fourteenth edition (Grimes 2000) entry for Mpi in Thailand which contained the note, “Investigation needed: intelligibility with Bisu, Pyen, Phunoi.” In addition to Recorded Text Testing (RTT) (Casad 1974), an Mpi wordlist was elicited, a grammar questionnaire was administered to two subjects, and a sociolinguistic questionnaire was administered to five subjects.

1.5.1 Intelligibility with Bisoid Languages The first time the RTT was administered, the test subject was unable to understand anything. Apparently, the RTT was abandoned after this, based also on the fact that the two Bisu men found conversation with Mpi people impossible. Person states that “even simple sentences like the greetings ‘Have you eaten yet?’ and ‘Where are you going?’ were unrecognizable.” The only “comprehension” was the recognition of a few Bisu words in a picture dictionary which were cognate with Mpi. Person concludes that Bisu and Mpi are “mutually unintelligible.” Since the lexical counts with Mpi and other Bisoid languages (Kitjapol, forthcoming) range from 38% to 48% (including Pyen and Phunoi; Mpi and Bisu having the highest shared lexical percentage of 53%), inherent intelligibility is unlikely between Mpi and any Bisoid language. Note that in the entry for Mpi in the Ethnologue fifteenth edition (Gordon 2005), the note about “investigation needed” has been deleted. However, there is still a note that says that Mpi is “close to Pyen [and] Phunoi” which should probably also be deleted.

1.5.2 Grammar Questionnaire The following items were noted as a result of the grammar questionnaire.

• Mpi is SOV, typical of a Tibeto-Burman language. • Unlike Bisu and Phunoi, Mpi seems to lack many post-verbal particles. • A phonological note: The Thai name “Suk,” which was used often in the Thai elicitation, was consistently changed to “So.”

1.5.3 Sociolinguistic Questionnaire The sociolinguistic questionnaire was administered to five individuals: males ages 31, 42, and 80, and females ages 17 and 41. The following list summarizes the interesting findings.

• All five subjects indicated being able to speak Mpi, Northern Thai and Central Thai. • Some among the younger generation have started referring to the Mpi language as ภาษาบานดง ([pʰaa˧ saa˩˧ baan˥˧ doŋ˧]), or “the language of Ban Dong.” • Two subjects indicated that the old speak Mpi while the young speak Northern Thai. • Subjects indicated that children are learning Northern Thai first. Those that speak Mpi learn it later. • There are many mixed marriages, and children of mixed marriages often do not speak Mpi. • Some parents are not teaching their children Mpi. • Many younger people do not speak Mpi, but can understand some when spoken to. • The 17 year old female subject indicated that she speaks Northern Thai in all situations except with her grandparents.

18 • The 41 year old female subject indicated she would not use Mpi with an Mpi speaker in Phrae city for fear of being laughed at. • There is some indication that they would like to preserve their language. According to the 80 year old male subject, the leader of the Amphoe was reported to be interested in preserving the Mpi language. • All five subjects indicated that Ban Dong was the more important village because there are more Mpi speakers in Ban Dong than in the other Mpi village in Thailand (Ban Sakoen). • The subjects reported no communication difficulties between Ban Dong and the other Mpi speaking village in Thailand (Ban Sakoen). 2 Purposes, Goals, and Research Questions This survey was carried out for the following two purposes. The parenthetical items will be used to refer to these purposes. • Assess the need for vernacular literature development among the Mpi of Northern Thailand (need for vernacular literature). • Determine which, if any, Mpi varieties in Northern Thailand require development (relationship between Mpi varieties).

Related to the need for vernacular literature purpose, the following goals and research questions were developed. The parenthetical items will be used to refer to these research questions. • Evaluate the vitality of Mpi. o Does it appear likely that Mpi will continue to be spoken by the future generation(s)? (language vitality) • Evaluate the potential for Mpi speakers to use materials developed in Northern Thai. o Are there negative attitudes that would inhibit Mpi speakers’ use of Northern Thai literature? (attitude toward Northern Thai) o Do Mpi speakers master Northern Thai adequately? (Northern Thai proficiency)

Related to the relationship between Mpi varieties purpose, the following goals and research questions were developed. The parenthetical items will be used to refer to these research questions. • Determine the linguistic relationship between the Mpi varieties of Northern Thailand. o What are the groupings of Mpi varieties based on intelligibility? (intelligibility between Mpi varieties) • Determine the sociolinguistic relationship between the Mpi varieties of Northern Thailand. o How do Mpi people perceive the groupings of Mpi varieties? (reported groupings of Mpi varieties)

Section 3 describes the methods used to answer the research questions. Section 4 summarizes the results of the fieldwork and how they contribute toward answering the research questions. Section 5 uses the answers to the research questions to draw conclusions related to the survey purposes. Section 6 provides recommendations for actions and further research based on the results of this survey. The actual survey instruments used and the data obtained are shown in the Appendices, along with details about the implications of the sampling methodology, an inventory of Mpi phones, and the methodology used for the computation of lexicostatistics.

19 3 Methodology

3.1 Timeline The researchers traveled to Ban Dong on November 18, 2004, and contacted the village leader. On November 19, after receiving permission to conduct research in Ban Dong, the monk at Wat Dong Neua, one of two temples in the village, was approached. He was interested in the research and very helpful. He provided answers to the Village Leader Sociolinguistic Questionnaire (see Section 3.3.1 below) and acted as a consultant for the elicitation of a wordlist. He then introduced us to other Mpi in Ban Dong for administration of the Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire (see Section 3.3.1 below). The remainder of November 19 and the next day were spent administering questionnaires.

Following a day of rest, the researchers drove to Ban Sakoen on November 22. After receiving permission to conduct research from the village leader, the researchers spent some time speaking with some older people who were available. The research team was told that only the older people spoke Mpi well, so two older women were asked to act as language consultants for the wordlist elicitation. That evening and the morning of November 23 were spent administering questionnaires.

3.2 Sample Selection

3.2.1 Questionnaire Subject Selection It was desired to interview both men and women of various ages. Thus, age was divided into three ranges: 14-25 years, 26-45 years, and 46 or more years. This resulted in six age by gender categories. The researchers administered questionnaires to subjects that were available. Some volunteered, others were met in the street, and others were approached at their homes. Each subject was placed in a category based on his/her age and gender. The goal was to interview a quota of three subjects within each category. See Appendix A for details on the implications of this sampling method.

Due to the factors described in Appendix A, the results of this research are not necessarily representative of all Mpi people in Thailand. In this paper, conclusions are in fact drawn about the population of Mpi speakers in each village. However, due to the sampling methods employed, these conclusions must be viewed as tentative.

This sampling procedure was followed in Ban Dong. However, in Ban Sakoen, the researchers focused on older subjects as they were reported to be the only people with Mpi speaking ability, and information was desired about the history of the Mpi and the locations (if any) of Mpi villages in China.

In addition to selecting subjects of both genders and a variety of ages, the researchers attempted to select subjects from a wide variety of locations within the village, as well as at different times of day in order to not systematically exclude any part of the village or any people who tend to not be home during certain times of day. At Ban Dong, questionnaires were administered on the evening of one day, and in the morning and afternoon of the next day. At Ban Sakoen, they were administered in the evening of one day and in the morning of the next day.

Two Ban Dong subjects (BD08b and BD08c) were excluded. They were interviewed in a group along with subject BD08a and, for almost every question, subject BD08a answered and these other two were silent or gave the same answer (see Appendix D - Sociolinguistic Data). Thus, their responses cannot be reasonably considered to be independent information. The effective sample size for this group interview

20 is much closer to one than it is to three, and so the results of this interview are only counted as coming from one subject.

The questionnaire administration included screening criteria (see Appendix B). According to these criteria, two Ban Dong subjects should be excluded. One subject (BD01) had not been in the village the last five years so the researchers stopped the interview. This subject was excluded from the analysis. The other subject (BD10) was 18 years old and grew up in Ban Dong, but his parents were Northern Thai and half Mpi. He should be excluded because he does not speak Mpi “first or best.” However, the researchers neglected to apply the selection criteria and administered the questionnaire in full. This subject was not excluded from the analysis since the researchers decided that this criterion was not appropriate for this survey. Such subjects may not be all that unusual in Ban Dong. Had others been excluded for this same reason, or had the decision to not stop the questionnaire been based on his answers (rather than just neglecting to apply the screening criteria), then this subject should have been excluded as well. However, since neither of these things occurred, keeping this subject is equivalent to ignoring the “speaks Mpi first or best” criterion.

In Ban Sakoen, five of the subjects were interviewed in two groups (subjects BS16a, BS16b, BS23a, BS23b, and BS23c). In each case, the subjects answered individually and so were treated as separate subjects. None were excluded.

Thus, in Ban Dong, 15 questionnaires were administered, with one subject excluded, resulting in a sample size of 14. In Ban Sakoen, the sample size is 11. Table 2 shows how these samples are distributed with respect to the quota strata variables.

Table 2 - Sample Size by Location, Gender, and Age

Ban Dong Age Total 14-25 26-45 46+ Female 2 2 2 6 Gender Male 3 3 2 8 Total 5 5 4 14 Ban Sakoen Age Total 14-25 26-45 46+ Female 1 1 5 7 Gender Male 0 0 4 4 Total 1 1 9 11

3.2.2 Wordlist Consultant Selection A random sample is generally not necessary for wordlist collection. However, since lexical variation is not uncommon for differences in gender and age, a specific gender × age combination was targeted to ensure wordlist comparability between locations; namely a 45 year old male. Middle-aged speakers are more likely to handle the language well and speak clearly. The consultant in Ban Dong met these criteria. However, in Ban Sakoen, the researchers were told that middle-aged villagers do not speak Mpi well. The consultants that were available and spoke Mpi well were two older women, ages 60 and 64.

21 3.3 Instruments The survey instruments were two sociolinguistic questionnaires, a wordlist, observation, and informal interviews.

3.3.1 Sociolinguistic Questionnaires Two sociolinguistic questionnaires were administered on this survey: the Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire – Thailand (Individual SLQ) (see Appendix B), and the Village Leader Sociolinguistic Questionnaire – Thailand (Village Leader SLQ) (see Appendix C). The questions on these SLQs were read in Northern Thai by Jenvit Suknaphasawat. After the subject answered the question, Jenvit immediately translated the answer into English and Ramzi Nahhas wrote the answer in English in a bound data notebook. Subjects for the Individual SLQ were selected according to the sampling procedure described in Section 3.2.1. The Village Leader SLQ was administered to only one person, the head monk at one of the two temples in Ban Dong. The village leader in Ban Sakoen was met only briefly. A brief ad hoc interview was all that was possible.

Some modifications to the Individual SLQ were made as follows: • For both Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen, questions 49-54 about language use in church activities were skipped since Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen are not Christian communities. • For Ban Dong, the following additional changes were made: o The only other village mentioned in replies to question 56, “About how many villages speak Mpi?,” was Ban Sakoen. Thus, questions 57–69 (dialect perceptions) were reduced to asking how these two villages differed. o The reported bilingualism questions 108–123 were initially asked about Northern Thai. It became clear that everyone handled Northern Thai very well. Thus, subsequent subjects were asked only questions 120, 119, 122, and 123 (in that order). For four subjects, reported bilingual proficiency in Central Thai was elicited, using the same four questions. For two younger subjects, the researchers asked questions 108–123 in reference to Mpi in an attempt to assess Mpi proficiency among younger Ban Dong residents. o For question 119, the wording may have been inconsistent. The interviewer may have been asking “Can you still speak Northern Thai when you are angry?” rather than can you still use it “well.” Sometimes he asked “Can you speak as well as they when you are angry?” o For question 122, what was actually asked was “In which language is it easier for you to think?” • For Ban Sakoen, the following changes were made: o The team quickly realized that very few people used Mpi. Instead of the full Individual SLQ, a reduced form was used. o Instead of asking questions 34–48 (domains of language use), the researchers asked “When and with whom do you use Mpi14?” o Question 56, “About how many villages speak Mpi?” was asked along with follow-up questions asking about the possible presence of Mpi speakers in China. The literature claims that the Mpi came from Sipsongpanna in Yunnan, China, and the researchers hoped that the people in Ban Sakoen might have some knowledge of Mpi speakers in China. The dialect perception questions, 55 and 57–69, were skipped. o Questions 70–107 (language attitudes, ethnolinguistic identity, and script) were modified and replaced. “Many years ago, Mpi was used all the time in Ban Sakoen, but now it is

14 As mentioned previously, Mpi is called “Kaw” by the residents of Ban Sakoen. In Ban Sakoen, questions about Mpi were stated as questions about “Kaw.”

22 not used much. How do you feel about this?” Since so few people use Mpi in Ban Sakoen, the researchers thought it was better to ask their feelings about language decline. o The reported bilingual proficiency questions 108–123 were skipped since it was clear that Northern Thai proficiency is high in the village.

3.3.2 Wordlist The wordlist used was the SIL 436-item wordlist (see Appendix H). Each word was elicited using Northern and/or Central Thai and transcribed using the International Phonetic Alphabet. For a chart showing the phones of Mpi, see Appendix F. Each word was recorded three times using a Sony MD Walkman MZ-R90 portable minidisc recorder15.

3.3.3 Observation and Informal Interview Interesting observations and information gathered from spontaneous, informal interviews were recorded in a bound data notebook throughout the course of the fieldwork.

3.4 Analysis

3.4.1 Summary of Sociolinguistic Data Summaries of the responses to the Individual SLQ and Village Leader SLQ are presented in Appendix E and Section 4.2, respectively. See Section 3.4.3 for information on how each question was used to answer the research questions.

3.4.2 Wordlist Comparison For each of a select group of 100 items, selected as described in Mann (2004:25), specific criteria were used to decide if the words elicited for those items in Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen were lexically similar. The criteria for determining lexical similarity are described in Appendix G. The lexical similarity percentage is given in Section 4.3.

3.4.3 Criteria for Answering Research Questions The sociolinguistic data and the wordlist comparison were interpreted based on the criteria described in this section. These data, along with relevant information from observation and informal interviews, are used in Section 4.4 to address the research questions. The SLQ results are presented quantitatively, in the form of numbers of respondents. However, with the exception of the question of intelligibility, no strict criteria are given here for the interpretation of these results.

3.4.3.1 Language Vitality A number of sociolinguistic factors that are associated with the research question “Does it appear likely that Mpi will continue to be spoken by the future generation(s)?” were measured in this study. These are: domains of language use, Mpi proficiency of children, language attitudes, motivation, bilingual proficiency, contact, educational policy, ethnolinguistic identity, ethnolinguistic makeup of villages, geographical distribution, government policy, language aspirations, and population. While each of these factors is indeed related to language vitality, some may be thought of as “primary.” That is, it is difficult to have high language vitality if any indicators of primary factors point toward low vitality.

15 The recording of words 56-102 was accidentally deleted in Ban Sakoen. The MZ-R90 has the “feature” that, unless the operator makes sure that the minidisc is at the end of the last recorded track, the current data will be overwritten. Fortunately, newer models allow this feature to be turned on or off. Despite the lack of an audio recording, these words were used in the analysis. The quality of the on-site transcription for the wordlist was deemed sufficient for these words.

23 Other factors may be thought of as “secondary.” That is, a language may still have high vitality even if some indicators of secondary factors point toward low vitality.

Table 3 summarizes the criteria used to determine how each factor relates to language vitality.

The questions from the Individual SLQ related to these factors are 29–48, 56, and 75–124. The questions from the Village Leader SLQ related to these factors are questions 29–40.

Table 3 - Summary of Language Vitality Criteria

Criteria for Indication of Higher Factor Vitality Primary (Difficult to have high vitality if these are negative) Domains of language use – home More usage and children Mpi proficiency of children Higher Mpi proficiency in children Secondary (Can still have high vitality even if these are negative) Language attitudes Positive attitude toward Mpi usage Motivation Valuable reasons to use Mpi Bilingual proficiency Lower bilingual proficiency Contact Little contact with other languages Domains of language use – More usage relatives, friends, community Educational policy Lack of schooling in Thai Ethnolinguistic identity Identify as Mpi more than Thai Ethnolinguistic makeup of villages Closer to 100% Mpi Geographical distribution Mpi villages in close proximity Government policy Support of minority languages Aspire to use Mpi more and other Language aspirations languages less Population Larger population

3.4.3.2 Attitude to Northern Thai The factors measured in this study that are associated with the research question “Are there negative attitudes that would inhibit Mpi speakers’ use of Northern Thai literature?” are ethnolinguistic identity and language attitudes. Strong resistance to identification as Northern Thai and/or negative attitudes toward Northern or people would indicate an answer of “Yes” to this research question. The questions from the Individual SLQ related to these factors are questions 93, 94, and 95.

3.4.3.3 Northern Thai Proficiency The factors measured in this study that are associated with the research question “Do Mpi speakers master Northern Thai adequately?” are bilingual proficiency and domains of language use. High levels of reported proficiency16 are an indicator of adequate Northern Thai proficiency. Additionally, the use of Northern Thai in many domains is supporting evidence of adequate proficiency. The questions from the Individual SLQ related to these factors are questions 29–48, 80–82, and 108–124. The questions from the Village Leader SLQ related to these factors are questions 36–40.

16 No specific criteria are given here for “high.” The nature of the sample and the nature of reported proficiency preclude the use of a specific cutoff for “high.”

24 3.4.3.4 Intelligibility between Mpi Varieties The factors measured in this study that are associated with the research question “What are the groupings of Mpi varieties based on intelligibility?” are comprehension and linguistic relatedness. The question from the Individual SLQ related to these factors is question 57 (see Section 3.3.1 for reasons why questions 57–69 were reduced to just one question). The primary result used to answer this research question is the wordlist analysis.

The criterion for comprehension is that if lexical similarity is less than 70%, the researchers will conclude inadequate comprehension between the varieties. If lexical similarity is at least 70%, comprehension testing should be considered.

3.4.3.5 Reported Groupings of Mpi Varieties The factors measured in this study that are associated with the research question “How do Mpi people perceive the groupings of Mpi varieties?” are dialect perceptions and language attitudes. The questions from the Individual SLQ related to these factors are questions 55–57 and 70–74.

4 Results

4.1 Summary of Individual SLQ Results The raw questionnaire data is shown in Appendix D. Appendix E summarizes the Individual SLQ results, by question, for each location.

4.2 Summary of Village Leader SLQ Results The answers given to the Village Leader SLQ are shown in Table 4.

25 Table 4 - Summary of Village Leader SLQ Answers

Number Question Ban Dong1 Ban Sakoen2 What do the people who live here Ban Dong or Ban --- 27 call this village? [ma˧ pi˥˧] 28 What do outsiders call this village? Ban Dong --- How many houses are in this 334 115 (60 are Mpi) 29 village? What is the total number of people 460 (240 are Mpi) about 1,300 30 in this village? (estimates) Yes (observed to be across the highway Is there a school in this village? Yes (one) 31 from the village entrance) (if there is a school) What levels P.6 (primary school, a total of 7 P.6 (primary school, a 32 are taught in the school? years) total of 7 years) Where did the people in this Sipsongpanna, China Sipsongpanna, China 33 village come from? Have the people in this village Yes Yes 34 lived here a long time? 35 How long? 300 years --- What languages are spoken in this Mpi, Northern Thai, Central --- 36 village? Thai Mpi is used among themselves more than Northern Thai. With others, they usually speak For the most part, people speak Northern Thai or Thai --- 37 which language the most? (depending on the other person). Half-Mpi children learn Mpi, too. Some who cannot speak Mpi still understand it. 38 About what percent? ------The other languages, about what ------39 percent use them? If they meet someone who can’t speak Mpi, what language do ------40 people from this village use with that person?

1These answers were mainly given by the monk at Wat Dong Neua, but the figures for number of houses and number of people are the sum of the answers given by the village headmen for M.4 and M.8 (the two neighborhoods in the village). 2The figures for the number of houses were given by the village headman for Ban Sakoen. The other information here is from observation and informal interviews.

4.3 Summary of Wordlist Comparison Using the criteria described in Appendix G, the percentage of lexically similar items between the speaker of the language from Ban Dong and the speaker from Ban Sakoen is 86% (86 of 100 items). Table 5 shows the regular sound correspondences that were observed between these mother-tongue speakers. For information about the speakers and the elicitation and recording, see Sections 3.2.2 and 3.3.2.

26 Table 5 - Regular Sound Correspondences Observed

Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Example1 Example Number and Gloss2 mj ml mj vs. ml 242 “to lick” pj pl pj vs. pl 354 “to be full” pj pl pju vs. plu 33 “silver” pj p pj vs. p 97 “to fly” pj p h pju vs. ho pu 79 “porcupine” p pl m p vs. hu plæ 112 “cockroach” k kl  ki lu mo vs. ta kli 165 “sweat” k kl ko ko vs. a klo a klo 195 “clothing” k kl k vs. kl 349 “to be wide, broad” t t a ti vs. a ti 46 “seed” t t ti a vs. ti a 236 “to cough”

1Ban Sakoen words given without a tone transcription were part of the set of words for which the recording was lost (see Section 3.3.2). For words which were recorded, tone was not transcribed until after listening to the recording. Segments were transcribed initially before listening to the recording, and then revised after listening to the recording, which helped greatly to clarify the field transcriptions of segments. 2See Appendix H - Wordlist.

4.4 Towards Answers to the Research Questions For each research question, the discussion is organized by the factors listed in Section 3.4.3. The data that support the assertions made are summarized in each subsection, with references to the raw data.

4.4.1 Language Vitality This section discusses how the survey results address the research question “Does it appear likely that Mpi will continue to be spoken by the future generation(s)?” For each factor related to this question, the results are summarized as “positive,” “unclear” or “negative” with respect to language vitality. A summary of all the indicators of the factors is shown in Table 6.

4.4.1.1 Primary Factors Domains of language use – home and children As shown in Appendix E.3, ten of 14 respondents in Ban Dong reported using some Mpi at home. Seven of nine reported using Mpi with their children. Based on other comments made by the respondents, it may be that this use with children is in only one direction, with the parents speaking Mpi and the children replying in Northern Thai. For many children, Mpi proficiency may be limited to understanding. In the opinion of the monk at Wat Dong Neua, the Mpi community in Ban Dong generally can speak Mpi if they are over 40. Thus, while the results from the question about language use at home seem to indicate high vitality, the facts behind these results leave the implications for language vitality unclear. It could be that “use at home” and “use with children” were interpreted as parents speaking Mpi to their children at times, but the children not necessarily answering in Mpi, or it could be that, in fact, many children are using Mpi at home.

As shown in Appendix E.9, only four of 13 Ban Dong subjects indicated that children learn Mpi first, while the other nine reported that children in Ban Dong learn Northern Thai first. Of these nine subjects, only four report that children learn any Mpi before starting school. If these reports are typical of Ban

27 Dong, then use of Mpi at home by children may not be widespread, despite the results above that indicate high Mpi usage at home and with children.

For Ban Sakoen, the responses listed in Appendix E.3 are indicative of a community where only the old are able to use Mpi well, and even they sometimes use Northern Thai instead of Mpi, or mix the two languages. Some middle-aged individuals have limited proficiency in Mpi, but the children do not know any Mpi.

Thus, for Ban Dong, it is unclear if the level of usage of Mpi at home and with children is a positive or negative factor with respect to language vitality. For Ban Sakoen, however, it is clearly a negative factor.

Mpi proficiency of children

As shown in Appendix E.9, only four of 13 Ban Dong subjects indicated that children learn Mpi first, while the other nine reported that children in Ban Dong learn Northern Thai first. Only four of these nine report that children learn any Mpi before starting school.

Appendix E.10 shows that ten of 14 Ban Dong subjects reported that children speak only Northern Thai when playing. The other four reported that children use both Mpi and Northern Thai when playing. No subject reported that children use only Mpi when playing. A confounding factor here is that it is unknown how many Northern-Thai-only speakers there are in Ban Dong. It seems that residents of Ban Dong are generally considerate of others; if a non-Mpi speaker is present, everyone will use Northern Thai for that person’s benefit. Thus, it is possible that there are a number of children who could speak Mpi when playing but choose not to for the sake of their playmates who cannot speak Mpi. Thus, it is unclear whether the reported predominant use of Northern Thai is due to a lack of proficiency in Mpi or to consideration for non-Mpi speakers.

When asked about how well children speak Mpi (see Appendix E.13), more than half of the subjects asked responded that children in Ban Dong do not speak Mpi well. When asked in what way the children do not speak well, the subjects mentioned lack of vocabulary and limited production ability. The subjects reported that parents do not teach their children Mpi and that children prefer Northern Thai to Mpi. Note that some Ban Dong residents commented that even though parents are no longer teaching their children Mpi, many children still learn Mpi as they get older.

The results of the self-reported Mpi proficiency questions (see Appendix E.18) which were administered to a 20-year-old male and a 17-year-old female in Ban Dong indicate that young people do have some ability in Mpi, perhaps more than the older generation give them credit for. However, the reported proficiency of the 17 year old does not seem the same as a fluent native speaker. Also, these results do not say anything about the Mpi proficiency of younger children.

The responses listed in Appendix E.3 indicate that children in Ban Sakoen probably lack any appreciable proficiency in Mpi. The researchers received no indications during their visit to Ban Sakoen that any children are able to speak Mpi.

Thus, for both Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen, the level of proficiency of children in Mpi seems to be a negative factor with respect to language vitality.

28

4.4.1.2 Secondary Factors Language attitudes

One Ban Dong subject indicated a positive attitude toward the use of Mpi in that he encouraged people in Ban Sakoen to teach Mpi to their children. The lack of use of Mpi in Ban Sakoen causes sadness for this man (see Appendix E.7).

As shown in Appendix E.8, subjects in Ban Dong reported displeasure at the fact that some have stopped using Mpi. They are afraid that their language will disappear.

The results in Appendix E.10 indicate that subjects did not mind the use of Northern Thai by children as they felt that this would help the children in life. They did not indicate, however, any negative attitude toward Mpi, only that use of Northern Thai was also good.

When asked about what will happen to Mpi in 20 years (see Appendix E.11), almost every Ban Dong subject responded that they want Mpi to still be spoken, that the Mpi language should be preserved.

Ban Dong subjects generally indicated a desire to learn to read and write Mpi (see Appendix E.17).

Based on the researchers’ experience in Ban Dong, residents generally seemed to be proud of their Mpi identity and language. On one occasion, while the researchers were walking through town administering questionnaires, three individuals began speaking in Mpi, attempting to teach their language and very much enjoying themselves. Of course, this is not necessarily representative information as those who are ashamed of Mpi may not be as readily evident in such a short visit.

Language attitudes in Ban Sakoen were elicited by asking about subjects’ feelings on the decline of Mpi in their village (see Appendix E.12). These subjects see other minority groups around them preserving their languages and some feel sad that Mpi is not being preserved. It is not clear how positive Ban Sakoen residents’ feelings are for Mpi. On one hand, if their attitude toward Mpi were more positive, maybe they would still be using it. On the other hand, perhaps social forces, such as the influx of Northern Thai people into their village, are so strong that even a strong positive attitude toward Mpi is not enough to maintain vitality.

For Ban Dong, language attitudes seem to be a positive factor with respect to language vitality. For Ban Sakoen, it is unclear if language attitudes are a positive or a negative factor.

Motivation

The factor of “motivation” is related to language vitality in that if there are valuable reasons to use a language, then that language is more likely to continue being spoken. Conversely, if there are no reasons to use a language, it is likely to cease being used.

The results of Appendix E.8 indicate that some Ban Dong residents are reportedly shy about using Mpi. They would rather be thought of as Northern Thai. Since they are able to use Northern Thai, they generally have no motivation to use Mpi when not in Ban Dong, or when outsiders are present in Ban Dong. Due to Ban Dong’s proximity to the city of Phrae, a provincial capital, contact with non-Mpi people (Northern Thai people as well as members of other minority groups with whom Northern Thai is used as a language of wider communication) is frequent.

29

As shown in the responses to feelings about Mpi and Northern Thai usage by children at play (see Appendix E.10), Ban Dong subjects reported high value for Northern Thai. It provides opportunities in the broader Thai society. At the same time, some responses indicated that value is placed on bilingualism, and therefore on the use of Mpi as well as Northern Thai.

While subjects indicated a desire for Mpi literacy (see Appendix E.17), this is currently a desire that can only be wished for, not acted upon due to the lack of an Mpi orthography.

Some subjects commented that parents are not teaching their children Mpi. The motivation for this choice is that they feel that teaching their children Northern Thai will increase their chances to do well in school and in their life in Thailand. They fear that if they teach their children Mpi, then they will not speak Thai well when they enter school and will not do as well.

For Ban Dong, there seems to be little practical value in the use of Mpi. All functions of life can be carried out in Northern Thai and in some areas (e.g. school, interactions outside of Ban Dong) knowledge of Northern Thai has a distinct advantage. All indications are that for Ban Sakoen the practical value of Mpi is even less, since so few people even have the ability to speak Mpi there.

Thus, the level of motivation to use Mpi is a negative factor with respect to language vitality.

Bilingual proficiency

From the results described in Appendices E.2 - Inventory of Languages Spoken, E.3 - Domains of Language Use, E.9 - Inventory of Children’s Languages, E.18 - Reported Bilingualism, and 4.2 - Summary of Village Leader SLQ Results, it is clear that Northern Thai is used widely and well in both Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen. For many individuals, Northern Thai is their best language and, for some, their only language. For children in Ban Dong, Northern Thai is usually learned first. The interviewer (a speaker of Northern Thai since he was a child) felt that all the subjects in Ban Dong, other than an 80- year-old woman who was interviewed, spoke Northern Thai very well.

Thus, for both Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen, the level of bilingual proficiency in Northern Thai is a negative factor with respect to language vitality.

Contact

Ban Dong is located very near a provincial capital where Northern Thai is spoken. All children attend school taught in Central Thai. Central Thai television is widespread. Additionally, Ban Dong residents do not report having any problem with marriage with non-Mpi speakers (see Appendix E.14). While this does not indicate any positive or negative attitude related to the vitality of Mpi, practically speaking it is a negative factor with respect to the vitality of Mpi due to the increase in contact between Mpi and Northern Thai, especially in the home domain.

While Ban Sakoen is located in a more isolated location, the communities around it are all non-Mpi. Some are Iu Mien or other minority groups and some are Northern Thai. Additionally, almost half the village itself is made up of non-Mpi people (see Section 4.2). Residents commented that the decrease in the use of Mpi began with the construction of a Thai school, bringing compulsory Central Thai education, and with the construction of a road connecting Ban Sakoen with the Northern Thai world, bringing Northern Thai people into their community.

30

Thus, for both Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen, the level of contact with speakers of the languages (Northern Thai and Central Thai) in main competition with Mpi is a negative factor with respect to language vitality.

Domains of Language Use – relatives, friends, community

Appendix E.3 shows that use of Mpi in Ban Dong is reported by the subjects to still be common with relatives and friends within the village. Use in other places (at work, in the market, at a funeral, at a village meeting, at the temple, or with a government worker) tends to depend on where and with whom the communication is taking place. If in Ban Dong with an Mpi speaker, Mpi is generally used. Otherwise, Northern Thai is used.

In Ban Sakoen, use of Mpi is limited to older people, and thus use in the community is limited.

Thus, for Ban Dong, Mpi use with relatives, friends, and in the community is a positive factor with respect to language vitality, but in Ban Sakoen it is a negative factor.

Educational policy

The factor of educational policy (and practice) impacts language vitality negatively if another language is widely promoted via the educational system or if minority languages are suppressed. In Thailand, education through grade 9 is compulsory and free. Efforts are being made to provide an additional three years free to all who desire it (Office of the National Education Commission 2001:63). In Ban Dong, all levels of education are readily available due to the proximity to the provincial capital. Children in Ban Sakoen can only study through grade 6 while living at home. However, many travel to other within a few hours drive such as Chiang Kham (Phayao province), Song Khwae (Nan province), or Nan (the capital of Nan province) to continue their education.

In the past, speakers of minority languages were discouraged from using their languages. This seems to have had an impact in Ban Sakoen in that when a school came to the village, Mpi use began to decline in favor of Northern Thai. Currently, government policy is favorable towards minority languages (Kosonen 2005:7). The government has hired a Ban Sakoen resident to teach Mpi for a few hours one day per week in the school. Since this teacher is not of the older generation of fluent Mpi speakers and since the children receive little encouragement to use Mpi from their parents, it is not clear what kind of impact this effort will have in Ban Sakoen.

Thus, for both Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen, the ready availability of national language education is a negative factor with respect to language vitality17.

Ethnolinguistic identity

As shown in Appendix E.15, the subjects from Ban Dong mostly reported a lack of difference between their culture and the Northern Thai culture. While six of 14 subjects did report some differences in customs and religion, it is not clear how significant these differences are. There is a difference in the day on which the New Year is celebrated and a difference in the nature of spirit worship. One subject in Ban

17 This statement is not meant to disparage the value of a Thai education. It is precisely the high value of a Thai education that causes it to negatively impact minority language use. If there were no Thai schools nearby, Mpi children would not be as exposed to the Thai language and would thus be more likely to speak Mpi.

31 Sakoen was asked this question and reported no difference between Ban Sakoen and Northern Thai cultures.

Appendix E.16 reports the results of a question intended to elicit a subject’s feelings about his ethnolinguistic identity. Based on these results, it is reasonable to say that, in Ban Dong, some people think of themselves as Thai first while others identify with their village or as Mpi first.

Thus, for both Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen, it is unclear if their ethnolinguistic identity is more Mpi than Northern Thai, and so it is unclear if this is a positive or negative factor with respect to language vitality.

Ethnolinguistic makeup of villages

Ban Dong is reported by residents to be inhabited mostly by Mpi or half-Mpi people. The subject who is a Tambon leader commented that most people in Ban Dong are related. In Ban Sakoen, however, nearly half the village is non-Mpi (see Section 4.2).

Thus, for Ban Dong, the ethnolinguistic makeup of the village is a positive factor with respect to language vitality while in Ban Sakoen it is a negative factor.

Geographical distribution

There are only two known Mpi communities in all of Thailand, and they are a few hours drive apart. A few Mpi live in Ban Yod, not far from Ban Sakoen, and a number of Mpi live scattered in Bangkok. Additionally, there are reports of an Mpi village in China.

Thus, the geographic distribution of the Mpi communities is a negative factor with respect to language vitality.

Government policy

Current policy in Thailand is favorable towards the use of minority languages. While Central Thai is still the primary medium of education, Kosonen (2005:7) states that “the new Thai school curriculum allows teaching of ethnic minority languages in minority areas in allocating up to 30 percent of the curriculum for minority language study or other local content (IMNA 2003; Office of the National Education Commission 2001). In some areas, local language classes are taught in the slot of ‘local curriculum.’” In Ban Sakoen, an Mpi woman has been hired by the government to teach Mpi for a few hours a week in the school.

Thus, government policy seems to be a positive factor with respect to language vitality.

Language aspirations

The only question related to language aspirations asked was a question about the desire to read and write Mpi (see Appendix E.17). In general, subjects reported a desire for Mpi literacy. However, this is a hypothetical question, as no orthography has been developed for Mpi, nor is anyone working on one. At the same time, it is clear that residents of Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen aspire to be good speakers of Northern and Central Thai in order to fit into their environment and have educational and career success.

32 Thus, the language aspirations of the Mpi people are a negative factor with respect to language vitality.

Population

As mentioned in Section 1.2 (page 13), there are approximately 1,500 Mpi people in Thailand. It is not clear in general what population size is needed to maintain language vitality. Some small groups maintain their language due to other factors, such as motivation or ethnolinguistic identity. Other groups shift to a different language despite a large population. However, when considering population size alone, it is clear that the Mpi are a small group relative to the population of Thailand.

Thus, population size is a negative factor with respect to language vitality.

4.4.1.3 Summary of Language Vitality Indicators

Table 6 - Summary of Indicators of Language Vitality

Factor Indicator of Higher Vitality Result (+, 0, or -)1 Primary Factors Ban Ban Dong (Difficult to have high vitality if the indicators are negative) Sakoen Domains of language use – home More usage 0 - and children Mpi proficiency of children Higher Mpi proficiency in children - - Secondary Factors Ban Ban Dong (Can still have high vitality even if the indicators are negative) Sakoen Language attitudes Positive attitude towards Mpi usage + 0 Motivation Valuable reasons to use Mpi - - Bilingual proficiency Lower bilingual proficiency - - Contact Little contact with other languages - - Domains of language use – More usage + - relatives, friends, community Educational policy Lack of schooling in Thai - - Ethnolinguistic identity Identify as Mpi more than Thai 0 0 Ethnolinguistic makeup of villages Closer to 100% Mpi + - Geographical distribution Mpi villages all in close proximity - - Government policy Support of minority languages + + Aspire to use Mpi more and other Language aspirations - - languages less Population Larger population - -

1A “0” means that the results are not clearly in one direction or the other.

These results clearly indicate that Mpi lacks vitality in both villages. No primary factor has a positive indicator for language vitality in either village.

From Table 6 it can be seen that the factors which differ between the two villages are domains of language use, language attitudes, and the ethnolinguistic makeup of the villages. Due to the higher prestige and practical value of Northern Thai, and to the amount of consideration given to non-Mpi speakers, it seems that the difference in usage of Mpi between the villages, while currently due to a

33 difference in proficiency, stems from the difference in proportions of Northern Thai people resident in the village. In Ban Sakoen, nearly half of the village is not Mpi, and so Mpi has over time been used less and less. Additionally, the difference in attitudes between the two villages could be due to the differences in ethnolinguistic makeup. In Ban Dong, where there are fewer non-Mpi people, it may be easier to be “pro-Mpi.” Thus, while Mpi seems to lack vitality in both villages, it seems to be closer to dying out in Ban Sakoen mainly due to the presence of a large non-Mpi community living in the same village.

4.4.2 Attitude toward Northern Thai This section discusses how the survey results address the research question “Are there negative attitudes that would inhibit Mpi speakers’ use of Northern Thai literature?”

When asked how he/she would feel if his/her child married a non-Mpi speaker, no Ban Dong subject reported having any negative feelings towards this prospect (see Appendix E.14). While this question does not refer specifically to Northern Thai people, they seem to be the ethnic group most likely to intermarry with the Mpi.

As shown in Appendix E.15, the subjects from Ban Dong mostly reported a lack of difference between their culture and the Northern Thai culture. While six of 14 subjects did report some differences in customs and religion, it is not clear how significant these differences are. There is a difference in the day on which the New Year is celebrated and a difference in the nature of spirit worship. It is not clear if these differences indicate any negative attitude toward the Northern Thai way of doing things or not. The one subject in Ban Sakoen who was asked this question reported no difference between Ban Sakoen culture and Northern Thai culture.

Appendix E.16 reports the results of a question intended to elicit a subject’s feelings about his or her ethnolinguistic identity. Based on these results, it is reasonable to say that in Ban Dong, some people think of themselves as Thai first while others identify with their village or as Mpi first.

Based on observation and informal interviews, it seems that in Ban Dong Northern Thai is used out of consideration whenever any non-Mpi speaking Northern Thai speakers are present. In Ban Sakoen, many residents reported choosing to use Northern Thai even when both interlocutors are able to speak Mpi.

Unfortunately, the questionnaire design did not allow a clearer assessment of this research question. However, based on the questionnaire results, observation, and informal interviews, there does not seem to be any indication of resistance to identification as Northern Thai or any negative attitude in Ban Dong or Ban Sakoen toward the or Northern Thai people.

4.4.3 Northern Thai Proficiency This section discusses how the survey results address the research question “Do Mpi speakers master Northern Thai adequately?”

As stated previously under “bilingual proficiency” in Section 4.4.1.2, “…it is clear that Northern Thai is used widely and well in both Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen. For many individuals, Northern Thai is their best language and, for some, their only language. For children in Ban Dong, Northern Thai is usually learned first. The interviewer (a speaker of Northern Thai since he was a child) felt that all the subjects in Ban Dong, other than an 80 year old woman who was interviewed, spoke Northern Thai very well.”

34 It is well known that self-reported language proficiency results are not accurate. However, in this case, there is no reason to doubt that proficiency in Northern Thai is very high for the residents of Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen. For many residents, in fact, it is their only language.

4.4.4 Intelligibility between Mpi Varieties This section discusses how the survey results address the research question “What are the groupings of Mpi varieties based on intelligibility?”

As discussed in Appendix E.5, the varieties of Mpi spoken in Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen are reported by the village residents to be very similar, differing only in some words and in some sounds. The lexical similarity percentage (see Section 4.3) is 86%, which is not lower than the threshold value for lack of intelligibility (70%). This does not prove that the varieties are intelligible, only that they are not judged to be unintelligible based on lack of lexical similarity. Further research, such as intelligibility testing (see Casad 1974), is necessary to clarify the amount of comprehension between the varieties.

Thus, based on reported comprehension, the Mpi varieties of Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen are mutually intelligible. Based on lexical similarity, there is no indication of lack of intelligibility, but the presence of intelligibility would need to be confirmed with intelligibility testing.

4.4.5 Reported Groupings of Mpi Varieties This section discusses how the survey results address the research question “How do Mpi people perceive the groupings of Mpi varieties?”

The results of Appendices E.5, E.6, E.7 give minimal information related to this research question. One Ban Dong subject commented that he felt that the words in Ban Sakoen are older. Despite the recognition of minor differences in vocabulary and pronunciation, there are no indications that residents of either Ban Dong or Ban Sakoen think of the residents of the other village as speaking a different language. 5 Conclusions

5.1 Need for Vernacular Literature The first purpose of this study was to “Assess the need for vernacular literature development among the Mpi of Northern Thailand.” The three research questions to be answered in order to assess the need for vernacular literature in Mpi are as follows, along with the answers to them given in Section 4.4.

“Does it appear likely that Mpi will continue to be spoken by the future generation(s)?” As discussed in Section 4.4.1, based on the responses of the subjects interviewed in this study, a tentative answer to this question is “No,” if the current indicators of low vitality do not change. In Ban Sakoen, it does not seem likely that the indicators will change, given that only old people speak Mpi well. In Ban Dong, however, Mpi is still widely in use in the village. The key to maintaining Mpi in the future is the current generation of children. They seem to have a good understanding of Mpi, but are limited in their production ability. They lack practical motivation to use Mpi.

“Are there negative attitudes that would inhibit Mpi speakers’ use of Northern Thai literature?” As discussed in Section 4.4.2, based on the responses of the subjects interviewed in this study, a tentative answer to this question is “No.”

35 “Do Mpi speakers master Northern Thai adequately?” As discussed in Section 4.4.3, based on the responses of the subjects interviewed in this study, a tentative answer to this question is “Yes.” This answer is based on self-reported information and on observation by a near-native speaker.

In summary, based on this study it seems that Mpi has low vitality, Mpi-speakers are proficient in Northern Thai and they have no negative attitudes toward Northern Thai. Use of this information in the determination of the need for vernacular literature development among the Mpi depends on one’s philosophy of decision making. If the possibility that Mpi will not be spoken by the next generation would preclude the need for literature, then these results would indicate a lack of need. However, if the current presence of a generation of fluent Mpi speakers (in Ban Dong) would point to a need for Mpi literature, then these results would indicate a need. Alternatively, for some a high level of Northern Thai proficiency would indicate that use of Northern Thai literature would be a better choice than development of Mpi literature. Yet another possibility is that Mpi could be revitalized so that the next generation will speak it. The weight given to these (negative) factors relative to the possibility that development of Mpi literature could increase the vitality of Mpi depends on how likely one feels such a revitalization effort would be to succeed.

5.2 Relationship between Mpi Varieties The second purpose of this study was “Determine which (if any) Mpi varieties in Northern Thailand require development.” The two research questions to be answered in order to assess the relationship between Mpi varieties are as follows, along with the answers to them given in Section 4.4.

“What are the groupings of Mpi varieties based on intelligibility?” As discussed in Section 4.4.4, based on the responses of the subjects interviewed in this study and on the analysis of the wordlist, a tentative answer to this question is that Mpi in Thailand is one language with two varieties (Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen) that differ in some vocabulary and pronunciations.

“How do Mpi people perceive the groupings of Mpi varieties?” As discussed in Section 4.4.5, based on the responses of the subjects interviewed in this study, a tentative answer to this question is that Mpi people feel the varieties of Mpi spoken in Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen are two slightly different varieties of the same language.

To confirm , intelligibility testing would need to be done. If they are indeed mutually intelligible, the higher vitality of Mpi in Ban Dong would probably cause that variety to be the one to be developed. Even if they are not mutually intelligible, the variety in Ban Sakoen might not be developed due to its lack of vitality. 6 Recommendations The results of this survey lead to the following recommendations. From a purely linguistic point of view, it is of interest to know if the Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen varieties of Mpi are mutually intelligible. This would require intelligibility testing. From a practical point of view, the Mpi themselves have expressed some desire to preserve their language. Further sociolinguistic study involving a representative sample of subjects of various ages in Ban Sakoen would help confirm if Mpi is really dying out in Ban Sakoen, as it appears to be. A similar study done in Ban Dong may uncover that there is sufficient proficiency in Mpi among the young to warrant language development as an attempt at language preservation. Orthography development for the Mpi of Ban Dong would at least meet a felt need among the current residents and may also serve to preserve Mpi into the future. Organization of an Mpi society may

36 provide a setting in which motivation for using Mpi could be increased among the young. Language preservation is not easy. However, helping the Mpi to write their language may provide them with a tool toward this end.

Appendix A Generalizing from the Sample to the Population of Mpi in Thailand The following statement qualifies the generalizability of the results of this research. Following the statement are the details that explain it.

The results of this research are not necessarily representative of all Mpi people in Thailand. Under the assumption of homogeneity within strata, however, the sample can be taken to be representative within each age by gender category. In this paper, conclusions are in fact drawn about the population of Mpi speakers in each village. However, due to the sampling methods employed, these conclusions must be viewed as tentative.

The method of sample selection described in Section 3.2.1 is called “quota sampling.” Quota sampling is a non-random sampling method characterized by (a) stratification of the population (by age and gender in this case), (b) specification of a quota size (in this case, three), and (c) the use of a non-random method of sampling individuals to fill up the quotas. Various non-random sampling methods could be used. The method used in this study to encounter subjects is known as “convenience sampling.”

Since it was desired to measure factors which vary between individuals, such as language attitudes, language use, ethnolinguistic identity, and bilingual proficiency, the preferred method would be to select a random sample of individuals. However, such a selection would have required a sampling frame (i.e. a list of all Mpi people in the villages). The construction of such a frame was not considered feasible and therefore not attempted.

Had a random sampling method been used, then the results of this research would have been generalizable to the whole population of Mpi people in Thailand. However, since a non-random sampling method was used, some assumptions are necessary if one wishes to generalize the results beyond the sample. If one assumes that the population of Mpi people within each age by gender stratum is somewhat homogenous, then one can treat the samples within strata as random samples18. If this assumption is true, then the fact that convenience sampling was used rather than random sampling does not matter. The “inconvenient” people who did not have a chance to end up in the sample are assumed to be very much like the “convenient” people who did have a chance.

If one pooled the results over strata in order to say something about the whole group, then one would have to assume that the relative proportions of sampled subjects in the strata accurately represent the relative proportions of people in the population strata. For example, if exactly three subjects were interviewed in each of the six age by gender strata, then pooling of results over these six strata in order to say something about all Mpi people in a village would implicitly assume that there are equal numbers of young women, young men, middle-aged women, middle-aged men, old women, and old men in the population (i.e. 1/6 of the population in each population strata). In fact, as shown in Table 2 (page 20), the sample proportions in Ban Dong were 3/14 (about 20%) for young men and middle-aged men, and 2/14 (about 15%) for the other four strata. Thus, pooling of the results over strata would require the

18 Due to the small sample size within each stratum, it is not possible to verify this assumption without further research.

37 assumption that, in the whole population of Mpi people in Thailand, about 20% are young men, 20% are middle-aged men, and that about 15% are in each of the other four strata.19

Also, due to the great difference in sociolinguistic situations between the villages of Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen, all results are described for each village separately. It does not make sense to aggregate the results over the two villages.

Appendix B Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire – Thailand Instructions 1. If possible, read the questions (without saying the question number or letter) exactly as written. However, it is likely that you will have to reword the question in some situation, or even offer explanation to make the question clear. a. However, if you have to explain the question, make sure you do NOT suggest an answer. b. Note that you should add (ครบั /คะ) (Central Thai) or (คบั /เจา) (Northern Thai) after almost every question. Only when you are rattling off a list of short questions (like in the Language Use section) can you leave them off. Use them often to maintain politeness.

2. Shaded items are NOT to be read aloud.

3. Items in parentheses ( ) or brackets [ ] require a choice depending on whatever is appropriate.

4. When you see [พี่/นอง] or [ป/อาย/นอง], choose the appropriate pronoun to speak. If you are not sure how to refer to the subject, you can ask as follows: “จะให (ผม / ดิฉัน) เรยกคี ุณวายังไง (ครับ / คะ)” พี่ / นอง or ป (F) อาย (M) / นอง = older sibling / younger sibling ลุง / ปา (both CT and NT) = uncle / aunt (for someone your parent’s age) ตา / ยาย or ปออุย / แมอุย = grandfather / grandmother (for an older person)

5. Note carefully the difference between the interview location and the village of interest. a. As written, the questionnaire assumes the interview is taking place in the village of interest and that this village is the village of the person being interviewed. Thus, when it refers to “here” (ที่นี่) (ตี้นี่) or “this village” (หมูบานนี้), “your village” (หมูบานของ [พี่/นอง]) (หมูบานของ [ป/นอง]), it is referring to the village of interest. b. If the interview is taking place somewhere other than the village of interest, but the village of interest is the village of the person you are interviewing, then just say “your village” (หมูบานของ [พี่/นอง]). c. If the interview is taking place in the village of interest, but that is not the village of the person you are interviewing, then just say “here” (ที่น)ี่ (ตี้นี่) or “this village” (หมูบานนี้). d. If the interview is taking place somewhere other than the village of interest, and the village of interest is not the village of the person you are interviewing, then just say the name of the village.

6. The screening criteria below are intended to make sure that the interviewee is representative of the village of interest. Have these criteria in mind. Don’t take time out of the interview to check off the boxes as it will be disruptive. If you are sure the person doesn’t pass, you can thank them and ask for

19 If one knew the true population proportions, one could re-weight the sample, allowing generalizability of the sample to the population.

38 the next person, or you can ask a few more questions first, or even finish the interview. Decide what to do depending on what you think would be most appropriate and not offensive. a. When you analyze the data later, you can check the boxes to make sure you know which subjects have indeed passes the screening criteria.

Enter the answers to the following ahead of time in your notebook:

English Central Thai 1. Questionnaire Number แบบสอบถามหมายเลขที่ 2. Survey เรื่องที่สํารวจ 3. Interview Location สัมภาษณที่ 4. Interviewer Name ชื่อผูสัมภาษณ 5. Date วัน / เดือน / ป 6. Language of Elicitation ภาษาที่ใชในการถาม 7. Language of Response ภาษาที่ใชในการตอบ 8. Interpreter Name (if needed) ชื่อลาม (ถามี) 9. Comments หมายเหตุ

BACKGROUND INFORMATION & SCREENING QUESTIONS

English Central Thai Northern Thai 10. What is your name? รบกวนทราบ [พี่/นอง] ชื่อดวย ขอสุมาเตอะ [ป/อาย/นอง] จื้ออะหยังกา 11. Gender เพศ เพศ 12. How old are you? อายุเทาไร อายุกี๊ป 13. Are you married? แตงงานแลวหรือยัง แตงงานละกา 14. (if married) Do you have children? How many? (ถา “แตงงานแลว”) มีลูกกี่คน (ถา “แตงงานแลว”) มีลูกกี๊คน 15. What is your occupation? ทํางานอะไร ยะกานอะหยัง 16. What level of education did you complete? เรียนจบชั้นอะไร เฮียนจบจั๊นอะหยังกา 17. When you were born, what village did you live in? ตอนที่ [พี่/นอง] เกิด อยูหมบู านไหน ตอนตี้ [ป/อาย/นอง] เกิด อยูหมบู าน ไหน 18. What Tambon? ตําบลอะไร ตําบลอะหยัง 19. What Amphoe? อําเภออะไร อําเภออะหยัง 20. What Province? จงหวั ดั อะไร จงหวั ดั อะหยัง 21. Where do you live now? ตอนนี้อยูที่ไหน ตอนนี้อยูตี้ไหน 22. How many years have you lived here/there? อยูกี่ปแลว อยูกี๊ปละ

39 English Central Thai Northern Thai SCREENING CRITERIA: Has the subject lived in the target village for the last 5 years? □ (check if “yes”) 23. (If not the village of interest) (ถาไมใชหมูบานเปาหมาย) (ถาไมใชหมูบานเปาหมาย) How old were you when you moved here? ตอนที่ยายมาอยูที่นี่ อายุเทาไร ตอนตี้ยายมาอยูตี้นี่อายุเตาใด

24. Where did you grow up? (if a โตที่ไหน ใหญตี้ไหน child says “I’m not grown up (ถาเด็กตอบวา “ยังไมโต”) (ถาเด็กตอบวา “ยังบใหญ”) yet”) “Where did you live when you were 5? Have you ตอนที่นองอายุหาขวบอยูที่ไหน ตอนตี้นองอายุหาปอยูตี้ไหน moved? ...เคยยายบานไหม ...เกยยายบานกอ

Language Name and People Name [ป/อาย/นอง] 25. What do you call your [พี่/นอง] เรียกภาษาของตัวเองวาภาษาอะไร language? ฮองภาษาของตั๋วเกาวาภาษาอะหยัง 26. What do others call your language? คนอื่นเรียกภาษานี้วาภาษาอะไร คนอื่นฮองภาษานี้วาภาษาอะหยัง [ป/อาย/นอง] 27. What do you call the people [พี่/นอง] เรียกคนที่พูดภาษานี้วาชนเผาอะไร who speak your language? ฮองคนตี้อูภาษานี้วาชนเผาอะหยัง 28. What do others call the people who speak your คนอื่นเรียกคนที่พูดภาษานี้วาชนเผาอะไร คนอื่นฮองคนตี้อูภาษานี้วาชนเผาอะหยัง language? Languages Spoken 29. What language did you speak first? พูดภาษาอะไรไดเปนภาษาแรก อูภาษาอะหยังไดเปนภาษาแรก 30. Can you speak any other languages? พูดภาษาอื่นไดไหม อูภาษาอื่นไดกอ 31. (if so) What languages? (ถา “ได”) ภาษาอะไร (ถา “ได”) ภาษาอะหยังกา Language Proficiency 32. Which language do you speak the best? พูดภาษาอะไรเกงที่สุด อูภาษาอะหยังเกงตี้สุด 33. What language do you speak second best? พูดภาษาอะไรเกงเปนอันดับที่สอง อูภาษาอะหยังเกงเปนอันดับตี้สอง SCREENING CRITERIA: Does the subject speak the target language either first OR best? □ (check if “yes”)

SCREENING CRITERIA: The two boxes above (after Questions 22 and 33) must be checked. Otherwise, thank the subject and go on to the next person.

40 LANGUAGE USE

English Central Thai Northern Thai What languages do you use… พูดภาษาอะไร... อูภาษาอะหยัง... 34. …at home? …ที่บาน …ตี้บาน 35. …with your parents? …กับพอแม …กับปอแม 36. …with your grandparents? …กับปูยาตายาย …กับอุย 37. …with your siblings? …กับพี่นอง …กับปนอง 38. …with friends? …กับเพื่อน …กับเปอน 39. (ask if young enough to be in school or university) What languages do you use …กับเพื่อนที่ (โรงเรียน / มหาวิทยาลัย / #16) …กับเปอนตี้ (โฮงเฮียน / มหาวิทยาลัย / #16) with classmates at school? 40. (if go to school) …with your teacher? (ถา “ยัง”) …กับ (ครู / อาจารย / #16) (ถา “ยัง”) …กับ (คู / อาจารย / #16) 41. (if married – see 13) What languages do you use with (ถาแตงงานแลว – see 13) …กับ (สามี / ภรรยา) (ถาแตงงานแลว – see 13) …กับแฟน your spouse? 42. (if have children – see 14) What languages do you use (ถามีลูก– see 14) …กับลูก (ถามีลูก– see 14)…กับลูก with your children? 43. …at work? …ที่ทํางาน …ตี้ยะกาน 44. …at the market? …ที่ตลาด …ตี้กาด 45. …at a funeral? …ที้งานศพ …ตี้งานศพ 46. …at a village meeting? …ที่งานชุมนุมของหมูบาน …ตี้งานชุมนุมของหมูบาน 47. …at (a temple / church)? …ที่ (วัด / โบสถ) …ตี้ (วัด / โบสถ) 48. …with a government worker? …กับขาราชการ …กับขาราชการ Ask Questions 49 to 54 ONLY if you know this person is part of a Christian community 49. Where do you usually go to church? ปกติไปโบสถที่ไหน กูเตื้อไปโบสถตี้ไหน 50. The Bible that is used in your church… what ที่โบสถใชพระคัมภีรภาษาอะไร ตี้โบสถใจพะคัมภีรภาษาอะหยัง language is it in? Bible language difficulty 51. How is the language in this ภาษาที่ใชในพระคัมภีรเลมนี้เปนยังไง ภาษาตี้ใจในพะคัมภีรเลมนี้เปนยังใด Bible? (if no answer) hard, just right, or easy? (ถาไมตอบ) ยาก หรือ พอดี หรือ งาย (ถาไมตอบ) ยาก กาวา พอดี กาวา งาย 52. (if “hard”) Why? Because it (ถาไมใช “พอดี”) เพราะอะไร (ถาไมใช “พอดี”) เพาะอะหยัง is the Bible or because of the language? เพราะเปนพระคัมภีร หรือ เพราะภาษา เพาะเปนพะคัมภีร กาวา เพาะภาษา 53. What languages do pastors use when they preach? นักเทศนพูดภาษาอะไรตอนที่เทศน นักเตดอูภาษาอะหยังตอนตี้เตด 54. What language is used to make announcements in ที่โบสถตอนที่เขาประกาศงานเขาพูดภาษาอะไร ตี้โบสถตอนตี้เปนปะกาศงานเปนอูภาษาอะหยัง your church?

41 DIALECT PERCEPTIONS

English Central Thai Northern Thai 55. Does everyone in your village ภาษา [เปาหมาย] ภาษา [เปาหมาย] speak [target language] about the same? ทุกคนในหมูบานนี้พูดเหมือนกันไหม กูคนในหมูบานนี้อูเหมือนกั๋นกอ

56. About how many villages speak หมูบานที่พูดภาษา [เปาหมาย] หมูบานตี้อูภาษา [เปาหมาย] [target language]? ทั้งหมดมีประมาณกี่หมูบาน ตึงหมดมีประมาณกี่หมูบาน

NOTE: If there is variation even in their own village, you need to decide what standard you are going to compare with the other villages in the questions below! One option is to have the speaker’s dialect be the standard of reference. You can’t use the village’s dialect as a unique reference if there is more than one!

English

Very Same A little different different

Central Thai

เหมอนทื นี่ ที่ ุ ตางจากทนี่ บี่ าง ไมเหมอนทื นี่ ี่ กอยาง

Northern Thai

เหมอนตื ี้นกี่ อยู  ตางจากตี้นพี่ อง บเหม อนตื ี้น ี่ าง

Suggestions on this section… • If they can’t seem to think of villages, you can ask if they have friends from other villages and if they speak differently. • If they give information about other villages, you can ask “Have you ever been there?”

IF THERE ARE ONLY A FEW VILLAGES, JUST ASK THE QUESTIONS BELOW FOR EACH VILLAGE IN TURN RATHER THAN ASKING FOR A LIST OF VILLAGES OF EACH TYPE

English Central Thai Northern Thai หมูบานที่พูดภาษา [เปาหมาย] หมูบานตี้อูภาษา [เปาหมาย] Please compare the villages that speak [target language] ขอเปรียบเทียบและแบงออกเปนสามประเภท ขอเปรียบเทียบและแบงออกเปนสามประเภท and split them into three groups: villages that speak คือหมูบานที่พูดภาษา [เปาหมาย] … คือหมูบานตี้อูภาษา [เปาหมาย] … [target language] the same as เหมอนทื นี่ ที่ ุกอยาง เหมอนตื ี้นกี่ อยู าง here, a little different from here, and very different from ตางจากทนี่ บี่ าง ตางจากตี้นพี่ อง here. และ ไมเหมอนทื นี่ ี่ และ ไมเหมอนทื นี่ ี่ (or แตกตางก ั๋นนัก (ตี้น))ี่

42

English Central Thai Northern Thai List of Villages 57. What are the names of other villages that speak your มีหมูบานไหนบางที่พูดเหมอนทื นี่ ที่ ุกอยาง มีหมูบานไหนพองตี้อูเหมอนตื ี้นกี่ อยู าง language the same as here? 58. What are the names of other villages that speak your มีหมูบานไหนบางที่พูดตางจากทนี่ บี่ าง มีหมูบานไหนพองตี้อูตางจากตนี้ ี่พอง language a little different from here? 59. What are the names of other villages that speak your มีหมูบานไหนบางที่พูดไมเหม อนทื ี่น ี่ มีหมูบานไหนพองตี้อูบเหมอนตื นี้ ี่ language very different from here? Villages that speak the same หมูบานที่พูดเหมอนทื ี่นที่ กอยุ าง หมูบานตี้อูเหมอนตื นี้ ี่กอยู าง 60. The villages that speak the หมูบานที่พูดเหมอนทื ี่นที่ กอยุ างละ หมูบานตี้อูเหมอนตื นี้ ี่กอยู าง ลอ same… do you call their เรียกภาษานั้นวาเหมือนภาษาของ [พี่/นอง] ฮองภาษานั้นวาเหมือนภาษาของ [ป/อาย/นอง] language the same as yours or หรือเปลา แมนกอ not? 61. What do you call those people? เรียกคนที่พูดภาษานั้นวาชนเผาอะไร ฮองคนตี้อูภาษานั้นวาชนเผาอะหยัง

43

Villages that speak a little different หมูบานที่พูดตางจากที่นบี่ าง หมูบานตี้อูตางจากตนี้ พี่ อง 62. The villages that speak a little หมูบานที่พูดตางจากที่นบี่ าง ละ different… for the most part do สวนมากพูดเขาใจกันทุกอยาง หรอื หมูบานตี้อูตางจากตนี้ พี่ อง ลอสวนมากอูเขาใจกั๋น you understand บางอยาง กอยู าง กาวา บางอยาง กาวา บเขาใจ ก ั๋นเลย everything or some things, or หรือ ไมเข าใจก นเลยั nothing at all? 63. (if not everything) How are they (ถา “ไมเขาใจทุกอยาง”) (ถา “บเขาใจกั๋นกูอยาง”) different? (if they don’t ไมเหมือนกันยังไง บเหมือนกั๋นยังใด answer) For example… (ถาไมตอบ) (ถาไมตอบ) How are the มีเสียงที่ไมเหมือนกันบางไหม เชนอะไร มีเสียงตี้บเหมือนกั๋นพองกอ เชนอะหยัง sounds different? How are the มีคําศัพทที่ไมเหมือนกันบางไหม เชนอะไร มีกําศัพทตี้บเหมือนกั๋นพองกอ เชนอะหยัง words different? How is the speed พูดชาเร็วเหมือนกันไหม อูจาเวยบเหมือนกั๋นกอ of speech different? 64. What do you call that language? เรียกภาษานั้นวาภาษาอะไร ฮองภาษานั้นวาภาษาอะหยัง 65. What do you call those people? เรียกคนที่พูดภาษานั้นวาชนเผาอะไร ฮองคนตี้อูภาษานั้นวาชนเผาอะหยัง

English Central Thai Northern Thai Villages that speak very different หมูบานที่พูดไมเหมอนทื ี่น ี่ หมูบานตี้อูบเหมอนตื นี้ ี่ 66. The villages that speak หมูบานตี้อูบเหมอนตื นี้ ี่ลอ very different… for the หมูบานที่พูดไมเหมอนทื ี่นี่ละ สวนมากอูเขาใจกั๋น most part do you สวนมากพูดเขาใจกันทุกอยาง หรอื บางอยาง understand everything or กอยู าง กาวา บางอยาง กาวา some things, or nothing หรือ ไมเข าใจก นเลยั at all? บเข าใจก ั๋นเลย (ถา “บเขาใจกั๋นกูอยาง”)

67. (if not everything) (ถา “ไมเขาใจทุกอยาง”) ไมเหมือนกันยังไง บเหมือนกั๋นยังใด How are they different? (if they don’t answer) (ถาไมตอบ) For example… How are (ถาไมตอบ) the sounds different? How are the words มีเสียงที่ไมเหมือนกันบางไหม เชนอะไร มีเสียงตี้บเหมือนกั๋นพองกอ เชนอะหยัง different? Is the speed of speech มีคําศัพทที่ไมเหมือนกันบางไหม เชนอะไร มีกําศัพทตี้บเหมือนกั๋นพองกอ different? พูดชาเร็วเหมือนกันไหม เชนอะหยัง อูจาเวยเหมือนกั๋นกอ 68. What do you call that language? เรียกภาษานั้นวาภาษาอะไร ฮองภาษานั้นวาภาษาอะหยัง 69. What do you call those people? เรียกคนที่พูดภาษานั้นวาชนเผาอะไร ฮองคนตี้อูภาษานั้นวาชนเผาอะหยัง

44 LANGUAGE ATTITUDES

English Central Thai Northern Thai Village with Best Language 70. In what village is your หมูบานไหนที่คิดวาพูดภาษา [เปาหมาย] หมูบานไหนตี้กึ๊ดวาอูภาษา [เปาหมาย] language spoken the best? ดีที่สุด ดีตี้สุด 71. (if no answer) … you like the best? (ถาไมตอบ) ชอบที่สุด (ถาไมตอบ) ซอบตี้สุด 72. Why do you think so? เพราะอะไร เพาะอะหยัง Village with Highest Status 73. Out of all the villages where your language is ในหมูบานที่พูดภาษา [เปาหมาย] ในหมูบานตี้อูภาษา [เปาหมาย] spoken, which one is the หมูบานไหนที่คิดวามีความสําคัญที่สุด หมูบานไหนตี้กึ๊ดวามีความสําคัญตี้สุด most important? 74. Why do you think so? เพราะอะไร เพาะอะหยัง Language Maintenance – Current Adults 75. Are there people in the ในหมูบานนี้มีคนที่พูดภาษาของ ในหมูบานนี้มีคนตี้อูภาษาของ village who have stopped speaking your language? [พี่/นอง] ไดแตไมยอมพูดไหม [ป/อาย/นอง] ไดแตบยอมอูกอ 76. Why do you think so? คิดวาเพราะอะไร กึ๊ดวาเพาะอะหยัง 77. Do you think (if yes) this is good? คิดวาดีไหม กึ๊ดวาดีกอ 78. (if no answer or ambivalent) (ถา “มี”) Do you like (ถา “ก็ดี” หรือไมตอบ) ชอบไหม (ถา “ก็ดี” หรือไมตอบ) ซอบกอ this? 79. Why? เพราะอะไร เพาะอะหยัง

English Central Thai Northern Thai Children’s Language 80. What language do ปกติเด็กๆ the children in this กูเตื้อหละออนตี้หมูบานนี้จะอูภาษาอะหยังไดกอน village start to ที่หมูบานนี้จะพูดภาษาอะไรไดกอน speak first? Other languages spoken by children 81. Do children speak กอนเด็กๆ เขาโรงเรียน any other languages กอนหละออนเขาโฮงเฮียน เปนอูภาษาอื่นไดกอ before they start เขาพูดภาษาอื่นไดไหม school? 82. (if yes) What languages? (ถา “ได”) ภาษาอะไรบาง (ถา “ได”) ภาษาอะหยังพอง Language of play 83. What language do ตอนที่เด็กๆ เลนดวยกัน the children in the ตอนตี้หละออนเลนตวยกั๋น เปนอูภาษาอะหยัง village speak when เขาพูดภาษาอะไร they play? 84. Do you think this is good? คิดวาดีไหม กึ๊ดวาดีกอ 85. (if no answer or ambivalent) (ถา “ก็ดี” หรือไมตอบ) ชอบไหม (ถา “ก็ดี” หรือไมตอบ) ซอบกอ Do you like this? 86. Why? เพราะอะไร เพาะอะหยัง

45

Language Maintenance – Future Children 87. Twenty years from now, do you think the children from คิดวาอีก 20 ปเด็กๆ กึ๊ดวาแหมซาว (20) this village will be ที่หมูบานนี้จะยังคงพูดภาษานี้ไดไหม ปหละออนตี้หมูบานนี้จะยังคงอูภาษานี้ไดกอ speaking your language? 88. Do you think this is good? คิดวาดีไหม กึ๊ดวาดีกอ 89. (if no answer or ambivalent) (ถา “ก็ดี” หรือไมตอบ) ชอบไหม (ถา “ก็ดี” หรือไมตอบ) ซอบกอ Do you like this? 90. Why? เพราะอะไร เพาะอะหยัง Children’s Speech

Quality 91. Do you think the คิดวาเด็กๆ พูดภาษาของ [พี่/นอง] children speak กึ๊ดวาหละออนอูภาษาของ [ป/อาย/นอง] เกงกอ your language เกงไหม well? 92. (if no) In what ways do they speak (ถา “ไมเกง”) ไมเกงยังไงบาง (ถา “บเกง”) บเกงยังใดพอง it not well? Marriage 93. If your child married someone who did not speak ถาลูกแตงงานกับคนที่พูดภาษาของ ถาลูกแตงงานกับคนตี้อูภาษาของ [ป/อาย/นอง] your language, [พี่/นอง] ไมได [พี่/นอง] จะรูสึกยังไง บได [ป/อาย/นอง] จะฮูสึกยังใด how would you feel?

ETHNOLINGUISTIC IDENTITY

English Central Thai Northern Thai 94. Other than speaking [target นอกจากการพูด [ภาษาเปาหมาย] ได [พี่/นอง] นอกจากกานอู [ภาษาเปาหมาย] ได language], how are you different from a [Thai / และ [คนไทย / คนเมือง] [ป/อาย/นอง] และ [คนไทย / คนเมือง] Northern Thai] person? For มีอะไรที่ไมเหมือนกันบาง... เชน ธรรมเนียม / มีอะหยังตี้บเหมือนกั๋นพอง... example, customs, food, dress, etc. อาหาร / การแตงตัว / ฯลฯ เจน ธรรมเนียม / อาหาร / กานแตงตั๋ว / ฯลฯ สิ่งแรก [ป/อาย/นอง] 95. Do you think of yourself สิ่งแรก [พี่/นอง] คิดวาตัวเองเปนคนอะไร ... กึดวาตั๋วเองเปนคนอะหยัง ... คนไทย / คนเมือง first as Thai, Khonmuang, คนไทย / คนเมือง / [คนเปาหมาย] [target group], or something / [คนเปาหมาย] else? หรือ คนเผาอื่นๆ กาวา คนเผาอื่นๆ

46 SCRIPT

English Central Thai Northern Thai

96. Is your language written? ภาษาของ [พี่/นอง] มีตัวเขียนไหม ภาษาของ [ป/อาย/นอง] มีตั๋วเขียนกอ

97. Do you know how to read อานและเขียนภาษาของ [พี่/นอง] อานและเขียนภาษาของ [ป/อาย/นอง] and write your language? ไดไหม ไดกอ

98. Do you want to be (if not) อยากอานและเขียนภาษาของตัวเองไ able to read ไคอยากอานกับเขียนภาษาของตั๋วเกากอ and write หม (ถา“ไมได”) your language? 99. Why? เพราะอะไร เพาะอะหยัง (if there is a 100. Is there just one script? มีแบบเดียวใชไหม มีแบบเดียวแมนกอ script) (if yes) (ถา 101. How is it

written? เขียนยังไง เขียนยังใด STOP (ถามีตัวเขียน) “ใช”) 102. How many scripts are มีกี่แบบ มีกี๊แบบ (if not) there? (i.e. >1 script) 103. How are they each เขียนยังไง เขียนยังใด written? (ถา“ไมใช”) 104. Which one do you think [พี่/นอง] คิดวาแบบไหนดีที่สุด [ป/อาย/นอง] กึ๊ดวาแบบไหนดีตี้สุด is best? (ถา“บแมน”) 105. Why? เพราะอะไร เพาะอะหยัง STOP

(if no script) 106. Do you want to be able to อยากอานและเขียนภาษาของตัวเองไ read and write your ไคอยากอานกับเขียนภาษาของตั๋วเกากอ language? หม (ถาไมมีตัวเขีย น) 107. Why? เพราะอะไร เพาะอะหยัง STOP

47 REPORTED BILINGUALISM

“LWC” = Language of Wider Communication

Do this section once for each LWC of interest

For “LWC”, substitute the name of the language (e.g. ภาษา ไทย, คําเมือง) For “คน LWC”, substitute the name of the people (e.g. คนไทย, คนเมือง)

English Central Thai Northern Thai 108. If someone asks you in [LWC] how to get to a ถามี [คน LWC] ถามทาง ตอบเปน [LWC] ถามี [คน LWC] ถามตาง ตอบเปน [LWC] place, can you tell him or ไดไหม ไดกอ not? 109. Can you ask and tell the บอกและถามเกี่ยวกับ เวลา / วัน / เดือน / ป บอกและถามเกี่ยวกับ เวลา / วัน / เดือน / ป time of the day and day of the week in [LWC]? เปน [LWC] ไดไหม เปน [LWC] ไดกอ 110. Can you describe the อธิบายความสัมพันธของคนในครอบครัวเปน อธิบายความสัมพันธของคนในครอบครัวเปน members of your family in [LWC]? [LWC] ไดไหม [LWC] ไดกอ

111. Can you explain where อธิบายรายละเอียดเกี่ยวกับที่ ที่ [พี่/นอง] อธิบายรายละเอียดเกี่ยวกับตี้ ตี้ [ป/อาย/นอง] you live in [LWC]? อยูเปน [LWC] ไดไหม อยูเปน [LWC] ไดกอ 112. Can you explain your อธิบายรายละเอียดเกี่ยวกับ (โรงเรียน / อธิบายรายละเอียดเกี่ยวกับ (โฮงเฮียน / school or job situation in [LWC]? ที่ทํางาน) เปน [LWC] ไดไหม ตี้ยะกาน) เปน [LWC] ไดกอ

113. If you hire someone to ถา [พี่/นอง] อยากจางคนทํางาน ถา [ป/อาย/นอง] ไคอยากจางคนยะกาน work for you, can you tell them the salary, hours, อธิบายรายละเอียดในการทํางาน เปน [LWC] อธิบายรายละเอียดในกานยะกาน เปน specific duties in [LWC]? ไดไหม [LWC] ไดกอ 114. Do speakers of [LWC] understand you almost all ถาพูดภาษา [LWC] กับ [คน LWC] ถาอูภาษา [LWC] กับ [คน LWC] the time when you speak ปกติเขาเขาใจ [พี่/นอง] ไหม ปกติเปนเขาใจ [ป/อาย/นอง] กอ their language? 115. When you speak [LWC] do you sometimes feel a เวลาพูด [LWC] บางครั้ง [พี่/นอง] เวลาอู [LWC] บางครั้ง [ป/อาย/นอง] lack of words to say รูวาจะพูดอะไร แตเคยคิดไมออก บางไหม ฮูวาจะอูอะหยัง แตเคยกึดบออก พองกอ something? 116. Can you listen to a conversation among ถาไดยิน [คน LWC] คุยกันเปน [LWC] ถาไดยิน [คน LWC] อูกั๋นเปน [LWC] speakers of [LWC] and repeat or describe what เขาใจไหม เขาใจกอ you heard? ถา [ป/อาย/นอง] บหันตวยกับ [คน LWC] 117. Can you argue well with ถา [พี่/นอง] ไมเห็นดวยกับ [คน LWC] an [LWC] speaker in your [ป/อาย/นอง] จะเถียงกับเปนเปน [LWC] [พี่/นอง] จะเถียงกับเขาเปน [LWC] ไดไหม language? ไดกอ 118. If a [LWC] speaker comes ถามี [คน LWC] ที่พูด [ภาษาเปาหมาย] ไมได ถามี [คน LWC] ตี้อู [ภาษาเปาหมาย] บได to your village, can you help him to tell his มาเยี่ยมหมูบาน [พี่/นอง] มาเยี่ยมหมูบาน [ป/อาย/นอง] meaning to people who do not speak [LWC]? จะเปนลามใหเขาไดไหม จะเปนลามใหเขาไดกอ

48 English Central Thai Northern Thai 119. Can you speak [LWC] [พี่/นอง] พูด [LWC] ไดดีไหม ถึงแมวา [ป/อาย/นอง] อู [LWC] ไดดีกอ ถึงแมวา well, even when you’re angry? [พี่/นอง] กําลังโกรธอยู [ป/อาย/นอง] กําลังโกรธอยู 120. Do you speak [LWC] as [พี่/นอง] พูด [LWC] [ป/อาย/นอง] อู [LWC] well as a mother tongue [LWC] speaker? ไดดีเทากับเจาของภาษาไหม ไดดีเตากับเจาของภาษาเปนกอ 121. (ONLY ASK THIS QUESTION FOR AN ถา [พี่/นอง] ถา [ป/อาย/นอง] LWC THAT IS USED AT UNIVERISTY) กําลังฟงอาจารยสอนที่มหาวิทยาลัย [พี่/นอง] กําลังฟงอาจานสอนตี้มหาวิทยาลัย If you heard an academic lecture in [LWC] could เขาใจชัดดีไหม [ป/อาย/นอง] เขาใจชัดดีกอ you understand it clearly? 122. Is it sometimes easier to บางครั้งคิดเปน [LWC] งายกวา คิดเปน บางเตื้อกึ๊ดเปน [LWC] งายกวา กึ๊ดเปน think in [LWC] than in your language? [ภาษาเปาหมาย] ไหม [ภาษาเปาหมาย] กอ

123. Compared to the rest of ถาเปรียบเทียบกับ [คนเปาหมาย] ถาเปรียบเทียบกับ [คนเปาหมาย] your village, do you feel you speak [LWC] well or คนอื่นในหมูบาน [พี่/นอง] พูด [LWC] คนอื่นในหมูบาน [ป/อาย/นอง] อู [LWC] not well? เกงกวา / เกงเทากัน หรือ เกงนอยกวา เกงกวา / เกงเตากั๋น กาวา เกงนอยกวา

124. INTERVIEWER OBSERVATION OF BILINGUAL PROFICIENCY

Based on your knowledge of the LWC, how well does this subject speak the LWC?

INTERVIEWER OBSERVATIONS 125. Were there any distractions or interruptions that interfered with the flow of the interview or seemed to influence some of the responses?

126. Did the subject seem shy or fairly confident about expressing his/her opinions?

127. Other observations?

49

Appendix C Village Leader Sociolinguistic Questionnaire – Thailand Instructions

1. If possible, read the questions (without saying the question number or letter) exactly as written. However, it is likely that you will have to reword the question in some situation, or even offer explanation to make the question clear. a. However, if you have to explain the question, make sure you do NOT suggest an answer. b. Note that you should add (ครับ/คะ) (Central Thai) or (คับ/เจา) (Northern Thai) after almost every question. Only when you are rattling off a list of short questions (like in the Language Use section) can you leave them off. Use them often to maintain politeness. 2. Shaded items are NOT to be read aloud. 3. Items in parentheses ( ) or brackets [ ] require a choice depending on whatever is appropriate. 4. When you see [พี่/นอง] or [ป/ อาย/นอง], choose the appropriate pronoun to speak. If you are not sure how to refer to the subject, you can ask as follows: “จะให (ผม / ดิฉัน) เรียกคุณวายังไง (ครับ / คะ)” พี่ / นอง or ป (F) อาย (M) / นอง = older sibling / younger sibling ลุง / ปา (both CT and NT) = uncle / aunt (for someone your parent’s age) ตา / ยาย or ปออุย / แมอุย = grandfather / grandmother (for an older person) 5. Note carefully the difference between the interview location and the village of interest. a. As written, the questionnaire assumes the interview is taking place in the village of interest and that this village is the village of the person being interviewed. Thus, when it refers to “here” (ที่นี่) (ตี้นี่) or “this village” (หมูบานนี้), “your village” (หมูบานของ [พี่/นอง]) (หมูบานของ [ป/นอง]), it is referring to the village of interest. b. If the interview is taking place somewhere other than the village of interest, but the village of interest is the village of the person you are interviewing, then just say “your village” (หมูบานของ [พี่/นอง]). c. If the interview is taking place in the village of interest, but that is not the village of the person you are interviewing, then just say “here” (ที่น)ี่ (ตี้นี่) or “this village” (หมูบานนี้). d. If the interview is taking place somewhere other than the village of interest, and the village of interest is not the village of the person you are interviewing, then just say the name of the village.

50

g' English Central Thai 1. Questionnaire Number แบบสอบถามหมายเลขที่ 2. Survey เรื่องที่สํารวจ 3. Interview Location สัมภาษณที่ 4. Interviewer Name ชื่อผูสัมภาษณ 5. Date วัน / เดือน / ป 6. Language of Elicitation ภาษาที่ใชในการถาม 7. Language of Response ภาษาที่ใชในการตอบ 8. Interpreter Name (if needed) ชื่อลาม (ถามี) 9. Comments หมายเหตุ

English Central Thai Northern Thai 10. What is your name? รบกวนทราบ [พี่/นอง] ชื่อดวย ขอสุมาเตอะ [ป/นอง] จื้ออะหยังกา 11. Gender เพศ เพศ 12. How old are you? อายุเทาไร อายุกี๊ป 13. What is your occupation? ทํางานอะไร ยะกานอะหยัง 14. What level of education did you complete? เรียนจบชั้นอะไร เฮียนจบจั๊นอะหยังกา 15. When you were born, what village did you live in? ตอนที่ [พี่/นอง] เกิด อยูหมบู านไหน ตอนตี้ [ป/นอง] เกิด อยูหมบู านไหน 16. What Tambon? ตําบลอะไร ตําบลอะหยัง 17. What Amphoe? อําเภออะไร อําเภออะหยัง 18. What Province? จงหวั ดั อะไร จงหวั ดั อะหยัง 19. Where do you live now? ตอนนี้อยูที่ไหน ตอนนี้อยูตี้ไหน 20. How many years have you lived here/there? อยูกี่ปแลว อยูกี๊ปละ 21. (If not the village of interest) (ถาไมใชหมูบานเปาหมาย) (ถาไมใชหมูบานเปาหมาย) How old were you when you moved here? ตอนที่ยายมาอยูที่นี่ อายุเทาไร ตอนตี้ยายมาอยูตี้นี่อายุเตาใด 22. Where did you grow up? โตที่ไหน ใหญตี้ไหน Village Location 23. What is the name of this Mubaan? ชื่อหมบู าน จริงๆ ชื่อวาอะไร จื้อหมบู าน แตๆ จื้อวาอะยัง 24. What Tambon is it in? หมูบานอยูในตําบลอะไร หมูบานอยูในตําบลอะยัง 25. What Amphoe is it in? หมูบานอยูในอําเภออะไร หมูบานอยูในอําเภออะยัง 26. What Province is it in? หมูบานอยูในจังหวดั อะไร หมูบานอยูในจังหวดั อะยัง 27. What do the people who live here call this village? คนแถวนี้เรียกหมูบานนี้วาอะไร คนแถวนี้ฮองหมูบานนี้วาอะยัง 28. What do outsiders call this แลวคนอื่นละ (ครับ/คะ) แลวคนอื่นลอ (คับ/เจา) village? เรียกหมูบานนี้วาอะไร ฮองหมูบานนี้วาอะยัง 29. How many houses are in this village? หมูบานนี้มีบานกี่หลัง หมูบานนี้มีบานกี๊หลัง

51 English Central Thai Northern Thai 30. What is the total number of people in this village? แลวมีกี่คน แลวมีกี๊คน School 31. Is there a school in this village? มีโรงเรียนในหมูบานไหม มีโฮงเฮียนในหมูบานกอ 32. (if there is a school) What levels are taught in the (ถา “มี”) ถึงชั้นอะไร (ถา “มี”) ถึงจั๊นอะยัง school? Migration History 33. Where did the people in this village come from? ชาวบานที่นี่มาจากไหน จาวบานตี้นี่ลุกตางใดมา 34. Have the people in this village lived here a long ชาวบานอยูที่นี่นานหรือยัง จาวบานอยูตี้นี่มาเมินละกา time? 35. How long? กี่ปแลว กี๊ปแลว Area Languages 36. What languages are spoken in this village? ในหมูบานนี้คนพูดภาษาอะไรกันบาง ในหมูบานนี้คนอูภาษาอะยังกั๋นพอง 37. For the most part, people speak which language the สวนใหญคนพูดภาษาอะไรมากที่สุด สวนใหญคนอูภาษาอะยังนักตี้สุด most? 38. About what percent? ประมาณกี่เปอรเซนต ประมาณกี๊เปอรเซนต

39. The other languages, about แลวภาษาอื่นละ (ครับ/คะ) แลวภาษาอื่นลอ (คับ/เจา) what percent use them? ประมาณกี่เปอรเซนต ประมาณกี๊เปอรเซนต 40. If they meet someone who can’t speak [target ถาเจอกับคนที่พูดภาษา [เปาหมาย] ถาปะกับคนตี้อูภาษา [เปาหมาย] บได language], what language do people from this village use ไมได ชาวบานจะพูดภาษาอะไรกับเขา จาวบานจะอูภาษาอะยังกับเปน with that person?

52

Appendix D Sociolinguistic Data The first row in each table contains the question numbers. Subject identifiers beginning with “BD” and “BS” refer to subjects interviewed in Ban Dong and Ban Sakoen, respectively. To preserve anonymity for the subjects, the data for Gender, Age, Married, Children, Job, and Education have been omitted from this report.

1 5 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 25 26 Birth Language Name Language Name Subject Date Gender Age Married Children Job Education Live now Village (own) (others) BD02 19-Nov-04 Ban Dong Ban Dong Mpi Mpi BD03 19-Nov-04 Ban Dong Ban Dong Mpi Phasaa Ban Dong Mapi or Chanom BD04 19-Nov-04 Ban Dong Ban Dong Phasaa Ban Dong Mpi BD05 19-Nov-04 Ban Dong Ban Dong Mpi Kaw or Ikaw BD06 20-Nov-04 Ban Dong Ban Dong Mpi Phasaa Mpi BD07 20-Nov-04 Ban Dong Ban Dong Mapi Phasaa Ban Dong BD08a 20-Nov-04 Ban Dong Ban Dong Phasaa Ban Dong Phasaa Ban Dong Phasaa Ban Dong or BD09 20-Nov-04 Ban Dong Ban Dong Phasaa Ban Dong Ikaw BD10 20-Nov-04 Ban Dong Ban Dong Phasaa Ban Dong Phasaa Ban Dong BD11 20-Nov-04 Ban Dong Ban Dong Mpi Phasaa Ban Dong BD12 20-Nov-04 Ban Dong Ban Dong Chumnom Pi Ban Dong BD13 20-Nov-04 Ban Dong Ban Dong Mapi Ikaw Phasaa Ban Dong, BD14 20-Nov-04 Ban Dong Ban Dong Phasaa Ban Dong Phasaa Ikaw BD15 20-Nov-04 Ban Dong Ban Dong Mpi Phasaa Ban Dong

53

1 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Speaks other Best Second Best Subject People Name (own) People Name (others) First Language What other languages languages Language Language BD02 Khon Mpi Mpi Mpi yes Northern Thai, Central Thai Mpi Northern Thai BD03 Khon Mpi Khon Ban Dong Mpi yes Northern Thai, Central Thai Mpi Northern Thai Khon Mpi or Khon BD04 Khon Ban Dong Mpi yes Northern Thai, Central Thai Mpi Central Thai Ban Dong Northern Thai, Central Northern BD05 Khon Mpi Khon Ikaw Mpi yes Mpi Thai, English Thai BD06 Ikaw Mpi Mpi yes Northern Thai, Central Thai Mpi Northern Thai Ikaw and Khon Ban Northern BD07 Khon Ban Dong Northern Thai yes Central Thai, Mpi Mpi Dong Thai Northern BD08a Khon Ban Dong Khon Ban Dong Northern Thai yes Central Thai, Mpi Central Thai Thai khon Mpi, khon Ban Mpi and Northern Central Thai, English, Ban Northern BD09 Khon Ban Dong yes Mpi Dong Thai Dong Thai Northern BD10 Khon Mpi Khon Ban Dong Northern Thai yes Central Thai, Mpi, English Central Thai Thai BD11 Khon Mpi Khon Ban Dong Mpi yes Northern Thai, Central Thai Mpi Northern Thai BD12 Chumnom Pi Ban Dong Mpi yes Northern Thai, Central Thai Mpi Northern Thai Khon Ikaw and Khon BD13 Khon Ban Dong Mpi yes Northern Thai, Central Thai Mpi Northern Thai Mpi BD14 Khon Ban Dong Ikaw Mpi yes Northern Thai, Central Thai Mpi Northern Thai BD15 Khon Mpi Khon Ban Dong Mpi yes Northern Thai, Central Thai Mpi Northern Thai

54

1 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Subject Home Parents Grandparents Siblings Friends Classmates Teacher Spouse Children Work BD02 Mpi NA NA NA Mpi NA NA Mpi Mpi NA Mpi, Northern BD03 Mpi Mpi Mpi Mpi Mpi Central Thai Central Thai Mpi Mpi Thai, Central Thai Mpi, Mpi, Central Thai, Mpi, Central Northern BD04 Mpi Mpi Mpi Mpi Northern Central Thai Northern Northern Thai, Thai Thai Thai Thai Mpi Northern Northern Thai, Northern Northern BD05 Mpi Mpi Mpi Mpi Central Thai Northern Thai Thai Central Thai Thai Thai, Mpi BD06 Mpi Mpi Mpi Mpi Mpi Central Thai Central Thai Mpi Mpi Mpi Mpi, Mpi, Mpi, Mpi, Northern Thai, BD07 Northern Northern Mpi Northern Northern Central Thai NA NA NA Mpi Thai Thai Thai Thai Northern Northern Northern Thai, Northern Northern Central Thai, Central Thai, BD08a NA NA NA Thai Thai Mpi Thai, Mpi Thai, Mpi Northern Thai Northern Thai BD09 Mpi Mpi Mpi Mpi Mpi Northern Thai Central Thai NA NA NA Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Thai, Northern BD10 Northern Thai Thai, Central NA NA Thai Thai Thai Thai Mpi Thai Thai Mpi, Mpi, BD11 Mpi Mpi Mpi Mpi Northern NA NA Mpi Northern Northern Thai Thai Thai Mpi, BD12 Mpi Mpi Mpi Mpi Northern Northern Thai Central Thai NA NA NA Thai Mpi, Mpi, BD13 Mpi Mpi NA Mpi Mpi NA NA Northern Northern Northern Thai Thai Thai Northern Northern Northern Mpi, Northern BD14 Mpi Mpi Mpi Mpi Mpi Central Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Mpi, Northern BD15 Mpi Mpi Mpi Mpi Northern Northern Thai Northern Thai NA Northern Thai Thai Thai

55

1 44 45 46 47 48 55 57 Language Village Government Subject Market Funeral Temple/Church same in Village Difference Meeting Worker village BD02 Mpi Mpi NA NA Northern Thai yes NA Mpi, Northern Northern Northern Northern Thai, only a little different; some words a little different BD03 Northern Thai yes Thai, Central Thai Thai, Mpi Central Thai (but similar) (e.g. "wall" and "knife") Thai Mpi, Mpi, Mpi, Mpi, Northern only a little different; some sounds are different Northern Northern Mpi, Northern Thai, BD04 Northern Thai, Central yes [e.g. lo tuu (Ban Dong) vs. lo cuu (Sakoen) 'to sit Thai, Central Thai, Central Central Thai Thai Thai in a car' ] Thai Thai (นั่งรถ) He feels that they use older words in Sakoen; Northern Northern Northern Northern Thai, BD05 Northern Thai, Mpi yes "mountain" in Ban Dong is apiu, in Sakoen it is Thai, Mpi Thai, Mpi Thai Central Thai uta (or "up"); Some words differ; Different accent Mpi, Mpi, Mpi, His wife says they speak the same there but the Northern Thai, BD06 Northern Northern Northern Mpi, Northern Thai yes young don't speak it. Ban Dong came from Central Thai Thai Thai Thai Sakoen. BD07 Mpi Mpi Mpi Mpi Northern Thai yes NA Northern Northern Northern BD08a Northern Thai Central Thai yes just a little different but doesn't remember now Thai Thai Thai Mpi, Northern Northern Thai, BD09 Mpi Northern Northern Thai yes same as here; can communicate Thai Central Thai Thai Northern Northern Northern Central Thai, BD10 Northern Thai yes NA Thai Thai Thai Northern Thai Northern a little different; he's never been there but some of BD11 Mpi Mpi Mpi Northern Thai yes Thai them came here. Only a few words differ. Mpi, speak same as in Ban Dong but some words BD12 Northern Mpi Mpi Northern Thai, Mpi Central Thai yes different (e.g. "eat rice" is hco In Ban Dong but Thai hfa in Sakoen; 'kin khaaw') mostly the same; For 'to bathe", In Ban Dong they Mpi, Mpi, Northern say and in Sakoen they say For BD13 Northern Northern Mpi Northern Thai yes co t co c. Thai "to want to sleep" in Ban Dong they say and Thai Thai iwi in Sakoen they say i mo ma Central Thai, BD14 Mpi Mpi Mpi Mpi yes NA Northern Thai

56 1 44 45 46 47 48 55 57 Language Village Government Subject Market Funeral Temple/Church same in Village Difference Meeting Worker village Mpi, Mpi, Mpi, speak the same but some words differ; For 'eat BD15 Northern Northern Northern Mpi, Northern Thai Northern Thai yes rice" In Ban Dong they say h co and in Sakoen Thai Thai Thai they say h ca

1 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 Village - Village Village - Stopped Stopped Stopped Stopped Village - why best Village - why Stopped Subject best - like most speaking - speaking speaking speaking - language most important speaking language the best important why - good - like why feel shy, afraid of others knowing they are Mpi BD02 NA NA NA NA NA yes yes NA NA (especially true of young people) afraid Mpi Ban shy, others BD03 same he lives in Ban Dong NA NA yes no no will Dong don't speak it disappear Ban BD04 Ban Dong because born in Ban Dong NA NA no NA NA NA NA Dong more people speak it in Ban Dong than in Sakoen; he told people In Sakoen only those age there to teach because they 45+ speak it. Also there their kids Mpi. He some with are Mpi and half the village is NT. In is sad about the more education BD05 Ban Dong NA same yes ? no cannot Ban Dong, over 90% are situation of Mpi are shy to use escape from Mpi and NT people only there. Both Mpi who they are come by marriage. In villages are Sakoen there is a NT important. community BD06 NA NA NA NA NA NR NA NA NA NA BD07 NA NA NA NA NA no NA NA NA NA BD08a NA NA NA NA NA no NA NA NA NA

57 1 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 Village - Village Village - Stopped Stopped Stopped Stopped Village - why best Village - why Stopped Subject best - like most speaking - speaking speaking speaking - language most important speaking language the best important why - good - like why feel (his mother answered) there only old people should young people BD09 Ban Dong NA speak; here young people NR NA yes no NA preserve don’t speak still speak it Mpi Mpi well so don't switch between wants to NT and Mpi speak Mpi BD10 NA NA NA NA NA yes because can't no NA but his speak Mpi tongue can't clearly do it because more people can BD11 Ban Dong NA NA NA no NA NA NA NA speak Mpi in Ban Dong shy, when in other villages do not BD12 NA NA NA NA NA yes NA NA speak NT to know each other ones who have gone to Ban BD13 Ban Dong NR NA NA no Bangkok are NA NA NA Dong shy and don't speak it BD14 NA NA NA NA NA no NA NA NA NA they are different, so Ban BD15 Ban Dong NA NA NA no NA NA NA NA Dong is better

58

1 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 Children - Children - Children - what Play - Play - Subject other Play Play - why feel first language other languages good like languages BD02 Northern Thai NA NA Northern Thai yes yes good to speak many languages BD03 Northern Thai no NA Northern Thai no no 10 years from now, Mpi might disappear Northern Thai, Northern Thai, Northern Thai, children will know more languages; but she would like them not BD04 yes yes NA Mpi Central Thai Mpi to forget Mpi good since if they speak NT clearly, they will speak CT clearly so Northern Thai, Northern Thai, yes BD05 Mpi yes no good for their future; bad because they are weak at Mpi; He Central Thai Mpi and no prefers kids to use Mpi rather than Northern Thai BD06 Mpi yes Northern Thai Northern Thai yes NA because most people in the village use NT because if they go to other villages, they will know how to speak BD07 Northern Thai no NA Northern Thai yes NA NT, so others won't think they aren't Thai and look down on them for not speaking clearly because they can communicate well and speak correctly when BD08a Northern Thai yes Central Thai, Mpi Northern Thai yes NA they grow up BD09 Northern Thai yes Mpi Northern Thai no NA because Mpi will disappear BD10 Northern Thai yes Mpi, Central Thai Northern Thai yes NA because not many people speak Mpi Northern Thai, children are not afraid to speak because they are good at NT (used BD11 Northern Thai yes Mpi, Central Thai yes NA Central Thai to be quiet before) Mpi, Northern BD12 Mpi yes Northern Thai yes NA good to know two languages Thai Mpi, Northern Mpi, Northern good so they won't forget Mpi; good so they can speak NT well in BD13 Mpi yes yes NA Thai Thai other places BD14 Northern Thai NA NA Northern Thai yes NA chldren can speak Thai correctly BD15 Northern Thai yes Central Thai Northern Thai no no afraid Mpi may disappear in the future

59

1 87 88 89 90 91 92 20 years 20 years Children - Subject 20 years 20 years - why feel Children - how not speak well - good - like speak well BD02 no yes yes if Mpi language disappears, it doesn't matter no not well (she just gave the same answer as number 91) BD03 no no no it's his own language; not good if it disappears no don't know many words yes, but no, but still only know some words; if they don't use it, they will BD04 no no preserve not many OK forget it not easy to create new languages. It's an old BD05 yes yes and has value. If it can continue yes NA another 20 years, that's good they prefer NT; they understand but don't speak it (if he BD06 no no NA preserve no speaks Mpi to them, they answer in NT); they don't know some words parents don't teach their children to speak Mpi. They are BD07 yes yes NA its our language so we should have it no afraid if they do teach Mpi, they won't speak Thai correctly when they go to school she herself understands Mpi but can't speak it because no BD08a yes yes NA preserve no one taught her Mpi (she said that 8b speaks Mpi the best of the three of them) BD09 yes yes NA preserve no don't know some words BD10 yes yes NA good for secrets yes NA BD11 yes yes yes good for secrets yes NA yes, but BD12 yes NA preserve yes NA not many BD13 yes yes NA preserve yes NA BD14 yes yes NA preserve no not clearly some still most not good because parents don't care if their kids BD15 yes yes NA because its good speak well speak Mpi or not

60

1 93 94 95 106 107 No Script - want Culture Subject Marriage attitude Identity to read and No Script - why want differences write New Year's Day, Khon Ban BD02 does not matter no no reason culture, religion Dong, Mpi Impossible! If possible, he'd like to. It is difficult. Many have tried to write it BD03 does not matter customs NA yes with Thai but it doesn't work New Year's Day, can preserve the language and the new generation can speak Mpi accurately BD04 does not matter Thai yes religion and correctly does not matter, but so young generation will not forget Mpi; so they can come back and read BD05 spouse should learn customs Mpi yes what consonants, vowels, and tones look like; recording history is a good Mpi idea so kids can know where they are from BD06 does not matter no Thai NA NA Khon Ban BD07 does not matter no yes Thai has written language. Would like Mpi to also. Dong Khon Ban BD08a NR no yes so she can read Mpi Dong BD09 does not matter religion Thai NA NA Khon Ban BD10 NA religion NA NA Dong BD11 does not matter no Thai yes because we can learn/study the language; so other people can learn Mpi BD12 NA no Mpi yes to study Mpi and if someone asks him, he can write Khon Ban if we can do it, don't forget to give it to her; wants to show others that Mpi BD13 does not matter no yes Dong has a written form BD14 do not know no Thai yes so children can learn in the future wants others to know his language; difficult to write, it sounds like the BD15 does not matter no Mpi yes language of Islam

61

Table 7 - Self-Reported Bilingualism - Northern Thai

1 120 119 122 123

Subject Like native speaker Speak well when angry Think Compared to rest of village BD03 yes yes Mpi same as others BD04 yes yes hard to tell same as others BD05 yes yes Mpi same as others BD06 yes yes Mpi easier same as others BD07 yes yes Northern Thai same as others BD11 yes yes Mpi some better BD12 yes yes Northern Thai same as others BD14 yes yes Mpi some better BD15 yes NA Mpi some better

Table 8 - Self-Reported Bilingualism - Central Thai

1 120 119 122 123

Subject Like native speaker Speak well when angry Think Compared to rest of village BD04 yes yes hard to tell same as others BD05 yes yes Mpi same as others BD07 not as well sort of Northern Thai same as others BD11 yes no Mpi NA

62

Table 9 - Self-Reported Mpi Proficiency

1 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 --- 122 123

Com- Speak Like Explain Explain Be Lack pared Dir- Tell Describe Listen- Trans- well older Subject where job or Hiring under- of Argue Think to rest ections Time Family ing late when gen- live school stood words of angry eration village yes (if mix with mix not as Northern same as BD08a yes yes yes NA speak w/ yes yes yes yes yes NT with NT well Thai others parents) same as BD09 yes yes yes yes yes NA yes yes yes yes yes yes same Mpi others

63

1 5 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 25 26 26 27 People People Gen- Mar- Chil- Birth Live Language Language Subject Date Age Job Education Name Name der ried dren Village now Name (own) Name (others) (own) (others) 22-Nov- Ban Ban BS16a Kaw Kaw Khon Kaw Khon Kaw 04 Sakoen Sakoen 22-Nov- Ban Ban BS16b Kaw NR NR NR 04 Sakoen Sakoen 22-Nov- Ban Ban BS17 Kaw Kaw Khon Kaw Khon Kaw 04 Sakoen Sakoen 22-Nov- Ban Ban BS18 Kaw Kaw Khon Kaw Khon Kaw 04 Sakoen Sakoen 22-Nov- Ban Ban BS19 Kaw Kaw Phaw Kaw Phaw Kaw 04 Sakoen Sakoen 22-Nov- Ban Ban BS20 Kaw Kaw Phaw Kaw Phaw Kaw 04 Sakoen Sakoen 23-Nov- Ban BS21 Ban Yod NA NA NA NA 04 Sakoen 23-Nov- Ban Ban BS22 NA NA NA NA 04 Sakoen Sakoen 23-Nov- Ban Ban BS23a NA NA NA NA 04 Sakoen Sakoen 23-Nov- Ban Ban BS23b NA NA NA NA 04 Sakoen Sakoen 23-Nov- Ban Ban BS23c NA NA NA NA 04 Sakoen Sakoen

64

1 29 30 31 32 33 34-48 Speaks First What other Best Second Best Subject other Kaw Domain Language languages Language Language languages When the old people meet each other, they greet each other in Kaw. They have Northern Northern conversations in Kaw, too. They use Kaw with people from Ban Dong. When BS16a Kaw yes Thai, Central Kaw Thai people in Sakoen speak NT to those from BD, the BD ones say they are not NT, Thai they are Mpi, and so they want to speak Mpi. Northern Northern BS16b Kaw yes Thai, Central Kaw NR Thai Thai Northern Northern BS17 yes Central Thai Central Thai NA Thai Thai Northern Central Thai, Northern Uses Kaw when greeting old people when they initiate in Kaw. Sometimes she BS18 yes Central Thai Thai Kaw (a little) Thai initiates the greeting in Kaw. Northern speaks Kaw with his wife, but uses NT more; He uses Kaw mainly when old people Northern BS19 Kaw yes Thai, Central Central Thai come to his store, but even then mixes in NT; When children are around, everyone Thai, Kaw Thai uses NT for their sake, so they can understand. His parents didn't speak Kaw with him; they were shy for others to know they were Kaw; He tries to use Kaw with old people but they switch to NT after just a little bit. Northern Northern Parent's don't speak Kaw to kids so kids can't speak it. Sometimes he and others BS20 Kaw yes Thai, Central Central Thai Thai want to speak Kaw to their parents but the parents don't respond in Kaw so they give Thai up and only use NT and forgot Kaw. He can't remember how to say many things in Kaw. He says everyone speaks it in Ban Dong. Northern Northern BS21 Kaw yes Thai, Central Kaw uses NT with neighbors, Kaw with old people (mixed with NT) Thai Thai BS22 NA NA NA NA NA uses Kaw (mixed with NT) just among the other old people Northern speak Kaw among themselves; spoke Kaw with her kids but when they grew up, BS23a Kaw yes NA NA Thai they didn't know Kaw so she used NT with them Northern speak Kaw among themselves; spoke NT with her kids because kids didn't want to BS23b Kaw yes Thai, Central NA NA use Kaw - the children would not answer in Kaw Thai Northern BS23c Kaw yes NA NA speak Kaw among themselves; spoke Kaw with her kids Thai

65

1 57 --- Subject Other Villages Feelings About Language Decline Ban Dong people came from Sakoen. They don't remember BS16a Intermarriage with NT has been going on for a long time. when. Her parents had not been born yet when it happened. เชยๆ Does not know the name of the village in China where they Her 40 year old daughter is teaching Kaw every Tuesday to the kids at the anuban, but they don’t BS16b came from. hear their parents speak it so they don't remember it. Just Ban Dong - she's been there once two years ago. She She wishes she could speak Kaw. She'd like Kaw to be preserved . Parents should speak BS17 didn't understand them. They spoke only Kaw with the (อนุรักษ) Kaw to the kids. She's sad her parents didn't speak Kaw with her so she can't speak it now. visitors from Sakoen. Ban Yod in Tambon Yod (ยอด). The Kaw speakers there "Difficult to tell." Compared to Yao (Iu Mien) village… they always speak Yao to their kids so the kids speak Yao. But not so here. She feels bad about that. When she was in grade 2-3, she took BS18 came from Sakoen. They intermarried there. Only 2-3 people. Whenever Ban Dong people come to Sakoen, the paper and pen and asked her mother how to speak Kaw and wrote some things down. But over time, ones in Yod come home to speak Kaw with them. she didn't keep it up. He feels sad because it seems the language will die in the future. No one speaks Kaw to the children so in the future it seems Kaw will die. If the leader is strong he can influence this. He says the BS19 Ban Yod; 2 families; They use more NT than Kaw village leader here doesn't care about the language. The leader could, if he tried, influence people to use Kaw in the village. Comparing to the ... If they moved here and didn't use Yao, they would eventually lose it. He mentioned lots of other groups (Karen, Musser, Lisu, Yao, Hmong, etc.) that still use their BS20 Only here and Ban Dong language. He feels bad Kaw isn't that way. He feels bad about the loss of Kaw as a secret language they can use among themselves that NT people can't understand. When he lived there, there were 5 or 6 Kaw people in Yod; BS21 Sakoen and Ban Yod and Phrae [most in Sakoen say Phrae, NR but when asked if they mean Ban Dong say yes] Year 2500, government officer told them not to use Kaw since they don't have a writing system. Told them to use NT and Thai. So they did. Now the government encourages language BS22 NA revitalization. The lady who teaches Mpi every Tue is paid B2,400/month by the government to teach Kaw (from ป.1 on). The government hired her. He'd like Kaw to be revitalized. The government says "Don't forget your language." Yao promote their own language (as do other tribes.) when BD folks came here, even the kids could speak Kaw; When they tried to teach Kaw in the past BS23a NA to their kids, the kids complained that it wasn't useful. It wouldn't help them ask for rice (e.g. at the market) BS23b NA เสียใจ "sad" because after she/they are gone, no one will use Kaw anymore BS23c NA NR

66

Appendix E Summary of Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire Results As shown in Table 2 - Sample Size by Location, Gender, and Age (page 20), the sociolinguistic analysis is based on 14 subjects from Ban Dong and 11 subjects from Ban Sakoen.

E.1 Background Information Date (Individual SLQ question 5) In Ban Dong, four Individual SLQs were administered in the late afternoon and evening of November 19 and ten in the morning and afternoon of November 20.

In Ban Sakoen, six Individual SLQs were administered in the evening of November 22 and five were administered in the morning of November 23.

Gender and Age (Individual SLQ questions 11 and 12) See Table 2 - Sample Size by Location, Gender, and Age.

Marital Status and Children (Individual SLQ questions 13 and 14) In Ban Dong, nine subjects were married and have from one to eight children. In Ban Sakoen, all 11 subjects were married and have from one to nine children.

Occupation (Individual SLQ question 15) Table 10 shows the subjects’ occupations by location, gender, and age. Thus, in Ban Dong there were a total of six females interviewed, one unemployed woman was 80 years old, two students were 17 years old, and three women who sell things were 36, 38, and 50 years old. Some of the ages are estimates, such as the three female subjects in Ban Sakoen whose occupation was not asked.

67

Table 10 - Occupation by Location, Gender, and Age

Number of Subjects (ages) Occupation Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Female Male Female Male Unemployed 1 (80) 1 (23) ------Housewife ------1 (22) --- Student 2 (both 17) 2 (14, 18) ------Sells things 3 (361, 38, 50) --- 1 (36) 1 (53) Farmer --- 1 (73) 2 (60, 64) 1 (57) Laborer --- 1 (32) ------Leader --- 2 (both 45)2 ------Retired --- 1 (66)3 --- 2 (both 77) Not Asked ------3 (80+, 80+, 90+) --- 6 8 7 4 Total 14 11

1Was a teacher, now sells things. 2One Village leader, one Tambon leader. 3Retired from construction work.

Education (Individual SLQ question 16) Table 11 summarizes the educational attainment of the subjects by location, gender, and age.

Table 11 - Educational Attainment by Location, Gender, and Age

Number of Subjects (ages) Level4 Years Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Female Male Female Male None 0 1 (80) --- 5 (60, 64, 80+, 80+, 90+) --- P.2 2 ------1 (77) P.4 4 --- 3 (45, 66, 73) 1 (36) 3 (53, 57, 77) P.5 5 1 (50) ------P.6 6 1 (38) ------M.3 9 --- 2 (145 and 32) 1 (22) --- M.5 11 --- 1 (186) ------M.6 12 2 (both 177) ------B.A. 16 1 (36) 2 (238 and 459) ------6 8 7 4 Total 14 11

4In Thailand, grades 1 to 6 are referred to as P.1 to P.6, and grades 7 to 12 are referred to as M.1 to M.6. 5Still in school and also a novice at Wat Dong Neua. 6Actually in the second year of vocational school, but this is equivalent to M.5. 7Both still in school. 8Planning on applying to a police academy. 9Planning to go on for an M.A.

Birthplace and Residence (Individual SLQ questions 17–24) All 14 subjects in Ban Dong were born in and currently live in Ban Dong.

68

In Ban Sakoen, ten of 11 subjects were born in Ban Sakoen. One subject, a 77 year old male, was born in Ban Yod20, but he has Mpi parents and moved to Ban Sakoen to marry an Mpi woman. All 11 subjects currently live in Ban Sakoen.

Language Names (Individual SLQ questions 25–26) Table 12 summarizes the answers to questions about what the subjects call their language (“Own Name”) and what they report that others call it (“Others’ Name”). Note that, for Ban Dong, the total number of responses adds up to more than the sample size of 14 since some subjects gave more than one answer. Also, some subjects’ responses followed the word “phasaa” (Thai for “language”), but this was ignored in Table 12. For example, subjects who answered “Ban Dong” and “phasaa Ban Dong” are grouped together. In Ban Sakoen, not all subjects were asked this question.

Table 12 - Language Names by Location

Number of Subjects Language Name Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Own Name Others’ Name Own Name Others’ Name [m̩ ˧ pi˥˧] 6 2 ------[m̩ a˧ pi˥˧] 3 ------Ban Dong 4 10 ------[tɕʰum˧ nom˧ pi˥˧] or 2 ------[tɕʰa˧ nom˧ m̩ ˧ pi˥˧] Ikaw --- 4 ------Kaw --- 1 6 5 (No Response) ------1 (Not Asked) ------5 5

The names [tɕʰum˧ nom˧ pi˥˧] and [tɕʰa˧ nom˧ m̩ ˧ pi˥˧] seem to be alternative ways of pronouncing the Thai ชนมป. The word ชน ([tɕʰon]) is a formal Thai word for ‘person/people’. So these names simply mean ‘Mpi people’.

People Group Names (Individual SLQ questions 27–28) Table 13 summarizes the answers to questions about what the subjects call their people (“Own Name”) and what they report that others call them (“Others’ Name”). Note that, for Ban Dong, the total number of responses adds up to more than the sample size of 14 since some subjects gave more than one answer. Also, the word “khon” (Thai for “people/person”) which appears in most of the answers was sometimes omitted by a subject. Differences in the forms with “khon” and those without are not shown in Table 13. For example, subjects who answered “Ban Dong” and “khon Ban Dong” are grouped together in the table.

20 Ban Yod is in Nan Province.

69 Table 13 - People Group Names by Location

Number of Subjects People Group Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Name Own Name Others’ Name Own Name Others’ Name khon Mpi 7 4 ------khon Ban Dong 6 9 ------[tɕʰum˧ nom˧ pi˥˧] 1 ------khon Ikaw 1 4 ------khon Kaw ------5 5 (No Response) ------1 1 (Not Asked) ------5 5

E.2 Inventory of Languages Spoken (Individual SLQ questions 29–33) Table 14 summarizes the languages the subjects reported to speak Thus, in Ban Dong, 11 of 14 subjects reported that Mpi was their first language, nine of 14 reported that Mpi is their best language, and three of 14 reported that it is their second best language. Note that, in some columns, the total number of responses adds up to more than the sample size since some subjects gave more than one answer. Some subjects mentioned Central Thai or English as a third best language spoken, but with minimal proficiency.

Table 14 - Languages Spoken by Location

Number of Subjects Language Ban Dong Ban Sakoen First Best Second Best First Best Second Best Mpi 11 9 3 8 2 2 Northern Thai 4 5 8 2 6 1 Central Thai ------3 ------4 (Not Asked) ------1 4 4

E.3 Domains of Language Use (Individual SLQ questions 34–48) Table 15 summarizes the languages reported to be used in various domains in Ban Dong. Note that the total number of responses may be less than the sample size since some domains were not applicable to some subjects (e.g. “with spouse” for an unmarried person). In particular, only the responses of current students were counted for “with classmates” and “with teacher” since interest is restricted to current Mpi usage. Also, if the answer was “Mpi here in our village, but Northern Thai elsewhere,” the answer is reported in the table as “Mpi.” For this table, Northern and Central Thai are combined since interest is only in Mpi versus Thai regardless of the variety of Thai. In general, “Thai” refers to Northern Thai in Table 15 except for in school (with classmates and teacher) where both Northern and Central Thai were reported to be used. Subjects were not encouraged or discouraged from giving more than one answer, so it is not clear if the subjects that replied “Mpi” or “Northern Thai” really meant “only Mpi” and “only Northern Thai.” For the last five domains (“at the market” to “with a government employee”) subjects often responded that it depends on the ability of the other person. If it were an Mpi person, they would speak Mpi, otherwise Northern Thai (or sometimes Central Thai if with a government employee). For one subject (BD05), the answer for “at home” was changed from the reported answer of “Mpi” to “Northern Thai” since he reported using Northern Thai with his wife and daughter (the two people he

70 lives with). This subject was presumed to have misunderstood “at home,” perhaps thinking of what he spoke at home when he was a child.

Table 15 - Languages Spoken by Domain and Location [Ban Dong only]

Number Number Number of Domain Language of Domain Language of Domain Language Subjects Subjects Subjects Mpi only 9 Mpi only --- Mpi only 5 with class- at the at home Mpi & Thai 1 mates Mpi & Thai 2 market Mpi & Thai 6 Thai only 4 Thai only 2 Thai only 3 Mpi only 10 Mpi only --- Mpi only 5 with with at a parents Mpi & Thai 1 teacher Mpi & Thai --- funeral Mpi & Thai 6 Thai only 2 Thai only 4 Thai only 3 Mpi only 10 Mpi only 4 at a Mpi only 3 with grand- with village parents Mpi & Thai 1 spouse Mpi & Thai 1 Mpi & Thai 5 meeting Thai only 1 Thai only 4 Thai only 5 Mpi only 10 Mpi only 3 Mpi only 4 with with at the siblings Mpi & Thai 2 children Mpi & Thai 4 temple Mpi & Thai 5 Thai only 1 Thai only 2 Thai only 4 Mpi only 7 Mpi only 1 with a Mpi only --- with at work gov’t friends Mpi & Thai 6 Mpi & Thai 3 Mpi & Thai 1 worker Thai only 1 Thai only 4 Thai only 13

In Ban Sakoen, the question asked was “When and with whom do you use Mpi?” Answers were as follows. • The 22-year-old female stated that she uses Mpi when greeting old people if they initiate in Mpi. Sometimes she initiates the greeting in Mpi. • The 36-year-old female was not asked since she did not report any ability in Mpi. • The 53-year- old male reported that he speaks Mpi with his wife, but uses more Northern Thai. He uses Mpi mainly when old people come to his store, but even with them he mixes in Northern Thai. When children are around, everyone uses Northern Thai for their sake, so the children can understand. • The 57-year-old male stated that his parents did not speak Mpi with him because they were shy about others knowing they were Mpi. He tries to use Mpi with old people but they switch to Northern Thai after a short time. Parents do not speak Mpi to their children so the children cannot speak Mpi. Sometimes he and others wanted to speak Mpi to their parents but their parents did not respond in Mpi so they gave up and only used Northern Thai. Now, he cannot remember how to say many things in Mpi. • The 60-year-old female did not respond to this question (the 64 year old female who was interviewed at the same time answered, perhaps for both of them). • The 64-year-old female reported that when the old people meet each other, they greet each other in Mpi. They have conversations in Mpi, too. They use Mpi with people from Ban Dong. When people in Ban Sakoen speak Northern Thai to those from Ban Dong, the Ban Dong people say “we are not Northern Thai, we are Mpi” and want to speak Mpi. • One 77-year-old male reported that he uses Northern Thai with neighbors. • Both the 77-year-old male respondents reported that they only use Mpi with old people, and even then mix in some Northern Thai.

71 • One 80+-year-old female reported that old people speak Mpi among themselves. She spoke Mpi with her children but when they grew up, they did not know Mpi so she used Northern Thai with them. • Another 80+-year-old female stated that the old people speak Mpi among themselves. She spoke Northern Thai with her children because they did not want to use Mpi. When she spoke to her children they would not answer in Mpi. • The 90+-year-old woman reported that the old people speak Mpi among themselves and that she spoke Mpi with her children.

In addition to the SLQ subjects who answered the above question, some informal interviews were conducted in Ban Sakoen. These results are listed here as they give information related to the question of when Mpi is used.

• An old man gave the following information about his adult children’s ability to use Mpi. o His 51-year-old son cannot speak Mpi. This son is married and has grandchildren. They all live in Ban Sakoen but do not speak Mpi. o His 38-year-old son knows some Mpi. o Both sons grew up in Ban Sakoen, but the older son did not care about Mpi. The younger son paid attention and can understand but cannot speak Mpi. • This same old man reported the following about when Mpi was used in Ban Sakoen. o When he was about eight to ten years old, there was no road yet. At that time, everyone spoke Mpi in Ban Sakoen. When the road came, many married Central Thai and Northern Thai people and lived in Ban Sakoen. When the children were born, the children used Central Thai or Northern Thai and forgot Mpi. • A 64 year old lady reported the following information about her adult children’s ability to use Mpi. o Her 45-year-old son married a Northern Thai woman and lives in Chiang Kham. He cannot speak Mpi. o Her daughters (ages 38 and 41) can speak Mpi well and live in Bangkok. • The two old people above reported the following. o They use Northern Thai with each other. o The children in Ban Sakoen do not understand any Mpi. o Middle-aged people understand some Mpi. o Even among themselves, they do not use pure Mpi in Ban Sakoen, but mix it with Northern Thai. However, when people from Ban Dong come to Ban Sakoen, they are able to speak Mpi with them without mixing in Northern Thai. o Only about seven or eight old people remain in Ban Sakoen who can speak Mpi. o Mpi people in Ban Sakoen younger than 60 may know some Mpi words but cannot have a conversation in Mpi. • A 60-year-old woman reported the following information about her adult children’s ability to use Mpi. o She has six living children. Five can only understand Mpi. o Her 40-year- old daughter can speak some Mpi, but not clearly (not like the old people speak). The daughter cannot speak about difficult topics, only about basic things like “Where are you going?” and “What are you eating?” The daughter does not know the names of insects and animals and cannot carry on a conversation in Mpi. • A 53-year-old man reported the following. o He can still speak Mpi well, but not as well as old people. o When he was young, people in Ban Sakoen did not speak Northern Thai. o He started speaking Northern Thai at age 11 or 12 after a school was started in Ban Sakoen.

72 o The road to Ban Sakoen was built about 30 years ago by foreigners. They called themselves “CB.” They might have been soldiers and they had their own helicopter. o He says others his age can speak Mpi but do not. People younger than he cannot speak Mpi. o This man’s 57-year-old brother said that the “CB’s” were American soldiers. They built the road from Chiang Kham to Ban Sakoen. A tree fell and injured a soldier. Then the soldiers went away without finishing the road. This happened about 40 years ago (around 1964). • A 36-year-old woman said that ever since a school was started in Ban Sakoen, they have not used Mpi. • While the researchers were interviewing a 22-year-old woman, a lady walked by and asked “What are you doing?” in Mpi and the subject answered in Northern Thai. • An old woman reported the following. o Her first language was Mpi. She started speaking Northern Thai at the age of 15–17 because many Northern Thai people moved into Ban Sakoen. The Northern Thai people came for land. At that time, there was no road yet. o She knows how to use Mpi but does not use it. She is forgetting some words. • A 50-year-old man reported the following. o His parents are Mpi but did not speak Mpi with him, only Northern Thai. o They [presumably, he meant Ban Sakoen residents] spoke an Mpi and Northern Thai mix for a while but then they switched to only Northern Thai (because the children did not answer in Mpi). o His friends only use Northern Thai. E.4 Other Mpi Villages [Ban Sakoen only] In Ban Sakoen, subjects reported that the Mpi of Ban Dong came from Ban Sakoen a long time ago. They said that the Mpi came to Thailand from Sipsongpanna in China but no one knew what village in China they came from. A few Mpi families were said to be living in Ban Yod, but to have come from Ban Sakoen and to use Northern Thai more than Mpi. The 77-year-old man who was born in Ban Yod (see Section E.1 under “Birthplace and Residence”) said that there were only five or six Mpi people living there when he was younger.

E.5 Dialect Perceptions (Individual SLQ questions 55–57) In Ban Dong, all 14 subjects reported that Mpi is spoken the same throughout Ban Dong. As for how it differs from the Mpi spoken in Ban Sakoen, many subjects reported that it is very similar, but some words and some pronunciations differ. Two subjects mentioned one example where the initial consonant (cluster) in Ban Sakoen is [tɕ] instead of [t] as in Ban Dong.

One subject in Ban Sakoen reported that the people in Ban Dong speak Mpi faster and that some sounds and words are different from the Mpi spoken in Ban Sakoen.

73

E.6 Comparison of Villages – Where is Mpi spoken the best? (Individual SLQ questions 70–72) [Ban Dong only] If a subject did not know much about Ban Sakoen, these questions were not asked. Of the seven who were asked, six responded that Mpi is spoken best in Ban Dong, and one said it is no better in one village than another (but said he liked the way Mpi was spoken in Ban Dong better – Question 71). Question 71 was supposed to be a follow-up question that was asked only if the subject did not answer question 70. However, it was not asked consistently and so is not reported here (other than the comment just mentioned). The subjects explained their preference for Ban Dong in one of the following ways.

• Because the subject was born/lives in Ban Dong. • Because more people speak Mpi in Ban Dong than in Ban Sakoen. • They are different, so Ban Dong is better.

E.7 Comparison of Villages – Which village has higher status? (Individual SLQ questions 73–74) [Ban Dong only] Only two subjects were asked this question, and one did not respond. The researchers at the time felt this question was too direct, and so often skipped it for the sake of keeping the interview moving along smoothly. The one respondent who did answer this question said that both villages are equally important. He expressed sadness about the situation of Mpi in Ban Sakoen (i.e. sadness that Mpi is not used there much compared to Ban Dong), and that he told people there to teach their children Mpi.

E.8 Stopped Speaking Mpi (Individual SLQ questions 75–79) [Ban Dong only] In Ban Dong, six subjects reported that some villagers have stopped using Mpi and seven reported that no villagers have stopped using Mpi. Reasons given for why some villagers stop speaking Mpi are (1) shyness – they (especially young people) are afraid of others knowing they are Mpi, and (2) low proficiency.

One of the subjects who answered that no villagers have stopped speaking Mpi did say that some have moved to Bangkok and are shy to use Mpi there. However, another said that even people that move to Ban Dong learn to speak Mpi.

Five subjects responded to “Do you think this is good [that some have stopped speaking Mpi]? Why?” Their responses were as follows.

• No, because he/she [the subject] fears that Mpi might disappear. • No, because they [the ones who have stopped speaking Mpi] are Mpi people and cannot escape from whom they are. • No, because Mpi should be preserved. • No, he himself would like to speak Mpi but his “tongue cannot do it.” • Yes. (No reason given. This was the 80 year old woman and it was not clear that she understood the question.)

74 E.9 Inventory of Children’s Languages (Individual SLQ questions 80–82) [Ban Dong only] Table 16 summarizes the languages reported by the subjects to be learned first by children in Ban Dong, and, for each language, what other languages are learned prior to entering school. For example, three subjects responded that children learn Mpi first and also learn Northern Thai before they enter school.

Table 16 - Inventory of Children’s Languages [Ban Dong only]

Number of Subjects1 Other languages learned before school First Language (NT = Northern Thai, CT = Central Thai) Total Mpi & Not Mpi NT CT NT & CT None CT Asked Mpi 3 --- 1 ------4 Northern Thai 1 3 1 2 2 9

1One subject (not included in the table) said “Northern Thai and Mpi” for “first language” and “Northern Thai and Central Thai” for “other languages.” It is not clear how to include this subject in the table. One subject (included in the table) said “Mpi” for “first language” and “Mpi and Northern Thai” for “other languages.” Their answer for “other languages” was changed to “Northern Thai” under the assumption that the subject meant that children keep learning Mpi before entering school and additionally learn Northern Thai.

E.10 Language of Play (Individual SLQ questions 83–86) [Ban Dong only] Table 17 summarizes the language reported by the subjects to be used when children in Ban Dong play and how the subjects responded to whether or not they thought that was good. For example, four subjects reported that children use both Mpi and Northern Thai when playing, and three of these said that this is good.

Table 17 - Language of Play [Ban Dong only]

Number of Subjects Language of Play “Do you think this is good?” Total Good Not Good Good and Not Good Mpi and Northern Thai 3 --- 1 4 Northern Thai 71 3 --- 10

1A child (age seven) of one of these subjects said she also uses Central Thai when playing.

All 14 subjects gave reasons why they felt it was good or not good that children use the language(s) stated when playing. Reasons reported for why subjects felt speaking Mpi and Northern Thai when playing is good were:

75 • Children will know more languages, but the subject would like them not to forget Mpi. • If they speak Northern Thai clearly, they will speak Central Thai clearly, so it is good for their future. • It is good to know two languages. • They will not forget Mpi and they can speak Northern Thai well when not in Ban Dong.

The reason reported for why one subject felt speaking Mpi and Northern Thai when playing is not good was: • Because they are weak at Mpi, the subject prefers children to use Mpi rather than Northern Thai.

Reasons reported for why subjects felt speaking only Northern Thai when playing is good were: • It is good to speak many languages. • Most people in the village use Northern Thai. • If the children go to other villages, they will know how to speak Northern Thai so others will not think they are not Thai and look down on them for not speaking clearly. • Children can communicate well and speak correctly when they grow up. • Not many people speak Mpi. • Children are not afraid to speak because they are good at Northern Thai (they used to be quiet before). • Children can speak Thai correctly.

All three subjects who felt speakin only Northern Thai when playing is not good said that the reason it was not good was that Mpi might disappear in the future.

E.11 Mpi in 20 Years (Individual SLQ questions 87–90) [Ban Dong only] Table 18 summarizes the answers to questions about opinions of the future of the Mpi language in Ban Dong. For example, three subjects answered “No” to “Will Mpi be spoken in 20 years?” with one of these thinking this is good and two thinking this is not good.

Table 18 - Mpi in 20 Years [Ban Dong only]

Number of Subjects “Will Mpi be spoken in 20 “Do you think this is good?” years?” Total Good Not Good Yes 9 --- 9 Yes, but not by many people 1 1 2 No 1 2 3

Nine of 14 subjects said Mpi will still be spoken in 20 years and that this is good. Their reasons were: • “It is not easy to create new languages. It is an old language and has value. If it can continue another 20 years, that is good.” • “It is our language so we should have it.” • It is good to preserve languages/Mpi (four subjects said this in one form or another). • It is advantageous to be able to speak in a language that others do not understand.

76 The subject (the 80 year old woman) who said Mpi will not be spoken in 20 years and that this is good stated that if the Mpi language disappears, it does not matter. However, it was not clear that she understood these two questions.

The subjects who said Mpi will not be spoken in 20 years and that this is not good said: • “It is my language. It is not good if it disappears.” • The villagers should preserve Mpi.

Two subjects answered “Yes, but not by many people.” One said that this is good and the other that this is not good. But when asked “Why?,” both indicated a desire to preserve Mpi. So, in fact, both of these subjects are stating a positive attitude toward Mpi preservation. A likely interpretation of their answers is that one was saying it is not good that so few will speak it since we should preserve Mpi and the other was saying it is good that anyone will be speaking it since we should preserve Mpi. Thus, it seems that 13 of 14 subjects feel it is good that Mpi will still be spoken or that it is not good that it will not be spoken. Note that answers to this question cannot predict the future of the Mpi language; rather they serve as a measure of people’s attitudes toward language maintenance.

E.12 Feelings about Language Decline [Ban Sakoen only] In Ban Sakoen, subjects were asked how they felt about the fact that Mpi is spoken much less in the village now than it used to be. Responses were as follows. • The 22-year-old female responded “It is difficult to tell.” She contrasted Ban Sakoen with Yao (Iu Mien) villages. Yao parents always speak Yao to their children so the children speak Yao, but in Ban Sakoen parents do not speak Mpi to their children. She feels bad about this situation. When she was in grade 2–3, she took paper and pen and asked her mother how to speak Mpi and wrote some things down, but over time she did not continue this practice. • The 36-year-old female wishes she could speak Mpi. She would like Mpi to be preserved; parents should speak Mpi to the children. She is sad that her parents did not speak Mpi with her because now, as a result, she cannot speak Mpi. • The 53-year-old male stated that he feels sad because it seems the language will die in the future. No one speaks Mpi to the children so in the future it seems Mpi will die. He compared the Mpi of Ban Sakoen to the Yao people. If the Yao moved to Ban Sakoen and did not use Yao, they would eventually lose their language. • The 57-year-old male mentioned several other groups (Karen, Musser, Lisu, Yao, Hmong, etc.) that still use their language. He feels bad that Mpi is not still used like these other languages. He feels bad about the loss of Mpi as a secret language that they can use among themselves and that Northern Thai people cannot understand. • The 60-year-old female said that even though children are being taught Mpi once a week at the school, they do not hear their parents speaking Mpi so they do not remember the language. • The 64-year-old female was ambivalent, stating that intermarriage with Northern Thai has been going on for a long time. [The implication being that this is the reason she feels Mpi is spoken less.] • One 77-year-old male did not respond. • The other 77-year-old male said that around 1957 a government officer told the people of Ban Sakoen to not use Mpi since the language did not have a writing system. He told them to use Northern Thai and Central Thai. So they did. Now the government encourages language revitalization. There is a woman who is paid by the government to teach Mpi every Tuesday at the local school (from 1st grade on). This man would like Mpi to be revitalized. The government

77 now encourages people to remember their language. The Yao people promote their own language (as do other tribes). • One 80+ year-old woman reported that when Ban Dong residents visited Ban Sakoen, even their children (who presumably came with them) could speak Mpi. In Ban Sakoen, when they tried to teach Mpi in the past to their children, the children complained that it was not useful. It would not help them ask for rice (e.g. at the market). • The other 80+ year-old woman feels sad because she says after the old are gone, no one will use Mpi anymore. • The 90+ year-old woman did not respond.

E.13 Children’s Speech Quality (Individual SLQ questions 91–92) [Ban Dong only] Of the 14 subjects, eight stated that children do not speak Mpi well21 and six stated that they do speak it well. One qualified the answer by saying “some still speak it well.” The nine subjects who said children do not speak Mpi well, or that only some still speak it well, gave the following descriptions of how the children do not speak it well (some interpreted the question as a “why” rather than a “how”). • They do not know many words (four subjects). • They prefer Northern Thai; they understand but do not speak Mpi (if this subject speaks Mpi to them, they answer in Northern Thai). • The parents do not teach their children to speak Mpi. They are afraid if they do teach Mpi, the children will not speak Thai correctly when they go to school. • One 17 year old female subject stated that she understands Mpi but cannot speak it because no one taught her Mpi. • They do not speak clearly. • Most are not good because the parents do not care if their children speak Mpi or not.

E.14 Marriage with Non-Mpi Speakers (Individual SLQ question 93) [Ban Dong only] This question was not asked of two younger subjects. Another young subject was asked about his/her own willingness to marry a non-Mpi speaker, but the subject was too embarrassed to answer. Of the 11 subjects who responded, ten said it did not matter if their child were to marry a non-Mpi speaker. One of these said, however, that the spouse should then learn Mpi. One subject answered “I don’t know.”

E.15 Cultural Differences (Individual SLQ question 94) In Ban Dong, all 14 subjects responded to this question, with eight stating that there is no difference between Mpi culture and Thai culture. Of the other six subjects, four mentioned “religion,” two mentioned a difference in the way New Year’s Day is celebrated, one said “culture” differs and two said “customs” differ (some subjects gave more than one response). One of the subjects who responded “customs” mentioned differences in the practices just after birth, but said that these are not as relevant anymore because now many people go to a hospital to give birth. The Mpi of Ban Dong celebrate New Year’s Day on Songkhran (in April) rather than on January 1. The religious differences were mentioned in Section 1.2 (page 13). One young man said that in Ban Dong they are stricter in their practice of Buddhism than those in other places. His example was that if a father is passing away, and his son is a

21 One added that they can speak it, just not well.

78 monk, the son will not go to see his father. During the interview, this young man’s mother was sitting nearby sewing robes for monks.

In Ban Sakoen, one subject (the 64-year-old female) gave information about (the lack of) culture differences. She said that nothing besides language is different from the Northern Thai (religion, dress, and food are all the same). When asked about the different religious practices in Ban Dong, she stated that their practices in Ban Sakoen are more like the Northern Thai.

E.16 Ethnolinguistic Identity (Individual SLQ question 95) [Ban Dong only] This question asked how the subjects view themselves, whether as Mpi, Thai, Northern Thai, or something else. The interviewer (Jenvit Suknaphasawat) felt that the Thai translation of this question was problematic. He felt that subjects were not sure how to answer and almost always took the first choice in a list of choices offered to them. To test this theory, he offered the choices in a different order a number of times. In almost every case the subjects responded with the first choice. Thus, the results of this question are suspect. However, some subjects did not follow this pattern, so it is possible that these answers are valid. With this qualification, the results are presented here. Four subjects responded “khon Ban Dong,” one said “khon Ban Dong and Mpi,” three said “Mpi” and five said “Thai” or “khon Thai.” One subject explained that she sees herself as a “Thai who has her own language different from Thai.” One said that he “lives in Thailand so is khon Thai.” Note that at least one of the “khon Thai” responses and at least one of the “Mpi” responses were not the result of prompting with a list of choices.

E.17 Feelings about Literacy (Individual SLQ questions 96–107) [Ban Dong only] Two subjects answered “yes” to “Does Mpi have a written form?” but they were referring to ad hoc attempts to write Mpi using Thai script. They mentioned that it is very difficult to write Mpi using Thai script since there are some very different sounds.

Of 11 subjects asked, ten responded with a positive desire to learn to read and write Mpi if a script were available. When asked “Why?” the following responses were given. • “Impossible! If possible, I would like to read and write Mpi. It is difficult. Many have tried to write it with Thai but it does not work.” • “So we can preserve the language and the new generation can speak Mpi accurately and correctly.” • “So the young generation will not forget Mpi. So they can come back and read what consonants, vowels, and tones look like. Recording history is a good idea so children can know where they are from.” • “Thai has a written language and I would like Mpi to also.” • “So I can read Mpi.” • “Because then we can learn/study the language. So other people can learn Mpi.” • “To study Mpi and, if someone asks me, I can write.” • “If you [the authors] can do it, do not forget to give it to me. I want to show others that Mpi has a written form.” • “So children can learn in the future.” • “I want others to know my language. It is difficult to write. It sounds like the language of Islam.”

79 E.18 Reported Bilingualism (Individual SLQ questions 108-124) [Ban Dong only] Table 19 summarizes the answers to the reported bilingualism questions for Northern Thai and Central Thai. The interviewer, who has been a Northern Thai speaker since he was a child, felt that, in general, the people of Ban Dong speak Northern Thai perfectly well. Nine subjects were asked about their proficiency in Northern Thai. Four were asked about their proficiency in Central Thai. It was so clear to the interviewers that the subjects spoke Northern and/or Central Thai fluently that at times the protocol was not adhered to, resulting in some missing responses.

Table 19 - Self-Reported Bilingual Proficiency [Ban Dong only]

Number of Subjects Speak like a Speak well even when Thinking Compared to Language native speaker angry language rest of village Some Not Yes No Yes “sort of” No NT Mpi Same others sure better Northern Thai 9 --- 8 ------2 1 6 6 3 Central Thai 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 ---

When it became clear that the villagers handled Northern Thai very well, the researchers decided to ask some younger subjects about their proficiency in Mpi. Two interviews were conducted and the results are as follows. The questions asked were 108–112, 114–119, “Can you speak Mpi like the older generation?” (instead of 120), and 122–123. • One subject (a 23-year-old male) answered positively to all but one of the questions about his Mpi speaking ability (he reported that he sometimes feels a lack of words when using Mpi). He stated that he can think best in Mpi, can speak Mpi like the older generation, and that others his age speak Mpi as well as he, but that those slightly younger cannot speak it as well as he. • The other subject (a 17-year-old female) reported she has the ability to give directions, tell time, explain her school situation, be understood (if speaking with her parents), understand others, argue, translate from Northern Thai into Mpi, speak well when angry, and that she speaks Mpi as well as others her age in the village. However, she needs to mix Northern Thai with Mpi to describe her family or where she lives, sometimes feels a lack of words in Mpi, does not speak Mpi as well as the older generation, and thinks best in Northern Thai.

This study cannot answer the question of whether or not these self-reports are reliable or representative of the village. The researchers’ observations support the self-reports of Northern and Central Thai proficiency. The 23-year-old male’s self-reported excellent ability in Mpi was surprising given that the researchers had heard so much about the young people’s alleged lack of ability in Mpi, but there was no reason to doubt his report. The 17-year-old female’s self-report seemed more consistent with what the researchers had heard from others, but also indicated a higher level of ability in Mpi than was expected.

80

Appendix F Mpi Phones The following is a summary of the phones of Mpi (Ban Dong variety) as in Srinuan (1976). Sittichai (1984) assumes the same system.

Table 20 - Mpi Consonants

Bilabial Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal Voiceless Aspirated pʰ tʰ tɕʰ kʰ Voiceless Unaspirated p t tɕ k ? Voiced Nasal m n ɲ ŋ Voiceless f (hw)* s h Voiced Continuant w l j * Srinuan has the hw here.

Table 21 - Mpi Initial Consonant Clusters

Bilabial Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal Voiceless Aspirated pʰj kʰw, kʰj Voiceless Unaspirated pj tw, tj kw, kj Voiced Nasal mj nj Voiceless Fricative hj Voiced Continuant

Table 22 - Mpi Vowels

Front Unrounded Back Unrounded Back Rounded Close i ɯ u Mid ɛ (or e1) ɤ o Open a ɑ2 ɒ2

1Srinuan has e when ordinary and  when creaky, nasalized, or creaky and nasalized. 2Sittichai (1984:17) has a footnote that is faded and hard to read but might say that what is written “” is actually an “.”

All these vowels can be ordinary, creaky, nasalized, or creaky & nasalized.

81

Appendix G Wordlist Comparison Criteria Each transcription was reduced to the root syllable(s) related to the concept of interest. First, syllables known to not relate directly to the concept of interest were deleted. Second, if a word had more syllables in one variety than in the other, the fewer number of syllables were kept.

In general, in any decision, if in doubt the choice was made such that it would be more likely that the two words would be counted as lexically similar. This is in keeping with the use of lexical similarity as a screen for lack of intelligibility. Since lack of intelligibility would be concluded if the percentage is less than 70%, and a percentage of at least 70% would be followed up (on a subsequent survey) with intelligibility testing (see Casad 1974), biasing the results upward avoids a wrong decision.

Given the syllables to be compared, the two words are lined up and compared phone by phone. Each phone pair is put into Category 1, 2 or 3 according to the following criteria. This is done only for the 100 words used for computation of the lexical similarity percentage22.

Category 1 a) Exact CONSONANT matches b) VOWELS differing by zero or one feature c) CREAKY and/or NASALIZED VOWELS differing by zero or one feature d) Phonetically similar CONSONANTS in three or more word pairs

Category 2 a) Phonetically similar CONSONANTS in fewer than three word pairs b) VOWELS differing by two features c) CREAKY and/or NASALIZED VOWELS differing by two features

Category 3 a) Phonetically dissimilar CONSONANTS b) VOWELS differing by three or more features23 c) CREAKY and/or NASALIZED VOWELS differing by three or more features d) Irregular deletion (a deletion occurring in fewer than three word pairs)

Ignore Some phones are ignored according to the following rules. a) Do not ignore borrowings from other languages. b) Non-root syllables a. Ignore and nasal pre-syllables (and those that are only a nasal + vowel in Ban Sakoen if they correspond to a nasal pre-syllable in Ban Dong). b. If , delete the second syllable. c. If two syllables versus one syllable, compare only one syllable (the pair that looks most similar).

22 The full list of words is used to determine regularity of occurrences or deletions, even though only 100 words are used to compute the lexical similarity percentage. 23 Due to the fact that every vowel is connected to the mid-back-unrounded vowel [ɤ], there are no vowels that differ by three or more features.

82 c) Ignore redundant information. If two words (e.g. ‘few’ and ‘small’) are the same, then only use one of the words. The extra word is redundant. Use whichever one is higher in the comparative wordlist ordering in Mann (2004). d) a and a ̰ are in free variation. In this case, make the creakiness (or not) match the corresponding vowel in the other word. This is a conservative rule (i.e. biases the similarity percentage towards 100%). Do the same for æ since it is not clear if it is only a. In all cases, treat a ̰ and æ as the vowel a. e) Change ḛ to ɛ ̰ if it is more generous (i.e. leads to a conclusion of cognicity). f) Treat initial clusters as one phone and treat as phonetically similar if one of them matches and the other is phonetically similar. g) Initial glottal (redundant since it always and only occurs with vowels) h) Tone i) If there are two choices for a word, choose the one that is more similar to the word in the other language. j) Compound words where none of the syllables has the meaning of the concept. k) Ignore words for which you do not have data from both languages. l) kʰ vs. x (free variation) m) Treat as one vowel, using whichever is closest to the corresponding vowel in the other variety. n) Creaky and/or nasalized vowel a. First, look in Bradley (1979) “Proto-Loloish.” If the proto-form has a final, then treat the vowel as a creaky or nasalized vowel, depending on whether the proto-form final is a stop or a nasal, respectively. b. Compare with Srinuan (1976). c. If all else fails, then treat as only a creaky vowel (i.e. ignore the nasality). o) Following Matisoff (1978:24), do the following: a. Creaky vowel + Tone 1, 2, 3 or 4 = creaky vowel b. Creaky vowel + Tone 5 or 6 = Vowel (i.e. ignore the creakiness)

Determination of the number of feature differences for vowels and identification of phonetically similar segments was done according to the charts shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8, respectively. Vowel pairs joined by a line segment are considered to differ by one feature. Those joined by two segments with only one intervening vowel are considered to differ by two features. Consonants joined by a line segment are considered to be phonetically similar.

Determination of the number of feature differences for creaky and/or nasalized vowels is done using Table 23. The vowel pairs shown in this table represent exact vowel matches (o – o), vowel pairs differing by one feature (o – u), and vowel pairs differing by more than one feature (o – i). Note that due to the rules described above, no creaky-nasalized vowels remained after reducing the transcriptions.

If, for a given number of phones, the combination of phones in each category appears in Table 24, then the word pair is considered to be lexically similar.

83

Figure 7 - Mpi Vowels (Vowel pairs joined by a line segment are considered to differ by one feature. Those joined by two segments with only one intervening vowel are considered to differ by two features.)

Figure 8 - Mpi Phonetically Similar Consonants (Consonants joined by a line segment are considered to be phonetically similar.)

84

Table 23 - Feature Differences for Creaky and/or Nasalized Vowels

Differences Variety A Variety B Category (Vowel + ) o o 0 + 0 = 0 1b o u 1 + 0 = 1 1b o i 2 + 0 = 2 2b o o̰ or õ 0 + 1 = 1 1c o ṵ or ũ 1 + 1 = 2 2c o ḭ or ĩ 2 + 1 = 3 3c o̰ o̰ 0 + 0 = 0 1c o̰ ṵ 1 + 0 = 1 1c o̰ ḭ 2 + 0 = 2 2c õ õ 0 + 0 = 0 1c õ ũ 1 + 0 = 1 1c õ ĩ 2 + 0 = 2 2c o̰ õ 0 + 2 = 2 2c o̰ ũ 1 + 2 = 3 3c o̰ ĩ 2 + 2 = 4 3c

Table 24 - Criteria for Lexical Similarity

Phones Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 1 = 1 0 0 2 = 2 0 0 3 = 3 0 0 3 = 2 1 0 4 = 4 0 0 4 = 3 1 0 4 = 3 0 1 4 = 2 2 0 4 = 2 1 1

85

Appendix H Wordlist The following diacritics are used in the transcriptions: • ṵ for a creaky vowel • ũ for a nasalized vowel • ṵ̋ for a creaky, nasalized vowel • ˩˧ for a low rising tone (Tone 1) • ˩ for a low tone (Tone 2) • ˧˩ for a mid-rising-falling tone (Tone 3) • ˧ for a mid tone (Tone 4) • ˥˧ for a high-rising-falling tone (Tone 5) • ˥ for a high tone (Tone 6)

As mentioned in Srinuan (1976), a and a ̰ are in free variation.

The full wordlist is given in Table 25 and the wordlist used in the computation of the lexical similarity percentage is given in Table 26 (page 104).

Table 25 - Full 436-Item Wordlist

Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai

1 sky ทองฟา ตองฟา n ta la u ta

ดวงอาทิตย / ตาวัน / 2 sun พระอาทิตย ตะวัน i wo i wo

ดวงจันทร / เดือน / 3 moon พระจันทร พะจั๋น la  mo pi lo

4 star ดวงดาว ดาว pi ki pi ki

5 cloud เมฆ เมฆ n ta la mo n ta la

6 mist หมอก เหมย moe moi

7 rain ฝน ฝน ho u ho or  ko

8 rainbow รุง ฮุง n ta la p t kli t

9 lightning ฟาแลบ ฟาแมบ m mja m mlæ

10 thunder ฟารอง ฟาฮอง n te te u ti m

11 wind ลม ลม li li t

86 Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai กางคืน / 12 night กลางคืน มะคืน u kwi u kwi

กางวัน / 13 day กลางวัน มะวัน i ku i ku

14 morning เชา เจา n so ni s

15 noon เที่ยง เตี้ยง i ku (skipped)

16 yesterday เมื่อวานนี้ ตะวา  i a mu i

17 tomorrow พรุงนี้ วันพูก  a a  a

18 year ป ป n n a m n

ตางตะวัน 19 east ทิศตะวันออก ออก w n  se mo na a ta wa

ตางตะวัน 20 west ทิศตะวันตก ตก w n t se mo na ta o pa

21 north ทิศเหนือ ตางเหนือ hu n se mo na ta wa

22 south ทิศใต ตางใต hu tai se mo na a o pa

23 water น้ํา น้ํา t i t

แมน้ํา 24 river (น้ําเหมือง) แมน้ํา n t n k a xlu

25 sea ทะเล ตะเล ta le (skipped)

26 earth, soil ดิน ดิน m pe mi to

27 mud โคลน ขี้เปอะ m pe t l a plh

28 dust ฝุน ขี้ฝุน ko lo or x lo ko lo or x lo

29 stone หิน หิน s l ko l or x l

30 sand ทราย ทราย n si mi si

lime (for ปูนกิ๋นหม 31 betel nut ปูนกินหมาก าก pu pun chew)

32 gold ทอง ทองคํา s (skipped)

87 Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai

33 silver เงิน เงิน pju plu

34 iron เหล็ก เหล็ก si si

35 mountain ภูเขา ดอย pjo u ta

36 cave ถ้ํา ถ้ํา tæ pl

37 forest ปา ปา, แพะ pi ku pi tu

38 tree ตนไม ตนไม s t si t

39 branch กิ่งไม กิ่งไม t la si t a la or a la

si t a kwe or a k 40 tree bark เปลือกไม เปอก k we

41 thorn หนาม หนาม kju a kju

42 root ราก ฮาก te a te

43 leaf ใบ ใบ a pa a pa

44 flower ดอก ดอก a j a j

หนวยไม / 45 fruit ผลไม ผลไม s lu a s

46 seed เมล็ด เม็ด a ti a ti

47 grass หญา หญา  a

48 bamboo ไมไผ ไมไผ wo wo bamboo 49 หนอไม หนอไม kæ mju ko mju shoot 50 mushroom เห็ด เห็ด m pa hu pa

51 cane/rattan หวาย หวาย wai wai  kapok (a 52 นุน งิ้ว  iu (skipped) tree?) 53 sugarcane ออย ออย n ti pi ti

หนวยหม 54 betel nut ผลหมาก าก ma l ma l

55 opium ฝน ฝน fi (skipped)

56 liquor เหลา เหลา ta p ca p

88 Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai banana 57 กลวย โกย  s a pl (fruit) papaya บากวยเต็ 58 มะละกอ  k t n ku tt (fruit) ด mango 59 มะมวง บามวง n te bi s (fruit) jackfruit 60 ขนุน บาหนุน n nu m nun (fruit) coconut 61 มะพราว บาปาว m p m pau (fruit)

eggplant บาเขีย / 62 มะเขือ  k m k (fruit) บะเขือ

63 peanut ถั่วลิสง ถั่วดิน n tu tua li

64 ginger ขิง ขิง  ko pi t t

65 garlic กระเทียม หอมเตียม hu h hu ten

66 corn ขาวโพด ขาวสาลี n tu m tu

red pepper, 67 พริก พิก ta pi ma pii chili

68 paddy rice ขาวเปลือก ขาวเปอก k kw ko kw

69 cooked rice ขาวสุก ขาวสุก ho ta h ta

70 rice husk เปลือกขาว เปอกขาว k p ko p

71 salt เกลือ เกื๋อ / เกี๋ย sa t s t

72 animal สัตว สัต to lo to

73 tiger เสือ เสือ lo lo

74 bear หมี หมี e e

75 deer กวาง กวาง te lo te

76 monkey ลิง วอก ta p lo s p ku ni

77 gibbon ชะนี อี่วูย ta p lo (no word)

78 rabbit กระตาย กะตาย ka tai ka tay

79 porcupine เมน เมน h pju ho pu

80 rat หนู หนู k ta ho ta

81 dog สุนัข, หมา หมา k k

89 Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai

82 to bark เหา เหา lu k wu

83 to bite กัด ขบ tia k te

84 cat แมว แมว me a m

85 pig หมู หมู wa wa

86 cow วัว งัว  o mi o

87 milk น้ํานม น้ํานม m p  mi p m 

88 buffalo กระบือ, ดวาย ดวาย me næ ma na

89 horn เขา เขา  k m k

90 tail หาง หาง m p t m p

91 elephant ชาง จาง jo jo elephant 92 งาชาง งาจาง jo t jo t tusk 93 bird นก นก  lo a jo

94 bird's nest รังนก ฮังนก  lo k a k

95 wing ปก ปก m to a tu

96 feather ขนนก ขนนก  lo m a m

97 to fly บิน บิน pj p

98 egg ไข ไข u a u

99 chicken ไก ไก wa wa

100 duck เปด เปด ta p u kw

101 fish ปลา ปา o o

102 snake งู งู i l u l

103 house lizard จิ้งจก จั๊กกิ้ม  t l me t l

104 turtle เตา เตา ta tau

105 crocodile จะเข จรเก ca la ke ca la ke

106 frog กบ กบ po  pu ko k

107 insect แมลง แมง to lo ma læ

108 spider แมลงมุม ก๋ําปุง m to lu me to lu

90 Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai

109 spider web ใยแมลงมุม ใยก๋ําปุง m to lu n nai a i a ku

110 louse (head) เหา เหา se se termite 111 ปลวก ปวก pi pi (white ant) 112 cockroach แมลงสาบ แมงสาบ m p hu plæ

113 snail หอยทาก หอยตาก tæ tu i to

114 mosquito ยุง ยุง  kju i kju

115 bee ผึ้ง เผิ้ง pjo pjo

116 fly แมลงวัน แมงงุน m pu i pu

117 butterfly ผีเสื้อ ก่ําเบอ pi lu pi lu

118 scorpion แมลงปอง แมงปอง m pu (skipped)

119 head หัว หัว i s u s

120 face หนา หนา m pjo mi pl

121 brain สมอง ออกออ sa m u n

122 hair ผม ผม  k ti k

123 forehead หนาผาก หนาผาก n t ni t

124 eyebrow ขนคิ้ว ขนคิ้ว n t  ku mi ku

125 eye ตา ตา n t mi t

mi t a k or mi t 126 eyelid หนังตา หนังตา n t  ku o a k

127 nose จมูก ฮูดัง  k no k

128 cheek แกม แกม po po po po

129 ear หู หู m pa ni pa

130 mouth ปาก ปาก kwe  kwe

131 tongue ลิ้น ลิ้น lo  lo

132 saliva น้ําลาย น้ําลาย lo ko ni ko

133 tooth ฟน เขี้ยว so  so

134 gums เหงือก เหงือก so ku so ku

91 Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai

135 chin คาง กาง n t ni t

136 beard เครา เคา n t m ni m to shave 137 โกนหนวด โกน n t m ku ku (beard) 137.25 neck บอ i l u l

138.25 shoulder ไหล pa ta po ta

138 back หลัง หลัง k t t ka

139 abdomen ทอง ตอง  ta u ta

140 navel สะดือ สะดือ t tu ti tu or t tu

141 heart หัวใจ หัวใจ ho cai nu

142 lungs ปอด ปอด ti a ti

143 liver ตับ ตั๊บ t a t

144 intestines ลําไส ลําไส  u  u

145 hand มือ มือ la pu lu pu

146 elbow ขอศอก ศอก s ti t

147 armpit รักแร เกาแฮ ka la  la 

148 palm ฝามือ ฝามือ la kw lo kw

149 finger นิ้ว นิ้ว la ni li ni

150 fingernail เล็บมือ เล็บมือ la s l se

151 buttocks กน กน ku ko t ku

152 leg ขา ขา la pu u pu or m pu

153 thigh ตนขา เกาขา la pu t u pu or m pu

154 knee เขา หัวเขา  k m ko

155 calf นอง นอง ki t o lo m pu

156 shin แขง แขง ki t ki t

157 foot เทา ติ๋น la ki a ki

158 heel สนเทา สนติ๋น ki n t l p

159 bone กระดูก กะดูก  la a 

92 Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai

160 rib ฃี่โครง ฃี่โคง n  la u t a 

161 flesh เหนือ จิ้น  so or p so p

162 fat ไขมัน มัน t (skipped)

163 skin ผิวหนัง หนัง a k  ko

164 blood เลือด เลือด si si

165 sweat เหงื่อ เหื่อ  ki lu mo ta kli or ta xli

166 pus หนอง หนอง næ l pl

167 excrement อุจาระ ขี้ jo 

168 urine ปสสาวะ เยี่ยว t i t

ปูจาย, 169 man ผูชาย ปอจาย ko po ko po

ปูญิง, 170 woman ผูหญิง แมญิง ko mo ko mo or xo mo

171 person คน คน to t

172 father พอ ปอ pu a pu

173 mother แม แม mo a mo

child (one's 174 ลูก ลูก lo a jo own)

175 son-in-law ลูกเขย ลูกจาย lo tai a  su

176 husband สามี ผัว ko po ko po

177 wife ภรรยา เมีย ko mo ko mo or xo mo

แมฮาง, 178 widow แมมาย แมหมาย me mai me mai mo

178.25 elder sibling พี่ ป pi ai or a pi younger 178.75 นอง นอง no no sibling uncle (elder 179a brother of ลุง ลุง pi pu a pi father)

93 Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai

uncle (elder 179b brother of ลุง ลุง pi pu a mo ai mother)

aunt (elder a pu j or a pu la a 179c sister of ปา ปา m pa  pi father)

aunt (elder a mo j or a pu la a 179d sister of ปา ปา m pa  pi mother) uncle (younger 180a อา อาว a a pu no brother of father) uncle (younger 180b นา นา næ * a mo a no brother of mother) aunt (younger 180c อา อา a a pu la no sister of father) aunt (younger 180d นา นา n næ * a mo la no sister of mother) 181 friend เพื่อน เปอน a t a t

182 name ชื่อ จื้อ m mi a mi

183 village หมูบาน หมูบาน m pu ju pu

ตาง, 184 road, path ถนน หนตาง ka nu  ku

185 boat เรือ เฮือ lo h

เฮือน, 186 house บาน บาน  i

187 door ประตู บาตู ko kw lo ko

บาตูปอง, 188 window หนาตาง หนาตาง næ m pu fa p

189 roof หลังคา หลังคา læ ka n t

94 Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai

area under 190 ใตถุน ปนเฮือน  k  k house wall of 191 ฝาบาน ฝาเฮือน  pj i pl house 192 mat เสื่อ สาด sæ sæ

193 pillow หมอน หมอน i kwi  kwi

194 blanket ผาหม ผาตาบ pa lai pa læ

195 clothing เสื้อผา เสื้อผา ko ko a klo a klo to weave 196 ทอผา ตอผา pa tæ la pa a ti (cloth) to dye 197 ยอมผา ยอมผา pa j klo j (cloth) 198 loincloth ผาขาวมา ผาตอง m pai pa pai

199 trousers กางเกง เตี่ยว ta xa t k

200 to sew เย็บผา ยิบผา pa to klo ko

201 needle เข็ม เข็ม k ki

202 comb หวี หวี i si  kia or  xia Ring 203 แหวน แหวน n tu ni to or li to (finger-) 204 paper กระดาษ กะดาด ka ta (skipped) pot 205 หมอ หมอ i lu u lu (cooking-) coconutshell 206 กระบวย น้ําบวย kum poe kum poi ladle 207 mortar ครก คก sa k t ko

208 pestle สาก แกนคก sa te tn te

209 spoon ชอม จอม kwæ pju

210 plate จาน ถวยแบน tæ mu l

211 firewood ฟน หลัว n to mi to

212 fire ไฟ ไฟ mi mi

213 ashes ขี้เถา ขี้เตา ka lo ko lo

214 smoke ควัน ควัน  kwi mu kwi

95 Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai

215 candle เทียน เตียน te ten

216 drum กลอง กอง ku mæ lu pe

217 gong ฆอง กอง pu jo t m bow, 218 ธนู หนาไม li mjo t li crossbow 219 arrow ลูกศร ลูกศร n to lo m mlo

220 spear หอก หอก h mi plo

221 knife มีด มีด mjo mjo næ

222 to hear ไดยิน ไดงิน wo kjo kjo

223 smell ไดกลิ่น ไดกิ่น wo  n a mi ni

224 to see เห็น หัน mj mj

225 to wink ขยิบตา พับตา n t pj mi to ml

226 to weep รองไห ไห wi wi

227 to eat กิน กิ๋น to to

228 to swallow กลืน ลืน mjo mju

229 to be hungry หิวขาว อยากขาว mj mj

230 to be full อิ่ม อิ่ม o pj a o pl

231 to be thirsty กระหายน้ํา อยากน้ํา t si a i t si a

232 to drink ดื่มน้ํา กิ๋นน้ํา to t i t a t

233 to be drunk เมา เมา ji a p ji a

234 to vomit อาเจียน ฮาก pe a p

235 to spit ถม, ถุย ถม ti pi to ti

236 to cough ไอ ไอ ti a ti a

237 to sneeze จาม จาม ha ti ki a a ti ki a

238 to yawn หาว หาว i wi a hai ke

239 to breathe หายใจ หายใจ sa ko a sau ko

240 to whistle ผิวปาก ผิวปาก n t t tui ke

241 to suck ดูด ดูด to si t or si t

96 Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai

242 to lick เลีย เลีย mj ml

243 to smile ยิ้ม ญิม n ti l  

244 to laugh หัวเราะ ไคหัว  si  si

245 to speak พูด อู te te

246 to tell บอก บอก  

247 to shout ตะโกน เอิ้น pa pau

248 to answer ตอบ ตอบ  u pai

249 to lie, fib โกหก จุ kw kw

250 to sing รองเพลง ฮองเพง p t toai or t wai

251 to think คิด กึ้ด fn t kt or kn

252 to know รู ฮู s s so

253 to forget ลืม ลืม wi a wi pi

254 to choose เลือก เลือก l t

255 to love รัก ฮัก ha su pi

256 to hate เกลีอด จัง tæ pj u pai

257 to wait รอ ทา to t to a hu wa

258 to count นับ นับ  t  t

259 to be afraid กลัว กั๋ว ke k

260 to be angry โกรธ โขด no pi 

นอน 261 to sleep นอน (หลับ) (หลับ) i ta i ta

262 to snore (นอน) กรน (นอน) ขน sæ m a sa m

263 to dream ฝน ฝน m ma no or no  or nu 264 to hurt เจ็บ เจ็บ nu   265 medicine ยา ยา a pe a p

266 to itch คัน คัน t a t

267 to scratch เกา เกา pj pjo or pj

97 Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai

268 to shiver สั่น สั่น n a ni a

269 to die ตาย ตาย si a si or si i

270 ghost ผี ผี n n

271 to sit นั่ง นั่ง i t i t

272 to stand ยืน ยืน h i h kæ

273 to kneel คุกเขา คุกเขา t ka t ke mi t ko t

274 to walk เดิน เตว lo ju

275 to crawl คลาน กาน to to

276 to come มา มา lo lo

277 to enter เขา เขา u je u

278 to return กลับ ปก je j

279 to push ผลัก ยู t t

280 to pull ดึง จั๊ก s s

281 to kick เตะ เตะ tj p

282 to throw ขวาง, โยน ขวาง t t

283 to fall ตก ตก kwe klo je

284 to swim วายน้ํา วายน้ํา t fai i t lwai

285 to float ลอย ลอย lwai i t lwai

286 to sink จม จม mi t n

287 to flow ไหล ไหล t j t ba

288 to give ให หื้อ pe pe

289 to tie ผูก มัด p p

290 to wipe เช็ด เจ็ด te k

291 to rub, scrub ถู ถู tui k

292 to wash ลาง ลาง ti la pu ti

293 to launder ซักผา ซักผา ko ko ti klo ti

294 to bathe อาบน้ํา อาบน้ํา t t i t t

98 Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai

295 to hit ตี ตี๋ t t

296 to split ผา ผา pa pa

297 to cut (hair) ตัดผม ตัดผม  k p ta k ti

298 to stab แทง แตง t t

299 to grind บด บด n ki n

300 to plant ปลูก ปูก pju plu or tu plo

301 to dig ขุด ขุด tu tu to bury (a 302 ฝงศพ ฝงศพ n tu h si mo fa corpse) to winnow 303 ฝดขาว ฝดขาว k pj pj (rice)

to dry 304 ตาก ตาก l l (something) to pound 305 ตําขาว ต๋ําขาว k tu tu (rice) to cook 306 หุงขาว หุงขาว ho t l ta ho ta (rice) to boil 307 ตม ตม pu pu (something)

308 to burn เผา เผา p pi to 309 extinguish ดับไฟ ดับไฟ mi mi mi mi (fire) 310 to work ทํางาน เยี้ยะกาน  t a ke ke

311 to play เลน เลน li i or se l

312 to dance เตนรํา ฟอน  

313 to shoot ยิง ยิง p p

ไลเหลา, 314 to hunt ลา ลา t kla

315 to kill ฆา ฆา s s

316 to fight สู สู su t

317 to buy ซื้อ ซื้อ w w

99 Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai

318 to sell ขาย ขาย ku ku

319 to exchange แลกเปลี่ยน แลก l l

320 to pay จาย จาย p (to give) (skipped)

321 to steal ขโมย ขโมย ka to ka ton

322 one (person) หนึ่งคน นึ่งคน t t to two 323 สองคน สองคน i i to (persons) three 324 สามคน สามคน s si to (persons) four 325 สี่คน สี่คน li li to (persons) five 326 หาคน หาคน o mo to (persons) six 327 หกคน หกคน ko (skipped) (persons) seven 328 เจ็ดคน เจ็ดคน si (skipped) (persons) eight 329 แปดคน แปดคน h (skipped) (persons) nine 330 เกาคน เกาคน kwi (skipped) (persons) ten 331 สิบคน สิบคน t (skipped) (persons) hundred 332 รอยคน ลอยคน lwai t t (persons) thousand 333 พันคน ปนคน pa (skipped) (persons) to be many 334 หลายคน หลายคน mjo mjo (persons) every 335 ทุกคน ? mjo ku j (person) some 336 บางคน บางคน ko j l ku ma (people) few 337 นอยคน หนอยคน   (people) 338 half a unit ครึ่ง เกิ่ง to k te te t

339 to be big ใหญ ใหญ h h

340 to be small เล็ก หนอย  

341 to be long ยาว ยาว s s

100 Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai

to be short 342 สั้น สั้น i  (length)

343 to be tall สูง สูง mju mju

to be short 344 เตี้ย ต่ํา i m (height)

345 to be thick หนา หนา tu tu

346 to be thin บาง บาง po po

347 to be fat อวน ตุย tu tu

348 to be skinny ผอม ผอม ta ki ki

to be wide, 349 กวาง กวาง k kl broad

350 to be narrow แคบ กีด to a ti t

351 to be deep ลึก เลิ้ก n na to be 352 ตื้น ตื้น m n kl shallow

353 to be round กลม มน, กม ko lo mu lon

354 to be full เต็ม เตม pj pl

355 right side ดานขวา ผากขวา la mo pa la mo

356 left side ดานซาย ผากซาย la  m pa la  to be 357 ตรง ซื่อ s s s straight 358 to be far ไกล ไก h h

359 to be near ใกล ใก s s

360 this นี้ นี้ hi hi

361 that นั้น นั้น, ฮั้น n t

362 black ดํา ดํา næ na

363 white ขาว ขาว p pn

364 red แดง แดง n l n

365 green เขียว เขียว i li i

366 yellow เหลือง เหลือง lo lo lo

101 Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai

367 to be dirty สกปรก สกปก n p ki a

368 to be new ใหม ใหม a s a s

369 to be old เกา เกา a li a li

370 to be dark มืด มืด m næ mu næ

371 to be bright สวาง แจง m k plu lo to be the 372 เหมือนกัน เหมือนกั๋น twi t pai same

to be บาเหมือน 373 ตางกัน ma twi ma tu pai different กั๋น

374 to be sweet หวาน หวาน ti ti

375 to be sour เปรี้ยว สม te te

376 to be bitter ขม ขม ka k

377 to be spicy เผ็ด เผ็ด pi a pi

378 to be rotten เนา เนา pu pu to be 379 บวม ปอง p p swollen 380 to be dry แหง แหง k k

381 to be wet เปยก เปยะ, แจ็ะ te te

382 to be hot รอน ฮอน lu a lu

383 to be cold หนาว หนาว kja kja

384 to be sharp คม คม ta ta

385 to be blunt ทื่อ บาคม ma ta ma ta

386 to be heavy หนัก หนัก li li

387 to be hard แข็ง แข็ง ka ka to be 388 เรียบ เลียบ pi l pi smooth 389 to be fast เร็ว โวย wai wai

390 to be slow ชา จา mj ml

391 to be strong แข็งแรง แข็งแรง ka kj ka kj

102 Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai บาแข็งแร 392 to be weak ออนแอ ง n n n n

393 to be tired เหนื่อย อิด ho a hn

394 to be blind ตาบอด ตาบอด n to pj mi to pl

395 to be deaf หูหนวก หูหนวก m pa po ni pa po

396 bald หัวลาน หัวลาน n t l s kla

397 naked เปลือย โปย ta poe a to kla

398 to be good ดี ดี m m

399 to be bad ชั่ว บาดี ma m ma m

400 to be correct ถูกตอง ถูกตอง mæ ho ma ba

401 to be wrong ผิด ผิ๊ด p si ko mu  or ka m 402 when เมื่อไร เมื่อใด ko mo pa o  ka wa or xa wa or ha 403 where ที่ไหน ตี้ไหน ha h wa 404 who ใคร ไผ s ha sa

405 what อะไร อะหยัง  ta h ta t

ตะใด, 406 how many เทาไร เตาใด ko lo ku lua

407 stream ลําธาร น้ําหวย  ke lo i klo or i xlo wet rice 408 นาที่มีน้ํา นาตี้มีน้ํา te t ta te t t field 409 to be ripe สุกงอม สุกเตี๊ยะ i ju a mju rice 410 ขาวกลา ขาวกา ta ka ka seedling 411 pangolin ตัวกินมด หลิ้น (skipped) (skipped) หงอน 412 crested (ของไก หงอน t wa i plu หรือนก)

413 water leech ปลิง ปง t tu pi tu

414 land leech ทาก ตาก i j pi tu

103 Northern Number English Central Thai Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Thai

415 earthworm ไสเดือน ขี้เดือน pi ta l s pi ta l

416 I (1s) ฉัน ฮา, เปน o o

417 thou (2s) คุณ คิง, ตั๋ว n n เขา, he/she/it 418 เธอ/หลอน, เขา, มัน n to (skipped) (3s) มัน

419 we (1p) พวกเรา หมูเฮา  tu a tu

420 you (2p) พวกคุณ หมูสูเขา n tu n tu

421 they (3p) พวกเขา หมูเขา n to mu (skipped)

sleeping ขวามตี้นอ 422 บริเวณที่นอน (skipped) (skipped) area น

423 to take เอา เอา ju ju

424 to disappear ไมปรากฏ บาปากด (skipped) (skipped)

to split with 425 ผา ผา (skipped) (skipped) a knife

426 to bend งอ งอ k l ko

427 to lift ยกขึ้น ยกขึ้น ti ta ti ta

428 to do/make ทํา เยี๊ยะ ke ke or xe

429 don't do it ไมทํา บาเยี๊ยะ ma ke ma ke half (same 430 ครึ่ง เกิ่ง (skipped) (skipped) as 338!) ความนารังเกีย นาขี้จะ 431 disgusting จ (สิ่งของ) (skipped) (skipped)

432 warm อบอุน อุน li li

433 cool เย็น เย็น t t

434 difficult ยาก ยาก a a

435 easy งาย งาย ai ai

436 loose หลวม โหลม ko h

104 In the following table, the columns containing the reduced forms that were compared are shaded. Additionally, rows containing words that were concluded to not be lexically similar are lightly shaded.

Table 26 - Comparative Wordlist (100 words)

Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Lexically Ban Dong Full Ban Sakoen Full Number English Reduced Reduced Categories Phones Score Similar Notes Transcription Transcription Transcription Transcription (0/1) 139 abdomen  ta u ta ta ta 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 259 afraid ke k ke k 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 72 animal to lo to to to 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 1b 2b 1a 213 ashes 4 3 1 0 1 ka lo ko lo ka lo ko lo 1b 93 bird  lo a jo  a 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 83 bite tia k te tia te 1d 1b 2 2 0 0 1 362 black næ na næ na 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 164 blood si si si si 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 159 bone  la a    1b 1 1 0 0 1 308 burn p pi p pi 2a 1c 2 1 1 0 0 child 174 (one's lo a jo lo jo 2a 1b 2 1 1 0 0 own) 1a 1b 1a 5 cloud 4 4 0 0 1 n ta la mo n ta la ta la ta la 1b 383 cold kja kja kja kja 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 297 cut (hair)  k p ta k ti p ti 2a 2c 2 0 2 0 0 269 die si a si or si i si a si i 1a 1b 2b 3 2 1 0 1 301 dig tu tu tu tu 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 81 dog k k k k 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 232 drink to t i t a t t t 1a 1c 2 2 0 0 1 PLB has *m-da 129 ear m pa ni pa pa pa 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 earth, 26 3a 2b 2 0 1 1 0 soil m pe mi to pe to 227 eat to to to to 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 98 egg u a u u u 1b 1 1 0 0 1 125 eye n t mi t t t 1a 1c 2 2 0 0 1 283 fall kwe klo je kwe klo 2a 3c 2 0 1 1 0

105 Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Lexically Ban Dong Full Ban Sakoen Full Number English Reduced Reduced Categories Phones Score Similar Notes Transcription Transcription Transcription Transcription (0/1) 358 far h h h h 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 96 feather  lo m a m m m 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 1a 1b 1a 150 fingernail 4 3 1 0 1 la s l se la s l se 2b 212 fire mi mi mi mi 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 101 fish o o o o 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 five 326 2a 1a 2 1 1 0 0 (persons) o mo to o mo 44 flower a j a j j j 1a 1c 2 2 0 0 1 97 fly () pj p pj p 1d 1b 2 2 0 0 1 157 foot la ki a ki ki ki 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 four 325 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 (persons) li li to li li 45 fruit s lu a s s s 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 354 full pj pl pj pl 1d 1a 2 2 0 0 1 288 give pe pe pe pe 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 47 grass  a  a 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 122 hair  k ti k k k 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 1a 2b 1a 145 hand 4 3 1 0 1 la pu lu pu la pu lu pu 1b 119 head i s u s s s 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 Ban Dong word is 141 heart NA NA NA 0 ho cai nu ho cai nu from Thai 386 heavy li li li li 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 89 horn  k m k k k 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 314 hunt t kla t kla 3a 1b 2 1 0 1 0 416 I (1s) o o o o 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 144 intestines  u  u u u 1b 1 1 0 0 1 315 kill s s s s 1a 1c 2 2 0 0 1 252 know s s so s s 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 244 laugh  si  si si si 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 43 leaf a pa a pa pa pa 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 356 left side la  m pa la  la  la  1a 1b 1c 3 3 0 0 1 143 liver t a t t t 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1

106 Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Lexically Ban Dong Full Ban Sakoen Full Number English Reduced Reduced Categories Phones Score Similar Notes Transcription Transcription Transcription Transcription (0/1) 341 long s s s s 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 louse 110 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 (head) se se se se many 334 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 (persons) mjo mjo mjo mjo 87 milk m p  mi p m  p  p  1a 1b 1b 3 3 0 0 1 One SLQ subject said that u ta means "up" In Ban 35 mountain 2a 2b 2 0 2 0 0 pjo u ta pjo ta Dong, they say a pjo for "mountain" 130 mouth kwe  kwe kwe kwe 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 182 name m mi a mi mi mi 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 359 near s s s s 1a 1c 2 2 0 0 1 137.25 neck i l u l l l 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 368 new a s a s s s 1a 1c 2 2 0 0 1 12 night u kwi u kwi kwi kwi 1a 1c 2 2 0 0 1 127 nose  k no k k k 1a 1c 2 2 0 0 1 one 322 1a 1c 2 2 0 0 1 (person) t t to t t 171 person to t to to 1a 1c 2 2 0 0 1 7 rain ho u ho or  ko ho ho 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 364 red n l n n n 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 1a 1b 1a 355 right side 4 4 0 0 1 la mo pa la mo la mo la mo 1b 24 river n t n k a klu k klu 1d 3c 2 1 0 1 0 road, 184 1a 3c 2 0 1 1 0 path ka nu  ku ka ku 42 root te a te te te 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 3a 1b 1a 353 round 4 3 0 1 1 ko lo mu lon ko lo mu lo 1c rub, Ban Dong word is 291 NA NA NA 0 scrub tui k tui k from Thai 1a 1b 1a 71 salt 4 4 0 0 1 sa t s t sa t s t 1b

107 Ban Dong Ban Sakoen Lexically Ban Dong Full Ban Sakoen Full Number English Reduced Reduced Categories Phones Score Similar Notes Transcription Transcription Transcription Transcription (0/1) 267 scratch pj pjo or pj pj pjo 1a 1c 2 2 0 0 1 224 see mj mj mj mj 1a 1c 2 2 0 0 1 pha (from Thai) = 200 sew pa to klo ko to ko 2a 1c 2 1 1 0 0 klo = cloth(ing) 384 sharp ta ta ta ta 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 1b 1a 1b 271 sit 4 4 0 0 1 i t i t i t i t 1a 163 skin a k  ko k ko 1a 1c 2 2 0 0 1 1 sky n ta la u ta ta ta 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 261 sleep i ta i ta ta ta 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 3a 1b 1a 223 smell 4 3 0 1 1 wo  n a mi ni  n mi ni 1b 214 smoke  kwi mu kwi kwi kwi 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 102 snake i l u l i l u l 2b 1a 1c 3 2 1 0 1 1a 2b 2a 235 spit 4 2 2 0 1 ti pi to ti ti pi to ti 1c 272 stand h i h kæ h h 1a 2c 2 1 1 0 0 1a 1b 1a 4 star 4 4 0 0 1 pi ki pi ki pi ki pi ki 1b 29 stone s l ko l or x l s l ko l 2a 2c 1a 1c 4 2 2 0 1 1a 1b 1a 2 sun 4 4 0 0 1 i wo i wo i wo i wo 1b 90 tail m p t m p p p 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 345 thick tu tu tu tu 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 346 thin po po po po 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 417 thou (2s) n n n n 1a 1c 2 2 0 0 1 three 324 1a 1c 2 2 0 0 1 (persons) s si to si si 289 tie p p p p 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 131 tongue lo  lo lo lo 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1 133 tooth so  so so so 1a 1b 2 2 0 0 1

108

References

Bradley, David. 1979. Proto-Loloish. Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Monograph Series, No. 39. London: Curzon Press Ltd.

Bradley, David. 1997. Tibeto-Burman languages and classification. Pacific Linguistics A-86.1-72.

Casad, Eugene H. 1974. Dialect intelligibility testing. Norman, Okla.: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Caw Athikanniyom Piyathamamo, Rakkiat Santhong, and Fongkaew Santhong (เจาอธิการนิยม ปยธมฺโม, อ.รักเกียรติ สารทอง, อ.ฟองแกว สารทองม). 2002. Mpi history (หนังสือประวัติชนมป). Ban Dong, Phrae, Thailand.

Grimes, Barbara F. (ed.) 2000. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, fourteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International.

Gordon, Jr., Raymond G. (ed.) 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, fifteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/.

IMNA. 2003. Teaching of will be allowed in Thai schools. Independent Mon News Agency, June 18, 2003. URL: http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/IMNA2003-06-18.htm

Kitjapol Udomkool. Forthcoming. A phonological comparison of Bisoid varieties. M.A. Thesis. Chiang Mai: Payap University. ms.

Kosonen, Kimmo. 2005. Education in local languages: policy and practice in Southeast Asia. First language first: Community-based literacy programmes for minority language context in Asia. Bangkok: UNESCO (forthcoming).

Lewis, Paul. 1968. Akha-English dictionary. New York: Cornell University.

Mann, Noel. 2004. Mainland Southeast Asia comparative wordlist for lexicostatistic studies. Chiang Mai: Payap University. ms.

Matisoff, James A. 1978. Mpi and Lolo-Burmese microlinguistics. Monumenta Serendica, no. 4. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Language and Cultures of Asia and Africa.

Office of the National Education Commission. 2001. Education in Thailand 2001/2002. Bangkok: ONEC. URL: http://www.onec.go.th/publication/ed2002/ed2002.PDF

Person, Kirk R. 2002. Mpi survey thoughts. Unpublished ms.

Ruengdet Pankhuenkhat. 1988. Phasaa thin trakun Thai (Languages of the Thai family). Bangkok: Mahidol University.

109 Sittichai Sah-iam. 1984. Phrases and clauses in the Mpi language at Ban Dong, Phrae Province. Bangkok: Mahidol University MA Thesis.

Srinuan Duanghom. 1976. Mpi dictionary. Bangkok: Mahidol University.