(WB): Bru Kuay (TK): Kuay (&Thai) 5.00 Agree 5.00

Assessing Language Vitality and Endangerment of Minority Communities in Northeastern Thailand: A Necessity for Visualizing Dynamic Language Shift presented by Yutaka Tomioka and Francesco Cavallaro Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies School of Humanities and Social Sciences

Saturday, March 4, 2017 Objectives of This Paper

1. Introducing the brief results of language surveys in Northeastern Thailand (Isan) 2. Discussing the features and factors of language shift/maintenance at play in target communities 3. Illustrating the dynamics of language shift 4. Proposing some considerations regarding the assessment of ethnolinguistic vitality The Target Communities

Laos • the Bruu (Bru) & Kuay language in Northeastern Thailand (Isan) Thailand – the Austroasiatic language/stock Cambodia – the Mon-Khmer language family – the Katuic branch

(Mann, Smith, & Ujlakyova, 2009) The Target Communities Northeastern Central and Thailand (Isan) Southern Laos

Lao Northeastern Western Bru Kataang Thai (Lao Isan) (Choo, 2012)

Ta Klang (TK)

Woen Buek (WB) Tai-Kadai Languages Kuay, Kuy, or Suay Khmer Austroasiatic Languages

Cambodia (Lewis, Simons, & Fennig, 2016) The Target Community (WB Bru) Population & Distribution / District in Isan

Woen Buek (WB) Woen Buek (WB)

Northeastern Thai Bru (Lao Isan) From Premsrirat et al. (2003) The Target Community (TK Kuay) Population & Distribution / District in Isan

Ta Klang (TK) Ta Klang (TK) Ta Klang (TK)

Northeastern Thai Kuay (Kuy) Northern/Highland (Lao Isan) Khmer

From Premsrirat et al. (2003) The Target Community (WB Bru) Population & Background Information Ethnic Bru and Woen Buek (WB) Population • Western Bru: 20,000 in 3 Isan provinces, • and 400 in Ubon (WB&TL)  No mutual intelligibilities among them (Premsrirat et al., 2003) • Kataang: 110,276 in Laos in 2005 (the National Statistics Centre, no date) • WB: approx. 600 based on household registration Ethnonym Exonym: Khaa ‘slavic people;’ Endonym: Bru (no meaning) History WB Bru ancestors immigrated from Laos about 100 years ago Occupatio • Swidden farming in the past, ns • Fishing, Farming (very limited flatlands), Weaving basket, Working as a temporal labor, Work away from home

Other • Exogamy was not freely allowed by their traditional rituals Features • Buddhism was broadly accepted after the immigration to WB • A paved road to town and electricity reached within7 30 years ago The Target Community (TK Kuay) Population & Background Information

Ethnic Kuay and Ta Klang (TK) The • Approx. 0.4 million in 4 Isan provinces (incl. Surin) population • Lao Isan 14 million, Highland Khmer 1.4 million in Isan (Premsrirat et al., 2003) • TK: Approx. 1,200 Ethnonym Exonym: Suay ‘tribute (tax)’ (paid tax by elephants); Endonym: Kuay or Kuy ‘man’ History Immigrated from Southern Laos in the 17 to 18th century Occupatio Mahout, Farming, Working away from home (both as a mahout ns and as labor)

Other • Seen as the center of mahout culture of Kuay 8 features • Number of anthropological studies • Not all villagers have elephants The Status of Languages in WB and TK

• Hierarchical relationship (Smalley, 1994; Premsrirat, 2007) – Standard/Central Thai (Thai) – Northeastern Thai/Lao Isan (Lao) – (Northern) Khmer (Khmer) – Bru / Kuay De facto De facto Thai national language Thai national language Regional language Lao Regional Lao Marginal regional language language Khmer

Enclave Bru Marginal language language Kuay Methodology

• Field research – 3 months in 2014: preliminary surveys – 4 months in 2015: the 1st data collection – 4 months in 2016: the 2nd data collection • Questionnaire – Personal information – Language Proficiency (‘5-Excellent’ to ‘1-Not at all’) – Language Attitude (‘5-Agree’ to ‘1-Disagree’) – Language Choice 5-level Likert scale • Observation and interviews Methodology (cont.) Language Choice (LC)

• 33 domains (questions)

Q. Overall, what languages do you use when you are at home and talk with your mother? Kuay 1 2 3 4 5 5. Use only this language Khmer 1 2 3 4 5 4. Use more frequently than other languages Lao 1 2 3 4 5 3. Use as frequently as other languages Thai 1 2 3 4 5 2. Use less frequently than other languages 1. Not use this language at all Bru 1 2 3 4 5 Lao 1 2 3 4 5 Thai 1 2 3 4 5 Participants and Interviewees WB Bru: Total WB Participants WB Interviewees Gender Gender Age Total Age Total Male Female Male Female 10~19 12 12 24 10~19 2 3 5 20~29 10 12 22 20~29 2 3 5 30~39 11 12 23 30~39 2 2 4 40~49 11 10 21 40~49 2 3 5 50~59 15 11 26 50~59 2 2 4 60~69 8 4 12 60~ 2 3 5 70~ 4 6 10 Total 12 16 28 Total 71 67 138 Participants and Interviewees WB Bru: Target of Analysis of This Paper

Ethnic Bru Participants Gender • The data from all ethnic Age Total Male Female Bru participants were 10~19 10 8 18 analyzed in this study 20~29 8 11 19 30~39 10 9 19 40~49 10 8 18 50~59 12 10 22 60~69 6 4 10 70~ 4 4 8 Total 60 54 114 Participants and Interviewees TK Kuay: Total TK Participants TK Interviewees Gender Gender Age Total Age Total Male Female Male Female ~9 1 0 1 10~19 2 2 4 10~19 15 23 39* 20~29 2 2 4 20~29 13 11 24 30~39 2 2 4 30~39 12 12 24 40~49 2 2 4 40~49 10 16 26 50~59 3 2 5 50~59 10 14 24 60~ 2 2 4 60~69 6 6 12 Total 13 12 25 70~ 5 4 9 Total 72 86 159 *1 participant did not answer his/her own gender. Participants and Interviewees TK Kuay: Target of Analysis of This Paper Ethnic Kuay Participants of • Not all the participants from This Paper the 2nd data collection are Gender included. Age Total Male Female • However, all participants below 18 years old ~18 16 22 39* (secondary school students) 19~25 10 9 19 are included. 26~45 3 15 18 • The classification is the 46~ 7 12 19 same as Tomioka (2016b): Total 36 58 95 – ~18 years old (children), *1 participant with no answer – 19~25 (adolescents yet to of gender have children), – 26~45 (parents), and – 46~ (grandparents) RESULTS PRELIMINARY RESULTS

Bru (WB Bru) Kuay (TK Kuay) • Tomioka (2016a) • Tomioka (2016b) • Shifting • Maintained (Kuay) • Shifting (Lao and Khmer) – bilingual of Lao and Bru – quadrilingual of Kuay, – bilingual of Lao and Thai Khmer, Lao, and Thai, – trilingual of Kuay, Lao, and Thai – bilingual of Kuay and Thai EGIDS (Lewis and Simons, 2010)

• EGIDS is a tool for quickly assessing language vitality and endangerment • From only 5 key issues EGIDS (Lewis and Simons, 2010) i. The Identity Function ii. The Level of Official Status iii. Intergenerational Language Transmission (ILT) iv. The Literacy Status v. The Youngest Speakers with Some Fluent Speakers EGIDS Diagnostic Decision Tree (Lewis & Simons, 2010) for Ethnologue 19th ed. (Lewis, Simons, & Fennig, 2016) National 1: National

iii. Intergenerational 6a: Vigorous language None transmission (ILT) Children v. The youngest 6b: Threatened generation 7: Shifting NO Parents 8a: Moribund Grandparents 8b: Nearly Extinct Great Grandparents Heritage 9: Dormant / Reawakening / L2 only Historical 10: Extinct Assessing WB Bru and TK Kuay’s Level of EGIDS i. The Identity Function

National 1: National

iii. Intergenerational 6a: Vigorous language None transmission (ILT) Children v. The youngest 6b: Threatened generation 7: Shifting NO Parents 8a: Moribund Grandparents 8b: Nearly Extinct Great Grandparents Heritage 9: Dormant / Reawakening / L2 only Historical 10: Extinct i. The Identity Function (LA1) This language fosters intimacy with Bru/Kuay people in WB/TK

Bru (WB): Bru Kuay (TK): Kuay (&Thai) 5.00 Agree 5.00

4.50 4.50 Rather 4.00 4.00 Agree 3.50 3.50

Middling 3.00 3.00

2.50 2.50 Rather 2.00 2.00 Disagree 1.50 1.50 1.00 Disagree ~18 19~25 26~45 46~ 1.00 10~19 20~29 30~39 40~49 50~59 60~69 70~ Kuay 4.49 5.00 4.67 4.79 Bru 4.44 4.68 4.79 4.94 5.00 5.00 5.00 Lao 2.69 2.79 2.72 3.79 Lao 3.67 3.42 4.16 3.44 3.86 2.50 3.75 Thai 3.71 4.21 4.17 4.26 Thai 2.56 1.95 2.89 1.67 2.23 2.10 1.25 Khmer 2.38 1.58 2.00 2.05 N 18 19 19 18 22 10 8 N 37 19 18 19 i. The Identity Function (LA3) This language fosters intimacy with Non-Bru/Kuay people living in WB/TK

Bru (WB): Lao Kuay (TK): Thai (+Kuay & Lao) 5.00 Agree 5.00

4.50 4.50 Rather 4.00 4.00 Agree 3.50 3.50

Middling 3.00 3.00

2.50 2.50 Rather 2.00 2.00 Disagree 1.50 1.50 1.00 Disagree ~18 19~25 26~45 46~ 1.00 10~19 20~29 30~39 40~49 50~59 60~69 70~ Kuay 3.11 2.74 3.67 4.00 Bru 1.94 2.42 2.16 2.00 2.18 1.50 2.25 Lao 2.97 2.95 3.06 3.95 Lao 4.06 4.21 3.74 4.28 4.50 4.90 4.75 Thai 4.30 4.32 4.67 4.53 Thai 3.22 2.26 3.16 2.67 2.36 3.60 2.50 Khmer 2.36 1.74 1.83 2.79 N 18 19 19 18 22 10 8 N 38 19 18 19 i. The Identity Function (LA4) This language fosters intimacy with outsiders

Bru (WB): Kuay (TK): Thai (+Kuay & Lao) Agree 5.00 • The identity function is limited within ethnic Bru 4.50 Rather Agree 4.00 people

3.50 – Not “Vehicular,” – but “Home” Middling 3.00

2.50 Rather Disagree 2.00

1.50

Disagree 1.00 ~18 19~25 26~45 46~ Kuay 3.49 2.84 3.78 3.63 Lao 2.94 2.89 2.61 3.89 Thai 4.27 4.63 4.50 4.42 Khmer 2.14 1.63 1.56 2.47 N 39 19 18 19 i. The Identity Function (LC2) Language Choice at Market with Sellers regarding Shopping

Kuay (TK): Thai Only this language 5.00 4.50

More than 4.00 other languages 3.50

As evenly as 3.00 other languages 2.50 Less than 2.00 other languages 1.50

Do not use at all 1.00 ~18 19~25 26~45 46~ Kuay 1.56 1.74 1.89 1.68 Lao 1.36 1.68 1.61 2.16 Thai 4.23 4.05 3.61 3.42 Khmer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.21 N 39 19 18 19 Assessing WB Bru and TK Kuay’s Level of EGIDS ii. Intergenerational Language Transmission

National 1: National

Bru (WB): Decreasing Kuay (TK): Maintained 5.00 Excellent 5.00

4.50 4.50

4.00 Good 4.00

3.50 3.50 Middle 3.00 3.00

2.50 2.50 Limited 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.00 Not at all ~18 19~25 26~45 46~ 1.00 10~19 20~29 30~39 40~49 50~59 60~69 70~ Kuay 4.72 4.84 4.78 5.00 Bru 2.67 2.74 3.95 4.39 4.23 4.40 4.88 Lao 2.84 3.11 3.39 4.00 Lao 4.67 4.58 3.89 3.94 4.14 4.30 4.63 Thai 4.43 4.84 4.89 4.58 Thai 3.83 3.79 3.42 3.11 2.68 3.00 2.38 Khmer 1.31 1.21 1.72 2.47 N 18 19 19 18 22 10 8 N 39 19 18 19 iii. ILT: (LC3) Language Choice at Home with Maternal Grandparents

Bru (WB): Shifting Kuay (TK): Maintained 5.00 Only this 5.00 language 4.50 4.50

4.00 More 4.00

3.50 3.50 Evenly 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 Less 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.00 Not at all ~18 19~25 26~45 46~ 1.00 10~19 20~29 30~39 40~49 50~59 60~69 70~ Kuay 4.46 5.00 4.57 4.93 Bru 2.13 2.18 3.70 4.58 4.20 4.43 5.00 Lao 1.06 1.00 1.36 1.14 Lao 3.88 3.82 2.40 1.42 1.80 1.57 1.00 Thai 1.54 1.00 1.07 1.07 Thai 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Khmer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N 8 11 10 12 10 7 7 N 39 19 18 19 Assessing TK Kuay’s Level of EGIDS iv. The Literacy Status National 1: National

iii. Intergenerational 6a: Vigorous language None transmission (ILT) Children v. The youngest 6b: Threatened generation 7: Shifting NO Parents 8a: Moribund Grandparents 8b: Nearly Extinct Great Grandparents Heritage 9: Dormant / Reawakening / L2 only Historical 10: Extinct Assessing TK Kuay’s Level of EGIDS: The Result National 1: National

ii. The level of Regional 2: Provincial Official Use i. The identity Not Official 3: Wider Communication function Vehicular Institutional 4: Educational YES iv. The literacy Home status Incipient 5: Developing / Dispersed iii. Intergenerational language None 6a: Vigorous transmission (ILT) Children 6b: Threatened v. The youngest generation 7: Shifting NO Parents 8a: Moribund Grandparents 8b: Nearly Extinct Great Grandparents Heritage 9: Dormant / Reawakening / L2 only Historical 10: Extinct Assessing WB Bru’s Level of EGIDS v. The Youngest Generation National 1: National

iii. Intergenerational 6a: Vigorous language None transmission (ILT) Children v. The youngest 6b: Threatened generation 7: Shifting NO Parents 8a: Moribund Grandparents 8b: Nearly Extinct Great Grandparents Heritage 9: Dormant / Reawakening / L2 only Historical 10: Extinct v. The Youngest Generation with Some Fluency: (LP1) Proficiency of Speaking Bru

100% 5.00 Excellent 90% 4.50 80% 4.00 Good 70%

3.50 60% 50% 3.00 Middle

40% 2.50 30% 2.00 Limited 20% 1.50 10%

0% 1.00 10~19 20~29 30~39 40~49 50~59 60~69 70~ Total Not at all 1-Not at all 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 5 2-Limited 4the Lower7 1 Homogeneous1 0 Group 0 0 13 Mean with the Higher Mean 3-Middle 8 8 6 2 5 3 0 32 4-Good 2 2 5 Sum of Squares4 df Mean3 Square 0F Sig. 1 17 Between 5-Excellent 1 1 7 1168.022 6 13 11.337 11.8877 .000 7 47 Groups N 18 Bru 19 19 18 22 10 8 114 Within Groups 102.048 107 .954 mean 2.67 2.74Total 3.95 4.39170.070 113 4.23 4.40 4.88 v. The Youngest Generation with Some Fluency: (LC4) Language Choice at WB with Bru People

100% 5.00 Only this language 90% 4.50

80% 4.00 More 70% 60% 3.50 50% 3.00 Evenly 40% 2.50 30% 2.00 Less 20% the Lower Homogeneous Group 10% 1.50 Mean with the Higher Mean 0% 1.00 Not at all 10~19 20~29 30~39 40~49 50~59 60~69 70~ Total 1-Not at all 12 5 2 0 3 0 0 22 2-Less 1 7 3 Sum of Squares1 df Mean1 Square 0 F Sig. 0 13 Bru Between Groups 3-Evenly 1 1 0 137.3641 12 1 11.447 6.6750 .000 0 4 Within Groups 4-More 2 3 0 173.2061 101 2 1.715 2 0 10 Total 310.570 113 5-Only 2 3 14 15 15 8 8 65 Lao Between Groups 137.364 12 11.447 6.675 .000 N 18 19 19 18 22 10 8 114 Within Groups 173.206 101 1.715 mean 1.56 2.37Total 3.53 310.5704.11 113 3.45 3.80 4.25 v. The Youngest Generation with Some Fluency: (LC5) Language Choice at Home with Mother

100% 5.00 Only this language 90% 4.50

80% 4.00 More 70% 60% 3.50 50% 3.00 Evenly 40% 2.50 30% 2.00 Less 20% the Lowest Homogeneous Group 10% 1.50 Mean with the Highest Mean 0% 1.00 Not at all 10~19 20~29 30~39 40~49 50~59 60~69 70~ Total 1-Not at all 12 11 7 0 3 0 0 33 2-Less 2 3 0 Sum of Squares1 df Mean0 Square 0 F Sig. 0 6 Bru Between Groups 3-Evenly 1 1 1 175.4700 6 0 29.245 16.5100 .000 0 3 Within Groups 184.224 104 1.771 4-More 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 8 Total 359.694 110 5-Only 1 3 10 13 17 10 7 61 Lao Between Groups 182.236 6 30.373 17.402 .000 N 17 19 19 17 22 10 7 111 Within Groups 181.512 104 1.745 mean 1.65 2.05Total 3.37 363.7484.65 110 4.36 5.00 5.00 Assessing WB Bru’s Level of EGIDS: The Result National 1: National

ii. The level of Regional 2: Provincial Official Use i. The identity Not Official 3: Wider Communication function Vehicular Institutional 4: Educational YES iv. The literacy Home status Incipient 5: Developing / Dispersed iii. Intergenerational 6a: Vigorous language None transmission (ILT) Children 6b: Threatened v. The youngest generation 7: Shifting NO Parents 8a: Moribund Grandparents 8b: Nearly Extinct Great Grandparents Heritage 9: Dormant / Reawakening / L2 only Historical 10: Extinct The Feature of LS in WB Bru

• 2 Phases – (1) There are people who lack Bru proficiency or use Lao even when the use of Bru is expected; the majority uses Bru and possesses high fluency of Bru.

100% 5.00 100% 5.00 90% 4.50 90% 4.50 80% 80% 4.00 4.00 70% 70% 60% 3.50 60% 3.50 50% 3.00 50% 3.00 40% 2.50 40% 2.50 30% 30% 2.00 2.00 20% 20% LC4: Bru people in WB 10% LP1: Speaking 1.50 10% 1.50 0% 1.00 0% 1.00 10~19 20~29 30~39 40~49 50~59 60~69 70~ Total 10~19 20~29 30~39 40~49 50~59 60~69 70~ Total The Feature of LS in WB Bru

• 2 Phases – (2) The majority of younger people no longer possesses high enough proficiency, so that they use Lao even when the use of Bru is expected in case among older people.

• In WB, the second phase had rapidly progressed. • For the purpose of language conservation, we should not overlook a sign indicating LS. 100% 5.00 100% 5.00 90% 4.50 90% 4.50 80% 80% 4.00 4.00 70% 70% 60% 3.50 60% 3.50 50% 3.00 50% 3.00 40% 2.50 40% 2.50 30% 30% 2.00 2.00 20% 20% LC4: Bru people in WB 10% LP1: Speaking 1.50 10% 1.50 0% 1.00 0% 1.00 10~19 20~29 30~39 40~49 50~59 60~69 70~ Total 10~19 20~29 30~39 40~49 50~59 60~69 70~ Total Consideration Regarding Assessment (2): Detailed Classification (LP1: Speaking Bru)

Children ~ Adolescents, Parents, and Grandparents 100% 5.00 Excellent 90% 4.50 80% 4.00 Good 70%

3.50 60% 50% 3.00 Middle

40% 2.50 30% 2.00 Limited 20%

1.50 10% 0% 1.00 10~25 26~44 45~ Total Not at all 1-Not at all 4 0 1 5 2-Limited 6 6 1 13 3-Middle 14 9 9 32 4-Good 3 7 7 17 5-Excellent 2 12 33 47 N 29 34 51 114 mean 2.76 3.74 4.37 Consideration Regarding Assessment (2): Detailed Classification (LP1: Speaking Bru)

Children ~ Adolescents, Parents, and Grandparents Every 10-year age group 100% 5.00 Excellent 100% 5.00 90% 90% 4.50 4.50 80% 80% 4.00 Good 4.00 70% 70%

3.50 3.50 60% 60% 50% 3.00 Middle 50% 3.00

40% 40% 2.50 2.50 30% 30% 2.00 Limited 2.00 20% 20%

1.50 1.50 10% 10% 0% 1.00 0% 1.00 10~25 26~44 45~ Total Not at all 10~19 20~29 30~39 40~49 50~59 60~69 70~ Total 1-Not at all 4 0 1 5 1-Not at all 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 5 2-Limited 6 6 1 13 2-Limited 4 7 1 1 0 0 0 13 3-Middle 14 9 9 32 3-Middle 8 8 6 2 5 3 0 32 4-Good 3 7 7 17 4-Good 2 2 5 4 3 0 1 17 5-Excellent 2 12 33 47 5-Excellent 1 1 7 11 13 7 7 47 N 29 34 51 114 N 18 19 19 18 22 10 8 114 mean 2.76 3.74 4.37 mean 2.67 2.74 3.95 4.39 4.23 4.40 4.88 Consideration Regarding Assessment (3): Emergence of Passive Speakers (WB)

WB Bru: LP1 (Speaking) WB Bru: LP2 (Listening) 100% 5.00 Excellent100% 5.00 90% 90% 4.50 4.50 80% 80% 4.00 Good 4.00 70% 70%

3.50 3.50 60% 60% 50% 3.00 Middle 50% 3.00

40% 40% 2.50 2.50 30% 30% 2.00 Limited 2.00 20% 20%

1.50 1.50 10% 10% 0% 1.00 0% 1.00 10~19 20~29 30~39 40~49 50~59 60~69 70~ Total Not at all 10~19 20~29 30~39 40~49 50~59 60~69 70~ Total 1-Not at all 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 5 1-Not at all 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2-Limited 4 7 1 1 0 0 0 13 2-Limited 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 3-Middle 8 8 6 2 5 3 0 32 3-Middle 9 6 7 0 1 2 0 25 4-Good 2 2 5 4 3 0 1 17 4-Good 3 4 3 3 2 0 0 15 5-Excellent 1 1 7 11 13 7 7 47 5-Excellent 4 9 8 15 18 8 8 70 N 18 19 19 18 22 10 8 114 N 18 19 19 18 22 10 8 114 mean 2.67 2.74 3.95 4.39 4.23 4.40 4.88 m 3.44 4.16 3.95 4.83 4.68 4.60 5.00 Consideration Regarding Assessment (3): Emergence of Passive Speakers (TK)

(LA6) There will be no speaker of Kuay in Thailand in the future Interviews in TK (1) Agree 5.00 • Grandchildren go to a

4.50 primary school in non- Rather Agree 4.00 Kuay area, so they

understand but do not 3.50 reply in Kuay. [A female Middling 3.00 in her 50s]

2.50

Rather Disagree 2.00

1.50

Disagree 1.00 ~18 19~25 26~45 46~ Kuay 2.64 2.78 3.17 3.26 N 33 18 18 19 Consideration Regarding Assessment (3): Emergence of Passive Speakers

Interviews in TK (2) Interviews in TK (3)&(4) • A Kuay-Lao mixed nephew • “My children understand Kuay” and niece grew up in southern (with showing her confidence), but Thailand until kindergarten or “I speak to Thai to them.” [The early primary school, and now mother of the abovementioned they go to an int’l primary kids] school in the Buri Ram city • The similar situation was found (Lao, otherwise Khmer, is/are with a Kuay-Khmer mixed boy. spoken) from TK. They do not – “My son understands Kuay,” but “I seem to be able to fluently speak Thai to him,” [a Kuay father speak Kuay. [A female in her in his 30s] and I observed they early 50s] use Thai to each other. Consideration Regarding Assessment (4): Language Choice to Children (PP to Cd) and Language Choice by Children (Cd to PP)(LC6)

Bru (WB) Kuay (TK) Only this 5.00 Only this 5.00 language language 4.50 4.50

More 4.00 More 4.00

3.50 3.50

Evenly 3.00 Evenly 3.00

2.50 2.50

Less 2.00 Less 2.00

1.50 1.50

1.00 1.00 Not at all 30~39 40~49 50~59 60~69 70~ Not at all 26~45 46~ Bru: PP to Cd 3.00 2.87 3.00 3.89 5.00 Kuay: PP to Cd 4.15 4.28 Bru: Cd to PP 2.36 2.27 2.44 3.78 5.00 Kuay: Cd to PP 3.72 4.20 Lao: PP to Cd 3.07 3.27 3.06 2.11 1.00 Thai: PP to Cd 1.92 1.92 Lao: Cd to PP 3.71 3.80 3.56 2.22 1.00 Thai: Cd to PP 1.78 1.85 N 14 15 18 9 6 N 9 10 References

• Choo, Marcus. (2012). The Status of Katuic. Retrieved from Chiang Mai, Thailand: • Lewis, M Paul, & Simons, Gary F. (2010). Assessing Endangerment: Expanding Fishman's GIDS. Revue roumaine de linguistique, 55(2), 103-120. • Lewis, M. Paul, Simons, Gary F., & Fennig, Charles D. (2016). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Nineteenth edition. from SIL International http://www.ethnologue.com. • Luangthongkum, Theraphan. (2007). The Positions of Non-Thai Languages in Thailand In Hock Guan. Suryadinata Lee, Leo. (Ed.), Language, nation and development in Southeast Asia (pp. 181-194). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, c2007. • Mann, Noel, Smith, Wendy, & Ujlakyova, Eva. (2009). Linguistic Clusters of Mainland Southeast Asia A Description of the Clusters. Retrieved from Chiang Mai, Thailand: • The National Statistics Centre. (no date). Result from the Population and Housing Census 2005. Vientiane: the National Statistics Centre. • Smalley, Willam A. (1994). Linguistic diversity and national unity : language ecology in Thailand Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1994. • Person, Kirk R. (2011). The Royal Institute and Thailand’s new national language policy: A work in progress. Paper presented at the 21st annual conference of Southeast Asian Linguistic Society (SEALS 21), Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. • Premsrirat, Suwilai. (2007). Endangered languages of Thailand. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2007(186), 75-93. doi:10.1515/IJSL.2007.043 • Premsrirat, Suwilai, Diiphadung, Sucaritlak, Suwannaket, Ekkaphong, Buasaruang, Aphinya, Chusri, Issara, Sricampa, Sophana, . . . Damsa-at, Praphaasri. (2003). Ethnolinguistic maps of Thailand. Bangkok: Office of the National Culture Commission. • Tomioka, Yutaka. (2016a). Language Attitude and Language Choice of a Bruu Community in Thailand-Laos border area – The Situation 5 years after a Language and Culture Revitalization Project. Paper presented at the Cambridge Postgraduate Workshop on Endangered Languages and Cultures, Cambridge, United Kingdom. • Tomioka, Yutaka. (2016b). The Language Shift and the Status of Lao in a Kuay Community in Northwestern Surin, Thailand. Paper presented at the The Fifth International Conference on Lao Studies, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand.