LANGUAGE ECOLOGY AND LANGUAGE PLANNING IN CHIANG RAI PROVINCE, THAILAND Simmee Oupra B.A. (English) Chiang Mai University, Thailand M.Ed. (TEFL) Chiang Mai University, Thailand Dip. (Research in Education) Edith Cowan University, Australia Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Linguistics Department of Linguistics Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences University of Adelaide, Australia January, 2009 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction This chapter describes the significance of the study. The chapter also outlines the aims of the study, followed by research questions, choice of the research methodology, organization of the research report, and limitation of the study. 1.1 Significance of the study Language death causes great loss to the world’s traditional knowledge, biodiversity and linguistic diversity. The causes of the loss are largely the results of economic development, political pressure, educational reforms and other forms of development (Crystal, 1997; Fishman, 1996; Lasimbang, Miller, & Otigil, 1992; Luengthongkam, 2002; Maffi, 2001a, 2001b; Nimmanhemin, 2004b). Being fully aware of the language loss problem, linguists played an important role in tackling it and employed methods based on the predominating theoretical linguistics. There have been a number of efforts, studies and research aiming to help prevent languages from dying out by recording them but languages are still dying at an alarming rate. The chilling fact is that by the end of this century 90 percent of the existing languages will disappear and Asia alone accounts for 32 percent (Ethnologue, 2004a; Maffi2004a; Matisoff, 1989). A few studies have noted that most of the languages used in this area are spoken and not written, and are passed on through oral traditions. At the same time we have to bear in mind that these small languages live side by side with large speech communities and they have tendencies to shift to other languages that are more powerful in terms of political or socioeconomic influences (Bradley, 1989; Matisoff, 1989; Nantapan; 2003; Sittisantikul, 2003; Wurm, 1986). This hastens language shifts and disappearance in Asia; and Thailand is no exception to the changes that have taken place (Chupinit, 1994; Delang, 2002; Nimmanhemin, 2004b; Santasombat, 2003; Sittisantikul, 2003; Warr, 2005). 2 Therefore, a group of linguists have started questioning themselves on the effectiveness of their discipline and theories, including methods, used in preventing language death. Against all the prevailing doubts, linguists had to explain the importance of saving dying languages. What is the use of saving dying languages? Why is language diversity important to this revolving Earth? While linguists are searching for the explanation of the puzzle, at about the same time things are happening in other fields as well (Maffi, 2001b; Matisoff, 1989). Besides linguists, researchers from other fields such as anthropology, musicology, science, pharmacy, ethnobotany, biology and environment, who in their respective fields have been pondering about their objects of studies, began to see the emergence of some loss in their fields. Moreover, a great amount of literature over the past decades in the researchers’ fields all show some kinds of similarities which led to the conclusion that there was some relation occurring between these phenomena: the relation between language diversity, cultural diversity and biodiversity (Cox, 1996; Fishman, 1996; Maffi, 2001a, 2001b; Oupra, 2004; Pakdee, 2001; Tsuji, 1990). This relationship is crystal clear in Yos Santasombat’s work in which he strongly emphasizes that the destruction of any culture by any forms may result in a rapid decline of biodiversity, since knowledge of biodiversity in any culture is a result of profound appreciation and subtle apprehension of human interaction with the environment around them. Thus, Santasombat (2003, p. 217) confidently claimed that: “local knowledge is a repertoire of situated experiences that have been developed in particular physical, historical and cultural contexts from intimate interaction between humans and environment…[,which has] passed intense scrutiny until crystallized and transformed into cultural patterns of consumption that differ according to varying localities and ethnic groups” Santasombat made an interesting remark in the same volume that, since local knowledge is a result of ‘‘intimate interaction between humans and environment” (ibid.), there is no hope for its survival outside the active cultural spaces. The effort to collect an endangered species without maintaining its culture and environment, and the links between them is an incalculable waste of intellectual effort. Therefore, to preserve the endangered diversity heritage, the intertwined forces that make up a culture will have to be reactivated and the indigenous ways of knowing and learning will have to be acknowledged. This view is 3 increasingly evident in the works of researchers and scholars around the world (Cameron, 2002; Cox, 1996; Maffi, 2001a, 2001b; Norgaard, 2001; Oupra, 2004; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000; Unprasert, 2000). The importance of language diversity was recognized and reassured when it was pushed forward and found its way into the 1998 International Biology Code of Ethics, which states that “culture and language are intrinsically connected to land and territory, and cultural and linguistic diversity are inextricably linked to biological diversity” (Maffi, 2001a, p. 2). However, an increasingly large number of scholarly works unequivocally state that a big drawback to reactivate a culture is the failure to transfer local knowledge in cultural space through indigenous language and this causes great loss to the local knowledge and to biodiversity (Maffi, 2001b). The inability to transfer local knowledge is affected by many agents as mentioned earlier - pressure of development, economic growth, government policies and educational reforms. Research in hilltribe villages in the Northern region of Thailand reveals the massive impact of development on local ecological knowledge and on forest related knowledge, once practiced by minorities, and now under threat of extinction. Thailand’s natural resources have been depleted as a result of a decade of economic development prior to the 1997 Asian economic crisis. This leaves little or no room for the development of biodiversity knowledge which still remains a hidden asset. (Chupinit, 1994; Delang, 2002; Kaosa-ard, 2005; Oupra, 2004; Santasombat, 2003) Pressured by government policies of declaring laws restricting forest use, relocation of hilltribe highlanders to lowland areas, and compulsory schooling for indigenous children, younger generations and villagers have limited opportunity to learn and experience the local knowledge from their elders through language. This lack of intergeneration language transmission results in language loss. Language loss is confirmed by a dramatic decline in numbers of children speaking their indigenous language. Some languages are reported to have only a few elderly speakers. For example, hilltribes and northern Thai speaking children are not taught to speak their indigenous and regional languages due to the perception of the inferior status of their languages to that of standard Thai. Furthermore, the writing system in northern Thai language is rarely studied by younger generations. It was at some point considered dead by the public although still studied by a few academics (Baker & Phongpaichit, 2005; 4 Charoenmuang, 1995; Moondi, 2004; Nimmanhemin, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c; Ongsakul, 2001; Santasombat, 2003; Sittisantikul, 2003; Smalley, 1994). Another example of pressure from government policy such as Thai-ness, is worth mentioning. The concept of a Thai-ness identity is so strongly and effectively instilled in the people that Thais in general perceive themselves as monolingual which is not the case. This is mainly because the languages other than Thai, including the regional languages, have a low status and are not appropriately appreciated by the majority, not even the government (Heikkila- Horn, 2002). Furthermore, language in the southern part of Thailand has long been an issue between the locals and the government officers, teachers and students, but it is a point that is less talked about (Arya, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d; Rujanaseree, 2005). However, governing powers in Thailand both at the state and provincial level have yet to realize this potential language, culture and biodiversity tragedy. Firstly, Thailand needs to probe into its constitution. According to Faingold (2004) a nation’s language legislation in the constitution reflects the nation’s problems, and aims to solve the problems, or, at times, the drafting of such constitution may be used to the advantage of the dominating language group instead of solving the conflicts. If that is the case, what is Thailand’s vision on language problems? What is the language plan and language policy of Thailand? Secondly, the amount of attention given to indigenous/regional/minority languages is considered nil when compared to the attention given to the language of business and economics such as English and Chinese. There is less or no concern at national level on the loss of the indigenous languages. If there appears to be some concern it is done on either a small community basis or an individual basis with the help of linguists from leading universities in Thailand (Moondi, 2004; Sittisantikul, 2003). Although there are no explicit language