A SOCIOLINGUISTIC SURVEY OF THREE LISU DIALECTS · A SOCIOLINGUISTIC SURVEY OF THREE LISU DIALECTS LA MAUNG HTAY Presented to Payap University in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements

ii

A SOCIOLINGUISTIC SURVEY OF THREE LISU

DIALECTS

LA MAUNG HTAY

Presented to Payap University in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS IN

LINGUISTICS

Faculty of Arts

Payap University

April 2011

ii

Title: A Sociolinguistic Survey of Three Lisu Dialects

Researcher: La Maung Htay

Degree: Master of Arts in Linguistics

Advisor: Dr. Phinnarat Akharawatthanakun

Co-Advisor: ___

Approval Date: 18 April 2011

Institution: Payap University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

This Thesis is approved by:

1. _________________________________ Committee Chair

(Academic Rank, Professors name, Ph.D.)

2. _________________________________ Committee Member


3. _________________________________ Committee Member


ii

Copyright © La Maung Htay

Payap University 2011

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to praise the Lord my God for giving me the strength, patience, and

knowledge for this research. I have learned to rely on Him more through the process

of writing this thesis.

I am very grateful to Dr. Phinnarat Akharawatthanakun for being my advisor for this

thesis. Every time I met with you for my thesis, I have learned something from you.

Thank you very much for your patience and hard work. I would like to thank

Aj. Robert Wyn Owen for being the second reader of this thesis. Thank you to

Professor Dr. Somsonge Burusphat for her suggestions and being outside examiner.

I am grateful to Mark Wannemacher and Jeff German who always advise and

encourage me. Thank you to Noel Mann and Marcus Chou for their willing help to

reduce my work (2,000 pages of analysis). You both are so smart. I want to thank

John Eppele for designing the sociolinguistic questionnaires for this thesis. I want to

say thank you to my friend, Ellie Hall who helped me to check every single page of

this thesis. I also want to say thank you very much to Rebecca Bicksler for helping me

to draw a map. I want to thank Aj. Terry Gibbs for helping me with the thesis

template.

I want to say thank you to all the friends who helped me during my fieldwork in

China, Myanmar, and Thailand. Especially, I want to give my thanks to the language

resource people who helped me with wordlists and answered my sociolinguistic

questions.

Finally, I want to thank my friends from Chiang Mai Lisu Baptist church who always

support me in so many ways with love.

La Maung Htay

April 2011

iii

Title: A Sociolinguistic Survey of Three Lisu Dialects

Researcher: La Maung Htay

Degree: Master of Arts in Linguistics

Advisor: Phinnarat Akharawatthanakun, Ph.D

Approval Date: 18 April, 2011

Institution: Payap University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Number of Pages: 114

Keywords: Sociolinguistic survey, Lexical comparison, Lisu, Bilingualism,

Language vitality, Language shift

ABSTRACT

This thesis describes the sociolinguistic situation and lexical comparison of the three

major Lisu dialects in China, Myanmar, and Thailand.

The sociolinguistic situation covers the use of the language of wider communication,

attitudes toward languages of wider communication, comprehension of Lisu dialects,

attitudes toward Lisu dialects, attitudes toward Lisu scripts, and language vitality. For

the use of the language of wider communication, the younger generation seems to

speak it better than the older generation. In general, the Lisu reported high bilingual

proficiency. Of the three Lisu dialects, the Southern Lisu speakers reported the

highest bilingual proficiency while the Northern Lisu speakers reported the lowest.

The Lisu speakers from Myanmar reported the highest bilingual proficiency, followed

by those in Thailand, and those in China reported the lowest.

The Lisu speakers from Myanmar reported the least positive attitudes to the language

of wider communication, followed by those in Thailand and then those in China.

For the attitudes toward the Lisu dialects, there was no general agreement about

which form of speech is the most pure. Most Lisu speakers reported that they prefer

the Fraser script. The highest percentage of lexical similarity is 98%, within the

Northern Lisu dialect, and the lowest percentage is 82%, which is between Northern

and Southern dialects from different countries.

iv

ชอเรอง: การส ารวจเชงภาษาศาสตรสงคมของภาษาลซถน 3 ภาษา

ผวจย: นาย หลา เมาง เท

ปรญญา: ศลปศาสตรมหาบณฑต สาขาวชาภาษาศาสตร อาจารยทปรกษาวทยานพนธหลก: ดร. พณรตน อครวฒนากล วนทอนมตผลงาน: 18 เมษายน 2554

สถาบนการศกษา: มหาวทยาลยพายพ จงหวดเชยงใหม ประเทศไทย จ านวนหนา: 114

ค าส าคญ: , , , ะ อ , ความมชวตของภาษา,

วทยานพนธฉบบนพรรณนาสถานการณทางภาษาในสงคมและการเปรยบเทยบศพทของภาษาลซ 3 ถนหลก ในสาธารณฐประชาชนจน สหภาพพมา และประเทศไทย สถานการณทางภาษาในสงคมหมายรวมถงการใชภาษาในการสอสารในวงกวาง ทศนคตตอ ภาษาในการสอสารในวงกวาง ความเขาใจภาษาลซถน ทศนคตตอภาษาลซถน ทศนคตตอ ตวเขยนภาษาลซ และความมชวตของภาษา ส าหรบการใชภาษาในการสอสารในวงกวาง ดเหมอนวาคนรนใหมจะพดภาษาลซไดดกวาคนรนเกา โดยทวไปแลวผพดภาษาลซม ความสามารถสงในการใชสองภาษา เมอเปรยบเทยบภาษาลซทง 3 ถน พบวาผพดภาษาลซถนใต มความสามารถในการใชสองภาษาสงทสด สวนผพดภาษาลซถนเหนอมความสามารถในการใช สองภาษาต าทสด ผพดภาษาลซทอาศยในสหภาพพมามความสามารถในการใชสองภาษาสงทสด รองลงมาเปนผพดภาษาลซในประเทศไทย สวนผพดภาษาลซในสาธารณรฐประชาชนจน มความสามารถในการใชสองภาษาต าทสด

v

ผพดภาษาลซจากสหภาพพมามทศนคตทางบวกตอภาษาทใชในการสอสารในวงกวางต าทสด สวนผพดภาษาลซในประเทศไทยมทศนคตทางบวกมากกวา แตยงเปนรองผพดภาษาลซ ในสาธารณรฐประชาชนจนทมทศนคตทางบวกมากทสด ส าหรบทศนคตตอภาษาลซถน ไมสามารถสรปไดวาภาษาถนใดมความบรสทธทสด ผพดภาษาลซ สวนใหญมความพงพอใจในตวอกษรเฟรเซอร ภาษาถนยอยในกลมภาษาลซถนเหนอมความ คลายคลงทางค าศพทสงทสดถงรอยละ 98 สวนภาษาลซถนเหนอและถนใตจากคนละประเทศ มความคลายคลงทางค าศพทต าทสดเพยงรอยละ 82 เทานน

vi

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... ii Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... iii

.................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... xi List of Abbreviations and Symbols .......................................................................................... xii Glossary .................................................................................................................................. xiii Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background of the study .................................................................................................. 2 1.1.1 The classification of the Lisu language ..................................................................... 2 1.1.2 The background of the Lisu language ....................................................................... 3

1.2 Objectives of the study ..................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Scope of the study ............................................................................................................ 5 1.4 Hypotheses of the study ................................................................................................... 5 1.5 Limitations of the study ................................................................................................... 6 1.6 Benefits of the study ........................................................................................................ 6

Chapter 2 Literature review ....................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Language classifications .................................................................................................. 7

2.1.1 Sino-Tibetan languages ............................................................................................. 7 2.1.2 Tibeto-Burman languages ......................................................................................... 9

2.2 Phonological features of Tibeto-Burman languages ...................................................... 12 2.2.1 Phonology of Tibeto-Burman languages ................................................................ 12 2.2.2 Grammar of Tibeto-Burman languages .................................................................. 16

2.3 Classification of Lisu language ...................................................................................... 17 2.4 Phonology of Lisu .......................................................................................................... 18

2.4.1 Phonology of Northern Lisu ................................................................................... 18 2.4.2 Phonology of Central Lisu ...................................................................................... 19 2.4.3 Phonology of Southern Lisu ................................................................................... 22 2.4.4 Syllable structures of Lisu....................................................................................... 24 2.4.5 Lisu orthography ..................................................................................................... 26

2.5 Sociolinguistics .............................................................................................................. 28 2.5.1 Bilingualism ............................................................................................................ 28 2.5.2 Language use and language attitudes ...................................................................... 31 2.5.3 Language vitality .................................................................................................... 32

2.6 Lexicostatistics ............................................................................................................... 33 2.6.1 Definitions and reviews of the lexicostatistics ........................................................ 33 2.6.2 Examples of lexicostatistics in some earlier works................................................. 35

Chapter 3 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 39 3.1 Research locations ......................................................................................................... 39 3.2 Wordlist collection and procedures................................................................................ 42 3.3 Sociolinguistic questionnaires ....................................................................................... 43

3.3.1 Questionnaire content ............................................................................................. 45 3.3.2 Questionnaire mapping procedure .......................................................................... 47 3.3.3 Limitations of the questionnaires ............................................................................ 49 3.3.4 Data sources ............................................................................................................ 50

vii

Chapter 4 Lisu sociolinguistic situation ................................................................................... 52 4.1 Language use and bilingual proficiency ........................................................................ 53

4.1.1 Use of languages of wider communication ............................................................. 53 4.1.2 Bilingual proficiency .............................................................................................. 54 4.1.3 Domains of language use ........................................................................................ 57

4.2 Attitudes toward languages of wider communication .................................................... 65 4.2.1 Primary attitudes ..................................................................................................... 66 4.2.2 Secondary attitudes ................................................................................................. 70

4.3 Contact between Lisu dialects ....................................................................................... 71 4.3.1 Reported contact of Lisu dialects ............................................................................ 72

4.4 Attitudes toward Lisu dialects ....................................................................................... 75 4.5 Attitudes toward Lisu scripts currently in use ............................................................... 81 4.6 Language vitality ........................................................................................................... 85

4.6.1 Proficiency of children in the Lisu language .......................................................... 85 4.6.2 Language attitudes .................................................................................................. 89 4.6.3 Ethno-linguistic make up of the villages ................................................................. 90 4.6.4 Reported language shift .......................................................................................... 92 4.6.5 Attitudes toward reading and writing in Lisu ......................................................... 93

4.7 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 93 Chapter 5 Lexical comparison ................................................................................................. 95

5.1 Determining lexical similarity ....................................................................................... 95 5.2 Lexical comparison ........................................................................................................ 99 5.3 Lexical similarity and the analysis results ................................................................... 103 5.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 107

Chapter 6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 109 6.1 Evaluation of methodology .......................................................................................... 109 6.2 Sociolinguistic results .................................................................................................. 110 6.3 Lexicostatistic results ................................................................................................... 112 6.4 Suggestion for further studies ...................................................................................... 113

Bibliography ......................................................................................................................... 115

APPENDIX A SIL MSEA (Mainland South East Asia) 436 wordlist .................................. 120 APPENDIX B The sociolinguistic questionnaires in English ............................................... 134 APPENDIX C The Sociolinguistic Questionnaires in Lisu ................................................... 149 APPENDIX D The Sociolinguistic Questionnaires in Burmese............................................ 162 APPENDIX E The Sociolinguistic Questionnaires in Chinese ............................................. 177 APPENDIX F Cognates with Major and Minor Syllable Forms ........................................... 190 APPENDIX G Cognates in Root Syllable Forms .................................................................. 199

Resume .................................................................................................................................. 206

viii

List of Tables

Table 1 Initial consonants in Tibeto-Burman languages (adapted from Benedict 1972: 17-18) ........................................................................................... 13

Table 2 Consonant clusters of Tibeto-Burman languages (adapted from Benedict 1972: 37) .................................................................................. 14

Table 3 Vowel system of written Tibetan ................................................................ 15

Table 4 Vowel system of written Burmese ............................................................... 15

Table 5 Consonant chart of the Northern Lisu dialect (adapted from Bradley 1994: viii-xi) ........................................................................................... 18

Table 6 Vowel chart of the Northern Lisu dialect (adapted from Bradley 1994: viii-xi) ..................................................................................................... 19

Table 7 The distribution of six contrastive tones in the Northern Lisu dialect (adapted from Bradley 1994: viii-xi) ....................................................... 19

Table 8 Consonant chart of the Central Lisu dialect (adapted from Fraser 1922: 1-5) ......................................................................................................... 20

Table 9 Vowel chart of the Central Lisu dialect (adapted from Fraser 1922: 1-5) .... 21

Table 10 The tone system of the Central Lisu dialect (adapted from Fraser 1922: 4-5) ............................................................................................... 21

Table 11 Consonant chart of the Southern Lisu dialect (adapted from Hope 1972: vi).................................................................................................. 22

Table 12 Vowel chart of the Southern Lisu dialect (adapted from Hope 1972: vi) ........................................................................................................... 22

Table 13 The tone system of the Southern Lisu dialect (adapted from Hope 1972: vi).................................................................................................. 23

Table 14 Tone comparison between the major Lisu dialects (adapted from Bradley 2006: viii) .................................................................................. 24

Table 15 Examples of six Lisu scripts....................................................................... 27

Table 16 The Swadesh 100-wordlist ........................................................................ 34

Table 17 Numbers of sites visited in three countries ............................................... 40

Table 18 Central and peripheral sites ...................................................................... 41

Table 19 Age and gender criteria for choosing the individual interview subjects at each site ................................................................................. 44

Table 20 Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire content .......................................... 45

Table 21 Group Sociolinguistic Questionnaire content ............................................ 45

ix

Table 22 Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire content ...................................... 46

Table 23 Research goals, questions, concepts, and indicators .................................. 47

Table 24 Numbers of subjects interviewed .............................................................. 51

Table 25 Bilingual proficiency in specific tasks ....................................................... 54

Table 26 Bilingual proficiency by dialects ............................................................... 55

Table 27 Bilingual proficiency in the national languages by country ...................... 56

Table 28 Language use in the home domains by country ........................................ 58

Table 29 Language use outside the home domains by country ................................ 61

Table 30 Language use in the church domains by country ...................................... 63

Table 31 Bible language and comprehension ........................................................... 65

Table 32 Reported attitude regarding marriage to a person of the LWC .................. 66

Table 33 Reported attitude toward marriage to an LWC speaker by country .......... 67

Table 34 Reported attitude on marriage to an LWC person according to reason ..... 67

Table 35 Reported attitudes about living next to LWC people ................................. 69

Table 36 Reported attitudes to living next to LWC people by country ..................... 70

Table 37 Non-Lisu people groups that the Lisu marry ............................................. 71

Table 38 Reported reasons for most pure places ...................................................... 76

Table 39 Reported attitudes regarding own village dialect ...................................... 77

Table 40 Reported least pure locations .................................................................... 78

Table 41 The reported reasons for saying why the Lisu in a place is least pure ....... 79

Table 42 Tone comparison between Southern Lisu (Moegok variety) with Northern Lisu and Central Lisu dialects ................................................... 80

Table 43 Reported contact with place where the least pure Lisu is spoken.............. 81

Table 44 Attitudes toward Lisu scripts..................................................................... 81

Table 45 Reported script that the subjects are interested in using ........................... 82

Table 46 Reported easiest script to learn ................................................................. 83

Table 47 Reported do not like script by individual .................................................. 83

Table 48 Reported do not like scripts by group ....................................................... 84

Table 49 Reported first language of children ........................................................... 86

Table 50 Languages children speak before school ................................................... 87

Table 51 Attitude on the use of Lisu among the next generations ........................... 88

Table 52 Languages the parents teach to children and Lisu use by the children ...... 89

Table 53 The Lisu use of next generation ................................................................ 89

Table 54 Ethno-linguistic make-up of the survey sites ............................................. 91

x

Table 55 Reported proficiency in Lisu by site .......................................................... 92

Table 56 Examples of cognate sets with major and minor syllables ......................... 98

Table 57 Examples of cognate sets with root syllable forms .................................... 99

Table 58 Criteria for lexical similarity ................................................................... 100

Table 59 Examples of application of criteria for lexical similarity ......................... 101

Table 60 Phone table for lexical similarity ............................................................ 102

Table 61 The result of the lexical similarity .......................................................... 103

Table 62 The percentage of lexical similarity between Lisu varieties .................... 104

xi

List of Figures

Figure 1 The classification of the Lisu language (adapted from Bradley 2006: xv) ............................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2 The distribution of Lisu language (adapted from Hope 1974: 54) ............... 4

Figure 3 Early classification of the Sino-Tibetan family (adapted from Ruhlen 1991: 143)................................................................................................. 8

Figure 4 Proposed subgroupings of the Sino-Tibetan family (adapted from Ruhlen 1991: 144) .................................................................................... 8

Figure 5 The Sino-Tibetan Family: Benedict (1942), Shaffer (1955), and others (adapted from Ruhlen 1991: 146) ............................................................. 9

Figure 6 Various groupings of the Tibeto-Burman language family (adapted from Ruhlen 1991: 146) .......................................................................... 10

Figure 7 Classification of the Tibeto-Burman languages (adapted from Thurgood 2003: 8) .................................................................................. 11

Figure 8 The level of language attitudes (Blair 1990: 109) ...................................... 31

Figure 9 Language tree of Lolo-Burmese (Bradley 1996) ......................................... 36

Figure 10 Language tree of Lolo-Burmese (Peiros 1996: 238) ................................. 37

Figure 11 Map showing survey sites ........................................................................ 42

Figure 12 Reported contact among Lisu dialects ..................................................... 72

Figure 13 Reported contact by gender ..................................................................... 73

Figure 14 Reported contact by age .......................................................................... 74

Figure 15 Tree diagram of the Lisu varieties ......................................................... 106

xii

List of Abbreviations and Symbols

Adj adjective BM Burmese C.LS Central Lisu CN Chinese CT Central Thai Dem demonstrative G glide JP Jingphaw LS Lisu N noun N.LS Northern Lisu NT Northern Thai S.LS Southern Lisu T tone LWC language of wider communication

xiii

Glossary

Bilingualism Bilingualism is the degree of proficiency that a person must achieve in order to speak a language that is not the mother tongue (Crystal 2003: 51). Domains Domain refers to a group of institutionalized social situations typically constrained by a common set of behavioral rules, e.g. the domain of the family is the house, of religion is the church, etc. the notions is seen as of particular important in the analysis of multilingual settings involving several participants, where it is used to relate variations in the individuals’ choice and topic of language to broader sociocultural norms and expectations of interactions (Crystal 2003: 148). Language attitudes Language attitudes are the ways in which a person or community perceives the relevance and status of their language, often reflecting their attitudes about themselves relative to other groups. Language attitudes play a key role in language maintenance, shift, and death (Fasold 1984: Ch 6). Language of wider communication A language of wider communication (LWC) is the de facto established language used in the influential domains of higher education, technology, and government and is usually international in utility and scope (Bamgbose 1991: 20). Language shift Language shift is the long-term collective results of the language choices within a specific community in which the members have given up one language in favor of another one. This is an outcome of choices that are not necessarily overt or volitional, but are constrained by societal factors that may limit the freedom to act otherwise for speech community members (Fasold 1984: 213). Language use Language use is the study of what people do with language, and how, when, where, and why they do it (Blair 1990: 107).

xiv

Language vitality Language vitality is the extent to which a language serves the needs of its speakers. When a language loses important, meaningful, or useful functions in a community, it loses vitality (Edwards 1985). Lexicostatistics Lexicostatistics is a technique of measuring similarity between lexical items across languages or dialects used originally in glottochronology to deduce the amount of time since related languages separated, and now used more commonly to determine the degree of genetic relatedness between languages or dialects by establishing indices of lexical similarity (Crystal 1985: 178-9).

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

Lisu is a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in China, Myanmar, Thailand, and India. Lewis (2009) provides total Lisu population of 767,000; of these, 610,000 (2000 census) are in China, 126,000 in Myanmar (1987 census), 30,000 (2006 census) in Thailand, and 1,000 (1997 census) in India. It is difficult to arrive at any definite conclusion about the original birthplace of the Lisu. Enriquez (1933: 103-104) stated that many Lisu say they are from the Upper Salween, some said from Hsiang Hsiang (near Hpimaw), and other said they are from Wa Ba district in Upper Mekong. However, Enriquez (1933: 103-104) said it seems the Lisu came down from Eastern Tibet, spreading out into several places such as NMai Kha, Salween River, Mekong River, Yangtze River, and Yunnan province. The three major dialects of the Lisu language are the Central, Northern, and Southern dialects. Southern Lisu speakers are located primarily in Thailand and Myanmar, while only the Northern Lisu dialect is spoken in Southeast India. The Central Lisu dialect is spoken in China, Myanmar, and some in Thailand. All three major Lisu dialects are spoken in Myanmar and Thailand (Bradley 2006: xv). Krauss (2007: ix) states:

“…languages at the far end of the endangerment scale, so classified when ‘the speaker population is fewer than 50 or when the number of speakers is a very small fraction of the ethnic group.’…”

It seems the number of Lisu people who can speak the language is decreasing in each of the country where they live. Therefore, language development among the Lisu people is urgently needed to sustain the language. Research is needed on language vitality, attitudes, and language use among the major Lisu dialects. Another unanswered question is the relationship between the Lisu dialects. Therefore, this thesis is a basic language survey of the three main Lisu dialects. This survey has two major parts: sociolinguistics and lexicostatistics. The sociolinguistic study will cover language vitality, language attitudes and language use of Lisu in three countries: Myanmar, China, and Thailand. The lexicostatistic study of this thesis will examine the lexical relationship of the three Lisu dialects: Central,

2

Northern, and Southern. The following section discusses the background of the study.

1.1 Background of the study James O. Fraser (1886-1938), who also invented the first Lisu script, known as the Fraser Script (Old Lisu Script in China), had done phonological study on Lisu. Bradley compiled two Lisu dictionaries: ‘The Northern Lisu dictionary’ (1994), and ‘The Southern Lisu dictionary’ (2006). In Thurgood (2003: 222-235), Bradley also describes the phonology and morphosyntax of the major Lisu dialects. In his book of ‘The Deep Syntax of Lisu Sentences’ (1974), Hope gives a detailed study of Lisu syntax. Additionally, Lakana (1982 and 1983) studied Lisu phonology. There is no published sociolinguistic study available for Lisu. This study will therefore focus on a sociolinguistic study of Lisu.

1.1.1 The classification of the Lisu language Lisu belongs to the Tibeto-Burman language family, under the central Loloish sub-branch of the Lolo-Burmese branch. Error! Reference source not found. shows the classification of the Lisu language (see Chapter 2 for further discussion about the classification of the Lisu language).

Figure 1 The classification of the Lisu language (adapted from Bradley 2006: xv)

There are many ways to classify Lisu dialects (see more details in Chapter 2). In Thurgood (2003: 222), Bradley mentions that Lisu has three subgroups: the northern (Black Lo), the central (Sha Sha), and the southern (Yellow Lo). The northern Lisu or Black Lo are called [lo³³ wu⁵⁵] ‘Northern Lo’ by the other Lisu, Hei Lisu in Chinese

Lisu

Central Lisu Southern Lisu Northern Lisu

3

and ‘Black Lisu’ in English. They are located in northwestern Yunnan province of China, northern Myanmar, and the eastern portion of India. The central Lisu are called [ʃa³³ ʃa³³] by other Lisu, Hua Lisu in Chinese, and Flowery Lisu in English. They are located in western Yunnan and the adjacent areas of northeast of Myanmar. The Southern Lisu are called [lo³⁵ ʃy³³] by other Lisu, Lisaw in Shan, Burmese, and Thai. They are located in Shan State of Myanmar, extreme southwest of Yunnan, China, and in northern Thailand. Apart from the three Lisu dialects, Northern, Central, and Southern Lisu has a dialect called the Bible dialect. The Bible dialect is widely used and regarded as the standard among Christian Lisu (Bradley 2006: xviii).

1.1.2 The background of the Lisu language Bradley (2006: xv) states that the Lisu are a group of just under a million people, with nearly 600,000 in southwestern China, over 300,000 in northeastern Myanmar, over 40,000 in northern Thailand, and about 1,200 in five villages in northeastern India.

4

Figure 2 shows the geographic distribution of the Lisu people.

Figure 2 The distribution of Lisu language (adapted from Hope 1974: 54)

According to Figure 2, the Lisu are located in Northeast India, Northern Myanmar, and western Yunnan province, China. The Lisu are also located in the northern Thailand. The Lisu language typology is SOV. It is a tonal language with six major tones. The language does not have final consonants except in loanwords.

5

Enriquez (1933: 103) discusses Lisu tones and consonants as follow: The language is difficult. There are 6 tones and 250 separated sounds, none of which has consonantal endings. Hence, the Lisu pronounce Chinese badly. They have, however, adopted and corrupted a large number of Chinese words.

1.2 Objectives of the study The following objectives of this study fit under the framework of Sociolinguistics1.

1. To examine language vitality, language attitudes, and language use among three Lisu dialects: Central Lisu dialect, Northern Lisu dialect, and Southern Lisu dialect.

2. To determine the lexical relationship between three Lisu dialects: Central Lisu dialect, Northern Lisu dialect, and Southern Lisu dialect.

1.3 Scope of the study This research will cover only the Northern, Central, and Southern Lisu dialects in Thailand, Myanmar, and China. The research includes 6 research sites from Myanmar, 4 from China, and 2 from Thailand. The total number of subjects for this study is 226; this number includes 12 wordlist interviewees and 214 sociolinguistic interviewees (see Chapter 3). For the lexicostatistic comparison, 100 words selected from the SIL MSEA (Mainland South East Asia) 436-item wordlist are used (see Appendix A). One set each of Knowledgeable Insider Sociolinguistic Questionnaire, Group Sociolinguistic Questionnaire, and Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire in three languages (Lisu, Burmese, and Chinese) is used for studying the sociolinguistic situation (see Appendices C-E). The focus of this research is to assess the sociolinguistic situation and lexical relationships between the three Lisu dialects.

1.4 Hypotheses of the study The following statements are the hypotheses of this thesis. These are based on the author’s observations as a native speaker as well as discussions with Mann (2007). The Lisu language is being passed on to the next generation in rural areas, but this is less common in urban areas.

1 Lexical relationships have long been included in sociolinguistic studies. For example see O’ Leary

(1992).

6

The Central and Northern Lisu dialects are closely related in terms of lexical similarity; likewise, the Central and Southern Lisu dialects are also closely related. The intelligibility between the Northern and the Southern dialects is low even though they share a fair level of lexical similarity.

1.5 Limitations of the study This study is a limited survey. It will cover only four sites each of the Central Lisu, the Northern Lisu, and the Southern Lisu dialects that are spoken in China, Thailand, and Myanmar. The number of researched sites varied because access to the selected sites is not always easy in all countries where the Lisu live. More sites are easier for the author to visit in Myanmar than in China. Thus, the author surveyed six sites in Myanmar and four sites in China. In Thailand, only two Southern Lisu sites are available for research. This study will not include the Northern and Central Lisu in Thailand because they recently migrated from other countries. The study focuses on central (urban) and peripheral (rural) sites, which means the central sites are more developed, have good transportation and have more regular contact with other groups than peripheral sites. Although the wordlist, SIL MSEA (Mainland South East Asia) used in this study has 436 items, some words were not given in some sites. For example, the words such as coconut, and crocodile were not given in most of the sites. Eliciting the wordlist in Thailand was done through a translator because the author does not speak Thai. Due to time considerations and sensitivity, this study does not focus on religious aspects of the communities.

1.6 Benefits of the study The sociolinguistic study in this thesis is intended to assist the Lisu people in understanding their current language situation. As this thesis may indicate the need for potential vernacular language development, it may encourage Lisu people to participate in the language development effort. This thesis will also indicate how the various Lisu dialects are lexically related. If there is a need for additional language development, reading materials could potentially be produced to protect Lisu from further language shift.

7

Chapter 2 Literature review

About one million Lisu speakers reside in China, Myanmar, Thailand, and India. Handle (2002: 96) claimed that the vast majority of Lisu speakers speak the Northern Lisu dialect, a significant number speak the Central Lisu dialect, and of the three major Lisu dialects, the fewest people speak the Southern Lisu dialect. Since Lisu is a Tibeto-Burman language, a brief review of the Tibeto-Burman and Sino-Tibetan literature is helpful. The following sections will discuss aspects of Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman, and Lisu as well as background information of sociolinguistics and lexicostatistics that apply to this thesis. Note in the course of this discussion, examples from other sources are shown in their original forms which do not necessarily conform to International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) standards.

2.1 Language classifications The following subsections discuss the various classifications that have been proposed for the Sino-Tibetan language family.

2.1.1 Sino-Tibetan languages Ruhlen (1991: 143) states that the classification of Sino-Tibetan languages varies between scholars but they all agree to exclude Mon-Khmer from the Sino-Tibetan family and have problems with grouping the Miao-Yao. Figure 3 is adapted from Ruhlen (1991: 143), describing the historical classification of the Sino-Tibetan language family.

8

Figure 3 Early classification of the Sino-Tibetan family (adapted from Ruhlen 1991: 143)

As shown in Figure 3, Ruhlen describes that Conrady’s classification of 1896 has only Chinese, Tai, and Tibeto-Burman subgroups while the 19th century classification also includes Karen, Miao-Yao, and Mon-Khmer. Both classifications name the language family as Indo-Chinese. Figure 4 shows proposed subgroupings by other scholars beginning in 1909, of what is now called the Sino-Tibetan language family.

Figure 4 Proposed subgroupings of the Sino-Tibetan family (adapted from Ruhlen 1991: 144)

The Indo-Chinese family The Indo-Chinese family Indo-Chinese: Indo-Chinese: I. Chinese I. Sinitic =Chinese II. Tai II. Tai III. Karen III. Tibeto-Burman IV. Tibeto-Burman (Conrady 1896 classification) V. Miao-Yao VI. Mon-Khmer (19th Century classification)

Sino-Tibetan: Sino-Tibetan: I. Sino-Tai: I. Sino-Tai: A. Sinitic A. Sinitic B. Tai B. Tai II. Tibeto-Burman C. Miao-Yao (Konow 1909) II.Tibeto-Burman (Li 1937) Sino-Tibetan: Sino-Tibetan: I. Sinitic I. Sinitic II. Tibeto-Karen: II. Tai A. Karen III. Bodic B. Tibeto-Burman IV. Burmic (Benedict 1942) V. Baric VI. Karen (Shafer 1955)

9

As seen in Figure 4, both Konow’s and Li’s classifications include two subgroups in common: Sino-Tai and Tibeto-Burman. Li has one more group that Konow does not include, Miao-Yao under the Sino-Tai. Benedict’s classification has only two subgroups: Sinitic and Tibeto-Karen; Shaffer’s has six: Tai, Bodic, Burmic, and Baric in addition to Sinitic and Karen. In Benedict’s classification, Karen and Tibeto-Burman are placed under Tibeto-Karen. Figure 5 shows Ruhlen’s another example of Sino-Tibetan language family.

Figure 5 The Sino-Tibetan Family: Benedict (1942), Shaffer (1955), and others (adapted from Ruhlen 1991: 146)

Thurgood (2003: 3) divides Sino-Tibetan languages into two groups: Sinitic, essentially Chinese, and Tibeto-Burman. The original language, Sino-Tibetan has no records and is believed to be extinct. However, it is postulated to have once existed as a single language that subsequently split into a vast family of languages.

2.1.2 Tibeto-Burman languages Concerning the classification of Tibeto-Burman languages, Ruhlen (1991: 143) states that,

Sino-Tibetan: I. Sinitic: A. Bai B. Chinese II. Tibeto-Karen: A. Karen B. Tibeto-Burman:

1. Tibetic 2. Baric 3. Burmic: a. Kuki-Naga b. Kachin-Luic c. Burmese-Moso: i. Moso ii. Burmse-Lolo: a. Burmic b. Lolo

10

According to Konow (1909: 12), the large and diverse Tibeto-Burman classification was first recognized in 1828 by B. H. Hodgson, and the first Tibeto-Burman classification was attempted by Max Muller in 1854.

In addition to describing the historical development of organization of the Tibeto-Burman language family tree, Ruhlen also added different groupings of the languages. Figure 6 shows different groupings of the Tibeto-Burman languages.

Figure 6 Various groupings of the Tibeto-Burman language family (adapted from Ruhlen 1991: 146)

According to Figure 6, Konow (1909) has eight subgroups under the node of Tibeto-Burman languages while Shaffer (1955) has only three. Konow included six subgroups which Shaffer did not include. They both include Tibetan and Burmese as subgroups although they named them differently; Konow called them ‘Tibetan’ and ‘Burmese’ while Shaffer called them ‘Tibetic’ and ‘Burmic.’ Both Benedict (1972) and Voegelin & Voegelin (1977) have four subgroups under Tibeto-Burman. They share three language groups even though they are named differently. Benedict uses the term ‘Tibetan-Kanauri’ for what Voegelin & Voegelin

Tibeto-Burman: Tibeto-Burman: I. Tibetan I. Tibetic II. Himalayana II. Baric III. North Assam III. Burmic IV. Bodo (Shaffer 1955) V. Naga VI. Kachin VII. Kuki-Chin VIII. Burmese (Konow 1909) Tibeto-Burman: Tibeto-Burman: I. Tibetan-Kanauri I. Tibetan II. Bahing-Vayu II. Gyarung-Mishmi III. Abo-Miri-Dafla III. Burmese-Lolo IV. Burmese-Lolo IV. Naga-Kuki-Chin (Benedict 1972) (Voegelin & Voegelin 1977)

11

called ‘Tibetan’, and both of them give the same name to Burmese-Lolo. The other subgroupings are different. Thurgood (2003) also has a different tree for the Tibeto-Burman languages as shown in Figure 7. Thurgood uses more detailed language names than the former trees, as shown in Figure 7. Under Tibeto-Burman, he has the Lolo-Burmese branch, which is divided

Akha, Hani, Khatu, Pijo, Haoni Bisoid: Phunoi, Bisu, Pyen Mpi

Burmish

Burmese Zaiwa (Atsi) Lachi Bola Maru Achang

Tibeto-Burman

Lolo-Burmese (Burmese-Lolo)

Loloish (=Yi)

Northern Loloish Central Loloish Southern Loloish

Nusu Nasu Nosu Nisu

Sani Ahi Lahu Lisu Lipho, Lolopho Micha, Lamo Jinuo, Jino

Figure 7 Classification of the Tibeto-Burman languages (adapted from Thurgood 2003: 8)

12

into two branches: Burmish and Loloish. Under the Burmish branch are grouped all the Burmish languages. The Loloish branch is divided into Northern, Central, and Southern sub-branches. All of the Loloish languages are placed under these branches. The following section describes the basic areal features of Tibeto-Burman languages.

2.2 Phonological features of Tibeto-Burman languages Hale (1982: 11) states that the Tibeto-Burman languages are typologically tonal, monosyllabic languages with SOV structure. The following subsections present the general phonology, and grammar of Tibeto-Burman languages.

2.2.1 Phonology of Tibeto-Burman languages Benedict (1972: 13) proposes that there are 16 consonant phonemes in Tibeto-Burman languages: velar /k, , ŋ/, dental /t, d, n, s, z, r, l/, labial /p, b, m/, semi-vowels /w, y/, and glottal /h/2. All consonants except /, d, b, z/ and /h/ appear in root-final position. All the major Tibeto-Burman languages have final consonants such as /k, t, s, r, l, p, w, y/ and nasals /ŋ, n, m/. The 16 consonant phonemes are also found as initial consonants in Tibeto-Burman languages both in single and cluster forms. Table 1 shows the Tibeto-Burman proto-initial consonants3, with the initial consonants of five Tibeto-Burman languages: Tibetan, Kachin, Burmese, Garo, and Lushei.

2 Benedict grouped /h/ with the velar in his work. 3 Benedict did his reconstruction by comparing Tibeto-Burman languages such as Kachin, Burmese,

Garo, and Lushei with Tibetan.

13

Table 1 Initial consonants in Tibeto-Burman languages (adapted from Benedict 1972: 17-18)

TB Tibetan Kachin Burmese Garo Lushei *k k(h)4 k(h)~5 k(h) k(h) ~ k(h) * ~k(h)6 k ~k(h) k *t t(h) t(h)~d7 t(h) t(h)~d t(h) *d d d~t(h)8 t d~t(h) d *p p(h) p(h)~b9 p(h) p(h)~b p(h) *b b b~p(h)10 p b~p(h) b *s s s s t(h) t(h) *z z z 11 s s f *ts ts(h) ts~dz12 ts(h) s t (h)13 s *dz dz dz ts 14 ts t (h) f *ŋ ŋ ŋ ŋ ŋ ŋ *n n n n n n *m m m m m m *r r r r r r *l l l l r l *h h (zero) h [ ]15 h *w (zero) w w w w *y y y y t ~dz16 z According to Table 1, some initial consonants of Proto-Tibeto-Burman are reflected in the daughter languages. For example, the voiceless alveolar fricative, *s of Proto-

4 The /h/ in parentheses represented the aspirated sound. 5 /k/ or /kh/ or // 6 // or /k/ or /kh/ 7 /t/ or /th/ or /d/ 8 /d/ or /t/ or /th/ 9 /p/ or /ph/ or /b/ 10 /b/ or /p/ or /ph/ 11 /z/ or / / 12 /ts/ or /dz/ 13 /s/ or /t / or /t h/ 14 /dz/ or /ts/ or / / 15 Benedict does not mention what does [ ] mean in his work. 16 /t / or /dz/

14

Tibeto-Burman is retained in Tibetan, Kachin, and Burmese, while it is lost in Garo and Lushei. Moreover, the initial consonants *m, *n, *ŋ, and *r are retained in the daughter languages. Benedict (1972: 37) also describes consonant clusters in Tibeto-Burman languages. Two types of consonant clusters which are found only in the root-initial position in Tibeto-Burman languages are: (a) stop or nasal + liquid /r/ or /l/), and (b) consonant (or cluster of foreign type) + semivowel /w/ or /j/). Table 2 shows these consonant clusters. Table 2 Consonant clusters of Tibeto-Burman languages (adapted from Benedict 1972: 37)

Note that Table 2 does not have any clusters such as /tr, tl, dr, dl, sr, sl, zr, zl, tsr, tsl, dzr, dzl/. Benedict (1972: 57) states that the vowel system of Tibeto-Burman languages is made up of five phonemes, /i, e, a, o, u/, which may appear both in the medial and final positions with the exception of /a/. The vowel /a/ rarely appears as a single

17 /ty/ could be both palatalized voiceless alveolar plosive, /tʲ/ or the consonant cluster, /ty/. 18 /dy/ could be both palatalized voiced alveolar plosive, /dʲ/ or the consonant cluster, /dy/. 19 /zw/ could be both labialized voiced alveolar fricative, /zʷ/ or the consonant cluster, /zw/. 20 /zy/ could be both palatalized voiced alveolar fricative, /zʲ/ or the consonant cluster, /zy/.

Medial r Medial l Medial w Medial y kr kl kw ky r l w y __ __ tw (ty)17 __ __ dw (dy)18 pr pl pw py br bl bw by __ __ sw sy __ __ (zw)19 (zy)20 __ __ tsw tsy __ __ dzw dzy

15

vowel in the final position, but appears with the combination of /w/ or /y/ for the whole vowel system. However, Matisoff (2003: 157) states that the vowel system of Tibeto-Burman languages ranges in complexity from five or six vowels to dozens. The open unrounded fronted vowel [a] is the most common and stable vowel in Tibeto-Burman languages (Matisoff 2003: 164). The following tables show vowel examples of Tibeto-Burman languages from written Tibetan and Burmese presented in Matisoff (2003)21. Table 3 Vowel system of written Tibetan

i u e o a

According to Table 3, written Tibetan has simpler vowels system.

Table 4 Vowel system of written Burmese

i ui u e ai au a we wa wai Table 4 shows that written Burmese has a complex vowel system. According to Matisoff (2003: 6), Tibeto-Burman languages, such as the Loloish languages, have great typological diversity, are highly tonal, monosyllabic, and have no affixational morphology. With the exception of Karenic and Baic, all Tibeto-Burman languages are verb-final. Aikhenvald and Dixon (2006: 313), states that not all the Tibeto-Burman languages are tonal. The Lolo-Burmese, Kachin-Nung, Karenic, and Baic languages are tonal languages. Benedict (1972: 85-87) stated that tone comparison is done based on the two-tone system (high tone from original voiceless and low tones from voiced initial

21 Matisoff does not provide detailed characterizations of the vowels in his chart.

16

consonants) of Central Tibetan with tone systems of some Tibeto-Burman languages. Burmese distinguishes between a low-level tone (unmarked), a high-falling tone (x ), and a ‘creaky voice’ tone (x ). Other Lolo-Burmese languages such as Maru, Lisu, Ahi, Lolopho, and Nyi have more complex tone systems than Burmese.

2.2.2 Grammar of Tibeto-Burman languages Dryer (2008: 13) similarly stated that SVO and SOV are the two possible sentence structures in Tibeto-Burman languages. Karen and Bai have SVO structure while the remainder of Tibeto-Burman languages have SOV word order and strict verb-final structure. Benedict (1972: 92) claimed that verbs, nouns, pronouns, and numerals are the four general categories of Tibeto-Burman. The derivation of nouns from verbs, through prefixation or suffixation, is a characteristic of Tibeto-Burman morphology, but the derivation of verbs from nouns is very rare. Moreover, the general SOV word order of Tibeto-Burman is described in the following paragraphs. Thurgood (2003: 43) states:

Although available data varies in the descriptions, the OV languages within TB generally share a variety of other word order characteristics typical of OV languages, in employing postpositions rather than prepositions, in placing genitive modifiers before the possessed noun, in placing relative clauses (if they are externally headed) before the head noun, in placing postpositional phrases before the verb, in employing clause-final markers for subordinate clause, in placing markers of polar questions (if they employ them) at the end of sentences, and in placing auxiliary verbs after the main verb.

Thurgood (2003: 45-47) stated that the modifiers follow the modified word in Tibeto-Burman languages. The adjective and noun in Tibeto-Burman languages can be seen in two different orders: one is the AdjN (adjective then noun) order and the other is NAdj (noun then adjective) order. Some Tibeto-Burman languages have the AdjN order, some have NAdj order, and some have both orders. The two demonstrative and noun orders in Tibeto-Burman languages are: DemN (demonstrative then noun) and NDem (noun then demonstrative). Between these two orders, the DemN order is more common than the NDem order. Some Tibeto-Burman languages have one order and some have both orders.

17

2.3 Classification of Lisu language According to Enriquez (1933: 104), the Chinese called the Lisu people ‘Lisaw,’ except in the central and eastern parts of Yunnan where they are given their proper name ‘Lisu’. The Lisu from these areas previously called themselves ‘Liphaw’. The Khamti Shan called them ‘Khe Nung,’ meaning ‘Black Nung.’ The Maru Lhaovo and Lashi Lacid called them ‘Lasi’ and ‘Leur-seur’ respectively. The Chinese called the Kachin ‘Ye-Jen’ or ‘Ye-Ren,’ meaning ‘savage,’ and the Kachin has passed this name on to the Lisu, changing it to ‘Yawyin.’ The Chinese never called the Lisu ‘Ye-Ren’ but do make distinctions between what they call ‘Pe Lisu’ (White Lisu), ‘He Lisu’ (Black Lisu), and the ‘Hua Lisu’ (Flowery Lisu) based on the color of the women’s dress. Hope (1974: 1) stated that there are five major dialects22 of Lisu. According to Lakana (1982: 3), however, there are many Lisu dialects with considerable dialectal variation between them. She notes that although these dialects share a large amount of common vocabulary, they are mutually unintelligible23. According to Yu (2007: 2), the Lisu have three subgroups: Northern Lisu, Central Lisu, and Western Lisu. According to Lewis (2009), however, Lisu has 10 dialects: Bai Lisu (White Lisu), Dechang Lisu, Hei Lisu (Black Lisu), Hua Lisu (Flowery Lisu), Lu Shi Lisu, Ninglang Lisu, Northern Lisu, Nujiang Lisu, Shibacha Lisu, and Western Lisu. Of these, three are found in Myanmar: Hua Lisu (Flowery Lisu), Hei Lisu (Black Lisu), and Lu Shi Lisu. Among these three dialects, Black Lisu is the most distinct. In Myanmar, Yawgin, Tangsir, and Hkwinhpang are also regarded as Lisu dialects or ethnic groups of Lisu. There is also a Lisu dialect called ‘Bible dialect’ which is largely based on Central Lisu or Hua Lisu (Flowery Lisu), along with the Southern and Northern dialects. The Christian Lisu assumed the Bible dialect is the standard dialect regardless of the country where they live. Handle (2002: 96), however, refers to Northern Lisu as the standard dialect. Despite various views about which Lisu dialect is the standard Lisu, there is not a linguistic tree available in the literature to describe the classification of dialects within Lisu.

22 Hope does not mention the names of these Lisu dialects. 23 Daoratanahong does not mention the names of these Lisu dialects.

18

2.4 Phonology of Lisu The following sections describe the phonological inventories of the three major Lisu dialects: Northern, Central, and Southern Lisu based on earlier works.

2.4.1 Phonology of Northern Lisu Bradley (1994: viii-xi) provides the consonant and vowel charts of the Northern Lisu dialect, which is spoken in northwestern Yunnan, southern Sichuan, northern Myanmar and northeastern India. Table 5 shows this consonant chart of the Northern Lisu dialect adapted from Bradley (1994: viii-xi). Table 5 Consonant chart of the Northern Lisu dialect (adapted from Bradley 1994: viii-xi)24

In the Northern Lisu dialect, the /z/ and /j/ are only marginally distinct, and are both transcribed [j]. The /x/ and /h/ are only little distinct, and are both transcribed [h]. Zero-initial (a syllable beginning with a vowel) is realized as [ʔ], which is not transcribed. Palato-alveolar consonants such as /tʃ, tʃh, dʒ, ʃ, ʒ/ appear only before the vowels /u/ and /ɿ/25; their phonemic status is questionable. These consonants are also used to transcribe Chinese loanwords with retro ex initials. The [ ] is a ‘nasalized cavity fricative’; in the transcription, the tilde is placed over the following vowel rather than over the [h]; e.g., / a/ is transcribed [h ]. The phonemes /ɣ, w, f, r/ occur in limited environments; their phonemic status is questionable (Bradley 1994: viii-xi).

24 No places or points of articulation and manners of articulation are provided in Bradley (1994). 25 The sound of this vowel is similar with the vowels [ɨ] and [ɯ].

p t ts tʃ tɕ k ph th tsh tʃh tɕh kh b d dz dʒ dʑ f s ʃ ɕ h v z ʒ ɣ m n ɲ ŋ w l r j

19

Table 6 Vowel chart of the Northern Lisu dialect (adapted from Bradley 1994: viii-xi)26

Monophthongs Diphthongs Front Back ɿ Close i , y ɯ , u Close-mid e , ø ɤ Open-mid ɔ æ Open a ja , wa Vowels are nasalized after the nasalized cavity fricative [ ] and after the zero-initial (with the exception of [ɤ]). [ɿ] appears only after the palato-alveolar series such as /tʃ, tʃh, dʒ, ʃ, ʒ/; its phonemic status is questionable. It is usually realized as a syllabic fricative [z ] or [ʒ]. Most speakers do not observe the contrast between [e] and [ø]. Other diphthongs that are not listed here may appear in Chinese loanwords.

Northern Lisu dialect has six contrastive tones, as seen in Table 7 which adapted from Bradley (1994: viii-xi).

Table 7 The distribution of six contrastive tones in the Northern Lisu dialect (adapted from Bradley 1994: viii-xi)

Tones Characteristics Examples27 1 extra-high level /55/ /mo⁵⁵/ 2 high level /44/ /mo⁴⁴/ 3 mid level /33/ /mo³³/ 4 mid rising /35/ /mo³⁵/ 5 low falling /21/ /mo²¹/ 6 low falling with glottal stop /21ʔ/ / mo²¹ʔ/

2.4.2 Phonology of Central Lisu Namkhung (1996: 221) describes the basic phonology of the Central Lisu dialect in which Fraser worked in 1922. Fraser collected this data from the dialects of the 26 No places or points of articulation and manners of articulation are provided in Bradley (1994). 27 No gloss is provided in Bradley (1994).

20

Tengyueh and Longling districts in China, and Myitkyina, Bhamo and the Northern Shan States in Burma. The following table is adapted from Fraser’s work of 1922. Table 8 Consonant chart of the Central Lisu dialect (adapted from Fraser 1922: 1-5)28

INITIALS

MEDIALS -w- -y- In Table 8, /hh/ represents the [x] sound, which Fraser described as a ‘guttural h.’ It only occurs before the vowel /a/, and appears to be in complementary distribution with /h/. The symbol [h’] represents / / that is a ‘nasal h.’ It indicates nasalization of the entire syllable. The sound [v] sometimes resembles [ ] in its pronunciation. The palatals /j, ch, hch, sh/ often are realized as dentals [dz, ts, hts, s] when followed by the back vowels /a, o, u/ (Fraser 1922: 1-5). The glides in the syllables /waw/, /wu/, and /yi/ are not consonantal, but a lengthening of the vowel: [ɔː, uː, iː]. These syllables do not occur with initial consonants, with one exception: /nyi/ (‘day’, ‘two,’ etc.), which contrasts with /ni/ (‘evil spirit,’ ‘red,’ ‘few,’ etc.) (Fraser 1922: 1-5). Table 9 is the vowel chart of Central Lisu dialect.

28 Fraser does not provide places or points of articulation and the manners of articulation.

p t ts ch k hp ht hts hch hk b d dz j s sh hh h v m n n h’ w l r y

21

Table 9 Vowel chart of the Central Lisu dialect (adapted from Fraser 1922: 1-5)

Monophthongs Diphthongs Front Central Back Close i , u Close-mid ye , rh , aw rhe Open a rha In some dialects, the vowel, /i/ after dental sibilants is realized as [ ], but this distinction is slight, as /i/ is not a cardinal [i]. The distinction is made by older speakers but not by younger speakers. The vowel / / represents [y]. The symbol / / represents the vowel [ɨ]. Fraser described it as a ‘plain guttural vowel sound, difficult to describe’. The symbol /ye/ represents [e]. Fraser stated that the [y] is ‘somewhat suppressed’ in combination with consonants. In some dialects, the distinction between [ye] which is [e] and [ ] which is [ø] are lost after labials such as /p, hp, b, v, m/. The symbol /rh/ represents [ɤ] and / / represents [æ]. The symbol /aw/ represents [ɔ]. Fraser wrote that ‘many Lisu words have a vowel sound somewhat between [ɔ] and [o]’, but as they are di cult to distinguish, he did not indicate them. The vowel / / represents [æ]. The symbol /rha/ and /rhe/ probably represent /ɣa/ and /ɣe/ in initial position, but /ɤa, ɤe/ as vowels (Fraser 1922: 1-5). The following table shows the tone system of Central Lisu (Fraser 1922: 4-5). Table 10 The tone system of the Central Lisu dialect (adapted from Fraser 1922: 4-5)

Tones Characteristics Examples29 1 high and even /mo⁵⁵/ 2 abrupt, rising /mo⁴⁵/ 3 medium, even /mo³³/ 4 very slightly lower than tone /3/ /-/30 5 low, even /mo²²/ 6 low, abrupt /mo²¹ʔ/

29 Hope does not provide the gloss. 30 No example for this tone.

22

Table 10 shows the tone system of Central Lisu dialect. The Central Lisu dialect has six basic tones: four level tones and two contour tones.

2.4.3 Phonology of Southern Lisu This section summaries the basic phonology of Southern Lisu as described by Hope (1972: vi-vii). Table 11 shows the consonant chart of the Southern Lisu dialect. Table 11 Consonant chart of the Southern Lisu dialect (adapted from Hope 1972: vi)31

According to Hope, the labialization in the Southern Lisu dialect is represented by [w] and palatalization by [y], following the initial consonants. Alveolar consonants /t, th, d, n, l, ts, tsh, dz, s, z/ are realized as palatal when followed by /y/. Vowels are given in the following table. Table 12 Vowel chart of the Southern Lisu dialect (adapted from Hope 1972: vi)

Front Central Back Close i ɨ u Close-mid e ə Open-mid ɔ æ Open a Hope (1972: vi-vii) considers laryngealization to be a suprasegmental feature and marks it as [ ] under the vowels. It is realized as glottalization of the nuclear 31 Hope does not provide places or points of articulation and the manners of articulation.

p t ts k ʔ ph th tsh kh b d dz f s x h v z ɣ m n ŋ l

23

vowel32 in low-tone syllables, and as tenseness of the nuclear vowel in mid-tone syllables. The vowel /e/ is realized with rounding in labialized syllables. For example, /twe/ is realized as [tø]. Table 13 shows the tonal system of the Southern Lisu dialect. Table 13 The tone system of the Southern Lisu dialect (adapted from Hope 1972: vi)

Tones Characteristics Examples33 1 high m 2 high-falling m 3 mid-rising m 4 mid ma 5 low m As shown in Table 13, Southern Lisu has five tones: high, high-falling, mid-rising, mid, and low. Although Hope provides only five tones in Southern Lisu dialect, Bradley provides six tones in his Southern Lisu Dictionary (2006: viii) (see detail in Table 14). Hope’s Southern Lisu tones have some effect on the sit The following table shows tone comparison between the three major Lisu dialects. Consistent with Bradley, the author, a Southern Lisu speaker has 6 tones in his dialect rather than the 5 tones mentioned by Hope (1972).

32 The major vowel, if there are one more vowel. 33 Hope does not provide the gloss for these tones and this tonal system is quite similar to the tonal

system of Central Thai. This similarity needs further study.

24

Table 14 Tone comparison between the major Lisu dialects (adapted from Bradley 2006: viii)

Central Lisu(Fraser)34 Northern Lisu Southern Lisu Gloss Numeric Orthographic Value Orthographic35 Value Symbol ‘millstone’ mo¹ 55 mol 55 m ‘tattoo’ mo² 35 moq 35 m ‘high’ mo³ 33 mo36 33ʔ moʔ ‘see’ mo⁴ 44 mox 33 mo ‘old’ mo⁵ 21 mot 21 m ‘weed’ mo⁶ 21ʔ mor 21ʔ m ʔ In Table 14, Tone 3 /33ʔ/ and Tone 6 /21ʔ/ in Southern Lisu has constriction while Northern Lisu has lost constriction in Tone 3. The Tones 3 and 6 in Southern Lisu are derived from proto-Loloish syllables with final stops. Tone 4, /44/ is higher in Northern Lisu than in Southern Lisu, /33/. The unmarked tone in Northern Lisu, [mo] corresponds to Fraser’s Tone 3, [mo³] while the unmarked tone in Southern Lisu corresponds to Fraser’s Tone 4, [mo⁴] (Bradley 2006: viii-ix).

2.4.4 Syllable structures of Lisu Lisu is a monosyllable language. The major and minor syllables are the prominent features of Lisu. This section summarizes general background about the major and minor syllable structures of Lisu. According to Pakkhem (2007: 41), major and minor syllables can be defined as follows:

Major syllable is the nuclear syllable which takes the strong stress. It always occurs in monosyllabic words and the final syllable of disyllabic and trisyllabic words. Minor syllable is a syllable which takes the weak stress. It occurs as the first syllable of disyllabic, and the first two syllables and second syllable of trisyllabic words.

34 Fraser’s work is apparently based on Central Lisu dialect. 35 The consonant alphabets [l, q, x, t, and r] after [mo] are the tone marks of the Northern Lisu writing

system. 36 This tone is unmarked.

25

Bradley (2006: xviii) states that the minimal syllable in native Lisu words is a vowel with a tone; most syllables have single initial consonants as well, and some have consonant clusters. Like other Tibeto-Burman languages, Lisu has major and minor syllables. For example, the word ‘fire’ in Lisu is [a⁵⁵ to⁵⁵]. The first syllable [a⁵⁵] does not have any particular meaning, is followed by a full tonic syllable [to⁵⁵], and has the minimal syllabic structure V. Therefore, the first syllable [a⁵⁵] is a minor syllable and the second syllable [to⁵⁵] is a major syllable. In the following paragraphs, Lakana (1982: 24) presents the major and minor syllables in Lisu which she based on Southern Lisu dialect in Thailand. She divides Lisu syllables into three types: nasal syllables37, open syllables, and closed syllables. All her data were collected from Lisu speakers in Thailand, belonging to the Southern Lisu dialect. The following example gives examples of the nasal syllable. Example (1):

/m/ ‘not’ /m khɯ / /ŋ khɯ / ‘night’ /n tɕh / ‘abdomen’ /ŋ khf / ‘smoke, cigarette’

(adapted from Lakana 1982: 24)

Example (1) shows Lisu nasal syllables. The word ‘night’ can be either /m khɯ / or /ŋ khɯ /. The structure of this type of syllable is C(CV)T if the /khf/ is interpreted as a consonant cluster. However, the author who is a Southern Lisu speaker has never heard his dialect spoken with a /khf/, it is normally pronounced simply /kh/. Moreover, it is strange to see /f/ following /kh/ in Lisu. It is not usual to have the stops and fricatives form a consonant cluster.

The following example shows the open syllable type in Lisu.

Example (2): sub-type 1 sub-type 2 /na/ ‘to be sick’ /ŋw / ‘fish’ /ŋ / ‘to hang’ /dʑvɯ / ‘tusk, canine tooth’


37 It means both nasal and pre-nasal syllables.

26

Example (2) shows that the structure of the open syllable is C(C)VT and it has two sub-types. The structure of second sub-type could be shown as CVT, if the /ŋw/ and /dʑv/38 is consonant clusters. However, the author who is the speaker of Southern Lisu has hardly spoken or heard the language spoken this way with the voiced fricative /v/ following the alveo-palatal /dʑ/.

The following example shows the closed syllable in Lisu. Example (3):

sub-type 1 sub-type 2 /sɯŋ/ ‘to be born’ /pj wʔ/ ‘to enjoy’ /ts j/ ‘again’ /sw jʔ/ ‘to throw down’ or ‘shake

off’


The closed syllable may be shown as C(C)VCT and has two subtypes. All examples of this sub-type are loanwords. The first words of both sub-type ‘to be born’ and ‘to enjoy’ are borrowed from Burmese and the second words ‘again’ and ‘to throw down’ or ‘shake off’ are borrowed from Chinese. Thus, the author doubts whether this syllable form is present in native Lisu vocabulary. Thurgood (2003: 226) said that the Lisu syllable structure is C(G)VT39. All Lisu dialects have clusters composed of velars plus medial /w/ before the vowel /a/, as in /kwa, khwa, wa, xwa, ŋwa/. Nearly all dialects have bilabials or nasalized voiceless glottal fricative, /h / (but not labiodentals /ɱ, f, v/) plus medial /j/ before /a/, as in /pja, phja, bja, mja/; /lja/ also occurs in Chinese loans. Most Lisu dialects in some areas including most of the northern area have clusters of labials plus medial /j/ before /ø/, as in /pjø, phjø, bjø, mjø/ but are replaced by bilabials plus /i/, as in /pji, phji, bji, mji/ or bilabials plus /e/, as in /pje, phje, bje, mje/.

2.4.5 Lisu orthography There are seven Lisu orthographies: (1) Pollard script, (2) Fraser script, (3) Chinese character based script, (4) Chinese pinyin based script, (5) Modified Fraser script, (6) Thai alphabet based script (Bradley 2006: xxv-xxvi, xxviii), and (7) Burmese alphabet based script developed in Moegok Township, in Myanmar. Table 15 shows

38 It is strange to see /v/ following the /dʑ/. It is not usual for the fricative /v/ to follow the alveo-palatal /dʑ/ in Lisu.

39 (G) refers to glide.

27

examples of six Lisu scripts. The examples of Thai alphabet based script are not available.

Table 15 Examples of six Lisu scripts

Name of script Example

1. Pollard script

2. Fraser script

3. Chinese character based script

4. Chinese pinyin based script Lisu hanbbax lol totèt 5. Modified Fraser script Li..-Su.. Va., Ba., Lo. Tho: Gei: 6. Burmese alphabet based script လဆဟာဘာလ.ထေဃ

Of these orthographies, the Fraser script is currently in wide use. Bradley (2003: 4) states that the earliest Lisu script was the Pollard script. It was originally invented for the Lipo, also called ‘Eastern Lisu’, from north central Yunnan and the extreme south of Sichuan in China. This script was derived from the script which Samuel Pollard invented for the Miao of Guizhou in 1904. It has both syllabic and alphabetic forms. The large inventory of symbols includes some from the Roman alphabet, some from Pitman shorthand, some newly invented, and vowels in smaller symbols. In the Pollard script, the placement of the vowels indicates the tone: placing the vowel symbol above the consonant represents high tone, placing it to the top right represents middle tone, middle right the rising tone, and bottom right, the low tone. The second script was invented by the British missionary James Outram Fraser, the Karen evangelist Ba Thaw, and the American Baptist missionary George J. Geis in the 1910s. The Roman capital letters (both upright and inverted forms) are used as the consonants and vowels, and punctuation marks are used as tone marks. The third script was invented by the Lisu leader Wa Renbo in Wexi County, Tengchong, China in 1925. It is similar in appearance to Chinese characters. The fourth script was invented by Chinese and Russian linguists. This orthography was developed with Roman and Cyrillic letters. As the Russian linguists left, it was changed into Chinese Pinyin and finally into the Pinyin plus the postscript as tone marks. This script is also called the Northern Lisu script.

28

The fifth Lisu script was invented by David Morse and Tom Tehan in 2000. It is a modified form of the Fraser script, without the upright and inverted forms, which may be typed on any ordinary keyboard. The sixth Lisu script was invented in the 1980s by some Lisu Buddhist leaders from Moegok Township. It is based on the Burmese script. The seventh Lisu script was a Thai alphabet based script. In 1970s, there was a proposal for developing a Lisu script based on Thai but it was not successful (Bradley 2006: xxviii). Bradley (2006) also states that there was a proposal for Lisu script based on Thai script in 1970s but that it was not successful. Out of many reasons for this script was not successful, one could be many Christian Lisu who are literated in Fraser from Myanmar and some from China migrated into Thailand (Bradley 2006: xxviii). These newer migrants Lisu introduced the Fraser script to the Lisu of Thailand before the Thai based Lisu script is well developed and it may never have a chance to be well developed.

2.5 Sociolinguistics One of the major foci of this study is sociolinguistics. Wardhaugh (2005: 13) states that sociolinguistics is the study of the relationship between language and society with the purpose of considering the nature of languages and how they function. The following subsections provide sociolinguistic definitions and reviews of relevant literature.

2.5.1 Bilingualism Crystal (2003: 51) presents that bilingualism is the degree of proficiency that a person must achieve in order to speak a language that is not their mother tongue. This degree may sometimes be a comparable level to a native speaker or sometimes less or even the least competence of the second language. There are two kinds of bilingualism; the first one is additive or elite bilingualism, which is the situation where the majority learn the minority language (an example is that of English-speaking Canadians learning French). The second type is subtractive or folk bilingualism, where the second language replaces the first language (such as

29

minority ethnic groups learning the national language or a language of wider communication). The additive or elite bilingualism is not suitable to apply in this study since Lisu is a minority language. However, the subtractive or folk bilingualism is suitable to apply in this study. Since Lisu is a minority language, the bilingualism in this study will be discussing on Lisu speakers learning language(s) of wider communication with several levels of competence from basic to native ability. Regardless of the degree of competency, the community has different views of bilingual speakers. Wardhaugh (2006: 99) provides that people from western societies view bilingual people differently. They give prestige to those who could speak the classical languages: Greek or Latin. In contrast, they give little credit to people who speak languages such as Russian, Japanese, or Chinese. In the same way, the Lisu people gave less prestige to those who speak other minority languages while they give more prestige to those who speak in language(s) of wider communication such as Burmese, Chinese, Central Thai or English. Notions about prestige reveal language attitudes. It is interesting to raise a question like what makes a community or person bilingual. Blair (1990: 52-53) states that individuals or communities become bilingual because of community needs and pressures. These needs and pressures provide the motivation to learn the second language. However, motivation alone cannot make individuals or communities become bilingual unless they have contact with the second language. Therefore, motivation and contact are the most important factors that produce bilingualism. The degree of ‘motivation’ to acquire the second language and ‘contact’ with the second language are difficult to measure. Individuals or community contact with the second language may vary by factors such as age, sex, education, and occupation. The degree of contact with the second language may correlate with education, occupation, age, and sex. The community’s motivation to learn the second language is related to the domains in which the second language is used. The following subsection describes the correlation between age and bilingualism.

2.5.1.1 Bilingualism and age In any community, there might be a gap between the bilingual ability of the older generation and the younger generation. In other words, the age of individuals is correlated with their bilingual ability. Blair (1990: 54-56) says that the age of

30

individual may have a direct influence on how much a person is bilingual in the second language. He states that the correlation between age and bilingualism may manifest itself in three common ways: bilingualism decreases with age, bilingualism increases with age, and bilingualism peaks about middle age and falls. According to Blair, bilingualism may decrease with age when the younger generation of a certain community is more bilingual than the older generation. It is a universal view to see that the younger generation has higher education and more bilingual abilities than the older generation in most communities. Blair again explains that bilingualism increases with age when the older generation has better education and more contact with the language(s) of wider communication than the younger generation. This kind of bilingualism is unusual. However, we see as an example in Myanmar: the older generation speaks better English (learned through the British Colonial education) than the younger generation. The third case that Blair discussed is bilingualism peaking around middle age when there is more contact with the outsiders. Blair also states that their bilingual ability then decreases when they stop using the language. This is because the bilingual ability of certain person may peak when they use those languages, however once they stop or retire from their former jobs, they do not use the language much and their bilingual ability then decreases. The following subsection discusses the correlation between education and bilingualism.

2.5.1.2 Bilingualism and education Since bilingualism somehow means acquiring a language that is not the speaker’s mother tongue, it is also related to the language of instruction at school. Sometimes, the language of instruction may be the first language of the individuals or sometimes it may be the second language. The individuals may meet fewer barriers if the language of instruction is their first language. However, the individual may meet more barriers if the language of instruction is the second language. Blair (1990: 57-62) discussed three educational situations, which correlate with the bilingualism. In the first situation, the second language is both the language of wider communication and the language of education. In the second situation, the second language serves only as the language of wider communication and a third language serves as the language of education. In the third situation, the second language is the language of wider communication while the first language is used as the language of education.

31

Of these three situations, only the first and second situations are relevant for this study. The first situation is relevant in China and Myanmar where the national languages Chinese and Burmese respectively serve as both the language of wider communication and language of instruction. The second situation is relevant in Thailand because Northern Thai serves as the regional language while the Central Thai serves as the language of instruction.

2.5.2 Language use and language attitudes Both language use and language attitudes are important to maintain a language. If the use of a vernacular language is not important for the speech community, this language cannot be maintained. The use of the vernacular language depends on the attitudes of the speech community toward its own language. Blair (1990: 107-108) states that in a bilingual community, the study can focus on the relationship between the use of first and second language. The use of the first and second language is usually not equal in a speech community since people have to deal with different social situations. In other words, there might be some domains in which the speakers would use the first language and other domains where the speakers would use the second language. Blair (1990: 107-108) also says that people make choices for what speech varieties to use in particular domains such as family, friends, neighbors, school, work, government, and religions. Language attitudes are the attitudes that people have toward various speech varieties. These speech varieties may vary from mother tongue to language(s) to wider communication. Therefore, the language attitudes of individuals vary concerning the mother tongue, related dialects, and language(s) of wider communication. Language attitudes can be shown in the following figure (Blair 1990: 109).

Figure 8 The level of language attitudes (Blair 1990: 109)

According to Figure 8 language attitudes have different stages such as ‘strongly positive’, ‘positive’, ‘mildly positive’, ‘neutral’, ‘mildly negative’, ‘negative’, and

Strongly positive

Positive Mildly positive

Neutral Mildly negative

Negative Strongly negative

32

‘strongly negative’. The attitudes of the speakers of a particular speech variety have a direct effect on the preservation of that language. In other words, how people look upon their language is somehow related to the maintenance of their language. This means if the speakers of a certain language think their own language is less prestigious than others are, the maintenance of their particular language is not good. Fasold (1984: 34-60) states:

Language attitudes are the ways in which a person or community perceives the relevance and status of their language, often reflecting their attitudes about themselves relative to other groups. Language attitudes play a key role in language maintenance, shift, and death.

Based on the language attitudes of the speakers a language may shift or die. Blair also states that in addition to studying the attitudes of oral varieties, the attitudes towards different scripts are also important. The following subsection discusses the language vitality.

2.5.3 Language vitality Edwards (1985: 49) said that language vitality is the measurement of a languages ability to meet the needs of the community. When a language is used, it means it is satisfying the needs of the society. If the language of wider communication is used in the domains where once first language was used, the vitality of first language is weak. If the first language is used in the home and in-group communication, the vitality of this language is good and it will continue to exist. If the first language is not used at home and in-group communication, its vitality is weak. Edwards (1985: 49) states:

Languages do not live or die at all ... The fortunes of languages are bound up with those of its users, and if languages decline or ‘die’ it is simply because the circumstances of their speakers have altered.

The continued existence of a language is directly related to its usefulness in the community. If a language fails to fulfill the needs of the society, its vitality will decline.

33

2.6 Lexicostatistics Sanchez-Mazas (2008: 237) attributes the development of lexicostatistics to Constantine Samuel Rafinesque (1831), who devised lexical comparison to win a gold medal worth 1,000 francs in a competition held by Societe de Geographie (2010) in Paris to determine the origin of Asiatic languages. Moreover, according to McMahon (2005: 33), lexicostatistics has sometimes been considered to be synonymous with glottochronology, which seeks to determine the dates when languages separated. Campbell (2004: 201) states that some scholars make a distinction between the terms ‘glottochronology’ and ‘lexicostatistics,’ the former having the goal of assigning a date to the split of a language into daughter languages, and the latter the goal of statistical manipulation of lexical material for historical inferences. The following subsection gives the definitions and reviews of lexicostatistic studies.

2.6.1 Definitions and reviews of the lexicostatistics Swadesh (1952: 122-126) stated that lexicostatistics is an instrument for researching the prehistory of languages and a key to understanding language as a social phenomenon. The methodology of lexicostatistic dating uses a well-prepared wordlist. The lexical items of this wordlist must be universal, non-cultural, easily-identifiable concepts which can be matched with simple terms in most languages. Lexical items which tend to have negative features should not be included in the wordlist. Potentially duplicative items such as ‘wife-woman’, identical roots such as ‘this-that’, ‘who-what-when-how’, ‘I-we’, and ‘die-kill’, onomatopoetic words should not be included in the wordlist. The Swadesh 100-wordlist is presented in Table 16.

http://www.google.co.th/search?hl=en&tbs=bks:1&tbo=p&q=+inauthor:%22Alicia+Sanchez-Mazas%22&source=gbs_metadata_r&cad=7

34

Table 16 The Swadesh 100-wordlist

Bennett (1998: 34) states that lexicostatistics is helpful to judge the degree of linguistic relationship between languages based on the frequency of shared features. The source data to compare may include vocabulary, inflectional morphemes, syntactic patterns, and even cultural traits but the most common type is lexical items. The amount of lexical data is critical because too few items will not be representative, causing a false result. For example, the words ‘father’ and ‘mother’ in Chinese and Lisu is very similar. If the lexical comparison is based on only these two words, the result of lexical similarity between Chinese and Lisu will be 100%. This result is not representing for the whole Chinese and Lisu. However, too many lexical items will obscure the linguistic relationship because comparing too many lexical items may contain the loanwords, the uncommon words. The ideal quantity is between one hundred and five hundred lexical items. Polome (1990: 217) states:

Lexicostatistic techniques compare selected vocabulary of related or presumably related languages, and have been used to postulate relationships

1. I 21. dog 41. nose 61. die 81. smoke 2. you 22. louse 42. mouth 62. kill 82. fire 3. we 23. tree 43. tooth 63. swim 83. ash 4. this 24. seed 44. tongue 64. fly 84. burn 5. that 25. leaf 45. claw 65. walk 85. path 6. what 26. root 46. foot 66. come 86. mountain 7. who 27. bark 47. knee 67. lie 87. red 8. not 28. skin 48. hand 68. sit 88. green 9. all 29. flesh 49. belly 69. stand 89. yellow 10. many 30. blood 50. neck 70. give 90. white 11. one 31. bone 51. breast 71. say 91. black 12. two 32. egg 52. heart 72. sun 92. night 13. big 33. grease 53. liver 73. moon 93. hot 14. long 34. horn 54. drink 74. star 94. cold 15. small 35. tail 55. eat 75. water 95. full 16. woman 36. feather 56. bite 76. rain 96. good 17. man 37. hair 57. see 77. stone 97. new 18. person 38. head 58. hear 78. sand 98. round 19. fish 39. ear 59. know 79. earth 99. dry 20. bird 40. eye 60. sleep 80. cloud 100. name

35

among languages, to set up subgroupings among related languages, and to date the time of divergence of two or more related languages.

Mann (2004: 13) compares various wordlists: used by Jaxontov, Swadesh, and SIL MSEA. He ordered them according to lexical items found on the wordlists from the highest number to the lowest. The resultant wordlist is designed to guide researchers in selecting words for lexical comparison in Mainland Southeast Asia (see Appendix A). Brown (2008: 248) claims lexicostatistics is a method of counting the percentage of common roots between two languages by using basic words. The theory is that basic words are resistant to borrowing; therefore, the percentage will give an indication of how closely languages are related. Lexicostatistics gives an indication of the degree of lexical similarity between languages. The following sub-section presents some example of lexicostatistical studies in earlier works.

2.6.2 Examples of lexicostatistics in some earlier works There has been some research on lexicostatistics in Tibeto-Burman languages such as Khoi Lam Thang’s (2001) reconstruction of Proto-Chin, Ken Manson’s (2008) reconstructing of Proto-Karen, and Audra Phillips’s (2009) lexical comparison of Pwo Karen, and Peiros’s (1996) lexical comparison of Lolo-Burmese. In Peiros’s paper, he compared the Lolo-Burmese language tree of Bradley (1996) with the tree that resulted from his own lexical comparison. The Lolo-Burmese language tree of Bradley (1996) is shown in Figure 9.

36

Figure 9 Language tree of Lolo-Burmese (Bradley 1996)40

40 Peiros (1996) does not mention the page number. Bradley started this work in 1996 but it was

published in 1997.

Lolo-Burmese

Burmish

Loloish

Mru

Ugong

Burmese

Maru Burmish Atsi

Achang

Hpun

Nosu

Sani

Axi

Lisu

Lolopho

Lahu Jino

Akha Hani

Biyu

Mpi

Northern

Bisu Phunoi

Central

Southern

Akoid

Bi-Ka

Bisoid

37

The following figure provides the Lolo-Burmese language tree that Peiros constructs from his lexicostatistic comparison.

Figure 10 Language tree of Lolo-Burmese (Peiros 1996: 238)41

According to these two language trees of Lolo-Burmese language, Bradley includes Mru42 but excludes Naxi. Conversely, Peiros includes Naxi but excludes Mru. Bradley has Mru grouped at the top level under Lolo-Burmese. Below this is Loloish, Burmish, and Ugong. Burmish is divided into Burmese and a lower node is

41 Peiros marked ‘Proto-Lolo-Burmese’ as ‘?’. It could be this language needs further comments as he

mentioned in his paper. 42 Mru is spoken in Bangladesh, and Bradley regards Naxi as a remotely related language to Lolo-

Burmese languages.

Lolo

Burmese

Akha

Biyue

Mpi Jino

Nusu

Bisu

Xide

Dafang

Lahu Nanjiang

Lisu

Burmic Zaiwa

Achang

Naxi

?

38

inconveniently also name Burmish. In his Burmish branch, Burmese separates from other Burmish groups such as Maru, Atsi, Achang, and Hpun. In his Loloish branch, he has three branches: Northern, Central, and Southern branches. In the Northern Loloish branch, Nosu is on an independent branch while the Central and the Southern branches have several languages. Peiros’s language tree of Lolo-Burmese based on lexical comparison has two branches, Proto-Lolo-Burmese and Naxi. The branches, Burmic, Nusu, and Lolo are at the same level while Naxi is in a further branch. Peiros does not have further classification on Loloish branch as Bradley does. Since Bradley’s comparison has more detail, it is more suitable to apply in this thesis. Some other examples of lexicostatistical studies have done in Tai languages group. Apiradee studies the lexical relationships of Tai Nua in her thesis (2007: 68-87). For her comparison, she selected 100 words from the wordlists based on Mann (2004). She identified roots for the 100 lexical items by omitting presyllables, grammatical markers, and derivational or elaborative syllables (Apiradee 2007: 68). The results of her lexicostatistic in Tai Nua speech varieties are generally quite similar. The minimum lexical similarity is 77 percent that occurred between a very isolated site and the normal sites. The maximum is 96 percent and which occurred between two sites that are geographically very near (Apiradee 2007: 79). Owen does uses lexical comparison in his thesis (2008). His study focuses on the Khuen language of Shan State in Myanmar. He focused on finding the lexical similarity between nine Khuen dialects. He compared the words in two ways: first with 157 common words that are from all data sets and 100 highest-ranking words from Mann’s (2004) wordlist. The lexical similarity between Khuen dialects are generally high and the highest percentage is 100%.

39

Chapter 3 Methodology

The purpose of this thesis is to assess the need for language development among the Lisu people. The sociolinguistic study covers language vitality, language attitudes, and language use to help the Lisu people understand their current language situation. By examining the potential for vernacular language development, this study also aims to enable the Lisu people to participate in the language development effort. Additional reading materials for the Lisu in China, Myanmar, and Thailand could help to protect Lisu from further language shift. This chapter describes the methods and procedures used in this study. Since this study has two major parts, lexicostatistics and sociolinguistics, different methods are used for these parts. These include the selected lexical items used for the lexicostatistic study and the sociolinguistic questionnaires (the Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire, the Group Sociolinguistic Questionnaire, and the Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire) used for the sociolinguistic study.

3.1 Research locations One of the major foci in this study is to assess the sociolinguistic situation between central (urban) and peripheral (rural) sites. Therefore, out of twelve researched sites, six sites are in central areas and the other six are in peripheral areas. The central sites are expected to have more contact with the language of wider communication (LWC) and the regional languages than the peripheral sites. Because of this, peripheral sites are expected to maintain stronger mother tongue use. This thesis will focus on three Lisu dialects: Central, Northern, and Southern Lisu. Four sites for each Lisu dialect are chosen for the survey. Of the 4 Northern Lisu sites, 2 are in China while the other 2 are in Myanmar. Of the 4 Central Lisu sites, 2 are in China while the other 2 are in Myanmar. Of the 4 Southern Lisu sites, 2 are in Myanmar, and the other 2 are in Thailand. Thus, a total of 12 sites were visited for this study. Table 17 shows the number of sites by country and dialect visited for this study.

40

Table 17 Numbers of sites visited in three countries

Lisu dialects/sites China Myanmar Thailand Northern Lisu 2 2 - Central Lisu 2 2 - Southern Lisu - 2 2 Total 12 The names of the sites where the survey took place are listed in this section. There are four sites in China, six sites in Myanmar, and two sites in Thailand. The four survey sites in China are:

1. Yikuaibi village (YKB), San Pha Township, Fugong district, Yunnan province. 2. La Ba Shan village (LBS), Zou Wo Hua village group, Wei Xi township, Ti Chi

district, Yunnan province. 3. Shi Tong Hor village (STH), Huan Liang Hor village group, Ping Da sub-

township, Long Ling Township, Bao Shan district, Yunnan province. 4. Muchunpo village (MCP), Lu Xi Township, Te Hong district, Yunnan

province.

The six survey sites in Myanmar are:

1. Mankhring village (MKH), Mankhring Quarter, Myitkyina Township, Kachin State.

2. Dawobya village (DWB), Dawobya village group, Lwegel sub-township, Kachin State.

3. Hokho quarter (HKH), Putao Township, Putao district, Kachin State. 4. Mulashide village (MLSD), Mulashide village group, Putao Township, Putao

district, Kachin State. 5. Thiwangmie (TWM), Bor Pi village group, Nyaung Shwe Township, Shan

State. 6. Khitsagoat quarter (KSG), Shaw Li Wai village group, Moegok Township,

Mandalay Division.

41

The two survey sites in Thailand are:

1. Hongkhong (MKT43), Moo. 6, To Kha Puang sub-district, Chiang Dao district, Chiang Mai province.

2. Sidonyang (SDY), Ban Chang sub-district, Mae Taeng district, Chiang Mai province.

Table 18 shows central and peripheral sites by country and dialects. Table 18 Central and peripheral sites

Country Central site Peripheral site Dialect China YKB LBS N.LS China STH MCP C.LS Myanmar HKH MLSD N.LS Myanmar MKH DWB C.LS Myanmar KSG TWM S.LS Thailand SDY MKT S.LS The central and peripheral sites in Table 18 are intentionally chosen. The central sites are easy to access while the peripheral sites are not. In other words, central sites are more urban while the peripheral sites are more rural. The survey fieldwork was done in six central sites and six peripheral sites. Since the central sites are more urban than the peripheral sites, bilingual ability and language contact of these sites is expected to be higher than the peripheral sites. In the peripheral sites, the language use and language vitality of Lisu is expected to be higher than the central sites with less contact and lower ability in the LWC. Figure 13 shows the geographical locations of the sites where the survey fieldwork was conducted.

43 Lisu called this site ‘Mokhoto’.

42

Figure 11 Map showing survey sites44

3.2 Wordlist collection and procedures This section describes how the subjects45 were chosen and the wordlists elicited. The SIL MSEA (Mainland South East Asia) 436 wordlist was used for this study. A subset of the words from the wordlist are used for determining the lexical relationship

44 Two sites, Mulashide (MLSD) and Hokho (HKH) are in Putao township. 45 Language resource persons.

43

between the Lisu dialects. The wordlist is translated into three national languages Chinese, Burmese, and Central Thai for use in three countries China, Myanmar, and Thailand (See Appendix A). Chinese was used while eliciting the wordlist in China, Burmese in Myanmar, and Central Thai in Thailand. The subjects were about 45 years old and male. They must have been born and lived in the same site where the survey took place, and have never lived outside of their area for more than one year. They must have no speech difficulties. They must be respected members of the community, who were not too busy and who were willing to help with the wordlist. Twelve subjects helped with the wordlist in this study. They represent each of the 12 sites where the fieldwork was conducted. While the words were being collected, some native speakers of the language community were allowed to sit together and help to think of the words being elicited. If the subjects said clearly that they did not have the word, the surveyor skipped those words. For example, the Lisu language does not have native words for ‘house lizard’, ‘crocodile’, and ‘coconut’. The surveyor transcribed all the words in International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) along with their meanings while the subjects were also asked to write the words in Lisu. Therefore, the person whom the wordlist was elicited from could read the words during the audio recording session. If they could not write in Lisu, they can read the elicited words on the researcher’s sheet of wordlist that is in one of the four LWCs: English, Chinese, Burmese, or Thai. The vocabulary was recorded from the same subject from whom the words were elicited. Each word was repeated three times for the audio recording, and the vocabulary was recorded periodically, in groups of fifty words. After the data is collected and checked, the wordlists will be compared using a modified Blair-type method as described in Section 5.1. The resulting cognate counts will be used to determine if the varieties are so different lexically that intelligibility will be marginal. The criteria to evaluate this is whether the cognate count is below 70%.

3.3 Sociolinguistic questionnaires For the sociolinguistic part of this thesis, three questionnaires were used for the survey: the Knowledgeable Insider Sociolinguistic Questionnaire (KISQ), Group Sociolinguistic Questionnaire (GSQ), and the Individual Sociolinguistic

44

Questionnaire (ISLQ). The Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire was used to elicit background information on the selected site from village leaders. Knowledgeable insiders included village chiefs, assistant of the village chiefs (if the village chief was not available), or the ex-village chiefs (if the current village chief was not available). The Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire was elicited at the selected site. It is designed to enable the surveyor to determine the population, the language groups, and what types of basic media are available. Sometimes the data from the village leaders may differ from the perspective of others in the group. Therefore, the Group Sociolinguistic Questionnaire is also needed. The Group Sociolinguistic Questionnaire is used for eliciting information from a group of people at the selected site. Normally, respected members of the community are chosen for the group interview. A minimum of at least four persons, and a maximum of five, including both genders, are included in the group. Biographical data was collected each group member before the questions were asked. When asking questions, the answers which represented the whole group were taken down first, and then individual answers were also noted. Since one of the purposes of the Group Questionnaire is to find out the attitudes of the people from the selected site toward other dialects, it is mainly focused on the answers from those who have travelled to areas where other Lisu dialects are spoken. The survey also collected information from individuals, as well as the group, using an individual interview during the survey. The Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire was used for asking the view of various individuals at the selected site. Table 19 gives the criteria of used for choosing the individual subjects. Table 19 Age and gender criteria for choosing the individual interview subjects at each site

Individual Interviews Men Women

Age 15-34 3 3 Age 35+ 3 3 Subtotal 6 6 Total 12 According to Table 19, the individual subjects can be divided into two age groups: the 15-34 year old group and 35+ year old group. For each group, three subjects of

45

each gender were interviewed, for six subjects (3 male and 3 female) in each age group. The total number of subjects for the Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire at each site was 12. The subject must be someone who lived for a significant amount of time at the selected site, speak Lisu as his or her first language, and must have at least one Lisu parent. The following sub-sections present the content, administration, and limitation of the questionnaires. An additional section also provides the sources of the data for both the wordlists and questionnaires.

3.3.1 Questionnaire content The Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire is divided into sections as shown in Table 20. Table 20 Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire content

Question Numbers Content 1-19 biographical information of the subjects 20-22 village name and population 23 migration 24-29 language and ethnic groups 30 intermarriage 31-35 education and literacy rates 36 background information 37-44 media 45-51 interviewer observations The following table shows the sections of the Group Sociolinguistic Questionnaire. Table 21 Group Sociolinguistic Questionnaire content

Question Numbers Content 1-21 biographical information of the subjects 22-25 bilingualism 26-30 language vitality 31-34 orthography and literacy 35-36 media 37-46 dialect perceptions of the Lisu dialects 47-53 interviewer observations

46

The following table shows the content of the Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaires. Table 22 Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire content

Question Numbers Content 1-24 biographical information of the subjects 25-26 domains of language use 27-31 domains of language use for Christians 32-34 language attitudes 35-39 language use of children 40-46 bilingual proficiency evaluation 47-49 contacts or travel patterns 50-52 reported comprehension of Lisu 53-55 dialect attitudes 56-58 literacy 59-63 media 64-68 orthography and literature 69-76 interviewer observations

47

3.3.2 Questionnaire mapping procedure The following table shows the mapping procedure of sociolinguistic questionnaires.

Table 23 Research goals, questions, concepts, and indicators

Goal Research Question Concept Indicator Assess the need for vernacular literature development among the Lisu people.

1.1 Do Lisu speakers master the LWC adequately?

Bilingual Proficiency KSLQ 26-27; GSLQ 24-25; ISLQ 40-46, 56

Domains of Language Use ISLQ 25-26, 28-31

Background Information – Subject Demographics KSLQ 1-19; GSLQ 21; ISLQ 1, 3, 7, 9, 24

Background Information – Languages and Ethnic Groups

GSLQ 22, 23

1.2 What are the attitudes of Lisu speakers toward the LWC (positive, neutral, negative)?

Ethno linguistic Identity (Primary attitude) ISLQ 32, 33

Language Attitudes (secondary attitude) KSLQ 30

1.3 Do Lisu speakers adequately comprehend Lisu?

Dialect Perceptions GLSQ 37-43 Comprehension KSLQ 28-29; ISLQ 50-55

47

48

48

48

Goal Research Question Concept Indicator 1.4 What are the attitudes of Lisu speakers toward a certain Lisu variety (positive, neutral, negative)?

Dialect Attitudes ISLQ 53-55

1.5 What are the attitudes of Lisu speakers towards Lisu scripts currently in use?

Current use (Fraser, modified Fraser, Burmese, Pinyin (Romanized Chinese)

GSLQ 33-34; ISLQ 67

Preference/Interest ISLQ 68 1.6 Does it appear likely that variety/language Lisu will continue to be spoken by future generations?

Proficiency of children in Lisu language GSLQ 26-27, 30; ISLQ 35-39 Domains of Language Use GSLQ 29; ISLQ 25-26, 28-31, 35

Language Attitudes KSLQ 30; GSLQ 28, 30; ISLQ 34 Ethnolinguistic Identity KSLQ 30 Ethnolinguistic make-up of villages KSLQ 24-25; GSLQ 22-23 Reported language shift KSLQ 29 Motivation ISLQ 58

1.7 What modes of media do Lisu people currently use?

Print ISLQ 59-60, 64

Audio KSLQ 38-39; ISLQ 61-62

Audio-Visual KSLQ 40-44; GSLQ 35-36; ISLQ 63

1.8 What is the potential for Lisu mother-tongue literacy development to be successful?

Current literacy KSLQ 35; ISLQ 57

Motivation GSLQ 31-32; ISLQ 58, 65-66

49

In Table 23, the Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire numbers 25-26 and 28-31 were used in research questions number 1.1 and 1.6 because both questions are asking about domains of language use. The Knowledgeable Insider Sociolinguistic Questionnaire number 30 was used in both concepts ‘language attitudes’ and ‘ethno-linguistic identity’ of research question number 1.6. Since this question is asking about mixed marriages and what ethnicities the Lisu people marry, it is related to both concepts, ‘language attitudes’ and ‘ethno-linguistic identity’. The Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire number 58 is used in both research questions number 1.6 and 1.8. The Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire number 58 is asking the benefits of being able to read and write in Lisu, it is related both to research questions asking about the future of the Lisu language and about the potential development of mother tongue literacy.

3.3.3 Limitations of the questionnaires The sociolinguistic questionnaires which were used in this study do have some limitations. The answers which have significant results are merely used in this thesis while some answers which do not contribute significant results are neglected. One of these is that some subjects had problems understanding the terms [lo³³ wu⁵⁵] ‘Northern Lisu’, [ʃa³³ ʃa³³] ‘Central Lisu’, and [lo³⁵ ʃy³³] ‘Southern Lisu’ when asked about their attitudes toward other Lisu dialects. These words seemed too technical and not so familiar to the local people. Therefore, the places (provinces, towns, and villages) among the three Lisu dialects were used instead of the dialect names. For example, instead of asking whether they have been to a Central Lisu place or not, it is better to ask them whether they have been to Mankhring village in Myitkyina or other Central Lisu places. For the Northern Lisu speaking area, it is better to ask them whether they have been to Putao or not or other well-known Northern Lisu speaking places. In the same way, it is better to ask them whether they have been to the southern Shan State Namsan46 or other places for Southern Lisu speaking places. The other limitation is that most of the subjects did not know how to answer the question ‘What kinds of books do you think Lisu people would be interested in having in Lisu?’ Most of the subjects could not answer this question unless the interviewer gave them suggestions, such as historical, poetic, and agricultural.

46 There is also a town named ‘Namsan’ in northern Shan State.

50

The method for analyzing the answers follows that outlined by Nahhas (2007: 99). The subject could be counted 0.5 or 1.5 subjects. For example, when asked the question ‘What language of Bible is used most often in your church service?’ the subjects may answer ‘Lisu’ or ‘Lisu and Burmese’. For the answer ‘Lisu’, it is simple to say that the number who answered Lisu is ‘1’. However, for the answer ‘Lisu and Burmese’, the subject for answering ‘Lisu’ is counted 0.5 while the other 0.5 is counted for ‘Burmese’. Similar situation can see when asked the question such as ‘Is it common for Lisu people from this village to marry non-Lisu people?’ One subject may answered ‘yes’ and the other subject ‘yes and no’ based on their own perspective. For the answer of first subject ‘yes’, it is counted ‘1’. However, for the answer of second subject ‘yes and no’, ‘yes’ is counted 0.5 as well as ‘no’. The number of sites visited were different from country to country. Four sites are visited in China, six sites in Myanmar, and two sites in Thailand. When analyzing responses by country, percentages are used so that comparisons can be made.

3.3.4 Data sources In this study, it was necessary to interview four types of subjects. The first was the subject for the wordlist, the second was the knowledgeable insider or village leader, the third was a group of respected people from the site, and the fourth was the individual subjects. One subject from each site was chosen for the wordlist47. One leader from each site was interviewed for the Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire. For the Group Sociolinguistic Questionnaire, four to five interview subjects were required. Finally, six subjects of each gender were interviewed. Among these 12 individual subjects, six subjects (three each from both genders) were 15-34 years old and the other six subjects (three each from both genders) were over 34 years old. In other sociolinguistic surveys, the age groups might be divided into three but in this thesis, only two age groups of subjects were interviewed. The following figure shows the numbers of the subjects interviewed for this study.

47 For wordlist elicitation, there were at least three to four people who sat together to help think of

vocabulary for the items being elicited. Recording, however, took place with only one main subject, who was chosen according to the criteria of the language resource person for the wordlist.

51

Table 24 Numbers of subjects interviewed

Sites Subjects for Wordlist

KISQ48 GSQ49 ISQ50

(15-34) (35+) male female male female

YKB 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 LBS 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 HKH 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 MLSD 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 STH 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 MCP 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 MKH 1 1 4 3 3 3 3 DWB 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 KSG 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 TWM 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 SDY 1 1 4 3 3 3 3 MKT 1 1 5 3 3 3 3

Total 12 12 58 36 36 36 36

226 According to Table 24, each site has 19 subjects except Mankhring (MKH) in Myanmar and Sidonyang (SDY) in Thailand, for which there were only four subjects each for the Group Sociolinguistic Questionnaire. The total number of the subjects who provided data for the survey was 226.

48 Knowledgeable Insider Sociolinguistic Questionnaire 49 Group Sociolinguistic Questionnaire 50 Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire

52

Chapter 4 Lisu sociolinguistic situation

According to Bradley (2006: xv), Lisu is spoken by close to a million speakers. About 35 percent of Lisu speak Northern Lisu, 45 percent speak Central Lisu, 15 percent of Lisu speak Southern Lisu, and 5 percent speak Eastern Lisu51. All of the Eastern Lisu is in China and all of the Southern Lisu is in Myanmar and Thailand. All of the Lisu dialects except Eastern Lisu are found in Myanmar and Thailand while the Northern Lisu are in China, Myanmar, India, and have recently arrived in Thailand. The Central Lisu are spread widely in western Yunnan and northeast Myanmar, and have recently arrived in Thailand. In the 1920s, Christian evangelism brought Central Lisu speakers into contact with Northern Lisu speakers. In the 1970s, the migration of the Northern and Central Lisu to Thailand brought about greater contact with the Southern Lisu in Thailand. Before these events, intelligibility among the Lisu dialects was quite limited (Bradley 2006: xv). Around the 1950s, the Lisu from southwestern Yunnan of China and the Kengtung area of eastern Myanmar had contact with Nationalist Chinese52. Some Southern Lisu women married retired Chinese soldiers and some Southern Lisu men served in the Chinese armies. Thus, half of the Lisu in Thailand have Chinese surnames and some of them can trace their Chinese ancestors a few generations. As a result, Southern Lisu has a greater number of Yunnanese Chinese loanwords than Central or Northern Lisu (Bradley 2006: xvii). Bradley (1994: vii) said “The Southern dialect of Lisu is not entirely typical of Lisu because it has a reduced final particle system and is inundated with Chinese loans.” The Southern Lisu dialect is less similar with Northern and Central Lisu dialects. This chapter will describe the sociolinguistic findings of three Lisu dialects in China, Myanmar, and Thailand. The following section will present language use and bilingual proficiency.

51 The current study focuses on the major Lisu dialect groups of Northern, Central, and Southern and

therefore does not include Eastern Lisu. 52 The members of ‘National People’s Party’ (Kuomintang).

53

4.1 Language use and bilingual proficiency In this section, the use of the language of wider communication is presented comparing data from the three countries: China, Myanmar, Thailand, and the three major Lisu dialects: Northern Lisu, Central Lisu, and Southern Lisu. Bilingual proficiency is studied by asking the abilities of the subjects. The following sections will describe the findings regarding the use of language of wider communication, bilingual proficiency, and the domains of language use.

4.1.1 Use of languages of wider communication In this study, the languages of wider communication (LWC) refers to the national languages: Chinese, Burmese, and Central Thai, as well as regional languages such as Jingphaw, Pa O, and Northern Thai. The Lisu from China use Chinese as the language of wider communication, the Lisu from Myanmar use Burmese, Jingphaw, and Pa O, and the Lisu from Thailand use Central Thai and Northern Thai. All the subjects from China, Myanmar, and Thailand reported that their first language is Lisu. For the second best language, 60% of the subjects from Myanmar reported that it was Burmese, 25% Jingphaw, 9% Rawang, 4% Pa O, and 2% Lisu53. Since Burmese is the national language of Myanmar, it is expected to be the highest percentage. As the Lisu have a long history of living with the Jingphaw and most speakers of these two languages share the same religion, Christianity, they have had intimate contact with each other over the years. Moreover, since Jingphaw is the major regional language in Kachin state and some parts of Shan state in Myanmar, it is reported as the second most common LWC after the national language, Burmese. Of the subjects from China, 100% reported Chinese as the second best language. The majority of Lisu speakers from sites where the survey took place in China could not speak other languages (such as regional languages) except Chinese. Therefore, they reported the national language, Chinese, in the highest percentage as their second best language.

The subjects from Thailand reported that they speak Northern Thai (35%), Central Thai (28%), Lahu (25%), Chinese (6%), Akha (3%), and Shan (3%) as their second best languages. Since the sites where the survey took place are in Northern Thailand, Lisu speakers reported the use of Northern Thai most frequently, then the national language, Central Thai, and other regional languages least. Central Thai seems to be

53 These subjects reported that their first language is LWC and Lisu is second best language.

54

spoken only by well educated subjects (mostly of the younger generation) while Northern Thai is spoken by almost everybody.

Most of the groups (8 out of 12) mentioned that the younger generation could speak the language of wider communication well in their villages. It is true that the younger generation has more access to education. Access to education gives the younger generation more contact with people speaking the LWC than the older generation. In addition, all of the groups (12) mentioned that students, traders, laborers, village leaders, and the educated could speak the language of wider communication well in their villages. In some cases, the answers were not consistent, while almost all of the groups said the older generation cannot speak the LWC well, however one group said the older generation can speak the LWC well. In general, the older generation is lacking formal education and has less exposure to the LWC than the younger generation. Therefore, almost every group interviewed mentioned the older generation cannot speak the language of wider communication very well.

4.1.2 Bilingual proficiency Blair (1990: 52) states that bilingualism is skill in using more than one language. It is the capability of a speaker to control two or more languages in several domains. This survey indirectly assesses bilingualism by self-reported proficiency in the LWC. The language of wider communication varies according to the country where the survey took place. The language of wider communication for the Myanmar sites is Burmese, for China it is Chinese, and for Thailand, Central Thai. The ability to give directions, tell about family members, hire workers, repeat what they heard, speak like a native speaker and think like a native speaker is assessed with the Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire questions number 41 through 46 (See Appendix B). Table 25 shows self-reported LWC proficiency for the tasks listed above. Table 25 Bilingual proficiency in specific tasks

Tasks Sites directions family hiring repeating native thinking

central sites 98% 92% 89% 85% 26% 24% peripheral sites 74% 72% 67% 58% 21% 20% According to Table 25, the subjects from central sites reported higher bilingual proficiency than peripheral sites. This appears to correlate with education since

55

when the subjects were asked the question ‘About how many grades do most children from this village complete?’, the subjects from central sites said children from their villages complete high school and one subject mentioned various levels while the subjects from peripheral sites mentioned middle school. The following table shows self-reported basic bilingual ability of the subjects analyzed by Lisu dialect. Table 26 Bilingual proficiency by dialects

Tasks Dialects directions family hiring repeating native thinking

Northern Lisu 69% 73% 60% 60% 17% 17% Central Lisu 92% 88% 90% 77% 23% 25% Southern Lisu 83% 85% 83% 77% 33% 21% Based on Table 26, subjects from the Central Lisu dialect reported higher or equal bilingual proficiency than Southern Lisu and Northern Lisu in the specified tasks. For thinking in the LWC as well as native speakers, Southern Lisu speakers reported 33%, but Central and Northern Lisu dialects reported 23% and 17% respectively. Southern Lisu speakers from Moegok area and Thailand reported high fluency in the language of wider communication. Therefore, their percentage of being able to speak as well as native speakers is higher than other sites. For thinking more easily in the language of wider communication than in Lisu, Central Lisu speakers reported 25% while Southern and Northern Lisu speakers reported 21% and 17%, respectively. Subjects from the Central Lisu dialect reported higher bilingual proficiency compared to Southern and Northern Lisu subjects except in repeating, where speakers of both Central and Southern reported 77% in the ability to speak the language of wider communication as well as native speakers. The subjects from Northern Lisu dialect reported lowest bilingual proficiency in all abilities. This correlated with Lisu being one of the languages of wider communication in the Northern Lisu speaking areas regardless of countries. This information will be discussed more in the following section of bilingual proficiency analyzed by country. The following table shows self-reported bilingual proficiency of the subjects, analyzed by country.

56

Table 27 Bilingual proficiency in the national languages by country

Tasks Countries directions family hiring repeating native thinking

China 73% 79% 71% 63% 19% 8% Myanmar 86% 83% 82% 76% 22% 26% Thailand54 83% 83% 79% 75% 38% 33% According to Table 27, the subjects from Myanmar reported higher or equal bilingual proficiency than from Thailand and China in the abilities of tasks. Bilingual proficiency in the LWC for Myanmar, China, and Thailand was generally high except when compared to native speakers and in thinking in the language of wider communication. Moreover, the data is uniform while it is analyzing according to central or peripheral sites, dialects, and by country. Higher bilingual proficiency tends to occur in central sites compared to peripheral sites, with some exceptions. Central Lisu speakers tend to have higher bilingual proficiency than Southern and Northern Lisu speakers while the Northern Lisu speakers tend to have the lowest bilingual proficiency. Based on author’s observations, most Central Lisu sites are in the areas where has more language diversity. It is particularly true in Myanmar because more languages are found in the Central Lisu sites, Mankhring and Dawobya than the Northern Lisu sites, Hokho and Mulashide. Moreover, though Hokho is a central site of the Northern Lisu speakers in Myanmar, the language use of Lisu is quite strong because the author was able to buy things at the market using the Northern Lisu. Lisu is one of the languages of wider communication in the Northern Lisu sites in Myanmar. Although Yikuaibi (YKB) is the central site of the Northern Lisu in China, Lisu is one of the languages of wider communication in this site. On the other hand, the Central Lisu sites, Shitonghor (STH) and Muchunpo (MCP) are located in the areas where Lisu is not spoken as one of the languages of wider communication. Lisu use is still strong in most of the Southern Lisu sites though it is not one of the languages of wider communication. Therefore, the bilingual proficiency of the Central Lisu speakers is higher than Northern Lisu and Southern Lisu while the Northern Lisu speakers appear as the lowest.

54 Note that Central Thai was used in this comparison for consistency with other National languages,

although reported proficiency in Northern Thai was higher among the Lisu in Thailand.

57

Myanmar tends to have the highest bilingual proficiency, followed by Thailand, and China has the lowest. Some sites where the survey has taken place in Myanmar are more urban than the sites from China and Thailand. Moreover, the Lisu is not one of the languages of wider communication in the sites of Myanmar (except in Putao township) as in the sites of China. On the other hand, the population of Lisu is small compared with the numbers of speakers of regional or national languages. Therefore, the Lisu speakers from Myanmar have more contact with the speakers of language of wider communication and their bilingual proficiency is higher than Lisu speakers of China and Thailand are.

4.1.3 Domains of language use This section presents language use in different domains, including home, outside the home, and church. All of these domains are also analyzed by countries: China, Myanmar, and Thailand. The following sub-section describes language use in the home domain.

4.1.3.1 Language use in the home domain Out of 144 subjects in the home domain, Lisu subjects reported they use Lisu (99%), with grandchildren (98.3%), with parents (98.3%), with grandparents (98%), with siblings (95%), with spouses (93.4%), and with Lisu friends (91.2%). Aside from Lisu, they also reported using national languages such as Burmese and Chinese or regional languages such as Northern Thai, Jingphaw, Pa O, Shan, Lahu, Rawang, English, Karen and Akha when they speak with non-Lisu friends. With non-Lisu friends, the subjects reported limited use of Lisu (15%). The use of national and regional languages in the home domain with non-Lisu friends will be discussed further when the data is analyzed according to country. In conclusion, Lisu is used the most in the home domain, although the national languages Burmese and Chinese are also used here. Some subjects speak Chinese, Burmese, Central Thai, Northern Thai, Akha and Rawang because their spouses or one of their parents speaks one of these languages.

4.1.3.2 Language use in the home domain in China, Myanmar, and Thailand The following table shows Lisu use in the home domains by country.

58

Table 28 Language use in the home domains by country Countries Domains

China Myanmar Thailand

Lisu Chinese Total Lisu Burmese Other Total Lisu Central Thai

Northern Thai Other Total

Home 48

(100%) - 48

(100%) 72

(100%) - - 72

(100%) 22

(92%) 1

(4%) 1

(4%) - 24

(100%)

Grandparents 45 (98%)

1 (2%)

46 (100%)

59 (98%) - 1

(2%) 60

(100%) 18.5

(97%) - 0.5 (3%) - 19

(100%)

Parents 48

(100%) - 48

(100%) 71

(99%) 1

(1%) - 72

(100%) 22.7

(95%) 0.3

(1%) 0.3

(1%) 0.7

(3%) 24

(100%)

Grandchildren 8 (100%) - 8

(100%) 15.5

(97%) - 0.5 (3%)

16 (100%)

8 (100%) - - - 8

(100%)

Siblings 47.5

(99%) 0.5

(1%) 48

(100%) 68

(94%) 4

(6%) - 72

(100%) 20.6

(86%) 0.5

(2%) 2.2

(9%) 0.7

(3%) 24

(100%)

Spouses 42 (98%)

1 (2%)

43 (100%)

47 (93%)

3 (7%) - 50

(100%) 20.3

(85%) 1.2

(5%) 1.7

(7%) 0.8

(3%) 24

(100%)

Children 37

(93%) 3

(7%) 40

(100%) 36.5

(91%) 3.5

(9%) - 40

(100%) 20

(87%) 1

(4%) 2

(9%) - 23

(100%)

Lisu friends 46 (98%)

1 (2%)

47 (100%)

57 (80%)

10.5 (15%)

3.5 (5%)

71 (100%)

18 (75%)

2 (8%)

3 (13%)

1 (4%)

24 (100%)

Non-Lisu friends 15

(35%) 28

(65%) 43

(100%) 3

(4%) 48

(69%) 19

(27%) 70

(100%) 1.5

(6%) 2.3

(10%) 13.8

(58%) 6.4

(26%) 24

(100%)

58

59

According to Table 28 Chinese is reported to be used rarely with Lisu speakers but with non-Lisu friends (65%). Although there is some use of Chinese with children (7%), the use of Chinese in other domains is rare (below 5%). In Myanmar, the national language, Burmese, is reported to be used somewhat with siblings (6%), with spouses (7%), with children (9%), and with Lisu friends (15%). Burmese use is reported to be strong with non-Lisu friends (69%) but is weak with parents below (5%). Other languages used with non-Lisu friends include Jingphaw (13.5% ) and Pa O (7%). In other domains such as with grandparents, with grandchildren, with friends, and with non-Lisu friends, the regional languages use is weak (below 5%), these languages included Jingphaw, Pa O, Rawang, Shan, and Chinese. In Thailand, the national language, Central Thai, is reported to be used somewhat: with non-Lisu friends (10%), with Lisu friends (8%), and with spouses (5%). In other domains, Central Thai use is weak (below 5%). For regional and miscellaneous languages, Northern Thai is reported to be used with non-Lisu friends (58%), with Lisu friends (13%), with siblings (9%), with children (9%), and with spouses (7%). Other languages are reported to be used with non-Lisu friends include Chinese (8.7%), Shan (7.5%), and Lahu (6.3%). In other domains, the regional and miscellaneous languages use is weak (below 5%). Lisu use is strongest in China, followed by Myanmar and then Thailand. The only exceptions are where the use is reported to be equal in the home domain in China and Myanmar (100%) and with grandchildren in China and Thailand (100%), while the use in Myanmar is reported to be lower (97%). In addition, with non-Lisu friends the subjects from Myanmar reported lower usage (4%) than those from Thailand (6%). It should be noted that reported Lisu use in home domains appears strong for the three countries, except with non-Lisu friends. The following sub-section presents language use outside the home domain.

60

4.1.3.3 Language use outside the home domain Outside the home, Lisu is reported to be strongly used in several domains, including with Lisu co-workers (96%), with Lisu friends at the market (94%), with Lisu friends (92%) (everywhere at outside of home), at funerals (89%), and at village meetings (84%). However, Lisu use was reported to be less strong in the domains of dealing with government workers (19%), with non-Lisu co-workers (11%), with non-Lisu friends (10%) and with non-Lisu friends at the market (8%). Where Lisu is not used, the author expected national languages such as Burmese, Chinese, and Central Thai to be used, but only Burmese and Chinese appear to have strong use in some domains. For Burmese, these domains include use with government workers (43%), with non-Lisu friends at the market (40%), with non-Lisu friends (40%) and with non-Lisu co-workers (37%). Burmese is also used in funeral and village meetings. Chinese is reported to be used with non-Lisu friends at the market (31%), with non-Lisu co-workers (28%), with non-Lisu friends (27%), and with government workers (22.2%). In other domains, Burmese and Chinese appear weak (below 5%) and the use of Central Thai appears to be weak in all domains. For regional and miscellaneous languages, use of Northern Thai is appreciable with non-Lisu friends at the market (13.4%), with non-Lisu workers (11%), with government workers (10%), and with non-Lisu friends (10%). Jingphaw use appears appreciable with non-Lisu friends (6%). Use of other languages appears weak (below 5%). The following section presents the language use in the home domain analyzed according to country.

4.1.3.4 Language use outside the home domain in China, Myanmar, and Thailand Table 29 shows language use of the subjects outside the home domains by country.

61

Table 29 Language use outside the home domains by country Countries Domains


Lisu Chinese Total Lisu Burmese Other Total Lisu Central Thai

Northern Thai Other Total

Lisu co-workers 47.5

(99%) 0.5

(1%) 48

(100%) 66.5

(95%) 3

(4.3%) 0.5

(0.7%) 70

(100%) 22

(92%) - 2

(8%) - 24

(100%)

Lisu friends 46.5 (97%)

1.5 (3%)

48 (100%)

65 (90%)

6 (8%)

1 (2%)

72 (100%)

20 (83%)

1 (4%)

3 (13%) - 24

(100%) At market with Lisu friends

46 (96%)

2 (4%)

48 (100%)

68 (94%)

3 (4%)

1 (2%)

72 (100%)

21 (88%)

1 (4%)

1.5 (6%)

0.5 (2%)

24 (100%)

At funerals 43.5 (90.6%)

4.5 (9.4%)

48 (100%)

62 (88.5%)

8 (11.5%) - 70

(100%) 21

(88%) 1

(4%) 1.7

(7%) 0.3

(1%) 24

(100%) At meeting 40

(87%) 6

(13%) 46

(100%) 52.8

(80%) 11.8

(18%) 1.4

(2%) 66

(100%) 20

(87%) 0.5

(2%) 2.5

(11%) - 23

(100%)

Government workers 17.5 (38%)

28.5 (62%)

46 (100%)

6 (9%)

55 (86%)

3 (5%)

64 (100%)

1 (5%)

5 (25%)

12.6 (63%)

1.4 (7%)

20 (100%)

Non-Lisu co-worker 11.5

(27%) 31.5

(73%) 43

(100%) 2

(3%) 47.5

(72%) 16.5

(25%) 66

(100%) -

3 (14%)

14 (67%)

4 (19%)

21 (100%)

Non-Lisu friends 11 (25.5%)

32 (74.5%)

43 (100%)

2 (3%)

51 (75%)

15 (22%)

68 (100%)

- 3.8 (19%)

12.8 (64%)

3.4 (17%)

20 (100%)

At market with non-Lisu friends

9 (22%)

32 (78%)

41 (100%) -

53 (77%)

16 (23%)

69 (100%)

1 (4%)

3 (14%)

17.5 (80%)

0.5 (2%)

22 (100%)

61

62

In Table 29, comparing the reported use of Lisu outside the home domain by country, Lisu use is strongest in China, followed by Myanmar and then by Thailand. The only exceptions are where the use is reported to be equal in the meeting domain in China and Thailand (87%) while the use in Myanmar is reported to be lower (80%). In addition, with non-Lisu friends at the market the Lisu use of the subjects from Myanmar (0%) is lower than that of the subjects from Thailand (4%). For other languages, the subjects from Myanmar reported Jingphaw (32.9% in all domains except for at funerals), Chinese (21.8% in all domains except for with government workers, Lisu co-workers, and at funerals), Pa O (18.5% in domains with government workers, non-Lisu co-workers, non-Lisu friends, and at the market with non-Lisu friends), and other miscellaneous languages such as Shan (4.5% in domains with non-Lisu co-workers, non-Lisu friends, and at the market with non-Lisu friends), English (1% in the domain with non-Lisu co-workers), and Rawang (0.5% in the domain at the market with non-Lisu friends). The subjects from Thailand reported Chinese (17.9%), Shan (15.3%), Burmese (9.8%), and Lahu (5%). The subjects from China reported no other language except the national language, Chinese. The following table shows the language use in church domains analyzed by country.

63

Table 30 Language use in the church domains by country Countries Domains


Lisu Chinese Total Lisu Burmese Jingphaw English Total Lisu Central Thai

Northern Thai

English Chinese Total

Language at church

44 (97.7%)

1 (2.3%)

45 (100%)

46 (92%)

3 (6%)

1 (2%)

- 50 (100%)

8 (88%)

0.3 (3%)

0.4 (6%)

0.3 (3%)

- 9 (100%)

Preaching 39 (86.6%)

6 (13.4%)

45 (100%)

41 (82%)

7 (14%)

2 (4%)

- 50 (100%)

7 (78%)

- 1.5 (16%)

0.5 (6%)

- 9 (100%)

Fellowship 44.5 (98.8%)

0.5 (1.2%)

45 (100%)

39 (79.6%)

8 (16%)

2 (4.4%)

- 49 (100%)

8.5 (94.4%)

- 0.5 (5.6%)

- - 9 (100%)

Singing 44 (97.7%)

1 (2.3%)

45 (100%)

34 (67.8%)

13 (26%)

2.7 (5.4%)

0.3 (0.8%)

50 (100%)

6.6 (73%)

1.3 (15%)

- 0.7 (7%)

0.4 (5%)

9 (100%)

Announcing 43 (95.5%)

2 (4.5%)

45 (100%)

44.5 (89%)

5 (10%)

0.5 (1%)

- 50 (100%)

7.5 (83.4%)

1.5 (16.6%)

- - - 9 (100%)

Praying 43.5 (96.7%)

1.5 (3.3%)

45 (100%)

46 (91.8%)

3.3 (6.6%)

0.5 (1%)

0.2 (0.6%)

50 (100%)

7 (78.9%)

0.6 (6.7%)

0.4 (3.3%)

1 (11.1%)

- 9 (100%)

Praying alone

42 (93.3%)

3 (6.7%)

45 (100%)

45 (90%)

4.5 (9%)

0.5 (1%)

- 50 (100%)

9 (100%)

- - - - 9 (100%)

Most used Bible

44 (97.7%)

1 2.3%

45 (100%)

43.5 (87%)

5.5 (11%)

1 (2%)

- 50 (100%)

3 (94.4%)

0.5 (5.6%)

- - - 3.5 (100%)

63

64

As seen in Table 30, most subjects from China reported they used Lisu as the language of church, and in domains such as preaching, fellowship, singing, announcing, public praying, and praying alone. The subjects also reported that their churches used the Lisu Bible the most, followed by the Chinese Bible, in all domains. Most subjects from Myanmar answered that they used Lisu for the language at church and for the domains such as preaching, doing fellowship, singing, announcing, praying, and praying alone. The subjects also reported that their churches used the Lisu Bible most; followed by the Burmese Bible, and then Jingphaw in the same domains. Use of the English is also reported in the singing and praying domain, but it is less than 5%. Most subjects from Thailand reported they used Lisu the most in the church and in the domains such as preaching, fellowship, singing, announcing, public praying, and praying alone. They also reported their churches used the Lisu Bible most, followed by the Central Thai, Northern Thai, English, and Chinese Bibles. Generally, Lisu is used the most in all domains, followed by the national languages, Burmese, Chinese, or Central Thai, according to country. Lisu use is strongest in China in all church domains, followed by Myanmar, and somewhat less strong in Thailand. The following table shows the most used Bibles, whether or not the subjects understand the most used Bible, and if not, why they do not understand that Bible.

65

Table 31 Bible language and comprehension

Understand that Bible? If not Why? most used Bible Yes No No response don’t study miss to ask

Lisu 96 (92%)

92.5 (97%)

2.5 (3%)

1 1.5 (100%)

1

Burmese 5.5 (5.5%)

5 (91%)

0.5 (9%) - 0.5

(100%) -

Chinese 1

(1%) 1

(100%) - - - -

Jingphaw 1 (1%)

1 (100%) - - - -

Central Thai 0.5

(0.5%) 0.5

(100%) - - - -

Total 104 (100%) - 3 1 2 1

According to Table 31, Lisu Bible is reported as the most used (92%), followed by Burmese Bible (5.5%), and others Bible (below 5%). Of those who answered that Lisu Bible is the most used, 92.5 (97%) subjects answered they understand it and 2.5 (3%) subjects answered they do not understand it. If the subjects answered they do not understand, they were asked the question ‘Why not?’ Out of 2.5 subjects who answered they do not understand the Lisu Bible, 1.5 subjects answered that they do not understand because they do not study the Bible, and one subject was not asked. 0.5 subject answered he or she does not understand the Burmese Bible because he or she does not study it. If the subjects’ churches do not use the Lisu Bible, they were asked the question ‘Do you understand the Lisu Bible?’ All seven subjects whose churches used non-Lisu Bibles answered that they do understand the Lisu Bible. In general, almost all subjects reported that their churches use the Lisu Bible and understand that Bible. Their reason for not understanding the Lisu Bible is not the language problem but lack of studying the Bible.

4.2 Attitudes toward languages of wider communication This section presents attitudes of Lisu speakers to the language of wider communication in each area. Since the questions on attitudes toward languages of

66

wider communication in the Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaires are based on 12 subjects at each site, they are specific and more likely to represent the research community. Therefore, they are used as the primary representative of language attitudes. The questions on attitudes toward the language of wider communication in the Knowledgeable Insider Sociolinguistic Questionnaires are based on the view of only one leader from each site. Therefore, the leader’s view may be broader and more general, and less likely to represent the whole community. Thus, they are used secondarily. The following sub-section discusses the language attitudes of Lisu speakers toward the language of wider communication in this area.

4.2.1 Primary attitudes Fasold (1990: 34-60) states that language attitudes are the ways in which a person or community perceives the relevance and status of their language, often reflecting their attitudes about themselves relative to other groups. Language attitudes play a key role in language maintenance, shift, and death. In this study, the subjects were asked questions related to the relationship with native speakers of the language of wider communication, such as marrying a speaker of the language of wider communication, or living next door to them. This method is an indirect indicator of attitudes which relies on reported information. The following table shows self-reported attitudes regarding marriage to a native speaker of the LWC. Table 32 Reported attitude regarding marriage to a person of the LWC

Attitude regarding marriage to an LWC person Number of subjects Depends 1 Don’t know 8 No 72.5 (54%) Yes 62.5 (46%) Total 144 (100%) In Table 32, one subject who answered ‘depends’, and eight subjects who answered ‘don’t know’ are not counted. More than half of the remaining subjects (54%) reported that it is not acceptable for a young Lisu man or woman to marry a person of the language of wider communication, while less than half of the remaining subjects (46%) reported that it is acceptable. According to author’s observations, the common reason why it is not good for a young Lisu man or woman marry to a

67

person of language of wider communication is they mistreated to the Lisu people. Thus, generally the subjects have less positive attitudes toward the person of language of wider communication. The following table shows self-reported attitudes regarding marriage to a native speaker of the LWC, analyzed by country.

Table 33 Reported attitude toward marriage to an LWC speaker by country

Attitudes Nationalities positive less positive I don’t know depend on

them Chinese 36 (75%) 12 (25%) - - Thai 14 (58%) 9 (38%) - 1 (4%) Burmese 13 (18%) 53 (74%) 6 (8%) - According to Table 33, the subjects from China reported the highest positive attitude (75%) toward marriage to an LWC speaker, followed by Thailand (58%), and then Myanmar (18%). Table 34 shows the reasons of the subjects who have less positive attitudes regarding Lisu people marrying native speakers of the LWC. Table 34 Reported attitude on marriage to an LWC person according to reason

Reasons given by those with less positive attitudes regarding marriage to [LWC] person

Number of subjects

Identity 28 (35%) Language 19 (24%) Religion 14 (17.5%) Morality 9 (11%) Tradition 8 (10%) Don’t know 2 (2.5%) Total 80 (100%) In Table 34, ‘identity’ is interpreted from the answers: ‘we will lose our people group’, ‘we must love our people group’, ‘we are from different people groups’, ‘we don’t want to mix with other people groups’, ‘we want only Lisu young men/women to marry Lisu’, ‘because they married to non-Lisu’, ‘because they are not from our

68

people group’, ‘their children will become impure Lisu’, ‘not good for our people group’, ‘it is not good that [LWC] people live in my village because they are a different people group’, ‘the [LWC] people look down on us because we are from a different people group’ and ‘they can’t live here because their spouses are from a different people group’. ‘Language’ as a reason for the language attitude is interpreted from the answers ‘because of different languages’, ‘cannot communicate through the language’, ‘she or he can’t teach Lisu to their children’, ‘Lisu language will be lost’, ‘the [LWC] people look down on us because we speak a different language from them’, and ‘the [LWC] people can’t live here because their spouses speak different languages’. ‘Religion’ as a reason for the language attitude is interpreted from the answers ‘because of different religions’, ‘because they are not Christians’, ‘we will lose our religion’, ‘the [LWC] people look down on us because we have a different religion from them’, and ‘they cannot live here because their spouses have a different religion from us.’ ‘Morality’ is interpreted as the reason for the language attitude from the answers ‘it is not good that the [LWC] people live in my village because they have bad morality’, and ‘the [LWC] people are lazy and smoke, use drugs, drink alcohol, beat our daughters, don’t want to take responsibility for the family, divorced and even kill their wives’. The reason ‘tradition’ is interpreted as the reason from the answers ‘we have different traditions’, ‘the [LWC] people look down on us because we practice different traditions from them’, and ‘they can’t live here because their spouses practice different traditions from us.’ Table 35 shows the self-reported attitudes of the subject for the question living next to language of wider communication people.

69

Table 35 Reported attitudes about living next to LWC people

Attitudes about living next to LWC people Subject Percentage Central Peripheral Total

Negative (not good) 27.5 (19%)

35 (25%)

62.5 (44%)

Positive (good) 33.5 (23.4%)

26 (18.2%)

59.5 (41.6%)

Neutral 5 (3.4%)

7 (5%)

12 (8.4%)

Undecided (I don’t know) 6 (4%)

3 (2%)

9 (6%)

Total 72 (49.8%)

71 (50.2%)

143 (100%)

Out of 144 subjects, one subject who gave no response is not accounted in Table 35. More subjects (44%) expressed less positive attitudes toward living next door to an [LWC] person. The subjects from peripheral sites have less positive attitudes than those from the central sites in terms of attitudes regarding the language of wider communication. It is usual to see in this way because the Lisu speakers from the central sites have more opportunity to build relationship with the speakers of language of wider communication than of those from the peripheral sites. Since the Lisu speakers from the peripheral sites have less opportunity to build relationship with the speakers of language of wider communication, it is usual that they have less positive on them. Table 36 shows self-reported attitudes toward living next to the LWC people according to country.

70

Table 36 Reported attitudes to living next to LWC people by country

Countries Attitudes China Myanmar Thailand Total

Negative (not good) 12 (8%) 43 (30%) 7.5 (5%) 62.5 (43%) Positive (good) 29 (20%) 15 (10.5%) 15.5 (10.5%) 59.5 (41%) Neutral 4 (3%) 8 (6%) - 12 (9%) Undecided (I don’t know) 3 (2.8%) 5 (3.5%) 1 (0.7%) 9 (7%) No response - 1 (0%) - 1 (0%) Total 48 (33.8%) 72 (50%) 24 (16.2%) 144 (100%) Out of 144 subjects, one subject gave no response is not counted. According to Table 36, the subjects from Myanmar reported the highest negative attitudes toward the language of wider communication, followed by China and then Thailand. For positive attitudes toward the language of wider communication, the subjects from China reported the highest percentage (20%) and the subjects from Myanmar and Thailand reported the same percentage (10.5%). The attitudes toward the language of wider communication among the subjects from Myanmar may be related to issues of ethnicity. Except the two central sites, Mankhring (MKH) and Khitsagoat (KSG), the sites from Myanmar are mostly mono-ethnic. The people living in these sites may have less positive attitudes since they have less contact with speakers of language of wider communication.

4.2.2 Secondary attitudes The following sub-section presents secondary language attitudes, based on the Knowledgeable Insider Sociolinguistic Questionnaires. When the leaders were asked the question ‘Is it common for Lisu people from this village to marry non-Lisu people?’ 5 leaders (42%) out of 12 answered ‘Yes’, and 7 (58%) answered ‘No’. Table 37 shows the people groups that Lisu people marry.

71

Table 37 Non-Lisu people groups that the Lisu marry55

People Number of subjects Burmese 1.3 (22%) Chinese 1.2 (20%) Japan 0.6 (10%) Jingphaw 0.3 (5%) Malaysian 0.3 (5%) Isan 0.3 (5%) White people 0.3 (5%) Others56 0.7 (11.5%) Undecided 1 (16.5%) Total 6 (100%) Table 37 shows the results when the leaders who answered ‘Yes’ were asked the question ‘What non-Lisu people do they marry?’ Out of 12 leaders, six leaders to whom the question was not applicable are not counted. Of the remaining six leaders, 22% answered Burmese, 20% answered Chinese, 10% answered Japanese, and 5% each answered Jingphaw, Malaysian, Isan, and White people. Some subjects reported other groups such as Shan, Rawang, Northern Thai, and Akha are very few (below 5%). Out of 12 subjects, the question was not applicable for six subjects. When asked the question ‘Usually, what language do their children end up speaking?,’ half of the remaining six subjects answered Lisu, and the other half answered Chinese, the non-Lisu parents language, mother’s language (probably Lisu), or Rawang. Lisu is still spoken by half of the children in mixed-marriage families. Mixed marriage couples are mostly the Lisu women with non-Lisu men than the Lisu men with non-Lisu women. Since mothers speak more to children than the fathers speak, Lisu is still spoken by half of the mixed marriage families.

4.3 Contact between Lisu dialects Bradley (2006: xv) states that all of the Southern Lisu dialect is located in Myanmar and Thailand. The Northern and the Central Lisu dialects are mainly in China,

55 6 subjects are not applicable for this question because they answered that there is no Lisu people

who marry to non-Lisu people in their villages. 56 ‘Others’ includes ‘Shan’, ‘Rawang’, ‘Northern Thai’, and ‘Akha’.

72

Myanmar, and only recently have migrated into Thailand. Since the Lisu dialects are spread throughout different countries, it raises the question, ‘are all the Lisu dialects intelligible each other?’ The following section presents reported intelligibility of the Lisu dialects.

4.3.1 Reported contact of Lisu dialects The intelligibility among the three major Lisu dialects is compared by using Individual Sociolinguistic questions and Knowledgeable Insider Sociolinguistic questions (see Table 23 researching question 1.3, the concept ‘comprehension’). Figure 12 shows reported contact among the major Lisu dialects.

Figure 12 Reported contact among Lisu dialects

Figure 12 shows that 77% of the Northern Lisu speakers report they have contact with Central Lisu speakers, while only 63% report contact with Southern Lisu speakers. Of the Central Lisu speakers, 67% reported contact with Northern Lisu speakers, while only 60% reported contact with Southern Lisu speakers. Of the Southern Lisu speakers, 38% reported contact with Northern Lisu speakers, while 54% reported contact with Central Lisu speakers. Thus, the Northern Lisu has slightly more contact with other dialects, followed by Central Lisu, and Southern Lisu has the least contact with the other dialects. Thus, the greatest lack of contact was reported by Southern Lisu speakers, followed by Central Lisu speakers; and Northern Lisu speakers reported the least. This can be

19 (40%)

30 (63%)

29 (60%)

26 (54%)

32 (67%)

37 (77%)

18 (38%)

N.LS

S.LS C.LS 22 (46%)

16 (33%)

11 (23%)

18 (37%)

30 (62%)

N.LS

S.LS C.LS

Contact Non-Contact

73

assumed that the Southern Lisu dialect is the most isolated and the Northern Lisu dialect is the least isolated dialect. It is true that most of the Southern Lisu sites are located in areas further from Northern and Central Lisu dialects while the Northern and Central Lisu dialects are easier to get access to each other. When Northern Lisu missionaries go to the Southern Lisu speaking areas, the contact between these two dialects increases. This is still happening in Shan state of Myanmar and in Northern Thailand. Moreover, geographically, the Northern Lisu speakers need to pass the Central Lisu speaking area for travelling purposes. The Northern Lisu speaking areas are not that much developed comparing with the Central Lisu speaking areas in Myanmar. This situation makes the Northern Lisu people travel more than the people of the other two dialects. That is why this dialect is the most active in contact with other dialects. The following figure shows reported contact of the Lisu dialects by gender. According to Figure 13, generally the male subjects have more contact with other dialect speakers than women, with the exception of the female subjects from the Northern Lisu dialect (the Northern Lisu males have lesser contact with the Central Lisu speakers in comparison with the females) and the Northern Lisu females reported an unusually high 83% contact with Central Lisu speakers.

Figure 13 Reported contact by gender

Male

17 (68%)

14 (58%)

16 (70%)

17 (71%)

18 (72%)

9 (39%)

N.LS

S.LS C.LS

Female

12 (57%)

12 (50%)

16 (64%)

20 (83%) 12

(52%)

9 (36%)

N.LS

S.LS C.LS

74

Figure 14 shows reported contact among the Lisu dialects by age.

Figure 14 Reported contact by age

The younger generation (age 15-34) has more contact than the older generation (35+) between Northern and Central Lisu dialect. This is because the Central and Northern Lisu dialects are geographically close, and the younger generation of both dialects travels more than the older one, due to seeking education or jobs. The older generation (age 35+) has more contact than the younger generation (15-34) between the Central and Southern Lisu dialects. Among several migrations, the migration due to the Cultural Revolution57 in China brought many Central Lisu into Myanmar, then on to Thailand where they came into contact with Southern Lisu speakers. In the 1970s, many Southern Lisu from the highlands of Shan state, Myanmar also migrated into other areas (mostly plains areas) where they came into contact with the Central Lisu in Myanmar. After that, no further major migration took place, and the younger generations of Central and Southern Lisu speakers have had less contact with each other than the older generation. Among Southern Lisu, the older generation (35+) has more contact with speakers of other dialects than does the younger generation (age 15-34). It could be true because the older generation has more chance to travel than the younger generation in some communities. It is particularly true among the Southern Lisu speakers of Thailand because the older generation have more chance to meet with other dialects in China

57 Also called ‘Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution’ which took place in People’s Republic of China

from 1966-1967.

12 (52%)

15-34

12 (52%)

11 (46%)

18 (75%)

19 (79%) 7

(29%)

N.LS

S.LS C.LS

35+

17 (74%)

15 (62%)

14 (58%)

18 (75%) 18

(72%)

11 (46%)

N.LS

S.LS C.LS

75

or Myanmar before they moved into Thailand. The younger generation who were born in Thailand has less chance to meet with the speakers of other Lisu dialects because the majority of Lisu population in Thailand is Southern Lisu speakers.

4.4 Attitudes toward Lisu dialects During the study, one Central Lisu subject stated that the Northern Lisu speakers, the Lisu from China, and Moegok Lisu (who are Southern Lisu) are not Lisu because they do not use the Bible language and he does not understand what they say to him. In the same way, a Northern Lisu speaker from Myanmar also said he does not understand Southern Lisu at all. There was no place whose speech people could agree is the most pure. When asked the question ‘In your opinion, in what place is Lisu the most pure?’ there were many different answers, but most people (68%) said their own community. This was particularly true among the Northern and Central Lisu sites, and less common among Southern Lisu sites. Out of many reasons, one might be the way the Southern Lisu speakers speak and write in Lisu are quite different since Lisu writing system is basically based on the Central Lisu dialect. Therefore, the Southern Lisu speakers may have a common perspective of their dialect is not a standard dialect. A few people also said Myitkyina, Putao, or China58 are the most pure. Of the remaining 32%, more than half said their dialect was the most pure. Thus, the subjects have positive attitudes toward their vernacular.

Table 38 shows the self-reported reasons of the subjects regarding why they said a particular place speaks the most pure Lisu.

58 Myitkyina, Putao, and China only have speakers of the Northern and Central Lisu dialects.

76

Table 38 Reported reasons for most pure places

Reasons that Lisu is the most pure Number of subjects Prestige59 or polite 22.5 (22.5%) We speak this Lisu 20 (20%) Pure 14 (14%) Understandable or clear 11 (11%) Lack of exposure to other varieties 10.5 (10.5%) Bible language 9 (9%) I don’t know 6 (6%) Everyone thinks own language is the purest 3 (3%) Lisu from everywhere is the same 3 (3%) Unclear60 1 (1%) Total 100 (100%) Out of 144 subjects, 36 subjects whose answers are not applicable for this question, 6 subjects who gave no response, one subject who is neglected to ask, and one subject whose is skipped because someone helped him are not counted. Of the remaining 100 subjects, 22.5% gave the reasons of ‘prestige or polite’ for saying a particular dialect or variety is the most pure. 20% say ‘we speak this Lisu’, 14% say ‘pure’, 11% say ‘understandable or clear’, 10.5% say ‘lack of exposure to other varieties’, and the other reported reasons are less than 10%. Out of 144 subjects, the question was not applicable for 104 subjects61. When asked the question ‘Have you gone to that place?’ (52.5%) of the remaining 40 subjects answered ‘Yes’, and (47.5%) of the subjects answered ‘No’. Table 39 shows the reported attitude of the subjects regarding their own village dialect.

59 The word ‘prestige’ includes answers such as ‘the birth place of the Lisu is China’, ‘it is polite, it is

clear, it is good to hear their speech’, ‘the Lisu writing system was invented here’, ‘it is different from other Lisu speech in the best way’, ‘everybody understands my Lisu’, etc. One subject also answered, ‘because my elders taught me so.’

60 It is also Lisu language. 61 100 subjects are not applicable, 2 subjects are unsure, 1 is missed to ask, and 1 gives no response.

77

Table 39 Reported attitudes regarding own village dialect

Is the dialect spoken in this village pure? Number of subjects Yes 35.5 (48%) No 25.5 (34.4%) I don’t know 8 (10.8%) Unsure 5 (6.8%) Not applicable 67 Neglected to ask 3 Total 144 (100%) Out of 144 subjects, 67 subjects whose answers are not applicable for this question, and three subjects who were neglected to ask were not counted. If the subjects answered other places instead of their own village for the most pure spoken Lisu, they were asked the question, ‘Is the dialect spoken in this village pure?’ Of these subjects, 60% answered ‘Yes’ and 40% answered ‘No’. Of the subjects who answered ‘No’, 31% were from Khitsagoat of Moegok town, and are the largest group who said that the Lisu speech of their own place is not pure. Khitsagoat (KSG) is a central site of the Southern Lisu dialects in Myanmar. According to author’s observations, many Lisu speakers from this site claim that their dialect is not pure because it is mixed with other languages such as Chinese, Burmese, and Shan. Moreover, the other Lisu dialect speakers who have been to this site said the Lisu spoken in this site is not pure. Table 40 presents the places reported as having the least pure Lisu spoken.

78

Table 40 Reported least pure locations62

In your opinion, in what place is the spoken Lisu the least pure? Number of Subjects Moegok 10.3 Luikhu 5.5 Khitsagoat 5 Myitkyina 4 China 3 Yulong village, Labieshan village group of Weixi Xing township 3 Aungchangtar quarter of Moegok town 2 Central Lisu 2 Shan state Lisu 2 Shitonghor 2 Northern Lisu 1.8 Nujiang county 1.5 Jiehor 0.5 Myanmar 1 Kaihor 0.5 Phingher 1 Sachew 1 Sidonyang 1 Thailand 1 Yingjiang 1 Huiko 0.5 Lilong 0.5 Villages from Nongcho township 0.5 Kalakwe village group of Kyautmae 0.5 Putao area 0.5 Khaunglanphu 0.5 Waba 0.5 Kholan village of Tak province 0.4 Khakot village of Tak province 0.4 Vankeyot village of Tak province 0.3 China 0.3 Total 54

62 The subjects gave many names for this question and the answers in this table are the results of

grouping the same or similar answers.

79

The question ‘In your opinion, in what place is spoken Lisu the least pure?’ was not applicable for 90 subjects63. The remaining 54 subjects gave many specific places. Of those subjects who gave specific locations, 32% were from Moegok64 in Myanmar. Southern Lisu from Moegok is reportedly having many loanwords, especially from Chinese, Burmese, and Shan. The Lisu from this site prefer to speak Burmese rather than Lisu. Therefore, Northern and Central Lisu speakers regarded the Lisu speakers from this site as speaking the least pure Lisu. The subjects also reported Northern and Central sites as the least pure Lisu locations, but fewer than for Southern Lisu. Table 41 presents the reasons for why the subjects said some places are least pure. Table 41 The reported reasons for saying why the Lisu in a place is least pure

Why do you feel this way? Number of Subjects Impure 15 (28%) Don’t understand it 13 (24%) Speak other languages more instead of Lisu 12 (22%) Different 8 (15%) Non-Bible Lisu 4 (7%) Speak our Lisu more 2 (4%) Total 54 (100%) Out of 144 subjects, 90 subjects were not applicable for this question. The reported reasons for a dialect to be described as ‘least pure’ included using loanwords, having problem of intelligibility, speakers preferring to speak the LWC rather than Lisu, and using their own dialect instead of Bible Lisu. These reasons mainly apply to the Southern Lisu from Moegok area and to some locations of Northern and Central Lisu. There are some reasons to say that the Southern Lisu dialect from Moegok area is the least pure because the dialect from this area is different from the other Lisu dialects. For example, the dialect from Moegok tends to have extra high tone while the other Lisu dialects have normal tone.

63 Out of 144 subjects, 70 subjects who answered ‘I don’t know’, 8 subjects who answered ‘nowhere’, 4 subjects who gave no response, 2 subjects who answered ‘unsure’, 2 subjects who answered ‘depends’, 1 subject who answered ‘not really different’, 1 subject who answered ‘non-Christian’, 1 subject who answered ‘some other place’, and 1 subject who answered ‘the same’ are not counted. 64 Khitsagoat (KSG), and Aungchangthar quarter are in Moegok town.

80

Table 42 shows a tone comparison between Southern Lisu (Moegok variety) with Northern and Central Lisu. Table 42 Tone comparison between Southern Lisu (Moegok variety) with Northern Lisu and Central Lisu dialects

Gloss Northern Lisu Central Lisu Southern Lisu (Moegok variety) ‘ant’ [bo²¹ʔ lo³³] [bo²¹ʔ lo³³] [bo⁵⁵ lo³³] ‘forehead’ [na³³ a²¹ʔ] [na³³ a²¹ʔ] [na⁵⁵ a⁵⁵ʔ] ‘sleep’ [ji²¹ʔ mɨ³³] [ji²¹ʔ mɨ³³] [ji⁵⁵ʔ mɨ³³] According to Table 42, the words ‘ant’, ‘forehead’, and ‘sleep’ in Moegok Lisu variety have extra high tones in the initial syllables. Having many Chinese loanwords and using many Burmese terms may be make the Moegok Lisu variety more distinct from other Lisu dialects. Moreover, there are many Lisu speakers who believe their own dialect is the best and other dialects are impure. According to the author’s observations, some subjects among the Southern Lisu speakers said that the Lisu from China, which means Northern Lisu and Central Lisu are impure because they used many Chinese words. If the subjects have been to the places where the least pure Lisu is spoken in person or having experiences of contacting with the least pure Lisu speakers, their reported answers tend to have more accuracy than those who have not been and who have no experience. Therefore, the questions like whether the subjects have been to the least pure Lisu spoken place or not are asked to weight the answers of the subjects After the subjects were asked where is the least pure Lisu dialect spoken, a followed up question was asked to determine if they have been there or not. This helps to access the reliability of their answers. Table 43 shows whether or not the subjects have been to the places where the least pure Lisu is spoken.

81

Table 43 Reported contact with place where the least pure Lisu is spoken

Have you visited that place? Number of Subjects Yes 24 (52%) No 22 (48%) Total 46 (100%) Of 144 subjects, 98 subjects65 are not counted. Of the remaining 46 subjects, 52% answered ‘Yes’, and 48% answered ‘No’. Of those who answered ‘Yes’, 30% have been to Moegok township. Thus, Moegok township is reported the least pure place comparing with other places.

4.5 Attitudes toward Lisu scripts currently in use The Lisu people have several scripts in use in the various countries where they live. The Fraser script is widely used in China, Myanmar, Thailand, and India. Additionally, the Northern Lisu script is used in China, Burmese based script in Myanmar, and Modified Fraser script among some educated Lisu. Table 44 will describe the attitudes of the subjects toward the Lisu scripts currently used. Table 44 Attitudes toward Lisu scripts

Best script Fraser Northern

Lisu Modified

Fraser

Burmese character

based

Don’t know

Total

Subjects 102

(71%) 15

(10%) 10

(7%) 10

(7%) 7

(5%) 144

(100%) When asked the question ‘Which script do you like the best?’ the subjects reported they like Fraser script the most (71%), then the Northern Lisu script (10%), and Modified Fraser script and Burmese character based script the least (7%). During the field work, the author had informal conversations which would seem to indicate that non-Christians prefer the Burmese based script and the younger generation prefers the Modified Fraser script.

65 Out of 144 subjects, 91 subjects who answered ‘not applicable,’ 4 subjects who gave no response, and 3 subjects who were not asked have not been counted.

82

When asked why they prefer the Fraser script, the subjects who preferred that script gave the following answers: ‘it is easy to use’, ‘we are able to read the Bible’, ‘we are used to it’, ‘it relates to our identity’, and ‘it is unique’. When asked why they prefer the Modified Fraser script, those subjects gave these answers: ‘it is easy to use’, ‘similar to English’, ‘good for future generations’, and ‘something which we want to learn’. When asked why they prefer the Burmese based script, those subjects answered that it is easy to use, is what they are used to, and many of the Buddhist subjects said it relates to their identity. When asked why they prefer the Northern Lisu script, those subjects answered they prefer it because it is similar to English, easy to use, and similar to the Fraser script. Table 45 shows self-reporting of Lisu scripts which subjects are interested in being able to use. This information comes from the Group Sociolinguistic Questionnaires. Table 45 Reported script that the subjects are interested in using

Scripts Fraser Modified Fraser

Northern Lisu

Burmese character

based Total

Subjects 8.8 (73.7%)

1.5 (12.5%)

1.3 (11%)

0.4 (2.8%)

12 (100%)

When asked the question ‘what kind of script do you think your village is interested in using?’ the subjects reported that they are interested in using Fraser script the most (73.7%), followed by Modified Fraser script (12.5%), then Northern Lisu script (11%), and Burmese character based script the least (2.8%). When asked why they preferred the Fraser script, they said because it is easy to learn, the Bible language, original script, and relates to their identity. When asked the question why they prefer the Modified Fraser script, they said because it is easy to learn, and relates to their identity. When asked the question why they prefer the Burmese based script, only one group Khitsagoat (KSG) said they are used to it. One group, Sidonyang (SDY) said that Northern Lisu is similar to English. In this survey, the easiest Lisu script to learn is asked for the purpose of potential vernacular literature development. Table 46 shows self-reported easiest script to learn.

83

Table 46 Reported easiest script to learn

Easiest script to learn

Fraser Modified

Fraser

Burmese character

based

Northern Lisu

Don’t know

Total

Subjects 103.5

(71.6%) 10

(7%) 14

(10%) 4.5

(3%) 12

(8.4%) 144

(100%) When asked the question ‘Which script is easiest to learn?’ 71.6% of the subjects answered the Fraser script, 10% answered the Burmese based script, 7% answered the Modified Fraser script, and 3% answered the Northern Lisu script. Many subject reported that the Fraser script is the easiest to learn because it has been using among Lisu (mostly among Christians) for many decades and it is the only widely used script. The Burmese based script is well known among some Buddhist Lisu from Moegok area in Myanmar. This script is particularly supported by the Lisu Buddhists but not by the Lisu Christians. In this survey, the Lisu script that the subjects do not like is investigated for the purpose of potential vernacular literature development. Table 47 shows Lisu scripts the subjects do not like. Table 47 Reported do not like script by individual

Don’t like script No Yes Don’t know Total Subjects 109 (75.6%) 33 (23%) 2 (1.4%) 144 (100%) When asked the question ‘Are there any scripts that you don’t like?’ 23% of the subjects answered ‘Yes’, 75.6% of the subjects answered ‘No’, and two subjects (1.4%) answered ‘I don’t know’. If the subjects said that there is a script that they do not like, they were asked the question ‘Which ones? Why don’t you like it/them?’ The most common reason for not liking a script was difficulty in learning to read and write in that script. Of the 33 subjects who did not like one of the scripts, 69% answered the Burmese based script, 17% said the Northern Lisu script, 12.5% said the Modified Fraser script, and 1.5% said the Fraser script. When asked the question ‘Why don’t you like the Burmese based script?’ the subjects answered because it cannot represent the Lisu sounds, Burmese characters, very

84

complicated, difficult to learn, difficult to write, not familiar, don’t like it at all, new, not Lisu script, and nobody uses it. When asked the question ‘Why don’t you like the Northern Lisu script?’ the subjects answered because it cannot represent the real Lisu sounds, is very complicated, difficult to learn, nobody uses it, not familiar, and difficult to write. When asked the question ‘Why don’t you like the Modified Fraser script?’ the subjects answered because it is difficult to learn, nobody uses it, not familiar, and difficult to write. When asked the question ‘Why don’t you like the Fraser script?’ the subjects gave no response. Table 48 shows self-reported Lisu scripts the groups do not like. Table 48 Reported do not like scripts by group

Scripts Burmese character

based

Modified Fraser Northern Lisu No Total

Subjects 1.34 (67%) 0.33 (16.5%) 0.33 (16.5%) 10 12 When asked which script they did not like, none of the group mentioned the Fraser script. Only two groups mentioned a script they do not like. One group from Hokho said the Burmese based script and another group from Mankhring referred to the Modified Fraser script, the Burmese character based script and the Northern Lisu script. The site Mankhring was a place where the Fraser script was developed, therefore the people have strong negative attitude to other scripts, except Fraser script. When asked why they do not like these scripts, they said because they cannot write Lisu the way it is spoken by using the new scripts. Before Burmese based script was developed, the non-Christian Lisu asked the Christians to teach them the Fraser script. However, the Lisu Christians did not want to teach non-Lisu Christians and they believe it is part of Christianity since the missionaries developed it. Therefore, non-Christian Lisu people have to develop their own script that is based on Burmese scripts. Over the years, tension between use of Fraser script and the Burmese based script is growing, with Fraser script supported by Christian Lisu and Burmese based script by non-Christian Lisu. According to author’s observation, most of the Lisu leaders have strong opposition to the Modified Fraser script. This was more common among the Central Lisu leaders

85

who strongly support the Fraser script, since it was mainly based on Central Lisu, and the first Lisu Bible is printed in this script. There were some informal meetings among the Lisu Christian leaders over the use of Modified Fraser script, but the community has not yet accepted it. One of the reasons for developing Modified Fraser script is to make it easier to type; because Fraser script cannot be typed on any computer without installing special fonts. Moreover, there are also problems with using it online. For example, the Fraser script is not available to use for mailing through internet or creating the web because some characters of this script are in both upright and inverted forms (see detail in Appendix C). For the majority of Lisu, typing is not considered a major problem since it is not an essential part of everyday life. More from the surveyor’s observation, the Northern Lisu script and the Modified Fraser script are considered to be non-Lisu scripts; they are like other scripts such as Jingphaw or English. In the same way, the Burmese based script is criticized as Burmese letters spelling Lisu sounds. In general, most Lisu people support the Fraser scripts uniqueness regardless of the difficulty in typing.

4.6 Language vitality Edwards (1985: 49) states that language vitality is relying on how a language can fulfill the needs of its speakers. As long as a language is important, useful, and meaningful for its speech community, vitality of this language is strong. The vitality of Lisu is measured by the Knowledgeable Insider Sociolinguistic questions 24, 25, and 30, the Group Sociolinguistic question numbers 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, the Individual Sociolinguistic question numbers 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 58. The following sub-sections present results of the questionnaires regarding language vitality of Lisu.

4.6.1 Proficiency of children in the Lisu language The proficiency of children in Lisu language is somehow showed the vitality of the Lisu language. This proficiency is tested by using Group Sociolinguistic questions number 26, 27, and 30 as well as the Individual Sociolinguistic questions numbers 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39. The following table shows children’s first language(s).

86

Table 49 Reported first language of children66

First language of children Lisu Burmese Total Hokho 0.5 0.5 1 Mulashide 1 - 1 Yeekhwabe 1 - 1 Labieshan 1 - 1 Mankhring 1 - 1 Dawobya 1 - 1 Shitonghor 1 - 1 Muchunpo 1 - 1 Khitsagoat 1 - 1 Thiwangmie 1 - 1 Sidonyang 1 - 1 Mokhoto 1 - 1 Total 11.5 0.5 12 When asked the question ‘Normally, after a Lisu child is born, what language does s/he speak first?’ all the groups answered Lisu. However, one group from Hokho answered that the national language, Burmese, is spoken in addition to Lisu. When asked the question ‘Can Lisu children speak another language before they start school?’ nine groups answered ‘No’, and three groups answered ‘Yes’. Table 50 shows the languages children speak before school.

66 ‘LS’ represents ‘Lisu’, and ‘BM’ represents ‘Burmese’.

87

Table 50 Languages children speak before school

Languages children speak before school Burmese Chinese Not applicable

Dawobya - - 1 Hokho - - 1 Khitsagoat 1 - - Labieshan - - 1 Mankhring - - 1 Mokhoto - - 1 Muchunpo - 1 - Mulashide - - 1 Shitonghor - 1 - Sidonyang - - 1 Thiwangmie - - 1 Yeekhwabe - - 1 Total 1 2 9 When asked the question ‘What languages do they speak before school?’ one group from Khitsagoat answered Burmese and one group each from Muchunpo and Shitonghor answered Chinese. Only three out of twelve groups answered that children in their location can speak other languages (national languages) before school. It is usual that children speak the national languages before school in Khitsagoat and Shitonghor because they are the central sites; but one of the three sites, Muchunpo in China, is a peripheral site; therefore, it is unusual that children at this site speak the national language before beginning school. This could be that the children learn Chinese from the bilingual parents before they go to school. However, there is no school in this village. The other possible reason is due to the national language speakers who often come to the Bible school of the village for teaching purposes. Use of vernacular language among the children is also a crucial factor to maintain the language. If the children of a language is not using own language, the language has less chance to survive. In contrast, if the children of this particular language use own language, the vitality of this language is strong.

88

Use of vernacular language among the children is also a crucial factor to maintain the language. If the children are not using the mother tongue, the language has low vitality. In contrast, if the children are using the mother tongue, the language has high vitality. Table 51 shows languages that the next generation of children are expected to speak. Table 51 Attitude on the use of Lisu among the next generations

When the children of your village grow up, do you think the Lisu children they give birth to might speak the Lisu language?

What do you think about that: Is it good or bad? Groups

Yes good 9.5 (79%)

No not good 1.5 (13%)

No neutral 1 (8%)

Total - 12 (100%)

When asked the question ‘When the children of your village grow up, do you think the Lisu children they give birth to might speak the Lisu language?’ 79% of the groups answered ‘Yes’, and 13% (Yikuaibi, Khitsagoat, and Sidonyang)67 answered ‘No’. When asked ‘What do you think about that: is it good or bad?’, 79% of the groups who answered ‘Yes’ said it is good, and of the groups who answered ‘No’, 13% said it is not good; 8% said ‘it doesn’t matter’. In order to maintain a language, the role of children as well as the parents are important. Children primarily learn languages from their parents. If the parents teach the vernacular language to their children, the language will be preserved by the next generation. In contrast, if the parents do not teach the vernacular language, the language may not survive. The following table presents the languages that Lisu parents teach to their children as well as Lisu language use by children in different

67 These three sites are all from central areas and each site has strong exposure to national languages or

regional languages.

89

domains. Table 52 Languages the parents teach to children and Lisu use by the children

Teach other languages Lisu use by the children Yes No play at home parents

China 15.5 (34%)

30.5 (66%)

45 (96%)

40 (95%)

47.5 (99%)

Myanmar 24 (35%)

45 (65%)

62.5 (87%)

44.5 (89%)

71 (99%)

Thailand 11 (46%)

13 (54%)

13.8 (58%)

18.9 (82%)

22.8 (95%)

The greatest number of subjects from Thailand reported that Lisu parents teach other languages to their children (46%), followed by the subjects from Myanmar (35%), and then China (34%). Since more parents from Thailand are teaching other languages to their children than the parents from China and Myanmar, Lisu proficiency of children from Thailand is tending to shift to other languages, probably the languages of wider communication. Moreover, Lisu use by children from Thailand in the same domains is less than that of China and Myanmar. Therefore, there is potential for language shift in Thailand. The following subsection presents language attitudes.

4.6.2 Language attitudes In this sub-section, language attitudes of the subjects were studied by asking whether or not the next generation will speak Lisu. Table 53 presents self-reported answers for whether the next Lisu generation will speak Lisu. Table 53 The Lisu use of next generation

No Yes Don’t know Total Subjects 13 (9%) 126 (87.5%) 5 (3.5%) 144 (100%) When asked the question ‘When the children of your village grow up, do you think the Lisu children they give birth to might speak the Lisu language?’ 5 (3.5%)

90

subjects did not know, 126 (87.5%) subjects answered ‘Yes’, and 13 (9%) subjects answered ‘No.’ Of the 13 subjects who said ‘No’, 12 subjects (92%) were Southern Lisu speakers68. In each location, the vast majority answered ‘Yes’. Thus, reported use of Lisu among the next generation of the Southern Lisu is less than that of the Northern or Central Lisu. According to author’s observations, the younger generation from Southern Lisu sites prefers to speak the language of wider communication than Lisu. It is particularly true among three out of four Southern Lisu sites: Khitsagoat (KSG), Sidonyang (SDY), and Hongkhong (MKT). Khitsagoat is a central site, most of the younger generation does not speak Lisu, and Northern Thai is spoken more frequently than Lisu among the younger generation in two sites from Thailand, Sidonyang (SDY) and Hongkhong (MKT). The 13 subjects who answered ‘No’ were asked the question ‘How do you feel about that, good or not good?’ 11 of these subjects answered ‘not good’. Thus, language attitudes toward Lisu are positive even among those answered that the next generation will not speak Lisu in their location.

4.6.3 Ethno-linguistic make up of the villages The number of speakers of a language is one of the factors involve in maintaining the language. If the number of speakers of a language is small, this language has less chance to survive unless the speakers of this language are the crucial members of the community. In contrast, if a language is spoken by all or majority of the community, the vitality of this language is stronger. This sub-section will examine which other ethno-linguistic groups live with the Lisu and the size of their population in the Lisu villages, in terms of number of houses.

68 Specifically, 6 were from Sidonyang, 4 from Khitsagoat, 1 from Mokhoto, and 1 from Thiwangmie.

91

Table 54 shows the language groups which live in the survey sites.

Table 54 Ethno-linguistic make-up of the survey sites69 Sites People

HKH MLSD YKB LBS MKH DWB STH MCP KSG TWM SDY MKT

Lisu 82 240 100 100 193 100 64 33 150 100 134 136

Gorakhar - - - - - - - - 70 - - -

Burmese 2 - - - 5 - - - 50 - - -

Akha - - - - - - - - - - 49 -

Khamti Shan 36 - - - - - - - - - - -

Rawang 1 30 - - - - - - - - - -

Chinese 11 - - - - - 3 1 - - - 2

Shan - - - - - - - - 10 - - 2

Jingphaw - - - - 3 - - - - - - -

Karen - - - - 2 - - - - - - -

When the leaders were asked how many houses of each ethnic group were in their villages, in all villages Lisu are the largest group. There is no other ethnic group but Lisu alone is found in the villages Yeekhwabe, Labieshan, Dawobya, and Thiwangmie70. Since these sites are mono-ethnic, Lisu use tends to be strong in these sites. The leaders also reported non-Lisu groups living in some villages, such as in HKH with 36 houses of Khamti Shan and 11 houses of Chinese; MLSD with 30 houses of Rawang; KSG with 70 houses of Gorakhar, 50 houses of Burmese, and 10 houses of Shan; and SDY with 49 houses of Akha. There are also some groups such as Jingphaw and Karen in these villages, but not in significant numbers. Since Lisu is the majority of the village’s population at the survey sites, the ethno-linguistic make up contributes positively to language vitality.

69 ‘HKH’ represents ‘Hokho’, ‘MLSD’ is ‘Mulashide’, ‘YKB’ is ‘Yikuaibi’, ‘LBS’ is ‘Labieshan’, ‘MKH’ is ‘Mankhring’, ‘DWB’ is ‘Dawobya’, ‘STH’ is ‘Shitonghor’, ‘MCP’ is ‘Muchunpo’, ‘KSG’ is ‘Khitsagoat’, ‘TWM’ is ‘Thiwangmie’, ‘SDY’ is ‘Sidonyang’, and ‘MKT’ is ‘Hongkhong’.

70 This data is based on the reported answers from the village leaders. In practical, there might be some intermarriage going on in those sites (may be very few percentage) but the village leaders reported that there is no other ethnic group in those sites.

92

4.6.4 Reported language shift This sub-section presents results from asking village leaders the question, ‘Are there Lisu people in this village who cannot speak Lisu at all?’ If the number of people who cannot speak Lisu are many, the language may be shifting. In contrast, if the number of people who cannot speak Lisu is not many, the language shows no shift. The leaders from all 12 villages, answered there are no Lisu people who cannot speak Lisu at all. Thus, all of the Lisu people in the sites where the survey took place can speak Lisu. The language proficiency of speakers of a language can indirectly indicate the vitality of that language. In other words, if there are many speakers who cannot speak the vernacular language, the vitality of this language is not strong. However, there is no Lisu who cannot speak Lisu in all the surveyed sites. This means the vitality of Lisu language is strong. Table 55 shows reported proficiency in Lisu according to central and peripheral sites. Table 55 Reported proficiency in Lisu by site

Proficiency by site Yes No Total Central 3 3 6 Peripheral 0 6 6 Total 3 9 12 Since three out of the six leaders from central sites said that there are Lisu people who cannot speak Lisu very well, and none of the six Lisu leaders from peripheral sites said that there are Lisu people who cannot speak Lisu very well, there may be some sort of shift starting among the Lisu in the central sites. This is particularly true among the younger generation since they have more exposure to the language of wider communication than the older generation. According to observations of the author, almost all younger generation and most of the older generation from Khitsagoat (KSG), the central site of Southern Lisu dialect in Myanmar speak Burmese than Lisu. Most of the older generation are bilingual while the younger generation are monolingual in Burmese in this site. Moreover, needs for using the language of wider communication may create a shift among the Lisu speakers of central sites (see more detail about the KSG Lisu variety in Section 4.4).

93

When the leaders were asked whether there are Lisu people in this village who cannot speak Lisu at all or not, they all answered ‘No’. Thus, all the people in the villages appear to be able to speak Lisu.

4.6.5 Attitudes toward reading and writing in Lisu Attitudes of speakers of a language to its writing and reading also plays a major role for vitality of the language. If the speakers of a language are less positive about being able to read and write in their language, the vitality of this language is not strong. Thus, in order to test the vitality of Lisu, the subjects were asked the questions related with their reading and writing. When asked the question ‘Is there any benefit in being able to read and write Lisu?’ nearly everybody (99.3%), with the exception of two subjects, answered that there are benefits to being able to read and write in Lisu. The perceived benefits include reinforcing identity, religious benefits, literacy, and improved communications. The motivation of Lisu speakers toward Lisu reading and writing is relatively strong. Therefore, the language vitality in terms of reading and writing in Lisu is positive.

4.7 Summary The results of the sociolinguistics questionnaires presented above showed that the younger generation speak the language of wider communication better than the older generation (see Section 4.1.1). The bilingual ability of subjects from the countries of China, Myanmar, and Thailand is good and subjects from central sites have greater bilingual capabilities than those from peripheral sites. The Central Lisu speakers have greater bilingual ability than Southern or Northern Lisu speakers. Since Northern Lisu is one of the languages of wider communication in China and Myanmar, Northern Lisu speakers have the least bilingual ability among the three Lisu dialects. By country, Myanmar reported the highest bilingual ability, then Thailand, and China the least. Both in the home domain and outside the home domain, Lisu is most strongly used in China, followed by Myanmar and then Thailand. However, China reported the highest positive attitudes toward the language of wider communication, followed by Thailand and then Myanmar. No single place is agreed upon as the most pure, but more than half of the subjects

94

said their own community. This was particularly true among Northern and Central sites, and less common among Southern sites. In other words, all Lisu have positive attitudes toward their own dialects. As for the Lisu scripts, the Fraser script is reported to be the most favored script by a majority of the subjects. Out of many possible reasons, it could be because this script is the first script for the Lisu and it has been using for more than eight decades. The Lisu Christians use it the most because the Lisu Bible and hymns are transcribed in this script. There may be some shift beginning among the Lisu in central sites. Many subjects reported that Lisu from Moegok township in Myanmar (where Southern Lisu is spoken) is the least pure. Subjects from Thailand reported the lowest use of Lisu by children, while China reported the highest, then Myanmar. Therefore, there may be a potential language shift of Lisu in Thailand. Since all sites where the survey took place in Thailand are Southern Lisu speaking areas, the reported use of Lisu among the next generation of Southern Lisu is lower than of Northern and Central Lisu.

95

Chapter 5 Lexical comparison

One of the objectives of this thesis is to determine the lexical similarity between the three Lisu dialects, Northern, Central, and Southern. Hale (1982: 58) states that the lexicon is more reliable than any other linguistic feature in establishing the degree of relationship between two languages. Although the lexicon is critical for defining the relationship between languages, it is difficult to distinguish core lexicon from those words which are easily borrowed or replaced and those which are resistant to change. Therefore, this chapter will discuss how the cognates are determined and compared for lexical comparison between the Lisu dialects.

5.1 Determining lexical similarity The methods used to determine lexical similarity will be described in this section. Mann (2005: 30) states:

Lexicostatistics is an approximation of the percentage of cognates shared by two or more speech dialects. Lexicostatistics does not provide an absolute measure of the relationship between speech dialects, but rather, a relative measure of the lexical relationship between dialects.

In order to carry out the lexicostatistic study, examination of the syllable structure of the target language is required. It is therefore necessary first to examine the syllable structure of Lisu dialects before beginning the lexical comparison of the dialects. Lisu syllable structure71 may be CCVC, CVC, CCV, CV, or V which always has a tone. For comparative purposes, it is often misleading to focus on minor syllables. Thus, only the major syllables of the lexical items with the same gloss are necessary for comparison between dialects. This means the minor syllables are ignored. Other omitted syllables include grammatical markers as well as derivational syllables. For example [a²¹ʔ ma³³ ŋa³³] ‘who is it’ is formed with [a²¹ʔ ma³³] ‘who’ and [ŋa³³] ‘is it’. The syllable [ŋa³³] is an interrogative grammatical marker which is omitted in lexical comparison. Derivational morphemes are also omitted when choosing

71 It means both major syllable and minor syllable.

96

cognates. For example, the word [dza²¹ʔ du³³] ‘food’ is a combination of morphemes [dza²¹ʔ] ‘eat’ and [du³³] ‘thing’. The morpheme [dza²¹ʔ] ‘eat’ becomes ‘food’ when the derivational morpheme [du³³] ‘thing’ is added. For purposes of lexical comparison, derivational morphemes like [du³³] ‘thing’ are ignored. The tones are also left out in this comparison because the syllable cannot maintain the tones when the grammatical forms change in Lisu. Concerning the tones of Tibeto-Burman languages, Matisoff (1973: 73) states:

In the Beginning was the Sino-Tibetan monosyllable, arrayed in its full consonantal and vocalic splendor. In addition, the syllable was without tone and devoid of pitch (Matisoff 1973: 73).

In other words, the tones are not part of the proto-Tibeto-Burman languages but are developed from the consonants. Matisoff adds:

Looking at the TB family as a whole…the better–preserved the consonantal system, the fewer the vowels and the fewer the tones; the more vestigial the consonantal system, the more proliferation of vowels and tones (Matisoff 1973: 80-81).

According to Matisoff, the larger the consonantal system the language has, the fewer the vowels and tones; the weaker the consonantal system, the more vowels and tones the language will have. The voicing or voicelessness of the consonants has an effect on the tone of the adjacent vowel in syllable-initial position. In the syllable-final position, the voicing or voicelessness of the consonants is automatic and the redundant consequence of pre-existent tones is not its cause. For example, both –h and –ʔ are voiceless but they have opposite tonal effects in syllable-final position (Matisoff 1973: 77). The final voiceless glottal fricative –h has a depressing effect on the pitch contour of the preceding vowel, leading to falling tones. In contrast, the final voiceless glottal plosive –ʔ has a raising effect on the pitch contour of the preceding vowel, leading to rising tones (Matisoff 1973: 75). According to Matisoff, tone develops from the effects of the sounds in languages. The voiced or voiceless opposition in root-initial position was preserved systematically even after the phonetic nature of the contrast changed in many Tibeto-Burman languages (Matisoff 1973: 79). Based on the tone development

97

described in Matisoff’s, the tones are not counted for the lexical comparison in this study because the tone alternation is commonly found in Lisu. For example, the tone of the word ‘go’ alters as its grammatical forms altered. The following example shows the alternations of tone according to grammatical alternations.

Example (4): dʒe³³ ‘go’ dʒe³⁵ ‘(I) must go’ dʒe³¹ʔ ‘(you) can go’

In example (4), the tone of the verb ‘go’ alters from [33] to [35], then to [31ʔ] as its grammatical forms altered. Tones in Lisu also alter when they precedes some particular tones regardless of consonants and vowels. The following example shows tone alternations according to the position in syllable. Example (5): [sa²¹ʔ po³³] ‘three plants’ [sa³³ xʷa³⁵] ‘three times’ [sa²¹ʔ xi³³] ‘three houses’ [sa³³ bɨ²¹ʔ] ‘three splits’ [sa²¹ʔ bø³³] ‘three groups’ [sa³³ phʲa⁴⁴] ‘three plates’ According to Example (5), the tone for the word ‘three’ is low falling with glottal stop, [21ʔ] in front of mid level tone, [33]; but it becomes mid level tone, [33] in front of other tones such as mid rising, [35], low falling with glottal stop, [21ʔ], and high-level tone, [44]. In this study, tones are also omitted because they are not necessary to establish cognate relationships. (Mann 2011 personal communication) Borrowed words are also not counted in this comparison. Brown (2008: 248) described since vocabulary can be borrowed from one language to another, diffusion of language features can be massive and widespread. Cultural terms are easily borrowed. For example, Thai, Lao, and Khmer have borrowed a stratum of their lexicons from Pali, the language of Buddhism. In the same way, common vocabulary is not immune from borrowing. For example, English has borrowed ‘very’ from French, and borrowed hundreds of basic words from Old Norse. He states:

The method is very simple. The percentages of common roots are counted using a list of ‘basic’ words. The theory is that basic vocabulary is resistant to borrowing, so that the percentage will give a guide to how closely languages are related (Brown 2008: 248).

98

Instead of counting the borrowed words, only the words which have some equivalent with the proto-language were used for this comparison. Table 56 gives examples of cognate sets which have both major and minor syllables. Table 56 Examples of cognate sets with major and minor syllables Site ‘hand’ ‘mountain’ ‘foot’ ‘leaf’

N.LS

YKB læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵ wa²¹ʔ tʃi³³ tʃhi³³ kʷa³³ phæ²¹ʔ sɨ³⁵ tʃhæ²¹ʔ LBS læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵ wa²¹ʔ tʃi³³ tʃhi³³ kʷa³³ pʲæ³³ sɨ³⁵ phʲæ²¹ʔ HKH læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵ wa²¹ʔ tʃe³³ tʃhi³³ kʷa³³ sɨ³⁵ tʃhæ²¹ʔ MLSD læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵ wa²¹ʔ dʒy²¹ʔ tʃhi³³ phæ³⁵ sɨ³⁵ tʃhæ²¹ʔ

C.LS

STH læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵ wa²¹ʔ tʃi³³ tʃhi³³ pʲa³³ læ³³ sɨ³⁵ phʲa²¹ʔ MCP læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵ wa²¹ʔ tʃi³³ tʃhi³³ pʲa³³ læ³³ sɨ³⁵ phʲa²¹ʔ MKH læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵ wa²¹ʔ dʒy²¹ʔ tʃhi³³ phʲa³³ sɨ³⁵ phʲa²¹ʔ DWB læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵ wa²¹ʔ tʃe³³ tʃhi³³ phʲa³³ sɨ³⁵ phʲa²¹ʔ

S.LS

KSG læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵ wa²¹ʔ dʒy²¹ʔ tshɨ³³ pʲa³³ sɨ³⁵ phʲa²¹ʔ TWM læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵ wa²¹ʔ dʒy²¹ʔ tshɨ³³ pʲa³³ sɨ³⁵ phʲa²¹ʔ SDY læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵ wa²¹ʔ dʒy²¹ʔ tshɨ³³ phæ³⁵ sɨ³⁵ phʲa²¹ʔ MKT læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵ wa²¹ʔ dʒy²¹ʔ tshɨ³³ phæ³⁵ sɨ³⁵ phʲa²¹ʔ

For the first word, ‘hand,’ although two syllables are completely the same, only the first syllable [læ²¹ʔ] is the root; the second syllable [phæ³⁵] is a bound morpheme, which has the meaning ‘side of the body part’. For example, it is used in [læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵ thi²¹ʔ phæ³⁵] ‘one side of the hand’; [læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵] ‘hand’, [thi²¹ʔ] ‘one’, and [phæ³⁵] ‘side’72. In the same way, it is also used in [tʃhi³³ phæ³⁵ thi²¹ʔ phæ³⁵] ‘one side of foot’; [tʃhi³³ phæ³⁵] ‘foot’, [thi²¹ʔ] ‘one’, and [phæ³⁵] ‘side’. Thus, the root, [læ²¹ʔ] alone will be counted for the comparison. The word ‘mountain’ is also formed with the root syllables [tʃi³³], [tʃe³³], [dʒy²¹ʔ] and the non-root syllable [wa²¹ʔ]. The syllable [wa²¹ʔ] has the meaning ‘snow’ and is a bound morpheme; therefore, it is not counted for comparison. Thus, for the words [wa²¹ʔ tʃi³³], [wa²¹ʔ tʃe³³], [wa²¹ʔ dʒy²¹ʔ], only [tʃi³³], [tʃe³³], and [dʒy²¹ʔ] are counted in this comparison. For the word ‘foot’, besides the roots [tʃhi³³] and [tshɨ³³], there are also the morphemes such as [kʷa³³ phæ²¹ʔ], [kʷa³³ pʲæ³³], [kʷa³³], [phæ³⁵], [pʲa³³ læ³³], [phʲa³³], and [pʲa³³]. These morphemes were eliminated for the comparison. Therefore, only the roots [tʃhi³³] and [tshɨ³³] are compared. (see Appendix F for the

72 The word ‘side’ can also be said [ba²¹ʔ] in Lisu. For example, [læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵ thi²¹ʔ ba²¹ʔ] also means ‘one side of hand’.

99

rest of 100-wordlist with major and minor syllable forms). After omitting the non-root syllables, the roots to be compared are shown in Table 57. Table 57 Examples of cognate sets with root syllable forms Site ‘hand’ ‘mountain’ ‘foot’ ‘leaf’

N.LS

YKB læ²¹ʔ tʃi³³ tʃhi³³ tʃhæ²¹ʔ LBS læ²¹ʔ tʃi³³ tʃhi³³ phʲæ²¹ʔ HKH læ²¹ʔ tʃe³³ tʃhi³³ tʃhæ²¹ʔ MLSD læ²¹ʔ dʒy²¹ʔ tʃhi³³ tʃhæ²¹ʔ

C.LS

STH læ²¹ʔ tʃi³³ tʃhi³³ phʲa²¹ʔ MCP læ²¹ʔ tʃi³³ tʃhi³³ phʲa²¹ʔ MKH læ²¹ʔ dʒy²¹ʔ tʃhi³³ phʲa²¹ʔ DWB læ²¹ʔ tʃe³³ tʃhi³³ phʲa²¹ʔ

S.LS

KSG læ²¹ʔ dʒy²¹ʔ tshɨ³³ phʲa²¹ʔ TWM læ²¹ʔ dʒy²¹ʔ tshɨ³³ phʲa²¹ʔ SDY læ²¹ʔ dʒy²¹ʔ tshɨ³³ phʲa²¹ʔ MKT læ²¹ʔ dʒy²¹ʔ tshɨ³³ phʲa²¹ʔ

Appendix G has cognates root syllable forms for the full 100-wordlist used in making the lexical comparison. The following section describes the lexical comparison of the three Lisu dialects.

5.2 Lexical comparison After the non-root syllables have been eliminated, the root syllables may be compared. A modified Blair type method (1990: 31-33) based on Mann (2005: 30-32) is applied to this data to determine the lexical similarity between the Lisu dialects (see Section 2.6). The criteria for determining lexical similarity based on the modified Blair type method is shown in Table 58.

100

Table 58 Criteria for lexical similarity

Category Criteria

Category 1

a. exact matches b. vowels differing by one feature including diphthongs c. phonetically similar segments in three or more word pairs d. a correspondence with nothing in three or more word pairs

Category 2 a. phonetically similar segments in fewer than three word pairs b. vowels or diphthongs differing by two or more features

Category 3 a. non-phonetically similar consonants b. a correspondence with nothing in fewer than three word pairs

Ignore a. reduced syllables and non-root syllables b. tone

By using the criteria shown in Table 58, the phones may be placed in the appropriate categories. Examples of the results for a selection of lexical items are shown in Table 59.

101

Table 59 Examples of application of criteria for lexical similarity Dialects Sites ‘hand’ ‘mountain’ ‘foot’ ‘leaf’ Sites ‘hand’ ‘mountain’ ‘foot’ ‘leaf’ N.-N YKB-LBS 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 2a, 1a LBS-HKH 1a, 1a 1a, 1b 1a, 1a 2a, 1a N-N YKB-HKH 1a, 1a 1a, 1b 1a, 1a 1a, 1a LBS-MLSD 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1a, 1a 1a, 1a N-N YKB-MLSD 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1a, 1a 1a, 1a HKH-MLSD 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1a, 1a 1a, 1a N-C YKB-STH 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 2a, 1a HKH-STH 1a, 1a 1a, 1b 1a, 1a 2a, 1b N-C YKB-MCP 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 2a, 1a HKH-MCP 1a, 1a 1a, 1b 1a, 1a 2a, 1b N-C YKB-MKH 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1a, 1a 2a, 1a HKH-MKH 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1a, 1a 2a, 1b N-C YKB-DWB 1a, 1a 1a, 1b 1a, 1a 2a, 1a HKH-DWB 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 2a, 1b N-C LBS-SHT 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1b MLSD-STH 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1a, 1a 2a, 1b N-C LBS-MCP 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1b MLSD-MCP 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1a, 1a 2a, 1b N-C LBS-MKH 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1a, 1a 1a, 1b MLSD-MKH 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 2a, 1b N-C LBS-DWB 1a, 1a 1a, 1b 1a, 1a 1a, 1b MLSD-DWB 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1a, 1a 2a, 1b N-S YKB-KSG 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 2a, 1a HKH-KSG 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 2a, 1b N-S YKB-TWM 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 2a, 1a HKH-TWM 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 2a, 1b N-S YKB-SDY 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 2a, 1a HKH-SDY 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 2a, 1b N-S YKB-MKT 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 2a, 1a HKH-MKT 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 2a, 1b N-S LBS-KSG 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1b MLSD-KSG 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 2a, 1b N-S LBS-TWM 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1b MLSD-TWM 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 2a, 1b N-S LBS-SDY 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1b MLSD-SDY 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 2a, 1b N-S LBS-MKT 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1b MLSD-MKT 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 2a, 1b C-C STH-MCP 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a MCP-MKH 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1a C-C STH-MKH 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1a, 1a 1a, 1a MCP-DWB 1a, 1a 1a, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1a C-C STH-DWB 1a, 1a 1a, 1b 1a, 1a 1a, 1a MKH-DWB 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1a C-S STH-KSG 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1a MKH-KSG 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1a, 1a C-S STH-TWM 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1a MKH-TWM 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1a, 1a C-S STH-SDY 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1a MKH-SDY 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1a, 1a C-S STH-MKT 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1a MKH-MKT 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1a, 1a C-S MCP-KSG 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1a DWB-KSG 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1a C-S MCP-TWM 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1a DWB-TWM 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1a C-S MCP-SDY 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1a DWB-SDY 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1a C-S MCP-MKT 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1a DWB-MKT 1a, 1a 1c, 1b 1c, 1b 1a, 1a S-S KSG-TWM 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a TWM-SDY 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a S-S KSG-SDY 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a TWM-MKT 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a S-S KSG-MKT 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a SDY-MKT 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a 1a, 1a

Using the criteria in Table 58 each lexical item is compared among all 12 sites. There are 66 possible parings among the 12 language varieties. The first column of Table 59 shows which dialects are being compared. After the categories have been assigned to all the phones, a similarity matrix is applied to determine whether the words compared are lexically similar or not. This template, found in Table 60, is based on the number of phones and specifies the minimum conditions the word forms must meet in order to be considered lexically similar. The number of phones and their minimum conditions of the lexical items must meet with the criteria shown in Table 58 in order to determine lexical similarity.

102

Table 60 Phone table for lexical similarity

Number of phones Category 1 Category 2 Category 3

1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 1 0 4 2 1 1 5 3 1 1 6 3 2 1 7 4 2 1 8 4 2 2

In Table 60, the numbers in the column ‘Number of phones’ represent the numbers of phones in the compared syllables. For example, the syllable [læ] has two phones [l] and [æ]. The numbers in the columns ‘Category 1’, ‘Category 2’, and ‘Category 3’ represent the minimum number of the phones that the compared syllables have according to these categories. These categories correspond with the categories in Table 59. If the compared syllables have one phone, this phone must fit in Category 1. If the syllables have two phones, both of these phones must fit in Category 1. If the syllables have three phones, two of them must fit in Category 1, one in Category 2, and none for Category 3. The results after applying the criteria to the data are shown in Table 61.

103

Table 61 The result of the lexical similarity Dialects Sites ‘hand’ ‘mountain’ ‘foot’ ‘leaf’ Sites ‘hand’ ‘mountain’ ‘foot’ ‘leaf’ N.-N YKB-LBS 1 1 1 0 LBS-HKH 1 1 1 0 N-N YKB-HKH 1 1 1 1 LBS-MLSD 1 1 1 1 N-N YKB-MLSD 1 1 1 1 HKH-MLSD 1 1 1 1 N-C YKB-STH 1 1 1 0 HKH-STH 1 1 1 0 N-C YKB-MCP 1 1 1 0 HKH-MCP 1 1 1 0 N-C YKB-MKH 1 1 1 0 HKH-MKH 1 1 1 0 N-C YKB-DWB 1 1 1 0 HKH-DWB 1 1 1 0 N-C LBS-SHT 1 1 1 1 MLSD-STH 1 1 1 0 N-C LBS-MCP 1 1 1 1 MLSD-MCP 1 1 1 0 N-C LBS-MKH 1 1 1 1 MLSD-MKH 1 1 1 0 N-C LBS-DWB 1 1 1 1 MLSD-DWB 1 1 1 0 N-S YKB-KSG 1 1 1 0 HKH-KSG 1 1 1 0 N-S YKB-TWM 1 1 1 0 HKH-TWM 1 1 1 0 N-S YKB-SDY 1 1 1 0 HKH-SDY 1 1 1 0 N-S YKB-MKT 1 1 1 0 HKH-MKT 1 1 1 0 N-S LBS-KSG 1 1 1 1 MLSD-KSG 1 1 1 0 N-S LBS-TWM 1 1 1 1 MLSD-TWM 1 1 1 0 N-S LBS-SDY 1 1 1 1 MLSD-SDY 1 1 1 0 N-S LBS-MKT 1 1 1 1 MLSD-MKT 1 1 1 0 C-C STH-MCP 1 1 1 1 MCP-MKH 1 1 1 1 C-C STH-MKH 1 1 1 1 MCP-DWB 1 1 1 1 C-C STH-DWB 1 1 1 1 MKH-DWB 1 1 1 1 C-S STH-KSG 1 1 1 1 MKH-KSG 1 1 1 1 C-S STH-TWM 1 1 1 1 MKH-TWM 1 1 1 1 C-S STH-SDY 1 1 1 1 MKH-SDY 1 1 1 1 C-S STH-MKT 1 1 1 1 MKH-MKT 1 1 1 1 C-S MCP-KSG 1 1 1 1 DWB-KSG 1 1 1 1 C-S MCP-TWM 1 1 1 1 DWB-TWM 1 1 1 1 C-S MCP-SDY 1 1 1 1 DWB-SDY 1 1 1 1 C-S MCP-MKT 1 1 1 1 DWB-MKT 1 1 1 1 S-S KSG-TWM 1 1 1 1 TWM-SDY 1 1 1 1 S-S KSG-SDY 1 1 1 1 TWM-MKT 1 1 1 1 S-S KSG-MKT 1 1 1 1 SDY-MKT 1 1 1 1

In Table 61, ‘1’ means that the dialects compared are ‘lexically similar’ and ‘0’ means that the dialects compared are ‘not lexically similar’. From these comparisons, we can compute the percentage of lexical similarity for each pair of varieties and generate a matrix to organize all the lexical similarity percentages. These can be depicted in a tree diagram that depicts the lexical similarity relationship between the similar varieties. The following section presents the percentage of lexical similarity and tree diagram of the Lisu varieties.

5.3 Lexical similarity and the analysis results The percentage of lexical similarity among the Lisu varieties may be seen in Table 62.

104

Table 62 The percentage of lexical similarity between Lisu varieties Northern Lisu Central Lisu Southern Lisu

China Myanmar China Myanmar Thailand Dialects Sites YKB LBS HKH MLSD STH MCP MKH DWB KSG TWM SDY MKT

N.LS

YKB - - - - - - - - - - - - LBS 98 - - - - - - - - - - - HKH 96 95 - - - - - - - - - - MLSD 94 93 92 - - - - - - - - -

C.LS

STH 94 94 88 88 - - - - - - - - MCP 93 92 89 86 96 - - - - - - - MKH 93 94 87 86 97 95 - - - - - - DWB 91 94 90 89 94 95 93 - - - - -

S.LS

KSG 90 91 86 83 94 96 95 94 - - - - TWM 91 90 88 84 93 94 93 95 96 - - - SDY 92 94 86 84 93 93 93 95 96 94 - - MKT 91 91 84 82 92 95 92 92 97 93 97 -

According to Table 62, the highest percentage of lexical similarity is 98%, which is within the Northern Lisu dialect (YKB and LBS varieties in China), and the lowest percentage is 82%, which is between a Northern Lisu variety (MLSD) and Southern Lisu variety (MKT)73. These percentages are significantly higher than the 70% lexical similarity threshold, below which intelligibility would be marginal. However, this does not prove that there is intelligibility between these varieties, because other differences such as grammar, pronunciation, rate of speech, relative prestige, etc. all influence intelligibility. Northern Lisu varieties show the highest lexical similarity within the same dialect and the lowest percentage with the Southern Lisu dialect. The lexical similarity percentage of 95% or above occurred mostly between varieties within the same dialect. The Northern Lisu varieties in Myanmar those are Hokho (HKH) and Mulashide (MLSD) show the lowest similarity with other varieties and occasionally between the Central and the Southern dialects. The lexical similarity percentage of 93-94% is mostly between varieties within the same dialect, and occasionally between the Central and the Southern dialects.

73 Mulashide (MLSD) is the Northern Lisu dialect site from Myanmar and Mokhoto or Hongkhong

(MKT) is the Southern Lisu dialect site from Thailand.

105

The lexical similarity percentage of 82-91% occurred between Northern Lisu and other dialects. It is found mostly between Northern and Southern dialects, and sometimes between Northern and Central dialects. Thus, this data shows that the Northern dialect has the most lexical variation with other Lisu dialects. Based on the percentage of lexical similarity, a tree diagram can be drawn to show a basic picture of the lexical relatedness of the Lisu varieties. Figure 15 depicts the lexical relationship of the Lisu varieties for 12 sites.

106

Figure 15 Tree diagram of the Lisu varieties

In Figure 15, the shorter the line between the varieties, the more lexical similarity they share. For example, the distance between YKB (Yikuaibi) and LBS (Labieshan) is very little because they have 98% similarity. It is reasonable to see that these two sites share very closed lexical similarity because they are from the same dialect. In contrast, the greater the distance between the varieties, the less lexical similarity

SDY KSG

STH

MKH

MCP

MKT

DWB

TWM

LBS

MLSD HKH

YKB

107

they share. For example, the distance between MLSD (Mulashide) and STH (Shitonghor) is very long. It is reasonable that these two sites share less lexical similarity because they are from different dialects. According to Figure 15, YKB and LBS are in one cluster while this cluster is also connected with HKH and MLSD. YKB, LBS, HKH, and MLSD are also in one cluster in the wider view and all are Northern Lisu dialects. STH and MCP form a cluster, which turns to be another wider cluster when joined with MKH. They are all Central Lisu dialects. SDY and MKT form a cluster, which turns to be a wider cluster when joined with KSG. All these sites are from Southern Lisu dialects. It is unexpected that DWB, a Central Lisu dialect site and TWM, a Southern Lisu site formed a cluster even though they are from different dialects. The Northern Lisu varieties (YKB, LBS, HKH, and MLSD) appear as a different cluster while Central (STH, MCP, MKH, and DWB) and Southern Lisu varieties (KSG, TWM, SDY, and MKT) are near and form a cluster. It is true that the lexical similarity of the Northern Lisu dialect shows more differences while the Central and Southern Lisu share more lexical similarity. Moreover, geographically Northern Lisu is more isolated than Central and Southern Lisu. One site each from Central (DWB) and Southern (TWM) Lisu dialects form a mixed cluster of Central and Southern Lisu dialects. It is not surprising that a Central and a Southern Lisu site form a closer cluster because these two dialects share closer lexical similarity according to author’s observation. In general, the variation in percentage among the Lisu dialects is not great. The Northern Lisu varieties appear to form a separate cluster to the Central and Southern varieties which are in the same cluster.

5.4 Conclusion Finding the lexicostatistic results of three Lisu dialects is one of the objectives in this study. One hundred lexical items from four sites each of Northern Lisu, Central Lisu, and Southern Lisu are compared in this study. In general, the lexical similarity between the three Lisu dialects is high. It is true especially among the same dialects and sometimes between the Central and Southern Lisu dialects. The Northern Lisu dialect is the most varied lexically among the three Lisu dialects. The highest lexical similarity is between the Northern Lisu dialect, from China, YKB (Yikuaibi) and LBS (Labieshan). The lowest lexical similarity percentage is between

108

MLSD (Mulashide), a Northern Lisu site from Myanmar and MKT (Hongkhong), a Southern Lisu site from Thailand.

109

Chapter 6 Conclusion

Lisu is spoken in China, Myanmar, and Thailand and has three major dialects: Northern Lisu, Central Lisu, and Southern Lisu. The Northern and Central Lisu are in China while all three dialects are in Myanmar and Thailand. Since Lisu is spoken in three countries, the sociolinguistic situations may not be the same in those countries. Sociolinguistic and lexicostatistic study of the three major Lisu dialects are the two primary research aspects of this thesis. The sociolinguistic situations discussed in this study will assist the Lisu people to understand their current language context and the lexical comparison will provide the lexical similarity between the three major Lisu dialects. This chapter summarizes the findings of this thesis and draws conclusions. There are some suggestions for further research at the end of this chapter. The following section provides an evaluation of methodologies used in this study.

6.1 Evaluation of methodology For eliciting the wordlist, surveyors should carefully study and clarify the meaning of the words before using the wordlist. Translation of the words is also needed to check whether they are translated correctly or not. For example, the Burmese translation of words such as ‘winnow’, ‘cut’, and ‘seed’ can be ambiguous. In Lisu and Burmese, there are two kinds of winnowing; one is removing the debris from the rice after harvesting, the other kind of winnowing is removing the debris before cooking. It can be misleading the interviewer at the fieldwork. The subjects asked the author which kind of winnow he wanted during the fieldwork, so we used the first meaning for winnowing. The word ‘cut’ also has many meanings in Lisu and Burmese. For this word, the author used the word ‘cut’ (as in ‘cutting hair’). Also for the word ‘seed’, there are two meanings in Lisu. The first meaning is for sowing, and the second meaning is for things that are eaten like fruit. The author elicited the second meaning. Thus, the surveyor needs to know which specific words he is going to elicit before the fieldwork.

110

During the fieldwork, the author interviewed three kinds of sociolinguistic questionnaires and one wordlist at each site. It was manageable but too busy to do alone. It is not so convenient for the author to ask the questions as well as transcribe the answers at the same time. At least one or two team members should accompany the surveyor to share the load. Each sociolinguistic questionnaire, which was used in this thesis, has more than 40 questions. It is a bit long for the subjects to answer all 40 more questions at a time. The questionnaires should be short and be able to answer the research questions well. Since the individual sociolinguistic questions represent the individual view of the researched language, they are more reliable than the leader and group questions, which represent the overall views. The following sections present the sociolinguistic and lexicostatistic findings of this study.

6.2 Sociolinguistic results According to the sociolinguistic findings of this thesis, the Lisu language is being passed on to the next generation in both rural and urban areas. This finding does not support the hypothesis that the Lisu language is being passed on to the next generation in rural areas, but is less common in urban areas. While Lisu is being passed on to the next generation in rural areas, there is no difference between the findings for urban and rural areas. The sociolinguistic study of this thesis covers the use of the language of wider communication, attitudes toward languages of wider communication, intelligibility of Lisu dialects, attitudes toward Lisu dialects, attitudes toward Lisu scripts, and language vitality. The younger generation appears to speak languages of wider communication such as Chinese, Burmese, Central Thai, and Northern Thai better than the older generation because they have more access education in these languages. Students, traders, laborers, village leaders, and the educated people speak more of the language of wider communication than others in the Lisu communities. Overall, the Lisu subjects reported high bilingual proficiency and the subjects from central sites reported higher bilingual proficiency than those from peripheral sites.

111

All of the subjects interviewed reported they could speak one of the languages of wider communication used in the area where they live. In other words, none of the subjects interviewed are monolinguals in Lisu although they said there are some monolingual Lisu among them. Moreover, the central sites tend to have better communication and education infrastructure, and have more opportunity for contact with the languages of wider communication than the peripheral sites. The Lisu subjects from Myanmar reported the highest bilingual proficiency, followed by those in Thailand, and those in China reported the lowest. The Lisu speakers from Myanmar reported the least positive attitudes toward the language of wider communication, followed by those in Thailand, and then those in China. It may be that issues relating to ethnicity are the reasons that the subjects in Myanmar have less positive attitudes toward the languages of wider communication. Of the three Lisu dialects, the Southern Lisu subjects reported the highest bilingual proficiency while the Northern Lisu subjects reported the lowest. (For the discussion of intelligibility conclusions see section 6.3.) The lexical comparison of the Lisu wordlists does not show a lack of intelligibility between the dialects. However, informal conversations with Lisu speakers and observation indicate that there are intelligibility difficulties between Northern and Southern Lisu. Intelligibility between Central and Southern Lisu tends to be higher than between Central and Northern Lisu dialects For the attitudes toward the Lisu dialects, there was no general agreement about which dialect is the most pure. Although most subjects of each dialect reported a positive attitude toward their own dialect, the subjects from Khitsagoat (KSG), a Southern Lisu dialect in Myanmar reported that their own dialect is the least pure. Moreover, most of the other subjects also said that the dialect from this area is the least pure. The Northern Lisu dialect appears to have the most contact while the Southern Lisu appears to have the least contact. Northern Lisu speakers from Putao township in Myanmar travel to the Central Lisu speaking area, Myitkyina, for better education and to Moegok township or Mongshu township, the Southern Lisu speaking areas, to do business at the gem mines. Thus, the Northern Lisu dialect is reported to have more contact with the other dialects than Central and Southern Lisu dialects.

112

Regarding the Lisu scripts, the Lisu subjects reported that they prefer the Fraser script and less prefer the Modified Fraser script, Burmese based script, and Northern Lisu script. The Lisu people have strong motivation for reading and writing in Lisu because nearly all subjects reported that it is beneficial to learn to read and write in Lisu. Since three out of six leaders from the central sites reported there are some Lisu who cannot speak Lisu very well, there might be some sort of language shift among the central sites. The Lisu parents from Thailand more often teach other languages to their children than parents in China and Myanmar, and the use of Lisu among children in Thailand is less. Therefore, the language competence of the children from Thailand appears to be shifting toward the languages of wider communication.

6.3 Lexicostatistic results This thesis hypothesized that Northern and Central Lisu are lexically closely related likewise Central and Southern Lisu are also lexically closely related. The results of the lexical comparison support the latter statement but not the former. Based on the lexical comparison, Central Lisu is more closely related lexically with the Southern Lisu than with the Northern Lisu. Lexical comparison was carried out between varieties of Northern, Central, and Southern Lisu dialects. According to the comparison results, the highest percentage (98%) is within the same dialect of Northern Lisu, Yikuaibi (YKB) and Labieshan (LBS) from China. The lowest percentage (82%) is between the Northern dialect, Mulashide (MLSD) from Myanmar and Southern Lisu dialect, Hongkhong (MKT) from Thailand. The lexical results are all above the 70% threshold, below this threshold there would not be appreciable intelligibility based on lexical difference alone. While, the lexical comparison of the Lisu wordlists does not show a lack of intelligibility, informal conversations with Lisu speakers and observation indicate that there are intelligibility difficulties between Northern and Southern Lisu. Intelligibility between Central and Southern Lisu tends to be higher than between Central and Northern Lisu dialects. All sites from China (both Northern and Central Lisu dialects) have high lexical similarity as shown by the fact that the minimum is 90% while comparing with any

113

Northern and Central sites. However, the Northern Lisu sites from Myanmar have lower lexical similarity with almost none having more than 92%. Therefore, the Northern Lisu from Myanmar is more divergent in terms of lexical similarity. For example, the kinship terms in Northern Lisu dialects are different from any dialects from any countries except the Lisu from northeast of India who formerly live in Putao area. Their ways of naming the kinship terms is similar to the languages closer to them. For example, the Northern Lisu from Putao area names their sons as [a⁵⁵ phu³³] ‘eldest son’, [a⁵⁵ dɨ⁵⁵] ‘second son’, and [a⁵⁵ khi³³] ‘third son’ according to their order. This way of naming is similar with Rawang, one of a closer languages but no Lisu dialects from any country (except from the Northern Lisu from India) name in this way. This information needs further study. The other interesting issue is the author had a hard time understanding the speech of older and younger people during the first visit to the Putao area but did not have much problem when first visiting in the Northern speaking areas of China. The Northern Lisu dialect of China is more similar with Lisu dialects than the Northern Lisu dialect of Myanmar. This could be related to the birthplace of Lisu language, as many believe that China is the place from which their ancestors originated. In other words, the Lisu dialects spoken in China are believed to be more standard than those of other countries are.

6.4 Suggestion for further studies According to this study, there might be a language shift among the Lisu language in the central sites. It would be interesting to do further research to document this shift and indicate causes. Lisu use among the younger generation in Thailand tends to shift to Northern Thai or Central Thai because most of the children were reported not speak Lisu to each other. This is true especially in urban Lisu communities in Thailand. This study shows that the Northern Lisu varieties from Myanmar have the lowest lexical similarity with the other Lisu dialects. An intelligibility study between the Lisu dialects needs to be done to determine if there is further need for language development. Khitsagoat in Myanmar should be investigated since it is quite different from the other Lisu dialects.

114

It will also be interesting to investigate language contact between Lisu and the other LWCs. Finally, it would be profitable to research the Eastern Lisu dialect since there is little information about it in the literature.

115

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y, and Dixon, R. M. W. 2006. Areal diffusion and genetic

inheritance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Apiradee Chantanaroj. 2007. A sociolinguistic survey of selected Tai Nua varieties. Chiang Mai: Payap University M.A. Thesis.

Bamgbose, Ayo. 1991. Language and the nation: The language question in Sub-Saharan Africa. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Benedict, P. K. 1942. Cantonese phonology. Unpublished manuscript.

_______________.1972. Sino-Tibetan: a conspectus (‘STC’). Contributing editor, J. A. Matisoff. Princeton-Cambridge Series in Chinese Linguistics #2. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bennett, P. R. 1998. Comparative semitic linguistics: a manual, Eisenbrauns 34.

Blair, Frank. 1990. Survey on a shoe string. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Linguistics and Publications in Linguistics.

Bradley, David. 1994. A dictionary of the northern dialect of Lisu (China and Southeast Asia). Pacific Linguistics, Series C – 126. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

_______________. 1996. Tibeto-Burman languages and classification, in Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas, ed. by David Bradley. Pacific Linguistics Series A, No. 84. Canberra: Australian National University.

_______________. 1997. Tibeto-Burman languages and classification, in Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas, ed. by David Bradley. Pacific Linguistics Series A, No. 86. Canberra: Australian National University.

_______________. 2003. Issues in orthography development and reform. Australia: La Trobe University.

_______________. 2006. Southern Lisu dictionary. Berkeley, CA: Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area.

116

Brown, Keith. 2008. Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world. Elsevier Science.

Campbell, Lyle. 2004. Historical Linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Conrady, Agust. 1896. Eine indochinesische causativ-denominativ-Bildung und ihr Zusammenhang mit den Tonaccenten. Leipzig.

Crystal, David. 1985. A dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

_______________. 2003. A dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Dryer, Matthew S. 2008. Word order in Tibeto-Burman languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, University at Buffalo.

Edwards, John. 1985. Language, society, and identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Enriquez, C. M. 1933. Races of Burma. Delhi: Manager of Publication.

Fasold, Ralph. 1984. “Diglossia.” Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

_______________. 1990. Sociolinguistics of language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Fraser, J. O. 1922. Handbook of the Lisu (Yawyin) language. Rangoon.

Hale, A. 1982. Research on Tibeto-Burman languages. Trends in Linguistics, State of the Art Report #14. New York: Mouton and Co.

Handle, Zev. 2002. Proto-Lolo-Burmese velar clusters and the origin of Lisu palatal sibilants. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area 25.1. University of Washington, Seattle.

Henssonow, Susan F. 2010. Societe de Geographie. VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller AG & Co.

Hope, Edward Reginald. 1972. The deep syntax of Lisu sentences; a transformational case grammar. Ph.D. Dissertation, Australian National University.

117

_______________. 1974. The deep syntax of Lisu sentences. Pacific Linguistics, Series B_ No. 34.

Khoi Lam Thang, 2001. A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Chin. Chiang Mai: Payap University M.A. Thesis.

Konow, Sten. 1909. Tibeto-Burman family. Vol. 3. Delhi, Linguistic Survey of India.

Krauss, Micheal E. 2007. The vanishing languages of the Pacific rim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lakana Daoratanahong. 1982. A contrastive study on Lisu and Thai phonology. Mahidol University.

_______________. 1983. Lisu Phonology. Manuscript.

Lewis, Paul. M. 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Summer Institute of Linguistics. 16th edition. SIL International.

Li, Fang-Kuei. 1937. Languages and dialects of China. Shang-hai. Reprinted in Journal of Chinese linguistics 1 (1972: 1-13).

Lingual Link 5.0. 2004-2006. SIL International.

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

_______________. 2005. Lexical comparison in Tibeto-Burman languages. Chiang Mai: Payap University, Unpublished manuscript.

Manson, Ken. 2008. A prolegomena to reconstructing Proto-Karen. LaTrobe working papers in Linguistics 12.

Matisoff, James. A. 1973. Tonogenesis in Southeast Asia. University of California, Berkeley.

_______________. 2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. University of California, Berkeley.

McMahon, April M. S. 2005. Language classification by numbers. Oxford: Oxford University press.

118

MSEA (Mainland Southeast Asia) 436 wordlist, SIL.

Nahhas, Ramzi W. 2007. Random and non-random sampling for language surveys. Chiang Mai: Payap University.

Namkung, Ju. 1996. Phonological inventories of Tibeto-Burman languages. University of Califonia, Berkeley.

O’ Leary, Clare F. ed. 1992. Sociolinguistic survey of Northern Pakistan (vol 1-4). Horsleys Green, UK (Quaid-i-Azam University and Summer Institute of Linguistics).

Owen, R. W. 2008. Language use, literacy, and phonological variation in Khuen. Chiang Mai: Payap University M.A. Thesis.

Pakkhem, Siriwan. 2007. A Phonological comparison of Pattani Malay as spoken in Narathiwat, Krabi and Pathumthani. Bangkok: Mahidol University M.A. Thesis.

Peiros, Ilia. 1996. Lolo-Burmese Linguistic archeaology. The University of Melbourne, Parkville.

Phillips, Audra. 2009. Lexical similarity in Pwo Karen. Payap University working papers in Linguistics 5.

Polome, Edgar C. 1990. Research guide on language change. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs. Vol. 48, Walter de Gruyter.

Ruhlen, Merritt. 1991. A guide to the world’s languages. Vol. 1, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Sanchez-Mazas, Alicia. 2008. Past human migrations in East Asia: matching archaeology, linguistics and genetics. Taylor & Francis, Volume 5 of Routledge studies in the early history of Asia, p. 237.

Shafer, Robert. 1955. Classification of the Sino-Tibeto-Burman languages. Word 11: 94-111.

Swadesh, Morris. 1952. Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating. Denver, Colorado: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society.

http://www.google.co.th/search?hl=en&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=+bibliogroup:%22Trends+in+linguistics%22&source=gbs_metadata_r&cad=11

http://www.google.co.th/search?hl=en&tbs=bks:1&tbo=p&q=+inauthor:%22Alicia+Sanchez-Mazas%22&source=gbs_metadata_r&cad=7

119

Thurgood, Graham. 2003. The Sino-Tibetan languages. London: Routledge Language Family Series.

Voegelin, C. F. and F. M. Voegelin. 1977. Classification and index of the world’s languages. New York.

Wardhaugh, Ronald. 2006. An introduction to Sociolinguistics. 5th edition. Australia: Blackwell Publishing.

Yu, Defen. 2007. Aspects of Lisu phonology and grammar, a language of Southeast Asia. Volume 588 of Pacific linguistics. Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.

http://www.google.co.th/search?hl=en&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=+bibliogroup:%22Pacific+linguistics%22&source=gbs_metadata_r&cad=7

120

APPENDIX A SIL MSEA (Mainland South East Asia) 436 wordlist

121

Appendix A English Chinese Armpm Central Thai 1. sky 天 rdk:aumif:uif ทองฟา 2. sun 太阳 ae พระอาทตย

[ดวงอาทตย] 3. moon 月亮 v พระจนทร

[ดวงจนทร] 4. star 星星 ju<f ดวงดาว 5. cloud 云 rdk:wdrf เมฆ 6. mist 雾 \rLcdk: หมอก 7. rain 雨 rdk: ฝน 8. rainbow 彩虹 oufwefhpdkh รง

9. lightning (vb.) 闪电 v}syfppf/v}syfpD: ฟาแลบ 10. thunder (vb.) 打雷 rdk:\cdrf:oH ฟารอง 11. wind 风 av ลม 12. night 夜里 n กลางคน 13. day 天(日子) aeh กลางวน 14. morning 早晨 eHeuf เชา 15. noon 中午 aehvnf เทยง 16. yesterday 昨天 raehu เมอวานน 17. tomorrow 明天 reuf\zef พรงน 18. year 年岁 !}pf ป 19. east 东方 ta&} ht|yf ทศตะวนออก 20. west 西方 taemuft|yf ทศตะวนตก 21. north 北方 a\rmuft|yf ทศเหนอ 22. south 南方 awmift|yf ทศใต 23. water 水 a| นา 24. river 河 \rpf แมนา 25. sea 海 yifv<f ทะเล 26. earth, soil 土地 a\r(juD:) ดน 27. mud 泥 &_H h โคลน 28. dust 尘土 zkefrS kefh ฝน 29. stone 石头 ausmufwHk: หน 30. sand 沙 oJ ทราย 31. lime (betel chew) 石灰 xHk:(uGrf:pm:xHk:) ปน (กนหมาก) 32. gold 金 a&_ ทอง

122

33. silver 银 aiG เงน (โลหะ)

34. iron 铁 oH เหลก 35. mountain 山 awmif ภเขา 36. cave 洞 *l/vdS kif*l ถา 37. forest 森林 opfawm ปา 38. tree 树 opfyif ตนไม 39. branch 树枝 opfudkif: กงไม 40. tree bark 树皮 opfacguf เปลอกไม 41. thorn 刺 ql: หนาม 42. root 根 opf\rpf ราก 43. leaf 叶 opf&Guf ใบ 44. flower 花 yef: ดอก 45. fruit 果 toD: ผลไม 46. seed 种子 taph เมลด 47. grass 草 \ruf หญา 48. bamboo 竹子 0g: ไมไผ 49. bamboo shoot 竹笋 r}spf หนอไม 50. mushroom 菌子 rdS k เหด 51. cane/rattan 藤条 judrf หวาย 52. kapok 棉 vJrdS kh นน 53. sugarcane 甘蔗 juHacsmif: ออย 54. betelnut 槟榔 uGrf:oD: ผลหมาก 55. opium 鸦片 bdef: ฝน 56. liquor 酒 t|uf เหลา 57. banana (fruit) 香蕉 iSufaysmoD: กลวย 58. papaya (fruit) 番木瓜 oabFmoD: มะละกอ 59. mango (friut) 杧果 o|ufoD: มะมวง 60. jackfruit (fruit) 菠萝密 yd©JoD: ขนน 61. coconut (fruit) 椰子（果） tkef:oD: มะพราว 62. eggplant (fruit) 茄子 c|rf:oD: มะเขอ 63. peanut 花生 a\ryJ ถวลสง 64. ginger 姜 *sif: ขง 65. garlic 蒜/大蒜 juufoGef\zL กระเทยม 66. corn 玉米 a\ymif:zl: ขาวโพด 67. red pepper, chili 辣椒 i&kwfoD: พรก 68. paddy rice 谷子 pyg: ขาวเปลอก 69. (cooked) rice 饭 qef ขาว (สก)

123

70. rice husk 糠/(谷子的外

皮) pyg:cGH เปลอกขาว

71. salt 盐 qm: เกลอ 72. animal 动物 wd|p@ef สตว 73. tiger 虎 usm: เสอ 74. bear 熊 0uf0H หม 75. deer 鹿 orif กวาง 76. monkey 猴子 arsmuf ลง 77. gibbon 长臂猴 arsmufvGJausmf ชะน 78. rabbit 兔 <kef กระตาย 79. porcupine 豪猪/箭猪 \zL เมน 80. rat 鼠 juGuf หน 81. dog 狗 acG: หมา [สนข] 82. to bark 叫（狗） a[mifw<f เหา 83. to bite 咬 udkufw<f กด 84. cat 猫 ajumif แมว 85. pig 猪 0uf หม 86. cow 牛 !Gm:r วว 87. milk 乃 !Gm:!kdh นานม 88. buffalo 水牛 u J ควาย [กระบอ] 89. horn (of baffalo) 角（牛） OD:csdK เขา (ของควาย) 90. tail 尾巴 t\rD: หาง 91. elephant 象 qif ชาง 92. elephant tusk 象牙 qifpG<f งาชาง 93. bird 鸟 iSuf นก 94. bird’s nest 鸟窝 iSufodkuf รงนก 95. wing 翅膀 awmifyH/tawmifyH ปก 96. feather 毛 iSufarG: ขนนก 97. to fly 飞 ysHw<f บน 98. egg 蛋 O ไข 99. chicken 鸡 juuf ไก 100. duck 鸭 bJ เปด 101. fish 鱼 ig: ปลา 102. snake 蛇 a\rG ง 103. house lizard 壁虎/蜥蜴 tdrfa\r}mif จงจก 104. turtle 乌龟 vdyf เตา 105. crocodile 鳄鱼 rdausmif: จระเข 106. frog 青蛙 zm: กบ

124

107. insect, bug 虫 ydk:r_m: แมลง 108. spider 蜘蛛 yifhul แมลงมม 109. spider web 蜘蛛网 yifhultdrf ใยแมลงมม 110. louse (head) 虱子 oef: เหา 111. termite 白蚁 \c ปลวก 112. cockroach 蟑螂 ydk:[yf แมลงสาบ 113. snail 蜾 c&k หอยทาก 114. mosquito 蚊子 \cifaumif ยง 115. bee 蜜蜂 ysm: ผง 116. fly 苍蝇 <ifaumif แมลงวน 117. butterfly 蝴蝶 vdyf\ym ผเสอ 118. scorpion 蝎子 uif:\rD:aumuf แมลงปอง 119. head 头 acgif: หว 120. face 脸 rsuf!}m หนา 121. brain 脑子 OD:a!}muf สมอง 122. hair 头发 qHyif ผม 123. forehead 前额 ezl: หนาผาก 124. eyebrow 眼眉/眉毛 rsufcHk: ขนคว 125. eye 眼睛 rsufpd ตา 126. eyelid 眼皮 rsufcGH หนงตา 127. nose 鼻子 !}macgif: จมก 128. cheek 面颊 yg: แกม 129. ear 耳朵 em: ห 130. mouth 嘴 yg:pyf ปาก 131. tongue 舌头 v}sm ลน 132. saliva 口水 oGm:|nf นาลาย 133. tooth 牙 oGm: ฟน 134. gums 牙龈 oGm:zHk: เหงอก 135. chin 下巴 ar:aph คาง 136. beard 胡子 rkwfqdwf เครา 137. to shave (beard) 刮/剃（胡子） |dwfw<f โกน (หนวด) 138. back 背部（人体） ausmukef: หลง 139. abdomen 肚子 0rf:Adkuf ทอง 140. navel 肚脐 csuf สะดอ 141. heart 心 !}vHk: หวใจ 142. lungs 肺 tqkwf ปอด 143. liver 肝 toJ ตบ

125

144. intestines 肠子 tl ลาไส 145. hand 手 vuf มอ 146. elbow 肘部/拐肘 wHawmifqpf ขอศอก 147. armpit 腋窝 csdKif: รกแร 148. palm 手掌 vufz0g: ฝามอ 149. finger 手指 vufacsmif: นว 150. fingernail 指甲 vufonf: เลบมอ 151. buttocks 屁股 wifyg: กน 152. leg 腿 a\caxmuf ขา 153. thigh 股部 aygif ตนขา 154. knee 膝盖 'l: เขา 155. calf 脚肚子/腓 a\com:vkH: นอง 156. shin 胫部/脚脖子 ndK housnf: หนาแขง 157. foot 脚掌 a\crsufpdatmufydkif: เทา 158. heel 脚跟/拐脚 za!}mifh สนเทา 159. bone 骨头 t&kd: กระดก 160. rib 肋骨 eH&kd: ซโครง 161. flesh 肉 tom: เนอ 162. fat 肥 tqD ไขมน 163. skin 皮 ta|\ym: ผวหนง 164. blood 血 aoG: เลอด 165. sweat 汗 ac^: เหงอ 166. pus 脓 \ynfykyf นาหนอง 167. excrement (noun) 大便 acs: อจจาระ (คานาม) 168. urine (noun) 尿/小便 qD: ปสสาวะ (คานาม) 169. man 男人 a<musFm: ผชาย 170. woman 女人 rdef:r ผหญง 171. person 人 vl คน 172. father 父亲 taz พอ 173. mother 母亲 tar แม 174. child (one’s own) 儿童 om:orD:/uav: ลก 175. son-in-law 姑爷 om:ruf ลกเขย 176. husband 丈夫 cifyGef: สาม 177. wife 妻子 ZeD: ภรรยา 178. widow 寡妇 rkqdk:r แมมาย 179a. brother

(elder of father) 伯父 bjuD:/tazhtpfudk ลง (พชายของพอ)

126

179b. brother (elder of mother)

舅父 OD:juD:/tarhtpfudk ลง (พชายของแม)

179c. sister (elder of father)

姑母/妈 juD:awmf/tazhtpfr ปา (พสาวของพอ)

179d. sister (elder of mother)

夷母/妈 tarjuD:/tarhtpfr ปา (พสาวของแม)

180a. brother (younger of father)

叔父 bawG:/tazhnD อา (นองชายของพอ)

180b. brother (younger of mother)

舅舅 OD:av:/tarhnD นา (นองชายของแม)

180c. sister (younger of father)

姑姑/妈 aG:av:/tazhnDr อา (นองสาวของพอ)

180d. sister (younger of mother)

夷母/妈 a;av:/tarhnDr นา (นองสาวของแม)

181. friend 朋友 rdwfaqG/oli<fcsif: เพอน 182. name 名字 emrnf ชอ 183. village 村子 |Gm หมบาน 184. road, path 路 vrf: ถนน, ทาง 185. boat 船 avS เรอ 186. house 房 tdrf บาน 187. door 门 wHcg: ประต 188. window 窗 \yKwif:ayguf หนาตาง 189. roof 屋顶/屋脊 trdk: หลงคา 190. area under house 楼下/地层 tdrfatmuf ใตถนบาน 191. wall of house 壁 eH|H ฝาผนงบาน 192. mat 席 zsm เสอ 193. pillow 枕头 acgif:tHk: หมอน 194. blanket 铺盖 apmif ผาหม 195. clothing 衣服 t0wf เสอผา 196. to weave (cloth) 编 |ufw<f ทอ (ผา) 197. to dye (cloth) 染 ta|mifqdk:w<f ยอม (ผา) 198. loincloth 布 ydwf/|ufuef:xnf ผาขาวมา 199. trousers 裤 abmif:bD กางเกง 200. to sew (cloth) 缝 csKyfw<f เยบ (ผา) 201. needle 针 tyf เขม 202. comb (noun) 梳子 bD: หว (คานาม) 203. ring (finger-) 戒指 vufpGyf แหวน (สวมนว)

204. paper 纸 pUL กระดาษ

127

205. pot (cooking-) 锅 tdk: หมอ 206. coconut shell

ladle 用椰子果壳

做地勺子 tkef:rS kwfcGuf กระบวย

207. mortar 臼 i&kyfqHk ครก 208. pestle 杵 usnfayG h สาก 209. spoon 匙 ZGef: ชอน 210. plate 盘子 yef:uef จาน 211. firewood 柴 xif: ฟน 212. fire 火 rD: ไฟ 213. ashes 灰 \ym ขเถา 214. smoke 烟 rD:cdk: ควน 215. candle 蜡烛 za<mif:wdkif เทยน 216. drum 鼓 pnf กลอง 217. gong 锣 armif: ฆอง 218. bow, crossbow 弓/弩弓 av: /'ll:av: ธน 219. arrow 箭 \rm: ลกศร 220. spear 矛/梭标 v}H (|Snf) หอก 221. knife 刀 "g: มด 222. to hear 听 jum:w<f ไดยน 223. to smell 臭 teHh|w<f ไดกลน 224. to see 见 \rifw<f เหน 225. to wink 眼波 rsufpypfw<f ขยบตา 226. to weep 哭 idkw<f รองไห 227. to eat 吃 pm:w<f กน 228. to swallow 吞 rdsKcsw<f กลน 229. to be hungry

(for food) 哦 Adkufqmw<f หว (ขาว)

230. to be full 满 Adkuf\ynfhw<f อม 231. to be thirsty 渴 a|iwfw<f หวนา [กระหายนา] 232. to drink (water) 喝 aomufw<f ดม (นา) 233. to be drunk 醉 t|ufrS k:w<f เมา 234. to vomit 呕吐 tefw<f อาเจยน 235. to spit 吐（痰） wHawG:axG:w<f ถย [ถม] 236. to cough 咳 acsmif:qdk:w<f ไอ 237. to sneeze 打喷嚏 !}macsw<f จาม 238. to yawn 打哈欠 oef:w<f หาว 239. to breathe 呼吸 touf&}Lw<f หายใจ

128

240. to blow (air) 吹 rSKwfw<f เปา (ลม) 241. to suck (milk) 吸 pkyfw<f ดด (นม) 242. to lick 添 vsufw<f เลย 243. to smile 微笑 \yHK:w<f ยม 244. to laugh 笑 |<fw<f หวเราะ 245. to speak 说 pum:a\ymw<f พด 246. to tell 告诉 a\ymqdkw<f บอก 247. to shout 喊 atmfw<f ตะโกน 248. to answer 答 a\zw<f ตอบ 249. to lie, fib 欺哄 vdrfw<f โกหก 250. to sing 唱（歌） oDcsif:qdkw<f รองเพลง 251. to think 想 pOf:pm:w<f คด 252. to know 知道 odw<f ร 253. to forget 忘记 arhw<f ลม 254. to choose 选择 a|G:w<f เลอก 255. to love 爱 cspfw<f รก 256. to hate 恨 rS kef:w<f เกลยด 257. to wait 等待 apmifhw<f รอ 258. to count 数 a|wGufw<f นบ 259. to be afraid 害怕 ajumufw<f กลว 260. to be angry 生气 pdwfqdk:w<f โกรธ 261. to sleep 睡 tdyfw<f นอนหลบ 262. to snore 打鼾 a[mufw<f (นอน) กรน 263. to dream 梦见 tdyfrufrufw<f ฝน 264. to hurt 伤害 emw<f เจบ 265. medicine 药 aq: ยา 266. to itch 痒 <m:w<f คน 267. to scratch 抓 \cpfw<f เกา 268. to shiver 发抖 wkefw<f สน 269. to die 死 aow<f ตาย 270. ghost 鬼 o|J/wap@ ผ 271. to sit 坐 xdkifw<f นง 272. to stand 站 |yfw<f ยน 273. to kneel 跪 'l: axmufw<f คกเขา 274. to walk 走 vrf:av}smufw<f เดน 275. to crawl 爬 wGm:oGm:w<f คลาน 276. to come 来 vmw<f มา

129

277. to enter (go) 进入 0ifw<f เขา (ไป) 278. to return 回 \yefvmw<f กลบ 279. to push 推 wGef:w<f ผลก 280. to pull 拉 qGJw<f ดง 281. to kick 踢 uefw<f เตะ 282. to throw 扔 ypfw<f ขวาง 283. to fall 掉 usw<f ตก 284. to swim 游泳 a|ul:w<f วายนา 285. to float 漂浮 (a|)ay;ar}smw<f/

ayg avmay;w<f ลอย

286. to sink 下沉/消沉 (a|)!}pfw<f จม 287. to flow 流动 (a|)pD:w<f ไหล 288. to give 给 ay:w<f ให 289. to tie 捆绑 csnfw<f ผก 290. to wipe 擦 okwfw<f เชด 291. to rub, scrub 摩擦 yGwf/wdkufw<f ถ 292. to wash 洗 aq:ajumw<f ลาง 293. to launder 洗衣服 t0wfav}smfw<f ซกผา 294. to bathe 洗藻 a|csdK:w<f อาบนา 295. to hit 拍(桌子) &kdufw<f ต 296. to split 分裂 cGJw<f ผา (ใชมด) 297. to cut (hair) 剪(头发) (qHyif) n}yfw<f ตด (ผม) 298. to stab 刺 ("g: /vH}eJh )xdk:w<f แทง 299. to grind 磨 judwfw<f บด 300. to plant 栽种 pdkufw<f ปลก 301. to dig 挖 wl:w<f ขด 302. to bury (a corpse) 埋 \r}yfw<f ฝง (ศพ) 303. to winnow (rice) 搏（米） pyg:av}hw<f ฝด (ขาว) 304. to dry

(to hang out to dry) 晒 ta\cmufv}ef:w<f ตาก

305. to pound (rice) 舂（谷子） axmif:w<f ตา (ขาว) 306. to cook (steam rice) 煮（饭） csufw<f หงขาว 307. to boil 煮沸(水开) \yKwfw<f ตม 308. to burn 烧 rD: &}Kd hw<f เผา 309. to extinguish (fire) 灭 rD:\idrf:w<f ดบ (ไฟ) 310. to work 做（活） tvkyfvkyfw<f ทางาน 311. to play 玩耍 upm:w<f เลน

130

312. to dance 舞蹈 u w<f เตนรา 313. to shoot 打/射 ypfw<f ยง 314. to hunt 打猎 trJvdkufw<f ลา 315. to kill 杀 owfw<f ฆา 316. to fight 打架 owfykwfw<f ตอส 317. to buy 买 0<fw<f ซอ 318. to sell 卖 a|mif:w<f ขาย 319. to exchange 换 vJv}<fw<f แลกเปลยน 320. to pay 开钱 tcay:w<f จาย 321. to steal 偷 cdk:w<f ขโมย 322. one (person) 一 wpfa<muf หนง (คน) 323. two (persons) 二 !}pfa<muf สอง (คน) 324. three (persons) 三 oHk:a<muf สาม (คน) 325. four (persons) 四 av:a<muf ส (คน) 326. five (persons) 五 ig:a<muf หา (คน) 327. six (persons) 六 a\cmufa<muf หก (คน) 328. seven (persons) 七 ck!}pfa<muf เจด (คน) 329. eight (persons) 八 &}pfa<muf แปด (คน) 330. nine (persons) 九 udk:a<muf เกา (คน) 331. ten (persons) 十 q<fa<muf สบ (คน) 332. hundred (persons) 白 ta<mufwpf|m รอย (คน) 333. thousand (persons) 千 ta<mufwpfaxmif พน (คน) 334. to be many (people) 多 rsm:w<f หลาย (คน) 335. all (people) 都 tm:vHk: ทก (คน) 336. some (people) 有些 wcsdK h/tcsdK h บาง (คน) 337. to be few (people) 少 enf:w<f นอย (คน) 338. half a unit 一半 wpf0uf

(wdkif:wmcsuf) ครง

339. to be big 大 juD:w<f ใหญ 340. to be small 小 i<fw<f เลก 341. to be long 长 |}nfw<f ยาว 342. to be short (length) 短 wdkw<f สน 343. to be tall 高 \rifhw<f สง 344. to be short (height) 矮 !}drfhw<f เตย 345. to be thick 厚 xlw<f หนา 346. to be thin 薄 yg:w<f บาง 347. to be fat 胖(人) 0w<f อวน

131

348. to be skinny 瘦 ydefw<f ผอม 349. to be wide, broad 宽 us<fw<f กวาง 350. to be narrow 窄 usOf:w<f แคบ 351. to be deep 深 eufw<f ลก 352. to be shallow 浅 wdrfw<f ตน 353. to be round 园 vHk:w<f/0dkif:w<f กลม 354. to be full 满 \ynfhw<f เตม 355. right (side) 右边 nmbuf (ดาน) ขวา 356. left (side) 左边 b<fbuf (ดาน) ซาย 357. to be straight 直 a\zmifhw<f ตรง 358. to be far 远 a0:w<f ไกล 359. to be near 近 eD:w<f ใกล 360. this 这 'g/ 'D[m น 361. that 那 [dk[m นน

362. black 黑 trJ (a|mif) ดา 363. white 白 t\zL (a|mif) ขาว 364. red 红 teD (a|mif) แดง 365. green 绿 tpdrf: (a|mif) เขยว 366. yellow 黄 t0g (a|mif) เหลอง 367. to be dirty 脏 npfywfw<f สกปรก 368. to be new 新 opfw<f ใหม 369. to be old (thing not

person) 旧 tdkw<f เกา

370. to be dark 暗 ar}mifw<f มด 371. to be bright 亮 vif:w<f/

awmufyw<f สวาง

372. to be the same 同 wlw<f เหมอนกน 373. to be different 不同 \cm:em:w<f ตางกน 374. to be sweet 甜 csdKw<f หวาน 375. to be sour 酸 csOfw<f เปรยว 376. to be bitter 苦 cg:w<f ขม 377. to be spicy, hot 辣 pyfw<f เผด 378. to be rotten 腐烂 ykyfw<f เนา 379. to be swollen 肿 a|mifw<f บวม 380. to be dry 干 a\cmufw<f แหง 381. to be wet 湿 a|pdkw<f เปยก 382. to be hot 热 ylw<f/tdkufw<f รอน

132

383. to be cold 冷 at:w<f/csrf:w<f หนาว 384. to be sharp 快(刀) cêfw<f คม 385. to be blunt 钝(刀) wHk:w<f ทอ 386. to be heavy 重 av:w<f หนก 387. to be hard 硬 rmw<f แขง 388. to be smooth 光滑/滑溜 acsmw<f เรยบ 389. to be fast 快 \refw<f เรว 390. to be slow 慢 a!}:w<f ชา 391. to be strong 强壮 tm:juD:w<f แขงแรง 392. to be weak 软弱 tm:enf:w<f ออนแอ 393. to be tired 累 armw<f เหนอย 394. to be blind 瞎 uef:w<f ตาบอด 395. to be deaf 聋 em:yif:w<f หหนวก 396. bald 光 ezl:a\ymifw<f หวลาน 397. naked 赤 udk<fwHk:vHk:/

0wfvpfpm:vpf เปลอย

398. to be good 好 aumif:w<f ด 399. to be bad (evil) 坏 qdk:w<f ชว 400. to be correct 对 r}efw<f ถกตอง 401. to be wrong 错 r}m:w<f ผด 402. when 什麽时后/何时 b<fwkef:u เมอไร 403. where 哪里 b<fr}m ทไหน 404. who 谁 b<fol ใคร 405. what 什么 bm อะไร 406. how many 多少 b<favmuf เทาไร 407. stream 小河/溪流 a|acsmif: ลาธาร

408. wet rice field 田 v<fuGif: นา 409. to be ripe (fruit) 熟 r}nfhw<f สก (ผลไม) 410. rice seedling 秧苗 pyg:rsdK:yif ขาวกลา 411. pangolin 穿山甲 oif:acGcsyf ตวกนมด 412. crest (of rooster) 鸡冠 tarmuf (juufz) หงอน (ของไก) 413. water leech 水蛭/蚂蟥 ar}smh ปลง 414. land leech 小蚂蟥 u^wf ทาก 415. earthworm 蚯蚓 wDaumif ไสเดอน 416. I (1st sing) 我 uêfawmf ฉน 417. you (2nd plural) 你们 oifwdk./cifAsm:wdk. พวกคณ 418. he/she/it (3rd sing) 他/她/它 ol/olr/tJ'g เขา, เธอ/หลอน, มน

133

419. we (1st plural) 我们 uêfawmfwdkh พวกเรา 420. you, thou (2nd sing) 你 oif คณ 421. they (3rd plural) 他们 olwdkh พวกเขา 422. sleeping area 睡处 tdyf|efae|m บรเวณทนอน 423. to take 拿 <l/<loGm:w<f เอา 424. to disappear 消失/消散 aysmufoGm:w<f หายวบไป[สาบสญ] 425. to split w/a knife 劈开 "g: eJ hcGJw<f 426. to bend 弯曲 auG:w<f งอ 427. to lift 举起/抬起 rw<f ยกขน 428. to do/make 造/制作 \yKvkyfw<f ทา 429. don’t do it! 别做 'g/'D[m rvkyfeJh อยาทา 430. half 一半 w0uf (yrmE) ค 431. disgusting 讨严 pufqkyfw<f นารงเกยจ 432. warm 暖和 a!G:w<f อน 433. cool 凉 at:\rw<f เยน 434. difficult 难 cufcJw<f ยาก 435. easy 容易 vG<fulw<f งาย 436. loose 松 acsmifw<f หลวม

134

APPENDIX B The sociolinguistic questionnaires in English

135

Appendix B

THE KNOWLEDGEABLE INSIDER SOCIOLINGUISTIC QUESTIONNAIRE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SUBJECT 1. Gender 2. What is your name? 3. How old are you? 4. Are you married? 5. (if married) Do you have any children?

a. (if yes) How many? 6. What is your religion? 7. What is your job? 8. What is the highest level of education you have completed? 9. In which village were you born? 10. Where did you grow up? 11. Where do you live now? 12. How many years have you live here? 13. What people group is your father from? 14. What people group is your mother from? 15. What language did your father usually speak to you when you were a child? 16. What language did your mother usually speak to you when you were a child? 17. (If not obvious) when you were a child, what language did your parents speak to

each other? 18. What languages can you speak? 19. Of all the languages you speak…

a. …which language do you speak best? b. …which language do you speak second best? c. …which language do you speak third best?

VILLAGE NAME AND POPULATION 20. What is the official name of this village?

a. What ‘district’ is it in? [Ask about all the administrative levels.] (e.g. Thailand-Village, Tambon, Amphoe and Cangwat; Burma-Village, Village Group, Township, District, State or Division; China- Chun, Xiang, Xing, Zou, Shen, Country)

21. How many houses are in this village? 22. What is the total number of people in this village? (adults and children) MIGRATION

136

23. From where did the Lisu people of this village migrate? a. How long have they lived here? b. (if they have moved here recently) when they were there, what other groups

were they around? c. (if they have moved here recently) What languages/dialects were used there? d. Why did they move here? e. Do people from there ever come here? (if so) Why? f. Do people from here ever go there? (if so) Why? g. Where did they come from before that?

LANGUAGE AND ETHNIC GROUPS 24. What language is spoken the most in this village? 25. Is this village all Lisu people or are there others living here as well?

a. (if others, too) What groups live here? b. (if others, too) About how many houses and people in this village are from

each group? i. Number of houses for each group

ii. Number of people for each group c. Has it always been this way?

i. (if no) Which way is it changing… More Lisu people or fewer? 26. If someone from this village meets someone who cannot speak Lisu, what

language do they use with that person? 27. Are there people in this village who speak only Lisu?

a. (if yes) Which types of people? (e.g. which gender, ages, occupations) 28. Are there Lisu people in this village who can speak Lisu, but not very well?

a. (if yes) Which types of people? (e.g. which gender, ages, occupations) b. (if yes) What language(s) do they speak well? c. (if yes) what language do you use with them?

29. Are there Lisu people in this village who cannot speak Lisu at all? a. (if yes) Which types of people? (e.g. which gender, ages, occupations) b. (if yes) What language(s) do they speak well? c. (if yes) what language do you use with them?

INTERMARRIAGE 30. Is it common for Lisu people from this village to marry non-Lisu people?

a. (if yes) What non-Lisu people do they marry? b. Usually, what language do their children end up speaking?

EDUCATION AND LITERACY RATES 31. Is there a school in this village?

137

a. (if yes) What levels are taught in the school? b. (if yes) What is the language of instruction? c. (if yes) What kind of people (language groups) attend this school? d. (if yes) What language(s) do the school children use with each other?

32. Do any children go to any other villages/towns for school? a. (if yes) About what proportion of children to elsewhere for school? b. (if yes) Where? c. (if yes) What levels do they go for? d. (if yes) What is the language of instruction in that place?

33. About how many grades do most children from this village complete? 34. How many people from this village can read and write in LWC: (1) All, (2) most,

(3) half, (4) some, (5) very few? 35. How many people from this village can read and write in Lisu: (1) All, (2) most,

(3) half, (4) some, (5) very few? a. What script do they use to write Lisu?

BACKGROUND INFORMATIOIN 36. Which religion is followed by the most people in your village? [Animism,

Buddhism, Christianity, etc] a. By the 2nd most?

i. How much of the village follows that religion? (1) most, (2) half , (3) some, (4) very few?

b. By the 3rd most? i. How much of the village follows that religion? (1) most, (2) half , (3)

some, (4) very few? MEDIA 37. What sources of power are available in this village? How many houses have each

kind? ___ Government Electricity ___ Hydroelectricity ___ Solar panels ___ Generators ___ Wet cells ___ Dry cells

38. How many radios are in this village? a. (if they have) What programs do people listen to? b. (if they have) In what language(s)? c. (if they have) What time of day? d. (if they have) How many times a week?

39. How many cassette players are in this village? a. (if they have) What kinds of cassettes do people listen to? b. (if they have) In what language(s)? c. (if they have) How many times a week?

138

40. How many TVs are in this village? 41. How many VCD/DVD machines are in the village?

a. (if they have) What kinds of VCD/DVD do people watch?[music, Karaoke, movies, home recordings]

b. (if they have) In what language(s)? c. (if they have) What time of day? d. (if they have) How many times a week? e. (if they have) What ages gather to watch? [old, middle-age, teenagers, small

children, etc] f. (if they have) About how many people?

42. Where are the tapes/ VCD/DVD purchased/rented? a. (if they have) For how much per tape (buy)? Per day (rent)?

43. Are there any local groups that produce tapes or discs? a. (if yes) Who produces them?

44. Are there any other media in this village? (e.g. MP3 players) INTERVIEWER OBSERVATIONS 45. Were there any distractions or interruptions that interfered with the flow of the

interview or seemed to influence some of the responses? 46. Did the subject seem to understand the language of elicitation? 47. Did the subject seem shy or fairly confident about expressing his/her opinions? 48. Did the interpreter change any of the questions? Note what was actually asked. 49. Other observations about the interview? 50. Were there any questions that seemed to work really well? Which questions?

Why? 51. Were there any questions that seemed to not work well? Which questions? Why?

139

THE GROUP SOCIOLINGUISTIC QUESTIONNAIRE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SUBJECT 1. Gender 2. Name 3. How old are you? 4. Are you married? 5. What is your religion? 6. What is (was) your work? 7. Have you ever studied (at school)? 8. Up to what level of education did you complete? 9. In which village were you born? 10. Where did you grow up? 11. Where do you live now? 12. How many years have you lived here? 13. What people group is your father from? 14. What people group is your mother from? 15. What language did your father usually speak to you when you were a child? 16. What language did your mother usually speak to you when you were a child? 17. (If not obvious) when you were a child, what language did your parents speak to

each other? 18. (If married) Where was your husband/wife born? 19. (If married) What people group is your husband/wife from? 20. What languages can you speak? 21. Of all the languages you speak…

a. …which language do you speak best? b. …which language do you speak second best? c. …which language do you speak third best?

BILINGUALISM 22. What languages are spoken in this village? 23. Which of these languages is used by the most people in your village?

a. By the 2nd most? i. How much of the village speaks that: (1) most, (2) half, (3) some, (4)

very few? b. By the 3rd most? Etc…

i. How much of the village speaks that: (1) most, (2) half, (3) some, (4) very few?

140

24. What types of Lisu people speak LWC well in your village? [for example, which gender, ages, occupations]

25. What types of Lisu people in your village cant speak LWC very well? [For example, which gender, ages, occupations]

LANGUAGE VITALITY 26. Normally, after a Lisu child is born, what language does s/he speak first? 27. Can Lisu children speak another language before they start school?

a. (if so) What languages? 28. Do you think the Lisu youth in this village speak Lisu clearly/well?

a. (if not) how do you see (feel about) this? 29. What language do the Lisu children in this village speak together when they

play? a. (if not Lisu) how do you see (feel about) about this?

30. When the children of your village grow up, do you think the Lisu children they give birth to might speak the Lisu language? a. What do you think about that: is it good or bad?

ORTHOGRAPHY AND LITERACY 31. Is knowing how to read and write Lisu important to you?

a. (if yes) For what reasons/purposes? b. (if not) Why not?

32. How interested is your village in learning to read and write in your language? (a) very interested, (b) middle-of –the-road interested, (c) a little interested, (d) not at all interested

33. (Show sample of four scripts) what kind of script do you think your village is interested in using? a. Why do you like it?

34. Do you think your village would NOT like any of these scripts? a. (if don’t like) Why not?

MEDIA 35. What kinds of disc/tapes do you usually listen to in LWC? 36. What kind of tapes/discs would the people of this village be interested in

listening to in the Lisu language? DIALECT PERCEPTIONS ABOUT LISU DIALECTS 37. What are the names of other villages that speak Lisu exactly the same as here? 38. What places speak Lisu a little different from here, but you can still understand

each other?

141

39. What places speak Lisu very differently from here so different that you have trouble understanding each other?

40. The villages that speak exactly the same…(remind them which villages they named!) a. Do you travel to those places?

i. Where? b. Do you often talk with people from there?

41. The places that speak a little different …(remind them which villages they named!) a. Do you travel to those places? (pay more attention to answers from those

that have been there) i. Where?

b. Do you often talk with people from there? c. When you speak with people from one of those villages, what language do

you use with each other? Answer needs to be (1) I switch to his dialect, (2) he switches to my dialect, (3) we both switch our dialects slightly, (4) we both use our own dialects, (5) we change to use a different language (such as LWC)

i. (if dont use Lisu) why dont you speak to them in Lisu? d. When you hear them speak to each other, how much do you understand: (1)

everything, (2) most, (3) half, (4) some, (5) none? e. What do you call their language? f. What do you call those people?

42. The places that speak very different… (remind them which places they named!) a. Do you travel to those places? (pay more attention to answers from those

that have been there) i. Where?

b. Do you often talk with people from there? c. When you speak with people from one of those villages, what language do

you use with each other? Answer needs to be (1) I switch to his dialect, (2) he switches to my dialect, (3) we both switch our dialects slightly, (4) we both use our own dialects, (5) we change to use a different language (such as LWC) i. (if don’t use Lisu) why don’t you speak to them in Lisu?

43. When you hear them speak to each other, how much do you understand: (1) everything, (2) most, (3) half, (4) some, (5) none?

44. What do you call their language?

142

45. What do you call those people? 46. Besides the way you speak, is there any other way that are you different from

them? For example: customs, culture, food, dress, etc. INTERVIEWER OBSERVATIONS 47. Were there any distractions or interruptions that interfered with the flow of the

interview or seemed to influence some of the responses? 48. Did the subject seem to understand the language of elicitation? 49. Did the subject seem shy or fairly confident about expressing his /her opinions? 50. Did the interpreter change any of the questions? Note what was actually asked. 51. Other observations about the interview? 52. Were there any questions that seemed to work really well? Which questions?

Why? 53. Were there any questions that seemed to not work well? Which questions? Why?

143

THE INDIVIDUAL SOCIOLINGUISTIC QUESTIONNAIRE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SUBJECT 1. Gender 2. What is your name? 3. How old are you? 4. Are you married? 5. (if married) Do you have any children?

a. (if yes) How many? 6. What is your religion? 7. What is your job? 8. Were you able to go to school? 9. What is the highest level of education you have completed? 10. What village were you born in? 11. Where do you live now? 12. How many years have you lived here? 13. Have you lived anywhere else for more than a year? 14. (if so) Where? When? How long did you live there? 15. What people group is your father from? 16. What people group is your mother from? 17. What language did your father usually speak to you when you were a child? 18. What language did your mother usually speak to you when you were a child? 19. (If not obvious) when you were a child, what language did your parents speak to

each other? 20. (If married) Where was your husband/wife born? 21. What people is your husband/wife from? 22. What languages can you speak? 23. What language did you speak first? 24. So you speak…(remind of No.22)Which language do you speak…

a. …best? b. …second best? c. …third best?

DOMAINS OF LANGUAGE USE 25. In your house, what language do you usually speak…

a. …with your parents? b. …with your grandparents? c. …with your siblings? d. (if married)…with your husband/wife?

144

e. (if have children)…with your children? f. (if old and have children)…with your grandchildren? g. …with Lisu friends in your house? h. …with non-Lisu friends in your house?

i. So, in your house, what language do you use the most? 26. When you are not in your house, what language do you usually speak…

a. …with Lisu friends? b. …with non-Lisu friends? c. …with Lisu co-workers? d. …with non-Lisu co-workers? e. …at the market with Lisu people? f. …at the market with non-Lisu people? g. …at a funeral? h. …at a village meeting?

i. …with a government worker? (Only ask if the person is Christian) 27. Where do you usually go to church?

a. Under what convention is the church that you are going to? 28. At your church, what language is used most often for…

a. …preaching? b. …fellowship? c. …singing? d. …giving announcements? e. ...prayer?

29. What language do you use when you pray on your own? 30. What language of Bible is used most often in your church service?

a. Can you understand that Bible? b. (if not) Why not?

i. (if cant say) Is it because its hard to understand the Bible or because its hard to understand the language in the Bible?

31. (if their church doesn’t use the Lisu Bible) Can you understand the Lisu Bible? a. (If not) Why not?

i. (if cant say) Is it because its hard to understand the Bible or because its hard to understand the language in the Bible?

LANGUAGE ATTITUDES 32. Would it be acceptable for a young Lisu man or woman to marry a Chinese

person?

145

a. (if no) Why not? b. Does this happen very often?

33. How would you feel about living next-door to Chinese people? 34. When the children of your village grow up, do you think the Lisu children they

give birth to might speak the Lisu language? a. (if no) How do you feel about that?

CHILDREN 35. What language do Lisu children in this village usually speak when they play? 36. (if they have children) which language do your children usually speak at home:

Lisu or [LWC]? 37. What language do most Lisu parents use with their children? 38. Do Lisu parents teach their children any other languages?

a. (if yes) What languages? 39. Do you think most Lisu children in this village speak Lisu well?

a. (if no) How do you feel about that? BILINGUAL PROFICIENCY EVALUATION 40. Overall, how well do you speak [LWC]: (1) A little bit (2) So-so (3) Very well

(4) Very fluently 41. If someone asks you in [LWC] how to get to a place, can you tell him or not? 42. Can you describe the members of your family in [LWC]? 43. If you hire someone to work for you can you tell them the salary, hours, specific

duties in [LWC]? 44. Can you listen to a conversation among speakers of [LWC] and repeat or

describe in [LWC] what you heard? 45. Do you speak [LWC] as well as a mother tongue [LWC] speaker? 46. Is it sometimes easier to think in [LWC] than in Lisu? CONTACT/TRAVEL PATTERNS 47. Have you ever visited a Lisu village in the northern language area?

a. (if ‘yes’) What village? b. (if ‘yes’) What’s the longest time you visited there? c. (if ‘yes’) When (or ‘How long ago’) was that visit?

48. Have you ever visited a Lisu village in the central language area? a. (if ‘yes’) What village? b. (if ‘yes’) What’s the longest time you visited there? c. (if ‘yes’) When (or ‘How long ago’) was that visit?

49. Have you ever visited a Lisu village in the southern language area? a. (if ‘yes’) What village?

146

b. (if ‘yes’) What’s the longest time you visited there? c. (if ‘yes’) When (or ‘How long ago’) was that visit?

REPORTED COMPREHENSION OF LISU 50. Do you ever meet people from the northern language area?

a. If so, what language do you use with them? [ANSWER MUST BE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CHOICES:]

i. Both use northern-style Lisu ii. Both use [this village] style Lisu

iii. Each use your own dialect but can understand each other iv. Both switch to another language (if so, ask what language)

51. Do you ever meet people from the central language area? a. If so, what language do you use with them?

[ANSWER MUST BE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CHOICES:] i. Both use Central-style Lisu

ii. Both use [this village] style Lisu iii. Each use your own dialect but can understand each other iv. Both switch to another language (if so, ask what language)

52. Do you ever meet people from the southern language area? a. If so, what language do you use with them?

[ANSWER MUST BE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CHOICES:] i. Both use southern-style Lisu

ii. Both use [this village] style Lisu iii. Each use your own dialect but can understand each other iv. Both switch to another language (if so, ask what language)

DIALECT ATTITUDES 53. In your opinion, in what place is Lisu spoke the most pure?

a. Why do you feel this way? b. Have you gone to that place?

54. (if not own village) Is the dialect spoken in this village pure? a. (if not ) Why do you say it is bad?

55. In your opinion, in what place is Lisu spoken the least pure? a. Why do you feel this way? b. Have you visited that place?

LITERACY 56. Can you read and write in [LWC]?

a. (if yes) What kinds of things do you read in [LWC] ? b. (if yes) What kinds of things do you write in [LWC] ?

57. Can you read and write in Lisu?

147

a. (if yes) What kinds of things do you read in Lisu b. (if yes) What kinds of things do you write in Lisu?

58. Is there any benefit in being able to read and write Lisu? a. (if yes) What benefit?

MEDIA 59. Do you have printed materials in any language at home?

a. (if yes) What kind do you have? (If not mentioned, ask about Bible, hymnbook, books, newspapers, magazines, calendar)

b. (If yes) What languages are they written in? 60. On average how many hours a day do you read? 61. On average how many hours a day do you listen to the radio? 62. On average how many hours a day do you listen to cassettes? 63. On average how many hours a day do you watch to the TV/video? ORTHOGRAPHY AND LITERATURE 64. Do you know of anything written in Lisu?

a. (if yes) What is it? b. (if yes) From the writing style can you tell where the Lisu author was from? c. (if yes) Where do you think the authors were from? d. (if yes) Do you think they used ‘good’ Lisu?

65. Suppose someone started a class for learning to read and write Lisu, would you yourself want to attend? a. Why? b. (if yes) How many hours would you be able to go to such a class each day?

66. Would you encourage children to attend such as class? 67. Look at these four kinds of writing Show samples of four Lisu scripts.

a. Which script do you like best? b. Why? c. Which kind do you think would be easiest to learn? d. Out of these four scripts, are there any that you do not like? e. (if yes) Which one(s)? Why don’t you like it/them?

68. What kinds of books do you think Lisu people would be interested in having in Lisu es?

INTERVIEWER OBSERVATIONS OF BILINGUAL PROFICIENCY 69. Based on your knowledge of the [LWC], how well does this subject speak the

[LWC]?

148

INTERVIEWER OBSERVATIONS 70. Were there any distractions or interruptions that interfered with the flow of the

interview or seemed to influence some of the response? 71. Did the subject seem to understand the language of elicitation? 72. Did the subject seem shy or fairly confident about expressing his/her opinions? 73. Did the interpreter change any of the questions? Note what was actually asked. 74. Other observations about the interview? 75. Were there any questions that seemed to work really well? Which questions?

Why? 76. Where there any questions that seemed to not work well? Which questions?

Why?

149

APPENDIX C The Sociolinguistic Questionnaires in Lisu

150

Appendix C

THE KNOWLEDGEABLE INSIDER SOCIOLINGUISTIC QUESTIONNAIRE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SUBJECT 1. p2. 3. 4. 5.

a. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18. 19.

a. b. c.

VILLAGE NAME AND POPULATION 20.

a. [Ask about all the administrative levels.] (e.g. Burma-Village, Village Group, Township, District, State or Division)

21. 22.

MIGRATION 23.

a. b.

c. d.

151

e.

f.

g.

LANGUAGE AND ETHNIC GROUPS 24.

25. a. b.

i. ii.

c. i.

26.

27. a.

28. a. b. c.

29. a. b. c.

INTERMARRIAGE 30.

a. b.

EDUCATION AND LITERACY RATES 31.

a. b. c. d.

32. a. b. c.

d.

152

33. 34.

35.

a. BACKGROUND INFORMATIOIN 36.

a.

i.

b. i.

MEDIA 37.

38. a. b. c. d.

39. a.

b. c.

40. 41.

a.

b. c. d. e.

f. 42.

153

a.

43. a.

44. …INTERVIEWER OBSERVATIONS 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

154

THE GROUP SOCIOLINGUISTIC QUESTIONNAIRE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SUBJECT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18. 19. 20. 21.

a. b. c.

BILINGUALISM 22. 23.

a. i.

b. i.

24.

25.

LANGUAGE VITALITY 26.

27.

155

a. 28.

a. 29.

a. 30.

a. ORTHOGRAPHY AND LITERACY 31.

a. b.

32.

33.

a. 34.

a. MEDIA 35.

36.

DIALECT PERCEPTIONS ABOUT LISU DIALECTS 37.

38.

39.

40.

a. i.

b. 41.

a. i.

b. c.

156

i.

d.

e. f.

42.

a. i.

b. c.

i.

43.

44. 45. 46.

INTERVIEWER OBSERVATIONS 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

157

THE INDIVIDUAL SOCIOLINGUISTIC QUESTIONNAIRE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SUBJECT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

a. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

a. b. c.

25. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

26. a.

158

b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

(Only ask if the person is Christian) 27.

a. 28.

a. b. c. d. e.

29. 30.

a. b.

i.

31.

a. i.

LANGUAGE ATTITUDES 32.

a. b.

33.

34. a.

CHILDREN 35. 36.

37. 38.

a.

159

39. a.

BILINGUAL PROFICIENCY EVALUATION 40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

CONTACT/TRAVEL PATTERNS 47.

a. b.

c. 48.

a. b.

c.

49. a. b.

c.

REPORTED COMPREHENSION OF LISU 50.

a. [ANSWER MUST BE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CHOICES:]

i. ii.

iii. iv.

51. a.

160

[ANSWER MUST BE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CHOICES:] i.

ii. iii. iv.

52. a.

[ANSWER MUST BE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CHOICES:] i.

ii. iii. iv.

DIALECT ATTITUDES 53.

a. b.

54. a.

55. a. b.

LITERACY56.

a.

b.

57. a. b.

58. a.

MEDIA 59.

a.

b. 60. 61. 62. 63. ORTHOGRAPHY AND LITERATURE 64.

a.

161

b.

c. d.

65. a. b.

66. 67.

a. b. c. d. e.

68. INTERVIEWER OBSERVATIONS OF BILINGUAL PROFICIENCY 69.

INTERVIEWER OBSERVATIONS

70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76.

162

APPENDIX D The Sociolinguistic Questionnaires in Burmese

163

Appendix D

THE KNOWLEDGEABLE INSIDER SOCIOLINGUISTIC QUESTIONNAIRE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SUBJECT 1. usm:/r 2. tpfudk/OD:av: emrnfb<fvdkac;vJ 3. toufb<favmuf&}d\yDvJ 4. tdrfaxmifus\yD:\yDvm: 5. (us\yD:\yDqdk|if) om: orD: &}d\yD vm:

a. (&}d |if) b<f!}pfa<muf&}d\yDvJ 6. bm bmom udk: uG<f ovJ 7. bmtvkyftudkifvkyf vJ 8. ausmif: b<f!}pfwef: atmif\yD: \yDvJ 9. b<f\rdK./&Gm r}marG:wmvJ 10. b<ff\rdK./&Gm r}m juD: \yif: cJ.wmvJ 11. tckb<fr}maevJ 12. 'D r}maewmb<favmufe!}pf&}d\yDvJ 13. tpfudk/OD:av: tazubmvlrsdK:vJ 14. tpfudk/OD:av: taruaumbmvlrsdK:vJ 15. tpfudk/OD:av: taz u tpfudk/OD:av: udk i<fi<f wkef: u t\rJ wrf: bmbmom pum: a\ym vJ 16. tpfudk/OD:av: taru tpfudk/OD:av: udk i<fi<f wkef: u t\rJ wrf: bmbmom pum: a\ym vJ 17. (r&}if:ao:|if) tpfudk/OD:av: i<fi<f wkef: u tpfudk/OD:av: rdb awG olwdk.tcsif:csif: bmpum:

a\ymju vJ 18. tpfudk/OD:av: vDqlpum:t\yifw\cm: bm bmompum: awGa\ym wwf ao: vJ

19. tpfudk/OD:av: a\ymwwfwJ. t J'Dbmompum:awGxJr}m… (ola\ymwwfwJhpum:awGudk \yef o wd ay:yg) a. tpfudk/OD:av: yxrta\ymwwfqkH: u bm pum: /awG vJ b. tpfudk/OD:av: wwd<ta\ymwwf qHk: u bm pum:/awG vJ c. tpfudk/OD:av: wwd<ta\ymwwf qHk: u bm pum: /awG vJ

VILLAGE NAME AND POPULATION 20. 'D &Gm/|yfuGuf |J.w|m: 0ifem rnf ubmvJ

a. 'D|Gm/|yfuGuf u b<faus:&Gmtkyfpk/\rdK.e<f/c&kdif/\ynfe<fxJr}mygwmvJ 21. 'D |Gm/|yfuGuf r}m tdrfa\cb<f avmuf&}dvJ 22. 'D |Gm/|yfuGuf r}m vlOD:a|b<f avmuf&}dvJ MIGRATION 23. 'D|Gm/|yfuGuf u vD qlawGb<f ua\ymif:vmjuwmvJ

164

a. olw dk. 'Dr}maejuwmb<favmufjum\yDvJ b. ( 'Dudka\ymif:vmjuwm rjumao:bl:qdk|if)

'Dudkra\ymif:vmcifolwdk.[dkr}mbmvlrsdK:awGeJ.aecJ.juvJ c. ('D udka\ymif:vmjuwm rjumao:bl:qdk|if) 'Dudkra\ymif:vmcif[dkae|mr}molwdk. bmbmom

pum:awGoHk:juvJ d. bmajumif.olwdk.'Dudka\ymif:vmjuwmvJ e. [dk ( 'Dudkra\ymif:vmcif[dkae|m)uvlawG 'Dudkvmju vm:?(vmjuw<fqdk|if) bmajumif.vJ f. 'DuvlawG[dkudk ('Dudkrvmcifae|m) udk oGm:juovm:(oGm: w<fqdk|if) bmajumif.vJ g. tJ 'D ('Dudkra\ymif:vmcif[dkae|mudk) udkolwdkhb<fua\ymif:vmjuwmvJ

LANGUAGE AND ETHNIC GROUPS 24. 'D &Gm/|yfuGufr}mbmbmompum:uta\ymrsm:qHk:vJ 25. 'Dwpf&Gm/|yfuGufvHk: vDqlawGcsnf:yJvm:

a. (t\cm:vlawGvJ ae|if) bmvlrsdK:awGaumaejuwmvJ b. (t\cm:vlawGvJ ae|if)

i. vlrsdK:wpfrsdK:pD |J.tdrfa\cta|twGuf b<favmuf&}ddvJ ii. vlrsdK:wpfrsdK:pD |J.vlOD:a|ta|twGuf b<favmuf&}dvJ

c. t\rJwrf: 'D avmufyJvm: i. 'D avmufyJr[kwfbl:qdk|ifbmta\ymif:tvJawG&d}vJ?vDqlawGrsm:vm:ovm:?

enf: oGm:ovm: 26. 'D &Gm/|yfuGufuvDqlwpfa<mufvDqlpum:ra\ymwwfwJ.vlwpfa<mufeJ.awG.|ifbmpum: a\ymovJ 27. vDqlp um:wpf rsdK:yJa\ymwwfwJ.vl 'Dr}m&}dvm:

a. (&}d|if) b<fvdkvlawGvJ (Oyrm?a<musfm:vm:/rdef:rvm:? vljuD:vm:/vli<fvm:?bmvkyf tudkifvkyfwJhvlawGvJ)

28. vDqlp um: odyfru^rf: usif wJ.v l'Dr}m&}dvm: a. (&}d|if) b<fvdkvlawGvJ (Oyrm?a<musfm:vm:/rdef:rvm:?vljuD:vm:/vli<fvm:?bmvkyftudkif

vkyfwJhvlawGvJ) b. ( &d}|if) olwdk.bmbmompum:udkaumif:aumif:a\ymwwf o vJ c. ( &d}|if) cifAsm:olwdk. eJ.bmbmompum: a\ymo vJ

29. vDqlpum: vHk: 0ra\ymwwf wJ.vDqllawG'Dr}m &}d vm: a. (&}d|if) b<fvdkvlawGvJ (Oyrm?a<musfm:vm:/rdef:rvm:? vljuD:vm:/vli<fvm:? bmvkyf t udkif

vkyfwJhvlawGvJ) b. ( &d}|if) olwdk.bmbmompum:udkaumif:aumif:a\ymwwf vJ c. ( &d}|if) cifAsm:olwdk.eJ.bmbmompum: a\ymo vJ

INTERMARRIAGE 30. 'D u vD ql awG vD ql r [kwf wJ. w \cm:vl rsdK: awGeJ. awmf awmf tdrfaxmif \yK juvm: a. ( \yK |if) b<f vlrsdK: awGeJ. \yKjuovJ

165

b. ( \yK |if) ol wdk. om: orD: awG bm p um: a\ymjuovJ EDUCATION AND LITERACY RATES 31. 'D r}m pm oif ausmif: &}d vm:

a. (&d}|if) b<f !}pf wef: xd &}d vJ b. (&d}|if) bmp um: eJ. pm oif vJ c. (&d}|if) bm vlrsdK: awG wuf juvJ d. (&d}|if) ausmif: om:/ol awG t csif: csif: bm p um: a\ymju vJ

32. w\cm: \rdK./&Gm r}m ausmif: oGm: wuf wJ. uav: awG 'D r}m &}d vm: a. (&d}|if) cef. r}ef: a\c ausmif: om: b<f avmuf avmuf oGm: wuf juvJ b. (&d}|if) b<f r}m oGm: wuf juvJ c. (&d}|if) b<f !}pf wef: wuf zdk. oGm: juwm vJ d. (&d}|if) tJ ' D r}m bm p um: eJ. pm oif vJ

33. 'D u u av: awG t rsm: pkb<f!}pf wef:atmif \yD: \yD vJ 34. 'D r}m Arm pm a|: wwf zwf wwf wJ. vl b<f avmuf &}d vJ (1) tm: vHk:vm: (2) t rsm: pkvm: (3) wpf

0ufvm: (4) wpf csdK. wpf 0ufvm: (5) wpf a<muf wpf avvm: 35. 'D r}m vDqlpm a|: wwf zwf wwf wJ. vl b<f !}pf a<muf &}d vJ (1) tm: vHk:vm: (2) t rsm: pkvm: (3)

wpf 0ufvm: (4) wpf csdK. wpf 0ufvm: (5) wpf a<muf wpf avvm: a. ol wdk. b<f vD ql pmudk oHk: juvJ

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 36. 'D r}mudk: uG<f oltrsm: qHk:ubm omvJ (ewf udk: uG<f rS kvm:? A k'$bmom vm:? c|pf <mef vm: ?

p o\zif….) a. 'D r}m wd < udk: uG<f ol t rsm: qHk: ubm bm om vJ

i. 'Du vl awG b<f avmuf tJ 'Dbm om udk udk: uG<fjuvJ (1) trsm: pk? (2) wpf 0uf? (3) wpf csdK h wpf 0uf? (4) wpf a<muf wpfav

b. 'D r}m wwd < udk: uG<f ol t rsm: qHk: u b<f bm om vJ ii. 'D u vl awG b<f avmuf tJ 'Dbm om udk udk: uG<fjuvJ (1) trsm: pk? (2)wpf0uf? (3) wpf csdK.

wpf 0uf? (4) wpf a<muf wpf av MEDIA 37. 'D r}m b<f vdk v}syf ppf tm: awG &}d vJ? b<f !}pf tdrf avmuf &}d vJ? a|tm: v}syf ppf oHk: wm b<f !}pf tdrf

avmuf &}d vJ? ae tm: v}syf ppf oHk: wm b<f !}pf tdrf avmuf &}d vJ? rD: puf v}syf ppf oHk: wm b<f !}pf tdrf avmuf &}d vJ? buf x |D v}syf ppf oHk: wm b<f !}pf tdrf avmuf &}d vJ? buf x |D a\cmuf v}syf ppf oHk: wm b<f !}pf tdrf avmuf &}d vJ?

38. 'D r}m a| D <dk b<f !}pf vHk: avmuf &}d vJ a. ( &d}|if) bm t pD t pOf udk em: axmif juvJ b. ( &d}|if) b<f bm om p um: eJh em: axmif juvJ c. ( &d}|if) b<f t csdef r}m em: axmif juvJ d. ( &d}|if) wpf ygwf r}m b<f !}pf judrfem: axmif juvJ

166

39. 'Dr}m uuf quf b<f !}pf vHk: avmuf &}d vJ a. ( &d}|if) uuf quf eJh bm awG udkem: axmif ju vJ b. ( &d}|if) b<f bm om p um: udkem: axmif juvJ c. ( &d}|if) b<f t csdef r}m em: axmif juvJ d. ( &d}|if) b<f bm om p um: eJhxkwfxm:wJhacGawGudk em: axmif juvJ

40. 'D r}m wDAGD b<f !}pf vHk:avmuf &}d vJ 41. 'D r}m VCD/DVD atmuf pufb<f !}pf vHk: avmuf &}d vJ

a. ( &d}|if) b<f vdk acG awG udk junf. juvJ ( oD csif:?um|m tdk au? &kyf &Sif? p o \zif.) b. ( &d}|if) b<f bm om p um: eJ. acGawGudk junf. juvJ c. ( &d}|if) b<f t csdef r}m junf. juvJ d. ( &d}|if) wpf ygwf r}m b<f !}pf judrf junf.juvJ e. ( &d}|if) b<f touf t &G<f awG u junf.juvJ ( oufjuD:? ouf vwf? vl i<f? u av:? p o \zif.) f. ( &d}|if) b<f !}pf a<muf avmuf junf. juvJ

42. acGawG udk b<f r}m 0<f ju/iSg: ju wm vJ a. ( 0<f /iSg: rJ. ae |m &Sd |if) wpf acG udk b<favmuf eJ. 0<f ju vJ? wpf acG udk b<favmuf ay: \yD:iSg:

|vJ 43. acG xkwf wJ. ao cH awG &Sd vm:

a. ( &Sd |if) b<f ol awG vJ 44. 'D r}m wpf \cm: junf. p |m? em: axmif p|mbm v}syfppfypPnf:awG &Sd ao: vJ INTERVIEWER OBSERVATIONS 45. 'DtifwmAsL:r}mta!}muft<}uftwm:tqD:&Sdovm: 46. tifwmAsL:aewJ.pum: udka\zqdkolaumif:aumif:em:vnfovm: 47. a\zqdkol[m&Sufae (0g) ol.t\rifudk|J|J0H.0H.a\zqdkcJ.ovm: 48. pum:\yef[mar:cGef:awGudka\ymif:\yD:ar:cJ.ovm: (oifbmar:csifonfudkt\rJowdrlyg) 49. tifwmAsL:aecsdeft\cm:owdxm:rdwJ.t|mawG&Sdovm: 50. b<far:cGef:awGuydkar:vdk.vG<fovJ?bmajumif.vnf: 51. b<far:cGef:awGuydkar:vdk.cuffovJ?bmajumif.vnf:

167

THE GROUP SOCIOLINGUISTIC QUESTIONNAIRE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SUBJECT 1. usm:/r

2. tpfudk/ tpfr/OD:av:/t a'; emrnfb<fvdkac;vJ 3. toufb<favmuf &}d \yD vJ 4. tdrfaxmifus\yD:\yDvm: 5. bm bmomudk<Hkjunfudk: uG<fovJ 6. bmtvkyftudkif vkyfvJ 7. ausmif:aezl: vm: 8. b<f!}pfwef: atmif \yD: \yD vJ 9. tpfudk/ tpfr/OD:av:/t a';udkb<f r}m arG:wmvJ 10. tpfudk/ tpfr/OD:av:/t a';b<f r}m juD: \yif: vm wm vJ 11. tpfudk/ tpfr/OD:av:/ta';tckb<f r}mae vJ 12. tpfudk/ tpfr/OD:av:/ta'; 'Dr}maewm b<favmufjum\yD 13. tpfudk/ tpfr/OD:av:/t a';tazubmvlrsdK:vJ 14. tpfudk/ tpfr/OD:av:/t a'; taruaumbmvlrsdK:vJ 15. tpfudk/ tpfr/OD:av:/t a';taz tpfudk/ tpfr/OD:av:/t a'; udk i<fi<f wkef: u t\rJwrf:

bmbmom pum: a\ym vJ 16. tpfudk/ tpfr/OD:av:/t a';tartpfudk/ tpfr/OD:av:/t a'; udk i<fi<f wkef: u t\rJ wrf:

bmbmom pum: a\ym vJ 17. (r&}if:ao:|if) tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';i<fi<f wkef: u tpfudk/ tpfr/OD:av:/t a'; rdb

awGolwdk.tcsif:csif: bmbmompum: a\ymju vJ 18. (tdrfaxmifus\yD: |if) tpfudk/ tpfr/OD:av:/t a'; trsKd:orD:/om: udkb<fr}marG:wmvJ 19. (tdrfaxmifus\yD: |if) tpfudk/ tpfr/OD:av:/ta'; trsKd:orD:/om: ubmvlrsdK:vJ 20. tpfudk/ tpfr/OD:av:/t a'; bm bmom pum: awG a\ymwwfvJ

21. tpfudk/ tpfr/OD:av:/t a';a\ymwwf wJhtJ'Dbmomp um: awGxJr}m…

a. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a a';) yxr ta\ymwwfqkH: u bm pum: /awG vJ b. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';)wd<ta\ymwwf qHk: u bmpum:/awG vJ c. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a'; ) wwd< ta\ymwwf qHk: u bmpum: /awG vJ

BILINGUALISM 22. 'Dr}mbmbmom pum: awGa\ymjuvJ 23. b<fbmompum:(awG) uvloHk:trsm: qHk:vJ

a. wwd<vla\ymtrsm: qHk: u bm bmomp um: (awG) vJ i. 'Dbmom p um: (awG) udk'DuvlawG b<favmuf oHk: juvJ (1) trsm: pkvm:? (2) wpf 0ufvm:?

(3) wpf csdK hwpf 0ufvm:? (4) wpf a<muf wpf avvm: b. wwd < vl a\ymtrsm: qHk:bmom p um: u bm p um: vJ

168

i. 'D bmomp um: (awG) udk'Dr}m vlawG b<favmuf oHk: juvJ (1) trsm: pkvm:? (2) wpf 0ufvm:? (3) wpf csdK hwpf 0ufvm:? (4) wpf a<muf wpf avvm:

24. 'Dr}mArmpum: udk b<fol awG aumif: aumif: a\ymwwf vJ? (Oyrm?a<musfm:vm:/rdef:rvm:? vljuD:vm:/ vli<fvm:?bmtvkyftudkifvkyfwJhvlawGvJ)

25. 'D r}m b<f olawG Armpum: udkaumif: aumif: r a\ymwwfbl:vJJ? (Oyrm?a<musfm:vm:/rdef:rvm:? vljuD: vm:/vli<fvm:?bmtvkyftudkifvkyfwJhvlawGvJ)

LANGUAGE VITALITY

26. yHkr}efqdk |if'Dr}m vDqluav: wpfa<muf arG:vm\yD: aemuf? bmbmomp um: udk yxrOD: qHk: a\ymvJ 27. 'DuvDqlu av: awG ausmif: r wuf cif? wpf \cm:bmom pum: awG udk a\ym wwf vm:

a. (a\ymwwf |if) bmbmom pum: awG udk a\ymwwfvJ 28. 'D&Gm u vli<f awG? vDqlp um: aumif: aumif: a\ymwwf vm:

a. (ra\ymwwf|if) gudk b<fvdk \rif/cHpm: | vJ 29. 'Du vDql uav: awG u pm: |if? olwdkhtcsif: csif: bmbmom pum: a\ym vJ

a. (vDql vdk r a\ym|if) gudk b<fvdk \rif/cHpm: | vJ 30. 'Du vDqluav:awG juD: \yif:vm tdrfaxmif us\yD: aemuf? om: orD: awG | vm |if? ol wdkhom: orD: awG

vD ql pum: a\ym wwf r<f vdkhxif vm: a. 'gudk b<fvdk \rif vJ? aumif: vm:? raumif: bl: vm:

ORTHOGRAPHY AND LITERACY

31. vDqlpm a|: wwf wm (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) twGuf ta|: juD: vm:? ta|: rjuD:bl:vm: a. (ta|: juD: |if) bmajumifhta|:juD: wm vJ b. (ta|: r juD: |if) bm ajumifhta|: r juD: wm vJ

32. 'Du vDqlawG udk<fhbmompum: udk<f a|:wwf zwf zdkh b<favmuf xdpdwf0if pm: juvJ (1) wtm: pdwf 0ifpm: vm:? (2) wpfcsdK h wpf 0ufavmuf yJpdwf0if pm: juvm:? (3) enf: enf: yg:yg: yJpdwf0ifpm: juvm:? (4) vHk: 0pdwfr0ifpm: jubl: vm:

33. (vDqlpmav: rsdK: udk \yyg) 'DuvDql awGb<fpmudkpdwf0ifpm: jur<f xifvJ a. bmajumifh ' DpmrsdK:udk judKufwmvJ

34. tck\ywJhpmav:rsdK:xJu? b<fpmudkr}'DuvD qlawG judKufr}m r [kwf bl: vdkhxif vm: a. (rjudKufcJhbl:qdk|if) bmajumifhrjudKuf |wm vJ

MEDIA 35. 'Dr}m b<f vdk DVD/VCD wdwfacGawGudk junfhjuem:axmif juvJ 36. 'Du vlawG b<fvdk vDql DVD/VCDwdwfacGawGudk em:axmif csif junfhcsif juvJ DIALECT PERCEPTIONS ABOUT LISU DIALECTS

37. 'Dr}ma\ymwJh vDqlpum: eJhwpfax|mwnf:wlwJhvDqlpum:a\ym wJh \rdK h/&GmemrnfawG udka\ym\yyg 38. 'D r}ma\ymwJh vDqlpum: eJh enf: enf: yg:yg:uGJayrJh em: vnf!kdif wJh vDqlpum: a\ymwJh \rdK h/&Gm emrnf awG

udk a\ym\yyg 39. 'Dr}ma\ymwJh vDql pum: eJh awmfawmfuGJ\yD: (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wdkh em: rvnf!kdif wJhvDqlpum:

a\ym wJh \rdK h/ &Gm awG udk a\ym \yyg

169

40. 'Dr}ma\ymwJh vDqlpum: eJhwpfax|mwnf:wlwJhvDqlpum:a\ym wJh ae|m awG udk… (olwdkha\ymcJhwJh ae|m awGudk \yefa\ym\yyg)

a. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wdkha|mufzl: vm: (a|mufzl:w<fvdkha\ymwJhvlawGudk ydk *&kpdkufem: axmif yg) ? i. b<fae|mawGvJ

b. tJ 'DuvlawGeJhrjumcEpum: a\ymbl:vm: 41. 'Dr}ma\ymwJh vDqlpum: eJh enf: enf: yg:yg: uGJayrJh em: vnf!kdif wJh vDqlpum: a\ymwJhae|m awG udk...

(olwdkha\ymcJhwJhae|mawGudk \yefa\ym\yyg)

a. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';)wdkha|mufzl: vm: (a|mufzl:w<fvdkha\ymwJhvlawGudk ydk *&kpdkufem: axmif yg) ? i. b<fae|mawGvJ

b. tJ 'DuvlawGeJhrjumcE pum: a\ymbl:vm: c. tJ 'DuvlawGeJhpum:a\ymbl:w<fqdk|if? (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wdkh bmbmom pum:

oHk:juvJ oifhawmfwJhta\zu(1) uêfawmol hpum:udk a\ymif:oHk:w<f?

(2) oluêfawmfhpum: udka\ymif: oHk: w<f? (3) !}pfa<mufpvHk: udk<fhpum: udk<fenf: enf: pD\yif \yD: a\ymjuw<f? (4)!}pfa<mufpvHk:udk<fhpum: udk<foHk: juw<f? (5) uêfawmfwdkhwpf\cm: pum: udk a\ymif: oHk: juw< f(Oyrm?Armpum:a\ymjuw<f)`

ii. (tu<fIvDqlpum:ra\ymbl:qdk|if) (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wdkhbm\zpfvdkholwdkhudk vDqlvdk ra\ymwmvJ? d. olwdkhtcsif:csif: pum: a\ymae |if olwdkh a\ymaewJh pum: udk (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';)

wdkhb<favmuf em: vnfvJ (1) tm: vHk:vm:? (2) trsm: pkvm:? (3) wpf0ufvm:? (4) wpf csdK h yJvm:? (5) vHk: 0em: rvnfbl: vm:`

e. olwdkha\ymwJhpum:udk (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wdkhu bmpum: vdkhac;vJ f. olwdkhudk (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wdkhubmvlrsdK: vdkh ac;vJ

42. 'Dr}ma\ymwJh vDql pum: eJh awmfawmfuGJ\yD: (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wdkh em: rvnf!kdifwJhvDqlpum: a\ym wJh ae|mawGudk... (olwdkha\ymcJhwJhae|mawGudk \yefa\ym\yyg)

a. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wdkha|mufzl: vm: (a|mufzl:w<fvdkha\ymwJhvlawGudk ydk *&kpdkuf em: axmifyg) ? i. b<fae|mawGvJ

b. tJ'DDuvlawGeJhrjumcEpum: a\ymbl:vm: c. t J 'DuvlawGeJhpum:a\ymbl:w<fqdk|if? (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';)wdkh bmbmom pum: oHk:juvJ

oifhawmfwJhta\zu(1) uêfawmfol hpum:udk a\ymif:oHk:w<f? (2) oluêfawmfhpum: udka\ymif: oHk: w<f? (3) !}pfa<mufpvHk: udk<fhpum:udk<fenf:enf: pD\yif \yD: a\ymjuw<f? (4) !}pfa<mufpvHk: udk<fhpum: udk<f oHk: juw<f? (5)uêfawmfwdkh wpf\cm:pum: udka\ymif: oHk: juw<f (Oyrm? Armpum: a\ymjuw<f)`

i. (tu<fIvDqlpum:ra\ymbl:qdk|if) (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wdkh bm\zpfvdkholwdkhudk vDqlvdk ra\ymwmvJ?

43. olwdkhtcsif:csif: pum: a\ymae |if olwdkha\ymaewJh pum: udk (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wdkh b<favmuf em: vnfvJ (1) tm: vHk:vm:? (2) trsm: pkvm:? (3) wpf0ufvm:? (4) wpf csdK h yJvm:? (5) vHk: 0em: rvnfbl: vm:`

170

44. olwdkha\ymwJhpum:udk (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wdkhubmpum: vdkhac;vJ 45. olwdkhudk (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wdkhubmvlrsdK: vdkh ac;vJ 46. pum:uGJwmt\yif? olwdkheJh (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wdkhrwlwmbm&}d ao: vJ? (Oyrm?

0wfpm:qif<ifrS k? <Ofaus:rS k tpm:tpm? po\zifh)

INTERVIEWER OBSERVATIONS

47. 'DtifwmAsL:r}mta!}muft<}uftwm:tqD:&Sdovm: 48. tifwmAsL:aewJ.pum: udka\zqdkolaumif:aumif:em:vnfovm: 49. a\zqdkol[m&Sufae (0g) ol.t\rifudk|J|J0H.0H.a\zqdkcJ.ovm: 50. pum:\yef[mar:cGef:awGudka\ymif:\yD:ar:cJ.ovm: (oifbmar:csifonfudkt\rJowdrlyg)

51. tifwmAsL:aecsdeft\cm:owdxm:rdwJ.t|mawG&Sdovm: 52. b<far:cGef:awGuydkar:vdk.vG<fovJ?bmajumif.vnf: 53. b<far:cGef:awGuydkar:vdk.cuffovJ?bmajumif.vnf:

171

THE INDIVIDUAL SOCIOLINGUISTIC QUESTIONNAIRE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SUBJECT 1. usm:/r

2. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) emrnfb<fvdkac;vJ 3. toufb<favmuf&}d\yDvJ 4. tdrfaxmifus\yD:\yDvm: 5. (us\yD:\yD|if) om: orD: &}d\yD vm: a. (&}d |if) b<f!}pfa<muf&}d\yDvJ 6. bm bmom udk: uG<f ovJ 7. bmtvkyftudkifvkyfvJ 8. ausmif:wufzl:vm: 9. ausmif: b<f!}pfwef: atmif\yD: \yDvJ 10. b<f&Gm/\rdK. r}marG:wmvJ 11. tckb<fr}maevJ

12. 'D r}maewmb<favmufe!}pf&}d\yDvJ 13. wpf\cm:wpfae|m|mr}mwpf!}pfxufydk\yD:aezl:vm: 14. (aezl:w<fqdk|if) b<fae|mr}mvJ? b<fwkef:uvJ? tJDr}mb<favmufjumjumaecJhvJ 15. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';)tazubmvlrsdK:vJ 16. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) taraumbmvlrsdK:vJ 17. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) taz (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) udk i<fi<f wkef: u t\rJ wrf:

bmbmompum: a\ym vJ 18. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/ta;) tar (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) udk i<fi<f wkef: u t\rJ wrf:

bmbmom pum: a\ym vJ 19. (r&}if:ao:|if) (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) i<fi<f wkef: u (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) rdb

awG olwdk.tcsif:csif: bmpum: a\ymju vJ 20. (tdrfaxmifus\yD: |if) (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) trsKd:orD:/om: udkb<fr}marG:wmvJ 21. (tdrfaxmifus\yD: |if) (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/ a';) trsKd:orD:/om: ubmvlrsdK:vJ 22. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/ a';) bm bmom pum: awG a\ymwwf vJ

23. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) arG:\yD:aemuf yxrOD: qHk: a\ymwJhpum:ubm bmompum:vJ

24. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) a\ymwwf wJhtJDbmomp um: awGxJr}m…(ola\ymwwfwJhbmom pum:awGudk \yefowday:yg) a. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) yxr ta\ymwwfqkH: u bm bmompum: /awG vJ b. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wd<ta\ymwwf qHk: u bm bm om pum:/awG vJ c. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wwd< ta\ymwwf qHk: u bm bmom pum: /awG vJ

DOMAINS OF LANGUAGE USE 25. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/ta;) tdrfr}m…

172

a. rdbeJhbm bmompum:a\ymvJ b. tzdk:tzGm:eJhaum bm bmompum:a\ymvJ c. nDtpfudkarmif!}reJhaum bm bmompum:a\ymvJ d. (tdrfaxmif&d}|if) (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) cifyGef:/ZeD: eJhaum bm bmompum:a\ymvJ e. (om:orD:&}d|if) om:orD:eJhaum bm bmompum:a\ymvJ f. (a\r:&}d|if) a\r:awGeJhaum bm bmompum:a\ymvJ g. vDqloli<fcsif:awGeJhaum bm bmompum:a\ymvJ h. vDqlr[kwfwJholi<fcsif:awGeJhaum bm bmompum:a\ymvJ i. ' gqkd|ifcifAsm:tdrfr}mtoHk:trsm:qHk:ubm bmompum:vJ

26. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) tdrft\yifr}m… a. vDqloli<fcsif:awGeJh bm bmompum:a\ymvJ b. vDqlr[kwfwJh oli<fcsif:awGeJh aum bmbmompum:a\ymvJ c. vDqlvkyfaz;aqmifzufeJh aum bm bmompum:awGa\ymvJ d. vDqlr[kwfwJhvkyfaz;aqmifzufeJh e. aum bm bmompum:awGa\ymvJ f. aps:r}mvDqloli<fcsif:awGeJhaum bm bmompum:a\ymvJ g. aps:r}mvDqlr[kwfwJholi<fcsif:awGeJh aumbm bmompum:a\ymvJ h. tokbr}maumbmbmompum:a\ymvJ i. (&Gm/|yfuGuf)tpnf:ta0:r}maumbm bmompum:a\ymvJ j. tpdk:|0efxrf:eJhaum bmbmompum:a\ymvJ

27. yHkr}ef b<fbk|m:ausmif:r}m wufvJ a. tJ 'Dbk|m:ausmif:ub<f*dkEf:*Er}m ygwmvJ

28. tJ 'Dbk|m:ausmif:r}m...

a. w|m:a[m|ifbmpum:toHk:rsm:vJ b. rdwfo[m<zGJ h|ifbmpum:toHk:rsm:vJ c. *kEfawmfcsD:rGrf:|ifbmpum:toHk:rsm:vJ d. aju\imp|maju\im|ifbmpum:toHk:rsm:vJ e. qkawmif:|if bmpum:toHk:rsm:vJ

29. udk<fhbmomudk<fqkawmif:|ifbmpum:oHk:vJ 30. cifAsm:yg0ifwJhtoif:awmf0wf\yKpnf:a0:r}m b<fbmomeJha|:xm:wJh usrf:pmu toHk:rsm:vJ

a. tJ 'Dusrf:pmudkcifAsm: em:vnf vm: b. (em:rvnf|if) bmajumifhem:rvnfwmvJ

i. (ra\z!kdifao:|if) usrf:pmueufeJvdkhem:r vnfwmvm:? (odkh)usrf:pmudka|:xm:wJh bmompum: udkem:rvnfwmvm:

31. (wu<fvdkh toif:awmfr}mvDqlusrf:pmroHk:|if) cifAsm:vDqlusrf:pmudkem:vnfovm: a. (wu<fvdkh em:rvnf|if) bmajumifhem:rvnfwmvJ

173

i. (ra\z!kdifao:|if) usrf:pmueufeJvdkhem:r vnfwmvm:? (odkh)usrf:pmudka|:xm:wJh bmompum: udkem:rvnfwmvm:

LANGUAGE ATTITUDES

32. vDqlvli<fwpfa<muf vlrsdK:\cm:eJh tdrfaxmifuswm aumif:vm:/raumif:bl:vm: a. (raumif:|if) bmajumifhraumif:wmvJ b. 'DuvDqlawGvlrsdK:\cm:eJh rjumcEtdrfaxmif\yKavh&}dvm:

33. vlrsdK:\cm: (Arm) eJhtdrfeD:em:csif:t\zpfae|r<fqdk|if (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/ta;) b<fvdk cHpm:|rvJ 34. 'D uvDql uav:awG juD: \yif:vm tdrfaxmif us\yD:aemuf? om: orD: awG | vm |if? ol wdkhom: orD: awG

vD ql pum: a\ym wwf r<f vdkhxif vm: i. (ra\ymwwfbl:qdk|if) gudk b<fvdk \rif vJ? aumif: vm:/ raumif: bl: vm:

CHILDREN

35. 'Du vDqluav:awG upm:|if bmpum:oHk:vJ 36. (om:orD:&}d|if) (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) uav: awG

tdrfr}m vDqlpum:yJa\ym vm: (odkh)Armpum:yJa\ymvm: 37. 'DuvDqlrdbtrsm:pkolwdkhom:orD:udkbmbmom pum:a\ymvJ 38. vDqlrdbawG olwdkhom:orD:udkwpf\cm:bmompum:oifay:vm:

a. (oifay:|if) bmbmompum:oifay:vJ 39. 'Du uav:awG vDqlpum:aumif:aumif:

a\ymwwfw<fvdkhxifvm: a. (a\ymwwfr<f rxifbl:qkd|if) gudk (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) b<fvdkcHpm:|vJ

40. a<bk<sa\ymr<fqdk|i(tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) Armpum:udk (1) enf:enf:av:yJ a\ymwwfvm:? (2) toifhtoifha\ymwwfvm:? (3) aumif:aumif:a\ymwwfvm:?(4) u^rf: u^rf:usifusifa\ymwwfvm:

41. tu<fI vlwpfa<mufa<mufu Arm pum:eJhae|mwpfckck|J hvdyfpmudkar:|if? (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) olar:wJhvdyfpmudk Armvdk&}if: \y!kdifrvm:

42. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) |J hrdom:pk0ifawGtjumif:udk Armvkd&}if:\y!kdifrvm: 43. tu<fI(tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) tvkyform:wpfa<mufi}g:r<fqdk|if? (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t

a';) olhudk vkyftm:c?tvkyfcsdef?vkyfief:tajumif: tao:pdwfudkArmvdk &}if:\y!kdkifrvm: 44. olrsm: Armvkdt\yeftv}efa\ymaejuwmudk? (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) jum:\yD:?olwdkha\ymwJh

tajumif:t|mudk uêfawmfhudkArmvdk\yefa\ym\y!kdifrvm: 45. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) Armpum:udk Armwpfa<mufvdka\ym!kdkifrvm: 46. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) twGufwcgwav ArmvdkpOf:pm:|wmu vDqlvdkpOf:pm:| wmxufydk

vG<fvm: BILINGUAL PROFICIENCY EVALUATION CONTACT/TRAVEL PATTERNS

47. ylwmtdkvDqlpum: a\ymwJhaoudka|mufzl:vm: a. ( a|mufzl:|if) b<f&Gm/ae|mawGudka|mufzl:vJ b. ( a|mufzl:|if) t J'Dr}mtjumqHk:b<favmufaezl:vJ

174

c. ( a|mufzl:|if) b<fwkef:ua|mufzl:wmvJ?(odk h) a|mufzl:wmb<favmufjum\yDvJ 48. \rpfjuD:em: vDqlpum:a\ymwJhaoudka|mufzl:vm:

a. (a|mufzl:|if)b<f&Gm/ae|mawGudka|mufzl:vJ b. ( a|mufzl:|if) tJ 'Dr}mtjumqHk:b<favmufaezl:vJ c. (a|mufzl:|if) b<fwkef:ua|mufzl:wmvJ? (odk h)a|muf zl:wmb<favmufjum\yDvJ

49. &}rf:\ynfawmifydkif: vDqlpum:a\ymwJhaoudka|mufzl:vm: a. ( a|mufzl:|if) b<f&Gm/ae|mawGudka|mufzl:vJ b. ( a|mufzl:|if) tJ 'Dr}mtjumqHk:b<favmufaezl:vJJ c. ( a|mufzl:|if) b<fwkef:ua|mufzl:wmvJ?(odkh)a|mufzl:wmb<favmufjum\yDvJ

REPORTED COMPREHENSION OF LISU

50. ylwmtdkvDqlpum:a\ymwJhvlawGeJhawG hzl:qHkzl:vm: a. awG hzl:qHkzl|if? (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';)olwdkheJhbmvDqlpum:a\ymvJ ta\zuatmuf

xJuwpfckck\zpf|r<f b. !}pfa<mufpvkH: ylwmtkdvDqlpum:yJokH:vm: c. !}pfa<mufpvkH: 'Dr}ma\ymwJhvDqlpum:yJoHk:vm: d. udk<fhpum:udk<fa\ym|ifvnf:em:vnfjuvm: e. !}pfa<mufpvkH: wpf\cm:pum: wpfckudka\ymif:oHk:vm: (a\ymif:oHk: w<fqdk|if? bmpum: udka\ymif:

oHk:wmvJ)

51. <Dar (&}m&}m) vDqlpum:a\ymwJhvlawGeJhawG hzl:qHkzl:vm: a. awG hzl:qHkzl|if? cifAsm:olwdkheJhbmvDqlpum:a\ymvJta\zuatmufxJuwpfckck\zpf|r<f b. !}pfa<mufpvkH: <Dar(&}m&}m) vDqlpum:yJokH:vm: c. !}pfa<mufpvkH: Dr}ma\ymwJhvDqlpum:yJoHk:vm: d. udk<fhpum:udk<fa\ym|ifvnf: em:vnfjuvm: e. !}pfa<mufpvkH: wpf\cm:pum: wpfckudka\ymif:oHk:vm: (a\ymif:oHk: w<fqdk|if? bmpum:udka\ymif:

oHk:wmvJ) 52. &}rf:\ynfawmifydkif: vDqlpum:a\ymwJhvlawGeJhawG hzl: qHkzl:vm:

a. awG hzl:qHkzl|if? cifAsm:olwdkheJhbmvDqlpum:a\ymvJta\zuatmufxJuwpfckck\zpf|r<f b. !}pfa<mufpvkH: &}rf:\ynfawmifydkif:vDqlpum:yJokH: vm: c. !}pfa<mufpvkH:'Dr}ma\ymwJhvDqlpum:yJoHk:vm: d. udk<fhpum:udk<fa\ym|ifvnf: em:vnfjuvm: e. !}pfa<mufpvkH: wpf\cm:pum: wpfckudka\ymif:oHk:vm: (a\ymif:oHk: w<fqdk|if? bmpum: udka\ymif: f. oHk:wmvJ)

DIALECT ATTITUDES

53. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';)taeeJh b<faor}ma\ymwJh vDqlpum:u vDql pum:tppfqHk: vdkhxifvJ a. bmajumifhcifAsm:Dvdk\rifwmvJ b. tJ' Dae|mudk (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) a|mufzl:vm:

54. (ar:cGef:ar:aewJhae|mr[kwf|if) 'Dr}ma\ymwJhvDqlpum:uvDqlpum:ppfvm:

175

a. (rppfbl:qkd|if) bmajumifhvDqlpum: rppfbl:vdkha\ymwmvJ 55. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) taeeJh b<faor}ma\ymwJh vDqlpum:u vDql pum: rppfqHk:vdkh xifvJ

a. bmajumif h 'D vdk\rifwmvJ b. tJ 'Dae|mudka|mufzl:vm:

LITERACY 56. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';)Armvkda|:wwfzwfvm:

a. (a|:wwfzwfwwfw<fqdk|if) ArmvdkeJhb<fvdkpmawGudkzwfovJ b. (a|:wwfzwfwwfw<fqdk|if) ArmvdkeJhb<fvdkpmawGudka|:ovJ

57. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';)vDql vkda|:wwfzwfvm: a. (a|:wwfzwfwwfw<fqdk|if) vDqlvdkeJhb<fvdkpmawGudkzwf ovJ b. (a|:wwfzwfwwfw<fqdk|if) vDqlvdkeJh b<fvdkpmawGudka|: ovJ

58. vDqlvdka|:wwfzwfwm(tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/ta';)twGuf tusKd:&}dvm: a. (&}d|if) b<fvdktusdK:awG&}dvJ

MEDIA 59. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) tdrfr}mzwfp|m pmawG &}dvm: (&}d|if)b<fvdktrsdK:tpm:awG&}dvJ(ra\ym!dkifbl:qkd|if?usrf: pm? "rRoDcsif:pmtkyf? pmtkyf?owif:pm? r®Zif:? \yuQdefwdkhpo\zifhar:yg)

a. (&}d|if) bmbmompum:awGeJha|:xm:wmvJ 60. a<bk<stm:\zifh(tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wpf|ufudk b<f!}pfem|Davmuf pmzwfvJ 61. a<bk<stm:\zifh(tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';)wpf|ufudk b<f!}pfem|Davmufa|D<dkem:axmifvJ 62. a<bk<stm:\zifh(tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wpf|ufudk b<f!}pfem|Davmufuufqufem:axmifvJ 63. a<bk<stm:\zifh(tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wpf|ufudk b<f!}pfem|D avmufTV/ video junfhvJ ORTHOGRAPHY AND LITERATURE

64. (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';)odwJh vDqlvkda|:xm: pm&}d vm: a. (&}d|if) bmpmvJ b. (&d}|if) 'DxJuta|:tom:udkjunfh\yD:?pma|:ol[mb<fuqkdwm(tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';)

a\ym!kdifvm: c. (a\ym!kdif|if) 'D pma|:q|m/awG [m b<fuvJ d. (a\ym!kdif|if) 'Dpma|:q|m/awG[mvDqlvdkdkaumif:aumif:u^rf:usifw<fvdkh(tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/

t a';) xifvm: 65. vDqlpm ta|:tzwfoifay:rJhtwef:&}dcJh|if (tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';) wufcsif vm:

a. bmajumifhvJ b. (wufcsifw<fqkd|if)wpf|ufudkb<f!}pfem|Davmuftcsdef ay:\yD: wuf!kdifrvJ

66. uav:awGudk 'Dtwef:wufzkdh wdkufwGef:rvm: 67. ' DvDqlpmav:rsdK:udkjunfh ygvDqlpmav:rdsK:udk\yyg

a. b<fpmudktjudKufqHk:vJ b. bmajumifhvJ c. b<fpm[moifvkdhtvG<fqHk: \zpfr<fvkhdxifvJ

176

d. 'Dpmav:rsdK:xJr}m(tpfudk/tpfr/OD:av:/t a';)rjudKufwJhpm&}dvm: e. (&}d |if) b<fpmvJ? bmajumifhrjudKufwmvJ

68. vDqlawG b<fvdkvDql pmtrsdK:pm:udk&}d csifr<f/pdwf0ifpm:r<fvdkhxifvJ (ra\ym!dkifbl:qkd|if?usrf: pm? "rRoDcsif:pmtkyf? &kyf\y?owif:pm?r®Zif:?\yuQdefwdkhpo\zifhar:yg) INTERVIEWER OBSERVATIONS OF BILINGUAL PROFICIENCY 69. oif.t\rift|?a\zqdkol[m?!dkifiHawmfpum:udkb<favmufa\ym!kdifovJ INTERVIEWER OBSERVATIONS

70. 'DtifwmAsL:r}mta!}muft<}uftwm:tqD:&Sdovm: 71. tifwmAsL:aewJ.pum: udka\zqdkolaumif:aumif:em:vnfovm: 72. a\zqdkol[m&Sufae (0g) ol.t\rifudk|J|J0H.0H.a\zqdkcJ.ovm: 73. pum:\yef[mar:cGef:awGudka\ymif:\yD:ar:cJ.ovm: (oifbmar:csifonfudkt\rJowdrlyg)

74. tifwmAsL:aecsdeft\cm:owdxm:rdwJ.t|mawG&Sdovm: 75. b<far:cGef:awGuydkar:vdk.vG<fovJ?bmajumif.vnf: 76. b<far:cGef:awGuydkar:vdk.cuffovJ?bmajumif.vnf: 77. vDqlawG b<fvdkvDql pmtrsdK:pm:udk&}d csifr<f/pdwf0ifpm:r<fvdkhxifvJ (ra\ym!dkifbl:qkd|if?usrf: pm?

"rRoDcsif:pmtkyf? &kyf\y?owif:pm?r®Zif:?\yuQdefwdkhpo\zifhar:yg)

177

APPENDIX E The Sociolinguistic Questionnaires in Chinese

178

Appendix E

THE KNOWLEDGEABLE INSIDER SOCIOLINGUISTIC QUESTIONNAIRE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SUBJECT 1. 性别

2. 您的名子叫什麽？

3. 您有几岁啦？

4. 结婚了吗？

5. （如果结婚了的话）您有孩子/儿女吗？

a. （有的话）有几个小孩/儿女？

6. 您信什麽宗教？（你的信仰是什么？）

7. 您做什麽工作?（你的职业是什么）

8. 有没有读过书？读到多少年级？

9. 您出生在哪里？

10. 您在那里长大/成长？

11. 目前你住在哪里？

12. 您住在这里有多久？

13. 您父亲是什麽民族？

14. 您母亲是什麽民族？

15. 您小的时后，您父亲经常对您说什麽话？

16. 您小的时后，您母亲经常对您说什麽话？

17. （还不清楚的话）您小的时后，您父母经常说什麽话语？

18. 您能说哪些言语？

19. 您能说的这些言语当中，。。。

a. 哪一种言语是您第一熟悉的？

b. 哪一种话是您第二熟悉的？

c. 哪一种话是您第三熟悉的？

VILLAGE NAME AND POPULATION 20. 这个村子名字叫什麽?

a. 它是在哪个县里？[问他们地方行政区域方法。] 比如：县,省，州等等）

21. 这村里有几家/户？

22. 这村里有多少人口？（大人与小孩）

MIGRATION 23. 这村里的傈僳族是从哪儿搬迁来的？

a. 他们在这里已经有多久了？

b. （如果他们是刚刚才从别地方移来的话）当他们还在那个地方时，与哪些民

族在一起？

c. （如果他们是刚刚才从别地方移来的话）当他们还在那个地方时，他们讲什

麽话？

179

d. 他们为什麽搬迁到这个地方来？

e. 那个（原来）地方的人有没有来过这里？（来过的话）为什麽来？

f. 这地方的人有没有去过那个（原来）地方？（去过的话）为什麽？

g. 没有来到那个（原地）地方之前，他们住在哪里？

LANGUAGE AND ETHNIC GROUPS 24. 这村里的人最常用的是什麽言语？

25. 全个村子人都是傈僳吗？（或）其他的民族有没有住在有这里？

a. （其他的民族也有的话）是什麽民族？

b. （其他的民族也有的话）

i. 每一个民族有几家？ ii. 每一族的人口有多少？

c. 这些人数经常也是这样吗？

i. （不是的话）有什麽改变。。。傈僳人口增加吗？（或）减少去吗？

26. 如果这村的一个傈僳人遇见一个不会说傈僳话的人，他要与那个人说什麽话？

27. 这村里有没有人是只会说傈僳话而不会说其它语言的？

a. （有的话）哪种人[比如：性别，年龄，职业？]

28. 这村里有没有人是会说傈僳话而说的不太好的？

a. （有的话）哪种人？[比如：性别，年龄，职业？]

b. （有的话）哪些语言是他们讲的很好的？

c. （如果有的话）您用什麽语言与他们说话？

29. 这村里傈僳语一句都不会说的人有吗？

a. （有的话）哪种人[比如：性别，年龄，职业？]

b. （有的话）哪些语言是他们讲的很好的？

c. （如果有的话）您用什麽语言与他们说话？

INTERMARRIAGE 30. 这村里傈僳与非傈僳的人结婚是平常事作的事吗？

a. （是的话）哪种非傈僳人与他们经常结婚的？

b. 那麽他们的小孩用什麽言语？

EDUCATION AND LITERACY RATES 31. 这村里有学校吗？

a. （有的话）有到几年级？

b. （有的话）用什麽语教课？

c. （有的话）这学校里来上学的人有哪些民族？

d. （有的话）学生之间彼此说话时用什麽语言？

32. 这村里的人有没有一些学生们是去到其他的村/城市读书的？

a. （有的话）哪些部份的小孩去别处读书呢？

b. （有的话）去哪里读？

c. （有的话）去读几年级？

d. （有的话）他们去学习的那些地方是用什麽语来教书呢？

33. 这村里的孩子们通常读到什么程度？

180

34. 这村里有多少人能写能读汉文？（1）完全，（2）多数，（3）一半，（4）有些，

（5）一两个？

35. 这村里有多少人能写能读傈僳文字？（1）完全，（2）多数，（3）一半，

（4）有些，（5）一两个？

a. 他们用哪一种傈僳写法？

BACKGROUND INFORMATIOIN 36. 您村里信什么宗教的人最多？[祖先教、佛教、基督教等等]

a. 第二多的是什么宗教？

i. 村里有多少人是信这个宗教？（1）多数，（2）一半，（3）有些，（4）

一两个？

b. 第三多的是什么宗教？

i. 村里有多少人是信这个宗教？（1）多数，（2）一半，（3）有些，（4）

一两个？

MEDIA 37. 这地方里用哪些电？有几家用哪一种电？

———政府电

———水电

———太阳能

———发电机

———电池电

———干电池电？

38. 这村里有几个收音机？

a. （如果有的话）这里的人们喜欢收听什麽节目？

b. （如果有的话）他们收听哪些语言？

c. （如果有的话）是什麽时间收听？

d. （如果有的话）一个星期听多少次？

39. 这村里有几个绿音机？

a. （如果有的话）这里的人们喜欢听哪种绿音带？

b. （如果有的话）听哪些语言？

c. （如果有的话）一个星其听几次？

40. 这村里有几个电视机？

41. 这村里有几个 VCD/DVD 电视机？

a. （如果有的话）这村里的人喜欢看什麽 VCD/DVD 片?

b. （如果有的话）看哪些语言？

c. （如果有的话）什麽时后看的？

d. （如果有的话）一个星其看几次？

e. （如果有的话）什麽年纪的人在看？[老人，中年人，年情人，小孩，等等]

f. （如果有的话）看的人数有多少？

42. 这些 VCD/DVD 片是在哪里可以买到或租得到？

a. （如果有的话）买的话，一片多少；租的话，一天多少？

43. 这附近有人出版绿音片或电视片？

181

a. （如果有的话）谁出版的？

44. 这村里还有什麽传播媒体？

INTERVIEWER OBSERVATIONS 45. 问题问着的时候，有什么打扰？

46. 回答的人好好会中文吗？

47. 回答的人很会害羞吗？他就勇敢的回答他的意见吗？

48. 番仡的人变你的问题吗？[你要主义，你想问的是什麽]？

49. 问题问着的时候，还发现什麽？

50. 哪些问题是问得很反便？为什麽？

51. 哪些问题是问得很不反便？为什麽？

182

THE GROUP SOCIOLINGUISTIC QUESTIONNAIRE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SUBJECT 1. 性别

2. 您的名子叫什麽？

3. 您有几岁啦？

4. 您结婚了吗？

5. 您信什麽宗教？（你的信仰是什么？）

6. 您的工作是什麽？（你的职业是什么）

7. 您上过学吗？

8. 您学好了几年级？（上到什么程度？）

9. 您在哪个地方/村出生？

10. 您在哪里长大？

11. 您现在住在哪里？

12. 您住在这里有几年啦？

13. 您父亲是什么民族？

14. 您母亲是什么民族？

15. 您小的时后，您父亲经常对您说什么语言？

16. 您小的时后，您母亲经常对您说什么语言？

17. （还不清楚的话）您小的时后，您父母经常彼此说什磨语言？

18. （如果结婚了的话）您丈夫/妻子是出生在哪里的？

19. （如果结婚了的话）您仗夫/妻子是什麽人？

20. 您能说哪些语言？

21. 您能说的这些语言当中，。。。

a. 哪一个是您第一会说的？

b. 哪一个是您第二会说的？

c. 哪一个是您第三会说的？

BILINGUALISM 22. 这村里用哪些语言? 23. 这些语言中，哪个/些语言是这个村里用的人最多的？

a. 哪个/些语言是这个村里用的人第二多的？ i. 这村里有多少人用那个/些语言：（1）多数，（2）一半， 3）一些，（4）

一点点？ b. 哪个/些语言是这个村里用的人第三多的？

i. 这村里有多少人用那个/些语言：（1）多数，（2）一半， 3）一些，（4）

一点点？ 24. 这村里，哪些傈僳的人最会说汉语的？[比如:性别，年龄，职业？]

25. 这村里，哪些傈僳族的人最不会说汉语的？[比如:性别，年龄，职业？]

LANGUAGE VITALITY 26. 一个傈僳小孩出生之后，第一说的是什麽话？

183

27. 不上学前的傈僳小孩会说其它的话吗？ a. 会说的话什麽话？

28. 您们认为这村里的傈僳青年所说的傈僳话是标准的吗？ a. （不标准的话）对这事您们的意见是怎样?

29. 这村里的傈僳小孩们玩耍的时后用什麽语言？

a. （如果不是傈僳的话）对于这样的情况，您们的感受如何？

30. 您们以为这里的傈僳孩子长大结婚之后，他们的小孩会说傈僳话吗？ a. 对这事您们的感觉是怎样：好或不好？

ORTHOGRAPHY AND LITERACY 31. 对您们来说，会写会读傈僳文是很重要的事吗？

a. 重要的话，为什麽？ b. 不重要的话，为什麽呢？

32. 您们村里的人对于学写与读傈僳文有多大的兴趣？（1）很有兴趣，〔2〕不太有

兴趣（3）有一点点兴趣（4）一点兴趣都没有？ 33. （让他们看四种傈僳写法）您们认为村里的人们会对哪种写法有兴趣？

a. 为什麽您们选（喜欢）这个？ 34. 有没有可能是四种写法都不喜欢？

a. (不喜欢的话)，为什麽？ MEDIA 35. 您们经常听哪种汉语绿音带/CD 片？ 36. 这村/城里的人们喜欢听哪种傈僳绿音带/CD 片？ DIALECT PERCEPTIONS ABOUT LISU DIALECTS 37. 哪些地方的傈僳语与这里说的傈僳语是百分之百相同的? 38. 哪些地方的傈僳语与这里说的傈僳语是不太相同的? 39. 哪些地方的傈僳语与这里说的傈僳语是一点都不相同的? 40. 与这里的傈僳语百分之百相同的傈僳人的地方里。。。（提醒他们，他们说过的

那些地方名子！） a. 您们到过这些地方吗？（多注意那些到过的人们答按）

i. 在什么地方?

b. 您们经常与那里的人有机会谈话吗？

41. 与这里的傈僳语不太相同的傈僳人的地方里。。。（提醒他们 ,他们说过的那些

地方名字）

a. 您们到过这些地方吗？（多注意那些到过的人们答按）

i. 在什么地方?


c. 当您们与那里的人谈话时，您们用什麽话/语言？答案应该是(1)我们用他们的

语言（2）他们用我们的语言（3）我们两方都改变自己的语言一点点儿谈

（4）我们两方都自用自语（5）我们用另一种语言（比如：汉语）

i. （如果不用傈僳语的话）您们为什麽不用傈僳语与他们谈话呢？

184

d. 当他们自己谈话的时候，您们听得懂多少：（1）完全，（2）多数，（3）一

半，（4）一些，（5）一点都不懂？

e. 您们怎么称呼他们的语言？/您们叫他们的话是什麽话?

f. 您们叫他们是什民族？

42. 与这里的傈僳语一点都不相同的傈僳人的地方里。。（提醒他们 ,他们说过的那

些地方名字）

a. 您们到过这些地方吗？（多注意那些到过的人们答案）

i. 在什么地方?


c. 当您们与那里的人谈话时，您们用什麽话/语言？答按应该是(1)我们说他们的

话（2）他们说我们的话（3）我们两方都改变自己的话一点点（4）我们两方

都用自己的话（5）我们用另一种语言（比如：汉文）

i. （如果不用傈僳文的话）您们为什麽不用傈僳语与他们谈话呢？

43. 如果您们听见了他们自己谈话，您们听得懂多少：（1）完全，（2）多数，（3）

一半，（4）一些，（5）一点都不懂？

44. 您们怎么称呼他们的语言？/您们叫他们的话是什麽话?

45. 您们叫他们是什麽人？

46. 除了话以外，您们与他们还有什麽不同的？






52. 哪些问题是问得很反便？为什麽？


185

THE INDIVIDUAL SOCIOLINGUISTIC QUESTIONNAIRE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SUBJECT 1. 性别

2. 您的名字叫什麽？

3. 您有几岁?

4. 您结婚了吗？

5. （结婚了的话），有没有孩子？

a. （有的话），有几个？

6. 您信什麽宗教？

7. 您的职业是什麽？

8. 您念过书吗？/您有没有读过书？

9. 您学过几年级？

10. 您出生在什麽地方？

11. 目前您住在哪里？

12. 您住在这里有几年？

13. 您住过别地方多于一年吗?

14. （住过的话）哪里？什麽时后？

15. 您父亲是什麽民族？

16. 您母亲是什麽民族？

17. 您小的时后，您父亲经常对您说什么语言？

18. 您小的时后，您母亲经常对您说什么语言？

19. （还不清楚的话）您小的时后，您父母经常说什么语言？

20. （如果结婚了的话）您丈夫/妻子是出生在哪里？

21. （多主意那些到过的人们答案）（如果结婚了的话）您仗夫/妻子是什

麽民族？

22. 您能说哪些语言？

23. 哪一个语言是您最会说的？

24. 那麽，您能说。。。(提醒他们，他们说过的语言）

哪一种语言是您。。。

a. 。。。第一会说的？

b. 。。。第二会说的？

c. 。。。第三会说的？

DOMAINS OF LANGUAGE USE 25. 您在家里，

a. 。。。跟您父母说什麽语言？

b. 。。。跟您祖父祖母说什麽语言？

c. 。。。跟您的弟兄姐妹说什麽语言？

d. （如果结婚了的话）。。。跟您妻子/仗夫说什麽语言？

e. （如果有孩子的话）。。。跟您孩子说什麽语言？

f. （如果有孙子的话）。。。跟您孙子说什麽语言？

186

g. 。。。跟傈僳朋友说什麽语言？

h. 。。。跟非傈僳朋友说什麽语言？

i. 那麽，您家里，（最常用的是什么话？）最说多的话是什麽语言？

26. 您在外时，经常。。。

a. 。。。跟傈僳朋友说什麽语言？

b. 。。。跟非傈僳的朋友说什麽语言？

c. 。。。跟傈僳同工说什麽语言?

d. 。。。跟非傈僳同工说什麽语言？

e. 。。。跟傈僳朋友在街上说什麽语言？

f. 。。。跟非傈僳朋友在街上说什麽语言？

g. 。。。在丧事里说什麽语言？

h. 。。。在开会的时后说什麽语言？

i. 。。。跟政府工员说什麽语言？

27. 您参与哪一个教会？

a. 那个教会是属於哪个机构下的？

28. 您的教会里，最实用的是哪一种语言？。。。

a. 。。。讲道？

b. 。。。交往？

c. 。。。赞美？

d. 。。。报告？

e. 。。。祷告？

29. 您独自祷告时，用什麽语言？

30. 在您教会做礼拜时，最多用的圣经是什麽文子？

a. 您听得懂那个圣经吗？

b. （不懂的话）为什麽听不懂？

i. （还不能回答的话）是不是因为圣经的内容很深奥，很难懂？/（或）是不

是因为圣经语言上的有问题？

31. （如果他们的教会不用傈僳圣经的话）您听得懂傈僳圣经吗？

a. （如果不懂的话）为什麽不懂？

i. （还不能回答的话）是不是因为圣经的意思很难懂或是不是因为圣经的

语言？

LANGUAGE ATTITUDES

32. 你觉得傈僳族与华人结婚好不好？您的意见是怎么样？

a. （如果不好的话）为什麽不好？

b. 这是一件平常事吗？这里的人经常与华人结婚吗？

33. 如果您的家是在华人家旁边的话，您的感觉是怎样？

34. 这里的小孩们长大结婚后，您认为他们的小孩会说傈僳语吗？

a. （如果不会说傈僳语的话）对这件事您的感受会怎样？

CHILDREN 35. 这里的小孩玩耍的时后，经常说什麽话？

187

36. （如果他们有小孩的话）您的小孩经常在家里说什麽语？

37. 这里的傈僳父母与他们的孩子常常说什麽语？

38. 这里的父母有没有教给小孩其他的语言？

a. （如果有的话）什麽语言？

39. 您觉得这里的很多傈僳小孩，好好会说傈僳语吗？

a. （如果不会的话）对这事您的感受是怎样？ BILINGUAL PROFICIENCY EVALUATION 40. 说起来，您的华语讲得好吗？

（1）一点点（2）差不多（3）还好（4）很好

41. 如果有人用华语问您怎样去某一个地方的话，您能用华语回答他吗？

42. 您能用华语说明您家有几个人吗？

43. 如果您要找工人的话，您能用华语解释给他们有关工价，时间，工作的详细内容

吗？

44. 您听了别人用华语说话后，能不能再用华语来重复您所听见的？

45. 您能不能象一个华人样说华语？

46. 有时后，您想一件事用傈僳语或许用华语，对您来说哪一种想得比较容易?

CONTACT/TRAVEL PATTERNS 47. 您有没有到过，说南傈僳语的地方？

a. （如果到过的话）有哪些地方/村？

b. （如果到过的话）最长您住了那里多久？

c. （如果到过的话）什麽时后到过？

48. 您有没有到过说花傈僳语的地方？

a. （如果到过的话）去过哪村？

b. （如果到过的话）最长您住了那里多久？

c. （如果到过的话）什麽时后到过？

49. 您有没有到过，说北傈僳语的地方？

a. （如果到过的话）去过哪村？

b. （如果到过的话）最长您住了那里多久？ c. （如果到过的话）什麽时后到过？

REPORTED COMPREHENSION OF LISU 50. 您有没有遇见过说北傈僳语的人？

a. 遇见过的话，您用什麽语/话与他们交谈？

[从下面的答案中需要答一个答案]

i. 两方都用北傈僳语？

ii. 两方都用这里的傈僳语？

iii. 自己用自己的话但是彼此听懂的？

iv. 两方都用另一种话？（如果用另一种话的话，什麽语/话）

51. 您有没有遇见过，说花傈僳语的人？

a. 遇见过的话，您用什麽语与他们说话？


i. 两方都用花傈僳语？

188


iii. 自己用自己的话但是彼此听懂的？

iv. 两方都用另一种语？（如果用另一种语言的话，什麽语/话）

52. 您有没有遇见过说南傈僳语的人？

a. 遇见过的话，您用什麽语与他们谈话？


i. 两方都用南傈僳语？


iii. 自己用自己的语但是比此听懂的？

iv. 两方都用另一种语？（如果用另一种语言的话，什麽语）

DIALECT ATTITUDES 53. 从您的意见来说，那个地方的傈僳话是说得最好？（最准）

a. 为什麽您这样想？

b. 您到过那个地方吗？

54. （不是他们地方的话）这村里说的傈僳语标准吗？

a. （不标准的话）为什麽？

55. 从您的意见来说，哪地方里说的傈僳语是最不标准？

a. 为什麽您这样想？

b. 您到过那个地方吗？

LITERACY 56. 您能读，能写，中文吗？

a. （如果能读与写的话）您用中文读些什麽？

b. （如果能读与写的话）您用中文写些什麽？

57. 您能读，能写，傈僳文吗？

a. （如果能读与写的话）您用傈僳文读些什麽？

b. （如果能读与写的话）您用傈僳文写些什麽？

58. 会写与会读傈僳文有好处吗？

a. （有的话）有什麽好处？

MEDIA 59. 您家里有哪些文件书？（书报）

a. （有的话）有哪种文件书？（如果他们不能回答的话，问他们圣经，圣诗，书，

报纸，杂志，等）

b. （有的话）那些是用什麽文字写着的?

60. （平常）您每天花多少时间看书？

61. （平常）您每天花多少时间听收音机？

62. （平常）您每天花多少时间听绿音机？

63. （平常）您每天花多少时间看电视？

ORTHOGRAPHY AND LITERATURE 64. 您知道一些用傈僳文字写的书吗？

a. （如果有的话）是什麽书？

b. （如果有的话）从本书的写法里，您能不能说那作者是从哪个地方来的？

c. （如果能说的话）那作者是从哪个地方来的？

189

d. （如果知道从哪地方来的话）您认为他们的傈僳文字是很好吗？

65. 假如有人要教傈僳文字的话，您想学习吗？

a. 为什麽？

b. （如果想学的话）您每天能花多少时间学习？

66. 您会鼓励小孩学习那个吗？

67. 请您看看这四种傈僳文字写法(让他们看四种傈傈文写法)

a. 哪种写法是您最喜欢的？

b. 为什麽？

c. 您想哪一种写法是最容易学的？

d. 这四种写法当中，有没有您不喜欢的写法？

e. （如果有的话）哪一个写法？为什麽不喜欢这种写法呢？

68. 您认为哪一种傈僳文字的书籍是他们想要的？

INTERVIEWER OBSERVATIONS OF BILINGUAL PROFICIENCY 69. 充你的意见来说，回答的人好好会说中文吗？






75. 哪些问题是问得很反便？为什麽?


190

APPENDIX F Cognates with Major and Minor Syllable Forms

191

191

Appendix F English YKB LBS HKH MLSD STH MCP MKH DWB KSG TWM SDY MKT 1. to be

afraid dʒu³³ ɖʐo³³ dzu³⁵ʔ dʒu⁵⁵ŋa³³ dzo³³ dzo³³ dzo⁴⁵ dzo⁵⁵ dzo³³tʲa³⁵ dzo⁴⁵ dzo⁴⁵ dzo⁴⁵

2. ashes kho²¹ʔ

a³³phu³³ khu²¹ʔ a³³

kho²¹ʔ a ³³ kho²¹ʔ a³³ khu²¹ʔ a³³ khu²¹ʔ a³³ khɔ²¹ʔ a³³ khɔ²¹ʔ mɨ²¹ʔbɔ³³

khʷa³⁵phu³³ kʷa³⁵phu³³ kʷa²¹ʔ

phu³³ kʷa²¹ʔ phu³³

3. bird ɲæ³⁵ ɲa³⁵ ɲæ³⁵ ɲæ³⁵ ɲa³⁵ ɲa³⁵ ɲa³⁵ ɲæ³⁵ ɲa³⁵ ɲa³⁵ ɲa³⁵ ɲa³⁵ 4. to bite kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho³⁵ kho³⁵ŋa³³ kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho³⁵ kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho³⁵ kho³⁵ kho³⁵ 5. black ji⁵⁵næ³³ næ³³dɨ³⁵

ta⁵⁵ ji⁵⁵næ³³ næ³³

mæ⁵⁵mæ⁵⁵ ji⁵⁵næ³³ næ³³

ji⁵⁵næ³³ næ³³

ji⁵⁵næ³³ dɨ²¹

næ³³næ³³ ji⁵⁵næ³³næ³³ ji⁵⁵næ³³ næ³³

ji⁵⁵næ³³ næ³³

ji⁵⁵næ³ næ³³

6. blood sɨ²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵ʃy²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵ʃy²¹ʔ 7. to blow

(air) my⁵⁵ my³³ mu³⁵ my⁵⁵ŋa³³ my³³ my³³ my⁴⁵ my⁴⁵ my³⁵tʲa⁵⁵ my⁴⁵ my⁴⁵ my⁴⁵

8. bone vy ²¹ʔ to³³

ji⁵⁵wo²¹ʔ to³³ʔ

vu²¹ʔto³³ vy ²¹ʔto³³ʔ wɔ²¹ʔto³³ wɔ²¹ʔtɔ³³ wo²¹ʔto³³ wo²¹ʔtɔ³³ ji⁵⁵wo²¹ʔto³³ wo²¹ʔto³³ ji⁵⁵wo²¹ʔ to³³

ji⁵⁵wo²¹ʔ to³³

9. to breathe

sæ²¹ʔ a³³

sæ²¹ʔ a³³ sæ²¹ʔ a³⁵ sæ²¹ʔ a ³⁵ ŋa³³

sæ²¹ʔ a³³ ʃa²¹ʔ a³³ ʃa²¹ʔ a³⁵ sʲa²¹ʔ a³³ ʃa²¹ʔ a³⁵tʲa³⁵ ʃa²¹ʔ a³³ ʃa²¹ʔ a³⁵ ʃa²¹ʔ a³⁵

10. to burn a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ tshu³³

a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ ʈʂhu³³

a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ tʃhu³³

a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ tʃhu⁵⁵ŋa³³

a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ ʈʂhu³³

a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ tshu³³

a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ tshu³⁵


a⁵⁵to⁵⁵tshu³³ tʲa³⁵



tshu³⁵

11. child (ones own)

za²¹ʔ nø³³

za²¹ʔny³³ za²¹ʔnø³³ za²¹ʔny³³ za²¹ʔnø³³ za²¹ʔnø³³ za²¹ʔʃy⁵⁵ za²¹ʔnø³³

za²¹ʔnø³³ za²¹ʔʃy⁵⁵

za²¹ʔny³³za²¹ʔ za²¹ʔny³³ za²¹ʔnø³³ za²¹ʔ ny³³

12. cloud mo³³ku⁵⁵ mu³³ku⁵⁵ mu³³ku⁵⁵ mu³³ku⁵⁵ mu³³ku⁵⁵ mu³⁵ku⁵⁵ mu³³ku⁵⁵ʔ my³³ku⁵⁵ mi³³ku⁵⁵ mo³³ku⁵⁵ mu⁵⁵ku⁵⁵ mu³³ku⁵⁵

192

192

English YKB LBS HKH MLSD STH MCP MKH DWB KSG TWM SDY MKT 13. to be

cold dʒæ³³ dʒæ³³ dʒæ⁵⁵ŋa³³ dʒæ⁵⁵ŋa³³ dʒa³³ dʒa³³ dʒa⁴⁵ dʒa³³ dʒa⁵⁵ŋa³³ dʒa⁴⁵ dʒa⁵⁵ dʒa⁵⁵

14. to cut (hair)

tshə²¹ʔ tshə²¹ʔ tshə³⁵ tshə³⁵ŋa³³ ʈʂho³⁵lo³³ tsho³⁵ tsho³⁵ tshɨ³⁵ ɲø³⁵tʲa³⁵ tshɨ³⁵ tshɨ³⁵ tsho³⁵

15. to die ʃyo³³ ʃy ³³ ʃyo³³ ʃyo³³ ʃy³³ ʃy³³ ʃy³³khɨ²¹ʔ lio³³

ʃy³³ ʃy³³o³³ ʃy³⁵ ʃy³⁵ ʃy³⁵

16. to dig du²¹ʔ tʃu⁵⁵ tʃu⁵⁵ta⁵⁵ tsu⁵⁵ŋa³³ du²¹ʔ dy³⁵ dy³⁵ du²¹ʔ dy²¹ʔtʲa³⁵ dy³⁵ dy³⁵ dy³⁵ 17. dog a⁵⁵na²¹ʔ a⁵⁵na²¹ʔ a⁵⁵na²¹ʔ a⁵⁵na²¹ʔ a⁵⁵na²¹ʔ a⁵⁵na²¹ʔ a⁵⁵na²¹ʔ a⁵⁵na²¹ʔ a⁵⁵na²¹ʔ a⁵⁵na²¹ʔ a⁵⁵na²¹ʔ a⁵⁵na²¹ʔ 18. to

drink (water)

do³³ do³³ do³⁵ do ³⁵ŋa³³ do³³ do³³ do³⁵ do³⁵ do³⁵tʲa³³ do³⁵ do³⁵ a⁵⁵dʒa³³ do³⁵

19. Ear na⁵⁵po³³ na⁵⁵po³³ na⁵⁵po³³ na⁵⁵po³³ na⁵⁵po³³ na⁵⁵po³³ na⁵⁵po³³ na⁵⁵pɔ³³ na⁵⁵po³³ na⁵⁵po³³ na⁵⁵po³³ na⁵⁵po³³ 20. earth,

soil mi³³næ³³ mi³³næ³³ mi³³næ³³ mi³³næ³³ʔ mi³³næ³³ mi³³næ³³ mi³³næ³³ mi³³næ³³ mi³³tʃha³³ mi³³tʃha³³ mi³³tʃha³³ mi³³tʃha³³

21. to eat dza³⁵ dza²¹ʔ dza³⁵ dza³⁵ŋa³³ dza²¹ʔ dza²¹ʔ dza³⁵ dza³⁵ dza³⁵tʲa³⁵ dza³⁵ dza³⁵ dza³⁵ 22. eye ɲæ³³sə²¹ʔ mʲa³³sə²¹ʔ ɲæ³³sə²¹ʔ ɲæ³³sə²¹ʔ mʲa³³sɨ²¹ʔ mʲa³³sɨ²¹ʔ mʲa³³sɨ²¹ʔ mʲa³³sɨ²¹ʔ mʲa³³sɨ²¹ʔ mʲa³³sɨ²¹ʔ mʲa³³sɨ²¹ʔ mʲa³³sɨ²¹ʔ 23. to fall tshe³³

jio³³ tshe³³ tshe³³jio³³ tshe³³jio³³ tshe³³

dʒio³³ tshe³³ dʒio³³

tʃhe³³ dʒeo³³

tshe³³ tʃhe³³jio³³ tshe³³le³³ tʃhe³³le³⁵ tʃhe³³ kho³³le³⁵

24. fat ji⁵⁵tshɘ³³ ji⁵⁵tshɘ³³ ji⁵⁵tshɘ ³³ ji⁵⁵tshɘ³³ ji⁵⁵tshɨ³³ ji⁵⁵tshɨ³³ ji⁵⁵tshɨ³³ ji⁵⁵tshɨ³³ ji⁵⁵tshɨ³³ ji⁵⁵tshɨ³³ ji⁵⁵tshɨ³³ ji⁵⁵tshɨ³³ 25. feather ɲæ³⁵my³³ ɲa³⁵my³³ ɲæ³⁵mu³³ ɲæ³⁵my³³ ɲa³⁵my³³ ɲa³⁵my³³ ɲa³⁵ my³³ ɲæ³⁵my³³ ɲa³⁵my³³ ɲa³⁵my³³ ɲa³⁵my³³ ɲa³⁵my³³ 26. finger

nail læ²¹ʔsø²¹ʔ læ ²¹ʔsy²¹ʔ læ²¹ʔsø²¹ʔ læ²¹s ²¹ læ²¹ʔsɨ²¹ʔ

khu²¹ʔ læ²¹ʔsɨ²¹ʔ khu²¹ʔ

læ²¹ʔʃy²¹ʔ læ²¹ʔsy²¹ʔ læ²¹ʔʃy²¹ʔ læ²¹ʔʃy²¹ʔ læ²¹ʔʃy²¹ʔ læ²¹ʔʃy²¹ʔ

27. fire a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ a⁵⁵tɔ⁵⁵ a⁵⁵tɔ⁵⁵ a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ a⁵⁵to⁵⁵

193

193

English YKB LBS HKH MLSD STH MCP MKH DWB KSG TWM SDY MKT 28. fish ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁴⁴ ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁵⁵ 29. five

(person) ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹jo³³ ŋʷa²¹ʔjo³³ ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ

30. flower sɨ³⁵ʒi³³ sɨ³⁵ʒi³³ sɨ³⁵ʒi³³ sɨ³⁵wi³³ʔ sɨ³⁵ve³³ ve³³ sɨ³⁵we³³ sɨ³⁵vi³³ sɨ³⁵vi³³ sɨ³⁵vi³³ sɨ³⁵vi³³ sɨ³⁵ve³³ 31. to fly bʲo ³³ bʲo³³ dʒ ³³jio³³ dʒø³⁵ŋa³³ bø³³ bø³³ bʲo ³³ bʲe³³ bø³³jio³³ bø³⁵ bʲø³⁵ bʲø³⁵ 32. foot tʃhi³³

kʷa³³ phæ²¹ʔ

tʃhi³³ kʷa³³ pʲæ³³

tʃhi³³ kʷa³³

tʃhi³³ phæ³⁵

tʃhi³³pʲa³³ læ³³

tʃhi³³ pʲa³³ læ³³

tʃhi³³ phʲa³³

tʃhi³³ phʲa³³

tshɨ³³ pʲa³³

tshɨ³³ pʲa³³

tshɨ³³ phæ³⁵

tshɨ³³ phæ³⁵

33. four (person)

li⁵⁵ li³³ li⁵⁵jo³³ li⁵⁵jo³³ li³³ li³³ li⁵⁵ li⁵⁵ li⁵⁵ li⁵⁵ li³³ li⁵⁵

34. fruit sə³⁵sə²¹ʔ sɨ³⁵sɨ²¹ʔ sə³⁵sə²¹ʔ sə³⁵sə²¹ʔ sɨ⁵⁵sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ⁵⁵sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ³⁵sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ⁵⁵sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ³⁵sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ⁵⁵sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ⁵⁵sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ³⁵sɨ²¹ʔ 35. to be

full i²¹ʔbo³³ dza²¹ʔbo³³

lio³³ i²¹ʔma³³ bo³³jio³³

i²¹ʔma³³ bo³⁵ŋa³³

dza²¹ʔbo³³ lio³³

dza²¹ʔbo³³ lio³³

i²¹ʔbo³³ bo³⁵ i²¹ʔtʃhi²¹ʔ bo³³ lio³³

bo³³le³³ dza²¹ʔ bo³³ lio³³

bo³³lio³³

36. to give o²¹ʔ o²¹ʔ ³⁵ ³⁵ŋa³³ ɨ²¹ʔ ɨ²¹ʔ ɨ³⁵ ɨ³⁵ ɨ²¹ʔtʲa³⁵ ɨ³⁵ ɨ³⁵ ɨ³⁵ 37. grass mo²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ mu²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ 38. hair vu⁵⁵

tʃhø³³ʔ o⁵⁵ tʃhø³³ wo⁵⁵

tshø³³ o⁵⁵ tʃhø³³ vu⁵⁵ ku³³

ma³³ vu⁵⁵ ku³³ ma³³

wu⁵⁵ ku³³ ma³³

wu⁵⁵ ku³³ ma³³

wu⁵⁵ tʃhø³³ wo⁵⁵ tʃhø³³

wo⁵⁵ tʃhø³⁵

wo⁵⁵ tʃhø³³

39. hand læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵

læ ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵

læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵

læ ²¹ phæ³⁵ læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵

læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵

læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵

læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵

læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵ læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵

læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵

læ²¹ʔ phæ³⁵

40. heart ni³⁵ma³³ ni³⁵ma³³ ni³⁵ma³³ ni³⁵ma³³ ni³⁵ma³³ ni³⁵ma³³ ni³⁵ma³³ ni³⁵ma³³ ɲi³⁵ma³³ ɲi³⁵ma³³ ɲi³⁵ma³³ ɲi³⁵ma³³ 41. to be

heavy li²¹ʔ li²¹ʔ li³⁵ li³⁵ŋa³³ li²¹ʔ li³⁵ li²¹ʔ li²¹ʔ li³⁵ŋa³³ li³⁵ li³⁵ li³⁵

42. thorn tsh ²¹ʔ ʈʂhu²¹ʔ tʃh ²¹ʔ tʃhu²¹ʔ ʈʂhu²¹ʔ ʈʂhu²¹ʔ tshu²¹ʔ tshu²¹ʔ tshu²¹ʔ tsh ²¹ʔ ʈʂhu²¹ʔ ʈʂhu²¹ʔ

194

194

English YKB LBS HKH MLSD STH MCP MKH DWB KSG TWM SDY MKT 43. to hunt xʷa²¹ʔ

a²¹ʔ xʷa²¹ʔa²¹ʔ xʷa²¹ʔa²¹ʔ xʷa²¹ʔa³⁵

ŋa³³ xʷa²¹ʔa²¹ʔ xʷa²¹ʔa²¹ʔ xʷa²¹ʔa³⁵ xʷa²¹ʔa²¹ʔ xʷa²¹ʔa²¹ʔ xʷa²¹ʔa³⁵ xʷa²¹ʔa³⁵ a³⁵

44. I (1st

sing) ŋa³³ ŋa³³ ŋa³³ ŋa³³ ŋʷa³³ ŋʷa³³ ŋʷa³³ ŋʷa³³ ŋʷa³³ ŋʷa³³ ŋʷa³³ ŋʷa³³

45. Intest-ines

v ³³ ji⁵⁵vu³³ v ³³ v ³³ vu³³ vu³³ ji⁵⁵vu³³ vu³³ ji⁵⁵wu³³ ji⁵⁵vu³³ ji⁵⁵vu³³ ji⁵⁵vu³³

46. to kill s ²¹ʔ se²¹ʔ sæ³⁵ŋa³³ s ³⁵ŋa³³ se²¹ʔ ʃe²¹ʔ se³⁵ se²¹ʔ ʃi²¹ʔtʲa³⁵ ʃi³⁵ ʃi³⁵ ʃi³⁵ 47. to

know sə⁵⁵ŋa³³ sə⁵⁵ sə⁵⁵ta⁵⁵ sə⁵⁵ŋa³³ sə⁵⁵ sə⁵⁵lo³³ sə⁴⁵ sə⁵⁵ sə⁵⁵o²¹ʔ sə⁴⁵ sə⁴⁵ sə⁴⁵

48. to laugh

wa²¹ʔsæ³³ sæ³³ wa²¹ʔsæ³³ wa²¹ʔsø³⁵ ŋa³³

wa²¹ʔʃø³³ wa²¹ʔʃø³³ wa²¹ʔʃø³³ wa²¹ʔʃø³³ xɨ²¹ʔtʲa³⁵ xɨ³⁵ wa²¹ʔʃø³⁵ wa²¹ʔʃø³⁵

49. leaf sɨ³⁵ tʃhæ²¹ʔ

sɨ³⁵phʲæ²¹ʔ sɨ³⁵tʃhæ²¹ʔ sɨ³⁵tʃhæ²¹ʔ sɨ³⁵phʲa²¹ʔ sɨ³⁵phʲa²¹ʔ sɨ³⁵phʲa²¹ʔ sɨ³⁵phʲa²¹ʔ sɨ³⁵phʲa²¹ʔ sɨ³⁵phʲa²¹ʔ sɨ³⁵phʲa²¹ʔ sɨ³⁵phʲa²¹ʔ

50. left (side)

læ²¹ʔɣɨ⁵⁵ læ²¹ʔɣɨ⁵⁵ læ²¹ʔɣɨ⁵⁵ læ²¹ʔɣɨ⁵⁵ læ²¹ʔɣɨ⁵⁵ læ²¹ʔɣɨ⁵⁵ læ²¹ʔɣɨ⁵⁵ læ²¹ʔɣɨ⁵⁵ læ²¹ʔɣɨ⁵⁵ læ²¹ʔɣɨ⁵⁵ læ²¹ʔɣɨ⁵⁵ læ²¹ʔɣɨ⁵⁵

51. liver sɨ²¹ʔ phæ²¹ʔ

ji⁵⁵sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔphæ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔphæ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔphʲa⁵⁵ ʃy²¹ʔphʲa⁵⁵ sɨ²¹ʔphʲa⁵⁵ sɨ²¹ʔphʲa⁵⁵ ʃy²¹ʔphæ²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔphʲa⁵⁵ ji⁵⁵ka³³ʃy²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵ka³³

52. to be long

ʃy³³ ʃy³³ ʃy⁵⁵ŋa³³ ʃy⁵⁵ŋa³³ ʃy³³ ʃy³³ ʃy⁴⁵ ʃy³³ ʃy⁵⁵ŋa³³ ʃe⁴⁵ ʃy⁵⁵ʔ a²¹ʔʃy⁵⁵ ʃy⁵⁵

53. louse (head)

xɨ³³ʔ xɨ³³ xɨ ³³ xɨ ³³ xɨ³³ xɨ³³ xɨ³³ xɨ³³ xɨ³³ xɨ ³³ xɨ³³ xɨ³³

54. to be many (people)

a²¹ʔmʲæ³⁵ a²¹ʔmʲæ³⁵ ɲæ²¹ʔdzɨ ³³ ɲæ²¹ʔdzɨ³⁵ ŋa³³

mʲa²¹ʔ mʲa²¹ʔ mʲa³⁵ a²¹ʔmʲa⁵⁵ a²¹ʔmʲa³⁵ a²¹ʔmʲa⁵⁵ a²¹ʔmʲa⁵⁵ a²¹ʔmʲa³⁵

195

195

English YKB LBS HKH MLSD STH MCP MKH DWB KSG TWM SDY MKT 55. moon a³³phu³³ a³³ba³³ a³³phu³³ a³³phu³³ a³³ba³³

tʃhi³³ a³³ba³³ tʃhi³³

a³³ba³³ a³³ba³³ a³³ba³³tshɨ³³ a⁵⁵ba³³ tshɨ³³

a³³ba³³ tshɨ ³³

a⁵⁵ba³³ tshɨ³³

56. mounta-in

wa²¹ʔtʃi³³ wa²¹ʔtʃi³³ wa²¹ʔtʃe³³ wa²¹ʔdʒy²¹ʔ wa²¹ʔtʃi³³ wa²¹ʔtʃi³³ wa²¹ʔdʒy²¹ʔ wa²¹tʃe³³ wa²¹ʔdʒy²¹ʔ wa²¹ʔdʒy²¹ʔ wa²¹dʒy²¹ʔ wa²¹ʔ dʒy²¹ʔ

57. name mi ³³ ji⁵⁵mʲø³³ mi³³ mi³³ mʲø³³ my³³ mʲø³³ mʲø³³ na³³my³³ ji⁵⁵my³³ ji⁵⁵mʲø³³ ji⁵⁵mø³³ 58. to be

new ji⁵⁵ʃy²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵ʃy²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵ʃy³³ta⁵⁵ ji⁵⁵ʃy²¹ʔta⁵⁵ ji⁵⁵ʃy²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵ʃy²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵ʃy²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵ʃy²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵ʃy⁵⁵ ji⁵⁵ʃy²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵ʃy²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵ʃy²¹ʔ

59. nose na³³khu³³ na³³khø³³ na³³khu³³ na³³khu²¹ʔ næ³³bø³³ næ³³bø³³ na³³khu³³ na³³khu³³ na³³khu³³ na³³khu³³ na³³khu³³ na³³khu³³ 60. to be

old (thing not person)

ji⁵⁵be²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵be²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵bi²¹ʔta⁵⁵ ji⁵⁵bi²¹ʔta⁵⁵ ji⁵⁵be²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵be²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵bø²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵bʲe²¹ʔ be³⁵ma³³ ji⁵⁵be²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵be²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵be²¹ʔ

61. one (person)

thi²¹ʔ thi²¹ʔ thi²¹ʔjo³³ thi²¹ʔjo³³ thi²¹ʔ thi²¹ʔ thi²¹ʔ thi²¹ʔ thi²¹ʔ the²¹ʔ thi²¹ʔ thi²¹ʔ

62. person tsho³³ dza²¹ʔ

tsho³³ dza²¹ʔ

tsho³³dza²¹ tsho³³dza²¹ʔ la²¹ʔtsho³³ la²¹ʔtshɔ³³ la²¹ʔtsho³³ la²¹ʔtshɔ³³ la²¹ʔtsho³³ la²¹ʔtsho³³ la²¹ʔtʃho³³ la²¹ʔtsho³³

63. rain mɨ²¹ʔ a³³ mɨ²¹ʔ a³³ mɨ²¹ʔ a ³³ mɨ²¹ʔ a³³ mɨ²¹ʔ a³³ mɨ²¹ʔ a³³ mɨ²¹ʔ a³³ mɨ²¹ʔ a³³ ma²¹ʔ a ³³ ma²¹ʔ a³³ mɨ²¹ʔ a³³ ma²¹ʔ a³³ 64. road,

path dʒa³³u³³ ʐa³³u³³ dza³³ ³³ dʒa ³³u³³ ʐa³³u³³ dza³³u³³ dza³³u³³ dza³³u³³ dza³³u³³ dza³³u³³ dza³³u³³ dza³³u³³

65. root sɨ³⁵tʃi³³ sɨ³⁵tʃi³³ sɨ³⁵tʃe³³ sɨ³⁵tʃe³³ sɨ³⁵tʃe³³ sɨ³⁵tʃe³³ sɨ³⁵tʃe³³ʔ sɨ³⁵tʃe³⁵ʔ sɨ³⁵tʃe³³ sɨ³⁵tʃe³³ sɨ³⁵tʃe³³ ji⁵⁵tʃe³³

66. to be round

lu⁵⁵lu³⁵ ta⁵⁵

lu³³lu⁵⁵ lu⁵⁵ta⁵⁵ lu⁵⁵ŋa³³ lu⁵⁵ lu⁵⁵ lu⁴⁵ lu⁵⁵lu⁵⁵ lu⁵⁵ŋa³³ lu⁵⁵lu⁵⁵le²¹ʔ lu⁵⁵lu⁴²ʔ lu⁵⁵lu⁴²ʔ

196

196

English YKB LBS HKH MLSD STH MCP MKH DWB KSG TWM SDY MKT 67. to rub,

scrub tsho⁵⁵ ʈʂho³⁵ tshu⁵⁵ta⁵⁵ tsho⁵⁵ŋa³³ tsha³⁵ tsha³⁵ tsha³⁵ tsha³⁵ tsha³⁵tʲa³⁵ tsha³⁵ tsha³⁵ tsha³⁵

68. salt tsha²¹ʔ bo³³

tsha²¹ʔbo³³ tsha²¹ʔbo³³ tsha²¹ʔbo³³ tsha²¹ʔbo³³ tsha²¹ʔbo³³ tsha²¹ʔbo³³ tsha²¹ʔbɔ³³ tsha⁵⁵bo³³ tsha²¹ʔbo³³ tsha²¹ʔbo³³ tsha²¹ʔ bo³³

69. to see mo ³³ mo³³ mo³³ mo³⁵ŋa³³ mo³³ mo³³ mo³⁵ mo³⁵ mo³⁵ mo³⁵ma³³ mo³⁵ mo³⁵ 70. to sew

(cloth) dʒi²¹ʔ dʒi²¹ʔ dʒi³⁵ dʒi³⁵ŋa³³ ʃi³³ ʃi³³ dʒi²¹ʔ dʒi²¹ʔ by³³tʃhy²¹ʔ

mi³³ tshɨ³³sɨ⁵⁵ sɨ⁵⁵ma³³ sɨ⁴⁵ sɨ⁴⁵

71. to be sharp

tshe³⁵ tshe³⁵ tshe³⁵ta⁵⁵ tshe³⁵ta⁵⁵ tʃhæ³⁵ thæ³⁵lo³³ thæ³³ʔ tshæ³⁵ thæ³⁵ŋa³³ thæ³⁵ thæ³³ʔ thæ³⁵

72. to sit ɲæ³⁵ ɲi³³ta⁵⁵ ɲæ³⁵ ɲæ³⁵ŋa³³ ɲi³³na⁵⁵ ɲi⁵⁵na⁵⁵ ɲi³³ta⁵⁵ ɲi⁵⁵ta⁵⁵ ɲi³³ta⁵⁵ i³³ta⁵⁵ ɲi³³ta⁵⁵ ɲi³³ta⁵⁵ 73. skin ji⁵⁵ku⁵⁵

dʒi ³³ʔ ji⁵⁵ku⁵⁵ dʒi³³

ji⁵⁵kʷa⁵⁵ dʒi ³³

kʷa⁵⁵dʒi ²¹ʔ ku³⁵dʒi³³ ji⁵⁵ku³⁵dʒi³³ kɔ³⁵dʒi³³ kɔ³⁵dʒi³³ ji⁵⁵ku³⁵dzɨ³³ ji⁵⁵ku³⁵ dzɨ³³phi²¹ʔ

ji⁵⁵ku³⁵ dzɨ³³

ji⁵⁵ku³⁵ dzɨ³³

74. sky mu²¹ʔ kʷa³³

mo²¹ʔ kʷa³³

mo²¹ʔkʷa³³ muʔ²¹kʷa³³ mo²¹ʔkʷa³³ mu²¹ʔkʷa³³ mo²¹ʔ kʷa³³

mo²¹ʔkʷa³³ mo²¹ʔkʷa³³ mo²¹ʔ kʷa³³

mu²¹ʔkʷa³³ mo²¹ʔ kʷa³³

75. smoke a⁵⁵to⁵⁵mu²¹ʔ khu²¹ʔ

a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ mu²¹ʔ khu²¹ʔ





mu²¹ʔ khu²¹ʔ


a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ n khu²¹ʔ

a⁵⁵to⁵⁵ n khu²¹ʔ


ji⁵⁵ nkhu²¹ʔ

76. snake fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ 77. to

stand i²¹ʔ e²¹ʔta⁵⁵ i³⁵ i³⁵ŋa³³ i²¹ʔ i²¹ʔ i²¹ʔ

tsha³⁵ ʲa²¹ʔ tsha⁵⁵

i²¹ʔ tʲa³⁵la⁵⁵ æ²¹ʔta⁵⁵ i²¹ʔ e³⁵

78. star ku³³ma³³dze³³ le³³

ku³³ma³³ dze³³

ku³³ma³³ dze³³le³³

ku³³ma³³ dze³³le³³

ku³³dza²¹ʔ ku³³dza²¹ʔ ku³³ʐa²¹ʔ ku³³dza²¹ʔ ku³³dza²¹ʔ ku³³la²¹ʔ ku³³dza²¹ʔ ku³³ dza²¹ʔ

197

197

English YKB LBS HKH MLSD STH MCP MKH DWB KSG TWM SDY MKT 79. stone ja⁵⁵ ɣa⁵⁵ ja⁵⁵lo³³di³³ ja⁵⁵ ɣa⁵⁵tʃhi³³ ɣa⁵⁵tʃhi³³ ɣa⁵⁵tʃhi³³ ɣa⁵⁵tʃhi³³ ɣa⁵⁵pa⁵⁵ ɣa⁵⁵pa⁵⁵ ɣa⁵⁵tshɨ³³

pa⁵⁵ ɣa⁵⁵tshi³³pa⁵⁵

80. sun mi²¹ʔ mi³³ʔ

mi²¹ʔmi³³ mi²¹ʔmi ³³ mi²¹ʔmi ³³ mi²¹ʔmi³³ mi²¹ʔmi³³ mi²¹ʔmi ³³ mi²¹ʔmi³³ mɨ²¹ʔtsha³³ mɨ²¹ʔtsha³³ mɨ²¹ʔtsha³³ mɨ²¹ʔ tsha³³

81. tail ji⁵⁵mɨ⁵⁵ ji⁵⁵mɨ⁵⁵ ji⁵⁵mɨ⁵⁵ ji⁵⁵mɨ⁵⁵ʔ ji⁵⁵mɨ⁵⁵ʔ ji⁵⁵mɨ⁵⁵ ji⁵⁵mɨ⁵⁵ ji⁵⁵mɨ⁵⁵ ji⁵⁵mɨ⁵⁵ ji⁵⁵mɨ⁵⁵ ji⁵⁵mɨ⁵⁵ ji⁵⁵mɨ⁵⁵ 82. to be

thick thu³³ thu³³ thu⁵⁵ŋa³³ thu⁵⁵ŋa³³ thu³³ thu³³ thu⁴⁵ thu⁴⁵ thu³³ŋa³³ thu³⁵ a²¹ʔthu⁵⁵

thu³³ a²¹ʔthu⁵⁵ thu³³

83. to be thin

ba ²¹ʔ ba²¹ʔ ba³⁵ŋa³³ ba ³⁵ŋa³³ ba²¹ʔ ba²¹ʔ ba³⁵ ba³⁵ ba²¹ʔŋa³³ ba³⁵ ba²¹ʔ ba³⁵

84. you, thou (2nd sing)

n ³³ nu³³ n ³³ n ³³ nu³³ nu³³ nu³³ n ³³ nu³³ n ³³ nu³³ nu³³

85. three (person)

sa³³ sa³³ sa²¹ʔjo³³ sa²¹ʔjo³³ sa³³ sa³³ sa²¹ʔ sa²¹ʔ sa²¹ʔ sa³³ sa³³ sa²¹ʔ

86. to tie tsho³⁵ta⁵⁵ tsho³⁵ tsho³⁵ta⁵⁵ tsho³⁵ŋa³³ tsho³⁵ tsho³⁵ tsho³⁵ tshɔ³⁵ tsho³⁵tʲa³⁵ tsho³⁵ tsho³⁵ tsho³⁵ 87. tongue la³³tʃhə³³ la⁵⁵tʃho³³ la³³tʃhə ³³ la³³tʃhə³³ la³³tʃhø³³ la³³tʃhø³³ la³³tʃhy³³ la³³tʃhø³³ la³³tʃhø³³ la³³tʃhø³³ læ³³tʃhø³⁵ la³³tʃhø³³ 88. tooth sɨ²¹ʔtʃhi ³³ sɨ²¹ʔtʃhi³³ sɨ²¹ʔtʃhi ³³ khɨ²¹ʔtʃhi³³ sɨ²¹ʔtʃhi³³ sɨ²¹ʔtʃhi³³ sɨ²¹ʔtʃhɨ³³ sɨ²¹ʔtʃhɨ³³ sɨ²¹ʔtshɨ³³ sɨ²¹ʔtshɨ³³ sɨ²¹ʔtshɨ³³ sɨ²¹ʔtshɨ³³ 89. tree sɨ³⁵dzɨ³³ sɨ³⁵dzɨ³³ sɨ³⁵dzɨ ³³ sɨ³⁵dzɨ³³ʔ sɨ³⁵dzɨ³³ sɨ³⁵dzɨ³³ sɨ³⁵dʒi³³ sɨ³⁵tsɨ³³ sɨ³⁵dzɨ³³ sɨ³⁵dzɨ³³ sɨ³⁵dzɨ³³ sɨ³⁵dzɨ³³ 90. two

(person) ɲi²¹ʔ ɲi²¹ʔ ɲi²¹ʔjo³³ ɲi ²¹ʔjo³³ ɲi²¹ʔ ɲi²¹ʔ ɲi²¹ʔ ɲi²¹ʔ ɲi⁵⁵ ɲi²¹ʔ ɲi²¹ʔ ɲi²¹ʔ

91. to vomit

phi²¹ʔ phe²¹ phi³⁵ phi³⁵ŋa³³ phe²¹ʔ phe²¹ʔ phø³⁵ phe²¹ʔla³⁵ phe²¹ʔtʲa³⁵ phe³⁵ phe³⁵ phæ³⁵

198

198

English YKB LBS HKH MLSD STH MCP MKH DWB KSG TWM SDY MKT 92. warm lø³³my ²¹ʔ

my ²¹ʔ læ³³my³⁵ ta⁵⁵

lø³⁵ l ³⁵ŋa³³ lø³⁵lo³³ lø³³my²¹ʔ my²¹ʔ

lø³³my²¹ʔ my²¹ʔ

lø³⁵ lø³³ŋa³³ lø³⁵ lø³⁵ʔ lø³⁵

93. to wash tshɨ²¹ʔ tshɨ²¹ʔ tshɨ³⁵ tshɨ ³⁵ŋa³³ tshɨ²¹ʔ tshɨ²¹ʔ tshɨ³⁵ tshi³⁵ tshɨ²¹ʔxa³³kɨ³⁵ tshɨ³⁵ tshɨ³⁵ tshɨ³⁵ 94. water a³³dʒæ³³ a³³dʒæ³³ a⁵⁵dʒæ³³ a⁵⁵dʒæ³³ ji⁵⁵tʃa⁵⁵ ji³³tʃa⁵⁵ʔ ji³³tʃa³³ ji³³tʃa⁵⁵ ji ³³dʒa³³ a⁵⁵dʒa³³ ji³³dʒa³³ i³³dʒa³³ 95. white phu³³ phu³⁵ta⁵⁵ ji⁵⁵phu³³

phu³³ phu³³ phu³⁵

ji⁵⁵phu³³ phu³³



phu³⁵ ji⁵⁵phu³³phu³³ ji⁵⁵phu³³ phu³³



96. wind mi²¹ʔ i ³³ mi²¹ʔ i ³³ mi²¹ʔ i ³³ mi²¹ʔ i ³³ mi²¹ʔ i³³ mi²¹ʔ i³³ mi²¹ʔ i ³³ mi²¹ʔ i³³ mi²¹ʔ ³³ me²¹ʔ i ³³ mi²¹ʔ i³³ mi²¹ʔ i³³ 97. wing d ³³læ²¹ʔ du³³læ²¹ʔ du³³læ²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵du³³

læ²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵du³³ læ²¹ʔ

ji⁵⁵du³³ læ²¹ʔ

ji⁵⁵du³³ læ²¹ʔ

du³³læ²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵du³³læ²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵du³³ læ²¹ʔ

ji⁵⁵dy³³ læ²¹ʔ

ji⁵⁵dy³³ læ²¹ʔ

98. year kho²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵kho²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵kho²¹ʔ my²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ

kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ ji⁵⁵kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ

99. arrow tʃæ³³ tʃə³⁵

ja³³tso³⁵ tʃha³³tʃə³⁵ tʃæ³³tʃə²¹ʔ tʃa³³tʃø³⁵ tʃa³³tʃø³⁵ tsa³³tʃø³⁵ tsa³³tʃø³⁵ tsa³³tʃø³⁵ tsa³³tʃø³⁵ tsa³³tʃø³⁵ tsa³³ tʃø³⁵

100. bamboo o²¹ʔma³³ ma³³da³³ wa³⁵tʃu³³ wa³⁵tʃu³³ʔ ma³³da³³ ma³³dzɨ³³ ma³³ khʷa²¹ʔ

ma³³dzɨ³³ ma³³khʷa²¹ʔ ma³³ khʷa²¹ʔ

ma³³ khʷa²¹ʔ

ma³³ khʷa²¹ʔ

199

APPENDIX G Cognates in Root Syllable Forms

200

200

Appendix G English YKB LBS HKH MLSD STH MCP MKH DWB KSG TWM SDY MKT 1. to be

afraid dʒu³³ ɖʐo³³ dzu³⁵ʔ dʒu⁵⁵ dzo³³ dzo³³ dzo⁴⁵ dzo⁵⁵ dzo³³ dzo⁴⁵ dzo⁴⁵ dzo⁴⁵

2. ashes kho²¹ʔ khu²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ khu²¹ʔ khu²¹ʔ khɔ²¹ʔ khɔ²¹ʔ khʷa³⁵ kʷa³⁵ kʷa²¹ʔ kʷa²¹ʔ 3. bird ɲæ³⁵ ɲa³⁵ ɲæ³⁵ ɲæ³⁵ ɲa³⁵ ɲa³⁵ ɲa³⁵ ɲæ³⁵ ɲa³⁵ ɲa³⁵ ɲa³⁵ ɲa³⁵ 4. to bite kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho³⁵ kho³⁵ kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho³⁵ kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho³⁵ kho³⁵ kho³⁵ 5. black næ³³ næ³³ næ³³ mæ⁵⁵ næ³³ næ³³ næ³³ næ³³ næ³³ næ³³ næ³³ næ³³ 6. blood sɨ²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ 7. to blow(air) my⁵⁵ my³³ mu³⁵ my⁵⁵ my³³ my³³ my⁴⁵ my⁴⁵ my³⁵ my⁴⁵ my⁴⁵ my⁴⁵ 8. bone vy ²¹ʔto³³ wo²¹ʔto³³ʔ vu²¹ʔto³³ vy ²¹ʔto³³ʔ wɔ²¹ʔto³³ wɔ²¹ʔtɔ³³ wo²¹ʔto³³ wo²¹ʔtɔ³³ wo²¹ʔto³³ wo²¹ʔto³³ wo²¹ʔto³³ wo²¹ʔto³³ 9. to breathe a³³ a³³ a³⁵ a ³⁵ a³³ a³³ a³⁵ a³³ a³⁵ a³³ a³⁵ a³⁵ 10. to burn tshu³³ ʈʂhu³³ tʃhu³³ tʃhu⁵⁵ ʈʂhu³³ tshu³³ tshu³⁵ tshu³⁵ tshu³³ tshu³⁵ tshu³⁵ tshu³⁵ 11. child (one’s

own) za²¹ʔ za²¹ʔ za²¹ʔ za²¹ʔ za²¹ʔ za²¹ʔ za²¹ʔ za²¹ʔ za²¹ʔ za²¹ʔ za²¹ʔ za²¹ʔ

12. cloud mo³³ mu³³ mu³³ mu³³ mu³³ mu³⁵ mu³³ my³³ mi³³ mo³³ mu⁵⁵ mu³³ 13. to be cold dʒæ³³ dʒæ³³ dʒæ⁵⁵ dʒæ⁵⁵ dʒa³³ dʒa³³ dʒa⁴⁵ dʒa³³ dʒa⁵⁵ dʒa⁴⁵ dʒa⁵⁵ dʒa⁵⁵ 14. to cut

(hair) tshə²¹ʔ tshə²¹ʔ tshə³⁵ tshə³⁵ ʈʂho³⁵ tsho³⁵ tsho³⁵ tshɨ³⁵ ɲø³⁵ tshɨ³⁵ tshɨ³⁵ tsho³⁵

15. to die ʃy³³ ʃy ³³ ʃy³³ ʃy³³ ʃy³³ ʃy³³ ʃy³³ ʃy³³ ʃy³³ ʃy³⁵ ʃy³⁵ ʃy³⁵ 16. to dig du²¹ʔ tʃu⁵⁵ tʃu⁵⁵ tsu⁵⁵ du²¹ʔ dy³⁵ dy³⁵ du²¹ʔ dy²¹ʔ dy³⁵ dy³⁵ dy³⁵ 17. dog na²¹ʔ na²¹ʔ na²¹ʔ na²¹ʔ na²¹ʔ na²¹ʔ na²¹ʔ na²¹ʔ na²¹ʔ na²¹ʔ na²¹ʔ na²¹ʔ

201

201

English YKB LBS HKH MLSD STH MCP MKH DWB KSG TWM SDY MKT 18. to drink

(water) do³³ do³³ do³⁵ do ³⁵ do³³ do³³ do³⁵ do³⁵ do³⁵ do³⁵ do³⁵ do³⁵

19. ear na⁵⁵ na⁵⁵ na⁵⁵ na⁵⁵ na⁵⁵ na⁵⁵ na⁵⁵ na⁵⁵ na⁵⁵ na⁵⁵ na⁵⁵ na⁵⁵ 20. earth, soil mi³³ mi³³ mi³³ mi³³ mi³³ mi³³ mi³³ mi³³ mi³³ mi³³ mi³³ mi³³ 21. to eat dza³⁵ dza²¹ʔ dza³⁵ dza³⁵ dza²¹ʔ dza²¹ʔ dza³⁵ dza³⁵ dza³⁵ dza³⁵ dza³⁵ dza³⁵ 22. eye ɲæ³³ mʲa³³ ɲæ³³ ɲæ³³ mʲa³³ mʲa³³ mʲa³³ mʲa³³ mʲa³³ mʲa³³ mʲa³³ mʲa³³ 23. to fall tshe³³ tshe³³ tshe³³ tshe³³ tshe³³ tshe³³ tʃhe³³ tshe³³ tʃhe³³ tshe³³ tʃhe³³ tʃhe³³ 24. fat tshə³³ tshə³³ tshə³³ tshə³³ tshɨ³³ tshɨ³³ tshɨ³³ tshɨ³³ tshɨ³³ tshɨ³³ tshɨ³³ tshɨ³³ 25. feather my³³ my³³ my³³ my³³ my³³ my³³ my³³ my³³ my³³ my³³ my³³ my³³ 26. fingernail sø²¹ʔ sy²¹ʔ sø²¹ʔ s ²¹ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ sy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ 27. Fire to⁵⁵ to⁵⁵ to⁵⁵ to⁵⁵ to⁵⁵ to⁵⁵ to⁵⁵ to⁵⁵ to⁵⁵ to⁵⁵ to⁵⁵ to⁵⁵ 28. Fish ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁴⁴ ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁵⁵ ŋʷa⁵⁵ 29. five

(persons) ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ ŋʷa²¹ʔ

30. flower ʒi³³ ʒi³³ ʒi³³ wi³³ʔ ve³³ ve³³ we³³ vi³³ vi³³ vi³³ vi³³ ve³³ 31. to fly bʲo ³³ bʲo³³ dʒ ³³ dʒø³⁵ bø³³ bø³³ bʲo ³³ bʲe³³ bø³³ bø³⁵ bʲø³⁵ bʲø³⁵ 32. foot tʃhi³³ tʃhi³³ tʃhi³³ tʃhi³³ tʃhi³³ tʃhi³³ tʃhi³³ tʃhi³³ tshɨ³³ tshɨ³³ tshɨ³³ tshɨ³³ 33. four(perso

ns) li⁵⁵ li³³ li⁵⁵ li⁵⁵ li³³ li³³ li⁵⁵ li⁵⁵ li⁵⁵ li⁵⁵ li³³ li⁵⁵

34. fruit sə²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sə²¹ʔ sə²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ 35. to be full bo³³ bo³³ bo³³ bo³³ bo³³ bo³³ bo³³ bo³⁵ bo³³ bo³³ bo³³ bo³³ 36. to give o²¹ʔ o²¹ʔ ³⁵ ³⁵ ɨ²¹ʔ ɨ²¹ʔ ɨ³⁵ ɨ³⁵ ɨ²¹ʔ ɨ³⁵ ɨ³⁵ ɨ³⁵

202

202

English YKB LBS HKH MLSD STH MCP MKH DWB KSG TWM SDY MKT 37. grass mo²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ mu²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ mo²¹ʔ 38. hair tʃhø³³ʔ tʃhø³³ tshhø³³ tʃhø³³ ku³³ ku³³ ku³³ ku³³ tʃhø³³ tʃhø³³ tʃhø³³ tʃhø³³ 39. hand læ²¹ʔ læ ²¹ʔ læ²¹ʔ læ ²¹ʔ læ²¹ʔ læ²¹ʔ læ²¹ʔ læ²¹ʔ læ²¹ʔ læ²¹ʔ læ²¹ʔ læ²¹ʔ 40. heart ni³⁵ ni³⁵ ni³⁵ ni³⁵ ni³⁵ ni³⁵ ni³⁵ ni³⁵ ɲi³⁵ ɲi³⁵ ɲi³⁵ ɲi³⁵ 41. to be

heavy li²¹ʔ li²¹ʔ li³⁵ li³⁵ li²¹ʔ li³⁵ li²¹ʔ li²¹ʔ li³⁵ li³⁵ li³⁵ li³⁵

42. thorn tsh ²¹ʔ ʈʂhu²¹ʔ tʃh ²¹ʔ tʃhu²¹ʔ ʈʂhu²¹ʔ ʈʂhu²¹ʔ tshu²¹ʔ tshu²¹ʔ tshu²¹ʔ tsh ²¹ʔ ʈʂhu²¹ʔ ʈʂhu²¹ʔ 43. to hunt a²¹ʔ a²¹ʔ a²¹ʔ a³⁵ a²¹ʔ a²¹ʔ a³⁵ a²¹ʔ a²¹ʔ a³⁵ a³⁵ a³⁵ 44. I (1st sing) ŋa³³ ŋa³³ ŋa³³ ŋa³³ ŋʷa³³ ŋʷa³³ ŋʷa³³ ŋʷa³³ ŋʷa³³ ŋʷa³³ ŋʷa³³ ŋʷa³³ 45. intestines v ³³ vu³³ v ³³ v ³³ vu³³ vu³³ vu³³ vu³³ wu³³ vu³³ wu³³ wu³³ 46. to kill s ²¹ʔ se²¹ʔ sæ³⁵ s ³⁵ se²¹ʔ ʃe²¹ʔ se³⁵ se²¹ʔ ʃi²¹ʔ ʃi³⁵ ʃi³⁵ ʃi³⁵ 47. to know sə⁵⁵ sə⁵⁵ sə⁵⁵ sə⁵⁵ sə⁵⁵ sə⁵⁵ sə⁴⁵ sə⁵⁵ sə⁵⁵ sə⁴⁵ sə⁴⁵ sə⁴⁵ 48. to laugh sæ³³ sæ³³ sæ³³ sø³⁵ ʃø³³ ʃø³³ ʃø³³ ʃø³³ xɨ²¹ʔ xɨ³⁵ ʃø³⁵ ʃø³⁵ 49. leaf tʃhæ²¹ʔ phʲæ²¹ʔ tʃhæ²¹ʔ tʃhæ²¹ʔ phʲa²¹ʔ phʲa²¹ʔ phʲa²¹ʔ phʲa²¹ʔ phʲa²¹ʔ phʲa²¹ʔ phʲa²¹ʔ phʲa²¹ʔ 50. left (side) ɣɨ⁵⁵ ɣɨ⁵⁵ ɣɨ⁵⁵ ɣɨ⁵⁵ ɣɨ⁵⁵ ɣɨ⁵⁵ ɣɨ⁵⁵ ɣɨ⁵⁵ ɣɨ⁵⁵ ɣɨ⁵⁵ ɣɨ⁵⁵ ɣɨ⁵⁵ 51. liver sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ sɨ²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ka³³ 52. to be long ʃy³³ ʃy³³ ʃy⁵⁵ ʃy⁵⁵ ʃy³³ ʃy³³ ʃy⁴⁵ ʃy³³ ʃy⁵⁵ ʃe⁴⁵ ʃy⁵⁵ ʃy⁵⁵ 53. louse

(head) xɨ³³ xɨ³³ xɨ ³³ xɨ ³³ xɨ³³ xɨ³³ xɨ³³ xɨ³³ xɨ³³ xɨ ³³ xɨ³³ xɨ³³

54. to be many (people)

mʲæ³⁵ mʲæ³⁵ ɲæ²¹ʔ ɲæ²¹ʔ mʲa²¹ʔ mʲa²¹ʔ mʲa³⁵ mʲa⁵⁵ mʲa³⁵ mʲa⁵⁵ mʲa⁵⁵ mʲa³⁵

55. moon a³³phu³³ a³³ba³³ a³³phu³³ a³³phu³³ a³³ba³³ a³³ba³³ a³³ba³³ a³³ba³³ a³³ba³³ a⁵⁵ba³³ a³³ba³³ a⁵⁵ba³³ 56. mountain wa²¹ʔtʃi³³ wa²¹ʔtʃi³³ wa²¹ʔtʃe³³ wa²¹ʔdʒy²¹ʔ wa²¹ʔtʃi³³ wa²¹ʔtʃi³³ wa²¹ʔdʒy²¹ʔ wa²¹tʃe³³ wa²¹ʔdʒy²¹ʔ wa²¹ʔdʒy²¹ʔ wa²¹dʒy²¹ʔ wa²¹ʔdʒy²¹ʔ

203

203

English YKB LBS HKH MLSD STH MCP MKH DWB KSG TWM SDY MKT 57. name mi ³³ mʲø³³ mi³³ mi³³ mʲø³³ my³³ mʲø³³ mʲø³³ my³³ my³³ mʲø³³ mø³³ 58. to be new ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy³³ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy⁵⁵ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ ʃy²¹ʔ 59. nose na³³ na³³ na³³ na³³ næ³³ næ³³ na³³ na³³ na³³ na³³ na³³ na³³ 60. to be old (thing not person)

be²¹ʔ be²¹ʔ bi²¹ʔ bi²¹ʔ be²¹ʔ be²¹ʔ bø²¹ʔ bʲe²¹ʔ be³⁵ be²¹ʔ be²¹ʔ be²¹ʔ

61. one (person)

thi²¹ʔ thi²¹ʔ thi²¹ʔ thi²¹ʔ thi²¹ʔ thi²¹ʔ thi²¹ʔ thi²¹ʔ thi²¹ʔ the²¹ʔ thi²¹ʔ thi²¹ʔ

62. person tsho³³ tsho³³ tsho³³ tsho³³ tsho³³ tshɔ³³ tsho³³ tshɔ³³ tsho³³ tsho³³ tʃho³³ tsho³³ 63. rain mɨ²¹ʔ a³³ mɨ²¹ʔ a³

³ mɨ²¹ʔ a ³³ mɨ²¹ʔ a³³ mɨ²¹ʔ a³³ mɨ²¹ʔ a³³ mɨ²¹ʔ a³³ mɨ²¹ʔ a³³ ma²¹ʔ a ³³ ma²¹ʔ a³³ mɨ²¹ʔ a³³ ma²¹ʔ a³³

64. road, path dʒa³³u³³ ʐa³³u³³ dza³³ ³³ dʒa ³³u³³ ʐa³³u³³ dza³³u³³ dza³³u³³ dza³³u³³ dza³³u³³ dza³³u³³ dza³³u³³ dza³³u³³ 65. root tʃi³³ tʃi³³ tʃe³³ tʃe³³ tʃe³³ tʃe³³ tʃe³³ tʃe³⁵ tʃe³³ tʃe³³ tʃe³³ tʃe³³ 66. to be

round lu⁵⁵ lu⁵⁵ lu⁵⁵ lu⁵⁵ lu⁵⁵ lu⁵⁵ lu⁴⁵ lu⁵⁵ lu⁵⁵ lu⁵⁵ lu⁵⁵ lu⁵⁵

67. to rub, scrub

tsho⁵⁵ ʈʂho³⁵ tshu⁵⁵ tsho⁵⁵ tsha³⁵ tsha³⁵ tsha³⁵ tsha³⁵ tsha³⁵ tsha³⁵ tsha³⁵ tsha³⁵

68. salt tsha²¹ʔbo³³ tsha²¹ʔbo³³ tsha²¹ʔbo³³ tsha²¹ʔbo³³ tsha²¹ʔbo³³ tsha²¹ʔbo³³ tsha²¹ʔbo³³ tsha²¹ʔbɔ³³ tsha⁵⁵bo³³ tsha²¹ʔbo³³ tsha²¹ʔbo³³ tsha²¹ʔbo³³ 69. to see mo ³³ mo³³ mo³³ mo³⁵ mo³³ mo³³ mo³⁵ mo³⁵ mo³⁵ mo³⁵ mo³⁵ mo³⁵ 70. to sew

(cloth) dʒi²¹ʔ dʒi²¹ʔ dʒi³⁵ dʒi³⁵ ʃi³³ ʃi³³ dʒi²¹ʔ dʒi²¹ʔ sɨ⁵⁵ sɨ⁵⁵ sɨ⁴⁵ sɨ⁴⁵

71. to be sharp tshe³⁵ tshe³⁵ tshe³⁵ tshe³⁵ tʃhæ³⁵ thæ³⁵ thæ³³ʔ tshæ³⁵ thæ³⁵ thæ³⁵ thæ³³ʔ thæ³⁵

72. to sit ɲæ³⁵ ɲi³³ ɲæ³⁵ ɲæ³⁵ ɲi³³ ɲi⁵⁵ ɲi³³ ɲi⁵⁵ ɲi³³ i³³ ɲi³³ ɲi³³ 73. skin ku⁵⁵dʒi ³³ʔ ku⁵⁵dʒi³³ kʷa⁵⁵dʒi ³³ kʷa⁵⁵dʒi ²¹ʔ ku³⁵dʒi³³ ku³⁵dʒi³³ kɔ³⁵dʒi³³ kɔ³⁵dʒi³³ ku³⁵dzɨ³³ ku³⁵dzɨ³³ ku³⁵dzɨ³³ ku³⁵dzɨ³³

204

204

English YKB LBS HKH MLSD STH MCP MKH DWB KSG TWM SDY MKT 74. sky mu²¹ʔkʷa³³ mo²¹ʔkʷa³³ mo²¹ʔkʷa³³ muʔ²¹kʷa³³ mo²¹ʔkʷa³³ mu²¹ʔkʷa³³ mo²¹ʔkʷa³³ mo²¹ʔkʷa³³ mo²¹ʔkʷa³³ mo²¹ʔkʷa³³ mu²¹ʔkʷa³³ mo²¹ʔkʷa³³ 75. smoke mu²¹ʔkhu²¹ʔ mu²¹ʔkhu²¹ʔ mu²¹ʔkhu²¹ʔ mu²¹ʔkhu²¹ʔ mu²¹ʔkhu²¹ʔ mu²¹ʔkhu²¹ʔ mu²¹ʔkhu²¹ʔ mu²¹ʔkhu²¹ʔ n khu²¹ʔ n khu²¹ʔ mu²¹ʔkhu²¹ʔ nkhu²¹ʔ 76. snake fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ fu³³ 77. to stand i²¹ʔ e²¹ʔ i³⁵ i³⁵ i²¹ʔ i²¹ʔ i²¹ʔ ʲa²¹ʔ i²¹ʔ æ²¹ʔ i²¹ʔ e³⁵ 78. star ku³³ ku³³ ku³³ ku³³ ku³³ ku³³ ku³³ ku³³ ku³³ ku³³ ku³³ ku³³ 79. stone ja⁵⁵ ɣa⁵⁵ ja⁵⁵ ja⁵⁵ ɣa⁵⁵ ɣa⁵⁵ ɣa⁵⁵ ɣa⁵⁵ ɣa⁵⁵ ɣa⁵⁵ ɣa⁵⁵ ɣa⁵⁵ 80. sun mi²¹ʔmi³³ʔ mi²¹ʔmi³³ mi²¹ʔmi ³³ mi²¹ʔmi ³³ mi²¹ʔmi³³ mi²¹ʔmi³³ mi²¹ʔmi ³³ mi²¹ʔmi³³ mɨ²¹ʔtsha³³ mɨ²¹ʔtsha³³ mɨ²¹ʔtsha³³ mɨ²¹ʔtsha³³ 81. tail mɨ⁵⁵ mɨ⁵⁵ mɨ⁵⁵ mɨ⁵⁵ mɨ⁵⁵ mɨ⁵⁵ mɨ⁵⁵ mɨ⁵⁵ mɨ⁵⁵ mɨ⁵⁵ mɨ⁵⁵ mɨ⁵⁵ 82. to be thick thu³³ thu³³ thu⁵⁵ thu⁵⁵ thu³³ thu³³ thu⁴⁵ thu⁴⁵ thu³³ thu³⁵ thu³³ thu⁵⁵

83. to be thin ba ²¹ʔ ba²¹ʔ ba³⁵ ba ³⁵ ba²¹ʔ ba²¹ʔ ba³⁵ ba³⁵ ba²¹ʔ ba³⁵ ba²¹ʔ ba³⁵ 84. you, thou

(2nd sing) n ³³ nu³³ n ³³ n ³³ nu³³ nu³³ nu³³ n ³³ nu³³ n ³³ nu³³ nu³³

85. three (persons)

sa³³ sa³³ sa²¹ʔ sa²¹ʔ sa³³ sa³³ sa²¹ʔ sa²¹ʔ sa²¹ʔ sa³³ sa³³ sa²¹ʔ

86. to tie tsho³⁵ tsho³⁵ tsho³⁵ tsho³⁵ tsho³⁵ tsho³⁵ tsho³⁵ tshɔ³⁵ tsho³⁵ tsho³⁵ tsho³⁵ tsho³⁵ 87. tongue la³³tʃhə³³ la⁵⁵tʃho³³ la³³tʃhə ³³ la³³tʃhə³³ la³³tʃhø³³ la³³tʃhø³³ la³³tʃhy³³ la³³tʃhø³³ la³³tʃhø³³ la³³tʃhø³³ læ³³tʃhø³⁵ la³³tʃhø³³ 88. tooth sɨ²¹ʔtʃhi ³³ sɨ²¹ʔtʃhi³³ sɨ²¹ʔtʃhi ³³ khɨ²¹ʔtʃhi³³ sɨ²¹ʔtʃhi³³ sɨ²¹ʔtʃhi³³ sɨ²¹ʔtʃhɨ³³ sɨ²¹ʔtʃhɨ³³ sɨ²¹ʔtshɨ³³ sɨ²¹ʔtshɨ³³ sɨ²¹ʔtshɨ³³ sɨ²¹ʔtshɨ³³ 89. tree sɨ³⁵dzɨ³³ sɨ³⁵dzɨ³³ sɨ³⁵dzɨ ³³ sɨ³⁵dzɨ³³ sɨ³⁵dzɨ³³ sɨ³⁵dzɨ³³ sɨ³⁵dʒi³³ sɨ³⁵tsɨ³³ sɨ³⁵dzɨ³³ sɨ³⁵dzɨ³³ sɨ³⁵dzɨ³³ sɨ³⁵dzɨ³³ 90. two

(people) ɲi²¹ʔ ɲi²¹ʔ ɲi²¹ʔ ɲi ²¹ʔ ɲi²¹ʔ ɲi²¹ʔ ɲi²¹ʔ ɲi²¹ʔ ɲi⁵⁵ ɲi²¹ʔ ɲi²¹ʔ ɲi²¹ʔ

91. to vomit phi²¹ʔ phe²¹ phi³⁵ phi³⁵ phe²¹ʔ phe²¹ʔ phø³⁵ phe²¹ʔ phe²¹ʔ phe³⁵ phe³⁵ phæ³⁵ 92. warm lø³³ lø³³ lø³⁵ lø³³ lø³³ lø³³ lø³³ lø³⁵ lø³³ lø³⁵ lø³⁵ʔ lø³⁵ 93. to wash tshɨ²¹ʔ tshɨ²¹ʔ tshɨ³⁵ tshɨ ³⁵ tshɨ²¹ʔ tshɨ²¹ʔ tshɨ³⁵ tshi³⁵ tshɨ²¹ʔ tshɨ³⁵ tshɨ³⁵ tshɨ³⁵

205

205

English YKB LBS HKH MLSD STH MCP MKH DWB KSG TWM SDY MKT 94. water a³³dʒæ³³ a³³dʒæ³³ a⁵⁵dʒæ³³ a⁵⁵dʒæ³³ ji⁵⁵tʃa⁵⁵ ji³³tʃa⁵⁵ʔ ji³³tʃa³³ ji³³tʃa⁵⁵ ji ³³dʒa³³ a⁵⁵dʒa³³ ji³³dʒa³³ i³³dʒa³³ 95. white phu³³ phu³³ phu³³ phu³³ phu³³ phu³³ phu³³ phu³³ phu³³ phu³³ phu³³ phu³³ 96. wind mi²¹ʔ i ³³ mi²¹ʔ i ³³ mi²¹ʔ i ³³ mi²¹ʔ i ³³ mi²¹ʔ i³³ mi²¹ʔ i³³ mi²¹ʔ i ³³ mi²¹ʔ i³³ mi²¹ʔ ³³ me²¹ʔ i ³³ mi²¹ʔ i³³ mi²¹ʔ i³³ 97. wing d ³³læ²¹ʔ du³³læ²¹ʔ du³³læ²¹ʔ du³³læ²¹ʔ du³³læ²¹ʔ du³³læ²¹ʔ du³³læ²¹ʔ du³³læ²¹ʔ du³³læ²¹ʔ du³³læ²¹ʔ du³³læ²¹ʔ du³³læ²¹ʔ 98. year kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ kho²¹ʔ 99. arrow tʃæ³³tʃə³⁵ ja³³tso³⁵ tʃha³³tʃə³⁵ tʃæ³³tʃə²¹ʔ tʃa³³tʃø³⁵ tʃa³³tʃø³⁵ tsa³³tʃø³⁵ tsa³³tʃø³⁵ tsa³³tʃø³⁵ tsa³³tʃø³⁵ tsa³³tʃø³⁵ tsa³³tʃø³⁵ 100. bamboo ma³³ ma³³ wa³⁵ wa³⁵ ma³³ ma³³ ma³³ ma³³ ma³³ ma³³ ma³³ ma³³

206

RESUME

Name: La Maung Htay Date of Birth: May 21, 1975 Place of Birth: Mong Myit Institutions Attended: 1985-1992 Mong Myit State High School, High School 1996-1997 Nam Kham Chinese School, Middle School 1999-2003 Lisu Theological Seminary of Myanmar, Bachelor of Theology 2006-2011 Payap University, Master of Arts in Linguistics Academic Papers Presented: 2003 The Lisu People and the Lisu Traditional Orphan Song, Pyin Oo Lwin, Myanmar, March 2003.

Documents

A SOCIOLINGUISTIC SURVEY OF THREE LISU DIALECTS · A SOCIOLINGUISTIC SURVEY OF THREE LISU DIALECTS LA MAUNG HTAY Presented to Payap University in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements