Multilingualism and language shift in Northeastern Thailand : the Bru in Woen Buek

Abstract

Although the majority in Thailand speaks one of the Tai-Kadai languages, the country is, in fact, a multilingual and multicultural society. This study focuses on a speech community of an Austroasiatic language (Woen Buek (เวินบึก, WB) in Bru) in Northeastern Thailand, where the Northeastern Thai (Lao Isan) is spoken. Similar to other cases worldwide, it is estimated that most of the languages and cultures of minority communities in Thailand may not be safe. I conducted a language use survey together with in-depth interviews and participant observation with the special foci on language attitudes and language choice to assess the language vitality and endangerment of Bru in WB and to analyse the factors that affect the language shift and/or maintenance of Bru. From the quantitative results, it is clear that language shift is ongoing in WB. This is even though the participants of the survey mainly possess positive attitudes towards Bru. The results show that the participants in their twenties and younger use Lao instead of Bru, even in situations where the use of Bru is expected. The results from the qualitative approach revealed that many Bru parents did not pass Bru on to their children because of the negative attitudes they had in the past towards Bru. This was due to the discrimination directed against them by the majority people in the past. The results also found that, over the past decades, the WB people have experienced drastic sociocultural transitions. It can be said that even though the Bru are currently shifting to Lao, Bru can be considered a core identity of the WB people; otherwise, Bru would have already been lost a long time ago. I assessed the degree of endangerment and the language shift of Bru amongst the WB people by applying existing scales for assessing language vitality and endangerment, LVE and EGIDS. While these scales are very effective and have been fine-tuned over the years, they do not capture the speed of language shift, the different language choice patterns of different age cohorts, and how rapidly the rate of successful intergenerational language transmission from one generation to another is shrinking. A number of other factors affecting language shift and maintenance were also analysed. All of Fishman’s (1991) dislocations apply to the minority Bru, the lack of a stable diglossia, and the negative attitudes toward Bru have contributed to and caused the language shift. Whereas language being a core value, grandparents, the school and institutional support have partly encouraged language maintenance. To summarize, without any countermeasures, the use of Bru by the Woen Buek people will disappear sooner or later. It is crucial to increase Bru-speaking population through, for example, grandparents’ and school’s participation in fostering Bru-speaking children, and accepting varieties of non-fluent speakers etc. I also suggest that assessors of the language vitality and endangerment should observe the rates of successful intergenerational language transmission and the language choice patterns of people of different ages and from as diverse backgrounds as possible.