086 Language Vitality and Language Attitude Among The Yong People in Lamphun Province 2005

LANGUAGE VITALITY AND LANGUAGE ATTITUDE AMONG
THE YONG PEOPLE IN LAMPHUN PROVINCE: A
SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDY
The members of the Committee approve the masters’ thesis of Maliwan

Tuwakham
Asst. Prof. Dr. Thomas M.

Tehan___________________________________
Supervising Professor
A. P. David Jeffery ______________________________________
A. William Hanna ______________________________________
Prof. Dr. Somsonge Burusphat

_____________________________________
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Saranya Savetamalya

_______________________________
Approval Date:
_________________________________________________
Copyright © Maliwan Tuwakham 2005
All Rights Reserved
SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDY
by
Maliwan Tuwakham
Presented to the Graduate School of Payap

University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS IN LINGUISTICS
PAYAP UNIVERSITY, CHIANG MAI, THAILAND
January 2005
RESUME
Name: Maliwan Tuwakham
Date of Birth: February 2, 1980
Place of Birth: 87 Moo 6, Tambon Rim Kok, Amphur Muang, Chiang Rai
57100, THAILAND
Institutions Attended:
1992-1994 Damrongratsongkhroh School, Certificate of Mathayon 3
1995-1997 Damrongratsongkhroh School, Certificate of Mathayon 6
1998-2001 Payap University, Bachelor of Arts, English
2002- 2005 Payap University, Master of Arts in Linguistics
Conference paper
presented:
2004 Language vitality and language attitude among the Yong people in
Lamphun province: A sociolinguistic study. The 4th
National Symposium on Graduate Research, Chiang Mai,
Thailand, August 10-11, 2004
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Boonthong Poocharoen,

president
of Payap University, for giving me the opportunity to study for my Masters

Degree in
the Linguistics Department. I would also like to thank my advisor Ajarn P. David
Jeffery, who always encouraged me in everything I have done, even when I was
facing many problems. Thanks for his valuable guidance, encouragement and
wisdom. I am also grateful to Assistant Prof. Dr. Thomas M. Tehan, my thesis
supervisor, and Ajarn William Hanna, for reading through my thesis and for their
valuable suggestions, which have added much to the final

draft.
I also wish to thank all the Yong villagers for their cooperation which they
gave me during my fieldwork, and without whose generous help my research

would
not have been possible.
I would like to express my gratitude to my teachers in the English and
Linguistics Departments, who not only taught me valuable knowledge but also
how to
behave. All that they gave me during my studies is a beautiful memory for
me.
Thanks to my close friend, Aum, and all my friends in the Linguistics
Department for their support and encouragement in writing this

thesis.
I am extremely grateful to my family, my father, mother and older brother

for
their love, support and encouragement. Thanks to my special friend, Tun, for
your
care and understanding.
January, 2005
v
ABSTRACT
SOCIOLINGUISTICS STUDY
Maliwan Tuwakham
Payap University, Chiang Mai, 2005
Supervising Professor: Assistant Prof. Dr. Thomas M.

Tehan
The objective of this research was to study the language vitality and
language
attitudes of the Yong people in Lamphun province. The subjects were 48 Yong
people from two communities: Rai village, Pasang district, and Tong vilage,
Muang
district, Lamphun province. The subjects were divided on the basis of 4 variables:
age, gender, education, and place of residence. The sociolinguistic data was
collected
by questionnaire and
observation.
The study supports the contention that the Yong people continue to
maintain
their own language in many domains. The older people, lower-educated people
and
rural dwellers showed a higher tendency to use the Yong language than the
other
groups surveyed. There was no significant difference in the use of Yong dialect
between males and females. A tendency towards speaking Kammuang rather

than
Yong to children was also noted. Attitudes of the Yong toward their mother
tongue
are positive. The social variables did not seem to have much influence on the
attitudes
of the subjects. However, older people tended to have a stronger positive attitude
than
the younger people. In general, the overall picture of the study showed the Yong
vi
people in Lamphun to have positive attitudes towards their own language as well
as
other languages such as Kammuang and Standard

Thai.
vii
F
viii FF:
F F F . .
F F F: . F F
F F 48 2 F F F
FFF4FFF
FFFF
FFFF
FFFFFFF
FFFFF
FFFF
FFFFFF
FFFFFFFF
FFFF
FFFF
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments....................................................................................................
......v
Abstract
........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Figures
............................................................................................................. xv
List of Tables
............................................................................................................ xvii
List of Abbreviations and Glossary

........................................................................... xxi
Chapter
1........................................................................................................................1
Introduction..............................................................................................................
......1
1.0 General Background

..........................................................................................1
1.1 Historical Background

.......................................................................................2
1.2 Yong
Culture......................................................................................................7
1.3 Language Family

...............................................................................................8
1.4 Objectives of the

Study....................................................................................10
1.5 Research
Questions..........................................................................................10
1.6
Hypotheses.......................................................................................................
11
1.7 Benefits of the

Study........................................................................................12
Chapter
2......................................................................................................................13
Yong
phonology...........................................................................................................13
2.0
Introduction......................................................................................................1
3
2.1 Yong Phonology

..............................................................................................13
2.1.1
Consonants..............................................................................................13
2.1.1.1 Initial Consonants

..........................................................................14
2.1.1.2 Final
Consonants............................................................................14
2.1.1.3. Consonant clusters

........................................................................14
2.1.2 Vowel Sounds

.........................................................................................14
2.1.3 Tone
........................................................................................................16
2.1.3.1. Live
Syllables................................................................................16
2.1.3.2. Dead syllables

...............................................................................17
Chapter
3......................................................................................................................19
Literature
review..........................................................................................................19
3.0.
Introduction.....................................................................................................19
3. 1. Ethnolinguistic
Vitality..................................................................................19
3.1.1. The Study of Ethnolinguistic Vitality in Various

Languages................23
3.2 Language Attitudes

..........................................................................................26
3.2.1. Methodology and Attitudes

Measurement.............................................28
3.2.2. The Study of Language Attitudes in Various Languages and

Related
Research.......................................................................................................
....30
Chapter
4......................................................................................................................35
Methodology............................................................................................................
....35
4.0
Introduction......................................................................................................3
5
4.1 Data Collection

................................................................................................35
4.1.1. Questionnaire
.........................................................................................35
4.1.1.1. Part One: Linguistic background

..................................................35
4.1.1.2. Part Two: Language

use................................................................36
4.1.1.3. Part Three: Language

attitude.......................................................37
4.1.2.
Interviews...............................................................................................38
4.1.3. Observation
............................................................................................38
4.2. Distribution of the

informants.........................................................................39
4.3. Pilot Test

.........................................................................................................40
Chapter
5......................................................................................................................42
Findings and
analysis...................................................................................................42
5.0
Introduction......................................................................................................4
2
5.1 Subjects
............................................................................................................42
5.2. Word
Lists.......................................................................................................44
5.3. Language
Use..................................................................................................45
xi
5.3.1. Question 1: What language do you speak with the following

people?. 46
5.3.1.1. Language use according to

Age....................................................55

Gender...............................................56
5.3.1.3. Language use according to Education

..........................................58
5.3.1.4. Language use according to Place of residence

.............................59
5.3.2.Question 2: What language do the following people speak to

you?.......61

Age....................................................70

Gender...............................................71

..........................................72

.............................74
5.3.3. Question 3: What languages do the children in this village learn

first? 76
5.3.4. Question 4: Before they start school what languages do they

know?....77
5.3.5. Question 5: Which language does a Yong mother speak to her

child? .78
5.3.6. Conclusions regarding language

use......................................................79

..........................................................................................81
5.4.1. Question 3.1: How important or unimportant do you think the Yong
language is for Yong people do the

following?...............................................81
5.4.1.1. Importance/unimportance of Yong according to Age

..................84
5.4.1.2. Importance/unimportance of Yong according to Gender

.............88
5.4.1.3. Importance/unimportance of Yong according

Education.............91
5.4.1.4. Importance/unimportance of Yong according to place of

residence
....................................................................................................93
5.4.2. Question 3.2: Here are some statements about the Yong,
Kammuang,
and Standard Thai. Please say whether you agree or disagree with these
statements.....................................................................................................
....95
5.4.2.1. Language attitude according to Age

...........................................100
5.4.2.2. Language attitude according to Gender

......................................107
5.4.2.3. Language attitude according to

Education..................................112
xii
5.4.2.4. Language attitude according to Place of

residence.....................117
5.4.3. Question 3.3. Please answer the following questions.

.........................123
5.4.3.1. Question 1. Do the Yong teenagers speak their language

correctly?
If not, how do they speak it?

..........................................................................123
5.4.3.2. Question 2. Is it good for Yong children to learn to speak
Kammuang?
Why?.........................................................................................124
5.4.3.3. Question 3. Is it good for Yong children to learn to speak

Standard
Thai? Why?
....................................................................................................125
5.4.3.4. Question 4. Do you know any Yong people who do not speak
Yong any more? Is it good or bad?

................................................................126
5.4.3.5. Question 5. When the children of this village grow up and have
their own children, do you think those children will speak Yong? Why?
.....127
5.4.3.6. Question 6. When Northern Thai or Central Thai people are
around, are you embarrassed to speak your language?

..................................129
5.4.3.7. Question 7. In the future, do you think the next generation will
stop speaking Yong or not? Why?

.................................................................130
5.5. Conclusion of Language Attitude Section

....................................................131
Chapter
6....................................................................................................................134
Summary and
conclusion...........................................................................................134
6.0
Introduction....................................................................................................13
4
6.1 Language
Use.................................................................................................134
6.1.1.Research question 1: What dialects do the Yong people use in their
community? What are the important factors in the choice of dialect use of
Yong people in different

domains?................................................................134
6.2 Language
Attitude..........................................................................................136
6.2.1. Research question 2: How do the Yong people feel about their
dialect
and other dialects spoken in the

community?................................................136
6.3 Summary of the future of the Yong dialect.

..................................................139
xiii
6.3.1. Research question 3: What is the long-range outlook for the Yong
dialect?
Will the Yong people maintain their dialect or shift to Kammuang?

.139
6.4 Further Research

............................................................................................140
Appendix
A................................................................................................................141
Appendix B
................................................................................................................159
Appendix C
................................................................................................................167
Bibliography
..............................................................................................................188
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1: Map of the Yong city and the direction of Yong immigration to
Lamphun
Province in 1805 (Sawaeng 2001).

...............................................................4
Figure 2: Yong community in Lamphun Province (1805) (Sawaeng 2001).

................5
Figure 3: Migration routes of Yong people in 1837-1902 (Adapted from

Sawaeng
2001).
............................................................................................................6
Figure 4: A language family model of the Tai language in Thailand (Adapted

from
Smalley, 1994).
.............................................................................................9
Figure 5: The hierarchy of attitude and its components (Baker 1992)

........................27
Figure 6: A scale of direct and indirect methods to assess language attitudes.

...........30
Figure 7: The dialects that the subjects speak with people in the family domain.
......48
Figure 8: The dialects that the subjects speak with people in the
community.............50
Figure 9: The dialects that the subjects in different age speak with the
government
officials......................................................................................................
..51
Figure 10: The dialects that the subjects in different age speak to people in the
public
domain......................................................................................................
...53
Figure 11: Percentage of dialects that the subjects use with different people.
............54
Figure 12: The dialects that people in the family speak to the subjects.
.....................64
Figure 13: The dialects that people in the community speak to the
subjects...............65
Figure 14: The dialects that people in the government office spoke to the
subjects. ..67
Figure 15: The dialects that people in the public domain spoke to the
subjects..........68
Figure 16: Percentage of dialects that different people spoke to the subjects.
............69
xv
Figure 17: Importance/unimportance of Yong for the subjects for various

activities. 84
Figure 18: Language attitudes of the subjects towards 11 positive statements

(All 48
subjects
combined)......................................................................................98
Figure 19: Language attitude of the subjects towards 7 negative statements

(All 48
subjects
combined)......................................................................................99
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Consonants Sounds of the Yong

dialect.........................................................13
Table 2: Initial
consonants...........................................................................................14
Table 3: Final Consonants.

..........................................................................................14
Table 4: Consonants cluster.

........................................................................................14
Table 5: Single Vowel Sounds of the Yong and Kammuang

dialects.........................15
Table 6: Yong single vowels that correspond with Kammuang diphthongs with
no
environmental conditioning.
.......................................................................15
Table: 7 Yong single vowels correspond with Kammuang single vowels

with
environmental conditioning
........................................................................16
Table 8: Yong tone and tone symbols on live

syllables...............................................17
Table 9: Tones represented in Kammuang.

.................................................................17
Table 10: Yong tones and tone symbol on dead

syllables...........................................17
Table 11: Kammuang tones and tone symbol on dead syllables.

................................18
Table 12: Domains of language use in the study.

........................................................36
Table 13: The variables of the subjects under

study....................................................39
Table 14: Number of people who respond to the questionnaires
(included 2
neighborhoods).........................................................................................
...39
Table 15: Education level of the subjects in the 15 to 35 years old age group in
both
communities.
...............................................................................................43
Table 16: Education levels of the subjects in the more than 35 years old age
group in
both communities.
.......................................................................................43
xvii
Table 17: Raw data of the subjects’ occupation in both communities.

.......................44
Table 18: Raw data of the subjects’ parents ethnicity in both communities.
..............44
Table 19: Raw data of the dialects that the subjects speak with different
people........47
Table 20: The dialects that the subjects speak with people in the family
domain........48
Table 21: The dialects that the subjects speak with people in the
community............50
Table 22: The dialects that the subjects in different age speak with the
government
officials......................................................................................................
..52
Table 23: The dialects that the subjects in different age speak to people in the
public
domain......................................................................................................
...53
Table 24: Percentage of the use of dialects that the subjects speak with
different
people.
.........................................................................................................54
Table 25: Raw data of dialect use according to

age.....................................................56
Table 26: Raw data of dialect use according gender.

..................................................58
Table 27: The raw data of dialect use according to level of

education........................59
Table 28: Raw data of dialect use according to Place of

Residence............................61
Table 29: Raw data of the dialects that different people spoke with the
subjects........62
Table 30: The dialects that people in the family speak to the
subjects........................64
Table 31: The dialects that people in the community speak to the subjects.
...............66
Table 32: The dialects that people in the government office spoke to the
subjects.....67
Table 33: The dialects that people in the public domain spoke to the
subjects...........68
Table 34: Percentage of dialects that different people spoke to the
subjects...............69

age.....................................................71
Table 36: The raw data of dialect use according to gender.

........................................72
xviii

education...........................................74
Table 38: Raw data of dialect use according place of residence.

................................76
Table 39: Raw data of dialects that children learned first.

..........................................77
Table 40: Raw data of dialects that children knew before going to school.
................78
Table 41: Raw data of dialects that Yong mother should speak to her children.
........79
Table 42: Raw data of importance/unimportance of

Yong..........................................83
Table 43: Percentage of importance/unimportance of Yong for various activities.

....83
Table 44: Importance/Unimportance of Yong according to age.

................................87
Table 45: Percentage of Importance/Unimportance of Yong according to

age...........88
Table 46: Importance/Unimportance of Yong according to male/female.
..................90
Table 47: Percentage of Importance/Unimportance of Yong

according to
male/female..............................................................................................
...91
Table 48: Importance/Unimportance of Yong according to education.

......................92
Table 49: Percentage of Importance/Unimportance of Yong according to

education.93
Table 50: Importance/Unimportance of Yong according to place of residence.

.........94
Table 51: Percentage of Importance/Unimportance of Yong according

place of
residence..................................................................................................
....95
Table 52: Raw data of language attitude toward the positive and negative
statements.97
Table 53: Percentage of the subjects who responded to 11 positive statements.

........98
Table 54: Percentage of the subjects who responded to 7 negative

statements...........99
Table 55: Raw data of responses toward positive and negative statements
according to
age groups.
................................................................................................106
xix
Table 56: Percentage of responses toward positive and negative statements
according
to age groups.
............................................................................................107
Table 57: Raw data of language attitude toward the positive and negative
statements
according to gender
group.........................................................................111
Table 58: Percentage of responses toward the positive and negative

statements
according to gender.
..................................................................................112
Table 59: Raw data of responses toward the positive and negative
statements
according to education.
.............................................................................116
Table 60: Percentage of responses toward the positive and negative

statements
according to education.
.............................................................................117
Table 61: Raw data of responses toward the positive and negative
statements
according to place of
residence.................................................................122
Table 62: Percentage of response toward the positive and negative

statements
according to place of
residence.................................................................123
Table 63: Subjects evaluation of Yong teenager’s
speech.........................................124
Table 64: Raw data of Question 2 according to four factors.

....................................125

....................................126

....................................127

....................................129

....................................130

....................................131
xx
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY
F Female
M Male
LE Lower Education (Short definition)

HE Higher Education (Short definition)
V Village
C City
SS Statistically Significant
Kammuang Northern Thai Language
xxi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.0 General Background
Lamphun is the smallest province in the north of Thailand, bordering Chiang Mai
to
the north and Tak and Lampang to the south. Lamphun is an interesting place for
ethnolinguistic study because the linguistic situation there is so complex. There

are
many ethnic groups in Lamphun, inculding Yong, Lue, Khoen, Khon Muang and
people from Central Thailand. For over 200 years the largest ethnic group in
Lamphun has been Yong. Approximately 90% of Lamphun citizens are Yong
people
(Ruengdet 1978: ii). The Yong people are a good example of a community with a
strong ethnic identity. They keep their own traditions and use their own dialect
within
the community.
In recent years the number of non-Yong people in Lamphun has increased, and
the
linguistic situation within the present Yong community has changed. The Yong
live
among a large number of Northern Thai people and use Kammuang, or Northern
Thai, to communicate with them. The Yong community in Lamphun is very

strong.
They still preserve their own traditional customs and dialect. However, the Yong
language is endangered because Yong people are sometimes embarrassed to

use their
language to communicate. This is because they think that whenever they speak
Yong,
other people, whether Northern Thai or Central Thai speakers, will laugh at them
and
consider them to be rural people. So they switch to Kammuang or Standard Thai.

This
seems to indicate some negative attitudes towards the Yong

dialect.
However, nowadays Yong people have begun to realize the importance of their
own
dialect. There are some groups of people in Lamphun who are Yong speakers
such as
teachers, radio operators or government officers who have started activities that
focus
on Yong people, language and traditional customs. For instance, there are
lectures at
Pra Phut Tha Bat Tak Pha Temple, Pasaang district, Lamphun province, on such
topics as “Are Yong, Khoen and Lue the same ethnicity?” There are Yong
speech
contests in order to preserve the identity of their ethnic

group.
With all the ethnolinguistic change in Lamphun, the researcher became

interested in studying the Yong community and how Yong people think about
their dialect.1
1.1 Historical Background

The Tai Yong people are named after Yong City in Shan State, Myanmar. The
Tai
Yong people originated in Myanmar but have lived in Thailand for almost 200
years.
Their move to Thailand was not voluntary, but due to forced migration in 1805.
During the eighteenth century King Phutthayotfa (Rama I) of Bangkok freed the
Lanna kingdom in north Thailand from the Burmese. At that time, Praya Kavila
became King of Chiang Mai. Because of the war, many of the people of Chiang
Mai
and Lamphun had fled into the countryside. So Praya Kavila began to collect the
people who had scattered and to bring them back to Chiang Mai. Yet those
people
were insufficient to fully populate the city, so Praya Kavila led an army to bring
the
Lue people (including Tai Khoen, Tai Yai and other ethnic groups of Tai people)
from Burma to Chiang Mai. This period was known as “putting vegetables into
baskets, and people into towns”; the policy was that of taking the people of the
defeated kingdoms back to the homeland of the victorious country (Schliesinger
2001). The Tai Yong were taken to Chiang Mai in larger numbers (about 10,000
1
This research has interpreted Yong and Kammuang as different ‘dialects’ because of the degree of
linguistic
similarity. No specific claim of relationship or mutual intelligibility is made by use of the word
‘dialect’.
people) than other Tai groups. The settling of Yong people in Lamphun made the
city
almost entirely Yong. The whole social structure of Yong City was brought along,
including the chief, his relatives, nobles, monks, soldiers and slaves. Praya
Kavila
gave power to the chief to rule the Yong people in the

town.
From that time, the Yong became the majority people group in Lamphun. A full
90%
of Lamphun citizens are people of Yong ancestry (Ruengdet 1978:ii). Most of

them
lived in different places in Lamphun, especially near the banks of the Kwuang,
Thaa,
and Ping Rivers, and some of them moved to live in nearby areas such as
Chiang Mai,
Lampang and Chiang Rai

Provinces.
Tai Yong were originally Tai Lue speakers. The Tai Lue had migrated into Yong
City and had power over the original people who lived there. They became the
majority in Yong City and called themselves Yong people according to the city
where
they were then living. When they were taken to Lamphun, they still preserved
their
ethnicity by saying that they were Yong people. They also named their villages
and
their towns after their former cities in Myanmar, for example, Ban Viang Yong,
Ban
Thong, Ban Yuu, Ban Sam, etc. (Sawaeng 2001: 128). The Yong people
consider
themselves as separate from the Tai Lue people. Maps of Yong City and Yong
community in Lamphun can be seen in Figure 1, 2 and

3.
Figure1: Map of the Yong city and the direction of Yong immigration to Lamphun Province in
1805
(Sawaeng 2001).
4
Figure 2: Yong community in Lamphun Province (1805) (Sawaeng
2001).
5
Figure 3: Migration routes of Yong people in 1837-1902 (Adapted from Sawaeng
2001).
6
7 1.2
Yong Culture
The Yong people were not the only group that migrated to settle in Lamphun.
There
were also other small groups who were resettled in the same region along with
the
Yong, namely the Khoen and Lue people. The ethnic diversity has made
Lamphun a
city with much social and cultural assimilation. However, as the majority group of
people in Lamphun, the Yong have maintained their ethnic identity strongly.
Schliesinger (2001b) described aspects of Yong culture such as costume and

crafts,
homes and villages, ceremonies, myths and beliefs, etc. Schliesinger states that
Tai
Yong people have their own traditional handicrafts of weaving and dyeing. Tai
Yong
women are excellent weavers of cotton vests, phaa sins (a woven traditional
skirt),
blankets and many other textile products. The Yong women wear simple phaa
sins
and short-sleeved blouses, which they weave themselves in different styles.

They
cover their hair with an upright plain white turban. Men dress in short pants and a
blue vest. Most of the Yong in Lamphun live mainly among their group
members.
The traditional Tai Yong house is a solid wooden building, raised on poles about
two
meters above the ground. There is not much furniture inside a traditional Tai
Yong
house. They sit and sleep on the floor, and the few things that they keep inside
the
house are placed either on the floor or in a small cabinet. The houses are located
in
rather large compounds.
The Tai Yong economy is based on agriculture, handicrafts and small trade.
They
grow rice, cassava, cotton, tomatoes, garlic and onions, and these agricultural
products are sold in the markets of Chiang Mai. Many kinds of animals such as
buffaloes, pigs, chickens or ducks are also raised for sale. Tai Yong villages are
ruled
by their own ethnic leaders under the Thai administration system. The religion of
the
Tai Yong is Buddhism, but they still honor the four guardians spirits of the land
and
the ancestral spirits as Tai people generally do in Northern

Thai.
8 1.3
Language Family
According to Schliesinger (2001a), Tai Yong belongs to the Tai-Kadai group of

the
Austro-Thai language family. The Tai language division is subdivided into three
branches: Central Tai, Northern Tai and Southwestern Tai. Tai Yong is in the
Southwestern Tai group (Smalley 1994: 298) (Figure

4).
Linguistic research among the Tai Yong community in Lamphun province shows
that
the Yong dialect can be divided into two sub-dialects. The eastern sub-dialect is
spoken in Mae Tha district and in the eastern area of Muang district. The western
sub-
dialect is spoken in Pasang and Ban Hong districts and in the western area of
Muang
district. The tone pattern of the two sub-dialects is different. The tone pattern of
the
eastern sub-dialect is similar to the Tai Lue dialect of Sip Song Panna in China,
whereas the tone pattern of the western sub-dialect is similar to the Tai Lue
dialect in
Muang Yong in the Shan State of Burma (Schliesinger 2001b:

153).
The linguistic faculty of Mahidol University in Nakhon Pathom, have classified

Tai-
speaking groups in Thailand into twenty groups. Tai Yong was considered to be
one
of the Tai-speaking groups. Yong and Lue dialects are very similar. The main
difference is accent. According to a comparison between Yong and Lue dialects,

and
between Yong and Kammuang dialects, Yong is more similar to Lue than to
Kammuang (Reungdet 1978: ii).
Tai
Central Thai Northern Thai Southwestern Thai

Saek East Central Southern
Paktai
Chiang Saeng Lao-Phuthai Northwest

o Phuthai
Thaiklang 2 2
Lue Khun
Figure 4: A language family model of the Tai language

in
Thailand (Adapted from Smalley, 1994).
2
Thaiklang is Central Thai and it is the basis for educated Standard
Thai.
10 1.4
Objectives of the Study
This thesis has the following four

objectives:
1. To explore domains of use of the Yong dialect by different parts of the
Yong
community.
2. To discover the attitudes of Yong people toward their dialect and other
dialects spoken in the community.
3. To gain some idea of the future of the Yong

dialect.
1.5 Research
Questions
In order to meet the above objectives, this research has the following three
research
questions:
1. What dialects do Yong people use in their community? What are the
important factors in the choice of dialect use of Yong people in different
domains?
2. How do Yong people feel about their dialect and other dialects spoken in
the
community?
3. What is the long-range outlook for the Yong dialect? Will the Yong people
maintain their dialect or shift to

Kammuang?
11 1.6
Hypotheses
Based on the research questions, the following hypotheses are proposed for this
study.
1. Yong people generally use their dialect among themselves in the Yong
community, regardless of age or other variables. The Yong people use
Kammuang and Standard Thai with non-Yong

speakers.
2. Social variables such as age, sex, educational level and place of residence
affect the choice of dialect of the Yong people. The highest degree of
dialect
use will be found among old people, and age will prove to be the most
significant social variable. Younger Yong people use Yong but in more
limited domains; for example, they only speak Yong in the family or with
friends who are also Yong speakers. They prefer to use Kammuang or
Standard Thai to communicate in other

situations.
3. Older Yong people have stronger positive feelings toward the use of their
dialect than younger people. The younger age group has positive attitudes
toward the Yong dialect, but they do not use it in many domains, except in
their family.
12 1.7
Benefits of the Study
It is hoped that benefits such as the following will result from this
research.
1. This research will give information about the vitality and attitudes of the
Yong
people in Lamphun toward their dialect.
2. This research will serve as basic information about the Yong community in
Lamphun province for other researchers to compare with language

patterns of
similar language communities.
3. This research might help to encourage and improve the attitudes of the
Yong
people toward their dialect.
CHAPTER 2
YONG PHONOLOGY
2.0 Introduction
This chapter summarizes research done on the phonology of the Yong

dialect.
2.1 Yong
Phonology
The Yong language belongs to the Tai-Kadai language group of the Austro-Thai
language family. According to Schliesinger (2001a:84), Tai-speaking groups in
Thailand into twenty groups. Tai Yong was considered to be a distinct branch of
the
Tai-speaking group, even though Yong people are ethnic Tai Lue and they are
linguistically quite similar to their main ethnic

dialect-speakers.
2.1.1 Consonants
There are 20 consonant phonemes in the Yong language (Somchit 1979)

(Table 1).
Bilabial Labiodental Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal Stops Voiced b d Voiceless

pttk pt
Unaspirated Voiceless Aspirated Fricative f s x h Nasal m n Lateral l Semivowel w j
Table 1: Consonants Sounds of the Yong

dialect.
13
14 2.1.1.1
Initial Consonants
There are 19 initial consonants, as in Table

2.
ppbttdtkfsxhmnwl
Table 2: Initial consonants.
2.1.1.2 Final Consonants
There are 9 final consonants, as in Table

3.
ptkmnwj
Table 3: Final Consonants.
2.1.1.3. Consonant
clusters
There are only 2 consonant clusters in the Yong dialect, as in Table 4. The Yong
dialect does not have any consonant clusters that are followed by /l/ or /r/ as
Standard
Thai /kr/or /kl/.
kw xw
Table 4: Consonants cluster.
2.1.2 Vowel Sounds
The Yong dialect has 18 phonemic vowels, the same as Standard Thai and
Kammuang. The Yong dialect is different from Kammuang and Standard Thai in
that
it does not have any diphthongs. Yong single vowels have phonemically distinct
short
and long forms (Ruengdet 1978:2).
15
Front Central Back Short Long Short Long Short Long High i i u u Mid
e e o o Low
a a
Table 5: Single Vowel Sounds of the Yong and

Kammuang
dialects.
There are closing phone clusters which can be interpreted as single vowels or
semivowels followed by /j/ and /w/.

The correspondence between Kammuang and Yong vowels can be divided into
two
types (Ruengdet 1978). The first type is vowel correspondence with no

environment.
This type is a fixed pattern of correspondence between phonemes. This pattern
obtains between Kammuang diphthongs and Yong single vowels. The second
type is
vowel correspondence with environmental conditioning. The correspondence

between
Kammuang and Yong single vowels is environmentally

conditional.
Table 6 gives the correspondences between Kammuang diphthongs and Yong

single
vowels with no environmental conditioning.
Kammuang Yong Examples
/ia/ /e/ /pi a/- /pe/ ‘to be wet’ /i a/ /e / /mi a/ - /me / ‘wife’ / a/ / / /p ak/ - /p k/ ‘bark’ / a/ / /
/h an/ - /h n/ ‘house’ / ua/ / o/ /su a/ - /so/ ‘to drop’ / u a/ /o / /hu a / - /ho /
‘head’
Table 6: Yong single vowel correspond with
Kammuang
diphthongs.
16
Table 7 gives the correspondences between Kammuang and Yong single vowels
(short vowels) with conditioning environment noted.
Kammuang Yong Examples
/ / / / (before nasal consonants) / n/- / n/ ‘silver’ /o/ /u/ (before nasal consonants) /lo m / -
/lum/ ‘wind’ /e/ /i/ (before nasal consonants) /te m/ - /tim/ ‘to be full’ /a/ / / (after initial
consonants
/t/, /s/, /l/, /j/, and before nasal consonants
/ta m/ - /t m/ ‘to be short’
Table: 7 Yong single vowels correspond with Kammuang
single vowels with environmental conditioning
2.1.3 Tone
According to Somchit (1979:29-31), the Yong language has 6 tones on live syllables
(open syllables and closed syllables that are not followed by stop final consonants), 4
tones on dead syllables (closed syllables followed by stop final consonant), and
neutral tone on syllabic m and b as in the word / m pa w/ ‘coconut’, or in the word
/b pha / ‘cliff’. The names of the tones are taken from Somchit 1979.
2.1.3.1. Live Syllables
Tones IPA Tones symbols Examples 1. Mid Level Tone /na / ‘rice-field’
2. Lower Low Level Tone /ba / ‘shoulder’
3. Mid Falling Tone /ba n/ ‘house’
4. High Falling Tone /na m/ ‘water’
/ha / ‘to come’,
5. Rising Tone
‘to see’
6. Higher Low Level Tone (Halfway between mid level and mid falling
tone. This tone does not exist in Kammuang or
/m / ‘mother’
17
Standard Thai.)
Table 8: Yong tone and tone symbols on live syllables.
Kammuang, like Yong, has six tones, but a number of the tones have distinct
contours. See Table 9.
Tones IPA Tones symbols Examples 1. Mid-level /a/ /na / ‘rice-field’ 2 . Low-falling /a / /ba /
‘shoulder’ 3. High-level with glottal
/a / /ba n/ ‘house’
closure . Low-rising /a / /ha / ‘to come’, ‘to see’
4. High-rising /a / /t i / ‘to point’ 5
6. High-falling /a / /ma n/ ‘curtain’

Table 9: Tones represented in Kammuang.
2.1.3.2. Dead syllables
Tones Tones’ symbols Examples 1. Mid Level Tone /lak/ Lower Low Level Tone / k/ ‘gum’
‘to steal’ 2.
3. Higher Low Level Tone /la High Level Tone /mat/ ‘flea’
k/ ‘to pull along’ 4.
Table 10: Yong tones and tone symbol on dead syllables.
Note: When a mid level tone occurs on the second syllable after lower low level, high
falling level, and rising tone, it will be changed to another tone (Tone Sandhi). This
tone is similar to high falling level tone (Ruengdet 1978:16)
There is an additional tone; it is a neutral tone for syllabic m and b . “It tends to vary,
sometimes having low pitch, sometime having high pitch, and sometime having other
pitches depending on the syllables that come after” (Somchit 1979:31).
18
Table 11 shows tones on dead syllables in

Kammuang.
Tones Tones’ symbols Examples 1. High /a / /p t/ ‘poison’ 2. Low / a / /pi k/ ‘wing’
3. High-falling /a / / a t/ ‘relative’ 4. Mid /a / /ma t/ ‘flea’
Table 11: Kammuang tones and tone symbol on

dead
syllables.
If a word in Yong is cognate with a word of the same meaning in Kammuang, the
tones will usually match with a tone of the same number from the above tables,
even
though the contour of the tone may be

different.
CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
3.0. Introduction
This chapter focuses on aspects of ethnolinguistic vitality and language attitudes

that
can inform this study of the Yong people in Lamphun

province.
3. 1. Ethnolinguistic Vitality
Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor (1977:308) defined the concept of ethnolinguistic

vitality
as that “which makes a group likely to behave as a distinctive and active

collective
entity within the inter-group situations.” They attempted to put social

psychological
processes in their socio-cultural contexts in the area of inter-ethnic group

behavior.
They suggested that vitality could be objectively assessed on these three basic
factors:
status factors, demographic factors and institutional support factors. Status

factors
include economic status, and socio-historical prestige as well as status of the

language
both within and outside the community. Demographic factors include the number
of
members, distribution and proportion as well as immigration and marriage

patterns.
Institutional support factors include the extent to which the ethnolinguistic group
gains support from formal institutions such as the school, government or mass
media,
as well as intra-group informal institutions such as the

family.
In 1981, Bourhis et al. proposed the theory of “subjective” ethnolinguistic vitality
(SEV) (145-55). They stated that subjective factors could be used to predict the
ethnolinguistic behavior of the group members. In order to discover subjective
vitality, they designed a model questionnaire to test the ethnolinguistic vitality

perception of the members in the community. They used this model to test Greek
and
19
20
Anglo communities in Australia. Other researchers have taken and adapted the
methods elsewhere.
These studies inform the researcher’s understanding of the concept of

ethnolinguistic
vitality and our understanding whether the three objective factors: status,
geographic
and institutional support factors can affect the ethnolinguistic vitality of the Yong
group or not.
Later, Allard and Landry (1986:1-12) developed the concept of subjective
ethnolinguistic vitality in terms of beliefs. They stated that a larger set of beliefs
could explain the attitudes of the group members toward the use of their
language as
well as the motivations of the group members to maintain it. They found that this
larger set of beliefs could predict language behavior also. They used a cognitive
orientation theory of behavior to create a framework for exploring beliefs about
ethnolinguistic vitality. According to this theory, beliefs are cognitive units of
meaning that are part of a larger network of beliefs. This theory identifies four
types
of beliefs that contribute to the prediction of language behavior: general beliefs,
normative beliefs, personal beliefs and goal beliefs. These four types of beliefs
serve
as the basis for the conceptualization of eight kinds of ethnolinguistic vitality:

present
vitality, future vitality, legitimate vitality, social models, belongingness,

valorization,
efficacy, and goals and wishes. These kinds of ethnolinguistic vitality can be
classified into two groups: non-self and

self-beliefs.
Non-self beliefs refer to the feelings of the group member toward anything that
affects or reflects on the ethnolinguistic vitality of the group. Non-self beliefs

consist
of two subtypes: general beliefs and normative

beliefs.
General beliefs are the facts that apply to the community concerning people,
objects,
events or situations. General beliefs are divided into three kinds: 1) present
vitality
referring to group members’ perceptions of the present relative vitality of the

majority
21
and minority groups in relation to the sociological factors, 2) future vitality

referring
to group member perceptions of the future relative vitality of the majority and
minority groups, and 3) social models concerning the influence of friends and
social
models on language behaviors, emphasizing the language use in intra-group

situations
within the society.

Another subtype of non-self beliefs is normative beliefs, which is an opinion of
people in the group about what should or should not be the situation with regard
to
the language. These beliefs are legitimate. They reflect the thought of group
members
to what each ethnolinguistic group ought to have on the sociological

factors.
Self beliefs refer to the feeling and thinking of group members to what is suitable
for
the vitality of their ethnic group. These beliefs are more related to the individual
network of contact than non-self beliefs. Self-beliefs consist of two subtypes:
personal beliefs and goal beliefs.
Personal beliefs are divided into three kinds: valorization, belongingness and
personal
efficacy. Valorization is the beliefs of the group members about having access to
the
resources that are identified by ethnolinguistic factors. Belongingness is the

feeling of
belonging to the ethnolinguistic group of the individuals. Personal efficacy is a
confidence of group members in their ability to achieve their personal goals. The
other subtype, goal beliefs, consists of goals or desires of group members to

have
access to the resources identified by ethnolinguistic

factors.
Allard and Landry’s theory has been very useful in this research. The researcher
can
apply the concepts about self or non-self beliefs to predict language behavior of
the
Yong people.
22
Landweer (2003) proposes “indicators of relative ethnolinguistic vitality” at the
website www.essex.ac.uk. She assigns questions and a point value (0-3) in each
indicator for use in assessing a speech community. The score can help to predict
whether the language will continue to be spoken in the future or will be lost.
There
are eight indicators of relative ethnolinguistic

vitality.
1) Position of the speech community on the remote and on urban continuum: “Is
the
speech community located near a population center where its members would
have
contact with speakers of other languages? Do they have access to such a

population
center?” The principle of this indicator is that the more remote the speech
community, the less frequent the contact with other languages and better the
chance
for language maintenance.
2) Domains in which the target language is used: “Is there sufficient use of the
language in key areas of life?” The principle is that the more domains in which
the
vernacular is the medium for expression, the better the chance for language
maintenance.
3) Frequency and type of code switching: “Are there consistent patterns of

language
choice, determined by a change of conversational participants, domain, or topic?”
The principle is that the less code switching, the better the chance for language
maintenance.
4) Population and group dynamics, “Is there a critical mass of

community-language
speakers? (Considering marriage patterns, immigration and emigration). How

well
he
do immigrants acquire the community language, and retain their own?” T
principle is that the more speakers that adopt the community language, the better
the
chance for language

maintenance.
5) Distribution of speakers within their own social network: “Is there a network of
social relations supportive of the target language?” The principle is that the
tighter
23
the social structures where the vernacular is the language of choice, the better
the
chance for language

maintenance.
6) Social outlook regarding and within the speech community: “Is there internal
and/or external recognition of the language community as separate and unique

within
the broader society? Is there material or non-material evidence of such a
he principle is that the higher the group’s prestige, internally and

distinction?” T
externally, the better the chance for language

maintenance.
7) Language prestige: “Does the target language have prestige among other
neighboring or regional languages? What is the relative prestige of the language
within the linguistic repertoire of this speech community?” The principle is that the
higher the prestige of the language, the better the chance for language
maintenance.
8) Access to a stable and acceptable economic base: “Is there an acceptable
economic base supportive of continuing use of the target language?” The

principle is
that the more stable and acceptable the income base associated with the
vernacular,
the better the chance for language

maintenance.
Landweer’s article helps to consider what indicators can be used to predict a

chance
for language maintenance or language loss of the Yong

dialect.
3.1.1. The Study of Ethnolinguistic Vitality in Various

Languages
Miller (2000) studied language maintenance and shift in a Kadazan village in

Sabah,
Malaysia, and a Bru-So village in Northeast Thailand. In the Kadazan community,
people were concerned about the loss of the Kadazan-Dusan language because
of the
influence of the national language, Bahasa Malaysia. Similarly, in the Bru-So
community, the speakers of the language were shifting to Lao or Thai. Miller
used the
Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor model in her research. According to this model; the
vernacular is fairly strong if it persists in intergenerational home use. Miller also
24
applied Allard and Landry’s work about ethnolinguistic vitality beliefs in her study.
These beliefs can be used to evaluate ethnolinguistic vitality (2000:174). Miller

found
four negative beliefs among Kadazan-Duzan and Bru-So. First, both the
Kadazan-
Dusan and the Bru-So community believed that their language was inferior to the
national languages of wider communication. Second, they believed that if

children in
the community learned the vernacular, they would not be able to learn the
national
language well. Third, it was felt that maintaining the language is divisive and
nonpatriotic. The last negative belief was that maintaining the language was too
costly. Miller suggested some ways to change negative beliefs about vernacular
language development and use. Not only the group’s members or the national
institute that are responsible for the development of vernacular language but also
outsiders have an important role. There are many activities that can promote the
change of beliefs concerning the vernacular such as language study by

outsiders,
language development, encouragement of leadership, encouragement of

parents, etc.
Miller’s work on the Kadazan-Dusan language and the Bru-So language helps
the
researcher understand the ethnolinguistic vitality situation of different language
groups.
Evans wrote about “ethnolinguistic vitality, prejudice, and family language
transmission” among Mexican Americans in the Southwest of the United States
(1996). In American society, the use of various non-English languages is

declining.
The loss of such languages can be considered from the perspective of language
maintenance. She focused her study on Spanish-speakers, particularly Mexican
Americans, in two linguistic areas, one east of the downtown area, and the other
north
of the Colorado River in Austin, Texas, and in three small communities in Santa
Cruz
Country in southeastern Arizona. Her hypothesis was that “ethnolinguistic vitality

is a
determinant of parental policies affecting the transmission of Spanish among

Mexican
Americans” (1996:180). In the first study, she designed questionnaires

concerning
25
three variables: demography, social status and institutional support, and explored
beliefs about the variables in four ways: general beliefs, self-beliefs, norm beliefs
and
goal beliefs. All portions of questionnaires were tested on Mexican American

parents
in Austin, Texas, and the mothers of third grade students in the rural southeast.
In her
second study, she interviewed the mothers of third grade children. The result of
these
two studies was that parents’ affective and cognitive commitment to Spanish, to
Mexican American culture, and to the continuation of groups indicated the

ethnolinguistic vitality beliefs in the two settings. The subjects in two linguistic
areas
still use Spanish in their family domains. Parents are eager to maintain their own
cultural integrity and identity as well as support their children to be proud of their
heritage and language

(1996:196).
This study can help the researcher to consider whether parents’ language use
and
language attitudes can have any affect on language use and language attitudes
of their
children. The language that the parents teach or transfer to their children can
help to
predict the vitality of language in the

community.
Boehm (1997) studied language use and language maintenance among the
Tharu of
the Indo-Nepal Tarai. Her study examined the vitality of the Tharu language of
Nepal
and India. The Tharu are an aboriginal people of the Indo-Nepal Tarai region.
Boehm
collected data regarding the Tharu language from four villages in different
districts in
Nepal. A sociolinguistic questionnaire was designed to elicit data from these four
villages. She divided her subjects into different categories according to age,
gender
and education. The result of the research showed that language maintenance
was very
strong in Tharu areas. The language use patterns, and other factors such as
ethnic
pride, marriage patterns, number of speakers, government support, attitudes of

people
toward the use of language, etc. indicated healthy linguistic vitality among the
Tharu
people.
26
Boehm studied language use and language maintenance among the Tharu
people by
considering the different subjects according to age, gender and education. This
researcher used the same approach as Boehm when developing the

questionnaire for
the research project.
nd the Italian atto,

The word “attitude’ is derived from the Latin word aptitude a
which means ‘aptitude for action’ (Baker 1992). “An attitude is an idea charged
with
emotion which predisposes a class of actions to a particular class of social

situations”
(Triandis 1971:2). The study of language attitudes begins with a decision to

choose
one of two theories about the nature of attitudes. One theory focused on “a
mentalist
view of attitude as a state of readiness”, while the other one focused on the
behaviorist view that “attitudes are to be found in the responses people make to
social
situations” (Fasold 1984).
People who accept the behaviorist view consider attitudes as a single unit. On
the
other hand, people who accept the mentalist definition consider attitudes to have
three
components: cognition, affect and readiness for action. Cognition concerns

thoughts
and beliefs. A favorable attitude to the language of people might entail a stated
belief
in the importance of continuity of the language. The affective component

concerns
feelings towards the attitude’s object. The action component of attitude concerns
a
readiness for action. It is a behavioral intention or plan of action under distinctive
contexts and circumstances. These three components form a model of attitude

that
can be written in a hierarchical form with cognition, affect and action as the
foundation, and be merged into a single construct of attitude at a higher level as

in
figure 5 (Baker 1992:13).
27
Figure 5: The hierarchy of attitude and its

components
(Baker 1992)
According to Baker (1992), the term ‘attitude’ is a valuable concept within the
study
of bilingualism. The attitudes of people toward the language interact with

language
changes such as restoration, preservation, decay or death. A survey of attitudes
toward language can shed light on community beliefs, preferences and desires.
The
status, value and importance of a language can be measured by looking at

attitudes
toward that language. Attitudes can be used to explain the direction and
persistence of
human behavior. It is not easy to directly observe attitude because people’s

thoughts
and feelings are hidden. Attitudes of people are latent but can be inferred from
the
direction and persistence of external

behavior.
Triandis (1971) suggested four functions of attitudes. First, attitudes help people
to
understand the world around them by organizing or simplifying the complex input
from their environment. Second, attitudes can protect people’s self-esteem by

making
it possible for them to avoid undesirable truths about themselves. Third, attitudes
can
help people to adjust themselves in a complex world by making it easier to get

along
with people who have similar attitudes. And attitudes allow people to express
their
fundamental values.
Attitude
Cognition Affect Readiness for action
28
Baker (1992:32) states that there are two components of language attitudes:
instrumental attitudes and integrative attitudes. An instrumental attitude to a

language
is mostly self-oriented. Instrumental Attitudes of people toward a language can

be
both positive and negative because of the desire to gain achievement, status,
personal
success, self-enhancement, or basic security and survival. On the other hand, an
integrative attitude to a language is mostly social and interpersonal in orientation.

It is
the desire of people to be like members of the other language community.

People who
have positive attitudes toward a particular language want to identify themselves

with
a language group and their cultural

activities.
This research project will design a questionnaire based on instrumental and
integrative attitudes in order to investigate whether these two components affect

the
attitudes toward the dialect of the Yong people in

Lamphun.
3.2.1. Methodology and Attitudes
Measurement
According to Baker (1992:17), there are a variety of research methods for

measuring
individual attitudes toward a language such as document analysis, content

analysis,
interviews, case studies, autobiographies and the matched guise technique. In

order to
get a balanced picture of the community, the method should cover both
individuals
and groups.
In order to study language attitude, it is very important to look at certain key
variables. Attitudes toward language tend to change with age. Children may
change
their attitude when they become teenagers, and teenagers’ attitudes often
change
when they grow up to be adults. They adopt language attitudes according to their
social interaction and environmental experience. Attitudes toward language might

be
different according to the socio-cultural behaviors of males and females. The
educational context in which language attitudes develop can be a significant

factor.
More or less favorable attitudes and attitude change may be produced through
the
29
formal or hidden curriculum in school. Other variables that may affect language
attitudes are ability, language background and cultural background for the people
in a
society.
According to Fasold (1984), language attitudes usually entail attitudes to the

speakers
of a particular language or dialect. The methods for determining language

attitudes
can be either direct or indirect. A direct method requires subjects to respond to a
questionnaire or interview questions that are used to ask their opinion about their
language or another. An indirect method is designed to keep the subjects from
knowing that their language attitudes are being investigated. There are various
kinds
of methods that can be applied to test language attitudes of people. The

matched-
guise technique is often used in language attitude research. In preparation for a
matched-guise test, different speakers are tape-recorded reading the same

passage.
Speakers are chosen who are fluent in more than one dialect or “guise”, sample
listeners from the speech community are then asked to listen to the
tape-recording and
explicitly asked to give their opinions of speaker’s characteristics. The opinions of

the
speakers’ different guise give indication of language attitudes. Another way to
discover language attitude is with questionnaires, consist of two types of

questions,
open and closed questions. Interviews are likely to ask open questions. The last
kind
of method is observation. This method is designed to collect naturalistic data.

Most
research attempts to include both direct and indirect research

methods.
Fasold’s article can help the researcher to design a suitable method for
determining
the attitudes of the Yong people toward their mother

tongue.
Walker (1982:15-19) discusses various kinds of methods that can be used to

gather
language attitude data. A survey questionnaire is one of the methods that is

widely
used by researchers. Most questionnaires contain open questions, which invite
subjects to express their feelings. The problem with using open questions is that
they
are difficult to score and are more subject to distortion than closed questions. A
30
closed question has three main dimensions, the focal object, the dimension of
appraisal and a set of rating terms. Interview is another method that the
interviewer
can use to assess the subjects’ mood and also more accurately direct their
attention to
the point of research. Commitment measure is the way to test subjects’

willingness to
perform an activity without doing it. The questions are formed to check their
validity
by comparing answers to actual behavior in related activities. The matched guise
technique is the most popular way for examining the social significance of
language
varieties. The last method is indirect observation. The subjects whom the
researcher
wishes to evaluate may be both literate and illiterate. The researcher must plan
and
design the most appropriate test with the subject in mind. The researcher needs
to use
methods that are less direct in order to get reliable data and to validate data by
more
direct methods. Figure 6 shows various methods ranked on a scale of more or

less
direct.
DIRECT INDIRECT
Survey Interview Commitment Matched Observation
questionnaire measures guise
Figure 6: A scale of direct and indirect methods to

assess language attitudes.
Walker’s article talks about different kinds of methods used in doing language
attitude research. Direct and indirect methods are used in this research in order
to gain
more reliable data from the

subjects.
3.2.2. The Study of Language Attitudes in Various

Languages and
Related Research
Labov’s book (1972) focused on a shift of the phonetic position of the first
element of
the diphthongs /ay/ and /aw/ on Martha’s Vineyard. On this island, there are four
31
ethnic groups: old families of English stock, Portuguese descent, the Indians, and
a
miscellaneous group of various origins. Instead of the common Southeast New
England standard [ay] and [aw], one frequently hears on Martha’s Vineyard [ ]
and
[ ], or even [ ] and [ ]. The degree of centralization on Martha’s Vineyard
declined to a low point in the late 1930’s and after the war it began rising. This
feature of centralized diphthongs is salient for linguists, but not for most
speakers.
They are not aware of this change nor do they control it consciously. In order to
study
the feature of centralized diphthongs, Labov used a lexical questionnaire,

questions
concerning value judgments, and a special reading methodology to elicit data. He
found out that there are many environments in which centralization occurs. First,
the
influence of the segmental environment, the following and preceding consonants,
causes the centralized diphthong. Second, intonation also increases the degree
of
centralization. Third, most urban speakers have a variety of shifting styles of

speech,
but it is not the case with most

Vineyarders.
Labov discusses many reasons that account for this linguistic change in Martha’s
Vineyard (27-41). The first reason is the economic pressure of the tourist trade.
The
change in occupation from independent fishermen and whaling to seasonal

tourist
industry has been a source of heavy psychological pressure on the Vineyarders

of old
family stock. People who feel that they truly own the island have a hard time
accepting the expansion of summer trade with the “outsiders”. The high degree
of
centralization of (ay) and (aw) is closely correlated with expressions of strong
resistance to the incursions of the summer people. The rural people,

Chilimarkers, in
up-island areas have the greatest resistance to these outsiders, and they usually
use
centralized diphthongs in their speech. According to the study, centralization

reaches
a peak in the age level from 30 to 45. There are many young people from the old
family groups who do not intend to remain on the island, and they reflect a lower
average of centralization. Young people who want to continue living on the island
32
after finishing college show considerable centralization. A pattern of centralized
vowels becomes a special characteristic that can separate them from the
outsiders.
From this study we see that linguistic change does not move toward the standard
pattern all the time. At times, it can return to the old form, in order to maintain the
identity of the ethnic group.
Labov’s study is a good example of the relation between language attitude and
language change of people. It can help the researcher to consider whether the
Yong
have positive or negative attitudes to their dialect and whether their attitudes can
cause dialect change in their

community.
Preeya’s dissertation (1989) is entitled ‘Central Thai and Northern Thai: Linguistic
and attitudinal study’. Her study focuses on Northern Thai speakers as well as
non-
native speakers of Central Thai who are under pressure by the Thai mainstream.
She
focuses on the attitudinal reactions toward the Central Thai and Northern Thai
dialects and their speakers by first year student subjects at Chiang Mai University
and
at Thammasat University, Bangkok. Northern Thai and Central Thai students

who
study in both universities were chosen to be the representatives of Northern Thai

and
Central Thai speakers. Preeya used the matched guise technique, a

questionnaire, and
interviews in her research in order to elicit data. The studies at both universities
yielded similar results. The Central Thai and Northern Thai subjects evaluated
members of their own dialect group more favorably on the cognitive scales,
education, economic status, etc., and evaluated the contrasting group more
favorably
on the affective scales, friendliness, sincerity, and etc. Central Thai speaking
subjects
at both universities were more favorable to their group in regard to the

competence
and status dimensions such as education, economic status. The Northern Thai
speaking subjects were more favorable to their group in regard to the

characteristics
of personal integrity and social attractiveness. The speakers of a high status

group
usually evaluate their language more favorably than they do for the contrasting
group.
33
Preeya also states that “Speech becomes a key factor to success in the
mainstream
culture and it is used to judge the identity, educational and socioeconomic
background of the speakers” (p.

136).
Preeya’s study leads the researcher to know about the attitudes toward the
Northern
Thai and Central Thai language of different language

speaker.
Stokes (1995) studied language attitudes and dialect use in the Lamphun speech
community. Lamphun is known as a trilingual speech community, with Northern
Thai, Standard Thai and Yong dialects. Stokes used a standardized

questionnaire,
which explored three major topics: patterns of language use, emotional and
personal
sentiments regarding dialects, and perceptions of domains in which the dialect is
used. He used the questionnaire with primary school students by dividing them
into
two sessions, a group discussion, when all students wrote their responses for the
questionnaire, and individual talk with volunteers, when some students were
chosen
to interview individually to determine their responses to the questionnaire. The
subjects were Northern Thai, Standard Thai, and Yong speakers. The study
shows
that formal education does not reduce children’s pride in their native dialect. The
students think that their dialect is a major part of their daily life. However, they
also
express that in some certain contexts such as at school and at official or formal
situations, Northern Thai is not appropriate to use. According to the Yong student
speakers, they show a strong pride for their dialect, yet use Yong only
occasionally,
depending on the location. Although Yong subjects are proud of their dialect,
they
have little opportunity to speak Yong outside their community. The perception
among
Yong speakers is that their language is not as useful as Northern or Standard

Thai
(30-34).
Stokes’ paper is about the general information of Lamphun province, geography,
people and language of people. The researcher learns from his study about the
feeling
34
of the younger Yong speakers towards their dialect and uses this information to
evaluate the result of this

research.
Benjamas (1998) has done research on language attitude, and language use of
the So
ethnic group of Nong Waeng Village, Sakon Nahorn Province. This research
area
consists of two main ethnic groups, So and Nyoh. Other small ethnic groups are
Lao,
Phuthai and Thai. So Nong Waeng Village is a multilingual community. The
language situation in this village has changed. The language use is shifting to
Lao or
Nyoh in both intra-group and inter-group communication. Benjamas applied the

ethnolinguistic vitality theories developed by Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor (1977),
and
subjective ethnolinguistic vitality as developed by Bourhis et al. (1981), and
ethnolinguistic vitality beliefs developed by Allard and Landry (1986), for

analyzing
the data. She designed a sociolinguistic questionnaire to measure the So’s

attitudes
toward their own ethnolinguistic group. The result of this study is that the
ethnolinguistic vitality factors, demographic, status and institutional support play

an
important role in the So ethnic group. The So people have a neutral attitude
toward
their language, not positive or

negative.
This review of literature helps the researcher to design the methodology for the
research and helps her to understand the concepts of ethnolinguistic vitality and
language attitude of different groups of

people.
CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY
4.0 Introduction
The goal of this research project was to examine ethnolinguistic vitality, language
use
and language attitudes among the Yong people. Four methods were used to elicit
data: questionnaires, informal interviews, observation and word lists. The data
collection methods will be discussed first. Then the distribution of the subjects
and
the limitation of the study will be explained next.
4.1 Data Collection
There are four methods of data collection in this research: questionnaire,

interview,
observation and word list.
4.1.1. Questionnaire
The majority of the questions used in the questionnaire were adapted from Baker
(1992:138-143). The questions were modified as necessary. In the questionnaire,

the
questions were divided into three parts: linguistic background, language use, and
language attitude. To minimize self-defense, or giving socially desirable answers,
informants were told in advance that their answers were not right or wrong and
that
they could express their feelings

openly.
4.1.1.1. Part One: Linguistic

background
The informants were asked to provide personal information such as name, age,
gender, place of residence, mother tongue of informants and their parents’

education
35
36
and occupation. The answers of these questions were used to examine the influence of
social factors on the research questions.
4.1.1.2. Part Two: Language use
This section explored language use within the community and also with people
outside the community. The section was designed to discover the choice of language
and the domains of language use in the community. Three languages, Kammuang,
Standard Thai and Yong, were given for the subjects to choose as the language of
communication in each domain.
Domains Interlocutors Places
Family
Grandparents Parents Children Cousins/ Siblings
Home
Community
Village/community leader Children in the village Friends in the village Friends Neighbors
Tong Village, Muang District Rai Village, Pasang District
Teachers
Government
Government officers
People at the market
School Government office Public places
At the market/ or in the city
People in town
Table 12: Domains of language use in the study.
37 4.1.1.3.
Part Three: Language attitude
The first part of the language attitudes section asked subjects “How important or
unimportant do you think the Yong language is for people to do the following?” A
number of activities were given, such as make friends, listen to the radio, talk to a
teacher, etc. Subjects were asked to indicate whether Yong was Very Important,
Important, Not very important, or Unimportant.
The next section gave statements such as “When Northern Thai or Central Thai
ther
people are around, are you embarrassed to speak your language?” O
statements
compared people’s attitudes to their dialect, Yong, and other dialects such as
Kammuang, and Standard Thai, as to which one was most useful for their
personal
life, and which one was most popular in the

community.
The responses of the subjects to the statements were recorded on a scale as

follows:
Strongly Agree 5
Agree 4
Neither Agree Nor Disagree 3
Disagree 2
Strongly Disagree 1
Baker (1992) separated attitudes into three categories: General, integrative and
instrumental attitudes. In this research project, all three categories of attitudes

were
explored and are discussed separately. General attitudes to Yong were explored
by
asking subjects reactions to statements such as “The Yong language is

unfashionable”
or “It is important to be able to speak Yong”. Instrumental attitudes were focused
through statements such as “Speaking Yong cannot help people to get a job or a
promotion”. Integrative attitudes were focused through statements such as “I

would
like to be considered as a speaker of Yong”. The text of the questionnaire in

English
and in Thai can be found in Appendix A.
38 4.1.2.
Interviews
In this research project, the researcher asked the village leader of Rai village,
Pasang
district, to distribute the questionnaires to his villagers and to gather them back
within
one week. The researcher also did the same process in Tong village, Muang
district,
but a problem occurred. At the time that the researcher asked the village leader
to
distribute the questionnaires there was a local election. The village leader could
only
help to distribute half of the 24 questionnaires. So the researcher decided to do

the
other half by asking the villagers who stayed at home to help her. In order to do
this,
the researcher asked whether the villagers fit the desired age, education and
gender
targets (See section 4.3). If they were not suitable, the researcher asked them to
suggest a suitable person. The villagers not only introduced the researcher to the
people but also gave much useful information about Yong people, culture and
language.
4.1.3. Observation
In order to do more informal research, the researcher came to participate with the
Yong people in their social events and also came to see them at the village, and
to talk
with them about language, culture and social life. The researcher used
Kammuang
with them to help them relax and feel comfortable to express their ideas. In
addition
to talking to people during social events and in the village, the researcher played
the
role of an outsider to observe the language use of people in real situations. While
having conversations with people, the researcher observed the way people in the
same
ethnic group talked to each other and the way they talked with outsiders.
People’s
behavior may be hidden in face to face conversation with the outsider. An

awareness
of people’s behavior helps to show the real pattern of dialect use of the Yong
people
in the community.
39 4.2.
Distribution of the informants
The 48 informants were categorized by four variables: age, gender, education

and
place of residence. Each variable was divided as in table 13

below:
Sex Age Education Birthplace

Country dwellers
1. Male 2.
1. City dwellers 2.
Female
Country dwellers
5 2.
1. City dwellers 2.
Country dwellers
1. 0-6 years 2.
7 years up Table 13: The variables of the subje
1. 0-6 years 2. study.
7 years up
1. City dwellers 2.
Table 14 shows the number of people for each set of characteristics the
researcher
included.
Tong neighborhood (City)
Males Females 15-35 35 up 15-35 35 up Lower education 3 3 3 3 Higher education 3 3 3 3

Rai neighborhood (Village)
15-35 35 up 15-35 35 up Lower education 3 3 3 3 Higher education 3 3 3 3
Table 14: Number of people who respond to

the
questionnaires (included 2 neighborhoods).
Before administering the questionnaires, the researcher decided on the location

where
this research was to take place. In choosing the location, the researcher looked
for a
community that was located in the city, and a village in the country. According to
informal interviews with the Yong people, the researcher found that Tong
neighborhood was a strong community of Yong in the city area. This suburban
area
was only 1,200 meters from the city of Lamphun. The Yong people in this
neighborhood had a similar pattern of their social life as the rest of people in
town, so
this neighborhood was appropriate to be one of the areas under study. The
reason for
choosing the village in the rural area was that Rai village located in Pasang
district
40
was where the first Yong group resettled after they were taken by King Kavila
over
two hundred years ago, and the use of Yong dialect in this village is very strong.
After choosing these two locations, the researcher went to contact the villages’
leaders and ask them to choose the subjects who fit the variables, 24 people per
community. The questionnaires were distributed to the subjects with help from
the
village’s leaders.
4.3. Pilot Test
The questionnaire was tested with four subjects first, three males and one
female. The
researcher went to do the test at Me Thee Wut Thi Korn School. Two teachers
and
one student here were asked to fill out the questionnaire. Another subject was a
former Payap University student. All of them were Yong people who lived in
Lamphun province. They varied in age, gender and education. The subjects gave
good responses to the questions, but some questions were not clear enough, so
the
researcher adjusted them in the final version of the questionnaire. For example,
at
first people who gave their response to the pilot test had difficulty to identify what
dialects that they use with their friends because their friends come from different
groups such as Yong, Northern Thai or Standard Thai. So the researcher added
‘Yong
friends’ and ‘Friends who speak other dialects’ under ‘Friends’ in the table in
order to
let the subjects know what dialects they use to speak to different groups of
friends.
The first version of question number 7 was ‘In the future, do you think the next
generation will speak Yong dialect or not? Why?’ One respondent suggested to
the
researcher that this question was similar to question number 5 ‘When the
children in
this village grow up and have their own children, do you think those children will
speak Yong? Why?’ So the researcher changed this question to ‘In the future, do
you
think that the Yong dialect will die out or will not be spoken? Why?’ This question
can help the researcher to predict whether the Yong dialect will be maintained in
41
Lamphun or not and it can help the researcher to discover how the Yong people
feel
toward the idea of language death in their

society.
CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
5.0 Introduction
This chapter summarizes the results of the sociolinguistic questionnaire and

presents
an analysis of the findings. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first
section gives the demographic information of the subjects who responded to the
questionnaires. The second section looks at the patterns of language use among
the
Yong people. The third section explores the attitudes of Yong people toward their
dialect.
5.1 Subjects
Forty-eight subjects were chosen to answer the questionnaires. 24 subjects were

from
Lamphun city and another 24 subjects lived in a village approximately 60

kilometers
from Lamphun. The subjects were divided into different groups according to the
following criteria:
1. Gender: In each community, 12 females and 12 males were selected to be the
informants.
2. Age: Half of the informants in each community were in the younger age
category,
age 15- 35 years old. The other half were in the older age group, age more
than 35
years old. The age of the subjects in the village ranged from 15 to 57 years
old.
The subjects in the city were 16 to 61 years

old.
3. Education: An effort was made to select informants in each community based

on
their level of education, with half of the group having comparatively less
education and the other half having a higher level of education. Recent
increases
in the level of compulsory education mean that younger people tend to stay in
42
43
school longer. The older level of compulsory education was grade 6, whereas the
current level is grade 9. The subjects in the age range of 15- 35 years who had the
minimum 9 years of schooling or less were placed in the “lower education”
category and those informants who had 10 years of schooling or more were
placed in the “higher education”. See Table 15.
Grade 4
Subjects
(Prathom 4)
Grade 6 (Prathom 6)
Grade 9 (Matthayom 3)
Grade 10-12 (Matthayom 4-6)
An academic degree Age 15-35 2 2 8 8 4
Level of Lower
education Higher education education 12 12
Table 15: Education level of the subjects in the 15 to 35
years old age group in both communities.
The 24 subjects in the more than 35 years old group who had the minimum 6 years of
schooling or less were placed in the “lower education group” and those informants
who had 7 years of schooling or more were placed in the “higher education” group.
See Table 16.
Grade 4
Subjects
(Prathom 4)
Grade 6 (Prathom 6)
Grade 7-12 (Matthayom 1-6)
An academic degree Age more than
10 2 8 4
35 years old
Level of Lower
education Higher education education 12 12
Table 16: Education levels of the subjects in the more than
35 years old age group in both communities.
4. Place of residence: Twenty four subjects were chosen from Mae San Ban Thong
Village, Viang Yong sub-district, Muang district in Lamphun city and another 24
subjects from Rai Village, Muang Noi sub-district, Pa Sang district. Other
background information of the subjects was also collected such as occupation,
mother tongue, parents’ ethnicity and spouse’s ethnicity. The subjects who
responded to the questionnaires had varied occupations. Most of the subjects from
44
both villages worked as laborers. Some were students, agriculturists, employees,
personal businessmen and teachers. Occupation
Personal
Laborer Student Employee Agriculturist
Teacher
business 22 11 3 4 5 3
Table 17: Raw data of the subjects’ occupation in both
communities.
All of the subjects were trilingual in Yong, Kammuang and Standard Thai. Forty
subjects said their mothers were Yong speakers, while the other eight said their
mothers were Kammuang speakers. Yong people usually marry people from the same
ethnic group, but some of them marry Northern Thai people as shown in the
following table. Most of the subjects came from Yong families where both of their
parents were Yong. Some of the subjects came from mixed families where one of
their parents was a Northern Thai person. See Table 18.
Yong + Yong Yong + Northern Thai
40 8
Table 18: Raw data of the subjects’ parents ethnicity in both
communities.
5.2. Word Lists
This was a very small part of this research project. The purpose of doing word lists
was to find out the level of lexical similarity between Kammuang, Yong and Standard
Thai. The researcher elicited 180 words from two Yong people in Lamphun, Khun
Thaworn Wongkhom and Khun Nan Nanthachaisak. As a native speaker of
Kammuang, the researcher provided a Kammuang word list herself. The result of the
45
elicitation shows the differences, similarity and sometimes the influences of one
on
another. For the complete word lists, see Appendix

B.
The first Yong speaker, referred to in this section as Yong 1, was Khun Thaworn
Wongkhom, a radio operator and an education officer in Lamphun. He grew up

and
lived in Banthi district so he speaks the eastern sub-dialect of Yong. The second
one
(Yong 2) was Khun Nan Nanthachaisak, who won the award as “Knowledgeable
Teacher of the Nation” in the field of Languages and Literature from the Thai
government. He grew up and lived in Saanphasak neighborhood, Phasak district,

so
he also speaks the eastern sub-dialect

also.
A comparison of Yong and Kammuang word lists shows 97% lexical similarity
between the two dialects. Almost all Yong and Kammuang words have the same
initial consonant, final consonant and vowel. However, there are some
differences
between these two dialects. In some words the same initial and final consonant
are
used but the vowel is different. There are regular single vowel correspondence
patterns in Yong and Kammuang cognates. As Yong has no diphthongs; it

regularly
substitutes single vowels in words where Kammuang has a diphthong. These

vowel
correspondence patterns are very consistent. Single vowel correspondence

patterns
usually occur in certain fixed environments, but Kammuang diphthong to Yong

single
vowels patterns often occur with no environmental conditioning (Ruengdet

1978:21-
24). The correspondences in these word lists did not differ from these described
in
Ruengdet (1978).
5.3. Language Use
This section of the survey consisted of five questions which focused on the
pattern of
language use of the Yong people when they talk to different people and also the
language that these people speak to them. The overall results will be discussed
first,
and then the data will be separated according to four factors: age, gender,
education
46
and place of residence, and analyzed to determine if there are statistically
significant
differences between groups.
5.3.1. Question 1: What language do you speak with the

following
people?
This question focuses on the language that is used when the subjects speak with
different people. Thirteen different interlocutors were given (See Table 19).
These
interlocutors can be grouped into four domains: family domain (sub-questions

a-d),
community domain (e-h), government domain (i-j) and public domain (k-l). The
total
numbers in the table are greater than 48 because some subjects indicated that
they
used more than one language with the given people. For example, one of the
subjects
spoke both Yong and Kammuang with his parents. Another person spoke
Kammuang,
Yong and Standard Thai with his children. So the total number of responses is in
most
cases higher than the number of subjects. Table 19 gives the overall responses
from
the questionnaires.
47
Standard
Total Yong % Kammuang %
% Others %
Thai a) Parents 48 44 92% 8 17% 1 2% 0 0% b) Grandparents 48 45 94% 7 15% 0 0% 0 0%
c) Your children3 28 18 64% 14 50% 2 7% 0 0% d) Your Brothers and
48 46 96% 11 23% 3 6% 0 0%
Sisters e) Children in the village 48 42 88% 21 44% 4 8% 1 2% f) Village
leaders 48 42 88% 7 15% 1 2% 0 0% g) Friends:
48 44 92% 10 21% 1 2% 0 0%
• Yong friends
48 16 33% 41 85% 22 46% 1 2%

• Friends who speak other languages h) Neighbors 48 4 1 85% 11
23% 2 4% 1 2%
48 10 21% 28 58% 30 63% 3 6% j) Government officials 48 7 15% 26 54% 32 67% 0 0%
i) Teachers
2 46% 30 63% 4 8% 1 2% l) People in town 48 1 2 25% 39 81% 11 23% 0

k) People at the market 48 2
0%
Table 19: Raw data of the dialects that the subjects speak with different people .
In the family domain (a-d), Yong received by far the highest number of responses.
Ninety-two percent of subjects (44 out of 48) spoke Yong with parents, 94% (45 out
of 48) with grandparents and 92% (46 out of 48) with siblings. However, only 64% of
parents (18 out of 28) reported that they spoke Yong with their children. Fifty percent
(14 out of 28) of subjects spoke Kammuang with their children. It seems that the
language use between parents and children is changing. Possibly it is a sign of
language shift in the future.
3
Some subjects did not answer this question because they do not have any children. So the total numbers in this
line was less than the other lines. Only 28 people gave an answer to this question.
48
Table 20 shows that in the family domain, 89% of the subjects chose to speak
Yong,
23% Kammuang and the other 3% Standard Thai to the interlocutors, while other
dialects were not used. It indicates that the mother tongue language, Yong, is the
most
common choice for the subjects to use in the family. However, the informants still
used Kammuang or Standard Thai in the family because some family members
such
as Northern Thai mothers were not

Yong.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
g Standard Thai Others
0%
a) Parents 92% 17% 2% 0% b) Grandparents 94% 15% 0% 0% c) Your children 64% 50%
7% 0% d) Your brothers and sister 92% 23% 6% 0%
Figure 7: The dialects that the subjects speak with people

in
the family domain.
Yong Kammuang Standard Thai Other
Percent of subjects 89% 23% 3% 0%
Number of responses 153 40 6 0
Table 20: The dialects that the subjects speak with people
in
the family domain.
49
In the community domain (e-h), the subjects generally used their own dialect to
communicate within their ethnic group. 88% (42 out of 48) of the subjects spoke
Yong with village leaders. Ninety-two percent (43 out of 48) spoke Yong with
Yong
friends, 85% (40 out of 48) with neighbors, 88% (42 out of 48) with children in the
village. An interesting point is that 33% (16 out of 48) of the subjects spoke Yong
with non-Yong friends. It seems that the Yong dialect is mutually intelligible with
Kammuang. Eighty-five percent (41 out of 48) of the subjects said they use
Kammuang with friends who spoke other languages, and 46% (22 out of 48) said
they
spoke Standard Thai. Others dialects were used with children in the village, non-
Yong friends and neighbors only.
Table 21 shows the percentage of the subjects who spoke different dialects with
people in the community domain. Yong is still the most common language used
in
this domain, at 77% of all responses. Figure 8 gives a graphic representation of

the
data.
50%
40%
50
30%
100% 20%
90% 10%
80% 0%
ammuang Standard Thai Others
70%
60%
e) Children in the village 88% 44% 8% 2% f) Village leaders 88% 15% 2% 0% g) Friends: Yong
% 0% Friends who speak other languages 33% 85% 46% 2% h) Neighbors
friends 92% 21% 2
85% 23% 4% 2%
Figure 8: The dialects that the subjects speak with people

in
the community.
Yong Kammuang Standard Thai Others

Number of respondents 185 90 30 3
Table 21: The dialects that the subjects speak with people
in
the community.
In the government domain (i-j), teachers and government officials are examples
of
people who work in government offices. Sixty-seven percent (32 out of 48) of the
subjects spoke Standard Thai with government officials and 63% (30 out of 48)
with
teachers. The other most common language used was Kammuang, while Yong
and a
small number of other languages such as English were used much less
frequently. The
51
national language, Standard Thai, is expected to be used in this domain.

However,
Yong and Kammuang were used in this domain also, perhaps expressing
solidarity to
people with whom the subjects

communicate.
Table 22 shows the overall percentage of the dialects that the subjects spoke
with
people in the government domain. Standard Thai has become the most common
language used in this domain, 65% (62 out of 96). The next most common dialect
used was Kammuang, 56% (54 out of 96). Yong and others dialects were not
commonly used in this domain. Figure 9 gives a graphic representation of the

data.
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
ng Standard Thai Others
0%
i) Teachers 21% 58% 63% 6% j)Government officials 15% 54% 67% 0%
Figure 9: The dialects that the subjects in different

age
speak with the government officials.
52
Table 22: The dialects that the subjects in different

age
speak with the government officials.
In the public places (k-l), Kammuang was the most common dialect that the
subjects
speak with people. Eighty-one percent (39 out of 48) spoke Kammuang with
people
in town and 64% (30 out of 48) spoke Kammuang with people at the market.
Forty-
six percent (22 out of 48) of the subjects spoke Yong at the market. Standard
Thai
was spoken with people in town, while some of the other dialects were only used
with
people at the market.
Table 23 shows clearly that 72% (69 out of 96) of the subjects chose Kammuang
to
communicate with people in this domain. Figure 10 gives a graphic

representation of
the data.
50%
40%
53
30%
90% 20%
80% 10%
70% 0%
tandard Thai Others
60%
k) People at the market 46% 63% 8% 2% l) People in town 25% 81% 23% 0%
Figure 10: The dialects that the subjects in different

age
speak to people in the public domain.
Table 23: The dialects that the subjects in different

age
speak to people in the public domain.
Table 24 and Figure 11 show the overall percentage of dialects that the subjects
use
with different people. It is very clear that the highest percentage of the subjects,
65%
(389 out of 603 responses) spoke the Yong dialect with different people. The
next
most common used dialect was Kammuang, 42% (253 out of 603), and Standard
Thai, 19% (113 out of 603).
54
Yong Kammuang Standard Thai Others
Number of responses 389 253 113 7
Percent 65% 42% 19% 1%
Table 24: Percentage of the use of dialects that the

subjects
speak with different people.
40%
40%
30%
70% 30%
70% 19%
19%
20%
20%
60%
60%
10%
10%
50%
1% 1%
50%
42%
42% 0%
0% Thai Thai Others Others
Yong Yong Kammuang Kammuang Standard Standard
Figure 11: Percentage of dialects that the subjects use

with
different people.
55 5.3.1.1.
Language use according to Age
In the sections that follow, the responses to the language use questions were
separated
into two groups. When the subjects said that they used Yong dialect with a given
interlocutor, or Yong plus any other dialects, their response was placed in the
‘Yong/Yong+’ group. When the response indicated use of any dialect or dialects
other than Yong, their response was placed in the ‘Non-Yong’ group. This
two-way
distinction made it possible to use a Chi-square test to determine whether

differences
between Yong users’ and non-Yong users’ responses were statistically

significant.
When the responses were separated according to age, the Chi-square test was
used to
test all interlocutors. The threshold of this set of data is p<0.0038 (0.05 divided
by 13,
the number of tests). It was found that people in these groups had no statistically
significant differences in the use of language. The P-values of all tests were
higher
than the significance threshold of 0.0038. For example the P-value for Parents
was
0.1095, 0.2344 for Grandparents, or 0.4173 for Government

officials.
Table 25 showed that both younger and older age groups continued speak to
Yong
with almost all interlocutors, especially when they spoke with people in the family
and community domains. The Yong dialect was very frequently used by the older
people. For example, 100% (24 out of 24) of the older people spoke Yong with
their
parents, grandparents, siblings, and village leaders and neighbors, while 83%
(20/24)
of the younger people spoke Yong with parents, 88% (21/24) with grandparents,
92%
(22/24) with siblings, 83% (20/24) with village leaders, and 71% (17/24) with
neighbors. It is very interesting that both younger and older people also spoke
Yong
with non-Yong friends, 33% (8/24) for both groups. Non-Yong dialects, such as
Kammaung or Standard Thai, were used mostly with non-Yong friends, teachers,
government officials, and people in town. Table 25 shows that the younger
people
tend to speak non-Yong dialects more than the older people. Ninety-two percent
(22/24) of the younger people spoke non-Yong dialects with teachers, 92%
(22/24)
56
with government officials, and 88% (21/24) with people in town. Fifty percent
(12/24) of the older people chose to speak both Yong and non-Yong dialects with
people at the market, while 58% (14/24) of the younger people chose to speak non-
Yong dialect and 42% (10/24) chose to speak Yong.
Yong/Yong + Non-Yong P-values SS Younger people
Older people
Younger people
0.0038 Yes/No No
Older people a) Parents 20 24 4 0 0.1095 No b) Grandparents 21 24 3 0 0.2344 c)
22 24 2 0 0.4914 No 19 23
Children 5 13 2 8 1.0000 No d) Your brothers and sisters e) Children in the village
5 1 0.1881 No No
f) Village leaders 20 24 4 0 0.1089 g) Friends
20 23 4 1 0.3480 No
• Yong friends
• Friends who
speak other languages
No 8 8 16 16 1.0000
No No 2 5 22 19 0.4173
h) Neighbors 17 24 5 2 0.2208 i) Teachers 2 8 22 16 0.0719 j) Government officials
No 10 12 14 12 0.7722 No No
k) People at the market l) People in town 3 9 21 15 0.0934
Table 25: Raw data of dialect use according to age.
5.3.1.2. Language use according to Gender
Male and female subjects showed very similar patterns of language use. The Chi-
square tests showed no significant differences between males and females for 13
interlocutors. For example, the p-value for children in the family was 1.0000, children
in the village 0.6675, or government officials 0.4163.
57
The language that males and females spoke with the individuals in each domain
is
very similar. The most common dialect that both age groups used to speak was
Yong. They spoke Yong mostly with parents, grandparents, children, siblings,
children in the village, village leaders, Yong friends, and neighbors. Small
differences
were found in some responses, for example, when females spoke with their
siblings,
100% (24/24) of them used Yong, while males used Yong 92% (22/24). When
they
spoke with their children, 62% (8/13) of females used Yong, while males used
Yong
67% (10/15). Non-Yong dialects were used mostly with non-Yong friends,
teachers,
government officials, people at the market and people in town. Most of these
groups
of people are not Yong, so the subjects chose non-Yong dialects with them.
However,
there were some males and females who still spoke Yong with non-Yong people.
For
example, 33% (8/24) of males and females spoke Yong with non-Yong friends,
and
21% (5/24) of both sexes spoke Yong with teachers. The percentage of the
subjects
who spoke Yong and Non-Yong dialects with people at the market was very
close.
While 46% (11/24) of both groups chose Yong, 54% (13/24) chose non-Yong
dialects. See Table 26.

58
Yong/Yong + Non-Yong P-values SS
Female Male Female Male 0.0038 Yes/No a) Parents 23 21 1 3 0.6073 No b) Grandparents 23 22 1 2
1.0000 No
c) Your children 8 10 5 5 1.0000 No d) Your brothers
24 22 0 2 0.4885 No
and sisters e) Children in the
22 20 3 3 0.6675 No
village f) Village leaders 22 22 2 2 1.0000 No g) Friends
21 22 3 2 1.0000 No
• Yong friends
• Friends who speak other languages
8 8 16 16 1.0000 No
h) Neighbors 21 20 3 4 1.0000 No
i) Teachers 5 5 19 19 1.0000 No j) Government
5 2 19 22 0.4163 No
officials k) People at the
11 11 13 13 1.0000 No
market l) People in town 6 6 18 18 1.0000 No
Table 26: Raw data of dialect use according gender.
When the responses were separated according to education level, the Chi-square test
showed no statistically significant differences for any group. Table 27 shows the raw
data for lower- and higher-educated people who speak different dialects with 13
interlocutors and gives the p-values of the Chi-square tests. Yong is the most common
dialect that lower- and higher-educated people chose to speak with many people such
as parents, siblings, Yong friends, or neighbors. Non-Yong dialects were used mostly
with non-Yong people such as non-Yong friends, teachers, or government officials.
Table 27 also shows that the percentage of choosing Yong of the lower-educated
people was slightly higher than the higher-educated people. 100% of the lower-
59
educated people (24/24) spoke only Yong with siblings, village leaders, and Yong
friends, while most of higher-educated people chose Yong and some of them chose to
speak non-Yong dialects with these groups of people. The use of non-Yong dialects
was increased among the higher-educated people. For example, when they spoke with
their children, 44% (4/9) of the higher-educated people chose Non-Yong dialects,
while the lower-educated people chose non-Yong 32% (6/19).
Yong/Yong + Non-Yong P-values SS
LE HE LE HE 0.0038 Yes/No a) Parents 23 21 1 3 0.6111 No b) Grandparents 23 22 1 2 1.0000 No c) Your
children 13 5 6 4 0.4150 No d) Your brothers
24 22 0 2 0.4900 No
and sisters e) Children in the
23 19 1 5 0.1879 No
village f) Village leaders 24 20 0 4 0.1095 No g) Friends
24 19 0 5 0.0493 No
• Yong friends
• Friends who speak other languages
11 5 13 19 0.1258 No
h) Neighbors 22 19 2 5 0.4181 No
i) Teachers 5 5 19 18 1.0000 No j) Government
3 4 21 20 1.0000 No
officials k) People at the
12 10 12 14 0.7738 No
market l) People in town 7 5 17 19 0.7406 No
Table 27: The raw data of dialect use according to level of
education.
When the responses were separated as to subjects’ place of residence, some
significant differences emerged. The Chi-square tests showed three statistically

086 Language Vitality and Language Attitude Among The Yong People in Lamphun Province 2005

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

086 Language Vitality and Language Attitude Among The Yong People in Lamphun Province 2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LANGUAGE VITALITY AND LANGUAGE ATTITUDE AMONG

THE YONG PEOPLE IN LAMPHUN PROVINCE: A

The members of the Committee approve the masters’ thesis of Maliwan

Asst. Prof. Dr. Thomas M.

A. P. David Jeffery ______________________________________

A. William Hanna ______________________________________

Prof. Dr. Somsonge Burusphat

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Saranya Savetamalya

Copyright © Maliwan Tuwakham 2005

All Rights Reserved

LANGUAGE VITALITY AND LANGUAGE ATTITUDE AMONG

THE YONG PEOPLE IN LAMPHUN PROVINCE: A

Presented to the Graduate School of Payap

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS IN LINGUISTICS

PAYAP UNIVERSITY, CHIANG MAI, THAILAND

Name: Maliwan Tuwakham

Date of Birth: February 2, 1980

1992-1994 Damrongratsongkhroh School, Certificate of Mathayon 3

1995-1997 Damrongratsongkhroh School, Certificate of Mathayon 6

1998-2001 Payap University, Bachelor of Arts, English

2002- 2005 Payap University, Master of Arts in Linguistics

National Symposium on Graduate Research, Chiang Mai,

Thailand, August 10-11, 2004

I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Boonthong Poocharoen,

of Payap University, for giving me the opportunity to study for my Masters

valuable suggestions, which have added much to the final

gave me during my fieldwork, and without whose generous help my research

not have been possible.

I would like to express my gratitude to my teachers in the English and

Thanks to my close friend, Aum, and all my friends in the Linguistics

Department for their support and encouragement in writing this

I am extremely grateful to my family, my father, mother and older brother

care and understanding.

LANGUAGE VITALITY AND LANGUAGE ATTITUDE AMONG

THE YONG PEOPLE IN LAMPHUN PROVINCE: A

Payap University, Chiang Mai, 2005

Supervising Professor: Assistant Prof. Dr. Thomas M.

between males and females. A tendency towards speaking Kammuang rather

other languages such as Kammuang and Standard

List of Abbreviations and Glossary

1.0 General Background

1.1 Historical Background

1.3 Language Family

1.4 Objectives of the

1.7 Benefits of the

2.1 Yong Phonology

2.1.1.1 Initial Consonants

2.1.1.3. Consonant clusters

2.1.2 Vowel Sounds

2.1.3.2. Dead syllables

3.1.1. The Study of Ethnolinguistic Vitality in Various

3.2 Language Attitudes

3.2.1. Methodology and Attitudes

3.2.2. The Study of Language Attitudes in Various Languages and

4.1 Data Collection

4.1.1.1. Part One: Linguistic background

4.1.1.2. Part Two: Language

4.1.1.3. Part Three: Language

4.2. Distribution of the

4.3. Pilot Test

5.3.1. Question 1: What language do you speak with the following