Linguistics Vanguard 2019; 20180071

David Bradley*

Language policy and language planning in

mainland Southeast Asia: Myanmar and Lisu
https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0071
Received December 9, 2018; accepted July 23, 2019

Abstract: Most nations in mainland Southeast Asia and elsewhere have one national language as a focus
of national identity and unity, supported by a language policy which promotes and develops this language.
Indigenous and immigrant minority groups within each nation may be marginalized; their languages may
become endangered. Some of the official national language policies and ethnic policies of mainland South-
east Asian nations aim to support both a national language and indigenous minority languages, but usually
the real policy is less positive. It is possible to use sociolinguistic and educational strategies to maintain the
linguistic heritage and diversity of a nation, develop bilingual skills among minority groups, and integrate
minorities successfully into the nations where they live, but this requires commitment and effort from the
minorities themselves and from government and other authorities. The main focus of this paper is two case
studies: one of language policy and planning in Myanmar, whose language policy and planning has rarely
been discussed before. The other is on the Lisu, a minority group in Myanmar and surrounding countries,
who have been relatively successful in maintaining their language.

Keywords: Language policy; language planning; minority languages of Mainland South East Asia;
Myanmar/Burmese; Lisu

1 Language policy and language planning

There are two well-established approaches to analyzing and categorizing language policy and planning. One
is the functional approach of Kloss (1969), Status versus Corpus; the other is the sequential approach of
Haugen (1966, 1972), with four stages starting with Selection, then Codification, Elaboration and
Dissemination. Most scholars now regard Kloss’ Status as the domain of language policy: decisions about
which language(s) should be used, and how, typically made by government authorities. Kloss’ Corpus is
language planning: how to formalize and develop the standards for each language and how to implement
the policy. This is typically carried out by leading elements within a society under the guidance of outside
authorities and experts.
Of the Haugen stages, Selection and Dissemination relate to Kloss’ Status; and Codification and
Elaboration relate to Kloss’ Corpus. Selection is the choice of standard(s); Codification is the setting of stan-
dards for orthography, spelling, grammar and vocabulary; Elaboration is the expansion of standards and
their use to cover all areas of grammar and vocabulary in all domains that are required; and Dissemination
is the implementation of the policy and planning decisions within a society.
In addition to the above, modern language policy and planning recognizes that policy and planning
decisions require an Evaluation process: both regular feedback from community members about the accept-
ability and popularity of decisions; and from communities, authorities and experts on the degree of success
in their implementation. After Evaluation, some of the policy and planning may need to be reconsidered,
possibly leading to revisions to some Status/Corpus and Selection/Codification/Elaboration/Dissemination
decisions. A major part of the Evaluation process should include concrete measurement of policy and plan-
ning success leading to Acquisition by relevant groups in the society and ongoing multilingualism; this is

*Corresponding author: David Bradley, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia, E-mail: d.bradley@latrobe.edu.au

Brought to you by | La Trobe University

Authenticated
Download Date | 1/27/20 3:28 AM
2 | D. Bradley: Language policy and language planning in mainland Southeast Asia

sometimes called Acquisition Planning as in Tollefson (1991, 1995), and is usually closely tied to education
systems, especially where policy and planning decisions are an innovation in the society. For an extended
discussion of the models of language policy and planning and various case studies, see Bradley (2012) and
Bradley and Bradley (2019), especially Chapter 8.
In some nations, language policy is covert, nominally based on shared linguistic and social norms but
often reflecting elite attitudes and behavior. In other nations, the policy is overt, and may be embodied in a
constitution and/or other types of laws; sometimes this includes a separate formulated language policy. Not
infrequently, policies and laws exist but are not fully implemented. All nations have bodies which implement
language policy and planning decisions; sometimes this is mainly a function of a Ministry of Education which
sets school goals and curriculum, but often a variety of other government bodies are involved in the decisions
and their implementation. In a few nations there is a specific body which is responsible for language policy
and some aspects of language planning; this may be a separate institution with official status, like the
Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka in Malaysia and the Royal Society in Thailand. Even in such societies, formu-
lation of policy and implementation of planning is also a part of the responsibilities of relevant government
departments.
Policies also change; in Section 2 below, recent positive developments for indigenous minority languages
in Myanmar are outlined. In Thailand a highly progressive mother-tongue education policy was developed
in 2010 and approved by two successive governments, but has been in abeyance since 2014. The nominally
supportive ethnic policies of Laos and Viet Nam contrast with a strongly centralizing language and educa-
tion policy, though this is being relaxed somewhat in Viet Nam in the last few years. In Cambodia, policy for
minority groups and their languages, never supportive, was particularly negative from 1975 to 1978 under the
Khmer Rouge.
In most mainland Southeast Asian nations, as in most parts of the world, there is one national language
whose status is enshrined in law and which is used widely within the nation for educational, government
and other purposes. In Myanmar, this is standard Myanmar/Burmese with a very conservative diglossic liter-
ary High taught in schools and used for official purposes, and a spoken Low based on the conservative speech
of Mandalay and Yangon. In Viet Nam, this is standard Vietnamese based on the conservative local speech
of Hanoi, in Cambodia, it is standard Khmer based mainly on the speech of Phnom Penh without some of its
most innovative local characteristics (Thel Thong 1985); in Malaysia it is standard Malay loosely based on the
local speech of Johor Bahru. Thailand has a long-standing uncodified policy of using a standard based on
conservative Bangkok Central Thai, which was recognized by the 2010 national language policy. Laos has a
somewhat ambivalent standard, earlier based on the speech of the former capital, Luang Phabang, but since
1975 using the speech of Vientiane instead, alongside other related varieties from the south of the country.
Laos is also unusual in that Lao is quite closely related to Thai, local varieties of Lao are spoken by far more
people in Thailand than in Laos, all Lao speakers in Thailand also have more or less full knowledge of stan-
dard Thai and many Lao speakers in Laos can understand Thai due to similarity and due to contact with Thai
media.
Singapore is unusual in several ways, as discussed in several chapters of Bradley (1985): it has four offi-
cial languages: English, Mandarin Chinese, Malay and Tamil; these four languages have greatly different
status and use within the society; and all of them are based on external norms, though Singapore English
has its own distinct New English variety. Singapore is also unusual in that the use of Mandarin Chinese was
implemented by a government policy decision in 1979, though this is not the original home Chinese variety
of the vast majority of the ethnic Chinese population; furthermore, before 1979 the local ethnic Chinese used
traditional Chinese characters and were not literate in the simplified variety of Chinese characters used in
China since 1958. Other than Tamil, the various South Asian languages spoken by some of the South Asian
community are not officially recognized. The use of Tamil, other South Asian languages and since 1979 all
non-Mandarin varieties of Chinese, especially non-Hokkien Chinese varieties, is in decline.
The policy concerning indigenous minority languages is outlined in Bradley (2019): three mainland
Southeast Asian nations, Viet Nam, Laos and Myanmar, have official ethnic policies parallel to those of
the former USSR and China: in addition to the majority group, there are many officially recognized indige-
nous minority ethnic groups with some special rights to their languages and cultures: 53 in Viet Nam, 48 in

Brought to you by | La Trobe University

Authenticated
Download Date | 1/27/20 3:28 AM
 D. Bradley: Language policy and language planning in mainland Southeast Asia | 3

Table 1: Indigenous minority groups and populations.

Nation Ethnolinguistic Recognized indigenous % of total Year of

groups minority groups population census

Laos 72 48 47% 2015

Myanmar 111 134 34% Estimated
Singapore (3+) 1 13.4% 2010
Viet Nam 91 53 11% 2009
Thailand 48 47 7% est.
Cambodia 18 N/A 3% est.
Malaysia (W) 24 (1) 0.7% est.

Laos and 134 in Myanmar. The other nations also have numerous indigenous groups; in Malaysia they and
the indigenous Malay majority are separately recognized and have special rights as the overall bumiputra
‘indigenous’ group, and some very small indigenous non-Malay groups are recognized as orang asli ‘original
people’. In Thailand there is a semi-official list which has grown gradually from seven hill tribes in the 1970s
to 47 groups now, not all of them originally indigenous. In Cambodia, there is no separate minority category.
Again Singapore is an exception; prior to the British establishment of a trading port there in 1819, the only
inhabitants were speakers of local varieties of Malay, who are now a minority of the population, and all other
groups are more recent arrivals. Table 1 shows the numbers of ethnolinguistic groups (Bradley 2020a) and
recognized indigenous minority ethnic groups (Bradley 2019) as a proportion of the total population in the
seven nations of the area.
As Table 1 shows, the linguistic diversity and minority proportion of the overall population within
each nation differs greatly, with many languages and just under half of the population from ethnic groups
other than Lao in Laos and a rather high proportion and even greater linguistic diversity in Myanmar. Viet
Nam and Thailand also have substantial linguistic diversity; minority groups are a smaller but still sub-
stantial proportion overall. In Cambodia and West Malaysia, the linguistic diversity within the indigenous
population is less substantial and the proportion is quite small. Singapore’s indigenous Malay minority is
gradually increasing as a proportion of the population, but in the other nations the proportion is gradually
decreasing.

2 Case study 1: language policy and planning in Myanmar

As we have seen in Table 1 above, Myanmar/Burmese is the mother tongue of nearly two-thirds of the popu-
lation; it is also spoken more or less well by much of the rest of the population. It has been written since the
early 12th century; the first dated inscription is from 1111/1112 AD. The language has diglossia: there is a very
conservative written High which has been fairly stable since the mid-13th century, with ongoing changes in
pronunciation but very little change in writing; there is also a spoken standard Low based on the cultivated
speech of Mandalay, the last royal capital, and Yangon, the current capital. The main difference between the
High and the Low is in nearly all grammatical and some very frequent lexical forms, mostly with an exact
one-to-one correspondence, but sometimes with extra distinctions in the High or in the Low; many verbs and
some nouns also have longer literary forms. For a comprehensive listing of the grammatical differences, see
Okell and Allott (2001).
In Myanmar/Burmese, the diglossic High word for the nation and the language is Myanma, while the
diglossic Low word is Bama, the source of the current name for the Bamar majority and of the English terms
Burma and Burmese; the -r in the English spellings reflects an attempt to represent the sounds according
to British pronunciation. During the independence movement against British colonial rule from the 1920s
and during the government set up during Japanese occupation in 1942–1945, the term Bamar was used in

Brought to you by | La Trobe University

Authenticated
Download Date | 1/27/20 3:28 AM
4 | D. Bradley: Language policy and language planning in mainland Southeast Asia

Myanmar/Burmese to refer to the country and its majority group. However, since independence in 1948,
Myanmar/Burmese language has always used the diglossic High term Myanmar for the name of the coun-
try and its majority language. In 1990, the then military government changed the official English version
of the names of the country and its language to Myanmar from Burma and Burmese, while also changing
the English versions of many other place and ethnic names to be more similar to their modern Myanmar/
Burmese pronunciation: Rangoon and Karen (reflecting 18th -century Myanmar/Burmese pronunciation)
became Yangon and Kayin, and so on. The National League for Democracy, by far the largest elected party in
the partly-democratic government since 2015, varies somewhat in its usage in Myanmar/Burmese, but tends
to use Burma and Burmese in English. In this paper, the language is referred to using the combined term
Myanmar/Burmese as both terms are current; while the nation is referred to as Myanmar.
Allott (1985) summarizes language policy in Myanmar; briefly, since independence in 1948, Myanmar/
Burmese has been the national and official language and has dominated national life, as it did during the
independent kingdom up to 1884. Until recently, education, government and the media used mainly literary
High Burmese, which is an extra burden for the one-third of the population for whom Myanmar/Burmese is
a second language. In daily life, there is much more use of the quite different spoken Low variety, but the
High is used from the beginning of school and in government, courts, and so on. In recent years, especially
since 2015, there is much more public use of the spoken Low in political discourse, the media and so on, in
domains which until recently were exclusively High.
As Table 1 shows, Myanmar is the most linguistically diverse nation in mainland Southeast Asia, with the
most languages, the most recognized ethnic groups and the second highest proportion of the population with
a minority language mother tongue. The classification of ethnic groups recognizes some groups under two or
more different names: an autonym and a Myanmar/Burmese language exonym, or additional names of clan
or other subgroups within a single language; in some cases it collapses several distinct languages into one
ethnic group. This classification is under revision to reflect current ethnic identity more closely. Table 2 shows
the linguistic diversity among the 135 ethnic groups. Briefly, the Bamar majority and 13 minority groups speak
languages more or less closely related to Myanmar/Burmese, the language of the Bamar majority; 91 groups
speak other Tibeto-Burman (hereafter TB) languages more distantly related to Myanmar/Burmese; 10 groups
speak Tai languages related to Thai and Lao; 12 speak Mon-Khmer languages distantly related to Khmer
and Vietnamese; two groups speak Miao-Yao (Hmong-Mien) languages; one group speaks an Austronesian
language related to Malay; one group speaks Yunnanese Chinese; and two groups speak languages closely
related to Indo-Aryan Bangla. Some unrecognized minorities speak various South Asian languages, such as
the Rohingya of Rakhine State who speak a variety of Bangla. Some Rohingya have been in Myanmar since
the period prior to 1784 when the Arakan kingdom was independent from the Myanmar kingdom and also

Table 2: Genetic and geographical position of ethnic groups of Myanmar.

Central Rakhine Chin Kachin Shan Kayah Kayin Mon

regions state state state state state state state

Tibeto-Burman
Bamar 1
Burmish 5 2 3 4
Ngwi 1 4
Karen 1 9 11
Chin 1 51
Other 2 2 2 8
Sinitic 1
Tai 10
Mon-Khmer 11 1
Miao-Yao 2
Austronesian 1
Indo-Aryan 2

Brought to you by | La Trobe University

Authenticated
Download Date | 1/27/20 3:28 AM
 D. Bradley: Language policy and language planning in mainland Southeast Asia | 5

controlled part of what is now southeastern Bangladesh; others perhaps came during the British colonial
period. In general, immigrant groups who arrived during the British colonial period have no official recogni-
tion for their languages or ethnic group status. For more information about Myanmar/Burmese and the most
closely related Burmish languages, see Bradley (2015); for a general overview, see Bradley (2016).
In addition to the regions in central Myanmar inhabited mainly by the Bamar majority, there are seven
ethnically-based states around the western, northern and eastern borders for seven large ethnic groups.
This includes Rakhine (Arakanese, closely related to Myanmar/Burmese) in the west; Chin (a Myanmar/
Burmese collective exonym for a cluster of TB-speaking groups) in the northwest, Kachin (the Myanmar/
Burmese exonym for the Jinghpaw group who speak a TB language) in the north, Shan (a Tai group) in the
northeast, and Kayah (a TB group), Kayin (Karen, a Myanmar/Burmese collective exonym for a cluster of TB
groups) and Mon (a Mon-Khmer language) along the eastern border. Since the 2008 constitution, smaller
Self-Administered Zones (SAZ) and one larger Self-Administered Division have been recognized for six other
groups, five within the Shan State in the northeast. The Naga SAZ in the northwest of the country is an inter-
esting case; the local groups have decided to separate into six ethnic groups within the general Indian and
Myanmar/Burmese exonym Naga; one of these groups, the Tangshang, has remarkable internal linguistic
diversity. While none of the other 121 ethnic groups has a recognized territory, many would like to receive
such recognition.
In Table 2, each ethnic group is listed under one location where the largest proportion of the group live,
though of course many groups live in several areas.
Since independence in 1948, Myanmar has had three constitutions: 1947, 1974 and 2008. In each of these
Myanmar/Burmese is recognized as the official and national language; literary High Myanmar/Burmese was
the sole language of education and much of formal usage from 1948 until quite recently. The 1974 constitu-
tion provides for some supplementary use of other indigenous languages, and the 2008 constitution, the 2014
education law and the 2015 ethnic rights law provide for the introduction of mother tongue education in all
ethnic languages. Some states have already done this for their major ethnic language, and nearly all ethnic
groups are now in the process of doing so. Problems arising include lack of materials, teachers and resources,
and in some cases lack of an agreed standard written or spoken variety. Thus a great deal of language policy
and planning work is now being done at the local level within many ethnic groups.
In addition to the 134 recognized indigenous ethnic minority groups, it is also now possible for additional
indigenous groups to introduce mother-tongue education. For example, each of the six component groups of
the Naga ethnic group in the Naga SAZ is developing such education. There is a strong tendency to concen-
trate efforts at the state level on the language of the largest group in that state, notably Jinghpaw Kachin in
the Kachin State, Mon in the Mon State, Shan in the Shan State and Sgaw Karen in the Kayin State. For the
Chin and Kayah states, the state name is derived from a collective Myanmar term for the groups of that state,
which include many distinct groups speaking related but distinct languages, and there is no single language
that can be used as a state-wide local lingua franca.
In some cases, the choice of a standard and an orthography for an ethnic group has been agreed recently
during the process of developing educational materials. For example, the Kayan group of the southern Shan
State, Kayah State and northern Kayin State, formerly known in Myanmar as Padaung, has settled on one of
its two romanizations, the Protestant one, over the Catholic one; and the Yinbaw and Zayein ethnic groups
among others, who speak languages different from but closely related to Kayan, have also chosen to join
with the Kayan and use the selected standard Pekon Kayan language for educational purposes. Similarly, the
distinct Anu and Hkongso ethnic groups of the southern Chin State are now using a single literary standard,
under the name Anu-Asang; Asang is the autonym for the Hkongso. Among the Tangshang in the Naga SAZ in
the northwest of the country, an effort is underway to spread a single literary standard based on the Shecyü
variety for the eighty or so Tangshang varieties, many so distinct as to be mutually unintelligible. This is
intended to replace other existing standards based on several other Tangshang varieties such as Moshang
and some competing literary varieties used in India whose speakers are recognized as distinct tribes such
as Nocte and Konyak, or as Tangsa which is the Indian collective term equivalent to Tangshang in Myanmar
(Morey 2017).

Brought to you by | La Trobe University

Authenticated
Download Date | 1/27/20 3:28 AM
6 | D. Bradley: Language policy and language planning in mainland Southeast Asia

3 Case study 2: language policy for the Lisu

The Lisu are a transnational minority of nearly 700,000 in China, over 300,000 in Myanmar, over 50,000
Thailand and about 3000 in northeastern India. The total population is well over a million; they are recog-
nized as a national minority in China, an ethnic group in Myanmar and Thailand, and a scheduled tribe in
India. In the initial version of the list of 135 ethnic groups of Myanmar, Lisu appeared twice: as Lisu in the
Kachin State and as Lishaw in the Shan State. However, Lishaw, which is based on the Shan name for the
Lisu, was later amalgamated with Lisu.
Lisu has four writing systems (Bradley and Bradley 1999): an indigenous syllabic script developed in
the 1920s by a traditional Lisu religious leader; a romanization developed from 1914 by a group of Christian
missionaries in China and Myanmar; a romanization based on the principles of Chinese pinyin developed
from 1957 by a group of Lisu and Chinese scholars, initially with the participation of a Russian advisor; and
a Myanmar/Burmese-based script used by some Buddhist Lisu in Myanmar. Of these, the indigenous script
is not in current use; the Christian script is widely used by Christian Lisu in China, Myanmar, Thailand and
India; the pinyin script was officially used from 1959 to 1983 in Lisu areas of China, and is still used for some
purposes by some non-Christian Lisu in China; and the Myanmar/Burmese script is used by some Buddhist
Lisu in Myanmar.
Christian Lisu script represents a composite literary standard based mainly on the Central dialect as spo-
ken in the Northern Shan State and southeastern Kachin State in Myanmar and adjacent areas of China,
but with some elements from the Northern dialect as spoken in the northern Kachin State, the Nujiang
area of northwestern Yunnan in China and in India, with some simplification and modification. The pinyin
Lisu is based on the subvariety of the Northern dialect spoken in Fugong County of Nujiang; the traditional
syllabary is based on the subvariety of the northern dialect spoken in Weixi County; and the Myanmar/
Burmese-based script represents the Southern dialect as spoken in Mogok, the Southern Shan State and by
most Lisu in Thailand. For more discussion of the characteristics of the dialects of Lisu, see Bradley (1994,
2006, 2017, 2020b).
Textbooks and other reading materials exist mainly for the Christian Lisu script; there were some for the
pinyin script prepared and used in China between 1958 and 1983, after which the authorities in the Nujiang
Lisu Autonomous Prefecture and Weixi Lisu Autonomous County decided to revert to the Christian script,
which is called ‘Old Lisu’ in China. Since 1983 the pinyin script, known as ‘New Lisu’ in China, has contin-
ued in limited use; for example it is taught to students of Lisu language at the Yunnan Minzu (nationalities)
University in Kunming. There is a great deal of original Lisu material in the Christian script published in
Myanmar and China, some in Thailand and a small amount in India. In China, this includes a newspaper
as well as translations of most laws and other official government documents into Lisu, and materials for
health, agriculture and animal husbandry as well as traditional Lisu songs, stories and other formerly oral
literature. In Myanmar there have been various Christian Lisu magazines as well as books and other publica-
tions. There are also various radio broadcasts in Lisu in several countries, and many CDs and VCDs of modern
Lisu music, both Christian and secular. While traditional Lisu oral literature is gradually disappearing, some
of it is being collected and published in China, Myanmar and elsewhere; see for example Bradley 2008. There
is a Lisu-English dictionary in the Christian script, Bradley (2006) and in the pinyin script, Bradley (1994), and
a number of linguistic studies in Chinese and in English; for full references, see Bradley (2017), and Bradley
(2020b) for a grammar.
Lisu is very vital, and is replacing a number of languages in the Nujiang area; notably Anong and Nusu,
as well as the Lemei variety of Bai. All Anong and Nusu and many Lemei were converted to Christianity by
the Lisu and use exclusively Lisu for religious and many other purposes. Most Christian Lemei are now com-
pletely assimilated into the Lisu, and almost all Anong in China now speak Lisu rather than Anong; many but
not all Nusu remain bilingual in Nusu and Lisu. In Myanmar, the Anong and the Nusu are developing their
own scripts, but their languages remain endangered and most speak Lisu as well as or instead of their own
ethnic language.

Brought to you by | La Trobe University

Authenticated
Download Date | 1/27/20 3:28 AM
 D. Bradley: Language policy and language planning in mainland Southeast Asia | 7

Lisu literacy education in the Christian Lisu script is mainly carried out in churches by pastors in all four
countries. The Lisu in Myanmar are among the many groups who have been developing and implementing
mother-tongue education in government schools since 2016, using existing and new materials; prior to that,
literacy was mainly spread through church education. In China, Lisu is in principle taught in the first 3 years
of primary school in Lisu areas in schools in Lisu areas where the majority of the students are Lisu, but in
reality this rarely happens, whether because local leaders do not implement it or because no teachers are
available to teach it; so Lisu literacy there is also mainly taught in churches. In Thailand, Lisu literacy came
with Christian Central and Northern Lisu speakers who started to arrive in Thailand from Myanmar in the
early 1970s and started to convert some of the local Southern Lisu from the mid-1970s. In India, Lisu literacy
is near-universal as nearly all Lisu there are Christian.
In general, Lisu is persisting very well as a spoken mother tongue, but literacy tends to be limited to
Christians, about half of the total Lisu population, fewer in China and Thailand but a much higher pro-
portion in Myanmar and nearly all in India. Among them, the new Christian literary standard is gradually
spreading into more domains, leading to some dialect mixture and increased intelligibility among formerly
somewhat distinct dialects which have now come into contact in mixed communities, especially since the
1970s in Myanmar and Thailand. For further discussion of the current level of maintenance and use of Lisu,
contrasting transnational Lisu with Gong, a small group living only in Thailand whose language is critically
endangered, see Bradley (2010).

4 Conclusion
Each nation in mainland Southeast Asia has distinctive language policy and planning issues, and these
impact on the indigenous minority groups of each nation in different ways. Even if the policy is nomi-
nally positive, in reality minority groups all face strong pressure to assimilate into national society and lose
their separate languages and identity. Policies may change in positive ways, as we have seen in the case of
Myanmar, or in negative ways. For transnational minority groups like the Lisu, policies differ across coun-
tries; more localized groups are affected by only one national policy. In any case, the long-term outcome
for most minority groups may be increasing assimilation into each of the countries where they live. Where
groups choose to remain bilingual and keep their distinctive identity, as the Lisu do, their languages may
persist; otherwise, the world-wide phenomenon of minority language loss will continue and increase.

References
Allott, Anna J. 1985. Language policy and language planning in Burma. In David Bradley (ed.), Language policy, language plan-
ning and sociolinguistics in South-East Asia (Pacific Linguistics A-67), 131ś154. Canberra: Department of Linguistics,
Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.
Bradley, David. (ed.). 1985. Language policy, language planning and sociolinguistics in South-East Asia (Pacific Linguistics
A-67). Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.
Bradley, David. 1994. A dictionary of the northern dialect of Lisu. (Pacific Linguistics C-126). Canberra: Department of
Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.
Bradley, David, Edward R. Hope, James Fish & Maya Bradley. 2006. Southern Lisu dictionary. (STEDT Monograph Series 4).
Berkeley, CA: Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus Project.
Bradley, David, Byabe Loto & David Ngwaza. 2008. Lisu new year song. Chiangmai: Actsco Publishing.
Bradley, David. 2010. Language endangerment and resilience linguistics: Case studies of Gong and Lisu. Anthropological
Linguistics 52(2). 123ś140.
Bradley, David. 2012. The science of language policy and planning. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), Encyclopedia of
applied linguistics. London: Wiley (electronic); Oxford: Blackwell (print). onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/
9781405198341.wbeal1041.
Bradley, David. 2015. Burmic languages of Myanmar. In Ken VanBik (ed.),Continuum of the richness of languages and dialects
in Myanmar, 88ś101 [English], 167ś190 [Myanmar/Burmese]. Yangon, San Pablo, CA: Chin Human Rights Organization.
Bradley, David. 2016. The languages of Myanmar. Report to UNICEF Myanmar. https://www.academia.edu/32976865/The_
Languages_of_Myanmar.

Brought to you by | La Trobe University

Authenticated
Download Date | 1/27/20 3:28 AM
8 | D. Bradley: Language policy and language planning in mainland Southeast Asia

Bradley, David. 2017. Lisu. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 2nd edn., 902ś917.
London: Routledge.
Bradley, David. 2019. Minority language learning in mainland Southeast Asia. In Andy Kirkpatrick & Anthony J. Liddicoat (eds.),
The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia, 14ś28. London: Routledge.
Bradley, David. 2020a. Mainland East and Southeast Asia. In Christopher Moseley (ed.), Atlas of the world’s languages, 3rd
edn. London: Routledge.
Bradley, David. 2020b. Grammar of Lisu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bradley, David & Maya Bradley. 1999. Standardization of transnational minority languages: Lisu and Lahu. Bulletin Suisse de
Linguistique Appliquée 69. 75ś93.
Bradley, David & Maya Bradley. 2019. Language endangerment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haugen, Einar. 1966. Language conflict and language planning: The case of modern Norwegian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Haugen, Einar. 1972. The ecology of language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kloss, Heinz. 1969. Research possibilities on group bilingualism. Quebec: International Center for Research on Bilingualism.
Morey, Stephen. 2017. The sociolinguistic context of the Tangsa languages. In Picus S. Ding & Jamin Pelkey (eds.), Sociohistor-
ical linguistics in Southeast Asia: New horizons for Tibeto-Burman studies in honour of David Bradley, 169ś188. Leiden:
Brill.
Okell, John & Anna Allott. 2001. Burmese/Myanmar dictionary of grammatical terms. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon.
Thel Thong. 1985. Language planning and language policy of Cambodia. In David Bradley (ed.), Language policy, language
planning and sociolinguistics in South-East Asia (Pacific Linguistics A-67), 103ś117. Canberra: Department of Linguistics,
Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.
Tollefson, James W. (ed.). 1991. Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. Harlow: Longman.
Tollefson, James W. (ed.). 1995. Power and inequality in language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brought to you by | La Trobe University

Authenticated
Download Date | 1/27/20 3:28 AM