Namgay Thinley March 2002
CONTENTS ABSTRACT iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv ____________________________________________________________
________ 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the problem Purpose of the study 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2 Introduction Background information on language use in Thailand Language situation Standard Thai The present status of Thai Background information on language use in Bhutan Language situation Dzongkha The present status of Dzongkha Einer Haugen’s fourfold model of the stages in language planning Introduction Definition Selection Codification Implementation Elaboration 3. FIELD STUDY Methodology The sample Procedure 4. RESULTS Presentation Background information Language choice and attitude Language use Findings Thailand Bhutan 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIXES Appendix 1: Questionnaire REFERENCES 9
10
17
19 23
ii
ABSTRACT
Language use in Thailand and Bhutan presents two different scenes. In Thailand, the national language, Standard Thai, is the majority language used in every domain. In Bhutan, the national language, Dzongkha, is the lingua franca for the country, but there is a recent trend toward using English as widely as Dzongkha, and usage of English in every domain is on the rise. Standard Thai usage is firmly rooted in Thai society through its prevalence in education, internal administration, the media, and publications. Dzongkha, on the other hand, is less often used by Bhutanese than Thai is used by Thais. At the same time, English is gaining popularity in Bhutan. This paper provides a study of the reasons for this difference in language use of Standard Thai in Thailand and Dzongkha in Bhutan. This paper is broadly divided into two parts: a literature review and a field study. The literature review describes the current status of use of Standard Thai and Dzongkha and then uses Einer Haugen’s fourfold model of language
References: Aksornkool, Namtip. 1983. An Historical Study of Language Planning. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Chua, Liang. 2001. Language Shift in a Singaporean Chinese Family and the Matrix Language Frame Model. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Oxford University. Cooper, R.L. 1989. Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fishman, J.A. (editor). 1993. The Earliest Stage of Language Planning. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Haugen, Einer. 1983. “The Implementation of Corpus Planning: Theory and Practice.” In Cobarrubias, Juan, and J.A. Fishman (eds). Progress in Language Planning. New York: Mouton Publishers. Nokaeo, Preeya. 1989. Central Thai and Northern Thai: Linguistic and Attitudinal Study. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin. Rubin, Joan, and B.H. Jernudd. 1975. Can Language Be Planned? Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii. Senawong, P. 1989. Sociolinguistic aspects of transference from English to Thai. Ph.D. dissertation, Monash University. Smalley, W.A. 1994. Linguistic Diversity and National Unity: Language Ecology in Thailand. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Srinarawat, Deeyu. 1988. “Language Use of the Chinese in Bangkok.” In D. Srinarawat, et al. (eds.), The International Symposium on Language and Linguistics. Bangkok: Thammasat University. Van Driem, G. 1994. “Language policy in Bhutan.” In Michael Aris and Michael Hutt, eds., Bhutan: Aspects of Culture and Development. Gartmore: Kiscadale Publications. Van Driem, G. 1998. Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region: Dzongkha. Leiden: CNWS Publications. 23