Time stood still at this
fundraiser for the Tibetan Children's Village. Alumni performed one Rangzen
Shonu song from the 80s after another. Then a young man who looked like a new
arrival from Tibet picked up the microphone during a break and began speaking
about the self-immolations. He made an ardent appeal to the audience to
mobilise the government and the UN for help, urging us since we were in a safe
country, to do all we could to support the people in Tibet.
That's when one of my companions,
a girl from Lhasa married to a TCV alumnus, said to me in syrupy Tibetan:
"I can't understand a word, he is speaking khams skad. Can you
understand?"
What the young man said was not
in Kham dialect at all. He made an effort to speak Ud skad, the language
of Lhasa - albeit with a Kham accent but that was really it.
My companion gave me an
incredulous look, "No way, that's not Ukay"!
I didn't know her that well. Was
she just acting snobbish or was her Tibetan really that narrow? What we heard
was Tibetan pronounced with an accent. Speaking with an accent and speaking in
a dialect are two different animals. An accent is merely pronouncing regular
words a bit differently. Instead of "house" pronounced khangpa
for example, some say khompa and also khumpa but from the context
both are still recognisable as variations of ཁང་པ་ .
A
dialect on the other hand has a separate vocabulary, and sometimes also a
different grammar. It becomes evident when we think of the little Tsang dialect
many Tibetans know and sometimes also make fun of: Ba, ma(m)-ba? Nooks
bè! - Believe me now, Olo?
On a trip I accompanied as an
interpreter I was lectured by the Chinese hosts in Toe Ngari that the locals
spoke "not the same" Tibetan as in Lhasa and that it would be
difficult to communicate. Amazing how the Chinese, who often spend an entire
lifetime in Tibet without ever caring to speak the language, believe they must
enlighten a native speaker. Tactful is different. But I noticed it is one of
the things our colonisers are most fond of emphasizing: How the Tibetan
language has so many varying dialects and how they are all mutually
unintelligible.
The sinister intention is clear:
Undermine our understanding that we are a nation united by a common tongue.
Divide et impera. We got you so figured out Tonghzi, comprende?
But as irritating as they are,
the Chinese have a point. Seriously: How can we say we are united when we have
trouble understanding what the brother in front of our nose is saying? I hate
to admit but it's basically an absurd situation with the Chinese wisenheimers
annoyingly all confirmed. Therefore on our side, we cannot leave it at that.
So what can we do to improve
intra-Tibetan communication and understanding?
In this respect the
Tibetan-language news programmes aired by the Voice of America and the Radio
Free Asia play a successful forerunner role because they are presented by
speakers from a variety of backgrounds and with all kinds of accents. Whatever
it is they are speaking, when we pay attention we will notice that it's based
on literary Tibetan and not some "dialect". While the VOA Tibetan
programme rightly doesn't make any distinction, the RFA news editions are
labelled "Amkay", "Khamkay" and also "Ukay",
which I find misleading.
Unlike Ukay which is a homogenous
dialect spoken in and around Lhasa, Kham Tibetan or Khamkay feels more like an umbrella
term. A whole range of dialects, sub-dialects and sub-subdialects are grouped
under it almost in an infinite sequence. So we really can't speak of one Kham
dialect spoken by all Dotoe people. Similarly there can be no single grand Amdo
dialect either because a native of southern Amdo such as Ngaba speaks different
Amkay from a person up north in say Labrang.
So if the news were really aired in a dialect, it would not only be difficult to reach large segments of the population but it would also put the makers of the programme in the politically sensitive situation of having to select one dialect over another. All this can be avoided by using the written language as the basis. And actually that's also exactly what is practiced by RFA Tibetan programme: Their speakers have regional accents but for sure none presents the news in a dialect. Therefore having separate editions such as "Amkay" and "Khamkay" really doesn't make sense: There is no value in differentiating Tibetan according to accents.
 |
| Dialects, sub-dialects, sub-sub-dialects almost in an infinite sequence - "Matrioshka-style :--) |
So if the news were really aired in a dialect, it would not only be difficult to reach large segments of the population but it would also put the makers of the programme in the politically sensitive situation of having to select one dialect over another. All this can be avoided by using the written language as the basis. And actually that's also exactly what is practiced by RFA Tibetan programme: Their speakers have regional accents but for sure none presents the news in a dialect. Therefore having separate editions such as "Amkay" and "Khamkay" really doesn't make sense: There is no value in differentiating Tibetan according to accents.
Furthermore, it could confuse
people and create artificial barriers because Ukay speakers like my
acquaintance may not listen to those programmes thinking they are in a
"dialect". So there shouldn't be any distinction at all. Everyone
should be encouraged to listen to all editions indiscriminately. It will help
us understand better the morphology of our tongue and improve our listening
skills.
Amidst this linguistic mixture
one of my eastern Tibetan buddies said to my utter surprise that we should just
all speak Ukay, it would make communication easier. - I am not convinced.
Having everyone speak uniformed Lhasan would be culturally impoverishing. It
would be like all Anglophones the world over would be expected to speak British
English. Where is the local flavor? We are not amused :--)
To push Lhasan as the standard may have been acceptable during the early years of exile when the institutions were dominated by the same crowd who was already in charge in Lhasa. I hear in those days it was common that Dokham folks would have their pronunciation scorned upon or "corrected". But these days with the social demographics in exile tilting towards Easterners pushing Lhasan too hard can become problematic.
When we get down to the
linguistics, Ukay is another Tibetan dialect, no more, no less. Expecting
everyone to sound like a person from the capital is not only unnatural or
culturally impoverishing; if we truly believe in the premise of the equality of
the Cholkhas, Lhasan superiority is simply unacceptable. We must meet
somewhere in the middle and the effort should be equal for all. This is my
opinion.
So the solution to improving
intra-Tibetan communication and understanding and reinforcing our common
linguistic heritage cannot be to level out dialects or try to eradicate
accents. What would really help is to raise the level of education in literary
Tibetan so it does not fall behind the vernacular; and we need to increase
exposure to all kinds of accents and dialects because the more variations we
hear, the smarter we get at recognising the similarities.
The way I see it, fundamentally
the Tibetan language situation is diglossia, a special form of bilingualism. While
traditional bilingualism describes the simultaneity of two complete
languages fit to function for all purposes, diglossia describes the simultaneity of two mutually complementing
forms of one language each of which performs a specified function which the
other lacks.
In the Tibetan case, diglossia
neatly describes the co-existence of oral dialects with the literary language.
We have the clear distinction typical of diglossia: Dialect is used in the
homes; it's private and related to one's hometown; that's what we speak with
our buddies aka phayul jigpa. The literary language by contrast, is used
at work and in school; it's public and related to the national level. We use
this type of Tibetan when dealing with authorities, in the media or when
speaking to Tibetans from other areas.
In public, Dokham folks generally
make an effort to sound more Ukay where the pronunciation is closer to the
written language. What the lad at the TCV fundraiser did was exactly that.
There is this functional specialization of the Tibetan language which is
typical for diglossia. No Tibetan would speak dialect in public unless he's a
complete country bumpkin who has never left his valley and as a result never had
interactions with other Tibetan speakers.
In practice it may be difficult
to recognise Tibet's diglossia. Literacy rates are low one reason being that
written Tibetan must compete with Mandarin pushed as the standard language by
the Chinese state at regular intervals. The result is that we have Tibetan
dialect speakers who revert to Chinese instead of literary Tibetan when
communicating with Tibetans from other areas.
Nevertheless, we should not
misjudge the issue based on the distortion resulting from the spread of
Mandarin. Treating the Tibetan language situation fundamentally as one of
diglossia has helped me better understand the nature of our linguistic
challenge. Consciously acknowledging Tibet's diglossia can help us concentrate
on the content of what's being said rather than getting distracted by the form
how it's being said. We will clearly recognise the common ground, the literary
language, and not be confused by things that set us apart - a dialect, an
accent or a funny intonation. As a result, our idea of the Tibetan language
becomes democratic and egalitarian because we apply ourselves to respect it in
all its dialectical and accentuated variations.
Looking at the Tibetan language
situation as diglossia may also give us a perspective because we realise we are
not the only people who face the challenge of a diverging written and spoken
language: There is diglossia in many places. Take South Tyrol as an example,
which the Dalai Lama visited earlier this year: Locals speak a German dialect
but switch to High German when speaking to people from outside the region.
In addition, South Tyrolians must also learn Italian as the official language –
just like Tibetans have to learn Chinese.
Treating our language situation as diglossia, improving our written Tibetan and become better listeners could also help take Tibetan to the
next level above mere sustenance, so the language is fit for the requirements
of the time and we don't easily succumb to the dominant language be that Chinese, English or another tongue.
Not
understanding another speaker of Tibetan probably happens all the time. If we
leave it at that however and don't make an effort to change it, we also
inadvertently reinforce the Chinese perception of the Tibetan language: That
it's so diverse that it's mutually unintelligible. If that's what they believe let them, dilettantes. But we should know better. We mustn't fall for what in
essence is a storm in a tea cup: All Tibetans share the same written language.
Not understanding one another is ridiculous. These are things we have in our
hands. Not doing anything would be negligent.
Mountain Phoenix
Related Essays
4 comments:
A true story from the early days in exile:
2 business-like men from Kham-Golok area Tibet were discussing the events of the day in an Indian eating joint. An elderly man from Lhasa sat a few tables away and with great surprise writ on his face exclaimed to his companion – the incredibility of the fact that the 2 middle aged fellow Tibetans were speaking the Swiss Euro language so fluently.
Very important subject. I totally support the preservation of dialects, also agree that on the practicality of choosing one dialect as standard, whichever it may be, and enjoy the richness that comes from accents.
You compared Tibetan with English raising the example of British English versus American English, however I hope you don't mind me saying it's much more accurate to compare with Chinese dialects. When British and Americans meet we understand practically everything word, the dialects diverged so recently after all. The separation between Tibetan dialects is much larger, and the separation between Chinese dialects is comparable. Chinese peoples also share the same writing system but millennia of geographic isolation led to peoples from regions separated by just tens of kilometers of mountains unable to understand each other. Japan is also a very mountainous country and Japanese from many regions also can't understand each other when speaking in dialect, for example people from the Tohoku area of the 2011 earthquake have always had their speech subtitled when they appear on TV otherwise other Japanese can't understand them.
Going back to Chinese dialects, at the time that the communists chose standard Chinese to be based upon the Beijing dialect, Han people from Beijing, Shanghai, Fujian and Hong Kong travelling to each other regions would barely understand a word.
Not having a common tongue never stopped the Han from believing having a united identity, and it needn't stop Tibetans either. Things have changed a lot since 70 years ago, now Chinese from different regions can actually understand each other, but certainly do not sound the same. Of course newsreaders can have an accent, in the UK it's very fashionable for newsreaders to have a Scottish accent. In china, not just newsreaders but the leaders themselves have all had strong accents, from Mao until Hu they all spoke mandarin with the accents of their native dialects. Xi Jinping is the first without a strong accent
For Tibetans across the Tibetan regions, I think the best situation would be for all primary school and half of middle school and high school education to be taught in a standard tibetan dialect, with TV and radio services broadcasting in local dialects to help preserve the local culture. Learning standard Tibetan, Mandarin and keeping ones local dialect intact need not seem impossible, just look at mainland Europe, where so many young people speak 3 or more languages fluently. But what's needed is a supportive education system, I have no idea whether there is any teaching in Kham and Amdo done in Lhasan now?
Mountain Phoenix - this was an extremely thoughtful and enlightening read. I lived at the ZKL gompa (most of the monks from Kham or Amdo), spent a lot of time at Dolma Ling and Shungseb (huge mix), and had some Tibetan friends (from U Tsang) while I lived and conducted research in McLeod. All that time, it was hard to tell whether a friend didn't understand an Eastern Tibetan accents, or whether it was a another dialect, or a whole other language... I could hear the difference, slightly, after a while, but of course it was mostly shrouded in mist for me. I understand better, now, thanks to this post. The linguistic variability of Tibet is one of the many things that make it so beautiful and rich. Thank you for devoting your time and thoughts to this topic, and sharing with us. May all efforts such as this preserve Tibet, despite its colonization!
I think that what you should be doing is encouraging Tibetans to learn both the Lhasa dialect as the standard form, while at the same time preserving their own dialect.
There is no need for promotion of the standard form to mean elimination of the dialects, as has often been the case in other countries.
I didn't know that the Chinese like to emphasize how different the Tibetan dialects are from each other, and I find it amusing. That they should be lecturing you about it when they can't speak a word of Tibetan themselves is beyond belief.
Luckily it seems like the Tibetan language's survival is safe. When I visited Tibetan areas of Qinghai province, I saw children doing their homework in Tibetan on the street. I think this is one area where the Chinese state is relatively (and I emphasize relatively) benign, in the sense that it does allow part of Tibet's education to be carried out in Tibetan.
Post a Comment