In memory of our dear friend Kristian Walianggen (1986–2017),
Yali consultant for DocLing 2013.

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics No.11, 2017

Introduction to the Special Issue on DocLing Workshop
Nakayama, Toshihide
ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

Jukes, Anthony
University of the South Pacific, FijiThis special issue celebrates the successful years of the Documentary Linguistics
Workshop (DocLing). This workshop series was created and has been organizedby the Linguistic Dynamics Science Project (LingDy) at ILCAA in collaboration
with the Endangered Languages Academic Programme (ELAP) and the Endangered
Languages Archive (ELAR) at SOAS (2008–2014) and later with the EL Training
group (2015–2016).
Since its inception in 2008, DocLing has been oﬀered every year for nine years.
Under the guidance of Peter Austin and David Nathan and the continuous eﬀorts of the
LingDy staﬀ members, DocLing has evolved into a world-class workshop on language
documentation that now attracts participants from all over Japan and overseas.
Over these nine years, we have trained well over 150 researchers through DocLing,
and have consequently gained a lot of experience and knowledge about language
documentation training.
This publication reflects on the amazing nine years of DocLing. In addition to thecore instructors, we invited the language consultants and participants to provide theirdiﬀerent perspectives of DocLing.
We have come a long way, and the situation surrounding DocLing has changed
significantly. We hope this publication is an opportunity to summarize what we haveaccomplished and to think about the way we can extend DocLing into the future.
Finally, I would like to thank all the people who have participated and supported
DocLing in any capacity over the years. We could not have accomplished this without
your support. Thank you!

Nakayama, Toshihide and Jukes, Anthony. 2017. “Introduction to the special issue on DocLing Workshop”. Asianand African Languages and Linguistics 11. p.??. [Permanent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/89202]

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics No.11, 2017

Documentary Linguistics Workshop:
Its Beginning, Development, and Future
Nakayama, Toshihide
ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

This paper traces the history of the Documentary Linguistics Workshop to provide thebackground context and underlying motivations for the development of the workshop
series.

Keywords: documentary linguistics, DocLing, training, endangered languages, language revitalization

1. Introduction
2. How it started: Context of the development of DocLing
3. Nine years of DocLing
4. Impact
5. The future

1. Introduction

The goal of this paper is to provide information about the academic and historicalcontext in which the Documentary Linguistics Workshop (DocLing) was created anddeveloped over the years. It is hoped that this paper will help readers better understandthe needs and motivations that led to the initiation of the workshop series.
2. How it started: Context of the development of DocLing

First, I would like to describe the context in which the plan for the DocLing
was developed in 2007. Documentary linguistics (or language documentation) as
an academic research field has evolved out of traditional descriptive research on
endangered languages. It is therefore useful to look at the changes progressing inendangered languages research at the time.

Nakayama, Toshihide. 2017. “Documentary Linguistics Workshop: Its beginning, development, and future”. Asianand African Languages and Linguistics 11. pp.3–9. [Permanent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/89203]

4

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

2.1. Trends in research on endangered languages

As the worldwide problem of language endangerment was rapidly intensifying,
research on endangered languages was moving into a new era. The combination of theshrinking domain of use and the decline in the number of speakers drastically undercut
the vitality of traditional languages in socially underprivileged minority communities.
This development posed problems to two key areas of the study and revitalization ofendangered languages.
One problem was aﬀecting academic research for describing endangered languages.
It had become rare to find opportunities for conducting field research in consultation
with fluent speakers with rich firsthand knowledge of the traditional culture.
Researchers were finding themselves relying more on previously published work andunpublished notes and records left by other researchers. Thus, archive research was
becoming an important part of their research on endangered languages (see Nakayama
2007).
The other problem was aﬀecting the local communities, particularly the eﬀorts topreserve and revitalize the traditional languages. When it is spoken in everyday lives,a language is something that can be produced endlessly by its speakers. However,once the number of speakers falls below the critical point, it becomes diﬃcult to obtainnecessary information and resources about the language within the community. This
makes it necessary for communities to look for information in outside sources, which
are most commonly academic publications and unpublished materials collected byacademics.
Thus, now that the opportunity for collecting firsthand information on traditional
languages has become rare, the values of field research and its records are much higher
and extend well beyond researchers’ immediate goals and concerns. There are and there
will be researchers with various interests in a language who want and need to rely on therecords collected in someone else’s fieldwork. Additionally, local community activists
will look at such records for the information they need for their work to preserve andrevitalize the language of their ancestors.
Linguistic records are now surrounded by a diverse range of needs, and at thesame time, there is a growing expectation that academic researchers will contributedirectly to, and make a tangible impact on, the situation in the endangered language
community rather than simply advancing purely academic research and analyses (i.e.,
studying “about” the language and community). We could also say that the scarcity
of data collection opportunities has created a strong need for authentic firsthanddata that can be utilized for a variety of purposes. This attention to the needs ofpreservation and revitalization activities in the communities and also to the needs for
multipurpose records was at the core of development of the documentary linguistic
research paradigm.
The conceptual and methodological framework of documentary linguistics wasNakayama, Toshihide: Documentary Linguistics Workshop: Its beginning, development, and future5

developed around the end of the 20th century, and the research was gaining momentum
throughout the early 2000s as major sources of research funding started supporting
documentary linguistic projects throughout the world. Such sources include theDocumentation of Endangered Languages program in Germany, the Endangered
Languages Documentation Programme in the United Kingdom, and the Documenting
Endangered Languages grant program in the United States (Austin 2014). The field of
documentary linguistics was reasonably well established and expanding its reach in thewestern world by the time the DocLing Workshop was developed in 2007.
2.2. Academic environment in Japan

Japan has a strong and long-standing academic tradition of fieldwork-based
descriptive research. It was therefore no coincidence that when language endangerment
became a major global issue in the late 1990s, Japan was among the first to respondwith a launch of a large-scale project. The project, the Endangered Languages of the
Pacific Rim (ELPR) Project, was one of the most notable and influential developmentsin the recent history of descriptive linguistic research in Japan. ELPR was a large-scale
five-year project funded by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology. It was launched in 1999 as a response to the growing global
concern about language endangerment and was focused on field linguistic research on
languages of the Pacific Rim region, with a particular emphasis on severely endangered
languages. ELPR provided much-needed financial support to academic research on
endangered languages and helped produce a wide range of materials, including text
collections, grammatical descriptions, dictionaries and word lists, and collections ofresearch papers.
With a large-scale descriptive research initiative like ELPR, it may appear that thedevelopment of active research programs in documentary linguistics was inevitable andwell supported in Japan. However, this was not necessarily the case.
One of the issues was that the conceptual framework of documentary linguistics
had not made its way into Japan. Endangered language research in Japan generally
kept focusing on academic and descriptive research. There was an almost exclusiveemphasis on analyses and grammatical descriptions rather than data themselves. There
was interest in the collection of textual materials as a part of descriptive studies.
However, textual materials were valued more as illustrations of grammatical rules andstructure than as representative records of how language was being used. Thus, the data
were considered valuable only in their relation to a grammatical description and were
not necessarily valued themselves.
Another issue was the insuﬃcient training opportunities in graduate programs. There
were few graduate programs in Japan that could provide training in fieldwork-based
linguistic research, let alone in documentary linguistics. It was almost impossible toobtain from graduate programs a systematic training in documentary linguistic theory
or methodology. The issue was further complicated because of a lack of a community

6

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

of field linguists. There was not much of a network among field linguistics researchers
beyond personal connections between individuals. Consequently, opportunities for
information exchange and mutual support were limited. This situation posed a serious
problem, particularly for students who were in small graduate programs. Such students
did not have anyone to obtain advice from or consult with.
Thus, the foundation for the development of documentary linguistic research in Japanwas not secure at all. It is true that the same problem exists elsewhere, but the situation
was particularly serious in Japan. In other words, the prospect of the development of
documentary linguistic research itself was endangered.
2.3. Linguistic Dynamics Science Project and DocLing as a response

The Linguistic Dynamics Science Project (LingDy), the project through which
DocLing has been oﬀered, was initiated to address issues that are hampering thedevelopment of documentary linguistics research in Japan. These are large and complex
problems, and it is not possible to solve them in one go. Therefore, we have been
focusing on the following four areas: (1) raising the profile of documentary linguistics
research; (2) raising the awareness of the needs and values for a comprehensive
record of the use of a language that can be utilized for a wide range of purposes(not only for linguistic analysis and description but also for language conservation
and revitalization); (3) building capacity, especially that of junior researchers, indocumentary linguistics research; (4) building a lasting academic infrastructure andcollaboration network in documentary linguistics.
There are two reasons that we focused our attention on capacity building andinfrastructure. First, the lack of training opportunities and support structure fordocumentary linguistic work was a critical problem in Japan that required immediate
attention. Second, we needed to build self-sustaining growth mechanisms if we hoped
to secure the long-lasting growth of documentary linguistic research. We needed to
produce more researchers who could support themselves (i.e., who had relevant training
and experience to secure funding for continuing documentary linguistic research). We
also needed to build infrastructure and a research network that functioned as a mutual
support mechanism for researchers. DocLing was developed as a centerpiece of thecapacity building activity of LingDy.
3. Nine years of DocLing

The DocLing Workshop was first planned in fall 2007 as the LingDy project wasundergoing preparation to start its operations in April 2008. The realization of thefirst workshop, as well as all the iterations that followed, was made possible by thefull cooperation of Peter Austin and David Nathan at SOAS (formerly known as the
School of Oriental and African Studies), University of London, who provided generous
assistance in all aspects of the workshop from planning to instruction.

Nakayama, Toshihide: Documentary Linguistics Workshop: Its beginning, development, and future

7

The first DocLing was held in February 2008 with 10 participants. The three-and-halfday program covered a wide range of topics: the definition of documentarylinguistics; creation of a corpus of linguistic data; audio recording; audio datatranscription; data format and data management; software tools for data analysis; dataarchiving; mobilization of language data (creation of learning materials for language
revitalization); grant proposal writing skills; and research ethics.
DocLing got a solid budgetary foundation when the LingDy project started in April
2008. The workshop series is now also a part of the training program scheme of
the Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA). This
demonstrates a high level of commitment to training in documentary linguistics on thepart of ILCAA.
We were able to expand DocLing gradually over the years as additional budgetary
and administrative support became available. Starting with the 2010 workshop, we
added Anthony Jukes to the regular teaching staﬀ, expanding the workshop to four
full days. This allowed us to add a component on video recording to the program.
The teaching staﬀ continued to grow: Sonja Riesberg, Hideo Sawada, and Toshihide
Nakayama joined the regular staﬀ, and we were also fortunate to have the participationof Nikolaus Himmelmann, John Bowden, and Honoré Watanabe.
The workshop program was substantially revised and expanded in 2011. It grew to aseven-day program and included work with language consultants who were speakers ofminority languages. DocLing, since its second workshop, incorporated a group projectcomponent where participants engage in small-scale language documentation projects
to actively utilize the knowledge and skills that they acquired in the lectures. However,
the involvement of language consultants turned out to be one of the most significant
improvements we could make to the workshop over the years: it had a substantial
positive impact on the quality of the participants’ learning experience by adding ahigh level of reality to the work that participants engaged in. The involvement oflanguage consultants had an additional, equally important value: providing members ofendangered language communities with an opportunity to participate in the workshop,
allowing them to gain knowledge and skills useful for their language documentationand to participate in revitalization activities in their home communities. In that sense,
this scheme served a double purpose, to improve the quality of learning experiences
and to extend the reach of the workshop into language communities. Another recent
successful addition to the program was individualized consultation sessions whereparticipants could consult the instructors and support staﬀ members for advice andassistance on their concerns and project ideas. This allowed us to provide participants
with individualized assistance and learning experiences.
The profile of participants has also changed over the nine years. In the early years
of DocLing, participants were mostly graduate students in descriptive linguistics from
Tokyo and its surrounding areas. However, the range of participants the workshop
attracts has broadened significantly since then. Now we regularly receive inquiries

8Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

and applications not only from all over Japan but also from other parts of the world.
Moreover, the composition of participants is much more diverse, including dialect study
researchers, sociolinguists, linguistic anthropologists, ethnographers, and language
activists. We also have had “repeaters” who came back to participate in the workshop
multiple times.
4. Impact

Nine years ago, we set out to create DocLing with the goal of raising the profile ofnewly growing documentary linguistic research and to provide training opportunities
and a place to get connected to other researchers with similar orientations. Although it
is not easy to trace the exact amount of progress, it seems safe to say that we have madegood progress toward these goals.
During these nine years, we trained about 150 participants. Many participantsfrom the early years hold academic positions, and now their students have started toparticipate in the workshop. Participants are sometimes asked to oﬀer a short workshop
or lecture on documentary linguistic methodology. Thus, the benefits of the workshop
are reaching beyond the participants themselves. Now the terms “documentarylinguistics” or “language documentation” are commonly heard in conversation between
researchers on fieldwork-based linguistics, especially those working on endangered
languages and dialects. DocLing must have played a meaningful, if not exclusive, rolein bringing about this situation.
The more tangible impact is felt in the changes in us. When we started organizing
DocLing, we at ILCAA did not have the knowledge and abilities necessary for oﬀeringsuch workshop ourselves, and we had to rely on assistance and cooperation from Peter
Austin and David Nathan on all aspects of the workshop. Through the nine years
of DocLing, we have accumulated enough expertise to provide our own services andcontributions: holding a number of language documentation workshops in Indonesia
and Russia; organizing the Documentary Linguistics Seminar for the University ofHong Kong; organizing the Language Documentation Workshop for Japanese dialect
researchers in collaboration with the National Institute for Japanese Language andLinguistics; and participating in training activities at international workshops such as
the Institute on Field Linguistics and Language Documentation and the Institute on
Collaborative Language Research.
5. The future

The DocLing workshop series has been a great success, and we think that wehave achieved good results, especially in regard to improving researchers’ capabilities.
However, there are some limitations to the current form of the workshop. The
most important among them is the limitation with regard to making a direct impact

Nakayama, Toshihide: Documentary Linguistics Workshop: Its beginning, development, and future9

on language documentation and revitalization activities in endangered language
communities. This is an important issue, especially now that the focus of the host
project, LingDy, has been shifted to capacity building in language communities.
We are now making a great deal of eﬀort to collaborate with other institutions
and with speaker communities to extend training opportunities to other parts of theworld, especially to endangered language communities. The traditions of the DocLing
workshop are being carried over into the new era.

References
Austin, Peter K. 2014. “Language documentation in the 21st century”. LIPP 3. pp.57–71.
Grenoble, Lenore. 2010. “Language documentation and field linguistics: The state of the field”. In Lenore A.
Grenoble and N. Louanna Furbee (eds.) Language Documentation: Practice and values. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company. pp.289–309.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1998. “Documentary and descriptive linguistics”. Linguistics 36. pp.161–195.
———. 2006. “Language documentation: What is it and what is it good for?”. In Jost Gippert, Nikolaus P.
Himmelmann and Ulrike Mosel (eds.) Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
pp.1–30.
Nakayama, Toshihide. 2007. “Using written records to revitalize North American languages”. In Osahito Miyaoka,
Osamu Sakiyama and Michael Krauss (eds.) The Vanishing Languages of the Pacific Rim. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. pp.91–106.

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics No.11, 2017

Reflecting and Shaping the Evolution of Documentary Linguistics:
Nine Years of DocLing Workshops
Nathan, David
Groote Eylandt Language Centre

Jukes, Anthony
University of the South Pacific, FijiThis paper discusses the evolution of the Documentary Linguistics Workshop (DocLing)
organized by the Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa(ILCAA) at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. Held annually from 2008 to
2016, DocLing introduced nearly 200 students to the theory and methods of language
documentation and made a unique contribution to the teaching of field linguistics
in Japan, and to work on endangered and minority languages more generally. Thechanging nature of the workshops over time reflected changes in focus in the discourse
surrounding language documentation.

Keywords: language documentation, training, ILCAA

1. Origins of the workshop
2. The early workshops
3. Social program
4. Staﬀ
5. Group projects
6. Impacts and outcomes

1. Origins of the workshop

The DocLing workshops arose from an initiative of Dr. Toshihide Nakayama at
ILCAA who recognised that there were many young linguistics scholars in Japan who
were undertaking ambitious and widely ranging fieldwork on endangered and minority
languages, but who were receiving little or no formal training explicitly aimed at
equipping them for modern fieldwork in documenting such languages (see Nakayama,
this volume). This paper gives an overview of nine annual cohorts of these linguists andtheir projects, and the evolution of an innovative training curriculum and methods thatwere significantly shaped by the responses and unique needs of these researchers, atNathan, David and Jukes, Anthony. 2017. “Reflecting and shaping the evolution of documentary linguistics: Nine
years of DocLing Workshops”. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11. pp.11–22. [Permanent URL:
http://hdl.handle.net/10108/89204]

12

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

the same time as the field of language documentation itself was developing at its most
rapid pace.
Dr. Nakayama initially called on the expertise of Professor Peter K. Austin andDavid Nathan, both alumni of ILCAA from the 1990s, but more importantly who were
key trainers in the Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project (HRELP) at SOAS
University of London. HRELP brought together a postgraduate academic programin Language Documentation and Description under the leadership of Peter Austin(ELAP), a digital language archive led by David Nathan (ELAR), and a granting
program ELDP, together constituting the world’s largest assemblage of activity andinnovation on documenting endangered languages for the decade from 2003 onwards.
At SOAS, Nathan and Austin realised that the potential of combining the intellectual
foundations and teaching experience of the academic program, the technical andmethodological strengths of the archive team, and the fostering of documenters throughthe granting program - all with significant international linkages and collaborations would provide the ideal platform for training a “new breed” of language documenters.
This also paralleled developments elsewhere such as the USA-based summer school
InField which also had a significant focus on documenting endangered languages.
Austin and Nathan, together with others in their teams and external guest experts,
developed and ran the ELDP grantee training sessions in London from 2004 onwards,
held once or twice a year for groups of 15–20, typically organised by the ELAR archive
team under the auspices of ELDP.
This depth and breadth of experience seemed to meet the goals of Dr. Nakayama.
While ILCAA has its main strength in field research across Asia, the SOAS teambrought experience in teaching and training, as well as a certain international
perspective (since it seems fair to say that some parts of Japanese academia aresomewhat insular). And of course they also brought their already developed training
curricula, materials, and methods. Additionally, both Austin and Nathan had someexperience living in Japan and working in Japanese universities and with Japanese
students.1
2. The early workshops

The first DocLing workshop took place over 4 days from 14–17 February 2008. It
largely followed the model of the HRELP workshops, with this simple program (seebelow), where Day 1 introduced notions of language documentation, a practice largely
unknown in Japan at the time, Day 2 focused on audio and related techniques and1Austin studied Japanese at the Australian National University in the 1970s. Later, Austin held a post of Visiting
Foreign Professor at ILCAA in 1996–1997. Nathan also held a post of Visiting Foreign Professor at ILCAA in
1997–1998. Nathan subsequently was Foreign Professor at the University of Tsukuba from 2002–2004. Anthony
Jukes who joined the team later also had some experience in Japan and had learned Japanese at the University of
Melbourne.

Nathan and Jukes: Reflecting and shaping the evolution of documentary linguistics

13

technologies, Day 3 on data management and linguistic annotation and processing,while Day 4 covered a variety of associated topics that were treated, at the time, as lesscore to the values and methodologies of documentary linguistics.
Thursday 14

Friday 15

Saturday 16

Sunday 17

Visiting lecturers
meet the students

Audio principles

Grant writing OR
Mobilisation

Defining
documentation;thedocumentation
process
Corpus creationForm
work-groups

Audio practicalDatamanagement& formats
Data practical;
metadata

ToolboxDictionaries(advanced
Toolbox &Lexique Pro)

Archiving
Wrap upTranscriber
Audio evaluation& discussion

Ethics & IP

As the courses evolved, planning took into account the opportunities as well as theconstraints of holding them at ILCAA in Tokyo. Through the lifespan of the courses, weenjoyed the very capable support from the LingDy oﬃce for the logistics of advertising
for and screening candidates, organising travel and accommodation, arranging welcome
and other social events, and booking rooms.
There was initially very little training equipment, which, we learned, was due to aquite diﬀerent approach to equipping researchers for fieldwork in Japan vs that withwhich we were familiar with in the UK and elsewhere. While the typical UK-based
postgraduate student would generally rely on their department or funding source toprovide field equipment, we learned that equivalent Japanese students had to find theirown means and equipment, and we heard more than once of students who had worked
in fast food restaurants to save up to buy their own audio recorders, laptops and otherfield equipment. In turn, this meant that their equipment was not always optimallychosen, nor was training and support available for its use - a situation amplified by thegenerally individualistic and solitary research practices typical of Japanese academia.
This meant that for the earlier workshops, we needed to transport rather large cases oftraining equipment from London, although by mid-way through the series, ILCAA had
acquired their own excellent range of equipment. Thus, and still focusing on the audio
component, while for students at our UK and European workshops, sessions on audio
tended to set high challenges for participants in terms of understanding microphone
attributes and psychoacoustics, those at DocLing seemed to oﬀer many participants

14

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

starker revelations about the possibility of selecting diﬀerent microphones.
On the other hand, the individualistic nature of Japanese scholarship meant thatstudents tended to be more self-reliant than comparable UK students, and as a result
it very quickly became routine that participants would turn up to the courses with theirown fieldwork kit, even if with limited training in its use.
One of ILCAA’s goals in establishing DocLing was to give Japanese participants theopportunity of exposure to international trends and practices, and in the second course,
in 2009, this was expanded though establishing an open public lecture as a flagship partof the training event. In 2009, David Nathan gave the first such lecture, based on his
team’s work in London, Archiving endangered language materials.
The 9 year span of DocLing was a hefty portion of the timespan over whichdocumentary linguistics itself developed, and the evolution of DocLing itself provided
a microcosm of that development.
3. Social program

The DocLing workshops had a number of social aspects. Although they brought
together mainly Japanese participants, these came from various universities acrossJapan, and, in addition, there was a regular sprinkling of participants from othercountries such as China, Finland, France, Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Mongolia, Myanmar,
Russia (including Republic of Buryatia and Tuvan Republic), Taiwan, USA, Ukraine,and Vietnam. The LingDy oﬃce typically organised welcoming events and aworkshop-final party. The increasing emphasis on group work (see Section 5)
encouraged participants to get to know each other, share experiences, meet andwork outside the formal workshop hours, and to keep in contact afterwards. Someparticipants went on to enrol in courses at Peter and David’s university, several
undertook some kinds of ongoing collaboration, and many are still contacts via social
media such as Facebook. However, the workshops’ greatest social accomplishment isthat they introduced two people (one as participant, another as group consultant/leader)
who subsequently married and have had (so far) two children.
4. Staff

Staﬃng of the workshops grew steadily. Initially the workshops were taught
exclusively by Peter Austin and David Nathan. They were capably supported by several
ILCAA staﬀ, including Hideo Sawada, Toshihide Nakayama, and the LingDy oﬃce
headed by secretary Sachiko Yoshida. In 2010, Anthony Jukes, then at La Trobe
University, joined the “permanent” team bringing his various skills including fieldwork
methodology, linguistic software, media production and a variety of Indonesiancontacts. Then in 2013, especially in the context of growing collaboration withIndonesian colleagues, Sonja Riesberg (Cologne University) joined the team and addedNathan and Jukes: Reflecting and shaping the evolution of documentary linguistics

15

strong experience in remote fieldwork, community-oriented research, and linguistic
analysis and corpus creation.
The ILCAA Japanese staﬀ also gradually joined the teaching eﬀort over the
project lifetime, with Hideo Sawada adding sessions on the use of photography inlanguage documentation, Toshihide Nakayama on documenting conversations andHonoré Watanabe on fieldwork techniques. Finally, the workshop also occasionally
included some ‘guest’ presenters, including Nikolaus Himmelmann, John Bowden, Iku
Nagasaki, and Anna Berge.
5. Group projects

The most unique aspects of the workshop series were the increasing emphasison group work, the facilitation of that group work by language specialists, and theevolution of the group activities from year to year. The idea of using groups as alocus of learning is not, of course new, and was already a core part of the training
practice at HRELP and elsewhere. However, it is not merely a stereotype that inJapanese academia, people typically tend to work and study in solitary ways. While it isbeyond the scope of this article to speculate how such solitary ways fit with a Japanese
ethnography, a majority of our participants consistently reported that they had neverbefore engaged in group activities, despite many of them being postgraduate students
and academic staﬀ. Group work started tentatively in the first couple of years, more orless as an experiment. David in particular was a driver for this work, drawing on his
experience a few years earlier as an English professor at Tsukuba University, and manytechniques he learnt from a high-impact teacher of Mandarin Chinese, Dr. Meili Fang.
Several if these techniques involved providing the right balance between motivation,
instruction, and theatrics in order to catalyse participation against the background ofJapanese reticence to hold forth “deru kui wa utareru”.
In earlier workshops, group activities were rather like university linguistics Field
Methods sessions. Group activities were preceded by formal classroom sessions on
language documentation methods and tools (recording and software). Then, groups of 3
to 5 participants were each assigned a speaker of a language unknown to the participants(in the earlier years, these were mostly Mongolian speakers who were students at Tokyo
University of Foreign Studies), and the groups attempted to “document” some feature(s)of their consultant’s language using the methods and tools they were exposed to in the
more formal sessions.
Over the workshop series, we made several changes to this basic structure. Firstly,
we made the group sessions more task- and outcome-based, so that the last afternoon
was devoted to group presentations of their findings. We refined this to make the group
activities more explicitly in the style of projects, so that groups were asked to prepareplans, negotiate roles, and present their plans to the class, thus providing a broader
experience of working in teams. In fact, many of the participants reported in their

16

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

evaluations that this team-based work was not only their first experience of such activity
but also the most stimulating, valuable and transforming aspect of the workshops (forexamples of participant feedback, see the final section of this paper).
The next refinements, following trends in language documentation through thelate 2000s, were to swing the major emphasis away from the more descriptive andformal linguistic side of documentation to more community-contextualised, humanisticand holistic approach to language documentation. We set this path through two
mechanisms: firstly, by changing the roles and relationships with the groups’ language
consultants, and secondly by setting requirements on the group project goals. By 2012,
the LingDy project was increasing its links with Indonesian linguists, and we were
fortunate to have a cohort of four such linguists who could play the role of consultants
to the groups. However, together with these linguists, we decided to adopt a kindof realpolitik, such that rather than ”pretend” to be naive language consultants, theselinguists would work with groups not only as language speakers but also as experts on
their communities’ language needs and contexts, and indeed as group leaders rather
than servants of the groups. In addition, we prescribed that each group’s project should
include a community-oriented aspect, along a sociolinguistic, pedagogical, advocacy,or ethnolinguistic theme.
The teaching staﬀ also provided assistance to the groups, as facilitators. In
some cases, teachers were assigned to groups in order to provide particular skills tocomplement the groups’ project goals. For example, those with an emphasis on video
generally had access to Anthony Jukes who has experience with video; those who weredeveloping websites had the assistance of David Nathan who is an experienced web
developer.
Here is a description of the group work as presented to participants in the DocLing
Handbook 2016:
Practical group projects are an important part of the workshop. They provide
a way to embed practical, specific, advanced techniques in a practical, holistic
activity. Course participants work together in their group, with a consultant andstaﬀ, to practise and to further develop the skills covered in the formal sessions.
Project work focuses on exploring language documentation through:• roles and skills in group work• planning in relation to documentation contexts and goals• understanding workflow and documenting decisions• collaboratively working towards concrete outcomes
Each group will give a public presentation describing their methods andpresenting their documentation outcomes.

Nathan and Jukes: Reflecting and shaping the evolution of documentary linguistics

17

Groups will consist of approx 4 participants. Each group will be allocated alanguage consultant, and a staﬀ member. The consultant will assist and advise
the groups on language and community aspects, and the staﬀ member will act
as a mentor and help with skills. Each group will work to a specific theme, suchas documenting a linguistic genre or feature, designing pedagogical materials,
planning a project grant application, writing a sociolinguistic description etc.
On the final day of the workshop, each group gives a public presentation about
their planning, activities, decisions, outcomes, problems, and potential futurework.
The central role of group work can be seen in the program for DocLing 2016, whichspanned 6 days (8–13 February). Group work related sessions fill 12 of the 24 session
slots.
10:00–11:20
Introduction
to language
documentation(PA)

11:40–13:00
14:00–15:20
Methods, materials & genres(SR, JB, TN)

Tue

Ethics (PA)Data management & archiving(lecture & practical) (DN)

Wed

Audio (AJ, DN)

Software (PA)Thu

Still andGroup clinic
moving image(topics as(HS, AJ) &required)
discussion
Discussion
Group clinic
forum (topics as
documentation
required)theory &methods
Group work: finalise products andpresentations

Mon

Fri

Sat

15:40–17:00
Mobilisation:
audience
research &design (DN,
AJ)
Group projects
startup: assign
groups, themes,
consultants,
mentors
Group work plan & report

Discussion
forum - roles,
languages &communities
Group work (facilitated)

Group work (facilitated)

Group project presentations,
Closing session

18

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

As a result of this evolution, the workshops increasingly resulted in group projects
completing resources that were of enduring and shareable value, and several of themwere published on the web. Several examples can be seen at http://www.el-training.org/outcomes/index.php#docling2015 and http://www.el-training.org/outcomes/index.php#docling2016.
A feature of the group work component was the afternoon of final presentations,
held on the final afternoon of the workshop. The afternoon consisted of presentations
from each group. Each group member was expected to contribute to the presentation,and the aims of the presentation were for the group to explain their plans, methods,
diﬃculties faced, and to demonstrate the outcomes of their group sessions. More
broadly, our motivations for requiring presentations were to (a) amplify the learningby sharing experiences and outcomes across all groups, (b) emphasise that language
documentation and working with communities had broader practical applications andoutcomes than narrow linguistic description and analysis, and (c) to round out the (formany) unique experience for Japanese scholars of working in collaboration and public
speaking.
The presentation afternoons tended to take on a slightly festive atmosphere, fed by
the adrenalin of working to a deadline and presenting in public and on occasion, tothe culmination of groups’ rather intense interactions over the week and impending
departure, and some theatrics on the part of the teaching staﬀ.
Another factor that made the workshops exciting was that, since the courses wererather autonomous, and not part of any accredited or mandated curriculum, we could
experiment with content and activity structures. For example, in 2012, we ran an“experimental” group activity stream as a kind of distributed corpus preparation.
Each group elicited and documented some language material, and in addition were
tasked with negotiating and co-operating with other groups in order to understandthe structural conventions and data management used by other groups so that they
could interchange and combine the materials created by each individual group. Finalpresentations involved each group presenting the way that they had combined all thematerials of the other groups with their own. The presentations were both impressive
and diverse, with diﬀerent but valid and creative approaches taken by each group.
The final DocLing saw a further development in the complementarity between theformal teaching sessions and the group work. In line with some trends in language
documentation away from narrow emphasis on technical linguistic description andanalysis, particularly a near-obsession with morphologically glossed written text, we
decided to drop the formal sessions on some software tools (such as ELAN, Toolbox),
and rather facilitate skills in these tools within the group work for those groups whose
projects utilised them. In a small way, this change might be taken to represent thecompletion in a generational cycle of thinking about language documentation practice,
evolving it from a bolting-on of some humanistic aspects (e.g. ethics, advocacy,pedagogy) to “classic” linguistic description and analysis, to a set of practices moreNathan and Jukes: Reflecting and shaping the evolution of documentary linguistics

19

truly committed to responding to language endangerment.
6. Impacts and outcomes

Finally, after the conclusion of the workshop series, we are left to consider the
impact and outcomes of the workshops. Perhaps the most revealing perspectives arethose of the participants themselves, and we begin this section with selections from thefeedback that we received from participants. The DocLing team emphasised continual
improvement through seeking feedback from participants, both through discussion
during the final wrap-up session, and follow-up surveys.2
Participants let us know about specific things they had valued learning, especiallythose which they had previously struggled with:“I learned diﬀerences between language archiving and descriptive linguistics,
whereas both of them compliment each other”“I always have a problem with data management. Attending the lectures help
me to solve my problem”
They frequently noted topics and concepts that were quite new to them. One
frequently occurring feedback item was about the participants’ previous unfamiliarity
with all aspects of audio recording and their surprise at how much they had gained fromlearning about it:“Before attending the work shop I only focused on recording necessary
materials since I recognized audio data as merely an option to carry out
descriptive language; however, I learned that it is very important to focus ona good sound quality as well”
And other ‘discoveries’:“It was new to know that there is no such thing like an “idealistic
documentation””“An idea about finding supporters after making the locals understand what the
researcher does in the field was very new to me”“Although I was not interested in creating materials for language education,
I found out it was more exciting than I thought and I discovered I can create
educational materials that can be used by others”
Some very useful feedback let us know how eﬀective (or ineﬀective) our teaching
was:“I think the ethical issues are really diﬃcult to deal with because we have tolearn legal issues to clarify the problems. However I could enjoy learning this2

Note that we have lightly edited some of the feedback responses to improve readability.

20

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

topic because it was more like a quiz program. I think it is an interesting andprobably the best way to learn each case. It was a lot of fun”
“I was glad to learn little about XML. The demonstration about making xml
files on excel was very easy to understand”
The most enthusiastic comments were about group project work, in particular
because it was often a novel or even first experience of collaboration for Japanese
students and researchers:“Group discussion was a good training for us because we could learn so manythings from each other, which was a refreshing experience”“It was a great experience to listen to the presentation of other groups in termsof being able to learn the way to approach each issue from diﬀerent aspects”“I thought it would be so fantastic if I could work with my teammates when I
actually work on archiving everyday!”“This was the best part. I had to come to terms with my weakness, realized
how group projects are productive, stimulating and challenging. More could
have been done but it’s not easy to be perfectly coordinated with people you justmet a few days before. Overall, I learnt a lot from all the participants. This is a
rewarding experience personally and professionally”“The highlight of this workshop is the project work”“It is the most enjoyable part of this workshop. We are very lucky to have great
consultants, and also we are happy to be a team with other students”
And of course for some, group work presented new challenges:“The diﬃculties in making communications internationally with people who
do not have same mother tongue”
Some comments noted that previous suggestions for improvement that had beenaddressed:“Since I participated in the previous DocLing 2011, I found the lecturers
improved the direction of the project work. Last year the participants had tostart from choosing topics and we had too many things to manage. However, thisyear the topic was already given and it was clear what to record, so we could
concentrate on recording and data management”
Participants frequently expressed wishes for more hands-on time:“Lectures were great but I would like to have a more time for practicalsessions”
Some expressed deeper wisdoms and transformations:“I knew that the technical methods of documentation are important so at first I

Nathan and Jukes: Reflecting and shaping the evolution of documentary linguistics

21

thought this workshop could be a good opportunity for me to learn how to record
the language. However, it was a great discovery for me to know that it’s much
more important to understand what for we are recording the language”“And the fact, or point of view, that language documentation and language
description is not separate but connected was very interesting and enlightening
for me. I think from my mind that it was very important step for me to haveattended this seminar”
Very encouraging resolutions were made:“In order to make a first step for managing data, I am going to organize mymetadata”
Some feedback was disarmingly frank, perhaps illustrating diﬀerences between
Japanese and western cultural and expected teaching styles:“[following] my first experience of fieldwork, it was so instructive that I
reflected my failures and learned important lessons. For example audio qualityand detailed metadata are quite important. If I failed them, the irreplaceable
materials would be lost. Especially when You Mr. Nathan told me face to facethat the MP3 data I have was awfully bad and you looked a little angry aboutthat recording, I felt my responsibility as a linguist by actual meaning. I will pay
much more attention to record the sound materials with the best quality I can. I
won’t forget to write metadata”
Overall, feedback indicated a very high level of satisfaction with content, delivery
and their learning, and especially appreciative of teacher input, possibly because that is
a less frequent phenomenon in Japan:“The advisers who had continuously supported our groupwork were great andkind. They are experts and continuously oﬀered us the knowledge and skills tosolve with the problems we faced. They helped us experiencing each activity
regarding documentation and fieldwork. I would like to express my gratitude
and appreciation for their support”
Other measures of impact relate to the sheer reach of the workshops. Participants,
although largely Japanese, also came from a range of other countries including Korea,
China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Russia, Mongolia, Ukraine, Finland, France, Indonesia,
Italy, Tuvan Republic, and the USA. And these participants were working on aneven wider range of languages, including various Japanese dialects, Ainu, Ryukyuan,
Uilta (Russia), Southern Min (China, Taiwan), Tibetan, Bende (Tanzania), Yakut(Russia), Mongolian, Korean, Persian, Basque (France), Kurdish, Turkmen, Coptic(Egypt), Swahili (Tanzania), Urdu (Pakistan), Dhivehi (Maldives), Roma (Czech),
Breton (France) and several Indonesian languages.

22

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

The research and careers of many participants were aided by the workshops. For
example, Robert Laub went on to complete his MA in Language Documentation and
Description at SOAS University of London; Anna Bugaeva became a recipient of
ELDP funding for documentation of Ainu language and collaborative project with theEndangered Languages Archive; and Michinori Shimoji went on to further document
Ryukyuan languages. Those who participated as consultants also reported many
positive outcomes, not just the chance to visit Tokyo (for some Indonesian visitors theirfirst time to see snow) but also to learn more about their own languages, to learn theskills of language documentation, and to build links and friendships with the students
and LingDy staﬀ (see Yanti, this volume).
More broadly, the workshops cemented and initiated collaborations between ILCAA
and other institutions, for example with SOAS University of London, and also with
the University of Hong Kong, which has now seen a number of exchange events with
the LingDy project. Many of the Indonesian consultants also played central roles inorganizing the LingDy workshops across Indonesia which grew out of DocLing (seeJukes and Shiohara, this volume).
There are, of course, also some enduring teaching materials, most of which have been
made public via the web. Several of these can be found at the following locations:• http://lingdy.aacore.jp/en/activity/docling.html• http://www.el-training.org/courses/docling/2016/• http://www.el-training.org/courses/docling/2015/
And especially the participants’ group work outcomes:• http://www.el-training.org/outcomes/index.php#docling2015• http://www.el-training.org/outcomes/index.php#docling2016
In the final years of the workshops, David and Anthony prepared handbooks forparticipants, elaborating on the program, content of sessions, links to further reading,and in particular with more detailed information about the group projects. These
handbooks also help to leave a documented legacy of the workshops. But far more
importantly, as a result of the DocLing workshops nearly 200 scholars have become
wiser and better equipped for the important task of documenting endangered languages
throughout the world.

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics No.11, 2017

Language Documentation and Legacy Text Materials
Austin, Peter K.
Linguistics Department, SOAS

For projects interested in documenting, describing or revitalizing languages, especiallyendangered languages, historically existing materials (whether digital or analog) liketape recordings made in earlier times or written materials collected years or evencenturies ago may exist and may represent important sources of information, indeed,in some cases, the only information available. Making use of legacy text material raises
many challenges that need to be confronted if we wish to include it in a corpus or totreat it along with other contemporary data. There are practical, technical, contextual,ethical, and political issues that legacy materials raise, and many questions which it
may be diﬃcult or even impossible to answer. There are also many opportunities to
add value to legacy materials using documentary linguistics methods. We discuss andexemplify these throughout this paper. A conclusion that can be drawn from this workis that creating good metadata and meta-documentation for current written materials canpotentially reduce legacy data problems for future researchers compared to the issues
that we face today.

Keywords: language documentation, legacy text materials, metadata, meta-documentation, archiving

Preamble
1. Introduction
2. Form, content and context issues
3. Stakeholder issues
4. Conclusions

PreambleThis paper arises from teaching materials developed for sessions on data managementfor DocLing training courses at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies and is intended
for beginning researchers to alert them to some of the challenges around working
with legacy text sources and how documentary linguistics methods can be applied toconfront these challenges and add value to such material. In some situations there may
be no living speakers of the language recorded in such sources and legacy materials
are all that exist; if processed and analysed well they can play an important role inlanguage reclamation and revitalisation (see, for example, Amery 2000; Baldwin et al.
Austin, Peter K. 2017. “Language documentation and legacy text materials”. Asian and African Languages and
Linguistics 11. pp.23–44. [Permanent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/89205]

24

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

2016, 2017; Costa 2003, 2015; Giacon and Lowe 2016). The present paper expands on
the training handouts and adds further examples and references to relevant literature.1
1. Introduction

Over the past 20 years a new area of research on human language called Language
Documentation (or Documentary Linguistics) has developed, drawing on ideas fromlinguistics, anthropology, verbal arts, information science, media and recording arts,
ethnoscience and other areas (Austin 2010, 2016; Himmelmann 1998, 2006; Lehmann2001; Woodbury 2003, 2011). In his seminal article on the field, Himmelmann(1998: 161) presented its main goal as ‘to provide a comprehensive record of thelinguistic practices characteristic of a given speech community’. Himmelmann (2006:v) restated this as concerning ‘the methods, tools, and theoretical underpinnings forcompiling a representative and lasting multipurpose record of a natural language
or one of its varieties’, while Woodbury (2011: 159) gives a similar definition:‘language documentation is the creation, annotation, preservation and disseminationof transparent records of a language’. This approach emphasizes transparency andmultifunctionality, as well as ethical engagement with a wide range of stakeholders,
including speech community members. Himmelmann (1998: 161) also argued that
language documentation ‘diﬀers fundamentally from... language description [which]aims at the record of a language... as a system of abstract elements, constructions, andrules’. This view is critically discussed in Austin and Grenoble (2005) who argue thatsuch a strong distinction is not useful or desirable.
Most of the theoretical and practical work on language documentation to date
has tended to assume implicitly that it deals with audio-visual and textual datacollected at the present time, and has not paid much attention to historicallyexisting materials (whether digital or analog) like tape recordings made in earlier
times or written materials collected years or even centuries ago (an exception isHimmelmann 2012 which discusses various data types). I will refer to such information
sources as legacy material or legacy data in the discussion which follows, andconcentrate on written textual materials in particular (what Himmelmann 2012 calls‘original written document[s]’, which he considers to be raw data2 ). Pre-existingaudio-visual recordings present many challenges to language documenters, including
issues of digitisation, transcription, interpretation and contextualisation.3 For example,
1

Thanks to Lyle Campbell, Lisa Conathan, David J. Costa, Lise Dobrin, Andrew Garrett, Anthony Jukes, Susan
Smythe Kung, David Nathan, Gabriela Perez-Baez, Anthony C. Woodbury and two anonymous reviewers fordiscussion and comments on earlier versions. I am also grateful to Lauren Gawne, Cristina Muru, Julia Sallabank
and Candide Simard for feedback on a workshop presentation of some of this material at SOAS, 20 February 2017.
None of these scholars can be held responsible for errors in the use of their feedback.
2
The notion of ‘raw’ here is problematic as some, perhaps much, legacy written material is ‘processed’ in various
ways, ranging from transcription and/or translation to full grammatical analysis (see examples in sections 2.1, 2.3
below).
3
Many thanks to Lise Dobrin for discussion of these points.

Austin, Peter K.: Language documentation and legacy text materials

25

digitisation problems may include dealing with mould on old tapes or the diﬃcultyof finding machines which are able to play obsolescent formats like Hi8 video or
minidisk audio. Specialist organisations such as Paradisec4 , the Phonogramarchivof the Austrian Academy of Sciences5 or the British Library Sound Archive6 are set
up to deal with tasks like cleaning the carriers, providing equipment, and digitisingsuch material. Diﬃculties of transcription and translation can include being able tocomprehend the speaker(s) and/or language in the recordings, diﬀerences between
contemporary language use and that in the legacy recordings, mismatches between
transcriptions and translations (if they exist) and what is in the recording (see Mosel
2014), and lack of suﬃcient background information to be able to make sense of thecontent and/or context. Fuller discussion of these issues in relation to audio or video
recordings is beyond the scope of this paper, and I will concentrate on text materials
only in the following.
Legacy text material raises many challenges that need to be confronted if we wish
to include it in a documentary corpus or to treat it together with other contemporary
data.7 There are practical, technical, ethical, and political issues that legacy materials
raise, and many questions which it may be diﬃcult or even impossible to answer.
There are also many opportunities to add value to legacy materials using documentarylinguistics methods. We discuss and exemplify these below. When adding value tolegacy materials, it is important to distinguish between adding structure (categories,
entities, relationships), adding content, and adding format. Note that explicit andwell-structured data (e.g. stored in a database, or marked up in extensible markup
language (XML)) can have format added computationally, and also lends itself torepurposing for other uses and/or other users than the immediately intended audience(and so can be multifunctional, as language documentation proposes), see Gippert(2006: 358–361) and section 2.1 below for discussion and exemplification.
To make sense of legacy materials it is essential to explore the socio-cultural andhistorical context of the documents and their creation, including the biography of theauthor(s), especially what prior language knowledge and/or study and/or exposure they
had, who their teachers/mentors/correspondents were, how long they worked on thelanguage and at what point in their careers, how the work was funded and with whatgoals, whether there were previous studies of the language or the community that they
could have had access to, and so on.8 It is also important to explore aspects of thehistorical period during which the materials were created in terms of the kind andimpact of contact between communities, including colonialists, and what descriptive
categories and formats would have been known and might have influenced the author(s),4

See http://www.paradisec.org.au/, accessed on 2017-04-06.
See http://www.phonogrammarchiv.at/wwwnew/, accessed on 2017-04-07.
6
See https://www.bl.uk/subjects/sound, accessed on 2017-04-07 and Copeland (2008).
7
See Goddard (1973) for discussion.
8
An example of this kind of detailed exploration is Silverstein (2015) on the historical development of Franz Boas’
fieldwork methodology and products.
5

26

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

e.g. traditional grammar based on Latin or Greek models. For further discussion see
section 2.4 below.
In the following sections we discuss and exemplify some of the issues to be
confronted when working with legacy text materials in terms of formal, analytical,
stakeholder and ethical matters.
2. Form, content and context issues9

In this section we discuss some of the challenges raised by the form, content, context
and analysis of the written documents.
2.1. Issues with the form of the originalReading and interpreting handwritten texts can be problematic as it can be diﬃcult
to deal with cursive writing and especially old writing styles that are no longer in use.
The study and interpretation of old handwriting is called paleography, however mostof the training material readily available on it10 focuses on reading medieval or latermanuscripts in European languages and there is nothing that I have been able to locate
on reading other sources, especially non-Western materials.
An example of challenging linguistic materials is Figure 1 which is an extract fromthe Diyari grammar of Flierl (1880) where the grammatical explanation uses an archaic
German script (the Diyari words are in regular Roman script).

Fig. 1 Diyari Grammar extract from Flierl (1880), from Stockigt (2016: 80)

Sometimes, documents are written in non-Roman scripts such as ideographic or
syllabic characters or phonetic scripts. Interpreting the symbols used in a document
9

See also Bowern (2003) for examples of some of the topics covered here. Andrew Garrett (p.c., 2010-02-05) notesthat similar issues of interpretation can arise with contemporary ‘born digital’ data, and are not restricted to legacy
materials in the sense intended here.
10
For example the online course at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/palaeography/, accessed on 2017-04-09.

Austin, Peter K.: Language documentation and legacy text materials

27

and mapping them to a modern form can be problematic. Campbell et al. (2015: 23)
describe representational problems in the analysis of documents on Uralic languages:
much documentation was written in inaccessible transcriptions, often written
phonetically (not phonemically) in the Finno-Ugric Transcription System, also
known as the Uralic Phonetic Alphabet (UPA). It is important to note that thephonemic principle did not come into force until around 1930 or later. While
the UPA is established among Uralic scholars, materials originally rendered inclose phonetic transcription in this notation are formidable even for scholars
accustomed to the UPA, and far worse still, are intimidating to the point ofuselessness for speakers of the languages transcribed
An example of this presented by Campbell et al. (2015: 23) is given in Figure 2.

Fig. 2 Transcription in Uralic Phonetic Alphabet of the Kamassian spoken by
Klavdija Plotnikova, transcribed by Ago Künnap in 1964. (Posti and Itkonen 1973:89)

Another example of the transcription is a Saami paradigm for the word for ‘fish’ in
Figure 3 from the website of the 3rd Sami Linguistics Symposium:11

11

See http://www.frias.uni-freiburg.de/de/veranstaltungen/frias-tagungen/saals-3-3rd-saami-linguistic-symposium,
accessed on 2017-05-17.

28

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Fig. 3 Pite Saami noun paradigm by Israel Ruong, archived at Institutet för språk
och folkminnen, Uppsala.

Dobrin (p.c., 2017-05-11) gives a diﬀerent example of problematic source materials
for the Papuan language Arapesh:
The earliest Arapesh grammar was published in the journal Anthropos (Andreas
Gerstner’s Grammatik der Alubänsprache [Nordküste von Neuguinea]). It used
the most bizarre notation for vowels, which I later learned was their standard
house style. The only reason I could make sense of it was that it was modelledon the customary Massoretic pointillation of Hebrew.
The huge corpus of materials in the Meskwaki language spoken in Wisconsin, USA,is written in a unique syllabic script called papepipo which ‘has a basic matrix of
48 syllables, comprising four vowels by themselves and compound characters for 11
consonant symbols combined with four vowel symbols’ (Goddard 1996: 117).
These examples illustrate that sources need to be studied closely and that there may
be diﬀerent issues and problems to be faced depending on the particular situation.
Interpretation of document orthography and spelling of a given language may require
philological and linguistic training to be able to analyse the original and map it to amodern phonetic or phonological representation (see Broadbent 1957; Crowley andAustin 2005; Koch 2011). Austin (2008) discusses problems with the interpretationof William Ridley’s 19th century publications on the Gamilaraay language of New
South Wales, Australia. Ridley marks vowels in this language with or without amacron (e.g. ā versus a), however this is ambiguous and can represent vowel length

Austin, Peter K.: Language documentation and legacy text materials

29

and/or stress. Issues that arise in reading and interpreting the corpus of Meskwaki havebeen discussed in Goddard (1996) and Bear and Thomason (2011) (see also Dahlstrom2015). Bear and Thomason (2011) note the following:
Meskwaki papepipo is adapted to be wonderfully easy to write. It is muchharder to read. Papepipo omits vowel length, the consonant ‘h’, and nearly
all punctuation. This means that spoken Meskwaki has eight distinct vowels,
but papepipo writes only four vowels; spoken Meskwaki has eleven distinct
consonants, but papepipo writes only ten consonants; spoken Meskwaki has
29 distinct consonant clusters, but papepipo writes only 16 consonant clusters.
As a result, there is a great deal of educated guesswork involved in transcribing
papepipo into fully phonemicized words, phrases, and sentences. The edited
and translated text of ‘Skunk and Grizzly Bear’ should be taken provisionallyand read critically: there may be mistakes or infelicities in Y[oung] B[ear]’s
original papepipo, in L[ucy] T[homason]’s reading of the papepipo, in L[ucy]T[homason]’s choices regarding phonemicization, word breaks, and sentence
breaks, and in L[ucy] T[homason]’s choices regarding Meskwaki-to-English
translation.
Goddard (p.c., 2017-05-26) notes that in his current work on an edition of a Harmonyof the Gospels in Southern Unami (Oklahoma. Delaware; Lenape) produced by a
Baptist missionary in 1837–1839:
The orthography is at the same time remarkably modern and seriously
underdiﬀerentiated (not distinguishing the long and short consonants), as well asinconsistent in the writing of the numerous vowels (not surprisingly). Reversing
the odd choices of letters (‘v’ for /h/; ‘h’ for /č/; etc.) would still only produce aninconsistent mess of a transcription. But the translation is remarkably free andidiomatic, for example supplying enclitics that sounded right where the KingJames text has, of course, nothing. So here the edition has both the original andthe phonemic transcription.
There may also be textual amendments (crossing out, additions), abbreviations, orother obscurities in the document, as in Figure 4 from Gerhard Laves’ fieldnotes on the
Bardi language presented in Bowern (2003):
Bowern (2003) notes that Laves abbreviated words that occur frequently in his note
(e.g. g. for ginyinggi ‘this, he, she, it’, g.on for ginyinggon ‘and then’). Stephen
Wurm’s 1955 fieldnotes of New South Wales Aboriginal languages contain glosses
and translations in Hungarian shorthand.12
Careful retranscription of legacy documents into a modern form is necessary if they
are to be made more useful and multifunctional. It may also be advisable to link
12

AIATSIS archive item 002895A.

30

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Fig. 4 Gerhardt Laves fieldnotes on Bardi, from Bowern (2003).

Austin, Peter K.: Language documentation and legacy text materials

31such transcription to images of the original documents so that readers may confirm the
proposed analysis. A publication in print or online that aims to accurately reproduce
all significant features in the original manuscript, including spelling and punctuation,abbreviations, deletions, insertions, and other alterations is called a diplomatic editionof a text. Online examples drawing on language documentation principles include
colonial Zapotec documents curated by Lillehaugen et al. (2016), the Daisy Bates
collection described in Thieberger (2016), and the website of the William Dawes
manuscript of the Sydney language of Australia.13 The underlying digital representationof the Dawes material uses XML extensible markup language and encodes crossing
out, insertions, and amendments, as well as additions by the editors, such as spellingout abbreviations.14 The transcription was created by the Dawes project team, withreference to Troy (1994), and then edited by tagging it in XML in order to:15
distinguish various text content structures (such as Sydney language vs English,
and with the language content tagged for lemmas etc), person and place names,
meanings, and commentaries. In addition, layout structures such as columns are
represented.
From this XML source, XSLT transformations generate the content of each of
the transcription pages (in two versions, edited and unedited). CSS is used to lay
out the text visually on the web page.
An example of the resulting display which resembles a diplomatic edition (what thewebsite somewhat misleadingly calls ‘unedited’) is shown in Figure 5.16

13

See http://www.williamdawes.org/, accessed 2017-04-07.
There is a long tradition in epigraphy of encoding this kind of information and value adding for creation of editionsof ancient documents and stone inscriptions. For current approaches using XML see Bodard and Stoyanova (2016),
the EpiDoc guidelines (http://www.stoa.org/epidoc/gl/latest/, accessed on 2017-05-29) and the cheat sheet available
at http://www.nesc.ac.uk/action/esi/contribution.cfm%3FTitle=964, accessed on 2017-04-09.
15
See http://www.williamdawes.org/howtouse.html, accessed on 2017-04-09.
16
See http://www.williamdawes.org/ms/msview.php?image-id=book-b-page-2, accessed on 2017-04-09.
14

32

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Fig. 5 Screenshot of William Dawes Notebook B page 2, unedited view.

A ‘cleaner’ (so-called ‘edited’) view of this page can be seen in Figure 6.17

Fig. 6 Screenshot of William Dawes Notebook B page 2, edited view.

Note that Unicode fonts should be used for the representation in the corpus (see17

See http://www.williamdawes.org/ms/msview.php?image-id=book-b-page-2&edited=true (accessed on
2017-04-09).

Austin, Peter K.: Language documentation and legacy text materials

33

Gippert 2006 on character encodings in language documentation).
Text material which is implicitly structured, such as by using typography or layout on
the page to distinguish analytical categories or kinds of information, can be made more
useful by encoding the structure separately from the form. For example, (1) presents asample entry from the Scherer (1981) English translation of J. G. Reuther’s four volume
manuscript Diyari-German dictionary.18(1)

Entry for banbana in Scherer (1981).
5. banbana (v) = ‘to stand still; to pause; to stop; to cease; to go no further’,e.g.
1) ninkida nau banbana warai = ‘here he stopped’, i.e. he did notcontinue on.
2) With reference to the circulation of blood: matja kumari banbai = ‘the[flow of] blood has already ceased’
3) With reference to water: matja ngapa banbai = ‘the water is alreadystationary’, i.e. has ceased to flow.
4) With reference to the star of the wise men from the East: pungani miriditji waka banbana wonti = ‘the star stood still above the house’ (inBethlehem).
5) With reference to a track: ninkida paltu banbai = ‘here the track
terminates, comes to an end’6) With reference to a sandhill: dako kajirani banbai = ‘the sandhill
finishes up in the creek’

Nathan (2016) processed a digitized version of Scherer (1981) computationally andmanually to create XML files where the diﬀerent data types are tagged into a proper
hierarchical structure, as shown in (2).
(2)

18

XML representation for banbana entry in Scherer (1981).19<?xml version=”1.0”?><diyarilexicon version=”20170409”><entry label=”5” num=”5”><lemma><di>banbana</di><pos type=”lemma”>v</pos></lemma><gloss>to stand still; to pause; to stop; to cease; to go no further</gloss>

See http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/collections/information-resources/archives/reuther-reverend-johann-georg-aa-266, accessed on 2017-04-25.
19
The presentation here is based on Nathan (2016) with amendments by the present author.

34

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11<eg num=”1”> <di>ninkida nau banbana warai</di> <eg gloss>here hestopped, i.e. he did not continue on</eg gloss>.
</eg><eg num=”2”> With reference to the circulation of blood: <di>matja kumaribanbai</di> <eg gloss>the [flow of] blood has already ceased</eg gloss></eg><eg num=”3”> With reference to water: <di>matja ngapa banbai</di><eg gloss>the water is already stationary, i.e. has ceased toflow</eg gloss>.
</eg><eg num=”4”> With reference to the star of the wise men from the East:<di>pungani miri ditji waka banbana wonti</di> <eg gloss>the star stoodstill above the house (in Bethlehem)</eg gloss>.
</eg><eg num=”5”> With reference to a track: <di>ninkida paltu banbai</di><eg gloss>here the track terminates, comes to an end</eg gloss></eg><eg num=”6”> With reference to a sandhill: <di>dako kajirani banbai</di><eg gloss>the sandhill finishes up in the creek</eg gloss></eg></entry></diyarilexicon>
Such an XML file can now be unambiguously searched for diﬀerent types of data
as well as presented in various formats, such as on a web page using XSLT and CSS
to convert the data labels into HTML formatting. Nathan (p.c., 2015-10-02) noted
the following issues arose when converting the original document files (which had
been created by scanning and optical character recognition (OCR) of a printed copyof Scherer 1981):• the documents had a massive over-use of quotation marks, for multiple purposes
and often redundant or fatuous scare quotes. This made it hard to drive markup
from them, even though in a huge number of cases they were the only clue tostructure.
• scoping - the original documents had some mixed assumptions about scope, e.g.
of entries, pages, footnotes etc. In particular footnotes and footnote references
are relative to page units so in many cases they don’t work properly (some arejust in-line footnotes, which are OK).
• character data errors - mostly resulting from OCR errors.
• others, such as Scherer’s spelling errors, inconsistent use of all kinds ofpunctuation and line breaks (e.g. some parsing could be driven by looking forstrings like “i.e.” but this appeared as i.e, i e., ie, i.e. Also, the part-of-speechAustin, Peter K.: Language documentation and legacy text materials

35

formulations are inconsistent and otherwise problematic.
Researchers need to be aware of possible complications such as these when working
on adding value coding to documents.
A further problem with the form of legacy text materials may arise from cryptic
glossing, or wrong glosses, because the author could not understand their language
consultant’s accent or pronunciation, or because the semantics of the source language
terms were misunderstood. Crowley and Austin (2005: 60) give the examples inTable 1, drawn from various wordlists of Australian Aboriginal languages.
Table 1 Semantic problems in text materials, from Crowley and Austin (2005).

Wordlist meaning
Pronunciation problems
heart
wet
moths
dung, shit

1.

2.
a.

b.

Correct meaning
hot
sweat
boss
tongueMeaning problems
generic versus specific
grass
boy
beard
day
thumb
girl

vegetation
uninitiated youth
hair
now
your handfemalerelated word
thighs
cloud
woman
hair
frown
spiderdig

buttocks
sky
wife
head
blind
to bitedrink

Another issue to pay attention to is that understandings and analyses by the text’s
author(s) of the language being recorded can be seen to change over time, and thus
diﬀerent parts of a collection of text material may show diﬀerent spellings, translations
etc. For example, Bowern (2003) mentions that Gerhard Laves began to analyse the36

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Bardi material he was writing in his fieldnotes as he collected it and made a numberof analytical mistakes as a result, that is, later parts of the document does not containwhat he actually heard but rather what he thought he heard. Also, Steele (2005: 84)
notes in relation to William Dawes’ records of the Sydney language that ‘in order to be
in a position to make some assessment of the soundness of an interpretation of a word,
expression or sentence provided by Dawes, it is useful to have an idea of at which stageof his language learning an entry was created’.
2.2. Issues with the content of the material

There can be issues of various types that arise due to the content of the original text.
For example, some of the content may be inappropriate to discuss in front of particular
individuals or groups within a community (for more on sensitivities see section 3.1).
Bowern (2003) notes that Gerhard Laves’ Bardi fieldnotes contain names that should
not be spoken aloud because they are the same as the name of a close relative of acommunity member who has passed away and thus subject to a death taboo. Innes(2010) mentions stories in legacy texts that are considered to be ‘dangerous’ by a given
community and should not be reproduced or distributed. Bowern (2003) also cites the
problem that some of Laves’ fieldnotes contain information about secret male rituals
and that she, as a female, should not read them; in this case the challenge is that she,as a trained linguist, is the only person with knowledge to decipher and potentiallypronounce particular forms in such texts.
There may also be content that is dated or inappropriate by contemporary standards.
For example, Bowern (2003) notes that manuscripts may also contain notes by theoriginal author that were intended as private personal comments on the people whobeing worked with which other people, such as contemporary relatives, may findoﬀensive. In addition, legacy materials may use ways of referring to indigenous
people which were acceptable at the time they were written but which are oﬀensive
now. Authors may also have written down personal judgements about the nature of thematerial collected (e.g. ‘superstitious rubbish’) that do not match modern community
judgements (e.g. interesting personal history). Andrew Garrett (p.c., 2010-02-05) notesthat:
A lot of excellent examples of inappropriate content come up in early 20th
century California fieldwork. People who never thought that any non-scholars,
and certainly no Native people, would ever see these field notes, routinely wrote
stuﬀ like ‘half-breed’ to summarize genealogy, or commented on fluency levels
in ways that people now would find insulting, or even wrote things like ‘asyphilitic’ next to people’s names.
How and indeed if these kinds of content should be represented in the modern corpus
will need to be decided (e.g. by censoring them in some way, or placing them inAustin, Peter K.: Language documentation and legacy text materials

37

password-protected files).20
2.3. Issues with analysis in the original

Diﬃculties with interpreting the content of legacy text materials can often arise if theoriginal author either:
1. records what they think is a distinction (phonological, morphological, syntactic)
that is not actually present in the language but may exist in the author’s native
language or one that they are familiar with; and/or
2. misses some crucial contrast because it is not made in the languages the author
is familiar with (as a native language, languages studied).
Examples of the first type can be found in Reuther’s Diyari dictionary where hedistinguishes between voiced and voiceless consonants (e.g. <b> versus <p>, as in theentry for banbana in (1), however this contrast is only truly applicable for apico-domal(retroflex) stops. Similarly, Reuther writes vowels <e> and <o> although Diyari only
has three contrastive vowels (i, u, and a). An example of the second type in Reuther’s
work is his failure to record the diﬀerence between stops and nasals at various pointsof articulation: apico-alveolar (t, n in the modern orthography), lamino-dental (th, nh),and apico-domal (rt, rn). Thus, we find a collapsing of distinctions in nganha ‘me’
(Reuther’s ngana) and nganarna ‘be.participle’ (Reuther’s nganana).
Examples of both types of misanalysis for grammar can also be found in missionary
records of various Australian Aboriginal languages, including Diyari, as discussed in
Stockigt (2016). For example, Reuther, and earlier missionaries, recorded a ‘vocative’case for Diyari on the basis of Latin grammar models they knew, although the forms
listed are actually phonological distortions used on shouted speech (see Austin 1981,2015). On the other hand, they failed to notice that verb forms they identified as ‘Modus
Conditionalis’ participate in a switch-reference system (encoding diﬀerent subjects
between two clauses) in paradigmatic contrast to verb forms they identified as infinitive(which encode same subject). Numerous examples of other such misanalyses can befound and the researcher needs to be careful when including legacy materials into their
documentary corpus to label the original analysis and clearly distinguish it from theirown, as well as cite the original source and where it can be found.
2.4. Issues arising from a lack of context

Some of the most diﬃcult issues to deal with in legacy text materials relate to thelack of metadata (data about the data) and meta-documentation (information about
the context of collection and analysis, see Austin 2013) which would help with
understanding and analysing their form and content. It is often unclear, for example,
where data comes from as speakers are not identified, and their geographical origins,20

A notorious example of this kind of material actually being published and causing negative reactions is
Malinowski (1989).

38

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11social positions and relationships to other contributors are not specified. We arealso not told whether they learnt the language as children or adults, and what otherlanguages they might speak that could influence their knowledge of the languagein the materials. As noted above, particularly useful can be information about thecollector: their background, the languages they have some knowledge of, and theireducation history and prior language (and linguistic) study sometimes this metadata
is available in biographies or historical documents but often it is not. Darnell (1995)
argues concerning anthropological fieldnotes:
A generation after the original research was carried out, the interpretative context
in which the work was done a context that was easily available to contemporaries
will require reconstruction. Such a task will only be possible if documents about
the anthropologist, his/her research and professional milieu at the time have beenpreserved. Thus, records usually thought of as the history of anthropology arealso crucial to the interpretation of anthropological records.
Also important is knowledge of the research training and methodology of thecollector, including research methods and tools, what books and articles they werefamiliar with, who they studied and communicated with about the project (including
mentors and colleagues), what the goals of the research were and where it fits within
their own career trajectory, as well as their relationships with the language consultants
and the community (see 3.1). For the latter, Good (2010) identifies ‘contact, consent,
compensation, and culture’ as four important variables, that is how the community wascontacted by the researcher, how consent for the work was given, what compensation
was provided to participants and what were the cultural diﬀerences and expectations
between the collector and the described community. For legacy materials these areoften unknown or have to be reconstructed.
The issues we identify here are not unique to linguistic analysis of legacy text
materials but, as Bishop (2006) points out, understanding context is a major challenge
for secondary analysis of all qualitative data. Bishop (2006: 15–16) reminds us that theconstruction of knowledge is socially, culturally and historically embedded and needs
to be (re-)studied as such:
Because secondary analysis is, in fact, re-contextualisation, as Moore (2005)
suggests, this highlights how vital contextual information is to the process ofreusing data. ... Both primary and secondary researchers have the responsibility
to be reflexive in a manner suited to their specific projects. In the case of
secondary analysis, reflexivity requires consideration of both the contemporary
context and that of the original project (Fielding 2004). These challenges are
significant, but not overwhelming; there may be lessons to learn from otherdisciplines. Historians do not lie awake nights agonising about not being able
to do history because ‘they weren’t there’. They interrogate historical artefacts,Austin, Peter K.: Language documentation and legacy text materials

39

consider conditions that led to their production, while recognising that their own
framework shapes what is seen (Scott 1990). Thinking deeply about context
is a useful reminder that even the most knowing subject is never all-knowing.
A perspective in which ‘data’ is reflexively constructed, contextualised, andre-contextualised helps us to acknowledge the inherently social character ofknowledge.
3. Stakeholder issues

Documentation projects typically have many stakeholders who may have diﬀerent
kinds of interests in the materials collected and the analyses created. Issues ofcontrol, consultation, and decision-making are important when deciding what kind of
documentary material to include in any corpus and how it can be used. This is also trueof legacy sources, with the additional complication of possible mismatches between
past situations and the present.
3.1. Identifying stakeholders and relationships

As O’Meara and Good (2010) note, identifying who has a stake in a given document
can be complicated by the fact that the current membership of a particular contemporary‘community’ (however that is defined) may not coincide with past membership. Indeed,people who provided legacy materials may not even now be viewed as rightful membersof a given group and therefore their information may be deprecated. It is also often
unclear what agreements, if any, about such things as publication and distribution
existed between the original collector and the community or particular individuals at
the time (and whether these agreements were documented) as well as the relationshipbetween any such agreements and arrangements that are currently being negotiatedbetween the contemporary researcher and other stakeholders.
3.2. Identifying rights in the materials

There may be a range of individuals and groups who could hold various types ofrights with relation to legacy materials, and identifying them can be problematic. We
can distinguish between:
1. intellectual property rights, which are legal rights that arise in relation tocreations of the mind;
2. copyright, which relates to ownership and distribution of products with economic
value. Copyright varies for diﬀerent types of materials (text, sound, images,
databases) and only applies to original works fixed in a tangible medium. It is
a form of property law and relates to money and economic interest. As such,
copyright can be inherited, given away or sold (for further details see Newman2007);

40

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

3. moral rights, which concerns how representations aﬀect reputations. As Article
6(1) of the Berne Convention identifies: ‘Independently of the author’s economic
rights and even after the transfer of said rights, the author shall have the right toclaim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or othermodification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which
would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation’.
Determining who holds these for legacy materials can be particularly problematic.
Thus, O’Meara and Good (2010) raise the following questions:1. who holds what rights? Are the rights documented? How do we establish rights
retroactively? What if the researcher is not sure about speaker rights?
2. how do we determine rights when there are multiple contributors and data comesfrom multiple media?
3. who has inherited rights between the time of the original recording and now?
(e.g. descendants of the original speakers, descendants of the original researcher)
4. what happens to ‘orphan works’ where the original stakeholders can no longer
be identified? (e.g. materials passed from a researcher to a later researcher)
When analysing legacy data it is important to clearly document the various
contributions to the work, including those of the original author, the linguist-editor,
other researchers, and current community members. The data structures and metadata
set up for a project that includes legacy materials should make this clear. An example
is Bowern (2003) who outlines her setup for the database (in Toolbox format) that she
uses for the analysis of Laves’ Bardi data.
3.3. Deciding on access to materials

For language documentation projects it is essential that specification is made in
relation to access to the corpus, that is spelling out permissions granted to individuals
who do not have specic rights to given materials by setting out how they should beallowed to inspect or make copies of a particular resource or a representation of thecontent of that resource (e.g. a transcription or translation). Typically, researchers canchoose between four levels of access to their data and analysis (e.g. when depositing
materials in an archive, or distributing/publishing them):
1. open access anyone can view, use or copy the materials
2. restricted access access to the material is limited to a class of users, usuallydepending on the contributors, the type or content of materials, or the identity of
the user
3. requested access the user must ask the researcher for permission
4. closed access only the researcher can view, use or copy the materials

Austin, Peter K.: Language documentation and legacy text materials

41

Licence agreements, such as Creative Commons,21 may be used to formalise how thematerials may be used once access has been granted, e.g. copy but not change, changewith attribution.
As O’Meara and Good (2010) point out, technological changes over time canintroduce complications in deciding on access and use for legacy materials. So, forexample, ‘open access’ in 1980 may well have meant users who were granted accesswould receive an analogue copy of a cassette tape or set of fieldnotes while in 2017
‘open access’ may mean anyone can download the materials from a website on theinternet. It is unclear what ‘open access’ will mean in the future. In addition, forthe categories of restricted or requested access, there is the general issue of how toverify the identity of users who want access (especially if the request comes froman internet address), and if access is restricted to a certain group (e.g. ‘community
member’) how researchers (and archives) can identify such membership. To addressthese issues sensitive negotiations and extensive discussions with stakeholders, often
over an extended time period, may be necessary.
4. Conclusions

Working with legacy text materials from a language documentation perspective
involves dealing with a range of often complex issues about the form, content, context
and use of the original materials and analyses arising from them. However, there aremany opportunities for researchers to add substantial value to legacy text materials,
especially if they are able to work with other historical sources and/or contemporary
knowledge holders to elucidate them and the context surrounding their creation,
analysis and current status. Maximising such opportunities will require thinking aboutdata entities, types and relationships and being explicit about them in the project design
and application (e.g. in database design or XML tagging), with a very important role for
metadata and meta-documentation. By creating good meta-documentation for writtenmaterials now we can hopefully reduce legacy data problems for future researchers,compared to the issues that we face today. Careful work with legacy text materials canalso be very rewarding for researchers and communities, especially in the case of unique
documents on languages/varieties or areas of knowledge that are no longer available,
and that can serve as important sources for language support and revitalisation.

21

See https://creativecommons.org/, accessed on 2017-04-09.

42

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

References
Amery, Rob. 2000. Warrabarna Kaurna! Reclaiming an Australian Language. London: Taylor and Francis.
Austin, Peter. 1981. A Grammar of Diyari, South Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Austin, Peter K. 2008. “The Gamilaraay (Kamilaroi) language, Northern New South Wales — A brief history of
research”. In William McGregor (ed.) Encountering Aboriginal Languages: Studies in the History of Australian
Linguistics. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. pp.37–58.
———. 2010. “Current issues in language documentation”. Language Documentation and Description. 7. London:
SOAS. pp.12–33.
———. 2013. “Language documentation and meta-documentation”. In Sarah Ogilvie and Mari Jones (eds.)
Keeping Languages Alive: Documentation, Pedagogy and Revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. pp.3–15.
———. 2015. A Grammar of Diyari, South Australia. 2nd edition. [Online at http://www.academia.edu/2491078/A Grammar of Diyari South Australia, accessed on 2017-04-09.]———. 2016. “Language documentation 20 years on”. In Martin Pütz and Luna Filipović (eds.) Endangered
Languages and Languages in Danger: Issues of Ecology, Policy and Human Rights. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. pp.147–170.
Baldwin, Daryl, David J. Costa and Douglas Troy. 2016. “Myaamiaataweenki eekincikoonihkiinki eeyoonki
aapisaataweenki: A Miami language digital tool for language reclamation”. Language Documentation andConservation 10. pp.394–410.
Baldwin, Daryl, Leanne Hinton and Gabriela P’erez Báez. 2017. “Chapter 18: The breath of life workshops andinstitutes”. In Leanne Hinton, Leena Huss and Gerald Roche (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Language
Revitalisation. London: Routledge.
Bear, Young and Lucy Thomason. 2011. “de ka ga . ka ka nwi ka de . Skunk and Grizzly Bear”. Ms. Smithsonian
Libraries. [Online at https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/17284, accessed on 2017-05-29]
Bishop, Libby. 2006. “A proposal for archiving context for secondary analysis”. Methodological Innovations Online
1(2). pp.10–20.
Bodard, Gabriel and Simona Stoyanova. 2016. “Epigraphers and encoders: Strategies for teaching and learning
digital epigraphy”. In Gabriel Bodard and Mateo Romanello (eds.) Digital Classics Outside the
Echo-Chamber: Teaching, Knowledge Exchange and Public Engagement. London: Ubiquity Press. pp.51–68.
Bowern, Claire. 2003. “Laves’ Bardi texts”. In Joe Blythe and R. McKenna Brown (eds.) Maintaining the Links:
Language, Identity and the Land. Proceedings of FEL VII. Broome: Foundation for Endangered Languages.
pp.137–143.
Broadbent, Sylvia. 1957. “Rumsen I: Methods of reconstitution”. International Journal of American Linguistics
23(4). pp.275–280.
Campbell, Lyle and Bryn Hauk, with Panu Hallamaa. 2015. “Language endangerment and endangered Uraliclanguages”. In Kaisa Leinonen, Sisko Brunni, Santeri Palviainen and Jari Sivonen (eds.) Congressus
Duodecimus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum, Oulu 2015 Plenary Papers. Oulu: University of Oulu.
pp.7–33.
Copeland, Peter. 2008. Manual of Sound Restoration Techniques. London: British Library.
Costa, David J. 2003. The Miami-Illinois Language. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Costa, David J. (ed.) 2015. New Voices for Old Words: Algonquian Oral Literatures. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Crowley, Terry and Peter Austin. 2005. “Interpreting old spelling”. In Nicholas Thieberger (ed.) Paper and Talk: A
Manual for Reconstituting Materials in Australian Indigenous Languages from Historical Sources. Canberra:
AIATSIS. pp.54–102.
Dahlstrom, Amy. 2015. “Highlighting rhetorical structure through syntactic analysis: An illustrated Meskwaki text
by Alfred Kiyana”. In David Costa (ed.) New Voices for Old Words: Algonquian Oral Literatures. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press. pp.118–197.

Austin, Peter K.: Language documentation and legacy text materials

43

Darnell, Regna. 1995. “Documenting disciplinary history”. In Sydel Silverman and Nancy J. Parezo (eds.)
Preserving the Anthropological Record. 2nd edition. Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research,
Inc. [Online at http://copar.org/par/index.htm, accessed on 2017-05-27]
Fielding, Nigel. 2004. “Getting the most from archived qualitative data: epistemological, practical and professional
obstacles”. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7(1). pp.97–104.
Flierl, Johann. 1880. “Dieri Grammatik [Comparative grammar of Diyari and Wangkangurru]”. Unpublished ms.
Lutheran Archives, Adelaide. Box 22 Immanuel Synod-Bethesda Mission. pp.306–510.
Giacon, John and Kevin Lowe. 2016. “Key factors in the renewal of Aboriginal languages in New South Wales”. In
Peter K. Austin, Harold Koch and Jane Simpson (eds.) Language, Land and Song: Studies in Honour of Luise
Hercus. London: EL Publishing. pp.523–538.
Gippert, Jost. 2006. “Linguistic documentation and the encoding of textual materials”. In Jost Gippert, Nikolaus
Himmelmann and Ulrike Mosel (eds.) Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
pp.337–361.
Goddard, Ives. 1973. “Philological approaches to the study of Native North American languages: Documents anddocumentation”. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.) Linguistics in North America. (Current Trends in Linguistics 10.)
The Hague: Mouton. pp.727–745.
———. 1996. “Writing and reading Mesquakie”. The Papers of the Algonquian Conference / Actes duCongrès des Algonquinistes Volume 27. pp.117–134. [Online at https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/ALGQP/article/view/528/430, accessed on 2017-05-29]
Good, Jeﬀ. 2010. “Documenting consent, access and rights”. Presentation at LSA Annual Meeting OLAC
workshop on archiving, Baltimore. [Online at http://www.ailla.utexas.org/site/lsa archiving10.html, accessedon 2017-04-09.]
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1998. “Documentary and descriptive linguistics”. Linguistics 36. pp.161–195.
———. 2002. “Documentary and descriptive linguistics”. In Osamu Sakiyama and Fubito Endo (eds.) Lectures on
Endangered Languages, Volume V. Suita (Osaka): Osaka Gakuin University. pp.37–83.
———. 2006. “Language documentation: What is it and what is it good for?” In Jost Gippert, Nikolaus P.
Himmelmann and Ulrike Mosel (eds.) Essentials of Language Documentation. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies
and Monographs, 178.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp.1–30.
———. 2012. “Linguistic data types and the interface between language documentation and description”.
Language Documentation and Conservation 6. pp.187–207.
Innes, Pamela. 2010. “Ethical problems in archival research: Beyond accessibility”. Language and Communication
30. pp.198–203.
Koch, Harold. 2011. “George Augustus Robinson and the documentation of languages of South-Eastern New South
Wales”. Language and History 54(2). pp.140–163.
Lehmann, Christian. 2001. “Language documentation: A program”. In Walter Bisang (ed.) Aspects of Typology andUniversals. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. pp.83–97.
Lillehaugen, Brook, George Aaron Danielle, Michel R. Broadwell, Laurie Oudijk, May Plumb Allen andMike Zarafonetis. 2016. Ticha: a digital text explorer for Colonial Zapotec, first edition. [Online at
http://ticha.haverford.edu/, accessed on 2017-05-29.]
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1989. A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term. 2nd Edition with a New Introduction byRaymond Firth. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Moore, N. 2005. “(Re)using qualitative data? Thoughts from the CRESC Qualitative Research Laboratory”. Paper
presented at Reusing Qualitative Data Workshop, CRESC, Manchester, 28 September, 2005.
Mosel, Ulrike. 2014. “Putting oral narratives into writing — experiences from a language documentation projectin Bouganville, Papua New Guinea”. In Bernard Comrie and Lucı́a Golluscio (eds.) Language Contact andDocumentation / Contacto lingüistico y documentación. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp.321–342.
Nathan, David. 2016. The Diari dictionary of J. G. Reuther. XML tagged digital files.
Newman, Paul. 2007. “Copyright essentials for linguists”. Language Documentation and Conservation 1.
pp.28–43.
O’Meara, Carolyn and Jeﬀ Good. 2010. “Ethical issues in legacy language resources”. Language andCommunication 30. pp.162–170. [Online at https://www.acsu.buﬀalo.edu/˜jcgood/OMearaGood-EthicalIssues.pdf, accessed on 2017-04-09]

44

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Scherer, Philipp. 1981. The Diari by J. G. Reuther. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Scott, John. 1990. A Matter of Record: Documentary Sources in Social Research. London: Polity.
Silverstein, Michael. 2015. “From Baﬃn Island to Boasian Induction: How anthropology and linguistics got into
their interlinear groove”. In Regna Darnell, Michelle Hamilton, Robert L. A. Hancock and Joshua Smith (eds.)
Franz Boas as Public Intellectual — Theory, Ethnography, Activism. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
pp.83–127.
Steele, Jeremy. 2005. “The Aboriginal language of Sydney: A partial reconstruction of the indigenous language of
Sydney based on the notebooks of William Dawes of 1790–91, informed by other records of the Sydney andsurrounding languages to c.1905”. Macquarie University MA thesis.
Stockigt, Clara. 2016. “Pama-Nyungan morphosyntax: lineages of early description”. PhD thesis, Adelaide
University.
Thieberger, Nick. 2016. “Daisy Bates in the digital world”. In Peter K. Austin, Harold Koch and Jane Simpson(eds.) Language, Land and Song: Studies in Honour of Luise Hercus. London: EL Publishing. pp.102–114.
Troy, Jakelin. 1994. The Sydney Language. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderStudies. [Online at http://www.williamdawes.org/docs/troy sydney language publication.pdf, accessed on
2017-04-09.]
Woodbury, Anthony C. 2003. “Defining documentary linguistics”. Language Documentation and Description 1.
London: SOAS. pp.35–51.
———. 2011. “Language documentation”. In Peter K. Austin and Julia Sallabank (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook
of Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.159–186.

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics No.11, 2017

Collaborative Project for Documenting Minority Languages
in Indonesia and Malaysia
Jukes, Anthony
University of the South Pacific, Fiji

Shiohara, Asako
ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

Yanti
Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia

Indonesia and Malaysia are well-known for linguistic and cultural diversity. But
many languages spoken in these countries remain under-described, and are also seeing
drastic reductions in speaker numbers as communities shift to the national languages
Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Malaysia, or to more vigorous regional languages. Asa small-scale response to this situation, between 2013 and 2016 a series of nine 2–3
day training workshops on the theory and methods of language documentation were
held in Indonesia and Malaysia, with the intention of increasing awareness and skills
needed for documenting minority languages. Workshops were held in Denpasar (Bali),
Samarinda (Kalimantan), Jambi (Sumatra), Kupang (Nusa Tenggara Timur), Manado(Sulawesi), and Kota Kinabalu (Sabah, Malaysia). These workshops were inspired by
the DocLing training workshops, and like DocLing, they were financially supported by
the Linguistics Dynamic Science (LingDy) Project. The trainers were Indonesian andforeign researchers active in the field of language documentation, while the trainees
were a mix of students and established scholars. This paper reports on the workshops,
discussing what was successful and how they changed over time.

Keywords: Indonesia, documentation, training, workshops

1. Background
2. The workshops
3. Summary and the team’s plan in the future

1. Background1.1. Regional diversity

In his review of the seminal language documentation handbook Essentials of
language documentation (Gippert, Himmelmann and Mosel 2006), Evans points out
Jukes, Anthony, Shiohara, Asako and Yanti. 2017. “Collaborative project for documenting minority languages
in Indonesia and Malaysia”. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11. pp.45–56. [Permanent URL:
http://hdl.handle.net/10108/89206]

46

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11that most linguistic diversity is found in the developing world, and thus a ‘central task
facing the community of linguists is thus to recruit, train, and support scholars fromdeveloping countries in documenting this vast mosaic’ (2008: 348). This ‘vast mosaic’is readily apparent in Indonesia and Malaysia, which between them contain more than
800 languages - nearly 12% of the world’s total (www.ethnologue.com). The majorityof these are found in the eastern part of Indonesia, especially in the provinces of Papua
and West Papua in the island of New Guinea, but western Indonesia and Malaysia also
show considerable diversity. Many of the languages - even some with seemingly quite
large numbers of speakers - have become endangered as communities shift, generally
to Malay, whether in the form of the national languages Bahasa Indonesia / Bahasa
Malaysia, or other regional varieties such as Kupang Malay or Manado Malay. At
the same time, cultural and economic practices of indigenous peoples of the area arechanging rapidly under the influences of globalization, technological change/progress,and migration, restricting and reducing the domains of traditional language use andhastening the loss of vocabulary relating to these practices (for example see Jukes 2011bwhich discusses changing agricultural practices in Minahasa, Indonesia).
Although there have been several projects over recent years which have aimed to
document and describe some of these languages and their associated cultures,1 mostremain under-documented, or in many cases entirely undocumented. Florey and
Himmelmann (2010: 123) estimate ‘that fewer than 10% (and possibly as few as 5%) of
the languages of Indonesia have been the subject of modern linguistic documentation’.
It is clear that much is at stake. It is in this context that the Linguistic Dynamic
Science (LingDy) Project supported a series of nine training workshops in language
documentation in Indonesia and Malaysia between 2013 and 2017. For convenience
we will refer to them as the LingDy workshops.2
1.2. Initial ideas

The idea for running the LingDy workshops grew out of conversations between
Asako Shiohara and a Balinese linguist Ketut Artawa, while he was a visitor to
ILCAA. Having attended DocLing 2011 as an observer, Artawa suggested that similarworkshops could be run in Bali for staﬀ and students of Udayana University.
The idea was further solidified after the participation in DocLing 2012 in Tokyo by
four Indonesian visitors, who attended the workshop both as trainees and language
consultants for group projects. DocLing 2011 had successfully included some students
1

Several projects were funded by the Endangered Languages Documentation Programme (www.eldp.net), others by
the Volkswagen Foundation’s DoBeS programme (http://dobes.mpi.nl/) or by Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary
Anthropology via the Jakarta Field Station (http://jakarta.shh.mpg.de/). There has also been a welcome movetowards language documentation by the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI).
2
Three LingDy workshops were also held in other areas: two in Russia (Buryat State University, November 2014;
Kalmyk State University, May 2015) and one in Mongolia (Mongolian Academy of Sciences, September 2016).
Though they were reportedly a great success, as these workshops were organized by other team members we cannot
report on them in this paper.

Jukes et al.: Collaborative project for documenting minority languages
in Indonesia and Malaysia

47

from Mongolia and China as language consultants for some limited group work so thatthe students could get experience collecting language data in a language that they were
not familiar with. This experiment was a success (see Nathan and Jukes, this volume),
so the organisers decided to increase the amount of group work in subsequent years.
Thus, when Shiohara was given the task of planning DocLing 2012 she decided toinvite some speakers of Indonesian regional languages as consultants. Ketut Artawa
helped to select 3 consultants: Budi Sudarmanto from Balai Bahasa Palembang, I
Wayan Budiarta from Mentari Foreign Language College, and Jermy Balukh from
School of Foreign Languages, Cakrawala Nusantara Kupang. Another, Hendrik Paatfrom National University of Manado (UNIMA), was selected at the suggestion of
Anthony Jukes. The languages they consulted on were Javanese, Balinese, Rote, andTombulu, respectively.
The experiment with facilitated group work was so successful and enjoyable for bothconsultants and trainees (see Nathan and Jukes, this volume) that the practice of inviting
consultants to assist with group work continued in the following years. From 2013 to2016 another nine consultants came from Indonesia, together with six from other partsof the world.
It should be noted that although they were invited primarily as language consultantsfor group activities, they also learnt the theory and the method of language
documentation in the same way other participants did. We could say that in somerespects they learnt more than the regular participants, in that, through their experience,
they came to realize the value of their languages and significance of documenting them.
We could say that in this respect the DocLing workshop truly functioned as a place ‘torecruit, train, and support scholars from developing countries’ (Evans 2008: 348).
The Indonesian connections especially were instrumental in the decision to takelanguage documentation workshops to Indonesia and Malaysia, and many wereinvolved in the organization of the workshops. Jermy Balukh, Yanti, and Dominikus
Tauk, who were invited to DocLing in 2012 and in 2016, respectively among others
now play a core-role in LingDy workshops as local researchers.
1.3. Previous training workshops

It would be misleading to give the impression that the LingDy workshops we describe
here were the first language documentation training workshops to be held in Indonesia.
To our knowledge there have been at least three other series of workshops, and tovarious degrees these were also influential in the inception and planning of the LingDy
courses. In addition there have been many workshops, summer schools, and longer
courses in other parts of the world (for an overview see Jukes 2011a).
In 2006 and 2007 Nikolaus Himmelmann and Margaret Florey organized workshops
on language documentation which were held in Ubud, Bali. These workshops,
described in detail in Florey (2008) and Florey and Himmelmann (2010), were of an
intensive, residential model, taking place over 10 (2006) and 7 (2007) days. There were48

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

25 attendees and 11 instructors in 2006, and 11 attendees with 8 instructors in 2007.
The Center for Endangered Languages Documentation (CELD) at Universitas Negeri
Papua (UNIPA) in Manokwari has organized occasional training sessions for local teammembers since 2009.
The Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) organized some in-house training from2012–2013 for their documentation projects, for which they were assisted by John
Bowden, then at the Jakarta Field Station of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary
Anthropology.
In addition to these series of events, there was a one-oﬀ 2-week ‘intensive community
language documentation workshop’ in Kupang in 2012, organized by Chuck Grimes,
Mark Donohue, and Dan Kaufman from the Endangered Language Alliance (among
others).3
There has been significant cross-over between the various workshops mentioned
above, the workshops organized by LingDy, and also with DocLing.4
2. The workshops

Figure 1 shows the locations of the LingDy workshops: (from west to east) Jambi,
Denpasar, Kota Kinabalu, Samarinda, Kupang, and Manado.

3

http://austronesian.linguistics.anu.edu.au/timor/workshop/
The following illustrates some of the connections.
Jermy Balukh was a student in Ubud 2006–2007, a consultant at DocLing 2012, and an instructor in the LingDy
workshop at Kupang in 2016.
Deisyi Batunan was a consultant at DocLing 2015 and a local organizer for the LingDy workshop in Manado in2015.
John Bowden helped with the LIPI training and also most of the LingDy workshops.
I Wayan Budiarta was a consultant at DocLing 2012 and part of the local organizing team in workshops held in Bali.
Nikolaus Himmelmann organized and taught at Ubud in 2006–2007 and was a trainer at DocLing 2013. He has also
been involved with training at CELD.
Anthony Jukes was a trainer at Ubud in 2006, DocLing 2010–2016, and most of the LingDy workshops.
Yusuf Sawaki was a trainee in Ubud 2006–2007 and founded CELD in 2009.
Asako Shiohara was an organizer of DocLing and the LingDy workshops.
Antonia Soriente was an instructor in Ubud in 2006 and 2007, and also at most of the LingDy workshops.
Yanti was a consultant at DocLing 2016 and also taught at most of the LingDy workshops.
4Jukes et al.: Collaborative project for documenting minority languages
in Indonesia and Malaysia

49

Fig. 1 Locations of workshops

2.1. The early workshops

The first of the LingDy workshops was the ‘Workshop on Language Documentation’held at Udayana University in Denpasar, Bali on 5–6 August 2013. It was initiallyplanned as a one-oﬀ event, arranged at the suggestion of Ketut Artawa. The 24
attendees were mostly staﬀ and graduate students of Udayana, though two exchange
students from L’Orientale in Naples, Italy also attended at the suggestion of Antonia
Soriente. The workshop was successful in that it aroused the participants’ interestin language documentation, which had not been a very common research area inIndonesia, and strengthened the intention to establish a research network between
researchers and students in and out of Indonesia.

50Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Fig. 2 The LingDy workshop at Udayana, August 2013. Instructors (seated L toR): Anthony Jukes, Antonia Soriente, Ketut Artawa (standing), John Bowden, Asako
Shiohara, Atsuko Utsumi.

After the first workshop in Bali, the team decided to continue the attempts andlaunched an ILCAA joint research project titled “Constructing a research network for
documenting minority languages in and around Indonesia” (April 2014–March 2017),
which was funded by LingDy. The project was organized by researchers in Japan andIndonesia and also included members from other parts of world, such as Italy, Australia,
and the US. In the first two years of the project term, the project held seven workshops:• Universitas Malay Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, 11–12 August 2014
• Udayana University, Denpasar 15–16 August 2014
• Mulawarman University, Samarinda, Indonesia, 19–21 August 2014
• Seloko Institute, Politeknik Jambi, Indonesia, 15–16 June 2015
• Manado State University, Indonesia, 6–7 August 2015
• Balai Bahasa Denpasar, 15–16 August 2015
• The University of Nusa Cendana, Kupang, Indonesia 10–12 August 2015
All the workshops basically constituted of two parts: introductory lectures on theory
and methods of language documentation, followed by practical training of recording
techniques and annotation software such as ELAN.
Table 1 shows the program of the workshop held on 15–16 August 2014 at Udayana
University, Denpasar Bali. Here, more time was assigned to lectures than practical

Jukes et al.: Collaborative project for documenting minority languages
in Indonesia and Malaysia

51

training to fill the needs of participants, many of whom were established scholars.
Table 1 The program of the workshop held on 15–16 August 2014 in Udayana University

15 Aug
9:00–9:20
9:20–9:50
9:50–10:50
10:50–12:30
12:30–14:00
14:00–14:50
15:00–16:30

16:30–17:30
16 Aug
9:30–10:00
10:00–11:45
11:45–12:30
12:30–14:00
14:00–16:00
16:00–17:00

Registration, Opening talkLecture 1: What is language documentation and why do we do it?
Lecture 2: What kind of data do you collect?
Lecture 3: How do you make recordings?
Lunch
Lecture 4: Data management
Practice 1: Group activity : Recording and producing(Making recordings of monologue and do free translation, andproduce metadata)
Evaluation of the recordings
Lecture 4: Ethics in language documentation
Lecture 5: Software and tools(including short practice of ELAN)
Session 3: Orthography
Lunch
Session 3: Group work: Practice of ELAN
Wrap up and Evaluation

The earlier workshops were intended to introduce the idea of language
documentation and give very basic training, with the primary aim of building networks
with local institutes and researchers. Later workshops included the aim of conducting
substantial work of actual language documentation during the workshops.
The turning point was the seventh workshop held at the University of Nusa Cendana,
Kupang in August 2015. The participants there were distinct from the majority of theattendees of previous workshops, in that most of them were graduate or undergraduate
students from a language community of endangered or minority languages spoken
in Nusa Tenggara Timur Province, a particular hotspot of Indonesian diversity. This
workshop saw the ‘vast mosaic’ (Evans 2008: 348) notably present in the workshop
venue, with every student showing personal interest and motivation for gaining
knowledge and skills for documenting their own language. They also had strong
support from the local lecturers.
According to their needs, we modified the program we had employed in the preceding
workshops. We established a workflow in which the participants could have concrete
outcomes at the end of the workshop. For that purpose, the audio data that theparticipants recorded in the earlier part of the workshop played a core-part. The details

52

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11of the new structure were as follows.
• Compared to the previous workshops, more time was taken for practical training
than lectures. It was a three-day event and we separated the seminar on the firstday from the practical workshop on the second and third days. General lectures
for a wider audience were given in the seminar, and then a restricted numberof participants - who were nominated by their lecturers or otherwise showed thatthey had serious interest in documenting their languages - attended the workshop
days, where they could focus on intensive documenting work.
• The session on data management, which was given as a lecture in the previous
workshops, was changed to include some hands-on training in which they
organized their own recorded data with appropriate metadata, which would bea core of the workshop outcome.
• In the practical sessions of annotation software ELAN, the participants wereencouraged to take more time to annotate their own recordings, after they hadlearned the basics of the software with a very short sample exercise.
The attempts above worked well and the participants succeeded in making recordingsof nine minority languages with transcription and translation. The results were
deposited at the language archive PARADISEC.5 Figure 3 shows the workflow
employed at the workshop.

Fig. 3 The workflow employed in the workshop

Before closing this section, some technical aspect of the early workshops should be
noted. For the first few training courses, it was considered useful to carry LingDy’s
high-quality recording equipment (digital recorders, video cameras, microphones) andmany sets of closed headphones from Tokyo, so that students were able to hear the
results of diﬀerent recording equipment and techniques (based on the similar practice5

The outcome can be seen on the website below;
http://catalog.paradisec.org.au/collections/NTT2015

Jukes et al.: Collaborative project for documenting minority languages
in Indonesia and Malaysia

53

used during DocLing in Tokyo). However, this soon turned out to be overly expensive
and onerous, and further workshops were run using a smaller number of microphones,
small Zoom H1 recorders, and earbuds (supplied, or the students’ own). An ancillary
benefit was that the Zoom H1 recorders, purchased in Japan at the authors’ expense,
were able to be sold at cost to trainees for their future use, as similar recorders are notreadily available in Indonesia.
A final note regarding language: in the first few workshops, English was themedium of instruction, as most of the lecturers initially had teaching materials suchas slides and handouts only in English. Furthermore, some trainees had requested
English instruction to give them more exposure to the international language. As we
could easily expect, however, it soon became apparent that teaching in Indonesian (orMalaysian in Malaysia) was much more eﬀective and the language of the workshops
shifted from English to Indonesian.
2.2. Workshops for substantial collaborations in documenting languages

The experience in Kupang in 2015 made us re-evaluate the aim of the project and we
decided to focus more on collaboration for language documentation with the workshop
participants, more precisely, collecting a significant amount of linguistic data andcreating metadata and annotations during the workshops. With the revised aims, threeworkshops were held in 2016 and 2017.
(1) “Workshop on languages spoken in Sabah state, Malaysia,” Skypod Hostel at
Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia 9–13 August 2016
(2) “International seminar on documenting languages What, why, and how?” and“International workshop on documenting minority languages: Theory andpractice”, Artha Wacana Christian University, Kupang, 28–30 November 2016(3) “International workshop for documenting endangered languages in Nusa
Tenggara Timur Province, Indonesia”, ILCAA, TUFS, Tokyo, 24–30 March2017
Event (1) was a new attempt in that it was something like a language documentation
camp. The participants were several linguists and non-academic language consultants,
some of whom are local language activists, who were involved in activities of language
conservation and description. They worked together for 5 days in collecting the dataof indigenous languages in Sabah state, such as Iranun, Sūg (Tausug), Liwan dialectof Dusun, Brunei Malay and Sabah Malay. The language consultants learned how
to use digital recorders and the annotation software ELAN, and made substantial
contributions to documenting their languages resulting in the following outcomes; (i)basic vocabulary and two annotated narratives in Dusun, (ii) narrative with transcription
and translation in Iranun, (iii) narrative with transcription and translation in Sūg.6
6

The outcomes can be seen on the website below;

54

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

In event (2), the team returned to Kupang to continue the collaboration we had started
in 2015. On the first day there were general lectures about language documentation
attended by about 60 students and teachers from language departments at Artha Wacana
Christian University and The University of Nusa Cendana. Following this there were
two days of practical workshops attended by 25 of the participants from the earlier
session. As with the earlier workshop at Kupang, most of the students were speakers ofregional languages of the province of East Nusa Tenggara as well as Kupang Malay. To
illustrate the diversity, in the group recording practice sessions recordings were madeof Roti, Kupang Malay, Lamaholot, and Helong.

Fig. 4 Kupang, November 2016. Instructors (seated L to R): Jermy Balukh, Antonia
Soriente, Anthony Jukes, Yanti, Asako Shiohara. Not pictured: June Jacob.

During the two workshops in Kupang the team became convinced that it is one of
the most ideal locations for this type of workshop, because it is in the centre of suchlinguistic diversity, and many potential collaborators (native speaker researchers andstudents) are present at the local universities.7
Iranun story “A story of Kandalayang, a king of the sea” told by Mabulmaddin Shaiddin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLIo3Tim7A4
Sūg story “A story of cow stone”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvv7nV8TR2o
7
We were not the first to have this realization, e.g. the two-week workshop held in 2012 by Grimes, etc. (asmentioned in 1.3).

Jukes et al.: Collaborative project for documenting minority languages
in Indonesia and Malaysia

55

Having seen the presence of vast numbers of lesser documented or undocumented
languages in Kupang, the team (especially Shiohara and Yanti) decided that in order
to go to the next step of the documentation they should select one or two languages tofocus on and take substantial time for them. They selected Rote and Helong, as they had
native speakers of the each language in the team, namely Jermy Balukh and Dominikus
Tauk, both of whom were alumni of DocLing held in Tokyo.
Event (3) was held at Tokyo for that purpose, in ‘documentation camp’ style. Jermy
Balukh and Dominikus Tauk each selected a speaker from their language community
who was relatively less-exposed to Indonesian and Kupang Malay, and accompanied
them to Tokyo. Antoinette Schapper, a specialist of the Alor-Pantar-Timor languages
spoken in NTT province, also participated in the workshop with two language
consultants from Alor and Pantar, for documenting Teiwa (Alor) and Nedabang (Pantar)
respectively. The documentation camp succeeded in recording several genres of eachlanguage, such as traditional stories and conversations.
3. Summary and the team’s plan in the future

In summary, the activities conducted by the team can be summarized as (1)–(3)below.
(1) DocLing workshop in Tokyo; native speaker linguists participated in theworkshops. They played a role as language consultants and shared theknowledge of their language as well as learnt the skills and knowledge necessary
for documenting languages. They also realized the value of their languages andsignificance of documenting them (section 1.2)
(2) Seminars and Workshops to talk about the value of indigenous minority
languages, the significance of documenting them, and establish a network of
researchers interested in language documentation (section 2.1)
(3) Workshops for substantial work of actual documentation collaborating withnative speakers (section 2.2)
Each step was related to previous steps in that the local researchers recruited in step(1) had contributed in organizing the events of step (2), as leaders of the local academic
and linguistic community, and then played a central role in collaboration of step (3) as
native speaker linguists.
The ultimate goal would be to document as many minority languages as is feasible,and collect and archive data with appropriate metadata and annotation. This process
takes a great deal of time, but concerted collaborative workshops of type (3) have
proven to be very productive. Events such as (1) and (2), however, are also usefuland resources should be assigned to them; recruiting local leaders through events suchas (1) and establishing academic networks through events such as (2) helps to support
the documentary work of both local and overseas researchers.

56

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Although both DocLing and the ‘traveling’ training workshops of type (2) havefinished as of March 2017, the members will continue activities of type (3) based in
Kupang and Tokyo for at least 5 years, supported by LingDy.

References
Evans, Nicholas. 2008. “Review of Gippert, Himmelmann and Mosel (2006) Essentials of language
documentation”. Language Documentation and Conservation 2/2. pp.340–350.
Florey, Margaret. 2008. “Language activism and the ‘new linguistics’: expanding opportunities for documenting
endangered languages in Indonesia”. In Peter K. Austin (ed.) Language Documentation and Description 5.
London: SOAS. pp.120–135.
Florey, Margaret and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. 2010. “New directions in field linguistics: Training strategies forlanguage documentation in Indonesia”. In Margaret Florey (ed.) Endangered languages of Austronesia. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. pp.121–140.
Gippert, Jost, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann and Ulrike Mosel. 2006. Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin;
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jukes, Anthony. 2011a. “Researcher training and capacity development”. In Peter K. Austin and Julia Sallabank(eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages. Cambridge: CUP.
———. 2011b. “Culture documentation and linguistic stimulus”. In Nicholas Thieberger et al. (eds.) Sustainable
Data from Digital Research. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics No.11, 2017

The Importance of Documentary Linguistics Workshops:
A Personal AccountBadagarov, Jargal
Buryat State University

This paper oﬀers an account of two Documentary Linguistics Workshops held in Tokyo
based on the author’s personal experience. The workshops have been held for nineconsecutive years at the Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia andAfrica (ILCAA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies (TUFS). The advantages anddisadvantages of the courses are discussed in detail, and recommendations to students
seeking similar programs are given.

Keywords: Documentary linguistics, training, fieldwork techniques, workflow, best practices

1. Introduction
2. Why documentary linguistics?
3. Documentary Linguistics Workshop
4. Conclusion

1. Introduction

I am a linguist working on my native tongue (Buryad) and related varieties(Mongolic) from both diachronic and synchronic perspectives. Unfortunately, Buryad
is an endangered language, despite the fact that it is an oﬃcial language of the Buryad
Republic within the Russian Federation. The Buryad are Siberia’s largest native nationand one of the only ones with a long literary tradition and complex social and religious
practices prior to Russian colonization. Buryad has many dialects, most of which areseverely endangered. For the most part, Buryad dialects lose out on the one hand toStandard Buryad and on the other to Russian, because over the decades, Standard
Buryad proved to be inadequate to the contemporary needs of a modern language.
Standard Buryad is the product of an early Soviet project that, being underfinanced,
was ultimately never able to develop into a full-ranged standard linguistic variety
supported by the media and education system. Russian has increased in usage due
to abrupt industrialization and a drastic decrease in the proportion of the Buryad livingon their native lands on the one hand, and the exclusion of Buryad language instruction
Badagarov, Jargal. 2017. “The importance of Documentary Linguistics Workshops: A personal account”. Asianand African Languages and Linguistics 11. pp.57–69. [Permanent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/89207]

58

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

from education curricula in the 1970s, on the other. The situation is not improving
and activists are struggling for the survival of their language. This leads the field of
Buryad linguistics to concentrate on issues aimed at documentation of the dialects anddevelopment of language-specific study materials. This eventually led me to language
documentation, and I am very glad that I was able to experience the Documentary
Linguistics Workshop in Tokyo. It allowed me a systematic education in the field of
language documentation, which truly changed my life, both as a linguist and a memberof an endangered language community.
2. Why documentary linguistics?

Documentary linguistics first formulated its principles and methods a couple ofdecades ago and has since been widely employed in the documentation of endangered
languages (Austin 2003; Himmelmann 2006; Thieberger 2012; Austin and Sallabank2015). It aims at a broad documentation of speech acts in an anthropologicalsetting, the results of which can be used not only by the researcher but also by
many others, both academic and layman, and especially by members of the speechcommunity. A seasoned field linguist may ask, “What is the point of having a‘documentary’ variant of what has long been known as field linguistics?” The key
feature of documentary linguistics lies in its comprehensiveness: its theoretical andmethodological underpinnings account for linguistic, ethnographic, ethical, technical,
and many other aspects of the collection of speech data; ultimately, it is targeted atcreating and preserving a full-scale cross-cut of a linguistic situation for current andfuture research. This becomes especially important in the context of the dramaticallydecreasing number of languages and dialects across the globe, a modern linguistic
disaster.
3. Documentary Linguistics Workshop

As with others who have had some experience in linguistic fieldwork, I was notalways sure if I was going about things in the right way. Thus, I wanted to learn
proper methodology. Consequently, I read extensively on technical procedures andequipment. Additionally, I considered the types of questions a linguist should ask in
the field, ways of communicating with informants, and eﬀective methods of collecting
and preserving data. However, despite the time and eﬀort, I still lacked confidence.
Therefore, I realized that to gain confidence I would have to learn the best practicesof language documentation from experts. Fortunately, I found this in the Documentary
Linguistics Workshop at the Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia andAfrica (ILCAA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies (TUFS), which became a major
turning point in my eﬀorts.
The workshop had been running as a part of the LingDy project at ILCAA forBadagarov, Jargal: The importance of Documentary Linguistics Workshops

59

nine consecutive years. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss my impressions of
the workshop and will be happy if this helps lead others into the field of language
documentation and linguistics. First, I am going to give a general overview of theworkshop, its aims, and organization, and then I will briefly concentrate on particular
courses, drawing, where applicable, on my impressions and thoughts.
The goal of the workshop was to provide basic training in language documentation
for field linguists, including methodological and technical training in various aspectsof language documentation and archiving of endangered/minority languages. Topics
covered included the following: introduction to language documentation, languagearchiving, hands-on training in audio and video recording and photography, data
management and metadata, discussion of issues in field linguistic research, elicitation,and many other aspects of documentary linguistics. The teaching staﬀ comprised
experts who had worked in the field for many years, such as Peter Austin (Schoolof Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London), David Nathan(SOAS, University of London), Anthony Jukes (Centre for Research on Language
Diversity (CRLD), La Trobe University), Sonja Riesberg (University of Cologne),and Hideo Sawada (ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies). Project groups
were led by native speaker consultants: Tshering Tashi (Royal Society for Protectionof Nature, Board Director, Dzongkha native speaker (Bhutan)), Namgay Thinley(Dzongkha Development Commission, Senior Research Oﬃcer, Dzongkha native
speaker (Bhutan)), Jargal Badagarov (Buryat State University, Lecturer, Buryat native
speaker (Buryatia, Russian Federation)), Kristian Walianggen (Center of Endangered
Language Documentation, State University of Papua, Language Consultant, Yali native
speaker (Papua, Indonesia)).
The workshop achieved a unique balance between theory and practice throughwell-thought-out organization of theoretical classes with hands-on practice courses
and group projects on the one hand, and through highly competitive selection ofparticipants and language consultants on the other. This combination, which I believe
was true for each of the nine workshops, led to the successful achievement of
the workshop’s mission and shared benefits for all participants, including teachers,
language consultants, and organizers. The participants were mostly Japan-based
MA and PhD students with a handful of international participants. The language of
instruction was English. A certificate of attendance was given to students and language
consultants.
In the following section, I will reflect on the benefits of the workshop as a whole andcertain courses in particular.
3.1. Overall experience

A frequently asked question is “What skills am I going to gain from a workshop?”Well, firstly, participation in this workshop has helped fine-tune my knowledge andskills of audio and video recording and photography in language documentation, in

60Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

terms of both equipment and technique. I also learned about the ethical aspects oflanguage documentation, regarding which systematic thinking is lacking in the RussianFederation and Mongolia. Data management and preservation was another aspect of
this workshop, the importance of which cannot be underestimated. All of this materialcame together as a proven set of knowledge and skills during the implementationof a group project. I learned a lot about teamwork during the group project. The
significance of teamwork is often underestimated in language documentation projects,
because usually one person carries out both the fieldwork and the “postproduction.”
Therefore, team projects were one of the cornerstones of this workshop, oﬀeringsignificant advantages over similar workshops I have since attended.
Theoretical and practical courses oﬀered during the workshop were Introduction to
Language Documentation; Planning Language Documentation and Group Projects;
Ethics and Working with Communities; Audio & Video; Fieldwork Techniques &Elicitation; Software for Documentation―Survey & Practical Demonstration; DataManagement; Multimedia & Mobilization; and Photography for Documentation. The
importance of data management and metadata was very much stressed. Theory was
discussed most intensively on the first day and again towards the second half of theworkshop. Practical courses were demonstration oriented and had a carefully designed
and eﬀective structure.
About half the overall workshop time was devoted to group projects with language
consultants, during which the following activities were conducted: preparing individual
laptops/software, set-up of groups and projects, group project design and reports, andrecording consultants.
There was also a public lecture called “Rethinking Language Documentation andSupport for the 21st Century,” which enabled all the participants to take part in a
discussion of the diﬀerent aspects of language documentation.
3.2. Introductory class

The introductory class provided a stimulating start to the workshop thanks toPeter Austin’s clear-cut presentation style and well-structured slides discussing key
concepts of language documentation theory. It walked the students through major
aspects of language documentation, oﬀering a basic understanding of the workflow
and major challenges in language documentation projects, including corpus design,interlinear glossing, archiving, managing data and metadata, meta-documentation goals
and methods, and sustainability issues in language documentation. The importanceof metadata was constantly stressed throughout the class, sending a clear message
to future experts in the field. The lecturer pointed out that “we need a theory of
metadata,” that is, a theory that is applicable to the documentation of the processof language documentation. Sustainability, as covered in the class, was another
under-theorized topic in language documentation. Through this, and the following
lectures, the participants learned about the role of language consultant as compared toBadagarov, Jargal: The importance of Documentary Linguistics Workshops

61

that of an informant. A language consultant is an individual who actively participatesin language documentation, often becoming the (co-)leader of the team. This role
contrasts markedly with that of an informant, traditionally viewed as a mere conduitof information and someone assessed only on the “quality” of information provided,a standard set by the researcher alone. This major conceptual shift from a passive
performer of communicative events to an active member of a language documentation
project was very inspiring. In general, the presentation set out a very balanced
understanding of the subject and its major problems and considered possible methods
and directions to overcome them.
3.3. Research and group work planning

The Planning Language Documentation and Group Projects class by Anthony Jukes
focused on the development of an actual language documentation project. During
this process, he helped students understand topics such as what kind of projects
granting agencies find most attractive and the major considerations behind the planningof a language documentation project, including project goals, timelines, audiences,outcomes and the researcher’s own skills and ways of combining them with the skillsof other project members. The participants were advised to look for a balance between
skills, time, and available resources, while at the same time understanding the factthat all documentation projects are diﬀerent. The class also considered the possible
goals of a language documentation project. A comparison of historical projects withmore recent ones demonstrated that earlier projects were aimed at producing “a lasting,multipurpose record of a language” (Himmelmann 2006: 1), whereas newer ones
focused more on, for example, traditional ethnobotanical knowledge or traditional
agricultural songs and stories. The students came to understand the importance ofsetting explicit timelines and that in any language documentation project, one willneed to consider the audience and the possible outcomes of the project, such as
grammars, linguistic/typological data, dictionaries, storybooks, schoolbooks, scholarly
papers, websites, and accessible audio/video. Teamwork was another focus of theclass: one should carefully reflect on one’s own skills and ways of combining thesewith others. In this class, I realized that participation in a language documentation
project should not be restricted to linguists only. Language documentation can be all
the more productive if members of the local community are involved not only for theirlanguage skills as informants or language consultants but also for their technical skills
in assisting in the selection and use of equipment. Moreover, after the data collection
and processing/annotation, assistance with technical equipment and archive curators
will be necessary, and the most appropriate source of workforce is again from membersof the community. This lecture was an essential part of the workshop and clarified very
important aspects of language documentation.

62

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

3.4. Ethics and community interaction

Anna Berge (Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks), a
guest presenter, continued the workshop with a presentation on ethics and community
interaction in language documentation. Together with Peter Austin, who presented
on Communities, Ethics and Rights, they covered ethical and legal concerns thatmight arise in the course of interaction between academia and a community during
language documentation. The lecture successfully demonstrated the utmost relevanceof ethical and legal considerations for all stages of language documentation. Language
documentation was shown to be a partnership between diﬀerent parties: communities,
linguists, pedagogues, archivists/librarians, organizations, and funding bodies. A
meaningful discussion of the community values and needs in the context of cultural
diﬀerences and a community view of linguistic research was an essential part of thepresentation and helped me gain a deeper understanding of community interests andthe place of linguists in the process of language documentation. The concept of“giving back” on behalf of academia was new to me because of the diﬀerences in fieldresearch practices in the Russian Federation, rooted in Soviet tradition. At that time,
the local community experienced linguists’ activities in the form of eﬀorts to create
orthographies and enacting positive changes in government policy in order to facilitate
a better representation of the local language in society. This was especially true
during the early Soviet period. Later on, there was only a shiny facade of “everlasting
friendship” between the peoples of the Soviet Union, which more or less successfully
concealed the gloomy reality of boarding schools, which prohibited children fromspeaking their mother tongue. This led to entire communities being deprived of theirtraditional ways of life and cultural practices. Naturally, this brought about the rapid
degradation of languages and extinction of whole communities. In my view, the major
weakness of the concept of “giving back” is that linguists, excluding a few, cannot
devote their entire lives to the community they are studying. From the point of view of
the community, a short-term eﬀort is not an eﬀort at all. Moreover, many community
members would regard the whole enterprise to be a waste of time, money, and eﬀort.
However, this should not make us give up. We should remain steadfast in the belief
that the preservation of a language and the linguistic and cultural practices of any
endangered community is of the utmost benefit to humanity.
In his presentation, Peter Austin put forward a wider perspective of the concept of“giving back” as “establishing and maintaining relationships which (ideally) goes far
beyond our departure from the field site.” Again, a specific realization of this concept
may vary from project to project, enabling discussions and decisions to be made withthe participation of the community. We can ask community members, especially thosewith whom we have worked extensively and/or can establish good relations, what theneeds of their community are. Another important idea articulated in this lecture wasthe central role and conception of reciprocity between the researcher and community.

Badagarov, Jargal: The importance of Documentary Linguistics Workshops

63

In other words, the researcher should negotiate the way a project is conducted, what
the possible outcomes should be and in what way they will be interesting for thecommunity. As Peter Austin stated in his presentation: “we need to question basic
linguistic/academic/literacy assumptions,” with which I cannot agree more. Despite
this having been recognized several years ago, it remains valid today. To conclude, I
would like to quote the major principles that we should consider when working in thefield (as formulated by Anna Berge): be honest, creative, flexible, and open; discuss
issues; explain your work; give results back to the community; communicate, negotiate;and do not isolate yourself.
3.5. Audio recording

Next was Audio Theory and Practice for language documentation by David Nathan.
He started by asking questions such as whether participants had ever recorded,
published, or processed audio or if we thought digital or analogue was better forrecording. This helped all participants to get oﬀ on the same foot, whether they wereexperienced or newbies. The lecturer formulated “big questions” to be kept in mind
when recording (what, for whom, and why are we recording?) and explicitly formulated
criteria for evaluating recordings, which proved to be instrumental in developing
personal audio recording skills.
We learned a lot of technical information, which was presented in a clear andlogical way with a less technically minded person in mind. Apart from the technicalcharacteristics of devices and their settings, it is important to be able to adapt to arecording environment. For instance, trying to avoid hard, smooth, flat parallel surfaces,
or facing away from noise sources, choosing a space away from doors, windows, traﬃcareas, and anything else noisy. The audio equipment selection depends on the goals of a
specific documentation project. The lecturer gave a detailed description of microphone
types and their advantages and disadvantages in diﬀerent recording situations, although
in the end there are only a few optimal choices. The best thing is to go directly to an
expert. There was also detailed information provided about the correct way to use amicrophone such as placement, distance, handling, and use in windy situations (e.g.,using a deadcat).
The theoretical portion of the audio session concluded with an exhaustive descriptionof audio workflow. The practical portion was truly impressive as the instructors
demonstrated the use of some equipment such as a Superlux S502 full binauralmicrophone and a Rode NTG1 condenser shotgun microphone in the classroom.
3.6. Video and language documentation

Video and Language Documentation by Anthony Jukes concentrated on theadvantages and disadvantages of video for language documentation. One of the major
drawbacks of video footage as stated by the lecturer is that it “may seem ‘true’, but isactually less ‘authentic’ than audio” as it frames an environment rather than capturing

64Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

it.
When shooting video he recommends considering what is to be filmed, who is goingto watch it, where/how they will watch it, how you will manage audio, how you
are going to edit it, how much you are prepared to spend, and how much you areprepared to carry. Some basic technical information concerning lenses and sensors
was explained in a succinct manner with examples of eﬀects these two parameters
produce on the final video. As is often the case, the key is to find a proper balance
between price, specs, and picture when choosing a camera. Some specific models
were discussed, from professional video cameras to camcorders; photo cameras fromDSLR to cheap point-and-shoot cameras were also discussed, as they are becoming
increasingly popular for shooting video. Aside from the best camera one can aﬀord,
one should always remember that “The best camera is the one you have with you.”
In addition to the technical side of video recording, the presentation addressed thebasic principles required for quality video recordings, thoroughly discussing suchprinciple components of an optimal video shot as framing, lighting, and camera
movement. A quality camera and decent command of the basic principles ofcomposition require appropriate stabilization equipment such as tripods, monopods,
and camera rigs. When shooting a video, one should always take care to record theaudio separately using suitable equipment because built-in audio recorders can be used
only for syncing purposes and do not result in high-quality audio.
3.7. Fieldwork techniques and elicitation

Fieldwork Techniques and Elicitation by Sonja Riesberg started by providing sometheoretical foundation to language documentation and reflection on its meaning.
According to Himmelmann (2006: 7–10), the object of study is “linguistic practiceand tradition” which are manifested in “1) the observable linguistic behavior and 2) thenative speakers’ metalinguistic knowledge.”
While making recordings of linguistic practice and tradition seems to be quite naturaland, technically speaking, straightforward, some issues are to be considered in orderto make a comprehensive record of linguistic practice and tradition and provide anecessary quality of data. In reality, a record of natural communicative events is notquite possible, and therefore, in language documentation, a linguist has to manage
observed or staged communicative events, or elicitation. Possible scenarios of all typesof communicative events, both observed and staged, necessary to meet the requirementsof a comprehensive record, were discussed in considerable detail with carefully selected
examples and actual footage from real projects. Elicitation and use of stimuli toobtain explicit grammatical information, fill gaps in a paradigm, encourage narrative
production, and elicit dialogues and speaker’s categorization of space and time allreceived a meticulous account. The material was presented in a systematic manner withthe examples provided from the lecturer’s own experience. In general, the presentation
managed to cover every important aspect of the topic, providing just the right amountBadagarov, Jargal: The importance of Documentary Linguistics Workshops

65

of detail.
3.8. Software tools

The lecture Software for Documentation (Peter Austin and David Nathan) and thefollowing practical class focused on the processing of collected (recorded) information,
the most time-consuming stage of documentation. This includes transcriptions, aligned
annotations, interlinear glossing, vocabulary, and dictionaries. This is generally
facilitated by specialized software tools covered in the lecture. Specific programs
covered in this lecture include ELAN and Transcriber for preparing annotations,Toolbox and FLEx for data management, parsing and interlinearization of theannotations from the previous stage, WeSay for collecting and organizing lexical datafor dictionaries, and Arbil and SayMore for metadata management. The advantages
and disadvantages of each program were discussed at length, and the comparison was
summed up in a convenient table. Some possible ways to distribute the results of
documentation, especially among community members, were also discussed.
The practical part of the class was devoted to working with Toolbox/FLEx (Peter
Austin) and ELAN (Anthony Jukes). In the beginning, participants were given an Ainu
text and followed instructions to setup a new project in Toolbox/FLEx with text andlexicon databases. We were told to pay attention to the naming of a project and its
folders, numbering the entries of the lexicon database, adding extra fields to the text
and lexicon databases to reflect the names of those who entered the data. Because oftime limitations, it was not possible to get any profound knowledge or skill, but still it
was very useful as a gentle introduction to the tool.
The latter part of the practical class described ELAN and its use for transcription andannotation. Students learned what this tool can and cannot do and gained knowledgeof basic terminology behind the software and its workflow. Seven exercises weresuggested to the students covering major stages of a language documentation project
setup.
I believe that the knowledge and skills gained in the class were crucial for further
mastering the software: I knew what courses and summer schools to look for in orderto further my understanding of those tools, especially ELAN and metadata management
tools. Thanks to the group projects, we were able to immediately apply the skills we
had gained in this class.
3.9. Data management

We need to carefully consider strategies for storing the rapidly increasing amount ofdata we are able to store on our computers to facilitate quick identification and access.
This was the major point of data management class by David Nathan. The presentationeﬀectively demonstrated why file naming and folder structure strategies are vital, whata digital object is and its identity, how to create a collection of materials that can beused in the absence of the creator, and how to document decisions on file name and66

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

folder structure conventions creating an additional layer of metadata.
Three folder structure models were presented along with a discussion of their pros
and cons: 1) a tree of descriptive folder and file names; 2) one folder with descriptive
filenames; and 3) one folder with numerical filenames. These recommendations werevery useful since I had had experience creating what turned out to be badly managed
data sets.
In the final part of the presentation, the lecturer discussed the issue of encoding,presenting some possible problems and ways to avoid them. After the class, theresearcher should be able to design a well-organized system of folders. These skills
were immediately put into use during the group projects.
3.10. Photography

Photography in language documentation by Hideo Sawada concentrated on the rolesof photography in language documentation and its technical aspects. The technicalaspect focused on camera types and lenses. Participants learned about possible
problems that make images unusable, including lighting, blurring, defocusing, andobscurity. There were also some tips on how to obtain the best picture possible underdiﬀerent circumstances.
During the lecture, the importance of tripods was highlighted again (see theparagraph on Audio and video class). The lecturer gave very helpful recommendations
on choosing photography equipment, including tripods, and provided amusing
demonstrations clearly illustrating possible problems in the field and ways to overcome
them. Camera types, such as DSLR, mirrorless, high-end and point-and-shoot compact
cameras, mobile and smartphone built-in cameras, and PC built-in cameras, received
a detailed account along with a discussion of their advantages and disadvantages ina fieldwork context. Students learned to take into account lighting conditions toadapt equipment to diﬀerent working situations. The role of close-ups in language
documentation was examined, and useful tips for good quality close-up photos were
given.
The students learned how to manage photos in a language documentation, about
naming of files and software for bulk renaming, such as Flexible Renamer for MS
Windows or Rename for Macs. Personally, I prefer using Total Commander on
Windows and Terminal on Mac. Photo management software to enable keyword
searches was discussed by the lecturer, including Picasa, StudioLine Photo Basic, and
Adobe Lightroom. It should be added that newer versions of Windows and OS X enable
users to organize files with tags. There is a study by Civan et al. (2008) showing thatcombining folders and tags (labels) is better than using only one of these methods fororganizing files.

Badagarov, Jargal: The importance of Documentary Linguistics Workshops

67

3.11. Digital archiving

The Endangered Language Archive (ELAR) and Digital Archiving forDocumentation of Endangered Languages by David Nathan gave a very important
perspective to the whole workshop, clarifying some intricate “secrets” of language
documentation for the inexperienced. It began with a discussion of the definitionof a digital archive, its functions, and the peculiar features of language archives
rooted in the diverse and complex nature of language itself. Among the advantagesof language archives mentioned were security, preservation, discovery, protocols,
sharing, acknowledgement, mobilization, quality, and standards. Their drawbacks
partly originate from the disadvantages of digital data: it is fragile and ephemeral.
Listeners were introduced to the architecture of language archives using the examplesof the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) and ELAR models, and the needfor redefining the digital ELAR was postulated. After the introductory section of thepresentation, the lecturer discussed at length various aspects of endangered languagearchiving using ELAR and its inventory as an example. The lecture concluded withpractical information on formats and standards. All of this requires a variety ofcomputer skills. Therefore, one may benefit from acquiring such skills or collaboratingwith someone who has them.
3.12. Group projects

The group projects proved to be a critical element of the Documentary Linguistics
Workshop. They helped the participants to consolidate their knowledge and strengthen
their skills by working together on a project of their choice. The group in which I
worked consisted of three highly motivated individuals I would like to mention by name―Sami Honkasalo, Robert Laub, and Kunio Kinjo―who concentrated on somethingthat could be part of an actual language documentation project. We recorded a Buryad
fairy tale and transcribed it in ELAN, collaborated on a translation in Google Docs, andthen published it on YouTube with subtitles in Buryad and English.
Similar to most of the teams, we had at first experienced diﬃculties deciding on
a topic. We had tried several other options, for example, discussing tense forms in
Buryad, before finally deciding on the fairy tale. This proved to be an appropriate
decision as the allocated time of four days was insuﬃcient for anything too ambitious.
We found Google Docs to be very useful in the course of our project, although it is notalways usable in the field. We learned a lot from interacting within the group, as wellas with other participants and teaching staﬀ.
The culminating point of the group projects and the workshop itself was thepresentation and discussion of the group projects. The groups presented successfulprojects and received a lot of feedback from all the participants. I believe that theopinions and advice we received at this point from our experienced instructors was
extremely important.

68

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

3.13. Workshop atmosphere

The whole workshop was about free communication of ideas, knowledge, and skills.
This concluded in an individual clinic and consultations, during which a student
could ask for the advice of any lecturer or any language consultant. Some used thisopportunity to set up a project in Toolbox or FLEx, while others chose to discuss their
MA or PhD projects, or project proposals, or receive firsthand advice on equipment andits use. The range of possible topics was limitless, and I believe everyone was able toeﬀectively use this phase of the workshop.
4. Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the role such workshops play. They havea significant influence on future careers since they provide excellent opportunities tointeract with experts and senior specialists in the field and share in their firsthandexperience. The Documentary Linguistics Workshop at ILCAA, TUFS (Tokyo)
succeeded in this and granted its participants self-confidence and inspiration in theirlanguage documentation eﬀorts.
There was a good balance between theory and practice, group projects, individual
consultations, expert teaching staﬀ, carefully selected language consultants, andstudents. Similar to any other event of this type, organizers tried hard to counterbalance
contents and activities with very limited time. However, it is diﬃcult to meet the
expectations of every participant. Among minor imperfections was the limited coverageof documentation software, though I do realize that within the six-day timeframe, thiswas not possible. Therefore, students who seek further training in software tools forlanguage documentation should look for more specialized workshops. However, it waspossible to consult individually with instructors about the software.
In sum, I should say that this workshop proved to be a very solid introduction tolanguage documentation. It provided a strong foundation to further training in thefield and for starting individual projects. I believe that this type of workshop is very
important for researchers and endangered language communities around the globe.
Fortunately, the new iteration of the LignDy project implements a series of outreachactivities as a continuation of the Documentary Linguistics Workshop in diﬀerent partsof the world, including Indonesia, Mongolia, Russia, and China. This facilitates thedissemination of knowledge and skills and sets up long-term collaboration amongst
academics and communities all over the world.
For anyone who participates in similar workshops, I would recommend that while
enjoying the welcoming and relaxed atmosphere of such a workshop, participants takenotes and read the recommended literature, or at least some of the papers one notes asimportant. I also recommend that participants download the workshop materials andthe webpage to be able to use it oﬄine.

Badagarov, Jargal: The importance of Documentary Linguistics Workshops

69

Lastly, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to the LingDy team headedby Toshihide Nakayama. My participation in the workshop would not have beenpossible without the continued eﬀort and careful arrangements of Yoshida-san (Sachiko
Yoshida) and without the ongoing support and friendly advice of Professor Tokusu
Kurebito, to whom I would also like to express my appreciation.

References
Austin, Peter K. 2003. “Introduction (LDD 1)”. In Peter K. Austin (ed.) Language Documentation and Description
1. London: SOAS. pp.6–14.
Austin, Peter K. and Julia Sallabank, (eds.) 2011. The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Civan, Andrea, William Jones, Predrag Klasnja and Harry Bruce. 2008. “Better to organize personal information
by folders or by tags?: The devil is in the details”. Proceedings of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology 45 (1). pp.1–13.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2006. “Language documentation: What is it and what is it good for?”. In Jost Gippert,
Nikolaus P. Himmelmann and Ulrike Mosel (eds.) Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter. pp.1–30.
Thieberger, Nicholas. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics No.11, 2017

Documentary Linguistics Workshop (DocLing) 2016:
A Reflection
Yanti
Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia

The Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA) at Tokyo
University of Foreign Studies (TUFS), in collaboration with Endangered Language(EL) Training, conducted a Documentary Linguistics (DocLing) Workshop from 2008
through 2016. I had the opportunity to attend DocLing 2016, which was hosted at theinstitute from February 8 through 13, 2016. This paper shares my experience from
DocLing 2016 and presents my reflection on the program.

Keywords: language documentation, collaboration, reflection, workshop

1. Introduction
2. Overview of DocLing 2016 workshop
3. Zooming in sessions in DocLing 2016
4. Personal reflection
5. Epilogue

1. Introduction

Language documentation is a subfield of linguistics which has grown very rapidly
in this decade. Language documentation emerged as endangerment of the world’s
languages became a serious concern. In recent years, language documentation has
become not only an interest of those who are concerned about language endangerment,
but also of those who are working in all areas of linguistics. Linguists in general started
to be aware that linguistic theories cannot be generalized based on a few well-known
languages, such as English, German, French, etc. or on limited data based entirelyon elicitation. Primary data collected through carefully planned and well-conducted
documentation of various languages would also be useful to serve as the empiricalfoundation for the development of linguistic theories. For instance, this is the position
taken by Himmelmann (2006: 1), who defines language documentation as “a field of
linguistic inquiry and practice in its own right which is primarily concerned with thecompilation and preservation of linguistic primary data and interfaces between primary
Yanti. 2017. “Documentary Linguistics Workshop (DocLing) 2016: A reflection”. Asian and African Languages
and Linguistics 11. pp.71–78. [Permanent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/89208]

72

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

data and various of types of analyses based on these data.”
In 2013, a documentation workshop was hosted collaboratively by the ResearchInstitute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA) and Udayana
University in Bali. I participated in the workshop to share with others the practicalexperience I had gotten from my own work in language documentation (Yanti 2010;
Yanti, Tadmor, Cole and Hermon 2015). I came to realize that providing language
documentation training to members of language communities was an eﬀective way toempower them in documenting their own languages and to ensure the sustainability of
the activity. Since then, I have been actively collaborating with the ILCAA group to
give documentary workshops hosted in various places in Indonesia, such as Bali, Jambi,
Samarinda, and Kupang (see Jukes, Shiohara and Yanti, this volume).
After lecturing in several workshops, I realized that what I shared in those eventswas mainly based on my field experience in language documentation, and I had neverbeen to a structured and professionally organized language documentation workshop.
Therefore, in one of my email exchanges with Asako Shiohara from ILCAA, I
expressed my interest in participating in the documentary workshop that ILCAA was
hosting in February 2016. Asako Shiohara then invited me to participate in theworkshop.
This paper aims to share my experience during DocLing 2016 and to present myreflection on the program. Section 2 briefly presents an overview of DocLing 2016.
Section 3 zooms in on the sessions in the workshop. Section 4 shares my personalreflection on the program and Section 5 is the epilogue of the paper.
2. Overview of DocLing 2016 workshop

DocLing 2016 was hosted on February 8–13, 2016 at ILCAA, Tokyo Universityof Foreign Studies. The workshop aimed “to provide methodological and technicaltraining in various aspects of language documentation research, including audio
and video recording, data analysis, metadata, data management, data mobilization,archiving and research ethics” (http://lingdy.aacore.jp/en/activity/docling.html).
As a series organized collaboratively by ILCAA and Endangered Languages (EL)Training group, DocLing 2016 presented four of the main speakers from EL Training:Peter K. Austin, David Nathan, Anthony Jukes, and Sonja Riesberg; as well as three
ILCAA scholars who have ample experience in documenting minority languages: John
Bowden, Toshihide Nakayama, and Hideo Sawada.
The program covered a wide range of topics which are essential for those who areinterested in working on language documentation projects. These topics were presented
in the forms of lectures, discussion forums, and group projects. The early sessions of
the workshop mainly consisted of lectures, and covered topics like “an introduction tolanguage documentation”, “methods, materials and genres”, “mobilization: audience
research and design”, “ethics”, “data management and archiving”, “audio”, “software”,

Yanti: Documentary Linguistics Workshop (DocLing) 2016: A reflection73

as well as “still and moving images”. Discussion forums allowed the lecturers andparticipants to exchange their thoughts and experience about “roles, languages, andcommunities”, as well as “documentary theory and methods”. Some last sessions weredevoted to group projects.
To provide the participants with a real sense of language documentation fieldwork,
three of the participants whose native language was not known by the other participants
were invited to serve as language consultants. The consultants speak diﬀerent
languages spoken in Indonesia. The first language consultant was Dominikus Tauk,
whose native language is Helong, a language spoken in Kupang, East Nusa Tenggara.
The second one was Hesti Widyawati Wieringa, who speaks Javanese, a language
which is spoken by more than 80 million people (Simons and Fennig 2017). Finally,
I was the third language consultant (Yanti, a native speaker of Jambi Malay spoken in
Jambi City, Sumatra). Each of these speakers worked with several other participants ina group on projects based on the speakers’ respective languages.
3. Zooming in sessions in DocLing 2016

The six-day DocLing 2016 was a resource for those who were interested in
documenting languages. The workshop presented both theoretical and practical aspectsof language documentation, from planning to dissemination.
Some sessions were devoted to teaching the participants basic knowledge oflanguage documentation. These sessions mainly consisted of lectures and covered
topics such as what language documentation is, what it is concerned with, and why
language documentation is important. In addition, topics like methods of collecting
data, what materials to collect, what ethical issues one may encounter when doing
language documentation, and what should be considered before starting a language
documentation project were also discussed.
Some other sessions were designed to teach more practical and technical issues inlanguage documentation, such as equipment for making audio and video recordings,
how to make good recordings, software for data annotation, data management, andarchiving. In addition to lecturing, the instructors showed the participants various typesof equipment, such as audio and video recorders, microphones, tripods, etc. The use ofsoftware for data annotation and for making documentation products (e.g. dictionaries),
however, was not practiced much unless the participants needed help for their groupproject.
Finally, some last sessions were allocated for group projects and involved
participants’ concrete and active participation in conducting a so-called language
documentation project. The participants were divided into three groups and each group
worked with one language consultant.
In what follows, I will highlight the nature of the group project which the participants
needed to work on. As the language consultant in a group working on Jambi Malay,

74

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

my native language, I worked with four other participants. They were Akiko Tokunaga,
Linjing Li, Yuko Morokuma, and Norifumi Kurosima. Our group decided to make avideo containing a story told in Jambi Malay, my first language. The video would havesubtitles in three languages: Jambi Malay, English, and Japanese.
To work on the project, we could use any resources available at the ILCAA, including
the audio recorder, microphone, and the well-equipped recording studio. The use of
the studio was really a privilege for us. The lecturers were available to help if anygroup needed assistance or to discuss problems. Our group members worked together
and applied what we learned from the workshop in conducting our project. What wascoincidentally unique about our group was that each member seemed to have his/herown pre-assigned roles. I told the story in Jambi Malay, edited the audio recording
using Audacity software, and provided the Jambi Malay and English texts for subtitles.1
Norifumi Kurosima was responsible for recording me telling the story in the studioand translated the English text into Japanese. Yuko Morokuma is very talented in
drawing, and, thus, she was the one who prepared the illustrations in the video using
Firealpaca software.2 Linjing Li was in charge of putting together and adjusting all theillustrations and the audio recording to produce the video, as well as taking pictures
for documentation. Last but not least, Akiko Tokunaga inserted the subtitles in threelanguages on the video. She was also the one who uploaded the video to YouTube.3
It was not only our group which produced an outcome from the training. The
group working with Dominikus Tauk, produced a website containing information about
Helong.4 In addition, the group working with Hesti Widyawati Wieringa, made a power
point presentation about Bebek Ayu (Lit. ‘pretty duck’).5 We were all very pleased withwhat we produced in such limited time.
4. Personal reflection

The DocLing 2016 workshop provided the participants with a plentitude of materials
and information about language documentation. The workshop combined lectures,
discussions, and group work, and these activities made the workshop interesting andlively. Although I had some prior experience in doing language documentation, I foundthat my experience as a participant and a language consultant at the same time was stillinvaluable.
My personal reflection on my participation in the workshop resulted in my reaching
two main realizations. The first realization is about language documentation in generaland the second one is about the documentary workshop, especially in the context of
1

The Audacity software can be downloaded from http://www.audacityteam.org
The Firealpaca software can be downloaded from http://firealpaca.com/en
3
Online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByOjvNl-LmY, accessed on 2016-12-19.
4
Online at http://www.el-training.org/outcomes/docling2016/helong/, accessed on 2016-12-19.
5
Online at http://www.el-training.org/docs/docling2016/2016-02-13 dogling2016 Presentation%20Slides Group 3.pdf, accessed on 2016-12-19.
2

Yanti: Documentary Linguistics Workshop (DocLing) 2016: A reflection

75

Indonesia.
With respect to language documentation in general, I would like to make four main
points.6
a. Planning is important
Planning is the earliest and crucial stage in language documentation. The
planning stage in language documentation includes, among other things, setting
the goals of the project, deciding on who will collaborate on the project, what
funding resources and other resources are available, setting the time frame forthe project, and deciding what kind of data are going to be collected, etc.
Before we decided to make a video as the goal of our project, we considered
the resoures and the time we had and what kind of project might seem usefuland realistic to carry out. Then, we decided that we would make a video andstarted to discuss issues, such as what the contents of the video should be, who
would be the target audience, how would the video be accessed by the audience
later, what contributions each member of group could provide, the process thatour group would go through in making the video, etc.
The planning we carried out was really important as it helped us focus on ourgoal and it served as guidance about what to do to reach the goal, and how tofind a solution to any problems we might encounter. When we started to makethe audio recording, for example, we were not sure which microphone to use
and how far it should be located from the speaker. We tried two micropohnes
and decided to use the stereo one. We also had to adjust the distance of the
microphones several times until we got the best sound quality in the recording.
We realized that we needed a good recording because we were making a video
for the public.
b. Language community involvement
Speakers of a language know best about their language and people are always
excited talking about their language because they own it. Including the active
participation of members of a language community in a documentation project
can be valuable for documenting the language itself. Native speakers of alanguage usually know of interesting materials to collect and can contribute incollecting data as well as transcribing the data.
In addition, inviting members of a language community to participate in adocumentation project can also raise the awareness of the community about
language endangerment. Dalby (2002) points out that “a language dies every
two weeks.” Researchers are not in a position to force members of a language
community to use and pass on their own language to the next generation.
6

These are not novel points with respect to language documentation. A number of publications about language
documentation have pointed these out, for example, Himmelman, Gippert and Mosel 2006, Austin 2010.

76

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Members of the community should decide what they think they should do with
their language. If members of a language community are aware of how important
their language is and are part of a documentation project, they are likely to beagents for protecting their language from endangerment.
c. Archiving
Archiving raw data and unpublished fieldwork notes has been a common
practice for field linguists. In the Annual Business Meeting of the LinguisticSociety of America in 2010, members of LSA concluded the following
resolution“the Linguistic Society of America supports the recognition of thesematerials as scholarly contributions to be given weight in the awardingof advanced degrees and in decisions on hiring, tenure, and promotion offaculty. It supports the development of appropriate means of review of suchworks so that their functionality, import, and scope can be assessed relative
to other language resources and to more traditional publications” 7
By archiving recordings and texts, as permitted by the language community,a field researcher has shown respect to the language community, especiallythose who participate in the work. As pointed out by Dwyer (2006: 40),“· · ·; disseminating or at least properly archiving collected data is far more
respectful to a speaker community than piling it in the back of a closed.”Archiving raw data and unpublished notes may also allow the materials to befurther used by the future researchers as well as researchers from other fields ofstudy.
d. Dissemination
The final stage in a language documentation project is dissemination.
Disseminating the products of a documentation project is very important.
Otherwise, the entire documentation project will not be useful. Products fromlanguage documentation can be in a form of dictionaries, grammar books, story
books, videos, etc and they need to be published.
In the context of Indonesia, it is important that products from language
documentation of the local languages, such as storybooks, picture dictionaries,
videos and other potential materials for school local contents be madeavailable to the members of the language community. The native speakers ofthese languages are excited when they find their language in such products.
When I went back to the community with the storybook we published from7

http://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/resolution-recognizing-scholarly-merit-language-documentation

Yanti: Documentary Linguistics Workshop (DocLing) 2016: A reflection

77

documentation of Jambi Malay (Yanti, Tadmor, Cole and Hermon 2015), forexample, I could see how excited and proud the people were when they saw theirlanguage appeared in print. We hope that this kind of eﬀorts can help motivate
the language community to maintain their language and pass their language tothe next generation.
Regarding the documentary workshop, I suggest that workshops similar to DocLing
be hosted in more places, especially in places where minority languages are spoken.
Hosting documentary workshops in these places is a concrete eﬀort to support the ideaof involving the members of language community in documenting their own language
and culture. Furthermore, collaborating with members of community can be beneficial
to build language corpora for various types of research.
Learning from DocLing 2016, planning and holding future documentary workshops,
especially in the context of Indonesia should pay attention to the following. First,
a documentary workshop should allow enough time to deliver basic lectures about
language documentation and how to do language documentation as well as togive the opportunity to the participants to familiarize themselves with various
equipments needed in documenting languages (e.g. voice recorders, video recorders,and microphones), and to plan and work on a small project based on their native
language. The experience to do a documentation project may inspire them to continue
working on language documentation after the workshop. In previous documentation
workshops hosted in Indonesia, we usually allocated two days and I think theworkshops went well.8 Most of the participants claimed that the workshop was usefuland inspiring.9 They also practiced recorded themselves/each other speaking or singing
in their native languages and then transcribed part of the recordings. Nonetheless, they
did not have a chance to design their own project and make a product which they could
see and share at the end of the workshop. Therefore, adding two to three days to future
workshops should be considered as it will give the participants the opportunity to plan
and work on their own project during the workshop.
Second, documentary workshops hosted in diﬀerent places should not be a
hit-and-miss project. We hope that after the participants get some experience indoing a documentation project during the workshop, they will continue doing language
documentation. Nevertheless, the participants may need help or guidance when theywork on their projects. Therefore, it would be ideal if there is a follow-up program
after the workshop. This follow-up program aims to ensure that the participants
who decide to do language documentation could get supervision or guidance if theyencounter problems in their projects, to nurture those who have passion in language
documentation, as well as to seek the opportunity to collaborate with local communities
8

A half day seminar about language documentation for bigger audience usually preceded the actual documentation
workshop.
9
Based on the answers provided by the participants on questionnaires we distributed at the end of the workshop we
hosted in Kupang in 2016 as well as personal communication with some participants in previous workshops.

78

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

for future projects.
5. Epilogue

I benefited a lot from DocLing 2016. The experience during the workshop hasenriched my knowledge and skills about language documentation. The knowledge
and skills, together with the reflection points I made, will be useful for upcoming
documentation projects and documentary training I will be involved with at myuniversity in Jakarta or elsewhere.
Acknowledgement

I would like to thank the Linguistic Dynamic Science Project researchers at ResearchInstitute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), especially Asako
Shiohara for inviting me to DocLing 2016. I would also like to thank Toshihide
Nakayama and Anthony Jukes, the editors of the featured topic “DocLing” andYasuhiro Yamakoshi, the editor of this volume, as well two anonymous reviewers fortheir insightful comments and suggestions.

References
Austin, Peter K. 2010. “Current issues in language documentation”. In Peter K. Austin (ed.) Language
Documentation and Description 7. London: SOAS. pp.12–33.
Dalby, Andrew. 2002. Language in Danger: How Language Loss Threatens Our Future. London: The Penguin
Press.
Dwyer, Arienne M. 2006. “Ethics and practicalities of cooperative fieldwork and analysis”. In Himmelman,
Nikolaus P., Josh Gippert and Ulrike Mosel (eds.) Essesntials of language documentation. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter. pp.31–66.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2006. “Language documentation: What is it and what is it good for?”. In Jost Gippert,
Nikolaus P. Himmelmann and Ulrike Mosel (eds.) Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter. pp.1–30.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. Jost Gippert and Ulrike Mosel. 2006. Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Jukes, Anthony, Asako Shiohara and Yanti 2016. “Training for documenting minority languages in Indonesia andMalaysia”. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11. pp.45–55.
Simons, Gary F. and Charles D. Fennig (eds.) 2017. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Twentieth Edition.
Dallas, Texas: SIL International. [Online at http://www.ethnologue.com, accessed on 2016-12-19.]
Yanti. 2010. “A reference grammar of Jambi Malay”. Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, Newark, DE.
Yanti, U. Tadmor, P. Cole and G. Hermon (eds.) 2015. Critò Kitò: A collection of Jambi Stories in the Sabrang
Dialect. Jakarta: The Linguistic Society of Indonesia.

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics No.11, 2017

Documenting Language Use:
Remarks on some theoretical and technical issues for language
documenters
Kimoto, Yukinori
Nagoya University, Japan

This paper reviews the documentary linguistics workshop DocLing2013 from theviewpoint of a participant and discusses future prospects on documentary linguistics.1
The workshop was valuable in that it provided the participants with several key ideas
and a rich amount of information crucial for documenting endangered or lesser-known
languages. It had a great influence on my own project for the documentation anddescription of the Arta language; in particular what I learned from the workshop was ofgreat help when I applied for a grant on language documentation. At least two challenges
to be addressed are also noted, one of which is relevant to the use of ELAN. I attempt tosolve the problem by outlining a systematic use of ELAN in the documentary linguistic
context from tier-structuring to the exporting transcripts to other software.

Keywords: DocLing 2013, grant application, interdisciplinary approach, ELAN

1. Introduction
2. DocLing 2013 from a participant’s viewpoint
3. Personal benefits from the documentary linguistics workshop
4. Documentary linguistics as an interdisciplinary enterprise
5. Towards a standardization of ELAN
6. Concluding remarks

1. Introduction

I have been working on Arta, an endangered language, spoken by ten fluent
speakers and 30–50 second language speakers in the northern part of Luzon in thePhilippines. My on-going project (since 2012) concerns the documentation of theKimoto, Yukinori. 2017. “Documenting language use: Remarks on some theoretical and technical issues
for language documenters”. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11. pp.79–94. [Permanent URL:
http://hdl.handle.net/10108/89209]
1
I would like to thank DocLing lecturers and staﬀ including Peter Austin, David Nathan, and Anthony Duke, fromwhom I was able to learn a lot about documentary linguistics during DocLing2013. I am indebted to Daisuke
Yokomori, Hiromichi Hosoma, Kohei Kikuchi, Mandana Seyfeddinipur, and Sophie Salﬀner for sharing theirknowledge and skills of ELAN. I also thank two anonymous reviewers for comments on this paper. Remaining
errors are of course my responsibility. This paper is partially supported by Endangered Languages Documentation
Programme (SG0380 “A Documentation and Description of the Arta language”).

80

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

language (including the recording and analysis of various kinds of discourse), and a
description of the phonological system and morphosyntax, which will be submitted
as a Ph.D dissertation. When I began this project, I had no systematic knowledge of
linguistic documentation, and I struggled to find better ways to record, analyze, andarchive the data by myself. It was at that time that fortunately I was informed that aworkshop on language documentation (DocLing 2013) would be held at the ILCAA,
the Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo Universityof Foreign Studies. In fact, the ideas I learned during the workshop had a great influence
on my project: it led me to reconsider the ways of documenting the language, from thechoice of microphone to future plans for archiving the data.
In this paper, I will review DocLing 2013 from the viewpoint of a participant, andwill discuss prospects for language documentation research. In §2, the Documentary
Linguistics Workshop 2013 will be reviewed focusing on the lectures and some featurescharacteristic of DocLing; in §3, I will remark on the benefits I have had fromthe workshop, in particular, I focus on how it has had an impact on my research,in particular, when I applied for an international grant on endangered language
documentation. In §4 and §5, future prospects for documentary linguistics, concerning
both theoretical and practical aspects, will be discussed.
2. DocLing 2013 from a participant’s viewpoint

DocLing 2013 was held for six days in 11th–16th February, 2013, at the ResearchInstitute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), Tokyo University ofForeign Studies. Lectures were given by Peter Austin (SOAS, University of London),David Nathan (SOAS, University of London2 ), Anthony Jukes (CRLD, La Trobe
University), Sonja Riesberg (University of Cologne), and Hideo Sawada (ILCAA,
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies). Participants devoted almost half of the timeto group projects on language documentation, collaborating with the following native
speakers whose languages were not familiar to the participants: Tshering Tashi,3Namgay Thinley,4 Zhargal Badagarov,5 and Kristian Walianggen.6 ILCAA staﬀ also
assisted the participants during the workshop. The workshop also encouraged theparticipants to interact with each other and with staﬀ; participants were given suﬃcient
break times to communicate with each other informally.
Let me briefly review the lectures that I found quite impressive; the program of2

Currently Co-ordinator of the Centre for Australian Languages and Linguistics, at the Batchelor Institute ofIndigenous Tertiary Education.
3
Royal Society for Protection of Nature, Board Director, Dzongkha native speaker (Bhutan)
4
Dzongkha Development Commission, Senior Research Oﬃcer, Dzongkha native speaker (Bhutan)
5
Buryat State University, Lecturer, Buryat native speaker (Buryatia, Russian Federation)
6
Center of Endangered Language Documentation, State University of Papua, Language Consultant, Yali native
speaker (Papua, Indonesia)

Kimoto, Yukinori: Documenting language use

81

DocLing 2013 is given in Figure 17 :10:00-11:20

11:40-13:00

14:00-15:20

15:40-17:00

Introduction to
Day 1 language
documentation (PA)Planning language
documentation and groupprojects (AJ, DN)

Public lecture: “Rethinking
language documentation andsupport for the 21st century”(PA, DN, AJ)

Ethics and working with
communities (PA, guest
presenter Anna Berge)

Audio & video(DN, AJ)

Audio & video (AJ, DN)

Set up groups & projects (DN)Group projects design &report (group & staff)

Fieldwork
Day 3 techniques &elicitation (SR)Recording with
consultants (groups &staff)

Software for documentation:
survey (PA, AJ)

Software fordocumentation: practicaldemonstration (AJ)

Data management (DN)

Multimedia & mobilisation(AJ, DN)

Photography for
documentation (HS)Day 5 Archiving (DN)Group project
development (group &staff)

Group project development(group & staff)

Individual clinic / Groupproject (group & staff)

Individual clinic /Day 6 Group project(group & staff)

Group project finalisation(group & staff)

Project presentation (groups)

Project presentations(groups), Wrap-up (all)

Day 2

Day 4

Data management(DN)

Fig. 1 Program of DocLing 2013

Overview of Documentary linguistics (Day 1, 1st and 3rd classes, Austin
2010a “Current Issues in Language Documentation”): The lectures and thereading material distributed before the workshop enhanced our knowledge oflanguage documentation or documentary linguistics, including the definition of
documentary linguistics, diﬀerences between documentary and descriptive linguistics,
the current situations of documentary projects in the world and the availabilityof research fundings, such as ELDP (Endangered Languages Documentation
Programme) at SOAS, University of London, the Volkswagen Foundation DoBes
project (Dokumentation bedrohter Sprachen), and DEL (Documenting Endangered
Languages), an interagency program of the National Science Foundation and the
National Endowment for the Humanities. Since this academic field has few
introductory textbooks, we found his lectures and the paper to be excellent introductions
to the field.
Ethics in linguistic documentation (Day 1, 1st and 3rd classes, Austin 2010b):
Although linguistic fieldwork presupposes a relationship between researchers andmembers of the community, the field of linguistics had not begun to address ethicalissues seriously until fairly recently. This lecture and the reading material addressed
7

From http://lingdy.aacore.jp/en/activity/docling/2013.html (accessed at Sep 9th, 2016); PA: Peter
Austin, DN: David Nathan, AJ: Anthony Jukes, SR: Sonja Riesberg, HS: Hideo Sawada.

82

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

such ethical issues as legal aspects (copyright, intellectual rights, and so forth),principles of informed consents, and how to establish a good relationship with acommunity. In Japan, grant applications often require an explicit statement about
ethical matters, but we do not have opportunities to focus on such matters in detailin academic institutions. It was thus fortunate that we were able to discuss the matterin this class and with other participants.
Audio and video recording, photography (Day 2, 1st and 2nd classes, Day 4, 4thclass, Nathan 2010): Probably one of the most significant academic impact of the
field of documentary linguistics in general is that it has made it possible to discuss thetechnical and practical issues on audio and video recording as an academic pursuit, andhas made it possible to accumulate and share the knowledge. In this lecture and thereading material, we learned about epistemological principles of recording (especiallythe importance of human ears in evaluating recordings), the basics of audio and video
recordings, and the typology of microphones, we also saw practical demonstrationsof using microphones and learned about various ways of taming noises. All of theparticipants realized how important it is to choose appropriate microphones based on
the conditions of the field, and to adjust the settings carefully for better recordings.
Software for documentation (Day 3, 3rd and 4th classes): Two lectures were given
concerning software used for language documentation. The first lecture provided abrief overview of various pieces of software, including the purposes of using eachone, and their advantages and disadvantages. The second lecture, the participants
practiced using ELAN (annotation software for media files) and Toolbox (software for
conducting grammatical analysis and building a lexicon). It was of great help for those
who wanted to use software in language documentation. However, the lecture was only
the first step for using the software; thus slightly more systematic teaching would also
be necessary.
Data management (Day 4, 1st and 2nd classes): On Day 4, two lectures were given
on data management, in which participants were systematically taught how to manage
various kinds of data files (such as .eaf (ELAN), .mp4, .wav, and so on). One of theimportant ideas relates to the labeling of file names. File names are identifiers thatshould uniquely distinguish one file from another. It is thus advantageous to give a
simple file name with ASCII characters, which are structured systematically acrossfiles (e.g. arta0031). Only a limited amount of semantic information should be includedin the file names; meaningful information should mainly be stored in a metadata file,which is linked to the files using an identifier. This idea has influenced my project interms of my management of various kinds of files. I still remember “Always backup
the data!” and “A filename is an identifier, not a data container”.
In sum, the workshop provided us with a rich amount of important ideas for language
documentation, most of which were not taught in universities, probably for the simple

Kimoto, Yukinori: Documenting language use

83

reason that they have not been established as a discipline.
3. Personal benefits from the documentary linguistics workshop

I received many benefits from the documentary linguistics workshop, the first ofwhich was the knowledge of how to produce strong grant applications. I applied for an
Endangered Languages Documentation Programme (ELDP) grant funded by SOAS,
University of London, and was awarded a one-year grant titled “A Documentation
and Description of the Arta Language” (SG0380; Yukinori Kimoto, 2015–2016).
The grants require the applicants to write a long description of the project, and the
ELDP expects them to be familiar with documentation methods. Figure 2 shows theactual questionnaires in the 2015 version of the ELDP grant. For this application
form, specific descriptions are expected for several questions, including the summaryof the project (Q10, max. 100 words), the description of specific outcomes (Q11,max. 750 words), the detailed description of the project including language context,
documentation methods, community context, and research outcomes (Q12, max. 2000
words, thus around 400 words per subcategory), ethical aspects of the project (Q13,max. 750 words), the project work plan (Q14, max. 750 words), and financial detailsof the support requested (Q15). One can easily imagine that applicants are required tohave a systematic knowledge of language documentation. Thanks to the documentarylinguistics workshop, I understood what the applicants were expected to describe. I
reviewed the slides and papers that had been shared during the documentary linguistics
workshop, and was able to compose my proposal in a clear and suitable manner.
Q1 Applicant details (name, address, his/her current position, etc.)
Q2 Host institution which will administer the award(including a letter of acceptance by head/dean of the institution)
Q3 Title of the projectQ4 Duration of the projectQ5 Proposed start date
Q6 Previous ELDP grants? (whether s/he have held a grant from ELDP)
Q7 Is this re-submission?
Q8 Other funding applications
Q9 Commitment to the project (the intended average number of hours per week, etc.)
Q10 Summary of the proposed project (Maximum 100 words)
Q11 Specific outcomes (Maximum 750 words)
Q12 Detailed description of the project (Maximum of 2,000 words across the 4 headings)
 (i) Language context, (ii) Documentation methods, (iii) Community context, (iv) Research outcomes
Q13 Ethical aspects of the project (Maximum 750 words)
Q14 Project work plan (Maximum 750 words)
Q15 Financial details of the support requested(Specify the details with calculations, and state the justifications of the items.)(a) Replacement teaching costs/research salaries, (b) Technical staff, (c) Language consultants,(d) Equipment, (e) Travel and subsistence, (f) Consumables, (g) Other costs
Q16 Referee (Referee details)
Q17 Curriculum Vitae

Fig. 2 ELDP grant application form (c.a. 24 pages)

84

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Second, and perhaps more importantly, the workshop played a significant role inconnecting field researchers in Japan and across countries. The one-week workshop
includes a group session as an integral part of it, in which the participants wereencouraged to conduct collaborative work. As mentioned above, during the longer
breaks between lectures we communicated with each other informally. Our social
relationships established in DocLing 2013 is still maintained.
Furthermore, since the workshop was strongly connected to SOAS, it was easy
for me to extend my social network to people in SOAS. I attended two workshops
held at SOAS: “Plants, Animals, Words”: a workshop on ethnobiological, linguistic,
and anthropological studies (September, 2013), and an ELDP training workshop(September, 2015), and I shared fruitful experiences with the other participants,
particularly with young field researchers.
In the next two sections, the scope of discussion is broadened into documentarylinguistics as a whole. Focusing on the documentation of language use, I will explore
the theoretical significance and a practical challenge of documenting language use. In§4, I reconsider the interdisciplinary nature of documentary linguistics, and will suggestthat any documentary project without theoretical considerations would be useless toresearchers in related fields; we should learn related fields wherein the documentationof language use is of great significance. In §5, a practical issue of annotating discourse
data with ELAN, annotation software, is addressed. Based on the technical workshop I
gave in Kyoto University in Japan, some basic method and advanced use of ELAN will
be explicated.
4. Documentary linguistics as an interdisciplinary enterprise

Although documentary linguistics is supposed to “work in interdisciplinary terms”(Austin 2010a: 13), it seems that there are so far few interdisciplinary projects involving
or applying documentary linguistics, with the primary focus of most other research in
the field remaining on the interactions between language documentation and language
description (or documentary vs. descriptive linguistics).7 If language documentation
is aimed at the preservation of primary data for long-term storage in interdisciplinary
terms, trainings on language documentation should show participants how our data cancontribute to research in other disciplines. Whether or not the documenters have suchknowledge may seriously aﬀect the quality of data collected.
Consider a hypothetical situation in which a linguist used an IC recorder to record aprocedural text of traditional cooking, and archived the data with the transcription: “weput that here, and do it like this, or like this, and after that, we put it there”. It would be
no problem if he just wants to write a grammar, but language documenters should note
7
In fact, in DocLing 2013, all the lecturers and stuﬀ were linguists, and almost all the participants in DocLing 2013
were linguists. We participants were thus quite unclear as to how we can develop our work “in interdisciplinary
terms” possibly with researchers of other fields.

Kimoto, Yukinori: Documenting language use

85

that non-verbal information might be a crucial key to understand their cultural practices
in cooking when none of the community member lost such cultural knowledge.
It is necessary for language documenters to at least be familiar with other (broad)areas of studies in languages because ignorance of other academic fields results in datacollections that are totally useless to researchers involved in linguistic or comu in otherfields. There is no theory-neutral documentation (theory-ladenness of observation).
After all, we are the one who “constructs” and “frames” the data from a particular
viewpoint.
Actually, the primary data of language use are not useful only for descriptive
linguistics, but are also of great use for other fields. Some typical fields to which theprimary data of language use can contribute are shown below:• usage-based approach in cognitive linguistics (Langacker 1987, Bybee 2010)• gesture studies in psychology (Kendon 1988, McNeill 1992, Clark 1996, Kita
2003)
• research on language socialization in anthropology (Ochs et al. 2001, Takada
2012)• conversation analytic studies in sociology (Sacks, et al. 1974, Schegloﬀ 2007)• interactional linguistics—an interdisciplinary enterprise between conversation
analysis and functional linguistics (Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 2001, Hayashi
2003)
The attempt to apply documentary linguistic studies to these fields will reveal
illuminating facts on language, cognition, social interaction and culture.8 Ifpractitioners of language documentation are informed of such orientations, their data
are potentially of great use to these fields.
5. Towards a standardization of ELAN

The second challenge of documenting language use is relevant to a technical issue,
concerning the standardization of ELAN.9 It seems that the practical skills in ELAN
that are necessary for language documentation are not always taught in the context oflanguage documentation trainings. Since DocLing ended, I learned more about how to
use the software through trial and error with the help of the manual and other users of
ELAN; this has sometimes required me to radically change the format of some of myannotated files to make them consistent.
8Mark Dingemanse, Nick Enfield, and their colleagues, for example, surveyed typological variations of
so-called “other-initiated repair” (Dingemanse and Enfield 2015), revealing remarkable commonalities acrosslanguages/cultures.
9
ELAN was developed by the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics; it was designed for a number of diﬀerent
users such as linguists, language documenters, gesture and sign language researchers, and for their collaborations(Brugman and Russel 2004). It is powerful and enables various methods of annotation, so that it has become an
essential tool for language documentation at the moment.

86

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

In this section, I attempt to provide one model for how to teach ELAN to language
documenters and the students of linguistics in general. The model tutorial presented
below was gradually modified through the process of writing an ELAN tutorial for
language documentation (Kimoto (to appear)), and technical workshops on ELAN,
which was held three times in the summer of 2016 designed for linguistics students
at Kyoto University, Japan.
For ELAN users in the context of language documentation or linguistic analysis, thefollowing skills and types of knowledge are especially relevant:
1. A basic method of annotating media files.
2. The conceptual diﬀerence between linguistic types and tiers, and their practicalusage.
3. Advanced usage: automatic numbering, word-breaking, controlled vocabularyTwo-hour workshop was designed to include the above contents: the outline of
the workshop is given in Figure 3. Prior to the workshop, participants had finishedinstalling ELAN, and had been provided with a movie file (.mp4), and a sound file(.wav) extracted from the movie file. The movie file had been recorded in my fieldsession on the Arta language.
In the technical workshop, I demonstrated the method to use ELAN in my fieldsituation, where a researcher is annotating speech in Arta, spoken by Speaker A, andtranslating it into Ilokano (a lingua franca widely used in the northern Luzon area of thePhilippines) and English. Participants practiced ELAN within the exemplar situation.
1. Basics of ELAN:
1.1. A simple method of annotation
1.2. Using ELAN transcriptions as a corpus: searching across annotation files
2. Constructing tier structure
2.1. Conceptual diﬀerence between linguistic types and tiers
2.2. Setting up linguistic types
2.3. Adding tiers
2.4. Saving as a template
2.5. Adding participants from a single participant template
3. Advanced uses of ELAN
3.1. Synchronizing video and audio data
3.2. Notes on video data
3.3. Autonumbering of annotations
3.4. Controlled vocabulary
4. Exporting
4.1. Exporting as an interlinearized text file
4.2. Exporting to FLEx (FieldWorks Language Expolorer)
Fig. 3 Technical workshop on ELAN for linguistic analysis

Kimoto, Yukinori: Documenting language use

87

In what follows, I provide one model for teaching ELAN to language documenters,
which was modified based on the workshop I gave to linguistics students.
Session 1: Basics of ELAN

A simple method of annotation As a first step, participants are directed to notice
how simply they can annotate media files. After the movie and sound files are imported
into ELAN, the participants are directed to annotate files in the simplest way (without
making any change in linguistic type and tier). They learn the following points:• how to use shortcut keys. In particular, annotations cannot be moved or
expanded/contracted without using the alt key (Table 1).
• media player options; e.g. arranging the playback speed• representation of the waveform (it is often the case that if the sound is recorded ina low volume, the waveform is not visible clearly): right-click on the waveformviewer > vertical zoom > select 300% (Note that waveforms are not shown if themedia type is video!)
Table 1 Shortcut keys in ELAN

Start/Pause the playback:Play the selected interval:Enter an annotation into a selection:
Edit a selected annotation:
Save the current annotation:
Move an annotation:
Expand/contract the length of an annotation:

control + spaceshift + space
alt + N (active tier only)
alt + M (active tier only)enter
alt + drag the middle of theannotation
alt + drag the border of theannotation

Using ELAN transcriptions as a corpus: searching across annotation files The
next session introduces methods of searching in ELAN, particularly because the ability
to search across files is one of the main advantages of using ELAN; this makes it
possible to use our data as a corpus. Here just a short introduction may be provided,
including a method of defining the corpus (“define domain”), and the availability of
regular expressions (with reference to Mosel 2015).
Session 2: Constructing tier structure

When using ELAN, it is essential to understand the conceptual diﬀerence between
linguistic types and tiers. But this is not always easy for learners to understand quickly.
In the workshop I gave, I used illustrations to make it easier to grasp the ideas (Figure
4).

88

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

1. Setting up linguistic types

2. Create tiers
Speaker A(I) “Base”(for vernacular text)
Stereotype: None

3. Save as a template(i) A-arta (parent tier: none)(ii) A-ilk (parent tier: A-arta)(iii) A-en (parent tier: A-arta)(II) “Dependent”(for the others)
Stereotype: Symbolic Association.

(iv) A-note (parent tier: A-arta)(v) A-ref (parent tier: A-arta)

Speaker B

4. Multiply thetier structure(vi) B-arta (parent tier: none)(vii) B-ilk (parent tier: B-arta)(viii) B-en (parent tier: B-arta)(ix) B-note (parent tier: B-arta)(x) B-ref (parent tier: B-arta)

Fig. 4 Tier-structuring process

In the workshop, vernacular texts (in Arta) were assigned to the “base” linguistic
type, and the others (Ilokano translation, English translation, grammatical/lexical notes,
reference number) the “dependent” linguistic type. Participants were directed to create
a tier structure for one speaker, and to save it as a template for further use of the sametier structure. They also learned to multiply the tier structure in case more than one
speaker is relevant to the transcription. This process seems more advantageous thanmanual additions particularly because users can create the same tier structure in quite a
simple way.
Conceptual diﬀerence between linguistic type and tier I illustrated the conceptual
diﬀerence between linguistic type and tier by explaining the following to students.
Suppose you need five kinds of information for each annotation, that is, (i) atranscription of the object language (here “Arta”), (ii) a translation in the lingua
franca (Ilokano), (iii) an English translation, (iv) grammatical/lexical notes, and (v)the utterance ID. In this case, these five layers should be prepared in the setting. But ona more abstract level, they can be classified into two general types: (I) one in which you
can freely change the intervals and positions within the timeline (that is, (i) Arta), and(II) another in which the intervals and positions are dependent on the first tier type (thatis, (ii)–(v)). These two general tier types are called linguistic types, and the five actual
layers are called tiers in ELAN. If the media file to annotate includes three speakers, 15“tiers” should be prepared, whereas two “linguistic types” are suﬃcient for the purpose.

Kimoto, Yukinori: Documenting language use

89

Setting up linguistic types and adding tiers. After reaching a conceptual
understanding of the two diﬀerent levels of tier structure, participants learn other key
concepts such as “stereotype”, “parent tier”, “symbolic association”, and inheritances
between linguistic types and tiers, guided by the illustration in Figure 4.
Saving as a template. After a tier structure for one speaker is constructed, the tierstructure is saved as a template (File > Save as Template). Doing so eliminates the needto re-create the same tier structure for each annotation file, and allows for consistent tierstructures across files.10
Adding a new participant. If the media file being annotated has two or more
speakers, the tier structure for one speaker can be multiplied in a relatively simple
manner (rather than manually adding tiers). Click on Tier menu > Add New
Participant... (then a dialog window will appear). In the dialog window, (i) check if thetier structure to copy is selected; (ii) enter the name of the speaker to add in “Specify the
new participant”; (iii) select the relative position of the name value specified in the label
in “Specify whether the suﬃx or prefix of the selected tier structure(s) to be changed”(for a new tier structure like “B-arta, B-ilk, ...” from “A-arta, A-ilk, ...”, select “prefix”,
or for “arta-B, ilk-B, ...”, select “suﬃx”); (iv) enter the name value of the speaker in theoriginal tier structure (e.g. A) in “Enter the value to be replaced”; (v) enter the namevalue of the new speaker (e.g. B) in “Enter the new value for replacement”; (vi) select“OK”, and the result will be shown in the timeline viewer.
Session 3: Advanced uses of ELAN

During the workshop I organized, participants worked with some of the moreadvanced uses of ELAN, such as annotation autonumbering, controlled vocabulary,
and word/morpheme-breaking; they also practiced synchronizing multiple media files.
These advanced functions are not necessarily required when using ELAN, but are useful
in some cases. Here I just make some short remarks on the synchronization of media
files.
Synchronizing video and audio data. Although ELAN provides ways tosynchronize more than one media file (e.g. video-video, video-audio), researchers
should first consider whether this is really necessary. If a single session has beenrecorded with two videocameras, it would make sense to synchronize those twovideo files. However, if one hopes to synchronize video and audio files (e.g.
suppose a situation in which session was both video-recorded with a camcorder, andaudio-recorded with an IC-recorder), one should reconsider whether that is the only
option available. Since synchronization in ELAN can be a troublesome task, I always
10

Even if tier structures are inconsistent across files, ELAN does work. The problem arises when you search acrossfiles, however. One of the advantages of cross-file searching is that a particular tier or speaker can be specified. Iftier structure are inconsistent across files, you cannot search across files according to these attributes.

90Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

record sessions with a videocamera and an external microphone; this seems suﬃcientto get a clear sound with less noise.
Various pieces of software can be used to extract .wav files from .mp4 or other video
files (e.g. Avidemux (Windows), QuickTime Player 7 (Mac), Audacity (Windows,Mac)); using .wav files enables ELAN to show waveforms along the timeline.11
Session 4:
Explorer)

Exporting interlinearized texts into FLEx (FieldWorks Language

FLEx or FieldWorks Language Explorer is software used for building a lexicon,
analyzing texts, and studying morphology and syntax, distributed by SIL International.
Although it is also powerful software, and ELAN and FLEx have an interface forexporting/importing each other’s files, it is quite a complex procedure. The manual“Working with ELAN and FLEx together” is available under “Third party resources” on
the ELAN website. It begins with instructions to set up a tier structure and to annotate
a media file in a special way, which do not really answer what we want to know; if you
already have several annotated ELAN files to export into FLEx, this method does notwork at all.
This is the background motivation to explicate what is probably the most realistic
way to export annotated ELAN files into FLEx below in detail.
Step 1. Add the linguistic type of the title. FLEx cannot import the data properly if

the labels of linguistic types do not follow a designated format and if the data do nothave a title tier. Here you need to add a linguistic type for the title of the annotated
file. Go to “Type” > “Add Linguistic Type” and create a new linguistic type with thename “Title”, and the stereotype “None”. Next, go to “Tier” > “Add tier” and create an
additional tier with the name “Interlinear-title-[ISO639]” (see also Table 2).
Step 2. Assign participant information to the annotations. Interlinear texts in FLEx

are not adopted to multi-participant discourses so far. If the session annotated is aconversation by more than one speaker, such information on the speakers should be putin the “notes” tier. Create a new tier with the dependent linguistic type, and add new
annotations of speaker information below each utterance (e.g. “A”, “B”, etc. for eachannotation). It is easy to make empty annotations automatically by clicking “Tier” >“Create Annotations on Dependent Tiers...” and entering the speaker information, “A”
or “B”, over the same tier by clicking “Tier” > “Label And Number Annotations...”.
Step 3. Change the tier names. FLEx requires tier names to follow a particularformat to be able to read them properly. Change the names of relevant tiers (Table 2).
In particular, ISO-639 codes for an object language or vernacular language (e.g. atz forArta), and a translation language (e.g. en for English) are required.12 You can consult
1112Note that the waveform does not appear if the annotation file is linked only to video file(s).
It seems that this information should correspond to the ISO codes you used when a FLEx project was built.

appropriate linguistic types are not used within the annotated file. Here you need to add
a linguistic type for the title of the annotated file. Go to “Type” > “Add Linguistic Type”
and create a new linguistic type with the name “Title”, and the stereotype “None”. Next,
go to “Tier” > “Add tier” and create new tier with the name “Interlinear-title-[ISO639]”(see also below).
Step 2 Assign participant information
to theDocumenting
annotations
Interlinear
texts in FLEx
Kimoto, Yukinori:languageusedoes not represent multi-participant discourses properly. If the session annotated is aconversation participated in by more than one speaker, such information on the speakershould be put13in “note”.

91

Ethnologue or even Wikipedia to get the ISO codes.

Step 3 Change in tier name FLEx requires annotation files to have particular tiernames, to read it properly. Change
namesof relevant
tiers:
Table 2the Tier
names
for FLEx
exporting
Title
Transcription
Translation
SpeakerFormatInterlinear-title-[ISO639-of-object-lang.][speaker]-txt-[ISO639-of-object-lang.][speaker]-gls-[ISO639-of-translation-lang.][speaker]-note-[ISO639-of-translation-lang.]

ExampleInterlinear-title-atz
A-txt-atz
A-gls-enA-note-enFig. 6 Tier names for FLEx export

The whole tier structure modified here is shown in Figure 5, where the diﬀerence
between the one constructed hereReferences
and the one illustrated in Figure 4 is shown in bold.
Author. YEAR. Book Title. Place: Publisher.
Austin, Peter. 2010. “Paper Title”. Magazine Title WW. pp.XX–YY.

1. Linguistic
Type
Austin, Peter.
2010. “Paper Title”.
Magazine Title WW. pp.XX–YY.

2. Tier
Tier for the title———. YEAR. “Paper Title”. In Editor (ed.) Book Title. Place:Interlinear-title-atz
Publisher. pp.XX–YY. (parent tier:none)“Title”(for the title)
Stereotype: None

Speaker A
A-txt-atz (parent tier: none)
A-ilk (parent tier: A-txt-atz)“Base”(for vernacular texts)

A-gls-en (parent tier: A-txt-atz)
A-note (parent tier: A-txt-atz)“Dependent”(for the others)

A-ref (parent tier: A-txt-atz)
A-note-en (parent tier: A-txt-atz)

Speaker B
B-txt-atz (parent tier: none)
B-ilk (parent tier: B-txt-atz)
B-gls-en (parent tier: B-txt-atz)
B-note (parent tier: B-txt-atz)
B-ref parent tier: B-txt-atz)
B-note-en (parent tier: B-txt-atz)

Fig. 5 Tier structure for FLEx exporting

13

Online version: https://www.ethnologue.com/.

92

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Note that if the transcription tier is not a parent tier, but if another tier (e.g. areference number tier) is a parent tier within the tier structure, then the parent-childrelation must be reversed. ELAN does not seem to have the function of changing thetier structure directly, but the “copy tier” function can be used to do this. First, copy thetranscription tier (i.e. a dependent tier), selecting “Transcription (no parent)” to make it
an independent tier, then copy the original parent tier (e.g. the reference number tier),
placing it under the new parent tier. After editing the tier structure in this way, delete
the original tier structure.
Step 4. Annotate the title. Create one annotation of the Interlinear-title-xxx
tier in an arbitrary location, and enter the title of the file, which may correspond to thefilename (e.g. “arta0032”), or which may be a more informative title (e.g. “building a
traditional house”). This annotation becomes the title of the interlinear text in FLEx (butsometimes this does not work, and you might need to input the title in FLEx manually!).
Step 5 Export Choose File > Export as > FLEx file .... and an “Export as FLEx File”

window will appear:
Screen 1 Setting up the Title/Base linguistic type and tier(s)• In the upper box “Element mapping’, select “Export interlinear text tier”(but not “Export paragraph tier”), and then select “Interlinear-title-xxx” inthe drop-down menu. Confirm that “phrase” in the “FLEx Element Name”
column corresponds to “Base” in “Corresponding Tier Type” column. If not,select “Base” from among the candidates.
• In the lower box “Select tiers to be exported”, select all of the transcription
tiers (e.g. “A-txt-atz” and “B-txt-atz” in Figure 5) in the “phrase” column,
and unselect the other tiers.
Screen 2 Setting up the Dependent linguistic type(s) and tier(s)• In the upper box, check if “phrase item” in the “Item Mapping” includes the“Dependent” type.
• In the lower box (“Select tiers to be exported”), select all of thedependent tiers necessary (e.g. translation tiers: “A-gls-en”, “B-gls-en”; andparticipant-value tiers: “A-note-en”, “B-note-en”), and unselect the others.
Screen 3 Nothing to arrange. Click “Next”.
Screen 4 Specify the location for saving the file where FLEx can access it. Click“Finish”.
Now the file has been exported. To import the file in FLEx, open the project where
the data will be imported. Select “View” > “Texts & Words” > “Interlinear Text” (orselect “Texts & Words” on the lower left side of the window). Go to “File” > “Import”> “FLEx Text Interlinear”. Specify the location of the file and open it.14 Now you can
14

At present (Sep.11th, 2016), there is a bug such that the text cannot be recognized as a vernacular language. In

Kimoto, Yukinori: Documenting language use

93view data from ELAN in FLEx.
6. Concluding remarks

In this paper, I reviewed the documentary linguistics workshop DocLing 2013,
where I looked back at the classes that were particularly beneficial from a participant’s
perspective. I also described how the workshop had an influence on my research; thelectures on documentary linguistics that I attended as part of the workshop were of great
help to me when I applied for the Endangered Languages Documentation Programme(ELDP) grant. Finally, I mentioned some current challenges in documentary linguistics,
focusing on the documentation of language use, i.e. the lack of interdisciplinary
approach, and the absence of standardization of ELAN. For the latter problem, I
attempted to explicate a better way to use ELAN with a special focus on tier-structuring
and the interface between ELAN and FLEx. I hope the discussions provided here will
provide some perspectives and insights for the further development of documentarylinguistics in general and projects around the world.
References
Austin, Peter K. 2010a. “Current issues in language documentation”. In Peter K. Austin (ed.) Language
Documentation and Description 7. London: SOAS. pp.12–33.
Austin, Peter K. 2010b. “Communities, ethics and rights in language documentation”. In Peter K. Austin (ed.)
Language Documentation and Description 7. London: SOAS. pp.34–54.
Brugman, Hennie, and Albert Russel. 2004. “Annotating multi-media / multi-modal resources with ELAN”. In In:
Proceedings of LREC 2004, Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Margret Selting. 2001. “Introducing interactional linguistics”. In Margret Selting
and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (ed.) Studies in Interactional Linguistics. London: SOAS. pp.1–22.
Nathan, David. 2010. “Sound and unsound practices in documentary linguistics: Towards an epistemology foraudio”. In Peter K. Austin (ed.) Language Documentation and Description 7. London: SOAS. pp.262–284.
Dingemanse, Mark and Nick J. Enfield. 2015. “Other-initiated repair across languages: Towards a typology of
conversational structures”. Open Linguistics 1(1). pp.96–118.
Hayashi, Makoto. 2003. Joint Utterance Construction in Japanese Conversation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing.
Kendon, Adam. 1988. “How gestures can become like words”. Cross-Cultural Perspectives in Nonverbal
Communication 1. pp.131–141.
Kimoto, Yukinori. to appear. “Gengo dokyumenteesyon notameno ELAN siyoo (ELAN for language
documentation)”. In Hosoma, Hiromichi and Kohei Kikuchi (eds.) ELAN Nyuumon (An Introduction to ELAN).
Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing.
Kita, Sotaro (ed.) 2003. Pointing: Where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

such a case, select all of the text and choose the language value in the drop-down menu of the languages appearing
in the second-from-the-top row.

94

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol.1 Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Mosel, Ulrike. 2015. “Searches with regular expressions in ELAN corpora”. [Online at https://tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan/thirdparty/ under the description of “Regular expressions for ELAN users”, accessed on
2016-09-12].
Ochs, Elinor and Bambi Schieﬀelin 2001. “Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories
and their implications”. In Alessandro Duranti, Elinor Ochs and Bambi B. Schieﬀelin (eds.) Linguistic
Anthropology: A reader. Chichester: Blackwell. pp.263–301.
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloﬀ and Gail Jeﬀerson 1974. “A simplest systematics for the organization ofturn-taking for conversation”. Language 50.4. pp.696–735.
Schegloﬀ, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: Vol.1: A Primer in Conversation Analysis.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Takada, Akira. 2012. “Preverbal infant–caregiver interaction”. In Alessandro Duranti, Elinor Ochs and Bambi B.
Schieﬀelin (eds.) The Handbook of Language Socialization. Chichester: Blackwell. pp.56–80.

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics No.11, 2017

DocLing from the Participant’s Perspective
Shimoji, Michinori
Kyushu University

This short essay examines how DocLing has positively impacted the research careerof the present author. It also gives a brief introduction to several documentation andrevitalization projects in which the present author or former participants of DocLing areworking in collaboration.

Keywords: DocLing, Language documentation, Language revitalization, Ryukyuan

1. Introduction
2. DocLing and Ryukyuan linguistics
3. Ryukyuan documentation/revitalization projects
4. Concluding remarks

1. Introduction

As a DocLing project participant, I have much to say about how DocLing has
positively impacted my own research career. After reviewing DocLing and its impact
on my research within the context of endangered language studies in Japan, I go
on to mention several documentation and revitalization projects in which the present
author or former participants of DocLing are working in collaboration. I have beenworking on the description of Ryukyuan for about ten years now. Ryukyuan isa group of endangered Japonic languages, spoken on a chain of islands called the
Ryukyu archipelago. According to UNESCO’s report on language endangerment(http://www.unesco.org/languages-atlas/), there are at least eight endangered languages
in Japan: Ainu, Hachijō, and six Ryukyuan languages (Amami, Kunigami, Okinawa,
Miyako, Yaeyama, and Yonaguni).
In 2008, I wrote a descriptive grammar of Irabu, a Southern Ryukyuan language,as a PhD thesis submitted to the Australian National University (Shimoji 2008, 2017).
It was just after submitting the thesis that I first joined DocLing. At that time, I had
some elementary knowledge of the emerging field of research called “documentarylinguistics,” having read the foundational work by Himmelmann (1998), but that

Shimoji, Michinori. 2017. “DocLing from the participant’s perspective”. Asian and African Languages and
Linguistics 11. pp.95–99. [Permanent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/89210]

96

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

was almost all the information I had about documentary linguistics, and it was only
theoretical knowledge. As was usual for many field linguists in those days, I identified
myself as a “descriptive linguist,” with my primary interest being in compilingcomprehensive grammar, text material, and a dictionary of the subject language, andI did not have any actual experience, or even interest, in conducting fieldwork thatwas informed by the theory of documentary linguistics. I had the misconceptionthat documentary linguistics is a mere subdivision of descriptive linguistics, or“over-engineered” descriptive linguistics.
The experience of studying a range of concepts pertaining to the theory of
documentary linguistics in a week-long intensive workshop had a big impact on me.
As a participant of DocLing, I learned how description and documentation diﬀer intheir goals, and how the knowledge of one field of research is essential for the practiceof another. In Section 3, I will briefly mention my own documentation project, which
is clearly based on what I learned in the DocLing workshop.
2. DocLing and Ryukyuan linguistics

Around the time of the first DocLing (2008), there was an emerging “movement”
of Ryukyuan studies, where younger scholars started to work on individual Ryukyuan
dialects in the context of language endangerment, aiming to describe each individual
Ryukyuan dialect in its own right. This new approach was distinct from the traditional
Ryukyuan study, which tended to view Ryukyuan merely as useful dialectal data for thedescription of synchronic variation, or for the historical reconstruction of the Japonic
family.
The departure from the traditional dialectological approach was quite independent of
DocLing, but it was DocLing that introduced the important concept of documentation,
which should not be confused with description, into the new approach of Ryukyuan
studies. As a researcher involved in the emergence of Ryukyuan studies, I wasaware that our new approach was more description-oriented. That is, our concern
was primarily to describe each individual Ryukyuan dialect in the form of descriptive
grammar (Shimoji 2008, Pellard 2009, Hayashi 2013, Niinaga 2014, etc.). Further,
we did not have a clear picture of how the languages we were working on should be
documented, and how the data should be managed in such a way that the data collected
can be accessible for the wider community of researchers and for the local people. We
also wanted to make our data usable for language revitalization if the local community
wants such data.
Today, we are looking at a well-balanced research trend in which both description
and documentation are emphasized. As will be shown in the following section, there
are a number of research projects that focus on the documentation and revitalization of
Ryukyuan languages.

Shimoji, Michinori: DocLing from the participant’s perspective97

3. Ryukyuan documentation/revitalization projects

The last ten years have seen the emergence of a number of documentation andrevitalization projects by Ryukyuan researchers. They are not necessarily led by former
participants of DocLing, but most projects similar to the ones I introduce in this section
are in collaboration with the former participants of DocLing. In what follows, I briefly
give an overview of three such projects, two of which aim at revitalization, and one ofwhich aims at documentation.
3.1. Devising an orthography

The project called “A unified writing system for the Ryukyuan languages” is acollaborative project granted by the Toyota Foundation. The project is led by Dr. Shinji
Ogawa (Kumamoto Prefectural University), with twelve collaborative researchers. The
project aims to establish an orthographic system for Ryukyuan languages. The outcome
has been published as a book (Ogawa (ed.) 2015), and the syllabary (i.e., the full listof symbols used for the orthographic system), with the sound(s) represented by eachsymbol, is listed on the project’s website (http://www.ryukyuan-writing.net/).
When we think about language revitalization in Japan, we must take into account thefact that the local people are all bilingual with Japanese as one of the languages, andthat Japanese has its own writing system, the kana system, which gives one letter foreach syllable/mora (e.g., あ for /a/ and か for /ka/). All Ryukyuan researchers agree thatthe local people find it easier to use the kana system, than learning to use an IPA-basedalphabetic system uniquely devised for the language they speak. The problem is thatthe syllable structure and phoneme inventory of a given Ryukyuan language are often
far more complex than those of Japanese, and the existing kana system devised forJapanese cannot fully represent the sound system of Ryukyuan. For example, Irabu
Ryukyuan has a number of syllabic consonants that begin in /b/, like /bz/ [bz] and /br/[bí], in addition to regular syllables that begin in /b/, like /ba/, /bi/, and /bu/. " The kanasystem provides characters for the latter only, ば /ba/, び/bi/, and ぶ/bu/.
Thus, if we use the Japanese kana system for Ryukyuan languages, we need to devise
a strategy to cover the syllables that cannot be represented by the existing kana system.
In addition, it is useful if such a modified kana system is applicable to all local varieties
of Ryukyuan, so that any local community of Ryukyuan may use the system when theywant to create a textbook or some other written material for their revitalization eﬀorts.
The problem here is that the dialectal diﬀerence in Ryukyuan is striking, making itdiﬃcult to provide a unified, cross-dialectal kana system applicable for all Ryukyuan
languages and their sub-dialects. The project solves this problem by providing a large
but consistent set of auxiliary symbols in addition to the regular kana syllabary forJapanese, whereby we can write in kana, with additional symbols where necessary.
In the Irabu orthography, for example, the syllables /bz/ and /bl/ are written with the98Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

regular characters ぶ plus the small symbols ず and る respectively, as in ぶ ず for /bz/
and ぶ る for /br/, where the small symbols represent syllabic consonants. The useof small symbols to represent syllabic consonants is consistent for all other Ryukyuan
dialects.
The project is a key to achieve active involvement of the local community, which isessential in language revitalization. The orthography enables education in a minority
language, which would otherwise be impossible. It also encourages local writers
and poets to publish their works in their own language. In this way, the language
revitalization process gains sustainability, another important feature of a successful
revitalization project.
3.2. Port language revitalization

The orthography project noted above has significant consequences for therevitalization of Ryukyuan languages, since it is now possible for subsequent
revitalization projects to concentrate on content (i.e., products and outcomes such as
textbooks, etc.) by utilizing the orthographic system for their target languages.
Dr. Masahiro Yamada (National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics)
provides an excellent example of a language revitalization project using theorthographic system. In pursuit of revitalizing Yoron, Okinoerabu, and Yonaguni, allof which are in an imminent danger of extinction, Yamada is working in collaboration
with linguistic researchers, designers, and the local community. His project is called
Port Language Revitalization (http://plrminato.wixsite.com/webminato). The concept
here is to provide a platform for content-based language revitalization. That is, his
project serves as a platform (or “port” in his metaphor) where various kinds of content(e.g., fun books, storybooks, etc.) are created for the local community to utilize for
language revitalization activities. Five Ryukyuan researchers, one specialist in thescience of design, four designers, one photographer, and one illustrator are involvedin this project, and more than ten content items have been created and made available
for use.
3.3. The interdisciplinary dictionary project of Irabu

I am currently working on a documentation project that aims to document the lexiconof Irabu Ryukyuan with the help of specialists of diﬀerent research disciplines1 . Theinterdisciplinary project team consists of a linguist (i.e., myself), a geographer, and abiologist. In this project, the local flora-fauna terms and place names are collected anddocumented in the form of a dictionary. The lexical knowledge of these semantic fields
is much more eﬀectively documented by collaborating with specialists of geography
and of biology, than by a single linguist like me. In addition, the dictionary so compiled
will be usable for the wider research community of biologists, geographers, as well as
1

The project is supported by QR Program of Kyushu University (2016 to current)Shimoji, Michinori: DocLing from the participant’s perspective

99

linguists and anthropologists. Even though the project has a fixed term of two years, I
will continue the project by getting another grant after the current term has terminated,so that diﬀerent semantic fields can be added to the existing lexicon (i.e., flora-faunaterms and place names) with the help of a new documentation team consisting of
diﬀerent specialists.
4. Concluding remarks

DocLing has provided a firm basis on which Ryukyuan researchers can have a basic
knowledge of documentary linguistics and its theory, methodology, and technology inan eﬀective way. Thanks to DocLing, it is now common for a field linguist who works
on Ryukyuan to pay fair attention to language documentation and revitalization. Beinga free workshop that takes place in Japan, DocLing has allowed a number of young
scholars and students based in Japanese institutions, especially those who work on
Ryukyuan, to gain the basic knowledge of language documentation at a surprisingly low
cost. When I joined DocLing, the majority of participants were postgraduate students
and post-docs, and they all agreed that they would not have been able to attend sucha workshop, if it had taken place overseas and/or with a high registration fee. The
positive result, or “investment eﬀect,” of the free workshop is obvious. A number of
documentation and revitalization projects are in progress as we noted in Section 3.

References
Hayashi, Yuka. 2013. “Minami Ryukyu Miyakogo Ikema hogen no bunpo [A grammar of the Ikema dialect of
Miyako, of Southern Ryukyuan]”. Unpublished PhD thesis, Kyoto University.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1998. “Documentary and descriptive linguistics”. Linguistics 36. pp.161–195.
Niinaga, Yuto. 2014. “A grammar of Yuwan, a Northern Ryukyuan language”. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universityof Tokyo.
Ogawa, Shinji. ed. 2015. Ryukyu no Kotoba no Kakikata [How to Write Ryukyuan Languages]. Tokyo: Kurosio
Shuppan.
Pellard, Thomas. 2009. “Ogami: Éléments de description d’un parler du sud des Ryukyus”. PhD thesis, École deshautes études en sciences sociales, Paris, France.
Shimoji, Michinori. 2008. “A grammar of Irabu, a Southern Ryukyuan language”. Unpublished PhD thesis,
Australian National University.
———. 2017. A Grammar of Irabu, a Southern Ryukyuan Language. Fukuoka: Kyushu University Press.

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics No.11, 2017

Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetan:
A Dialect of Amdo Tibetan Spoken in Lhagang, Khams Minyag
Suzuki, Hiroyuki
IKOS, Universitetet i Oslo / National Museum of Ethnology

Sonam Wangmo
IKOS, Universitetet i Oslo

Lhagang Town, located in Kangding Municipality, Ganzi Prefecture, Sichuan Province,
China, is inhabited by many Tibetan pastoralists speaking varieties which are similar
to Amdo Tibetan even though it is located at the Minyag Rabgang region of Khams,
based on the Tibetan traditional geography. Among the multiple varieties spoken byinhabitants living in Lhagang Town, the Shingyag dialect is spoken in the south-westernpart of the town. It is somewhat diﬀerent from other Amdo varieties spoken in Lhagang
Town in the phonetic and phonological aspects. This article provides a word list with ca.
1500 words of Shingnyag Tibetan.
Keywords: Amdo Tibetan, Minyag Rabgang, dialectology, migration pattern

1. Introduction
2. Phonological overview of Shingnyag Tibetan
3. Principal phonological features of Shingnyag Tibetan

1. Introduction

This article aims to provide a word list (including ca. 1500 entries) with aphonological sketch of Shingnyag Tibetan, spoken in Xiya [Shing-nyag]1 Hamlet,
located in the south-western part of Tagong [lHa-sgang] Town (henceforth Lhagang
Town), Kangding [Dar-mdo] Municipality, Ganzi [dKar-mdzes] Tibetan Autonomous
Prefecture, Sichuan Province, China (see Figure 1). Lhagang Town is in theeasternmost part of Khams based on the traditional Tibetan geography, however, it isinhabited by many Tibetans whose mother tongue is Amdo Tibetan.2 Referring to Qu
and Jin (1981), we can see that it is already known that Amdo-speaking Tibetans live inSuzuki, Hiroyuki and Sonam Wangmo. 2016. “Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetan: A dialect of Amdo Tibetan spoken
in Lhagang, Khams Minyag”. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11. pp.101–127. [Permanent URL:
http://hdl.handle.net/10108/89211]
1
The original Tibetan orthography in a Wylie transliteration is attached in square brackets for each proper namewith a transcription of Chinese.
2
For this reason, it is often misunderstood that the Amdo-speakers are the original inhabitants in Lhagang Town;
that is why Suzuki and Sonam Wangmo (2015a, b) emphasise the existence of the local vernacular of Khams spoken
there.

102

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

some parts of Khams, however, varieties of Amdo Tibetan spoken in Khams have notbeen well investigated so far, especially those spoken in the easternmost Khams region.
Wang (2012) includes a phonological description of a Amdo variety spoken in Luhuo[Brag-’go], which is, indeed, a variety spoken in a diﬀerent area from Kangding. The
gSerkha dialect of Amdo Tibetan (Suzuki 2015) is a variety considered as a member ofAmdo Tibetan in Kangding.

Fig. 1 Geographical position of Lhagang Town. (=marked)3

As shown in Suzuki and Sonam Wangmo (2015b), Lhagang Town is a multilingualarea, and they claim that there are at least four Tibetic varieties spoken in the town: two
Khams varieties and two Amdo varieties. In addition, Suzuki and Sonam Wangmo(2016b) report an existence of a newly recognised non-Tibetic language, Lhagang
Choyu, spoken in a hamlet within Lhagang Town. All of them are spoken in the centreof Lhagang Town, called Lhagang Village, because it is inhabited by Tibetans who are
originally sedentary settlers in the village as well as immigrants from the surrounding
rural, pastoral area due to the rapid urbanisation and the governmental resettlement
policy.4
Figure 2 displays a distribution of regiolects within Lhagang Town recognised and3

Figure 1 is designed with Googlemaps (https://www.google.co.jp/maps/; accessed on 25th June 2015). Also
employed in Suzuki and Sonam Wangmo (2015b, 2016a).
4
See Sonam Wangmo (2013) and Suzuki and Sonam Wangmo (2017) for details.

Suzuki, Hiroyuki and Sonam Wangmo: Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetan

103

classified by the present authors. There are three languages5 in Lhagang Town: Khams(Tibetic; Lhagang Village and the westernmost area), Amdo (Tibetic; central areaof Lhagang Town except for Lhagang Village), and Lhagang Choyu (Qiangic; thewesternmost area). This figure displays that Amdo is distributed the most widely. The
geographical point of Shingnyag Hamlet is given in a specific symbol. The locationof Shingnyag Hamlet is far from Lhagang Village, and relatively close to anotherKhams Tibetan-spoken hamlet called Tage [Thabs-mkhas], where Lhagang Choyu isalso distributed.6 Shingnyag Tibetan, dealt with in this article, is, in fact, excluded fromthe two varieties of Amdo reported by Suzuki and Sonam Wangmo (2015b), and it
should be regarded as a new variety of Amdo Tibetan recognised in Lhagang Town.

Fig. 2 Distribution of regiolects in Lhagang Town.7

According to the folk tradition, the element nyag in Shingnyag is related to that in
Nyagchu (Yalongjiang [Nyag-chu] River) or Nyagrong (Xinlong [Nyag-rong] County),
however, it awaits confirmation. This means that ancestors of Tibetans living in
Shingnyag Hamlet might have immigrated from a certain place along the Yalongjiang
5

As for the ‘Tibetan language’, we follow the definition of ‘Tibetic languages’ coined by Tournadre (2014).
However, Lhagang Choyu has hardly functioned as a communication language any more. See Suzuki and Sonam
Wangmo (2016b).
7
Figure 2 is designed with the online geocoding system provided at the following site:
http://ktgis.net/gcode/lonlatmapping.html (accessed on 29th March 2016).
6

104

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11River, located at the west to Lhagang Town (present Yajiang [Nyag-chu-kha] andXinlong counties). Amdo-speakers certainly live in the mountainous area along
Yalongjiang, especially around the border area between Litang [Li-thang] and Xinlong
counties. According to the oral history narrated by pastoralists in Litang, theirancestors belong to the Wa shul8 tribe, whose originally inhabiting place was around thepresent Seda [gSer-rta] County. If the relation between Shingnyag Tibetans and Litang
pastoralists is confirmed, the language spoken by Shingnyag Tibetans will be related tothat of the Wa shul tribe, which is diﬀerent from the varieties spoken in Gongrima andgYukhyim hamlets within Lhagang Town.
2. Phonological overview of Shingnyag Tibetan
2.1. Phonemes and suprasegmentals

The phonological inventory, following the pandialectal phonetic transcription
defined in Tournadre and Suzuki (forthcoming), adapted to the description of this article
is as follows:
Consonantism

plosiveaﬀricatefricativenasal
liquidsemivowel

asp.
vl.
vd.
asp.
vl.
vd.
asp.
vl.
vd.
vd.
vl.
vd.
vl.
vd.

lab.

alveo.

retr.

ph
p
b

th
t
d
tsh
ts
dz
sh
s
z
n
n
˚
l
l
˚

úh
ú
ã

F
m
m
˚
w, V

ùh
ù

palatalpre- postch
c
é
tCh
tC
dý
Ch
C
ý
ő
ő̊

vel.

uvul.

glot.

kh
k
g

qh
q
å

P

X
K

h
H

xh
x
,
N
N̊

r
j

(asp.: voiceless aspirated; vl.: voiceless non-aspirated; vd.: voiced; lab.: labial;
alveo.: alveolar; retr.: retroflex; vel.: velar; uvul.: uvular; glot.: glottal)

8

Generally pronounced as /,a xh u/ in Lithang Amdo.

Suzuki, Hiroyuki and Sonam Wangmo: Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetan

105

Vocalism

i

u

@

e
a

o

A

No contrasts between ‘short’ and ‘long’, and ‘plain’ and ‘nasalised’ are attested.
Suprasegmentals

No suprasegmental distinctions are attested as in the majority of Amdo Tibetan
varieties.9 Stress, realised as a higher pitch and a clearer articulatory gesture of theinitial, on the first syllable of a polysyllabic word is often prominent as a prosodic
feature.
2.2. Phonotactics

The phonotactics of Shingnyag Tibetan is a little complicated. A maximum soundstructure of a syllable is described by using the manner of Suzuki (2005) as follows:CC

Ci GVC

However, it is rare that a double preinitial (CC ) appears; hence an ordinary soundstructure should be C Ci GVC. A minimum structure is Ci V.
All the consonant phonemes are able to appear at the position of main initial (Ci )except for /H/. A preinitial (C ) may be prenasalised elements (i.e., homorganic nasal),m), bilabial stops (p , b ), bilabial continuants (F , w ), alveolar liquids (l ,bilabial nasals (m , ˚
ù r
x
h H
l
˚), retroflex continuants ( , ), velar fricative ( ), or preaspirations ( , ). A doubleCCpreinitial ( ) may be a combination of a prenasalisation/preaspiration and others
within the elements listed above. A final (C) can be occupied by one of /p, t, k, q,
m, n, N, l, r/.
3. Principal phonological features of Shingnyag Tibetan

We will list up principal phonological features characterising Shingnyag Tibetan
below from a typological viewpoint.10• Uvular sounds
9

Wang (2012) reports that there is a variety called rMa-stod which possesses a suprasegmental distinction(pitch-tone).
10
A dialectological analysis of Tibetic languages requires a diachronic view by comparing the synchronic data withWritten Tibetan (WrT) forms. However, the discussion provided here concentrates on a synchronic description. An
exhaustive description of a comparison with WrT will be separately provided in another article.

106Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Shingnyag Tibetan has three uvular plosives /qh , q, å/ and two uvular fricatives/X, K/. The existence of uvular plosives in a Tibetic language is noted by manyscholars, such as Huang (2012) and Wang (2012).
Examples of uvular plosives are following:/qh a ta/ ‘crow’, /qh @p/ ‘needle’, /qwar kh oN/ ‘window’, /qap/ ‘hide (oneself)’,/ð åo/ ‘ride’, etc.
Examples of uvular fricatives are following:/p úh @ Ka/ ‘shoulder’, /Ka/ ‘fox’, /r@ KoN/ ‘rabbit’, etc.
• Labiodental semivowel
A labiodental semivowel /V/ is a typologically rare sound within the varieties ofAmdo Tibetan. Examples are following:m h/H Vin N go/ ‘knee’, /˚
tC @ V@q/ ‘lip’, etc.
• Labial/labiodental sounds
A labial fricative /F/ as a main initial rarely appears. However, as a preinitial,
it appears more, and its voicing counterpart, labial semivowel /w/, also appears
frequently. /F/ and /p/ as a preinitial are distincive in a few cases. Examples arefollowing:/Fu tsh @p/ ‘chili/Sichuan pepper’, /Fa ro/ ‘over there’;/F ú@n/ ‘cloud’ (cf. /p ú@N/ ‘breast’), /F s@/ ‘body hair’;/w la/ ‘thigh’, /w ri/ ‘snake’, etc.
• Vowel contrast between /a/ and /A/
Shingnyag Tibetan has a contrast between two vowels /a/ and /A/, which canform a minimal pair. Examples are following:/kh a/ ‘mouth’ - /kh A/ ‘snow’;/F kwa/ ‘order’ - /F kwA/ ‘portion’, etc.
• Contrast between /l Ci / and /r Ci /This feature certainly characterises Shingnyag Tibetan. The actual diﬀerenceof phonetic realisations between these two combinations is not regarding thearticulation of the preinitial ([l, l] or [r, r]), but regarding its articulatory manner:
˚ with˚a contact of the tongue tip to the alveolar,
the preinitial of /l Ci / is pronouncedrwhile that of / Ci /, without a contact of the tongue tip to the alveolar.11 Examples
are following:/l Na/ ‘five’ - /r Na/ ‘drum’;/˚l tC@q/ ‘iron’ - /ù na ˚r tC@/ ‘nose ring’ - /ù tCa/ ‘hair’;m ˚
tCh o ˚r ten/ ‘stūpa’ - /ù ta/ ‘horse’, etc.
/˚l ta/ ‘look’ - /˚• Double preinitials (CC )A double preinitial (CC ) rarely appears. The preinitial part is a combinationof either preaspiration + a labial plosive or prenasalisation + a labial plosive.
r / can be distinguished from / ù /, however, an accoustic analysis will be required for thisThe preinitial /˚phenomenon.

11

Suzuki, Hiroyuki and Sonam Wangmo: Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetan

107

Examples are following:mp h/Hb ã@N/ ‘sugar’, /˚ú @ Na/ ‘beads’, etc.

Word list of Shingnyag Tibetan

The entries of vocabulary are ordered following Hua ed. (2002), in which selected
items are described here, as: Nouns (classified into several semantic categories, such
as Astrology and Geology, Body, Person, Animals, Plants, Food, Clothings, Housing,
Instrumentals, Cultural objects, Space and Time), Numbers, Pronouns, Adjectives, andVerbs.12 A small number of words excluded in Hua ed. (2002) are also added. Evident
loanwords are indicated by † following a word with a footnote.
Astrology and Geology
H
sky
nam
sun
ő@ ma
light wet / wotHmoondzA / H dza wahstar
kar macloud F ú@nthunder th oq / m ã@k
KwindloN / K loN kh aHrainnam / tCh ar / tCh a rwa
rainbow ő dýa
snow
kh A
h
hail
s e raice
tCh A r@m
m
fire
őe
smoke
to Ha
earth sh a
mountain r@
river tCh @m hlake
˚ ts o
road
lam
soil
sh a
stone r do
F
sand
Ce ma

12

dust
th A
n
mud
da m b@qhwater tC @forest n@q / n@q tsh @lglassland ù tsa th @N
x
gold
ser
ù
silverN̊icopper r@q
l
iron
˚tC@q
h
rust
tsa
coal
sh u kiash
th A
place sh a tCh a
Lhasa la sh a
Khams ˚ kh am ba sh a tCh a
Amdo
Pa m doLhagang Monastery la r g@N H gon ba
˚
r
town
dzoN
street úoN n@N
village H de wa
bridge zam bahomeland ha j@l

Several verbs might have a stem alternation, which, however, does not regularly appear any more. Another article
will be needed for a detailed description regarding this issue.

108

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Body
H
body
zu xu
m
head
go
ù
hair
tCa
front th o pa
eyebrow H dz@ maeyelash , ői F s@
,
eye
őik
nose
na
r˚
ear
nA
face
kh a No
mouth kh am hlip
˚ tC @ V@q
moustache kh a F s@
beard H éa F s@ re
jaw
ma ne
ù
neck
ke
shoulder p úh @q qa / p úh @ Kabackőa ˚n t@q
armpit tsh @k kh @N
breast p ú@N
milk
,o ma
belly hwa
navel h te ja
waist r é@pbuttocks tam H go
thigh w laHknee
Vin N go
leg
őa ji
ù
foot
ka Na
elbow tC@ m dý@khand
l@q pa / lA Xa
armtsh @k th omfingerdz@ ,@m h hpalm l@q ˚
t i ci h k@
thumb m dz@k tCh en ma

13This word form corresponds to WrT brang ‘breast’.

index finger koN m dz@k
middle finger h ci m dz@ksmall finger m dz@k tCh oN manailsh en mofist
kh @ tsh @r
skin
Po xh a / l@q H éep
wrinkle H ge H őer
mole
n@ Xo
r
sore
ma
wound r ma
blood ch @qpulse ù tsa
brain H lA pabone r@ pa
joint tsh @q th otooth sh otongue ˚l tCe
throat m ői ph alung H lwa
heart ő̊@N
m htC @n baliver ˚m hk wA makidney ˚m h Fgall bladder ˚
c @ sap
stomachú@N 13intestine H é@ ma
excrement h c@ Xa
urine ù tC@n
H
fart
j@
H
sweat
Ni tCh @sputum tCh @ ma
nasal mucus ù n@p,htear
őik tC˚
@
ù
voice
kat
life
ùh oq

Suzuki, Hiroyuki and Sonam Wangmo: Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetan

Personperson m ő@
Tibetan wo pa
Han Chinese r éa
child ýa ýi / ý@ l@
old man H ga r gemanýi l @
woman ýi mo
doctor man ba
military ˚ H m@q
pastoralist m ão Xa
beggar h@q H éo
friend ro Xwateacher r ge r gen
lunatic ő̊on ba
grandfather Pa m őe
grandmother Pa ji
father Pa ph amother Pa maparents ha ma
son
ý@ l@
H
bride
na ma

daughter ýi mobridegroom wo th @N
grandson tsh a wo
granddaughter tsh a moelder brother Pa r éa
elder sister Pa tCe
younger brother Ch a ői
younger sister ùh @N mopaternal elder uncle Pa kh @paternal elder uncle’s wife Pa nepaternal younger uncle Pa kh @nephew tsh a wo
brother wo F s@n
sister wo mo h p@n ï ãi
maternal uncle Pa ý@Nmaternal uncle’s wife Pa ne
family ch @m H é@trelatives őe Ha
husband H ga ho
Hwife
gan mom htwins
˚ ts e l@

Animals

cattle zoq
Hbull
l@N m biHyakj@q
female yak m ã@m
mdzo14dzo
female mdzo m dzo mo
calf
wi li / wioxPa ˚r qocow
mo zoqmilk cow m ã@14

A hybrid of ox and female yak.

cattle’s wet dung ˚l tCwa
horn
ra tCoskin
kwa / w@ Xa
body hair F s@
r
tail
Na ma
ù
horse
ta
h h
pony
ti tsihstallion
ta ho
H
mare
gon masheep l@k

109

110

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

ewe
l@k magoat
ra mababy goat ri h tsi
lamb
l@ ,@
wool
l@ k w A / w A
sheep’s dung ri ma
p
mule
úwi
donkey k@ r@
pig
h@q
sow
h@q moboar
ho h@qpiglet h@q p úh @k
dog
ch @
h
bitch c @ mo
cat
mo n dz@
rabbit r@ KoN
chicken F CaFcock
Ca ph o
F
hen
Ca mo
h
wing
C o XaF
down
Ca H ão / H ão
ducktCh @ F Ca
pigeon m@ h k@tiger h t@q
lion
sh eN gidragon m ã@kHclaw
rwa wamonkey Pa r ge
bear
tom
deer
Ch wa
mouse ts@ ,@Fwolf
sw@N kh @
fox
Ka
F
bird
Ca
H
eagle
l@ q
vulture F Ca r got
swallow kh @N F Ci
spallow F Ci h tse
crowqh a tapeacock H ma F Ca
snake w ri
w
frog
rwA wa / w rwA ñ é@fishőainsect m b@
l
flea
dýwa
louse Ch ik
fly
Ch a m b@
mosquito h tsa m b@
spider m b@ qa ra / tCoq qa ra
centipede h k@ m@N m b@
ant
coq maHbee
w@N mabutterfly F Ch e ma la p tse

Plantsl15tree
˚tC@N ma
h
root
tswa
leaf
lo ma
flower me toq
connifer Ch @ ,aHpineãon mabamboo ő̊ik mathrone tsh er ma

15This word form corresponds to WrT lcang ma ‘willow’.

fruit Ch aN th oq
peach kh am b@
lotus flower pan ma me toq
saﬀron k@r g@m me toq
walnut h tar ga
croplo th oq
foodstuﬀ m ã@ rik
m
rice
ãe

Suzuki, Hiroyuki and Sonam Wangmo: Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetan

seed
sh a w@n
wheat cohighland barley nechili Fu tsh @p
garlic H go Xwa
ginger ù tCa r ga

edible seed kwa ts@ / k@ m ã@pea
ùh an ma
ù
grass
tsa
mushroom Ch a mopteridophyte root co ma

Food
m
food
ãe / za ma / n du† 16mporrige
ãe tsh awheat flower tC@q H dýe
steamed bun H dzor na
noodle p@ h t@q
steamed stuﬀed bun poq ts@
breakfast n@N tCh @lunch úe tCa
dinner n@p tCh @milk tea ,o tCa
meat
Ch a
lean meat Ch a r n@q
ù
oil
n@m ˚
˚
salad oil mar n@q
fat oil tsh ibutter mar
yoghurt ýocheese tCh @ ra
first milk after the birth ýo C@
tsampa17 ù tsam ba
beef
zoq Ch a
salt
tsh a
Hb
sugar
ã@N
Sichuan pepper Fu tsh @pregg
goN wasoup
kh wa
alcohol tCh @N
hot water tCh @ tsh atea
tCa
tobacco t@ wa
medicine man
snuﬀ na t@˚
˚

Clothings

thread h k@ pa
cloth remonk’s cloths Can th @p
cloths ko ze
Tibetan woolen cloths Ce s@collar n@N koN
sleeve F Ch @ koN

button H éo xo
trousers tor ma
hat
ýa
belt
tor th @q / h ke r@q
shoe
xaj† 18hcomb
úa p Ch @t
jewel nor w@

Loan from Lhagang Choyu /¯n du/ ‘food’. See Suzuki and Sonam Wangmo (2016b).
It just denotes ‘fried highland barley flour’ in Shingnyag.
18
Loan from Sichuanese (Southwest Mandarin) xai 鞋 ‘shoe’.
16

17

111

112

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

coral F Ce r@turquoise H j@pearl m@ th @kivory pa sh oamber h pu Ch i

earring H nA loN
necklace h ke r éetmring
dz@p h cibracelet l@q h ci

Housing

blanket h tan
pillow m go ˚r ő̊ecushion h tan
house kh @ m baroof
qh @N th oqminnãon qh @N
kitchen tCa qh @N
storied house tsh @k th oq
upstairs qh @N th oq
downstairs qh @N joq
store house m dzot qh @N
cowshed nor qh @N / zoq qh @N
pigsty h@q qh @N
horse fence ù ta qh @N
sheepfold l@k ra
chicken coop F Ca tsh @N

hwall
ts@ ,ahlog
C aN
plank Ch aN l@p
pillar kwa
H
gate
go
threshold H go th ientrance door H go tCh in
window qwar kh oN
stair h ki
Hbeam
doN mar
step
do ù kitent
k@r
yak-woolen tent w ra / w rwa
garden rwa / ra wa
toilets tCh ap qh @N

Instrumentals

thing tCa kh atable ù tCoq tse
chair ù k@p th @q
bedőA úh @
rbox
gam
cabinet tCh wA
glass Ch elmirror Ch e r gom hbloom ˚C @q maH
lightluq
candle p úwA H ã@n
19

firewood m b@ tCi
coal
sh u kimflint
őe r domatch jAN xwo† 19
torch m őe ch u
incense h pu
garbage F Ch @ r ge
cooking stove th ap kh airon pan úh ofrying pan úh osteamer H lo ői

Loan from Sichuanese (Southwest Mandarin) yanghuo 洋火 ‘match’.

Suzuki, Hiroyuki and Sonam Wangmo: Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetanlid
kh a l@p
knife c@ladle ù coq
spoon kh @k H degourd ladle ù coq
wooden bowl Ch aN tCe
bowl
tCa őeHdishder machopsticks za th @rbottle tam birpot
dza mar
jar
dza makettle tem / tsh a tem
bucket tCh @ , zi
wooden tray H ýoN mabasket pi th u
tripet ù k@N h s@mleather bellows kh u mosuspender h k@r th @q
steelyard r éa mamoney ta jin† 20
ruler
th @ ts@
needle qh @pnlnale
˚tC@q dzer
scissors ts@n t@q
ladder h ki
umbrella Ch oq H d@kHlockgo ˚l tC@qlkey
de m őik
wheel N̊ kh or lo
H
rod
ji ,a
saddle ù ta r ga
m hhalter ˚
t @r H go
belly band H lo
bit
ùh ap
stirrup jop tCh en
horseshoe r mik ˚l tC@q
manger kh a tsh @q

20
21

rein ùh am m dalhwhip
˚tC@q tseùnose ringna ˚r tC@h ˚mglasses C e őik
oxhide string m ã@N na
shiptC@ zanairplane H nam F Ca
bicycle ˚l tC@q h ta
instrument tCh @r tCh a
ù
axe
ta re
hammer th A
chisel m b@k
saw
sh oq leplough ù ko maleather bag H éwa
carrying pole p úh @q Ch aN
handle j@ Har
grip
dza loNrope
t h @ Ka
fertiliser l@t
sickle zo rasieve tsh @q
millstone roN n d@qloom
zo úh @
hconch
pelance m doN
sheath tc@ Ch @p
gunwubullet m de ,@arrow m dapoison t@k
netúA
present xa m b@
notebook tep
quilt ph u H gi† 21
matress th an dz@

Perhaps loan from Sichuanese (Southwest Mandarin) dayin 大銀 or dayang 大洋 ‘money, cach’.
Loan from Sichuanese (Southwest Mandarin) beigai 被蓋 ‘quilt’.

113

114

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Cultural objects

script ji ,eletter ji ,ealphabet h sa B ýit
picture r@ mo
book
ji ,e
paper Ch o Kopen
ő̊@ ,@
ùink
n@q tsh a˚
school Cwo th AN
knowledge jon den
ùtalk
ket tCh a
Spoken Tibetan wot ˚r ket
Written Tibetan wo jik
m
name
őaN
family name ri m őaN
ù
sign
t@ q
newspaper tsh @q h p@r
Hstoryna r@kproverb h tam Xwe
m h
ts @r
joke
kh a ˚riddle Pa ke m@ ket
voice H ãa
H
song
l@
p
dance
úo
r
drum
Na
H
flute
dýwa H loNbell
ú@ lwatrampet toN / ja loN
thangka, Buddhist drawingmmask
b@q / m goreligion tCh u l@k
belief ta pa
deity lafemale ˚deity la moghost ï ãe ˚
female ghost ï ãe mo
b
evil
d@t
H
Nāga
l@

th @N kh a

Buddha sh @N H dýirsoul
nam Ch iw
spiritlaincarnation n di
next life tsh e F tCh e mareincarnation N̊ kh or wa
fortune le lamdestiny lecharity H ge wa
evil omen ˚l ti Nen
w
lama
la ma
reincarnated lama h ú@l h k@m habbot ˚k wan bomonkúwa / úwa wanun
tCo mohousekeeper H őer wa
monk resuming secular life h ka loq
donor w ýen b d@q
donation of tea m@N tCam hsorcerer Pa ˚
tC ot
fortune teller mo wa
mhell
őal wamonastery H gon ba
congregation la qh @N˚
religious institution
úa tsh @Nm hmeditation cell ˚ ts am qh @N
mani ma ne jik ú@k
˙burning
incense F s@Nm h rstūpa ˚
tC o ˚ten
Buddha statue la ˚r k@m ˚hbutter lamp ˚
tC o marceremonial scarf kh a tar
amulet box F ùw@N h kor
release of animals tsh e th armantra mA Nensūtra tCh u
mp h
beads ˚
ú @ Nar
vajra
do r dýe

Suzuki, Hiroyuki and Sonam Wangmo: Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetanmani wheel ma ne N̊ kh or lo
˙w
donationý@n baposition ko sh a
power H K@Nn hlife
˚ts o wasalary hoq
portion F kwA
market tsh oN ra
priority han th oq
m hcause r é@ ˚
ts en
answer lan
famine m@ ge
suﬀering H duk r N̊almistake no ï̊ úh @ldanger ően kh a
distinction ch et tCh u
space h sAN
lucky p úa Ch i
thanks F kwa ãin tCh e
crack ke se
trace Ch i
shadow c@p sh ocolour m doq qa
dream m ői lam
spirit jit N̊ kh amFidea
sam tsh @lappearance w zo ˚l ta
aﬀair ton d@q
means w lo th @pstrength Ch e Ch ik
order F kwa
prison F tsw@n kh @Nrumour h tam ch er
sin
ői pa
bare foot ˚r k@N r dýindrawer ˚n th em H gamm hweapon ˚
ts w@n tCh a
victory r éal kh acountry r éan N̊ kh am
experience őam m őoN
conference tsh oq n d@
distance war th @q
walking ˚r k@N n@˚Space and Timetime
ti tsh ot
today
te raNyesterday
kh A ˚r ts@N
day before yesterday kh e őin b@
three days before kh e ýi őin b@
tomorrow
sh @N őinday after tomorrow H ne őin
three days later H ýi őin
this evening
to kh otomorrow evening sh a r goN
last night m d@N r goN
daytimeőin h k@r
morningN̊a monoon
őin H goNhsunset timesar ùh otHevening
goN mo
m h
night
ts
an ki
˚
m h
midnight ˚ ts an F Ch it
animal of year
lo ù tamouse year
ts@ ,@
ox yearzoq
ùtiger year
t@q
rabbit yearjormdragon year
ã@kb
snake year
ã@lùhorse yeartasheep year
l@kp
monkey year
úw@ jiF
cock yearCa
dog year
ch @

115

116

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

pig year
ph @q
day
tsh e w za
first day tsh e h tCiksecond day tsh e H ői
H
month
dzA
in the morning N̊a moin the afternoon F Ch @ úo
January H da wa t@N bo
February H da wa H ői pa
December H da wa p tC@ , ői pa
beginning of a month H da ˚r tot
middle of a month H dzA wa ˚r cit
end of a month H dzA wa m dý@kbirthday ù ci h k@r
yearlo
recently őe r@N
this year ta lolast year na n@Nlast two years H ýi n@N lo
next year sh @N lo
next two year H n@N lo

beforeői ma H na H na / H na N̊a molong time ago H na ti
now
ta th @N / ta ˚l tafuturema KoN pa
beginning N go ő dý@k
Monday H za H da wa
Tuesday H za H m@k mar
Wednesday H za pa sh @N
Thursday H za h pen ba
Friday H za ph @r w@
Saturday H za l@q pa
Sunday H za ő˚i maùspringtC@t kaHsummerjar kh aùautumnton kh arwinterg@n kh a
new year lo h s@r
solar ecclipse ő@ n dz@n
lunar ecclipse H da n dz@n
festivalti tCh in

Numbers

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

h

tCik
ői
h
s@m
w
ý@
l
Na
ú@k
b
d@n
b
éet
H
g@
p
tC@
p
tC@ h tCikp
tC@ , őiptC@ h s@mp
tCi w ý@p
tCwA NaptC@ h ú@k
H

17
18
19
20
21
28
30
32
38
40
43
50
54
60
65
70

p

tCi b d@ntCu b éetptC@ r g@ői x@
ùtsa h tCikői Ch @ ù tsa b éet
sh @m tC@sh @m tC@ sh o , ői
sh @m tC@ sh o b éetw
ý@ p tC@w
ý@ p tC@ ýe h sumlNa p tC@l
Na p tC@ Na w ý@
ú@k tC@ú@k tC@ re l Nabd@n tC@p

Suzuki, Hiroyuki and Sonam Wangmo: Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetan

76
80
87
90
98
99
100
101
108
880

b

d@n tC@ ton ú@kb
éa tC@béa tC@ ca b d@n
Hg@ p tC@H
g@ p tC@ ko b éetH
g@ p tC@ ko r g@béabéa d@ h tCikbéa d@ b éetbéet b éa b éa p tC@

ù1000
toN h tCik
10000
úh @ h tCikm
100000b@m
F1000000
Ce wa
10000000
sh a ja
100000000
toN F Ch @r
F h
half
C et
first
t@N boHsecondői pa

PronounsINa
we two Ne H ői
we (exclusive) Na tsh oyou (singular) ch oyou (honorific) ch et
yow two ch e H ői
you (plural) ch o tsh ohe / she / it kh othey two kh o H ői
theykh o tsh owe (inclusive) Na r@N tsh om htC et tsh @N ma
everyoneta ˚
self
r@N ő@t
other person m@ w ýan ba
n
this
d@
n
these
d@ tsh o
n
here
d@ na
here around n d@ F Ch oq
these two n d@ H ői ka
like this n d@ ï ãa

it
te
that
te
those te tsh othere terover there Fa ro / te F Ch oq
like that te h tar
whosh @who (plural) sh @ sh @whattCh @ ze ï ãe
where
k@N nawhennam
how
tCh @ z@ ma / k@N ï ãa
how much ka tsh ot
other H ýen ba
each r@N r@N sh o sh o
m h
whole
˚ t a t @qhall
ts @N mathis time ta th @N
someday h kam N ga re

Adjectives

big tCh e
small tCh oN
H
wide
bom

thin
high
low

p h

úa

m h
˚t o
H

ma

117

118

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

protruding m b@r m b@r
sunken H goN H goN
convex m ba r@ m b@ relong
raN wo
short
th oN
far
th @q raNnear
th @q őemiddle m ãwaN Na
wide r éa tCh i bo
narrow r éa tCh oN tCh oN
thick ˚n th @k
thin ùh ap
deep zap
shallow m@ r d@N
full k@N
vacant ù toN Na
many mAN wo
little őoNsquare ú@ w ý@ maround Ko Ko Ch @flat lep lep
pointed h tse m buk
bald m go r dolevel p úh a ù ő̊@Nfront ú@N moreverse l doq F Ch oq
slanting jor
mp h
ú @t
horizontal ˚vertical ru No
straight úwAN bu
curved k@k ro
much curved ja re jo reblack na Ko
pitch dark n@q H dAN H dAN
white h ka ro
H
red
ma ro
brilliant red H mar l@p l@pyellow sh er po
glistering yellow sh er p úi p úi
green H dý@N kh @ùblueN̊@n buskyblue ù N̊o rj@ rj@
ù
grey
tCa
h
brightsa roshining wot lam nam
dark
m@ n n @ qlheavydý@ molight (weight) j@N mo
m
fast
éo qa
slow
ka le
early ù N̊a mo
F h
late
C@
H
sharp
no
dull
m@ r noclear t@N momuddy őo Ko
fat
tsh on bo
thin
Ch a ˚r k@mhdry
kam boHwetl@n bahtight ts @q tam bo
thinùh ap rohardùh a mor
soft
˚ő̊@ mosmooth ő dýam borough h ts@p poslippery w ý@qtight tam boloose lo bosolid ˚ ùh a modisorder őoq H z@N
chaotic tCh a r@ tCh @ recorrect ï ã@k
incorrect m@ ően k@
true
No ma
H
false
dz@n maHraw
l@n ba
h
new
sa ra
H
old
őa Na
good
ji Ka
bad
Nan baH
weakd@kSuzuki, Hiroyuki and Sonam Wangmo: Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetan

expensive h kon tCh e ,@cheap h kon b de ,@old (year) H gwa r ge
young lo tCh oN
beautiful ji Kahugly
tso Xahot (temperature) úo ,@
ñ̊ h
cold
c @q
lukewarm ő dýam ja n@warm
úon buF
cools@l wohard (work) ù ka moùeasy
tsa mofragrant ú@ ý@msmelly ú@ Nan
tasty ý@m borsour
˚cu ruH
sweet
Nar mobitter qh a mohot (taste) kh a tsh a ,@salty tsh a qh a ,@tasteless tsh a m@ tCh oq
astringent ˚r cu ruùoily
n@m ù coN h tCik ý@q h tCik˚
not busy kh om bapbusyúwi waF hrich
C i ,oH
poor
wol woclean h ts@N madirty p tso Xa
living h son bo
fresh h sar wa
dead Ch @ wo

clear t@N mogood-looking h ta sh a j@q q@
noisy ù kat c@q q@
bored sh em m@ ˚r cit k@hastily m éo Ka
colourful úh a úh awise
úh a mow
foolishlen bahonest ú@N moH
sly
jo r é@ H dýencareful sh em ý@m mogentle kh a ő dýam bo
arrogant Na r ée tCh esuitable ï ã@k pa
severe Nan ba
courteous n dzam n dzam
industrious H go pu
lazy
jor coclumsy w len ba
well-behaved kh wa ően mo
hardworking p tson ï ãi
pitiful ù ő̊aN r dýe
H
glad
ga x@
b
happy
de ˚r cit
peaceful b de ő dý@qùsad
co r d@km h F
proficient ˚
k e samkind
dza ˚r tse
disagreeable őa na mosingle ˚n tC@ Na / kh e ˚r c@N
cliﬀy H zar wo
so-so sh a r@ sh @ ,@
m h
rare
ja ˚
ts an

Verbs

love H ga
decoct h ku
pull up wA
arrange p úwa mo H ã@kswing N gi
worship F Ch @N ˚n tsh A
move (house) h pomove (a thing) kh @r

119

120

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

help roq ram F Cettie up H dom
wrap
tCup F Cet
keep secret h s@Nprotect h úoN cup
be full hwa b é@p
hug
wu l@n n dep
peel oﬀ F C@
recite w la n don
carry on the back kh @r
compare r d@r
close ˚r ts@m
weave la˚ñchange (something)é@r H doq
H(something) change
é@r
be sick na ts@
repair lan po b é@q
donate ˚ w ý@n ba h toN
wipe F Ch @wipe up ha r@ Ch i
guess Pa kh e m@ kh etstep on m ő@q
participate ý@khide h koN
mp hscratch ˚ú @kunseam ha r@ F C@k
destroy F C@kcollapse H ýik
mix ï ãetaste p úo wa őon
sing lon
quarrel wor b é@q
fry h s@fight n dz@n ri F Cet
sink th @mmeasure p c@q
prize p tot úa
open (an umbrella) Ch o , d@k h@kcomplete ï ãup tsh a
w
fill
l@k
admit kh e lon

purify t@N ő̊ik F Cet
eat zasprint tCh oN
flush F C@t
take out n den
smoke ˚n th en
whip H doN
go out H gwa sh oN(sun) rise Ch arcome out F Ch @ Ha Ch oq
hoe up p ko
wear konthread (a needle) b é@Ntransmit b é@n n dz@n
infect N gu
blow (something) hor
hit H doN
hurt by stinging tsh aurge
tet
get wrong nor
answer kh e lan
make gesture l@q b da w ýe
hunt r Non b dashoot (with a gun) me m da b é@q
hit (on the target) hoq
scatter h tor
separate ˚n th orfetch lonnod H ői joN
yawn w lap r@N F Cet
hiccup ri No
open kh a F Ch ethunder bolt breaks th oq b é@q
thunder m ã@k b é@qtake with oneself w zoN
go to war H ãa n dz@Nknot m d@t pa b é@qsnore hop r@N nesneeze hap tCh @ b é@qlook after ő̊@klead úh @t

Suzuki, Hiroyuki and Sonam Wangmo: Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetan

waer (a turban) h úi
wear (a bracelet) h t@q
be born ï̊ úh oN
delay N gor
keep oﬀ kh oqfall down loq
topple H dzoq
pound to pieces tCh @q
reverse N go m dý@k loq
arrive th on / lep ˚obtain ˚n th op˚
wait H g@k(earth) quake sh a N gi
lower the head m go H g@r
shake head m go H j@k / m go p tC@k
burn m bar
turn light on H loq H éon
fall down loN˚hook n doq
fish n dz@ntumble loq
flod up H doq
bite sh o h tap
hammer in n dep
lose (something) wor sh oN
understand Ch i / kofreeze N̊ kh @Nstir N gi
read n don
block up ˚n tsh @N / n dam
cross (a river) r gal(thread) snap tCh et(stick) snap tCh @q
snap (a thread) h tCot
snap (a stick) h tCoq
hide (oneself) qap
chop h tsap
be hungry h toqpress H n@n
occur m dýoNm hdevelop ˚
p @l b git

be angry tsh @ ,a za
swear H na h ceshiver ő̊ tCh @k n d@r ýik
ferment ù ő̊alhave a fever tsh a pa b é@qworry r d@k ri F Cet
sprout m ő@ ,@ m bi
punish tCh a pa p tCot
turn inside out tsh @ la H é@rturn over H zu ,u H é@r
oppose No r gul F Cet
translate H é@rleave (something) ő dýoqput in n dep
put out to pasture ˚n tsh o
m h
fly ˚
p @r
share H go
separate kh a kh a F Cet
be mad ő̊on / ő̊om hts em / w zo
sew ˚
apply F C@
put one’s hand ù corm ht @n
satisfy ˚hrot re s oN
cover N gep
be dry h kam bo ret tsh @work le h ka le
go to market úh oN naN ton ñ éo
catch a cold tCh am s@ na
dare hotsay zercut up h tCet
cut oﬀ tCh et sh oN
mow p tCek
give w ý@n / h ter
follow H dýi h tet
plough n dep
be enough n d@N
assess ha lamhire H lashave h toq

121

122

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11(wind) blow H loN H j@khang jar p kwAturn light oﬀ h tAcare about sh em kh @r F Cet
close r é@q
enclose tC@t
manage to tam F Cet
irrigate H l@q
kneel H Vi h ts@k tCe
rotate ï ãe loq F Cet / b éecelebrate New Year lo h s@r h toN(time) pass N gor sh oN
be ashamed No tsh abe afraid ù c@q
shout m bot
drink ˚n th oN
mp h
mp h
be appropriate ˚ú @k ˚ú @khate őan lA
regret ñ éot pa F Cet
paddle h toN
draw (a picture) p úw@
be pregnant H Nwar tCh @ Fwa
doubt to Xa z@
repay ho r@n h s@t
return (a thing) h terchange b dýe
wave H j@k
return (home) loq
recall C@ n d@n
reply lan n dedestroy h tsa met to h toN
know (to do) Ch i
muddle ő̊@q
be alive sh o m bo ret th A
raise h so
gain ˚n th op
gather ˚n tsh oq
assemble h pAN ï ã@kpress p ts@r
squeeze w ýoremember úan

deposit p tCu
send h k@r
envy p úh @q toq F Cet
fasten p tCoN
pick up H n@nsollect H z@m
reduce mar Ch @t
cut with scissors h úA
tell F Cet
descend mar loN
exchange H ý@˚H ýi F Cet
make friends with H ã@kirrigate H l@k
be burnt ˚n tsh @ H z@N
chew l dat
teach lop˚F(bird) crow
Ca c@q H di(cat) meow mo n dz@ h ket(donkey) bray woN w@ Nar(horse) neigh ù ta ˚n tsh er(cow) moo zoq Nar(dog) bark ch @ z@k(pig) grunt h@q tsh @r h ket h toN(sheep) baa l@k m ba
(tiger) growl ù t@q Nar(wolf) howl F s@N kh @ Nar
be named m ő@N n doq
lift up F Ch ebear (fruit) m ãe wu ˚n th oq
freeze tCh A r@m ñ̊ ch oq
marry ù ton mo ji
untie H dot pa F Cetborrow H jarsoak b dý@Nforbid h kor N go F Cet
submerge th @menter naN H@ ze
pass b éet
shock h úoq
be shocked ï ãoq
rescue h Cop tCet

Suzuki, Hiroyuki and Sonam Wangmo: Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetan

live H dot / H d@k
raise (a hand) p tCek
saw sh oq le p tCA
complete n dzom
roll up H ãi tCi
curl up ù k@m H g@m F Cet
block N g@q
open F Ch e
be boiling N̊ kh u
blossom ce
drive h toN
start N go ő dýoqhew h tCet / p ts@p
look ˚l ta / ˚l tushow h ton
see r@ksee a doctor na h ton
shoulder kh @r / p c@q
warm onself ùh orely ù ten
cough H lo l@be thirsty kh a h kom
carve ù qo
agree ˚n th @q tCe
gnaw Ch a ù qe
m h
tC @t
dig out with a finger ˚Hbutton upéo
be idle kh om ba jot
weep N@be sleepy H ői j@N kh @pull ˚n th en
defecate ù ce Xa h t@N
be hot (taste) kh a tsh a wa
be missing loq / licome joN ˚drag F Ch @ r@ n@N
be old H ge
be tired h ka / tCh at
m hconnect ˚
t @t
h
dry
kem / h kam
chat kh a b da F Cet

split open ke
drench H l@n ba ret th @flow H ý@rreserve ő dýoqbe deaf H nA wonembrace w@ r@ h tap
leak z@q
mess up h ú@k
be messy ï̊ úh @k
pile up p ts@k(sun) set ői ma r@ w@ H ge / n@p
be numb H ã@tscold H dz@Nbury sh a lep b é@q
buy őosell h tsoN
be full h k@N
not to have me
cover up p kap
die out h tA
(bird) chirp tC@q
m h p
close ˚tC @ ts@k p ts@m F Cet
understand ha ko
stroke r@kwhet r dar
grind ˚n th @q
hold lenscratch H éa p tC@k
can th @p
congeal h q@q h q@q
twist h tC@ r é@r / p tC@r
vomit ù tC@k
crawl ja ra N go
climb H gw@r
clap H depline up H ã@kdispatch H N@q
circle N̊ kh or
run H é@kmake (tea) H dý@Ncompensate F C@ Xa

123

124

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11bump th @kfloat l dANm hsplash ˚tC ot
be torn th etsplit up tCh @q
be damaged h tCoq
be broken tCh @q
break H doq sh @p
bully p tsot h t@p F Cet
deceive m go h kor h toN
ride ð åo
stand up jar l@N
lead along ch etowe H go
mp h
rob ˚
ú oq
knock H doN
raise (the tail) H jik
cut up h t@p
kiss po ji / po F Cet
look down tCh oN h t@q F Cet
request ý@ wa F Cet
drive out b dafetch lenmarry (a woman) lon
go ñ éo
heal ú@q
be complete H d@N
dye p tCa ˚r ts@ F C@k / p tsu ku
give way lam H z@r
heat up tsh a h ko
recognise No Ch im hthrow ˚p @n / h̃ hen
dissolve ý@knead H dz@
endure ùh ontan m őetspray n dep
scatter seeds sh a won n dep
end cicome loose H ýik
sweep F Ch @q

kill F sot
seave h cap
dry in the sun ői ma h t@
sunbathe ői ma n delightning H loq ˚n tsh @kinjure H mi
consult úu F Cet
go upstairs ja r@ ñ éom hshoot ˚p enhave shot h̃ hoq
stretch out ù c@N
extend ùh aN
grow ù cerust h tsa ,ogrow a boil r ma w@t
give birth ù ceremain l@q
rise Ch ˚
arlose (something) wor
release h t@N
try tsh ot ˚l tabe (equative) ret
harvest p ú@q
mp h
receive ˚ú othclose p ap
put in order H di h soq r éap
defend ùh oN m@q
comb F Cet
lose (a game) ham
be cooked ˚n tsh u
be ripe p tse
get thinner Ch a tCh et
count p úwAN h ka / p úwAN ˚r ts@
rinse F CA
fall loNm htoss ˚˚
p en
h
tie
t@ q
sleep őAfall asleep H ő@t
speak F Cet
tear up p tet

Suzuki, Hiroyuki and Sonam Wangmo: Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetan

die Ch @count ˚r tsi r é@p
break into pieces ýik
spoil p tC@k
collapse ýik
trample H d@plift up jar p c@q
shed H őik tCh @ Ch @r
lie down loq
burn (the hand) ùh @q
run away p úobeg (for food) ù c@have a headache m go na
kick ù k@N th oq r éap
shave w ýar
be cloudy H nam n@q
be fine day H nam úo
dawn ői ma Ch arget dark m@n n@q
lick r d@q
carry with a pole p ú@ Ka N̊ kh @rchoose b dam
dance p úo ő dýamm h
tC o Njump ˚m hpulse ˚p @qpaste b éar
listen őon
hear kom hts am ő dýoqstop ˚notify b da b dý@r
steal h k@
hurl H jik
spit n dep
push h̃ hit
oﬀer as an excuse kh @q H ý@q
move back F Ch @ n@t
swallow m ő@t
drag ú@t
dislocate tsh @k h@t
carry on the back p kwA
dig h kobecome bent k@k
bend k@k k@ ő dý@kfinish tsh arplay ˚r tse mo ˚r tse
forget b dýetviolate N gAl
feed H l@ksmell n@m
ask ú@˚
grasp m dý@
cover s@m
inhale n den
be accustomed kom Ch or
wash p ú@
be blind H őik ýa ra
go downstairs H dze H de marlay (an egg) h t@N
rain tCh a rwa m bap
scare ù c@q sh a H ,atenvy jil ù mon tCh orhtrust ji tC˚
i
F
think
sam / úanrecall úan kh @want F sam
resemble ï ãa modigest ý@
disappear jal / met pa sh oN
subside ù c@N repeel H ýoq
be careful ka le / H zap H zap
laugh H got
write p ú@
have diarrhea F CA
wake up H ő@t sh et
rest mA h soembroider h ts@qlearn b dýoNsmoke t@ wa H d@plook for p tswA
push down H n@n
mp hitch za ˚ú @k / za

125

126

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

shake H jik
bite sh o h tap
scoop up p tC@
need H golead úh @t
rely h ten sh aoverflow F Ch @ ő̊ tCh er
conceal h s@N
win kh e
greet H ga F s@ F Cet
embrace H wu H l@n n dep
swim tCh @ őa r éap
have jotbe (existential) jot
meet th @k
agree úu F Cetm hcross ˚tC oN ra m b@t
be dizzy m go j@r N̊ kh or
permit tCh oq
plant n dz@k
increase jar n@n
stick into p ts˚@kblink H őik H d@
extract p ts@kpluck ˚n th ostick down b éar
stand up jar l@N
open kh a H d@N
grow up tCh i bo ret
feel bloated hwA w ru
catch fire m őe Ch orcatch cold ñ̊ ch @qm hconvene ˚ts wA b é@ / ˚n tsh oq
have found H őet / r@k
sting b éap
shake N gil
mp hfight for ˚ú oq r@ F Cet
steam H l@N p tso jiknow koweave ˚n th @q
point at ù ton
be swelling ù c@N
cook p tsoH
use a walking stickloq ˚r ten kh @r /
N̊ h
k en
wish ù mon l@m n dep
˚N
grab H zo
turn around kh a N̊ kh orturn acorner kh a ù kor
turn N̊ kh orpack naN Ha tCh @k
chase after n det / b dA
prepare úa b ã@kpeck at ˚n th @walk ñ éo
curse H No Nango through n dz@l / n dzi
be drunk H é@q
sit H dot
do ledream H ői lu H ői / m ői lam H ői
do business ˚n tsh oN H é@q

References
Hua, Kan (ed.). 2002. Zangyu Anduo Fangyan Cihui [Vocabulary of Tibetan Amdo dialects]. Lanzhou: Gansu
Minzu Chubanshe.
Huang, Bufan. 2012. “Zangmianyu de xiaosheyin [Uvulars in Tibeto-Burman]”. Yuyanxue Luncong 45.
pp.157–174.

Suzuki, Hiroyuki and Sonam Wangmo: Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetan

127

Qu, Aitang and Xiaojing Jin. 1981. “Zangyu fangyan de yanjiu fangfa [Methodology of the research on Tibetan
dialects]”. Xinan Minzu Xueyuan Xuebao 3. pp.76–84.
Sonam Wangmo. 2013. “Lhagang Monastery in Myth, History and Contemporary Society”. Oslo: Universitetet i
Oslo, M.Phil. Thesis.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2005. “Tibettogo onsetu koozoo no kenkyuu [Study on the Tibetan syllable structure]”. Journalof Asian and African Studies 69. pp.1–23.
———. 2015. “Kamu tiiki de hanasareru Amudotibetto-go Seka [gSerkha] hoogen no onsei kizyutu [Phonetic
description of the gSerkha dialect of Amdo Tibetan spoken in the Khams region]”. Kyoto University Linguistic
Research 34. pp.89–107.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki and Sonam Wangmo. 2015a. “Quelques remarques linguistiques sur le tibétain de Lhagang,«l’endroit préféré par le Bodhisattva»”. Revue d’études tibétaines 32. pp.153–175.
———. 2015b. “Lhagang Tibetan of Minyag Rabgang Khams: Vocabulary of two sociolinguistic varieties”. Asianand African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 10. pp.245–286.
———. 2016a. “Kamu-Tibettogo Tagong [Lhagang] hoogen no bunpoo suketti [Grammatical sketch of the
Lhagang dialect of Khams Tibetan]”. Journal of Kijutsuken 8. pp.21–90.
———. 2016b. “Lhagang Choyu: A first look at its sociolinguistic status”. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics 2.
pp.60–69.
———. 2017. “ Language evolution and vitality of Lhagang Tibetan, a Tibetic language as a minority in Minyag
Rabgang”. International Journal of Sociology of Language 245. [Originally presented at the workshop on the
linguistic minorities of the Chinese Tibetosphere (Uppsala, 2014)]. pp.63–90.
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2014. “The Tibetic languages and their classification”. In Thomas Owen-Smith and Nathan W.
Hill (eds.) Trans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter. pp.105–129.
Wang, Shuangcheng. 2012. Zangyu Anduo Fangyan Yuyin Yanjiu [Study on the phonetics of Tibetan Amdo dialects].
Shanghai: Zhongxi Shuju.

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics No.11, 2017

A Classified Lexicon of Shan Loanwords in Jinghpaw∗
Kurabe, Keita
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science / ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

Jinghpaw is a Tibeto-Burman language primarily distributed in northern Burma, while
Shan is a Tai-Kadai language whose distribution partially overlaps with that of Jinghpaw.
The aim of this paper is to provide a classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw,
which are borrowed into Jinghpaw due to close cultural and linguistic contact. This
paper also provides a brief overview of linguistic situation in the Jinghpaw-speaking
area, followed by descriptions of linguistic properties of Shan loanwords in terms ofphonology, morphology, syntax and semantics.

Keywords: Jinghpaw, Shan, language contact, loanwords, lexical borrowing

1. Introduction
2. Linguistic situation in northern Burma
3. Linguistic properties of Shan loanwords
4. Classified lexicon of Shan loanwords

1. Introduction

Jinghpaw is a Tibeto-Burman (TB) language primarily distributed in northern Burma(Myanmar), but whose distribution is broad, stretching from the upper Brahmaputra
valley of northeastern India across northern Burma, and beyond the Sino-Burmese
border into far western Yunnan. The Jinghpaw people have had a long-term symbiotic
relationship with the Tai-speaking Shan people whose distribution partially overlaps
with that of the Jinghpaw. Although Jinghpaw and Shan are genetically unrelated,
Jinghpaw has absorbed a large number of lexical items from Shan, with which it
has been in close cultural and linguistic contact for the past centuries. The aim of
this paper is to provide a classified lexicon of Shan loanwords adopted by Jinghpaw,
mainly collected by the author as a part of historical-comparative and contact linguistic
Kurabe, Keita. 2017. “A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw”. Asian and African Languages and
Linguistics 11. pp.129–166. [Permanent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/89212]∗
A part of this paper is based on work that was presented at the 48th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan
Languages and Linguistics held at University of California, Santa Barbara, August 21–23, 2015. I would like toexpress my gratitude to the participants of the conference for their helpful discussion and comments. I am also
grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their careful reading and constructive comments on an earlier draft ofthis paper. My fieldwork was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows (Nos. 24-2938 and 26-2254)
from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS).

130

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

research on Jinghpaw and its dialects. I will also oﬀer a brief introduction to linguistic
situation in the Jinghpaw-speaking area and descriptions of linguistic properties of Shanloanwords in Jinghpaw in terms of phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics.
The organization of this paper is as follows. Section 2 provides an introduction
to linguistic situation in the Jinghpaw-speaking region. This is followed by sections
providing brief linguistic sketches of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw, beginning withphonology (Section 3.1), and followed by morphology (Section 3.2), syntax (Section3.3) and semantics (Section 3.4). Section 4 is devoted to providing Shan loanwords in
Jinghpaw classified in terms of semantic fields, with some corresponding forms fromrelevant languages that have close cultural and/or linguistic relationships with Jinghpaw
and/or Shan. In the remainder of this section, I provide a brief review of literature,sources of the linguistic data and a brief description of Tai varieties in northern Burma.
1.1. Previous studies

Major previous studies that provide and/or discuss Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw
include: Hanson (1906), Maran (1964) and Dai and Xu (1995). Hanson (1906), a
dictionary of Jinghpaw, is a significant contribution to lexical borrowing between Shanand Jinghpaw in that it identifies a number of Jinghpaw lexical items of Shan origin.
Hanson (1906), however, does not oﬀer corresponding Shan forms. Maran (1964)
investigates bilingualism in acculturation in Jinghpaw, surveying the varying degreesof bilingualism and cultural borrowing from Shan. His findings show that the structuralresistance to the Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw can be seen at phonic, lexical andgrammatical levels, at the last level of which the Shan influence is quite minor, as Shanloanwords follow the rules of Jinghpaw grammar. Dai and Xu (1995: 259–265) identify
over one hundred Jinghpaw words of Tai origin, listing half of them with corresponding
forms of Dehong Tai, a Tai dialect closely related to Shan. They point out several
linguistic properties of these loanwords that will be noted in relevant sections below.
1.2. Data

The secondary data of the relevant languages are, unless otherwise noted, takenfrom the following sources. The Jinghpaw data based on Maran (1978) are given
with slight modification according to the phonemic transcription employed in Kurabe(2016). The Shan data based on Sao Tern Moeng (1995), an updated version of Cushing(1881 [1914]), are transcribed according to the system used in SEAlang Library Shan
Dictionary.1 The data for Colloquial Burmese are transcribed according to the system
illustrated by Kato (2008) and the transcription of Written Burmese is based on thesystem outlined by Duroiselle (1916).
• Burmese (Colloquial): Myanmar Language Commission ed. (2009)• Burmese (Written): Myanmar Language Commission ed. (2009)1

http://www.sealang.net/shan/dictionary.htm (accessed on 2016-08-31)

Kurabe, Keita: A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw

131• Dehong: Luo (1999); supplemented by Dai and Xu (1995) marked by (DX) and
Meng (2007) marked by (M)• Ganan: Huziwara (2012a); supplemented with the help of Dr. Huziwara Keisuke
marked by (H)• Hpun: Henderson (1986)• Jinghpaw: Maran (1978)• Kadu: Sangdong (2012); supplemented with the help of Dr. Huziwara Keisuke
marked by (H)• Khamti: Harris (1976); supplemented by Pulu (1997) marked by (P) and Weidert(1977) marked by (W)2
• Lacid: my field notes• Langsu: Dai (2005)• Leqi: Dai and Li (2007)• Lhaovo: Sawada (2003, 2004); supplemented by my field notes marked by (K)• Lisu: Fraser (1922)• Ngochang: Nasaw Sampu et al. (2005)• Numhpuk: Morey (2007b)• Pali: Rhys Davids and Stede, (eds.) (1921–1925)• Proto-Tibeto-Burman: Matisoﬀ (2003)• Rawang: LaPolla and Sangdong (2015)• Sanskrit: Macdonell (1929)• Shan: Sao Tern Moeng (1995)• Siamese: Haas (1964)• Turung: Morey (2007a)• Zaiwa: Lustig (2010); supplemented by Duoshi et al. (1992) marked by (D)1.3. Tai varieties in northern Burma

Northern Burma is inhabited by Tai peoples whose languages and dialects are closely
related, such as Shan (Tai Long or Tai Yai), Tai Mao, Tai Laing and Tai Khamti. This
paper, as noted earlier, is based on Tai data from Shan because of the availability of its
copious data (Cushing 1881 [1914], Sao Tern Moeng 1995). While it would also be
possible that the direct source of Tai items in Jinghpaw has been of other Tai varieties
closely related to Shan, and some mismatches between Jinghpaw and Shan forms might
be attributed to this fact, this question is not easily solved due to the lack of suﬃcient
data for other Tai varieties and dialects spoken in northern Burma. The attempt of
this paper should thus be viewed as a preliminary approximation toward studies in
Tai-Jinghpaw contact linguistics. Despite this situation, it is still true that Tai varieties
in northern Burma have close relationship with each other, and that Jinghpaw words of
Tai origin well correspond to those of Shan in many respects (see Section 3).
2

The tone marks employed in Weidert (1977) are modified in accordance with the system used in Harris (1976).

132

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Before we move on, a brief discussion of some of the other possible donor languages
is in order. Dai an Xu (1995) treat Dehong Tai (Chinese Shan) spoken in thesouthwestern part of Yunnan province as the direct source of Tai words in Jinghpaw.
This does not seem to hold, however, as can be seen from the following comparison
where Dehong reflects initials *n- and *hn- of Proto-Tai with /l/ in contrast to othervarieties that reflect them with /n/, which Jinghpaw has borrowed.3
Reflexes of Proto-Tai initials *n- and *hn-

Table 1

Shan‘rice field’‘lady’‘face’‘heavy’‘water’

4

naa
naaN4
naa3
nak4
nam5

DehongKhamti

2

3

laa
laaN2
laa4
lak1
lam5

naa

naa5
nak4
nam2

Siamese

Jinghpaw

Proto-initials

naa
naaN
nâa
nàk
nám

nà
nàN
na
nák
nàm

PT *nPT *nPT *hnPT *hnPT *nl/r-

Tai Khamti (Khamti Shan) is another possible candidate for the direct donor
language which has introduced Tai lexical items into Jinghpaw given the partial overlap
between the Khamti and Jinghpaw peoples in the northern part of what is present-day
Kachin State, as well as the early migration history of Jinghpaw which suggests a
north-to-south migration. The following comparison, however, suggests that Khamti,
which reflects the proto-initial *Pd- with /n/ unlike many other Tai varieties which
relfect it with /l/ (Li 1977: 107–108, Edmondson 2008: 199–200), is not the directsource language because Tai loanwords in Jinghpaw have /l/ for these lexical items.
Compare:Table 2Shan‘silk’‘mountain’‘red’‘month’

3

3

laaj
lOj1
lEN1
l7n1

Dehong
4

laai
lOi6
lEN6
l@n6

Reflexes of proto-initial *Pd-

Khamti
5

naay
nOy1
nEN1
n7n1

Siamese

Jinghpaw

Proto-initials

dâay
dOOy
dEEN
d0an

lày
loy
leN
lun

PT *PdPT *Pdl/rPT *Pdl/rPSWT *Pd-

Proto-Tai (PT) initials in Tables 1 and 2 are based on Li (1977: 108, 111, 114, 129, 131) and Proto-SouthwesternTai (PSWT) initials in Table 2 on Edmondson (2008: 200).

Kurabe, Keita: A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw

133

2. Linguistic situation in northern Burma

The Jinghpaw-speaking region in northern Burma is a site of intensive contact inwhich cultural and language contact among intra- and extra-TB speakers has been along-standing phenomenon. The intra-TB contact is represented by the Kachin people
who consist of several TB linguistic groups, of which the Jinghpaw is a primary
member (2.1). The Kachin people, including the Jinghpaw, have also had a long
symbiotic relationship with the Tai-speaking Shan people, from whom they haveborrowed a number of lexical items (2.2). Burmese and Chinese are two dominantlanguages in the Jinghpaw-speaking region today. Their influence on Jinghpaw,
however, is diachronically quite limited (2.3). Within the Sino-Tibetan language family,
Jinghpaw is closely related to the Luish (Asakian) languages, some of which are
distributed in northern Burma. While they are not in direct contact relationship with
Jinghpaw, they are in contact with Shan (2.4).
2.1. Jinghpaw and Kachin

The Kachin people are recognized as one of the major ethnic groups in Burma.
Linguistically, the Kachin are not a monolith group and exhibit internal diversity,
consisting of speakers of languages belonging to several TB branches. In spiteof internal linguistic diversity, the Kachin people form more or less a coherent
socio-cultural complex of shared cultural traits such as a marriage-alliance system.
In Burma, this Kachin grouping consists of speakers of languages such as Jinghpaw,
Zaiwa, Lhaovo, Lacid, Ngochang and Rawang, and includes some Lisu speakers as
well. In the Kachin region, especially in the southeastern part where non-Jinghpaw
Kachin population is great, as noted by Bradley (1996), it is not diﬃcult to find Kachin
villages (kăhtawng), village clusters (măre) and communities inhabited by several
linguistic groups. Leach (1954: 63–100) describes a Kachin community of some 500
people in the Kachin Hills of Burma situated close to the Burma-China border, which
consists of diverse linguistic groups speaking Jinghpaw, Gauri, Zaiwa, Lhaovo, Lisu
and Chinese.
Aside from common inheritance, members of the Kachin grouping share linguistic
as well as cultural traits that have arisen as a result of intensive contact. Of particularimportance is the fact that Jinghpaw serves as a lingua franca among the Kachin people,
being spoken not only by the Jinghpaw people but also by other groups whose native
tongues belong to distinct branches of TB. Jinghpaw, as a lingua franca, has provided
many words to non-Jinghpaw Kachin languages, which form the areal lexicon in the
Kachin cultural area. Table 3 provides a few examples of lexical items of Jinghpaw
origin borrowed into other Kachin languages. Jinghpaw loanwords in other Kachin
languages are also identified by Yabu (1982), Sawada (2003, 2004), Lustig (2010) andMatisoﬀ (2013).

134

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Table 3

Selected words of Jinghpaw origin in several Kachin languages

Jinghpaw‘mistake’‘diﬀerent’‘correct’‘song’‘bless’‘public’

Cút
Cày
jò
m@khónC@mán
C@wà

Zaiwa
5

Lhaovosyut
syai31zyo11
me1 -k/hon31

Ngochang

Rawang

šat
šayH
coF

shuot
shaih

šămanHšăvaF

shvmanhshvwas

shut
sháy
jò
mvkúnshvmán
shvwà

H

2.2. Jinghpaw and Shan

The Kachin people, including the Jinghpaw, have also had a long-term symbiotic
relationship with the Tai-speaking Shan people. Although the situation has beenchanging, in general, Kachins are highlanders occupying hills and mountains where
they practice slash and burn agriculture, while Shans are lowlanders occupying rivervalleys where they practice rice cultivation in irrigated fields (Leach 1954: 1). In
spite of the contrastive ecological settings they occupy, “Kachins and Shans are almost
everywhere close neighbours and in the ordinary aﬀairs of life they are much mixed
up together” (ibid.: 2). The ethnological fluidity in the region can be seen in the factthat it is not uncommon to observe that a Kachin “becomes a Shan” (ibid.: 30). Leach(1954) shows that Kachin communities in the first half of the twentieth century were“oscillating” between an egalitarian system and a Shan feudal system.
The Shan influence on the Kachin people is also reflected in a large number of Shanloanwords in their languages. The borrowing relationship is seemingly hierarchical,
as witnessed by the fact that, in contrast to the situation in which Kachin languages
have adopted a number of Shan words, Shan seems to have borrowed a very few lexical
items from them. Some words of Shan origin, as shown in Table 4, are shared acrossseveral Kachin languages. Section 4 provides Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw, together
with relevant data from other Kachin languages.
Table 4

Selected Shan loanwords in several Kachin languages

Shan
‘bag’
‘rabbit’‘country’‘pond’‘hook’

h1

t oN
paaN1 taaj4
m7N4
nON1
met4

Jinghpaw
thuN
praNtáy
múN
nóN
myı́t

Zaiwa

Lhaovo31

Ftungbang11 dvai31
meng11nvong31
mit5

thauN
pyaNF tayL
¯
mukL
nauNF

Rawangdv̀nggúng
bàngday
móng
núng
mit

Although it is not always easy to tell whether non-Jinghpaw Kachin languages

Kurabe, Keita: A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw

135

borrowed lexical items directly from Shan or through Jinghpaw, there are at least someexamples that indicate the latter scenario. These examples come from Shan items with
non-etymological Jinghpaw elements as in (1), and shared semantic shifts as in (2).
(1)

Shan kaa5 ‘to trade’ > Jinghpaw ph@ga ‘trade (n.)’ > Zaiwa pe5 ga35 ‘trade (n.)’,Lhaovo phăkaL ‘trade (n.)’, Lacid pha:ga: ‘trade (n.)’, Rawang pvga ‘goods’(2)Shan maj5 sh aw3 ‘slender piece of wood’ > Jinghpaw màysàw ∼ màwsàw‘paper’ > Zaiwa mau11 sau11 ‘paper’, Lhaovo mukF sukH ‘paper’, Lacid moug:soug” ‘paper’, Rawang mèsò ‘paper’

As noted above, Jinghpaw, as a lingua franca among the Kachin people, performs
the function of transferring lexical items of languages of high prestige in the region,such as Shan, into non-Jinghpaw Kachin languages. Matisoﬀ (2013: 24) provides theborrowing chains across several language families given in (3), remarking that the
Jinghpaw lexicon has a large number of Shan elements, and “[s]ome of these Shan
items were themselves from Burmese, and in turn some of these were originally fromIndo-Aryan”. Jinghpaw, as a lingua franca among the Kachin people, introduced someof these items into non-Jinghpaw Kachin languages such as Rawang.
(3)

Borrowing chains
Pali (IA) → Burmese (TB) → Shan (Tai) → Jinghpaw (TB) → Rawang (TB)

Table 5 shows some of the lexical items of Pali origin shared across several TB andTai languages discussed above, including Written Burmese (WB), Shan and Jinghpaw.4
Table 5

Selected Pali loanwords in several TB and Tai languages

Pali‘caution’‘luck’‘machine’‘intellect’‘camel’‘rich’

4

sati
kamma
sakka
ñāna˙ thakula-otsetthi ˙˙
˙˙

WB

Shan

sati
kaṁ
cak
ñān
˙ 3 utkulā
sūthe3˙

h 1 5

s a tikaam2
tsaak3
ñaan2
ka1 laa4 Puk5
sh a5 th e4

Jinghpaws@dı̀P
gàm
jàk
nyàn
golaPúks@thı́

LhaovoFsătiP
kamF¯
cakF

koL laL PukF
sătheH

Rawang
svdiq
gàm
jvk
nyan
golawusvté

It is often the case that the original meaning has been obscured in recipient languages as a result of semanticchange. Table 5 provides glosses in the recipient languages. The original Pali meanings are respectively as follows:‘memory, recognition, consciousness’, ‘the doing, deed, work’, ‘able, possible’, ‘knowledge, intelligence, insight’,‘clan-camel’, ‘foreman of a guild, treasurer’. Note that Written Burmese kulā3 ut (lit. Indian-camel), whose roots
are not combined in the donor language, seems to be a novel compound coined by Burmese. The first syllable ofPali setthi which does not convey any meaning is replaced by sū ‘person’ in Burmese due to folk etymology.
˙˙

136

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

2.3. Jinghpaw and other dominant languages

The Jinghpaw-speaking region is also inhabited by Burmese and Chinese speakers.
The linguistic influence from Burmese and Chinese on Jinghpaw is, diachronicallyspeaking, less significant than that from Shan, as reflected in the relative lack of
Burmese and Chinese loanwords in Jinghpaw as compared to those of Shan. Manyof the Burmese loanwords seem to have been introduced into Jinghpaw through Shan,
given that many of them are also found in Shan, and that intensive direct contact
between Jinghpaw and Burmese seems to be dated back no further than the early 1800s
before the Anglo-Burmese wars. The fact that some Jinghpaw words of Burmese origin
have additional non-etymological Shan elements also suggests that these words are
introduced into Jinghpaw through Shan. Written Burmese un3 ‘coconut’, for example,
is borrowed into Jinghpaw as m@Pûn (cf. Shan maak2 Pun1 ) with a Shan class term
maak2 ‘fruit’, which frequently occurs in Shan fruit names (see Section 3.4).
Table 6 shows some selected Burmese loanwords in Jinghpaw with corresponding
Shan forms. Observe in the table that Burmese lexical items borrowed into Jinghpaw
retain phonological properties of Written Burmese (WB), which have undergone
significant sound changes in Colloquial Burmese (CB). The Written Burmese liquidr which has merged with y in Colloquial Burmese, for example, appears as r in Shanand Jinghpaw. As such, data of Burmese loanwords in Shan and Jinghpaw, together
with evidence form the writing system and conservative Burmese dialects, oﬀer clues
for reconstruction of phonetic values of Old Burmese phonemes.
Table 6

Burmese loanwords in Shan and Jinghpaw

WB‘building/box’‘capital’‘certificate’‘bell’‘respite’‘murraya plant’tuikaraṅ3
lakmhatkhoṅ3 loṅ3
khyam3 sāsanapkhā3

CBtaiP
P@yı́ð
lEPhmaPkháuðláuðcháðDà
Tănăkhá

Shan

Jinghpaw3dèkPáráNlàkmàt
khoNloNkhyámsà
s@nàpkhá

t7k
Pa1 raaN4
laak3 maat3
kh ON4 lON4
kh jaam4 sh aa2
sh a1 naap3 kh aa4

Sino-Jinghpaw words are much more restricted, as Hanson (1913: 29) puts it: “[v]eryfew Chinese terms have been incorporated, although the Kachins [Jinghpaws] forcenturies have been in close contact with their powerful and intelligent neighbours.”
Some words of Chinese origin are shared between several Kachin languages. Table 7
shows some selected Chinese loanwords in pinyin found in Jinghpaw and some otherKachin languages.5 Note that some Chinese items are also found in Shan, leaving the5

The Lhaovo data in orthographic forms are from my field notes.

Kurabe, Keita: A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw

137

possibility that they were introduced into Jinghpaw through Shan, e.g. sh On2 ‘calculate’,lO3 ‘mule’.
Table 7

Chinese loanwords in some Kachin languages

Chinese

Jinghpaw

Zaiwa
11‘cut with scissors’‘calculate’‘chopsticks’‘mule’
‘eel’

jiǎn
suàn
kuàiziluózihuángshàn

zèn
son
khoydzèlòdzèkhàNCan‘boss / rich man’lǎobǎnlàwbàn

zuen
son55
koi55 zvue11
lo11
hang11 syan55

LhaovoRawang
zı̀n
sun

lo ze
khang:
shan:
lau banlòzè

lòbv̀n

While the Burmese and Chinese influence on Jinghpaw is historically less significant,the situations are rapidly changing, with increased demands for Burmese in Burma andChinese in China as the medium of education and communication. The majority of
the Kachin people in Burma today, including Jinghpaw, are fully bilingual in Burmese
from childhood.
2.4. Jinghpaw and Luish

Jinghpaw, as noted earlier, belongs to the TB branch of the Sino-Tibetan language
family, as evidenced by well-established sound correspondences between Jinghpaw
and the proto-language as well as by a large number of Jinghpaw lexical items
inherited from the proto-language. Within TB, Jinghpaw is closely related to the Luish(Asakian) languages such as Cak (Sak), Kadu, Ganan, Andro and Sengmai, which are
distributed in small discontinuous pockets situated across three countries: northwestern
Burma, southeastern Bangladesh and northeastern India. Together these constitutethe Jinghpaw-Luish (Jinghpaw-Asakian) branch of TB, which covers a widespreadbut discontinuous area in the northwestern part of Greater Mainland Southeast Asia
(Huziwara 2012b, 2014, Matisoﬀ 2013).
Jinghpaw and Luish languages, being geographically separated, have not been incontact relationship for the past centuries. It should be noted, however, that both
Jinghpaw and some Luish languages in northern Burma such as Kadu and Ganan havebeen in contact with Shan independently. Shan influence on Kadu, for example, isreflected in its lexicon where basic lexical items such as some numerals and kinshipterms are of Shan origin (Sangdong 2012: 139–141, 236–238). Some Shan loanwords
in Kadu and Ganan, due to this situation, are shared with some languages of the Kachin
including Jinghpaw, some examples of which are presented in Table 8. Section 4, whenrelevant, provides Shan loanwords in Kadu and Ganan shared by Jinghpaw.

138

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Table 8

Selected Shan loanwords in Kadu and several Kachin languages

Shan
‘bag’
‘rabbit’‘shoes/slippers’‘duck’‘castrate’‘mosquito net’

h

1

t oN
paaN1 taaj4
kh Ep4 tin1
pet4
tOn1
sh ut4Kadu
shı́thaúng
pángtaı́
heúttı́naūmpeút
taún
sūt

Jinghpaw

Zaiwa

thuN
praNtáykhyèpdin
khaypyék
don
sút

31

tung
bang11 dvai31
bvyet5

Rawangdv̀nggúng
bàngdaychøpdø̀n
kabit
dun

sut5

3. Linguistic properties of Shan loanwords

This section deals with a brief overview of linguistic characteristics of Shanloanwords in Jinghpaw in terms of phonology (3.1), morphology (3.2), syntax (3.3)
and semantics (3.4).
3.1. Phonology

The mapping of vowels and initial consonants from Shan to Jinghpaw can besummarized as follows.
Vowels
i
>
e
>
E
>
a
>
aa >
O
>
7
>
o
>
W
>
u
>
aW >

i
i
e
a
a
o
i, u, uy
u
i, u
u
aw

Stops
p
>
t
>
ts >
k
>
ph >
th >
kh >
P
>

p, b
t, d
c, j
k, g
ph
th
kh
P

Sonorants
m > m
n > n
ñ > ny
N > N
l
> l
r
> r
w > w
j
> y

Fricatives
sh > sh > kh, (h)Some remarks on the correspondence summarized above are in order. Jinghpaw
has six monophthongs, including a marginal /@/, while Shan has many more vowel
contrasts. Many of the Shan vowels, thus, are replaced in Jinghpaw by close
equivalents. Shan has contrastive mid vowels /e/, /E/, /o/ and /O/, while Jinghpaw
has only /e/ and /o/. Shan open-mid vowels /E/ and /O/ are mapped to mid vowels/e/ and /o/ in Jinghpaw, because Jinghpaw mid vowels are phonetically open-mid
vowels. Shan close-mid vowels /e/ and /o/, on the other hand, are adapted as high

Kurabe, Keita: A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw

139

vowels /i/ and /u/ in Jinghpaw. Shan vowels /7/ and /W/, which are lacking in the
Jinghpaw vowel inventory, are mapped to /i/ or /u/, the choice of which seems to be
unpredictable, e.g. nàmlı́N ‘dropsy’ (< Shan nam5 l7N1 ), lun ‘lunar month’ (< Shanl7n1 ), khı́k ‘a kind of basket’ (< Shan kh Wk2 ), lùksùk ‘soldier’ (< Shan luk3 sh Wk4 ).
Vowel length is not phonemic in Jinghpaw while Shan has a length contrast for /a/.
Both of Shan /a/ and /aa/ are mapped to /a/ in Jinghpaw without any trace. The
Shan diphthong /aW/ is replaced by /aw/ in Jinghpaw. Shan vowels /a/, /i/ and/u/ are faithfully retained in Jinghpaw. Table 9 shows some examples of vowel
correspondences between Shan and Jinghpaw.
Table 9Some vowel correspondences

Shan‘hook’‘jewel’‘bean’‘rivulet/ditch’‘water’‘barren’4

met
sh EN1
th o2
hON3
nam5
haam4

Jinghpaw
>
>
>
>
>
>

myı́t
seN
thù
khòN
nàm
khám

Jinghpaw faithfully retains Shan voiceless aspirated stops, glottal stop and sonorants,
which are mapped straightforwardly to corresponding Jinghpaw consonants without
any substitution. The two Shan fricatives /sh / and /h/ are mapped to Jinghpaw/s/ [sh ] and /kh/ or /h/. The mapping /h/ > /kh/ can be accounted for in termsof phonological nativization as Jinghpaw /h/ is marginal in the native phonology,
being mostly restricted to interjections and onomatopoeic words. The Shan voicelessunaspirated stops and a voiceless aﬀricate /ţ/ (represented by /c/ in Lengtai 2009and by /s/ in Hudak 2000) are mapped to either voiceless or voiced counterparts in
Jinghpaw, the conditioning factor of which is unknown, e.g. té ‘ridge’ (< Shan tE4 ),dépkhá ‘thatch comb’ (< Shan tEp4 kh aa4 ). There are some cases where Jinghpaw
shows hesitation between voiceless and voiced stops, e.g. kày ∼ gày ‘fowl’ (< Shankaj2 ), maypàw ∼ maybàw ‘a kind of tree’ (< Shan maj5 paw4 ). Table 10 shows someexamples of initial stops, aﬀricates and sonorants between Shan and Jinghpaw.

140

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Table 10

Some correspondences between initial consonantsShan‘palace’‘yoke’‘epilepsy’‘diﬃcult’‘garden’‘shellfish’

Jinghpaw

1

hO
PEk2
maa3 mu1
jaak3
sh on1
hOj1

>
>
>
>
>
>

kho
Pék
màmu
yàk
sún
khoy

The rhyme systems of Jinghpaw and Shan are similar in many respects, for example,
in that they have basically the same set of final consonants, and that the vowel-coda
combination is basically free in both languages, except when the coda is a glide.
This fact accounts for the fact that final consonants of Shan are faithfully retained in
Jinghpaw without modification. Note additionally that Jinghpaw has regularly lost the
final *k of Proto-Tibeto-Burman (PTB), reducing it to a glottal stop /P/ in inheritedwords (Benedict 1972: 14), e.g. wàP ‘pig’ (< PTB *pw ak). The Shan final /k/ isimported as /k/ in Jinghpaw, filling the structural gap in the Jinghpaw native phonology
once created by the sound change. These facts indicate that Jinghpaw borrowed these
items from Shan after the PTB *k was reduced to /P/ in Jinghpaw. As such, Jinghpaw
words with final /k/ are good candidates for loanwords (Matisoﬀ 1974: 157, 2013: 24).
Table 11 shows some correspondences of final consonants between Shan and Jinghpaw.
Table 11

Some correspondences between final consonants

Shan‘cave’‘model’‘poison’‘uncooked fish’‘animal’‘compartment’‘gourd’‘small scale’

h

3

t am
laaj4 len4
kON5
paa1 lip4
to1 sh at4
lOk4
taw3
jOj4

Jinghpaw
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

thàm
làylènguNbalı́pdùsàt
lòk
tàw
yòy

Jinghpaw has a native phonotactic restriction against combining an initial /w/ or/N/ with front vowels. An illicit combination of /w/ plus front vowels has arisen asa result of a sound change *w > /y/ before front vowels (Kurabe 2014), e.g. yi ∼ yı̀
‘female’ (< PTB *pwi(y)-n ‘female’). Shan loanwords having such illicit combinationsin the Jinghpaw native phonology are imported into Jinghpaw, e.g. wı́N ‘enclosure’ <Kurabe, Keita: A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw

141

Shan weN4 ‘town’ (possibly from Burmese), jàNNı́n ‘silversmith’ < Shan tsaaN3 NWn4 ,the former example of which suggests the borrowing took place after the sound change*w > /y/.
Shan has more contrastive tones than Jinghpaw. These Shan tones are adapted in
Jinghpaw according to the Jinghpaw tone system. The tonal correspondences between
Shan and Jinghpaw are summarized in Table 12.6
Table 12Tonal correspondences in checked and unchecked syllables

Unchecked syllables2(ma )(ma3 )(ma4 )(ma5 )(ma1 )(ma6 )

low
mid
high
fallingrisingemphatic

>
>
>
>
>
>

Checked syllables
low, (mid)low, (mid, high)high, (low, mid)
mid, low
mid, (low, high)no example(mak2 )
(mak3 )
(mak4 )
(mak5 )

low
mid
high
falling>>>>high, (low)low, highhigh, (low)low, (high)As can be seen, the correspondence is not straightforward. In some cases the tone
assignment seems to be based on faithfulness to the input (e.g. the Shan high tone inunchecked syllables), while in other cases it seems to be based on a default assignment
mechanism by which the default low and mid tones are assigned to loanwords incontrast to the less frequent Jinghpaw high tone (Matisoﬀ 1974: 159). It would be also
possible that the non-straightforwardness of tonal correspondences might be attributed
to dialectal diﬀerences within Shan.
There are also some puzzling cases in which Shan forms are repaired in Jinghpaw
even though there is no necessity. Examples include: Shan /k-/ > Jg. /kh-/ (e.g.
‘duck’, below); Shan /m-/ > Jg. /l-/ (e.g. ‘mango’); Shan ∅ > Jg. /-P/ (e.g. ‘mix’);
Shan /-N/ > Jg. /-k/ (e.g. ‘lima bean’); Shan /-t/ > Jg. /-k/ (e.g. ‘duck’, ‘red pepper’,‘hook’, ‘black pepper’); the insertion of a non-etymological medial /r/ (e.g. ‘rabbit’,‘red pepper’).

6

Table 12 is based only on tones on monosyllabic words because Jinghpaw sometimes shows tonal alternations
involving polysyllabic words whose rules are not thoroughly understood.

142

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Table 13

Unnecessary repairs

Shan‘duck’‘mango’‘lima bean’‘hook’‘rabbit’‘mix’‘red pepper’‘black pepper’

Jinghpaw

2

4

kaj ‘fowl’, pet ‘duck’maak2 moN3
th o2 poN1
met4
paaN1 taaj4lO4 lE4
maak2 ph it5
maak2 ph it5 pOm3

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

khaypyékm@mûN ∼ l@muN
thùbúkmyı́t ∼ PmyékpraNtáylòPlèPǹprı́kmákphyı́kbòm

3.2. Morphology

The unnecessary repair noted in Section 3.1 can also be observed at themorphological level. As noted by Dai and Xu (1995: 248–249), some Shan words areborrowed into Jinghpaw with non-etymological meaningless presyllables, the functionof which are unclear.
Table 14Addition of non-etymological meaningless presyllables

Shan
1

paaN
sh E 3pi2
paaN2

Jinghpaw‘gathering place’‘bolt’‘pipe, flute’‘level as a tract of land’

>
>
>
>

d@baN
sùmsèsumpyidùmbàN‘camp’‘bolt’‘flute’‘substantial tract of land’

Jinghpaw has verb-deriving reduplication whereby verbs are derived from nouns bymeans of partial reduplication. This process, as pointed out by Diehl (1988) and Dai
and Xu (1995: 249–250), is also applicable to loanwords. Thus, Shan nouns such as
kaat2 ‘market’, kh Ep4 tin1 ‘sandals’ (cf. tin1 ‘foot’), tsaw3 kON3 ‘gunner’ (lit. master-gun)and sh ON1 hon1 ‘cholera’ are involved in the noun-verb reduplicative construction in
Jinghpaw, the morphological process of which is not attested in Shan. Examples:7(4)

Reduplicative noun-verb constructions
gát ‘market’khyépdin ‘shoes’jàwgòN ‘hunter’
soNkhun ‘cholera ’

7

→
→
→
→

gàt gàt ‘open, as a market’khyèpdin din ‘put on shoes’jàwgòN gòN ‘hunt (v.)’
soNkhun khun ‘be infected with cholera’

Reduplication may trigger irregular tone alternations.

Kurabe, Keita: A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw

143

Shan is a head-initial language where the head of noun-noun compounds precedes
its modifier while Jinghpaw is a head-final in noun-noun compounding, the default
head position of which is the right position. Many Shan noun-noun loanwords in
Jinghpaw follow the rules of Shan, e.g. bà-lúk ‘catfish’ (lit. fish-pit), màk-pháy‘fire fruit’ (lit. fruit-fire), moN-din ‘socks’ (lit. bag-foot), nam-sum ‘vinegar’ (lit.
water-sour), suggesting that they were borrowed into Jinghpaw as a whole. There
are also a few examples which show the reverse modifier-head order, suggesting thatthey were borrowed into Jinghpaw part by part and then compounded in Jinghpaw inaccordance with its morphological rule, e.g. khaw-nà (lit. rice-paddy) ‘rice field’ (cf.
Shan naa1 -kh aw3 ), khàw-gát (lit. rice-market) ‘bazaar’ (cf. Shan kaat2 -kh aw3 ), nà-lòk(lit. paddy-compartment) ‘compartment of a rice field’ (cf. Shan lok4 -naa4 ).
3.3. Syntax

Borrowed numerals sometimes function as classifiers in Jinghpaw. As pointed out by
Dai and Xu (1995: 245), Jinghpaw round numbers over ‘thousand’ are loanwords fromneighboring languages. Observe this in the following list of Jinghpaw numerals wheresome numerals exhibit semantic shifts.8
Table 16

Ci
tsa
khyiN
mùn
sèn
wàn
rı̀
g@dı̀

‘ten’
‘hundred’‘thousand’‘ten thousand’‘hundred thousand’‘million’‘ten million’‘hundred million’Round numbers in Jinghpaw

PTB
PTB
Shan
Shan
Shan
ChineseChineseBurmese*ts(y)i(y) <>*tsyay*b-r-gyaheN
mWn2
sh En1wànyı̀
gădè

‘ten’‘hundred’‘thousand’‘ten thousand’‘hundred thousand’‘ten thousand’‘hundred million’‘ten million’

The borrowed round numbers are distinguished from inherited round numbers interms of the relative position they occur. Consider the contrast in Table 17. Theseborrowed round numbers can be interpreted as classifiers based on their position, e.g.
m@Cà m@ray m@li (person-clf-four) ‘four persons’. This is supported, in part, by thefact that many of the Jinghpaw classifiers are of foreign origin (Xu 1987).

8
Shan heN1 and sh En1 may be originally from Chinese qiān ‘thousand’ and from Written Burmese sin3 ‘hundred
thousand’, respectively. Burmese gădè is of Indo-Aryan origin, i.e. Pali koti ‘the end’ (Dr. Huziwara Keisuke, p.c.,˙2016).

144

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Table 17

Asymmetrical distribution of inherited and borrowed round numbers in Jinghpaw‘forty’‘four hundred’‘four thousand’‘forty thousand’‘four hundred thousand’‘four million’‘forty million’‘four hundred million’m@li Ci
m@li tsa*m@li khyiN*m@li mùn
*m@li sèn
*m@li wàn*m@li rı̀*m@li g@dı̀

*Ci m@li*tsa m@li
khyiN m@li
mùn m@lisèn m@li
wàn m@lirı̀ m@li
g@dı̀ m@li

3.4. Semantics

Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw recur in several specific semantic fields. Dai andXu (1995: 259–265) point out that many Jinghpaw words associated with wet-rice
cultivation, trading, fauna and flora (esp. fruit, vegetable and fish), and cultural items(esp. food and daily utensils) are of Tai origin, since the Jinghpaw people did not havethese objects before they came into contact with the Tai people. Hanson (1896: 91)
points out the existence of some Shan morphemes which occur recurrently in the
Jinghpaw lexicon such as hO1 ‘palace’, tsaw3 ‘master’ and nam5 ‘water’. Some of theserecurrent items appear with Shan class terms such as maak2 ‘fruit’, paa1 ‘fish’, nam5
‘water’, maj5 ‘wood’ and kh aw3 ‘rice’. For example, Jinghpaw, as shown in Table 18,
has a number of lexical items associated with fruits involving a morpheme màk ∼ mák
∼ m@, which has its diachronic source in the recurrent Shan class term maak2 ‘fruit’.
Table 18

Plant names with maak2 ‘fruit’

Shan‘jackfruit’‘fire fruit’‘sweet orange’‘bitter gourd’‘pomegranate’‘quince’‘orange’‘black pepper’‘hog’s plum’‘mango’‘pear’‘plum’

Jinghpaw
2

4

maak laaN
maak2 ph aj4
maak2 waan1
maak2 PaaN1 kh aaN1
maak2 man5
maak2 waaw4
maak2 tsOk4
maak2 ph it5 pOm3
maak2 kOk2
maak2 moN3
maak2 kO3
maak2 kh O1

màklaNmàkpháymàkwanmàkPaNkhaN
màkmânmàkwáw
màkcòkmákphyı́kbòmm@kókm@mûN
m@go
m@khó

Kurabe, Keita: A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw

145

Some of the loanwords have undergone semantic changes in Jinghpaw. As an
illustration, consider a Shan word hO1 kh am4 ‘royal palace’ which has undergonemetonymic semantic change, meaning ‘king’ in Jinghpaw (i.e. khokhám). Other
examples include:
Table 19

Jg. màysàw
Jg. phàyJg. khám
Jg. sùN
Jg. P@roN
Jg. sas@nà

‘paper’‘flint’‘gold leaf’‘deep’‘honor’‘mission’

<
<
<
<
<
<

Semantic shifts of loanwords

S. maj5 sh aw3
S. ph aj4
S. kh am4
S. sh uN1
S. Pa5 rON2
S. sh a2 sh a1 naa2

‘slender piece of wood’‘fire’‘gold’‘high, tall’‘brightness’ (< B. ‘color’)‘religious system’ (< B. < Pali)

4. Classified lexicon of Shan loanwords

This section provides a lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw classified in termsof semantic fields based on Aung Kyaw et al. (2001): nature (4.1); animals (4.2);
plants (4.3); food and drink (4.4); clothing and adornments (4.5); dwelling (4.6);
tools (4.7); community, occupation and production (4.8); commerce and trade (4.9);
communication and transportation (4.10); culture and entertainment (4.11); cults,
customs and socializing (4.12); human body (4.13); life, sickness and death (4.14);
types of people (4.15); activity and mental activity (4.16); state and quality (4.17); time
(4.18); number (4.19).
The lexicon, including Numhpuk and Turung, two Jinghpaw dialects spoken innortheastern India, also provides corresponding lexical items of several relevant
languages from Tai-Kadai (TK) and Tibeto-Burman (TB) which are outlined in
Section 2. They include: Dehong [TK] and Khamti [TK] (genetically having a close
relationship to Shan); Hpun [TB] (culturally having a close relationship to Shan);Lacid [TB], Langsu [TB], Leqi [TB], Lhovo [TB], Lisu [TB], Ngochang [TB], Rawang[TB] and Zaiwa [TB] (culturally having a close relationship to Jinghpaw and Shan);Kadu [TB] and Ganan [TB] (genetically having a close relationship to Jinghpaw andculturally to Shan). Among these, Lacid and Leqi, and Langsu and Lhaovo can beviewed as closely related dialects of a single language, respectively.
Abbreviations for the languages in the lexicon are as follows.
• B. Burmese (Colloquial)• C. Chinese• D. Dehong• G. Ganan• Hp. Hpun
• Ka. Kadu
• Kh. Khamti• Lac. Lacid• Lan. Langsu• Le. Leqi
• Lh. Lhaovo• Li. Lisu

146

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11• Ng. Ngochang• Nu. Numhpuk• P. Pali• R. Rawang• S. Shan• Sk. Sanskrit• T. Turung• Z. Zaiwa

Transcription systems depend on data sources: phonological (Colloquial Burmese,
Dehong, Ganan, Hpun, Kadu, Khamti, Langsu, Leqi, Lhaovo by Sawada 2003 and2004, Lisu, Numhpuk, Shan, Turung, Zaiwa); orthographic (Chinese, Lacid, Lhaovo by
the author, Ngochang, Rawang); literal (Pali, Sanskrit and Written Burmese). For thephonological systems and/or correspondences between phonological and orthographictranscriptions of Lacid, Lhaovo, Ngochang and Rawang, the readers are referred toWannemacher (2011), Sawada (2006), Nasaw Sampu et al. (2005), and LaPolla andSangdong (2015), respectively.
Notes on the lexicon are as follows. The first line provides English translations
for corresponding Jinghpaw words based on Hanson (1906) and Maran (1978). The
abbreviation bf. stands for a bound form, clf. for a classifier and v. for a verb. The
second line oﬀers Jinghpaw words in the orthographic forms followed by phonemictranscriptions enclosed in square brackets. The third line provides corresponding
Shan forms followed, if any, by corresponding forms from other relevant languages.
No glosses are provided for these words when all the given items denote the same
meanings.
4.1. Naturecave
earth oilenamelditchhtam /thàm/
nam myin /nàmmyin/
nam ya /nàmyà/
hkawng /khòN/

ditch
flood
gold leaf

nam hkawng /nàmkhòN/nam htum /nàmthùm/hkam /khám/lake9nawng /nóN/

mountain10

loi /loy/S. th am3 , D. tham4
S. nam5 men1 ; R. nv̀mmı́nS. nam5 jaa3 ; R. nv̀mya ‘blue’
S. hON3 ‘rivulet’, Kh. hON2 ‘channel’(W), D. hON6 ; Z. xoN21 (D), R.
tı̀kùng (water-ditch)
S. nam5 hON3 ‘stream of water’
S. nam5 th om3 m7N4
S. kh am4 ‘gold’, Kh. kh am3 ‘gold’,
D. xam2 ‘gold’
S. nON1 , Kh. nON4 (W), D. lON1 ; Z.
nvong31 , Lh. GitF nauNH , Lac. gyidnoung”, R. tı̀núng, G. nàuN (H)S. lOj1 , Kh. nOy1 , D. lOi6 ;Z. loi11 lung35 ‘Loilung village’

9This word is often preceded by khàP ‘water’ in Jinghpaw. The same holds for Lhaovo, Lacid and Rawang where
GitF , gyid and tı̀ mean ‘water’, respectively.
10“a large number of Kachin hills and villages have names derived from the Shan; thus Loije, Loijau, Loihkang
and Loilung ; ... Loi sam sip, the traditional thirty Hills in the Sinli district” (Hanson 1906:357)

Kurabe, Keita: A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw

ocean

nam muk dăra/nàmmùkd@ra/11

Salween river
soldersap hkung /sàpkhuN/nam san /nàmsan/skytract of land
water
water (oozing)13
water rustNu. kanghkau /kaN4 khau4 /
dumbang /dùmbàN/nam /nàm/12
nam chyim /nàmcı́m/nam hkan /nàmkhan/147

S. nam5 ‘water’,Sk. samudra, P. samudda ;B. TămouPdăya (WB samuddarā),Z. nam31 moq1 de1 ra35 ,Lh. nam mug dara: (K), Lac. nam
mug dara:, Ng. nvmuk-dra,
R. nv̀mukdvra
S. kh oN4 , D. xoN2
D. lǎm53 san35 (M); Z. nam51 san55(D)
S. ph aa5 kaaN1 haaw1
S. paaN2 ‘be level as a tract of land’
S. nam5 , Kh. nam2 , D. lam5
S. nam5 tsWm4 , D. lam5 ts1m2
S. nam5 ‘water’, kh aan1 ‘formationof lime, as a stalactite’

4.2. Animals

animaldu sat /dùsàt/

bird, bf.
capon

kai /kày/ ∼ gai /gày/ ∼hkai /khày/kai dawn /kàydon/

catfishbăluk /b@lúk/dipperduck

kai nam /káynam/ ∼ gai
nam /gáynam/
pyek /pyék/14

duck

hkai pyek /khaypyék/S. to1 sh at4 , Kh. to1 ‘classifier foranimals’, D. sat1 ; Z. du11 sat1 ∼du11 sat5
S. kaj2 ‘fowl’, Kh. kay4 ‘fowl’, D.
kai3 ‘chicken’
S. kaj2 ‘fowl’, tOn1 ‘to geld’, D.
kai3 phu4 tOn6
S. paa1 luk4 , Kh. nuk4 ‘catfish’;
Lh. balug (K), Lac. ba lug
S. kaj2 ‘fowl’, nam5 ‘water’
S. pet4 ‘duck’, Kh. pet4 , D. pet3 ; Z.
bvyet5 , Lac. gai pyed, R. kabit, Ka.
aūmpeút, G. PáuNpÉt (H)S. kaj2 ‘fowl’, pet4 ‘duck’

This hybrid word is created in Jinghpaw by combining etymologically Tai and Indo-Aryan parts: Shan nam5
‘water’ and Written Burmese samuddarā (< Sk. samudra ).
12
This morpheme is found in many river and place names in Kachin and Shan State, as can be seen in Nam Ti
Sang, Nam Li Hka , Nam Yin Hka, Nam Si, Nam Mi Lawng, Nam Mun, Nam Ma, Nam Hkam, Nam Hpat Kar (seeSawada 2011).
13‘water oozing through the ground’
14This word is recorded with final t as u pyet in Scott (1900:664) and kaipet in Grierson (1928:521), suggesting a
sporadic sound change of t to k. Also note Numhpuk khai4 pet4 and Turung kai3 pet2 .
11

148

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

elephant(tuskless male)fish, bf.
geldjang dwi /jàNduy/

horse
horse (black)leech (water)

ma /mà/15
ma gam /màgàm/bying /byı̀N/parrotkai ke /kayke/ ∼ hkai ke/khayke/rabbitprang tai /praNtáy/

red catfish
ride (horse)shellfishba leng /baleN/hkyi /khyı̀/16
hkoi /khoy/

storkturtleturtlegawn /gon/tau /taw/
tau kawk /tawkók/ba /ba/dawn /don/S. tsaaN5 tuj4 , Kh. caaN2 ‘elephant’,
D. tsaaN5 ‘elephant’
S. paa1 , Kh. paa1 , D. paa6
S. tOn1 , Kh. tOn1 , D. tOn6 ; Z. ton21(D), R. dun, Ka. taúnS. maa5 , Kh. maa2 , D. maa5
S. maa5 ‘horse’, kam2 ‘be black’
S. piN1 , Kh. piN1 , D. piN6 ;Z. toN21 pjin21 (D), Lh. na bying(paddy-leech) (K), Lac. na byen
(paddy-leech), R. nabı̀ng ∼naqbı̀ng (paddy-leech), Hp. p@ı̀N ∼peı̀N
S. kaj2 ‘fowl’, nok5 kh ew1 ‘parrot’,D. lok5 xeu1 ; Z. gvai55 gvyeq1 ‘kindof parrot’, Lac. khai: ke:, Ka.
mákheú, G. makh É (H)S. paaN1 taaj4 , Kh. paN1 taay3 , D.
paaN6 taai2 ; Z. bang11 dvai31 , Lh.
pyaNF tayL , Lan. paN35 tai55 , R.
¯¯bàngday ∼ brv̀ngday, Hp. pàN thwaı́,Ka. pángtaı́, G. páNtÉ
S. paa1 ‘fish’, lEN1 ‘be red’
S. kh i2 , Kh. khi4 , D. xi3
S. hOj1 , Kh. hOI4 , D. hOi1 ; Z. hoi55 ,Lh. lăxøL , Lan. l˘@31 xOi35 , Lac. lafoi:, Le.¯ lă31 xOi33
S. kOn2 , D. kOn3 ; Z. gon35
S. taw2 , Kh. taw4 , D. tau3
S. kOk4 taw2 ? ‘upper shell of a turtle,
oil dipper’; Z. dvau55 -gvop1 , Lh.
tau: kog (K), Lac. tau: kug, Ng.
thomh tau-kuk

4.3. Plants

banana (kind of)gwi hkawm /gùykhom/banana (kind of)

gwi lung /gùyluN/

15
16

Possibly from Chinese mǎ ‘horse’ through Shan.
Possibly from Chinese qı́ ‘to ride’ through Shan.

S. koj3 hOm1 , Kh. koy5 ‘banana’, D.
koi4 ‘banana’S. koj3 ‘banana’, loN1 ‘forest’Kurabe, Keita: A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw

banana (kind of)beanbetel, bf.

gwi sum /gùysùm/
htu /thù/
doi hkawm /doykhòm/17

betel
bitter gourdya man /yàmàn/
mak ang hkang/màkPaNkhaN/mak hpyik bawm/mákphyı́kbòm/

black pepper

Bodhi tree leaf
coriander

T. nyong /nyoN3 /hpak kyi /phákkyı́/∼ hpăkyi /ph@kyı́/

eggplant

ba kyi /bàkyı́/fig

mai hpang /màyphaN/

fire fruit
fruit, bf.
garlicmak hpai /màkpháy/mak /màk/
hpăraw /ph@ro/gingergourd

hkying hka /khyı́Nkha/18
tau /tàw/ ∼ tau ba /tawbà/

hog’s plummăkawk /m@kók/jackfruit

mak lang /màklaN/ ∼mălang /m@laN/
tawng mu /tóNmu/
htu buk /thùbúk/lămung /l@muN/ ∼mămung /m@mûN/

lotus
lima bean
mango

17
18

149

S. koj3 sh om3
S. th o2 , Kh. tho4 , D. tho3
S. tOj2 ‘creeper the leaf of which isused for chewing instead of the betel
leaf’, kh om1 ‘be bitter’
S. jaa3 ‘grass’, D. yaa4 ‘grass’
S. maak2 PaaN1 kh aaN1
S. maak2 ph it5 pOm3 ,D. maak3 phit5 ;Z. m755 phjik55 pom21 (D)S. maj5 ñON2
S. ph ak4 ki4 ; Z. ph755 kjı̄51 (D), Lh.
pha jhi: (K), Lac. pha: jhi”, R.
banzi, Ka. cı̄haúm ‘flower’, G.
cı̀hOm (H)S. maak2 kh 71 , Kh. ma4 kh74 ,D. maak3 x@1 ; Lh. paF khyiL šiL‘tomato’, R. baki
S. maj5 ph aN5 ? ‘touchwood, decayed
wood’; Ng. maiphang
S. maak2 ph aj4
S. maak2 , Kh. maak4 , D. maak3
S. ph ak4 ‘pod’, D. phak1 lo1 ; Z.
pe5 ro35 , R. gvro
S. kh iN1 , Kh. khiN4 , D. xiN1
S. taw3 , D. tau4 ; Z. dvau55‘bottle’, R. dobá
S. maak2 kOk2 ; Lh. mho kaug (K),Lac. ma koug
S. maak2 laaN4 ; R. mvlángshı́, Hp.
màNtàN
S. mo1 , Kh. mo1 (W), D. mo6
S. th o2 poN1
S. maak2 moN3 , Kh. ma4 moN1 ,D. maak3 moN6 ; Lh. lamung (K),Lac. lamung, Ng. lvmungs,
R. lvmúng

This word occurs only as the couplet of pinlàN ‘betel’ (< Chinese pı̄nglang ‘betel’).
Possibly related to Burmese jı́ð (WB khyaṅ3 ) ‘ginger’.

150

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

maizehkau hpa /khàwphà/

myrobalan fruitmăna /m@nâ/orangemak chyawk /màkcòk/pear

măgaw /m@go/plum

măhkaw /m@khó/plum

mak man /màkmân/pomegranate
quincered lentilmăchyang /m@caN/
mak wau /màkwáw/ ∼măwau /m@wáw/
htu leng /thùleN/

red pepper

nprik /ǹprı́k/scutch grass
Shorea robusta
sweet orange

ya sai /yàsáy/mai pau /maypàw/ ∼ maibau /maybàw/
mak wan /màkwan/

sweet peateakhtu hkam /thùkhám/
mai sak /màysàk/thorny bamboo
tomatomai sang /maysaN/măhkri sum /m@khrisùm/∼ ba hkri /bàkhri/

tree (kind of)19
vegetable, bf.

hpak ha /phákhà/
hpak /phák/19‘a kind of tree, the sprouts of which is used as food’S. kh aw3 paaN3 , Kh. khaupa (P), D.
xau4 faa5
S. maak2 naa5 ; Ka. maPnâCi (H), G.
m@nàsh i (H)S. maak2 tsOk4 , D. maak3 tsOk5 ;Z. mak1 zyok¯5 , Lan. mak31 tSOk31 ,¯
Le. mak31 tSOk55
2 ¯
3
5 55
S. maak kO ; Z. me ko ,R. mvgoS. maak2 kh O1 ; Lh. mhokho” (K),Lac. mo:kho” ∼ moo:kho”, Ng.
mvkhohS. maak2 man5 , D. maak3 man5 ; Ka.
máPmánCı̀ (H)S. maak2 tsaN3
S. maak2 waaw4
S. th o2 ‘leguminous plant’, lEN1 ‘bered’
S. maak2 ph it5 , D. maak3 phet3 ; Z.
pik5 ‘spicy’, si1 -pik5 ‘chillies’
S. jaa3 sh aj4 ; Lh. ya sai” (K)S. maj5 paw4
S. maak2 waan1 , D. maak3 waan1 ; R.
mokwán ‘pomelo’
S. th o2 kh aam4
S. maj5 sh ak4 ; Z. mai21 sak21 (D),Lac. mai sag, Ng. maisak,
R. màysvk
S. maj5 sh aaN4 , D. mai5 saaN2
S. maak2 kh 71 sh om3 ;D. maak3 x@1 som4 ;Z. me5 ke55 sum11 ,Lh. paF khyiL šiL , Lac. ba khyi:,
R. bakiS. ph ak4 haa3
S. ph ak4 ‘pod’, Kh. phak4‘vegetable’, D. phak1 ‘vegetable’Kurabe, Keita: A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw

willowwood, bf.

mai hkai /màykhay/
mai /mày/ ∼ /may/151

S. maj5 kh aj5
S. maj5 , Kh. may2 , D. mai5

4.4. Food and drink

cut fine, v.
dish (kind of)20
dried fishflour
food21
food22

soi /sòy/sum wan /sùmwan/ba heng /baheN/
hkau mun /khàwmún/hkau dum /khàwdùm/hkau puk /khàwpúk/fresh fish
green sour curry
glutinous ricejaggeryba lip /balı́p/
hpak chyaw /phákcó/
hkau lam /khàwlam/nam htan /nàmthan/23

liquormeal
meal, clf.
mix
noodles
noodleslau hku /làwkhù/ma /má/da /dà/law le /lòPlèP/hkau sin /khàwsı̀n/24
hkau soi /khàwsóy/25

palm sugar

nam oi /nàmPòy/ ∼ nam
moi /nàmPmòy/hkau dek /khàwdèk/ba sum /basùm/hkau dam nga/khàwdamNa/
hkau dum gwi/khàwdùmgùy/hkau hkyep /khàwkhyèp/parched rice
pickled fish
preparation26
preparation27
preparation28
20

S. sh Oj4 , Kh. sOI3 (W)S. sh om3 ‘be sour’, waan1 ‘be sweet’
S. paa1 hEN3
S. kh aw3 mun4 , D. xau4 mun2
S. kh aw3 tom3
S. kh aw3 puk4 ; B. khÓbouP (WBkhopup), R. kòbuk
S. paa1 lip4
S. ph ak4 tsO4
S. kh aw3 laam1
S. nam5 th aan1 ; Ng. thanh, Ka.
thángāk
S. law3 h72 , D. lau4
D. maa2 ; Z. ma51 (D), Lan. ma55
S. taa2 , D. taa3
S. lO4 lE4S. kh aw3 sh en3 ; Z. hau55 seng55
S. kh aw3 sh Oj4 ; Z. hau11 soi31 , Lh.
khau soe” (K), Lac. khau: sue”
S. nam5 POj3 , Kh. POy5 ‘sugar cane’;Z. nam31 oi11
S. kh aw3 tEk2
S. paa1 sh om3
S. kh aw3 tam1 Naa4
S. kh aw3 tom3 koj3
S. kh aw3 kh Ep3‘a dish made from finely chopped lean beef, hot rice, limes, and spices mixed together’‘a glutinous rice preparation in which the rice, brown sugar, and a species of aromatic banana are wrapped inleaves and steamed’
22‘food item made by pounding steamed glutinous rice’23
The second syllable is originally from Burmese tháð (WB than3 ) ‘toddy-palm’.
24
Possibly from Chimese xiàn ‘thread’ through Shan.
25
Possibly from Burmese khauPshwÉ (WB khokchwai) ‘noodles’ through Shan.
26‘a preparation of pounded rice and sesame seeds used in making bread’27‘a preparation of pounded soaked rice and banana wrapped in a leaf steamed, then eaten’28‘a preparation of puﬀed rice, brown sugar in sticky form, and sesame seeds pressed together into a bar and soldor eaten as candy’
21

152

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

ricehkau /khàw/ ∼ /khaw/

rice29rice30hkau wun /khàwwun/
hkau ya ku /khàwyakúP/salted fish paste
serve a meal
sesame oilbănau /b@nàw/
ling /lı̀N/nam man /nàmmán/sweet potato
leaveshpăman /phákman/taste, v.

chyim /cı́m/tobaccotobacco leaves31
vinegarmălut /Pm@lút/
gan ya /gànyà/
nam sum /Pnàmsùm/

S. kh aw3 , Kh. khaw5 , D. xau4 ; Hp.
khàu shwàmS. kh aw3 ‘rice’, won1 ‘above’
S. kh aw3 jaa2 ku5 ‘dish made fromrice, jaggery, peanuts and sesame
seeds’
S. paa1 naw3 ; Z. be1 nau11 , R. bvnò
S. leN5
S. nam5 man4 , Kh. nam2 man3 , D.
lam5 man2 ; R. nv̀mmv́n
S. ph ak4 man4

S. tsim4 , Kh. cim3 , D. tsim2 ; Z.
zim31
S. lut2 ‘to suck, smoke’; R. mvløt
S. kaan3 jaa3
S. nam5 sh om3 ; Lan. nam31 sum31

4.5. Clothing and adornments

blanket

hpa jawng /phàjoN/

cloth

hpa /phà/

cotton cloth
dress
dye, v.

man /màn/hking /khı̀N/
mak /màk/32

indigonam hkawn /nàmkhon/

legginsshoes

hpa kau /phàkàw/
hkyep din /khyépdin/

shoes

sawk din /sòkdin/

29

S. ph aa3 ; Z. ph721 tSoN55 (D), Lan.
ph˘@31 tSoN35 , R. paqzung
S. ph aa3 ‘covering, waist cloth’, Kh.
pha5 (W), D. phaa4
S. man3 , D. man4
Kh. khing (P)S. mak4 ? ‘make a mark’; Z. mak5
‘tattoo’, Hp. m@P ‘ink’
S. nam5 ‘water’, hon4 ‘indigo’, D.
hOn4 ‘indigo’
S. ph aa3 kaaw3
S. kh Ep4 tin1 ‘sandals’,
D. kEp3 tin6 ; R. chøpdø̀n,Ka. heúttı́n ‘slipper’
S. sh Ok4 tin1

‘a species of highland paddy with pearly white grain’‘rice mixed with millet’
31‘a mixture of tobacco leaves with the chopped stems of the tobacco plant or other vegetable matter such as hemp,
which mixture is milder in flavour than the pure tobacco leaves’
32
Possibly associated with Chinese mò ‘ink’.
30

Kurabe, Keita: A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw

silk

lai /lày/ ∼ lai /lay/socks
tattoo, v.
towel

mawng din /moNdin/sam /sám/
hpa jet /phàjèt/

trousers
turkey-red cloth

gun hkung /gunkhùN/san leng /sànleN/

153

S. laaj3 , Kh. naay5 , D. laai4 ; Z. lai11‘silkworm’
S. moN1 tin1
S. sh am4 , Kh. sam3 , D. sam2
S. ph aa3 tset5 , D. phaa4 tset5 ; Z.
ph721 tSet21 (D), Lh. phaPF catF , Lac.
pha joid, Le. ph˘@31 tSEt31 , R. pazit
S. kon1 hoN2 joN5 , D. kon6
S. sh aan2 lEN1

4.6. Dwelling

Bhamo
camp
country

Manmaw /manmo/dăbang /d@baN/mung /múN/ ∼ ming /miN/

countrymung dan /múNdan/

country (world)mung kan /mùNkàn/

HsenwiKeng Tung
Mogok
Nam HkampalaceSinli /sı̀nli/
Kyengdung /kyéNduN/
Munggut /múNgùt/
Namhkam /nàmkhám/hkaw /kho/roomgawk /gòk/thatchvillagewater gate

dep hka /dépkhá/man /màn/nam hpai /nàmphay/

33

The first syllable is not moug: according to my consultant.

S. maan3 mO2 ; Lh. man: mo (K)S. paaN1 ‘gathering place’
S. m7N4 , Kh. m7N3 , D. m@N2 ; Z.
meng11 , Lh. mukL , Lac. moug:, Le.
m@N33 , R. móng
S. m7N4 ‘country’, tan4 ? ‘place’;
Z. m7N21 tan55 (D), Lh. muNH tanL ,Lac. mung” dain:,33
Le. maN55 tan55 , R. móngdànS. m7N4 ‘country’;Z. meng11 -gvan11 , Ng. mungkvn, R.
mònggàn
S. sh en3 wi1 ; Lh. sinli: (K)S. keN4 tuN1
S. m7N4 kut3
S. nam5 kh am4 ; Lh. nam kham” (K)S. hO1 , D. ho1 ; Lh. ho: (K), Lac.
khoo:
S. kh Ok3 ? ‘enclosure for keeping
animals, cage’; Z. gok1 , R. kok
S. tEp4 kh aa4 , D. tEp3 xaa2
S. maan3 , Kh. maan5 , D. maan4
S. nam5 ‘water’, ph aaj1 ‘dam’, D.
faai1

154

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

4.7. Toolsbag, bf.

htung /thuN/bag (cotton)bag (ordinary)bag (shoulder)basket (fish)basket (rice)34

htung lai /thuNlày/htung hkin /thuNkhı̀n/htung ba /thuNbá/hkik /khı́k/hkau dawm /khàwdom/basket (wicker)
buttonchain
chisel, v.
cleavercupmung /mùN/
mak dum /màkdùm/sai dawng /saydòN/tawk /tók/
hpa /phà/gawm /gom/dipperka mai /kamay/

fishhook

myit /myı́t/ ∼myek /Pmyék/

flint

hpai /phày/girthhatchetsai kyet /saykyét/
hpa tung /phàtúN/

lamp
mat
mill

pyen ding /pyéndı̀N/sat /sát/
lui /luy/

34‘a small basket for storage of rice’

S. th oN1 , Kh. thoN4 , D. thoN1 ; Z.
tung 31 , Lh. thauNF , Lac. thung:, Ng.
thung, R. dv̀nggúng ‘sholder bag’,Ka. shı́thaúng, G. sh iPth auN (H)S. th oN1 ‘bag’, laaj3 ‘silk’
S. th oN1 ‘bag’; Z. tung31 -hen55
S. th oN1 paa4
S. kh Wk2
S. kh aw3 ‘rice’, tOm2 ‘large
wicker basket’
S. muN1 , D. muN6 ; Z. mong11
S. maak2 tum2 , D. tum3
S. sh aaj1 tON4
S. tOk2 , D. tsOk3 ; Z. dvok5
S. ph aa5 , Kh. phaa2
D. kOm3 ; Z. gom35 , Lh. keim (K),Ng. kom
S. moj1 ? ‘water dipper’;Z. gva55 mai35
S. met4 , Kh. met4 , D. met3 ;Z. mit1 ∼ mit5 , Lh. ngo:
myhad’ (K), Lac. wim: myhed, R.
ngamit, G. mEt ‘to fish’ (H)S. ph aj4 ‘fire’, Kh. phay3 ‘fire’, D.
fai2 ‘fire’; Z. pai11 -kyet1 ‘match’
S. sh aaj1 kEt4 maa5
S. ph aa5 ‘cleaver’, D. phaa5 tum3 ; Z.
pe1 dvung31
S. ten4 ? ‘candle’; Z. byen31 -din11
S. sh aat2 , D. saat3
S. loj1 ; Z. lui35 , Lh. lui” (K), Le.
lui33¯

Kurabe, Keita: A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw

mirrorjam na /jàmna/

mosquito net

sut /sút/ ∼ ăsut /P@sút/

nailmai na /màyná/

paddlepaddy millpierce, v.
pin

dak hpai /dàkpháy/hkau lui /khàwluy/
chyawk /cók/se /sè/, sumse /sùmsè/‘bolt’
na jawn /nàjon/
na htai /nàthay/ploughshareploughsharerope
rope, bf.

maw /mò/
Nu. maw hkang/moo4 khaaN5 /jik /jı̀k/sai /say/rope35ruddersai gang /saygàN/li hkang /likháN/36

scalessmall bottle
small box
spinning wheel
spinning wheel
belt
spoon

yoi /yòy/kawk /kók/37
yep /Pyép/gawng /gòN/gawng sai /gòNsày/sword

lap lang /lápláN/pot
pot (metallic)35

chyaw /cò/‘ropes holding the baskets, as of a bullock-load, in place’
The first syllable li expresses ‘boat’ in Jinghpaw.
37
Possibly related to Burmese khwEP ‘cup’ (WB khwak).

36

155

S. tsam3 ‘mirror’, naa3 ‘face’, Kh.
naa5 ‘face’, D. tsam6 ‘mirror’,laa4 ‘face’; Z. man31 -zyam31 , (D)mjoP31 tSam51 , Lh. jham na: (K),Lan. mjOP31 tSam31 , R. jv̀mna, Ka.
zàn
S. sh ut4 , Kh. sup4 , D. sut1 ; Z. sut5 ∼sun31 , R. søt, Ka. sūt, G. sh ut (H)S. maaj2 naa4 ; Z. mai11 na31 ∼
mai31 na11 ∼ mai31 na31 , Lh. mai na”(K), Ka. maiNná (H), G. mEnná (H)S. ph aaj4 , D. faai2S. kh aw3 loj1
S. tsok5
S. sh E3 ‘bolt’
S. naa4 ‘rice’, tsOn5 ‘to dig out’
S. naa4 ‘rice field, th aj1 ‘plough’,thAI4 (W), B. thÈ (WB thay)
S. mO3 , Kh. mo5 , D. mo4
S. mO3 kh aaN1
S. ts7k3 , D. ts@k5
S. sh aaj1 , Kh. saay4 , D. saai1 ; Z.
sai35 haN35 (M)sh aaj1 kaaN2 ? ‘string of a crossbow’
S. haaN1 ‘tail’, Kh. haaN4 ‘tail’, D.
haaN1
S. jOj4 ; Z. ngun31 -yoi11
S. kOk4 , D. kOk3 ; Z. gok55 , R. gok
S. PEp2 , Kh. PEp4 , D. Pep3
S. koN4 , D. koN2
S. koN4 ‘spinning wheel’, sh aaj1
‘rope’
S. tsO5 , D. tso5 ; Z. zvyo31 , Ka.
húnzaú, G. hánsÓt (H)S. laap2 , Kh. naap4 , D. laap3

156

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

table38

ku /kù/teapotngoi /Nóy/tobacco pipe
tool (kind of)39
trap
umbrellamaw ya /mòya/lang chyoi /láNcóy/sai /say/jawng /joN/

umbrella40
water bottle

jawng hkam /jòNkhám/
nam tau /nàmtàw/

wheel

leng /lèN/

yoke
yoke

ek /Pék/gan /gàn/

S. ku2 ‘block, bench, couch, bed’,Kh. ku4 ‘bed’, D. ku3 ‘bed’; Z. ku55
‘bed’ (D), R. yøpgù ‘bed’
S. NOj4 , D. NOi2 ; Lh. ngoe” (K), R.
ngoy
S. mO3 jaa3
D. la:N55 tsOi31 (DX)S. sh aj4 , D. sai2 ; R. se
S. tsON3 , Kh. tsON5 (W), D. tsON6 ; Z.
zyong35 , R. zungS. tsON3 kh am4
S. nam5 taw3 , Kh. nAm2 tAU5 (W),
D. tau4 ; Z. dvau55
S. lEN1 ‘bicycle’, Kh. lEN4 ‘vehicle’(W), D. lEN1 ‘cart’; Z. lyeng31 , Ng.
lhyingh ‘cart’, R. lı̀ng ‘cart’
S. PEk2 , Kh. PEk4 , D. Pek3
S. kaan4 ; Z. xap21 kān51

4.8. Community, occupation and production

barren fieldhkam /khám/ ∼ ham/hám/
na hkam /nákhám/

blacksmith
blighted ricebutchercompartment41

jang lek /jàNlék/hkau pyi /khàwpyı̀/jang nwi /jàNnuy/
lawk /lòk/ ∼ lung /lúN/

compartment42
coppersmithna lawk /nàlòk/jang tawng /jàNtóN/

enclosurehkawk /khòk/barren38

S. haam4 ‘be empty’, Kh. ham3 (W)S. naa4 ‘rice field’, haam4 ‘beempty’; Z. na51 xam51 (D), Lh. na
kham (K), R. nàhàm
S. tsaaN3 lek4 , D. tsaaN6 lek3
S. kh aw3 ph i1
S. tsaaN3 n75
S. lOk4 , Kh. lOk4 (W), D. lOk1 ; Z.
lok1
S. lOk4 naa4
S. tsaaN3 ‘be skilled in’, tON4
‘metallic substance’
S. kh Ok3 , Kh. khOk1 ‘room’ (W), D.
xOk5 ; R. kok ‘room’‘a platform, anything in the shape of a table, e.g. Pyúp-kù ‘bed’ (lit. sleep-table), Cá-kù ‘dining table’ (lit.
eat-table), làyka-kù ‘writing desk’ (lit. letter-table)’39‘a tool consisting of a bamboo pole about six feet in length with a hook at the end (e.g. as for pitching straw)’
40‘golden umbrella used by royalties or monks for special occasions’41‘a section, compartment of a lowland field’
42‘a compartment of a rice-field, bounded by bunds’Kurabe, Keita: A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw

enclosurefence
gardenwing /wı́N/da hka /dàkhà/sun /sún/goldsmithlanding place43
lowland paddy
manurejang hkam /jàNkhám/da nam /dànàm/hkau lung /khàwluN/
nam hpun /nàmphun/martial art44

jau hkyen /jàwkhyèn/mine

maw /mo/paddy (red)45

leng /leN/paddy
embankment
rice fieldrice fieldna dung /nàdùN/rice nurseryhkau ga /khàwgà/ridge46
ridge47

te /té/te na /téná/

seedlings
silversmith

ka /kà/jang ngin /jàNNı́n/smith, bf.
terraced fields49

jang /jàN/48
na kawng /nákòN/

43

na /nà/hkau na /khawnà/157

S. weN4 ‘town’, D. weN2 ‘city’
D. ta33 xa11 (M); Z. ta21 kha55 (D)S. sh on1 , Kh. son4 , D. son1 ; Z.
sun55 , R. súnS. tsaaN3 kh am4
S. taa3 nam5 , Kh. taa1 , D. taa6
S. kh aw3 loN1
S. nam5 ‘water’, ph un2 ‘manure’, D.
fun3 ; Z. nam31 -pun55 , R. nv̀mpun
S. tsaw3 ‘master’, kh En1 ‘hand’; Lh.
jau khyen, Lac. jau khyen
S. mO2 , Kh. mo4 (W), D. mo3 ; Lh.
mo: (K), Lac. mo:, Ng. luk mau , R.
shémo ‘gold mine’, Ka. maū, G. mO‘Kadu’ (H)S. lEN1 ‘be red’, Kh. nEN1 ‘be red’,D. lEN6 ‘be red’; Hp. l´@N ‘yellow’
D. toN33 la55 (DX)S. naa1 , Kh. naa3 , D. laa2
S. kh aw3 ‘rice’, naa1 ‘rice field’; R.
koná
S. kh aw3 ‘rice’, D. ka31 xau31 ‘rice
sprouts’ (DX)
S. tE4 , D. te2 ; Lh. te: (K)S. tE4 naa4 , Kh. te3 naa3 ; R. nádé, Ka.
l@pát@ná (H), G. l@pátÉná (H)S. kaa3 , Kh. ka5 (W), D. kaa4
S. tsaaN3 NWn4 , Kh. NWn3 ‘silver’(W), D. N@n2 ‘silver’
S. tsaaN3 ‘be skilled in’
S. naa4 ‘rice’, kON4 ‘ridge, orelevated part of anything’‘a ferry or public landing place on the bank of a river or of a lake’‘the martial art of self-defence, which is practised in several varieties (including principally a variety using
swords or spears, one using wooden staﬀs, and one using no weapons)’45‘an insect-caused blight of paddy in which the stalks turn red, lit. red’46
‘a ridge of earth or mound separating the locks or sections of a paddy field’
47‘the terrace of a paddy field’
48
Possibly from Chinese jiàng ‘craftsman’ through Shan.
49‘terraced fields on the side of a hill watered by irrigation’
44

158

timber log

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

mai lung /maylùN/

S. maj5 ‘wood’, loN1 ‘forest’; Lh.
mai lung: (K), Lac. mai lung:

4.9. Commerce and tradebazaarmarket50
measure51
measure52
measure53

hkau gat /khàwgát/
gat /gát/jaw /jó/hkan /khán/
hpak /phák/measure54

joi /joy/

price
tax

trade

ka /kà/hkan /khàn/55 ∼ hkan
se /khanse/ ∼ hkan si/khansi/
hpăga /ph@ga/

trade, v.

ga /ga/S. kh aw3 ‘rice’, kaat2 ‘market’
S. kaat2 , D. kaat3 ; Lh. katH , R. gvt¯
S. tsO4
h 1
S. k anS. ph aak2 ? ‘part, side (as of a bodyof water), division or portion ofanything divided lengthwise into
halves or fourths’; Z. pak1 ? ‘half apound’, Lh. phag! (K)S. tsOj5 ; Lh. joe: (K), Lan. tSOi35‘steelyard’, Lac. joi:, R. joy
S. kaa3 , D. kaa6 ; R. ká ‘debt’
S. kh an1 ‘price’, D. xan35 se55
(DX); Z. kāN21 (D), Lh. khaNL , Lac.
khaung” doug:
S. kaa5 ‘to trade’; Z. pe5 ga35 ‘trade’,
Lh. phăkaL pyuF (trade-person), Lac.
pha: ga:, R. pvga
S. kaa5 , D. kaa5 ; R. ga

4.10. Communication and transportation

bridlecart
journey56
packageway57

gak /gàk/law /lò/hkau /khàw/
chyawk /cók/tang /táN/

S. kak5
S. lO5 , Kh. lO2 , D. lo5 ; Hp. lO
S. kh aaw4
S. tsOk4 ; Z. zyok5
S. taaN4 , Kh. taN3 (W), D. taaN2

50
Zaiwa gai31 ‘market’ is from Chinese local dialect gài (Lustig 2010: 135), which is also found in Lhaovo spoken
in Shan State gai (Yabu 2000: 34), Langsu kai31 , Leqi kei55 and Ngochang kaih.
51‘a measure of volume or capacity equal to ten baskets’
52‘a unit of weight equal to the weight of ten silver Rupees, one tenth of a viss’
53‘measure of capacity equal to two jăre, about four cups by volume’54‘one viss, a unit of weight equal to 1.63 kg’
55
Possibly from Burmese Păkhùð (WB akhwan) through Shan.
56‘stage of a journey, a day’s journey, generally with a pack-bullock’
57‘a way, a road; an antecedent, a cause’Kurabe, Keita: A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw

159

4.11. Culture and entertainmentbook

laika /làyka/58

book

lik /lı́k/book, clf.

bap /bàp/

culturelaili laika /làylı̀làyka/

flute

pyi /pyi/, sumpyi /sumpyi/∼ sampyi /sampyi/

gamblehandiwork
harp

taw /tò/59
lai /lày/tingse /tiNsè/mannermanner60
model
paper
paper

lai /lày/tang het /táNhét/lai len /làylèn/je /jè/61
mai sau /màysàw/ ∼mau sau /màwsàw/

S. lik3 laaj4 , D. lik5 laai2 ; Z.
lai11 gva55 , R. lèga
S. lik3 laaj4 ‘book’, D. lik5 laai2‘book’
S. pap5 ‘book’, Kh. pap1 ‘book’, D.
pap5 ‘book’
S. lik3 laaj4 ‘book’
Z. lai21 li21 phaP21 tSi51 (D)S. pi2 , Kh. pi4 (W), D. pi3 ; Z. bvi55 ,sam55 pjı̄55 (D), R. bilǿm, biman‘flute ’, bishun ‘long flute’
S. tO2 , D. to3 ; Lh. to”, R. dó
S. laaj3 ? ‘silk’
S. tiN2 ‘harp’, sE2 ‘to play’; Z.
tı̄N55 Se51 (D)S. laaj4
S. taaN4 het4
S. laaj4 len4
S. tse3 , D. tse4
S. maj5 sh aw3 ‘slender piece ofwood’; Z. mau11 sau11 ,Lh. mukF sukH ,Lac. moug: soug”,
Le. mou53 sou55 , Ng. maussauh, R.
mèsò

4.12. Cults, customs and socializing

day of fasting
pagoda58

wan gam /wángam/
gawng ngu /gòNNù/62

S. wan4 kam1 sh in1
S. kON4 mu4 , D. kON2 mu2 ; Z.
koN21 Nu21 (D), Lh. gug ngung (K)The second syllable ka is a Jinghpaw word which means ‘to write’.
Possibly from Chinese dǔ ‘to gamble’ through Shan.
60‘manner of doing, one’s gait, posture, deportment’61This word is mostly used in northern Jinghpaw dialects.
62
Possibly from Burmese káuðhmû ‘good deed’ (WB koṅ3 mhu) through Shan (Professor Mathias Jenny, p.c.,2016). The mismatch of the initial consonant of the second syllable between Shan and Jinghpaw can be accounted
for in terms of progressive assimilation occurred in Jinghpaw. This feature shared among Kachin languages suggeststhat this item was introduced into non-Jinghpaw Kachin languages through Jinghpaw.
59

160

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

spirithpyi /phyi/

spirit country
vanish63

mung hpyi /mùNphyi/
hpoi /phòy/Lac. goung ngoo, Ng. gongs-ngu,
Li. kong5 mu5S. ph i1 , Kh. phi4 , D. phi1 ; Z. pi11 , G.
ph itun ‘evil spirit’ (H)S. m7N4 ph i1
D. phOi6 ‘be fragile’; Z. poi11 , R.
pòy4.13. Human body

body
semen

Nu. hking /khiN/nam ngan /nàmNan/

weightnam nak /nàmnák/

S. kh iN4 , Kh. khIN3 (W), D. xiN2
S. nam5 ‘water’, Naan1 ‘be fertile,
not castrated’, D. lam5 Naan1
S. nam5 nak4

4.14. Life, sickness and deathbulletbulletcannonmak /màk/
mak lung /màklùN/gawng dang /gòNdàN/cholerasawng hkun /soNkhun/

dropsyepilepsy

nam ling /nàmlı́N/ma mu /màmu/

fostergungun (kind of)65
herbal medicine
leprosymachine gun
measles
medicine, bf.

bau /baw/
gawng /gòN/gawng hpai /gòNphay/ya ya /yàya/
dut /dút/gawng jawk /gòNjòk/măling /m@liN/
ya /yà/overcome

pye /pyè/63

S. maak2 ‘round thing’64
S. maak2 loN1
S. kON3 ‘gun’; Z. gong11 dang11‘large underground fireworks’
S. sh ON1 hon1 ; Z. soN55 xun55 mo55
(D), Lh. saung: khun: (K), Lac.
seing: khoin:, R. songkun
S. nam5 l7N1
S. maa3 mu1 , Kh. maa5 ‘be crazy’,
mu4 ‘pig’, D. maa4 mu1
S. paW5 , Kh. pAW2 (W); Z. bau11
S. kON3 ‘gun’, D. kON4
S. kON3 ‘gun’, ph aj4 ‘fire’
S. jaa3 jaa1 ; Z. ya11 ya35
S. tut3 , D. tut5
S. kON3 tsaak3
S. maak2 lEN1 ; R. mv́rlø̀ng
S. jaa1 , Kh. yaa5 , D. yaa4 ; Z. ya11
‘to cure’
S. pE5‘to vanish, disapper, to lose potency, become inane, to have vanished or been lost (e.g. as luck, glory, honour,
flavour)’64‘fruit; also applied to anything round’65‘a primitive kind of gun that requires a firebrand for discharging’Kurabe, Keita: A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw

percussion cap66
poisonpowder flask

mak hpai /màkpháy/gung /guN/
yam kawk /Pyàmkók/syphiliskălang gyi /k@laN gyi/

161

S. maak2 ‘round thing’, ph aj4 ‘fire’
S. kON5 , Kh. kON2 (W), D. kON5
S. jaam4 ‘gunpowder’, kOk4 ‘cup’;
R. yàm ‘gunpowder’
S. ka1 laaN2

4.15. Types of people

abbot
beggarbeggarmun jau /munjàw/
kun yawn /kúnyón/maw hpyi /mophyi/

BurmanBurmanman /màn/myen /myèn/67

child
Chin

luk /lúk/hkang /kháN/68

elder

jau lung /jàwluN/

headmanhunterhtămung /th@muN/
jau gawng /jàwgòN/kinghkaw hkam /khokhám/king

jau wawng /jàwwòN/king

mun jau hkaw hkam
/munjawkhokhám/
kun hkan /kúnkhan/
kun le /kùnlè/
jau /jàw/69

lazy person
loafermaster66

S. mun1 tsaw3
S. kon4 jOn4 , D. yOn2 ‘to beg’
D. mo1 phi1 ; Z. mo35 pi55 ,Lan. mO35 phji31 , Le. mO33 phi33 , R.
mopı̀
S. maan3 , Kh. man1 (W), D. maan6
S. maan3 mEN4 ; Z. myen31 , Lac.
lamyen, Ng. lvmyens, R. mı̀nS. luk3 , Kh. luk1 , D. luk5
S. kh aaN1 ‘Kachin’; Lh. khaung”(K), Ng. khang, Hp. kăxáN ‘Kachin’,
Ka. hàháN (H), G. hàhaN (H)
S. tsaw3 ‘master’, luN4 ‘ father’s ormother’s elder brother’S. th a1 moN1
S. tsaw3 kON3 ‘gunner’;Z. zyau11 gong11 , Lac. jau goungS. hO1 kh am4 ‘royal palace’; Z.
xo55 kham51 (D), Lh. khoL khamF ,Lan. khO35 kham55 , Lac. khoo:kham”, R. koqkv́mS. tsaw3 ‘master’, C. huáng‘emperor’S. mun1 tsaw3 ‘Buddhist monk’,hO1 kh am4 ‘royal palace’
S. kon4 kh aan5
S. kon4 lEn1 ? ‘dishonest man’S. tsaw3 , Kh. caw5 , D. tsau4 ; Lh. jau(K), Lac. jau, G. sÒ ‘God, lord’ (H)‘a percussion cap used with a rifle’
Possibly from Chinese miǎn ‘Burma’ through Shan.
68“uncivilized, a term the Shan applies to Kachin, and the Kachin passes on to the Chin” (Maran 1964: 42)
69
Shan tsaw3 ‘master’ was borrowed into Jinghpaw in two diﬀerent forms with diﬀerent meanings: jàw ‘master’and dzàw ‘prince’ (see ‘prince’ below).
67

162

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

merchant

jau poi /jàwpòy/military oﬃcer

jau bu /jàwbù/monk

jau mun /jàwmun/nun

ya hkau /yàkhaw/

paddy dealer
princejau hkaw /jàwkhàw/
zau /zàw/72

princessnang /nàN/73

rich mankun mi /kúnmı́/robberrobberservant

jun /jun/
kun jun /kúnjun/
ningchyang /nı̀NcaN/ ∼nchyang /ǹcaN/

soldierTaiyoung girlluk suk /lùksùk/tai /táy/sau /saw/

S. tsaw3 ‘master’, pOj4 tsaa4‘broker’70 ; Lh. jhau: boe (K)S. tsaw3 ‘master’, po2 ‘militaryoﬃcer’71
S. tsaw3 mun1 ; Ka. s@món (H), G.
s@múN (H)S. naaj4 kh aaw1 ,Kh. khaaw4 ‘white’,D. yaa6 ‘lady’, laaN2 xaau1 ; Z.
ja21 khau55 (D)S. tsaw3 kh aw3
S. tsaw3 ‘master’, D. tsau4 ‘master’;Z. zvau11 ‘oﬃcer’, Lh. zug: (K),Lac. zau:, Ng. zau ‘oﬃcer’
S. naaN4 , Kh. naN3 (W), D. laaN2 ;R. nvang ∼ vnvang ‘the name of
the first daughter’, Ka. naūngsaúng‘wife’s younger sister’, G. nàuNsh O‘wife’s younger sister’ (H)S. kon4 maak3 kon4 mi4 , Kh. mi3 ‘berich’ (W), D. mi2 ‘be rich’
S. tson1 , Kh. tsun1 (W), D. tson6
S. kon4 tson1 ; Z. gvun31 zyun35
S. tsaaN3 ‘to hire’, Kh. tsaN5 ‘tohire’ (W), D. tsaaN4 ‘to hire’; R.
lv̀ngzvng
S. luk3 sh Wk4
S. taj4 , Kh. tay3 , D. tai2
S. sh aaw1 , Kh. saaw4 , D. saau1

4.16. Activity and mental activity

competehate

70hkying /khyı̀N/chyang /cáN/

S. kh eN2
S. tsaN4 , D. tsaN2

From Burmese pwÉzá (WB pwaicā3 ) ‘broker’.
From Burmese bò ‘commander’ (WB buil) < Pali.
72“The male members of a chief’s family carry the title Zau (jau ), a term borrowed from the Shan, meaning Lord.”(Hanson 1913: 174–175) “first names indicating chiefly status. This name will replace an extraneous aﬃx the
Kachins put before the sibling position. Hence, a Ja Naw is a chiefly name for a second son in traditional fashion.
This will assume a Zau from the Shan and become Zau Naw.” (Maran 1964: 38)
73“The daughters of a chief carry the title Nang, also a Shan term.” (Hanson 1913: 175)
71

Kurabe, Keita: A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw

hit74

mak /Pmák/kneadliberatepass bypreparesearchstir75
wait fornut /nùt/boi /boy/pun /pun/hkyen /khyén/sawk /sòk/wai /way/
mawng /móN/

163

S. maak3 ‘blade’, maak2 ‘be in
confusion’
S. not3
S. pOj2 , D. pOi3
S. pon5
S. hEn4
S. sh Ok3 , Kh. sOk1 (W); Z. zok1
S. waaj3
S. mON4

4.17. State and quality

be alert
be deep

let /lét/sung /sùN/be diﬀerent
be diﬃcult
be educatedbe foolish
be fragrantlak /Plák/, lak lai /làkláy/yak /yàk/kat /kàt/
ngawk /Nòk/hawm /hom/be gladbe gratefulbe greatbe heavy
be insatiable
be jelled
be lazy
be long
be new
be oldbe potent
be pretty
be restless
be short
be strong
be superior
be suspicious76

T. hum hum /hum2 hum2 /chyum /cum/
hkik hkam /khı̀kkhàm/nak /nák/mak /màk/dung /duN/
hkan /khan/
yau /yàw/
mau /màw/
htau /thaw/
hkin /khı́n/kya /kyáP/lu /lu/bawt /bót/
T. heng /heN2 /lawng /loN/
lawm lem /lomlem/

74

S. lEt4 ; Z. lyet1 , R. lak?
S. sh uN1 ‘be high’, Kh. suN4 ‘behigh’, D. suN1 ‘be high’S. laak2 , D. lak1
S. jaak3 , D. yaak5 ; Z. yak1 , R. yvk
S. kat5 ; Z. kat21 ‘be able’
S. NWk4
S. hOm1 , Kh. hOm4 , D. hOm1 ; Z.
kom55 ∼ hom55
S. hom1
S. tsom4
D. x@k5 xam3 ; Z. kh7k21 kham21 (D)S. nak4 , Kh. nak4 , D. lak1
S. maak3 ? ‘be abundant’; Z. mak1
S. tuN1
S. kh aan5 , Kh. khaan2 , D. xaan5
S. jaaw4 , Kh. yaaw3 , D. yaau2
S. maW2 , Kh. mAU4 (W), D. ma13
S. th aw3 , Kh. thaw5 , D. thau4
S. kh in1
S. kjaa5 ? ‘be excellent’S. lu4 , Kh. lu3 (W); R. bø̀nlu
S. pOt4 , Kh. pOt4 (W), D. pOt1
S. hEN4
S. loN1 , D. loN1
S. lOm1 lEm1 ‘slyly, stealthily’‘to hit, strike, as with a sword, to be hit and thus confused, distracted, in disorder’‘to stir with a ladle’76‘to be suspicious of a person and attempt to find tell-tale signs of intrigue and foul-play, if any, in the person’
75

164

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

be well-finishedbe widehkyem /khyém/gang /gàN/77

grow worse

awk /Pók/in vainli la /lı̀là/

S. kh Em3
S. kwaaN3 , Kh. kaaN5 , D. kaaN4 ; R.
gang
S. POk2 ? ‘come out, as the eruptionof a disease’
S. laa3 li1 ? ‘thoughtlessly’

4.18. Timeevery year

gu byi /gùbyı̀/

lunar monthlun /lun/

S. ku3 ‘every’, pi1 ‘year’; Ka. kùpı̀(H), G. kùpı̀ (H)S. l7n1 , Kh. n7n1 , D. l@n6

4.19. Number

one hundred
thousandone thousandsen /sèn/78

ten thousand

mun /mùn/

twosawng /soN/hkying /khyiN/79

S. sh En1 , D. sEn1 ; Ng. dvsens,
R. tiqsènS. heN1 , D. heN1 ; Z. hing55 ∼ king55 ,Lh. khyiNH , Lac. khyeing”, Ng.
dvkhyoengh, R. kı́ng, Hp. héN
S. mWn2 , D. mun3 ; Z. mun11 , Lh.
munF , Lac. mun, Ng. mons, R. mùn,
Hp. m´@n ‘hundred thousand’S. sh ON1 , Kh. sON4 , D. sON1 ; Ka.
saūng, G. sh auN (H)References
Aung Kyaw, Caay Hän Maü and Khun Aay. 2001. Shanbunkaken Gengochousahyou (Linguistic Questionnaire
for the Shan Cultural Area). Tokyo: Institut Liêu-Am d’Études Panphysiques.
Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: A Conspectus. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bradley, David. 1996. “Kachin”. In Stephen A. Wurm, Peter Mühlhäusler and Darrell T. Tryon (eds.) Atlas ofLanguages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas, vol. 2.1. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter. pp.749–751.
Cushing, Josiah N. 1881 [1914]. A Shan and English Dictionary. Rangoon: American Baptist Mission Press.
Dai, Qingxia. 2005. Langsuyu Yanjiu (A Study of the Langsu Language). Beijing: Nationality Press.

77

Possibly from Chinese guǎng ‘be wide’ through Shan.
Possibly from Burmese Téið ‘hundred thousand’ (WB sin3 ) through Shan.
79
Possibly from Chinese qiān ‘thousand’ through Shan.

78

Kurabe, Keita: A classified lexicon of Shan loanwords in Jinghpaw

165

Dai, Qingxia and Xu Xijian. 1995. Jingpoyu Cihuixue (Jinghpo Lexicology). Beijing: Central University for
Nationalities Press.
Dai, Qingxia and Li Jie. 2007. Leqiyu Yanjiu (A Study of the Leqi Language). Beijing: Central University for
Nationalities Press.
Diehl, Lon G. 1988. “AB B as noun plus verb: A second look”. Paper presented at the 21st International
Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Kunming Institute of Technology, Yunnan, China.
Duoshi, Yongtang, Xijian Xu and Duan Mutu. (eds.) 1992.
Chengdu: Sichuan People’s Press.

Han-Zai

Cidian(Chinese-Zaiwa

Dictionary).

Duroiselle, Charles. 1916. “Literal transliteration of the Burmese alphabet”. Journal of the Burma ResearchSociety 6. pp.81–90.
Edmondson, Jerold A. 2008. “Shan and other Northern Tier Southeast Tai languages of Myanmar and China:
Themes and variations”. In Anthony V. N. Diller, Jerold A. Edmondson and Yongxian Luo (eds.) The Tai-Kadai
Languages. London & New York: Routledge. pp.184–206.
Fraser, James. 1922. Handbook of the Lisu (Yawyin) Language. Rangoon: Superintendent, Government Printing,
Burma.
Grierson, Geroge A. (ed.) 1928. Linguistic Survey of India, vol. 2. pt. 2. Calcutta: Government of India, Central
Publication Calcutta Branch.
Haas, Mary. 1964. Thai-English Student’s Dictionary. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Hanson, Ola. 1896. A Grammar of the Kachin Language. Rangoon: American Baptist Mission Press.
———. 1906. A Dictionary of the Kachin Language. Rangoon: American Baptist Mission Press.
———. 1913. The Kachins: Their Customs and Traditions. Rangoon: American Baptist Mission Press.
Harris, Jimmy G. 1976. “Notes on Khamti Shan”. In Thomas W. Gething, Jimmy G. Harris and Pranee
Kullavanijaya (eds.) Tai Linguistics in Honor of Fang-Kuei Li. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
pp.113–141.
Henderson, Eugénie J. A. 1986. “Some hitherto unpublished material on Northern (Megyaw) Hpun”. In John
McCoy and Timothy Light (eds.) Contributions to Sino-Tibetan Studies. Leiden: Brill. pp.101–134.
Hudak, Thomas J. 2000. Cushing’s Shan-English Dictionary: A Phonetic Version. Arizona: Arizona State
University.
Huziwara, Keisuke. 2012a. “Ganango on-inron (Ganan phonology)”. Journal of the Research Institute for World
Languages 7. pp.121–144.
———. 2012b. “Luisogo no saikou ni mukete (Towards a reconstruction of Proto-Luish)”. Kyoto University
Linguistic Research 31. pp.25–131.
———. 2014. “Luisogo no saikou (Proto-Luish reconsidered)”. Kyoto University Linguistic Research 33. pp.1–32.
Kato, Atsuhiko. 2008. “Birumago hatsuonhyouki no ichirei (An example of transcription of Burmese
pronunciation)”. ms.
Kurabe, Keita. 2014. “The reflexes of the Proto-Jingpho glides in modern dialects”. Linguistics of the
Tibeto-Burman Area 37.2. pp.181–197.
———. 2016. “A grammar of Jinghpaw, from northern Burma”. Ph.D. dissertation, Kyoto University.
LaPolla, Randy J. and David Sangdong. 2015. Rawang-English-Burmese Dictionary. Privately published forlimited circulation.
Leach, Edmund R. 1954. Political Systems of Highland Burma: A Study of Kachin Social Structure. London: G.
Bell and Sons.
Lengtai, Aggasena. 2009. “Shan phonology and morphology”. MA thesis, Mahidol University.
Li, Fang-Kuei. 1977. A Handbook of Comparative Tai. Honolulu: The University of Hawaii Press.
Luo, Yongxian. 1999. A Dictionary of Dehong, Southwest China. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Australian
National University.
Lustig, Anton. 2010. A Grammar and Dictionary of Zaiwa. Leiden: Brill.
Macdonell, Arthur A. 1929. A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary with Transliteration, Accentuation, and Etymological
Analysis Throughout. London: Oxford University Press.

166

Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 11

Maran, La Raw. 1964. “Shan loan words in Kachin bilingualism in acculturation”. MA thesis, The University of
Arizona.
———. 1978. “A dictionary of modern spoken Jingpho”. ms.
Matisoﬀ, James A. 1974. “The tones of Jinghpaw and Lolo-Burmese: common origin vs. independent
development”. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia (Copenhagen) 15.2. pp.153–212.
———. 2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction.
Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.
———. 2013. “Re-examining the genetic position of Jingpho: Putting flesh on the bones of the Jingpho/Luish
relationship”. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 36.2. pp.15–95.
Meng, Zunxian. 2007. “Zaiwayu de Daiyu jieci (Dai loanwords in the Zaiwa language)”. Minzu Yuwen 2007.3.
pp.59–65.
Morey, Stephen. 2007a. “Turung-English dictionary”. ms.
———. 2007b. “Draft dictionary, Singpho (Numhpuk Hkawng) - English”. ms.
Myanmar Language Commission (ed.) 2009. Myanmar-English Dictionary. Yangon: Department of the Myanmar
Language Commission.
Nasaw Sampu, Wilai Jaseng, Thocha Jana and Douglas Inglis. 2005. “A preliminary Ngochang-Kachin-English
lexicon”. Research paper #107. Chiangmai: Payap University.
Pulu，Jimi. 1997. Khamti Phrase Book. Itanagar: Directorate of Research, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.
Rhys Davids, T.W. and William Stede (eds.) 1921–1925. The Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary.
Chipstead: Pali Text Society.
Sangdong, David. 2012. “A grammar of the Kadu (Asak) language”. Ph.D. dissertation, La Trobe University.
Sao Tern Moeng. 1995. Shan-English Dictionary. Kensington, Maryland: Dunwoody Press.
Sawada, Hideo. 2003. “Lhaovogo no gairaishakuyougo (Loanwords in Lhaovo)”. ms.
———. 2004. “A tentative etymological word-list of Lhaovo (Maru) language”. In Setsu Fujishiro (ed.)
Approaches to Eurasian Linguistic Areas. Kobe: Kobe City College of Nursing. pp.61–122.
———. 2006. “Lhaovogo seishohou (Lhaovo orthography)”. In Asako Shiohara and Shigeaki Kodama (eds.)
Writing Unwritten Languages. Tokyo: ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. pp.81–88.
———. 2011. “Kachinshuu no Taigochimei oboegaki (A note on Tai place names in Kachin State)”. In Setsu
Fujishiro (ed.) Dynamics of Eurasian Languages II: Studies on Languages in Multilingul Areas. Kobe: Kobe
City College of Nursing. pp.127–152.
Scott, George J. 1900. Gazetteer of Upper Burma and the Shan States, part 1, vol. 1. Rangoon: Superintendent ofGovernment Printing and Stationery.
Wannemacher, Mark. 2011. A Phonological Overview of the Lacid Language. Chiang Mai: Linguistics Institute,
Payap University.
Weidert, Alfons. 1977. Tai-Khamti Phonology and Vocabulary. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Xu, Xijian. 1987. “Jingpoyu de liangci (Classifiers of Jingpo)”. Minzu Yuwen 1987.5. pp.27–35.
Yabu, Shiro. 1982. Atsigo Goishuu (An Atsi Vocabulary). Tokyo: ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
———. 2000. Marugo Goishuu (A Maru Vocabulary). Report of the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (no.
09610535) by Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture.