The vocabulary [of Jinghpaw] is not as meagre as has sometimes been stated. The opinion that tribes are found with a vocabulary of only a few hundred words simply reveals the ignorance of the dialect in question and linguistic studies in general. It has more than once been asserted that the illiterate Kachins have at most only three or four thousand words. But the fact is that the most ordinary mountaineer, however rude and uncultivated he may appear, has command of eight or ten thousand words, while the priests, “prophets,” professional story-tellers and minstrels use an additional three or four thousand.
- Extracted from: Ola Hanson (1906). A Dictionary of the Kachin Language. Rangoon: American Baptist Missionary Press. pp. vi-vii.
This quote follows an earlier archival posting that highlighted religious change in the highlands of mainland Southeast Asia. As a missionary linguist Ola Hanson was a major figure in this history. However, as the previous discussion explained, the “most ordinary mountaineer”, and the priests, minstrels and the rest, have also played major roles in social and cultural transformations in the highlands. Some of their impact is at a linguistic level (as the languages of the region have adapted to new priorities) that continues to this day…
It is, with this in mind, that I am intrigued by Hanson’s comments on vocabulary. A master linguist; according to Herman G. Tegenfeldt (1974: 117) he had knowledge of Swedish (his mother tongue), English, German, Greek and Hebrew. Of course it as a student of Jinghpaw that he is now most famous. As I understand it he also spoke Shan and Burmese, and could hold his own in some of the other (non-Jinghpaw) “Kachin” languages.
Today many of the standards for language proficiency are measured, at least in part, by vocabulary size. As an example, the level one (highest) Japanese Language Proficiency Test requires around 10,000 words. Apparently it takes 3,000 to 8,000 words to be able to undertake “fluent conversation in social settings” and adult native speakers may have another 10,000 words at their disposal. For an outline of how such a vocabulary is put together in one of the many languages of northeast India this is a handy summary. A more scholarly account of “language corpora” is available here. It makes the point that in some languages there is a much larger low-frequency vocabulary with “between 30-50,000 word-forms being in use in everyday talk, and considerably more in everyday written texts, perhaps up to 80,000 in the case of English”.
As a student who needs to deal with a number of different languages, and with imperfect command of them all, I continue to be amazed by the depth of nuance available in so many tongues.
It would be nice to hear from readers who have their own ideas about how much language is enough. For the native-English speakers among us, would you be happy with, say, a Thai vocabulary of 3,000 words? What would 10,000 words of Khmer get you? What about Hmong? Or Mandarin? Or Esperanto? How many words do you need? Does vocabulary size really matter? And for those who don’t have English as a first language, what kind of vocabulary size allows you to enjoy New Mandala? 
On that final question, in response to the demands of global communication recent years have even seen the rise of the “Simple English Wikipedia” (available here at simple.wikipedia.org). The goal is to keep the required vocabulary under 3000 words, with an ideal of 1000 words. It has really got me thinking - how many words, in contrast, are required to understand New Mandala? My guess is it must be somewhere in the realm of 10,000. What do readers think? Would there ever be a market for simple.newmandala.net? Or, as some of our critics may have it, is that what we already do!?!
14 responses so far ↓
1 jonfernquest // Jun 25, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Thank you for that informative article.
Especially the learning Jinghpaw page.
Some people will insist it’s a waste of time learning a tribal language, but as you learn the language you also sort of master the indigenous intellectual world too, which is something completely different from the city slicker’s world. For example, foraging for different mushrooms in the jungle was one vocab exercise in Akha, rich in adjectives to describe these mushrooms, and then there is the oral textual tradition, the Akhazan, a combination of law code and ethno-history. I think a good argument could be made for introducing these languages into the university curriculum in some way or at least annual language programmes like SEASSI in the US.
2 Elli Woollard // Jun 25, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I wonder if a case could be made for determing language complexity not only on vocabulary size, but also on the range of meanings that can be conveyed, which need not correlate with the actual number of words. English, for example, has far more words than Thai, but often requires an unwieldy combination of words to express what Thai can say succinctly in one or two. Depth of nuance is dependent not only on the sheer number of words, but also on the way those words are arranged.
As for now many words of a vocabulary one ‘needs’, I would argue that it entirely depends on whether you want functionality first and foremost, or whether you think of a language partly in terms of aesthetics. I regard my Thai as being reasonably fluent, but I’m stumped by a lot of Thai poetry. I’m sure that my knowledge of the Thai language would be considerably enriched were I to learn more poetic language, just as anyone whose second language is English would be enriched by learning the language of Shakespeare.
Finally, I would dispute the concept of a single ‘English’, and argue instead for ‘Englishes’ in the plural (and I would imagine that to a certain extent – albeit a lesser one, given the global reach of English – this would be the same in most other languages too). Some people would argue that slang, including texting language, diminishes the English language, but I would argue that on the contrary, such usage adds to English’s overall complexity. At the risk of sounding older than my years, I have to admit that I puzzle over texting language and street slang. Even my children come home speaking words I don’t know.
Languages, like the world, are constantly evolving, and to stipulate how much language is ‘enough’ might be to set a language in stone. Which doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for a simple Wikipedia. But it certainly should not take the place of the more complex one.
Finally, I should add that I am not an academic linguist, so forgive me if the above makes little sense.
3 aiontay // Jun 26, 2008 at 10:55 am
I don’t mean to minimize Hanson’s linguistic accomplishments, which are certainly far beyond mine, I would point out that in the Kachin context, he wasn’t exceptional. In the area north of Lashio, it isn’t uncommon for individuals to speak at least four different languages: Burmese, Shan, Chinese, and Jinghpaw. There were also a lot of Atsi and Maru in the area, as well as Palaung, so they were routinely speaking five languages. I realize this in a different place and time from Hanson’s, but I suspect it really wasn’t that much different. Tribal societies can be much more cosmopolitan than most people realize, so multilingualism is in many case the norm rather than the exception.
As was pointed out to me years ago, a standard feature of being an ethnic minority is being at least bilingual or bi-dialectical (is that the correct term?). Essentially, if you are a minority, you are have to learn how to talk to your “betters”. This, of course, isn’t limited just to SE Asia. Here in the US of A folks are always complaining about how these illegal immigrants we encouraged to come here to do our dirty work can’t speak English, as if an improved English ability would help them cut lawns better, and the people complaining are resolutely monolingual, but I digress. The point is that the 19th Century Kachins were looked down upon by the Chinese, Burman, Shan, and Assamese as illiterate barbarians. There is story to the effect that Hanson went to the Burmese court to ask for permission to work with the Kachins and to teach how to read and write, and the king told Hanson he would be better off trying to teach the king’s dog reading and writing. The interesting thing then about Hanson is that he, and other missionaries, gave a literary voice to people (or in the Kachin case, a section of the people) who previously considered illiterate barbarians. As Leif Jonsson observed earlier, an effect of missionary effort was to “conjure up new possibilities for ethnicizing social life”. What possibilities were conjured up by turning non-literate societies in to literate ones?
4 jonfernquest // Jun 26, 2008 at 10:55 pm
“I don’t mean to minimize Hanson’s linguistic accomplishments, which are certainly far beyond mine, I would point out that in the Kachin context, he wasn’t exceptional. In the area north of Lashio, it isn’t uncommon for individuals to speak at least four different languages: Burmese, Shan, Chinese, and Jinghpaw.”
It’s a little different though to thoroughly document a language, in the form of a dictionary, and then translate the bible into it. Seems more difficult, than just learning the language.
“What possibilities were conjured up by turning non-literate societies in to literate ones?”
Solidarity?
For the Catholics, the bible interpreted through the intermediation of priests and for the protestants direct reading of the bible, but over long stretched of time the effect may be about the same, people of the book, a textual community.
In the two groups that I had the most friends in, the Chin in Burma (American Protestant) and the Akha in Maesai-Kengtung (Catholic), the religion certainly seemed to give them an identity they were comfortable with. For instance, if the Chin people I knew heard of another Chin was in trouble or having a problem, they would run to the rescue, go and see what they could do to help. The Catholic Akha of Kengtung also seem to be a pretty together – tight community. The Christmas festival in Kengtung is the big yearly event. Both groups acquired their Christian identities so long ago that it has now become part of the very identity of the community.
5 Bret Johnston // Jun 28, 2008 at 12:41 am
This an interesting and refreshing thread. I very much agree with Aiontay’s point above about the linguistic “cosmopolitanism” of mainland Southeast Asia, especially minorities. I remember Prof. Robert Bickner saying in a class I took with him on Thai linguistics that it’s one of the most linguistically complex areas of the world besides the American plains before the arrival of Europeans. This complexity very much seems to be a part of collective memory, even among ethnic groups that are domninant historically. Older Lao people I know in the States are always quick to point out that Hmong “speak good Lao.” They even say this when it’s not the case, for example young Hmong who grew up in the States and have no reason to learn Lao.
I also liked Elli Woollard’s points above. I would like to add to the whole discussion the idea that vocabulary may be operating on two levels. In other words, how much can you understand, versus how much can you actually productively use yourself? Sorry I can’t put a finer point on it, despite having studied with the aforementioned Prof. Bickner, one of the best linguists of the Tai language family. I speak Thai and Lao with reasonable fluency, but the way I speak them sounds different. This is a product of having studied Thai mainly at university, and Lao mainly at home or traveling to see Lao in-laws, etc.
6 Elli Woollard // Jun 28, 2008 at 6:21 am
I have to confess that I take issue with Jonfernquest’s assumption that turning non-literate societies into literate ones necessarily creates solidarity. Surely his example of Protestants and Catholics exposes the fallacy of this argument – Protestants, Catholics, and indeed countless other branches of Christianity, share the same textual tradition, but for centuries have argued over the iterpretation of it. Indeed, that is the very reason why the clergy and ruling classes were always so suspicious of translating the Bible into the vernacular and allowing the masses to read it; they knew full well that once they did so, the legitimacy of their rule was inevitably going to be questioned. While a shared textual tradition can create a sense of shared solidarity, it can do so only when the ruling or religious classes are able to retain hegemonic power the interpretation of such texts. Moreover, in the case of the religious ‘imagined communities’ (to use Benedict Anderson’s phrase) created by missionaries, one wonders how far this sense of solidarity extends. Would the member of one ethnic or linguistic group share a sense of solidarity with a member of another group simply on the basis of shared religion, or would the religious identity (Christianity) simply serve to cement the insular idendity of the minority ethnic group in the face of the wider (Buddhist) society without necessarily creating a feeling of solidarity among minority groups?
Moreover, to argue that the adoption of a textual tradition creates solidarity is surely to ignore the solidarity achieved in many non-literate societies, whose oral tradition may be as rich as the textual tradition of literate ones.
7 Leif Jonsson // Jun 28, 2008 at 7:53 am
To chime in with regard to illiterate cosmopolitians; some of the Tampuan people in Ratanakiri province, in the NE corner of Cambodia, are conversant in Khmer, Lao, Vietnamese, and Jarai. Their own language is classified as Mon-Khmer, as is Khmer, but the other three are each from a different language family. This is comparable to what aiontay mentions for Lashio when he puts Hanson’s accomplishments in perspective. “It’s a little different though to thoroughly document a language, in the form of a dictionary, and then translate the bible into it. Seems more difficult, than just learning the language” (jonfernquest, above). I am a bit edgy about this statement, since it reads (to me) like Hanson (and other whites like him) are more accomplished than mere highland people because they traffic in texts. But with regard to stellar dictionaries, there is one coming out that I encourage all of you to get a peek at once it is available (even if you don’t care to learn to speak Iu Mien): An Iu Mien — English Dictionary, with Cultural Notes, that lists Herbert C. Purnell as Complier and General Editor (he lists other contibutors in the preface). It is a really amazing work, and has been in process since the 1980s — it takes over an earlier dictionary that was published in the 1960s. In part, it is meant as a sourcebook (on cultural stuff, on top of the language) for the many Iu Mien who arrived in the USA after the war in Laos (and now speak and read English on top of their own Mien, and Lao, Thai, Chinese — variously Cantonese, Yunnanese, and putongwa — etc). My final note here relates to the Mien who were in refugee camps in Thailand’s north and then in holding stations in Bangkok and elsewhere. I know one man who was an all-around translator and facilitator for the Mien, and who had a pass that allowed him to come and go from the Lumphini Center in Bkk (I would love to hear from anyone who knows about that place). The Thai guards did not aim for any awards for cultural or other sensitivity. Once when the Mien man was passing through the gate, he overheard one of the Thai guards comment to another; ai maleng ni phut lai phasa, “this insect speaks many languages”.
8 aiontay // Jun 28, 2008 at 10:54 am
If I remember correctly, the Protestant, Baptist if I remember correctly, and Catholic missionaries developed different orthographies for Karenni, so like Leif Jonsson’s earlier Mien example, there are conflicts regarding the which text to use that undercut ethnic solidarity.
Furthermore, Hanson’s Kachin writing system fails to take into account the tonal nature of Jinghpaw; “wa” can mean either father or pig. In the spoken language you can hear the difference (provided you’ve got a grasp of the tones) but in the written form you can’t. There have been some suggestions within the Kachin community to revise Hanson’s system, but hey, you can’t do that because that’s how Hanson translated the Bible! So now you have conflict because of how some long dead white guy reduced your language to writing. Of course, the Maru, Lashi and Atsi have to use the Jinghpaw text. The Rawang have their own translation, but it’s Matwang, so the, say Lungmi are out of luck.
I also am a bit edgy with the suggestion, even if unintentional, of any sort of superiority arising from dealing in text. The oral traditon and written tradition are two different things, with their own strengths and weakness. Saddly, the oral tradition is going away, which is a great tragedy. Jon’s Akha mushroom gathering would have been a much different experience- probably much poorer- if instead he had done it with a field guide book to mushrooms written in Akha.
Bret Johnston, why did he say the Great Plains was so linguistically diverse? I thought California had that honor. And why prior to European contact? Things got really interesting post-Contatct? Not to derail the thread, but I am interested since this is literally and figuratively close to home for me.
9 jonfernquest // Jun 28, 2008 at 2:58 pm
“Protestants, Catholics, and indeed countless other branches of Christianity, share the same textual tradition, but for centuries have argued over the iterpretation of it.”
Shared language + shared religious tradition + a long time = community with solidarity. That’s my hypothesis.
The Akha and the Chin who I knew were only interacting almost entirely with the Buddhist world around them in Burma. They had some connections to the Christian west outside but not a lot. Perhaps you could think of their adopted religious traditions as a well-armed intellectual fortification or stockade.
“in the case of the religious ‘imagined communities’ …created by missionaries, one wonders how far this sense of solidarity extends”
My point was that whether it was introduced by missionaries or not, if it has been around for a long time, then the result has been solidarity (and the formation of an inherently new kind of society). The group has adopted the tradition as their own.
To see dysfunctional missionary efforts that fragment communities, one doesn’t have to go far. Chiang Rai has many examples, since this sort of activity is not regulated. There’s a very aggressive ex-biker with his school for orphan hilltribe girls. There’s a hodgepodge of Korean and Chinese missions which take over villages and impose their ideas upon the locals with the aid of their wealth. These are only the most obvious examples.
In the long run (50-100 years perhaps), the separate identity and community that Christianity has provided so-called “hilltribes” seems to have helped many of them immensely.
“Moreover, to argue that the adoption of a textual tradition creates solidarity is surely to ignore the solidarity achieved in many non-literate societies, whose oral tradition may be as rich as the textual tradition of literate ones.”
Hill dwelling tribal swidden agriculturalists like the Akha seem to lack solidarity in their social organisation. See: Johnson, Allen W. and Timothy Earle (2000). The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Second Edition.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Looking forward to read this: An Iu Mien — English Dictionary, with Cultural Notes, that lists Herbert C. Purnell as Complier and General Editor (he lists other contributors in the preface. SIL has some very nice dictionary making software and publications, with some of the best advice on the more practical aspects of translation. Their stress on lexical relations humanizes the linguistics a bit.
10 jonfernquest // Jun 28, 2008 at 4:24 pm
“It would be nice to hear from readers who have their own ideas about how much language is enough. ”
In case you haven’t seen it, the definitive volume on vocabulary acquisition: Paul Nation, Learning Vocabulary in Another Language (Cambridge University Press, 2001)
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/staff/paul-nation/nation.aspx
One of the points he makes, is developing rich contexts for words, many hooks to hang them on, so to speak. Different word lists provide different kinds of rich contexts. In case you haven’t seen this handy little word list:
http://jonfernquest.googlepages.com/gedneywordlist.pdf
Also for historical Tibeto-Burman linguistics, and relating Burmese words to ancient lithic inscriptions:
http://archives.sealang.net/luce
Which seems to be basically the same as: A comparative word-list of Old Burmese, Chinese, and Tibetan Luce, G. H. (Gordon Hannington), 1889-1979 School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, London, 1983
11 Nicholas Farrelly // Jul 1, 2008 at 3:06 am
Thanks for all of these interesting and provocative comments – Jon, Elli, Aiontay, Bret, and Leif. All very educational.
As a bit of a tangent…
Over the years I have, like Aiontay, met a good number of residents of the Shan and Kachin States, and areas directly adjacent in Thailand, China and India, with a mastery (there is no other word) of more than a half dozen languages.
And I have heard of (and sometimes met) exceptional individuals who are native speakers of about that many languages, and who have some facility in, perhaps, half dozen more.
From across the full range of occupational and ethnic categories I have encountered a “cosmopolitianism” which disrupts the neat ethnic, linguistic and political groupings of which we (all) tend to speak. One typical example, a Catholic priest, in Burma, is worth highlighting. He could speak, in no particular order – English, French, Italian, Lahu, Burmese, Thai, Shan (appropriate to his area), and Akha. My feeling at the time, and this is now some years ago, is that he could also read all of the relevant scripts.
And he claimed to be able to say Mass in another couple of languages, including Latin, Wa, etc. While he does fall into the category that Hanson called the “priests, ‘prophets,’ professional story-tellers and minstrels” who require linguistic skill for their success…he is hardly that unusual.
Around Keng Tung, or Bhamo, or Ruili, or Chiang Rai, or anywhere in the mountains between South, East and Southeast Asia the number of people speaking a portfolio of unrelated languages seems pretty constant, or may even be on the increase. It is, I suppose, one way of staying prepared for whatever the future holds…
Best wishes to all,
Nich
12 Bret Johnston // Jul 3, 2008 at 6:52 am
I just wanted to jump back in briefly an respond to Aiontay’s query…I wish I knew more about the facts behind the anecdote that I was admittedly passing along second-hand here. Maybe pre-contact was a bad choice of words? I suppose contact would have already had to happen for the linguistic diversity of Native America to be documented for a European audience. I imagine things did get even more interesting after contact.
Something I forgot to throw in last time…the linguistic cosmopolitanism we’ve been discussing here is sometimes reproduced outside Southeast Asia. I’ve seen cases where refugees from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, thrown into low-wage jobs soon after arriving in the States, end up learning each others’ languages and dialects in the workplace. A strategy for building some kind of social cohesiveness (i.e. at least we are all Southeast Asian) in a challenging new setting?
13 aiontay // Jul 3, 2008 at 11:15 am
Do the individuals disrupt the neat lines of ethnicity, or are their lines simply different than what outsiders draw? For example, for some tribal groups, I’m inclined to think part of their identity is what other tribal groups they intermarry with.
The fact that people in Burma seem to be adding to their linguistic diversity and Bret’s example of immigrants to the US doing the same is really interesting. Globally, the trend is the opposite, with the number of languages and dialects spoken decreasing. Why and how are these groups able to run counter to the trend?
Bret, I was just curious since my understanding has always been California was the hotspot of linguistic diversity until everybody got killed off in the 19th Century. Of course, the Plains were pretty diverse to, with the added twist of a non-verbal language, sign language, thrown in to the mix. My maternal grandmother was trilingual: Kiowa, English and Comanche.
14 Seng Hkum // Feb 23, 2009 at 10:03 am
Dr. Ola Hanson had done a great job. He did find the rich tones of Jinghpaw language and realize and committed that the Jinghpaw writing needs further improvements. I have found the minorities in Southeast Asia are multilingual of at least 2 languages to several and found that they have better instinct to cope with more languages than the ethic belong to the majorities. I am pure Jinghpaw from Bhamo and has been working in Many parts of Laos and Cambodia. I am fluent in Lao, Myanmar, Khmer, English and some Khmu, Katang and Tampuan (Not counting Thai as it is similar to Lao). I clearly understand the richnest of Jinghpaw language as I have the capacity to compare the languages I know. Jinghpaw has five tones which complicate many language learners.
Some examples
Wa ^ (Compensate)
Wa- (Teeth)
Wa: (Father)
Wa_(Come back, return)
Wa (Pig)
Na^ (take times, Chronic)
Na- (Ear, will)
Na: (Paddy land)
Na_ (dark, extreme black)
Na (Hear, sting)
It may help some of you to understand more about the Jinhpaw language.
We are trying to improve the Jinghpaw writing with no success so far as the Jinghpaw writing created by Dr. Ola Hanson is very easy and addicted by all Kachins.
Seng Hkum
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.