Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 April 2018
Asia is the world's most linguistically diverse continent and its diversity largely conforms to established global patterns that correlate linguistic diversity with biodiversity, latitude, and topography. However, one Asian region stands out as an anomaly in these patterns—Tibet, which is often portrayed as linguistically homogenous. A growing body of research now suggests that Tibet is linguistically diverse. In this article, we examine this literature in an attempt to quantify Tibet's linguistic diversity. We focus on the minority languages of Tibet—languages that are neither Chinese nor Tibetan. We provide five different estimates of how many minority languages are spoken in Tibet. We also interrogate these sources for clues about language endangerment among Tibet's minority languages and propose a sociolinguistic categorization of Tibet's minority languages that enables broad patterns of language endangerment to be perceived. Appendices include lists of the languages identified in each of our five estimates, along with references to key sources on each language. Our survey found that as many as 60 minority languages may be spoken in Tibet and that the majority of these languages are endangered to some degree. We hope our contribution inspires further research into the predicament of Tibet's minority languages and helps support community efforts to maintain and revitalize these languages.
1 Asia is home to 2,301 languages, accounting for 32.4 per cent of the world's 7,102 languages; Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F., and Fennig, C. D. (eds), Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 18th edn, SIL International, Dallas, 2015Google Scholar, online version http://www.ethnologue.com, [accessed 20 March 2018].
3 Asia contains five (27.7 per cent) of the 18 global language hotspots. Language hotspots are defined on the basis of three criteria: language diversity (calculated on the basis of languages across families), degree of endangerment, and extent of documentation. Anderson, G. D. S., ‘Language hotspots: what (applied) linguistics and education should do about language endangerment in the twenty-first century’, Language and Education, vol. 25, no. 4, 2011, pp. 273–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Mace, R. and Pagel, M., ‘A latitudinal gradient in the density of human languages in North America’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, vol. 261, no. 1360, 1995, pp. 117–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nettle, D., ‘Language diversity in West Africa: an ecological approach’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, vol. 15, no. 4, 1996, pp. 403–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nettle, D., ‘Explaining global patterns of language diversity’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, vol. 17, no. 4, 1998, pp. 354–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nettle, D., ‘Ecological influences on human behavioural diversity: a review of recent findings’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 24, no. 11, 2009, pp. 618–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Cashdan, E., ‘Ethnic diversity and its environmental determinants: effects of climate, pathogens, and habitat diversity’, American Anthropologist, vol. 103, no. 4, 2001, pp. 968–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Loh, J. and Harmon, D., ‘A global index of biocultural diversity’, Ecological Indicators, vol. 5, no. 3, 2005, pp. 231–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maffi, L., ‘Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 34, 2005, pp. 599–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gorenflo, L. J., Romaine, S., Mittermeier, R., and Walker-Painemilla, K., ‘Co-occurrence of linguistic and biological diversity in biodiversity hotspots and high biodiversity wilderness areas’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 109, no. 21, 2012, pp. 8032–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Grant, C., ‘Analogies and links between cultural and biological diversity’, Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, vol. 2, no. 2, 2012, pp. 153–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 Stepp, J. R., Castaneda, H., and Cervone, S., ‘Mountains and biocultural diversity’, Mountain Research and Development, vol. 25, no. 3, 2005, pp. 223–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Turin, M., ‘A multitude of mountain voices’, Sustainable Mountain Development, vol. 52, 2007, pp. 11–13Google Scholar; Axelsen and Manrubia, ‘River density and landscape roughness’.
7 Lewis et al., Ethnologue.
8 Tournadre, N., ‘Arguments against the concept of “conjunct”/“disjunct” in Tibetan’, in Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek, Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65 Geburtstag, Huber, B., Volkart, M., Widmer, P., and Schwieger, P. (eds), International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH, Halle, 2008, pp. 281–308Google Scholar; Tournadre, N., ‘The Tibetic languages and their classification’, in Trans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area, Owen-Smith, T. and Hill, N. W. (eds), Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2014, pp. 105–29Google Scholar; Suzuki, H., ‘Introduction to the method of the Tibetan linguistic geography—a case study in the ethnic corridor of West Sichuan’, in Linguistic Substratum in Tibet—New Perspective towards Historical Methodology (No. 16102001) Report, Nagano, Y. (ed.), National Museum of Ethnology, Suita, 2009, pp. 15–34Google Scholar; Suzuki, H., ‘Brief introduction to the endangerment of Tibetic languages: special reference to the language situation in Eastern Tibetan cultural area’, Journal of Linguistic Studies, vol. 19, no. 3, 2014, pp. 281–301Google Scholar; Roche, G., ‘The vitality of Tibet's minority languages in the twenty-first century: preliminary remarks’, Multiethnica, vol. 35, 2014, pp. 24–31Google Scholar; Roche, G., ‘The transformation of Tibet's language ecology in the twenty-first century’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 245, 2017, pp. 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Austin, P. and Sallabank, J., The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015Google Scholar; Crystal, D., Language Death, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dorian, N., Small Language Fates and Prospects: Lessons of Persistence and Change from Endangered Languages, Brill, Leiden, 2014Google Scholar; Evans, N., Dying Words: Endangered Languages and What They Have to Tell Us, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2011Google Scholar.
10 Wendel, J. and Heinrich, P., ‘A framework for language endangerment dynamics: the effects of contact and social change on language ecologies and language diversity’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 218, 2012, pp. 145–66Google Scholar; Amano, T., Sandel, B., Eager, H., Bulteau, E., Svenning, J.-C., Dalsgaard, B., Rahbek, C., Davies, R. G., and Sutherland, W. J., ‘Global distribution and drivers of language extinction risk’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, vol. 281, no. 1793, 2014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, 20141574, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1574, [accessed 20 March 2018].
11 Axelsen and Manrubia, ‘River density and landscape roughness’, p. 6.
13 Shixuan, Xu, ‘Language endangerment’, in The Language Situation in China, vol. 1, Yuming, Li and Wei, Li (eds), De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2003, p. 269.Google Scholar
14 Tournadre, N., ‘The dynamics of Tibetan-Chinese bilingualism: the current situation and future prospects’, China Perspectives, vol. 45, 2003, pp. 1–9Google Scholar, http://chinaperspectives.revues.org/231, [accessed 20 March 2018]; de Varennes, F., ‘Language rights and Tibetans in China: a look at international law’, in Minority Languages in Today's Global Society, Gya, Kunsang, Snavely, A. and Sperling, E. (eds), Trace Foundation, New York, 2012, pp. 14–61Google Scholar; Yeshe, Kalsang, ‘A preliminary note on Chinese codeswitching in modern Lhasa Tibetan’, in Tibetan Modernities: Notes from the Field on Cultural and Social Change, Barnett, R. and Schwartz, R. D. (eds), Brill, Leiden, 2012, pp. 213–48Google Scholar; Robin, F., ‘Streets, slogans and screens: new paradigms for the defence of the Tibetan language’, in On the Fringes of the Harmonious Society: Tibetans and Uyghurs in Socialist China, Brox, T. and Bellér-Hann, I. (eds), NIAS Press, Copenhagen, 2014, pp. 209–34Google Scholar; Jabb, Lama, Oral and Literary Continuities in Modern Tibetan Literature: The Inescapable Nation, Lexington Books, New York, 2015Google Scholar.
15 Posner, R., ‘Language conflict in Romance: decline, death, and survival’, in Bilingualism and Language Conflict in Romance, Posner, R. and Green, J. (eds), Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, 1993, p. 45Google Scholar.
16 O'Leary, C. F., ‘The role of recorded text tests in intelligibility assessment and language program decisions’, Notes on Sociolinguistics, Special Issue 2, 1994, pp. 48–72Google Scholar; A. Kluge, ‘RTT retelling method: an alternative approach to intelligibility testing’, SIL Electronic Working Papers, 2007-006, 2007, http://www.sil.org/silewp/2007/silewp2007-006.pdf, [accessed 20 March 2018].
18 Kloss, H., ‘“Abstand languages” and “Ausbau languages”’, Anthropological Linguistics, vol. 9, no. 7, 1967, pp. 29–41.Google Scholar
19 Sun Hongkai 孙宏开, ‘Lun Shixingyu de neibu chayi—Jianlun yuyan shibie de tongjiedu fangfa 论史兴语的内部差异—兼论语言识别的通解度方法’, Minzu yuwen 民族语文, vol. 2, 2013, pp. 21–30.
20 Sun Hongkai 孙宏开, ‘Baimayu shi Zangyu de yige fangyan huo tuhua ma? 白马语是藏语的一个方言或土话吗?’, Yuyan kexue 语言科学, vol. 1, 2003, pp. 65–75.
21 Bandle, O., Studien zur westnordischen Sprachgeographie: Haustierterminologie im Norwegischen, Isländischen und Färöischen, Munksgaard, København, 1967Google Scholar; T. Sibata 柴田武, Gengotirigaku no hoohoo 言語地理学の方法, Tikuma Syoboo, Tokyo, 1969; R. Iwata 岩田礼 (ed), Hanyu fangyan jieshi ditu 汉语方言解释地图, Hakuteisya, Tokyo, 2009.
22 Moore, R. E., Pietikäinen, S., and Blommaert, J., ‘Counting the losses: numbers as the language of language endangerment’, Sociolinguistic Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, 2010, pp. 1–26Google Scholar.
23 Makoni, S. and Pennycook, A. (eds), Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages, Multilingual Matters, Bristol, 2007Google Scholar.
24 Irvine, J. and Gal, S., ‘Language ideology and language differentiation’, in Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities, Kroskrity, P. (ed.), School of American Research Press, Sante Fe, 2000, p. 46.Google Scholar
25 Dobrin, L. M., Austin, P. K., and Nathan, D., ‘Dying to be counted: the commodification of endangered languages in documentary linguistics’, Proceedings of the Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory, School of Oriental and African Studies, London, 2007Google Scholar, http://www.dnathan.com/eprints/dnathan_etal_2007_commodification.pdf, [accessed 20 March 2018].
26 Mülhäusler, P., ‘Naming languages, drawing language boundaries, and maintaining languages, with special reference to the linguistic situation in Papua New Guinea’, in Language Diversity in the Pacific: Endangerment and Survival, Cunningham, D., Ingram, D. E., and Sumbuk, K. (eds), Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, 2006, pp. 24–39.Google Scholar
28 Minglang, Zhou, ‘Minority language policy in China: equality in theory and inequality in practice’, in Language Policy in the People's Republic of China: Theory and Practice since 1949, Minglang, Zhou and Hongkai, Sun (eds), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 2004, pp. 71–96Google Scholar. Possession of an orthography (regardless of whether it is a traditional one or a newly created one) for a specific speech community is often a criterion for regarding a variety as an independent language, as a view taken for the Saami languages; see Sammallahti, P., The Saami Languages: An Introduction, Davvi Girji O.S., Kárášjohka, 1998Google Scholar.
29 Anderson, ‘Language hotspots’.
30 H. Suzuki and Sonam Wangmo, ‘Language evolution and vitality of Lhagang [Tagong] Tibetan, a Tibetic language as a minority in Minyag Rabgang’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 245, 2017, pp. 63–90.
32 Meriam, B., China's’ Tibetan ‘Frontiers’: Sharing the Contested Ground, Global Oriental, Leiden, 2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roche, G., ‘The Tibetanization of Henan's Mongols: ethnicity and assimilation on the Sino-Tibetan Frontier’, Asian Ethnicity, vol. 17, no. 1, 2016, pp. 128–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
33 Skutnabb-Kangas, T., Linguistic Genocide in Education or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights?, Routledge, London, 2000Google Scholar.
34 McIvor, O., A. Napoleon, and K. Dickie, ‘Language and culture as protective factors for at-risk communities’, Journal of Aboriginal Health, vol. 5, no. 1, 2009, pp. 6–25Google Scholar; Bals, M. J., Turi, A. L., Skre, I., and Kvernmo, S., ‘The relationship between internalizing and externalizing symptoms and cultural resilience factors in Indigenous Sami youth from Arctic Norway’, International Journal of Circumpolar Health, vol. 70, no. 1, 2011, pp. 37–45CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
36 People cannot be treated by a doctor they cannot communicate with, cannot learn from a teacher they do not understand, cannot obtain information from media services that are unintelligible to them, and cannot express their political grievances to people who do not understand them. Identifying languages is a critical step in language development, for example, developing orthographies.
38 We have placed Tibetan and Chinese in inverted commas here, since neither of them are languages, but rather clusters of related languages that are often considered to be single languages. From this point onwards in this article, we use the term ‘Tibetic’ to refer to the languages typically described as ‘Tibetan’ (Tournadre, ‘The Tibetic languages’) and ‘Sinitic’ for language typically described as ‘Chinese’. Regarding the term ‘Tibetic languages’, Zeisler employs ‘Tibetan languages’ instead (Zeisler, B., Relative Tense and Aspectual Values in Tibetan Languages: A Comparative Study, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar); however, we prefer the term ‘Tibetic’ to avoid conflation with the ethnic term ‘Tibetan’, as Tibetic languages are spoken not only by Tibetans, but also by other ethnic groups—see Tournadre, ‘The Tibetic languages’. Additionally, there are also Tibetans who do not speak Tibetic languages, such as rGyalrongic languages, which are often insisted on being ‘Tibetan dialects’ even by Tibetan scholars such as Wang Jianmin 王建民 and bTsan-lha Ngag-dbang Tshul-khrims (Anduoyu Jiaronghua duibi fenxi 安多语嘉戎话对比分析, Sichuan Minzu Chubanshe, Chengdu, 1992) and Sum-bha Don-grub Tshe-ring (Bod skad kyi yul skad rnam shad, Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, Beijing, 2011, pp. 50–1); Tournadre, ‘The Tibetic languages’.
39 This is the name used by the community to refer to the language. Linguists call it Wutun/Wutunhua—see Janhunen, J., Peltomaa, M., Sandman, E., and Dongzhou, Xiawu, Wutun, Lincom Europa, München, 2008.Google Scholar
41 Dede, K., ‘Mixed languages’, in Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Linguistics, Sybesma, Rint (ed.), Brill, Leiden, 2015Google Scholar. A position contesting the existence of ‘mixed languages’ can be found in van Driem, G., Languages of the Himalayas: An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region, Brill, Leiden, 2001.Google Scholar
42 Tshe ring skyid, ‘An introduction to Rgya tshang ma, a Monguor (Tu) village in Reb gong (Tongren)’, Asian Highlands Perspectives, vol. 37, 2015, pp. 276–300.
43 The term Daohua, however, may also be used by local Tibetans to designate a similar (‘mixed’) variety spoken in surrounding counties such as Daofu. Kun dga’ dBang mo 根呷翁姆 and Hiroyuki Suzuki 鈴木博之, ‘Daofuyu de shiyong qingkuang he yuyan huoli: Xianshuizhen Daofuyu de gean yanjiu 道孚语的使用情况和语言活力: 鲜水镇道孚语的个案研究’, Kyoto University Linguistic Research, vol. 27, 2008, pp. 223–40.
44 Chirkova, K., ‘On the position of Baima within Tibetan: a look from basic vocabulary’, in Evidence and Counter-Evidence: Festschrift for F. Kortland, Volume 2: General linguistics, Lubotsky, A., Schaeken, J., and Wiedenhof, J. (eds), Rodopi, Amsterdam, 2008, pp. 69–91Google Scholar.
45 Tournadre, ‘The Tibetic languages’.
47 Upton, J. L., ‘Notes towards a native Tibetan ethnology: an introduction to and annotated translation of dMu dge bSam gtan's essays on Dwags po (Baima Zangzu)’, Tibet Journal, vol. 25, no. 1, 2000, pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
48 Janhunen, J., Ha, L. M., and Tshe dpag rnam rgyal, J., ‘On the language of the Shaowa Tuzu in the context of the ethnic taxonomy of Amdo Qinghai’, Central Asiatic Journal, vol. 51, no. 2, 2007, pp. 177–95.Google Scholar
49 Suzuki and Sonam Wangmo, ‘Language evolution and vitality’.
50 Tournadre, ‘The Tibetic languages’. All of these varieties are classified as ‘Choni’ in the Ethnologue. One of the important contributions of Tournadre for the languages of southern Gansu is the observation that typologically similar languages are also spoken in its surroundings such as Jiuzhaigou, Songpan, and Baxi District of Ruoergai. They are certainly a minority within the Tibetic languages and have never been officially treated as independent groups, as Choni in Ethnologue. Tournadre puts all of them under the section called ‘Eastern’ with Ethnologue’s Choni. Additionally, Suzuki provides a different classification based on an analysis combining the historical linguistic methodology with the mutual intelligibility. Regarding the languages of Jiuzhaigou, Songpan, and Baxi District of Ruoergai, see Hiroyuki Suzuki 鈴木博之, ‘Gannan-syuu Zhuoni-Diebu-Zhouqu 3-ken no Tibetto-kei syogengo to sono kaibunrui siron 甘南州卓尼 • 迭部 • 舟曲 3 県のチベット系諸言語とその下位分類試論’, Nidaba, vol. 44, 2015, pp. 1–9.
51 Roche, ‘The Tibetanization of Henan's Mongols’.
52 In the various legal mechanisms that deal with language in China, no minority languages are formally recognized by name; in fact, only Putonghua, Modern Standard Chinese, is mentioned by name. However, in practice, each minzu is considered to have a single standard language that is protected by law.
54 For example, in Muli Tibetan Autonomous County in Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture, Jiulong County in Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, and Shangri-La Municipality in Diqing Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture.
55 For example, in Ninglang Yi Autonomous County in Lijiang Municipality.
56 For the controversy surrounding this classification, see Wen Maotao, ‘The creation of the Qiang ethnicity, its relation to the Rme people and the preservation of Rme language’, MA thesis, Duke University, 2014.
57 Kloss, ‘“Abstand languages”’.
58 Limusishiden and Dede, K., ‘The Mongghul experience: consequences of language policy shortcomings’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 215, 2012, pp. 101–24.Google Scholar
59 Zhou, ‘Minority language policy in China’.
60 Hongkai, Sun, ‘On nationality and the recognition of Tibeto-Burman languages’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, vol. 15, no. 2, 1992, p. 2.Google Scholar
61 Zhou Qingsheng 周庆生 (ed.), Zhongguo Yuyan Shenghuo Zhuangkuang Baogao 2005 中国语言生活状况报告 2005, Shangwu Yinshuguan, Beijing, 2006.
62 Sun Hongkai 孙宏开, Hu Zengyi 胡增益, and Huang Xing 黄行, Zhongguo de yuyan 中国的语言, Shangwu Yinshuguan, Beijing, 2007.
69 http://www.ethnologue.com/ethnoblog/m-paul-lewis/how-not-use-ethnologue#.VgixHU3smUk, [accessed 20 March 2018].
71 Cysouw, M. and Good, J., ‘Languoid, Doculect, and Glossonym: formalizing the notion “language”’, Language Documentation and Conservation, vol. 7, 2012, p. 342.Google Scholar
72 Suzuki, H. and Wangmo, Sonam, ‘Discovering endangered Tibetic varieties in the easternmost Tibetosphere: a case study on Dartsendo Tibetan’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, vol. 38, no. 2, 2015, pp. 256–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Suzuki, H. and Wangmo, Sonam, ‘Lhagang Choyu: a first look at its sociolinguistic status’, Studies in Asian Geolinguistics, vol. 2, 2016, https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag2_rice_2016.pdf, [accessed 13 April 2018].Google Scholar
73 Gates, J. P., Situ in Situ: Towards a Dialectology of Jiāróng (rGyalrong), Lincom Europa, München, 2014Google Scholar; J. P. Gates, ‘Intelligibility, identity, and structure in Western rGyalrongic’, paper presented at 3rd Workshop of Sino-Tibetan Languages of Sichuan. Paris, 2–4 September 2013.
74 See data presented at the rGyalrongic Languages Database: http://htq.minpaku.ac.jp/databases/rGyalrong/, [accessed 20 March 2018].
75 Sims, N., ‘A phonology and lexicon of the Yonghe Variety of Qiang’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, vol. 37, no. 1, 2014, pp. 34–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sims, N., ‘Towards a more comprehensive understanding of Qiang dialectology’, Language and Linguistics, vol. 17, no. 3, 2016, pp. 351–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar, https://doi.org/10.1177/1606822X15586685, [accessed 13 April 2018]; N. Sims, forthcoming, ‘Testing intelligibility within the “Qiang” language(s)’.
76 Evans, J. and Sun, J., ‘Qiang’, in Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Linguistics, Sybesma, R. (ed.), Brill, Leiden, 2013.Google Scholar
77 Liu Guangkun 刘光坤, Mawo Qiangyu yanjiu 麻窝羌语研究, Sichuan Minzu Chubanshe, Chengdu, 1998.
79 Huang Bufan 黄布凡 and Zhou Facheng 周发成, Qiangyu yanjiu 羌语研究, Sichuan Renmin Chubanshe, Chengdu, 2006.
80 Huang Chenglong 黄成龙, Puxi qiangyu yanjiu 蒲溪羌语研究, Minzu Chubanshe, Beijing, 2007.
81 Hofer, T., ‘Is Lhasa Tibetan Sign Language emerging, endangered, or both?’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 245, 2017, pp. 113–45Google Scholar; Deaf Association, Tibet, Bod kyi rgyun spyod lag brda'i tshigs mdzod, Bod ljongs mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Lhasa, 2011.Google Scholar
82 Sun Hongkai 孙宏开, Huang Chenglong 黄成龙, and ’Brug mo mtsho 周毛草, Rouruoyu yanjiu 柔若语研究, Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe, Beijing, 2002.
83 Hongkai, Sun and Guangkun, Liu, A Grammar of Anong: Language Death under Intense Contact, translated, annotated, and supplemented by Fengxiang, Li, Thurgood, E., and Thurgood, G., Brill, Leiden, 2009Google Scholar.
84 Liying, Qin and Suzuki, H., ‘Chasing a cat from the Mekong to the Salween: a geolinguistic description of “cat” in Trung and Khams Tibetan in North-western Yunnan’, Studies in Asian Geolinguistics, vol. 1, 2016, pp. 61–71, https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag1_sun_2016.pdf, [accessed 13 April 2018].Google Scholar
85 See, for example, Sum-bha Don-grub Tshe-ring, Bod skad kyi yul skad rnam shad.
86 On this issue, see Tunzhi (Sonam Lhundrop), ‘Language vitality and glottonyms in the ethnic corridor: the rTa'u language’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 245, 2017, pp. 147–68.
88 However, we do not include the area claimed by China but controlled by India, which they refer to as Zangnan and Arunachal Pradesh, respectively.
89 Although officially identified Tibetan towns and townships do exist (see Appendix 4), these have no role in terms of autonomy.
90 Also within the TAA in Huangnan TAP.
91 Basum was described by Chinese scholars as a Tibetan dialect, but Tournadre (Tournadre, N., ‘L'aire linguistique tibétaine et ses divers dialectes’, Lalies, vol. 25, 2005, pp. 7–56Google Scholar) re-analysed it as a non-Tibetic language that has been heavily influenced by the local Tibetic variety.
92 When this language name is written as it is here, it directly designate one language. However, if it is written in Chinese characters, the situation is confusable because there are two languages designated in one manner of writing.