Himalayan Language Standardization

The Three-Generation Pattern of Language Loss and Standard Tibetan

Written by William Gore

Heritage language use among immigrant communities in the United States usually follows a three-generation pattern, as Alba (2002) writes in “Only English by the Third Generation? Loss and Preservation of the Mother Tongue among the Grandchildren of Contemporary Immigrants,” (467). The first generation, who move to the United States as adults, primarily use their native language in home settings and may or may not reach a high level of English proficiency. Their children generally grow up speaking their parents’ native language at home, but also have native English proficiency. People in this second generation, however, tend to be more comfortable speaking English than their heritage language, “even in conversing with their immigrant parents” (467). These second-generation heritage language speakers thus tend to raise their children in primarily English-speaking environments, meaning that the heritage language is no longer spoken by the third generation. As many different studies report, as synthesized by both Alba (2002) and Garcia (2002) in “New York's multilingualism: World languages and their role in a U.S. city,” this three-generation pattern holds true with little variation for a wide range of languages spoken in the United States and includes languages as distinct from each other as Chinese and Romanian (Alba 472, 474). There are some exceptions to the three-generation pattern: Spanish is more likely to be spoken in the third generation than other languages across the United States, and in New York specifically Chinese is maintained by the second and third generations at a higher rate than other languages (Alba 472, Garcia 15).

This discussion of the three-generation pattern of language loss, however, is based on the assumption that the language community in question uses only one LOTE (Language Other Than English), which is not the case for many immigrant communities in the United States, and New York in particular. Himalayan communities in New York certainly fall into this category: speakers of Sherpa and other languages spoken in Nepal often use Nepali for many types of daily communication. Additionally, speakers of other Tibetic languages, such as Amdo Tibetan and Kham Tibetan, often use a register of modern colloquial Tibetan usually called “Standard Tibetan” to communicate with people from a wide range of Tibetan linguistic backgrounds. The multilingualism prevalent among Himalayan communities in New York City complicates analysis of intergenerational language transmission, necessitating the study of different language registers in use within these communities.

The register often referred to as “Standard Tibetan '' is of particular interest, given that Tibetan is used as a language of oral communication in New York among people who speak many different mutually unintelligible varieties of Tibetan as their native languages. Standard Tibetan as it is used in Tibetan exile communities worldwide is similar to the type of U-Tsang Tibetan spoken in Lhasa, with some characteristics associated with the “Lhasa dialect” rather than the spoken colloquial standard. In “Style and Standardization: A Case Study of Tibetan Family Interaction in Greater New York,” Ward describes the use of several of these sociolinguistic variables that differ between Lhasa Tibetan and Standard Tibetan in the speech of the members of a single family in New York. She identifies Lhasa Tibetan as a regional language, distinguished by its four-tone tonal system, that contrasts with Standard Tibetan as it is spoken in exile by native speakers of various kinds of Tibetan (153). The term “Lhasa Tibetan'' is also often used to describe the form of Tibetan used among speakers of different Tibetan languages in exile, however, especially when it designates that variety in opposition to Amdo Tibetan, Kham Tibetan, or another variety that differs more significantly from Standard Tibetan than the dialect of the city of Lhasa. Sonam Tsering, senior lecturer in Tibetan at Columbia University and a native speaker of Amdo Tibetan, corroborated this view: he uses the terms ``Standard Tibetan” and “Lhasa Tibetan” interchangeably in English, and most frequently refers to the register of modern colloquial Tibetan that he teaches as dbu g.tsang skad (U-tsang speech) when speaking in Tibetan. He does sometimes describe linguistic features unique to Lhasa as features of lhasa skad (Lhasa speech), but also uses the term lha sa skad to refer to Standard Tibetan more broadly.

The apparent contradiction between these two naming systems most likely reflects that Standard Tibetan as it is used in exile is indeed based on how people speak in Lhasa. The large number of speakers of other Tibetan varieties (that lack features such as contrastive tone) who then learn Standard Tibetan may impact the divide between Standard Tibetan and Lhasa Tibetan that Ward describes, especially since one of the identifying features marking Lhasa Tibetan as Ward analyzes it is its tonal system. Due to the widely varying native speakers of its users, Standard Tibetan encompasses a diverse range of language behaviors that contain features of many different Tibetan varieties. Sonam Tsering describes how one reporter for Voice of America’s Tibetan edition speaks in Amdo Tibetan on the air, but modifies it in such a way that it is intelligible to speakers of other Tibetan varieties. While Sonam Tsering still identifies the language of those broadcasts as Amdo Tibetan, it has undergone some kind of standardization process that suggests that, as much as it is a language register in its own right, Standard Tibetan is a set of behaviors that Tibetan speakers use to modify their native regional varieties in order to make themselves understood.

Ward’s case study further shows these behaviors in action: she relates how a Tibetan father in New Jersey gently corrects his daughter’s speech when she uses markers associated with Lhasa Tibetan rather than Standard Tibetan, specifically the nominalizer Ward transcribes as nyen that corresponds to Standard Tibetan mkhan. The father corrects the relatively few differences between the regional variety of Tibetan (in this case of Lhasa) that his daughter speaks as a heritage language in order to bring what she speaks in line with the standard that is used for communication among people who speak different Tibetan varieties. Interestingly, Sonam Tsering’s perspective on the relationship between Lhasa Tibetan and Standard Tibetan again differs from Ward in regards to this nominalizer. While Ward cites the distinction between nyen and mkhan as a difference between Lhasa and Standard Tibetan, in his modern colloquial Tibetan courses Sonam Tsering teaches that the nominalizer written mkhan can be pronounced either as written or as nyen, and that both belong to the standard language (which he refers to most often as dbu g.tsang skad.) It is apparent that perceptions of what Standard Tibetan means vary greatly among speakers, illustrating that the lines between different varieties of Tibetan are fluid and constantly shifting.

Speakers of Himalayan languages in New York often balance the use of at least three languages: English, their heritage language (e.g. Sherpa or Amdo Tibetan), and another language used to communicate more widely within a particular group (e.g. Nepali or Standard Tibetan). Given attitudes like that of the father Ward describes, who wants his daughter to speak Standard Tibetan rather than their heritage dialect, it is possible that the three-generation pattern of language loss functions differently in a Tibetan context, and a Himalayan one more broadly. While second-generation Himalayan language speakers like the daughter in Ward’s case study may not pass on their heritage languages to their children if they stay in the United States, it is possible that their use of Standard Tibetan or Nepali in community-based contexts may provide reasons for them to use those languages of public communication at home. In this way, the unique and complex situation of Tibetan and other Himalayan languages in the United States may create long-term language use outcomes that differ from other languages brought to the United States through immigration.

...