Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros55Mapping Amdo III. Dynamics of Rel...Language endangerment in Amdo. Th...

Mapping Amdo III. Dynamics of Relations and Interaction

Language endangerment in Amdo. The case of the Gansu Bonan

Langue en danger dans l’Amdo. Le cas du Gansu Bonan
Hugh Battye

Résumés

Cet article propose une évaluation sociolinguistique du Bonan du Gansu, une langue mongolique de l’aire linguistique de l’Amdo parlée par une petite minorité musulmane vivant dans le comté de Jishishan, préfecture de Linxia. Les résultats montrent que, bien que la vitalité varie considérablement d’un village à l’autre, la langue dans son ensemble est menacée par l’empiètement du mandarin du nord-ouest. Si les tendances actuelles se poursuivent, la population Bonan finira probablement par s’assimiler à la minorité Hui dominante dans la région, ce qui entraînera une perte de diversité parmi les communautés musulmanes d’Amdo.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

I would like to express my gratitude to the staff of Lanzhou University’s Centre for Studies of Ethnic Groups in Northwest China, and my supervisor, Professor Wu Mu 武沐, in particular, for generously facilitating my research in Jishishan County. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their highly beneficial comments and suggestions, Charlotte Thionois and Isabelle Charleux for their kind and detailed proof reading, and Katia Buffetrille for her warm encouragement all the way through the submission and review process. Soli Deo Gloria.

Introduction

  • 1 Bao’an 保安 is the Mandarin term for the place and the people, while Bonan approximates closer to loc (...)
  • 2 Often referred to as “Mongour” in international scholarship.
  • 3 I use the ethnonym “Bonan Tu” for want of a better label. Other possibilities abound: Tongren Bonan (...)
  • 4 There are also different labels for the two variants: Qinghai/Gansu Bonan, Eastern/Western Bonan, a (...)

1Bonan (Ch. Bao’anyu 保安语; ISO 639-3: peh; Glottocode: bona1250) is a Mongolic language spoken by two distinct communities in the Amdo region: the official Muslim Bonan ethnicity (Ch. Bao’anzu 保安族) of Jishishan 积石山County, Linxia 临夏 Prefecture, Gansu Province, and the Tibetan Buddhist Bonan Tu community in Tongren 同仁 County (Tib. Reb gong), Huangnan 黄南 Prefecture, Qinghai Province. Sharing a common origin as residents of the Four Bao’an Fortresses (Ch. Bao’an si zhaizi 保安四寨子)1 located along Tongren’s Longwu 隆务River Valley, the two communities diverged in the mid-19th century when the Muslim contingent emigrated to their current location in Jishishan (Jian 2006, pp. 81-97; Horlemann 2012, pp. 149-154; Wu & Jia 2013; Taubes 2019, pp. 16-19). Retaining their distinct language, the latter came to be known as the Bao’an Hui 保安回 (i.e. “Bonan Muslims”), before eventually gaining official minority status during the Communist Party’s ethnic classification (Ch. minzu shibie 民族识别) programme in the 1950s. The remaining Bonan speakers in Tongren were classified as part of the larger Tu ethnicity (Tuzu 土族)2, which today has a total population of 281 928 (National Bureau of Statistics of China 2021), divided linguistically into two major variants, Mongghul in Huzhu County, and Mangghuer in Minhe County (both in Qinghai). However, the Bonan Tu3 feel little affinity with the other Tu communities, largely self-identifying as Tibetans, and their language is defined as the Qinghai variant of Bonan (Xi 1986; Wang 2009b; Janhunen 2007; Li & Dwyer 2020)4. Today the Bonan Tu number around 7 000, and are chiefly situated in the four villages of Nianduhu 年都乎 (Tib. Gnyan thog), Guomari 郭麻日 (Tib. Sgo dmar), Gasari 尕撒日 (Tib. Rka gsar), and Lower Bao’an 保安下庄 (Tib. Tho skya bod skor) in Tongren (Battye 2019, p. 165; Roche & Lcag Mo Tshe Ring 2013), while the official Bonan ethnicity has a total population of 24 434 (National Bureau of Statistics of China 2021), centred on various Jishishan villages including Dadun 大墩, Meipo 梅坡, Ganhetan 甘河滩, Gaoli 高李, Xiaojia 肖家 and Xietao 斜套 (see figs 1-2). Despite its status as an official language in Gansu (though not in Qinghai), Bonan is unsupported by the state; it also lacks an orthography and its relatively low number of speakers in both provinces make it susceptible to language shift and endangerment.

Figure 1. Regional Map showing Bonan and Bonan Tu areas

Figure 1. Regional Map showing Bonan and Bonan Tu areas

© www.weather-forecast.com, with additional text and symbols by Hugh Battye

Figure 2. Local map showing the villages of the Bonan and Bonan Tu (not to scale)

Figure 2. Local map showing the villages of the Bonan and Bonan Tu (not to scale)

© Hugh Battye, previously published in Chinese in Battye 2020

2While various scholars have conducted linguistic and sociolinguistic analyses of both Bonan varieties (see below), a broad sociolinguistic assessment of language vitality across the Gansu Bonan-speaking villages has not yet been produced. This article, based on survey work in 2012 and 2013 as well as on subsequent ethnographic fieldwork, seeks to fill that gap, providing a general overview of the status of the language in Gansu as a basis for further work by linguists, other scholars or policymakers.

Theoretical background

Measuring language endangerment

3There have been a number of scales used to assess language vitality or endangerment, of which four of the most important ones are Fishman’s (1991) Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS), UNESCO’s language vitality assessment framework (Brenzinger et al. 2003), Ethnologue’s Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS) (Lewis & Simons 2010) and the Catalogue of Endangered Languages (ELCat)’s Language Endangerment Index (LEI) (Lee & Van Way 2016). GIDS was one of the pioneering scales, an eight levels “Richter”-like gradation emphasising intergenerational transmission and domains of use as the important factors in language vitality. Lewis and Simons built their model on GIDS, expanding Fishman’s scale to thirteen levels, and basing their assessment of a language on five key factors (see tables 1, 3). The UNESCO framework sought to move beyond the use of a single “score” to assess a language’s vitality by making use of different scales for nine influencing factors, stating that “none of these factors should be used alone” (Brenzinger et al. 2003, p. 7, emphasis original; see table 3). However, in practice the “Degree of Endangerment” scale shown on UNESCO’s World Atlas of Languages website is solely based on the first factor, “Intergenerational Language Transmission” (Moseley 2010, pp. 11-12); Lewis and Simons regard this factor as the most salient of UNESCO’s nine (Lewis & Simons 2010, p. 107) and use it for direct comparison with their EGIDS categories (see table 1). Lee & Van Way agree with Brenzinger et al. that multiple factors should not be lumped together into one, and yet critique the UNESCO framework for not being designed in such a way that an overall score can be ascertained for comparison with other languages. They also highlight a problem common to all attempts at scaling language vitality, namely the lack of detailed information on a large portion of the world’s languages (Lee & Van Way 2016, pp. 276-277). Taking these issues into account, ELCat’s LEI model bases a language’s assessment on up to four factors (intergenerational transmission, absolute number of speakers, speaker number trends, and domains of use), aggregating them into one score, while adding an additional “certainty” scale depending on which and how many factors are known with sufficient confidence to be used in the calculation (Lee & Van Way 2016, pp. 278-286; see tables 7-8 below). These latter three internationally used scales each contain a level for Bonan: EGIDS – 6b, Threatened (Eberhard et al. 2023); UNESCO – 3, Definitely Endangered (equivalent to EGIDS level 7 (Shifting) according to Lewis and Simons’ comparison) (UNESCO 2021); and LEI – Threatened at 40 percent certainty (Catalogue of Endangered Languages 2023a, 2023b). However, neither the Ethnologue nor UNESCO’s World Atlas of Languages differentiates between Gansu and Qinghai Bonan, and, for example, the sources on the ElCat website are around 20 years old. The following analysis seeks tentatively to confirm or update the results on these sites.

Table 1. Lewis and Simons’ comparison of their Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS) with UNESCO’s Degree of Endangerment Scale (taken from Lewis & Simons 2010, p. 110, courtesy of the editorial board of Revue Roumaine de Linguistique)

Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale

LEVEL

LABEL

DESCRIPTION

UNESCO

0

International

The language is used internationally for a broad range of functions.

Safe

1

National

The language is used in education, work, mass media, government at the nationwide level.

Safe

2

Regional

The language is used for local and regional mass media and governmental services.

Safe

3

Trade

The language is used for local and regional work by both insiders and outsiders.

Safe

4

Educational

Literacy in the language is being transmitted through a system of public education.

Safe

5

Written

The language is used orally by all generations and is effectively used in written form in parts of the community.

Safe

6a

Vigorous

The language is used orally by all generations and is being learned by children as their first language.

Safe

6b

Threatened

The language is used orally by all generations, but only some of the child-bearing generation are transmitting it to their children.

Vulnerable

7

Shifting

The child-bearing generation knows the language well enough to use it among themselves, but none are transmitting it to their children

Definitely Endangered

8a

Moribund

The only remaining active speakers of the language are members of the grandparent generation.

Severely Endangered

8b

Nearly Extinct

The only remaining speakers of the language are members of the grandparent generation or older who have little opportunity to use the language.

Critically Endangered

9

Dormant

The language serves as a reminder of heritage identity for an ethnic community. No one has more than symbolic proficiency.

Extinct

10

Extinct

No one retains a sense of ethnic identity associated with the language, even for symbolic purposes.

Extinct

4At the same time as these scales have been developed, scholars have questioned the reliance on quantitative analysis in the whole field of endangered language assessment and advocacy; for example, Dobrin et al. (2009, p. 41) claim that the comparison and ranking of languages according to official degrees of endangerment reduce the prioritisation of language documentation to a “numbers game”, while Hill (2002, pp. 127-128) argues that enumeration essentialises and individualises a language as a discrete unit, despite the acknowledged arbitrary nature of language and dialect classification (see also Mühlhäusler 1996, pp. 2-8). In her response to Lee and Van Way (2016), Grenoble (2016) highlights three problems with assessing language vitality through enumeration: commodification of the language (cf. Heller 2003; Dobrin et al. 2009), the challenges involved in classifying the number of speakers (cf. Moore et al. 2010; Jaffe 2007, p. 68; see also Tsunoda 2006, pp. 117-133 for an overview of various speaker classification proposals) and the general point of reducing “complex social dynamics to a single number or a set of numbers” (Grenoble 2016, pp. 293-294). She shows how “[a]ggregate measures assume a homogeneity across speech communities that does not exist”, citing examples from Russia where vitality varies from region to region, between urban and rural settings, and from village to village (ibid., p. 296). Other scholars are more positive towards the endangerment scales and quantitative approaches while not denying their limitations (Bradley & Bradley 2019, pp. 14-29; Gomashie & Terborg 2021; Bromham et al. 2020, Bromham et al. 2022). In the 2023 volume Endangered Languages in the 21st Century (Derhemi & Moseley), which takes an optimistic view of language revitalisation efforts using examples from around the world, various contributors promote community-based approaches alongside the use of surveys and scales, in order to produce more holistic results and cooperative strategies for maintenance (see Drude et al. 2023, pp. 21-40; Lewis 2023, pp. 105-118; Bradley 2023, pp. 119-125; Haboud & Ortega 2023, pp. 284-302). In Western China specifically, Roche (2014) uses UNESCO’s nine factors to provide an overview of the outlook for cultural Tibet’s minority languages, and Roche (2014) and Roche & Suzuki (2018) make extensive use of EGIDS in assessing the vitality of the region’s individual languages. Dwyer (2011) assesses three Tibeto-Burman languages (Amdo Tibetan, Wutun and Sanie) according to both UNESCO’s nine factors and EGIDS, preferring the former over the latter, and arguing that such a broader evaluation enables the researcher to pinpoint and act on specific problematic areas. While the present study does produce “scores” according to the three scales, it also combines the quantitative analysis with qualitative data by utilising the various factors used in the three frameworks, analysing the variability across different villages, and including ethnographic data from field research, in order to produce a holistic picture of Gansu Bonan’s sociolinguistic status.

Sociolinguistic context

5The Bonan are situated in northwest China’s Amdo sprachbund, also known as the Qinghai-Gansu sprachbund or other variants, and which contains around fifteen different linguistic entities within four major language families: Sinitic, Bodic, Mongolic and Turkic (Dwyer 1995; Slater 2003, pp. 6-9, 2021; Janhunen 2007, pp. 85-87). Within such a cultural and linguistic milieu, the various languages have undergone profound mutual interaction, resulting in “Altaicization (of the local varieties of Chinese), Tibetanization (of the local varieties of Turkic and Mongolic, and some varieties of Chinese), as well as […] Sinicization (of some of the local varieties of Mongolic” (Janhunen 2015, p. 122). Specifically, the two Bonan varieties have developed separately according to their respective linguistic environments, with the result that the Qinghai variant shows strong contact effect with Amdo Tibetan (Xi 1986, p. 63; Fried 2010, p. 15), while the Gansu variant has received heavy Sinitic and Sinophone Islamic influences (Xi 1986, p. 63; Li & Dwyer 2020, pp. 3-4). At a broader level, Bonan can be classed as a minority language of cultural Tibet, which Roche & Suzuki define as all languages spoken in Tibetan regions that are “not ‘Tibetan’ or ‘Chinese’” (2018, p. 1238; see also Roche 2014). In this context, the two Bonan varieties face differing, yet related challenges. Qinghai Bonan, as an unrecognised language within a Tibetan prefecture, faces the encroachment of a “hegemonically imagined single Tibetan language” (Roche 2022, p. 15), where a drive for “purity” in Tibetan is not only promoted by state ethnic (Ch. minzu 民族) definitions, but supported by Tibetan elites at home and abroad in juxtaposition to Han Chinese dominance (Thurston 2018; Roche 2019b; see also Tso & Turin 2019). While the Gansu Bonan have the advantage of being an official minzu, and are located just outside the Tibetan hegemonic sphere, their language is in practice unsupported by the state, and due to the linguistic and cultural dominance of the regional Sinophone Muslims, they in fact also face the threat of “Huiification” (i.e. that of losing any distinctiveness from the wider Northwest Mandarin-speaking Hui Muslim community) in a similar way to how the Bonan Tu are facing “Tibetanisation” (Battye 2019).

6One factor contributing to the assimilatory pressures facing both communities is a lack of written or oral representation in their language. Neither the Qinghai nor the Gansu variety of Bonan has an official or unofficial orthography (Li & Dwyer 2020, p. 4), and in this respect too they face a somewhat parallel situation. In Qinghai, romanised scripts have been developed for Mongghul as well as Mangghuer Tu (Li 1988; Fried 2010, pp. 5-6; Slater 2003, p. 10; Limusishiden & Dede 2012, p. 106), but they have not, to my knowledge, been utilised in the Bonan Tu context. Likewise, a Latin orthography has been approved and utilised for the linguistically related Dongxiang ethnicity (Ch. Dongxiangzu 东乡族) (Slater 2003, p. 6), yet it has not been adapted for use among the Gansu Bonan. Due to the divergence of the two Bonan-speaking communities, both in terms of religion and of official ethnic classification, there has been no proposal for a comprehensive orthography for use in both variants. In terms of the media domain, all provincial and prefectural television stations broadcast in Mandarin (Jishishan), or Mandarin and Amdo Tibetan (Tongren) (Yefenghaiyun-Awei 2023; Qinghai sheng guangbo dianshiju chuanmei jigou guanlichu 2022), and internet and social media platforms are also dominated by Mandarin Chinese. In contrast, neither variety of Bonan has much opportunity for expansion into new forms of media, apart from the use of voice messaging or the uploading of recorded videos on social media, both of which would only reach a limited audience. In sum, such a lack of written and oral representation adds to the marginalisation of both varieties of Bonan, as they are crowded out in these domains by the regionally dominant written and broadcast languages of Mandarin Chinese and Amdo Tibetan.

Bonan language classification and previous research

7The 19th-century Russian ethnographer Grigorij Potanin was the first to use the title “Shirongol” to describe the “settled Mongols in Amdo” as distinct from the Mongols of the plateau (Potanin [1893] 2014); linguists have subsequently classified Bonan, along with Santa (Dongxiang), Mongghul and Mangghuer as the “Shirongolic” complex of Southeastern Mongolic (Janhunen et al. 2007, p. 180; Fried 2010, p. 2; Li & Dwyer 2020, p. 4). B. X. Todaeva’s 1966 grammar of Bonan, based on fieldwork conducted as part of the Sino-Russian linguistic expedition (1955-1956), established the similarity between the two variants (Janhunen et al. 2007, p. 180), and in subsequent decades Chinese and international scholars have produced grammatical sketches and lexicons of both Qinghai and Gansu Bonan. In Qinghai, Chen Naixiong and Činggeltei (Ch. transcription Qingge’ertai)’s research in the 1980s produced a lexicon (Chen 1986), text materials (Chen 1987) and a comparison of Bonan and Mongolian (Chen & Qingge’ertai 1987); Xi (1986) also produced a phonetic and grammatical overview. In English, Chuluu (1994) published a summary of Chen 1986, Chen 1987 and Chen & Qingge’ertai 1987; Wu (2003) provided an overview and grammatical sketch, and Fried (2010) produced a grammar as his doctoral dissertation. Chen Naixiong’s later articles focused on Bonan more generally, including research on the Gansu variant and comparisons of the two (1990a, 1990b, 1995a, 1995b, 1995c).

8Based in Dahejia 大河家 for his field research, Todaeva focused primarily on Gansu Bonan; as well as his 1966 grammar, which included language materials and a lexicon, he also produced two smaller grammar sketches (1963, 1997). In the 1980s Buhe & Liu provided a grammatical sketch of Gansu Bonan based on fieldwork in Dadun Village (1982), and Charles Li published a number of English articles on language change and contact in the region, including the influence of Hezhou 河州 Chinese on Bonan (1986). Hua Kan (1992) also provided a summary of Tibetan loan words in Gansu Bonan. In recent years phonetic studies in Gansu have been undertaken by Ma (2015), Degejihu et al. (2014) and Degejihu et al. (2015), and three dictionaries have been produced: Mo & Zhang 2008 (Bonan-Chinese/English), Ma & Satō 2016 (Bonan-Chinese), and Li & Dwyer 2020 (Bonan-English/Chinese), the latter based on Li’s field research in the 1980s. This brief summary shows that a reasonable amount of research has been undertaken in both Tongren and Jishishan; however, Li and Dwyer still conclude that “both varieties of the Bonan language remain under-described” (2020, p. 5).

9There have been fewer sociolinguistic surveys conducted among the two communities. In Tongren, Wang Yuanxin conducted surveys in Nianduhu and Lower Bao’an villages (Wang 2009a, 2009b) concluding that though Bonan was relatively maintained within the home and village domains, language transmission was starting to weaken across generations. Roche and Lcag Mo Tshe Ring (2013) show how all religious rituals in Nianduhu Village are conducted in Tibetan, contributing to the marginalisation of Bonan, and Roche’s (2019a) sociolinguistic analysis confirms that language shift is occurring, although at different rates between villages. Through interviews conducted with individuals from various Jishishan villages, Jian Zhixiang concluded that Gansu Bonan was spoken relatively infrequently there by the younger generation, although the language was maintained to a greater degree in Ganhetan compared to other villages (2006, pp. 352-360). Bai’s (2019) cross-village survey highlighted the relative importance of Bonan-speaking mothers compared with fathers in transmitting the language to the next generation. Both based on research in Dadun, Ying (2006) described Bonan as lacking in vitality and Yang (2010, pp. 52-55) placed the language between level 3 (“Definitely Endangered”) and 2 (“Severely Endangered”) on the UNESCO scale. Satō Nobuharu (2006) summarised the sociolinguistic situation in the five villages which have historically had significant Bonan-speaking populations (see table 2); however, he did not provide village by village data to support his conclusions. The following survey builds on the sociolinguistic work already conducted for the Gansu Bonan, and, in particular, tests Satō’s conclusions against data from the five villages.

Table 2. Satō’s (2006, courtesy of Gansu renmin chubanshe) assessment of Gansu Bonan endangerment levels by village (author’s translation; for the original, see his article)

Danger Level

Bonan Village

1. Relative to other villages, the influence of the Chinese language is not as strong.

Dadun Village
大墩村

2. Strongly influenced by the Chinese language.

Ganhetan Village
甘河滩村

3. Most people do not speak Bonan, or speak very simple Bonan.

Gaoli Village
高李村

4. Bonan is not spoken.

Xiaojia Village
肖家村
Xietao Village
斜套村

Methodology

10Table 3 shows the factors utilised in the three global language endangerment frameworks which provide a level for Bonan, together with a combined summary list of ten factors, taking into account the overlaps between them. In order to update or confirm the levels given on the scales, the ten factors will be analysed, based on a sociolinguistic survey conducted across Satō’s five villages in 2012 and 2013, as well as ethnographic data gained from subsequent field research in the area.

Table 3. Factors utilised in the EGIDS, UNESCO and LEI’s respective endangerment frameworks (from Lewis & Simons 2010; Brenzinger et al. 2003; Lee & Van Way 2016), with a combined list of ten factors taking into account the overlaps

Factor

EGIDS

UNESCO

LEI

Combined

1

Identity function (domain)

Intergenerational language transmission

Intergenerational transmission

Intergenerational transmission

2

Level of Official Use

Absolute number of speakers

Absolute number of speakers

Absolute number of speakers

3

State of intergenerational language transmission

Proportion of speakers within the total population

Speaker number trends (whether increasing or decreasing)

Proportion of speakers

4

Literacy

status

Trends in existing language domains

Domains of use

Speaker number trends

5

Youngest generation of proficient speakers

Response to new domains and media

Domains of use and trends

6

Materials for language education and literacy

Language attitudes

7

Governmental and institutional language attitudes and policies, including official status and use

Literary status

8

Community members’ attitudes towards their own language

Response to new domains and media

9

Amount and quality of documentation

Government policies/official status and use

10

Amount and quality of documentation

  • 5 Meipo, an important Bonan village and by most accounts one of the so-called “Three Villages” (see f (...)

11In January 2012 and February 2013, I conducted language surveys in the five Jishishan villages with significant Bonan-speaking populations: Dadun, Ganhetan, Gaoli, Xiaojia and Xietao5. Interviewees were approached through convenience sampling (Buchstaller & Khattab 2014, p. 76), and asked four simple questions with multiple-choice answers concerning language use, ability and attitudes (table 4). A total number of 284 individuals were interviewed from the five villages, each of which had estimated Bonan populations ranging from 800 to 2 100, and the results were stratified according to three age groups: under twenty-one, twenty-one to forty, and over forty (Buchstaller & Khattab 2014, pp. 78-79). One drawback in the sample is that it only included males, which was due to ease of access. I undertook the surveys prior to my periods living and conducting ethnographic research in the villages, and as an individual male outsider, I found it hard to gain access to the women, particularly those who were already married. By contrast, the men were much more visible in the community, gathering and socialising outside, having returned from work or school over the Chinese New Year period. Without an adequate number of female interviewees for equal representation, I decided to concentrate only on males for consistency across age groups and between villages. A further problem was that communication was easier with younger interviewees, who could read characters and were proficient in standard Mandarin, in comparison with the elder members of the community who were more likely to claim that they could not understand the interview questions. The age stratification was thus skewed towards younger ages, with only one age group represented for all those over forty. Given these issues, as well as the subjectivity involved in self-professed language use, and ability, the results should be regarded as tentative, and subject to further confirmatory research. However they are generally supported by qualitative observation, as discussed below.

Table 4. Questions on language use, ability and attitudes in the author’s 2012-2013 Gansu Bonan language survey

1

In what situation do you speak Bonan?

Always

Usually with relations, friends and neighbours

Only at home

I generally don’t speak it

2

How would you describe your Bonan language ability?

Fluent

Relatively fluent

OK

I can speak a little

I can’t speak it

3

You believe the Bonan language will:

Quickly die out

Slowly die out

Continue to survive

4

As far as you’re concerned, protecting the Bonan language:

Is a very important mission

Is a relatively important mission

Is not very important

Is not important at all

  • 6 The so-called Three Bonan Villages (Bao’an san zhuang 保安三庄), held up to represent the heartland of (...)

12In 2013 and 2015 respectively, I lived for a number of weeks with local families in two of the five villages: Ganhetan, a predominantly ethnically Bonan village and one of the traditional “Three Villages”6, and Xiaojia, a mixed village with Han (Ch. Hanzu 汉族) , Hui (Ch. Huizu 回族), and Salar (Ch. Salazu 撒拉族), as well as Bonan residents. The ethnographic data gained from these villages will be discussed, complementing the survey work, and giving a broader picture of the situation in the area. Specifically, qualitative data from Ganhetan can, with some modifications, be applied to Dadun and Gaoli, which are also predominantly Bonan villages, and data from Xiaojia applied to Xietao, another mixed village. Finally, the individual village results will be summarised in an amended version of Satō’s table, and Gansu Bonan as a whole will then be assessed using the three endangerment scales, confirming or questioning the current ascribed levels and drawing a general conclusion about the status of the language.

Results by village

Ganhetan (population = 2 086; total number of interviewees = 62)

  • 7 For the sources of the statistics for Ganhetan and the other villages see Appendix 1.

13The results suggest that out of all the villages, the language is most well preserved in Ganhetan7. Intergenerational transmission is occurring within the village, with 17 out of 20 respondents (85%) in the youngest age bracket stating that they utilised the language at least in the home domain, and the same number claiming that their Bonan ability was between “OK” and “fluent”. The corresponding statistics for those in the over forty group were 18 out of 19 (95%) and 19 out of 19 (100%) respectively. Across all age groups, 60 out of a total of 62 interviewees (97%) claimed to have at least some ability in the language, while 55 out of 62 (89%) utilised the language at least in the home domain. However, subtracting from the last figure the 19 individuals who used the language “only at home” leaves only 36 out of 62 respondents (58%) utilising the language in other domains. This more challenging situation outside the home environment is demonstrated by the following ethnographic data relating to the Ganhetan villagers’ educational, work, and religious domains.

Education

14As an unsupported language with no orthography, Bonan is not utilised to any formal degree in Ganhetan primary school. In addition, due to the fact that the teachers are rotated in from other areas, they will not necessarily be Bonan speakers themselves and will thus use Northwest Mandarin for general communication with pupils. Finally, the official drive within the educational system to encourage standard Mandarin pronunciation (Ch. putonghua 普通话, “common speech”) further marginalises Bonan as a third-level language below standard and Northwest Mandarin. From Middle School upwards, the pupils will move to Dahejia Township or further afield, where they will mix predominantly with non Bonan speakers, only returning to the village at weekends and in the holidays; hence, from then on, communicating in their mother tongue will become a less regular feature of their everyday lives.

Farming, labour and trade

15The local farming environment, where small plots of land are distributed by household, is largely Bonan speaking, but apart from harvest time, when wider family members often return to help, this context will not include working aged men, who go away for labour (Ch. da gong 打工) for months in a year. In the latter case, while this brings the men out of a general Bonan-speaking environment, the fact that labour for work projects is regularly undertaken by syndicates of villagers still enables opportunities for the language to be utilised informally. During the slower winter months, many of the men return to the village, and during that season some villagers take the opportunity to expand or renovate their courtyard homes (Ch. siheyuan 四合院). The work is done on the basis of reciprocity, as relations and neighbours assist each other with the expectation that the favour will be returned in due course. These and other social contexts continue to provide strong Bonan-speaking environments within the community.

16In 2013 there was a small grocery shop in the centre of the village; however, the vast majority of purchases and trade took place in Dahejia Township, where the language of communication was Northwest Mandarin. In addition to those going away to work for periods of time, other villagers set up businesses in Dahejia or further afield, rarely returning to live in their houses or farm their fields. As more villagers move to the local and regional towns to live and work, the Bonan language is likely to become harder to maintain, even in a currently relatively vital environment such as Ganhetan.

Religion

  • 8 Gaoli is in fact an administrative village (Ch. xingzhengcun 行政村) covering two “natural villages” ( (...)
  • 9 With the exceptions of the “Night of Power” during Ramadan, and the Prophet’s birthday (Ch. Sheng j (...)

17In the village mosque, Arabic and Northwest Mandarin are used in worship and sermons, and, similar to teachers, imams are often rotated in from outside. In 2013, the imam was a Hui from another area, and most of his resident mosque students were also not Bonan. Friday prayers and other large ceremonial events are conducted in the central mosque in Dahejia, where worshippers are ethnically mixed, including Hui, Salar and Dongxiang, as well as Bonan Muslims. This, however, is counterbalanced by the fact that a high proportion of Ganhetan households are members of the Gaozhaojia 高赵家Sufi order (Ch. menhuan门宦), a small and close-knit community founded by a Bonan in the early 20th century. Between the worship and festivities at the gongbei 拱北 (“tomb”, i.e. Sufi shrine), which is located in Gaoli Village8, and the prayers for the dead (Ch. haiting 亥听) ceremonies held in individual homes, the Gaozhaojia menhuan provides a regular space where Bonan is used for communication among the villagers. Further, unlike the mosque environment, which is almost exclusively male9, events at the gongbei as well as haiting ceremonies are mixed, providing a Bonan-speaking context for both men and women, as well as for children.

Summary: Ganhetan

18Overall, the results show that the Bonan language is relatively well preserved in Ganhetan. It is being transmitted intergenerationally to a high degree, and it is in active use within the home and local environment. Furthermore, language attitudes are also very positive across all age groups, with 42 out of 62 respondents (68%) stating that they believed that Bonan would “continue to survive” and 58 respondents (94%) claiming that protecting the language was either a “highly important” or a “relatively important” mission. On the other hand, however, speaking domains outside the immediate home and village context show more of a mixed picture, and the regional dominance of Northwest Mandarin still presents a strong challenge to the language’s ongoing maintenance, particularly as villagers continue to move away for periods of time, or even permanently, to pursue educational or work opportunities.

Dadun (population = 2 100; total number of interviewees = 69)

19Although Bonan is spoken by all age groups in Dadun, and outside as well as inside the home, there is evidence of diminished use in the youngest generation: 13 out of 31 respondents (42%) under twenty-one years old stated that they “generally don’t speak it”, compared with 2 out of 18 (11%) in the over forty age bracket. Furthermore, only 20 out of 31 respondents (64%) from the youngest age group claimed to have an ability in Bonan been “OK” and “fluent”, compared with 17 out of 18 (94%) for the oldest group. Across all age groups, 65 out of a total of 69 interviewees (94%) claimed to have at least some grasp of Bonan, while 51 respondents (74%) were utilising the language at least in the home. Similar to Ganhetan, the Dadun villagers held highly positive attitudes towards the language: 38 out of a total of 69 respondents (55%) stated they believed that Bonan would “continue to survive”, while 67 (97%) regarded protecting the language as either a “highly important” or a “relatively important” mission.

  • 10 Mandarin, Yatou 崖头; here I follow the local pronunciation.
  • 11 90 percent according to Gou 2005, p. 34.

20In terms of specific domains of use, the observations in Ganhetan can be broadly applied in Dadun. Bonan is still widely spoken in the home, the village and in local farm or building work, but children in the primary school face the same situation as in Ganhetan, and education from middle school level up, as well as work, takes most villagers away from a Bonan-speaking environment. The situation at the village mosque is similar to Ganhetan; furthermore, since the great majority of Dadun villagers belong to the Naitou10 Sufi menhuan11, a much larger mixed-ethnic order, the religious domain as a whole is dominated by Arabic and Northwest Mandarin. Overall, while Bonan is being maintained to a certain degree in Dadun, the encroachment of Northwest Mandarin is starting to affect the vitality of the language across the generations.

Gaoli (population = 1 856; total number of interviewees = 52)

21Bonan is still spoken in Gaoli, both in the home and other domains, but there is clear evidence of decreasing speaker trends. While 17 out of 19 (89%) of those over forty claimed a level of Bonan between “OK” and “fluent”, the corresponding figures for the youngest age group was only 5 out of 13 (38%), while 8 out of 13 (62%) in the youngest bracket stated that they “generally don’t speak it”. Across all ages, 50 out of a total of 52 interviewees (96%) claimed to have some grasp of the language, and 38 respondents (73%) were utilising Bonan at least in the home. Language attitudes were again positive; while slightly more interviewees believed that Bonan would “slowly die out” (27, or 52%) than would “continue to survive” (25, or 48%), a total of 48 respondents (92%) claimed that protecting the Bonan language was either a “highly important” or a “relatively important” mission.

  • 12 Estimate calculated from Ma 2018, pp. 30-31. Gedimu (from Arabic qadim, “old”) is the name for the (...)

22Bonan in Gaoli faces similar challenges to Ganhetan and Dadun in the educational, work and business domains. The situation is heightened by the fact that the village lies on the main road and is in close proximity to Liuji Township (see fig. 2). Gaoli has a higher proportion of well-educated government officials than do other villages, with many members living and working away from home. In the religious domain, Gaozhaojia gongbei, which is located in the village, does continue to provide a strong Bonan-speaking environment for the majority who belong to the order; however, an estimated 45 percent of Muslim households in the village belong to the Naitou menhuan or the traditional non-Sufi Gedimu 格底目12, neither of which provide as much opportunity as Gaozhaojia for utilising the language.

Xiaojia (Bonan population = 799 out of 2 793 residents; total number of interviewees = 48)

23Compared with the previous villages, in Xiaojia, there was a marked drop in both language use and ability across all ages, particularly the middle group, where 11 out of 16 respondents (69%) stated that they “generally don’t speak” Bonan, as did over half (7 out of 13) of those in the lower age bracket. While the older age bracket had the highest professed language ability, with nearly half (9 out of 19) respondents claiming that they were “fluent”, a similar proportion (8 out of 19, or 42%) stated that they couldn’t speak Bonan or that they could only “speak a little”. Of all those under forty, only 10 out of 29 respondents (34%) professed to have a Bonan ability of between “OK” and “fluent”, suggesting intergenerational disruption is well underway. Across all age groups, 33 out of a total of 48 interviewees (69%) professed some ability in the language, and 22 respondents (46%) were utilising the language at least in the home domain. Language attitudes were again positive, with 27 out of 48 interviewees (56%) believing that Bonan would “continue to survive” and a total of 44 respondents (92%) stating that protecting the language was either “highly important” or “relatively important”.

Mixed village, mixed marriages

  • 13 In addition, most Xiaojia Muslims, including the Bonan, are members of either Naitou or the Gedimu, (...)
  • 14 “Grandma”, as I knew her.
  • 15 In Jishishan, these historically took the particular form that smaller minorities such as the Bonan (...)
  • 16 In addition to the official four, there is also a small community of Muslim Kangjia 康家speakers in J (...)
  • 17 The actual term they used was “Lao Huasi” 老花寺, a common name in the area for Gedimu.

24The Bonan language in Xiaojia faces all the issues discussed above; in addition it is also up against two other challenges. Firstly, the Bonan represent a minority population of 799 within a village of 2 793 residents; hence, beyond the small community of Bonan speakers, all intra-village activities are conducted in Northwest Mandarin (as well as Arabic in the mosque13). The second is the prevalence of mixed ethnic marriages, of which my host family in 2015 serve as an example. My landlord, Ma Haibi 马海比, was from a Hui family which had originated from Shaanxi Province, and while my landlady, “Nainai” 奶奶14, was from a Bonan-speaking family, she had grown up in Chuimatan 吹麻滩, the town which is now the Jishishan county seat, and thus out of a Bonan-speaking environment. Owing to the influence of the county’s minority preferential treatment policies15, their son Yinusi 伊努斯had “Bonan” ethnic status, but did not speak the language. Such a mixed ethnic marriage arrangement (within the wider Muslim community) was common and uncontroversial. As a further example, Ma Haibi’s younger brother, who also lived in Xiaojia, was married to a Salar woman, and, again, as a result of the minority preferential treatment policies, they had given their three children Salar ethnic status. When I visited them in 2015 the daughter had married a Bonan, and one of the sons had married a Dongxiang (the second son was unmarried); hence, within one family, all four of the Gansu-Qinghai Muslim ethnicities (Hui, Dongxiang, Salar and Bonan) were represented16. They communicated in Northwest Mandarin and the common factor uniting them, as they told me, was that they all belonged to the Gedimu17. This total dominance of religious over ethnic identity was commonplace in the region, demonstrated by the fact that suitable marriage partners were invariably assessed on the basis, firstly, of whether they were a Muslim (or willing to convert to Islam), and, secondly, whether they were members of the right denomination (or, more commonly, not members of particular “wrong” denominations). By contrast, “ethnicity” was regarded as unimportant in this respect, and ethnic exogamy was thus a common practice. Within such a context, the high probability of Xiaojia’s Bonan-speaking residents intermarrying with non Bonan or non Bonan-speaking partners will likely result in increasingly rapid encroachment on the language by Northwest Mandarin.

Xietao (estimated Bonan population = 750; number of interviewees = 53)

25In Xietao the results show a relatively low level of Bonan language use even among the older residents. While just over half (10 out of 19) of respondents in the over-forty age group professed a Bonan ability of between “OK” and “fluent”, 12 out of 19 (63%) in that same category stated that they “generally don’t speak” the language. Across all age groups, 42 out of a total of 53 interviewees (79%) professed some level of ability, but only 16 out of 53 respondents (30%) were using the language at least in the home domain. Language attitudes were relatively positive, with 31 respondents (58%) believing that Bonan would “continue to survive” and a total of 43 respondents (81%) claiming that protecting the language was either “highly important” or “relatively important”.

26As a small population in a mixed village, the Xietao Bonan face a similar challenge in maintaining their language as do those from Xiaojia. In addition, while all the other villages and most other pockets of Bonan speakers are within the adjacent Dahejia and Liuji townships, Xietao is about a fourteen-kilometre drive away from Liuji, and located relatively close to Chuimatan (see fig. 2). Within such an isolated context, language shift towards Northwest Mandarin is already occurring at a rapid pace, and Bonan is in danger of eventually dying out in the village.

Summary of village results

27Overall, the results indicate clear disparities between villages. In Ganhetan, the Bonan language is still relatively well preserved across the generations, and utilised within the home and beyond. In Dadun and Gaoli, while the language is still being transmitted, and is also utilised outside the home, use and ability are decreasing generationally. In Xiaojia and Xietao, use is largely restricted to the home and there is evidence of advanced language shift. My results thus agree with Jian 2006 (against Satō 2006) in placing Ganhetan above Dadun in vitality, and I am also more optimistic than Satō about the status of Gansu Bonan across the five villages as a whole. Table 5 gives my amended version of Satō’s table, based on these results.

Table 5. Assessment of Gansu Bonan endangerment levels by village, based on the survey results, compared with Satō’s (2006) original assessment

Satō’s (2006) assessment

Revised assessment based on survey results

Danger Level

Bonan Village

Danger Level

Bonan Village

1. Relative to other villages, the influence of the Chinese language is not as strong.

Dadun Village
大墩村

1. Relative to other villages, the language is relatively well preserved, across generations and outside the home

Ganhetan Village
甘河滩村

2. Strongly influenced by the Chinese language.

Ganhetan Village
甘河滩村

2. The language is being transmitted intergenerationally and utilised outside the home, but use and ability are decreasing

Dadun Village
大墩村

3. Most people do not speak Bonan, or speak very simple Bonan.

Gaoli
Village
高李村

3. Clear evidence of decreasing speaker trends across domains

Gaoli
Village
高李村

4. Bonan is not spoken.

Xiaojia Village
肖家村

Xietao Village
斜套村

4. Most people under 40 don’t utilise the language regularly

Xiaojia Village
肖家村

5. Most of the population don’t utilise the language regularly

Xietao Village
斜套村

Combined Results

  • 18 Ethnologue has an estimate of 6 000 Jishishan speakers (Eberhard et al. 2023, based on Shearer & Su (...)
  • 19 Despite its importance as a factor in the UNESCO framework, the proportion of speakers is not a ver (...)

28Bringing these results together and setting them within the general sociolinguistic context discussed above, I tentatively propose the following conclusions for the status of Gansu Bonan according to the ten common factors from the three endangerment frameworks (see table 3): 1. The language is still being transmitted to the youngest generation, but use and ability are reducing generationally to varying degrees across the villages; 2. Adding up the village populations of Dadun, Ganhetan and Gaoli with the Bonan populations in Xiaojia and Xietao gives a total of around 7 500, which may be taken as a maximum estimate of Gansu Bonan speakers as a whole, since the fact that not everyone in these villages and communities speaks the language is counterbalanced by the existence of individual and pockets of speakers in other towns and villages not included in the survey18; 3. Out of a total Bonan population of 24 434, this gives a speaker proportion of less than one in three19; 4. While speaker numbers are reasonably maintained in Ganhetan, varying degrees of decreased use and ability across generations in the other villages suggest that overall speaker numbers are gradually diminishing; 5. The language is used in the home, village, agricultural and, in the case of Ganhetan and Gaoli, religious domains, but the trends are negative and in some areas it is already reduced mainly to the home; 6. Language attitudes are very positive, but without external input it is hard to see how this can be translated into language maintenance; 7. There is no orthography nor any current plans to develop one; 8. There is no current mechanism by which Bonan could expand into new domains or media; 9. The language is official, though unsupported by the state; 10. There is a reasonable amount of documentation, although the language remains understudied.

29In terms of the specific endangerment scales themselves, firstly, the results concur with Ethnologue’s score of EGIDS level 6b, “Threatened: The language is used orally by all generations but only some of the child-bearing generation are transmitting it to their children”. However, Ethnologue currently applies this result to Bonan as a whole, rather than taking into account the different contexts of the two variants; Roche’s (2019a) analysis suggests the same level for Qinghai Bonan (although, similar to Gansu Bonan, with a high level of variation between villages), but further research may be required to confirm this. Gansu Bonan’s level on the Degree of Endangerment scale is harder to ascertain, partly because within UNESCO’s own documents there are slightly differing definitions of the various grades (table 6).

Table 6. The two scaling definitions used for Grade’s 3 and 4 in UNESCO’s Degree of Endangerment (adapted from Brenzinger et al. 2003, pp. 7-8, courtesy of the UNESCO; see also Moseley 2010, pp. 11-12; Norris 2010, p. 117)

Degree of Endangerment

Definition 1

Definition 2

Unsafe/Vulnerable (4)

Most but not all children or families of a particular community speak their language as their first language, but it may be restricted to specific social domains (such as at home where children interact with their parents and grandparents).

The language is used by some children in all domains; it is used by all children in limited domains.

Definitely Endangered (3)

The language is no longer being learned as the mother tongue by children in the home. The youngest speakers are thus of the parental generation. At this stage, parents may still speak their language to their children, but their children do not typically respond in the language.

The language is used mostly by the parental generation and up.

30Applying Definition 1, Bonan can be placed at Grade 4, “Unsafe/Vulnerable”, since most children still have at least some ability in the language, and it is not the case that the youngest speakers are of the parental generation (Grade 3, “Definitely Endangered”). This agrees with Lewis and Simons’ (2010) analysis that UNESCO Degree of Endangerment level 4 is the equivalent of their EGIDS level 6b (see table 1). But at the same time, it is unlikely in the Jishishan context that “the language is used by some children in all domains”, and given the speaker trends, it is now not being utilised by all children (Definition 2, Grade 4); rather, the language “is used mostly by the parental generation and up” (Definition 2, Grade 3), even if a good number are still passing it on to their children. As described earlier, UNESCO’s World Atlas of Languages places Bonan at Grade 3, “Definitely Endangered”, but the results of this research suggest a more nuanced level, if there was one, of “3,5”, in between “Vulnerable” and “Definitely Endangered”. In any case, this is a more optimistic result than Yang’s (2010) previous assessment of Gansu Bonan as lying between levels 3 (“Definitely Endangered”) and 2 (“Severely Endangered”), noted above. Finally, like Ethnologue, the World Atlas of Languages does not differentiate between Gansu and Qinghai Bonan.

31The LEI provides a relatively clearer picture. Based on this research, table 7 gives the individual grades for Gansu Bonan according to the four LEI factors, combined to make a percentage aggregate (with intergenerational transmission doubly weighted) of 32 percent; while table 8 shows the overall index, together with levels of certainty.

Table 7. Gansu Bonan’s Level of Endangerment, measured according to the four LEI factors. Scores for each factor range from 0 to 5, and intergenerational transmission is doubly weighted, giving a maximum possible score of 25. Since all four factors are used in the calculation, the level of certainty is considered to be “100% based on the evidence available”. For each factor’s individual gradation scale, see Appendix 2.

Factor

Score

LEI Definition

Weighted Score

Intergenerational transmission

1: Vulnerable

Most adults and some children are speakers

2

Absolute number of speakers

2: Threatened

1 000-9 999 speakers

2

Speaker number trends

2: Threatened

A majority of community members speak the language. Speaker numbers are gradually decreasing.

2

Domains of use

2: Threatened

Used in some nonofficial domains along with other languages, and remains the primary language in the home for many community members

2

Aggregate

8

Level of Endangerment, and aggregate score as a percentage

Threatened

8 out of a maximum possible score of 25 = 32%

Table 8. ELCat’s Language Endangerment Index with levels of certainty

Table 8. ELCat’s Language Endangerment Index with levels of certainty

© taken from Lee & Van Way 2016, p. 286, courtesy of Cambridge University Press

32A 32 percent aggregate score places the language at the level of “Threatened”, and since all four factors are used in the calculation, the result is considered to be “100% certain, based on the evidence available” (see table 8). This result agrees with the LEI score on the ElCat website (currently at 40% certainty; see Catalogue of Endangered Languages 2023a); in addition, ElCat differentiates Gansu Bonan from Qinghai Bonan, which it also scores as “Threatened” (at 100% certainty; see Catalogue of Endangered Languages 2023b). However, the site puts the number of Gansu Bonan speakers at 10 000 to 15 000, which is a range well above the estimate from this present study; furthermore, the language is not restricted to just three villages, as the site also suggests.

33In summary, “Threatened”, the label given to both the relevant EGIDS and LEI levels, is an appropriate descriptive term for the current status of Gansu Bonan. While it is still spoken intergenerationally, and maintained to a reasonable level, particularly in Ganhetan, but also, to varying degrees, in Dadun and Gaoli, if no revitalisation efforts are undertaken, Northwest Mandarin is likely to continue to encroach at an accelerated pace, taking over all external domains, and eventually even the home domain itself.

Conclusion

34As has been alluded to earlier, in recent years, scholars have paid attention to the plight of cultural Tibet’s minority languages, including both those of official ethnicities, and those which are not recognised by the state (Roche & Suzuki 2018). By analysing the status of the Gansu Bonan language, this article highlights a related challenge facing the smaller minority Muslim communities of the Amdo region in relation to the dominant Sinophone Hui. As their languages continue to be encroached by Northwest Mandarin, their populations will become increasingly “Huiified”, resulting in a loss of diversity among the Muslims of Amdo. More work is required, both to test these provisional results for the Gansu Bonan, and to gain greater understanding with regards to the sociolinguistic situation of the other groups. It is hoped that this heuristic analysis provides a basis for further research on the non-Sinitic Muslim communities of the Amdo sprachbund.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Bai Xiaorong 白晓荣 2019 Xingbie shijiao xia de Bao’anzu yuyan chuancheng diaocha 性别视角下的保安族语言传承调查 [An investigation into Bonan language transmission from the angle of gender], Sichou zhi lu 丝绸之路 [The Silk Road] 2019(2) [online, URL: https://www.fx361.com/page/2019/1015/5813607.shtml, accessed 9 June 2023].

Bao’anzu jianshi xiudingben bianxiezu《保安族简史》修订本编写组 (eds) 2009 Bao’anzu jianshi 保安族简史 [A brief history of the Bonan nationality] (Beijing, Minzu chubanshe).

Battye, H. 2019 Beyond majority-minority relations in the ethnic dynamics of the Amdo region. The “Huiification” and “Tibetanization” of the Bonan speakers of Gansu and Qinghai, in U. Wallenböck, B. Horlemann & J. Ptáčková (eds), Mapping Amdo. Dynamics of Power, (Prague, Oriental Institute CAS, Archiv Orientalní Supplementa XI), pp. 159-186.
2020
Fenqi, hanhua yu xieshang – Gan Qing yidai “Bao’anren” ziwo rentong de yanjiu 分歧、涵化与协商——甘青一带保安人自我认同的研究 [Divergence, acculturation and negotiation. A study of identity among the “Bonan peoples” of Gansu and Qinghai], PhD in ethnology (Lanzhou, Lanzhou University).

Bradley, D. 2023 Language endangerment. What it is, how to measure it and how to act, in E. Derhemi & C. Moseley (eds), Endangered Languages in the 21st Century (London/New York, Routledge), pp. 119-125.

Bradley, D. & M. Bradley 2019 Language Endangerment (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

Brenzinger, M., Yamamoto, A., Aikawa, N., Koundiouba, D., Minasyan, A., Dwyer, A., Grinevald, C., Krauss, M., Miyaoka, O., Sakiyama, O., Smeets, R. & O. Zepeda 2003 Language vitality and endangerment, Document submitted to the International Expert Meeting on UNESCO Programme Safeguarding of Endangered Languages, Paris, 10-12 March.

Bromham, L., Dinnage, R., Skirgård, H., Ritchie, A., Cardillo, M., Meakins, F., Greenhill, S. & X. Hua 2022 Global predictors of language endangerment and the future of linguistic diversity, Nature, Ecology & Evolution 6, pp. 163-173, https://0-doi-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/10.1038/s41559-021-01604-y.

Bromham, L., Hua, X., Algy, C. & F. Meakins 2020 Language endangerment. A multidimensional analysis of factors, Journal of Language Evolution 5(1), pp. 75-91.

Buchstaller, I & G. Khattab 2014 Population samples, in R. Podesva & D. Sharma (eds), Research Methods in Linguistics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), pp. 74-95.

Buhe 布和 & Liu Zhaoxiong 刘照雄 1982 Bao’anyu jianzhi 保安语简志 [An overview of the Bonan language] (Beijing, Minzu chubanshe).

Catalogue of Endangered Languages 2023a Gansu Bonan (Honolulu, University of Hawaii at Manoa) [online, URL: https://endangeredlanguages.com/lang/8198, accessed 26 May 2023].
2023b
Qinghai Bonan (Honolulu, University of Hawaii at Manoa) [online, URL: https://www.endangeredlanguages.com/lang/8199, accessed 19 June 2023].

Chen Naixiong 陈乃雄 1986 Bao’anyu cihui 保安语词汇 [A Bonan lexicon] (Hohhot, Nei Menggu renmin chubanshe).
1987
Bao’anyu huayu cailiao 保安语话语材料 [Bonan discourse material] (Hohhot, Nei Menggu renmin chubanshe).
1990a Bao’anyu de yanbian guiji
保安语的演变轨迹 [The trajectory of Bonan language transformation 1], Minzu yuwen 民族语文 [Minority languages of China] 1990(3), pp. 16-25
1990b Bao’anyu de yanbian guiji (xu)
保安语的演变轨迹)[The trajectory of Bonan language transformation 2] Minzu yuwen 民族语文 [Minority languages of China] 1990(4), pp. 42-48.
1995a Bao’anyu ji qi fangyan tuyu
保安语及其方言土语 [Bonan and its dialects and vernaculars 1], Nei Menggu shehui kexue 内蒙古社会科学 [Inner Mongolia social sciences] 1995(1), pp. 93-98.
1995b Bao’anyu ji qi fangyan tuyu (xu)
保安语及其方言土语 () [Bonan and its dialects and vernaculars 2] Nei Menggu shehui kexue内蒙古社会科学 [Inner Mongolia social sciences] 1995(5), pp. 87-92.
1995c Ganhetan Bao’anyu yuyin he cihui
甘河滩保安话的语音和词汇 [Phonetics and vocabulary in Ganhetan Bonan], in Chen Naixiong 陈乃雄 (ed.), Chen Naixiong lunwenji 陈乃雄论文集 [A collection of essays by Chen Naixiong] (Hohhot, Nei Mengu jiaoyu chubanshe).

Chen Naixiong 陈乃雄 & Qingge’ertai清格尔泰 [Mo. Činggeltei] 1987 Bao’anyu he Mengguyu 保安语和蒙古语 [The Bonan and Mongolian languages] (Hohhot, Neimenggu renmin chubanshe).

Chuluu, Ü. 1994 Introduction, grammar, and sample sentences for Baoan, Sino-Platonic Papers 58, pp. 1-28.

Degejihu 德格吉呼, Batugerile 巴图格日勒 & Jin Ling 金玲 2015 Bao’anyu, Dongxiangyu, Mengguyu danyinjie duanyuanyin shengxue duibi fenxi 保安语、东乡语、蒙古语单音节短元音声学对比分析 [A comparative study of the acoustics of Bonan, Dongxiang, and Mongolian short vowels in monosyllables], Sichou zhilu 丝绸之路 [The Silk Road] 2015(8), pp. 54-55.

Degejihu 德格吉呼, Batugerile 巴图格日勒, Jin Yasheng 金雅声, Gegentana 格根塔娜 & Guo Dandan 郭丹丹 2014 Bao’anyu duanyuanyin shengxue tezheng yanjiu 保安语短元音声学特征研究 [A study of the acoustics of Bonan short vowels], Xibei minzu daxue xuebao (ziran kexue ban) 西北民族大学学报 (自然科学版) [Northwest Minzu University Journal (natural sciences edition)] 35(4), pp. 27-33.

Derhemi, E. & C. Moseley (eds) 2023 Endangered Languages in the 21st Century (London/New York, Routledge).

Dillon, M. 1999 China’s Muslim Hui Community. Migration, Settlement and Sects (Richmond Surrey, Curzon Press).

Dobrin, L. M., Austin, P. K. & D. Nathan 2009 Dying to be counted. The commodification of endangered languages in documentary linguistics, in P. K. Austin (ed.), Language Documentation and Description, vol. 6 (London, SOAS), pp. 37-52.

Drude, S., Birchall, J., Galúcio, A. V., Moore, D. & H. van der Voort 2023 Endangered languages in Brazil in 2021, in E. Derhemi & C. Moseley (eds), Endangered Languages in the 21st Century (London/New York, Routledge), pp. 21-40.

Dwyer, A. M. 1995 From the Northwest China sprachbund. Xúnhuà Chinese dialect data 從中國西北部的語言區域關係體循化話語言材料, Yuen Ren Society Treasury of Chinese Dialect Data 元任學會漢語方言資料寶庫 1, pp. 143-182.
2011 Tools and techniques for endangered-language assessment and revitalisation,
in Vitality and Viability of Minority Languages, October 23-24, 2009 (New York, Trace Foundation Lecture Series Proceedings).

Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F. & C. D. Fennig (eds) 2023 Bonan, Ethnologue. Languages of the World, twenty-sixth edition (Dallas, SIL International) [online, URL: https://www.ethnologue.com/language/peh/, accessed 17 June 2023].

Fishman, J. 1991 Reversing Language Shift. Theory and Practice of Assistance to Threatened Languages (Clevedon, Multilingual Matters).

Fried, R. 2010 A Grammar of Bao’an Tu, a Mongolic Language of Northwest China. PhD thesis in linguistics (Buffalo, State University of New York).

Gomashie, G.A. & R. Terborg 2021 Nahautl, selected vitality indicators and scales of vitality in an indigenous language community in Mexico, Open Linguistics 7(1), https://0-doi-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/10.1515/opli-2021-0010.

Gou Wenxue 缑文学 2005 Bao’anzu zongjiao xinyang yanjiu 保安族宗教信仰研究 [A study of the religious beliefs of the Bonan ethnicity]. Master’s thesis in sociology (Lanzhou, Northwest Normal University).

Grenoble, L. A. 2016 A response to “Assessing levels of endangerment in the Catalogue of Endangered Languages (ELCat) using the Language Endangerment Index (LEI)”, by Nala Huiying Lee & John Van Way, Language in Society 45(2), pp. 293-300.

Haboud, M. & F. Ortega 2023 Linguistic diversity endangered. The Waotededo language and the effects of intense contact, in E. Derhemi & C. Moseley (eds), Endangered Languages in the 21st Century (London/New York, Routledge), pp. 284-302.

Heller, M. 2003 Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity, Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4), pp. 473-492.

Hill, J. H. 2002 “Expert rhetorics” in advocacy for endangered languages. Who is listening, and what do they hear? Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 12(2), pp. 119-133.

Horlemann, B. 2012 Tibetans and Muslims in Northwest China. Economic and political aspects of a complex historical relationship, Asian Highlands Perspectives 21, pp. 141-186.

Hua Kan 华侃 1992 Bao’anyu zhong de Zangyu jieci 保安语中的藏语借词 [Tibetan loan words in Bonan], Xibei minzu xueyuan xuebao (zhexue shehui kexue ban) 西北民族学院学报哲学社会科学版)[Northwest Minzu College Journal (philosophy and social sciences edition)] 3, pp. 84-91.

Jaffe, A. 2007 Discourses of endangerment. Contexts and consequences of essentializing discourses, in A. Duchêne & M. Heller (eds), Discourses of Endangerment. Ideology and Interest in the Defence of Languages (London/New York, Continuum), pp. 57-75.

Janhunen, J. 2007 Typological interaction in the Qinghai linguistic complex, Studia Orientalia 101, pp. 85-102.
2015 Describing and transcribing the phonologies of the Amdo sprachbund,
in G. Roche, K. Dede, F. Pirie & B. Copps (eds), Asian Highlands Perspectives 37, Centering the Local. A Festschrift for Dr. Charles Kevin Stuart on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, pp. 122-137.

Janhunen, J., Ha Mingzong, L. & J. Tshe Dpag Rnam Rgyal 2007 On the language of the Shaowa Tuzu in the context of the ethnic taxonomy of Amdo Qinghai, Central Asiatic Journal 51(2), pp. 177-195.

Jian Zhixiang 菅志祥 2006 Zuqun guishu de ziwo rentong yu shehui dingyi – Guanyu Baoanzu de yi xiang zhuanti yanjiu 族群归属的自我认同与社会定义——关于保安族的一项专题研究 [Self-identity and social definition of ethnic affiliation. A thematic study of the Bonan ethnicity] (Beijing, Minzu chubanshe).

Lee, N. H. & J. Van Way 2016 Assessing levels of endangerment in the Catalogue of Endangered Languages (ELCat) using the Language Endangerment Index (LEI), Language in Society 45(2), pp. 271-292.

Lewis, M.P. 2023 Sustaining language use. Bridging the gap between language communities and linguists, in E. Derhemi & C. Moseley (eds), Endangered Languages in the 21st Century (London/New York, Routledge), pp. 105-118.

Lewis, M. P. & G. Simons 2010 Assessing endangerment. Expanding Fishman’s GIDS, Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 55(2), pp. 103-120.

Li, C.N. 1986 The rise and fall of tones through diffusion, Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 12, pp. 173-185.

Li, C. N. & A. M. Dwyer 2020 A Dictionary of Eastern Bonan (Kansas, University of Kansas Scholarworks).

Li, K. 1988 Mongghul Qidar Merlong. Tu-Han cidian 土汉词典 [Mongghul-Chinese dictionary] (Xining, Qinghai renmin chubanshe).

Limusishiden & K. Dede 2012 The Mongghul experience. Consequences of language policy shortcomings, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 215, pp. 101-124.

Ma Li 马丽 2015 Dui Gansu sheng Bao’anyu Jishishan fangyan zhong fuyin [s],[ts] de fenxi 对甘肃省保安语积石山方言中辅音 [s],[ts] 的分析 [An analysis of the consonants [s] and [ts] in the Jishishan dialect of Bonan], Juan zong 卷宗 5(12), pp. 453-455.

Ma Jiahui 马嘉辉 2018 Bao’anzu zongjiao renleixue yanjiu – Yi Jishishan xian Liuji xiang GL cun weili 保安族宗教人类学研究——以积石山县刘集乡GL村为例 [A religious anthropological study of the Bonan. Taking GL Village in Liuji Township, Jishishan County as an example]. Master’s thesis in ethnology (Lanzhou, Lanzhou University).

Ma Peiting 马沛霆 & Satō Nobuharu 佐藤畅治 (eds) 2016 Bao’anyu Hanyu cidian 保安語漢語詞典 [A Bonan-Chinese dictionary] (Beijing, Minzu chubanshe).

Ma Shiren 马世仁 2008 Zai ‘tianye’ zhong faxian lishi – Baoanzu lishi yu wenhua yanjiu 田野中发现历史——保安族历史与文化研究 [A historical truth discovered from fieldwork. A study of the Bao’an Muslim ethnic minority] (Beijing, Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe).

Ma Tong 马通2000 Zhongguo Yisilan jiaopai yu Menhuan zhidu shilüe 中国伊斯兰教派与门宦制度史略 [A brief history of China’s Muslim denominations and the Menhuan system] (Yinchuan, Ningxia renmin chubanshe).

Mo Chao 莫超 & Zhang Jianjun 张建军 2008 Bao’anyu changyongci Han-Ying cidian 保安语常用词汉英词典 [A Chinese-English dictionary of commonly-used Bonan words] (Lanzhou, Gansu minzu chubanshe).

Moore, R. E., Pietikäinen, S. & J. Blommaert 2010 Counting the losses. Numbers as the language of language endangerment, Sociolinguistic Studies 4(1), pp. 1-26.

Moseley, C. 2010 Introduction, in C. Moseley (ed.), Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, third edition (Paris, UNESCO Publishing), pp. 8-13.

Mühlhäusler, P. 1996 Linguistic Ecology. Language Change and Linguistic Imperialism in the Pacific Region (London/New York, Routledge).

National Bureau of Statistics of China 2021 Population by ethnic groups and gender, China Statistical Yearbook 2021 [online, URL: https://www.stats.gov.cn/sj/ndsj/2021/indexeh.htm, accessed 26 July 2024].

Norris, M. J. 2010 Canada and Greenland, in C. Moseley (ed.), Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, third edition (Paris, UNESCO Publishing), pp. 113-121.

Potanin, G. [1893] 2014 On the Shirongols (J. Janhunen, X. Wen & Y. Zhu, trans.), in G Roche & C. K. Stuart (eds), Asian Highlands Perspectives 36, Mapping the Mongour, pp. 139-177.

Qinghai sheng guangbo dianshiju chuanmei jigou guanlichu 青海省广播电视局传媒机构管理处2022 Qinghai sheng guangbo dianshi bochu jigou pindao pinlü mingcheng, huhao biao青海省广播电视播出机构频道频率名称、呼号表 [Table of the channel frequency names and call signs of Qinghai Province’s radio and television broadcasting institutions], Doc88 [online, URL: https://www.doc88.com/p-31673482031473.html, accessed 16 December 2023].

Roche, G. 2014 The vitality of Tibet’s minority languages in the twenty-first century. Preliminary remarks, Multiethnica 35, pp. 24-31.
2019a Does ideological clarification help language maintenance? Exploring the revitalisation paradox through the case of Manegacha, a Tibetan minority language,
Anthropological Linguistics 61(1) pp. 114-134.
2019b Articulating language oppression. Colonialism, coloniality and the erasure of Tibet’s minority languages,
Patterns of Prejudice 53(5), pp. 487-514.
2022 Introduction. Bordering Tibetan languages. Making and marking languages in transnational High Asia,
in G. Roche & G. Hyslop (eds), Bordering Tibetan Languages. Making and Marking Languages in Transnational High Asia (Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press), pp. 11-30.

Roche, G. & Lcag Mo Tshe Ring 2013 Notes on the maintenance of diversity in Amdo. Language use in Gnyan Thog Village annual rituals, Studia Orientalia 113, pp. 165-179.

Roche, G. & H. Suzuki 2018 Tibet’s minority languages. Diversity and endangerment, Modern Asian Studies 52(4), pp. 1227-1278.

Satō Nobuharu 佐藤畅治 2006 Wo dui Bao’anyu de yanjiu 我对保安语的研究 [My research on the Bonan language], in Ma Shaoqing 马少青 (ed.), Bao’anzu yanjiu wenji 保安族研究文集 [Collected works of research on the Bonan] (Lanzhou, Gansu renmin chubanshe), pp. 324-329.

Shearer, W. & H. Sun 2017 An Encyclopedia of the 140 Languages of China. Speakers, Dialects, Linguistic Elements, Script and Distribution, vol. 3 (Lewiston, Edwin Mellen Press).

Slater, K. W. 2003 A Grammar of Mangghuer. A Mongolic Language of China’s Qinghai-Gansu Sprachbund (London/New York, Routledge).
2021 Introduction. Language contact in the Amdo sprachbund,
in K. W. Slater & R. W. Fried (eds), Himalayan Linguistics 20(3), Language Contact in the Amdo Sprachbund, pp. 1-7.

Taubes, H. 2019 The four forts of Rep kong. A Tu community between China, Tibet, and Mongolia, 1370-1730, in U. Wallenböck, B. Horlemann & J. Ptáčková (eds), Mapping Amdo. Dynamics of Power, (Prague, Oriental Institute CAS, Archiv Orientalní Supplementa XI), pp. 13-50.

Thurston, T. 2018 The purist campaign as metadiscursive regime in China’s Tibet, Inner Asia 20(2), pp. 199-218.

Todaeva, B.X. 1963 Einige Besonderheiten der Paoan-Sprache, Acta Orientalia Hungarica 16, pp. 175-198.
1966
Baoan’ skii yazyk [The Baoan language] (Moscow, Nauka & Institut Narodov Aziï AN SSSR).
1997 Baoan’skii yazyk [The Baoan language], in
Mongol’skie yazyki—Tunguso-man’chzhurskie yazyki—Yaponskii yazyk—Koreiskii yazyk, Yazyki Mira (Moscow, Rossiiskaya Akademiya Nauk & Izdatel’stvo Indrik), pp. 29-36.

Tso, B & M. Turin 2019 Speaking Chone, speaking “shallow”. Dual linguistic hegemonies in China’s Tibetan frontier, in S. Sonntag & M. Turin (eds), The Politics of Language Contact in the Himalaya (Cambridge, Open Book Publishers) [online, URL: https://0-books-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/obp/9451, accessed 6 June 2023].

Tsunoda, T. 2006 Language Endangerment and Language Revitalization (Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter).

UNESCO 2021 Bonan, World Atlas of Languages (Paris, UNESCO Publishing) [online, URL: https://en.wal.unesco.org/languages/bonan, accessed 26 May 2023].

Wang Yuanxin 王远新 2009a Chengzhen bianyuan Tuzu cunzhuang de yuyan shenghuo – Qinghai Tongren Xian Nianduhu cun yuyan shiyong, yuyan taidu diaocha 城镇边缘土族村庄的语言生活——青海同仁县年都乎村语言使用、语言态度调查 [Language life in a city-town border Tu village. An investigation into language use and attitudes in Nianduhu Village, Tongren County, Qinghai], Xinjiang shifan daxue xuebao (zhexue shehui kexue ban) 新疆师范大学学报哲学社会科学版)[Xinjiang Normal University Journal (philosophy and social sciences edition)] 30(3) pp. 101-109.
2009b Qinghai Tongren Tuzu de yuyan rentong he minzu rentong
青海同仁土族的语言认同和民族认同 [Language and ethnic identity of the Tongren Tu of Qinghai], Zhongyang minzu daxue xuebao (zhexue shehui kexue ban) 中央民族大学学报哲学社会科学版)[Central Minzu University Journal (philosophy and social sciences edition)] 36(5), pp. 106-112.

Wu, H. 2003 Bonan, in J. Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic Languages (London, Routledge), pp. 325-345.

Wu Mu 武沐 & Jia Chenliang 贾陈亮 2013 “Bao’anren” yu “Bao’anzu” guanxi tantao ‘保安人保安族关系探讨 [A discussion of the relationship between “Bao’anren” and “Bao’anzu”], Zhongguo minzuxue 中国民族学 [China ethnology] 10, pp. 158-168.

Xi Yuanlin 席元麟 1986 Tongren diqu Tuzu fangyan 同仁地区土族方言 [The Tu dialect of the Tongren Region], Qinghai minzu xueyuan xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 青海民族学院学报社会科学版) [Qinghai Minzu College Journal (social sciences edition)] 2, pp. 63-80.

Yang Lin 杨林 2010 Binwei de Bao’anzu cunluo yuyan – Yi Gansu Jishishan Dadun cun Bao’anyu diaocha weili 濒危的保安族村落语言——以甘肃积石山大墩村保安语调查为例 [The endangered Bonan Village language. A case study of Bonan language research in Dadun Village, Jishishan, Gansu]. Master’s thesis in linguistics and applied linguistics (Beijing, Zhongyang minzu daxue).

Yefenghaiyun-Awei 椰风海韵-阿炜 2023 Gansu Sheng nei dianshi pindao huizong 甘肃省内电视频道汇总 [The complete list of Gansu Province’s television channels], Bilibili [online, URL: https://www.bilibili.com/read/cv26566492/?jump_opus=1, accessed 11 December 2023].

Ying Jiabu 英加布 2006 Wenming de kunhuo – Gansu Dadun cun Bao’anzu yuyan diaocha 文明的困惑——甘肃大墩村保安族语言调查 [Cultural perplexity. A survey of the Bonan language in Dadun Village, Gansu], Minzu luntan 民族论坛 [Ethnic symposium] 2006(10), p. 35.

Haut de page

Documents annexes

Haut de page

Notes

1 Bao’an 保安 is the Mandarin term for the place and the people, while Bonan approximates closer to local pronunciation.

2 Often referred to as “Mongour” in international scholarship.

3 I use the ethnonym “Bonan Tu” for want of a better label. Other possibilities abound: Tongren Bonan/Bao’an (Horlemann 2012), Qinghai Bonan/Bao’an (Janhunen 2007), or Reb gong Bonan/Bao’an, and Bonan/Bao’an Mongour. As noted, the Bonan Tu themselves often self-identify as Tibetans, or if not, will simply use the official ethnonym Tuzu. They also do not refer to their own language as “Bonan”, but Manegacha – “Our language” – in Bonan itself (Roche 2019a), or Tuhua 土话 – “Tu speech” – in Mandarin (Wang 2009b) (the latter expression also adds an extra level of complexity, owing to the fact that tu means “native” or “local” in Mandarin, and is thus regularly applied to any local language or dialect; when used in the Bonan Tu context, this leaves a certain ambiguity as to whether the meaning is “Tu speech” or simply “local speech”). In sum, while it is not unproblematic, “Bonan Tu” succinctly expresses the fact that the community are, or are descended from, Bonan-speaking members of the official Tu ethnicity.

4 There are also different labels for the two variants: Qinghai/Gansu Bonan, Eastern/Western Bonan, and Tongren / Jishishan Bonan. In what follows I use Qinghai Bonan and Gansu Bonan to refer to the Tongren and Jishishan variants respectively.

5 Meipo, an important Bonan village and by most accounts one of the so-called “Three Villages” (see following note), is not Bonan speaking. Tradition holds that the residents of Meipo originated from Chinese-speaking Bao’an Town (Bao’an cheng 保安城), rather than Lower Bao’an and Gasari, where the other Bonan Muslims emigrated from (see fig. 2). For detailed accounts of the emigration, see Bao’anzu jianshi xiudingben bianxiezu (2009); Ma (2008).

6 The so-called Three Bonan Villages (Bao’an san zhuang 保安三庄), held up to represent the heartland of the Bonan community, is usually defined as consisting of Dadun, Meipo and Ganhetan, based on the tradition that their populations emigrated from the three original Tongren Muslim Bonan locations of Gasari, Bao’an Town and Lower Bao’an respectively. However, this is not universally accepted within the Bonan community: the definition of the “Three Villages” is not consistent in the literature, and Ma (2008) argues that the concept itself is in fact a construct from the early communist era (pp. 130-132). In any case, Ganhetan is undisputed as a centrally important Bonan village.

7 For the sources of the statistics for Ganhetan and the other villages see Appendix 1.

8 Gaoli is in fact an administrative village (Ch. xingzhengcun 行政村) covering two “natural villages” (Ch. zirancun 自然村): Gaozhaojia, from which the menhuan gets its name, and Lijia 李家.

9 With the exceptions of the “Night of Power” during Ramadan, and the Prophet’s birthday (Ch. Sheng ji ri 圣纪日), where women also attend.

10 Mandarin, Yatou 崖头; here I follow the local pronunciation.

11 90 percent according to Gou 2005, p. 34.

12 Estimate calculated from Ma 2018, pp. 30-31. Gedimu (from Arabic qadim, “old”) is the name for the traditional Chinese Sunni Islam, dating back from before the arrival of the Sufi movements during the Ming and Qing dynasties. For overviews of the various denominations and Sufi menhuan in the northwest, see Ma 2000; Dillon 1999.

13 In addition, most Xiaojia Muslims, including the Bonan, are members of either Naitou or the Gedimu, ruling out Gaozhaojia as an important Bonan-speaking domain.

14 “Grandma”, as I knew her.

15 In Jishishan, these historically took the particular form that smaller minorities such as the Bonan and Salar received greater benefits than the larger and dominant Hui, including a higher number of “extra points” (Ch. jiafen 加分) on the university entrance exam (Ch. gaokao 高考). The result was that mixed couples would invariably choose the smaller minority’s ethnic status over Hui for their children, rather than follow the father’s ethnicity, as was traditionally the case.

16 In addition to the official four, there is also a small community of Muslim Kangjia 康家speakers in Jianzha 尖扎 County, Qinghai, who are officially classified as Hui (Janhunen 2007, p. 87).

17 The actual term they used was “Lao Huasi” 老花寺, a common name in the area for Gedimu.

18 Ethnologue has an estimate of 6 000 Jishishan speakers (Eberhard et al. 2023, based on Shearer & Sun 2017).

19 Despite its importance as a factor in the UNESCO framework, the proportion of speakers is not a very meaningful concept in the Bonan context, where, as noted above, minority preferential treatment policies have provided incentives for mixed ethnic couples to give their children Bonan ethnic status. The result has been a rapid increase in the non-Bonan-speaking Bonan population, which, while reducing the proportion of Bonan speakers as a percentage of the population as a whole, gives no direct indication of the vitality or otherwise of the language itself. Nevertheless, the low percentage does highlight the increasingly tenuous link between Bonan as a language and as an ethnic identity.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1. Regional Map showing Bonan and Bonan Tu areas
Crédits © www.weather-forecast.com, with additional text and symbols by Hugh Battye
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/emscat/docannexe/image/6652/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 248k
Titre Figure 2. Local map showing the villages of the Bonan and Bonan Tu (not to scale)
Crédits © Hugh Battye, previously published in Chinese in Battye 2020
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/emscat/docannexe/image/6652/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 202k
Titre Table 8. ELCat’s Language Endangerment Index with levels of certainty
Crédits © taken from Lee & Van Way 2016, p. 286, courtesy of Cambridge University Press
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/emscat/docannexe/image/6652/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 206k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Hugh Battye, « Language endangerment in Amdo. The case of the Gansu Bonan »Études mongoles et sibériennes, centrasiatiques et tibétaines [En ligne], 55 | 2024, mis en ligne le 19 août 2024, consulté le 02 décembre 2024. URL : http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/emscat/6652 ; DOI : https://0-doi-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/10.4000/126lw

Haut de page

Auteur

Hugh Battye

Hugh Battye completed his doctoral degree in ethnology at Lanzhou University, China, in 2020. His doctoral thesis focused on various aspects of identity among Muslim and Tibetan Buddhist communities in Gansu and Qinghai provinces. In 2019 he published “Beyond majority-minority relations in the ethnic dynamics of the Amdo region. The ‘Huiification’ and ‘Tibetanization’ of the Bonan speakers of Gansu and Qinghai” as a chapter in Mapping Amdo. Dynamics of Power, a Supplementa of the journal Archiv Orientalní. He is currently an independent writer and working on a book about urban Han and rural minority China.
hughb77@yahoo.co.uk

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés), sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search