Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros45Note de recherche et de terrainThe Linguistic Landscape and Beyo...

Note de recherche et de terrain

The Linguistic Landscape and Beyond: Exploring Linguistic Diversity through Collaborative Fieldwork in Chiang Mai, Thailand

Le paysage linguistique et au-delà : un travail de terrain collaboratif pour explorer la diversité linguistique de Chiang Mai, Thaïlande
Adam Wilson, Alice Vittrant, Mathias Jenny, Ampika Rattanapitak, Thanyarat Apiwong, Karl Seifen, Bhakaphon Sinsurin, Phonphayuha Chaiyaros et Hugo Parra
p. 205-221

Résumés

Cette note de recherche et de terrain présente les premières étapes d’un travail de terrain d’une équipe de recherche internationale et multidisciplinaire visant à documenter la diversité linguistique à Chiang Mai (CM) en Thaïlande. S’appuyant sur l’analyse des premières données collectées dans le cadre de ce projet franco-thaïlandais (PHC Franco-Thai), nous avons souhaité étudier le paysage linguistique d’une vingtaine de lieux emblématiques de CM, où nous avons mené nos enquêtes de terrain. Trois langues y sont significativement présentes : le thaï, l’anglais et le chinois. Nous rendons compte, dans une deuxième partie, d’entretiens et observations exploratoires que nous avons pu faire sur le terrain. Plus précisément, nous montrons comment ces méthodes permettent de mettre en lumière l’utilisation et le statut d’une variété de langues minoritaires. En guise de conclusion, nous établissons un lien entre ces résultats préliminaires et les objectifs futurs du projet PHC franco-thaïlandais en cours, avant d’identifier quelques pistes de recherche potentielles pour l’avenir.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

1In the pages of this very journal, a recent research note documented the exploration of the linguistic landscapes of Cambodia (Seng et al. 2024). Said note is one of the first pieces of research to focus on both Cambodia’s linguistic landscape and the use of Khmer in linguistic landscapes. In taking this pioneering step, the authors identify interesting avenues for future research and/or application of research focusing on linguistic landscapes (LL), highlighting how such research might feed into language teaching and learning, as well as into research in other fields that take an interest in Cambodia, Khmer or other Cambodian languages. As such, Seng et al.’s work shows how LL studies, and linguistics more generally, can provide a powerful lens through which to explore specific contexts that might be of interest to experts hailing from diverse scientific domains.

  • 1 The PHC (Partenariat Henri Curien) programme was set up, and is financed by, Campus France. The PHC (...)

2In the present research note, we hope to harness this power in a similar manner in another Southeast Asian context: Thailand and, more precisely, the city and province of Chiang Mai. This note reports on the early stages of fieldwork research conducted by an international research team that aims to explore the multilingual makeup of Chiang Mai (CM) through a variety of methods and from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. In the first part of the text below, we introduce the context of CM, with a particular focus on its (socio)linguistic situation before we set out the genesis, objectives and methodology of the “PHC Franco-Thai”1 project that underpins this study. Following this, we report on findings from the first steps of a pilot fieldwork project, featuring work on CM’s LL as well as exploratory fieldwork interviews and observations. By way of conclusion, we highlight how the preliminary findings from this study shape the future objectives of the ongoing PHC Franco-Thai project, before identifying some avenues for potential future research.

Chiang Mai and its Languages

3Historically the capital of the Lanna kingdom, CM is today the fourth largest city in Thailand (NSO 2023: 4), situated in the mountains to the north of the country and boasting a population of over a million people. Located on a variety of trade routes, CM has been a hub for centuries, a crossroads for peoples and languages, a fact that is reflected in the present-day by a diversity of populations and linguistic groups.

  • 2 “The study of the linguistic landscape (LL) focuses on the representations of language(s) in public (...)

4It is thus not surprising that CM has already found itself at the heart of studies that home in on its (socio)linguistic situation. Indeed, the city and the province’s LL2 has often been a focal point of such work, with said work often highlighting its multilingual nature. For instance, Yanhong and Rungruang (2013) explored CM’s LL in tourist areas, finding a majority of bilingual signs bringing together Thai and English. Thongtong (2016) singled out Nimmanhemin Road, one of the city’s main tourist thoroughfares, showing how the interplay between Thai, English and Chinese in the monolingual, bilingual and trilingual signage of this LL both creates and reflects a tourist space. Similarly, Wei, Xiao and Xu (2024) compared CM and Bangkok to examine the effect of LL on local and tourist identities. Phromyaem (2022) also highlights the multilingualism of CM’s LL, focusing on Chinese featuring on signs that contain two or three other languages. Going beyond tourist spaces, Potisuwan (2019) explored the role of English in shaping the LL of urban CM, concluding that most signs—both official and unofficial—were bilingual Thai-English, with the majority of multilingual signs being Thai-English-Chinese. Recently, Wu and Huang (2024) explored ethnic identity construction through multimodal LL in Ban Arunotai (CM province), finding that dominant languages were given visual priority whereas minority languages were relegated to more symbolic, localised functions.

  • 3 Sometimes also known as Kra-Dai or Daic languages, see Seifen (2024: 301) for a discussion of this (...)

5While space constraints preclude detailed discussion of this previous body of research, some overarching conclusions can be drawn. First, research on CM’s LL has tended to be focused on tourist areas (which makes perfect sense in light of the local and national importance of that sector at myriad different levels). Second, these studies have brought to light a preponderance of multilingual practices. That being said, in a point perhaps related to the first observation, these practices tend to be anchored primarily around Thai, English and Chinese. However, Wu and Huang’s (2024) study goes beyond the context of tourism and identifies other languages in the LL of the village of Ban Arunotai in CM province: Burmese and Shan (a Tai-Kadai3 language spoken mainly in Shan State, Myanmar).

6Studies on CM’s sociolinguistic situation that do not focus primarily on the LL are simultaneously thin on the ground, yet vast in scope. The use of Kam Mueang (or “Northern Thai”) in CM has been an object of study, in research by Unthanon (2022) and Howard (2012). Chamberlain (2010) documented language maintenance and promotion among Nepali speakers from Myanmar, Dawkins and Phillips (2009) found both strong language vitality and significant variation in Pwo Karen (a Karenic language), while Pananil and Rerkplian (2025) studied the practices of Shan pupils in CM schools. To our knowledge, this is the current extent of research on non-Thai linguistic communities in CM and its surrounding area.

7In sum, previous research hints at a trio of languages that dominate CM’s LL: Thai, English and Chinese. Work focusing on aspects other than the LL suggests the presence of other languages outside of this trio. This reflects past work undertaken in Thailand as a whole. For instance, Bradley (2023) highlights Thai’s omnipresence as sole national and official language, while English and Chinese have been shown to feature alongside Thai as important languages in the government’s language policy (see Brudhiprabha 2015). Other work paints the country as a hotbed of linguistic diversity: Suwilai et al.’s (2004) landmark national survey of language use shows a presence of more than 60 languages (in Thailand, with 20 being noted in CM province), a number elevated to 70 by Warotamasikkhadit and Person (2011) and 80 by Leclerc (2023). Despite the substantial linguistic diversity brought to light by large-scale language surveys, recent detailed sociolinguistic explorations are rare (though see Smalley [1994] for an extremely thorough study).

8The findings, and knowledge gaps, resulting from this previous research serve as the jumping-off point for the present project. How does the present-day situation compare with previous work? What is the relative status of minority languages in the territory, both those that have been an object of study before, and those that haven’t? Do these languages find their way into different contexts of social life? How do the different co-existing languages interact with each other? What can this teach us about the sociolinguistic situation of CM? And how can this be linked to wider concerns?

The PHC Franco-Thai Project

9The above questions are some of those that underpin the PHC Franco-Thai project that forms the basis for the present study. Entitled “The Linguistic Landscape of Chiang Mai – Indigenous and Diaspora Languages,” the project brings together a number of researchers from Chiang Mai University in Thailand and various French universities (Université Lumière Lyon 2, Aix Marseille Université, Université de Lorraine). The main objective of the project is to identify and survey the languages currently being used by populations settled in CM, with a simultaneous focus on different varieties of Thai as well as languages linked to immigrant populations. In time, the project will aim to explore the status of non-Thai languages in different populations and contexts, focusing on tendencies of language retention and/or shift, as well as examining the extent to which languages used in Chiang Mai differ from related varieties spoken outside the area.

10In an attempt to answer these questions, the PHC Franco-Thai project involves long-distance cooperation over two years with specialists in different fields of linguistics—as well as history and archaeology—that share an interest in the minority languages and/or populations present in CM. Workshops were organised both in France and in Thailand to prepare two periods of joint fieldwork in CM, the first of which took place between October and November 2024. The second fieldwork period will take place in June 2025.

11This research note focuses on the first fieldwork period, conceived of as an initial pilot study that aimed to get a handle on the linguistic diversity and language uses present in CM. This pilot study aims to offer preliminary answers to the diverse research questions of the PHC project, fuelled by the diverse disciplinary backgrounds of its members. Therefore, two questionnaires were devised: a linguistic questionnaire aimed at collecting elicited vocabulary and sentences for language typology analysis, and a sociolinguistic questionnaire designed to form the basis for an interview conducted in person (self-declarations of language use, sociolinguistic information, etc.). The slightly atypical mix of methods does not necessarily result from the intercultural nature of the team but rather from, on one hand, its interdisciplinary roots and, on the other hand, a collective desire to hit as many bases as possible to identify pertinent aspects upon which to build the PHC project.

  • 4 This was judged to be important given the significant presence of communities originating in Myanma (...)

12Following the creation, adaptation and translation of the questionnaires in the pre-fieldwork workshops, the Thai team identified key sites of enquiry, mainly focusing on temples and other places of worship given that these institutions often feature as a cultural hub for a particular community. In total, 26 sites were identified, and two key interlocutors contacted at each site. This led to a planned total of 52 interviews, for which ethical clearance was sought from, and granted by, Chiang Mai University. Once the fieldwork was under way, each interview was conducted by two members of the Thai team and two members of the French team in order to ensure the constant presence of at least one speaker of Thai, Burmese4 and English. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and glossed and/or translated. At each interview site, LL data was collected through photographs and fieldnotes were taken by all members of the team.

13In this research note, we draw upon this exploratory fieldwork and detail some of the preliminary findings from initial qualitative analyses of data from the different sources. First, we take a look at LL data before exploring fieldwork interviews.

The Linguistic Landscape of Chiang Mai

14Inspired both by the previous research mentioned above and our own first experiences in the field, we began by exploring the LL of the fieldwork sites. It is worth noting immediately that, according to Leclerc (2023), there is currently no law or official language policy in Thailand regarding language use on public signage when it comes to non-governmental signs. As shown by the various studies mentioned above, CM’s LL is generally dominated by three languages—Thai, English and Chinese—and our fieldwork sites were no exception.

15Thai is perhaps the only language that can be considered almost “omnipresent” for all uses (place names, directions, information, instructions, warnings, symbolic messages, etc.). Indeed, there were numerous signs in many of the sites visited that were displayed only in Thai, as exemplified in the following image (Fig. 1) of an information sign present at the Wat Sri Koet temple.

Fig. 1. A Thai-la...Fig. 1. A Thai-language sign informing temple visitors of the upcoming Kathina ceremony

Fig. 1. A Thai-language sign informing temple visitors of the upcoming Kathina ceremony

Credit: Adam Wilson, 2024

16The sign informs temple-goers of an upcoming ceremony, the Kathina, which marks the end of the Buddhist Lent and during which robes are usually donated to monks. The only language present here is Thai. This photo provides an example of what might be termed “informational monolingualism”: signs that target only the local population (as opposed to, say, tourists) appear in one language, and one language only. In this case, and in a number of cases we encountered during the fieldwork, such signs appear only in Thai, reflecting its status as the national language and de facto unmarked language of written communication for “locals” (without forgetting that it is also often the main language in which this population is likely to be literate). One of the objectives of future fieldwork undertaken within the PHC Franco-Thai project will be to establish in more detail the extent to which informational multilingualism through Thai is present across different sites in CM.

17Following on from Thai, English is also heavily present in the LL of CM. This concords with findings from Potisuwan (2019), whose MA thesis analysed over 600 signs in a focus on the role of English in shaping the linguistic landscape of urban CM. That study concluded that most of the signs studied—both official and unofficial—were bilingual Thai-English, with the majority of multilingual signs being Thai-English-Chinese. During our fieldwork, English was especially observed on signs giving directions, instructions, information and the transliteration of proper nouns. Two of these roles can be seen in the following photograph, where English is used to convey an instruction and to communicate historical and cultural information:

Fig. 2. A triling...Fig. 2. A trilingual Thai-Chinese-English instruction sign next to a bilingual Thai-English informational sign

Fig. 2. A trilingual Thai-Chinese-English instruction sign next to a bilingual Thai-English informational sign

Credit: Adam Wilson, 2024

18The above photo (Fig. 2) was taken at Wat Chedi Luang, one of the busiest temples in CM, both among the local population and visitors. The image shows two signs: one Thai-Chinese-English trilingual sign informing visitors that they may not take wedding photographs in this location, and one Thai-English bilingual sign providing an explanation of the artefact that sits behind the sign. The use of English in both of these signs—something which we observed across the fieldwork sites—reflects its quasi-omnipresence as an unmarked lingua franca, a language seen to allow for communication between the “local” and “non-local” populations (a phenomenon which is obviously not limited to Thailand). The widespread presence of English in the different fieldwork sites reflects Potisuwan’s (2019) conclusion that English is becoming an integral part of public sign usage in Thailand.

19The left-hand sign above also features Chinese, and this is the only other language that appears frequently in the LL across the different fieldwork sites. As the above photo suggests, Chinese is used for similar purposes to English: instructions, directions, information, etc. However, as Fig. 2 also suggests, Chinese is somewhat less present for what might be considered “leisurely” purposes. In the example above, Chinese is present on a sign telling people what not to do but is not present on the adjacent sign informing visitors of historical and cultural details. This is somewhat reminiscent of Angermeyer’s “punitive multilingualism,” where “institutions may limit their use of other languages to contexts where they issue warnings or threaten punishments for deviant behaviour” (Angermeyer 2023: 839). Such instances of “punitive multilingualism,” and the languages that feature within this phenomenon, will feature among the areas of interest as the fieldwork moves into its next stages.

20While Thai, English and Chinese might dominate public-facing signage encountered during fieldwork, the different research teams did encounter some visual use of minority languages in some sites. As might be expected given the history of the city and its region, the Lanna (or Tai Tham) script is present in certain temples. Traditionally used to write the Lanna language, notably during the period of the Lanna kingdom (13th-18th centuries), few people are literate in Lanna script today. Its use can be seen in the photo below:

Fig. 3. Different...Fig. 3. Different scripts on donation boxes at Wat Ku Tao

Fig. 3. Different scripts on donation boxes at Wat Ku Tao

Credit: Adam Wilson, 2024

21This photo (Fig. 3), taken at Wat Ku Tao, is representative in that it depicts the Lanna script being used (along with Shan, a language to which we return below) in what might be described as a symbolic role. Its role may be framed this way given that, as alluded to above, very few people are actively literate in it, and even fewer people use it on a regular basis. This situation is confirmed by the accompanying photograph (Fig. 4), also taken at Wat Ku Tao.

Fig. 4. A guide t...Fig. 4. A guide to the pronunciation of the Lanna script at Wat Ku Tao

Fig. 4. A guide to the pronunciation of the Lanna script at Wat Ku Tao

Credit: Adam Wilson, 2024

22This image shows a series of handmade signs that feature explanations as to how the Lanna script is to be pronounced along with the name for each letter. Such an initiative simultaneously suggests that the script is rarely used in everyday life outside of this context, but that it is also symbolically important in this (religious) context.

23Across the religious institutions visited during fieldwork, some other minority languages were identified, often in similar symbolic roles closely linked to the religious nature of the sites. Among the different languages we observed were Pa’O (a Karen language with a writing system derived from the Burmese script), Shan and Burmese. These two latter languages were also observed in non-religious contexts, especially in marketplaces.

  • 5 This distinction is common in French (socio)linguistics but perhaps less so elsewhere. Simply put, (...)

24This very brief overview only scratches the surface of the use of minority languages in CM’s LL. However, these preliminary findings confirm that which has been shown by previous studies: Thai, English and Chinese dominate the city’s LL. That being said, our initial observations suggest a small yet symbolically powerful presence of some minority languages, languages that both reflect the history of the region and its migratory flows. The existence of multiple languages in the LL also hints at the probable presence of multilingualism and/or plurilingualism5 in the population. In this respect, looking at the LL can be seen as what Blommaert and Maly (2014: 1) call a “first-line sociolinguistic diagnostic” or “toolkit for detecting the major features of sociolinguistic regimes”. In this case, the LL provides a good entry point to gaining understanding of CM’s sociolinguistic regime, a regime in which Thai and, to a lesser extent, English and, to an even lesser extent, Chinese, feature as dominant languages. However, the symbolically charged presence of minority languages, coupled to Wu and Huang’s (2024) research in a village in CM province that showed how language practices among the population ventured into more plurilingual repertoires than those which might feature on signage, push us to follow Blommaert and Maly (2014: 2) and draw upon LL studies to “move towards more profound investigations into the sociolinguistic regime.” At this stage of the PHC Franco-Thai project, this involved dovetailing LL analysis with exploratory fieldwork interviews and observations aimed at opening up the study of language practices in situ.

Beyond the Linguistic Landscape: Language Use in Everyday Life

25In conjunction with LL analysis, the PHC Franco-Thai team undertook exploratory interviews with the contact persons mentioned previously. These interviews aimed to provide initial answers to a now canonical sociolinguistic question: who speaks what language to whom and when? (Fishman 1965). Whilst such interviews might not allow us to go into great detail in terms of language practices, it does give a first look into language use in CM outside of the LL.

26Taking all of the interviews as a whole, the first general conclusion that can be drawn is that, as previous studies suggest, CM is a place of vibrant language diversity. This is evidenced by the fact that almost all of the participants reported using multiple languages across various social situations in their everyday lives, though, predictably, some languages feature more often than others.

27As might be expected, Standard Thai (ST) appears everywhere in all domains of social life, in both its spoken and written varieties. It is the main language used in the vast majority of institutions visited and many participants reported using it every day. The attitude that interviewees had towards Thai can perhaps best be summed up in the following interview extract where a speaker is answering a question relating to the language they prefer using in daily life:

  • 6 Interviews were conducted in a variety of languages depending on the interviewers and interviewees. (...)

I think, because of the society I live in, people speak Thai, so I think Thai is better. (Interview TED_B.)6

28This extract suggests that, for this interviewee at least, ST constitutes a socially unmarked majority language and similar suggestions were made by a number of interviewees. Indeed, its unmarked nature seemed so strong that some participants didn’t think to talk about ST in our interviews, as if its (omni)presence (and their competence in it) went without saying, as shown in the following example.

Int: What languages can you speak?
B: I can speak Burmese and Shan.
[…]
Int: What language do you use in your daily life?
B: I use Thai, but I speak Shan with new friends who aren’t very fluent in Thai.
(Interview XNT_A.)

29As the extract shows, speaker B does not mention his competency in Thai when answering a direct question about the languages he speaks. However, when it comes to talking about daily language practices, Thai appears in the answer. B also specifies that another language (Shan) is used primarily when communication in Thai is not possible, hinting again at Thai’s unmarked status.

30Some participants also report that ST is used as a lingua franca in various situations, allowing communication between groups that do not share another common language:

I only used Thai at school. I also communicated with my friends in Thai, because there were many ethnic groups […] so Thai was the main language used. (Interview XDI_A.)

  • 7 In reality, there are a number of different glossonyms in circulation, in general and among the int (...)

31This extract also hints at the presence of languages other than ST, something which was heavily reflected in our fieldwork. Indeed, in this part of Thailand, ST co-exists for many speakers with Kam Mueang, a Tai language also often referred to as Northern Thai.7 Based on answers from a number of participants, Kam Mueang (KM) is clearly an unmarked language of communication in various situations of everyday life (in CM at least, this would not be the case elsewhere in Thailand). This is exemplified in the following extract from the same interview:

Int: What language do you use when you’re with your family?
C: I speak Thai and Northern Thai with my children, and with my husband, we also speak Karen sometimes.
Int: What language do you speak at work?
C: I only use Northern Thai at work.
(Interview XDI_A.)

32KM features then at work and in family circles, and other interviewees report using it in marketplaces or in religious institutions. Although ST occupies more official roles, a lot of informal communication in these contexts is said to take place in KM. These findings are interesting in light of Howard’s (2012) study that identified a tension regarding the use and transmission of KM, with speakers being saddened by the idea of the loss of KM among younger generations, but also conscious of the importance of speaking ST as a prestige symbol. Despite this apparent fear, our pilot study suggests that KM is still very much transmitted between generations (in certain groups at least).

33Predictably, English is also highly present. As the following extract shows, its presence is more often than not in relation to its status as a (global) lingua franca:

Int: What about English?
D: I use it for work, to communicate with foreign clients or for business purposes.
(Interview XUL_A.)

34As in this extract, English is usually mentioned in relation to communication with “foreigners,” that is, individuals who are not Thai and/or who do not speak Thai, whether they be passing visitors or residents. As the above example also shows, English is seen as particularly important for business purposes and the same can be said for tourism. Beyond this, participants also mention English being used as a lingua franca within religious institutions, both for tourism purposes and as a lingua franca among members of the faithful who do not share another language. In short, English is seen as the go-to language in any context with any and all people not able or willing to speak ST or KM (or possibly one of the minority languages mentioned below).

35Sometimes, Chinese is mentioned as having a similar role, though not as a lingua franca per se, but rather when it comes to speaking with certain groups. Indeed, it is reported as the default language for communication with anyone identified as being (and speaking) Chinese. This applies especially in tourism, business and religious institutions, reflecting the economic importance of China, Chinese visitors or residents and, by extension, the Chinese language.

36Aside from these languages, a number of minority languages were also mentioned during the fieldwork interviews. Though we have no quantitative data at this stage, the Karenic languages were perhaps the most common group of languages we came across, with speakers of Pwo Karen, Sgaw Karen and Pa’O among our participants. As the following extract exemplifies, these Tibeto-Burman languages are frequently used in a variety of contexts that involve members of the Karen communities (whose roots are situated in Myanmar):

  • 8 At the beginning of the interview, E explains that they speak Pwo Karen. This is then referred to a (...)

Int: What language do you use to communicate with your family?
E: I primarily use Karen.8
Int: What language do you use at work when communicating with coworkers?
E: Since I work with other Karen people, I mostly use Karen.
(Interview XDI_B.)

  • 9 This language is referred to by various glossonyms across our interviews: Shan, Tai Yai (an exonym) (...)

37Unsurprisingly for a city and region so close to the border, the ethnolinguistic links to Myanmar are not limited to the Karenic languages. We also found a regular presence of Burmese, used in, and among, families and in marketplaces. There is a long history of migration from Myanmar to this area of Thailand, both for economic and political reasons. Recently, there has been a new wave of immigration since the coup d’état in Myanmar in February 2021. Shan9 is also reported as being very present in family circles and in everyday communication (e.g. at the market). According to participants (and as seen in Fig. 3 above), Shan also seems to play a role in some religious institutions, both symbolically and functioning as a language of communication between monks with similar origins and/or with monks who speak Shan but who don’t speak (or who speak less) Thai. Some participants also mentioned Tai Khün, a Tai-Kadai language from Shan State, Myanmar. Tai Khün is especially mentioned when discussing languages used in religious contexts. Interestingly, one participant pinpoints his use of this language to his activity of sign making when preparing for festivals, specifying that some signs for such events feature three scripts:

Right now, in Chiang Mai, there are a lot of Shan people, so I use Shan more often. However, for Tai Khün, I mostly use it in specific contexts, like when I work on signs for events. For example, during the Kathina ceremony here, I make signs in all three languages: Shan, Tai Khün, and Thai. (Interview XUL_A.)

38As with the LL beforehand, this overview only scratches the surface of questions pertaining to the use of the abovementioned languages in and around CM. However, given the wide range of contexts in which these languages are used, it would seem fair to suggest that linguistic diversity is very much alive in the region. Indeed, across our interviews, the research team also came into contact with speakers of Lao, Khmu, Urdu, Hmong and Malay, and fleetingly encountered other languages, notably Chinese languages other than Mandarin, and a variety of Indo-European languages other than English. Further research is necessary—and planned within the PHC Franco-Thai project—to formally identify all of these languages, which will help in grasping the full extent, and vitality, of the language diversity present in CM.

39This further research could also focus on plurilingual practices. Unsurprisingly, given the number of interviewees who reported speaking multiple languages, there is some evidence of language contact phenomena. For instance, the following speaker mentions switching from one language to another depending on the interlocutor:

Int: What language do you use at work?
D: It depends on who I’m talking to. If I’m working with Thai people, I speak Thai. If I’m working with Shan people, I speak Shan. And if I’m working with people from Chiang Mai, I speak the local dialect.
(Interview XUL_A.)

40Similar situations were described by a number of participants, with some monks explaining that preaching can take place in different languages depending on the ethnolinguistic group of attendees. The research team also experienced this phenomenon, with some interviewees answering questions in, say, Thai when conversing with one interviewer and Burmese when interacting with another.

41As well as switching between languages with different interlocutors, some participants report practices that might be identified as code-switching or translanguaging, as evidenced in the following extract:

I speak Thai and sometimes I switch to Tai Yai, it’s kind of a mix. (Interview XQO_B.)

42Of course, phenomena such as code-switching or translanguaging are common in any situation of language contact. However, to our knowledge, such phenomena have not been widely studied in relation to Thai and/or the other (minority) languages mentioned above. Further research on this topic could shed light not only on said languages and their use, but also on the ways in which language contact phenomena contribute to the evolution and, ultimately, vitality of the languages in play in this context.

Conclusion

43In conclusion, our preliminary fieldwork suggests that CM’s sociolinguistic situation is characterised by rich linguistic diversity, with widespread plurilingualism and many languages being used for a variety of social functions, hinting at their (potentially) strong vitality. As we hope to have shown here, combining LL study and other fieldwork techniques allows for this rich sociolinguistic context to be approached from multiple angles. It also allows for the identification of differences between language presence in the LL and elsewhere in everyday life. For instance, the widespread presence of some languages in the LL (like English or Chinese) does not necessarily correlate with widespread practice of those languages for many individuals. Conversely, a number of languages that are widespread in everyday language practices barely feature in the LL. The pilot study thus contributes to (partially) answering some of the PHC Franco-Thai project questions, notably shedding light on which language(s) different segments of society use in different situations, as well as on the relative status of each language.

44Doors have therefore been opened towards some of the longer-term goals of the PHC Franco-Thai project. More specifically, in future fieldwork, we hope to fully mobilise a linguistic questionnaire that was tested in some pilot interviews in an attempt to feed into grammatical descriptions of the languages used. In the next stages of the project, we also hope to more formally identify and quantify the languages spoken in CM, further explore how and when they are used, and examine phenomena of language retention and/or shift. In time, we aim to put together a database and interactive map of the languacultures of CM. In doing so, we hope to offer resources that will be of interest to (socio)linguists, but also to any and all researchers—and members of the public—with an interest in CM, Thailand and Southeast Asia in general. We hope that this will inspire further international, interdisciplinary collaboration, with the aim of working towards a fine-grained understanding of CM’s (socio)linguistic situation from both a synchronic and diachronic perspective, furthering understanding not only of these dynamics but also of the ways in which they interact with other social, cultural, political and historical processes.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

ANGERMEYER, Philipp Sebastian, 2023, “Translation as discrimination: Sociolinguistics and inequality in multilingual institutional contexts”, Language in Society, 52 (5): 837-859.

BLOMMAERT, Jan & MALY, Ico, 2014, “Ethnographic Linguistic Landscape Analysis and Social Change: A Case Study”, Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, 100, URL: https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publications/ethnographic-linguistic-landscape-analysis-and-social-change-a-ca-4, accessed February 14, 2025.

BRADLEY, David, 2023, “Sociolinguistics in Mainland Southeast Asia”, in The Routledge Handbook of Sociolinguistics Around the World, Martin J. Ball, Rajend Mesthrie & Chiara Meluzzi, eds, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 227-237.

BRUDHIPRABHA, Prapart, 2015, “Language Policy & Planning: A Road Map for Implementing The National Language Policy of Thailand”, HRD Journal, 6 (1): 6-8.

CHAMBERLAIN, Wendy, 2010, Language Maintenance in a Displaced People Group: a Sociolinguistic Study of the Nepali Speech Community in Chiang Mai, Thailand, San Phranet, Thailand: Payap University.

DAWKINS, Erin & PHILLIPS, Audra, 2009, A Sociolinguistic Survey of Pwo Karen in Northern Thailand, San Phranet, Thailand: Payap University.

FISHMAN, Joshua A., 1965, “Who Speaks what Language to Whom and When?”, La Linguistique, 2: 67-88.

HOWARD, Kathryn M., 2012, “‘I Will Be a Person of Two Generations’: Temporal Perspectives on Sociolinguistic Change in Northern Thailand”, International Multilingual Research Journal, 6 (1): 64-78.

LECLERC, Jacques, 2023, “Thaïlande”, L’aménagement linguistique dans le monde, Québec, CEFAN, université Laval, URL: https://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/asie/thailande.htm, accessed April 3, 2025.

NSO (National Statistical Office), 2023, สมุดสถิติรายปีประเทศไทย 2566 - Statistical Yearbook Thailand 2023, Bangkok: National Statistical Office.

PANANIL, Panadda & RERKPLIAN, Panadda, 2025, “Obstacles to Identity Development and the Need for Multilingual Education: A Case Study of Shan Students in Chiang Mai, Thailand”, in Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education in the Asia-Pacific Region, Suwilai Premsrirat & David Hirsh, eds, Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 222-232.

PHROMYAEM, Korawan, 2022, “The Study of Linguistic Landscape of Chinese Language and the Translation Methods of Business Names in Tourism Areas of Chiang Mai”, Chiang Mai University Journal of Humanities, 23 (1): 257-278.

POTISUWAN, Sutinee, 2019, Exploring the Role of English in Shaping the Linguistic Landscape: A Case Study of the Metropolitan Area of Chiang Mai, Thailand, MA thesis in linguisitc, Naresuan University, Tha Pho, Thailand.

SEIFEN, Karl, 2024, Étude typologique de l’expression du déplacement: le cas des langues taï, PhD thesis in linguisitc, Université Lumière Lyon 2, Lyon, France.

SENG, Sitha, UM, Vutha, LÉGLISE Isabelle, ISTANBULLU, Suat & NON, Dara, 2024, “Les paysages linguistiques au Cambodge: réglementation, description et utilité pour l’enseignement du khmer”, Moussons, 44: 99-119, DOI: 10.4000/134x3.

SMALLEY, William A., 1994, Linguistic Diversity and National Unity. Language Ecology in Thailand, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

SUWILAI, Premsrirat, SUJARITLAK, Deephadung, EKPHONG, Suwanek, ISARA Chusaree, SOPPHANA, Sareejampa, APHINYA, Buasornwong, MAYUREE Thawornphat, AMORN Thaweesak & PRAPHASAREE Damsaat, 2004, แผนที่ภาษาของกลุ่มชาติพันธุ์ต่างๆ ในประเทศไทย [Ethnolinguistic Maps of Thailand], Bangkok: Office of the National Culture Commission.

THONGTONG, Tiwahporn, 2016, “A Linguistic Landscape Study of Signage on Nimmanhemin Road, a Lanna Chiang Mai Chill-Out Street”, Manusya: Journal of Humanities, 19 (3): 72-87.

UNTHANON, Kanyarat, 2022, “The Northern Thai Dialect Used in Chiang Mai, Thailand”, International Journal of Education and Social Science Research, 5 (4): 262-270.

VAN MENSEL, Luk, VANDENBROUCKE, Mieke & BLACKWOOD, Robert, 2016, “Linguistic Landscapes”, in The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society, Ofelia García, Nelson Flores & Massimiliano Spotti, eds, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 423-450.

WAROTAMASIKKHADIT, Udom & PERSON, Kirk, 2011, “Development of the National Language Policy (2006-2010) Committee to Draft the National Language Policy The Royal Institute of Thailand”, The Journal of the Royal Institute of Thailand, 3: 29-44.

WEI, Chao, XIAO, Xuehong & XU, Honggang, 2024, “The Perception and Identification of Linguistic Landscape among Tourists and Residents in International Tourism Destinations: A Case Study of Bangkok and Chiang Mai, Thailand”, World Regional Studies, 33 (7): 33-45.

WU, Jia & HUANG, Lihe, 2024, “Ethnic Identity Construction through Multimodal Linguistic Landscape at Ban Arunotai in Thailand”, Asian Ethnicity, 26 (2): 296-317, DOI: 10.1080/14631369.2024.2409190.

YANHONG, Mu & RUNGRUANG, Apichai, 2013, “Chiang Mai’s Linguistic Landscape in the Tourist Attraction Areas: A Study on the English Language Use on Signs”, The Golden Teak: Humanity and Social Science Journal, 19 (2): 59-70.

Haut de page

Note de fin

1 The PHC (Partenariat Henri Curien) programme was set up, and is financed by, Campus France. The PHC Franco-Thai would like to thank the governments of both France and Thailand, as well as Chiang Mai University. Our thanks also go to our other funding partners: LABEX ASLAN, DDL, EFEO, IDEA, Université Lumière Lyon 2 and the Université de Lorraine.

2 “The study of the linguistic landscape (LL) focuses on the representations of language(s) in public space. Its object of research can be any visible display of written language (a “sign”) as well as people’s interactions with these signs.” (Van Mensel, Vandenbroucke & Blackwood 2016: 423.)

3 Sometimes also known as Kra-Dai or Daic languages, see Seifen (2024: 301) for a discussion of this terminology.

4 This was judged to be important given the significant presence of communities originating in Myanmar, a point to which we return later in this text.

5 This distinction is common in French (socio)linguistics but perhaps less so elsewhere. Simply put, multilingualism refers to the co-existence of multiple languages in one locality or community, whereas plurilingualism refers to a speaker’s practices and/or competence with regards to speaking multiple languages.

6 Interviews were conducted in a variety of languages depending on the interviewers and interviewees. All interviews were transcribed by a member of the research team into the original language, before being translated into English and Thai, also by members of the research team.

7 In reality, there are a number of different glossonyms in circulation, in general and among the interviewees themselves, for what we have chosen to refer to here as Kam Mueang (e.g. Northern Thai, Lanna, Kham Mueang, Kammuang, etc.).

8 At the beginning of the interview, E explains that they speak Pwo Karen. This is then referred to as simply “Karen” for the remainder of the interview.

9 This language is referred to by various glossonyms across our interviews: Shan, Tai Yai (an exonym), Tai (an endonym).

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1. A Thai-language sign informing temple visitors of the upcoming Kathina ceremony
Crédits Credit: Adam Wilson, 2024
URL http://journals.openedition.org/moussons/docannexe/image/12872/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 136k
Titre Fig. 2. A trilingual Thai-Chinese-English instruction sign next to a bilingual Thai-English informational sign
Crédits Credit: Adam Wilson, 2024
URL http://journals.openedition.org/moussons/docannexe/image/12872/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 168k
Titre Fig. 3. Different scripts on donation boxes at Wat Ku Tao
Crédits Credit: Adam Wilson, 2024
URL http://journals.openedition.org/moussons/docannexe/image/12872/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 546k
Titre Fig. 4. A guide to the pronunciation of the Lanna script at Wat Ku Tao
Crédits Credit: Adam Wilson, 2024
URL http://journals.openedition.org/moussons/docannexe/image/12872/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 719k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Adam Wilson, Alice Vittrant, Mathias Jenny, Ampika Rattanapitak, Thanyarat Apiwong, Karl Seifen, Bhakaphon Sinsurin, Phonphayuha Chaiyaros et Hugo Parra, « The Linguistic Landscape and Beyond: Exploring Linguistic Diversity through Collaborative Fieldwork in Chiang Mai, Thailand »Moussons, 45 | 2025, 205-221.

Référence électronique

Adam Wilson, Alice Vittrant, Mathias Jenny, Ampika Rattanapitak, Thanyarat Apiwong, Karl Seifen, Bhakaphon Sinsurin, Phonphayuha Chaiyaros et Hugo Parra, « The Linguistic Landscape and Beyond: Exploring Linguistic Diversity through Collaborative Fieldwork in Chiang Mai, Thailand »Moussons [En ligne], 45 | 2025, mis en ligne le 11 juin 2025, consulté le 17 juillet 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/moussons/12872 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/147ju

Haut de page

Auteurs

Adam Wilson

Université de Lorraine, IDEA, F-57000 Metz, France

Alice Vittrant

Université Lumière Lyon 2, CNRS DDL UMR 5596

Articles du même auteur

Mathias Jenny

Chiang Mai University

Ampika Rattanapitak

Chiang Mai University

Thanyarat Apiwong

Chiang Mai University

Karl Seifen

Université Lumière Lyon 2, CNRS DDL UMR 5596

Articles du même auteur

Bhakaphon Sinsurin

Chiang Mai University

Phonphayuha Chaiyaros

Chiang Mai University

Hugo Parra

Chiang Mai University

The PHC Franco-Thai project brings together 12 researchers from Chiang Mai University and various universities in France (Université Lumière Lyon 2, Aix-Marseille Université, Université de Lorraine). The team members represent different disciplines (linguistics, sociolinguistics, history, archaeology) and are at varying stages of their respective careers. The main objective of the project is to identify and survey the languages currently being used by populations settled in Chiang Mai, Thailand. All of the project members actively involved in the fieldwork reported in this note feature as named authors.

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 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