How to define 'Lao', 'Thai', and 'Isan' language? A view from linguistic science

Enfield, N. J.

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

How to define 'Lao', 'Thai', and 'Isan' language? A view from linguistic science

MPS-Authors

/persons/resource/persons51

Enfield, N. J.
Language and Cognition Group, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Other Research, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

No external resources are shared

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

Enfield_2002_Defining_Lao_Thai_Isan.pdf
(Publisher version), 256KB

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Enfield, N. J. (2002). How to define 'Lao', 'Thai', and 'Isan' language? A view from linguistic science. Tai Culture, 7(1), 62-67.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-19C5-C

Abstract

This article argues that it is not possible to establish distinctions between 'Lao', 'Thai', and 'Isan' as seperate languages or dialects by appealing to objective criteria. 'Lao', 'Thai', and 'Isan' are conceived linguistics varieties, and the ground-level reality reveals a great deal of variation, much of it not coinciding with the geographical boundaries of the 'Laos', 'Isan', and 'non-Isan Thailand' areas. Those who promote 'Lao', 'Thai', and/or 'Isan' as distinct linguistic varieties have subjective (e.g. political and/or sentimental) reasons for doing so. Objective linguistic criteria are not sufficient