This paper explores the patterns of language shift in Newar, the ethnic indigenous language community living in the Kathmandu Valley. The research focuses on language contact situations in different domains viz. social, cultural, personal, and official as well as media related activities where the informants are asked to use different languages along with the use of their own mother tongue i.e. Newar. This socio-ethnographic research aims at providing some clues as to how the discovery of a minority language triggers changes in representations and attitudes.

This paper presents the relationship among Nepal’s linguistic diversity, multilingualism, and democratic practices by bringing into ideas from the global north and global south. The guiding question for exploring this relationship is, “why is Nepal’s linguistic diversity being squeezed despite the formulation of democratic and inclusive language policies that intended to promote multilingualism?”. To investigate this concern, qualitative data were obtained from semi-structured interviews with two purposively selected high-profile people working in the capacity of language policymaking in the state agencies. In Nepal, although democracy promoted awareness towards the issue of language rights and the need of preservation and promotion of minority languages, the narrowing of multilingual diversity continued in practice. This study concluded that democracy allowed neoliberal ideologies to penetrate sociolinguistic spaces and put greater emphasis on English and Nepali. While there is an intertwined relationship between linguistic diversity, democracy, and multilingualism, the ongoing democratic practices have become counterproductive in maintaining the linguistic diversity leading to the marginalization of minority and lesser-known languages. Also, despite ample literature documenting linguistic diversity as a resource and opportunity, the notions of ‘linguistic diversity’ and ‘multilingualism’ were utilized merely as political agendas and issues of critical discourses which have left negligible impact on changing the conventionalized practices of linguistic domination of Nepali and English. Therefore, we question the co-existence of diversity and democracy and claim that democracy alone does not necessarily contribute to the protection of linguistic diversity. In line with this concept, democratic practices could even be counterproductive in the promotion and protection of linguistic diversity. Our findings suggest future interventions about essentializing the use of minority languages in education and governance, alongside democracy providing the fertile grounds for policy pitches to address micro problems in maintaining multilingualism within a democracy.

This paper aims to outline the language politics in Nepal by focusing on the influences and expansions shifted from Global North to the Global South. Based on a small-scale case study of interviews and various political movements and legislative documents, this paper discusses linguistic diversity and multilingualism, globalization, and their impacts on Nepal’s linguistic landscapes. It finds that the language politics in Nepal has been shifted and changed throughout history because of different governmental and political changes. Different ideas have been emerged because of globalization and neoliberal impacts which are responsible for language contact, shift, and change in Nepalese society. It concludes that the diversified politics and multilingualism in Nepal have been functioning as a double-edged sword which on the one hand promotes and preserves linguistic and cultural diversity, and on the other hand squeeze the size of diversity by vitalizing the Nepali and English languages through contact and globalization.

No abstract

This paper presents a close inspection of the research conducted with a sociolinguistic survey of Nepalese languages developed by Linguistic Survey of Nepal (LiNSuN) Project (2008–2018). The paper provides an overview of the linguistic situation of Nepal with brief outlines of various linguistic surveys in different times. It also examines the various sociolinguistic surveys (SLS) and their implications. Through a reflection of my personal engagement in various activities of the surveys, e.g. Kaike (2012), Bhojpuri and Awadhi (2013), Khadiya, Gangai and Thulung (2014), Aathpahariya and Tharu (2015), Limbu (2016), and Dhuleli and Lohwa (2017), and quantitative information available in the literature, it is concluded that previous surveys have mainly focused on sociolinguistic features and have disregarded the ethnolinguistic characteristics.