• 86 of respondents with children report usually using their mother tongue to tell stories to children • 88 report that their children usually use their mother tongue when speaking with neighbors
• 86 report that children usually use their mother tongue when playing with other children • As mentioned in section 1.4.2, 98 of respondents not just parents, but all respondents report that
their mother tongue is the language most commonly used by parents in the village with their children.
Observations in each location confirm the reported use of Tharu by children. Consistency of high Tharu use is found when examining intergenerational transfer by variety.
Informal interview responses to the question “Do young people in your village speak your mother tongue well, the way it ought to be spoken” are shown stratified by variety in table 17.
Table17. Young people “speak well” responses by variety
DK MAL
DES KAT
N= 12
14 12
12
Respondents reported young people as speaking their mother
tongue well.
75 100
92 92
Table 17 shows that the majority of respondents from each variety report that children are speaking the language the way they feel it ought to be spoken. In addition to current mother-tongue use, the
informal interview schedule inquired about attitudes toward what the respondents think will happen with their language in the future. All Malhoriya and Kathariya respondents said they believe their
children’s children will speak their mother tongue. Similarly, 92 of Desauriya and 83 of Deukhuri respondents reported the same. This reveals a strong belief in the continuation of their mother tongue.
Based on informal interviews and observations, we found that most mothers speak limited or no Nepali. However, as education increases for women 71 of young women respondents are educated,
but none of the older women respondents, so does their ability in the language of education, namely Nepali. Forty-five percent of older women respondents said they speak at least some Nepali. By contrast,
all young women reported that they speak Nepali. As this educated generation ages and has children and grandchildren, further studies should be done to re-investigate how this affects the intergenerational
transfer of Tharu.
Intergenerational transfer is a critical part of language vitality and, according to the responses from the interviews, the Tharu varieties covered in this survey are being passed on to the next generation.
With increasing levels of education, currently all in Nepali, this indicator will require monitoring as young people begin to make choices about which language they will speak with their children.
6.3 Group dynamics
Group dynamics is another indicator of language vitality. “One of the ways that the core of fluent speakers is either supported or undermined is through the language use characteristics of those who
immigrate to a speech community” Landweer 2000. Intermarriage between groups was observed during the survey and, in several instances, the spouse who immigrated learns the local language. In
Ghumna, a Deukhuri village, we were told that outsiders who marry-in are not forced to learn the language, but usually do because it is natural when you live there. We observed this in Belganar, a
Dangaura village, where a non-Tharu woman married into the community and “fluently” speaks the local variety of Tharu. An additional example is from Ghiya, a Malhoriya village, where our non-Tharu driver
spoke Tharu with a village man for directions to a village, when they could have both switched into Nepali instead. These observations suggest strong vitality.
6.4 Network of social relations
Another indicator of language vitality involves language use in a community’s social networks, defined by Landweer as “intracommunity interdependence with dense, multiplex networks utilizing the local
language to meet communication needs” Landweer 2000. A dense network is one in which everyone that is linked or connected to an individual is also linked to one another. A multiplex network is one in
which a person is connected to other people through multiple connections for example, their neighbor may also be their child’s teacher as well as the wife of their doctor. Local language use in a community
that has a both dense and multiplex social network indicates high vitality.
Observations allowed for little data collection in regards to the network of the Tharu communities. The most telling information came from interviewing leaders in each community. According to
community leaders, most of the villages have high percentages of Tharu population. In Majgau, a Deukhuri village, it was reported that approximately 3,980 out of the 4,000 villagers are Deukhuri. It
was reported in Pabera that approximately 60 of their village’s population is Kathariya; the remaining 40 being Chaudhary Dangaura. However, it was also reported that around 75 of the villagers speak
Kathariya because they said some Chaudhary people also speak Kathariya. In Ghiya, it was reported that all 1,300 people of the village speak Malhoriya, even the Pahadis hill people that live there. The
Belganar leader reported similar information saying that 800–900 of the 1,200 villagers are Dangaura. By contrast, the Chapargaudi leader reported that approximately 10 of their village is Desauriya.
When leaders were asked about schools and the ethnic background of teachers, information greatly varied. In Ghumna Deukhuri, 10 of 13 teachers are Tharu. Similarly, a high percentage of teachers in
Majgau Deukhuri are Tharu. Other locations, however, such as Belganar Dangaura, reported few Tharu primary school teachers and no Tharu secondary teachers. In Ghiya Malhoriya, primary school
teachers are mostly Tharu and secondary teachers are mostly non-Tharu. In several villages, Tharu medical personnel live and work in the village clinic.
The data collected with regards to this indicator is insufficient to make any strong statements of how the social networks of these communities affect language vitality. However, it would appear that
each individual location varies greatly from one another.
6.5 Relative prestige
