72 In this section, for each research question, the following are described:
• The instruments that were used to answer the research question. • The criteria by which the results were used to answer the research question.
3.7.1 Language Use by Domains
What are the languages used by the Kachok speakers in different domains?
Questions 39-42 from the Christian Leader SLQ c.f. Appendix 5, pp. 198- 199; questions 36-41 from the Individual SLQ c.f. Appendix 3, pp. 184-186;
questions 30-34 from Dialect Perceptions Group Interview c.f. Appendix 2, pp. 174- 177; and questions 21 and 23 from Teacher SLQ c.f. Appendix 1, pp. 167-168
were used to answer this research question. No quantitative criteria were used for this research question. All responses were assessed qualitatively.
3.7.2 Attitudes toward Kachok and other Languages
What are the attitudes of Kachok speakers toward their own language and other languages they speak?
Questions 24, 29-32, 44-52 from Christian Leader SLQ c.f. Appendix 5, pp. 196-201; questions 23, 28-35, 41-51and 55 from ISLQ c.f. Appendix 3, pp. 183-
189; questions 22-24, 29-40 from Dialect Perceptions Group Interview c.f. Appendix 2, pp. 172-181; questions 20-26, 31 from Teacher SLQ c.f. Appendix 1,
pp. 167-169; and questions 24, 35-41 from Village Leader SLQ c.f. Appendix 4, pp.
73 191-194 were used to answer the research question. No quantitative criteria were
used for this research question. All responses were assessed qualitatively.
3.7.3 Language Vitality
Does it appear likely that Kachok speakers of the next generations will continue to use their language?
Research questions one and two are part of research question three. Additionally, question 44 from ISLQ c.f. Appendix 3, p. 187 and 29 from TSLQ
c.f. Appendix 1, p. 169 helped determine the vitality of the Kachok language. Aside from language use and attitudes, other sociolinguistic factors that are associated with
language vitality were measured in this study by using the UNESCO nine factors and Fishman’s GIDS – contact with other ethnic groups, ethnolinguistic identity,
ethnolinguistic makeup of villages, geographical distribution, and population. In sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2, survey results for each of the UNESCO’s nine
language vitality factors and Fishman’s GIDS are described individually for every village that was surveyed and then summarized collectively.
Additionally, this study applied two methods that Nahhas 2007 used in measuring the language vitality of the Mpi language in Thailand as mentioned in
Section 2.2. The first of these is the “indicative” language vitality factor which refers to the language use at home and with children. This factor is related to current
vitality. According to Nahhas, this factor “defines the most basic form of strong language vitality: people are using the language at home and passing it on to their
children”. The second is the ‘predictive’ factor that is not essential at present but is
74 predictive of future trends in vitality. Nahhas 2007, p. 7 emphasized, “If many of
these ‘predictive’ factors are negative, then language vitality can be said to be threatened in the future. For example, even if the present generation of children is
fluent in the mother-tongue, negative language attitudes toward language maintenance could lead to this fluency not being passed on to the next generation”.
The results for the indicative and predictive language vitality factors are summarized in Section 4.3.3 and Section 4.3.4 respectively.
75
3.8 Summary
Figure 4 shows the steps conducted during the fieldwork to investigate the language use by domains and attitudes of the Kachok speakers toward their own
language and other languages they speak in order to assess the vitality of the Kachok language. See appendix 7 for a detailed flowchart of the language survey process.
Instrument pilot testing and revision
Travel to site, general protocol, ask permission
Select language interpreters and subjects
Gather data
Data entry
Analyze data and interpret results
Figure 4: Flowchart of the Fieldwork Process
76
CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the discussion of the data divided into three major sections: Language Use by Domains, Language Attitudes toward Kachok and other
Languages Spoken, and Language Vitality.
4.1 Language Use by Domains
The first research question on language use in different domains assumes that the choices people make concerning language use reveal development towards
language maintenance that to some extent reveals the vitality of the language. Table 15 shows the language use responses for each domain of communication for the ISLQ
research sample in four villages – Kaoh Peak, In, Upper Kachut, and Big Kanat. Questions were open-ended and answers were unrestricted as respondents were
allowed to give any language they thought of as an answer. They were asked about the language use in the following situations:
1 Home - a parents, b grandparents, c siblings, d spouse, e children,
f grandchildren 2
Friendship – a Kachok friends in their village and other villages, b non-Kachok friends in their village and other villages.
3 Social and public domains – a market, b village ceremonies, funerals,
weddings, and c village meetings. 4
Religious domain – Christian church in the Kachok villages.
