potential to be a written standard. The complete steps and data collected through Dialect Mapping can be found in Appendix E.
Advantages: Provides a visual representation of which communities participants interact with, how well participants feel they understand other varieties, how their language may or may not be altered in these
circumstances, and their attitudes towards each variety.
Disadvantages: May seem complicated or redundant to participants. Although they are a useful indicator, emic perspectives do not always match linguistic reality.
3.3.5 Domains of Language use participatory method
Description and Purpose: This method aids the investigation of language vitality. Its purpose is to help participants from the language community describe the varying situations in which they use L1, the
LWC, or other languages and then identify the domains and languages that are used more frequently.
Procedure: Groups of Lohorung people were asked to identify which languages they speak on a regular basis and then list a variety of domains in which each of those languages is used. The participants then
categorized the domains by their frequency. A full description of the Domains of Language Use tool and data gathered for this survey can be found in Appendix F.
Advantages: This method does not assume domains or frequency of language use, rather, the community suggests and discusses domains and frequency of language use from their own perspective.
Disadvantages: Categorizing domains may be confusing or difficult. Some people may not be comfortable making comparisons.
3.3.6 Bilingualism participatory method
Description and Purpose: This method helps language community members describe the demographics and patterns of multilingualism within their community.
Procedure: Participants listed the languages spoken most frequently in their community. They then described categories of people who speak each language well, the relative size of each category of
speakers, and which categories may be increasing most quickly. A complete description of the tool as well as results for this survey can be found in Appendix G.
Advantages: This tool does not assume languages spoken in the community, but allows the community to name and discuss relevant languages themselves.
Disadvantages: This method is not very accommodating to multilingual situations exceeding the complexity of bilingualism. Does not help document or illustrate community attitudes towards their
bilingual context.
3.3.7 Appreciative Inquiry participatory method
Description and Purpose: This method helps community members discuss what they are proud of, what desires they have for their language, and begin planning for how to achieve those dreams. It shows what
the community regards as priorities for their own language-based development.
Procedure: Participants discuss things in their L1 or culture that have made them happy or proud. They then consider how to build upon the good things they identified, or list their own dreams for their
language. Next, they discuss which dreams might be accomplished sooner and which ones will take longer. Then, they identify which dreams are most important to them. Finally, participants choose a
dream they would like to create a plan for, including first steps, who will be involved, and when the plan
will be put into action. A full description of the Appreciative Inquiry method and results can be found in Appendix H.
Advantages: This method is very adaptable. Its emphasis is on what the community can do now to work towards their dreams for language development. Appreciative Inquiry helps build a concrete context by
which to understand actual priorities that a community has for its own development.
Disadvantages: If not carried out appropriately, this method may raise false hopes of outside assistance in reaching their goals.
4 Language variation and attitudes
One of the primary questions this sociolinguistic research seeks to answer is: What are the relationships between Lohorung [lbr], Yamphu [ybi], and Southern Yamphu [lrr]? Based on lexical similarity
percentages, recorded text testing, attitudinal questions, and observations, we have concluded that Yamphu spoken in Hedangna and Southern Yamphu spoken in Rajarani are separate but related
languages to Lohorung spoken in Pangma.
This section is divided into sections that address the relationships between varieties according to the results of our research. This includes levels of lexical similarity and the degree of comprehension
between the varieties, as well as attitudes expressed on questions before and after the recorded text test.
4.1 Relationship between Lohorung Pangma and Yamphu Hedangna
