languages can affect language vitality. The high levels of vitality we encountered, however, lead us to believe that data gathered at these sites are a strong argument for language vitality, since language
vitality generally increases with distance from population centers. It is probable that language vitality would be even stronger in more remote villages.
During site selection, we were unaware that Chapargaudi, the Desauriya village we visited, has only a 10 Tharu population and is highly mixed. Many of our subjects were from nearby villages ranging
from 1–3 km in distance from Chapargaudi; however, they view themselves as one group with no differences in their language.
3.2 Research methods
Several methods were used to elicit data in order to meet the goals of the survey. Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.5 describe the purpose, procedure and certain advantages and disadvantages of each method.
3.2.1 Wordlists
Description and purpose: A comparison of wordlists estimates the degree of lexical similarity between the speech varieties the wordlists represent.
Procedure: Five 316-item wordlists were elicited and compared for this analysis, one from each Tharu variety. Wordlists were elicited in Nepali from Tharu mother-tongue speakers and were transcribed using
the International Phonetic Alphabet IPA. Lexical similarity analysis was carried out on each pair of wordlists. A complete description of wordlist comparison methodology and the data we collected can be
found in Appendix A.
Advantages: Data collection is relatively efficient. Wordlists can provide some broad insights into possible dialect groupings.
Disadvantages: Above certain levels of lexical similarity, wordlists cannot give conclusive evidence of intelligibility between speech varieties compared.
3.2.2 Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire KIQ
Description and purpose: A prepared interview specifically designed for someone the community views as the most knowledgeable regarding information about their language. This tool provides information
from a reliable and knowledgeable source about their language and social factors that do not vary from person to person.
Procedure: Administered to only one person at a time, questions range from specific population estimates and locations to general information about vitality and other languages spoken by the community. This
tool was administered in one village from each speech variety of the survey. The questionnaire and responses are found in Appendix B.
Advantages: Good for obtaining village-level information in a brief period of time. Disadvantages: Information is from only one person and therefore may be skewed.
3.2.3 Informal interviews
Description and purpose: A prepared interview schedule based on the “Sociolinguistic Questionnaire A”, used by the Linguistic Survey of Nepal guides interaction in order to gather information regarding
specific sociolinguistic issues, while allowing freedom to ask further questions if they might provide additional information relevant to the research questions of the survey.
Procedure: Interviews were administered on an individual basis. Subjects were chosen using quotas according to demographic factors relevant to our research questions see section 3.3.2 for additional
subject selection procedures. This tool was administered to speakers of all the Tharu varieties of this survey except Dangaura
1.
The complete interview schedule and responses are in Appendix C. Advantages: Depending on the length of the interview, the time in administration can be minimal,
allowing for relatively large numbers of people to be interviewed. The informal nature of the interviews helps subjects feel comfortable to share openly, while allowing greater depth and providing context for
their responses.
Disadvantages: Informal interviews are limited in that subjects may only report what they want the researcher to hear, or what they believe the researcher would like to hear.
3.2.4 Recorded Story Questions RSQ
