7 main questionnaire is intended for a broad cross section by random sampling see
Appendix 9. The supplements contain specialized questions for church leaders, educators, and government officials. In order to refer to the significant dialects of an
area in question 17, the researcher elicits dialect names according to ‘folk perception’ and sees how those relate to the results of the wordlist analyses.
2.1.3.3 The questionnaire
The questions cover five areas: general information, language use, attitudes towards language use, dialect use, and attitudes towards dialect use. It was necessary to take
great care in selecting wording in English, French, Arabic, and Bangala because the terms ‘language’ and ‘dialect’ are not used in the same way everywhere.
This general sociolinguistic questionnaire SLQ was supplemented by two others. By means of formal interview we probed language use and attitudes both in churches
and in schools. See Appendix 9 for examples of both the church leadership questionnaire and the Primary School questionnaire.
2.2 M
ETHODOLOGY
: H
OW
D
ATA
W
ERE
G
ATHERED
2.2.1 Logistics Time and Place 2.2.1.1 Sudan
Wordlists, phrase lists, and sociolinguistic information were gathered in Juba, Sudan between March and June 1988.
2.2.1.2 Uganda
Dick Watson gathered a small amount of information on the Madi of Moyo and Adjumani during a short trip into Uganda in October 1988 or thereabouts. Some data
on Ugandan Madi were gathered in Juba at the same time as data on Sudanese Madi. Data wordlists, phrase lists, and sociolinguistic information on Lugbara and the
southern ‘Madi’ dialects were collected by Douglas Boone and Louis Otika in November 1989.
2.2.1.3 Za ïre
Five multi-day trips were taken in 1988; other data were elicited at Aba, where Douglas Boone and Vern Hein were based. All survey activities, on site at Aba or ‘on
the road’ were organized through local CECA church leaders. The CECA workers who traveled with the surveyors provided invaluable guidance.
The surveyors took part in language committee meetings among the Kaliko-Omi July 30- Aug. 5 at Adja and the Logo June 8-21 at Todro. The bulk of Kaliko-Omi
and Logo data were collected as a formal part of these meetings. Help by Constance Kutsch Lojenga on wordlists and Ulla Persson for Kaliko
supplemented the work of Boone and Hein in Zaïre.
8
2.2.2 Wordlists 2.2.2.1 In Sudan
Wordlists were elicited in Sudan from individuals representing the various speech varieties of Moru, Madi Sudanese dialects and that of Moyo, Uganda, Kaliko
Sudanese dialects, as well as one complete list in Ojila, the main Sudanese dialect of Avokaya. Some of the lists consisted of only 100 items, but full 170-item lists were
collected for all major dialects. The Moru data are known to have been collected carefully, with all phonetic distinctions noted and all lists double-checked with the
person from whom the list was first collected. Tone was noted on the Kaliko lists and the Avokaya-Ojila list but not for Moru, nor for Madi.
2.2.2.2 In Uganda
The wordlists gathered in Uganda representing Moyo Madi as spoken in Moyo and in Adjumani corroborate the Moyo and Adjumani lists taken in Juba, Sudan. In 1989,
eight wordlists of 200 items each were taken, representing the various Ugandan Lugbara subdialects essentially one per county, as well the Oguko and Okollo
dialects of Madi. Tone was noted on these lists. The additional items were collected in order to compare results with those of the survey done for the Languages of Uganda
project in 1968. In some subdialects, two or even three speakers were available to give data; on one occasion, four lists were taken simultaneously, much as was done for
the Logo data see below.
2.2.2.3 In Zaïre
Lexical data in five Logo dialects and in Kaliko-Omi were collected using a distinctive ‘group approach’ by which speakers of each dialect came to a consensus
concerning what word was wanted but any differences in tone, pronunciation, or word choice, even among speakers of the same dialect, were also noted. An advantage of
this approach was that ambiguous items on the elicitation list were made clear in the course of the thorough discussion.
Other wordlists were collected from individuals representing some of the varieties of each language. Some of the Kaliko lists were 100-item lists, and lists were not
collected in all Lugbara dialects. Tone was always marked. Tasile, a Logo man skilled in tone differentiation, was usually present when
wordlists were collected. His familiarity, not only with Logo, but also with other Zairean Moru-Madi speech varieties, allowed the surveyors to regularize the phonetic
and tonetic transcription of data collected with his aid. He also helped clarify certain semantic nuances.
9
2.2.3 Phrase Lists 2.2.3.1 In Sudan
