Instruments Katatagan ng Wika gamit ang Nine Factors in Language Vitality

62 Cambodia and other situations in Mainland Southeast Asia MSEA. Some of these surveys include: Dawkins Kirkland, 2008; Nahhas, 2007; ICC survey, 2006; and Mann Markowski, 2005. The researcher also benefited from the many-experienced language surveyors, particularly on language use and attitude questionnaire already used on Cambodian languages and cultural context ICC survey, 2006. The majority of the questions were taken from Research and Instrument Design Tool RAID developed by Nahhas, Kelsall, and Mann 2006 of Payap University Survey Unit, Payap University Linguistics Institute, Thailand. This tool is an attempt to provide suggestions, in outline form, for common survey purposes, goals and research questions, along with possible probes that help answer the research questions. According to Nahhas et al., 2006, the RAID was adapted from Douglas Boone’s SIL adaptation of “The Ladder of Abstraction” De Vaus’, 1986. The “steps” of the ladder are described in the Procedures of Language Survey Modules used for training SIL language surveyors around the world. The steps are slightly re- ordered and, for each step, many possibilities are given. Many of the probes contained in RAID were adapted in Showalter, 1991. These resulting SLQs have been pilot tested in Central Thai and Northern Thai, and revised accordingly. They have been used in the Mpi survey, the Lawa survey, and some surveys of Karennic languages in Thailand. The RAID is only an outline that can be modified depending on the context relevant to language and culture of a people group being studied. 63 Figure 2: Part of Raid Outline from Nahhas, Kelsall, and Mann, 2006 Purpose 1: [“Need”] Assess the NEED for vernacular literature development among the X people within region R. part of outline deleted Goal 3: Evaluate the vitality of language X in region R. “Vitality is the extent to which a language serves the needs of its speakers. When a language loses important, meaningful or useful functions in a community, it loses vitality.” – LinguaLinks Library glossary of sociolinguistic terms Research Question 1: Does it appear likely that varietylanguage X will continue to be spoken by future generations? Concept 1: Proficiency of children in X language Indicator 1 [Criteria]: Childrens proficiency in X Instrument 1: Individual SLQ Probe 1: See Children speak well or not Indicator 2 [Criteria]: Opportunities to learn X Indicator 3 [Criteria]: Instrument 1: Individual SLQ Probe 1: Language taught by parents Probe 2: Language taught by parents mixed marriages part of outline deleted Concept 2: Bilingual proficiency part of outline deleted Concept 3: Domains of Language Use Indicator 1 [Criteria]: Language choice in domains Instrument 1: Individual SLQ Probe 1: Domains of language use Indicator 2 [Criteria]: Language use by children [An Insider might not really know about the children if they don’t have any… Also, since this is such an important thing to get right, it might be better to get more than just one person’s opinion on this.] Instrument 1: Individual SLQ Probe 1: Childrens first language Probe 2: Childrens language of play Probe 3: Children other languages learned before school Probe 4: Children other languages learned after school 64 In the digital version the probes are in linked files with underlined blue words which can be opened when it is clicked. For example, if probe 1 is clicked the question below will appear. 1. What language do [X] children in this village speak first? Figure 3: Probe from RAID for concept 3, indicator 2, instrument 1 and probe 1 The example question as seen in Figure 3 is just one sample of the questions that the researcher used for the SLQs. It is in the linked file of probe 1Figure 3 ‘children’s first language’. X stands for Kachok people. Each probe contains a list of questions that appear when it is clicked in a digital version. The probe is only part of RAID, which MSEAG is using for language survey. This is a standard format to help the researcher formulate the survey purposes, goals, research questions, and sociolinguistic questionnaires to answer the research questions. Some parts of the outline were deleted, since the researcher selected only parts of this outline that were applicable to this study. The researcher, with the help of the language survey colleagues and Khmer language assistants, formulated the rest of the questions. The questionnaire was first written in English, and then translated into Khmer language. The Khmer language assistant edited the researcher’s Khmer translation of the SLQs. The questionnaire was tested with the Khmer speakers to ensure that the questions were clear and easy to understand. “Other times the questions on the questionnaire have to be quite radically modified. In either case, the list of questions 65 should be thoroughly checked with the native speaker of the vernacular before it is pilot tested” Blaire, 1990, p. 99. After testing the questions with the Khmer speakers, the researcher and the language assistant pilot tested the questionnaire with the Kachok village chiefs and other speakers of the Kachok language in the Kachok area. Most of the Kachok village chiefs could speak and understand Khmer well but some Kachok speakers could not. The Kachok language interpreters were fluent in Khmer and were able to elaborate the questions needing clarification by those who could not speak and understand the Khmer language. After the questionnaire was pilot tested, only few modifications were done to ensure the relevance of the questions particularly to this study Blaire, 1990. p. 103; Boehm, 1997; Nahhas, 2007. Some questions were difficult to understand by the Kachok speakers who could speak and understand Khmer. The researcher, with the help of a Khmer language assistant, simplified the questions to make them more specific and apt, and to enable the Kachok speakers to visualize situations that fit the questions.

3.5 Administration of SLQ and Data Collection

The five SLQs were administered in 9 Kachok villages using Khmer or Kachok language. The research assistant, a Khmer speaker Cambodian national was trained to appropriately administer the questionnaires. Along with the Kachok language interpreters, she helped the researcher and the ICC language survey colleagues administer the questionnaires all throughout the survey. These Kachok interpreters are native Kachok speakers who speak well and understand both Kachok 66 and Khmer. They translated all responses in Kachok into Khmer so that the researcher and the survey team could record them. The questionnaires were asked in Khmer language and translated orally into Kachok by the Kachok interpreters in case the subject did not understand the Khmer language. Some of the questions like, “What language do the children in this village learn to speak first?” were asked in the individual, Christian leader, group, and village leader SLQs. This is to validate the commonality of the answers to a specific SLQ. All responses related or not related to the questions were recorded at the back of SLQs sheets or in a bound data notebook. All responses in Khmer or Kachok were translated into English and finally entered into the excel worksheet. The following are the five sociolinguistic questionnaires:

3.5.1 Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire

In four of the nine villages, individual villagers were selected for interview, using quota sampling with age and gender as desired sample c.f. Table 13, p. 71. Their answers were especially important in providing a picture of language vitality and language attitudes.

3.5.2 Village Leader Sociolinguistic Questionnaire

In each of seven villages, the village leader was interviewed concerning the language situation of the village. In his absence, another Kachok leader - the commune chief, deputy leader of the village, or someone else knowledgeable about the Kachok people and their language was interviewed instead.