and attitudes.
1
These areas of investigation, along with their corresponding data collection techniques are discussed in the sections below.
One data collection technique relevant to all three areas is the Preliminary Questionnaire so it will be discussed first. The Preliminary Questionnaire is a tool designed to gain a general impression of the
entire sociolinguistic picture. It asks subjects to give their opinions about dialect areas, bilingualism, language use and attitudes and other relevant information see appendix G.
There are two different methods of administering the questionnaire. The interviewer can either ask the questions of ten different people from one village representing different sectors of the population:
men, women, young, old, etc., or of one larger group of people who can be interviewed all at one time. This larger group should also represent the various segments of the population. In this study, the second
approach was used exclusively. Because of the limited sample and the subjectivity of self-report type instruments, care must be taken to not overemphasize the significance of the findings from the
Preliminary Questionnaire.
1.4.1 Identification of Bundeli dialect areas
Two main areas of investigation, lexical similarity and dialect intelligibility, were undertaken in order to identify Bundeli dialect areas and their relationship to related languages.
Lexical similarity One aspect of the dialect study is to compare the similarity of lexical usage between Bundeli speech
communities. This was accomplished through the collection and comparison of a standard 210-item wordlist elicited at representative points in each speech community. The goal of the wordlist
investigation is to determine general groupings of dialects based on the similarity of lexical items in current use. Lexical similarity is determined by calculating the percentage of words elicited in Speech
Variety A which are either identical or very similar in pronunciation to the words elicited for Speech Variety B. The results are therefore somewhat different than a comparative historical cognate count.
A description of the procedures used is summarized in appendix A. For a fuller explanation, refer to Blair 1990:26–33.
In addition to evaluating the similarity between Bundeli speech varieties, the Bundeli wordlists were compared with three related languages: Braj, Bagheli, and Hindi. The same counting procedures
were used in this procedure as for the comparison between Bundeli varieties. The goal of comparison of Bundeli with other related languages is to gain an initial assessment of
their relative similarity. For example, if all the varieties of Bundeli exhibit an unusually high lexical similarity with a related variety, it indicates that there may be inherent intelligibility. However, because
most Bundeli speakers have some contact with Hindi in particular, those Bundeli speech varieties that share a high lexical similarity with Hindi, perhaps are less “pure” varieties of Bundeli and have
converged with the dominant lingua franca.
Dialect intelligibility Another aspect of the dialect study is to investigate the degree of inherent intelligibility between the
various varieties of Bundeli, and also between Bundeli and other languages, especially Braj. Inherent intelligibility is the understanding that is the result of two speech varieties being closely related to one
another, as opposed to understanding that is acquired by exposure or learning. The results from
1
There is not a one-to-one correspondence between the three questions listed above and the three areas of investigation. One area of investigation may be relevant to all three questions. In addition, the order in which the
areas of investigation are discussed is based on the normal order in which they occur in the process of survey, rather than on the order of the questions listed above.
intelligibility testing, analyzed in conjunction with the results from lexical similarity help determine the most meaningful grouping of speech varieties. The method used for intelligibility testing, called
Recorded Text Testing RTT, is summarized in appendix C of this report. For a more detailed description see Casad 1974 and Blair 1990.
Inherent intelligibility is inferred from a group of subjects’ understanding of a recorded text. The results are expressed as the average of the percentage of correct answers to selected comprehension
questions given by subjects from one test location. Sample size and standard deviation are also given. In addition to conducting Recorded Text Testing, opinions regarding perceived comprehension of
the texts were solicited. Immediately following each text, respondents were asked “post-RTT” questions, such as, if they knew where the storyteller was from, as well as how much they understood of the story,
and the ease or difficulty of understanding see appendix F. These subjective, “self-report” answers give additional insights in interpreting the objective data of the test. Evidence gleaned from background
research, interviews with mother tongue speakers who have had contact, and others who have had experience working in the various speech varieties covered in the study are also considered in the final
analysis of the extent of dialect areas.
In certain exceptional cases,
2
the normal procedures for Recorded Text Testing were modified. This was done in two ways:
1 The control test or Hometown Test was not developed for the hometown area, but another variety that was believed to be closely related was used as the control test. If the score was high, then it
was assumed that it had at least some validity to be used as a control test and that any other tests administered could be interpreted by comparing the score on this control test to the speech variety in
question.
2 No control test was developed and since there was not a variety closely related enough to use as a control test, no control test was used. Texts from other sites were played and no comprehension
questions were asked. In some cases, a subject was asked to give a general summary of the story after they had listened to the whole text, just to get a general idea of how well they understood. But usually
only post-RTT questions were asked and recorded. This a very subjective approach and should be interpreted with caution.
1.4.2 Bilingualism
