silesr2015 009.

A Sociolinguistic Survey of the

Lower Ramu Languages of

Papua New Guinea

(Awar [aya], Bosmun [bqs], Kayan [kct],

and Marangis [wax])

Languages of Papua New Guinea

(Awar [aya], Bosmun [bqs], Kayan [kct], and Marangis

[wax])

Brian Paris

SIL International

®

2015

SIL Electronic Survey Report 2015-009, September 2015

© 2015 SIL International®

This sociolinguistic survey of the Lower Ramu language groups was undertaken to assess the feasibility of the four target language groups—Awar [aya], Bosmun [bqs], Kayan [kct], and Marangis [wax]— joining the Papua New Guinea branch of Pioneer Bible Translators’ Lower Ramu Initial Goals Project (LRIG), a proposed multi-language development project. The goals of the survey were to 1) assess the vitality of the vernacular for each target group, 2) assess the willingness of the target groups to work with the other potential language groups in the LRIG project, and 3) assess the interest of the target groups in vernacular language development.

The survey found that vitality among the Awar, with an Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS) score of 7 “Shifting,” was too low to be involved in LRIG, high enough among the Kayan and Marangis (both EGIDS 6a “Vigorous”), and (EGIDS 6b “Threatened”) among the Bosmun. All of the groups expressed willingness to work together in the LRIG project, and no current or past behavior contradicts this. All of the groups expressed a desire for vernacular development, though the motivations expressed by the Awar do not match the goals of the LRIG project.

The results of this survey indicate that PBT should invite the Kayan, Marangis, and Bosmun into the LRIG project.

iii

Abstract

1 Introduction

1.1 Language location 1.2 Previous research

1.2.1 Awar 1.2.2 Kayan 1.2.3 Marangis 1.2.4 Bosmun

1.3 Language names and classification 1.4 Population

1.5 Survey purpose and goals

2 Methodology

2.1 Goal 1: Assess the vitality of the vernacular for the target group

2.2 Goal 2: Assess the willingness of the target group to work with the other potential language groups in the LRIG project

2.3 Goal 3: Assess the interest of the target group in vernacular language development 2.4 Survey instruments

2.4.1 Main Questionnaire 2.4.2 Walkabout Questionnaire 2.4.3 Social Network Activity

2.4.4 Teacher Interview and Church Leader Interviews 2.5 Sampling

3 Goal 1: Assess the vitality of the vernacular of each target group

3.1 Awar

3.1.1 Language use patterns

3.1.2 Internal and external community attitudes 3.1.3 Language use of immigrants

3.1.4 Contact with urban centers 3.1.5 Economic factors

3.1.6 Conclusion 3.2 Kayan

3.2.1 Language use patterns

3.2.2 Internal and external community attitudes 3.2.3 Language use of immigrants

3.2.4 Contact with urban centers 3.2.5 Economic factors

3.2.6 Conclusion 3.3 Marangis

3.3.1 Language use patterns

3.3.2 Internal and external community attitudes 3.3.3 Language use of immigrants

3.3.4 Contact with urban centers 3.3.5 Economic factors

3.3.6 Conclusion 3.4 Bosmun

3.4.1 Language use patterns

3.4.2 Internal and external community attitudes 3.4.3 Language use of immigrants

3.4.4 Contact with urban centers 3.4.5 Economic factors

4 Goal 2: Assess the willingness of the target group to work with the other potential language groups in the LRIG project

4.1 Current cooperation 4.2 Expressed willingness 4.3 Past disputes

4.4 Conclusions

5 Goal 3: Assess the interest of the target group in vernacular language development

5.1 Awar

5.1.1 Expressed interest 5.1.2 Interest of the Church

5.1.3 Internal vernacular language development 5.1.4 Conclusion

5.2 Kayan

5.2.1 Expressed interest 5.2.2 Interest of the Church

5.2.3 Internal vernacular language development 5.2.4 Conclusion

5.3 Marangis

5.3.1 Expressed interest 5.3.2 Interest of the Church

5.3.3 Internal vernacular language development 5.3.4 Conclusion

5.4 Bosmun

5.4.1 Expressed interest 5.4.2 Interest of the Church

5.4.3 Internal vernacular language development 5.4.4 Conclusion

5.5 Conclusion

6 Overall conclusions

Appendix A: Main questionnaire Appendix B: Walkabout questionnaire Appendix C: Teacher interview

Appendix D: Church leader interview References

1

The Ramu River flows from the Eastern Highlands of Papua New Guinea (PNG) to the Bismark Sea in the northwest corner of Madang Province.1 _{Along its lower reaches and around its mouth, the five Ottilien}

languages are spoken: Awar [aya], Bosmun [bqs], Kayan [kct], Marangis [wax] and Mbore [gai].2 _The

Papua New Guinea branch of Pioneer Bible Translators (PBT PNG) has an ongoing language

development project in the Mbore language group.3 _{PBT PNG is considering using this project to launch}

the Lower Ramu Initial Goals (LRIG) Project into the four other Ottilien languages. LRIG is a slow-start multi-language project conceived by PBT PNG as a way of, in the end, quickly and effectively engaging the Lower Ramu language communities. Director of PBT PNG, Mike Herchenroeder, and Director of Language Affairs, Norm Weatherhead, asked the author, Brian Paris, to survey the four target languages. The purpose of the survey was to determine whether the LRIG project should go forward, and if it did, with which language groups. The survey was conducted from 15–25 October, 2013.

1.1 Language location

The Lower Ramu languages are spoken in the Madang and East Sepik Provinces of Papua New Guinea. Awar, Kayan, and Marangis are spoken on the north coast near the border of these provinces and the Ramu River. Bosmun is spoken inland near the Ramu River, while Mbore has villages on the river and the coast. I accessed the area by public motor vehicle (PMV). I was able to drive directly to all three Awar villages and Kayan. From Kayan I arranged a boat to go to the Marangis villages and then up the Ramu River to visit the Bosmun villages.

1_{This survey would not have been possible without the cooperation of the government of Papua New Guinea, the}

Papua New Guinean branch of Pioneer Bible Translators, The Seed Company, and the local language communities. I visited 11 villages on this trip and the residents of each fed me, gave me a place to sleep, and participated in the research, sometimes with little or no notice. I would especially like to thank Jeffery Bai, Robert Maiging, David Sakora, Andrew Aris, Jimmy Kakos, August Markis, Rudolph Kamdong, Elias Kem, Henri Topi, Melkior Yigiri, and Henri the Skipper. I would also like to thank Thomas Dukun and Norman Banao, two Mbore men who accompanied me through the entire survey. Without them I may have never made it back.

2_{ISO codes for the languages discussed in this report will only be listed with this first occurrence of the language}

name.

3_{The Mbore people call themselves Mbore and their language Mborena Kam. However, since the language is known}

Map 1. Lower Ramu languages in context

Includes geodata from worldgeodatasets.com and Esri.

Map 1 shows the area where the Lower Ramu languages are spoken. The red line is the north coast road. You can travel from Madang town to Botbot village, an Mbore speaking village, where the road ends at the Botbot River. The primary river in the area is the Ramu, flowing north/south through the Bosmun and Mbore areas. The Sepik River is also in the area near the northwest corner of the Marangis area.

Map 2. Lower Ramu villages

Includes geodata from worldgeodatasets.com and Esri.

Map 2 shows all the of the Lower Ramu villages. On this survey I visited all the villages shown except the Mbore villages (indicated in the map with orange dots).

Table 1 gives the 2013 dates when I visited each village (see table 3 for a list of work done in each village).

Table 1. Itinerary

L

a

n

gu

a

ge

V

illa

g

e

N

a

me

Da

te

V

isi

ted

Awar Sisimagum 16 Oct

Nubia 17 Oct

Awar 18 Oct

Kayan Kayan 19 Oct

Marangis Watam 20 Oct

Marangis 21 Oct

Bosmun Daiden 22 Oct

Nemnem 22 Oct

Dogan 23 Oct

Wamtac 24 Oct

During my time in the Awar language group, I slept every night (15–18 October, 2013) in

Sisimagum. The villages are so close together that I was able to walk to each one to visit and return at night to sleep. I was not able to spend the night in Daiden because one of my co-workers could not enter the village due to cultural restrictions surrounding the death of a relative. Rather than make him wait outside the village, I met with the community for a few hours and moved on to Nemnem. I also did not spend the night in Wamtac because the community was so small and close to Dogan. On 24 October I started in Dogan, walked to Wamtac to meet with the community there and then got on a boat to go to Goingbang 2. After completing the work there I found out that if I did not get on a PMV that night to leave the area, I would have had to stay the weekend. I got on a PMV that night and arrived in Madang on 25 October.

1.2 Previous research

The four target languages have been the focus of some outside research. One of the first descriptions of the Lower Ramu languages was done by Arthur Capell (Capell 1951). He gave brief grammar sketches of Marangis (which he called Watam), Mbore (Gamai), and Bosmun and Awar (Bosngun-Nubia, which he considered two dialects of the same language).

John Z’Graggen included the Lower Ramu in his widespread work in Madang Province. They appear on his map as Watam, Kaian, Gamei, Awar, and Bosmun (Z’Graggen 1975). Wurm and Hattori included them under the same names in their complete map of the entire South Pacific region (Wurm and Hattori, 1983).

Each of the target languages has also been visited for extended periods of time by researchers.

1.2.1 Awar

Catherine Levy is a linguist who did extensive work in the Awar language. She did a doctoral dissertation on the Awar language for the University of Brussels. It is currently being considered for publication by Pacific Linguistics (Levy 2005).

Though she spent a long time in the Awar language her research does not intersect with the goals of the survey. I have not been able to reach her to ask her opinion on topics related to the survey.

1.2.2 Kayan

Alexis von Poser is an anthropologist who worked among the Kayan. He wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Kayan worldview (von Poser, A. T. 2008). The people of Kayan have at least one copy I was able to read while visiting with them. Though it was fascinating, it did not contribute anything toward the goals of the survey. Dr. von Poser was kind enough to correspond with me after I returned from the field work; his insights were valuable and are added as a source where relevant.

He also helped to compile a dictionary of Kayan. The only copy I have seen is in Kayan itself. This work will be helpful in the future, though the Kayan would like to make some edits.

1.2.3 Marangis

The Marangis language is probably the most fully documented of all the Lower Ramu language. Bill Foley has spent an extensive amount of time in Watam and published numerous articles and books that include descriptions of different aspects of the language (which he refers to as Watam). See Foley 1986, 2000, and 2005.

His work is thorough, but focuses on the language of the Watam people only. Because of this it offers only a little toward the goals of this survey. Dr. Foley was gracious enough to correspond with me on various questions I had. His insights are included where relevant.

1.2.4 Bosmun

Anita von Poser is an anthropologist who worked with the Bosmun. She has published her doctoral dissertation (von Poser, A. 2013), as well as other works (von Poser, A. 2011). Though she focuses on the culture she does make numerous observations that were useful to the goals of the survey among the Bosmun. She found that the Bosmun culture is changing due to new external and internal pressures. This places the language shift that I documented on the survey (see section 3.4) in the context of a greater cultural shift. Her work is thorough and invaluable to understanding not only the Bosmun but also the greater Madang province as all the people groups struggle to adapt to a rapidly changing world.

1.3 Language names and classification

As stated in section 1.1, the four target language groups are linguistically related to Mbore. The target languages plus Mbore represent the Ottilien sub-group of the Ramu-Lower Sepik language family. The

Ethnologue classification can be charted as follows (Lewis 2009):

Note 1: Numbers within parentheses ( ) indicate the number of languages in the group.

Note 2: Red indicates a language in which PBT currently works; Green indicates target languages. Figure 1. Ethnologue classification of Ramu-Lower Sepik.

The name “Ottilien” comes from the name first given to the Ramu River by a westerner. In 1886, German Vice-Admiral Freiherr von Schleinitz first sighted the mouth of the Ramu River on an expedition exploring German New Guinea. He named this river “Ottilien” after his ship the Ottilie (Souter 1963:73).

Foley argues for a slightly different grouping of the larger Ramu-Lower Sepik family, but is in agreement with figure 1 where it concerns the target languages. He has suggested changing the sub-group name from “Ottilien” to “Lower Ramu” as it is more easily understood (Foley 2005). In this work I will follow Foley’s suggestion and use “Lower Ramu” languages to refer to all five languages.

The names used for the target languages in this report are the official ISO 639-3 names. Bosmun has also been called Bosman and Bosngun. Kayan has been spelled Kaian in other sources. Finally, Marangis is also known as Watam. It is not uncommon in the region for language names to also be the names of

Ramu-Lower Sepik

Kambot (1)

Lower Sepik (6)

Ramu

Ottilien

Borei Mbore [gai]

Bosmun-Awar

Awar [aya]

Bosmun [bqs]

Watam

Kayan [kct]

Marangis [wax] Grass (4)

Middle Ramu (3)

Mikarew (3)

Tamolan (6)

villages. Hence the dual names for the Marangis language, Marangis and Watam, the two villages where it is spoken.

1.4 Population

Table 2 gives population figures for the villages visited on the survey. The projected 2013 population figures were calculated by using the published 3.7% growth rate for Madang Province and 3% for East Sepik Province (National Statistical Office 2002b)4_{. The households were individually visited and}

counted in each village. Finally, the estimated 2013 population is based on 5.46 persons per household found in Yawar Rural Local Level Government (LLG) in the 2000 census (National Statistical Office 2002a).5

Table 2. Population figures

Language Village Name 2000 National Populations Census* Projected 2013 population Actual Households 2013 Estimated 2013 population

Awar Awar 444 712 110 601

Nubia 386 619 58 317

Sisimagum 160 256 43 235

Totals 990 1587 211 1153

Kayan Kayan 512 821 145 792

Marangis Marangis 527 846 142 775

Watam 256 376 57 311

Totals 783 1222 199 1086

Bosmun Daiden 167 268 35 191

Nemnem 232 372 58 371

Dogan 421 675 100 546

Wamtac 165 265 42 229

Goingbang 2 241 386 79 431

Totals 1226 1996 314 1768

*Note: These figures come from the 2000 National Census (National Statistical Office 2002a).6

Only in Goingbang 2 did the estimated population exceed the projected population. It must be remembered that most of the area around these villages has little arable land and cannot support much population growth. Anita von Poser indicated that the population growth was already on the rise in the area in 2005 and she expressed concern at the ability of the people to produce enough food for this increase (von Poser A. 2011:2).

On this survey I did not look for exact numbers of emigrants from these villages since I did not anticipate it to be a significant factor in language vitality, but it was commented on multiple occasions

4_{“All growth rates should be used with caution due to changes in how censuses have been conducted since 1980”}

(National Statistical Office 2002b:9).

5_{Though there has been a census completed by the government of Papua New Guinea in 2010 the results are not yet}

widely distributed.

that more and more young people are choosing to live in town (either Bogia or Madang). Though currently only around 5% of the population of PNG lives in urban centers, towns are the only place where secondary school graduates can find jobs.

Nubia had a plantation operated by the Roman Catholic Church. It was closed for reasons I could not ascertain, but this accounts for the drastic difference between the projected and estimated population figures in that village.

1.5 Survey purpose and goals

The purpose of this survey was to determine the feasibility of the LRIG project as it concerns the four target language groups; Awar, Bosmun, Kayan, and Marangis. For this reason each language group will be evaluated individually to assess whether they should be invited to join the LRIG project.

To achieve the purpose of the survey there were three goals investigated in each language group: 1. Assess the vitality of the vernacular for the target group.

2. Assess the willingness of the target group to work with the other language groups which could potentially participate in the LRIG project.

3. Assess the interest of the target group in vernacular language development.

Assessing the vitality of the target vernacular languages will allow PBT PNG leadership to more accurately project whether the communities will benefit from vernacular language development. Many language groups in Madang Province are choosing to shift to the language of wider communication, Tok Pisin [tpi]. It is important that, before any language development is started, the vitality of the vernacular in question is assessed. Given the nature of the LRIG project which is based on limited expatriate

involvement and small goals, the vitality of each vernacular language is not as important as if these groups were being assessed with a traditional project in mind.

The final two goals are more important to determining the feasibility of the LRIG project. The ability of the target groups to cooperate with each other and the Mbore is essential for the LRIG project to be successful as it is currently devised. If the groups cannot work together, or with the Mbore, the LRIG project will not be able to move forward.

Also essential to the success of the LRIG project is the willingness of each target community to be involved. Given the limited role of PBT PNG, the initiative will have to be taken by each language community. If a community has no interest in vernacular language development it cannot be involved with the LRIG project.

2 Methodology

Methodology will be discussed in terms of the three primary goals listed in the previous section. For each goal, research questions and corresponding indicators were identified. Mention will be made of the instruments used to evaluate the indicators, followed by further discussion of survey instruments in section 2.4.

2.1 Goal 1: Assess the vitality of the vernacular for the target group

Five research questions7 _{were used to meet the first goal. They are listed below with corresponding}

indicators:

7_{The research questions and indicators for this goal were adapted from a previous language survey (Masters, Carter,}

Grummitt, and Paris). I am grateful to Janell Masters for showing me how to thoroughly develop a research question.

1. Do language use patterns suggest that language shift is occurring or likely to occur?

The presence of language shift in a community means that the community’s vernacular is not likely to be used far into the future. Three indicators show that shift is not taking place, supporting a view that the vitality is strong:

• Children are fluent in the vernacular and use it in most domains.

• Parents use primarily the vernacular to socialize their children.

• The community uses the vernacular in most or all domains.

These indicators show that vitality of the vernacular is strong at the present time. The indicators were assessed using probes on a questionnaire.

2. Do intra- and extra-community attitudes evidence and support continued use of the vernacular? A community’s language use is a reflection of its own and its influential neighbors’ language attitudes. Positive attitudes toward use of the vernacular suggest continued use of the vernacular and strong vitality. The following indicators relate to the second research question:

• The community wants their children to be fluent in the vernacular and to use it.

• From the perspective of teachers and church leaders, the community likes to help outsiders learn and use their vernacular.

• Churches use the vernacular.

• Elementary schools use the vernacular.

In communities where current vernacular vitality is strong, these indicators reveal forces that would promote continued use of the vernacular in the future. The first indicator was assessed using probes on a questionnaire. The second indicator was assessed using guided interviews with teachers and church leaders. The third and fourth indicators were assessed using a combination of the guided interviews with teachers and church leaders, and observation in churches and schools.

3. Does the language use of immigrants support continued use of the vernacular?

Immigrants may potentially introduce outside languages to the community and be a catalyst for language shift. Therefore, to help assess vernacular vitality, the following indicators will be investigated:

• Immigrants use the vernacular with their children or are a small percentage of the population.

• The community believes emigrants who have returned to live in the community should use the vernacular.

These indicators not only suggest that immigration poses no threat to vitality, but may indicate that factors in play motivate immigrants to use the vernacular as opposed to other languages in their

repertoire. This suggests the vitality of the vernacular is strong. Assessment of these indicators was made using probes on two questionnaires—one probe on the main questionnaire, and a house-by-house reporting instrument on the “walkabout” questionnaire.

4. Is the community’s distance from urban centers supportive of continued vitality?

This looks at opportunity for shift whereas others look at attitude (often evidenced by behavior):

• Travel to Madang and Bogia does not provide a majority of the community with great opportunity to shift their language.

Extremes in travel patterns to Madang and Bogia are most predictive in terms of vitality. If few community members travel to these places and they do so rarely, there is little opportunity for language shift. If most community members travel to these places and do so often, there is great potential for language shift. Between these extremes conclusions are harder to draw, but a description of the situation may still inform the overall assessment of vitality. This indicator was evaluated using probes on the main survey questionnaire.

5. Do economic endeavors weaken the vernacular?

If a community feels they need to use a language other than their vernacular to become

economically successful, it may favor use of that language over the vernacular. This is especially true if they have ample employment opportunity in contexts where the vernacular is not used. These

considerations lead to the following indicator:

• The need and opportunity to use a language other than the vernacular at work does not affect a large portion of the population.

A description of the community’s economic situation (in regard to language use) may inform our overall assessment of vitality. This indicator was evaluated using probes on the main survey

questionnaire.

2.2 Goal 2: Assess the willingness of the target group to work with the other potential language groups in the LRIG project

Three research questions were used to assess goal 2. They are listed below with corresponding indicators. 1. Does the target group currently cooperate with the other potential LRIG project groups?

Current cooperation with the other groups in other areas shows that there are no disputes big enough to disrupt relations between the groups. It is assumed that if the groups are able to cooperate in other areas and if they desire to be involved in the LRIG project, cooperation with the other groups will not be an issue.

The following indicators will help us answer the first research question:

• The groups currently cooperate in traditional areas, e.g. marriage, traditional dances, feasts.

• The groups currently cooperate in religious endeavors such as church work days, joint religious services.

• The groups currently cooperate in financial endeavors such as shared transportation and cash crops.

These indicators were assessed using an instrument called the Social Network Tool. The data from this instrument can be analyzed in a number of different ways, but one way we will look at it will be to create a macro social network map of the area. Using this we will be able to see with whom villages are connected and how strongly they are connected. Patterns can be analyzed to show which language groups are socially connected to each other, which will also reveal if any of the groups are outside of the social networks of the other groups.

2. Does the target group express willingness to work with the other potential LRIG project groups? The answer to any direct question should not be taken at face value, but it is important to ask. In most Papua New Guinean cultures it is more important to please someone than to be brutally honest. For this reason the answers given to my questions can be more what the audience thinks would please someone than to provide an honest answer if it is perceived that such is not the desired answer. However, having the official answer from respondents will then give us a baseline to compare with the other data.

The indicators that will help us answer the second research question are the following:

• The groups express a willingness to work with the other language groups.

• There is no disagreement with the expressed willingness.

These indicators were dealt with by a series of questions in the main questionnaire. Observations will also be used to determine the group dynamics as these questions are being answered. Disagreement may not be openly expressed or impact the official answer given, but should be noted as it may help to reveal patterns in other data.

3. Has the target group had disagreements with the other potential LRIG project groups in the past? Past disagreement may be shared more readily than current disputes. A history of disputes may also be of concern even if there are no current issues.

The indicators that will answer the third research question, even if no current issues are mentioned, are the following:

• The groups were not traditional enemies.

• There have been no disputes in this generation.

These indicators were assessed using the questionnaire. Observation will also be helpful as these questions are discussed and answered by the group.

2.3 Goal 3: Assess the interest of the target group in vernacular language development

Four research questions were used to assess goal three. They are listed below with their corresponding indicators.

1. Does the target group express interest in vernacular language development?

As stated above, the answer to any direct question should not be taken at face value, but it is important to ask. Having the official answer will then give us something to compare with the other data.

The indicators that will help us answer the first research questions are the following:

• The groups express an interest in vernacular language development.

• There is no disagreement with the expressed interest.

These indicators were dealt with by a series of questions in the questionnaire. Observations will also be used to determine the group dynamics as these questions are being answered. Disagreement may not be openly expressed, or impact the official answer given but should be noted as it may help to reveal patterns in other data.

2. Do church leaders express interest in involving the church in language development?

In most parts of PNG the church is a major part of the decision making process. An enterprise that does not have the backing of the local church has a major hurdle to overcome. For this reason it is essential to seek the opinion of the local church before beginning any major language development program.

The indicators that will help us answer the second research question are the following:

• The local church leaders express a willingness to help in a language development program.

• The church leaders value the vernacular in assisting their efforts in the village.

These indicators were assessed by conducting interviews with church leaders in the village, as I was able, based on the availability of the church leaders.

3. Has the target group attempted any vernacular language development themselves?

Any attempt by the local community to develop their vernacular should be considered. It shows that the community is willing to act on its own with limited resources, so it stands to reason that they will also work in the LRIG project.

The indicators used to assess the third research question are the following:

• If the vernacular does not have an orthography developed by translators or linguists, the community has made an attempt to devise an orthography.

• The community has attempted some basic translation, e.g. Bible stories or hymns.

• The community has developed vernacular materials for school.

These indicators were assessed in the questionnaire. Where possible, physical examples of these materials were collected and photographed.

4. Have any materials produced for the target group been used?

If materials have already been produced by PBT, the government, or another NGO, the use or non-use of those materials will tell us something about the excitement the community has for language development.

The indicator used for this research question is the following:

• If materials have been developed, they are being used in church/school.

This indicator was assessed in the questionnaire. Where possible, physical examples of these materials were collected and photographed.

2.4 Survey instruments

Copies of the survey instruments used are given in the appendices.

2.4.1 Main Questionnaire

The Main Questionnaire (Appendix A) was conducted in each village with community leaders and anyone else present. Most cultures in Papua New Guinea are egalitarian; it is inappropriate to seek answers for the group from an individual. To mitigate this, the questionnaire is given to the entire group at once allowing for discussion and a final “official” answer to be given and recorded. In these settings most people are free to speak until a consensus has been reached. The answer was then related to me by a community leader.

2.4.2 Walkabout Questionnaire

The second questionnaire is the Walkabout Questionnaire (Appendix B) used to record miscellaneous information elicited during a guided tour through the village. It contains a place to record a sampling of village houses and the number that belong to immigrants. The sheet also includes space to make

observations about vernacular materials in church and school buildings.

2.4.3 Social Network Activity

The purpose of this activity was to create a social network map of the Lower Ramu villages. It reveals which villages are connected and how strong those connections are. Using a preset list of villages and potential connections allows for consistency in the data that is elicited. Following is a description of the activity by which the social network map was created:

I placed a circle of yarn on the ground. I marked the circle with the name of the target village. I then gave a village leader a stack of cards with names of all the other Lower Ramu villages on them. I explained that the circle represents a certain relationship or connection between the two, e.g. villages where you get women for marriage. I asked the people to list those villages by placing the cards with their names inside the circle. All other villages remain outside the circle.

After the people finished, I reviewed the information and made any changes they wanted. Then I recorded the information and cleared the cards. The process was repeated for all other interactions or connections between that village and others.

Critique

I came to the area with a list of village names that I wanted to map socially. The list comprised all the villages of each of the Lower Ramu languages according to the latest census information. I expected each village to recognize all the other village names. Instead, I found that most people did not know the villages by the names I had. Instead, what I had as multiple villages were sometimes conceived by the

people as one area, leading to confusion about which villages/areas I was asking about. Therefore I question the validity of some of the data gathered by this method.

In previous surveys this method has elicited positive participatory response. This time, due to the confusion about which villages we were talking, the method was received coldly. I came to see it as a waste of time, and for the last half of the villages I took the information in questionnaire form.

2.4.4 Teacher Interview and Church Leader Interviews

The Teacher Interview (Appendix C) and Church Leader Interview (Appendix D) were guided interviews with a knowledgeable outsider. The goal was to gain insight from an outside source to compare with the information gathered from insiders in the Main Questionnaire.

Critique

This interview was important for gaining an outsider’s perspective of the target communities. This allows for triangulation in the research. However, the reality in the Lower Ramu communities is that there are few outsiders serving these areas in school or church. Where there were schools they were staffed by locals. The churches were almost all Roman Catholic and were served by local prayer leaders or catechists under the parish priest, who lives in Dogan. The lack of an outsider perspective is a serious void in the research.

2.5 Sampling

Due to the small size of the target communities I was able to visit almost every village in each language group.8 _{In each village the Walkabout Questionnaire was completed first. This was also used as a way of}

announcing my presence to the entire village and inviting everyone to participate in the Main Questionnaire which was usually conducted at night in a traditional meeting area.

Church leader and teacher interviews were conducted as I was able. Sometimes they occurred in the middle of the walkabout questionnaire, other times at night after the main questionnaire. This was at the availability of those being interviewed.

8_{All villages except for Base Camp, a Bosmun village. I decided to exclude Base Camp because it is a hub of travel}

Table 3. Information gathered in each village L a n gu a ge V il lag e N am e Mai n Q u est io nnai re W a lk a b o u t Q u est io nnai re So cia l N et w o rk A ct iv it y T eac h er Int er v iew C hu rc h L ead er Int er v iew

Awar Awar X X X

Nubia X X X

Sisimagum X X X X X

Kayan Kayan X X X X

Marangis Marangis X X X

Watam X X X

Bosmun Daiden X X X

Nemnem X X X

Dogan X X X X X

Wamtac X X X

Goingbang 2 X X X

3 Goal 1: Assess the vitality of the vernacular of each target group

Vitality is best dealt with separately with each target language group. The theoretical framework I will use in this report to describe the vitality of each language group is called the Expanded Graded

Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS) (Lewis and Simons 2010). The reason for using the EGIDS scale is its simplicity. Although there are any number of factors involved in the complex sociolinguistic situation of language shift, the ultimate cause is a breakdown in passing the vernacular from one

generation to the next. It is my hope that the EGIDS scale will become familiar to all language personnel in PBT PNG, making it easy to discuss the vitality of the vernaculars where we work or hope to work.

The scale is numeric with a short description for each level. All of the languages surveyed fall between 6a and 7 on the scale (see table 4 for a description of each level).

Table 4. EGIDS scale levels 6a to 7

Numeric value

Vitality

level Description

6a Vigorous

The language is used orally by all generations and is being learned by children as their first language. This level is considered to be a sustainable situation for continued oral use of the language.

6b Threatened The language is used orally by all generations but only some of the child-_{bearing generation are transmitting it to their children.} 7 Shifting The child-bearing generation knows the language well enough to use it _{among themselves but none are transmitting it to their children}

Level 6a is a sustainable situation. In a community where all parents teach all children to speak their vernacular, that language is safe for at least a generation (Lewis and Simons 2010:12). Once a community moves to 6b the situation loses its sustainability. When adults stop teaching the children to

speak the vernacular, the children start using other languages to fill the gaps in domain use left by the vernacular. When they are grown, those children will obviously not pass on what they do not know to their own children; they will pass on the languages they have been using to replace the vernacular. In this way, generations slowly stop using the vernacular until the community moves to Level 7 where no children speak it.

In many parts of Madang Province people groups are shifting from their vernacular to Tok Pisin, a creole language that is one of the official languages of Papua New Guinea. Tok Pisin is the language of town, education, and business, especially in Madang town. English [eng] is also a language that puts pressure on the vernaculars of Madang province. Though it is not spoken by many people, it is the language of higher education and more influential business. Many people hope their children will learn English so that they will have more opportunities.

The following analysis will deal with the research questions and related indicators for each language individually. Please see section 2.1 for a list of research questions and indicators for Goal 1.

3.1 Awar

The Awar language is spoken in three villages: Nubia, Sisimagum, and Awar. The three villages are situated close to each other; they are connected by the beach and the north coast road. There is a lot of foot traffic between the villages, especially to Sisimagum where the local primary school is located. The sociolinguistic situation is similar in the three villages.

3.1.1 Language use patterns

The three Awar communities reported that all their children learn Tok Pisin before their vernacular. They also reported that only a few children go on to learn Awar. One man even called Tok Pisin “the new vernacular.”9 _{For this reason all interactions the people have with their children are exclusively in}

Tok Pisin. As one woman in Sisimagum put it, “if you want to teach them [our children] something, you have to use Tok Pisin.”10

I was able to confirm this through observation. In my time visiting these communities I never heard someone younger than middle age use Awar and only the grandparent generation used Awar more than Tok Pisin in a conversation. An older man in Nubia reported that he is able to use Awar with members of the parent generation, but they all respond with Tok Pisin.11

In one instance, the council member for Awar was walking up and down the street announcing that the meeting in which I would give the main questionnaire was about to begin. I heard him using Tok Pisin and asked his assistant why he didn’t use Awar. He responded, “He wants everyone to understand what he is saying and come. If he used Awar many people would not understand and would not come.”12

In all three Awar communities none of the three indicators for this research question were found. None of the children are fluent in Awar. Parents primarily use Tok Pisin when communicating with their children. Finally, the community at large rarely uses Awar in any domain. The ability to hear and speak the language still resides in most of the grandparent generation and some of the parent generation, but regular use of the language has died out.

9_{“Em i nupela tok ples.” Most of the interviews and questionnaires were conducted in Tok Pisin. For the sake of} English readers, I will provide the English translations in the text and the actual response in Tok Pisin in a footnote. 10_{“Sapos yu laik lainim ol sampela samting, yu mas yusim Tok Pisin tasol.”}

11_{“Mi ken yusim tok ples long ol, tasol ol i bekim long Tok Pisin.”}

3.1.2 Internal and external community attitudes

There was a difference between what the community said they wanted and how they acted. In

Sisimagum, when asked what they think when they hear their children use Tok Pisin, the response given was, “It isn’t good. We are not in agreement with this.”13 _{However, this same community also reported}

using Tok Pisin almost exclusively when they spoke with their children. The communities all reported that they would like their children to learn Awar and use it. To some degree, they all reported feeling angst about the current shift toward Tok Pisin. These internal attitudes toward the language were mirrored in the external attitudes. Outsiders have little motivation to learn the language and perceive that the Awar people themselves are unmotivated to maintain the language.

Awar is not used in any school. None of the teachers at the primary school in Sisimagum are Awar speakers. When asked if it would be helpful for the teachers to know Awar the headmaster asked, “Why? None of the children know their tok ples.”14 _{There are no functioning elementary schools in the Awar}

villages. There is one starting up in Awar village, but the teacher says he will do everything in English using Tok Pisin to help explain.

The teachers living in Sisimagum, all of whom are not from Awar, have not learned Awar; nor has there been any pressure for them to learn Awar, according to the headmaster. He did report that some of the teacher’s own children have learned a little Awar, but “just a couple of phrases.”15 _{From the}

perspective of teachers, the only outsiders living in the Awar area, the community does not seem eager to help outsiders learn their language.

There are two churches in Awar, a Roman Catholic Church in Sisimagum and a Seventh Day Adventist Church (SDA) in Nubia. Church leaders from both congregations report using Awar for some songs and occasionally while praying. When asked specifically about the need for a translation of the Bible in Awar, the SDA pastor said that it would be well used and help people use their language again. The prayer leader of the Roman Catholic Church responded that Tok Pisin is too dominant and a translation into Awar would not be worth the effort.

3.1.3 Language use of immigrants

Table 5 gives the data on immigrants in the Awar communities. Most of the immigrants consist of women who married Awar men. They come from all over PNG, but relatively few come from the surrounding language groups. As can be seen in the table, immigrants are a large part of the Awar community. Their language use patterns, specifically what they teach their children, have a significant impact on the overall sociolinguistic situation.

Table 5. Immigrants in Awar

Village Name

Estimated 2013 population

Number of Immigrants

Percentage of population

Awar 601 30 5.0%

Nubia 317 32 10.1%

Sisimagum 235 26 11.1%

Total 1153 88 7.6%

13_{“i no gutpela. Mipela i no wanbel long dispela.”}

14_{Though this was said in English, he used a Tok Pisin phrase. “Tok ples” means literally the language of the village,}

or vernacular.

Most immigrant parents report that their children are not able to use the Awar language with anyone else, including other children, middle aged men and women, and older men and women. In Nubia only three immigrants reported that their children were able to speak Awar at all, only two in Sisimagum, and eight in Awar. Children of immigrants are not likely to use Awar. They are a significant percentage of the population, making their language use impactful to the larger community.

When it comes to stated opinions, all three communities reported that it is not good that immigrants do not learn their language. Though this is the stated opinion, it does not change the fact that

immigrants are not learning their language and, more importantly from a language vitality perspective, that their children are not. The people of Nubia took the blame for this situation on themselves, saying, “It is our mistake that we do not teach them (immigrants) our language.”16

3.1.4 Contact with urban centers

All three communities reported a high frequency of travel into Madang. The villages are situated on the main road in the area and it is costs K2017 _{for a trip into town on a locally owned public motor vehicle}

(PMV). Most PMVs leave the area late at night and arrive at Madang in the morning giving the people time to shop and sell their goods before the PMV heads back out to the Awar area in the late afternoon.

People reported going to Madang between four and ten times annually. They sell their goods (cocoa, fish, sago, and beetle-nut) and they buy town goods (rice, clothing, school supplies). They also reported that everyone (men, women, and children) in the community goes to Madang. While in Madang they report using Tok Pisin exclusively even with other people from Awar. This contact with Madang is having a negative effect on the vitality of the language because it is exposing every generation to another domain dominated by Tok Pisin.

3.1.5 Economic factors

As stated above (section 1.4) there used to be a plantation operated by the Roman Catholic Church in Nubia. When it was operational the people reported that people from Awar did not use the local language while working because so many people came in from the outside to work the plantation. For this reason the plantation impacted language vitality negatively. Since the plantation is now vacant, that effect no longer bears upon Awar.

However, people still make a living by selling their produce and products in Madang. When they do this they use Tok Pisin exclusively. This means that it is perceived that there is no real way for people to become economically successful using only Awar.

3.1.6 Conclusion

The Awar language community scores a 7 (shifting) on the EGIDS scale. In Nubia and Sisimagum there are probably no more than a dozen children that are able to understand or speak Awar. In Awar village, the number is slightly increased. The current parent generation only use Awar sparingly. My

observations confirmed this reported language use. Only when a member of the grandparent generation initiated a conversation in Awar did anyone younger actually use the language, so I question how well the parent generation actually knows Awar, and subsequently, the depth of their children’s knowledge. Although they report a positive attitude regarding their language, it has not translated into the action of teaching it to outsiders or their children. Though there is some limited use of Awar in church, no schools in the area use Awar.

16_{“Em i asua long mipela no lainim ol long tok ples.”}

Again, although the Awar people report an opinion that immigrants should learn their language, it has not translated into the action of teaching immigrants. For this reason most immigrant children do not use Awar in any way.

The Awar in all three villages recognize that their language is in an endangered position. Most of them speak only of trying to record their language so it is not lost entirely. Only a few spoke of trying to revitalize it. Unless something drastic changes, the Awar language will likely not be spoken regularly in the next 10 years and could be completely lost in the next two generations.

3.2 Kayan

The Kayan language is spoken in only one village of the same name. It is situated at the end of the north coast road. Because of its position it is the terminus for PMVs carrying passengers who need to go further via boat. It also hosts people who come in by boat and wait for PMVs to carry them into town.

3.2.1 Language use patterns

All children in the community learn Kayan before they learn another language. The Kayan feel that it is the parents’ responsibility to teach their children Kayan and the school’s responsibility to teach Tok Pisin and English.18 _{I interacted with a child around seven or eight years old who stumbled on a Tok Pisin}

word. Some other children mocked him and then explained to me that this child was just starting to learn Tok Pisin. These factors create an environment where Kayan children use Kayan with all other members of the community, including other children.

In walking around Kayan I was surprised by how little of Tok Pisin I heard. I walked alone around the village for about an hour at dusk. In that setting it is easy to surreptitiously listen to natural conversations. Families are preparing the evening meal, children are playing, men are gathering to discuss the day’s events and plans for the next. During that hour I did not hear a single Tok Pisin word other than what was directed to me.

During my time there I never heard an adult address a child in Tok Pisin except when I was a part of the conversation. This confirms reports from the community that they speak the Kayan language to socialize their children.

Finally, the Kayan report that the community at large speaks Kayan in every domain. During the main questionnaire all of my questions, posed in Tok Pisin, were translated into and then discussed in Kayan before a spokesman then gave me the group answer in Tok Pisin. Most interactions I witnessed between adults were in Kayan.

3.2.2 Internal and external community attitudes

The community reports that they want their children to use the Kayan language. They also see value in knowing Tok Pisin and English, but don’t see knowing and using Kayan as a hindrance to either. The headmaster of the primary school in Kayan is from Awar. His children have learned Kayan, but are more comfortable in Tok Pisin. From his perspective the community is very insistent that outsiders learn and use Kayan.

There is an elementary school and community education center in Kayan. Both use Kayan as the language of instruction. There are three Kayan teachers in the primary school. They will use Kayan to explain a concept the children are not understanding in English or Tok Pisin. There is a rule at the primary school that vernacular languages cannot be used on school grounds, but it is reported that

children primarily use Kayan when they play. As the headmaster put it, “Kayan is too strong and overcomes this rule.”19 _{Kayan is actively used at the elementary and primary levels of education.}

The local prayer leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Kayan reports that they will sing in Kayan and pray in Kayan, but they don’t like to do too much in Kayan since speakers of other languages from other villages also attend the church.

3.2.3 Language use of immigrants

Table 6 gives data regarding the immigrants in Kayan. As in Awar the population of immigrants is significant, so the language patterns of these immigrants influence the greater sociolinguistic situation of the village.

Table 6. Immigrants in Kayan

Village Name

Estimated 2013 population

Number of Immigrants

Percentage of population

Kayan 792 55 6.9%

Most of the immigrants are women who marry into the Kayan people. Of all 55 immigrants, only three report that their children are not able to speak Kayan. One of the three reports that even though the child is unable to speak the language, he can understand it when spoken to him. His parents feel it is only a matter of time before he is speaking it as well.

The people of Kayan report that they try to teach every outsider their language, in fact they see it as their duty.20 _{I asked what they think when people come live with them and do not learn their language.}

They didn’t answer the question because they couldn’t think of anyone who had. The fact that the Kayan believe so strongly that everyone who lives with them should learn their language puts a lot of cultural pressure on immigrants to learn Kayan and use it with their children.

With so many immigrant families using Kayan actively, the language use of immigrants is not having a negative effect on vitality and is demonstrative of both high external and internal prestige; outsiders want to learn it and insiders believe it is worth learning (see section 3.2.2).

3.2.4 Contact with urban centers

Since Kayan lies at the end of the road that first goes through Awar, their situation is almost the same as the Awar (see section 3.1.4). They also go into Madang to buy and sell. The price for a PMV is only slightly more, K25.21 _{They also report going to Madang about ten times in a year.}

The only difference between the Kayan and Awar concerning their contact with Madang is how they act while in Madang. They report that though they have to use Tok Pisin when interacting with other people, when they see someone from Kayan they will speak to them in Kayan. They reported this with a tone suggesting, “of course we use Kayan every chance we get.”

19_{“Tok ples em i bikpela tumas na winim dispela lo.”}

20_{“Mipela lainim ol long tok ples” (we teach them our language); “Ol i mas lainim tok ples” (they need to learn our} language).

3.2.5 Economic factors

There are no companies working in the Kayan area. Their current situation is very similar to the Awar (see section 3.1.5). Like the Awar the Kayan perceive that there is no means for a person to become economically successful using Kayan exclusively. This has a negative impact on the vitality of the language, but not enough to destabilize the current situation.

3.2.6 Conclusion

The Kayan language is a 6a (vigorous) on the EGIDS scale. All the children in Kayan learn the Kayan language first and use it actively with all members of society including other children. The Kayan adults see it as their role to teach their children their language and take every opportunity to do so. At the village level, all members of the Kayan community use Kayan with all other members.

The Kayan are very proud of their language and actively teach outsiders, including teachers and immigrant mothers. This has resulted in almost all children learning Kayan before any other language. Not only is Kayan used as the language of instruction in the elementary and the community education center, it is also used in the primary school when the children do not understand the Tok Pisin and English lessons. The local Roman Catholic church does use some Kayan—but not much, as they wish to accommodate speakers of other languages.

The negative impact on the vitality of the language created by its relative closeness to Madang and the lack of economic means within the community, is largely outweighed by these other factors. Still, the Kayan language is a remarkably vital oral language. It is sustained by a cultural identity in which, to be Kayan is to speak Kayan. Unless the current factors impacting the vitality of Kayan change dramatically, the Kayan language will likely be spoken as the primary language in the Kayan community for

generations to come.

3.3 Marangis

The Marangis language is spoken in two communities: Marangis and Watam. Both of these villages are significantly more isolated than are the Awar and Kayan villages. There are no roads in this area. For this reason both of these villages are only accessible by water, which is their main form of transportation.

3.3.1 Language use patterns

Both communities reported that their children use the Marangis language in all domains though in Watam they did say they mix vernacular speech with Tok Pisin if they are speaking to other children. When I asked about this, the people of Watam said they did not like it when they heard their children use Tok Pisin and thought it was the responsibility of the parents to correct this behavior. Interestingly, in Marangis when I asked about it they said they were happy when they heard their children mixing Tok Pisin with their language because their children needed to learn Tok Pisin. This was the only community I visited that responded positively to this query, which could mean I didn’t communicate my question well, or the people in Marangis feel so secure in the vitality of the vernacular that they aren’t concerned that their children are also able to speak Tok Pisin, or another language.

I was able to observe children at play in both communities. I did not hear any Tok Pisin spoken while they were playing. Most of the children I interacted with did speak Tok Pisin, but seemed to prefer to use Marangis with their parents and other children. Near the house where I stayed in Watam a toddler was only starting to learn to speak. In his cries and laughter I heard only Marangis spoken.

It is probable that children know and use more Tok Pisin than I heard and this was confirmed by Foley. He lived in Watam for many years documenting their language. From his experience he believes that even though children do seem to use Marangis often, they are losing many grammatical functions of the language; he specifically mentions the irregular plural markings. In his estimation vernacular use is high, “but still young children’s competence in Watam is not as good as it was 20 years ago. They speak

it, but not with the same fluency or depth as before, and with a good deal of Tok Pisin influence” (Foley, personal communication 15 November 2013).

In the village of Marangis parents report that they use Marangis exclusively with their children. They seemed quite confident that when their children are grown they will speak Marangis as their primary language. The people of the village of Watam reported that they do use some Tok Pisin with their children, specifically when they are trying to teach them something. However, they concur with the people of Marangis that when the children of Watam grow up they will continue using the Marangis language as their primary language.

In my time in Watam, I witnessed a few instances of adults speaking to children in Tok Pisin, though far more often I heard them using the Marangis language in many different settings. Twice I listened intently to a child/adult interaction in Tok Pisin only to find out later that in one instance the child was a visitor from another language group and in the other instance the adult was the visitor.

Language use between the two communities is similar. The people of Marangis report speaking only Marangis, while the people of Watam report using some Tok Pisin. Nothing in my observations

contradicts those reports except that I observed some Tok Pisin used on occasion in Marangis.

3.3.2 Internal and external community attitudes

Both communities expressed a desire for their children to learn and use the Marangis language. While walking through Watam with a community leader, he said of children who used Marangis, “They are Watam”22 _{meaning, they are Watam ethnic members. These statements indicate a connection between}

what it means to live in the Watam community and speaking Marangis; using the language is an identity marker. There is social pressure on children to use the Marangis language because to not use Marangis as your primary language is to reject their ethnicity, or at least their place in the community.

In Watam there were no teachers or church leaders from other areas. In fact, there were no teachers at all present since the primary school is not currently functioning. There is a Four Square church in Watam led by a man from Watam. His wife, however, is from Goroka. He reports that she learned Marangis quickly after they moved back to Watam. In Marangis, the headmaster of the primary school is from Malala, but I was not able to talk with him since he was too busy. The catechists from the two Roman Catholic churches in Marangis are both from the Marangis language area.

The pastor of the Four Square church is from the Watam community and says he likes to speak in Marangis in his teaching, though he primarily uses Tok Pisin. He reports that the people will

occasionally pray in Marangis and use it for singing. Like the Four Square church, the Roman Catholic Church will sometimes pray and sing in Marangis, but do not use it in preaching or in their liturgy.

Although there is not a functioning elementary school in Watam, in Marangis there are two, one in each main hamlet. Both report using English as their primary language of instruction. This is in

alignment with what they think is the new government policy in education. Teachers from both schools commented that they have to interpret using Marangis every day to help children understand the English they hear being spoken. The teachers report that every child is fluent in Marangis before they attend the elementary school.

3.3.3 Language use of immigrants

Table 7 shows the immigrants currently living in the Marangis communities. The immigrant population in these communities is actually quite low compared to that of other communities in the area,

specifically Awar and Kayan (see sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.3, respectively).

Table 7. Immigrants in Marangis Village Name Estimated 2013 population Number of Immigrants Percentage of population

Marangis 775 27 3.5%

Watam 311 17 5.5%

Total 1086 44 4%

Given the small number of immigrants, their impact on language use is minimal. However, the language patterns of immigrants give us another window into the internal language attitudes of the Marangis communities. In Watam the council member who showed me the village would not say, “Yes” to the question, “Does this immigrant know your language?” Instead he would say, “They have finished joining our community,” (literally “they have finished coming to Watam”).23 _{This is a very interesting}

way of conceiving this process. To him someone doesn’t truly join the Watam community until he or she has learned the language spoken there. Though this exact phrase was not used in Marangis, a similar thought was used, “they live with us,”24 _{as if it is impossible for someone to live in Marangis and not}

learn the local language. These two phrases betray a strong social pressure put on outsiders to learn the Marangis language. You cannot really be a part of the community until you learn the language. The need to feel as though you belong drives immigrants to learn the local language.

Not surprisingly, almost all immigrants have learned Marangis along with almost all of their

children. Only four children of immigrants in Watam cannot speak the language and of those, only one is not able to understand it when spoken to. In Marangis village, only two children of immigrants were reported to be unable to speak the language and only one of them is unable to understand it when spoken to.

3.3.4 Contact with urban centers

Watam is the most isolated village I visited in the Lower Ramu. It is only accessible by boat. It costs K30 to go to Kayan, where they then pay another K25 for the PMV into Madang. The people of Marangis pay K10 to get to Kayan by boat and then K25 for the rest of the way.25

Even though they are quite a distance from Madang, they can still make it all the way to town without overnighting anywhere, except on the PMV (see section 3.1.4). Both communities report that all members of the village (men, women, and children) will go to Madang. They also report that people will go as many as 36 times in one year, though this seems to be an exaggeration. While in town they sell some of their goods (produce, fish, and copra). They also buy goods for their trade stores, clothing, supplies for school, and other town goods. In town they use Tok Pisin with everyone except other members of Marangis villages.

Given the relative ease of access to Madang and the frequency of travel, Madang has a negative impact on the vitality of the Marangis language in both communities. Distance in travel should not be measured strictly in kilometers traveled, but in how many days it takes. As soon as a Papua New

Guinean has to overnight somewhere in his travel, the danger of the trip increases and he is less likely to go. This is why, even though these communities are very far from Madang, they should still be

considered close enough to negatively impact vernacular language use.

23_{“Ol i kam long Watam pinis.”} 24_{“Ol i stap wantaim mipela.”}

25_{For Watam this is US$12.30 to get to Kayan and then US$10.25 the rest of the way. For Marangis it is US$4.10 for}

3.3.5 Economic factors

Marangis is similar to the Awar villages and Kayan (see sections 3.1.5 and 3.2.5, respectively). There is no business opportunity in their villages, so all economic endeavors must include the use of Tok Pisin as they interact with outsiders. As such, those endeavors negatively impact the vitality of the Marangis language.

Watam has frequent visits from cruise ships throughout the year. The ships stay in the harbor off Watam and people are ferried in to view Watam culture. The Marangis people perform cultural dances, explain how to make traditional items, and talk about how their ancestors lived. The people were reluctant to tell me how much the village receives in compensation, but it must be at least a little bit of income on top of the items they sell to the tourists.

This activity has both a positive and a negative impact on the vitality of Marangis in Watam. On the positive side the people are encouraged to maintain their culture so they can perform for the tourists. This includes language use, since they give the names of cultural items and teach phrases to the tourists. On the negative side, this activity cannot be arranged without the use of Tok Pisin. Someone from the community has to plan these trips with the cruise line and this has to be done in either Tok Pisin or English. Even when the tourists are there it would be wise for people to know Tok Pisin to try and communicate with the tourists. Those who know English have a greater advantage since they can speak easily with all the tourists and negotiate the sale of their wares.

3.3.6 Conclusion

The Marangis language is a 6a (vigorous) on the EGIDS scale. Even though Foley is rightly concerned about losing the complexity of the language (see section 3.3.1), the vernacular is still being transmitted to almost all children. The communities still use Marangis in their own interactions as well. Most telling are the statements of identity that were used to describe what it means to know the Marangis language in these two villages.

Marangis is used to some extent in all the churches in the area. It is also used in the elementary schools that are functioning, not as the official language of instruction, but as the language used when something needs to be explained.

The relative closeness of Madang and the lack of true economic opportunities within the communities do have negative effects on the language. However, for the time being it seems that Marangis speakers have established a stable bilingual situation where Tok Pisin is the language of town, school, and church, and Marangis is the language of home and village. Foley may say that this situation is slowly bleeding toward less and less use of Marangis, but currently the language is vital. Given the current internal social pressure on immigrants and children to use the Marangis language, unless there are significant changes to this or other factors, the Marangis language will be spoken as the primary language in Watam and Marangis for the next couple of generations.

3.4 Bosmun

Bosmun is spoken in at least six communities: Daiden, Nemnem, Dogan, Wamtac, Goingbang 2, and Base Camp. All of these villages are accessible by boat on either the Ramu or the Mbur rivers. Base Camp and Goingbang 2 are also accessible by road.

3.4.1 Language use patterns

There was a general impression in each Bosmun village that all the children can understand the

vernacular language, but it was hard for them to produce it. All five communities reported that children learn Tok Pisin as their first language. Only the people of Dogan thought that their children would never learn Bosmun. The rest of the communities reported that children eventually learn Bosmun when they are around five years old. In my entire time among the Bosmun, I did not hear any child use the Bosmun

language for more than a few phrases, though I did observe some children respond in Tok Pisin to something that was said to them in Bosmun. My observation confirms the first statement, children can understand the language, but usually do not speak it.

When asked, parents and grandparents reported that they spoke to their children in Bosmun, while the children responded in Tok Pisin. Deeper probing revealed that most of the time parents and

grandparents speak to their children in Tok Pisin. One man in Dogan said it best, “We try to use our language, but if we want them (our children) to understand us, we use Tok Pisin.”26 _{I did see parents and}

grandparents speak Bosmun to their children and occasionally the child responded or reacted. However, for the most part parents either used Tok Pisin with their children from the outset of an interaction or switched to it to facilitate quicker responses.

All five communities surveyed agreed that the only domain where the Bosmun language continues to dominate Tok Pisin is the traditional singsing. This is a ritual dance that is conducted in either the local language or another vernacular language; these are never done in English or Tok Pisin. In most cultures in PNG, the preparations for the singsing, the singsing itself, and surrounding interactions are the last holdout in a situation of language shift.

In all other domains the communities report they use Tok Pisin alongside Bosmun. They did not report a domain where Tok Pisin is the only language used, nor did they indicate which language is used more. In walking around the communities I heard many conversations among adults in Bosmun. I also heard interactions exclusively in Tok Pisin. My observations can confirm what they reported; that both languages are in use in the communities.

3.4.2 Internal and external community attitudes

All five communities reported the Bosmun language as the first language their children should know well. They also included Tok Pisin, English, or both on the list. All the communities reported some kind of negative emotion at the thought of their children losing their vernacular. All the communities thought that when their children are grown they will only speak Tok Pisin, “Tok Pisin will become their

vernacular”, “our language is finished”, and “we are losing our language” were all given as responses.27

The community would like to see their children use the language.

The only outside teachers and church leaders I could interview lived in Dogan. The headmaster of the primary school there did not think the community tried to teach him their language because there would be no point since he can communicate just fine with Tok Pisin. The Roman Catholic Church leader, Father Luis, is from Korea. He has served the Bosmun parish for five years. He said the people did try to teach him a little Bosmun, but more for fun than to actually help him communicate. He questions the usefulness of vernacular materials in Bosmun since he doesn’t see much use of the language overall.

One reason the Bosmun churches do not use the Bosmun language in their services is due to the presence of Father Luis, who does not understand Bosmun. The other reason for the lack of Bosmun in the church—and maybe the primary reason—is the lack of understanding in the entire population. There is no reason to use Bosmun since so few know it well as opposed to only a small minority who do not know Tok Pisin well.

The elementary schools in the area may have used Bosmun at one time but they are now conducted exclusively in English. The schools gave different reasons. In Nemnem the teacher reported that the students from his school were not performing well at the primary level and he was asked to stop using Bosmun by the primary school teachers. In Dogan the teacher says the children don’t understand Bosmun. When I asked if he ever explains something in Bosmun, he responded, “Why? They can’t understand the language.”28 _{In Goingbang 2 the teacher reported that the government has changed their}

policy and is now requiring all elementary schools to be conducted in English and Tok Pisin. This is a hit

26_{“Mipela traim long yusim tok ples, tasol sapos mipela laik ol i ken harim, mipela save yusim Tok Pisin.”} 27_{“Tok Pisin bai kamap tok ples”, “tok ples laik i go pinis”, “mipela wok long lusim tok ples bilong mipela”.} 28_{“Long wanem? Ol i noken harim tok ples.”}

to the vitality of the Bosmun language since the teacher was creating and using his own materials in Bosmun. He will no longer be using them.

3.4.3 Language use of immigrants

Table 8 shows the immigrants currently living in the Bosmun communities. Like the Marangis the immigrant population in these communities is actually quite low compared to that of other communities in the area, specifically Awar and Kayan (see sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.3, respectively).

Table 8. Immigrants in Bosmun

Village Name

Estimated 2013 population

Number of Immigrants

Percentage of population

Daiden 191 7 3.7%

Nemnem 371 9 2.4%

Dogan 546 24 4.4%

Wamtac 229 10 4.4%

Goingbang 2 431 28 6.5%29

Total 1768 78 4.4%

Since the immigrant population is so small, their language use and that of their children should have a minimal impact on the overall sociolinguistic situation. However, some insight can be gleaned from their usage. Of all the immigrants in the community, only those whose children had grown and had families of their own knew and used the Bosmun language. They reported that four children were able to mix Bosmun with Tok Pisin, while another 17 could understand Bosmun when spoken to them, but couldn’t respond. There are eight families where the children are fluent in Bosmun. In all eight families the immigrant came from Mbore. I didn’t notice the pattern until Goingbang 2 where I asked an immigrant mother from Mbore about it. She said, “We are Mbore. Mbore know the vernacular of the area.”30 _{This is just an exception produced by the view of the Mbore toward language. The majority of}

immigrant children do not know Bosmun at all.

All five communities did not seem concerned that immigrants learn their language. The people of Daiden felt that some would learn eventually. In Nemnem they felt that after a while they would be able to understand Bosmun when it is spoken to them. This was reflected in the speaking patterns of the immigrants themselves. Most are not able to use or understand Bosmun at all, while a few can understand when it is spoken. In Daiden, only two immigrants are considered fluent in Bosmun, and another nine are able to understand it when spoken. The rest use Tok Pisin exclusively.

3.4.4 Contact with urban centers

Madang is easily accessible by all the Bosmun communities. The people of Goingbang 2 can go by PMV straight from their village. The other villages must first go by river to Base Camp and then catch a PMV. The cost is K25 from Base Camp to Madang.31 _{All the communities report that everyone goes into town}

somewhere between four and ten times in a year. They go to buy town goods and sell their produce. While in town they use Tok Pisin most of the time, though they will occasionally use Bosmun with other speakers if they are able.

29_{The larger immigrant population in Goingbang 2 is probably a result of road access.}

30_{“Mipela Mbore. Ol Mbore save long tok ples bilong graun.”}

The ease of access to Madang coupled with the use of Tok Pisin while there, has a negative effect on the vitality of Bosmun.

3.4.5 Economic factors

There are no outside companies working in the Bosmun area, though there are local cocoa projects, one in Wamtac and one in Dogan. In Wamtac everyone is involved in some way in the project, while in Dogan only a few are still working there. The people of Wamtac report occasionally using Bosmun while they work but the Dogan say they only use Tok Pisin.

The vast majority of Bosmun speakers do not work in a place where they must use another language. However, there is little opportunity for economic advancement found in the Bosmun area outside of the cocoa projects. Without more economic prospects in the area, more and more people will likely go outside the language area where they do exist.

3.4.6 Conclusion

Bosmun is the most complex situation among the four target language groups. It sits directly between the situation found in Awar and those found in Kayan and Marangis. Bosmun is quickly on its way to

language loss, but it is not there yet. For this reason it is at a 6b (threatened) on the EGIDS scale (see table 4).

Currently only a few children actively use the Bosmun language. This is probably because parents seem to use more and more Tok Pisin with their children in the home. In fact, Bosmun is losing ground to Tok Pisin in every domain and age group in the Bosmun communities. Though the Bosmun express a desire for their language to be strong, this attitude has not been manifested by use in church, use in schools, or in the action of teaching outsiders their language.

Most immigrants do not learn or use the language and so their children do not either. The communities seem more lax than Kayan and the Marangis communities regarding immigrants—not requiring them to learn Bosmun.

A general physical closeness to Madang and lack of economic opportunity in the area add to an already weak situation for the Bosmun language. It is unlikely that Bosmun will fall into a sustainable situation as the second language of the Bosmun people. Those who said this was going to happen rely on the elementary schools to teach the children Bosmun. Though the schools in the area did seem to

actually use and teach Bosmun to the children, the perceived change in the PNG government’s education policy seems to undo that positive force. All the teachers reported that they will or already have

switched to Tok Pisin and English exclusively in the schools as a result.

Unless parents begin to teach their children Bosmun, the language seems on the verge of full shift. If nothing changes in the current situation, the language will probably shift in three to four generations. It could hold on longer if children who can only understand the language, do learn to speak it in some capacity and pass in on to their children. There is likely to be a lot of language loss in that kind of situation, and the Bosmun already report that many people do not know the words for trees in the bush and other specifics.

4 Goal 2: Assess the willingness of the target group to work with the other

potential language groups in the LRIG project

The ability of the target groups to cooperate with each other and the Mbore is essential for the Lower Ramu Initial Goals Project to be successful as it is currently devised. If the groups cannot work together or with the Mbore, the LRIG project will not be able to move forward.

To assess this I looked at three areas: current cooperation between the villages, expressed willingness to work together, and past disputes.

4.1 Current cooperation

To gather information on what current relationships exist between the communities of the Lower Ramu area I asked about seven different typical relationships that exist between communities in PNG: having a trade relationship or going to market, inter-marrying, having regular combined worship services, joining with a community for traditional activities, volunteering to work with another community for a church building, volunteering to work with another community in a joint project, and riding PMVs to town together.

The analysis relies on quantitative data; in this case, the number of ties between communities. Data is entered into the NetDraw computer program (Borgatti 2002). This program represents the data visually in the form of social network diagrams. To use this instrument I assigned each tie a value of 1 since it would be impossible to determine with accuracy which, if any, of the given relationships is more important than the others and to what degree. This gives a community who reports all possible ties with another community a score of 7 and a community that reports no ties with another community a score of 0. This analysis is not meant to be a comprehensive social network mapping of the Lower Ramu area. It is only meant to discover if ties between villages exist in an effort to determine if there would be any hindrance to joint work in a language development program.

Note 1: Circles indicate I did not gather data in the village, while squares indicate I did. Note 2: Node color indicates language: Awar is red; Kayan, yellow; Marangis, orange; Bosmun,

blue; Mbore, green.

Figure 2. All ties between villages.

Figure 2 shows visually all the connections that were reported. Each line represents a connection between villages. There are arrows on the lines to indicate which village reported what. For some lines there are arrows on both sides showing that the connection between villages was mutually reported. Each line could indicate anywhere between one and seven possible ties. It is easy to see that there are many connections between the communities of the Lower Ramu area using this method.

It is important to remember that since I did not visit the Mbore communities there will be no interrelationship indicated in the data. This does not mean that these relationships do not exist, just that they will not appear in this analysis.

Figure 3. Four or more ties between villages.

If we only show those connections which include four or more ties, as in figure 3 above, patterns begin to emerge. The communities of each language are very interconnected, which is to be expected. Both Marangis communities consider themselves to be very connected with Kayan, though this was not reported by the Kayan. Marangis village and Nemnem both indicated they are connected with a large number of villages. Potentially, they could be influential communities in the area.

4.2 Expressed willingness

Each of the target groups expressed willingness to work together and with the Mbore. There seems to be a shared identity between the groups. They recognize that their vernaculars are related. They explained this by citing their history where they share a common ancestor. The Awar and Bosmun report that they are descended from two brothers, one who liked the ocean while the other liked the river.

In Watam one man said that they call all five Lower Ramu languages Kam Kame an Mbore phrase meaning “one language.” Though no one else I talked to recognized the phrase he used they all understood his intent. Many people agreed saying, “Yes we are all one language but there are little changes.”32

Only three communities reported current disputes with other Lower Ramu communities. Goingbang 2 said they are having issues with the Mbore and Dogan over land. The people of Dogan confirmed this. Nemnem also reported a dispute with Goingbang 2 over the river, probably fishing ground. It is important to remember that most likely there are more disputes than are reported. Many

37

38

38

39

40

References

Borgatti, Stephen P. 2002. NetDraw Software for Network Visualization. Lexington, Ken,: Analytic Technologies.

Capell, Arthur. 1951. Languages of Bogia District, New Guinea. Oceania 22(2):130–147.

Foley, William A. 1986. The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foley, William A. 2000. The languages of New Guinea. Annual Review of Anthropology 29:357–404. Foley, William A. 2005. Linguistic prehistory in the Sepik-Ramu basin. In Andrew Pawley, Robert

Attenborough, Jack Golson, and Robin Hide (eds.), Papuan pasts: Cultural, linguistic and biological histories of Papuan-speaking peoples, 109–144. Canberra: Australian National University.

Levy, Catherine. 2005. Language research in Papua New Guinea: A case study of Awar. Contemporary PNG Studies: DWU Research Journal 2:79–92.

Lewis, M. Paul. 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Sixteenth edition. Dallas: SIL International. Lewis, M. Paul, and Gary F. Simons. 2010. Assessing endangerment: Expanding Fishman’s GIDS. Revue

Roumaine de Linguistique 55(2):103–120.

Lewis, M. Paul, and Gary F. Simons. 2011. Ecological perspectives on language endangerment: Applying the sustainable use model for language development.

http://www-01.sil.org/~simonsg/presentation/Applying%20the%20SUM.pdf Assessed February 28,

2014.

Masters, Janell, John Carter, John Grummitt, and Brian Paris. 2014. A Sociolinguistic survey of the Watut languages. SIL Electronic Survey Report 2014-06. Dallas: SIL International.

http://www.sil.org/system/files/reapdata/14/98/16/1498169719136155728555784733512968087

37/silesr2014_006.pdf Assessed February 28, 2014.

National Statistical Office. 2002a. 2000 National census: Community profile system. Port Moresby: National Statistical Office.

National Statistical Office. 2002b. Papua New Guinea 2000 census final figures. Port Moresby: National Statistical Office.

Souter, Gavin. 1963. New Guinea: The last unknown. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.

von Poser, Anita. 2011. Ageing and taking care of the elderly in contemporary Daiden (Northeast Papua New Guinea). Halle, Germany: Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropolgy Working Papers.

von Poser, Anita. 2013. Foodways and empathy: Relatedness in a Ramu River society, Papua New Guinea. New York: Berghahn Books.

von Poser, Alexis Themo. 2008. Inside Jong’s head: Time, space, and person among the Kayan of Papua New Guinea. Ph.D. dissertation. Heidelberg University.

Wurm, Stephen A., and Shiro Hattori, eds. 1983. Language atlas of the Pacific area C 67. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

XE.com. XE:PGK/USD. http://www.xe.com. Accessed February 28, 2014.

Z’Graggen, John. A. 1975. The languages of Madang District, Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.