research is found regarding the language varieties of this survey. The most detailed published research on the groups of this survey are the theses: “A Phonological Reconstruction of Proto-Tharu and Language
Use” Boehm 1998 and “Language Maintenance Among the Tharu of the Indo-Nepal Tarai” Boehm 1997.
1.4.2 Previous research on language vitality
Tharu speakers’ degree of exposure to and contact with other languages specifically Nepali and Hindi, makes language vitality necessary to investigate. Kelly Boehm’s thesis 1997 addressed this question.
Several factors surfaced as pointing towards healthy language maintenance: • Government attitudes toward minority languages and cultures—Given the current political stance
toward preserving minority languages and cultures, many groups including Tharu have received encouragement from the government for language and culture preservation.
• Attitudes toward and practices of exogamy—Through questionnaires, Boehm found that 70 of Tharus did not approve of marrying a non-Tharu. Tharu groups differ greatly, which means that
many will not marry outside of their specific group. • Positive language attitudes—Boehm’s questionnaire revealed that 91 of Tharu speakers believed
their language to be better than the language of wider communication Nepali or Hindi, 96 thought that mothers should speak Tharu to their children and 98 anticipated that Tharu would
continue to be spoken in the future. • Education—At the time of Boehm’s study, education was not accessible enough for the Tharu to
affect the vitality of the language. She recommended that this issue be re-evaluated when it becomes a possible factor in language maintenance.
2 Research questions
The purpose of this survey is to see how many Tharu varieties can use materials that are being developed in Dangaura Tharu and to investigate how to best serve the speakers of Deukhuri, Malhoriya, Desauriya
and Kathariya.
The five goals of this survey are: 1. Lexical Similarity: Investigate lexical similarity between all Tharu varieties of this survey.
2. Dialect Attitude Assessment: Assess the attitudes of the language varieties of this survey toward one another to better understand their willingness to share written materials.
3. Language Vitality: Evaluate the vitality of Deukhuri, Desauriya, Malhoriya and Kathariya varieties. 4. Kathariya and Desauriya Locations: Identify the major population centers of Kathariya and
Desauriya speakers. 5. Desires for Development: Discover each community’s desires for their own language-based
development.
3 Methodology
3.1 Site selection
A total of seven villages were visited in three districts. We gathered data in one location for each variety, except the Deukhuri variety, which had three sites. Site selection was based upon where the variety is
known to be spoken and the recommendation or availability of contacts. Deukhuri and Desauriya sites were located on or near the Mahendra highway, a factor which raised
concerns regarding the probability of high contact with other languages. High contact with other
languages can affect language vitality. The high levels of vitality we encountered, however, lead us to believe that data gathered at these sites are a strong argument for language vitality, since language
vitality generally increases with distance from population centers. It is probable that language vitality would be even stronger in more remote villages.
During site selection, we were unaware that Chapargaudi, the Desauriya village we visited, has only a 10 Tharu population and is highly mixed. Many of our subjects were from nearby villages ranging
from 1–3 km in distance from Chapargaudi; however, they view themselves as one group with no differences in their language.
3.2 Research methods
Several methods were used to elicit data in order to meet the goals of the survey. Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.5 describe the purpose, procedure and certain advantages and disadvantages of each method.
3.2.1 Wordlists
Description and purpose: A comparison of wordlists estimates the degree of lexical similarity between the speech varieties the wordlists represent.
Procedure: Five 316-item wordlists were elicited and compared for this analysis, one from each Tharu variety. Wordlists were elicited in Nepali from Tharu mother-tongue speakers and were transcribed using
the International Phonetic Alphabet IPA. Lexical similarity analysis was carried out on each pair of wordlists. A complete description of wordlist comparison methodology and the data we collected can be
found in Appendix A.
Advantages: Data collection is relatively efficient. Wordlists can provide some broad insights into possible dialect groupings.
Disadvantages: Above certain levels of lexical similarity, wordlists cannot give conclusive evidence of intelligibility between speech varieties compared.
3.2.2 Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire KIQ
Description and purpose: A prepared interview specifically designed for someone the community views as the most knowledgeable regarding information about their language. This tool provides information
from a reliable and knowledgeable source about their language and social factors that do not vary from person to person.
Procedure: Administered to only one person at a time, questions range from specific population estimates and locations to general information about vitality and other languages spoken by the community. This
tool was administered in one village from each speech variety of the survey. The questionnaire and responses are found in Appendix B.
Advantages: Good for obtaining village-level information in a brief period of time. Disadvantages: Information is from only one person and therefore may be skewed.
3.2.3 Informal interviews
Description and purpose: A prepared interview schedule based on the “Sociolinguistic Questionnaire A”, used by the Linguistic Survey of Nepal guides interaction in order to gather information regarding
specific sociolinguistic issues, while allowing freedom to ask further questions if they might provide additional information relevant to the research questions of the survey.
Procedure: Interviews were administered on an individual basis. Subjects were chosen using quotas according to demographic factors relevant to our research questions see section 3.3.2 for additional
subject selection procedures. This tool was administered to speakers of all the Tharu varieties of this survey except Dangaura
1.
The complete interview schedule and responses are in Appendix C. Advantages: Depending on the length of the interview, the time in administration can be minimal,
allowing for relatively large numbers of people to be interviewed. The informal nature of the interviews helps subjects feel comfortable to share openly, while allowing greater depth and providing context for
their responses.
Disadvantages: Informal interviews are limited in that subjects may only report what they want the researcher to hear, or what they believe the researcher would like to hear.
3.2.4 Recorded Story Questions RSQ
Description and purpose: Subjects listen to recorded stories, with questions asked after the stories. This helps in the assessment of the subjects’ perceived understanding of and attitudes toward actual samples
of the language from various areas. It helps the researcher understand if subjects perceive different speech samples as representing their own style of speech.
Procedure: A narrative story is recorded in one location and played for subjects in a second location. The collected story is first tested with at least ten mother-tongue speakers of the variety before administering
the test in other locations. The subjects in the second location are not told where the storyteller is from. After listening to a story, subjects answer questions about their understanding of and opinions toward
the storyteller’s speech. The RSQ, RSQ responses and translated stories are all found in Appendix D.
Advantages: Evaluates perceived understanding of opinions toward actual samples of the language. Disadvantages: Decisions about dialect areas should not be based solely upon these responses and are best
used in conjunction with more complete intelligibility testing.
3.2.5 Participatory Methods PM
This survey used two different participatory methods PM: Dialect Mapping and Appreciative Inquiry. The purpose for using PM is to gain perspective from the community regarding what they see happening
with their language. PM attempt to understand the emic perspectives of the community.
Dialect mapping Description and purpose: This tool creates space for discussion of emic perspectives regarding dialects,
their geographic location and perceived levels of comprehension between varieties. Procedure: Participants are invited to describe their linguistic landscape by identifying other locations
where their language is spoken. They then identify how large they perceive the differences to be between their variety and the others as well as their level of understanding, which variety they use in
conversation with people from other areas and which variety they believe to be the standard or most broadly understood. Two trained Dangaura Tharu speakers facilitated dialect mapping in five locations.
Full steps used for this facilitation are in Appendix E.
1
This is because material development is already in progress in Dangaura and therefore less information was needed from Dangaura speakers than from other varieties in order to fulfill the purpose and goals of this survey.
Advantages: Provides a visual representation of other communities participants interact with, how well they feel they understand those varieties, how their language may or may not be altered in these
circumstances and their attitudes about other varieties.
Disadvantages: May seem complicated or redundant, but each step contributes to a fuller picture of the local perception of the language situation. Emic perspectives do not always match linguistic reality.
Appreciative Inquiry Description and purpose: This tool helps community members dream and discuss the possibilities for their
language and begin planning how they can achieve those dreams. It also shows what the community sees as most important for their language.
Procedure: Participants discuss things in their language or culture that have made them happy or proud. They are then invited to think about how they might build upon these good things they have identified,
or identify dreams they have for their language. Next they discuss what dreams might be accomplished sooner and which ones will take longer. Then they identify which dreams are most important to them.
Finally, participants are asked if they would like to choose a dream they would like to create a plan for and begin deciding on what the first steps should be, who will be involved and when the plan will be put
into action. Like dialect mapping, this was facilitated by two trained Dangaura Tharu speakers. Complete steps of Appreciative Inquiry are in Appendix F.
Advantages: Creates space and opportunity for community discussion of good things that are currently taking place, their goals and dreams and concludes with creating their own plan of action for a goal they
have chosen if they so wish. It is adaptable for various situations.
Disadvantages: It requires facilitators to have strong linguistic and cultural command for effective group facilitation. If not properly framed, the facilitation may raise false hopes of outside assistance in reaching
their goals.
3.3 Subject selection
Subject quotas for this survey are based on a convenience sample. It focuses on four demographic groups gender, age, education and language variety, as these factors are known to influence language use and
attitudes. People in these demographic groups often have varying levels of exposure to other languages.
3.3.1 Wordlists and RSQ elicitation subject selection
There are four requirements for subjects chosen for wordlists and recorded story elicitation. These criteria are as follows:
1. Subject has grown up in the village under study, lives there now and if they have lived elsewhere, it was not for a significant amount of recent time
2
. 2. Subject has at least one parent from the target mother tongue.
3. Subject has at least one parent from the village under study and that parent spoke the mother tongue L1 with them.
4. Subject speaks L1 first and best.
2
It is difficult to define a specific time period e.g. more than the last five years for “a significant amount of recent time.” Thus, this criterion is intentionally subjective as it depends on how long the subject lived elsewhere and how
long they have been back in the village relative to their age.
3.3.2 Informal interview subject selection
The informal interview schedule requires that only criteria numbers one and two section 3.3.1 be met in order for a subject to be eligible. In each language variety a minimum of 12 informal interviews were
administered stratified by age and gender. Educational background was also accounted for during data collection and analysis. For this analysis, literate persons were classified as educated, which generally
corresponded with the completion of primary level four.
Table 1. Sample size for informal interview by age and gender
Sample size by strata Age
Total Young 15–34
Old 35+
Gender Male
3 3
6 Female
3 3
6 Total
6 6
12
3.3.3 Recorded Story Question subject selection
Subjects chosen for listening to and responding to the RSQs met the first three screening criteria that was used for the RSQ storyteller section 3.3.1. In each language variety a minimum of ten RSQ tests were
administered.
3.3.4 Participatory Method subject selection
Appreciative Inquiry and dialect mapping are facilitated for groups in each community. There is no limit imposed on how many people may be involved although a group size between five and ten individuals is
preferable. It is also preferred for various demographics gender, age and education to be represented in each group if possible. There is no screening process for those involved in participatory methods.
However, notes were taken regarding who was present in order to account for possible bias.
4 Lexical similarity
Lexical similarity is a measure of the relative similarity of a sample of words from two speech varieties. Similarity percentages are determined by calculating the percentage of words in one speech variety that
are pronounced the same or in a very similar way to the words in another speech variety. Specifically, this survey used the comparison method outlined in Blair 1990: 31–32, further explained in Appendix
A.2. It is generally accepted that lexical similarity percentages below 60 indicate that the compared lists represent different languages. Lexical similarity above 60 requires intelligibility testing to confirm
if the varieties are dialects of the same language or if they are different languages. This survey compares five 316-item wordlists. The lexical similarity percentages among the five Tharu wordlists are displayed
in table 2.
Table 2. Lexical similarity percentages matrix
Malhoriya
88 Deukhuri
83 84
Dangaura
84 81
76 Desauriya
77 74
70 74
Kathariya
Table 2 shows that the lexical similarity percentages vary from a high of 88 between Malhoriya and Deukhuri to a low of 70 between Dangaura and Kathariya. No comparison falls below the cutoff
60 where they would be considered separate languages. Malhoriya and Deukhuri have the highest average lexical similarity with all other varieties.
The wordlist from Dangaura shared higher similarity with those taken in Malhoriya 83 and Deukhuri 84 than with Desauriya 76 or Kathariya 70. This suggests a greater potential for
intelligibility challenges with Desauriya and Kathariya. Wordlist data shows that Malhoriya and Deukhuri share higher lexical similarity with Dangaura and
Desauriya. Dangaura shares high lexical similarity with Deukhuri and Malhoriya. Kathariya is the most lexically variant of these wordlists.
5 Dialect attitudes and emic perspectives
One goal of this survey was to investigate the emic insider perspectives of each community in regards to dialect boundaries and assess attitudes toward Dangaura, Deukhuri and Malhoriya varieties. This gives
a more complete overview of the language situation than linguistic data alone can provide. Although reported similarity requires further testing, reported differences are generally more reliable. The
following sections are divided into each variety Dangaura, Deukhuri and Malhoriya and begin with the opinions expressed by dialect mapping participants regarding their own language situation, including
perceived boundaries in speech differences. Informal interview responses are then discussed which suggest minimal contact between varieties and opinions regarding different speech varieties. Lastly,
attitudes toward the variety are discussed, based on data collected through RSQs and other tools when applicable. Although the interview and RSQ sample size in each site was not large, we believe they still
provide helpful indicators towards these research questions.
One of the questions included in dialect mapping was about the development of written materials in Tharu. When groups were asked, assuming no materials had yet been developed, what the best variety
for material development would be, each chose their own variety as their first choice. The next nearest geographically variety was always their second choice. This provides no consensus on any one dialect
that all groups agreed would be best for the development of materials in Tharu.
Given the large geographic area covered by the varieties in this survey nearly 200 km between the farthest two villages, it is not surprising that speakers of some speech varieties have never heard of nor
had contact with speakers of some other varieties. During dialect mapping facilitations in this survey, this was often the case. For example, participants in Belganar, Dang Dangaura Tharu had heard of
Malhoriya and Kathariya varieties, but had never met anyone that speaks either of those varieties.
5.1 Attitudes and perspectives toward Dangaura
This section summarizes the data collected regarding attitudes and perspectives toward Dangaura. Through a dialect mapping facilitation in Belganar, Dang, Dangaura participants shared how they
view the boundaries of their language and its varieties. They listed many Village Development Committees VDCs that they completely understand, all of which lie north of the Mahendra highway:
Narayanapur, Bijouri, Manapur, Duruwa, Phulbari, Goltakuri, Hekuli, Shreegaun and Ghorahi. They reported that they understand half of the speech in Satbariya VDC, which lies just south of the Mahendra
highway in what was once called Deukhuri district. When asked about the other Tharu varieties of this survey, participants reported that they understand half of Deukhuri and Desauriya speech. They did not
have knowledge about Malhoriya or Kathariya and those groups were excluded from the facilitation.
Participants reported that Deukhuri speakers adjust to them by speaking the Dangaura variety, although Deukhuri participants did not report this about themselves.
Informal interviews were used to inquire about minimal levels of contact between speech varieties and the opinions of speakers of these different varieties toward each other. As seen in table 3, tables
throughout this report include a row for the total number of responses indicated by N=. The total number of responses vary for different questions because some questions were not applicable to some
subjects. In addition, abbreviations for each Tharu variety are displayed in tables throughout this report as follows: Dangaura DG, Deukhuri DK, Desauriya DES, Malhoriya MAL and Kathariya KAT.
Table 3 displays the number of respondents from each variety that reported meeting speakers of Dangaura.
Table 3. Contact with Dangaura speakers
DK MAL
DES KAT
Total N=
12 13
12 12
49
Have met DG
11 92
13 100
11 92
12 100
47 96
Table 3 shows that the majority of respondents from all varieties report contact with Dangaura speakers 4749. This is not surprising because Dangaura speakers comprise the most populous group
and live in villages with or near speakers of other varieties in every district. During informal interviews, if respondents reported meeting speakers of the different speech
varieties, they were also asked how they liked their language. Responses to this question by those that have met Dangaura speakers are shown in table 4.
Table 4. Informal interview responses regarding Dangaura speech
DK MAL
DES KAT
N= 11
13 12
12
How did their [DG] Tharu make you feel?
Good 82
100 100
67 Indifferent
18 –
– 33
Bad –
– –
– Most participants who said they have met Dangaura speakers reported that they thought the
Dangaura speech of those they met is “good.” Kathariya respondents reported mixed attitudes: the majority 67 felt the Dangaura speech was “good” and 33 expressed indifference. None of the
respondents reported the speech as “bad.” This shows lack of negative attitudes by those who have come in contact with Dangaura speakers.
Another tool administered to assess attitudes was the RSQ. After listening to the Dangaura story, listeners were asked to share what they thought of the storyteller’s speech and whether or not the speech
is different from their own. Results of these questions are shown in table 5. Table 5. Attitudes towards speech in Dangaura story
DK MAL
DES KAT
N= 10
13 12
11
How did you like his speech?
Good 90
77 92
64 Fine
10 23
8 36
Bad –
– –
–
Is the language in this story…from the language
spoken here?
Same 40
– 25
– A little different
60 69
67 45
Very different –
31 8
55
When listening to an actual sample of Dangaura speech, most respondents said the language variety they heard was “good.” None of the respondents from any variety reported the speech as “bad.” This is
consistent with informal interview responses from those that had met Dangaura speakers, further suggesting positive attitudes toward Dangaura.
Table 5 shows that all Kathariya and Malhoriya respondents reported the Dangaura story was different in some way from their own speech. Most 75 Desauriya respondents also reported
differences between Dangaura and their own variety. Despite this, the majority of these respondents reported the speech as “good.” None of the respondents from any area responded with clearly negative
attitudes towards Dangaura. The fact that these respondents identify the Dangaura storyteller’s speech as different from their own and still report that the speech is “good” suggests generally positive attitudes
toward Dangaura speech. When the story was identified as “different,” participants were asked to identify what the differences were: style, pronunciation andor vocabulary. Style and pronunciation
were identified by respondents as the top factors making the Dangaura speech different from their own.
When asked if they would allow their son or daughter to marry someone who spoke like the storyteller, an average of 89 said “yes,” suggesting negative attitudes are not held toward Dangaura
speech. Kathariya respondents reported the lowest percentage 73. After listening to the Dangaura story, 55 of listeners 25 of 46 were able to identify the
storyteller’s speech as Dangaura. Respondents were asked, “How much of the story did you understand: all, most, half, or less than half?” Table 6 displays responses to this question by subjects from each of the
varieties.
Table 6. Perceived comprehension of Dangaura story
DK MAL
DES KAT
N= 10
13 12
11
How much of the Dangaura story did you
understand?
All 100
85 83
73 Most
– 15
17 18
Half –
– –
9 Less than half
– –
– –
The pattern of reported comprehension follows a geographic trend, with each respondent in Deukhuri reporting that they understood all of the story, followed by Malhoriya and Desauriya 85 and
83 respectively saying they understood all of the story and finally 73 in Kathariya reporting full comprehension. This is consistent with dialect mapping responses from Deukhuri, Desauriya and
Malhoriya participants. The dialect mapping group in Deukhuri said that they understand most Dangaura speech. Deukhuri and Malhoriya participants said that they understand Dangaura best, after their own
variety.
During dialect mapping, Desauriya participants reported that they use the Dangaura variety with Dangaura people, in order to improve communication. Their willingness to change their own speech
with Dangaura speakers suggests that they view the Dangaura speech favorably. However, Desauriya participants also said they understand only half of Dangaura speech, compared to most 82 reporting
understanding “all” of the Dangaura story.
Through informal conversations, several community members reported the Dangaura speech variety as the most polite variety of Tharu.
In summary, the data shows that Dangaura is readily identified by other Tharu communities of the area and many report it is easy to understand. Even though other varieties identified the Dangaura
speech as different from their own, the data suggests positive attitudes are held toward Dangaura speech. Dialect mapping exercises and observations support this as well. No interview responses or observations
suggest there are negative attitudes held toward Dangaura speech. This is further confirmed through a high percentage of respondents reporting that they would allow intermarriage with Dangaura speakers.
Kathariya respondents reported more differences than the other varieties between their own language and Dangaura. Despite this, all but one respondent felt they understood most or all of the Dangaura
story. Although this does not confirm comprehension of Dangaura by the Kathariya respondents, it shows that they have positive attitudes towards the Dangaura variety.
5.2 Attitudes and perspectives toward Deukhuri
