silesr2014 003.

®

Sociolinguistic Survey of

Lohorung

1

Jessica R. Mitchell and Holly J. Hilty

SIL International

®

2014

SIL Electronic Survey Report 2014-003, March 2014 © 2014 SIL International®

ii

This report presents the results of sociolinguistic research conducted among representatives of the Lohorung [ISO 639-3: lbr], Yamphu [ybi], and Southern Yamphu [lrr] language communities of

Sankhuwasabha and Dhankuta districts in Nepal. Linguistic and anthropological research, by van Driem (2001), Rutgers (1998), Hansson (1991), and Hardman (2000), provide helpful context for this

investigation of sociolinguistic realities between these groups. The goals of this survey include clarifying the relationships between Lohorung and two related languages; investigating dialect variation and attitudes between three Lohorung communities (Pangma, Angala, and Dhupu); assessing Lohorung language vitality in these three communities; and understanding the Lohorung community’s desires for development. This research adds to previous linguistic description of Lohorung and Yamphu to confirm that, despite their close relationship, they speak separate languages. There is little dialect variation between the Lohorung villages we visited. There are positive attitudes towards the speech variety of Pangma. While language vitality varies among these three Lohorung villages, the degree of vitality (EGIDS 6b, Threatened) warrants language-based development. The Lohorung community desires language-based development, most notably multi-lingual education, adult literacy, and a dictionary.

iii Abstract

 

Preface

 

1

 

Purpose and goals

 

2

 

Introduction

 

2.1

 

Geography

 

2.2

 

History

 

2.3

 

People

 

2.4

 

Languages

 

2.4.1

 

Genetic relationships

 

2.4.2

 

Language contact and multilingualism

 

2.4.3

 

Terms of reference

 

3

 

Methodology

 

3.1

 

Site selection 3.2 Subject selection 3.3

 

Research methods

 

3.3.1

 

Wordlist comparisons

 

3.3.2

 

Recorded Text Test (RTT)

 

3.3.3

 

Informal interviews

 

3.3.4

 

Dialect Mapping participatory method

 

3.3.5

 

Domains of Language use participatory method

 

3.3.6

 

Bilingualism participatory method

 

3.3.7

 

Appreciative Inquiry participatory method

 

4

 

Language variation and attitudes

 

4.1

 

Relationship between Lohorung (Pangma) and Yamphu (Hedangna)

 

4.1.1

 

Lexical similarity results

 

4.1.2

 

Intelligibility testing results

 

4.1.3

 

Pre/Post-RTT question results

 

4.1.4

 

Summary

 

4.2

 

Relationship between Lohorung (Pangma) and Southern Yamphu (Rajarani)

 

4.2.1

 

Lexical similarity results

 

4.2.2

 

Intelligibility testing results

 

4.2.3 Pre/Post-RTT question results

 

4.2.4

 

Summary

 

5

 

Dialect variation and attitudes

 

5.1

 

Lexical similarity results

 

5.2

 

Intelligibility testing results

 

5.3

 

Dialect attitudes

 

5.4

 

Summary

 

6

 

Language use and vitality

 

6.1

 

Domains of language use

 

6.2

 

Language use by age, education, and gender

 

6.2.1

 

Language use according to age

 

6.2.2

 

Language use according to education

 

6.2.3

 

Language use according to gender

 

6.3

 

Intergenerational transfer

 

6.4

 

Language vitality in Lohorung speech communities

 

6.4.1

 

Language vitality in Pangma

 

6.4.2

 

Language vitality in Angala

 

6.4.3

 

Language vitality in Dhupu

 

7

 

Desires for development

 

8

 

Summary of Findings and Implications for Language-Based Development

 

8.1

 

Language variation and attitudes

 

8.1.1

 

Summary of findings

 

8.1.2

 

Implications

 

8.2

 

Dialect variation and attitudes

 

8.2.1

 

Summary of findings

 

8.2.2

 

Implications

 

8.3

 

Language use and vitality

 

8.3.1

 

Summary of findings

 

8.3.2

 

Implications

 

8.4

 

Desires for development

 

8.4.1

 

Summary of findings

 

8.4.2

 

Implications

 

Appendix A: Wordlists

 

Appendix B: Recorded Text Testing (RTT)

 

Appendix C: Informal Interviews

 

Appendix D: Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire (KIQ)

 

Appendix E: Dialect Mapping Participatory Method

 

Appendix F: Domains of Language Use Participatory Method

 

Appendix G: Bilingualism Participatory Method

 

Appendix H: Appreciative Inquiry Participatory Method

 

Appendix I: Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale

 

References

 

v

This sociolinguistic survey of the Lohorung language of eastern Nepal was conducted in partnership with the Linguistic Survey of Nepal (LinSuN), Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal. The data collection portion of this survey was carried out in April and May of 2011 in Sankhuwasabha and Dhankuta districts of Nepal. The purpose of the survey was to gather sociolinguistic information among Lohorung speakers with hopes that these assessments will be useful for giving input into further Lohorung

language development.

We greatly appreciate the many people who contributed to the completion of this language survey. Our colleagues at Tribhuvan University offered timely encouragement and support along the way for which we are very grateful. The fieldwork would not have gone so smoothly without the leadership of our teammate and mentor, John Eppele. Without Ben Hilty along we would not have had such beautiful photos and videos to share with others. We would also still be trying to construct our recorded text tests without Ben’s adept computer skills. Before heading to eastern Nepal we had the opportunity to meet Bhawani Lohorung Rai of the Lohorung Yakkhaba Society who graciously helped organize people to help us when we reached Pangma. We could not have completed fieldwork without the assistance of Dambar Lohorung Rai, who traveled with us to all three of the Lohorung villages, spent hours helping us

translate and communicate what we were doing, was a great help in arranging logistics, and was in general a profound asset to our team. We are so thankful for his encouragement and hard work.

We are grateful to all the Lohorung people of Sankhuwasabha district who so warmly welcomed us and offered us their homes, food, and time. There are too many people to mention by name, but each of you who guided us down a trail, helped us translate stories, and answered our questions had a part in this report coming to completion. This report is for you.

It is our hope that this report will be a useful tool for Lohorung language development. We trust that this report accurately reflects the data we collected. However, comments and suggestions are welcomed.

June 2012

Jessica R. Mitchell Holly J. Hilty Kathmandu, Nepal

1

1 Purpose and goals

The purpose of this research is to provide sociolinguistic information to Tribhuvan University as part of the Linguistic Survey of Nepal. This information is intended to guide and support language development programmes in Lohorung [lbr]1_{. This includes investigating the relationships of the current ISO}

designations of Yamphu [ybi], and Southern Yamphu [lrr] with Lohorung [lbr]. The goals for this research are to:

1. Understand relationships between Lohorung, Yamphu, and Southern Yamphu. 2. Investigate dialect variation and intelligibility among Lohorung speech communities. 3. Investigate language vitality in three Lohorung speech communities.

4. Understand the Lohorung community’s desires for language development.

2 Introduction

The Lohorung community has expressed interest in language-based development programmes in their mother tongue. Given the unclear relationship and attitudes between Lohorung, Yamphu, and Southern Yamphu, a better understanding of the language situation is necessary to support development

programmes in an effective manner. 2.1 Geography

The speech varieties in focus are found in Sankhuwasabha district and Dhankuta district, in the Eastern Development Region of Nepal. The primary Lohorung communities lie north of Khandbari,

Sankhuwasabha district headquarters, along the eastern side of the Arun River. While Lohorung villages cover a relatively small area in the foothills of Makalu, the world’s fifth tallest mountain, they are scattered over what Hardman describes as a “complex of interlocking hills and narrow valleys.” Our data collection sites were between 1,000 and 1,300 meters in elevation. Hardman also describes weather that changes as dramatically as the landscape. The average rainfall, most of which occurs between June and September, is 2,600 mm (Hardman 2000:1). The other communities of interest are located northeast of the Lohorung area and in southern Dhankuta district.

1 _{This report follows the language identification set forth by International Organization for Standardization (ISO)}

639-3. The three letters in each set of brackets are the ISO 639-3 code internationally used to refer to that language variety.

Figure 1 is a map of the districts of Nepal with the areas of interest in Sankhuwasabha district and Dhankuta district, which lie south of Sankhuwasabha, designated as being Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively.

Figure 1. Map of districts visited for survey2_.

2 _{Base map from district map of Nepal, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/}

Figure 2 shows the Lohorung, Yamphu, and Southern Yamphu language areas of Sankhuwasabha district.

Figure 2. Map of language areas in Sankhuwasabha district.

The largest Lohorung community is Pangma, four Lohorung villages located northwest of Khandbari. Other settlements are located in a broad swath of land east of the Arun River, from Khandbari north to Diding. They are:

 Angala (east of the Arun where Bhojpur’s border joins and begins following the Arun south),  Higuwa (northeast of Khandbari),

 Tallo Dhupu/Dhupa (east of Pangma, between Pangtha Khola and Sobha Khola),  Bardeu and Gairiaula (north of Angala on the east side of the Arun),

 Malta (north of Khandbari and northeast of Pangma), and

Hardman and van Driem report that Pangma is the oldest Lohorung settlement. Gairi Pangma is the oldest of the four Pangma settlements (the other three being Tallo Pangma, Loke Pangma, and Dhara Pangma) (van Driem 2001:694).

Hansson estimated the “Northern Lohorung” population to be between 7,000 and 10,000 speakers (Hansson 1991:63). In her doctoral dissertation, Charlotte Hardman reported around 4,500 Lohorung speakers in the Arun valley area (Hardman 2000:1). The Ethnologue suggests there may be 3,750 speakers of Lohorung (Lewis 2009:491). The Lohorung Yakkhaba Society website

(http://lohorung.org.np/ Accessed 13 June 2012) states that there are 100,000 to 150,000 Lohorung. The 2001 Census of Nepal reports 1,207 Lohorung (Goutam, Sharma, and Vaidya 2002:32).

Figure 3 shows the Southern Yamphu language area of Dhankuta district.

Figure 3. Map of language area in Dhankuta district.

Prior to this research, this area was designated as Southern Lohorung by ISO, likely based on Hansson 1991.

2.2 History

Kirati generally refers to the inhabitants of the hill area of Eastern Nepal. The cultures of Kirati people have been the subject of a growing number of publications over the last 20 years. Due to this growing field of “Kirantology,” the outside world knows more than ever about the languages, myths, and various aspects of Kirati cultures. The first references to Kirati (or Kirata) appear in old Sanskrit texts,

particularly in the Mahabharata and Ramayana. Here, the inhabitants of the eastern hills of Nepal are described as warriors. The Kirata are believed to have ruled the Kathmandu valley for more than 1,000

years until they were driven out by the ancestors of the Licchavi (Gaenszle 2000:5). The Lohorung people fall under the label Kirati Rai.

The historical narrative of the Rai people coming to be many different groups is told as three brothers who journeyed up the Barahkshetra Gorge from the Terai. One brother followed the Sun Koshi, one brother followed the Dudh Koshi, and the third brother followed the Arun Koshi. The descendents of these three brothers make up the various present-day Rai groups (McDougal 1973:3). The people

described in this report are said to be descendents of the brother who traveled up the Arun Koshi. 2.3 People

While there are linguistic differences between Lohorung and Yamphu (discussed in 0), there are also material indicators of distinct identities. For instance, the construction of their kitchen fireplaces is different between the Lohorung and Yamphu. Lohorung cooking fires are round and open with a metal stand on which to place pots over the burning wood. Yamphu people use raised fireplaces in their kitchens (similar to a mud oven). Their fireplaces have a hole in the side for inserting the wood and a hole on top where the pot is placed.

Like the Yamphu and Mewahang, their neighbors to the north, the day-to-day lives of Lohorung people are lived in relation to their ancestors. A notable fact about Lohorung villages is that they are structured quite differently from those of other Rai groups around them. Their houses are raised on stilts and built next to each other with their gardens nearby. Raising their homes allows them to take greater advantage of ground space by keeping animals under their houses. The main motivation, however, is a sense of security. As one Lohorung explained to Hardman, “We live close together so as not to fear: to live in the fields alone away from the village is frightening” (Hardman 2000:16).

Significant political changes over the last 20 years have created a new space for the expression of ethnic identity. Many cultural organizations have been founded by Rai clans to strengthen their cultures, languages, and ethnicity as Rai. Gaenszle notes the increase in publications on specific Rai communities as evidence of “the great interest and pride of contemporary Rai in their cultural traditions, but also to the concern that something has to be done to preserve them” (Gaenszle 2000:xix). This trend has continued to increase over the past decade.

The Lohorung Yakkhaba Society was formed in 1999. Committees of the Lohorung Yakkhaba Society are located in Pangma, Diding, Heluwa, and Bardeo, Sankhuwasabha district. The desire is for this society to be active in cultural, linguistic, and educational activities.

2.4 Languages

Among the Rai, a well-known saying is jati rai uti kura, i.e. ‘There are as many languages as there are Rai.’ The exact number and names of all the groups included under Rai is unclear. Bista’s The People of Nepal lists 18 different Rai “segments” while the Linguistic Survey of Nepal suggests there are more than 50 Rai dialects or languages (Gaenszle 2000:3). ISO 639-2 lists designations for 33 Rai languages (Lewis 2009).

2.4.1 Genetic relationships

Lohorung, Yamphu, and Southern Yamphu are classified as Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman, Western Tibeto-Burman (Bodic), Himalayan, Kiranti languages (Bradley 2002:19). In Lohorung-Nepali-English: A Basic Dictionary, the Lohorung, Yamphu, and Mewahang occupy their own branch under Sino-Tibetan, Tibetan, Bodic, Himalayish, East Himalayish (Yadava 2004).

2.4.2 Language contact and multilingualism

A factor with potential to effect language shift is language contact, when speakers of two different languages meet. Through language contact, multilingualism increases and the use of certain languages

increases over the use of others, sometimes leading to language shift or even death. Considering the modes and extent of language contact and multilingualism helps paint a clearer picture of the sociolinguistic condition of a language.

A common opportunity for language contact is through access to a population center where people from the targeted community are exposed to and possibly required to use another language (Landweer 2000). In this case, the primary contact language is Nepali. All Lohorung villages in Sankhuwasabha are within a day’s walk of Khandbari, the district headquarters. Gairi Pangma, the largest Lohorung village, is only a two-hour walk away. Many other ethnic groups also take advantage of the markets, hospital, and schools that Khandbari offers, making Nepali language use a necessity.

Another significant contributor to language contact and multilingualism is education. Lohorung children attend Nepali-medium schools. Most villages have an ethnically diverse population, which encourages the use of Nepali among children both inside and outside of school. Because of its largely homogeneous population, Pangma is an exception to this rule. There, we observed children speaking Lohorung to each other in the home and while playing.

While the two factors of language contact discussed above involve action by members of the targeted community, some factors act upon the target community instead. As infrastructure for the Arun III Hydroelectric Project is being built, Pangma stands to be heavily impacted. The road from Khandbari north to Num cuts through Lohorung land and even at this early stage has been the point of some conflict, as plans call for it to pass through a sacred place. Most of the construction workers are from other castes and speak other languages. Construction of the road will bring increased contact with outsiders, and the road will bring an influx of workers in need of lodging and food on their way north. This project will have significant impact on the entire district, but the most affected Lohorung village will certainly be Pangma.

Emigration for work also affects language use in Lohorung villages. Young men often travel to Khandbari, Kathmandu, or beyond for work. Thirty percent of male respondents had spent more than one year working in either India, Malaysia, or Qatar.

Patterns of contact between Lohorung and Yamphu communities vary greatly, but the highest contact is between Pangma and Hedangna, the largest villages of each language group. Fifty-six percent of Lohorung respondents had travelled north to Hedangna while 60 percent of Yamphu respondents had travelled south through Pangma.

2.4.3 Terms of reference

Lohorung is also known as Northern Lorung, and Lo(h)(a)rung Khanawa (Hansson 1991:62). Hansson singles out Lohorung as the only large language group among the Rai groups east of the Arun River which do not claim the label Yakkha or Yakkhaba. However, Yakkhaba Khap was mentioned by leaders of the Lohorung communities we visited as another term of reference for their language. There is little evidence of significant dialect variation within Lohorung. Hansson reports that Biksit is considered to be a dialect from a linguistic point of view only while linguistic evidence of two other dialects (Kipa and Loke Lorung) is lacking (Hansson 1991:62–63).

A variety of names have been used to refer to Southern Yamphu, including Southern Lohorung, Yamphe, Dewan, Deon, Deon Lorung, Yakkhaba, Yakkha, Yakkhaba Lorung, Yamphu, Dangbami Lorung, Dangbami Khapung, and Jimi (Hansson 1991:62–65). The appearance of Yakkhaba in reference to both Yamphu and Southern Yamphu is noteworthy. The group called “Southern Lorung” by Hansson identifies themselves as Yamphu. For this reason, we applied to ISO to change the identifier for [lrr] from

“Southern Lorung” to “Southern Yamphu” (this request was approved in February 2012). Hansson estimated that there are 3,000 to 5,000 speakers (1991). The Ethnologue (forthcoming) now estimates there are between 2,500 and 5,500 speakers.

3 Methodology

3.1 Site selection

Figure 4 shows the data collection sites for Lohorung (Pangma, Dhupu, and Angala), Yamphu (Hedangna), and Southern Yamphu (Devitar).

Figure 4. Map of data collection sites in Sankhuwasabha district.

Figure 5 shows the data collection site for Southern Yamphu (Rajarani) in Dhankuta district.

Figure 5. Map of data collection sites in Dhankuta district. 3.2 Subject selection

The quota sampling plan used in this survey was based on the four variables of gender, age, education, and geographic location, as these factors are known to influence language use and attitudes. Also, the people in these demographic groups often have varying levels of exposure to other languages.

Within these demographic groups, we required subjects to meet four screening criteria for wordlists and the RTT:

1. The subject is “from the village,” defined as having grown up in the village, living in the village at present, and, if they have lived elsewhere, it was not for a significant amount of recent time.3 2. Subject has at least one parent from target variety.

3. Subject has at least one parent who is a mother-tongue speaker of the variety, is from the village under study, and that parent spoke the variety with him/her when he/she was a child.

4. Subject speaks the variety first and best.

Only criteria one and two were required for a subject to be eligible to respond to the informal interview schedule. Note that the fourth criterion was relaxed in Dhupu. Since Lohorung language vitality is so low there, it was difficult to find speakers who could fit this criterion.

3.3 Research methods

Background research was conducted in Kathmandu prior to fieldwork. Lohorung speakers from Pangma village and Yamphu speakers from Hedangna and Num villages were interviewed and assisted with preparing various tools. The participatory methods used in this survey were facilitated by Santa Man Lawoti and Dal Bahadur Limbu in Sankhuwasabha and Dhankuta districts in September 2009. During fieldwork, wordlists, recorded text tests (RTT), and informal interviews were administered in Gairi Pangma, Dhupu4_{, Angala, and Hedangna, Sankhuwasabha district, and Rajarani, Dhankuta district.} 3.3.1 Wordlist comparisons

Description and Purpose: A comparison of wordlists to estimate the degree of lexical similarity between the speech varieties the word lists represent.

Procedure: Wordlists were elicited in Nepali from mother-tongue Lohorung and Yamphu speakers and were transcribed using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). In order to ensure that the wordlists represent the speech variety in each location, a group of at least three speakers was involved in the wordlist elicitation. A lexical similarity analysis was carried out on each pair of wordlists. A complete description of wordlist comparison and the data 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.

3.3.2 Recorded Text Test (RTT)

Description and Purpose: Subjects listen to recorded stories, with comprehension questions asked within the stories. After the subject has listened to the stories, questions regarding language attitudes are

3 _{This criterion was extended in a few cases to include subjects who had grown up in nearby villages, where the}

speech variety is still the same as the village where the interview took place. 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.

asked. This helps in the assessment of subjects’ understanding of and attitudes toward actual samples of the language from various areas.

Procedure: We recorded a narrative story from a Lohorung speaker and a Yamphu speaker. It was then played for people, in other Lohorung and Yamphu communities, who were not told the story’s place of origin. As subjects listened to each story, they answered comprehension questions (recorded in their own dialect) about the story. After listening to each story, subjects answered questions about their

understanding of and opinions toward the speech variety used by the storyteller. The tests were administered first in the community the speaker was from to ensure we had a representative recorded text from that variety. This is referred to as the home town test (HTT). The stories used and responses for the RTT can be found in Appendix B.

Advantages: By using actual samples of selected speech varieties, an initial assessment of intelligibility and attitudes can be made.

Disadvantages: This test can be time consuming to develop. The type of RTT used in this survey only evaluates basic understanding of narrative texts. In addition it does not measure reading and writing ability in the second dialect.

3.3.3 Informal interviews

Description and Purpose: A prepared interview schedule (based on the “Sociolinguistic Questionnaire A,” used by the Linguistic Survey of Nepal) guided interaction in order to gather information regarding specific sociolinguistic issues, while allowing freedom to inquire or discuss issues further if it might provide additional information relevant to the research questions of the survey. An additional interview schedule (dubbed the “Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire”) was used to investigate issues relevant to each village context, which are more factual in nature than individual patterns of language choice or attitudes.

Procedure: The interview schedule was written in English and Nepali, and interviews were conducted in Nepali. An example of this procedure would be asking “What language do you usually speak with your children?” as on the planned interview schedule. If the interviewee happened to respond with two or more languages, we followed up with questions such as “Do you speak one of these languages more often than the other?” This allowed the interviews to focus more on patterns of language use (and their impact on language vitality and shift) than on other topics, such as generalized trends of multilingualism. The interview schedule, biographical data of respondents, and responses can be found in Appendix C. The Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire and responses are in Appendix D.

Advantages: Depending on the length of the interview schedule, 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 and share openly, while allowing greater depth and 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.

3.3.4 Dialect Mapping participatory method

Description and Purpose: This method initiates discussion of existing dialects, their geographic location, and perceived levels of comprehension between varieties.

Procedure: Participants were invited to describe where their language is spoken and the different varieties spoken. They then identified how different other varieties of their language are from their own and how well they understand other varieties. They then identified which variety they use in

potential to be a written standard. The complete steps and data collected through Dialect Mapping can be found in Appendix E.

Advantages: Provides a visual representation of which communities participants interact with, how well participants feel they understand other varieties, how their language may or may not be altered in these circumstances, and their attitudes towards each variety.

Disadvantages: May seem complicated or redundant to participants. Although they are a useful indicator, emic perspectives do not always match linguistic reality.

3.3.5 Domains of Language use participatory method

Description and Purpose: This method aids the investigation of language vitality. Its purpose is to help participants from the language community describe the varying situations in which they use L1, the LWC, or other languages and then identify the domains and languages that are used more frequently. Procedure: Groups of Lohorung people were asked to identify which languages they speak on a regular basis and then list a variety of domains in which each of those languages is used. The participants then categorized the domains by their frequency. A full description of the Domains of Language Use tool and data gathered for this survey can be found in Appendix F.

Advantages: This method does not assume domains or frequency of language use, rather, the

community suggests and discusses domains and frequency of language use from their own perspective. Disadvantages: Categorizing domains may be confusing or difficult. Some people may not be

comfortable making comparisons.

3.3.6 Bilingualism participatory method

Description and Purpose: This method helps language community members describe the demographics and patterns of multilingualism within their community.

Procedure: Participants listed the languages spoken most frequently in their community. They then described categories of people who speak each language well, the relative size of each category of speakers, and which categories may be increasing most quickly. A complete description of the tool as well as results for this survey can be found in Appendix G.

Advantages: This tool does not assume languages spoken in the community, but allows the community to name and discuss relevant languages themselves.

Disadvantages: This method is not very accommodating to multilingual situations exceeding the complexity of bilingualism. Does not help document or illustrate community attitudes towards their bilingual context.

3.3.7 Appreciative Inquiry participatory method

Description and Purpose: This method helps community members discuss what they are proud of, what desires they have for their language, and begin planning for how to achieve those dreams. It shows what the community regards as priorities for their own language-based development.

Procedure: Participants discuss things in their L1 or culture that have made them happy or proud. They then consider how to build upon the good things they identified, or list their own dreams for their language. Next, they discuss which dreams might be accomplished sooner and which ones will take longer. Then, they identify which dreams are most important to them. Finally, participants choose a dream they would like to create a plan for, including first steps, who will be involved, and when the plan

will be put into action. A full description of the Appreciative Inquiry method and results can be found in Appendix H.

Advantages: This method is very adaptable. Its emphasis is on what the community can do now to work towards their dreams for language development. Appreciative Inquiry helps build a concrete context by which to understand actual priorities that a community has for its own development.

Disadvantages: If not carried out appropriately, this method may raise false hopes of outside assistance in reaching their goals.

4 Language variation and attitudes

One of the primary questions this sociolinguistic research seeks to answer is: What are the relationships between Lohorung [lbr], Yamphu [ybi], and Southern Yamphu [lrr]? Based on lexical similarity

percentages, recorded text testing, attitudinal questions, and observations, we have concluded that Yamphu spoken in Hedangna and Southern Yamphu spoken in Rajarani are separate but related languages to Lohorung spoken in Pangma.

This section is divided into sections that address the relationships between varieties according to the results of our research. This includes levels of lexical similarity and the degree of comprehension

between the varieties, as well as attitudes expressed on questions before and after the recorded text test. 4.1 Relationship between Lohorung (Pangma) and Yamphu (Hedangna)

4.1.1 Lexical similarity results

Lexical similarity is measured by comparing the phonetic similarity of vocabularies among speech varieties. In this study, we used the procedures outlined in Blair (1990:31–32), described further in Appendix A. This method involved collecting and comparing a standardised wordlist. The researchers transcribed the wordlists using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), shown in Appendix A. These wordlists were checked with other mother-tongue speakers from the same area in order to ensure

accuracy. Lexical similarity calculations were made using the WordSurv computer program and expressed as percentages.

A total of five wordlists were compared in this study. Three Lohorung, one Yamphu, and one Southern Yamphu variety were collected and will be discussed in this section and in 5 Dialect variation and attitudes (section 5). For comparison between language varieties, the sites were chosen using information regarding the locations of Lohorung, Yamphu, and Southern Yamphu population centers.

To measure lexical similarity between Lohorung and Yamphu, wordlists were elicited in Pangma (Lohorung) and Hedangna (Yamphu). The lexical similarity between these wordlists is 65 percent. Blair (1990:23) states that if a lexical similarity is below 60 percent, no intelligibility testing is required. Sixty-five percent shows a low level of lexical similarity, but still warrants intelligibility testing. To investigate further, we administered Recorded Text Tests.

4.1.2 Intelligibility testing results

Recorded Text Testing (RTT) was used to evaluate comprehension between Lohorung and Yamphu. An RTT was developed in each location, using a Lohorung story from Pangma and a Yamphu story from Hedangna. Further description of the testing procedure can be found in Appendix B. Table 1 displays the results of the intelligibility tests. The gray sections display the results of the hometown test (HTT),

Table 1. RTT results for Lohorung (Pangma) and Yamphu (Hedangna) speakers Test Location

Story Hedangna Pangma

Lohorung (Pangma)

Avg % 65 89

SD 23.5 11.0

n= 10 10

Yamphu (Hedangna)

Avg % 91 44

SD 9.6 17.8

n= 10 10

In order to interpret RTT results properly, three pieces of information are necessary. The first is average percentage (shown as Avg % in Table 1), which is the mean or average of all subjects’ individual scores on a particular story at a particular test site. Another important piece of information is a measure of how much individual scores vary from the community average, which is known as standard deviation (SD in Table 1). The third important component of the data is the size of the sample of people tested on each story (n= in Table 1).

Blair (1990:25) has written about the relationship between test scores and their standard deviation, as seen in Figure 6.

Standard Deviation

High Low

Average Score

High

Situation 1

Many people understand the story well, but some have

difficulty.

Situation 2

Most people understand the story.

Low

Situation 3

Many people cannot understand the story, but a few are able to

answer correctly.

Situation 4 Few people are able to

understand the story. Figure 6. Relationship between test averages and standard deviation.

In general, average RTT scores of around 80 percent or higher with accompanying low standard deviations (usually ten and below; high standard deviations are about 15 and above) are taken to indicate that the subjects from the test point display adequate comprehension of the variety represented by the recording. However, RTT average scores lower than 60 percent are interpreted to indicate inadequate comprehension.

The results of each HTT were not ideal. Average HTT scores of 95 percent or higher, with a low standard deviation (less than 10 to 12 points) are preferred. Average HTT scores of 89 percent (Lohorung) and 91 percent (Yamphu) show that the tests could have been stronger. Despite that, the differences in scores and standard deviations between each HTT and RTT reveal valuable information.

The average score of Yamphu speakers in Hedangna on the Lohorung RTT was 65 percent. With a high standard deviation of 23.5, these results show that many people cannot understand the story, but a few are able to answer correctly. There is no apparent correlation between RTT scores and factors of gender, age, education, or initial contact.

The average score on the Yamphu RTT for Lohorung speakers who took the test in Pangma was 44 percent. This is a low average score. The standard deviation among the scores was 17.8. This shows that most people do not understand the story, though some scored higher than others.

With such a high standard deviation, language contact may play a role. The data shows that the three Lohorung participants with the lowest scores have never been to Hedangna. Men scored higher than most women and all said they had been to Hedangna. Their higher scores could be due to more extensive travel and contact with Yamphu.

Respondents from Hedangna had both a higher average score and higher standard deviation than those from Pangma. It is possible that people in Hedangna understood the Lohorung story better than people in Pangma understood the Yamphu story because Yamphu people are more exposed to Lohorung than Lohorung people are to Yamphu. Hedangna is more remote than Pangma. People from Hedangna travel through Pangma to reach the district headquarters, but people from Pangma have fewer reasons to travel to Hedangna.

4.1.3 Pre/Post-RTT question results

After Yamphu speakers in Hedangna listened to the Lohorung story, we asked them a series of questions related to the language they heard in the story. When asked where they think the storyteller is from, most respondents recognized that the storyteller is Lohorung. Two believed he was from a different Yamphu area (Num or Devitar) and two others believed he was from another country (India or Germany).

Respondents were also asked if they liked the speech of the storyteller. Half of the respondents thought the Lohorung speech was “OK” while the other five respondents had a variety of opinions about it. The responses were quite varied, with little correlation to contact with Lohorung or their RTT score. There is a high degree of contact with speakers of Lohorung in Pangma (at least eight of ten have been to Pangma), which may explain why there is a higher degree of comprehension of Lohorung among

Yamphu respondents than there is of Yamphu among Lohorung speakers.

Participants were also asked how much they felt they understood the story and to identify how different the storyteller’s speech was from their own. Only one respondent felt they understood all of the story and they said the speech was very different from their own. All but one said the language is different from theirs. While Lohorung and Yamphu are separate languages, their identity as “brothers” and shared vocabulary create an affinity that allowed several respondents who said they only understood half of the story to also say the storyteller’s speech was only a little different from their own.

Post-RTT questions in Pangma show different patterns. After listening to the Yamphu (Hedangna) story, every respondent identified the storyteller as being from Hedangna. While some respondents clearly recognized the speech as Yamphu, others called it their own variety (Lohorung). Despite the fact that many people scored quite low on the RTT, they still said the speech was “good,” “OK,” or even that it was their own language.

There is a slight correlation between the scores of those who have travelled to Hedangna and those who have not. We only know that five respondents have been to Hedangna and the average score among them is 52 percent with a standard deviation of 11.5. This implies that few if any of the people who have been to Hedangna understand the story. The average score of those who have not been to Hedangna is lower with a higher standard deviation.

4.1.4 Summary

There is a distinct difference between the Lohorung spoken in Pangma and the Yamphu spoken in Hedangna. Many of the post-RTT comments reflect the strong ethnic identity of the Lohorung and Yamphu being brothers historically. This identity appears to supersede comprehension when it comes to attitudes between the two groups.

4.2 Relationship between Lohorung (Pangma) and Southern Yamphu (Rajarani) 4.2.1 Lexical similarity results

The lexical similarity between the Lohorung in Pangma and the Southern Yamphu in Rajarani is 66 percent. While this is a rather low percentage of lexical similarity, intelligibility testing was necessary to confirm that they are separate languages.

4.2.2 Intelligibility testing results

The results of the Lohorung (Pangma) RTT administered to people in Rajarani are displayed in Table 2. Table 2. RTT results for Southern Yamphu speakers (Rajarani)

Rajarani scores Lohorung

(Pangma) story

Avg % 61

SD 19.3

n= 10

The average score for people who took the RTT in Rajarani was low at 61 percent, with a high standard deviation of 19.3. Usually, contact is a primary factor in high standard deviation. However, none of the RTT participants reported having ever been to Pangma, and have not even been to Sankhuwasabha district. There is also no predictable demographic influence on scores.

4.2.3 Pre/Post-RTT question results

After listening to the Lohorung (Pangma) story, participants were asked, “What village do you think the storyteller is from?” No one could identify the location of the storyteller’s speech variety.

Even though RTT scores were low and most participants said they did not understand all of the story, most (seven of ten) reported that the speech is only a little different from their own. Because none of the participants identified where the storyteller was from, these responses were based on the speech sample itself, not on the linguistic identity of the speaker.

4.2.4 Summary

Low lexical similarity and RTT scores confirm that Lohorung and Southern Yamphu (Rajarani) are different languages. Speakers of Southern Yamphu identify themselves ethnically and linguistically as Yamphu. However, the majority of respondents in Rajarani felt that Lohorung speech is only a little different from their own language.

5 Dialect variation and attitudes

Descriptions of dialect boundaries are informed by gathering lexical similarity information and testing intelligibility between language areas. In order to investigate potential dialects within Lohorung, we administered the Lohorung (Pangma) Recorded Text Test (RTT) in Angala, elicited wordlists in Pangma, Angala, and Dhupu, and conducted informal interviews in each location. This section will discuss the findings of these tools by comparing Angala and Dhupu with Pangma.

5.1 Lexical similarity results

In each Lohorung village we collected and analyzed a wordlist based on the guidelines in Appendix A. Sites were selected based on information regarding Lohorung population and geographic location. Pangma was chosen based on its status as the largest and oldest Lohorung community. Angala has a high Lohorung population and is in the western part of the Lohorung area. Dhupu was chosen as a data collection site because it is one of the easternmost Lohorung villages. Upon arrival, we found that, while there is a strong ethnic identity among Lohorung, there are very few people in Dhupu who speak the Lohorung language. The Lohorung wordlist participants from Dhupu did not fully meet our screening criteria, due to Lohorung not being the language they spoke best. However, given the low vitality of Lohorung in Dhupu, a wordlist was elicited to document the variety that was spoken in Dhupu. Lexical similarity percentages among the three wordlists compared are shown inTable 3.

Table 3. Lexical similarity percentages matrix Gairi Pangma

90 Dhupu

88 88 Angala

Analysis of Dhupu’s wordlist shows 90 percent lexical similarity with Pangma, which points towards likely high intelligibility between the Dhupu and Pangma varieties of Lohorung. Wordlist comparison between Gairi Pangma and Angala reveals a lexical similarity of 88 percent. This is suggests that there may be intelligibility between any two of these two varieties, but testing is needed to confirm that hypothesis.

5.2 Intelligibility testing results

To investigate the intelligibility implied from the wordlist comparison, we administered the Lohorung (Pangma) RTT in Angala. Intelligibility testing was not done in Dhupu due to low Lohorung language vitality. Table 4 shows the results of the RTT test administered in Angala.

Table 4. RTT results for Lohorung speakers in Angala Test Location Angala Pangma Lohorung (Pangma)

story

Avg % 85 89

SD 9.3 11.0

n= 11 10

The high average score and low standard deviation implies that most participants in Angala

understand the Pangma story. In fact, the average score of participants in Angala was only slightly lower than for the HTT in Pangma. Intelligibility of the Pangma speech variety in Angala is high.

5.3 Dialect attitudes

In order to provide supplemental information to corroborate people’s scores on the RTT, we asked several questions before and after the RTT. Before participants listened to the RTT, we asked them, “Where is the purest Lohorung spoken?” Of thirteen respondents, all said Pangma while half also said Angala. Even though the RTT was not administered in Dhupu, answers to pre-RTT questions reveal attitudes about the Lohorung that is spoken elsewhere. When Dhupu participants were asked where it is most purely spoken, most said Pangma (eight of ten).

When Angala participants were asked “Where is the least pure Lohorung spoken?,” no clear negative attitudes surfaced. Diding was most frequently mentioned (four of thirteen). Half of Dhupu’s respondents said Dhupu.

Angala respondents strongly identified with the Pangma story and held positive attitudes about it. After listening to the Lohorung (Pangma) story, ten of the eleven participants identified the speaker as being from Pangma. All respondents felt the storyteller’s speech was good, seven of whom said they liked it “because it’s our language.”

Eight out of eleven participants reported understanding “all” of the story, two said they understood “most,” and one said they understood “half.” When asked how different they felt the storyteller’s speech was from their own, ten thought it was the same while only one said it was “a little different.”

Even though people in Angala recognized the speech in the story as coming from Pangma, they also thought the speech was good, and even identified it as their own. In addition, the majority of people understood all of the story.

5.4 Summary

Angala’s high RTT scores and lexical similarity percentage with the Lohorung spoken in Pangma point toward high intelligibility of the variety spoken there. While the majority of respondents felt that the RTT storyteller’s speech was the same as their own speech, their ability to identify the speaker as being from Pangma shows that there are some identifiable differences between the two varieties. These differences, however, do not seem to impair intelligibility or contribute to negative attitudes. Overall, respondents in Angala and Dhupu have a positive attitude toward the Lohorung spoken in Pangma.

Among the Lohorung villages where we gathered data, we can conclude that they may all be able to use the same written materials.

6 Language use and vitality

In this section, we will investigate the vitality of the Lohorung language by discussing the language’s function and intergenerational transfer in three Lohorung communities, as well as the impact of their context on language vitality. One current measurement for this is the Expanded Graded Intergenerational Transmission Scale (EGIDS) (Lewis and Simons 2010). Built upon Fishman’s Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (1991), EGIDS measures vitality on a scale from zero to ten, with zero being the strongest vitality and ten the weakest.

We will start with responses to generalized questions about language use. We asked participants how often they speak Lohorung. Table 5 displays responses according to village.

Table 5. How often do you use Lohorung? n= Daily Sometimes Never

Pangma 16 100% – –

Angala 12 75% 25% –

Dhupu 13 – 69% 31%

Table 5 shows strong use of Lohorung in Pangma and Angala. Every respondent in Pangma said they use Lohorung daily. There is a stark contrast between the responses from Pangma and Dhupu. No respondents from Dhupu use the Lohorung language daily.

Lohorung participants were also asked how often they use Nepali. Table 6 shows the data stratified by village for a clearer picture of Nepali language use.

Table 6. How often do you use Nepali? n= Daily Sometimes Never

Pangma 16 44% 56% –

Angala 12 75% 25% –

Dhupu 13 100% – –

All of the respondents said they use Nepali to some extent. Yet less than half of the respondents in Pangma reported using Nepali on a daily basis.

In order to investigate people’s opinions on language change, we asked participants, “Do you think that the language spoken by you is different from your grandparents?” Forty-two percent of respondents stated that their language is different than their grandparents. Most said that the difference is due to language mixing. Respondents mentioned their grandparents speak Lohorung more often and Nepali use in school as factors in the difference in language between generations.

6.1 Domains of language use

One way of investigating language use is to look at the community’s language choices in specific domains. Domains are certain institutional contexts in which one language is considered more

appropriate to use than another. There are three factors involved in any given domain: location, topic, and participants (Fasold 1984:183). In this section we will look at responses to questions about language use in specific domains.

Participants were asked what language they most frequently use with family members when discussing social events and family matters. Table 7 shows responses to this question.

Table 7. Language most frequently used in home when discussing social events and family matters

n= Loh Nep Other Grandfather 30 70% 27% 3% Grandmother 31 68% 29% 3%

Father 37 65% 32% 3%

Mother 38 63% 34% 3%

Spouse 29 62% 45% 3%

Children 27 44% 48% 7%

Table 7 shows that when discussing social events and family matters in their home with people of similar or older age, a majority of respondents reported they primarily use Lohorung (62–70%). However, when discussing the same topics with children only 44 percent of respondents reported using Lohorung while 48% said they primarily use Nepali.

When we stratify this language choice with children specifically by village, the data shows definite trends. Table 8 displays this data.

Table 8. Language most frequently used in home when discussing social events and family matters with children, by village

n= Loh Both Nep

Pangma 12 58% 8% 33%

Angala 6 83% – 17%

The majority of respondents from Pangma and Angala report speaking Lohorung in the home with their children when discussing social and family topics. Only in Dhupu did respondents report a higher use of Nepali in this domain.

We then asked the same question about a different domain: discussing educational matters in the home. Education is in Nepali and therefore it is more likely that people associate Nepali with education more than Lohorung. Table 9 displays the responses to this question.

Table 9. Language most frequently used in the home when discussing education matters n= Lohorung Nepali Other

Grandfather 30 67% 27% 6%

Grandmother 30 67% 23% 10%

Father 37 62% 33% 5%

Mother 38 61% 37% 2%

Spouse 29 59% 38% 3%

Children 27 37% 52% 11%

As the responses show, Lohorung use in the home is still high, even when discussing education. Only when speaking to their children did more respondents say they usually spoke Nepali than Lohorung.

Table 10 displays what language respondents in each village said they usually speak with their children in this domain.

Table 10. Language most frequently used in the home when discussing education matters with children, by village

n= Loh Both Nep

Pangma 12 42% 25% 33%

Angala 6 83% – 17%

Dhupu 9 – – 100%

Like when discussing social and family matters, the majority of respondents from Pangma and Angala report using Lohorung with their children. No respondents from Dhupu said they spoke Lohorung in this domain.

Respondents reported using Nepali much more frequently than Lohorung in letter writing. This data is not surprising given the lack of language-based development in Lohorung.

Using an informal interview schedule, we investigated language use in 13 additional domains. Table 11 displays the percentage of respondents who primarily use Lohorung, Nepali, or say they use both Lohorung and Nepali roughly as often as the other.

Table 11. Overall language use

What language do you usually speak... n=a _{Loh Both Nep} while doing puja? 41 73% 7% 17% while in family gatherings? 41 56% 7% 37% while scolding? 41 34% 12% 54% while in village meetings? 41 24% 15% 61% while quarrelling? 39 24% 15% 54% while telling stories to children? 41 20% 12% 68% while debating? 41 20% 17% 61% while joking? 41 20% 24% 54% while storytelling? 41 12% 12% 76% while counting? 41 12% 5% 81% while singing at home? 38 5% 7% 81% while shopping? 41 5% 15% 78% while singing? 41 5% 5% 88%

a _{One respondent answered that he usually uses Nepali, Lohorung, and English}

equally often in the domains of counting, singing, debate, puja, quarrelling, and telling stories to children. He also reported usually using both Nepali and English equally often when shopping and storytelling.

This data suggests that Lohorung is only spoken more frequently than Nepali during puja (‘worship’, 73%) and family gatherings (56%). Nepali is used much more often in every other domain we asked about. Not all of these domains specifically included topic, location, and participants. But the data clearly shows that Nepali is used to some extent in many areas of life. Table 12 displays responses of who said they usually speak Lohorung in these domains by village.

Table 12. Overall use of Lohorung by village I primarily speak Lohorung... Sites

Pangma Angala Dhupu while doing puja. 75% 75% 69% while in family gatherings. 88% 75% –

while scolding. 50% 50% –

while in village meetings. 38% 33% – while quarrelling. 50% 10% 8% while telling stories to children. 44% 8% –

while debating. 38% 17% –

while joking. 44% 8% –

while storytelling. 25% 8% –

while counting. 31% – –

while singing at home. 13% – –

while shopping. 13% – –

while singing. 13% – –

It is clear that respondents in Pangma use Lohorung most frequently while respondents from Dhupu use it rarely.

6.2 Language use by age, education, and gender 6.2.1 Language use according to age

Does language use in these domains vary between younger5 _{and older people? Do younger people speak} more Nepali than Lohorung? Table 13 shows the responses to the questions above, only stratified by age.

Table 13. Language use according to age

Question Young Old

What language do you usually speak... n=a _{Loh Both Nep n= Loh Both Nep} while doing puja? 20 65% 5% 25% 21 80% 10% 10% while in family gatherings? 20 50% 10% 40% 21 62% 5% 33% while scolding? 20 30% 15% 55% 21 38% 10% 52% while in village meetings? 20 35% 10% 55% 21 14% 19% 67% while quarreling? 19 26% 11% 58% 19 26% 21% 53% while telling stories to children? 20 20% 5% 75% 21 19% 19% 62% while debating? 20 20% 10% 65% 21 19% 24% 57% while joking? 20 15% 25% 55% 21 24% 24% 52% while storytelling? 20 10% 15% 75% 21 14% 10% 76% while counting? 20 20% 5% 70% 21 5% 5% 90% while singing at home? 20 10% – 90% 18 – 17% 83% while shopping? 20 10% 10% 75% 21 – 19% 81%

while singing? 20 10% 5% 80% 21 – 5% 95%

a _{One young respondent answered that he usually uses Nepali, Lohorung, and English equally often in the domains}

of counting, singing, debate, puja, quarrelling, and telling stories to children. He also reported usually using both Nepali and English equally often when shopping and storytelling.

The responses in Table 13 show that both young and old respondents said that they speak Nepali more frequently than Lohorung in most of these domains. The two domains where Lohorung is

reportedly used more often than Nepali are puja and family gatherings. The responses of both young and older people reflect this.

6.2.2 Language use according to education

Does language use differ according to education? Do people who have been educated in Nepali speak Nepali more frequently than Lohorung? Table 14 displays language use responses by education.

Table 14. Language use according to education

Question Uneducateda _Educated

What language do you usually speak when...

n= Loh Both Nep n=b _{Loh Both Nep} while doing puja? 17 88% 6% 6% 23 65% 4% 26% while in family gatherings? 17 65% 6% 29% 23 48% 9% 43% while scolding? 17 47% 12% 41% 23 26% 9% 65% while in village meetings? 17 29% 24% 47% 23 22% 9% 69% while quarreling? 15 33% 27% 40% 23 22% 4% 70% while telling stories to children? 17 24% 12% 65% 23 17% 9% 74% while debating? 17 29% 24% 47% 23 13% 9% 74% while joking? 17 18% 35% 47% 23 22% 13% 60% while storytelling? 17 6% 12% 82% 23 17% 9% 74% while counting? 17 18% 6% 76% 23 9% 4% 82% while singing at home? 14 7% 14% 79% 23 4% – 96%

while shopping? 17 – 18% 82% 23 9% 9% 78%

while singing? 17 6% 6% 88% 23 4% 4% 87%

a _{Throughout this report, “Uneducated” refers to individuals who have received fewer than five grades of formal}

education. “Educated” refers to individuals who have been educated through at least grade 5.

b _{One educated respondent answered that he usually uses Nepali, Lohorung, and English equally often in the}

domains of counting, singing, debate, puja, quarrelling, and telling stories to children. He also reported usually using both Nepali and English equally often when shopping and storytelling.

Both educated and uneducated respondents reported speaking Nepali more frequently than Lohorung in most domains. Both groups reported higher Lohorung use in puja and family gatherings. More uneducated respondents reported that they usually speak Lohorung than Nepali in one other domain: scolding.

6.2.3 Language use according to gender

We also investigated if gender played a role in language choice in these domains. Table 15 shows responses according to gender.

Table 15. Language use according to gender

Question Male Female

What language do you usually speak when...

n=a _{Loh Both Nep n= Loh Both Nep} while doing puja? 21 76% – 19% 20 70% 15% 15% while in family gatherings? 21 57% – 43% 20 55% 15% 30% while scolding? 21 24% 10% 66% 20 45% 15% 40% while in village meetings? 21 14% 10% 76% 20 35% 20% 45% while quarreling? 21 14% 14% 67% 18 39% 17% 44% while telling stories to children? 21 14% 20% 76% 20 25% 15% 60% while debating? 21 10% 14% 71% 20 30% 20% 50% while joking? 21 19% 19% 57% 20 20% 30% 50%

Question Male Female What language do you usually speak

when...

n=a _{Loh Both Nep n= Loh Both Nep} while storytelling? 21 14% 10% 76% 20 10% 15% 75%

while counting? 21 – – 95% 20 25% 10% 65%

while singing at home? 21 5% 5% 90% 17 6% 12% 82% while shopping? 21 5% 10% 80% 20 5% 20% 75%

while singing? 21 – – 95% 20 10% 10% 80%

a _{One male respondent answered that he usually uses Nepali, Lohorung, and English equally often in the domains of}

counting, singing, debate, puja, quarrelling, and telling stories to children. He also reported usually using both Nepali and English equally often when shopping and story-telling.

Table 15 shows that while female respondents reported using Lohorung more often than men, both groups generally use Nepali more often than Lohorung. Again, during puja and family gatherings both male and female respondents report using Lohorung more than Nepali.

Female responses also reflect that they use both Lohorung and Nepali equally more often than male respondents.

6.3 Intergenerational transfer

To investigate intergenerational transfer, we began with questions concerning general Lohorung language use by children and between parents and children.

We asked all participants, “Do young people in your village speak Lohorung well, the way it ought to be spoken?” A little over half of the respondents in Pangma and Angala said they thought Lohorung is spoken as well as it should be by young people, while in Dhupu, 85% of respondents believe it is not spoken as well as it should be.

Participants were asked, “What language do most parents in this village usually speak with their children?” Figure 7 shows responses to this question.

Figure 7. What language do most parents in this village usually speak with their children?

Figure 7 shows that 57 percent of respondents say parents in their village usually speak Lohorung to their children. These responses stratified by village are displayed in Table 16 to provide a clearer picture of reported language use of parents with children.

Series2, Lohorung,

23, 57% Series2,

Nepali, 15, 38%

Lohorung and Nepali

equally 5%

Table 16. Reported Lohorung use by parents to children by village n= Loh Both Nep

Pangma 16 81% 13% 6%

Angala 12 75% – 25%

Dhupu 12 8% – 92%

The patterns of responses shown in Table 16 between Pangma and Dhupu are nearly opposite. This pattern will be reflected as we continue to investigate intergenerational transfer in this section.

Then, we asked questions to parents specifically about their children’s language use. When asked “What languages do your children speak?” all of the parents interviewed in Pangma and Angala reported their children speak both Lohorung and Nepali. All of the children of respondents in Dhupu speak Nepali, but less than half speak Lohorung—nearly the same number as are said to speak English there.

We asked parents if all their children spoke Lohorung and 74 percent replied “yes.” Figure 8 shows the “yes” responses according to village.

Figure 8. All your children speak Lohorung.

The responses of parents interviewed in Pangma and Angala show that many of them are passing Lohorung on to their children. Each respondent from Dhupu who answered “yes” also qualified their answer with a comment like “only a little.”

Participants with children were asked what language their children most often speak in several domains. Table 17 shows the percentages each language is reportedly used by subjects’ children, according to domain.

Table 17. What language do your children speak while: n= Loh Both Nep Talking with neighbours 28 32% 11% 57% Playing with other children 28 18% 18% 64%

At school 26 – 8% 92%

Parents reported that their children usually speak Nepali in all three specified domains. Table 18 and Table 19 show how the parents in each speech community responded two of the above questions.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Pangma n=12 Angala n=6 Dhupu n=9

No Yes

Table 18. What language do your children usually speak while talking with neighbors? (by village)

n= Loh Both Nep

Pangma 12 42% 8% 50%

Angala 7 57% 14% 29%

Dhupu 9 – 11% 89%

The data in Table 18 shows that roughly half of the children in Pangma and Angala are reported to usually speak Lohorung when talking with neighbors. Table 19 will show how the ethnic diversity of the village might affect what language children speak while playing with other children.

Table 19. What language do your children speak while playing with other children? (by village)

n= Loh Both Nep

Pangma 12 33% 17% 50%

Angala 8 13% 25% 50%

Dhupu 9 – 11% 89%

Comparing between the two questions in Table 18 and Table 19, Pangma respondents answered in generally the same way for both questions. Dhupu respondents also answered in the same way for both questions. The responses from Angala participants, however, is where the difference lies. While Angala has a relatively mixed population, the groups live in concentrated areas, so when their children play with other children, they are more likely to speak Nepali, but because more of their neighbors are Lohorung than not, they reported their children use Lohorung more often than Nepali when speaking in that domain. Pangma is almost entirely Lohorung, so children reportedly speak mostly Lohorung when playing with other children and when talking with neighbors. The situation is the opposite in Dhupu where the population is largely mixed with few Lohorung speakers, so children reportedly speak Nepali more than Lohorung in both domains.

As might be expected, Nepali is solely used as the language of classrooms for most children of respondents (92%), while both Nepali and Lohorung are used 8 percent of the time.

6.4 Language vitality in Lohorung speech communities

In this section, we will look at the context in which these speech communities are living and making these language choices. What things affect their language choices? This section will discuss the various factors that can impact a community’s language choices and contributes to the overall picture of language vitality.

6.4.1 Language vitality in Pangma

Observations of language use and other contextual factors point to high language vitality in Pangma. We observed all ages speaking Lohorung amongst themselves. The high degree of Lohorung being spoken by children was corroborated by conversations with several young teachers who spoke of the need for teaching materials in Lohorung to help their students learn more efficiently.

Another factor that affects ethnolinguistic vitality is the speech community’s access to a population center. A population center can be a bazaar, market, larger town, city, or anywhere people will be in contact with speakers of other languages and will likely be required to speak the language of wider communication. Located near the main north-south road, Pangma is a mere 20-minute walk from Mane Bhanjyang, a market town with many different ethnicities, and only a two-hour walk away from Khandbari, the bustling district headquarters. This provides frequent situations where Lohorung people speak Nepali because they are interacting with people outside the Lohorung community.

Economic factors also play an important role in language vitality. Pangma’s economy is self-sufficient. Their own crops are able to produce nearly all the food that they need throughout the year. Even though their crops provide for daily needs, many young men leave the area for a few years to work in Kathmandu or internationally. This means that many men have had greater contact with and may also speak other languages of wider communication (e.g. Nepali, English, Malaysian, Arabic).

Pangma is the most prestigious among Lohorung communities. Not only is it the most concentrated population of Lohorung people, but it also has many important sacred ritual sites.

There are material indicators that identify the community as Lohorung such as architecture and village layout. Houses are built up on stilts allowing them greater use of the land and unlike other Rai groups, houses are built close together.

6.4.2 Language vitality in Angala

In Angala, we observed that that Lohorung is being passed on to the next generation to varying degrees. It is a more mixed village than Pangma, with Gurung living in the upper part and Lohorung in the lower part of the village. Intercaste marriage is not common in Angala and the Lohorung community is tight-knit. Angala has relatively easy access to significant population centers. It is a one- to two-hour walk northwest of Pangma which puts it roughly a two-hour walk from Mane Bhanjyang and a four-hour walk from Khandbari.

6.4.3 Language vitality in Dhupu

Dhupu has the lowest Lohorung language vitality of the three villages. We met old and young people who knew very little Lohorung. Four out of 13 respondents said Lohorung was the first language they learned, and two reported learning both Nepali and Lohorung at the same time. However, eight reported Nepali as the first language they learned. The people who reported learning Lohorung first are almost all 33 years of age or older. When asked what language they speak best, all but two reported they speak Nepali best (11 of 13). One 68-year-old male reported speaking Lohorung best and a 57-year-old female reported that she speaks Nepali and Lohorung equally well.

In Pangma, we met a young lady who grew up in Dhupu and moved to Pangma after getting married. She is now learning Lohorung because it is expected she will speak it there. Even though it is not spoken much in Dhupu, there is a strong Lohorung ethnic identity there and people were very interested to hear about our research for their language. We observed strong microfinance enterprise and community work but it was supportive of the entire Dhupu community, and not necessarily of the Lohorung language itself. All members of the community participated in these together, which means they used the language of wider communication, Nepali.

Lying four hours east of Mane Bhanjyang, Dhupu’s closest bazaar is Bharabise, only a two-hour walk east. Khandbari is in the opposite direction but nearly as close as Bharabise. People travel to Bharabise often, so there is high contact with Nepali speakers there. Dhupu also lies along a main north-south road increasing their contact with non-Lohorung speakers. While Lohorung identity is strong in Dhupu, Lohorung language has low prestige relative to Nepali and Limbu.

6.5 Summary

Respondents said that Lohorung is the language most frequently used in the home with their peers and elders. When speaking with children in the home, respondents reported speaking Nepali more frequently than Lohorung. They reported higher Lohorung use than Nepali in only two other domains: puja and family gatherings. This correlates with the data on intergenerational transfer. While the majority of respondents reported that their children speak Lohorung, they also said that their children tend to use Nepali more than Lohorung when playing with other children or talking with neighbors. Even though it varies between speech communities, Lohorung is still used orally within all generations, but because it is not being passed on to all children, we conclude Lohorung language community is at an EGIDS level of 6b, Threatened.

Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (adapted from Fishman 1991)*

LEVEL LABEL DESCRIPTION UNESCO

0 International The language is widely used between nations in trade, _{knowledge exchange, and international policy.} Safe 1 National The language is used in education, work, mass media, _{and government at the nationwide level.} Safe 2 Regional The language is used in education, work, mass media, and government within officially recognized regions of

a nation. Safe

3 Trade The language is used in work and mass media without official status to transcend language differences across

a region. Safe

4 Educational The language is vigorous and literacy in the language is being transmitted sustainably through a system of

public education. Safe

5 Written The language is vigorous and is effectively used in written form in parts of the community though literacy

is not yet sustainable. Safe

6a Vigorous The language is used orally by all generations and is _{normally learned by children as their first language.} Safe

6b Threatened

The language is still used orally within all generations but there is a significant threat to sustainability, particularly a break in transmission to the next generation by a significant portion of the child-bearing generation.

Vulnerable

7 Shifting The child-bearing generation can use the language among themselves but they do not normally transmit it to their children.

Definitely Endangered 8a Moribund The only remaining active speakers of the language are _{members of the grandparent generation.} Severely _Endangered 8b Nearly Extinct The only remaining speakers of the language are _{elderly and have little opportunity to use the language.} Critically _Endangered 9 Dormant There are no proficient speakers, but some symbolic use remains as a reminder of heritage identity for an

ethnic community. Extinct

0. International

For this level, we are taking the United Nations as the authority. There are six languages that are recognized as official for this body—Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish—and these are the languages we place in this category. Other languages used across a number of countries (like Portuguese) are classed as a national language in multiple countries. 1. National

The primary component of Level 1 status is that the written language is used to conduct the business of national government. This need not take the form of being declared “official” in law. A language that is used nationally for oral communication, but which is not used in writing the record the laws of the land or the decisions of the courts, is classed as Level 3.

2. Regional

As with Level 1, the key defining characteristics for this level is use in written form to conduct the business of government. At Level 2 the government in focus is not the national government, but the government of an officially recognized administrative subdivision of the country (for instance, a province or state).

3. Trade

A Level 3 language lacks such recognition as a language for conducting the written business of government. It is still “vehicular”, however, and used by native speakers of other languages across a region for purposes of work or mass media. The general pattern in the EGIDS is that each level adds to what is true in the next lower level; this is the one point where an exception is possible. It is not a requirement of Level 3 that it also be used in formal education as in Level 4. The key component here is verhicularity (that is, being used widely by people who speak different first languages). The original logic of the GIDS as defined by Fishman is that successively higher levels are stronger and less susceptible to language shift. Clearly an unwritten trade language with millions of speakers is in a stronger position than a written local language with only thousands of speakers, even if the latter has achieved formal support in public education.

4. Educational

A Level 4 language is one that is vigorous and non-vehicular and that has achieved sustainable literacy. The fact of educational use of the written language is not enough to qualify as Level 4 (as was implied in the definition in the published paper). Rather, all five of the FAMED conditions as spelled out in the Sustainable Use Model should be in evidence:

 _{Adequate vernacular literature exists in the domains for which vernacular writing is desired.}  _{Vernacular literacy is being taught by trained teachers under the auspices of a sustainable}

institution.

 _{Members of the language community perceive the economic, social, religious, and}

identificational benefits of reading and writing in the local language.

 _{Official government policy calls for the cultivation of this language and cultural identity and}

the government has put this policy into practice by sanctioning an official orthography and using its educational institutions to transmit local language literacy.

 _{Members of the language community have a set of shared norms as to when to use the local}

language in writing versus when to use a more dominant language.

If there is a significant lack of any of these conditions such that removing the government support for education in the language would likely lead to the immediate disuse of literacy, then literacy should still be viewed as incipient and the language should be classified as Level 5.

5. Written

A Level 5 language is a vigorous language in which literacy is incipient. The mere fact that somebody has devised a writing system or even produced a piece of printed literature is not enough to lift a language from Level 6a to Level 5. Rather, the definition requires that some segment of the language community is effectively using literacy in the language. If this is true, but oral language use is significantly threatened, then the language should be classified as Level 6b.

That is, if by ignoring the factor of literacy, it is clear that the language would be classified as Level 6b rather than 6a, then the overall assessment should be 6b since the language cannot be considered vigorous.

6a. Vigorous

A Level 6a language is an oral language that is maintaining sustainable oral use among all generations in the home domain. The most salient indicator of this level is the fact that the language is being transmitted to all children in the home. By “all” children we do not mean literally 100%, but that it is the societal norm and it is typically followed. A few exceptional cases are not seen as a threat to sustainability, but when a significant number of exceptions emerge such that the community becomes aware that the norm is eroding, then there is a threat to sustainability and the language should be classified as Level 6b. While unbroken intergenerational transmission is the primary indicator of Level 6a, it is not sufficient by itself. Rather, all five of the FAMED conditions of the Sustainable Use Model should be in evidence:

 _{Adequate oral use exists in every domain for which oral use is desired.}

 _{There is full oral transmission of the vernacular language to all children in the home.}  _{Members of the language community perceive the economic, social, religious, and}

identificational benefits of using their language orally.

 _{Official government policy affirms the oral use of the language.}

 _{Members of the language community have a set of shared norms as to when to use the local}

language orally versus when to use a more dominant language.

If there is a significant lack of any of these five conditions, then sustained oral use is under threat and the language should be classified as Level 6b. For instance, if the community perceives so little value to using their local language that they would immediately begin transmitting the more dominant language if only they could learn it, then on-going language use is not sustainable and the language should be classified as Level 6b. Or, if the official government policy is hostile toward ethnolinguistic diversity and calls for the elimination or suppression of this language, then on-going language use is not sustainable and the language should be classified as Level 6b. 6b. Threatened

A Level 6b language is one that has started tipping away from sustainability. If an effort can be made to address any of the above conditions that are undermining the local language, then it may be possible to pull the language back toward sustainability; however, in the absence of such efforts, the community will be likely to continue shifting toward greater use of the more dominant language.

7. Shifting

A Level 7 language is teetering on the tipping point of sustainability. It is no longer the norm for parents to transmit the language to their children, but the parents still know the language, so it would be possible for intergenerational transmission to resume if the community could be convinced of the value of their language. Level 7 does not mean that transmission to children has completely stopped, but that it is now exceptional. Full transmission happens so infrequently that children who are learning the language will have difficulty finding peers to speak the language with (including a spouse) when they are adults.

8a. Moribund

A Level 8a language is still in everyday use in some homes, but only among those who are beyond child-bearing age. Thus, the normal cycle of intergenerational transmission has been broken. There may be younger adults who know the language at least somewhat, but they do not regularly speak it with their peers and are not fully proficient.

8b. Nearly extinct

A Level 8b language is no longer used in any home. Those who can still speak the language no longer have a spouse who can speak the language and find little opportunity to use it since there are so few other speakers.

9. Dormant

A Level 9 language is no longer the first language of any living individual. However, it is still the recognized heritage language of an ethnic community and it still serves as a marker of ethnic identity. Some vestiges of the language remain and are passed on within the community to strengthen the heritage identity. This could include names of cultural object, local place names, traditional greetings, formulaic use of the language in traditional rituals, or even the continuing use of ancient scriptures within in a faith community.

10. Extinct

At this level the language is known only through the historical records. There is no living community that still looks to the language as a marker of its heritage identity.

1₄₅

References

Blair, F. (1990). Survey on a Shoestring. Dallas, TX: SIL International.

Bista. Dor Bahadur. (1972). People of Nepal. Kathmandu: Putna Pustak Bhandar.

Bradley, D. (2002). The subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman. Medieval Tibeto-Burman Languages, 73-112. Fasold, R. W. (1984). The Sociolinguistics of society. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Fishman, J. (1964). Language maintenance and language shift as fields of inquiry. Linguistics, 32-70. Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Gaenszle, M. (2000). Origins and migrations: kinship, mythology and ethnic identity among the Mewahang Rai of East Nepal. Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point.

Goutam, R. P., Sharma, H. B., & Vaidya, S. (2002). District Demographic Profile of Nepal (A Demographic Data base For Nepal Based on Censuses 1981, 1991, 2001). Kathmandu, Nepal: Informal Sector Research & Study Center.

Hansson, G. (1988). Kirati languages of Eastern Nepal.

Hansson, G. (1991). The Rai of Eastern Nepal: ethnic and linguistic grouping. Kathmandu: Linguistic Survey of Nepal and Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies.

Hardman, C. (2000). Other worlds: notions of self and emotion among the Lohorung Rai. Oxford: Berg. Landweer, M. L. (2000). Indicators of Ethnolinguistic Vitality. Notes on Sociolinguistics 5.1, 5-22 . Lewis, M. P. (2009). Ethnologue. Dallas, TX: SIL International.

Lewis, M. P., & Simons, G. F. (2010). Assessing endangerment: Expanding Fishman’s GIDS. Revue Romaine de Linguistique, 103-120.

Lewis, M. P., & Simons, G. F. (2010). Making EGIDS assessment for the Ethnologue.

HYPERLINK “http://www.icc.org.kh/download/Making_EGIDS_Assessments_English.pdf” http://www.icc.org.kh/download/Making_EGIDS_Assessments_English.pdf. Accessed 02 August 2012.

McDougal, C. (1973). Structure and division in Kulunge Rai society. Kailash – Journal of Himalayan Studies , 205-224.

Rutgers, R. (1998). Yamphu: grammar, texts & lexicon. Leiden: Research School CNWS. van Driem, G. (2001). Languages of the Himalayas: an ethnolinguistic handbook of the greater

Himalayan region. Leiden: Brill.

Yadava, Y. P. (2004). Lohorung-Nepali-English: a basic dictionary. Kathmandu: The National Foundation for Development of Indigenous Nationalities.