DigitalResources Electronic Survey Report 2014-009

A Sociolinguistic Study of Dangaura Tharu and Related Varieties

Stephanie R. Eichentopf and Jessica R. Mitchell

A Sociolinguistic Study of Dangaura Tharu and Related Varieties

Stephanie R. Eichentopf and

Jessica R. Mitchell

SIL International 2014

SIL International Electronic Survey Report 2014-009, December 2014 2014 SIL International All rights reserved

Abstract

This report presents the results of sociolinguistic research conducted among the Dangaura Tharu, Kathariya Tharu and other closely related varieties in Dang, Banke, Bardiya and Kailali districts in Nepal. Lexical similarity, language attitudes, vitality and desires for language development were studied in order to assess how to best serve and support each of these communities, including which varieties are able and desire to use materials that are currently being developed in Dang district. Based on the findings of this research, it is suggested that Dangaura and Deukhuri varieties appear most likely to be usable and accepted by other varieties for material development. All of the communities we visited expressed desire for and appear ready to engage in developing multilingual education (MLE) program.

iii

Contents

Abstract Preface 1 Introduction

1.1 Geography districts 1.2 The Tharu people

1.2.1 History 1.2.2 Culture 1.2.3 Education

1.3 Languages 1.3.1 Dangaura 1.3.2 Deukhuri 1.3.3 Malhoriya 1.3.4 Desauriya 1.3.5 Kathariya

1.4 Previous research 1.4.1 Previous linguistic research 1.4.2 Previous research on language vitality

2 Research questions 3 Methodology

3.1 Site selection 3.2 Research methods

3.2.1 Wordlists 3.2.2 Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire (KIQ) 3.2.3 Informal interviews 3.2.4 Recorded Story Questions (RSQ) 3.2.5 Participatory Methods (PM)

3.3 Subject selection 3.3.1 Wordlists and RSQ elicitation subject selection 3.3.2 Informal interview subject selection 3.3.3 Recorded Story Question subject selection 3.3.4 Participatory Method subject selection

4 Lexical similarity 5 Dialect attitudes and emic perspectives

5.1 Attitudes and perspectives toward Dangaura 5.2 Attitudes and perspectives toward Deukhuri 5.3 Attitudes and perspectives toward Malhoriya 5.4 Summary of attitudes and emic perspectives

6 Language vitality 6.1 Domains of language use 6.2 Intergenerational transfer 6.3 Group dynamics 6.4 Network of social relations 6.5 Relative prestige 6.6 External recognition 6.7 Economic base 6.8 Vitality summary

7 Kathariya and Desauriya locations 7.1 Kathariya 7.2 Desauriya

8 Desires for development 9 Recommendations

iv

Appendix A: Wordlists Appendix B: Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire (KIQ) Appendix C: Informal Interviews Appendix D: Recorded Story Questions (RSQ) Appendix E: Dialect Mapping Appendix F: Appreciative Inquiry Appendix G: Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale References

v

Preface

This sociolinguistic survey of Dangaura Tharu, Kathariya Tharu and other closely related varieties in western 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 September and October of 2011 in Dang, Banke, Bardiya and Kailali districts of Nepal. The purpose of the survey was to determine how best to serve each of these communities, including if Dangaura materials could be used by other groups.

Many people contributed to the completion of this language survey. Our colleagues at Tribhuvan University gave encouragement and support for which we are grateful. Background research, formation of tools, introductions to invaluable contacts and much of the fieldwork was completed under the guidance and direction of Edward Boehm, without whom this survey could not have been successful. We could not have completed fieldwork without working together with KC and BC, who traveled with us and arranged logistics, spent hours helping us translate and communicate what we were doing and were a profound asset to our team. We are also thankful for the guidance and support from our mentor, John Eppele, and colleague, Holly Hilty.

We are grateful to the Tharu people of the districts we visited, who welcomed and helped us. There are too many people to mention by name, but each of you 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 Tharu language development. We trust that this report accurately reflects the data we collected. However, comments and suggestions are welcomed.

July 2012 Stephanie R. Eichentopf Jessica R. Mitchell Kathmandu, Nepal

1

1 Introduction

This survey examines the relationships between Dangaura Tharu [thl] and its closely related varieties of Deukhuri, Desauriya and Malhoriya. It also seeks to examine Kathariya Tharu [tkt] in relation to these varieties. The purpose of this survey is to determine if Dangaura materials can be used by these other groups and, if not, identify which variety would be best for an adaptation. To better understand if literacy materials that are currently being developed by various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Dangaura Tharu may be usable by other varieties, an examination of lexical similarity, acceptability and vitality is needed. The Dangora Tharu of Dang Valley should be further tested to the west and to the east of their respective centers to see what the limits are for intelligibility of each dialect. Little testing has been done in the eastern part of Kailali district and in the Bardiya and Banke districts of Nepal. These districts contain large and mixed populations of Tharus. The speech of these populations needs to be assessed to determine which dialect would most likely fit their literacy needs (Hugoniot 1996:16).

For the purposes of this survey, the term Dangaura will be used to refer to only Dangaura Tharu speakers located within northern Dang district. All Dangaura related varieties in this survey will be identified by their variety name.

Another important distinction that should be made is the term Tharu. In published articles and books, the term Tharu sometimes refers to all types of Tharu people living along the Nepal-India border, including Chitwan Tharu, Rana Tharu, Dangaura Tharu, etc. However, the term sometimes refers to a specific Tharu group, such as Dangaura Tharu. For the purposes of this report, the term Tharu will be used only when discussing all Tharu varieties addressed in this report (Dangaura, Deukhuri, Desauriya, Malhoriya and Kathariya), unless otherwise noted.

1.1 Geography districts

Nepal is currently divided into 14 administrative zones and subdivided into 75 districts. This survey spans across four districts in southwest Nepal. From east to west, these districts, in southwestern Nepal, are Dang, Banke, Bardiya and Kailali. They are within the Rapti, Bheri, Seti and Mahakali zones. The Mahendra highway runs east-west through the middle of all these districts (see map 1).

2

Map 1. Districts of Nepal

Source: UN map, http://un.org.np/sites/default/files/2011-11-15-Nepal_Admin_Zone_Muni_A4_26August2011_v03.pdf (November 3, 2015)

Dang District

Dang district is widely recognized as the original homeland of Dangaura and Deukhuri Tharu. Dang district is sometimes identified as Dang-Deukhuri district. This is because in the past, it was divided into two districts: Dang to the north of the Mahendra highway and Deukhuri to the south of Dang Valley. The separation of Dangaura and Deukhuri speakers follows the geography of the district. The highest concentration of Dangaura speakers is found in the wide Dang Valley in the north of the district, bordered on the north by the Mahabharat Range and on the south by the lower Dang subrange. Deukhuri speakers are concentrated in the Deukhuri Valley, a long, narrow valley in the south of the district separated from Dang Valley by the Dang subrange and from India by the Dundwa subrange.

http://un.org.np/sites/default/files/2011-11-15-Nepal_Admin_Zone_Muni_A4_26August2011_v03.pdfhttp://un.org.np/sites/default/files/2011-11-15-Nepal_Admin_Zone_Muni_A4_26August2011_v03.pdf

3

Map 2. Dang district

Source: Wikimedia CC BY-SA 3.0, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dang_District,_Nepal#/media/File: NepalDang Districtmap.png (November 3, 2015).

Banke District

Banke district contains a dense mixture of various Tharu varieties primarily located south of the Mahendra highway. Very few are found north of the highway or in the hill area of the southeast. Desauriya speakers are found in the southwest and west of Nepalgunj.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dang_District,_Nepal#/media/File: NepalDang Districtmap.pnghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dang_District,_Nepal#/media/File: NepalDang Districtmap.png

4

Map 3. Banke district

Source: Wikimedia CC BY-SA 3.0, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banke_District#/media/File:Nepal BankeDistrictmap.png (November 3, 2015).

Bardiya District

We did not visit any villages in Bardiya district during our fieldwork. However, many Tharu speakers are found there and these speakers are mentioned by interview responses and discussions. Different spellings can be found for the name of this district, the most common being Bardia and Bardiya. South of Mahendra highway there are high concentrations of Deukhuri and Dangaura speakers, however, their exact locations are unknown. Malhoriya speakers are located in western Bardiya between the bifurcations of the Karmali River. Few Tharus are located north of Mahendra highway because of the Royal Bardiya Reserve located there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banke_District#/media/File:Nepal BankeDistrictmap.pnghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banke_District#/media/File:Nepal BankeDistrictmap.png

5

Map 4. Bardiya district

Source: Wikimedia CC BY-SA 3.0, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardiya_District#/media/File:Nepal BardiyaDistrictmap.png (November 3, 2015).

Kailali District

One estimate suggests that as high as forty percent of the Dangaura Tharu population resides in Kailali district (Edward Boehm p.c., 2011). Within Kailali, Malhoriya speakers are found concentrated around Tikapur in the southeast. Many Tharu speakers are found in the southwest of the district. Few Tharu speakers are located north of Mahendra highway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardiya_District#/media/File:Nepal BardiyaDistrictmap.pnghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardiya_District#/media/File:Nepal BardiyaDistrictmap.png

6

Map 5. Kailali district

Source: Wikimedia CC BY-SA 3.0, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kailali_District#/media/File:Nepal KailaliDistrictmap.png (November 3, 2015).

1.2 The Tharu people

The Tharu ethnic identity is comprised of many separate groups that vary in culture and language. Generally, the term Tharu refers to a large ethnic group that spans most of the Tarai in Nepal. In actuality, there are many diverse ethnic and language groups under the umbrella term Tharu. Outsiders generally view the Tharu as one homogeneous group The Tharu, however, recognize many different subgroups distinguished by clan, region, cultural differences, and language (Webster 1993:4). The most well-known of these groups are the Rana, Dangaura, Kochila/Morangia, Chitwania and Kathariya (Boehm 1997:19).

1.2.1 History

Dangaura speakers are originally from Dang district, but currently live not only in Dang, but also in the districts west of Dang. This westward migration occurred as a result of a push for development of the Tarai in the 1950s. Prior to this time, the Tharu were one of the few people groups with an immunity to malaria, allowing them to live in relative isolation. As the Malaria Eradication Project lessened the threat of malaria and roads were constructed, hill people were encouraged to settle and work the land in the Tarai. These newcomers had more political awareness and gained control of the land in regions like Dang (Guneratne 2002:4, 94). In response, many Dangaura Tharu speakers migrated west (van Driem 2001:1167).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kailali_District#/media/File:Nepal KailaliDistrictmap.pnghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kailali_District#/media/File:Nepal KailaliDistrictmap.png

7

1.2.2 Culture

The ethnic identities of the Tharu people groups in this survey do not necessarily align with their linguistic identity. Different Tharu groups maintain their own set of religious rituals, marriage patterns and family relations. This section summarizes the economy, religion and family structure of Tharu varieties of this survey.

According to observations of the Webster 1993 survey, the western Tharu were almost completely rural, living in villages of less than 2,000 people. Their primary economic base was agriculture and they were generally self-sufficient year round through hunting, fishing and gathering (Webster 1993:3, 113). Referring to the western Tarai, Rajaure says, a Tharu village consists of several families living in a compact social unit which benefits them both socially and economically (1981:155). Marriage tends to occur within the same clan, but not in the same village. According to McDonaugh and confirmed through observations and interviews, Rana, Kathariya and Dangaura Tharu people do not intermarry but think of each other as separate castes (1989:193). Women go to live with their husbands family. Of Dangaura Tharu within Dang district, Rajaure reports that they rarely leave Tharu areas for more than a couple of days (1981:178). These reports were verified through informal interviews where 78% of respondents say they have never travelled outside of their area.

Most Tharu people practice a traditional religion, however many claim to be Hindu (Boehm 1997:27). Most Tharu practice an indigenous form of animism, in which shamanism, ancestor worship and tattooing play pivotal roles (van Driem 2001:1167). Idol and artifact worship is common. Guneratne points out that following other groups migrating into the Tharu area after the malaria eradication in the 1950s, Tharus were no longer able to perform customary rituals, because they no longer had the resources to do so; these rituals became abbreviated in their performance or fell into disuse entirely (1998:760).

1.2.3 Education

Education is increasingly available in many Tharu areas. Village leaders report that half to most of their communities are literate. We observed that while the majority of men are literate, women are predominately illiterate, though this seems to be changing with the younger generation. The Backward Society Education NGO is one of the most influential advocates for Tharu education.

1.3 Languages

The focus of this study is on Dangaura Tharu [thl] and other closely related varieties, including Deukhuri, Malhoriya and Desauriya. In addition, it also looks at Kathariya Tharu [tkt]. The 1991 census figures for Tharu populations were reported by district, but do not include population figures for each individual variety. According to the census data, Dang district has a Tharu population of 354,413 (29.6% Tharu), but again, it is unknown how many are Dangaura Tharu and how many are Deukhuri Tharu, as both reside in Dang district. Tharu population in Banke district is 285,604 (15.6% Tharu), 290,313 in Bardiya (51% Tharu) and 417,891 (47% Tharu) in Kailali. This section describes each variety in more detail.

1.3.1 Dangaura

Dangaura Tharu is an Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, Central zone language written in Devanagari script. Other names and spellings for the language are Chaudary Tharu, Chauhari Tharu, Dangauli, Dangha, Dangora and Dangura. Dangaura, in which materials are currently being developed, is primarily spoken in Dang district; however, it is also found in the districts to its west as well as in Kheri, Gonda and Bahraich districts of India (Boehm 1997:19). Nepali has influenced this speech variety.

8

1.3.2 Deukhuri

Southern Dang district is viewed as one of the original homelands of Deukhuri speakers. They are also located in districts to the west. Deukhuri is listed in the Ethnologue with the same ISO code as Dangaura [thl]. While allowing intermarriage between their groups, Dangaura and Deukhuri speakers identify themselves as separate. Because Deukhuri communities are so close to India, Deukhuri has been influenced by Hindi. The Curriculum Development Centre (CDC) of the Ministry of Education of the Government of Nepal has done some development work in this variety.

1.3.3 Malhoriya

Malhoriya is located in eastern Kailali district around Tikapur, as well as in western Bardiya in the original location of the Dangaura westward migration. Malhoriya shares the same ISO code in the Ethnologue as Dangaura [thl].

1.3.4 Desauriya

Desauriya, sometimes spelled Deshauriya, is not included in the Ethnologue. The Desauriya Tharu are a related group [to Dangaura Tharu] also inhabiting Banke and Bardiya districts (van Driem 2001:1167). The origin of Desauriya speakers is unknown, but it is generally believed that that they did not originate in the Dang/Deukhuri area. In Bardiya and Banke districts, the Dangaura Tharus distinguish themselves from the Deshaurya Tharus. But Deshauriya culture is so close to that of Dangaura that I presume they could be an offshoot of an earlier wave of migrants from Dang (Krauskopff 1995:187188). Additional information about the location of Desauriya speakers is in section 7.2.

1.3.5 Kathariya

Kathariya Tharu is listed in the Ethnologue under ISO [tkt]. An alternate name is Khatima Tharu. Often, it is spelled Kathoriya. However, a leader of their community in Pabera, Kailali indicated to us that the correct spelling is Kathariya. It is classified as Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, Central zone, unclassified. Kathoriya Tharu are concentrated most heavily in Kailali district of Nepal but can also be found in Kheri, Bahraich, Gonda, and Gorakpur districts in India and in other areas where Dangaura Tharu are found (Boehm 1997:19). Hugoniots research claimed that all Kathariya villages have Dangaura speakers living in them. In addition, he reported that only Tharus living near Kathariya villages have ever heard of Kathariya Tharu (1996:3, 13). The interviews and observations of this survey verify Hugoniots claims that most Tharu (specifically Dangaura, Deukhuri, Desauriya and Malhoriya) have neither heard of nor interact with Kathariya. The origin of the Kathariya is unknown, but it is generally believed that, unlike other varieties included in this survey, they did not originate in the Dang/Deukhuri area. Additional information about the location of Kathariya speakers is in section 7.1.

1.4 Previous research

There has been a considerable amount of research on the economics, religion and customs of the Tharu community, but relatively little linguistic research has been published.

1.4.1 Previous linguistic research

The only significant studies on the language of the Tharus include the work by Frierson (1903) and Hodgson (1857), the atlas of Bhojpuri by Tivari (1960), an inventory of phonemes in Citvan Tharu by D. Leal (1972) and Citvan Tharu sentences by William Leal (1973) (van Driem 2001: 1166). Previous research by Boehm (1997), Hugonoit (1996) and Webster (1993) has provided some information about Kathariya and Dangaura, although their research primarily focused on other Tharu varieties. Little or no

9

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 Boehms thesis (1997) addressed this question. Several factors surfaced as pointing towards healthy language maintenance: Government attitudes toward minority languages and culturesGiven 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 exogamyThrough 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 attitudesBoehms 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.

EducationAt the time of Boehms 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 communitys 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

10

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 13 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.

11

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 Dangaura1. 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 storytellers 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.

12

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 time2. 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.

13

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 (1534) 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: 3132), 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

14

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

15

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 (47/49). 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 storytellers 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 storyfrom the language

spoken here?

Same 40% 25%

A little different 60% 69% 67% 45%

Very different 31% 8% 55%

16

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 storytellers 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 and/or 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 storytellers 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.

17

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

This section summarizes the data collected regarding attitudes and perspectives toward Deukhuri. Dialect mapping participants in Majgau, Dang district, a Deukhuri village, listed several VDCs as

having speech that sounds exactly like their own: Sonpur, Gobardiya, Gangapraspur, Gadhawa, Chaulahi, Lalmatiya and Sisahaniya. These districts are all located in western Dang district, south of the Mahendra highway, except Lalmatiya and Sisahaniya VDCs which are located north of the highway. Like Dangaura participants, they said they understand most, but not all off the Tharu spoken in Satbariya VDC. They also reported understanding most of the speech in Bela VDC. When asked, participants said they do not understand very much Desauriya. They had not interacted frequently enough with Malhoriya or Kathariya speakers to discuss those varieties during the facilitation. When asked which speech varieties they understand best, participants listed the same VDCs as they listed when asked who they completely understand. They reported understanding Satbariya VDC as second most understood, followed by Nepali.

Table 7 shows the minimal levels of contact between Malhoriya/Desauriya/Kathariya and Deukhuri reported in individual interviews.

Table 7. Contact with Deukhuri speakers

MAL DES KAT Total

N= 13 12 12 37 Have met DK

10 (77%)

6 (50%)

10 (83%)

26 (70%)

Most Malhoriya (10 of 13) and Kathariya (10 of 12) respondents have met Deukhuri speakers. However, only six (6 of 12) Desauriya people interviewed had contact with Deukhuri. Of those who reported meeting Deukhuri speakers, a follow-up question was asked: How did their Tharu make you feel? Responses are shown in table 8.

Table 8. Informal interview responses regarding Deukhuri speech

MAL DES KAT

N= 10 6 10

How did their [DK] Tharu make you feel?

Good 80% 50% 90%

Indifferent 20% 50% 10%

Bad

When asked how they like the language of the Deukhuri people they have met, none of the respondents said the Deukhuri language was bad. This shows a lack of clearly negative attitudes toward Deukhuri speech by those who have met them.

Table 9 shows responses to RSQ questions asking how listeners liked the storytellers speech and if the speech was different from their own.

18

Table 9. Attitudes towards speech in Deukhuri story

DG MAL DES KAT

N= 10 13 12 11

How did you like his speech?

Good 80% 77% 92% 91%

Fine 20% 23% 8% 9%

Bad

Is the language in this storyfrom the language

spoken here?

Same 10% 69% 33% 20%

A little different 70% 31% 58% 40%

Very different 20% 8% 40%

As seen in table 9, the majority of respondents said that the storytellers speech was good. Over 90% of both Desauriya and Kathariya respondents said that the storytellers speech was good. None of the respondents said they disliked the Deukhuri speech they had heard. This data suggests positive attitudes toward Deukhuri speech from the tested varieties.

The majority of Malhoriya respondents (69%) reported the Deukhuri storytellers speech as the same as their own. By contrast, only 33% of Desauriya, 20% of Kathariya and 10% of Dangaura respondents said the same about the storytellers speech (table 9). Regardless of whether respondents claimed the storytellers speech as the same as their own, the majority reported the speech as good. This suggests positive attitudes toward Deukhuri speech because, even when differences were recognized, the speech sample was viewed as good.

The majority of respondents from all varieties reported that they would allow their son or daughter to marry someone who spoke like the Deukhuri storyteller. This suggests that the participants do not hold negative attitudes toward Deukhuri speech.

After listening to the Deukhuri story, participants were asked, How much of the story did you understand? Table 10 displays the responses.

Table 10. Perceived comprehension of Deukhuri story

DG MAL DES KAT

N= 10 13 12 11

How much of the Deukhuri story did you

understand?

All 100% 100% 92% 91%

Most 8% 9%

Half

Less than half

While fewer respondents have had previous contact with Deukhuri speakers than with Dangaura, table 10 shows that more respondents felt they understood all of the Deukhuri story than said the same about the Dangaura story. Consistent with this, Kathariya dialect mapping participants reported that they understand Deukhuri speech better than Dangaura speech. After Kathariya participants heard the Dangaura story, eight of 11 (73%) reported understanding all of the story compared to 10 of 11 (91%) claiming they understood all of the Deukhuri story. Every Dangaura and Malhoriya RSQ respondent reported understanding all of the Deukhuri story. However, Dangaura and Malhoriya dialect mapping

19

participants reported that they understand half of what Deukhuri speakers say. This indicates that Dangaura and Malhoriya speakers identify their speech as different from Deukhuri, but respond differently to an actual sample of speech.

Of those who reported the storytellers speech as different in some way, the primary reason was style.

In summary of what speakers of other varieties reported about Deukhuri speech, the Deukhuri story was reportedly the most understood story of all the varieties tested. A high percentage of respondents said the Deukhuri speech in the story was good. The same was reported through informal interviews. Desauriya and Kathariya respondents reported the highest amount of differences between their speech and Deukhuri. Despite identifying differences, the majority of respondents from all varieties reported favorable attitudes towards Deukhuri speech. In addition, the majority of interview respondents said they would allow marriages with Deukhuri speakers. Based on this data, it can be generalized that respondents do not hold negative attitudes toward Deukhuri.

5.3 Attitudes and perspectives toward Malhoriya

This section summarizes the data collected regarding attitudes and perspectives toward Malhoriya. Malhoriya dialect mapping participants in Ghiya, Kailali district, listed several VDCs located in

southeast Kailali district as having speech that sounds exactly like their own: Chauha, Kota Tulsipur, Baliya, Janakinagar, Joshipur, Pathariya, Munuwa, Durgauli, Thapapur, Tikapur, Narayanpur and Dansinhapur. Participants reported that they understand Dangaura best, after their own variety. They reported understanding only half of both Deukhuri and Kathariya speech. During dialect mapping with other varieties, Malhoriya was rarely mentioned by participants. Therefore, this section will focus on responses about Malhoriya from RSQ and informal interviews.

Table 11 shows the minimal levels of contact between Deukhuri/Desauriya/Kathariya and Malhoriya reported in individual interviews.

Table 11. Contact with Malhoriya speakers

DK DES KAT Total

N= 12 12 12 36 Have

met MAL 1

(8%) 2

(17%) 12

(100%) 15

(42%)

As seen in table 11, very few Deukhuri or Desauriya informal interview respondents said that they have met a Malhoriya speaker. Therefore, minimal data is available from informal interviews regarding attitudes toward Malhoriya speakers by those that have met them. All Kathariya respondents said they have met Malhoriya speakers. Only two Desauriya respondents and one Deukhuri respondent reported having met Malhoriya speakers.

Respondents that have met Malhoriya speakers were asked how they liked their speech. Kathariya responses to this question are shown in table 12.

Table 12. Informal interview responses regarding Malhoriya speech

KAT

N= 12

How did their [MAL] Tharu make you feel?

Good 50%

Indifferent 33%

Bad 17%

20

Table 12 shows that half of the Kathariya respondents felt that the speech of Malhoriya people is good. Two Kathariya respondents did not like the Malhoriya speech that they heard in the story. This data shows mixed attitudes toward Malhoriya speech by Kathariya respondents.

The Malhoriya story was played for Deukhuri, Desauriya and Kathariya participants. RSQ responses regarding how the listeners felt about the storytellers speech and how similar or different the speech was from their own is shown in table 13.

Table 13. Attitudes toward speech in Malhoriya story

DK DES KAT

N= 10 12 11

How did you like his speech?

Good 70% 83% 64%

Fine 30% 17% 27%

Bad 9%

Is the language in this storyfrom the language

spoken here?

Same 10% 50%

A little different 90% 42% 45%

Very different 8% 55%

The majority of participants reported the Malhoriya storytellers speech was good. Attitudes were least positive among Kathariya respondents. Despite this, the majority of Kathariya respondents said the speech was good.

Similar to what was said of other varieties, the majority of respondents identified that their speech is, to some degree, different than the storytellers. All Kathariya and 90% of Deukhuri respondents identified that the speech was different. Again, similar to other varieties, despite these identified differences, positive responses were given regarding the speech sample. This suggests positive attitudes because, though differences exist between the speech varieties, they still view the variety favorably.

Most (69%) Malhoriya respondents said the Deukhuri story was the same as their language (table 9) while only 10% of Deukhuri respondents said the same about the Malhoriya story (table 13). This data suggests a tentative analysis that Malhoriya speakers might understand Deukhuri more than Deukhuri speakers understand Malhoriya. But intelligibility testing would be required to conclusively evaluate that possibility.

When asked, most respondents who reported Malhoriya was different in some way said it was because of pronunciation.

The majority of Desauriya (92%) and Deukhuri (80%) respondents said they would allow their child to marry someone that speaks like the Malhoriya storyteller. Sixty-four percent of Kathariya respondents said the same.

After listening to the Malhoriya story, Deukhuri, Desauriya and Kathariya respondents were asked, How much of the story did you understand? Table 14 displays their responses.

21

Table 14. Perceived comprehension of Malhoriya story

DK DES KAT

N= 10 12 11

How much of the Malhoriya story did you

understand?

All 80% 100% 91%

Most 10% 9%

Half 10%

Less than half

As table 14 shows, the majority of respondents reported understanding all of the story. Consistent with RSQ data, Kathariya participants reported through dialect mapping that, after their own variety, they understand Malhoriya best.

During informal interviews, four (of 12) Kathariya respondents reported that Malhoriya is the least pure Tharu variety.

In summary, the majority of respondents for both the RSQ and informal interviews reported they felt that Malhoriya speech is good. Participants of the RSQ were able to identify differences between their own speech and the Malhoriya story most of the time. The majority of participants said they would allow intermarriage with Malhoriya speakers, which suggests a lack of strongly negative attitudes. Kathariya subjects appear to view themselves separate and distinct from Malhoriya.

5.4 Summary of attitudes and emic perspectives

In summary of attitudes by varieties toward Dangaura, Deukhuri and Malhoriya, it can be generalized that no negative attitudes are held toward Dangaura or Deukhuri and mixed attitudes were reported toward Malhoriya.

More RSQ respondents said they understood all the Deukhuri story than the Dangaura or Malhoriya story. Subjects from all varieties feel they understand one another to some extent, with the greatest differences being between Dangaura and Kathariya. Kathariya may be more similar to Malhoriya than to Dangaura or Deukhuri. Malhoriya respondents identify Deukhuri as more similar to their own speech than Dangaura.

Differences were reported between speech varieties to varying degrees, but despite the identified differences, overall attitudes appear favorable.

Kathariya respondents often recognized differences between their speech variety and the other varieties of the survey. They often stated that their own speech is very different from that of the storys they heard from other varieties. Kathariya language assistants responded more favorably to Deukhuri speech than they did to recordings of Dangaura and Malhoriya varieties.

6 Language vitality

One way of measuring language vitality is through assessing the function of the language and the degree of interruption of intergenerational transfer. The Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS) is often used to classify the level of vitality held in a community or language using a 010 scale with 0 representing strong vitality and 10 being extinct (Lewis and Simons, 2010). Through investigation of various factors effecting language vitality, Dangaura Tharu (and its sub-varieties) is assigned an EGIDS level of 5: Written; The language is used orally by all generations and is effectively used in written form in parts of the community. Kathariya Tharu is a level 6a: Vigorous; The language is used orally by all generations and is being learned by children as their first language. A complete description of EGIDS is in appendix G.

22

Several of the indicators of language vitality that this survey examines are based on Lynn Landweers Indicators of Ethnolinguistic Vitality (IEV), in which she describes several factors that have been useful in indicating the probable direction a speech community will go relative to the maintenance of, or shift from, its traditional language (Landweer 2000). This section discusses seven indicators of vitality: domains of language use, intergenerational transfer, group dynamics, network of social relations, language prestige, external recognition and economic base.

6.1 Domains of language use

One aspect of vitality according to the IEV scale is which languages are used in various domains of life. Language use in the home is viewed as one of the primary domains for vitality because the language of the home is generally a childs first language. Ninety-eight percent of respondents reported that parents in their village usually use the mother tongue with their own children. All respondents with children reported that all of their children speak their mother tongue. This suggests high vitality for the mother tongue in these communities.

Using informal interviews, language choice in 12 domains was investigated. Responses, stratified by age and gender, are displayed in table 15.

Table 15. Domains of Tharu use stratified by gender and age

Men Women

Young Old Young Old Average

N= 13 12 14 11 50

family gatherings 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

village meetings 91% 92% 86% 100% 92%

quarrelling 62% 100% 100% 100% 91%

scolding/taboo words 62% 100% 93% 100% 89%

storytelling 69% 83% 79% 100% 83%

joking 69% 83% 77% 100% 82%

discussing/debate 62% 83% 79% 100% 81%

telling stories to children 69% 83% 64% 100% 79%

puja/prayer 46% 73% 64% 82% 67%

bargaining/shopping 23% 67% 50% 100% 60%

singing 18% 73% 29% 100% 55%

singing at home 23% 58% 38% 91% 53%

Tharu was the primary language respondents claimed to use in these 12 domains, followed by Nepali. Clear distinctions in patterns of language use are seen when viewing the domains by age and gender. Older women (age 35 and above) report the highest use of Tharu in every domain. Older men also report high use of Tharu in most domains. Young men (age 1534) report lower use of Tharu than the other demographic groupings in all but three domains (telling stories to children, family gatherings and village meetings). One possible explanation for lower use of Tharu by young men is their high level of education. Only one young man from our sample is uneducated.

The three domains with lowest Tharu use were: bargaining/shopping (60%), singing (55%) and singing at home (53%). This is likely due to high exposure to non-Tharu music (mainly Nepali and Hindi) as well as frequent contact with non-Tharu speakers in bazaars. Although these domains had the

23

lowest percentages of Tharu use by participants, the percentages still show strong Tharu use given the predominance of Nepali and Hindi in these domains.

One of our goals is to consider language choice patterns in each Tharu variety of this survey. Table 16 shows responses for Tharu language use in twelve domains, stratified by variety.

Table 16. Domains of Tharu use stratified by variety3

DK MAL DES KAT

N= 12 14 12 12

family gatherings 100% 100% 100% 100%

village meetings 92% 100% 75% 100%

quarrelling 100% 100% 73% 83%

scolding/taboo words 100% 100% 67% 83%

storytelling 75% 100% 67% 83%

joking 100% 100% 42% 83%

discussing/debate 92% 93% 50% 83%

telling stories to children 83% 86% 50% 92%

puja/prayer 91% 71% 25% 75%

bargaining/shopping 67% 57% 50% 58%

singing 58% 50% 36% 67%

singing at home 64% 50% 25% 67%

Respondents in the Deukhuri, Malhoriya and Kathariya villages all use their mother tongue relatively often in each of the twelve domains. Desauriya respondents had the lowest reported use of Tharu, when compared to those from other varieties. This was true of every domain except for that of family gatherings, in which all respondents from each area primarily use Tharu.

One of the strongest influences of non-mother-tongue use is in the domain of education. Eighty-five percent of respondents report that children use Nepali in school and not Tharu. This percentage may be even higher because some respondents reported Tharu use in schools by children with children instead of reporting what language was used for instruction (the question was unclear). Only two of 36 parents reported that their children learned Nepali at home. Despite high use of Nepali in school instruction, many respondents report that their children use Tharu outside the classroom at school (i.e. with other children on the playground and by teachers for clarification of instructions). Eighty-nine percent of parent respondents report that they usually use their mother tongue to discuss education matters with their children.

6.2 Intergenerational transfer

An important aspect of language vitality is the extent to which the mother tongue is being passed to the next generation, known as intergenerational transfer.

The Tharu communities of this survey appear to have high intergenerational transfer from parents to children. Over 80% of interview respondents with children report that they use their mother tongue with children in all areas of life. School instruction is the only area they report their children consistently use Nepali. Some examples of this pattern: 3 Interviews were not administered in Dangaura villages, and therefore are not included in this chart.

24

86% of respondents with children report usually using their mother tongue to tell stories to children 88% report that their children usually use their mother tongue when speaking with neighbors 86% report that children usually use their mother tongue when playing with other children As mentioned in section 1.4.2, 98% of respondents (not just parents, but all respondents) report that

their mother tongue is the language most commonly used by parents in the village with their children. Observations in each location confirm the reported use of Tharu by children. Consistency of high Tharu use is found when examining intergenerational transfer by variety.

Informal interview responses to the question Do young people in your village speak your mother tongue well, the way it ought to be spoken are shown stratified by variety in table 17.

Table17. Young people speak well responses by variety

DK MAL DES KAT

N= 12 14 12 12

Respondents reported young people as speaking their mother

tongue well. 75% 100% 92% 92%

Table 17 shows that the majority of respondents from each variety report that children are speaking the language the way they feel it ought to be spoken. In addition to current mother-tongue use, the informal interview schedule inquired about attitudes toward what the respondents think will happen with their language in the future. All Malhoriya and Kathariya respondents said they believe their childrens children will speak their mother tongue. Similarly, 92% of Desauriya and 83% of Deukhuri respondents reported the same. This reveals a strong belief in the continuation of their mother tongue.

Based on informal interviews and observations, we found that most mothers speak limited or no Nepali. However, as education increases for women (71% of young women respondents are educated, but none of the older women respondents), so does their ability in the language of education, namely Nepali. Forty-five percent of older women respondents said they speak at least some Nepali. By contrast, all young women reported that they speak Nepali. As this educated generation ages and has children and grandchildren, further studies should be done to re-investigate how this affects the intergenerational transfer of Tharu.

Intergenerational transfer is a critical part of language vitality and, according to the responses from the interviews, the Tharu varieties covered in this survey are being passed on to the next generation. With increasing levels of education, currently all in Nepali, this indicator will require monitoring as young people begin to make choices about which language they will speak with their children.

6.3 Group dynamics

Group dynamics is another indicator of language vitality. One of the ways that the core of fluent speakers is either supported or undermined is through the language use characteristics of those who immigrate to a speech community (Landweer 2000). Intermarriage between groups was observed during the survey and, in several instances, the spouse who immigrated learns the local language. In Ghumna, a Deukhuri village, we were told that outsiders who marry-in are not forced to learn the language, but usually do because it is natural when you live there. We observed this in Belganar, a Dangaura village, where a non-Tharu woman married into the community and fluently speaks the local variety of Tharu. An additional example is from Ghiya, a Malhoriya village, where our non-Tharu driver spoke Tharu with a village man for directions to a village, when they could have both switched into Nepali instead. These observations suggest strong vitality.

25

6.4 Network of social relations

Another indicator of language vitality involves language use in a communitys social networks, defined by Landweer as intracommunity interdependence with dense, multiplex networks utilizing the local language to meet communication needs (Landweer 2000). A dense network is one in which everyone that is linked or connected to an individual is also linked to one another. A multiplex network is one in which a person is connected to other people through multiple connections (for example, their neighbor may also be their childs teacher as well as the wife of their doctor). Local language use in a community that has a both dense and multiplex social network indicates high vitality.

Observations allowed for little data collection in regards to the network of the Tharu communities. The most telling information came from interviewing leaders in each community. According to community leaders, most of the villages have high percentages of Tharu population. In Majgau, a Deukhuri village, it was reported that approximately 3,980 out of the 4,000 villagers are Deukhuri. It was reported in Pabera that approximately 60% of their villages population is Kathariya; the remaining 40% being Chaudhary (Dangaura). However, it was also reported that around 75% of the villagers speak Kathariya because they said some Chaudhary people also speak Kathariya. In Ghiya, it was reported that all 1,300 people of the village speak Malhoriya, even the Pahadis (hill people) that live there. The Belganar leader reported similar information saying that 800900 of the 1,200 villagers are Dangaura. By contrast, the Chapargaudi leader reported that approximately 10% of their village is Desauriya.

When leaders were asked about schools and the ethnic background of teachers, information greatly varied. In Ghumna (Deukhuri), 10 of 13 teachers are Tharu. Similarly, a high percentage of teachers in Majgau (Deukhuri) are Tharu. Other locations, however, such as Belganar (Dangaura), reported few Tharu primary school teachers and no Tharu secondary teachers. In Ghiya (Malhoriya), primary school teachers are mostly Tharu and secondary teachers are mostly non-Tharu. In several villages, Tharu medical personnel live and work in the village clinic.

The data collected with regards to this indicator is insufficient to make any strong statements of how the social networks of these communities affect language vitality. However, it would appear that each individual location varies greatly from one another.

6.5 Relative prestige

The relative prestige of the mother tongue within a language community influences the vitality of that language. If a language is perceived as prestigious, when given the choice, speakers are more likely to use it. Several factors affect the prestige of a language including the language of education, religious activities, trade, radio and what is available in a language, as well as government recognition and the presence of organizations (internal or external).

High prestige is found in all varieties through responses to the informal interview question What language should children speak first? All respondents from Deukhuri, Desauriya and Malhoriya answered that their mother tongue should be childrens first language. The majority of Malhoriya respondents said the same. Only one respondent reported that English should be first.

There are several organizations located within the Tharu speaking area of this survey, including Kathariya Samaj Nepali, a cultural preservation organization located in Pabera, Kailali district; Help Society Nepal, which works with various types of Tharu development in Belganar, Dang district (their office is located in Tulsipur), and Chaudhary Rin-Badhet Samuha, an economic development organization located in Chapargaudi, Banke district. Our host in Ghumna had worked with several different organizations (USAID, as well as organizations from Holland and Japan) in order to fund schools to be built. In Pabera, Kailali district, a street drama was performed in the Kathariya Tharu language.

There are radio programs in Tharu. Through asking knowledgeable insiders as well as community members, it appears that Tharu radio programs are available in Dangaura, Deukhuri and Kathariya varieties, but not in Desauriya or Malhoriya. All Deukhuri and Kathariya respondents said they listen to the radio programming available in their language. The majority of Desauriya (88%) and Malhoriya (79%) respondents, whose programs are only available in Dangaura speech variety, reported that they

26

listen to the Tharu radio programs. In some locations, radio programs in Tharu are only available once a week and the remaining time is available in Nepali or Hindi.

Some written materials are available in Tharu. Seventy-five percent of literate respondents say they currently read materials that are available in Tharu and 100% say they are interested in having more materials written in Tharu. When asked why they want to read or write in Tharu, the primary response was because their own language is best for them. This supports the prestige of their mother tongue over other languages available to them.

Table 18 shows the reported language preference for primary education, stratified by variety. Table 18. Language of choice for primary education by variety

DK DES MAL KAT N= 12 12 14 11

What language do you prefer for your childrens medium of instruction at

primary level? Tharu 50% 33% 14% 55% Nepali 25% 25% 29% 18% English 25% 42% 57% 27%

Classroom instruction is in Nepali. Some Tharu is used in primary for clarification of instructions and some English is used in secondary school. On average, respondents report English as the preferred language for school (39%), then Tharu (37%), followed by Nepali (24%). However, about half of all Deukhuri and Kathariya respondents reported that they prefer education to be in Tharu. By contrast, only four (33%) Desauriya and one (14%) of the Malhoriya respondents said they prefer Tharu. These responses show a high desire for command of English for economic/scholarly advancement, but also show some desire for mother-tongue education (discussed further in section 8.

Overall, Tharu appears to have high prestige. The majority of respondents prefer for their children to speak their mother tongue first. In addition, there are government and organizational recognition, radio programs and written materials. Dangaura has the most printed materials and radio programs. Deukhuri and Kathariya respondents prefer Tharu language use for education, which suggests very positive attitudes towards their mother tongue.

6.6 External recognition

External recognition of a language community as culturally separate and distinct supports language vitality. The government of Nepal has categorized the Tharu as a recognized nationality in the 2002 NFDIN Act (No. 20, Sec. 2C). In addition, Article 5 of the 2007 Interim Constitution of Nepal states that, All the languages spoken as the mother tongue in Nepal are the national languages of Nepal.

Locally, many signs of distinct identity were found in the Tharu communities, not only separating them from other non-Tharu peoples, but also marking differences between the individual Tharu varieties themselves. These markers included dress, style of homes, songs, dances, and tattoos.

Deukhuri women wear a sari-like top and long, full skirts with three bands of color: black, red, and black. In the Dangaura village of Belganar, women wear their sari top and lungi tied in a distinctive way. In Chapargaudi, a Desauriya village, women wear very colorful and distinctive skirts. In Pabera, a Kathariya speaking village, women wear skirts with black, green, and red diamonds on the bottom. These differences in dress are distinctive to an insider, but outsiders may not recognize their cultural significance.

Many Tharu women, especially older women, have tattoos on their hands and legs. Although once a common practice, tattooing young women at the time of marriage is now rarely seen. However, we observed a few young women with tattoos. Unmarried women and men never receive this type of tattoo. The design of the tattoo varies place to place. In Pabera, a Kathariya village, one older woman had tattoo markings on her forehead instead of her arms or legs.

27

Pabera, a Kathariya village, has very distinctive houses painted with different types of designs. They are colorful and designs range from flower pots to animals. It is easy to identify Kathariya people from other groups living in Pabera because of their homes.

Although we did not observe it directly, in the Deukhuri villages of Ghumna and Majgau, villagers told us about cultural dance and music. We could also hear music into the night.

In every village visited, we were able to observe some kind of physical indication of a distinct identity, not only distinguishing Tharu people, but identifying people as members of different groups of Tharu. These cultural markers are less common among the younger generation; nevertheless, the indicators are present in the community suggesting strong cultural identity which supports vitality.

6.7 Economic base

The final indicator of language vitality this survey considers is the Tharu communitys access to a stable and acceptable economic base. Lynn Landweer suggests that, if the language community believes economic advantages are more accessible in a different language, they will shift in that direction. This decision usually takes place among the parents and, seeking the benefits that are associated with the other language for their children, they encourage the learning and use of that language.

Located in the rice bowl of Nepal, the most common occupation for both men and women is farming. Knowledgeable insiders from Deukhuri, Dangaura, Desauriya and Kathariya areas report that people from their villages rarely travel outside for work, while Malhoriya leaders report that sometimes people travel outside for work. This means that their agriculture yields enough to supply their own needs and acquiring another language is not necessarily required for financial survival.

Nepali is commonly spoken in the bazaar where people from many different ethnolinguistic groups come into contact with one another. Sixty percent of respondents report that they usually use Tharu in the market. However, all older (35+) female respondents in each village report using only Tharu in the market. This demonstrates it is possible to buy and sell in the market while only using their mother tongue.

Seventy-two percent of all individual respondents said they travel outside of their village. Each of them was asked where, why, how frequently and what language they use for those travels. Most of them travel for medical reasons or to visit an area. Nepali is the most common language used when outside the village (47%), followed by Tharu (39%), Hindi (13%) and English (1%).

Twenty-two percent of interview respondents (one woman, ten men) cite work as their reason for travelling outside their village. Only 8% report travelling abroad (to India) for work purposes and no one had spent more than three years away from their village.

The fact that people rarely leave their area for work and when they do it is often for a short period of time, speaks highly of the economic base of these communities. Although a certain level of economic value is ascribed to both English and Nepali, Tharu speakers are largely able to thrive using only their own language.

6.8 Vitality summary

Through examining these seven indicators of ethnolinguistic vitality, an EGIDS level of 5 (Written) can be assigned to Dangaura Tharu and its closely related varieties of Deukhuri, Malhoriya and Desauriya. EGIDS level 6a (Vigorous) describes the vitality of the Kathariya Tharu variety. There are clear patterns of high language use of the mother tongue in most of the domains we asked about, although differences could be observed according to age, gender and variety. Education may affect language use among respondents, as younger men (most of whom are educated) use Tharu least often, while older women (all of whom are uneducated) use Tharu most frequently. However, all respondents frequently use their mother tongue in most domains. Intergenerational transfer patterns are strong. All young people in each community are learning Tharu as their first language. In addition, immigrants and those who marry into Tharu communities are learning and using Tharu. The mother tongue is the language preferred by the respondents for childrens first language. The language is officially recognized by the government of Nepal. It is promoted by local development agencies and individuals through local radio programs and

28

literacy materials. These materials reveal high prestige, despite Nepali being the primary language used for instruction in schools. The economic base of the communities also supports the vitality of the mother tongue. In addition to these factors, high vitality is supported through the maintenance of distinct cultural aspects in each Tharu speech community, not only identifying themselves as Tharu, but marking which sub-group of Tharu to which they belong. In summary of all of these factors, the vitality of the Tharu language spoken in each community represented in this survey appears strong.

7 Kathariya and Desauriya locations

Current population figures and locations for Kathariya and Desauriya speakers are not published. One goal of this survey was to make an estimation of the population and identify locations of Kathariya and Desauriya communities. Population figures were difficult to acquire and unverifiable. Therefore, this section focuses primarily on the location of Desauriya and Kathariya speakers and only briefly mentions rough estimates of population.

7.1 Kathariya

The most detailed information about the location of Kathariya speakers was from dialect mapping. The Kathariya community participants identified that Kathariya people live in 46 villages in ten VDCs of Kailali district: Hasuliya, Udasipur, Pahalmanpur, Lalbojhi, Thapapur, Joshipur, Munuwa, Durgauli, Patharaiya, and Chauha. Several Malhoriya speakers also mentioned that Kathariya speakers live in Munuwa and Joshipur VDCs. Map 6 illustrates these districts, but does not take into account specific areas or concentrations of Kathariya speakers within each VDC. Several of these VDCs also have villages of Malhoriya speakers, specifically Munuwa, Patharaiya and Joshipur. Gangaram Mahato, the Pabera village elder, estimates the population of Kathariya speakers living within Kailali district to be between 12,00017,000. We were unable to verify this estimate.

29

Map 6. Kailali district with highlighted Kathariya VDCs

Source: Wikimedia CC BY-SA 3.0, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kailali_District#/media/File:Nepal KailaliDistrictmap.png (November 3, 2015). Colors were changed to display Kathariya speaker locations.

7.2 Desauriya

Like Kathariya, the most helpful information regarding locations of Desauriya speakers came from the community respondents themselves during dialect mapping. They reported Desauriya speakers living in Banakatawa, Samserganj, Rajhena, Mahadevpuri and Titahiriya VDCs in Banke district and Motipur VDC in Bardiya district (map 7). Several Deukhuri speakers say they have met Desauriya speakers in Phalkapur, Dang. According to the estimates of a pastor we spoke with in Chapargaudi, Banke district, most Desauriya speakers living in Banke live within a few kilometers of the highway. One Kathariya man reported that most Desauriya speakers live west of the Nepaljung-Surkhet road. Based on conversations, it seems as though the village of Baradhawa, which is approximately one-hour walk north of Chapargaudi, has a high percent of Desauriya Tharu speakers. This data was from personal communication alone and we were unable to verify it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kailali_District#/media/File:Nepal KailaliDistrictmap.pnghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kailali_District#/media/File:Nepal KailaliDistrictmap.png

30

Map 7. Banke district map with highlighted Desauriya VDCs

Source: Wikimedia CC BY-SA 3.0, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banke_District#/media/File:Nepal BankeDistrictmap.png (November 3, 2015). Colors were changed to illustrate the location of Desauriya speakers.

8 Desires for development

Informal interviews and Appreciative Inquiry were used to assess communitys desires for language-based development.

During most Appreciative Inquiry facilitations, the participants referred to their variety of Tharu and not the term Tharu. Appreciative Inquiry revealed that each community has aspirations for multilingual education (MLE). MLE was identified as the most important language development opportunity in each community. Informal interviews reinforce this finding. Most respondents from all test locations felt that learning to read and write in their mother tongue is important for both themselves and for children and that they would like to attend such a class themselves. Pabera (Kathariya) participants said they think that MLE would have positive and lasting effects for their community. While Chapargauri (Desauriya) and Ghiya (Malhoriya) participants said that they would like their mother tongue to be the language of instruction in their primary schools, the educated participants of the group facilitation in Ghumna (Deukhuri) said that it would also be good to have university curriculum available in their mother tongue. Desauriya and Deukhuri participants said they would like to have an alphabet (orthography). Several different communities said they would like to develop radio and television programs, books, school curriculum, as well as oral materials (such as sermons and rituals) in their mother tongue.

As discussed in section 6.5, people in each village reported varying opinions regarding their language preference for primary education: Deukhuri and Kathariya respondents prefer mother-tongue education, while Desauriya and Malhoriya respondents prefer English (table 18). However, the response to this question varies considerably when examined stratified by education (table 19).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banke_District#/media/File:Nepal BankeDistrictmap.pnghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banke_District#/media/File:Nepal BankeDistrictmap.png

31

Table 19. Language of choice fo