Sociolinguistic Research
among Selected Groups in
Western Arunachal Pradesh
Highlighting Monpa
in Western Arunachal Pradesh
Highlighting Monpa
Binny Abraham, Kara Sako, Elina Kinny, and Isapdaile Zeliang
SIL International
®2018
SIL Electronic Survey Report 2018-009, August 2018
© 2018 SIL International®
All rights reserved
Data and materials collected by researchers in an era before documentation of permission was standardized may be included in this publication. SIL makes diligent efforts to identify and acknowledge sources and to obtain
This research was started in November 2003, initially among the Monpa varieties of Western Arunachal Pradesh, India, and was later expanded to Sherdukpen, Chug, Lish, Bugun and Miji because of their geographical proximity. The fieldwork continued until August 2004 with some gaps in between. The researchers were Binny Abraham, Kara Sako, Isapdaile Zeliang and Elina Kinny.
The languages studied in this report, all belonging to the Tibeto-Burman family, have the following
ISO codes:1 Tawang Monpa [twm], Tshangla (Dirang) [tsj], Kalaktang Monpa [kkf], Sartang (But Monpa)
[onp], Sherdukpen [sdp], Hruso (Aka) [hru], (Aka) Koro [jkr], Chug [cvg], Lish [lsh], Bugun [bgg], and Miji [sjl].
[This survey report written some time ago deserves to be made available even at this late date. Conditions were such that it was not published when originally written. The reader is cautioned that more recent research may be available. Historical data is quite valuable as it provides a basis for a longitudinal analysis and helps us understand both the trajectory and pace of change as compared with more recent studies.—Editor]
iii
1 Introduction
1.1 Overview 1.2 Peoples
1.2.1 Monpa
1.2.2 Tawang, Dirang and Kalaktang Monpa 1.2.3 Sartang, Lish and Chug
1.2.4 Sherdukpen
1.4.1 Goals for Monpa survey 1.4.2 Goals for Bugun survey 1.4.3 Goals for Miji survey
2 Summary of findings
2.1 Language variation
2.2 Language use, attitude and vitality 2.3 Bilingualism 3.3 Informal playing of narrative text 3.4 Questionnaire responses
3.4.1 Monpas and Sherdukpen 3.4.2 Bugun
3.4.3 Miji
4 Language use, attitudes and vitality
4.1 Questionnaire procedures
4.2 Questionnaires among the Monpas and Sherdukpen 4.2.1 Language use
4.2.2 Language attitudes and vitality 4.2.3 Dialects
4.3 Questionnaires among the Bugun 4.3.1 Language use
4.3.2 Language attitudes and vitality 4.3.3 Dialects
4.4 Questionnaires among the Miji 4.4.1 Language use
5 Bilingualism
5.1 Sentence repetition test 5.1.1 Procedures
5.1.2 Sampling and site selection 5.1.3 Results and analysis 5.2 Questionnaires
5.2.1 Monpas and Sherdukpen 5.2.2 Bugun
5.2.3 Miji
6 Recommendations
6.1 Monpas 6.2 Sherdukpen 6.3 Miji and Bugun 6.4 Aka
Appendix A: Wordlists
Appendix B: Recorded Text Testing Procedures, Scores and Responses Appendix C: Sentence Repetition Test
1
1.1 Overview
Arunachal Pradesh is bordered on the south by Assam state, on the west by Bhutan, on the north and northeast by China, and on the east by Burma (Myanmar). Before 1962, the state was known as Northeast Frontier Agency and was constitutionally a part of Assam. In 1972, Arunachal Pradesh was constituted as a union territory, and in 1987 it became the 24th state of India, with the capital at Itanagar. It is sparsely populated, with 1,383,727 people according to the 2011 census, inhabiting an area of 83,743 square kilometres.
Most of Arunachal Pradesh is mountainous, with high ridges and deep valleys. The state’s main river is the Brahmaputra. The climate of the foothills is subtropical; in the mountains, temperatures decrease rapidly with altitude. Rainfall averages between two and four metres a year. Arunachal Pradesh’s rugged terrain makes transport and communications difficult. With few surfaced roads and no railways in the state, links with the rest of India are limited.
1.2 Peoples
This survey project covered the following people groups in the districts of Tawang, West Kameng and East Kameng: Tawang Monpa, Dirang Monpa, Kalaktang Monpa, Sartang, Lish, Chug, Sherdukpen, Aka, Bugun, and Miji. Information about these groups is presented in this section. Maps 1 and 2 show the location of the survey area and the districts of Arunachal Pradesh.
Map 1. Location of survey area
Map 2. Arunachal Pradesh districts
Created by Shinu PR, NLCI. Used by permission.
The populations of the various groups in this survey are shown in table 1.2
Table 1. Populations of the surveyed groups
Variety (according to census) Population Year of census
Tawang 6,503 1981
Dirang 3,599 1981
Kalaktang 8,000 1971
But Monpa 348 1981
Lish 1,567 1981
Chug 483 1971
Sherdukpen 2,096 1981
Aka 2,947 1981
Bugun 625 1981
Miji 4,085 1981
2 In the 1991 census, the population of Monpa was reported to be 43,179. It appears that prior to 1991, population
1.2.1 Monpa
The Monpa group is a tribal community found mostly in the West Kameng and Tawang districts of Arunachal Pradesh. Monpa is a generic name given by the Tibetans to the people living in the lowland. Their main centres of habitation are in and around the administrative headquarters of Tawang, Dirang, Bomdila and Kalaktang. The Monpa can be divided into two groups based on population: the larger group includes Tawang, Dirang and Kalaktang Monpa; the smaller group includes Chug Monpas, Lish Monpas and Sartang. These individual groups will be discussed in later sections of this report.
The Monpas cover their bodies with varieties of well-designed woollen garments. The women also weave and make carpets of sheep wool. The men do wood-carving and painting. The Monpas are settled agriculturalists. Maize, millet, pulses, onion, paddy, and wheat are the main crops in their fields. The favourite beverage of the Monpas is a local alcoholic drink called phak, made from fermented maize. Both men and women drink in large quantities. Monpas are widely known for their hospitality and their gentleness to both people and animals.
It is difficult to determine the route and approximate time of their migration to their present location and to trace their relationship either with the Tibetans or with Bhutanese, or even with the peoples of the pan-Indian region as a whole. This is because the Monpas never had the habit of
maintaining any written records, nor do they have any written documents regarding their settlement in the present habitat.
The Monpa people adhere strongly to their indigenous cultural practices. They celebrate many cultural festivals throughout the year related to agricultural practices and religious occasions. Marriage in Monpa culture is by negotiation. Cross-cousin as well as levirate marriage are also prevalent.
Monogamy is the norm, but polygamy is not unknown.
Monpas are strongly Buddhist, and their religious beliefs and practices are centred on the Tawang Monastery. They are very firm in maintaining their own religion. There are also small numbers of animists and Christians. The Monpas are very fond of religious songs and dances. Dances such as Ajilanom and Sathemine are popular. The Losar and Yorgya are the main festivals celebrated as per the Buddhist calendar and procedure.
Literacy is generally very low among the Monpas; however, attitudes toward education for both boys and girls are positive. Because of better opportunities for education, it is assumed that the literacy rate among the Monpas is rising.
1.2.2 Tawang, Dirang and Kalaktang Monpa
As stated above, Tawang, Dirang and Kalaktang are larger subgroups among the Monpas. They have been referred to as Northern Monpas; other terms used for them include Brahmi and Monkit.
Tawang Monpas are primarily settled in the Tawang district and number 6,503 according to the 1981 census. Tawang is known as the most beautiful tourist attraction in Arunachal Pradesh. Travelling north, the last administrative centre one passes is Zimithang, which lies on the international boundary between India and Tibet. The land is mostly sloped, with steep rocky mountains covered with snow from November to March.
The Dirang Monpas are sometimes called Central Monpas (Singh 1995:216). According to the 1981 census, their population was 3,599, and they live in West Kameng district around the Dirang
administrative centre.
The Kalaktang, or southern Monpas, are settled around the Kalaktang administrative centre. The 1971 census did not mention the population of Kalaktang Monpa, but they are estimated to be nearly 8,000. The Kalaktang Monpas as well as Dirang Monpas are commonly known as Tsangla Monpas.
The word ‘Kalaktang’ is derived from the name of a village around one kilometre from the
1.2.3 Sartang, Lish and Chug
Sartangs are found in Jerigaon, Sellary, Khoitam, Rahung, Darbu and Khoina villages of the Nafra and Dirang circles in West Kameng District. The Sartang people sometimes call themselves Matchopa or Bootpa or “But Monpa.” The latter two terms were heard during the course of the survey, while “But Monpa” is a term that Singh (1995) uses. We found during our fieldwork, however, that the people themselves prefer Sartang. Sar means “west,” tang means “object of worship.” Sometimes place names are used to refer to the language, such as Shingjee, Rahungjee, Khoitunjee and Khonujee.
The 1981 census showed 348 people under the name “But Monpa;” no more recent reliable population information could be found for this group at the time this research was done. Based on the number of villages (six) and an average number of people in each village, the researchers estimate the community to be around 1000 people.
The Sartang are divided into numerous exogamous clans (Khangs), all with equal status. The community as a whole is given a lower status by the rest of the Monpas; however, marriages between Dirang Monpas and Tawang Monpas are acceptable.
Lish and Chug are found in and around Dirang (within a radius of four to five miles). It is
commonly believed they are descended from an early wave of migrants from Bhutan. Chug Monpas are found only in Chug village. Their population was 483 according to the 1971 census. Lish are distributed in three villages: Lish, Lish Gompache and Lish Gompalok. According to the 1981 census, there were 1,567 Lish people.
Lish and Chug are similar to Monpas in culture and religion. Chug Monpa and Lish Monpa are terms mentioned by Singh, and were also heard by the researchers during fieldwork. However, the Lish and Chug languages are different from other Monpa varieties, as will be seen in section 2. Chug and Lish were considered socially inferior by Monpas, hence intermarriage is not common between them.
1.2.4 Sherdukpen
The Sherdukpens are concentrated to the south of Bomdila, in the valleys of the Tengapani river, primarily in Shergaon, Rupa, Jigaon and Thungrao villages of Rupa circle. In addition to these villages, there are a few other settlements.
The Sherdukpens are divided into three social classes: the Thongs, the Chhaos and the Yanlo. The distinction between the classes is seen on certain special occasions. The descendants of Japtang Bura, “the great father,” are known as Thongs, while the descendants of his attendants, who have slightly inferior social status, are called Chhaos. Yanlo are considered the lowest class and have no rights in the society. The classes are mutually exogamous.
It is said that at one time the Sherdukpen and Sartang were essentially one group. They were separated during a war, however, and now consider themselves different communities. There are still some festival celebrations common to both groups.
1.2.5 Aka
According to Singh (1995:135), the Akas live in the southeastern part of the Bichom valley in the West Kameng district of Arunachal Pradesh.3 We also found Akas living in the East Kameng district. The term
Aka, meaning ‘painted’ in Assamese, was given by Assamese and British administrators because of the custom of painting the face of their women. Hruso is the term preferred nowadays by the people. The Aka people in West Kameng district are known as Hruso Akas, and the people in East Kameng district are
3 In West Kameng, Akas are concentrated in Thrizino circle. Some of the village names are Jamiri, Husigaon,
known as Koro Akas.4 Both terms are also used for the language. According to the 1981 census, their
population was 2,947.
1.2.6 Bugun
Pre-survey research revealed that the Bugun occupy seven villages in Tenga and Bichom valley in the neighbourhood of the Sherdukpen. According to local information, the Bugun are found in at least twelve villages5 in Singchung and Nafra circles of West Kameng District in Arunachal Pradesh. The
Bugun are a small group living among the Akas but in separate villages of their own under headmen (Sen 1986:28).
According to Singh (1995:185), no published work is available on the history of the Bugun’s migration. The people themselves report that they came to their present habitat from the north. The Bugun traditionally have been animists, but in recent years Buddhism has had an influence.
The Bugun were called Khowa by their neighbours. The people themselves, however, prefer the name Bugun. The Buguns are gentle, hospitable and affectionate people, and are mainly agriculturists.
1.2.7 Miji
The Miji live in the valleys of the Bichom river of West Kameng and East Kameng districts. They are mostly found in the Nafra circle of West Kameng district and the Bameng and Lada circles of East Kameng district. There were 4,085 Miji according to the 1981 census.
The name Miji was given by Akas. Mi means “fire” and ji means “giving.” The state government recognised them as Sajalong and Miji. The Miji and Aka are closely related. They share many beliefs and customs and have a long history of intermarriage. Within these two communities, both clans and sub-clans are exogamous.
1.3 Languages
All the languages covered in this survey belong to various branches of the Tibeto-Burman family. The Ethnologue lists Moinba (or Monpa); however, Chug and Lish appear in the Mahakiranti sub-branch. Interestingly, other languages in this branch are spoken in eastern Nepal.
As will be discussed in section 3, the languages covered in this survey show notable divergence from one another. Because of this, tribes of the area use languages other than their mother tongues (such as Hindi, Assamese, Nepali and English) to speak with one another. However, some people have
difficulty communicating in these languages because they do not know them well enough. Some groups know a neighbouring language and use that to communicate with those people.
The speech of Dirang Monpas and Kalaktang Monpas has some similarity, but Tawang Monpas speak quite differently from these two. The languages of the Lish Monpas, Chug Monpas and Sartang differ significantly from the rest of the Monpas. Sartang closely resembles the language of the Sherdukpen.
According to Singh (1995:288), Sherdukpen is closely related to But Monpa, Lish Monpa and Miji. They use Hindi, Assamese and Tshangla to communicate with one another.
As noted above, the language of the Aka people in West Kameng district is known as Hruso Aka, and that of the people in East Kameng district is known as Koro Aka. The older generation are fluent in
4 Koro Aka is a term that was not found in any literature, but it was heard by the researchers during fieldwork, first
mentioned by the Miji people, and then by the Koro Aka people themselves.
5 These villages are Wangho, Singchung, New Kaspi, Namphri, Mangopom, Diching, Sachita, Ramu, Situ, Lichini,
their neighbouring languages, but the present generation is not interested in learning to speak the neighbouring languages. They speak other languages such as Hindi, and some of them English.
The Miji people call themselves Miji, but identify their language as Namrei or Dammai. (Mijis in East Kameng refer to their language as Namrei and in West Kameng as Dammai.) They also speak neighbouring languages like Aka, Monpa, Assamese and Hindi.
The Bugun community uses the term Bugun to refer to their language. They speak other languages of the neighbouring communities like Sherdukpen, Aka, and Monpa, and speak wider languages like Assamese, Nepali and Hindi. However none of these other groups are interested in learning to speak Bugun.
1.4 Purpose and goals
The original scope of this sociolinguistic survey was to look at But Monpa, as well as the relationships within the Monpa cluster as a whole. During the initial background research, it was decided to also include Sherdukpen. After the initial field research, Bugun and Miji were also surveyed; because of linguistic and logistical reasons, these two are included in this report. This is the reason different sets of goals are outlined below for each project. The primary purpose for all three projects is similar, namely to find out whether the various people groups researched need separate language development efforts.
1.4.1 Goals for Monpa survey
1. To define the geographical area inhabited by the Monpas. Tools: language information, informal interview, questionnaires.
2. To study the lexical relationships among the Monpa varieties. Tools: wordlists, recorded text testing, questionnaires.
3. To assess Hindi bilingualism among Monpa speakers. Tools: sentence repetition testing, questionnaires, observation.
4. To study language use, attitudes and vitality among Monpa speakers. Tools: questionnaires, observation.
5. To determine what written materials are available in Monpa. Tools: library research, visits to research institutes.
1.4.2 Goals for Bugun survey
1. To look at the relationships between Bugun and neighbouring languages. Tools: wordlists, questionnaires, interviews.
2. To find out what other languages the Bugun speak, and what their L2 is. Tools: questionnaires, interviews.
3. Find out the language use, attitude and vitality of the speakers towards their mother tongue. Tools: questionnaires, observation, interviews.
1.4.3 Goals for Miji survey
2. To determine the degree of language use and vitality, and attitude of speakers towards their mother tongue.
Tools: questionnaires, observation, interviews.
3. To look at the relationships between Miji and neighbouring languages. Tools: wordlists, questionnaires, interviews.
4. To find out what other languages Miji speak. Tools: questionnaires, interviews.
2 Summary of findings
This section is a summary of the three areas which will be described in more detail in subsequent sections: Language variation; language use, attitudes and vitality; and bilingualism.
2.1 Language variation
Based on the tools utilised in this research for determining language variation, particularly wordlist comparisons, there is significant variation among the language varieties studied.
Wordlist comparisons show that Tawang Monpa, Bugun, Miji and Aka (both varieties) show sufficient dissimilarity from all other languages covered in the survey to be considered different
languages.6 Dirang Monpa, Kalaktang Monpa, Lish, Chug, Sartang and Sherdukpen show high similarity
with only one other language, and are distinct from all others.
Based on background research, lexical similarity findings and reported comprehension from questionnaires, comprehension testing was carried out between the sets of languages that had high lexical similarity.
Comprehension testing was carried out using what is called recorded text testing (RTT). A story from Sartang was tested among speakers of Sherdukpen. Individual scores ranged from 10 to 100%, with a test average of 55%. Six of the eleven test subjects said the speech in the Sartang story was very different from theirs. Some stated they understood the speech of the story fully, and these people got the higher scores, but this is most likely due to their contact with Sherdukpen speakers. On the whole, there is sufficient information to suggest inadequate comprehension between these two varieties.
Another RTT was developed in Dirang Monpa and tested among the Kalaktang Monpa community. Individual scores on this test ranged from 40 to 90%, with a test average of 55%. Questions asked to subjects after testing, as well as responses to the questionnaire, revealed varying perceptions of the difference between the two languages. Test scores did not correlate well with reported travel patterns, or with how much subjects had reported they could understand.
Informal comprehension testing with a narrative story was carried out between Chug and Lish. Although most Chug test subjects said they speak a little differently from the Lish spoken in the story, most expressed difficulty in understanding the story fully.
In addition, another story in Sartang was played in a different Sartang area. In response, all subjects said the language of the story was the same as the way people talk in their village, and everyone said they understood the story fully.
2.2 Language use, attitude and vitality
In general, from the questionnaire responses, speakers from the groups studied use their mother tongue widely in all domains, except in the market and with neighbouring villagers who speak a different language. All language groups have an overall positive attitude towards their mother tongues, as well as a positive attitude towards Hindi, the language of wider communication. Therefore, it appears that the vitality of the languages is also not in question in the immediate future.
2.3 Bilingualism
Bilingualism testing using what is called sentence repetition testing (SRT) was done among three Monpa communities: Tawang, Sartang and Kalaktang. Education played a key difference in test scores of subjects; those with 4th standard and above education scored higher than those with less education. Overall, test scores were still low, and not high enough for those tested to be considered adequately bilingual to understand deeper concepts in Hindi. The bilingualism questionnaire responses also indicate that most subjects are not able to use Hindi effectively and do not have adequate bilingual proficiency.
3 Language variation
One of the goals of this project was to examine the relationships among language varieties by defining the extent of their similarities and differences. The language variation study consisted of 1) wordlist comparison, 2) intelligibility testing, 3) informal playing of a narrative text and 4) a questionnaire.
3.1 Wordlists
3.1.1 Procedures
A common method of measuring the relationship among languages is to compare wordlists. The degree of similarity in wordlist vocabularies is referred to as lexical similarity. Speech communities that have more terms in common, i.e., a higher percentage of lexical similarity, are more likely to understand one another than are speech communities that have fewer terms in common—assuming there is no contact between speakers of the communities. Lexical similarity findings through wordlists give a broad overview of the relationships among speech varieties, and when percentages are low, signify distinct languages.
In this survey, a wordlist consisting of 307 basic vocabulary items was collected among the various language communities. Wordlists were transcribed using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). Each wordlist was compared with every other wordlist, item by item, to determine whether the words were phonetically similar. Those words judged to be similar were grouped together. This process of evaluation was carried out according to standards set forth in Blair (1990:30–33) and facilitated by using a
computer program called WordSurv (Wimbish 1989). Once the entire wordlist was evaluated, the percentage of word pair similarities was calculated. Lexical similarity counting procedures, information about each wordlist, and wordlist transcriptions are contained in Appendix A.
3.1.2 Site selection
The researchers collected wordlists from each language group discussed in the introduction. Wordlists were collected from Aka and Miji communities because there were some reports that these languages were similar to Monpa and because they live close to Monpa communities.
Table 2. Locations where the wordlists were elicited
Language Village Circle HQ District
Sartang Darbu Dirang West Kameng
Sartang Darbu Dirang West Kameng
Sartang Khoitam Dirang West Kameng
Sartang Khoina Nafra West Kameng
Miji Dibin Nafra West Kameng
Miji Rurang Nafra West Kameng
Miji Bisai Lada East Kameng
Miji Nabolang Lada East Kameng
Miji Nafra Nafra West Kameng
Sherdukpen Rupa Rupa West Kameng
Sherdukpen Shergaon Rupa West Kameng
Hruso Aka Jamiri Rupa West Kameng
Koro Aka Pisang Seppa East Kameng
Dirang Monpa Dirang village Dirang West Kameng
Dirang Monpa Dirang HQ Dirang West Kameng
Dirang Monpa Namsu Dirang West Kameng
Dirang Monpa Tempang Dirang West Kameng
Dirang Monpa Sangti Dirang West Kameng
Lish Monpa Lish Dirang West Kameng
Chug Monpa Chug Dirang West Kameng
Kalaktang Monpa Khalaktang Kalaktang West Kameng
Kalaktang Monpa Balimu Kalaktang West Kameng
Kalaktang Monpa Tomko Kalaktang West Kameng
Tawang Monpa Zimithang Tawang Tawang
Tawang Monpa Changprong Tawang Tawang
Tawang Monpa Tawang Monastery Tawang Tawang
Bugun Bichom Nafra West Kameng
Bugun Kaspi Singchung West Kameng
Bugun Namphri Singchung West Kameng
Bugun Wangho Singchung West Kameng
Bugun Singchung Singchung West Kameng
3.1.3 Results and analysis
Table 3. Lexical similarity percentages of all speech varieties compared
(s) Changprong/Tawang
70 (f) Tawang Monastery Tawang Monpa 66 65 (r) Zimithang/Tawang
26 26 26 (t) Namsu/W.Kameng 25 27 26 87 (u) Tempang/W.Kameng
25 27 26 79 79 (o) Dirang village/W.Kameng Dirang Monpa 25 27 25 74 75 81 (n) Sangti/W.Kameng
25 27 26 73 75 77 76 (k) Dirang HQ/W.Kameng 27 28 26 68 68 69 62 68 (h) Khalaktang/W.Kameng
26 28 27 71 70 71 67 69 79 (p) Balimu/W.Kameng Kalaktang Monpa 27 28 27 70 67 67 67 67 69 72 (q) Tomko/W.Kameng
18 17 18 21 21 21 20 21 21 21 21 (c) Chug/W.Kameng Lish and Chug 15 17 17 18 18 19 19 19 17 17 18 62 (g) Lish/W.Kameng
11 11 10 15 15 14 14 15 14 14 13 26 32 (l) Darbu/W.Kameng
9 10 9 16 14 13 14 15 14 12 12 27 32 78 (d) Darbu/W.Kameng Sartang 9 9 8 15 14 13 12 13 13 13 12 28 30 63 64 (b) Khoitam/W.Kameng
8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 25 29 60 58 52 (m) Khoina/W.Kameng
10 10 10 14 13 13 14 15 13 13 12 29 34 59 60 50 52 (i) Rupa/W.Kameng Sherdukpen 13 12 12 17 14 15 15 16 15 15 14 31 34 58 56 49 50 75 (E) Shergaon/W.Kameng
6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 12 13 17 15 14 16 17 17 (z) Namphri/W.Kameng 6 7 6 9 9 8 7 7 8 8 7 13 14 20 19 17 18 19 20 83 (x) Bichom/W.Kameng
7 8 6 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 11 12 19 17 16 18 16 18 79 82 (y) Kaspi/W.Kameng Bugun 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 12 14 19 17 15 19 18 19 76 81 74 (v) Singchung/W.Kameng 5 6 5 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 12 13 19 18 16 20 19 19 75 81 72 81 (w) Wangho/W.Kameng 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 6 5 6 6 6 6 8 5 4 7 6 9 13 12 13 10 9 (B) Bisai/E.Kameng
6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 5 6 5 7 4 4 7 5 8 14 12 13 10 9 83 (A) Nabolang/E.Kameng Miji 9 9 8 10 8 7 7 8 8 8 7 7 5 7 5 5 8 6 8 15 13 13 11 10 65 65 (C) Rurang/W.Kameng 8 8 8 8 7 6 6 7 7 7 6 8 8 7 6 5 7 6 6 12 11 12 9 8 64 65 77 (e) Nafra/W.Kameng 8 8 8 8 6 7 6 6 7 7 6 7 5 7 5 5 8 6 7 13 12 12 11 10 54 56 65 63 (D) Dibin/W.Kameng
Table 4. Ranges of lexical similarity between selected speech varieties
According to Blair (1990:24), when two speech varieties have less than 60% lexical similarity (using the counting procedures described in Appendix A), it can be concluded that those varieties represent different languages. For speech varieties that have greater than 60% lexical similarity, intelligibility testing should be done to determine their relationship.
An examination of lexical similarity, table 4, reveals many percentages well below this 60% threshold, clearly indicating that they are different languages. Lexical similarity percentages between every language variety listed in the matrix are below 60% except for Dirang Monpa and Kalaktang Monpa, which range from 62 to 71%. The next closest relationship is between Chug and Lish at 62%, followed by Sartang and Sherdukpen, with percentages between 49 to 60%. Comprehension testing, formal and informal, was carried out between these pairs of languages (Dirang Monpa with Kalaktang Monpa, Sartang with Sherdukpen, and Chug with Lish), as discussed later in this section.
All in-language percentages are above 60%, except within Sartang (52 to 78%), Miji (54 to 83%) and Aka (9%). Within Sartang, the highest percentage is 78%, which is between two wordlists from the same village, Darbu. The researchers found that the first wordlist informant included a lot of original words which are not really used now; thus another list was taken from Darbu. Although the similarity between these two wordlists is a comparatively low (78%), the differences between the two Darbu lists and the other Sartang wordlists (from Khoitam and Khoina) turned out to be minimal. The lexical similarity percentage between Khoitam and Khoina is 52%, which would normally represent different languages. Comprehension between Sartang varieties was evaluated with recorded stories, described in section 3.2 below.
Within Miji the percentages range between 54 to 83%. Between the two wordlists from East Kameng district and the three wordlists from West Kameng, the similarity percentages are 65% and below. This low degree of similarity may be reflected in the difference in the language name used by Mijis in East Kameng (Namrei) and Mijis in West Kameng (Dammai).
Akas are spread in both East Kameng and West Kameng districts. One wordlist was taken from the Hruso Aka (in West Kameng) and, after hearing about another Aka group, another wordlist was elicited from the Koro Aka (in East Kameng). Interestingly, the lexical similarity percentage between these Aka varieties is just 9%, much lower than what would be expected.
Wordlists from the Bugun were collected at a later stage, and showed a surprising dissimilarity with all other languages compared (20% and below). The lexical similarity within the Bugun wordlists shows 72 to 83%.
Language Varieties Range
Within Tawang Monpa 65–70%
Within Dirang Monpa 73–87%
Within Kalaktang Monpa 69–79%
Within Sartang 52–78%
Within Sherdukpen 75%
Within Bugun 72–83%
Within Miji 54–83%
Within Aka 9%
Chug with Lish 62%
Sartang with Sherdukpen 49–60%
Dirang Monpa with Kalaktang Monpa 62–71%
3.2 Recorded text testing
3.2.1 Procedures
Through the use of recorded text testing (RTT), an attempt was made to assess the intelligibility levels between speakers of linguistic varieties shown by the wordlist comparison to be closely related. A three- to five-minute natural, personal-experience narrative is recorded on cassette from a mother tongue speaker of one of the speech varieties to be compared. The recorded narrative is first evaluated with a group of mother tongue speakers from the same region by a procedure called hometown testing (HTT). Mother tongue speakers from differing speech varieties then listen to the recorded story and are asked questions (in their mother tongue), interspersed in the story, to test their comprehension. Ten is considered the minimum number of people to be given this test; subjects’ responses to the questions in the story are recorded and scored.
A person’s score is considered a reflection of his comprehension of the text, and the average score of all subjects at a test site is indicative of the community’s intelligibility of the speech variety of the story’s origin. The standard deviation, or variation, of the subjects’ scores is also calculated, which helps in interpreting how representative the scores are. After answering comprehension questions for each story, subjects are then asked further questions, such as how much they could understand and their opinion on how good the language was. These post-RTT responses give insight into subjects’ perceptions, which can then be compared with their performance on the test. For a fuller description of recorded text testing procedures, refer to Appendix B.
3.2.2 Site selection
Based on background research, lexical similarity findings and reported comprehension from
questionnaires, recorded text testing was carried out between the following language varieties: 1) Dirang Monpa and Kalaktang Monpa and 2) Sartang and Sherdukpen. A story was developed in Dirang Monpa and tested among speakers of Kalaktang Monpa in Khalaktang village. Another RTT was developed in Sartang and tested among the Sherdukpen community in Rupa village. For evaluating comprehension between Chug and Lish, a formal RTT was not developed, but informal playing of a narrative text was utilised. Similarly, informal testing was done between Sartang varieties.
The stories and questions used in the testing, demographic profiles of the subjects at each test site, individual test scores and post-HTT/RTT responses are presented in Appendix B.
3.2.3 Results and analysis
Table 5. Recorded text testing (RTT) results
In interpreting RTT results, three pieces of information are necessary. The first is average
percentage (shown as avg in the chart), which is the mean or average of all the participants’ individual scores on a particular story at a particular test site. Also necessary is a measure of how much individuals’ scores vary from the community average, called standard deviation (shown as sd in the chart). The third piece of necessary information is the size of the sample; that is, the number of people who were tested (shown as num in the chart).
In general, RTT averages of around 80% or higher with accompanying low standard deviations (10 and below) usually indicate that people from the test point are able to adequately understand the recorded dialect. Conversely, RTT averages below 60% indicate inadequate comprehension.
Hometown tests are considered validated when the average score is 90% or above. In this study, all four hometown tests averaged at least 90%, with the Kalaktang HTT averaging right at 90%. Since other testing was done in Khalaktang, villagers were somewhat reluctant to listen to the HTT story. Moreover, during the administration of the HTT there were some significant distractions in the village. These reasons might have affected the HTT scores. All HTT subjects, however, felt that the story was good and pure and was from their own village.
The Sartang Dog Story from Darbu played among Sherdukpen subjects in Rupa had a test average of 55%, which would normally be interpreted to indicate inadequate comprehension. Individual scores of the eleven subjects, however, ranged from 10 to 100%, resulting in the high standard deviation of 29. Thus the test average may not be truly representative of the Sherdukpen community’s comprehension of the Sartang variety. Post-RTT responses varied as much as the test scores. Three subjects said they understood the Dog Story only a little, five said they understood half, and three said they understood the story fully. As for perceived differences, six subjects said the speech of the Dog Story was very different from theirs; three said it was only a little different. There is a general correlation between an individual’s RTT score and reported travel patterns. Subjects who said they had travelled to the Sartang area (and thus had been exposed to that speech variety) generally scored higher than those who said they had not travelled to the Sartang area.
The Dirang Monpa Daily Activities Story tested among Kalaktang Monpa subjects also averaged a low 55%. The standard deviation for this test was 18, also considered high, with individual scores ranging from 40 to 90%. Post-RTT responses again had as much variation as individual test scores. Eight Kalaktang subjects said the speech in the Dirang story was only a little different, while two reported it
Stories played
Community tested
was very different from their own. Five subjects claimed they understood the story fully, while two said they could understand only a little. Every subject identified the story as Dirang Monpa. Unlike the previously discussed RTT, there is not much correlation between individual’s test scores and their reported travel patterns, making it more difficult to explain the high standard deviation for this test.
3.3 Informal playing of narrative text
A narrative text was recorded in the Lish language and played among ten speakers of Chug in Chug village. Selected post-HTT/RTT questions were asked after subjects listened to the story. Most of the Chug subjects (six) said they speak a little differently from the storyteller’s speech. Two subjects said the language is the same, while another said the tune is different. Only two subjects said they were able to understand the story fully, while the remaining eight subjects said they were not able to understand the story completely.
Since lexical similarity percentages were low among the Sartang wordlists, a story in Sartang from Darbu (different from the Dog Story) was played in Khoina, also in the Sartang area. In response, all subjects in Khoina said the language of the story was the same way people talk in their village, and everyone said they understood the story fully.
3.4 Questionnaire responses
A few questions regarding the relationship between various speech varieties were included, asking subjects what language they use when they meet people from other groups, and how much they understand of different languages.
3.4.1 Monpas7 and Sherdukpen
2. When Monpas from Tawang area (Brahmi Monpas) visit you at your home, what language do you use?8
Asked in… Tawang Monpa Hindi MT Hindi and MT Dirang Monpa
Dirang Monpa 2 10 2 2
Kalaktang
Monpa 5 6 2 1
Sartang 7 3 0 1 3
Sherdukpen 5 4 0 5
Two subjects in Dirang Monpa said they use Tawang Monpa when they talk with Tawang people, while two each said Hindi and their mother tongue. But the most common answer to this question was Hindi. Among Kalaktang Monpa, five subjects said they use Tawang Monpa when meeting Tawang Monpas. But when it comes to Sartang we found that seven of them were able to speak in Tawang Monpa while three of them said they would use Hindi and another three Dirang Monpa. Only one subject from Sartang reported that he uses Hindi and mother tongue when talking with Tawang Monpas. Among Sherdukpens the subjects are almost equally divided into three categories, Tawang Monpa (five), Hindi and mother tongue (five) and Hindi (four).
7 Includes Tawang Monpa, Kalaktang Monpa, Dirang Monpa and Sartang (But Monpa).
3a. (to But Monpas and Dirang Monpas) When Sherdukpens or people from Shergaon, Rupa, Jigaon and Thungrao villages of Rupa circle visit you at your home, what language do you use?
Asked in… Hindi MT Hindi and MT
Dirang Monpa 13 0 1
Sartang 1 13 0
Among the Dirang Monpa, all subjects except one said they use Hindi to communicate with Sherdukpens. Among the Sartang, the responses were nearly the opposite: all except one said they use their mother tongue to talk with Sherdukpens.
3b. (to Dirang Monpas and Sherdukpens) When Sartangs or people from Jerigaon, Sellary, Khoitam, Rahung and Khoina villages of Nafra circle visit you at your home, what language do you use?
Asked in… Hindi MT Hindi and MT
Dirang Monpa 6 5 3
Sherdukpen 3 10 1
Five Dirang Monpa subjects said they use their mother tongue with Sartangs, six said they use Hindi and three use both Hindi and their mother tongue. Among the Sherdukpens, more subjects said they use their mother tongue; three said they use Hindi with Sartangs and one said Hindi and mother tongue.
20a. (to Tawang Monpas) Have you ever talked with Monpas from Dirang and Kalaktang (Tsangla Monpas)? b. If yes, how much did you understand?
Of forty one subjects, 71% said they had talked with Monpas from Dirang and Kalaktang. About equal numbers said they either understand everything or half of their speech.
21a. (to Kalaktang Monpas) Have you ever talked with Monpas from Dirang? b. If yes, how much did you understand?
Of the fourteen Kalaktang Monpas subjects asked, thirteen said they have talked with Monpas from Dirang. About equal numbers of subjects said they either understand everything or half of their speech.
22a. (to Kalaktang Monpas) Have you ever talked with Monpas from Tawang (Brahmi Monpas)? b. If yes, how much did you understand?
Nine of the fourteen Kalaktang Monpa subjects have talked with Monpas from Tawang. Only one said that everything of their speech is understood, two said half, while two-thirds said they could not understand anything.
23a. (Only to Dirang Monpas) Have you ever talked with Monpas from Kalaktang? b. If yes, how much did you understand?
Nine of the fourteen Dirang Monpas subjects have talked with Monpas from Kalaktang. Four
subjects said they understand everything, four subjects said they understand 80%, while six subjects said they use only Hindi with Kalaktang Monpas.
24a. (to Dirang Monpas) Have you ever talked with Monpas from Tawang (Brahmi Monpas)? b. If yes, how much did you understand?
3.4.2 Bugun9
15a. When you meet Sherdukpen people what language do you use? b. How much do you understand of their language?
The older Bugun people generally speak Sherdukpen, but the younger generation uses Hindi. Of twenty subjects, two people said they understand everything of the Sherdukpen language, four said they understand half and fourteen said not at all. The two subjects who said they understand everything are older people, the four subjects who said “half” are middle aged, and the rest are young people.
16a. When you meet Aka people what language do you use? b. How much do you understand of their language?
Most of the Bugun subjects responded that they use Hindi with the Aka, while a few use Aka and Miji. Two subjects said they understand everything, eight subjects said half and the rest “not at all.” Buguns, Miji and Akas live close together, which might be the reason for some people’s understanding of these languages.
17a. When you meet Monpa people what language do you use? b. How much do you understand of their language?
Eighty percent of the subjects said they use Hindi when they talk with Monpas. Others use both Monpa and Hindi. Sixteen subjects said they do not understand Monpa at all, three said they understand half of it, while one subject said he understands everything.
3.4.3 Miji
15a. When you meet Aka people what language do you use?
All the subjects responded that they use Hindi.
4 Language use, attitudes and vitality
A study of language use patterns attempts to describe which languages or speech varieties members of a community use in different social situations. These situations, called domains, are contexts in which the use of one language variety is considered more appropriate than another (Fasold 1984:183).
A study of language attitudes generally attempts to describe people’s feelings and preferences towards their own language and other speech varieties around them, and what value they place on those languages. Ultimately these views, whether explicit or unexpressed, will influence the results of efforts towards literacy and the acceptability of literature development.
Language vitality refers to the prospects for a language to continue to be spoken and passed on to succeeding generations. It is a reflection of the overall strength of a language, its perceived usefulness in a wide variety of situations, and its likelihood of enduring through the coming generations.
9 As mentioned in the introduction, fieldwork among the Bugun and Miji was done after fieldwork among the
4.1 Questionnaire procedures
An orally administered questionnaire was the primary method for seeking answers to questions on language use, language attitudes and language vitality. Informal interviews and observation were also utilised. The Language Use, Attitudes and Vitality (LUAV) questionnaire can be found in Appendix D.
Subjects were sampled according to three demographic categories: education, age and gender, subdivided as follows:10
Educated (5th standard and above) and Uneducated (0 to 4th) Younger (age 30 and below), Middle (31–50), Older (above 50) Male and Female
The LUAV questionnaire was administered, in Hindi, to a total of 107 subjects representing seven people groups, shown in table 6. The location of the interview sites is given in table 7.
Table 6. Distribution of sample of LUAV questionnaire subjects
Gender Age Education
Group Female Male Younger Middle Older Uneduc Educ
Table 7. Location of questionnaire sites
Group Village District
Tawang Monpa Changprong Tawang
Kalaktang Monpa Khalaktang village West Kameng
Dirang Monpa Dirang village West Kameng
Sartang Darbu West Kameng
Sherdukpen Rupa West Kameng
Bugun Bichom, Kaspi, Namphri,
Singchung, Wangho
West Kameng
Miji Bisai, Dibin, Nabolang,
Nafra, Rurang
West/East Kameng
10 In some cases, respondents with minimal levels of education were reluctant to answer the questionnaire. When the
4.2 Questionnaires among the Monpas11 and Sherdukpen
4.2.1 Language use
Table 8 summarises the domains of language use reported by the sixty-nine Monpa and Sherdukpen questionnaire subjects. Results are shown indicating the percentage of subjects who gave a particular response. Categories of answers are separated into MT (mother tongue), Hindi, MTH (mother tongue and Hindi), MTO (mother tongue and others) and outside (a language other than Hindi, such as Nepali, Assamese Tibetan or English).
Table 8. Domains of language use among Monpas and Sherdukpen
Domain
a‘Bothi’ was the word given heard by subjects for referring to Tibetan. It is not certain if this is the same
as ‘Bhoti’, a broad name typically given to Tibetan-related language varieties.
In almost all of the domains studied, the mother tongue was reported by subjects to be the primary language used. Of sixty-nine subjects, every subject responded that they use the mother tongue in the home, village, and with neighbouring villagers who speak the same language. For puja, 72% reported using the mother tongue; 19% said they speak Tibetan in this situation.
The second most widely used language as reported by subjects in this sample is Hindi, the state language. About half responded that they use Hindi at the market and with neighbouring villagers who speak a different language. In many market places, the speakers are outsiders who do not speak any Monpa language, and thus would be a reason a greater number of subjects speak Hindi in this situation.
4.2.2 Language attitudes and vitality
Several questions on the LUAV questionnaire were designed to help assess the attitudes of Monpa dialect and Sherdukpen speakers toward their mother tongue and Hindi.
4a. How would you feel if the younger generation stopped speaking your language?
Nearly all subjects from different groups said they would feel bad if the younger generation stopped speaking their language. Ten percent of the subjects said they would feel good.
5. Is it good for your children to learn how to read and write in your language?
Almost every subject responded that they would like to see their children learn to read and write in their mother tongue.
6. What language do you want your children to learn first? (If no children, if ever you had children?)
Overall, 71% of the subjects stated that their children should learn the mother tongue (whatever their respective language). Ten percent said children should learn Hindi first, and 10% said English. The researchers observed that, according to the understanding of some subjects, the mother tongue comes naturally, so children need to focus only on learning Hindi or other languages.
7. Would you like to read and write in your mother tongue?
Almost everyone said they want to read and write in their mother tongue.
8. Which language do you need to speak in order to get a job?12
Over 90% of the subjects said either Hindi, English or both Hindi and English are needed.
9. Is it good for a person to speak only MT?
Two-thirds of the subjects answered that it is not good to speak the mother tongue alone, with the remaining one-third responding that it is good to speak only the mother tongue.
10. Would you be happy if your child spoke only Hindi?
Overall, a majority of the subjects (71%) responded that they would not be happy if their child spoke only Hindi. The rest commented that it would be good if their children spoke only Hindi.
12. After fifty years, do you think MT (Monpa, Sartang/Sherdukpen) will be spoken?
Of 69 subjects, 63 responded that their mother tongue will be spoken by the coming generations. Three subjects felt that their language would die out, and three were not sure whether it would be spoken or not after fifty years.
4.2.3 Dialects
A few questions were asked about purity and variation within the language.
13a. In which village do you think the purest/sweetest variety (Monpa, Sartang/Sherdukpen) is spoken? 13 b. Why do you say this is the purest variety?
No one place emerged where the purest or sweetest Monpa/Sartang/Sherdukpen is spoken. Most people either said their own village, everywhere is pure, or they could not really say. When people were asked why a certain place was most pure, no clear response emerged.
14. Is there a village where your mother tongue is spoken differently from yours? If yes, where?
Most people felt there was at least some place that spoke differently than they do. The greatest percentage of people (22%) said that all other villages speak differently. The location that received the most responses (13%) was Shergaon, in Rupa circle.
4.3 Questionnaires among the Bugun13
4.3.1 Language use
Table 9. Domains of language use among Bugun
Domain
Table 9 shows that, on the whole, Bugun speakers use their mother tongue widely in all questioned domains, except in the market, where Hindi is spoken more. In the market and with neighbouring villagers who speak a different language, a notable percentage of subjects responded, “It depends on what language the other person speaks.” In the home and village, a small percentage of subjects said they use both their mother tongue and Hindi.
13 As mentioned in the introduction, fieldwork among the Bugun, and Miji, was done after fieldwork among the
4.3.2 Language attitudes and vitality
5a. How would you feel if the younger generation stopped speaking your language?
All 20 Bugun subjects responded that they would feel bad if the younger generation stopped speaking their own language.
6. Is it good for your children to learn how to read and write in your language? 8. Would you like to read and write in your mother tongue?
All the subjects responded positively to these two questions, saying it is good if their children learn to read and write in their mother tongue, and that they themselves would like to do so.
7. What language do you want your children to learn first? (If you have children now, or ever had children)
All the subjects but one wanted their children to learn their mother tongue first. The subject who said he wanted his children to learn Hindi first is a teacher, which may be the reason behind his answer.
9. Which language do you need to speak in order to get a job?14
Fifty-five percent of the subjects stated that they would need to use Hindi to get a job, while the other 45% said it depends on what language the other person speaks.
10. Is it good for a person to speak only MT?
Of the 20 subjects, 18 said it is not good to speak only the mother tongue. The reason mentioned by the two subjects who said “yes” to this question was that it is their mother tongue and it is prestigious to speak one’s mother tongue.
11a. Would you be happy if your child spoke only another language?
All except one subject said they would not be happy if their children spoke only another language. One subject said speaking only another language is good since his language has no written form and may die in the future.
12. After fifty years, do you think Bugun will be spoken?
All the subjects felt that Bugun will continue to be spoken even after fifty years.
4.3.3 Dialects
13a. Is there a village where Bugun is spoken differently from yours? b. If yes, where? c. How different is it? (very different/some difference/ no difference)
Of the 20 subjects, 18 said there are places where the language is spoken differently, most saying Singchung and Wangho. No one stated a place where their language is spoken very differently from their own.
14. In which village do you think the purest/sweetest variety (Bugun) is spoken?
Half of the subjects said their own village; eight said there is no purest variety as such but that “all are same.”
14 As with Monpas and Sherdukpen, the objective of this question was to prepare a platform for the subject to answer
4.4 Questionnaires among the Miji
4.4.1 Language use
Table 10. Domains of language use among Miji
Domain
Questions Response
1. What language do you
use… MT Hindi MTH Depends Others
Home a. With family members? 100% - - - -
b. With children? 100% - - - -
Intra
group c. In the village? 100% - - - -
Inter group
d. With neighbouring villagers:
d1. If they are MT
speakers of your language? 100% - - - -
d2. If they speak a language different from yours?
6% 94% - - -
Market e. In the market? 6% - - 94% -
Puja f. In Puja/Worship 100% - - - -
It is clear from table 10 that all Miji subjects (18) said they speak their mother tongue in many domains questioned. With neighbouring villagers who speak a different language, 94% said they use Hindi. In the market, some use their mother tongue, but nearly all said the language they speak depends on the situation.
4.4.2 Language attitudes and vitality
4a. How would you feel if the younger generation stopped speaking your language?
All except one Miji subject said it is bad to stop speaking their own language. One subject responded “good” because their language is not developed.
5. Is it good for your children to learn how to read and write in your language? 7. Would you like to read and write in your mother tongue?
Everyone said it is good for their children to learn to read and write in their mother tongue. Subjects also all said they themselves would like to learn.
6. What language do you want your children to learn first? (If no children, if ever you had children)
All subjects wanted their children to learn Miji before any other language.
8. Which language do you need to speak in order to get a job?
All of the 18 subjects responded they would use Hindi in order to get a job.
9. Is it good for a person to speak only Miji?
10a. Would you be happy if your child spoke only another language?
Seventeen subjects said they would feel bad if their children spoke only another language, but one subject said it is good because their language is not developed.
11. After fifty years, do you think Miji will be spoken?
All the subjects felt their language would continue to be spoken even after fifty years.
4.4.3 Dialects
12a. Is there a village where Miji is spoken differently from yours? b. If yes, where? c. How different is it?
Most of the subjects (15) responded there is no village where Miji is spoken differently. Three subjects reported there is some difference, and said people who live in Nafra area speak with a little different tune. These responses are in contrast to low lexical similarity percentages between the various Miji varieties. The low percentages may be explained in part because of wordlists not being checked.15
13a. In which village do you think the purest/sweetest Miji is spoken?
Most of the subjects (16) responded that Miji speakers speak the same way everywhere. One subject said Lada is where the purest Miji is spoken because, according to him, their speech is clear. Only after administering the questionnaire did the researchers learn he himself was from Lada. The remaining subject spoke on behalf of others, mentioning that everyone would say their own village language is most pure.
5 Bilingualism
Bilingualism “refers to the knowledge and skills acquired by individuals, which enable them to use a language other than their mother tongue” (Blair 1990:52). Bilingual ability is not normally uniformly distributed within a community. Different individuals and sections of a community are proficient to varying degrees, depending on their motivation and on the nature and extent of their contact with the second language.
5.1 Sentence repetition test
5.1.1 Procedures
One of the methods used for evaluating bilingual proficiency was the Hindi sentence repetition test (SRT). The SRT is a screening tool for a community-wide bilingual profile, not a diagnostic tool to assess an individual’s strengths and weaknesses in a second language (Radloff 1991).
A sentence repetition test (SRT) consists of a set of fifteen carefully selected sentences, with three practice sentences at the beginning. The test starts with short, simple sentences, which become
progressively longer and more grammatically complex. Each sentence is played once and the subject is evaluated on his or her ability to repeat each sentence accurately. A subject’s ability to accurately repeat the sentences of increasing difficulty is directly correlated with the ability to speak and understand the language: the higher the score, the higher the bilingual proficiency.
SRT results are expressed as a point total out of the maximum 45 points. They are also expressed as an equivalent bilingual proficiency level or reported proficiency evaluation (RPE) level. The RPE levels
15 Experience with wordlist analyses from other projects of this type indicates that checking a wordlist generally
range from 0+ (very minimal proficiency) to 4+ (approaching the proficiency level of a native speaker). Figure 1 shows the Hindi SRT score ranges with corresponding RPE levels. Further description of the SRT procedure, subjects’ SRT scores and demographic profiles for all subjects may be found in Appendix C.
5.1.2 Sampling and site selection
The demographic variables deemed most likely to influence bilingualism were education, age and gender.16 These factors were taken into account in the sample of subjects, which was subdivided as
follows:
Educated (4th standard and above) and Uneducated (0 to 3rd standard) Younger (ages 16 to 35) and Older (ages 36 and above)
Male and Female
In this survey the Hindi SRT was administered in three Monpa groups: Kalaktang Monpa (Khalaktang village), Sartang (Darbu village) and Tawang Monpa (Lhou village).
Khalaktang village is close to the border of Bhutan, around one kilometre from Kalaktang town. The total population of the village is 203 according to 1991 census. It is connected by road to Bomdila and Tezpur.
Darbu village is 25 kilometres from Bomdila towards Tawang on the main road. The total population of this village is 382 according to the 1991 census. This is a newly established village of villagers who have migrated from interior villages.
Lhou is a large village which is 15 kilometres away from Tawang, the district headquarters, and is situated on both sides of the Tawang main road. The general population of Lhou village is approximately 1500.
5.1.3 Results and analysis
The Hindi SRT was administered to a total number of 131 subjects: 47 among Kalaktang Monpa of Khalaktang village, 24 among Sartang of Darbu village and 60 among Tawang Monpa of Lhou village. Figure 1 shows the percentage of SRT subjects scoring at each RPE level.
16 It was difficult to find older, educated females, and in some cases, female and uneducated subjects were unwilling
Figure 1. Percentage of SRT subjects scoring at each RPE level.
It is generally believed a person must be at an RPE level of at least 3+ in order to discuss and understand deeper concepts in a second language. Figure 1 shows that in each of the groups tested, there is a notable percentage of subjects who scored at RPE levels 0+ to 3. Among the Kalaktang subjects, 81% scored at these levels, among Sartang 83%, and 65% of the Tawang subjects scored at RPE level 3 and below.
Tables 11 through 13 show the SRT results of each location, divided according to the demographic factors of education, age, and gender. Each box contains the number of subjects (n), the average SRT score for that group (Avg), the standard deviation (sd) expressed as a number of points (out of the 45 possible on the SRT), and the RPE level corresponding to the average score.
Table 11. SRT results among Kalaktang Monpa (Khalaktang village)
Total sample n=47 n=34 (72%) Uneducated n=13 (28%) Educated
Table 12. SRT results among Sartang (Darbu village)
Total sample n=24 Uneducated
n=14 (58%)
Table 13. SRT results among Tawang Monpa (Lhou village)
Total sample n=60 n=31 (52%) Uneducated n=29 (48%) Educated
Male
Among the SRT subjects in each of the three groups tested, education is clearly the most consistent measurable factor influencing Hindi bilingualism. Educated subjects, whether male, female, younger or older, consistently had higher averages than those subjects who are not educated, regardless of their gender or age. The demographic variables of gender and age had little correlation with SRT scores, and thus with Hindi bilingual proficiency.
5.2 Questionnaires
5.2.1 Monpas and Sherdukpen17
15. Where did you learn Hindi?
Of the 69 subjects questioned, about half reported that they learned Hindi by talking with others, one-third said from school, and others said they learned Hindi from their childhood.
16. When do children start speaking Hindi?
Responses to this question were unique for almost every subject. The most common answer was ‘from childhood’, answered by one-third of the subjects. Others said ‘at school’ and answers with ages ranging from ages 2–7 years.
17. What occasions do you use Hindi mainly?
The most common response from subjects was the one-quarter who gave general answers of using Hindi whenever needed. Others gave more specific places such as the market, community gatherings, offices, and school. Non-Hindi speakers (17%) were not asked this question.
18. Is there anyone in your village who doesn’t speak your language at all?
Almost all subjects (88%) said “No”, four subjects said “Yes”, and four said “Maybe.”
19. How well do you understand the Hindi programmes broadcasted on radio and TV?
Twenty-eight percent of the subjects said they understand Hindi programmes on TV/radio fully, while 19% said they were not able to understand anything; 22% said they understand half. 12% of the subjects understood no Hindi.
5.2.2 Bugun
2a. What other languages do you speak? b. Which one do you know best? c. On what occasions do you use this language?
Hindi was the most common answer to the question of what other languages subjects speak. The rest gave various answers such as Aka, Miji, Monpa, Nepali, Sherdukpen, Assamese and English.
Three-quarters of the subjects said that they know Hindi best. It was reported that the older generation speaks neighbouring languages well, unlike the younger generation. Everyone said they use other languages when needed.
3. Is there anyone in your village who doesn’t speak your language at all?
All responded that there is no one in the village who does not speak their language.
4. How well do you understand the Hindi/Assamese programmes broadcasted on radio and TV?
Answers varied from person to person. Half of the subjects said they understand everything, 35% responded they understand half, while the rest said they understand only a little.
17 As with the Language Use, Attitudes and Vitality section, questionnaire responses for Bugun and Miji are discussed
