Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Matthews John
SIL International
2008
SIL Electronic Survey Report 2008-013, June 2008
Copyright 2008 Matthews John and SIL International. All rights reserved
2
Contents
Abstract
Preface
Maps
1 Introduction
1.1 Geography
1.2 History
1.3 People
1.4 Languages
1.5 Previous research
1.6 Purpose and goals
2 Dialect Areas
2.1 Lexical similarity
2.1.1 Procedures
2.1.2 Site selection
2.1.3 Results and analysis
2.2 Dialect intelligibility
2.2.1 Procedures
2.2.2 Site selection
2.2.3 Results and analysis
2.3 Dialect perceptions
3 Language Vitality
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Procedures
3.3 Language use, attitudes, and vitality (LUAV) results
3.3.1 Language use
3.3.2 Language attitudes
3.3.3 Language vitality
3.3.4 Observations and researchers comments
4 Bilingualism
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Tested levels of bilingualism in Hindi
4.2.1 Sentence Repetition Test (SRT) procedures
4.2.2 Variables and sampling for SRT
4.2.3 Results and analysis
4.3 Self-reported Hindi bilingualism
5 Summary of Findings
5.1 Dialect areas
5.2 Language vitality
5.3 Bilingualism
6 Recommendations
6.1 Language and literature development
6.2 Literacy programmes
3
Appendix A - 1
International Phonetic Alphabet
Consonants
Consonant Diacritics
Vowels
Appendix A - 2
Wordlists Lexical Similarity Counting Procedures
Appendix B
Home Town Test & Recorded Text Test
Recorded Text Testing Procedures, Scores and Responses
Subject Background Information, RTT Scoring Chart Key and Post-HTT/RTT
Questions
RTT scoring chart key:
Home Town Testing in Korwa
Subject Biodata
Home Town Test Scores
Post Home Town Test Responses
Recorded Text Testing in Maindrath
Subject Biodata
Recorded Text Test Scores
Post Recorded Text Test Responses
Appendix C
Questionnaires
Sociolinguistic Questionnaire (SLQ)
Jaunsari Questionnaire
Chapnu
Khanaad
Subject Biodata
Korwa
Subject Biodata
Maindrath (Bawar)
Subject Biodata
Questionnaire responses in Maindrath
Questionnaire responses in Maindrath (Cont..)
Questionnaire responses in Maindrath (Cont..)
Appendix D
Sentence Repetition Testing
Hindi SRT Scoring Sheet
General comments:
Specific comments:
References
4
Abstract
A survey of the Jaunsari language community was undertaken to investigate the need for
mother-tongue language development and literacy programmes. The goals of the survey
were as follows:
1. Appraise the extent of dialect variation within the Jaunsari speech community,
and to determine the similarity to Sirmauri and Garhwali. Intelligibility
measurements would also be made if necessary.
2. Assess the vitality of the Jaunsari language including language use in domains of
daily life, attitudes and bilingual proficiency in Hindi.
3. Identify the geographical areas inhabited by the Jaunsari people.
Preface
India is often known as a linguistic giant in terms of the number of languages and the
number of people speaking each language. Language plays a vital role in effective
communication. Identifying various language varieties and determining their classification
is a mammoth task. The survey team hopes that the survey and this report will ultimately
benefit the cause of Jaunsaris.
This language survey among the Jaunsari people of Uttaranchal was started in
February 2004, and the fieldwork was finished in March 2004. There are many people who
facilitated the completion of this project with their sacrificial help. Even though it is
difficult to name them all, it is appropriate to name a few and their contributions. A special
thank you goes to Mr. Ruben Furtado, Director of the Society for Motivational Training
and Action (SMTA), for his hospitality and for allowing the researchers to stay at the
premises of Samta Niketan. Mr. Sultan Singh of SMTA and his family were kind to us with
their hospitality. Mr. Belam Das of SMTA helped the surveyors in moving from one village
to another and gave timely encouragement. The effort of SMTA in uplifting the Jaunsari
community is commendable and worthy of all encouragement. Without the help of Mr.
Loren Maggard, the writing of this report would not have been a success. Most of all,
special thanks go to the Jaunsari people who shared about their society and language,
answered questions patiently, participated in intelligibility testing, and provided all the
materials to enhance the work. Otherwise, this research would not have met its goals.
Heartfelt thanks and best wishes to all the Jaunsari people.
A dream that started taking shape during the survey is for the Jaunsari people to be
using materials developed in their mother tongue. It is believed this will lead to overall
development and ultimately to the peoples making great strides toward a bright future.
This survey project is only an attempt to gain some insights into the prospects in
sociological and linguistic areas. The conclusions in this report are derived from prior
library study and field research and observations. Even so, this report should prove to be
helpful to those who plan to work among the Jaunsaris. This study may have many
shortcomings; all suggestions and corrections in this regard are welcome. It is an honour to
be part of this survey, and it is our heartfelt desire that this study will benefit the Jaunsari
community.
5
6
6
5
7
8
9
1 Introduction
1.1 Geography
The mountainous Jaunsar-Bawar region of Dehradun district in Uttaranchal state is
the abode of the Jaunsari people (see map 1). They are particularly concentrated
throughout Chakrata tahsil
1
with smaller numbers in surrounding tahsils (see map 2).
Their villages are generally located near rivers or springs. There are a number of
towering peaks in the region with an elevation of more than 1,500 meters. Kharamba is
the highest peak standing at 3,084 meters. The boundary of Jaunsar-Bawar region is
generally determined by the river Yamuna on the east and by the river Tons in the west.
There are few roads and few buses or other motor vehicles in this mountainous area.
Horse and mule trains are the usual form of transport, carrying everything from human
passengers to sacks of potatoes and tins of ghee, which the Jaunsaris produce in fairly
large quantities. It can be said of the area that it is devoid of artificiality, and one can
move in perfect calm and in a pollution-free atmosphere.
1.2 History
The Jaunsari community traces its origin to the Pandavas of Mahabharat fame. The
five Pandava brothers had one wife. Traditionally, the Jaunsari have followed the custom
of brothers sharing wives. The Jaunsaris have practised polyandry, where one woman
will have more than one husband. Some anthropologists assert that the Jaunsaris are the
last surviving pure descendants of the Aryans. Polyandry and polygamy are not the only
facets of the colourful lifestyle of the Jaunsaristheir dances, ways of worship, and
marriage costumes all add meaning to their way of living.
2
1.3 People
According to the 1991 Census of India, the population of Jaunsari people is 96,995.
Among the Jaunsari people, there are various castes, such as the Brahmin, Rajput, and
Khass, who enjoy a high social status. The indigenous Kolta caste occupies the lowest
position in the local socio-religious hierarchy. The Koltas are the main service caste, and
Khasa Brahmins and Rajputs are the main cultivators. The Jaunsari live in extended
families in villages that consist of loosely grouped homes surrounded by farmlands. In
1967 the Government of India recognised the Jaunsari as a Scheduled Tribe.
The main occupation of the Jaunsari is agriculture, which they supplement by raising
buffaloes, cows, goats, and sheep. Their principal crops are potatoes and rice, and a
variety of other vegetables are also grown. Fertiliser is used, as well as a system of plot
rotation in which the ground is allowed to lie fallow. Wet rice cultivation is done during
the monsoon season. Dry rice, maize, millet, and wheat are raised on the drier land. The
villagers live on a simple diet of milk, lentils, a few vegetables, some fruit, and
occasionally meat.
1
A tahsil is a subdivision of a district.
2
www.Indiaprofile.com/lifestyle/jaunsar,bawar/htm
10
The Jaunsaris make their houses out of wood, bricks, and stones, with slate, wood,
and thatch roofing. Doors, windows, and doorframes are often ornately carved and
painted. The houses are rectangular in shape and many have two stories, with the people
living on the upper floor and the animals roaming freely on the ground floor. Their farms
are located somewhat away from the villages.
The object of the Jaunsaris worship is the goddess Mahasu, as well as the Pandavas
and their mother Kunti. Their pilgrimage centre is a place called Lakhamandal. Following
the Hindu calendar, on the fourteenth of the first month of the new year, each family
slaughters a goat and sprinkles its blood on the doorposts. They believe that if they do
this evil spirits will not trouble them.
Unlike in most other parts of India, the birth of a baby girl is greeted with joy in
Jaunsar. When she has grown up and is deemed fit by the village elders to marry
usually at fifteen or sixteenthere will be no burdensome dowry that has to be given to
the bridegroom or his family. Instead, it is the boys family which will pay an agreed,
furiously negotiated bride price to the girls family before the wedding ceremony takes
place. The bride is carried to her new village on the shoulders of the bridegroom or one of
his relatives.
3
In olden days most transactions in Jaunsar villages were conducted through barter
the tailor, for instance, was paid two baskets of rice and a small basket of apples (in
season) for stitching the long, flowing, knee-length shirt and tight pyjamas that most
Jaunsaris wear. Jaunsari society is said to be free of violent incidents like murder and
thievery (Chakraborty 1994).
1.4 Languages
The linguistic affiliation of Jaunsari is classified as Indo-European, Indo-Iranian,
Indo-Aryan, Northern zone, Western Pahari (Grimes 2000:442). Grierson, in his studies,
also classified Jaunsari as a separate language in the western Pahari branch. Jaunsari is
bordered by Garhwali, Sirmauri, and Jaunpuri (Grimes 2000:442). Hindi is spoken
mainly in the district headquarters and other towns. The literacy rate for the Dehradun
district (which contains the state capital) according to the 2001 census is 79 percent, but
the literacy rate for Chakrata tahsil is only 26 percent (according to the 1991 census; the
2001 census figures for Chakrata were not available). Literacy is defined by the
government as having finished the fifth standard.
1.5 Previous research
A sociolinguistic survey similar in scope to this project was carried out in the
neighbouring Garhwali language in 2000. The Garhwali researchers also collected a few
Jaunsari wordlists in their survey, so data from that research was utilised in this survey.
Several other books that describe the Jaunsari people to some extent are as follows:
1. An Analysis of the Determinants Influencing Child Mortality in a Typical Tribal
Setting: A Case Study of Jaunsari Tribe of the Central Himalayas, by Indian Journal of
Economics (July 1995)
3
www.Indiaprofile.com/lifestyle/jaunsar,bawar/htm
11
2. An Explorative Study of Selected Socio-Economic and Demographic Indicators in
Tribal Society: A Case Study of Jaunsari Tribe, by Eastern Anthropologists (October
1993)
3. Family Structure and Child Survival among Tribals: A Study of Jaunsari Tribe of
U.P. Hills, by Social Changes (JuneSeptember 1993)
4. A Linguistic Study of Jaunsari, by U.S. Satish (1990)
5. Jaunsari Dictionary and Texts, by U.S. Satish.
4
1.6 Purpose and goals
The purpose of the sociolinguistic research of Jaunsari was to investigate the need
for mother-tongue language development and literacy programmes. The goals of the
survey were as follows:
Goal 1: Appraise the extent of dialect variation among Jaunsari, Sirmauri, and Garhwali
Research actions:
Determine the lexical similarity among Jaunsari varieties and among Jaunsari,
Sirmauri, and Garhwali (including the Jaunpuri variety)
If necessary, determine the intelligibility among Jaunsari varieties and among
Jaunsari, Sirmauri, and Garhwali
Tools: Wordlists and Recorded Text Testing
Goal 2: Assess the vitality of the Jaunsari language
Research actions:
Assess the language use patterns of Jaunsari in important domains of daily life
Assess attitudes of Jaunsari people towards their own variety and other varieties
Evaluate the extent of Jaunsari speakers bilingual proficiency in Hindi
Tools: Questionnaires, interviews, observation, and Hindi Sentence Repetition Test
(SRT)
Goal 3: Clearly identify the geographical areas inhabited by the Jaunsari people
Tools: Informal interviews and publications
2 Dialect Areas
2.1 Lexical similarity
One method developed for measuring the relationship among speech varieties is
comparing the phonetic similarity of their vocabularies. This is referred to as lexical
similarity. Lexical similarity research, based on comparing wordlists, can be useful in
making decisions about language development and was the main tool used to distinguish
4
Since the book was not available to the researchers the year is not given
12
the relationship of Jaunsari to related languages or varieties. Informal interviews with
different people also contributed to making conclusions about Jaunsari dialects.
2.1.1 Procedures
A 210-item wordlist
5
was used in this survey. It consisted of items of basic
vocabulary which have been standardised and contextualised for use in sociolinguistic
surveys of this type in India. The wordlists were elicited in Hindi and were transcribed
using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA).
Each wordlist item was compared with the corresponding item on every other
wordlist to determine whether they were phonetically similar. Those words that were
judged similar were grouped together. Once the entire wordlist was evaluated, the total
number of word pair similarities was tallied. This was divided by the total number of
items compared and then multiplied by 100, giving what is called the lexical similarity
percentage.
6
This process of evaluation was carried out according to standards set forth in Blair
(1990) and facilitated through the use of a computer program called WordSurv (Wimbish
1989). This program is designed to quickly perform the counting of word pair similarities
and to calculate the lexical similarity percentage between each pair of wordlist sites. The
wordlist counting procedures used in determining lexical similarity can be seen in
Appendix A-2.
2.1.2 Site selection
A total of twelve wordlists were compared in this lexical similarity study. Six were
collected in this surveythree from the area where pure Jaunsari is reported to be
spoken, two from the northern side of the Jaunsar-Bawar region (known as Bawar), and
one from a place on the Jaunsari-Garhwal border where the variety was claimed to be the
mixture of Jaunsari and Garhwali (refer to map 3).
7
Four wordlists came from a previous
survey among Garhwali varieties (Waugh 2000), which is the language spoken to the
east. One wordlist was taken from a sociolinguistic survey in Sirmauri, spoken in
Himachal Pradesh to the west (Brightbill 2004). Finally, a standard wordlist in Hindi, the
official language of Uttaranchal, was added to the lexical similarity comparison. The
lexical similarity percentages for the twelve wordlists are shown in figure 2.1. Although
some wordlists were taken from previous surveys, the analysis of all wordlists was done
by the researchers of this project.
5
The total number of vocabulary items compared is sometimes less than 210 for some wordlists, usually
because a certain item is not familiar to the informants, the proper word cannot be obtained, or a
particular item is deemed inappropriate to elicit at a certain site.
6
For example, if, between two wordlists, a total of 207 items were compared, and 151 of these word pairs
were deemed phonetically similar, then the lexical similarity percentage would be 151 divided by 207 and
multiplied by 100. In this example, the lexical similarity percentage would be 73 percent.
7
The wordlists sites from other surveys are not included on the maps because those came from outside of
the Jaunsari area.
13
2.1.3 Results and analysis
Jaunsari-Korwa
88 Jaunsari-Khanaad
88 84 Jaunsari-Chapnu
80 78 77 Jaunsari Bawari-Bhandroli
77 73 70 77 Jaunsari Bawari-Maindrath
75 77 71 70 70 Jaunsari-Garhwali mix-Lakhamandal
75 77 76 67 66 74 Jaunsari-Chakrata (previous survey)
65 62 62 53 57 62 56 Hindi
63 57 62 61 67 59 60 57 Bangani (previous survey)
63 62 60 53 54 61 58 70 56 Jaunpuri (previous survey)
58 57 56 49 53 60 54 65 56 74 Nagpuriya (previous survey)
61 61 64 60 62 58 59 58 59 55 51 Sirmauri (previous survey)
Figure 2.1. Lexical similarity percentage matrix.
The lexical similarity percentages among the Jaunsari wordlists collected on this
survey range from 7088 percent. The lexical similarity percentages of the three
wordlists (Korwa, Khanaad, and Chapnu) from the pure Jaunsari area may be
considered as one cluster, with their lexical similarity ranging between 84 percent and 88
percent.
Some of the Jaunsari people say that Bawar is a separate region, and most people say
that when one goes towards the Tiuni or Bawar side, the language gets corrupted.
According to the people, this variety is called Jaunsari-Bawari and is considered a dialect
of Jaunsari. The wordlists from this area, Bhandroli and Maindrath, show a lexical
similarity of 77 percent with each other and may be considered as another cluster. The
lexical similarity of this cluster with the previous cluster ranges from 70 percent to 80
percent.
The Bhandroli people claim that they are speaking Jaunsari and that their speech has
also been influenced by Bawari words and their way of speaking. They explained the
irony of being in neither the pure Jaunsari area nor the pure Bawar area. Maindrath, on
the other hand, lies in the proper Bawar region. The lexical similarity of the Maindrath
wordlist with the Jaunsari varieties is 7077 percent, lower than the Bhandroli
percentages with Jaunsari. Intelligibility testing shows that the people from Maindrath
can understand Jaunsari from Korwa well enough, which will be described in section 2.2.
The lexical similarity percentages of the Lakhamandal variety with all other Jaunsari
varieties are 7077 percent. Lakhamandal village is located in the Jaunsari-Garhwal
border area, so this variety is mixed with Garhwali.
The Jaunsari Chakrata wordlist from the Garhwali survey has a lexical similarity
percentage of 6677 percent with all the Jaunsari wordlists collected on this survey.
14
These percentages are comparatively lower than the percentages among these Jaunsari
wordlists (7088 percent). A possible reason for these lower percentages is that the
wordlist subjects had lived in Chakrata and had moved outside the area (to Barkot,
Uttarkashi district, Uttaranchal) two years previously.
The Jaunsari varieties are comparatively less similar to Hindi, with lexical similarity
percentages of 5365 percent. The Bangani, Jaunpuri, and Nagpuriya wordlists collected
on the Garhwali survey and the Sirmauri wordlist collected on the Sirmauri survey show
4967 percent lexical similarity with all Jaunsari varieties. With Hindi, these languages
have a similarity range of 5770 percent.
2.2 Dialect intelligibility
2.2.1 Procedures
A recorded text test (RTT) is one tool to help assess the degree to which related
linguistic varieties are inherently intelligible to one another. A three to five minute
natural, personal-experience narrative is recorded on cassette from a mother tongue
speaker of the speech variety in question. It first is evaluated with a group of mother
tongue speakers from the same region by using what is called a hometown test (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. Subjects responses to the questions in the story are noted down and
scored. A persons 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 communitys
intelligibility of the speech variety of the storys origin. The standard deviation, or
variation, of the subjects scores is also calculated, which helps in interpreting how
representative those scores are.
After answering comprehension questions about each story, the subjects are then
asked further questions, such as how much they could understand and their opinion of
how good the language was. These post-RTT responses give insight into the subjects
perceptions, which can then be compared with their performance in the test.
2.2.2 Site selection
Since there were reported differences between the speech varieties spoken in
different parts of the Jaunsar-Bawar region, and since there was insufficient clarity from
wordlists to answer our research questions,
8
intelligibility testing of pure Jaunsari was
carried out among people living in the Bawar area.
The Jaunsaris believe that their people living in Chakrata and in the region just
below Chakrata speak the purest variety of Jaunsari. A story was therefore collected from
a village, Korwa, which is eleven kilometres down from Chakrata town and is situated
along the Chakrata-Vikasnagar main road. Korwa has the highest lexical similarity with
other Jaunsari varieties.
8
According to Blair (1990), any speech varieties having above 60 percent lexical similarity indicate the
possibility of adequate comprehension, but intelligibility testing is necessary to confirm this.
15
Maindrath village lies five kilometres away from Tiuni, the main town in the Bawar
region. The Fear Story collected in Korwa was tested among people living in
Maindrath.
2.2.3 Results and analysis
The results of testing the Korwa Fear Story in Maindrath are shown in figure 2.2.
Korwa (HTT) Maindrath (RTT)
Average
100 97
Standardization
0 4.8
No. of subjects
15 15
Figure 2.2. HTT and RTT results.
The Fear Story was tested first in Korwa village as an HTT and got an average of
100 percent. This indicates that the story is representative of the speech variety in that
area and is suitable to be used for testing at other sites.
The Fear Story was tested in Maindrath among fifteen subjects and averaged 97
percent.
9
Not only did the test average indicate good understanding, but many subjects
also commented both during and after the testing that they could understand the story
well. In response to post-RTT questions, many subjects said this story is from the
Jaunsari area and it was understandable to them. The majority of the people said this
storys speech form is a little different from their own speech form, in words and the way
of speaking. The majority of the people said that the language is good and pure, and some
people said this variety was slightly mixed with Hindi. The researchers feel that, though
the Bawar variety is a little different from Jaunsari, the Bawari spoken in Maindrath
could be considered a similar variety of Jaunsari.
2.3 Dialect perceptions
Questionnaires were also used to help assess the differences in speech varieties. In
order to understand the language variety perceptions of the Jaunsari people themselves,
five questions were included in a Language Use, Attitudes, and Vitality (LUAV)
questionnaire. Out of the fifty-five Jaunsari subjects, 71 percent think their language is
very different from the neighbouring Pahari languages such as Garhwali, Sirmauri, and
Jaunpuri, as well as Hindi. Around 70 percent of the subjects said they could not
understand these languages, and only 12 percent reported they could understand any of
the languages fully. Others said they could understand a little of these languages. These
responses show the separate identity of the Jaunsari language from neighbouring
languages.
Around 80 percent of the subjects opined that pure Jaunsari language is spoken in
their own villages. The intention of asking about this was to find out the most well-
accepted speech variety in Jaunsari. When it was asked whether there are any Jaunsari
9
In this site, a separate hometown (or control) test was not developed. Since this test was similar to an
RTT, post-RTT questions were asked.
16
speakers who speak differently than they, among those who answered yes, 43 percent of
them said there are little differences based on the area. Some people said speakers in the
Bawar area have some differences in their way of speaking. For the questions Is there
any difference between Jaunsari and Bawari? and How much? all people said there is
a difference between Jaunsari and Bawari varieties. Almost three-fourths of the Jaunsari
people said the two varieties have quite a bit of difference with each other. Eight of the
sixteen subjects from the Bawar area said the difference is only little. Five were of the
opinion that the two are very different.
Similar responses were found in a survey among Sirmauri speakers in the Sirmaur
district of Himachal Pradesh. Of the questionnaire subjects in the Sirmauri survey who
had met Jaunsari speakers, over 80 percent claimed to understand nothing or only a little.
Also, nearly 80 percent of subjects said that Jaunsari is very different from their own
speech.
3 Language Vitality
3.1 Introduction
An oral questionnaire was used to learn about patterns of language use, attitudes, and
resulting vitality among the Jaunsari people. A questionnaire is a series of written
questions administered verbally to a sample of the population. Since it is a series of
written questions, the same questions are used no matter how many times they are asked.
Questionnaires can help gather information about such topics as:
how people feel about their own language;
what languages they use and when and where;
if subjects feel their language will continue to be spoken in the future; and
issues about the use of written materials.
Language use is the study of what people do with the language, and how, when,
where, and why they do it. A study of language use seeks to describe the choices that
people make about what speech varieties to use in particular situations (Blair 1990).
Language attitudes are the ways in which a person or community perceives the
relevance and status of their language, often reflecting their attitudes about themselves
relative to other groups. Language attitudes play a key role in language maintenance,
shift, and death (Fasold 1984). A study of language attitudes is an attempt to find out
about the diversity and intensity of attitudes that members of a language group share
concerning their own language and other languages (Grimes 1995). Ultimately these
views, whether explicit or unexpressed, will influence the results of efforts towards
literacy and the acceptability of literature development.
Languages do not live or die at all....The fortunes of languages are bound up with
those of its users, and if languages decline or die it is simply because the circumstances
of their speakers have altered (Edwards 1985:49). 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
17
coming generations. This is directly influenced by language use and attitudes and is
difficult to predict.
3.2 Procedures
A total of fifty-five subjects from four different villages (shown on map 4) responded
to the LUAV questionnaire. Among these, sixteen were from the Bawar region. Three
sites from the Jaunsari area and one site from the Bawari area were selected. These sites
were selected to represent the geographic and population division of the Jaunsar region.
Since the population in the Bawari area is less compared with other Jaunsari areas, only
one site was selected.
The overall sample obtained for the LUAV questionnaire is shown in Figure 3.1,
divided according to the demographic categories of sex, age, and education. The sample
has roughly equal percentages of male and female, young and old, and educated and
uneducated.
10
It was deemed impractical to use random sampling; thus quota sampling
was chosen. At each of the four villages, the researchers attempted to administer the
questionnaire to at least one subject representing each of the eight possible demographic
categories. This was possible for every category except old, educated females. Many
times researchers were assisted by males in the villages to get the questions translated
into Jaunsari to enable the ladies in the respective villages to understand them.
Sex Age Uneducated (04) Educated (5+) Total
Male Young
(1735)
7 8 15
27%
29 Old
(35+)
8 6 14
25%
Female Young
(1735)
9 7 16
29%
26 Old
(35+)
7 3 10
18%
Total 31 (56%) 24 (44%) 55
Figure 3.1. Sample distribution of LUAV questionnaire subjects.
3.3 Language use, attitudes, and vitality (LUAV) results
3.3.1 Language use
Questions on language use were asked as part of the LUAV questionnaire. The
domains (areas) of language use reported by the Jaunsari subjects are summarised in
figure 3.2.
10
Young refers to those subjects ages 1535, while older refers to those 36 years and above.
Uneducated refers to those subjects who have had fewer than five years of formal education, while
educated refers to those who have completed fifth standard or higher.
18
Qn Domains Jaunsari/Bawari
*
Hindi Both
**
1a.
In the home
55 (100%) 0 0
1b
With village friends
54 (98%) 0 1 (2%)
1c.
At the market
19 (35%) 27 (49%) 9 (16%)
1d.
With government officials
18 (33%) 34 (62%) 3 (5%)
1e.1
With outsiders, (Jaunsari)
(Visiting the village)
41 (75%) 7 (13%) 7 (13%)
1e.2
With outsiders, (Non-
Jaunsari) (Visiting the
village)
41 (75%) 4 (7%) 10 (18%)
1f
In private prayer
53 (96%) 2 (4%) 0
1g
At festival time
54 (98%) 1 (2%) 0
1h
During work time
53 (96%) 0 2 (4%)
*Most of the Bawari people responded with the name Bawari for questions in the LUAV questionnaire.
**Jaunsari/Bawari and Hindi
Figure 3.2. Domains of language use.
Almost all of the subjects said that they use the Jaunsari/Bawari language in the
home, with friends in their village, in private prayer, at festival times, and with workers.
It is interesting to note that with outsiders who visit their villages, whether Jaunsari or
non-Jaunsari, 75 percent of the respondents chose to speak in their mother tongue with
these people. The choice is in favour of Hindi in the domains where Jaunsaris need to go
out of their villages and communicate with other people. Forty-nine percent said they
speak Hindi at the market, and 62 percent said they speak Hindi with government
officials. Even in these two domains, about one-third of the subjects said they speak
Jaunsari, with a small percentage of people saying they use both Jaunsari and Hindi. The
usage of the mother tongue is visible in most of the domains questioned, which indicates
that use of the Jaunsari language is high.
Two additional questions were asked on the topic of language use. In response to
What language do your children use when talking to their friends? most of the people
(80 percent) stated that their children are using Jaunsari.
For the question, What language do you use when you speak with a Sirmauri/Pahari
person? almost a quarter of the subjects said they use Jaunsari, and half of the people
said they speak in Hindi. The subjects commented that since they and other Pahari people
cannot understand each others language, Hindi (or for some, a mixture of Hindi and
Jaunsari) is the last resort for communication with one another.
3.3.2 Language attitudes
Questions were included on the LUAV questionnaire to help in the assessment of
language attitudes among Jaunsari speakers. The results in this section are summarised
for the fifty-five subjects who belong to the Jaunsari-Bawari group.
Every questionnaire subject believed that young people speak Jaunsari/Bawari as
well as old people do. They further added there is little possibility of their own youths
19
speaking something else than their own mother tongue; even the young people who
responded to the questionnaire confirmed it. The objective of this question was to find
out peoples perception of speech change between the younger and older generations.
In order to assess the attitude of old people towards the use of Hindi among their
youths it was asked whether old people would be happy if their children spoke only
Hindi.
11
Half of the respondents said old people would be sad and the other half said old
people would be happy if only Hindi was spoken by the younger generation.
Since Hindi is prestigious and the medium of education in Uttaranchal, it was asked
which language subjects like best for speaking, education, and social development. For
speaking 87 percent answered they like their mother tongue best, and the other 13 percent
said they like Hindi. For education 72 percent of the people chose Hindi. For social
development, people from Bawar and Jaunsar had somewhat different views; while 84
percent of the Jaunsari people supported their mother tongue, only 56 percent of the
Bawari people chose their mother tongue. For the others, the choice was Hindi.
3.3.3 Language vitality
To help in assessing language vitality, a few more questions were included in the
LUAV questionnaire. Responses to these questions give some insights.
The response to the question, When the children of your community grow up and
have their own children, do you think those children will speak your Jaunsari/Bawari?,
was a big yes from almost all subjects. For them that question does not usually arise
since Jaunsari is their identity. Only three people thought that Jaunsari would not
continue to be spoken. When it was further asked, Suppose those children do not speak
Jaunsari/Bawari, is it good? 65 percent said it would not be good.
12
Marriage patterns and attitudes may affect language maintenance, so two questions
were asked on this topic. The first was whether subjects would allow their son or
daughter to marry someone who does not speak Jaunsari. (If the person was single, it was
asked, Will you marry someone who does not speak Jaunsari?) Three-fourths of the
subjects did not have any problem in giving their children to someone who does not
speak Jaunsari. For the second question, Would you allow your son or daughter to marry
someone outside of the Jaunsari tribe? only half of the people said they would allow it;
the other half had disagreement with that option. Though at least half of the subjects said
they would allow their children to marry non-Jaunsari people, when researchers went to
different villages, they noticed that those who had married outside the tribe were few.
11
For unmarried people, it was generally asked, Would your parents be happy if you spoke only Hindi?
12
For some subjects who did not understand the question, it was asked in the clarification whether it was
good that Hindi might replace Jaunsari and that only Hindi would be spoken. It could be that hearing the
term Hindi caused some subjects to think of the possibility of both Hindi and Jaunsari being used in the
future. This would explain the contrast in pro-Hindi responses between the two questions (5 percent
versus 35 percent).
20
3.3.4 Observations and researchers comments
Apart from the questionnaire, interviews and observations also helped give
understanding about the usage of Jaunsari in daily life. In each Jaunsari village visited,
the researchers talked informally with the villagers, asking their perspective and views of
their language and attempting to determine whether their responses were consistent with
responses to the questionnaire.
Since the Jaunsari area is restricted, and outsiders cannot buy land in the Jaunsar
region, there is relatively little ethnic mix in the villages. This enables the Jaunsari people
to continue their traditions and customs with minimal outside influence of other systems.
Even though people have a positive attitude towards Hindi, the researchers observed that
the maintenance of the local language is comparatively strong. For instance, bus
conductors speak in Jaunsari with others. In addition, in almost all of the village schools,
most of the students use Jaunsari when they talk with each other.
4 Bilingualism
4.1 Introduction
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). A second
language may be acquired either formally (as in a school setting) or informally through
other types of contact with speakers of the second language.
Blair (1990:51) further points out,
The goal of a study of community bilingualism is to find out how bilingual the population of a
community is. Bilingualism is not a characteristic that is uniformly distributed. In any
community, different individuals or sections of the community are bilingual to different degrees.
It is important to avoid characterizing an entire community as though such ability were
uniformly distributed. It is more accurate to describe how bilingualism is distributed throughout
the community. (1990:51)
Motivation and opportunity are two of the most important factors that produce
bilingualism (Blair 1990). 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. Insights into a communitys motivation to learn
a second language can often be gained by identifying the domains in which the second
language is used and the underlying attitudes promoting people to do so. Language use
and attitude studies can reveal such insights. The motivation may be economic, religious,
altruistic, or for self-preservation. The community will become as bilingual as it deems
necessary in order to satisfy its self-interest. However, people cannot become bilingual
unless they have contact with the second language in some context. This contact is
related to certain demographic factors such as education, age, and sex. In reality, these
are not totally independent variables but are often interrelated.
Hindi is one of the official languages of India and a lingua franca throughout North
India. Hindi is the official state language and medium for instruction in schools in
Uttaranchal. Hindi can be heard almost around the clock through radio broadcasting and
television channels. Hindi has a great influence in India except in some of the southern-
21
most parts and portions of the northeast. Since Hindi has a great influence in this area, it
was important to assess the bilingual proficiency of the Jaunsari-speaking people in Hindi
before considering a language development programme in Jaunsari. The main tool used
to gauge bilingualism in Hindi in this study was the Hindi Sentence Repetition Test
(SRT) (Varenkamp 1991). A few questions regarding peoples self-reported abilities in
Hindi were also included as part of post-SRT questionnaires (shown in appendix C).
4.2 Tested levels of bilingualism in Hindi
4.2.1 Sentence Repetition Test (SRT) procedures
One of the methods for testing bilingual proficiency is the use of an SRT. The SRT is
a screening tool for a community-wide bilingual profile, not a diagnostic tool to assess an
individuals strengths and weaknesses in a second language.
The SRT was developed based on the theory that a person can repeat only what his
control of the syntax, morphology, and vocabulary of a language enables him to
understand. The maximum number of units (be it numbers or words) an adult can
remember is seven, plus or minus two. When this concept is applied to a sentence, the
number of words can be far more than seven because of the phenomenon of chunking, the
non-conscious loading of meaning. Thus a unit could be a phrase consisting of several
words. A sentence as long as five times seven words can be remembered and repeated
because of this phenomenon of chunking meaning along syntactic lines (Radloff 1991).
An SRT consists of a set of fifteen carefully selected, recorded sentences. Each
sentence is played once for each subject, and the subject is asked to repeat the sentence
exactly the same way. Each sentence is scored according to a four-point scale (03) for a
maximum of 45 points for fifteen sentences. Each subject is evaluated on his ability to
mimic or repeat each sentence accurately. Any deviation from the recorded sentences is
counted as an error. A subjects 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.
The SRT results are expressed as a point total out of the maximum 45 points. They
are also expressed as an equivalent bilingual proficiency level called Reported
Proficiency Evaluation (RPE) level. The RPE levels range from 0+ (very minimal
proficiency) to 4+ (approaching the proficiency level of a native speaker). The Hindi SRT
was not constructed in this survey but was already developed by Varenkamp. Figure 4.1
shows the Hindi SRT score ranges with corresponding RPE levels (Varenkamp 1991:9;
Radloff 1991:152).
22
Hindi SRT score
(Out of 45)
RPE level Proficiency description
4445 4+ Near native speaker
3843 4 Excellent proficiency
3237 3+ Very good, general proficiency
2631 3 Good, general proficiency
2025 2+ Good, basic proficiency
1419 2 Adequate, basic proficiency
0813 1+ Limited, basic proficiency
0407 1 Minimal, limited proficiency
0003 0+ Very minimal proficiency
Figure 4.1. Hindi SRT score ranges with corresponding RPE levels.
Initial construction of an SRT is time-consuming, but once it was developed, it was
relatively quick and easy to administer once test administrators were trained. It was
possible to test a large sample in a relatively short time. Since it is important to have
exact and consistent scoring of the SRT, we recorded the responses of the subject and
checked the scoring again after completion of the field-testing.
4.2.2 Variables and sampling for SRT
Since bilingual proficiency frequently correlates with independent variables such as
education, age, sex, and degree of travel, it is important to test subjects who fit these
characteristics.
13
These demographic categories were divided as follows:
1) Education: Uneducated (0 up to 4th standard) and Educated (5th standard and
above)
2) Age: Younger (age 1735) and Older (age 36 and above)
3) Gender: Male and Female
Descriptions of the SRT sites
The Hindi SRT was administered in two Jaunsari villages, Korwa and Khanaad
(shown on map 4). Short descriptions of these villages are given below.
As mentioned in section 2.2.2, Korwa is eleven kilometres down from Chakrata town
on the Chakrata-Vikasnagar main road. Since Korwa is located along the main road, this
village has fairly good transportation facilities compared with most of the other villages
of the region. Korwa has a school, a Red Cross clinic, a small telecom office, and a bank.
13
Travel patterns of subjects was a variable taken into account only during the analysis of the SRT results.
It was not a factor in choosing the sample.
23
Demographic information for this village and for Khanaad was gathered from the 1991
Census of India data and is in figures 4.2 and 4.3.
Total
population
Below 6
years old
Above 6
years old
Number
of literates
% of
literates
Male 233 35 198 111 56%
Female 242 56 186 53 28%
Total 475 91 384 164 43%
Figure 4.2. Demographic information for Korwa based on 1991 census.
Khanaad is situated around 20 km from Chakrata and 2 km away from the Chakrata-
Lakhamandal road. This village is one of the Brahmin villages, among Jaunsari people.
Anybody who needs to go to this village has to climb the hills to reach it.
Total
population
Below 6
years old
Above 6
years old
Number
of literates
% of the
literates
Male 141 36 105 48 46%
Female 120 17 103 15 15%
Total 261 53 208 63 30%
In census data the name Khanaad was not found. A similar name Kandar was in the same Panchayat (similar to county)
where Khanaad belongs. Since data for Kandar was similar to what researchers observed in the Khanaad village, we are
making the assumption that Khanaad is spelled as Kandar in census data.
Figure 4.3. Demographic information for Khanaad based on 1991 census.
As with the questionnaire, it was deemed impractical to use random sampling for
selecting SRT subjects, and quota sampling was utilised. A total of eighty-seven subjects
were tested for the bilingualism study using the SRT. In some cases, there were almost no
older educated females in the village. Also, some of the women and some of the older
and uneducated people were afraid of taking the test. The sample of subjects according to
demographic categories of age, gender, and education are summarised in figure 4.4.
Male (52)
60%
Female (35)
40%
Younger Older Younger Older
Total
Uneducated 14 8 14 11
47
(54%)
Educated 18 12 8 2
40
(46%)
Total
32
(37%)
20
(23%)
22
(25%)
13
(15%)
87
Figure 4.4. Total sample of SRT subjects.
24
4.2.3 Results and analysis
In this section the analysis of each village is given separately, and then an overall
analysis of SRT results in both villages is given. In the tables Avg is the average of the
individual SRT scores for the relevant demographic category, RPE is the RPE level that
is equivalent to the SRT average, Sd is standard deviation, and N is the number of
subjects tested.
Korwa
In this site the SRT was administrated to a total of forty-six subjects. It is generally
believed that a minimum RPE level of 3+ (very good, general proficiency) or above is
necessary for people to effectively understand deeper concepts as well as to utilise
complex materials in a language other than their mother tongue (Radloff 1991). The SRT
results in Korwa are summarised in figure 4.5.
Uneducated Educated Total
Younger Older Younger Older
Male
Avg
RPE
Sd
N
28
3
9
5
26
3
4
5
40
4
3
7
38
4
6
8
34
3+
8
25
Female
Avg
RPE
Sd
N
25
2+
5
8
16
2
10
8
34
3+
8
4
36
3+
0
1
24
2+
10
21
Total
Avg
RPE
Sd
N
23
2+
9
26
38
4
6
20
29
3
10.5
46
Figure 4.5. SRT results in Korwa.
The overall SRT average for Korwa subjects was twenty-nine, which is equal to an
RPE level of 3, a good, general proficiency. Just over half of the subjects (57 percent)
tested at RPE level 3 or below, which means these people would have difficulties
understanding deeper concepts in Hindi and using complex written materials in the
language. The rest of the subjects would likely not have difficulty.
Of the three variables considered (age, sex, and education), there were some notable
differences in the education and sex categories. Males had an average SRT score of 34
and females averaged 24. A greater number of males than females travel outside the
home and village and thus have opportunity to speak Hindi more often and more
extensively, leading to higher averages on the Hindi SRT. In addition, the sample of
subjects in Korwa includes a greater percentage of males who are educated than of
25
females who are educated, which is reflective of the 1991 demographic information for
Korwa. Educated subjects, whether male or female, averaged substantially higher than
uneducated subjects. The five educated ladies in Korwa who took the SRT averaged
almost as high as the educated males and higher than the uneducated males.
Khanaad
In Khanaad a total of forty-one people were tested with the Hindi SRT. It was
comparatively difficult to get old people to take the SRT; only eleven were tested. Figure
4.6 summarises the SRT results in Khanaad.
Uneducated Educated Total
Younger Older Younger Older
Male
Avg
RPE
Sd
N
27
3
9
9
20
2+
12
3
34
3+
8
11
32
3+
5
4
30
3
9
27
Female
Avg
RPE
Sd
N
18
2
7
6
24
2+
8.5
3
27
3
14
4
38
4
0
1
23
2+
10
14
Total
Avg
RPE
Sd
N
23
2+
9
21
32
3+
9
20
28
3
10
41
Figure 4.6. SRT results in Khanaad.
The average for Khanaad subjects was 28, which correlates with an RPE level 3, a
good, general proficiency. When comparted with Korwa, Khanaad has the same kind of
trends of the SRT results varying according to demographic categories. Educated
subjects averaged higher than the uneducated, and males averaged higher than females.
Among the subjects tested in Khanaad, about half tested at RPE level 3 or below.
These Khanaad subjects probably would have difficulty in understanding and utilising
certain kinds of materials in Hindi, whereas the other half of the subjects would likely not
have difficulty.
Overall analysis
From Korwa and Khanaad a total of eighty-seven subjects were tested: forty-six
subjects from Korwa and forty-one subjects from Khanaad. The SRT analyses of the two
sites are given above separately. The average for all the subjects was 28.5, which is
equivalent to RPE level 3 (good, general proficiency), with a standard deviation of 10.
Figure 4.7 shows the percentage of subjects who scored in different broad groupings of
RPE levels.
26
RPE 3 and below RPE 3+ RPE 4 and 4+
54% (47) 26% (23) 20% (17)
Figure 4.7. Percentage of scores in broad groupings of RPE levels.
Figure 4.8 shows the distribution of RPE levels for uneducated and educated Jaunsari
SRT subjects.
N Sd RPE 3 and
below
RPE 3+ RPE 4 and 4+
Uneducated
Avg 23, RPE 2+
47 9 37 (79%) 9 (19%) 1 (2%)
Educated
Avg 35, RPE 3+
40
8
8 (20%)
16 (40%) 16 (40%)
Figure 4.8. SRT results according to education.
Among the uneducated subjects, around 80 percent are at RPE level of 3 or below.
Among educated subjects (those who completed 5th standard and above), only 20 percent
are at RPE level 3 or below. All subjects who completed 10th standard or above
consistently scored at an RPE level of 3+ or above. It can be clearly seen that education
has a considerable influence on subjects SRT performance and bilingual proficiency.
N Sd RPE 3 and below RPE 3+ RPE 4 and 4+
Younger
Avg 29, RPE 3
54 9 27 (50%)) 16 (30%) 11 (20%)
Older
Avg 27, RPE 3
33 11 19 (58%) 8 (24%) 6 (18%)
Figure 4.9. SRT results according to age.
It is clear from Figure 4.9 that there is minimal difference in the distribution of RPE
levels for the younger and older subjects. Both young and old had similar SRT averages
(29 and 27, respectively) and nearly equal percentages at different RPE levels.
27
N Sd RPE 3 and below RPE 3+ RPE 4 and 4+
Male
Avg 32, RPE 3+
52 9 20 (38%) 17 (33%) 15 (29%)
Female
Avg 23, RPE 2+
35 10 26 (74%) 7 (20%) 2 (6%)
Figure 4.10. SRT results according to sex.
Jaunsari male subjects averaged 32, and female subjects averaged 23. A higher
percentage of males (62 percent) than females (26 percent) scored at RPE levels 3+, 4, or
4+. As mentioned when describing the SRT results in Korwa, these scores reflect the fact
that a greater percentage of male SRT subjects are educated. This suggests that the level
of education is a more consistent measurable factor influencing Hindi bilingualism levels
among the Jaunsari SRT subjects.
Travelled N Sd RPE 3 and below RPE 3+ RPE 4 and 4+
Yes
Avg: 32, RPE 3+
47
9 16 (34%) 18 (38%) 13 (28%)
No
Avg: 25, RPE 2+
40
10.5 29 (73%) 7 (17%) 4 (10%)
Figure 4.11. SRT results according to travel.
Figure 4.11 reveals that the subjects who have travelled and those who have not
travelled have some differences in their scores.
14
Two-thirds of the subjects who said they
had travelled scored at an RPE level of 3+ or above, compared to one-quarter of the un-
travelled subjects. Travel patterns have, to some extent, influenced the SRT scores of the
subjects. This is reasonable since Jaunsari people need to use Hindi when they travel
outside their area. Those who have travelled more extensively have had greater
opportunity to learn Hindi better.
However, in looking at the subjects who had travelled and who scored RPE 3+ and
above, twenty-four of the thirty-one are educated, suggesting that the subjects level of
education could be a more consistent factor that influences the level of Hindi proficiency
demonstrated in the SRT.
14
There were two questions asked of subjects to determine whether they had travelled or not: (1) Had the
subject lived in any other place for studies or work? If so, for how long? (2) What are the farthest places
the subject visited? If subjects said they had travelled, but only within their local area or to places such as
Dehradun or Vikasnagar, then this response was counted as, No, have not travelled.
28
Male (52)
Avg 32, Sd 9, RPE 3+
Female (35)
Avg 23, Sd 10, RPE 2+
Age Education N Sd Avg RPE RPE Avg Sd N Education Age
Educated 18 7 36 3+ 3 30 8 8 Educated Y
Uneducated 14 9 27 3 2+ 22 14 14 Uneducated
Y
Educated 12 9 36 3+ 3+ 37 2 2 Educated O
Uneducated 8 10 24 2+
2 18 11 11 Uneducated
O
Figure 4.12. SRT results according to combined demographic categories.
Figure 4.12 shows combined SRT testing in Korwa and Khanaad. From the overall
analysis it can be seen that demographic factors such as gender and particularly education
made a difference in subjects scores in the Hindi SRT.
4.3 Self-reported Hindi bilingualism
Five questions were included on the LUAV questionnaire to get a picture of peoples
self-assessed ability in Hindi. These bilingualism questions were asked of all fifty-five
subjects who took part in the LUAV procedures.
When subjects were asked, When a person is talking with you in Hindi, how
much do you understand? all sixteen people from Bawar region said they could
understand fully. However, only 43 percent of the Jaunsari people said they would
understand fully; others said they would understand half, a little bit, or nothing. When
subjects were asked about the understanding of radio/TV programmes in Hindi, two-
thirds of all subjects reported they could understand them fully. With regard to reading
books in Hindi, 32 percent said they have difficulty in understanding, and the other 68
percent reported they could understand the Hindi in books they read.
Most of the people (87 percent) had opined that when their children start studying at
school, they face difficulty in understanding Hindi. Since they speak Jaunsari at home
and in the villages, they are having a hard time in understanding the school materials in
Hindi. Many of the schoolteachers told the researchers that even though the materials are
in Hindi, they use Jaunsari to make the children understand the lessons. They further said
only after the primary level are children able to substantially pick up Hindi.
For the question, Is there anyone in your village who speaks only Jaunsari? And if
so, who? around 80 percent of the people said there are people in their respective
villages who cannot speak or understand any language other than their mother tongue.
They further said these people are generally those who are old or uneducated or ladies.
Usually, people from these segments of society have difficulty in speaking Hindi.
5 Summary of Findings
5.1 Dialect areas
The lexical similarity study from wordlists shows that there were two main
clusters among the Jaunsari language varieties. One cluster is from what is considered to
29
be pure Jaunsari, and the other cluster is from wordlists taken from the Bawar region. The
relatively lower lexical similarity of Jaunsari with Garhwali varieties, Sirmauri, and
Hindi suggests that Jaunsari is distinct from these languages. This is also supported by
questionnaire responses, in which most subjects felt their language is very different in
words, meaning, and way of speaking from the neighbouring Pahari languages and Hindi.
The relationship between "pure" Jaunsari and the variety spoken in the Bawar region
was assessed using Recorded Text Testing (RTT). A Jaunsari story from the Chakrata
area was tested in Maindrath, located in the Bawar region. The high RTT scores with low
standard deviation shows that people from Maindrath could understand the Jaunsari story
well. In the post-RTT responses, subjects said that though some of the words are
different, the language is essentially the same way they speak. A majority of the people
said that the language in the story is good and pure, and some people said it was a little
mixed with Hindi. Almost all people responded that they could understand the Jaunsari
story to its full extent. Responses from questionnaires and informal interviews also
indicate that there is no notable difference between these two varieties and that, though
there are some differences in words and the way of speaking, there is no problem in
understanding and communicating with each other. These findings suggest that Jaunsari
people from throughout the Jaunsar-Bawar region should be able to adequately
comprehend materials based on the Chakrata variety.
5.2 Language vitality
Questionnaires, supplemented by informal interviews and observations, were the
main tool used in this survey to find out patterns of language use, attitudes, and vitality
among the Jaunsari people. Questionnaire responses on the topic of language use disclose
that Jaunsari people, to a great extent, use their mother tongue in situations such as in the
home, with friends in their village, in private prayer, at festival times, and with workers.
For in-group communication and also in most interaction with outsiders almost all prefer
their mother tongue. When Jaunsari people go out of their village and communicate with
non-Jaunsari speaking people, Hindi is used. But when outsiders, including non-
Jaunsaris, come to their villages, the majority said they prefer to speak in their own
language.
Jaunsari people have generally positive attitudes towards their language. As for
dialect perceptions, no central or prestige variety was identified. Attitudes towards Hindi
are positive. For educational purposes, many questionnaire subjects prefer Hindi. This is
not surprising since education in Uttaranchal is already in Hindi, which provides
opportunities for economic and social advancement.
The questionnaire responses from the people and observations of the researchers
indicate that the life of Jaunsari is strong. Jaunsari is spoken throughout the region, and
the Jaunsari community is relatively unchanged by outside influences. Most people said
they believe their mother tongue will continue to be spoken for many years to come.
5.3 Bilingualism
Sentence Repetition Testing in two villages in Jaunsar showed that demographic
factors such as gender and particularly education played a notable role in subjects scores
on the Hindi SRT. The variable age played a comparatively weaker role in the findings.
30
Travel patterns emerged as another factor that influenced SRT results, though education
may have been a more important factor. Observations also make it evident that education
and contacts with outsiders significantly affect the bilingual ability of the Jaunsari people.
With a notable percentage of Jaunsari people who are less educated and who have
minimal contact with Hindi speakers, there are segments of the population whose ability
in understanding Hindi and utilising materials in the language is limited.
According to the self-reported questionnaire responses, only half of the people had
some level of confidence in effectively using Hindi. Even in the educated segments of the
population, one-third of the people reported having difficulty in understanding when they
read materials in Hindi. Up to primary levels, the Jaunsari children are seemingly having
difficulty in understanding Hindi. In many cases the teachers use the Jaunsari language to
make the children understand.
6 Recommendations
6.1 Language and literature development
The results of this sociolinguistic survey suggest that a language development
programme be carried out in the Jaunsari language. Many factors have contributed to this
recommendation. From the lexical similarity study and peoples opinions it is clear that
Jaunsari is distinct from all the neighbouring languages. The vitality study shows that
Jaunsari is continuing to be used in the important domains of the home and village and
for in-group communication. Jaunsari will likely remain the mother tongue for future
generations of Jaunsari people. The attitude of the Jaunsari toward their language appears
to be quite positive among all portions of the community. Bilingualism in Hindi, while
increasing through education and more frequent contact with outsiders, does not appear
to be at a sufficiently high level among certain segments of the population for them to
understand and utilise materials in Hindi. It appears that the Jaunsari community will be
receptive towards Jaunsari language development.
The variety spoken near to and around the villages of Chakrata is probably the most
suitable for a language and literature development programme. The comprehension test
of the Chakrata variety in the Bawar area indicated an adequate understanding. There
were no negative attitudes expressed by people in the Bawar area toward the variety from
Chakrata. Furthermore, Chakrata is situated geographically in the centre of the whole
Jaunsar area. All of these factors indicate that any literary materials developed in the
Chakrata area should be adequately understood and accepted by the whole Jaunsari
population.
6.2 Literacy programmes
In order that the Jaunsari community can more easily acquire needed literacy skills,
it is recommended that programmes for teaching reading and writing be implemented in
the vernacular using the Devanagari script. Responses to questionnaires during the survey
indicate a favourable attitude toward literacy. Questionnaire responses and interviews
also reveal that most of the children struggle to understand Hindi in their primary levels
of education. The literacy rate of Chakrata tahsil is low, particularly compared with the
overall literacy in the Dehradun district. The lack of quality educational facilities, low
31
motivation, and challenges in understanding a second language might be reasons for this
low literacy rate. Though many of the educated Jaunsari people can speak Hindi, several
expressed problems in reading materials in Hindi. Overall, people with less education and
those who have travelled less (which tend to be females rather than males) would
potentially benefit from a vernacular literacy programme.
Because all education is currently in Hindi, literacy materials can be used as a
bridge from Jaunsari into Hindi and would likely be well received. Diglot materials
using Jaunsari along with Hindi may be effective in such a programme. Since Jaunsari is
not generally perceived as a language for use in the educational domain, promotion of
vernacular literacy will play an important role in the total literacy programme.
32
Appendix A - 1
International Phonetic Alphabet
Consonants
Bilabial Labiodental Dental Alveolar Post
alveolar
Alveopalatal Retroflex Palatal Velar Uvular Pharyngeal Glottal
Plosive
b
t
d
t
d
q
c
k
q
Nasal
m
n
n
p
q
n
Fricative
]
[
I
v
s
z
j
j
x
y
_
n
h
\
h
n
Affricate
p
b
ts
dz
ls
dz
lj
d
l
dz
Lateral
I ] L
Lateral fric.
[
Flap
i
Trill
s i i
Approximant
v u : j
Consonant Diacritics
Aspirated
h
lj
h
Labialised
v
b
v
Ejective
p
Voiced
L
Velar/
Pharyngealised
I
Palatalised
j
n
j
Unreleased
Voiceless
d
33
Vowels
15
Front Central Back
Unrounded Rounded Unrounded Rounded Unrounded Rounded
Close
I y I u m u
Near-close
i . u
Close-mid
c o r o
Mid
o e
Open-mid
c + :
Near-open
v
Open
a u u n
Vowel Diacritics
Nasalisation c
Long : I:
Centralised o
15
Wordlists and recorded text tests were transcribed using different phonetic systems, particularly in regard
to vowels. For the purposes of the data in this report and its appendices, the symbols /v/, /:/, and /u/ are
interchangeable and no phonemic distinction is assumed.
34
Appendix A - 2
Wordlists
Lexical Similarity Counting Procedures
16
A standardised list of 210 vocabulary items was collected from speakers at key
locations for each of the language varieties studied in this survey. In standard procedure,
the 210 words are elicited from a person who has grown up in the target locality. Ideally,
the list is then collected a second time from another speaker at the same site. Any
differences in responses are examined in order to identify (1) inaccurate responses due to
misunderstanding of the elicitation cue, (2) loan words offered in response to the
language of elicitation when indigenous terms are actually still in use, and (3) terms
which are at different places along the generic-specific lexical scale. Normally, a single
term is recorded for each item of the wordlist. However, more than one term is recorded
for a single item when more than one specific term occupies the semantic area of a more
generic item on the wordlist.
The wordlists are compared to determine the extent to which the vocabulary of each
pair of speech forms is similar. No attempt is made to identify genuine cognates based on
a network of sound correspondences. Rather, two items are judged to be phonetically
similar if at least half of the segments compared are the same (category 1), and of the
remaining segments at least half are rather similar (category 2). For example, if two items
of eight segments in length are compared, these words are judged to be similar if at least
four segments are virtually the same and at least two more are rather similar. The criteria
applied are as follows:
Category 1
a. Contoid (consonant-like) segments which match exactly
b. Vocoid (vowel-like) segments which match exactly or differ by only one
articulatory feature
c. Phonetically similar segments (of the sort which frequently are found as
allophones) which are seen to correspond in at least three pairs of words
Category 2
a. All other phonetically similar non-vocalic pairs of segments which are not
supported by at least three pairs of words
b. Vowels which differ by two or more articulatory features
Category 3
a. Pairs of segments which are not phonetically similar
b. A segment which is matched by no segment in the corresponding item and
position
16
This description of lexical similarity counting procedures is partially adapted from that found in
Appendix A of OLeary (ed. 1992).
35
Blair (1990:32) writes, In contextualizing these rules to specific surveys in South
Asia, the following differences between two items are ignored: (a) interconsonantal [o],
(b) word initial, word final, or intervocalic [h, n], (c) any deletion which is shown to be
the result of a regularly occurring process in a specific environment.
The following table summarises lower threshold limits for considering words as
phonetically similar with a specified length (number of segments or phones):
Word
Length
Category
One
Category
Two
Category
Three
2 2 0 0
3 2 1 0
4 2 1 1
5 3 1 1
6 3 2 1
7 4 2 1
8 4 2 2
9 5 2 2
10 5 3 2
11 6 3 2
12 6 3 3
Some modifications to the lexical similarity grouping procedures summarised in
Blair were also applied to the wordlists compared in this study. The need for this came
about for several reasons. First, the wordlists were often not checked with a second
mother tongue speaker of each speech variety. Second, the wordlists could not always be
consistently elicited. In addition, the field workers phonetic transcription ability varied
with skill, experience and their own language background. Since the Hindi standard
wordlists are not perfect some words were selected from the dictionary also
1. Root-based groupings: Wordlists were not always consistently elicited. In some
cases, generic terms appear to have been given, while in other cases, more specific terms
have been given. Also, verb forms were not elicited consistently with regard to person or
tense. Because of these factors, it was often necessary to group words based on what
appears to be a common root morpheme, rather than based on words as a whole. This
applied to the following glosses: # 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 25, 37, 42, 43, 47,
49, 63, 65, 69, 71, 74, 79, 88, 89, 93, 99, 101, 106, 107, 115, 116, 120, 121, 129, 132,
135, 136, 138, 142, 146, 164, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 178, 182-194, 196, 197, 205,
207-210
2. Loose consonantal groupings: The field workers eliciting the words may hear and
transcribe the sounds slightly differently, and probably with increasing ability to
distinguish similar sounds as they gain experience. Thus, some consonant
correspondences have been liberally grouped as similar. Those considered category 1
include:
36
[q, | found in glosses 19, 29, 33, 35, 63, 115, 142, 194, 196
|d