Sociolinguistic Survey of the Bongo of South Sudan

DigitalResources Electronic Survey Report 2020-010

Kathryn Crystal, Matthew Armand, and Breanna Armand Sociolinguistic Survey of the Bongo of South Sudan

Kathryn Crystal, Matthew Armand, and Breanna Armand

SIL International® 2020

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 appropriate permissions wherever possible, acting in good faith and on the best information available at the time of publication. Abstract

The purpose of this survey was to assess the potential for continuing language development in the Bongo language of South Sudan. One researcher traveled to the Tonj area for 14 days to administer questionnaires and observe the community in an effort to determine the patterns of language use, ethnolinguistic vitality, and attitudes toward Bongo and other languages spoken in the area. From our quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data collected from this fieldwork, we propose that the Bongo language is currently at level 5 (Written) on the EGIDS scale.

Contents

1 Introduction 1.1 Geography 1.2 Peoples 1.3 Languages 1.4 Previous research 1.5 Other background information 1.5.1 Languages of wider communication 1.5.2 Education 1.5.3 War and displacement 2 Goals of the Research 3 Methodology 3.1 Overview 3.2 Procedures 3.2.1 Schedule 3.2.2 Sampling 3.3 Data collection 3.3.1 Interviews 3.3.2 Observations 3.4 Data analysis 3.4.1 Quantitative 3.4.2 Qualitative 3.5 Limitations 4 Results 4.1 Quantitative 4.2 Qualitative 5 Conclusion Appendix A: Bongo Clan Names Appendix B: Bongo-Related Studies Appendix C: Bongo Literature Appendix D: Sociolinguistic Interview Appendix E: Observation Notes Outline Appendix F: EGIDS Scale References

iii 1 Introduction

For the last nearly 100 years, researchers have been concerned with the endurance of the Bongo people. To introduce his 1929 study on the Bongo, anthropologist E. E. Evans-Pritchard wrote, It should still be possible for anyone so minded to collect a fair amount of knowledge about Bongo culture before it finally disappears, and this report will enable anyone in a Bongo area to see exactly how much and how little we know about these people. It is to be hoped that someone will make further enquiries about Bongo customs and that this account will not be a final winding-up of their affairs from an ethnological point of view. (1929:1–2) Yet, in 2013, the Bongo are still here. SIL International, a non-profit organization working in language development, has been working with the Bongo community in developing a writing system as well as facilitating development of religious materials and literacy materials. SIL is interested in assessing the ethnolinguistic vitality of the Bongo community in order to help determine what their desire is for language development in the future. One researcher spent 14 days traveling to and surveying around Tonj in Warrap State, South Sudan. He conducted 72 structured individual interviews and recorded observations and unstructured interviews as field notes. Most of the structured interview data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The more qualitative data was analyzed using a three-pass coding system to identify patterns in the data to inform measurement of ethnolinguistic vitality. Landweer’s “Indicators of Ethnolinguistic Vitality” (Landweer 2000) was used in developing data collection tools and in post-field coding to help measure Bongo ethnolinguistic vitality and to help place the Bongo on Lewis and Simons’ “Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale” (EGIDS) (Lewis and Simon 2010). The researchers would like to thank the Bongo people for their great generosity in hosting their visitors and making this survey possible. First and foremost, we would like to thank Daniel Rabbi, who acted as our liaison to the rest of the Bongo community and helped organize most of our interviews. He also shared a great deal of information throughout the survey preparation and analysis on the current Bongo sociolinguistic situation and the history of Bongo language development. We would also like to thank a Bongo leader who graciously allowed us to interact with the Bongo people; our hosts who provided a place to stay during the survey including delicious meals. Two men deserve much thanks for their help as guides and translators. The survey team would also like to thank Onesmas Muchesia, whose experience in traveling in South Sudan made his presence and planning in this survey invaluable. A special thanks to those through whom we were able to book flights with World Food Programme. Also, thanks go to Marcus Love, a colleague in West Africa who helped us think through some of our survey planning and shared with us a number of useful resources.

1.1 Geography

The Bongo language area is located in the northwest portion of South Sudan. South Sudan is comprised of 10 states; each state is divided into counties and subsequently payams, with local governing officials at each level (United States Aid for International Development [USAID] 2005). Most Bongo speakers are found in the states of Western Bahr el Ghazal and Warrap (Clarke 2010). In the past, the Bongo were spread sparsely over a wide swath of terrain in the historical region of Bahr el Ghazal; however, they were eventually displaced, and their numbers were decimated by slave trade (Evans-Pritchard 1929). By the 1920s, the majority of the population could be found in what was then known as Tonj District (currently Tonj County in Warrap State); once scattered widely, the population had gathered and settled mainly along state roads (Evans-Pritchard 1929). Daniel Rabbi, himself Bongo, reported that the majority of Bongo speakers currently live in one of four locations (personal communication, August 2012). A portion of the population lives in the city of Wau, in the state of Western Bahr el Ghazal (coordinates 7.7ºN, 28ºE; iTouchMap.com, n.d.). Another portion lives in Busere, a village mainly comprised of the Bongo people on the outskirts of Wau. The rest of the Bongo live primarily in Warrap State, just east of the Western Bahr el Ghazal border. There is a

1 2

small population of Bongo speakers living in the town of Tonj (coordinates 7.27ºN, 28.68ºE; iTouchMap.com); but the greatest number live in the smaller town of Aguka located about 26 miles south of Tonj. The Bongo region is west of the Sudd, the vast swampland area created by the White Nile. The green area in map 1 shows an estimation of where the Bongo are located.

Map. Estimated Bongo locations

Source: Joshua Project / Global Mapping International. Bongo of South Sudan. Accessed 16 March 2020. Used by permission.

1.2 Peoples

The Bongo are an ethnolinguistic group of approximately 40 clans (see Appendix A for a list of clan names), numbering around 10,000 altogether (Lewis, Simons, and Fennig 2013; Daniel Rabbi, personal communication, December 2012). They are a minority people group surrounded by a variety of larger ethnic groups; this situation has presented many challenges (Daniel Rabbi, personal communication, August 2012). A movement of Arab slave traders came in the late 1800s, and it is estimated that during this time tens of thousands of Bongo had either been taken by the slave traders, moved near the traders’ corrals, or fled to neighboring areas, mostly Zande, Dinka, or Luo lands. Later, there was a great deal of conflict with the neighboring Zande (Evans-Pritchard 1929). During British occupation, many Bongo were moved to districts near Tonj along government roads (Evans-Pritchard 1929). More recently, during the last civil war, many Bongo fled their homeland; people from a neighboring ethnic group moved onto their land and have remained there to this day, much to the consternation of the Bongo (Daniel Rabbi, personal communication, August 2012). Some Bongo still live in a settlement in Zande land, others in Khartoum or Juba (Daniel Rabbi 2012). In terms of social organization, the Bongo traditionally organized into a number of tribes, geographically isolated from one another and in conflict with each other often (Evans-Pritchard 1929). Within the tribes would be clans, and clans were historically divided into villages (separated by wide expanses of open land), each village with a relatively powerless clan chief (Evans-Pritchard 1929). 3

Marriage was most often outside the clan but inside the tribe; men could have up to three wives and would traditionally pay a bride price in installments (Evans-Pritchard 1929). Historically, the main economic pursuits during the dry season were hunting (using various traps, encircling with fire, or spearing and today, shooting with guns) and fishing (damming streams at the beginning and end of the rainy season) (Evans-Pritchard 1929). Entire settlements were moved for these purposes. Livestock consisted of dogs, hens, goats, and sheep. Primarily, though, subsistence agriculture is the core economy. Sorghum is the main crop, and two types are usually grown: one is harvested in September and October and the other in January. Sesame is another main crop (Daniel Rabbi, personal communication, August 2012). There have been a number of significant anthropological studies of the Bongo. Georg Schweinfurth wrote prolifically during the 1870s on the Bongo (and other South Sudanese ethnic groups), and E. E. Evans-Pritchard, who was very influential in the development of the field of social anthropology, spent a short time with the Bongo in 1929. Charles Seligmann also studied the Bongo around that time. Stefano Santandrea wrote a number of essays during the middle of the 20th century. See Appendix B for specific works.

1.3 Languages

The focus of this survey is the Bongo language (ISO 639-3 code [bot]). The main languages spoken in the region are a form of Arabic, Dinka Rek ([dik]) and Luwo ([lwo]) (Daniel Rabbi, personal communication, August 2012; Lewis, Simons, and Fennig 2013). According to Daniel Rabbi, the type of Arabic spoken by the Bongo is closer to Sudanese Spoken Arabic ([apd]) than Sudanese Creole Arabic ([pga]). Some noteworthy linguistic features about Bongo include implosives, labiovelar affricates, ten vowel phonemes (5 [+ATR] and 5 [-ATR]), three syllable types (V, CV, CVC), vowel harmony (in which [-ATR] vowels tend to change to [+ATR]), four phonetic tones, and two phonemic tones (Kilpatrick 1985). However, according to Daniel Rabbi, tone is often not used in day-to-day speech (personal communication, November 11, 2012). The Bongo orthography was standardized in the mid-1990s and is reportedly well accepted in communities throughout the Bongo area; it is even used for text messaging on mobiles (Daniel Rabbi, personal communication, September 16, 2013). See Appendix C for a list of Bongo literature. The classification of Bongo is listed below (Lewis, Simons, and Fennig 2013):

Nilo-Saharan→ Central Sudanic→ West→ Bongo-Bagirmi→ Bongo-Baka→ Bongo→ Bongo

To demonstrate the relation between Bongo and other related languages, the Bongo-Baka language family is shown here in figure 1 (based on Lewis, Simons, and Fennig 2013): 4

Bongo-Baka

Morokodo-Beli

Morokodo-Mo'da

Nyamusa- Baka Bongo Mo'da Morokodo Beli Jur-Modo Mittu Molo

Figure 1. Organization of the Bongo-Baka language family.

1.4 Previous research

The primary linguistic resource about the Bongo language is Eileen Kilpatrick’s Bongo Phonology (1985). The Ethnologue (2013) provides general information about Bongo, especially regarding language families, and contact. Daniel Rabbi has provided invaluable information about the different Bongo communities. Records from E. E. Evans-Pritchard (1929), Gurtong.net, and personal communication with Daniel Rabbi, provided the main basis for the cultural information about the Bongo presented here. For a full list of resources on the Bongo, see Appendix B. For a list of literature in the Bongo language, see Appendix C.

1.5 Other background information

1.5.1 Languages of wider communication

There are two main languages of wider communication used in the Bongo area. One is Dinka Rek and the other is the form of colloquial Arabic spoken in the area (Clarke 2010). Daniel Rabbi reports that some of the Dinka know Bongo and that many also know Luwo (Daniel Rabbi, personal communication, August 2012).

1.5.2 Education

The current model for education in the Tonj area mandates that part of primary school is taught in English as per country-wide mandate (Marshall 2007). It is not clear, however, which other language is used to teach English, which theoretically happens in the first few years. According to one of the school teachers just outside of Tonj, all of the three primary vernaculars of the area are used (personal communication, October 30, 2012).

1.5.3 War and displacement

South Sudan separated from Sudan and became an independent country on July 9, 2011. The fifty or so years leading up to this break, with the exception of the period from 2005 to 2011 (during which the 5

Comprehensive Peace Agreement was in effect), were characterized by a prolonged civil war between north and south. The political details of the conflict are not relevant to this study; however, the fighting displaced many groups in South Sudan. This displacement has caused individuals from many language groups to come in close contact with each other, creating environments ideal for language shift to occur. Displacement has also made it difficult to ascertain the accurate size of the Bongo population or the locations of the speakers.

2 Goals of the Research

The ultimate goal of this research was to provide information to help determine if and how expatriate- sponsored language work should continue with the Bongo community. As their history has shown, the Bongo have consistently intermingled with neighboring language groups over the years and many currently live in or at the fringes of multi-ethnic towns. This has in at least some way affected the Bongo language vitality. The main research goals were to 1) determine the vitality of the Bongo language, 2) assess the multilingualism situation of the Bongo speakers and 3) determine if the Bongo would support the continuation of a language project. Secondary research objectives were to determine the size and location of the Bongo population, as well as the most appropriate media for any vernacular language materials produced in the future.

3 Methodology

3.1 Overview

For this survey, we used two frameworks to help us identify and measure language vitality. The first scale, Lewis and Simons’ “Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale” (EGIDS), is based on Fishman’s “Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale” (Lewis and Simons 2010). Fishman’s eight-point scale is widely known within the field of sociolinguistics and language revitalization and has recently been expanded by Lewis and Simons to include five additional levels. See Appendix F for the full EGIDS scale. We wanted to place the Bongo within the EGIDS scale because it is a well-known scale that is used by other sociolinguists, is used in the most current edition of the Ethnologue and can be used to compare Bongo language vitality with other language groups. From our background research, we were quite sure that the Bongo were somewhere between level five (as there has been some literature published in Bongo) and level eight (as we had reports from both Bongo and non-Bongo that at least some Bongo do speak Bongo in some significant ways). We used the EGIDS “decision tree” (figure 2) to help determine the most accurate level of Bongo on this scale. 6

Figure 2. EGIDS Decision Tree (Lewis and Simons 2010:12).

In order to more specifically help us measure the conditions outlined in EGIDS, we used Landweer’s “Indicators of Ethnolinguistic Vitality” (IEV) (Landweer 2000). This tool outlines eight sociolinguistic categories that can most directly affect an ethnolinguistic group’s capacity to maintain its distinct language and culture. It also includes a scale with specific, measurable characteristics to identify a particular group’s situation within each of those categories. The higher the score, the more likely the group will maintain their language and culture. For our purposes, we adjusted the scale slightly based on 7

the sociolinguistic context of South Sudan. We then used the information gathered on these indicators to inform our evaluation of the Bongo on the EGIDS scale. Since the survey was limited to less than two weeks, and only one researcher was able to go, research tools had to be limited to those that would yield representative and reliable results within a short time frame. For this reason, we decided not to actually test Bongo language comprehension among the Bongo ethnolinguistic community; all the comprehension testing tools we had available would have taken far too much time and expertise to develop and to administer and would have been too heavily reliant on the representivity of the sample. Instead, we planned to study the sociolinguistic (as opposed to strictly linguistic) factors that influence the vitality of the Bongo language. It was also important to choose methods that would be culturally appropriate and, as much as possible, involve those within the communities who would be invested in and making decisions about the project (such as community leaders, church leaders, and language development workers). Our main data collection methods were a structured sociolinguistic interview, unstructured interviews, and field notes from direct observations.

3.2 Procedures

3.2.1 Schedule

• October 29: Flew from Juba to Rumbek and drove to Tonj; visited Don Bosco Radio • October 30: Visited Babcok Elementary School; conducted interviews (Kpanja) • October 31: Visited chief’s house; conducted interviews (Akel-kew) • November 1: Conducted interviews (Tonj) • November 2: Conducted interviews (Tonj) • November 3: No research • November 4: Attended a church service • November 5: Conducted interviews (Tonj) • November 6: Conducted interviews (Tonj), accompanied by Onesmas Muchesia (SIL Language Programs Manager for the Bongo project) • November 7: No research • November 8: Conducted interviews (Dombeli) • November 9: Participated in celebration lunch and showing of a film in the vernacular • November 10: Drove from Tonj to Rumbek; stayed overnight in Rumbek • November 11: Flew from Rumbek to Juba

3.2.2 Sampling

For this survey, we wanted a representative sample of the Bongo ethnolinguistic group to give us a picture of what the group as a whole looks like. While we hoped our sample would naturally include variety in age, gender, location, education level, and economic activity, we did not want to compromise the representivity of our sample by intentionally filling up quotas in those categories. We had originally planned to use cluster sampling both inside and outside of Tonj, using a map to divide these areas into clusters. Depending on the actual arrangement of Bongo within the clusters, we would use either a random number generator or systematic sampling to pick out our sample from the clusters. However, it turned out that there was not actually a high enough proportion of Bongo (compared with other ethnic groups) within the surveying areas for these sampling methods to be feasible. Instead, the field researcher asked his Bongo field assistants to pick out a representative sample of available Bongo. We considered these guides to be expert enough in their own community that they could fill up our quota of Bongo interviews with a reasonable degree of representivity. This was augmented by snowball sampling, as the guides would often ask interviewees where exactly other Bongo 8

lived in their area. Unfortunately, incidents of localized interethnic violence, poor road conditions, and time restrictions prohibited surveying in some areas with large Bongo populations, particularly in Wau, the state capital of Western Bahr el Ghazal; Busere, a rural area a few miles outside of Wau; and Aguka, a rural area about 26 miles outside of Tonj. Consequently, all the information on these areas used for this survey is from other researchers or community members.

3.3 Data collection

The two main types of data collection we employed were interviews and observations. Interviews were an effective way to collect direct answers to questions about language attitudes and language use. Observations were an effective way to get around the self-report bias that was present in the interviews. Observations had the added benefit of not having to be translated, as opposed to most of the interviews. It was hoped that, all in all, the two types of data collection would balance each other and together adequately address the research questions.

3.3.1 Interviews

The main type of interview employed for this survey was structured interviews. The original questionnaire that was intended for the survey contained around 50 questions. This questionnaire was never administered to any one person or group in its entirety, and it was evident before the end of the first day that the questionnaire needed to be condensed in order to accommodate interviewees’ time constraints. The questionnaire that was eventually used was only 15 questions long. Section 4.1 goes through each of the questions, but the complete blank interview can be found in Appendix D. The questionnaire was originally developed for group interviews; once they were conducted on the field, however, it became evident that individual interviews would be more appropriate. Because of this the wording of some of the questions needed to be changed, but this should not have affected the validity or quality of the data collected.

3.3.2 Observations

An “Observation Notes” outline was created to guide observations while on location. This consisted of approximately 40 points of inquiry to note in as many different locations as possible (see Appendix E). Also, general field notes were taken every day of the survey in order to note important observations that were not covered in the “Observation Notes” outline.

3.4 Data analysis

As mentioned above, both interview and observation data were collected. Most of the data from the interviews were analyzed quantitatively. The more qualitative interview data, informal interview data, and observation data were all analyzed qualitatively.

3.4.1 Quantitative

The questions that were quantified ranged from ‘yes/no’ questions to ‘why’ questions. Quantifying ‘yes/no’ questions was simple and straightforward. Other questions, such as ‘why’ questions, seemed rather qualitative at first, but upon further examination patterns began to emerge. Answers such as, “It is my language,” and, “It is our language,” could be grouped together as essentially the same answer; answers such as, “I am Bongo,” “I am a Bongo,” and, “I am the one of Bongo,” could be likewise grouped together as a second common answer. With the answers grouped together in such a fashion, it was then rather simple to quantify the data: out of x valid responses, y percent answered, “It is my/our language” and z percent answered, “I am Bongo.” Once the data was combed for invalid answers and appropriately coded, the answers to each question were tallied and converted to percentage scores. 9

3.4.2 Qualitative

Qualitative data included informal interviews, general field notes, and structured interview questions that were not posed to enough people to yield quantifiable results. The qualitative data were compiled and coded on three passes. The coding was primarily based on our “Indicators of Ethnolinguistic Vitality.” The coded data was then used to determine our rating of Bongo on each of these indicators.

3.5 Limitations

There were a number of limitations placed on the data collection. The first limitation was the lack of knowledge about the Bongo situation prior to the survey. The entire survey was planned based on limited knowledge of the area and limited knowledge of how the methodology could actually be carried out within this context. The second limitation was the language barrier. Most of the questionnaires were administered through a translator. Each question was translated from English into Bongo, and each answer from Bongo back to English. In most cases, the translator was someone with limited English skills. The third limitation was the lack of personnel. Since only one researcher from our team was able to go on this trip, recording of interviews and observations was restricted. A fourth limitation was the time of day in which the interviews had to be conducted. Due to the availability of the field assistants, interviews always took place in between breakfast and lunch, and occasionally between lunch and dinner. The chances of interviewing someone who had a job that required them to be away from home all day were very small; however, despite this limitation, the sample was quite stratified in terms of gender and age. A fifth limitation was the lack of experience of the researchers: for all involved in the survey, this was the first sociolinguistic survey he had conducted. To counter this, the researchers were able to consult to some degree with Marcus Love, a colleague who has been involved in a few surveys in West Africa. A sixth limitation was a lack of comprehension of the languages in question (particularly Bongo, Dinka, and the variety of Arabic spoken in the area). Understanding what language people were speaking (and in which situations) was a crucial aim of the survey but could not very accurately be observed.

4 Results

4.1 Quantitative

These results come from our sociolinguistic interviews. The primary limitation in this section was the language barrier between the researcher and interviewees. Field assistants were crucial in translating between Bongo and English, but, as mentioned earlier, most assistants’ English skills were limited. While this means that the translation of some questions and answers may have been inaccurate, it was still the best way to learn about Bongo sociolinguistic attitudes and practices given our team’s knowledge and resources. There were 72 interviews conducted and, of these interviews, 69 were determined to be valid interviews. The first three interviews were thrown out for a number of reasons, but they acted as pilot interviews for the rest of the survey. Each question had a different number of valid responses, because some questions were skipped with certain interviewees, some questions had incomprehensible answers, and some had suspect translations. The first question asked was, “What is the most useful language to know here?” Out of 60 valid responses, 100% responded that Bongo was the most useful language. Question number two was, “Do you think it is good to speak Bongo?” Of 66 valid responses, 100% said, “Yes.” Question three was a follow up to question two, asking, “Why?” Of the 62 valid responses, 2% (one respondent) said, “If you don’t speak it, the children won’t learn it;” 6% (four respondents) said, “God gave it to me;” 30% said, “I am Bongo;” 10% said, “It is my grandfather’s language,” and 52% said simply, “It is my/our language.” 10

Why do or don’t you think it is good to speak Bongo? Because if you don’t 2% speak it the children won’t learn God gave it to me 6% 10% It is my grandfather’s language 52% 30% I am Bongo

It is my/our language

Figure 3. Is it good to speak Bongo? The fourth question was, “What language do you think God likes?” For this question there were only 39 valid responses. Of these, 69% said that God likes all languages and 31% said, “Bongo.”

What language do you think God likes?

Bongo 31%

All 69%

Figure 4. What language God likes. Question five was, “What language do the children learn first?” Of the 64 valid responses, all but one (98%) were “Bongo.” The one other answer was “Bongo and Arabic.” Question six was a follow up question to question five: “When do they (the children) learn other languages?” For some reason this was either a difficult question for the researcher to pose in a clear and understandable way for the translator or it was a question that was quite often misunderstood by the interviewees. For that reason, there were only 31 valid responses; the translations of these responses fell into five distinct categories. Because some of the responses had multiple answers (for example, “When they grow up and when they move around”), the percentages given do not add up to 100%. 68% of the respondents said, “When they grow up;” 32% said, “When they move around;” 16% said, “Playing with 11

other children;” 7% said, “At school;” and 7% said, “In the market.” 10% actually listed the other languages that are learned after Bongo. Of the latter, all mentioned Dinka, some mentioned Arabic, and some mentioned English.

When do children learn languages other than Bongo?

Number of Respondents

When they When they Playing with School Market grow up move around other children

Situations

Figure 5. When children learn languages. The next question was, “Do you think people will continue to speak Bongo in 40 years?” Of the 65 valid responses, 100% said, “Yes.” Many people gave more than a simple “yes” to this response. Some people added explanations like, “Because it is our great grandfather’s language” or, “Because it is our language.” Some gave extensions of their answers, saying, “Up to 1,000 years,” “Up to 1,000,000 years,” or, “Until we are dead.” The eighth question was, “If you pray by yourself, what language do you use?” Of the 47 valid responses, 96% said, “Bongo” and 4% said, “Bongo, Arabic, and Dinka.” 12

If you pray by yourself, what language do you use to pray?

Bongo, Arabic, and Dinka 4%

Bongo 96%

Figure 6. Language for prayer. Question nine was, “Do Bongo people marry people who are not Bongo?” Out of the 62 valid responses to this question, 100% were “Yes.” The tenth question was, “Do Bongo create artwork that is just for Bongo?” Of the 55 valid responses, 100% said, “Yes.” The researcher was shown some of this artwork; see Section 4.2 for more detail. The next question was, “What kind of music do you listen to?” Of the 58 valid responses, 89% said, “Bongo” and 11% said that they listened to Bongo and some other kind(s) of music.

What kind of music do you listen to?

Bongo and others 11%

Bongo 89%

Figure 7. Music you listen to. Question twelve was, “Do you think it is important to be able to read?” There were sixty-four valid responses to this question; 100% responded, “Yes.” It would be important to note here that the researcher was fairly confident that the question was frequently translated as something like, “Do you think it is important to be able to read Bongo?” 13

The thirteenth question was “What language do you use at meals?” or, as it was more commonly phrased, “What language do you use when you are taking meals at home with your family?” Of the 63 valid responses, 97% said, “Bongo” and 3% (two respondents) mentioned Bongo and other languages. Of the latter, one of the respondents qualified their answer by saying that Dinka was only used when Dinka speakers were there eating with them.

What language do you use at meals?

Multiple languages 3%

Bongo 97%

Figure 8. Language used at meals. Question fourteen was, “What language do you use in the market?” To this question there were 64 valid responses. As with question six above, many people (in fact, most) gave more than one answer, which is understandable in a multilingual setting. Below is a list of how many respondents listed each of the languages spoken in Tonj, so the numbers will add up to more than 64. 35 people listed Bongo, 44 listed Dinka, 49 Arabic, four English, and three Jur (Luwo). Four people said that any language can be used but didn’t name any specific languages.

What language do you use at the market (in Tonj)?

40 30

Number of Respondents of Number 0 Bongo Dinka Arabic English Jur Any

Language Name

Figure 9. Language used in the market. 14

The last question was, “What language do children here use when they play together?” Again, the numbers given will be greater than the number of valid responses, since many people gave more than one answer. Of the 67 valid responses, 65 listed Bongo, 12 listed Dinka, 10 Arabic, and one English. A quarter of the respondents listed more than one language, and a fifth of the respondents mentioned that it depends on who one is speaking with.

Figure 10. Language used in play.

To summarize the quantitative findings in just one sentence, the Bongo collectively have a very positive attitude toward their own language and use it frequently. Overwhelmingly, our interviews indicate that they think it is a useful language to know, they think it is a good language to speak, they think God likes it, and they think it will be spoken for many years to come(millennia, even!). They also report using it a great deal. It is the first language children learn, it is used for prayers and meals, children use it to play together, and it is even used frequently in the market of a multi-ethnic town. While Bongo do marry non-Bongo, some of their important cultural practices are alive and well: all respondents listen to Bongo music and know distinctly Bongo art. These thoroughly positive responses indicate that Bongo is both well used and well loved.

4.2 Qualitative

The following is an assessment of the Bongo people based on Lynn Landweer’s Indicators of Ethnolinguistic Vitality (adjusted slightly by our team for the South Sudanese context). Each indicator has a rating from zero to three describing the degree of ethnolinguistic vitality it predicts. For instance, for the first indicator, describing a community’s relative position on the rural-urban continuum, a community that was very remote would score a three and a community that was located within an urban center would score a zero. While these scores are very helpful in pinpointing important factors that influence ethnolinguistic vitality, they give us only an abstract scale at the end. The Bongo score on this scale would be minimally helpful in comparing Bongo with other language groups or indicating some sort of conclusive answer to whether the language is thriving or dying. Also, the weight of each of these 15

indicators could vary in different locations around the world. Finally, since we are taking into account multiple, diverse Bongo communities, the scores may contain a range rather than a specific number. Using the first indicator as an example again, the Bongo communities in rural areas like Aguka or Busere may score a two but those in urban areas like Tonj or Wau would be a zero. For all these reasons, we will not conclude this section with a “score” of ethnolinguistic vitality for the Bongo but will instead apply our findings to their score on the EGIDS scale.

Indicator 1: Relative position on the rural-urban continuum

The heart of this indicator is contact with people who speak other languages. As the entire survey was conducted in the Tonj area, the Bongo people addressed here were either in or quite close to Tonj, which is the largest urban center between Rumbek and Wau. Obviously, those within Tonj were living in a rather urban setting. The ethnic majority within Tonj is now Dinka. These Dinka people speak predominantly Dinka Rek and Arabic. Also present in Tonj are Luwo people, whose language is referred to as Jur, but they are a minority in the area, so they presumably speak Dinka and Arabic as well. Many of the shop owners are Darfurians and Ugandans, who use Arabic and English respectively.

Indicator 2: Domains in which the language is used

The researcher was unable to enter all domains of language use and was restricted in observation due to a lack of sufficient knowledge of the languages used, but between the limited observations and the self- report as gathered in the interviews, a good approximation can be made of where the Bongo are using their language. Due to the fact that most shop owners are not Bongo, the market is not a domain in which Bongo is used extensively (although it is used to some extent). School is reportedly conducted in English. The first three or four years of primary, in which English is being learned, vernacular languages Dinka, Bongo, and Jur are all reportedly used. To what extent Bongo is used remains unclear, but it is clear that relatively few Bongo are able to attend school. As a Catholic people by identity, it is important to note the church situation in Tonj. There is only one Catholic church, and it has two services: one in English and one in Dinka. As with school, church is a domain in which probably less than half of the Bongo people are actively engaged. When Bongo children are old enough to get out into the community and play with children from other ethnic groups, it is quite typical for them to begin to learn and use Dinka and/or Arabic with the non-Bongo people in the community. While these domains are important, it appears that many Bongo do not spend a great deal of their time in them. Most Bongo, especially in rural areas, engage primarily in subsistence agriculture. This is an activity that would most likely keep people within Bongo-dominant areas in which other languages would be unlikely to be used. The home is another important domain. The research conducted necessitated being in homes only for (approximately) five-minute interviews, leaving the researcher with little observed data here. However, much time was spent in a home-like environment with various Bongo people during other parts of the survey (and the interview included a question regarding language use in the home). In this “home-like” setting (the compound on which we stayed, which had Bongo people coming in and out all day), Bongo seemed to be the main language used. The main exception was when they were speaking to the non-Bongo people on the compound (either the researcher or his colleagues or one of a few Dinka who came into the compound). Regarding the interviews, as can be seen in Section 4.1, every respondent indicated that Bongo is used at home while taking meals, and only 3% even mentioned additional languages. The farthest from Tonj the researcher travelled was approximately eleven kilometers away (from the market in the town center). Though more isolated, these rural areas are not exclusively Bongo, so one cannot say that the Bongo are linguistically isolated here. On the other hand, due to the subsistence lifestyle and the geographic distance between compounds in these areas, ethnolinguistic isolation would be much more present in the rural areas than within Tonj. It is also important to note that the majority of the Bongo population lives in more rural areas, not in towns. There is also seasonal variation: travel during the rainy season tends to be much more difficult than during the dry season.

Indicator 3: Frequency and type of code switching

The third indicator examines code switching, both the manner and frequency in which it is done. The first question here is whether the multilingualism is stable (i.e., there is a consistently followed standard for when and where non-Bongo languages would be used). The second question is regarding the frequency of the use of these other languages; especially if they enter all domains, how often do they do that? Regarding the stability question, it seems through observation and interview responses that other languages are used when Bongo speakers are with people who speak other languages. The researcher did notice some Arabic mixed in even among solely Bongo speakers. The two examples observed were numbers (Arabic numerals were often heard) and the expression, “Mush?” which roughly translates to, “Isn’t it?” It may have been that the above-mentioned code-switches were essentially borrowings and used almost universally and therefore not technically code-switching. If code-switching happened on a greater scale, the researcher’s lack of linguistic knowledge was a hindrance in determining this. From our questionnaire data, however, we can see some patterns of language choice. Bongo is reported as the predominant language for use in the home, for children’s play, and for prayer. One of the most common points made during discussions on language choice was that Bongo was used unless non-Bongo people were around (at meals, in the market, etc.). While “when non-Bongo people are present” is not exactly a domain of language use in and of itself, it does at least provide a common rule for when other languages are used.

Indicator 4: Population and group dynamics

The fourth indicator asks if there is a critical mass of speakers. It also looks at the language use of immigrants in the area in which the Bongo people reside. Since the time available to survey was quite short and it was not possible to visit the most populous Bongo areas, we were unable to make an estimate of the Bongo population size from our fieldwork. We believe the most reasonable estimate of the population size to be approximately 10,000 (Lewis, Simons, and Fennig 2013; Daniel Rabbi, personal communication, December 2012). There was apparently a Bongo census carried out in the last few years, but we could not find any of the results. Even with a population estimate, it is hard to say what exactly that means for language vitality. This indicator also looks at the language use of immigrants in Bongo- dominant areas. Most of the immigrants are Dinka, and they typically retain their mother tongue and do not learn Bongo, compelling intertribal communication to be either in Dinka or Arabic.

Indicator 5: Distribution of speakers within their own social networks

This indicator measures the type of social connections an individual has with other individuals. These are relationships like doctor-patient, sister-brother, shopkeeper-customer, neighbor-neighbor, teacher- student, husband-wife, and so on. In this case, we ask what proportion of the relationships a Bongo individual has are with other Bongo and what proportion are with non-Bongo. We also ask how many relational points of connection there are with each of those people. For instance, is a person’s doctor also her cousin as well as a customer at her market stand? This would be a dense social network. This was a difficult indicator to evaluate; it required far more data than we were able to collect. It is likely that a Bongo in Tonj or Wau would have an ethnically mixed social network and a Bongo in Aguka or Busere would likely have a dense, mostly Bongo social network.

Indicator 6: Social outlook regarding and within the speech community

The sixth indicator aims at addressing the overall social outlook of the Bongo people, namely how they are recognized internally and externally. It was very evident through both the interviews and observation that the Bongo have a strong internal identity. People did not hesitate when asked if it is good to speak Bongo, and their explanations of why it is good to speak Bongo were said either frankly, as though their answers were plain and common knowledge, or with much conviction. This internal identity was also seen in cultural markers. Despite the large number of Dinka in the Tonj area, Bongo physical cultural markers such as grave markers and human and animal carvings, were still present as well as the type of statue shown here in figure 11.

Figure 11. Bongo lingi statue, 2012 (Photo by Matthew Armand. Used by permission.). All of the above-mentioned carvings are made from a special kind of tree that only the Bongo use, but they are not made much anymore (Daniel Rabbi, personal communication, August 6, 2012). During one night of the survey trip, there was a distinctly Bongo wedding in the early morning hours. Also, in relation to marriage, the Bongo do not use cows for bride price exchanges, even when marrying Dinka people. Perhaps the most enjoyable cultural marker for the researcher to experience was a Bongo celebration, featuring Bongo music and dancing. The Bongo music centered around the playing of three different-sized drums and a horn-like instrument called a manji-nji. There is reportedly no singing and dancing unless this instrument is playing (Daniel Rabbi, personal communication, August 6, 2012). The intriguing thing about the celebration was that people of all ages knew the songs and the dances. What’s more, the drums and manji-nji were only played by young men. All of this seems to indicate that this portion of the Bongo identity is still being passed on quite effectively. Also, the Bongo have facial markings that are distinct from other ethnic groups, typically three horizontal lines and/or three vertical lines on either side of the mouth. These markings seem to be used less and less (which is true for other ethnic groups across the country), but other groups’ markings are not used by the Bongo either, thus setting them apart. There was even a certain kind of potato that only the Bongo people grow and use. The other factor that has a bearing on the social outlook of the Bongo is their status in the eyes of other groups. Based on observations made while there, it would seem that the Bongo have neither high nor low status, but more of a neutral status. For example, other groups do not learn the Bongo language, but they do intermarry with the Bongo.

Indicator 7: Language prestige

The seventh indicator of ethnolinguistic vitality is the prestige of the language. As mentioned above, other groups do not make a habit of learning to speak Bongo. This could indicate that the Bongo language lacks the prestige that other languages in the area have. At the same time, equality seems to exist among the local languages there, reflected in the fact that the local Catholic radio station translates news and Bible portions into Dinka, Bongo and Luwo. There are even different times of the day that the radio station dedicates to the separate languages there, though people can call in during the Bongo portion of the broadcast and ask questions in a different language, and they will be answered in kind. On an official level, the government gives every South Sudanese language equal status.

Indicator 8: Access to a stable and acceptable economic base

In many ways, the Bongo are predominantly a subsistence farming community. Some may sell a portion of their crops or their animals, but this does not seem to be the norm. When asked about professions, the most common answer was cutting trees in the forest. Some also mentioned building houses, and the researcher spoke with one Bongo police official. One source of income that was mentioned rather frequently was collecting honey from the bush and selling that in the market. Any interaction with non- Bongo will mean speaking a language other than Bongo, but it is unclear how many Bongo participate in these economic activities requiring the use of another language. One thing that was well observed was that the women seem to be at home most of the time. This is an important point when one considers that it is primarily the mothers who are passing on language to the children, and they seem to have limited contact with speakers of other languages.

Summary

While we will not conclude with a concrete number or score from this part of the study, we do come away with a few key points. First, the vitality of the Bongo language varies by location: vitality in rural areas is higher than in urban areas. While this result is not in any way surprising, it is very important to keep in mind so that conclusions reached in one area are not automatically extended to other areas. Second, we can see that the Bongo as a whole are somewhere on the middle of the scale; there are factors that are likely helping, hindering, and keeping stable Bongo ethnolinguistic vitality. On one hand, there is a strong internal value of the language, a stable economic base in which Bongo is the primary language used, a high proportion of Bongo living in areas with restricted access to a population center, and the frequent use of Bongo in the home and for cultural activities. However, it has likely only a somewhat stable diglossic standard, is viewed neutrally by outsiders, and is spoken in urban areas alongside multiple other languages. Additionally, the Bongo population is much smaller than many neighboring ethnic groups and immigrants do not learn Bongo. Some of these points are more important than others to our scoring of Bongo on the EGIDS scale, as will be discussed below.

5 Conclusion

In light of this data, we propose that the Bongo language is at level 5 (Written) on the EGIDS scale. Using the EGIDS decision making tree, we say that its identity function is “home,” as it is used for things like mealtime conversations and children’s play but is not widely used outside the Bongo language community. The second question (are parents transmitting the language to their children?) has two answers depending on the type of Bongo community being considered. In the more urban Bongo households, all but one interviewee reported that children learn Bongo before any other language. Observation confirmed that Bongo was the predominant language used within Bongo households. From other data collection methods like observation and informal interviews, we found that there are some differences in language transmission by location. Within the more rural Bongo areas of Aguka and Busere, it appears that all parents are passing the Bongo language to their children. One major difference between the 6a (Vigorous) and 6b (Threatened) status is the state of diglossia (Lewis and Simons 2010). 19

Based on the results of our sociolinguistic questionnaire as well as our IEV evaluation, there seem to be at least some commonly held ideas on when to use Bongo and when to use other languages. In urban areas like Wau (as well as Khartoum and Juba), there are Bongo speakers, but not all of them in the childbearing generation are passing the language to their children. That would land these more urban populations at 6b (Threatened). However, in the more rural areas, it appears from both interview data and observation that all children are learning Bongo. The next question on the EGIDS decision tree is, “What is the literacy status?” There is, in fact, a Bongo orthography already developed and a multitude of Bongo literacy materials and literature already in print. However, it does not appear that Bongo literacy is taught through either the formal education system or consistent informal classes. While a few literacy classes have been taught in the past, they are not currently very frequent. This would be an “incipient” literacy status and would place the rural Bongo at the 5 (Written) status. We put the Bongo population as a whole at the 5 (Written) status because the bulk of the Bongo population lives in these areas in which the language use is vigorous and the sociolinguistic interview findings, as well as a sizeable portion of the IEV findings, point toward a vital language. Appendix A: Bongo Clan Names

The following list of Bongo clan names is from Daniel Rabbi (personal communication, December 15, 2012).

1. These clans exist in Kpanja: Nyere, Döbör, Ngulfara, Muku, Gïr, Dömär, Kulongo, Mboo, Kere, Domuku, Ngu'du, Ngbïr, Daanga, Doguumui

2. These clans exist in Ägükä: Kuluny, Koyo, Kila, Dala, Döhïlü, Dar, Doboo'du, Mur, Molokor, Mbilembe, Yere, Gbo'bo, Golo, Guumono, Gü'bbï, Landa, Ngulumbere, Bodo, Dogoi

3. These clans exist in Busere (Dogojo and Dokurungu villages): Nyere, Ngulfara, Dömär, Longo, Kükü, Mïtü, 'Bü'bü

20 Appendix B: Bongo-Related Studies

These resources are from: https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/bong1285. We have added the Ethnologue as a resource.

Arensen, Jonathan E. 1983. Sticks and straw: Comparative house forms in southern Sudan and northern Kenya. Dallas, TX: International Museum of Cultures. 13: xi+134. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1929. The Bongo. Sudan Notes and Records XII:1–61. Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Maurice. 1907. Document sur les Langues de l'Oubangui-ChariActes du XVIe Congrès International des Orientalistes, Alger, 1905. Paris: Ernest Leroux. 172–330. Heuglin, Theodor Von [Baron]. 1869. Reise in das Gebiet des weissen Nil und seiner westlichen Zuflüsse in den Jahren 1862–1864. Leipzig & Heidelberg: C.F. Winter. pp. 426. Kilpatrick, Eileen. 1979. Preliminary phonology of the Bongo language. pp. vi, 108. University of Khartoum. Kilpatrick, Eileen. 1985. Bongo phonology. Occasional papers in the study of Sudanese languages 4:1–62. Kronenberg, Waltraud, and Andreas Kronenberg.1981. Die Bongo: Bauern und Jäger im Südsudan. 58. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig, eds. 2013. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Seventeenth Edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com. Nougayrol, Pierre. 2004. Morphologie du verbe Bongo. In Pascal Boyeldieu and Pierre Nougayrol (eds.), Langues et Cultures: Terrains d'Afrique. Hommages à France Cloarec-Heiss. 7:239–249. Louvain-Paris: Peeters. Nougayrol, Pierre. 2006. Tones and Verb Classes in Bongo. In Abu-Manga, Al-Amin, Leoma Gilley, and Anne Storch (eds.), Insights into Nilo-Saharan Language, History and Culture: Proceedings of the 9th Nilo- Saharan Linguistic Colloquium, Institute of African and Asian Studies, University of Khartoum, 16–19. Köln:Rüdiger Köppe. Nougayrol, Pierre. 2008. Bongo. In Holger Tröbs, Eva Rothmaler and Kerstin Winkelmann (eds.) La qualification dans les langues africaines / Qualification in African languages, 9. Köln:Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Persson, Andrew M. (1997). Grouping of the Bongo-Baka languages. Occasional papers in the study of Sudanese languages. 7. pp. 19–39. Persson, Janet. 2004. Bongo-Bagirmi languages in Sudan. Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages 9:77–84. Petherick, John. 1861. Egypt, the Soudan and Central Africa. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons. Pott, August Friedrich. 1873. Bibliographische Anzeige: Linguistische Ergebnisse einer Reise nach Centralafrika von Dr G. Schweinfurth. Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 27:461– 487. Reichard, Paul. 1889. Vorschläge zu eine Reiseausrüstung für Ost- und Centralafrika. Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin. 24:1–82. Santandrea, Stefano. 1948. Little known tribes of the Bahr el Ghazal Basin. Sudan notes and records 29:78–106. Santandrea, Stefano. 1958. Notes on the Bongo. Sudan Notes and Records XXXIX:61–78. Santandrea, Stefano. 1962. Tribes of the Bongo group in the Sudan. Sudan Notes and Records 43:147–152.

21 22

Santandrea, Stefano. 1963. A concise grammar outline of the Bongo language (Sudan, Bahr el Ghazal province). Roma: Sodality of St. Peter Claver. Santandrea, Stefano. 1963. A concise grammar outline of the Bongo language. Bologna: Editrice Nigrizia. Santandrea, Stefano. 1970. Brief Grammar Outlines of the Yulu and Kara Languages with a small comparative dictionary of Bongo Baka Yulu Kara. Rome: Sodality of St. Peter Claver. Schweinfurth, Georg. 1873. Linguistische Ergebnisse einer Reise nach Central-afrika. Vol. 4 Berlin: Wiegandt and Hempel. Schweinfurth, Georg August. 1873. Linguistische Ergebnisse einer Reise nach Centralafrika. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie. Berlin:Verlag von Wiegandt &Hempel; Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte. Seligmann, Charles Gabriel. 1917. A Bongo funerary figure. Man: A record of anthropological science 17:97–98 (art. 67). Seligmann, Charles Gabriel, and Brenda Zara Seligmann.1932. Pagan tribes of the Nilotic Sudan. Ethnology of Africa series. London: George Routledge and Sons.

Appendix C: Bongo Literature

List taken from SIL digital archives, with additional information from Daniel Rabbi.

Content Title in Bongo Title in English Author(s) Latest edition classification completed

Alphabet Book Mingo Ndüü Böngö Bongo Alphabet Book Daniel Rabbi Moi, 2013-02-01 Daniel Arni Marko, Kamis Ouda Hassen, Lino Pasquale Diꞌnga, Paulo Jombi Boui

Alphabet Chart Langba 'ba Mingo Ndüü Alphabet Chart Daniel Rabbi Moi 2013-02-01

Alphabet Story Matiyo Mingo Ndüü Bongo Alphabet Story Daniel Rabbi Moi, 2013-02-01 Book Böngö Book Lucia Beneko Getano

Bible Story Nöhä Noah Daniel Rabbi Moi 2013-06-01

Bulletin Mbär Yai Daniel Rabbi Moi, 1999-10-10 Khamis Auda Hassen, Lino Pasquale Denga

Calendar Nyihi Dori 'ba Bongo 1999 Bongo Calendar Paulo Jombi Boui, 1999-01-01 1999 Daniel Rabbi Moi

Calendar Nyihi Dori 'ba Bongëë 2000 Calendar Daniel Rabbi Moi, 2000-01-01 2000 Anthone Ambar

Calendar Nyihi Dori 'ba Bongo 2001 Calendar Daniel Rabbi Moi 2001-01-01 2001

Calendar Nyihi Dori 'ba Bongo 2002 Calendar Daniel Rabbi Moi 2002-01-01 2002

Calendar Nyihi Dori 'ba Bongo 2003 Calendar Daniel Arny, Elia 2003-01-01 2003 Antony

Calendar Nyihi Dori 2004 2004 Calendar Daniel Rabbi Moi 2004-01-01

Calendar Nyihi Dor 2005 2005 Calendar Daniel Rabbi Moi 2005-01-01

Dictionary Michael B. Hassein 1999-03-22

Easy Reader Matiyo 'ba Bongo Bongo Story Elia Anthony Ambar, 2002-07-01 John Kamilo, Khamis Abdalla Lem, Paul Jahdiya Duku, Vironica Rophiel Ebrahim

23 24

Content Title in Bongo Title in English Author(s) Latest edition classification completed

Easy Reader Mila ꞌba Migbodo ꞌba Community Daniel Rabbi Moi 2013-04-23 Loki-ꞌJïï Development

Easy Reader Matiyo ꞌbo gi Baangee Animal Stories Francis Angelo, 2011-06-01 Joseph Tabia, Lucia Benoko, Marko Rabbi, Natalina Raphael, Rahma Severino, Simon Hagimir

Easy Reader A'ji Kpaw na Komo ba Anything is Good for Cheristina Mario 1998-02-01 ka Jëkëë Him Taban, Daniel Rabbi Moi, Khamis Uo'da Hassen

Easy Reader Bituta Dokomo Fir Pito Teaching Guide for Daniel Rabbi Moi 2003-10-01 hï ji 'bi Kendi Punctuation

Easy Reader Ye Matiyo na, na Akpi Stories to help teach Daniel Rabbi Moi 2010-10-01 bi Këndï bi Mohitu comprehension Hifir Easy Reader Bituta Dokomo Fir Punctuation Daniel Rabbi Moi 2003-10-01

Easy Reader Bituta Dokomo Fir Njïï Punctuation Daniel Rabbi Moi 2003-10-01 Ndobo Workbook

Health Card Mu'jü Birth Daniel Rabbi Moi, 2002-04-01 Lucia Beneco, Christina Mario, Veronica Raphael

Health Card Bilu Gïmaa-na Maya Breast-feeding Daniel Rabbi Moi, 2002-04-01 Lucia Beneco, Christina Mario, Veronica Raphael

Health Card Bigü Hïtï Immunization Daniel Rabbi Moi 2000-01-01

Health Card Bila Gimaa hi Rüü The Growth of the Daniel Rabbi Moi, 2002-04-01 Gimaa Baby in the Womb Lucia Beneco, Christina Mario, Veronica Raphael

Health Card Mo'jomuu na Ro'bu Children Need to Play Daniel Rabbi Moi, 2000-01-01 Bimikehe Lucia Beneco, Christina Mario, Veronica Raphael 25

Content Title in Bongo Title in English Author(s) Latest edition classification completed

Health Card Bi Nyu Jëkï a 'jï Mony Nutrition Daniel Rabbi Moi, 2000-01-01 Lucia Beneco, Christina Mario, Veronica Raphael

Health Card 'Jökö. Teeth Daniel Rabbi Moi, 2001-01-01 Lucia Beneco, Christina Mario, Veronica Raphael

Health Card A'jina da Ro'boo ro Needs at Birth, and Daniel Rabbi Moi, 2002-04-01 Mu'jü Development in the Lucia Beneco, First Year Christina Mario, Veronica Raphael

Health Card Mbaga na Maa The Pregnant Mother Daniel Rabbi Moi, 2002-04-01 Lucia Beneco, Christina Mario, Veronica Raphael

Health Card Muu Bu'dee na Muu Youth Daniel Rabbi Moi, 2001-01-01 Ngajee Lucia Beneco, Christina Mario, Veronica Raphael

Jonah Jouna Jonah 2003-08-23

Luke Yecu di tiyo bilehi na Luke 11:1–36 in the 2009-12-31 Yecu na kamakitigo Bongo language of aduu Citani Sudan

Luke Mitiyo Mu'ju 'ba Yecu, Luke 1:26–38, 2:1–20 2008-10-01 Luka 1:26–38, 2:1–20 in the Bongo language of Sudan

Luke Miku Dohogo Fir 'Ba Luke 10:25–37 in the 2008-10-01 Jeki Camariya Luka Bongo Language of 10:25–37 Sudan Miscellaneous The Jesus Film in 2011-04-14 Bongo Reel 2-Draft Booklet Miscellaneous The Jesus Film in 2011-04-13 Bongo Reel 1-Draft Booklet Numeracy A'ji Dada 1–10 Arithmetic 1–10 Daniel Rabbi Moi 2005-05-01 26

Content Title in Bongo Title in English Author(s) Latest edition classification completed

Numeracy A'jidada 3 Njïïndobo Arithmetic 3 Daniel Rabbi Moi 2003-10-01 Workbook

Numeracy A'ji Dada 2 Arithmetic 2 Daniel Rabbi Moi 2005-05-01

Numeracy A'ji Dada 3 Arithmetic 3 Daniel Rabbi Moi 2005-05-01

Numeracy Bida A'ji 1–10 Counting 1–10 Daniel Rabbi Moi, 2013-03-01 Lucia Benko Getano, Marco Rabbi Moi

Orthography Reading and Writing Bongo Luke 2008-07-02 Statement Bongo Partnership Project

Orthography Bongo Phonology Eileen Kilpatrick 1985-01-01 Statement

Post-Primer Bugbo Do Firi Diro A'ji Convention on the 2004-10-14 'Ba Gïmaa Rights of the Child

Pre-Primer Kor Bingofir Before Writing Daniel Rabbi Moi 2002-10-01

Primer Njïï bida fir gbana Reading and writing Daniel Rabbi Moi 2005-05-01 bingo fir book

Primer Njï mingo Dada Kotu Bongo Primer Daniel Rabbi Moi 2001-03-01

Primer Njïï Dada 'Ba 'Bi Primer Teacher’s Daniel Rabbi Moi 2000-02-01 Këndëë Guide

Sentence Book Küngü Baboon Daniel Rabbi Moi 2002-05-01

Sentence Book Bilu Gimaa na Maya Breast-feeding Daniel Rabbi Moi 2002-05-01

Sentence Book Bi Nja Kinji Catching fish Daniel Rabbi Moi 2002-05-01

Sentence Book Ana Kaaru This is a bucket Lucia Benoco Getano 2002-10-01

Sentence Book Ndobo 'ba Nyaka Work in the Fields Daniel Arni Markoi 1999-06-01

Sentence Book Dohilili 'ba Kartum Khartoum Weather Daniel Rabbi Moi 2004-10-01

Sentence Book A'ji'bur Living Things Daniel Rabbi Moi 2002-10-01

Sentence Book 'Bëë Je My home Daniel Rabbi Moi 2008-11-01 27

Content Title in Bongo Title in English Author(s) Latest edition classification completed

Sentence Book Mbaga Muu Mother of Children Paul Jombi Boui 2005-05-01

Sentence Book Ma Myself Daniel Rabbi Moi 2008-11-01

Sentence Book Yeki ka 'Biye na? Who owns this thing? Daniel Rabbi Moi 2002-10-01

Sentence Book Loki a'jitutu Plants Daniel Rabbi Moi 2008-11-01

Sentence Book Ndere 'ba Cugu Going to the Market Daniel Rabbi Moi 2005-05-01

Transcribed Text Matiyo 'ba 'Bata Yena LP01 Bongo story 01- Daniel Rabbi Moi 2007-11-01 Kidi; Fir Di'ba Lu'ba 02: Story of Elephant and Rabbit; History of a Deserted Village

Wordlist Bongo 200 wordlist Daniel Rabbi Moi 1999-02-08

Wordlist Bongo Numbers Daniel Rabbi Moi and 1999-03-22 others Appendix D: Sociolinguistic Interview

Shortened version (used for quantitative analysis):

1. What is the most useful language to know here? 2. Do you think it is good to speak Bongo? 3. Why (is it good or not good to speak Bongo)? 4. What language do you think God likes? 5. What language do the children learn first? 6. When do they [the children] learn other languages? 7. Do you think people will continue to speak Bongo in 40 years? 8. If you pray by yourself, what language do you use? 9. Do Bongo people marry people who are not Bongo? 10. Do Bongo create artwork that is just for Bongo? 11. What kind of music do you listen to? 12. Do you think it is important to be able to read? 13. What language do you use at meals? 14. What language do you use in the market? 15. What language do children here use when they play together?

Full version:

Language attitudes

16. What is the most useful language to know in [Tonj/Aguka/this place]? a. What other languages are spoken in [Tonj/Aguka/this place]? b. What other languages do you hear spoken when you are outside [Tonj/Aguka/this place]? 17. Do you see Bongo as superior, neutral, or inferior to these other languages? 18. Do you think it is good to speak Bongo? a. Why or why not? 19. What language (or languages) do you think God likes? 20. If your children learned to read and write Bongo, would it make you happy? 21. What language do children in [Tonj/Aguka/this place] learn first? a. When do they learn [take out whichever language they reportedly learned first]: i. Bongo? ii. Arabic? iii. Dinka? iv. English? v. Other languages? 22. Do you think people will continue to speak Bongo when the children who are now small get married? a. When these same children become grandparents, will their grandchildren be speaking Bongo? 23. Do you ever pray when you are by yourself? a. What language do you pray in? 24. What language do you dream in? 25. Do you ever write letters or text (SMS) in Bongo? a. If yes, is it difficult?

28 29

Population

26. Do you have a name you like to use to refer to the whole group of people who speak the Bongo language? a. How should non-Bongo speakers refer to this group? 27. How many Bongo tribes/clans are there? Can you give an estimate of how many are in each?

Contact patterns

28. Do Bongo marry people who are not Bongo? a. If yes, what languages groups are they from? b. How often does this happen? Always Often Sometimes Rarely 29. Where are the closest schools (primary and secondary)? a. How many Bongo children go to school? None Few Some Most All b. What other groups send their children there?

Indicators of ethnolinguistic vitality

30. What do most of the Bongo in [Tonj/Aguka/this place] do for a living (farming, cattle raising, building, shopkeepers, etc.)? 31. Rural: Do you have to travel outside [Tonj/Aguka/this place] for work? Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Daily If so, where? 32. Tonj: Do you have to work with non-Bongo people? 33. Where do you get your food? 34. Do you ever get food from people who are not Bongo? Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Daily 35. Do you sell any of your goods outside of this community? If yes, where do you sell your goods? 36. Do you create artwork or crafts? 37. What kind of music do you listen to? What kinds of music do you create yourself/selves? 38. Do you feel it is important to maintain Bongo traditions? 39. Does is make you happy to hear your children speak Bongo? 40. Do you think it is important to continue using Bongo in your community? 41. Are you proud to be Bongo?

Development

42. Have there been any development projects here in the last few years (roads, wells, schools, churches, classes, etc.)? If yes, are/were they going well? 43. Do different groups in the community (like villages, clans, denominations) do projects together? 44. Do people from this community think it is important to be able to read?

Domains of use

45. What language do you use when… a. At home i. Scolding/correcting children ii. Singing to children iii. Children talking to parents iv. At meals 30

v. Brothers and sisters (young and old) vi. When children are not present vii. When talking with children b. With girlfriend/boyfriend (courtship) c. At village meetings d. At market/shop i. with Bongo people ii. with Dinka/Luo/Arab/etc. people e. At funeral f. At the farm g. At clinic/hospital h. In prayer at home with others i. In class / at school i. Preschool ii. Primary iii. Secondary iv. University j. When you go into town k. When you buy food l. When you buy matches/kerosene/airtime m. In church n. With government officials o. Children playing (football) together p. Dreaming Appendix E: Observation Notes Outline

A. Background information

1. Location 2. Date 3. Related recordings, photos, or field notes

B. Indicators of ethnolinguistic vitality

1. Connection to other communities a. How far is this Bongo population from the nearest urban center (Wau, Tonj)? b. What is the condition of the road to other urban center(s)? c. What mode of public transport is available to and from the population centers? d. Do the Bongo appear to utilize this transportation? e. Do people have to go outside the Bongo community to obtain goods and services? How often? f. Does there appear to be cross-cultural independence? 2. Code switching a. Do people use Bongo and Dinka/Arabic in the same sentence? b. Do people appear to realize they are switching from Bongo to a different language? c. Is there switching between different languages in the home? d. Do Bongo children switch between languages when they talk? 3. Migration a. Are there non-Bongo living here [important for Aguka]? What are they speaking? b. If Bongo leave their place of birth, where do they tend to move? 4. Traditions a. What traditional Bongo cultural artifacts are present (artwork, crafts, local construction)? What proportion of the cultural artifacts you see appears specifically Bongo? b. What non-material traditional Bongo cultural markers are present (music, storytelling, traditions)? What proportion of the cultural markers you see appears specifically Bongo? 5. Ethnolinguistic attitudes a. Do people outside the Bongo community seem to respect and/or fear the Bongo? b. How do the local town officials view the Bongo people— high, neutral, low opinion? c. Do the Bongo appear to have a high value for their own language? d. How is the Bongo language perceived by other groups in the area—positive, negative, neutral?

C. Population

Note: If it is easier to determine population estimates by household (or some other unit) instead of by house, use that unit instead (be sure to note whatever changes you make). Try to use the same unit in each area.

6. Estimated number of houses in this village/town (and any nearby villages, if applicable): 7. Average number of people living in each house (ideally, using a random sample): 8. Notes on how population was estimated:

31 32

D. Language use

9. Observed language use in different domains a. Home i. What language are the children speaking in the home with each other? With their parents? ii. What language are the parents speaking in the home to their children? With each other? b. Work c. School d. Market e. Community discussions:Important or emotional exchanges 10. Notes on observed language use among different populations

E. Current language development

11. Number of schools serving the children of this community 12. Existing literature by language and type (Bible, Quran, comics, magazines, newspapers, posters, signs, letters) 13. Frequency and situation of people reading/writing 14. Language used on radio station(s) (and, if possible, community reception of the programming) 15. Project support a. Existing development projects in the community and their condition/progress (wells, boreholes, bridges, roads, mills,...) b. Community involvement in current development projects: Appendix F: EGIDS Scale

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

Level Label Description UNESCO

0 International The language is used internationally for a broad range Safe of functions. 1 National The language is used in education, work, mass media, Safe government at the nationwide level. 2 Regional The language is used for local and regional mass Safe media and governmental services. 3 Trade The language is used for local and regional work by Safe both insiders and outsiders. 4 Educational Literacy in the language is being transmitted through Safe a system of public education. 5 Written The language is used orally by all generations and is Safe effectively used in written form in parts of the community. 6a Vigorous The language is used orally by all generations and is Safe being learned by children as their first language. 6b Threatened The language is used orally by all generations but Vulnerable only some of the childbearing generation are transmitting it to their children. 7 Shifting The child-bearing generation knows the language well Definitely enough to use it among themselves, but none are Endangered transmitting it to their children 8a Moribund The only remaining active speakers of the language Severely are members of the grandparent generation. Endangered 8b Nearly Extinct The only remaining speakers of the language are Critically members of the grandparent generation or older who Endangered have little opportunity to use the language. 9 Dormant The language serves as a reminder of heritage identity Extinct for an ethnic community. No one has more than symbolic proficiency. 10 Extinct No one retains a sense of ethnic identity associated Extinct with the language, even for symbolic purposes. *(Lewis and Simons 2010:5).

33 References

Clarke, J. 2010. Sudan trip notes. Ms. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1929. The Bongo. Sudan Notes and Records 12:1–61. Kilpatrick, E. 1985. Bongo Phonology. Occasional papers on the studies of Sudanese languages 4:1–62. Landweer, M. L. 2000. Indicators of ethnolinguistic vitality. Notes on Sociolinguistics 5.1:5–22. Lewis, M. P. 2010. The sustainable use model and the expanded graded intergenerational disruption scale (EGIDS). Paper presented at the ILAC VI, Penang, Malaysia, November 9, 2010. Lewis, M. P and G. F. Simons. 2010. Assessing endangerment: Expanding Fishman’s GIDS. Romanian Review of Linguistics 55(2):103–120. Lewis, M. P., G. F. Simons, and C. D. Fennig, eds. 2013. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Seventeenth Edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com. Marshall, J. 2007. Technical findings of MoEST principles, practice and planning of multilingual education workshop. Ms. Peoples’ Profiles: Bongo. Accessed August 18, 2013 https://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/10939/OD.