A Sociolinguistic Survey of the Mambay Language Of

Home , Bibemi, Karang language, Kim languages, Kuo language, Mbum language, Mono language (Cameroon)

A SOCIOLINGUISTIC SURVEY OF THE

MAMBAY

LANGUAGE OF CHAD AND CAMEROON

Cameron Hamm

SIL International 2002 2

CONTENTS

0ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Fieldwork 1.2 Research Goals 1.3 Procedures 1.3.1 Lexicostatistical Analysis 1.3.2 Recorded Text Test (RTT) 1.3.3 Group Questionnaires 1.3.4 Individual Questionnaires 1.3.5 Itinerary 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 Linguistic Classification and Literature 2.2 Speech Area 2.3 Population 2.4 Village Research Sites 3 LANGUAGE AND DIALECT SITUATION 3.1 Dialect Situation 3.2 Lexical Similarity 4 INTELLIGIBILITY 5 LANGUAGE ATTITUDES AND LITERACY PREFERENCES 6 LANGUAGE USE IN THE RELIGIOUS SERVICES 7 BILINGUALISM AND LANGUAGE VITALITY 8 FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Appendix A. Group Questionnaire Appendix B. Church Leaders’ Questionnaire Appendix C. Individual Questionnaire Appendix D. Self-Evaluation Bilingualism Questionnaire (SEBQ) Appendix E. Word Lists Appendix F. Texts and Comprehension Questions Appendix G. Map of the Area Studied References 3

0 ABSTRACT

This paper presents data from a sociolinguistic survey conducted in the Mambay speech community of Cameroon and Chad. The survey was designed to provide language planners with information about this community in order to determine how they can best encourage language development in the region.

Mambay is a part of the Mbum group of languages (Niger-Congo, Adamawa) and its closest relation is to Mundang and Tupuri.

The data presented includes a general overview of the previous linguistic literature and a description of the geographic area and population, as well as results of interviews, word list comparison, and individual comprehension testing. These results concern comprehension of Mundang, language use and vitality, bilingualism, and attitudes toward both written and oral forms of Mundang. In addition, information by local leaders on the literacy and religious situations is included.

Word list results show a very distant relationship between Mambay and Mundang, leaving some question as to genetic affiliation. Additionally, the individual comprehension test results show that Mambay speakers have a very low level of comprehension of Mundang. Acceptance of Mundang is low, with a strong preference for Mambay in most areas. There are no indications of language shift now or in the near future. It is recommended that Mambay should be developed and literacy be encouraged in the region.

1 INTRODUCTION

This paper reports on the results of a sociolinguistic survey conducted among the Mambay speech community of Western Chad and Northern Cameroon. The survey was designed to provide language planners with information about this speech community in order to determine how they can best encourage language development in the region.

This section includes a description of the fieldwork, the research goals, and the methodology applied during this survey. The subsequent section presents pertinent background information, including a review of the previous literature on this speech variety and a description of the language area and population. The results sections then present the sociolinguistic situation of the area and are followed by a conclusions and recommendations section and appendices, including questionnaires used, maps, and a bibliography.

1.1 Fieldwork The fieldwork for this survey took place between April 26 and May 1, 2000 and was conducted by a research team consisting of: Cameron Hamm and Erik Anonby, members of the Association SIL Tchad, and Calvain Mbernodji, member of the Association Tchadienne pour l’Alphabétisation, la Linguistique et la Traduction de la Bible (ATALTRAB).

We extend our sincere appreciation to the Sub-Prefect of Léré, the Sub-Prefect of the Mayo-Louti Department in the Arrondissement de Figuil in Cameroon, the canton chief in Biparé, and the chiefs of Kaboni and Kakala villages for their welcome and for the help they provided in enabling us to successfully carry out this survey.

1.2 Research Goals The goal of this survey was to get a more accurate picture of the linguistic and sociolinguistic situation in the Mambay region. Prior to the survey, we had information suggesting that the Mambay could possibly understand Mundang in order to use literature in this language. Specifically, the objectives of the survey were the following:

1. To determine the degree of lexical similarity between Mambay and Mundang.

2. To investigate and quantify the degree of inherent comprehension of Mundang by Mambay speakers. 4

3. To investigate the acceptability of literature in Mundang and the mother tongue in the Mambay area.

4. To determine the vitality of Mambay by looking at domains of usage and other indications of its continued use in the future.

1.3 Procedures For this survey, we used several methods designed to gather information needed for a global view of the linguistic and sociolinguistic situation of a language community in a relatively short period of time. The data gathering instruments used are briefly explained in the following sections.

1.3.1 Lexicostatistical Analysis A standard word list of 227 terms was taken in Mambay, as well as in the reference speech form of Mundang (see appendix E for a phonetic transcription of the word lists). These word lists were compared to determine the degree of lexical similarity. This was done on the basis of apparent phonetic similarity, and no investigation has been made to see if the words are true historical cognates.

SIL has found that knowing the percentage of lexical similarity between languages aids in making judgments in regard to the level of intelligibility between these speech varieties. It has been recommended within SIL that when the percentage of apparent cognates between two speech forms is less than seventy percent (including a certain percentage to allow for a range of error), these speech forms should be considered as two separate languages for the purpose of language development. If, however, the level of lexical similarity between speech forms is seventy percent or greater, dialect intelligibility testing is normally recommended to determine the level of comprehension between the speech forms (Bergman 1989).

1.3.2 Recorded Text Test (RTT) To investigate the degree of comprehension between Mambay and Mundang, Recorded Text Testing (RTT) was used. Texts between two and four minutes in length were recorded in Mundang (at Léré) and Mambay (at Kaboni). Texts that had too many loan words were rejected. Texts that did not have adequate detail, which merely described lifestyle or which did not relate a specific incident in the storyteller’s life, were also rejected. A written French translation of each text was made; noting where phrases ended and pauses could be inserted. Twenty key pieces of information were identified for each text. The French translation and the comprehension questions for each story are listed in appendix F.

Both the respondent and the researcher listened to the stories through headphones. The tape was stopped at each pause and the respondent was asked to retell the story. If the retelling included the key piece of information (whether correct or incorrect), the answer was recorded on the score sheet and the next section was played. If the response did not include information related to the question, the respondent was prompted more specifically, and his response was recorded, with a note that a prompt had been necessary. If a section was replayed because the respondent requested it, this was noted on the answer sheet. If a section was replayed because the researcher thought a person or a sound had disturbed the respondent, it was not noted on the answer sheet that the section was replayed. 5

After testing each story on speakers of that particular language the list of twenty key pieces of information was narrowed to ten, based on which ten all hometown subjects were able to readily identify. Speakers of the other language were evaluated, based on their ability to correctly understand these ten pieces of information.1 Subjects listened first to the test recorded in their own language to familiarize themselves with the testing method (and to screen out any subjects with hearing or other difficulties). The subject’s score on the test in their own language is then used to compare with their performance on the other language, e.g., if a subject missed one on their own language and only one on the test in another dialect, the subject will be considered to understand that other language satisfactorily.

The numerical results of the RTT can not be interpreted as an exact measure of the degree of comprehension between the speech forms, but rather is an indicator of the approximate level of intelligibility. The percentage at which one can reasonably claim adequate comprehension between speech forms is not always clear. SIL guidelines indicate that seventy-five percent is the lowest acceptable indicator of comprehension, whereas eighty- five percent is usually considered high enough to guarantee good communication. Between these two scores is an area of marginal comprehension, where other sociolinguistic factors must come into play (J. Grimes 1995:22).

The standard deviation of the RTT scores is important in evaluating whether the level of intelligibility that has been measured is inherent or acquired. Since inherent intelligibility is a feature of the language itself, it is reasonable to assume that speakers who have mastered their own language will understand the reference speech form equally as well (or poorly) as others who speak their language. Thus, if the intelligibility measured by our test is inherent intelligibility alone, the standard deviation of the scores should be small (i.e., <0.15)2 (J. Grimes 1995:30). A large standard deviation (>0.15) indicates that some subjects scored significantly higher than others did, presumably because their score reflects an acquired comprehension in addition to any inherent intelligibility.

1.3.3 Group Questionnaires Sociolinguistic questionnaires were used to gather information about the sociolinguistic situation, including the geographical extent of the various speech forms, language use, language vitality, and general attitudes towards the various speech forms and the implementation of literacy programs.

In each village one questionnaire (appendix A) was used in a group setting with the village chief and the village leaders he had gathered. These groups ranged in size from fifteen to fifty, and the interviews were conducted in French, with interpretation in Mambay. We also asked questions of certain other leaders in the community. Specifically, we had questionnaires for the church leaders, which are included in appendix B.

1.3.4 Individual Questionnaires Another important instrument used during the survey was the individual sociolinguistic interview, designed to examine in detail a number of selected individuals for their actual experiences with language: language use patterns in various domains, contact with and proficiency in other languages, and certain language attitudes. The full text of the questionnaire appears in appendix C. On both sides of the border we interviewed a random sample

1This method is described in detail in Casad (1974), although the method used varies slightly from this description. Instead of an adjustment of scores based on the hometown score, we eliminated questions missed by subjects in the original village before playing the test in the second village. In addition, the final testing was done with school students, since they were more willing to take the tests than adults, have more limited contact with speakers of other speech forms, and could more easily understand the test method. It was decided to identify key pieces of information and leave pauses for the subject to retell the previous section for the following reasons: some of the people had never been to school and were unfamiliar with a question and response system, and often we’ve encountered people retelling the entire recorded section, including the question at the end, apparently not clearly understanding that the question is not part of the story, in spite of the different voice. We suspect that often the question is interpreted as a dialogue going on within the story. Repeating the section seems to be a more culturally natural way of getting the answer we want, as long as the section is not too long and the answer is not far from the end, so that it is not a test of memory. 2Note, however, that in cases where all speakers of a speech form have a high degree of contact with another speech form, a small (i.e., <0.15) standard deviation does not guarantee that the RTT results reflect inherent intelligibility. 6 of ten subjects stratified by sex, age, and religion, with thirty-five considered the minimum age for the old category.

As part of the individual interview, each subject was questioned about his ability in languages other than Mambay, in an effort to assess his proficiency according to the six-point U.S. Foreign Service Institute (FSI) proficiency scale, from 0 (no knowledge of the language) to 5 (native speaker proficiency). The following gives a summary of the meaning of some of the intermediate FSI levels (SIL 1989a:5.1.27–5.1.31):

Level 2+: “Able to satisfy most requirements with language usage that is often, but not always, acceptable and effective.”

Level 3: “Able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations on practical, social, and occupational topics.”

Level 3+: “Is often able to use the language to satisfy needs in a wide range of sophisticated and demanding tasks.”

Level 4: “Able to use the language fluently and accurately on all levels normally pertinent to needs.”

Our purpose in evaluating the subjects’ second language speaking proficiency was to get an indicator of the level of multilingualism throughout the whole community, to determine whether the population in general has an adequate level of proficiency to profit from literacy and development efforts in second languages other than Mambay. In other words, if the Mambay language itself were not developed, could all of the Mambay population nonetheless learn to read and write in some other developed language? In general, it is not easy to determine what exactly constitutes an adequate level for this purpose; SIL has accepted as a general guideline that anything under a level 3 of proficiency should be viewed as inadequate (SIL 1989b:9.5.2).

The subjects were tested using a self-evaluation questionnaire adapted from the U.S. Foreign Service Institute’s testing kit for second language oral proficiency by Stephen Quakenbush and in turn adapted by Barbara F. Grimes. The questions asked are designed to find out the interviewee’s own assessment of his ability to perform specific tasks in another language. For a person to score a certain level of proficiency, he must give an appropriate answer to every question on that level (and on all lower levels).

It must be admitted that this method of evaluation is quite subjective and cannot be relied upon for highly accurate results. In his study, Quakenbush (1992:70) evaluated the second language speaking ability of a group of people with both a more objective, direct testing method (Second Language Oral Proficiency Evaluation (SLOPE) as described in SIL 1989a:5.1.1–5.1.32) and also with his self-report interview schedule. It turned out that although ninety percent of the subjects scored at least level 3 with SLOPE, only 77.5% scored thus with the self-report method. It is also not certain that the interview schedule we used accurately distinguishes between level 3 and level 4 (Quakenbush 1992:190–191). In the present study, since we were most interested in level 3 as the threshold of adequate proficiency, we paid most attention to evaluating individuals as falling above or below this critical mark.

1.3.5 Itinerary The team spent two days in Léré eliciting a word list as well as collecting and hometown testing the Mundang text. Then three days were spent in the Mambay village of Kaboni (Chad), eliciting a word list and collecting a text in Mambay. Comprehension testing was split equally between the villages of Kaboni and Biparé (both in Chad). Also a group interview was held in Kaboni with village elders as well as ten individual interviews. One day was spent in Kakala (Cameroon), comparing the word list obtained in Kaboni, interviewing a group of village elders, and performing ten individual questionnaires. 7

2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1 Linguistic Classification and Literature There have been several attempts at classification of Mambay3 within Adamawa-Ubangi. Westermann and Bryan (1952:147) made the earliest mention of the language when it was classified in the Mbum group. Boyd (1989:185) suggests a refined classification of the Mbum language group, giving Mambay close rank with Tupuri and Mundang. The Ethnologue (Grimes 1996:232) classifies4 Mambay as Niger-Congo, Atlantic-Congo, Volta- Congo, North, Adamawa-Ubangi, Adamawa, Mbum-Day, Mbum, Northern, Tupuri-Mambai. In this latter classification, the Mbum group has been described as having three nodes, Northern, Central, and Southern. The Northern node is further divided into Tupuri-Mambai (with languages Tupuri, Mundang, and Mambay) and Dama-Galke (Dama, Mono, and Ndai,5 all found in Cameroon) (Grimes and Grimes 1996:84–85).

William Samarin has some remarks about Mambay classification in his work on Adamawa languages (Samarin 1971:217):

On the basis of his own linguistic observations, de Waard (pers. comm.) supports the integrity of the [Mbum] group with the exception of Mangbei. Since Stennes (pers. comm.) considers Mangbei to be closer to Fali (group 9) than it is to Mundang of this group, it would seem that Mangbei may indeed have to be excluded.

However Raymond Boyd (in Bendor-Samuel, ed. 1989:185) states the following regarding the classification of Mambay:

A doubt was raised about the classification of Mangbai by Samarin (1971) for reasons that are unclear. Early word lists published by Strumpell (1910) and Lukas (1937) reveal a clearly, if distantly related language. Eguchi’s (1971) publication confirms this impression. In Bennett’s (1983) study, Mangbai is treated as a parallel branch within group 6.

The hypothesis that Mambay is closer to Fali than it is to Mundang at the very least suggests exclusion from the Tupuri-Mundang subgroup. Bennett puts Mambay as a parallel branch of group 6 (Mbum group) and therefore seems justified in view of the distant relation to other Mbum languages.

Lestringant’s notes give some indication of history, confirming Stennes’ estimation of similarity to Fali (as quoted here in Yangalme 1977):

Ce groupe ne dépasse pas 5000 âmes, il peuple le confluent des Mayo-Louti et Mayo-Kebbi et les franges du massif Katche... D’après Lestringant, il s’agirait d’une communauté qui s’est constituée au 19ième siècle par fusion de Fali, et Mundang, chassés par l’invasion peul, avec un fond ethnique Niam-niam.

Other linguistic articles that include some consideration of Mambay are Strumpell’s (1910) general comparative work and two analyses of numerical systems (Baudelaire 1944, Boyd 1989b).

There are several publications in the Mambay language. One is a songbook produced by the Lutheran Brethren Church in Garoua, Cameroon. Another is a calendar produced by the Mambay language committee. This committee is also producing a literacy primer and has made an application to the National Association of Cameroonian Language Committees in Yaoundé, which gives training and guidance to language committees interested in developing their language.

3There are many alternative spellings of the Mambay language. Grimes (1996) lists Mambai as the preferred spelling, also listing the following alternate names: Mangbai, Mangbei, Mambai, Mumbaye, Manbai, Mamgbay, Mamgbei, Mongbay, Mongbaï de Biparé, and Momboi. We have chosen to spell it “Mambay” in keeping with conventions in Chad (J. Roberts). 4The classification that the Ethnologue follows is that of the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, 1992, William Bright, ed. (Grimes 1996:ix). 5Ndai is reported to be nearly extinct (Grimes 1996:209). 8

2.2 Speech Area The Mambay speech community is found in western Chad and in northern Cameroon. On the Chadian side there are three villages in Biparé Canton in the Léré Sub-Prefecture of the Mayo-Dala Department. The majority of the population is found in Cameroon, however, located in the Bibémi, Figuil, and Guider Subdivisions in the Bénoué and Mayo-Louti Divisions of the North Province. There are presently twenty-six Mambay villages stretching from the northern side of Hosséré Mambay (Mambay Mountain) in Chad to the village of Déou in Cameroon, fifteen kilometres south along the Mayo Kebbi River.

Among the neighbors of the Mambay are the Mundang to the east and south, Guidar to the north, and Fulfulde to the west and south. Breton and Fohtung (1991:85) also mention the Nimbari language (alternate name: Nyamnyam de Kebbi cf. Yangalme 1977) which they label “residuelle”, locating it near the Mambay area. Dieu and Renaud (1983:359) classify Nimbari as an extinct language.

The Mambay enjoy an oasis of a well-watered plain where they grow rice, millet, and corn. Also available along the river are lush areas that produce bananas and mangoes in plenty.

2.3 Population The latest census (République du Tchad 1993) reveals a population of 2,067 Mambay in Chad, the majority (1,959) of which live in the Mayo-Kebbi prefecture. The combined population of the three Mambay villages found in the canton of Biparé is 2,717. The reason for this difference is due to the fact that there are other ethnic groups coexisting with the Mambay. It is important to note that the census refers to ethnic groups or village populations and that actual numbers of people who speak the language could be different from the figures shown.

Village 1993 Census Biparé (Bipahna) 1,205 Kaboni (Kagbonni) 945 Mayo Siwa 567 Total 2,717

Figure 1. Village populations in Chad.

The large majority of Mambay speakers are found in Cameroon. According to the information we received while on the survey, the present twenty-three villages in Cameroon were once more numerous, but the language group declined during colonial times due to war. People in Kaboni say that there were as many as ten or more villages of Mambay speakers in Chad, but now many only speak Mundang. Unfortunately the story is not clear if the people in these villages moved to other places or became Mundang speakers and eventually lost the Mambay language. Also, many Mambay who are Muslim speak less Mambay than they once did, using Fulfulde instead.

Many of the villages listed in Eguchi are villages where Mambay is no longer spoken. There are several possible explanations for the fact that there are only six villages that correspond with village names given in Eguchi. One could be that there was significant migration of Mambay speakers. Another could be that there are now ethnic Mambay who no longer speak Mambay but have shifted to Mundang or Fulfulde. A third possibility may be that because Eguchi worked in Maroua, some one hundred km away, his information about which villages speak Mambay may not have come from the most informed sources. This seems to be a likely reason for the disparity between the list of villages we received from participants in our group interviews in Biparé and Kakala and that of Eguchi. 9

Village Eguchi 1971 1987 Census (Cameroon) Katchéo (Katio) 617 219 Kakou (including Bouza) 428 1,122 Roumdé Mambay 85 Ladjoua (Lazoua) 81 157 Kabawa 143 Boudja 27 Piaga 128 246 Goptikéré 157 Labaré 54 Louguéréo 19 Bibemi 1,158 ? Adoumri 451 Ouro Badjouma 1,668 Ouro Haoussaré 51 Ouro Bé 398 Figuil 21 ? Kakala 346 1,026 Ouro Marey (Kafi Maraï) 45 575 Bissoli 753 Kafinarou 498 Bokiré 280 Daksi 47 Déou 353 Kalaou 274 Lam 228 Bekalé (Bikalé) 1,183 Téwère 327 Kara not listed Kagouma not listed Fadalma not listed Kakoumri not listed Bézoua not listed Dekalé not listed Béssoum not listed TOTAL 5,877 7,288

Figure 2. Mambay-speaking village populations in Cameroon.

If we add one thousand speakers in villages where there is no census information, the population in Cameroon is around eight thousand speakers. Adding the two thousand speakers in Chad, there could be as many as ten thousand Mambay speakers in both countries.

2.4 Village Research Sites For group and individual sociolinguistic questionnaire research sites, we wanted to get samples that were representative of the speakers of that area. When we arrived in each area, we chose village test sites based on the following criteria:

• Homogeneous population of speakers of the dialect under consideration • Limited contact of village population with speakers of other languages • Willingness of village leaders to cooperate 10

In choosing villages as intelligibility test sites, we wanted to select one Mambay center, as well as a Mundang center for baseline testing only. We used the same criteria as for the sites for questionnaires, with the addition of a requirement of the presence of a primary school, as we wished to test students in the highest level of primary school (CM2). The sites for our sociolinguistic questionnaires were as follows (see map in appendix G):

• Kaboni (Chad) • Kakala (Cameroon) As mentioned above, in each dialect area we interviewed a convenience sample of ten subjects stratified by sex and age. Table 1 shows the breakdown of subjects by village and category. Since we thought religious affiliation to be significant as well, we further stratified the sample by religion. In all, we interviewed twenty-one people in the following categories:

Table 1: Subject Breakdown Village Men Women Young Old Young Old Muslim Christian Muslim Christian Muslim Christian Muslim Christian Kaboni 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 Kakala 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 TOTAL 2 4 3 2 3 2 3 2

For our Mambay intelligibility test site we selected Kaboni and Biparé, Mambay villages in Chad. We collected a text in Kaboni, but the actual hometown testing was done during testing sessions of Mundang (see description of the method used in section 1.3.2).

The Mundang text was collected in Léré from an elderly man and tested with youth residing in Léré.

Intelligibility testing was done only in Chad because everyone we asked affirmed that very few Mambay speakers in Cameroon speak or understand Mundang. See section 7 for more on bilingualism patterns in Mundang.

3 LANGUAGE AND DIALECT SITUATION

3.1 Dialect Situation Mambay speakers in Chad say that Mambay is spoken in exactly the same way in all the villages. During elicitation of the word list in Cameroon, only small differences in quality of vowels and tone were encountered. Mambay in Cameroon say that the Mambay spoken in Chad sounds more like Mundang because its tone is similar to Mundang. However, none of these differences impede comprehension between the Mambay communities in both countries, and the community can be said to be linguistically homogenous.

3.2 Lexical Similarity Erik Anonby transcribed the Mambay and Mundang word lists in the International Phonetic Alphabet. Because we are not experienced linguists, and this was our first exposure to Adamawa languages, the transcription is less accurate than desired. However, we thought it useful to include the word list here in appendix D. 11

Table 2: Lexical similarity of Mambay to the Mbum group

Mundang Kim Kuo6 Besme7 Goundo

10% 10% 15% 8% 8%

A synchronic analysis was made, and the words that showed phonetic similarity were labeled “apparent cognates” and the percentages are derived from the tally of cognates divided by the total number of words compared. As the forms are highly divergent, a generous method was used to determine similarity: any words that showed phonetic similarity were considered cognate (tone was not accounted for in the analysis). In other words, differences in consonant voicing were not significant, and differences in vowels were ignored. This said, these speech forms are very dissimilar. Boyd comments that lexical divergence is great within the Adamawa branch (Boyd 1989:178) which is clearly displayed here. Reason is found here for Bennett’s conclusion that Mambay be classified as a parallel branch within the Mbum group. Any intelligibility between Mundang and Mambay is not helped by such a low lexical similarity.

4 INTELLIGIBILITY

Information gathered before the survey made us suspect some degree of inherent intelligibility of Mundang among the Mambay. The results of the RTT testing are shown in table 3. The percentage score given is followed by the standard deviation in parenthesis. The texts and questions used are in appendix F.

Table 3: RTT results: percentage correct (standard deviation in parentheses)

Comprehension of Mambay Mundang by Mambay 96% (0.08) 47% (0.40)

Results show that the Mambay scored very high on their own language, which validates the test method. However, the average score for the Mundang test was very low and the standard deviation very high which indicates large differences in scores. This suggests that where there was an ability to correctly understand and retell the story, it is learned and therefore the high scores reflect acquired comprehension of Mundang and not inherent intelligibility. The lexicostatistical analysis above also concurs with these results. Thus, Mambay speakers in general have a clearly inadequate understanding of Mundang, and literature existing in Mundang would not be understandable to Mambay speakers unless they had spent the time to learn to speak Mundang.

Our experience in the villages is consistent with these intelligibility results as well. The respondents who scored high on the test had all had significant previous contact with Mundang that is not representative of the speech community as a whole. One of the sources of contact is through the use of Mundang in church services (see section 6). Those that scored low could only understand two or three words in the text. It is clear that those who have no contact with Mundang have very little comprehension of it.

6We did not have a word list in Kuo to compare, but Sue Glidden, researcher with the Kuo, looked at the Mambay list and made a lexical comparison based on her knowledge of Kuo. 7Word lists for Goundo and Besme were taken from Isaac and Roberts (1999). 12

5 LANGUAGE ATTITUDES AND LITERACY PREFERENCES

One of the goals of our survey was to gain an indication of attitudes toward literacy in Mundang and in Mambay. To investigate attitudes, we looked at people’s perception of their interactions with Mundang speakers, their perception of difficulty in understanding, as well as other indications of choice between various speech forms. Often a group’s perception of intelligibility with another speech form reflects attitudes toward that speech form as much or more than actual linguistic reality.

During group interviews in Chad and Cameroon, different answers were given to the question of which language communication takes place when a Mundang speaker and a Mambay speaker meet. In Cameroon, Mundang, Mambay, and Fulfulde are used, while in Chad, only Mundang is used. This shows a favorable attitude to speaking Mundang, where the ability exists to speak the language.

People were also given the opportunity to rank languages in order of preference for literacy. The vast majority chose Mambay as their first choice for literacy. After that, French was chosen by most but when it came to a third choice, no one language stands out. Mundang’s highest scores were third and fourth choice while Arabic came to its highest frequency of choice in last position. Clearly, Mambay speakers would like to have literacy in their own language more than any other.

Mambay 70

60 Fulfulde

50 Arabic

40 French 30 Mundang 20

0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

Figure 3. Literacy preference by language.

To investigate willingness to associate with outsiders, and specifically Mundang, we examined intermarriage patterns as well. The Mambay showed a strong preference for in-group marriage, but with a willingness to marry outside the group as well. All those interviewed had Mambay-speaking fathers, and all but one had Mambay- speaking mothers as well. Of the twelve married subjects, ten had Mambay spouses, one had a Mundang wife (however his mother was also Mundang), and one had a Daba husband (the subject also lives outside of the Mambay area). Of the six subjects who had married children, all were married to Mambay spouses except one. Overall, Mambay speakers show a marked interest in literacy in their own language, while attitudes are not negative to other languages either. 13

6 LANGUAGE USE IN THE RELIGIOUS SERVICES

The Mambay region is predominantly Muslim, with a small Christian community, and very few who practice traditional religion. There are three Christian churches in the area.

We were not able to interview any local Islamic authorities, but in the group interview in Kakala, the Muslims present indicated that Arabic is used for prayers, while Fulfulde is used when the imam teaches.

We were not able to interview leaders from two of the Christian churches, but a pastor from the church in Kaboni was available for comment. The pastor is Mundang and does not speak Mambay. Until 1998, they had been using only Mundang with some Fulfulde in the church, and Mambay was discouraged: preaching was done in Mundang, and no interpretation was given. However, since that time, the Mambay Language Committee has been active in raising the profile of Mambay literacy in the area, and Mambay has been in vigorous use in the church except for a few portions of the service where the pastor alone speaks.

Presently, Mundang and Fulfulde Scriptures are used during services, while interpretation is given afterwards directly in Mambay. Singing takes place in Mambay and Mundang. For women’s meetings and youth meetings, Mambay is used more than Mundang. When the pastor prays, it is in Mundang, but when members of the congregation pray during the service, Mambay is used. The Eucharist is done in Mundang alone, the pastor officiating. Services for children are all in Mambay, while mid-week Bible studies are done using the Mundang Scriptures, interpreted in Mambay.

The majority of those who have their own copy of the Scriptures use the Mundang Bible. A few also use the Bible in Fulfulde and French.

7 BILINGUALISM AND LANGUAGE VITALITY

To evaluate the level of proficiency, we used a self-evaluation bilingualism questionnaire, graded to levels corresponding to those of the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) (see appendix D). Unfortunately, we cannot make firm conclusions out of our results for two reasons. Because we started testing in Chad, we thought it necessary to evaluate bilingualism in Mundang. However, since the scores were so low, and there was much less contact in Cameroon with Mundang speakers, we thought it good to evaluate Fulfulde ability there instead. In addition, we were mistaken in how many subjects were needed to fill a category in order to arrive at statistically significant figures, using five subjects instead of ten. Thus, no clear conclusions can be made from the results of our self- evaluation bilingualism questionnaires, and we can only talk of trends stemming from this questionnaire. However, we did ask language use questions in different domains uniformly on both sides of the border, so our analysis of the Mambay-speaking community as a whole is taken from these results.

Mambay speakers are generally bilingual in one or more languages. The main language of wider communication is Fulfulde, and it is spoken by all segments of the society. French seems to be generally limited to men.

In Chad, five people out of eleven (forty-five percent) are adequately bilingual in Mundang, only one of which is a woman. This result is split evenly between young and old, but four of the five are Muslims. This result is the opposite of what was found in the intelligibility testing (comprehension) where Christians did better than Muslims. This is likely due to the increased contact that Christians have when they hear Mundang at church. However, this contact gives them only enough ability to more easily understand someone rather than to speak the language, as was the goal of the bilingualism test here. In the end, the trend is that the Mambay community in Chad is not adequately bilingual in Mundang.

In Cameroon, four people out of ten are adequately bilingual in Fulfulde. This is evenly split between men and women, the young being more likely to be bilingual. Again, the trend is also that Muslims will know more Fulfulde than Christians. Reasons for this is that Fulfulde is a widely used trade language, and when people become Muslims, Fulfulde contact becomes much more frequent in mosques, and other languages are generally discouraged. Even so, only forty percent of the community in Cameroon are adequately bilingual, showing a trend that literature in Fulfulde would probably not be widely understood. 14

The most frequent languages reported as second languages in our individual questionnaires were Fulfulde (100% of men, 90% of women), used with all other ethnolinguistic groups, French (82% of men, 10% of women), and Mundang (73% of men, 20% of women). Arabic (9% of men only) and Hausa (27% of men only) were also mentioned.

Out of the twenty-one people interviewed, ten said they could speak Mundang. However, eight out of ten Mambay who speak Mundang are male, and out of these same ten, eight live in Chad. From this evidence, it seems clear that Mundang is not as widely spoken as a second language by Mambay speakers as first thought.

French usage is closely tied to education, as most of the formal education in the region is in French. (In Cameroon there are also Coranic schools (primary) and Franco-Islamic schools (secondary) which the majority of Mambay children attend.) Almost two thirds of those interviewed (sixty-two percent) had attended public school, with the percentage higher among the men (ninety-one percent) than among the women (thirty percent). Unsurprisingly, there is a strong correlation between the level of schooling and French bilingualism. Those with any experience in government schools speak French, and those who have not been to government schools speak no French.

In the group interviews, we asked about language use in various domains. Everyone said that Mambay alone was used in the home, with friends, and in the fields except for a man who had two wives, one of which was not a Mambay speaker, and a woman who does not live in the Mambay area. Two thirds also said that Mambay was used at the local market, and one quarter said that they used Mambay alone, while two thirds also used Fulfulde, and one quarter also used Fulfulde alone. Fulfulde dominates regional markets, and therefore, usually only Fulfulde is spoken there. French was mentioned for the clinic and the hospital, but still more prefer to use Mambay. With the canton chief, Mambay is used almost unanimously.

Even though nearly all respondents speak Fulfulde, it is not at an adequate level as shown previously. In fact, there is no segment of the community that shows any more level of proficiency than another in Fulfulde. If the youth, therefore, speak it just as well as their parents do, this shows that language shift is probably not in process.

Fulfulde seems to be the most likely challenger to Mambay in terms of language use. Some of the groups had the perception that the young people were mixing more French and Fulfulde in the language than their elders did. However, they felt that their children would continue to speak Mambay well. We did not see any signs of language loss, and in general the situation seemed to be stable, with no language shifting to other domains. None of the respondents spoke any other language to the exclusion of Mambay in the domains of the home, with friends, and in the fields. In fact there were only three respondents who spoke another language in addition to Mambay in these domains.

8 FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Although many in the Mambay community speak and understand Fulfulde, it is not at an adequate level to allow the widespread usage of literature. Neither are Mambay speakers adequately bilingual in, nor understand Mundang or any other language in the area.

2. Viability is high among the Mambay community on both sides of the border. The people’s attitude toward their language is positive, and there is no evidence that Mambay are abandoning their language, in favor of any other; neither are there any indications that this situation will change in the next several decades.

3. There is only one speech form of Mambay, with a small number of phonetic differences between the Mambay spoken in Cameroon and that of Chad. The more pure Mambay is spoken in Cameroon.

4. The likelihood of success of a literacy project among the Mambay seems high. The vast majority of Mambay questioned reported interest in learning to read and write in their own language, and the community has already taken initiative to form a language committee and sensitize Mambay about the benefits of developing their language.

5. Mambay would benefit from standardization and literacy in the Mambay language, and it is suggested that this be done from Cameroon, as it is the more pure form. 15

Appendix A. Group Questionnaire

Chercheur(s): Date: Lieu: No d’hommes: No de femmes: Responsables présents: Interprète: Sa langue: ------

I. SITUATION DIALECTALE I.a. Identification de dialectes 1.1. Comment vous appelez votre propre langue? 1.2. Quel est le nom dont les ethnies voisines appellent votre langue? 1.3. Comment vous appelez de votre propre ethnie (groupe ethnique, clan)? 1.4. Comment est-ce que les ethnies voisines appellent votre ethnie? (Qu’est-ce que vous pensez de ce nom-là?) 1.5. Quelles sont les origines de votre groupe? Si vous vous êtes déplacés pour venir ici, est-ce qu’il y a d’autres parties de votre groupe qui se sont déplacées ailleurs? Lesquelles?

1.6. Quels autres groupes (ethnies, régions) est-ce que vous considérez comme des frères?

1.7. Est-ce qu’il y a des conflits, querelles, disputes entre certaines groupes et vous?

1.8. Est-ce que tout le monde dans ce village parle la même langue? Sinon, quelles autres langues se parlent ici?

1.9. Avec les cartes, posez les questions suivantes en commençant avec les villages les plus proches, et continuez aux villages plus loin, jusqu’à tous sont d’une autre langue ou il semble que les gens ne connaissant plus les villages. Si c’est la même langue, parlée exactement de la même façon, encerclez le nom du village. Si c’est la même langue parlée un peu diffèrent, encerclez mais ajouter une lettre A, B, C, etc. et écrivez (en bas) le nom de cette façon de parler, s’il y en a, avec les différences que les gens constatent entre les deux façons de parler. Si c’est une autre langue, soulignez le village, avec le nom de la langue écrit à côté. Si c’est un village de plusieurs langues, emboîtez le nom du village, et écrivez les noms des autres langues à côte. (Si les abréviations sont utilisées, donnez une légende pour expliquer. Notez la date, et le village où sont prises les données et le nom d’enquêteur sur chaque carte.)

Quelle langue est-ce qu’on parle dans le village de X? 16

Si c’est le même nom que la langue des répondants, Est-ce qu’ils parlent exactement comme vous? Sinon, est-ce que ces gens ont une autre appellation pour leur façon de parler? Quelles sont les différences entre votre façon de parler et la leur? Est-ce qu’il y a des difficultés de compréhension? A. B. C. Est-ce que 100% de ce village parle cette variété? Sinon, quelles autres variétés sont parlées là-bas? Est-ce qu’il y a des villages en République Centrafricain où les gens parlent la même langue que la vôtre? Exactement de la même façon? I.b. Intercompréhension entre les parlers et multilinguisme 1.10. Quand vous rencontrez quelqu’un de X / un X, (a) vous parlez quel dialecte avec lui? (b) il parle quel dialecte avec vous? (c) il doit parle lentement ou normalement? (d) un de vos enfants peut lui comprendre à partir de quel âge? (endroit) (a) vous parlez? (b) il parle? (c) lent. / norm. (d) âge d’enfant? _X____ _Y_ _Z______1.11. Lesquelles de ces langues comprenez-vous le plus facilement? Et après celle-là? Le plus difficilement?

II. VIABILITE ET VITALITE DE LA LANGUE II.a. Usage des langues 2.1. Quelles langues est-ce que c’est le plus souvent utilisé... à la maison? avec les amis du même âge? au champ? au marché de (nom de marché local)? au marché de (grand marché)? 17

à la clinique / dispensaire? à l’école par le maître? à l’école par les élèves? peut-on parler (langue maternelle)? à l’école pendant la récréation par les enfants? par les enfants quand ils ne sont pas à l’école, pour jouer? 2.2. Est-ce que les jeunes d’ici parlent plus votre langue ou une autre? Si un autre, laquelle ou lesquelles? C’est un bonne chose ou non? Pourquoi? 2.3. Est-ce les jeunes parlent votre langue exactement comme vous la parlez? Sinon, quelles sont les différences? 2.4. Pensez-vous qu’on continuera à parler votre langue quand les garçons qui sont maintenant petits se marieront? Quand ces enfants seront âgés? II.b. Présence de notables au niveau local 2.5. Où est-ce que la plupart des notables de cette communauté habitent? 2.6. A l’avenir, est-ce ça sera vos jeunes qui vont prendre la relève de ceux qui sont actuellement notables? II.c. Migration et mariage 2.7. Est-ce que beaucoup des hommes d’ici se marient avec des femmes qui ne sont pas (ethnie)? Elles viennent d’où (de quelles ethnies)? 2.8. Est-ce que beaucoup de vos filles se marient avec des hommes qui ne sont pas (ethnie)? De quelles ethnies? 2.9. Est-ce qu’il y a certains peuples ou groupes de gens avec qui vous ne vous mariez pas? 2.10. Est-ce que la plupart de vos enfants vont à l’école?

L’école se trouve où (ici ou ailleurs)? Quelle(s) école(s)? publique coranique en français en arabe spontané officialisé (choisissez plusieurs) (S’il y en a plusieurs) Quelle a la plus d’élèves? Ils y assistent jusqu’à quel âge d’habitude? 2.11. Est-ce que la plupart de vos enfants vont à l’école secondaire? Que font la plupart des enfants après avoir terminé leurs études? 2.12. Est-ce qu’il y a des enfants qui viennent de l’extérieur pour assister à l’école ici? D’où? 2.13. Est-ce qu’il y a des étrangers qui viennent ici régulièrement? Est-ce qu’il y a des étrangers qui habitent ici? 18

Est-ce qu’ils sont nombreux au village? (un quart, moitié) III. RELIGION

3.1. La plupart des gens pratiquent la religion traditionnelle, l’islam ou le christianisme? Au village: Sur l’étendue de la langue:

3.2. Parmi les chrétiens, il y a quelles églises?

Laquelle est la plus grande? La deuxième?

IV. ATTITUDES LINGUISTIQUES

4.1. Si quelqu’un voulait donner un discours sur un sujet important ici, et il y avait deux locuteurs, l’un parlait X et l’autre Y, lequel écoutez-vous? Et si cette langue n’était pas là, est-ce que vous allez écouter celui qui reste? 4.2. Est-ce que cela vous intéresse d’apprendre à lire et écrire en X? en Y?

4.3. Quelle langue est-ce que vous préférez apprendre à lire et à écrire?

Et si celle-là n’était pas disponible?

Et si celle-là n’était pas disponible? (donnez une prompte si c’est nécessaire) 4.4 Est-ce qu’il existe des choses écrites en votre langue? (par exemple des chants, des prières, des portions des livres ou de la Bible)

4.5. Où est-ce qu’on parle le mieux votre langue? Dans quelle autre région est-ce qu’on parle aussi très bien? 4.6. Avez-vous une fois réalisé vous-mêmes des projets tels que la construction de puits, d’écoles, de routes, de dispensaires? 4.7. Est-ce que vous seriez prêts à faire quelque chose vous-mêmes pour réaliser un projet d’alphabétisation? 19

Appendix B. Church Leaders’ Questionnaire

Enquêteur: Date: Lieu de l’enquête:

Dénomination:

L1 = Langue étudiée, D1 = Dialecte étudié

1. PRESENTATION DE L’ENQUETE

1.1. Nom:

1.2. Fonction dans l’église:

1.3. Langue maternelle: Est-ce que vous parlez L1? Quel “dialecte”?

2. INFORMATION GENERALE

2.1. Quand est-ce que cette église a été établie (dans ce village)?

2.2. Combien de gens font parti de l’église?

2.3. Quelles ethnies sont représentées dans votre église? Combien de chaque ethnie font partie de l’assemblée?

2.4. La majorité au village est de quelle religion? animiste chrétienne musulmane autre

2.5. Il y a quelles églises au village?

2.6. Quelle église est la plus grande?

2.7. Est-ce qu’il y a une population musulmane dans ce village? Depuis quand?

Est-ce qu’il y a des gens de l’ethnie (L1) qui se sont convertis à Islam/au crétinisme récemment? Combien? Qui (ex. hommes, femmes, jeunes, vieux)?

2.8. Est-ce qu’il y a des gens ici qui sont maltraités à cause de leur religion?

2.9. Est-ce qu’il y a d’autres caractéristiques importantes au plan religieux de ce village (ex. Le village est reconnu comme centre de fétichisme.)?

3. L’USAGE DE LA LANGUE A L’EGLISE

3.1. Quelles langues sont utilisées pendant le culte/la messe pour: - prêcher - prières (des dirigeants) - les annonces - prières (des paroissiens) - lire les écritures - les chants/la louange - la liturgie - l’eucharistie/la sainte cène - autre activité: ______20

3.2. (chez les catholiques) Qui lit le lectionnaire pendant la messe?

Dans quelle(s) langue(s)?

Est-ce qu’il y a parfois des problèmes à le lire?

Est-ce que la lecture est bien comprise par tout le monde?

3.3. Quelle(s) langue(s) est(sont) utilisée(s) pour: - la réunion des femmes - le groupe de jeunesse - les témoignages - les études bibliques - prières des laïcs aux réunions des jours de semaine - l’école dominicale - autre réunion:

3.4. Quelle traduction de la Bible est utilisée à l’église?

3.5. Dans votre congrégation combien de personnes possèdent leurs propres bibles? très peu | plusieurs | moitié | majorité

3.6. Est-ce qu’il existe du matériel religieux en L1/D1? Précisez:

3.7. Est-ce qu’il y a des responsables L1/D1 dans cette église? Ils prêchent en quelle langue?

3.8. Donnez-vous parfois une traduction préparée ou spontanée en L1/D1? Pourquoi (pas)?

3.9. Si un invité prêche en (L2), est-ce qu’il y a une interprétation? (L2 = Français, etc.) S’il parle aux jeunes, est-il également interprété? 21

Appendix C. Individual Questionnaire

0.1 Enquêteur: 0.2 Date: 0.3 Lieu de l’enquête:

I. PRESENTATION DU SUJET

1.1. Comment vous appelez-vous? (Sexe)

1.2. Vous avez quel âge?

1.3. Quelle est votre métier?

1.4. Est-ce que vous partez à l’église? Laquelle?

1.5. Etes-vous allé(e) à l’école? Jusqu’à quelle classe?

1.6. a. Où êtes vous né(e)?

b. (Si pas ici) Depuis quand est-ce que vous avez habité ce village?

c. Où est-ce que vous avez habité pendant au moins un an? Endroit Combien de temps? Quelle langue est-ce vous avez parlé là-bas?

1.7. a. Quelles langues parlez-vous, même un peu? (notez le nom utilisé par le sujet)

b. Quelles langues comprenez-vous seulement?

1.8. Quelle est la langue maternelle de votre père?

1.9. Quelle est la langue maternelle de votre mère?

1.10. Votre père et mère parlent/parlaient quelle langue entre eux?

1.11. Quelle est la langue maternelle de votre mari/(vos) femme(s)?

1.12. a. Si votre enfant(s) est déjà marié, son époux(se) parle quelle langue? (notez nombre et sexe)

b. Et ils parlent quelle(s) langue(s) entre eux à la maison?

c. Vos petits-enfants parlent quelle langue?

1.13. a. Est-ce que les X / Y parlent la même langue que vous?

1.14. a. Est-ce que les X / Y sont comme vos frères ou comme des étrangers?

b. Est-ce que vous êtes tous de la même ethnie? 22

II. USAGE DE LANGUES / MULTILINGUISME

2.1. Quelles sont les langues que vos enfants savent parler?

2.2. Quelle(s) langue(s) parlent vos enfants en jouant avec d’autres enfants?

2.3. Quelle langue parlez-vous a. avec votre mari/femme(s)? b. avec vos enfants? c. avec vos ami(e)s du même âge? d. au marché local? e. au grand marché à ...? f. aux champs? g. avec le chef de canton? h. à l’hôpital? Quand vous êtes chez un ... groupe/ langue a. vous parlez? b. il répond? c. normalement/ d. enfant comprend lentement? à quel âge?

2.4. X

2.5. Y

III. DEVELOPPEMENT DE LA LANGUE

3.1. a. S’il y avait des journaux et des livres dans la langue X, est-ce que vous voudriez apprendre à lire et à écrire dans X?

b. Pourquoi?

c. Si oui, est-ce que vous seriez prêts à dépenser 500 CFA pour un syllabaire pour y participer?

3.2. Quelles villes et villages sont les plus importants et prestigieux de la région où votre langue est parlée? C’est-à-dire les centres de la région? Et à part votre village?

3.3. Où parle-t-on le mieux votre langue? Si un étranger veut apprendre votre langue, où doit-il s’installer pour apprendre le ... pur? Et à part votre village?

3.4. a. Imaginez que deux hommes vont donner un discours très important dans trois endroits différents du village. L’un va le donner en X et l’autre en Y. S’il faut choisir, lequel vous est-ce vous écouteriez?

b. Est si celui n’était pas là? Est-ce que vous partirez quand même? 23

Appendix D. Self-Evaluation Bilingualism Questionnaire (SEBQ)

Adapted from the U.S. Foreign Service Institute Testing Kit by J. S. Quakenbush.

To score at a certain level, the subject must respond appropriately to all questions on that level and on all preceding levels. In addition, to score a level + the subject must respond appropriately to two of the questions on the following level.

Level - 0+ A. Can you speak language X even just a little bit?

Level - 1 A. Using only language X, can you understand and respond correctly to questions about where you are from, if you are married, your work, and date and place of birth? B. Could you explain the way from here to the nearest school to someone who doesn’t know, using only language X?

Level - 2 A. Can you describe in detail your present or former work, using only language X? B. Could you give a brief account of your lifestyle and plans for the future, using only language X? C. Using only language X, could you hire someone to work for you, checking his qualifications, and arranging his wages, hours, and responsibilities?

Level - 3 A. When two native X speakers are angry and fight, can you understand all they say, or will you miss some things? B. Are you always sure to understand what people tell you in language X? Or sometimes are you afraid to not know certain words? C. Suppose you’ve just heard two people discussing an interesting subject in your language. Someone who speaks language X but not your language asks you what they were talking about. Can you explain what they said in language X? D. Is it always easy for you to understand and talk with speakers of language X? Or does it sometimes seem difficult? E. Can you debate well in language X? F. Could you talk to a group of chiefs using only language X, and be sure to say what you wanted to say without hurting or amusing the chiefs?

Level - 4 A. Can you change your way of speaking language X, depending on whether you are talking to a friend or to a village chief? (can you talk as politely to the chiefs of language X as well as the speakers of language X, or will your language be a bit simpler?) B. Could you work as a translator for a chief who is from the people of language X? C. In any discussion on any subject with the speakers of language X, can you always use the right words? Can you express the exact sense of your thoughts? Or is it sometimes difficult to find the words, and you have to talk around to get your thought across? D. Do you speak language X well even when you are angry? If speakers of language X are debating, are you always able to say to them whatever you want in their language?

Level - 5 A. Can you use as many words in language X as in your own language? B. Sometimes is it easier for you to think in language X than in your own language? C. Do you speak language X as well as a language X mother-tongue speaker? D. When someone hears you speaking language X without seeing you, would he think you are a language X mother-tongue speaker, or would he know that you’re not? 24

Appendix E. Word Lists

French Mundang Mambay 1tete tEt´li kal´ 2 cheveu(x) ERi) su˘zç 3oeil nane ni)no 4nez vu) NwA) 5 oreille suki sugç 6 bouche zAi dag´ 7dent SJEle Zinu 8 langue tERi)l na}imnu 9cou sçle kWa 10 gorge kJ´) du)R)¨ 11 bras dZˆle Si´ 12 main brdZˆle dikSi´ 13 doigt dewi˘dZˆle b´kSi´ 14 ongle fi´)i hE÷R´ 15 sein m)ç)ni nu)R)u) 16 ventre gbriC du÷´ 17 nombril fu) pu)R)´) 18 dos fA˘fAle fal˘´ 19 fesse Îç´zam¨ni wa÷lni)nu) 20 jambe ∫ale ma÷n´ 21 genou atSi)∫ale kanaSi/nu 22 pied tUfUgbAle f´÷man´ 23 peau waxsU wAg´ 24 os U)I) hugç 25 sang Sim tu/bç 26 urine dItSUmi su)b´ 27 coeur saZili digˆnç 28 homme dˆ∫iC napWUg´ 29 femme majwIni vi)n´) 30 engant jwele ∫ig´ 31 pere pA˘wele d´˘ 32 mere mA˘wele m´) 33 frere nA˘m´ ∫i)ktHi) 34 soeur nA˘m´mA˘jwIni ∫i)ktHi)ivi)n´) 35 oncle maternel nA˘ne bi)ktuti) 36 nom t´Îi ja)÷ 37 chef gç)E) NmWa) 38 chien gu vWa 39 chevre guiC vu 40 poulet k´)i) kag´ 41 vache/boeuf dˆ zA÷ 42 corne tSi) si)˘nU 43 queue sˆ s´b´ 44 chameau dZç)dZç) gElçb´ 25

45 elephant m∫Ale bale 46 serpent su twa÷ 47 poisson Sˆ) ki´)÷ 48 oiseau dZˆ∏ zçg´ 49 fourmi sˆwURˆ pimn´ 50 araignee matˆgbˆlgˆli tinad´z´ 51 scorpion dEwejli z´b´ 52 pou de tete tanditˆtˆli t´ndi 53 arbre kpBˆ gbeg´ 54 branche dZˆlpˆ sepeg´ 55 feuille gWçkpˆ∏ vas´ 56 ecorce dEZekpˆ∏ hE}ikpeg´ 57 racine sˆ)nˆ)kpˆ s´)R)ikpeg´ 58 fleur fw´)}) fu/u}´ 59 (graine de) semence nA)f´)nˆ) ∫´}´ 60 herbe fw´) kwa 61 ciel tSçsˆ keti 62 nuage su)´)I) n´)R)´) 63 soleil tSçme gJ´ 64 lune fi) fi´ 65 nuit sUNmI) su)mu) 66 etoile NwˆmˆgaJ }´÷n´ 67 vent Zake ge}´ 68 terre sUj sigRç 69 colline wAre gbç}ç 70 pierre dˆsale sA 71 sable tçkWulRiC ku) 72 poussiere gbçmi kul/vo 73 caillou dˆsale n´z´}´ 74 eau biC bi´ 75 rosee mma)mE bekWA 76 riviere fAli/wele z´Re 77 feu /wiC n´sj´ 78 fumee sç)wiC vin´sJ´ 79 braise j´kwiC he}en´sj´ 80 an SiC si)R)´) 81 saison pluvieuse zale gil´ 82 saison seche kale sçƒ´ 83 village j´ kafilç 84 champ /wae p´R)´) 85 chemin faliC f´ 86 maison j´u)suwiC fi˘lo 87 lit ÎiRe kisuNg´ 88 trou laxle nU)÷´ 89 ordure ƒAle vu/Î´ 90 habit jiEliC tisç) 91 calebasse U)˘le) gi}´ 92 marmite tSi˘ri silg´ 93 viande Nˆ nam´ 26

94 sel tˆmi s´)b´ 95 huile nˆmˆ nu)v´ 96 oeuf pUa)re p´)÷R)´) 97 lait mwU)ni p´∫´ 98 faim kWçNnˆ kçm˜´ 99 soif kWçnbiC dç÷al´ 100 corde s˘Ale sA÷l´ 101 fer vu)A)ne) le/eb´ 102 couteau n)A)i) hI˘g´ 103 guerre s´le d´R´ 104 un vAnN bçm 105 deux gwA gbati 106 trois s´j/ bis´ 107 quatre nE) bin´ 108 cinq dEpÁi biz´pI 109 six jE/ bigi}o 110 sept /URU)/ tArn´k 111 huit nAmA fWArn´÷ 112 neuf dç˘R´ se÷bçm 113 dix dZEmA zçÎˆm 114 onze dZEmAdˆvA)nç) sçmbçm 115 vingt dZEmagwA kala∫´t 116 cent demeRe temE}E 117 beaucoup kpˆliC lúp 118 peu ndZi) belek 119 tout tE/Îi? tHEÎE 120 bon kpUs´)ˆ) n´m÷ 121 mauvais kpU∫iEle k´tn÷´ 122 vieux kpUtami sçNgçIo 123 nouveau bçf¨ katu´ 124 chaud kpˆtSçke kasu˘ƒ´ 125 froid pˆw¨ki si÷ilA 126 haute taille pˆwa)j) du÷ug´ 127 petite taille pˆtSç) bim 128 long pˆwa)j) du÷ug´ 129 court pˆtSç) bim 130 lourd pˆjiki kafimçgo 131 leger pˆgWAe) f´j´)N 132 plein gb´ˆ/ b´/le 133 vide tçkWçle kikçAle 134 propre bítn÷ame bjEl 135 sale ni÷n÷ame kAk÷An´ 136 sec pˆj´k˘e kaba˘g´ 137 rouge pˆSˆ) kase˘g´ 138 noir kpˆfu kapçg´ 139 blanc kpˆf´)i) kapu 140 partir kalbe zç˘le 141 venir gIbbe umle 142 arriver ÎíbE u/ule 27

143 se lever çrsƒˆNbe Erle 144 s’asseoir kE/ˆsŃbe na)le 145 se coucher SˆsˆNbe su)lI 146 tomber li_ebe ti)glI 147 marcher SI˘ve te/elˆ 148 courir Îuvni A/AlI 149 nager ibi /elˆ 150 voler (oiseau) jusƒˆ)N gçƒWçle 151 voir kUbe/ kç}i 152 entendre laBe/ l´/´}i 153 sentir (odorat) lefU)a)be fç)R)i) 154 engendrer ∫iA)Nbe kç˘leW 155 mourir wU/pe hWule 156 dormir nˆnˆmpe nu)le 157 souffler fiˆtEjake uli 158 siffler wUltewele u}ihe)l´ 159 enfler bâbo hUmli 160 sucer laI leg}i 161 cracher tEkp´lale sa/b}i 162 tousser jItˆjele ha/li 163 vomir Á¨zí sA/bRi 164 aboyer ç®u®u wa/U}i 165 mordre lWçNbe gbe}i 166 manger E®ibe la˘}i 167 boire Zˆbe dU}i 168 vouloir ÷jAbe/ kJa/}i 169 avoir peur /®u(c)al∫e h÷En 170 savoir tE/be sumR)i) 171 penser/reflechir fu˘be su˘}i 172 compter ki˘be kE/}i 173 souffrir/avoir mal lAbWçnibe l´/}Ibu)R)i) 174 rire SiSa÷gbe gWçs´}i 175 pleurer ljiji }iA÷le 176 dire fÁ´∫e lç÷}i 177 demander fibe sa÷}i 178 chanter Îˆlˆ)Nbe Îa}i 179 danser dˆdE/ z´÷}i 180 jouer dZçNkEme p´}isi)n´ 181 donner i)Ngbe hi)}i 182 montrer tS¨be/ tu÷u}i) 183 envoyer pˆ˘kalBe sçqçli 184 acheter li˘be sa}i 185 se marier kA)nbe i}ivin´ 186 lutter ÎatI)´)nI) da}i 187 tuer ÷ipçw¨lbe igli 188 voler (derober) tnjI)mbe gWa}i 189 prendre g∫A)be ji´÷}i 190 amener ∫´)kAlnˆBe j´÷hin 191 chercher kEbE kEli 28

192 trouver lWaBe ÎA}i 193 pousser wugIlele hç÷}i 194 tirer hamgIçlAj su÷¯i 195 lier/attacher bAgbe wA÷¯i 196 frapper /IbE Îu}i 197 fendre ∫alBe seri 198 gratter gbˆ) gb´)R)i) 199 presser Nˆ)be ha)}i 200 laver (quelque chose) vABe fç÷´ni) 201 bruler SIwibe ÎiƒiR)i) 202 lancer ÷NˆgElAlBe Îegˆ}i 203 verser sˆgElalBe }ugu}i 204 enterrer tCibe zigˆ¯i 205 cacher mu)be vU÷ani) 206 travailler dZçjEbe sçƒçli 207 balayer gbˆ˘tSçbe taƒ´li 208 tresser ka˜˘be k´mR)i 209 cultiver kpˆbe pa˘}i 210 preparer (la nourriture) dZç)˘faRElbe gç¯i 211 ici nji)nç k´÷´) 212 pres gWç®i jagu 213 la†bas a˘nç k¨)/¨) 214 loin pu/dˆki kapaRag´ 215 a droite dZçkisa)÷ˆ) se÷paR´ 216 a gauche dZç/kˆlçb´j kAselA÷∫i 217 maintenant zizIç) dWç÷´/ 218 hier tˆs¨ su 219 demain tˆ/nanE ¯çgo 220 ou kinE ki)n´) 221 quand nIkHinE m´ki/akin´ 222 comment su/ÎEne /an´ 223 qui zyne vi˘n´ 224 quoi ∏Wi)E)ne) vi)n´ 225 je/moi mmI mi) 226 tu/toi /ammç) mu) 227 il/lui /a/kç du 228 elle/lui /a/kç du 29

Appendix F. Texts and Comprehension Questions

Mambay Text Narrated by Gabba Kam and translated into French by Kami Gédéon.

Les animaux se sont réunis en brousse afin de se nourrir.1 “Quand nous serons là-bas, nous irons à la chasse et ce serait fait à tour de rôles. Le jour où la chasse n’a pas bien marché pour ramener le gibier à la maison pour chaque famille, on va tuer le dirigeant de la chasse de ce jour-là.”2 Parmi le groupe d’animaux, il y a les plus forts, aussi3 qui sont capable de tuer le gibier pour aller nourrir les autres animaux.4 Il y avait des lions, des panthères, des éléphants aussi. Il y avait l’âne et autres animaux parmi eux.5 Alors arrivé à la chasse, le lion était le premier.6 Il est revenu avec le gibier. Après la panthère est parti à la chasse et est revenu avec le gibier. L’éléphant est aussi parti et revenu avec le gibier. Arrivé avec tous ces gibiers, ils étaient très contents de ce repas.7

Alors c’est le tour de l’âne de venir avec le repas maintenant.8 Parmi ceux-là, le plus faible, c’est l’âne.9 Bien avant alors, l’hyène a commencé à se moquer de l’âne. “Quand son tour arrivera, il reviendra avec quoi?10 Il ne va rien trouver de gibier à son retour, et nous allons le manger.”11

Quand le jour de tour de l’âne arriva, l’âne partit à la chasse et il est revenu. Il est parti encore et se cachait derrière les buissons auprès du marigot.12 Tous les animaux y venaient boire l’eau. Alors quand l’âne a vu qu’ils sont venu nombreux boire de l’eau, il commença à crier.13 De là en fuiant, ils se sont entre-tués et il y avait beaucoup de morts parmi eux; l’âne a tué beaucoup plus que les autres.14

L’âne est reparti trouver les autres, et leurs dit, “allez-y ramassez la viande et ramenez-les-moi.” Et les autres ont trouvé que l’âne avait beaucoup tué du gibier.15

1Les animaux se sont réunis pourquoi? Afin de se nourrir. 2La chasse serait fait comment? A tour de rôles. 3Quelques animaux sont comment? Parmi les plus forts. 4Ils sont capable de faire quoi? Tuer les gibiers. 5Quelles animaux sont parmi eux? Lions, panthères, éléphants, et l’âne. 6Qui était premier à la chasse? Le lion. 7Ils étaient très contents avec quoi? D’avoir ce repas. 8C’est le tour de qui? L’âne 9L’âne est comment? Le plus faible. 10Qui s’est moqué de l’âne? L’hyène. 11Les animaux vont faire quoi? Manger l’âne (s’il reviens sans rien). 12L’âne s’est caché où? Derrière les buissons, auprès du marigot. 13L’âne a fait quoi? Crier. 14Les animaux étaient tués comment? En fuiant / ils se sont entre-tués. 15L’âne a tué combien de gibiers? Plus que les autres ont en tué. 30

Mundang Text Narrated by Wasyakré Thomas.

Au mois de mai, le dix, il y avait plu et j’ai pris mes boeufs et le semence et je suis allé en brousse.1 Je commençais à semer le mil. Je semais au fur et à mésure et la charrue avançait. Quand je regardais derrière moi je voyais les fourmis qui ramassaient mes graines de mil pour les amener quelque part.2 Ils les emportaient, même les gros fourmis et je me suis dit “aïe, mon mil va être gaspillé.”

Je suis rentré à la maison, et quand je suis rentré à la maison j’ai cherché de la poudre insecticide pour mélanger avec le mil. Quand j’ai commencé à semer, semer, semer je les voyais emporter mes graines. Et ils les ont abandonnées et je me suis dit, “ah, mon mil ne sera plus détruit comme celui d’hier.”3

Et quand je suis rentré le lendemain je me suis assuré que mon mil poussera bien. Deux ou trois jours après quand les graines ont germé j’ai découvert que les jeunes pousses étaient enlevées.4 Mais le mil là était déterré et je me suis dit, “Mais qu’est-ce qui aurait fait ça? Pourtant le mil était bien germé.”5 Quand je regardais autour de moi, je voyais promener les perdrix.6 Je me suis dit, “yo, ce sont ces choses-là qui ont détruite mes jeunes pousses.” Quand je suis rentré le lendemain je suis allé poser une piège.7 J’ai posé les pièges et quand je suis reparti le lendemain, je ne sais pas, est-ce qu’elles étaient en train de discuter ou bien quoi, alors ils étaient tous deux entré dans la piège. Ils étaient tués et je me suis dit, “ah, c’est bien fait, comme ils gaspillaient ma semence.” J’ai trouvé de la sauce, je les ai pris et mis dans mon sac pour apporter à ma femme.8

Quand je suis arrivé, elle a demandé, “comment mon mari? Où as-tu trouvé tous deux comme ça?”9

“Ce sont ces choses qui gaspillent notre mil et comme j’ai trouvé le mil germé déjà, je suis allé poser les pièges pour les avoir tous deux. Maintenant il faut que tu les fasses frire.”10

1Ça c’est passé après quoi? Quand il avait plu. 2Qui a ramassé les graines? Les fourmis. 3Qu’est-ce qu’il a dit? “mon mil ne sera plus détruit comme celui d’hier.” 4Qu’est-ce qu’il a découvert? Les pousses étaient déterrées. 5Qu’est-ce qu’il a dit? “ Qu’est-ce qui aurait fait ça?” 6Qu’est-ce qu’il a vu? Le perdrix. 7Quand est-ce qu’il est revenu (en brousse)? Le lendemain. 8Il a trouvé quoi? De la sauce. 9Sa femme a fait quoi? Elle a demandé comment il a fait pour trouver deux oiseaux. 10Qu’est-ce qu’il a demandé à sa femme? Qu’elle les fasse frire. 31

Appendix G. Map of the Area Studied

Dots represent Mambay-speaking villages. 32

References

Baudelaire, H. 1944. La numérotation de 1 à 10 dans les dialectes Habé de Garoua, Guider-Poli et Rey-Bouba. Bulletin de la Société d’Etudes Camerounaises 5:25–30. Bennett, Patrick R. 1983. Adamawa-Eastern: Problems and prospects. Current approaches to African linguistics 1:28–48, ed. by I.R. Dihoff. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Bergman, Ted G. 1989. Summarizing and drawing conclusions from the numbers in a language survey. Survey Reference Manual, section 8.1.5. Dallas:Summer Institute of Linguistics. Blair, F. 1990. Survey on a shoestring: A manual for small-scale language surveys. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, Arlington: University of Texas. Boyd, Raymond. 1989a. Adamawa-Ubangi. The Niger-Congo languages, 178–215. Lanham: University Press of America. Boyd, Raymond. 1989b. Number systems in the Adamawa branch of Niger-Congo. African Languages and Cultures 2(2):149–173. Caprile, Jean-Pierre. 1978. Le group des langues du soudan central. Barreteau, Daniel, ed. Inventaire des études linguistiques sur les pays d’Afrique noire d’expression française et sur Madagascar. Paris: SELAF. Casad, Eugene H. 1974. Dialect intelligibility testing. Dallas:Summer Institute of Linguistics. Eguchi, Paul K. 1971. Esquisse de la langue mambai. Kyoto University African Studies 6:139–194. Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. The languages of Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University. Grimes, Barbara F., ed. 1996. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 13th edition. Dallas:Summer Institute of Linguistics. Grimes, Joseph E., and Barbara F. Grimes. 1996. Ethnologue: Language family index to the thirteenth edition of the Ethnologue. Dallas:Summer Institute of Linguistics. Grimes, Joseph. 1995. The survey reference guide. Dallas:Summer Institute of Linguistics. Isaac, Kendall, and James Roberts. 1999. Sociolinguistic survey of the Besmé language of Chad. N’Djaména:Summer Institute of Linguistics. Lestringant, J. 1964. Les pays de Guidar au Cameroun. Paris: no publisher. Lukas, Johannes. 1937. Zentralsudanische studien. Hamburg: de Gruyter. République du Tchad. 1993. Recensement général de la population et l’habitat. ms. N’Djaména: Ministre du Plan et de la Coopération. Samarin, William J. 1971. Adamawa-Eastern linguistics in Sub-Saharan Africa. Current Trends in Linguistics 7:213–244. The Hague: Mouton. Simons, Gary. 1989. Tables of significance for lexicostatistics. Survey reference manual, section 3.3.1–3.3.32. Dallas:Summer Institute of Linguistics. Summer Institute of Linguistics. 1989a. Second language oral proficiency (SLOPE). In T. Bergman (ed.), Survey reference manual: A collection of papers on the assessment of Bible translation need, 5.1.1–5.1.32. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Summer Institute of Linguistics. 1989b. Language assessment criteria. In T. Bergman (ed.), Survey reference manual: A collection of papers on the assessment of Bible translation need, 9.5.1–9.5.4. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Strümpell, R. 1910. Vergleichendes Wörterverzeichnis der Heidensprachen Adamauas. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 42:444–488. Tucker, A.N., and M. A. Bryan 1956. The non-bantu languages of North-Eastern Africa. Handbook of African Languages. London: OUP, International African Institute. 33

Ubels, Edward, and Virginia Ubels. 1980. Phonology of Karang. Yaoundé: Institut des Sciences Humaines, DGRST. Westermann, Diedrich, and M. A. Bryan. 1952. Languages of West Africa. Handbook of African Languages, Part II. Oxford: Oxford University Press (for the International African Institute). Wimbish, J. S. 1989. Wordsurv: A program for analyzing language survey word lists. ver. 2.4. Dallas:Summer Institute of Linguistics. Yangalme, Passiri. 1976/77. Structure des Mundan de Léré et évolution récentes. Mémoire de maîtrise. Brazzaville: Université Marien N’Gouabi.