Sociolinguistic Survey of the Dogon Language Area J. Lee Hochstetler, in collaboration with J. A. Durieux and E. I. K. Durieux-Boon SIL International 2004 2 Table of Contents List of Tables Abbreviations Acknowledgements Abstract 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Survey 1.2 Overview 1.3 Definitions 1.4 Notation 2. Geography 2.1 Political geography 2.2 Physical geography 3. People 3.1 Name 3.2 Origin and ethnic classification 3.3 Population 3.4 Means of support 3.5 Other inhabitants 4. Language 4.1 Number of speakers 4.2 Linguistic classification 4.3 List of varieties 4.4 Other languages 4.5 Standard dogon 4.6 Orthography summary 5. Milestones 5.1 1849–1950 5.2 1951–1969 5.3 1970–1999 5.4 Plungian and Tembine 6. Speech variety inventory 6.1 Ampari-kora 6.1.1 Intercomprehension 6.1.2 Institutions 6.2 Bageri-m 6.2.1 Institutions 6.3 Bondum-dom 6.3.1 Intercomprehension 6.3.2 Viability 6.3.3 Institutions 3 6.4 Dogulu-dom 6.4.1 Intercomprehension 6.4.2 Institutions 6.5 Tiranige-diga 6.5.1 Institutions 6.6 Jamsay-tegu 6.6.1 Intercomprehension 6.6.2 Language attitude 6.6.3 Institutions 6.7 Donno-s 6.7.1 Intercomprehension 6.7.2 Language attitude 6.7.3 Institutions 6.8 Korandabo 6.8.1 Intercomprehension 6.8.2 Institutions 6.9 Mombo 6.9.1 Intercomprehension 6.9.2 Institutions 6.10 Naa-dama 6.10.1 Intercomprehension 6.10.2 Institutions 6.11 Oru yille 6.11.1 Institutions 6.12 Teu-kan 6.12.1 Intercomprehension 6.12.2 Institutions 6.13 Togo-kan 6.13.1 Intercomprehension 6.13.2 Language attitude 6.13.3 Institutions 6.14 Tmm-s 6.14.1 Intercomprehension 6.14.2 Language attitude 6.14.3 Institutions 6.15 Tomo-kan 6.15.1 Intercomprehension 6.15.2 Institutions 6.16 Tr-s 6.16.1 Intercomprehension 6.16.2 Institutions 6.17 Tr-tegu 6.17.1 Institutions 6.18 Yanda-dom 6.18.1 Intercomprehension 6.18.2 Institutions 6.19 Isolate 7. General results 7.1 Dogon variety groups 4 7.2 Assessing intercomprehension 7.2.1 Difficulties 7.2.2 Wordlists 7.2.3 Summary of DNAFLA (1981) 7.2.4 Recorded text tests 7.2.5 Other languages 7.3 Assessing attitudes 7.3.1 Attitude toward local variety 7.3.2 Attitudes toward other Dogon varieties 7.3.3 Attitudes toward non-Dogon varieties 7.4 Institutions 7.4.1 Christian 7.4.2 Muslim 7.4.3 Schools 7.4.4 DNAFLA 7.4.5 Nongovernmental organisations 7.4.6 Radio 8. Methodology 8.1 Research questions 8.2 Approaches 8.3 Data gathering 8.4 Instruments (tests) 8.5 Preparation and use of wordlist 8.6 Justification for use of recorded text tests 8.7 Problems encountered 8.8 Data analysis 8.8.1 Wordlists 8.8.2 Census data 9. Conclusions 9.1 DNAFLA’s 1974–1977 surveys 9.2 Background information 9.3 Answers for our research quesitons 9.3.1 Number of speech varieties 9.3.2 Location of speech varieties 9.3.3 Number of speakers 9.3.4 Intercomprehension 9.3.5 Viability 9.3.6 Attitudes 9.3.7 Institutions 9.4 Development need Appendices Appendix A: Dogon Speech Varieties Appendix B: Tomo-kan area Appendix C: Dogon towns and villages Appendix D: Dogon Wordlists Appendix E: Dogon Word and Phrase List Questionnaire Appendix F: Dogon Elder Questionnaire Bibliography 5 List of Tables Table 1. Administrative structure in Dogon land Table 2. Population densities in the Cercle de Bandiagara Table 3. Number of Dogon speakers six years and older in Mali in 1987 Table 4. Dogon speech varieties Table 5. Provisional lexical similarity percentages Table 6. Dogon RTT test sites Table 7. Dogon RTT average scores Table 8. Standard deviations of RTT samples Table 9. Reported speech variety preference Table 10. ECED districts 6 Abbreviations C&MA Christian and Missionary Alliance CRC Christian Reformed Church DED Deutsche EntwicklungsDienst DNAFLA Direction Nationale de l’Alphabétisation Fonctionnelle et de la Linguistique Appliquée EBM Evangelical Baptist Mission ECE Eglise Chrétienne Evangélique au Mali ECED Eglise Chrétienne Evangélique au pays Dogon GMU Gospel Missionary Union GTZ Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit IPA International Phonetic Alphabet ISQ Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau NFE Non-Formal Education RTT Recorded Text Test SIL Summer Institute of Linguistics / Societé Internationale de Linguistique StC SOS Save the Children UBS United Bible Societies 7 Acknowledgements This survey report is the result of a team effort. J. A. Durieux and E. I. K Durieux-Boon—wordlists, village co-ordinates, sociolinguistic questionnaires, sections of this report. Michael Jemphrey—rendering and formatting wordlists. P. J. Higby—typing phrase lists. Colin Davis—Dogon speech variety maps. We are grateful for the help DNAFLA gave during the planning of this survey. The Ministry of Education has since been reorganized and DNAFLA has been replaced by several other agencies. We thank Professor Issiaka Tembiné for graciously providing information on the names and locations of many Dogon villages. Special fonts used in this report: “Mali_std SIL Doulos” and “SIL Doulos IPA.” 8 Abstract In 1998 a sociolinguistic survey was conducted in the Dogon language area in central Mali to assess whether all Dogon speakers could potentially use literature published in the T¡r¡-s¡¡ speech variety (the Dogon variety selected by the Malian government to be the sole standard). If not, then which speakers of which speech varieties would have trouble understanding it? To what degree might these Dogon speakers benefit from literature in Bambara and Fulfulde? Or might further linguistic analysis and literacy work be needed in other Dogon speech varieties in order for all Dogon speakers to have access to a literature they could understand? This research included identifying the Dogon speech varieties, listing villages where each is spoken, mapping the geographical area of each speech variety, collecting wordlists, and asking questions following a standardized questionnaire. 9 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Survey The reason for doing this survey was a desire to know whether the goal of all Dogon speakers being able to understand written material in the T¡r¡-s¡¡ speech variety is practicable. The purpose of this survey was to provide data necessary for SIL administrators in Mali to decide whether or not there is a need for SIL to be further involved in various aspects of Dogon language development. The pivotal question for SIL in Mali is whether or not the average speaker of every identified Dogon speech variety can presently understand the T¡r¡-s¡¡ speech variety adequately (let alone express himself in it) since the Malian government has officially chosen it as the sole Dogon standard. Adequate comprehension could be possible from either inherent intelligibility (section 1.3 defines this term) or because of widespread high-level bilingualism. This report provides information that indicates that T¡r¡-s¡¡ is inherently intelligible to some degree with speakers of some Dogon varieties, but that with others it definitely is not. No attempt is made to assess the general level of bilingualism of speakers of varieties who find T¡r¡-s¡¡ unintelligible, nor to analyse the feasibility of a program to raise the general level of bilingualism, albeit that these are valid questions that could be the purpose of a subsequent survey. 1.2 Overview The Dogon region is far from homogeneous, not only in its physical appearance, but also in its population. Population density, way of living, and linguistic make-up all differ considerably from area to area. Much of the background research, and all of the fieldwork for this survey was conducted in 1998 by J. A. Durieux and E. I. K Durieux-Boon who were short-term members of SIL. At that time the author of this report was the Language Survey Coordinator for SIL in Mali, and as such was their supervisor. For practical reasons, we planned this survey to be executed in several stages (see section 8.3, “Data gathering”), but just as the end of stage one was coming into sight, the Durieux were obliged to leave Mali and were unable to take up the research again. SIL had noone to pick up the work and unfortunately finishing this report was greatly delayed. The first stage of this survey was to concentrate on mapping the Dogon area with the view of identifying the extent and the boundaries of distinctive speech communities (term defined in section 1.3). Much information was gleaned from existing literature on the Dogon people and linguistic situation. In addition, the Durieux made several trips throughout many of the Dogon-speaking areas of Mali interviewing village elders, taking wordlists, mapping village coordinates, and collecting population figures. The departure of the Durieux from Mali resulted in less than ideal circumstances for transferring data and documents to SIL and unfortunately the questionnaires done with village elders were lost. The Dogon area most lacking in data in this report, and which remains to be visited, is the vast but sparsely populated Jamsay-tegu speaking area in the east, including its extensions into Burkina Faso at several places. This report presents the findings of only the first stage of a survey that was cut short, but which nevertheless produced information useful for a better understanding of the complex Dogon language situation and the history of Dogon language research. 1.3 Definitions Important sociolinguistic terms used in this report shall be defined, especially where usage may vary among linguists of different schools and backgrounds.