The Wheel of Vitality: an Approach to Rapid Vitality Assessment in New Britain

DigitalResources Electronic Survey Report 2014-010

The Wheel of Vitality An Approach to Rapid Vitality Assessment in New Britain

John Grummitt The Wheel of Vitality: An approach to rapid vitality assessment in New Britain

John Grummitt

SIL International® 2014

Abstract

In a recent survey, sub-goals determined by stakeholders’ needs were dependent on the main goal of assessing an agreed minimum vitality level. This vitality level was the determining factor for the inclusion of five language communities in a proposed multi-language development project. This dependence created a need for an in situ rapid vitality assessment to determine whether pursuit of sub- goals was necessary. This report describes the development of a tool based on the Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale vitality scale and used to rapidly assess vitality in an environment where logistical constraints made traditional and more detailed vitality assessment unfeasible.

Contents

Abstract 1 Introduction 1.1 Survey Need 1.2 Survey Purpose and Goals 2 Methodology 2.1 Initial Approaches to Tool Design 2.2 Tool Description and Administration 3 Critique 4 Conclusion Appendix A Original Rubric for the Wheel of Vitality Tool Appendix B Original Wheel of Vitality Data Collection Sheet Appendix C Observation Schedule References

iii

1 Introduction

1.1 Survey Need

In the planning of a multi-language project aiming to “ensure that all the language communities on New Britain have access to adequate…materials in the languages that serve them well” (Wiebe and Wiebe 2009:1), the SIL Papua New Guinea (PNG) survey team was asked to assess five language communities which had no established language development programs. At the time of the survey, Ethnologue (Lewis 2009) listed these as shown in Table 1. Table 1. Information on languages surveyed

Name ISO code 2012 Population Language Classification

Bilur (Minigir)a [bxf]b 4,000 Austronesian Minigir (Lungalunga) [vmg] c. 1,000 of c. 3,000c Austronesian Kairak [ckr] c. 900 Non-Austronesian, Baining Simbali [smg] 450 Non-Austronesian, Baining Taulil [tuh] c. 3,000 Non-Austronesian isolate a Changes to these names were recommended by the survey as shown in parentheses and displayed in bold blue font in Map 1. b ISO codes for languages are given at the first mention in the text only. c This is the speaking population estimate from an ethnic population estimate of 3,000.

Map 1 shows the location of the five language communities on the Gazelle Peninsula of East New Britain Province, PNG. Kokopo, the regional capital, is the nearest urban centre and was the base for the survey team. Geographically, the Baining Mountains run across the centre of the peninsula and divide Simbali from the much more densely populated north east. Both the western Lungalunga-speaking community and the Simbali language area are inaccessible by road from Kokopo and are therefore reached by boat. All the other communities are easily accessible by road and, with the exception of Minigir, these roads are paved and in relatively good condition. The entire northern area is very uncharacteristic of much of the rest of PNG with a dense, widely scattered collection of indistinct population centres supplied by an extensive and relatively developed infrastructure.

1 2

Map 1. Location of the five language communities involved in this assessment

1.2 Survey Purpose and Goals

The purpose of the survey was to determine to what extent the five language communities could participate in the proposed multi-language project. In order to achieve this, a number of goals were agreed with stakeholders. However, during pre-survey discussions, it became clear that the overriding concern was for each language to have a level of vitality that would not potentially undermine involvement in the project. Vitality was seen to be central because if threatened in any way, resources invested in language development may not subsequently benefit the community. In addition, there was a need to identify communities with minimum vitality which may need additional support at the initial stage of their involvement. Vitality was the deciding criterion for involvement because even if other factors of interest to stakeholders were present, questionable vitality would undermine the impact of language development on the community in any case. Thus, a clear goal hierarchy developed with the primary goal, and the focus on this report, being vitality: all other goals were dependent on this being at an agreed minimum. An assessment of vitality in situ required a tool that would elicit data simple enough to analyse while it was being administered to inform an instant decision about whether to pursue other dependent goals. It was not only research needs that determined that a rapid assessment of vitality was necessary. Logistical factors that are usually not encountered in PNG also constrained tool design. Typically, the SIL–PNG survey team has employed a range of lengthy questionnaires to assess vitality. These focus on culture and society, church, education, contact patterns and language use. While these are time- consuming to administer and produce data which is complex to analyse, survey teams in PNG typically find themselves working in an environment which is much more clearly defined than was the case on this survey. Typically, these are homogenous language communities living in distinct population centres and in concentrated geographical areas just a few miles across. As Section 1.1 described, this survey involved populations that were not homogenous with communities consisting of residents from a number

3 of ethnolinguistic backgrounds. Thus, employing a traditional approach to survey in PNG and administering a large range of qualitative tools would both be overly time-consuming and provide more data than was appropriate, consequently requiring complex analysis. This was particularly the case for the four northern languages where, because of the ease of contact with the politically and economically dominant Kuanua-speaking community, vitality was most in question. This survey therefore called for the production of a new tool which provided enough detail to make a vitality assessment in situ while the tool was being administered, not during data analysis after the survey as is typical.

2 Methodology

2.1 Initial Approaches to Tool Design

At first, the design of a tool foundered on the complexity involved in making an assessment of vitality. Studying approaches described by various theorists revealed the vast array of factors that influence ethnolinguistic vitality: status, demographics and institutional support (Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977), ethnicity and nationalism (Bratt Paulston 2000), motivation (Karan 2000) as well as a whole host of other factors described by Edwards (2010:100–101). A rapid assessment would not be able to consider all of these. Attempts were made to reduce these to those most relevant to the PNG context and to explore tools, such as Landweer’s Indicators of Ethnolinguistic Vitality (IEV) (2009), which had been applied before. Under closer scrutiny however, because the IEV had been developed for the more common and ethnolinguistically simpler environments typically encountered in PNG, it proved inadequate to assess vitality in the suburban heterogeneous complexity faced by the survey team. The top down approach to tool design was not successful. Not only did it present an unmanageable array of factors, it also failed to isolate any simple enough to assess as rapidly as required. At this point therefore, the team decided to try another approach. Rather than think of what influences vitality in general, the team thought specifically of what the bare minimum level of vitality would be to satisfy stakeholders’ requirements for participation in the proposed multi-language project. As vitality is a scalable feature of language communities and the product of a combination of factors, a description of distinguishing factors defines a graded scale to guide assessment. One such scale is known as the Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale or EGIDS (Lewis and Simons 2010). Background research indicated that all of the five languages on this survey were likely to fall into one of the EGIDS levels described in Table 2.

Table 2. EGIDS values relevant to this survey

EGIDS level Description

5 Written The language is used orally by all generations and is effectively used in written form in parts of the community. 6a Vigorous The language is used orally by all generations and is being learned by children as their first language. 6b Threatened The language is used orally by all generations but only some of the child-bearing generation are transmitting it to their children. 7 Shifting The child-bearing generation knows the language well enough to use it among themselves but none are transmitting it to their children. 8a Moribund The only remaining active speakers of the language are members of the grandparent generation. 8b Nearly Extinct The only remaining speakers of the language are members of the grandparent generation or older who have little opportunity to use the language. 9 Dormant The language serves as a reminder of heritage identity for an ethnic community. No one has more than symbolic proficiency. This is the level of sustainable identity. This is the state where no fully proficient speakers remain but the language is still closely associated with the community identity and is used as a symbolic marker and reinforcer of that identity.

Being discrete, these individual descriptions contain a narrow focus that top down approaches to vitality assessment do not. Because of this, they enable research to concentrate on explicitly defined variables and thus make tool design manageable as will be shown in the following section. Presenting EGIDS to stakeholders resulted in their decision that the minimum vitality for participation in the proposed multi-language project would be an EGIDS score of no weaker than 7.1 However, as alluded to in Section 1.2, vitality as weak as EGIDS 7 was only acceptable to stakeholders provided that certain additional factors were also found to be present. Assessment of these additional factors was provided for by goals subsequent to our priority of assessing vitality. Thus, if an EGIDS score of 7 was identified, pursuit of additional goals would be essential. However, an EGIDS score stronger than this would not require assessment of dependent factors because vitality alone would be sufficient for an initial invitation to participate. In reviewing the criteria for a score of EGIDS 7, the survey team realised that an attempt to assess this level exclusively could be complicated. Although assessing that “none are transmitting it to their children” is relatively straightforward, adequately assessing knowing the language “well enough” is problematic even if a definition of “well enough” can be agreed. Thus, the survey team took a further step in goal clarification by choosing to define assessment focus not in terms of what is, but rather what is not. In doing so, they were pursuing what in participatory literature is commonly termed “optimal ignorance” which “emphasises the usefulness of information, unlike questionnaires where the strong tendency is to go for an excess of data” (Kumar 2002:41). Indicators as revealed in the descriptors of EGIDS scores either side of level 7 are simpler to isolate. Demonstrating the presence of these therefore indicates a vitality either weaker or stronger than EGIDS 7; their absence thus reveals EGIDS 7 itself. This thought process is shown in the decision tree in Figure 1. By this point, the provision of these indicators had set the stage for the design of a tool to isolate them.

1 Although in this case the minimum vitality condition was an EGIDS score of 7, SIL typically works with communities with a vitality of EGIDS greater than 6b or 6a.

Research Question (RQ) 1: Is the community EGIDS 8? Indicator (I) 1.1: “active speakers of the language are only members of the grandparent generation.”

NO YES

RQ 2: Is the community EGIDS 6b or higher? Vitality being less than I 2.1: “The language is used orally by all generations.” EGIDS 7 is too low for participation in the multi-language project. YES NO Stop assessment.

Vitality alone is sufficient for Vitality is EGIDS 7. Continued assessment inclusion in the project. essential to achieve dependent goals and Assessment of dependent goals is thus determine whether participation is useful but not essential. viable.

Figure 1. Decision tree as determined by minimum vitality requirements.

2.2 Tool Description and Administration

The resulting tool was named the Wheel of Vitality due to the visual construction of the tool components in the shape of a wheel as it is administered. The purpose of the tool is to identify whether all three generations of a community are using the vernacular, i.e. to isolate Indicators 1.1 and 2.1 from Figure 1.

Figure 2. A community leader in the Simbali language area identifies who initiates vernacular in Step 4 of the tool.

Three surveyors were involved in the tool’s administration: the tool leader, the data collector and the observer. The tool leader followed the rubric which directs interaction with the community and materials. The provision of a rubric, or script, ensures reliability is maintained as the tool is administered by different surveyors in different communities. The tool was administered in Tok Pisin [tpi], a lingua franca common to the survey team and the five surveyed language communities. An English translation of the rubric is shown in Appendix A. In summary, the rubric directs the tool in the following way:  tool leader introduces the photographs used in the tool and clarifies that the community understands that they represent different sectors of the community (e.g. children, middle-aged women, etc.)  tool leader elicits the name of the community and the vernacular and volunteers write these on laminated labels  tool leader clarifies whether additional languages are used by the community as well as the vernacular and, if so, a card is placed to indicate these  tool leader keys the languages using red (vernacular) and yellow (other languages) plastic chips and clarifies the community understands what these colours now represent  tool leader places the “fathers” card in the centre and clarifies that the focus will be on what languages fathers use to communicate  the community places cards representing children, middle-aged men, middle-aged women, elderly men and elderly women around the “fathers” card  tool leader asks what languages are used by fathers in interactions with each of the population strata represented by the surrounding photos while a volunteer places blue string between each pair of cards to indicate the focus of discussion  volunteer places plastic chips on each string to clarify community agreement on whether the vernacular, other languages or both are used for each of the fathers’ interactions  all yellow chips are removed to indicate that discussion is now going to focus on local vernacular use by fathers only. If any strings have only a yellow chip, they are also removed at this point along with the photo they connect to.  tool leader goes around the wheel randomly again focussing on who exactly uses vernacular for each of the fathers’ interactions. If the fathers do use vernacular to interact with each, then the blue string is replaced with a green string. If they don’t, the blue string is replaced with a pink string.  if the fathers do use vernacular with any other group in the community, the above steps are repeated with the “children” card at the centre of the wheel. If the fathers do not use vernacular, the “mothers” card is used2 before finally going on to the “children” card.

In addition, the data collector focusses solely on completing the Data Collection Sheet (Appendix B) by writing in abbreviations to describe how the community constructs the Wheel of Vitality and using coloured pencils to mark the various materials. As the tool is administered, the data collector uses the information provided to follow the decision tree at the bottom of the Data Collection Sheet and feeds this back to the tool leader. In this way, the survey team builds up a picture of the vernacular use of children, the middle-aged and the elderly in a community which results in enough data being recorded to assign an EGIDS score for the language. If the Wheel of Vitality reveals that all three generations use vernacular, this indicates that the language is at least EGIDS 6b and possibly EGIDS 6a. If only the elderly use the vernacular, the language has vitality weaker than EGIDS 7 and is therefore EGIDS 8. To monitor the community’s response to the tool, their interaction with it and the tool leader and the resulting community discussions, a third surveyor fulfils the role of observer under the direction of the Observation Schedule shown in Appendix C.

2 The additional step of asking about mothers allowed for communities where linguistic repertoires of fathers could potentially differ from that of mothers, for example in those practicing exogamy.

As is typical on surveys in PNG, sampling on this particular survey was carried out at two levels: within each language community and within locations visited in each of these. Sampling at language community level was relevant only to the northern language communities as relatively large, widely scattered and non-homogenous language populations made visiting every individual community impractical even when they could be identified. Therefore, for each of the four northern language communities, every effort was made to visit the main population centres as indicated by informants from the communities. Assessment in these language communities was regarded as complete when either all accessible communities had been visited or community leaders themselves informed us that we had effectively gathered information from the majority of stakeholders concerned. For the southern sub-team working in Simbali, sampling at language community level was unnecessary: every community was visited, including those regarded as mixed with other language communities. Within each location visited, the Wheel of Vitality was administered only when a representative group of the community had gathered to participate. This group consisted of young, middle-aged and elderly people of both genders and included all available community leaders. Every effort was made to gather such a group in each location visited. These methods included sending information about our visits weeks in advance via email, telephone and letter. In the northern region, visiting many communities on more than one occasion generated interest and enabled us to pre-arrange assessment meetings. Overall, we made a particular effort to submit ourselves to the direction of community leaders and contacts including being guided by them as to when a representative cross-section of the community had gathered to begin administering the tool. The photographs used for the tool are shown in use in Figure 2 and Figure 3. These photos were selected by volunteer Papua New Guineans from various provinces who were visiting or living in the location of the survey team office in Eastern Highlands Province. The volunteers were shown various images intended to represent each of the tool’s demographics and were asked which image they thought was most representative. In addition to this input, the tool was pilot tested with informants from the nearby Gadsup [gaj] community. During this test, the team received excellent feedback on how the tool could be improved for use with a PNG community. One example challenged surveyors’ natural inclinations to proceed around the circle clockwise asking about each image in turn. Instead, the team were told that this was more likely to generate pat answers than if they randomised the order in which each photo was discussed. All the suggestions made during pilot testing were subsequently integrated into the tool described above. Further modifications to tool materials and rubric which were carried out on the field based on experience administering the tool are discussed in the next section.

3 Critique

The laminated colour photographs engaged every community right from the start, especially when the tool leader handed the photos to representative members of the community to hold. These were often passed around the crowd until the tool leader collected them back to use. As the images were laminated, they proved to be resilient to being used in dusty, wet and windy environments. String however was less useful when it was windy. Participants improvised though, and in the one location where this was an issue, quickly assembled a pile of small stones to use as paperweights. In some communities, limited space prevented everyone from seeing the materials. This meant that not everyone was able to see what was being constructed and were thus perhaps marginalised during the discussion. In order to avoid this, the survey teams could have ensured that a space large enough to accommodate all participants was available even if it had meant rescheduling the tool, waiting for more favourable conditions or moving to a different venue. The team adapted materials in one significant way during the survey: a series of single-headed and double-headed arrows were produced. These were substituted for the green/pink string replacement in Step 4 of the tool. They proved to be not only easier to employ but also inspired discussion of the vernacular interaction of different sectors of the community. The original step of replacing the blue

8 string with string of an alternate colour did not seem to inspire as much discussion. This is perhaps because, unlike arrows which are common traditional items in PNG cultures, coloured string represents a more abstract concept.3 With the use of these materials, the Wheel of Vitality provides visual support that is both constructed by the community and remains available to them throughout. Thus, the tool enabled the survey team to achieve the “verbal to visual” (Kumar 2002:44) transition essential for participatory approaches. This approach provides support for community reflection in contrast to traditional questionnaires where the information provided is not available once it is recorded by the surveyor. Discussion is therefore not an end in itself, even if it does provide valuable data for the survey team. The intended result is that the community “think through the process and come out with points that they are not consciously aware of but realise as the process goes on” (ibid.). Despite living with the issues of questionable vitality day by day, many communities do not formally discuss these. As a vehicle for self- realisation, the Wheel of Vitality Tool explicitly provides a forum for community discussion of the vitality issues that are important to them. A good example of this comes from the Minigir-speaking community. Villagers in Makurapau and Bilur reported that children use a mixture of Minigir, Tok Pisin and Kuanua and discussion in both these communities revealed that the Minigir spoken by children is not identical to how the elders speak it. Thus the people initially described low vitality and a lack of use by children of their vernacular. A questionnaire may have left the discussion there. The Wheel of Vitality however required the community to continue to a point where they were able to make the decisions necessary to arrange the elements of the tool. In doing this, the community agreed that children were capable of and did communicate effectively using only Minigir even to the satisfaction of older people in interactions with them. Thus, the community eventually arranged the tool to indicate that their vernacular had an EGIDS score of stronger than 7 even though their initial perceptions would perhaps have led them to the assumption that vitality was lower than this.

Figure 3. Lungalunga Village community discuss the extent to which children use the vernacular in their community.

3 An updated version of the rubric of this tool along with a short video of its administration can be seen at http://surveywiki.info/index.php/Wheel_of_Vitality.

In addition to improving the appropriacy of our survey methods, the Wheel of Vitality also appeared to maintain a good balance with accuracy as it distinguished between EGIDS scores of 8, 7 and 6b as confirmed through observation. The team pursued all opportunities to provide triangulation through observation of community language use before and after the tool. The major context for observation of adult language use came through the tool itself as its administration provided opportunities for the community to actually employ their vernacular. Discussions took place almost exclusively in the vernacular and were often lengthy. At the end of each, the tool leader requested a summary of what had been discussed and the observer was also free to ask onlookers what was being said. In both Ivere and Malabunga in the Kairak language area, for example, village leaders translated our tool rubric into vernacular for the community. When asked what language subsequent discussions were taking place in, the team were consistently told that it was “Kairak” or “our language”.4 As the survey team became more confident administering the tool, they were able to hand over materials to the communities and, after an explanation of the purpose of each step and a brief demonstration, give them autonomy in building the complete wheel and labelling it appropriately. When this approach was taken, it generated much more discussion in the community than when the tool leader closely supervised the handling of materials and the construction of the wheel. Whereas in earlier approaches the tool leader had stood with community volunteers and handled materials with them, this adaptation enabled the tool leader to literally sit down at the side of the group and not return to the centre until discussion had completely finished and the community had assembled the wheel. In effect, this latter adaptation revealed that what had seemed to the team a complex, possibly over-complex, tool during the design stages actually proved to be one which communities not only engaged with but, with relatively little explanation, administered themselves autonomously. Adapting the administration of the tool in this way went some way to addressing a concern about the design of the tool. Initially, the rubric (as shown in Appendix A) seemed to frustrate the community if their answers for each section of the community were the same. The rubric as originally designed made no allowance for this or for the community providing more than basic information in Step 3. Often however, the community grasped very quickly what the tool leader was attempting to elicit and provided Step 4 information at Step 3. The community appeared frustrated if the tool leader gave the impression of ignoring previously declared information by asking again about it only minutes later simply because this was what the rubric required. In addition to giving the community more autonomy, the rubric was also adapted so that when information had already been provided, succeeding steps that would have reiterated the data were omitted. In addition, the tool leader gave an explanation to the community that as they had already provided the data, there was no need to carry out that step of the tool. As the team became more familiar with the rubric and more comfortable giving autonomy to the community to direct the pace of the tool, it was not unusual for the tool to take as little as 30 minutes to administer. It therefore admirably demonstrated its ability to enable a vitality assessment that is rapid. Although the tool does not provide more than a snapshot synchronic glimpse of vitality, that it is so quick to administer indicates that is a good balance between the brief time invested and the value of the information gained. Thus, the tool is particularly suited to situations as encountered on this survey where communities are dispersed and the requirement to sample multiple locations means efficiency is needed because of logistical constraints.

4 Conclusion

In its application to the varied language communities on this survey, in both suburban and village environments, the tool performed well, stimulating discussion and allowing the communities themselves to reach agreement on the current vitality of their vernacular. Much of the success of the Wheel of Vitality is due to the PNG survey team’s continuing efforts to employ participatory methodology. The Gazelle Peninsula survey described here was not the first survey

4 Tok Pisin: tok ples bilong mipela.

10 by the current team to attempt this. Elements of recent surveys have been applied here: establishing a hierarchy of goals based on stakeholders’ priorities; the decision to let research questions drive tool design rather than relying on established tools; a research rationale of optimal ignorance; the use of decision trees to hone the efficiency of tool design and application; the use of three surveyors in complementary roles during administration of the tool; the decision to hand the administration of the tool over to the autonomous communities—all of these elements have been tried before on previous surveys. What made this survey novel was the combination of the elements above and the application of EGIDS to guide vitality assessment. Having done this and seen the results, the SIL–PNG survey team feels that there is considerable potential for the application of the Wheel of Vitality tool in the rapid assessment of vitality. This is particularly the case when research demands the sampling of a large number of population centres and especially so when logistical constraints make this time-consuming or expensive. For all its potential however, the Wheel of Vitality is not an end in itself. The next survey that investigates vitality will have to start, as this one did, with the clarification of stakeholders’ needs and the research questions that result. It may turn out that the Wheel of Vitality or some version of it is the right tool for that occasion. It may turn out that it is not. Unless we prioritise process over product we will remain ignorant either way. It is only by focussing our efforts on improving the process of research that we will discover the next generation of survey tools.

Appendix A Original Rubric for the Wheel of Vitality Tool

Aim: assign an EGIDS rating of 8, 7 or 6b to a vernacular (V). Materials: 5 x blue, pink and green string | photos representing children (x2), middle-aged men/women, old men/women, mothers, fathers.| 2 x blank labels | black pen | green pen | label: “other language/Simbali” | red, pink, green pencils | 6 x red and yellow chips Key: shading indicates questioner can vary probe. Step What you do and why What you say What you may observe and do in response Step 1a To introduce social categories to the community, We’d like you to look at this photo. It represents The community show engagement with the photos 1a show the community all photos one by one. Make children in your community. It does not and understanding of what they represent. There sure everyone in the community sees photo. Then represent children from other communities, but should be no one in the group who wants to see the give it to a representative member of that group. only your own. This photo represents elderly photos that has not seen them. There will be two NOTE: make it clear that outsiders are not women, etc. children cards. represented by these photos but only people in their community. 1b Collect in the photos and put them on the ground. To Okay now we’d like to check you understand People say "fathers" etc... 1b enable the community to demonstrate their what the photos represent. If I hold one photo understanding, pick up each photo one at a time up, please tell me what it represents. Etc... until all have responded. 2a To confirm the name of the village and define the What’s the name of your village? Can someone They provide the name of the village and write it in 2a social context for communication, give a volunteer a write this on a card? When you’ve written it, green on a card which they place on the ground. card and green pen. please put it on the ground. 2b To confirm the name of the V used in this location, What’s the name of your language? Can someone They write the name of their V in black on the card 2b give a volunteer a card and black pen. write this on a card? When you’ve written it, and place it on the ground. please put it on the ground. 2c To check whether they use other languages, ask Do you use any other languages such as other or They put this card on the ground next to their V 2c them this. As long as they say anything from one Tok Pisin as well in village? card. other language to "lots," give them the "other language" card. 2d To key the V with a colour, give volunteer a red Now we’d like to mark these two language cards Volunteer puts red chip on the V card. 2d chip. with colours. Please put this red chip on the card with your language. 2e To key the "other language" with a colour, give This yellow chip will mark the “other languages” Volunteer puts yellow chip on the "other language" 2e volunteer a yellow chip. card. Please put it on top of that card. card. 2f Check understanding of the key. Call out the name of Now we’d like to check that you understand People say "red" etc. 2f the V and use gestures to elicit a response. Repeat what these two colours mark. If I say a language, this for other languages e.g. Kuanua, Tok Pisin, you tell me what colour represents it. English, interspersing them with V until people are indicating the correct colours. 3a Retain fathers, mothers and extra children photos Please put all the photos on the ground in a big Volunteer takes all photos except fathers, mothers or 3a Give out all other photos. They spread them out in a circle. one children photo and forms a circle. circle. 3b To check the vernacular use of the fathers begin by We’d like you to think about what languages Volunteer takes fathers photo on orange card and 3b focussing on the fathers photo. Place it against the fathers use. Please put this fathers photo in the puts it in the centre of the circle. You then put orange card backing. middle of the circle. village card above photo and V and "other language" card under photo. 3c To show communication between fathers and old Okay first, think about when fathers and elderly The blue string between the fathers photo and the 3c men, put blue string between the fathers photo and men talk. old men photo creates the first spoke of the wheel. the old men photo. 11 12 Step What you do and why What you say What you may observe and do in response Step 3d Ask if V or other languages are used between these In these conversations, do they use V or not? If Volunteer marks blue string with red chip if V is 3d two groups or not and mark this accordingly. they do, put a red chip on the string. Do they use used between fathers and old men and yellow if they REPEAT STEPS 3c-3d for relationships fathers have other languages too? If so, please put a yellow use something else. If no V, just use yellow. with all other social groups represented by photos. chip on the blue string. If they don’t use V, just A complete wheel is formed randomly with blue NOTE: make sure you randomise the sequence you put a yellow chip. strings between the fathers card and all other photo work in to minimise pat answers. cards, and at least a yellow chip on every spoke. 3e Before you proceed, you need to be certain that you Now I’d like to check. When fathers talk to  If unsure, GO BACK TO STEPS 3c-3d to clarify if V 3e have accurately recorded all uses of V and not photo, they don’t use V. Is that right, or...? is used. missed any.  If no red chips anywhere, confirm no V and GO TO STEP 5  For each spoke with no red chip, confirm no V is used in these interactions and then GO TO STEP 4a 4a To clarify the extent of vernacular use of fathers, you Now we’d like you to think about when fathers Remove blue spokes with only yellow chips and 4a first need to make sure that the community are use only V. We’d like you to forget about all remove all yellow chips. Remove photos that do not thinking only about V and other languages. other languages. Look at the circle. We’re now have a spoke. Remove "other language" card. NOTE: do not proceed to 4b until you are certain looking at everything to do with V only. Even if Ultimately, you should still have only photos of that the community understand you no longer want you sometimes use other languages with V, people who use V. There should be only blue spokes them to think about other languages. Make sure they forget about all other languages; we’d like you to with red chips on them remaining. There should be are only focussed on V. think about V only. no yellow chips. 4b To find out who initiates V, ask who uses it. When fathers talk to photo, who uses V?  If they say either both or only fathers use V, go to 4b step 4c  If they say photo category only uses V, go to step 4e 4c Offer them a length of green string which they will If fathers reply in V, please change the blue  If they feel that fathers can respond in V with this 4c use if they are sure that fathers understand and string to green. photo, they take the green string from you and respond in V with the photo category in focus. replace the blue string with it. Take the blue string from them and GO TO STEP 4d  If they are hesitant GO TO STEP 4e 4d To check that they understand what the diagram Okay, you’ve changed the blue string to green.  If they are unsure GO TO STEP 4e 4d represents ask... The green string represents fathers responding in  If they confirm that fathers respond, repeat for V. Is this right? another random photo leaving peer photo last GO BACK TO STEP 4b  If peer photo is last GO TO STEP 4g  If there are no more photos GO TO STEP 5a 4e Offer them a length of pink string which they will When fathers talk to photo, do the fathers only  If they feel that fathers can only hear V with this 4e use if they are sure that fathers understand but hear V? If that’s true and fathers don’t respond in category, they take the pink string from you to respond in anything but the V with the photo V, please change the blue string to pink. replace the blue string. Take the blue string from category in focus. them and GO TO STEP 4f  If they are hesitant GO TO STEP 4h 4f To check that they understand what the diagram Okay you’ve changed the blue string to pink. The  If they are unsure GO TO STEP 4f 4f represents ask... pink string represents that when fathers speak to  If they confirm fathers don't respond in V, repeat photo, they don’t respond in V. Instead, fathers for another random photo leaving peer photo last GO respond in another language. Is that right? BACK TO STEP 4b  If peer photo is last GO TO STEP 4g  If there are no more categories GO TO STEP 5a

Step What you do and why What you say What you may observe and do in response Step 4g As parents are middle-aged, interaction between You’ve said that fathers and middle-aged men Give volunteer a green string. They change blue 4g them that has a red chip will automatically qualify as use V together. So, fathers must respond using V. string to green and give you blue string. GO TO STEP a green string. 5a 4h Though they said that fathers used V with this photo Once you have clarified, repeat for another random 4h category, the tool has revealed that they actually do photo leaving peer photo last GO BACK TO STEP 4b not. You need to backtrack to figure out why this is.  If there are no more categories GO TO STEP 5a Ask further questions to clarify whether fathers do use or even understand V with this category. 5a Check with Data Recorder as to what step you take next. You will either repeat STEPS 3 and 4 with CHILDREN photo or with MOTHERS photo and then with 5a CHILDREN photo. If STEP 3 has resulted in no red chips being placed on a blue string, you will skip STEP 4 for that category.

Appendix B Original Wheel of Vitality Data Collection Sheet

Wheel of Vitality Data recorded by ______while ______asked questions on ___ April/May 2012.

Step 2a Name of village:

Step 2b Name of vernacular (V):

Step 2c Any other languages mentioned at this point or later in the tool

Step 3 Step 4 STEP 3 Key: FATHERS FATHERS CH children OM old men OW old women

fathers fathers MM middle-aged men MW middle-aged women yellow line = other lang. red line = V medium arrow = direction of comm.

Step 3 Step 4 STEP 4 Key:

MOTHERS MOTHERS CH children OM old men OW old women MM middle-aged men mothers mothers MW middle-aged women green line = V spoken pink line = V only heard

Step 3 Step 4

CHILDREN CHILDREN

children children

Misc. Language Notes (for any relevant comments on lang. use, write footnote numbers on the

relevant parts of the diagrams above and then detail the comments as footnotes below.)

If FATHERS green to at least 1 gen. CHILDREN If children green to another gen. confirm old people use V if yes EGIDS 6b if no EGIDS 7 If children green to no gen. EGIDS 7 If FATHERS green to no gen. MOTHERS If mothers green to at least 1 gen go back and do CHILDREN If mothers green to no gen. EGIDS 8a

Appendix C Observation Schedule

Note that in this schedule, lettering in gray was intended to act only as a prompt and then be written over by the observer.

Village ______Language ______1 WHEEL OF VITALITY Date: Observer: Interviewer: Start: Stop:  Who Participates in the Discussion? Who from the community LEADS this activity?

CIRCLE groups that participate IN DISCUSSION and specify topic underneath. Also TALLY number present during tool: old men #:: middle-aged men #: young men #: old women #: middle-aged women #: young women #:

Is there any DISAGREEMENT among . . . participants? . . . observers?

 Language Use Attitudes

Regarding USE OF VERNACULAR do the community express any of the following? enthusiasm smiles, nodding, animated tone of voice, lots of talking, positive statements reluctance to explicitly show their feelings thoughtful expression, quiet, looking at speaker, few comments disinterest in the discussion side conversations, people leaving group, lack of eye contact with speaker, atmosphere too relaxed embarrassment nervous laughter, head shaking, side conversations, negative statements disappointment solemn atmosphere, head shaking, negative tone of voice, negative statement mixed feelings mixed body language, mixed tones of voice, positive and negative statements other?

Regarding USE OF OTHER LANGUAGE do the community express any of the above?

 Critique of Tool What worked well?

What didn’t work well?

CONCLUSION / Q&A SESSION  Community Response How do the community respond to the conclusion? Circle all that apply, adding any relevant notes: polite listening nodding smiles shaking heads frowns conversation deep thinking other?

List questions asked by the community. Who asked them?

 Speeches Does anybody make a “speech”? If so . . . Who? What about? Community response?

References

Bratt Paulston, C. 2000. Ethnicity, Ethnic Movements, and Language Maintenance. In G. Kindell and M. P. Lewis (eds.), Assessing Ethnolinguistic Vitality: Theory and Practice, 27–38. Dallas: SIL International. Edwards, J. 2010. Minority Languages and Group Identity: Cases and Categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Giles, H., R. Bourhis, and D. Taylor. 1977. Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In H. Giles (ed.), Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations, 307–348. London: Academic Press. Karan, M. E. 2000. Motivations: Language Vitality Assessments Using the Perceived Benefit Model of Language Shift. In G. Kindell and M. P. Lewis (eds.), Assessing Ethnolinguistic Vitality: Theory and Practice, 65–77. Dallas: SIL International. Kumar, S. 2002. Methods for Community Participation: A Complete Guide for Practitioners. New Delhi: Vistaar Publications. Landweer, M. L. 2009. Indicators of Ethnolinguistic Vitality. Unpublished report. Lewis, M. P. (ed.). 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World (16th ed.). Dallas: SIL International. Lewis, M. P., and G. F. Simons. 2010. Assessing Endangerment: Expanding Fishman's GIDS. Romanian Review of Linguistics, 55(2), 103–120. Wiebe, B., and S. Wiebe. (2009). New Britain Initiative. Unpublished manuscript.