DigitalResources Electronic Survey Report 2015-009 A Sociolinguistic Survey of the Lower Ramu Languages of Papua New Guinea (Awar [aya], Bosmun [bqs], Kayan [kct], and Marangis [wax]) Brian Paris A Sociolinguistic Survey of the Lower Ramu Languages of Papua New Guinea (Awar [aya], Bosmun [bqs], Kayan [kct], and Marangis [wax]) Brian Paris SIL International® 2015 SIL Electronic Survey Report 2015-009, September 2015 © 2015 SIL International® All rights reserved Abstract This sociolinguistic survey of the Lower Ramu language groups was undertaken to assess the feasibility of the four target language groups—Awar [aya], Bosmun [bqs], Kayan [kct], and Marangis [wax]— joining the Papua New Guinea branch of Pioneer Bible Translators’ Lower Ramu Initial Goals Project (LRIG), a proposed multi-language development project. The goals of the survey were to 1) assess the vitality of the vernacular for each target group, 2) assess the willingness of the target groups to work with the other potential language groups in the LRIG project, and 3) assess the interest of the target groups in vernacular language development. The survey found that vitality among the Awar, with an Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS) score of 7 “Shifting,” was too low to be involved in LRIG, high enough among the Kayan and Marangis (both EGIDS 6a “Vigorous”), and (EGIDS 6b “Threatened”) among the Bosmun. All of the groups expressed willingness to work together in the LRIG project, and no current or past behavior contradicts this. All of the groups expressed a desire for vernacular development, though the motivations expressed by the Awar do not match the goals of the LRIG project. The results of this survey indicate that PBT should invite the Kayan, Marangis, and Bosmun into the LRIG project. Contents Abstract 1 Introduction 1.1 Language location 1.2 Previous research 1.2.1 Awar 1.2.2 Kayan 1.2.3 Marangis 1.2.4 Bosmun 1.3 Language names and classification 1.4 Population 1.5 Survey purpose and goals 2 Methodology 2.1 Goal 1: Assess the vitality of the vernacular for the target group 2.2 Goal 2: Assess the willingness of the target group to work with the other potential language groups in the LRIG project 2.3 Goal 3: Assess the interest of the target group in vernacular language development 2.4 Survey instruments 2.4.1 Main Questionnaire 2.4.2 Walkabout Questionnaire 2.4.3 Social Network Activity 2.4.4 Teacher Interview and Church Leader Interviews 2.5 Sampling 3 Goal 1: Assess the vitality of the vernacular of each target group 3.1 Awar 3.1.1 Language use patterns 3.1.2 Internal and external community attitudes 3.1.3 Language use of immigrants 3.1.4 Contact with urban centers 3.1.5 Economic factors 3.1.6 Conclusion 3.2 Kayan 3.2.1 Language use patterns 3.2.2 Internal and external community attitudes 3.2.3 Language use of immigrants 3.2.4 Contact with urban centers 3.2.5 Economic factors 3.2.6 Conclusion 3.3 Marangis 3.3.1 Language use patterns 3.3.2 Internal and external community attitudes 3.3.3 Language use of immigrants 3.3.4 Contact with urban centers 3.3.5 Economic factors 3.3.6 Conclusion 3.4 Bosmun 3.4.1 Language use patterns 3.4.2 Internal and external community attitudes 3.4.3 Language use of immigrants 3.4.4 Contact with urban centers 3.4.5 Economic factors 3.4.6 Conclusion iii iv 4 Goal 2: Assess the willingness of the target group to work with the other potential language groups in the LRIG project 4.1 Current cooperation 4.2 Expressed willingness 4.3 Past disputes 4.4 Conclusions 5 Goal 3: Assess the interest of the target group in vernacular language development 5.1 Awar 5.1.1 Expressed interest 5.1.2 Interest of the Church 5.1.3 Internal vernacular language development 5.1.4 Conclusion 5.2 Kayan 5.2.1 Expressed interest 5.2.2 Interest of the Church 5.2.3 Internal vernacular language development 5.2.4 Conclusion 5.3 Marangis 5.3.1 Expressed interest 5.3.2 Interest of the Church 5.3.3 Internal vernacular language development 5.3.4 Conclusion 5.4 Bosmun 5.4.1 Expressed interest 5.4.2 Interest of the Church 5.4.3 Internal vernacular language development 5.4.4 Conclusion 5.5 Conclusion 6 Overall conclusions Appendix A: Main questionnaire Appendix B: Walkabout questionnaire Appendix C: Teacher interview Appendix D: Church leader interview References 1 Introduction The Ramu River flows from the Eastern Highlands of Papua New Guinea (PNG) to the Bismark Sea in the northwest corner of Madang Province.1 Along its lower reaches and around its mouth, the five Ottilien languages are spoken: Awar [aya], Bosmun [bqs], Kayan [kct], Marangis [wax] and Mbore [gai].2 The Papua New Guinea branch of Pioneer Bible Translators (PBT PNG) has an ongoing language development project in the Mbore language group.3 PBT PNG is considering using this project to launch the Lower Ramu Initial Goals (LRIG) Project into the four other Ottilien languages. LRIG is a slow-start multi-language project conceived by PBT PNG as a way of, in the end, quickly and effectively engaging the Lower Ramu language communities. Director of PBT PNG, Mike Herchenroeder, and Director of Language Affairs, Norm Weatherhead, asked the author, Brian Paris, to survey the four target languages. The purpose of the survey was to determine whether the LRIG project should go forward, and if it did, with which language groups. The survey was conducted from 15–25 October, 2013. 1.1 Language location The Lower Ramu languages are spoken in the Madang and East Sepik Provinces of Papua New Guinea. Awar, Kayan, and Marangis are spoken on the north coast near the border of these provinces and the Ramu River. Bosmun is spoken inland near the Ramu River, while Mbore has villages on the river and the coast. I accessed the area by public motor vehicle (PMV). I was able to drive directly to all three Awar villages and Kayan. From Kayan I arranged a boat to go to the Marangis villages and then up the Ramu River to visit the Bosmun villages. 1This survey would not have been possible without the cooperation of the government of Papua New Guinea, the Papua New Guinean branch of Pioneer Bible Translators, The Seed Company, and the local language communities. I visited 11 villages on this trip and the residents of each fed me, gave me a place to sleep, and participated in the research, sometimes with little or no notice. I would especially like to thank Jeffery Bai, Robert Maiging, David Sakora, Andrew Aris, Jimmy Kakos, August Markis, Rudolph Kamdong, Elias Kem, Henri Topi, Melkior Yigiri, and Henri the Skipper. I would also like to thank Thomas Dukun and Norman Banao, two Mbore men who accompanied me through the entire survey. Without them I may have never made it back. 2ISO codes for the languages discussed in this report will only be listed with this first occurrence of the language name. 3The Mbore people call themselves Mbore and their language Mborena Kam. However, since the language is known to the world as “Mbore” through the Ethnologue (Lewis 2009), I will refer to the language as Mbore. 1 2 Map 1. Lower Ramu languages in context Includes geodata from worldgeodatasets.com and Esri. Map 1 shows the area where the Lower Ramu languages are spoken. The red line is the north coast road. You can travel from Madang town to Botbot village, an Mbore speaking village, where the road ends at the Botbot River. The primary river in the area is the Ramu, flowing north/south through the Bosmun and Mbore areas. The Sepik River is also in the area near the northwest corner of the Marangis area. 3 Map 2. Lower Ramu villages Includes geodata from worldgeodatasets.com and Esri. Map 2 shows all the of the Lower Ramu villages. On this survey I visited all the villages shown except the Mbore villages (indicated in the map with orange dots). Table 1 gives the 2013 dates when I visited each village (see table 3 for a list of work done in each village). Table 1. Itinerary Date Name Visited Village Village Language Awar Sisimagum 16 Oct Nubia 17 Oct Awar 18 Oct Kayan Kayan 19 Oct Marangis Watam 20 Oct Marangis 21 Oct Bosmun Daiden 22 Oct Nemnem 22 Oct Dogan 23 Oct Wamtac 24 Oct Goingbang 2 24 Oct 4 During my time in the Awar language group, I slept every night (15–18 October, 2013) in Sisimagum. The villages are so close together that I was able to walk to each one to visit and return at night to sleep. I was not able to spend the night in Daiden because one of my co-workers could not enter the village due to cultural restrictions surrounding the death of a relative. Rather than make him wait outside the village, I met with the community for a few hours and moved on to Nemnem. I also did not spend the night in Wamtac because the community was so small and close to Dogan. On 24 October I started in Dogan, walked to Wamtac to meet with the community there and then got on a boat to go to Goingbang 2. After completing the work there I found out that if I did not get on a PMV that night to leave the area, I would have had to stay the weekend.