The word ‘survey’ may go either a synchronic viewpoint (as in A Survey
of farming methods in contemporary India or in 16th century Europe)
or with a diachronic one (as in A Survey of English Literature from Chaucer to
Milton). A linguistic survey can likewise
be of either kind—G.A. Grierson’s Linguistic
survey of India (11 volumes in 19 parts and 3supplements, Calcutta 1903-28)
is an example of the first kind, while Ernst Pulgram’s The Tongues of Italy: Prehistory
and history (Cambridge, Mass., 1950) is an example of the second kind.
In the present context of the proposed survey of the contemporary dialects
of Panjabi at Punjabi University we are obviously concerned with a synchronic
survey. The adjective ‘synchronic’ defines
the survey where the dimension of space is the one that counts. ‘Space’ is to be interpreted rather liberally
here to include both geographical area and social span.
A diatopic linguistic survey then answers the following question in some
detail: Which speech habits are found in whom in a given population? Let us spell this out further.
In the first place we must remember that a survey is never chiefly interested
I individuals. It is more like a census. Indeed,
as we shall see later, one phase of it is simply a census of a rather specialized
kind-a census at tells us how many there are of speakers in whom we find more-than-chance
correlation between the speech habit in question and other characteristic such
as geographical location, age and generation, literacy, sex, caste and class,
and area of language use. The speech habits isolated for the purpose
of finding out this correlation may be either whole systems or specific traits. In a gross survey we handle large language
units (like standard Panjabi or Bangru or South Dravidian family) in the census.
Alternatively, in a trait survey we look for the distribution of phonological
or grammatical or lexical traits like the use of tones or certain postpositions
or a high percentage of English borrowings.
So we can rephrase our question as follows: Which language or language
traits are found well-correlated with which speaker characteristics or which areas
of use in how many speakers out of the population under survey? The whole survey operation will therefore resolve
itself into three-sub-operations:
1. Preanalysis
of language isolates (whole systems or traits):
2. Isoglosing
or locating the isolates in the geographical area or social span; and
3. Census
or counting heads.
The results
to obtained may in part be put in publishable form—say, maps or tables—or stacked
away for future reference in the for of tapes, microfilms, and the like. So we can add two more sub-operations:
4. Presentation or mapping and tabulating; and
5. Archiving.
Let us examine these five phases serially.
- Preanalysis of Language Isolates
In
a gross survey the speech habits isolated may be of the following kinds:
(i) The
use of a given whole linguistic system L1 (a particular homogeneous
dialect or variety);
(ii) The use
by the speaker of any one of a group of family of whole linguistic systems L1
or L2 or L3 ( a particular dialect family
or language-family or language-group); or
(iii) The use by the same
speaker of each one of a group of linguistic systems L1 and
L2 and L3 (typically the standard variety plus one
non-standard variety or the prevailing language or link language).
An
ordinary census in which dialect-families centring around certain standard varieties
are returned is thus a very gross linguistic survey.
In a trait survey (very often called a dialect survey rather than a linguistic
survey when limited to a single speech community) the speech habits isolated may
be of the following kinds:
(i)
The use of specific feature T1 of phonology or morphology or
syntax or vocabulary (as, a particular system of tones);
(ii)
The use by the speaker
of any one of a group of competing linguistic features T1 and
T2 and T3 (as the use of any tone system or the general
preference for periphrastic tenses over tense inflections); or
(iii)
The use by the same speaker of each one of a group of correlated
linguistic features T1 and T2 and T3
that need not be all phonological or all grammatical or all lexical (as, the use
of a specific tone system combined with the non-use of voiced aspirates or the
non-use of honorific plural combined with the low frequency of dignified synonyms).
It
will be clear that before the central operation of locating the social or geographical
isolosses or correlations can be started the linguistic surveyor must have a clear
notion of what he is going to correlate. To
this end the surveyor must
(i)
familiaze himself with any available diachronic survey of the
field and with the history of the phonology, grammar, and vocabulary of the languages
involved;
(ii)
draw lessons from any previous diatopic survey of the field and
even of neighboring areas (it would follow from this that coordination and cooperation
between the various linguistic surveys under way in India will be a highly desirable
thing);
(iii)
supplement this knowledge by undertaking a pilot survey of his
own to determine which the likely directions are in looking for correlations;
(iv)
familiarize himself with any available phonological, grammatical,
and lexical descriptions of the languages and dialects in the field; and
(v)
supplement this knowledge by undertaking a monographic survey
of his own so as to have at his disposal a series of descriptive sketches in accordance
with modern methods of a representative selection of language varieties (some
linguistic surveys do not proceed beyond this preliminary or monographic phase).
At
the conclusion of the preanalysis language isolates there will be ready the following:
(i)
a list of language varieties with their genetic relationships
and their mutual contacts thorough bilingualism duly noted;
(ii)
a list of linguistic traits to be embodied in the questionnaire
and the formulation of suitable questions for this purpose (naturally such traits
will tend to come from the overall pattern minus the common core shared
by all the related varieties and from areas of structural uncertainty and freedom
of choice rather than the basic and obligatory patterns in the language); and
(iii)
a list of the other characteristics of the speaker to be elicited
in the questionnaire such as the geographical locations(s) of settled, migratory,
and nomadic speakers, the age group (juvenile, adult, old), literacy (with the
script and language in question also noted), sex, caste and ethanic group, religion,
class status, and finally the area of use or function of the language variety
or language trait (intimate circle, school, public life and mass media).
2.
Isoglossing of Correlations
The
questionnaire is now ready in its final shape: preferably it has been preteste
for its for its efficiency and practically,
and has been calibrated with questionnaires in neighbouring surveys for comparability
of results.
What goes into the questionnaire will be determined by the over all aim
and limits of the survey-which may be a gross survey of a large population or
a trait survey of a small population or a comprehensive survey. The question may be direct, e.g. which variety
do you use at home and among close friends? Do you say [khatir] or [xatir]? Or they may be indirect, e.g. Will you read
this letter? Can you make out what this
man is saying this tape playback? How
would you name this object? (This last
may be a test for a phonological trait no matter what the respondent may think!)
The exact shape and size of the questionnaire will be determined by the
exigencies of administering the questionnaire in a satisfactory manner. Thus the length and number of questions will
depend on the number of respondents, the number of fieldworkers, and available
time and money. The knowledgeableness,
ability, willingness, an prejudices of the fieldworker as well as the respondent
have to be taken into account. (It must
be remembered that revenue officials and school teachers have been pressed into
service as fieldworkers and as such are apt to do the responding for the “ignorant”
speaker.) some of the questions will obviously have to be answered by the fieldworker
himself, e.g. about the speaker’s sex or attitude to the language situation.
The mode of administration of the questionnaire (which may include open
question like: Tell me a story or Retell the story of the North Wind the Sun or
of the Prodigal Son or Say the Lord’s Prayer) may vary. The fieldworker can carry the questionnaire with him, conduct an
interview with more or less strict adherence to it, and record the proceedings,
i.e. replies as well stage directions (the respondent’s laughter or resentment,
etc.) in his fieldnotes with or without tape recording. (It is never wise to depend
on the recorder alone; notes are always a help even if they are in ordinary spelling
and not systematized transcription.) The so-called postal method employs the local
man affiliated to the survey as a fieldworker who receives and returns the questionnaire
by post. The former method is costly and
reliable. The latter has obvious dangers,
but may be forced by circumstances: the advantage is that a much larger sampling
of different speakers can thereby be afforded.
The size of the sample is sometimes referred to as the “grid of the survey”
(one respondent per so much population or area, for example).
3. Census Determination of the Strength of the Correlation
At one extreme we have the vast house-to-house
government census which amounts to a very gross linguistic survey: the inclusion
of bilingualism in the Census of India counts relatively as a refinement.
At the other extreme there may be the mini-survey of his class by a linguist
under training. The normal survey lies somewhere in between
making its own compromise between level of analysis (gross and trait), depth of
analysis (the amount and refinement of the data sought), and the size of the sample.
Ideally after all the collecting sorting has been done the surveyor should
be in a position to come up with statements in accordance with the following scheme:
(i)
Language variety L1 or linguistic trait T1
is found co-occurring,
(ii)
(a) With functional
situation S1 (home, etc.) and/or
(b) With geographical
location GL1 (district, point of the grid, etc.)
and/or
(c)
With social location SL1 (age group, sex, literacy, etc. or a combination of these)
(iii)
In so many respondents (out of the total so many sampled out
of the group of speakers defined by (ii) (b) and/or (ii)(c).
When
the representative character of the sample is questioned because of the size
or
for some other reasons, this kind of statement yields information on the strength
of correlation only in a limited way (known to be compatible not own to be compitable.
4.
Presentation
The presentation of results has to be done with some care. It can take many forms some of which may be
fruitfully combined-maps, map-like diagrams and charts (for social location),
tables, and sample responses illustrating linguistic varieties or traits.
Errors that have crept into the designing of the questionnaire itself cannot of course be rectified in the presentation. Such errors may arise from the absence of any
theory for that matter): pre-phonemic surveys thus often manage to pile a large
amount of phonetic data without providing the answers to even simple phonologically
interesting questions. Or errors may arise
from an insufficient prenanalysis: the decision of the Census of India to limit
questions about a second language to languages of the Indian origin was thus an
unfortunate one. A careful pre-testing
of the questionnaire in a small-scale pilot survey should be of great help in
avoiding such errors.
Errors can of course creep in at the time of the administration of the
questionnaire. A pilot survey can uncover
deficiencies in the fieldworker’s training, unavoidable personal equations, and
peculiar pitfalls in the field being covered that the fieldworker should beware
of.
Errors can creep in at the collection and sorting stage too.
The least that a good presentation will accomplish is not to add its own
quota of errors in transferring figures an data and not dressing up unrectifiable
errors handed over from the previous stages.
Scientific
honesty demands that the reader should be duly forewarned about possibilities
of error (by a proper sprinkling of question marks, for example).
Pre-testing of maps, charts, tables with potential readers for their clarity
and perspicuity may be a good idea. Maps
can take a lot of money and be nice to look at but very painful to decipher.
A
good presentation has to strike a balance between two opposite and somewhat conflicting
requirements; it must leave the reader free to draw his own conclusions an apply
his won statistical techniques an at the same time must not saddle him with mere
detail. The do-it-yourself principle can be carried
too far! Enough should be left buried
in the archives.
5.
Archives
The importance of preserving the records in a form accessible to any bonafide
future worker cannot be stressed
enough in a country like India so ridden with red tape and so light-hearted about
history. Modern technology has provided
us with the recorded tape and the microfilm or microcard as relatively cheap modes
of preservation and multiplication serves both as an insurance against destruction
and as a means to ready accessibility.
SO FAR we have spoken the surveyor, as if the organization of a survey
is onbe-man affair. And there have been
one-man surveys and good ones too-Andre Martinet did a survey in rather unusual
circumstances as a prisoner of the Germans during World Wa II (La Prononciation
du francais contemporin : Tèmoignages
recueillis en 1941 dans un camp dofficers prisonniers, Paris: Droz, 1945).
The practical organization of a bigger survey has to contend, among other
problems, with pressures arising out of linguistic and other loyalties that militate
against the scientific objectivity and validity of the results of the survey.
The machinery can divide itself along the following lines:
(i)
Bibliography and library;
(ii)
Historical monographs and surveys;
(iii)
Descriptive monographs;
(iv)
Designing of questionnaire and pilot survey;
(v)
Administration of questionnaire and collection and sorting of
results;
(vi)
Preparation of press copy and seeing it through the press;
(vii)
Archiving; and
(viii)
Administration, publication, and public relations (with other
surveys and with the public and authorities in the field under survey).
The
foregoing discussion of the philosophy of a linguistic survey will have a
bearing
on the working of each of these departments.
COLOPHON:
This was presented at a seminar on Linguistic Survey Project, Patiala,
July 1969 and published in Pàkha sanjam (Punjabi University) 1:1:5-11,
1969. It was subsequently reprinted in Language
Surveys in developing nations: Papers and reports on sociolinguistic surveys,
Siriapi Ohannessian, Charles A. Ferguison, Edegar C. Polem, Centre for Applied
Linguistic, 1975, p7-12.
