After listening to the story, we asked respondents where they thought the storyteller was from, 100 replied “Hedangna.” Their ability to correctly identify the location the speaker is from tells us
there are identifiable differences between locations and that there is extensive exposure or contact with Hedangna speech.
Participants in Seduwa also reported a generally positive attitude towards the Yamphu spoken in Hedangna. In response to the question, “How do you like their speech?”, a majority of respondents
56 said the Hedangna Yamphu was “good.” The remaining 46 of respondents said it was “OK.” When we asked how different the language in the story was from their language variety, nearly all
respondents 86 sai d it is “a little different” than the Yamphu in their village.
7.4 Dialect Mapping data
The dialect mapping participatory method was carried out with two men from Hedangna. Two is not an ideal number of participants for dialect mapping. Still, the data gleaned from these two men is useful.
When asked about where Yamphu is spoken differently, they separated all the villages on the same ridge as Hedangna from Makalu Seduwa. They also mentioned several phonetic differences between
Hedangna and Seduwa. One example was a greater degree of retroflexion in Seduwa.
7.5 Previous research
In his introduction, Dr. Roland Rutgers discusses dialects of Yamphu 1998:7–8. Rutgers divides the Yamphu language into three dialects: Hedangna and the nearby villages of Uva, Pupuwa, Mansima, Ala,
and Uling, Seduwa and Valung, and Num. He collected data on the Seduwa dialect in 1991 and found that the dialect in Seduwa differs from the dialect in Hedangna by some notable phonological and
morphological features. It is possible that morphological differences are part of the reason people tested in Seduwa scored rather low on the RTT despite a lexical similarity between the locations that is not
significantly different than the similarity between Hedangna and Num or Khoktak.
7.6 Summary
Based on the average RTT score of 62 in Seduwa on the RTT from Hedangna, lexical similarity of 85 between wordlists from Hedangna and Seduwa, post-RTT responses that reflect perceived differences
between the language in the two villages, previous research by Rutgers, and dialect mapping information, we suggest that the Yamphu in Seduwa is a distinct dialect from the Yamphu in Hedangna.
In order to determine the nature of the differences between the two varieties, further investigation would be required. Any materials that are developed in Hedangna should be tested in Seduwa for extensibility
and acceptance.
Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that the language in NumKhoktak is also a bit different from Hedangna and from Seduwa, though further testing would have to be conducted to confirm this.
8 Summary and recommendations
8.1 Desires for development
8.1.1 Summary of findings
The desire for language development among the Yamphu villages we visited is quite high overall. In general, more men than women, and more literate people than nonliterate, expressed interest and
motivation toward language development. Expressed desire for language development in certain villages correlates with the degree and strength of the ethnic identity in those places. The stronger the sense of
ethnic identity, the higher the desire to see language development. Based on responses to several
informal interview schedule questions, Rajarani and Devitar consistently reported a high interest in language development. In both of these places, the identity as
“Yamphu” people was strong. Khoktak consistently had lower interest in language development, possibly because people there did not place a
large degree of importance on being “Yamphu.” Participatory methods carried out in Hedangna revealed
a high degree of interest in producing Yamphu materials. Teachers and headmasters in many villages expressed interest in increasing the use of Yamphu in schools and in incorporating Yamphu language
curriculum. Language use in school is seen as a vehicle for Yamphu language maintenance and development.
8.1.2 Implications
The motivation for many Yamphu speakers for language-based development is linked to the Yamphu ethnic identity that revolves around their culture, religion, and language. Support for Yamphu language-
based development should consider including the Yamphu Kirat Samaj as one of the partner organizations, given their relatively high profile within the language community.
In nearly every village we visited, language use in school is seen as a primary vehicle for development. Yamphu people and teachers have a strong desire to use Yamphu in schools and any
multilingual education MLE program would be widely supported. In the majority of the Yamphu villages we visited, people speak their mother tongue every day. Some people don’t use Yamphu all that
often, especially young people, and people in Khoktak. Even for those people who don’t speak Yamphu too often, Yamphu still plays a role in forming their identity. Many Yamphu people expressed a desire to
learn to read and write in their own language. If people don’t speak their mother tongue very well, it will be difficult to learn to read and write in it. In Khoktak, for example, activities would first need to
focus on speaking Yamphu more often. Speaking Yamphu regularly is necessary for literacy efforts to last long-term. Therefore, communities such as Hedangna, Devitar, or Rajarani might be able to carry out
literacy programs that are sustainable, such as an MLE project. Therefore, local organizations should be supported in carrying out MLE and literacy programs in communities such as these.
8.2 Yamphu language use and vitality
