Table 12. Reported ethnolinguistic groupings
Village Reporting Vernacular Label
Others reported to use it
Dangal Nan Dangar
Wawas, Gumots, Sanang Wawas
Nan Kagir Wawas, Gumots, Dangal, Maralangko, Sanang
Babuaf Madzim Lelom
Singono Babuaf, Bencheng, Marauna Marauna
Zowenz
Bencheng Changg
Dungutung Boral, Wagongg
Onom Mpubunum
Babuaf, Uruf, Mafanazo, Dungutung, Bencheng, Marauna
Uruf Wagung
MoromOnom, Mafanazo Babuaf Singono
Lelom Madzim Babuaf, Bencheng, Marauna, Mafanazo, Uruf,
Morom, Wawas, Zinimb, Maralangko Mafanazo
Uyaamah Uruf, MoromOnom
Aside from the fact that Singono and Madzim claimed to be two hamlets of the same village, the data indicate that no communities share the same name for their vernaculars. Despite naming them
differently, as just described, a number of communities mutually reported using the same vernaculars, as in table 13.
Table 13. Communities who both claimed to use the same vernacular Wawas↔Dangal
Madzim↔Singono Onom↔Singono
Onom↔Mafanazo Uruf↔Mafanazo
Onom↔Uruf
When combined with the variety of origin stories reported earlier, this seems to indicate that communities in the valley, despite sharing some similarities, consider themselves distinct from each
other. Despite the independent identities of the Watut communities, they commonly reported that they considered themselves separate from anyone living in the ridge of mountains in the east towards
Mumeng.
There are indications that current ethnic identity is being moulded by outside influences. Many communities had acquired the skills of canoe-making in past decades from Sepik settlers farther
downstream on the Watut River, for example, and all communities reported frequent access to outside supplies. Communities reported that Tok Pisin was a valuable language to know and that many of the
motivators for their activities originated outside their language area, e.g., sale of gold in Bulolo, purchase of goods in Lae, etc. The extent to which these activities have influenced their sense of ethnic
identity is difficult for us to know. In summary, though, there are strong indications that the communities of the Watut, both collectively and individually, have a clear sense of their ethnolinguistic
identity.
7.2 Reported language and dialect boundaries
In Part 1 of our Main Questionnaire the community reported how similar the vernaculars of other villages were to their own see appendix D.2 for the tool rubric. This resulted in the data shown in
table 14.
Table 14. Reported similarity of speech for Watut River communities Villages
below report on those to
the right
San an
g
1
D an
gal G
u m
ot s
Waw as
M ar
al an
gk o
a
Z in
im b
1
M ad
zi m
Sin gon
o M
ar aun
a B
en chen
g D
un gut
un g
O n
om U
ru f
M af
an az
o C
h ia
ts
b
Dangal
Wawas Madzim
Singono Marauna
Bencheng Dungutung
Onom Uruf
Mafanazo
a
The communities of Sanang, Maralangko and Zinimb were not visited. Only the South Watut communities of Dangal and Wawas mentioned Sanang.
b
The vernacular of Chiats was considered by all as different except for three communities, who say that only a little of their speech could be understood. These three, Wawas, Marauna and Mafanazo, are notable for travel and
trade along the Watut River. Mafanazo has a market three times a week on the riverside and motorised canoes were said to be available from these three villages in particular. They are therefore more likely to be familiar with
speech from Chiats through contact and it is possible that this is in fact what they reported.
Key: speech that is exactly the same as the vernacular of the reporting village
speech that is different but a lot is understandable speech that is different and only a little can be understood
communities that speak differently and cannot be understood no data or data unnecessary
By placing the villages in somewhat geographical order, the green areas in table 14 indicate that there are three possible groupings of languages based on reported similarity and that these correspond to
the language areas described as North Watut, Middle Watut, and South Watut in the Ethnologue Lewis, 2009.
Data reveal that the most defined group consists of Sanang, Dangal, Gumots, Wawas, Maralangko and Zinimb, with the latter two differing more in their speech. This reflects Holzknechts classification of
the two dialects that comprise the South Watut language area 1989:33–34. The community groupings for South Watut, including its dialects, were further confirmed by an informant who acted as a guide
early in the survey.
The second-most clearly defined group consists of Dungutung, Onom Morom, Uruf and Mafanazo. However, Dungutung identifies with both North Watut and Middle Watut, which corresponds exactly
with Holzknechts data as described in section 2.4. The Babuaf hamlets of Singono and Madzim represent the geographic extremes of the third area,
where there is much less sociolinguistic agreement. While this area has been classified as Middle Watut there is clearly less sociolinguistic homogeneity here than elsewhere in the valley. As table 12 shows,
three communities Marauna, Bencheng, Dungutung within this area mentioned no others when asked which other villages spoke their vernacular, insisting that they were the only speakers of the particular
vernacular they had named. Despite this, Dungutung went on to say that Bencheng spoke exactly the
same as they did. Nevertheless, there seems much less inclination for communities to acknowledge linguistic unity in the area classified as Middle Watut. As detailed in section 7.3, lexicostatistical analysis
of wordlist data supports this apparent lack of linguistic unity. When the correspondence of mutually reported vernaculars occurred during our data collection see
table 13, communities always, with one exception, went on to indicate that their speech was identical. The exception was Onom and Singono. These two communities, despite initially reporting that the other
spoke the same vernacular as themselves, went on to report that the speech of the other was not identical to their own but rather different, although easy to understand. Onom villagers were obviously
migrants to land on the west of the river. Those in Singono were adamant that they had not migrated to the area and had always lived at that location to the east of the river. In addition, respondents in
Madzim who claimed to be one and the same community as Singono a fact Singono residents reiterated did not report sharing the same vernacular with Onom. Why Singono and Onom communities should
identify each other as speaking the same vernacular is therefore puzzling. A further example of apparently incongruous data came from Dungutung, which, along with Bencheng and Marauna, reported
that no one else speaks their vernacular. Dungutung residents then said that Bencheng and Uruf speak exactly the same as they do.
Other reports of language or group boundaries: • Dangal residents reported that the whole Watut Valley speaks one language, despite saying that
they could not understand the speech of any community north of Dungutung. An informant here also told us that Gumots, Wawas and Zinimb share the same origin story, a fact we were unable
to confirm as we were unable to visit Gumots or Zinimb. • At Bubuparum, a very small village between Wawas and Dangal, we were told that Dangal and
Wawas speak exactly the same language, Maralangko and Zinimb speak the same language but a different dialect, and from Marauna north it is a different language.
• Marauna residents reported that Onom residents were one group with Uruf. Onom villagers confirmed this, identifying themselves as Uruf, Morom, and Mafanazo, together with one
language which changes from Dungutung south. They also said that they can understand the language spoken in Singono but can only respond in Tok Pisin.
• Uruf was the only place where possible language shift was reported to us. Our host said that only he and one or two other individuals know the true vernacular which he labelled as Mpubunum.
He went on to say that young people speak Wagung, a label used in nearby Dungutung for one of its dialects. When asked about whether it was in fact the same as that of Dungutung, they
disagreed but couldn’t readily give a reason for it being the same name except perhaps that it was due to people married in.
47
In summary, reported data confirms the existing classification of the survey area into three language areas as detailed in section 2.1. However, while the language areas of South Watut and North Watut are
more clearly defined linguistically, Middle Watut is more complex. Certainly, these villages are distinct from either South Watut or North Watut language communities. But it would be erroneous to assume
that villages in what is currently known as Middle Watut form a single, defined, homogenous language community. It would be more accurate to conclude from our data that there are sociolinguistic
boundaries of varying degrees between Marauna, Bencheng, Dungutung and Babuaf. Further study is needed before we can comment on the strength of these boundaries in either social or linguistic terms
and conclude whether the use of one language name for these communities is appropriate.
47
See section 5.1.3 above for further discussion.
7.3 Etic comparison of language data
