logistical constraints, we were not able to develop a new HTT, but went ahead and used the HTT story knowing that the results would be less than ideal. Despite this limitation, we believe the data we
gathered still provides valuable insight into the intelligibility issue.
6.2.3 Pre- and post-RTT question results
After Lohorung people in Pangma listened to the Yamphu story, we asked them a series of questions related to the language they heard in the story. All Lohorung people who were tested recognized that the
story was told by someone from Hedangna Yamphu. When asked, “How did you like their speech?” only one Lohorung subject said they didn’t like the storyteller’s speech.
Figure 24 lists the specific responses of those who listened to the Yamphu story.
“How did you like their
speech?” “Why was it OKGoodBad?”
Contact Have you been to
Hedangna? RTT
Score “OK”
“It was fine but I didn’t understand.” No
10 “It is the same as my own language.”
No 60
“It is my own language.” Yes
40 “It’s Yamphu.”
Yes 60
“Good” “It’s pure, no Nepali mixing.”
Yes 60
“My own language.” No
20 “I didn’t understand a lot but knew it was Yamphu.”
No 40
“About half of it is the same as Lohorung.” No response
50 “It’s my own language”
Yes 40
“Bad” “It is strange. Doesn’t mesh with Lohorung. Haven’t
heard it much. He speaks quickly.” Yes
60 Figure 24. Post-RTT answers Pangma.
It is interesting to note that even though all respondents recognized the speech as from Hedangna, some respondents thought of it as their own variety Lohorung. It could be that the insider distinctions
between language and identity are more complex than we realize. Despite the fact that many people scor
ed quite low on the RTT, they still said the speech was “Good,” or “OK.” There is a slight correlation between people we tested who have been to Hedangna and their scores. The average score of those who
have been to Hedangna is 52 and the average score of those who have never been there is 33. Due to a small sample size for this RTT, it is possible that this difference in average score was due to chance.
However, it is also possible that the lower scores 33 are a more accurate representation of the intelligibility of Yamphu among the Lohorung people sampled because they’ve had less contact with
Yamphu speakers and thus less chance to
“learn” Yamphu. When asked “How much of the story did you understand?”, none of the respondents said they
understood all of it. Only two said they understood most, and eight said they understood half or less than half of the story. When asked whether the language in the story was the
“Same,” “A little different,” or “Very different” from the language spoken in Pangma, the majority 710 said it was “A little different.”
Looking at the post-RTT questions for the Yamphu respondents on the Lohorung RTT, no strong patterns emerged. Two things, however, are clear: there is a high degree of contact with speakers of
Lohorung in Pangma 810 have been to Pangma, and there is a higher degree of comprehension of Lohorung among Yamphu speakers who were tested than there is of Yamphu among Lohorung speakers
who were tested.
Of those tested on the Yamphu RTT in Devitar, all had been to Hedangna. Additionally, all respondents recognized the language in the story as coming from Hedangna. When asked
“How much of the story did you understand?
”, 712 said they understood “most” of the story. When asked whether the
language in the story was the “Same,” “A little different,” or “Very different” from the language spoken
in Devitar, 100 reported that it was “A little different.”
None of the respondents in Rajarani had been to Hedangna. After listening to the Yamphu story, when asked, “How much of the story did you understand?”, 40 of respondents 410 said they
understood “Less than half.” An additional 40 said they understood “most.” Seventy percent of respondents said that the language of the story was “a little different” than the language in Rajarani.
Thirty percent said it was “very different.” These responses correlate quite strongly with the lowest scores on the RTT among Rajarani respondents.
6.2.4 Summary
