The relationship between Kaliko and Lugbara .1 Background

23

3.1.3.5 Sociolinguistic Dynamics

Some speakers of Kaliko-Omi felt Logo may be displacing their language, although very slowly. Others thought that Omi children “mixed the languages”, no longer speaking “pure Omi” but using words borrowed from Bangala, Swahili, and Lugbara note that Logo was not mentioned. The respondents were interviewed in two groups. Had we been able to question them one at a time a clearer picture of language use would probably have emerged. Kalikos in the eastern Sudanese Kaliko dialect consider their variety of Kaliko to be the pure form. They consider the western dialect to have heavy Logo borrowing and some easterners call the westerners Logo. It is not yet known whether the Sudanese distinguish between Zairean dialects of Kaliko. Similarly Kaliko-Madi is reputed to be tainted by Logo while Omi is thought to be tainted by Lugbara. None of the Logo dialects are said to be influenced by Kaliko, however.

3.1.3.6 Conclusion

Kaliko and Logo are distinct languages: the most influential dialects Omi and eastern Sudanese both share less than 80 vocabulary with the main Logo dialects. Kaliko-Madi is best considered a dialect of Kaliko on lexical, phonological, geographical, and ethnological grounds; however, the Didi subdialect of Kaliko-Madi has a greater degree of shared vocabulary with Logo and Avokaya than do any other Kaliko dialects and apparently is more highly inter-intelligible with them. As Ajigu appears to fall midway between Avokaya-Ojila and Logo, so Kaliko-Madi appears to fall between Logo, Omi, and Kaliko-Sudan. This appears to be an area of dialect chaining, but intelligibility testing and grammatical comparison are needed to refine this judgment. The division between Logo and Kaliko is reinforced by politico- administrative boundaries. 3.1.4 The relationship between Kaliko and Lugbara 3.1.4.1 Background The Zairean dialects of both Kaliko and Lugbara are spoken in the Aru Zone. The survey team in Zaïre did not visit Lugbara-speaking villages, but they did interview three Lugbara speakers living outside the Lugbara area. One of these was a Lugbara-Lu working as a schoolteacher in Didi, among the Kaliko-Madi. He said that Kaliko-Omi is closer to his speech form than Ugandan Lugbara is. However, more recent research by the survey team in Uganda the following year seems to indicate that Zairean Lugbara is more like “standard” Ugandan Lugbara than like Kaliko. Perhaps this man was thinking of other Ugandan dialects; in any case, his home area is near the edge of the Omi area and he is surely more familiar with Kaliko than with Ugandan speech. See also 3.2.4.4, “Intelligibility among Lugbara Dialects.” 24 Ugandan Lugbaras and Kaliko speakers are unlikely to have contact, as their territories are not contiguous.

3.1.4.2 Lexical Similarity

Each of these two languages exhibits much internal variety, among dialects Kaliko in Sudan and Zaïre and Lugbara in Sudan, Zaïre and Uganda One would expect that the relationship between the languages is fairly complicated. Yet, on the lexical and phonetic level, there is not a large degree of chaining. The figures in the following matrix represent percentage of similar vocabulary items for each pair of speech forms, out of a sample of approximately 160 lexical items except for comparisons with the Dogo subdialect, see 3.1.3.2. Kaliko-Madi-DidiZ 94±3 Kaliko-Sud-WS 87±4 86±5½ Kaliko-RangabaS 91±4½ 87±7 86±7 Kaliko-Madi-DogoZ 87±4 92±4 88±5 92±5½ Kaliko-Sud-EastS 91±3½ 89±5 82±6 89±6 88±5 Kaliko-OmiZ 80±4 79±5½ 76±5½ 81±6½ 83±5 86±4½ Zairean Lugbara 78±4 79±5 74±5½ 80±6 82±4½ 82±4½ Ugandan Lugbara 76±4 78±5 75±5 81±6 83±4½ 80±4½ MarachaU 74±4 75±5 71±5½ 78±6½ 79±4½ 78±5 TeregoU 73±4 74±5½ 72±5½ 79±6 78±5 76±5 AringaU 75±4 75±5 72±5½ 80±6 80±4½ 79±4½ OgokoU 68±5 68±6 65±6 73±7 73±5½ 71±5½ OkolloU There is a fairly clear division of Kaliko from Lugbara on lexical grounds, with slight chaining between Kaliko-Omi and its neighbor, Zairean Lugbara. The lexical similarity figures of most of the Lugbara dialects with the other Lugbara dialects are about ten percentage points higher than the figures given here for their similarity to Kaliko see 3.1.6.2. 25 The WordSurv output for phonetic relationships is shown below. Kaliko-Madi-DidiZ 15 Kaliko-Sud-WS 18 12 Kaliko-RangabaS 11 18 21 Kaliko-Madi-DogoZ 15 10 14 14 Kaliko-Sud-EastS 13 19 21 18 19 Kaliko-OmiZ 21 24 26 19 18 21 ‘Zairean Lugbara’ 22 26 30 23 21 24 13 ‘Ugandan Lugbara’ 24 29 31 21 23 28 17 14 MarachaU0 24 29 31 22 25 27 19 18 11 TeregoU 26 31 32 26 27 28 22 20 16 9 AringaU 26 29 31 28 28 29 22 20 23 21 22 OgokoU 29 31 34 29 28 29 20 18 23 25 27 24 OkolloU There seems to be adequate phonetic basis for the division of these speech forms into two major groups.

3.1.4.3 Grammatical Similarity

Because the Kaliko data have not been left with the survey team, this analysis is not presently possible.

3.1.4.4 Intelligibility

Since the Lugbaras interviewed in Zaïre lived outside the Lugbara area, their reports concerning intelligibility must be carefully weighed, and not necessarily taken at face value. Furthermore, a number of the Kaliko-Omis interviewed know Lugbara to some degree or another. Ugandan Lugbaras were not questioned concerning their understanding of Kaliko; probably few of them would have any basis for response.

3.1.4.4.1 Kaliko comprehension of Lugbara

Kaliko-Madi speakers differed as to whether they would address a Lugbara in Kaliko or in Bangala or Swahili. However, they agreed that mutual understanding in their mother tongues was very difficult. Kaliko-Omis who did not themselves speak Lugbara as a second language tended not to be able to understand it. Apparently, they were of the opinion that even the Sudanese dialect of Kaliko of which they only distinguish one is inherently easier for an Omi speaker to understand than Lugbara is.

3.1.4.4.2 Lugbara comprehension of Kaliko

It is said by Omis that only if an Omi spoke slowly could a Lugbara understand him. Unless they knew Lugbara themselves, they spoke Bangala when talking to a Lugbara speaker. A Lugbara-Zaki who lives at Adja near the southern edge of Kaliko- Omi said that Lugbaras understand Omi as spoken at Mado well but not the Kaliko spoken at Ara which he called Kaliko-Madi. Interestingly, he also said that he understood Avokaya well but did not understand Logo well. Meanwhile, a Lugbara-Lu 26 who works as a teacher at Didi among the Kaliko-Madi claims to “half-understand” both Kaliko-Madi and Kaliko-Omi. He says that he himself speaks a little Kaliko, so we would expect other Lugbaras to understand even less. We dont know if Ugandan Lugbaras can understand any kind of Kaliko, but it is doubtful, apart from itinerant traders, etc.

3.1.4.4.3 Summary

Kaliko and Lugbara are not inherently intelligible. Reported understanding appears to be the result of having learned the other speech form.

3.1.4.5 Sociolinguistic dynamics

More research must be done in this area. Some of the Omis interviewed expressed their concern that the young people “mixed the languages” and among the languages from which words were said to be gained was Lugbara. A number of the Omis interviewed had Lugbara wives, and many others had learned Lugbara. Not enough Lugbaras were encountered to ascertain Lugbara attitudes and usage vis-à-vis Kaliko.

3.1.4.6 Conclusion

Kaliko and Lugbara are distinct languages, and the only hint of chaining or transitional dialects is the possibility of a slightly greater lexical similarity between Kaliko-Omi and Lugbara-Zaïre the only pair of geographically contiguous Kaliko and Lugbara dialects. These languages are not inherently inter-intelligible and they could not use a common literature. However, the Omi-Lugbara relationship may be worth remembering if Omi is chosen as a reference dialect and the grammar is not too different for Computer Assisted Related Language Adaptation. 3.1.5 The relationship between Madi and Kaliko 3.1.5.1 Background