Num 90
Khoktak 88
84 Hedangna
88 84
85 Seduwa
Figure 25. Yamphu lexical similarity percentages. The lexical similarity between these four locations in the Yamphu area is relatively high 84–
90. Lexical similarity alone does not show that the language in Seduwa is distinct from the other locations.
Blair 1990 states a lexical similarity of 60 or below may indicate that the two are different languages. Lexical similarity above 60 needs to be correlated with intelligibility testing to give a clearer picture of
the relationship between the two varieties. Hedangna and Seduwa were chosen for intelligibility testing, as Hedangna has historically been considered the central area and language variety of Yamphu, while
Seduwa is the most distinct and vital of the other varieties in that region. The lexical similarity between
Num and Khoktak is so high 90 because they are very close geographically and are part of the same dialect area. The word list collected in Num was not double checked and thus has a lower rate of
reliability than the other wordlists.
7.2 Recorded Text Test results
The RTT results for Seduwa on the Yamphu Hedangna RTT are displayed in Table 7. Table 7. RTT results for Seduwa on the Yamphu RTT
Test Location Seduwa
Yamphu Hedangna
Story Average
Score 62
Standard Deviation
22.5 Sample Size
11 The average score of 62 for those who took the Yamphu Hedangna RTT in Seduwa was
marginally in the range of what is considered “adequate comprehension” 60 and above. The standard
deviation was quite high 22.5, telling us that the spread of scores was large. We looked at the factors of age, education, travel, and sex to see if we could account for the high standard deviation, but we found
no correlation with any of these factors. Overall, the RTT scores and standard deviation in Seduwa tell us that among those tested, some people understood the story but some had difficulty. When we look at the
85 lexical similarity between the language in Seduwa and Hedangna in conjunction with the average RTT score of 62, we can conclude that the language in Seduwa represents a different dialect than the
language in Hedangna. The possibility also exists that Seduwa’s language could be a separate language from Hedangna, though more conclusive data would be required to make that conclusion.
7.3 Pre- and post-RTT question results
Before and after listening to the RTT story, we asked participants in Seduwa several questions to investigate their attitudes toward Yamphu as spoken in Hedangna. Before the RTT, when asked, “Where
is the purest Ya mphu spoken?” the majority of respondents in Seduwa 64 replied that the purest
Yamphu is spoken in Hedangna. Seventy percent of respondents in Seduwa have been to Hedangna. This contact, resulting in exposure to the language in Hedangna, is probably why the standard deviation is
quite high.
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
