1988: Ross classifies the Silisili, Maralangko and Dangal languages as being members of the Lower
Markham network in the Markham family, a subgroup of the Huon Gulf family 1988:132–133. For his classification, he relies on Hooley’s data Hooley, 1971. Ross examines intra-clausal morphosyntax to
distinguish languages and dialects but arrives at the same classification as Hooley ibid., 3.
1989: Holzknecht’s Ph. D. thesis concludes that Hooley’s classification is based on less than
satisfactory data 1989:10. She similarly questions the validity of Fischer’s methodology and concludes that his “data is neither detailed nor extensive enough to allow any real genetic or subgrouping
hypotheses to be formed” ibid., 9. Her own classification of Watut villages, based on more extensive language data, is shown in table 4. Holzknecht was unable to visit a village in either the South Watut or
Middle Watut areas, so her language data for these communities were collected from speakers in or near Lae ibid., 14. It was reported to her that South Watut speakers and many North Watut speakers are
able to speak the Middle Watut variety, but Middle Watut speakers are not able to speak the North or South varieties. Instead, Tok Pisin is used for communication by Middle Watut speakers with speakers of
other Watut varieties ibid., 33–34.
Table 4. Watut villages according to Holzknecht 1989:33–34
Language Villages
South Watut one variety is spoken in Dangal.
a
Wawas, Gumots, and Wanza settlement near
Nadzab airport; a second variety is spoken in Maralangko and Zinimb Middle Watut
Babuaf, Marauna, Bencheng, some in Dungutung North Watut
Uruf, Mafanazo, Morom, Dungutung
a
In addition, “A small group of so-called Kukukuku people, originally from Gumi village and speakers of the Angan Hamtai language, live in [Dangal] village” Holzknecht 1989:31.
Holzknecht says, “In some instances, there is a definite indication that speech differences are being exaggerated, if not invented, to mark the in-group from the out-group” ibid., 47. This suggests that
there may be social as well as linguistic reasons for separate bodies of literature to be produced for various Watut communities
.
9
Holzknecht compares the Watut languages with neighbouring Markham languages and believes differences between them are significant enough to isolate the Watut languages as a distinct group:
The Watut group of three languages is more conservative phonologically and morphosyntactically …than the other groups of languages, retaining features from Proto Markham which have been
lost or changed in the other languages. Hence they constitute a group more through their morphosyntactic innovations than their phonological or lexical innovations ibid., 183.
This finding suggests it may be difficult for the Watut communities to work with neighbouring language communities in language development. One of Holzknecht’s particular objections to Fischer’s
work is that his cognate percentages between Adzera, Wampar and Watut are “very high” ibid., 9. Although Holzknecht, having used the comparative method, does not present percentages which can be
compared to Fischer’s, she believes these three languages are less closely related than Fischer’s figures would suggest ibid., 207.
Differences between the Watut group and neighbouring languages are likely great enough to preclude their participation in joint language development. Holzknecht does actually show that both
North Watut and Middle Watut share certain phonological features with Wampur [waz], and that Middle Watut shares certain phonological features with Wampar [lbq] ibid., 188. There does not seem
9
See Holzknecht 1989 for a discussion of phonological differences pp. 54–55, 63–68 and morphosyntactic differences pp. 94–163 between the Watut languages.
to be a linguistic case, however, for joint language development work to be done between the Watuts and neighbouring languages.
1990: Landweer and Reitmaier complete a sociolinguistic survey of Middle Watut. They say there
Kategori