1.4.2.4 Wordlist analysis
There are two main approaches to using wordlist data for determining the taxonomy of languages and dialects. The first is a historical comparative approach which aims to uncover the genetic relatedness of
different language varieties. It is usually conducted in order to understand how different languages relate to each other genetically i.e., how languages have evolved over time and thereby to classify languages
and language families. Application of the comparative method often results in tree diagrams of the type we give in chapter 5, figure 5.1, for the taxonomy of Kam-Sui. The second approach is that of
“dialectometry”. This approach aims to examine the synchronic similarity of different language varieties, often with the aim of delineating dialect boundaries within a single established “language”. Thus the
first, historical, approach is often used to classify “languages”, whereas the second, dialectometric, approach is often used to classify “dialects”. Of course there is overlap between the two approaches,
especially in cases where the definition of different varieties as “languages” or “dialects” is unclear. Although Sui is universally considered to be one “language”, we make use of both approaches in this
work.
6
In chapters 3 to 5, we apply the comparative method to our data with some measure of success. Because of the shallow time depth, we pay close attention to outside evidence such as migratory history
in order to uncover the timing of different sound changes and thereby to distinguish between inherited sound changes and sound changes which have diffused across a geographical region more recently.
In chapters 6 and 7 we analyse our wordlist data from a more synchronic perspective. In chapter 6 we calculate lexical similarity on the basis of shared historical cognates. In chapter 7 we examine
phonetic similarity by applying the Levenshtein distance algorithm, a dialectometric approach which has been shown to have a strong, significant correlation with both intelligibility and speakers’ perceived
distances between varieties Gooskens 2006, Yang Zhenjiang 2009.
We feel that for a complete understanding of the dialect situation, both historical and dialectometric analyses are necessary. Both can inform language development decisions and assist in the process of
developing mother-tongue materials to suit the needs of all Sui speakers.
1.4.3 Intelligibility testing methodology
For testing inter-dialect intelligibility, we used a type of Recorded Text Test RTT involving the “retelling” or “translation” of long sentences recorded in the four reference dialects locations for which
are given in 1.4.1 above. Due to the specific test design, we were able to test only three out of the four reference dialects at each data point. We tested a set of 42 sentences, fourteen sentences for each of three
reference dialects, on nine participants, rotating the sentences between them based on a “Latin square” design Box et al., 1978. Thus, whilst each participant only heard fourteen sentences from each
reference dialect, overall all 42 sentences in all three dialects were tested at each location. The background to the RTT development and design, along with detailed descriptions of the testing and
sampling methods employed during this survey, are provided in chapter 8.
1.5 Research findings
Our analysis shows that, from a synchronic perspective, the traditional grouping of Sui into three dialects, viz. Sandong, Pandong and Yang’an, is justified. Sandong may further be divided into four
subdialects: Central Sandong, Zhonghe and Zhouqin townships; Western Shuilong, Dahe, Tingpai, Tangzhou and Hengfeng townships; Eastern Dujiang and Bajie townships in Sandu county and Sanjiang
and Renli townships in Rongjiang county; and Southern Jiuqian and Yanggong townships in Sandu county, Shuili, Shuiyao, Jiarong and Yongkang townships in Libo county and Shuiwei township in
6
Currently, increasingly more historical linguists are using quantitative analysis for uncovering phylogenetic relationships, see for example the work of Paul Heggarty
http:www.eva.mpg.delinguastaffpaul_heggartyresearch_projects.php .
Rongjiang county. Within Sandong, the Central and Western subdialects are linguistically extremely close to each other, Eastern is slightly more distant, and Southern is the most distinctive.
From a historical perspective, the evidence suggests that Yang’an actually belongs to the Kam branch of Kam-Sui, although some recent sound changes and lexical borrowings mean that it now
resembles Sui in some respects. Within the Sui branch, the Southern varieties branched off early on and are extremely distinctive. Pandong dialect appears to be a sister dialect to Western Sui, while Eastern Sui
lects appear to have branched off from Central Sui much more recently.
It is worth noting that our historical comparative analysis with respect to Yang’an and Southern clusters is backed up by external cultural and geographical evidence. For example, the Yang’an Sui call
themselves sui³ kam¹, which literally means “Kam-like Sui”, and they celebrate Chinese New Year in
common with the Kam peoples rather than the Sui’s own Dwa New Year. Southern Sui speakers celebrate the Mao festival instead of Dwa. From a geographical perspective, most of the Southern Sui
area is situated around the upper tributaries of the Longjiang river, whereas all other Sui areas are served by the upper reaches and tributaries of the Duliujiang river. More research into the migratory
history of the Kam and Sui peoples may help to explain our historical comparative findings further.
Finally, intelligibility test results confirm that Central Sui as spoken in Sandong township is the best variety on which to base language development efforts. Almost all Sui speakers can understand the
Central Sandong lect sufficiently to make use of materials based on this variety. However, Pandong dialect speakers show very low comprehension of Central Sui. And Southern Sui speakers, particularly in
Libo county, only have partial comprehension of Central Sui. These two groups of speakers would be better served by materials in their own dialects, although further research is needed to determine the
best reference lect for these two dialect clusters.
12
2 Historical and Cultural Background
Pan Xingwen, Wei Shifang, Lu Chun, Shi Guomeng
2.1 Origins of the Sui people and their migratory history
