Visualisations Dialect clusters indicated by wordlist analysis

180 9 Conclusions Andy Castro

9.1 Visualisations

In this work we have investigated the relationships between sixteen Sui varieties from both diachronic and synchronic perspectives. Each analytical approach used—historical comparative, lexical analysis, phonetic distance and dialect intelligibility—produces a different clustering of Sui dialects. Figures 9.1– 9.5 show Sui dialect groupings as indicated by the various analytical approaches. Figure 9.6 shows the traditional Sui subgroupings posited by most linguists until recently. Figure 9.1. Historical clusters chapters 3–5. Figure 9.2. Lexical clusters chapter 6. Figure 9.3. LD broad clusters chapter 7. Figure 9.4. LD narrow clusters chapter 7. Figure 9.5. Intelligibility clusters chapter 8. Figure 9.6. Traditional clusters SDB 1958.

9.2 Dialect clusters indicated by wordlist analysis

In terms of wordlist analysis, dialectometric and historical comparative approaches lead to different dialect taxonomies. The most obvious example is the positioning of Yang’an dialect within Kam-Sui. Similarity of phonological systems SDB 1958, Zhang Junru 1980 previously led linguists to classify Yang’an dialect as a particularly distinctive variety of Sui figure 9.6. Both a lexical comparison figure 9.2 and phonetic distance calculations based on narrow IPA transcriptions figure 9.4 indicate that Yang’an Sui groups with Sandong dialects and that the Pandong dialect is the real outlier. The comparative method figure 9.1 and chapter 5, figure 5.1, however, shows that Yang’an is genetically more closely related to Kam and is not a variety of Sui at all. Cultural distinctives, such as the fact that Chinese New Year is celebrated in the Yang’an region in common with Kam peoples instead of the Sui’s own Dwa New Year, back up this hypothesis. It is likely that speakers of the Yang’an dialect are descended from Kam speakers who migrated to the Sui area many centuries ago and subsequently acquired a Sui identity. Lexical comparison counts, phonetic distance and intelligibility testing all back up the traditional taxonomy for Pandong as a distinct Sui dialect on the same level as Sandong and Yang’an. However, historical comparative analysis paints a different picture. Pandong dialect appears to be genetically most closely related to Western Sui varieties. Along with Western Sui, it branched off from Central and Eastern much more recently than Southern Sui did. All of our analyses confirm Castro’s 2011 conclusion that Southern Sui varieties form a distinct dialect cluster, either completely separate from the other Sandong lects historical or as a subdialect within Sandong lexical, phonetic and intelligibility. The comparative method actually indicates that Southern Sui is less closely related to Central Sui than Pandong dialect is. Cultural distinctives such as the fact that Southern Sui celebrate the Mao festival instead of the Dwa festival celebrated in other Sui areas including Pandong, back up the Southern dialect hypothesis see Castro 2011, for more discussion. Historical, lexical and phonemic LD figure 9.3 analyses confirm SDB’s 1958 original hypothesis that the Rongjiang lects sometimes including DJ and perhaps other eastern areas of Sandu county, collectively referred to as the Eastern lects form a separate mini-cluster within Sandong.

9.3 Dialect clusters indicated by intelligibility testing