Regional Variation in Lalo: Beyond East and West

Regional Variation in Lalo: Beyond East and West Cathryn Yang La Trobe University, Australia SIL International Abstract Lalo, a Burmic, Central Ngwi language spoken in western Yunnan, China, has been classified as having two dialects: East Mountain and West Mountain (Chen et al., 1985). Wang (2003) mentions a few differences between the dialects, but, in general, previous research has left major patterns of variation and the relative degrees of difference unexplored. Fieldwork conducted in 2008, including the collection of wordlists and texts, reveals a linguistic diversity previously unimagined. This paper presents evidence for the subgrouping of three lower-level dialect clusters: Central, Northwestern, and Eastern, from both a diachronic and a synchronic perspective. Diachronically, shared innovations in tone, initials and rhymes are used as criteria for subgrouping. Synchronically, the Levenshtein distance algorithm is applied to quantify aggregate pronunciation differences (Heeringa, 2004), and the results are presented using NeighborNet network mapping and multidimensional scaling. The synchronic, dialectometric results show a high degree of congruence with the diachronic findings for lower-level clusters. East and West Mountain Lalo are found to group together within the Central Lalo cluster. Northwestern, Eastern, and Central Lalo are clear lower-level subgroups, with possible higher-level connections to each other that distinguish them from peripheral Lalo groups that migrated out of the Lalo homeland area. Besides presenting major regional variation patterns in Lalo, this research furthermore reveals that the degree of difference is considerable, a finding with implications for any future Lalo language planning. Keywords: Lalo, Ngwi, Levenshtein distance, dialectology, dialectometry 1. Introduction Lalo is a Burmic, Central Ngwi language cluster spoken in Western Yunnan, China and is closely related to Lolo, Lisu and Lahu. While Lisu and Lahu dialects have been well documented (Bradley, 1979a; Bradley, 1994; Matisoff, 1973 [1982]; Matisoff, 2006), important questions about Lalo dialect geography have not yet been answered. What are the patterns of regional variation? Within those patterns, what are the major groups? Previous research (Chen et al., 1985) identifies two dialects, East Mountain and West Mountain, but fieldwork conducted in 2008 reveals a much more complex picture. Based on shared innovations and phonetic distance as measured by Levenshtein distance (see Section 2.2), several lower-level Lalo dialect clusters can be identified: Central (la!"lu#$$pa#!"), Northwestern (la!"lu$$pa%$), and Eastern (la!"lu$$pu&!). In addition, there are several peripheral Lalo groups who migrated out of the Lalo homeland at various times, and whose affiliation with other dialect groups is still uncertain: Xuzhang Lalu (la!"lu$$) and Yangliu Lalu (la!"lu%%pa%%) in Baoshan Prefecture, and Mangdi Lalo (lo!"lo$$p'#!") and Eka (o!"k(a!&) in Lincang Prefecture. This paper focuses on the three lower-level dialect clusters: Central, Northwestern, and Eastern, and leaves the question of higher-level relationships between the clusters and between peripheral groups for future research. The division between each of the dialect clusters is substantial enough to lead to low mutual intelligibility, a reality that must be considered in any future language development. Lalo ethnic population is estimated around 500,000 (Björverud, 1998); however, the number of Lalo speakers is likely smaller as Lalo in urban centers shift to Chinese (Bradley, 2002). Lalo are found mainly in Southern Dali, Northern Baoshan, Northern Pu’er, and Northern Lincang Prefectures in Yunnan Province (Chen et al., 1985). Lalo’s geographic distribution in Western Yunnan has led to Chinese linguists’ classifying it as “Western Yi,” the term “Yi” being the official ethnic category Lalo has been placed in (Zhu, 2005). Weishan and Nanjian Counties in Dali Prefecture are widely considered to be the traditional homeland of the Lalo. Central Lalo speakers who have migrated out of Weishan to Nanjian and Jingdong Counties even have a regional autonym linking them to the area. This group call themselves “Misha-pa,” referring to the ancient administrative region known as Mengshe or later Menghua, which originally encompassed southern Weishan and northern Nanjian (Bai, 2002). The last syllable -pa in “Misha-pa” is Lalo for “person,” so “Misha-pa” means “person from Misha” (pronounced Mengshe in Chinese) (Bai, 2002). Mengshe is an historically important region that gave rise to the Nanzhao kingdom, a semi-independent state that challenged imperial China’s hold over Yunnan during the Tang dynasty (618-907 A.D.) (Backus, 1981; You, 1994). Chinese historians of the Tang era classified the ruling Mengshe clan as “Wuman,” an ethnic category that contrasted with the “Baiman.” Backus (1981: 50) and Bradley (1979b: 91-92) link the Wuman of the Dali region with ancestors of the Yi, and Baiman with proto-Bai. But “Yi” is a contemporary ethno-political category that includes Northern and Central Ngwi languages, even as it excludes certain Central Ngwi languages such as Lisu and Lahu. The Central Ngwi speakers who have traditionally occupied the Mengshe region are Lalo, and their regional autonym “Misha- pa” specifically links them to the Mengshe region and clan. While a direct link between the Wuman of the Nanzhao period and the ancestors of the Lalo remains tenuous, the Lalo’s perceived link to a glorious “Mengshe” past underlines the importance of the Weishan and Nanjian area as their ancestral homeland. Given the Lalos’ long history of inhabiting the Mengshe (Weishan/Nanjian) area, the level of diversity found there among Lalo varieties is not surprising. Both local Lalo speakers and outside researchers recognize two major dialect groups within Weishan, East Mountain and West Mountain. One speaker from Ma’anshan Township in the West Mountain region and another speaker from Wajiacun in Yongjian Township in the East Mountain region distinguish their respective varieties with the terms “Xishan-pa” (West Mountain person) and “Dongshan-pa” (East Mountain person) (Blackburn, 2006). These names are based on the groups’ geographic distribution within Weishan: West Mountain speakers are located in the mountains to the west of Weishan County’s central valley, and East Mountain speakers to the east. East Mountain (less than 10,000 speakers) has a much smaller population and more limited geographic spread than West Mountain, being mainly located in the northeast corner of Weishan County. It is interesting to note that a valley divides these two Lalo groups, not a mountain. Because valleys facilitate travel, they usually serve to unify groups, while mountains divide. But in the case of Weishan, the valley serves as a boundary between groups. This can be partially explained by resettlement patterns that have developed since the Yuan dynasty (1279-1368 A.D.), after the Mongols invaded and destroyed the Dali kingdom in 1253 A.D. Continuing immigration by outsiders to the Weishan valley, especially during the Qing dynasty (1644-1912 A.D.) (Atwill, 2005), pushed Lalo out of the central valley and into the mountains on either side. Lalo social networks then grew along their respective mountain ranges (east and west) and seldom crossed Weishan’s central valley. Initial intelligibility of West Mountain Lalo by East Mountain listeners is in the mid to high range (68%) when tested using Recorded Text Testing methodology ((Casad, 1974) as adapted in (Kluge, 2007)). East Mountain listeners heard a recorded narrative from a West Mountain variety and then were asked to retell the narrative’s contents after hearing it again section by section. In contrast, West Mountain listeners understood only 53% of an East Mountain recorded text. Speakers from the two groups initially use Chinese to communicate with each other, but are able to acquire comprehension with further contact (Blackburn, 2006). Given “East Mountain” and “West Mountain’s” geographic link to the topography of Weishan County, it is not surprising that these labels are only applicable to Lalo varieties within Weishan County. Eastern Lalo speakers in Dali municipality, just north of the East Mountain area, reject the label “East Mountain,” and instead use a loconym linking them to Dali, not Weishan. Likewise, Central Lalo speakers living outside of Weishan also do not use the West Mountain loconym. Chen et al. (1985) incorrectly affix the East Mountain label to other Lalo dialect groups besides those found in the northeast corner of Weishan. Wang (2003) and Zhu (2005) follow in this error. These sources are wide-sweeping surveys of Yi languages as a whole, and for lack of adequate information have failed to distinguish differences among Lalo sub-groups. The dichotomy of East and West was deemed to be an adequate picture of Lalo diversity, until now. The result of this false dichotomy is a confusing demographic distribution: East Mountain varieties are claimed to range from Midu in the east all the way west to Baoshan Prefecture, located to the far west of the West Mountain area (Zhu, 2005). The East Mountain label has previously conflated the Central Lalo in northeast Weishan (the true East Mountain) and the Eastern Lalo spoken in Dali municipality. Since villages in this area are geographically close to each other, wear a similar ethnic costume, and are located to the east of the West Mountain variety, the label “East Mountain” seemed a good fit, but

Load more