Hindko and Gujari. c - SIL International

186
Calinda E. Hallberg and Clare F. O’Leary
longer duration, the rest reporting shorter Urdu conversations or
none at all. Only one subject reported never using Hindko for
conversations in Balakot, while 57 percent report none in Urdu.
Conversational Domains for Hindko
The domains of use for Hindko pattern similarly to those
discussed for Urdu: Hindko is not reported to be used within the
Gujar community, but is used between Gujars and non-Gujars in
the Hazara area. Thirteen percent reported never using Hindko in
Mittikot, whereas all but one reported using it for conversations
in Balakot. The large majority report that their longest Hindko
conversations were with shopkeepers in Balakot, many also
reporting that they use Hindko with their landlord. Three
reported long conversations with the local imam in Hindko. The
topics reported were appropriate to the interlocutors listed, and
reflect the need to use Hindko as a local lingua franca.
4.4 Comparative Patterns of Multilingualism in Peshmal
and Mittikot
4.4.1 Relative Urdu Proficiency and Use
In both Gujar communities under investigation, evidence
indicates that, compared to the local languages of wider
communication, Urdu proficiency was generally lower and Urdu
use was less frequent. Neither the Peshmal data, nor the Mittikot
data indicate widespread high levels of proficiency in Urdu.
However in both communities, Urdu proficiency was
significantly affected by education, with only those subjects in
the highest education group attaining consistently higher scores
on the Urdu sentence repetition test.
The levels of Urdu proficiency for each community are
displayed in figure (27), according to percents of more educated
subjects versus lesser educated and uneducated subjects at each
projected Reported Proficiency Evaluation level. Because no
significant differences were found between Urdu proficiency
levels of uneducated subjects and lesser educated subjects (with