This article should specify the language of its non-English content, using {{lang}}, {{transliteration}} for transliterated languages, and {{IPA}} for phonetic transcriptions, with an appropriate
ISO 639 code. Wikipedia's
multilingual support templates may also be used.See why.(July 2021)
The Vietic languages are a branch of the
Austroasiaticlanguage family, spoken by the
Vietic peoples in Laos and Vietnam. The branch was once referred to by the terms Việt–MÆ°á»ng, Annamese–Muong, and Vietnamuong; the term Vietic was proposed by La Vaughn Hayes,[1][2] who proposed to redefine Việt–MÆ°á»ng as referring to a sub-branch of Vietic containing only
Vietnamese and
MÆ°á»ng.
Many of the Vietic languages have tonal or
phonational systems intermediate between that of Viet–Muong and other branches of Austroasiatic that have not had significant Chinese or Tai influence.
Vietnamese, today, has had significant Chinese influence especially in vocabulary and tonal system.
Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary accounts for about 30–60% of Vietnamese vocabulary, not including
calques from Chinese.
Origins
The ancestor of the Vietic language is traditionally assumed to have been located in today's North Vietnam.[3][4][5]
However, the origin of the Vietic languages remains a controversial topic among linguists. Another theory, based on linguistic diversity, locates the most probable homeland of the Vietic languages in modern-day
Bolikhamsai Province and
Khammouane Province in
Laos as well as parts of
Nghệ An Province and
Quảng Bình Province in
Vietnam. The time depth of the Vietic branch dates back at least 2,500 years to 2,000 years (Chamberlain 1998); 3,500 years (Peiros 2004); or around 3,000 years (Alves 2020).[6][7] Even so, archaeogenetics demonstrated that before the
Äông SÆ¡n period, the
Red River Delta's inhabitants were predominantly Austroasiatic: genetic data from
Phùng Nguyên culture's
Mán Bạc burial site (dated 1,800 BC) have close proximity to modern Austroasiatic speakers such as the
Mlabri and
Lua from Thailand, the
Nicobarese from
India (
Nicobar Islands), and the
Khmer from
Cambodia;[8][9] meanwhile, "mixed genetics" from
Äông SÆ¡n culture's Núi Nấp site showed affinity to "
Dai from China,
Tai-Kadai speakers from Thailand, and Austroasiatic speakers from Vietnam, including the
Kinh";[10] therefore, "[t]he likely spread of Vietic was southward from the RRD, not northward. Accounting for southern diversity will require alternative explanations."[11]
Vietnamese
The
Vietnamese language was identified as
Austroasiatic in the mid-nineteenth century, and there is now strong evidence for this classification. Modern Vietnamese has lost many
Proto-Austroasiatic phonological and morphological features. Vietnamese also has large stocks of borrowed
Chinese vocabulary. However, there continues to be resistance to the idea that Vietnamese could be more closely related to
Khmer than to Chinese or Tai languages among Vietnamese nationalists. The vast majority of scholars attribute
typological similarities with Sinitic and Tai to
language contact rather than to common inheritance.[12]
Chamberlain (1998) argues that the Red River Delta region was originally Tai-speaking and became Vietnamese-speaking only between the seventh and ninth centuries AD as a result of emigration from the south, i.e., modern
Central Vietnam, where the highly distinctive and conservative North-Central Vietnamese dialects are spoken today. Therefore, the region of origin of Vietnamese (and the earlier Viet–Muong) was well south of the Red River.[13]
On the other hand, Ferlus (2009) showed that the inventions of pestle, oar and a pan to cook sticky rice, which is the main characteristic of the
Äông SÆ¡n culture, correspond to the creation of new lexicons for these inventions in Northern Vietic (Việt–MÆ°á»ng) and Central Vietic (
Cuoi-Toum). The new vocabularies of these inventions were proven to be derivatives from original verbs rather than borrowed lexical items. The current distribution of Northern Vietic also corresponds to the area of Dong Son culture. Thus, Ferlus concludes that the Northern Vietic (Viet-Muong) is the direct heir of the Dongsonian, who had resided in the southern part of the Red River Delta and North Central Vietnam from the 1st millennium BC.[4]
Vietic speakers reside in and around the
Nakai–Nam Theun Conservation Area of Laos and north-central Vietnam (Chamberlain 1998). Many of these speakers are referred to as
MÆ°á»ng, Nhà Là ng, and Nguồn. Chamberlain (1998) lists current locations in Laos for the following Vietic peoples.[17] An overview based on first-hand fieldwork has been proposed by
Michel Ferlus.[18]
Nguồn: Ban Pak Phanang, Boualapha District, Khammouane; others in Vietnam
Ahoe: originally lived in Na Tane Subdistrict of
Nakai District, and Ban Na Va village in
Khamkeut District; taken to Hinboun District during the war, and then later resettled in Nakai Tay (39 households) and in Sop Hia (20 households) on the Nakai Plateau.
Thaveung (Ahao and Ahlao dialects): several villages near Lak Xao; probably originally from the Na Heuang area
Cheut: Ban Na Phao and Tha Sang, Boualapha District; others probably also in Pha Song, Vang Nyao, Takaa; originally from Hin Nam No and Vietnam
Atel: Tha Meuang on the Nam Sot (primarily Malang people); originally from the Houay Kanil area
Atop: Na Thone,
Khamkeut District (primarily Tai Theng people); originally from the Upper Sot area
Mlengbrou: near the Nam One; later relocated to the
Yommalath District side of the Ak Mountain, and now living in Ban Sang, Yommalath District (primarily Yooy people)
The following table lists the lifestyles of various Vietic-speaking ethnic groups. Unlike the neighboring Tai ethnic groups, many Vietic groups are not paddy agriculturalists.
Cultural typology of Vietic-speaking ethnic groups[6]
The discovery that Vietnamese was a Mon–Khmer language, and that its tones were a regular reflection of non-tonal features in the rest of the family, is considered a milestone in the development of
historical linguistics.[19] Vietic languages show a typological range from a Chinese or Tai typology to a typical Mon-Khmer Austroasiatic typology, including (a) complex tonal systems, complex phonation systems or blends; (b) C(glide)VC or CCVC syllable templates; monosyllabic or polysyllabic and isolating or agglutinative typology.[20][21]
Aheu (
Thavung): This language makes a four-way distinction between clear and breathy phonation combined with glottalized final consonants. This is very similar to the situation in the
Pearic languages in which, however, the glottalization is in the vowel.
Việt–MÆ°á»ng:
Vietnamese and
MÆ°á»ng. These two dialect chains share 75% of their basic vocabulary, and have similar systems of 5–6 contour tones. These are regular reflexes of other Vietic languages: The three low and three high tones correspond to
voiced and
voiceless initial consonants in the ancestral language; these then split depending on the original final consonants: Level tones correspond to
open syllables or final
nasal consonants; high rising and low falling tones correspond to final
stops, which have since disappeared; dipping tones to final
fricatives, which have also disappeared; and glottalized tones to final glottalized consonants, which have deglottalized.
Classification
Sidwell & Alves (2021)
Sidwell & Alves (2021)[22] propose the following classification of the Vietic languages, which was first proposed in Sidwell (2021).[23] Below, the most divergent (basal) branches listed first. Vietic is split into two primary branches, Western (corresponding to the Thavung–Malieng branch) and Eastern (all of the non-Thavung–Malieng languages).
The Thavung-Malieng group retains the most archaic lexicon and phonological features, while the
Chut group merges *-r and *-l finals to *-l, along with the other northern languages.[23]
Sidwell & Alves (2021) propose that the Vietic languages had dispersed from the
Red River Delta, based on evidence from loanwords from early Sinitic and extensive
Tai-Vietic contact possibly dating back to the
Dong Son period.[22]
Chamberlain (2018)
Chamberlain (2018:9)[25] uses the term Kri-Mol to refer to the Vietic languages, and considers there to be two primary splits, namely Mol-Toum and Nrong-Theun. Chamberlain (2018:12) provides the following phylogenetic classification for the Vietic languages.
Based on comparative studies by
Ferlus (1982, 1992, 1997, 2001) and new studies in Muong languages by Phan (2012),[26] Sidwell (2015)[27] pointed out that Muong is a paraphyletic taxon and subgroups with Vietnamese. Sidwell's (2015) proposed internal classification for the Vietic languages is as follows.
Vietic
Viet-Muong: Vietnamese, MÆ°á»ng Muốt, MÆ°á»ng Nà bái, MÆ°á»ng Chá»i, etc.
The following classification of the Vietic languages is from Chamberlain (2003:422), as quoted in Sidwell (2009:145). Unlike past classifications, there is a sixth "South" branch that includes
Kri, a newly described language.
Michel Ferlus (1992, 2013)[29][30] notes that the 12-year animal cycle (
zodiac) names in the
Khmer calendar, from which
Thai animal cycle names are also derived, and were borrowed from a phonologically conservative form of Viet-Muong. Ferlus contends that the animal cycle names were borrowed from a Viet-Muong (Northern Vietic) language rather than from a Southern Vietic language, since the vowel in the
Old Khmer name for "
snake" /m.saɲ/ corresponds to Viet-Muong /a/ rather than to Southern Vietic /i/.
^Sagart, Laurent (2008),
"The expansion of Setaria farmers in East Asia", Past human migrations in East Asia: matching archaeology, linguistics and genetics, pp. 141–145, The cradle of the Vietic branch of Austroasiatic is very likely in north Vietnam, at least 1000km to the south‑west of coastal Fújià n
^
abChamberlain, J.R. 1998, "
The origin of Sek: implications for Tai and Vietnamese history", in The International Conference on Tai Studies, ed. S. Burusphat, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 97-128. Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University.
^Lipson, Mark; Cheronet, Olivia; Mallick, Swapan; Rohland, Nadin; Oxenham, Marc; Pietrusewsky, Michael; Pryce, Thomas Oliver; Willis, Anna; Matsumura, Hirofumi; Buckley, Hallie; Domett, Kate; Hai, Nguyen Giang; Hiep, Trinh Hoang; Kyaw, Aung Aung; Win, Tin Tin; Pradier, Baptiste; Broomandkhoshbacht, Nasreen; Candilio, Francesca; Changmai, Piya; Fernandes, Daniel; Ferry, Matthew; Gamarra, Beatriz; Harney, Eadaoin; Kampuansai, Jatupol; Kutanan, Wibhu; Michel, Megan; Novak, Mario; Oppenheimer, Jonas; Sirak, Kendra; Stewardson, Kristin; Zhang, Zhao; Flegontov, Pavel; Pinhasi, Ron; Reich, David (2018-05-17).
"Ancient genomes document multiple waves of migration in Southeast Asian prehistory". Science. 361 (6397). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): 92–95.
Bibcode:
2018Sci...361...92L.
bioRxiv10.1101/278374.
doi:
10.1126/science.aat3188.
ISSN0036-8075.
PMC6476732.
PMID29773666.
^Corny, Julien, et al. 2017. "Dental phenotypic shape variation supports a multiple dispersal model for anatomically modern humans in Southeast Asia." Journal of Human Evolution 112 (2017):41-56. cited in Alves, Mark (2019-05-10). "Data from Multiple Disciplines Connecting Vietic with the Dong Son Culture". Conference: "Contact Zones and Colonialism in Southeast Asia and China's South (~221 BCE - 1700 CE)"At: Pennsylvania State University
^McColl et al. 2018. "Ancient Genomics Reveals Four Prehistoric Migration Waves into Southeast Asia". Preprint. Published in Science.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/278374v1 cited in Alves, Mark (2019-05-10). "Data from Multiple Disciplines Connecting Vietic with the Dong Son Culture". Conference: "Contact Zones and Colonialism in Southeast Asia and China's South (~221 BCE - 1700 CE)"At: Pennsylvania State University
^LaPolla, Randy J. (2010). "Language Contact and Language Change in the History of the Sinitic Languages." Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(5), 6858-6868.
^
abPhan, John D. & de Sousa, Hilário. 2016.
A preliminary investigation into Proto-Southwestern Middle Chinese. (Paper presented at the International workshop on the history of Colloquial Chinese – written and spoken, Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ, 11–12 March 2016.)
^Phan, John. "Re-Imagining 'Annam': A New Analysis of Sino–Viet–Muong Linguistic Contact" in Chinese Southern Diaspora Studies, Volume 4, 2010. pp. 22-3
^Ferlus, Michel (2004).
"The Origin of Tones in Viet-Muong". In Somsonge Burusphat (ed.). Papers from the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2001. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University Programme for Southeast Asian Studies Monograph Series Press. pp. 297–313.
^See Alves 2003 on the typological range in Vietic.
^The following information is taken from Paul Sidwell's lecture series on the Mon–Khmer languages.
[1]
^Phan, John. 2012. "MÆ°á»ng is not a subgroup: Phonological evidence for a paraphyletic taxon in the Viet-Muong sub-family." In Mon-Khmer Studies, no. 40, pp. 1-18., 2012.
^Sidwell, Paul. 2015. "Austroasiatic classification." In Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell, eds (2015). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages, 144-220. Leiden: Brill.
^Phan, John D. 2012. "MÆ°á»ng is not a subgroup: Phonological evidence for a paraphyletic taxon in the Viet-Muong sub-family." Mon-Khmer Studies 40:1-18.
Alves, Mark J. (2022). "The Ãông SÆ¡n Speech Community: Evidence for Vietic". Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Asian Interactions. 19 (2): 138–174.
doi:
10.1163/26662523-bja10002.
S2CID247915528.
Alves, Mark J. 2016. Identifying Early Sino-Vietnamese Vocabulary via Linguistic, Historical, Archaeological, and Ethnological Data, in Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 9 (2016):264-295.
Alves, Mark J. 2017. Etymological research on Vietnamese with databases and other resources. Ngôn Ngữ Há»c Việt Nam, 30 Năm Äổi Má»›i và Phát Triển (Ká»· Yếu Há»™i Thảo Khoa Há»c Quốc Tế), 183–211. Hà Ná»™i: Nhà Xuất Bản Khoa Há»c Xã Há»™i.
Barker, M. E. (1977). Articles on Proto-Viet–Muong. Vietnam publications microfiche series, no. VP70-62. Huntington Beach, Calif: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Chamberlain, J.R. 2003. Eco-Spatial History: a nomad myth from the Annamites and its relevance for biodiversity conservation. In X. Jianchu and S. Mikesell, eds. Landscapes of Diversity: Proceedings of the III MMSEA Conference, 25–28 August 2002. Lijiand, P. R. China: Center for Biodiversity and Indigenous Knowledge. pp. 421–436.
Pain, Frederick (2020). ""Giao Chỉ" (Jiaozhi 交趾) as a Diffusion Center of Middle Chinese Diachronic Changes: Syllabic Weight Contrast and Phonologisation of Its Phonetic Correlates". Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies. 50 (3): 356–437.
doi:
10.6503/THJCS.202009_50(3).0001.
Peiros, Ilia J. 2004. Geneticeskaja klassifikacija aystroaziatskix jazykov. Moskva: Rossijskij gosudarstvennyj gumanitarnyj universitet (doktorskaja dissertacija).
Sidwell, Paul (2009). Classifying the Austroasiatic languages: history and state of the art. LINCOM studies in Asian linguistics, 76. Munich: Lincom Europa.