The Austroasiatic language phylum: A typology of phonological restructuring

The Austroasiatic language phylum

A typology of phonological restructuring

Paul Sidwell

1 Introduction

The Austroasiatic (AA) phylum is the oldest recognisable language family in the mainland of South and Southeast Asia, with approximately 150 - mostly small - languages straddling a discontinuous geographical distribution from central India to the coast of Indo-China (see Figure 32.1). Austroasiatic also includes national languages Vietnamese and Khmer, the historically important Mon with a written tradition going back some 1,500 years, and in India Khasi, with perhaps half a million speakers, has official status in Meghalaya state. Spread over such a vast area for thousands of years, and subject to sustained external influences from numerous unrelated languages, remarkable typological diversity has understandably accrued from branch to branch. The diversity found within the phylum is so great that, as Donegan and Stampe (2004: 4) put it, "the Munda and Mon-Khmer' branches of Austroasiatic, rarely studied by typologists. provide a nearly exhaustive inventory of the extremes of difference in human language structures."

There are at least a dozen recognised Austroasiatic branches, although recent scholarly opinion is sharply divided on how they coordinate phylogenetically. Diffloth (2005) proposes a deeply nested branching tree, with Central, Northern and Western (Munda) coordinated sub-families, although no evidence for this model has been published. More recently, Sidwell and Blench (201 1) have argued from historical phonology and computational phylogenetics that the family tree is effectively rake-like, with branches diversifying internally well after initial radical radiation. The former view is traditionally gradualist, while the latter is more punctuated. For substantial reference materials that profile the phylum, its geography, demographics, and the history of Austroasiatic studies, refer to Parkin (1991), van Driem (2001) and Sidwell (2009,201 1).

Despite strong disagreements within the small field of Austroasiatic studies, the phylum has been subject to con~parative-historical studies since the end of the nineteenth century, and we are in the happy position today of having large comparative data sets, extensive phonological and lexical reconstructions of various subgroupings, and working models of Proto-Austroasiatic phonology and lexicon (see Sidwell 201 1 for a review). This work is so far developed that we can describe and characterise many of the kinds of historical changes that have occurred in Austroasiatic, although for the sake of space and coherence this chapter

Figure 32.1 Geographical distribution of Austroasiatic branches (originally appearing in van Driem 2001 : 267; reproduced with permission)


will focus on phonological change, from word level to segments. The dominant theme that will be discussed here is one of restructuring of syllable and phonological word, and segmental change that occurred within that context, as the two must often be considered together to be fully understood.

In the sections that follow I will try to categorise and exemplify these changes. Time and again the kinds of changes we findlreconstruct are best conceptualised as change in syllable structure; either in terms of restructuring sesquisyllabic and disyllabic forms towards monosyllables, or augmenting mono- and sesquisyllables to create more complex forms. At a deeper lever level both processes can be thought of as a tendency towards structural symmetry, coming from a starting point of a markedly asymmetrical phonological word template in the context of a highly isolating typology.

2 Word and syllable structure

2.1 The Austroasiatic word and syllable

The Proto-Austroasiatic canonical word is reconstructed (e.g. Donegan 1983; Diffloth 2005; Shorto 2006) as conforming to the widespread Southeast Asian pattern that prefers monosyllables or iambic disyllables. Prefixing and infixing were the principal morphological processes. We can also suggest that, as in contemporary conservative Austroasiatic languages such as Katu (Costello 1966, 197 1, 199 1 ; ~ g u ~ g n Hiru Hoanh 1995; etc.), reduplication and segmental alternations played an important role, especially in terms of expressive (non- prosodic) lexicon. Additionally, word formation through compounding - although areally common today under Tai, Indic, Sinitic and other external influences - was absent or at best only marginally productive. The above considerations allow us to reconstruct the following Proto-Austroasiatic word template:

(1) Austroasiatic phonological word template *(C](',)i(N, )). C2(C3)v2(:)C4

I I presyllable main syllable

The word template consisting of the combination of presyllable and main syllable is conventionally referred to as the sesquisyllable (literally 'syllable and a hal f ; coined by Matisoff 1973). Roots could be mono- or disyllabic, and further augmented by prefixation, infixation or cliticisation. Most affixes were single consonant or vowel segments, with infixes always inserted immediately to the right of the leftmost consonantal segment. Consonantal affixes were commonly realised with vowel epenthesis to maintain preferred syllable structure. Additionally there were roots with initial consonant sequences that included plateaued or falling sonority, and were resyllabified phonetically. Thus there was often complex interaction between phonetics and morphology that could render forms morphologically opaque.

Within the phonological word positional restrictions created strong internal asymmetries. The most privileged positions were C, and V,, in which any ofthe full inventory ofconsonants or vowels available in the system were permitted, while other positions were limited. C,, being an optional component of the main syllable onset, permitted only the approximants /r, I, w, j, hl). C, segments corresponded to the C, inventory but without the voicing contrast; final oral stops were unreleased voiceless, with simultaneous glottal constriction; C, sonorants

Paul Sidwell

were voiced and probably significantly longer in duration than their C, counterparts. C , and V, constituted the presyllable, in which the vowel may or may not have been phonemic, hence the distinction between sesqui- and disyllabic forms. C , excluded at least glides and implosives, while the other consonants were apparently utilised. V,, conventionally represented with a schwa, was present either as an epenthetic vowel or as a vocalic infix, in the latter case timbre may have been significant.' N , represents a nasal coda in the presyllable; this could be etymological or reflect an infix, and given its relatively high sonority would not normally co-occur with v,.

Proto-Austroasiatic root structure was essentially C(C)V(:)C with more complex forms built up by affixations. This is illustrated with some contemporary Katu examples (from Costello 1 966):3

(2) Monosyllabic roots plus derived forms:

ca: 'to eat' : paca: 'cause to eat' p- prefix plus vowel epenthesis

tam 'root' : tanam 'classifier for plants' <n> infix plus vowel epenthesis

tey 'to work' : tarney 'work' <rn> infix plus vowel epenthesis

kliay 'to lock door' : kaliay 'wood to lock door' <a> infix

(3) Sesquisyllabic roots plus derived forms:

kan~13 'to think' : k a m ~ ~ ? 'thoughts' <r> infix

galak 'to trick' : paglak 'classifier for plants' p- prefix

?nto? 'to fall' : panto? 'cause to fall' p- prefix plus vocalisation of glottal onset

3mhuah 'to bump' : tamhuah 'to bump (myself)' t- prefix plus vocalisation of glottal onset

2.2 Restructuring towards monosyllables

Mainland Southeast Asia as a linguistic area has been widely recognised and discussed (e.g. Bisang 1996; Enfield 2003, 201 1 ; Matisoff 1978; Migliazza 1996) and among the defining features is a supposed "trend toward monosyllabicity" to lift a phrase from Enfield (2005: 186). However, as Brunelle and Pittayaporn (in press) point out:

[. . .] the tendency for sesquisyllables to become monosyllabic is less common than is usually assumed: the overwhelming majority of sesquisyllabic languages do not undergo monosyllabization, even when in contact with languages with more reduced word types.

This applies particularly to Austroasiatic; in just a few cases there has been complete reduction to monosyllables, more often there is substantial but incomplete reduction. Each presents a story of change in circumstances that do not always fit a simple narrative of assimilation to a dominant areal pattern.


2.2.7 Vietnamese: complete monosyllabism

Vietnamese is very much the poster child of monosyllabisation in Austroasiatic, given its status as the single largest Austroasiatic language and controversies that have raged for decades over its history and genetic affiliation (see Alves 2000 for an overview). Haudricourt (1952, 1954) made it clear that Vietnamese is neither Sinitic, Tai nor even especially mixed in origins once the literary component is taken into account, and the basic tonogenetic mechanism explained. More recently, Ferlus (1 997, 1998,2004) has reconstructed a detailed account of Vietnamese historical phonology.

Sesquisyllables were reduced in Vietnamese variously by simple lenition of initial segments plus assimilations1spirantisations of certain clustered onsets, although the specific changes and their environments can be quite complicated. Additionally there are extensive other changes, some of which are discussed elsewhere in this chapter. As a result, it was not just sesquisyllables that were reduced, but also monosyllables of the type C,C,V(C) became simple CV(C) syllables. See examples in (4).

Proto-Austroasiatic Proto-Vietic Vietnamese Glosses (Shorto 2006)4 (Ferlus 2007)

*sla? *+la:? la [la] 'leaf

*pho:m * k-sam? rbm [rim] 'to fart'

*k3i:p 'centipede' *kr-si:p rep [rep] 'bug'

*kra? *k-ra:? su [sa] 'road, path'

*klmia? *k-me:? mia [mia] 'sugarcane'

*jkaw *c-ku:? gku [gaw] 'bear'

*gma? *k-ma: mcea [mia] 'rain'

Vietnamese is actually the typological oddity within Vietic; the minor Vietic languages of the Lao-Viet borderlands maintain sesquisyllables quite robustly, and remain important witness languages for Proto-Austroasiatic. Phonological reduction in Vietnamese has effectively eliminated affixation and compounding is now the dominant method of word formation, so we could say that disyllabisity is emerging as the new norm.

2.2.2 Nyaheun: complete monosyllabism

Nyaheun is a small endangered West Bahnaric language spoken in the south of Laos. The remarkable phonology of Nyaheun was first described by Davis (1973) and Ferlus (1971), and the phonological history worked out in detail by Sidwell and Jacq (2003). While other Bahnaric languages robustly maintain sesquisyllables (with only partial exceptions) Nyaheun has uniquely undergone a complete restructuring to monosyllables. This was accomplished by two processes: 1) assimilation of clusters creating geminates; and 2) lenition of prevocalic segments creating medial approximants. In some cases both processes acted on the same etyma, producing double outcomes, the reasons for which are not well understood. The result is a language so transformed that it is almost unrecognisable to speakers of closely related neighbouring tongues, whom I have heard characterise it as 'baby talk'. See examples in (5).

Paul Sidwell

Proto-Austroasiatic Proto-Bahnaric Nyaheun Glosses (Shorto 2006) (Sidwell 201 1 )

*ca? 'to eat' *cna: n:a: 'food'

*J l a? *.+ria: 1:u: 'thorn'

'fern'

'far, distant'

'crab'

*tpal *tpal dwaw 'mortar'

*tgi:? *tqaj nie, ye: 'day'

2.2.3 Mangic/Pakanic: complete monosyllabism

The MangicIPakanic group consists of three small languages: Bugan (aka Pakan) and Bolyu (aka Lai, Paliu), two isolated but clearly related languages spoken in Guangxi, and Mang spoken in Northern Vietnam. It remains controversial whether Mang actually groups with Bugan and Bolyu, but the hypothesis is accepted by this writer. Bugan and Bolyu are both structurally Sinosised, with all etymological sesquisyllables reduced to monosyllables, and compounding is now the dominant word formational process (Benedict 1990; Edmondson and Gregerson 1995; Li Jingfang 1996). Mang has also undergone significant restructuring, but the notation used in the principal source (Lgi 2008) is difficult to interpret so it is not discussed further here. The examples in (6) show that monosyllabism was achieved by both simple loss of presyllables, and fusion of sequences into single segments (e.g. *jh- > s-, *st- > fs-, *c?- > 2).

--

Proto-Austroasiatic Bugan (Shorto 2006)

Bolyu Gloss

'bone'

'egg'

'tree, wood'

'year'

'thick'

'bamboo shoots'

'buffalo'

'to hear'

'right side'

'stone'


2.2.4 U: partial monosyllabism

U, a Palaungic language of the Angkuic subgroup spoken in Yunnan, was documented and analysed by Svantesson (1988). U underwent strong syllable restructuring that resulted in reduction of the vast majority of sesquisyllables into monosyllables, leaving only four possible presyllables in its inventory: /sa/, llal, /pa/ and a homorganic nasal presyllable.

The restructuring also involved complex changes within the rhymes, resulting in a four- tone system, loss of quantity contrast, and much reduced inventory of codas. Mostly the reductions involved simple loss of initial segments, with remaining main syllable initials undergoing regular sound changes as if there had never been a presyllable. However, rhotic clusters (e.g. t+) became alveolar affricates. See examples in (7).

Proto-Austroasiatic Proto-Palaungic U Gloss (Shorto 2006) (Sidwell20 10)

*kcas *kcas se 'charcoal'

* P S ~ J ~ set 'snake'

*kse? 'wood, tree' si 'stick'

*kta:m *kta:m tharn 'crab'

*rtu:g *rnd3:g 'ladder' tllliq 'bridge'

*dal *kdal t h 'belly, stomach'

*tr3:? *tar3? 6; 'to hit'

2.3 Augmentation: larger syllables, disyllablic roots and polysyllabic words

Restructuring in Austroasiatic languages sometimes went against the broader trend of stable sesquisyllabism or shift to monosyllabism. Munda languages have dramatically restructured towards a highly agglutinative and synthetic typology, especially in verbal morphology, that can allow speakers to pack informationally rich clauses into single inflected verbs. Less dramatically, Nicobarese languages have added several suffixes to the otherwise modest inventory of affixes, leading to formations that are polysyllabic and do not have stress on the final syllable. Elsewhere, various Austroasiatic languages that lack suffixes permit the accretion of multiple prefixes that allow words of four or even five syllables (without violating iambicity).

Within the confines of the Austroasiatic phonological word template there are also opportunities for segmentallsyllabic augmentation. While some languages are happy to tolerate simple presyllables (such that, for example, a single oral or nasal stop may suffice) others require a full presyllable with coda consonant. These codas may be built partially from features of the following main syllable onset, or be copies of the main syllable coda.

Paul Sidwell

2.3.7 Munda: creating disyllabic roots

The Munda languages of India have been characterised as "typologically opposite at every level" to the rest of the phylum (Donegan and Stampe 1983: 337, and elsewhere), having shifted from analytical to synthetic grammar. At the same time their Austroasiatic roots mostly restructured into full disyllables, while some shifted stress forward and lost their original main syllable vowels. The crucial phonological change was that (C)V(C) became the only permitted syllable type, and this was associated with widescale resyllabification. Much of this was achieved by copying main syllable vowels, which in some cases underwent further conditioned changes. Even some Austroasiatic CVC monosyllables become resyllabified in Munda, although why some did and others did not is not clear; a common strategy was to add the copy vowel finally. See examples in (8).

Proto- AA Sora Kurku Kharia Mundari Ho Bhumji Juang Santali (Shorto 2006)

*blu:? 'thigh' bu1u:-n bulu bhulu bulu bultr

*bri:? 'forest' hiru hir bir biv

*kmu:? 'dirty' kumu humu homu

*tqi:? 'sun, day'

*kja:l 'air, wind'

siygi siy siygl

* 6a? ba:ha:-n haha ba? baba 'paddy'

*(b)u:k 'head' b3?2b b23 / b2h.33 - bnkn?h h23?

kojo h2e

2.3.2 Extending the sesquisyllabic word template by affixation

Understandably, the strongly sesquisyllabic languages restrict the number of affixes that can be added to a stem, such that phonology consistently overrides morphology. This tendency is arguably violated by cliticisation, which is a fairly marginal phenomenon in much of the phylum, although it is being recognised with increasing frequency (see, for example, Watson 201 1). One approach taken by scholars has been to analyse as clitics those morphemes that superficially extend words phonologically beyond the sesquisyllabic template, citing the phonological restriction as evidence for the clitic analysis.

For Bahnar, Banker (1 964: 1 12) identifies a ja- 'completed action' clitic, explaining that, "[alffixes can only occur with one-syllable roots, but the cliticja- is able to occur with two- syllable roots and prefixed stems as well." Examples are given in (9).


(9) Two-syllable verb roots:

cakal 'to lock door' : jacakal 'to have locked door'

ganam 'to threaten' : jaganam 'to have threatened'

Prefixed stems:

paloc 'to kill'

taboh 'to show'

: japaloc 'to have killed'

: jataboh 'to have killed'

More elaborate multiple affixation is described for Katu by Costello (1 966: 63):

A word in Katu has a maximum of four syllables, made possible when two prefixes are added to a two syllable root. It is expected that some unidentified presyllables will later be found to be prefixes, but until the root of a word is determined, these syllables will be treated as non-morphemic presyllables.

Costello (1966: 63-64) offers the following Katu examples (retranscribed into IPA):

(10) dul3:y 'to call' : padub:y 'to cause to call'

pajuak 'to persuade' : tapajuak 'to persuade each other'

karua? 'to hurt' : pakarua? 'to cause to hurt'

suru:m 'to fall' : tapusaru:m 'to cause each other to fall'

The only four-syllable examples offered by Costello are formations with the tapa- 'involuntary causative' prefixes, which is a combination of the ta- involuntary and the pa- causative (note that the /a/ vowel in these affixes is a weak epenthesis, the underlying morphemes are consonantal).

Nicobarese languages also allow longer words to be built up by affixation, which also includes a small set of suffixes. According to Radakrishnan's (1981) analysis of Nancowry, these include -u 'possessive' and -a 'agentive', and have the effect of marking things which are possessed or which result from some activity or state; see examples in (1 1).

( I I) kan 'a female' : h n u 'married'

katah 'beneath' : katahu 'bottom'

wi? 'to make' : wi?a 'a thing made'

haray 'to paint' : haraya 'the object painted'

The addition of further affixes p re f ixes and infixes - especially to disyllabic roots, potentially creates four-syllable words. A couple of abridged paradigms taken from Radakrishnan's lexicon are given in ( 1 2).

Paul Sidwell

(12) kuh 'to know (thing or person)' talap 'to mend (garment)'

3ukuh 'to know' tulupu 'that which is mended'

3akuhu 'facts known' tumulup 'one who mends'

ma7akah 'knowledgeable person' tinlapa 'mending'

7inkuhu 'knowing' tuninlapa 'mending'

7uninkaha 'knowing'

2.4 Coda copying

Another strategy that augments the phonological word by violating the preferred Austroasiatic template is coda copying (also called 'incopyfixation' by Matisoff 2003). This is a morphological strategy found productively in Aslian, Nicobarese, and fossilised in Khmuic. When a presyllable is created, such as by prefixing, the main syllable coda is copied into the presyllable to give it a coda.

2.4.1 Nancowry coda copying

Nicobarese languages tolerate only CV(C) syllables, such that any CC sequence is unambiguously indicative of a syllable boundary. In Radakrishnan's (1981) analysis of Nancowry (which does not discuss semantics), when the prefix ?zr- is attached to non no syllabic roots, a stop or nasal coda is copied into the presyllable (with regressive dissimilation of palatals). Examples are given in ( 13).

(13) juk > ?uk j'uk 'to conceive' kup > ?zip 'ktrj) 'to bite' i > 3zr9 '3iy 'bone' tin > ?in 'tin 'to push' czuc > 7it 'CZUC 'to be silent'

2.4.2 Aslian coda copying

Among the Aslian languages of Malaysia more elaborate coda copying is attested; Matisoff (2003: 28-32) distinguishes several types illustrated in (14).

(14) a coda copy as infix, e.g. Kensiw:

plny 'sing' > p y l y 'singing'

glit 'rub one's eyes' > gtlit 'eye rubbing'

b root external infix plus coda copy, e.g. Semai:

fr:w 'river (mass)' > tnw~:u, 'river (count)'

sla,;j 'swidden (mass)' > snj1u.Y 'swidden (count)'


c root external prefix plus coda copy, e.g. Temiar:

kah 'bite' > nrbkap 'biting'

hul 'blow' > nrlhul 'wind, breeze'

d reduplication of initial and coda copy, e.g. Batek:

kzuc 'grate' > kckzuc 'is grating'

geh 'stir coals' > ghgeh 'is stirring coals'

2.4.3 Khmuic coda copying

Apparently we find fossilised copy codas in the Khmuic languages of Northern Laos and neighbouring areas. Some Khmu Cuang examples from Premsrirat's (2002) dictionary follow in (1 5).

(15) u'Dg u'Dg km/ia:m 'pointed tuft of hair' gln3 .st!przr~1 'curly and spongy hair' hr,:t cyriay 'to scream' hi27 klwe:l 'black (a shade of)' h?ir styut 'very fragile'

The Khmu examples perhaps suggest a phonological mechanism for the origin of coda copying. Generally, the examples are in expressive or descriptive lexicon; we might think of the copied codas as phonological bulk in new syllables that were given form by rhyming. Rhyming of other segments is common in two- and four-syllable elaborate expressions.

2.5 Epenthesis

2.5.1 Epenthesis with presyllables in South Bahnaric

In South Bahnaric languages there is a strong tendency for voiced stops to become prenasalised, creating a nasal presyllable coda, when stop prefixes are attached to roots with voiced initials (see Sidwell 2000 for further discussion). Some examples are given in (16), with comparisons to Bahnar, a Central Bahnaric language that does not share this epenthesis.

(16) Stieng kamhny 'bill (of bird)' Stieng saygar 'drum'

Sre kamhoy 'large bill of bird' Sre saygar 'drum'

Bahnar ta(in:y 'snout' Bahnar saga-, hagar 'drum'

Another example of presyllable epenthesis in South Bahnaric involves the resyllabification of diphthongs in Chrau and Central Mnong. For etymological *ia, *ua, a rhotic onset triggers resyllabification. Interestingly in Bahnar the same environment triggers monophthongisation; see ( 17).

Paul Sidwell

(17) Central Mnong rahwaj 'fly'

Chrau rawaj 'fly' Chrau rawes 'elephant' Chrau raj~g 'hundred' i

Stieng ruoj 'fly' Stieng ruos 'elephant' Stieng riey 'hundred' i Bahnar r2.j' 'fly' Bahnar rojh 'elephant' Bahnar hmg 'hundred' ~

2.5.2 Epenthesis of monosyllables in Cta' i Anderson (2008) presents a sketch grammar of Gta', a small Munda language of southern Orissa with fewer than 4,500 speakers. Several distinct varieties are spoken, including a Hill Gta' and a Plains Gta'. The language and people are also called Didayi or Didei. As Anderson reports, Gta' undoes much Munda restructuring, restoring sesquisyllabicity:

Gta' is an unusual language from the perspective of syllable structure or phonotactics. It has an enormous number of 'clusters' found in word-initial position but a restricted number of consonants found in coda position. A small number of words with syllabic nasals and prenasalized stops may also be found.

(Anderson 2008: 684-685)

Apparently both Munda disyllables and monosyllables restructured to CCV(C), and Munda with simple CVC monosyllables appending a hornorganic augment, even when the onset is itself nasal. Anderson characterises these as pseudo-archaisms; see (1 8).

(18) Gta' epenthetic prenasalisation of monosyllables (examples from Anderson 2008 compared to Remo and Proto-Austroasiatic reconstructions)

Gloss Gta' Remo Proto-Austroasiatic (Shorto 2006)

'two' mbur bur *6a:r

'nose' mmu se:-mi *muh

'bone'

'foot'

'water'

'root'

'hand'

'deep'

'uncultivated land'

'longltall'

'rope'

'uncooked rice'

'village'

'sun'

ncia

nco

ndia?

ndra?

nti, tti

cri

bri

c l ~ ?

gha3

rko?

hni

sni

sac'

suy

dug

regi

ti

siri

biri

sileq

gie?/gije

rgku

sug

siyi


3 Initials: onsets and presyllables

3.7 VOT restructuring

Proto-Austroasiatic is reconstructed with a three-way phonation contrast in main syllable onset oral stops -voiceless, voiced and voiced implosive (Shorto 2006), with all three series surviving intact into Old Mon, Katu, and at least partially in Bahnar, and is reconstructable on internal grounds for five out of the dozen Austroasiatic branches (Palaungic, Vietic, Katuic, Bahnaric, Monic; see Sidwell 2010 for correspondences and discussion). It is fair to say that to a great extent the phonological history of Austroasiatic is dominated by the restructuring of these contrasts, and their secondary consequences (especially in respect of vocalism).

3.7.1 Merger of voiced and implosive series

Five out of a dozen branches show a complete merger of voiced and implosive stops at the proto-branch level: Munda, Khmuic, Khmer, Pearic and Aslian, plus Nicobarese shows a merger restricted just to bilabials. The merger of implosive and voiced series is typically an unconditioned change that can be characterised as a lenition. It was followed by various secondary changes in individual branches.

In Munda and Aslian the merger resulted in a stable two-series contrast (&voice) in onset. oral stops, with only isolated cases of subsequent further change. In Khmuic, the Khmu Chuang dialect retains a *voiced contrast, while most other Khmuic languages have subsequently undergone a general devoicing of stops associated with tonogenesis. Pre-Khmer, implosion was lost, but later remerged in a conditioned shift of voiceless stops. In Pearic languages the merged voiced series later devoiced in association with the emergence of breathy registers.

1 1

3 . 1 . 2 'Germanic' sound shift

Pearic, and various northern groups, have undergone a so-called (by Haudricourt 1965) 'Germanic' sound shift in which the voiceless series acquires a positive voice onset timing, becoming aspirated. Apparently the increased VOT serves to improve perceptual distance from the implosive series, which tends to have a rather short lead voicing duration. The Germanic shift has occurred in MaliThin (Khmuic), Angkuic, Khasi, and Pearic, although with some exceptions that are problematic to explain (marked with t below). See (19) for examples.

Paul Sidwell

(1 9)

Khasian Khmuic Pearic Palaungic/Angkuic Proto-AA Khasi MalIThin Chong U Hu Muak Sa-aak

*c3? 'dog' ksefi. sua? c b : s d s37 c l ~ 7 ~

*kan 'wifelwoman' - - klif:n - - -

*ka? 'fish' u'o? k h : kl'a: - klki - k b 2

*ktu:? 'hot' - - t1'zr? - -

*par 'to fly' - phaw - mp15 pl'trr phrl'

*pu(a)n 'four' - pllo:n pb:'n pl'cin 3ap"dn -

*t3h 'breast' .- - tI1uh - thut -

*ti? 'arm, hand' kt;: 7- thi: ti: i t "i - t~zi 2

3.7.3 Restoration of implosives

In several branches (Khmeric, Vietic, Palaungic) a restructuring of the consonant series after loss of implosion has resulted in a restoration of implosion, both conditioned and unconditioned.

The phonological history of Khmer is rather well understood (e.g. Ferlus 1992). The Austroasiatic implosive series was lost before inscriptional Old Khmer appeared in the sixth century, reflecting a merger of implosives and plain voiced stops (e.g. Proto-Austroasiatic *&:k > Old Khmer dik 'water', Proto-Austroasiatic *6a:r > Old Khmer ber,/vyur 'two'). Subsequently (perhaps early in the Middle Khmer period) there was a further shift in which prevocalic labial and apical voiceless stops became implosives. Examples are given in (20).

(20) Proto-Austroasiatic Modern ~ h m ' e r

*pi? > 6aj 'three'

*ti? > u'aj 'earth'

* tpal > tliul 'mortar'

*pta:w > p&w 'rattan'

In Vietic (see Phan [20 121 for a recent discussion of Vietnamese historical phonology) there was a general devoicing of stops throughout the group. The imploded series survived as stops in most minor Vietic languages, but lenited to /v/ and lrl in some Muong dialects (e.g. MU&, Choi), and became nasals /mi and In1 in Vietnamese. The gap left by the loss of implosives was subsequently refilled by a general shift oflp, t i to 16, d7, including /p, tl that had previously originated in the devoicing of voiced oral stops. Examples illustrating the loss and re- emergence of implosives in Vietnamese are given in (2 1).


(21)

Proto-Austroasiatic Malieng Arem Vietnamese Gloss

*pay? > pzp3 ply? b i n [6&] 'to shoot'

> pac' pic hkt [6it] 'to pick'

> - - u'w+i [dial] 'under'

> atakT - dbt [At] 'to lead with tether'

*cfu(:)k > &:k7 &:k ndc [nbk] 'boat'

*&:k > u'a:k7 de:k nzr+c [niak] 'water'

*6u:m > - - mum [mum] 'mouthful, sip'

*t6ag > /ahag' abag miing [mag] 'bamboo shoots'

Within Palaungic at least one language underwent a shift in which voiceless labials and apicals became voiced implosives. Luce ( 1965) provides a short lexion of 'Palaung of Panku' recorded at Panku in Shan State (also reporting 'Ra-ang' as the autonym of this group). That lexicon provides clear examples of the labial and apical voiceless stops becoming implosive while the palatal and velar had the otherwise regular Palaungic outcomes (*c- > Is-/, *k- > Ik-I); see (22).

Palaungic

Proto-AA U Palaung Palaung Gloss (Namshang) (Ra-anglPanku)

*p(3)h >

*pi:s >

*ti? >

*ti? >

*ci(:)m >

*ci(:)? >

* ka? >

*rk(aw)? >

phi

/hi

thP

puchip

nchi

kha

a k h ~

poh

pir

ti

katt

sim

si

kn

vako

'flower'

'to sweep'

' handlarm'

'earth'

'bird'

'louse'

'fish'

'husked rice'

3.2 Lenition of initial palatals

Throughout Austroasiatic there is a strong tendency to lenite palatals in onsets, varying greatly even within individual branches. It is important to note in this context that the phoneme typically transcribed as Is1 in Austroasiatic linguistics often has a considerable allophonic range that includes alveopalatalllaminal articulation (Is, JI) or even palatal (/GI), and this is not always evident from the written sources.

The general pattern is one of a chain shift that proceeds partly or completely as follows:

Paul Sidwell

Variations on this pattern include the following:

In East Bahnaric (Cua) a shift of *s > lli followed by *c > is/. In Mang a shift of *s > /hi followed by *c > /e l . In Danaw a shift of *s > 181 followed by merger of *c, *J > 181. In Munda a tendency for s > zero (and k > /hi) followed by shift of *c > is/.

Examples of palatal lenition across Austroasiatic are shown in (23).

Bahnaric Palaungic Khasi Mang Munda

Proto-AA Cua Bahnar Danaw Palaung U Sora Mundari

*su(a)k lo:k snk b o k ) hu? s~iS s ~ ~ o ? h3k7 u'u u 'b 'hair'

*sum 'to bathe'

*psan 'five''

B3n4 sup sum - uma um

Bun4 phan sat san hun2

* a ? 'dog' SJ: kn7.s~: tso?' S J so ksew 8.7: ~ e t u seta

*ci(:)m s e :p sr':m &an4 sim pachip sim 8r-m sim sim 'bird'

*cin 'cooked1 ripe'

sin ?,'&an3 sin - - 8i:n asin isin

*ju? 'sour' JULI? I ) k ' f i ~ ? ~ - - leu3 - s" jo J.?"

*jan 'heavy'

*~u(a)s ,to. k fa9 - jtuq k i b "uuY4 J"9 .laYga /*3a(:)s 'footlleg'

This form is reconstructable to Proto-Palaungic.

4 Mainsyllable rhymes: nuclei and coda

4.7 Vowel splitting and registrogenesis

The Austroasiatic languages are well known for their complex vocalism, and examples with inventories of 40 or more vowel phonemes are known (see section 4.1.1). The essential mechanism behind such complexity is the splitting of vowel systems into high and low 'registers' by the assimilation of consonant phonation 'features, with concomitant


diphthongisations or other vowel shifts characteristic of each register series. The processes can variously lead to languages becoming tonal and/or acquiring 'restructured' vocalism in the terminology of Huffman (1985), who schematised the evolution of two hypothetical proto-syllables *ka. and *ga?

Register1 Proto- Conservative Transitional Register Restructured Tonal tonal series language

1st / high *ka: 1ka:l 1ka:l 1ka:l /ka:/ 1ka:l

2ndl low *ga: 1ga:l 1k'a:I 1ka:I Ikial /ka:/

Over subsequent decades a more complete understanding of the laryngeal mechanisms underlying these patterns of change has emerged, and our present understanding of both tonogenesis and registrogenesis is now quite advanced (see: Brunelle 2005; Gordon and Ladefoged 200 1 ; Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996; Mortenson 2006; Thurgood 2002,2007). From language to language, different features or combinations of features gain or lose salience in the process of restructuring. Thurgood tabulates these phonetic correlates of register as follows.

(25) "The three most common register complexes" (Thurgood 2007: 274)

Tense Register Unmarked Breathy Register

original initials: proto-voiceless proto-voiced , voice quality: tense (creaky) modal (clear) breathy

vowel quality: lower (open); more fronted vowels; tendency to diphthongisation; often shorter

higher (closed); more backed vowels; tendency to centralisation; often longer

pitch distinctions: higher pitch lower pitch

state of larynx: larynx tense and/or raised larynx lax and/or (reduced supraglottal lowered (increased cavity) supraglottal cavity

Consequently we are now much better placed to understand the nature of the complex phonologies encountered in Austroasiatic, and model their emergence from the simpler system of Proto-Austroasiatic, which presumably resembled closely one or more of the extant apparently unrestructured conservative Austroasiatic languages.

4.7.7 Restructured vocalisms of Khmer, Mon and Bru

The topics of vowel splitting and register formation are so intimately linked that it is difficult to treat them separately. As can been seen in Thurgood's table of 'most common register

691

Paul Sidwell

complexes' in (25), there is a correlation between vowel height and phonation. The basis of this relationship is articulations that serve to increase or decrease the volume of the immediate supra-laryngeal chamber such that voiced onsets tend to suppress FI, and thus condition higher vowels (Brunelle 2005). The effect may be quite subtle, for example there may be no effect on li, ul, but Ie, 01 may be pronounced with perceptibly raised onglides, e.g. ['e, "01. Conversely, voiceless onsets may condition lowering, such that Ii, ul are realised as ['i, "u] or similar. These effects can lead to most or all of the vowel inventory b~furcating according to the voice quality of the onset, so that not only do rhymes acquire a distinct phonation (e.g. breathy versus model, etc.) but also distinctive timbre. Languages may be in the midst of such transitions, and consequently the analyses can be difficult or ambivalent; for example researchers may treat one or other feature of the emerging system as subphonemic.

The classic examples of Austroasiatic vowel splitting and registrogenesis are Mon and Khmer. In each case the languages were reduced to writing before the relevant sound changes occurred - when they were still phonologically conservative in Huffman's terminology - and this IS reflected in the epigraphic record and the modern orthographies. These days Khmer is in the category of a fully restructured language, having lost the breathy contrast (although it survives in CardamomlChanthaburi Khmer; see Wayland and Jongman [2001]), leaving only the distinct vowel reflexes. Although the inventory effectively doubled with the vowel split, some positional mergers left a system with only some 30 members distinguished (while similar process have yielded more than 40 in some Katuic languages). The split, as it affected the long vowels, is represented schematically by Huffman (with some notational adaptation) as in (26).

(26)Vowel split among long monophthongs in Khmer (based on Huffman [1985: 1421)

Note: vowels in italics are historical values indicated by the writing system

The history of Mon is quite different, to a large extent because the quantity distinction was lost while the breathy-modal register was maintained. This resulted in many mergers such that today there are phonetically only ten monophthongs and eight diphthongs, yet potentially all of these may be breathy or modal. This puts Mon into Huffman's 'Register' category. The phonological evolution of Mon is well researched (e.g. Diffloth 1984; Ferlus 1983; Shorto 197 1,2006) and although one will find various notational discrepancies and minor differences of analysis between various authors, there is broad agreement on the details of how the complex phonetics of Modern Spoken Mon emerged from the apparently much simpler Old


Mon system. To illustrate this history, I have reconfigured the table of "Mon historical developments" from Shorto (2006: 6) along the lines of Huffman's (1985) schema for representing vowel splits.

(27) Summary vowel splits in the transition from Old Mon to Modern Spoken Mon (adapted from Shorto 2006: 6)

1 Note: vowels in italics are historical values indicated by the writing system I

We see in Mon that the second register vowels are higher (having a lower F I ) than their corresponding first register members (such as I31 (lst), lo1 2nd). It is also important to note that there remain plenty of register pairs that are so similar in vowel quality that phonation remains salient, and is an important part of the contemporary phonology.

Another Austroasiatic language exempliSing such changes is Bru (also Bruu, Brbu, Brtl), a West Katuic language with many closely related dialects spoken across a large area from Northeast Thailand, through Laos and into Vietnam. Remarkably, various analyses count up to 42 distinct vowel phonemes in Bru (e.g. Chinowat 1983; Gainey 1985; Luang-Thongkum and Puengpa 1980; Luang-Thongkum 1979; Miller and Nuan 1974; Phillips et al. 1976; Vuang Hoang TuyCn 1963; V u m g Hiru L$. 1999). In the most recent of these papers, V u m g Hiru L$ compares several analyses, discussing their merits. I reproduce in (28) his "Chart of Bru vowels arranged by register contrasts," showing a system structurally somewhere between Khmer and Mon; length remains important and short vowels are unmarked for register, while among the long vowels splitting is restricted to the high and mid-high series only, leaving register most salient for the low and mid-low. Consequently, speakers of Bru must track an asymmetrical combination of quantity, small quality (ongliding) distinctions, phonation, and even nasalisation. We may expect that such a system is likely to be unstable over the longer term, and may eventually settle down through losseslmerges into one of Huffman's less ambiguous categories.

Paul Sidwell

(28) Chart of Bru vowels adapted from V u m g Hku L$ (1999: 105)

Back Front

Lax

Central

Tight

Lax

Note: Laxitight corresponds to 2ndil st registers; short vowels are unmarked for register

Short Long Glided

i ia

Tight

Lax

Tight

Lax

Tight

4.2 Tonogenesis

'i ia

e ia

4.2.7 Conventional tonogenesis

Short Long Glided

tu uia

ie ia

t- r

r

Tonal languages are not particularly common within Austroasiatic, unsurprisingly given the relative stability of sesquisyllabism, but they do occur, often in conditions of close contact with other tonal languages such as Chinese, Thai or Burmese. However, even when they do occur in such language contact conditions, it is generally apparent that the native resources of the language have played the dominant role in conditioning the paths and outcomes of tonogenesis. For example, in the case of tonal Khmu dialects, language contact can be more or less ruled out as the primary driver of tonogenesis. Premsrirat (2002, 2004) discusses tonogenesis in Khmu, a large Austroasiatic dialect chain that is spread over much of Northern Laos and spills into neighbouring countries. While the eastern dialects are phonologically conservative, western dialects show all of Huffman's stages including tonality, specifically simple high/lo\v tone systems.

Short Long Glided

u ua

LU tua

a

"U iia

o ua

'a

I

A

u

~j

a

'0 iia

2

3

7

n

n

n


(29) Abridged version of Premsrirat's (2004: 14) Khmu "Stages of tonogenesis: words with initial stop," illustrating various transitional stages to tonality in extant Khmu dialects.

'rice wine' I

1. Beginning stage:

'to take clothes off

'to cut down a tree'

2. Intermediate stage:

'to take a bite'

3. Final stage

'to chew' I 'to fart'

'to weigh'

'astringent'

Is, vt, cl Voicing contrast

hok

aspirated initial

pu:c

Dialects: Is Hua Phan, vt Nghe-An, cl Pung Soa Sipsongpanna, Ik Nalae Udornsaj, fw Chiengkhong, 16 Muang Hun Udornsaj, ct Om Kae Sipsongpanna.

pok

pu.'m

pu:m

cay

cay

The basic pattern of highllow tone series emerging from voicing in onsets can be further modified by the effects of codas. The best known example of this in Austroasiatic is Vietnamese, whose tones were first explained by Haudricourt ( I 954), who showed that it has little to do with the five and six tone southern Chinese varieties with which Vietnamese has long been in contact with and often compared to typologically. Example (30) from Diffloth (1 989: 146) shows in simplified form the correlation between tones and segmental features in the history of Vietnamese.

(30) Summary development of Vietnamese tones from Diffloth (1989: 146)

pok

phin:m

pu:m

c l l ~ i ~

cu y

Finals: *voiced continuants *stops, *-7 *voiceless fricatives

Initials:

pdk

pu:m

pu .m

C& y

cd i j~

A further case in point: Bolyu and Bugan, small Austroasiatic languages spoken in the far west of the Guangxi (China); both are heavily Sinosised languages with complete reduction to monosyllables and both have six tone systems. However, Edmondson and Gregerson (1996) and Li Jinfang (1996) show that the tones in these languages pattern in ways that strongly parallel Vietic, providing additional strong indications that although being in contact with a dominant tonal language may be a factor in tonogenesis, the specific phonological developments will be largely governed by internal factors.

Paul Sidwell

4.2.2 Unconventional tonogenesis

Another Austroasiatic group in which tones are important is the Angkuic sub-branch of Palaungic, spoken by small communities in Yunnan and broader areas. Work in recent decades has revealed a fascinating story of syllabic, segmental and tonal restructuring that runs counter to the immediate areal trends. Three languages are discussed here: U and Hu (Svantesson 1988, 1989, 199 1 ) and Muak Sa-aak (Hall 201 0). The striking thing about the Angkuic languages is that devoicing among initial stops must have occurred at an early period in the group's history, such that it is unconnected with tonogenesis, and instead vowel length appears to be the crucial feature that separated high and low tone series, with codas conditioning further splits. This is very unusual. Kingston (201 1) could only nominate Western Lugbara (Nilo-Saharan) as another example tone originating with length.

Discussion begins with Hu, which shows a straightforward two-tone highllow system. Svantesson (1 99 1 : 75) shows the relation between tone and vowel length (mean values only shown), which I compare to Lamet, a more distantly related Palaungic language that preserves Proto-Palaungic vowel length; see (3 1).

(3 1) Hu tonellength relationship

Svantesson's measurements show that length distinctions have not completely levelled in Hu; the Hu measurements effectively show all vowels falling within the typical range of Austroasiatic long vowels, with high tone vowels in the lower end of the range while low tone vowels distribute over a wider range. It is apparent that within Hu, the vowel quantity distinction is being lost with short vowels lengthening until they merge phonetically with the long series. This is consistent with a broader view that among Austroasiatic languages long tends to be the unmarked length. Elsewhere in Austroasiatic for example, Vietnamese retains only two short vowels (15, 51) versus nine long monophthongs and three diphthongs, while Sedang (Smith 1979) neutralised quantity by lengthening all short monophthongs.

The closely related U language underwent even more extensive restructuring, especially reduction of syllables (Svantesson 1988). Importantly, the basic two-tone system underlying Hu elaborated considerably into a four-way highllowlrisinglfalling contrast. However, the emergence of four tones in U was not simple; there are nine distinct outcomes according to different rimes, which then sort out into an overall four-way tone system. Putting aside two marginal cases, the broad picture of tonal development in U, with conditioning environments specified, is as in (32).

High tone

High tone

Lamet

j u n ~

-

kak

, ja:m

ka:p

3a:k

Glosses

'to die'

'to speak'

'to bite'

'to cry, weep' " ~ a w '

'crossbow'

H u Mean durations by rime

jdrn

pap

kuk

j um

kup

?uk

126 ms

102 ms

117 ms

200 ms

120 ms

188 ms


(32) U tonal developments (based on Svantesson 1988)

U Lamet Gloss

Proto-Angkuic short + v 1-C[son.] ,jam .lam 'to die' vowels: *\j

+ v elsewhere kuf kuk 'to bite'

Proto-Angkuic long -+ v /C[+son.] - mu mu r 'field' vowels: *V

+ \j /C[any] C[-son. ] lirt la:[ 'to fear'

+ v /C[-son.] C[+son] t1?um kata:m 'crab'

+ v /C[-son.] V[+high] 0 nchi si? 'louse'

-, v /C[-son.] V[-high] 0 ki'u ku: ? 'fish'

The other Angkuic language for which we have good data and analysis is Muak Sa-aak. In Hall's (2010) thesis it is described as having three tones as follows:

Tone 1 : low tone with tense phonation, not consistently creaky. Tone 2: so called 'checked tone', high pitch on short open syllables and with stop codas, and falling pitch on long open syllables and with nasal codas. Tone 3: high falling tone occurring only with sonorant codas and open syllables ('live' syllables).

Hall's analysis is extensive, but is principally synchronic; stripping out Shan loanwords important asymmetries emerge, allowing us to establish that there is a clear connection between etymological vowel length and tone. The basic relations are tabled in (33), again with reference to Lamet comparisons.

(33) Muak Sa-aak tonal developments (based on Hall 201 0)

Muak Sa-aak Hu Lamet

Tone 1 : V: [-high]/ - C[-voice] tlia:k' nt'luk p1tu:k 'tongue' low k"a:p ' kI2up ku:p 'chin'

?u:kl ?ak ?u:k 'crossbow'

Tone 2: v [+high]/ C[-voice] t"i2 thi? ti:? 'hand, arm' high allotone suk2 Otik khuk 'hair'

a t 2 ;)it ?i:t 'to sleep'

Tone 2: Loanwords only falling allotone

Tone 3: / - C[+voice] ja:m-' jum ja:m 'to weep' falling tian -' tkn tc:m 'low'

ku:y3 kuy 'house' ma..13 mu mu:r 'field' khuan3 k15n k2n 'child'

Paul Sidwell

Strikingly it appears that quantity played only a marginal role in Muak Sa-aak tonogenesis, instead voice quality of codas and vowel height in syllables with voiceless or zero codas, recalling part of the complex phonological history of U.

4.3 Other changes within rhymes

4.3.1 Coda depalatalisation

An important feature of Austroasiatic is that historically palatal stops and nasals are frequent syllable codas, whereas it is common in other language phyla of the region to lack these entirely. Nonetheless, it is quite common for Austroasiatic languages, sometimes apparently in the context of contact with dominant national or trade languages, to lose their palatal finals, usually by merger with apical or velar series, or sometimes by dissimilationlfeature shutffing. Split reflexes, such as oral stops > apical while nasals > velar, or even split reflexes for a given manner of articulation, occur frequently. Examples are in (33).

(33) Depalatalisation of codas across Austroasiatic

Proto- I Palaungic Austroasiatic Danaw U Palaung (Shorto 2006)

I

*pap? 'to shoot' p a i $ p p " i t pig

*tap 'to weave' / tun4 than trq

*mrac 'pepper' I phvil - prult

*?ic/*?ac I -

- -

'excrement'

*su(:)c 'to sting' - sut -

Manic

Mon

Pnn

020

pavciik

7iok

harnit*

Khmuic

Cuang

P!/?

-

7iak

hu:c

Vietic

Vietnamese

bin

cfan

-

ia

-

Bahnaric

Jeh Tampuon (north)

P"I1 Pun

Iu:n ta:n

- rnavat

k k h t

Note: * 'mosquito', ** 'ant'

4.3.2 Coda denasalisation

Some geographically southern Austroasiatic languages (Aslian, Nicobarese) show a hardening of nasal codas, variously to prestopped nasals or oral stops. At least once the opposite also happened; in Jah Hut the nasal codas are preserved and the stops unpack into post-glottalised nasals (e.g. /mat/ 'eye' [m5n3]). The phenomenon is discussed in detail by Matisoff (2003: 19-22), whose account includes the following:

In most Semai dialects, Proto-Aslian final *nasals have been completely denasalised. In Sabum denasalisation is correlated with the length of the preceding vowel: complete after *short vowels, but only partial after *long. In a Temiar final *nasals are completely occlusivised, usually to voiceless stops - but in dialects where the original *stops did not voice, the final *nasals became voiced stops. Northern Temiar distinguishes three types of double articulated coda; e.g. -p,, -bm, -b, reflecting Proto-Aslian *vm, *Vp, *Vm respectively.


Additionally, the Shom Pen language of the Nicobar shows denasalisation o f codas. The following comparisons in (34), taking forms from Chattopadhyay and Mukhopadhyay (2003), are indicative.

(34) Coda denasalisation in Shom Pen

Shom Pen Proto-Austroasiatic (Shorto 2006)

kZ?eervz 'bone' *c?a:q 'id.'

khoiig 'boiling' *guaq 'to cook in water'

ceog 'foot' *ja:q 'id.'

pe2g 'cockroach' *6iaq 'spider'

cuoid 'heavy' *jan 'id.'

l e ~ b 'leech' *tla:m 'id.'

tiub 'blood' *jha:m 'id.'

honp 'wash, clean' *hu:m 'bathe'

5 Final remarks

Much of what is surveyed in this chapter can be conceptualised as bringing structural symmetry to the otherwise highly asymmetrical sesquisyllables. Processes include loss o f presyllables by elision or assimilation that reduce morphemes and words to simpler monosyllables, and the restructuring o f syllables into simple repeated units that support polysyllabic morphemes and morphologically complex words. Additionally there are tendencies that run counter to this drive for symmetry, and can result in direct augmentation of the sesquisyllabic template, producing greater structural asymmetry. The motivations and explanations for these various changes, and conflicting directions o f change, surely lay in complex interplays between linguistic tendencies and the dynamics of languages contact, topics too vast to be treated in meaningful detail here.

Notes

I The widely received division of Austroasiatic into primary Munda and Mon-Khmer is without historical foundation and is rejected outright by this author (see Sidwell and Blench 201 1). The view originated as a misinterpretation of the typological division of Austroasiatic by Pinnow (196011963).

2 In present day languages where the timbre of presyllable vowels is important, such as in the so- called case-marking forms of Ta-ioh (Solntseva 1996) or the person marking prefixeslclitics in Palaung (Milne 1921 ), a secondary origin is clearly evident in the form of absorbed pronouns or similar grammaticalisation.

3 Note that Katu continues unchanged from Proto-Austroasiatic; it actually permits up to four syllables in morphologically complex forms (although some morphemes are better analysed as clitics, such as the individuating m- from muj 'one', e.g, corn 'cup', macom 'one cup'), and as Proto-Austroasiatic glottal stop codas were lost in Katuic open syllables are permitted.

4 All the Proto-Austroasiatic reconstructions are from Shorto's (2006) Proto-Mon-Khmer, which for the present purposes is treated as equivalent to Proto-Austroasiatic. This is a reasonable

Paul Sidwell

approach if one accepts, as I do, that the marked characteristics of Munda languages are essentially entirely innovative vis-a-vis Proto-Austroasiatic.

5 Note that minor notational changes have been made to bring the forms more into line with IPA.

Further reading

Anderson, Gregory (ed.). 2008. The Munda 1unguage.s. London: Routledge. Donegan, Patricia and David Stampe. 2004. Rhythm and the synthetic drift of Munda. In Rajendra

Singh (ed.) Theyearhook qfSouth Asian langtruges and 1ingzristic.s. Berlin: de Gruyter, 3-36. Shorto, Hany L. 2006. A Mon-Khmer comparative u'ictionap~. [edited by: Paul Sidwell. Doug Cooper

and Christian Bauer] Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Sidwell, Paul. 201 1. Comparative Mon-Khmer Linguistics in the 20th century: where from, where to'?

In K. S. Nagaraja (ed.) Austro-Asiatic 1ingui.stic.s: in metnot? of R. Elungui.vun. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages, 38-104.

van Driem, George. 200 1. 1~unguuge.s ofthe Himala~'us, Volume 1. Leiden: Brill.

References

Alves, Mark J. 2000. The current status of Vietnamese genetic linguistic studies. In The Fjfth Internationul Svn~posizrm on Lunguuges und linguistic:^. Ho Chi Minh City: Vietnam National University and Ho Chi Minh City University of Social Sciences and Humanities, 6-17.

Anderson, Gregory (ed.). 2008. The Mundu 1u11guage.s. London: Routledge. Banker, Elizabeth M. 1964. Bahnar Affixation. .Won-Khmer Sttrdies 1 : 99-1 17. Banker, Elizabeth M., Sip and Ma. 1973. Bahnar Language Lessons (Pleikzr Province). Trilingual

Language Lessons, No. 20. Manila: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Benedict, Paul K. 1990. How to Tell Lai: An exercise in classification. Lingzrisrics qf'the Tiheto-Rzrr-man

Area. 13(2): 1-26. Bisang W. 1996. Areal typology and grammaticalization: processes of grammaticalization based on

nouns and verbs in South-East Asian languages. Studies in Lunguuge 20(3): 5 19-597. Blench, Roger and Paul Sidwell. 201 1. Is Shom Pen a Distinct Branch of Austroasiatic? In Sophana

Srichampa, Paul Sidwell and Kenneth Gregerson (eds.) Au.strocr.siatic Studies: /,uperas ,f?on? the ICAAL4: Mon-Khmer St1die.s Jo/rrnuI Special ls.c.ue IVO. 3. Dallas: SIL International; Canberra: Pacific Linguistics and Salaya: Mahidol University, 90-101

Brunelle, Marc. 2005. Register in Eastern Cham: phonological, phonetic and sociolinguistic approaches. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.

Brunelle, Marc and Pittayawat Pittayaporn. in press. Phonologically-constrained change: the role of the foot in monosyllabization and rhythmic shifts in Mainland Southeast Asia. Diuchronicu.

Chattopadhyay, Subhash Chandra and Asok Kumar Mukhopadhyay. 2003. The langzrage of the Shompen qfGreut Nicohar: a preliminary apprui.sa1. Kolkata: Anthropological Survey of India.

Chinowat, Ekawit. 1983. Spksa Priap Thiap Withi Sang Kham Nai PhasH Kiy. Bri , Lae So. [A comparative study of the morphological processes of Kui, Bruu and So]. MA dissertation, Chulalongkorn University.

Costello, Nancy A. 1966. Amxes in Katu. !Won-Khmer Stuu'ies I: 63-86. -1 97 1. ~VgC-v;mg Kuttr: Katu ~~ocuhulury. Saigon: Department of Education. [Summer Institute of

Linguistics Dallas Microfiche] -1991. Katlr Dictionuq, (Katu-Vietncm~ese-English). Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Davis, John J. 1968. ~yvuheun phoneme.^. Paxse, Laos: Overseas Missionary Fellowship. [Copy held at

Summer Institute of Linguistics Bangkok file 495.955(6)] ---1973. Notes on Nyaheun grammar. Mon-Khmer Sttrdies, 4: 69-75. Diffloth, Gerard. 1984. The Dvurcrvati-Old Mon lung~rage und Nyuh Kur (Monic Lungziage Studies I ).

Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Printing House. -1989. Proto-Austroasiatic Creaky Voice. Mon-Khmer Studilie.~ 15: 139-1 54.


2 0 0 5 . The contribution of linguistic palaeontology to the homeland of Austro-asiatic. In Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas (eds) The peopling ofEast A.siu: putting together at-chtreologv, linguistics andgenetics. London: Routledge Curzon, 79-82.

Donegan, Patricia. 1993. Rhythm and vocalic drift in Munda and Mon-Khmer. Liriguistics of the Tiheto-Burman Area 16(1): 1 4 3 .

Donegan, Patricia and David Stampe. 1983. Rhythm and holistic organization of language structure. In John F. Richardson, Mitchell Lee Marks and Amy Chukerman (eds) Papers,fi-om the Purase.ssion on the ft~krplay of P/2otiology, Motpholog~> and Sjntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 337-353.

Donegan, Patricia and David Stampe. 2004. Rhythm and the synthetic drift of Munda. In Rajendra Singh (ed.) Theyearhook of South Asian languages and 1ing~ri.stic.c.. Berlin: de Gruyter, 3-36.

Edmondson, Jerold and Kenneth Gregerson. 1995. Bolyu tone in Vietic perspective. Mon-Khmer Stztdie.~ 26: 1 17-1 34.

Edmondson, J . A and K. Gregerson. 1996. Bolyu tone in Vietic perspective. Mon-Khmer Stzru'ies 26: 117-133.

Enfield, N. J. 2003. Linguistic epidemiology: semantics andgramniur oflung~ruge contact in mainland Soufhea.st A.siu. London: RoutledgeCurzon.

---2005. Areal linguistics and mainland Southeast Asia. Annlrul Review c?f'Anthropolog~, Vol. 34, 18 1-206.

----201 1. Linguistic diversity in mainland Southeast Asia. In N. J. Enfield (ed.) Dynamics o f hzrn~un diversitj~: the case c!fmuinland Southeast Asia. Canberra, Pacific Linguistics. 63-80.

Ferlus, Michel. 1971. Simplification des groupes consonantiques dans deux dialectes a~~stroasiens du sud-Laos. Bzrlletin de ILI Sociktt; de Linguistique de P~1ri.s 66: 3 8 9 4 0 3 .

----1983. Essai de phonetique historique de m6n. Mon-Khmer Stzrdiec. 12: 1-90. -1992. Essai de phonetique historique du khmer (Du milieu du premier millenaire de notre ere a

I'Cpoque actuelle), Mon-Khmer Stzru'ies 2 1 : 57-89. 1 9 9 7 . Problemes de la formation du system vocalique du vietnamien. C'uhiers & Linguistique, Asie Orientale 26(1): 37-5 1.

-1998. Les systemes de tons dans les langues viet-muong. Diachronicu 15(1): 1-27. -2004. The orign of tones in Viet-Muong. In S. Burusphat (ed.) Pcrpers in the Eleventh Annzral

Meeting of the So~ithea.c.t A.sian Linguistic Society. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University, Program for Southeast Asian Studies, 297-3 13.

--2007 Lexique de racines Proto Viet-Muong (Proto Vietic Lexicon). Unpublished Ms. [Available online at http://sealang.net/monkhmer/database/; Accessed 6 November 201 31.

Gainey, Jerry. 1985. A comparative study of Kui, Bruu and So phonology from a genetic point of view. MA dissertation, Chulalongkorn University.

Gordon, Matthew and Peter Ladefoged. 2001. Phonation types: a cross-linguistic overview. Jolrrnal of Phonetics 29: 383406 .

Hall, Elizabeth. 2010. A Phonology of Muak Sa-aak. MA dissertation, Payap University Thailand. Haudricourt, Andre-Georges. 1952. L'origine m6n-khmer des tons en vi0tnamien. Jotrrnal Asiatiqzre

240: 264-265. -1 954. De l'origine des tons en vistnamien. Journcrl A.sirrtiqzie 242: 69-82. -1 965. Mutation consonantique en Mon-Khmer. Bulletin de la Sociktk Linguistiqtre u'L. Pari.~ 60:

160-1 72. Henderson, Eugdnie J. A. 1985. Feature shuffling in Southeast Asian languages. In Suriya Ratanakul,

David D. Thomas and Suwilai Premsrirat (eds) Southea.~t Asian L,ingzri.stic Stuul'e.s Presented to Andr6-G. Htrzrdricozrrt, Bangkok: Mahidol University, 1-22.

Huffman, Franklin E. 1977. An examination of lexical correspondences between Vietnamese and some other Austro-Asiatic languages. Lingua 43: 171-198.

-1985. Vowel permutations in Austroasiatic languages. In Graham Thurgood, James A. Matisoff and David Bradley (eds) Lingzrbtics of the Sino-Tihetun Area: the state of the art. Paperspresented to Pazrl K. Bencdictjbr hi.s 7lst hirthdaj). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 141-145.

Paul Sidwell

Kingston, John. 201 1. Tonogenesis. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume and Keren Rice (eds) Blackwell Compunion to Phonology, Volume 4: Phonological interjuces. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2304-2333.

Ladefoged, Peter and Ian Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world:^ languages. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Li, Jingfang. 1996. Bugan: a new Mon-Khmer language of Yunan Province, China. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 26: 135-1 59.

Luce, Gordon H. 1965. Danaw, a dying Austroasiatic language. Lingua 14: 98-129. Matisoff, James. 1973. Tonogenesis in Southeast Asia. In Lany M. Hyman, (ed.) Consonant Type and

Tones: Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 71-95. -1978. Variational Semantics in Tibeto-Burman: the 'organic' approach to linguistic comparison.

Occasional Papers ofthe Wolfenden Socieq on Tibeto-Burmun Linguistics, Volume V1. Publication of the Institute for the Study of Human Issues (ISHI), Philadelphia. xviii + 331 pp.

Matisoff, James. 2003. Aslian: Mon-Khmer of the Malay Peninsula. Mon-Khmer Stuu'ie~~ 33: 1-58. Migliazza, Brian. 1996. MainlandSouthemf Asia: a unique linguistic area. Note on Linguistics, 17-25. Miller, Carolyn and Nuan. 1974. Bru language lessons. Trilingual Language Lessons, No.13, part 2.

Manila: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Milne, Leslie. 192 1 . An elementaty Palaung grummar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mortenson, David. 2006. Tonally conditioned vowel raising in Shuijingping Hmong. Handout from the

LSA 80th Annual Meeting, Albuquerque, New Mexico. January 6,2006. Nguyzn Hiru Hoanh. 1995. Katu language word formation. Data Papers on Minority Languages of

Vietnam. Hanoi: Nha xu& ban Khoa hoc X2 h$i. Nguyzn V2n Lqi. 2008. ~ i i n g Mung. Hanoi: Nhi xuit bin Khoa hyc XB h$i. Parkin, Robert. 1991. A guide to A~lstroasiatic speakers and their lunguages. Oceanic Linguistics

Special Publications No. 23. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Phan, John. 2012. Mubng is not a subgroup: phonological evidence for a paraphyletic taxon in the Viet-

Muong sub-family. Mon-Khmer Studies 40: 1-1 8. Phillips, Richard L., John D. Miller, Carolyn P. Miller. 1976. The Brii vowel system: alternate analyses.

i The Mon-Khmer Studies Jotrrnul5: 203-2 1 8.

! Pinnow, Heinz-Jiirgen. 1963. The position of the Munda languages within the Austroasiatic language

family. In H. L. Shorto (ed.) Linguistic comparison in Southeast Asia und the Pactfic. London: SOAS, 140-152. i

Premsrirat, Suwilai. 2002. Thesaurus ofKhmu dialects in Southea.st Asia. Bangkok: Mahidol University. ---2004. Register complex and tonogenesis in Khmu dialects. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 34:

1-17. I 1

Radhakrishnan, R. 198 1. The Nuncowty ~)oru'.. phonology, a f i u a l morpholop and roots of a Nicobarese language. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research Inc.

Shorto, Harry L. 1971. A dcfionaty ofthe Mon inscription.^, j b m the sixth to the .sixteenth centuries, incorporating materials collected by the late C. 0 . Blagden. London: Oxford University Press.

I

-2006. A Mon-Khmer comparative dictionaty. [edited by: Paul Sidwell, Doug Cooper and Christian 1 Bauer] Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. I

Sidwell, Paul. 2000. Proto South Buhnuric: a reconstruction of a Mon-Khmer language oflndo-China. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

-2009. Cla.s.s~fiing the Austroasiatic Iangt~ages: history and state o f the art. Munich: Lincom Europa.

-2010. The Austroasiatic central riverine hypothesis. Jou~-nu1 of Language Relationship. 4: i

1 17-1 34. I

-201 1. Comparative Mon-Khmer linguistics in the 20th century: where from, where to? In K. S. i I

Nagaraja (ed.) Austro-Asiutic linguistics: in memonl qfR. Elangaiyan. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages, 38-1 04.

Sidwell, Paul and Roger Blench. 201 1. The Austroasiatic Urheimat: the Southeastern Riverine Hypothesis. In N. J. Enfield (ed.) Dynumic.s of human diver.sity. Canberra, Pacific Linguistics. pp. 3 15-344.


Sidwell, Paul and Pascale Jacq. 2003. A handbook qfcomparutive Bahnaric. Volume 1 : West Buhnaric. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Smith, Kenneth D. 1979. Sedunggrarnmar. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Solntseva, V. Nina. 1996. Case-marked pronouns in the Taoih language. The Mon-Khmer Studies

Journul26: 33-36. Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 1988. U. Linguistics qfthe Tibeto-Burman urea 1 l(1): 64-133. -1989. Tonogenic mechanisms in Northern Mon-Khmer. Phonetics 46: 60-79. -1 99 1. Hu-a language with unorthodox tonogenesis. In Jeremy H.C.S. Davidson (ed.) Austrousiafic

langzrages. Es.saj~.s in honour of H. L. Shorto. London: SOAS University of London, 67-80. Thongkum, Theraphan L. 1979. The distribution of the sounds of Bruu. The Mon-Khmer Studies

Journal8: 22 1-293. Thongkum, Theraphan L. and See Puengpa. 1980. A Bruu-Thai-English dictionary. Bangkok:

Chulalongkorn University Printing House. Thurgood, Graham. 2002. Vietnamese and tonogenesis: revising the model and the analysis.

Diachronica 1 9(2): 333-363. ---2007. Tonogenesis revisted: revising the model and the analysis. [An updating of my Diuchronica

tonogenesis paper]. In Jimmy G. Harris, Somsonge Burusphat and James E. Harris (eds) Studies in Tai and Soufheu.st Asiun Lingzristics. Bangkok: Ek Phim Thai Co., 263-29 1.

van Driem, George. 2001. Languages ofthe Himalayu.s, Volume 1. Leiden: Brill. Vuang, Hoang TuyCn. 1963. Cac d2n tec ngu8n g6c Nam A h T i y Bit Viet Nam. Nxb Giao duc, Ha

Nei. Vumg, Hiru L?. 1999. A new interpretation of the Bru Vin KiCu vowel system. The Mon-Khmer

Studies Journal 29: 97-106. Watson, Richard. 201 1. A case for clitics in Pacoh. In Sophana Srichampa, Paul Sidwell and Kenneth

Gregerson (eds) Austrousiutic Studies: papers from the ICAAL4. Mon-Khmer Studies Journal Special Issue No. 3. Dallas, SIL International; Canberra, Pacific Linguistics; Salaya, Mahidol University, 222-232.

Wayland, Ratree and Allard Jongman. 2001. Chanthaburi Khmer vowels: phonetic and phonemic analyses. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal3 1 : 65-82.

The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics

Edited by Claire Bowern and Bethwyn Evans

Routledge Taylor& Francis Croup

LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published 201 5 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

and by Routledge 7 1 1 Third Avenue, New York, NY 100 17

Routledge is an imprint of'the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa busirrrs~

t.) 201 5 selection and editorial matter, Claire Bowem and Bethwyn Evans; individual chapters, the contributors

The right of the editors to be identified as the authors of the editorial matter, and of the authors fbr their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter inbented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or reg~stered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Brifish Lihrury C~~tulogzring in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available li-om the British Library

Librarj> oj'Congres.s Cataloging in Puhli~.ution Dafa The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics / edited by Claire Bowern, Bethwyn Evans. pages cm. -- (Routledge handbooks in linguistics) 1. Historical linguistics--Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Bowern, Claire, 1977- (editor) 11. Evans, Bethwyn, (editor) Ill. Title: Handbook of historical linguist~cs. P140.R68 2014 41 7--dc23 2013049197

ISBN: 978-0-41 5-52789-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1 -3 15-7940 1-3 (ebk)

Typeset in Times New Roman and ITC' Stone Sans by Saxon Graphics Ltd, Derby

Paper fmm

Printed and bound in Great Britain by TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall

Contents

List ofjgures List o f tables List of contributors Acknowledgements Editors' ucknowledgements

Editors' introduction: foundations of the new historical linguistics Claire Bowern und Bethwyn Evans

PART l Overviews

1 Lineage and the constructive imagination: the birth of historical linguistics Roger Luss

2 New perspectives in historical linguistics Puul Kipursky

3 Compositionality and change Nigel Vincent

PART II Methods and models

4 The Comparative Method Michael Weiss

5 The Comparative Method: theoretical issues Mark Hale

6 Trees, waves and linkages: models of language diversification Alexandre Franqois

7 Language phylogenies Michael Dunn

. . . V l l l

x xii

xvii xviii

Contents

8 Diachronic stability and typology Sclren Wichmann

PART Ill Language change

9 Sound change Andrew Garrett

10 Phonological changes Silke Humunn

11 Morphological change Stephen R. Andel-son

12 Morphological reconstruction Harold Koch

13 Functional syntax and language change Zygmunt Frajzyngier

14 Generative syntax and language change Elly van Gelderen

15 Syntax and syntactic reconstruction Jdhunna Barddal

16 Lexical semantic change and semantic reconstruction Matthius Urhun

17 Formal semantics/pragmatics and language change AshnGni Deo

18 Discourse A1exanu'l.a D 'Arc?'

19 Etymology Robert Mc~ilhrrmmcr

20 Sign languages in their historical context Slrsan D. Fischer

21 Language acquisition and language change Jumes N. Stanfird

22 Social dimensions of language change Lev Michael

23 Language use, cognitive processes and linguistic change Joan B-vbee and Cluy Beckner

24 Contact-induced language change Christopher Lzicu.s

25 Language attrition and language change June Simpson

PART IV Interfaces

26 Demographic correlates of language diversity Simon J. Greenhill

27 Historical linguistics and socio-cultural reconstruction Patience Epps

28 Prehistory through language and archaeology Puzd Heggurty

29 Historical linguistics and molecular anthropology Brigitte Pukendorf'

PART V Regional summaries

30 Indo-European: methods and problems Benjamin W. Fortson IV

3 1 The Austronesian language family Ritsziko Kikusnwa

Contents

503

32 The Austroasiatic language phylum: a typology of phonological restructuring 675 Puzrl Si&,ell

33 Pama-Nyungan Lziisu Miceli

34 The Pacific Northwest linguistic area: historical perspectives Suruh G. Thornmon

The Austroasiatic language phylum: A typology of phonological restructuring

Documents

Transcript of The Austroasiatic language phylum: A typology of phonological restructuring