The Vietic languages are a branch of the Austroasiatic language family. The branch was once referred to by the terms Việt–Mường, Annamese–Muong, and Vietnamuong; the term Vietic was proposed by Hayes (1992), who proposed to redefine Việt–Mường as referring to a sub-branch of Vietic containing only Vietnamese and Mường.
|Mainland Southeast Asia|
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 China.
Based on linguistic diversity, the most probable homeland of the Vietic languages appears to have been located 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 2,000 years.
The ancestor of the Vietic language is traditionally assumed to have been based around the Red River area and in what is now Northern Central Vietnam. However, origins of the Vietic languages remains a controversial topic among linguists.
The Vietnamese language was identified as Austroasiatic in the mid-nineteenth century, and there is now strong evidence for this classification. Modern Vietnamese is a monosyllabic tonal language like Cantonese and has lost many Proto-Austroasiatic phonological and morphological features. Vietnamese also has large stocks of borrowed Chinese and Tai 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. The vast majority of scholars attribute these typological similarities to language contact rather than to common inheritance.
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.
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 Đông Sơn culture, correspond to the creation of new lexicons for these inventions in Northern Vietic (Việt–Mường) 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 correspond to the area of Dong Son culture. Thus, Ferlus conclude that the Northern Vietic (Viet-Muong) is the direct heirs of the Dongsonian, who have resided in Southern part of Red river delta and North Central Vietnam since the 1st millennium BC.
Furthermore, John Phan (2013, 2016) argues that “Annamese Middle Chinese” was spoken in the Red River Valley and was then later absorbed into the coexisting Proto-Viet-Muong, one of whose divergent dialect evolved into Vietnamese language. Annamese Middle Chinese belonged to Middle Chinese dialect continuum in southwestern China that eventually "diversified into" Waxiang Chinese, the Jiudu patois 九都土話 of Hezhou, Southern Pinghua, and various Xiang Chinese dialects (e.g., Xiangxiang 湘鄉, Luxi 瀘溪, Qidong 祁東, and Quanzhou 全州).. Phan (2013) lists three major types of Sino-Vietnamese borrowings, which were borrowed during different eras:
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 Mường, Nhà Làng, and Nguồn. Chamberlain (1998) lists current locations in Laos for the following Vietic peoples. An overview based on first-hand fieldwork has been proposed by Michel Ferlus.
- Nguồn: Ban Pak Phanang, Boualapha District, Khammouane; others in Vietnam
- Liha, Phong (Cham), and Toum: Khamkeut District; probably originally from the northern Nghe An / Khamkeut border area
- 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
- Thémarou: Vang Chang on the Nam Theun; Ban Soek near the Nam Noy
- Makang: Na Kadok, Khamkeut District (primarily Saek people); originally from the Upper Sot area
- Malang: Tha Meuang on the Nam Sot
- "Salang": Ban Xe Neua, Boualapha District
- 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)
- Kri: Ban Maka
In Vietnam, some Vietic hill-tribe peoples, including the Arem, Rục, Maliêng, and Mày (Cươi), were resettled at Cu Nhái (located either in western Quảng Bình Province or in the southwest of Hương Khê District in Hà Tĩnh Province). The Sách are also found in Vietnam.
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.
|Small-group foraging nomads||Atel, Thémarou, Mlengbrou, (Cheut?)|
|Originally collectors and traders who have become emergent swidden sedentists||Arao, Maleng, Malang, Makang, Tơe, Ahoe, Phóng|
|Swidden cultivators who move every 2–3 years among pre-existing village sites||Kri|
|Combined swidden and paddy sedentists||Ahao, Ahlao, Liha, Phong (Cham), Toum|
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. 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.
- Arem: This language lacks the breathy phonation common to most Vietic languages, but does have glottalized final consonants.
- Cuôi: Hung in Laos, and Thô in Vietnam
- 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.
- Ruc, Sach, May, and Chưt: A dialect cluster; the register system is the four-way contrast of Aheu augmented with pitch.
- Maleng (Bo, Pakatan): Tones as in Ruc-Sach.
- Pong, Hung, Tum, Khong-Kheng
- Việt–Mường: Vietnamese and Mường. 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.
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.
Chamberlain (2018:9) 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), Sidwell (2015) 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.
- Viet-Muong: Vietnamese, Mường Muốt, Mường Nàbái, Mường Chỏi, etc.
- Pong-Toum: Đan Lai, Hung, Toum, Cuôi, etc.
- East: Mãliềng, Maleng, Arem, Kri, Chứt (Mày, Rụt, Sách, Mụ Già), etc.
- West: Thavung, Pakatan, etc.
Animal cycle namesEdit
Michel Ferlus (1992, 2013) notes that the 12-year animal cycle (zodiac) names in the Khmer calendar, from which Thai animal cycle names are also derived, 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/.
|Animal||Thai name||Khmer IPA||Modern Khmer||Angkorian Khmer||Old Khmer||Proto-Viet-Muong||Vietnamese||Mường||Pong||Kari|
|鼠 Rat||Chuat (ชวด)||cuːt||jūt (ជូត)||*ɟuot||*ɟuot||*ɟuot||chuột||cuot⁸||-||-|
|牛 Ox||Chalu (ฉลู)||cʰlou||chlūv (ឆ្លូវ)||*caluu||*c.luː||*c.luː||trâu||kluː¹||kluː¹||săluː²|
|虎 Tiger||Khan (ขาล)||kʰaːl||khāl (ខាល)||*kʰaal||*kʰa:l||*k.haːlˀ||khái||kʰaːl³||kʰaːl³||-|
|兔 Rabbit||Thɔ (เถาะ)||tʰɑh||thoḥ (ថោះ)||*tʰɔh||*tʰɔh||*tʰɔh||thỏ||tʰɔː⁵||tʰɔː³||-|
|龍 Dragon||Marong (มะโรง)||roːŋ||roṅ (រោង)||*marooŋ||*m.roːŋ||*m.roːŋ||rồng||roːŋ²||-||roːŋ¹|
|蛇 Snake||Maseng (มะเส็ง)||mə̆saɲ||msāñ' (ម្សាញ់)||*masaɲ||*m.saɲ||*m.səɲˀ||rắn||saɲ³||siŋ³||-|
|馬 Horse||Mamia (มะเมีย)||mə̆miː||mamī (មមី)||*mamia||*m.ŋɨa||*m.ŋǝːˀ||ngựa||ŋɨa⁴||-||măŋəː⁴|
|羊 Goat||Mamɛɛ (มะแม)||mə̆mɛː||mamæ (មមែ)||*mamɛɛ||*m.ɓɛː||*m.ɓɛːˀ||-[a]||-[b]||ɓɛː³||-|
|猴 Monkey||Wɔɔk (วอก)||vɔːk||vak (វក)||*vɔɔk||*vɔːk||*vɔːk||voọc[c]||vɔːk⁸||vɔːk⁸||-|
|雞 Rooster||Rakaa (ระกา)||rə̆kaː||rakā (រកា)||*rakaa||*r.kaː||*r.kaː||gà||kaː¹||kaː¹||kaː¹|
|狗 Dog||Jɔɔ (จอ)||cɑː||ca (ច)||*cɔɔ||*cɔː||*ʔ.cɔːˀ||chó||cɔː³||cɔː³||cɔː³|
|豬 Pig||Kun (กุน)||kao/kol||kur (កុរ)||*kur||*kur||*kuːrˀ||cúi||kuːj³||kuːl⁴||kuːl⁴|
- Alves, Mark J. (2003). Ruc and Other Minor Vietic Languages: Linguistic Strands Between Vietnamese and the Rest of the Mon-Khmer Language Family. In Papers from the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, ed. by Karen L. Adams et al.. Tempe, Arizona, 3-19. Arizona State University, Program for Southeast Asian Studies.
- Barker, M. E. (1977). Articles on Proto-Viet–Muong. Vietnam publications microfiche series, no. VP70-62. Huntington Beach, Calif: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
- Miyake, Marc. 2014. Black and white evidence for Vietnamese phonological history.
- Miyake, Marc. 2014. Soni linguae capitis. (Parts 1, 2-4.)
- Miyake, Marc. 2014. What the *-hɛːk is going on?
- Miyake, Marc. 2013. A 'wind'-ing tour.
- Miyake, Marc. 2010. Muong rhotics.
- Miyake, Marc. 2010. A meaty mystery: did Vietnamese have voiced aspirates?
- Nguyễn, Tài Cẩn. (1995). Giáo trình lịch sử ngữ âm tiếng Việt (sơ thảo) (Textbook of Vietnamese historical phonology). Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Gíao Dục.
- Trần Trí Dõi (2011). Một vài vấn đề nghiên cứu so sánh - lịch sử nhóm ngôn ngữ Việt - Mường [A historical-comparative study of Viet-Muong group]. Hà Nội: Nhà xuất bản Đại Học Quốc Gia Hà nội. ISBN 978-604-62-0471-8
- Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin, eds. (2017). "Vietic". Glottolog 3.0. Jena, Germany: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.
- Hayes, La Vaughn H. 1992. Vietic and Việt-Mường: a new subgrouping in Mon-Khmer. Mon-Khmer Studies 21. 211–228.
- Chamberlain, 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.
- *Chamberlain, James R. 1998. "The Origin of the Sek: Implications for Tai and Vietnamese History". Journal of the Siam Society 86.1 & 86.2: 27-48.
- Ferlus, Michael (2009). "A Layer of Dongsonian Vocabulary in Vietnamese" (PDF). Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. 1: 95–108.
- Phan, John. 2013. Lacquered Words: the Evolution of Vietnamese under Sinitic Influences from the 1st Century BCE to the 17th Century CE. Ph.D. dissertation: Cornell University.
- Phan, 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. 1996. Langues et peuples viet-muong. Mon-Khmer Studies 26. 7–28.
- 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, 297–313. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University Programme for Southeast Asian Studies Monograph Series Press.
- 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.
- Phan, John D. 2012. "Mường is not a subgroup: Phonological evidence for a paraphyletic taxon in the Viet-Muong sub-family." Mon-Khmer Studies 40:1-18.
- Chamberlain, James R. 2018. A Kri-Mol (Vietic) Bestiary: Prolegomena to the Study of Ethnozoology in the Northern Annamites. Kyoto Working Papers on Area Studies No. 133. Kyoto: Kyoto University.
- Phan, John. 2012. "Mường 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.
- Ferlus, Michel. 1992. "Sur L’origine Des Langues Việt-Mường." In The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal, 18-19: 52-59. (in French)
- Michel Ferlus. The sexagesimal cycle, from China to Southeast Asia. 23rd Annual Conference of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, May 2013, Bangkok, Thailand. <halshs-00922842v2>
- 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.
- Sidwell, Paul (2009). Classifying the Austroasiatic languages: history and state of the art. LINCOM studies in Asian linguistics, 76. Munich: Lincom Europa.
- La Vaughn Hayes Vietic Digital Archives
- SEAlang Project: Mon–Khmer languages. The Vietic Branch
- Sidwell (2003)
- Endangered Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia
- http://projekt.ht.lu.se/rwaai RWAAI (Repository and Workspace for Austroasiatic Intangible Heritage)
- http://hdl.handle.net/10050/00-0000-0000-0003-670D-C@view Vietic languages in RWAAI Digital Archive