The name "Kra–Dai" was proposed by Weera Ostapirat (2000), as Kra and Dai are the reconstructedautonyms of theKra andTai branches, respectively.[4] "Kra–Dai" has since been used by the majority of specialists working on Southeast Asian linguistics, includingNorquest (2007),[5] Pittayaporn (2009),[6][7]Baxter &Sagart (2014),[8] and Enfield &Comrie (2015).[9]
The name "Tai–Kadai" is used in many references, as well asEthnologue andGlottolog, but Ostapirat (2000) and others suggest that it is problematic and confusing, preferring the name "Kra–Dai" instead.[4] "Tai–Kadai" comes from an obsolete bifurcation of the family into two branches, Tai and Kadai, which had first been proposed byPaul K. Benedict (1942).[10] In 1942, Benedict placed three Kra languages (Gelao, Laqua (Qabiao), andLachi) together withHlai in a group that he called "Kadai", fromka, meaning "person" in Gelao and Laqua anddai, a form of a Hlai autonym.[10] Benedict's (1942) "Kadai" group was based on his observation that Kra and Hlai languages haveAustronesian-like numerals. However, this classification is now universally rejected as obsolete after Ostapirat (2000) demonstrated the coherence of the Kra branch, which does not subgroup with the Hlai branch as Benedict (1942) had proposed. "Kadai" is sometimes used to refer to the entire Kra–Dai family, including by Solnit (1988).[11][12] Adding to the confusion, some other references[which?] restrict the usage of "Kadai" to only the Kra branch of the family.
Tai–Kadai migration route, according to Matthias Gerner'sNortheast to Southwest Hypothesis.[14]
James R. Chamberlain (2016) proposes that the Tai–Kadai (Kra–Dai) language family was formed as early as the 12th century BCE in the middle of theYangtze basin, coinciding roughly with the establishment of theChu fiefdom and the beginning of theZhou dynasty.[15] The high diversity of Kra–Dai languages in southern China, especially inGuizhou andHainan, points to that being an origin of the Kra–Dai language family, founding the nations that later became Thailand and Laos in what had beenAustroasiatic territory. Genetic and linguistic analyses show great homogeneity among Kra–Dai-speaking people in Thailand.[16]
Although the position of Kra–Dai in relation to Austronesian is still contested, some propose that Kra–Dai and Austronesian are genetically connected. Weera Ostapirat (2005) sets out a series of regular sound correspondences between them, assuming a model of a primary split between the two; they would then be co-ordinate branches.[17] Ostapirat (2013) continues to maintain that Kra–Dai and Austronesian are sister language families, based on certain phonological correspondences.[18] On the other hand, Laurent Sagart (2008) proposes that Kra–Dai is a later form of what he calls "FATK" (Formosan Ancestor of Tai–Kadai) a branch of Austronesian belonging to the subgroup "Puluqic", developed in Taiwan, whose speakers migrated back to the mainland, to Guangdong, Hainan, and north Vietnam, around the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE.[19] Upon their arrival in this region, they underwent linguistic contact with an unknown population, resulting in a partial relexification of FATK[a] vocabulary.[20] Erica Brindley (2015) supports Sagart's hypothesis, arguing that the radically different Kra-Dai history of migration to the mainland (as opposed to the Philippines for Proto-Austronesian) and extended contact with Austro-Asiatic and Sinitic speakers would make the relationship appear more distant. She also suggests that the presence of only the most basic Austronesian vocabulary in Kra-Dai makes this scenario of relexification more plausible.[21]
Besides various concrete pieces of evidence for a Kra–Dai existence in present-day Guangdong, remnants of Kra–Dai languages spoken further north can be found in unearthedinscriptional materials and non-Hansubstrata inMin andWu Chinese.[citation needed]
Wolfgang Behr (2002, 2006, 2009, 2017)[22][23][24] points out that most non-Sinitic words found in Chu inscriptional materials are of Kra–Dai origin. For example, the Chu graph for 'one, once' written as (? <OC*nnəŋ) in theE jun qijie 鄂君啟筯 bronze tally and in Warring States bamboo inscriptions, which represents a Kra–Dai areal word; compare Proto-Tai*hnïŋ=*hnɯŋ (Siamese22nɯŋ, Dai33nɯŋ, Longzhou nəəŋA etc.) 'one, once'.[25]
In the early 1980s, Wei Qingwen (韦庆稳), aZhuang linguist, proposed that theOld Yue language recorded in theSong of the Yue Boatman is in fact a language ancestral to Zhuang.[26] Wei used reconstructedOld Chinese for the characters and discovered that the resulting vocabulary showed strong resemblance to modern Zhuang.[27] Later,Zhengzhang Shangfang (1991) followed Wei's proposal but used Thai script for comparison, since this orthography dates from the 13th century and preserves archaisms not found in modern pronunciation.[27][28] Zhengzhang notes that 'evening, night, dark' bears the C tone in Wuming ZhuangxamC2 andɣamC2 'night'. The itemraa normally means 'we (inclusive)' but in some places, e.g., Tai Lue and White Tai, it means 'I'.[29] However,Laurent Sagart criticizes Zhengzhang's interpretation as anachronistic, because however archaic the Thai script is, the Thai language was only written 2,000 years after the song had been recorded; even ifProto-Kam–Tai had emerged by the 6th century BCE, its pronunciation would have been substantially different from Thai.[30]
Map of the Chinese plain at the start of theWarring States Period, in the 5th century BC.
Kra–Dai languages that are not securely classified and may constitute independent Kra–Dai branches include the following:
Lakkia andBiao, which may or may not subgroup with each other, are difficult to classify due to aberrant vocabulary but are sometimes classified assisters ofKam–Sui (Solnit 1988).[11]
Jiamao of southern Hainan, China, is an aberrant Kra–Dai language traditionally classified as aHlai language, although Jiamao contains many words of non-Hlai origin.
Jizhao ofGuangdong, China, is currently unclassified within Kra–Dai but appears to be most closely related toBe (Ostapirat 1998).[33]
This classification is also used by Liang and Zhang (1996),[35] Chamberlain (2016: 38),[36] andEthnologue, though by 2009 Lakkia was made a third branch of Kam–Tai and Biao was moved into Kam–Sui.
Weera Ostapirat (2005:128) suggests the possibility of Kra and Kam–Sui being grouped together as Northern Kra–Dai and Hlai with Tai as Southern Kra–Dai.[37]Norquest (2007) has further updated this classification to includeLakkia andBe. Norquest notes that Lakkia shares some similarities with Kam–Sui, while Be shares some similarities with Tai. Norquest (2007:15) notes that Be shares various similarities withNorthern Tai languages in particular.[5] Following Ostapirat, Norquest adopts the name Kra–Dai for the family as a whole. The following tree of Kra–Dai is from Norquest (2007:16):
Based on shared lexical innovations, Norquest (2021) significantly revised his classification of Kra–Dai. Together,Biao andLakkja form the most divergent subgroup of Kra–Dai. Be–Tai and Hlai are placed together as part of a "Hlai–Tai" group.[40]
Several scholars have presented evidence that Kra–Dai may be related to, or even a branch of, theAustronesian language family.[42] There are a number of possible cognates in the core vocabulary, displaying regular sound correspondences. Among proponents, there is yet no agreement as to whether they are a sister group to Austronesian in a family calledAustro-Tai, a back-migration fromTaiwan to the mainland or a later migration from the Philippines to Hainan during the Austronesian expansion.[18]
The inclusion ofJapanese in the Austro-Tai family, as proposed byPaul K. Benedict in the late 20th century,[43] is not supported by the current proponents of the Austro-Tai hypothesis.
The Kra–Dai languages were formerly considered to be part of theSino-Tibetan family, partly because they contain large numbers of words that are similar to Sino-Tibetan languages. However, Western scholars generally consider them to be Sinitic loanwords and note that basic vocabulary words in Kra–Dai languages often have cognates with Austronesian instead.[37] Outside China, the Kra–Dai languages are now classified as an independent family. In China, they are calledDong–Tai (侗台) orZhuang–Dong (壮侗) languages and are generally included, along with theHmong–Mien languages, in the Sino-Tibetan family.[44]
Kosaka (2002) has argued specifically for aMiao–Dai family. Based on proposed lexical cognates, he proposes a genetic relation between Hmong–Mien and Kra–Dai languages. He further suggests that similarities between Kra–Dai and Austronesian are due to later areal contact in the coastal areas of eastern and southeastern China or an older ancestral relation (Proto-East Asian).[45]
Vovin (2014) has proposed that the location of theJaponicUrheimat (linguistic homeland) is in southern China. He argues for typological evidence that Proto-Japanese may have been a monosyllabic, SVO syntax and isolating language, which is also characteristic of Kra–Dai languages. According to him, these common features are however not due to a genetic relationship but rather the result of intense contact.[46]
^Pittayaporn, Pittayawat. 2009. The phonology of Proto-Tai. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University
^Peter Jenks and Pittayawat Pittayaporn.Kra-Dai Languages. Oxford Bibliographies in "Linguistics", Ed. Mark Aranoff. New York: Oxford University Press.
^Baxter, William H.; Sagart, Laurent (2014),Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0-19-994537-5.
^N. J. Enfield and B. Comrie, Eds. 2015.Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The State of the Art. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.
^abSolnit, David B. 1988. "The position of Lakkia within Kadai." InComparative Kadai: Linguistic studies beyond Tai, Jerold A. Edmondson and David B. Solnit (eds.). pages 219–238. Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics 86. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.
^abEdmondson, Jerold A. and David B. Solnit, editors. 1988. Comparative Kadai: Linguistic studies beyond Tai. Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington Publications in Linguistics, 86. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. vii, 374 p.
^Liang Min 梁敏 & Zhang Junru 张均如. 1996.Dongtai yuzu gailun 侗台语族概论 /An introduction to the Kam–Tai languages. Beijing: China Social Sciences Academy Press 中国社会科学出版社.ISBN9787500416814
^Ni Dabai 倪大白. 1990.Dongtai yu gailun 侗台语概论 /An introduction to the Kam–Tai languages. Beijing: Central Nationalities Research Institute Press 中央民族学院出版社.
^Edmondson, Jerold A. and David B. Solnit, editors. 1997. Comparative Kadai: the Tai branch. Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington Publications in Linguistics, 124. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. vi, 382 p.
^Liang Min & Zhang Junru. 1996.An introduction to the Kam–Tai languages. Beijing: China Social Sciences Academy Press.
^Chamberlain, James R. 2016. Kra–Dai and the proto-history of South China and Vietnam.Journal of the Siam Society 104. 27–77.
^abOstapirat, Weera. (2005). "Kra–Dai and Austronesian: Notes on phonological correspondences and vocabulary distribution", pp. 107–131 in Sagart, Laurent, Blench, Roger & Sanchez-Mazas, Alicia (eds.),The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics. London/New York: Routledge-Curzon.
^Luo, Yongxian. 2008. Sino-Tai and Tai-Kadai: Another look. In Anthony V. N. Diller and Jerold A. Edmondson and Yongxian Luo (eds.),The Tai-Kadai Languages, 9–28. London & New York: Routledge.
Behr, Wolfgang (2017)."The language of the bronze inscriptions". In Shaughnessy, Edward L. (ed.).Kinship: Studies of Recently Discovered Bronze Inscriptions from Ancient China. The Chinese University Press of Hong Kong. pp. 9–32.ISBN978-9-629-96639-3.
Edmondson, J.A. and D.B. Solnit eds. 1997.Comparative Kadai: the Tai branch. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.ISBN0-88312-066-6
Li, Hui (2001)."Daic Background Vocabulary in Shanghai Maqiao Dialect"(PDF).Proceedings for Conference of Minority Cultures in Hainan and Taiwan, Haikou: Research Society for Chinese National History:15–26. Archived fromthe original(PDF) on 27 March 2018. Retrieved17 July 2021.
Ostapirat, Weera (2013)."Austro-Tai revisited"(PDF).Plenary Session 2: Going Beyond History: Reassessing Genetic Grouping in SEA the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, May 29–31, 2013, Chulalongkorn University:1–10.
Sagart, Laurent (2008)."The expansion of Setaria farmers in East Asia". In Sanchez-Mazas, Alicia; Blench, Roger; Ross, Malcolm D.; Peiros, Ilia; Lin, Marie (eds.).Past Human Migrations in East Asia: Matching Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (Routledge Studies in the Early History of Asia) 1st Edition. Routledge. pp. 133–157.ISBN978-0-415-39923-4.
Zhengzhang, Shangfang (1991). "Decipherment of Yue-Ren-Ge (Song of the Yue boatman)".Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale.20 (2):159–168.doi:10.3406/clao.1991.1345.
Chamberlain, James R. (2016). Kra-Dai and the Proto-History of South China and Vietnam.Journal of the Siam Society, 104, 27-76.
Diller, A., J. Edmondson, & Yongxian Luo, ed., (2005).The Tai–Kadai languages. London [etc.]: Routledge.ISBN0-7007-1457-X
Edmondson, J. A. (1986).Kam tone splits and the variation of breathiness.
Edmondson, J. A., & Solnit, D. B. (eds.) (1988).Comparative Kadai: linguistic studies beyond Tai. Summer Institute of Linguistics publications in linguistics, no. 86. Arlington, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.ISBN0-88312-066-6
Ostapirat, Weera. (2000). "Proto-Kra."Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area23 (1): 1-251.
Somsonge Burusphat, & Sinnott, M. (1998).Kam–Tai oral literatures: collaborative research project between. Salaya Nakhon Pathom, Thailand: Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University.ISBN974-661-450-9
