TheVietic languages are a branch of theAustroasiaticlanguage family, spoken by theVietic peoples in Laos and Vietnam. The branch was once referred to by the termsViệt–Mường,Annamese–Muong, andVietnamuong; the termVietic was proposed by La Vaughn Hayes,[1][2] who proposed to redefineViệt–Mường as referring to a sub-branch of Vietic containing onlyVietnamese andMường.
Many of the Vietic languages have tonal orphonational systems intermediate between that of Viet–Muong and other branches of Austroasiatic that have not had significant Chinese or Tai influence.
The ancestor of the Vietic language is traditionally assumed to have been located in today's North Vietnam.[3][4][5]
However, the origin of the Vietic languages remains a controversial topic among linguists. Another theory, based on linguistic diversity, locates the most probable homeland of the Vietic languages in modern-dayBolikhamsai Province andKhammouane Province inLaos as well as parts ofNghệ An Province andQuảng Bình Province inVietnam. The time depth of the Vietic branch dates back at least 2,500 years to 2,000 years (Chamberlain 1998); 3,500 years (Peiros 2004); or around 3,000 years (Alves 2020).[6][7] Even so, archaeogenetics demonstrated that before theĐông Sơn period, theRed River Delta's inhabitants were predominantly Austroasiatic: genetic data fromPhùng Nguyên culture'sMán Bạc burial site (dated 1,800 BC) have close proximity to modern Austroasiatic speakers such as theMlabri andLua from Thailand, theNicobarese fromIndia (Nicobar Islands), and theKhmer fromCambodia;[8][9] meanwhile, "mixed genetics" fromĐông Sơn culture's Núi Nấp site showed affinity to "Dai from China,Tai-Kadai speakers from Thailand, and Austroasiatic speakers from Vietnam, including theKinh";[10] therefore, "[t]he likely spread of Vietic was southward from the RRD, not northward. Accounting for southern diversity will require alternative explanations."[11]
TheVietnamese language was identified asAustroasiatic in the mid-nineteenth century, and there is now strong evidence for this classification. Modern Vietnamese has lost manyProto-Austroasiatic phonological and morphological features. Vietnamese also has large stocks of borrowedChinese vocabulary. However, there continues to be resistance to the idea that Vietnamese could be more closely related toKhmer than to Chinese or Tai languages among Vietnamese nationalists. The vast majority of scholars attributetypological similarities with Sinitic and Tai tolanguage contact rather than to common inheritance.[12]
Chamberlain (1998) argues that the Red River Delta region was originally Tai-speaking and became Vietnamese-speaking only between the seventh and ninth centuries AD as a result of emigration from the south, i.e., modernCentral Vietnam, where the highly distinctive and conservative North-Central Vietnamese dialects are spoken today. Therefore, the region of origin of Vietnamese (and the earlier Viet–Muong) was well south of the Red River.[13]
On the other hand, Ferlus (2009) showed that the inventions of pestle, oar and a pan to cook sticky rice, which is the main characteristic of theĐông 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 corresponds to the area of Dong Son culture. Thus, Ferlus concludes that the Northern Vietic (Viet-Muong) is the direct heir of the Dongsonian, who had resided in the southern part of the Red River Delta and North Central Vietnam from the 1st millennium BC.[4]
Furthermore, John Phan (2013, 2016)[14][15] argues that “Annamese Middle Chinese” was spoken in theRed River Valley and was then later absorbed into the coexisting Proto-Viet-Muong, one of whose divergent dialects evolved into the Vietnamese language.[16] Annamese Middle Chinese belonged to aMiddle Chinesedialect continuum in southwestern China that eventually "diversified into"Waxiang Chinese, the Jiudu patois (九都土話) ofHezhou, SouthernPinghua, and variousXiang Chinese dialects (e.g.,Xiangxiang,Luxi,Qidong, andQuanzhou).[15] Phan (2013) lists three major types ofSino-Vietnamese borrowings, which were borrowed during different eras:
Vietic speakers reside in and around theNakai–Nam Theun Conservation Area of Laos and north-central Vietnam (Chamberlain 1998). Many of these speakers are referred to asMường, Nhà Làng, and Nguồn. Chamberlain (1998) lists current locations in Laos for the following Vietic peoples.[17] An overview based on first-hand fieldwork has been proposed byMichel Ferlus.[18]
Nguồn: Ban Pak Phanang, Boualapha District, Khammouane; others in Vietnam
Ahoe: originally lived in Na Tane Subdistrict ofNakai District, and Ban Na Va village inKhamkeut District; taken to Hinboun District during the war, and then later resettled in Nakai Tay (39 households) and in Sop Hia (20 households) on the Nakai Plateau.
Thaveung (Ahao and Ahlao dialects): several villages near Lak Xao; probably originally from the Na Heuang area
Cheut: Ban Na Phao and Tha Sang, Boualapha District; others probably also in Pha Song, Vang Nyao, Takaa; originally from Hin Nam No and Vietnam
Atel: Tha Meuang on the Nam Sot (primarily Malang people); originally from the Houay Kanil area
Atop: Na Thone,Khamkeut District (primarily Tai Theng people); originally from the Upper Sot area
Mlengbrou: near the Nam One; later relocated to theYommalath District side of the Ak Mountain, and now living in Ban Sang, Yommalath District (primarily Yooy people)
In Vietnam, some Vietichill-tribe peoples, including the Arem, Rục, Maliêng, and Mày (Cươi), were resettled at Cu Nhái (located either in westernQuảng Bình Province or in the southwest ofHương Khê District inHà 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.
Cultural typology of Vietic-speaking ethnic groups[6]
The discovery that Vietnamese was a Mon–Khmer language, and that its tones were a regular reflection of non-tonal features in the rest of the family, is considered a milestone in the development ofhistorical linguistics.[19] Vietic languages show a typological range from a Chinese or Tai typology to a typical Mon-Khmer Austroasiatic typology, including (a) complex tonal systems, complex phonation systems or blends; (b) C(glide)VC or CCVC syllable templates; monosyllabic or polysyllabic and isolating or agglutinative typology.[20][21]
Aheu (Thavung): This language makes a four-way distinction between clear and breathy phonation combined with glottalized final consonants. This is very similar to the situation in thePearic languages in which, however, the glottalization is in the vowel.
Việt–Mường:Vietnamese andMường. 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 tovoiced andvoiceless initial consonants in the ancestral language; these then split depending on the original final consonants: Level tones correspond toopen syllables or finalnasal consonants; high rising and low falling tones correspond to finalstops, which have since disappeared; dipping tones to finalfricatives, which have also disappeared; and glottalized tones to final glottalized consonants, which have deglottalized.
Sidwell & Alves (2021)[22] propose the following classification of the Vietic languages, which was first proposed in Sidwell (2021).[23] Below, the most divergent (basal) branches listed first. Vietic is split into two primary branches,Western (corresponding to theThavung–Malieng branch) andEastern (all of the non-Thavung–Malieng languages).
The Thavung-Malieng group retains the most archaic lexicon and phonological features, while theChut group merges *-r and *-l finals to *-l, along with the other northern languages.[23]
Sidwell & Alves (2021) propose that the Vietic languages had dispersed from theRed River Delta, based on evidence from loanwords from early Sinitic and extensiveTai-Vietic contact possibly dating back to theDong Son period.[22]
Chamberlain (2018:9)[25] uses the termKri-Mol to refer to the Vietic languages, and considers there to be two primary splits, namelyMol-Toum andNrong-Theun. Chamberlain (2018:12) provides the following phylogenetic classification for the Vietic languages.
Based on comparative studies byFerlus (1982, 1992, 1997, 2001) and new studies in Muong languages by Phan (2012),[26] Sidwell (2015)[27] pointed out that Muong is a paraphyletic taxon and subgroups with Vietnamese. Sidwell's (2015) proposed internal classification for the Vietic languages is as follows.
Vietic
Viet-Muong: Vietnamese, Mường Muốt, Mường Nàbái, Mường Chỏi, etc.
The following classification of the Vietic languages is from Chamberlain (2003:422), as quoted in Sidwell (2009:145). Unlike past classifications, there is a sixth "South" branch that includesKri, a newly described language.
Michel Ferlus (1992, 2013)[29][30] notes that the 12-year animal cycle (zodiac) names in theKhmer calendar, from whichThai animal cycle names are also derived, and were borrowed from a phonologically conservative form of Viet-Muong[clarification needed]. 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 theOld Khmer name for "snake"/m.saɲ/ corresponds to Viet-Muong /a/ rather than to Southern Vietic /i/.
^from Proto-Vietic *-teː, not from the same root as other words
^Nghệ-Tĩnh dialectal; old nucleus/*ɔː/ would have become diphthong/uə/ (spelt "-uô-") in other dialects, e.g.Huếruộng/ʐuəŋ˨˩ʔ/ vs. Nghệ-Tĩnhroọng/ʐɔːŋ˨˨/, both from Proto-Vietic *rɔːŋʔ'paddy field'
^archaic; still found in the compound-nouncá cúi 'pig-fish'
^Sagart, Laurent (2008),"The expansion of Setaria farmers in East Asia",Past human migrations in East Asia: matching archaeology, linguistics and genetics, pp. 141–145,The cradle of the Vietic branch of Austroasiatic is very likely in north Vietnam, at least 1000km to the south‑west of coastal Fújiàn
^abChamberlain, J.R. 1998, "The origin of Sek: implications for Tai and Vietnamese history", in The International Conference on Tai Studies, ed. S. Burusphat, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 97-128. Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University.
^Lipson, Mark; Cheronet, Olivia; Mallick, Swapan; Rohland, Nadin; Oxenham, Marc; Pietrusewsky, Michael; Pryce, Thomas Oliver; Willis, Anna; Matsumura, Hirofumi; Buckley, Hallie; Domett, Kate; Hai, Nguyen Giang; Hiep, Trinh Hoang; Kyaw, Aung Aung; Win, Tin Tin; Pradier, Baptiste; Broomandkhoshbacht, Nasreen; Candilio, Francesca; Changmai, Piya; Fernandes, Daniel; Ferry, Matthew; Gamarra, Beatriz; Harney, Eadaoin; Kampuansai, Jatupol; Kutanan, Wibhu; Michel, Megan; Novak, Mario; Oppenheimer, Jonas; Sirak, Kendra; Stewardson, Kristin; Zhang, Zhao; Flegontov, Pavel; Pinhasi, Ron; Reich, David (2018-05-17)."Ancient genomes document multiple waves of migration in Southeast Asian prehistory".Science.361 (6397). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS):92–95.Bibcode:2018Sci...361...92L.bioRxiv10.1101/278374.doi:10.1126/science.aat3188.ISSN0036-8075.PMC6476732.PMID29773666.
^Corny, Julien, et al. 2017. "Dental phenotypic shape variation supports a multiple dispersal model for anatomically modern humans in Southeast Asia."Journal of Human Evolution 112 (2017):41-56. cited in Alves, Mark (2019-05-10). "Data from Multiple Disciplines Connecting Vietic with the Dong Son Culture". Conference: "Contact Zones and Colonialism in Southeast Asia and China's South (~221 BCE - 1700 CE)"At: Pennsylvania State University
^McColl et al. 2018. "Ancient Genomics Reveals Four Prehistoric Migration Waves into Southeast Asia". Preprint. Published inScience.https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/278374v1 cited in Alves, Mark (2019-05-10). "Data from Multiple Disciplines Connecting Vietic with the Dong Son Culture". Conference: "Contact Zones and Colonialism in Southeast Asia and China's South (~221 BCE - 1700 CE)"At: Pennsylvania State University
^LaPolla, Randy J. (2010). "Language Contact and Language Change in the History of the Sinitic Languages."Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(5), 6858-6868.
^abPhan, John D. & de Sousa, Hilário. 2016.A preliminary investigation into Proto-Southwestern Middle Chinese. (Paper presented at the International workshop on the history of Colloquial Chinese – written and spoken, Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ, 11–12 March 2016.)
^Phan, John. "Re-Imagining 'Annam': A New Analysis of Sino–Viet–Muong Linguistic Contact" inChinese 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. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University Programme for Southeast Asian Studies Monograph Series Press. pp. 297–313.
^See Alves 2003 on the typological range in Vietic.
^The following information is taken from Paul Sidwell's lecture series on the Mon–Khmer languages.[1]
^Phan, John. 2012. "Mường is not a subgroup: Phonological evidence for a paraphyletic taxon in the Viet-Muong sub-family." InMon-Khmer Studies, no. 40, pp. 1-18., 2012.
^Sidwell, Paul. 2015. "Austroasiatic classification." In Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell, eds (2015).The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages, 144-220. Leiden: Brill.
^Phan, John D. 2012. "Mường is not a subgroup: Phonological evidence for a paraphyletic taxon in the Viet-Muong sub-family."Mon-Khmer Studies 40:1-18.
Alves, Mark J. (2022). "The Ðông Sơn Speech Community: Evidence for Vietic".Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Asian Interactions.19 (2):138–174.doi:10.1163/26662523-bja10002.S2CID247915528.
Alves, Mark J. 2016. Identifying Early Sino-Vietnamese Vocabulary via Linguistic, Historical, Archaeological, and Ethnological Data, inBulletin of Chinese Linguistics 9 (2016):264-295.
Alves, Mark J. 2017. Etymological research on Vietnamese with databases and other resources.Ngôn Ngữ Học Việt Nam, 30 Năm Đổi Mới và Phát Triển (Kỷ Yếu Hội Thảo Khoa Học Quốc Tế), 183–211. Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Khoa Học Xã Hội.
Barker, M. E. (1977).Articles on Proto-Viet–Muong. Vietnam publications microfiche series, no. VP70-62. Huntington Beach, Calif: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Chamberlain, J.R. 2003. Eco-Spatial History: a nomad myth from the Annamites and its relevance for biodiversity conservation. In X. Jianchu and S. Mikesell, eds.Landscapes of Diversity: Proceedings of the III MMSEA Conference, 25–28 August 2002. Lijiand, P. R. China: Center for Biodiversity and Indigenous Knowledge. pp. 421–436.
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.
Pain, Frederick (2020). ""Giao Chỉ" (Jiaozhi 交趾) as a Diffusion Center of Middle Chinese Diachronic Changes: Syllabic Weight Contrast and Phonologisation of Its Phonetic Correlates".Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies.50 (3):356–437.doi:10.6503/THJCS.202009_50(3).0001.
Peiros, Ilia J. 2004. Geneticeskaja klassifikacija aystroaziatskix jazykov. Moskva: Rossijskij gosudarstvennyj gumanitarnyj universitet (doktorskaja dissertacija).
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.ISBN978-604-62-0471-8
Sidwell, Paul (2009).Classifying the Austroasiatic languages: history and state of the art. LINCOM studies in Asian linguistics, 76. Munich: Lincom Europa.
