Editorial Note

Editorial Note This volume was produced under difficult conditions. The publication of articles was not only very slow; the number of articles was also reduced due to circumstances beyond our control - the heavy flood in Thailand during October to December 2011. So we ask the reader’s indulgence for any effects this may have on the volume. For this volume, we are pleased to present articles focused on the following languages: Jieyang-Hakka, Jowai-Pnar, Lai, Pumi, Ten-edn, Tai and Viet-Mường; these papers make contributions to language documentation, especially in phonetics and lexicography, and better understanding the historical processes of language diversification. Additionally there are typological papers on phonetics and narrative in Mon-Khmer languages which address important general issues. Graceful acknowledgement should be made to Paul Sidwell for seeing the final volume through to press, and to Brian Migliazza for facilitating the publication of his volume. The Mon-Khmer Studies (MKS) was first published by the Linguistic Circle of Saigon and the Summer Institute of Linguistics in 1964. After nearly 50 years, the print edition will be discontinued. From the volume 41 onward, the MKS is going completely digital and open access. The journal will move to a continuous online publication model, consistent with trends in academic publishing internationally. Also, arrangements will be made for print-on- demand delivery, although we expect electronic distribution to become normal. We thank our readers, authors, reviewers and editors for their continuing support of the journal, now and into the future. Naraset Pisitpanporn for MKS Editorial Board April 2012 iv Table of Contents Editorial Note.……………………………………………………………...….iv Articles John D. PHAN Mường is not a subgroup: Phonological evidence for a paraphyletic taxon in the Viet-Muong sub-family.………………….…1 Mary M. PETERSON Notes on Ten-edn (Tonga-Mos) and Kensiw Borrowings……………19 NITASAKORN Shiwaruangrote A description of Jiēyáng Hakka phonology as spoken in Bangkok, Thailand…………………………………………………….35 PHANINTRA Teeranon The Interaction between Pitch and Vowel Length in Mon-Khmer Languages…………………………………………….…60 SOMSONGE Burusphat A comparison of sequential strategies in Mon-Khmer narratives…….86 Xiaohang QIN & Fanglan LI The status quo and trend of language use by Lai people………...…..107 Xinyuan HE Plant and wildlife naming system in southern Pumi……………..….116 Hiram RING A phonetic description and phonemic analysis of Jowai-Pnar……....133 Notes Xiaohang QIN Origin of Tai numeral ha³ (five)……………………….…………….176 v Mường is not a subgroup: Phonological evidence for a paraphyletic taxon in the Viet-Muong sub-family * John D. PHAN Cornell University, USA Abstract The nature of the language or languages termed “Mường” has not been well understood. In the struggle to clarify the inter-branch relationships of the larger Vietic family, Mường has generally been regarded as one of two major subgroups of the Viet-Muong subfamily (opposite Vietnamese). This paper presents new data collected in north-central Vietnam on three varieties of Mường: the Trám variety of Thanh Hóa province, the Chỏi variety of Phú Thọ province, and the Vang variety of Hòa Bình province. Preliminary analysis reveals salient diversity in their onset inventories, with no evidence of shared innovation. This suggests that a Proto-Muong level of diversification is not reconstructable. In other words, Mường is not a subgroup. Keywords: Viet-Muong, Historical Phonology, subgrouping 0.0 Introduction The status of the “Mường” language has not been well understood. The term itself—a Tai loanword—was once applied liberally to a number of relatives of modern Vietnamese. Following Michel Ferlus’ description of a number of conservative Vietic languages spoken in the central highlands, “Mường” came to refer to those related languages which—like Vietnamese— exhibit pervasive monosyllabicity, and lexical tone systems. For this reason, “Mường” and Vietnamese are now treated as forming the “Viet-Muong” subgroup of a Vietic language family. The innovations which formed a distinct Vietnamese language from Proto-Viet-Muong (henceforth, PVM) are fairly well understood. 1 These * Many thanks to my consultants for their critical contributions. Special thanks to Professor Tran Tri Doi of Vietnam National University, for his essential help and guidance on the project. Thanks also to Nguyen Van Duc, for his extensive assistance in many efforts. 1 These were described by Ferlus (1986) as a kind of drag chain involving the mutation of initial consonants, plus the spirantization of medial consonants followed by the loss of minor MON-KHMER STUDIES 40:1-18 2 Mường is not a subgroup innovations mean that a “Proto-Vietnamese” level is reconstructable— indicating in evolutionary terms, that Vietnamese represents the evolution of a subgroup of PVM dialects. In the articulation of this Vietnamese subgroup, the assumption has crept in that “Mường” also represents a subgroup. This is not the case. Novel fieldwork conducted in 2009-2010 reveals pervasive diversity in the initial consonant inventories of three “Mường” varieties, which contradict the possibility of a “Proto-Mường” stage of linguistic development. This diversity of innovations describes, rather, the distinct evolution of an already diversified array of PVM dialects. In other words, “Mường” is not a subgroup. And yet, the languages called “Mường” today seem to exist in mutual intelligibility with one another. Does this not constitute evidence that “Mường” is a single language, and as such, a single clade? As I will demonstrate in this study, the one does not necessarily require the other. The “Mường” languages may be mutual intelligible, but even leaving aside the deeply impressionistic nature of such a criterion, the fact remains that defining a language in terms of mutual intelligibility is not the same thing as defining it terms of genetic history. There are other paths by which a language may obtain this phenomenon of unity. As Andrew Garrett has recently proposed for Ancient Greek, convergence is one possibility (Garrett, 2006). In their study of Western Numic, Babel, Garrett, et al. (2009) also proposed the term apomorphic taxon to describe those linguistic groups which demonstrate a unity of features obtained through areal diffusion, rather than shared innovation. There remains another possibility. In their defense of phylogenetic methods, Greenhill & Gray (2009) describe the Formosan languages as bearing no cladistical unity, but rather representing several distinct lineages evolving directly out of Proto-Austronesian. These lineages were “left behind” by the mutation of other Austronesian languages after the migration out of Taiwan, and thus bear a conservative resemblance to one another despite the lack of a “proto-Formosan” stage of evolution. The condition of the Formosan languages resembles the biological concept of paraphyly , which describes groups of organisms whose most recent common ancestor is also the ancestor of an innovating group no longer counted within the taxon. The easiest example of this is the class of Reptilia, which excludes the monophyletic clades of Aves (birds) and Mammalia, with whom their most recent common ancestor is shared. In the same manner, the most recent shared ancestor of the “Mường” languages is Proto-Viet-Muong —which is, of course, also the shared ancestor of Vietnamese. syllables. I have modified Ferlus’ claims somewhat, and will discuss these innovations later in the study. Mon-Khmer Studies 40 3 Through an examination of the stop onset inventories of three “Mường” varieties, this study demonstrates that “Mường” is not a subgroup, but a paraphyletic taxon. Consequent to this argument, I also present a model for Proto-Việt-Mường diversification, in which a subgroup of PVM dialects branches off to form the modern Vietnamese language. 0.1 Organization of the paper Section 1 briefly introduces the Mường and their language, as well as reviewing some pertinent scholarship. Section 2 examines the diverse evolution of PVM initial stops among four geographically diverse Mường varieties. The lack of shared innovations and the presence of independent mutations from the PVM level are taken as evidence for the paraphyletic nature of the Mường language. I summarize these arguments in Section 3, in which I present a model for Việt-Mường speciation that describes Vietnamese—but not Mường—as a cohesive subgroup. 1.0 Introduction to the Mường and their language The Mường are currently the third-largest ethnicity in Vietnam (after the majority Kinh, and the highland Tay), with a population of roughly 1,140,000 spread out over an area west, southwest, and south of the Red River (1999 census; Lewis, 2009). They are most heavily concentrated in the provinces of Hoa Bình, Thanh Hóa, and Phú Thọ 2, with communities as far west as Yên Bái and Sơn La, and as far south as Nghệ An (Lewis, 2009). Mường communities are generally situated in low mountain valleys surrounded by peaks, which places them in geographical zones contiguous with the Kinh (Vietnamese-speaking) majority, as opposed to the higher elevations inhabited by the Hmong or Dao. The Mường themselves are subsistence farmers who cultivate rice and corn as staples, alongside a number of small cash-crops including tea (Phú Thọ), sugarcane (Thanh Hóa, Phú Thọ, Hoa Bình), and recently, acacia lumber (Phú Thọ, Hoa Bình). The genealogical status of Vietnamese (and by association, Mường) was once a subject of some controversy.

Load more