Monosyllabism
« previous post | next post »
Ever since I learned a bit of Vietnamese in 1970, I've been curious about the apparent areal feature of monosyllabism in southeast Asia. I did some poking around on Google Scholar yesterday, and came across something that's definitely worth following up on.
From Chapter 1 (p. 14) of A Grammar of May: An Austroasiatic Language of Vietnam. By Kirill Babaev & Irina Samarina. Edited and translated by Paul Sidwell:
The distinction of archaic or conservative languages in the Vietic branch, which includes the Chut languages, is based mostly on their typological peculiarities. The archaic Vietic languages have preserved a number of relic features, which make them different from the other languages of the Vietic branch, especially from the Viet-Muong tongues. Noteworthy is that many languages in other Austroasiatic groups show typological similarities with the archaic Vietic languages. A specific trait of continental South-East Asian region is that languages here are highly convergent. Thus, it is possible to speak about the Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area (Enfield 2006; Samarina 2005). This vast area stretches from North-East India to the coast of South China Sea and is the motherland of five language families: Austroasiatic, Tai-Kadai, HmongMien, Sino-Tibetan, and Austronesian (the latter represented by the Chamic branch). Almost all languages forming the area are root-isolating and follow a trend towards monosyllabization. The core of that process is the transformation of historic disyllables and polysyllables (two-syllable and multi-syllable words) into monosyllables through gradual phonetic reduction to one syllable via an intermediary (sesquisyllabic) stage (Samarina 2001a, 2008, 2013a). There is also an interconnection between linguistic monosyllabism and the existence of lexical tones, and monosyllabization is accompanied by simplification of the syllable structure. Two aforementioned trends result in changes to the language prosodic system and possible transformation towards tonality as it has happened in the languages of the Viet-Muong subgroup: Vietnamese, Muong, and Nguon, where monosyllabization process has reached its logical end. Among the Austroasiatic languages, only a handful are tonal, and almost all tonal Austroasiatic languages are monosyllabic. The majority of languages in the Austroasiatic phylum are sesquisyllabic or quasi polysyllabic with an incomplete monosyllabization. At this stage, a language has two types of syllables: 1) major syllables and 2) minor syllables or presyllables. Some of the latter may preserve their grammatical value and act as prefixes. Traces of infixes may be also found (Samarina 2007). As for the prosodic system type, sesquisyllabic languages may have tones, pitch or phonation contrasts, or none of these. Therefore, the archaic character of the Chut languages is manifested in the fact they find themselves in a transitional phase of monosyllabization (different from Vietnamese, Muong, and Nguon) and many phonological oppositions lost by Vietnamese and Muong are conserved in the Chut languages. Among others, initial consonant clusters and numerous initial and final phonemes are noted as retained. As for morphosyntax, one may speak about the preserved elements of ancient affixation morphology with its prefixed and infixed morphemes. Remarkably, changes in Chut languages occur very quickly, while we are watching. We may observe how phonological system changes over the period of one generation (as shown by our field expeditions to the Arem and the Ruc with a time interval of 30 years). The transitional stage in which the Chut languages are found now is characterized by a certain degree of instability. As a result, it is sometimes hard to determine whether a certain phenomenon has or has no phonological / grammatical value. The transitional stage of the Chut languages makes them extremely interesting for research, thus allowing us to trace the different steps of the monosyllabization process.
Curiously, none of the references cited in this passage (Enfield 2006; Samarina 2005. Samarina 2001a, 2008, 2013a. Samarina 2007 are listed in the book's bibliography.
Chris Button said,
May 7, 2025 @ 3:52 pm
That's a highly contentious statement as regards Sino-Tibetan/Tibeto-Burman languages–particularly Chinese/Sinitic.
For example, many of the criticisms of Baxter & Sagart's book on Old Chinese centered on how they made extensive proposals of such a nature for many reconstructed "words" but without sufficiently convincing evidence to support the reconstructions.
Jonathan Smith said,
May 7, 2025 @ 3:52 pm
There's a separate Russian Language References section (443ff.) that contains the Samarina references. Looks like "Enfield 2006" appears in the bibliography as "2005".
Shout-out to Michel Ferlus (1935-2024), who was long a/the central figure in this area and whose work on and insights about these processes in less-studied Austroasiatic languages are of much importance for the deep history of this "linguistic area" more generally.
Jonathan Smith said,
May 7, 2025 @ 4:06 pm
The authors' statement re: an areal trend towards monosyllabification/tonogenesis is a fine and totally normal generalization given just what is *concretely* known about Austroasiatic, Cham in Austronesian, and indeed Tai. There is also practically universal consensus that Hmong-Mien and Sinitic languages underwent broadly parallel processes — (large) disagreements relate to the details.
J.W. Brewer said,
May 7, 2025 @ 4:12 pm
I'm puzzled by the "motherland of five language families" statement, which suggests inter alia that the Austronesian Urheimat was in mainland Southeast Asia, which is … not the mainstream position. But maybe this was a glitch in translation from a Russian sentence that didn't have that outside-the-mainstream implication?
Jonathan Smith said,
May 7, 2025 @ 4:29 pm
@J.W. Brewer
The authors are (roughly) defining the "Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area" as opposed to commonsensical mainland Southeast Asia. But true that most of Austronesian is both geographically and conceptually peripheral here — what is literally "mainland" re: AN is (1) (most of) Chamic and (2) the speculative (but logically assured?) Urheimat that would have preceded Urheimat-in-light-of-attested-distribution, Taiwan… whether some or all of (2) is "Southeast Asia" could be of course be quibbled about.
Victor Mair said,
May 7, 2025 @ 4:59 pm
See the penultimate paragraph of this lengthy post: "Script origin and typology, part 1" (7/1/24).
Chris Button said,
May 7, 2025 @ 5:02 pm
There is?
KIRINPUTRA said,
May 7, 2025 @ 9:22 pm
Eastern (Panduranga) Cham also seems to be rocketing towards tones & monosyllables. I wonder if some factor causes such transitions to be rapid once they start, or not.
Melanesian priest said,
May 7, 2025 @ 9:39 pm
The Munda languages of Austroasiatic family, usually seen as outside of the Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic areas, have mostly monosyllabic verb and noun roots, but the nominal roots are hidden underneath South Asian areal features. They have to be reduplicated/compounded/prefixed/glottalized into order to stay as free words. This phenomenon was described as "bimoraic constraint" (Norman Zide & Gregory Anderson 2001/Laurent Sagart (2011)). So this monosyllabic characteristic is also presented in the Munda languages. Besides that, Korku is tonal, and Gta is sesquisyllabic. Very few people have paid attention to them and Austroasiatic languages in general.
Melanesian priest said,
May 7, 2025 @ 9:52 pm
Another understudied interesting stuff in Austroasiatic languages. Quoted from Sidwell (2010):
> Donegan & Stampe (2004:6) also compare Munda verb morphology to word-order equivalents in Mon-Khmer clauses, e.g:
he not want give rice me
Sora: anin əd- məl- tiy -dar -iɲ -da -e
Khmer: kŏət ʔətcɑŋ ʔaoy baay kɲom
Here we see a complete functional morpheme to morpheme correspondence, even though in this case only one morpheme is actually cognate (Sora əd- : Khmer ʔət). Unambiguously, Mon-Khmer VO word-order is preserved in Sora, grammaticalised as bound morphology, while at the clause level OV word-order prevails.
Jerry Packard said,
May 8, 2025 @ 5:42 am
“… changes in Chut languages occur very quickly, while we are watching. We may observe how phonological system changes over the period of one generation…”
This makes me wonder about the writing system (which I could not find on line), specifically, if it has one. Languages that show rapid phonological change may be those without a writing system to serve as a conservatizing force.
Chris Button said,
May 8, 2025 @ 6:10 am
@ Kirinputra
Laurent Sagart has proposed a Sino-Austronesian hypothesis. It hasn't won much support and is perhaps what influences his attempts to remake Old Chinese in a polysyllabic mould. His work is always top-notch and fascinating, but I personally usually disagree with most of his conclusions.
@ Melanesian priest
In terms of Austroasiatic languages, Mon-Khmer has received lots of attention due to the old Mon and old Khmer inscriptions. They play a highly influential role in the same way that Tibetan and Burmese play in Tibeto-Burman.