VNU Jo u m al of Science, Sorial Sciences a n d H u m an itíes 25, N o.5E (2009) 12-17 On the relationship between the Aưstroasiatic and Austronesian languages in Southeast Asia Tran Tri Doi* C o llc g e o f S o c i a l S c ie n c e s a n d /lu m a n iỉie s , V N U 336 Ngun Trai, Thanh Xutin ìỉanoi, Vinam R e c e iv e d Ju n e 0 A b s t r a c t A s h a v c b c c n k n o w n , th e A u s iro a s ia tic a n d A u s tro n c s ia n la n g u a g c s p h o n e tic a lly an d le x ic a lly h a v c c o rrc s p o n d c n c c H o w c v c r, w h c th c r th is 1S h o rro w e d o r iíĩh e n te d re la tio n s h ip h a s lo n g b c c n a n is s u e o f c o n tro v c rs y , b c c a u se p la u s ib ỉe e v id c n c c to th c s c p o in ls o f v ie w 1S still u n a v a ila b le In th is p a p c r, c q u iv a le n t d a ta íro m b a s ic v o c a b u la ry b c tw c c n th c V ic t M u o n g d is y lla b lic / s c s q u is y lla b lic la n g u a g c s (c g A re m , M a L ie n g , S a c h R u c , A h e u ) a n d th e C h a m ic la n g u a g c s arc c a rc íu lly in v e s tig a tc d D c s p itc th e sh a re d b a s ic v o c a b u la ry , th is k in d o f c q u iv a le n c e le n d s lu rth e r w e ig h t to th c v ic w th a t p r e fe re n c e is g iv e n to th e b o rro w e d r c la tio n s h ip F o r th a t rc a so n , Ih ese le x ic a l rc s c m b la n c e s a rc o f a re s tric te d r a n g e vvhieh s u p p o rts th c re la tio n o f sp e c ia ỉ b o rro w in g s b e tw c e n th e tw o la n g u a g e s P.K Benedict, in his 1973 papcr, argued for a ‘substratum ’ rclationship betw een A ustronesian (abbrcbrialcd as AN) and A ustroasialic (A A ) languagcs w hcn hc otTered a furlhcr cxplanation o f ihc so-called ‘AustroT h a i’ and Its rclatcdncss to Ausiroasiatic languages [1] In his term inology, ‘AustroT h a i’ refers to thc languages o f M iao-Yao, TaiKadai, and A ustronesian In thc samc ycar o f 1973, ihc link bctvvcen thesc t\vo languagc íam ilies w as also put forward for consideration hy S.E Jakhontov H aving suggcstcd that Vieừiam cse is part o f the A ustroasiatic (M on-K hm er, in his vvords) language family and Tai is inhcritancc-rcíated to thc A ustronesian (or Indoncsian, in his • DT: 84-4- 35588603 E-mail: d o ih a n h ậ yahoo.com 12 ternnnology) ralh cr than to Sino languagcs, this link is rcgardcd as a borroxving rclationship [2] A year latcr, A.Cì.ỉIaudicourt shared thc sam c linc o f analysis w ith P.K Benedict and S.E Jakhontov (3,4] IIc furlhcr cmphasizcd that tlìis is a spccial borrovving rclationship sincc thc sharcd w ords o f the two language fam ilics belong to the basic vocabulary and regularly appcar in diíTcrent sub-groups As hc pointcd out, thcrc arc som e M on-Khmcr worđs in the M alaysian language, vvhich are unavailable in the Cham languages, for instance: ‘c b ’ ketam, Bahnar kotam, Khmer ktam , M on ỊỊUlam, Sam re tham, Khasi tham, W a ta m " (3, tr.3 ] Also, the vocabulary o f som e M on-K hm cr languagcs mcluding Maa, M nong, B ahnar consists essentially o f Ioans m ade ỈVom thc C ham languagcs as a consequcncc o f thc long-tcrm dom inance o f the T.T Doi / V N U ịourn o f Science, Sỗal Sciences and Humanities 25, No.5E (2(X)9) 12-17 Cham people Notcvvorthily, ‘thc borrowcd lexicon onginatcd either from Sanskrit or Indoncsian languagcs’ [3, tr.33] T he issue seem s to be sorted out until lately som e othcr proposals o f thc classiíìcation o f Southcast A sian languagcs have bcen released M ost recently, from sound corrcspondences, shared vocabulary and sharcd m orphology, L Sagart (2004) has argucd ihat the T ai-K ađai languages are a subgroup o f A ustroncsian and additionally, A ustroncsian and C hinese are genetically relatcd w ithin a m acrophylum w hich he callcd ‘Proto-Sino-T ibctanA ustronesian' (PSTA N ) [5] A ccordingly, in the area o f prc-litcrate Southcast A sia and South China, Sino-Tibetan, A ustronesian, and Tai-Kadai languages all bclonged lo a macrofamily, vvhich excluding A ustroasiatic Thcrcíore, despite o f diffcrcnt approaches, previous scholars have shared th e sam e idea Ihat the correspondence betw een A ustroasiatic (particularly M on-K hm er) and A ustroncsian languagcs is not as p ro o f o f an inheritance relationship, but as a result o f borrow ings On the othcr hand, Phạm D ức D ương, in his effort to build up a m odcl o f a m ixed languagc vvhich ariscs through language contact, has been argucd for a hypothesis o f ‘ngừ hệ D ông Nam Á ’ (literally means: Southeast A sian language-fam ily) o r ProtoA ustroasiatic as he íurthcr explained In his system, this languagc fam ily consists o f the languages o f A ustroasiatic, A ustroncsian and Dong Tai (cquivalcnt to T ai-K adai in other systems) [6, tr.30] It m cans that A ustroasiatic and A ustronesian initially originated from the same fam ily, w hich subscqucntly divided into three present-day sub-groups, nam ely A ustroasiatic, A ustroncsian and D ong Tai Phạm Đ ức Dương, hovvcvcr, provided only ethnolinguistic argum cnts to support his* position Strictly spcaking, linguistic evidence for a kin relationship bctw ccn A ustroasiatic and 13 A ustronesian has yct to be prcsented A lthough m any aspccts o f this hypothcsis rem ain unclear, there is solid indication that thc special relatedness bctvvccn the tvvo language íam ilies, w hich vvas first noticcd by A.G H audricourt, is w orthy o f dcepcr considcration T h is paper, thereforc, is conccm cd with cm pirical data from different languagcs in order to shcd som c light on this unusual relationship H aving invcstigatcd som c languages that still keep in cxistcncc characteristics o f thc ancient V iet-M uong languages, vvhich bclong to M on-K hm er, a branch o f thc A ustroasiatic fam ily [7]t we rcalizcd that thcse languages have much o f corc vocabulary cognate shared w ith some other A usưoncsian languages Taken into account, thc lcxical cquivalcncc is devoted to illum inatc thc naturc o f thc rclationship between Viet-Muong and Austronesian languages, or more spccifically, betw cen northeastem M on-K hm er and m ainland A ustronesian languages o f the Southeast A sia region The languages investigatcd including Arem (A r), M alieng (M L), Sach (S), Ruc (R ) o r Aheu (A h), Kha Phong (K h), ctc arc well know n for having a ‘sesqui-syllabic p a tle m ’, w hich is supportive o f the fact that thcy wcll sustain the linguistic peculiarities o f the Proto-V iet M uong (PV M ) period Sincc Proto-V ictM uong is the m ost conservative m cm bcr o f the M on-K hm er branch, the lexical correspondence betw een V iet-M uong and A ustroncsian languages is o f great significance Speakers o f scsqui-syllabic V iet-M uong languages are prim arily locatcd in the provinces o f Quang Binh, lia Tinh, and south N ghe An, w here they live along m ountainous areas o f the V ietnam -Laos bordcr (scc the m ap belovv) Due to rugged terrain, torm cntous w eather and lim ited transportation in this gcographical region, these languagcs consist o f som e w ellpreserved phonetic pattcm s o f the Proto-V iet M uong language [8] 14 T.T Doi /V N U loum aỉ o f Scừnce, Social Sãences and Humanities 25, No.5E (2009) Ĩ2 -Ĩ7 F ig u re o f th e rc s id e n tia l te rrito ry o f th e s e sq u i-sy lla b ic V ie t-M u o n g la n g u a g c s (rc d -lin c d area) 3.1 Presentation o f data Data observatỉon reveals that the sesquisyỉlabic Viet-M uong and the C ham languages lexically have correspondence More interestingly, m ost o f the shared vvords are essential com ponents o f the vocabulary o f the tw o languages under comparison Tvvo subcategories o f lcxicon are given vvith respect to land and temporal elem ents 3.1.1 Land-related w ords C ham V ie tn a m e se , M u o n g S e sq u i-sy ỉỉa b ic V ie tM u o n g ch k (C ) n ú i đ ả (V ), n ủ i tá (M ) c it(R ), “rocky mountain ” p a tă u (C ) stone" “ ro c k y mounỉain” đ ( V ) , tá (M ) đ ấ t (V ), tấ t (M ) “ ea rth ” “ ea rth " h a ỉu k lơn (C ) đ ấ t s é t (V ) “ c/ợv” “clay" “sand’ la tá (R , S ), ? a te ? (A r) “stone” “stone" h a lu k (C) c h u a h (C ) lakù:ji ?ate? (Ar) “ro ck ỵ m ountairì' c t (V ), k ch (M ) “sa n d ’ bon (R , S), ? a tắ k (A r) "earth" bsn tlet (R), ?atăk kupec (ML) “c/ợv” ta k ẳ c (R ), ? a t8 ? k ất, t a k a x (A r) “ s u n đ ’ T.T Doi / VN U Ịoum aỉ f Science, Social Sciences and Humanities 25, No.5E (2009) 12-17 15 3.1.2 Time-reỉated worcJs Cham haray (C) “ d ỳ gok page morning (C) Vietnamese, Muong ngày (V), ngày (M) “day” “early jalà (C) “noorí' sảng sớm (V), lảng khờm (M) “early mornìnịỉ' trưa (V), tlưa (M) “noorí Scsqui-syỉlabic VietMuong pakuoh (S, R), br.h (Ar) pako: (Kh) “day" /Am (R, S), ?arom’ (Ar) “early morning" p a k u o h (S , R ), cilÌA (A r) k a l i a (M L ) mưđơni (C) “nighí” đêm (V), têm (M) “nighr “noon lim (S , R), lắm(Ar) “nighr mưđơm mưdơm (C) ‘7ate ni ghi*1 bi lan (C) “month” đêm hơm (V), têm (M) ‘7e nighr hom (S, R), tarpp (ML) "laỉe nighí" thảng (V), khảng (M) 4imoni th£g’ (S, R), Xìì€.ĩ] \ A t) "month” bi lan (C) “moorì' trang (V), tlăng (M) “moơw” thun (C) y e a r " năm (V), năm (M) “year” palian (S, R), ? m r e A h (Ar) “moorì' năm (S, R), thun (Ar), sanăm (Kh) “year*' Note: Cham data follow Bùi Khánh Thể [9]; Muong data fỡlỉơw [I0],ẩRuc data follow Nguyễn Phú Phong [11]; Ruc, Arent, Sach, Malieng, Kha Phong data come from our fieldwork Cham and Muong transcriptions follow the original texts, others are transcribed in IPA 3.2 D iscussion o f dcìta Apparently, the two w ordlists arc parts o f th e core vocabulary Pollovving the treatments o f P.K Benedict, S.E Jakhontov, A G I laudricourt, and L Sagart, thcsc lexical correspondences, at firsl glancc, are more likely indicative o f inherited rclationship Thoroughly considered, this is probably not the case 3.2.1 In the first place, regarding landrelated term s, the Ruc vvords for “ rocky m ountain” and i4earth” arc quite sim ilar to the cquivalcnt Cham w ords Regarding words referring to time, thc correspondence between Cham and V iet-M uong is more varied In particular, Cham and Viet are equivalent in terms o f the word for ‘d ay ’; Cham and Viet, M uong, Arem, M alieng have the term for ‘noon’ in com m on; vvhilc Cham and Viet, M uong, Sach, Ruc correspondingly share the vvord for ‘m oon’, which is synonym ous to ‘m onth’ in Cham O n the other hand, the term for ‘year’ is shared only by C ham and Arem; w hile the chosen word for ‘carly m orning’, to some extern, is jo in tly cm ployed by Cham, Sach, Ruc, Kha Phong lt is fairly easy to see the phonetic regularity am ong these basic vvords, such as Cham bilan, Vict trăng, M uong blăng/ílâng, Sach Ruc palian Based on this kind o f equivalence betw een Cham and VietM uong only, it seems to lcnd further weight to the vievv that preíerence is given to the genetic relationship 3.2.2 A careful exam ination o f the data, hovvever, reveals different results The Cham and Viet-M uong form s not truly correspond regularly in the sense that som e Viet-M uong vvords are sim ilar to C ham ’s, but not to those o f other languages in the same V iet-M uong group For exam pte, vvith regard to the vvords for tcyear” , un in Arem is related to thun in Cham, yet has no connection vvith năm o r sanăm in other Viet-M uong Sim ilarly, the Cham word for “m oon” form s identiíiable pattem s o f 16 T.T Doi / V N U lournal o f Science, Social Sáences and Humanities 25, No.5E (2009) Ĩ2 -Ĩ7 equivalence vvith those o f Viet, M uong, Sach, Ruc, but not with PmreAh in Arem The terms for “noon” are mostly shared by the languages under comparison, except Sach, Ruc In parallel, the Cham w ords for “ rocky m ountain”, and probably for “earth” exhibit pretty direct correspondcnce vvith those o f Sach, Ruc, but not vvith those o f other V iet-M uong The irregular sim ilarities within VietM uong languages shovv that Viet-M uong languagcs only correspond individually with Cham D espite the fact that Cham and VietM uong have the core vocabulary in common (as shown in 3.2.1), this kind o f equivalence is hardly indicative o f inhcritcd phonetic relationship This irrcgularity, hovvever, can be explained in the following vvay: som e Cham w ords are sustainablc in some V iet-M uong languages, but are lost in other languages o f the samc VietM uong group Thcreforc, the individual correspondence, by itself, wou!d bc insufficient to cast grave doubt on the kin link betvveen Cham and Viet-Muong 3.2.3 A more thorough investigation o f the data, hovvever, gives out an interesting point, namely the consistency o f each wordlisl o f the Cham and sesqui-syllabic V iet-M uong languages under comparison This is probably the most apparent evidence o f the borroNving relationship bctween the tw o groups In the Tirst list o f land-related w ords, the term inologies for “ stone” , “rocky m ountain”, “earth”, “clay” , and “sand” in the sesquisyllabic Viet-M uong languages uniíbrm ly have the matching fomis in V ietnam ese and Muong Although the vvords for “ rocky m ountain” and “earth” in Ruc are different in detail, they cannot in principle be considered as a violation o f the consistency relation o f the w hole group The samc holds true for the second list o f time-related vvords T em iinologies for “early m om ing” , “ noon” , “ late night” , “ m onth", and “year” exhibit a consistent pattcrn o f bchavioi throughout the V iet-M uong group The exceptional cases o f the w ords for ifcd a y ,? and “ m oon” not fundam entally fail to agree with this pattern In sum m ary, the consistent correspondence vvithin the V iet-M uong group provides strong evidence to coníìrm that the V ict-M uong basic w ords, vvhich are quite sim ilar to those o f the Cham languagcs, are o f borrow ed origin Due to thc non-indigenous origin, they are preserved in some, not all languages o f the entire VietM uong group In other vvords, the C ham group o f A ustronesian does sharc witlì the VietM uong group o f A ustroasiatic som e core vocabularics, and this sim ilarity is bcst taken as a solid indicator o f spccial borrovvings C onsequently, Southeast Asia, in o u r point o f view, is liome to five language families, namcly A ustroasiatic, A ustronesian, Tai Kadai, Sino - Tibetan and M iao-Y ao; w hich is also strongly held by other scholars It is not incompatible vvith the vievv that the Southeast A sia region exhibits a consistcnt culturallinguistic resem blance T his cultural-linguistic correspondence, how ever, sliould be sưictly diíĩerentiated from the sim ilarity o f linguistic origins Reíerenccs [1] P.K B cncdict, A ustro - Thai and Austroasiatic, A ustroasiatic S tudies, part I, 1976, p p 4-36 [2] S.E Jak hontov, phán loại ngôn ngừ Đ ông N am châu Á, Ngôn ngữ n°l (1 9 ) 73-77 [3] A G H audricourt, L im ites ct co n n ex io n s de P austro asiatiq u e au N ord - Esl Asie du Sud-Est e t m onde insuỉinduen 5, N°1 (1 ) 1-14 [4] A G H audricourt, G iớ i hạn nối kết ngôn n g N am Ả Đ ô n g B ắc, N gôn n g n°l (1991) 33-40 T.T Doi / VN U loumaì of Science, Social Sciences and Humanities 25, No.5E (2lX)9) 12-17 [5] L Surgat, The higher phyl()Ị*eny o f Austronesìan [8] M Fcrlus, The Origin o f Tones in Viet-Muơng, and tlìc positiotì o f Tai - Kaddi, \V orkshop on SALS “P rcm icrcs B angkok, T h a ilan d , M ay -1 -2 0 ỉ a u stro n c sic n : langucs, gcncs, syslòm cs dc p a re n tc " , Paris, M ay 5, 2004 17 Xl" C o n ícrcn c c, M ahidol U nivcrsity, [6] P hạm Đ ứ c D n g , Hức tranh ngôn ngữ-vân hoá [9] BÙI Khánh Thẻ (Chủ bicn) (1996), Từ điền Việt Chăm, NXB Khoa học Xã hội, 1996 lộc người Việt S a m Dỏng S a m A, N X B Đại [10] N guyễn v a n K hang (C h ù bicn), Từ điển Mường- học Q u ố c gia H N ộ i, 2007 [7] T rằn T rí D õ i, G iáo trinh lịch sư tiếng Việt (sơ thào) N X B Đ ại h ọ c Q uốc gia Hà N ội, 2005 Việt, N X B V ân h o ả dãn tộ c , Mà N ội, 2002 [11] N guyễn Phú P h o n g ct al, Lexique Vietnamien - Rục - Francais, U m vcntc dc Paris VII, Pans 1988  ... ountain” and “earth” in Ruc are different in detail, they cannot in principle be considered as a violation o f the consistency relation o f the w hole group The samc holds true for the second... or more spccifically, betw cen northeastem M on- K hm er and m ainland A ustronesian languages o f the Southeast A sia region The languages investigatcd including Arem (A r), M alieng (M L), Sach... the term for ‘noon’ in com m on; vvhilc Cham and Viet, M uong, Sach, Ruc correspondingly share the vvord for ‘m oon’, which is synonym ous to ‘m onth’ in Cham O n the other hand, the term for ‘year’