Rearuh

Austroasiatic
Mon–Khmer
Geographic distribution	South and Southeast Asia
Linguistic classification	One of the world's primary language families
Proto-language	Proto-Austroasiatic
Subdivisions	Munda Khasi–Palaungic Khmuic Mangic (Pakanic) Vietic Katuic Bahnaric Khmer Pearic Nicobarese Aslian Monic Shompen ?
ISO 639-5	aav
Glottolog	aust1305[1]
Austroasiatic languages

The Austroasiatic languages,^{[note 1]} formerly known as Mon–Khmer,^[2] are a large language family of Mainland Southeast Asia, also scattered throughout India, Bangladesh, Nepal and the southern border of China, with around 117 million speakers.^[3] The name Austroasiatic comes from a combination of the Latin words for "South" and "Asia", hence "South Asia". Of these languages, only Vietnamese, Khmer, and Mon have a long-established recorded history, and only Vietnamese and Khmer have official status as modern national languages (in Vietnam and Cambodia, respectively). In Myanmar, the Wa language is the de facto official language of Wa State. Santali is recognized as a regional language of India. The rest of the languages are spoken by minority groups and have no official status.

Ethnologue identifies 168 Austroasiatic languages. These form thirteen established families (plus perhaps Shompen, which is poorly attested, as a fourteenth), which have traditionally been grouped into two, as Mon–Khmer and Munda. However, one recent classification posits three groups (Munda, Nuclear Mon-Khmer and Khasi–Khmuic)^[4] while another has abandoned Mon–Khmer as a taxon altogether, making it synonymous with the larger family.^[5]

Austroasiatic languages have a disjunct distribution across India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Southeast Asia, separated by regions where other languages are spoken. They appear to be the extant autochthonous languages of Southeast Asia (if Andaman islands are not included), with the neighboring Indo-Aryan, Kra–Dai, Dravidian, Austronesian, and Sino-Tibetan languages being the result of later migrations.^[6]

A 2015 made analysis using the Automated Similarity Judgment Program resulted in Japanese being grouped with the Ainu and the Austroasiatic languages.^[7]

Typology

Regarding word structure, Austroasiatic languages are well known for having an iambic "sesquisyllabic" pattern, with basic nouns and verbs consisting of an initial, unstressed, reduced minor syllable followed by a stressed, full syllable.^[8] This reduction of presyllables has led to a variety among modern languages of phonological shapes of the same original Proto-Austroasiatic prefixes, such as the causative prefix, ranging from CVC syllables to consonant clusters to single consonants.^[9] As for word formation, most Austroasiatic languages have a variety of derivational prefixes, many have infixes, but suffixes are almost completely non-existent in most branches except Munda, and a few specialized exceptions in other Austroasiatic branches.^[10]

The Austroasiatic languages are further characterized as having unusually large vowel inventories and employing some sort of register contrast, either between modal (normal) voice and breathy (lax) voice or between modal voice and creaky voice.^[11] Languages in the Pearic branch and some in the Vietic branch can have a three- or even four-way voicing contrast.

However, some Austroasiatic languages have lost the register contrast by evolving more diphthongs or in a few cases, such as Vietnamese, tonogenesis. Vietnamese has been so heavily influenced by Chinese that its original Austroasiatic phonological quality is obscured and now resembles that of South Chinese languages, whereas Khmer, which had more influence from Sanskrit, has retained a more typically Austroasiatic structure.

Proto-language

Much work has been done on the reconstruction of Proto-Mon–Khmer in Harry L. Shorto's Mon–Khmer Comparative Dictionary. Little work has been done on the Munda languages, which are not well documented. With their demotion from a primary branch, Proto-Mon–Khmer becomes synonymous with Proto-Austroasiatic.

Paul Sidwell (2005) reconstructs the consonant inventory of Proto-Mon–Khmer as follows:

*p	*t	*c	*k	*ʔ
*b	*d	*ɟ	*ɡ
*ɓ	*ɗ	*ʄ
*m	*n	*ɲ	*ŋ
*w	*l, *r	*j
	*s			*h

This is identical to earlier reconstructions except for *ʄ. *ʄ is better preserved in the Katuic languages, which Sidwell has specialized in. Sidwell (2011) suggests that the likely homeland of Austroasiatic is the middle Mekong, in the area of the Bahnaric and Katuic languages (approximately where modern Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia come together), and that the family is not as old as frequently assumed, dating to perhaps 2000 BCE.^[6] Peiros (2011) criticized Sidwell's theory heavily and calls it a bunch of contradictions. He show with his analysis that the homeland of Austroasiatic is somewhere near the Yangtze. He suggests the Sichuan Basin as likely homeland of proto-Austroasiatic before they migrated to other parts of central and southern China and than into Southeast Asia. He further suggests that the family must be as old as proto-Austronesian and proto-Sinotibetan or even older.^[12]

Georg van Driem (2011) proposes that the homeland of Austroasiatic is somewhere in southern China. He suggests that the region around the Pearl River (China) is the likely homeland of the Austroasiatic languages and people. He further suggests, based on genetic studies, that the migration of Kra–Dai people from Taiwan replaced the original Austroasiatic language but the effect on the people was only minor. Local Austroasiatic speakers adopted Kra-Dai languages and partially their culture.^[13]

The linguists Sagar (2011) and Bellwood (2013) support the theory of an origin of Austroasiatic along the Yangtze river in southern China.^[14]

A genetic and linguistic research in 2015 about ancient people in East Asia suggest an origin and homeland of Austroasiatic in today southern China or even further north.^[15]

Internal classification

Linguists traditionally recognize two primary divisions of Austroasiatic: the Mon–Khmer languages of Southeast Asia, Northeast India and the Nicobar Islands, and the Munda languages of East and Central India and parts of Bangladesh, parts of Nepal. However, no evidence for this classification has ever been published.

Each of the families that is written in boldface type below is accepted as a valid clade.^{[clarification needed]} By contrast, the relationships between these families within Austroasiatic are debated. In addition to the traditional classification, two recent proposals are given, neither of which accepts traditional "Mon–Khmer" as a valid unit. However, little of the data used for competing classifications has ever been published, and therefore cannot be evaluated by peer review.

In addition, there are suggestions that additional branches of Austroasiatic might be preserved in substrata of Acehnese in Sumatra (Diffloth), the Chamic languages of Vietnam, and the Land Dayak languages of Borneo (Adelaar 1995).^[16]

Diffloth (1974)

Diffloth's widely cited original classification, now abandoned by Diffloth himself, is used in Encyclopædia Britannica and—except for the breakup of Southern Mon–Khmer—in Ethnologue.

• 
  Munda
  
  
  
  • North Munda
    
    
    
    • Korku
    
    
    • Kherwarian
    
    
    
    
  
  
  • South Munda
    
    
    
    • Kharia–Juang
    
    
    • Koraput Munda
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  


• Mon–Khmer
  
  
  
  • Eastern Mon–Khmer
    
    
    
    • 
      Khmer (Cambodian)
    
    
    • Pearic
    
    
    • Bahnaric
    
    
    • Katuic
    
    
    • 
      Vietic (includes Vietnamese)
    
    
    
    
  
  
  • Northern Mon–Khmer
    
    
    
    • 
      Khasi (Meghalaya, India)
    
    
    • Palaungic
    
    
    • Khmuic
    
    
    
    
  
  
  • Southern Mon–Khmer
    
    
    
    • Mon
    
    
    • 
      Aslian (Malaya)
    
    
    • 
      Nicobarese (Nicobar Islands)
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  

Peiros (2004)

Peiros is a lexicostatistic classification, based on percentages of shared vocabulary. This means that languages can appear to be more distantly related than they actually are due to language contact. Indeed, when Sidwell (2009) replicated Peiros's study with languages known well enough to account for loans, he did not find the internal (branching) structure below.

• Nicobarese


• Munda–Khmer
  
  
  
  • Munda
  
  
  • Mon–Khmer
    
    
    
    • Khasi
    
    
    • Nuclear Mon–Khmer
      
      
      
      • 
        Mangic (Mang + Palyu) (perhaps in Northern MK)
      
      
      • 
        Vietic (perhaps in Northern MK)
      
      
      • Northern Mon–Khmer
        
        
        
        • Palaungic
        
        
        • Khmuic
        
        
        
        
      
      
      • Central Mon–Khmer
        
        
        
        • 
          Khmer dialects
        
        
        • Pearic
        
        
        • Asli-Bahnaric
          
          
          
          • Aslian
          
          
          • Mon–Bahnaric
            
            
            
            • Monic
            
            
            • Katu–Bahnaric
              
              
              
              • Katuic
              
              
              • Bahnaric
              
              
              
              
            
            
            
            
          
          
          
          
        
        
        
        
      
      
      
      
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  

Diffloth (2005)

Diffloth compares reconstructions of various clades, and attempts to classify them based on shared innovations, though like other classifications the evidence has not been published. As a schematic, we have:

.mw-parser-output table.clade{border-spacing:0;margin:0;font-size:100%;line-height:100%;border-collapse:separate;width:auto}.mw-parser-output table.clade table.clade{width:100%}.mw-parser-output table.clade td{border:0;padding:0;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center}.mw-parser-output table.clade td.clade-label{width:0.8em;border:0;padding:0 0.2em;vertical-align:bottom;text-align:center}.mw-parser-output table.clade td.clade-slabel{border:0;padding:0 0.2em;vertical-align:top;text-align:center}.mw-parser-output table.clade td.clade-bar{vertical-align:middle;text-align:left;padding:0 0.5em}.mw-parser-output table.clade td.clade-leaf{border:0;padding:0;text-align:left;vertical-align:middle}.mw-parser-output table.clade td.clade-leafR{border:0;padding:0;text-align:right}

Austro - Asiatic	Munda      Remo     Savara         Kharia–Juang       Korku     Kherwarian          Khasi – Khmuic      Khmuic       Pakanic     Palaungic         Khasian      (Nuclear)  Mon–Khmer        Vietic   ?[17] Katuic         Bahnaric       Khmer     Pearic             Nicobarese       Aslian     Monic

Or in more detail,

• 
  Munda languages (India)

• 
  Koraput: 7 languages


• Core Munda languages

• 
  Kharian–Juang: 2 languages


• North Munda languages

Korku

Kherwarian: 12 languages

• 
  Khasi–Khmuic languages (Northern Mon–Khmer)

• 
  Khasian: 3 languages of north eastern India and adjacent region of Bangladesh


• Palaungo-Khmuic languages

• 
  Khmuic: 13 languages of Laos and Thailand

• Palaungo-Pakanic languages

Pakanic or Palyu: 4 or 5 languages of southern China and Vietnam

Palaungic: 21 languages of Burma, southern China, and Thailand

• Nuclear Mon–Khmer languages

• Khmero-Vietic languages (Eastern Mon–Khmer)

• Vieto-Katuic languages ?^[17]
  

Vietic: 10 languages of Vietnam and Laos, including the Vietnamese language, which has the most speakers of any Austroasiatic language.

Katuic: 19 languages of Laos, Vietnam, and Thailand.

• Khmero-Bahnaric languages

• 
  Bahnaric: 40 languages of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.


• Khmeric languages

The Khmer dialects of Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Pearic: 6 languages of Cambodia.

• Nico-Monic languages (Southern Mon–Khmer)

• 
  Nicobarese: 6 languages of the Nicobar Islands, a territory of India.

• Asli-Monic languages

Aslian: 19 languages of peninsular Malaysia and Thailand.

Monic: 2 languages, the Mon language of Burma and the Nyahkur language of Thailand.

This family tree is consistent with recent studies of migration of Y-Chromosomal haplogroup O2a1-M95. However, the dates obtained from by Zhivotovsky method DNA studies are several times older than that given by linguists.^[18] The route map of the people with haplogroup O2a1-M95, speaking this language can be seen in this link.^[19] Other geneticists criticise the Zhivotovsky method.

Previously existent branches

Roger Blench (2009)^[20] also proposes that there might have been other primary branches of Austroasiatic that are now extinct, based on substrate evidence in modern-day languages.

• 
  Pre-Chamic languages (the languages of coastal Vietnam prior to the Chamic migrations). Chamic has various Austroasiatic loanwords that cannot be clearly traced to existing Austroasiatic branches (Sidwell 2006, 2007).^[21][22] Larish (1999)^[23] also notes that Moklenic languages contain many Austroasiatic loanwords, some of which are similar to the ones found in Chamic.


• 
  Acehnese substratum (Sidwell 2006).^[21] Acehnese has many basic words that are of Austroasiatic origin, suggesting that either Austronesian speakers have absorbed earlier Austroasiatic residents in northern Sumatra, or that words might have been borrowed from Austroasiatic languages in southern Vietnam – or perhaps a combination of both. Sidwell (2006) argues that Acehnese and Chamic had often borrowed Austroasiatic words independently of each other, while some Austroasiatic words can be traced back to Proto-Aceh-Chamic. Sidwell (2006) accepts that Acehnese and Chamic are related, but that they had separated from each other before Chamic had borrowed most of its Austroasiatic lexicon.


• 
  Bornean substrate languages (Blench 2010).^[24] Blench cites Austroasiatic-origin words in modern-day Bornean branches such as Land Dayak (Bidayuh, Dayak Bakatiq, etc.), Dusunic (Central Dusun, Visayan, etc.), Kayan, and Kenyah, noting especially resemblances with Aslian. As further evidence for his proposal, Blench also cites ethnographic evidence such as musical instruments in Borneo shared in common with Austroasiatic-speaking groups in mainland Southeast Asia. Adelaar (1995)^[25] has also noticed phonological and lexical similarities between Land Dayak and Aslian.


• 
  Lepcha substratum ("Rongic").^[26] Many words of Austroasiatic origin have been noticed in Lepcha, suggesting a Sino-Tibetan superstrate laid over an Austroasiatic substrate. Blench (2013) calls this branch "Rongic" based on the Lepcha autonym Róng.

Other languages with proposed Austroasiatic substrata are:

• 
  Jiamao, based on evidence from the register system of Jiamao, a Hlai language (Thurgood 1992).^[27] Jiamao is known for its highly aberrant vocabulary in relation to other Hlai languages.


• 
  Kerinci: van Reijn (1974)^[28] notes that Kerinci, a Malayic language of central Sumatra, shares many phonological similarities with Austroasiatic languages, such as sesquisyllabic word structure and vowel inventory.

John Peterson (2017)^[29] suggests that "pre-Munda" languages may have once dominated the eastern Indo-Gangetic Plain, and were then absorbed by Indo-Aryan languages at an early date as Indo-Aryan spread east. Peterson notes that eastern Indo-Aryan languages display many morphosyntactic features similar to those of Munda languages, while western Indo-Aryan languages do not.

Sidwell (2009, 2011)

Paul Sidwell (2009), in a lexicostatistical comparison of 36 languages which are well known enough to exclude loan words, finds little evidence for internal branching, though he did find an area of increased contact between the Bahnaric and Katuic languages, such that languages of all branches apart from the geographically distant Munda and Nicobarese show greater similarity to Bahnaric and Katuic the closer they are to those branches, without any noticeable innovations common to Bahnaric and Katuic.

He therefore takes the conservative view that the thirteen branches of Austroasiatic should be treated as equidistant on current evidence. Sidwell & Blench (2011) discuss this proposal in more detail, and note that there is good evidence for a Khasi–Palaungic node, which could also possibly be closely related to Khmuic.^[6]

If this would the case, Sidwell & Blench suggest that Khasic may have been an early offshoot of Palaungic that had spread westward. Sidwell & Blench (2011) suggest Shompen as an additional branch, and believe that a Vieto-Katuic connection is worth investigating. In general, however, the family is thought to have diversified too quickly for a deeply nested structure to have developed, since Proto-Austroasiatic speakers are believed by Sidwell to have radiated out from the central Mekong river valley relatively quickly.

Austroasiatic: Mon–Khmer	Munda    Khasi–Palaungic    Khasian     Palaungic       Khmuic     Mangic     Vietic     Katuic     Bahnaric     Khmer     Pearic     Monic     Aslian     Nicobarese     ?Shompen

Subsequently, Sidwell (2015a: 179)^[30] proposed that Nicobarese subgroups with Aslian, just as how Khasian and Palaungic subgroup with each other. A subsequent computational phylogenetic analysis of the Austroasiatic language family by Sidwell (2015b)^[31] suggests that Austroasiatic branches may have a loosely nested structure rather than a completely rake-like structure, with an east-west division (consisting of Munda, Khasic, Palaungic, and Khmuic forming a western group as opposed to all of the other branches) occurring possibly as early as 7,000 years before present.

Integrating computational phylogenetic linguistics with recent archaeological findings, Paul Sidwell (2015c)^[32] further expanded his Mekong riverine hypothesis by proposing that Austroasiatic had ultimately expanded into Indochina from the Lingnan area of southern China, with the subsequent Mekong riverine dispersal taking place after the initial arrival of Neolithic farmers from southern China.

Sidwell (2015c) tentatively suggests that Austroasiatic may have begun to split up 5,000 years B.P. during the Neolithic transition era of mainland Southeast Asia, with all the major branches of Austroasiatic formed by 4,000 B.P. Austroasiatic would have had two possible dispersal routes from the western periphery of the Pearl River watershed of Lingnan, which would have been either a coastal route down the coast of Vietnam, or downstream through the Mekong River via Yunnan.^[32] Both the reconstructed lexicon of Proto-Austroasiatic and the archaeological record clearly show that early Austroasiatic speakers around 4,000 B.P. cultivated rice and millet, kept livestock such as dogs, pigs, and chickens, and thrived mostly in estuarine rather than coastal environments.^[32]

At 4,500 B.P., this "Neolithic package" suddenly arrived in Indochina from the Lingnan area without cereal grains and displaced the earlier pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherer cultures, with grain husks found in northern Indochina by 4,100 B.P. and in southern Indochina by 3,800 B.P.^[32] However, Sidwell (2015c) found that iron is not reconstructable in Proto-Austroasiatic, since each Austroasiatic branch has different terms for iron that had been borrowed relatively lately from Tai, Chinese, Tibetan, Malay, and other languages.

During the Iron Age about 2,500 B.P., relatively young Austroasiatic branches in Indochina such as Vietic, Katuic, Pearic, and Khmer were formed, while the more internally diverse Bahnaric branch (dating to about 3,000 B.P.) underwent more extensive internal diversification.^[32] By the Iron Age, all of the Austroasiatic branches were more or less in their present-day locations, with most of the diversification within Austroasiatic taking place during the Iron Age.^[32]

Paul Sidwell (2018)^[33] considers the Austroasiatic language family to have rapidly diversified around 4,000 years B.P. during the arrival of rice agriculture in Indochina, but notes that the origin of Proto-Austroasiatic itself is older than that date. The lexicon of Proto-Austroasiatic can be divided into an early and late stratum. The early stratum consists of basic lexicon including body parts, animal names, natural features, and pronouns, while the names of cultural items (agriculture terms and words for cultural artifacts, which are reconstructable in Proto-Austroasiatic) form part of the later stratum.

Roger Blench (2017)^[34] suggests that vocabulary related to aquatic subsistence strategies (such as boats, waterways, river fauna, and fish capture techniques), can be reconstructed for Proto-Austroasiatic. Blench (2017) finds widespread Austroasiatic roots for 'river, valley', 'boat', 'fish', 'catfish sp.', 'eel', 'prawn', 'shrimp' (Central Austroasiatic), 'crab', 'tortoise', 'turtle', 'otter', 'crocodile', 'heron, fishing bird', and 'fish trap'. Archaeological evidence for the presence of agriculture in northern Indochina (northern Vietnam, Laos, and other nearby areas) dates back to only about 4,000 years B.P. (2,000 B.C.), with agriculture ultimately being introduced from further up to the north in the Yangtze valley where it has been dated to 6,000 B.P.^[34]

Hence, this points to a relatively late riverine dispersal of Austroasiatic as compared to Sino-Tibetan, whose speakers had a distinct non-riverine culture. In addition to living an aquatic-based lifestyle, early Austroasiatic speakers would have also had access to livestock, crops, and newer types of watercraft. As early Austroasiatic speakers dispersed rapidly via waterways, they would have encountered speakers of older language families who were already settled in the area, such as Sino-Tibetan.^[34]

Writing systems

Other than Latin-based alphabets, many Austroasiatic languages are written with the Khmer, Thai, Lao, and Burmese alphabets. Vietnamese divergently had an indigenous script based on Chinese logographic writing. This has since been supplanted by the Latin alphabet in the 20th century. The following are examples of past-used alphabets or current alphabets of Austroasiatic languages.

• 
  Chữ Nôm^[35]
  


• 
  Khmer alphabet^[36]
  


• 
  Khom script (used for a short period in the early 20th century for indigenous languages in Laos)


• Mon script


• 
  Mundari Bani (Mundari alphabet)


• 
  Ol Chiki alphabet (Santali alphabet)^[37]
  


• 
  Pahawh Hmong was once used to write Khmu, under the name "Pahawh Khmu"


• 
  Sorang Sompeng alphabet (Sora alphabet)^[38]
  


• 
  Tai Le (Palaung, Blang)


• 
  Tai Tham (Blang)


• 
  Warang Citi (Ho alphabet)^[39]
  

Austroasiatic migrations

According to Chaubey et al., "Austro-Asiatic speakers in India today are derived from dispersal from Southeast Asia, followed by extensive sex-specific admixture with local Indian populations."^[40] According to Riccio et al., the Munda people are likely descended from Austroasiatic migrants from southeast Asia.^[41][42]

According to Zhang et al., Austroasiatic migrations from southeast Asia into India took place after the last Glacial maximum, circa 10,000 years ago.^[43] Arunkumar et al. suggest Austroasiatic migrations from southeast Asia occurred into northeast India 5.2 ± 0.6 kya and into East India 4.3 ± 0.2 kya.^[44]

See also

• Munda languages


• Austric languages

Notes

References

Sources

.mw-parser-output .refbegin{font-size:90%;margin-bottom:0.5em}.mw-parser-output .refbegin-hanging-indents>ul{list-style-type:none;margin-left:0}.mw-parser-output .refbegin-hanging-indents>ul>li,.mw-parser-output .refbegin-hanging-indents>dl>dd{margin-left:0;padding-left:3.2em;text-indent:-3.2em;list-style:none}.mw-parser-output .refbegin-100{font-size:100%}

Further reading

• Mann, Noel, Wendy Smith and Eva Ujlakyova. 2009. Linguistic clusters of Mainland Southeast Asia: an overview of the language families. Chiang Mai: Payap University.


• 
  Mason, Francis (1854). "The Talaing Language". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 4: 277, 279–288. JSTOR 592280.
  


• 
  Sidwell, Paul (2013). "Issues in Austroasiatic Classification". Language and Linguistics Compass. 7 (8): 437–457. doi:10.1111/lnc3.12038.
  


• Sidwell, Paul. 2016. Bibliography of Austroasiatic linguistics and related resources.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Austroasiatic languages.

• 
  Swadesh lists for Austro-Asiatic languages (from Wiktionary's wikt:Appendix:Swadesh lists Swadesh-list appendix)


• 
  Austro-Asiatic at the Linguist List MultiTree Project (not functional as of 2014): Genealogical trees attributed to Sebeok 1942, Pinnow 1959, Diffloth 2005, and Matisoff 2006


• Mon–Khmer.com: Lectures by Paul Sidwell


• 
  Mon–Khmer Languages Project at SEAlang


• 
  Munda Languages Project at SEAlang


• 
  http://projekt.ht.lu.se/rwaai RWAAI (Repository and Workspace for Austroasiatic Intangible Heritage)


• 
  http://hdl.handle.net/10050/00-0000-0000-0003-66A4-2@view RWAAI Digital Archive