“Austroasiatic languages”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

The Austroasiatic languages,{{refn|group=note|Sometimes also as Austro-Asiatic or Austroasian}} formerly known as Mon–Khmer,^[1] 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.^[2] 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.

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, Hmong-Mien, Dravidian, Austronesian, and Sino-Tibetan languages being the result of later migrations.^[5]

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.{{sfn|Alves|2014|p=524}} 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.{{sfn|Alves|2014|p=526}} 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.^[5]

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.^[6] 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:

This is identical to earlier reconstructions except for {{IPA|*ʄ}}. {{IPA|*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.^[5] 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.^[7]

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.^[8]

The linguists Sagar (2011) and Bellwood (2013) support the theory of an origin of Austroasiatic along the Yangtze river in southern China.^[9]

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.^[10]

A 2015 made analysis using the Automated Similarity Judgment Program resulted in Japanese being grouped with the Ainu and the Austroasiatic languages.^[11]

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.{{clarify|date=February 2016}} 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).^[12]

Diffloth (1974)

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.

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:

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.^[14] The route map of the people with haplogroup O2a1-M95, speaking this language can be seen in this link.^[15] Other geneticists criticise the Zhivotovsky method.

Previously existent branches

Roger Blench (2009)^[16] also proposes that there might have been other primary branches of Austroasiatic that are now extinct, based on substrate evidence in modern-day languages.

John Peterson (2017)^[25] 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.^[26]

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.

Subsequently, Sidwell (2015a: 179)^[27] 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)^[28] 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)^[29] 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.^[29] 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.^[29]

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.^[29] 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.^[29] 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.^[29]

Paul Sidwell (2018)^[30] 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.

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.^[31]

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.

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."{{sfn|Chaubey|Metspalu|Choi|Magi|2010|p=1013}} According to Riccio et al., the Munda people are likely descended from Austroasiatic migrants from southeast Asia.^[37]^[38]

According to Zhang et al., Austroasiatic migrations from southeast Asia into India took place after the last Glacial maximum, circa 10,000 years ago.{{sfn|Zhang|2015}} 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.^[39]

See also

Notes

1. ^Bradley (2012) notes, MK in the wider sense including the Munda languages of eastern South Asia is also known as Austroasiatic.
2. ^{{Cite web|url=http://www.languagesgulper.com/eng/Austroasiatic.html|title=Austroasiatic|website=www.languagesgulper.com|language=en|access-date=15 October 2017}}
3. ^Diffloth 2005
4. ^Sidwell 2009
5. ^Alves 2014, 2015
6. ^Diffloth, Gérard (1989). "Proto-Austroasiatic creaky voice."
7. ^{{Cite web|url=http://www.jolr.ru/files/(68)jlr2011-6(101-114).pdf|title=Some thoughts on the problem of the Austro-Asiatic homeland|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=Peiros (2011)|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}
8. ^Rice and the Austroasiatic and Hmong-Mien homelands from Georg van Driem (link)
9. ^Reconstructing Austroasiatic prehistory; Chapter in the forthcoming Jenny, M. & P. Sidwell (eds.). forthcoming 2015. Handbook of the Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill. (Page 1: “Sagart (2011) and Bellwood (2013) favour the middle Yangzi”
10. ^{{Cite book|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283080042|title=Y-chromosome diversity suggests southern origin and Paleolithic backwave migration of Austro- Asiatic speakers from eastern Asia to the Indian subcontinent OPEN|last=Zhang|first=Xiaoming|last2=Liao|first2=Shiyu|last3=Qi|first3=Xuebin|last4=Liu|first4=Jiewei|last5=Kampuansai|first5=Jatupol|last6=Zhang|first6=Hui|last7=Yang|first7=Zhaohui|last8=Serey|first8=Bun|last9=Tuot|first9=Sovannary|date=2015-10-20|volume=5}}
11. ^{{cite journal|last=Jäger|first=Gerhard|title=Support for linguistic macrofamilies from weighted sequence alignment|journal=PNAS|volume=112|issue=41|pages=12752–12757|bibcode=2015PNAS..11212752J|doi=10.1073/pnas.1500331112|pmc=4611657|pmid=26403857|year=2015}} Published online before print 24 September 2015.
12. ^Roger Blench, 2009. Are there four additional unrecognised branches of Austroasiatic? Presentation at ICAAL-4, Bangkok, 29–30 October. Summarized in Sidwell and Blench (2011).
13. ^¹Sidwell (2005) casts doubt on Diffloth's Vieto-Katuic hypothesis, saying that the evidence is ambiguous, and that it is not clear where Katuic belongs in the family.
14. ^{{cite journal |last1=Kumar |first1=Vikrant |display-authors=etal |title=Y-chromosome evidence suggests a common paternal heritage of Austroasiatic populations |journal=BMC Evolutionary Biology |year=2007 |volume=7 |issue=1 |page=47 |doi=10.1186/1471-2148-7-47|pmid=17389048 |pmc=1851701 |url=http://repository.ias.ac.in/46758/1/22-PUB.pdf }}
15. ^{{cite journal|title=Figure |journal=BMC Evolutionary Biology |volume=7 |pages=47 |doi=10.1186/1471-2148-7-47 |pmid=17389048 |pmc=1851701 |publisher=www.biomedcentral.com |year=2007 |last1=Kumar |first1=Vikrant |last2=Reddy |first2=Arimanda NS |last3=Babu |first3=Jagedeesh P. |last4=Rao |first4=Tipirisetti N. |last5=Langstieh |first5=Banrida T. |last6=Thangaraj |first6=Kumarasamy |last7=Reddy |first7=Alla G. |last8=Singh |first8=Lalji |last9=Reddy |first9=Battini M. }}
16. ^Blench, Roger. 2009. "Are there four additional unrecognised branches of Austroasiatic?."
17. ^¹Sidwell, Paul. 2006. "Dating the Separation of Acehnese and Chamic By Etymological Analysis of the Aceh-Chamic Lexicon {{webarchive |url=https://www.webcitation.org/6H8pdR68H?url=http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf8/sidwell2006dating.pdf |date=5 June 2013 }}." In The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal, 36: 187–206.
18. ^Sidwell, Paul. 2007. "The Mon-Khmer Substrate in Chamic: Chamic, Bahnaric and Katuic Contact." In SEALS XII Papers from the 12th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2002, edited by Ratree Wayland et al.. Canberra, Australia, 113-128. Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.
19. ^Larish, Michael David. 1999. The Position of Moken and Moklen Within the Austronesian Language Family. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa.
20. ^Blench, Roger. 2010. "[https://digital.lib.washington.edu/ojs/index.php/BIPPA/article/viewFile/10637/10669 Was there an Austroasiatic Presence in Island Southeast Asia prior to the Austronesian Expansion?]" In Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, Vol. 30.
21. ^Adelaar, K.A. 1995. Borneo as a cross-roads for comparative Austronesian linguistics. In P. Bellwood, J.J. Fox and D. Tryon (eds.), The Austronesians, pp. 81-102. Canberra: Australian National University.
22. ^Blench, Roger. 2013. [https://www.academia.edu/5562335/Rongic_a_vanished_branch_of_Austroasiatic Rongic: a vanished branch of Austroasiatic]. m.s.
23. ^Thurgood, Graham. 1992. "The aberrancy of the Jiamao dialect of Hlai: speculation on its origins and history". In Ratliff, Martha S. and Schiller, E. (eds.), Papers from the First Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 417–433. Arizona State University, Program for Southeast Asian Studies.
24. ^van Reijn, E. O. (1974). "Some Remarks on the Dialects of North Kerintji: A link with Mon-Khmer Languages." Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 31, 2: 130–138. {{JSTOR|41492089}}.
25. ^Peterson, John (2017). "The prehistorical spread of Austro-Asiatic in South Asia". Presented at ICAAL 7, Kiel, Germany.
26. ^¹²Sidwell, Paul, and Roger Blench. 2011. "The Austroasiatic Urheimat: the Southeastern Riverine Hypothesis." Enfield, NJ (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity, 317–345. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
27. ^Sidwell, Paul. 2015a. "Austroasiatic classification." In Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell, eds (2015). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill.
28. ^Sidwell, Paul. 2015b. [https://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/linguistics/conferences/2015-diversity-linguistics/Sidwell_slides.pdf A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of the Austroasiatic languages]. Presented at Diversity Linguistics: Retrospect and Prospect, 1–3 May 2015 (Leipzig, Germany), Closing conference of the Department of Linguistics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
29. ^¹²³⁴⁵Sidwell, Paul. 2015c. Phylogeny, innovations, and correlations in the prehistory of Austroasiatic. Paper presented at the workshop Integrating inferences about our past: new findings and current issues in the peopling of the Pacific and South East Asia, June 22nd – June 23rd, 2015, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany.
30. ^Sidwell, Paul. 2018. Austroasiatic deep chronology and the problem of cultural lexicon. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, held May 17–19, 2018 in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
31. ^¹²Blench, Roger. 2017. Waterworld: lexical evidence for aquatic subsistence strategies in Austroasiatic. Presented at ICAAL 7, Kiel, Germany.
32. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.omniglot.com/writing/chunom.htm |title=Vietnamese Chu Nom script |publisher=Omniglot.com |date= |accessdate=11 March 2012}}
33. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.omniglot.com/writing/khmer.htm |title=Khmer/Cambodian alphabet, pronunciation and language |publisher=Omniglot.com |date= |accessdate=11 March 2012}}
34. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.omniglot.com/writing/santali.htm |title=Santali alphabet, pronunciation and language |publisher=Omniglot.com |date= |accessdate=11 March 2012}}
35. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.omniglot.com/writing/sorangsompeng.htm |title=Sorang Sompeng script |publisher=Omniglot.com |date=18 June 1936 |accessdate=11 March 2012}}
36. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12118-n4259-warang-citi.pdf|title=N4259: Final proposal for encoding the Warang Citi script in the SMP of the UCS|last=Everson|first=Michael|authorlink=Michael Everson|date=19 April 2012|accessdate=20 August 2016}}
37. ^{{cite journal |last1=Riccio |first1=M. E. |display-authors=etal |year=2011 |title=The Austroasiatic Munda population from India and Its enigmatic origin: a HLA diversity study |journal=Human Biology |volume=83 |issue=3 |pages=405–435 |pmid=21740156 |doi=10.3378/027.083.0306}}
38. ^The Language Gulper, Austroasiatic Languages
39. ^{{cite journal | last1 = Arunkumar | first1 = G. | display-authors = etal | year = 2015 | title = A late Neolithic expansion of Y chromosomal haplogroup O2a1-M95 from east to west | url = | journal = Journal of Systematics and Evolution | volume = 53 | issue = 6| pages = 546–560 | doi = 10.1111/jse.12147 }}