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.
David Marjanović said,
May 8, 2025 @ 9:04 am
No. Having one hasn't stopped English or Danish, and not having one hasn't stopped, for example, my southeastern German dialect from retaining archaisms that central and Standard German have lost.
Chris Button said,
May 8, 2025 @ 7:19 pm
@ David Marjanović
Surely it can't be that black and white. While it might not prevent, it might nevertheless influence.
@ Jerry Packard
I recall someone in Myanmar trying to convince me that he pronounced the written -p, -t, -k at the end of syllables differently (all have merged as a glottal stop).
Mark Liberman said,
May 9, 2025 @ 4:57 am
@Chris Button: "I recall someone in Myanmar trying to convince me that he pronounced the written -p, -t, -k at the end of syllables differently (all have merged as a glottal stop)."
Many Americans are convinced that they pronounce kiddie and kitty differently. Or ladder and latter. You can feel the difference, right?
Jerry Packard said,
May 9, 2025 @ 10:05 am
It is an interesting phenomenon: my nephew does not distinguish l/r/w in his verbal output, but will say “…no, I said l/r/wock not l/r/wock…” (lock not rock), pronouncing the two of them identically while feeling he has pronounced the two words differently.
Bob Ladd said,
May 9, 2025 @ 2:51 pm
Even Trager and Smith, in their briefly influential "Outline of English Structure" (1951, then 1957), maintained that intervocalic /t/ and /d/ were phonetically distinct. They had to believe that in order to avoid dealing with the theoretical problem that neutralization posed for phonemic theory. Linguists from Central and Eastern Europe, where final devoicing was common, didn't really have the luxury of ignoring neutralization, and had to spend more time think about the theoretical problem.
Michael Watts said,
May 9, 2025 @ 3:23 pm
Do we really believe that southeast Asia is the motherland of the Sino-Tibetan language family? Why?
Is this like saying that the Indian subcontinent is the motherland of the Indo-European language family (because it is where the Sanskritic languages are spoken today), or is there more to it than that?
Michael Watts said,
May 9, 2025 @ 3:30 pm
On the other hand, many Americans are also convinced that they pronounce the nasals in "handbag" or "unperson" differently from the ones in "hamburger" or "umpire", and they are correct about that. The resulting sounds are not perceived differently, but they are produced differently, because the presence of phonemic /n/ in "hand" or "un-" is so clear to the speakers.
Previously on Language Log, myl responded to my observation that /nt/ and /nd/ are not pronounced identically (or similarly) with the same observation here, that /VtV/ and /VdV/ are, but that isn't actually evidence as to /nt/ and /nd/. The fact that people are commonly mistaken about one question won't show that they are always mistaken about every other question.
Chris Button said,
May 9, 2025 @ 6:57 pm
There is still Joos' (1942) "A phonological dilemma in Canadian English" on the vocalic distinction found between the "i" in "rider" and "writer", where the t-voicing in the latter doesn't prevent the "Canadian raising" from happening.
Separately, Ladefoged & Maddieson's (1996) distinction between an American English flapped "t" and a Spanish tapped "r" ("water" vs "Iberica") seems to largely come down to an expected coronal distinction of alveolar vs dental. That seems to render the flap vs tap terminological distinction largely redundant. But they also note how the Peruvian speaker does not shows the same vocal fold vibration during the closure that the Peninsular Spanish speaker shows.
Jonathan Smith said,
May 9, 2025 @ 9:39 pm
Related to the above but also to the post: contrasts among "minor syllables" in May etc. This book uses five vowel symbols but "phonetically"; there is lots of variability like a ~ i ~ u ~ ∅ etc. and it does not appear that minimal contrasts are possible including something ≠ nothing (like e.g. English terrain ≠ train.)
Relevant lines from the book: "[w]hen speakers are asked what the correct pronunciation of a presyllable is, for instance, pa-, pə-, pu-, they are confused, since all the three options are admissible […]" (p. 85); "when a language is already close to the monosyllabic state, the physical form of presyllable becomes irrelevant. [In May] the presyllable is often expressed by the velar sonorant, which acquires a structural meaning of 'indication of presyllable existence'" (p. 89).
—
Incidentally, cognates of the Ruc words of interest to Baxter & Sagart (2014) appear in May as well (see Appendix 2 of the book): the two worth mentioning are 'paper' (kacăi̯³; cf. Viet. giấy) and 'bed' (kacɯŋ²; cf. Viet. giường). I think these are "Proto-AA" items. Make of them and their implications for Chinese what you will…
Chas Belov said,
May 9, 2025 @ 9:54 pm
@Mark Liberman
I just tested both in isolation and in a sentence. I pronounce kiddie with my tongue toward the front of my mouth and kitty with my tongue pulled back a bit, but I do indeed pronounce ladder and latter identically.
J.W. Brewer said,
May 10, 2025 @ 7:28 am
As an example of such ambiguity persisting into new generations, our household's youngest Anglophone (age three) yesterday said to me what I thought was "lie down" (while heading toward the end of the living room that was en route to the other room where it would be sensible for him to nap) but it turned out he was in fact saying "light on" (because the relevant light switch he was planning to flip was at the same end of the room). A more mature/fluent speaker would have disambiguated the two utterances in various other ways (like the quality of the second vowel) even if there was no difference between the sounds orthographically represented by "d" versus "t," but he's still mastering those subtleties.