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 Nguyên Trai, Thanh Xutin. ìỉanoi, Vieínam
R e c e iv e d 2 0 Ju n e 2 0 0 9

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.

1.

P.K. Benedict, in his 1973 papcr, argued
for a ‘substratum ’ rclationship betw een
A ustronesian (abbrcbrialcd as AN) and

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.
2.
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

(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


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


[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 6 -1 8 -2 0 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,