East Asian languages describe two notional groupings of languages in East and Southeast Asia:
Although most of these languages are generally believed to be genetically unrelated, they share many areal features due to geographic proximity. This is also known as the East Asian sprachbund.
Contents |
The CJKV area refers to Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese, the languages with large amounts of vocabulary of Chinese origin (i.e. Sino-Japanese, Sino-Korean, Sino-Vietnamese) and which are or were formerly written with Chinese characters. Because modern Vietnamese is no longer written with Chinese characters at all, it is sometimes left out of this grouping, in which case the area is just called CJK.
Outside of China itself, these coincide with the area where Literary Chinese was at one time used as the written language, and influenced the development of a national written language based on the previously unwritten local non-Chinese language. Chinese morphology and word formation principles have been carried over into these languages, so that it is not uncommon for Chinese-style compound words to be coined in Japanese from originally Chinese morphemes, and then borrowed back into Chinese where they are used without Chinese speakers being aware of their Japanese origin.[1]
Today, these words of Chinese origin may be written in the traditional Chinese characters (Chinese, Japanese, Korean), simplified Chinese characters (Chinese, Japanese), a locally developed phonetic script (Korean hangul, Japanese kana), or a modified Latin alphabet (Vietnamese alphabet).
Several areal features partially coincide with or extend beyond the CJKV area, forming a sprachbund of unrelated languages:
Characteristic of many East Asian languages is a particular syllable structure involving monosyllabic morphemes; phonemic tone; a fairly large inventory of consonants, including phonemic aspiration; few or no clusters at the beginning of a syllable, other than clusters ending in a glide consonant; and a small number of possible distinctions at the end of a syllable, including no clusters, no voice distinction and unreleased stops. All of the above features are characteristic of Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai, Hmong, and Standard Tibetan, despite belonging to numerous different language families. All, in fact belong to unrelated families from all others except for Chinese and Tibetan, which belong to the different top-level branches of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Even in the case of Chinese and Tibetan, however, the above characteristics developed independently in the two languages. For example, Old Tibetan had none of the above features except for a relatively large consonant inventory including extremely marginal and recently developed phonemic aspiration. Old Chinese had a mid-sized consonant inventory with phonemic aspiration, but none of the other characteristics.
Phonemic tone is one of the most well-known of East Asian language characterstics. Chinese and Vietnamese, as well as Burmese, Thai, Lao, Hmong, Standard Tibetan and some other languages of mainland Southeast Asia and South China are tonal languages. Korean, Japanese, and Austronesian languages do not have phonemic tone, though Japanese does have a pitch accent (see Japanese pitch accent), and Korean formerly had a three-way pitch accent still present in some dialects. (Korean and Japanese are somewhat similar languages believed by some to belong to the same family; they share many features distinct from Sino-Tibetan and many other families.) Reconstruction of Vietnamese, Old Chinese and ancient Tibetan and Burmese have suggested that these languages originally did not have phonemic tone, but later developed it; the process of tone development is known as tonogenesis. Only the Tai–Kadai languages and Hmong–Mien languages are reconstructed with ancestral tone, and those researchers who believe in the unity of the Austro-Tai languages assert that tone was a secondary development in the Tai–Kadai languages as well.
Specifically, tones developed via cheshirisation (as a remnant of lost consonant distinctions) – the loss of final consonants /ʔ/ and /s/ from Old Chinese to Middle Chinese led to three tones in Middle Chinese, and then a tone split (see below) doubled the number to six tones, still preserved in some modern Chinese varieties such as Cantonese. A similar process occurred in the other languages that developed tone.
The presence of largely monosyllabic morphemes is another well-known feature of East Asian languages. Monosyllabic morphemes do not always imply monosyllabic words; for example, Mandarin Chinese is rich in polysyllabic words. Some polysyllabic morphemes exist even in Old Chinese and Vietnamese, often loan words from other languages. A related syllable structure found in some languages, such as the Mon–Khmer languages, is the sesquisyllable, consisting of a stressed syllable with approximately the above structure, preceded by a simpler, unstressed syllable consisting only of a consonant, a schwa (/ə/, and possibly a nasal consonant (usually homorganic to the following consonant). This structure is present in many conservative Mon–Khmer languages such as Khmer (Cambodian), as well as in Burmese, and is reconstructed for the older stages of a number of Sino-Tibetan languages.
A characteristic sound change occurred in the majority of East Asian and Southeast Asian languages, typically happened c. 1000–1500 AD, in which a former distinction between voiced and unvoiced consonants at the beginning of a syllable was lost, in the process transferring the former voicing distinction onto the syllabic nucleus (i.e. the following vowel). Generally, the loss of voicing led to either a tone split or a register split. Typically, voiced obstruents (stops and fricatives) became unvoiced, while unvoiced approximants became voiced.
Tonal languages generally developed a tone split by this process, in which the number of tones in the language doubled (generally from 3 tones to 6 tones). Examples of languages affected by this process are Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese, and Lhasa Tibetan.
Many non-tonal languages instead developed a register split, with voiced consonants producing breathy-voiced vowels and unvoiced consonants producing normally voiced vowels. Often, the breathy-voiced vowels subsequently went through additional, complex changes (e.g. diphthongization). Examples of languages affected this way are Mon and Khmer (Cambodian). Breathy voicing has since been lost in standard Khmer, although the vowel changes triggered by it still remain.
Many of these languages have subsequently developed some voiced obstruents. The most common such sounds are /b/ and /d/ (often pronounced with some implosion), which result from former preglottalized /ʔb/ and /ʔd/, which were common phonemes in many Asian languages and which behaved like voiceless obstruents. In addition, Vietnamese developed voiced fricatives through a different process (specifically, in words consisting of two syllables, with an initial, unstressed minor syllable, the medial stop at the beginning of the stressed major syllable turned into a voiced fricative, and then the minor syllable was lost).
今天 | 的 | 晚飯 | 我 | 已經 | 吃過 | 了。 | |
今天 | 的 | 晚饭 | 我 | 已经 | 吃过 | 了。 | |
Transcription: | Jīntiān | de | wǎnfàn | wǒ | yǐjīng | chīguò | le. |
Gloss: | today | GENITIVE | dinner | I | already | eat-EXPERIENCE | NEWSTATE |
Translation: | I've already eaten today's dinner. (Topic: today's dinner; Comment: I've already eaten.) |
今日 | 嘅 | 晚飯 | 我 | 已經 | 食咗 | 喇。 | |
Transcription: | Gam1yat6 | ge3 | maan5faan6 | ngo5 | ji3ging1 | sik6zo2 | la3 |
Gloss: | today | GENITIVE | dinner | I | already | eat-EXPERIENCE | NEWSTATE |
Translation: | I've already eaten today's dinner. (Topic: today's dinner; Comment: I've already eaten.) |
今仔日 | ㄟ | 暗飯 | 我 | 已經 | 食過 | 矣。 | |
Transcription: | Kin-á-ji̍t | ê | àm-pn̄g | góa | í-king | chia̍h-kuè | ah |
Gloss: | today | GENITIVE | dinner | I | already | eat-EXPERIENCE | NEWSTATE |
Translation: | I've already eaten today's dinner. (Topic: today's dinner; Comment: I've already eaten.) |
今日 | の | 晩御飯 | は | もう | 食べた。 | |
Transcription: | Kyō | no | bangohan | wa | mō | tabeta. |
Gloss: | today | GENITIVE | dinner | TOPIC | already | eat-PERFECTIVE |
Translation: | I've already eaten today's dinner. (Topic: today's dinner; Comment: already eaten.) |
今日 | ぬ | 夕御飯ー | なー | 噛だん。 | ||
Transcription: | Chuu | nu | yuu'ubanoo | naa | kadan. | |
Gloss: | today | GENITIVE | dinner-TOPIC | already | eat-PERFECTIVE | |
Translation: | I've already eaten today's dinner. (Topic: today's dinner; Comment: already eaten.) |
Note that in Okinawan, the topic marker is indicated by lengthening the short vowels and adding -oo to words ending in -N/-n. For words ending in long vowels, the topic is introduced only by や.
오늘 | 의 | 저녁밥 | 은 | 이미 | 먹었다. | |
Transcription: | Oneul | ui | jeonyeokbab | eun | imi | meok-eotda. |
Gloss: | today | GENITIVE | dinner | TOPIC | already | eat-PERFECTIVE |
Translation: | I've already eaten today's dinner. (Topic: today's dinner; Comment: already eaten.) |
This way of marking previously mentioned vs. newly introduced information is an alternative to articles, which are not found in East Asian languages. The Topic–comment sentence structure is a legacy of Classical Chinese influence on the grammar of modern East Asian languages; in Classical Chinese, the focus of the phrase (i.e. the topic) was often placed first, which was then followed by a statement about the topic. The most generic sentence form in Classical Chinese is "A B 也", where B is a comment about the topic A.
今 | 之 | 飱 | 吾 | 已 | 食 | 也。 | |
Gloss: | today | GENITIVE | dinner | I | already | eat | AFFIRMATIVE |
Translation: | I've already eaten today's dinner. (Topic: today's dinner; Comment: I've already eaten.) |
However, this is not especially the case for Vietnamese:
Hán-Nôm: | 𪝬 | 吔 | 𩛖𩛷 | 𩛖啐 | 𣋚𠉞。 | |
Quốc Ngữ: | Tôi | đã | ăn bữa | ăn tối | hôm nay. | |
Gloss: | I | already | eat-PERFECTIVE | dinner | today | |
Translation: | I've already eaten today's dinner. |
In this example, the topic regarding "today's dinner" does not form before the comment, and the same sentence structure found within the other examples is not maintained in Vietnamese syntax.
These features strongly contrast with major language groups bordering East and Southeast Asia. The languages of East and Southeast Asia are classified into multiple language families, many of whose validity continues to be debated:
Some linguists also include Japonic and Korean in an Altaic family.[4] The Austric hypothesis, based on morphology and other resemblances, is that Austro-Asiatic, Austronesian, often Tai–Kadai, and sometimes Hmong–Mien form a genetic family. Other hypothetical groupings include the Sino-Austronesian languages and Austro-Tai languages. Long-range comparison linguists have hypothesized even larger macrofamilies such as Dené–Caucasian, including Sino-Tibetan and Ket.
Chinese scholars often group Tai–Kadai and Hmong–Mien with Sino-Tibetan, which Western linguists view as composed only of Chinese and Tibeto-Burman.