Citation
URL
Reviewed
Editors
Web
ISSN

Mark J. ALVES. 2015. Etyma for ‘Chicken’, ‘Duck’, & ‘Goose’ among Language Phyla in China & Southeast
Asia Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 8:39-55
http://hdl.handle.net/1885/16086
Received 6/6/15, revised text accepted 11/10/2015, published October 2015
Editor-In-Chief Dr Mark Alves | Managing Eds. Dr Peter Jenks, Dr Sigrid Lew, Dr Paul Sidwell
http://jseals.org
1836-6821
www.jseals.org | Volume 8 | 2015 | Asia-Pacific Linguistics, ANU
Copyright vested in the author; Creative Commons Attribution Licence

ETYMA FOR ‘CHICKEN’, ‘DUCK’, AND ‘GOOSE’ AMONGLANGUAGE PHYLA IN CHINA AND SOUTHEAST ASIA
Mark J. Alves
Montgomery College<mark.alves@montgomerycollege.edu>

Abstract
This paper considers the history of words for domesticated poultry, including ‘chicken’,‘goose’, and ‘duck’, in China and mainland Southeast Asia to try to relate associateddomestication events with specific language groups. Linguistic, archaeological and historicalevidence supports Sinitic as one linguistic source, but in other cases, Tai and Austroasiatic1
form additional centers of lexical forms which were borrowed by neighboring phyla. It ishypothesized that these geographic regions of etyma for domesticated birds may represent
instances of bird domestication, or possibly advances in bird husbandry, by speech communities
in the region in the Neolithic Era, followed by spread of both words and cultural practices.
Keywords: etymology, animal domestication, archaeology, Southeast Asia, China
ISO 639-3 codes: aav, hmx, map, mch, mkh, och, sit

1 On Etyma for Domestic Birds in the Region: Borrowing and Onomatopoeia
Cultural exchange often leads to lexical exchange, and it is thus probable that the borrowing of a word for adomesticated animal involves at least trade of the animal, and perhaps borrowing of related animalhusbandry practices. Borrowing of words for domesticated animals can be measured numerically. In the
online World Loanword Database (WOLD), borrowed rates for words for insects tend to be the lowest,
followed by words for wild animals, and finally words for domesticated animals. These categories are shownin Table 1 with a generalized range (i.e., there are some exceptions) of relative borrowed rates and someexamples. Note in particular numbers for the pairing of similar types of animals which are wild ordomesticated: ‘deer’ versus ‘horse’, ‘boar’ versus ‘pig’, and ‘eagle’ versus ‘duck’. The birds in this study aredomesticated and thus in the database of languages of different continents also have relatively higher
borrowed rates: ‘chicken’ (0.3), ‘duck’ (0.46), and ‘goose’ (0.47).
Table 1: Relative Borrowed Rates of Types of Animals
Category
Insects
Wild animals
Domestic animals

Borrowed Rates
0.5-0.15
0.15-0.28
0.3-0.6

Examples‘flea’ (0.7), ‘worm’ (0.12), ‘ant’ (0.12)‘deer’ (0.12), ‘boar’ (0.23), ‘eagle’ (0.25)‘horse’ (0.57), ‘pig’ (0.3), ‘duck’ (0.46)

In recent research in the fields of historical linguistics, paleoanthropology, and archaeology in Eastand Southeast Asia, focus has been on the impact of agriculture on human sociocultural development, such
1

Austroasiatic in mainland Southeast Asia has traditionally been referred to as ‘Mon-Khmer’. However, following
the hypothesis that Munda is one of various sub-branches of Austroasiatic, not a main sub-branch in contrast withthe rest of Austroasiatic, ‘Mon-Khmer’ is not an accurate term. To capture that geographic sense, in this article, theterm ‘mainland Southeast Asian Austroasiatic’ is sometimes used. Mon-Khmer is only used in this paper to refer topreviously used names, such as Shorto’s 2006 Proto-Mon-Khmer and the ‘Mon-Khmer Etymological Dictionary’.

ALVES | Etyma for ‘Chicken’, ‘Duck’, &‘Goose’ among Language Phyla in China & Southeast Asia | JSEALS 8 (2015)

as the development of technology and the emergence of states. In such studies, reconstructed forms of words
such as ‘rice’ and ‘millet’ dating back several thousand years have played a central role in trying to accountfor ethnolinguistic diversification (cf. Bellwood (2005, 2006, etc.), van Driem (2007 and 2011), Sagart(2008), Higham (e.g., 2013:33, 2014:128, etc.), inter alia).
Of smaller-scale sociocultural impact than agricultural production of grain, but still with significancein human sociocultural evolution, is the domestication of animals, which is related to human settlements,
horticulture, trade, and belief systems. Carbon dating and archaeogenetic studies have increased
understanding about possible locations and time depths of animal domestication, though the hypotheses canvary significantly. For instance, testing of ancient dog-like remains has pushed back canine domestication toperhaps as far back as 33,000 years ago (e.g., Druzhkova et.al. 2013). Timing of dog domestication is asignificant matter in understanding human migration to the Americas over 10,000 years ago, which shows
the impact such dating can have in understanding human sociocultural history. However, such extreme time
depth makes it difficult, if not impossible, to connect any lexical form in modern languages or even Protolanguages to the original event.
In contrast, poultry, such as chickens, ducks, and geese, were domesticated in the past several
thousand years, during the Neolithic Age, in southern China and mainland Southeast Asia, within a timeframe that could be similar to timing of dispersal dates of language phyla in the region. Moreover, there are
now reconstructions available for all major language phyla and numerous sub-branches in this region. This
creates a situation in which zooarchaeology and historical linguistics may have valuable overlap inpaleolinguistic and ethnohistorical inquiry.
This paper asks whether it is possible to link reconstructed words in language phyla to specific animal
domestication events, focusing on chickens, ducks, and geese in this study. Can any of these etyma go backto the original time of domestication of these birds? The answer is that, for now, based on competing
hypotheses and mixed amounts of available data, only working hypotheses can be presented of these words’
origins. However, what emerges in the lexical data is a number of geographic centers of certain word forms
across language families but generally with a language family or sub-group as the center from which othergroups have borrowed the term. It is suggested in this study that these geographic centers of the word forms
are locations of ancient domestication of those birds, though significant advances in bird husbandry practices
could have also been the source of the regional uses of these words through trade and borrowing of both
cultural practices. Such hypotheses and further questions for inquiry are raised in throughout the paper andthe conclusion.
Another question that the data raises is the mechanism of lexical innovation. A recurring phenomenon
seen in the data is imitative onomatopoeia in the coining of terms for several bird species in Asia, both wildand domesticated. All three bird species in this study have names clearly related to bird calls. This means ofnaming is a reasonably intuitive matter, such as in the case of ‘cat’, which is MAO (all caps indicate not areconstruction but rather a regional shared form among language families, thereby maintaining a neutral
position about the language group of origin) or a similar sounding word in Chinese languages, Tai languages,
Vietnamese, and other languages in the region. Three examples of names of birds in the region of this2
birdcall-name association include the following.
• ‘crow’, with the general form AK in reconstructions and many languages within Sino-Tibetan, KraDai/Tai-Kadai, mainland Southeast Asian Austroasiatic, and Chamic3• ‘pigeon/dove’, with the general form KU (cf. English ‘coo’ for the birdcall) in Old Chinese, Tai
languages, Hmong-Mien, and Vietnamese• ‘owl’, with an approximate sound of KU or KUK in Old Chinese, Tibeto-Burman, Tai languages,
Vietnamese, and a handful of Austroasiatic languages (e.g., Nyah Kur and Stieng).
Such sound-symbolism adds uncertainty to claims of borrowing in a certain direction, especially at time
depths of thousands of years, unless there is sufficient clarifying linguistic and extralinguistic evidence.
Instances of onomatopoeia are noted in subsequent sections.
2

3

Similar phenomena for other animals can be exemplified. Schuessler (2007), in his etymological dictionary of Old
Chinese, notes about ten instances of apparent onomatopoeia. While four include birds, namely, ‘chicken’, ‘owl’,‘pigeon’, and ‘crow/raven’, two others are animals based on their calls, including ‘cat’ and ‘frog’.
The AK form appears not to be widespread in other Austronesian groups, suggesting that it is a mainland Southeast
Asian areal term.

40

ALVES | Etyma for ‘Chicken’, ‘Duck’, &‘Goose’ among Language Phyla in China & Southeast Asia | JSEALS 8 (2015)

The remainder of this article provides the following: (1) a brief review of archaeological studies ofbirds domesticated in Asia; (2) a statement on previous research of the timing of language family dispersals
in the region; (3) descriptions of the various word forms for each of the three domesticated bird species alongwith generalized maps of their distribution; and (4) a summary of conclusions, hypotheses, and questions
based on the data.

2 Archaeological Studies on Chickens, Ducks, and Geese in Asia
Zooarchaeological studies of chickens, ducks, and geese vary in number and depth. There are numerous
studies of the genetic variety of each species, but the claims of time depth and region of originaldomestication are much more numerous for chickens than for either ducks or geese. Overall, archaeologicaland genetic evidence suggests that instances of domestication of all three birds have occurred in regions of
the Yellow and Yangtze rivers several thousand years ago, while domestication in mainland Southeast Asia
appears to be later, and such claims are not as strongly supported in the literature. Scanes and Willham(2004:279-280) provide a summary: (a) chicken domestication in northeastern China c. 7500 BP, Iran in
5900-5800 BP, and in India in 4000-3000 BP; (b) duck domestication in East Asia and the Fertile Crescent(unspecified timing); (c) goose domestication in East Asia and the Fertile Crescent and/or Egypt by 5000 BP.
Other studies and hypotheses are summarized below.
A connection between domestic chickens and Southeast Asian jungle fowl was made by Darwin(1859:13, referencing a “Mr. Blythe”). Many genetic studies confirm that chickens around the world haveroots in Asia (West and Zhou 1989, Eriksson et. al. 2009, Sawai et. al. 2010, Storey et. al. 2012, Miao 2013,
inter alia), including not only genes of the red jungle fowl of mainland and insular Southeast Asia, as Darwin
had assumed, but also the grey and green jungle fowl of South Asia. This ultimately provides evidence ofmultiple instances of domestication in Southwest China, Southeast Asia, and South Asia. However, theearliest evidence of domesticated chicken bones have been found in China, rather than Southeast Asia, in the
Cishan site in Hebei Province, northern China, with a timing of about 6000 BCE. Most recently, possible
domesticated chicken bones—though possibly still wild jungle fowl—were found at the Nanzhuangtou site,
also in Hebei, back to 8000 BCE (Xiang et.al. 2014). It has been shown that the likely reason for thisnorthern location is that in the mid-Holocene, temperatures were warmer, allowing a variety of warm-climate
animals to reside much farther north in China than is possible today (Ibid.). Archaeological evidence ofdomestic chickens comes much later in Southeast Asia, such as the Ban Chiang site in Thailand, which has
evidence of human cultural activity only from fourth to third millennium BCE (e.g., UNESCO). Still,referring to Underhill (1997), Storey et. al. (2012) support the claim that intentional chicken domestication inSoutheast Asia may go back to the mid-third century BCE.
Unlike essentially flightless chickens, ducks and geese have most likely been domesticated in different
sections of the world. There is evidence, for example, of full-fledged goose husbandry in Egypt in the middleof the third millennium BCE, as shown by replicas of goose pens (Houlihan and Goodman 1986:54, as noted
in Blench and MacDonald 2000). In a similar period and similar way, in China, evidence of poultry
husbandry comes in the form of clay figures of geese made during the Long Shan culture in Hubei province(2,400 to 2,000 BCE) along the Middle Yangtze River (Watson 1969:394). Whether these represent wild ordomestic ducks and geese is argued in the literature (e.g., Albarella 2005:252), but considering thatdomesticated sheep were made into figurines in this region (Barnes 1999), it is certainly possible that thesestatuettes of ducks and geese represent domesticated versions approximately 6,000 years ago in the Yangtze
River region. In contrast, early archaeological evidence of domesticated ducks and geese in Southeast Asia isvery limited.
Overall, archaeological evidence points to chicken domestication in the northern region of the Yellow
River during the Nanzhuangtou culture of the early Holocene period (Xiang et.al. 2014). In contrast, duckand goose domestication may have occurred in the middle Yangtze River region during the mid- to lateHolocene period. Evidence of domesticated chickens in Southeast Asia comes much later, possibly in the 3rd
to second millennium in the Khorat Plateau (UNESCO), but it is difficult to find in archaeological studies
evidence of timing of domesticated ducks and geese in mainland Southeast Asia. Indeed, there is a wellknown dearth of available archaeological evidence from the Holocene era (White 2011:32, Blench
2011:127), and whether earlier archaeological evidence of the practice of raising poultry can be found in
mainland Southeast remains to be seen. In considering the relationship between southern China and mainland
Southeast Asia, one hypothesis holds that, somewhere near the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE, rice41

ALVES | Etyma for ‘Chicken’, ‘Duck’, &‘Goose’ among Language Phyla in China & Southeast Asia | JSEALS 8 (2015)

production was brought south from the Yangtze region, along with domestic livestock (e.g., Higham andHigham 2009:138). Thus, whether bird domestication occurred independently in mainland Southeast Asia,
was brought south by groups, or was perhaps a mixture of both, is a question requiring more data.
This archaeological information makes it worth considering closely the lexical data and its geographic
distribution. Before exploring lexical evidence, a summary of the timing of language phyla is needed tocompare with archaeological dates.

3 Language Phyla in China and Southeast Asia
To consider whether reconstructions of words for poultry can be connected to archaeological evidence, it isnecessary to review proposed dates of proto-language reconstructions of the language groups.4 Researchers
have posited approximate times of major dispersals of the five major established language phyla in theregion based on a variety of different methods (e.g., glottochronology, historical events, archaeological data,
genetics, etc.). Table 1 provides ranges of periods for each language group.
Table 1: Posited Dates of Language Phyla Dispersal in Central China and Southeast Asia
Phyla
Sino-Tibetan
Austroasiatic

Austronesian

Tai-Kadai6
Hmong-Mien7

Dates Range• 4000 to 6000 BCE• 4000 BCE (STEDT); 5000-6000 BCE (Sagart 2008)• 2000 to 6000 BCE• 2000 BCE5 (Sidwell 2010 and Sidwell and Blench 2011); 5000 BCE (Sagart 2008);
5000 BCE (Diffloth 2005:79); 6000 BCE (Peiros 1998:108)• 4000 to 3500 BCE (but with archaeological evidence connecting it to Hemudu
culture 5000-3400 BCE (Bellwood 2006:104) and possible genetic connections
with Daxi culture 6400 to 5300 BCE (Li et.al. 2007))• 4000-3500 BCE (Bellwood 2006:113); 3500 BCE (Sagart 2008:133); at least 3500
BCE on Taiwan (Blust 2013:27)• 1000 to 2000 BCE (but with possible genetic connections to Liangzhu culture 4th
to 2nd mill. BCE (Li et.al. 2007))• 1000 to 2000 BCE (Sagart 2008); 1800 BCE (Peiros 1998:15)• 500 to 800 BCE (but with possible genetic connections with Liangzhu culture 4th
to 2nd mill. BCE (Li et.al. 2007))• 500 BCE (Sagart 2008); 800 BCE (Peiros 1998:116)

Beyond timing, mapping of the possible locations of language phyla homelands can be a useful pointof reference. In a computational study of possible language phyla dispersal points, based on degree of
4

5

6

7

Historical linguistic research in Southeast Asia is complicated by long-term mixing of speech communities.
Moreover, theories at the level of megalocomparison (cf., Matisoff 1990 for discussion), including hypotheses ofAustric (Schmidt 1906, Reid 1991 and 2007), Austro-Tai (Benedict 1942 and 1975), Sino-Tai (Li 1976, Luo 1998,
2000, etc.), and Sino-Austronesian (Sagart 2005, etc.) make the matter of time depth even more uncertain. For thispaper, the most widely recognized language families are used for hypotheses considered in this paper.
Researchers have assumed that Proto-Austroasiatic groups resided in mainland Southeast Asia for thousands ofyears prior to 2000 BCE, but archaeological evidence (e.g., the Phùng Nguyên culture, the Ban Chiang site, etc.) toclarify the timing and geographic spread of the proto-Austroasiatic speech community has yet to be worked out.
The position taken in this article is that Tai-Kadai is related to Austronesian, as per Sagart 2004 and Ostapirat 2013.
Moreover, the genetic study of Li et.al. (2007) on Liangzhu culture based on historical DNA studies also supports anAustronesian-Tai-Kadai genetic connection. If so, Tai-Kadai is a completely restructured Austronesian language
likely due partly to intense, long-term contact with Sinitic groups (see DeLancey 2010 for a summary) which also
restructured Sinitic itself along with Hmong-Mien and the Vietic branch of Austroasiatic.
Haudricourt (1966) and Peiros (1998:155-160), with provocative lexical data of proto-forms, have hypothesized
linguistic connections between Austroasiatic and Hmong-Mien. This position has recently been supported by a study
done by a team of geneticists (Cai et. al. 2011) who note high frequencies of a number of haplogroups shared bythese two speech communities. The team further hypothesizes northward migration of the Hmong-Mien groups.
This would complicate matters significantly. The position in this study is that more supporting data is needed toprove shared origins and separate it from ancient sociolinguistic contact, which results in shared genetic material.

42

ALVES | Etyma for ‘Chicken’, ‘Duck’, &‘Goose’ among Language Phyla in China & Southeast Asia | JSEALS 8 (2015)

diversity, Wichman et. al. (2010:259) put the Sino-Tibetan homeland in Sichuan, Hmong-Mien just south of
the western part of the Yangtze, Tai-Kadai southeast of Hmong-Mien, and Austroasiatic in Central Thailand.
The following are assumptions based on the hypothesized timing and location of the language phyla in lightof archaeological studies of possible timing of bird domestication discussed in the previous section.
• Sino-Tibetan: There is substantial disagreement about the subgrouping and direction of dispersal of
Sino-Tibetan. However, there is archaeological evidence to suggest that early Sino-Tibetan groups, orat least Sinitic groups, were in the region at the time of duck and goose domestication. Regarding
chicken domestication, the time and location of that makes it possible to connect that event with
Cishan-Peiligang culture (8000-5500 BCE), but at upwards of 10,000 BP, it may not be possible to
make a meaningful connection between that event and early Sinitic groups.
• Austroasiatic: Considering the assumption that Austroasiatic has had a presence in mainland Southeast
Asia for at least several thousand years, archaeological studies provide surprisingly little information(as noted in §1) to make claims about bird domestication in relation to Austroasiatic groups. However,linguistic data presented below, combined with the time depths in Table 2, suggest that some instancesof bird domestication may have occurred in Austroasiatic territory, though much later than in northernand central China.
• Austronesian: Despite the presumed mainland origins of Austronesian groups and studies of therelation between the Austronesian dispersal and the spread of chickens in the Pacific, protoAustronesian reconstructions for the domesticated birds in this study are mostly not related, or notproven absolutely in the case of *qayam ‘bird’, to reconstructed words in mainland Southeast Asian
language phyla. Horridge (2006:143-144), in describing the spread of Austronesian groups throughout
the Pacific, notes how early Austronesian groups brought key elements for food production, includingchicken, tubers, and seeds. Words for both ‘duck’ and ‘geese’ both have listed loan forms in Blust andTrussel 2010 and appear to have spread later than the dates considered in this study. Words for‘chicken’, on the other hand, do have a more complex history in Austronesian, as discussed in that
section.
• Tai-Kadai: Claims of the linguistic timing of Tai-Kadai dispersal makes it impossible to connect thegroup with the domestication events, while genetic evidence makes it at least possible to relate thegroups with the domestication of ducks and geese in the Yangtze River region.
• Hmong-Mien: Like Tai-Kadai, the posited timing of the dispersal of Hmong-Mien is too recent to beconnected with the ancient timing of these domestication events. However, archaeogenetic studies of
Hmong-Mien groups (Li et.al. 2007) and the possibility that Hmong-Mien had a more northerly
8
position at some point prior to Chinese southward expansion does make Hmong-Mien a viable group
to consider for ducks and geese.
Overall, while none of the language phyla date back to the potential 10,000-year-old domestication
event of chickens, all language families in the region have time depths that allow the possibility that the
proto-language communities were in Asia at the time of at least some of the poultry domestication events.
However, the timing and location of archaeological studies do not align neatly with the time and location of
language group dispersals, making only tentative hypotheses possible. These matters are dealt with insubsequent sections.

4. Words for Domesticated Birds in China and Southeast Asia
This section discusses possible etymological origins and regional spread of the words in the region fordomesticated birds. The lexical data comes from several major searchable databases and electronic texts,
including the Mon-Khmer Etymological Dictionary, the Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and
Thesaurus, Schuessler’s ‘ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese’, Proto-Tai-o-Matic, Blust’s
Austronesian Comparative Dictionary, among other sources. In addition, various proto-language
reconstructions were used, many published in the past several years (Shorto 2006 for Mon-Khmer, Norquest
8

That Hmong-Mien peoples are the survivors of a larger language family has been suggested to me by Martha Ratliff.
That would account for a larger area of distribution in the past, though it goes against the genetic historical study
noted in footnote 8, which suggests a northward expansion from Southeast Asia. Again, there is insufficient data to
make claims either way.

43

ALVES | Etyma for ‘Chicken’, ‘Duck’, &‘Goose’ among Language Phyla in China & Southeast Asia | JSEALS 8 (2015)

2008 and 2015 for Proto-Hlai, Pittayaporn 2009 for Proto-Tai, Ratliff 2010 for Proto-Hmong-Mien, Baxter
and Sagart 2014 for Old and Middle Chinese, etc.) and thus also in electronic searchable format. Thus, thedata presented is largely historical linguistic data, with lists of proto-language forms and maps of regions ofword forms for each bird. Discussion of possible donor and recipient languages are noted, but discussion of
the sociocultural implications and timing of the emergence of these words is in the concluding thoughts in
section 5.

4.1 Chicken
Reconstructions for the word for ‘chicken’ are available for all language phyla of East, South, and Southeast
Asia, as shown in Table 2. Four categories stand out in the data: (1) a KAJ form in the Sinosphere region ofSouthern China, (2) the ʔIAR form in mainland Southeast Asia and sub-groups among bordering TibetoBurman groups; (3) onomatopoetic forms likely derived from the sound of roosters crowing in Dravidian,
Sanskrit, Formosan, and Sino-Tibetan (with the most reduced form), and (4) words related to and perhaps
derived from ‘bird’ on opposite geographic peripheries (Munda versus Austronesian). Rather than supportinga common origin, onomatopoetic forms highlight the problem with determining etymological origins whensound-symbolism is involved and independent innovation can be a likely source.
Based on data in Table 2, three phonological forms for ‘chicken’ are prominent throughout China andmainland Southeast Asia: KAJ, ʔIAR, and KRAK/KAK, as shown in Map 1. They form three geographic
regions across multiple language families. Hypotheses about the origins and spread of each form arepresented below.
The KAJ form is seen throughout the Sinosphere and goes beyond the circled central portion in Map 1.
It occurs in all varieties of Chinese, Hmong-Mien, and Tai-Kadai down through Thailand, thoughsurprisingly not in Vietic with a reconstruction of *r-ka. It is generally assumed that Sinitic was the donor ofthis form into Tai-Kadai and Hmong-Mien. Sagart (2008:136-137) and Blench (2011:131) both discuss the
Cishan-Peiligang culture’s spread of agriculture, connecting these to early Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian (inSagart’s hypothesis) or at least Sino-Tibetan groups (Blench’s position). However, it is not impossible thatvery early proto-Hmong-Mien groups, if they were in central China at that time, were the innovators (cf.,Blench (2011:131) notes this possibility in regards to agricultural developments), and early Sino-Tibetangroups were the borrowers. It seems unlikely, however, that Tai-Kadai originated this term based on its very
southerly location.
The ʔIAR form appears in only five sub-branches of Austroasiatic, 9 but they stretch across from10
Northeast India, Burma, and Thailand into central Vietnam, though not in Khmer or regions to the south. It
also appears in Kuki-Chin-Naga languages in Northeast India to Burma. ʔIAR is here claimed to be an
Austroasiatic loan in those Tibeto-Burman languages since it is more widespread in Austroasiatic than it is in
Sino-Tibetan, especially in comparison to the Sino-Tibetan KRAK form. One could even speculate that
Khasic was the donor considering its proximity with those Tibeto-Burman groups and its reconstruction of*sʔiar, which is a close match with Matisoff’s (2003) Proto-Tibeto-Burman reconstructions. As a presumed
Austroasiatic etymon, the question remains as to how to account for this northern belt of distribution inAustroasiatic and the lack of the forms to the south or even in Vietic, Katuic, or Munda. One possibility is a
910

Blench (2011:137) lists the number of sub-branches containing the Austroasiatic etyma for ‘chicken’, ‘duck’, and‘goose’ in this study, but the list suggests that they are in six, nine, and nine sub-branches respectively without
indicating which groups, while in this study, the numbers are four, seven, and six with all sub-branches indicated.
The statements in this study are based on the Mon-Khmer Etymological Dictionary, which contains large numbersof both individual languages and proto-language reconstructions. According to the data in that source, only four subbranches have this etymon. If additional data changes the numbers of sub-branches, the relative number in both thisstudy and Blench’s remain the same, and the overall general claims remain the same.
Regarding the Vietic form, I previously assumed it was related somehow to the Sinitic KAJ form. Schuessler(2007:292) lists it a related word, considering it an example of vowel alternation /e/ and /a/ (2007:103). However, as
Ferlus (2007) provides a reconstruction of *r-ka: in Vietic, it is clearly a completely distinct form with a presyllable.
Ferlus (2013:3-4) also notes the apparent borrowing of the Viet-Muong words of the 12-year calendar in Khmer,with the result that Khmer retained the *r-ka: form for the calendar. In contrast, the proto-Katuic form *ʔndruuj(Sidwell 2005), Proto-Pearic *hlɛːk (Headley 1985), Khmer moan (Headley 1997), and Proto-Monic *tjaaŋ (Diffloth1984) also appear to be unrelated to other language groups in the region. Such lexical variety in a small geographic
region where jungle fowl are native is noteworthy.

44

ALVES | Etyma for ‘Chicken’, ‘Duck’, &‘Goose’ among Language Phyla in China & Southeast Asia | JSEALS 8 (2015)

preservation that spread, but it does not appear that these sub-branches form a sub-group. One reason for the
borrowing is developments in the practice of raising chickens, which could account for the sharing of thecultural practice and the lexical item to neighboring Tibeto-Burman groups.
Table 2: Reconstructions for ‘Chicken/Fowl’ in China and Southeast Asia
Type
KAJ

ʔIAR

Proto-Language
Old Chinese
Middle Chinese
Proto-Hmong-Mien11
Proto-Tai
Proto-Kra
Proto-Hlai
Proto-AustronesianProto-Austroasiatic

Onom.

Proto-Tibeto-Burman
Proto-Kuki-Chin
Proto-Tangkhulic
Proto-Sino-Tibetan

PAN-Formosan
Dravidian
Sanskrit“bird”

11

12

13

14
15

Proto-AustronesianProto-Munda

Form (Source)*kˤe (Baxter and Sagart 2014)*kej (Baxter and Sagart 2014)*Kəi (Ratliff 2010)*kajB (Pittayaporn 2009)*ki A (Ostirapat 1999)*khəj (Norquest 2015)12*qayam ‘bird’ (Blust and Trussel 2010)*ʔiər (Shorto 2007)
Proto-Khasic: *sʔiar ‘chicken’ (Sidwell 2012)
Proto-Palaungic: *ʔiər ‘fowl’ (Sidwell 2010)
Proto-Khmuic:*(s)ʔiər ‘chicken’ (Sidwell 2010)
Proto-Bahnaric: *ʔiər ‘chicken’ (Sidwell 2011)*ʔa:r or *ha:r (Matisoff 2003) (141 reflexes)*ʔaar (VanBik 2009)*ar (Mortensen 2012)*k-rak/kak (Matisoff 2003)13 (578+44 reflexes)*tuRukuk (Blust and Trussel 2010)*kar̤ u, kar̤ uku (Burrow and Emeneau 1984)
kukkuṭá (Turner 1962-6:164)*manuk ‘chicken’ (Blust and Trussel 2010)14
15*si(X)m ‘chicken’ (Zide and Zide 1976)

Martha Ratliff (personal communication) notes that Hmong-Mien has both the KAJ form for ‘chicken’ from Sinitic
and the MANUK form for ‘bird’ possibly related to Austronesian, which has apparently replaced MANUK with*qayam ‘bird’, which in turn may be related to KAJ. See footnote 10.
This item is tentatively listed here despite the only partial semantic similarity (*manuk and *qayam alternate
between ‘bird’ and ‘chicken’ in various Austronesian language groups) and no clear explanation for the secondsyllable, if it were related to KAJ. Bellwood (2006:104) notes archaeological evidence of the Zhejiang province siteof Hemudu culture and evidence of various domesticated livestock, including chickens, pigs, and likely others. If
Hemudu culture turns out to be related to the source of proto-Austronesian groups, it might therefore connect the
KAJ form with Proto-Austronesian *qayam ‘bird’. Sagart (2004:167) also identifies the Formosan form *kuka, butnotes (personal communication) that there is no existing archaeological evidence to support such a connection,leaving onomatopoeia a possible explanation for that form. Still, Blust (2013:747) asserts that PAN *qayam meant‘bird’ and *manuk meant ‘chicken’ and then suggests that Formosan languages innovated via onomatopoeia, which
weakens the notion that *qayam is somehow related to KAJ.
STEDT also has the reconstruction *kak, with a note that this may be related to *k-rak. Considering that *kak has
only 44 reflexes in Sino-Tibetan versus *k-rak with 578 reflexes (STEDT as of December 2014), it may indeed be a
reduced variant. Thus, it is not listed separately in Map 1.
See footnote 10.
This is clearly related to widely attested Proto-Austroasiatic *sim ‘bird’.

45

ALVES | Etyma for ‘Chicken’, ‘Duck’, &‘Goose’ among Language Phyla in China & Southeast Asia | JSEALS 8 (2015)

Map 1: Words for ‘Chicken’ in China and Mainland Southeast Asia

Finally, the origin of the Sino-Tibetan (but non-Sinitic) KRAK form is uncertain. It is hypothesized
here that this is a form reduced from a full onomatopoetic form. Fuller forms appear in unrelated language
groups, such as Sanskrit and Dravidian. Other words for birds have been similarly derived fromonomatopoeia, as noted in section, so considering this an onomatopoetic form is not unreasonable. KRAK is
not widespread in northeast China, where chicken domestication probably first took place, so it most likely
has a later date of creation. The debate over the Sino-Tibetan homeland and dispersal (i.e., whether Sinitic
forms a main sub-branch separate from the rest of Tibeto-Burman or is merely one of many sub-branches) is
one that has major implications for the history of these forms. Nevertheless, the notion that Sinitic KAJ could
be older than Tibeto-Burman KRAK is supported by the zooarchaeological data.
4.2 Duck
The three most widespread phonological forms for ‘duck’ in the region are (a) PIT16, a Proto-Tai etymon, (b)DAʔ, an etymon in mainland Austroasiatic, and (c) an AP form widespread in the Sinosphere but ultimatelyof uncertain origins.
The situation is complicated by the spread of all northern forms throughout Austroasiatic subbranches, potentially representing the effect of southward expansion of Tai groups. Table 4 shows theAustroasiatic sub-branches in which *da[ʔ] (a) has been reconstructed to the proto-sub-branch level (threesub-branches) or (b) is widespread in those sub-branches when reconstructions are lacking (noted as‘widespread’). However, Tai PIT was apparently borrowed into Proto-Vietic (likely prior to contact withSinitic), is widespread in Palaungic, and has entered some individual mainland Austroasiatic languages aswell. Moreover, AP is in both Proto-Khmuic and the Mang language. Also notable is the use in Khasic of
HAAN ‘goose’ to refer to ‘duck’, an apparent semantic merging of the term for ‘waterfowl’.

16This form has some complications. Benedict (1975:276) claimed this to be an Austro-Tai cognate *bets and thesource of Lolo-Burmese *bay1/2. While this author assumes Tai-Kadai as a sub-branch of Austronesian, thelanguage families are considered separately due to their distinct histories and distinct lexical forms of all three birds
in this study. In addition, on the western periphery, Indo-Aryan *battakh (also noted as a likely borrowing from
Arabic bat̤ t̤ ax) was borrowed by Kuki-Chin groups, as noted in the STEDT section “Fowl (i.e., domestic birds)”.
The partial similarity of the first syllable with the proto-Tai form may be chance similarity, though it may again be
due to onomatopoeia as part of the creation of the word.

46

ALVES | Etyma for ‘Chicken’, ‘Duck’, &‘Goose’ among Language Phyla in China & Southeast Asia | JSEALS 8 (2015)

Table 3: Reconstructions for ‘Duck’ in China and Southeast Asia
Type
PIT

AP

DAʔ
OthersProto-Language
Proto-Tai
Proto-Hlai
Proto-Vietic
Lolo-Burmese
Old / Middle Chinese
Proto-Hmong-Mien
Proto-Kra
Tani (Tibeto-Burman)
Proto-AustroasiaticProto-Chamic
Proto-Hmong
Proto-Hlai
Proto-Western-Malayo17
PolynesianForm (Source)*pitD (Pittayaporn 2009)*ɓit (Norquest 2008)*vi:t (Ferlus 2007)
bay 1/2 (STEDT)NONE (but widespread AP forms in varieties ofsouthern Chinese)*ʔap (Ratliff 2010)*kap D (Ostiraspat 1999)*ǰap (Sun 1993)*da[ʔ] (Shorto 2007)*ʔada (Thurgood 1999)*ɢu̯ aC (Ratliff 2010)*C-ŋa:nɦ ‘land duck/goose’ (Norquest 2008)*itik (Blust and Trussel 2010)

Table 4: Forms for ‘duck’ among Austroasiatic sub-branchesForms*da[ʔ]PIT
OthersBranches
Proto-Bahnaric, Proto-Katuic, Proto-Monic, Pearic (widespread), Vietic (Thavung), Aslian(widespread), Khmer
Bahnaric (Cheng, Sapuan), Mangic (Bolyu), Palaungic (widespread), Proto-Vietic
Proto-Khasic *haan; Proto-Khmuic *ka:p; Mangic (Mang AP cɨəj⁶ ʔaːp⁷)

The three major forms—AP, PIT, and DAʔ—form three general geographic regions, as shown in Map
2. As with ‘chicken’, there is a northern Sinosphere form with AP. To the south, there are two dominant
forms: Tai PIT and Austroasiatic DAʔ. All three forms can plausibly be considered to be derived fromsound-symbolism related to a duck’s call. However, DAʔ and PIT have more clearly established language
group sources, while the origin of AP is less certain and could come from Sinitic or Hmong-Mien as its
domestication may have occurred south of the Yellow River. These three forms are summarized below.
The AP form is the dominant one in the Sinosphere, like KAJ ‘chicken’. Thus, one hypothesis is that
this is a Sinitic word which spread to Hmong-Mien and the Kra sub-branch of Kra-Dai (and possibly
Khmuic). However, it is not impossible for ancestors of Hmong-Mien or even Tai-Kadai groups to have beenin the region at the time of domestication. Finally, however, as it is a possible instance of onomatopoeia, it
becomes even harder to assign a source language group.
18
The Austroasiatic etymon DAʔ occurs in seven mainland Southeast Asian sub-branches ofAustroasiatic, excluding Khasic, but including Aslian, making it the most widespread Austroasiatic word fora domesticated bird. Paul Sidwell (personal communication) has suggested that DAʔ stems from an Old
Khmer word that spread throughout the region, perhaps at the time of the Funan Empire (68 to 550 CE). If
so, while the form is geographically widespread in the language family, this scenario would make it muchless ancient in the other sub-branches. The form also entered Chamic at the proto-language level (Thurgood
1999:309). Considering this situation, it is possible to hypothesize that the emergence of the Khmer empire
led to the spread of ducks via trading in the first millennium CE.

17

18

Blust (2010 under the section ‘Loans’) claims that Malay bebek ‘duck’, an onomatopoetic form, spread throughout
Western and Central Malayo-Polynesian languages (with bibi as a variant in some languages). Again, due to thesound-symbolism, it is difficult to trace the origins of such words.
Two common phonological realizations of the etymon are with /a/ but also /ia/ in some languages, the latter perhaps
the result of Austroasiatic register, of which one effect is vocalic mutation, such as diphthongization.

47

ALVES | Etyma for ‘Chicken’, ‘Duck’, &‘Goose’ among Language Phyla in China & Southeast Asia | JSEALS 8 (2015)

Map 2: Words for ‘Duck’ in China and Mainland Southeast Asia

The PIT form is a likely etymon from the Tai branch of Tai-Kadai as it is most widespread in that
language group, down through Thailand, but sporadic in other language groups. It has spread into a numberof Austroasiatic languages, and in Vietnamese at the Proto-Vietic stage, making that loanword possibly a
Dong Son era borrowing. A comparable Chinese character 鴄 ‘wild duck’ (Mandarin pī and Cantonese pat1)
exists (noted by Manomaivibool 1975:124 and 331), but it is archaic in Chinese and extremely rare.19 While鴄 is listed in the Kangxi Dictionary, defined as having the meaning of the standard Chinese 鴨 ‘duck’, theAP form, and it is mentioned in the Liji ‘Book of Rites’, appearing in the homophonous reduced form 匹
only once, it appears in writings mainly from the much later Ming Dynasty.20 It thus seems likely to be a Tai
word that has had minimal presence in Chinese.
Overall, the matter of the spread of the term for ‘duck’ in the region is more complex in the north.
Table 3 shows that Hmong-Mien and Tai-Kadai both have competing lexical forms for ‘duck’. Bothlanguage families have AP and one other term unrelated to Sinitic. The more apparently onomatopoetic form
AP is more widespread. While the forms not in Sinitic appear to be innovations within each group, it is notclear whether they predate or antedate the AP form and how they could relate to duck domestication in thoseregions.
4.3 GooseAmong language phyla in the region, there are two widespread phonological forms for words for ‘geese’: (a)a NGAN/NGA form, which is has a large geographic range largely to the north, and (b) a HAAN form, seen
in both Tai and mainland Southeast Asian Austroasiatic. Moreover, there are distinct words for domesticatedversus wild geese, a phenomenon not seen for ‘chicken’ or ‘duck’.
It is here proposed that (a) HAAN and NGAN are likely related, (b) NGA and NGAN would appear
related, though whether morphologically related (i.e., an /-n/ suffix discussed below) is less clear, and (c)onomatopoeia overlaps all the forms and potentially obfuscates their origins and histories. The following
points summarize key issues of the virtual allofam (as these forms do appear to come from the same lexicalsource) in the region.

19

20

To highlight the rarity of the character, a Google search for 鴄 pī results in only 100,000 hits, but for the typical
Chinese word for duck 鸭 yā, there are 25 million hits.
The online databases of ancient Chinese texts (from the West Zhou Dynasty to the Qing Dynasty) of the Chinese
Text Project and the Sheffield Corpus of Chinese were both searched to determine the approximate age of the word
in Chinese.

48

ALVES | Etyma for ‘Chicken’, ‘Duck’, &‘Goose’ among Language Phyla in China & Southeast Asia | JSEALS 8 (2015)

Proto-Indo-European *ghansōr (cf. Germanic *gans) is similar to Proto-Sino-Tibetan *ŋa-n and very
similar to Old Chinese *C.ŋˤrar-s and some proto-forms in sub-branches of Tai-Kadai. As noted in
section 2, goose domestication was developed in Egypt by the third millennium BCE, a similar time tothat in China. However, there is no concrete evidence to suggest transmission of goose husbandry
across Central Asia at such an early time.
Li (1977:46) claimed that the Chinese form entered proto-Tai, positing a relationship between the
Sinitic NGAN form and the Tai HAAN form, as noted in Schuessler’s Old Chinese etymologicaldictionary (2007:556). However, both Proto-Hlai and Proto-Kam-Sui both have the NGAN form, andthe only other Sino-Tai loanword with the OC initial *ŋ and Proto-Tai initial *h is ‘five’.
It has been hypothesized that there was a Sino-Tibetan final /-n/ (Coblin 1986), and the STEDT
website similarly posits a tentative *nga-n form. However, problems with this claim have been noted(Schuessler 2007:556). It is also questionable to posit that the word for domestic goose preceded theword for wild goose.

•

•

•

Table 5: Reconstructions for ‘Goose’ in China and Southeast Asia
Type
HAAN
NGAN

Proto-Language
Proto-AustroasiaticProto-Tai
Proto-Sino-Tibetan
Old Chinese
Proto-Kam-Sui
Proto-Hlai
Proto-Hmong-Mien
Vietnamese
Proto-Indo-European

NGA

Old Chinese
Proto-Hlai

Form (Source)*haan (Shorto 2006)*ha:nB (Pittayaporn 2009)*ŋa-n (STEDT)*C.ŋˤrar-s (雁 Mandarin yàn; Cantonese ngaan6) wild
goose’ (Baxter and Sagart 2014)*ŋrāns (Peiros 2008)21*C-ŋa:nɦ (also ‘land duck’) (Norquest 2008:465);*ɓunɦ (Norquest 2015)
NONE (but a likely NGAN form)22
ngan ‘goose (wild)’ngỗng ‘goose (domesticated)’*ghansōr (López-Menchero 2009);*g̑ han-s- (Pokorny 1959)*ŋˤar ‘domestic goose’ (鵝 Mandarin é;
Cantonese ngo4) (Baxter and Sagart 2014)*C-ŋe: (Norquest 2008:465)

Finally, there is the issue of the widespread appearance of Tai HAAN through Mainland Southeast
Asian Austroasiatic languages extending westward to Khasic. It would make sense if the word for ‘goose’
spread in a similar time as the Old Khmer word for ‘duck’, though it would have been due primarily to Taigroups’ southward migration. As with words for duck, the geographic spread of words for ‘goose’ among
Austroasiatic languages shows a complex range of language contact. The HAAN form of ‘goose’ isreconstructed for two groups or widespread in four more Austroasiatic sub-branches (though in Proto-Khasic
it means ‘duck’). However, the NGAN form is also widespread in Austroasiatic, even in regions without
large Tibeto-Burman speech communities, such as Bahnaric, Katuic, and Khmeric. In the region of Northern
Vietnam, the Vietnamese word ngỗng ‘goose’ appears in Vietic, Katuic (Pacoh), and several languages of
Bahnaric. Finally, some Aslian languages (Temiar and Semai) have loans from Malay angsa, originally
Sankskrit (Blust and Trussel 2010), and hence an Indo-European etymon).

21

22

While Peiros’ method is to refer to the Chinese language reconstruction as it is the donor language, all five of the
Kam-Sui languages have the same phonological form /ŋa:n6/.
In Chen’s 2014 study of Hmong-Mien, as noted by Martha Ratliff (personal communication), in the list for ‘goose’of the 26 varieties of Hmong-Mien, two have the Tai HAAN forms, while the rest have the NGAN form. The formin Hmong-Mien is most likely a Sinitic loan. Ratliff (2010:225) notes how initial velar nasals in Hmong-Mien tend
to appear primarily in loanwords. Moreover, Ratliff sees this as an instance of a broader cultural borrowing of theSinitic home lifestyle.

49

ALVES | Etyma for ‘Chicken’, ‘Duck’, &‘Goose’ among Language Phyla in China & Southeast Asia | JSEALS 8 (2015)

Table 6: Words for “Goose” in Austroasiatic
FORMS
HAAN
NGAN
NGONG
OTHER

BRANCHES
Proto-Palaungic; Proto-Khmuic; Bahnaric (widespread); Katuic (widespread);
Monic (widespread); Pearic (in Pear)
Proto-Khmuic; Bahnaric (Brao); Katuic (Kui); Khmeric (widespread; with /k/prefix); Vietic
Vietic; Bahnaric; Katuic (Pacoh)
Khasic (cf. Proto Khasic ‘duck’ *haan); Aslian (Malay loans); Nicobaric

Map 3 shows the general regions of the northern NGAN form and the southern HAAN form.
Considering the occurrence of overlapping phonetic shapes, however, it is probable that they share origins
and are not merely the result of onomatopoeia. Based on both linguistic and archaeological evidence, it isreasonable to suggest that Sinitic helped to spread the word into neighboring language groups, including
other Sino-Tibetan groups. Tai-Kadai groups borrowed the term, and then Tai HAAN was subsequently
borrowed into Austroasiatic languages. However, whether the origins of the form lie in the Fertile Cresent or
East Asia is currently an unanswerable question.
Map 3: Words for ‘Goose’ in China and Mainland Southeast Asia

4. Final Hypotheses and Questions
The goal of this study has been to use linguistic and archaeological data and studies to explore the
etymological origins and spread of words for poultry, namely, ‘chicken,’ ‘duck,’ and ‘goose’, in China andmainland Southeast Asia. This has touched on issues of sociocultural history in the region. It thus provides acase study in testing the limits of what can be said about the linguistic history of words in speechcommunities several thousand years in the past. It also involves grappling with the matter of language phyla
classification and timing as well as interphyla borrowing in a region with tremendous complexity anduncertainty. Finally, the lexical data show how onomatopoeia was a recurring word-formation strategy toname birds in this region, which, while interesting, inserts some uncertainty in all claims of origins andborrowing. Some of the primary conclusions include those in Table 7.

50

ALVES | Etyma for ‘Chicken’, ‘Duck’, &‘Goose’ among Language Phyla in China & Southeast Asia | JSEALS 8 (2015)

Table 7: Summary of word forms and possible language group sources
Bird
chicken

duck

goose

Form
Likely Source
KAJ
Sinitic
KRAK
Sino-Tibetan
ʔIAR
AustroasiaticAP
uncertain source
PIT
Tai
DAʔ
Austroasiatic
NGAN / Sinitic
NGA
HAAN
Kra-Dai via Sinitic

Notes
spread into Kra-Dai and Hmong-Mien
onomatopoeia (likely reduced form)
spread into Kuki-Chin-Naga
onomatopoeia
spread into Vietic and other Austroasiaticmost widespread poultry word in Austroasiatic
spread into Hmong-Mien and Kra-Dai; possible sharedorigins with Proto-Indo-European
loanword in Austroasiatic in Mainland Southeast Asia

To return to the original question posed in section 1, could any of these etyma be connected to theearliest instances of poultry domestication? The archaeological studies provide hypothetical areas and timesof poultry domestication, but these are still subject to debate and further zooarchaeological inquiry. To agood extent, while the major language phyla in the region are agreed upon (i.e., Austroasiatic, Austronesian,Hmong-Mien, Sino-Tibetan, and Tai-Kadai/Kra-Dai), the relationships among them, the timing of language
group dispersals, and the urheimat are still being explored. Increasingly, attempts have been made to connect
modern language groups with archaeological traditions and with ancient historical groups (e.g., Sinitic with
Cishan-Peiligang culture, Tai and Vietic with Baiyue, etc.), but while this area gains ground, thesehypotheses are regarded as tentative in the research community. Altogether, this situation presents
considerable challenges in trying to link sociocultural historical events with linguistic history.
Nevertheless, in this study of poultry, broad geographic regions of word forms have emerged acrosslanguage phyla. One hypothesis is that these geographic lexical centers could represent domestication events
which subsequently spread to other speech communities. It is generally assumed that basic vocabulary (i.e.,words common to the human experience) tend to be replaced at slower rates than culturally specific words.
Thus, words that are the result of innovation within a speech community, especially items or activities thatare sociologically attractive or highly functional, are more readily transmitted. And insofar as there isarchaeological evidence of prehistoric trade of pottery, jade, and bronze, and the transmission of ricegrowing and other agricultural practices, there has almost undoubtedly been transmission of animalhusbandry.
A final point that could clarify direction of borrowing of terms for domesticated poultry is a term for‘cage’. Throughout mainland Southeast Asian Austroasiatic, Tai, and Sino-Tibetan, there is the approximate
form KRUNG meaning ‘cage’ or some kind of holding place for animals (e.g., ‘pen’, ‘sty’, etc.). Such a
device is essential for animal husbandry, and it is possible, if not likely, that the spread of poultry or at least
some bird husbandry practices occurred simultaneously with the spread of devices to hold them. The
geography region of KRUNG parallels the region for NGAN and HAAN shown in Map 3. Can thisadditional lexical item provide support for HAAN in both Tai and mainland Southeast Asian Austroasiatic,
thereby providing a general time from for this spread of these words and husbandry practices? Morearchaeological evidence would be needed to answer this question.
Table 8: KRUNG for ‘cage’ in China and Mainland Southeast Asia
Proto-Language
Austroasiatic
Old Chinese
Sino-Tibetan
Tai-Kadai

Reconstruction*[t]ruŋ ‘stable, sty, cage’
cf. *kruŋ ‘to confine’ (Shorto 2006)*k.rˤoŋ (Baxter and Sagart 2014)*kruːŋ (STEDT)*kru̥ oŋ (Li 1977)

How can linguistic evidence provide clarifying evidence in this realm? Data does support in various
ways the centrality of Sinitic within the Sinosphere and the southward expansion of groups from south China
into Southeast Asia, a period which has few corroborating written historical documents. It also supports the
hypothesis of expansion of Tai groups into mainland Southeast Asia. It shows exchange among51

ALVES | Etyma for ‘Chicken’, ‘Duck’, &‘Goose’ among Language Phyla in China & Southeast Asia | JSEALS 8 (2015)

Austroasiatic, Tibeto-Burman, and Tai groups, an aspect which has no explicit historical documentation. The
degree to which a word form is spread within a language family has been considered useful in determining
the age of such words, and thus also the relative age of the groups. In Austroasiatic, words for ‘chicken’ areless widespread than words for ‘duck’ and ‘goose’, as noted by Blench (2011:137). This could be interpreted
as meaning that geese and especially ducks were domesticated by Austroasiatic groups significantly earlier
than chickens were, and yet the geographically widespread form for ‘chicken’ suggests the possibility of adomestication event very early in the prehistoric period. Does diversity of lexical forms in language groups
indicate a later time of developing or adopting the practice of chicken or duck husbandry, or does it meanthat there was more time depth to allow the increased lexical variety?
Finally, the data can provide points of reference for other broader historical anthropological inquiry.
For instance, how does lexical evidence of poultry domestication correspond to understanding of theemergence of agriculture in north China, central China, and mainland Southeast Asia? Hopefully, themapping of these word forms and the relevant historical and archaeological data will have use to thoseengaged in research of human sociocultural history.

References
Albarella, Umberto. 2005. Alternate fortunes? The role of domestic duck and geese from Roman to Medieval
times in Britain. In G. Grupe and J. Peters (eds.), Documenta Archaeolbiologiea III: Feathers, Grit,and Symbolism, 248-258.
Barnes, Gina L. 1999. The Rise of Civilization in East Asia: the Archaeology of China, Korea, and Japan.
Thames and Hudson, London.
Baxter, William H., and Laurent Sagart. 2014. Old Chinese: a new reconstruction. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bellwood, Peter. 2005. First Farmers: the Origins of Agricultural Societies. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Bellwood, Peter. 2006. Austronesian prehistory in Southeast Asia: homeland, expansion and transformation.
In Peter Bellwood, James J. Fox, and Darrell Tryon (eds.), The Austronesians: Historical andComparative Perspectives. Canberra, Australia: ANU E Press at the Australia National University.
103-118.
Blench, Roger and Kevin C. MacDonald. 2000. Chickens. In Kenneth F. Kiple and Kriemhild Conneè
Ornelas (eds.), The Cambridge World History of Food. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 496498.
Blench, Roger. 2011. The role of agriculture in the evolution of mainland Southeast Asia language phyla. In
N.J. Enfield (ed.), Dynamics of Human Diversity. 125-152. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Blust, Robert. 2013. The Austronesian languages. Asia-Pacific Linguistics: Open Access Monographs.
Canberra, Australia: The Australian National University.
Blust, Robert and Stephen Trussel. 2010. Austronesian Comparative Dictionary. Web.
http://www.trussel2.com/ACD/acd-ak_a.htm. Updated December 21, 2014. (Accessed: March 1,
2015).
Burrow, T. and M.B. Emeneau. 1984. A Dravidian etymological dictionary. Digital Dictionaries of SouthAsia, University of Chicago. Web. http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/burrow/index.html. Updated
January 2006. (Accessed: January 31, 2015).
Cai, Xiaoyun, et. al. 2011. Human migration through bottlenecks from Southeast Asia into East Asia during
last glacial maximum revealed by Y chromosomes. PLoS ONE 6(8): e24282.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024282.
Chen, Qiguang (陈其光). 2014. Miaoyao Yuwen (苗瑶语文) [Miao and Yao Language]. Beijing: China
Minzu University Press (中共民族大学出版社).
Darwin, Charles. 1999 (originally in 1859). On the Origin of Species. New York: Bantam Dell.
Diffloth, Gérard. 2005. The contribution of linguistic palaeontology to the homeland of Austro-asiatic. In
Sagart, Laurent, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas (eds.), The Peopling of East Asia: Putting
Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics. Routledge/Curzon. 79-82.
52

ALVES | Etyma for ‘Chicken’, ‘Duck’, &‘Goose’ among Language Phyla in China & Southeast Asia | JSEALS 8 (2015)

Druzhkova, Anna S. et. al. 2013. Ancient DNA analysis affirms the canid from Altai as a primitive dog.
PLoS ONE 8(3): DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057754.
Eriksson, Jonas. et. al. 2008. Identification of the Yellow Skin Gene Reveals a Hybrid Origin of theDomestic Chicken. PLoS Genetics 2008, vol. 4, iss. 2, e1000010.
Ferlus, Michel. 2010. Le cycle des douze animaux: histoire d'un contact ancien entre Vietnam et Cambodge.
Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 39.1:3-19.
Hai, Xiang, et.al. 2014. Early Holocene chicken domestication in northern China. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, vol. 11, no. 49.
Haspelmath, Martin & Tadmor, Uri (eds.) 2009. World loanword database. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for
Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wold.clld.org. (Accessed on 02 February, 2015).
Haudricourt, André G. 1966. The Limits and Connections of Austroasiatic in the Northeast. In Norman H.
Zide (ed.), Studies in Comparative Austroasiatic Linguistics. Mouton & Co. 44-56.
Higham, Charles. 2013. Hunter-gatherers in Southeast Asia: from prehistory to the present. Human Biology,
February–June 2013, vol 85: 1–3. 21–44.
Higham, Charles. 2014. Early mainland Southeast Asia: from first humans to Angkor. Bangkok: River Books
Press.
Horridge, Adrian. 2006. The Austronesian conquest of the sea. In Peter Bellwood, James J. Fox, and Darrell
Tryon (eds.), The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Canberra, Australia: ANU
E Press at the Australia National University. 143-160.
Houlihan, P. F.; S. M. Goodman 1986. The Birds of Ancient Egypt. Warminster England.
Li, Fang-Kuei. 1976. Sino-Tai. Computational Analysis of Asian and African Languages 3:39-48.
Li, H.F., W.Q. Zhu, K.W. Chen, Y.H, W.J. Xu, and W. Song. 2011. Two maternal origins of Chinese
domestic goose. Poultry Science 90: 2705–2710. doi: 10.3382/ps.2011-01425.
Li, H, Huang Y, Mustavich LF, Zhang F, Tan JZ, Wang LE, Qian J, Gao MH, Jin L. 2007. Y chromosomesof prehistoric people along the Yangtze River. Journal of Human Genetics 2007 Nov 122 (3-4). 383-8.
Luo, Yongxian. 2000. From “head” to “toe”: Sino-Tai lexical correspondences in body part terms. Journal of
Chinese linguistics 28.1: 67-99.
Luo, Yongxian. 1998. Evidence for a series of sibilant clusters in Tai and Sino-Tai Relationship. Journal of
Chinese linguistics 26.1: 71-125.
López-Menchero, Fernando. 2009. A Grammar of Modern Indo-European, Second Edition: Language andCulture, Writing System and Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Texts and Dictionary. CreateSpace
Independent Publishing Platform.
Luff, Rosemary. 2000. Ducks. In Kenneth F. Kiple and Kriemhild Conneè Ornelas (eds.), The Cambridge
World History of Food. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 517-523.
MacDonald, K. C. and R. M. Blench. 2000. Chickens. in Kenneth F. Kiple and Kriemhild Conee` Ornelas(eds.), The Cambridge World History of Food, Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press. 496-499.
MacDonald, Kevin C. and Roger Blench. 2000. Geese. In Kenneth F. Kiple and Kriemhild Conneè Ornelas(eds.), The Cambridge World History of Food, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 529530.
Matisoff, James A. 1990. On megalocomparison. Language 66.1: 106-20.
Matisoff, James A. 2003. Handbook of Proto-Sino-Tibetan. University of California Press.
Miao, Y-W, et. al. 2013. Chicken domestication: an updated perspective based on mitochondrial genomes.
Heredity (2013) 110, 277–282; doi:10.1038/hdy.2012.83.
Niu, D. et. al. 2002. The origin and genetic diversity of Chinese Native Chicken breeds. Biochemical
Genetics 40: 163-174.
Norquest, Peter. K. 2008. A Phonological Reconstruction of Proto-Hlai. Dissertation. The University of
Arizona.
Norquest, Peter. 2015. A Phonological Reconstruction of Proto-Hlai. Brill.
53

ALVES | Etyma for ‘Chicken’, ‘Duck’, &‘Goose’ among Language Phyla in China & Southeast Asia | JSEALS 8 (2015)

Ostapirat, Weera. 2013. Austro-Tai Revisited. Paper given at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Southeast
Asian Linguistics Society, May 29-31, 2013, Chulalongkorn University.
http://jseals.org/seals23/ostapirat2013austro-taih.pdf.
Peiros, Ilia. 1998. Comparative Linguistics in Southeast Asia. Pacific Linguistics Series C, No. 142.
Canberra: Australian National University.
Peiros, Ilya. 2008. Kam-sui etymology. Unpublished, posted on starling.rinet.ru. (Accessed: December 12,2014).
Peiros, Ilia and V. Shnirelman. 1998. Rice in Southeast Asia: a Regional Interdisciplinary Approach. In
Roger Blench and M. Spriggs (eds.), Archaeology and Language, archaeological data and Linguistic
hypotheses Vol. II: 379–389. London: Routledge.
Peregrine, Peter N. (compiler). 2001 (revised 2010). Outline of Archeological Traditions: Asia. unpublished
PDF manuscript. Human Relations Area Files, Inc.
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern/Stuttgart: Francke.
Proto-Tai-o-matic. Bangkok: Center for Research in Computational Linguistics. Web.
http://sealang.net/crcl/proto/. (Accessed 15 February, 2015).
Ratliff, Martha. 2010. Hmong-Mien Language History. Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics.
Sagart, Laurent. 2004. The higher phylogeny of Austronesian and the position of Tai–Kadai. Oceanic
Linguistics 43.411-440.
Sagart, Laurent. 2008. The expansion of Setaria farmers in East Asia: a linguistic and archeological model.
In A. Sanchez-Mazas, R. Blench, M. Ross, I. Peiros and M. Lin (eds.), Past Human Migrations in East
Asia: Matching Archeology, Linguistics and Genetics. 133-157. London: Routledge Curzon.
Scanes, Colin and Richard L. Willham. 2005. Agriculture - a short history. In John A. Miranowski and Colin
G. Scanes (eds.), Perspectives in World Food and Agriculture 2004, vol. 2: 273-298. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
SEALang Mon-Khmer Etymological Dictionary. http://www.sealang.net/monkhmer/dictionary/. (Accessed 3
March, 2015).
Sidwell, Paul. 2010. The Austroasiatic central riverine hypothesis. Journal of Language Relationship 4(2010): 117–134.
Sidwell, Paul and Roger Blench. 2011. The Austroasiatic urheimat: the Southeastern riverine hypothesis. In
Nick Enfield (ed.), Dynamics of Human Diversity, 317-345. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
The Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus. The University of California, Berkeley.
http://stedt.berkeley.edu/~stedt-cgi/rootcanal.pl. (Accessed 15 April 2015).
STEDT. 2011. The Sino-Tibetan Language Family. In The Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and
Thesaurus, June 29, 2011. University of California at Berkeley.
Storey, Alice A., et. al. 2012. Investigating the global dispersal of chickens in prehistory using ancient
mitochondrial DNA signatures. PLoS ONE Vol. 7, Iss. 7: e39171. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039171.
Thurgood, Graham. 1999. From Ancient Cham to Modern Dialects: Two Thousand Years of Language
Contact and Change: With an Appendix of Chamic Reconstructions and Loanwords. Oceanic
Linguistics Special Publications, No. 28.
Turner, Ralph L. 1962-1966. A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. London: Oxford
University Press.
UNESCO. Ban Chiang archaeological site. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/575. (Accessed 11, November,2014).
Van Driem, George. 2007. Austroasiatic phylogeny and the Austroasiatic homeland in light of recent
population genetic studies. Mon-Khmer Studies 37:1-14.
Van Driem. 2011. Rice and the Austroasiatic and Hmong-Mien homelands. In N. J. Enfield (ed.), Dynamics
of Human Diversity, 361-390. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Watson, W. 1969. Early domestication in China. In P. J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby (eds.), The
Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, 393–5. Aldine Transaction.
54

ALVES | Etyma for ‘Chicken’, ‘Duck’, &‘Goose’ among Language Phyla in China & Southeast Asia | JSEALS 8 (2015)

West, Barbara and Ben-Xiong Zhou. 1989. Did chickens go north? New evidence for domestication. World’s
Poultry Science Journal, 45.3: 205-218. Cambridge University Press.
Wichmann, Sören, André Müller, and Viveka Velupillai. 2010. Homelands of the world's language families:
A quantitative approach. Diachronica 27.2: 247-276.
Wucheng, B. 1988. The research on the origin of the house-duck in China. In Proceedings of theInternational Symposium on Waterfowl Production. The Satellite Conference for the 18th World's
Poultry Congress, Beijing, China. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 125-129.
Zide, Arlene R.K. and Norman H. Zide. 1976. Proto-Munda Cultural Vocabulary: Evidence For Early
Agriculture. In Philip N. Jenner et al. (eds.), Austroasiatic Studies. Honolulu: The University Press of
Hawaii. 1295-1334.

55