Studies in Asian Geolinguistics, Monograph Series No. 7

Papers from the Workshop“Phylogeny, Dispersion, and Contact ofEast and Southeast Asian Languages
and Human Groups”

ILCAA Joint Research Project 2015 - 2017 “Studies in Asian Geolinguistics”
Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

Studies in Asian Geolinguistics, Monograph Series No. 7

Papers from the Workshop“Phylogeny, Dispersion, and Contact of East and Southeast
Asian Languages and Human Groups”
Report of ILCAA Joint Research Project 2015–2017“Studies in Asian Geolinguistics”
First published 2019
Edited by Hiroyuki Suzuki, Keita Kurabe & Mitsuaki Endo
Copyright © 2019 Individual Contributors

ISBN 978-4-86337-314-3
This is an electronic publication in PDF format.
This publication is offered under Creative Commons International License
Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Published by
Research Institute for
Languages and Cultures ofAsia and Africa (ILCAA)
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
3-11-1, Asahi-cho, Fuchu-shi,
183-8534, Tokyo, JAPANhttps://publication.aa-ken.jp/

This work is a product of the ILCAA Joint Project Studies in Asian Geolinguistics.

Table of Contents
Program.......................................................................................................................................... i
Mitsuaki Endo, Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
Ray Iwata & Takashi Ueya, Lexical Innovation and Inter-Dialectal Distancein Chinese ...................................................................................................................... 3
Fumiki Suzuki, Characteristics of the Geographical Distribution of Words Denoting
Cultural Items in Sinitic Languages ............................................................................ 14
Kazuo Miyamoto, Prehistoric Cultural Change in East Asia and Language Groups ............... 22
Kenji Yagi, Notes on front rounded vowels in Sinitic languages ............................................... 28
Hiroyuki Suzuki, How Tibetans classify pigs in their languages in the eastern Tibetosphere:
Revisiting the pig issue through geolinguistics ........................................................... 40
Ting Ji, Hanzhi Zhang, Thomas E. Currie, Andrew Meade, Mark Pagel & Ruth Mace,
Applied Phylolinguistics in Cultural Comparative Studies: A Case Study ofSino-Tibetan Kinship Evolution .................................................................................. 54

The cover collage was made of the figures retrieved fromhttps://pixabay.com/photos/dna-biology-science-molecule-2259813/
as well as Satoko Shirai, ‘It rains’ in Asia, in Studies in Asian Geolinguistics, VIII, p. 22, 2018.

Program
Pre-conference Workshop of the 27th Annual Conference of International Association ofChinese Linguistics (IACL-27)
国际中国语言学学会第 27 届年会 会前工作坊
Phylogeny, Dispersion, and Contact of East and Southeast Asian Languages andHuman Groups东亚与东南亚语言及人类群体的谱系、扩散和接触

Date:

9th May, 2019

Venue:

Seminar Room 4, Kobe Unity

10:30-11:45

Chair: Endo, Mitsuaki (Aoyama Gakuin University)

主持人：远藤光晓（青山学院大学）
Endo, Mitsuaki (Aoyama Gakuin University), Introduction远藤光晓（青山学院大学），前言
Iwata, Ray (Komatsu University), Lexical Innovation and Inter-Dialectal Distance in Chinese
岩田礼（小松大学），汉语的词汇创新与方言间距离Suzuki, Fumiki (Nanzan University), Characteristics of the geographical distribution of words
denoting cultural items in Sinitic languages
鈴木史己（南山大学），汉语族文化词地理分布特征

13:00-14:30

Chair: Sagart, Laurent (CNRS, France)

主持人：沙加尔（法国国家科学研究中心）
Saitou, Naruya (National Institute of Genetics), In Search of Yaponesian People’s Urheimats
斋藤成也（国立遗传学研究所），追寻扶桑人的原乡iKanzawa-Kiriyama, Hideaki (National Museum of Nature and Science), Tracing movements ofancient East Asian populations using ancient human genome sequences
神泽秀明（国立科学博物馆），基于古代人类基因组跟踪古代东亚群体的迁徙
Miyamoto, Kazuo (Kyushu University), Prehistoric cultural change in East Asia
宫本一夫（九州大学），东亚先史文化演变

14:45-16:15

Chair: Iwata, Ray (Komatsu University)

主持人：岩田礼（小松大学）
Sagart, Laurent (CNRS), Origins of tone in Kra-Dai
沙加尔（法国国家科学研究中心），侗台语声调的起源
Yagi, Kenji (Kokushikan University), Notes on front rounded vowels in Sinitic languages
八木坚二（国士馆大学），汉语族前圆唇元音札记
Suzuki, Hiroyuki (University of Oslo), How Tibetans classify pigs in their languages in theeastern Tibetosphere鈴木博之（奥斯陆大学），东部藏区语言中藏族对“猪”的分类

16:30-18:00

Chair: Saito, Naruya (National Institute of Genetics, Japan)

主持人：斋藤成也（国立遗传学研究所）
Ji, Ting (Institute of Zoology, CAS), Hanzhi Zhang (University College London), Thomas E.
Currie (University of Exeter), Andrew Meade (University of Reading), Mark Pagel (Universityof Reading/ Santa Fe Institute) & Ruth Mace (University College London), Applied
Phylolinguistics in Cultural Comparative Studies – A Case Study of Sino-Tibetan Kinship
Evolution
季婷（中科院）、张涵之（伦敦大学学院）、汤玛斯·库里（埃克塞特大学）、安德鲁·米德（雷丁大学）、马克·佩格尔（雷丁大学）、露丝·梅斯（伦敦大学学院），语言谱系在文化比较研究中的应用：以汉藏亲系演化为例
Taguchi, Yoshihisa (Chiba University), Hmong-Mien: A Phylogenetic Overview
田口善久（千叶大学），苗瑶语谱系概观ii

Hamada, Takeshi (Mie University), Reconstructing the past in a tree: On the challenges andvalidity of the cladistic approach to the history of Sinitic
滨田武志（三重大学），过去的树状构拟：进化枝方法对汉语族史的尝试及其有效性iii

Introduction
Mitsuaki Endo
Faculty of Economics, Aoyama Gakuin University

At the beginning of this workshop, we pay homage with great reverence and honour to the memory of
the late professor Mantaro J. Hashimoto. I also appreciate the attendance of our two distinguished guests,
Professor William Wang and Laurent Sagart at our meeting.
Professor Hashimoto was well known as a proponent of typo-geography in the East Asian region.
This discipline combines dialect geography and linguistic typology. The idea of this workshop,“Phylogeny, Dispersion, and Contact of East and Southeast Asian Languages and Human Groups” isactually inspired from a section of the former International Congress of Orientalists that originated in
Paris in 1873 and is now called the “International Congress of Human Sciences in Asia and North
Africa.”When the meeting was held in Japan in 1983, Professor Hashimoto organized a session named“Linguistic and Cultural Ties among East and Southeast Asian People.” He presented the keynote
speech entitled “Origin of the East Asian Linguistic Structure----Latitudinal Transitions andLongitudinal Developments of East and Southeast Asian Languages” in the presence of linguists such as
Benedict, Dyen, Egerod, and others, as well as archaeologists such as Solheim and Nitta, and apaleoclimatologist named Hideo Suzuki.
As widely acknowledged, Professor Hashimoto was a pioneer of multidisciplinary collaborations
among linguistics, archaeologists, and geneticists. He planned a joint project with Professor Keiichi
Omoto, an eminent geneticist and the supervisor of Professor Naruya Saito who is seated in thisaudience. However, this project was cancelled because of his untimely death in 1987.
After Professor Hashimoto passed away, Professor Ray Iwata organized the younger generation ofscholars at that time and initiated a series of projects on Chinese dialect geography, but now all of us areabout to retire or already superannuated.
Professor Iwata has played key role in each of the five 3-year projects. When Professor Hirata
became the head, he invited Professor Kazuo Miyamoto who will deliver a presentation on archaeology
later. When I served as a representative, Professor Naruya Saito also engaged with our project alongwith other archaeologist and geographer, and Professor Wang invited him to the first annual meeting of
the International Association of Chinese Linguistics (IACL) in Singapore, where Professors Iwata and
Lamarre made his acquaintance. In fact, Professor Wang was also Professor Hashimoto’s supervisor at
Ohio State University. We thus appreciate this profound affinity between the two eminent luminaries ofour discipline.
The fruits of these projects were published in the internal progress reports of grant-in-aid JSPS, andfinally, Professor Iwata published two volumes of The Interpretive Maps of Chinese Dialects. He also
persuaded Professor Cao Zhiyun to begin a project on the Linguistic Atlas of Chinese Dialects.
Dialect geography has a long tradition in Japan. This discipline began to be practiced in Japan
almost as soon as it was initiated in Germany and France. Professor Iwata applied this tradition to thedomain of Chinese dialects, and recently, I began expanding the area of research to the whole of Asiawith the assistance of many colleagues. Since 2012, the International Conference on Asian
Geolinguistics has been held every two years. The first meeting was conducted at Aoyama Gakuin
University in Tokyo, and subsequent ones in Thailand, Cambodia, and Indonesia. The proceedings ofthese conferences may be downloaded from the following websites: https://agsj.jimdo.com/ andhttps://publication.aa-ken.jp/.
Moreover, a joint project at the Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa,
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies (ILCAA, TUFS) called Studies in Asian Geolinguistics was1

undertaken between academic years 2015 and 2017. The results of these investigations are also available
as electronic publications at the above mentioned website of the ILCAA.
This project encompassed eight linguistic features, for example the sun, and its geographicaldistribution in the language families spoken in Asia. The density of these maps accessed about 2000
places in the whole of Asia, the map on tone comprises around 4000 places.
A MEXT project headed by Professor Naruya Saito on the Yaponesian genome is ongoing sinceacademic year 2018. This project is a rather substantial grant-in-aid for 5 years for Scientific Researchon Innovative Areas. It is constituted of four subgroups of studies by geneticists, and two subgroups ofinvestigations by archaeologists and linguists. The aim of the project is to ascertain the origins of theYaponesian (Japanese Archipelago) peoples and languages, mainly in terms of DNA. The Eurasiancontinental aspect is essential because according to recent theories of genetics, all modern human beings
have originated from only one couple in Africa, and humans have expanded to other parts of the world
over hundreds of thousands of years. Therefore, the Japanese definitely entered the region through theEurasian continent. Many of us are linguists interested in Chinese or other languages of East andSoutheast Asia. Hence, today’s workshop is designed to broadly grasp the interrelationships of theselanguages and peoples. I hope that this activity widens and intensifies many aspects of this discipline
and also grants us the opportunity to enter into closer collaborations with each other and with scholars ofdifferent disciplines and countries.

Acknowledgements
This workshop was supported by MEXT/JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP18H00670, JP18H05505,
JP18H05510.

2

Lexical Innovations in Chinese Basic Words
a preliminary statistical measurementab

Ray Iwata , Takashi Ueyaa

Faculty of Intercultural Communication, Komatsu Universityb

Faculty of Foreign Studies, Kyoto University of Foreign Studies

Abstract
This paper is a preliminary version of our attempt to measure the degree of lexical innovation in
42 Chinese dialects. The historical depth of each form or its usage was estimated for 88 selectedbasic words based mainly on philological evidence, which were then identified as belonging to
one of the millennium-based periods A, B, or C. Then, statistical analysis was applied byrespectively assigning the numbers “0”, “1”, “2” to the A, B, and C classifications. The forms
with unidentified etymologic forms were assigned D and the number “3.” In the end, the results
were shown in a figure. While generally the results conformed to common sense knowledge
about Chinese dialectology, it also revealed some new evidence.

1

Introduction

This study was originally associated with the research conducted by Professor Naruya Saito at the
National Institute of Genetics, the aim of which was to reconstruct the phylogenetic trees of East Asian
languages using a neighbor-joining method.
In Chinese linguistics research, there have been some statistical studies (Wang, 1960; Cheng, 1997)
that have measured the interdialectal distance between major Chinese (Han) dialects. Wang (1960) used
a lexicon from Swadesh’s basic words list and Cheng (1997) used the phonological and lexical datacollections compiled by Peking University in the late 1950s (Yuan 1964). These studies were focused onwhether there was agreement or disagreement with two forms; that is, “+” was given to a lexical entry if
the given two dialects shared a specific word form A, and “-“ (minus) was given if the form A was usedin one dialect while form B was used in the other. However, the problem here is that the statistical sumof these plus-minus specifications does not necessarily reveal the reality of the dialectal divergence as
there could be several cases of “agreement” and “disagreement” of the lexical forms.
Case 1 Agreement: a specific old form of A is shared by all dialects; i.e., shared retention.
Case 2 Agreement: a specific innovative form of B is shared by all dialects; i.e., sharedinnovation.
Case 3 Disagreement: both A and B are old forms, where A is shared by some dialects and B
is shared some others.
Case 4 Disagreement: A is an old form and B is an innovative form, where A is shared bysome dialects while B is shared by some others.

3Case 5 Disagreement: both A and B are innovative.
It is also necessary to consider the time depth of each form to identify the age of the specific oldform and when and how a specific innovative form came into being and became prevalent. Therefore,
detailed historical studies supported by philological evidence are required to strictly evaluate the degreeof dialectal divergence between Chinese dialects.
As a preliminary to future research, this paper is confined to presenting a methodology and someearly results for measuring the degree of lexical change.

2

Lexical entries

Eighty-eight lexical entries are selected, of which 56 (63.6%) appear in Swadesh’s 100-word or
200-word lists (Swadesh 1952). In the following list, the two asterisks indicate those that are selectedfrom the 100-word list and the one asterisk indicates those that are selected from the 200-word list, with
the number in the square bracket indicating the total number of entries in each word class. The standard
Putonghua (PTH) form is appended in parenthesis to each lexical entry.
I. Nouns [52]1. Natural phenomena [5]sun (taiyang)**, moon (yueliang)**, star (xingxing)**, cloud (yuncai)**, rainbow (caihong)**
2. Time [4]morning (zaoshang), evening and night (wanshang, yeli)**, tomorrow (mingtian), yesterday(zuotian)
3. Animals, insects [11]dog (gou)**, bird (niao)**, hen (muji), egg (jidan)**, snake (she)*, louse (shizi)**, flea (gezao),ant (mayi), fly (cangying), mosquito (wenzi), wing (chibang)*
4. Plants [2]rice plant (daozi), soybean (dadou)
5. Body parts [18]face (lian), mouse (zui)**, ear (erduo) **, nose (bizi)**, eye (yanjing)**, tongue (shetou)**,tooth (yachi)**, saliva (tuomo), neck (bozi)**, throat (houlong), breast (rufang)**, arm (gebo),
armpit (ye), belly (duzi)**, navel (duqi), leg (tui), knee (xigai)**, finger (zhijia)
6. Kinship [7]father (baba)*, mother (mama)*, son (erzi), paternal grandfather (yeye), paternal grandmother(nainai), maternal grandfather (laoye), maternal grandmother (laolao)
7. Others [5]thing (dongxi), rope (shengzi)*, house (fangzi), kitchen (chufang), chopsticks (kuaizi)
Ⅱ Pronoun [10]I (wo)**, you (ni)**, he/she (ta)*, they (tamen)*, this (zhe)**, that (na)**, here (zheli)*, what(shenme)**, who (shei)**, where (nali)*
Ⅲ Verb [13]rain falls (xiayu), wind blows (guafeng) (*), sleep (shui)**, lie down (tang)**, drink (he)**,distinction between eat and drink (chi/he), know (zhidao)**, see (kanjian)**, walk (zou)**, run(pao), say (shuo)**, stand (zhan)**, smell (wen)*4

Ⅳ Adjective & Adverb [13]red (hong)**, black (hei)**, many (duo)**, small (xiao)**, broad (kuan)*, thick (hou)*, thin(bao)*, cold (leng)**, hot (re)**, fat (animal) (fei), distinction between fat (animal) andfat(human) (fei/pang), hungry (e), not (bu)**
As can be seen, the noun percentage is higher than the rest at 59% of all entries. This is because
more than 20 noun class entries are adopted that are not listed in Swadesh’s list, some of which arepossibly characteristic of Chinese culture (e.g., kinships and chopsticks), some of which are related withplant cultivation and housing (e.g., rice plant, soybean, house, kitchen), and all of which have been incommon use in China for more than 2,000 years. Meanwhile, many entries and especially verbs andadjectives that were included in Swadesh’s list are eliminated as they generally exhibit no regional wordform differences; e.g., “fly”, “kill”, “come”, “sit”, “white”, “new”, “water”, “mountain”.
Swadesh’s list cites two nouns “rain” and “wind,” both of which have the least dialectal Chinese
varieties, with the dialectal differences appearing in verb phrases such as “rain falls” and “wind blows;”
therefore, these are included in the verb class.
As a tentative attempt, we include two entries which relate with the concept distinction. In theabove list, these two entries are indicated in italics.
(1) “eat” and “drink”(2) “fat” (animal) and “fat” (human)
For both entries, some dialects use an identical form for the two concepts while others differentiate

the forms as in standard PTH.

Besides these two cases, there are also lexical entries that are related with the concept distinctions.
For example, in many dialects, the concepts “sleep” and “lie down” are not distinguished in terms ofword form. However, in this paper, these were treated as two independent entries. Further, thedistinctions for the two concepts “evening” (early night) and “night” (late night), i.e., wanshang and yeli
in PTH, could be because of recent differentiation in the semantic categories. As this type of distinction
has not been widely spread, the two concepts are treated as one entry.

3

Target dialects and sources

The lexical analysis sources are the 42 Dialect Dictionaries edited by Rong Li (李荣) published by
Jiangsu Education Press (江苏教育出版社) in the 1990s. The list of these 42 Chinese dialects is given
here. They are grouped based on the common dialect classifications used by Chinese scholars (cf.
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 2012).
1. Guanhua (Mandarin) group: Haerbin, Wulumuqi, Xi’ning, Yinchuan, Ji’nan, Muping, Xuzhou,
Luoyang, Wanrong, Xi’an, Wuhan, Chengdu, Guiyang, Liuzhou, Yangzhou, Nanjing
2. Jin group: Taiyuan, Xinzhou
3. Wu group: Suzhou, Shanghai, Chongming, Hangzhou, Ningbo, Jinhua, Wenzhou, Danyang*
4. Hui group: Jixi
5. Gan group: Nanchang, Lichuan, Yudu, Pingxiang**
6. Xiang group: Changsha, Loudi
7. Hakka group: Meixian
8. Yue group: Guangzhou, Dongguan

59. Min group: Xiamen, Fuzhou, Jian’ou, Haikang (Leizhou), Haikou
10. Pinghua: Nanning
Notes:*Dangyang is a transient dialect on the border of Guanhua and Wu.
** Pingxiang is a transient dialect on the border of Xiang and Gan.

In a few cases, as the dialect dictionary lacks the particular lexical entries being sought, otherdialectal sources are consulted. However, two gaps remain unfilled: “to smell” in the Muping dialect and“navel” in the Haikang dialect. However, these gaps will not influence the statistical results.

4

Principles of the analysis

With the focus on lexical change, the historical depth of each form or usage is estimated based on thefollowing principles.
4.1

Estimation of historical depth of lexical forms

The historical depth of each form or its usage is estimated based on historical written records. For theentries included in Swadesh’s 100 basic words, a recent study by Wang (2018) is consulted because of
its exhaustive philological evidence. For other entries, the Scripta Sinica Database (汉籍电子资料库)established by Academia Sinica, Taiwan, is consulted. Thus, each form or each usage in contemporary
dialects is identified as belonging to one of four stages.
A: Old Chinese (OC): one millennium before the Common Era (BCE1,000 ～ BCE 1)
B: Middle Chinese (MC): one millennium after CE (CE 1～ CE 1,000)
C: Modern Chinese 1: second millennium after CE (CE 1,000～present)
D: Other: mainly other forms with unknown etymologies
Although this periodization does not strictly conform to the widely shared view among sinologists(Wang, 1958: 35), the absolute time unit “millennium” may be useful in forthcoming phylogenetic
studies that compare Chinese with other East Asian languages.
The following subsections examine the principles behind the judgements made on the historicaldepth for each lexical form or its usage.
4.2. Treatment of plural forms attested in the same stage
If two forms are found to be from the OC period (stage A), the earlier or more prevalent form is referred
to as leading form (“zhudaoci” in Wang, 2018), and labelled A1, with the other being labelled A2. If theplural forms are found to be from the MC (stages B) or modern Chinese (stage C) periods, branchnumbers are added to indicate the inherited relationships. For example, B1 is the descendant of A1 andC2 is the descendant of B2. Two examples are given here. Here and in the following, the word forms arepresented in Pinyin with the kanji noted in the parentheses.
ExamplesWords for “know”(1) As the two forms zhi (知) and xiao (晓) coexisted in OC; they are labelled A1 and A2.
1 The term "Modern Chinese" is a translation from the Chinese Jindai Hanyu (近代汉语). It is distinguished from

Xiandai Hanyu (现代汉语), which in this paper is referred to as "Contemporary Chinese."6(2) As the present PTH form zhidao (知道) first appeared in MC, it is labelled B1. Another influential
form xiaode (晓得) is distributed both in southern China and northwest China (Cao ed. 2008,
Lexicon Volume, Map 154; Iwata ed. 2012, Map 42). From evidence from the distribution area
and the inherited relationship from the OC xiao, this form xiaode is labelled B2, although it
became prevalent in the early part of stage C (South Song Dynasty).
Words for “neck”(1) As in OC (stage A) the two forms ling (领) and dou (逗) were used, these are labelled A1 and A2.
While the ling form has not been preserved in contemporary dialects as denoting “neck,” it ispreserved in compounds denoting related semantic categories (e.g., such as lingzi “the neck ofclothes”). Meanwhile, the dou form is still in use in some dialects as denoting “neck.”(2)

The form jing (颈) appeared in OC; however, according to Wang (2018), it became mostdominant in MC (stage B). Therefore, from this evidence and the possibility of a cognate
relationship with the OC ling form, this is labelled B1. In MC, as another form xiang (项)appeared and became prevalent in some areas it is labelled B2. Note here that this form is not adescendant of A2, i.e., dou. In contemporary dialects this xiang form is seldom used
independently and behaves like a bound morpheme; e.g., boxiang (脖项) (Wang 2018:195).
Therefore, for this compound, a further principle is given in Section 4.4.2.

(3) The present standard form bo (脖) spread over the northern area in the Modern period (stage C),
so this form is labelled C.
4.3 Treatment of philologically unattested forms
There are two cases that are not attested in the consulted historical literature, the first of which is amonosyllabic form for which the etymology is unknown. These forms are labelled D, several examplesof which are given in the following.
“drink”: [lim] (啉) used in Xiamen; [iɛ] (餲) used in Jian’ou“lie down” and “sleep”: [fɐn](瞓) used in Guangzhou and Dongguan“yesterday”: 1st syllable of [kʰɐm iɐt](琴日) used in Guangzhou
The second case are polysyllabic compounds that are not covered in the consulted literature. One of
the solutions for this case is to estimate the relative chronologies for the specific forms based on lexicalmaps (Cao ed. 2008, Iwata ed. 2009, 2012), after which their absolute chronologies are estimated inreference to the forms confirmed in the consulted literature.
ExampleWords for “fly”
While the monosyllabic form ying (蝇) must be the oldest (A1), a bi-syllabic form cangying (苍蝇) is
also found in the Shijing Poetry from the OC period (A2).
In contemporary southern dialects, the two influential forms wuying(乌蝇) and huying(胡蝇) haverelatively wider distribution area than others, but are not found in historical written texts. As they are
generally distributed adjacent to cangying (cf. Iwata ed. 2012 Map 31-3), it is assumed that the non-headcang in cangying may have been replaced by wu or hu. Here a change from cang “dark blue” to wu“black” may have been a synonymic substitution, and the change from wu to hu or vice versa may havebeen motivated by phonetic similarity (the semantics of hu are unclear, and may be related to “beard” or“the northern barbarian that grows a beard”). As the absolute chronology of wuying and huying is
unknown, both forms are labelled B2.
cangying (A2) > wuying (B2), huying (B2)7

4.4 Treatment of polysyllabic forms
Chinese, which many believe is a monosyllabic language, favored polysyllabic forms in stages B and C.
There are two word formation types to which different treatments are applied.
4.4.1 Stem + suffix
Weight is placed on the conformity of the stem, with the use of affixes such as -zi (子) and -er (儿) being
generally disregarded.
ExampleFor the word “fly” mentioned above, the difference between the monosyllabic form ying (蝇) and thebi-syllabic yingzi (蝇子) is disregarded, with both forms being labelled A1.
4.4.2 Stem + Stem (coordinate construction)
Compound forms of coordinate construction that have two stems originated in different historical stages
are treated as intermediates between the two stages unless the use has been confirmed in the literatures
as being from a specific stage.
ExampleFor the word “neck” mentioned above, there are several compounds such as bojing (脖颈) and boxiang(脖项) in the dialects. As bo is the stem originating in stage C, and both jing and xiang are the stems
originating in stage B, both bojing and boxiang are treated as intermediates of C and B (see the statisticaltreatment in Section 5). Although the form boxiang is attested in the literatures as being from the earlystage of C (Yuan Dynasty), the present treatment, though mechanical, may have a merit of being applied
to other “stem + stem” construction forms if they were not well attested in written texts, with thecompound bojing being such an example.
4.5 Supplementary principles
4.5.1 Split and mergers of the semantic categories
The semantic category as reflected in the lexical form could be split or merged. The occurrence of one
split or one merger is counted as being equivalent to a one-time change in the word form.
Examples“eat” and “drink”
As evidenced in written texts, the two concepts “eat” and “drink” were discriminated in terms of wordform in OC as shi (食) and yin (饮). Although the forms themselves were replaced by others, typicallyby chi (吃) and he (喝), the semantic category distinction has been maintained in a majority of Chinesedialects; therefore, this status is labelled A. Meanwhile, two semantic categories are undistinguished inmany dialects and particularly in those from the Yangtze River basin; e.g., the same form chi is used forboth concepts. As this status is considered innovative, it is labelled B.
“fat (animal)” and “fat (human)”On the contrary, as the distinction between the two concepts for “fat (animal)” and “fat (human); e.g., fei(肥) and pang (胖); may have appeared at a later stage, this status is labelled B; when there is no
distinction, it is labelled A, irrespective of the form.
4.5.2 Peculiar phonetic features
Phonetic differences that can be explained by interdialectal phonological correspondence are mostly notseen as having lexical differences. However, as there are some entries in which one particular phonetic
feature reflects a clear-cut geographical distribution, these peculiar phonetic features are treated as being
equivalent to one lexical feature.

8

Examples
Initial consonant for the word “son”
Northern dialects (Guanhua) and Wu dialects share the stem er (儿); however, the Wu dialects havepreserved the nasal initial (e.g., [ȵi ʦɿ] 儿子 in Suzhou), which is considered archaic, while the northerndialects have lost the nasal initial and mostly changed to a form that has zero initial (e.g., [ɚ ʦɿ] 儿子 in
Beijing). From Chinese phonological history, the Wu form is labelled A1 and the northern form labelled
B1. Note that there is another archaic form zai (崽) in the southern dialects, which is labelled A2.
Tone for the word “nose”
All dialects are found to share the form bi(鼻). However, this form actually has two varieties that are
distinguished by tone: one of Qu tone origin (A1) and one of Ru tone origin (A2), with the former being
distributed in the south and the latter being distributed in the north (refer to Cao 2008, Phonetic Volume,
Map 37 for the detail of distribution). The difference between the form bi with or without the suffix zi(子) is disregarded.

5

Statistical Analysis

Based on the survey and analysis that identified the chronology for every lexical form or its usage,
scores of either 0, 1, 2 or 3 are assigned to each form or to each semantic split or merger.
“0”: stage A (OC)“1”: stage B (MC)“2”: stage C (Modern Chinese)“3”: stage D (those of unknown origin)
Here, the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3 represent the degree of lexical innovation. The following principles are used
for the score assignment.
1. If two forms existed in stage A; i.e., A1 and A2; “0.5” is assigned to the A2 form and “0” is assigned
to the A1 form, which is identified as a “leading form.” If there were two forms, B1 and B2, thatwere inherited from A1 and A2, “1” is assigned to the B1 form and “1.5” is assigned to the B2 form.
The case of “to know” is schematized as a typical example, with the arrows indicating theinheritance relationships from one stage to another.
A1 zhi (知) “0”↓― A2 xiao (晓) “0.5”↓B1 zhidao (知道) “1” ― B2 xiaode (晓得) “1.5”
2. If there was only one form in stage A, for which plural forms appeared in stage B, “0” is assigned toA, and “1” is equally assigned to B1 and B2 irrespective of the presence or the absence of an
inheritance relationship. Here the example of “sun” is given. As the B2 form taiyang lacked anancestor in the OC period, unlike the B2 form xiaode for “to know,” “1” is assigned to this form
rather than “1.5.” The treatment of the C1 form is added here.
A1 ri (日) “0”↓9B1 ritou (日头) “1” ― B2 taiyang (太阳) “1”↓C1 retou (热头) “2”
3. If plural forms coexist in one dialect, the added scores are divided by the number of forms. For
example, for the concept “to know,” the Nanjing and Wanrong dialects co-use the forms zhidao andxiaode. As the scores for these two are “1” and “1.5,” the average score is 1.25; i.e., (1+1.5)/2. In
another example, for the concept “moon,” the Guangzhou dialect co-use yue (月) and yueguang (月光). As the former is the sole form in stage A and the latter is one of the two forms in stage B(another B form is yueming 月明), the average score is 0.5; i.e., (0+1)/2.
4. For the treatment of compounds with two stems that were used in the different historical stages
mentioned in Section 4.4.2, the score assignment principle is (X+Y)/2, where both X and Y
represent the stems that constituted the particular disyllabic form. For the entry “neck,” the stem bo
in bojing and boxiang is treated as C, and the jing and xiang are treated as B1 and B2; therefore, thescores for bojing and boxiang are equally (2+1)/2; i.e., “1.5.” Note here that as the B2 form xiang
lacked an ancestor in stage A, similar to the taiyang form mentioned above, “1” is assigned to xiang
rather than “1.5.”
5. There are some entries and especially pronouns that lack the old forms identified in stage A; that is,these entries lack a “0” score in the statistics. For example, OC did not seem to use the 3rd person
pronouns “he”, “she” or “they,” and it is only in the literatures in stage B (MC) that the frequent useof the present southern forms qu (渠) and yi (伊) are found, which in northern China were replacedby the form ta (他), a form originally meaning “other.” As the demonstrative pronouns “this” and“that” seem to have undergone radical changes, there are no correspondences found between thosein the OC and those in contemporary dialects.

6

Statistics and findings

After assigning the scores to each form or to each semantic split or merger occurrence for all 88 lexical
entries, the average score is calculated for each of the 42 dialects being investigated, the results forwhich are shown in the graph on the following page, and the findings from which are summarized in thefollowing.
1. The average value for all 42 dialects is 1.079, which suggests that the Chinese basic words as awhole remained as in MC with a considerable mix of innovative and preserved features.
2. All five Min dialects: Fuzhou, Xiamen, Jian’ou, Haikou (Hainan Island) and Haikang (Leizhou
Peninsula in Guangdong Province): are found to have the most conservative features with averagescores ranging from 0.707 to 0.910.
3. Surrounding these Min dialects, the six non-Guanhua dialects: Meixian (Hakka), Guangzhou &Dongguan (Yue), Nanping (Pinghua), Jinhua (Central Wu) and Lichuan (Central Gan): are found tohave relatively conservative features with average scores ranging from 0.928 to 1.000.
4. The most innovative dialects, with average scores ranging from 1.278 to 1.201, tended to be
scattered in the peripheral areas within the Guanhua zone: Guiyang, Liuzhou, and Chengdu in theSouthwest, Wulumuqi and Yinchuan in the Northwest, and Haerbin in the Northeast. Note that thesesix cities, except for Chengdu, are in areas that have undergone recent Sinicization. However, as thetwo Xuzhou and Ji’an dialects are located near the Yellow River and alongside the Grand Canal, thefrequent linguistic innovations could also have been because of active commercial activities andpopulation movements.

10

5. Between the conservative group (11 dialects) and the innovative group (8 dialects), there are 23
intermediate dialects identified. A general tendency for this group is that the Guanhua dialects are
relatively innovative and the non-Guanhua dialects are conservative. However, two northern Wu
dialects, Shanghai and Hangzhou, and one Xiang dialect, Changsha, exhibit relatively higher scores(1.187-1.146). Notably, within the Northern Wu and Xiang zone, more conservative dialects arefound: Chongming and Suzhou for northern Wu and Loudi for the Xiang dialect: which have lower
scores than the Shanghai, Hangzhou and Changsha dialects (1.047-1.028). Although this evidence
may in part be related to the degree of urbanization in each of these cities, it would not be the solefactor for the enhanced lexical changes. Interestingly, Xi’an, a big city that is known as the oldcapital Chang’an, is found to be the most conservative of all Guanhua dialects and has even a lower
score than Shanghai or Hangzhou (1.133).

7

Closing remarks

This paper reported on the results of a preliminary investigation, and therefore improvements are needed.
First, the number of lexical entries is not sufficient for the statistical analysis, which means that morework needs to be done to ensure that the philological survey is detailed and precise, especially for thoseentries Wang (2018) did not deal with. Second, the certitude of our scoring method needs to bereexamined. Finally, cross dialectal measurements and estimations are required.

11

12

Acknowledgements
The contents of this paper were presented at a workshop of 24th annual conference of IACL
(International Association of Chinese Linguistics). Our sincere thanks are given to Naruya Saito,
William Wang, Laurent Sagart and others, all of whom gave us valuable comments.

References
Cao, Zhiyun ed. 2008. Hanyu Fangyan Dituji [Linguistic Atlas of Chinese Dialects], 3 Volumes, Beijing,
Shangwuyin Shuguan.
Cheng, Chinchuan 1997. Measuring relationship among dialects: DOC and related resources. Computational
Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 41-72.
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 2012. Zhongguo Yuyan Dituji [Language Atlas of China], New Edition,
Beijing, Shangwuyin Shuguan.
Iwata, Ray ed. 2009. Interpretative Maps of Chinese Dialects, Vol. 1, Tokyo, Hakuteisha
Iwata, Ray ed. 2012. Interpretative Maps of Chinese Dialects, Vol. 2, Tokyo, Kobun Shuppan.
Swadesh, Morris 1952. Lexicostatistic Dating of Prehistoric Ethnic Contacts. Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, Vol. 96, No. 4, pp. 452-463.
Wang, Li 1958. Hanyushigao [Studies in Chinese linguistic history], Second Edition, Kexue Chuban.
Wang, Weihui 2018. Hanyu hexinci de lishi yu xianzhuang yanjiu [History and present status of Chinese basic
words], Beijing, Shangwuyin Shuguan.
Wang, Yude 1960. Chugoku Godai Hogen no Bunretsu Nendai no Gengonendaigaku teki Kenkyu [TheLexicostatistic Estimation of the Time Depths of the Five Main Chinese Dialects], Gengo Kenkyu (Journal of
the Linguistic Society of Japan), Vol. 38, pp.33-105
Yuan, Jiahua ed. 1964. Hanyu Fangyan Cihui [Lexicon of Chinese Dialects], Beijing, Wenzi Gaige Chuban.

13

Characteristics of the Geographical Distribution of Words
Denoting Cultural Items in Sinitic Languages
Suzuki, Fumiki
Faculty of Foreign Studies, Nanzan University

Abstract
This paper discusses the distributional characteristics of word forms denoting cultural items in
Sinitic languages, based on linguistic maps included in “The Interpretative Maps of Chinese
Dialects” (Iwata, 2009) and “Studies in Asian Geolinguistics” (ILCAA Joint Research Project
2015–2017). The items we refer to include iron, rice plant, sorghum, and corn. The geographicaldistribution of word forms denoting these items is closely related to the process of transmission
or the degree of connection to people’s lifestyles. Furthermore, this paper analyzes the different
types of geographical distribution caused by time lags in transmission.

1

Introduction

In this paper, we discuss the distributional characteristics of word forms denoting cultural items in
Sinitic languages, based on linguistic maps included in “The Interpretative Maps of Chinese Dialects”(Iwata, 2009) and “Studies in Asian Geolinguistics” (ILCAA Joint Research Project 2015–2017). In thispaper, sections 2 to 5 analyze linguistic maps of iron, rice plant, sorghum, and corn, respectively, andsection 6 presents a brief conclusion from the perspective of the different types of geographicaldistribution resulting from time lags in transmission.

2

The case of iron: Archaic forms preserved in neighboring languages

Suzuki et al. (2017) pointed out that the word forms denoting “iron” in Sinitic languages essentiallyshow a unanimous distribution of tie铁. The phonetic forms of tie are consistent with the phonologicalsystems of each dialect.

Map 1 “Iron” in Sinitic (Suzuki et al., 2017)

14

The reconstruction of Middle Chinese for “iron” by Schussler (2007) is *tʰiet. According to Baxter
and Sagart (2014), the Old Chinese form is *l̥ ˤik. Traces of these archaic forms are observed inneighboring languages. Taguchi (2018) pointed out, “In East Asia, most language groups—Korean,
Ainu (via Japanese), Hmong-Mien, and Tai-Kadai—borrowed Chinese (Sinitic) words from several
different sources. Hmong-Mien and Tai-Kadai tend to express more archaic word forms than Korean or
Ainu. This suggests that Hmong-Mien and Tai-Kadai have had a longer contact history with the Chinese
language in terms of iron metallurgy than the other languages have.”
The proto Tai form for “iron” is reconstructed as *hlek D by Li (1977). According to the map of
Tai-Kadai created by Endo (2017), this form is preserved in A lek type. Sagart (1999) pointed out that
this proto Tai form is close to the Old Chinese form *ahlik; therefore, it was incorporated into Tai as
well as other Southeast Asian languages following the beginning of iron manufacturing in this area. Thisoccurred not earlier than 700-600 BCE, before the regular change *hl- > th- and *-ik > -it took place
before Middle Chinese age. B khjak type preserves coda [-k]; C khət type can be considered as anintermediate form, in which the initial changed from *hl- to kh-, while the final consonant changed from*-k to –t; D thi:t type is the borrowed form from the Yue or Hakka dialects. Types A, B, C, and D are allconsidered loan forms from Chinese of different chronological strata and areas.

Map 2 “Iron” in Tai-Kadai (Endo, 2017)3

The case of rice plant: Semantic field subdivided in the central areas of cultivation

Rice is mainly cultivated in the southern part of China. The north-south dividing line for ricecultivation is known as the Qinling-Huaihe line. In the central area for rice cultivation, different terms
are used for rice plant, husked rice, unhusked rice, steamed rice, and so on. However, outside of this area,
different terms are not always used.
According to the map created by Yagi and Ueya (2016), A1 Dao稻 type is mainly distributed in thenorthern area of China and the lower reaches of the Yangzi river. A2 Tiu釉 type, distributed in Fujian
province, is characterized by the glide -i- in the root. B He禾 type is distributed in other southern areas,
including Hunan, Jiangxi, Guangdong and Guangxi provinces. C1 Gu谷 type is distributed in the upper
reaches of the Yangzi river. C2 Daogu稻谷, the contaminated form of dao稻 and gu谷, is distributed in
the contact area of the two types.
A conceptual model of distribution of the rice plant (RP) referring to “unhusked rice” (UR) and“Italian millet” (IM) is shown in Table 1. Yagi and Ueya (2016) identified two features that indicated thesouth-north opposition: First, in the southern area, “rice plant” and “unhusked rice” are distinguished;however, this is not the case in the northern area. Second, in the northern area, gu谷 is used for “Italian
millet”, while the same form is used for “unhusked rice” in the southern area. The Yangzi basin,

15

Map 3 “Rice plant” in Sinitic (Yagi and Ueya, 2016)reflecting its geographical location, presents intermediate features. For example, in Wuhan, rice plant
and unhusked rice are denoted by identical terms, but gu谷 is used to denote unhusked rice. Gu谷 was
originally used as a generic term for “grain,” and therefore the use of this term may indicate thesuperiority or the importance of the referent as grain. Northern people rarely see planted rice, and hence
they do not need a separate term to represent rice as a plant or as grain.
Table 1 Conceptual model of “rice plant” (Yagi and Ueya, 2016)

4

The case of sorghum: Lexical changes occur in the central areas of cultivation

Sorghum is a type of grain in the rice family. It is primarily cultivated in the northern area, including the
Dongbei district, Hebei, and Shandong; its southern limit of cultivation roughly corresponds to the Huai
River. Although it remains unclear whether sorghum is native to China, it is certain that sorghum has
occupied an important position among grains since ancient times. Generally, objects that have existed
since ancient times are denoted using exclusive monosyllabic forms, as observed for “iron” (tie铁) and“rice plant” (dao稻). However, most of the word forms denoting sorghum, including historical literatureand modern dialects, are disyllabic. This suggests that words for sorghum were formed later than forother grains.
According to the map created by Suzuki (2009a), shushu秫秫 (B-3) is distributed in the central

16Map 4 Overall sketch of “sorghum” (Suzuki, 2009a)areas of sorghum cultivation: Shandong, Henan, and Anhui provinces. This form is disyllabic
reduplicates. It is noted that shushu秫秫, shushu蜀黍, and shushu蜀秫 have almost the same phonetic
shapes in modern north China except for the difference of tone. It is possible that shushu蜀黍 or shushu
蜀秫 is an older form than the reduplicated form, and its etymology can be “millet introduced from theShu蜀 district.” After phonetic changes, such as the disappearance of the Ru入 tone, the first and secondsyllable of shushu蜀黍 or shushu蜀秫 became almost equal in the phonetic shapes and changed into thereduplicated form shushu秫秫. At the same time, shushu秫秫 probably lost its sense of etymology; inother words, shushu秫秫 can be regarded as an unmotivated form. In the sorghum cultivation area, theword form shushu秫秫 and its referent are related closely because of frequent usage; however, in the
non-cultivation area, they are difficult to accept (see Suzuki, 2018).
The forms having lu芦 (A-2-1), such as lushu芦黍, luji芦穄, lusu芦粟, and lushu芦秫, aredistributed to the south of the Huai River. Lu芦 means reed; shu黍 and ji穄 means millet; su粟 and shu秫 means Italian millet. Sorghum, millet, and Italian millet are not planted in these areas. Iwata andNakayama (2004) pointed out that south of the Huai River, there is no need to distinguish these grains,and people are not familiar with them; therefore, lu芦 can be regarded as a type of motivating
component to reinforce the connection of word forms and their referents.
Gaoliang高粱 (A-1) is the most frequently used form of all, distributed into the Dongbei district,Hebei province, and western area of China. Standard Chinese adopts gaoliang高粱 as the form forsorghum, and therefore people in the western area, where sorghum is not cultivated, also use this form.
Gaoliang高粱 possibly originated in the northeastern area of China. Liang粱 was a type of Italian
millet; however, its cultivation had declined. In other words, it was not necessary to distinguish sorghum
and liang粱; therefore, gao高 was also a motivating component. Although it is difficult to establish
continuity with gaoliang高粱 and the other word forms for sorghum, it is probable that the unmotivated17

form shushu秫秫 was used in this area and replaced by the motivated form gaoliang高粱 because of its
relevance to daily life (see Suzuki, 2018).

5

The case of corn: Overlapping with words denoting native plants

Corn was introduced into China in the 16th century. Similar to sorghum, corn is primarily cultivated in
the northern area, including the Dongbei district, Hebei, and Shandong. The majority of word forms
denoting “corn” comprise names of native plants together with prepositional components, namely,
stems and modifiers.

Map 5 Modifiers of “corn” (Suzuki, 2009b)
Concerning modifiers, A-1 yu玉 type meaning “jade” and A-2 bao包 type meaning “wrapped”
have the highest usage frequency, followed by B-1 bang棒 type meaning “stick.” To the north of the
Huai River, yu玉 and bang棒 tend to exhibit an east-west opposition; these two northern forms contend
with bao包 that has a broad distribution in south and west China.
Concerning stems, word forms for “corn” and “sorghum” share their components. For example, in

Map 6 Northern forms of “corn” and “sorghum” (Suzuki, 2016)18

the eastern area of Shanxi山西, jiaozi茭子 denotes “sorghum,” and yujiaozi玉茭子 denotes “corn”;
from the western area of Shanxi山西 to Shanxi陕西, taoshu稻秫 denotes “sorghum,” and yutaoshu玉稻秫 denotes “corn”; in Henan province, shushu秫秫 denotes “sorghum,” and yushushu玉秫秫 denotes“corn.”In Jiangsu, Anhui, Zhejiang, and Fujian provinces, forms having lu芦, such as lushu芦秫 and luji
芦穄 are used for “sorghum” and forms for “corn” are the composites of lu芦 and modifier yu玉 or bao
包, such as yulu玉芦, baolu包芦; in Jiangxi and Guangdong provinces, su粟 or gaoliangsu高粱粟denotes “sorghum” and baosu包粟 denotes “corn.” Thus, word forms for “corn” adopted the names of“sorghum” as their stems.
After its introduction in China, the corn plant replaced sorghum because of its usefulness. Against
the background of this non-linguistic factor, “corn” took over the word forms denoting “sorghum,”which brought about the risk of homonymic collision. In some areas of Shanxi山西 and Henan
provinces, “corn” took over the word forms denoting “sorghum.” Therefore, to avoid homonymic
collision, “sorghum” adopted other word forms or proposed the modifier hong红, meaning red. For
example, in HenanJiyuan河南济源, jiaojiao茭茭 denotes “corn” and hongjiaojiao红茭茭 denotes“sorghum”; in ShanxiLinyi山西临猗, taoshu稻秫 denotes “corn” and hongtaoshu红稻秫 denotes“sorghum.”Map 7 Hong红 type forms (Suzuki, 2016)
In Anhui province, da大 type forms denoting “corn” share stems with the forms for “sorghum”;
they are distinguished through a difference in modifiers: modifier xiao小 is added to words for“sorghum.” Da大 and xiao小 are derived from the size of the fruit or the flower’s ovary. Moreover,since da大 and xiao小 are antonymous, this promotes systematization of the lexicon. In relation to theformation of da大 and xiao小 types, two interpretation can be proposed: (1) “corn” first adopted theword forms for “sorghum” as the stem together with the prepositional component da大; thereafter, themodifier xiao小 was added to words for “sorghum” to adjust the lexical system; (2) “corn” took over theword forms denoting “sorghum,” and the modifier xiao小 was added to words for “sorghum” to avoid
homonymic collision; thereafter, the modifier da大 was added to words for “corn” to adjust the lexicalsystem.
Hong红 type forms denoting “sorghum” and da大 type forms denoting “corn” can be regarded as
the traces of homonymic collision; however, both types are temporary forms. In Map 8, da大 type isused in ten more places, while the map included in the “Linguistic Atlas of Chinese Dialects” (Cao,192008) only has six places using da大 type. This suggests that these forms are a transient phenomenon
and are easy to decline.

Map 8 Da大 type forms for “corn” and xiao小 type forms for “sorghum” (Suzuki, 2016)

6

Conclusion

The preceding analysis elucidates that the geographical distribution of word forms denoting cultural
items is closely related to the degree of connection to people’s lifestyles.
Both iron and rice plant have existed since ancient times. Ironware was essential in all the areas,
including neighboring areas of China, and the technology of ironware was transmitted along with names
for it, whereas rice plant was mainly limited to rice cultivation areas; therefore, words for iron exhibit aunanimous distribution of the same form, whereas division of the semantic field for rice plant can differ
according to whether it is being used in a cultivation area or not.
Sorghum has also existed since ancient times; however, the word structures suggest that words forsorghum were formed later than for other grains such as rice and millet. Word forms denoting sorghum
experienced lexical changes caused by the degree of connection of word forms and their referents.
Corn was introduced and transmitted to China in modern times. The distribution of stems of theword forms have overlapped with the names for native grains, especially sorghum. The broad
distribution of its word structure suggests a high speed of transmission, which is characterized as aphenomenon of the modern era.

Acknowledgements
This paper is supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) Grant Number
JP18H00670, JP19K13187.
References
Baxter, W.H. and L. Sagart. 2014. Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
England.
Cao, Zhiyun. 2008. Linguistic Atlas of Chinese Dialects. The Commercial Press, Beijing, China.
Endo, M. 2017. Iron: Tai-Kadai. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics V―IRON―:15-16.
Iwata, R. ed. 2009. The Interpretative Maps of Chinese Dialects. Hakuteisha, Tokyo, Japan.

20

Iwata, R. (岩田礼) and S. Nakayama. (中山里美) 2004. 「コウリャン」関連語幹をめぐる諸説. 歴史文献
データと野外データの綜合を目指した漢語方言史研究（3）：漢語方言地図集（稿）第4集, 平成13-15
年度科学研究費総合研究（B）研究成果報告書-第3分冊（研究代表者：太田斎）:140-144.
Li, Fanggui. 1977. A Handbook of Comparative Tai. Oceanic Linguistics special publication No. 15. Universityof Hawaii Press, Honolulu, USA.
Sagart, L. 1999. The Roots of Old Chinese. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Schussler, A. 2007. ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, USA.
Suzuki, F. 2009a. Map 25 Sorghum. Iwata, R. ed. 2009. The Interpretative Maps of Chinese Dialects:162-165.
Hakuteisha, Tokyo, Japan.
Suzuki, F. 2009b. Map 26 Corn. Iwata, R. ed. 2009. The Interpretative Maps of Chinese Dialects:166-171.
Hakuteisha, Tokyo, Japan.
Suzuki, F. (鈴木史己) 2016. 言語地理学的手法をもちいた漢語語彙史研究―新来事物を表す語を手がかりに. 京都大学博士論文.
Suzuki, F., T. Ueya and K. Yagi. 2017. “Iron” in Sinitic. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics V―IRON―:7-8.
Suzuki, F. (鈴木史己) 2018. 試論表名物詞多樣化的成因―以表〈高粱〉義詞爲例. 中國語學研究『開篇』,
36:179-192.
Taguchi, Y. 2018. “Iron” in Asia. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics VIII:9-10.
Yagi, K. and T. Ueya. 2016. “Rice” in Sinitic languages. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics II―RICE―:9-10.

21Prehistoric Cultural Change in East Asia and Language Groups
Kazuo Miyamoto
Faculty of Humanities, Kyushu University

Abstract
Following a period of cooler climatic conditions, around 3000 BC, East Asia became divided into fourareas according to differences in subsistence activities: agricultural societies in mainland China, herding
societies in northern Asia, and two secondary agricultural areas. The existence of these two secondary
agricultural areas suggests that hunter-gatherer societies were influenced by these agricultural societies
from the Chinese mainland, in turn becoming agricultural societies themselves.
At the end of the Neolithic period, around 2000 BC, bronze production techniques spreadthrough the Eurasian grasslands to the Central Plains of China. It was on the Central Plains of China thata technique emerged for creating ritual bronze vessels using clay molds. On the other hand, the Northern
Bronze of the Eurasian grassland area developed into bronze weapons, particularly daggers.
As discussed by Prof. Peter Bellwood concerning the origins of language groups in East Asia, itis probably the case that the Austronesian language group spread to Taiwan from southeastern Chinaalong with rice and millet agriculture at around 3000 BC. On the other hand, agricultural societies in theCentral Plains are thought to have belonged to the Sino-Tibetan language group. I infer that
Proto-Japonic and Proto-Koreanic originated in Manchuria based on the hypotheses of Janhunen (1996)
and Robbeets (2017).
Pianpu culture with millet agriculture spread from western Liaoxi district to Liaodong district inManchuria at around 2400 BC following the emergence of the Great Wall region. Pianpu culture
influenced the Konggwiri type, which triggered the emergence of Mumun culture, characterized bybanded pottery. The genealogical relationship between the same pottery production techniques in the
Pianpu, Mumun and Yayoi cultures is thought to indicate the spread of Proto-Japonic. During the 6th and5th centuries BC, the rolled vessel culture of the Liaoning type dagger culture spread from the Lioaxi
district to Liaodong district and Korean Peninsula during invasion by the Yan state. During this process,Proto-Koreanic spread from the western Liaoxi district to the Korean Peninsula.

1

Introduction

The Late Palaeolithic in East Asia is divided into two genealogical lines, based on the blade techniquesof northern China and pebble stone tool techniques of southern China in the Pleistocene. At the
beginning of the Neolithic period, millet agriculture developed in the middle and lower Yellow Riverbasin of northern China, and rice agriculture developed in the middle and lower Yangtze River basin ofsouthern China. These two forms of agriculture developed based on different geographical andbiological conditions, and consisted of genealogically different stone tools techniques. Both types ofagriculture gradually mixed to form agricultural societies on the Chinese mainland in the Hypsithermal
period of the Holocene.
Areas of grassland became increasingly fertile in the north of the Great Wall region from 3500
BC to 3000 BC, a time of cooler climatic conditions. Following this, it became divided into four areas in
East Asia according to differences in subsistence activities: agricultural societies in mainland China,
herding societies in northern Asia, and two secondary agricultural areas (Fig. 1). The existence of these
two secondary agricultural areas suggests that hunter-gatherer societies were influenced by these
agricultural societies from the Chinese mainland, in turn becoming agricultural societies themselves.

22One of the secondary agricultural areas isnortheast Asia, which includes southern Far
Eastern Russia, the Korean Peninsula and theJapanese archipelago (Miyamoto 2014a,
2015). The other is southern China andsoutheast Asia.
It is thought that such cultural units
based on subsistence activities formed theunits of social groups. Some social groups
may have been related to language groups. In
addition to issues concerning the
Indo-European
languagegroup,
archaeologicalexplanations
onthemovement or processes of change of material
culture groups should be connected withlinguistic explanations of language groups.
This paper attempts to provide anarchaeological explanation for the movementof language groups in Prehistoric East Asia.

Fig. 1 – Regional division based on subsistence
activities in East Asia

2

Prehistoric cultural change in East Asia

At the end of the Neolithic period, around 2000 BC, bronze production techniques spread through theEurasian grasslands to the Central Plains of China. Not only bronze products but also wheat and barleyspread to the Central Plains of China via the Eurasian grasslands from western Asia. It was on theCentral Plains of China that a technique emerged for creating ritual bronze vessels using clay moulds. In
this way, the Central Plains developed a unique bronze culture with a mixture of agricultural practices,leading to the establishment of early states like the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties. On the other hand,
the Northern Bronze of the Eurasian grassland area developed into bronze weapons, particularly daggers.
Northern Bronze of this kind spread not only to northeast Asia—i.e. the Liaoning dagger culture of
Liaoxi, Liaodong and the Korean Peninsula—but also to the eastern Tibetan Plateau and Yunnan area
(Fig. 2). Bronze daggers featuring a three-pronged design influenced by the Northern Bronze culture
could be found in the eastern Tibetan Plateau and Yunnan area (Miyamoto 2014b).
Iron products also spread in the same way. Wrought iron techniques spread through theEurasian grasslands to the Great Wall region from western Asia during the 9th and 8th centuries BC.
Wrought iron techniques arrived in the Central Plains of China, and subsequently developed into ironcasting techniques during the 6th and 5th centuries BC. The Central Plains of China developed underpolitical centralization to gain new farming land with iron tools in the Warring States period, such aswith the Yan and Chu states.
Following this, the Qin and Han dynasties extended their territorial area to include the Korean
Peninsula, and to Vietnam with an iron product culture. On the other hand, wrought iron techniques
spread not only to northern Asia but also to the eastern Tibetan Plateau and Yunnan area. It is probablethat wrought iron techniques spread from the Yunnan area to southeast Asia.

3

Spread of language groups in East Asia

Prof. Peter Bellwood discussed the origins of language groups in relation to archaeological cultures in
Neolithic East Asia (Bellwood 2005). However, archaeology does not provide us with the evidence
needed to indicate which language groups originated with which cultures in prehistoric times. On theother hand, the territory of current language groups indicates the probability that archaeological culturalgroups in Neolithic times spread along with language groups.
In the case of prehistoric East Asia, the most important thing to bear in mind is the establishmentof two cultural groups—agricultural societies and herding societies—from 3500 BC to 3000 BC due tocooler and drier climate conditions. It is believed that these two areas developed two different language

23

groups: Sino-Tibetan and Altaic groups(Transeurasian language group). These twoareas became two different states in ancient
times: the Han dynasty and the Xiongnu
herding state. Characters on oracle bones
indicate that they spoke a Sino-Tibetan
language. The Shang dynasty wasestablished by descendants of the Yangshao
culture of the middle Neolithic in the middle
Yellow River basin. It is believed that thelanguage of the Yangshao people in theCentral Plains of China belonged to the
Sino-Tibetan language group. In the late
Neolithic, the Great Wall region establishedthe same cultural aspects as stone wallFig. 2 – Bronze culture groups and genealogicalsettlements. At the same time, the Northern
Bronze culture spread east from the westernrelationship between them in East Asia
Eurasian grasslands to reach the Great Wallregion. In this area, Xiongnu herding states emerged after the Northern Bronze Age. And people in these
Xiongnu herding states spoke languages belonging to the Altaic language group (Beckwith 2011). The
Great Wall region of the Northern Bronze Age also belonged to the Altaic language group.
Domesticated rice spread from the lower and middle Yangtze River basin to southern China
from 3500 to 3000 BC due to cooler climatic conditions. It is believed that the secondary agriculturalareas—northeast Asia and southern China—started at the same time, around 3500 BC to 3000 BC, due
to cooler climatic conditions (Miyamoto 2014a 2015). Recently, foxtail millet dating to 4500 BC was
found at Shangshan Site, Zhejiang province in the lower Yangtze River basin (Zhao & Jiang 2016).
Not only domesticated rice but also millet spread from the lower Yangtze River basin to southeast China,
including Fujian province. In this area, rice and millet were also found during the late Neolithic (Deng etal. 2018). In Taiwan, rice and millet were discovered at Nankuanli Site dating to around 3000 BC (Tsang
Chen-Hwa et al. 2017). Therefore, rice and millet agriculture spread from the lower Yangtze Riverbasin via the Fujian area to Taiwan around 3000 BC.
It is probably the case that the Austronesian language group spread to Taiwan fromsouthwestern China along with rice and millet agriculture at around 3000 BC (Sagart et al. 2018). Thisarchaeological evidence suggests that a secondary agricultural area was established in southern China
and southeast Asia. It is also probable that Austroasiatic languages spread at this time from the middle
Yangtze River basin to southern China and southeast Asia along with painted pottery (Bellwood 2005).

4

Archaeological explanation of Proto-Japonic and Proto-Koreanic

The relationships between archaeological cultures changed following cooler and drier conditions,around 3000 BC. Similarities appeared between the pottery cultures of the Laohushan and Xiaheyan
cultures in the Great Wall region. Herding societies developed in the Great Wall region following cooler
and drier climatic conditions. These areas had the same Northern Bronze culture after around 2000 BC.
On the other hand, Neolithic culture groups in the middle and lower Yellow River and the middle andlower Yangtze River maintained a mutual relationship through jade goods. These areas constituted theearly states of the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties, particularly with ritual bronze vessels in the Bronze
Age.
A clear distinction emerged between herding societies and agricultural societies, not only bysubsistence activities but also by different bronze cultures. While even agricultural societies received
bronze techniques from the Eurasian grassland area, including the Great Wall region, agriculturalsocieties developed a unique bronze culture, such as ritual bronze vessels. Northern Bronze culture isconjectured to belong to the Transeurasian language group. Agricultural societies in the central plains
are thought to have belonged to the Sino-Tibetan language group. I infer that Proto-Japonic and24

Proto-Koreanic originated in Manchuria
based on the hypotheses of Janhunen(1996) and Robbeets (2017).
Pianpu culture with millet
agriculture spread from the western
Liaoxi district to Liaodong district ataround 2400 BC following the
emergence of the Great Wall region.
Pianpu culture influenced the Konggwiri
type, which triggered the emergence of
Mumun culture, characterized by banded
pottery. (Fig. 3). A genealogicalrelationship existed between both
cultures, which utilized the same uniquepottery production techniques. This
genealogical relationship between thesame pottery production techniques in
the Pianpu and Mumun cultures isthought to indicate the spread ofFig. 3 – Genealogical relationship of pottery between
Proto-Japonic. (Miyamoto 2016).
Pianpu culture and Mumun culture
The emergence of Yayoi culture
was influenced by Mumun culture
during the 9th century BC. A handful of people from the Mumun culture on the southern Korean
Peninsula immigrated to northern Kyushu, mixing with the majority indigenous Jomon people(Miyamoto 2019). A genealogical relationship existed between Yayoi pottery and Mumun pottery, withboth cultures utilizing the same unique pottery production techniques. This situation indicates the spreadof Proto-Japonic from the Mumun culture of the Korean Peninsula to Yayoi culture in northern Kyushu.
Itazuke type pottery based on the pottery production techniques of the Mumun culture was established innorthern Kyushu during the early Yayoi period. Following this, Itazuke pottery spread to the whole ofwestern Japan. This also signifies the spread of Proto-Japonic to western Japan during the early Yayoi
period, the 6th to 5th centuries BC (Miyamoto 2016).
At the same time, the rolled vessel culture of the Liaoning type dagger culture spread from the
Lioaxi district to Liaodong district and the Korean Peninsula during invasion by the Yan state. The
rolled vessel culture spread from Liaodong to the Korean Peninsula according to the pottery chronology(Miyamoto 2016). This indicates the spread of Proto-Koreanic. The rolled vessel culture led to thedevelopment of the Three Kingdoms societies through the Proto-Three Kingdoms period. Therefore, thespread of rolled vessel culture means the spread of Proto-Koreanic.
Proto-Japonic exists earlier than Proto-Koreanic in Unger’s chronological scheme (2009).
Proto-Japonic was spoken on the Korean peninsula according to Koguryo toponymical data (Whitman
2011). Therefore, Proto-Japonic spread eastward from the western Liaoxi and Liaodong areas to the
Korean Peninsula with the Pianpu culture at around 2400 BC, and finally reached northern Kyushu atthe beginning of the Yayoi culture, 9th century BC. On the other hand, Proto-Koreanic of the Liaoning
type dagger culture spread eastward from Liaoxi district to the Korean Peninsula during the 6th and 5th
centuries BC during invasion by the Yan state. The pottery styles and production techniques of Mumun
and Yayoi pottery originated from the Pianpu type of the western Liaoxi and Liaodong districts in thelate Neolithic. This area, therefore, constitutes the homeland of the Japanese language family(Miyamoto 2016).

5

Conclusion

Herding societies developed in the Great Wall region following cooler and drier climatic conditions,around 3000 BC. These areas had the same Northern Bronze culture after around 2000 BC. Northern
Bronze culture is conjectured to have belonged to the Transeurasian language group. On the other hand,25

agricultural groups in the middle and lower Yellow River and the middle and lower Yangtze River
maintained a mutual relationship and constituted early states, with ritual bronze vessels during theBronze Age. Agricultural societies in the central plains of China are conjectured to have belonged to the
Sino-Tibetan language group.
Proto-Japonic and Proto-Koreanic, part of the Transeurasian language group, originated from
Manchuria, located at the eastern edge of the Great Wall region as part of the Northern Bronze culture.
The bronze products of the Mumun culture on the Korean Peninsula and of Yayoi culture on theJapanese archipelago belonged genealogically as part of the Northern Bronze culture.
In the process, new pottery production techniques originating from the Pianpu culture in thewestern Liaoxi district of Manchuria spread after 3000 BC. Proto-Japonic is believed to have spreadfrom the western Liao-xi district to the Korean Peninsula through the Liaodong district accompanying
the same pottery production techniques. Based on the process of diffusion of these pottery production
techniques, Mumun culture with irrigated agriculture was established on the Korean Peninsula. At the
beginning of the Yayoi, immigrants from southern Korea brought Proto-Japonic with them. It isbelieved that the transitional time from Jomon to Yayoi is in accordance with the traditional timeframe
for the transition from Jomon language to Proto-Japonic in Northern Kyushu, because pottery
production techniques were learned through language rather than custom.
The Yan state in the early Iron Age extended its territory and indirectly occupied the western
Liaoxi district of the Northern Bronze culture during 6th and 5th centuries BC. This political interference
triggered the movement of the rolled vessel (Jeontodae pottery) culture of Manchuria to the Korean
Peninsula. The Proto-Koreanic language group is thought to indicate rolled vessel culture with slender
dagger culture and early iron products. During the process of territorial expansion by the Yan state,
Proto-Koreanic spread from the western Liaoxi district to the Korean Peninsula. This Proto-Koreanic
language group led to the establishment of the Three Kingdom entities on the Korean peninsula during
the early Iron Age of Korea.
References
Bellwood, Peter. 2005. First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies, Blackwell Publishing, Malden USA.
Beckwith, Christopher. 2011. Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to thePresent.
Deng Z., Huang H., Fan X., Huang Y. and Lu H. 2018. The ancient dispersal of millet in southern China: Newarchaeological evidence. The Holocene 28 (1): 34-43.
Janhunen, J. 1996. Manchuria: An Ethnic History. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
Robbeets. 2017. The Transeurasian Languages. Raymond Hickey ed., The Cambridge handbook from Part II Case Studies for Areal Linguistics. pp. 586-626, Cambridge University Press.
Isabelle, P. and L. Bourbeau. 1984. TAUM-AVIATION: its technical features and some experimental results.
Computational Linguistics, 11(1):18-27.
Miyamoto, Kazuo. 2014a. Human Dispersal in the Prehistoric Era in East Asia. Takahiro Nakahashi and Fan
Wenquan, ed. Ancient People of the Central Plains in China. pp.63-83, Kyushu University Press.
Miyamoto, Kazuo. 2014b. The Emergence and Chronology of Early Bronzes on the Eastern Rim of the Tibetan
Plateau. Edited by Anke Hein, The “Crescent-Shaped Cultural-Communication Belt”: Tong Enzheng’s Modelin Retrospect, An examination of methodological, theoretical and material concerns of long-distanceinteractions in East Asia. BAR International Series 2679, pp. 79-88, Archaeopress, Oxford, England.
Miyamoto, Kazuo. 2015. The Initial Spread of Agriculture into Northeast Asia. In Asian Archaeology Vol.3
pp.11-26, Research for Chinese Frontier Archaeology of Jilin University, Science Press, Beijing.
Miyamoto, Kazuo. 2016. Archaeological Explanation for the Diffusion Theory of the Japonic and Koreanic
Languages. In Japanese Journal of Archaeology Vol.4 No.1, 53-75
Miyamoto, Kazuo. 2019. The spread of rice agriculture during the Yayoi period: From the Shandong Peninsula to
Japanese Archipelago via Korean Peninsula. In Japanese Journal of Archaeology Vol. 6 No.2, 109-124.
Sagart L., Hsu T., Tsai Y., Wu C., Huang L, Chen Y., Chen Y., Tseng Y., Lin H., and Hsing Y. C. 2018. A northernChinese origin of Austronesian agriculture: new evidence on traditional Formosan cereals. Rice 11:57

26

Tsang C., Li K., Hsu T., Tsai Y., Fang P. and Hsing Y. 2017 Broomcorn and Foxtail millet were cultivated in
Taiwan about 5000 years ago. Botanical Studies 58:3
Unger, J. Marshall. 2009. The Role of Contact in the Origins of the Japanese and Korean Languages, University of
Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Whitman Johon. 2011. Northeast Asian Linguistic Ecology and the Advent of Rice Agriculture in Korea and Japan.
In Rice (4): 149-158.
Zhao, Zhizhun & Jiang, Leping. 2016. Analysis on the Plant Remains by Flotation Unearthed in the Shangshan
Site, Pujiang County, Zhejiang Province. Cultural Relics in Southern China (3): 109-130 (In Chinese).

27

Notes on front rounded vowels in Sinitic languages
Kenji Yagi
Kokushikan University

Abstract
The geographical distribution of front rounded vowels in the world is “relatively concentrated”
in the central to “northerly parts of the Eurasian land mass,” suggesting an areal influence on theoccurrence of these vowels in the vowel inventory (Maddieson 2013). In Maddieson’s map from2013, date points are too few to conduct geo-linguistic analysis. However, there is a certain
tendency of distribution. In the central area of distribution, front rounded vowels are used as both
mid and high vowels, while only one of these is used in the peripheral area, especially in Eastern
Eurasia. China is located at the border of the distribution; in Southern China, a lot of dialects do
not possess front rounded vowels (=y), although many of the Northern dialects do. Many “y”
vowels found in Chinese dialects are derived from the “iu” type diphthongs (Division-Ⅲ,closed
三 等 合 口 ) found in Middle Chinese. The distributional tendency supports Hashimoto,
Mantaro’s theory which suggests that Chinese languages have changed after suffering from theinfluence of the Northern languages. The change of “iu” to “y” may be connected to otherphonetical/phonological changes in Northern dialects.

1

Introduction

Worldwide geographical distribution of “front rounded vowels” (FRVs) is “relatively concentrated” inthe middle and “northerly parts of the Eurasian land mass,” suggesting the areal influence on theoccurrence of FRVs in the vowel inventory (Maddieson 2013). There are insufficient data points to
conduct a geo-linguistic analysis in the map created by Maddieson (2013). However, a tendency can beobserved regarding distribution: in the center of the distribution area, FRVs are found both in mid andhigh vowels, however, only one form of the FRVs is used in peripheral areas, particularly in eastern
Eurasia.
China is located on the edge of the distribution of FRVs; in southern China many dialects do notpossess FRVs (≒y) but many northern dialects do (Cao [曹志耘] 2008[语音卷]: 116-117). Many of the“y” vowels found in Chinese dialects derive from the “iu”-type diphthongs (Division-Ⅲ, closed [三等合口]) of Middle Chinese (Wang [王力]1985). The change from [iu] to [y] might be connected to otherphonetical or phonological changes, such as dentilabialization (Pulleyblank 1984: 86).
Cao [曹志耘] (2008) addressed only limited forms of FRVs, this paper presents maps depicting theoccurrence of many varieties of FRVs found in Chinese dialects and other languages in China andinvestigates FRVs from a geo-linguistic perspective.

28

Map 1. Distribution of front rounded vowels worldwide (Source: Maddieson 2013, WALS Feature 11)2

Methods

This paper investigates the presence of FRVs using published literature. FRVs found in Chinese dialects
are classified as below. Central rounded vowels (CRVs) are also included in this classification because
they are important for discussing the formation of FRVs. Categorization of FRVs and CRVs is based onphonetic criteria and is not phonologically processed.
Type a: Close front rounded vowels: [y], [ʏ]Type b: Close-mid front rounded vowel: [ø]Type c: Open-mid front rounded vowel: [œ]Type d: Close central rounded vowels: [ʉ], [ʮ], [ʯ]Type e: Close-mid central rounded vowel: [ɵ]Type f: Others

3

Maps of FRVs in Chinese Dialects29Map 2. Numbers of FRVs (including CRVs)
Map 2 shows the distribution of FRVs (including CRVs) in Chinese dialects. Many dialects possess
one or more FRVs. Dialects possessing only one type of FRV are the most common, followed by thosewith two or three types, and some dialects possess four types. Tentative numbers of FRV and thenumber of locations in which they occur are shown in Table 1.

30

Table 1. Number of locations in which specific quantities of FRVs (including CRVs) are present(tentative)
Number of FRVs
0
1
2
3
4
Number of locations 171332
132 36
7
Dialects possessing more than two FRVs are mainly distributed south of the Yangtze River and areespecially abundant in the coastal area ranging from Zhejiang to Fujian and Guangdong to Jiangxi.
Many of northern dialects only possess one type of FRV, usually the “y”-type. However, from Guangxi,
Guangdong to Jiangxi, many dialects do not have FRVs. Thus, there are sometimes situations in which
FRV- rich dialects and dialects without FRVs are adjacent.
This paper examined 678 Chinese dialects, and FRVs are observed in 507 (74.8%) of them. The
most frequently occurring FRV was Type a: [y] (including [ʏ]), identified in 480 locations (94.7% of allobserved FRVs). In 308 dialects, only one kind of close FRV, [y] or [ʏ] was present; in five locations(1%), two kinds ([y] and [ʏ]) were present. Other types of FRV were mainly distributed in the southernarea, and many of them co-occurred with [y].
Type b: [ø] appears in 90 locations (17.8% of all FRVs), and it co-occurs with [y] or another FRV
except in four locations (4.4%) don’t co-occur with [y] or other FRV.
Type c: [œ] appears in 74 locations (14.6% of all FRVs) and co-occur with [y] or another FRV in
only two locations (2.7%).
Similarly, Type d: [ʉ][ʮ][ʯ] occurs in 43 locations (8.5% of all FRVs), and 12 locations (27.9%)
alone; Type e: [ɵ] occurs in 36 locations (7.1% of all FRVs) and six locations (16.7%) alone.
For each type of FRV, the number of location in which it occurs and its rates of co-occurrence areshown in Table 2.
Table 2. Numbers of locations and ratios of co-occurrence (tentative)
Type a: [y][ʏ] Type b: [ø]Type c: [œ] Type d: [ʉ][ʮ][ʯ]480 locations 90 locations
74 locations 43 locations
Co-occurrence ―85 (94.4%)
70 (94.5%) 29 (67.4%)
with Type a
Co-occurrence 85 (17.7%)―
26 (35.1%) 9 (20.9%)
with Type b
Co-occurrence 70 (14.6%)
26 (28.9%)―4 (9.3%)
with Type c
Co-occurrence 29 (6%)
9 (10%)
4 (5.4%)―
with Type d
Co-occurrence 29 (6%)
5 (5.6%)2 (2.7%)5 (11.6%)
with Type eType e: [ɵ]36 locations
29 (80.6%)
5 (13.9%)2 (5.5%)5 (13.9%)―

In Table 2, 85 locations (94.4%) in which Type b occurred also featured Type a, and 70 locations(94.5%) in which Type c occurred also featured type a. Although ratios of co-occurrence with Type adecreased somewhat for CRVs (type d: 67%, type e: 80.6%), it is possible to suggest that the occurrenceof type a is a requirement for the occurrence of another FRV.
We examine the distribution of the four types of FRVs other than type a below.

31Map 3. Type b: [ø]Map 3 shows the distribution of Type b: [ø] (Close-mid front rounded vowels). Type b FRVs are
distributed widely in the southern area, from southern Jiangsu to Guizhou, Guangxi. The distribution ofType b is relatively wide ―90 locations feature this vowel, and its number of occurrence is the largest
after Type a.

32

Map 4. Type c: [œ]Map 4 shows the distribution of Type c: [œ] (Open-mid front rounded vowels). The prevalence oftype c follows Type b (map 3): 74 locations feature this vowel. The distribution area is somewhat
smaller than that of Type b, however, like Type b, Type c distributed widely in the southern area, anddistributions of type b and type c are adjacent.

33

Map 5. Type d: [ʉ] [ʮ] [ʯ]Map 5 shows the distribution of Type d: [ʉ] [ʮ] [ʯ] (close central rounded vowels). The distribution
area of this vowel is mainly around the lower Yangtze River and is scattered throughout the northern andsouthern inland area. Type d is the most northerly distributed type other than Type a.

34

Map 6. Type e: [ɵ] and others
Map 6 shows the distribution of Type e: [ɵ] (close-mid central rounded vowel). The distribution
area of Type e is similar to that of Type d (Map 5), mainly near the lower Yangtze River and central
Jiangxi to the northern Guangdong area.
Map 7 combines the above maps (Maps 4 to 7). The distribution of each vowel appears somewhat
sporadic; however, they are distributed throughout the southeastern area of China. Central roundedvowels tend to be distributed in the northern area.

35

Map 7. Unified map of FRVs (excluding Type a) and CRVs

4

Relationship with Middle Chinese

Table 3. Middle Chinese sources of [ø]PlacesThe Sixteen Rhyme Groups
Yong’anLiu [流][福建永安]
SanyuanLiu [流], Xian [咸][福建三元]
Suzhou(Liu [流]), Xian [咸], Shan [山][江蘇蘇州]
WuyuanZhen [臻], Zhi [止], Xie [蟹],[安徽婺源]
Shan [山]Gao’anYu [遇], Xie [蟹], Zhi [止], Tong
[江西高安][通]
Zhongshan
Guo [果], Yu [遇], Xie [蟹], Liu[广西钟山][流], Dang [宕], Jiang [江]Example头走沟厚Sources
Chen et al.1991

头走沟厚咸Chen et al.1991

剖南甘占餐川渊

Ye 1988术恤儿耳锐阅越

Hirata et al.1998

女緒書制世税智
支児玉多他贺模初菜待搂鄂桌Liu 1999
Xie 2007

Table 3 shows how the mid-close front rounded vowel [ø] (type b) in some dialects points to a
Middle Chinese sources for the rhyme. The Middle Chinese sources are quite variable, and no rhyme
groups are found consistently throughout all the dialects. This situation suggests at least some instancesof [ø] were formed rather recently.

36

5

FRVs in Non-Chinese Languages

Map 8 shows the distribution of FRVs in non-Chinese languages in China. In general, northernlanguages possess more FRVs than southern languages. FRVs sometimes only exist in Chinese
loanwords. However, in central areas such as Sichuan province, some languages possess three types of
FRV.
Map 9 shows the distribution of Chinese dialects and other languages which do not feature FRVs. The
absence of FRVs in Chinese dialects and other languages show a clear geographical succession (In Map
9, small purple circles indicate Chinese dialects, and large white circles indicate non-Chinese
languages).

Map 8. Distribution of FRVs in non-Chinese languages in China

37

Map 9. Chinese and non-Chinese languages that lack FRVs
Table 4. Absence of FRVs among language groups in China
彝 景 缅 羌 侗 苗 蒙颇
台 瑶 古
Number of
7
6
2
2
15 4
2
languages lacking
FRVs
Total number of
15 9
6
12 22 7
7
languages

南
岛
10

南
亜
7

印
欧
1

混
合
1

满
通
0

突
厥
0

臧

16

9

1

5

6

9

4

0

(Source: Sun et al. 2007)
Table 4 shows the distribution of languages lacking FRVs in languages in China.
Lacking of FRVs is found in almost all languages in southern area.

6

Conclusion

This paper investigates the distribution of FRV of both Chinese and non-Chinese languages in China.
FRVs are regularly found in supra dialects or languages; therefore, it is important to examine theformation of FRVs from a geo-linguistic perspective. China is located at the border of the eastern
Eurasian FRV distribution; in southern China, many dialects do not possess front rounded vowels [y],although many of the northern dialects do. Many of [y] FRVs found in Chinese dialects derive from the“iu”-type diphthongs (Division-Ⅲ, closed [三等合口]) of Middle Chinese (Wang 2008).
The distribution of FRVs may help to examine Mantaro Hashimoto’s theory that Chinese
languages have changed via the influence of the northern languages (Hashimoto [橋本] 1978).

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP16K16820, JP18H00670.

38

References
Cao, Zhiyun [曹志耘]. 2008. 《汉语方言地图集》语音卷. 商务印书馆.
Chen, Zhangtai [陈章太] 李如龙. 1991. 《闽语研究》. 语文出版社.
Hashimoto, Mantaro [橋本萬太郎]. 1978. 『言語類型地理論』. 弘文堂.
Hirata, Shoji [平田昌司] 趙日新 劉丹青 冯爱珍 木津祐子 溝口正人. 1998. 《徽州方言研究》. 好文出版.
Liu Lunxin [刘纶鑫] 主编. 1999. 《客赣方言比较研究》. 中国社会科学出版社.
Maddieson, Ian. 2013. Front Rounded Vowels. In: Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) The World
Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary
Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/11, Accessed on 2019-03-11.)
Pulleyblank, E.G. 1984 Middle Chinese. University of British Columbia Press.
Sun, Hongkai [孙宏开] 胡增益 黄行 (eds.). 2007. 《中国的语言》. 商务印书馆.
Wang, Li [王力]. 1985. 《汉语语音史》. 中国社会科学出版社（1998年重印）.
Xie, Jianyou [谢建猷]. 2007. 《广西汉语方言研究》. 广西人民出版社.
Ye, Xiangling [叶祥苓]. 1988. 《苏州方言志》. 江苏教育出版社.

39

How Tibetans classify pigs in Tibetic languages in the eastern
Tibetosphere: Revisiting the pig issue through geolinguistics
Hiroyuki Suzukiaa

IKOS, University of Oslo / National Museum of Ethnology

Abstract
This article primarily describes the morphological variation of lexical forms denoting domestic
pigs in Tibetic languages spoken in the eastern Tibetosphere and examines the relationshipbetween the geographical distribution and the pig-breeding habit from a geolinguistic
perspective. In Literary Tibetan, many words for domestic pigs are derived from the root phag,meaning ‘pig’, whereas in spoken languages, various forms that both include and exclude theroot are attested. The geolinguistic analysis shows that the lexical complexity related to pigs isstrongly connected to the pig-breeding habit.

1

Introduction

Most words regarding the category of domestic pigs in Literary Tibetan (henceforth LT) are derived
from the root phag, e.g. pho phag ‘boar’ (literally ‘male’+‘pig’), mo phag ‘sow’ (literally‘female’+‘pig’), and phag phrug ‘piglet’ (literally ‘pig’+‘child’). 1 However, in spoken varieties ofTibetic languages and dialects (see Tournadre 2014 for the definition of ‘Tibetic’), we find various
lexical forms and even differences in the categorisation. We notice the existence of languages, forexample, which distinguish ‘male piglet’ from ‘female piglet’, and which distinguish ‘sow with her
piglets’ or ‘sow without them’. These languages are generally found in the eastern Tibetosphere, where
many minor non-Tibetic (Tibeto-Burman, as well as Sinitic, Mongolic, and Turkic) languages are
spoken (Roche & Suzuki 2017, 2018).
According to Yang et al. (2011:6), Tibetan pigs originated in the Tibetan highlands from a genetic
viewpoint. This means that Tibetans have not been strangers to pig-domestication and breeding sinceprehistoric times. However, from the viewpoint of linguistics, the pig has not played a crucial role inTibetans’ lives, unlike cattle, where rich lexical forms are used to distinguish different types from eachother (cf. ’Brug-mo-mtsho 2002; Sung & lHa-byams-rgyal 2005; Shao 2018; Ebihara 2019).
Additionally, Sagart et al. (2019) placed the origin of Sino-Tibetan as north-eastern China and Sagart(2019) reconstructed two word forms of ‘pig’. This means that the word forms attested in Tibetic
languages are also related to the Sino-Tibetan Urheimat.
The pig-breeding habit in the Tibetosphere generally exists in rural, agricultural areas; it is rarely
practised in city areas such as Lhasa or pastoral areas. In the eastern Tibetosphere, we frequently
encounter pigs in agricultural areas, and we also find various ways of breeding them; for example,
raising them in the basement or ground floor of a house, letting them roam grasslands or even a forest,and ‘pig pastoralism’, i.e. letting them graze under human surveillance. Pigs are raised for food, i.e. pork.
Recently, there have been Tibetans who raise pigs for commercial purposes. Their business model is tosell pork with local branding. The pig also functions as one of the zodiac signs: the year of the pig.
Twelve years ago, Suzuki (2007) discussed the word forms in Tibetic languages of the eastern
Tibetosphere based on limited data. This article revisits his analysis with more data (286 dialects intotal) and more useful software to produce geolinguistic maps: ArcGIS online. For phonetic notation, I
follow the method defined by Suzuki (2005, 2016) and Zhu (2010) for segmental description.
Suprasegmentals are, however, omitted unless necessary.
1 The LT phag includes several species other than domestic pigs. Its semantic category is similar to Sus.

40

2

Variations of ‘pig’

The word form of ‘pig’ in Tibetic languages in the eastern Tibetosphere is mostly stable, and a form
corresponding with the LT phag is widely employed. There are several other forms reported in small
areas, and they are classified into two categories: one is a form containing a word derived from the LT
phag, and the other is not. Map 1 displays the distribution of the word forms for ‘pig’.

A: phag
A+G: phag rgan
B: /ʔa gu/
Map 1: Distribution of word forms for ‘pig’
Map 1 demonstrates the following:- the geolinguistic variation on the word form for ‘pig’ is simple;

41

- most word forms are derived from phag, ‘pig’, i.e. types A and A+G. Type +G, phag rgan, literally
denotes ‘old pig’; and- there is an exception: Type B /ʔa gu/ (Serpo dialect; Khromjekhog2).
Other than the features mentioned above, we find /lu lu/ (Hua and Klu-’bum-rgyal 1993) as a formin the Sogwo dialect;3 however, this is not reflected in the map as there is no countercheck.4 Outside ofthe eastern Tibetosphere in principle, we find a pig ‘with a tail’: phag pa.5 The form phag lu is also
attested in some dialects of Amdo Tibetan.
A geolinguistic analysis of Map 1 tells us that the exceptions (A+G, B) appear alone in specificvarieties. I am still unsure how the exceptions were generated; however, a new form might be needed inorder to distinguish an animal from a year (cf. dialects using phag pa ‘pig’ in Central Tibet and phag lu‘pig’ in some places in Amdo). Type A+G, phag rgan, is used as a humilific form by pastoralists (Amdo
Tibetan),6 although this function is perhaps different from Type A+G and its distribution is connectedwith Amdo. The geographical distribution of Type B cannot be solved using a geolinguistic approach.

3

Variations of ‘boar’

The following description is divided into two parts: lexical variation and geographical variation.
Lexical variation
We find the following word forms7 for ‘boar’ in Tibetic languages in the eastern Tibetosphere:- P+R type (=corresponding to LT pho phag): there are several phonetic realisation types.
- P+WA type: a form like /pho wɑ/; the first syllable is related to LT pho ‘male’.
- R type (LT phag only).
- R+J type: LT phag followed by a syllable /jaʔ/.
- R+P type (=corresponding to LT phag pho).
- R+S type (=corresponding to LT phag gseb).
- R+L type: LT phag followed by a syllable /la/.
- R+T type: LT phag followed by a syllable /thʉʔ/.
- S type: LT gseb followed by a suffix /wa/.
- GL type: a form like /ɦgɯ lɯ/.
- R+PA type (=corresponding to LT phag pha).
- R+ZH type: LT phag followed by a syllable /ʑa/.
- LC type: a form like /li htɕu/.
- PE+T type: a form like /phe tɯ/.
- BR type: a form like /ɦbə˞/.
- BR+L type: a form like /ɦbə˞ lə/.
- J+TS type: a form like /ja tsə/.
- JR type: a form like /ja rə/.
- P+G type: a form like /pɔ ɣɔ/.
- PA+R type (=corresponding to LT pha phag).
- PE+C type: a form like /phe tɕhõ/.
2 See Suzuki (2009) for the linguistic classification.
3 It is not always appropriate to designate a variety of Amdo by using a toponym (Tsering Samdrup & Suzuki2017). Here, I follow the original description.
4 I have some data on the Sogwo dialect in which ‘pig’ corresponds to the LT phag.
5 Tibetan dictionaries, such as Jäschke (1881:339) and Zhang ed. (1985:1699–1700), describe phag as a name of
the year and a morpheme denoting ‘pig’ in compounds, and phag pa as the animal ‘pig’. If we follow the definitionof this description, the use of the LT phag as ‘pig’ does not correspond to the literary meaning. However, myclassification is not based on the meaning of LT, but the sound correspondence with LT.
6 See Tsering Samdrup and Suzuki (2019) for humilifics in Amdo Tibetan (Mabzhi Amdo).
7 In the following listed types, ‘R’ denotes ‘root’, designating the LT phag.

42-

PE+R type: forms /phe/ followed by LT phag.
PJE+P type: forms /phje/ followed by LT pho.
PJE+T type: a form like /phje tɤ/.
R+B type: a form like /phɑʔ ɦbə/.
R+D type: LT phag followed by a syllable /dɔ/̃ .
R+G type: LT phag followed by a syllable /gə/.
R+R+C type: LT phag followed by /rə htɕi/; the first syllable might be a class term.8
R+TR type: LT phag followed by a syllable /ʈhoʔ/.
R+TS type: LT phag followed by a syllable /tshə/.
R+W type: LT phag followed by a syllable /wo/.
S+R type (=corresponding to LT gseb phag).
TS type: a form like /htsa htsuʔ/.
TS+R type: a form like /tshə/ followed by LT phag.
TS+J type: a form like /tshə ja/.

Based on the morphological criterion, I classified the various types listed above into the following
groups:- A: LT-R group, including: Types P+R, R, R+P, R+PA, PA+R, PJE+P- B: LT-S group, including: Types S, R+S, S+R- C: R+affix group, including: Types R+J, R+L, R+T, R+ZH, PA+R, PE+R, PE+T, PJE+T, PE+C,
R+B, R+D, R+G, R+R+C, R+TR, R+W- D: TS group, including: Types R+TS, TS, TS+R, TS+J
- E: others
Each of the types and groups above is referred to in Maps 2 and 3, respectively.
Geographical variation
Map 2 displays a distribution of the types mentioned above, only based on my descriptions.

8 The term ‘class term’ denotes, for example, the LT bya ‘bird’ used as a part of the words for birds such as bya

de bo ‘rooster’ and bya khrung ‘crane’. It functions to indicate a category (here ‘bird’) despite the words de bo andkhrung possessing their meaning as specific species of birds (‘rooster’ and ‘crane’, respectively). See Tournadre
and Suzuki (forthcoming) for details.

43Map 2: Distribution of word forms for ‘boar’ (following types of word form)
Some general observations of Map 2 are as follows:- the form corresponding to LT (P+R=pho phag; black dot) is broadly attested regardless of thegeography;- high lexical variation is found in the easternmost and southernmost areas;- some dialects just use phag, a simple form (R);- the main difference is in the inclusion of the morpheme phag;- in the easternmost area, there are forms including a /s/-initial (probably derived from gseb ‘stallion;
uncastrated’ or sos ‘breed’); and- there are forms with a /l/-initial, of an unclear origin, in both the easternmost and southernmost
areas.

44

A geolinguistic analysis of Map 2 tells us that lexical variation is prominent in the southernmost andeasternmost areas where pig-breeding is practised extensively. I will focus on several word forms thatare indicated by the black symbols. There are two literary forms, pho phag (P+R) and phag pho (R+P),
of which the former appears more widely. Another form corresponding to phag pha ‘pig-father’ (R+PA)
is potentially analysed due to the morphological analogy parallel to phag ma ‘sow’; see Suzuki (2019)
for details.
To summarise the word forms, I classified them into five groups (A to E), as shown on Map 3.

Map 3: Distribution of word forms for ‘boar’ (classified)
Map 3 still shows the peculiarity of the word forms in the easternmost and southernmost areas, where
Tibetans indeed raise pigs. One can notice that Groups C and E are both distributed over a wide regionof the Tibetosphere of Yunnan. As Group E is a collection of various minor word forms, Group C issignificant as an areal lexical feature. It can be interpreted that Group C is a new form and has expanded45

from the rGyalthang area. It has been considered as the centre of this region (see Suzuki 2018; Wang
1995); hence, this interpretation is valid from the geolinguistic viewpoint. Group E, although a collectionof various word forms, is principally located in the outer area of Group C; hence, it could reflect archaic
forms.

4

Variations of ‘sow’

The following description is divided into two parts: lexical variation and geographical variation.
Lexical variation
We find the following word forms for ‘sow’ in Tibetic languages in the eastern Tibetosphere:- R+MA type (=corresponding to LT phag ma): there are several types of phonetic realisation.
- M+R type (=corresponding to LT mo phag): there are several types of phonetic realisation.
- R+M type (=corresponding to LT phag mo): there are several types of phonetic realisation.
- J+M type: forms such as /ji ma/.
- R+MA/M+WA type: there is a subclassification on ‘sow’: R+MA type for ‘sow with piglets’and M+WA type for ‘sow without piglets’.
- M+WA type: forms such as /mo wɑ/.
- P+J+M type: forms analysed as LT phag followed by /ji ma/. The first phag might function as aclass term which categorises ‘pig’.
- R+P+M type: forms analysed as LT phag followed by LT phag mo. The first phag might
function as a class term which categorises ‘pig’.
- J+TR type: a form like /je ʈhoʔ/.
- JA+M type: a form like /jɑ mo/.
- MA+R type (=corresponding to LT ma phag).
- R type (LT phag only) .
- R+G type: a form like LT phag followed by /ga/.
- R+J+K type: forms corresponding to LT phag followed by /jɯ ku/. The first phag might function
as a class term that categorises ‘pig’.
- R+MA+M type: forms corresponding to LT phag + ma + mo. The second syllable ma might be
a part of the word phag ma, and the third, mo, a feminine suffix.
- R+MA+MA type: forms corresponding to LT phag + ma + ma. The first ma might be a part of
the word phag ma, and the second, a feminine suffix.
Based on the morphological criterion, I classified the various types listed above into the following
groups:- A: LT-R group, including: Types R+MA, M+R, MA+R, R+M, R- B: LT-R’ group, including: Types R+P+M, R+G, R+MA+M, R+MA+MA- C: J group, including: Types J+M, P+J+M, JA+M, P+J+K- D: others
Each of the types and groups above are referred to in Maps 4 and 5, respectively.
Geographical variation
Map 4 displays a distribution of the types mentioned above, based solely on my descriptions.

46

Map 4: Distribution of word forms for ‘sow’ (following types of word form)
Some general observations on Map 3 are as follows:- forms corresponding to LT (R+MA=phag ma; M+R=mo phag; R+M=phag mo) are broadly
attested regardless of the geography;- high lexical variation is found in the easternmost and southernmost areas, similar to ‘boar’;- most word forms are derived from phag ‘pig’; and- the main difference is in the inclusion of the morpheme phag.
A geolinguistic analysis of Map 4 tells us, like Map 2, that lexical variation is prominent in thesouthernmost and easternmost areas where pig-breeding is practised extensively. I will focus on several
word forms that are indicated by the black symbols. There are three literary forms, phag ma (R+MA),
mo phag (M+R), and phag mo (R+M); the first appears most often, while the second appears mostwidely. The forms including a ‘J’ syllable (J+M, J+TR, JA+M; of unclear origin) are probably related47

to each other and are mainly found in the southernmost area. In some restricted areas, a semantic
subclassification has occurred: ‘sow without piglets’ and ‘sow with piglets’. In this case, phag ma ‘pigmother’ is used for the latter (Tshering Yangdron & Suzuki 2019).
To summarise the word forms, I classified them into five groups (A to D), as shown on Map 5.

Map 5: Distribution of word forms for ‘sow’ (classified)
The peculiarity of the word forms in the southernmost area is still visible on Map 5. Additionally,
the distribution of Groups C and D displays geographical continuity. As Group D is a collection ofvarious minor word forms, Group C is significant as an areal lexical feature. It can be interpreted thatGroup C has an archaic form in this area based on the same historical and social backgrounds mentioned
in the interpretation of Map 3.

48

5

Variations of ‘piglet’

The following description is divided into two parts: lexical variation and geographical variation.
Lexical variation
We can find the following word forms for ‘piglet’ in Tibetic languages in the eastern Tibetosphere:- R+PR type (=corresponding to LT phag phrug): there are several types of phonetic realisation.
- PJE type: forms with a glide such as /phje/.
- R+L type: a form like LT phag followed by /la, li, lə, lɯ/.
- PU type (=mostly corresponding to LT phag gu): including monosyllabic and disyllabic forms.
- PJE+G type: a form like /phje/ followed by LT diminutive gu or ’u.
- P+K type: a form like /phɯ kha/.
- P+W+TS type: a form like /phɑʔ wo tsə/.
- PJE+J type: a form like /phje jiː/
- R+GU type: a form like LT phag followed by /ɣu/.
- PE type: forms without a glide such as /phe/.
- PE+J type: a form like /phe ja/.
- R+G type: a form like LT phag followed by /ga/.
- AG type: a form like /ʔa gu/.
- PE+PR type: a form like /phe/ followed by LT phrug.
- PJE+L type: a form like /phje/ followed by /li, lə/.
- R+KR type: a form like LT phag followed by /ʈhɑʔ/.
- PJE+PR type: a form like /phje/ followed by LT phrug.
- R+CC type: a form like LT phag followed by /tɕhə/.
- SH+R type: a form like /ɕə/ followed by LT phag.
- AM type: a form like /ʔa mu/.
- ANG type: a form like /ʔa ŋɯ/.
- E+PR type: a form like /ʔe/ followed by LT phrug.
- GD type: a form like /go ɖi/ (for ‘male piglet’).
- PW type: a form like /phow ɣu/.
- R+CK type: a form like LT phag followed by /tɕə ɦgə/.
- R+GE type: a form like /phi gɛ/.
- R+J type: a form like LT phag followed by /jiː/.
- R+MM type: a form like LT phag followed by /me me/ ‘small’.
- R+RU type: a form like LT phag followed by /ruʔ/.
- R+TI type: a form like LT phag followed by /htiʔ/.
- R+TR type: a form like LT phag followed by / ʈhiʔ/.
- R+TSK type: a form like LT phag followed by /tsə ke/ ‘small’.
- R+W type: a form like LT phag followed by /wo/.
Based on the morphological criterion, I classified the various types listed above into the following
groups:- A: LT group, including: Type R+PR only
- B: LT-diminutive group, including: Types PJE, R+L, PU, PJE+G, R+GU, R+G, PE, PE+PR,
PJE+L, PJE+J, PJE+G, PJE+PR- C: PR group, including: Types R+PR, PE+PR, PJE+PR, E+PR, R+RU
- D: R+adjective group: Types R+MM, R+TSK, R+CK
- E: others
Each of the types and groups above are referred to in Maps 6 and 7, respectively.
Geographical variation
Map 6 displays a distribution of the types mentioned above, only based on my descriptions.

49

Map 6: Distribution of word forms for ‘piglet’ (following types of word form)
Some general observations on Map 6 are as follows:- the form corresponding to LT (R+PR=phag phrug; black dot) is broadly attested regardless of thegeography; and- high lexical variation is found in the easternmost and southernmost areas, similar to ‘boar’ and‘sow’; common forms are used in both of these areas.
A geolinguistic analysis of Map 6 tells us that the use of the literary form is attested in the areas
where Tibetans are less interested in pig-breeding; conversely, in the pig-breeding areas, particular
words for ‘piglet’ are found. I will focus on several word forms that are indicated by the black symbols.
Two greater types can be found, K-type (R+G, R+GU, P+K, PU, PJE+J, PE, etc.) and L-type (R+L,
PJE+L); the former is derived from + ’u, and the latter from + le, both of which are LT diminutive

50

markers. In some north-eastern areas, a semantic subclassification of gender has occurred for ‘male
piglet’ and ‘female piglet’, which is not reflected on the current map.
To summarise the word forms, I classified them into five groups (A to D), as shown on Map 7.

Map 7: Distribution of word forms for ‘piglet’ (classified)
Map 7 shows that the peculiarity of the word forms is distributed along the borderline of the eastern
Tibetosphere like a chain. Interestingly, the distribution pattern differs between the easternmost andsouthernmost areas. The majority of dialects in the easternmost area use Group E (a collection of various
minor forms), whereas those in the southernmost area use Group B. Since the morphology of Group B
is also attested in LT, its scattered distribution (easternmost, eastern, and southernmost) potentiallyoriginates from a LT word formation.

51

6Conclusion

We can find a rich lexical set of ‘pigs’ in the easternmost and southernmost areas, where pig-breeding
is widely practised. It has been considered that Tibetans’ lexicon on pigs is monotonous, corresponding
to the literary words. However, the situation in the eastern Tibetosphere implies that enriching the
vocabulary depends on the necessity of classifying something. This relationship is simply predicted dueto the potential need for lexical differences; no substantial evidence has been provided, but this is still
the prevailing view. Although biologically Tibetan pigs originated in the Tibet Plateau, without theirextensive breeding the variation of word forms for ‘pig’ would not have grown.
The lexical variation appears not only in derivation but also in the utilisation of other stems thanphag, such as gseb, /li/, /jɑ/, and /ji/. Additionally, we also find the usage of the syllable corresponding
to the LT phag as a class term.

Acknowledgements
The present study is funded by three Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for
the Promotion of Science [JSPS]: ‘International Field Survey of Tibeto-Burman Link Languages’(headed by Yasuhiko Nagano, No. JP16H02722), ‘Investigation of Undocumented Languages in the
Eastern Tibetosphere and their Geolinguistic Research’ (headed by the present author, No. JP17H04774),
and ‘Geolinguistic Studies of China and Adjacent Multilingual Areas Using High-resolution and Widearea Maps’ (headed by Mitsuaki Endo, No. JP18H00670).
References’Brug-mo-mtsho. 2002. Maqu Zangyu Yanjiu. Minzu Chubanshe.
Ebihara, Sh. 2019. Amudo-Tibetttogo bunpoo. Hituzi Syoboo.
Hua, K. & Klu-’bum-rgyal. 1993. Anduo Zangyu Kouyu Cidian. Gansu Minzu Chubanshe.
Jäschke, H. A. 1881. A Tibetan-English dictionary with special reference to the prevailing dialects.
Kegan Paul.
Roche, G. & H. Suzuki. 2017. Mapping the Linguistic Minorities of the Eastern Tibetosphere. Studies
in Asian Geolinguistics VI —“Means to Count Nouns” in Asian Languages—, 28-42.
https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag6_count_2017.pdf
Roche, G. & H. Suzuki. 2018. Tibet’s minority languages: Diversity and endangerment. Modern AsianStudies 52(4), 1227-1278. doi: 10.1017/S0026749X1600072X
Sagart, L. 2019. The position of Chinese in Sino-Tibetan, and of Sino-Tibetan in East Asia. Keynote
speech at the 27th Annual Conference of International Association of Chinese Linguistics (Kobe)
Sagart, L., G. Jacques, Y. Lai, R. J. Ryder, V. Thouzeau, S. J. Greenhill & J.-M, List. 2019. Dated
language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 116(21): 10317-10322. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1817972116
Shao, M. 2018. Hexi Zoulang Binwei Zangyu Dongnahua Yanjiu. Zhongshan Daxue Chubanshe.
Sung, K.-M. & lHa-byams-rgyal. 2005. Colloquial Amdo Tibetan: A complete guide for adult English
speakers. Zhongguo Zangxue Chubanshe.
Suzuki, H. 2005. Tibettogo onsetu koozoo no kenkyuu. Journal of Asian and African Studies 69: 1-23.
http://hdl.handle.net/10108/20212
Suzuki, H. 2007. Senseiminzokusooroo Tibettogo hoogen ni okeru ‘buta’ wo arawasu go. Kyoto
University Linguistic Research 26: 31-57. https://doi.org/10.14989/57308
Suzuki, H. 2009. Introduction to the method of the Tibetan linguistic geography——a case study in
the Ethnic Corridor of West Sichuan——. In Yasuhiko Nagano (ed.) Linguistic Substratum in52

Tibet——New Perspective towards Historical Methodology (No. 16102001) Report Vol.3, 15-34.
National Museum of Ethnology. http://hdl.handle.net/10502/4341
Suzuki, H. 2016. In defense of prepalatal non-fricative sounds and symbols: towards the Tibetan
dialectology. Researches in Asian Languages 10: 99-125. http://id.nii.ac.jp/1085/00002195/
Suzuki, H. 2018. 100 Linguistic Maps of the Swadesh Word List of Tibetic Languages from Yunnan.
Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. https://publication.aaken.jp/sag_mono3_tibet_yunnan_2018.pdf
Suzuki, H. 2019. Tibetic terms on ‘sow’ and ‘boar’ in the eastern Tibetosphere: (Mis-)interpretation
and analogy around ‘pig-mother’ and ‘pig-father’. Paper presented at 1st Annual Meeting ofJapan Geolinguistics Society (Tokyo)
Tournadre, N. 2014. The Tibetic languages and their classification. In Th. Owen-Smith & N. W. Hill
(eds.) Trans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan
Area, 105-129. Walter de Gruyter.
Tournadre, N. & H. Suzuki. forthcoming. The Tibetic Languages: An Introduction to the Family of
Languages Derived from Old Tibetan (with the collaboration of Xavier Becker and Alain Brucelles
for the cartography)
Tsering Samdrup & H. Suzuki. 2017. Migration history and tsowa divisions as a supplemental
approach to dialectology in Amdo Tibetan: A case study on Mangra County. Studies in Asian
Geolinguistics VII —Tone and Accent—, 57-65. https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag7_tone_2017.pdf
Tsering Samdrup & H. Suzuki. 2019. Humilifics in Mabzhi pastoralist speech of Amdo Tibetan.
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 42.2, in press.
Tshering Yangdron & H. Suzuki. 2019. Dongwang Zangyu yuyan ditu ji qi yu zhoubian tuhua deguanxi. Paper presented at 2019 salon of geolinguistics on China’s minority languages (Beijing).
Wang, H. 1995. Diqing Zangzu Shehuishi. Zhongguo Zangxue Chubanshe.
Yang, Sh., H. Zhang, H. Mao, D. Yan, Sh. Lu, L. Lian, G. Zhao, Y. Yan, W. Deng, X. Shi, Sh. Han,
Sh. Li, X. Wang & X. Gou. 2011. The local origin of the Tibetan pig and additional insights into
the origin of Asian pigs. PLoS ONE 6(12): e28215. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028215
Zhang, Y. ed. 1985. Bod-rgya tshig-mdzod chen-mo. Minzu Chubanshe.
Zhu, X. 2010. Yuyinxue. Shangwu Yinshuguan.

53

Applied Phylolinguistics in Cultural Comparative Studies– A Case Study of Sino-Tibetan Kinship Evolutionab,cTing Ji , Hanzhi Zhang , Thomas E. Curried, Andrew Meadee, Mark Pagele,f, and Ruth Maceb,c*aInstitute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of SciencesbcSchool of Life Sciences, Lanzhou University

Department of Anthropology, University College LondondeDepartment of Biosciences, University of Exeter

School of Biological Sciences, University of ReadingfSanta Fe Institute

Abstract
It is widely believed in China that matrilineal kinship was the ancestral human kinship system,and patrilineal systems evolved more recently. Genetic and archaeological evidence is mixed onwhether matrilineal system is ancient or recent in the evolution of the Sino-Tibetans. Here weuse cultural phylogenetics to address this question. We construct a phylogenetic tree ofSino-Tibetan languages using Bayesian MCMC inferences, and then use a variety of
ethnographic and historical sources to identify dispersal strategies across cultures. We compare
the likelihood of different ancestral states of kinship systems, based on the current distribution ofkinship descent and residence norms across cultures. We find the ancestral states at the root of
the Sino-Tibetan cultural phylogeny reflect male-centred kinship (i.e. female dispersal andpatrilineal descent). Our results suggest that female-centred kinship is relatively recent among
Sino-Tibetan groups.

1

Introduction

One of the most remarkable features of human societies is the extraordinary extent of cultural diversity
manifested in the form of stable and consistent behavioural variation among ethnolinguistic groups.
Major differences exist in marital system, subsistence, political organisation, and other social
institutions among cultures. Our study compares the likelihood of different ancestral states of kinshipsystems among Sino-Tibetan populations, using methods that were originally developed byevolutionary biology to study mechanisms that generate biological diversity.

2

BackgroundBy mapping ethnographic data on kinship systems onto linguistic phylogenetic trees, phylogenetic
comparative methods can be used to make inferences about the pattern of cultural evolution (Mace andHolden 2005), including ancestral states and patterns of historical change in kinship along the branchesof the tree. It has been showed that Austronesian kinship traits - including single-community patrilines,
kin terminology, matrilineal descent, unilineal descent, brideprice, and cousin marriage - are best
predicted by nearest phylogenetic neighbour instead of nearest geographical neighbour (Mace and54

Jordan 2011). Correlation analyses also found that family and kinship norms among ethnolinguistic
groups in Africa are best predicted by population history (Guglielmino et al. 1995; Hewlett, DeSilvestri,and Guglielmino 2002). Indeed, kinship norms can be stabilized even in the presence of intergroupmarriage, as immigrants tend to adopt norms of the new group (Richerson and Boyd 2005); hence theygenerally show strong phylogenetic signal. Phylogenetic comparative methods have been applied inmany cultural regions to infer the evolution of kinship systems including Bantu, Indo-European, andAustronesian populations (Opie et al. 2014; Fortunato 2011; Jordan et al. 2009). Nevertheless, cultural
practises in different regions may also evolve in different trajectories. A recent phylogenetic study(Moravec et al. 2018) showed that kinship systems in five language families (Austronesian, Bantu,
Indo-European, Pama-Nyungan and Uto-Aztecan) evolved in different directions and speeds. To thisdate, there is no cultural comparative study that examines Sino-Tibetan kinship evolution with theevolutionary paradigm explicitly. Here we use cultural phylogenetics to address this question.

3

Methods

3.1

Phylogenetic Reconstruction

We use Bayesian Markov-chain Monte Carlo inferences (Huelsenbeck, Rannala, and Masly 2000; Pagel
and Meade 2004) that produce a large sample of possible phylogenies to infer the ancestral relationships
between languages, weighted according to their likelihood. Cognate data for basic vocabulary in
Sino-Tibetan languages are taken from the Tower of Babel project (Peiros and Starostin 1996).
3.2

Ethnographic and Historical data

Written records on ancestral kinship systems were found in imperial annals, envoys’ reports andadministrative correspondence from 220 B.C. to the 18th century. Information from these historical
records were used to inform phylogenetic reconstructions of ancestral nodes, in addition to thepresent-day kinship status extracted from Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas (Murdock 1967; Gray 1999),
government censuses, and contemporary ethnographies (Wang 1994; Academia-Sinica 2009; Yang andDing 2003).
3.3

Comparative analyses of residence and descent

We inferred the ancestral states of residence, descent and rates of transitions between two states using
Bayesian RJMCMC methods as implemented in BayesTraits (www.evolution.reading.ac.uk) (Pagel and
Meade 2004) which accounts for uncertainty in the phylogeny by integrating models over the posterior.
We employed the “most-recent-common-ancestor” approach (Pagel, Meade, and Barker 2004) to findthe node in each tree in the posterior sample that contains a given set of descendant taxa, and calculates
the ancestral value at that node. Internal nodes can be fixed as either state where historical records giveindependent information about the ancestral state, by applying the “Fossil” command in BayesTraits v3.
This function is also a useful way to test if one state receives better support than the other at various
ancestral nodes. Support for different RJMCMC models were compared using log Bayes Factor (log
BF) (Pagel and Meade 2006).

4

Finding

We find no evidence to support the widespread belief that ancestral Sino-Tibetans had female-centredkinship, i.e. matrilineal descent or matrilocal residence. Switches from male-centred kinship systems tofemale-centred systems are relatively recent. Furthermore, no uni-directional model of kinshipevolution received support in our analyses, suggesting changes in kinship norms in both directions
occurred during the evolution of the Sino-Tibetans. Our methods take into account both the uncertainty
in the tree and in the patterns of cultural evolution on the tree and use all the results to work out thelikelihood of the various possible evolutionary pathways.

55

5

Conclusion

Here we use cultural phylogenetics to investigate the ancestral state of Sino-Tibetan kinship system. We
construct a phylogenetic tree of Sino-Tibetan languages using Bayesian MCMC inferences, identify
current distribution of kinship systems across ethnolinguistic groups, and compare the likelihood ofdifferent ancestral states of kinship systems, based on the. We find the ancestral states at the root of the
Sino-Tibetan cultural phylogeny reflect male-centred kinship (i.e. female dispersal and patrilineal
descent).
References
Academia-Sinica. 2009. "中研院歴史語言研究所集刊論文類編: 民族與社會編 A Collection of Acaememia
Sinica History and Language Studies Theses 1930-2000: Ethnic and Societies Volume." In, edited byAcademia Sinica. 中華書局 Zhonghua Publishing House.
Fortunato, L. 2011. 'Reconstructing the history of marriage and residence strategies in Indo-European-speaking
societies', Hum Biol, 83: 129-35.
Gray, J Patrick. 1999. 'A corrected ethnographic atlas', World Cultures, 10: 24-85.
Guglielmino, C. R., C. Viganotti, B. Hewlett, and L. L. Cavalli-Sforza. 1995. 'Cultural variation in Africa: roleof mechanisms of transmission and adaptation', Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 92: 7585-9.
Hewlett, BarryS, Annalisa DeSilvestri, and C Rosalba Guglielmino. 2002. 'Semes and genes in Africa', Current
Anthropology, 43: 313-21.
Huelsenbeck, John P, Bruce Rannala, and John P Masly. 2000. 'Accommodating phylogenetic uncertainty inevolutionary studies', Science, 288: 2349-50.
Jordan, F. M., R. D. Gray, S. J. Greenhill, and R. Mace. 2009. 'Matrilocal residence is ancestral in Austronesiansocieties', Proc Biol Sci, 276: 1957-64.
Mace, R., and C. J. Holden. 2005. 'A phylogenetic approach to cultural evolution', Trends Ecol Evol, 20: 116-21.
Mace, R., and F. M. Jordan. 2011. 'Macro-evolutionary studies of cultural diversity: a review of empiricalstudies of cultural transmission and cultural adaptation', Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 366:402-11.
Moravec, Jiří C, Quentin Atkinson, Claire Bowern, Simon J Greenhill, Fiona M Jordan, Robert M Ross, Russell
Gray, Stephen Marsland, and Murray P Cox. 2018. 'Post-Marital Residence Patterns Show
Lineage-Specific Evolution', Evolution and Human Behavior.
Murdock, George Peter. 1967. 'Ethnographic atlas'.
Opie, C., S. Shultz, Q. D. Atkinson, T. Currie, and R. Mace. 2014. 'Phylogenetic reconstruction of Bantu kinshipchallenges Main Sequence Theory of human social evolution', Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 111: 17414-9.
Pagel, M., and A. Meade. 2004. 'A phylogenetic mixture model for detecting pattern-heterogeneity in genesequence or character-state data', Syst Biol, 53: 571-81.
Pagel, M., A. Meade, and D. Barker. 2004. 'Bayesian estimation of ancestral character states on phylogenies',
Syst Biol, 53: 673-84.
Pagel, Mark, and Andrew Meade. 2006. 'Bayesian analysis of correlated evolution of discrete characters byreversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo', The American Naturalist, 167: 808-25.
Peiros, Ilia, and Sergej Starostin. 1996. A comparative vocabulary of five Sino-Tibetan languages (The
University of Melbourne, Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics: Parkville, Australia).
Richerson, Peter J, and Robert Boyd. 2005. "Not by genes alone." In.: Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wang, ZH. 1994. 'History of nationalities in China', China Social Science Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
Yang, Shengmin., and Hong. Ding. 2003. The Study of Chinese Ethnography 中国民族志 (Beijing: Central
University for Nationalities Press).

56

Contributors
Mitsuaki ENDO

Aoyama Gakuin University

Ray IWATA

Komatsu University

Takashi UEYA

Kyoto University of Foreign Studies

Fumiki SUZUKI

Nanzan University

Kazuo MIYAMOTO

Kyushu University

Kenji YAGI

Kokushikan University

Hiroyuki SUZUKI

University of Oslo / National Museum of Ethnology

Ting JI

Institute of Zoology, CAS

Hanzhi ZHANG

Lanzhou University / University College London

Thomas E. CURRIE

University of Exeter

Andrew MEADE

University of Reading

Mark PAGEL

University of Reading / Santa Fe Institute

Ruth MACE

Lanzhou University / University College London

57