Lecture series: Mon-Khmer languages

A Brief Introduction:

The Mon-Khmer languages of SEAsia, together with the Munda languages of India, form the Austroasiatic Family, an ancient stock that dominated before the colonisation of the region by Thais, Burmese, Malays and Indo-Aryans.

Today it exists as a patchwork of more than a hundred languages spread across an area that ranges from eastern India to Vietnam, and from Yunnan to Malaysia and the Nicobar Islands of the Andaman Sea. In only two countries are Mon-Khmer languages the official tongues: Cambodia (Cambodian) and Vietnam (Vietnamese). In all other cases they are minority languages, ranging from communities with only hundreds of speakers (e.g. such as some Aslian languages) to communities of more than a million (e.g. Khasi, Katuic etc.).

Structurally Mon-Khmer languages tend to have 'sesquisyllablic' word structure. Words may begin with clusters of three or even four consonants, but the set of possible word finals is always much more restricted. The range of word shapes in a typical Mon-Khmer language is illustrated with the following examples from Jru’ (West Bahnaric, Lao PDR):

  • CV kaa ‘fish’
  • CVC daak ‘water’
  • CCVC plaj ‘fruit’
  • CCVC pteh ‘earth’
  • CCCVC kbreh ‘blink’

The languages are analytical in their grammar, with only a modest morphological systems, utilising prefixation and infixation for mostly derivational purposes. Historically there is an evident tendency towards morphological simplification, an extreme example being Vietnamese—its lexicon is basically monosyllabic and it relies upon word order and compounding to express grammatical functions. The vestages of much more complicated morphology in Khmer (for example) suggest that in ancient time the system was much more elaborated.

Syntactically MK languages have characteristics typical of the SEAsian linguistic area, such as:

  • Subject-Verb-Object word order
  • Noun Classifiers
  • Serial Verb Constructions

Generally MK languages show a strong tendency to assimilate sytactically to their areal neighbours. The more distant (geographically and genetically) Munda languages are markedly different in many respects.

The set of phonemes in MK languages can be quite large and have some unusual types of articulation in comparison to other languages of the world, including imploded and/or glottalised consonants, voiceless nasal and lateral sounds, and there may be tones or so-called ‘registers’, distinguishing breathy and/or creaky vowels. Among these tongues we find the largest inventories of vowels of any language in the world, with some having dozens of monophthongs and diphthongs.

 

Map of Mon-Khmer (and Munda) languages

Mpa of MK languages
The above map is only indicative, e.g. the Munda languages also cover an area to the west beyond the map area. The term Austroasiatic indicates the macro-family that includes both Mon-Khmer and Munda languages.

Classification of Mon-Khmer (and Munda) languages

MK family tree by Diffloth (2004)

The table above is from Diffloth (2005). However, the classification is still an open question, and I tend to the view that the MK languages are really 10 or so branches that once spread rapidly over SEAsia (download my most recent paper). The sub-classifications within the branches are also not universally agreed, and readers should refer to discussion on the relevant pages within this site.

The Munda languages of India are more distantly related to MK, all together forming the Austroasiatic family. According to the ideas discussed at the 2004 South East Asian Linguistic Society meeting in Bangkok by Prof. David Stampe (Uni. Hawaii), India may be the homeland of Austroasiatic, and Mon-Khmer reflects an offshoot that migrated eastward. In this model there is not a simple split of Munda versus MK, rather Austroasiatic has perhaps 3, 4 or more old branches, with MK one of these, or an offshoot of one of these. In that case the identification of a distinct Munda branch is premature, and it may be better to reserve the term Munda for just the sub-group containing Mundari, Santali etc. The division of North versus South Munda is certainly oversimplified, according David Stampe (pers. com.) 4 sub-groups are reconstructable, but how they form a family tree is far from clear.

*Acknowledgement:
I would like to thank Prof. Gerard Diffloth. Much of the inspiration for the preparation of this site comes from the discovery of the enormous collection of manuscipt materials of Diffloth held at the Cornell University Library (Kroch Library Rare & Manuscripts - Call Number: Archives 6313). In November 2002 I travelled to Cornell and spent a week examining the papers. They represent an important resource for comparative MK studies, and it is a tremendous service to the scholarly community that these materials are freely available. I would also like to thank Gerard for recent feedback which has helped me to improve the site, and to all my other colleages who have also kindly offered their remarks.

References and further reading:

  • Diffloth, Gérard. 1974. Austro-Asiatic Languages. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 480-484.
  • Diffloth, Gérard. 2005. The contribution of linguistic palaeontology to the homeland of Austro-asiatic. In: Sagart, Laurent, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas (eds.). The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics. RoutledgeCurzon. pp79-82.
  • Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1954. De l'origine des tons en viêtnamien. Journal Asiatique, 242:69-82.
  • Huffman, Franklin E. 1986. Bibliography and Index of Mainland Southeast Asian Languages and Linguistics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Huffman, Franklin, Charan Promchan and Chhom-Rak Thong Lambert.1970. Modern spoken Cambodian. New Haven, Yale University Press.
  • Jenner, Philip N., Laurence Thompson and Stanley Starosta (eds.). 1976. Mon-Khmer Studies. Volumes I & II. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  • Parkin, Robert. 1991. A guide to Mon-Khmer speakers and their languages. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
  • Peiros, Ilia. 1998. Comparative Linguistics in Southeast Asia. Canberra: Australian National University.
  • Rischel, Jørgen. 1995. Minor Mlabri: a Hunter-Gatherer Language of Northern Indochina. Copenhagen, Museum Tusculanum Press.
  • Schmidt, Prater Wilhelm. 1926. Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachenkreise der Erde. 2 volumes. Heidelberg, Carl Winter.
  • Sebeok, Thomas. 1942. An examination of the Austro-Asiatic language family. Language, 18:206-217.
  • Smith, Kenneth. 1979. Sedang Grammar. Pacific Linguistics B-50, Canberra, Australian National University.
  • Suwilai Premsrirat. 1989. Khmu: A Minority Language of Thailand. Pacific Linguistics A-75. Canberra: The Australian National University.
  • Thomas, David and Robert Headley. 1970. More on Mon-Khmer sub-groupings. Lingua, 25:398-418.
  • Thomas, David. 1971. Chrau Grammar. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication No. 7. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press.

Copyleft Paul Sidwell.
Last updated August 2006.
This text was prepared for teaching purposes: it may be freely downloaded, and/or reproduced with appropriate author citation, on condition that any document prepared with the benefit of this text is similarly made freely available.

The Australian National University CRICOS Provider Number is 00120C