Phonetic variation Background e book 66 Castro Sui Dialect

Table 5.52. PKS -j ə- and -i- mergers in SY indicated by double lines; -j ə- and -ja- mergers in TP and Pandong shaded in grey Gloss PKS ours SD Central SY Southern TP Western PD Pandong ‘yoke’ ʔit D ʔiːt⁷ ʔit⁷ ʔiːt⁷ ʔit⁷ ‘one’ ʔjət D ʔjɪt⁷ ʔit⁷ ʔjat⁷ jat⁷ ‘to exchange’ hlik D liːk⁷ lik⁷ liːk⁷ ljik⁷ ‘strength’ lj ək D l ɪk⁸ lik⁷ ljek⁸ lj ək⁸ ‘porcupine’ ʔbin C ʔbin³ ʔbin³ ʔbin³ ᵐbin³ ‘to fly’ pwj ən C vj ɪn³ vjin³ vjan³ vjen³ ‘to hurt’ kjit D ȶiːt⁷ ȶit⁷ ȶiːt⁷ ȶit⁷ ‘to sweep’ tsr ət D tj ɪt⁷ tjit⁷ JR tjat⁷ tjat⁷ In section 5.3, we observed that diphthongisation of long vowels after palatalised and labialised onsets occurs both in TP, AT and Pandong dialects. Viewed together, then, these rime innovations suggest a historical link between TP and Pandong dialects, even though some onset innovations in particular, loss of preglottalisation and transfer of nasalisation from voiceless nasal onset to rime indicate that Pandong should be grouped with Eastern Sui. Some common tonal developments see chapter 4, section 4.3.2 also indicate a historical link between Western and Pandong dialects. If Pandong and Western Sui truly descended from a common ancestor dialect, the loss of preglottalisation and voiceless nasals must have been a later innovation which spread across the northern Sui region e.g., Pandong and Eastern Sui areas. Furthermore, the [24] realisation of Tone 6 see chapter 4, section 4.6.1 must almost certainly have been a later sound change which possibly diffused across the Western Sui region under the influence of Yang’an dialect.

5.5 Phonetic variation

We recorded many minor phonetic differences between Sui dialects, village-lects and idiolects which we have not touched upon in this chapter. For example, j is often pronounced as [ ʑ] or occasionally [ⁿʑ], ʔȵ sometimes becomes [ʔ] e.g., ‘to agree’ ʔȵi⁶ ʔĩ⁶ and ‘cold’ ʔȵit⁷ ʔĩt⁷ and h is sometimes pronounced [f] before high, back vowels. Readers may refer to chapter 3, sections 3.2.2–3.2.3 Sui phonology sketch and to the phonetic transcriptions of our wordlists in appendix H to uncover fine phonetic variations. In chapter 7, we calculate the “phonetic distance” between Sui dialects using a Levenshtein distance algorithm Heeringa 2004. We apply this algorithm to two sets of wordlists: one transcribed narrowly, including fine pronunciation features some of which are not particularly characteristic of each location; another using broad, phonemic transcriptions. We find that fine phonetic variation does not have any bearing on overall dialect subgroupings as indicated by phonetic distance.

5.6 Shared diachronic innovations and Sui subgrouping

We conclude this chapter with a summary of shared innovations grouped by dialect cluster. The divergent historical developments of Yang’an dialect and Southern subdialect are unambiguous. They provide ample evidence for grouping Yang’an as a separate lect within the Kam branch albeit possessing similarities to Sui due to recent sound changes which diffused across the Sui region and for positing a separate Southern Sui cluster within the Sui branch. The subgrouping of Pandong dialect in relation to other Sandong dialects is open to interpretation. We take the view that Pandong and Western Sui varieties descended from the same “proto-dialect”, but there is also evidence that points to a subgrouping of Pandong with Eastern subdialect. From a purely synchronic perspective, Pandong and Eastern lects share many common phonemic traits, as do Western and Central varieties. Western Sui also shares Yang’an dialect’s distinctive pronunciation of a small number of lexical items presumably due to contact-induced diffusion. As an aside, from a historical comparative perspective, the choice of SD Sandong as a standard and representative lect for the whole of Sui is a good one. SD is a conservative lect belonging to the Central Sui cluster. It has not undergone any of the later innovations seen in Pandong, Western and Eastern varieties. Furthermore, it bears some resemblance to Southern Sui: a high Tone 6 see chapter 4, section 4.6.1 and some shared vocabulary see chapter 6. Both Central and Southern Sui varieties retain the most number of phonemic distinctions in onsets and rimes.

5.6.1 Yang’an

Yang’an dialect has undergone a series of sound changes almost all of them phonemic mergers that makes it divergent from other Sui lects. These are summarised in table 5.53. The vast majority are shared with Kam and support our grouping of Yang’an with the Kam branch of Kam-Sui. Yīn-yáng tone allocations see chapter 4 also suggest that Yang’an branched off with Kam from other Kam-Sui languages before the Great Tone Split occurred. It is possible that at some point in history there was a migration west of Kam-Sui peoples from the Kam heartland. Some of them settled in the Yang’an region and became Sui. Others continued west and settled in Pingtang county becoming speakers of what we now know as the Then language. Although the shared phonological developments of Kam, Yang’an Sui and Then support this theory, it is way beyond the scope of this work. Table 5.53. Divergent sound changes in Yang’an. Reflexes which are the result of shared sound changes are enclosed in double lines. PKS forms are ours unless indicated otherwise Sandong Yang’an Kam see Table PKS SD TN BL ʔb- ʔb- m- m- m- 5.2 ʔd- ʔd- l- l- l- 5.3 ʔr- ʔɣ- ɣ- ɣ- j- 5.4 ʔN- ʔN- N- N- N- 5.5 ʔj- ʔj- j- j- j- 5.6 N.tsʰr- ⁿd- tʰ- tʰ- tʰ- 5.14 hŋl- ɴɢ- q- q- q- ʔ-l- 5.17 xw- f- pj- pj- pj- 5.19 ɣw- f- tj-, p- tj-, p- ȶ- 5.20 pʰw- v- pʰ- pʰ- pʰ- 5.21 c- ts- ȶ- ȶ- ȶ- 5.27 tɕ- s z, ȶ-, tj- ts- , ȶ-, tj- ȶ- 5.33 kj- ȶ- k- , ȶ- k- , ȶ- q- ʔ-, ȶ- 5.29 kʰj- __i ȶʰ kʰ, ȶʰ- kʰ-, ȶʰ- kʰ, ȶʰ- 5.30 kʰj- elsewhere s-, z- kʰ, ȶʰ- kʰ-, ȶʰ- kʰ, ȶʰ- 5.31 -jen -en -in -in -in 5.40 -wa -wa - ɔ, -a, -wa -ɔ, -a, -wa -ɔ, -a, -wa 5.42 - əw -u - aːu - aːu - aːu 5.43 m̥V- m̥- hwṼ- hwṼ- m- , ŋw- 5.11 ʔdl̥- l- h- h- l- 5.23 kⁿs- Ferlus h- l- l- s- 5.36 ql- ʔd- l- q-, k- kw-, k- 5.24 qʰl- h- h- qʰ, h- kʰw-, kʰ- 5.25 m.p- ᵐb- ᵐb- p- p- 5.13 N.t- ⁿd- ⁿd- t- t- 5.14 N.tr- ⁿdj- ⁿdj- tj- t- 5.14 pw- v- v- p- p- 5.21 Banliang BL is clearly different from other Yang’an dialects TN, LW. It shares some sound changes with Kam which have not occurred in the other Yang’an lects the last four listed in table 5.53. These are possibly later sound changes which occurred independently. Alternatively, although rather improbably, they may indicate that Banliang speakers migrated from the Kam area later than other Yang’an Sui speakers, after Kam had undergone the same sound changes. Yang’an dialect has also undergone some sound changes which are not shared with Kam and which therefore presumably took place at a later stage, in particular m̥V- hwṼ-, ʔdl̥- h- and kⁿs- Ferlus l-. The first of these sound changes also occurred in Pandong and some Eastern Sui varieties. Furthermore, Yang’an has retained the palatalised alveolar series tj- , ⁿdj-, tsj-, ʔnj-, nj-, sj-, whereas these have merged with corresponding alveolopalatals ȶ-, ȵ-, ɕ- in most Kam dialects. We found only three sound changes consistently shared by both Yang’an and Sandong dialects but not by Kam. These are given in table 5.54 and are presumably later innovations. Table 5.54. Sound changes shared by Yang’an and Sandong. PKS forms are ours Sandong Yang’an Kam see Table PKS SD TN BL N.kr- ŋN- ŋ.kr-ble ŋŋ. h-, j- 5.16 kʰw- f- f- f- pʰ-, kʰw- 5.19 hl- l- l- l- s- 5.23

5.6.2 Southern

Southern Sui clearly branched off from the rest of Sui at an early point in time, due to a series of divergent diachronic sound changes mostly resulting in phonemic mergers, not undergone by any other Sui dialect. These are listed in table 5.55. Furthermore, Southern Sui has retained preglottalisation on several words with approximant and nasal onsets which has been lost in other Sui dialects, for example ‘to sneeze’ ʔjan⁵ and ‘Miao’ ʔmiu¹ see section 5.2.1.4. Table 5.55. Divergent sound changes in Southern Sui. PKS is ours Sandong Kam see Table PKS Central and Western Southern N.tr- ⁿdj- tj- not SY ȶ- 5.14 N.tsʰr- ⁿd- t- not SY tʰ- 5.14 N.k-, N.kr- ŋɡ- ɣ- k-, j-, h- 5.16 xw- f- w- pj- 5.19 pw- v- w- p- 5.21 p.q- p- q- p-kw-w- 5.22 ʔdl-, ʔdl̥- l- ʔd- l- 5.23 ql- ʔd- q-, k- , ȶ- k-, kw- 5.24 qʰl- h- qʰ- kʰw-, kʰ- 5.25 c- ts- ts-, tsj- not SY ȶ- 5.27 kʰj- ‘heavy’, ‘light’ z- tsj-, ts- not SY ȶʰ 5.32 ɕi- Chinese loans s- sj- not SY ɕ- 5.34 kʰl- kʰ- x- j-, h- 5.35 -i C[+pal]___ i e e 5.44, 5.45 - uŋ C[+lab]___ uŋ oŋ uŋ 5.50 ʔN-, ʔj-, ʔw- partial N-, j-, w- ʔN-, ʔj-, ʔw- N-, j-, w- 5.8 Most of Southern Sui’s yīn-yáng tone allocations are in agreement with other Sandong subdialects and Pandong dialect, with the exception of tones on words with ɣ- initials which tend to be pronounced ŋɡ- in other Central dialects; see chapter 4, section 4.3.3 for discussion of tone developments. As table 5.55 indicates, although Shuiyao SY shares many phonological innovations with other Southern lects and clearly belongs to the Southern Sui cluster, it is nevertheless somewhat distinctive. It has retained prenasalisation on some words with PKS nasal prefixes and it has also lost palatalisation which is retained by other Southern lects on many words. Furthermore, as we noted in chapter 4, section 4.4.2, Shuiyao has undergone a merger of Tones 7 and 8 on rimes with short vowel nuclei.

5.6.3 Central, Western, Eastern and Pandong

When it comes to the remaining Sui dialects, the main problem is the subgrouping of Pandong dialect. Pandong shares several sound changes with Eastern Sui and several other different sound changes with Western Sui. Thus one could argue for both subgroupings. Our evidence suggests that sound changes shared by Pandong and Eastern occurred more recently than those shared by Pandong and Western. We therefore propose that, from a historical perspective, Pandong and Western group together and branch off from the same node in the Sui branch as depicted in figure 5.1 at the beginning of this chapter. More recent sound changes, along with distinctive shared lexical items see chapter 6, lead us to group DJ, SJ and RL together into an Eastern subdialect, separate from other Sandong varieties. Table 5.56 lists the shared sound changes in Central, Western, Eastern and Pandong Sui dialects and subdialects. The key to accurate subgrouping is to discern which sound changes occurred at an earlier stage and which at a later stage. We refer to external evidence to help us in this quest. Table 5.56. Shared sound changes in Pandong, Eastern and Western subdialects. Reflexes which are a result of shared sound changes are enclosed in double lines. Phonemic mergers are shaded in grey. PKS is ours unless indicated otherwise Sandong Pandong Sandong Eastern see Table Central Western PKS SD TP JL PD RL DJ ʔb- ʔb- ʔb- ᵐb- ᵐb- ᵐb- ᵐb- 5.2 ʔd- ʔd- ʔd- ⁿd- ⁿd- ⁿd- ⁿd- 5.3 ʔr- ʔɣ- ʔɣ- ɣ- ɣ- ɣ- ɣ- 5.4 ʔN- ʔN- ʔN- N- N- N- ʔN- 5.5 ʔj- ʔj- ʔj- j- j- j- ʔj- 5.6 m̥V- m̥- m̥- hwṼ-, m- hwṼ-, m- hwṼ- m̥- 5.11 n̥V- n̥- n̥- hṼ- hṼ- hṼ- n̥- 5.12 ȵ̥V-, ŋ̥V- ȵ̥-, ŋ̥- ȵ̥-, ŋ̥- hjṼ- hjṼ- hjṼ- ȵ̥-, ŋ̥- 5.12 kʰj- __i ȶʰ- ȶʰ- ɕ- ɕ- ɕ- ɕ- 5.30 c- ts- ts- ȶ- ȶ- ts- ȶ- __i ts- ȶ- __i 5.27 kʰj- ‘hot’, ‘dry’ s- kʰ- kʰ- kʰ- s- s- 5.31 tɕ- s- z- z- j- s- s- 5.33 kʰl- ‘to pare’, ‘crispy, ‘rib’ kʰ- h- kʰ- h- kʰ- kʰ- 5.35 C.mr- Ferlus ᵐbj- mj- mj- mj- ᵐbj- ᵐbj- 5.13 -ja -ja - iːa - iːɛ - iːa -ja -ja 5.39 - jaːN - jaːN - iːeN -iN -ieN - jaːN - jaːN 5.40 -jeN -jeN -ieN -ieN 5.40 -wa -wa - uːa - ɯːə - uːə -wa -wa 5.42 Firstly, as noted in section 5.2.1, the loss of preglottalisation is by no means uniform across the Eastern Sui region. Dujiang DJ retains preglottalisation on all nasals and approximants. Sanjiang SJ retains preglottalisation on ʔj-. Only Renli RL is completely consistent with Pandong in having lost preglottalisation entirely. Geographically, Renli is the furthest data point from the Pandong dialect area. Loss of preglottalisation, then, appears to be a sound change which is gradually diffusing across eastern and northern Sui areas, from east to west. It is of course possible that Renli and Pandong share a common ancestor dialect, but Renli shares none of the other sound changes in the lower half of table 5.56 which Pandong shares with Western varieties. Furthermore, merging of preglottalised stops with their plain, voiced counterparts is a relatively common sound change, occurring in such widely diverse language families and branches as Mon-Khmer Matisoff 2003, Nungish Sun and Liu 2009 and Indo-European Kortlandt 1985. Secondly, the transfer of nasality from voiceless nasals which became voiceless glottal fricatives to the following vowels seems to be a recent sound change. In Dujiang, this sound change has not occurred at all. In Yang’an dialects, it has occurred only on bilabial nasals. Since we know that Yang’an branched from an entirely separate node of Kam-Sui, this sound change must have occurred independently from Pandong and Eastern see section 5.2.2. 33 As we noted in section 5.2.2.1, older speakers in Sanjiang SJ still retain the original voiceless nasals. Moreover, SDB 1958:52 documents that in Rongjiang their data point was just 4 km south of RL, voiceless nasals were largely preserved, although there was evidence of the emergence of a “nasalised fricative” which they transcribed as ŋ̥w-. The situation has clearly changed over the last fifty years. Furthermore, shared phonemic splits or mergers are far more compelling evidence for subgrouping than simple alternative pronunciations, however “innovative” they may be. This transfer of nasality has generally not resulted in phonemic mergers, since hṼ-, hjṼ- and hwṼ- are all phonemically distinct and directly correspond to n̥-, ȵ̥- or ŋ̥-; this is a mini merger and m̥- in other Sui dialects. On the other hand, sound changes shared by Pandong and Western Sui varieties, at least five of which do constitute phonemic mergers, seem to have occurred at an earlier stage, evidenced by accompanying shared yīn-yáng tone assignments see chapter 4, tables 4.6 and 4.7. Thus we argue that Pandong dialect and Western Sui dialects should be grouped together. Of particular significance are C.mr- mj- merging with mj-, the merger of - jaːN and -eN, and the dithphthongisation of the vowel nucleus in jVːC and wVːC. Synchronic phonetic similarities between northern and western Sui varieties and Pandong varieties observed by Stanford 2011 add weight to a Pandong-Western subgrouping.

5.7 Cross-dialect similarities and “Sui-ness”

Our proposed subgrouping of Sui dialects illustrated in figure 5.1 of this chapter certainly does not constitute the final word on the matter. Firstly, our subgrouping only shows the probable diachronic evolution of the Sui dialects since the Proto-Kam-Sui stage. It does not show current synchronic similarities between the various dialects due to later sound changes. For example, as we noted in section 5.6, Pandong dialect bears many phonetic resemblances to Eastern subdialect due to some recent sound changes which swept across the northern Sui area. Similarly, Yang’an dialect bears some phonetic similarities to Western Sui due to cross-dialect contact. 34 Secondly, our subgrouping takes into account neither mutual intelligibility nor similarities in lexicon, grammar or discourse structures. Our lexical comparison in chapter 6 indicates a slightly different subgrouping of dialects, largely due to Yang’an’s heavy borrowing of CentralWestern Sui words and the many distinctive lexical items found in Pandong dialect but not elsewhere. Cross-dialect intelligibility is discussed in chapter 8. To conclude this chapter we show how, despite the historical divergence of Sui dialects, all Sui dialects do now share a common auditory resemblance. This shared resemblance lends all Sui speech varieties, including Yang’an dialect, a so-called “Sui-ness”, distinguishing them from other Kam-Sui languages and supporting the generally accepted designation of a single Sui language. This shared auditory resemblance is due to two factors: 1 shared retentions from PKS; and 2 later sound changes which diffused across the Sui region. 33 Unless it is a sound change which has diffused across the region. This is unlikely given the lack of contact between Yang’an and Pandong dialect speakers. 34 We have not discussed this in detail although plenty of examples can be found in the data tables. Examples include: ‘sand’ N.tsre A ⁿde¹ Yang’an, Western and Central; Yang’an usually sees l- reflex; ‘spider’ N.ko A ŋɡo¹ Central, ŋo² Yang’an and Western; Western usually sees ŋɡ- reflex with yīn tone; and ‘steep’ kʰjan C ȶʰen³ Central, Western. xjaːn¹ Yang’an; Yang’an usually retains kʰ- like Kam.

5.7.1 PKS retentions shared by all Sui dialects

Shared retentions are shown in table 5.57. Palatalised alveolars are retained by all Sui dialects whereas they have merged with alveolopalatals in Kam. Uvular stops are also retained in all Sui dialects whereas they have merged with either glottal or velar stops in most Kam dialects. Finally, phonemic voiceless nasals not shown in table 5.57 are retained in all varieties of Sui in one form or another either as m̥-, n̥- etc. or as h̃w-, h̃j- etc., see section 5.2.2 whereas they have merged with their voiced counterparts in most Kam dialects. Table 5.57. Retentions from PKS shared by all Sui dialects PKS ours PKS Sandong Pandong Yang’an Kam Examples Gloss Sui SD Sui TN Kam Chejiang ʔnj-, nj- ʔnj-, nj- nj- nj- ȵ- ‘narrow’ ʔnjap⁷ njap⁷ ȵap⁷ ‘moon’ njen² njaːn¹ ȵan¹ tʰr- tʰj-, tʰr- tj- tʰj-, tj- tʰj-, tj- tʰj-, tj- ȶ- ‘to wear’ tʰjak⁷ tʰjak⁷ ȶak⁷ ‘full’ tjaŋ⁵ tjaŋ⁵ ȶaŋ⁵ q-, ɢ- q- q- q- ʔ-, k- ‘cave’ qaːm¹ qaːm¹ ʔaːm¹ ‘to stroll around’ qon⁶ qon⁶ kon⁶

5.7.2 Late sound changes shared by all Sui dialects

Late sound changes which are shared by all Sui dialects are given in table 5.58. The fact that these are shared across such a wide area would normally indicate that they are early innovations. However, we have already established that Yang’an Sui developed on a very different trajectory from the other Sui dialects. Furthermore, two of these shared sound changes occur almost exclusively on Chinese loanwords. It would seem, then, that these particular changes diffused across the Sui area after Yang’an speakers had migrated into the area from their original homeland. Finally, evidence presented in chapter 4 shows that a “voiced-high” tonal flip-flop diffused across the Sui region, occurring on tone categories A and C in all Sui dialects, and also on tone category B in Central Sui varieties in and south of Sandong township and in Southern, Eastern and Pandong dialects and subdialects. Although this tonal flip-flop occurred in other languages spoken in and around the Sui region, only Sui was universally affected and thus acquired a distinctive tonal timbre. Table 5.58. Late sound changes shared by all Sui dialects PKS ours PKS Sandong Pandong Yang’an Kam Examples Gloss Sui SD Kam Chejiang l̥- l- l- l- s- ‘to wash’ lak⁷ sak⁷ ‘to rest’ lwa⁵ sa⁵ ɕ- mostly loans s- s- s- ɕ- ‘to tell’ sot⁷ ɕot⁹ ‘spring’ s ən¹ ɕən¹ s- h- h- h- s- ‘to give’ haːi¹ saːi¹ ‘root’ haːŋ¹ saːŋ¹ sj- mostly loans hj- ɕ- hj- hj-, h- s- ‘straight’ ɕaŋ² saŋ² ‘four’ ɕi⁵ si⁵ s.j- j- j- j- s- ‘fishy’ ju¹ saːu¹ ‘tip’ jut⁷ s ət⁷ 115 6 Lexical Similarity Melissa Partida, Andy Castro

6.1 Background

The usefulness of lexical similarity counts for subgrouping language varieties has been the subject of a great deal of debate. The general consensus among comparative linguists is that regular diachronic sound changes as revealed by rigorous application of the comparative method are a far more reliable way of uncovering the genetic relatedness of languages and dialects Thurgood 2003, Campbell 2004. Nevertheless, comparing lexical items can give us a useful perspective on perceived levels of linguistic similarity between different dialects and languages. Lexical similarity counts contribute to the overall synchronic picture of inter-dialect relationships, even though they do not necessarily reflect historical relatedness. Comparison of “basic vocabulary” e.g., terms for body parts, close kinship and the natural world has also been used as evidence for proposing more distant genetic relationships between languages Benedict 1975, Luo 2000, Ostapirat 2005. This hinges on the problematic assumption that basic vocabulary is more resistant to borrowing, thus similarities in basic vocabulary are more likely to be due to a shared inheritance than to diffusion. Additionally, dialectologists have discovered that lexical similarity counts and levels of inter- dialectal intelligibility are related Blair 1990, Grimes 1995. In particular, Blair’s “intelligibility threshold” of 60 that is, two language varieties must have a minimum lexical similarity of 60 in order for them to have any chance of being mutually intelligible is often quoted. Thus lexical similarity counts can provide supporting evidence for “communication clusters” indicated by intelligibility testing. In this chapter we first compare Sui and Kam lexical data and show that all dialects of Sui including Yang’an, see discussion in chapters 4 and 5 group together and are clearly distinct from Kam. Nevertheless, Yang’an dialect shares more cognates with Kam than other Sui dialects do, and many of these appear to constitute shared lexical innovations. This backs up our hypothesis that Yang’an genetically belongs to the Kam branch of Kam-Sui. Secondly, we examine the internal lexical similarity of all Sui lects covered by our survey. When it comes to shared lexicon, four distinct groupings emerge: 1 Sandong Central, Western and Eastern; 2 Sandong Southern; 3 Yang’an; and 4 Pandong. The most lexically divergent dialect cluster is Pandong. Central Sui spoken in Sandong township SD emerges as the most lexically representative of all Sui dialects, sharing over 90 of vocabulary with all other Sandong Sui dialects apart from Jiarong JR and Shuiyao SY, both Southern varieties spoken in Libo county. Finally, we provide a summary of distinctive lexical items representative of each Sui dialect cluster and discuss some instances of semantic change which are evident in various parts of the Sui region. We conclude that although all Sui dialects are unique, there is a linguistic and cultural unity that makes them all distinctly “Sui”.

6.2 Methodology