e book 66 Castro Sui Dialect

Digital

Resources

_{SIL eBook 66}

Sui Dialect Research

Edited by

Sui Dialect Research

Originally published in Chinese

as Shuiyu Diaocha Yanjiu

水语调查研究

,

by Guizhou People’s Press, Guiyang, 2014

Edited by

Andy Castro and Pan Xingwen

Contributors

Andy Castro, Pan Xingwen, Lu Chun, Wei Shifang, Shi Guomeng,

Catherine Ching-yee Castro, Emily Wang Yongzhen, Melissa Partida

A joint research project between

Sandu Sui Autonomous County Sui Research Institute

and

Southwestern Minorities Languages and Culture Research Institute,

Guizhou University and SIL International, East Asia Group

SIL International

®

SIL e-Books 66

2015 SIL International® ISSN: 1934-2470

Fair-Use Policy:

Books published in the SIL e-Books (SILEB) series are intended for scholarly research and educational use. You may make copies of these publications for research or instructional purposes free of charge (within fair-use guidelines) and without further permission. Republication or commercial use of SILEB or the documents contained therein is expressly prohibited without the written consent of the copyright holder(s).

Editor-in-Chief

Mike Cahill

Volume Editor

Becky Quick

Managing Editor

Eric Kindberg

Compositor

iii

Abstract

The Sui are an official minority group of China with a population of around 430,000. The Sui language belongs to the Kam-Sui branch of the Tai-Kadai language family.

This research presents the results of a large-scale survey of the Sui language. The goals of the survey were to document the Sui dialect situation and to elucidate the genetic and synchronic relationships among the various dialects. A 600-item wordlist was collected from sixteen data points. Comprehension of four Sui dialects was also tested across the region using Recorded Text Tests (RTTs).

Based on the primary data and on Thurgood’s (1988) Proto-Kam-Sui, and drawing on related languages as well as various other reconstructions, this work first charts the historical development of the Sui dialects. Secondly, it maps out dialect groups based on synchronic lexical similarity. Thirdly, it applies Levenshtein distance analysis to the data and describes the resulting dialect groups. Finally, it describes and discusses RTT methodology and results. The report also includes wordlist data, phonology sketches for each data point, and interlinearised RTT texts.

The results show that Sui has four main dialects and that one of these is genetically more closely affiliated to Kam than to Sui. Additionally, three dialects have low mutual intelligibility. Mutual intelligibility of dialects is not completely predicted by genetic relationships.

Some items of particular interest in this work include: 1) evidence for sesquisyllabic words in Proto-Kam-Sui (supporting Pittayaporn 2009); 2) evidence for the areal diffusion of tonal flip-flops (Yue-Hashimoto 1986); and 3) an innovative L2 retelling method for testing inter-dialect intelligibility.

This report was originally published in print under the title of Shuiyu Diaocha Yanjiu by Guizhou People’s Press, 2014. The English version of this book is published with permission of Guizhou People’s Press. The maps in this book were produced by the author. Maps 6.1, 6.2, and 7.1 were generated using Creative Commons Gabmap software. (John Nerbonne, Rinke Colen, Charlotte Gooskens, Peter Kleiweg, and Therese Leinonen (2011). Gabmap — A Web Application for Dialectology. Dialectologia Special Issue II.)

水族是中国少数民族之一，人口约430,000。水语属侗台语族的侗台语支。

我们在水族地区进行了一次比较全面的水语调查，此论文是这次水语调查的成果。这次调查的目的是

要记录水语各土语的语言资料并分析这些土语之间的系属关系和共时性关系。我们在16个研究点各收集了

约600个词条。我们也在各研究点采用了录音话语测试（即Recorded Text Test）来测试当地人对四种水语

土语的理解程度。

根据所收集到的数据和 Thurgood（1988）构拟的原始侗水语古音，并参考其他相近语言和其他的古

音构拟系统，我们首先阐述水语土语的历史演变。其次，我们对比土语之间的词汇相似度。再者，我们采

用莱文斯坦编辑距离（Levenshtein distance）算法比较各土语的语音相似度。最后，我们详细讨论通解度

测试的方法和结果。所收集到的词汇、各研究点的音系概述和话语录音测试的水英对照文本材料都包含在 本论文里。

研究结果显示，水语有四个主要的土语，而其中一个土语从历时性的角度属于侗语的分支。另外，有 三个土语之间的通解度较低。语言的系属关系并不能直接代表通解度的高低。

值得一看的内容包括：一、有数据显示原始侗水语是“一个半音节”（sesquisyllabic）语言（跟

Pittayaporn，2009，的观点一致）；二、有数据显示水族地区有声调对转（余霭芹，1986）的扩散；以及

三、采用了新的“第二语言句子复述”通解度测试方法。

本论文是贵州人民出版社在2014年出版的 《水语调查研究》 的英文版。这本书的英文电子版是在贵

iv

Contents

Abstract Foreword

Acknowledgements Abbreviations

1 General Introduction

1.1 Introduction and objectives 1.2 Background

1.3 Previous research on the Sui language 1.4 Methodology

1.4.1 Site selection

1.4.2 Wordlist methodology

1.4.3 Intelligibility testing methodology 1.5 Research findings

2 Historical and Cultural Background

2.1 Origins of the Sui people and their migratory history 2.2 Geography of the Sui region

2.3 Information on the primary data points

2.3.1 Sandong (SD) (Shuigen village, Sandong district) 2.3.2 Zhonghe (ZH) (Hezhai hamlet, Zhonghe village) 2.3.3 Tangzhou (TZ) (Meiyu village, Tangzhou district) 2.3.4 Antang (AT) (Antang village, Tangzhou district) 2.3.5 Tingpai (TP) (Xinyang village, Tingpai township) 2.3.6 Dujiang (DJ) (Zenlei village, Dujiang township) 2.3.7 Banliang (BL) (Banliang village, Tangzhou district) 2.3.8 Jiaoli (JL) (Gaorong village, Jiaoli district)

2.3.9 Jiuqian (JQ) (Guchang village, Jiuqian township)

3 Historical Development of the Sui Dialects: Introduction

3.1 Background

3.2 Sui phonology sketch 3.2.1 The Sui syllable 3.2.2 Consonants 3.2.3 Vowels 3.2.4 Tones

3.3 Challenges to tracking sound changes in Sui 3.3.1 Proto-Sui: A questionable hypothesis

3.3.2 Lack of thorough and reliable reconstructions 3.3.3 Debate over prosodic form of the proto language 3.3.4 Difficulty in identifying cognates and loanwords 3.4 Data and conventions

4 Historical Development of Tones

4.1 Summary of argument 4.2 Background

4.3 Divergent tonal development in Sui dialects

4.3.1 Shared tonal developments in Yang’an Sui and Kam

4.3.2 Shared tonal developments in Pandong, Western, Yang’an Sui and Kam 4.3.3 Unique tonal developments in Southern Sui

4.3.4 Summary 4.3.5 Discussion

4.4 Tone splits and mergers

4.4.1 Merger of entering tones in Jiaoli (JL, Pandong) 4.4.2 Merger of Tones 7 and 8 in Shuiyao (SY, Southern) 4.5 Sui “voiced-high” tone value distinctiveness: An areal feature 4.6 Variation in Sui phonetic tone values

4.6.1 Tone 6 4.6.2 Tones 2 and 4 4.6.3 Tone 1 4.7 Summary of findings

5 Historical Development of Onsets and Rimes

5.1 Introduction 5.2 Onsets

5.2.1 Preglottalised onsets 5.2.2 Voiceless nasals

5.2.3 Prenasalised voiced stops 5.2.4 PKS *-w- clusters

5.2.5 PKS stop-lateral *ʔdl-, *kl-, *khl- clusters 5.2.6 Sibilants

5.2.7 Dorsals

5.3 From onsets to rimes: Palatalisation, labialisation and glides 5.3.1 Palatalised onsets

5.3.2 Labialised onsets 5.4 Rimes

5.4.1 PKS *-u 5.4.2 PKS *-i and *-e

5.4.3 PKS *-e and *-ai partial merger in Tangzhou (TZ)

5.4.4 PKS *-iŋ, *-eŋ (loanwords) partial merger in Tangzhou (TZ) and Tingpai (TP) 5.4.5 PKS *-ik, *-ek, *-aːk mergers in Tangzhou (TZ), Tingpai (TP) and Jiaoli (JL) 5.4.6 PKS *-uk and *-uːk merger in Jiaoli (JL)

5.4.7 PKS *u and *uː before nasal codas

5.4.8 PKS *-i-, *-ə- and *-a- partial mergers conditioned by palatals 5.5 Phonetic variation

5.6 Shared diachronic innovations and Sui subgrouping 5.6.1 Yang’an

5.6.2 Southern

5.6.3 Central, Western, Eastern and Pandong 5.7 Cross-dialect similarities and “Sui-ness”

5.7.1 PKS retentions shared by all Sui dialects 5.7.2 Late sound changes shared by all Sui dialects

6 Lexical Similarity

6.1 Background 6.2 Methodology

6.2.1 Selection of data for comparison

6.2.2 Method of determining lexical similarity 6.3 Lexical similarity counts

6.3.1 Sui and Kam 6.3.2 Sui dialects 6.4 Sui dialectal variants

6.4.1 Pandong Sui dialect variants 6.4.2 Yang’an Sui dialect variants

6.4.3 Dialect variants shared by Pandong and Yang’an Sui 6.4.4 Southern Sui dialect variants

vi 6.5 Semantic differences

6.5.1 Differences in semantic range

6.5.2 Semantic shift due to lexical replacement

6.5.3 Semantic differences due to differences in physical environment 6.5.4 SD and JQ: A lexical and semantic crossover region

6.5.5 Semantic change: Conclusion 6.6 Conclusion

7 Phonetic Distance

7.1 Introduction

7.2 Background: Dialectometry and Levenshtein distance (LD) 7.3 Methodology

7.3.1 Calculating Levenshtein distance

7.3.2 Selection of Sui and Kam data for comparison 7.3.3 Pre-processing of Sui and Kam data

7.4 Results of Sui dialect comparison

7.4.1 LD calculated using narrow, phonetic transcriptions 7.4.2 LD calculated using broad, phonemicised transcriptions

7.4.3 Sandong (SD) and Zhonghe (ZH): the most representative varieties 7.4.4 Cluster determinants

7.5 Results of Sui and Kam dialect comparison 7.6 Conclusions

8 Interdialect Intelligibility

8.1 Introduction

8.2 Measuring intelligibility

8.3 The history of intelligibility testing

8.3.1 Recorded Text Test (RTT): Story question and answer method 8.3.2 Word recognition tests

8.3.3 Sentence completion tests 8.3.4 Sentence translation tests

8.3.5 Content question and answer tests

8.3.6 Towards a new methodology: The sentence retelling (L2) test 8.4 Methodology

8.4.1 Designing the sentences

8.4.2 Translating and recording the sentences 8.4.3 Designing the tests

8.4.4 Test selection

8.4.5 Administering the tests (sampling and procedures) 8.4.6 Scoring the tests

8.5 Results

8.5.1 Intelligibility of Central Sui (GC) 8.5.2 Intelligibility of Southern Sui (SY) 8.5.3 Intelligibility of Yang’an Sui (LW) 8.5.4 Intelligibility of Pandong Sui (PD) 8.6 Conclusion

8.7 Methodology critique

9 Conclusions

9.1 Visualisations

9.2 Dialect clusters indicated by wordlist analysis 9.3 Dialect clusters indicated by intelligibility testing 9.4 Implications for language development

9.5 Final remarks

Appendix A: Tone values of languages in the Guizhou-Guangxi region Appendix B: Summary of parallel tone development in Chinese and Sui

Appendix C: RTT questionnaire Appendix D: RTT sentences Appendix E: RTT core elements Appendix F: RTT result tables

Appendix G: Wordlist phonology sketches Appendix H: Wordlist data

Appendix I: Index to wordlist data References

viii

Foreword

In June 2010, my wife (Catherine Ching-yee) and I first visited Guizhou province to find out more about the minority peoples living there. Our objective was to identify a suitable and worthwhile minority language research project. Through introductions from the Vice Director of Guizhou University

Southwest Minorities Language and Culture Research Institute, Daisy Lai, we found ourselves in the Sui Research Institute of Sandu Sui Autonomous County, meeting Mr. Pan Xingwen, the head of the institute. He introduced us to the Sui people, accompanying us on a trip to a Sui village so that we could gain some first-hand insights into the Sui culture. Partly because of the Sui’s small population and their economic underdevelopment, very few experts have concentrated their efforts on Sui culture and language. On the other hand, Sui society is undergoing huge changes owing to modernisation and urbanisation. Thus research into Sui language and culture seemed to be both of great value and of great urgency.

In October of the same year, we arrived in Guizhou again, this time in the official capacity of researchers at Guizhou University’s Southwest Minorities Language and Culture Research Institute. We knuckled down to learning the Sui language. Learning a minority language is not easy in the best of circumstances. For us “old outsiders” hailing from foreign lands, it was doubly hard! The fact that the standard Sui dialect has not yet been promoted across the Sui region did not help us. As we tried to learn the language, we came across many different pronunciations, words and idioms. This gave us the idea of carrying out a dialect survey of the Sui language. In this way, we could make a comprehensive record of the distinctive accents, words and sayings that are used in different Sui regions. We hoped that this would be useful for present and future researchers of the Sui language.

The Sandu Sui Autonomous County Sui Research Institute was also extremely interested in conducting a survey because up until that point there had been little systematic documentation of the Sui dialects. Therefore, the Southwest Minorities Language and Culture Research Institute and the Sandu County Sui Research Institute joined forces to conduct the Sui Dialect Survey. This was the first formal cooperative project carried out by these two institutes. We were also incredibly fortunate to have two other scholars—Melissa Partida (née Woodrum) and Emily Wang Yongzhen (王永珍, Miao minority, from Dafang county, Guizhou province)—enthusiastically join our research team. In Sandu county itself, the people who carried out most of the survey fieldwork were Lu Chun (陆春, Sui Research Institute), Melissa Partida and Emily Wang (Southwest Minorities Language and Culture Research Institute). In Duyun, Dushan, Libo and Rongjiang counties, most of the fieldwork was conducted by Melissa Partida, Emily Wang and myself. This work is the fruit of this research. In total it took almost three years to complete. We hope that it will prove useful to all who are interested in Sui language and culture. Andy Castro

ix

Acknowledgements

We would especially like to thank the following Sui people who helped us to learn their language and provided support to the project: Pan Jintou (潘进头), Pan Simei (潘四妹), Pan Chenglong (潘承龙), Yao Keqiang (姚克强), Yao Pinzhu (姚品柱), Yao Pincui (姚品翠) and Yao Helei (姚和磊). Without their help, this project would not have been possible. I cannot emphasise enough the invaluable assistance of Pan Jintou, a Sui language extraordinaire who helped us to truly appreciate the richness and colour of the beautiful Sui language. He provided us with an enormous amount of source material that was crucial to the designing and implementation of the survey. We would also like to thank the villagers of Shuiyao village (水尧村), Shuiyao district in Libo county. Their hospitality and friendly assistance whilst we lived in their village for two months in 2011 will forever be etched in our memories.

Additionally, the following people and institutions provided important logistical support for the survey fieldwork: Wang Bingjiang (王炳江), Wang Bingzhen (王炳真), Long Weiping

(龙伟平), the Guizhou Provincial Foreign Affairs Office, the Guizhou Provincial Minority Affairs Commission, the Rongjiang County Minority and Religious Affairs Bureau, and the Libo County Sui Studies Association. We are extremely grateful for all their efforts.

We would like to express heartfelt thanks to all those who provided survey data, including Yao Jiongfeng (姚炯峰), Meng Yugan (蒙玉敢), Pan Chenglong (潘承龙), and the villagers from each of the data points we visited (names are given in appendix G). We are indebted to Professor James N. Stanford and Dr. Cathryn Yang, who provided invaluable feedback on the analysis and write-up, and to Professor Shi Lin (石林), who supplied a large amount of Kam data for comparative analysis.

Of course, this kind of large-scale research is impossible without funding, so we would like to thank SIL East Asia Group and their supporters, especially the friends of Eric Ding, who assisted in this regard.

Fieldwork researchers and facilitators, and compilers and editors of this work include the following people:

Sandu Sui Research Institute:

Pan Xingwen (潘兴文), Lu Chun (陆春), Wei Shifang (韦世方), Shi Guomeng (石国勐) Guizhou University Southwest Minorities Language and Culture Research Institute:

Wang Liangfan (王良范), Melissa Partida (吴蜜香), Emily Wang (王永珍) Qiannan Prefecture Teacher’s College Minorities Research Institute:

Meng Yaoyuan (蒙耀远)

Guizhou Province Sui Studies Association:

Pan Tianhua (潘天华), Wei Zhangbing (韦章炳) Libo County Sui Studies Association:

Meng Xilin (蒙熙林), Pan Yonghui (潘永会) Jiarong Township Government:

Pan Yongli (潘永利) SIL, East Asia Group:

Dr. Cathryn Yang (范秀琳), Dr. Keith Slater (史继威)

In this work, we have used several pieces of specialist software for organising, analysing and presenting our data. Specifically: 1) “Speech Analyzer 3.1” (SIL International), for phonetic analysis and for producing the tonal pitch plots in appendix G; 2) “Phonology Assistant 3.3.5” (SIL International), for conducting phonological analysis; 3) “Fieldworks Language Explorer (FLEx) 7.2.7” (SIL International), for organising the RTT texts and producing the interlinearisations in appendix D; 4) “WordSurv 7.0” (Taylor University, White and Colgan 2012), for conducting the lexical analysis reported in chapter 6; 5) “Gabmap” (University of Groningen, Nerbonne et al., 2011), for carrying out the Levenshtein distance analysis and producing the maps and dendrograms in chapters 6 and 7; and 6) “GIMP 2.6” (Kimball et al., 2011), for producing and editing most of the maps and figures in this work. We would also like to thank David Olson and Ken Zook of SIL International, who made modifications to Phonology Assistant and FLEx so that they could better handle data in Sui and Chinese.

Andy and Catherine Ching-yee Castro

x

Abbreviations

General abbreviations

EM Early Mandarin

EMC Early Middle Chinese

IPA International Phonetic Alphabet L1 first language (mother-tongue)

L2 second language

LD Levenshtein Distance LMC Late Middle Chinese

MC Middle Chinese

MDS Multi-Dimensional Scaling

OC Old Chinese

PKS Proto-Kam-Sui

PMY Proto-Miao-Yao

PS Proto-Sui

PT Proto-Tai

PTK Proto-Tai-Kadai RTT Recorded Text Test

WPGMA Weighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean

Glossing abbreviations

1 first person

2 second person

3 third person

AGT agent marker CAP capability, ability CLF classifier

DEM demonstrative

EMP emphatic

EX exclusive

IMP imperative

IN inclusive

NEG negation marker NOM nominalising prefix PART particle

PASS passive marker PERF perfective aspect

PL plural

POSS possessive

PROG progressive aspect

Q question marker

SG singular

Data point abbreviations (more details can be found in chapter 1)

AT Antang

BL Banliang

DJ Dujiang

GC Gucheng

JC Jichang

JL Jiaoli

JQ Jiuqian

JR Jiarong

LW Lawai

PD Pandong

RL Renli

SD Sandong

SJ Sanjiang

SL Shuili

SQ Shuiqing

SW Shuiwei

SY Shuiyao

TD Tongdao

TN Tangnian

TP Tingpai

TZ Tangzhou

YC Yangchang

YK Yongkang

ZH Zhonghe

Reference work abbreviations

(See References for full details)

GMAC Guizhou Minority Affairs Commission

GZARMLC Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Minority Languages Commission ILCRD Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development

SCAEG Sandong County Almanac Editorial Group

SDB Shuiyu Diaocha Baogao

SGYCX Shangguyin Chaxun

1

1 General Introduction

(Andy Castro)

1.1 Introduction and objectives

The Sui Dialect Survey was a cooperative project conducted by researchers from the Southwestern Minorities Languages and Culture Research Institute (Guizhou University) and the Sui Research Institute of Sandu Sui Autonomous County, Qiannan Bouyei Miao Autonomous Prefecture, Guizhou Province in the second half of 2011. It was carried out with the approval and assistance of the Guizhou Minorities Affairs Commission and the Guizhou Department of Education. Further data was collected by researchers from the Southwestern Minorities Languages and Culture Research Institute in cooperation with partners in Duyun city, Dushan county, Libo county (all in Qiannan prefecture) and Rongjiang county

(Qiandongnan Dong Miao Autonomous Prefecture). These partners included the Minorities Research Institute of Qiannan Normal College, Duyun municipality, the Sui Studies Association of Libo county and the Minority Affairs Bureau of Rongjiang county.

The objective of the survey was to document a geographically wide-ranging and linguistically representative sample of Sui dialects and to elucidate the linguistic relationship between them. Although previous research has been carried out to this end, most notably a large-scale dialect survey conducted in 1956 (SDB 1958), neither a thorough set of comparative Sui dialect data nor a comprehensive analysis of Sui dialectal differences has ever been published. The current dialect survey aims to fill this gap.

In order to provide a context for the survey, the history of the Sui peoples and a historical and cultural introduction to each of the survey data points are given in chapter 2.

The remainder of the work is devoted to presenting the findings of the survey. There were two main elements to the survey fieldwork: 1) collecting wordlists; and 2) conducting intelligibility tests in

Recorded Text Test (RTT) format, using a sentence retelling method. By means of these two activities we hoped to gain an overall picture of the Sui dialect situation. Various types of analysis were applied to the wordlist data: 1) comparison of diachronic sound changes, the most widely accepted basis for

subgrouping languages and dialects (Campbell 2004, Huang Xing 2007), presented in chapters 3, 4 and 5; 2) lexical comparisons (chapter 6); and 3) phonetic distance calculations (chapter 7). The

methodology and results of the intelligibility testing are presented in chapter 8. An overall summary of the survey results along with conclusions and areas for further research are given in chapter 9. Finally, the raw data which we collected on the survey can be found in the Appendices.

1.2 Background

Sui is typically classified as belonging to the Kam-Sui branch of Tai-Kadai (Diller 2008a, James Wei 2011, Lewis et al., 2013). One of the greatest linguists of the last century, Li Fang-kuei, first coined the term “Kam-Sui”, including within this branch Sui, Maonan (Sui’s closest relative), Kam, Mulam, Mak and Then (Li Fang-kuei 1943, 1948). Sui occupies an important position in Tai-Kadai comparative research due to its relatively conservative nature, particularly in terms of its rich inventory of sounds, many of which have been lost in other Tai-Kadai languages (James Wei 2008).

There are various hypotheses regarding the relationship of Tai-Kadai to other language families in East and Southeast Asia. Chinese scholars typically advocate the positioning of Tai-Kadai within the Sino-Tibetan language family (Luo 2008, James Wei 2011). Western scholarship generally holds that Tai-Kadai is an independent language family not genetically related to, although heavily influenced by, Sino-Tibetan. Another theory, originally proposed by Benedict (1975), holds that there is a genetic

relationship between Tai-Kadai and Austronesian—the “Austro-Tai” hypothesis. This theory has been gaining wider credence in recent years.

Most scholars divide Sui into three dialects: Sandong; Pandong; and Yang’an (SDB 1958, Zhang Junru 1980, James Wei 2008, Stanford 2011), as shown in map 1.1. This division is mainly based on

phonological and lexical similarity. SDB (1958) further divided Sandong dialect into two sub-dialects: 1) Rongjiang county; and 2) the rest. Castro (2011) proposed a slightly different alignment, with Sandong dialect comprising two other sub-dialects: 1) Southern Sui (Libo county and south-eastern Sandu county); and 2) Central Sui (the rest), as shown in map 1.2. He noted that the geographical delineation between the Southern and Central Sui dialect groups coincides with the division between those Sui who celebrate the Mao festival (in the south) and those who celebrate the Dwa festival (further north). The results of the current survey support both SDB’s and Castro’s propositions, as well as elucidating the relationships between the other Sui dialects.

Map 1.1. Traditional grouping of Sui dialects.

Map drawn by the author, based on locations given Map 1.2. Castro’s (2011) grouping of

in Zhang Junru 1980, showing Sandu, Libo and Sui dialects

Rongjiang county towns and borders. Also showing “Rongjiang” sub-dialect (SDB 1958)

In this work we refer broadly to three Sui dialects: Sandong; Pandong; and Yang’an. We further subdivide Sandong into four “subdialects”: Central (including the Sandong standard and also embracing Zhonghe and Zhouqin townships); Western (a large area of the Sui heartland including Tingpai,

Tangzhou, Shuilong and Hengfeng townships); Eastern (broadly matching SDB’s “Rongjiang”, although including parts of eastern Sandu county); and Southern (broadly matching Castro’s 2011, “Southern dialect”). In this work we often refer to these subdialects of Sandong as Central Sui, Western Sui, Eastern Sui and Southern Sui respectively. These dialect and subdialect divisions are shown on map 1.3.

3 Map 1.3. Sui dialects and subdialects referred to in this work

Central Sui as spoken in Sandong district, Sandu county, is considered the “standard dialect” (Zhang Junru 1980, James Wei 2011). Central, Western and Southern Sui have a rich inventory of over 60 initials (including bilabial, alveolar, palatal, velar and uvular consonants and preglottalised, prenasalised, palatalised and labialised obstruents) and over 50 finals (including nasal and -p, -t, -k

codas).1 _{We provide a phonology sketch of Sandong dialect in chapter 3.}

Pandong and Yang’an dialects and the Eastern subdialect of Sandong have smaller phonemic inventories. They generally have fewer preglottalised initials, fewer voiceless nasals and fewer

prenasalised stops. Sui has six contrastive tones on unchecked (or “live”) syllables (i.e., open syllables or syllables closed by a sonorant) and two on checked (or “dead”) syllables (i.e., syllables closed by a stop) with different pitch contours depending on the length of the vowel nucleus.

1.3 Previous research on the Sui language

A significant amount of descriptive work on Sui has been published to date, although a lot of work remains to be done. The earliest documentation of the Sui language was made by the renowned Tai-Kadai linguist Li Fang-kuei. In 1942 Li spent some time in “Ngam” and “Li” villages (known in Chinese as Shuili and Shuiyan, in Libo county) and he later published several annotated Sui texts which he gathered there (Li Fang-kuei 1977b). He collected a vast amount of Sui vocabulary which was published posthumously in the form of a “Sui-Chinese-English glossary” (Li Fang-kuei 2008), along with some vocabulary that he collected from “Pyo” village (then Shuipo township, Libo county, now Hengfeng township in Sandu county) and Rongjiang county. His observations of Sui initials and tone (Li Fang-kuei 1948) played a crucial role in his reconstruction of Proto-Tai-Kadai (Li Fang-kuei 1977a), the first

1_{The “alveolar” series referred to in this paper is equivalent to Li Fang-kuei’s (1965) “dental” series. Edmondson}

et al., (2004:51) analysed these sounds as “denti-alveolars” because he found that there is a wide post-dental contact area. The authors have noticed that for some Sui speakers there is no dental contact at all. Some speakers recorded for this study even articulate prenasalised “alveolar” stops with the tongue slightly retroflexed, touching the back of the alveolar ridge.

published reconstruction in this language family. Li was also the first to describe Mak and to delineate the Kam-Sui branch of Tai-Kadai (Li Fang-kuei 1943).

In addition to Li’s glossary (which, being based on Li-Ngam, largely reflects Southern Sui pronunciation and lexicon), two other Sui glossaries or “dictionaries” have been published. The most comprehensive to date, entitled “Chinese-Sui dictionary”, was collated by Zeng Xiaoyu and Yao Fuxiang (Zeng and Yao 1996). Although it is primarily based on standard Sui as spoken in Sandong township, it is heavily influenced by Yao’s own dialect, that of Shuilao village in present-day Shuiyao township, Libo county, a variety of Southern Sui. In collaboration with Mahidol University, James Wei and Jerold Edmondson published a quadrilingual “Sui-Chinese-Thai-English dictionary” (Burusphat et al., 2003). This is based on Wei’s own variety of Sandong dialect from Miaocao village, Dahe township, although it includes unmarked regional pronunciations too.2

The most comprehensive general description of the Sui language published to date is the “Sketch of the Sui language”, written by another well-known expert in Tai-Kadai languages, Zhang Junru (1980). This work includes a small section on Sui dialects focussing on the lexical and phonetic features of Pandong and Yang’an dialects. Other descriptions of Sui and its dialects can be found in Xia 1988, 1989, 1992, and James Wei 2008, 2011. No comprehensive, detailed analyses of Sui morphology, syntax or discourse have yet been published

In terms of historical comparative work in the Kam-Sui branch, the greatest contributions have been made by Li Fang-kuei (1948, 1977a), Thurgood (1988), Ferlus (1990, 1996) and Zeng (1994, 2004). These works, along with others, are discussed in more detail in chapters 3 to 5. Generally, a lack of good data for Sui, Kam, Mulam and Maonan has held back comparative work in this branch. Zeng (1994, 2004, 2010) has made significant contributions to understanding the historical relationship between Chinese and Sui. These two languages have been in extended contact over many centuries, if not millennia, and a good grasp of historical developments in the Sinitic branch is crucial for Sui

comparative work. For this, researchers can look to scholars such as Baxter, Sagart, Pulleyblank, Li Fang-kuei, Wang Li, Zhengzhang Shangfang and Pan Wuyun.

Dialectology is a small but growing field of linguistics. A key reference work for understanding the history of this field is Chambers and Trudgill’s Dialectology (1998). In the specific subfield of

dialectometry, Nerbonne (2000) and Gooskens (2006, 2007, 2013) and their team at the University of Groningen have made valuable contributions, in particular regarding the use of the Levenshtein distance algorithm (Levenshtein 1965) to compute phonetic similarity between dialects. Tang and van Heuven (2007, 2009, 2011) developed an innovative method for testing functional intelligibility, correlating their results with more traditional phonemic comparisons. These discoveries, along with related dialectometric research, are discussed in more detail in chapter 8.

The greatest contributions to understanding Sui dialectology specifically have been made by James Stanford (2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2011). Stanford has made significant inroads into uncovering the relationship between clan identity and dialectal speech patterns. His work has partly been informed by the unpublished results of a “Sui Dialect Survey” carried out in the 1950s (SDB 1958), the only

manuscript to describe Sui dialect differences in detail. Castro (2011) was the first to posit a “Southern Sui” dialect based on a historical comparison as well as on lexical and cultural factors. Nevertheless, a sweeping, comprehensive picture of the overall Sui dialect situation has never been published. This work seeks to address this deficiency.

Descriptions of Sui culture and publications of traditional Sui songs and shamanic books (using Lee Sui character script) are too numerous to list here. Probably the most comprehensive description of Sui history and culture that has been published was written by the eminent Sui scholar Pan Chaolin, along with Wei Zonglin (2004). In addition to Pan’s work, Wang Pinkui and Mo Junqing (1981) and Liang Min (2008) have made contributions to understanding the migratory history of the Sui people. Sagart et al., (2005) and Liang and Zhang (1996, 2006) are good starting points for learning about the various theories regarding the Tai-Kadai peoples and the peopling of Southeast Asia. Wei Shifang (2007), Lu

5 Chun (2010) and Kamil Burkiewicz (2012) have all produced glossaries of Lee Sui characters, the latter being the first to include English explanations.

1.4 Methodology 1.4.1 Site selection

We collected wordlist data from nine locations in Sandu county, the ethnic and cultural heartland of the Sui people and the sole Sui Autonomous County in China. These were our primary data points. We picked data points that would represent the various Sui dialects and accents as completely as possible. Background research and local knowledge were used to inform our data point selection. In total, seven data points were chosen to represent Sandong dialect (two to represent Central, three to represent Western, and one each for Southern and Eastern subdialects), one to represent Yang’an dialect and one to represent Pandong dialect. Data point locations, including abbreviations by which we refer to them throughout this work and Sui loconyms (region h_ən² and village _ʔbaːn³) are listed in table 1.1.

Table 1.1. Wordlist collection sites in Sandu county Ref Sui region _(village) Location _(Chinese) Dialect _area Researchers SD toŋ⁶_(qan²) Shuigen, Sandong district _{(三洞乡水根村)} Sandong _(Central)

Wei Shifang, Lu Chun, Andy Castro, Melissa Partida, Wang Yongzhen

ZH tsjəŋ²

(ʔnja¹) Hezhai, Zhonghe district (中和镇中和村和寨)

Sandong (Central)

Lu Chun, Melissa Partida, Wang Yongzhen

TZ pʰaːn¹_(jiu²) Meiyu, Tangzhou district ₍

塘州乡枚育村)

Sandong (Western)

Lu Chun, Melissa Partida, Wang Yongzhen

TP ɕian⁵_(ɕian⁵) Xinyang, Tingpai district _{(廷牌镇新仰村)} Sandong _(Western) Lu Chun, Melissa Partida, _{Wang Yongzhen} AT ʔam⁵ taːŋ²

(ʔu¹ loi²)

Antang, Tangzhou district

(塘州乡安塘村)

Sandong (Western)

Lu Chun, Melissa Partida, Wang Yongzhen

DJ ŋa²_{(tsə⁰ noi²)} Zenlei, Dujiang district _{(都江镇怎累村上村)} Sandong _(Eastern) Wei Shifang, Melissa Partida, _{Wang Yongzhen} JQ mui⁶_(ʔdaːn¹) Guchang, Jiuqian district ₍

九阡镇姑偿村)

Sandong (Southern)

Lu Chun, Melissa Partida, Wang Yongzhen

BL pə⁰ ljaːŋ²_{(pə⁰ ljaːŋ²)}

Banliang, Tangzhou district

(塘州乡板良村)

Yang’an Lu Chun, Melissa Partida, _{Wang Yongzhen}

JL qau⁴ nam³_(qau⁴ nam³)

Gaorong, Jiaoli district

(交梨乡高戎村) Pandong

Lu Chun, Melissa Partida, Wang Yongzhen

To supplement these data, researchers from the Southwestern Minorities Languages and Culture Research Institute collected data from a further seven data points outside Sandu county: one to represent Pandong dialect, one for Yang’an dialect, three for the Southern Sui subdialect and two for the Eastern Sui subdialect. Details of these extra data points are given in table 1.2. We did not collect further data to represent Central or Western Sui because these are primarily spoken within the borders of Sandu county, apart from a few speakers in Dushan and Rongjiang counties who have migrated from Central and Western Sui regions in recent times.

Table 1.2. Wordlist collection sites outside Sandu county Ref Sui region (village) Location (Chinese) Dialect

area Researchers PD tʰaːu¹_(ʔau⁴

jiŋ²)

Pandong, Yanghe district, Duyun City

(都匀市阳和水族乡潘洞村) Pandong

Meng Yaoyuan, Melissa Partida, Wang Yongzhen, Andy Castro TN jaːŋ²(ⁿdam¹

ȵaːn²)

Tangnian, Tanglian village, Benzhai district, Dushan county

(独山县本寨水族乡塘联村塘年寨)

Yang’an

Wei Zhangbing, Melissa Partida, Wang Yongzhen, Andy Castro JR ljaŋ¹_{(la⁶ ljaŋ¹)} Laliang, Jiarong district, Libo county ₍

荔波县佳荣镇拉亮村)

Sandong (Southern)

Pan Yongli, Melissa Partida, Wang

Yongzhen, Andy Castro SY lə⁰ ʔjaːŋ¹_(ʔjaːŋ¹) Shuiyao, Libo county _{(荔波县水尧水族乡水尧村)} Sandong _(Southern)

Chen Jingyi, Melissa Partida, Wang

Yongzhen, Andy Castro RL te³ qʰau¹_(te³

qʰau¹)

Dangmin, Renli district, Rongjiang county

(榕江县仁里水族乡党民村)

Sandong (Eastern)

Pan Tianhua, Melissa Partida, Wang

Yongzhen, Andy Castro SJ ku⁵ ji³_{(ku⁵ ji³)}

Guyi, Sanjiang district, Rongjiang county

(榕江县三江水族乡故衣村上寨)

Sandong (Eastern)

Pan Tianhua, Melissa Partida, Wang

Yongzhen, Andy Castro SW vai⁶_(vai⁶) Shuiwei, Rongjiang county ₍

榕江县水尾水族乡水尾村)

Sandong (Southern)

Pan Tianhua, Melissa Partida, Wang

Yongzhen, Andy Castro With regard to intelligibility testing (RTT), we tested four varieties of Sui, one each for Central, Southern, Pandong and Yang’an. We refer to these four varieties as our “reference dialects”. We did not test Eastern Sui because we already knew from Castro’s (2011) study that Southern Sui was likely to be far more distinctive (from Central) than Eastern, and so it turned out to be. The RTT text providers are listed in table 1.3 along with their home town locations, the abbreviations used to refer to these locations in this work, and the dialect that each of them represents. We chose Shuiyao to represent Southern Sui because we already had anecdotal evidence indicating that there are significant

communication difficulties between the Shuiyao variety and Central varieties (Zhang Zhenjiang 2009, Castro, 2011).

7 Table 1.3. RTT text providers

Sui speaker Location _ref Sui _region Location _(Chinese) Dialect Wei Shifang

韦世方

GC _toŋ⁶

Gucheng, Sandong district, Sandu county

(三都县三洞乡古城村)

Sandong (Central) Yao Jiongfeng

姚炯峰

SY ʔjaːŋ¹ Poding, Shuiyao district, Libo county ₍

荔波县水尧水族乡水尧村坡顶)

Sandong (Southern) Meng Yaoyuan

蒙耀远

PD _tʰaːu¹ Pandong, Yanghe district, Duyun city _{(都匀市阳和水族乡潘洞村)} Pandong Meng Yugan

蒙玉敢

LW jaːŋ² Lawai, Tingpai district, Sandu county ₍

三都县廷牌镇拉外村)

Yang’an For our wordlist analysis, we supplemented data gathered during this survey with data which has already been published, in particular Li Fang-kuei (1965, 2008), and Zeng (1994, 2004), as well as from an unpubliushed manuscript, SDB (1958). Details of these extra data sources, along with the

abbreviations by which they are denoted in this work, are given in table 1.4. Then map 1.4 shows the locations of our wordlist collection sites in addition to these supplementary data points. On occasion we also refer to data supplied by Zhang Junru (1980), Zeng and Yao (1996), Zeng (2010), Stanford (2011) and James Wei (2011).

Table 1.4. Key supplementary data considered in this work

Ref Location _(Chinese) Dialect area Source

JC Jichang district, Duyun City ₍

都匀市基场水族乡)

Pandong

Zeng (1994, 2004) YC Yangchang, Benzhai district, Dushan county _{(独山县本寨水族乡羊场村)} Yang’an

SQ

Shuiqing (Shuilao, Shuiyao district, Libo county)

(水庆，即荔波县水尧水族乡水捞村）

Sandong (Southern) YK Yongkang district, Libo county _{(荔波县永康水族乡)} Sandong _(Southern) SL Shuili district, Libo county (“Li” and “Ngam”) _{(荔波县水利水族乡)} Sandong _(Southern)

Li Fang-kuei (1965, 2008) TP Tingpai district, Sandu county (“Pyo”) _{(三都水族自治县廷牌镇)} Sandong (Western)

Map 1.4. Locations of data points referred to in this work. Central, Western, Eastern and Southern all belong to the traditional Sandong dialect designation

The dashed line is the Guizhou-Guangxi border. Spots are wordlist collection sites, triangles are RTT text sites, stars are data points from Zeng (1994, 2004), squares are data points from other sources.

1.4.2 Wordlist methodology

1.4.2.1 Wordlist design

Our wordlist had a total of 610 lexical items. We aimed to include examples of as many different onset and rime combinations as we could find in previous literature, relying heavily on Sandu County

Education Bureau and Sandu Sui Research Institute (2007). We referred extensively to Thurgood (1988) to make certain that we had words which contained all reconstructed Proto-Kam-Sui sounds. We also included the Swadesh 100 and most of the Swadesh 207 core lexical items (Swadesh 1952) in order to ensure a wide range of semantic domains.3

1.4.2.2 Sampling of wordlist consultants

We were already aware that the Sui language is in a state of flux and that accents and dialects are changing in some Sui areas. For example in Shuiyao (SY), young people have largely replaced ⁿd- with l-in words such as ‘to see’ ⁿdo³ (> lo³) and ᵐb- with v- in words such as ‘male’ ᵐbaːn¹ (> vaːn¹). In an attempt to document sound changes such as these which are currently underway, we decided to elicit the full wordlist from three speakers at each data point: one speaker over 60 years old; one speaker between 35 and 45 years old; and one speaker under 20 years old.

3_{Of the Swadesh 207 list, 167 items were included. Tadmor et al., (2010) have developed an alternative list of 100} basic vocabulary items, based on words with the greatest resistance to borrowing in 41 languages on five continents. This list is known as the “Leipzig-Jakarta 100”. Our wordlist contained 95 of the 100 Leipzig-Jakarta words.

9 The key requirement for wordlist consultants was that they must have been born and raised in the village in which we collected the data. We also tried to ensure that all consultants had the same

surname, since Stanford (2007, 2009) argues persuasively that dialect distinctives in Sui are not entirely differentiated on a geographical basis but are also linked to the clan (thus he refers to “clan-lects”).

Most of our consultants were male, but occasionally we chose an unmarried female as the youngest consultant. Females who had married into the village were excluded because Stanford (2009) has shown that married women generally persist in holding on to their own region’s speech distinctives rather than adapting their speech to the village and clan into which they have married. Stanford (2008b, 2009) has also shown that Sui people consistently speak their “patrilect” (father’s dialect) as a subconscious act of “clan loyalty”. We therefore deemed it unnecessary to impose a restriction in terms of the birthplace of the consultants’ mothers.4

1.4.2.3 Wordlist elicitation and recording

The wordlists were elicited from all language consultants simultaneously in multiple sessions. We encouraged each consultant to say the word exactly as they usually say it and tried to prevent them from mimicking the other consultants.

At each data point we first elicited twenty words to provide an overview of the tonal system— two words for each of the six tone categories on unchecked syllables plus four words for each of the two tone categories on checked syllables (including short and long vowel variants). Words in the rest of the wordlist were then regularly compared with these twenty words to ensure that the tones were transcribed accurately.

Prompts were usually in Chinese. Phrases were often included in the prompt to ensure that we elicited words which were semantically equivalent, for example: item 60 ‘grass (wild grass which grows on the mountain)’; item 201 ‘spoon (for drinking soup)’; and item 318 ‘to come out (e.g., a chicken coming out of an egg)’. For some items we showed pictures, again in an attempt to ensure semantic equivalence. These items were ‘cypress’, ‘fir’, ‘maple’, ‘kiwi fruit’, ‘millet’, ‘bean pod’, ‘otter’, ‘pangolin’, ‘porcupine’, ‘Crucian carp’, ‘locust’, ‘cricket’, ‘grasshopper’, ‘stink bug’, ‘pancreas’, ‘hoe’, ‘longbow’, ‘crossbow’, ‘arrow’, ‘yoke (for oxen)’, ‘top (game)’, ‘bamboo hat’, ‘raft’ and ‘hunchback’.

During the elicitation sessions, we checked each word elicited against Proto-Kam-Sui and words elicited in other locations. We double-checked the precise meaning and usage of any words which appeared to be non-cognate. We also probed for cognate words to ascertain whether any semantic shift had occurred. Occasionally, consultants gave us words which they said were not used in their village but which they had heard spoken by people from other villages. We did not record these words. All other variants provided for each gloss were transcribed and recorded along with notes pertaining to their meaning and usage.

We elicited and transcribed the wordlists in several sessions, usually fifty to one hundred words per session. After each elicitation session we recorded the words for that session individually from each consultant, thus preventing a “mimicking” effect.5 _{Due to time limitations, we recorded all items in} isolation only (in three repeated utterances) and did not record them in sentence frames. Items were recorded in uncompressed, digital WAV format (24-bit PCM with a sample rate of 144.1kbps) on a Roland Edirol R09-HR using a hand-held Sony ECM MS907 condenser microphone.

4_{Although very young Sui children sometimes speak with the dialect distinctives of their mothers, by the age of} around ten most of these distinctives have been lost and children speak their patrilect almost exclusively (Stanford, 2008b:582, 591).

5_{Primary data points only. Due to time and financial limitations, we recorded only one speaker in most secondary} data points.

1.4.2.4 Wordlist analysis

There are two main approaches to using wordlist data for determining the taxonomy of languages and dialects. The first is a historical comparative approach which aims to uncover the genetic relatedness of different language varieties. It is usually conducted in order to understand how different languages relate to each other genetically (i.e., how languages have evolved over time) and thereby to classify languages and language families. Application of the comparative method often results in tree diagrams of the type we give in chapter 5, figure 5.1, for the taxonomy of Kam-Sui. The second approach is that of

“dialectometry”. This approach aims to examine the synchronic similarity of different language varieties, often with the aim of delineating dialect boundaries within a single established “language”. Thus the first, historical, approach is often used to classify “languages”, whereas the second, dialectometric, approach is often used to classify “dialects”. Of course there is overlap between the two approaches, especially in cases where the definition of different varieties as “languages” or “dialects” is unclear. Although Sui is universally considered to be one “language”, we make use of both approaches in this work.6

In chapters 3 to 5, we apply the comparative method to our data with some measure of success. Because of the shallow time depth, we pay close attention to outside evidence such as migratory history in order to uncover the timing of different sound changes and thereby to distinguish between inherited sound changes and sound changes which have diffused across a geographical region more recently.

In chapters 6 and 7 we analyse our wordlist data from a more synchronic perspective. In chapter 6 we calculate lexical similarity on the basis of shared historical cognates. In chapter 7 we examine

phonetic similarity by applying the Levenshtein distance algorithm, a dialectometric approach which has been shown to have a strong, significant correlation with both intelligibility and speakers’ perceived distances between varieties (Gooskens 2006, Yang Zhenjiang 2009).

We feel that for a complete understanding of the dialect situation, both historical and dialectometric analyses are necessary. Both can inform language development decisions and assist in the process of developing mother-tongue materials to suit the needs of all Sui speakers.

1.4.3 Intelligibility testing methodology

For testing inter-dialect intelligibility, we used a type of Recorded Text Test (RTT) involving the

“retelling” or “translation” of long sentences recorded in the four reference dialects (locations for which are given in 1.4.1 above). Due to the specific test design, we were able to test only three out of the four reference dialects at each data point. We tested a set of 42 sentences, fourteen sentences for each of three reference dialects, on nine participants, rotating the sentences between them based on a “Latin square” design (Box et al., 1978). Thus, whilst each participant only heard fourteen sentences from each reference dialect, overall all 42 sentences in all three dialects were tested at each location. The background to the RTT development and design, along with detailed descriptions of the testing and sampling methods employed during this survey, are provided in chapter 8.

1.5 Research findings

Our analysis shows that, from a synchronic perspective, the traditional grouping of Sui into three dialects, viz. Sandong, Pandong and Yang’an, is justified. Sandong may further be divided into four subdialects: Central (Sandong, Zhonghe and Zhouqin townships); Western (Shuilong, Dahe, Tingpai, Tangzhou and Hengfeng townships); Eastern (Dujiang and Bajie townships in Sandu county and Sanjiang and Renli townships in Rongjiang county); and Southern (Jiuqian and Yanggong townships in Sandu county, Shuili, Shuiyao, Jiarong and Yongkang townships in Libo county and Shuiwei township in

6_{Currently, increasingly more historical linguists are using quantitative analysis for uncovering phylogenetic} relationships, see for example the work of Paul Heggarty

11 Rongjiang county). Within Sandong, the Central and Western subdialects are linguistically extremely close to each other, Eastern is slightly more distant, and Southern is the most distinctive.

From a historical perspective, the evidence suggests that Yang’an actually belongs to the Kam branch of Kam-Sui, although some recent sound changes and lexical borrowings mean that it now resembles Sui in some respects. Within the Sui branch, the Southern varieties branched off early on and are extremely distinctive. Pandong dialect appears to be a sister dialect to Western Sui, while Eastern Sui lects appear to have branched off from Central Sui much more recently.

It is worth noting that our historical comparative analysis with respect to Yang’an and Southern clusters is backed up by external cultural and geographical evidence. For example, the Yang’an Sui call themselves _{sui³ kam¹,} which literally means “Kam-like Sui”, and they celebrate Chinese New Year (in common with the Kam peoples) rather than the Sui’s own Dwa New Year. Southern Sui speakers celebrate the Mao festival instead of Dwa. From a geographical perspective, most of the Southern Sui area is situated around the upper tributaries of the Longjiang river, whereas all other Sui areas are served by the upper reaches and tributaries of the Duliujiang river. More research into the migratory history of the Kam and Sui peoples may help to explain our historical comparative findings further.

Finally, intelligibility test results confirm that Central Sui as spoken in Sandong township is the best variety on which to base language development efforts. Almost all Sui speakers can understand the Central (Sandong) lect sufficiently to make use of materials based on this variety. However, Pandong dialect speakers show very low comprehension of Central Sui. And Southern Sui speakers, particularly in Libo county, only have partial comprehension of Central Sui. These two groups of speakers would be better served by materials in their own dialects, although further research is needed to determine the best reference lect for these two dialect clusters.

12

2 Historical and Cultural Background

(Pan Xingwen, Wei Shifang, Lu Chun, Shi Guomeng)

2.1 Origins of the Sui people and their migratory history

According to Li Pingfan and Yan (2011:435ff.), the Sui ancestors originated in the Luogushui (骆谷水)

region of Shaanxi province, living in the Sui River (睢水) basin.1 They migrated south and became one of the Baiyue ethnic groups.2 _{It was not until the Tang dynasty that the character Shui}

水 began to be used

in Chinese history books to refer to the ethnic group.3

After the capitulation of the Yin and Shang dynasties, the Sui ancestors migrated south across Hubei and Hunan, arriving in the Guangxi region and assimilating into the Baiyue ethnic groups of ancient southern China. After the unification of China by the Qin, the imperial government sent troops to attack the southern regions. The Sui ancestors then migrated upstream, northwards, in what became the second great migration in their history. They finally settled in the upper reaches of the Longjiang and Duliujiang rivers in the border regions of present-day Guangxi and Guizhou. Gradually they acquired the identity of a single ethnic group, developing from a branch of the “Luo Yue (骆越)”, a group which came from the Baiyue (SCAEG 2007:9).

The Sui autonym comes from the Sui river which provided sustenance for the Sui ancestors. The first volume of Treatise on Rivers and Canals of the Ming History《明史•河渠志上》says, “Water from the Yellow River is directed into the Bian (汴) river, the Bian into the Sui (睢), the Sui into the Si (泗), the Si into the Huai (淮), and thence into the sea.” Historically, the Sui and other non-Han ethnic groups were referred to collectively as “Baiyue”, “Liao (僚)”, “Miao (苗)” or “Man (蛮)”, among others. During the Tang dynasty, Fushui prefecture (抚水州) was created in the Sui region. Crimson Elegance《赤雅》, written by the famous Ming poet Kuang Lu, records that “the Shui (水) people are a type of Liao (僚)”.4 After the middle of the Qing dynasty, the Sui began to be known as “Shuijia Miao (水家苗)” (literally “Miao from the Shui clan”) or “Shuijia (水家)” (the “Shui clan”). Post-liberation, after consulting the Sui people themselves, the State Council officially designated them “Shuizu (水族) (Shui Minority)” (SCAEG 2007).

2.2 Geography of the Sui region

The Sui live primarily in the south of China, in the border regions of Hunan province, Guizhou province and Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. They live on the edge of the Miao Ling mountain chain (苗岭 山脉) on the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau, mostly in the areas surrounding Moon Mountain (Yueliang Shan 月亮山). The terrain is rugged, as the mountains transition to foothills. It is a beautiful area of dense forests with poor transportation links. Because of this, Sui customs have been preserved very well.

The majority of the Sui people live in Qiannan and Qiandongnan prefectures of Guizhou province. Small numbers of Sui also live in Guangxi and Yunnan, as well as in major cities such as Guiyang, Beijing, Shanghai, Kunming and Nanning. At the end of 2011, there were around 430,000 ethnic Sui in the whole of China. Around 240,000 of these were living in Sandu Sui Autonomous County (Sandu County Statistics Bureau 2012).

1_{This claim is partly based on the fact that the Mandarin pronunciation of the character}

睢 (or 濉) Sui [swɛi⁵⁵], is

very similar to the Sui’s own autonym, [sui³³] (Pan and Wei, 2004). See Liang (2008) and chapter 5, section 5.2.6.5 of this work for an alternative view.

2_{The Chinese term “Baiyue}

百越” (literally ‘Myriad Yue’), refers to the ethnic groups who lived in southern China in

ancient times.

3_{This Chinese character means ‘water’. It is also used to refer to the Sui people in Chinese.} 4_{Kuang Lu (1604-1650) wrote this while travelling the minority areas of present-day Guangxi.}

13 Sandu is the only Sui autonomous county in China. It is situated in the southeast of Qiannan Bouyei-Miao Autonomous Prefecture of Guizhou Province, between Moon Mountain and Thunder God Mountain (Lei Gong Shan雷公山), spanning the area from 107°40'E to 108°14'E and 25°30'N to 26°10'N. Sandu county is 56 km east-west at its widest point and 73 km north-south at its longest point. Over 50% of the total Sui population in China live in Sandu county. Sandu has a total area of around 2,400 km2_{. There} are 21 districts and townships, and 242 administrative villages.5 _{At the end of 2011, ethnic minority} people accounted for 96.9% of the total population of Sandu. The Sui accounted for 65.8% of the total population of Sandu county (Sandu County Statistics Bureau 2012). Sandu is informally known as “the place whose beauty is like the feathers of the phoenix”.

The Sui minority live in the following places:

• Sandong, Zhouqin, Jiuqian, Yanggong, Hengfeng, Tingpai, Tangzhou, Shuilong, Zhonghe, Sanhe, Lalan, Dayu, Yangfu, Wubu, Bajie, Dujiang, Jiaoli, Pu’an, Fengle, Dahe and Hejiang, 21 districts and townships in Sandu county, Guizhou province;

• Jiarong, Shuiyao, Yongkang and Shuili districts and townships in Libo county, Guizhou province; • Benzhai, Jiading, Wengtai and Shuiyan districts and townships in Dushan county, Guizhou

province;

• Jichang, Fenghe and Yanghe districts in Duyun municipality, Guizhou province; • Fuquan city and Huishui county in Guizhou province;

• Shuiwei, Xinghua, Dingwei, Sanjiang and Renli districts and Tashi Yao Sui minority district in Rongjiang county, Guizhou province;

• Longquan township, Yangwu district and Yahui district in Danzhai county, Guizhou province; • Yongle township and Dadi Sui township in Leishan county, Guizhou province;

• Congjiang and Jianhe counties in Guizhou province;

• Huanjiang and Rongshui counties in the north of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region; • and Gugan Sui district, Fuyuan county in Yunnan province.

2.3 Information on the primary data points

2.3.1 Sandong (SD) (Shuigen village, Sandong district)

Shuigen village is situated 2.5 km north of Sandong district People’s Government at the foot of General’s Slope (Jiangjun Po将军坡). The village is arranged in the shape of a crescent moon and is 3.1 km

2 _in area. Shuigen is the location of the administrative village office, in Shuigen Great Hamlet. The administrative village oversees five village groups with a total population of 1,255 people comprising 238 households. The population of Shuigen are quite concentrated. Sui minority constitutes 99.5% of the village’s total population. The whole village has 1,000 mu of cultivated land.6 _{The primary source of} income is agriculture, secondary sources include outsourced labour and trade. The cypress wood at the entrance of the village has thirteen steles engraved with Lee Sui character script.7 _{The village boasts} paved roads, street lighting, good sanitation and other modern facilities.

5_{In China, an ‘administrative village’ is the term for a group of villages served by a single party committee. A} ‘natural village’ refers to a single village. There are usually several natural villages within one administrative village. 6_mu

亩 is a Chinese measure of area, equivalent to 0.0667 hectares.

7_{Lee Sui [lɛ¹ swi³] (shuishu}

水书 in Chinese) is a traditional script used by Sui shamans (shuishu xiansheng 水书先生

‘Sui character script men’ in Chinese) for recording auspicious dates, ghost days, omens and festivals (Burkiewicz 2012, Wei Shifang 2007).

2.3.2 Zhonghe (ZH) (Hezhai hamlet, Zhonghe village)

Zhonghe is situated 27 km south of Sandu county seat and 0.5 km north of the Zhonghe township government. Zhonghe administrative village covers an area from 107°53'E to 107°69'E and 25°45'N to 25°50'N. The village committee buildings are at an elevation of 720m. The east borders Ladan village (拉 旦村), the south Guyin village (姑引村), the west Xiyang (西洋村) village and the north Pangzhai village (庞寨村). Zhonghe administrative village has a population of 1,554 people constituting 213 households, of which Sui minority account for 98.4%. The only people who are not ethnically Sui are government officials who belong to other minority groups. The village is surrounded by mountains with a long, narrow plain in the middle. Most of the cultivated land is in this plain. The village mainly produces rice, wheat, maize, soybeans and chilli peppers. Zhonghe village is at the centre of Zhonghe township and has a market which is held on the fourth (卯) and the tenth (酉) days according to the traditional calendar. The trunk road from Sandu to Libo county travels through Zhonghe village. Zhonghe comprises four hamlets: Dazhai (大寨), Zhongzhai (中寨), Hezhai (和寨) and Zaodai (早歹).

2.3.3 Tangzhou (TZ) (Meiyu village, Tangzhou district)

Meiyu village is the location of the Tangzhou district People’s Government in Sandu Sui Autonomous County. It is situated 32 km from the county seat at an elevation of 865m, with a warm and humid climate. The administrative village covers a total area of 2.1 km2_{, overseeing four village groups and one} residential group. The village office is in the lower village group of Meiyu. The total population of the village is 735 people constituting 162 households. 97.9% of the village population are Sui minority. There are 380 mu of cultivated land, an average of 0.28 mu per person. Forested mountain slopes account for most natural resources. There are about 1.1 mu of woodland per person and a total of 1,579 mu of wild grassland. Approximately 682 mu of uncultivated land has potential for cultivation. High quality resources that could be developed commercially include woodland, grassy slopes and ponds.

2.3.4 Antang (AT) (Antang village, Tangzhou district)

Antang village is situated 6 km north-west of Tangzhou district government. The road from Tangzhou district to Hejiang township 合江镇 runs through the village. The village has a total area of 2.5 km

2 _with an average elevation of 730m. Antang administrative village oversees 17 village groups, comprising 471 households with a total of 2,200 people (2,189 agricultural and eleven non-agricultural).8 _{Of these,} 2,005 are Sui minority. In the village there are 1,112 people of employable age, 122 children in senior high school, 266 in junior high school, and 854 in elementary school. There is a total of 2,021 mu of agricultural land, about 0.95 mu per person, of which 0.43 mu comprises fields or paddies. The main natural resource is forested mountain slopes, with an average of 1.84 mu of woodland per person. There are also 3,015 mu of wild grassland, of which 2,604 mu is cultivatable. In recent years, the village has undergone a significant amount of development. The local elementary school, which covers grades one to six, has 1,260m2 _{of buildings and 413 students. There is one public WC and one area for village} activities which is 108m2_{. High quality resources that could be developed commercially include} woodland, grassy slopes and caves.

2.3.5 Tingpai (TP) (Xinyang village, Tingpai township)

Xinyang village is one of the administrative villages of Tingpai township in Sandu Sui Autonomous County. It oversees 15 village groups, comprising 632 households and a total population of 3,337 (agricultural population: 3,006; non-agricultural population: 331); 98.9% of the population are Sui minority. The village offices are situated at Xinyang Elementary School. The village has a total area of

Li Fang-kuei (李方桂). 1943. Notes on the Mak language. Monographs of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Shanghai: Commercial Press.

Li Fang-kuei (李方桂). 1948. The distribution of initials and tones in the Sui language. Language, 24(2):160–167.

Li Fang-kuei (李方桂). 1965. The Tai and the Kam-Sui Languages. Lingua, 14:148–179.

Li Fang-kuei (李方桂). 1977a. A handbook of comparative Tai. Manoa: The University of Hawaii Press. Li Fang-kuei (李方桂). 1977b. Shuihua yanjiu 《水话研究》 [A study of the Sui language: Texts and

translations (I)], Publications Editorial Committee of the Department of History and Linguistics at the Central Research Institute (Taipei) 中央研究院历史语言研究所出版品编辑委员会, reprinted in Ding Bangxin (ed.). 2005.

Li Fang-kuei (李方桂). 2008. Shuihua cihui 《水话词汇》 [A study of the Sui language: Glossary (II)], published posthumously in Ding Bangxin (ed.).

Li Jinfang (李锦芳). 2000. Buyangyu yanjiu 《布央语研究》 [A study of the Buyang language], Beijing: Central University for Nationalities Press.

Li Lan (李蓝). 2009. Xinan guanhua de fenqu (gao)《西南官话的分区》 [Regional delineation of Southwest Mandarin dialects (draft)], Dialect 《方言》1:72–87.

Li Ping (黎平). 2005. Guangxi Baise hua de yuyin tedian ji qi shanbian《广西百色话的语音特点及其嬗变》 [The phonological features and evolution of the Guangxi Baise speech], MA thesis, Wuhan: Central China Normal University 华中示范大学.

Li Pingfan (李平凡), and Yan Yong (颜勇) (eds.). 2011. Guizhou shiju minzu qianxi shi《贵州世居民族迁徙 史》 [The migration history of the peoples of Guizhou]. Guiyang: Guizhou Nationalities Press. Li Xia (李霞). 2004. Xinan guanhua yuyin yanjiu《西南官话语音研究》 [Phonetic study of Southwest

Mandarin], MA thesis, Shanghai: Shanghai Normal University.

Li Yunbing (李云兵). 1997. Guizhou sheng Wangmo xian Youmai Yaozu suo cao yuyan de guishu wenti 《贵州省望谟县油迈瑶族所操语言的归属问题》 [Problems classifying the speech of the Yao of Youmai, Wangmo county, Guizhou province]. Language Research 语言研究, 2:184–198.

Liang Min (梁敏). 2008. Guanyu Shuizu zuyuan he Shuishu xingcheng zhi wo jian《关于水族族源和水书 形成之我见》 [My view on the origins of the Sui people and the formation of Sui characters]. Guangxi Minzu Yanjiu 广西民族研究 [Guangxi Nationalities Research], 3:95–105.

Liang Min (梁敏), and Zhang Junru (张均如). 1996. Dongtai yuzu gailun《侗台语族概论》 [Introduction to the Kam-Tai languages], Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.

Liang Min (梁敏), and Zhang Junru (张均如). 2006. Dong-Tai yuyan de xishu he youguan minzu de yuanliu《侗台语言的系属和有关民族的源流》 [Subgrouping of the Tai-Kadai languages and the origins and migration of the Tai-Kadai peoples], Yuyan yanjiu 语言研究 [Language research] (Chinese languages research institute, Huazhong University of Science and Technology 华中科技大 学中国语言研究所).

Liljencrants, Johan, and Bjorn Lindblom. 1972. Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: The role of perceptual contrast. Language, 48:839–862.

L-Thongkum, Theraphan. 1992. A preliminary reconstruction of Proto-Lakkja (Cha han Yao). Mon-Khmer Studies, 20:57–90.

Lu Chun (陆春). 2010. Shuishu changyong ci zhujie《水书常用词注解》 [Explanation of commonly used Sui characters]. Sandu: Sandu Sui Research Institute.

Luo Yongxian (罗永现). 2000. From ‘Head’ to ‘Toe’: Sino-Tai lexical correspondences in body part terms. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 28(1):68–99.

Luo Yongxian (罗永现). 2008. Sino-Tai and Tai-Kadai: Another look. In Diller, Edmondson and Luo (eds.). 2008, 9–28.

Matisoff, James A. 1973. Tonogenesis in Southeast Asia. In L. M. Hyman (ed.). Consonant types and tone (Southern California, occasional papers in linguistics #1), 71–96. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Matisoff, James A. 1990. Bulging monosyllables: Areal tendencies in Southeast Asian diachrony, Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 543–559.

Matisoff, James A. 2003. Aslian: Mon-Khmer of the Malay peninsula, Mon-Khmer Studies, 33:1–58. Michaud, Alexis, Guillaume Jacques, and Robert L. Rankin. 2012. Historical transfer of nasality between

Milliken, Margaret E. (白丽珠), and Stuart R. Milliken (梅思德). 1996. System relations in assessing dialect intelligibility. Notes on Linguistics, 72, Dallas: SIL International.

Moulton, William G. 1960. The short vowel systems of northern Switzerland.Word 16:155–182. Nerbonne, John. 2000. Introduction. In David Sankoff and Joseph B. Kruskal (eds.). Time Warps, String

Edits and Macromolecules: The Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparison (New Edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nerbonne, John, Peter Kleiwig, Franz Manni, and Wilbert Heeringa. 2008. Projecting dialect distances to geography: Bootstrap clustering vs. noisy clustering. In Christine Preisach, Hans Burkhardt, Lars Schmidt-Thieme, Reinhold Decker (eds.). Data analysis, Machine learning and applications_: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft für Klassifikation e.V. (GfKI), Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, March 7–9, 2007, 647–654. Springer.

Nerbonne, John, Rinke Colen, Charlotte Gooskens, Peter Kleiweg, and Therese Leinonen. 2011. Gabmap: A web application for dialectology. Center for Language and Cognition, University of Groningen, ms., http://www.gabmap.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Gabmap-long-2011-jan-07-rev-mei.pdf, (accessed 22.07.2011).

Nichols, Johanna. 1996. The comparative method as heuristic. In Mark Durie and Malcolm Ross (eds.). The Comparative Method Reviewed, 39–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Norquest, Peter K. 2007. A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Hlai. PhD thesis, the University of Arizona. Ostapirat, Weera. 2000. Proto-Kra. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 23(1):1–251.

Ostapirat, Weera. 2005. Kra-Dai and Austronesian: Notes on phonological correspondences and vocabulary distribution. In Sagart, et al., 2005:107–131.

Ostapirat, Weera. 2007. Proto-Tai velars and postvelars. In J. G. Harris, S. Burusphat & J. E. Harris (eds.). Studies in Tai and Southeast Asian Linguistics, 293–300. Bangkok: Ekphimthai Ltd. Ou Hengyuan (欧亨元) (ed.). 2004. Dong Han cidian《侗汉词典》 [Kam-Han dictionary]. Beijing:

Nationalities Press.

Pan Chaolin (潘朝霖), and Wei Zonglin (韦宗林) (eds.). 2004. Zhongguo Shuizu wenhua yanjiu 《中国水族 文化研究》 [Research of Sui culture in China], Guiyang: Guizhou People’s Press.

Peiros, Ilia. 1998. Comparative linguistics in Southeast Asia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Pelkey, Jamin R. 2005. Mandarin tone in historical epic quest perspective. Speculative Grammarian, CL(4), http://specgram.com/CL.4/03.poetry.corner.html.

Pelkey, Jamin R. 2011. _{Dialectology as dialectic:} Interpreting Phula variation (Trends in linguistics: Studies and monographs; 229). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Pittayaporn, Pittayawat. 2009. The Phonology of Proto-Tai. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University.

Proki_{ć, Jelena}, and John Nerbonne. 2009. Recognising groups among dialects. Computing and Language Variation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Pulleyblank, Edwin G (蒲立本). 1984. Middle Chinese, Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Pulleyblank, Edwin G (蒲立本). 1991. Lexicon of reconstructed pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese,

Late Middle Chinese and Early Mandarin. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Ratliff, Martha. 2002. Timing tonogenesis: Evidence from borrowing. Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Ber_{keley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Tibeto}-Burman and Southeast Asian Linguistics, 29–41.

Rensch, Calvin R. 1992. Calculating lexical similarity. In Casad, Eugene H. (ed.). Windows on bilingualism, 13–15. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Ring, J. Andrew. 1981. Ewe as a second language: A sociolinguistic survey of Ghana’s central Volta region, Research Review 12(2/3), Legon: Institute of African Studies, University of Ghana.

Ringe, Donald A. Jr. 1992. On calculating the factor of chance in language comparison, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 82(1):1–110.

Rischel, Jorgen. 2004. The non-uniqueness of tone split: An explanatory challenge. In S. Burusphat (ed.). Papers from the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, Tempe, Arizona, Arizona State University, Program for Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 619–634.

Sagart, Laurent. 1993. Chinese and Austronesian: Evidence For a Genetic Relationship, Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 21(1):1–64.

Sagart, Laurent, Roger Blench, and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas (eds.). 2005. The Peopling of East Asia, London: Routledge.

Sandu County Education Bureau and Sandu Sui Research Institute (ed.) 三都水族自治县教育局，三都水 族自治县水族研究所. 2007. Shuizu wenhua jinxiaoyuan xiaoduben 《水族文化进校园小读本》[Sui culture: a reader for primary school], self-published.

Sandu County Almanac Editorial Group (SCAEG) (ed.) 《三都水族自治县概况》编写组. 2007. Guojia Minwei “Minzu wenti wu zhong congshu” zhi san: Sandu Shuizu zixhixian gaikuang《国家民委《民族问 题五种丛书》之三：三都水族自治县概况》 [National Minorities Commission “Five volumes in issues for nationalities” number three: General Introduction to Sandu Sui self-autonomous county], Beijing:

Nationalities Press.

Sandu County Statistics Bureau (ed.). 2012. Sandu tongji nianjian (2011 nian) 《三都统计年鉴（2011年） 》 [Sandu Statistical Yearbook (2011)], Sandu: Sandu County Statistics Bureau.

Sankoff, David, and Joseph B. Kuskal (eds.). 1983. _{Time warps, string edits, and macromolecules: The theory} and practice of sequence comparison, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Sarawit, Mary E. 1973. The Proto-Tai vowel system, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

SCAEG See Sandu County Almanac Editorial Group

Schüppert, Anja, and Charlotte Gooskens. 2010. The influence of extra-linguistic factors on mutual intelligibility: some preliminary results from Danish and Swedish pre-schoolers, Proceedings of Methods XIII: Papers from the Thirteenth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology, 2008, Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.

SDB See Shuiyu Diaocha Baogao SGYCX See Shangguyin chaxun

Shangguyin chaxun (SGYCX) 《上古音查询》 [Old Chinese database search]. n.d.

http://www.eastling.org/oc/oldage.aspx, a searchable database produced by the Shanghai Higher Education Electronic Comparative Linguistics Research Institute上海高校比较语言学E-研究院 (accessed 15.08.2011).

Shi Lin (石林). 2010. Dongyu fangyan tuyu jian lijiedu diaocha《侗语方言土语间理解度调查》 [Kam dialect intelligibility survey]. Guizhou Minzu Xueyuan Xuebao 贵州民族学院学报 [Journal of Guizhou Nationalities University], 4:32–36.

Shi Lin (石林) and Cooper Strange (石磊). 2004. Unpublished data from a dialect survey conducted between 2002 and 2004.

Shi Lin (石林), and Cui Jianxin (崔建新). 1988. An investigation of the Ai-Cham language. In Edmondson and Solnit (eds.), 59–85.

Shuiyu Diaocha Baogao (SDB)《水语调查报告》[Sui Language Research Report]. 1958. Unpublished ms., Guiyang: Zhongguo Shaoshu Minzu Yuyan Diaocha Diyi Gongzuodui 中国少数民族语言调查第一工作 队 [Chinese Minority Language Research Working Group].

Sidwell, Paul. 2011. Proto Khasian and Khasi-Palaungic. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 4(2):144–168.

SIL International. 2012. Phonology Assistant (Version 3.3.5) [Computer program], http://phonologyassistant.sil.org/download/version0335/ (accessed 13.06.2013).

SIL International. 2013. Scope of detonation for language identifiers (ISO639-3). online at: http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/scope.asp (accessed 28.02.2013).

Stanford, James N. 2007. Dialect contact and identity: A case study of exogamous Sui clans. PhD dissertation, Michigan State University.

Stanford, James N. 2008a. A sociotonetic analysis of Sui dialect contact. Language Variation and Change, '20(3):409–450.

Stanford, James N. 2008b. Child dialect acquisition: New perspectives on parent/peer influence. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(5):567–596.

Stanford, James N. 2009. Eating the food of our place: Sociolinguistic loyalties in multidialectal Sui villages, Language in Society, 38(3):287–309.

Stanford, James N. 2011. A 50-year real-time comparison of regional dialect variation in the Sui language, Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 4(2):120–143.

Sun Hongkai (孙宏开), and Liu Guangkun (刘光坤) (translated by Li Fengxiang, Ela Thurgood and Graham Thurgood). 2009. _{A grammar of Anong: Language death under intense contact}, Leiden and Boston: Brill; originally published as Anongyu Yanjiu《阿侬语研究》[Research on the Anong language], Beijing: Nationalities Press.

Svantesson, Jan-Olof, and Anastasia Mukhanova Karlsson. 2004. Minor syllable tones in Kammu. In Bernard Bel and Isabelle Marlien (eds.). Proceedings, International symposium on tonal aspects of languages (TAL2004), 177–180. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Swadesh, Morris. 1952. Lexicostatistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 96:152–163.

Swadesh, Morris. 1955. Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating. International Journal of American Linguistics, 21:121–137.

Tadmor, Uri, Martin Haspelmath, and Bradley Taylor. 2010. Borrowability and the notion of basic vocabulary. Diachronica, 27(2):226–246.

Tang, Chaoju, and Vincent J. van Heuven. 2007. Mutual intelligibility and similarity of Chinese dialects. Predicting judgments from objective measures, Linguistics in the Netherlands, 24:223–234.

Tang, Chaoju, and Vincent J. van Heuven. 2009. Mutual intelligibility of Chinese dialects experimentally tested. Lingua, 119:709–732.

Tang, Chaoju, and Vincent J. van Heuven. 2011. Tone as a predictor of mutual intelligibility of Chinese dialects. Online proceedings of the 17th _{International Congress of Phonetics Sciences (ICPhS), August 17–}

21, Hong Kong,

http://www.icphs2011.hk/resources/OnlineProceedings/RegularSession/Tang/Tang.pdf

Thurgood, Graham. 1982. Subgrouping on the basis of shared phonological innovations: A Lolo-Burmese case study. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 8:251–260.

Thurgood, Graham. 1988. Notes on the reconstruction of Kam-Sui. In Edmondson and Solnit (eds.). 1990, 179–218.

Thurgood, Graham. 2002. Vietnamese and tonogenesis: Revising the model and the analysis. Diachronica, 19(2):333–363.

Thurgood, Graham. 2003. A subgrouping of the Sino-Tibetan languages: The interaction between

language contact, change and inheritance. In Graham Thurgood and Randy LaPolla (eds.). 2003, The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 3–21. London: Routledge.

UNESCO Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages (UNESCO). 2003. Language vitality and maintenance. Document adopted by the International Expert Meeting on UNESCO Programme Safeguarding of Endangered Languages Paris, 10–12 March 2003,

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages/language-vitality/ (accessed 13.06.2013).

Valls, Esteve, John Nerbonne, Jelena Prokic, Martijn Wieling, Esteve Clua, and Maria-Rosa Lloret. 2012. Applying the Levenshtein distance to Catalan dialects: A brief comparison of two dialectometric approaches. Verba, Anuario Galego de Filoloxía, 39:35–61.

Viaplana, Joaquim. 1999. _{Entre la dialectologia i la lingüística. La distància lingüística entre les varietats del} català nord-occidental [Between dialectology and linguistics: The distance between the north-western varieties of Catalan], Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat.

Voegelin, Charles F., and Zellig S. Harris. 1951. Methods for determining intelligibility among dialects of natural languages. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 95:322–329.

Wang Dewen (王德温). 1988. A comparative study of Kam and Sui initial consonants. In Edmondson and Solnit (eds.). 1990, 129–141.

Wang Fushi (王辅世). 1994. Reconstruction of Proto-Miao Language. Tokyo, ILCAA (Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa).

Wang Fushi (王辅世), and Mao Zongwu (毛宗武). 1995. Miao-Yaoyu guyin gouni 《苗瑶语古音构拟》 [Reconstruction of Proto-Miao-Yao pronunciation]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.

Wang Pinkui (王品魁), and Mo Junqing (莫俊卿). 1981. Shuizu laiyuan chutan《水族来源初探》 [Initial investigation into the origins of the Sui people]. Guizhou Minzu Yanjiu 贵州民族研究 [Guizhou Nationalities Research], 3:29–39.

Wei, James Xuechun (韦学纯). 2011. Shuiyu Miaoxie Yanjiu《水语描写研究》[Study of the description of the Sui language]. PhD thesis, Shanghai Normal University.

Wei Maofan (韦茂繁), and Wei Shuguan (韦树关). 2011. Wusehua yanjiu《五色话研究》 [A study of the Wusehua language]. Beijing: Nationalities Press.

Wei Shifang (韦世方). 2007. Shuishu changyong cidian《水书常用词典》 [Dictionary of commonly used Sui characters]. Guiyang: Guizhou Nationalities Press.

Weng Jialie (翁家烈) (ed.). 2001. Guizhou sheng zhi: Minzu zhi《贵州省志·民族志》[Guizhou provincial almanac: minorities almanac]. Guiyang: Guizhou Nationalities Press.

White, Art, and David Colgan. 2012. WordSurv (Version 7.0 Beta) [Computer program]. http://wordsurv.cse.taylor.edu/index.php (Taylor University) (accessed 13.06.2013).

Wolff, Hans. 1959. Intelligibility and inter-ethnic attitudes. Anthropological Linguistics, 1(3):34–41. Wu Qilu (吴启禄), Wang Wei (王伟), Cao Guangqu (曹广衢), and Wu Dingchuan (吴定川) (eds.). 2012.

Buyi-Han Cidian《布依汉词典》 [Bouyei-Chinese Dictionary]. Beijing: Nationalities Press.

Wu Weijun (吴伟军). 2010. Hanyu fangyan dao yanjiu zongshu - jianji Guizhou Hanyu fangyan dao yanjiu de sikao《汉语方言岛研究综述——兼及贵州汉语方言岛研究的思考》 [Summary of research into Chinese dialect islands - and some thoughts on Chinese dialect islands in Guizhou province], Journal of Guizhou University (Social Sciences) 贵州大学学报（社会科学版）, 28(1):106–112.

Wu Wenyi (伍文义), Wil C. Snyder (辛维), and Liang Yongshu (梁永枢). 2007. Survey of the Guizhou Bouyei language, SIL Language and Culture Documentation and Description 2007-001, Dallas: SIL International, http://www.sil.org/silepubs/abstract.asp?id=49147 (accessed 16.08.2011).

Wu Zhengbiao (吴正彪). 2009. Qiandong fangyan Miaoyu tuyu huafen wenti de zai tantao《黔东方言苗 语土语划分问题的再探讨》 [Further discussion on the subgrouping of Qiandong Miao vernaculars], Journal of Jishou University (Social Sciences Edition) 吉首大学学报（社会科学版） , 30(6):117–121. Xia Yongliang (夏永良). 1988. Duyun Shi Yanghe Xiang Pandong Shuiyu diaocha baogao《都匀市阳和乡

潘洞水语调查报告》 [A survey report of Pandong Sui, Yanghe township, Duyun municipality], Guizhou Minzu Diaocha 《贵州民族调查》 [Guizhou Nationalities Survey.], Vol. 5, reprinted in GMAC 2008a.

Xia Yongliang (夏永良). 1989. Libo xian Dongliu Shuiyu diaocha baogao《荔波县洞流水语调查报告》[A survey report of Dongshui Sui, Libo county], Guizhou Minzu Yanjiu 《贵州民族研究》 [Guizhou Nationalities Research.], Vol. 6, reprinted in GMAC 2008a.

Xia Yongliang (夏永良). 1992. Sandong Shuiyu de yinwei yu yufa《三洞水语的音位与语法》[The phonology and grammar of Sandong Sui], Guizhou Minzu Diaocha 《贵州民族调查》 [Guizhou Nationalities Survey.], Vol. 9, reprinted in GMAC 2008a.

Xu Fengyun (徐凤云). 1991. Qiannan Hanyu fangyan de tedian《黔南汉语方言的特点》 [Characteristics of Chinese dialects in southern Guizhou], Guiyang Teachers College Journal 贵阳师专学报, 3:57–63. Yang, Cathryn (范秀琳). 2009. Nisu Dialect Geography, SIL Electronic Survey Reports, 2009-007, Dallas:

SIL International, online at: http://www.sil.org/resources/publications/entry/9112.

Yang, Cathryn (范秀琳). 2010. Lalo regional varieties: Phylogeny, dialectometry, and sociolinguistics, Melbourne: La Trobe University PhD dissertation,

http://arrow.latrobe.edu.au:8080/vital/access/HandleResolver/1959.9/153015.

Yang, Cathryn (范秀琳). 2012. Classifying Lalo languages: Subgrouping, phonetic distance, and intelligibility, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 35(2):113–137.

Yang, Cathryn (范秀琳), and Andy Castro (康蔼德). 2010. Representing tone in Levenshtein distance, International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 2(1–2):205–219.

Yip, Moira. 2002. Tone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yu Shijie (玉时阶). 2008. Xiandaihua jincheng zhong de lingnan Shuizi《现代化进程中的岭南水—南丹县六 寨龙马水族调查研究》 [Sui south of the mountains: The process of modernisation. Survey of the Sui people of Longma, Liuzhai township, Nandan county, Guangxi], Beijing: Nationalities Press.

Yue-Hashimoto (余霭芹). 1986. Tonal flip-flop in Chinese dialects《汉语方言的声调阴阳对转》, Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 14(2):161–183.

Zeng Xiaoyu (曾晓渝). 1994. Hanyu Shuiyu guanxici yanjiu《汉语水语关系词研究》[Study of Mandarin-Sui related words], Chongqing: Chongqing Press.

Zeng Xiaoyu (曾晓渝). 2004. Hanyu Shuiyu guanxi lun—Shuiyu li Hanyu jieci ji tongyuanci fenceng yanjiu《 汉语水语关系论—水语里汉语借词及同源词分层研究》 [Discussion of the relationship between Mandarin and Sui: A stratified study of Mandarin loanwords and cognates in Sui]. Beijing: Commercial Press.

Zeng Xiaoyu (曾晓渝). 2010. Dongtai Miaoyao yuyan de Han jieci yanjiu《侗台苗瑶语言的汉借词研究》 [The study of Chinese loanwords in Kam-Tai and Miao-Yao languages]. Beijing: Commercial Press. Zeng Xiaoyu (曾晓渝), and Yao Fuxiang (姚福祥). 1996. Han-Shui cidian《汉水词典》 [Chinese-Sui

dictionary]. Chengdu: Sichuan Nationalities Press. ZGYCX See Zhongguyin chaxun

Zhang Fahe (张发和). 1996. Hechi guanhua he Putonghua yuyin shang de chayi《河池官话和普通话语音 上的差异》[Phonetic differences between Hechi Mandarin and standard Mandarin]. Journal of Hechi Teachers College 河池师专学报, 1:66–72.

Zhang Junru (张均如). 1980. Shuiyu jianzhi《水语简志》[A Sketch of the Sui Language], Beijing: People’s Press.

Zhang Yongxiang (张永祥) (ed.). 1990. Miao-Han cidian (Qiandong fangyan)《苗汉词典·黔东方言》 [Miao-Chinese dictionary (Qiandong dialect)], Guiyang: Guizhou Nationalities Press.

Zhang Zhenjiang (张振江). 2009. Libo Shuiyao Shuizu: Guizhou Libo Shuiyao xiang diaocha yu yanjiu《荔波 水尧水族：贵州荔波水尧乡调查与研究》[The Sui of Shuiyao: Survey and research of Shuiyao township, Libo, Guizhou], Beijing: Intellectual Property Rights Press.

Zhongguyin chaxun (ZGYCX) 《中古音查询》 [Middle Chinese database search]. n.d.

http://www.eastling.org/tdfweb/midage.aspx, a searchable database produced by the Shanghai Higher Education Electronic Comparative Linguistics Research Institute上海高校比较语言学E-研究院 (accessed 15.08.2011).