Cover not available
Part of
Austronesian Undressed: How and why languages become isolating
Edited by David Gil and Antoinette Schapper
[Typological Studies in Language 129] 2020
► pp. 97–118

Chapter 2
The loss of affixation in Cham

Contact, internal drift and the limits of linguistic history

 | University of Ottawa
Chamic languages have been spoken in Central Vietnam since about 600 AD. While Classical Cham (9th–15th centuries), had already lost a significant proportion of its Austronesian affixation, it also borrowed new affixes from Mon-Khmer. Modern Cham (16th–19th centuries) underwent another wave of reduction that led to a largely monosyllabic and affixless Colloquial Eastern Cham (20th–21st centuries).
In this paper I first look at representative Classical Cham inscriptions, establishing the extent to which they exhibit a reduction of affixation, and discussing possible contact scenarios that may have led to this reduction. I then assess the prevalence of affixation in Modern Cham manuscripts and in Colloquial Eastern Cham, and argue that the role Vietnamese played in Cham monosyllabisation must have been more indirect than previously assumed.
Keywords: Cham, loss of affixation, monosyllabisation, contact, Mon-Khmer, inscriptions
Article outline
  • 1.The loss of affixation in Cham languages: Overview and previous proposals
  • 2.Affixation in Cham inscriptions and manuscripts
  • 3.Contact, learnability and the initial reduction of affixation
  • 4.Iambicity, monosyllabisation and the loss of affixation
  • 5.The loss of affixation: Contact versus internal restructuring
  • 6.Conclusion: Revisiting contact and learnability
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.129.02bru
References (77)
References
Adelaar, K. Alexander. 1992. Proto-Malayic, the Reconstruction of its Phonology and Parts of its Lexicon and Morphology [Pacific Linguistics 119]. Canberra: ANU.Google Scholar
Alieva, Natalia F. 1984. A language-union in Indo-China. Asian and African Studies XX: 11–22.Google Scholar
1991. Morphemes in contemporary spoken Cham: Qualitative and quantitative alternations. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 20: 219–229.Google Scholar
1994. The progress of monosyllabization in Cham as testified by field materials. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (ICAL), Cecilia Ode & Wim Stokhof (eds), 541–549. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Aymonier, Étienne. 1891. Première étude sur les inscriptions chames. Journal Asiatique 17: 5–86.Google Scholar
Aymonier, Étienne François. 1889. Grammaire de la langue chame. Saigon: Imprimerie Coloniale.Google Scholar
Aymonier, Étienne François & Cabaton, Antoine. 1906. Dictionnaire cam-francais. Paris: E. Leroux.Google Scholar
Bellwood, Peter. 1985. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Orlando FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Blood, Doris W. 1961. Women’s speech characteristics in Cham. Asian Culture 3: 139–143.Google Scholar
Bredenberg, Kurt. 2008. Educational marginalization of Cham Muslim populations: A report from Cambodia. Journal of Education for International Development 3(3): 1–26.Google Scholar
Bronson, Bennet & White, Joyce. 1992. Radiocarbon and chronology in Southeast Asia. In Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Vols. 1 & 2. Robert W. Ehrich (ed.), 491–503. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brunelle, Marc. 2005. Register in Eastern Cham: Phonological, Phonetic and Sociolinguistic Approaches. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
. 2008a. Diglossia, bilingualism, and the revitalization of written Eastern Cham. Language Documentation and Conservation 2: 28–46.Google Scholar
. 2008b. Monosyllabicization in Eastern Cham. In Papers from the 14th annual meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2004, Wilaiwan Khanittanan & Paul Sidwell (eds), 43–58. Bangkok: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2009. Diglossia and monosyllabization in Eastern Cham: A sociolinguistic study. In Variation in Indigenous Minority Languages [Impact: Studies in Language and Society 25], James Stanford & Dennis Preston (eds), 47–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Vietnamese (Tiếng Việt). In The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages, Mathias Jenny & Paul Sidwell (eds), 909–954. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
. 2017. Stress and phrasal prominence in tone languages: The case of Southern Vietnamese. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 47: 283–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Revisiting the expansion of the Chamic language family. In Champa: Territories and Networks of a Southeast Asian Kingdom. Arlo Griffiths, Andrew Hardy & Geoff Wade (eds), 287–302. Paris: Presses de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient.Google Scholar
Bùi, Khánh Thế. 1996. Ngữ Pháp Tiếng Chăm. Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Giáo Dục.Google Scholar
Cabaton, Antoine. 1904. L’inscription chame de Bien Hoa. Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient 4: 116–19.Google Scholar
Coedès, George. 1908. Inventaire des inscriptions du Champa et du Cambodge. Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient 8: 37–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coedès, Georges. 1939. La plus ancienne inscription en langue cham (Inscription rupestre de Đông Yên Châu, province de Quảng Nam, Annam). In New Indian Antiquary: A Volume of Eastern and Indian Studies in Honour of F.W. Thomas, C.I.E., Sadashiva M. Katre & Parashuram K. Gode (eds), 46–49. Bombay: Karnatak Publishing House.Google Scholar
Collins, William. 1996. The Chams of Cambodia. Phnom Penh: Center for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Cowan, Hendrik Karel Jan. 1991. Achehnese dialects in connection with Chamic migrations. In Western Austronesian and Contact Languages: Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Ray Harlow (ed.), 53–83. Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand.Google Scholar
De Féo, Agnès. 2004. Les Chams, l’Islam et la revendication identitaire: Des origines de l’islamisation au radicalisme islamique actuel. Mémoire de DEA. Paris: École Pratique des Hautes Études.Google Scholar
Donegan, Patricia & Stampe, David. 2002. South-East Asian features in the Munda languages: Evidence for the analytic-to-synthetic drift of Munda. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, Patrick Chew (ed.), 111–120. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
. 2004. Rhythm and the synthetic drift of Munda. In The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, Rajendra Singh (ed.), 3–36. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durie, Mark. 1990. Proto-Chamic and Achenese mid vowels: Towards Proto-Aceh-Chamic. Ms, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Finot, Louis. 1904. Notes d’épigraphie VI: Inscriptions du Quảng Nam. Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient 4: 83–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1915. Notes d’épigraphie XIV: Les inscriptions du musée de Hanoi. Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient 15: 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gay, Bernard. 1994. New pperspectives on the ethnic composition of Champa. In Proceedings of the Seminar on Champa, Đinh T. Huỳnh (ed.), 43–52. Rancho Cordova CA: Southeast Asia Community Resource Center.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2001. Creoles, complexity, and Riau Indonesian. Linguistic Typology 2–3: 325–371.Google Scholar
. 2007. Creoles, complexity and associational semantics. In Deconstructing Creoles [Typological Studies in Language 73], Umberto Ansaldo, Stephen Matthews & Lisa Lim (eds), 67–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Why Malay/Indonesian undressed: Contact, geography, and the roll of the dice. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Malay/Indonesian Linguistics, Leiden.
Grant, Anthony. 2005. The effects of intimate multidirectional linguistic contact: The case(s) of Chamic languages. In Chamic and Beyond: Studies in Mainloand Austronesian Languages, Anthony Grant & Paul Sidwell (eds). 37–104. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2007. Admixture and after: The Chamic languages and the Creole Prototype. In Deconstructing Creoles [Typological Studies in Language 73], Umberto Ansaldo, Stephen Matthews & Lisa Lim (eds), 109–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Arlo, Lepoutre, Amandine, Southworth, William A. & Phân, Thành. 2008. Études du corpus des inscriptions du Campa III Épigraphie du Campa 2009–2010: Prospection sur le terrain, production d’estampages, supplément à l’inventaire. Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient 95: 435–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Arlo. 2019. Epigraphical texts and sculptural stelae produced under the Virabhadravarmadevas of fifteen century Campā. In Champa: Territories and Networks of a Southeast Asian Kingdom, Arlo Griffiths, Andrew Hardy & Geoff Wade (eds), 193–220. Paris: Presses de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient.Google Scholar
Hardy, Andrew & Nguyễn, Tiến Đông. 2019. Multi-disciplinary evidence for a hypothesis on the Champa territory and population of Quảng Ngãi. In Champa: Territories and Networks of a Southeast Asian Kingdom, Arlo Griffiths, Andrew Hardy & Geoff Wade (eds), 121–143. Paris: Presses de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient.Google Scholar
Hay, Jessica S. F. & Diehl, Randy. 2007. Perception of rhythmic grouping: Testing the iambic/trochaic law. Perception & Psychophysics 69: 113–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1985. Iambic and trochaic rhythm in stress rules. In Proceedings of the XIth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Mary Niepokuj, Mary VanClay, Vassiliki Nikiforidou & Deborah Feder (eds), 429–446. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
He, Jun-Dong, Peng, Min-Sheng, Quang, Huy Ho, Dang, Khoa Pham, Trieu, An Vu, Wu, Shi-Fang, Jin, Jie-Qiong, Murphy, Robert W., Yao, Yong-Gang & Zhang, Ya-Ping. 2012. Patrilineal perspective on the Austronesian diffusion in mainland Southeast Asia. PLOS ONE 7.e36437.Google Scholar
Hickey, Gerald. 1981. Sons of the Mountains: Ethnohistory of the Vietnamese Central Highlands to 1954. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Horo, Luke & Sarmah, Priyankoo. 2015. Acoustic analysis of vowels in Assam Sora. North East Indian Linguistics 7: 69–88.Google Scholar
Lee, Ernest W. 1966. Proto-Chamic Phonologic Word and Vocabulary. PhD dissertation. University of Indiana, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Marrison, Geoffrey E. 1975. The early Cham language, and its relationship to Malay. Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 48: 52–59.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James. 1973. Tonogenesis in Southeast Asia. In Consonant Types and Tone, Larry M. Hyman (ed.), 71–96. Los Angeles CA: USC.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2008. Why does a language undress? Strange cases in Indonesia. In Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 94], Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds), 167–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moussay, Gérard. 1971. Dictionnaire cam-vietnamien-français. Phan Rang: Trung-tâm Văn-hoá Chăm.Google Scholar
. 2006. Grammaire de la langue Cam. Paris: Les Indes Savantes.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Rie. 1999. Cham in Vietnam: Dynamics of Ethnicity. PhD dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
Népote, Jacques. 2004. Entre hinterland et réseaux maritimes: Élements d’une histoire du Champa de la fin de la Préhistoire à nos jours avec un développement particulier pour la période comprise entre le XVe et le XVIIIe siècles. Ms.Google Scholar
Nguyễn, Đình-Hoà. 1997. Vietnamese [London Oriental and African Language Library 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peng, Min-Sheng, Ho, Quang Huy, Pham, Dang Khoa, Trieu, An Vu, Wang, Hua-Wei, Yao, Yong-Gang, Kong, Qing-Peng & Zhang, Ya-Ping. 2010. Tracing the Austronesian footprint in mainland Southeast Asia: A perspective from mitochondrial DNA. Molecular Biology and Evoluation 27: 2417–2430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phan, John. 2012. Mường is not a subgroup: Phonological evidence for a paraphyletic taxon in the Viet-Muong sub-family. Mon-Khmer Studies 40: 1–18.Google Scholar
Po, Dharma. 1987. Le Panduranga (Campa) 1802–1835. Paris: Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient.Google Scholar
. 1991. Le déclin du Campa entre le XVIe et le XIXe siècle. In Le Campa et le Monde Malais, 47–64. Paris: Publications du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisations de la Péninsule Indochinoise.Google Scholar
. 1994. Status of the research on the data of absorption of Champa by Vietnam. In Proceedings of the Seminar on Champa, Đinh T. Huỳnh (ed.), 53–64. Rancho Cordova CA: Southeast Asia Community Research Center.Google Scholar
Reid, Lawrence. 1994. Morphological evidence for Austric. Oceanic Linguistics 33: 323–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. The current status of Austric. In The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archeology, Linguistics and Genetics, Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench & Alicia Sanchez-Mazas (eds), 132–60. London: Routledge Curzon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ring, Hiram & Anderson, Gregory. 2018. On prosodic structures in Austroasiatic diachrony: ‘Rhythmic holism’ revisited in light of preliminary acoustic studies. In Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics, Hiram Ring & Felix Rau (eds), 1–35. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Schweyer, Anne-Valérie. 1999. Chronologie des inscriptions publiées du Campā: Études d’épigraphie cam I. Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient 86: 321–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shine, Toshihiko. 2007. Montagnards and the Cham kings: Labor and land administration as seen in the documentary and oral Archives. Paper presented at the conference Modernities and dynamics of tradition in Vietnam: Anthropological Approaches , Bình Châu.
Shorto, Harry. 1975. Achinese and mainland Austronesian. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 38: 81–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidwell, Paul. 2006. Dating the separation of Acehnese and Chamic by etymological analysis of the Aceh-Chamic lexicon Mon-Khmer Studies 36: 187–206.Google Scholar
. 2007. The Mon-Khmer substrate in Chamic: Chamic, Bahnaric and Katuic contact. In Papers from the 12th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2002, Ratree Wayland, John Hartmann & Paul Sidwell (eds), 113–118. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2008. The origins of the Chamic lexicon: Lexification and back-borrowing into Mon-Khmer languages. In Papers from the 14th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2004, Wilaiwan Khanittanan & Paul Sidwell (eds), 261–267. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Sidwell, Paul & Rau, Felix. 2015. Austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction: An overview. In The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages, Vol. 1, Paul Sidwell & Mathias Jenny (eds), 221–363. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Phillip. 2007. Cham Muslims of the Mekong Delta. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i’ Press.Google Scholar
Thạch, Ngọc Minh. 1999. Monosyllabization in Kiengiang Khmer. Mon-Khmer Studies 29: 81–95.Google Scholar
Thurgood, Graham. 1999. From Ancient Cham to Modern Dialects: Two Thousand Years of Language Contact and Change. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Learnability and direction of convergence in Cham: The effects of long-term contact on linguistic structures. In Proceedings of the Western Conference On Linguistics, WECOL 2000, 507–527. Fresno CA: California State University.Google Scholar
Trần, Thị Thúy Hiền & Vallée, Nathalie. 2009. An acoustic study of interword consonant sequences in Vietnamese. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 1: 231–249.Google Scholar
Trung-tâm Văn-hoá Chàm (Cham Cultural Center). 197? Số Đặc-biệt về Ngôn-ngữ Chàm (Special issue on the Cham language). Roh twah sưu-tầm (Collections), 28 pp. Phan Rang: Trung-tâm Văn-hoá Chàm (Cham Cultural Center).Google Scholar
Vickery, Michael. 1992. Evidence for prehistoric Austronesian-Khmer contact and linguistic borrowing. Mon-Khmer Studies 21: 185–89.Google Scholar
Wittayarat, Daoruang. 2004–2005. Les inscriptions rupestres de Samo (inédites): Une tentative de déchiffrement, de traduction et de datation. Lettre de la Société des Amis du Champa Ancien 11: 14–17.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Alexander Adelaar & Antoinette Schapper
2024. The Oxford Guide to the Malayo-Polynesian Languages of Southeast Asia, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.