The Origin of /ɬ/ in Southern Pinghua

by Xiaolan Cao (University of Melbourne)

In this post, I will discuss the origin of the voiceless lateral fricative /ɬ/ in Southern Pinghua, one of the two branches of Pinghua and a minority Sinitic language. Southern Pinghua is mostly spoken in Southern Guangxi in China (Qin 2000) by approximately 1.8 million native speakers (Min 2013). However, some of the dialects have experienced huge trans-generational language loss and are hence potentially endangered (Cao 2019). Most Southern Pinghua speakers identify as ethnic Han, the majority ethnic group in China, while most of the rest identify as ethnic Zhuang.

In southern Pinghua, the voiceless lateral fricative /ɬ/ is a consonant phoneme occurring in the onset position of a syllable. The phonemicity of /ɬ/ can be established by the minimal pair in Table 1 below.[1]

Word Gloss
/ɬa33/ ‘spread’
/sa33/ ‘sprinkle’

Table 1: a minimal pair of voiceless lateral fricative /ɬ/

Commonly, /ɬ/ is not considered an internal development of Sinitic languages primarily because it rarely occurs in present-day Sinitic languages. Within China, it is distributed in the former Baiyue area, once occupied by the ancestors of Tai-Kadai speakers (Li 2000). Besides Southern Pinghua dialects, Cantonese dialects located in Southern Guangxi and Western Guangdong also have the phoneme /ɬ/. Outside Guangxi and Guangdong, /ɬ/ can be found only in three small regions in China: it can be seen in some dialects of Ming in non-contiguous geographical pockets in Fujian Province or some dialects of Hui in Anhui Province; it also can be found in some dialects of various Sinitic languages spoken on the west coast of Hainan Province (de Sousa 2015: 166-168, quoting Liu X 2006, Liu F 2007, Akitani 2008, and Meng 1981). Due to its limited distribution in present-day Sinitic languages, /ɬ/ is not reconstructed for Middle Chinese or Old Chinese in the literature; see Zhengzhang (2003), Li (1971), Baxter and Sagart (2014), and Wang (1985) respectively.

On the other hand, /ɬ/ is common in present-day dialects of Zhuang, a Tai-Kadai language mainly spoken in Guangxi (Zheng 1998). According to works by Mai (2009, 2011), Ouyang (1995), Yuan (1989), Zheng (1998), and Zhao (2015), the phoneme /ɬ/ in Sinitic languages may have developed under the influences from Zhuang loanwords through language contact. However, the opposing view—that because the phoneme /ɬ/ in Zhuang corresponds to *s in Proto-Tai, it is likely that Zhuang developed this phoneme under the influence from Sinitic languages instead of the opposite direction of influences—has been suggested in the Chinese language literature as well (de Sousa 2015, quoting Li F 1977 and Pittayaporn 2009).

The two views on the origin of /ɬ/ in Sinitic languages have some limitations. First, the argument that /ɬ/ is not an internal development of Sinitic language simply because of its limited distribution and absence from reconstructions for Middle Chinese or Old Chinese does not preclude that /ɬ/ could have developed in Southern Pinghua after the Middle Chinese period.

Further, the evidence does not indicate whether /ɬ/ is an internal development in Southern Pinghua or a phoneme developed under the influences of loanwords from Zhuang through language contact. As for its distribution in Southern Pinghua, the phoneme /ɬ/ can be found in both the Sinitic stratum and the Zhuang stratum. According to a survey by Cao (2018), in the Sinitic stratum, Chinese characters (Chinese cognates) whose Southern Pinghua pronunciations contain onset /ɬ/ were mostly recorded as having the Middle Chinese onset denoted as 心 (*s) in Qieyun, a rhyming dictionary published in 601 CE during the Sui dynasty (581–618). This correspondence exists not only in common words, such as /ɬam52/ (‘three’) and /ɬɜm52/ (‘heart’) but also in literary words, like /ɬɜw52/ (‘constellation’) and /ɬoŋ52/ (‘lofty’).

The correspondences between /ɬ/ in Southern Pinghua and onset 心 (*s) in Middle Chinese suggests that /ɬ/ is of Sinitic origin. However, from the same survey, there are ninety-one admissible syllables start with /ɬ/ in total, among which twenty-six cannot be associated with Chinese characters (Chinese cognates). Normally for Southern Pinghua syllables, being able to be identified by Chinese characters strongly indicates their Sinitic origin. Thus, these twenty-six syllables are possibly not of Sinitic origin but introduced to the language by loanwords from other languages, such as Zhuang. Thus, the distribution of /ɬ/ in Southern Pinghua does not support /ɬ/ being an internal development or one induced by the influences of language contact with Zhuang.

In addition to the distributional features of /ɬ/ in Southern Pinghua, the historical developments of /s/-phonemes in Southern Pinghua may also shed some light on the developments of /ɬ/. In Southern Pinghua, pronunciations of Chinese characters whose onset is /s/ correspond mostly to those denoted in Qieyun as having onsets denoted as 审 (*ɕ), 禅 (**ʑ), and邪 (*z). Based on the fact that these three Middle Chinese onsets did not develop into /ɬ/, we may speculate that the Middle Chinese onset 心 (*s) has some features that make it prone to sound change to /ɬ/ under certain influences, such as loanwords from Zhuang.

Finally, the geographical distribution of /ɬ/ is not so discontiguous as described in previous studies. The geographical distribution of /ɬ/ is contiguous in Southern Guangxi and Western Guangdong. These two adjacent regions in total occupy approximately 184,000 square kilometres [2] of densely populated area, which is larger than Cambodia (181,035 square kilometres) or Nepal (147,181 square kilometres). Therefore, it may not be accurate to describe the territory of /ɬ/ in Southern Guangxi and Western Guangdong as small or isolated, and /ɬ/ can be considered as an areal feature for further studies in historical linguistics, areal linguistics, and linguistic typology. Drawing from the analysis and evidence given in the discussion above, I would like to posit some questions for further investigation.

  1. Why is /ɬ/ so prevalent in Southern Pinghua and Cantonese dialects found in the area of Southern Guangxi and Eastern Guangdong, but not in the other areas?
  2. If language contact with Zhuang is a contributing factor to the development of /ɬ/, why does /ɬ/ occur in Southern Pinghua dialects but not most Northern Pinghua dialects, given both Pinghua branches have similar contact with Zhuang?
  3. Similarly, why do Cantonese dialects in Western Guangdong have /ɬ/ but not those in Eastern Guangdong, considering Cantonese dialects mostly have similar exposure to Zhuang in the history?
  4. Can the peculiar distributions of /ɬ/ in Pinghua and Cantonese dialects be explained by a mere historical accident?

In sum, the two opposing views on the origin of /ɬ/ in Southern Pinghua are questionable because the evidence is inconclusive. At this stage, the origin of /ɬ/ in Southern Pinghua dialects remains unclear, and further investigations are still required.


References

Baxter, W.H., and Laurent Sagart. 2014. Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cao, Xiaolan. 2019, ‘Documentation of Wucun Pinghua’: Endangered Langauge Documentation Program.

—. 2018, ‘A Survey of the Southern Pinghua Pronunciation of Chinese Characters with English Glosses and Corresponding Mandarin and Cantonese Pronunciations’: University of New England.

de Sousa, Hilário 2015, ‘Language Contact in Nanning: Nanning Pinghua and Nanning Cantonese’, in Hilary M. Chappell (ed.), Diversity in Sinitic Languages, Oxford Scholarship Online: March 2016: Oxford University Press.

Li, Fanggui. 1971, ‘上古音研究 (a Study of Old Chinese Phonology]’. Qinghua Xuebao 9,26-32.

Li, Lianjin. 2000, ‘平话的历史 [ the History of Pinghua]’. 民族语文 [ Minority languages of China] 6,24-30.

Mai, Geng. 2009, ‘从粤语的产生和发展看汉语方言形成的模式 [ a View of the Formation Pattern of Chinese Dialects from the Formation and Development of Yue]’. 方言[Fangyan] 3,219-232.

—. 2011, ‘粤语方言的音韵特征-兼谈方言分区的一些问题 [ Phonological Features of Yue and Some Issues in the Subgrouping of Chinese Dialects]’. 方言[Dialects],289-301.

Min, Gunag. 2013, ‘桂南平话研究综述 [ a Literature Review of the Studies of Southern Pinghua]’. 语文学刊 [ Journal of langauge] 9,22-23.

Ouyang, Jueya. 1995, ‘两广粤方言与壮语的种种关系 [ the Relations between Zhuang and the Yue Dialects Spoken in Guangdong and Guangxi]’. 民族语文 [ Minority languages of China] 6,49-52.

Qin, Yuanxiong. 2000, ‘桂南平话研究 [Study in Southern Pinghua]’, unpublished: Jinan University.

Wang, Li. 1985. 汉语语音史 [the Phonological History of the Chinese Language]. Bejing: China Social Science Press.

Yuan, Jiahua. 1989. 汉语方言概要 [ Introduction to Chinese Dialects]. Beijing: 文字改革出版社 [ The press of language and character reform].

Zhao, Yuan. 2015, ‘广西粤语,平话中的边擦音/ɬ/的来源及其形成探究 [ Exploring the Origin of the Voiceless Fricative /ɬ/ in Yue and Pinghua Spoken in Guangxi’. Journal of Guangxi Teacher’s Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) 36,61-66.

Zheng, Zuoguang. 1998, ‘广西平话的边擦音声母ɬ及其形成 [ the Formation of Lateral Fricative /ɬ/ in Guangxi Pinghua’, 方言与音韵研究论集

, Nanning: Guangxi Jiaoyu Press, pp. 103-110.

Zhengzhang, Shangfang. 2003. 上古音系 [Phonology of Old Chinese]. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiaoyu Press.


[1] Southern Pinghua is a tone language, and the numbers in the word transcriptions indicate lexical tones

[2] The regions of Southern Guangxi and Western Guangdong occupy approximately half of Guangxi (236,700 square kilometers) and one third of Guangdong (177,900 square kilometers). Therefore, it is estimated that these two regions altogether have around 184,000 square kilometers.

The Faces of PhilSoc: Karen Corrigan

karen_corrigan

 

Name: Karen Corrigan

Position: Professor of Linguistics and English Language

Institution: Newcastle University

Role in PhilSoc: Council Member


About You

How did you become a linguist – was there a decisive event, or was it a gradual development?

Even as a child I was fascinated by all things linguistic. I grew up in Northern Ireland at the height of The Troubles and the arrival of the British Army was my first exposure to accents and dialects that were not native to the region since Northern Ireland back then was synonymous with emigration rather than immigration. My younger sister and me – despite being teenagers – didn’t get out much on account of the security situation and used to entertain ourselves confined to quarters by challenging each other to mimic the English and Scottish accents we had begun to hear around us. I suppose that was our way of trying to make light of the threat which the army represented in our lives. When I went to University as an undergraduate, opting for English, Irish and Linguistics was thus a no-brainer for me.

What was the topic of your doctoral thesis? Do you still believe in your conclusions?

“The Syntax of South Armagh English in its Socio-Historical Perspective.” Amongst my conclusions, were the ideas that:

  1. Irish English needed to be investigated from a contact linguistic perspective since it did after all develop from the L2 acquisition of English on a massive scale by L1 speakers of Irish;
  2. Taking a mixed Sociolinguistic and Biolinguistic approach to syntactic variation and change can be more illuminating than viewing it through a single lens.

I still believe in both of these conclusions and the latter, in particular, has become associated with a new sub-discipline in linguistics known as ‘Socio-Syntax’ which I have continued to work in since and which is being further supported by the research of other scholars too.

On what project / topic are you currently working?

Research on language in Northern Ireland (including my own prior to 2014) tends to focus on the varieties spoken by the major ethnicities. Their linguistic heritages have been hotly disputed and scholarship reflects the socio-political conflict of ‘The Troubles’. The Peace Process has ensured greater protection for Irish and Ulster Scots and has also made the region more attractive, resulting in unprecedented immigration. New ethnicities have become increasingly visible and audible. The project I am currently investigating was supported by an AHRC Research Leadership Fellowship and explores these connected communities in the light of historical emigration.
The project addresses the following issues arising from these inward and outward migratory trends:

  1. How can a cross-disciplinary approach to migration and language contribute to our knowledge of the ways in which socially meaningful spaces are constructed by human agents?
  2. How do speakers make use of linguistic variation to express local belonging and/or dissonance therefore developing, and displaying to each other, ‘a sense of place’ (Convery, Corsane and Davis 2012)?
    In other words:

    • Do ethnic minorities maintain their community languages to assert social distance?
    • What are the constraints on linguistic variation amongst indigenous young people?
    • Are new inward migrants acquiring the same constraints as their local peers?
    • Are there differences between the constraints discernible amongst the Northern Irish English varieties used by newer and older minority ethnic groups?
  3. Do diverse NI social groups hold similar or different attitudes towards minority and regional languages and their speakers?
  4. To what extent are the migratory experiences of the Irish Diaspora and inward migrants to NI similar and can historical records of emigration by the majority ethnic groups be used to promote tolerance towards ethnic minority communities now living in NI?
  5. What ‘best practice’ educational support is there for regional and minority languages in NI?

What directions in the future do you see your research taking?

I will continue to work on language and dialect issues in Ireland alongside keeping up my interests in the ‘Diachronic Electronic Corpus of Tyneside English‘ project which I have been developing there since joining Newcastle University in the 1990s.

How did you get involved with the Philological Society?

I became a member of the society though communications with Prof. Keith Brown, former Honorary Secretary for Publications of the Society, who I first met as an undergraduate. Keith was the external examiner of our Linguistics programme at University College, Dublin and the practice there was to have a viva with the external as part of the examination process from the First Year onwards.


‘Personal’ Questions

Do you have a favourite language – and if so, why?

It has to be Irish because it is a minority language and could do with the support!

Minimalism or LFG?

Minimalism but with a Sociolinguistic twist.

Teaching or Research?

I have to say I really enjoy both.

Do you have a linguistic pet peeve?

Approaches to contact varieties that do not consider Mufwene’s wonderful ‘Founder Principle’

What’s your (main) guilty pleasure?

Chocolate.


Looking to the Future

Is there something that you would like to change in academia / HE?

I think HE should be free to all.

(How) Do you manage to have a reasonable work-life balance?

If I am honest, I’m afraid that I don’t …

What is your prime tip for younger colleagues?

Learn to be collaborative and collegiate.

Latin in Medieval Britain

by Richard K. Ashdowne (University of Oxford; Honorary Membership Secretary, PhilSoc)

Of the many languages in use in Britain in the middle ages, Latin is arguably the best attested and yet most overlooked. Not the native language of any of its users and employed especially—though certainly not exclusively—in written functions, Latin has tended to be the elephant in the room despite its indisputable importance for its users and their societies.

After the departure of the Roman legions from Britain, Latin’s continued use was by no means assured, but there is a continuous train of use down to the time of the Tudors and beyond. Over more than a thousand years British medieval Latin was employed for all manner of functions from accountancy to zoology.

In this new collection of papers, arising from the conference held to celebrate the completion in print of the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, the place of Latin in medieval Britain is examined from a variety of historical, cultural and linguistic perspectives and in relation to some of its many different contexts.

In the first part, David Howlett, Neil Wright, Wendy Childs and Robert Swanson look successively at the start of the Anglo-Latin tradition, the twelfth-century renaissance, the use of Latin in historiography and record-keeping in the fourteenth century, and the continued use of Latin in the medieval tradition into the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The vitality of the language over the ages and its users’ constant reinvention of its role emerge as central themes.

In the second part, attention is directed to particular fields, namely law (Paul Brand), musical theory (Leofranc Holford-Strevens), the church (Carolinne White) and science (Charles Burnett), as examples of how the Latin language was used and adapted to its roles. That it was being employed in historical, social, cultural and linguistic settings quite different from its ancient ancestor had important consequences. It meant that, for instance, Latin was frequently in need of new terminology for the contemporary world, especially in some of these more technical areas. Borrowing, calquing and native word-formation processes were all ways of meeting this need, reflecting the inherent contact between Latin and its users’ native vernacular languages.

In the third and final part, these linguistic contacts become the central focus in chapters examining the relationship between Welsh and Latin (Paul Russell), the relationship between Latin and English (Richard Sharpe), the development of a mixed-language code (Laura Wright), the relationship of Germanic, Anglo-Norman French and Latin (David Trotter), and the relationship between English and Latin (Philip Durkin and Samantha Schad). The final chapter, by David Howlett, ties in with some of the lexicographical questions raised by Sharpe, Trotter, and Durkin and Schad, and looks back at the process of preparing the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources.

Latin in Medieval Britain is edited by Richard Ashdowne and Carolinne White and  published by the British Academy in association with OUP. Many of the contributors are members of the Society and current or former members of Council.


Further information, including abstracts of all the chapters, can be found on the DMLBS blog and the book can be obtained directly from OUP and all good booksellers.