2 Isara2007chung

INVESTIGATING CONTACT-INDUCED LANGUAGE
CHANGE: CASES OF CHUNG (SAOCH) IN

THAILAND AND CAMBODIA
ISARA CHOOSRI
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(LINGUISTICS)
FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY
2007
COPYRIGHT OF MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to sincerely thank my advisor, Prof. Suwilai Premsrirat, for her
advices and encouragement throughout my study. I am equally grateful to Prof. James A.
Matisoff of University of California, Berkeley, for his helpful guidance, supervision, and
giving me the opportunity to work in his STEDT office during my visit to Berkeley. I am
also thankful to Assoc. Prof. Cholticha Bamroongraks, Assoc. Prof. Sophana Srichampa
and Assoc. Prof. Amon Saengmanee for their kind comments and suggestions.
My special thank is for Prof. Gérard Diffloth who kindly advised me on many oc-
casions duirng the course of this study, especially for giving me a copy of an EFEO
manuscript on Chung language. I also thank Prof. Christian Bauer of Humboldt Uni-
versity in Berlin, who gave me some good advices that I could use for improving my
draft.
I gratefully acknowledge the Thailand Research Fund’s Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D.
Program, (TRF-RGJ) for granting me a scholarship to support my study and research in
Thailand and Cambodia, and in Berkeley, USA. I also thank the Ministry of Education
for providing me the Lecturer Development scholarship for studying at the Institute of
Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University.
I deeply appreciate all my friends and colleagues for their kind help on many occa-
sions. Finally, I express my sincere gratitude to my family for their heartening encour-
agement and unfailing support throughout my course of study.
Isara Choosri
Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. Thesis / iv
INVESTIGATING CONTACT-INDUCED LANGUAGE CHANGE: CASES OF

CHUNG (SAOCH) IN THAILAND AND CAMBODIA.
ISARA CHOOSRI 4536432 LCLG/D
Ph.D. (LINGUISTICS)
THESIS ADVISORS : SUWILAI PREMSRIRAT, Ph.D. (LINGUISTICS), JAMES A.

MATISOFF, Ph.D. (LINGUISTICS), SOPHANA SRICHAMPA, Ph.D. (LINGUIS-
TICS), AMON SAENGMANEE, Ph.D. (LINGUISTICS)
ABSTRACT
In the 1830s, during the Annam-Siam war in Cambodia, some Chung people
were captured and sent to Thailand by Siamese troops, while others were still left in
their original home. For almost two centuries, the two groups of Chung speakers have
been isolated from each other. Contact-induced language change in both varieties is
studied in reference to Thai and Khmer. To assess the intensity of contact, socio-historical
backgrounds of each variety are examined. After tracing the influence of Thai and Khmer,
the Chung sound system and lexica are compared with Proto-Pearic and Proto-Mon-
Khmer. It is shown that each variety has diverted due to the long period of separation
and language contact.
As proposed in this study, Chung of Thailand are called Chung Yuy (CY) and
of Cambodia Chung Yul (CL) because of different pronunciations of the word ‘sky’,
representing the correspondence between words ending with /-j/ in CY and /-l/ in CL.
The difference suggests that CY have undergone a merger of Proto-Pearic *-l and *-j,
while CL still keeps the distinction. The loss of such contrast is motivated by CY’s drift
towards Thai. Though the change from *-stops to -nasals after glottalized vowels in CL
is salient, it is an independent process and not found in CY and other Pearic languages.
Lexically, there are four patterns of borrowing: (1) CY borrowed Thai and CL
borrowed Khmer (2) CY borrowed Thai while CL kept old forms (3) CY and CL borrowed
Khmer (4) CY kept old forms while CL borrowed Khmer. Morphologically, CY and CL
still resemble each other though CY show inclinations to monosyllabicity. Grammatically,
there are no significant differences between CY, CL, Thai and Khmer, except for ‘doubled
negation’ not–verb–not that is shared by the Chung and Khmer, but not by Thais.
KEY WORDS : CONTACT-INDUCED LANGUAGE CHANGE / CHUNG (SAOCH)
PEARIC BRANCH / MON-KHMER FAMILY / THAI / KHMER
143 pp.
Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. Thesis / v
!"#$%&'()*+%&,$*-(.,/"!!"#012310 4"5": !#6' 4"5"7.89, (0:./) ;*%#<$=>?=)+&<!12@A7"

(INVESTIGATING CONTACT-INDUCED LANGUAGE CHANGE: CASES OF CHUNG
(SAOCH) IN THAILAND AND CAMBODIA).
.B0#< 7A>#' 4536432 LCLG/D
%#.C. (4"5">"0D#E)
F6<!##2!"#FGHF82 GB=)"*B@*IE : 08 GB?& $%#2>#' #1D*E, Ph.D. (LINGUISTICS), $/20E $..

2"DBJ.K, Ph.D. (LINGUISTICS), :04*" >#'/L%", Ph.D. (LINGUISTICS), .2# +0,26', Ph.D.
(LINGUISTICS)
H=F1C)M.
7MG,=>G##5 1830 $!BC0,F#"2 ''0)"2-.1**"2'' ;*!12@A7" 7"G7.89,H",0MG*NA!/1H$%O*
$7&)2"%#<$=>?=) 7"G7.89,='($P&B-..">1).)AM ='( !12@A7" $!-.H0.,>DG##5='( 7.89,0.,!&8M2NA!+)!
/"! !1* .)M", $CQC R"C !"# >S!5" !"# $%&'()* +%&, $*-(., /"! !"# 012310 4"5" :C) .9", .B, !1H
.B=IB@&/"!4"5"?=)+&<4"5"$R2#*'T ?C9 %#<$2B* .B=IB@&R.,!"#012310 4"5"/"!!"#>S!5"
%#<G1DB>"0D#E 01,F2R.,7.89,=1T,0.,!&8M2 P&1, /"!!"#D#G/0.H.B=IB@&R.,4"5"?=)+&<$R2#
#<HH$0'),+&<FL>1@=E R.,4"5"7.89,NA!*L?%$%#')H$=')H!1H '':@#:D$@')#B!'' +&< '':@#:D2.U-
$R2#'' @HGM"4"5"7.89,0.,NB(*DM",!1*$@#"<.)A+M )!!1*$%O*$G&"*"*+&<$@#"<!"#0123104"5"
3A9GB/1)$0*.;P9$#')!7.89,;*%#<$=>?=)+&<!12@A7"GM" 7.89,)A) (CY) +&< 7.89,)A& (CL) $*-(.,
/"!FG"2DM",.)M",$%O*#<HHR.,!"#..!$0'),=9") /-j/ ;* CY +&< /-l/ ;* CL ;*FL='2( F' G"2P2")
$C')G!1* :C);79FL )A) - )A&'KV"' ;*0.,4"5"NB(*$%O*D1G+=* FG"2DM",*'T7'TGM" CY 2'!"#FGH#G2$0'),
*-l +&< *-j ='2( !' "#$%#')HDM",;*:@#:D$@')#B! R6<='( CL )1,F,!"#$%#')HDM",*1T*?G9 !"#0AU$0')!"#
$%#')HDM",*'T7'TGM" CY $%&'()*?%F&9")4"5"?=)2"!RST* +29GM"!"#$%&'()*+%&,R.,$0'),=9") *-stops
$%O* *-nasals P&1, 0#<='( 2' !"#H'H $!#Q, $09* $0'), (Glottalized Vowels) ;* CL /<$CM* 71C .)M",)B(,
+DM!$Q %O*!"#$%&'()*+%&,='$( !BC$W@"<;* CL :C)?2M@H$&);* CY +&<4"5"$@')#B!.-(* X
;*C9"*FL>1@=E @H!"#)-2 >1@=E 0'( &1!56< F-. (1) CY )-2 ?=)+&< CL )-2 $R2# (2) CY
)-2?=);*R6<='( CL $!QH#A%FL$!M"?G9 (3) CY +&< CL )-2$R2# (4) CY $!QH#A%FL$!M"?G9 ;*R6<='(
CL )-2$R2# 0MG*;*$#-(.,R.,#<HH!"#0#9",FL*1T* =1T, CY +&< CL F&9")!1*+29GM";* CY /<$PQ*
+*G:*92 !"#@1Y*"?%0AM #<HHFL:CC (Monosyllabicity) ;*C9"*!"#0#9",%#<:)F?2M 2' FG"2+D!
DM",='(0LF1U#<PGM", CY, CL, 4"5"?=) +&<4"5"$R2#$G9*+DM#<HH '%ZB$0IJ9.*' ?2M--!#B)"--?2M
JS(,2';*4"5"7.89,+&<4"5"$R2#+DM?2M2;' *4"5"?=)
143 P*9"
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
ABSTRACT (ENGLISH) iv
ABSTRACT (THAI) v
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Perspectives on Contact-Induced Language Change . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.2 Chung or Saoch Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1.3 The Significance of this Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2 Objectives of this Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3 Expected Outcome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4 Theoretical Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.5 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.6 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.7 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.8 terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2 Review of Literature 16
2.1 Linguistic Outcome of Language Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.1 Historical Linguistics and Language Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.2 Constraints on Borrowing and Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.3 Contact-Induced Language Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2 Chung Language and Its Speakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.1 Beliefs, Traditions, and Customs of the Chung . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.2 The Impact of the 18th Century’s Annam-Siam War . . . . . . . . 25
2.2.3 The Re-settlement of Chung Speakers in Thailand . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.4 Proto-Pearic and Chung’s Place in the Pearic Branch . . . . . . . 28
2.3 Khmer Elements in the Thai Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
CONTENTS (CONT.) vii
3 Research Methodology 36
3.1 Data Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.1.1 Contextual Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.1.2 Linguistic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2 Data Collection and Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2.1 Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2.2 Unstructured Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2.3 Elicitation of Linguistic Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.2.4 Data Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3 Analytical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.1 Cases Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.3.2 Comparison of Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.3.3 Identification of Contact-Induced Language Change . . . . . . . . 40
3.4 Explanatory Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4 Chung Phonology and Lexicon 42

4.1 An Overview of Chung Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.2 Chung Phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.2.1 Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.2.2 Vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.2.3 Suprasegmentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.2.4 Syllable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.3 Word Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.3.1 Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.3.2 Compounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5 Chung of Thailand and Cambodia 56

5.1 Socio-historical Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.1.1 Chung Yuy of Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.1.2 Chung Yul of Cambodia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.2 Phonological Correspondences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.2.1 Consonant Clusters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.2.2 Pre-syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.2.3 Final Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.3 Lexical Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.3.1 Chung Yuy and Chung Yul Keeping Old Forms . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.3.2 Borrowings from Thai and Khmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6 Identifying Contact-Induced Changes 72

6.1 Chung Yuy, Chung Yul, and Proto-Pearic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.1.1 *Plain > Aspirated Stops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.1.2 The Origin of Breathy Voice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
CONTENTS (CONT.) viii
6.1.3 Residue in Proto-Pearic Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

6.2 Proto-Mon-Khmer and Chung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.2.1 Consonant Mutations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
6.2.2 Registers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.3 Identifying Contact Influences from Thai and Khmer . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
6.3.1 Sounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
6.3.2 Vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.3.3 Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.3.4 Semantic Differences between Chung and Khmer Cognates . . . . 85
7 Conclusion 89
7.1 Linguistic Changes in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
7.2 Language Contact as an Explanatory Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7.2.1 Social Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7.2.2 Linguistic Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7.3 Contact vs. Endogenous Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
7.4 Further Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
7.4.1 Re-investigating the Pearic Branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
7.4.2 Suggested Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
BIBLIOGRAPHY 101
A Chung Basic Wordlist 109

A.1 Parts of the Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
A.2 Mankind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
A.3 Foodstuffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
A.4 Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
A.5 The Geological World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
A.6 The Plant World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
A.7 Artifacts & Social Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
A.8 Spatial, Directional & Temporal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
A.9 Quantity & Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
A.10 Verbs of utterance, body position or function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
A.11 Verbs of motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
A.12 Verbs of motion (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
A.13 Verbs of emotion, cognition & perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
A.14 Stative Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
A.15 Stative Verbs (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
A.16 Stative Verbs (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
A.17 Action Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
A.18 Grammatical Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
CONTENTS (CONT.) ix
B Pictures of the Chung People 138
BIOGRAPHY 143
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Proto-Pearic Consonantal Phomemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2.2 Proto-Pearic Vowel Phonemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3 Headley’s Classification of Pearic Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.4 Comparison of Proto-Pearic Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.1 Chung Consonantal Phomemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4.2 Chung Vowel Phonemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.3 Phonetic Features of Chung Registers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.4 Examples of Chung Register Contrasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.1 Differences in Consonant Clusters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

5.2 Differences in Pre-syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.3 Correspondence between /-j/ - /-l/ in CY and CL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.4 Correspondence between /-j/ - /-j/ in CY and CL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.5 /-p/ v. /-m/ in creaky-voice register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.6 /-p/ v. /-p/ in non-creaky-voice registers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.7 /-m/ v. /-m/ in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.8 /-t/ v. /-n/ in creaky-voice register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.9 /-t/ v. /-t/ in non-creaky-voice registers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.10 /-n/ v. /-n/ in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.11 /-c/ v. /-ñ/ in creaky-voice register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.12 /-c/ v. /-c/ in non-creaky-voice registers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.13 /-ñ/ v. /-ñ/ in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.14 /-k/ v. /-N/ in creaky-voice register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.15 /-k/ v. /-k/ in non-creaky-voice registers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.16 /-N/ v. /-N/ in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.17 CY and CL Keep Old Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.18 Borrowings I: CY Borrowed Thai, CL Borrowed Khmer . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.19 Borrowings II: CY Borrowed Thai, CL Keeps Old Forms . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.20 Borrowings III: CY and CL Borrowed Khmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.21 Borrowings IV: CY Keeps Old Forms, CL Borrowed Khmer . . . . . . . . 71
6.1 Proto-Pearic *Plain Stops > Chung Aspirated Stops . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

6.2 Proto-Pearic *voiced- > Chung voiceless breathy . . . . . . . . . . . 75
LIST OF TABLES (CONT.) xi
6.3 The loss of voiceless liquids & glides and breathy voice . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.4 Proto-Pearic */P T C K/ and Chung Reflexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.5 Proto-Mon-Khmer */P, s, h/ and Chung Reflexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
6.6 Chung /ch-/ and Khmer /c-/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
6.7 Proto-Pearic *-r *-s and Chung Reflexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.8 PMK *-r *-s and Khmer Reflexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.9 Proto-Mon-Khmer Final Stops and Chung Yul Final Nasals . . . . . . . . 81
6.10 Proto-Mon-Khmer Voiced Stops and Chung Reflexes . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.11 Semantic Differences between Chung and Khmer Cognates: Same Mor-
phemes but Different Meanings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6.12 Semantic Differences between Chung and Khmer Cognates: Same Mean-
ings but Different Morphemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
7.1 Changes in Phoneme Distribution: Chung Yuy and Chung Yul . . . . . . 90

7.2 Thai and Khmer Influences on Chung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7.3 Thai, Khmer, and Chung Typological Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
7.4 Revised Proto-Pearic Consonantal Phomemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
7.5 Final Glottal Stop and Creaky Voice in Open Syllables . . . . . . . . . . . 97
7.6 Proto-Mon-Khmer Glottal Stop and Chung Creaky Voice . . . . . . . . . 98
7.7 Treatment of Proto-Pearic *j- in Suoi, Chong and Chung (Suoi data from
Headley 1985; Chong data from Isara 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Place of Chung on the Austro-Asiatic Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.2 Geographic Distribution of Pearic Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Chung Language Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4 Chung Village in Kanchanaburi Province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5 Chung Village in Kampong Som Province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1 Markedness Constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.2 Headley’s (1985: 430) Map of Pearic Dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.3 Headley’s (1985: 464) Map of Pearic Dialects with Isoglosses . . . . . . . 33
2.4 Tree made from Headley’s classificatory criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.1 Semantic Domains Used for Wordlist Arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.2 An Explanatory Model of Language Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.1 Chung Syllable Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.2 Chung Compound Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
7.1 Linguistic Results of Language Contact: Chung (Adapted from Thomason

& Kaufman, 1988: 50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
7.2 PMK > Pearic > Chung: Consonant Mutation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
7.3 Pearic Family Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
B.1 An Old Chung Yuy Storyteller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

B.2 Chung Yuy Woman with Coconuts, a Cash Crop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
B.3 Chung Yuy Village Shrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
B.4 A Chung Yuy Former Village Headman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
B.5 Chung Yul Language Consultants (2 persons on the left) . . . . . . . . . . 140
B.6 A Chung Yul Father and Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
B.7 Chung Yul Storyteller and Village Headman (left to right) . . . . . . . . . 141
B.8 A Typical Chung Yul House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. Ph.D. (Linguistics) / 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Study
Patterns of language change differ from one language to another in accordance with
varying socio-historical contexts, in addition to typological differences in language struc-
tures. The discipline of historical linguistics is concerned with studying various patterns
of language change and explaining why they are so. There are two types of causes of
language change. It is either motivated by internal factors in the linguistic system or by
social conditions, which are often regarded as external factors. One of the major causes
of linguistic change due to external factors is contact between languages, or dialects.
However, the issue of linguistic change due to contact between languages is considered
by many as not a primary concern of the historical study of one language or a group
of related languages, compared to the treatment of cognates and typological similarities
and contrasts.
This section attempts to justify two issues. The first issue is the significance
of contact-induced language change as an area of study that is an indispensable part
of language history. The second issue is how the application of the concept of contact-
induced language change on the Chung language, formerly known as Saoch, in Thailand
and Cambodia can help us reach a fuller explanation of historical changes found in both
varieties.
In §1.1.1 I will present three complementary perspectives that are relevant to
contact-induced language change, namely, the comparative method in historical linguis-
tics, linguistic-structural constraints on language change, and sociolinguistic history as
a fundamental basis for studying language change.

Isara Choosri Introduction / 2
In §1.1.2 I will briefly introduce the Chung language, starting from its displaced
speakers in Thailand and going back to the original group in Cambodia.
Apart from a brief introduction to the language, I will describe in §1.1.3 why the
Chung language was chosen as a case study of contact-induced language change.
1.1.1 Perspectives on Contact-Induced Language Change
The study of contact-induced language change covers any linguistic change that would
have been unlikely or less likely to occur outside a particular contact situation. Such
change is due at least in part to language contact. Complemented by the study of lin-
guistic factors, the study of contact-induced language change can help a lot in explaining
linguistic change in particular languages.
There are three relevant views from which one can consider the topic of contact-
induced language change. The first one is from the comparative-historical perspective,
particularly the view of the classical Comparative Method. The second one is the
structuralist-functionalist view of constraints on linguistic interference. And the third is
the view proposed by Thomason & Kaufman (1988) that social factors, particularly the
intensity of contact between people of different tongues, determine the linguistic outcome
of a language contact situation.
The Comparative Method and Contact-Induced Language Change
The domain of language change has been the main interest of comparative historical
linguistics for centuries. Its primary concern is to make statements comparing the char-
acteristics of different languages (dialects, varieties, etc), or different historical states
of a language. The ‘Comparative Method’ in historical linguistics originated from the
standard techniques of philology. To apply this a linguist would compare a set of forms
taken from cognate languages to determine whether a historical relationship connects
them. If they were historically related, this analysis would then be used to deduce the
characteristics of the ancestor language from which they were assumed to have derived
(a process of ‘comparative’ or ‘internal’ reconstruction).

In the nineteenth century, the primary goal of comparative analysis was to exam-
ine the relationships between such languages as Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, their hypothetical
ancestor languages (i.e. the PROTO-language from which such languages derived), and
the subsequent processes which led to the formation of the language groups that are
attested at the present day.
Because the concern of the Comparative Method is to verify historical relation-
ships between cognate languages and to deduce from them the characteristics of a hy-
pothetical ‘ancestor’ language, it has to establish in the first place what linguistic fea-
tures are ‘external’ and thereby borrowed from historically unrelated languages. Thus,
methodologically, it has to cast aside contact-induced language change, or to put it fig-
uratively, to regard contact influences as chaff. After such ‘chaff’ is sieved out, a valid
process of reconstruction could begin.
To reconstruct features of a hypothetical proto-language from which all cognate
languages have evolved, a linguist has to first distinguish between contact influences, or
borrowed features, and genetic features. This is probably the real strength of the method
in which inconsistent features not found in all the cognate languages are bracketed out.
However, it can be also a weakness of the method in handling complex changes in the
history of particular languages, where contact often plays an important part.
Structural Constraints and Contact-Induced Language Change
As early twentieth-century linguistics switched from a diachronic to a synchronic em-
phasis, without totally excluding historical studies, comparative linguistics these days is
more inclined to the theoretical and practical analysis of the structural correspondences
between living languages, regardless of their history, with the aim of establishing types
of language (typological comparison; or ‘typological linguistics’) and ultimately the uni-
versal characteristics of human language. Language change becomes more focused on
the agenda of historical linguists than reconstruction, which is now relinquished to the
jurisdiction of ‘comparative’ linguists.

At the present time, the term ‘language change’ seems to connote a change
in progress, or language change in a progressive direction, as opposed to change in
retrospection, or language change in a regressive direction. However, this does not mean
that the latter view is no longer useful. It is useful indeed, but it is more appropriate for
deriving a proto-language as a single point of reference for apparently diverse attested
daughter languages.
A Structuralist-Functionalist view of language change seems to integrate both
the synchronic and the diachronic view of language as exemplified by Jakobson’s concept
of ‘dynamic synchrony’ (Jakobson and Pomorska, 1980). In this view, any linguistic
changes must be ‘systemic’ and ‘goal-directed’. Change must be viewed as part of the
whole system, it should not be explained in isolation. And the evolution of languages
shares the stage with the development of other socio-cultural systems.
Here, the term ‘contact’ is used to refer to a situation of geographical contiguity
or close social proximity (and thus of mutual influence) between languages or dialects. In
a restricted sense, languages are said to be ‘in contact’ if they are used alternately by the
same persons, i.e. bilinguals. The result of contact situations can be seen linguistically,
in the increase of loanwords, patterns of phonological and grammatical change, mixed
forms of language (such as creoles and pidgins), and a general increase in bilingualism
of various kinds.
Though a Structuralist-Functionalist view of language change presents a more
integrated view of language history, it proposes that the features from a source language,
‘linguistic interference’ in terms of Weinreich (1953), would be restricted by the underly-
ing structure of a target language. A universal tendency of languages generally permits
changes that are in accordance with the structural constraints of the target languages.
Also, such a tendency may favor the change from ‘markedness’ to ‘unmarkedness’, or
from more marked features to less marked features (Kiparsky, 1973).

Sociolinguistic History and Contact-Induced Change
Thomason & Kaufman (1988) present the issue of contact-induced language change from
another viewpoint. They propose that it is the sociolinguistic history of the speakers, and
not the structure of their language, that is primary in determining the linguistic outcome
of language contact. Purely linguistic considerations are relevant but secondary. Finally,
all the proposed structural constraints fail because linguistic interference is conditioned in
the first instance by social factors, not linguistic ones. Both the direction of interference
and the extent of interference are socially determined; so, to a considerable degree, are
the kinds of features transferred from one language to another.
In this perspective, the intensity of contact is the primary determinant of the
linguistic outcome of language, which can be categorized as (1) casual contact (2) slightly
more intensive contact (3) more intensive contact, and (4) intense contact. Their linguis-
tic outcome starts from borrowing of non-basic content words to structural borrowing
that results in typological changes in the borrowing language.
An inclination toward case histories of languages, implied by Thomason & Kauf-
man (1988), provides a more integrated approach for investigating the issue of contact-
induced language change. In this case-oriented approach, language structures and soci-
olinguistic situations are to be considered as parts of a whole.
Obviously, this theoretical approach is appropriately applicable to any geographic
areas where contact between languages is widespread. In fact, it is very useful for the
situation of South-East Asian linguistic areas where the overlapping distributions of dif-
ferent language families seem to be the norm rather than an exception. An emphasis on
studying contact-induced language change on a case-by-case basis, with the use of inten-
sity of contact scales, is more flexible than only relying on purely linguistic constraints.
However, in Thomason & Kaufman’s (1988) framework, linguistic constraints are not
repudiated but are integrated with a more inclusive picture of language history.
Though the above-mentioned frameworks view the issue of contact-induced lan-
guage change in slightly or very different ways, they are by no means incompatible. In
fact, they can complement each other in the study of language change.
In the next section, I will introduce the case of the Chung or Saoch language of
Thailand and Cambodia and discuss why such a language is an appropriate example for
a study of contact-induced language change.
1.1.2 Chung or Saoch Language
The Chung [tCuĳN] or Saoch language belongs to the Pearic branch of the Mon-Khmer
¨
branch of the Austro-Asiatic linguistic family (see Figure 1.1). Apart from Saoch, the
Pearic branch includes Chong, Kasong, Suoi, Pear, Samre, Somray and Pear. Most of
the Pearic languages are scattered along the Thai-Cambodian borderlands. The original
homeland of Saoch is the southwestern coastal province of Kampong Som, which is
called Krong Preah Sihanouk by some. So far in Cambodia, there is just one village of
Chung speakers in Prey Nob district of Kampong Som. Figure 1.2 shows the geographic
distribution of Pearic languages, minus Chung of Kanchanaburi in western Thailand
Austro-Asiatic
!""
!!!! """"
!!!! """"
!!!! """
Munda Mon-Khmer
#$#$%&',+*)(()*+,+,
... ###$#$%#$%#$%&#$%&%&'' ()(*)*+,)*+,*+,*+,+,,,
###$$$%% && ' (( )) **+*++,+,,,
## ###$#$#$$%$%%%&&& ''' (( ))) ***+++,+,,,,,
### $$ $ %% && ' (( ))) **** ++++ ,,,,,
#######$$$$$ %%%%% &&& '' (( )) *** ++++ ,,,,,
### $$$ %% && ' ' ) * ++ ,,
Nic. Kha. Pal. Mon. Khm. VM. Kat. Bah. Pea.
* Kh. Asl.
%*
%%%%% *****
%
· · · Chung · · ·
Nicobarese Khasi Palaungic Monic Khmuic Viet-Muong

Katuic Bahnaric Pearic Khmer Aslian
Figure 1.1: Place of Chung on the Austro-Asiatic Tree
Around the 1830s, during the Siam-Vietnam war waged on Cambodian soil, a
group of Chung was embarked on a ship as prisoners of war to settle in Siam. According
to one source, they landed in Ratchaburi and moved further north to Kanchanaburi
where they subsequently settled in the district of Si Sawat. Thus, Chung is the only
Figure 1.2: Geographic Distribution of Pearic Languages
clearly documented case, with an approximate date, among all the Pearic languages to
have varieties set both in the original homeland and in the displaced location far away
from the original one. The study of their divergence can shed light on how different
contact situations take effect in both varieties. Furthermore, this case can shed light on
the traditional dialectological hypothesis that immigrant varieties tend to preserve more
old linguistic features than those confined to their original homeland.
From my review of the available literature, it is obvious that there has been a lack
of up-to-date data on the Chung or Saoch language, both in Thailand and Cambodia.
The most complete data is to be found in an unpublished, Chung-French wordlist from
the early 20th century. However useful this source may be, one needs to collect more
current data from both varieties, in order to describe the present state of the language.
Another factor that may hinder the study of the Chung language is the socio-
linguistic situation called ‘language endangerment’ (Suwilai 2007: 81-86). This is the
Figure 1.3: Chung Language Areas
situation when speakers of a language shift so rapidly from mother tongue to a language
of wider communication that the former is likely to become morbund. In sum, language
endangerment is a prelude to language death.
The Chung language never had a written form. So the available sources on
the language are quite limited. This is another reason why one needs to document the
language as soon as possible for further study.
The Pearic languages are scattered along the Thai-Cambodian borderland. One
could assume that they have been influenced by the majority languages in both countries.
But mostly there has been no record of the geographical movements of these languages.
Thus, we still do not know for sure about the socio-historical background and the contact
relationship of Pearic with other languages, especially with Thai. Except for the case of
Saoch, where we know approximately the date when the speakers of Saoch were moved
from Cambodia to Thailand. This language can therefore be used as an exemplary case
for the whole branch to see how Thailand’s and Cambodia’s linguistic influences affect
the linguistic structure of a Pearic language.
Figure 1.4: Chung Village in Kanchanaburi Province
1.1.3 The Significance of this Study
Why is the Chung language historically distinct from other Pearic languages? My answer
is simply that it is the only case among Pearic languages where we find written records of
speakers’ immigration from Cambodia to Thailand. Other Pearic languages are located
along the Thai-Cambodian border, but Chung speakers had been moved from their
original homeland in the coastal town of Kampong Som (formerly part of Kampot) to
Thailand’s westernmost province of Kanchanaburi. Chung or Saoch is also among the
least studied of Pearic languages.
Despite previous comparative studies of the Pearic languages (Headley, 1985;

Figure 1.5: Chung Village in Kampong Som Province
Martin, 1975), reconsideration of Proto-Pearic and further classification of the Pearic
languages are needed. For instance, there are recent descriptions of Pearic languages in
Thailand, which need to be situated in the Pearic branch. One should also determine
what mechanisms of change have occurred in the history of the Pearic languages. To
make sense of such changes, one needs to explain both language-internal and contact-
induced factors involved in language change.
In the socio-historical context of Thailand and Cambodia, identification of contact-
induced change should be regarded as crucial in determining the relationship among the
Pearic languages because they are under heavy influence from dominant languages in
their homes. However, no prior studies on the Pearic languages seriously took the issue
of contact-induced language change into account. It is still hardly clear how one can
distinguish linguistic changes attested in the Pearic languages induced by social contact
from the genetic drift.

In this study I am also concerned with how to apply the various methods of his-
torical linguistics complementarily. For example, the Comparative Method, the dynamic-
synchronic study of language, and the historical sociolinguistic method.
In sum, the investigation of language contact in the cases of Chung in Thailand
and Cambodia not only help to distinguish genetic features of Chung from those resulting
from contact situation, it also enables us to explain linguistic changes in the Chung
language in its socio-historical context. Furthermore, with a view to the comparative
study and classification of the Pearic languages, the study of language-induced language
change in Chung will provide more evidence for further study of language relationship
between the Pearic languages in Thailand and Cambodia. Also, steps in the identification
of external changes in this study should be applicable to other Pearic languages.
1.2 Objectives of this Study
In this section I will outline the objectives of this study. The general objective is to
investigate the linguistic outcome of language contact involving the Chung language in
Thailand and Cambodia. However, the detailed objectives include the following:
1. To study Chung of Thailand and Cambodia, both as distinct cases, in terms of
overall language structure, sociolinguistic situation, and historical background.
2. To compare similarities and differences between both cases in order to identify
contact-induced language changes. Comparison with common linguistic features
of the Pearic languages and Mon-Khmer languages in general will be taken into
consideration.
3. To verify, or revise, the genetic relationship of the Pearic branch as classified by
Headley (1985) by using the results from 2.1 and 2.2.
4. To discuss the relevance and implications of the theory of contact-induced language
change as proposed by Thomason & Kaufman (1988) to the the historical study of
the Chung language and the Pearic languages in general.
The results of objectives 2.1 - 2.4 are presented in Chapters 4 - 7 of this thesis.
Chapters 4 and 5 will deal with objective 2.1. Chapter 6 will deal with both objectives
2.2 and 2.3. Chapter 7 will deal with objective 2.4 and will also conclude with research
findings and suggestions for further study.
1.3 Expected Outcome
The outcome of this study is expected to enable future researchers to identify the lin-
guistic results of language contact in the Chung language of Thailand and Cambodia.
With such knowledge, we will also be able to explain linguistic changes in Chung in
their socio-historical context. Also, the implications of this study will hopefully lead to
a more solid ground for a comparative study of the Pearic branch of the Mon-Khmer
family, and even the comparative study of the Mon-Khmer language family itself, as
well as the verification of the theory of contact-induced language change proposed by
Thomason & Kaufman (1988).
More direct results are descriptions of the overall language structure, sociolin-
guistic situation, and historical background of the Chung language in Thailand and
Cambodia, of which we so far have little knowledge. Such data are essential for further
reconstruction of Proto-Pearic. Besides, both varieties are severely endangered, so that
might take as little as a single generation before they become extinct. Apart from the
linguistic aspect of this study, I expect to tell an exemplary story of a small people whose
fate has been affected by wars between big states, a common fate of ethnic minorities in
South-East Asia.
1.4 Theoretical Orientation
The theoretical orientation of this study follows Thomason & Kaufman’s (1988) proposal
that it is the sociolinguistic history of the speakers, not the structure of their language,
that is the primary determinant of the linguistic outcome of language contact. Purely
linguistic considerations are relevant but secondary. Ultimately, all the proposed struc-
tural constraints fail because linguistic interference is conditioned in the first place by
social factors, not linguistic ones. The direction and extent of interference are socially
determined. So are the kinds of features transferred from one language to another.
Social factors determine both the direction and the extent of interference, and
the kinds of features resulting from the interference. Thomason & Kaufman (1988)
distinguish two fundamentally different types of linguistic interference: (1) Borrowing in
the case of language maintenance and (2) Substrate influence in the case of language shift.
Where intensity of contact is similar in both types, linguistic constraints–typological
distance, markedness, etc.–can apply to predict the kinds of expected interference.
1.5 Hypotheses
1. Social factors—defined here as intensity and length of contact, and social attitudes
among speakers whose languages are in contact—are the primary determinant of
linguistic borrowing and interference.
2. Displaced varieties tend to preserve older linguistic features than the variety in the
original homeland.
1.6 Scope
The section defines the area over which the research activities operate or are effective.
It also describes the expected scope or the range of application of the study results. The
subjects within the scope of my investigation include:
1. Field research activities:
(a) Thailand: Ban Thung Na Village, Sisawat District, Kanchanaburi Province,
(b) Cambodia: Phum Samrong Village, Prey Nob District, Kampong Som Province,
2. Documentary research activities:
Literature on theoretical and practical studies of contact-induced language change.

Linguistic works on the Pearic languages. And works on the influences of the
Khmer language on the Thai language.
3. Analytical and descriptive scheme:
Chung phonology and lexicon. Similarities and contrasts between Chung varieties
in Thailand and Cambodia. Identification of contact influences from Thai and
Khmer, in terms of phonology and lexicon.
4. Breadth of discussion:
The reconstruction of Proto-Pearic phonology. The classification of the Pearic
languages. An integrated history of Pearic languages. How to account for language
contact in the historical study of Pearic languages.
1.7 Limitations
This section defines the limits of the present study. In other words, the definition de-
scribes what this study is not. Given that the issue of contact-induced language change
overlaps with other linguistic sub-disciplines—comparative-historical linguistics, descrip-
tive linguistics, and sociolinguistics—it is useful to define the limitations of the present
study.
This study is not a sociolinguistic study in its strict sense. I have not carried out
a systematic survey to directly determine language situation. Informal interviews with
informants and their relatives are relied on instead.
This study is not a comparative reconstruction, or a comparative historical study,
although it uses reconstructed data as reference points in comparing both Chung varieties
in this study. There is no serious attempt at linguistic reconstruction of Chung or of
Proto-Pearic forms.
This study is not purely a structural description of the Chung language. Thus, it
lacks the breadth and depth of linguistic analysis that is required for descriptive works.
Instead, this summarizes Chung language structure in order to lay the foundation for
further analysis of contact influences from Khmer and Thai.

In terms of data collection, this study is limited in language informant selection
because there were few elderly fluent speakers either in Thailand or Cambodia. Besides,
it was not convenient to work outside of informants’ houses. Both in Thailand and
Cambodia, the use of the Chung language in the presence of Thai and Khmer speakers
could draw unfriendly attention, which Chung speakers did not like.
1.8 terminologies
Contact refers to a situation of geographical continuity or close social proximity (and
thus of mutual influence) between languages or dialects. The linguistic result of
contact situations can be seen in the increase of loanwords, patterns of phonological
and grammatical change, mixed forms of language (such as creoles and pidgins),
and a general increase in bilingualism of various kinds. In a narrow sense, languages
are said to be ‘in contact’ if they are used alternately by the same persons, i.e.
bilinguals. The term ‘contact language’ or ‘contact vernacular’ is also sometimes
used to refer to a pidgin. (Crystal 2003: 102)
Language Change is a general term in historical linguistics, referring to changes within
a language over a period of time, considered as a universal and unstoppable process.
The phenomenon has been systematically investigated by comparative philologists
since the end of the eighteenth century. All aspects of language are involved,
though most attention has been paid to phonology and lexis, where change is most
noticeable and frequent. (Crystal 2003: 256)
Contact-Induced Language Change is any linguistic change that would have been
unlikely or less likely to occur outside a particular contact situation. Such change
is due at least in part to language contact. (Thomason 2003: 688)

Isara Choosri Review of Literature / 16
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter includes three sections. The first section provides an overview of different
approaches to the linguistic outcome of language contact. The second section is a review
of related studies on the Chung language and its speakers. The final section mentions
briefly a work of Varasarin (1984) on the Khmer elements in Siamese Thai.
2.1 Linguistic Outcome of Language Contact
This section provides a review of the relationship between language contact and lan-
guage change as viewed by three schools of historical linguistics. The three perspectives
reviewed in this section show different emphases on the study of language change. The
first one is the classical Comparative Method, which emphasizes the ‘retropective’ out-
look on language change. The Comparative Method is powerful in taking the present facts
and deducing from such facts the history of language change. The second perspective
emphasizes structural constraints within languages, which could condition a particular
language to evolve in one way or another. Its dictum is that linguistic features tend to
change from more markedness to less markedness. The last perspective emphasizes the
sociolinguistic history of languages as more dominant than other linguistic factors. The
first two perspectives are mentioned briefly in this section, while the last one is reviewed
more extensively because it is the theoretical framework adopted in this research.
Adopting the last view as the theoretical framework of this study does not au-
tomatically suggest that it is the superior framework. Instead, the purpose of reviewing
all three perspectives is to depict the interrelatedness of such approaches within the
historical study of languages.

2.1.1 Historical Linguistics and Language Change
Textbooks on historical linguistics tend to distinguish linguistic reconstruction from lin-
guistic change. Some cover both areas and some do not. Introductory texts like Arlotto
(1972) and Anttila (1972; 1989) cover both linguistic reconstruction and linguistic change
but place more emphasis on the first area. This is also true for Lass (1997), who clearly
distinguishes the issue of language change from traditional historical linguistics based on
the comparative method. Similarly, Aitchison (1981) and McMahon (1994) focus more
on language change. This reinforces the present-day distinction between the retrospective
and the progressive view of ‘language change’: the first one emphasizes reconstruction
while the latter focuses on the causes and effects of language change, including various
processes of the change itself.
The main concerns of standard historical linguistics textbooks like Arlotto (1972)
and Anttila (1972; 1989), are linguistic reconstruction and genetic classification of re-
lated languages, each of which occupies a particular place on a linguistic family tree.
The issue of language contact is usually mentioned in the discussion of two related phe-
nomena: ‘borrowing’ and ‘Sprachbund,’ or linguistic area. Such phenomena need to be
distinguished from purely genetic relationships among languages.
However, in textbooks that focus more on language change like Aitchison (1981),
McMahon (1994), Dixon (1997), and Lass (1997), there are more extensive discussions
of language contact and contact-induced change. Both groups emphasize the process
of language change from a different temporal point of view. The classical point of view
works backward to the past, while a more recent school of historical linguistics emphasizes
the linguistic explanation of various changes in particular structures.

2.1.2 Constraints on Borrowing and Interference
There are two classical textbooks that deal directly with the concept of ‘languages in con-
tact’ and ‘contact-induced language change’. These are Weinreich (1953) and Thomason
& Kaufman (1988). The first favors system-internal explanation of the linguistic out-
come of languages in contact. On the contrary, the second emphasizes sociolinguistic
explanations of the linguistic changes induced by language contact.
Weinreich (1953) deals with contact-induced language change through the con-
cept of ‘linguistic interference’, which Thomason (2000) regards as an effect of contact-
induced language change. According to Weinreich (1953) linguistic interference can occur
in all subsystems of linguistic structure: lexicon, phonology, morphology, and syntax.
However, there are some linguistic constraints preventing some linguistic features
from being borrowed. The implications of Weinreich’s study lead to the theoretical
question of what linguistic features are unborrowable. This school of thought views
contact-induced language change from the perspective of linguistic constraints.
This school of thought seems to be influenced by the study of linguistic universals,
which are categorized as ‘marked,’ or distinct, and ‘unmarked,’ or common, features
found in human languages. The reason for language change is the universal tendency of
languages to move from ‘markedness’ to ‘unmarkedness’. This is the first constraint on
borrowing and interference.
Figure 2.1: Markedness Constraint
Another constraint is the typological distance between the languages in contact.
The more distant such languages are in terms of linguistic typology, the less likely they
can borrow from or interfere with each other.

2.1.3 Contact-Induced Language Change
The latter view on contact-induced language change proposed by Thomason & Kaufman
(1988) is that it is the sociolinguistic history of the speakers, not the structure of their
language, that primarily determines the linguistic outcome of language contact. Linguis-
tic considerations are relevant but secondary. All proposed structural constraints fail to
generalize about the outcome of contact because linguistic interference is conditioned in
the first place by social factors, not linguistic ones. In other words, the intensity of con-
tact determines the direction and extent of interference, the kinds of linguistic features
transferred from one language to another.
Thomason & Kaufman (1988) distinguish two fundamentally different types of
linguistic interference, namely, borrowing in the context of language maintenance and
substrate influence in the context of language shift. However, in cases where inten-
sity of contact is similar in both types, linguistic constraints—typological distance and
markedness—can apply to predict kinds of expected interference.
Borrowing in the Context of Language Maintenance
The usual borrowing situation (L2 → L1) is when native speakers incorporate foreign
features but maintain their native language (Thomason & Kaufman 1988: 37). Lexical
borrowing comes first. With long and strong cultural pressure, structural features may
also be borrowed (usually with extensive bilingualism). The kinds of interference in
borrowing (Thomason & Kaufman 1988: 38-9) include phonological interference, usually
found with syntactic interference in moderate-to-heavy borrowing cases. Morphological
interference falls behind other types.
Substrate Influence in the Context of Language Shift
Substratum interference (L1 → L2) is defined (Thomason & Kaufman 1988: 38) in terms
of imperfect group learning, which may be socially motivated (resistant attitudes) or lack
of access. Shifting speakers, as conscious learners, first learn the new Target Language
(TL) or L2 vocabulary. Thus, interference is not usually found in the lexicon but in
phonology and syntax. Loss of the original L1 is not an extremely significant factor. It
is the imperfect learning of L2, no matter what the fate of L1 is.
Predicting Linguistic Outcome in Contact Situation
Predicting how linguistic features diffuse in contact situations requires (Thomason &
Kaufman 1988: 41):
1. Investigating social settings and the length of language contact first, especially
for cases of borrowing. It is always long and intimate contact where structure is
borrowed into L1.
2. For language shift, investigating the speed of shift. Language shift can be rapid;
substrate influences usually emerge fast, otherwise shifters would become true bilin-
guals, with no imperfect learning. The greatest amount of substrate interference
through shift occurs in the absence of full bilingualism in the TL.
Some linguistic-structural constraints may be valid only for borrowing, and only
when cultural pressure is not too strong. Assuming that the absence of source-language
(SL) borrowings implies the absence of structural borrowing is clearly invalid. It simply
means the interference took place through shift learning of target language (TL), not
through borrowing. Where language shift occurs, there is no resistance to structural
interference, nor any structural limits on the types of interference that can occur.
Social constraints may also not be useful in prediction, (Thomason & Kaufman
1988: 43), for instance, the view that only prestige features would be borrowed. Both
kinds of interference can occur in the same case. Over time, TL speakers borrow, sub-
strate speakers shift, together (Thomason & Kaufman 1988: 45). Simplistic linguistic
constraints fail, as do simplistic social ones.
Intensity of contact is not the same in shift as in maintenance situations (Thoma-
son & Kaufman 1988: 47). In shift situations where the SL population is large, and shift
occurs rapidly, access to TL is likely to be poor and substrate interference results. In

shift situations where the TL population is large, and the SL population is small, little
or no interference results in the TL as a whole.
When access to TL is generally good, learners’ errors are not acquired by TL
natives. If shifters become full bilinguals, well-integrated into the TL speech community,
little interference from the substrate occurs in second language acquisition. However,
lexical borrowing by TL speakers is likely in this case, so the result may be hard to
interpret historically because tracks are confused.
In borrowing, the main factors are length of contact time and degree of bilin-
gualism by borrowing speakers. When both are great, structural borrowing is likely to
occur. Most extreme outcome would result in a language with divergent grammar and
lexicon, due to “extreme unsuccessful acquisition of a TL [grammar]” Other cases of
similar intensity have other results: borrowing of grammatical subsystems, borrowing of
whole grammars, or language death, if strong resistance to cultural assimilation persists
(Thomason & Kaufman, 1988: 49).
Universals and Markedness
Marked linguistic features are either harder to perceive and/or harder to produce (Thoma-
son & Kaufman 1988: 49-51). Therefore, they are less likely to be transferred in contact
in either case. Shifting speakers may fail to acquire them from the Target Language;
Source-Language features carried over by shifters are unlikely to spread through the
Target Language. This probably explains the common yet erroneous view that contact
necessarily gives rise to simplification.
2.2 Chung Language and Its Speakers
Actually, there are very few direct mentions of Chung in the linguistic literature on Pearic
languages. The language is instead known as Saoch. It has been mentioned in sources
that the original homeland of Saoch is the southwestern coastal province of what is now
Kampong Som, which in the past belonged to Kampot province.
From the data cited by Lebar et al (1964: 160-161) the Saoch people were first
mentioned in a publication of 1830 by a traveller who described a tribe of people whose
tails (sic) prevented them from sitting. There is a hypothesis that the Saoch are a rem-
nant of ‘Chong’, the larger ethnic group that had been assimilated into Khmer society.
During the French colonial period, there was a Saoch autonomous area along the Kam-
pong Smach river toward Veal Renh Bay. The area was located between Kampot and
Riem to the west of Phnom Damrai (the Elephant Mountains).
To outsiders’ eyes, the Saoch people were not friendly and did not like to socialize
with outsiders. However, they have been in close contact with the Khmers. This contact
had thus resulted in heavy Khmer borrowing in Saoch. Leclère (1920, reprint 2002)
reports that out of 1000 Saoch words there are 450 which appear to be borrowings from
Khmer.
2.2.1 Beliefs, Traditions, and Customs of the Chung
The most relevant previous study on Chung that I have seen is an unpublished manuscript
by Pannetier (undated) that was supposedly compiled during the French colonial rule
in Cambodia. It includes a description of Chung beliefs, traditions, customs, and a list
of basic vocabulary. The following text is a passage from Pannetier’s manuscript, which
was translated from French to English by J. A. Matisoff.
“Here are some features of the customs of certain tribes of Indo-China. It would
be interesting to investigate to what extent these traditions are to be found in other
Negrito groups, both from the point of view of their general outlines and also in detail.
(1) They believe in spirits (arak), mostly malevolent, which one must always be
careful to propitiate, by strictly observing the customs and by making offerings to them.
(2) They have a hereditary chief, with limited authority, endowed especially with
religious power, guardian of their traditions.
(3) One must never pronounce the name of a deceased chief, because pronouncing
his name would call forth his spirit, which would irritate him and would undoubtedly cause
some misfortune.
(4) In several tribes, twice a year, in May and November, the following ceremony
takes place: the tribe makes a general offering to the spirits of the ancestors. (This
consists of two boiled chickens, two little jars of alcohol, two trays of sticky rice.) Two
elders preside over this ceremony, acting out a fight between a domestic cock and a wild
cock, one playing the role of the domestic one, and the other the role of the wild one.
This ceremony is rich in comic scenes, and the victory invariably goes to the domestic
cock, which is a very good omen for the tribe during the following six months.
(5) For a wet-nurse, the simple fact of holding or carrying the baby of another
woman, or even paying it the slightest affectionate attention, is always harmful to her
own baby whom she is nursing, and can even cause its death.
(6) At the moment of birth, the custom is to cause the mother to lie on a bed on
top of a fireplace, which is kept burning under her bed for several days.
As for marriages, this is what takes place: An intermediary (a go-between) has
the task of asking the girl in marriage in the name of the suitor. On the appointed day,
he goes to the home of the girl’s parents, carrying the customary gifts: liquor, areca,
betel. This go-between is always a man. He always uses the following words: “I have
come to ask you to plant banana seedlings, to plant sugarcane seedlings.” The parents
reply to him, “They are too young, I fear that they are of no value, that they will not
grow.” The go-between insists, “That remains to be seen. Besides, what does it matter?
May it be done according to my fate!” But the parents refuse these presents, saying: “It
is impossible to accept your gifts, we do not want to take such a chance.”
A second attempt, exactly like the first one, is made on the following day, or a
few days later. Then there is a third attempt, and this time the family of the girl finally
resign themselves to giving away their daughter in marriage. “Since you absolutely want
to take such a chance with these young banana plants and plants of sugar-cane, how could
we dare to resist any longer?” At this point a little propitiatory ceremony is held for the
spirits of the ancestors (involving the offering of a chicken and a bowl of husked rice),
calling the ancestors to witness that the marriage has been arranged for a certain date.
This date is variable, but most often the celebration of the marriage takes place
a month after the request is made.
Early in the morning the go-between of the groom comes to the house of the bride,
carrying two trays of gifts (one contains only unhusked rice, while the other contains half
of a chicken cut lengthwise, a torch, a gourd of liquor, a betel-knife, and a wad of tobacco).
The bride then appears, and she is taken to the house of the groom. The whole family
goes with her, and it is in the groom’s house that the marriage celebration takes place.
The bride and groom squat down facing each other, their hands joined as in prayer and
their faces turned toward the east. Then the go-between brings offerings to the ancestors
and spreads them out before the bride and groom. (They consist of a chicken and a bowl
of unhusked rice, placed in the center of a little rattan structure hung from the middle of
a carrying-flail.) At this point, the go-between invites everyone to celebrate the union of
the young couple, and everybody greets them with the customary good wishes (prosperity,
fecundity, longevity). Then the go-between of the groom and the go-between of the bride
each take one end of the flail, and lift it up with apparent difficulty, shouting “Oh, this
is very heavy!” This means that their household will be happy and that they will have
many children.
At this moment everyone offers propitiatory prayers to the spirits of the ances-
tors: “Do not be offended towards this new couple, do not cause misfortune to them or
to their descendants!”
After this, the girl finally leaves her parents in order to live at her husband’s
house, or at the house of her husband’s parents.
To sum up, the features which are especially characteristic of these Negrito mar-
riages, and which clearly distinguish them from the marriage celebrations among the
neighboring peoples, are: (a) The celebration takes place at the groom’s home. (b) The
bride abandons her parents to go live at the groom’s home, which is the opposite of
what happens elsewhere, especially among the Cambodians. (c) Neither do they practice
wrist-binding with cotton threads, the way all their neighbors do.
They bury their dead. Immediately after the death they start to construct a
wicker-worke litter either of bamboo or of wild areca-wood, with eight slats. They wrap
the body in this shroud, and hold it in place by means of rattan strips in four places,
which also serve to carry the corpse to the burial place, with the help of a long bamboo
pole held by two relatives, one at each end. The burial takes place at most only a few
hours after death. The grave is shallow. The head of the corpse is oriented towards the
east. After having covered the grave with earth, the relatives light a fire over the tomb on
the righthand side of the body, i.e. to the north of the tomb. The purpose of this fire is
to help the separation of the soul from its fleshly envelope.
Their language is non-tonal. Most of the words are monosyllabic. One charac-
teristic of their pronunciation is as follows: many words end in an aspiration (an H),
but this aspiration is followed by a minor syllable, pronounced almost in a whisper. For
example, ‘child’ is pronounced khneh(eo); ‘land-leech’ is pronounced phleh(em). The eo
or em cannot be perceived by the untrained ear except with the greatest attention. Their
numerical system is decimal. A dozen is expressed by the word kasei, which means
‘rattan; cord’.”
2.2.2 The Impact of the 18th Century’s Annam-Siam War
One document states that, in 1883, fed up with the Khmer rule, the Saoch people came
to ask for protection from Chaophaya Bodin (Singha), the commander in chief of the
Siamese army and navy in the war against the Annam Kingdom. At that time, he was
at Chaudoc in what is now southern Vietnam. Bodin embarked the Saoch people on a
ship to Siam. They disembarked in Ratchaburi. Eventually, they moved up the Mae
Klong river to Kanchanaburi, then settled in the area along the Kwae Yai River in the
north of the province. The villages where they originally settled were Nong Bua, Lat Ya
and Koh Buk. In these villages they were known as Ut, Kha Saut, or Chong Ut.
Another account states that Chung people were captured by Thai troops during
the 1830s war between Siam and Annam fought mostly on Khmer territory. Chung
prisoners of war were sent to Kanchanaburi on the western border. In Cambodia, the
history recounts that the Chung had been left with just one couple, a brother and a sister,
who became the parents of all Chung descendants now. Around 30 years ago, during
the Pol Pot regime, they had to leave the seashore to resettle inland. Then, executions,
hard labor, and malnutrition had further decimated Chung population.
2.2.3 The Re-settlement of Chung Speakers in Thailand
In a Thai historical document concerning the war against Annam in the 1830’s, there
is no direct mentioning of ‘Saoch’ and their resettlement from the extreme east of Siam
to the extreme west in Kanchanaburi. In the document called Annam-Siam Yuddhana
(The Annam-Siam War), which describes the war between the Thai and Vietnamese on
Cambodian soil in the 1830’s, there are few passages about moving war captives from
Cambodia to Thailand through both land and sea routes.
From Lat Ya in Kanchanaburi, the majority of the Chung people had moved to
Si Sawat. A few people, who had secured some properties in the area, chose to stay in
Lat Ya and were assimilated with Thai villagers. Now only an old woman in Lat Ya can
give a first-hand account about her Chung neighbors whom she said were Khmer. She
said the Chung people did not like to mingle with a lot of people so they moved up north
to Si Sawat where the population was sparse back then. Now the only surviving trace of
the Chung people in Lat Ya are areas known to some villagers as Na Ut, or rice fields of
the Ut people.
Kha Saut
In a travelogue penned by King Rama V, Cotmai Het Sadet Praphat Saiyok, about his
trip to Kanchanaburi, he mentions the ‘Kha Saut’ in many passages like the following:
“There are a lot of chilis in Si Sawat town. The Mon, Lawa, Karieng (Karen),
Kha Saut till cotton fields. Hainanese (Chinese people from Hainan Island) Chinese
merchants will sail up to buy a lot of produce in a year.” (p. 70)
“On the Khwae Yai River, Si Sawat is a big town. There are Mon, Karieng, and
Kha Saut who have a distinct language. [Kha Saut] behave like the Karieng but they do
not wear a headdress.” (p. 79-80)
“There are about 1200 people of Lawa and Kha Saut combined.” (p. 80)
“From Si Sawat town and the seven Mon towns, Mon, Lawa, and Kha Saut cut
down sandalwoods and rafted them down-river to sell in Kanchanaburi or further to
Ratburi town.” (p. 82)
Such passages tell about the status of the Chung people among other ethnic mi-
norities in the western frontier province. It is obvious that even then, people should knew
that Chung belongs to the Mon-Khmer stock, thus they were called by the word‘Kha’,
which the Thai reserve for speakers of Mon-Khmer languages.
Chong and Ut
Apart from that, in two articles on the Chong ethnic group by Chin Yudi (Chin, 1975;
1986), a well-known Thai archaeologist, the author observed that Ut people are similar
to Chong of Chantaburi, both in appearance and language. The author mentions about
the Ut as follows:
“During my working trip to Kanchanaburi I found a distinct group of Thai (sic)
whom others called Ut... their appearance is similar to Thai people of Chong race (sic)
in the Makham district of Chanthaburi province.” (Chin, 1975: 38)
“The local people there call them Ut or Khamen Dong (Forest Khmer). They
live along the Khwae Yai river in Sisawat. I elicited some words which turned out to be
like those of the Chong.” (Chin, 1986: 152)
From my own visit to Chung and Chong villages, I would like to confirm the
descriptions of the Chung people in both sources. However, the Chung people hate it
when other people call them ‘Ut’, which sounds like the word /Puut/‘firewood’ in their
language. Coincidentally, it has the same pronunciation as the word for ‘camel’ in Thai.
They would like to be called [tCuĳN] that simply means ‘human’. Similarly, the word for
¨
‘human’ in the Chong language is [tCoĳN].
¨
2.2.4 Proto-Pearic and Chung’s Place in the Pearic Branch
The classification of the Pearic languages as a distinct branch of the Mon-Khmer family
was first made in Thomas and Headley (1970). Earlier the Pearic languages were grouped
together with Khmer, or Cambodian. Descriptions of each Pearic language, and Chung
or Saoch in particular, were limited to brief works by French surveyors and colonial
officers. A publication by Leclère (1920, reprint 2002), which ethnographically describes
the Saoch, mentioned briefly that the language of the Saoch was under heavy influence
from Khmer.
Most of the comparative works on Pearic were done by two authors: Headley
(1977a; 1977b; 1985) and Martin (1974a; 1974b). However, both authors lacked updated
data on Saoch, or Chung. Chung is one of the least described languages of the Pearic
branch (Grimes, 2000), and the Chung wordlist is the sketchiest one among the Pearic
languages.
A pioneering lexical source is an unpublished wordlist by a Frenchman named
Pannetier [see above §2.2.1], who collected the words during the French colonial period.
Leclère (1920) also provides some words in the Chung language, but this source is more
useful in terms of Chung culture of the past than about the language. Chung grammar
and lexicon, has not been described anywhere.
So far there has been only one published ‘reconstruction’ of Proto-Pearic phonol-
ogy by R. K. Headley (1985). A more up-to-date source is the MK etymological dic-
tionary being compiled by Gérard Diffloth, but this seminal work is not yet published.
Thus, for the source of Proto-Pearic forms, I rely on Headley (1985).
A Historical Phonology of Proto-Pearic
Though ‘register’ is a marked phonological feature in Pearic languages, it has so far not
been reconstructed for Proto-Pearic. Headley (1985) explains the origin of the ”breathy
voice” register as a result of two change processes: (1) devoicing of *voiced-stops and
(2) merging of *voiceless- and *voiced-sonorants. Therefore, there are quite a number
Table 2.1: Proto-Pearic Consonantal Phomemes
Manner and Place of Articulation
Manner Place
Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal
Obstruents Stops *p *t *c *k *
(?) *P *T *C *K
*b *d *j *g
Fricatives *s *h
Sonorants Nasals *hm *hn *hñ *hN

*m *n *ñ *N
Liquids *hr
*r
*hl
*l
Glides *v (=w) *hy
*y
of Proto-Pearic consonantal phonemes, resulting from the reconstruction of voiceless
sonorants.
It is also striking that words beginning with aspirated stops in Pearic correspond
to Khmer words beginning with plain stops. Another unresolved matter is the recon-
struction of *P *T *C *K, which changed into plain stops. Headley (1985) does not give
a conclusive answer as to whether they were actually aspirated stops or not.
Change Processes
Aspiration, De-aspiration(?), and Devoicing

*plain stops > aspirated stops
*P, *T, *C, *K > plain stops
*voiced stops > plain stops + v
¨
Table 2.2: Proto-Pearic Vowel Phonemes
Tongue Height Tongue Position

Front Central Back
High *i *1 *u
Mid *e *(@) *O
Low *E *a *o
Merging of Voiceless and Voiced Sonorants

*nasals > nasals + v
*voiceless nasals > nasals
¨
Criteria for Classifying Pearic Languages
Headley (1985) uses different treatments of Proto-Pearic phonemes as criteria for classi-
fying the Pearic languages, which can be summarized as follows:
1. Treatment of *-P
(a) *-P > -P
(b) *-P > -∅
2. Treatment of *-r/-l
(a) *-r/-l > -r/-l
(b) *-r/-l > -y ∼ -w
3. Treatment of *j-
(a) *j- > c-
(b) *j- > s-
4. Treatment of *-s
(a) *-s > -t
(b) *-s > -h

5. Treatment of PMK Initial Plain Stops
(a) *CONS > CONS
(b) *CONS > ASP CONS
6. Treatment of PP *o, *O, *E
(a) *o, *O > u *E > i@
(b) *o, *O, *E > o, O, E
According to Headley (1985), Chung belongs to the South-Eastern Pearic along
with Soui of Kompong Speu and Pear of Kompong Thom. The following table and 2
maps show how Headley (1985) delineates each Pearic dialect (sic) from each other, es-
pecially the isoglossed map in which the 6 different treatments of Proto-Pearic phonemes
are applied systematically by Headley.
Table 2.3: Headley’s Classification of Pearic Languages
West Central East

North All Chong Dialects Somray of Battambang Pear of Kampong Thom
*-r/-l > -y ∼ -w *o, *O > u; *E > i@ *CONS > CONS
South Samre of Pursat Saoch of Veal Renh
Chong of Trat (Kasong) Suoi of Kampong Speu
Samre of Siem Riep *j- > c-
*j- > s-
Figure 2.2: Headley’s (1985: 430) Map of Pearic Dialects

Figure 2.3: Headley’s (1985: 464) Map of Pearic Dialects with Isoglosses
However if we look at different treatments of Proto-Pearic sounds, we will see
that Chung is closer to Chong of Chantaburi.
Table 2.4: Comparison of Proto-Pearic Treatments
VARIATIONS *CONS > *o, *O, *E > *-r/-l > *j- > *-P > *-s >
Pear CONS o, O, E -r/-l c- -∅ -h
Somray ASP. CONS *o, *O > u, *E > i@ -r/-l s- -∅ -h
Samre (Siem Riep) ASP. CONS o, O, E -r/-l s- -∅ -h
Samre (Pursat) ASP. CONS o, O, E -r/-l s- -P -h
Suoi ASP. CONS o, O, E -r/-l c- -∅ -h
Saoch ASP. CONS o, O, E -r/-l c- -P -t
Chong ASP. CONS o, O, E -y ∼ -w c- -P -t
Though Headley (1985) never proposes a classification of Pearic languages in a
family tree, we can attempt to draw one, using his criteria presented as a continuum in
the previous table. See Table 2.4 and Figure 2.4, which are related to different treatments
of Pro-Pearic forms proposed by Headley (1985).
*Pearic
-
5b %%% --
--
%
%%% --
--
*Chong-Somray
.
--
--
6b %%% ... --
% . --
%%% ..
.. --
--
..
*Chong-Samre
* . . .
--
--
3a %%% ***3b ..
.. --5a
%%% *** .. --
% ..6a --
--
*Chong-Suoi
* *Samre *
(
...
.. --
--
2b %%% ***2a (* ** . --
% *** ( .
%%% (( **** ..
. --
(( * **1b .. --
. --
Chong
* *Chung-Suoi
* 1a ((
***
*
..
.. --
4a %%% ***4b 4a %%% ***4b (( **** ... --
%% ** %% ** ( * . --
%% * %% * * . -
Chong Chong Saoch Suoi Samre Samre Somray Pear
lOO h@@p (Pursat) (Siemreap)
Figure 2.4: Tree made from Headley’s classificatory criteria.

2.3 Khmer Elements in the Thai Language
In a sense, the identification of linguistic interference from Thai and Khmer on the Chung
language of Thailand and Cambodia is a tricky process. This is because Thai and Khmer
have themselves had a long history of language contact. In fact, the contact influences
between the two languages are mutual. In the early stage, it was Thai that borrowed
from Khmer, but at a later stage the borrowing pattern was in the opposite direction.
However, Khmer borrowings in Thai are much more pervasive than the reverse.
Uraisri Varasarin’s (1984) work Les éléments khmers dans la formation de la
langue siamoise (The Khmer elements in the formation of the Siamese [Thai] language)
directly deals with the issue. This work includes three parts, with an introduction and
two appendices.
Part One of the book covers lexical borrowings. The first eight chapters discuss
the phonology, morphology and orthography of Khmer and Thai. The ninth chapter
includes a list of Khmer borrowings in Thai, categorized by semantic domains. Part Two
covers the Siamese borrowing of aspects of the Khmer system of derivation, affixational
processes for creating new words from stems. The most notable is the infixation process,
which usually creates nouns from verbs. The Thai language obviously borrowed this
system from Khmer, since it is applicable only to words of Khmer origin. The following
example shows two sets of Thai words that were derived from Khmer, which also brought
to the Thai language the Khmer system of derivation (Varasarin 1984: 265):
/khòt/ ‘coil’ → /khaànòt/ ‘coils of a snake’ (V → N)
/sı̌a:N/ ‘voice’ → /sǎmia:N/ ‘accent’ (N → N)
/chûa:y/ ‘help’ → /chamrûa:y/ ‘momento; souvenir’ (N → V)
/sǔa:y/ ‘beautiful’ → /sǎmrua:y/ ‘extravagant’ (V → V)
Part Three covers grammatical elements, especially some grammatical words, in
Siamese which were borrowed from Khmer. Varasarin (1984) is useful for the present
study as it includes a comprehensive list of Khmer borrowings in Thai. This helps one
to determine whether a particular Chung word is a Thai or Khmer loanword when such
a word resembles forms both Thai and Khmer.

Isara Choosri Research Methodology / 36
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Data Definition
In order to investigate the contact influences on the Chung language in Thailand and
Cambodia, it is crucial that one has data on the socio-historical context of both varieties
and linguistic variations, especially on the phonology and lexicon. Therefore, primary
data in this study were be grouped into two categories:
1. Data on the socio-historical context of language contact situations that Chung
speakers have been through.
2. Data on the linguistic features of the Chung language in both varieties.
The first category is required for the analysis of the intensity of contact, and the second
category is required for the analysis of linguistic results of language contact.
Oral histories and anecdotes, wordlists, sentences and texts including songs, folk-
tales, and conversational discourses are considered as legitimate data. Since data in both
categories might be involved, they are to be classified later as to whether they provide
contextual data or linguistic data.
Secondary data such as historical documents and prior studies on the Pearic lan-
guages are also essential for the subsequent analyses of contact-induced language changes.
Historical documents will complement the oral history data needed for explaining the
history of contact between Chung speakers and other language speakers. Studies on
Pearic languages, both comparative and descriptive, will help determine which changes
are genetic and which are contact-induced.

3.1.1 Contextual Data
Contextual data means data about the socio-historical context of language contact situ-
ations in which Chung speakers in Thailand and Cambodia have lived. This includes the
attitudes of Chung speakers towards speakers of other languages who live around them.
3.1.2 Linguistic Data
Linguistic data means data on the linguistic features of the Chung language. Most data
are lexical because lexicon is the most obvious source from which I can compare both
varieties of Chung. I also rely on sentential and textual data derived from sentence
elicitation and stories.
3.2 Data Collection and Organization
All data on Chung communities and linguistic features are from field visits. Data have
been obtained by means of:
3.2.1 Observation
By ‘observation’ I mean the process of observing the atmosphere of the community under
study, how people interact in such a community. It is the process of filtering sensory
information through the thought processes of the researcher. Input is received through
hearing, sight, smell, taste, or touch and then analyzed through thought. The defining
characteristic of observation is that it involves drawing conclusions, as well as building
personal views about how to handle similar situations in the future, rather than simply
registering that something has happened. The data on the everyday life of the Chung
people are derived from observation in the village. Sometimes this means informal talks
with villagers who are not necessarily key informants, or language consultants.
3.2.2 Unstructured Interviews
Unstructured Interviews those where questions can be changed or adapted to meet the
respondent’s intelligence, understanding or beliefs. Unlike a structured interview they

do not offer a limited, pre-set range of answers among which a respondent must choose,
but instead involve listening to how each individual person responds to the question.
During and between elicitation sessions, I switched to unstructured interviews to gather
information on the social background of the Chung people, and how they interpreted
the relationship with Thai, in the case of Chung in Thailand, and Khmer, in the case of
Chung in Cambodia.
3.2.3 Elicitation of Linguistic Materials
Elicitation is the method of obtaining language data from informants. The first two
methods are expected to yield data on the intensity of language contact, whereas the
elicitation method is more appropriate for obtaining linguistic data. However, in this
study, all three methods are by no means separately applied since they can complement
each other in collecting good quality non-artificial data. Although the researcher is not
as fluent in Khmer as he is in Thai, local Khmer-speaking interpreters were not hired in
the data collecting process in Cambodia.
3.2.4 Data Organization

Transcription
In most cases I use phonemic transcription. Data that need transcription are the results
of interviews and elicitation. Those required for linguistic analysis will be transcribed in
International Phonetic Association (IPA) symbols. Contextual data were noted in the
language used in the interviews.
Arrangement
Transcribed and glossed wordlists are organized according to semantic domains1 , with
equivalents in Thai and Khmer. They have been put into Appendix A. Inside each
section and subsection words are sorted alphabetically.

1
Adapted from lexical categories in the Culturally Appropriate Lexicostatistical Model for Southeast
Asia (CALMSEA) wordlist (Matisoff, 1978: 283-96)
Figure 3.1: Semantic Domains Used for Wordlist Arrangement
3.3 Analytical Framework
After the data in each case have been obtained, they are first subjected to independent
analysis both in terms of socio-historical context and linguistic structure. Then the
results of both analyses are compared to see similarities and differences. The comparative
method is applied when a hypothetically earlier stage of the language is needed in order
to explain change processes. Comparison with other Pearic languages is also useful in
analyzing Chung features in the Pearic context. Works on the reconstruction of Proto-
Pearic, Proto-Mon-Khmer, and Proto Austro-Asiatic will also be consulted in order to
highlight contact features. However, analyses of socio-historical data are the most crucial
in explaining specific linguistic changes that cannot be ascribed to normal historical
processes within the language.

In brief, steps in analyzing data can be sequenced as follows:
3.3.1 Cases Description
• Socio-historical context
• Linguistic characteristics
3.3.2 Comparison of Cases
• Similarities and contrasts in socio-historical context
• Similarities and contrasts in linguistic characteristics
– With other Pearic Languages
– With Khmer and Thai
3.3.3 Identification of Contact-Induced Language Change
• Verification by Formulating Change Processes from Proto-Pearic. Using Headley’s
(1985) reconstructed forms, with proposed changes.
• Verification by Formulating Change Processes from Proto-Mon-Khmer. Using
Shorto’s (2006) reconstructed forms.
To analyze compared data outlined in Chapter 5, it is assumed that there are
three steps: (1) establishing the originating point of change (2) explaining the mechanism
of change (3) postulating the likely cause of change.
3.4 Explanatory Model
By the term ‘explanatory model’ I mean the systematic outline or model of explanation,
by which the research findings are to be ordered into a structure. More colloquially, it
can be called a ‘plot’ of explanation. However, the explanatory model is slightly different
from plot in that it entails both analyses of facts and topical order, rather than sequence
of events.
According to this model, linguistic changes may be both viewed from language-
external (contact) and -internal (endogeny) perspectives. The relationships between
each part in the model can be charted according to Figure 3.2. They should be viewed
as interdependent parts although each part entails different assumptions and methods.
However, in order to understand fully a particular language history, one needs at least
this minimal model to begin with. This explanatory model will be used to integrate the
research findings, which will be presented in Chapter 7.
Language* Change
1 %%% ***6
% ***
%%%
Language* Contact Endogeny
2 %*
%%%%% **3***
%
Social Factors Linguistic Constraints
*
4 %%% ***5
%% % ***
%
Markedness Typological Distance
Figure 3.2: An Explanatory Model of Language Change
Steps to be followed in explaining the contact-induced language changes investi-
gated in this study are numbered lines in the chart. The chart is my own design based
on the interpretation of how ‘language contact’ influences should be explained in relation
to language change.
Isara Choosri Chung Phonology and Lexicon / 42
CHAPTER 4
CHUNG PHONOLOGY AND LEXICON
In this chapter, an overview of Chung language structure will be laid out in order to
provide the reader with some background knowledge of the language. The focus of this
chapter is specifically on the phonology and lexicon of the language. The reason for
this focus is that it was expected from the contact history of the Chung language that
the areas where the two varieties would diverge most clearly from each other would be
pronunciation and vocabulary. Therefore, most attention has been paid to phonology
and lexicon, where change is supposed to be most noticeable and frequent. Some basic
grammatical information is provided (§4.1).
Because the Chung of Thailand and Cambodia are quite similar to each other
in terms of overall language structure, there is no pressing need for a separate descrip-
tion for each variety. In describing those subsystems I refrain from using any particular
theoretical terminologies, as opposed to standard descriptive and linguistic-typological
terms. Thus, I choose to describe only the common linguistic features of the Chung
language of both Thailand and Cambodia, in generalized terms, before analyzing fur-
ther the contact-influenced aspects of the language. Generalized data represent both
the Chung of Thailand and Cambodia unless specifically stated otherwise in order to
highlight dialectal variations.
4.1 An Overview of Chung Grammar
Chung is a Subject-Verb-Object, or SVO, language. In this structure, the complexities
are usually found on the right-hand side of the nucleus of the sentence. A minimal
sentence comprises noun phrase and verb phrase. The phenomenon of zero anaphora,
in which the subject of a sentence is omitted, is considered as an abbreviated form of a
normal sentence.
The following are samples of sentences divided in terms of their communica-
tive functions1 : declarative, interrogative, imperative, or exclamatory sentence types.
Negative sentences do not constitute a type of their own because they shares the com-
municative function of the corresponding positive sentences. These examples are simply
presented to illustrate whay Chung sentences look like, without further syntactic analysis.
Declarative Sentences
S → NP VP.
Peñ ceew th ON ph iiN meeĳw P@.klaw

¨
(a) I-NP go+to fish+fish+at+pond-VP
‘I went to fish at the pond.’ (CY)
/Peñ kat pic Peh/

¨ ¨
(b) I-NP sleepy+already-VP
‘I’m sleepy already.’ (CY)
/meĳ k7l doo taak/

¨ ¨
(c) fish-NP stay-in-waterVP
‘Fish live in the water.’ (CL)
/Peñ wat huum taak pa.P@ndouN/

¨ ¨
(d) I-NP want+go+bathe+water+PRE+well-VP
‘I want to go to bathe at the well.’ (CL)
Interrogative Sentence
wh- question. The rule for forming a wh-question is to put a wh-word into a slot in
the sentence where the required information is missing.

1
The abbreviations CY and CL denote that data represent Chung of Thailand and Cambodia respec-
tively.
/poo Piin pôak ch iiĳw/

¨
(e) you have + money + how much
‘How much money do you have?’
yes-no question. There is no distinct marker for forming a yes-no question.
Normally a declarative sentence with rising intonation at the end of the sentence would
be taken as a question. Besides, a sentence with two verb phrases, one affirmative and
another negative, concatenated together would also be taken as a question. For example:
/ceew th ok ceew/
(f ) go not-go
‘Will you go?’
Imperative Sentences
The structure of an imperative sentence is similar to a declarative one except for the
obligatory deletion of the sentence subject. Thus, an imperative sentence always begins
with a verb. For example,
paak taN
(g) ascend house
‘Come up to the (upper floor of the) house.’
hOOp claN
(h) eat rice
‘(Come) eat rice?’
Exclamatory Sentences
There is no obvious type of exclamatory sentence per se. However, there are some
exclamation words like /w77/ and /P77/ that suggest surprise or affirmation. Combined
with rising intonation in an utterance, they constitute an independent unit from other
sentences.
Negation
The normal way of forming a negative statement is to put the negation marker /th ok/
before the main verb of a declarative sentence. However, in a less casual sentence, in
order to put more emphasis onto such a statement, a speaker would use a ‘doubled
negation’ not–verb–not structure like /th ok bWWt Peh/ ‘not-good-not’.2
4.2 Chung Phonology
This section on Chung phonology covers four topics: consonants, vowels, registers (con-
trastive use of phonation types as supra-segments), and syllable structure. It should be
noted here that the following phonological description of Chung is aimed at providing
background for later consideration of similarities and contrasts between Chung varieties
in Thailand and Cambodia. This should not be taken as a substitution for an in-depth
phonological analysis of the language, which is not the immediate aim of this study.
4.2.1 Consonants
Table 4.1: Chung Consonantal Phomemes
Manner Place
Obstruents Stops p t c k P
ph th ch kh
b d
Fricatives s h
Sonorants Nasals m n ñ N
Liquids ô
l
Glides w j
The Chung consonantal inventory consists of 21 phonemes: /p, ph , b, m, w, t, th ,

2
/Peh/ is used only in sentential negation, while /th ok/ can be use in other contexts too.
d, s, n, ô, l, c, ch , ñ, j, k, kh , N, P, h/. According to distinctions in place of articulation,
these consonants can be categorized as 5 labial consonants /p, ph , b, m, w/, 7 alveolar
consonants /t, th , d, s, n, r, l/, 4 palatal consonants /c, ch , ñ, j/, 3 velar consonants
/k, kh , N/, and 2 glottal consonants /P, h/. In terms of consonant classes or manner
of articulation, the Chung consonantal inventory includes 13 obstruents–11 stops and 2
fricatives–and 8 sonorants–4 nasals, 2 liquids and 2 glides. Table 4.1 shows the distinc-
tions of Chung consonantal phonemes in terms of place and manner of articluation). The
following are phonetic descriptions of Chung’s consonantal phonemes and their distribu-
tion in the onset (single and clustered syllable-initial) and coda (syllable-final) positions.
1. Labial Consonants
• Onsets
p- Voiceless bilabial plosive. /paaN/ ‘flower’ /paak/ ‘climb’ /piiN/ ‘ripe’. In
clustered onsets, this consonant can co-occur with medial liquids.
pô- /pôii/ ‘monitor’ /pôac/ ‘fat’ /pôak/ ‘silver’
pl- /plEN/ ‘fool around’ /plooĳk/ ‘mud’ /plaa/ ‘new’

¨
p - Voiceless aspirated bilabial plosive. /p iiN/ ‘fishhook’ /ph ak/ ‘pluck’.
h h
This consonant can co-occur with medial liquids in clustered onsets.
ph ô- /ph ôam/ ‘five’ /ph ôWh haal/ ‘sow rice seedlings’
ph l- /ph lii/ ‘fruit’ /ph leeĳm/ ‘leech’ /ph looĳm/ ‘wax’
b- Voiced bilabial plosive. /buuñ/ ‘rice snack’ /boot/ ‘younger sibling’ /book/
‘kick’
m- Voiced bilabial nasal. /mat/ ‘eye’ /mWĳt/ ‘deep jungle’ /muuĳj/ ‘one’
¨ ¨ ¨
ml- /mliiN/ ‘shoulder’ /mluu/ ‘betel’ /mluuĳk/ ‘salty’
¨ ¨ ¨
w- Voiced labio-velar approximant. /waa/ ‘monkey’ /wic/ ‘again’ /weeN/
¨
‘raw’
• Codas
-p /tap/ ‘bite’ /kôOp/ ‘eggplant’ /saap/ ‘bland’

-m /ch iiĳm/ ‘bird’ /p@som/‘star’ /cuĳm/ ‘vine’

¨
-w /ceew/ ‘go’ /k@paaw/ ‘buffalo’
2. Alveolar Consonants
• Onset
t- Voiceless alveolar plosive. /tii/ ‘hand’ /toN/ ‘egg’ /tuuk/ ‘peck’
th - Voiceless aspirate alveolar plosive. /th Oh/ ‘breast’ /th eĳe/ ‘earth’ /th OOj/
‘follow’
s- Voiceless alveolar fricative. /saa/ ‘together’ /saap/ ‘bland’ /saĳa/ ‘ginger’
d- Voiced alveolar plosive. /dak/ ‘3rd person pronoun’ /dON/ ‘a kind of gourd’
/duuN/ ‘coconut’
n- Voiced alveolar nasal. /nWm/ ‘year’ /nooN/ ‘mountain /nom/ ‘dessert’

¨
ô- Voiced alveolar approximant. This phoneme is realized as [G] before velar
final consonants and as [ô] elsewhere. Thus, /ôOk/ → [GOk] ‘toad’, /crok/
→ [cGok] ‘pig’. But, /ôiit/ → [ôiit] ‘root’.

¨ ¨
l- Voiced alveolar lateral. /loo/ ‘many’ /looN/ ‘banana’ /loot/ ‘barking deer’
• Coda
-t /boot/ ‘younger sibling’ /hiit/ ‘lose’ /toot/ ‘head’
-n /Pan/ ‘here’ /Piin/ ‘have’
-l /th aaĳl/ ‘drink’ /juul/ ‘sky’ /haal/ ‘rice’ (The distribution of /l/ in syllable-
final position occurs only in Chung of Cambodia. In Chung of Thailand,
/-l/ → /-j/. This issue is discussed in Chapter 5.)
3. Palatal Consonants
• Onsets
c- Voiceless palatal plosive. This phoneme is realized as affricate[tC] in syllable
initial position and as [c] in syllable final position. /cak/ ‘shoot’ /ceew/
‘go’
ch - Voiceless aspirated palatal plosive. /ch ak/ ‘seed’
ñ- Voiced palatal nasal. Occurrence of this consonant is not found in initial
position. It is found only in final position.
j- Voiced palatal approximant. /k@jaa/ ‘scorpion’ /jaaN/ ‘gibbon’

¨
• Codas
-c /tuuc/ ‘to sting’ /pac/ ‘broken’

¨
-ñ /Peñ/ ‘I’ /Puuñ/ ‘father’
-j /kh hooj/ ‘tooth’ /kuuĳj/ ‘long (time)’

¨
4. Velar Consonants
• Onsets
k- Voiceless velar plosive. /kaaN/ ‘moon’
kô- /krOp/ ‘eggplant’
kl- /klooN/ ‘bone’
kh - Voiceless aspirated velar plosive. /kh Wp/ ‘one’s body’
kh ô- /kh ôaa/ ‘path’
kh l- /kh laN/‘forceful’
N- Voiced velar nasal. /NWt/ ‘rise’
• Codas
-k /cak/ ‘shoot’ /tak/ ‘big’
-N /caN/ ‘to roast’ /taN/ ‘house’

¨
5. Glottal Consonants
• Onsets
P- Glottal plosive. /Piin/ ‘have’ /Pic/ ‘feces’
h- Voiceless glottal fricative. /hooc/ ‘die’ /huum/ ‘bathe’

• Codas
-P The occurrence of /P/ in syllable final position is still problematic because
it is found only in Chung of Cambodia. In Chung of Thailand, it almost
always occurs as the glattalization of the vowel, transcribed as [ĳ] in the
middle of a vowel.
-h /kEh/ ‘pot’ /cOh/ ‘descend’
4.2.2 Vowels
There are 9 short vowels and 9 long vowels in Chung. There are no occurrences of short
vowels in open stressed syllables. In other words, there is no contrast of short and long
vowels in open syllables. Diphthongs such as [i@, W@, u@] are rare and found only in some
borrowings from Thai or Khmer. They are not considered as native to Chung phonology.
Table 4.2: Chung Vowel Phonemes
Tongue Height Tongue Position

Front Central Back
Close i ii W WW u uu
Mid e ee 7 77 o oo
Open E EE a aa O OO
/i/ /Pit/ ‘give’ which contrasts with /ii/ /Piin/ ‘have’
/e/ /Peñ/ which contrasts with /ee/ /ceew/ ‘go’
/E/ /kEh/ ‘pot’ which contrasts with /EE/ /sôEE/ ‘ricefield’
/W/ /NWt/ ‘rise’ which contrasts with /WW/ /ph lWW/ ‘dike’
/7/ /k7l/ ‘sit; stay’ which contrasts with /77/ /pô77/ ‘use’
/a/ /pak/ ‘gore’ which contrasts with /aa/ /paak/ ‘climb’
/O/ /tOp/ ‘bury’ which contrasts with /OO/ /hOOp/ ‘eat’

/o/ /toN/ ‘egg’ which contrasts with /oo/ /k@tooN/ ‘eight’
/u/ /cuk (th oh)/ ‘nipple’ which contrasts with /uu/ /tuuk/ ‘peck’
4.2.3 Suprasegmentals
Chung is a non-tonal language. However, there are 4 suprasegmental phonemes based
on the contrastive use of phonation types, namely clear or modal voice, creaky voice,
breathy voice, and breathy-creaky voice. These suprasegmental phonemes are called
‘registers’ in this study. Thus, R1 stands for clear voice, R2 creaky voice, R3 breathy
voice, and R4 breathy-creaky voice. Phonetic features, based on different glottal states,
of each register are distinguished in Table 4.3. The description of laryngeal features as
±Voice, ±Spread Glottis and ±Constricted Glottis follows Gussenhoven & Jacobs (2005:
57).
Table 4.3: Phonetic Features of Chung Registers
Phonetic Features Clear(R1 ) Creaky(R2 ) Breathy(R3 ) Breathy-Creaky(R4 )
±Voice + + + +
±Spread Glottis - - + +
±Constricted Glottis - + - +
The following are different notations of each register whose features are mostly
carried by the nucleus, or vowel, of the main syllable. There is no register contrast in
minor, or unstressed, syllables.
Clear Voice Modal voice at syllable onset and throughout the syllable. It is transcribed
as [v, vv] whose phonetic properties are the following:

 
 +voice 
 
V
 −spread glottis


 
−constricted glottis
 
 +voice +voice 
 
VV 
 −spread glottis −spread glottis 

 
−constricted glottis −constricted glottis
Creaky Voice Modal voice at onset followed by creaky voice. It is transcribed as [vĳ,
vvĳ] whose phonetic properties are the following:

 
 +voice 
 
V
 −spread glottis


 
+constricted glottis
 
 
VV 
 −spread glottis −spread glottis 

 
−constricted glottis +constricted glottis
Breathy Voice Breathy voice at onset. It is transcribed as [v, vv] whose phonetic
¨ ¨
properties are the following:
 
 +voice 
 
V
 +spread glottis


 
−constricted glottis
 
 
VV 
 +spread glottis +spread glottis 

 
−constricted glottis −constricted glottis
Breathy-Creaky Voice Breathy voice followed by creaky voice. It is transcribed as[vĳ,

¨
vvĳ] whose phonetic properties are the following:
¨
 
 +voice 
 
V
 +spread glottis


 
+constricted glottis
 
 
VV 
 +spread glottis −spread glottis 

 
−constricted glottis +constricted glottis
Contrasts between registers are usually found in pairs: R1 versus R2 , R1 versus
R3 , and R3 versus R4 . See Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Examples of Chung Register Contrasts
Clear(R1 ) Creaky(R1 ) Breathy(R3 ) Breathy-Creaky(R4 )
/tak/ ‘big’ - /tak/ ‘trap’

¨
/taak/ ‘bean’ /taaĳk/ ‘tongue’ (CY) /taak/ ‘water’
¨
/saap/ ‘bland’ /saaĳp/ ‘dawn’ (CY) - -
/m@nuul/ ‘knee’ (CL) - k@nuul ‘seven’ (CL) -
¨
- - /mluuN/ ‘eel’ /mluuĳN/ ‘salty’ (CL)
¨ ¨
4.2.4 Syllable
The following is the maximal projection of Chung syllable structure. However, some
Chung words have a sesqui-syllabic structure (Matisoff 1973), initiated with an unstressed
minor syllable, of CV structure, followed by a stressed, major syllable, which has either
a CVC, CVV, CCVV, or a CCVVC structure.3
σ
%%%%*****
%%% **
O R
%%%****
% ***
%%%
C1 (C2 ) N Co
V1 (V2 ) (C3 )
Figure 4.1: Chung Syllable Structure
CV/C@N This structure is not realized independently; it usually occurs in the pre-
syllable position in sesqui-syllabic words.
CVV /ch aa/ ‘eat’ /loo/ ‘many’
CCVV /kh raa/ ‘path’ /mleeN/ ‘beautiful’
CVC /ch ak/ ‘seed’ /poN/ ‘pregnant’
CCVC /prak/ ‘silver’

3
The ters ‘minor’ vs. ‘major’ syllables were introduced in Henderson (1952) “The main features of
Cambodian pronunciation” BSOAS 14: 149-174.
CVVC /huum/ ‘bathe’
CCVVC /ph laan/ ‘abandon’
Sesqui-syllabic Words
These are a type of disyllabic words where main, stressed syllables are preceded by
minor, unstressed pre-syllables. The vowel of the pre-syllable is usually written as the
neutralized vowel [@].
CV.CVV p@sii ‘snake’
CV.CVC /p@som/ ‘star’
CV.CVVC /k@tooN/ ‘six’
CV.CCVC /k@mlOh/ ‘young man’
CV.CCVVC c@kruuk ‘basket’
There is no contrast between CV and CVV in identical environments.
4.3 Word Structure
This section deals with word structure in Chung. However, as there is no inflectional
process in the language, the internal word structure of Chung can be discussed solely in
terms of word formation.
There is a further distinction between two kinds of word-formation: derivation
and compounding. Derivation involves affixing bound (non-independent) forms to exist-
ing lexemes, whereby the addition of the affix derives a new lexeme. Compounding is
a process of word-formation that involves combining complete word-forms into a single
compound form. The first process is not a productive one, while the latter is the major
process in forming new words in the Chung language.

4.3.1 Derivation
Derivational morphology in Chung is rather simple. Some words in the Chung language
take ‘prefixes’ to create new words. Such prefixes almost always concern spatial orienta-
tion. Therefore, sometimes it is difficult to separate prefixes from prepositions. However,
the separation of prefix from preposition in such cases is considered in terms of phonol-
ogy, not semantics. Thus, morphemes that are phonologically bound to a following word
are considered prefixes, not prepositions.
Consider the prefix /pa-/, which normally precedes nouns that complement mo-
tion verbs, such as /ceew/ ‘go’. The following verb phrases show the use of prefix /pa-/.
The first example is a verb phrase and the next example is an interrogative sentence.
Examples (a) and (b) contrast with (c), (d) and (e).
ceew pa.taN
(a) go pre.-house
ceew pataN ‘go home’
ceew pa.nih
(b) go pre.-which?
ceew panih ‘Where do you go?’
th aaĳj taak P@.bOO k@daaj

¨
(c) drink water pre.-pool elephant
‘drink water in the elephant’s pool’
ceew th OONph iiN P@.klaw

(d) go fishing pre.-pond
‘go fishing at the pond’
hooc → p@N.hooc
(e)
‘die’ ‘kill’
4.3.2 Compounding
Compounding is the productive process in creating new words in the Chung language.
The internal structure of compounds has the lexical head on the left and modifying
elements on the right-hand side. This corresponds to the right-branching structure,
which can be represented by X → Y + (X).
Compound
* Word
%*
%%% *****
%%%
Head Modifers
Figure 4.2: Chung Compound Structure
In this structure, the complexities are usually found on the right-hand side of the
lexical head. Besides, it is the syntactic type of the lexical head that defines the type of
the compound, not the opposite. Thus, the lexical heads in noun compounds are always
nouns, no matter what type the modifying elements belong to. The following are some
examples of noun and verb compounds, with modifiers of different syntactic types.
kneeĳm + Puut
(a) trunk-N + wood-N
kneeĳm Puut ‘tree’ (CY)
p@som + k@lak
¨
(b) star-N + fall-V
p@som k@lak ‘shooting star’ (CY)
¨
suĳñ + cuĳu
¨
(c) ant-N + sour-A
suĳñ cuĳu ‘big red ant’ (CL)
¨
k7t + pic
¨ ¨
(d) sick-V + sleep-V
k7t pic ‘sleepy’ (CL)
¨ ¨
kWĳw + k@Pic
¨
(e) tell-V + buttock-N
kWĳw k@Pic ‘gossip’ (CY)
¨
Isara Choosri Chung of Thailand and Cambodia / 56
CHAPTER 5
CHUNG OF THAILAND AND CAMBODIA
In this chapter, similarities and contrasts between Chung of Thailand and Cambodia
are analyzed. Given the phonological correspondence between words ending with /-j/
and /-l/ in Chung of Thailand and Cambodia respectively, I originally suggest here that
it is more convenient to call the two varieties ‘Chung Yuy’ and ‘Chung Yul,’ based on
different pronunciations of the word ‘sky’. The choice of this word is arbitrary, since the
etymology of ‘sky’ is not of greater importance than other words in the same class.
This chapter covers the comparative analysis of Chung Yuy and Chung Yul in
terms of socio-historical context and linguistic correspondences. There are four sections:
§5.1 Socio-historical context, §5.2 Phonological correspondences, §5.3 Lexical compar-
isons, and §5.4 Structural affinities.
In Chapters 1 and 2, a description of the historical background of the Chung
language group has been established. Thus, the context discussed here in §5.1 is the
analysis of contact situations, which both varieties of Chung have undergone. For §5.2-
5.4, the similarities and contrasts, with emphasis on the contrasting side, are analyzed
and presented in order from the most distinct contrast to the least.
5.1 Socio-historical Context
Chung people were captured by Thai troops during the 1830s war between Siam and
Annam fought mostly on Khmer territory. Chung prisoners of war were sent to Kan-
chanaburi on the western border. Both varieties of Chung in Thailand and Cambodia
now live among far bigger language groups, Thai and Khmer, who regard them as back-
ward. Although physical barriers have gone, yet some socio-cultural barriers remain.
However, it can be said that both varieties have sustained language maintenance
until recently. A language shift situation has been set off at an alarming speed about
three decades ago. This was initiated by the forced relocation of Chung communities
that led Chung people to live in mixed communities with people who speak different
ethnic languages.
So far, both varieties are on the verge of extinction. There are only two commu-
nities left: one in Thailand, another in Cambodia. Only adult and elderly speakers can
converse freely in Chung, but find fewer occasions to use it. Both language communities
have been marginalized by far bigger language groups: Thai and Khmer.
5.1.1 Chung Yuy of Thailand
The small ‘Ban Thung Na’ village is located on the bank of the reservoir of Si Nakharin
Dam in Si Sawat District of Kanchanaburi, a frontier province of Thailand bordering
Burma on the west. This is the new location assigned by the Electricity Generating
Authority of Thailand after the original Ban Thung Na had been flooded as a consequence
of the dam construction in 1975. This is the same fate suffered by all villages around
the reservoir, which had hitherto been located on both sides of the Khwae Yai River.
Only the original names were kept. The most ironic effect on the life of Ban Thung Na
villagers lies in the name of the village. Thung Na means ‘rice fields’ in Thai. Today no
one can grow rice in the present Thung Na village because it is located on the hill slope
and the soil is mixed with gravel. However, the village’s name refers to the ancestors of
Thung Na villagers as able rice cultivators.
The not so apparent but drastic effect of the dam, but probably not less drastic
can be seen through the life of a very small ethnic group called by others as “Ut”. They
were originally the villagers of the now flooded Thung Na. In the present Thung Na,
they are a minority group in a village that comprises many ethnic groups, including
Karen, Lao, Khmu and Thai speakers. The language barrier has disappeared. Earlier,
Ut people used their own language among themselves and used Thai as a lingua franca.
Since being moved to the new location they have been more stigmatized as they came
into closer contact with outsiders. They were abruptly changed from a majority in their
village, into a minority. If this were the old days, say two or three generations ago, they
might have moved on to find a new settlement area far away from“outsiders”. Anyway,
that did not seem to be a feasible option, so they accepted their fate and suffered the
humiliation of becoming a lower social stratum in the village where they used to enjoy
the predominant status.
In Thailand, after having settled in the old Kanchanaburi town of ‘Lat Ya’ for
about one generation, Chung people had moved further north to find better land and to
avoid the crowd of newcomers. About 30 years ago, they had to leave their land because
of the flooding from electricity dam construction. For compensation they were given
money and smaller plots of land near the reservoir. Rice cultivation stopped for two
reasons. The land is too sloped and rocky for wet rice cultivation. Therefore, apart from
growing coconuts, chili, and areca for occasional sales, villagers have become fishermen
because the huge reservoir is a good source of fresh-water fish.
Beside monetary compensation, evacuees were given a small plot of land that
could not sustain families of future generations. The period of forest clearing to obtain
more cultivation land had ended for good. For the Chung people, this only meant cultural
assimilation into Thai society. They need to seek jobs in the city that require better Thai
conversational ability.
Compulsory education based on Thai language and culture is one factor that has
accelerated the shift from Chung language to Thai. Use of the Chung language on school
premises had been prohibited until recently. Chung people had also been made fun of by
other people who were brought in from other villages due to evacuation caused by dam
construction. This results in an inter-generational disruption of the Chung language.
The situation is most severe among the younger generation of Chung of school age.
Most of the Chung population in the village consists of older and younger generations
living in the village while a lot of the Chung adult generation mostly seek jobs in the
city or work as hired labors for local employers.
5.1.2 Chung Yul of Cambodia
In Cambodia, the tradition had been transmitted that the Chung were left with just
one couple, a brother and a sister, who became the parents of all Chung descendants
now. Around 30 years ago, during the Pol Pot regime, they had to leave the seashore
to resettle inland. Subsequently, executions, hard labor, and malnutrition had further
decimated the Chung population.
The recent history of the Chung people in Cambodia can be divided into three
stages.
1. Before the arrival of the Siamese army (1830s).
2. After the Siamese conquest and before the Pol Pot regime.
3. After the rise and fall of the Pol Pot regime.
Before the arrival of the Siamese army in 1830s, the Chung had been known
to enjoy a tribal territory in what is now Veal Renh district. According to Chung oral
history, they had a fort call Banteay Prey, which was not only their fortified settlement,
but it was the source of water supply for Chung people who had settled along the sea
coast. Chung people used this fort to resist the Siamese assault.
After being defeated by the Siamese, the Chung population dropped sharply.
There was a Chung village called Long Leh on the seacoast of Kampong Som. They lived
in isolation from Khmer people and were able to maintain their language. Introduction of
modern education after independence from French colonization did not affect the Chung
language very much because Chung people could not enter the school system and were
regarded by Khmer as having below-average intellectual ability.
During the last decade, the French linguist Gérard Diffloth went to contact the
Saoch people in Phum Samrong village of Prey Nob district. There he found that they
call themselves Chung [tCuĳN], and feel it is contemptuous to be called “Saoch,” which
¨
refers to a kind of skin disease (Gérard Diffloth, personal communcation ). It is the
exonym used by Khmer people to refer to Chung people and the word carries a derogatory
connotation. Therefore, it is not nice to call the people Saoch. However, in all historical
documents concerning this ethnic group the word Saoch or Saauch are used, and Chung
is not mentioned at all, except in some documents where authors want to relate the
Chung people to the larger Chong group, then the word Chong is also used to refer to
this people. My own fieldwork in Cambodia confirms the people’s preference to be called
Chung. The word Chung is also used by the Ut of Kanchanaburi as an autonym.
From the data cited by Lebar et al (1964: 160-161) the Saoch people was first
mentioned in a publication of 1830 by a traveller who described a tribe of people whose
tails (sic) prevented them from sitting. There is a hypothesis that the Saoch are a rem-
nant “Chong”, the larger ethnic group that had been assimilated into Khmer society.
During the French colonial period, there was a Saoch autonomous area along the Kam-
pong Smach river toward Veal Renh bay. The area was set between Kampot and Riem
on the west of Phnom Damrai (the Elephant Mountains).
To the outsiders’ eye, the Saoch people were not friendly and did not like to
socialize with outsiders. However, they have been in close contact with the Khmers. This
contact had thus resulted in heavy Khmer borrowing in Saoch. Leclère (2002) reports
that out of 1000 Saoch words there are 450 Khmer loanwords. My own linguistic fieldwork
in Phum Samrong village confirms the strong bilingualism among Chung speakers.
Though living in their original homeland, the Chung people of Cambodia had
also suffered the threat of ethnic extinction, similar to their kin in Thailand. During the
Khmer Rouge regime in the 1970s, Chung villagers had been relocated and some were
killed by communist cadres. Now they have to live together with the Khmer who are
superior to them both in numbers and economic well-being.
During the Pol Pot regime Chung people were forced to relocated inland because
Khmer Rouge cadres did not allow people to live by the seacoast. This resulted in mixed
communities between Chung and Khmer. The use of ethnic languages were prohib-
ited on a national scale. The Chung population dropped further because of executions,
malnutrition, and hard labor.
After the fall of Pol Pot, the general situation of Chung improved. However,
there are no job opportunities in the city for Chung people. Thus, there are adults in
the village who can use the Chung language. Among the younger generation of Chung of
school age, the language shift from Chung to Khmer is quite similar to what is occurring
with Chung children in Thailand.
5.2 Phonological Correspondences
This section shows how much Chung Yuy and Chung Yul differ from each other in
terms of phonology. The list of phonological correspondences includes §5.2.1 Consonant
Clusters, §5.2.2 Pre-syllables, and §5.2.3 Final Consonants.
5.2.1 Consonant Clusters
This subsection deals with differences between consonant clusters in Chung Yuy and
Chung Yul. It is significant that the cluster /cô-/ is absent in Chung Yuy.
Table 5.1: Differences in Consonant Clusters
Chung Yuy Chung Yul Gloss

jaN claN ‘cooked rice’
kôaN côaN ‘stilt’
¨ ¨
kôooc côooc ‘horn’
kôok côok ‘pig’
kôOp tôOp ‘eggplant’
However, the consonant clusters composed of labials and liquids are similar in
Chung Yuy and Chung Yul.
pôak - pôak ‘silver’.
mluu - mluu ‘betel’.

¨ ¨
mleeN- mleeN ‘beautiful’.

¨ ¨
5.2.2 Pre-syllables
This subsection deals with difference between pre-syllables in Chung Yuy and Chung
Yul. it can be seen that consonant clusters in Chung Yul are more complex than in
Chung Yuy.
Table 5.2: Differences in Pre-syllables

t@kaa c@kaa ‘mouth’
k@pook tô@pook ‘hole’
¨ ¨
k@tiit p@tiit ‘chili’
¨ ¨
k@l77N pô@l77N ‘ear’
¨ ¨
It is remarkable that in the case of Chung Yul, pre-syllable structure is more
complex and varied, while it is rather simple in Chung Yuy, which has /k@-/ as pre-
syllable in almost all cases.
5.2.3 Final Consonants
This subsection deals with difference between final consonants in Chung Yuy and Chung
Yul. It covers the following differences.
1. /-j/ - /-l/
2. /-p/ - /-m/
3. /-t/ - /-n/
4. /-c/ - /-ñ/
5. /-k/ - /-N/
/-j/ - /-l/
There is a phonological correspondence between words ending with /-j/ and /-l/ in Chung
Yuy and Chung Yul respectively.

Table 5.3: Correspondence between /-j/ - /-l/ in CY and CL

haaj haal ‘rice’
juuj juul ‘sky
k@nuuj k@nuul ‘seven’
¨ ¨
k7j k7l ‘sit’
m@nuuj m@nuul ‘knee’
ch ooj ch ool ‘plant (v.)’
And yet there are words ending with /-j/ that are similar in Chung Yuy and
Chung Yul.
Table 5.4: Correspondence between /-j/ - /-j/ in CY and CL

ôuuĳj ôuuĳj ‘melon’
¨ ¨
koĳj koĳj ‘long (time)’
¨ ¨
ch ooĳj ch ooĳj ‘canopy’
This means that there is a distinction between /-j/ and /-l/ in Chung Yul while
there is not in Chung Yuy. It should be interpreted as a merger between /-j/ and /-l/
in Chung Yuy.
/-p/ - /-m/
There is the phonological correspondence between words ending with /-p/ and /-m/ in
Chung Yuy and Chung Yul respectively. This only occurs when /-p/ and /-m/ are after
creaky vowels.
Table 5.5: /-p/ v. /-m/ in creaky-voice register

saaĳp saaĳm ‘dawn’
caaĳp caaĳm ‘fishy’
kuuĳp kuuĳm ‘frog’
kh aaĳp kh aaĳm ‘scratchy’
reeĳp reeĳm ‘miss’
Yet there are words ending with /-p/ that are similar in Chung Yuy and Chung
Yul. They are words in other registers.
Table 5.6: /-p/ v. /-p/ in non-creaky-voice registers

saap saap ‘bland’
t@kh aap t@kh aap ‘bamboo’
hOOp hOOp ‘eat’
Finally, there are words ending with /-m/ that are similar in Chung Yuy and
Chung Yul. There are also words in creaky-voice and other registers. This should be
interpreted that, in Chung Yul, there is no distinction between /-p/ and /-m/ after
creaky vowels.
Table 5.7: /-m/ v. /-m/ in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul

sEEĳm sEEĳm ‘Siamese’
ph looĳm ph looĳm ‘wax’
kh luuĳm kh luuĳm ‘urinate’
kh @neeĳm kh @neeĳm ‘(tree) trunk’
kuum kuum ‘winnow’
¨ ¨
Naam Naam ‘sweet’
¨ ¨
p@som p@som ‘star’
(p@sii) ch eem (p@sii) ch eem ‘python’
/-t/ - /-n/
There is a phonological correspondence between words ending with /-t/ and /-n/ in
Chung Yuy and Chung Yul respectively. This only occurs when /-t/ and /-n/ are after
creaky vowels.
Table 5.8: /-t/ v. /-n/ in creaky-voice register

caaĳt caaĳn ‘knife’
ceeĳt ceeĳn ‘deer’
cooĳt cooĳn ‘vomit’
kaaĳt kaaĳn ‘near’
s@Neeĳt s@Neeĳn ‘dark’
Yet there are words ending with /-t/ that are similar in Chung Yuy and Chung
Table 5.9: /-t/ v. /-t/ in non-creaky-voice registers

toot toot ‘head’
Puut Puut ‘wood’
p@siit p@siit ‘mushroom’
mat mat ‘eye’
¨ ¨
k@maat ô@maat ‘rhino’
¨ ¨
Finally, there are words ending with /-n/ that are similar in Chung Yuy and
interpreted that, in Chung Yul, there is no distinction between /-t/ and /-n/ after creaky
vowels.
Table 5.10: /-n/ v. /-n/ in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul

Piin Piin ‘have’
kh een kh een ‘child’
ph ooĳn ph ooĳn ‘four’
kh @looĳn kh @looĳn ‘navel’
cuuĳn cuuĳn ‘delicious’
kh OOĳn kh OOĳn ‘mice’
t7n t7n ‘that’
¨ ¨
/-c/ - /-ñ/
There is a phonological correspondence between words ending with /-c/ and /-ñ/ in
Chung Yuy and Chung Yul respectively. This only occurs when /-t/ and /-ñ/ are after
creaky vowels.
Table 5.11: /-c/ v. /-ñ/ in creaky-voice register

kOOĳc kOOĳñ ‘rice soup’
kmuuĳc kmuuĳñ ‘ghost’
kh rooĳc kh rooĳñ ‘lime
suuĳc suuĳñ ‘ant’
saĳc saĳñ ‘cold’
Yet there are words ending with /-c/ that are similar in Chung Yuy and Chung

Table 5.12: /-c/ v. /-c/ in non-creaky-voice registers

m@suuc m@suuc ‘abscess’
Pic Pic ‘feces’
cuuc cuuc ‘flesh; meat’
¨ ¨
pic pic ‘sleep’
¨ ¨
Nac Nac ‘fall’
¨ ¨
Finally, there are words ending with /-ñ/ that are similar in Chung Yuy and
interpreted that, in Chung Yul, there is no distinction between /-c/ and /-ñ/ after creaky
vowels.
Table 5.13: /-ñ/ v. /-ñ/ in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul

Peñ Peñ ‘I’
POOñ POOñ ‘keep’
kôaañ kôaañ ‘alcohol’
¨ ¨
/-k/ - /-N/
Table 5.14: /-k/ v. /-N/ in creaky-voice register

ploĳ:k ploĳ:N ‘mud’
kaaĳk kaaĳN ‘crow’
sooĳk sooĳN ‘mango’
mluuĳk mluuĳN ‘salty’
¨ ¨
Yet there are words ending with /-k/ that are similar in Chung Yuy and Chung
Table 5.15: /-k/ v. /-k/ in non-creaky-voice registers

paak paak ‘ascend’
ch ak ch ak ‘seed’
tok tok ‘boat’
¨ ¨
taak taak ‘water’
¨ ¨
Finally, there are words ending with /-N/ that are similar in Chung Yuy and
interpreted that, in Chung Yul, there is no distinction between /-k/ and /-N/ after creaky
vowels.
Table 5.16: /-N/ v. /-N/ in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul

klooN klooN ‘bone’
tooĳN tooĳN ‘fear’
kuN kuN ‘belly’
¨ ¨
k@laaN k@laaN ‘belly’
¨ ¨
kuĳN kuĳN ‘long’
¨ ¨
cuĳN cuĳN ‘people’
¨ ¨
5.3 Lexical Comparisons
This section shows similarities and contrasts, with emphasis on the contrasting aspect,
in the vocabularies of Chung Yuy and Chung Yul. The lexical inventory of Chung in
both varieties should be divided into two situations, the first where both Chung Yuy and
Chung Yul keep old forms, and the second is the situation where borrowing has occurred.
5.3.1 Chung Yuy and Chung Yul Keeping Old Forms
The first situation, which is the normal one, is when one finds similar lexical correspon-
dences between Chung Yuy and Chung Yul. Given the phonological differences between
Chung Yuy and Chung Yul explained in the last section, it can be easily seen that many
words that are different in the two varieties are the results of different phonological
changes. Minus such changes, one can see how similar Chung Yuy and Chung Yul are,
especially in terms of vocabulary. The following are words that are clearly not loans
from Thai or Khmer. (See also Appendix A)
Table 5.17: CY and CL Keep Old Forms
Gloss Chung Yuy Chung Yul Thai Khmer

‘six’ k@tooN k@tooN hòk prammu@y
‘seven’ k@nuuj k@nuul cèt prampWl
¨ ¨
‘eight’ k@tii ô@tii pÈEt pramb@y
‘nine’ k@ncaa k@ncaa kâw prambu@n
¨ ¨
‘ten’ raaj raaj sı̀p dOp
¨ ¨
‘eye’ mat mat taa pneek
¨ ¨
‘head’ taot taot hǔ@ kbaal
‘mouth’ t@kaa c@kaa pàak mŏ@t
‘teeth’ kh ooj kh ooj fan tmeeñ
5.3.2 Borrowings from Thai and Khmer
This subsection deals with linguistic features that are likely influences from Thai and
Khmer. First come lexical borrowings, which are the most likely reflection of influences
to be found in both varieties of Chung. Varying patterns of borrowing are found in the
comparative lexicons. Those patterns are divided into four groups as follows:
1. Chung Yuy borrowed from Thai, while Chung Yul borrowed from Khmer.
2. Chung Yuy borrowed from Thai, while Chung Yul keeps old forms.
3. Both Chung Yuy and Chung Yul borrowed from Khmer.

4. Chung Yuy keeps old forms, Chung Yul borrowed from Khmer.
The most likely case is the first pattern, based on the assumption that both
varieties have been separated from each other for almost two centuries in somewhat
different environments. Chung Yuy has been overwhelmed by the Thai language, and
Chung Yul by Khmer. Given such a sociolinguistic situation, it is the most likely that
this borrowing pattern is the norm.
Chung Yuy borrowed from Thai, while Chung Yul borrowed from Khmer.
The first borrowing pattern shows the situation in which loans from Thai and Khmer
replaced the vocabulary in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul respectively.
Table 5.18: Borrowings I: CY Borrowed Thai, CL Borrowed Khmer

‘well’ bOO taak P@ndouN bÒO nám P@ndouN
¨
‘point to’ ch ii c@NPool ch ı́i cANPAAl
‘trousers’ kaaNkeeN kh aw kaaNkeeN khao
Chung Yuy borrowed from Thai, while Chung Yul Keeps Old Forms
The second borrowing pattern shows the situation in which loans from Thai replaced the
vocabulary in Chung Yuy, while Chung Yul did not borrow from Khmer.
Table 5.19: Borrowings II: CY Borrowed Thai, CL Keeps Old Forms

‘gold’ th O:N maat th OON mi@h
¨
‘hoe’ cOOp swaak cÒOp cAAp
Both Chung Yuy and Chung Yul borrowed from Khmer.
The third borrowing pattern shows the situation in which loans from Khmer are still
preserved in the vocabulary of Chung Yuy and Chung Yul respectively.

Table 5.20: Borrowings III: CY and CL Borrowed Khmer

‘sing’ k@mGEEN c@mGEEN rÓONph leeN cOmri@N
‘pillow’ kh @n77j kh @n77j mǑOn kn@@j
‘custard apple’ tiip ti@p nÓOjnàa ti@p
¨
Chung Yuy Keeps Old Forms, Chung Yul Borrowed Khmer.
The fourth borrowing pattern shows the situation in which loans from Khmer replaced
the vocabulary of Chung Yul, while Chung Yuy still preserves old forms. This pattern
on the side of Chung Yul should illustrate recent borrowings from Khmer.
Table 5.21: Borrowings IV: CY Keeps Old Forms, CL Borrowed Khmer

‘bean’ k@taak s@ndaek th ù@ sAndaek
‘pus’ th WN ktuh nǑON ktuh
‘shoulder’ mliiN smaa lài smaa
¨
‘moustache’ k@miiN puk c@kaa nù@t puk mŏet
¨
‘weave’ th aañ tbaañ sǎan tbaañ
From the borrowing patterns analyzed previously, it is hypothesized that both
Chung Yuy and Chung Yul had been able to maintain their languages until recently.
Both varieties borrowed from Thai and Khmer only lexically, in certain lexical domains.
This aspect will be discussed in more detail in Chapters 6 and 7.

Isara Choosri Identifying Contact-Induced Changes / 72
CHAPTER 6
IDENTIFYING CONTACT-INDUCED CHANGES
This chapter includes three sections. The first section (§6.1) deals with the relationship
between both Chung varieties and Proto-Pearic, as reconstructed by Headley (1985); in
other words, which variety of Chung is closer to Proto-Pearic. This could help identify
which phonological changes are further away from the common Pearic. Lexically, we
can see the differences between common Pearic words and those used in both Chung
varieties. After we establish the relative distance between the Proto-Pearic and both
Chung varieties, we are ready to postulate which changes are likely to be ‘contact-
induced’.
The second section (§6.2) makes use of the recently published A Mon-Khmer
Comparative Dictionary by Shorto (2006). Though Pearic languages were not included
in the dictionary, Khmer was. Because of the high proportion of shared vacabulary
between Khmer and Chung, it is wise to have a way to distinguish Mon-Khmer cognates
shared by Chung and Khmer from Khmer borrowings in Chung. This could be done
by comparing Chung and Proto-Pearic forms with Proto-Mon-Khmer, to identify Pearic
and Mon-Khmer phonological and lexical elements preserved in Chung.
The third section (§6.3) is an attempt to outline Thai and Khmer influences on
the linguistic changes attested in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul. The problem is that the
Thai language structure also has Khmer elements. In order to filter out such elements,
I use Varasarin’s (1984) study on Khmer elements in Siamese Thai as reference for
distinguishing linguistic features borrowed by Chung from both languages respectively.
For example, it is assumed that if there are similar Khmer borrowings both in Thai and
Chung, they are to be considered as Chung borrowings from Thai not Khmer.
6.1 Chung Yuy, Chung Yul, and Proto-Pearic
This section shows major changes from Proto-Pearic to Chung. In most cases, Chung
Yuy and Chung Yul had undergone the same changes. However, there are some points
where Chung Yuy changed a step further than Chung Yul, and others where Chung Yul
changed further. Changes that are the same in both Chung Yuy and Chung Yuy are
illustrated in §6.1.1, §6.1.2 and §6.1.3.
The first subsection is *cons > asp cons. The second one is *voiced >
voiceless and the merger between voiced and voiceless sonorants. Both of these changes
are postulated as the cause of breathy voice in Pearic languages, including Chung. And,
still problematic though, the third one is the set of partially characterized phonemes *P
*T *C *K whose reflexes are /p, t, c, k/.
6.1.1 *Plain > Aspirated Stops
This change is attested in the same way in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul. This is a
systematic change found in Pearic languages, including Chung of course. This can be
one criterion to distinguish Khmer borrowings from Mon-Khmer cognates shared by
Chung and Khmer. However, this point shall be analyzed further in §6.2. Table 6.1
shows the change from plain stops to aspirated stops.
6.1.2 The Origin of Breathy Voice
This subsection deals with two changes, hypothesized by Headley (1985) as the reason
for breathy-voice register in all Pearic languages. The point of adducing such changes
here is to see whether both Chung varieties correspond to changes from Proto-Pearic in
the same manner.
The first change process is *voiced > voiceless. The second one is the merger
between voiced and voiceless sonorants.
The following table illustrate the correspondence between Proto-Pearic forms
beginning with *voiced stops and Chung voiceless stops followed by breathy nuclei. The
Table 6.1: Proto-Pearic *Plain Stops > Chung Aspirated Stops
Proto-Pearic Chung Yuy Chung Yul Gloss

*pa:s ph at ph at ‘tail’
*pli: ph lii ph lii ‘fruit’
*ta:ñ th aañ th baañ (=Khmer) ‘weave’
*teP th eĳe th eĳe ‘earth’
*ca: ch aa ch aa ‘eat’
*co:l ch ooj ch ool ‘plant’ (v.)
*co:s ch uut ch uut ‘hundred’
*cOP ch oo choo dog
*ke:v kh iiw kh iiw ‘call’
*kIn t@kh 7n c@kh 7n ‘wife’
*ko:y kh ooj kh ooj ‘tooth’
next table illustrates the how the loss of Proto-Pearic aspirated sonorants gave rise to
breathy voice in Chung.
Devoicing of Initial Stops
The first change process that is hypothesized by Headley (1985) to have caused breathy-
voiced register in Chung is the devoicing of initial stops. Words containing breathy nuclei
correspond to Proto-Pearic forms that begin with voiced initial stops.
This correspondence is rather systematic both in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul. It
can be said with a level of certainty that there is no distinction between both varieties
concerning different treatment of Proto-Pearic voiced initial stops. See Table 6.2.
Loss of Voiceless Sonorants
Another change process from Proto-Pearic related to ‘breathy-voice’ in Chung is the loss
of voiceless sonorants. Words beginning with voiceless sonorants in Proto-Pearic become
words containing ‘clear-voice’ nuclei, while words beginning with voiced sonorants in
Proto-Pearic become words containing ‘breathy-voice’ nuclei. It seems that the recon-
struction of voiceless sonorants was meant to account for the origin of ‘breathy-voice’
Table 6.2: Proto-Pearic *voiced- > Chung voiceless breathy
Proto-Pearic Chong Chung Gloss

*bE:k peek peek ‘laugh’
¨ ¨
*ble:v pliiw pliiw ‘fire’
¨ ¨
*bri: prii prii ‘jungle’
¨ ¨
*da:k taak taak ‘water’
¨ ¨
*de:v tiiw tiiw ‘buy’
¨ ¨
*je:v ciiw ciiw ‘soup’
¨ ¨
*jO:r c7w c7w ‘sap’
¨ ¨
*ju:m cuuĳm cuuĳm ‘vine’
¨ ¨
*gON kuĳN kuĳN ‘long’
¨ ¨
*gra:ñ kôaañ kôaañ ‘alcohol’
¨ ¨
*gu:m kuum kuum ‘winnow’
¨ ¨
in Pearic languages. This is not in conflict with Chung. However, such reconstruction
is hypothetical and should be affirmed or refuted by studying the Pearic-wide data.
Therefore, I do not think that Chung data are enough for such a task at the moment.
It should be observed that voiceless sonorants are not reconstructed at the Proto-
Mon-Khmer level. The series were reconstructed in Proto-Pearic just to account for
breathy voice in words beginning with sonorants in some Pearic languages, including
Chung.
Table 6.3: The loss of voiceless liquids & glides and breathy voice

*mat mat mat ‘eye’
¨ ¨
*me:l meeĳn meĳe ‘fish’
¨ ¨
*mlO:N mluuN mluuN ‘eel’
¨ ¨
*nIm nWm nWm ‘year’
¨ ¨
*nO:N nooN nooN ‘mountain’
¨ ¨
*pNa:m p@Naam p@Naam ‘bee’
¨ ¨
*hNO:n Noon Noon ‘thatch’
*N@:r N7w N7w ‘red’
¨ ¨
*hlE:k lEEk lEEk ‘chicken’
*hlO:N looN looN ‘banana’
*hluk lOk lOk ‘salt’
*la:c laac l¨*aac lightning
¨
*lo:m luum luum ‘ask for’
¨ ¨
*lo:s loot loot ‘barking dee’r
*ra:y raaj raaj ‘ten’
¨ ¨
*re:s riit riit ‘root’
¨ ¨
*vE:N weeN weeN ‘raw’
¨ ¨
*ya:v k@jaa k@jaa ‘scorpion’
*yu:r juuj juul ‘sky’
6.1.3 Residue in Proto-Pearic Reconstruction

De-aspiration(?)
The next change reconstructed by Headley (1985) is highly hypothetical. As mentioned
earlier, there was a consonant shift from Proto-Pearic *plain stops to aspirated stops
in Pearic languages. There are systematic correspondences in words beginning with
aspirated series and Proto-Pearic forms beginning with *plain stops, which is confirmed
by Proto-Mon-Khmer forms (Shorto 2006). However, in the phonology of Chung there
is a contrast between plain and aspirated stops. If aspirated stops in Chung evolved
from plain ones, from what has the contemporary plain series evolved? Headley (1985)
reconstructed the archiphonemes *P *T *C *K without assigning exact phonetic values
to them. Certainly, they are not voiced and not plain voiceless stops. Although it is
hypothetical to assume that Proto-Pearic had the complete set of aspirated stops and
sonorants, or voiceless sonorants, from Headley’s (1985) point of view it is the only logical
conclusion so far about the change processes from Proto-Pearic to Chung concerning the
consonant shifts.
Table 6.4: Proto-Pearic */P T C K/ and Chung Reflexes
Proto-Pearic Chong Chung Gloss

*Pa:N pa:N pa:N ‘flower’
*Pac pac pac ‘broken’
*TE:N tEEN tEEN ‘left-side’
*To:s toot toot ‘head’
*TO:N tOOĳN tOOĳN ‘afraid; fear’
*Cak cak cak shoot
*Ce:s ceeĳt ceeĳn ‘deer’
*Ce:v ceew ceew ‘walk; go’
*Ka:N kaaN kaaN ‘moon’
*Kic kic kic ‘small’
*KO:y kuĳj kuĳj ‘long’ (time)
¨ ¨
*TON taN taN ‘house’
However, reconstructing Proto-Pearic */P T C K/ can be misleading. In fact,
it does not tell anything more than that Pearic languages have contrasts between plain
and aspirated stops. In §7.4.2, I propose an alternative to Headley’s reconstruction
concerning the Proto-Pearic stops.
What Had Become ‘Creaky Voice’ ?
In Chung, creaky-voice is found in both varieties. One interesting fact in Chung phonol-
ogy is that there are occurrences of creaky voice in open syllables: VĳV . In my opinion,
this structure can be interpreted in two ways. First, it can be seen as an older form from
which the -VP structure in Chong and VV structure (with falling pitch contour) in Samre
are derived. From this point of view, we may see Chong as an anomalous case rather
than a norm on which Proto-Pearic is based. Second, it can be seen as the intermediate
state from Proto-Pearic -VP before it evolved into the VV structure (with falling pitch
contour).
Headley (1985) intentionally omits this feature from his reconstruction because
of “the absence of any obvious conditioning factor and of accurate phonetic data from all
the Pearic dialects” (435). However, most recent data seem to agree about the contrastive
use of creaky voice. Therefore, one would find that there are regular occurrences of /-ĳ-/
in almost all Pearic languages, of which the most salient cases are Chong and Chung,
but cannot deduce what it corresponds to in Proto-Pearic. In the final chapter, I will
discuss this issue again when I propose a revision of Proto-Pearic reconstruction and the
classification of Pearic languages.
6.2 Proto-Mon-Khmer and Chung
In this section, I attempt to confirm the change processes proposed by Headley (1985)
by consulting Shorto’s (2006) A Mon-Khmer Comparative Dictionary. The aim of this
confirmation is to see whether particular changes from Proto-Pearic to Chung can be
confirmed by Proto-Mon-Khmer. This point is significant because it can be brought in
as a reference point for distinguishing linguistic changes particular to Chung and Khmer.
The following are the reconstructed consonants of Proto-Mon-Khmer (PMK).

*/ p t c k P
b d j g
á â
m n ñ N
w rl y
s h /
6.2.1 Consonant Mutations

Initials
Comparing Chung consonantal phonemes with those of PMK and Proto-Pearic, there
are three consonants in Chung that agree with both PMK and Proto-Pearic: /P, s, h/.
Concerning the whole set of sonorants: nasals, liquids, and glides, one could not say there
were no historical change effects involved with them because of the rise of breathy-voice,
which was discussed earlier. Therefore, I would say that only /P, s, h/ in initial position
seem to reflect PMK.

Table 6.5: Proto-Mon-Khmer */P, s, h/ and Chung Reflexes
PMK Proto-Pearic Chung Yuy Chung Yul Gloss

*Pic *Pic Pic Pic ‘feces’
*suk *suk k@sok t@sok ‘hair’
*haap *hO:p hOOp hOOp ‘eat’
*huum *hu:m huum huum ‘bathe’
The shift from PMK *plain to aspirated stops is one criterion that clearly sets
Chung apart from Khmer. Therefore, when one finds similar words in Chung and Khmer,
one could use the *cons > aspirated cons as a criterion to decide whether such words
are Mon-Khmer cognates or Khmer loanwords. For example, the following are Mon-
Khmer cognates, not Khmer loanwords, because we can see clearly the result of *cons
> asp cons that is particular to Pearic languages, including Chung. That process did
not occur in Khmer.

Table 6.6: Chung /ch-/ and Khmer /c-/
Chung Khmer Gloss

ch 7t cah ‘old’
ch uun cuun ‘accompany’
Here the PMK form for ‘old’ is *Pcas and the written form of Khmer is <cas>.
This is an old change process that occurred before the separation of Chung Yuy and
Chung Yul, which happened recently. Concerning the change from Proto-Pearic *voiced
to Chung voiceless stops, it involves breathy nuclei, therefore, I will discuss it later.
Finals
Both PMK and Proto-Pearic agree on the final consonant system.

*/ -p -t -c -k -P
-m -n -ñ -N
-w -r -l -y
-s -h /
Chung finals agree with both PMK and Proto-Pearic except in two positions–*-r
and -*s—where Chung lost them altogether. The reflex of *-r is -w ∼ -j, while the reflex
of -*s is -t.
Table 6.7: Proto-Pearic *-r *-s and Chung Reflexes

*jO:r c7w c7w ‘sap’
¨ ¨
*N@:r N7w N7w ‘red’
¨ ¨
*Ke:r kaj kaj (dog’s) ’bark’
*co:s rooj (< Thai) ch uut ’hundred’
¨
*pa:s ph at ph at ’tail’
The two changes differ from what happened in Khmer and could be used as
criteria for distinguishing Mon-Khmer cognates in Chung from Khmer loanwords. It is
helpful to use such criteria when the two Chung varieties differ lexically. These, also,
can be confirmed by PMK.
Table 6.8: PMK *-r *-s and Khmer Reflexes
PMK Chung Yuy Chung Yul Khmer Gloss

*jar c7w c7w cO@ ‘sap’
¨ ¨
*skOOr s@kOO s@kOO skOO ‘sugar’
*kpaas k@paaĳt k@bah PAmbAh ‘cotton’
*Pus; *Puus Puut Puut Poh ‘wood; firewood’
In the last chapter, I discussed the phonological change in Chung Yul where
only nasals occur finally after creaky nuclei, while Chung Yuy still keeps the distinction
between final stops and nasals after creaky nuclei. Concerning this issue, it can also been
confirmed by PMK.
Table 6.9: Proto-Mon-Khmer Final Stops and Chung Yul Final Nasals
PMK Chung Yuy Chung Yul Gloss

*cPaap caaĳp caaĳm ‘odor’
*kruuc kh rOOĳc kh rOOĳñ ‘citrus’
*kPaak kaaĳk kaaĳN ‘crow’
6.2.2 Registers
In terms of vowel inventory, there is little difference between PMK, Proto-Pearic and
Chung.
*/ i u ii uu
e @ o ee @@ oo
E a O EE aa OO
i@ u@ /
Yet a distinct change process is the effect of devoicing of initial stops on the
following vowels, or the breathy-voice register. Despite contact between Thai and Khmer
and Chung, the breathy-voice has been preserved. This, also, can be compared with the
PMK forms.
Table 6.10: Proto-Mon-Khmer Voiced Stops and Chung Reflexes
PMK Chung Yuy Chung Yul Khmer

*briiP pôii pGii prey ’jungle’
¨ ¨
*buul puuj puul pul ‘drunk’
¨ ¨
*daak taak taak tIk ’water’
¨ ¨
*jar c7w c7w cO@ ‘sap’
¨ ¨
*gaN kaN kaN kE@N ‘stiff; hard’
¨ ¨
However, the loss of *voiceless sonorants as a reason for breathy-voice in words

with initial *voiced sonorants cannot be confirmed or refuted by PMK. Shorto (2006)
did not reconstruct voiceless sonorants at the PMK level. Therefore, this needs further
comparative study on the relationship between breathy-voice and initial sonorants in
other Mon-Khmer languages.
It is difficult to discern the origin of creaky-voice in Chung. It is understandable
why Headley (1985) decided to leave it alone. However, looking at PMK, I find that
glottal stop at the medial position might have triggered the rise of creaky-voice register
in Pearic languages. I will return to this issue again when I discuss Proto-Pearic in the
last chapter.
6.3 Identifying Contact Influences from Thai and Khmer

6.3.1 Sounds
In terms of phonological changes attested differently in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul, there
are three significant ones that can be summarized as follows:
1. Simplification of clusters and pre-syllables in Chung Yuy
2. Merge of /-j/ and /-l/ in Chung Yuy
3. /-stops/ > /-nasals/ After Creaky Vowels in Chung Yul
I propose that the first two are changes resulting from contact with Thai lan-
guage, while the third one is interpreted as an independent change triggered by system-
internal pressure.
Simplification of clusters and pre-syllable in Chung Yuy
As observed in the last chapter, there are fewer patterns of consonant clusters and pre-
syllable in Chung Yuy than in Chung Yul. Such patterns also are similar to Thai. On
the contrary, the patterns of consonant clusters and pre-syllables in Chung Yul are more
varied and complex, which supposed to better represent the Chung language, which had
inherited sesqui-syllabicity as a Mon-Khmer feature. Therefore, it is supposed that there

had been simplification of clusters and pre-syllables in Chung Yuy, which was motivated
by contact with Thai language. This might also be interpreted as a Chung Yuy’s tendency
to drop the pre-syllable altogether, as a move towards mono-syllabicity.
Merger of /-j/ and /-l/ in Chung Yuy
There is a phonological correspondence between words ending with /-j/ and /-l/ in
Chung Yuy and Chung Yul respectively. And yet there are words ending with /-j/ that
are similar in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul. This means that there is a distinction between
/-j/ and /-l/ in Chung Yul while there is not in Chung Yuy. It should be interpreted as
a merger between /-j/ and /-l/ in Chung Yuy.
Since sound patterns in Chung and Khmer are more similar than between both
languages and Thai, it is rather more difficult to pinpoint which areas in Chung phonology
are influenced by Khmer. Some lexical borrowings with Khmer pronunciation seem to
be the norm. On the contrary, register contrasts in Chung set the language apart from
Khmer in terms of phonology. However, it is still unclear whether the change in Chung
Yul, in which final /stops/ became /nasals/ in creaky voice register, is an independent
change or a contact-induced change. Chung further differentiate themselves from the
Khmer phonological system.
/-stops/ > /-nasals/ After Creaky Vowels in Chung Yul
The most obvious phonological contrast between Chung Yuy and Chungh Yul can be
found in words with creaky-voice register. In this set of words, one finds systematic
correspondence between final /stops/ in Chung Yuy and final /nasals/ in Chung Yul:
/p, t, c, k/ versus /m, n, ñ, N/. This change in Chung Yul is unique because it is not
found at all in other Pearic languages, including Chung Yuy, It must be a recent change
after the separation between Chung Yuy and Chung Yul less than two hundred years ago.
Because of this change, there is no contrast between stops and nasals in final position
in words with creaky voice. From a perceptual point of view, it is easy to recognize
the creaky voice combine with nasal release. I interpret this change as triggered by
system-internal pressure to make the creaky-voice more salient.
6.3.2 Vocabulary
This subsection deals with linguistic features that are likely influenced by Thai and
Khmer. First is lexical borrowings, which are the most likely sources of influences to
be found in both varieties of Chung. Varying patterns of borrowing are found in the
comparative lexicons. Lexically, there are four patterns of borrowing: (1) CY borrowed
Thai and CL borrowed Khmer (2) CY borrowed Thai while CL kept old forms (3) CY
and CL borrowed Khmer (4) CY kept old forms while CL borrowed Khmer.
The first borrowing pattern shows the situation in which loans from Thai and
Khmer replaced the vocabulary in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul respectively. The second
borrowing pattern shows the situation in which loans from Thai replaced the vocabulary
in Chung Yuy, while Chung Yul did not borrow from Khmer. The third borrowing pattern
shows the situation in which loans from Khmer are still preserved in the vocabulary
of Chung Yuy and Chung Yul respectively. The fourth borrowing pattern shows the
situation in which loans from Khmer replaced the vocabulary of Chung Yul, while Chung
Yuy still preserves old forms. This pattern on the side of Chung Yul should illustrate
recent loanwords.
The scenario is that the Chung language had retained Khmer borrowings over a
period of time before some speakers were captured and sent to Thailand. Then, speakers
on the Thai side started replacing the Khmer borrowings with Thai, retaining their
native lexicon. Back in Cambodia, Chung speakers still borrowed from Khmer at the
same rate.
6.3.3 Grammar
Morphologically, Chung Yuy and Chung Yul still resemble each other though Chung Yuy
shows inclinations to monosyllabicity. Syntactically, there are no significant difference
between Chung Yuy, Chung Yul, Thai and Khmer, except for ‘doubled negation’ not–
verb–not that is shared by Chung and Khmer, but not by Thai.

The contact scenario is that both Chung varieties had maintained stable bilin-
gualism until recently. The linguistic result is much lexical borrowing, moderate phono-
logical interference and weak morphosyntactic interference. Because Chung and Khmer
show morphosyntactic resemblance due to shared Mon-Khmer features, it is difficult to
discern the interferences in the area of morphosyntax if there are any at all.
6.3.4 Semantic Differences between Chung and Khmer Cognates
As discussed earlier in §6.3.1-6.3.3, the linguistic outcome of contact situations may be
investigated through phonology and vocabulary, and to a less degree through the gram-
matical system. In this subsection I will discuss another area where contact relationship
could be investigated: semantic differences between Chung and Khmer cognates.This is
also concerned with the lexicon, yet it deals with more subtle changes in the language
structure than simply measuring the amount of loanwords.
For the general case of borrowing, the task at hand is to find phonological criteria
to help distinguish Mon-Khmer cognates from Khmer borrowings. In the case of Thai
loanwords, it is easier to identify them than in the case of Khmer borrowings. Moreover,
one might think that Thai borrowings would merely be added to the Khmer borrowings
that already existed in the Chung Yuy lexicon. This is apparently not the case. On the
contrary, it appears that Thai borrowings have replaced some of the Khmer borrowings.
Therefore, one needs to supplement the phonological criteria for distinguishing
Thai and Khmer borrowings in Chung. One way to do this is to take cognates in Chung
and Khmer and study their semantic differences. This is an appropriate method when
we investigate long and intimate contact relationship.
The semantic differences between Chung and Khmer cognates were divided into
two categories: (1) Same Morphemes but Different Meanings, and (2) Same Meanings
but Different Morphemes. I do not find similar cases while investigating Thai borrowings
in Chung. If this is the case, I think that investigating ‘semantic differences’ in shared
cognates could be a way of identifying old vs. recent lexical borrowings.

Same Morphemes but Different Meanings
I present here six examples of semantic differences in Chung and Khmer cognates found
in similar morphemes, which have different meanings.
Table 6.11: Semantic Differences between Chung and Khmer Cognates: Same Mor-
phemes but Different Meanings

‘mouth’ t@kaa c@kaa pàak mŏet
‘chin’ t@k7am t@k77m kh aaN cANkaa
¨ ¨
‘husked rice’ s@bEEN s@bEEN kh âaw sǎan PANkAA
‘provision’ — — sàbi@N sbi@N
‘shrimp paste’ kh ii kh ii kàpı̀P kaapiP
‘(tiny) sea shrimp’ — — kheej (?) kii
‘fast’ kh laN kh laN rew l1@n
‘forceful’ — — kh lǎN kh laN
‘orange’ cuĳu — sôm krouc
¨
‘sour’ cuĳu cuĳu prî@w mcuu
¨ ¨
‘rope’ k@saj k@saj ch Ŵ@k ksae
‘rattan’ k@saj k@saj wǎaj pdaw
In the first example, the morpheme for ‘mouth’ in Chung is the cognate of the
morpheme for ‘chin’ in Khmer. But the reverse is not true. This is in contrast with the
second example in which the word for ‘provision’ in Khmer came to mean ‘husked rice’
in Chung. An interesting fact is that, Thai borrowed this morpheme from Khmer but
still keeps the original meaning.
In the third example, there is a word for ‘sea shrimp’ in Khmer which corresponds
to ‘shrimp paste’ in Chung. This is related to the word /kheej/ in Thai, which could be
used to mean both ‘shrimp paste’ and the tiny ‘sea shrimp’ that is the raw material for
making shrimp paste.
However, only the word /kheej/ ‘sea shrimp’ could be used to mean kàpı̀P ‘shrimp
paste’ in Thai, while the word kàpı̀P ‘shrimp paste’ could not be used to mean /kheej/
‘sea shrimp’. This could be similar to the case of Chung, where the word for ‘sea shrimp’
in Khmer became ‘shrimp paste’ in Chung.
The fourth example is similar to the third one, not only for the shift of meaning
from Khmer ‘forceful’ to Chung ‘fast’, but also because of the Thai borrowing from
Khmer that keeps more to Khmer original meaning.
The fifth example shows a case of semantic ‘broadening’ as the morphemes for
‘orange’ and ‘sour’ in Chung correspond to only one Khmer morpheme for ‘sour’. This
is similar to the sixth example in which the morphemes for ‘rope’ and ‘rattan’ in Chung
correspond to only one Khmer morpheme for ‘rope’.
Same Meanings but Different Morphemes
In a restricted sense, the following examples do not show semantic differences, but simi-
larities of meanings in different morphemes. Such examples show the subtlety of semantic
relationships between Chung and Khmer, which is not found in a similar manner between
Chung and Thai.
Table 6.12: Semantic Differences between Chung and Khmer Cognates: Same Meanings
but Different Morphemes

‘major wife’ t@kh @n th eem t@kh @n th eem mi@ lǔaN prApŭ@n da@m
‘minor wife’ t@kh @n ch ooĳj c@kh @n ch ooĳj mi@ nÓOj prApŭ@n coN
‘thunderbolt’ k@th Eh cak k@th Eh cak fáa ph àa rŭ@ntĕ@h bañ
These examples look like a case of loan translation, especially for the words for
‘major wife’ and ‘minor wife’ in Chung and Khmer. The Chung, Thai, and Khmer
languages all seem to have the concepts for ‘major wife’ and minor wife’. Yet they use
different metaphors to present such concepts. In Khmer and Chung, they use the same
set of metaphors: tree trunk for a major wife, and treetop for minor wife. In Thai, it is
the distinction between /lǔ@N/ ‘important; formal; big’ and /nÓOj/ ‘minor; small’ that is
used for distinguishing between ‘major’ and ‘minor’ wives.

Another example is the concept of ‘thunderbolt’ or‘thunderstrike,’ which is rep-
resented in Chung and Khmer as ‘shooting’ of firearms or cannons from the verbs /cak/
in Chung and /bañ/ in Khmer. On the contrary, it is represented in Thai as ‘splitting’
or ‘cutting in two’ by the verb /ph àa/, which is normally used with cutting instruments
like an axe or a chopping knife. In fact, it is semantically wrong to use the word /jiN/
‘shoot’ as part of ‘thunderbolt’ as in Chung and Khmer.

‘wife’ t@kh @n t@kh @n mi@ prApŭ@n
‘(tree)trunk’ kh @neeĳm da@m tôn da@m
‘(tree)top’ ch ooĳj ch ooĳj jÔOt coN
‘lightning’ laac k@th Eh fáa lÊEp rŭ@ntĕ@h
¨
‘shoot’ cak cak jiN bañ
From the data discussed in §6.3.4, it seems that old borrowings (Khmer), if not
shared Mon-Khmer cognates, tend to be more susceptible to semantic change—through
semantic narrowing, broadening, and shift—than recent borrowings. In the latter case,
it seems that the short period of time does not allow for semantic change. Therefore,
one finds just the semantic differences between Khmer and Chung cognates as discussed
here in this section.
From the data presented in this section, I think that the study of semantic change
or differences could be a way of investigating the genetic and contact relationship between
Chung and Khmer. Even Thai borrowings could be identified in such a manner. However,
this method has not yet been applied for the comparative study of Mon-Khmer languages
in terms of the semantic relationship between morphemes in particular semantic domains,
as opposed to the case of Tibeto-Burman languages for which this method has already
been utilized (Matisoff 1978).

CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
This chapter summarizes the change processes in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul that are
regarded as contact-induced language change. From the research findings in this study,
I propose an overall explanation of language change in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul in
the context of their contact history. Apart from that, I offer a criticism of Headley’s
(1985) Proto-Pearic reconstruction, and suggest a modification of Proto-Pearic and the
re-positioning of Chung closer to Chong in the Pearic tree. Finally, I offer suggestions for
future comparative research on Pearic languages based on research findings found in this
study, especially within the context of contact situations in Thailand and Cambodia.
In terms of language structure, Chung Yuy and Chung Yul resemble each other
so much that they should be regarded as two dialects of one language. They differ mostly
on the phonetic and lexical levels as Chung Yuy borrowed many lexemes from the Thai
language. Phonologically, they diverge in the area of phoneme distribution, especially in
the final position. However, if one analyzes the lexicon further, it is clear that, lexically,
Chung owes more to Khmer than to Thai.
Also, the contact situations of both Chung Yuy and Chung Yul are similar.
Speakers of both varieties had maintained their language by living apart from the ma-
jority language speakers. Coincidentally, a few decades ago both groups were forced to
live in the same community with people from bigger ethnic groups, notably Thai in the
case of Chung Yuy and Khmer in the case of Chung Yul. The recent social changes push
both varieties of Chung into the context of language shift. This situation directly af-
fects the younger generation of Chung though it threatens Chung Yuy more than Chung
Yul. A lot of Chung Yuy’s young adult speakers seek jobs in the city while school-aged
Isara Choosri Conclusion / 90
children attend classes where all subjects are taught in Thai. On the contrary, most
speakers of Chung Yul live in their own village and can subsist on rice cultivation.
The linguistic data from Chung Yuy and Chung Yul appear to reflect the more
remote maintenance context rather than the current language shift context. I have
failed to find very young speakers of either of the Chung varieties. This a sign that both
varieties are becoming moribund and are predictably on the verge of extinction.
7.1 Linguistic Changes in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul
In Chapter 5, I outlined different linguistic features between Chung Yuy and Chung Yul.
The results are evident in the areas of phonology and lexicon. In terms of morphology and
syntax, there is no obvious difference that requires comparative analysis. Phonologically,
Chung Yuy and Chung Yul share the same set of phonemes. They differ moderately in
phonetic realizations of vowels in breathy registers. The next significant phonological
contrasts between Chung Yuy and Chung Yul are the distribution of some phonemes in
final position. And it seems to reflect Thai influence on Chung Yuy. However, the loss of
-r was not confined to Chung Yuy or should be interpreted as a result of Thai influence
because Chung Yul and Khmer also lost -r.
Table 7.1: Changes in Phoneme Distribution: Chung Yuy and Chung Yul
Proto-Pearic Chung Yuy Chung Yul

*-r -w ∼ -j; ∅ -w ∼ -j; ∅
*-l -j -l
*-stops / Vĳ -stops -nasals
Apart from that, Chung Yuy tends to simplify in the areas of pre-syllable and
consonant clusters, which appear to show an early sign of monosyllabicity as a result
of contact with the Thai language. The marked phonological feature of Chung Yuy
and Chung Yuy that is distinct from Thai and Khmer—the register system—seems to
be intact from interference from both languages. However, this feature becomes less
marked in Chung Yul where contrast between -stops and -nasals after creaky vowels was
lost. This loss is interpreted as a result of systemic change to make ‘creaky voice’ easier
to produce and more distinct to perceive.
7.2 Language Contact as an Explanatory Model

7.2.1 Social Factors
Using the explanatory model that incorporates social factors and linguistic constraints
together, linguistic changes in Chung seems to fit the contact situation (see Figure 7.1).
Contact between Chung and Thai and Khmer have been more than casual but not so
intensive that it greatly affects the language structure of Chung. The interference appears
as considerable lexical borrowing from Thai, in the case of Chung Yuy, and from Khmer,
in the case of Chung Yul. Moderate structural borrowing is seen in the area of phonology.
Table 7.2: Thai and Khmer Influences on Chung
Influences Thai → Chung Yuy Khmer → Chung Yul

Lexicon Strong Strong
Phonology Moderate Moderate
Morphosyntax Weak Weak
However, long and intimate contact between Khmer and Chung seems to reflect
semantically in Chung lexicon (see §6.3.4). This trace of long and intimate contact
relationship seems lacking in the case of Thai and Chung.
7.2.2 Linguistic Constraints
In general, the markedness distinction refers to the presence versus absence of a particular
linguistic feature. An unmarked feature is one that agrees with the universal tendencies
found in all or most languages; a marked feature is one that is exceptional. Thus, in
terms of markedness, Thai, Khmer and Chung are marked phonologically. Thai is a tonal
language. Khmer has a great range of vowel contrasts. Chung is a register language that
includes both creaky voice and breathy voice. In this respect, Chung seems to maintain
its markedness despite moderately intense contact with Thai and Khmer.
Figure 7.1: Linguistic Results of Language Contact: Chung (Adapted from Thomason
& Kaufman, 1988: 50)
Table 7.3: Thai, Khmer, and Chung Typological Features
Thai Chung Khmer

Yuy Yul
Tonality Register Register Complex Vowels
Monosyllabicity Weak Sesqui-Syllabicity Sesqui-Syllabicity Strong Sesqui-Syllabicity
No Palatal Final /-c , -ñ/ /-c , -ñ/ /-c , -ñ/
No Liquid Final No Liquid Final /-l/ /-l/
Considering the typological distance between Thai, Khmer and Chung, it appears
that Chung is typologically closer to Khmer than to Thai. This is a possible reason for
Chung Yuy to be more conservative than Chung Yul in terms of language change because,
relatively, Chung Yuy is more typologically distant from Thai than Chung Yul is from
Khmer.
7.3 Contact vs. Endogenous Explanations
WIthout contact information, linguistic changes in Pearic languages could not be discrim-
inated from each other as contact-induced or internally-motivated. The most remarkable
case is the treatment of Proto-Pearic *-r/-l, which became -w ∼ -j in Chong. This distinct
treatment sets Chong apart from other Pearic languages (Table 2.4, Chapter 2).
However, from the recent data in Chung Yuy and Chung Yul, it should be noted
carefully that the loss of final liquids is a fast process and could be induced by contact.
On top of that, Chong and Chung data used in the reconstruction of Proto-Pearic
by Headley (1985) present a problem. Chong data were cited from two sources, which
were collected by Huffman (1985) and Martin (1974a) during the 1970s. On the contrary,
Chung data were collected in the 1930s. In a short period of time, /-r/ was lost from
Chung of Cambodia. We do not know when the Chung variety in Thailand lost /-r, -l/
but it should be regarded as a recent change, given that Chung Yuy and Chung Yul were
divided less than 180 years ago.
If we further claim that the loss of /-r, -l/ in Chong could be interpreted as
‘contact-induced’ as in the case of Chung Yuy, it is logical that we move Chong and
Chung closer to each other on the Pearic family tree. The decision whether to put
the loss of /-r, -l/ under ‘contact-induce’ or ‘internally-motivated’ categories can be a
dilemma. Deciding one way or another would result in a different position of Chung in
the Pearic tree. The reason I favor the contact explanation in this case is because it fits
better with the socio-historical context of the language. Besides, putting Chung closer
to Chong in the Pearic tree also agrees with other data (see Table 7.7).
7.4 Further Suggestions

7.4.1 Re-investigating the Pearic Branch
In terms of historical studies, the Pearic languages should be investigated as a whole.
All languages in the branch seems to share a lot of lexical similarities, but they have
diverged sharply in terms of phonology. Syntax seems to be the less criterial aspect for
identifying similarities and contrasts among languages in the Pearic branch.
Strategically, a field-linguistic survey of the whole branch should be done. Con-
tact influences should be kept in mind while doing the survey. Results in this study show
that some changes are contact-induced and might not be useful criteria for classifying
the Pearic languages.
Reconsidering Proto-Pearic Reconstruction
As discussed in Chapters 2 and 6 about the residue in Proto-Pearic reconstruction,
Headley (1985) seemed inconclusive when dealing with the reconstruction of stop series
and Pearic ‘creaky voice’. In these two areas, I would like to offer my alternatives to
Headley’s proposal.
About the reconstruction of stop series, although Headley (1985) did not spell
out that *P *T *C *K were aspirated stops, he implied that there were systematic con-
trasts between aspirated and plain consonants by reconstructing voiceless, or aspirated,
sonorants in Proto-Pearic. The merger between voiceless and voiced sonorants can be
interpreted as in parallel with the shift from Proto-Pearic *P *T *C *K to Chung /p t

c k/. However, it is a flaw in Headley’s (1985) reconstruction that he never specifies the
phonetic values of */P T C K/.
However, if one looks at the PMK consonantal inventory, it is obvious that the
existence of Mon-Khmer */á â/ was not taken into account when Headley reconstructed
Proto-Pearic. Furthermore, if one accepts that there is a distinction between plain and
aspirated stops in Proto-Pearic, which is ‘implied’ in Headley’s reconstruction, the con-
sonantal shift would be an endless loop. There would be a shift from plain to aspirated
stops on one hand and from aspirated to plain stops on the other hand.
Therefore, I propose additional rules for Pearic consonantal mutations that could
both take PMK *imploded voiced into account and avoid the loop of consonant shifting
from plain to aspirated stops and from aspirated to plain stops. Besides, reconstructing
only */b d/ (< PMK */á â/) at the Proto-Pearic level would help explain the existence
of only words beginning with /b d/ in Pearic languages (Headley 1977a,1977b, 1985).
The reconstruction results in Proto-Pearic consonants looking more similar to
modern Chung except for voiceless sonorants (see Table 7.4). However, this reconstruc-
tion is still very hypothetical, and should be tested further by Pearic-wide data.
PMK > Pearic > Chung
(1) *plain > aspirate > aspirate
(2) *voiced > plain > plain
(3)*imploded > voiced > voiced
Figure 7.2: PMK > Pearic > Chung: Consonant Mutation

Table 7.4: Revised Proto-Pearic Consonantal Phomemes
Manner Place
Obstruents Stops *p *t *c *k *P
*ph *th *ch *kh
*b *d
Fricatives *s *h
Sonorants Nasals *hm *hn *hñ *hN

*m *n *ñ *N
Liquids *hr
*r
*hl
*l
Glides *w *hj
*j
I have mentioned in many places in this study that Headley (1985) intentionally
omits ‘creaky voice’ from Proto-Pearic for the lack of any obvious conditioning factor and
of accurate phonetic data from all the Pearic dialects. However, the more recent data
seem to agree about contrastive use of creaky voice. One finds that there are regular
occurrences of /-Vĳ-/ and its variants in many Pearic languages, especially Chong and
Chung, but cannot deduce what it is derived from in Proto-Pearic.
To deal with such problem, one has to starts from a fact that the ‘creaky voice’
is a Pearic-wide phenomenon. Yet it is an exceptional feature if one considers it from
a Mon-Khmer point of view. Reconstructing creaky voice at a level higher than Proto-
Pearic (Diffloth 1989) would be controversial because it conflicts with the majority of
Mon-Khmer languages. But not reconstructing creaky voice at all (Headley 1985) would
relegate a marked Pearic register to limbo. My alternative is to avoid both extremes.
In Chung phonology, more consistently in Chung Yuy, there are occurrences of

creaky voice in open syllables: /-VĳV/. This means we can find the creaky voice both in
open and closed syllables. This structure could be interpreted as an earlier stage from
which the -VP structure in Chong derived. On the other hand, it could be interpreted
as the intermediate stage between /-VP/ structure in Chong and /-VV/ structure (with
falling pitch contour) in Samre of Trat. (For Chong and Samre data see Isara 2002 and
Pornsawan 2001).
Table 7.5: Final Glottal Stop and Creaky Voice in Open Syllables
Proto-Pearic Chong Chung (Yuy) Samre

*tmoP kh @moP kh @moĳo thamoo3 ‘stone’
*tNiP m@t th @NiP th @Niĳi sanii3 ‘sun’
¨
*kleP kh leP kh leĳe khôee3 ‘ashamed’
*poP ph oP ph oĳo phoo3 ‘dream’
In making his case for proto final glottal stop in Proto-Pearic, Headley (1985:465)
also cites Aslian languages, Mon, Lawa, Riang, Khmu, and Mal as languages where -VP
structure is also shared. Thus, he concludes that the retention of proto final glottal stop
is a conservative phonological trait. Looking at Chung data, I see that it is possible to
bridge the -VP structure in Chong and /-VV/ (with falling pitch contour) in other Pearic
languages. In a sense, this make creaky voice a more consistent Pearic feature.
However, it is true that there is no obvious conditioning for creaky voice in Proto-
Pearic in the same manner as in the case of breathy voice. Though I find Diffloth’s
(1989) proposition to elevate creaky voice as a Proto-Austroasiatic feature in conflict
with the fact that contrastive use of creaky voice is a rare case in Mon-Khmer languages,
I think the idea is applicable in the case of Proto-Pearic. Creaky voice could possibly be
reconstructed as a Proto-Pearic feature. In fact, it is hard to prove the Proto-Austroasitic
status of ‘creaky voice’ but there is evidence for Proto-Pearic creaky voice if one looks
at Proto-Mon-Khmer.
The recent publication of Shorto’s (2006) posthumous work A Mon-Khmer Com-
parative Dictionary provides a new opportunity to explore extra-Pearic conditioning fac-

tor for creaky voice in Proto-Pearic. It might be found at the Proto-Mon-Khmer level.
My hypothesis is that the assimilation of non-initial glottal stop into the vowel as part
of monosyllabic contraction might have triggered creaky voice in Proto-Pearic. I was
informed that Shorto himself once mentioned the re-positioning of post-initial glottal
stop to pre-final position in Mon-Khmer languages (Christian Bauer, personal commu-
nication). Anyway, this hypothesis is so far untested and needs to be further verified by
future research, which makes use of Pearic-wide data.
Table 7.6: Proto-Mon-Khmer Glottal Stop and Chung Creaky Voice
Pre-PMK PMK Chung Yuy Chung Yul

*biPaar áaar pWĳW pWĳ ‘two’
¨ ¨
- *punP ph ooĳn ph ooĳn ‘four’
- *cPaap caaĳp caaĳm ‘odor’
- *kPaak kaaĳk kaaĳN ‘crow’
Re-classifying Pearic Languages
Finally, I suggest that Chong and Chung be grouped closer as they share similar inno-
vations. Loss of Proto-Pearic */-r, -l/ in Chung Yuy and Chong is suspect of contact-
induced language change. The same Proto-Pearic treatments *-s > -t and *j- > c- also
put Chong and Chung together. Moreover, if one agrees that creaky voice could be re-
constructed as a Proto-Pearic feature, the study of such a feature in Chong and Chung
would be instrumental for verification of the hypothesis.
Table 7.7: Treatment of Proto-Pearic *j- in Suoi, Chong and Chung (Suoi data from
Headley 1985; Chong data from Isara 2002)
Proto-Pearic Suoi Chong Chung

*ju:m su:m cuĳm cuĳm ‘vine’
¨ ¨
*je:v si(:)v ciiw t@ceew ‘soup’
¨ ¨
*jO:r cher c@j caw ‘sap’
¨ ¨
*jiñ siñ c1N cWN ‘foot’
¨ ¨
It should be noted here that Headley (1985) puts Chung and Suoi together based
on the same treatments of Proto-Pearic *j- > c- and *-r/-l > -r/-l. However, *j- > c-
in Suoi is not consistent at all. Of all the examples cited by Headley (1985), only one
case agree with that criterion, while Chong and Chung are consistent in that area. For
all these reasons, I suggest that Chong and Chung be grouped together (*j- > *c-), as
opposed to Suoi-Samre-Somray (*j- > *s-) and Pear (*CONS > CONS).
Figure 7.3: Pearic Family Tree
7.4.2 Suggested Future Research

A Survey of Pearic Languages in Thailand and Cambodia
With some conclusions established from my study. I would like to suggest that more
studies be done to clarify issues concerning the Pearic languages in Cambodia and Thai-
land.
The most comprehensive work to date on the phonological criteria for subdividing
Pearic languages is still the work done by Headley (1985). It provides a guideline for
historical changes within the language group. However, the data used in that work had
been drawn from various sources recorded at different periods of time. We can advance
our knowledge of Pearic languages, the study of which was pioneered by linguists from
many decades ago, by drawing more up-to-date data from the field. Moreover, more
correspondences of Proto-Pearic forms should be collected from all concerned languages.
Moreover, Pearic survey could be approached from a sociolinguistic aspect. One
may test the mutual intelligibility among different groups of Pearic speakers. Ideally,
mutual intelligibility tests should be done to cover all Pearic languages, as there are some
sources stating that Pearic is a label for a group of dialects not a branch of languages
(Headley 1985 and Martin 1975 for instance). This answer should not only be determined
by lexicostatistics. Mutual intelligibility tests should be devised in order to be more
certain of the situation. Given that the issue of language endangerment is becoming
more significant nowadays, questions on linguistic vitality should be added to the Pearic
survey.
A Study of Thai and Khmer Influences on Pearic Languages
Besides, Thai and Khmer influences on the Pearic languages should be investigated so
that one could understand more about all the Pearic languages that are in close contact
with such dominant languages as Thai and Khmer. This knowledge will be very useful
when one tries to compare the Pearic languages on both sides of the Thailand-Cambodia
border.
Another issue that should be addressed is the comparison of Pearic registers
throughout the branch. If possible, the study should include some languages within
other branches of the Mon-Khmer family, as the phenomenon also occurs in other Mon-
Khmer languages. The outcome of such a study may not only shed light on the question
of tonogenetic development, but may also deal with the question of how bilingualism
influences changes in the system of Pearic and Mon-Khmer registers.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aitchison, J. (1981). Language Change: Progress or Decay? London: Fontana.
Anttila, R. (1972). An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics.
New York: Macmillan.
. (1989). Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Arlotto, A. (1972). Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Arnoff, M. and J. Rees-Miller (2000). The Handbook of Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Baradat, R. (1941). Les Samrê ou Pêar, populations primitives de l’ouest du Cambodge.
Paris: EFEO.
Beekes, R. S. P. (1995). Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bynon, T. (1977). Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.
Chambers, J. K. and P. Trudgill (1980). Dialectology. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge
University Press.
Crystal, D. (2000). Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Denison, N. (1977). Language Death or Language Suicide? International Journal of the
Sociology of Language 12: 13-22.
Diffloth, G. (1989). Proto-Austroasiatic Creaky Voice. Mon-Khmer Studies 15: 139-154.
Dixon, R. M. W. (1997). The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Isara Choosri Bibliography / 102
Dorian, N. (1977). The Problem of the Semi-Speaker in Language Death. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 12: 23-32.
Dressler, W. and R. Wodak-Leodolter (1977). Language Death and Language
Preservation in Brittany. International Journal of the Sociology of Language
12: 33-44.
Dyen, I. (1975). Linguistic Subgrouping and Lexicostatistics. Hague/Paris, Mouton.
Edmondson, Jerold A. 1996. Voice qualities and inverse filtering in Chong. Mon-Khmer
Studies 26: 107-116.
Fase, W., K. Jaspaert, et al. (1992). Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Ferlus, M. (1980). Formation des registres et mutations consonantiques dans les langues
mon-khmer. Mon-Khmer Studies 8: 1-76.
Fishman, J. A. (1972). Sociolinguistics. A Brief Introduction. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
(2001). Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Clevedon: England,
Multilingual Matters.
Fox, A. (1995). Linguistic Reconstruction: An Introduction of Theory and Method.
New York, Oxford University Press.
Grenoble, L. A. and L. J. Whaley (1998). Endangered Languages: Language Loss and
Community Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gussenhoven, C. and H. Jabobs. (2005). Understanding Phonology. London: Arnold.
Grimes, Barbara F (ed). 2000. Ethonologue. Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Hale, K. (1992). Endangered languages. Language 68(1): 1-42.
Headley, R. K. (1977a). A Pearic Vocabulary. Mon-Khmer Studies 6: 69-149.

Headley, R. K. (1977b). An English-Pearic Vocabulary. Mon-Khmer Studies 7: 61-94.
(1985). Proto-Pearic and the classification of Pearic. In S. Ratanakul,
D. Thomas and S. Premsrirat (eds). Southeast Asian Linguistic Studies
presented to Andre-G. Haudricourt. 428-478.
Henderson, E. J. A. (1952). The main features of Cambodian pronunciation. BSOAS
14: 149-174.
Hill, J. and K. Hill (1977). Language Death and Relexification in Tlaxcalan Nahuatl.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 12: 55-69.
Huffman, F. E. (1970). Cambodian System of Writing and Beginning Reader. Ithaca,
NY, Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University.
(1985). The phonology of Chong. In Southeast Asian Linguistic
Studies presented to Andre-G Haudricourt. Edited by Suriya Ratanakul;
David Thomas; Suwilai Premsrirat. Bangkok, Thailand: Mahidol University.
428-478.
Hoenigswald, H. M. (1965). Language Change and Linguistic Reconstruction. Chicago,
The University of Chicago Press.
Isara Choosi (2002). Dialects of Chong. Mon-Khmer Studies 32: 55-70.
Jankowsky, K. R. (1972). The Neogrammarians. The Hague, Mouton.
Johnstone, B. (2000). Qualitative Methods in Sociolinguistics. New York, Oxford
University Press.
Joseph, B. D. and R. D. Janda (eds.) (2003). The Handbook of Historical Linguistics.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Kiparsky, P. (1988). Linguistic Universals and Linguistic Change. Universals in
Linguistic Theory I: 363-415.

Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change, I: Internal Factors. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Lass, R. (1980). On Explaining Language Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Lass, R. (1997). Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Leclère, A. (1920). Les Saauch. Saigon: Société des études Indochinoises. Reprint 2002.
Lefebvre, C. (1979). Quechua’s loss, Spanish’s gain. Language in Society 8(3): 395-407.
Lehiste, I. (1988). Lectures on Language Contact. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Martin, M. A. (1974a). Remarques generales sur les dialectes Pear. Asie du sud-est et
Monde insulindien 5(1): 25-37.
. (1974b). Equissee phonologique du Somree. Asie du sud-est et Monde
insulindien 5(1):97-106.
. (1975). Les dialectes Pear dans leurs rapports avec les langues nationales.
The Journal of Siam Society 63(2): 86-95.
Matisoff, J. A. (1973). Tonogenesis in Southeast Asia. In Hyman, L. M. (ed)
Consonant Types and Tone. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. 71-95.
(1978). Variational Semantics in Tibeto-Burman. Philadelphia: Institute
for the Study of Human Issues.
McMahon, A. M. S. (1994). Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
Universty Press.
Meillet, A. (1967). The Indo-European Dialects. Alabama: University of Alabama
Press.
Milroy, J. (1992). Linguistic Variation and Change. Oxford, UK & Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.
Nettle, D. and S. Romaine (2000). Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s
Languages. New York, Oxford University Press.
Pannetier, A. L. M. (undated). Vocabulaire “Chong” de Veal Rinh (province de kampot,
Cambodge). Manuscrits Europeens No. 211. Paris: Bibliotheque de l’Ecole Francaise
d’Extrême-Orient.
Petit-Huguenin, P. (1905). Vocabulaire du Por [Pear] [Samre]. The Journal of Siam
Society 2: 23-30.
Pornsawan, Ploykaew. (2001). The phonology of Samre. Mon-Khmer Studies 31: 15-27.
Pornsawan Ploykaew (2001). Samre Grammar. Thailand, Nakhon Pathom. Ph.D. Thesis,
Mahidol University.
Robins, R.and E. M. Uhlenbeck (eds) (1991). Endangered Languages.
Providence, RI: Berg.
Romaine, S. (1994). Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sabino, R. (1994). They just fade away: Language death and the loss of phonological
variation. Language in Society 23(4): 495-526.
Sapir, E. (1970). Language. London: Rupert Hart-Davis.
Schlisesinger, J. (2000). Ethnic Groups of Thailand. Non-Tai-Speaking Peoples.
Bangkok, White Lotus.
Seidenfaden, E. (1943). Review of Les Samrê ou Pêar, populations primitives de l’ouest
du Cambodge, by R. Baradat. The Journal of Siam Society 34:1: 73-80.
Shorto, H. L. (2006). A Mon-Khmer Comparative Dictionary. Canberra: Pacific
Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian
Natioal University.
Smalley, W. (1994). Linguistic diversity and naional unity. Language ecology of
Thailand. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Sunee Kamnuansin (2002). Kasong Syntax. Thailand, Nakhon Pathom: MA Thesis,
Mahidol University.
Suwilai Premsrirat (2007). Endangered languages of Thailand. International Journal
of the Sociology of Language. 186: 75-93.
Thel, T. (1975). The Case of Diversity in Cambodian Dialects: Bibliography. The
Journal of Siam Society 63(2): 156-166.
Therapan L-Thongkum, 1992. An instrumental study of Chong registers. In Davidson,
J. H. C. S. (ed) Mon-Khmer Studies in Honour of Harry Shorto. London:
SOAS. 141-60.
Thomas, D. (1964). A Survey of Austro-Asiatic and Mon-Khmer Comparative Studies.
Mon Khmer Studies 1: 149-163.
Thomas, D. and R. K. Headley (1970). More on Mon-Khmer Subgroupings. Lingua
25(4): 398-418.
Thomason,S. G. (2003). Contact as a Source of Language Change. In Joseph, B. D.
and R. D. Janda (eds). The Handbook of Historical Linguistics.
Thomason,S. G. and T. Kaufman (1988). Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic
Linguistics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Trask, R. L. (1996). Historical Linguistics. London: Arnold.
Varasarin, Uraisri. (1984). Les elements khmers dans la formation de la langue siamoise.
Langues et Civilisations de l’Asie du Sud-Est et du Monde Insulindien 15, SELAF.
Wardhaugh, R. (1998). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford, Blackwell.
Webber, K. E. (1976). Ethnographic Notes of the Chong Population in Chanthaburi
Province, Southeast Thailand. Research Paper, Office of the Senior Research

Fellow of the South Asia Institute of Heidelberg University of German Culture.
Weinreich, U. (1974). Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague,
Mouton.
Weinreich, U., W. Labov, et al. (1968). Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language
Change. Austin: University of Texas Press.

APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
CHUNG BASIC WORDLIST
A.1 Parts of the Body

Head
‘beard’ — puk t@k7:m nù@t puk cANkaa
¨
‘cheek’ me:m me:m kÊEm tpŏ@l
¨ ¨
‘ear’ k@l7aN pô@l7:N hǔu trAci@k
¨ ¨
‘eye’ mat mat taa pneek
¨ ¨
‘eyebrow’ — P@nc7:m khı́w c@ñc@@m
‘eyelash’ — t@sok mat khǒn taa room pneek
¨
‘face’ — mok nâa mok
‘gray hair’ sok ph ôuh — ph ǒm NÒOk sOP sk@w
‘hair’ k@sok sok ph ǒm sOP
‘head’ taot taot hǔ@ kbaal
‘lips’ — p@pi: c@ka: rim fǐi pàak mŏ@t
‘moustache’ k@mi:N puk c@ka: nù@t puk mŏ@t
¨
‘mouth’ t@ka: c@ka: pàak mŏ@t
‘nose’ m@ntu:t m@ntu:t càmùuk crAmoh
‘chin’ t@k7am t@k7:m kh aaN cANkaa
¨ ¨
‘teeth’ kh o:j kh o:j fan tmeeñ
‘temple’ (head) kh @map — kh àmàp kAmpli@N
‘tongue’ k@taĳ:k — lı́n PAndaat
‘wavy hair’ sok jik sok ôoñ ph ǒm jı̀k sOP k@ncrañ
Isara Choosri Appendix / 110
Torso
‘anus’ k@Pic k@Pic tùut khuut
‘armpit’ lam paak G@paak rákrÉE ru@nkli@k
‘back wW@N G@w7:N lǎN knoN
¨
‘belly’ kuN kuN th ÓON pu@h
¨ ¨
‘breasts’ th Oh th oh nom doh
‘chest’ k@p7aN Pok t@p7:N nâa Pòk truuN
¨ ¨
‘navel’ kh @loĳ:n kh @loĳ:n sàdWW pc@t
‘neck’ ko:k k@kook kh OO kAA
‘one’s body’ kWp kWp tu@ kluan
¨ ¨
‘penis’ lec lec kh u@j kdAA
‘shoulder’ mli:N sma: làj smaa
¨
‘testicles’ toNkh la:w toNkh la:w kàpòok pooN kdAA
‘vagina’ tu:n tu:n hı̌i yoonii
‘waist’ ban Pe:w c@kih bân Peew cANkeh
Limbs
‘ankle bone’ ta:tum mat cWN taatùm pneek c@@N
¨
‘back of hand’ w7aN ti: kG@w7:N tei lǎN mWW knoN day
¨ ¨
‘calf’ nON pl@PE:k nÔN kAmphuun c@@N
‘elbow’ kh O: sO:k c@kO:j tei kh ÔO sÒOk kaeN day
‘finger’ niw ti: m@G7:m tei nı́w mri@m
¨
‘foot’ ch WN co:p tiin c@@N
¨
‘foreleg’s hair’ — k@sok cWN khonn
ˇ nâakhÊEN room c@@N
‘hand’ ti: tei mWW day
‘index finger’ c@NPaol tei nı́w chı́i mri@m day cANPol
‘knee’ kh oĳ: m@nu:j m@nu:l kh àw cOONkOON
‘leg’ k@lu:N plu: kh ǎa c@@N
¨
‘nail’ k@th aĳ: k@th aĳ:n lép krAcAAk
‘palm of hand’ fà: ti: ph aa tei fà: mWW baat day
Limbs (continued)

‘small finger’ khe:n ti: khe:n tei nı́w kÔOj mri@m day koun
‘thigh’ k@lu:N ph uĳt plu: ph uĳn tôn kh ǎa c@@N
¨
‘thumb’ me: ti: me: tei nı́w chı́i mee day
‘toe thumb’ me: cWN me: cWN hua mEE tiin mee c@@N
‘wrist’ ko:k ti: k@le: tei kh ÔO mWW kAA day
Internal Organs

‘blood’ p@nha:m p@nha:m lŴ@t chi@m
‘bone’ klo:N klo:N kràdùuk cP@N
‘grease’ pot pot man kli@ñ
‘heart’ hu@caj k@ph eĳ:m hǔ@caj c@t
‘intestine’ kuN Pic ph oh kuN sâj pOh wi@n
¨ ¨
‘liver’ lo:m lo:m tàp tla@m
¨ ¨
‘skin’ k@loĳ: k@loĳ; nǎN sbaek
A.2 Mankind
Sex, Age & Kinship

‘aunt’ pâ: m@na:j c@kh 7n pâa Pom srey
‘child’ kh @neĳ:w kh @neĳ:w dèk kmeeñ
‘elder sibling’ (1) ñom sl7N ph ı̂i bOON
‘elder sibling’ (2) kh l7N sl7N ph ı̂i bOON
‘eldest child’ kh e:n paw — lûuk kh on too koun ci@N
‘f. younger sibling’ baot k@mah baot c@mkh 7n nÓON sǎaw Paon sr@y
‘father’ Pu:ñ Pu:ñ ph ÔO P@wpuk
‘grandchild’ cao cao lǎan cao
‘grandma’ j7aj j7:j jaaj y@y
¨ ¨
‘great uncle’ luN m@na:j prOh luN Pom proh
‘human’ (1) cuĳN cuĳN kh on cunci@t
¨ ¨
‘human’ (2) k@c@m k@c@m kh on m@nuh
¨ ¨
Sex, Age & Kinship (continued)

‘husband’ kh @lo:N c@lo:N ph ǔ@ pd@y
‘kinsfolk’ baot kh l7N baot sl7N ph ı̂i nÓON bOON pPaon
‘lad’ k@mlOh k@mlOh nùm proh
‘little child’ — kh @neĳ:w k@kic dèk lék koun touc
‘maiden’ k@mah k@mah sǎaw krAmom
‘m. younger sibling’ baot k@mlOh baot c@mlo:N nÓON ch aaj Paon prOh
‘man’ camlo:N camlo:N ph ûuch aaj prOh
‘maternal grandpa’ mo:N ja: taa taa
¨
‘major wife’ t@kh @n th eim t@kh @n th eim mi@ lǔaN prApu@n da@m
‘middle child’ kh e:n k@na:j — lûuk kh on klaaN —
‘minor wife’ t@kh @n ch oĳ:j c@kh @n ch oĳ:j mi@ nÓOj prApŭ@n coN
‘mother’ me: me: mÊE mae
¨ ¨
‘mother’s sister’ ná: puu náa puu
‘nephew’ la:n kh@mo:j lǎan kmouy
‘offspring’ kh e:n kh e:n lûuk koon
‘older brother’ ñom k@mlOh sl7N c@mlo:N ph ı̂i ch aaj bAAN proh
‘older sister’ ñom mah sl7N c@mkh 7n ph ı̂i sǎaw bAAN srey
‘orphan’ kh e:n k@mph ra: kh e:n k@mph ra: lûuk kamph ráa kampraa
‘paternal grandma’ jâ: j7:j jâa y@y
‘paternal grandpa’ pù: taa pùu taa
‘son-/daughter-in-law’ kh e:n s@mO:k koun pr@sa: lûuk sàph áj koun prAsaa
‘uncle’ Pa: mW: Paa Pom proh
‘wife’ t@kh @n c@kh @n mi@ prApu@n
‘woman’ camkh @n camkh @n ph ûujı̌N sr@y
‘younger sibling’ baot baot nÓON p@Paon
‘youngest child’ kh e:n kic kh e:n paw lûuk kh on lék koun pau
A.3 Foodstuffs
Food & Drink
‘alcohol’ kô7añ kô7:ñ lâw sraa
¨ ¨
‘bean’ k@ta:k s@ndaek th ù@ sAndaek
‘chili’ k@ti:t p@ti:t ph rı́k mteh
¨ ¨
‘cooked rice’ jaN claN kh âaw sùk baay
‘dessert’ nom nom kh ànǒm nom
‘husked rice’ s@bE:N s@bE:N kh âaw sǎan PANkAA
‘porridge’ kOĳ:c kOĳ:ñ kh âaw tôm BAbAA
‘raw’ we:N we:N dı̀p chaw
¨ ¨
‘rice snack’ bu:ñ bu:ñ kh âaw mâw P@mbok
‘round rice noodle’ nom b@cok nom b@cok kh ànǒm ciin nom b@cok
‘salt’ lOk lok klW@ P@mbel
‘shrimp paste’ kh i: ki: kàpı̀P kaapiP
¨
‘soup’ ci:w ce:w kEEN s@mlOO
¨ ¨
‘sugar’ t@kO@ c@kO@ námtaan skOO
Cooking & Utensils

‘chopping board’ kh i@N côoñ kh ı̌@N croñ
‘cook food’ th Om ci:w th Om t@ce:w th am kàp kh âaw tw@@ mhoop
¨ ¨
‘cook rice’ th Om jaN th Om claN hǔNkh âaw dam baay
‘cooked’ ch iĳ:n ch iĳ:n sùk cP@n
‘roast’ caN caN jâaN PAN
¨ ¨
‘scald’ lu@k — lû@k rAli@k
‘earthen pot’ kEh th eĳ: kEh th eP mÔO din cnaN d@y
‘firewood’ Pu:t Pu:t fWWn Poh
‘knife’ caĳ:t caĳ:n mı̂t kOmp1t
‘mortar’ kh rók t@kh o: kh rók tbal
‘pestle’ k@hi: kô@hi: sàak PANrae
Cooking & Utensils (continued)

‘pointed knife’ caĳ:t luj caĳ:n luj mı̂t lĚEm sruac
¨ ¨
‘pot’ kEh kEh mÔO cnaN
‘stove’ taw th Om jaN p@nWĳm taw ch@@Nkraan
¨
‘water dipper’ p@tej t7ak p@t7l kh ǎn nám ptel
¨
A.4 Animals
Animal Names
‘ant’ suĳ:c suĳ:ñ mót srAmaoc
‘armadillo’ m@ñu:j m@ôu:l lı̂n —
‘barking deer’ laot laot kêeN sat kdan
‘bat’ kh re:n p@ci@w kh áaNkh aaw prAci@w
‘bear’ k@w7aj suĳ:t ô@w7:j suĳ:n mı̌i khlaa kmum
¨ ¨
‘bedbug’ saNkWt saNkWt rŴ@t saNka@c
‘bee’ p@N7am p@N7:m ph ŴN kmum
¨ ¨
‘Berdmore’s ground squirrel’ k@cÔn k@Nhe:n kràcÔOn kANhaen
‘bird’ ch iĳ:m ch iĳ:m nók sat slaap
‘buffalo’ k@pa:w k@pa:w kh waaj krAb@y
‘butterfly lizard’ c7at — jÉE ci@h
¨
‘caterpillar’ t@koĳ: t@koĳ; bûN daek PANruh
‘cattle’ ku: ko: wu@ koo
‘chameleon’ cuĳ:p cuĳ:m kı̂Nkàa bANku@y
¨ ¨
‘chicken’ lE:k lE:k kàj mŏen
‘chicken coo’ lE:k te:w lE:k te:w kàj kh ǎn mŏen rONi@w
¨ ¨
‘cicada’ c@kriĳ:t caNôet cı̂Nrı̀it rei
‘civet’ ch @mot kh uĳj ch ámót chmuh
‘cockroach’ ki:t w7:k m@lEENsàap kAnlaat
¨ ¨
‘crab’ kh aĳ:m th aĳ:m puu kdaam
‘crocodile’ t@ke: l@ko: c@r@kh êe krAp@@
¨ ¨
Animal Names (continued)

‘crow’ kaĳ:k kaĳ:N Pii kaa kPaek
‘deep elephant’s cry’ k@da:j cuP — ch áaNrÓON sı̌@N jàj —
‘deer’ ceĳ:t ceĳ:n kwaaN pr@@h
‘dog’ ch o: ch o: mǎa ckae
‘domestic bull’ ku: taN ko: taN wu@ bâan koo srok
‘dove’ ch iĳ:m t@k7j ch iĳ:m t@k7: nók kh ǎw lOlOOk
‘duck’ NW@N N7:N pèt ti@
‘earthworm’ luĳj c@nle:n sâjdW@n cŭ@n leen
¨
‘eel’ mlu:N mlu:N plaa laǎj PAntŭ@N
¨ ¨
‘egret’ ch iĳ:m ôO:k kok nók jaaN kok
‘elephant’ k@da:j k@da:j ch áaN dAmrey
‘female buffalo’ k@pa:w c@kh @n k@pa:w c@kh @n kh waaj tu@ mia krAb@y ñii
‘fish’ meĳ:w meĳ plaa tr@y
¨ ¨
‘flea’ k@th eĳ: k@th eĳ; hèp dANkae
‘fly’ k@lu:j ôuj málEENwan ruy
‘frog’ kuĳ:p kuĳ:m kòp kANkaep
‘gaur’ k@ti:N — kràth iN dANk@w
¨
‘gecko’ tukkE: tokkE: túkkEE tokkae
‘gibbon’ j7aN to:c ch ánii tooc
¨
‘gnat’ sOP soc rı́n srAma@l
‘hawk’ kh laĳ:N kh laĳ:N jı̀@w rOPaat yĕ@P
‘hornbill’ ch iĳ:m t@kh e:N ch iĳ:m k@kh e:N nók NŴ@k —
‘hornet’ PO:N PO:N tÒO Poumal
‘horse’ sEh sEh máa seh
‘langur’ wa: Pu: wa: Pu: kh âaN swaa kreh
‘leech’ ph leĳ:m ph leĳ:m th âak ti@k
‘louse’ ch i: ch ei hǎw cay
‘male buffalo’ k@pa:w k@lo:N k@pa:w k@lo:N kh waaj tu@ ph ûu krAb@y chmool
¨ ¨
‘millepede’ k@tu:j k@tu:j kı̂NkWW mr@@m prĕ@h
¨ ¨
‘mongoose’ ph aNph O:n s@ka: ph aNph OOn skaa
‘monitor’ pôi: t@ko:t tàkù@t trAku@t
‘monkey’ wa: wa: liN swaa

‘mice’ kh Oĳ:n kh Oĳ:n nǔu kAndao
‘mosquito’ kh oĳ:t kh oĳ:n juN muh
‘myna’ ch iĳ:m Pi@N c@ka: kE:w nók Pı̂@N saarePkaa krAb@y
‘otter’ nâ:k ph e: nâak phee
‘owl’ ch iĳ:m m@pok ch iĳ:m me:m nók hûuk mĕ@N
¨
‘parrot’ ch iĳ:m kE:w ch iĳ:m kE:w nók kÊEw seik
‘pig’ kôok cGok mǔu cruuk
¨ ¨
‘porcupine’ kh u: s@ma: p@ma: mên prAmma
‘prawn’ ku:Npou p@kO:N kûNjàj bANkAAN
‘puffing frog’ hi:N hi:N PẀNPàaN hiiN
‘python’ p@si: ch e:m p@si: ch e:m Nuu lW̌@m pŭ@h thlaan
‘rabbit’ k@tO:N tu@nsa:j kràtàaj tu@nsaaj
¨
‘red ant’ suĳc k@su: suĳñk@su: mót dEEN PANkrAAN
‘rhino’ k@m7at G@m7:t rÊEt rOmi@h
¨ ¨
‘scorpion’ k@ja: kh ña: málEENpÒON khtu@y
‘scratchy ant’ suĳ:c l@ki:t suĳ:ñ jo:n mót kh an srAmaoc phl@@N
‘shellfish’ ôaw ôaw hǑj kyAAN
‘shrimp’ ku:N ku:N kûN kAmp1h
‘skink’ cuNle:n kh OPGo:N cı̂Nlěen thlaen
‘small frog’ k@keĳ:p c@nce:k kh ı̀@t kañcañceik
‘snake’ p@si: p@sei Nuu pŭ@h
‘soft-shelled turtle’ l@ph a: l@ph a: t@ph âap kAnthi@y
‘spotted tiger’ k@w7aj k@bo:N ô@w7:j t@mbo:N sW̌@ daaw khlaa lmuN
¨ ¨
‘squirrel’ ph ôO:k ph GO:k kràrÔOk kAmprok
‘tadpole’ kh e:n POt kh e:n kuĳ:m lûuk PÓt koun kPok
‘tattletale bird’ lE:k kh @luk — nók kàpùut kAmpuN
‘termite’ th eĳ: kh lW@t — plù@k kAndi@
‘tiger’ k@w7aj G@w7:j sW̌@ khlaa
¨ ¨

‘toad’ ôOk kiNkok kh aaaNkh ók kiiNkŭ@P
‘treeshrew’ th @naĳ: k@Nhaen kràtEE kAnth@k
‘turtle’ k@ja:N k@ja:N tàw PAnda@k
‘wasp’ th uĳ: th uĳ; tEEn sraN
‘water leech’ pliN piĳ; pliN chl@@N
‘water monitor’ c@kôaN k@tGaN hı̂@ tŭ@nsAAN
¨ ¨
‘wild bull’ ku: pôi: ko: pôi: wu@ pàa koo prey
¨ ¨
‘wood warbler’ ch iĳ:m ôEc ch iĳ:m ôEc nók kracı̀p caap d@Nk@w
‘worm k@li: t@kOĳ; nǑOn dANk@w
Animal Parts & Products

‘barking deer’s meat’ cu:c laot cu:c laot nẂ@ kêeN saic kdan
¨ ¨
‘cock’s spur’ dW@j lE:k sdal lE:k dW@j kàj chnal mŏ@n
‘egg’ toN toN kh àj pOON
‘feather’ k@sok t@sok kh ǒn slaap
‘fish scale’ t@klet miĳ:n t@ka: meĳ; klèt plaa srAkaa
‘gill’ NW@k miĳ:n s@k7j NẀ@k plaa srAk@y
‘horn’ kôooc côooc kh ǎw snaeN
‘meat’ cu:c cu:c nẂ@ saic
¨ ¨
‘peck’ tu:k kaĳ:n cı̀k c@k
‘shell’ k@dO:N snu:k kràdOON snouk
‘spoiled egg’ toNlE:k pok toNlE:k pok kh àjnâw pOON sPoy
‘sting’ (n.) k@nuĳj p@N7am t@nuc lèknaj trOnic
¨ ¨ ¨
‘sting’ (v.) tu:c tu:c tÒj t1c
¨ ¨
‘tail’ ph at ph at hǎaN kAntuy
‘tusk’ Na: ph lOk k@da:j Naa phluk
‘wax’ ph loĳ:m ph loĳ:m kh ı̂i ph ŴN krAmu@n khmum
‘wing’ kh@laĳ:m sla:p pı̀ik slaap
A.5 The Geological World

Natural objects

‘chicken stars’ p@som kh e:n lE:k p@som kh e:n lE:k daaw lûuk kàj pkaay koun mŏ@n
‘comet’ p@som ph at p@som k@ntuj daaw hǎaN pkaay doh kAntuy
‘dust’ ph oN k@kO: ph ǒN phAN
‘earth’ th eĳ: th eĳ; din d@y
‘moon’ ka:N ka:N ph ráP can khae
‘mud’ ploĳ:k ploĳ:N kh loon phŭ@P
‘sand’ th eĳ: sa:j k@l7:N saaj ksaac
¨
‘shooting star’ p@som k@lak p@som k@lWĳN daaw tòk pkaay tlĕ@P
¨ ¨
‘sky’ ju:j ju:l fáa meek
‘star’ p@som p@som daaw pkaay
‘stone’ kh @moĳo th @mOĳ; hı̌n tmAA
‘sun’ th @Niĳ: th @Niĳ; tàwan Paat1t
‘sunlight’ th @Niĳ: th @Niĳ; dÈEt tNay
‘water’ t7ak t7:k nám t1k
¨ ¨
Natural phenomena

‘blow’ ph at wWt ph át bAk phlŏ@t
¨
‘clear water’ t7ak saj t7:k k@tiĳN nám sǎj t1k thlaa
¨ ¨
‘cloud’ mO:k p@pO:k mêek pOpOOk
‘complete moon’ ka:N kla:N dW@n peñ ph ŕaP can tem du@N prĕ@h can p1ñ wu@N
‘dark’ s@Neĳ:t s@Neĳ:n mŴWt NON1t
‘dew’ námkh á:N t7:k P@ns7:m námkh áaN sAnsa@m
¨
‘hail’ lu:k hep prWl lûuk hèp pr1l
‘lightning’ lW@c lWĳñ fáalÊEp rŭ@ntĕ@h
¨ ¨
‘mist’ Pic me:k Pap mÒOk Pap
‘muddy water’ t7ak lWĳ: t7:k lWĳ; nám kh ùn t1k lPAk
¨ ¨
‘rain’ k@m7ĳ: k@m7ĳ; fǒn pliaN
¨
‘rain falls’ k@m7ĳ: cOh k@m7ĳ; cOh fǒn tòk tlĕ@P pli@N
¨ ¨
Natural phenomena (continued)

‘rain stops’ k@m7ĳ: jút k@m7ĳ; G7N fǒn jùt pli@Nrĕ@N
¨ ¨
‘rainbow’ ruN th aĳ:j t7ak Penthĕ@Pnu: rúNkin nám Penthĕ@Pnuu
¨
‘receding water’ t7ak kôak t7:k G7N nám hÊEN t1k sNu@t
¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
‘moon rises’ ka:N kh Wp ph Ot ka:Nô7h ph ŕaP can kh Ŵn khae rĕ@h
‘storm’ ph a:juP k@saĳl tak ph aajúP pyuh
‘thunder’ k@th Eh j7am k@th Eh fáa rÓON meekĕ@Pni@t
¨
‘thunderbolt’ k@th Eh cak k@th Eh cak fáa ph àa rŭ@ntĕ@h bañ
‘vortex’ t7ak won nám won t1k wŭ@l
¨
‘waxing moon’ kh a:NrE:m ka:Nô@no:c kh âaNrEEm rOnooc
‘wind’ kh @jaĳ:j k@saĳl lom kyAl
‘wind blow’ kh @jaĳ:j pat k@saĳl wWt lom ph át
¨ ¨ ¨
Landscape

‘beach’ ha:t ch nei hàat cnei
‘canal’ kh lO:N kh lO:N kh lOON st@N
‘cave’ th âm tô@po:k th âm ruuN pnom
¨
‘forest’ pôi: pôi: pàa pr1y
¨ ¨
‘hole’ k@po:k tG@po:k ruu ruuN
¨ ¨
‘jungle’ mWĳt — doN pr1y lbAh
¨
‘marsh’ bWN b7N bWN b@N
‘mote’ kh u: t7ak kh u: kh uu nám khuu
¨
‘mountain’ no:N no:N kh ǎw phnom
¨ ¨
‘mountain summit’ ch oĳ:j no:N ch oĳ:j no:N jÔOt kh ǎw k@mpoul
¨ ¨
‘mud’ k@lu:N ploĳ:N kh loon phOk
‘path’ kh ra: kh ôa: th aaN pl@1w
‘pit’ he:w — hěew croh
‘pond’ klaw t@sôaP nǑON b@N
‘rapids’ kE:N — kÈN prAcaeN
Landscape (continued)

‘riverbank’ t@liN ke:m tàlı̀N craN
¨
‘sea’ th @le: smot th álee smot
‘stream’ hû@j stiĳN hû@j Pou
‘waterfall’ namtok — námtòk t1k croh
Mineral
‘ash’ pOh poh kh ı̂ith âw pheh
¨ ¨
‘dust’ fùn k@kO: fùn thulii
‘gold’ th O:N m7:t th OON mi@h
¨
‘iron’ lèk daek lèk daek
‘silver’ (money) pôak pGak N@n prak
A.6 The Plant World

Vegetation

‘bamboo’ t@kh a:p t@kh a:p máj ph àj rOs@y
‘bamboo shoot’ th WĳN t@paN nÒOmáj tampaN
¨
‘banana’ lo:N lo:N klû@j ceik
‘basil’ k@ph raw — kàph raw mrahpraw
‘betel leaf’ mlu: mlu: ph luu mluu
¨ ¨
‘betel nut’ kh la: sla: màak slaa
‘black sesame’ l@Nu: caĳN l@Nu: caĳN Naa dam lNoo kmaw
‘cardamom’ kh @neĳ:m k@wa:n k@wa:ñ tôn kràwaan k@waañ
‘coconut’ du:N du:N máph ráaw douN
‘cotton’ k@paĳ:t k@bah fâaj PAmbAh
‘cumin’ k@me:t k@me:t kh àmı̂n rAmi@t
¨ ¨
‘custard apple’ th iip ti@p nÓjnàa ti@p
‘ear of elephant’ kh @neĳ:m bO:n Paol tônbOOn traaw pr1y
‘eggplant’ kôOp tôOp makh W̌@ trOp
Vegetation (continued)

‘flower’ paaN Pu:t paaN Pu:t dÒOkmáj pkaa
‘fruit’ ph li: ph li: ph ǒn phlae
‘galangal’ t@mdEN ô@mde:N kh àa rAmdeiN
‘ginger’ saĳ: kh @ñ7j kh ı̌N kñ@y
‘gourd’ doN ô@nO:N bù@p nAnOON
‘grass’ k@tuu stau jâa smaw
‘hairy basil’ liNlak — mEENlák liNlak
‘jackfruit’ kh @nO@ kh @nu:l kh ànǔn knO@
‘Java plum’ ph li: wa: ph Gi:N lûuk wâa priiN
‘lemongrass’ k@bu:t k@bu:c tàkh ráj sl@k kray
‘lime’ kh roĳ:c kh roĳ:ñ mánaaw krouc chmaa
‘mango’ soĳ:k soĳ:N mámû@N svaay
‘melon’ ôuĳ:j ôuĳ:j tEEN taasAk
¨ ¨
‘mushroom’ p@si:t p@si:t hèt ps@t
‘orange’ cuĳ: cuĳ; sôm krouc
¨ ¨
‘papaya’ l@huN l@hoN málákOO lhoN
‘pineapple’ k@ci:N k@ci:n sàppàrót mnŏ@h
‘pumpkin’ k@pau ô@pu: fák th OON lp1w
¨ ¨
‘rattan’ k@saj k@saj wǎaj pdaw
‘red taro’ Paoj k@me:t — ph Ẁ@k hǔ@ dEEN —
¨
‘resin’ c@w c@w jaaN cO@
¨ ¨
‘rice’ ha:j ha:l kh âaw sr@w
‘root’ ôi:t ôi:t râak r1h
¨ ¨
‘sapodilla’ l@mut — lámút lmut
‘seed’ ch ak ch ak málét kroep
‘sesame’ l@Nu: l@Nu: Naa lNoo
‘star apple’ mafW@N ch @pW: máfW@N sp11
‘sugarcane’ k@pu: c@pou PÔOj PAmpou
¨
‘tamarind’ Pumpi:n Pumpi:l mákh ǎam P@mp1l
¨ ¨
Vegetation (continued)

‘taro’ Paoj toN kôWp Paol ph Ẁ@k traaw
‘thatch’ No:n No:n jâa kh aa sb@w
‘thorn’ k@lWĳ: cô@lWĳ; nǎam bAnlaa
¨ ¨
‘tree’ kh @neĳ:m Pu:t da@m Pu:t tônmáj da@m ch@@
‘tree bark’ t@kOĳ: Pu:t t@kOĳ; Pu:t plẀ@k máj sAmbAAk ch@@
‘tree branch’ kiN Pu:t me:k Pu:t kı̀Nmáj mEEk ch@@
‘tree leaf’ kh @laP Pu:t ch @laĳ: baj máj sl@k ch@@
‘treetop’ ch oĳ:j ch oĳ:j jÔOt coN
‘tuber’ Paoj Paol ph Ẁ@k traw
‘vine’ cuĳm cuĳm th ǎw wŏ@l
¨ ¨
‘water melon’ P@lOP P@lOP tEENmoo P@lOP
‘white sesame’ l@Nu: k@pôu:N l@Nu: k@pGu:N Naa kh ǎaw lNoo sAA
¨ ¨
‘wild yam’ m@ñ7a k@tu:c klOOj ktouc
¨
‘wood’ Pu:t Pu:t máj ch@@
‘young tamarind’ Pumpi:n ph uĳt Pumpi:l ph uĳn mákh ǎam PÒOn P@mp1l kc@y
¨ ¨
‘Zingiber montanum’ plaj plaj ph laj pAnlay
¨ ¨
Agriculture

‘bran’ k@laĳ:m l7k ram kh âaw kAntŭ@P
‘dry rice’ ha:j ba: ha:l ba: kh âaw râj sr@w cAmkaa
‘dry ricefield’ ba:j ba: râj cAmkaa
‘drying rice’ ch Eh ha:j ch Eh ha:l tàak kh âaw haal sr@w
‘ear of paddy ru@N ha:j ko: ha:l ru@Nkh âaw ku@ sr@w
‘earthen dyke’ p@nWp kôE: ph lW: kh an naa phl11 srae
‘field’ th ûN w7:l th ûN wi@l
‘fishhook’ ph i:N ph i:N bèt sAntuuc
‘flail paddy’ po:t ha:j po:t ha:l nû@t kh âaw bAñcŏ@n sr@w
‘garden’ su@n c@ba: sǔ@n cbaa
‘harrow’ kh râ:t ô7t kh râ:t rOnŏ@h
¨
‘hoe’ cOOp swaak cÒOp cAAp
Agriculture (continued)

‘handheld fish trap’ k@n7aN k@n7:N kh ánaaN cni@N
¨ ¨
‘harvest’ ki:w ki:w ha:l kı̀@w crout
¨ ¨
‘hay’ k@nWĳN ch @nWĳN faaN cAmba@N
¨ ¨
‘husk’ s@Naĳ:m ch @Naĳ:m klÈEp PANkAAm
‘husked rice’ s@bE:N s@bE:N kh âaw plẀ@k P@NkAA
‘mow’ ôu:c ôu:c th ǎaN ckaa
¨ ¨
‘plant’ ch aoj ch aol plùuk dam
‘plant rice’ ch aoj ha:j ch aol ha:l plùuk kh âaw dam sr@w
‘plant rice seedling’ k@tu:N ha:j s@tu:N ha:l dam kh âaw stuuN sr@w
¨ ¨
‘plow ricefield’ pecau kôE: pecau sôE: th ǎj naa pcu@ srae
‘pound rice’ ch o:k ha:j ch o:k ha:l tam khâaw bok sr@w
‘rice’ ha:j ha:l kh âaw sr@w
‘rice seedling’ s@mna:p s@mna:p tôn klâa sAmnaap
‘rice stack’ k@dom ha:j — lOOm kh âaw pumnuuk sr@w
‘ricefield’ kôE: sôE: naa srae
‘ripening rice’ ha:j pi:N ha:j pi:N kh âaw kÈE sr@w p1ñ
‘root out grass’ ph Ok k@tu: k@tGak st7u th ǑOn jâa baoc smaw
‘sickle’ k@ni:w k@ni:w kh i@w kAndi@w
¨ ¨
‘sow rice seedling’ ph ôWh ha:j ph ôWh ha:l wàan kh âaw pri@c PANkaam
‘sticky rice’ ha:j l@mi:p ha:l l@mi:p kh âaw nı̌@w baay dAmna@p
‘unhusked rice’ ha:j t@koĳ: ha:l t@koĳ kh âaw plẀ@k sr@w
‘weed out’ th u: k@tu: ôu:c th ǎaN jâa cumrĕ@P smaw
¨
‘winnow’ ku:m ku:m ha:l fàt stey
¨ ¨
‘winnow rice’ ku:m ha:j ku:m ha:l fàt kh âaw stey PANkAA
¨ ¨
A.7 Artifacts & Social Organization

Arts & Crafts
‘basket’ c@kôu:k c@kôu:k tàkrâa kañc@@
‘dance’ ôam ôam ram rŭ@m
‘drum’ kô7N kG7N klOON skOO
Arts & Crafts (continued)

‘mold’ pan loñ pân soun
¨
‘rope’ k@saj k@saj ch Ŵ@k ksae
‘spin rope’ pan k@saj wWñ k@saj fân ch Ŵ@k w1ñ ksae
‘weave’ th aañ tbaañ sǎan tbaañ
Clothing

‘blanket’ ph aoj ph aoj ph âa hòm phuuy
‘launder’ ph Oh ph Oh sák doh
‘scarf’ k@pWĳt c@p7:k ph âa kh ǎaw máa krAmaa
‘sew’ ôi:N tei jép dee
‘shirt’ Paw Paw sŴ@ Paaw
‘straight skirt’ k@te:N — ph âa th ǔN sAmpŭ@t sAmloy
¨
‘trousers’ ka:Nke:N kh aw kaaNkeeN khaw
Personal care & adornment

‘bathe’ hu:m t7ak hu:m t7:k Pàap nám Nuut t1k
¨ ¨
‘hat’ mu:k mu:k mù@k mu@k
‘necklace’ si: sÔj se: k@ko:k sÔj ksae sAAy
‘ring’ k@ncE:n P@ncE:n wĚEn c1ñci@n
‘wash’ ô7ap ô7:p láaN li@N
¨ ¨
‘wash hand’ r7ap ti: ô7:p tei láaNmWW li@N day
¨ ¨
Dwelling

‘area below house’ kOP taN — tâj th ǔn kraom pti@h
‘door’ ôu:k taN mok tGo:k pràtuu twi@
‘dust the house’ ph i:t taN bOh kwàat bâan baoh
‘fence’ k@no:N t@no:N rú@ rbAAN
‘house’ taN taN bâan pti@h
Dwelling (continued)

‘house floor’ ph W:n taN ô@lEĳ:N pẂWn bâan pthay pti@h
‘house’s wall’ — caN taN fǎa bâan rai@N
¨
‘livestock’s pen’ kôuN tGuN láw sàt kruN
¨ ¨
‘mattress’ di:n di:l sẀ@ kAnteel
‘pillow’ kh @n7:j kh @n7:j mǑOn kn@@j
‘roof’ laNkh a: p@loĳN lǎNkh aa d@mboul
¨
‘stilt’ kôaN cGaN sǎw s@sAA
¨ ¨
‘well’ (n.) bOO t7̈7k P@ndouN bÒO nám P@ndouN
Transportation & Navigation

‘boat’ tOk tok rW@ tuuk
¨ ¨
Tools
‘axe’ p@th aw p@th aw kh wǎan pthaw
‘crossbow’ s@na: s@na: nâamáj snaa
‘crossbow arrow’ kh e:n s@na: pôoñ lûuk nâamáj kr@p puuy
‘fire’ pli:w pli:w faj pl@@N
¨ ¨
‘fire burn’ pli:w ph le:w pli:w ph le:w faj mâj pl@@N cheh
¨ ¨
‘smoke’ k@mah k@mah kh wan tsaeN
‘spear’ ho:k l@mpe:N hÒOk l@mpaeN
Social Relationships

‘buy’ ti:w ti:w sẂW t1ñ
¨ ¨
‘jail’ kh 7N kh 7N kh ǎN khaN
‘Khmer’ kh @me:n kro:m kh àměen kmai
Social Relationships (continued)

‘Thai people’ sEĳ:m sEĳ:m kh on th aj conci@t thay
‘village’ k@ch uĳN taN ph u:m taN mùu bâan ph uum
‘work’ ka: ka: Naan kaa
Religion & Superstition

‘burn corpse’ po:t kh @moĳ:c po:t kh @moĳ:ñ ph ǎw sop rumli@y sAp
‘exorcise ghost’ kh ap kh @moĳ:c deñ kh @moĳ:ñ lâj ph ı̌i deiñ kmouc
‘ghost’ kh @moĳ:c kh @moĳ:ñ ph ı̌i kmouc
‘house spirit’ ph i: th ewada: k@da: h7N ph ı̌i rW@n kmouc prAcam pti@h
‘man-tiger’ k@w7aj sW@ s@miN — sW̌@ sàmı̌N sat klaa
¨
‘possessed by ghost’ kh @moĳ:c mu:t kh @moĳ:ñco:l ph ı̌i kh âw kmouc coul
‘trance’ Pa:ôak mu:t soN ru:p nak ta: kh on soN mee Paarak
‘tree spirit’ kh @moĳ:c Pu:t nak ta: naaNmáj —
‘witch doctor’ mO: kh ap kh @moĳ:c mo: ch 7t mǑO ph ı̌i kruu cap kmouc
A.8 Spatial, Directional & Temporal

Place & Object

‘above’ (1) lWN jW:N lWN jW:N kh âang bon khaaN l@@
‘above’ (2) lWNôi: — kh âang bon khaaN l@@
‘big’ paw tak jài thom
‘black’ caĳN caĳN dam kmau
‘blue’ namN@n kh i@w námN@n pO@ khi@w
‘far’ th @NWĳ@j th @NWĳj klaj cNaay
¨ ¨
‘green’ kh i@w baj tAAN kh ǐ@w baj tAAN
‘here’ Pan Pan th ı̂i nı̂i Pay nih
‘inside’ th i: lWĳN th i: lWĳN kh âaNnaj khaaN knoN
‘left-side’ tE:N tE:N sáaj cweiN
‘long’ kuĳN kuĳN jaaw waeN
¨ ¨
‘low’ kWĳ:t kWĳ:n tı̂@ ti@p
Place & Object (continued)

‘narrow’ kic kic kh ÊEp cANPi@t
‘near’ kaĳ:t kaĳ:n klâj c1t
‘red’ N7:w N7:w dEEN krAhAAm
¨ ¨
‘round’ klom mu:l klom muul
‘short’ keĳ:n keĳ:n sân kl@y
‘small’ kic kic lék touc
‘that’ tan tan nán nuh
¨ ¨
‘thin’ k@tiĳN k@tiĳN baaN sda@N
‘this’ Pan Pan nı́i nih
‘white’ k@pôu:N ôWĳ; kh ǎaw sAA
¨
‘yellow’ lW@N lW@N lW̌@N l1@N
Time
‘after’ P@Npo:j P@mpo:j th ii lǎN kraoy
¨ ¨
‘before’ tOĳ:j tOĳ:j kÒOn mun
‘day’ Pa:w Pa:w wan tNai
‘day aft. tomorrow’ mu:j mu:j márWWn khaaN sPaek
¨ ¨
‘day bef. yesterday’ mW@ĳn tW@ĳn tu:n mun t@bo:N waan sWWn ms@l mNay
¨ ¨ ¨
‘dry season’ — ka:N k@mphraN nâa lÉEN rdaw praN
‘dry weather’ lE:N GaN lÉEN praN
‘finish’ le:w le:w sèt cop
¨ ¨
‘late morning’ th @Niĳ; jW:N th @Niĳ; jW:N sǎaj tNay
‘long (time)’ kuĳ:j kuĳ:j naan yuu
¨ ¨
‘month’ ka:N ka:N ph ŕaP can khae
‘morning’ p7aN p7:N ch áw pr1k
¨ ¨
‘night’ kh lEĳ:N kh lEĳ:N klaaNkh WWn yup
‘rainy season’ — ka:N k@m7ĳ nâa fǒn rdaw pli@N
¨
‘today’ P@wan P@wan wan nı́i tNay nih
Time (continued)

‘tomorrow’ waĳ:n waĳ:n ph rûNnı́i sPaek
‘2 days aft. tomorrow’ mu:j tu:n mu:j tu:n márŴ@N khaaN sPaek muuy
¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
‘year’ nWm nWm pii cnam
¨ ¨
‘yesterday’ mWĳ@n tW@ĳn m@n tWĳn mŴ@waan ms@l m1ñ
¨ ¨ ¨
A.9 Quantity & Number

‘all’ Pe:t Pe:t th áNmoòt teaN PAh
‘eight’ k@ti: ô@tei pÈEt pramb@y
‘fifty’ ph ôam saj ph ôam saj hâa sı̀p haas@p
‘five’ ph ôam ph ôam hâa pram
‘five hundred’ ph ôam cu:t ph ôam cu:t hâa rÓOj pram rooy
¨ ¨
‘four’ ph oĳ:n ph oĳ:n sı̀i bu@n
‘hundred’ ôu:j ch u:t rÓOj rooy
¨
‘many’ lo: lo: mâak cara@n
‘nine’ k@nc7a k@nc7: kâw prambu@n
¨ ¨
‘one’ muĳ:j muĳ:j nẀN mu@y
¨ ¨
‘one hundred’ muĳ:j ch u:t muĳ:j ch u:t nẀNrÓOj m@ro:j
¨ ¨
‘one thousand’ muĳ:j ph an muĳ:j ph an nẀNph an m@poen
¨ ¨
‘seven’ k@nu:j k@nu:l cèt prampWl
¨ ¨
‘six’ k@to:N k@taoN hòk prammu@y
‘ten’ r7aj r7:j sı̀p dOp
¨ ¨
‘three’ ph eĳ:w ph eĳ:w sǎam bey
‘two’ p7ĳa p7ĳ: sǑON pii
¨ ¨
A.10 Verbs of utterance, body position or function

Vocal utterance
‘ask’ th a:m srei thǎam sou
‘ask for’ lu:m lu:m kh ǑO som
‘bark’ kae kae hàw pruh
Vocal utterance (continued)

‘blame’ ch e:N p@da:j dàa cee
‘call’ kh i:w kh i:w rı̂@k haw
‘complain’ sO: wok wâa thaa
¨
‘gossip’ kW@ĳw k@Pic kWĳw tô@Pic ninth aa ninthaa
¨ ¨
‘hollow elephant’s cry’ k@da:j j7am — ch áaNrÓON sı̌@N lék —
¨
‘invite’ te:k te:k ch @@n P@ñc@@ñ
¨ ¨
‘name’ k@meP th @mi:N ch ŴW cmu@h
¨
‘order’ sàN — sàN prap
‘sing’ k@mgrEEN c@mGEEN rÓONph leeN cAmri@N
‘sing dialogically’ li:N th @No:t ôe:n ch @No:t rÓON ph leeN —
¨
‘teach’ k@tou th O:k sǑOn bANri@n
‘tell’ kh W@ĳw kWĳ; bÒOk niy@y
¨ ¨
‘tell story’ kW@ĳw m@nuk kWĳ; G7:N lâw nı́th aan niy@y r1@N
¨ ¨ ¨
‘trick’ lO:k kWĳ; k@hak lÒOk baok
¨
Body positions

‘bite’ tap tap kàt kham
‘carry on shoulder’ kra:k kGa:k hàap rEEk
‘close eyes’ li:p mat li:p mat làp taa thm1c
¨ ¨
‘cover with blanket’ ce:p ph aoj ce:p ph aoj hòm ph âa dAnDap phu@y
‘drown’ com t7ak loN t7:k com nám lŭ@N t1k
¨ ¨
‘expose to sun’ ch Eh th @Niĳ: ch Eh th @Niĳ; tàak dÈEt haal tNay
‘fall’ k@lak k@lak tòk tĕ@P
¨ ¨
‘fall down’ Nac Nac lóm du@l
¨ ¨
‘fall into a hole’ k@lak k@po:k k@lak tô@po:k tòk lǔm tĕ@P cŭ@Nhuk
¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Body positions (continued)

‘fall into water’ k@lak t7ak k@lak t7:k tòk nám tĕ@P t1k
¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
‘jump’ lu:t lu:t dòot loot
‘move’ kh @jap — kh àjàp kh@t
‘point to’ ch ı́: c@NPool ch ı́i cANPAAl
‘reach a hand’ jW@t ti: — jı̀@ kh ĚEn sAndouk day
‘sit’ k7j k7l nâN PANkuy
‘soak in rain’ ch Eh k@m7ĳ: ch Eh k@m7ĳ; tàak fǒn haal phli@N
¨ ¨
‘stand; rise’ jW:n / kWt NWt jWWn chOO
‘stay’ k7j k7l jùu n1w
‘wait’ ko:p ko:p kh OOj cam
Body functions

‘abscess’ m@su:c m@su:c fı̌i bouh
‘alive’ ôuĳ:j ôuĳ:j pen n1w rŭ@h
¨ ¨
‘awake’ NWt NWt tẀWn pñĕ@P
‘awaken’ mlWk m@NWt plùk dah
‘blind’ mat s@Neĳ:t kh lao taa bÒOt khwak
¨
‘blink’ k@ph rip mat li:p mat kàph rı́p prOpr1c
¨ ¨
‘blow’ hu: hu: pàw phlom
‘breathe’ m@he:m m@he:m hǎajcaj dAAk dANha@m
‘broken teeth’ kh o:j plak kh o:j plak fan hàk tmeñ bak
‘catch cold’ kat kh @mOk kat kh @maĳN pen wàt pdaa saay
¨ ¨
‘corpse’ sop kh @moĳ:c sOp sòp sAp
‘cough’ ñe:k ñe:k Paj kPAAk
‘drink’ th aĳ:j th aĳ:l dẀWm ph@k
‘deaf’ k@l7aN klak klak hǔu tWN trAci@k tNŭ@n
¨
‘die’ haoc haoc taaj slap
‘eat’ ch a: ch a: kin ñam
‘eat’ (rice) hO:p hO:p kin haop
Body functions (continued)

‘eat greedily’ ch a: lo: ch a: lo: tàklàP rOwı̆@h rOwi@m
‘fart’ ph uĳm ph uĳm tòt phaom
‘feces’ Pic Pic kh ı̂i Pac
‘give birth’ k@sap k@sap khe:n kh lÔOt sAmraal koun
‘medicine’ kh @nam th @nam jaa thnam
‘pregnant’ poN poN th ÓON pha@m
‘pus’ th WN ktuh nǑON ktuh
‘sick’ kat kat pù@j ch11
¨ ¨
‘sip’ hu:t hu:t sót hot
‘sleep’ pic pic làp deik
¨ ¨
‘sneeze’ ca:m k@th aĳn caam k@ndah
‘spit’ ch Oh ch Oh th òm sdAh
‘spit out’ ph la:n sdah kh aaj sdAh
‘stomach-ache’ kat kuN kat kuN pù@t th ÓON ch11 pŭ@h
¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
‘swallow’ klW@ĳk ch @lW:k klWWn leep
‘urinate’ kh luĳ:m kh luĳ:m jı̂@w noom
‘vomit’ coĳ:t coĳ:n Paaci@n kPout
‘whistle’ hu: k@ka: hu: c@ka: ph ı̌w pàak houc
‘yawn’ hW@m t@k7ap ch Na:p hǎaw cNOOp
¨
‘wound’ ph lE: c@na:m ph lĚE snaam
A.11 Verbs of motion

‘accompany’ ch u:n ch u:n sòN cuun
‘arrive’ wu:t Pi:t wo:t maa th W̌N dAl
‘climb’ pa:k pa:k piin prApi@n
‘come out’ ph Ot ceñ PÒOk c@ñ
‘crouch’ mO:p mO:p mÒOp mAAp
‘descend’ cOh cOh loN coh
‘enter’ mu:t coul kh âw coul
A.12 Verbs of motion (continued)

‘escape’ tu: tu: nı̌i rŭ@t
¨ ¨
‘flow’ cao cO@ lǎj hO@
‘fly’ h@W h@W bin ha@
‘follow’ th O:j th O:j taam taam
‘go’ ce:w ce:w paj t1w
‘go together’ ce:w mON sa: ce:w mON sa: paj dû@j kan t1w kni@
‘go under’ lO:t mu:c lÔOt muc
‘hide’ su:k su:k sÔOn lĕ@P
‘run’ kôo:k côo:k wı̂N rŭ@t
‘sneak’ jÔN lu:c jÔN lu@c
¨
‘stop’ jút ch op jút chup
‘submit’ ch u:n Pit ch u:n Pit sòNhâj cuun Paoy
‘visit’ jı̂@m ce:w su@ jı̂@m t1w su@
‘walk’ ce:w th eĳ: ce:w d@@n da@
‘wander’ pleN pleN th ı̂@w t1w leeN
A.13 Verbs of emotion, cognition & perception

Sense perception

‘bland’ sa:p sa:p cẀWt saap
‘cold’ sEP saĳñ nǎaw r@Ni@
‘come’ ôo:t ôo:t maa mOOk
‘delicious’ cuĳ:n cuĳ:n PàrÒj cNañ
‘drunk’ pu:j pu:l maw pul
¨ ¨
‘hear’ saN saN dâj jin l11
‘hungry’ ch W@ĳN cWN hı̌w kli@n
¨
‘listen’ c@Nei t@NE: faN sdap
‘salty’ mluĳ:k mluĳ:N kh em pray
¨ ¨
‘see’ taN taN hěn k@@ñ
¨ ¨
‘Siamese kiss’ cW:j me:m cW:j me:m hǑOm kÊEm thaep tpŏ@l
¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
‘smell’ cW:j cW:j dom h@t
¨ ¨
Sense perception (continued)

‘sour’ cuĳ: cuĳ: prî@w mcuu
¨ ¨
‘spicy’ haw ha: ph èt h@l
‘sweet’ N7am N7:m wǎan pPaem
¨ ¨
‘taste’ klE:m ph lOk ch im phlŭ@P
‘tired’ saj sal nẀ@j hOt
‘watch’ rWj rWj duu m@@l
¨ ¨
Emotion, Mind & Thought

‘angry’ (1) pWĳ: pWĳ; kròot kh@N
¨ ¨
‘angry’ (1) wok wok moohǒo kh@N
¨ ¨
‘ashamed’ kh leĳ: kh leĳ; Paaj Pi@n
‘count’ ôap ôap náp r1@p
¨ ¨
‘dream’ ph oĳ: ph oP fǎn yu@l sb@t
‘fear’ toĳ:N toĳ:N klu@ klaac
‘hate’ kW@ĳj wok klı̀@t sPAp
¨
‘hurry’ ri:p k@hat rı̂ip prAñap
¨
‘know’ kh ah kh ah rúu d@N
‘laugh’ pe:k pe:k hǔ@rÓP sa@c
¨ ¨
‘miss’ ôeĳ:p ôeĳ:m kh ı́tth W̌N n1k rOl1k
‘think’ kh it kWt kh ı́t k1t
‘want’ cWĳN cWĳN jàak cAN
¨ ¨
‘weep’ j7am j7:m rÓON yum
¨ ¨
A.14 Stative Verbs

‘able’ Pi:n Pi:n dâj baan
‘bad’ th Ok b@Wt th Ok b@Wt leew PaakrAP
‘breakthrough’ th @luP ch @luh th álúP clouh
‘broken apart’ pac pac tÈEk baek
‘burnt’ ph le:w ph le:w mâj cheh
A.15 Stative Verbs (continued)

‘deep’ lWĳN lWĳN lẂk cr1w
‘dirty’ sokk@prok k@kwAP sòkkàpròk krAkwAP
‘disappear’ hi:t hi:t hǎaj bat
‘dry’ pah pah hÊEN sNu@t
¨ ¨
‘dull’ th O kh Wĳ@ th O kh Wĳ; th ŴW ti@l
‘fast’ kh laN kh laN rew l1@n
‘fat’ pôac tak Pû@n toet
¨
‘full’ pu:N po:N tem peñ
¨ ¨
‘get; have’ Pi:n Pi:n dâj; mii mi@n
‘good’ b@Wt bW:t dii ci@
‘grow’ tOk tOk NÔOk pOnlOOk
¨ ¨
‘hard’ kaN kaN kh ĚN kE@N
¨ ¨
‘heavy’ Naj Nal nàk tNu@n
‘hot’ th uĳ: th uĳ; rÓOn kdaw
‘light’ (weight) baw cô7:l baw sraal
¨
‘lose’ si@ hi:t sı̌@ khouc
‘meet’ ph op cop phóp cu@p
¨
‘new’ pl7a pl7: màj tm@y
¨ ¨
‘old’ ch @t ch 7t kÈE cah
‘pointed’ luj cô@luj lĚEm srouc
¨ ¨
‘receive’ rap tOtu@l ráp tOtu@l
¨
‘ripe’ pi:N pi:N sùk tum
‘rotten’ pok pok nâw sPuy
‘skinny’ k@ñaĳ; ôkiP ph ǑOm PANkAAm
¨
‘slippery’ t@kh leĳ:t c@kh leĳ:n lŴWn rAlounN
‘smooth’ ri@p ri@p rı̂@p ri@p
‘thick’ pao k@t7k nǎa krah
‘ugly’ th Ok mle:N th Ok mle:N kh ı̂irèe PaakrAP
‘unripe’ wi:t wi:t dı̀p n1w kc@y
¨ ¨
‘used to’ kh 7:j dE:l kh@@j dEEl
‘well-lighted’ mlaĳ:N saĳ:m sàwaaN phl11
A.16 Stative Verbs (continued)

‘wet’ (1) l@Naĳ; l@Naĳ; pı̀@k tOt1k
‘wet’ (2) p@caĳ; p@caĳN pı̀@k tOt1k
‘wide’ pao tOtWN kwâaN tuli@y
A.17 Action Verbs

Manual
‘break into’ wE:k wE:k wÈEk wEEk
‘burn’ tu:t tu:t ph ǎw dot
‘bury’ tOp tOp fǎN krOp
‘carry on head’ tu:j taot tu:l taot th uun hǔ@ tuul
¨ ¨
‘catch’ ch ap ch ap càp cap
‘catch fish’ k@cat k@cat càp plaa cap tr@y
¨ ¨
‘comb hair’ kh e:t sok kh e:t sok wı̌i ph ǒm set sok
‘cut’ po:t pu:t tàt kaap
‘detach’ plót l7t plòt dAh
‘dig’ ch e:w ch e:w kh ùt ciik
‘dip’ cı̂m cô@lok cı̂m cr@lOk
‘dry a puddle’ k@sa:t k@sa:t wı́t baac t1k
‘find’ wat wat hǎa rOOk
¨ ¨
‘fish’ (v) th ON ph i:N tòk plaa stuuc tr@y
‘give’ Pit Pit hâj Paoy
‘gore’ pak — kh wı̀t wŏ@t
‘hack’ kat Pu:t kat Pu:t kh ôon máj kat
‘help each other’ ch u@j sa: ch u:j sa: ch û@j kan cuuy kni@
‘hit’ ph ON ph ON tii wi@y
‘hit each other’ ph ON sa: ph ON sa: tii kan wi@y kni@
‘keep’ PO:n PO:ñ kèp tuk
‘kick’ bo:k bo:k tèP tŏ@t
‘kick’ (frontal) th i:p t7t th ı̀ip thĕ@k
¨
‘kill’ p@nhaoc p@Nhaoc kh âa sAmlap
Manual (continued)

‘lift’ lW:t l7:k jók la@k
‘lotus greeting’ wâ:j ti: c@mp7h jók mWW wâj sompĕ@h
‘pick’ (1) klac leh dèt beh
‘pick (2) c@kh E:p th @pok sǑOj beh
‘play’ klW:t klW:t lêen leeN
‘pluck’ ph ak ph ak kèp beh
‘pour’ k@ph ok — th ee caP
‘pull’ dWN k@hO:t dWN tiañ
‘push’ tat — ph làk craan
¨
‘receive’ kec d7k ráp tOtuul
¨
‘roll in’ mu@n mu: mú@n muu
‘scratch’ kh a:c PEh kaw Peh
shoot’ (v.) cak cak jiN bañ
slap’ th ah t7h tòp tĕ@h
¨
‘snake bite’ p@si: tap p@si: tap Nuu kàt pŭ@h c@k
‘snake strike’ p@si: tu:k p@si: tu:k Nuu ch òk pŭ@h hAk mOOk c@k
‘soak’ ch E: tôam ch ÊE tram
‘split’ ph lW@t ph lW@t ph àa pruh
‘squeeze’ bit / bi:p — bı̀ip cr@bac
‘stab’ ch O:k boh th EEN caP
‘stir’ kh @we:k P@Nôo:n kh àjàw PANruun
¨ ¨
‘suck’ du:t bW:t dùut sroup
‘swim’ wâ:j t7@k lo:j t7:k wâaj nám hael t1k
¨ ¨
‘take’ Paoc Po:c Paw yOOk
‘throw’ k@hO:t k@hO:t paa caoh
‘tie’ kh o:t kh o:t ph ùuk cOON
‘touch’ tEP — tÈP pŏel
‘use’ ch aj pra@ ch áj pra@
‘work’ th u: ka: th u: ka: th amNaan tw@@ kaa
‘worked already’ th u: ka: le:w th u: ka: le:w th amNaan lÉEw tw@@ kaa ha@y
¨ ¨
A.18 Grammatical Elements

‘again’ wic wic Pı̀ik wiñ
‘already’ le:w le:w lÉEw ha@y
¨ ¨
‘different’ th Ok mW@n — tàaN taaN
‘do not’ Paj ... Peh — jàa kom
‘how’ muĳ:j Peh to: m@naj jàaN raj jàaN naa
¨ ¨
‘I’ Peñ Peñ kuu kñom
‘not’ th ok th ok mâj m1n, POt
‘not yet’ jaN th ok — jaN mâj naw m@n
‘same’ mW@n sa: douc sa: mW̌@n kan douc kni@
‘third person pron.’ dak dak kh ǎw koet
‘together’ sa: sa: dû@j kan kni@
‘we’ hE:N hE:N raw y@@N
‘what?’ P@mpei P@mpei Pàraj Pay
‘where’ panih panih th ı̂i nǎj naa
‘who’ P@mih P@mih kh raj nOOnaa
‘with’ mON mON kàp nWN
‘you’ po: po: mWN laok
¨ ¨
Figure B.2: Chung Yuy Woman with Coconuts, a Cash Crop
Figure B.3: Chung Yuy Village Shrine

Figure B.4: A Chung Yuy Former Village Headman
Figure B.5: Chung Yul Language Consultants (2 persons on the left)

Figure B.6: A Chung Yul Father and Children
Figure B.7: Chung Yul Storyteller and Village Headman (left to right)
Figure B.8: A Typical Chung Yul House

BIOGRAPHY
NAME Mr. Isara Choosri
DATE OF BIRTH 9th February 1969
PLACE OF BIRTH Phetchaburi, Thailand
INSTITUTIONS ATTENDED Mahidol University, 1998–2002
Master of Arts (Southeast Asian Linguistics)
Mahidol University, 2002–2007
Doctor of Philosophy (Linguistics)
SCHOLARSHIPS Leturer Development
Ministry of Education, 2002–2005
Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. Program
Thailand Research Fund, 2002–2007
HOME ADDRESS 108/512 Ratanathibet Road
Nonthaburi 11110 Thailand
E-MAIL isara@mapculture.org

2 Isara2007chung

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Isara2007chung

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INVESTIGATING CONTACT-INDUCED LANGUAGE

CHANGE: CASES OF CHUNG (SAOCH) IN

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

COPYRIGHT OF MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY

INVESTIGATING CONTACT-INDUCED LANGUAGE CHANGE: CASES OF

ISARA CHOOSRI 4536432 LCLG/D

THESIS ADVISORS : SUWILAI PREMSRIRAT, Ph.D. (LINGUISTICS), JAMES A.

!"#$%&'()*+%&,$*-(.,/"!!"#012310 4"5": !#6' 4"5"7.89, (0:./) ;*%#<$=>?=)+&<!12@A7"

.B0#< 7A>#' 4536432 LCLG/D

F6<!##2!"#FGHF82 GB=)"*B@*IE : 08 GB?& $%#2>#' #1D*E, Ph.D. (LINGUISTICS), $/20E $..

LIST OF FIGURES xii

4 Chung Phonology and Lexicon 42

5 Chung of Thailand and Cambodia 56

6 Identifying Contact-Induced Changes 72

6.1.3 Residue in Proto-Pearic Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

A Chung Basic Wordlist 109

B Pictures of the Chung People 138

2.1 Proto-Pearic Consonantal Phomemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.1 Chung Consonantal Phomemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

5.1 Differences in Consonant Clusters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

6.1 Proto-Pearic *Plain Stops > Chung Aspirated Stops . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

7.1 Changes in Phoneme Distribution: Chung Yuy and Chung Yul . . . . . . 90

1.1 Place of Chung on the Austro-Asiatic Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.1 Markedness Constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.1 Semantic Domains Used for Wordlist Arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.1 Chung Syllable Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

7.1 Linguistic Results of Language Contact: Chung (Adapted from Thomason

B.1 An Old Chung Yuy Storyteller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

1.1 Background of Study

varying socio-historical contexts, in addition to typological differences in language struc-

language change. It is either motivated by internal factors in the linguistic system or by

of linguistic change due to external factors is contact between languages, or dialects.

of related languages, compared to the treatment of cognates and typological similarities

of contact-induced language change as an area of study that is an indispensable part

In §1.1.1 I will present three complementary perspectives that are relevant to

contact-induced language change, namely, the comparative method in historical linguis-

tics, linguistic-structural constraints on language change, and sociolinguistic history as

a fundamental basis for studying language change.

speakers in Thailand and going back to the original group in Cambodia.

Chung language was chosen as a case study of contact-induced language change.

1.1.1 Perspectives on Contact-Induced Language Change

linguistic change in particular languages.

structuralist-functionalist view of constraints on linguistic interference. And the third is

of a language contact situation.

The Comparative Method and Contact-Induced Language Change

acteristics of different languages (dialects, varieties, etc), or different historical states

of a language. The ‘Comparative Method’ in historical linguistics originated from the

taken from cognate languages to determine whether a historical relationship connects

(a process of ‘comparative’ or ‘internal’ reconstruction).

attested at the present day.

Because the concern of the Comparative Method is to verify historical relation-

methodologically, it has to cast aside contact-induced language change, or to put it fig-

process of reconstruction could begin.

To reconstruct features of a hypothetical proto-language from which all cognate

history of particular languages, where contact often plays an important part.

Structural Constraints and Contact-Induced Language Change

As early twentieth-century linguistics switched from a diachronic to a synchronic em-

of language (typological comparison; or ‘typological linguistics’) and ultimately the uni-

versal characteristics of human language. Language change becomes more focused on

jurisdiction of ‘comparative’ linguists.

in progress, or language change in a progressive direction, as opposed to change in

deriving a proto-language as a single point of reference for apparently diverse attested

A Structuralist-Functionalist view of language change seems to integrate both

!"#$%&'()+%&,$-(.,/"!!"#012310 4"5": !#6' 4"5"7.89, (0:./) ;*%#<$=>?=)+&<!12@A7"

F6<!##2!"#FGHF82 GB=)"B@IE : 08 GB?& $%#2>#' #1D*E, Ph.D. (LINGUISTICS), $/20E $..