Linguistic and Historical Continuities of the Tai Dam and
Lao Phuan: Case Studies in Boundary Crossings1
John Hartmann
Northern Illinois University
One of the most salient and enduring
features of ethno-cultural identity is language. The
Tai Dam and Lao Phuan, just two examples of Tai
ethnic minorities who migrated or were moved
across the borders of Vietnam and Laos and resettled
in Thailand as early as two centuries ago, are
remarkable for having preserved their sense of ethnic
uniqueness. Other Tai groups have similar histories
and exhibit parallel cultural and linguistic
continuities and processes of change: the Lue and
Phu Thai, are two other examples that come readily
to mind. Using the analytical tools of
comparative-historical linguistics, we will examine
one significant set of underlying language patterns
that have persisted in the Tai Dam and Lao Phuan
communities over time, namely tones. This paper
presents a new description determined by Hartmann,
Wayland, Thammavongsa in 2003 of the tonal array
of Lao Phuan from Xiang Khuang, Laos to
complement the analysis of Lao Lao Phuan tones
recorded by Tanprasert (2003) in thirty-three
villages of nineteen provinces in Thailand. The
earlier work on Lao Phuan by Chamberlain (1971,
1975) is examined in light of these new findings. Tai
Dam and Lao Song have identical tonal arrays that
can be traced back to origins in northwestern
Vietnam. Lao Phuan is, in terms of tonal patterns, a
copy of Lao of Luang Prabang, except for its tell-tale
split of the proto-Tai *B tone, which also provides the
clearest marker of enduring continuity between Lao
Phuan of Laos with all of the Lao Phuan dialects in
Thailand. Prior classification of Lao speech domains
by Hartmann (1980) into three regional dialects –
Northern (Luang Prabang), Central (Vientiane), and
Southern (Pakse) – is affirmed but refined by now
calling them “Mekong Lao,” a notion borrowed from
Crisfield (p.c.) as my means of drawing attention to
the uniqueness of “non-Mekong” Lao Phuan. A
cursory summary of some of the historical events and
sociological factors that lend to the persistence of the
language and culture of these two ethnic Tai groups
will be presented. Their “tribal labels” are political
constructs that refer back to historical states that no
longer exist. Still, the preservation of underlying
tonal patterns unique to both groups provides an
interesting “linguistic DNA sample,” showing the
continuity of language and culture across national
boundaries and two centuries of Thai, Tai Dam, and
Phuan history.
In this paper we shall begin by examining the tone systems of
two different Tai groups in Thailand whose origins are from outside
the political boundaries of the modern Thai state: the Tai Dam and the
Lao Phuan. The Tai Dam are confined to a smaller area within
Thailand than are the Lao Phuan. Lao Phuan dispersal throughout
Thailand is quite remarkable for the multiple routes taken by Phuan
groups entering in different waves and settling at numerous
geographic points within the kingdom. A recent Ph.D. dissertation on
Phuan dialects in Thailand, has provided two fine maps reproduced on
the following pages showing the present settlement patterns of the
Phuan in Thailand and the history of their migration into Thailand
(Tanprasert 2003:5,10).2
In his classic study, Linguistic Diversity and National Unity:
Language Ecology in Thailand, Smalley (1994:183) asserts a basic
principle that serves as a way of looking at language similarities and
differences in the Tai language family,3 namely: “tones are crucial to
the ways in which Thai people identify language and dialect
differences.” The number of tones and their patterning in any one Tai
language or dialect is, in fact, one of the tried and true linguistic
methods for grouping or classifying Tai speech groups and
reconstructing part of their language histories from a parent or proto
language. In effect, tonal arrays can be seen as a kind of genetic trail, a
display of linguistic DNA, to borrow a metaphor from biology.
Figure 1
Figure 2
The tone patterns for any Tai language or dialect can be studied by
recording the speech of a native speaker using a word list that was
developed by William J. Gedney (1964) over a period of several years
during the course of fieldwork on over a hundred Tai dialects
belonging to every branch of the family.
Proto-Tai Tones4
*A
*B
*C *D-short/long vowels
Initials (at time of tonal splits)
Voiceless friction
sounds,
1
5
9
13
17
*s, hm, ph, etc.
Voiceless
unaspirated
stops, *p, etc.
2
6
10
14
18
Glottal, *?, ?b, etc.
3
7
11
15
19
Voiced, * m, j, z, n,
etc.
4
8
12
16
20
Smooth Syllables
Checked Syllables
Figure 3. Chart Showing the Splitting of Three Proto-Tai Tones
Conditioned by the Nature of Syllable-Initial Sounds
Tai Dam Tonal History
From Figure 4 below, we can see that the historical
development of Tai Dam tones is straightforward: a simple two-way
split between the original proto-Tai voiceless and voiced initials. The
original three proto-Tai tones *A, *B, *C were bifurcated into six
modern tones. The three tones on smooth syllables found in the upper
row can be traced back to syllable-initial consonant sounds in the
parent language that were voiceless; the three tones on smooth
syllables in the bottom row developed from syllable-initial
consonants in the parent language from voiced initials that were
voiced. The homeland of the Tai Dam is in today’s northwestern
Vietnam, centering around Muang Thaeng, which is more commonly
known to outsiders as Dienbienphu. Tai Dam have since dispersed to
points in southern China, Laos, and Thailand. Most of the descendents
of the Tai Dam in Thailand are called “Lao Song Dam” (literally,
“Lao Wearing Black Trousers”). In addition to what is known from
historical records, we know that the Tai Dam and the Lao Song groups
in Thailand are part of the same common ethnic group because of the
indelible imprint of the same six-tone array in all of the dialects that
have descended from the parent Tai Dam language whose origins are
in today’s northwestern Vietnam.
*Smooth syllables end in a vowel or -m, -n, -Ng, -w, -f, -y.
**Checked syllables end in a final -p, -t, -k, or -? (glottal) sound.
Figure 4. Tai Dam Tones
(Hartmann 2003, after Gedney 1964. See also Theraphan 2003)
A History of Mekong Lao Tones
In my recent work on Lao tones carried out as part of the
project for creating a website for disseminating information about Lao
language and culture (www.seasite.niu.edu/lao), I combed the
published literature for linguistic descriptions of Lao that date back to
the 1960s. From that information, I summarized the descriptions of
Lao tones in graphic form to make it easier to visualize the
development of tone differences from a geographical perspective,
north-to-south. Published data on the three “Mekong Lao”5 dialects
was relatively easy to find. However the descriptions varied and, in
the case of Central Lao spoken at Vientiane, there were two
competing analyses: five vs. six tones. To satisfy myself and to be
sure that the information on the Lao website was correct, I recorded
the speech of two native speakers in Vientiane in August of 2002. My
research confirmed the descriptions of Crisfield (2002, p.c.) and
Enfeld (2002, p.c.). The following charts show the tones of Mekong
Lao: Northern, Central and Southern dialects.
Figure 5. Luang Prabang (Brown 1965)
Northern Lao (5 Tones)
Figure 6. Lao Vientiane Tones
(Crisfield & Hartmann 2002/Enfield 2000)
Central Lao (Five Tones)
Figure 7. Pakse (Yuphaphann Hoonchamlong 1981)
Southern Lao (6 Tones)
What is interesting about the three regional Lao Mekong
dialects is the commonality of a single, un-split tone in the proto-Tai
B column (pink color), the column marked by the first tone mark (mai
ek) in the writing system. The second common patterning is the split
in the proto-Tai C column between the High (blue color) and the
combined Mid and Low Class (yellow color) of initials. The third
shared pattern is found in the DS (dead or check syllables with short
vowels) column, where the split is between the combined High and
Mid initials vs. the Low. The sharing of three patterns of tonal splits
out of five is a strong indication of a close linguistic and historical
connection between these three regional dialects.
A History of Lao Phuan Tones
Missing in the published literature is a solid description of
Lao Phuan spoken in the Lao Phuan area centering around Xieng
Khuang.6 In the spring of 2003, I asked Vinya Sysamouth if he could
locate a speaker in the Lao community in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and
record that person using the Gedney 20-word checklist. His father
succeeded in locating a Lao Phuan woman who had been airlifted
from her birthplace in Xieng Khuang during the war in Laos and
evacuated to a refugee resettlement area near Vientiane. From there
she eventually found her way to the U.S. as a refugee.7 Vinya e-mailed
the recording to me at Northern Illinois University, and I and Kip
Thammavongsa, a Lao-American born in Vientiane, analyzed the
tone shapes and produced the chart below. We were not absolutely
sure if our hearing produced the correct description of the unusual
contour of the “High-Mid Rising-Falling” tone shown in the two
white boxes below. I subsequently e-mailed the data to Dr. Ratree
Wayland at the University of Florida, who did an instrumental
analysis to confirm our impressionistic description. For the time
being, we are in agreement on the preliminary results, but will later
refine the instrumental study by using more data.
Lao Phuan is not a true “Mekong Lao” dialect, but a kind of
Lao nevertheless. It maintains the tonal splits of the three Mekong –
i.e. Northern, Central, and Southern – dialects in two out of three
patterns: column C and column DS divide along the same lines. What
makes it a very atypical Lao dialect is the two-way splitting of the B
column along the simple lines of proto-Tai voiceless vs. voiced
initials, which, as we have seen, is what Tai Dam does across the
entire line of proto tones A, B, and C. This is the singular feature of
Lao Phuan that separates it from other dialects, both Lao and Tai
Dam, and links it to nearly all of the myriad Lao Phuan dialects
spoken in Thailand today that have been described in the work of
Tanprasert (supra). In her study, all eight tonal patterns for Lao Phuan
dialects spoken in Thailand show the same split in the B column. (See
Addendum: Chart of Eight Tonal Pattterns of Lao Phuan Dialects in
Thailand.)
Figure 8. Lao Phuan Tones
(Hartmann, Thammavongsa & Wayland 2003)
This unique tonal split of the B column is the Lao Phuan “linguistic
DNA” so-to-speak, a kind of “Mongolian green spot” that crossed the
border into Thailand two centuries ago and persists to this day.
A Very Short, Preliminary History of Lao Phuan and the Tai
Dam
The historical sketch presented by Tanprasert (supra: 2-4),
relying as it does on the work of Thai historians is woefully
inadequate, revisionist, and nationalistic. I have turned to the works of
non-Thai scholars instead in trying to piece together a more
believable, albeit incomplete, history of these two groups over the
past few centuries.
In his work, A History of Laos, Martin Stuart-Fox (1997:11)
notes, “The Phuan Principality of Xiang Khuang on the Plain of Jars
and the Sispong Chu Tai to the northeast, as well as the Sispong Phan
Na to the northwest, were contested areas which at various times paid
tribute to more than one of the powerful mandalas that sought to
dominate them.” This places the Phuan historical origins at the exact
spot that we identified in the study of Lao Phuan tones in the
preceding section, namely at Xieng Khuang. As was the case with
many other meuang, the Lao Phuan chiefs or chau could, as far back
as the 1830s, exact tribute from upland groups living in the hills
around them, such as the Hmong, Mien, and Khammu (Martin
Stuart-Fox, supra, p.14). The same was true of the Tai Dam chiefs.
The Phuan and Tai Dam princes, in turn, paid tribute to larger meuang
in Laos, China, Siam, and Vietnam at different periods in their known
history. Vientiane exercised suzerainty over the Phuan of Xiang
Khuang during the Siamese ascendancy in the region. Likewise, the
Tai Dam were at times in a close tributary relationship with the chiefs
of Luang Prabang.
It is nearly commonplace knowledge that the early Tai
meuang were often at war with each other and neighboring states over
control of populations and populated areas, not land itself. One of the
instruments of exercising power and for securing borders was a
deliberate policy of “depopulation,” moving conquered peoples out of
and away from contested areas, creating a depopulated wasteland. It
was a kind of pre-emptive war—a raid or pillaging, really—in
reverse: invading and removing the coveted manpower before the
competition could assemble its troops. The Siamese, starting in the
late Thonburi-early Bangkok period were especially fond of this
strategy for gaining and maintaining ascendancy, especially in Laos
and northwestern Vietnam. The forced settlement of Tai Dam, Lao
Phuan, and other Tai Lao groups in Thailand was the result of military
campaigns that were begun toward the end of the reign of King Taksin
of Thonburi and the beginning of the Chakri dynasty and continued
through the reign of King Chulalongkorn. In 1778, Taksin sent his
general, Somdet Chao Phraya Mahakasatseuk (who succeed him and
founded the Chakri dynasty) with an army of 20,000 against Vientiane
over an act of rebellion. Three years later, the Siamese were
“engaged” with Luang Prabang and occupied the Tai Dam meuang of
Muoi and Than. As a result of that campaign, a group of Tai Dam
families were taken prisoner along with other Lao Tai. All were
marched south to settlements in what are now the provinces of
Saraburi, Ratburi, and Chantaburi in Central Thailand. Twelve years
later, the Siamese governor of Vientianne ordered troops into Meuang
Thaeng, the Tai Dam center of Sipsong Chao Tai, and Muang Phuan
to quell a rebellion. This event was followed by the forced removal of
populations; Tai Dam were relocated to Phetburi at this time.
(Burusaphat, supra). In the violent campaign to capture the rebellious
Chao Anuwongse of Chamapasak during the reign of Rama III,
Siamese armies set fire and laid waste to most of Vientiane in 1829
and again moved into Meuang Thaeng. More Tai Dam were taken
prisoner then and similarly moved to Phetburi province, which had
become a kind of reservation, intentionally isolated from contact with
the Siamese in Central Thailand. In 1836, following a rebellion of
three Tai Dam meuang, even more Tai Dam captives were removed to
Phetburi. Uprisings in Sipsong Chao Tai resulted in enslavement of
more Tai in 1838, 1864, and other points in time during the last half of
the nineteenth century (Burusaphat, supra). According to Vella
(1957:787), an estimated 46,000 inhabitants of these frontier and
foreign regions were taken captive and enslaved in Thailand. Under
orders from Prince Damrong, between 1885 and 1889, Tai Dam and
other Lao Tai were removed from depopulated areas and resettled in
Thailand, even though King Chulalongkorn had decreed freedom for
native-born slaves and descendents of prisoners of war when he
ascended the throne in 1868.
Enslavement and Encapsulation: Effect on Linguistic and
Cultural Preservation
The Tai Dam comprised the largest population of the total
displaced upland Tai resettled in Thailand. Following a policy of
strategic resettlement, they were exploited as a line of military defense
to the west of Bangkok, among other dimensions of enslavement.
They were conscripted to drain swamps, clear savannah, dig canals,
and construct buildings such as the royal complex atop Khao Wang in
Bangkok. All the while they were kept physically isolated from the
Siamese majority as part of a deliberate policy mandated by the
government. Compounding this socio-political segregation was the
distinctiveness-cum-separateness of Lao Song-Tai Dam culture. As
the label indicates, they stood apart because of the black garments
they wore. Their patrilineal kinship system further mitigated against
their intermarrying with the Siamese. Moreover, they were not
Buddhists, as were the majority Siamese. The Siamese government
thus was unwittingly complicit in the preservation of Lao Song
kinship communities. Like most ghettoized peoples everywhere,
cultural and linguistic distinctiveness emerges and assumes an
identificational aspect. This was especially true of the Lao Song/Tai
Dam up until the recent past. However, with the construction of roads
into Lao Song areas, the introduction of compulsory education, the
assimilationist policies of the Thai government, and the forces of
globalization, the drift towards Standard Thai speech and
Bangkok-dominant culture is unstoppable.
The case of the Lao Phuan seems to be different in some
aspects. At this point in my reading and research, I do not have
enough information to do much more than to comment on language
issues. Tanprasert’s (supra) linguistic research on the Phuan of
Thailand indicates that their language and culture has been largely
preserved among the group of women aged 45 and older who were
born in the village where the linguistic interview took place, had never
moved, and had no more than 4 years of schooling. The influence of
Central Thai on Phuan speech had thus been minimized. If anything,
they had been influenced by the more immediate effects of contact
with the speech of neighboring dialects, e.g., Lanna, Isan. The
younger generation, however, has received much more schooling,
where the influence of Central Thai is immediate and strong.
Tanprasert reports that the children do not like to speak Phuan with
peers and adults alike. Unlike the Tai Dam, Phuan everyday dress is
not all that identificational, and they are Buddhist and participate in
Buddhist rituals. Intuition tells me that their kinship ideology is not
patrilineal and that they freely intermarry with the Thai as a
consequence. Judging from the fact of their wide dispersal over
nineteen provinces of Thailand, it appears that the Central Thai
authority did not apply the same rules of restrictive and isolated
residence to the Lao Phuan that they did with the Tai Dam. One is safe
in predicting that the Lao Phuan will complete their assimilation to
one of the regional Thai dialects and cultures at a faster rate than the
Lao Song-Tai Dam. In a later stage, their absorption into the Thai
mainstream culture again will come closer to completion than the Tai
Dam, who have historically invested a great deal of political capital in
standing apart from and often in opposition to outside powers.
Notes
1. I would like to thank Carol Compton for helping to improve and
clarify the paper in numerous ways. Any errors that might still
appear in the final version are my own responsibility. Kip
Thammavongsa's assistance in editing the paper and preparing it
for Web delivery was invaluable. Ratree Wayland's instrumental
analysis of Lao Phuan tones from the Lao data gave me the
confidence I needed to complete this project. Without Vinya
Saysamouth's help in recording the original Lao Phuan speech
files, the paper would not have been written in the first place.
Professor Somsonge Burusaphat's invitation to me to be on
Pornpen Tanprasert's doctoral committee provided the original
catalyst. I am grateful to both for the honor. Arthur Crisfield has
assisted me mightily from Laos for the past several years,
providing wonderful insights and inspiration. This paper has
numerous mothers and fathers: I am very grateful to all for their
assistance.
2. I served as an outside, foreign member of her committee. Hence
my intimate knowledge and appreciation of her work.
3. The Tai language family is divided into three branches: Northern
(Tai languages found mainly in Guangxi and Guizhou provinces
in China); Central (Tai language spoken in border are as between
northern Vietnam and southern Guangxi); Southwestern (Tai
languages spoken in parts of northwestern Vietnam, Laos,
Thailand, the Shan State in Burma, and Assam, India (where they
actually died out several generations ago). See the "Map of the
Tai Language Family" in the Addendum. Thai is the official
language of Thailand. Siamese or Central Thai is sometimes
synonymous with Thai.
4. Only tones on smooth syllables are treated as phonemic. Tones on
checked syllables are allotones of tonemes on smooth syllables
because they are conditioned by syllable type.
5. This is a term and perspective that I picked up from Arthur
Crisfield in an e-mail message in 2003.
6. The exception is Chamberlain 1971, where he lists 6 tones:
low-rising; mid-level; low-level; low rising-falling; high-falling;
and high-rising. The splits are: A 123-4; B 123-4; C 123-4; DL
123-4; DS 123-4. The pattern is the same as the simple 2-way
splitting of Tai Dam, which makes his description suspect.
7. In the process of recording her tones, Vinya got her to produce an
oral history of her life centering around the evacuation. This
recorded interview and her pronunciation of Phuan-Xieng
Khuang tones can be listened to at www.seasite.niu.edu/lao. The
tones are found by clicking on "Language," and the interview
under "Others."
References
Burusaphat, Somsonge 1983. Prawat Lae Khwaam Pen Maa Khong
Lao Song [History and Origins of the Lao Phuan]. Saan Phu
Thai [Phu Thai Journal], special issue. pp. 5-14.
Brown, J. Marvin 1965. From Ancient Thai to Modern Dialects.
Bangkok: Social Science Association Press of Thailand.
Chamberlain, J. R. 1971. A Workbook in Comparative and Historical
Tai Linguistics. Bangkok: English Language Center of the
University Development Commission.
_______.1975. A New Look at the History and Classification of the
Tai Languages. Studies in Tai Linguistics in Honor of William
J. Gedney. Edited by Jimmy G. Harris and James R.
Chamberlain. Bangkok: CIEL.
Gedney, W. J. 1964. A Comparative Sketch of White, Black, and Red
Tai. Social Science Review, special publication I. Bangkok.
Hartmann, J. F. 2003. Lao Vientiane Tones. Available from World
Wide Web @ http://www.seasite.niu.edu/lao/tones
Hartmann, J. F., K. Thammavongsa, and R. Wayland. 2003. Lao
Phuan Tones. Available from World Wide Web @
http://www.seasite.niu.edu/lao/tones
Hartmann, J. F. 1980. A Model for the Alignment of Dialects in
Southwestern Tai. Journal of the Siam Society 68.1. pp.
72-86.
Pornpen Tanprasert. 2003. A Language Classification of Phuan in
Thailand: A Study of the Tonal System. Ph.D. dissertation.
Mahidol University.
Smalley. W. A. 1994. Linguistic Diversity and National Unity:
Language Ecology in Thailand. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Stuart-Fox, M. 1997. A History of Laos. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Theraphan L-Thongkum. 2003. The Tai of Muong Vat Do Not Speak
the Tai Language. Manusya Special Issue No. 6. pp. 74-86.
Vella, W. F. 1957. Siam Under Rama III, 1824-1851. New York:
Augustin Inc., Publishing.
Yupphaphan Hoonchamlong. 1981. Lao Pakse Tones. Available from
World Wide Web @ http://www.seasite.niu.edu/lao/tones
Addendum
Figure 9. Map of the Tai Language Family
Showing the Three Branches: Northern
(Chartreuse); Central (Blue);
Southwestern (Aqua)
Figure 10. Chart of Eight Tonal Patterns
of Lao Phuan Dialects in Thailand
(Source: Tanprasert 2003, p. 135)