Pre-publication draft, English version of the

9 downloads 0 Views 975KB Size Report
phương ngữ đó lại không bảo toàn tất cả các phân biệt về mặt âm vị học được thể hiện trên chính tả. Trong hầu hết ..... 'gi' /z/, 's' /s-ʂ/, 'v' /v/ in ESV (e.g. the initial fricative /ɣ/ in gang 'steel', SV cương, OC. *C.kˤaŋ) ..... Ho Chi Minh City: Nhà Xuất Bản, Đại Học Quốc Gia Hồ Chí Minh. ... Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Giáo Dục.
Pre-publication draft, English version of the Vietnamese-language publication “LỊCH SỬ CỦA TỪ CỘNG (共 ) TRONG TIẾNG VIỆT” published in the journal Ngôn Ngữ (“Language”), no. 10 (2018), pages 3-22. History of The Chinese Word Gòng 共 In Vietnamese Mark J. Alves Montgomery College ABSTRACT This paper provides evidence that Vietnamese cũng ‘also’ and cùng ‘with’ are both loanwords of the same Chinese word 共 gòng. 1 However, unlike the standard Sino-Vietnamese reading cộng, formally recognized as a reading of 共 gòng, cũng and cùng were borrowed earlier in the first millennium CE, as shown by comparative data in both Chinese and Vietnamese historical phonology and textual evidence in ancient Chinese and Vietnamese writings. The three distinct tones in each Vietnamese word represent different eras of borrowing in the process of tonogenesis in Chinese. These two grammatical Early Sino-Vietnamese loanwords, likely borrowed via large Sino-Vietnamese bilingual communities, share some semantico-syntactic properties with the Chinese etymon at points in its history. But they have also innovated in various ways since the absorption of earlier Chinese communities into the Vietic speech community after the period of Chinese administration. Thus, this Chinese etymon has status as a triplet loanword in Vietnamese and is an example of the long history of Sino-Vietnamese language contact. These Vietnamese words are also an example of the tendency of grammaticalized morphemes to continue to develop grammatical functions. KEYWORDS: Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary, Grammaticalization, Language contact 1. INTRODUCTION The Vietic branch of Austroasiatic and the Sinitic branch of Sino-Tibetan have experienced language contact for over two thousand years since the end of the historical Văn Lang kingdom and the time of the early state-level Đông Sơn culture. There have been many aspects of Sino-Vietic sociocultural contact, including trade, intermarriage, education, administration, among others. Classical Chinese was the only writing system in Vietnam until about the 1200s CE, when the nativized Nôm (喃) writing system began to compete with and Throughout this article, Vietnamese Quốc Ngữ orthography is used without IPA transcription. It is problematic to use IPA since modern Vietnamese has significant differences among major dialect varieties, and the varieties are themselves do not maintain all the phonological distinctions represented by the orthography. In most cases, the orthography is sufficiently close to the Romanization so that IPA is less crucial for this study. Descriptions of Vietnamese phonology are available online, and for a recent scholarly publication, see Brunelle 2015. ONLY IN THE ENGLISH VERSION Trong bài này, chúng tôi dùng chính tả chữ Quốc ngữ Việt Nam, không dùng ký hiệu phiên âm quốc tế IPA. Việc dùng IPA hơi có vấn đề một tí vì tiếng Việt ngày nay có sự khác biệt đáng kể giữa các phương ngữ lớn và mỗi phương ngữ đó lại không bảo toàn tất cả các phân biệt về mặt âm vị học được thể hiện trên chính tả. Trong hầu hết các trường hợp, chính tả rất sát với bảng chữ cái Latinh nên IPA không có tác động nghiêm trọng đến nghiên cứu này. Những miêu tả âm vị học tiếng Việt có thể xem online một công bố khoa học gần đây, ví dụ, xem Brunelle 2015, phiên bản tiếng Anh.


gradually replace Chinese writing. Such Hán-Nôm writings (Vietnamese language writings utilizing a combination of original Chinese characters and nativized Nôm characters) were finally abandoned in favor of the Quốc Ngữ alphabet in the early 20th century. Between the literary tradition and periods of bilingual Sino-Vietnamese communities, for the last twenty centuries, thousands of Chinese words have entered Vietnamese, and not suprisingly, some Chinese words have been borrowed more than one time. For example, Phan (2013:81) shows how Chinese 墓 mù (OC *C.mˤak-s, MC muH) is the source of Vietnamese mả in the Han Dynasty, mồ in the Jin Dynasty, and mộ from the later Sino-Vietnamese period. Over time, as Nguyễn N.S. (2003:153-155) notes, the status of doublets may show different paths of semantic evolution. This can also be the case for grammatical vocabulary, and Vietnamese has borrowed a substantial number of Chinese function words (cf. Lê 200 and Alves 2007). While some grammatical Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary is used with the same syntactic distribution as in Chinese (e.g. hoặc ‘or’(Chinese 或 huò), bị ‘(passive)’ (Chinese 被 bèi), tại ‘at/in’(Chinese 在 zài), etc.), 2 other grammatical Sino-Vietnamese words have innovated meanings and syntactic properties. For example, Vietnamese không ‘no/not’ may be a grammaticalized version of Sino-Vietnamese không ‘empty’ (Chinese 空 kōng) (Nguyễn P.P. 1996), and Vietnamese nhất ‘most’ has likely developed from Sino-Vietnamese nhất ‘one’ (Chinese 一 yī) (Alves 2007). In another instance, Vietnamese mọi ‘all/every’ and mỗi ‘each/every’ are both from Chinese 每 měi ‘each/every’, though they differ slightly from each other in both pronunciation and semantics, showing that they were borrowed at two different times (see more discussion in Section 3). The earliest mention that we can find is in a dictionary of Scheider (1992:90), who considers both cùng and cũng to be Nôm apparentemente Chinois (Nom of apparent Chinese origin). He claims both to be from cộng 共 , though his work does not provide clear phonological explanation. Nguyễn N.S. (2003:179) has also suggested that Vietnamese cùng ‘with’ comes from Chinese 共 gòng, but that it is a Vietnamized version of cộng. Alves (2007) also hypothesizes it is from Chinese 共 but provides no textual evidence. Starostin has also suggested with partial phonological evidence that both cùng ‘with’ and cũng ‘also’ are derived from Chinese 共 gòng (Starostin 1998-2003). It is always possible that some words share chance similarities, especially when words are single syllables of simple CVC structure. However, as will be discussed, there are significant phonological, semantic, and syntactic similarities among those three words that strongly indicate these are not accidental similarities. Furthermore, cũng has no comparable lexis or probable etyma in other Vietic languages. In closely related Muong , y is the primary word meaning cũng (Nguyen, Bui, and Hoang 2002), while in the more conservative Ruc, the word is dêng3 (Nguyen VL 1993:110). On the other hand, cùng does appear in Muong, but in Ruc, for ‘and/with’, sọng1 is used. Other Austroasiatic languages, such as Pacoh or Bahnar, also have distinct native etyma for this meaning (except However, while both tại and bị (the history of which in Vietnamese have yet to be fully explained in print) are the standard words used in Mandarin Chinese, neither is the main lexical form in some other varieties of Chinese. For


example, in Cantonese, the passive is marking by 畀 béi ‘give’ and the locative verb is 喺 háih ‘to be at’. That Vietnamese differs from neighboring varieties of Chinese highlights how Vietnamese vocabulary development and incorporation of Chinese vocabulary had a distinct path of development over the last thousand years since the period of political independence from China and shift of Annamese Chinese to Vietnamese.

when borrowing from Vietnamese). Overall, the origins of cùng and cũng cannot be linked to Austroasiatic, and this makes it possible that they were borrowed from Chinese. Alves (2007) has suggested that Vietnamese cùng ‘with’ comes from Chinese 共 gòng, but does not provide phonological or textual support. It has been suggested with partial phonological evidence that both cùng ‘with’ and cũng ‘also’ are derived from Chinese 共 gòng (Starostin 1998-2003). It is always possible that some words share chance similarities, especially when words are single syllables of simple CVC structure. However, as will be discussed, there are significant phonological, semantic, and syntactic similarities that strongly indicate these are not accidental similarities. Furthermore, cũng has no comparable lexis or probable etyma in other Vietic languages. In closely related Muong 3, y is the primary word listing meaning cũng (Nguyen, Bui, and Hoang 2002), while in the more conservative Ruc, the word is dêng3 (Nguyen VL 1993). On the other hand, cùng does appear in Muong, but in Ruc, for ‘and/with’, sọng1 is used. Other Austroasiatic languages, such as Pacoh or Bahnar, also have distinct native etyma for this meaning (except when borrowing from Vietnamese). Overall, the origins of cùng and cũng cannot be linked to Austroasiatic, and this makes it possible that they were borrowed from Chinese. Vietnamese has a notable number of Chinese loanwords from the MC era. Some grammatical Chinese loanwords in Vietnamese that belong to the Early Sino-Vietnamese layer include the abilitative preverb được ‘able’ (SV đắc, Ch 得 dé, OC *tˤək, MC tok), the distributive mọi ‘each’ (SV mỗi, Ch 每 měi, OC *mˤəʔ, MC mwojX), clause-linking vì ‘because’ (SV vị, Ch 為 wèi, OC *ɢʷ(r)aj-s, MC hjweH), and the archaic modal verb tua ‘must’ (SV tu, Ch 須 xū, OC *[s]o, MC sju). And while there are fewer grammatical words from the EMC or OC period, it is reasonable to assume that neither cũng nor cùng were grammaticalized from content words in Vietnamese (or other Vietic languages), and based on phonological, semantic, textual, and syntactic data, the strongest case is that these are Chinese words borrowed in the earlier part of the 1st millennium CE. This paper explores the historical background of the three Vietnamese morphs cùng, cũng, and cộng and shows that they are all from Chinese gòng, but that they were borrowed at three different times and have semantico-syntactic properties. The evidence includes both historical phonology matters and supporting syntactic data from ancient writings in both Chinese and Vietnamese. In the following sections, cũng, cùng, and cộng are first shown to have no other probable origins than Chinese. Then historical phonological and syntactic evidence is provided to show that these etyma correspond to the syntactic usage and phonological shape of this word in Chinese in the early part of the first millennium CE.

The term Muong has traditionally been used as though it referred to one speech variety, and this variety is represented in, for example, the 550-page Muong-Vietnamese dictionary (Nguyen Van Khang et. al. 2002).


However, there are some 30 plus varieties with varying phonological and lexical developments (Nguyen Van Tai 2004), and thus we must consider Muong to be a group of related speech varieties. Phan (2010) has provided phonological support to claim this group of mutually intelligible speech varieties cannot be reconstructed as one language constitute a phylogenetic taxon.

2. VARIOUS MORPHS, SENSES, AND HÁN-NÔM CHARACTERS The three Vietnamese words in this study vary somewhat in phonological shape and more significantly in semantic and syntactic functions, as shown in Table 1. 4 Nevertheless, there is still enough overlap in sound, meaning, and script that makes it worth exploring whether the similarities are due to chance or explainable circumstances. Table 1. Characters and relevant meanings of Cộng, Cũng, and Cùng Morph Characters Meaning Status cộng • to add • verb 共 • community • bound morpheme cũng • also • adverb 共, 拱, 供 cùng

共, 拱, 𡀳𡀳

• together, with, and, as well as

• preposition; conjunction

However, determining conclusively that these words share origins is challenging. To start, the listed Sino-Vietnamese pronunciations of 共 gòng (which has a range of senses including ‘in common’, ‘together’, among others) include not only cộng but also cung (equivalent to Mandarin gōng) and củng (Mandarin gǒng) which are not used in Vietnamese, in addition to the meanings in Table 1. The multiple pronunciations of that Chinese character in both Chinese and SV are important in the historical linguistic background, as discussed in Section 3. Also note that the Chinese character 拱 gǒng ‘provide’ is used to represent both cũng and cùng, both considered native Vietnamese vocabulary and not listed in Sino-Vietnamese dictionaries. Another issue is that cùng is also a Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation of Chinese 窮 ‘poor’ and 蛩 ‘grasshopper / cricket’, but none of these are semantically related and so cannot be the source of the grammatical words in question. For cũng specifically, the range of semantic meanings and analyses of its syntactic role is somewhat complex (cf. Bui 2016), and while complexity can reduce certainty, the core semantics remain reasonably consistent, that of simultaneous action or shared condition. Other complications lie in the multiple Vietnamese words/morphs that were represented by these characters before the twentieth century. The fact that the same character 共 gòng was used to represent the three Vietnamese lexemes is not useful evidence of shared origins since Chinese characters were often employed to represent Vietnamese words even when the phonological similarities were not completely the same, as is readily observed in Hán-Nôm characters. The Chinese character is listed in Hán-Nôm dictionaries representing several distinct Vietnamese words, though all with somewhat similar pronunciations. Tables 2 and 3 show the various Vietnamese words represented by each of the characters in Hán-Nôm writings. While there is a complex range of words related to these characters, none of the other homophonous words can be the content word source of the function words cũng of cùng, and so we must look for other sources.

In Tables 1, 2, and 3, the words, Nôm characters, and English glosses all come from the Vietnamese Nôm Preservation Foundation’s online Another Nôm Lookup Tool.


Table 2. Readings and meanings of Chinese 共 gòng in Vietnamese Quốc Ngữ English cộng to add (addition); publicity; community; republican, communist, resonant, symbiosis, fellow-worker; to collaborate; total cụng strike one’s head against cùng the same village, the same age, together gọng frame of glass cọng stem (a stem of vegetable; a stem of straw) cũng the same Table 3. Readings and meanings of Chinese 拱 gòng in Vietnamese Quốc Ngữ English cõng to carry on one’s back, to set the snack on one’s own hens củng to clout on the forehead cùng the same village, the same age, together cũng the same Finally, it is worth considering what comparable words are in modern varieties of Chinese. Throughout the Chinese languages, a range of words have become used to mean ‘and/with’ and ‘also’. There is often a close connection in both semantic features and syntactic patterns, so the same morphs can often be multi-functional. Those in Table 4 are a representative sample, and there are other words as well. Chinese 共 gòng is rare in modern Chinese, having been replaced by other words, as shown in Table 4. In modern colloquial Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese, it usually does not function as a word, but rather as a bound morpheme in Chinese-style two-syllable compounds. However, it can still be used in formal or more poetic styles. In Taiwanese, however, gòng (pronounced kang7 in Taiwanese) is still used as a conjunction meaning ‘and’ and may have been inherited into Southern Min from Middle Chinese (Lien 2000). The history of the grammaticalization of the word in Chinese is discussed in Section 4. Overall, cũng and cùng are not due to contact with modern Chinese dialects, and even the use of gòng in Southern Min (Taiwanese kang7, literary kiong7) merely suggests the inheritance of an older form, as in Vietnamese, not borrowing from Min into Vietnamese.

Table 4. ‘And/With’ and ‘Also’ in Varieties of Modern Chinese Language Gloss Character Reading LSV Mandarin and, with hé hòa 和 with gēn cân 跟 also dōu đô yě dã 都 也 Cantonese

and, with with also

tòhng gān dōu

đồng cân đu

kap kāng; kiōng iā

cập cộng dã

也 (none)



仝 (=同) 跟 都


and, with with also

3. VIETIC AND SINITIC HISTORICAL PHONOLOGY Studies of Vietic historical phonology have made significant progress (Nguyễn T.C. 1995, Nguyễn N.S. 2003, Ferlus 2007, Trần T.D. 2011, etc.), and the Mon-Khmer Etymological Dictionary provides a tremendous amount of comparative lexical data on Austroasiatic languages. Thus, we have a good deal of understanding of the historical changes in Vietic, including loss of final *-h and *-ʔ, tonogenesis, changes in voicing of initials, reduction of initials, and so on. We can then combine these details with information about historical changes in Chinese phonology to look at the history of Chinese gòng in Vietnamese. There are several reconstructions of Old Chinese (OC) and Middle Chinese (MC) that differ in various ways, as in Table 5, but they share enough features to provide a point of comparison. The key feature in the OC reconstruction of gòng is a final fricative, whether *-s or *-h, that gave rise to the qusheng tone category. This feature is crucial to differentiate periods of the borrowing of cũng and cùng, which have tones of two different tone categories, as explained in section 3.2.

Table 5. 共 Gòng and 拱 Gǒng in Old Chinese and Middle Chinese Character Era Baxter and Schuessler Zhengzhang Starostin Sagart (2014) (2007) (2003:335) (19982003) 5 OC *N-k(r)oŋʔ-s *goŋh *kloŋ *goŋh 共 Gòng *koŋʔ MC *gjowngH NA NA *gö̀ uŋ *kö́ uŋ OC *k(r)oŋʔ *koŋʔ *kloŋʔ *kóŋ 拱 Gǒng MC *kjowngX NA NA *kö́ uŋ

Li (197475) *gjungh *gjwong NA NA

In subsections 3.1 and 3.2, we first discuss the segmental features, which are helpful for identifying early Chinese loanwords in Vietnamese but which are less useful in determining periods of borrowing. We then describe tonal features, which are especially useful for assessing approximate time of borrowing. However, while tones are useful in determining the age of loanwords, there are complications due to the number of related forms of gòng. Therefore, in Section 4, textual data of both Ancient Chinese and early Vietnamese writings are needed to provide further comparative syntactic evidence to confirm these as potential loanwords in suitable stages of grammaticalization. 3.1 Segments In this study, we only briefly consider the consonants and vowels of cũng and cùng and do not provide an overall explanation of previous research on all aspects of Early SinoVietnamese (ESV) phonology of Late OC and Early MC (e.g. Tryon 1979, Nguyễn N.S. 2002:141-181, Phan 2013, etc.). ESV is contrasted with later literary Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary (LSV), standardized Middle Chinese readings of all Chinese characters. To start, OC final velar nasals do not change after being borrowed as SV vocabulary, and so while the sound is the same in both Chinese and Vietnamese, this aspect does not aid in periodization. Next, the initial /k/ has not changed place or manner of articulation as there was apparently no pre-initial phonological material in OC which leads to fricatives ‘d’ /j-z/, ‘g’ /ɣ/, ‘gi’ /z/, ‘s’ /s-ʂ/, ‘v’ /v/ in ESV (e.g. the initial fricative /ɣ/ in gang ‘steel’, SV cương, OC *C.kˤaŋ), which is a common phonological trait of OC loanwords. Thus, they must have been borrowed after the loss of earlier complex initials in Sinitic. It is important to note that there are OC reconstructions with both voiced and unvoiced initials. But based on the tones of all three words—cũng, cùng, and cộng—all three must have been borrowed from words with original voiced initials, leading to the low tones of all three words (cf. §3.2), which means it predated the devoicing in Viet-Muong, but that alone does not prove that it belongs to ESV. The difference in vowel quality, an alternation between ESV /u/ and LSV /o/, does indicate a different period of borrowing from the LSV layer. The evidence for this pattern is not Starostin divides the Old Chinese period into several distinct eras, such as Classic Old Chinese, Western Han Chinese, Eastern Han Chinese, and others. In these two instances, the two etyma in this study are reconstructed the


same for multiple periods in what is considered the OC period. Similarly, Schuessler separates Old Chinese from Later Han Chinese, but in these instances, Old Chinese forms are used.

supported by large numbers of instances, as shown in Table 6, but this is still a reasonable variation. Thus, while the segments support an early borrowing, they do not clarify whether the words are from the same or different times. Instead, tones are the crucial phonological detail. CH 古 姆 桶

Table 6: Early Sino-Vietnamese ‘u’ vs SV ‘ô’ GL MD OC MC ESV GL ancient gu3 *kˤaʔ kuX cũ old female old mu3 *məʔ muwX mụ tutor woman bucket tong3 *l̥ ˤoŋʔ thuwngX thùng bucket

SV cổ mỗ thống

3.2 Tones It has long been posited and is now generally accepted, based on a variety of sets of data, that both Sinitic and Vietic (and Tai-Kadai and Hmong-Mien) were nontonal polysyllabic languages at the time of contact. Indeed, as Chinese is related to nontonal Tibeto-Burman languages and Vietnamese is related to nontonal Austroasiatic languages, this is an entirely logical assumption. This idea of a region in which complex tonal systems emerged was posited by Haudricourt (1954, 1972, etc.) and has been gradually supported over the decades (cf. Haudricourt 1954, Matisoff 1973, Ratliff 2010, Delancey 2010). Most likely, over a period of centuries from the Han into the Jin, final glottal stops and fricatives were lost while tones emerged (cf. Zhu 2015). The history of the Chinese morph represented by 共 gòng is complicated by having multiple readings in Chinese and Sino-Vietnamese (cf. §2) because these lead to different reconstructions. However, regarding the most common reading, there is historical linguistic evidence of stages of development from final fricatives to tones which can account for the differences in the tones of cũng and cùng, though semantico-syntactic data is also necessary for confirmation (cf. §4). In the Chinese historical phonological tradition, the four Middle Chinese tone categories of 平 píng (SV bằng), 上 shǎng (SV thượng), 去 qù (SV khứ), and 入 rù (SV nhập)—sometimes labelled tones A, B, C, and D, as in Table 7—are realized in LSV vocabulary with a degree of consistency comparable to varieties of Chinese. Table 7 shows the phonological traits of the four tone categories in OC, MC, Proto-Vietic, and both ESV and LSV. Earlier syllables without final consonants or syllables with final sonorants now have bằng/huyền tones, those originally with final fricatives *-s or *-h in Proto-Vietic correspond to hỏi/ngã tones in modern Vietnamese, and words with final stops, including words originally with glottal stops, or possibly some kind of glottalization of the syllable, correspond to modern Vietnamese words with sắc/nặng tones. Regarding tone height, cũng, cùng, and cộng all have low tones. There are two significant changes in Table 7 which lead to a hypothesis of relative chronology of the instances of borrowing. First, there is a kind of reversal of categories B and C from the ESV to LSV periods, a well-established phenomenon noted by Mei (1970). Two examples are ‘seed’ and ‘old woman’ shown in Table 6. Also, as noted in Section 1, the doublets mọi ‘all/every’ and mỗi ‘each/every’—both from Chinese 每 měi, OC *mˤəʔ, MC mwojX— highlight the alternation of the tone category as well as the repeated borrowing of a grammatical morph. Mỗi is an established SV (the ngã tone corresponds to the qusheng tone, the X in the MC

reconstruction above), while mọi, with both different tone category and vowel (the sắc tone is derived from final -ʔ as in the OC reconstruction above), must be from the Jin Dynasty if not earlier. This difference in tones serves to separate Sino-Vietnamese from the later Middle Chinese period from Early MC and Late OC. Second, there is a layer of ESV words in tone category C which have level tones (either the higher ngang or lower huyền tones). More recently, it has been claimed that in the transition from Old to Middle Chinese, the final fricative was in the process of being lost (Zhu 2015). This allows for the hypothesis explaining why qusheng words of many ESV words have pingsheng. An exact time cannot be known, and it might not have happened everywhere at once, but it was likely spread over the early centuries of the first millennium CE before the 601 CE 切韻 Qièyùn rhyming dictionary, which was explicitly organized by the four main tone categories. The timing of the changes in tones clearly must have occurred at somewhat different rates in different regions. The rusheng category in modern Chinese, which stems from final stops and the earlier glottal stop, is realized in differently among varieties of Chinese. Like Vietnamese, some varieties of Chinese have retained those final stops, including Yue (e.g. Cantonese and Toisanese) and Hakka, while some have lost some but not all of the final stop distinctions, such as Wu (e.g. Shanghainese) and Southern Min (e.g. Taiwanese), and others have lost all final stops, such as Mandarin. Thus, it is certainly possible that in early centuries CE, Vietic speakers were in contact with one or possibly more varieties of Sinitic which were in the process of losing finals and developing tones. Table 7: Assumed Stages of Tonogenesis from OC to SV (Adapted from Alves 2017) A (level) B (rising) C (going) D (entering) Comparative Categories Chinese rhyme 平 Píng 上 Shǎng 去 Qù 入 Rù table categories Old Chinese Proto-Vietic Early SinoVietnamese Literary SinoVietnamese

open syllables open syllables Yin Yang ngang huyền

final *-ʔ final *-ʔ Yin Yang sắc nặng

ngang huyền



final *-s final *-s or *-h Yin Yang hỏi ngã ngang bằng sắc nặng

final *-p, *-t, *-k final *-p, *-t, *-k Yin Yang sắc nặng sắc nặng

Based on the data in Table 7, the three periods of the three pronunciations of Chinese gòng can be hypothesized as follows. 1. cũng ‘also’ – This pronunciation probably comes from Chinese gòng when final fricatives were still present in OC, which led to the ngã tone (the yang shangsheng tone) in the Vietnamese word. This may have happened during the Eastern Han Dynasty (25220 CE) but still possibly at the beginning of the East Jin Dynasty (265-420 CE). 2. cùng ‘with’ – This form may have come from Chinese gòng after the final fricative in the period between late OC and Early MC but before tones had emerged, leading to the

huyền tone (the yang pingsheng tone). This may have happened during the East Jin Dynasty or slightly later, but again, well before the publication of the Qieyun in 601 CE. 3. cộng ‘common (as a bound morpheme)’ – This form is the Sino-Vietnamese reading of Chinese gòng 共 listed in Sino-Vietnamese dictionaries. As such, it was borrowed, like all other literary Sino-Vietnamese words, at the time that Chinese, including Phan’s hypothesized Annamese Chinese, had fully developed tones. It has the Vietnamese nặng tone (the yang qusheng tone). The order proposed here differs from some previous hypotheses. Nguyễn N.S. suggests that SV cộng was borrowed first and was later "Vietnamized" (Việt hoá (i.e. 越化),(a concept dating back at least to Nguyễn T.C. 1979:13)) by phonological changes internal to Vietnamese to cùng (Nguyễn N.S. 2003:179). However, this hypothesis creates a situation in which either /u/ became /o/ and then /u/ again, or two words with different tones but no phonological conditioning factors developed from cộng. Both of these hypotheses go against other data, and there are numerous other instances of what Alves (2017:) calls the ‘ping-for-qu’ words, in which ESV items have pingsheng tones for qusheng words resulting from the period in which OC lost final fricatives. Thus, cũng ‘also’ is an example of the shangsheng-qusheng alternation proposed by Mei (1970), while cùng ‘with’ is an example of the ‘ping-for-qu’ phenomenon at least in Annamese Chinese. One final note must be made about the various Chinese characters used in Nôm writings to represent cũng and cùng. As shown in Table 1, beyond the source word 共 gòng, the Chinese character 拱 gǒng was sometimes used for both of those words. The latter character was clearly not used due to the Chinese meaning, which is entirely different, but rather as an attempt to represent the general phonological shape of what was perceived as a native Vietnamese word. 4. Textual data and Grammaticalization The phonological data is sufficient to indicate connections between the Vietnamese words and Chinese gòng and also to suggest probable periods of borrowing. However, because cũng and cùng are grammatical words, evidence of their usage in historical documents is necessary to prove they could be related to gòng in Chinese as well as to show the various senses had developed in Chinese prior to comparable semantico-syntactic functions in Vietnamese. In the following subsections, we explore the history of grammaticalization of Chinese gòng. Then studies of these words in ancient texts—first Chinese and then Vietnamese—are summarized to show further support for the connection and the historical periods of the multiple instances of borrowing of gòng, as hypothesized in Section 3. 4.1 Grammaticalization The exact definition of grammaticalization is still under debate (cf. Norde and Beijering 2014), but for this study, it is sufficient to claim that grammaticalization is a kind of semantic shift in which content words develop grammatical meanings and functions. Such lexical material tends to have abstract meanings and may have functions relating sentential arguments and providing temporal context. Grammaticalized material also has a tendency to continue to grammaticalize additional meanings and functions (e.g. Hopper and Traugott 1994). This tendency is important to consider since cũng and cùng have different grammatical meanings— both from each other and in some ways different from the original senses in Chinese—but likely have the same etymological origin borrowed at different times in that word’s development.

Both cũng ‘also’ and cùng ‘with’ are definitely grammatical words as they have abstract semantics, belong to a finite class of words (i.e. an adverb with semantic scope over subjects and a comitative preposition), have restricted syntactic distribution (i.e. only occurring between subjects and verbs and only taking noun complements), and have unlimited semantic application (e.g. may cooccur with all classes of nouns or verbs). The question is whether these two grammatical morphs have origins in any known function words, and in Vietnamese, there does not appear to be any, whereas there is an original verb from which Chinese gòng grammaticalized. Therefore, we first consider the path of grammaticalization of Chinese 共 gòng in Chinese itself, for which there is textual documentation for a few thousand years. Heine and Kuteva (2003) have identified hundreds of recurring grammaticalization paths among languages of the world. In the case of gòng in Chinese, the original step from the verb to the adverb is not a category listed in Heine and Kuteva’s work, but the connection between the meanings ‘also’ and conjunctions has been seen in other languages, leading to the posited cline ALSO > NP-AND (Heine and Kuteva 2003:43). 6 Moreover, based on textual data, there are reasonably intuitive semantic relationships between the senses of ‘together’, ‘with’, and ‘and’. These developments are described with samples from ancient texts in the next two subsections. 4.2 Ancient Textual Data in Chinese For Chinese gòng, Liu and Peyraube (1994:189) suggest a grammaticalization path of SHARE > TOGETHER > WITH > AND. Liu and Peyraube (1994:188) note that Chinese gòng originally meant ‘to share with’, but by the era of Late Archaic Chinese in the Warring States period (475 to 221 BCE), it had been reanalyzed as an adverb meaning ‘together’, as in sentences (1) and (2). Note the position of the adverb after subjects and before verbs, as is generally the case for Vietnamese cũng. (1)

與 光武帝 共 擊 破 王尋 王邑 yu guangwudi gong ji po wangxun wangyi with Guang Wudi together attack destroy Wang Xun Wang Yi ‘With Guang Wudi together (we will) attack and destroy (the armies) of Wang Xun (and) Wang.’ (後漢書 Hou Hanshu, ‘The Later Book of Han’ #13, translation by Liu and Peyraube:1994:188)


諸 賢 共 談 道 zhu xian gong tan dao several noble together discuss principle ‘…had discussed the principle of the nature with Pei Chenggong, Ruan Qianli and other nobles’. (from 世說新語 Shishuo Xinyu, ‘Tales of the New Era’ #16, tanslation by Li 1991:95)


Grammatical clines in the work of Heine and Kuteva (2003) are shown with words in all capital letters. This kind

of notation appears intended to represent semantico-syntactic categories in order to capture useful generalizations that might not be noted if specific translations are used.

By Early Middle Chinese in the mid-first millennium CE, gòng had developed functions as a preposition ‘with’, parallel to the ancient preposition 與 yú (Liu and Peyraube 1994:88). (3)

昔吾 嘗 共 人 談 書 Xiwu chang gong ren tan zhu Xiwu often with people talk book ‘Xiwu often spoke of books with people.’ (顏氏家訓 Yanshi Jiaxun, ‘Yanshi’s Family Precepts’, author’s translation)

However, Liu and Peyrabe (Ibid.) claim that the development of gòng as a conjunction did not occur until the Song Dynasty (960-1279 CE), as in sentence (4). This is slightly problematic as it suggests a development that occurred after Vietnamese independence from China and the assumed shift of Chinese speakers to the language of the Viet-Muong speech community and as Nôm writing to represent spoken early Vietnamese began to become increasingly dominant. Nevertheless, the usage of gòng does appear to parallel developments in Vietnamese near that period, as discussed in Section 4.3. (4)

吾 來 救 孫子 俺 爺 共 袁達 wu lai jiu sunzi an ye gong yuanda I come help Sunzi I father and Yuanda ‘I came to help Sunzi, my father, and Yuanda.’ (七國春秋平話卷下 Qiguo Chunqiu Pinghua Juanxia, translation by Liu and Peyraube 1994:88)

Finally, as a verb, Chinese gòng also expressed ‘total, in all’, as in sentence (5) from the first few centuries CE. While not the same sense, the function of Vietnamese cộng as a verb expressing addition (e.g. ‘một cộng một là hai’ (one plus one is two)) is worth noting as it show evidence of both Chinese gòng as a source despite some semantico-syntactic innovations of the word in Vietnamese. (5)

共 五 尺 五 寸 gong wu chi wu cun total five foot five inch ‘(It) totals 5 feet and 5 inches.’ (孫子算經 Sunzi Suanjing, ‘The Mathematical Classic of Sunzi’, author’s translation)

4.3 Ancient Textual Data in Vietnamese At the time of de Rhodes’ 1651 Vietnamese-Latin-Portuguese dictionary, the word cũng is defined as ‘also’ and used in preverbal position as in the single example cũng đi (also-go) glossed as ‘(He will) also go’. As for cùng, it is shown with the phrase cùng nhau ‘together’, and in the brief grammar description, it is noted to be a conjunction similar to ‘and’. A century later, in the 1772-1773 dictionary Tự Vị Annam Latinh / Dictionarium Anamitico Latinum (de Behaine 1772-1773) cũng ‘also’ and cùng ‘also’ have definitions which the same as their modern meanings. Thus, 350 years ago these words had relatively clearly defined usages. However,

while data from several centuries ago often shows expected patterns, there are some differences in usage from modern Vietnamese. However, earlier textual data in native Vietnamese Nôm writings since the 1300s show a number of semantic and syntactic similarities in the uses of cũng and cùng with Chinese 共 gòng and in comparable eras, as discussed below. 7 4.4 Textual Evidence of Cũng In Trần T. D.’s dictionary of 15th Century Vietnamese, cũng ‘also’ is not listed as being related to Chinese, though it is noted to have comparative forms in 19 varieties of Mường (Trần T. D.’s 2014:81). In that dictionary, the meanings include đều/đều là ‘all/all are’ and approximately ‘also’ (từ biểu thị sự tương đồng về tín chất, hành vi giữa các sự vật). The modern meaning ‘also’ is seen in even earlier texts of the 1300s, as in (7). In the medical text Hồng Nghĩa Giác Tư Y Thư, a few dozen instances are found, largely with the same function and distribution. (7)

Hoàng qua là dưa chuột cũng gọi 8 quả dưa 黃 瓜 羅 余 术 共 號 果 余 huanggua be cucumber also call clsf melon ‘The huanggua is a cucumber, also called a melon.’ (Hồng Nghĩa Giác Tư Y Thư ‘Medical Books of Hong Nghia’ by Tue Tinh, translation by the author)

Some of the handful of examples from the 1300s Cư Trần Lạc Đạo Phú show apparent semantic expansion from ‘also’ in sentence (8) to ‘still’ in sentence (9) (translations from Nguyễn and Trần 2013). This development is parallel to Cantonese Chinese 都 dou1 ‘also’ and ‘still’, which also occurs in clause-medial position between the subject and verb. However, without sufficient examples, this usage is not certain and does not suggest a different grammaticalization trajectory, but rather a possible early usage not maintained today. (8)


vàng ngọc thờ cũng chửa hết ngay 釺 玉 蜍 共 渚 歇 桰 gold jewel offer still not yet complete straight ‘Even gold and jewel offering couldn’t straighten your heart.’ (Cư Trần Lạc Đào Phú, translation by Nguyễn and Trần 2013)

On overall frequency of these words, little can yet be said. There is no single searchable corpus for Nôm writings

which are comparable to or the Scripta Sinica database of the Academia Sinica. Of the texts used for this study, focusing on texts from the mid-1300s to early 1400s, only about a few dozen thousand syllables of text and several dozen instances of both cũng and cùng were located. Admittedly, additional details about their usage and development will be identified as more electronically searchable Nôm corpuses are made available. I must thank Nguyễn Tuấn Cường, the Director of the Institute of Sino-Nom studies, for helping me locate some Nôm characters and giving ideas for aspects of the data in this paper. 8


Địch chăng có lỗ, cũng bấm chơi xướng Thái bình ca 笛 庄 固 魯 共 泛 制 唱 太 平 歌 flute no have hole regardless play happy peace song ‘Though the flute has no holes, let’s do the song of peace’ (Cư Trần Lạc Đào Phú, translation by Nguyễn and Trần 2013)

One final note is that, in modern Vietnamese, cũng combines with interrogative words to express totality, as in ai cũng (who-also) ‘everyone’, bao giờ cũng (when-also) ‘always’, nào cũng (which-also) ‘all/every’, and đâu cũng (where-also) ‘everywhere’. This is the same structurally and semantically similar to the pattern with 都 dōu ‘all’ in varieties of Chinese, as in 谁都 shéi dōu ‘anyone/everyone’, 什么都 shénme dōu ‘anything/everything’, and other similar instances, but rather than 都 dōu ‘all’, cũng filled that slot. That Vietnamese did not borrow 都 dōu ‘all’ (except as in lexicalized compounds with that morpheme) suggests a significant distinction between Chinese and Vietnamese, while simultaneously showing a typological similarity using a word ultimately of Chinese origin. 9 4.5 Textual Evidence of Cùng In Trần T. D.’s study of 15th Century Vietnamese, he considers cùng 共 to be a Vietnamized SV of cộng (2014:80). He lists meanings that include và ‘and,’ với ‘with,’ hay ‘or,’ and đều ‘all.’ In the Cư Trần Lạc Đạo Phú / 居塵樂道賦 (‘Essay on Living on the Earth, Enjoying the Way’) of the 1300s, cùng is used with the ‘and/with’ function, appearing in sentences (10) and (11) as conjunctions. However, there is no earlier data, and therefore it is impossible to ascertain when this usage began. But it is within the time of developments in Chinese, as seen in Section 4.2. It is certainly possible that the Chinese speech community of Vietnam at the end of the 1st millennium CE was a contributing factor in the borrowing and grammatical usage of this word and function. (10)

Cơm cùng cháo 琟 共 粥 rice and porridge ‘Rice and porridge…’ (Cư Trần Lạc Đào Phú, translation by Nguyễn and Trần 2013)


Làm người chẳng có đức cùng tài 濫 𠊚𠊚 拯 固 德 共 才 do person not have virture and talent ‘…being a person without virtue or talent’ (Quốc Âm Thị Thập #6, translation by author)


We leave open the question of whether Vietnamese đều ‘all’ is related to Chinese 都 dōu ‘all’ (OC *tˤa, MC tu).

The word đều is superficially similar to the Chinese word in form and fairly similar in semantic features and position between subject and verb. However, it has a different tone height, the high front vowel /e/ cannot be explained, and there are currently no studies on that word to clarify its history in Vietnamese writings.

5. Conclusion There is currently no other possible source of cũng ‘also’ or cùng ‘with/and’ in Vietic, Austroasiatic, or Vietnamese content words from which they could have been grammaticalized. On the other hand, in Chinese, there is clear textual evidence of the grammaticalization of these functions of gòng. The phonological evidence shows not only that cũng or cùng were borrowed earlier than cộng, but also based on their tone types, cũng was likely borrowed earlier than cùng. Furthermore, Chinese textual evidence shows that the semantico-syntactic functions of the words did occur in the approximate times that the phonological evidence suggests. Finally, the uses of cũng or cùng match the syntactic distribution of the Chinese usage, with cũng as an adverb between the subject and verb and cùng ‘with’ as a comitative preposition. Unless other data can show alternative explanations, these are the most likely scenarios for the words. Textual data suggests that that both cùng and cũng were borrowed as grammaticalized forms. While it is impossible to know the exact circumstances of these borrowings, the borrowing of grammatical vocabulary is more likely the result of substantial bilingualism. And as cùng and cũng are ESV items, this supports the idea that there were Chinese speech communities in contact with Vietic groups in the first several centuries CE. It is worth noting comparable data from Tai, which also experienced profound language contact with Chinese. The comitative word in Proto-Tai is *kap ‘with’, most likely from Chinese 及 jí ‘and/with’, SV cập, OC *[m-k-]rəp, MC gip, and a word still used in Southern Min Taiwanese kap. Various Tai languages have that Chinese word in contrast with Vietnamese cùng, even though proto-Tai borrowed a significant number of other Chinese grammatical words (Alves 2015). Such Chinese grammatical loanwords in Proto-Tai (e.g. numbers 1 to 10, the aspectual 了, ‘additional/more’ 益, etc.) are mostly different from the ones borrowed into Vietnamese. This shows that the Sino-Vietnamese and Sino-Tai language contact situations were quite distinct, despite the geographic proximity of those two speech communities. Clearly, grammatical SV words offer useful data in regards to unrecorded sociocultural contact in northern Vietnam of the first millennium CE. ESV also gives a perspective by which to view phonological and semantico-syntactic developments in Chinese, such as tonogenesis and the grammaticalization of gòng. Finally, the amount of data gathered and analyzed for this study shows the challenges in assessing Early Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary as such words sometimes have a variety of phonological and semantic changes, making it difficult to prove with certainty that they are Chinese in origin and separating chance similarity from real instances of borrowing. References Alves, Mark J. 2007. Categories of Grammatical Sino-Vietnamese Vocabulary. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal, 37: 217-237. Alves, Mark J. 2015. Grammatical Sino-Tai vocabulary and implications for ancient Sino-Tai sociolinguistic contact. Presentation at the 48th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics (ICSTLL 48), University of California at Santa Barbara, 2123 August 2015. Alves, Mark J. 2017. Identifying Early Sino-Vietnamese Vocabulary via Linguistic, Historical, Archaeological, and Ethnological Data. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 9.2: 264 – 295. Baxter, William H. and Laurent Sagart. 2014. Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baxter and Sagart. 2014. Baxter-Sagart Old Chinese reconstruction, version 1.1. Spreadsheet online. de Behaine, Pierre Pigneaux. 1999. Tự vị Annam Latinh, 1772-1773 (Dictionarium anamitico latinum, 1772-1773), translated and introduced by Hồng Nhuệ Nguyễn Khắc Xuyên. Hồ Chí Minh City: Nhà xuất bản Trẻ. Brunelle, Marc. 2015. Vietnamese. In The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages: Vol. 2, ed. Mathias Jenny and Paul Sidwell, 909–956. Leiden: Brill. Bùi, Thị Hoàng Anh. 2016. Nhìn lại các cách hành chức của cũng và vẫn (Considering the functions of cũng ‘also’ and vẫn ‘still’). Ngôn Ngữ, Số 12, 2016, 46-60. The Chinese Text Project. 2006-2016. DeLancey, Scott. 2010. On the Origins of Sinitic. Proceedings of the 23rd North American Conference on Chinese Lingusitics (NACCL-23), 2011. Volume 1, edited by Zhuo JingSchmidt, University of Oregon, Eugene. Pages 51-64. Ferlus, Michel. 2007. Lexique de racines Proto Viet-Muong (Proto Vietic Lexicon). Unpublished ms. Accessed 1 Janunary 2017. Haudricourt, André G. 1954. Comment reconstruire le Chinois Archaïque. Word 10.2-3:351-364. Haudricourt, André G. 1972. "Two-Way and Three-Way Splitting of Tonal Systems in Some Far Eastern Languages (translated By Christopher Court)." In A Conference on Tai Phonetics and Phonology, edited by Jimmy G. Harris and Richard B. Noss. 58-86. Mahidol University. Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1994. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. Lê, Đình Khẩn. 2002. Từ vựng gốc Hán trong Tiếng Việt (Words of Chinese Origin in Vietnamese). Ho Chi Minh City: Nhà Xuất Bản, Đại Học Quốc Gia Hồ Chí Minh. Li, Fang-Kuei. 1974-1975. Fang-Kuei Li: Studies on Archaic Chinese (translated by G. L. Mattos). Monumenta Serica 31:219-287. Li, Rong (李榮). 1998. 南寧平話辭典 (A dictionary of Nanning Pinhua Chinese). Nanjing, China: 江蘇教育出版社. Lien, Chinfa. 2000. The development of grammatical function words 乞, 度, 共, 將 and 力 in Southern Min as attested in Li4 Jing4 Ji4 荔鏡記. Third International Conference on Sinology, Linguistics: The Development of Modern Chinese Syntax. Academia Sinica. Pp. 28. Hosted by Academia Sinica and National Science Council, June 29-July 1, 2000 Liu, Jian and Alain Peyraube. 1994. History of some coordinative conjunctions in chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 22.2:179-201. Matisoff, J. 1973. Tonogenesis in Southeast Asia. Larry M. Hyman, (ed.), Consonant Types and Tone, 71-95. Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics, No. 1. Los Angeles: UCLA. Mei, Tsu-Lin. 1970. Tones and prosody in Middle Chinese and the origin of the rising tone. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 30: 86-110. Nguyễn Hữu Vinh, Trần Đình Hoành. 2013. Cư Trần Lạc Đạo Phú 居塵樂道賦 (Đọc Nôm, chú thích, viết lại bằng tiếng Việt hiện đại, và dịch sang tiếng Anh). Unpublished PDF. Web. Accessed 2 February 2017.

Nguyễn, Ngọc San. 2003. Tìm hiểu tiếng Việt lịch sử (Exploring the History of the Vietnamese Language). Nhà Xuất Bản Đại Học Sư Phạm. Nguyễn, Phú Phong. 1996. Negation in Vietnamese and in Some of the Viet-Muong Languages. Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics, January 8-10, 1996, vol. II:563-568. Thailand: Mahidol University at Salaya, Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development. Nguyễn Tài Cẩn. 1979. Nguồn gốc và quá trình hình thành cách đọc Hán Việt (The origins and process of formation of Sino-Vietnamese readings). Nhà xuất bản Khoa học Xã hội, Hà Nội. Nguyễn, Tài Cẩn. 1995. Giáo trình lịch sử ngữ âm Tiếng Việt [A Text on Vietnamese Historical Phonology]. Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Giáo Dục. Nguyễn, Văn Khang, Bùi Chi, and Hoàng Văn Hành. 2002. Từ điển Mường-Việt (A MườngVietnamese dictionary). Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Văn Hoá Dân Tộc. Nguyễn Văn Tài. 2005. Ngữ âm tiếng Mường qua các phương ngữ [The phonetics of the Mường language across its various dialects]. Hanoi: Nhà Xuất bản Từ điển Bách khoa. Norde, Muriel and Karin Beijering. 2014. Facing interfaces: A clustering approach to grammaticalization and related changes. Folia Linguistica 48/2 (2014), 385–424. Mouton de Gruyter – Societas Linguistica Europaea. Phan, John Duong. 2013. Lacquered words: the evolution of Vietnamese under Sinitic influences from the 1st century BCE through the 17th century CE. Ph.D. Dissertation: Cornell University. Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1962. The consonantal system of Old Chinese, Part II, Asia minor, no.:206–265. Ratliff, Martha. 2010. Hmong-Mien Language History. Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics. Schuessler, Axel. 2007. ABC etymological dictionary of Old Chinese. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Schneider, Paul. 1992. Dictionnaire historique des ideogrammes Vietnamiens. Nice, France: Universite de Nice-Sophia Antipolis. Unité de Recherches Interdsciplinaires sur l’Asie du Sud Est, Madagascar et les Iles de l’Océan Indien. SEAlang Mon-Khmer Etymological Dictionary. SEAlang Mon-Khmer languages project. Accessed 15 April 2015. Starostin, Sergei. 1998-2003. Character: 共. In the Starling Etymological Database. Web. Accessed: 19 January 2017. Trần, Trí Dõi. 2011. Một vài vấn đề nghiên cứu so sánh - lịch sử nhóm ngôn ngữ Việt - Mường [A historical-comparative study of Viet-Muong group]. Hà Nội: Nhà xuất bản Đại Học Quốc Gia Hà nội. Trần, Trọng Dương. 2014. Nguyễn Trãi Quốc Âm Từ Điển: A Dictionary of 15th Century Ancient Vietnamese. Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Tự Điển Bách Khoa. Tuệ, Tĩnh (annotated by Nguyễn Sỹ Lâm). 1978. Hồng Nghĩa Giác Tư Y Thư (洪義覺斯醫書) [Medical Books by Hong Nghia]. Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Y Học Hà Nội. Tryon, Ray. 1979. Sources of Middle Chinese Phonology: A Prolegomenon to the Study of Vietnamized Chinese. M.A. Thesis: Southern Illinois University. Vietnamese Nôm Preservation Foundation. 1999-2017. Another Nôm Lookup Tool. Web. Wang Li. Zhengzhang, Shangfang 郑张尚芳. 2003. Shànggǔ yīnxì 上古音系 [Old Chinese Phonology]. 上 海敬育出版社 (Shanghai Educational Publishing House).

Zhu, Xiaonong. 2015. Tonogenesis. in Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Linguistics, General Editor Rint Sybesma. Consulted online on 09 November 2016 First published online: 2015. Mark J. Alves Montgomery College Department of AELP, Linguistics, and Communication Studies Rockville, Maryland 20850, USA [[email protected]] DRAFT ENGLISH VERSION OF VIETNAMESE-LANGUAGE PUBLICATION “LỊCH SỬ CỦA TỪ CỘNG (共 ) TRONG TIẾNG VIỆT” published in the journal Ngôn Ngữ (“Language”), no. 10 (2018), pages 3-22.