Home Linguistics & Semiotics 7 Languages in Contact with Early Japanese
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

7 Languages in Contact with Early Japanese

View more publications by University of Hawaii Press
To Publisher Page
The Role of Contact in the Origins of the Japanese and Korean Languages
This chapter is in the book The Role of Contact in the Origins of the Japanese and Korean Languages
7 Languages in Contact with Early Japanese Although what we might call transfluvial pre-Korean no doubt picked up some lexical material from neighboring languages of southern Manchuria, the fact that elements of Mumun culture spread across the peninsula from the south as well as from the north forces one to conclude that at least some of the lexical dif-ferences between Korean and Japanese, if related, arose from contact between pre-Japanese speakers at the southern end of the pKJ range and people who spoke a third language or languages and reached the southern coast by sea. One obvious candidate for such people would be the Dong Yi of Chinese history. The Yi and later Yue peoples of coastal China might well have played a role in bringing knowledge of wet-field rice to southern Korea in the 2nd millennium BCE. But what sort of language did they speak? Some scholars have argued that they were Tungusic, an idea that harmonizes with the Macro-Tungusic and Macro-Altaic theories, but often seems less motivated by facts than by present-day rivalries akin to Chinese claims and Korean counterclaims about the cultural affiliation of Koguryo. Some sinologists believe that the names Yi and Yue originally denoted speakers of Austroasiatic languages. According to Schuessler, The ancient Yi M people, who lived in the east from the Shandong peninsula south to the Yangzl, were probably AA [Austroasiatic] (Pul-leyblank 1983: 440ff). The ancient Yue ® people in Zhejiang were certainly AA; the place Langy£ in Shand5ng was their traditional cultural center (Eberhard 1968:414ff). (Schuessler 2007:4) But since there seem to be few if any links between Austroasiatic languages and Japanese (see again n. 17, p. 12 and n. 24, p. 19)—or, for that matter, Korean—it is unlikely that early wet-field rice cul-tivators of the southern peninsula could have borrowed words from seafarers who spoke an early Austroasiatic language. In real-161
© University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu

7 Languages in Contact with Early Japanese Although what we might call transfluvial pre-Korean no doubt picked up some lexical material from neighboring languages of southern Manchuria, the fact that elements of Mumun culture spread across the peninsula from the south as well as from the north forces one to conclude that at least some of the lexical dif-ferences between Korean and Japanese, if related, arose from contact between pre-Japanese speakers at the southern end of the pKJ range and people who spoke a third language or languages and reached the southern coast by sea. One obvious candidate for such people would be the Dong Yi of Chinese history. The Yi and later Yue peoples of coastal China might well have played a role in bringing knowledge of wet-field rice to southern Korea in the 2nd millennium BCE. But what sort of language did they speak? Some scholars have argued that they were Tungusic, an idea that harmonizes with the Macro-Tungusic and Macro-Altaic theories, but often seems less motivated by facts than by present-day rivalries akin to Chinese claims and Korean counterclaims about the cultural affiliation of Koguryo. Some sinologists believe that the names Yi and Yue originally denoted speakers of Austroasiatic languages. According to Schuessler, The ancient Yi M people, who lived in the east from the Shandong peninsula south to the Yangzl, were probably AA [Austroasiatic] (Pul-leyblank 1983: 440ff). The ancient Yue ® people in Zhejiang were certainly AA; the place Langy£ in Shand5ng was their traditional cultural center (Eberhard 1968:414ff). (Schuessler 2007:4) But since there seem to be few if any links between Austroasiatic languages and Japanese (see again n. 17, p. 12 and n. 24, p. 19)—or, for that matter, Korean—it is unlikely that early wet-field rice cul-tivators of the southern peninsula could have borrowed words from seafarers who spoke an early Austroasiatic language. In real-161
© University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu

Chapters in this book

  1. Frontmatter I
  2. Contents V
  3. Acknowledgments VII
  4. Conventions IX
  5. Introduction XI
  6. 1 Contact Hypotheses and Their Consequences 1
  7. 2 Critical Assessment of the pKJ Reconstruction 39
  8. 3 Convergence Theories 71
  9. 4 Japanese Borrowings from Old Korean 4 Japanese Borrowings from Old Korean 107
  10. 5 Syncretism in Japanese Mythology 123
  11. 6 The Korean Role in the Rise of Kofun Culture 143
  12. 7 Languages in Contact with Early Japanese 161
  13. Works Cited 177
  14. Indexes 197
Readers are also interested in:
https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824891015-010

Chapters in this book

  1. Frontmatter I
  2. Contents V
  3. Acknowledgments VII
  4. Conventions IX
  5. Introduction XI
  6. 1 Contact Hypotheses and Their Consequences 1
  7. 2 Critical Assessment of the pKJ Reconstruction 39
  8. 3 Convergence Theories 71
  9. 4 Japanese Borrowings from Old Korean 4 Japanese Borrowings from Old Korean 107
  10. 5 Syncretism in Japanese Mythology 123
  11. 6 The Korean Role in the Rise of Kofun Culture 143
  12. 7 Languages in Contact with Early Japanese 161
  13. Works Cited 177
  14. Indexes 197
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 8.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780824891015-010/html?licenseType=restricted&srsltid=AfmBOorcd1WrrSVB91ESoIm3hlhknbTjVe_Ujf8H7-SasxijduZAoqiy
Scroll to top button