Altaic languages

Group of more than 50 languages, comprising the Turkic, Mongolian, and Manchu-Tungus subfamilies.

Altaic languages are spoken across Eurasia by more than 140 million people (the overwhelming majority of whom speak Turkic languages). Most scholars consider Altaic itself to be a family, of proven genetic relationship, though a minority attribute similarities in the languages to borrowings and areal convergence. The Uralic and Altaic language families were once believed to form a superfamily, but reliable sound correspondences have not been demonstrated, and the numerous similarities between the two are now attributed to areal influences.

* * *

Introduction

      family of languages consisting of three branches—Turkic (Turkic languages), Mongolian (Mongolian languages), and Manchu-Tungus (Manchu-Tungus languages)—that show similarities in vocabulary, morphological and syntactic structure, and certain phonological features and which, on the basis of systematic sound correspondences, are generally considered to be genetically related. It contains more than 50 languages, spoken by more than 135 million people spread across virtually the entire breadth of Asia and from the Arctic Ocean to the latitude of Beijing. The Turkic languages are spoken principally in a nearly continuous band from Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan through the Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan to Xinjiang in China. The Mongolian languages are concentrated in the adjacent, roughly oval region formed by Buryatia, Mongolia, and Inner Mongolia (China). The Manchu-Tungus languages are spoken by widely dispersed populations farther to the north and east—that is, across Siberia in Russia and in the Northeast in China.

Overview

The origins of Altaic languages

      In historical times the Altaic peoples were concentrated on the steppe (Steppe, the) lands of Central Asia, and it is believed that the Altaic protolanguage originated on the steppes in or near the region of the Altai Mountains. Furthermore, it is assumed that the Turks have always inhabited the western, the Mongols the central, and the Manchu-Tungus peoples the eastern portions of the Altaic region.

      The expansion of the territory of these peoples occurred largely as a series of migrations to the west and south, doubtless greatly intensified by exploitation of the horse. These migrations were partly a consequence of the economics of nomadic culture and partly due to the peculiar military and political structure of the Altaic peoples. The ancient and medieval states they founded, however, tended to be impermanent, and conquest of neighbouring sedentary populations of higher material culture often resulted in their eventual expulsion (a fate the Mongols experienced after most of their conquests) or in cultural and linguistic assimilation (as befell the Manchu in China). Such was not the fortune of the Turks, who over the centuries not only created a series of empires on their own but formed the mass of the armies of the numerically inferior Mongol people, whose medieval empire was, outside of China and Mongolia, heavily Turkicized. These various developments left their mark in the vocabularies of the Altaic languages, though to a far lesser extent in their grammatical structures.

The status of the Altaic languages

      The majority of scholars today consider a genetic relationship between these languages to have been proved and hence regard the Altaic group as a language family, basing this conclusion not only on similarities in vocabulary and language structure but on well-established systematic sound correspondences as well. Nonetheless, some scholars continue to regard the relationship as a hypothesis yet to be proved, while yet others believe genetic relationship to be indemonstrable, given the available evidence. A small number of scholars reject the hypothesis, attributing similarities rather to borrowings and areal convergence.

      Attempts have been made to demonstrate wider genetic connections of the Altaic languages, but none has been entirely successful. There are structural similarities and some commonalities of vocabulary between the Altaic and the Uralic languages, as well as between Altaic, Korean, and Japanese. On the basis of proposed sound correspondences, the hypothesis of a genetic relationship between Altaic and Korean is regarded by some scholars as proved, but, while most scholars view the relationship as worthy of further investigation, it has not as yet won universal acceptance. The hypothesis that Japanese is genetically related to Altaic has its adherents but is generally considered to be highly speculative.

      The Uralic and Altaic language families were once believed to form a superfamily, but reliable sound correspondences have not been demonstrated, and the numerous similarities between the two are now attributed to areal influences. Some scholars have proposed that the three branches of Altaic, along with the Uralic, Indo-European, and certain other families, constitute separate branches of a “Nostratic” superfamily, but this hypothesis remains the subject of considerable controversy.

Subfamilies of the Altaic group

      It should be noted that often what is considered to be a language is more a matter of politics and geography than one of linguistic science. Spoken languages as the speech norms of communities of speakers must be distinguished from written languages, which are artificial and may not correspond to any spoken form. Where the Altaic languages are concerned, recognition of distinct languages has sometimes been manipulated for political purposes, as have the numbers of their speakers. Even where census data are available, the reported population figures cannot be relied upon absolutely.

The Turkic languages

      The term Turkish (Turkish language) properly refers to the language spoken in Turkey and to the literary, written forms of that language. The term used by scholars for the language group it belongs to is Turkic.

      Though Chuvash (Chuvash language) is closely related to the Turkic languages and many scholars accordingly consider it to be Turkic, certain features suggest it early diverged from them, leading some to speak of a Chuvash-Turkic family, while yet others treat Chuvash as a separate—that is, fourth—branch of Altaic.

       Turkic Languages*, TableThe Turkic languages, with the exception of Sakha (in Siberia), are spoken in a nearly continuous band. The nomadic culture of many Turkic peoples and the relative absence of geographic barriers to communication has resulted in a high degree of similarity and hence mutual intelligibility among most of the languages; Kyrgyz (Kyrgyz language), Karakalpak, and Kazakh (Kazak language) in particular are linguistically much alike. (See Turkic languages article (Turkic languages) and table (Turkic Languages*, Table).)

The Mongolian languages

      The names Mongol and Mongolian have both been used for the language group, though most scholars prefer Mongolian; a few use the term Mongolic. Both names have also been used for a variety of historical and contemporary spoken and written languages in China (Inner Mongolia) and Mongolia (Outer Mongolia). The written language in the old vertical script is generally called Classical Mongolian, though some scholars restrict this term either to the classical period of Buddhist scripture translation (17th and early 18th centuries) or to the latest period of its history (17th–20th centuries), preferring instead the designation Literary Mongolian. The Cyrillic (Cyrillic alphabet) script language used in Mongolia is sometimes called Modern Mongolian and sometimes Khalkha, after the spoken dialect on which it is based.

       Mongolian Languages*, TableBuryat (Buriat) and Kalmyk (Kalmuck) are also literary languages written in Cyrillic script. As the result of divergent spelling conventions and differences in vocabulary, written Khalkha and Buryat differ from one another much more than do the closely related spoken dialects on which they are based. This condition also obtains for other Mongolian languages. Spoken Oyrat (Oirat) is similar to spoken Kalmyk, though written Oyrat utilizes a variant of the old Mongolian vertical script. The dialects of spoken Khalkha, Buryat, and Mongol in China are little differentiated. With the exception of such outlying languages as Moghol, Daur, and Monguor (Tu), the Mongolian languages as a whole are quite similar to one another and enjoy a relatively high degree of mutual intelligibility. (See Mongolian languages article (Mongolian languages) and table (Mongolian Languages*, Table).)

The Manchu-Tungus languages

       Manchu-Tungus Languages*, TableThe designation Manchu-Tungus or Manchu-Tungusic for the group of languages that many scholars simply refer to as Tungusic emphasizes the historically most important member of the group, and the only language (except for the extinct Juchen [Jurchen]) that historically took written form. The assimilation of the Manchu (Manchu language) into the larger Han culture, as well as events in the modern history of China, have disfavoured the Manchu language; as a result, Manchu is moribund, if not dead, though the number of fluent speakers remains controversial. Most of the other Manchu-Tungus languages, in like manner, are spoken by critically small populations and are unlikely to long survive. (See Manchu-Tungus languages article (Manchu-Tungus languages) and table (Manchu-Tungus Languages*, Table).)

Linguistic characteristics of the Altaic group

      The Altaic languages differ from the neighbouring languages of East Asia in two important respects. They typically lack honorific language, and there is no significant difference between the speech of men and women. Furthermore, gender distinctions are absent; there is no grammatical gender, and so-called feminine endings are few. Nor are there distinct words for “he” and “she.”

phonology

       olangwo079s1The phonological (sound) systems of the Altaic languages tend to be simple. Syllables are usually open, ending in a vowel, most often of the pattern consonant-vowel (CV). The clustering of consonants is unusual in Altaic languages, and relatively few consonants are used. The vowel system reconstructed for Proto-Altaic bears some similarity to the “cubic” vowel system of Turkish, which is a symmetrical system of eight vowel phonemes defined by three phonological oppositions: back/nonback, high/nonhigh, and round (labial)/nonround (nonlabial), as shown in the table (olangwo079s1). Mongolian and Manchu-Tungus merged /i/ and /ɯ/; the latter eliminated in addition /y/ and /[B0]/ through various mergers with /i/ and /u/. Some Altaic languages in addition distinguish long and short vowel phonemes.

      The Altaic languages exhibit two kinds of sound harmony affecting the vowels and velar stops. In palatal vowel harmony, all the vowels of a given word are back or they are all front; further, front velar consonants /k g/ occur only with front vowels and back (deep) velars /q g/ only with back vowels. Exceptions are allowed in certain compounds and borrowings. The Manchu-Tungus languages have merged certain pairs of corresponding front and back vowels, and thus have compromised palatal harmony in roots, but retain the distinction in suffixes.

      Palatal vowel harmony has been lost or weakened in many languages of all three branches; in some cases (e.g., Uzbek) this is attributed to foreign (in the case of Uzbek, Iranian) influence, but not all cases can be so explained; in others neutral vowels have developed through mergers of corresponding front and back vowels (e.g., /i/, /ɯ/; /y/, /u/).

      Labial (rounding) vowel harmony is a later development and differs in Turkic and Mongolian. In the Turkic languages a high vowel agrees in rounding with the vowel of the immediately preceding syllable: thus Turkish el-in ‘hand's' (‘hand-[genitive]') but köy-ün ‘village's.' In the Mongolian languages nonhigh vowels are unrounded, save when following a nonhigh rounded vowel in the immediately preceding syllable, as in Khalkha ger-ees ‘from the house' (‘house-[ablative]'), ötsögdr-öös ‘from yesterday.'

Morphology

      The Altaic languages are agglutinative in word structure. This characteristic reveals that (1) words are formed by adding affixes, specifically suffixes, to the root; (2) a relatively great number of such affixes may be added, resulting in extreme cases in polysyllabic and polymorphemic words of considerable length (although three to four morphemes per word is the usual limit); (3) each morpheme in a word has one distinct meaning or grammatical function; and (4) typically the phonological identity of each morpheme is preserved, with little or no modification of one word element by another. The Turkish word in-dir-il-emi-y-ebil-ecek-ler ‘it may be that they will not be able to be brought down' is analyzable as root word–causative–passive–impotential–potential–future–third person plural, Mongolian eke-yin-iyen ‘of one's own mother' as root word–genitive case–reflexive-possessive. This agglutinative, exclusively suffixal morphology gives Altaic words a characteristically left-branching structure.

      The morphology of the Altaic languages is simple, exhibiting little if any irregularity (e.g., Turkish has only one irregular verb, ‘to be') or suppletion (as in English went as the past form of go) and no distinct classes of noun or verb stems (“declensions” and “conjugations”) that require special sets of endings.

      The noun and verb are highly inflected, but the adjective is not, and it does not agree with what it modifies. The noun has a plural affix, but numerals are used with the singular (e.g., ‘two man'), and the plural is unused where a general sense is intended: ‘read books' may be rendered ‘read book.'

      Altaic languages are also rich in cases, Manchu having five, Turkish six, and Classical Mongolian seven. Manchu-Tungus languages have as many as 14 (as in Evenk). An unusual characteristic of the Mongolian languages is the possibility of double cases, as in Classical Mongolian ger-t-eče ‘from [at] the house' (‘house-[dative-locative]-[ablative]'), eke-yin-dür ‘to/at mother's' (‘mother-[genitive]-[dative-locative]').

      In Mongolian languages reflexive-possessive affixes and enclitic possessive markers may be adjoined to the case endings, as in Khalkha mori-d-oos-min' ‘from my horses' (‘horse-[plural]-[ablative]-my'), Classical Mongolian baγsi-tai-ban ‘with his own teacher' (‘teacher-[comitative]-[reflexive-possessive]').

      Altaic pronouns have some peculiarities. The nominative case of ‘I' shows a special stem in Mongolian and Manchu-Tungus (compare Classical Mongolian bi ‘I,' genitive minu ‘my'). These languages likewise make a distinction between exclusive ‘we' (not including the addressee) and inclusive ‘we' (including the addressee). The use of the plural second-person pronoun (‘you') as a polite singular is general in Altaic. For the third person, Altaic languages use demonstrative pronouns; ‘they' is literally ‘these' or ‘those.' The possessive forms of pronouns are widely used in lieu of definite articles.

      The morphology of the verb is especially complex, though few of the languages have personal endings marking agreement in person and number with the subject of the verb, and there is no grammatical category of mood. Etymologically, almost all verbal forms have a nominal origin.

      Apart from finite verb forms, which serve as the main verbs of independent clauses, Altaic languages have participles or verbal nouns, which may act as nouns or adjectives and which form phrases translating the relative clauses of other languages; converbs or gerunds, which may act as adverbs or complements to verbs or serve as the main verbs of subordinate clauses; and so-called imperative or vocative forms, which serve special functions and typically form clauses of very limited structural types. In Turkic, verbal nouns that act solely as derived nouns occur alongside the participles. The precise roles played by tense, grammatical aspect, and mood in the semantics of the various affixes remain an object of study, especially where Manchu-Tungus is concerned.

      The Turkic verb is built on a set of stems—present, future, aorist, necessitative, conditional, subjunctive, and two past tenses—to which may be added a series of affixes marking tense or mood distinctions in order to form finite forms, as in the case of gel-iyor-du-ysa-m, the evidential past conditional of the present stem of the verb gel- ‘to come,' or affixes forming participles and verbal nouns; there are also numerous gerunds. Turkic distinguishes an evidential past tense—used when the speaker has witnessed the events or the events are common knowledge—from an inferential past—where the events have been reported to, or inferred by, the speaker.

      Mongolian and Manchu-Tungus also are rich in verb morphology, despite lacking such a system of stems. Classical Mongolian has 5 finite verb forms (3 present tenses and 2 pasts, the meanings of which remain under study); 10 converbs and 6 verbal nouns, distinguished as to relative tense or grammatical aspect; and 7 or 8 “imperative” forms. The Manchu verb may incorporate one or more auxiliary verbs, as in afa-m-bi-he-bi ‘had been attacking,' which is analyzed as ‘to attack-[imperfect converb]-to be-[perfect participle]-to be.'

syntax

      The syntax of the Altaic languages has been remarkably stable and resistant to foreign influence. The lexical categories of Altaic languages are less distinct than in other families. Classical Mongolian dumda, for example, can be a noun (‘middle'), adjective (‘central'), adverb (‘centrally'), and postposition (‘among'). Altaic languages use postpositions, which form phrases with the preceding noun, rather than prepositions, which form phrases with the following noun. They have no articles as such; demonstrative adjectives (‘this' and ‘that,' for example) or possessive pronouns (‘its') are used for the definite articles, and the numeral ‘one(s)' for the indefinite articles.

      Altaic languages possess a rich array of auxiliary verbs, and it is possible to string them together, as in Khalkha ter orǰ irǰ bayna ‘he is on his way in' (literally ‘that entering coming is').

      The basic word order is subject–object–verb (SOV); modifiers such as adjectives and adverbs generally precede what they modify, while specifiers such as quantifying terms and auxiliary verbs follow the specified (thus ‘book many' = ‘many books'). As in morphology, syntactic structure is consequently characteristically left-branching.

      Altaic languages have no relative clauses as such, participial constructions being used instead—e.g., Turkish yemeğe gelen adam ‘the man (who is) coming to dinner' (literally ‘dinner-to coming man'). Hypotactic (subordinate) constructions such as subordinate clauses are much preferred to paratactic (coordinate) ones such as independent clauses: the construction ‘having gotten up, she left' is much more common than ‘she got up and left.'

      There is little or no transformation of basic structures. Word order is not inverted, for example in questions; rather these are formed either by use of a question particle (in questions inviting a yes-or-no answer) or by use of a question word, as in Turkish Fatma kim-dir? ‘Who is Fatma?' (literally ‘Fatma who-is?'). Passives and causatives are marked by verb affixes and may be combined in passive-causative or causative-passive forms. Some variance is allowed in word order for purposes of emphasis or of flow of information in the discourse. Old, presupposed material tends to precede new, asserted material.

      Grammatical agreement is rare: quantifying words do not agree with the noun (‘two man'), and there is no agreement of the adjective with the noun in gender, case, or number.

Vocabulary

      There are comparatively few cognate words found in all three branches of Altaic languages. An example of this characteristic can be seen in the words for numerals in the three families (e.g., ‘two' is qoyar in Classical Mongolian, iki in Turkish, and juwe in Manchu). Some scholars have argued that there are more shared cognates between Mongolian and Turkic than between either of them and the Manchu-Tungus languages and that consequently the two form a subgroup of Altaic, but this proposal has not met with universal agreement.

      The Altaic languages have been highly receptive to borrowings from other languages, both Altaic and non-Altaic, but the core vocabulary and grammatical markers remain native. Languages of the three branches occur in close proximity throughout the eastern part of the Altaic-speaking world and, facilitated by similarities of structure, have borrowed freely from each other in all periods; for example, Ancient Mongolian took numerous agricultural terms from Turkic, while Sakha contains both Mongolian and Manchu-Tungus borrowings. There has been much borrowing within each branch as well, as for example between Turkic languages.

      Although the Altaic peoples were early in contact with speakers of Semitic, Indo-European, and Uralic languages, few prehistoric borrowings have been identified. Major foreign influences came later, with conquest or religious conversion. Translation of religious texts in particular—Buddhistic texts in the case of Mongolian, Islamic (Arabic and Persian) in that of Turkic languages—played a great role in transmitting foreign vocabulary to Altaic languages. (Arabic and Persian also had an effect on the grammars of a number of Altaic languages, as in, for example, Iranian influence on the sound system of Uzbek and numerous syntactic constructions in Turkish.)

      From the earliest times, those languages in contact with Chinese (Chinese languages) took from it, either directly or indirectly (both as loanwords and as calques, or loan translations), a great number of administrative, political, cultural, and scientific terms. In these areas Manchu vocabulary is especially heavily Sinicized, Mongolian less so; each has also borrowed from the other, especially Manchu from Mongolian.

      In the modern era a large number of international scientific, political, and cultural terms of English, French, German, and Classical origin have filtered into the Altaic languages of Central Asia through Russian. These have tended to be written as in Russian but pronounced in accord with the phonology of the receiving language. A number of calques have also entered the Altaic languages from Russian and Chinese alike, while Russian has had some minor influence on syntactic structure.

      The contribution of Altaic to other language families has been minor, principally words relating to Altaic culture (for example, bey, kumiss, and yurt), though such words as cossack, dalai (as in Dalai Lama), horde, khan, mogul, shaman, and yogurt have entered the international vocabulary.

Robert I. Binnick

Additional Reading

A general handbook is N. Poppe, Introduction to Altaic Linguistics (1965), which outlines the history and structure of the languages (including Korean), as well as the history of scholarship in Altaic linguistics, while his Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen, vol. 1, Vergleichende Lautlehre (1960), is a comprehensive comparative phonology. G.J. Ramstedt, Einfu[Bp]hrung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft, ed. by Pentti Aalto, 3 vol. (1952–66), is a classic of comparative grammar, although it is somewhat outdated. The standard bibliography is Denis Sinor, Introduction a[Bg] l'e[Ba]tude de l'Eurasie Centrale (1963). The locations of the various languages are shown in two map supplements to National Geographic, “Peoples of the Soviet Union” (February 1976), and “The Peoples of China” (July 1980). The classic though now out-of-date work on the relationship of Korean and Altaic is G.J. Ramstedt, Studies in Korean Etymology, 2 vol. (1949–53). The relationship of Japanese and Altaic is proposed and argued for in Roy Andrew Miller, Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages (1971).Robert I. Binnick

* * *