A Survival History through Colonial Centuries
by dchph
This article explores the survival and transformation of Vietnamese across centuries of colonial entanglement. From the millennium of Chinese rule (111 BCE-939 CE) through the Ming occupation and Hồ dynasty reforms, Vietnamese evolved as a grafted language: Yue substrata provided the foundation, while successive waves of Sinitic borrowings layered administrative, ritual, and scholarly vocabulary. Later divergences between Kinh and Mường communities underscore how colonial pressures reshaped identity as well as speech. Vietnamese thus stands as a survival history of language, embodying resilience through hybridity and adaptation across colonial centuries.
I) Millennium of Chinese Rule (111 BCE-939 CE)
The millennium of Chinese rule marks the first and most decisive colonial layer in the survival history of Vietnamese. Beginning with the Han annexation of Jiaozhi 交阯 / 交趾, Chinese settlers and administrators introduced a vast corpus of Sinitic vocabulary into the Red River Delta.
Two registers emerged:
-
Sino‑Vietnamese (SV): formal, scholarly terms aligned with classical Chinese, used in administration, ritual, and literature.
-
Colloquial borrowings: everyday expressions naturalized into vernacular tiếng Việt, often reshaped by Yue phonology and syntax.
This dual register produced a layered lexicon: Yue substrata remained the foundation, while Chinese overlays supplied prestige vocabulary. The result was not a creole but a grafted language, where indigenous roots and colonial grafts coexisted.
Over centuries, this layering reshaped identity as well as speech. Kinh communities in the delta absorbed Han settlers through intermarriage, while Mường groups retreated to upland regions, preserving more Yue substrata. The divergence between Kinh and Mường eventually became so pronounced that their languages were mutually unintelligible, a linguistic testimony to colonial entanglement and survival.
Determining the origin of a cognate shared between Sinitic-Vietnamese and Chinese is often a complex task. A key challenge lies in classifying a "Sinitic-Vietnamese word" when its etymology may trace back to either a Yue root or Archaic Chinese, especially in cases where the word reflects cognateness with both sources and has evolved into lexical variants or derivatives. For example, the character 牙 (yá), originally a Yue term meaning "tusk," later came to signify "tooth" in Chinese. Such transformations raise important questions about linguistic classification and the layered nature of historical language contact. (What Makes Chinese So Vietnamese - Appendix G: Tsu-lin Mei's The Case of "ngà". )
If a word is of Yue origin, should its Chinese counterpart be classified as a Yue loanword, or rather as a cognate of the same Sinitic-Vietnamese etymon linked to an indigenous "proto-Yue" or "Taic" linguistic family? This question arises not only in the case of 牙 (yá), originally meaning "tusk" in Yue and later "tooth" in Chinese, but also in other instances where native lexical roots diverge yet remain etymologically connected.
Take, for example, the reconstructed indigenous form */krong/, which appears cognate with both Vietnamese sông and Chinese 江 (jiāng; SV giang; Cant. /kong11/), all meaning 'river'. The glyph 江 is deeply embedded in Chinese vocabulary and likely traces its origin to an ancient Yue language of southern China. Interestingly, in modern Khmer, "krong" has shifted to mean "city", as seen in place names like Krong Siem Reap.
Phonologically, as mentioned, the etymological evolution from "krong" into Vietnamese sông, Sino-Vietnamese giang, Cantonese /kong11/, and Mandarin 江 (jiāng) reflects a shared structural pattern. These forms are built around a tonemic framework [C+V(+C)] that underlies both Vietnamese and Chinese lexicons. The tonal and morphemic features of Vietnamese lexemes such as /sowŋ11/ or /səwŋ11/ mirror the ancient root */krowŋ11/, suggesting a deep phonetic continuity.
By analogy, Mandarin 江 (jiāng) also shares ancestral ties with other river-related terms such as 水 (shuǐ, SV thuỷ), possibly of Tibetan tchu origin, and 川 (chuān, SV xuyên, VS dòng), all denoting "river" in various linguistic traditions, all fitting well into Lacouperie's description above.
This linguistic structure mirrors the way genetic heritage shapes physical identity, prompting questions like, “Is she Chinese or Vietnamese?” Metaphorically, the essence lies not in the bio-engineering that grafts Chinese branches onto the Yue tree – producing Vietnamese-like fruits, leaves, and flowers – but in the underlying bio-genome, as Charles Darwin emphasized in 1859. It is this genetic and cultural interweaving that defined the Taic and Yue-mixed Chu populations, including Sinicized individuals of Yue descent. A notable example is the forced marriages between local Yue women and northwestern Qin infantrymen during the Qin Empire’s southern expansion, many of whom later became subjects of the Han Empire, particularly in Jiaozhi Prefecture in northern Vietnam.
Vietnamese, as a language, has layered Sinitic elements atop a foundation of ancient aboriginal strata, with remnants of indigenous vocabulary still present. Its lexicon is heavily populated with Chinese loanwords, both in the Sino-Vietnamese and Sinitic-Vietnamese categories. A subset of the latter evolved from ancient Yue roots, which are also reflected in several southern Chinese dialects such as Cantonese, Fukienese (Hokkien), and Hainanese (see illustrations in the following sections). Despite a millennium of Chinese rule, Vietnamese underwent a profound Sinicization, transforming into a language rich in Chinese influence, which was considered as the most archaic Chinese dialect by Lacouperie, and, of course, not a creole or hybrid language in the strict linguistic sense like Creole of Albanian, that is composed almost entirely of borrowed vocabulary with only a few native words remaining (Bloomfield, 1933), Vietnamese retained a distinct structural and lexical identity.
Interestingly, many Yue-based words existed in ancient Annamese before their doublets re-entered the Vietnamese lexicon through later linguistic channels. Examples include: chuột vs. tý (子 zǐ, SV tử, 'rat'), dê vs. mùi (未 wèi, SV vị, 'goat'), trâu vs. sửu (丑 chǒu, SV xú, 'buffalo'), mèo vs. mẹo (卯 mǎo, SV mão, 'cat'), ngựa vs. ngọ (午 wǔ, SV ngọ, 'horse'), and heo vs. hợi (亥 hài, SV hợi, 'pig'). Some of these terms are also believed to have Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer origins, as evidenced by Khmer zodiac animal names that likely traveled via ancient trade routes through Annam.
On the sidenote, this cyclical linguistic phenomenon is comparable to how Japanese coined terms for modern Western concepts in the early 20th century, such as dânchủ (民主 mínzhǔ, 'democracy') and cộnghoà (共和 gònghé, 'republic'), etc., using Chinese morphosyllable. These terms later re-entered Chinese and eventually Vietnamese, completing a fascinating loop of cultural and linguistic exchange in our contemporary time.
Table 1 - Is Vietnamese of Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer or Sino-Tibetan linguistic family?
James Campbell in Vietnamese Dialects once mocked my ignorance of linguistics but he states it best that
"I originally included Vietnamese in this study/website because of the fact its phonological makeup is very similar to Chinese and, indeed, its tonal system matches the Chinese one. Originally I wrote at this site: "Vietnamese is neither a Chinese language nor related to Chinese (It is an Austroasiatic > Mon-Khmer language more closely related to Khmer/Cambodian). Besides having a very similar phonological system, and due to the heavy Chinese influence on the language, it also has a tone system that matches the Chinese one." However, after reading and conducting a bit more research, it appears that Vietnamese affiliation with Việt-Mương, Mon-Khmer, and Austroasiatic, may in fact be a faulty case."
[...] [Vietnamese] may not be considered a Sinitic language or one of the Chinese dialects, but the Kinh have a lot in common with the Chinese culture, and the language leaves little to doubt. I will not go into great detail about how this is claimed, as a great deal has been posted at some other websites (see below [for study by dchph, the author of this very paper]) and that is not the purpose of this site. However, one can see that Vietnamese shares many traits in common with Chinese: 60-70% Sinitic vocabulary, another 20% of vocabulary is substrata of proto-Sinitic vocabulary, much of the grammar and grammatical markers share similarities with Chinese, along with classifiers. One would find it very difficult to draw similar parallels between Chinese and other Mon-Khmer languages. It seems that after considering all of this, what is left that is Mon-Khmer is actually very little, and probably acquired over time through contact with bordering nations. For example, the numbers are of distinct Mon-Khmer origin, however, used in many compound words, Vietnamese uses instead Chinese roots (as is common in the other Sino-Xenic languages, Japanese and Korean)." (1)
Let us delve further into the historical and geopolitical ties between China and Vietnam, particularly regarding northern Vietnam, which was once part of the Chinese imperial domain, often referred to as the Middle Kingdom, prior to the 10th century. When chronicling Vietnam’s early history, historians frequently relied on Chinese sources, especially in foundational texts such as ĐạiViệt Sửký Toànthư (Complete Annals of ĐạiViệt), compiled in 1479 under the Lê Dynasty by court historian Ngô Sĩ Liên at the behest of King Lê Thánh Tông. These records often referenced the region known as Giaochi (交趾, Jiaozhi), and many of the names of states, rulers, places, and peoples were rendered in Sino-Vietnamese terms – such as kings Hồng Bàng, Hùng Vương, and An Dương Vương – to narrate the origins of the ancient state of ÂuLạc. (1).
In seeking even more archaic layers of Vietnamese history, scholars have turned to folklore and legends that may correspond with early Chinese historical accounts. One notable example is the legend of Thánh Gióng, a mythical hero who is said to have defended the land against invaders from the Yin Dynasty (circa 1718-1631 B.C.), a narrative that intriguingly parallels Chinese records from the same era. (2)
Early Vietnamese history is deeply intertwined with that of China. Prior to gaining independence in 939 B.C., Vietnam’s historical narrative was largely shaped by events recorded in Chinese annals. In fact, ancient Vietnam, referred to as Annam, was never officially recognized as a sovereign state in Chinese historiography. For example, Zizhi Tongjian, compiled by Sima Guang and later translated into modern Chinese by Bo Yang in 72 volumes (1983-1993), treats Annam as an administrative region rather than an independent entity.
During the extended period of Chinese colonial rule from 111 B.C. to 939 A.D., there was only one brief episode of autonomy under the Early Lý Dynasty (544-602 A.D.). Even then, Vietnam was regarded as a vassal state. For much of its early history, Annam was viewed by Chinese authorities as a rebellious prefecture, and even after achieving sovereignty, it largely vanished from Chinese historical records.
Vietnam continued to be considered a part of the Chinese imperial system until the late Qing Dynasty. It wasn’t until the Treaty of Tientsin in 1885 when the weakening Manchu government formally relinquished its protectorate claims over Annam to France that Vietnam was finally acknowledged by name as a separate nation in official Chinese documentation.
In tracing the historical development of "the Yue of the South," or Vietnam, Chinese historical sources are indispensable. Unless Vietnamese historians choose to disconnect the pre-independence era, the narrative of Vietnam prior to 939, marked by a millennium of northern domination (北屬 時期), must be understood through Chinese chronicles. This period began in 218 B.C. when the First Emperor Qin Shihuang (秦始皇) incorporated the region of Giaochi, in what is now northern Vietnam, as a prefecture of the Qin Empire. It later became part of the NamViệt Kingdom under the Triệu Dynasty (207-111 B.C.), and subsequently continued as a Chinese administrative region, known as Giaochâu and later Annam, under successive dynasties, including the Han and Tang. The collapse of the Tang Dynasty in 907, which fragmented China into ten states, created the conditions for Vietnam’s emergence as an independent polity in 939.
Throughout this long colonial period, the history of ancient Annam was treated in Chinese records merely as "local chronicles" (地方誌). Sporadic uprisings and rebellions were expected and routinely suppressed, leaving no room in official Chinese historiography for the notion of sustained resistance. Nevertheless, Vietnamese historians often assert that Vietnam possessed its own historical and literary traditions, including two declarations of independence attributed to the ancestral Southern Yue State (NamViệt). These documents, though written in Chinese, even after independence, are seen as expressions of a distinct national identity. (3)
Many Vietnamese scholars believe that a significant portion of Vietnam’s historical records has been lost due to centuries of resistance and warfare. Some speculate that when Chinese forces withdrew from the region, they may have taken with them valuable texts and documents from their former colony of Annam. However, it is important to note that Giaochi – another name for the Chinese prefecture of Annam – was never recognized as an independent state in official Chinese historiography. As such, Chinese authorities had little reason to anticipate a full evacuation or to systematically remove cultural artifacts and historical records. For many Chinese officials and settlers, Annam was not a distant colony but a homeland – many had been born and lived there for generations, and the region was expected to remain under Chinese influence for their descendants to continue exploiting. (4)
In practice, imperial mandarins were often more concerned with material wealth, such as gold taels and precious gems, than with preserving cultural heritage. Military generals, meanwhile, focused on securing their own power bases and estates. This scenario becomes even more plausible when viewed against the backdrop of the political fragmentation that followed the collapse of the Tang Dynasty in 907. During this chaotic period, the once-unified Middle Kingdom splintered into seven major states, each ruled by self-proclaimed emperors or kings. This disunion lasted for 72 years, until 979, creating a power vacuum that allowed Vietnam to assert its independence and begin shaping its own historical narrative.
Around the year 939, while the Chinese mainland was embroiled in violent conflicts among rival warlord factions, the Annam Prefecture, then part of the Qinghaijun Military Zone (清海 軍區), stood out as a relatively stable and prosperous enclave. It functioned as a kind of "home away from home", maintaining business as usual amid the chaos. Despite Annam’s de facto sovereignty at the time, Chinese rulers and historians continued to treat it as a renegade prefecture, much like the way Taiwan or even Hong Kong are viewed in certain modern contexts.
This perception was reinforced by the fact that many Chinese colonial officials and their families, appointed by the imperial court of the NamHan State (南漢王國, 917-971), which governed regions corresponding to present-day Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, and northeastern Vietnam, chose to remain in Annam rather than return to the increasingly unstable mainland. Notably, the Nam Han regime was heavily influenced by eunuchs, and high-ranking officials were often required to undergo castration to qualify for government service. According to Bo Yang (Vol. 72, p. 160, 1993), the court was populated by as many as 20,000 eunuchs, underscoring the unique political dynamics of the period.
Table 2 - A cultural prelude to the Fourth Chinese domination of Vietnam
Before the Ming invasion, the Hồ Dynasty launched a bold cultural reform movement aimed at affirming Vietnamese identity. During the combined seven-year reigns of Hồ Quý Ly (1400) and his son Hồ Hán Thương (1400–1407), the dynasty actively promoted the use of Vietnamese language and customs, banning Chinese script and administrative practices from official governance. Notably, Hồ Quý Ly traced his ancestry to Zhejiang Province in China – a fact that underscores a broader historical pattern: many Chinese emigrants in Vietnam, including Hồ’s lineage, had long distanced themselves from mainland China and embraced a strong sense of Vietnamese national identity.
This cultural assertion was abruptly disrupted by the onset of the Fourth Era of Northern Domination (Bắcthuộc lần thứ tư), which lasted from 1407 to 1428. After defeating the Hồ Dynasty in 1406–1407, the Ming Dynasty annexed Vietnam as the province of Jiaozhi (Giaochỉ). Unlike earlier periods of Chinese rule, collectively referred to as Bắcthuộc, which spanned nearly a thousand years, this fourth occupation ended with the establishment of the Lê Dynasty in April 1428, marking a new chapter of Vietnamese sovereignty.
Under Ming control, the Hồ Dynasty’s cultural reforms were systematically dismantled. Vietnamese printing blocks, books, and cultural artifacts were confiscated or destroyed, resulting in the near-total disappearance of vernacular chữNôm texts from the pre-invasion period. Historic sites such as the Baominh Pagoda were looted and desecrated. The Ming administration imposed aggressive Sinicization policies, seeking to embed Chinese cultural norms more deeply into the occupied territory and suppress indigenous Vietnamese expression.
Figure 2 : Administrative division of Vietnam (Jiaozhi)
under the Ming Dynasty from 1407 to 1427.
Sinicization process
An entry in the Ming Shilu (明實錄) dated 15 August 1406 recorded an imperial order from Emperor Yongle that instructed for Vietnamese records such as maps and registers to be saved and preserved by the Chinese army. In addition, according to Yueqiaoshu (越嶠書, SV Việtkiệuthư), on August 21, 1406, the Yongle Emperor issued an order to Ming soldiers in Annam:
"Once our army enters Annam, except Buddhist and Taoist text; all books and notes, including folklore and children book, should be burnt. The stelae erected by China should be protected carefully, while those erected by Annam, should be completely annihilated. Do not spare even one character."
On the 21st day of the 5th lunar month of the following year, Emperor Yongle issued another order to Ming soldiers in Annam:
"I have repeatedly told you all to burnt all Annamese books, including folklore and children books and the local stelae should be destroyed immediately upon sight. Recently I heard our soldiers hesitated and read those books before burning them. Most soldiers do not know how to read, so it will be a waste of our time. Now you have to strictly obey my previous command, and burn all local books upon sight without hesitation."
The Chinese colonists promoted Ming Confucian ideology, bureaucratic practices, and Classical Chinese study among the local Vietnamese people, forcing them to wear Chinese-style clothes. The Ming forbade local customs such as tattooing, unmarried boys and girls wearing short hair, and women wearing short skirts, in "order to change customs in conformity with the north." Cultural incorporation was pursued with the new Jiaozhi administration advising the Ming court:
"The Yi people of Annam venerate the law of the Buddha, but do not know to worship or sacrifice the spirits. We should establish altars for sacrifice to the spirits of the wind, clouds, thunder and rain... so that the people become familiar with the way to express gratitude to the spirits through sacrifice."
In 1416, a large number of Confucian school, Yin-Yang schools and medical schools were established within the province. Examinations for local bureaucracy were formalized in 1411. Chinese mourning rites and mourning leave were instituted among the official of Jiaozhi in 1419. For the first time, Đại Việt experienced the sustained influence of Neo-Confucian ideology, which not only included the traditional doctrines of filial piety but also demanded an "activist, state-oriented service" based on officials' absolute loyalty to the dynasty and on the moral superiority of the "civilized" over the "barbarian" as the Ming viewed the Vietnamese as barbarians. Yongle brought Vietnamese students to the National Institution at the Ming capital and appointed more natives to the minor local offices in Jiaozhi. The Ming also destroyed or brought to the north many Vietnamese vernacular writing, historical and classic texts.
After regained independence, Vietnamese monarch Lê Thánh Tông issued royal edict in 1474 to forbid Vietnamese from adopting foreign languages, hairstyles and clothes like the Laotians, Chams and the Ming Chinese, abolished the Ming forced customs. The Mongol, Cham, and Ming invasions of 13th-15th centuries destroyed many Vietnamese important sites, buildings, artifacts, and archives of the Postclassical period.
Source: Wikipedia.org
As it has been repeatedly emphasized throughout this paper, to understand the development of the Vietnamese language, it must be examined through the lens of historical dynastic events. Ancient Annam, as a colony of China, served as a site for resource extraction by Chinese settlers, often at the expense of the indigenous population. Colonial consequences included displacement from ancestral lands and disruption of local economies, rendering native communities minorities in their own homeland. The ruling powers dictated cultural and linguistic norms, often through oppressive policies that sparked resistance. These dynamics significantly shaped the trajectory of the Vietnamese language, as colonial authorities determined what was taught and spoken.
II) Ming occupation and Hồ Dynasty reforms (1407-1427)
The Ming occupation of Đại Việt imposed a new wave of colonial pressure on language and identity. Chinese administrators enforced the use of Han script and classical literature, attempting to erase local autonomy by embedding Sinitic norms into education and governance. This period intensified the prestige register of Sino‑Vietnamese, expanding vocabulary in law, ritual, and bureaucracy.
At the same time, the Hồ dynasty reforms sought to localize administration while still relying on Chinese models. Hồ Quý Ly introduced vernacular elements into governance, but his reforms were short‑lived under Ming domination. The tension between local adaptation and colonial imposition is visible in the lexicon: Vietnamese absorbed new Sinitic terms while preserving Yue substrata in everyday speech.
This episode highlights the interplay of language and power. Script became a tool of domination, vocabulary a marker of authority, and resistance a matter of preserving vernacular identity. Vietnamese survived not by rejecting colonial influence outright, but by grafting it onto its indigenous roots — a pattern repeated across centuries.
For over 1,600 years, Annam was under strong Chinese linguistic influence. This influence intensified during the 20-year Ming occupation beginning in 1407, when the invaders implemented policies aimed at eradicating local culture, including the destruction of local chữNôm literary works. Ironically, after Vietnam regained independence in 1427, the post-Lê Dynasty monarchs largely returned to the same Sinicized cultural and linguistic practices. Classical Chinese (Wenyanwen, 文言文) remained the official language of scholarship and governance, and many court scholars embraced Chinese literary and colloquial forms wholeheartedly. Indigenous scholarship was often marginalized, and local intellectual contributions were viewed with condescension.
This cultural orientation persisted until the early 20th century, when French colonial influence introduced Western ideas and the French language into national examinations. Alongside classical Chinese, the Romanized Vietnamese script known as Quốcngữ was adopted in 1909 by the colonial government and further institutionalized in subsequent years (1910, 1912, etc.) with bulletins, newspapers and magazines.
The fascination with Chinese culture extended beyond elite circles, though. As Nguyễn Thị Chân-Quỳnh notes (1995, pp. 110-111), quoting Nguyễn Văn Xuân's Phong trào Duy tân (1970), even rural villagers continued to place Chinese-scripted papers (ChữNho, 儒字) in sacred spaces as late as 1970, while printed materials in Latin script were sometimes used as toilet paper., which is a taboo with tissues printed with Chinese glyphs. Today, this legacy is viewed critically by nationalist scholars, who see such cultural deference as a betrayal of Vietnamese identity.
In the pursuit of understanding Chinese etyma that share cognates with Vietnamese basic vocabulary, it is essential for historical linguists, especially home-grown Vietnamese scholars, to reengage with classical Chinese sources. Texts such as the Guangyun (廣韻) and Kangxi Zidian (康熙字典), along with modern Western research on Sino-Tibetan and Old Chinese linguistics, offer valuable insights. Without such scholarship, the presence of northern Chinese dialectal features in Vietnamese, especially in everyday speech, remains poorly understood.
Many Vietnamese words reflect northern Chinese colloquialisms once spoken by the general populace of the Middle Kingdom. Examples include mainày (明兒 míngr, "tomorrow"), lúcnào (牢牢 láoláo, "always"), luônluôn (老老 láoláo, "constantly"), khôngphảisao? (可不是 kěbùshì, "isn't it so?"), and chịukhôngnổi rồi! (受不了 了. Shòubùliǎo le!, "I can't take it anymore!"), or khôngdámđâu! (不敢當! Bùgǎndàng!, "It wouldn't dare!"), etc. These phrases are characteristic of northern Mandarin dialects.
While the precise period when such colloquialisms entered everyday Vietnamese speech remains unclear, what is evident is that Vietnamese has shown a stronger tendency to absorb Mandarin influences over those from other Chinese dialects such as Cantonese or Hokkienese. This linguistic affinity reflects historical patterns of contact, migration, and governance that favored northern Chinese dialectal exposure over southern variants.
Historically, most Chinese rulers hailed from northern regions, including those of Altaic Turko-Mongol origin. Their capitals were typically located in the north, such as Nanjing (南京) in the lower Yangtze Basin and later Beijing (北京), despite its harsh climate and frequent dust storms from the Gobi Desert.
Table 3 - Comparative Integration of Chinese in Sino-Centric Vietnam,
Korea, and Japan
The enduring distinction between Chinese identity and that
of Koreans and Japanese remains evident today. Despite generations of
residence, individuals of Chinese descent living in South Korea and
Japan are still often regarded as outsiders, highlighting the
deep-rooted cultural boundaries that persist across East Asia.
In
contrast, Vietnam, though subjected to the longest period of Chinese
domination, underwent a profound process of Sinicization that left an
indelible imprint on its people and language. Unlike Korea and Japan,
which have maintained distinct national identities despite historical
Chinese influence, Vietnam absorbed many Sinitic elements into its
cultural and linguistic fabric. This contrast is particularly striking
given that northern Chinese populations themselves include significant
Altaic-origin groups, much like the ethnic diversity found between the
Yue and northern peoples. Yet, Korea and Japan resisted assimilation
more firmly, while Vietnam’s historical trajectory reflects a more
complex and enduring entanglement with Chinese civilization.
Chinese Diaspora in Korea and Japan
In South Korea and Japan, ethnic Chinese communities have
historically faced social and legal barriers to full integration.
Despite generations of residence, many remain classified as foreigners
or permanent residents rather than citizens. This reflects strong
national identities in both countries, where cultural and ethnic
homogeneity has long been emphasized. Even Chinese surnames and heritage
can mark individuals as outsiders, regardless of how long their families
have lived there.
Chinese Assimilation in Vietnam
Vietnam presents a contrasting case. Chinese immigrants –
especially those who arrived during earlier dynasties – have largely
assimilated into Vietnamese society over generations. By the third
generation, many Chinese-Vietnamese families are culturally
indistinguishable from ethnic Kinh Vietnamese. This is partly due to
centuries of shared history, intermarriage, and linguistic blending,
especially during periods of Chinese rule and influence.
Vietnamese Surnames and Chinese Origins
Many Vietnamese surnames have Chinese origins. Common
surnames like Trần (陳), Lê (黎), Nguyễn (阮), and Phạm (范) are derived
from Chinese characters and were adopted during periods of Sinicization.
Even surnames found among ethnic minorities, such as Phạm among Chamic
people or Thạch among Khmer-Vietnamese, can trace their roots to Chinese
linguistic influence.
However, there are exceptions. Some
indigenous Vietnamese surnames, especially among ethnic minorities like
the Hmong, Muong, or Tay, may not have Chinese etymology, though they
are fewer in number.
Cultural Identity vs. Ethnic Lineage
The deeper point here is that cultural identity often
diverges from ethnic lineage. A person may carry a Chinese surname but
identify fully as Vietnamese, just as someone in Korea or Japan may be
ethnically Chinese but culturally distinct. Vietnam’s long history of
absorbing and localizing foreign influences, whether Chinese, French, or
Cham, has created a uniquely syncretic national identity.
The linguistic convergence between Vietnamese and northern Chinese colloquialisms is likely the result of centuries of interethnic contact, particularly during periods of Chinese colonial rule. Beginning in 111 BCE, waves of Chinese immigrants – including officials, soldiers, and their families – settled in Annam. Over time, many intermarried with local populations, creating a rich tapestry of cultural and linguistic exchange that continues to influence Vietnamese speech today.
Ethnically, approximately 84% of Vietnam’s population belongs to the Kinh majority, commonly recognized as ethnic Vietnamese. This group is believed to be descended from a blend of early Yue populations, who once inhabited a vast region stretching from Lake Dongting in Hunan Province down to northern Vietnam, and, historically, Han settlers who migrated southward during the Han Dynasty. The Kinh also absorbed influences from territories formerly part of the Nanzhao Kingdom (738–902) and later the Dali State (937–1253), both located in what is now Yunnan Province. Vietnam’s present-day northwestern region, home to a significant concentration of Daic-speaking communities, reflects this layered ancestry.
The remaining 16% of the population comprises 54 officially recognized ethnic minority groups. These communities are primarily located in Vietnam’s mountainous northern regions and along the western highlands, extending from north to south. Among them are Mon-Khmer and Cham groups, many of whom inhabit the eastern coastal lowlands, territories historically seized from the former kingdoms of Champa and Khmer between the 12th and early 20th centuries. The Mon-Khmer peoples, often referred to as montagnards, and the Cham minority, descendants of the once-powerful Champa Kingdom, carry legacies of resistance and survival. Notably, the Cham endured devastating persecution in the 18th century following uprisings against Vietnamese rule, particularly under Emperor Minhmạng of the Nguyễn Dynasty.
Figure 3 - Map of the Dali State in 1142
(Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/vi/d/d5/China_11b.jpg)
From an anthropological standpoint, it is possible to distinguish between two major waves of Chinese migration to Vietnam. The first wave consisted of Han settlers who arrived in ancient times and gradually intermingled with indigenous populations, contributing to the formation of the early Kinh ethnic majority. These settlers became part of Vietnam’s foundational demographic, blending Yue and Han ancestry with local aboriginal groups.
The second wave involved more recent Chinese immigrants who arrived after World War II, following Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek’s troops into Vietnam to oversee the disarmament of Japanese forces. These latecomers, including Hainanese and Fukienese communities, settled predominantly in lowland and coastal cities such as Huế, Đànẵng, Faifo (Hội an), Tamkỳ, Tamquan, Bồngsơn, Quynhơn, and Tuyhoà. Collectively, they formed the Hoa (華) ethnic minority, which numbered around one million people. During the 1960s, many were compelled to adopt Vietnamese citizenship under policies enacted by the southern government. Over time, these communities became increasingly assimilated into the Kinh majority.
Chinese refugees in later period, particularly those who fled by sea after the fall of the Ming Dynasty to the Manchurian Qing, played a significant role in developing southern Vietnam. They helped establish towns in six newly formed provinces, including Hàtiên, Bạcliêu, and Sàigòn (historically known as 西岸 Xī'àn), regions that had previously belonged to the Khmer Kingdom before the Kinh expansion in the late 18th century.
Further evidence of assimilation can be seen in the transformation of descendants of early Chinese immigrants. Many are no longer classified as ethnic Chinese in official records, having fully integrated into the Kinh majority. This shift accelerated after the mass exodus of Chinese-Vietnamese refugees in 1979, triggered by rising tensions ahead of the Sino-Vietnamese border war. Between 1979 and 1996, approximately 400,000 Chinese-Vietnamese fled Vietnam by boat, eventually resettling in countries such as the United States, Canada, and other Western nations. Those who remained in Vietnam continued to assimilate, contributing to the evolving cultural and ethnic landscape of the nation. (5)
Let us consider further examples illustrating the integration of Chinese-descended individuals into Vietnam’s Kinh majority. Historical figures such as King Hồ Quý Ly and Governor Phan Thanh Giản, along with countless unsung heroes and ordinary citizens, reflect the deep-rooted contributions of Chinese ancestry within Vietnamese society. In modern times, a notable segment of the Hoa minority – ethnic Chinese in Vietnam – has risen to prominence in the entertainment industry. Celebrities like Trấn Thành, Đàm Vĩnh Hưng, and Quách Thành Danh exemplify this trend, alongside many others in politics and public life.
While the number of renowned figures is statistically small – perhaps one in a million – their visibility underscores the remarkable extent to which descendants of Chinese immigrants have become fully integrated into Vietnamese culture. This phenomenon reflects not only assimilation but also the flourishing of hybrid identities within the broader Kinh population.
Historically, the Kinh people emerged from early waves of Chinese immigrants who followed Han invaders into Annam beginning in 111 BCE. Over the next millennium, these settlers intermarried with indigenous populations, forming the foundation of the Kinh ethnicity (京族). The term "Kinh" originally referred to urban dwellers in the Red River Delta and coastal lowlands, regions where Han colonialists first established military and administrative outposts. Many of these settlers remained permanently, especially after the collapse of the Tang Dynasty in 907 CE.
The concept of a "millennium" is central to Vietnam’s historical evolution. After gaining independence in 939 A.D., the newly sovereign Annam began its own expansionist phase, mirroring the earlier Chinese colonization. Over the next thousand years, Annamese settlers moved southward, annexing territories from weakened neighbors through conquest and resettlement. This expansion led to intermarriage with Chamic and Khmer populations, producing a new ethnocultural blend. The linguistic and racial integration that followed contributed to the development of Southern Vietnamese dialects, which differ markedly from the speech patterns of the northern population shaped over 2,200 years.
By the early 18th century, Annamese settlers had reached present-day Rạchgiá Province, where they intermingled not only with Khmer communities but also with descendants of Chinese refugees led by Marshal Mạc Cửu. These refugees, fleeing the fall of the Ming Dynasty and Manchu rule, were granted resettlement by the Nguyễn monarchs. The resulting mixed populations became indistinguishable from the Kinh majority, both in appearance and cultural identity, likely influenced by the shared equatorial climate and centuries of integration.
In sum, the Kinh majority is composed of six primary ethnic stocks: Taic, Yue, Chinese, Daic, Chamic, and Khmer. While Cham and Khmer heritage is celebrated for its monumental cultural contributions, the Chinese component is often overlooked in academic discourse. By the late 19th century, as Annam’s population reached 20 million, historical events had further shaped ethnic identities. The Chamic population, for example, was diminished due to persecution under Emperor Minhmạng, who targeted them for their past support of the Tâysơn rebellion. Many Cham and Khmer individuals reclassified themselves as Kinh to avoid discrimination and violence, especially after their ancestral territories were annexed into Southern Vietnam.
Despite the prestige of Cham and Khmer cultural legacies, Vietnamese scholarship has often sidestepped the Chinese racial influence, perhaps due to political sensitivities surrounding nationalism. Yet, given Vietnam’s thousand-year history as a prefecture of the Chinese empire, such influence is both inevitable and profound. Comparisons with other former colonies, such as Ireland under England, Mexico under Spain, or the assimilation of Yue populations in Guangdong and Fujian into Han Chinese identity, highlight Vietnam’s parallel experience. After centuries under the rule of a dominant neighbor, Vietnam, too, underwent deep assimilation. Recognizing this reality is not only historically accurate but essential to understanding the nation’s complex identity.
Figure 4 - Bảngiốc Waterfall over the river
Artistic render of the Taic-Yue-Chin-Chamic-Khmer cascades of the
modern Vietnamese language.
(Source: modified from a photo of Bangioc Waterfall, half of it was
overtaken by the Chinese)
To make the complex historical and anthropological narrative more intuitive, especially for those with a visual or artistic mindset, let’s reimagine the entire rationalization as a watercolor landscape.
Picture an imaginary map of Vietnam, painted in cascading layers of ink. At the top, a dark hue represents the earliest origins, gradually fading into lighter tones as it flows downward. This image resembles a multi-tiered waterfall, where each cascade symbolizes a phase in the region’s ethnocultural evolution.
The uppermost cascade represents the early Chinese settlers, subjects of the Han Empire, who themselves descended from diverse populations of ancient states like Qin, Chu, Wu, and Yue. Many of these groups, particularly the Chu State (楚國, c. 1030-223 B.C.), were composed of Taic or proto-Daic (先傣) peoples, often referred to as "Malay" by Vietnamese scholar Bình Nguyên Lộc in his 1972 work Nguồn-gốc Mãlai của Dân-tộc Việt-nam ("The Malay Origin of the Vietnamese"). His thesis, supported by early 20th-century scholars like Phan Hữu Dật and echoed by Lacouperie’s identification of Shan-Taic origins, suggests that these pre-Yue populations formed the ethnolinguistic bedrock of the region.
As the water flows downward, it becomes muddied, symbolizing the infusion of foreign elements, such as the proto-Chinese nomadic horsemen who conquered the ancient mainland. This mixture continues through successive cascades, blending Han and Yue lineages with other ethnic influences like Cham and Khmer. By the time the stream reaches the bottom pool, representing the Annamese population, it has absorbed a rich array of cultural and genetic elements.
This final pool embodies the ancestral composition of the Vietnamese people and other southern populations in China who also trace their roots to the Yue. The result is a deeply integrated racial and cultural mosaic, shaped by centuries of migration, conquest, and intermarriage.
The theory presented above is grounded in Chinese historical documentation. Naturally, this Sino-centric interpretation may be met with resistance by Vietnamese nationalists, as it challenges deeply rooted beliefs in a racially and linguistically "pure" Vietnamese identity. Such discomfort often arises from differing conceptions of origin and cultural heritage.
In tracing the history of a language and its speakers, one must decide whether to rely on mythological narratives or historical evidence. If the latter is chosen, it becomes evident that the ethnic makeup of Vietnam’s Kinh majority is the result of centuries of interethnic blending, primarily between indigenous Yue populations and Han migrants. This fusion was largely driven by China’s steady southward expansion, which displaced Yue communities and pushed them into new territories.
Ethnographic data from northern Vietnam suggests that this migratory and integrative process persisted well into the 20th century. The demographic evolution closely parallels that of the Han Empire after its annexation of the NamViet Kingdom in 111 B.C., when diverse groups were absorbed into the imperial system. Viewed through this lens, Vietnam’s ethnogenesis reflects a similar arc of cultural amalgamation and historical continuity. (6)
It is important to recognize that there is no singular entity known as the "Chinese race." Rather, what exists is Chinese culture and the diverse populations who have adopted and contributed to it over time. The people identified as "Chinese," both before and after the Han Dynasty, are in fact of racially mixed origins, descended from various groups across the northern and southern regions of ancient China.
This diversity began with the unification of China under Qin Shihuang, the First Emperor of the Qin Dynasty, who established the foundation of what is now known as China. The Qin Empire incorporated:
(a) The populations of six previously independent states, whose ancestral lineages were likely distinct from those of the Qin heartland in present-day Shaanxi;
(b) The original Qin populace, descended from proto-Tibetan nomadic horsemen;
(c) Ancient northern tribes of non-Taic origin from the Shang and Xia periods, including groups with Altaic and Turkic ancestry located in regions such as Shanxi and Shandong;
(d) Southern populations from earlier states that had paid tribute to the Western Zhou kings, whose lineage traced back to Hunan in southern China.
As the Qin Empire expanded southward, it absorbed and intermingled with indigenous Yue communities. This process of integration continued through successive dynasties, multiplying the population with further Yue tribal groups as their territories were annexed into the growing geopolitical entity known as the Middle Kingdom (中國).
Thus, the Chinese identity emerged not from a single racial origin, but from a complex and evolving synthesis of cultures and peoples across a vast and diverse landscape.
Figure 5 - Map of the Zhou Dynasty
In the aftermath of the Qin Dynasty’s brief reign, the empire plunged into turmoil. Among the contenders for power, the revived Chu State fiercely challenged for control. Ultimately, victory fell to Liu Bang, the founding emperor of the Han Dynasty, whose rise was supported by a cadre of generals, many of whom were former subjects of Chu. These leaders, like Liu Bang himself, traced their lineage to Taic ancestors of the Yue, underscoring the deep ethnic and cultural continuity between the Chu revival and the early Han establishment.
The Han Empire, as a continuation of the unified Middle Kingdom established under the Qin, expanded its territorial reach and absorbed a vast population drawn from the subjects of previously independent ancient states. Racially and linguistically, the Han identity evolved atop a demographic foundation that had already included the populace of the former Chu State, later enriched by Yue elements from the annexed NamViet Kingdom. From this synthesis emerged the people known as “Han,” encompassing not only the core regions of the empire but also newly acquired territories corresponding to present-day Guangdong and Guangxi provinces. In effect, all inhabitants residing within the Han imperial domain from that point forward were designated as Han, analogous to how individuals born within the United States are considered American, regardless of ancestral origin.
The formation of the Han populace was thus the result of a complex amalgamation: original subjects who had once constituted the multi-state demographic landscape of the Eastern Zhou Dynasty, those absorbed following the collapse of the Qin Empire, and additional groups from north of the Yangtze River blended with Yue communities from the southern reaches of China.
Following the Han Empire’s annexation of the NamViet Kingdom in 111 B.C., the racially heterogeneous Han population from China South began a sustained migration into the southeastern frontier of the empire, specifically, the northeastern region of present-day Vietnam, where the newly established Giaochỉ prefecture ('Giaochâu') was situated. Among the earliest waves of Han colonists and their accompanying infantry units, many were of BáchViệt (百越 BaiYue) origin, previously residing just south of the Yangtze River (楊子江 Yángzǐjiāng) in areas corresponding to modern Hubei and Hunan provinces. Displaced from their ancestral homelands, these groups were resettled in distant locales such as the Red River Basin (Đồngbằng SôngHồng) of northern Vietnam. For many, the relocation became permanent, largely due to the absence of means or opportunity to return.
It was not of any secret that the Han soldiers were those of the wretched poorest who had no means of making a living so they join the army. In Chinese, there is an old saying that goes, "好男不當兵, 好鐵不打釘" (Good men don't join the army; good iron is not for making mails.) The idiom is so cited here just to emphasize the fact that out of hundreds of thousands of Chinese solders who went to colonize ancient Annam only a few would be able to make it back home. As a members of "the elite ruling class", their life would better off resettling in the fertile land of Annam.
In tandem with the prolonged southward campaign of Han imperial forces, successive waves of exiled officials, their families, and refugees, many fleeing the ravages of war and famine, followed behind. These groups migrated in large numbers and eventually established permanent settlements in the newly annexed territories, which were later formally designated as Annam Đôhộphủ (安南 督護府, "Southern Pacification Protectorate Prefecture") under Tang administration, a designation that remained in use until the dynasty's decline.
Over time, many of these settlers expanded into the lower-elevation agricultural zones of the southeastern basin, particularly in areas corresponding to present-day Vĩnhphúc and Hoàbình provinces in northern Vietnam. There, they resettled permanently, often due to the lack of means or opportunity to return to their ancestral homelands. Over the course of the following millennium, these colonial migrants and their descendants came to form the demographic foundation of the Kinh majority population in the newly independent polity of Annam.
From the outset, the presence of Han colonists in the ancient Annamese heartland exerted pressure on native inhabitants, ethnographically classified as Vietmuong, who were gradually displaced into remote mountainous regions. These communities, now recognized as the Mường ethnic minority, remain concentrated in Hoàbình Province and are counted among the 54 officially designated national minority groups in Vietnam, many of whom continue to reside on the periphery of their ancestral lands.
Meanwhile, indigenous populations who remained in urban centers and fertile lowland townships often engaged in cooperation with the Han settlers. The integration of Han newcomers during successive waves of southern expansion took root in these resettled zones, where intermarriage with local women became increasingly common. Over generations, this process gave rise to a racially mixed population born in Annam, individuals historically referred to as Annamites (安南 居民), who would become the forebears of the modern Kinh people, often described as the "metropolitans" of the region.
Figure 6 - Map of the Han Dynasty
Map of the Han Dynasty
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Dynasty)
Continual flow of migration out of the mainland of China in search of a better life elsewhere in other countries has always been a part of Chinese history.
Specifically, this divergence sets them apart from groups of Mon-Khmer origin, as well as the Cham, who share genetic affinities with the Li minority on China's Hainan Island, and other southern populations such as the Malay, Filipino, Indonesian, and Polynesian peoples. The contrast underscores the complex interplay between environmental factors and inherited genetic lineages in shaping the physical development of diasporic communities.
As a matter of fact, we could state with certainty that more than 99 percent of the Kinh population today bear Chinese surnames. This phenomenon reflects a long-standing pattern of cultural and demographic integration, comparable to the racial assimilation policies implemented during the brief Qin Dynasty, which issued an imperial decree compelling over 30,000 local women to marry its soldiers. Much of this topic has already been addressed in the preceding chapter on political dynamics. In short, the lack of open discourse surrounding this issue stems either from domestically trained scholars adhering to politically correct narratives or from segments of the Vietnamese public who conflate national pride with historical denial.
To better understand this phenomenon through an anthropological lens, one may compare the origins of the Vietnamese people with similar developments in other nations that have followed a comparable trajectory, namely, the formation of multiethnic states irrespective of specific ancestral origins. This is precisely how the Annamese identity began to take shape some 2,225 years ago.
For instance, contemporary Asian history offers instructive parallels: all three consecutive prime ministers of Singapore and every president of Taiwan have ancestral roots in mainland China, specifically Fujian Province. Yet, they proudly identify as Singaporean and Taiwanese, respectively, in ways that align seamlessly with their national identities. Table 5 below illustrates the parallel trajectories of Vietnam and Taiwan. What transpired in Vietnam more than two millennia ago is, in many respects, unfolding in Taiwan today.
Of course, when drawing such analogies, one must account for the influence of modern technological factors, such as transportation, communication, and linguistic orthography, which can be excluded from the comparison. These modern elements, by their very nature, help preserve the consistency of standard pronunciation and inhibit the natural evolution of language over time.
Table 4 - Taiwanese Identity
Of the 23 million people in Taiwan, 98% are descendants of ethnic Han Chinese immigrants who migrated from China from the 17th to the 20th century. Of these, around 70% are descended from immigrants from Fujian and identify themselves as Hoklo whilst 15% are Hakka from Guangdong (Canton) and also Fujian. The ancestors of these people were laborers that crossed the Taiwan Strait to work on plantations for the Dutch. It is believed that these male laborers married local aborigine women, creating a new ethnic group of mixed Chinese and aborigine people. It is these descendants who identify themselves as Taiwanese and increasingly reject their identity as Chinese. The reason for this lies to a great extent with the authoritarian rule of the foreign Kuomintang (KMT) which fled mainland China during the Chinese Civil War and set up government in Taiwan. There was martial law that lasted four decades and was discriminatory against the existing inhabitants of Taiwan. Mandarin, a foreign language, was imposed as the national language (國語) and all other languages were made illegal. The harsh rule over Taiwan was lifted in 1988 and began a new era in Taiwanese history when Lee Tenghui, a Taiwanese, became president. The first transition of power from the China-centric KMT occurred in 2000 when Taiwanese Chen Shui-bian of the Democratic Progressive Party won the presidential elections. He made efforts to push for Taiwan independence with statements that there are two nations across the Taiwan Strait; a push for plebiscite on independence; and the abolishment of the National Unification Council. Taiwanese opinion on independence is split between the northern and southern half of Taiwan which interestingly also divides the "mainlander" (外省人) in the north from the "Taiwanese" (本省人) in the south.
Source: http://www.taiwandna.com
Consider the projected number of children born to over 180,000 Vietnamese women – recorded as of 2018 – who married local husbands in Taiwan over the past 35 years. Excluding the post-1949 arrivals, most of these husbands are descendants of fully Sinicized Fukienese {X2Y3Z4H} (7) immigrants who settled from mainland China beginning in the 17th century. The population resulting from these unions may now exceed the estimated 900,000 inhabitants recorded in the Han Dynasty’s census of the Giaochâu (交州 Jiaozhou) prefecture some 2,000 years ago. (8)
In terms of ratio of racial composition, the demographic balance between these two populations, ancient Annamites and contemporary Taiwanese, could be considered comparable. The former, of Chinese descent in Annam, were referred to as "Annamites," while the latter are known as "Taiwanese," each speaking a Sinicized variant of their respective languages and incorporating varying proportions of indigenous ancestry. In this context, national identity is shaped less by ancestral origin and more by birthplace. Accordingly, the term "Taiwanese" encompasses both the "mainlander" (外省人) and the "native Taiwanese" (本省人), united in their shared commitment to preserving Taiwan’s de facto sovereignty, even as formal independence remains unrealized, much like Vietnam’s historical trajectory toward nationhood.
Although many Vietnamese carry Chinese ancestry, national pride remains firmly anchored in a long-standing tradition of resistance to foreign domination, particularly in response to successive waves of Chinese imperial expansion. This enduring sentiment is exemplified by Vietnam's remarkable military record, most notably its unprecedented victories over Mongol invasions on three separate occasions during the 13th century, at a time when the Mongols had already conquered and ruled China for nearly a century. For over the past millennium, successive generations have made profound sacrifices to preserve the nation's autonomy.
With the exception of Vietnam's historical southward expansion, marked by the gradual annexation of territories formerly belonging to the now-extinct Champa kingdom and segments of the Khmer domain, the country's sustained sovereignty stands as a compelling model for other stateless peoples. Both the Tibetan and Uyghur communities continue to seek the restoration of their respective homelands, which remain under Chinese control. Their contemporary struggle echoes the centuries-long experience of ancient Vietnam prior to its emergence as an independent polity in the 10th century.
From a linguistic standpoint, it is often sufficient to examine the political, cultural, and historical dimensions of a language in isolation, particularly when the languages in question, such as Mon-Khmer and Vietnamese, evolved independently for most of their histories. What once belonged to the Khmer linguistic sphere eventually became part of the Vietnamese domain, and vice versa. This dynamic parallels the historical relationships between Vietnamese and Chinese, and similarly between Taiwanese and Chinese populations.
However, in the field of Sinitic-Vietnamese studies, a more integrative approach is essential, one that draws from anthropology, history, and linguistics, because these domains are deeply interwoven. Without such a framework, it becomes difficult to account for the cognate relationships between certain lexical items in Chinese and Vietnamese, especially those found in intimate or colloquial registers. For instance, unrefined terms for human anatomy and sexual acts such as 'cu', 'cặt' (龜 guī), 'hĩm', 'lồn' (隂 yīn), 'bề' (嫖 piáo), 'đụ', and 'đéo' (屌 diǎo; SV 'điệu', Cantonese diu2, Hakka diau3) show clear etymological parallels. Likewise, refined expressions such as 'ânái' (恩愛 ēn'ài), 'giaohợp' (交合 jiāohé), and 'giaocấu' (交媾 jiāogòu) share common roots.
These lexical correspondences reflect underlying linguistic genomes, deep structural affinities that manifest in distinctive semantic and phonological patterns found only in genetically affiliated languages. Such evidence underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary methodology in fully understanding the historical and cultural forces that have shaped the Vietnamese lexicon.
The linguistic commonalities observed across the various "Chinese" dialects and sub-dialectal variants reveal deeply embedded features that are not found in languages of unrelated families, such as Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer. These shared traits are so intrinsic that they often obscure the true etymological origins of certain forms. Their phonetic and semantic proximity makes it difficult to distinguish whether such terms should be classified as cognates from a common root or dismissed as loanwords due to their closeness.
Take, for instance, the Vietnamese word 'đường' 糖 táng (sugar) and its homophonic counterpart 'đàng' or 'đường' 唐 táng (path). Both derive from Chinese sources, yet their semantic divergence reflects layered etymologies. The former likely originates from a Yue root, given Guangxi's historical association with sugarcane cultivation, while the latter, pronounced /dang2/, is plausibly traced to Middle Chinese. These forms reappear in compound expressions such as 'đáiđường' and 'tiểuđường' 糖尿 tángniào (diabetic), where 尿 niào (SV niệu) aligns with both 'tiểu' and 'đái' ('urinate'). The reduplicated form 尿尿 niàoniào corresponds to colloquial expressions like 'điđái' (with the former being 'baby talk' for urination), while Cantonese 屙尿 /o1niu6/ parallels 'điỉa' (to defecate).
Such examples illustrate a broader pattern of lexical interchange between Vietnamese and Chinese. However, etymological analysis alone cannot definitively determine linguistic affiliation, as many Chinese terms may themselves be of foreign origin. Dialectal distribution must also be considered. In this case, the phonetic variants of 'đường' – [ɗɨə̤ŋ˨] (VS), [ɗaŋ˨] (SV), [t'ɔŋ˨] (Cant.) – suggest a shared lineage. While 唐 táng may be rendered as 'đường' or 'đàng' in Vietnamese, 糖 táng /t'aŋ2/ (sugar) is consistently 'đường' /dɨəŋ2/, not 'đàng' /daŋ2/, which denotes 'road'. The semantic distinction is reinforced by phonological constraints across dialects, such as /t'ɔŋ2/ and /djɒŋ2/ in Central Vietnamese. The etymon 糖 táng, likely of Yue origin, was phonetically transcribed to represent the concept of 'sugar', while 唐 táng (Tang Dynasty) served as a phonetic base for both 'đường' and 'đàng', possibly connoting 'palace path'. Similarly, 道 dào (SV 'đạo') aligns with VS 'đường' through phonological correspondence, as seen in the pattern /-owŋ/ → /-ɒw/, comparable to 'đau' (pain) and 痛 tòng (SV thống).
To frame this discussion analogically, imagine Vietnamese as "English" within the Indo-European (IE) family, and Chinese as comprising the core of the Sino-Tibetan (ST) family. Just as English incorporates etyma from Germanic, Latin, Greek, and Romance sources, Vietnamese integrates lexical material from multiple Chinese dialects. In this theatrical scenario, ST plays the role of IE, and Vietnamese assumes the position of English. The relationship between Vietnamese and ST thus mirrors that of English and IE.
Further, if China were not a unified nation but a "United States of the Middle Kingdom," with each province functioning as a sovereign entity akin to pre-EU Europe, then dialects such as Cantonese and Fukienese would be classified as distinct languages. By the same logic, had Vietnam remained under Chinese rule, the Annamese language – still referred to as /a1nam2we5/ in modern Hainanese – would likely be considered a Chinese dialect today.
Methodologically, most Western-trained Sinologists approach Sinitic studies using tools developed for Indo-European linguistics. Yet these frameworks often fall short when applied to Sinitic-Vietnamese studies. For example, inflectional case systems (accusative, nominative, dative) common in Latin, German, or Russian are virtually absent in Sinitic languages, except for reconstructed Old Chinese verb suffixes like -s (Bloomfield, 1933, p. 17), or consonant cluster dimidiation in Archaic Chinese (GL- ~ *BL-, *GS- ~ *BS-, *GDZ- ~ *BDZ-) as noted by Boodberg (1930) and Cohen (1979, pp. 390–393). During the French colonial period, some linguists even dismissed Vietnamese as "primitive" for lacking grammar, imposing French syntactic structures to compensate for perceived deficiencies in parts of speech, verb conjugation, and tense, features absent in both Vietnamese and Chinese.
To achieve balanced objectivity, one must reconcile the early 20th-century contributions of French scholars like Maspero and Haudricourt, who were largely uninfluenced by nationalism or Chinese cultural pressures, with the Sinitic-oriented work of Vietnamese and Chinese scholars such as Nguyễn Đình-Hoà, Lê Ngọc-Trụ, An Chi, Wang Li (王力), and Chao Yuen-Ren (趙元任). Each operated within the limits of their disciplinary scope: Maspero focused narrowly on a handful of Chinese-derived Annamese words; Haudricourt erroneously dated the emergence of Vietnamese tones to the 12th century; Nguyễn remained confined to Sino-Vietnamese; An Chi appears to find almost every duplicative derived from Chinese; Lê attempted to distinguish native Vietnamese from Sino-Vietnamese forms (e.g., 漢 hàn for 'hắn'); Wang echoed Vietnamese scholarship; and Chao scarcely addressed Vietnamese at all. Though these figures are no longer present to challenge contemporary revisions, their foundational work provides a springboard for advancing a revised historical and cultural framework for Sinitic-Vietnamese etymology.
Nonetheless, one cannot disregard the analytical tools of Indo-European linguistics when pursuing historical etymology. While Vietnamese scholars such as Bùi Khánh-Thế and Cao Xuân-Hạo have adapted Western methodologies to local contexts, though their contributions often remain mechanical rather than substantive in probing the essence of the Vietnamese language (see Cao Xuân-Hạo, 2009), An Chi postulated etymons by logical reasoning. This may reflect personal convictions shaped by unresolved nationalistic tensions, as discussed in the preceding chapter on politics. These issues are central to any meaningful evaluation of the origins of Vietnamese. Ultimately, we may agree that the early linguists laid the groundwork, if not a fixed foundation, then at least a movable platform, for continuing serious inquiry into the Sinitic-Vietnamese linguistic field, guided by the same spirit of analytical rigor and impartiality.
By critically examining the limitations of prior scholarship in the field, this research introduces locally grounded concepts to address gaps left by earlier authors, particularly in categories where exotic or non-native frameworks have proven insufficient. One such area is tonality. Here, each extant tone may be treated as a morphemic feature embedded within lexemes, functioning analogously to syntactic markers in Western linguistic systems. These tones, understood as pitch-registered phonetic vibrations, can be conceptualized as tonemes, suprasegmental morphemes that differentiate lexical meaning in both Chinese and Vietnamese. For example, tonal variants such as ye1, ye2, ye3, ye4, ye5, ye6, ye7, ye8, etc., illustrate how a single syllable can yield multiple semantic values depending on tonal contour.
Each lexeme embedded with a toneme may be classified as a glosseme or vocable, whether it constitutes a syllable, morpheme, or full word. In English, the closest parallel is intonation, which operates at the phrasal or sentential level (see Moira Yip, 1990). However, English intonation does not alter the core meaning of a syllable like /ye/, even when expressed as 'yea?', 'yeh?', 'yes?', 'yah?', or 'ya!'. While stress, pitch, and intonation may affect nuance, they rarely shift lexical identity. In contrast, tonal distinctions in Chinese and Vietnamese are integral to word formation. Indo-European languages generally lack this feature, and Khmer exhibits only limited tonal behavior.
Moreover, conventional sound change laws in Indo-European linguistics, such as Grimm’s Law or the Great Vowel Shift, fail to account for the irregularities observed in Archaic Chinese phonological evolution (see Boodberg, 1930; Cohen, 1979, pp. 363–406). Similarly, sound change patterns between Chinese and Vietnamese cognates often defy systematic classification and must be evaluated on an ad hoc basis. Internal variation within Chinese subdialects introduces further discrepancies. While Sino-Vietnamese loanwords exhibit relatively consistent transformations (e.g., /s-/ → /t-/, /c-/ → /th-/), broader Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma often emerge unpredictably.
In many cases, Sinitic-Vietnamese cognates are discovered serendipitously rather than through rule-based reconstruction. For example, 鼻 pí corresponds to SV 'tỵ' rather than the expected 'bĩ'; 番禺 Panyu becomes SV 'Phiênngung' rather than 'Phanngu'; 丞相 chéngxiàng aligns with 'thừatướng'; and 民 mín yields SV 'dân'. These irregularities suggest a one-to-many correspondence model, where polysyllabic forms evolved from monosyllabic roots alongside tonal morphemes, resulting in complete phonological shifts.
Consider the case of 書 shū in 教書 jiàoshū ('to teach'), which aligns with 學 xué in the compound 教學 jiàoxué. In Vietnamese, this yields 'dạyhọc' (VS) and 'giáohọc' (SV), both meaning 'teacher'. The loss of the final stop /-wkp/ in 'học' /hawk͡p̚8/ facilitates the identification of 書 with 學. Meanwhile, 教師 jiàoshī corresponds to SV 'giáosư', which in turn gives rise to the metathetical form 'thầygiáo'. In contemporary usage, 'giáosư' denotes 'professor' (cf. 講師 jiăngshī, SV 'giảngsư'), while 'giáohọc' refers to a village teacher. These examples illustrate how identical Sino-Vietnamese phonemes can evolve into distinct semantic roles.
The transformation from Sinitic to Sinitic-Vietnamese forms demands specialized expertise in both languages. Western linguistic frameworks, while methodologically rigorous, often resemble machine code, abstract systems beneath the surface of language-specific applications. Vietnamese and Chinese, as linguistic "apps", require localization by scholars fluent in both traditions. Reconstruction of Vietnamese etyma from Chinese sources thus depends not only on generalized rules but also on deep familiarity with Classical Chinese. The Kangxi Dictionary (康熙字典) remains an indispensable resource for tracing obscure etymons embedded in historical texts.
For instance, 車 chē (VS 'xe') appears in 後漢書 HòuHànshū as 居 jū (SV cư), phonologically linked to 古 */ka:ʔ/, and semantically aligned with 'cộ' /ko6/ (cart). This yields the compound 'xecộ', encompassing both general and specific meanings. The Kangxi Dictionary also lists 'cộ' under variants such as 輂 jù, 輋 jù, 檋 jù, and 轂 gǔ. Dialectal and historical factors influence phonological shifts, even when derived from the same ideographic roots. For example, 'tàu' (boat) may correspond to 刀 dāo, 舠 dāo, or 艘 sōu, while 'đò' aligns with 舟 zhōu. Related forms such as 'đỏ' 彤 tóng (SV đồng) further illustrate semantic layering.
The dictionary also preserves numerous obsolete characters and doublets, multiple forms representing a single concept. For example, 'xanh' (blue) may correspond to 靑 qīng (SV thanh), 清 qīng (SV thanh), 倉 cāng (SV thương), 滄 cāng (SV thương), or 蒼 cāng (SV thương). These variants inform expressions like 'trờixanh' (blue sky), rendered as 青天 qīngtiān or 蒼天 cāngtiān. Modern orthography obscures etymological precision; identifying the correct Chinese character behind a Vietnamese term like 'xanh' requires contextual and historical insight. In some cases, Vietnamese forms recorded in the Kangxi Dictionary may reflect dialectal usage in the Annam Prefecture, though such identifications are often elusive.
From the 10th century onward, a distinct set of characters began to appear exclusively within the Vietnamese domain. This development paralleled Annam’s political separation from the Middle Kingdom and led to the emergence of the Nôm script. These characters were constructed using the same structural principles as Chinese ideographs, adapted by Annamite scholars (Nhà Nho 安南 儒家). Unfortunately, only a small number of 15th-century Nôm texts survived the Ming invasion, leaving gaps in the historical record.
Most Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary consists of literary forms tied to written Chinese characters. These characters reflect a sophisticated system of ideograph-phoneticization, through which many terms were coined or adapted. Over time, less frequently used words fell into disuse, replaced by vernacular alternatives. Semantic shifts also occurred: for example, "tửtế" 仔細 zǐxī came to mean 'kindness', while "kỹcàng" evolved to mean 'meticulous'. Other examples include "thấtlạc" 失落 shìluò ('lost') versus "lạcloài" ('at a loss'), and polysyllabic formations such as "lịchsự" 歷事 lìshì ('polite'), "íchkỷ" 益己 yìjǐ ('selfish'), and "khoảngthờigian" 一段時間 yīduànshíjiān ('a period of time'), likely predating the adoption of modern romanized Vietnamese orthography.
Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma have undergone extensive phonological transformation. Colloquial pronunciations often deviate from original forms due to dimidiation and sandhi effects, observable through romanized orthography. For instance, 'rác' may derive from 'rácrưới' < 垃圾 lāji ('trash'), and 'đừng' from 甭 béng < 不用 bùyòng ('do not'). Compound words frequently exhibit reversed syntactic order, with both variants in concurrent use: "bảođảm" vs. "đảmbảo" 擔保 dànbǎo ('guarantee'), "lươngthiện" vs. "thiệnlương" 善良 shànliáng ('kindhearted'), "độc-ác" vs. "ácđộc" 惡毒 èdú ('vicious'), "thânphụ" vs. 'phụthân' 父親 fùqīn ('father'), and "thânmẫu" vs. "mẫuthân" 母親 mǔqīn ('mother').
These examples underscore the depth of Sinitic influence on Vietnamese vocabulary. The close phonological and semantic parallels often lead scholars to classify such terms as Chinese loanwords, though their integration into Vietnamese suggests a more complex origin. Newcomers to the field should examine shared basic words – such as "charuột" 親爹 qīndiē ('biological father') and "mẹruột" 親母 qīnmǔ ('biological mother') – to better understand these linguistic relationships. Readers will encounter both obscure and well-known Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma in this study, including those cited by early pioneers like Maspero and Haudricourt. However, some of their proposed Austroasiatic roots remain unresolved and require further scrutiny before being definitively classified.
Basic lexical items often transcend linguistic boundaries. For example, the word for 'eye' appears as /mat/ in Malay (/mata/), and as 'mắt' in Vietnamese, corresponding to Chinese 目 mù (SV 'mục'). Similarly, 'máu' (blood) may relate to 衁 huáng (SV 'vong'), while Khmer equivalents include /phnek/ and /chheam/. These cross-family cognates suggest that certain core vocabulary may originate from shared ancestral roots, later diffused across Austroasiatic and Sino-Tibetan languages.
At the same time, the presence of Mon-Khmer numerals in Vietnamese has long intrigued scholars. While some view these as foundational, this paper argues that basic words beyond numerals, those tied to daily life and cognition, are more indicative of genetic affiliation. Numeral cognates alone do not determine linguistic lineage. Counterexamples presented in subsequent chapters challenge the prevailing Austroasiatic theory, offering Sino-Tibetan evidence that supports a broader etymological framework. In fact, over 90 percent of Vietnamese common vocabulary may be traced to Sinitic-Vietnamese origins. Readers are encouraged to approach this data critically, not to accept the theory outright, but to prepare for a more informed defense of the Sino-Tibetan perspective if they already hold it.
Controversies surrounding Chinese influence on Vietnamese culture are longstanding. Nationalist sentiment often leads to the downplaying or erasure of historical connections. This resistance is particularly strong among militant nationalists, whose convictions are shaped more by ideology than by historical evidence.
Political agendas have historically shaped linguistic development. Euphemism and taboo have influenced vocabulary choices, such as the substitution of "lợi" (利, 'gain') – the name of King Lê Lợi – with "lời" or "lãi". The author speculates that even 民 mín, rendered as "dân" in Sino-Vietnamese, may have been altered to avoid direct association with Lý Thế-Dân (李世民), the Tang emperor during China's rule over Annam.
In modern times, political directives have encouraged the use of "purely Vietnamese" terms like "xelửa" (train), "tênlửa" (missile), and "máybay" (airplane), despite their Chinese origins. These replaced earlier Sino-Vietnamese forms such as "hoảxa" 火車 huǒchē, "hoảtiển" 火箭 huǒjiàn, and "phicơ" 飛機 fēijī, respectively, which were common in southern Vietnam before 1975. Notably, these terms were introduced during the French colonial period and may have been adapted from Japanese translations.
Why should we care whether Vietnamese has been influenced by Chinese? Fundamentally, because that influence lies at the heart of the Vietnamese language – and it is the central focus of this paper. The shaping of Vietnam by Chinese civilization is comparable to how the Romans, Celts, Angles, and Saxons shaped England in antiquity (Palmer, 1972, p. 356). Chinese cultural and historical imprint is deeply embedded in Vietnamese life, not only in visible traditions but also in the subtleties of everyday speech. This influence extends to the most intimate layers of vocabulary, including colloquial and even sexually connotative expressions. (9).
It can be stated with confidence that Chinese cultural and historical influence is deeply embedded in the everyday life and language of the Vietnamese people. This influence is not only evident in formal expressions but also in the most intimate and colloquial aspects of speech, including vocabulary related to human relationships and sexuality. The linguistic choices in Vietnamese whether refined or vulgar often mirror Chinese equivalents with striking precision. Terms referring to reproductive anatomy, sexual functions, and related actions are etymologically cognate with Chinese lexicons. Such parallels would not exist without centuries of sustained Chinese-Vietnamese interaction.
To understand this influence more fully, we must consider the historical development of Chinese dialects and how their complexity parallels that of Vietnamese. Chinese is traditionally divided into seven major dialectal groups, all of which trace their origins to Middle Chinese. These groups have diversified into more than 900 sub-dialects across China, as documented by C-C Chang and cited by Moira Yip (1990, pp. 202, 223). Despite their shared ancestry, these dialects are largely mutually unintelligible, not only across groups but often within the same group. For example, Amoy, Hainanese, and Tchiewchow, though all part of the Minnan sub-family, differ significantly in phonology and vocabulary. Their relationship is historical rather than functional, and this fragmentation reflects the broader linguistic landscape that Vietnamese has interacted with and absorbed over time.
While speakers of Yue-based languages identify themselves as descendants of the "Jyut people" (粵) and refer to their linguistic heritage collectively as "Jyut6waa6" (粵話), it is specifically Cantonese speakers who also embrace the designation "Tang people" (唐人 /Tong4jan4/). This self-identification implies that their ancestors were likely among the Tang-dominated populations who migrated en masse into the Guangdong region (10) gradually displacing earlier native groups – particularly those associated with the historical entity X2Y3Z4H prior to the 10th century.
The dialects spoken in this region, shaped by layers of Middle Chinese (MC) phonology and Tang-era linguistic features, evolved atop a Yue substrate and retained distinct characteristics despite Han influence. These dialects came to be known collectively as "Tang language" (唐話 /Tong4waa6/), with the Guangzhou variety eventually emerging as the representative standard. This linguistic identity reflects both historical continuity and cultural pride rooted in the legacy of the Tang Dynasty.
For the same period, as subjects of the Tang Empire until the 10th century, the ancient Annamese acquired Middle Chinese the way that the ancient Cantonese speakers did (Lü Shih-P'eng 呂士朋. 1964.). The extensive Middle Chinese vocabulary that later became the foundation of Sino-Vietnamese was layered atop an earlier Sinitic-Vietnamese lexical base derived from Archaic and Old Chinese, dating back to the pre-Qin and Han periods. Together, these two strata of Sinicized vocabulary formed the linguistic core of ancient Vietnamese long before Annam achieved sovereignty. It is no coincidence that Sino-Vietnamese represents one facet of the same Middle Chinese linguistic matrix, alongside other regional variants such as Táishān (台山), Báihuà (白話), Pínghuà (平話), etc.. The shared features between Sino-Vietnamese and Cantonese reflect their common Tang-era origins, though their paths diverged after Annam’s political break from the Middle Kingdom in 939. While Cantonese continued to evolve within China under the influence of migrants from other Tang prefectures, Annamese developed independently.
After the collapse of the Tang Dynasty in 907, China entered a period dominated by successive northern dynasties, each instituting its own northern dialect as the official language of the imperial bureaucracy. This policy of linguistic centralization continued into the modern era; by 2018, under Xi Jinping’s leadership, national television broadcasts were required to use Putonghua, while regional dialects faced increasing restrictions.
As a result, Cantonese remained largely a regional vernacular, often limited to local communities and informal settings. Among older generations with limited exposure to formal education, reproducing Mandarin phonemes accurately has proven difficult, especially due to interference from native dialectal phonology. This is particularly evident in the articulation of fricative palatal initials – z-, zh-, ch-, c-, q-, and j – which differ significantly from their Cantonese counterparts.
Vietnamese speakers face similar challenges when learning Mandarin, as phonemic mismatches between the two languages often lead to divergent pronunciations. For instance, the Vietnamese labial /b/ does not consistently align with Mandarin /p/ or /b/, resulting in frequent overcorrections among Vietnamese learners of Putonghua. These phonological discrepancies underscore the broader difficulties faced by speakers of southern Sinitic languages when adapting to the standardized northern speech.
This phenomenon extends to the formation of Sinitic-Vietnamese vocabulary, where diachronic Chinese loanwords are frequently reshaped by Vietnamese phonological constraints. Obstruents such as d, t, th, g, k, quý, qưới, thì, thời, tràng, and trường illustrate how historical sound changes in Annam parallel developments in Minnan sub-dialects like Hokkienese, Amoy, Teochow, and Hainanese. The fusion of Archaic and Old Chinese with these dialects mirrors the broader linguistic evolution that occurred across the Western Han period and into the Three Kingdoms era (Wei, Shu, Wu, 220–280 A.D.). It is likely that ancestral Yue languages, such as proto-LuoYue and proto-MinYue, played a formative role in shaping Archaic and Old Chinese itself.
Up to Annam’s separation from the Tang Empire in 907 and its formal independence from the NamHan State in 939, the region experienced historical developments similar to those in Lingnan (嶺南), including modern Guangdong. After the annexation of the NamViet Kingdom by the Han Empire in 111 B.C., early Yue languages in both regions came under heavy influence from Han Chinese. The process of Sinicization continued in both Annam and Canton, with the latter remaining within the Sinic sphere for over 1,180 years. Cantonese thus evolved as a direct descendant of Middle Chinese, while Annamese diverged, expanding southward by the 18th century and resisting northern incursions. Only then did Chamic and Mon-Khmer elements begin to permeate Vietnamese, forming the basis of the Austroasiatic theory’s Mon-Khmer vocabulary layer.
This suggests that the Sinitic-Yue foundation of Vietnamese predates its contact with Chamic and Mon-Khmer languages. In essence, the early history of Annam was a reflection of Chinese statecraft and culture. Anthropological ties between the two regions date back at least 2,300 years, beginning with the Qin conquest of southern China. Chinese historical records typically refer to Annamese uprisings as local rebellions in a southern prefecture. As Nguyễn Thị Chân-Quỳnh noted (1995, pp. 256-66), Samuel Baron – a Dutch merchant of Annamese origin living in Thănglong (Hanoi) in the 1660s – expressed skepticism about Annam’s historical claims of victory over China in his book A Description of the Kingdom of Tonqueen (1685). Much of the historical and cultural information he cited was drawn directly from Chinese sources. Indeed, Vietnamese history books written before the 1960s often read as a mirror of Chinese history, portraying Annam as a miniature southern version of the Middle Kingdom.
Today, readers often struggle to understand Vietnamese literature written before the 18th century. Since the 20th century, modern Vietnamese has undergone significant transformation, heavily influenced by French grammatical structures that introduced new syntactic and semantic forms. Mid-20th-century Vietnamese generations were well-versed in Chinese classics, from the Warring States period to Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and mastered Tang poetic conventions more thoroughly than many contemporary Chinese readers, who have largely lost touch with classical forms. With the adoption of romanized orthography, Vietnamese readers have distanced themselves from classical Chinese, marking an almost complete break with the literary past. Yet interest in Chinese culture persists: younger Vietnamese audiences continue to enjoy modern Chinese television dramas and historical series, much like older generations who appreciated traditional Chinese opera performed in Vietnamese, such as Hátbội.
Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary, derived from Middle Chinese, developed through a process strikingly analogous to how Latin and Greek shaped the lexicons of Indo-European languages such as English and French. However, the comparison reveals a key distinction: while Latin remained largely confined to scholarly and literary domains, much like classical Chinese Wenyanwen (文言文), which persisted in written form until the early 20th century under the Nguyễn Dynasty, Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary has remained actively embedded in both spoken and written Vietnamese. Its semantic and phonological vitality continues to thrive in everyday usage, far surpassing what one might expect from a corpus of historical loanwords.
Unlike Latin, whose influence is largely fossilized, the phonological essence of Middle Chinese survives robustly in Sino-Vietnamese. The modern pronunciations of Sino-Vietnamese words have been remarkably well-preserved, shaped by systematic sound change rules within a scholarly framework. These rules closely follow the traditional Chinese Fanqie (反切) method of phonetic notation, which splits a syllable into its initial consonant (Anlaut) and final rhyme (Auslaut), each marked by tonal registers. For example:
- học (learn) 學 xué: 《唐韻》胡 /ɣo2/ + 覺 /jɔkʷ8/ 切 → {Low /ɣ-/ + High /-ɔkʷ8/ (陽 Yang)}
- tập (practice) 習 xí: 《廣韻》似 /tɨ6/ + 入 /njɐp8/ 切 → {Low /t-/ + Low /-ɐp8/ (陽 Yang)}
These examples illustrate how Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation aligns with historical Chinese phonological models, preserving tonal and segmental features with precision.
Importantly, Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary was never restricted to elite or literary circles. Much like Cantonese, it permeated colloquial speech and became indispensable in daily communication. This widespread usage suggests that many so-called "scholarly" terms likely originated from Tang-era spoken language that diffused into the general population of the Giaochỉ prefecture. Without such oral transmission, it would be difficult to explain the ubiquity of Sino-Vietnamese words in everyday Vietnamese.
This integration has led to the creation of new expressions that blend Sino-Vietnamese and derived Sinitic-Vietnamese elements, forming a dynamic part of the modern lexicon. Examples include:
- tạingoạihầutra ↔ 在外候查 zàiwàihòuchá (on bail)
- tâmhồn ↔ 心魂 xīnhún (soul)
- ngọcngà ↔ 玉牙 yùyá (adorable)
- cànhvànglángọc ↔ 金枝玉葉 jīnzhīyùyè (born into nobility)
These examples reflect not only linguistic continuity but also cultural resonance, affirming the enduring legacy of Middle Chinese in shaping the Vietnamese language.
From an etymological standpoint, it is entirely feasible to construct a complete Vietnamese sentence using predominantly Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary (words that are directly inherited from Middle Chinese) by translating each term individually and then reorganizing them to conform to Vietnamese grammatical and syntactic conventions. One effective method involves coining new expressions by adapting Sino-Vietnamese terms into more naturalized Sinitic-Vietnamese forms. For instance, instead of using the formal SV compound phicơtrựcthăng (直升飛機 zhíshēngfēijī) for "helicopter," one might opt for máybaylênthẳng, a vernacularized construction that reverses the word order and aligns more intuitively with Vietnamese usage, that is, "機飛升直 jīfēishēngzhí".
Another strategy is to link these lexical items using grammatical particles and prepositions, many of which were historically borrowed from Chinese xūcí (虛辭 'function word') to fill gaps in native Vietnamese syntax, which lacked such function words in earlier stages of development (Nguyễn Ngọc San, 1993, pp. 136–142). As Vietnamese evolved, especially under French colonial influence in the early 20th century, its writing style began to incorporate structural features from French, including complex sentence construction, clause embedding, and syntactic connectors. This shift was further reinforced by the adoption of Quốcngữ, the romanized script promoted by figures like Petrus Trương Vĩnh Ký and Phạm Quỳnh.
By the latter half of the 20th century, the rise of English as a global language introduced additional syntactic models into Vietnamese writing. These included the standard sentence structure of [ Subject + Verb + Object ], along with modifiers, relative clauses, and topic sentences, elements that now form the backbone of modern Vietnamese prose, as well. Interestingly, as Vietnamese expressions grow longer and more syllabically complex, the frequency of Sino-Vietnamese elements tends to decrease. For example, buộcphải (unavoidably) corresponds to 不得已 bùdéyǐ, while the equivalent SV bấtđắcdĩ preserves the original Chinese morphemes. Similarly, lìabỏxómlàng (to abandon one’s hometown) parallels 離鄉背井 (M líxiāngbèijǐng) though the Vietnamese form may require reinterpretation due to its polysyllabic structure.
To illustrate the convergence between Vietnamese and Chinese, one could construct a long Vietnamese sentence using Western syntactic mechanics and embed Sinitic-Vietnamese vocabulary throughout. Each word or phrase could then be matched with its Chinese equivalent, highlighting the shared linguistic architecture and historical continuity between the two languages. This exercise not only demonstrates the adaptability of Sino-Vietnamese within modern Vietnamese grammar but also underscores the deep-rooted parallels in lexical formation and sentence construction across both linguistic traditions.
- Modern Vietnamese with many Sinitic-Vietnamese elements: Đến năm mộtchínbảynăm Sàigòn thấtthủ chínhphủ miềnNam bạitrận cảnước rơivào tay quân BắcViệt xâmlược nên anhta buộcphải lái chiếc trựcthănglênthẳng phóngthẳng rakhơi gặpđược một chiếc tàusânbay liền nhảyxuốngbiển được vớtlên cho nhậpvào dòngngười tỵnạn Việtnam lìabỏxómlàng lưulạc tới Đảo Guam lênbờ tạmtrú tại căncứ Hảiquân Mỹ làmthủtục didân đợingày tới Mỹ địnhcư.
- Modern Chinese: 當 一九七五年 西貢 失守 南方 政府 戰敗 全國 落入 北越 侵略軍 之 手 他 被迫 駕駛 一架 直升機 直飛 海面 遇到 一艘 航空母艦 立即 跳入 海中 被 救起 後 加入 越南 難民 隊伍 離鄉背井 流落 至 關島 登陸 後 暫住 美國 海軍 基地 辦理 移民 手續 等待 前往 美國 定居.
- Chinese Pinyin: Dāng yījiǔqīwǔnián Xīgòng shīshǒu Nánfāng zhèngfǔ zhànbài quánguó luòrù Běiyuè qīnlüèjūn zhī shǒu tā bèipò jiàshǐ yījià zhíshēngjī zhífēi hǎimiàn yùdào yīsōu hángkōngmǔjiàn lìjí tiàorù hǎizhōng bèi jìuqǐ hòu jiārù Yuènán nànmín duìwǔ líxiāngbèijǐng líuluò zhì Guāndǎo dēnglù hòu zànzhù Měiguó Hǎijūn jīdì bànlǐ yímín shǒuxù děngdài qiánwǎng Měiguó dìngjū.
- Sino-Vietnamese transcription: Đương nhấtcửuthấtngũniên Tâycống thấtthủ namphương chínhphủ chiếnbại toànquốc lạcnhập Bắcviệt xâmlượcquân chi thủ tha bịbách giáthị nhấtgiá trựcthăng cựctrực hảidiện ngộđáo nhấttầu hàngkhôngmẫuhạm lậptức khiêunhập hảitrung bị cứukhởi hậu gianhập Việtnam nạndân độingũ lyhươngbốitỉnh lưulạc chí Quanđảo đănglục hậu tạmtrú Mỹquốc Hảiquân cơđịa biệnlý didân thủtục đãngđãi tiềnvãng Mỹquốc địnhcư.
- English translation: "In 1975 as Saigon collapsed with the defeat of the South Vietnamese government and the whole country fell into the hands of North Vietnam's invading army he had no choice but to fly his helicopter out into the open sea and saw a US aircraft carrier so he jumped out and was rescued aboard to join a group of Vietnamese refugees in the exodus fleeing the country and reached Guam Island where he spent time staying at a US Navy base to go through the immigration process awaiting resettlement in North America."
The long one-sentence passage above offers a rich field for linguistic analysis. It intentionally incorporates Sinitic-Vietnamese compounds such as máybaylênthẳng and the locally coined tàusânbay, which reverses the structure of the 'ad hoc newly coined neologism '機場艇' (jīchǎngtǐng), regardless of whether such phrasing would realistically appear in practical wartime writing. In fact, such a sentence would likely not have been composed by either a southern or northern Vietnamese individual from the war era. Southern Vietnamese speakers would have more commonly used terms like phicơtrựcthăng (直升飛機 zhíshēngfēijī), or at least máybaytrựcthăng, and hàngkhôngmẫuhạm (航空母艦 hángkōngmǔjiàn), respectively.
On one hand, these polysyllabic Sinitic-Vietnamese terms were widely used in the North, where speakers tended to favor Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary. The two modern terms mentioned above were coined during a period of educational reform, particularly during campaigns aimed at eradicating illiteracy. On the other hand, due to the political connotations embedded in phrases such as cảnước rơivào tay quân BắcViệt xâmlược (“the whole country fell into the hands of North Vietnam’s invading army”), such a passage could not have been authored by a northerner. The ideological framing would have been incompatible with official narratives.
The key point here is that translated Sinitic-Vietnamese words are actively in use, and readers should pay close attention to their etymological layers. Even basic words such as anhta, rakhơi, gặpđược, dòngngười, and others carry significance for those interested in tracing genetic affiliations between Chinese and Vietnamese. This is particularly relevant for Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer specialists, who often seek lexical evidence to support broader linguistic theories.
The Chinese translation of the passage follows a near word-for-word structure, retaining common Sino-Vietnamese terms such as thủtục (procedure) and địnhcư (resettlement), which are widely used by average Vietnamese speakers. The author leaves it to emerging Vietnamese linguists to explore the Sinitic-Vietnamese linguistic features presented here, which reflect both modern usage and ancient roots.
Polysyllabic Vietnamese compounds are written in a combined format, as recommended, mirroring the way Chinese block characters are grouped, similar to Korean smart orthographic conventions. This stylistic choice reflects a modern Vietnamese writing style found in contemporary publications like Tuổitrẻ, which contrasts sharply with the French-era Namphong magazines of the 1930s. The differences span grammar, vocabulary, and tone.
Even after two decades of division between North and South Vietnam, northern vocabulary remained more Sino-centric, while southern Vietnamese evolved under the influence of Chamic and Mon-Khmer languages, resulting in a more relaxed phonological structure. In today’s digital age, both spoken and written Sino-Vietnamese forms have spread rapidly and uniformly, a transformation unimaginable to scholars of earlier generations who relied on plume pens and writing brushes reserved for the privileged few.
Beyond etymology, linguistic peculiarities that are those unique to Vietnamese and Chinese appear across all categories. Lexically, the Sino-Vietnamese class is indispensable; it permeates both speech and writing to such a degree that fluency in Vietnamese is virtually impossible without it. Phonologically, even fluctuating articulations reveal consistent patterns. Lexemic nuclei embedded in Sino-Vietnamese kernels manifest through sound change rules: tràng for trường (長 cháng, 'long'), đàng for đường (唐 táng, 'path'), đảm for đởm (擔 dàn, 'carry'), đờm for đàm (痰 tán, 'mucus'), đàn for đờn (彈 tán, 'pluck'), and so on.
Western Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer specialists have long theorized that both Chinese and Vietnamese are isolating languages, composed of discrete words strung together without inflection or case. Yet grammatical analysis reveals deeper ties. Vietnamese grammar is heavily built on Chinese 虛詞 (xūcí, SV hưtự), that is, function words that serve as particles, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, pronouns, classifiers, and even articles. These grammatical markers are essential for coherence and are demonstrably derived from Chinese sources (Nguyễn Ngọc San, 1993, pp. 136-142).
If even one grammatical word is missing from a sentence, the structure begins to resemble classical Chinese 文言文 (Wényánwén), a literary style composed of isolated words without grammatical connectors. While such classical forms are incomplete by modern standards, they often evolve into idiomatic expressions in both Chinese and Vietnamese, further reinforcing the proposition of shared linguistic ancestry. (14)
In Vietnamese, the only exceptions to the use of xūcí are found in the shortest exclamatory sentences, typically consisting of just one or two words. Even then, such expressions are almost exclusively constructed from words of Chinese origin, for example,
- 'Vâng.' 行 Xíng. (Agree.),
- 'Xong.' 成 Chéng. ('Deal.'),
- 'Đúng.' 中 Zhòng. ('Right.'),
- 'Cút!' 滾 Gǔn! ('Out!'),
- 'Rồi.' 了 Liăo (Done.),
- 'Đi!' 走 Zǒu! (Let's go!),
- 'Được!' 得 Dé! (Okay.),
- 'Đượcrồi!' 得了! Déle! (That's okay!),
- 'Hayghê!' 好極! Hăojí! (Very good!)
- 'Chúa ơi!' 我主! Wǒ Zhǔ! (My God!),
- 'Trờiơi!' 天啊 Tiānna! (My Lord!)
- 'Vìsao' 為啥?" Wèishă? (How come?)
- 'Vôduyên!' 無聊 Wúliáo! (Nonsense!),
- 'Tạimầy!' 賴你 Làinǐ! (It's your fault!)
- 'Đụmá!' 他媽 Tāmā! (Fuck you!),
- 'Thìralàvậy!' 原來如此! Yuánláirúcǐ! (So, that is why!),
One illustrative case is the Vietnamese word mắt ('eye'), which corresponds to the Chinese character 目 (mù) and is also cognate with Hainanese /mat7/, a sub-dialect of Min Chinese descended from the ancient Minyue languages. This connection implies that mắt is unlikely to derive from the Malay form /mata/, which may be a coincidental resemblance, as such overlaps are rare and isolated.
This example supports the broader observation that Vietnamese shares deep etymological ties with Chinese, particularly through dialectal continuities. We can extend this analysis to other Sino-Vietnamese forms derived from Middle Chinese literary vocabulary, which co-exist alongside Sinitic-Vietnamese derivatives from regional Chinese lects that are postulated as ancient Yue linguistic descents. These forms persistently appear across time and usage, reinforcing the notion of a durable linguistic inheritance, for example,
- 'Được' 得 dé (okay), Hainanese /dewk8/,
- 'Đi' 走 M Zǒu (go), Hainanese /duj3/,
- 'Biết', Hainanese /bat7/ (know),
- 'Xơi' 食 shí (eat), Hainanese /zha1/,
- 'Đũa' 箸 zhú (chopsticks), Hainanese /duo3/, etc.,
In the cases above, the words and their peculiar usage in all linguistic categories are apparently related and definitely not coincidental at all, which leaves one to ponder the peculiarities that other Mon-Khmer ~ Vietnamese cognates are lacking.
The examples above illustrate that the words and their peculiar usage across linguistic categories are clearly related and not coincidental, prompting reflection on the absence of such peculiarities among Mon-Khmer and Vietnamese cognates.
When a Vietnamese word closely mirrors the shape and sound of a form in a related Chinese dialect, so closely, in fact, that the morphemic structure aligns, it is common for linguists to misclassify it as a Chinese loanword. This overlooks the possibility that both forms may have evolved from a shared root. This phenomenon includes basic vocabulary items, such as Hainanese /mat7/ for 目 (mù, 'eye'), which corresponds to Sino-Vietnamese mục and vernacular Vietnamese mắt. Similarly, Cantonese /tʰaːi³/ for 睇 (dì, 'see') aligns with Vietnamese thấy, while 看 (kàn, “look”) corresponds to the scholarly Sino-Vietnamese khán /kʰan5/. The vernacular Vietnamese coi /kɔj1/ is echoed in the Quảngnam sub-dialect as /kər1/, and in Shanghainese as /kʰə25/. These examples demonstrate that phonetic and phonological proximity alone is insufficient to classify a Vietnamese word as a Chinese loanword.
This same reasoning applies to true Chinese loanwords, whose prominent phonetic attributes have left a lasting imprint on Vietnamese. However, not all etyma of shared origin are derived from Chinese. Consider classic examples from the southern region: gạo (稻 dào, SV đạo, 'rice'), dừa (椰 yě, SV giả, 'coconut'), đường (糖 táng, SV đàng, 'sugar'), and sông (江 jiāng, SV giang, 'river'). These Chinese–Sinitic-Vietnamese cognates are not loanwords but rather forms descended from a common root. The reverse is also true: Chinese contains Yue-origin loanwords that resemble the phonology of Sinitic-Vietnamese forms. In other cases, Vietnamese borrowed etyma back from Middle Chinese, resulting in pronunciations that resemble Sino-Vietnamese instead.
Both lexical classes, namely, Sinitic-Vietnamese and Sino-Vietnamese, are products of the same historical linguistic development, reflecting the characteristics of specific dynastic eras or regional speech patterns. This process parallels the evolution of Minyue languages and Cantonese Yue sub-dialects. The former derived from Old Chinese of the Han Dynasty, while the latter were shaped by Tang-era popular speech, brought south by migrants from northern China. Unlike these Yue dialects, which have been largely Sinicized and stood as stand alone lect, Vietnamese emerged as an independent Yue language. It retains both Sino-Vietnamese and Sinitic-Vietnamese vocabularies as major Chinese-derived strata, yet it has not been Sinicized to the extent that it could be considered a 'Chinese lect'.
For example, Vietnamese syntax typically follows a [noun + adjective] structure, with the modified element preceding the modifier. This is evident in trờixanh ('blue sky') versus the Chinese compound 蒼天 (cāngtiān, SV "thươngthiên"), and in terms like gàcồ and gàtrống ('rooster'), as introduced before.
These examples highlight Sinitic-Vietnamese words that remain distinct from their Sino-Vietnamese counterparts, though both classes complement each other. The former belongs to an older lexical layer, Old or Ancient Chinese, or to regional dialectal variants that diverge significantly from metropolitan speech. Some Sinitic-Vietnamese words represent the 'lightest' accented version of a dialect, typically spoken by educated urban populations.
In this way, the development of Vietnam’s national language parallels the history of the Yue people of the NamViệt Kingdom. Fleeing Han invasion, they abandoned ancestral lands in the north, migrated southward, and displaced indigenous populations in their new settlements. Whether through replacement or assimilation, they survived and came to be regarded as descendants of the Southern Yue. They established a sovereign nation in the south called Việtnam ("people of the Southern Yue"), securing independence from the 10th century onward.
Under constant threat from China, the Vietnamese became expansionists themselves. They eradicated the thousand-year-old Champa Kingdom from the Southeast Asian map in the 18th century and annexed its southern territories. They also occupied southeastern lands previously held by the Khmer. As a result, the Chamic and Mon-Khmer peoples became minorities in their own ancestral lands, much like earlier ethnic groups such as the Daic, Hmong, and Mường.
Merritt Ruhlen in his The Origin of Language (1994.
pp.172-173), when discussing about the postulation of the Bantu language
family in Africa initiated by Greenberg, on finding its closest relatives,
the author argued that
"[i]f the language is widely dispersed, but its closest relative occupies only a small region, the usual historical explanation is that the broadly dispersed language was originally spoken in a much more circumscribed area, side by side with its closest relative, and spread to its present distribution later. This is sometimes referred to as principle of least moves. To see how this principle works, consider the Vietnamese language, which is spoken along the coast of Southeast Asia from China to the southern tip of Vietnam. It is reasonable to assume that this language spread along the coast in one direction or the other, but which, and from where? It so happened that Vietnamese is most closely related to a relatively obscure language known as Muong, spoken by just over 700,000 people in the northern regions of Vietnam, and this fact suggest that Vietnamese originally spread from this northern region southward to its present distribution. The fact that the Vietnamese dialects in the north are more divergent than those in the south – which invokes the Age-Area hypothesis – confirms the hypothesis of a northern origin.
As they migrated southward, the Southern Yue people carried with them not only their cultural identity but also their linguistic heritage – their mother tongue. These migrants descended from the ancient Yue, whose genetic and cultural composition had increasingly crystallized into a hybrid form symbolized metaphorically as {4Y6Z8H+CMK} enriched by layers of local influence. Prior to the Viet-Muong divergence, groups such as the Daic had already intermingled with Khmer populations, contributing to the emergence of a new Southern Yue identity in the resettled regions. These people would later be known as the Annamese.
From a linguistic perspective, this "local flavor" aligns with what Leonard Bloomfield (1933, p. 51) described as a dialectal area, where sub-dialectal variation is minimal, and differences accumulate gradually as one moves farther from the point of origin. Such regions can be visualized as concentric circles, or isoglosses, radiating outward from a linguistic core. Bloomfield referred to this phenomenon as dialectal geography, a framework that helps resolve certain linguistic puzzles, for instance, the striking resemblance between Mon-Khmer numerals from one to five and their Vietnamese counterparts.
This pattern of gradual divergence and lexical convergence mirrors similar phenomena in other language families, such as Indo-European. A notable example is Bulgarian, a Slavic language whose vocabulary is heavily composed of foreign loanwords, yet remains structurally consistent with its linguistic lineage. The Vietnamese case, shaped by centuries of migration, contact, and cultural layering, offers a parallel model of linguistic evolution through hybridization and regional adaptation.
Over the course of two millennia, the evolution of modern Vietnamese has been shaped by a steady southward migration of its speakers, during which the language absorbed numerous local linguistic elements. This process explains the presence of Chamic and Mon-Khmer vocabulary in Vietnamese, particularly in regional dialects such as that of Huế. Words like mô, tê, ni, nớ, ri, rứa, and chừ have been identified by several scholars as likely of Chamic origin. Whether this attribution is entirely accurate remains debatable, especially given the existence of equivalent forms in modern Mandarin. Nonetheless, the presence of these features reflects a broader pattern: Chamic and later Mon-Khmer forms entered the Vietnamese lexicon alongside preexisting native elements. This phenomenon resembles the recycling of Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary into Sinitic-Vietnamese forms, for example, tý as a vernacular counterpart to tử (子 zǐ).
As Merritt Ruhlen (1994, p. 173) noted, just as we do not refer to German, Dutch, or Swedish as "Semi-English", we should likewise refrain from labeling dialects such as Hokkienese, Amoy, Hainanese, or Cantonese as "Half-Chinese", and by extension, Vietnamese should not be considered a partial derivative of Chinese either. The internal structure of Vietnamese sub-dialects differs markedly from the mutual unintelligibility observed among sub-dialects of Cantonese or Amoy, for instance, between Guangzhou and Toishanese, or between Hokkienese and Teochow. Vietnamese sub-dialects resemble regional variants within a single dialect, akin to the relationship between Haikou and Wenchang in Hainanese, or Fuzhou and Amoy in Minnan.
To grasp this distinction, consider the comparison between English and German "Good morning" versus "Guten Morgen". Vietnamese sub-dialects, from north to south, can be analogized to the seven major dialects of a major Chinese lect in terms of "local flavor". On a tonal scale ranging from “lightest” to “heaviest” glides, northern Vietnamese tonal contours often strike southern ears as sharply accented, much like how Mandarin-speaking Taiwanese perceive Putonghua spoken by native Beijingers, namely, Beijinghua, as a "heavy 'erhua'" variant of Mandarin. Despite Mandarin’s phonemic inventory of only four tones, its northern form is syllabically and tonally further simplified compared to southwestern Mandarin sub-dialects spoken in Chengdu (Sichuan), Liuzhou (Guangxi), or Yueyang (Hunan), as well as the standard Mandarin used by Taiwanese broadcasters. In short, even within a single dialect, northeastern Mandarin variants differ significantly from their southwestern counterparts, which exhibit heavier southern accents.
In contrast, Vietnamese dialects (方言, SV phươngngôn) demonstrate a remarkable degree of mutual intelligibility across regions. Unlike the numerous sub-dialects (方言 fāngyán) of major Chinese dialects, which are often completely unintelligible to one another even within the same linguistic family, say Fukienese and Hainanese, Vietnamese regional variants are generally understood nationwide. This cohesion is a direct result of the gradual southward movement of ancient Annamese migrants, who traversed approximately 2,200 kilometers over a span of 2,200 years, an evocative mnemonic of one kilometer per year. Linguistically, this longitudinal migration produced transitional sub-dialects that varied incrementally from one locality to the next, allowing speakers from different regions to comprehend each other with relative ease.
Dialectal differences in Vietnamese are most prominently expressed through tonal pitch. In the northern regions, where the full eight-tone system is preserved, speech tends to carry a higher pitch and sharper tonal contours, somewhat reminiscent of Cantonese. In contrast, southern Vietnamese, with a reduced six-tone system, exhibits a softer and more relaxed tonal quality, contributing to an overall sense of "lightness". Central Vietnamese dialects – particularly those spoken around Huế and in the rural areas of Bìnhđịnh – stand apart with their deeply concaved tonal contours, producing a marked "heaviness" that distinguishes them from both northern and southern varieties. This tonal gradient not only reflects geographic variation but also encapsulates the layered historical and cultural influences that have shaped the Vietnamese language over centuries.
Figure 9 - Proto-Sino-Tibetan (pre-Chinese)
All of the above, linguistically and racially, appears to have played a formative historical role in shaping Vietnamese identity, with residual traces of ancient Chinese influence as expected, given that Annam was once part of imperial China. Politically, Vietnam has long been regarded by successive Chinese rulers as a breakaway vassal state or even a renegade prefecture, analogous, in some respects, to the contemporary case of Taiwan, or even Hong Kong. Although Annam ceased to be under direct Chinese rule after 907 B.C., the region continued to be associated with the "Great Han" (大漢 Dàhàn) through the Nam Han (南漢) regime after 918, which had previously been known as "Great Yue" (大越 DàYuè) until 917. The name change was prompted by the ruling Liu (劉) family’s claim of descent from Liu Bang and Liu Bei of the Western and Eastern Han dynasties. Recognizing these geopolitical shifts is essential to understanding the enduring affiliations between Vietnamese and Chinese civilizations, and the anthropological continuities that link modern Vietnamese society to its Chinese antecedents.
It is accurate to assert that the proto-Chinese had little direct connection to the proto-Yue or proto-Vietic peoples. The distinction lies in nomenclature: "Chinese" refers to a civilization, not a race. In prehistoric times, proto-Tibetan groups are believed to have been the ancestors of proto-Chinese populations, who conquered and intermingled with Taic-speaking natives. This fusion gave rise to pre-Chinese communities that later interacted with the Yue peoples of the south, known in Chinese records as Namman (南蠻), around 3000 B.C. The racial admixture of inhabitants in ancient Central and Southern China eventually became subjects of emerging states during the Eastern Zhou period, scattered across pre-Han territories. Ancient China might well have been called the Chu Empire of the Taic people, rather than the Han Empire, given that many of its subjects descended from the Taic-Yue, who also populated the NanYue Kingdom. Reframing the terminology reveals parallels with Vietnam’s Kinh majority (symbolized as {4Y6Z8H}) and its long-standing coexistence with minority groups such as the Cham and Khmer ({+CMK}), forming a composite identity {4Y6Z8H+CMK} that has persisted for over 1,500 years.
For better or worse, the Vietnamese inherited Chinese cultural traditions after a millennium of Chinese rule, passing them down through generations well into the 20th century. Among the most enduring, and arguably problematic, legacies are Confucian values, particularly the hierarchical principle of obedience: first to the ruler (君 jūn, 'quân'), then to the teacher (師 shī , 'sư'), and finally to the father (父 fù, 'phụ'). This framework has contributed to a national culture of deference to authority. Despite the potentially demeaning aspects of this legacy, Vietnamese nationalists have continued to embrace its neo-monarchical underpinnings. Confucian ideology reinforces the power of the ruling class and its supporting structures, conditioning individuals to obey and conform from birth.
Anthropological evidence of this mindset is reflected in the cultural preference for male descendants, ensuring the continuation of the family surname. This phenomenon may be explained by inherited cognitive patterns shaped over generations. Vietnamese families rarely question the spiritual significance of genealogy, a trait deeply rooted in Chinese cultural tradition but largely absent in Khmer society. This suggests that the ancestral origins of the Vietnamese lie not in the broader Indochinese peninsula, where surname inheritance was uncommon, but in regions historically inhabited by the BáchViệt (百越 BǎiYuè) in southern China. Thus, when discussing historical linguistics, one must also consider anthropology. The collective unconscious of the Vietnamese people points to ancestral ties not only to northern Vietnam, where the ancient Vănlang polity was founded, but also to China South, the homeland of the original Yue.
The transformation of cultural traditions, including the adoption of Chinese surnames, has deep roots in Chinese civilization and is evident throughout Vietnamese history. Genealogically, descendants of northern settlers from China who resettled in what is now northern Vietnam continued to pass down Chinese surnames across generations. These surnames, as seen in prominent historical figures, represent only a fraction of a much larger ancestral pool comprising hundreds of family names that formed the Yue-Han (楚漢) melting pot in southern China.
Regarding northern genetic affiliations, the racial groups that constituted ancient China were evenly distributed across early Annamese territory until the fall of the Tang Dynasty in 907 A.D. After gaining independence, Annam expanded southward, absorbing additional racial elements into its evolving demographic landscape. This included lighter-skinned settlers from the north and darker, mixed populations from the south. These latecomers merged with earlier resettlers, contributing to the composite identity of the Vietnamese people. The historical periods of the NanYue, Chu, and Qin states are reflected not only in the diversity of Vietnamese surnames but also in the tonal qualities of Vietnamese personal names, except in cases where names were changed to conceal identity or avoid taboo, as noted by Nguyễn Thị Chân Quỳnh (1993).
From a geopolitical standpoint, many of the populations in question were included in the census records of the Great Tang Empire, which reported a total population of nearly 42 million by the year 726 A.D. (Bo Yang, 1983–1993, Vol. 51, 1991, p. 86). Remarkably, by 763 A.D., just over a decade later, the population had plummeted to approximately 17 million, following the devastating An Lushan Rebellion (安祿山) that lasted a little more than twelve years (Bo Yang, 1983–1993, Vol. 53, 1991, p. 214). While the scale of this decline may seem staggering, it is not implausible when viewed through the lens of Chinese history, where mass casualties were common in major military conflicts.
One illustrative example occurred in 878, when Tang forces reportedly annihilated 50,000 rebels during the Battle of Huangmei (黃梅), a confrontation against the Huangjiao uprising (Xu Liting, 1981, p. 217). Such figures underscore the brutal nature of warfare in imperial China and help contextualize the demographic shifts recorded in historical annals. (12)
In relation to the same matter, there were no recorded changes in the population of the Tang Dynasty’s Annam Protectorate, suggesting that the region may have narrowly escaped the mass killings that devastated northern China during periods of rebellion and warfare. Historical records from the Western Han era indicate that Jiaozhou Prefecture (交州, Giaochâu) had an Annamese population of approximately 900,000. A significant portion of this population descended from more than 30,000 local women who were compelled to marry Qin soldiers during earlier conquests. Assuming an average of three children per couple, this initial generation could have produced up to 90,000 racially mixed offspring, numbers that would have multiplied exponentially well before the start of the first century.
A millennium later, under Tang rule, Annam remained part of the empire for nearly 300 years. During this time, the demographic landscape likely expanded further, with additional Annamese descended from children fathered by thousands of Chinese infantry stationed in the region. These soldiers, along with waves of civilian immigrants from the mainland, often chose to settle permanently and marry local women. This pattern of intermarriage and integration persisted throughout the thousand-year colonial period, continuing until Vietnam’s independence in 939 A.D. Although the influx of Chinese immigrants slowed thereafter, it never ceased entirely and continues in smaller waves to the present day.
A similar southward migration occurred again during the expansion of Annamese settlers into newly annexed territories formerly belonging to the Champa and Khmer kingdoms, beginning in the 13th century. This movement mirrored earlier demographic shifts and contributed to the complex ethnocultural fabric of modern Vietnam. (13)
Analogously, when comparing the demographic composition of Singapore and Taiwan, particularly the ratio of late Chinese immigrants to indigenous populations, their current status mirrors the position ancient Vietnam occupied over a millennium ago. A similar process of linguistic and cultural integration is unfolding in these regions today. However, in contrast to the slow evolution of language in antiquity, the modern era with its advanced communication technologies, such as the internet and mobile phones, has stabilized linguistic development. Mandarin Chinese, as spoken today, is unlikely to undergo significant transformation, largely because learners across the Chinese diaspora now adhere to standardized Putonghua, already adopted in Malaysia and Singapore. Taiwan has begun transitioning from its traditional Zhuyin romanization system to the Pinyin system used in mainland China, while Hong Kong is increasingly embracing Putonghua and Simplified Chinese characters in place of Cantonese and Traditional script.
In contrast, the linguistic evolution of Chinese in ancient Annam was far more complex. Over 2,200 years ago, during the Han occupation beginning in 111 B.C., the southward spread of Chinese language and administration progressed at an average rate of roughly one kilometer per year. This slow diffusion was shaped by limited transportation and communication infrastructure, resulting in a fragmented and regionally adapted linguistic landscape.
Beyond the historical evidence cited throughout this study, and the clear presence of Chinese linguistic features in Vietnamese, historical linguists must grapple with semantic complexities that extend beyond phonetic shifts. Variations in cultural and linguistic elements pose significant challenges when attempting to trace words that appear to share Chinese ancestry but are absent from commonly spoken Chinese dialects. This requires sinologists to delve deeply into the peculiarities of over 900 Chinese subdialects to uncover potential cognates. For example, kinship terms such as ôngnội (possibly 內公 nèigōng, "paternal grandfather", Hokkienese 內公 nèigōng /lǎikong/) versus ôngngoại (外公 wàigōng, "maternal grandfather"), and bànội (possibly Hakka 婆奶 po2nai1 vs. 內婆 nèipó [?], "paternal grandmother") versus bàngoại (外婆 wàipó, "maternal grandmother"), suggest semantic parallels, though the first pair do not appear in modern Chinese usage. Nevertheless, the existence of terms like 天公 Tiāngōng (Vietnamese: ÔngTrời, "Supreme Creator") and 地公 Dìgōng (ÔngĐịa, "Earthly God") supports the plausibility of such kinship structures.
Kinship vocabulary further illustrates the genealogical depth of Chinese influence in Vietnamese. Examples include tía (爹 diē, "daddy") versus cha, ba (爸 bā, "papa") versus bố (父 fù, "father"), nạ (娘 niáng, "mommy") versus mẹ, and mợ or u for 母 mǔ ("mother"). These terms coexist in both languages, reflecting shared cultural and familial structures. While some lexical correspondences are straightforward, such as 首 shǒu and Vietnamese sọ ("cranium"), or 足 zú and đủ ("enough"), others are more complex. For instance, the archaic Viet-Muong form /dak7/ (water) is cognate with modern Vietnamese /nɨək7/ and variant /nak7/, which may correspond to Chinese 水 shuǐ (SV thuỷ). Similarly, 踏 tà ("trample") aligns with Vietnamese đạp /dap8/. These examples highlight the intricate interplay between Austroasiatic and Sinitic elements, extending beyond well-known cases like mắt ("eye") or bươmbướm ("butterfly").
Turning to anthropological considerations, it is widely accepted that "Chinese" denotes a civilization rather than a race. Conceptually, there was no "Chinese" identity prior to the unification under the Qin Dynasty (秦朝) in 221 B.C. Historical Vietnamese references to the Chinese as Tàu, derived from the Sino-Vietnamese Tần (秦), are often interpreted as pejorative, possibly reflecting resentment from the Warring States period (475-221 B.C.), when Qin eradicated rival states. However, the term Tàu may also have originated from Tiều, itself derived from Triều, a short form of Triềuchâu (朝州 Cháozhōu, 'Teochow'). If so, the pronunciation Tàu lacks any inherently derogatory meaning.
In racial terms, modern Vietnamese society is a composite, with the Kinh majority analogous to the Han 'race' in China, a melting pot rather than a segmented 'salad bowl'. As discussed earlier, descendants of the Yue peoples contributed to both Han and Vietnamese identities. Alongside 54 officially recognized ethnic minorities, including the Tày (Daic 傣族), Nùng (Zhuang 壯族), Hmong or Mèo (Miao 苗族), and Thuỷ or Thái (Shui 水族), these groups inhabit remote mountainous regions along the northern and western borders of Vietnam. Following the Han conquest of the NamViệt Kingdom, many Yue emigrated from China South and eventually formed the Kinh majority in Vietnam’s south. This migration facilitated the final split between the ancient Viet-Muong people into the Muong and Vietic branches. Today, Muong descendants reside primarily in Hòabình Province.
As the Kinh continued their southward expansion, they intermingled with Chamic populations along the central coast and with Mon-Khmer communities in the western highlands and southernmost regions. This long history of migration, intermarriage, and cultural exchange has shaped the ethnolinguistic landscape of Vietnam, producing a richly layered national identity that reflects both indigenous and Chinese influences.
Attempts to draw direct correlations between biological lineage and linguistic identity among Vietnamese and Chinese populations in Vietnam have often led to oversimplifications and misinterpretations. This conflation is notably less prevalent in countries such as Japan and Korea, where ethnic Chinese communities have historically remained socially and culturally distinct from the majority populations.
In contrast, in Southeast Asian nations like Indonesia and Malaysia, Chinese minorities, despite having resided there for multiple generations, continue to be recognized as separate ethnic groups. In Indonesia, for instance, descendants of Chinese immigrants were legally mandated to adopt Indonesian surnames and have historically faced restrictions in accessing certain governmental roles. In Malaysia, where the population is approximately 34.1 million as of 2024, ethnic Chinese account for 22.4% of the total. Yet, they are still officially classified as Chinese in origin, with limited representation in key state institutions.
Taiwan’s demographic evolution presents a compelling parallel to Vietnam’s historical experience. The population of Taiwan, especially in the southern regions, reflects a complex blend of Chinese and indigenous ancestry. In the 17th century, large waves of laborers from Fujian Province crossed the Taiwan Strait to work on Dutch plantations, laying the foundation for Chinese settlement on the island. A second major influx occurred in 1949, when the Kuomintang, defeated by communist forces, retreated to Taiwan. Accompanying them were thousands of Chinese refugees, including soldiers and government officials, many of whom intermarried with the island’s indigenous communities, further expanding the Chinese ethnic base.
This pattern of integration has extended into the modern era. Between 1990 and 2022, an estimated 133,000 Vietnamese women married Taiwanese husbands, according to kyotoreview.org, giving rise to a new generation of Taiwanese-Vietnamese children. Their genetic composition may be represented as {4Y6Z8H+CMK+T}, where T denotes the Taiwanese demographic, itself comprising {4Y6Z8H+I}, with I signifying indigenous ancestry. This layered identity illustrates the continuing fusion of regional ethnicities and migration histories that together shape the evolving cultural landscape of Taiwan.
Although Taiwan possesses a rich and layered anthropological history, its experience with Chinese integration is comparatively modest when measured against Vietnam’s centuries-long absorption of Chinese immigrants. From the time Vietnam functioned as a Chinese prefecture, it welcomed hundreds of thousands of settlers from the mainland. Following the fall of the Ming Dynasty in 1644, approximately 50,000 Ming loyalists fled the Manchu conquest and resettled in southern territories under Annamese governance. These refugees, known as Minhhương (subjects of the Ming), were predominantly Teochew speakers and rapidly assimilated into Vietnamese society; they adopted Vietnamese language and customs with fluency and ease. Their surnames, though rooted in Chinese tradition, underwent phonetic adaptation within the Vietnamese linguistic environment. For instance, Huỳnh and Hoàng both derive from 黃 (Huáng), while Võ and Vũ correspond to 武 (Wǔ), illustrating regional shifts in pronunciation and integration over time.
Vietnamese surnames, in general, closely reflect Chinese naming conventions in both structural format and semantic connotation. Many follow the classical Han pattern of a monosyllabic surname followed by a given name. This resemblance goes beyond surface formality; the phonological and tonal characteristics of Vietnamese names often align with Middle Chinese pronunciation patterns. Today, only recent Chinese immigrants, those who arrived within the past century, are officially classified as Hoa (華) in Vietnam’s national census. Based on 2019 census, this group numbered approximately 750,000 and includes speakers of Cantonese, Hainanese, Hokkienese, and Hakka dialects.
Ethnicity, however, involves far more complexity than a mark on the census survey, linguistic markers, or genealogical records alone. The phonetic forms embedded in Chinese-origin surnames, such as Huỳnh or Hoàng for 黃 (Huáng), and Vũ or Võ for 武 (Wǔ), can offer clues about ancestral origins, including when and where families first settled in Vietnam. Visually, a Vietnamese national may easily be mistaken for a southern Chinese individual, and vice versa, particularly in provinces like Guangxi, Hunan, Jiangxi, and Guangdong. This phenomenon of mistaken identity between Chinese and Vietnamese individuals is observable even outside of Asia.
In multicultural regions such as Southern California, where both communities have long coexisted, it is not uncommon for Vietnamese youth to be misidentified as Chinese, especially in group settings like school photographs or public gatherings. Unless one is comparing recently arrived northern Chinese students from Beijing with Vietnamese youth side by side, the distinction is often imperceptible. The author himself has frequently made such misidentifications in Chinatowns across North American cities. In essence, Vietnamese and Chinese individuals born and raised in Western countries like the United States are often indistinguishable by appearance alone.
Moreover, unlike American Caucasians in Europe, who are generally distinguishable from local white Europeans, it is nearly impossible to immediately identify Vietnamese travelers among Chinese locals in markets or restaurants across cities in China. Many Vietnamese visitors report being mistaken for Chinese nationals, often assumed to be from another province. This perception stems from the shared physical traits between Vietnamese and Southern Chinese populations, particularly those of Taic-Yue origin, as opposed to Northern Chinese groups of Altaic descent. The author, who speaks Mandarin with a non-native heavy accent and has a darker complexion, was frequently mistaken for a Guangdong native while in Beijing. Regardless of political distinctions, Vietnamese citizens holding U.S. passports are often addressed in Chinese at border checkpoints. The author personally experienced such misidentification nine out of ten times at Chinese border gates, despite his passport clearly stating Vietnam as his birthplace.
Anthropologically, two observable patterns emerge among overseas Chinese from Vietnam, particularly in their resettlement behavior in North American cities. In major urban centers such as San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, and New York, Chinese-Vietnamese businesses are commonly found in either traditional Chinatowns or Vietnamese enclaves known as "Little Saigon". This occurs despite the historical resentment many Vietnamese hold toward Chinese imperialism. A similar sentiment exists among Koreans regarding Japanese colonial rule. Yet, Korean immigrants also tend to cluster their businesses in designated ethnic zones like Japan Town or Korean Town. These patterns suggest that, at a subconscious level, immigrant communities gravitate toward familiar anthropological environments.
Interestingly, Chinese-Vietnamese individuals often prefer socializing with fellow Vietnamese, whether recent arrivals or long-established overseas Vietnamese, rather than with Chinese expatriates from Hong Kong, Taiwan, or mainland China. This preference reflects historical migration trends: most early Chinese immigrants to the U.S. prior to the 1980s were Cantonese speakers. Among the four Confucian-influenced societies, China, Vietnam, Japan, and Korea, people tend to seek out others with whom they share cultural and anthropological affinities, even in diaspora settings.
Linguistically, Japanese and Korean have historically borrowed extensively from Chinese, incorporating a full set of Chinese characters into their writing systems. Yet, their spoken languages remain toneless and phonetically distinct, easily recognizable even to untrained Chinese or Vietnamese ears. In contrast, when a Chinese dialect is spoken, say, in a ballroom setting, a Vietnamese listener may need to concentrate closely to determine whether it is not simply another Vietnamese subdialect. This is due to the tonal similarities and pitch contours shared between the languages. Westerners often mistake Cantonese for Vietnamese for this reason. The author's wife, a Hainanese Han speaker familiar with Cantonese, remarked that Vietnamese sounded strikingly similar to Cantonese upon first hearing it.
To illustrate this linguistic proximity, one might analogize Mandarin to English, Cantonese to German, and Vietnamese to Dutch, each sharing structural and phonetic features that make them perceptually adjacent in a comparative guessing game.
Table 5 - Races and languages
It is important to recognize that race and language are not always intrinsically linked. In many cases, a population’s linguistic identity may diverge significantly from its ethnic origins. For example, several Asian countries – such as India, the Philippines, and Singapore – have adopted English as an official language, despite it being non-native. Similarly, Latin American nations predominantly use Spanish or Portuguese, languages introduced through colonization, as tools for national communication and unity.
This phenomenon parallels the linguistic evolution of China’s "Middle Kingdom", where Mandarin, now known as Putonghua (普通話), meaning "common speech", emerged as a standardized national language. Historically referred to as Guoyu (國語), or "national language", it continues to serve as a unifying medium across diverse ethnic and regional groups.
In these contexts, linguistic proficiency does not always align with ethnic heritage. For instance, reports indicated that early version of Apple's iPhone2 voice recognition system (Siri) more accurately understood English spoken by individuals of Indian descent than by native-born Americans. This is unsurprising, given the widespread use of English across India, where regional accents have evolved into distinct English dialects, some of which may be challenging for second-language learners to comprehend.
This broader observation is relevant to the historical development of the Vietnamese language. It is plausible that an early form of Vietic speech functioned as a kind of lingua franca among indigenous populations and Han Chinese colonists following the Han conquest of Jiaozhi in 111 B.C. Over time, this hybridized mode of communication may have gradually evolved into what we now recognize as modern Vietnamese, a language shaped by centuries of contact, adaptation, and integration.
In the case of Vietnam, ethnic identity, particularly among the Kinh majority, remains entangled with unresolved questions surrounding historical genetic affiliations with Han Chinese ancestry. While one might hope that advances in DNA mapping could settle the debate, the reality is more complex. As seen in studies conducted on the Taiwanese population, genetic data often yields mixed results, complicated by layers of human emotion, cultural identity, and historical memory.
III) Divergence of Kinh and Mường
Following the millennium of Chinese rule, the colonial imprint on language deepened social divisions within Viet‑Muong communities. While Kinh groups in the Red River Delta absorbed Han settlers through intermarriage and administrative integration, Mường communities retreated into upland regions, preserving more Yue substrata and resisting assimilation.
This divergence produced two distinct linguistic trajectories:
-
Kinh Vietnamese: increasingly layered with Sino‑Vietnamese vocabulary, especially in administration, ritual, and scholarship.
-
Mường speech: retaining Yue phonology and syntax, with fewer Sinitic overlays, preserving older Austroasiatic features.
Over centuries, the gap widened until Kinh and Mường became mutually unintelligible. This linguistic split illustrates how colonial pressures reshaped not only vocabulary but also identity. Kinh identity emerged as a hybrid product of Yue foundations and Sinitic grafts, while Mường identity crystallized around resistance and preservation of substratal speech.
The divergence underscores a central theme of Vietnamese survival history: colonial entanglement did not erase indigenous language, but instead produced plural outcomes — hybridization in the delta, preservation in the mountains.
It is reasonable to assume that the genetic composition of many Vietnamese individuals is compatible with that of Han Chinese populations in southern provinces such as Fujian, Guangdong, Hunan, and Guangxi. These regions are home to Sinicized descendants of the ancient "Hundred Yue" (百越 民族), which included diverse subgroups such as YuYue (于越), GanYue (干越), MinYue (閩越), DongOu (東甌), DongYue (東越), NanYue (南越), XiOu (西甌), LuoYue (駱越), OuYue (歐越), YangYue (揚越), DianYue (滇越), TengYue (騰越), and YueXi (越雟). These indigenous groups inhabited the southern periphery of China long before the Qin-Han era (先秦漢).
The southern Han Chinese retained a genetic blend that included early Taic peoples from the Chu State – whose subjects, including Liu Bang, the founding emperor of the Han Dynasty, were originally Chu natives – as well as Yue populations from the NamViệt Kingdom (南越 王國), which once spanned from present-day Guangdong to northeastern Vietnam. In contrast, in Huabei or China North, following the permanent occupation of northern China by Altaic nomadic groups, including Turkic, Tartar, and Mongol peoples, the genetic makeup of Northern Chinese populations became increasingly distinct from their southern counterparts.
As a result, the Sinicized populations of China South continue to exhibit physical traits that distinguish them from Northern Chinese groups in regions such as Shaanxi, Shanxi, Shandong, and Beijing. These differences underscore the complex interplay of genetics, migration, and cultural assimilation that has shaped the ethnographic landscape of both China and Vietnam.
Table 6 - The Chinese mentality is the emigration mindset
The Chinese have long demonstrated a strong inclination toward emigration in pursuit of better opportunities in a new land, a pattern that has significantly influenced the racial and cultural makeup of Vietnam, particularly after its independence in the 10th century and continuing into the present day. Notably, while ancient Annam successfully repelled Mongol invasions three times during the 13th century, the fall of the Song Dynasty triggered a wave of refugees from mainland China that spilled across Vietnam's southern border.
Historically, Vietnam endured centuries under Chinese rule, governed by successive dynasties that facilitated a continuous influx of Han migrants. Despite this prolonged exposure to Sinicization, Vietnam has maintained a distinct national identity and sovereignty, with its people consistently resisting cultural assimilation imposed by China over the past two millennia.
In comparison, Taiwan has experienced approximately 355 years of sustained connection with mainland China, particularly through waves of immigration from Fujian Province. These settlers eventually outnumbered the indigenous Austronesian population, accelerating the island's Sinicization, a process that began over 2,200 years ago on the mainland. In this regard, Taiwan's evolution into a distinct sovereignty in the 21st century mirrors Vietnam's earlier experience as a Chinese colony from 111 B.C. to 939 A.D.
Meanwhile, Chinese refugees and immigrants have continued to arrive in what is now Vietnam, further shaping its demographic landscape. Taiwan, too, reflects this emigration mindset, sharing Vietnam’s legacy as a destination for Chinese settlers. The racial composition of both countries, therefore, can be seen as products of China's long-standing emigration ethos.
For those unable to emigrate during their lifetimes, the traditional saying 離鄉背井 (to leave one's homeland and well) serves as a cultural rationale, preserving dignity in the face of displacement. Yet, in reality, Chinese emigration has profoundly transformed the social and cultural fabric of many host nations around the world.
The inclusion of Taiwan in the broader discussion serves to highlight a
series of parallel historical developments that have shaped the identity
of Vietnam. Both nations have navigated complex relationships with China,
marked by waves of migration, cultural influence, and political tension.
In each case, segments of the population – particularly those with Chinese
heritage – have coexisted alongside staunch nationalists who remain wary
of Chinese ideological expansion and resist further integration.
While
Taiwan’s recorded history is relatively brief compared to Vietnam’s, its
experience with China has been less extensive. Vietnam endured over a
millennium of direct Chinese rule, beginning with the Han conquest in 111
B.C., followed by successive dynastic occupations and sustained cultural
imposition. In contrast, Taiwan’s connection to the mainland – though
significant – has been more episodic and less deeply entrenched,
especially when considering prehistoric interactions and the full scope of
historical contact that shaped Vietnam’s national trajectory.
To illustrate the enduring legacy of migration and cultural blending, consider the following episode involving Chinese-Vietnamese refugees who resettled in the United States between 1975 and 1995. This story is chosen for its symbolic resonance with the ancient saga of the Yue people's displacement, those who, over two millennia ago, fled southward across the rugged Lingnan mountain ranges from their native southern China into Vietnam’s Tonkin region. That historic movement laid the foundation for the emergence of the Kinh majority in ancient Annam and offers insight into how the Vietnamese language evolved over time, regardless of which modern variant one chooses to examine.
Now, let me take you to a corner of America where mistaken identities often arise, specifically, in distinguishing Vietnamese individuals of Chinese descent. Though the example is modest, its implications echo across broader cultural and historical contexts.
As a regular patron of a vibrant Vietnamese café in Oakland’s Chinatown, California, the author has come to appreciate not only the cuisine but also the people behind it. The cooks serve up authentic Vietnamese dishes with care, and over time, the author has come to know several of the staff through casual conversation and shared memories. Like himself, many were boat people, refugees who fled Vietnam after the fall of Saigon in 1975.
Genealogically, it’s likely that some of their ancestors were also refugees from the collapse of the Ming Dynasty in 17th-century China, fleeing the Manchu conquest and resettling in Vietnam. Many of these early migrants were Teochow (Chaozhou) speakers. In daily life, beyond their fluency in Vietnamese, the author has overheard them conversing in various Chinese dialects with local Chinese customers. Their ability to switch seamlessly between Vietnamese and Chinese dialects, fluidly and unconsciously, is genuinely admirable.
The owner and most of the staff, like many Vietnamese nationals, are ethnically mixed, Vietnamese with Chinese ancestry. The cooks, however, speak only Vietnamese. Whether they too have Chinese roots is uncertain – perhaps only Heaven knows. Yet their presence adds another layer to the rich tapestry of cultural and ethnic blending that defines the Vietnamese diaspora in America.
In all probabilities, I have never questioned the authenticity of the tasty food they cook, presumably Vietnamese cuisine, a few items obviously being of Chinese origin but you consume them like any Vietnamese dishes anyway because the Vietnamese version of them differs from the Chinese cuisine with less oil. For the Chinese palates they mostly taste with common ingredients as prepared in Chinese culinary, such as herbal anise and cinnamon. The only exception, however, is that the Vietnamese dishes are usually being sprinkled with fish sauce and added bits of lemongrass that make the taste to stand out, for example, the subtle flavor of Vietnamese pork pulls vs. Chinese dongpo meat stew. In all I enjoy their cooking with those delicious dishes in my favorite cafe. The keyword in Vietnamese cusine is balance, always carrying the two halves of opposite taste in their mixed seasoning, e.g., salty vs. sweet, sour vs. bitter.
You may also love Vietnamese-seasoned Chinese dishes – or Chinese food with Vietnamese flavors, for that matter – as you do with those of southern-styled Khmer food, which adds up a bit more of sweet and sour balanced taste, to say the least; yet, they are not the same as Khmer or Thai plates. All said, metaphorically, the deliberate details are brought up therein is to illustrate an analogy of the racial and linguistic admixtures streaming southward from the north throughout the length of Vietnam history. How good the Chinese-Vietnamese food servers in the shop are identified with the Vietnamese nowadays is what they interact with their Vietnamese fellow countrymen overseas, talking and behaving like any natives of Vietnam, such as idolizing Vietnamese pop singers or gossiping some Vietnamese showbiz scandals, for example. All 'Vietnamized' characters associated above represent a fair picture of Chinese minority, especially those of Tchiewchow ethnicity in southern Vietnam that has totally immerged into the Vietnamese melting pot as opposed to other Chinese newcomers lately in the contemporary period. For them former group, they usually identified themselves in the official census as "Kinh" versus the "Hoa" by the latter group.
The existing Sinitic-Vietnamese words become organic matters of linguistics just like the air and food around that Vietnamese speakers breathe and eat without even questioning the 'foreign Sinitic' elements in them. Analogously, compared to what some of us might still remember how we reacted when we happened to notice and secretly admire how a young German salesperson in a store somewhere in Germary spoke English so well, fluently not much differently a Britain's native. Similarly, don't you realize that we somehow paid much more attention to some rare one-of-a kind American comedian or pop singer who can talk and sing in Vietnamese in Paris by Night's concerts? In contrast, we as Vietnamese historical linguists have missed the same notable conjecture with those Vietnamese of Chinese descents (CV) – like the multilingual food servers who can speak Vietnamese and multiple Chinese 'languages' in the Vietnamese cafe mentioned above, to say the least. One of the reasons we have taken it for granted is that it was 'no big deal' for a Vietnamese of Chinese descents to acquire Vietnamese with native fluency. The point to make here is that we expect them a 'part' of Vietnamese national just like any Kinh individuals. Ironically, the Chinese heritage of all of the above is stripped off in the plain view.
If you are a Vietnamese national, take a moment to look closely at your social circle. You may gradually come to realize that many of your acquaintances such as friends, colleagues, even extended family, trace their ancestry to Chinese immigrants, a detail that may have gone unnoticed in everyday interactions. For most, this heritage has never been a point of contention or prejudice. It simply blends into the fabric of Vietnamese society, where ethnic lines have long been blurred through centuries of migration and assimilation.
Readers may find it worthwhile to explore their own family genealogy. Who knows if your ancestors may have been among those who fled China generations ago, eventually becoming part of the Vietnamese Kinh majority. This quiet transformation, shaped by waves of Chinese immigration, has contributed to the diverse yet cohesive identity of modern Vietnam. And within this society, there is little discrimination toward those of Chinese descent, perhaps because many Vietnamese themselves share that lineage.
Consider the odds of becoming a celebrity in Vietnam, perhaps one in tens of thousands. The author has observed that a surprising number of well-known Vietnamese pop stars appear to have recent Chinese ancestry, as suggested by their given names. In many cases, these names subtly reveal their heritage. Artists such as Lam Trường, Quách Thành Danh, Huỳnh Trấn Thành, and Đàm Vĩnh Hưng, along with others like Lâm Ngọc Thoa and Lều Phương Anh, to say the least, exemplify this phenomenon. Their names often carry phonetic or structural traces of Chinese origin, and when asked, their responses tend to confirm it.
This cultural blending reflects a deeper linguistic and historical reality. Chinese, as a language, emerged from the admixture of Yue and proto-Tibetan elements within the broader Sino-Tibetan family. Vietnamese, in turn, can be viewed as a linguistic sub-branch of this Sinitic lineage one that has inherited and localized Chinese linguistic features over generations. In essence, Vietnamese language and identity have evolved within the same cultural pond, shaped by shared ancestry and historical convergence.
Those with Chinese heritage, whether recent or distant, are not outliers but integral threads in the tapestry of Vietnam’s racial and cultural composition. They represent a significant portion of the national demographic, quietly contributing to the richness and complexity of Vietnamese identity (see What Makes Chinese So Vietnamese? - Appendix L.)
In the modern era, the formation of Vietnamese national identity – both within the country and across its diaspora – is deeply rooted in Confucian values, which are, in essence, Chinese cultural constructs. These values have permeated Vietnamese society for centuries, shaping its institutions, customs, and intellectual traditions. To understand this entanglement, one must imagine a time over 1,000 to 2,200 years ago, when segments of the ancestral Viet population began migrating southward from China’s southern regions.
By the 13th century, these early emigrants had crossed the 16th parallel into the newly acquired territories of the Kingdom of Champa. Later waves continued their southward journey, reaching the southernmost tip of present-day Càmau Cape by the 18th century. This expansion occurred independently of earlier resettlements in the Indochinese peninsula, where Mon-Khmer populations had long been established.
Along their migratory path, these settlers encountered a diverse array of individuals – exiled officials, land speculators, vagabonds, fugitives, and refugees – many of whom shared linguistic and cultural affinities. Vietnamese served as their common tongue, a medium of communication that masked the subtle Sinitic elements embedded in everyday interaction. Over time, through sustained contact with Chamic and Khmer communities, Vietnamese absorbed foreign lexicon seamlessly, blending with Sinitic roots as naturally as air mixes with water.
Historically, Vietnam has remained in a quiet but constant state of preparedness for conflict, even during moments of apparent détente with its northern neighbor. A familiar pattern recurs: whenever a Chinese dynasty consolidates its power, its ambitions inevitably extend southward toward the so-called "renegade Annam". From the Han Empire to the modern People's Republic of China, successive Chinese regimes have viewed Vietnam not as a peer, but as a territory to reclaim, pressuring the southern frontier both inland and across the sea.
Conventional wisdom might suggest that Vietnam, given its size and resources, would be overmatched in a modern confrontation. Yet history offers a different verdict. Despite internal challenges that are plagued with corruption, complacency, or political instability, Vietnamese patriotism has repeatedly proven resilient. When cornered, the Vietnamese have consistently resisted foreign domination and, time and again, prevailed against Chinese invasions. Their continued existence as a sovereign nation stands as enduring proof of that defiant spirit.
This assertion is not hyperbole. A close examination of China’s geopolitical history reveals that Vietnam’s emergence as an independent state in 939 A.D. was never formally acknowledged in Chinese records. Instead, Annam was dismissed as a rebellious prefecture that vanished from imperial chronicles after its break from the collapsing Nan Han regime. Yet, against all odds, Vietnam reappeared in modern history as a sovereign entity, lacking continuity in Chinese historiography but asserting its own national narrative.
The belief in inevitable victory over Vietnam has persisted across Chinese dynasties, from Han, Tang, and Song to Yuan, Ming, Qing, and the communist Red China. This mindset continues to shape China's foreign policy, as evidenced by its provocations: the land invasion of 1979, maritime clashes in 1974 and 1984, and the deployment of oil rigs into disputed waters in May 2014. That incident sparked violent riots in Vietnam, with over 100 Chinese-owned factories vandalized and migrant workers evacuated. Since 2015, China has escalated its presence in the South China Sea, constructing naval bases and asserting unilateral territorial claims, what Vietnam calls the "Eastern Sea".
What does this geopolitical tension have to do with linguistics? Everything. In both China and Vietnam, history has often been curated to serve political agendas. Western scholars, wary of controversy or unaware of the nuances, tend to avoid the political implications embedded in linguistic studies. This leaves them puzzled by the reluctance of Vietnamese scholars to acknowledge the profound Chinese cultural imprints on Vietnamese life.
In the formation of national identity that is much like the circumstances of one’s birth, individuals have no control over the historical trajectory of their country. Yet that history can deeply shape collective perception, often clouding objective thought with inherited prejudice. For Vietnamese citizens of Chinese descent who do not speak Vietnamese with native fluency, there remains a tendency to be indiscriminately categorized as part of the ethnic Chinese minority, regardless of their actual cultural integration or generational ties to Vietnam.
Many among this group had long been part of Vietnam’s population prior to 1979. Some joined the mass exodus as boat people refugees, while others remained and gradually assimilated into the Kinh majority. In cities across Vietnam, the physical boundaries of Chinatowns faded as Chinese emigrants departed and Chinese-language schools were shuttered. Yet despite this integration, remnants of bias persist.
Even today, Vietnamese television sitcoms occasionally feature comedians mimicking the speech of Chinese-Vietnamese individuals with exaggerated accents. Though often portrayed as innocent humor, such performances are shameful by modern standards. In Western societies, particularly in the United States, except in Trump's era, this kind of behavior is considered politically incorrect, even in private settings. A public figure engaging in such mockery would risk lasting disgrace.
For those unfamiliar with the nuances of Vietnamese society, especially those living abroad, it is important to recognize that such portrayals reflect deeper issues of cultural sensitivity and historical tension. What may pass as casual entertainment in one context would be deemed unacceptable in another, underscoring the need for greater awareness and respect across cultural boundaries.
Certain truths are often overlooked in discussions of Vietnamese identity and linguistic heritage. First, Chinese is a culture, not a race. Second, China has functioned as a multiethnic union since the Qin-Han era. Third, Vietnam, once part of that union, broke away in 939 A.D. and has maintained its sovereignty ever since. Despite the enduring influence of Confucian values – or more precisely, the legacy of a socialist authoritarian regime – many Vietnamese scholars resist acknowledging the depth of Chinese cultural and linguistic impact, fearing it may undermine nationalist ideals. Ironically, this resistance compromises academic neutrality, making it difficult to objectively trace the origins of the Vietnamese language.
Shaped by centuries of mistrust toward China, Vietnamese scholars often respond emotionally to Sino-centric interpretations of history and linguistics. Their scholarship tends to be instrumental that is designed to safeguard national identity rather than pursue historical truth. As a result, academic objectivity remains elusive. While some non-Vietnamese researchers have made meaningful contributions by adopting a more neutral stance, their work is rarely recognized within Vietnam’s intellectual circles.
The author has chosen to write this paper in English as both a strategic and philosophical decision. It is intended for readers who may be more open to a candid and critical exploration of the Vietnamese language’s origins, particularly its complex relationship with Chinese linguistic traditions. This is a bold undertaking in a field fraught with ideological sensitivities, one the author approaches with cautious optimism and unwavering resolve.
He is fully aware of the risks involved. Others who have pursued the Sino-Tibetan path have often faced rejection or silence, and the Vietnamese linguistic establishment continues to resist any suggestion of hereditary affiliation between Vietnamese and Chinese. Yet such resistance, rooted in nationalist bias, will not deter the author’s commitment to advancing this inquiry with sincerity. If recognition ever comes, he suspects it may only be granted posthumously, as has been the case for many who challenged prevailing narratives.
Writing in English also serves a practical purpose: it creates a buffer between the work and certain audiences who might otherwise respond with hostility. Until someone takes the initiative to translate it into Vietnamese, the author prefers to avoid direct confrontation with nationalist zealots – particularly those lacking academic training. Their reactions, often fueled by ideological conditioning under modern Vietnamese socialism, reflect a mindset unlikely to shift within our lifetime.
As long as the specter of northern aggression looms, each generation of Vietnamese tends to harbor latent antagonism toward Sino-centric interpretations. This simmering sentiment, often amplified by nationalism, can erupt into fervent anti-Sinicism, sometimes hysterical, sometimes overwhelming. Such emotional suppression risks distorting academic discourse, potentially indoctrinating entire schools of thought to reject any serious engagement with Sinitic theorization. The author’s efforts to address Chinese-Vietnamese etymological connections may thus be met with blunt dismissal.
Adding to the complexity of this inquiry is the resistance from another front: the Mon-Khmer traditionalists within Western linguistics, who remain steadfast in defending the Austroasiatic paradigm. Paradoxically, however, some of the author’s most unexpected allies have emerged from within that very camp: Western scholars who, despite their affiliations, have shown a willingness to listen and engage with alternative perspectives. Yet skepticism persists, and understandably so.
Their reservations may stem from several factors. First, the author’s reconstruction of ancient phonology may appear unconventional or lack sufficient empirical grounding. Second, the methodologies favored by Western linguists often struggle to accommodate the intricacies of tonal languages, which complicates comparative analysis. Third, it may simply be a matter of presentation – the author may not yet possess the rhetorical polish needed to effectively communicate and advocate for his ideas.
To the reader: as you engage with this work, try to set aside personal biases and let intellectual curiosity lead the way. The discovery of new Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma offers a rare opportunity to deepen your understanding and may prompt those in the field to reconsider their academic direction. Whether you choose to follow this rugged path or not, know that it carries the risk of isolation – but also the promise of profound insight into a neglected yet vital area of linguistic study.
Table 7 - Take a stand
Vietnamese scholars, often functioning as extensions of the state
apparatus, tend to operate within a rigid framework shaped by political
expectations. Unlike their counterparts in the West, they struggle to
embrace the principle that academic inquiry should remain independent of
political influence. When politics infiltrates scholarship, it inevitably
compromises the authenticity of academic achievement.
To
readers who reject the notion of apolitical history, the author
respectfully seeks understanding for the unpopular viewpoint presented in
this research. The goal is not to provoke but to allow the work to stand
on its own merit without having to battle for recognition. In the past,
the author refrained from engaging with online critics, choosing instead
to focus on refining his research. But there is little value in continuing
to tiptoe around nationalist fervor.
Let us invoke the spirit
of a Vietnamese proverb: "Mất lòng trước, được lòng sau." (Better
to offend first and earn respect later.) With that in mind, the
author lays all political cards on the table. If politics must influence
academia, let it do so in the realm of history, where Vietnam and China
have been entangled since antiquity. Linguistics, by contrast, should
remain a space for objective analysis, free from ideological distortion.
Conclusion
Vietnamese linguistic history cannot be disentangled from its colonial past. Across more than a millennium of Chinese rule, reinforced by later Ming occupation and Hồ Dynasty reforms, the language evolved not as a creole but as a grafted system: Yue substrata remained the foundation, while successive Sinitic overlays supplied prestige vocabulary in law, ritual, and scholarship.
The divergence of Kinh and Mường communities illustrates how colonial entanglement reshaped identity as well as speech. Kinh Vietnamese absorbed Han settlers and their lexicon, producing a hybrid register, while Mường speech preserved older substratal features in upland isolation. This dual trajectory underscores the resilience of indigenous roots even under sustained domination.
Vietnamese thus stands as a survival history of language, a testimony to adaptation through hybridity. Its lexicon embodies centuries of negotiation between power and vernacular, authority and resistance. Far from being a derivative tongue, Vietnamese reveals how colonial centuries forged a language that is both deeply local and profoundly entangled with the wider Sinitic world.
References
Chinese Colonial Records
-
Sima Qian. 1993. Shiji 史記 (Records of the Grand Historian). Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
-
Sima Guang. 1956. Zizhi Tongjian 資治通鑑 (Comprehensive Mirror to Aid in Government). Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
-
Han Dynasty annals on Jiaozhi 交阯 / 交趾 and Jiaozhou 交州.
Ming Dynasty occupation records (1407-1427).
Vietnamese Scholarship on Colonial Evolution
-
Nguyễn Ngọc San. 1993. Tìm hiểu về tiếng Việt lịch sử. Hanoi: Nhà xuất bản Giáo dục.
-
Bình Nguyên Lộc. 1972. Nguồn gốc Mã Lai của Dân tộc Việt nam. Saigon: Khai Trí.
-
Phan Hữu Dật. 1998. Nhân học Việt nam. Hanoi: Nhà xuất bản Đại học Quốc gia.
-
Trần Quốc Vượng. 2000. Việt Nam: Văn hoá và Con người. Hanoi: Nhà xuất bản Khoa học Xã hội.
Modern Historiography
-
Kiernan, Ben. 2017. Việt Nam: A History from Earliest Times to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Taylor, Keith W. 2013. A History of the Vietnamese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Li Tana. 1998. Nguyen Cochinchina: Southern Vietnam in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Comparative Linguistics
-
Haudricourt, André‑Georges. 1954. "De l’origine des tons en vietnamien." Journal Asiatique 242: 69-82.
-
Ferlus, Michel. 2012. "Trade Routes and Sound Change Patterns in Vietnamese Cognates across Southeast Asia." Mon–Khmer Studies 41: 1–18.
FOOTNOTES
(X)^ Only the first Mon-Khmer numbers 1 to 5 are plausibly cognate,
namely, "muəj" ,"piː (pɨl)", "ɓəj", "ɓuən", "pram", an eclectic assumption
such as piː for "hai", in opposition to the 10-based
numerical system in Vietnamese of which only the first 5 numbers correspond
to "một", "hai", "ba", "bốn", "năm", respectively.
As a matter of
fact, the Vietnamese speakers are at ease with Chinese origin numbers in
common usage and expressions such as "hạngnhất" (一等), "thứnhì" (第二),
"bấtquátam" (不過三), "tứquái" (四怪), "mâmngũquả" (五果盤), "ănchia tứlục"
(分利四六), "thấttuần" (七旬), "bátquái" (八卦), "bảngcửuchương" (九章版),
"chục quảtrứng" (十個蛋), "mộttá" (一打), "nhịthậptứ hiếu" (二十四孝),
"báchnhiên" (百年), "thiênthu" (千秋), "ngànvàng" (千金) "vạntuế" (萬歲),
"muônthuở" (萬世), "tỷphú" (億富), etc. The Chinese numerical expressions in
Vietnamese are innumerable, so to speak.
(1)^ An Dương Vương is the title of Thục Phán, who ruled over the kingdom
of Âulạc (now Vietnam) from 257 to 207 B.C. The leader of the ÂuViệt tribes
defeated and seized the throne from the last King Hùng of the State of
Vănlang, and united its people, known as the LạcViệt, with the ÂuViệt. In
208 B.C., the Capital Cổ Loa was attacked and the imperial citadel
ransacked. An Dương Vương fled and committed suicide.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_D%C6%B0%C6%A1ng_V%C6%B0%C6%A1ng
(2)^ Thánh Gióng, also known as Phù Đổng Thiên Vương (扶董天王), Ông Dóng and Xung Thiên Thần Vương (冲天神王)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A1nh_Gi%C3%B3ng
(3)^ Namquốc Sơnhà (Territory of the Southern Nation)
written in 1077 by Lý Thường Kiệt and recited next to the defense line of
the Nhưnguyệt River (Cầu River), originally for raising the spirit of the
soldiers to fight against Chinese invaders and
(4)^ 1) Dương Đình (Diên) Nghệ 楊廷藝 or 楊延藝 (931-937)
2) Kiều
Công Tiễn 矯公羨 or 皎公羨 (937-938)
3) Ngô Vương reign: 939–944
4)
Dương Tam Kha reign: 944–950
5) Hậu Ngô Vương: Nam Tấn Vương &
Thiên Sách Vương co-reign: 950–954
6) Thiên Sách Vương reign:
954–965
7) Ngô Sứquân (吳使君) reign: 965–968
8) "The Anarchy of
the 12 Warlords" or "Thập Nhị Sứquân Rebellion" (966–968)
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ng%C3%B4_dynasty)
(5)^ See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoa_people
(6)^ For the pronoun "they" instead of "she", "he" or "s/he", the author find that sometimes the current usage of the singular "they" is suitable in many circumstances adopted by the Washington Post in its stylebook in December 2015 or US local Examiner newspapers in September 22, 2016. It was also American Dialect's word of the year in 2015.
(7)^ Revisiting the XYZ Racial Formulary: To symbolically represent the ethnic composition of the Vietnamese
people, we can assign weighted variables to reflect historical
demographic shifts. Using the formula {4Y6Z8HCMK}, we approximate the
modern Vietnamese racial makeup based on historical records, including
Han-era census data. For example, population figures in the three
prefectures under Han administration — Jiaozhi (交趾, Giaochỉ), Jiuzhen
(九真, Cửuchân), and Rinan (日南, Nhậtnam)— grew from approximately
400,000 to 980,000 between 111 BC and 11 BC. These figures correspond to
the Annamese composition {2Y3Z4H}, reflecting a blend of proto-Yue and
Han elements.
Historical accounts from the Qin Dynasty also note that between 15,000
and 30,000 unmarried Yue women were forcibly married to Qin foot
soldiers (Lu Shih-Peng, 1964, Eng. p. 11; Chin. p. 47). Given China's
longstanding tradition of meticulous household registration, these
records are likely reliable.
The ethnic makeup of ancient Annam closely mirrored that of Han
Chinese. This resulted from the intermingling of early proto-Chinese {X}
with proto-Yue aboriginals {YY}, typically in a 2:1 ratio across
southern China. These interactions produced the indigenous Yue
population {ZZZ}, found in ancient larger states such as Wu, Yue, and
Chu. Over time, these groups were absorbed into the Han identity,
symbolized as {HHHH}, representing three parts Z and four parts H in the
unified Han Dynasty, analogous to the consolidation of the Qin Empire
into a centralized Chinese state.
Thus, the racial composition of later Han Chinese can be expressed as
{X2Y3Z4H}, a product of the fusion between {X}, {YY}, {ZZZ}, and {HHHH}.
Meanwhile, the Vietic lineage emerged from proto-Yue {YY} and later Yue
{ZZZ}, forming the proto-Vietic population {YYZZZ}. These became the
early Annamese {2Y3Z4H}, who evolved into modern Vietnamese
{4Y6Z8H+CMK}, where CMK represents Cham and Mon-Khmer influences.
This formulation reflects a dual-layered structure: the base {2Y3Z4H}
enriched by {CK}, mirroring similar demographic transformations seen in
southern Chinese populations such as the Fukienese and Cantonese. These
groups underwent comparable racial blending during the Han Dynasty,
suggesting a parallel trajectory with the Vietic population.
If this model holds, then the symbolic formula for Austroasiatic
populations may be represented as {6YCMK}, in contrast to the Vietnamese
composition of {4Y6Z8HCMK}, highlighting the deeper Sinitic-Yue
integration in Vietnamese ethnogenesis. (See Chapter 2: Rainwash from the Austroasiatic Sky).
(8)^ The Mongol invasions of Vietnam or Mongol-Vietnamese War refer to the three times that the Mongol Empire and its chief khanate the Yuan Dynasty invaded ĐạiViệt (now northern Vietnam) during the Tran Dynasty and the Kingdom of Champa: in 1257–1258, 1284–1285, and 1287–1288. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Vietnam
(9)^ That is metaphorically comparable to elaborating on China's Simplified Chinese vs. Traditional Chinese, along with Pinyin vs. Zhuyin transcribing systems being in use in Hong Kong or Taiwan or, analogously, cf. 面 miàn (face, noodle, wheat) for 麵 miàn (noodle, wheat) vs. VS 'mặt' (SV 'diện') and 'mì' (SV 'miến'), respectively, so to speak.
(10)^ "It is so said, their ancestors were descendants (of...)", but in relative terms, the forefathers of a nation who lived in a
region centuries ago are not necessarily the direct biological ancestors
of the people residing there today. In the specific case of Cantonese
speakers mentioned earlier, we must consider the demographic shifts over
the past 2,000 years, waves of immigration and emigration, the movement
of locals and resettlers, and the blending of Sino-Tibetan subjects with
Han-Yue populations. Many of the migrants who passed through or settled
in the historical Canton region were not of Yue ancestry, even though
they referred to their language as 'Jyut8waa2' rather than 'ʃieŋ21Jyut8' (the Yue language) or 'tiếng Việt' (the Vietnamese language).
Likewise, Vietnam shares a similar historical trajectory. A significant
portion of today’s Vietnamese population may not be direct descendants
of the native inhabitants who, according to legend, helped the '18 Hùng
Kings' establish the ancient nation of Vănlang. Whether those early
founders were of Yue or Mon-Khmer origin, the modern Kinh people living
in present-day Vietnam are not necessarily biologically linked to the
original builders of the nation over two millennia ago.
(11)^ In the Chinese language, there is an old saying that reads "一將攻城萬骨枯" Yī jiàng gōngchéng wàn gǔ kū. ('Nhất tướng côngthành vạn cốt khô.') is to convey such dreadful fact, that is, thousands of innocent residents inside living quarters of a citadel could easily have lost their lives under the hands of winning troops in the fighting. That is the customary norm of Chinese culture, so to speak. As we can see now, the population of the faraway and southernmost Annam prefecture could have already reached over a tenth of the 17 million of the Tang population by then.
(12)^ The broader picture becomes clearer when we consider the demographic
impact of foreign presence. For example, during the Vietnam War
(1965-1975), more than 50,000 'Eurasian Vietnamese' children were born
to American soldiers stationed in South Vietnam, a country with a
population of roughly 22 million at the time. These births occurred
within a relatively short span of just ten years, underscoring how
quickly external forces can leave lasting imprints on a nation’s
demographic and cultural landscape.
Now, imagine how California might look 2,000 years from now if it were
to become an independent country 1,000 years from today. Or consider
Taiwan, 'How would its identity evolve over millennia under similar
conditions?' These hypothetical scenarios invite us to reflect on how
sustained foreign influence, migration, and cultural exchange shape
national identity over time.
(13)^ The broader picture becomes clearer when we consider the
demographic impact of foreign presence. For example, during the
Vietnam War (1965–1975), more than 50,000 'Eurasian Vietnamese'
children were born to American soldiers stationed in South Vietnam—a
country with a population of roughly 22 million at the time. These
births occurred within a relatively short span of just ten years,
underscoring how quickly external forces can leave lasting imprints
on a nation’s demographic and cultural landscape.
Now, imagine how California might look 2,000 years from now if it
were to become an independent country 1,000 years from today. Or
consider Taiwan, 'How would its identity evolve over millennia under
similar conditions?' These hypothetical scenarios invite us to
reflect on how sustained foreign influence, migration, and cultural
exchange shape national identity over time.
(14)^ A good examples is from "Bình Ngô Đạicáo Tânthời" written in
'classical language' with a modern context by the author. It is a
cynical version of the 'Vietnamese proclamation of independence from
China' in 1428, Vietnam's Le Dynasty. You may want to read the full
version of it in Appendix L or do a Google search to see how "nationalism" and "politics"
can obscure some good judgment:
"凭吾丑告: 女丑讨华, 占有千秋, 婆权成性, 历载叶千, 巨大无双, 蝴蝶婆脷,
汉和岭蛮, 缩头乌龟, 中擦外伤, 坏而恋战, 南越百族, 湖广七雒, 独吾健在,
雄居南方, 旗花移到, 吾邦挚友, 好客有方, 来者良家, 流氓勿忘, 白藤江待,
南杀西杀, 旗中无敌, 维我独尊, 骑越虎也, 上之毋下, 入生出死, 大鱼气小,
急吃豆腐, 九死一生, 贪食疾身, 女等欺人, 甚不可忍, 君子报仇, 十年不晚,
咱走着瞧, 霸权破脷, 惹火焚身, 九泉归依!"
(Trâu Ơi Bố Bảo: Trâu số đạo hoa, ngàn lẻ thu qua, hay thói quyền bà,
sửxanh ghichép, cụ đại vôsong, baybướm lưỡibò, hánhởmulạnh, đầurùa
lấpló, trong sứt ngoài thoa, lâm chiến bại hoài. HồQuảng dù mất,
NamViệt vẫncòn, Hùng cứ phươngnam, kỳhoa dịthảo, hữuhảo chi bang,
chuộngchìu hiếukhách, nhàlành kếtmối, lưumanh chớhòng, Bạchđằng
BểĐông, Trườngsa Hoàngsa, duyngãđộctôn, kỳ trung vô địch, cởi cọp
Việtnam, lênvoixuốngchó, vàosinhratử, ỷlớnhiếpbé, nuốtxương mắccổ,
dỡsốngdỡchết, thamthựccựcthân, lũbay bốláo, đắcchí tiểunhân, nhịn cũng
vừa thôi, quântử ratay, bàihọc ngànnăm, tổcha tụibay, báquyền bảláp,
rướchoạvàothân, ngậmngùi chínsuối!)