Periodic Reporting for period 1 - LACONC (Language contact and heterogeneity in the Hybrid Chinese dialects in North-West China)
Reporting period: 2024-12-01 to 2026-11-30
Summary of the context and overall objectives of the project
This project aims at identifying both the different strata of Altaic influence and the contact-induced changes in the hybrid dialects of the Gansu-Qinghai area, as well as questioning their classification among the North-Western branch. It involves highly endangered dialects that will probably disappear in the very near future, and will contribute to increase the visibility and awareness of regional languages and their communities of speakers. Traditionally, the North-Western Chinese dialects branch regroups all Mandarin varieties spoken from Xinjiang to Shanxi provinces (Yuan Jiahua 1960); further divisions were made in the late 1980s between the Lanying dialects, the Central Plains dialects, and later, the Jin languages, whose status is still disputed among linguists (Wurm, Li, Baumann and Lee 1987). The first two sub-branches geographically cover several dialects situated in the ‘Hexi Corridor’ (spread between Gansu and Qinghai provinces) that have often been qualified as “creoles”, “mixed languages” or “Chinese hybrid dialects” (Dwyer 1995, Wurm 1995, Slater 2003, Janhunen 2004, Bell 2020, Lefort forthcoming) due to several non-Sinitic traits that have been identified in these languages. Those varieties include the Xining, Wutun, Zhoutun, Gangou, Linxia, Dongxiang Chinese and Tangwang dialects, spoken by both Hui (Chinese Muslims) and Han communities.
During the early stages of the project, the relevance of Sino-Arabic writing systems to the research questions was identified as a significant new development. While the original plan was to rely primarily on historical sources from the Jin, Yuan, and Ming periods (notably the three editions of the Laoqida), the scope was subsequently expanded to incorporate additional materials. These included texts written in the Xiaojing script—an Arabic-Persian based system historically used by Chinese Muslim communities to transcribe Chinese dialects, particularly Linxia and Tangwang. Furthermore, earlier sources were integrated, such as studies of 16th-century Persian translations and linguistic materials linked to mosque-based teaching practices (jingtangyu), with records extending to the early 20th century.
Another strand of research focused on documenting Arabic and Persian lexical borrowings in both the Mongolic (Dongxiang) and Sinitic (Linxia and Tangwang) languages of the region. This documentation enabled a more precise assessment of the mechanisms and pathways of linguistic influence. The findings revealed that the non-Sinitic features found in the hybrid Chinese dialects of Southern Gansu were already present in earlier forms, suggesting reanalysis as the principal process of borrowing and the earliest stage of influence. Moreover, non-Altaic languages—particularly Persian—were found to have played a far more significant role in shaping the linguistic features of the region than previously acknowledged. The majority of Arabic-derived vocabulary in both Mongolic and Chinese hybrid varieties appears to have been transmitted via Persian and Turkic languages, indicating a shared borrowing pathway and common patterns of language contact.
The Hexi Corridor is also home to different ethnic minorities who speak various Mongolic, Turkic and Tibetan languages that have influenced one another to a greater or lesser extent, resulting in the mutual transfer of certain linguistic traits that are completely absent from the language families they belong to. On that account, some researchers consider having identified a linguistic area (Dwyer 1995, Janhunen 2004, Slater 2003, etc.), whereas others believe this region regroups several different isoglosses (Nugteren 2011). All these Chinese hybrid dialects share a number of linguistic features thought to have been induced through contacts with Mongolic (and possibly Turkic) languages spoken by neighbouring groups. Historical and linguistic elements suggest that those Mongolic languages may have emerged between the late 13th and early 14th century, at the time of the Mongolian invasions of Central Asia. Chinese speakers have been exposed to those languages ever since, hence the formation of the above-mentioned hybrid dialects.
Chinese scholars tend to argue for a one-to-one language influence (Luo 2004, Lei 2017, Yang & Zhao 2021, Min 2018, Zhou 2023, etc.), but do not put them into a broader perspective. Indeed, various other Chinese languages—those of the Shanxi and Shaanxi regions, for instance—also display some of these traits though they were not in contact with Mongolic languages in recent times. These traits are, most probably, the results of contacts with Altaic languages that occurred around the 10th–12th centuries, at the time of the Liao empire rule in Northern China, whose leaders were speakers of Khitan (Janhunen 2005, Yang 2015), or later, during the Mongolian rule of the Yuan dynasty. These dialects include those spoken in the Shanxi and Shaanxi regions, along the Yellow River, which belong to the Central Plains and Jin branches. Accordingly, some of the traits found in the Chinese hybrid dialects of the Gansu-Qinghai area might be evidence of a deeper stratum of influence—and perhaps of a common origin with other dialects—rather than changes induced by secondary contacts.
Collectively, these results advance the project’s objective by providing a more nuanced understanding of the multilingual interactions that have shaped the linguistic landscape of the Hexi Corridor. They also highlight the broader socio-historical role of Persian and Islamic cultural transmission in the development of regional dialects, thereby integrating relevant perspectives from the social sciences and humanities into the analysis.
During the early stages of the project, the relevance of Sino-Arabic writing systems to the research questions was identified as a significant new development. While the original plan was to rely primarily on historical sources from the Jin, Yuan, and Ming periods (notably the three editions of the Laoqida), the scope was subsequently expanded to incorporate additional materials. These included texts written in the Xiaojing script—an Arabic-Persian based system historically used by Chinese Muslim communities to transcribe Chinese dialects, particularly Linxia and Tangwang. Furthermore, earlier sources were integrated, such as studies of 16th-century Persian translations and linguistic materials linked to mosque-based teaching practices (jingtangyu), with records extending to the early 20th century.
Another strand of research focused on documenting Arabic and Persian lexical borrowings in both the Mongolic (Dongxiang) and Sinitic (Linxia and Tangwang) languages of the region. This documentation enabled a more precise assessment of the mechanisms and pathways of linguistic influence. The findings revealed that the non-Sinitic features found in the hybrid Chinese dialects of Southern Gansu were already present in earlier forms, suggesting reanalysis as the principal process of borrowing and the earliest stage of influence. Moreover, non-Altaic languages—particularly Persian—were found to have played a far more significant role in shaping the linguistic features of the region than previously acknowledged. The majority of Arabic-derived vocabulary in both Mongolic and Chinese hybrid varieties appears to have been transmitted via Persian and Turkic languages, indicating a shared borrowing pathway and common patterns of language contact.
The Hexi Corridor is also home to different ethnic minorities who speak various Mongolic, Turkic and Tibetan languages that have influenced one another to a greater or lesser extent, resulting in the mutual transfer of certain linguistic traits that are completely absent from the language families they belong to. On that account, some researchers consider having identified a linguistic area (Dwyer 1995, Janhunen 2004, Slater 2003, etc.), whereas others believe this region regroups several different isoglosses (Nugteren 2011). All these Chinese hybrid dialects share a number of linguistic features thought to have been induced through contacts with Mongolic (and possibly Turkic) languages spoken by neighbouring groups. Historical and linguistic elements suggest that those Mongolic languages may have emerged between the late 13th and early 14th century, at the time of the Mongolian invasions of Central Asia. Chinese speakers have been exposed to those languages ever since, hence the formation of the above-mentioned hybrid dialects.
Chinese scholars tend to argue for a one-to-one language influence (Luo 2004, Lei 2017, Yang & Zhao 2021, Min 2018, Zhou 2023, etc.), but do not put them into a broader perspective. Indeed, various other Chinese languages—those of the Shanxi and Shaanxi regions, for instance—also display some of these traits though they were not in contact with Mongolic languages in recent times. These traits are, most probably, the results of contacts with Altaic languages that occurred around the 10th–12th centuries, at the time of the Liao empire rule in Northern China, whose leaders were speakers of Khitan (Janhunen 2005, Yang 2015), or later, during the Mongolian rule of the Yuan dynasty. These dialects include those spoken in the Shanxi and Shaanxi regions, along the Yellow River, which belong to the Central Plains and Jin branches. Accordingly, some of the traits found in the Chinese hybrid dialects of the Gansu-Qinghai area might be evidence of a deeper stratum of influence—and perhaps of a common origin with other dialects—rather than changes induced by secondary contacts.
Collectively, these results advance the project’s objective by providing a more nuanced understanding of the multilingual interactions that have shaped the linguistic landscape of the Hexi Corridor. They also highlight the broader socio-historical role of Persian and Islamic cultural transmission in the development of regional dialects, thereby integrating relevant perspectives from the social sciences and humanities into the analysis.
Work performed from the beginning of the project to the end of the period covered by the report and main results achieved so far
The first specific objective (SO1) was to conduct a morpho-phonological comparison of selected linguistic features hypothesized to be of Mongolic origin—namely, nominal case markers, formally identical third-person pronominal forms, distal demonstratives, and tense/aspectual markers—within Chinese hybrid dialects. This objective was only partially achieved, as the analysis was limited to three dialects in the Southern Gansu region due to the early termination of the project. The list of features under investigation was refined in light of new progress: tense and aspectual markers were replaced by motion-cum-purpose markers, a recently established category to which Sinitic languages have now been shown to contribute.
The second specific objective (SO2) was to compare these forms with those found in dialects outside the core linguistic area, particularly in Shaanxi and Shanxi. This objective could not be fulfilled, as progress was insufficient to extend the study to this stage.
The third specific objective (SO3) aimed to compare the identified forms with those in Mongolic languages spoken in the Gansu–Qinghai region. This objective was partially realized, as work was completed only on one Mongolic language, Dongxiang. Notably, the project succeeded in transcribing, glossing, and translating a letter from the 1980s, an exceptionally rare document written in Dongxiang Arabo-Persian script.
The fourth specific objective (SO4) was to identify the processes through which these linguistic traits were integrated into each dialect, with the goal of determining whether a common borrowing strategy could be established based on geographic correspondences. This objective was partially met: reanalysis was identified as the principal mechanism underlying the borrowings into Chinese hybrid varieties. However, given the incomplete scope of the research, additional processes may yet be identified in varieties that were not examined within the project timeframe.
The second specific objective (SO2) was to compare these forms with those found in dialects outside the core linguistic area, particularly in Shaanxi and Shanxi. This objective could not be fulfilled, as progress was insufficient to extend the study to this stage.
The third specific objective (SO3) aimed to compare the identified forms with those in Mongolic languages spoken in the Gansu–Qinghai region. This objective was partially realized, as work was completed only on one Mongolic language, Dongxiang. Notably, the project succeeded in transcribing, glossing, and translating a letter from the 1980s, an exceptionally rare document written in Dongxiang Arabo-Persian script.
The fourth specific objective (SO4) was to identify the processes through which these linguistic traits were integrated into each dialect, with the goal of determining whether a common borrowing strategy could be established based on geographic correspondences. This objective was partially met: reanalysis was identified as the principal mechanism underlying the borrowings into Chinese hybrid varieties. However, given the incomplete scope of the research, additional processes may yet be identified in varieties that were not examined within the project timeframe.
Progress beyond the state of the art and expected potential impact (including the socio-economic impact and the wider societal implications of the project so far)
The project has made measurable progress toward advancing scientific impact, particularly in the field of contact linguistics and the study of Chinese hybrid dialects. While some specific objectives were only partially fulfilled, the work has nevertheless contributed original insights to the state of the art. Most notably, the refinement of the research focus from tense/aspectual markers to motion-cum-purpose markers represents a significant innovation, as this newly identified category demonstrates a previously unrecognized contribution of Sinitic languages to contact-induced grammaticalization processes. Similarly, the transcription, glossing, and translation of a rare Dongxiang letter written in Arabo-Persian script has resulted in a unique corpus contribution, opening new avenues for the documentation and analysis of endangered Mongolic varieties. The partial achievement of SO4 has further clarified the role of reanalysis as a principal borrowing mechanism, thereby offering a methodological advancement that may inform future comparative research across other contact zones.
Beyond its immediate scholarly outputs, the project has fostered scientific exchange and collaboration, as evidenced by the organization of an international workshop that convened leading specialists from European and Asian institutions. The workshop, alongside subsequent conference presentations, has already positioned the findings within broader typological debates, enhancing their potential societal impact by advancing knowledge on linguistic diversity and heritage preservation. The establishment of a dataverse ensures open access to collected materials, thereby increasing the project’s visibility and long-term contribution to the academic community.
Although the early termination of the project limited the completion of data collection and subsequent analyses, the outputs achieved so far—two research articles under peer review, workshop proceedings planned as an edited volume, and contributions presented at four international conferences—have already begun to generate scientific impact and promise to yield further developments. No major deviations from the expected impacts described in Annex 1 occurred, though the inability to extend fieldwork to Shaanxi and Shanxi requires that certain comparative dimensions be addressed in follow-up research. The preliminary results, however, confirm the project’s capacity to reshape scholarly understanding of language contact in Northwestern China and to provide foundational resources for both academic inquiry and societal awareness of minority linguistic heritage.
Beyond its immediate scholarly outputs, the project has fostered scientific exchange and collaboration, as evidenced by the organization of an international workshop that convened leading specialists from European and Asian institutions. The workshop, alongside subsequent conference presentations, has already positioned the findings within broader typological debates, enhancing their potential societal impact by advancing knowledge on linguistic diversity and heritage preservation. The establishment of a dataverse ensures open access to collected materials, thereby increasing the project’s visibility and long-term contribution to the academic community.
Although the early termination of the project limited the completion of data collection and subsequent analyses, the outputs achieved so far—two research articles under peer review, workshop proceedings planned as an edited volume, and contributions presented at four international conferences—have already begun to generate scientific impact and promise to yield further developments. No major deviations from the expected impacts described in Annex 1 occurred, though the inability to extend fieldwork to Shaanxi and Shanxi requires that certain comparative dimensions be addressed in follow-up research. The preliminary results, however, confirm the project’s capacity to reshape scholarly understanding of language contact in Northwestern China and to provide foundational resources for both academic inquiry and societal awareness of minority linguistic heritage.