Many Tibeto-Burman languages, the non-Sinitic branches of the Sino-Tibetan family, colexify ‘dragon’ and ‘thunder’, namely using the same lexical form or morphologically related forms to express the two concepts. 

There are four hypotheses regarding the origin of dragon. Firstly, archaeologically, dragon is believed to derive from large reptiles, such as Chinese alligators and crocodiles (e.g., Schafer, 1973; James, 1993; Zhu, 2009; Nelson, 2019). Secondly, based on the totemic theory in China (Chen, 2012), the origin of the dragon is snake. Thirdly, Blust (2000) argues that dragons evolved from rainbows through the concept of the rainbow serpent. Lastly, the origin of dragon is thunder and lightning, evolving from the dense spiral patterns representing lightning (e.g., Hu, 1987; Li, 1995; Wu, 2000). Although none of the above hypotheses has been proved with solid evidence in the Sino-Tibetan cultures, due to the empirical nature of archaeology, the alligator-origin of dragon became the dominant theory. The other three hypotheses were considered just as myths.  

However, the present project attempts to prove with linguistic evidence from Sino-Tibetan languages that dragon of the Sino-Tibetan region is the mythologized form of thunder and lightning, consistent with the above-mentioned thunder/lightning-origin hypothesis.  

It is observed that many Tibeto-Burman languages, the non-Sinitic branches of the Sino-Tibetan family, colexify ‘dragon’ and ‘thunder’, namely using the same lexical form or morphologically related forms to express the two concepts. Such languages include written Tibetan (Bodic) nbrug, Tsangla (Bodic) brung, Muya (Burmo-Qiangic) ndʐu, Khroskyabs (Burmo-Qiangic) mbrəɣ, Situ Gyalrong (Burmo-Qiangic) ta-rmók, Shuhi (Burmo-Qiangic) mɛ33dʑyɛ53, to name a few. There are two kinds of colexification which should be distinguished: one via phylogenetic transmission, such as the Tibetan languages, and one via borrowing, such as from Tibetan into Gyalrongic languages. Moreover, modern Sinitic languages seldom colexify dragon and thunder or lightning, but many of them still relate dragon to the weather events of thunder and lightning, such as luŋ24tʂua44 (龍抓 or dragon scratch) in Harbin Mandarin, meaning ‘lightning strikes’. The connection between dragon and thunder/lightning is believed to be the relic of dragon-thunder colexification in Proto-Sinitic.    

Therefore, this project starts with investigating the current distribution of dragon-thunder colexification in Sino-Tibetan languages. The reasons why modern Sino-Tibetan languages colexify or differentiate dragon and thunder will then be addressed, in terms of the linguistic variables (e.g., historical contact between two languages) and non-linguistic variables (e.g., the spread of Buddhism). Lastly, this project will reconstruct the linguistic forms of dragon and thunder at different historical periods to further support the validity of the thunder/lightning origin of dragon.