Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2665-9336
  • E-ISSN: 2665-9344
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The paucity or absence of inflectional morphology (radical analyticity) and the omission of verbal arguments with no concomitant agreement (radical pro-drop) are well-known characteristics of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages (EMSEA). Both of them have a special status in typology and linguistic theory. Radical analyticity is known under the term of ‘morphological isolation’ and has recently been described as ‘diachronically anomalous’ (McWhorter 2016), while radical pro-drop is a theoretical challenge since Rizzi (1986). The present paper offers an alternative view on these characteristics based on data from EMSEA languages, radically analytic West African languages and pidgins and creoles. It develops diachronic evolutionary scenarios combining the specific properties of languages in their diachronic and geographic situations with two different notions of complexity (hidden vs. overt complexity) and factors which tend to block the development of inflectional morphological paradigms. From such a perspective, radical analyticity and radical pro-drop are by no means extraordinary. Given the enormous size of the task, the paper is a thought experiment based on available data and discussions on the above languages for stimulating further research.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ackema, P., Brandt, P., Schoorlemmer, M. and Weerman, F.
    (eds.) (2006) Arguments and Agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adelaar, A.
    (2005) The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: A histirical perspective. In: A. Adelaar and N. P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. Oxford: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Adone, D.
    (1994) Creolization and language change in Mauritian Creole. In: D. Adone and I. Plag (eds.), Creolization and Language Change (pp.24–43). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111339801.23
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111339801.23 [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, G. D. S.
    (2007) The Munda Verb. A Typological Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110924251
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924251 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2016) Overview of the Munda languages, In: M. Jenny and P. Sidwell (eds.), The Handbook of Austronesian Languages, Vol.1 (pp.364–414). Leiden and Boston: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ansaldo, U. and Lim, L.
    (2004) Phonetic absence as syntactic prominence. Grammaticalization in isolating tonal languages. In: O. Fischer, M. Norde, and H. Perridon (eds.), Up and Down the Cline – the Nature of Grammaticalization (pp.345–362). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.59.18ans
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.59.18ans [Google Scholar]
  7. Arcodia, G. F.
    (2013) Grammaticalization with coevolution of form and meaning in East Asia? Evidence from Sinitic. Language Sciences40, 148–167. 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2015) More on the morphological typology of Sinitic. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics8, 5–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Baerman, M. and Corbett, G.
    (2010) Introduction: Defectiveness: Typology and diachrony. In: M. Barerman, G. Corbett and D. Brown (eds), Defective Paradigms. Missing Forms and what they Tell us (pp.1–18). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.5871/bacad/9780197264607.003.0001
    https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197264607.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Baxter, W. A. and Sagart, L.
    (2014) Old Chinese. A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199945375.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199945375.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Benjamin, G.
    (1976) An outline of Temiar grammar. In: P. N. Jenner, L. C. Thompson and S. Starosta (eds.), Austroasiatic Studies I and II (pp.129–188).
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bickel, B.
    (2007) Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology11, 239–251. 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2007.018 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bisang, W.
    (1992) Das Verb im Chinesischen, Hmong, Vietnamesischen, Thai und Khmer. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2004) Grammaticalization without coevolution of form and meaning: The case of tense-aspect-modality in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In: W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann and B. Wiemer (eds.), What Makes Grammaticalization? – A Look from its Fringes and its Components (pp.109–138). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197440.2.109
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197440.2.109 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2008) Grammaticalization and the areal factor: The perspective of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. In: M. J. López-Couso and E. Seoane (eds.), Rethinking Grammaticalization. New Perspectives (pp.15–35). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.76.04bis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.76.04bis [Google Scholar]
  16. (2009) On the evolution of complexity – sometimes less is more in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In: G. Sampson, D. Gil and P. Trudgill (eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable (pp.34–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2010) Grammaticalization in Chinese – a construction based account. In: E. C. Traugott and G. Trousdale (eds), Gradience, Gradualness, and Grammaticalization (pp.245–277). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.90.13bis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90.13bis [Google Scholar]
  18. (2013) Language contact between geographic and mental space. In: Auer, P., M. Hilpert, A. Stukenbrock and B. Szmrecsanyi, Linguistic Perspectives on Space: Geography, Interaction, and Cognition (pp.61–100). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (Series Linguae et Litterae). 10.1515/9783110312027.61
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110312027.61 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2014a) On the strength of morphological paradigms – a historical account of radical pro-drop. In: M. Robbeets and W. Bisang. (eds.), Paradigm Change in Historical Reconstruction: The Transeurasian Languages and Beyond (pp.23–60). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2014b) Overt and hidden complexity – two types of complexity and their implications. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics50 (2), 127–143. 10.1515/psicl‑2014‑0009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2014-0009 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2015a) Hidden complexity – the neglected side of complexity and its implications. Linguistics Vanguard. doi:  10.1515/lingvan‑2014‑1014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2014-1014 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2015b) Problems with primary vs. secondary grammaticalization: the case of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. Language Sciences47, 132–147. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.05.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2020 Grammaticalization in Chinese – a cross-linguistic perspective”, in: J. Xingn (ed.), A Typological Approach to Grammaticalization and Lexicalization: East Meets West, (pp.17-54). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110641288‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110641288-002 [Google Scholar]
  24. Bisang, W. and Sonaiya, R.
    (1999) The function of the High Tone Syllable in Yoruba. The Journal of African Languages and Linguistics (JALL)20, 1–19. 10.1515/jall.1999.20.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jall.1999.20.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  25. Boyeldieu, P.
    (1975) Études Yakoma, langue du groupe Oubangien (R. C. A.) Morphologie-synthématique. Notes linguistiques. Paris, Éditions SELAF.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Burling, R.
    (1965) Hill Farms and Padi Fields: Life in Mainland Southeast Asia. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Cook, W.
    (1965) A Descriptive Grammar of Mundari. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.
  28. Creissels, D.
    (2005) A typology of subject marker and object marker systems in African languages. In: E. F. K. Voeltz (ed.), Studies in African Linguistic Typology (pp.445–459). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Dahl, Ö.
    (2004) The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.71
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.71 [Google Scholar]
  30. Déchaine, R.-M.
    (1993) Predicates across categories: towards a category-neutral syntax. Amherst, Mass. GLSA. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts).
  31. DeGraff, M. F.
    (1993) Is Haitian a Pro-Drop language?In: F. Byrne and J. Holm (eds.), Atlantic Meets Pacific: A Global View of Pidginization and Creolization (pp.71–90). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Déprez, V.
    (1994) Haitian Creole: A Pro-Drop language?Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages9, 1–24. 10.1075/jpcl.9.1.02dep
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.9.1.02dep [Google Scholar]
  33. Devos, M.
    (2008) A Grammar of Makwe. München: LINCOM Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Diffloth, G.
    (2005) The contribution of linguistic paleontology to the homeland of Austroasiatic. In: L. Sagart, R. Blench and A. Sanchez-Mazas (eds.), The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.77–80). London: RoutledgeCurzon. 10.4324/9780203343685_chapter_5
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203343685_chapter_5 [Google Scholar]
  35. Donegan, P. and Stampe, D.
    (2004) Rhythm and the synthetic drift of Munda. In: R. Singh (ed.), The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2004 (pp.3–36). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Downer, G. B.
    (1959) Derivation by tone-change in classical Chinese. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies22, 258–290. 10.1017/S0041977X00068701
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00068701 [Google Scholar]
  37. Edmondson, J. and Solnit, D.
    (1988) Introduction. In: J. Edmondson and D. Solnit (eds.), Comparative Kadai: Linguistic Studies beyond Tai (pp.1–26). Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Enfield, N. J.
    (2003) Linguistic Epidemiology. Semantics and Grammar of Language Contact in Mainland Southeast Asia. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Gabelentz, Georg von der
    (1891) Die Sprachwissenschaft, ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: T.O. Weigel Nachfolger.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Gerner, M. and Bisang, W.
    (2008) Inflectional speaker-role classifiers in Weining Ahmao. Journal of Pragmatics40, 719–731. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.11.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2009) Inflectional classifiers in Weining Ahmao: Mirror of the history of a people. Folia Linguistica Historica30, 183–218.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Güldemann, T.
    (2007) Bantu in its macro-areal context of Africa and implications for the early typology of Bantu and Niger-Congo. Paper read at theInternational Conference on Bantu Languages, Gothenburg: Oct 4–6, 2007.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (2010) Proto-Bantu and Proto-Niger-Congo: Macro-areal typology and linguistic reconstruction. In: C. König and O. Hieda (eds), International Symposium of the Center of Corpus-Based Linguistics and Language Education (CbLLE). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Haiman, J.
    (1983) Iconic and economic motivation. Language59: 781–819. 10.2307/413373
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413373 [Google Scholar]
  45. Huang, C.-T. J.
    (1984) On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry15, 531–574.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Huang, Y.
    (1994) The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora. A Study with Special Reference to Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554292
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554292 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hyman, L. M.
    (2004) How to become a Kwa verb. Journal of West African Languages30, 69–88.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (2010) The Macro-Sudan Belt and Niger-Congo reconstruction. September04 2011: linguistics.berkeley.edu/~hyman/Hyman_Niger_Congo_Dynamics.pdf
  49. Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K.
    (1989) The null subject parameter in language acquisition. In: O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter (pp.215–238). Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑2540‑3_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2540-3_1 [Google Scholar]
  50. Jenner, Philipp N. and Pou, Saveros
    (1982) A Lexicon of Khmer Morphology. [Mon-Khmer Studies IX-X]. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kager, R.
    (1999) Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511812408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812408 [Google Scholar]
  52. Kibrik, A. A.
    (2011) Reference in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215805.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215805.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kruspe, N.
    (2004) A Grammar of Semelai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511550713
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511550713 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kusters, W.
    (2003) Linguistic Complexity: The Influence of Social Change on Verbal Inflection. Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap (Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics).
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Lefebvre, C. and Brousseau, A.-M.
    (2002) A Grammar of Fongbe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110880182
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110880182 [Google Scholar]
  56. Levinson, S. C.
    (2000) Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  57. Li, F.-K.
    (1977) A Handbook of Comparative Tai. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Li, W.
    (2014) Perfectivity and grounding in Chinese. Studies in Language38.1, 127–168. 10.1075/sl.38.1.04li
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.1.04li [Google Scholar]
  59. Li, X. and Bisang, W.
    2012 Classifiers in Sinitic languages: From individuation to definiteness-marking. Lingua122, 335–355. 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  60. Luo, Y.
    (1997) The Subgroup Structure of the Tai Languages: A Historical-Comparative Study. Berkeley: University of California. [Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series 12].
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Masica, C. P.
    (1990) The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Matson, D.
    (1964) A Grammatical Sketch of Juang. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin.
  63. McConvell, P.
    (2008) Mixed languages as outcomes of code-switching: Recent examples from Australia and their implications. Journal of Language Contact2, 187–212. 10.1163/000000008792525327
    https://doi.org/10.1163/000000008792525327 [Google Scholar]
  64. McWhorter, J. H.
    (2001) The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology5, 125–166. 10.1515/lity.2001.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2001.001 [Google Scholar]
  65. (2005) Defining Creole. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. (2016) Is radical analyticity normal? Implications of Niger-Congo and Southeast Asia for typology and diachronic theory. In: Van Gelderen, Elly (ed.), Cyclical Change Continued (pp.49–91). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.227.03mcw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.227.03mcw [Google Scholar]
  67. Michaelis, S. M., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M. and Huber, M.
    (eds.) (2013) Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online atapics-online.info, Accessed on2016-11-05.)
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Nagaraja, K. S.
    (2016) Standard Khasi. In: M. Jenny and P. Sidwell (eds.), The Handbook of Austronesian Languages, Vol.2 (pp.1145–1185). Leiden and Boston: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Neeleman, A. and Szendro_i, K.
    (2007) Radical pro drop and the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Iquiry38, 671–714. 10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.671
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.671 [Google Scholar]
  70. Pinnow, H.-J.
    (1960) Über den Ursprung der voneinander abweichenden Strukturen der Munda- und Khmer-Nikobar Sprachen. Indo-Iranian Journal, 4.1.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Ratliff, M.
    (2010) Hmong-Mien Language History. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Rizzi, L.
    (1986) Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry17. 501–557.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Ross, M.
    (2002) The history and transitivity of western Austronesian voice and voice-marking. In: F. Wouk and M. Ross (eds.), The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems (pp.17–62). Canberra: The Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Sagart, L.
    (1999) The Roots of Old Chinese. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.184
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.184 [Google Scholar]
  75. Scott, J.
    (2009) The Art of Not Being Governed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Sidwell, P.
    (2008) Issues in the morphological reconstruction of Proto-Mon-Khmer. In: Morphology and Language History. In Honour of Harold Koch (pp.251–265). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.298.22sid
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.298.22sid [Google Scholar]
  77. (2009) Classifying the Austroasiatic Languages: History and State of the Art. München: LINCOM EUROPA.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. (2016) Austroasiatic classification. In: M. Jenny and P. Sidwell (eds.), The Handbook of Austronesian Languages, Vol.1 (pp.144–220). Leiden and Boston: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Sidwell, P. and Blench, R.
    (2011) The Austroasiatic Urheimat: the Southeastern Riverine Hypothesis. In: N. Enfield (ed.), Dynamics of Human Diversity. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics (pp.315–344).
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Sinnemäki, K.
    (2011) Language universals and linguistic complexity. PhD dissertation at the University of Helsinki, Department of Modern Languages.
  81. Song, J. J.
    (1997) On the development of MANNER from GIVE. In: J. Newman (ed.), The Linguistics of Giving (pp.327–348). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Speas, M.
    (1994) Null arguments in a theory of economy of projections. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics17, 179–208.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Syea, A.
    (1993) Null subject in Mauritian Creole and the Pro-Drop Parameter. In: Byrne, Francis and Holm, John. (eds.), Atlantic Meets Pacific (pp.91–102). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Thepkanjana, K. and Uehara, S.
    (2008) The verb of giving in Thai and Mandarin Chinese as a case of polysemy: A comparative study. Language Science30, 621–651. 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  85. Trudgill, P.
    (2011) Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Structure and Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Tuc, H.-D.
    (2003) Vietnamese-English Bilingualism. Patterns of Code-Switching. London and New York: Routledge Curzon.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Van Driem, G.
    (2001) Languages of the Himalayas. Vol.1. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Wang, Fushi (王辅世)
    (1957) 贵州威宁苗语量词Guizhou Weining Miaoyu liangci [The classifier in the Weining dialect of the Miao language in Guizhou]. Yuyan Yanjiu 1957: 75–121.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Xing, J. Z.
    (2013) Semantic reanalysis in grammaticalization in Chinese. In: Zh. Jing-Schmidt (ed.), Increased Empiricism: New Advances in Chinese Linguistics (pp.223–246). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scld.2.11xin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scld.2.11xin [Google Scholar]
  90. (2015) A comparative study of semantic change in grammaticalization and lexicalization in Chinese and Germanic languages. Studies in Language39.3, 594–634. 10.1075/sl.39.3.03xin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.3.03xin [Google Scholar]
  91. Xu, D.
    (2006) Typological Change in Chinese Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199297566.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199297566.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  92. Zide, N. H. and Anderson, G. D. S.
    (2001) The Proto-Munda verb system and some connections with Mon-Khmer. In: B. Rao and K. V. Subbarao (eds.), Yearbook of South Asian Linguistics (pp.517–540). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error