1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Diachronica
  4. Volume 38, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 38, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Sino-Tibetan (Trans-Himalayan) is one of the typologically most diverse language families in the world, one of the few comprising all gradients of morphological complexity, from isolating to polysynthetic. No consensus exists as yet on whether the rich morphology found in some languages, in particular person indexation, should be reconstructed in the common Sino-Tibetan ancestor or whether it is a later innovation confined to and defining a particular “Rung” subgroup. In this article, we argue that this question is fundamentally a problem of phylogeny, and that the results of recent works on the phylogeny of Sino-Tibetan, supplemented by a more refined investigation of shared lexical innovations, provide support for the idea that person indexation morphology is not a recent innovation and that the languages lacking such a feature are thus innovative.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dia.19058.jac
2020-12-21
2025-04-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/dia.19058.jac
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco & Bianca Basciano
    2020 Morphology in Sino-Tibetan languages. InMark Aronoff (ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.530
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.530 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bauman, James John
    1975 Pronouns and pronominal morphology in Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Baxter, William H.
    1992 A handbook of Old Chinese phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110857085
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110857085 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baxter, William H. & Laurent Sagart
    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]
  5. Bickel, Balthasar, Goma Banjade, Martin Gaenszle, Elena Lieven, Netra Paudyal, Ichchha Purna Rai, Manoj Rai, Novel Kishore Rai & Sabine Stoll
    2007 Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language83(1). 1–31. 10.1353/lan.2007.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0002 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bradley, David
    1979 Proto-Loloish. London: Curzon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 1997 Tibeto-Burman languages and classification. InDavid Bradley (ed.), Papers in Southeast Asian linguistics No. 14: Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalaya, 1–72. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bruhn, Daniel W.
    2014 A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Central Naga. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Coblin, Weldon South
    1976 Notes on Tibetan Verbal Morphology. T’oung Pao62. 45–70. 10.1163/156853276X00034
     https://doi.org/10.1163/156853276X00034 [Google Scholar]
  10. DeLancey, Scott
    1989 Verb agreement in Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies52(2). 315–333. 10.1017/S0041977X00035485
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00035485 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2010a Language replacement and the spread of Tibeto-Burman. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society3(1). 40–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 2010b Towards a history of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics9(1). 1–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 2014 Second person verb forms in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area37(1). 3–33. 10.1075/ltba.37.1.01lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.37.1.01lan [Google Scholar]
  14. 2015 The historical dynamics of morphological complexity in Trans-Himalayan. Linguistic Discovery13(2). 37–56. 10.1349/PS1.1537‑0852.A.463
     https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.463 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2018 Deictic and sociopragmatic effects in Tibeto-Burman sap indexation. InSonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 343–376. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.121.10del
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.121.10del [Google Scholar]
  16. Dempsey, Jacob
    1995 A reconsideration of some phonological problems involved in reconstructing Sino-Tibetan numerals. Seattle:University of Washington dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Donegan, Patricia & David Stampe
    2004 Rhythm and the synthetic drift of Munda. InThe yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics, chap.Berlin, 3–36. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110179897.3
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110179897.3 [Google Scholar]
  18. Doornenbal, Marius
    2009 A grammar of Bantawa: Grammar, paradigm tables, glossary and texts of a Rai language of Eastern Nepal. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. van Driem, George
    1993 The Proto-Tibeto-Burman verbal agreement system. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies56(2). 292–334. 10.1017/S0041977X00005528
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00005528 [Google Scholar]
  20. 1997 Sino-Bodic. Bulletin of the School of African and Oriental Studies60(3). 455–488. 10.1017/S0041977X0003250X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0003250X [Google Scholar]
  21. Ebert, Karen
    1990 On the evidence for the relationship Kiranti-Rung. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area13(1). 57–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Gerber, Pascal & Selin Grollmann
    2018 What is Kiranti?Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics11(2). 99–152. 10.1163/2405478X‑01101010
     https://doi.org/10.1163/2405478X-01101010 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gong, Hwang-cherng
    1995 The system of finals in Proto-Sino-Tibetan. InWilliam S-Y. Wang (ed.), The ancestry of Chinese (Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series 8), 41–92. Berkeley: Project on Linguistic Analysis.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Gong, Xun
    2014 Personal agreement system of Zbu rGyalrong (Ngyaltsu variety). Transactions of the Philological Society112(1). 44–60. 10.1111/1467‑968X.12007
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12007 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2017 Verb stems in Tangut and their orthography. Scripta9. 29–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Greenhill, Simon J., Chieh-Hsi Wu, Xia Hua, Michael Dunn, Stephen C. Levinson & Russell D. Gray
    2017 Evolutionary dynamics of language systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114(42). E8822–E8829. doi:  10.1073/pnas.1700388114
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700388114 [Google Scholar]
  27. Güldemann, Tom
    2008 The Macro-Sudan belt: Towards identifying a linguistic area in northern sub-Saharan Africa. InBernd Heine & Derek Nurse (eds.), A linguistic geography of Africa, 151–185. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel & Martin Haspelmath
    2019 Glottolog. Version 4.0. https://glottolog.org
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Heath, Jeffrey
    1998 Pragmatic skewing in 1 ↔ 2 pronominal combinations in Native American languages. International Journal of American Linguistics64(2). 83–104. 10.1086/466351
     https://doi.org/10.1086/466351 [Google Scholar]
  30. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2002 World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hill, Nathan W.
    2008 Verba moriendi in the Old Tibetan Annals. InChristopher Beckwith (ed.), Medieval Tibeto-Burman languages III, 71–86. Bonn: International Institute for Tibetan & Buddhist Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 2011 An inventory of Tibetan sound laws. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society21(4). 441–457. 10.1017/S1356186311000332
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1356186311000332 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2012 The six vowel hypothesis of Old Chinese in comparative context. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics6(2). 1–69. 10.1163/2405478X‑90000100
     https://doi.org/10.1163/2405478X-90000100 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2019 The historical phonology of Tibetan, Burmese, and Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316550939
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316550939 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hyman, Larry
    2011 The Macro-Sudan belt and Niger-Congo reconstruction. Language Dynamics and Linguistic Change1.1. 1–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Jacques, Guillaume
    2004 Phonologie et morphologie du japhug (Rgyalrong). Paris: Université Paris-VII Denis Diderot dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 2010 The inverse in Japhug Rgyalrong. Language and Linguistics11(1). 127–157.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 2012 Agreement morphology: The case of Rgyalrongic and Kiranti. Language and Linguistics13(1). 83–116.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 2013 Harmonization and disharmonization of affix ordering and basic word order. Linguistic Typology17(2). 187–217. 10.1515/lity‑2013‑0009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2013-0009 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2014a Esquisse de phonologie et de morphologie historique du tangoute. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004264854
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004264854 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2014b On Coblin’s law. InRichard VanNess Simmons & Newell Ann Van Auken (eds.), Studies in Chinese and Sino-Tibetan Linguistics, 155–166. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 2015 Derivational morphology in Khaling. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics8(1). 78–85. 10.1163/2405478X‑00801005
     https://doi.org/10.1163/2405478X-00801005 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2015–2016 Dictionnaire japhug-chinois-français. 1.1. Paris: Projet HimalCo. himalco.huma-num.fr
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 2016a Le sino-tibétain: Polysynthétique ou isolant?Faits de langues47(1). 61–74. 10.1163/19589514‑047‑01‑900000004
     https://doi.org/10.1163/19589514-047-01-900000004 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2016b Tangut, Gyalrongic, Kiranti and the nature of person indexation in Sino-Tibetan/Trans-Himalayan. Linguistics Vanguard2(1). doi:  10.1515/lingvan‑2015‑0033
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0033 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2017 A reconstruction of Proto-Kiranti verb roots. Folia Linguistica Historica51(s38). 177–215. doi:  10.1515/flih‑2017‑0007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2017-0007 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2018 Generic person marking in Japhug and other Rgyalrong languages. InSonia Cristofaro and Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 403–424. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.121.12jac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.121.12jac [Google Scholar]
  48. Jacques, Guillaume, Aimée Lahaussois, Boyd Michailovsky & Dhan Bahadur Rai
    2012 An overview of Khaling verbal morphology. Language and Linguistics13(6). 1095–1170.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Jacques, Guillaume, Aimée Lahaussois, Dhan Bahadur Rai & Yadav Kumar
    2015 Khaling-Nepali-English dictionary. 1.0. Paris: Projet HimalCo. himalco.huma-num.fr
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Jacques, Guillaume & Alexis Michaud
    2011 Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages: Naxi, Na and Laze. Diachronica28(4). 468–498. 10.1075/dia.28.4.02jac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.28.4.02jac [Google Scholar]
  51. Kurabe, Keita
    2017 A Classified Lexicon of Shan Loanwords in Jinghpaw. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics11. 129–166.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Lai, Yunfan
    2015 The person agreement system of Wobzi Lavrung (Rgyalrongic, Tibeto-Burman). Transactions of the Philological Society113(3). 271–285. 10.1111/1467‑968X.12051
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12051 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2017 Grammaire du khroskyabs de Wobzi. Paris: Université Paris 3 dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. LaPolla, Randy J.
    1992 On the dating and nature of the verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies55(2). 298–315. 10.1017/S0041977X00004638
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00004638 [Google Scholar]
  55. 2001 The role of migration and language contact in the development of the Sino-Tibetan language family. InR. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Case studies in language change, 225–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 2003 An overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax. InGraham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 22–42. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 2006 Sino-Tibetan languages. InKeith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., 393–397. London: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/02335‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/02335-X [Google Scholar]
  58. 2012 Comments on methodology and evidence in Sino-Tibetan comparative linguistics. Language and Linguistics13(1). 117–132.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 2013 Subgrouping in Tibeto-Burman: Can an individual-identifying standard be developed? How do we factor in the history of migrations and language contact?InBalthasar Bickel, Lenore A. Grenoble, David A. Peterson & Alan Timberlake (eds.), Language typology and historical contingency, 463–474. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.104.21lap
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.104.21lap [Google Scholar]
  60. 2019 The origin and spread of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Nature569. 45–47. doi:  10.1038/d41586‑019‑01214‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01214-6 [Google Scholar]
  61. Li, Fang-Kuei
    1933 Certain Phonetic Influences of the Tibetan Prefixes upon the Root Initials. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology6(2). 135–157.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Lǐ, Yǒngsuì (李永燧)
    1998 Qiāngmiǎn yǔqún chúyì (羌缅语群刍议). Mínzú Yǔwén (民族语文) 1. 16–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Lín, Xiàngróng (林向榮)
    1993 Jiāróngyǔ yánjiū (嘉戎語研究) [A study on the Rgyalrong language]. Chengdu: Sichuan Minzu Chubanshe.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Matisoff, James A.
    2010–2013 The Sino-Tibetan etymological dictionary and thesaurus. https://stedt.berkeley.edu
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Michailovsky, Boyd
    1994 Manner vs place of articulation in the Kiranti initial stops. InHajime Kitamura, Tatsuo Nishida & Nagano Yasuhiko (eds.), Current issues in Sino-Tibetan linguistics. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 2002 Limbu-English dictionary. Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Peiros, Ilia
    1998 Comparative linguistics in Southeast Asia (Pacific Linguistics, Series C 142). Canberra: Research School of Pacific & Asian Studies, Australian National University.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Post, Mark W. & Robbins Burling
    2017 The Tibeto-Burman languages of Northeast India. InGraham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 2nd edn., 213–242. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Sagart, Laurent, Guillaume Jacques, Yunfan Lai, Robin J. Ryder, Valentin Thouzeau, Simon J. Greenhill & Johann-Mattis List
    2019 Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116(21). 10317–10322. doi:  10.1073/pnas.1817972116
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817972116 [Google Scholar]
  70. Sun, Jackson T.-S.
    1993 A historical-comparative study of the Tani (Mirish) branch in Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 2015 Hēishuǐxiàn Shāshíduō Jiāróngyǔ dòngcí rénchēng fànchóu de tèdiǎn (黑水縣沙石多嘉戎語動詞人稱範疇的特點) [Remarkable features in the verb agreement system of Sastod Rgyalrong in Khrochu County]. Language and Linguistics16(5). 731–750.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Sun, Jackson T.-S. & Shidanluo
    2002 Cǎodēng Jiāróngyǔ yǔ rèntóng děngdì xiāngguān de yǔfǎ xiànxiàng (草登嘉戎語與「認同等第」相關的語法現象) [Empathy hierarchy in Caodeng rGyalrong grammar]. Language and Linguistics3(1). 79–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Thurgood, Graham
    1985 Pronouns, verb agreement systems, and the subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman. InGraham Thurgood, James A. Matisoff & David Bradley (eds.), Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area: The state of the art, 376–400. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Xú, Xījiān, Jiāchéng Xiāo, Xiāngkūn Yuè & Qìngxià Dài
    1983 Jing-Han cidian (景汉辞典) [A Jingpo-Chinese dictionary]. Kunming: Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Zhang, Menghan, Shi Yan, Wuyun Pan & Li Jin
    2019 Phylogenetic evidence for Sino-Tibetan origin in northern China in the Late Neolithic. Nature569. 112–115. doi:  10.1038/s41586‑019‑1153‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1153-z [Google Scholar]
  76. Zhang, Shuya
    2019 From proximate/obviative to number marking: Reanalysis of hierarchical indexation in Rgyalrong language. Journal of Chinese Linguistics47(1). 125–150. 10.1353/jcl.2019.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1353/jcl.2019.0004 [Google Scholar]
  77. Zhang, Shuya, Guillaume Jacques & Yunfan Lai
    2019 A study of cognates between Gyalrong languages and Old Chinese. Journal of Language Relationship7(1). 73–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Zide, Norman H. & Gregory D. S. Anderson
    2001 The Proto-Munda verb: some connections with Mon-Khmer. InB. Rao & K. V. Subbarao (eds.), Yearbook of South Asian linguistics, 517–540. Delhi: Sage Press.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.19058.jac
Loading
Phylogenies based on lexical innovations refute the Rung hypothesis
Diachronica 38, 1 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19058.jac
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.19058.jac
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.19058.jac
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Kiranti; lexical innovations; person indexation; phylogeny; Rgyalrongic; Rung; Sino-Tibetan; Trans-Himalayan

Most Cited

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