1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
  4. Volume 39, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 39, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0731-3500
  • E-ISSN: 2214-5907
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

There have been challenges to the received view of the structure of the Sino-Tibetan language family. This is all well and good, as we should constantly challenge our most basic assumptions. In this paper I look at the arguments presented with a view to convincing us to change our conception of Sino-Tibetan and to change the name of the family to “Trans-Himalayan”, and find them less than convincing, due to problems of fact and argumentation.

© 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.39.2.03lap
2017-01-16
2024-10-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ltba.39.2.03lap
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aldenderfer, Mark
    2007 Modeling the Neolithic on the Tibetan Plateau. In David B. Madsen , Fa-Hu Chen & Xing Gao (eds.), Late quaternary climate change and human adaptation in arid China (Developments in Quaternary Sciences 9), 151–165. Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/S1571‑0866(07)09011‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1571-0866(07)09011-2 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aldenderfer, Mark & Zhang Yinong
    2004 The prehistory of the Tibetan Plateau to the seventh century A.D.: Perspectives and research from China and the West since 1950. Journal of World Prehistory18 (1): 1–55. doi: 10.1023/B:JOWO.0000038657.79035.9e
     https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOWO.0000038657.79035.9e [Google Scholar]
  3. Bauman, James J
    1979 An historical perspective on ergativity in Tibeto-Burman. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 419–433. London: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Benedict, Paul K
    1972 Sino-Tibetan: A conspectus (Princeton-Cambridge Studies in Chinese Linguistics II) Edited by James A. Matisoff . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511753541
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753541 [Google Scholar]
  5. 1976 Sino-Tibetan: Another look. Journal of the American Oriental Society96 (2): 167–197. doi: 10.2307/599822
     https://doi.org/10.2307/599822 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bradley, David
    1980 Phonological convergence between languages in contact: Mon-Khmer structural borrowing in Burmese. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 6: 259–267.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 1997 Tibeto-Burman languages and classification. In D. Bradley (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas. Canberra: Australian National University.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2002 The subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman. In C. Beckwith (ed.), Medieval Tibeto-Burman languages, 73–112. Leiden: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 2015 Minority languages, Vitality of. In Rint Sybesma (ed.), Encyclopedia of Chinese language and linguistics. Brill Online, 2015. Accessed27 December 2015, referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-chinese-language-and-linguistics/minority-languages-vitality-of-COM_00000443
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bradley, David & Maya Bradley
    2002 Language policy and language maintenance: Yi in China. In D. Bradley & M. Bradley (eds.), Language endangerment and language maintenance, 77–97. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Brantingham, P. Jeffrey , Gao Xing , John W. Olsen , Ma Haizhou , David Rhode , Zhang Haiying & David B. Madsen
    2007 A short chronology for the peopling of the Tibetan Plateau. In David B. Madsen , Fa-Hu Chen , & Xing Gao (eds.), Late quaternary climate change and human adaptation in arid China (Developments in Quaternary Sciences 9), 129–150. Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/S1571‑0866(07)09010‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1571-0866(07)09010-0 [Google Scholar]
  12. Campbell, Lyle
    2003 How to show languages are related: Methods for distant genetic relationship. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The Handbook of historical linguistics, 262–282. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9780470756393.ch4
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch4 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chappell, Hilary M
    (ed.) 2015 Diversity in Sinitic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723790.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723790.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen, Fahu H. , Guanghui H. Dong , Dongju J. Zhang , Xinyi Y. Liu , Xin Jia , Cheng-Bang An , Minmin M. Ma , Yaowen W. Xie , Loukas Barton , X.Y. Ren , Zhijun J. Zhao , Xiaohong H. Wu & Martin K. Jones
    2015 Agriculture facilitated permanent human occupation of the Tibetan Plateau after 3600 B.P. Science347 (16 January 2015): 248–250. doi: 10.1126/science.1259172
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259172 [Google Scholar]
  15. DeLancey, Scott
    1989 Verb agreement in Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies52 (2): 315–333. doi: 10.1017/S0041977X00035485
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00035485 [Google Scholar]
  16. van Driem, George
    1997 Sino-Bodic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies60 (3): 455–488. doi: 10.1017/S0041977X0003250X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0003250X [Google Scholar]
  17. 2002 Tibeto-Burman replaces Indo-Chinese in the 1990s: Review of a decade of scholarship. Lingua111: 79–102. doi: 10.1016/S0024‑3841(01)00039‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(01)00039-0 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2005 Sino-Austronesian vs. Sino-Caucasian, Sino-Bodic vs. Sino-Tibetan, and Tibeto-Burman as default theory. In Yogendra Prasada Yadava , Govinda Bhattarai , Ram Raj Lohani , Balaram Prasain , & Krishna Parajuli (eds.), Contemporary issues in Nepalese linguistics, 285–338. Kathmandu: Linguistic Society of Nepal.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2011 Tibeto-Burman subgroups and historical grammar. Himalayan Linguistics10 (1): 31–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 2014 Trans-Himalayan. In Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan Hill (eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics, 11–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Dryer, Matthew S
    1986 Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language62: 808–845. doi: 10.2307/415173
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415173 [Google Scholar]
  22. Klaproth, Julius
    1823 Asia polyglotta. Paris: Gedruckt bei J.M. Eberhart. Available athttps://books.google.com.sg/books?id=JmwIAAAAQAAJ&hl=en and https://archive.org/details/asiapolyglotta01klapgoog
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Kuhn, Thomas S
    1970 The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. LaPolla, Randy J
    1990 Grammatical relations in Chinese: Synchronic and diachronic considerations. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 1992a On the dating and nature of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies55 (2): 298–315. doi: 10.1017/S0041977X00004638
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00004638 [Google Scholar]
  26. 1992b Anti-ergative marking in Tibeto-Burman. LTBA15 (1): 1–9.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 1993 Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘direct object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology63 (4): 759–813.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 1994a Parallel grammaticalizations in Tibeto-Burman: Evidence of Sapir’s ‘drift’. LTBA17 (1): 61–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 1994b Variable finals in Proto-Sino-Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology65 (1): 131–173.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 1995a Ergative marking in Tibeto-Burman. In Yoshio Nishi , James A. Matisoff , & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), New horizons in Tibeto-Burman morpho-syntax (Senri Ethnological Studies 41), 189–228. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 1995b On the utility of the concepts of markedness and prototypes in understanding the development of morphological systems. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology66 (4): 1149–1185.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 1996 Middle voice marking in Tibeto-Burman. Pan-Asian Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics , Vol. V, 1940–1954. Mahidol University, Thailand.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2000 Subgrouping in Tibeto-Burman: Can an individual-identifying standard be developed? How do we factor in the history of migrations and language contact?Paper presented at the 33rd International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics , Bangkok and Trang, October 2–6, 2000. (Published as LaPolla 2013.)
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 2001 The role of migration and language contact in the development of the Sino-Tibetan language family. In R.M.W. Dixon & A.Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Case studies in language change, 225–254. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 2002 Problems of methodology and explanation in word order universals research. In Pan Wuyun (ed.), Dongfang yuyan yu wenhua (Languages and cultures of the East), 204–237. Shanghai: Dongfang Chuban Zhongxin.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 2003 An overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 22–42. London & New York: Routledge. (2nd edition to appear in 2017.)
     [Google Scholar]
  37. . (Luo Rendi) 2006a Lishi yuyanxue he yuyan leixingxue (Historical linguistics and typology). Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences)43 (2): 27–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 2006b Sino-Tibetan languages. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd ed., 393–397. London: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/02335‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/02335-X [Google Scholar]
  39. 2006c The how and why of syntactic relations. Invited plenary address and keynote of the Centre for Research on Language Change Workshop on Grammatical Change at the Annual Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society , University of Queensland, 7–9 July, 2006.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 2006d On grammatical relations as constraints on referent identification. In Tasaku Tsunoda & Taro Kageyama (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations: Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani (Typological Studies in Language), 139–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/tsl.65.09lap
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.65.09lap [Google Scholar]
  41. . (Luo Rendi) 2007 Yuyan leixingxue / gongneng yuyanxuepai shiyexia de yuyanxue tianye diaocha (A linguistic typology / functional linguistics view of linguistic fieldwork). Yuyanxue Luncong36: 42–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 2008a Constituent structure in a Tagalog text. Keynote presentation to the 10th Philippine Linguistics Congress , University of the Philippines – Diliman, Quezon City, December 10-12, 2008. (Published as LaPolla 2014.)
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 2008b Questions on transitivity. Keynote presentation to open the Workshop on Transitivity , Research Centre for Linguistic Typology, La Trobe University, 21 August. (Revised version published as LaPolla, Kratockvíl & Coupe 2011.)
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 2012a Comments on methodology and evidence in Sino-Tibetan comparative linguistics. Language and Linguistics13.1: 117–132.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 2012b Once again on person-marking in Tibeto-Burman: A reply to DeLancey 2010. Paper presented at the 45th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics , Nanyang Technological University, 26–28 October.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 2013a Subgrouping in Tibeto-Burman: Can an individual-identifying standard be developed? How do we factor in the history of migrations and language contact?In Balthasar Bickel , Lenore A. Grenoble , David A. Peterson , & Alan Timberlake (eds.), Language typology and historical contingency, 463–474. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/tsl.104.21lap
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.104.21lap [Google Scholar]
  47. 2013b Arguments for a construction-based approach to the analysis of Chinese. In Tseng Chiu-yu (ed.), Human language resources and linguistic typology, Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Sinology, 33–57. Taiwan: Academia Sinica.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 2014 Constituent structure in a Tagalog text. Language and Linguistics15 (6): 761–774. doi: 10.1177/1606822X14544619
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1606822X14544619 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2016a Review of The Language Myth, by Vyvyan Evans. Studies in Language40 (1): 235–252. doi: 10.1075/sl.40.1.09lap
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.1.09lap [Google Scholar]
  50. 2016b On categorization: Stick to the facts of the languages. Invited position paper for special issue ofLinguistic Typology20 (2) on descriptive vs. comparative categories, in press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 2016c On scholarship in Sino-Tibetan linguistics: Review article on Studies in Chinese and Sino-Tibetan linguistics, ed. by Richard VanNess Simmons and Newell Ann Van Auken . Journal of the American Oriental Society136 (3), in press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. LaPolla, Randy J. , František Kratochvíl & Alexander R. Coupe
    2011 On transitivity. Studies in Language35 (3): 469–491. doi: 10.1075/sl.35.3.00int
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.35.3.00int [Google Scholar]
  53. LaPolla, Randy J. & Dory Poa
    2006 On describing word order. In Felix Ameka , Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing, 269–295. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. LaPolla, Randy J. & Yang Jiangling
    1996 Dulong/Riwangyu dongci de fanshen he zhongjiantai biaozhi (Reflexive and middle marking in Dulong/Rawang). In Dai Qingxia et al (eds.), Zhongguo minzu yuyan luncong (1) ( Collected essays on Chinese minority languages, 1 ), 13–34. Central University of Nationalities Press. (Published in English as LaPolla & Yang 2005.)
     [Google Scholar]
  55. LaPolla, Randy J. & Yang, Jiangling
    2005 Reflexive and middle marking in Dulong-Rawang. Himalayan Linguistics2: 1–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Li, Fang-Kuei
    1936–1937 Languages and dialects. InThe Chinese year book, 121–128. Reprinted in Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1 (1):1–13, 1973.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Matisoff, James A
    1973 Notes on Fang-Kuei Li’s ‘Languages and dialects of China’. Journal of Chinese Linguistics1 (3): 471–474.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 2000 On ‘Sino-Bodic’ and other symptoms of neosubgroupitis. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies63 (3): 356–369. doi: 10.1017/S0041977X00008442
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00008442 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2003 Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. Berkeley: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Nichols, Johanna
    1996 The comparative method as heuristic. In Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative method reviewed, 39–71. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Pelkey, Jamin
    2008 The Phula languages in synchronic and diachronic perspective. La Trobe University Ph.D. dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 2011 Dialectology as dialectic: Interpreting Phula variation (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 229). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110245851
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110245851 [Google Scholar]
  63. Poa, Dory & LaPolla, Randy J
    2007 Minority languages of China. In Osahito Miyaoka & Michael E. Krauss (eds.), The vanishing languages of the Pacific, 337–354. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Ringe, Donald A. Jr
    1992 On calculating the factor of chance in language comparison. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, 82 (1): 1–110. doi: 10.2307/1006563
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1006563 [Google Scholar]
  65. 1995 Nostratic factor chance. Diachronica12: 55–74. doi: 10.1075/dia.12.1.04rin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.12.1.04rin [Google Scholar]
  66. 1996 The mathematics of ‘Amerind’. Diachronica13.1: 135–154. doi: 10.1075/dia.13.1.06rin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.13.1.06rin [Google Scholar]
  67. 1999 Language classification: scientific and unscientific methods. In Bryan Sykes (ed.), The human inheritance: Genes, language, and evolution, 45–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Rhode, David , David B. Madsen , P. Jeffrey Brantingham & Tsultrim Dargye
    2007 Yaks, yak dung, and prehistoric human habitation of the Tibetan Plateau. In David B. Madsen , Fa-Hu Chen , & Xing Gao (eds.), Late quaternary climate change and human adaptation in arid China (Developments in Quaternary Sciences 9), 205–224. Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/S1571‑0866(07)09013‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1571-0866(07)09013-6 [Google Scholar]
  69. Sagart, Laurent
    1990 Chinese and Austronesian are genetically related. Paper presented at the 23rd International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics , October 1990, Arlington, Texas.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. 2006 Review of Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and philosophy of Sino-Tibeto-Burman reconstruction, by James A. Matisoff, 2003. Diachronica23 (1): 206–223. doi: 10.1075/dia.23.1.14sag
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.23.1.14sag [Google Scholar]
  71. Su, Bing , Chunjie Xiao , Ranjan Deka , Mark T. Seielstad , Daoroong Kangwanpong , Junhua Xiao , Darn Lu , Peter Underhill , Luca Cavalli-Sforza , Ranajit Chakraborty , & Li Jin
    2000 Y chromosome haplotypes reveal prehistorical migrations to the Himalayas. Human Genetics107: 582–590. doi: 10.1007/s004390000406
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s004390000406 [Google Scholar]
  72. Thurgood, Graham
    . in press. Sino-Tibetan: Areal and genetic subgroups. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan languages, 2nd edn. London & New York: Routledge (to appear 2017).
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. & LaPolla, Randy J
    1997 Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function ( Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics Series ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  74. Walravens, Hartmut
    2006 Julius Klaproth: His life and works, with special emphasis on Japan. Japonica Humboldtiana10: 177–191.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.39.2.03lap
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argumentation; Chinese linguistics; historical linguistics; Sino-Tibetan linguistics; Tibeto-Burman linguistics; 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