AREAL TYPOLOGY of SOUTHEAST MAINLAND ASIA: WHAT WE LEARN from the WALS MAPS Bernard Comrie1 Abstract

Home , Mainland, Mainland Southeast Asia

AREAL TYPOLOGY OF Introduction MAINLAND SOUTHEAST Mainland Southeast Asia is often cited as ASIA: WHAT WE LEARN one ofthe best, if not the best, examples of FROM THE WALS MAPS a linguistic area, i.e. as an area that is characterized on the one hand by internal Bernard Comrie1 homogeneity, and on the other hand clearly delimited from surrounding areas. For a recent survey, paying due attention Abstract to linguistic and extra-linguistic factors, see Enfield (2005). In this article, I do not take issue with earlier work arguing that Mainland Southeast Asia has long been Mainland Southeast Asia is a linguistic recognized as a classic example of a area. Rather, I want to clarify some aspects linguistic area, but earlier characterizations of what it means to say that Mainland of this language area have typically been Southeast Asia is a linguistic area, by intuitive, for instance providing seemingly measuring Mainland Southeast Asia impressive lists of features known to be against the results of a major recent project shared by Mainland Southeast Asian on areal typology, the World Atlas of languages but without considering a list of Language Structures (Haspelmath et al. features on which these languages differ, 2005), hereafter: W ALS. without explicitly considering the extent to which the features in question are common One problem with much of the earlier work or rare across the world as a whole. By using the maps in the World Atlas of on Mainland Southeast Asia as a linguistic area, as of work on the identification of Language Structures, it is possible to language areas in general, is that it has build up a more structured assessment of proceeded on a largely intuitive basis the extent to which Mainland Southeast regard for more stringent testing: Asia constitutes a linguistic area. Many with~ut For mstance, often impressive lists are maps show a clear delimitation between assembled of features that are shared by Mainland Southeast Asia and the rest of languages of Mainland Southeast Asia, but Eurasia, although the precise boundary without providing the other sides of the varies from map to map, as does the presence and location of intermediate comparison: How many languages of zones. The dividing line between Mainland Mainland Southeast Asia fail to show the Southeast Asia and Insular Southeast Asia fea~re in ~uestion? How many languages is much less clear-cut, thus providing outstde Mamland Southeast Asia do show some evidence for a more general the feature in question? To what extent are exceptional languages in either direction on Southeast Asian linguistic area. the periphery of Mainland Southeast Asia? How do languages of Mainland Southeast Asia behave with respect to features other than those included in the list? 1 Professor and Director, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher In this article, I attempt a partial answer to Platz, 6 D-041 03 Leipzig Germany the kinds of questions and concerns raised [email protected] in the preceding paragraph. First, the set of

Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access Areal Typology ofMainland Southeast Asia: What We Learn from the WALS Maps

features considered is limited to those languages of Mainland Southeast Asia included in W ALS. This means that the being characterized, as expected, as choice of features cannot be stacked a priori generally isolating (Dryer 2005k). But this in favor of features that are shared by means that several other maps, dealing with languages of Mainland Southeast Asia. the marking of particular morphological Indeed, some of the features that are often categories by means of inflectional cited as characteristic of this area, such as morphology, necessarily also show prevalence of monosyllabic (sometimes . languages of Mainland Southeast Asia as extended by sesquisyllabic) word structure being isolating, and therefore do not or widespread occurrence of adversity provide any new, independent information. passives, are not covered by WALS. In In the body of this article, I consider 21 other words, the set of features covered by logically independent features that are WALS was determined by criteria other represented on WALS maps, a fair subset than attempting to define Mainland of the approximately l 00 logically Southeast Asia as a linguistic area, and thus independent features that are mapped in avoids circularity. In all, WALS includes W ALS with sufficient representation of 142 maps, though for various reasons not languages of Mainland Southeast Asia for all of these maps correspond to separate these to be compared with. the rest of the features that can be taken into account in world, and in particular neighboring areas. the project envisaged. Three of the maps deal with correlations among features, and It should be noted, however, that logical therefore do not depict features even independence of features is not the only logically independent of the individual problem involved. At least since the features whose combinations they pioneering work of Greenberg ( 1966), it represent. Two of the maps relate to has been known that there are correlations features of sign languages and do not between certain logically independent provide comparability with the other maps.2 features, such as a tendency for Verl>• Finally, one map relates to writing systems, Object order to correlate with Prepositions, i.e. does not relate to a structural property for Object-Verb order to correlate with of language, and is thus again not Postpositions. ln some cases, and comparable. This leaves in principle a total sometimes indeed at least in part as a result of 136 maps. of the possibility of testing such correlations by means of the Interactive However, not all of these 136 maps are Reference Tool that accompanies WALS , logically independent of one another. For we have a good idea about the validity of instance, one map deals with the correlations. But there may well be other morphological structure of words, with instances where the requisite work has simply not been carried out, i.e. that 2 These maps do, incidentally, include features that appear to us to be independent infonnation on Thai Sign Language, so they might in fact turn out to be correlated. Eight could provide an initial stage of the integration of the features considered in this article, of sign languages into our understanding ofthe namely those discussed in section 2, all areal typology of Mainland Southeast Asia. relate to constituent order, where there is at However, the absence of data from other sign least the suspicion of correlations; this, of languages of Mainlan9 Southeast Asia means course, reduces the number of independent that it is not yet possible to provide results features that are under consideration. from such a project.

19 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal ofHumanities (Special Issue No. 13. 2007)

Am!roneslen (Jt I ) • sm. Tileton ( 130) • Au!!\Jo-.....lc (48) Tal-l<~ (16) • »nCJr'9·Men (5)

'\ .

Map I: Language families of Mainland Southeast Asia and neighboring regions

In defining Mainland Southeast Asia as a languages of Mainland Southeast Asia and linguistic area, an important factor in adjacent regions that are mentioned at least assessing its internal homogeneity is that once in the W ALS maps, divided into well• the languages of the area belong to different established language families by means of 4 language families, i.e. the similarities different colors. The major language among the languages cannot be attributed families of the area are, in alphabetical solely to a common genealogical origin.3 order: Austro-Asiatic, Hmong-Mien, Sino• Map 1 provides a visualization of all the Tibetan, and Tai-Kadai. To this one can add Austronesian, which is, however, much 3 There are, of course, several hypotheses in the more prevalent in Insular (and Peninsular) air that would group some of the linguistic Southeast Asia than on the Mainland, families ofMainland Southeast Asia into a although there are also a few Austronesian larger macro-family, and to the extent that such macro-families are valid the argument against a 4 All maps in this article were prepared using genealogical explanation for the internal the Interactive Reference Tool that accompanies homogeneity of Mainland Southeast Asia is WALS. While most ofthe maps present weakened. However, it is still the case that few essentially the same information as in the if any I inguists believe that all and only the printed atlas, use of the Interactive Reference language families represented in Mainland Tool has two advantages: First, the resulting Southeast Asia constitute a single macro-family, maps are more easily readable on standard• so there would still be some areal format paper and do not require that large homogenization of the languages in question. format that characterizes the printed atlas. And differences between clearly related Second, reproduction of these maps is permitted languages spoken inside and outside Mainland by Oxford University Press's generous policy Southeast Asia would still remain. on the use for research purposes of maps generated by the Interactive Reference Tool.

20 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access Areal Typology of Mainland Southeast Asia: What We Learn from the WALS Maps

languages spoken in Mainland Southeast In addition, greater value should be placed Asia. In claiming that Mainland Southeast on feature values that are found in Mainland Asia is a linguistic area we are thus Southeast Asia but represent relatively rare claiming that the languages belonging to types across the world as.a whole. Clearly, if these four or five language families as a particular feature is common across the spoken in Mainland Southeast Asia share languages of the world as a whole, then it is features that cannot be attributed to not surprising that it should also be common common genealogical ancestry. in Mainland Southeast Asia To take a concrete example, languages of Mainland Equally important is the linguistic Southeast Asia overwhelmingly have delimitation of Mainland Southeast Asia decimal numeral systems, but then so do from neighboring areas, i.e. the strongest 63.8% of the languages in the sample evidence is provided by feature values that utilized in Comrie (2005), so this is not a are shared by languages within Mainland particularly striking similarity _ ~cross Southeast Asia and not shared by languages of Mainland Southeast Asia; in surrounding areas. Of particular importance this case the impression is heightened by the here is the fact that some language families fact that it is also the numeral system of are also spoken outside Mainland Southeast most neighboring languages. Asia, so that we can compare languages within the same family but spoken inside The ideal feature value would thus be one and outside the area of interest; differences that is found in every language of Mainland between languages inside versus those Southeast Asia and in no other language of outside the area contribute to the the world. Needless to say, no known delimitation of Mainland Southeast Asia feature value has quite such an ideal from neighboring regions. Of particular distribution, so in what follows we will be importance here are the Austro-Asiatic and examining features that go in the direction Sino-Tibetan families, which are well of hormgeneity within Mainland Southeast represented both within and outside Asia accompanied by delimitation from Mainland Southeast Asia. The Hmong-Mien surrounding regions, especially if the and Tai-Kadai families are also represented feature value in questio!l is rare across the both within and outside the area, although world as a whole. Few feature values meet the languages outside Mainland Southeast all of these criteria, but as we will see, Asia are, as we will see in the body of this many come close. article, in a buffer zone separating Mainland Southeast Asia from the outside, sometimes Some final caveats are in order before sharing feature values with Mainland turning to the empirical material. First, I Southeast Asia, sometimes not. As already have taken all information provided in the noted, Austronesian languages are spoken W ALS maps at face value, i.e. J have not overwhelmingly in Insular Southeast Asia or attempted to verify the correctness of any of even further afield, though some, such as the data presented there. No doubt some Cham, are spoken in Mainland Southeast errors have crept in, though it is unlikely that Asia and are known to have assimilated in they would affect the overall thrust of the some typological respects to Mainland conclusions presented below. And before Southeast Asian patterns. disputing the assignment of a particular

21 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal ofHumanities (Special Issue No. 13. 2007)

feature to a particu Jar language, the user of distances between pairs of languages across W ALS materials needs always to read the the world for which sufficient data are text that accompanies that map, since given in WALS to make the exercise decisions taken on assigning particular meaningful vary between 9.8 and 74.6, with languages to particular feature values often the mean and medium being virtually require elaboration, such as_is given in the indistinguishable at 41.73 and 42 definitions of the feature values in these respectively.5 Five languages of Mainland texts. Second, although W ALS contributors Southeast Asia-Hmong Njua (Hmong• were asked as far as possible to include Mien family), Khmer, Khmu', and languages from the genealogically Vietnamese (all Austro-Asiatic family) and reasonably unbiased 100- and 200-laoguage Thai (Tai-Kadai family) vary pairwise from samples, it was up to each individual author 11.4 (Thai-Vietnamese) to 22.5 (Hmong which other languages to include, so that the Njua-Khmu'), not significantly different samples used by different authors can be from the amount of typological variation rather different (though in nearly. all found within West Germanic (represented instances with a shared core), and the by Dutch, English, and German, with addition of languages beyond the 200- typological distances ranging from 9.8 for language sample may well unbalance the Dutch--German-the lowest typological resulting sample genealogically. By using distance between any parr of languages the Interactive Reference Tool, which considered by Dahl -and 21.1 for English• provides information not only on the number German). Adding the Sino-Tibetan language of languageS having a particular feature Eastern Kayah Li, its typological distance value, but also the number of genera (where from the other languages of Mainland a genus is a group of languages whose Southeast Asia ranges from 20.6 to 25, i.e. genealogical unity is visible by inspection) around the distance between English and and the number of families (on a German. With a typological distance of conservative assessment, omitting proposed macro-families), the statistics can be s Dahl does not exclude maps that show checked, at least to some extent, for logically related features, so given the kinds of genealogical adequacy. But all claims are logical dependencies among maps discussed limited by the range of languages considered above the similarities among languages of by the author of the chapter in question. Mainland Southeast Asia may be somewhat Thus, where I say, for instance, that no inflated by Dahl 's method. For instance, nearly language in Mainland Southeast Asia has a aU languages of Mainland Southeast Asia lack particular feature value, this should always gender systems, and therefore show up as be interpreted as "relative to the sample in having no gender not only on the map asking question". bow many genders a Language bas (Corbett 2005a), but also on the two maps asking what kind of gender system a language has (Corbett And finally, it should be noted that there are 2005b; Corbett 2005c). With respect to this other ways of interpreting the injunction to particular phenomenon, however, it should be follow a more clearly justified, less intuitive noted that one of the languages considered by approach to defming linguistic areas. Thus Dahl, namely Khrnu', is the only language of Dahl (MS), also basing himself on the Mainland Southeast Asia in Corbett's sample WALS database, defines a particular to show gender, and thus differs from all other measure of typological distance between languages of Mainland Southeast Asia languages; on this measure, the typological considered by Dahl on all three of the gender maps in W ALS.

22 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access Areal Typology ofMainland Southeast Asia: What We Learn from the WALS Maps

12.3, Thai and Khmer stand closer than to be strong correlations across many of the Pol ish and Russian ( 12.8), both members constituent order parameters, a factor that of the Slavic branch of the Indo-European will be given due consideration in what family. Although following a completely follows. different methodology from that used in the present article, Dahl also concludes Map 2 (Dryer 2005h) shows the order of that Mainland Southeast Asia constitutes a Object and Verb across the languages of clear if not indeed the world's clearest, the world. Dryer recognizes three values: example of a linguistic area. Verb-Object (as in English ... bought the book), Object-Verb (as in Japanese ... hon Word order o kaua), and "no dominant order", the last for languages where both orders occur with As noted in section I, word order typology, no clear predominance of one over the or more accurately: constituent order other. Just by inspection, there is a clear typology, has a venerable history in recent difference between Mainland Southeast work on linguistic typology, and is Asia and the rest of Asia. Asia is represented in W ALS by no fewer than 14 overwhelmingly Object- Verb, while chapters (excluding three that deal with Mainland Southeast Asia is correlations between features). Constituent overwhelmingly, indeed almost exclusively, order is, moreover, one of the sets of Verb-Object. Across the world as a whole, features that most clearly sets Mainland both orders are equally frequent to a very Southeast Asia off from the rest of Asia. high degree of approximation, so the near• Constituent order does, however, bring with solid block of Mainland Southeast Asia it a problem. namely that there are known versus the near-solid block of the rest of

••

• •

• 1 OVI~QI • 2 VO(itllll Order ot Objeot and Verb l Nt1~ Qftl ~r 11111 1;;;1 ~ 11~;;.---. -----..---...~- ._ ___

Map 2: Order of Object and Verb

23 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal ofHumanities (Special Issue No. 13. 2007)

Asia is highly suggestive. It will, however, Map 3 (Dryer 2005c) shows the order of be noted that in Asia the Verb-Object type Adposition relative to Noun phrase, with the does extend somewhat beyond Mainland two major types being Preposition (as in Southeast Asia, most obviously in the English in the house) and Postposition (as in case of the various varieties of Chinese. Japanese uti m). There are again languages This will be important in considering with no dominant order, plus two rarer types other constituent order features. In the that are not particularly significant given our other direction, however, this feature areal interest, namely languages lacking does not distinguish Mainland Southeast adpositions- though two Hmong-Mien Asia from Insular Southeast Asia, which languages, Mien and Punu, are thus is also almost exclusively Verb- Object, classified by Dryer- and languages with this will be a recurrent pattern with inpositions (I.e. oopositions that occur internal constituent order features. Incidentally, to their noun phrase). As with map 2, there is one might wonder whether the order of a clear difference between Mainland Subject and Verb (Dryer 2005j) would Southeast Asia and the rest of Asia, not serve to delimit Mainland and Insular but no dividing l.ine between Mainland Southeast Asia, given the frequency of Southeast Asia and Insular Southeast Asia. Verb-Subject order among Austronesian However, before considering map 3 as languages; in fact, this is not the case (and additional evidence that divides Mainland thus this map is not reproduced here), Southeast Asia from the rest of Asia, one since the Austronesian languages needs to ask to what extent the feature values bordering Mainland Southeast Asia show illustrated in maps 2 and 3 correlate. In a mix of Subject- Verb and Verb-Subject particular, given that Mainland Southeast ordering, plus some with no dominant Asia is overwhelmingly Verb-Object, what is order.

• .: ••• • •

Author Matthews Dryer

Order of Adposition and Noun Phrase~-

1OH tanguagu

Map 3: Order of Adposition and Noun phrase

24 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access Areal Typology ofMainland Southeast Asia: What We Learn from the WALS Maps

the probability of its also being rest of Asia, but patterning along with Preposition-Noun phrase on the basis of a Insular Southeast Asia. However, cross-linguistic valid correlation? The comparison of map 4 with map 2 or 3 question can be answered by consulting shows that · the isogloss separating Dryer (2005m). In fact, it turns out that Mainland Southeast Asia from the rest of only 8.4% of languages with Verb- Object Asia is different in the two cases, with order have Postposition, none of them in "linguistic" Mainland Southeast Asia MainJand (or, indeed, Insular) Southeast being noticeably smaller here than in the Asia. Thus, map 3 provides corraborating case of the order of Verb and Object or of rather than new evidence. Adposition and Noun phrase. In particular, in map 4 the order Noun-Genitive barely The next map (Map 4) shows the order of extends into southern China and certainly Genitive and Noun within the noun phrase does not include varieties of Chinese, (Dryer 2005g). There are two basic while Genitive-Noun extends into possibilities, Noun-Genitive (as in English Mainland Southeast Asia, not only in the the roof of the house) and Genitive-Noun case of national languages like Burmese (as in English John's book) - note that but even more so with smaller languages since English has both possibilities, with like Mlabri. This illustrates a general point neither overwhelmingly dominant, English that will recur in the following maps: is in fact classified as having no dominant while core Mainland Southeast Asia may order. Once again, a general pattern differ from the rest of Asia, the dividing emerges with Mainland Southeast Asia line will be different for different features, (here Noun-Genitive) contrasting with the reflecting the fact that the present-day

•

110511MQUIQtl

Map 4: Order of Genitive and Noun

25 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal ofHumanities (Special issue No. 13. 2007)

distribution of isoglosses separating equivalents of attributive adjectives. The feature values is the result of complex basic pattern seems similar to the preceding historical processes that have not always maps, with Mainland Southeast Asia rather come to a stop at the same point.6 clearly delimited from the rest of Asia, but having the same feature value as adjacent The order of Adjective and Noun within the Insular Southeast Asia. However, there are noun phrase (Dryer 2005b), as illustrated in some differences. The isogloss to the north Map 5, shows a similar pattern, although runs between those for order of Verb and care is needed with the precise Object (and of Adposition and Noun interpretation. There are two mam phrase) and for order of Genitive and constituent order possibilities, Noun• Noun. Chinese goes linguistically with the Adjective (as in Thai Man yay) and rest of Asia, while most other languages of Adjective-Noun (as in English big house), southern China go linguistically with with a number of languages having no Mainland Southeast Asia; the order Noun• dominant order, as well as a handful, all in Adjective also extends well into the North America, having only internally Himalayas. headed relative clauses as translation

Map 5: Order of Adjective and Noun

6 Readers may have been surprised that I did not include a definition of Mainland Southeast Asia early in this article. One reason for not doing so is this shifting linguistic divide.

26 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access Areal Typology ofMainland Southeast Asia: What We Learn from the WALS Maps

ln addition, there is an area to the northwest The high frequency of this type cross• of Mainland Southeast Asia that might be linguistically makes it less valuable as an considered transitional in that it contains a areal diagnostic. Nonetheless, there is a number of languages with no dominant clear division between Mainland Southeast order, the grey dots on map 5.7 But there is Asia and most of the rest of Asia (along another factor that needs to be taken into with much of northern and eastern Europe), account, namely that while Verb-Object which is the only large area to be languages tend strongly to be Noun• characterized by the combination of Adjective (with English as one of the just Object- Verb and Adjective-Noun. So under 20% of exceptional Verb-Object although this combination is rather rare languages in this respect), Object- Verb cross-linguistically, it is dominant in Asia, languages are in fact somewhat more likely and has not spread to Mainland Southeast to be Noun-Adjective (58.8%) than Asia. Order . of Adjective and Noun is Adjective-Noun (Dryer 20051; these therefore a valid isogloss separating figures exclude languages that have no Mainland Southeast Asia from the rest of dominant order for one or the other Asia, albeit perhaps not so strikingly as feature). This has the result that languages some of the others. combining Verb-Object and Noun• Adjective like those of Mainland Southeast We can now move relatively quickly Asia, which would be expected on the basis through the other constituent order of chance to constitute25% of the world's patterns, all of which illustrate similar languages with some dominant order for patterns to those already observed, though both Verb and Object and Adjective and with different dividing lines between Noun, in fact make up a staggering 40.7%. Mainland Southeast Asia and the rest of Asia. Map 6 (Dryer 2005e) shows the

1 Demcnetriii.... ·Noun 1~111 • 2 Noun-~r.. ..,. 1~111 3 ~~~~~~~• pr•fi•IOI + ~ O.monotrtot•v• •uttbl 1201 ..4.J)eo~W!Of•'~l'1 1 - ll ""'lid 11181 c:;:_

Mao 6: Order of Demonstrative and Noun

7 The map as drawn here gives the impression that there is a solid "grey" area, but in fact this is an artifact of the way the software places dots in areas containing a large number of languages. In fact, this area contains a mixture of gray and purple dots.

27 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal ofHumanities (Special Issue No. /3. 2007)

order of Demonstrative and Noun within and Noun-Numeral (as in Thai luuk sip the noun phrase, with Demonstrative khon), as well as languages with no either preceding Noun (as in English this dominant order and a rare type, found child) or following (as in Thai luuk klum only in South America, whereby numerals nit). Of interest here is the region to the are excluded from noun phrases. The path northwest of Mainland Southeast Asia, of the .isogloss is significantly different which includes languages of a cross- from that shown in the other constituent linguistically rare type where order maps in two respects. First, Demonstrative simultaneously both easternmost Mainland Southeast Asia goes precedes and follows Noun, as well as the with the bulk of Asia rather than with the "mixed' type, i.e. languages that have rest of Mainland Southeast Asia. Second, more than one of the otherwise identified this feature equally delimits Mainland types, this region constitutes a transition Southeast Asia from Insular (and area. Peninsular) Southeast Asia. Indeed, Mainland Southeast Asia shows up here as Map 7 (Dryer 2005g) shows the order of an island surrounded by the rest of Numeral and Noun within the noun continental Asia and Insular/Peninsular phrase, with the main possibilities being Southeast Asia.8 Numeral-Noun (a<> in English len children)

I ....,..II-Hall'\ ( 4310) ·2~ti(5UJ 3 HD-.ricrdco 1541 Order of Numeral and Noun ~ --Clrlll'rnodltllt-» 121 Autnor M~Hhew 8 O~· f -----~""---..>"too 1 lanouaoea 2.....~

Map 7: Order ofNumeral and Noun 8 Although Noun- Numeral outnumbers Numeral- Noun by a ratio ofabout6 : 5 in Dryer (2005g)' s sample of languages, the high number of Noun-Numeral languages is largely due to the near-exclusive occurrence of this word order in sub-Saharan Africa, to a somewhat lesser extent New Guine"' both areas with a large number of languages. Mainland Southeast Asia is the only other large area with rhis feature value.

28 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access Areal Typology ofMainland Southeast Asia: What We Learn from the WALS Maps

Dryer (2005i) examines the order of This is perhaps particularly surprising in Relative clause and Noun within the noun that across the world as a whole Relative phrase, with the results as displayed in clause- Noun is by far the rarer of the two map 8. The major types are Noun- Relative main types, outnumbered almost 5 : 1 by clause (as in English the student [who Noun- Relative clause. lndeed, the bulk of bought the book]) and Relative clause• Asia (but here with the exception of Noun (as in Japanese [hon o kalta] southwestern Asia and parts of South gakusei), with a small number of Asia) is the only really large area with languages representing other types (none near-exclusive occurrence of Relative ofthem in Mainland Southeast Asia) or co• clause-Noun (in addition to smaller areas occurrence of more than one type in the in interior New Guinea and a small part of same language. Mainland Southeast Asia is East Africa). A genealogical factor may be again distinct from the bulk of Asia but at work here: The Relative clause-Noun goes along with Insular Southeast Asia. The languages, and also the languages with no dividing line is somewhat similar to that dominant order, in northern Mainland found in map 4 for Genitive and Noun, with Southeast Asia are overwhelmingly Sino• some inroad of Relative clause-Noun into Tibetan. northernmost Mainland Southeast Asia.

• • 1 No

Map 8: Order of Relative clause and Noun

29 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal ofHumanitie s (Special L-;sue No. 13. 2007)

Finally, with respect to constituent order, Southeast Asia from the rest of Asia is Map 9 shows the order of Degree word and clear, even if there is some extension of the Adjective (Dryer 2005d). with the "no dominant order"' type into Mainland possibilities being Degree word- Adjective Southeast Asia. The boundary to Insular (e.g. English very good), Adjective-Degree Southeast Asia is much less clear, since all word (e.g. Thai dii nak), or dominance of three types are found in the neighborhood, neither. The separation of Majnland despite the fact that these are all Austronesian languages .

••

.. • •

1. Degree word-AdjeCtive 1205) Order of Degree Word and Adjective 'J • 2. Ad'jedive-Oegree word 11771 / 437 llngulges 3. No dominant order (55) t ~ · Alllllor Mam-S Dryer

Map 9: Order of Degree word and Adjective

Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access Areal Typology ofMainland Sou1heas1 Asia: What We Learn from the WALS Maps

Phonology Southeast Asia there ts also some occurrence of simple tone systems, Turning now to phonology, pride of place including on the northwest boundary inevitably goes to tone (Maddieson 2005c). towards the rest of Asia. The rest of Asia is As shown in map I 0, Maddieson divides almost exclusively non-tonal, with the languages of the world into three types, occasional simple lone systems. This time, those with a simple tone system (i.e. a the boundary to rnsular Southeast Asia is binary tonal opposition), those with a even more clear, since this area completely complex tone system (three or more lacks tone systems. It should be noted that phonemically opposed tones), and those some of the minority of non-tonal without phonemic tone. rt is clear from the languages shown in Mainland Southeast map t11at Mainland Southeast Asia is Asia have other prosodic features, such as overwhelmingly characterized by complex voice register in Austro-Asiatic languages, tone systems, a pattern that extends north that are known to be closely linked into Chinese. The only other part of the historically to tone, so that with a slightly world of comparable size with a similar different definition of features Mainland incidence of complex tone systems is Southeast Asia might have been even more equatorial Africa, though here the homogeneous than it appears in map 10. distribution is more patchy. In Mainland

Tone 1. No tones (300] 2. Simple tone system (132] ~uthor Jan Maddleson e 3 . Complex lone system (86] ..r?"" 5261---angu----ages ~ ~c~ " ..._

Map 10: Tone

31 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access MANVSYA: Journal of Humanities {Special Issue No. 13. 2007)

Map II is based on Maddieson (2005b), but map, Mainland Southeast Asia is not so is simplified to show only the distinction homogeneous as in the others. However, between languages that have implosive given the rarity of implosives across the consonants and those that do not.9 The map languages of the world - they are found in shows that implosives are indeed thick on only 13.3o/o- the fact that they are so the ground in Mainland Southeast Asia, frequent in Mainland Southeast Asia, and although there are also a number of virtually lacking in surrounding areas, is a languages in the area that lack them. (Again, significant fact of areal distribution. The the software that generates the map only other part of the world with a similar somewhat distorts the frequencies, giving incidence of implosives is equatorial preference to red over white dots.) So in this Afiica.10

58& ian guogu AUthor ian Ml1ddieaon c- Giotullzed Consonants . , . -~

Map I I: Implosives

9 The original map includes other kinds of 10 The reader will have noted that typological stops with a glottalic airstream mechanism, similarities between Mainland Southeast Asia namely ejectives and glollalized resonants. The and equatorial Africa recur in several maps. former are not found in Mainland Southeast Further exploration of this parallelism lies Asia, the latter only in languages of the area outside the scope of this article. that also have implosives.

32 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access Areal Typology of Mainland Southeast Asia: What We Learn from the WALS Maps

The next phonological map, map 12 only non-initially in adjacent parts of Asia, (Anderson 2005), shows the distribution of with the isogloss separating varieties of the phonemic velar nasal across the Chinese in And~rson's sample, languages of the world, with three values: Cantonese has initial velar nasals, no velar nasal; velar nasal only in non• Mandarin does not. (In northeastern Asia initial position in the word; velar nasal the possibility of an initial velar nasal also in initial position. Mainland Southeast picks up again, but this is presumably a Asia is characterized by overwhelming separate area, given the broad swathe of incidence of initial velar nasals, the only intervening languages that lack this exception in the sample being Khmer possibility.) There is, however, no (which does have velar nasals in other boundary for this feature between positions). Incidence of initial velar nasals Mainland and Insular Southeast Asia, spreads into the Himalayas, but otherwise since the latter also contains ,m!ffiy shades off into occurrence of velar nasals languages with word-initial velar nasals .

• ~SBtengu1gn

Author Oregory 0 Andt11on

Map 12: The velar nasal

Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal ofHumanities (Special Issue No. 13. 2007)

The last phonological map, map 13 Turkic, and Mongolic languages, which (Maddieson 2005a), shows the distribution gives a strong impetus to having front of phonemic front rounded vowels in the counterparts to back rounded vowels, it is languages of the world. Inclusion of this also found in languages that lack palatal map may at first seem puzzling, since vowel harmony, such as the Germanic although Mainland Southeast Asia is languages and vartet1es of Chinese. homogeneous in the absence of such Moreover, the area spreads almost to the sounds, this is also by far the majority boundary of Mainland Southeast Asia - pattern in the languages of the world: in the last outpost shown on the map is Maddieson's sample, 93.4% of the world's Cantonese - but resolutely refuses to go languages lack front rounded vowels. further. So even though this is not so clear a However, the part of the world where front case as the others discussed in this article, vowels occur frequently cross-linguistically there is still some evidence for a linguistic is clearly identifiable as northern Eurasia. barrier between Mainland Southeast Asia While to some extent the incidence of the and the rest of Asia. (Insular Southeast Asia phenomenon coincides with the occurrence is like Mainland Southeast Asia in lacking of palatal vowel harmony, as in Uratic, front rounded vowels.)

561 languages

1 Ncne(524) • 2 Hl<,to and mid (23) Front Rounded Vow.ls • 3. H!to only (8) Author: lan Maddieson • 4 hid only (8)

Map 13: Front rounded vowels

34 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access Areal Typology ofMainland Southeast Asia: What We Learn from the WALS Maps

Morphology and morphological morphology, and Mainland Southeast Asia categories stands out as the largest area that consistently shows only white dots. Indeed One of the often noted properties of this feature value extends somewhat languages of Mainland Southeast Asia is beyond Mainland Southeast Asia to the their isolating typology, with virtually no north and west, although to the west there inflectional morphological categories and is much geographical intermixing with even relatively little use of bound suffixing languages, which represent the morphemes in derivational morphology. majority of the world's languages and also Map 14 (Dryer 2005k) illustrates this with the near-universal pattern in the rest of respect to inflectional morphology. ln this Eurasia. There is also some extension to map, the white dots represent languages Insular Southeast Asia, though here mixed with little or no affixation for inflectional geographically with both suffixing and prefixing languages.

0 · 0

Author Matthews. Dryer

Map 14: Prefixing versus suffixing in inflectional morphology

35 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities (Special Issue No. 13. 2007)

Given that languages of Mainland clitics extend well to the north and west, Southeast Asia show little or no though in the northwest there are some inflectional morphology, it might seem languages that have plural suffixes, not irrelevant to go on to ask whether they shown clearly in the map resolution used encode nominal plurality, and if so how. here. But the rest of Eurasia is almost But . as map IS (Dryer 2005a) shows, exclusively characterized by plural languages can code nominal plurality not suffixes. The boundary to Insular only through affixaJ or other morphology, Southeast Asia is less clear, since in even if this is by far the most usual means regions adjacent to Mainland Southeast cross-linguistically, but also by means of Asia one finds languages with no plural plural words, as in Vietnamese nhimg ch6 and with plural words, as in Mainland ' dogs', literally ' PLURAL dog'. Map 15 Southeast Asia, but also languages using shows that while Mainland Southeast Asia prefixes and reduplication to mark does contain a fair number of languages plurality. ft should be noted that in Dryer's lacking plural marking, it also contains a sample only one language of Mainland number of languages, including Khmer Southeast Asia, the Austro-Asiatic and Vietnamese, with plural words. The language Sre, has a plural affLx, namely a orange circles indicating plural words and prefix. the orange lozenges indicating plural

·~ ,;· 1 Pb'8l preh•I118J C • ~!. '•• 2 Pka'al $Whx 1~95] . ... ~ . e • • 3. Pka'lll stem then!le lSI e • Pka'altone [21 t! ~ 9571anguagP.s 5 Pka'o/'complete reli..lplicattm 181 Author: Matthews Dryer 6 lobed·~ pU-81 (34) • 7 . ~ord(1.~1 ------i:Puel ck (591 I 9 . No pU-111(06)

Map 15: Coding of nominal plurality

Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access Areal Typology ofMainland Southeast Asia: What We Learn from the WALS Maps

A distributive numeral is a special numeral though this time extending well to the form with meaning 'n each' for a numeral north to take in both Chinese (including n. English and the languages of Mainland Mandarin) and the Turkic language Salar, Southeast Asia are alike in lacking such and contrasting clearly with northern Asia special forms, although many other and South Asia, both of which have languages do have such forms, e.g. dedicated distributional numerals, usually Germanje drei 'three each', where drei is marked by suffixes in the former area, by the numeral 'three' and je is a preceding reduplication in the latter. The boundary to word dedicated to marking distributive the east is clear-cut, with Austronesian numerals. While it might seem surprising languages of Taiwan and the Philippines to speakers of English or Thai to consider solidly having distributional numerals, lack of distributive numerals a striking usually marked by means of prefixes, feature of a language, in fact map 16 (Gil although there is more fluidity at the 2005a) shows that this is the minority boundary to the rest of Insular Southeast possibility across the world's languages, Asia, where languages lacking distributive with just under 25% of the world's numerals are found alongside those that languages having no dedicated distributive have them (with the latter usually using numerals. In this sense, then, Mainland reduplication). Southeast Asia is again a linguistic area,

· ~ ,..._ .. .~ • ••

Map 16: Di stributive numerals

37 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities (Special Issue No. 13. 2007}

Most of the maps referring to tense-aspect especially to the south. namely Peninsular categories are restricted to inflectional Malaysia and western Indonesia. The type marking, so predictably languages of is otherwise rare in the world. making up Mainland Southeast Asia lack such only 9.5% of the languages in Dahl and inflectionaJ categories by virtue of lacking Velupillai's sample, 19.4% ofthose with a inflectional morphology. However, one of Perfect. Most languages with a Perfect the maps (Dahl and Yelupillai 2005), have what Dahl and Velupillai caJI 'other dealing with the Perfect, includes also Perfect', which of course subsumes all non-inflectional means of marking the possibilities other than possessive-derived Perfect, in particular possessive-derived and 'finish'/'already·, so that the 36% of constructions (as in English we have the world's languages that belong to this eaten) and those using a word meaning type, or the 74% of the world's languages ·finish' or 'already' (e.g. ft'Eiv in Thai rm11 that have a Perfect. almost certainly do not kin klulaw !E&w. As map 17 shows, this constitute a single type. There are some latter construction, indicated by red dots, such languages, including Vietnamese. in is widespread in Mainland Southeast Asia, Mainland Southeast Asia. spreading somewhat to the northwest and

.•

j · 2221anguages

e 1 F~~I7J Aultlars OstenDahi, ViVek.aVeluplllal e 2From 'flnish','already' 1211 The Perfect ___.J. -l.~lel!t'l80J - ---...:.... f '~ 4 Nopetfed(l14] c.__..-- -. - - .(

Map 17. The Perfeel

38 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access Areal Typology ofMainland Southeast Asia: What We Learn from the WALS Maps -

Other features of the Amur River~ in Gil's sample, only the Chinese variety Hokkien and Ainu Numeral classifiers, such as khon in Thai stand apart in having only optional use of liiuk sip khon 'ten children', are a well• classifiers. The boundary to the northwest known feature of languages of Mainland is marked by a small area of intermingling Southeast Asia, and map 18 (Gil 2005b) with languages having optional classifiers clarifies the sense in which this holds. followed by absence of classifiers, the First, Mainland Southeast Asia belongs to norm in the rest of Asia. Moving towards an area where, with very few exceptions, Insular Southeast Asia, one encounters an the use of numeral classifiers is obi igatory. area where most languages have optional This includes all languages in Gil's sample classifiers, a few none or obligatory except for Khmer, where their use is classifiers, in Peninsular Malaysia and optional, but also extends well beyond western Indonesia; the Austronesian Mainland Southeast Asia to the northwest languages of Taiwan and the Philippines and especially to the north, running lack numeral classifiers, thus providing an through Chinese, Korean, and Japanese up abrupt boundary to the east. to Nivkh on Sakhalin island and the mouth

• •• ~ 4001anguages

Numeral Classifiers

AUthor D:r~td Gil

Map 18: Numeral classifiers

39 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal ofHumanities (Special Issue No. 13. 2007)

Map 19 (Stassen 2005c) shows that the type is striking: All languages of Mainland languages of the world vary considerably Southeast Asia belong to this type. which in their translation equivalents of the extends somewhat to the northwest and English construction 'you have a house', north (encompassing Mandarin Chinese), the English construction bere reflecting the although it is absent from the rest of ·have· type. The type that interests us Eurasia. ln the other direction, there is no particularly in map 19 is that represented such boundary, since the topic type is also by the pink dots, the so-called topic type. characteristic of the western part of lhe as in Thai khun mii Man (lit. you be Austrooesian-speaking world, and is also house, or, somewhat more revealingly: as found (though not exclusively) further for you, there is a house). This type is east, e.g. in the New Guinea area, where it found in 20% of the languages in Stassen's includes some non-Austronesian (so-called sample, which is in one sense as close to "Papuan") languages. Where it occurs chance as one could get given that there elsewhere in the world - equatorial are five types in his typology, but Africa, the Americas - it is sporadic. nonetheless the distribution of the topic

·~

• • •.. .• . •

AUthor Leon Stassen Pre dlcatlve Poss.. s lon

2401anQ'IIIQes ~ ---

Map 19: Predicativc pos. ession

40 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access Areal Typology ofMainland Southeast Asia: What We Learn from the WALS Maps

Another aspect of predication is covered boundary. Further to the northeast there is by map 20 (Stassen 2005b) , namely the the intriguing observation that Korean and question of whether adjectives are encoded Japanese have mixed encoding, but a line primarily like verbs or not. Exclusively of verbal encoding then takes up again verbal encoding is found in some 39% of with the isolates/small families Ainu, the languages in Stassen's sample, more Nivkh, and Yukaghir, though it is not clear than either of the other two types, but it is to what extent this is a real areal nonetheless striking that Mainland phenomenon. With respect to this feature, Southeast Asia is a solidly "verby" area, however, there is absolutely no boundary contrasting with most of Eurasia, which is between Mainland Southeast Asia and equally "non-verby". With respect to this Insular Southeast Asia, which is equally feature, Mainland Southeast Asia extends "verby" in its encoding of adjectives; only a little further to the northwest and to the towards New Guinea and Australia do we north (to encompass Mandarin Chinese), find a boundary, with mixed languages with a number of languages with mixed and then exclusively "non-verby" encoding of adjectives on the northwest languages.

Author: Leon stassen

Predlcatlve Adjectives .- 3B61anguagas ~ - ~· -~z

Map 20: Predicative adjectives

41 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal ofHumanities (Special issue No. I 3. 2007)

One striking difference between English Asia and most of the rest of Eurasia. with and Thai is that English uses the same verb Mainland Southeast Asia contammg be to introduce both nominal and locational exclusively languages that make the predicates, as in you are a teacher and distinction, whereas most of Eurasia is the Malee is at the market, whereas Thai single largest area of languages that do not distinguishes these two as pen and yziu, as (with only sporadic exceptions). However, in khun pen khruu and maalii yuu thfi the area that encompasses Main land ta/aat. Thai here represents by far the Southeast Asia is considerably larger for this majority pattern among the languages of feature than for the others discussed, first in the world, as can be seen from map 21 that this time all of Insular Southeast Asia is (Stassen 2005a). In Stassen's sample, included, and second in the extent to which 69.7% of the languages make the this type extends to the west and north, well distinction. There is, nonetheless, a clear into eastern India and across the eastern part difference between Mainland Southeast of northeastern Asia.

•

) Auth or: Leon stassen

Noninal and Locatlonal Predication ~_...... __ .. -~ ~ . ---'~<. JB81anguages ~~

Map 21: Nominal and locational predication

42 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access Areal Typology of Mainland Southeast Asia: What We Learn from the WALS Maps

While most features discussed in this article Southeast Asia and Indonesian in Insular have been purely stmctural, the last one to Southeast Asia. The remammg two be considered hovers on the boundary of languages, Korean and Japanese, are structural properties and sociolinguistics, separated from Mainland Southeast Asia by since it deals with politeness distinction in China, so the extent to which we might be pronouns (Helmbrecht 2005). Map 22 dealing with a single area rather than two shows that only 34.3% of the languages in distinct areas here would require further Helmbrecht's sample show politeness investigation. Nonetheless, pronoun distinctions, with the rarest way of avoidance as a politeness strategy clearly encoding politeness being the avoidance of characterizes at least all the socially pronouns, found in only 7 out of 207 dominant languages of a somewhat languages (3.4%). Three ofthese languages extended Mainland Southeast Asia and sets are spoken in core Mainland Southeast Asia, this area apart not only from the most of the namely Thai, Khmer, and Vietnamese, rest of Asia but indeed from most of the with Burmese on the periphery of Mainland rest of the world .

• ••

'• ~· · t .. Q 1 No polieress dlstilction (1361 " h- 2 BiMy polileqess ctstr.coon [491 (7 • 3. hUille poltenesslistrlc00ns(151 Politeness Distinctions in Pronouns • 4 PrOI'lOI.IIS evaded for poieness [TJ Author Johannes Helmbrecht · . _,__~------r¥ 207 languages z..____- -..r- - ~

Map 22: Politeness distinctions in pronouns

43 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal ofHumaniti es (Special Issue No. 13. 2007)

Conclusion namely Burmese, Mandarin, and Indonesian. In this article I have tried to show that a number of features, in general logically On this measure, Thai has 19 of the independent of each other, and selected on relevant feature values (the only exceptions being the formation of nominal plurals, for the basis of what data are provided in 11 W ALS, demonstrate that Mainland which no information is given for Thai, Southeast Asia is indeed an internally and implosives), Khmer 18 (the exceptions homogeneous linguistic area. It is most being tone, initial velar nasal, and clearly set off from the rest of Asia, though obligatory numeral classifiers), and with some fluidity in the boundary for Vietnamese also 18, although for one feature, namely order of Adjective and different features, with such regions as the 12 northeast of South Asia and China often Degree word, no information is provided showing up as transition zones, sometimes for Vietnamese (the two exceptions are going with Mainland Southeast Asia, order of Numeral and Noun and sometimes with the rest of Asia. There is in ''fmisb/already"-type Perfect). Of the general no such clear dividing line between languages in the periphery, Indonesian Mainland Southeast Asia and Insular shares 14 of these features, Burmese 11 , Southeast Asia. Only a few features, such while Mandarin shares 7 (with no as tone, show a boundary at or close to this information given for one feature, namely prefixing versus suffixing versus neither in divide. Nonetheless, it is clear that overall 13 homogeneity of the region decreases as one inflectional morphology). While at best moves from Mainland to Insular Southeast suggestive - a fuller study would need to Asia take all features into account (as Dahl MS does), and also consider not only logical One way of quantifying this would be to 11 ask, for various languages, whether or not The exclusion of Thai may have reflected they share the feature that is characteristic uncertainty as to its classification given the possibility of using reduplication to encode o( Mainland Southeast Asia. I carried out plurality with a "very small number of nouns" such a calculation for each of the 21 (Smyth 2002: 25); Lao is shown as having no features discussed in sections .2 through 5. nominal plural. (In most cases, it is obvious what the 12 My interpretation of the material presented feature value characteristic of Mainland in Thompson (1965, especially p. 267) would Southeast Asia is. Two cases might need be that the usual Vietnamese translation clarification. For coding of plurality, I equivalent of 'very' is nit, which precedes the assume that either no plural marking or use adjective, i.e. Vietnamese would in fact be an of plural words or clitics counts as exception to the usual Mainland Southeast Mainland Southeast Asia. For numeral Asian pattern. classifiers, only obligatory use of numeral 13 My own assessment would be that classifiers counts as Mainland Southeast Mandarin is at least mildly suffixing, differing Asia) I then tested these features against in this respect from Cantonese, which is three national languages of Mainland included in the relevant map and classified as Southeast Asia, namely Thai, Khmer, and having little affixation. In this respect, as also Vietnamese, plus three languages that in having initial velar nasals, Cantonese would thus be closer to the Mainland Southeast Asian belong to the periphery of the region, type than Mandarin.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access Areal Typology ofMainland Southeast Asia: What We Learn from the WALS Maps

dependencies and globally valid an area that was then mainly Austro-Asiatic correlations across them, but also whether and Sino-Tibetan-speaking (Enfield 2005: particular features need to be weighted 185). Two factors would need to be taken more than others as markers of linguistic into account in a fuller investigation of this areas in general, or of Mainland Southeast phenomenon: first, the extent to which Asia in particular - this does point to a consideration of the minority languages of core Mainland Southeast Asia area Mainland Southeast Asia might alter this compnsmg roughly Thailand, Laos, picture, with some of these perhaps being Cambodia, and Vietnam, with a periphery even more typically Mainland Southeast extending through Myanmar, China, and Asian than Thai; and second, the extent to Peninsular and Insular Southeast Asia. which Thai might have adopted already existing typical Mainland Southeast Asian Also on this measure, Thai turns out to be features in the course of its southward the most typical of the three major nationai migration, through contact with the non-Tai languages of Mainland Southeast Asia languages spoken in the area at the time of considered here. Interestingly, although Dahl Thai's expansion, including substrate (MS) uses a completely different effects from speakers of these languages methodology, he also concludes that, being assimilated into the Thai speech among the languages he considers, Thai is community. The present study perhaps the most typical for Southeast Asia. This is raises as many questions as it answers, but I intriguing given that Tai languages are hope that investigation of these questions relative newcomers to Mainland Southeast will prove fruitful for our understanding of Asia, moving from southwestern China into Mainland Southeast Asia, and not only from a linguistic perspective.

45 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access J MANUSYA: Journal ofHumaniti es (Special Issue No. 13. 2007)

References Dryer, Matthew S. 2005b. 'Order of object and verb', in Haspelmath et al. Anderson, Gregory D.S. 2005. 'The velar 2005: 338-341. nasal (Q)', in Haspelmath et al. Dryer, MatthewS. 200Si. 'Order of 2005: 42-45. relative clause and noun', in Comrie, Bernard. 2005. 'Numeral bases', Haspelmath et al. 2005: 366-369. in Haspelmath et al. 2005: 530- Dryer, MatthewS. 2005j. 'Order of 533. subject and verb', in Haspelmath Corbett, Greville G. 2005a. 'Number of et al. 2005: 334-337. · genders', in Haspelmath et al. Dryer, Matthew S. 2005k. 'Prefixing 2005: 126-129. versus suffixing in inflectional Corbett, Greville G. 2005b. 'Sex-based morpology', in Haspelmath et al. and non-sex-based gender 2005: 1.10-113. systems', in Haspel math et al. Dryer, MatthewS. 20051. 'Relationship 2005: 130-133. between the order of object' and Corbett, Greville G. 2005c. ' Systems of verb and the order of adjective and gender assignment', in noun', in Haspelmath et al. 2005: Haspelmath et al. 2005: 134-137. 394-397. Dahl, Osten. MS. 'An exercise in a Dryer, Matthew S. 200Sm. ' Relationship · posteriori language sampling'. between the order of object and Dahl, Osten and Viveka Velupillai. 2005. verb and the order of adposition 'The perfect', in Haspelmath et al. and noun phrase' , in Haspelmath 2005:271-272, 280-281. et al. 2005: 386-389. Dryer, Matthew S. 2005a. 'Coding of Dryer, Matthew S. 200Sn. ' Relationship nominal plurality', in Haspelmath between the order of object and et al. 2005: 138-141. verb and the order of relative Dryer, Matthew S. 2005b. 'Order of clause and noun' , in Haspelmath adjective and noun', in et al. 2005: 39~397. Haspelmath et al. 2005: 354-357. Enfield, N.J. 2005. 'Areal linguistics and Dryer, MatthewS. 2005c. 'Order of Mainland Sol,Jtheast Asia'. Annual adposition and noun phrase', in Review ofAnthr op ology 34: 181- Haspelmath et al. 2005: 346-349. 206. Dryer, Matthew S. 2005d. 'Order of Gil, David. 2005a. 'Distributive degree word and adjective', in numerals', in Haspelmath et al. Haspelmath et al. 2005: 370-373. 2005: 222-225. Dryer, Matthew S. 2005e. 'Order of Gi~ David. 2005b. 'Numeral classifiers', demonstrative and noun', in in Haspelmath et al. 2005: 226- Haspelmath et al. 2005: 358- 361 . 229. Dryer, Matthew S. 2005f. 'Order of Greenberg, J.H. 1966. 'Some universals of genitive and noun', in Haspelmath grammar with particular reference et al. 2005: 350-353. to the order of meaningful Dryer, MatthewS. 2005g. 'Order of elements', in J.H. Greenberg (ed), numeral and noun' , in Haspelmath Universals of Language, 2 ed. et al. 2005: 362-365. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 73- 113.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access Areal Typology ofMa inland Southeast Asia: What We Learnfrom the WALS Maps

Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie, eds. 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford Unjversity Press. Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2005. 'Politeness distinctions in pronouns', in Haspelmath et at. 2005: 186-189. Maddieson, Ian. 2005a. 'Front rounded vowels', in Haspelmath et al. 2005: 50-53. Maddieson, [an. 2005b. 'Giottalized consonants', in Haspelmath et al. 2005: 34-37. Maddieson, Ian. 2005c. 'Tone', in Haspelmath et at. 2005: 58-61. Smyth, David. 2002. Thai: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge. Stassen, Leon. 2005a. 'Nominal and locational predication', in Haspelmath et al. 2005: 482-485. Stassen, Leon. 2005b. 'Predicative adjectives', in Haspelmath et al. 2005: 478-481. Stassen, Leon. 2005c. 'Predicative possession', in Haspe Lmath et a\. 2005: 474-477. Thompson, Laurence C. 1965. A Vietnamese Grammar. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

47 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 09:19:52AM via free access