sign in sign up
<<
Home , Austroasiatic languages, Bai language, Bodish languages, Burmish languages, Daai language, Indosphere

Sino- 393

Gair J W (1998). Studies in South Asian linguistics: Government Press. [Reprinted Sahitya and other South Asian languages. Oxford: Oxford Uni- Mandalaya, Colombo: 1962.] versity Press. Karunatillake W S (1992). An introduction to spoken Sin- Gair J W & Karunatillake W S (1974). Literary Sinhala. hala. Colombo: Gunasena. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Program. Karunatillake W S (2001). Historical phonology of Sinha- Gair J W & Karunatillake W S (1976). Literary Sinhala lese: from old Indo-Aryan to the 14th century AD. inflected forms: synopsis with a guide to Colombo: S. Godage and Brothers. Sinhala . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University South Asia Macdougall B G (1979). Sinhala: basic course. Program. Washington D.C.: Foreign Service Institute, Department Gair J W & Paolillo J C (1997). Sinhala (Languages of the of State. world/materials 34). Mu¨ nchen: Lincom. Matzel K & Jayawardena-Moser P (2001). Singhalesisch: Gair J W, Karunatillake W S & Paolillo J C (1987). Read- Eine Einfu¨ hrung. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ings in colloquial Sinhala. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Reynolds C H B (ed.) (1970). An anthology of Sinhalese South Asia Program. literature up to 1815. London: George Allen and Unwin Geiger W (1938). A grammar of the Sinhalese . (English translations). Colombo: Royal Asiatic Society. Reynolds C H B (ed.) (1987). An anthology of Sinhalese Godakumbura C (1955). Sinhalese literature. Colombo: literature of the twentieth century. Woodchurch, Kent: Colombo Apothecaries Ltd. Paul Norbury/Unesco (English translations). Gunasekara A M (1891). A grammar of the Sinhalese Reynolds C H B (1995). Sinhalese: an introductory course language. Adapted for the use of English readers and (2nd edn.). London: School of Oriental and African prescribed for the Civil Service Examination. Colombo: Studies. [1st edn., 1980.]

Sinhalese See: Sinhala.

Sino-Tibetan Languages R J LaPolla, Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia speakers of what became the rest of the TB languages ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. followed the river valleys down along the eastern edge of the Tibetan plateau and across into Burma, , and ). The large spread of Mandarin The Sino-Tibetan (ST) includes the Chinese to the northwest, southwest and northeast, (what for political reasons are giving it its large population and geographic spread, known as Chinese ‘’) and the 200 to 300 happened only in the last few hundred years. Tibeto-Burman (TB) languages. Geographically it In the past, and to some extent in still today stretches from , Burma, , (e.g., , 2003), this family was also said to include and northern in the southeast, throughout the Tai-Kadai (Zhuang-Dong) and Hmong-Mien the Tibetan plateau to the north, across most of China (Miao-Yao) languages of southern China and South- and up to the Korean border in the northeast, and , but the resemblances found among Sinitic, down to and Hainan Island in the southeast. Tai-Kadai, and Hmong-Mien are now understood to The family has come to be the way it is because of be a result of contact influence (these peoples origi- multiple migrations, often into areas where other nally inhabited southern China). Sino-Tibetan has the languages were spoken (LaPolla, 2001). Proto-Sino- second largest number of speakers of any language Tibetan (PST) would have been spoken in the Yellow family in the world, due largely to the over one billion River valley at least 6000 years ago. Waves of migra- Sinitic speakers; except for Burmese (see Bradley, tion followed: to the southeast, forming the Sinitic 1996), most Tibeto-Burman languages have relatively languages, and to the west and southwest, forming few speakers. the TB languages (the speakers of what became the Subgroupings within ST are still controversial, due migrated west into and then to differences in criteria for subgrouping, a paucity south, all the way to the Bay of , while the of reliable data, particularly on morphosyntactic 394 Sino-Tibetan Languages

languages, but LaPolla (2003a), with reference to the morphological paradigms, argued that rGyalrong, the (Bantawa, Athpare [Athapariya], Dumi, Khaling, Camling), Dulong-Rawang-Anong, the languages, and the Western Himalayan languages (Kinnauri, Rongpo, Chaudangsi, Darmiya; also often grouped with Bodish) should be seen as Figure 1 The subgrouping ofQiangic-Rung. forming a single higher-level grouping. This grouping was given the name ‘Rung’ because of the similarity (but not identity) of this proposal to an earlier one by patterns, and the fact that the development and dis- Thurgood (1985). The most likely tribution of these languages has been greatly influ- split off from an even higher-level grouping with the enced by migration and . Some of , then rGyalrong split off from the influential proposals for subgrouping within TB the group as migrations moved south, then Western are Grierson 1909, Shafer 1955, Benedict 1972, Himalayan split off from Kiranti and Rawang, and DeLancey 1987, Sun 1988, Dai, Liu & Fu 1989, Brad- then these two groups split (Figure 1; see LaPolla, ley 1997, Matisoff 2003, and Thurgood 2003 (see Hale 2003a, for the evidence). 1982 for comparison of the older proposals). There is Within Sinitic, it is generally agreed there are now general agreement on the existence of the follow- at least six major groups, initially distin- ing groupings (individual languages listed are only rep- guished on the basis of the reflexes of the historically resentative; see Matisoff 1996 for the many different voiced initial (Li, 1936–1937): Mandarin names used for TB languages and groupings). (northern and southwestern China), (Jiangsu and Zhejiang), Xiang (), Gan (Jiangxi), Yue . Qiangic (Qiang, Pumi, Muya, Namuyi, Shixing); (Guangdong and ), and Min (Guangdong, . Lolo-Burmese, comprising the Fujian, Hainan Island, and Taiwan). The Hakka (Burmese, Lawngwaw [Maru], Ngo Chang group of dialects (Guangdong, Fujian, Jiangxi, [Achang], Zaiwa, [Lashi]) and the Loloish , and Taiwan) is seen by some as part of languages (further divided into Northern: Nosu the Gan group and by others as a separate group. [Yi, or Sichuan], Nasu, Nisu; Central: Another three groups were proposed by Li (1987): Lahu, Lisu, Nusu, Jinuo; and Southern: Hani, Bisu, the Jin group (Shanxi and Inner Mongolia), the Hui Phunoi, Mpi; group (Anhui and Zhejiang), and the group . Bodish (Tibetan, , Tamang (several vari- (Guangxi), but these groupings are not universally eties), Tshangla, Takpa); accepted. Norman (1988, 2003), based on a para- . Kuki-Chin (Lushai, Asho Chin, Tiddim [Chin, digmatic set of lexical and grammatical items, Tedim], Anal, Hmar); further grouped the dialect groups into the Northern . Bodo-Koch (Bodo, Garo, Dimasa, Kachari, Koch, (Mandarin) group, the Central group (some Xiang Rabha); dialects, Wu, Gan), and the Southern group (Yue, . Konyak (Tangsa [Naga, Tangsa], Chang [Naga, Hakka, and some Xiang dialects). He left out the Chang], Konyak [Naga, Konyak], Nocte [Naga, Min group because he felt that the Min dialects lay Nocte], Wancho [Naga, Wancho]); ‘‘outside the mainstream of Chinese linguistic devel- . Tani (Apatani, Mising [Miri], Adi); and opment’’ (2003: 81). That is, they cannot be recon- . Karenic (Pwo [Karen, Pwo], Karenni, Sgaw [Karen, ciled with the reconstructed system S’gaw]). (seventh century A.D.) to which the other dialect There is much controversy over the affiliations groups can be traced. of many of the languages of Northeast India and Mandarin has the largest geographic spread and whether they all form a group together (see Burling, population, and can be subdivided into as many as 1999; Matisoff, 1999), as well as the positions of eight subgroups (see Li, 1987; cf. Ho, 2003), based the of Yunnan, China, Newari and the largely on the reflexes of the stopped category. Of Kiranti , Dulong-Rawang-Anong these, the Southwestern (Sichuan, Yunnan, Guizhou), (Rawang) of Burma and China, the extinct Tangut Central Plains, and Jianghuai (Southeastern) groups language of northwest China, and the rGyalrong lan- are generally recognized. guage of Sichuan, China, among many others. The One variety of Mandarin, Put – onghu\a, the latter two are most often said to be part of the ‘Common Language’ of China today, was developed Qiangic group, and the Kiranti languages are often in the early 20th century (and dubbed Gu|´ yuˇ , seen as forming a higher grouping with the Bodish ‘,’ at that time), taking the Sino-Tibetan Languages 395 phonology of the dialect but the lexicon and case in most languages. Most have not grammatica- grammar from a more generalized Mandarin and lized the kind of constraints on referent identification from the vernacular literature of the time. Standardi- we associate with the concept of ‘subject’ and other zation and spread of the standard through aggressive grammatical relations. If noun phrases appeared in educational programs continues today. the clause, the verb would have been clause final. In Min does not have a large spread and popu- Sinitic the clause is largely verb medial, as the verb lation, but because of the complex nature of its his- has come to function as the divider between topical torical development (multiple migrations into the (preverbal) and nontopical (postverbal) elements area, causing multiple strata, even within a single (there has clearly been a progressive change away variety), it can be subdivided into as many as seven from verb-final order over time). This change has subgroups: Southern, Northern, Central, Eastern, happened to a large extent in Bai and Karen as well. Puxian, Shaojiang, and Qiongwen (Li, 1987). For an With morphology as with phonology we find diver- excellent book-length synchronic and historical sity of types. Using our examples of Qiang and Lahu overview of Sinitic, see Norman, 1988; for the again, we find Qiang is agglutinative, whereas Lahu best detailed analysis of a single dialect, see Chao is isolating. Qiang has complex affixal systems of (1968). direction marking, person marking, and evidential Proto-Sino-Tibetan was monosyllabic, but with a marking on the verb and definite marking in noun much more complicated structure than most phrases, whereas Lahu has none of these features. of the modern languages: *(PREF)(PREF)Ci (G) V (:) Both languages have developed complex sortal clas- (Cf) (s) (Matisoff, 1991: 490; Ci ¼ initial , sifier systems – a common, but not universal, trait G ¼ glide, : ¼ length, Cf ¼ final consonant, among ST languages. All ST languages have modifier- s ¼ suffixal *-s; parentheses mark items that do not modified order in noun–noun structures (with geni- appear in all ). The modern languages have tive-head order being a subtype of this – there was moved much more toward bisyllabic or polysyllabic no genitive marking in PST, but some languages have words, although they are often reduced again to developed genitive marking), as well as relative-head sesquisyllabic (syllable and a half) or monosyllabic order (Karen has a secondary head-relative order as forms, and tone systems have developed in Sinitic well). Proto-Sino-Tibetan had negative-verb order, and many of the TB languages (either through con- and this is still true of most ST languages. tact, through independent innovation, or a combina- Matisoff (2003) grouped the languages in the fam- tion of the two). For example, in Sinitic the tones ily into the ‘Sinosphere’ and the ‘’ due to developed out of consonant suffixes (*-s, *- )and the linguistic and political influence of China and loss of initial voicing (Baxter, 1992: 8.2), and in India, respectively, on the languages. In Indospheric Tibetan the tones developed independently, languages, such as the TB languages of Northeast out of loss of initial voicing and the influence of India and Nepal, for example, we often find the - final consonants. Within this general commonality velopment of relative pronouns and corelative struc- there is also diversity in phonemic inventories and tures, and also of retroflex initial consonants. In the syllable structures, with, for example, the Qiang lan- Sinosphere we often find the development of tone guage (LaPolla, 2003b) having 36 initial consonants, systems and more analytic structure. We also find a complex system of consonant clusters in initial and contact influence from the in final position, and no tones, while Lahu (Matisoff, the north (Altaic speakers controlled large parts of 1973) has only 24 consonant initials, a simple (C)V northern China for long periods over the last thou- syllable structure (no consonant clusters), and seven sand years) and the Austroasiatic, Tai-Kadai, and phonemic tones. Hmong-Mien languages in the south. For example, Proto-Sino-Tibetan morphology included deriva- there is a cline from north to south in terms of com- tional prefixes and suffixes and a voicing alternation plexity of tone and also systems (greater in of the initial consonant of some verbs that could the south, less in the north), and influence on prosody affect the valency or form class of a word, but no rela- and word structure where the sesquisyllabic light- tional morphology. Many of the modern languages heavy structure of is also have grammaticalized person-marking affixes on the found in many of the southern TB languages, such verb and/or semantic role marking on nouns, but as Burmese and Jinghpaw (Jingpho), often leading these cannot be reconstructed to the PST level (see to the reduction of the first syllable in a compound, LaPolla, 2003a, and references therein). The clause in contrast to a trochaic stress pattern in northern was verb focused, in that the verb was the key ele- TB and northern Sinitic, which often leads to the ment, and noun phrases were optional. This is still the reduction of the second syllable in compounds. 396 Sino-Tibetan Languages

See also: Bangladesh: Language Situation; Burma: Lan- Li R (1987). ‘Chinese dialects in China.’ In Wurm S A et al. guage Situation; China: Language Situation; Chinese; (eds.) Pacific linguistics, series C, no. 102: Language atlas India: Language Situation; Nepal: Language Situation; Thai- of China parts and II. Hong Kong: Longman Group land: Language Situation; : Language Situation. (Far East). [Map and Text A–2.] Ma X (ed.) (2003). Han Zangyu gailun (An introduction to Sino-Tibetan languages) (2nd edn.). Beijing: Minzu Bibliography Chubanshe. Matisoff J A (1973). University of California publications Baxter W H (1992). A handbook of phonol- in linguistics, 75: The grammar of Lahu. Berkeley & Los ogy. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Angeles: University of California Press. Benedict P K (1972). Princeton-Cambridge studies in Matisoff J A (1991). ‘Sino-Tibetan linguistics: present state Chinese linguistics 2: Sino-Tibetan: a conspectus. and future prospects.’ Annual Review of Anthropology Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 20, 469–504. Bradley D (1996). ‘Burmese as a lingua franca (and asso- Matisoff J A (1996). STEDT monograph series 2: Lan- ciated map, #87).’ In Wurm S A, Mu¨ hlha¨usler P & Tryon guages and dialects of Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley: Center D T (eds.) Atlas of languages used for intercultural for South and Southeast Asian Languages. communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas, Matisoff J A (1999). ‘In defense of Kamarupan.’ Linguistics vol. II.1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 745–747. of the Tibeto-Burman Area 22(2), 173–182. Bradley D (1997). ‘Tibeto-Burman languages and classifi- Matisoff J A (2003). Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: cation.’ In Bradley D (ed.) Papers in Southeast Asian system and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. linguistics No. 14, Pacific Linguistics Series A–86: Berkeley, Los Angeles, & London: University of Califor- Tibeto-Burman languages of the . Canberra: nia Press. Australian National University. 1–71. Norman J (1988). Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- Burling R (1999). ‘On Kamarupan.’ Linguistics of the sity Press. Tibeto-Burman Area 22(2), 169–171. Norman J (2003). ‘The Chinese dialects: phonology.’ In Chao Y R (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.). 72–83. & Los Angeles: University of California Press. Shafer R (1955). ‘Classification of the Sino-Tibetan lan- Dai Q, Liu J & Fu A (1989). ‘Guanyu woguo Zangmian guages.’ Word 11(1), 94–111. yuzu xishu fenlei wenti (On the problem of genetic Sun H (1988). ‘Shilun Zhongguo jingnei Zang-Mian yu de subgrouping within the Tibeto-Burman languages of puxi fenlei (A classification of Tibeto-Burman languages China).’ Yunnan Minzu Xueyuan Xuebao 3, 82–92. in China).’ In Eguchi P K et al. (eds.) Languages and DeLancey S (1987). ‘The Sino-Tibetan languages.’ In history in East Asia: a festschrift for Tatsuo Nishida Comrie C (ed.) The world’s major languages. New on the occasion of his 60th birthday, vol. I. Kyoto: York: Oxford University Press. 799–810. Shokado. 61–73. Grierson G A (ed.) (1909). Linguistic survey of India, III, Thurgood G (1985). ‘Pronouns, verb agreement systems, Parts 1–3: Tibeto-Burman family. Calcutta: Superinten- and the subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman.’ In Thurgood G, dent of Government Printing. Matisoff J A & Bradley D (eds.) Linguistics of the Hale A (1982). Research on Tibeto-Burman languages. Sino-Tibetan area: the state of the art. Canberra: Depart- Trends in linguistics, state of the art report, 14. Berlin ment of Linguistics, Australian National University. & New York: Mouton. 376–400. Ho D (2003). ‘The characteristics of Mandarin dialects.’ In Thurgood G (2003). ‘A subgrouping of the Sino-Tibetan Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.). 126–130. languages: the interaction between language contact, LaPolla R J (2001). ‘The role of migration and language change, and inheritance.’ In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.). contact in the development of the Sino-Tibetan language 1–21. family.’ In Dixon R M W & Aikhenvald A Y (eds.) Areal Thurgood G & LaPolla R J (eds.) (2003). The Sino-Tibetan diffusion and genetic inheritance: case studies in language languages. London & New York: Routledge. change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 225–254. LaPolla R J (2003a). ‘An overview of Sino-Tibetan morpho- syntax.’ In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.). 22–42. LaPolla R J, with Huang C (2003b). A grammar of Qiang, Relevant Websites with annotated texts and glossary. Berlin: Mouton de http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ltba/ – Linguistics of the Gruyter. Tibeto-Burman Area. LaPolla R J & Lowe J B (1994). STEDT monograph series http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~jcl2/ – Journal of Chinese Lin- 1A: Bibliography of the international conferences on guistics. Sino-Tibetan languages and linguistics I-XXV. Berkeley: http://stedt.berkeley.edu/ – Sino-Tibetan Dictionary and Center for South and Southeast Asian Languages. Thesaurus Project. Li F -K (1936–1937). ‘Languages, dialects.’ The Chinese, http://tibeto-burman.net – Tibeto-Burman Linguistics Year Book, 121–128. [Reprinted (1973) in Journal of Domain. Chinese Linguistics 1(1), 1–13.].