Sino-Tibetan Languages 393 Gair J W (1998). Studies in South Asian linguistics: Sinhala Government Press. [Reprinted Sri Lanka 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 South Asia 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: a synopsis with a transliteration guide to Colombo: S. Godage and Brothers. Sinhala script. 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 language. (English translations). Colombo: Royal Asiatic Society. Reynolds C H B (ed.) (1987). An anthology of Sinhalese Godakumbura C E (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, La 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, India, and Nepal). The large spread of Mandarin The Sino-Tibetan (ST) language family includes the Chinese to the northwest, southwest and northeast, Sinitic languages (what for political reasons are giving it its large population and geographic spread, known as Chinese ‘dialects’) 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 China still today stretches from Northeast India, Burma, Bangladesh, (e.g., Ma, 2003), this family was also said to include and northern Thailand 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 east Asia, but the resemblances found among Sinitic, down to Taiwan 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 Bodish languages migrated west into Tibet and then to differences in criteria for subgrouping, a paucity south, all the way to the Bay of Bengal, 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 Kiranti languages (Bantawa, Athpare [Athapariya], Dumi, Khaling, Camling), Dulong-Rawang-Anong, the Kham 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 Rung languages most likely tribution of these languages has been greatly influ- split off from an even higher-level grouping with the enced by migration and language contact. Some of Qiangic languages, 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 dialect 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 consonants (Li, 1936–1937): Mandarin names used for TB languages and groupings). (northern and southwestern China), Wu (Jiangsu and Zhejiang), Xiang (Hunan), Gan (Jiangxi), Yue . Qiangic (Qiang, Pumi, Muya, Namuyi, Shixing); (Guangdong and Guangxi), and Min (Guangdong, . Lolo-Burmese, comprising the Burmish languages Fujian, Hainan Island, and Taiwan). The Hakka (Burmese, Lawngwaw [Maru], Ngo Chang group of dialects (Guangdong, Fujian, Jiangxi, [Achang], Zaiwa, Lachik [Lashi]) and the Loloish Sichuan, 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, Yunnan 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 Pinghua group . Bodish (Tibetan, Dzongkha, 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 Middle Chinese 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 Bai language of Yunnan, China, Newari and the largely on the reflexes of the stopped tone category. Of Kiranti languages of Nepal, 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|o´ yuˇ , seen as forming a higher grouping with the Bodish ‘National Language,’ at that time), taking the Sino-Tibetan Languages 395 phonology of the Beijing 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-