Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 38:1 (2021) ► pp.1–24

Phylogenies based on lexical innovations refute the Rung hypothesis

ORCID logo | CNRS-EHESS-Inalco, CRLAO
ORCID logo | CNRS-EHESS-Inalco, CRLAO

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

Keywords: Sino-Tibetan, Trans-Himalayan, phylogeny, Rung, Rgyalrongic, Kiranti, lexical innovations, person indexation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Sino-Tibetan verbal morphology and phylogeny
    • 2.1Rgyalrong and Kiranti person indexation
    • 2.2The Rung vs Polysynthetic Sino-Tibetan hypotheses
    • 2.3Geographical distribution
  • 3.Lexical innovations and the Rung hypothesis
    • 3.1Recent phylogenetic studies and the Rung hypothesis
    • 3.2Prediction of the Rung hypothesis
    • 3.3Testing the prediction of the Rung hypothesis
  • 4.Alternatives to the Rung hypothesis
    • 4.1Burmo-Rgyalrongic
    • 4.2Tibeto-Rgyalrongic
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19058.jac
References
Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco & Bianca Basciano
2020 Morphology in Sino-Tibetan languages. In Mark Aronoff (ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauman, James John
1975 Pronouns and pronominal morphology in Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Baxter, William H.
1992 A handbook of Old Chinese phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baxter, William H. & Laurent Sagart
2014 Old Chinese: A new reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Goma Banjade, Martin Gaenszle, Elena Lieven, Netra Paudyal, Ichchha Purna Rai, Manoj Rai, Novel Kishore Rai & Sabine Stoll
2007 Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language 83(1). 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradley, David
1979 Proto-Loloish. London: Curzon Press.Google Scholar
1997 Tibeto-Burman languages and classification. In David Bradley (ed.), Papers in Southeast Asian linguistics No. 14: Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalaya, 1–72. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bruhn, Daniel W.
2014 A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Central Naga. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Coblin, Weldon South
1976 Notes on Tibetan Verbal Morphology. T’oung Pao 621. 45–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
1989 Verb agreement in Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 52(2). 315–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010a Language replacement and the spread of Tibeto-Burman. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 3(1). 40–55.Google Scholar
2010b Towards a history of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics 9(1). 1–39.Google Scholar
2014 Second person verb forms in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(1). 3–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 The historical dynamics of morphological complexity in Trans-Himalayan. Linguistic Discovery 13(2). 37–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 Deictic and sociopragmatic effects in Tibeto-Burman sap indexation. In Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 343–376. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dempsey, Jacob
1995 A reconsideration of some phonological problems involved in reconstructing Sino-Tibetan numerals. Seattle:University of Washington dissertation.Google Scholar
Donegan, Patricia & David Stampe
2004 Rhythm and the synthetic drift of Munda. In The yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics, chap. Berlin, 3–36. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doornenbal, Marius
2009 A grammar of Bantawa: Grammar, paradigm tables, glossary and texts of a Rai language of Eastern Nepal. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation.Google Scholar
van Driem, George
1993 The Proto-Tibeto-Burman verbal agreement system. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 56(2). 292–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Sino-Bodic. Bulletin of the School of African and Oriental Studies 60(3). 455–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Karen
1990 On the evidence for the relationship Kiranti-Rung. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area 13(1). 57–78.Google Scholar
Gerber, Pascal & Selin Grollmann
2018 What is Kiranti? Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 11(2). 99–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gong, Hwang-cherng
1995 The system of finals in Proto-Sino-Tibetan. In William S-Y. Wang (ed.), The ancestry of Chinese (Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series 8), 41–92. Berkeley: Project on Linguistic Analysis.Google Scholar
Gong, Xun
2014 Personal agreement system of Zbu rGyalrong (Ngyaltsu variety). Transactions of the Philological Society 112(1). 44–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Verb stems in Tangut and their orthography. Scripta 91. 29–48.Google Scholar
Greenhill, Simon J., Chieh-Hsi Wu, Xia Hua, Michael Dunn, Stephen C. Levinson & Russell D. Gray
2017 Evolutionary dynamics of language systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(42). E8822–E8829. DOI logo
Güldemann, Tom
2008 The Macro-Sudan belt: Towards identifying a linguistic area in northern sub-Saharan Africa. In Bernd Heine & Derek Nurse (eds.), A linguistic geography of Africa, 151–185. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel & Martin Haspelmath
2019 Glottolog. Version 4.0. [URL]
Heath, Jeffrey
1998 Pragmatic skewing in 1 ↔ 2 pronominal combinations in Native American languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 64(2). 83–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2002 World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Nathan W.
2008  Verba moriendi in the Old Tibetan Annals . In Christopher Beckwith (ed.), Medieval Tibeto-Burman languages III, 71–86. Bonn: International Institute for Tibetan & Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar
2011 An inventory of Tibetan sound laws. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 21(4). 441–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 The six vowel hypothesis of Old Chinese in comparative context. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 6(2). 1–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 The historical phonology of Tibetan, Burmese, and Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry
2011 The Macro-Sudan belt and Niger-Congo reconstruction. Language Dynamics and Linguistic Change 1.1. 1–47.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume
2004 Phonologie et morphologie du japhug (Rgyalrong). Paris: Université Paris-VII Denis Diderot dissertation.Google Scholar
2010 The inverse in Japhug Rgyalrong. Language and Linguistics 11(1). 127–157.Google Scholar
2012 Agreement morphology: The case of Rgyalrongic and Kiranti. Language and Linguistics 13(1). 83–116.Google Scholar
2013 Harmonization and disharmonization of affix ordering and basic word order. Linguistic Typology 17(2). 187–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014a Esquisse de phonologie et de morphologie historique du tangoute. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014b On Coblin’s law. In Richard VanNess Simmons & Newell Ann Van Auken (eds.), Studies in Chinese and Sino-Tibetan Linguistics, 155–166. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
2015 Derivational morphology in Khaling. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 8(1). 78–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015–2016 Dictionnaire japhug-chinois-français. 1.1. Paris: Projet HimalCo. [URL]
2016a Le sino-tibétain: Polysynthétique ou isolant? Faits de langues 47(1). 61–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016b Tangut, Gyalrongic, Kiranti and the nature of person indexation in Sino-Tibetan/Trans-Himalayan. Linguistics Vanguard 2(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 A reconstruction of Proto-Kiranti verb roots. Folia Linguistica Historica 51(s38). 177–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 Generic person marking in Japhug and other Rgyalrong languages. In Sonia Cristofaro and Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 403–424. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume, Aimée Lahaussois, Boyd Michailovsky & Dhan Bahadur Rai
2012 An overview of Khaling verbal morphology. Language and Linguistics 13(6). 1095–1170.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume, Aimée Lahaussois, Dhan Bahadur Rai & Yadav Kumar
2015 Khaling-Nepali-English dictionary. 1.0. Paris: Projet HimalCo. [URL]
Jacques, Guillaume & Alexis Michaud
2011 Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages: Naxi, Na and Laze. Diachronica 28(4). 468–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurabe, Keita
2017 A Classified Lexicon of Shan Loanwords in Jinghpaw. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 111. 129–166.Google Scholar
Lai, Yunfan
2015 The person agreement system of Wobzi Lavrung (Rgyalrongic, Tibeto-Burman). Transactions of the Philological Society 113(3). 271–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Grammaire du khroskyabs de Wobzi. Paris: Université Paris 3 dissertation. Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J.
1992 On the dating and nature of the verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 55(2). 298–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 The role of migration and language contact in the development of the Sino-Tibetan language family. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Case studies in language change, 225–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2003 An overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 22–42. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2006 Sino-Tibetan languages. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., 393–397. London: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Comments on methodology and evidence in Sino-Tibetan comparative linguistics. Language and Linguistics 13(1). 117–132.Google Scholar
2013 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: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 The origin and spread of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Nature 5691. 45–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Fang-Kuei
1933 Certain Phonetic Influences of the Tibetan Prefixes upon the Root Initials. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 6(2). 135–157.Google Scholar
Lǐ, Yǒngsuì (李永燧)
1998 Qiāngmiǎn yǔqún chúyì (羌缅语群刍议). Mínzú Yǔwén (民族语文) 11. 16–28.Google Scholar
Lín, Xiàngróng (林向榮)
1993 Jiāróngyǔ yánjiū (嘉戎語研究) [A study on the Rgyalrong language]. Chengdu: Sichuan Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A.
2010–2013 The Sino-Tibetan etymological dictionary and thesaurus. [URL]
Michailovsky, Boyd
1994 Manner vs place of articulation in the Kiranti initial stops. In Hajime Kitamura, Tatsuo Nishida & Nagano Yasuhiko (eds.), Current issues in Sino-Tibetan linguistics. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
2002 Limbu-English dictionary. Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point.Google Scholar
Peiros, Ilia
1998 Comparative linguistics in Southeast Asia (Pacific Linguistics, Series C 142). Canberra: Research School of Pacific & Asian Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Post, Mark W. & Robbins Burling
2017 The Tibeto-Burman languages of Northeast India. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 2nd edn., 213–242. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sagart, Laurent, Guillaume Jacques, Yunfan Lai, Robin J. Ryder, Valentin Thouzeau, Simon J. Greenhill & Johann-Mattis List
2019 Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(21). 10317–10322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S.
1993 A historical-comparative study of the Tani (Mirish) branch in Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
2015 Hēishuǐxiàn Shāshíduō Jiāróngyǔ dòngcí rénchēng fànchóu de tèdiǎn (黑水縣沙石多嘉戎語動詞人稱範疇的特點) [Remarkable features in the verb agreement system of Sastod Rgyalrong in Khrochu County]. Language and Linguistics 16(5). 731–750.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. & Shidanluo
2002 Cǎodēng Jiāróngyǔ yǔ rèntóng děngdì xiāngguān de yǔfǎ xiànxiàng (草登嘉戎語與「認同等第」相關的語法現象) [Empathy hierarchy in Caodeng rGyalrong grammar]. Language and Linguistics 3(1). 79–99.Google Scholar
Thurgood, Graham
1985 Pronouns, verb agreement systems, and the subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman. In Graham Thurgood, James A. Matisoff & David Bradley (eds.), Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area: The state of the art, 376–400. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Xú, Xījiān, Jiāchéng Xiāo, Xiāngkūn Yuè & Qìngxià Dài
1983 Jing-Han cidian (景汉辞典) [A Jingpo-Chinese dictionary]. Kunming: Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Zhang, Menghan, Shi Yan, Wuyun Pan & Li Jin
2019 Phylogenetic evidence for Sino-Tibetan origin in northern China in the Late Neolithic. Nature 5691. 112–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Shuya
2019 From proximate/obviative to number marking: Reanalysis of hierarchical indexation in Rgyalrong language. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 47(1). 125–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Shuya, Guillaume Jacques & Yunfan Lai
2019 A study of cognates between Gyalrong languages and Old Chinese. Journal of Language Relationship 7(1). 73–92.Google Scholar
Zide, Norman H. & Gregory D. S. Anderson
2001 The Proto-Munda verb: some connections with Mon-Khmer. In B. Rao & K. V. Subbarao (eds.), Yearbook of South Asian linguistics, 517–540. Delhi: Sage Press.Google Scholar