Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Historical Syntax
Edited by Carlotta Viti
[Studies in Language Companion Series 169] 2015
► pp. 317–340

Syntactic diversity and change in Austroasiatic languages

| University of Zurich
This study looks at the syntactic diversity of Austroasiatic languages and seeks possible explanations for the development of this diversity. With historical data available only for a small number of languages of the family, the evidence points to two main factors triggering syntactic change, namely reanalysis and contact influence from neighboring languages. The insights gained from the languages with a recorded history of over a thousand years can be applied to other scenarios and help us understand the development of Austroasiatic languages with no historical data.
Keywords: Austroasiatic languages, comparative syntax, historical syntax, language change, language contact
Published online: 29 April 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.169.13jen
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Dixon, Robert M.W.
(eds) 2002 Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
(eds) 2007 Grammars in Contact. A Cross-linguistic Typology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory D.S.
2008 Introduction to the Munda languages. In The Munda Languages, Gregory D.S. Anderson (ed.), 1-10. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth A.
1997 Modern Hebrew. In Hetzron (ed.), 312-333.Google Scholar
Braine, Jean Critchfield
1970 Nicobarese Grammar (Car Dialect). PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
Brown, Lea
2005 Nias. In The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, Alexander Adelaar & Niklaus P. Himmelmann (eds), 562-589. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cumming, Susanna
1984 The syntax and pragmatics of prepredicate word order in Toba Batak. In Studies in the Structure of Toba Batak [UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5], Paul Schachter (ed.), 17-36. Los Angeles CA: UCLA.Google Scholar
deRoepstorff, F.A.
1884 Dictionary of the Nancowry Dialect of the Nicobarese Language; in two parts: Nicobarese-English and English-Nicobarese, edited by Mrs. deRoepstorff. Calcutta: Home Department Press.Google Scholar
Diffloth, Gérard
2005 The contribution of linguistic palaeontology to the homeland of Austro-asiatic. In The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics, Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench & Alicia Sanchez-Mazas (eds), 77-80. London: Routledge/Curzon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eska, Joseph F. & Evans, D. Ellis
1992 Continental Celtic. In The Celtic Languages, Martin J. Ball (ed.),26-63. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fischer, Wolfdietrich
1997 Classical Arabic. In Hetzron (ed.), 187-219.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1971 Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s fieldtrip. In Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 394-415. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1963 Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Grammar, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 73-113. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
2011 Cambodian. Khmer [London Oriental and African Language Library 16]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Campbell, Lyle
1995 Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hetzron, Robert
(ed.) 1997 The Semitic Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Huffman, Franklin E.
1973 Thai and Cambodian. A case of syntactic borrowing? Journal of the American Oriental Society 93(4): 488-509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenner, Philip N.
2009 A Dictionary of Pre-Angkorian Khmer, edited by Doug Cooper. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Jenner, Philip N. & Sidwell, Paul
2010 Old Khmer Grammar. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Jenny, Mathias
2003 New infixes in spoken Mon. Mon-Khmer Studies 33: 183-94.Google Scholar
2006 Mon ra’ and noŋ: Assertive particles? Mon-Khmer Studies 36: 21-38.Google Scholar
2009 Deixis and information structure in Mon. The multifunctional particle kòh. JSEALS 2: 53-71.Google Scholar
2011 Burmese syntax in Mon. External influence and internal development. In Austroasiatic Studies: Papers from ICAAL4. Mon-Khmer Studies Journal Special Issue No. 3: 48-64. Sophana Srichampa, Paul Sidwell & Kenneth Gregerson (eds).Google Scholar
2013 The Mon language: Recipient and donor between Burmese and Thai. Journal of Language and Culture. Mahidol University, 5-33.Google Scholar
Forthcoming. Comparative, equative, and similative constructions in Mon - form, function, and development. To be published in Similative and Equative Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, Yvonne Treis & Martine Vanhove (eds.) Amsterdam John Benjamins
Kaye, Alan S. & Rosenhouse, Judith
1997 Arabic dialects and Maltese. In Hetzron (ed.), 263-311.Google Scholar
Kogan, Leonid E. & Korotayev, Andrey V.
1997 Sayhadic (Epigraphic South Arabian). In Hetzron (ed.), 220-241.Google Scholar
Kruspe, Nicole
2004 A Grammar of Semelai. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loprieno, Antonio
1995 Ancient Egyptian. A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacAulay, Donald
1992 The Celtic languages: An overview. In The Celtic Languages, Donald MacAulay (ed.), 1-8. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Mahdi, Waruno
2005 Old Malay. In The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, Alexander Adelaar & Niklaus P. Himmelmann (eds), 182-201. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron
2009 Language Contact. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 An activity-oriented approach to contact-induced language change. In Dynamics of Contact-induced Language Change, Claudine Chamoreau & Isabelle Léglise (eds), 17- 52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Janet Sakel
(eds.) 2007 Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meerwarth, A.M.
1980[1919] The Andamanese, Nicobarese, and Hill Tribes of Assam. Gauhati: United Publishers.Google Scholar
Milne, Leslie Mrs
1921 An Elementary Palaung Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Nababan, P.W.J.
1981 A Grammar of Toba-Batak. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Osada, Toshiki
2008 Mundari. In The Munda Languages, Gregory D.S. Anderson (ed.), 99-164. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Peterson, John
2011 A Grammar of Kharia. A South Munda Language. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rabel, Lili
1961 Khasi. A Language of Assam. Baton Rouge LA: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Rajasingh, V.R.
2013 Negators in Muöt. In Mon-Khmer Studies 41, 46-59.Google Scholar
Reid, Lawrence A.
1994 Morphological evidence for Austric. Oceanic Linguistics 33(2): 323-344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Segert, Stanislav
1997 Phoenician and the Eastern Canaanite languages. In Hetzron A (ed.), 174-186.Google Scholar
Sidwell, Paul
2009 Classifying the Austroasiatic Languages: History and State of the Art. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude
1997 The modern South Arabian languages. In Hetzron A (ed.), 378-423.Google Scholar
Steiner, Richard C.
1997 Ancient Hebrew. In Hetzron A (ed.), 145-173.Google Scholar
Sungkaman, Umaporn
2006 An Analysis of Mon Conversation. PhD dissertation, Mahidol University.
Ternes, Elmar
1992 The Breton language. In The Celtic Languages, Donald MacAulay (ed.), 371-452. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Weidert, Alfons
1975 I Tkong Amwi. Deskriptive Analyse eines Wardialekts des Khasi. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Michael Fortescue, Marianne Mithun & Nicholas Evans
2017. The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.