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 (49)
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 (2)

Cited by two other publications

Alexander Adelaar & Antoinette Schapper
2024. The Oxford Guide to the Malayo-Polynesian Languages of Southeast Asia, DOI logo
Michael Fortescue, Marianne Mithun & Nicholas Evans
2017. The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 september 2024. 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.