Editing Altaic languages (section)

==History of the Altaic family concept==
[[File:2006-07 altaj belucha.jpg|thumb|The [[Altai Mountains]] in East-Central Asia give their name to the proposed language family.]]

===Origins===
The earliest known reference to a unified language group of Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic languages is from the 1692 work of [[Nicolaes Witsen]] which may be based on a 1661 work of [[Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur]], ''[[Shajara-i Tarākima|Genealogy of the Turkmens]]''.<ref name=robeets31>{{cite book |last1=Robeets |first1=Martine |title=The Classification of Transeurasian languages |date=2020 |publisher=Oxford University Press |page=31}}</ref>

A proposed grouping of the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages was published in 1730 by [[Philip Johan von Strahlenberg]], a Swedish officer who traveled in the eastern [[Russian Empire]] while a prisoner of war after the [[Great Northern War]].<ref name=poppe65>Nicholas Poppe (1965): ''Introduction to Altaic Linguistics.'' Volume 14 of ''Ural-altaische Bibliothek''. Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.</ref>{{rp|page 125}} However, he may not have intended to imply a closer relationship among those languages.<ref name=ramer>[[Alexis Manaster Ramer]] and [[Paul Sidwell]] (1997): "The truth about Strahlenberg's classification of the languages of Northeastern Eurasia." ''Journal de la Société finno-ougrienne'', volume 87, pages 139–160.</ref> Later proposals to include the Korean and Japanese languages into a "Macro-Altaic" family have always been controversial. The original proposal was sometimes called "Micro-Altaic" by [[retronym]]y. Most proponents of Altaic continue to support the inclusion of Korean, but fewer do for Japanese.<ref name="China 2008">Roger Blench and Mallam Dendo (2008): "[https://web.archive.org/web/20190227035752/http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b96/c6177913c04c7972abe56fcd86a9b6294686.pdf Stratification in the peopling of China: how far does the linguistic evidence match genetics and archaeology?]" In Alicia Sanchez-Mazas et al., eds. ''Human migrations in continental East Asia and Taiwan: genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidence'', chapter 4. Taylor & Francis.</ref> Some proposals also included [[Ainu languages|Ainuic]] but this is not widely accepted even among Altaicists themselves.<ref name="georg1999" /> A common ancestral Proto-Altaic language for the "Macro" family has been tentatively reconstructed by [[Sergei Starostin]] and others.<ref name="staro2003" />

Micro-Altaic includes about 66 living languages,<ref>{{cite web |title=Browse by Language Family |url=http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=7-16 |access-date=18 June 2013 |publisher=Ethnologue}}</ref> to which Macro-Altaic would add Korean, [[Jeju language|Jeju]], Japanese, and the [[Ryukyuan languages]], for a total of about 74 (depending on what is considered a language and what is considered a [[Language or dialect|dialect]]). These numbers do not include earlier states of languages, such as [[Middle Mongol language|Middle Mongol]], [[Old Korean]], or [[Old Japanese]].

===Uralo-Altaic hypothesis===
{{see also |Ural-Altaic languages}}
In 1844, the Finnish [[Philology|philologist]] [[Matthias Castrén]] proposed a broader grouping which later came to be called the [[Ural–Altaic languages|Ural–Altaic family]], which included Turkic, Mongolian, and Manchu-Tungus (=Tungusic) as an "Altaic" branch, and also the [[Finno-Ugric languages|Finno-Ugric]] and [[Samoyedic languages]] as the "Uralic" branch (though Castrén himself used the terms "Tataric" and "Chudic").<ref name=poppe65/>{{rp|126–127}} The name "Altaic" referred to the [[Altai Mountains]] in East-Central Asia, which are approximately the center of the geographic range of the three main families. The name "Uralic" referred to the [[Ural Mountains]].

While the Ural-Altaic family hypothesis can still be found in some encyclopedias, atlases, and similar general references, since the 1960s it has been heavily criticized. Even linguists who accept the basic Altaic family, such as [[Sergei Starostin]], completely discard the inclusion of the "Uralic" branch.<ref name=staro2003/>{{rp|8–9}}

The term continues to be used for the central Eurasian typological, grammatical and lexical convergence zone.<ref>BROWN, Keith and OGILVIE, Sarah eds.:Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World. 2009. p. 722.</ref> Indeed, "Ural-Altaic" may be preferable to "Altaic" in this sense. For example, [[Juha Janhunen]] states that "speaking of 'Altaic' instead of 'Ural-Altaic' is a misconception, for there are no areal or typological features that are specific to 'Altaic' without Uralic."<ref name="Georg">{{Cite journal |last=Georg |first=Stefan |date=2017-05-19 |title=The Role of Paradigmatic Morphology in Historical, Areal and Genealogical Linguistics: Thoughts and Observations in the Margin of Paradigm Change. In the Transeurasian languages and Beyond |url=https://brill.com/view/journals/jlc/10/2/article-p353_5.xml |journal=Journal of Language Contact |language=en |volume=10 |issue=2 |pages=353–381 |doi=10.1163/19552629-01002005 |issn=1877-4091|doi-access=free }}</ref>

===Korean and Japanese languages===
In 1857, the Austrian scholar Anton Boller suggested adding [[Japanese language|Japanese]] to the Ural–Altaic family.<ref name=miller86>Roy Andrew Miller (1986): ''Nihongo: In Defence of Japanese.'' {{ISBN|0-485-11251-5}}.</ref>{{rp|34}}

In the 1920s, [[Gustaf John Ramstedt|G.J. Ramstedt]] and [[Yevgeny Polivanov|E.D. Polivanov]] advocated the inclusion of Korean. Decades later, in his 1952 book, Ramstedt rejected the Ural–Altaic hypothesis but again included Korean in Altaic, an inclusion followed by most leading Altaicists (supporters of the theory) to date.<!--Which date?--><ref name=rams>Gustaf John Ramstedt (1952): ''Einführung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft'' ("Introduction to Altaic Linguistics"). Volume I, ''Lautlehre'' ("Phonology").</ref> His book contained the first comprehensive attempt to identify regular correspondences among the sound systems within the Altaic language families.

In 1960, Nicholas Poppe published what was in effect a heavily revised version of Ramstedt's volume on phonology<ref name=poppe60>Nicholas Poppe (1960): ''Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen. Teil I. Vergleichende Lautlehre'', ('Comparative Grammar of the Altaic Languages, Part 1: Comparative Phonology'). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. (Only part to appear of a projected larger work.)</ref><ref>Roy Andrew Miller (1991): "Genetic connections among the Altaic languages." In Sydney M. Lamb and E. Douglas Mitchell (editors), ''Sprung from Some Common Source: Investigations into the Prehistory of Languages'', 1991, 293–327. {{ISBN|0-8047-1897-0}}.</ref> that has since set the standard in Altaic studies. Poppe considered the issue of the relationship of Korean to Turkic-Mongolic-Tungusic not settled.<ref name=poppe65/>{{rp|148}} In his view, there were three possibilities: (1) Korean did not belong with the other three genealogically, but had been influenced by an Altaic substratum; (2) Korean was related to the other three at the same level they were related to each other; (3) Korean had split off from the other three before they underwent a series of characteristic changes.

[[Roy Andrew Miller]]'s 1971 book ''Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages'' convinced most Altaicists that Japanese also belonged to Altaic.<ref name=poppe76>Nicholas Poppe (1976): "[https://www.jstor.org/pss/132066 Review of Karl H. Menges, ''Altajische Studien II. Japanisch und Altajisch'' (1975)]". In ''The Journal of Japanese Studies'', volume 2, issue 2, pages 470–474.</ref><ref name=miller71>Roy Andrew Miller (1971): ''Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages.'' University of Chicago Press. {{ISBN|0-226-52719-0}}.</ref> Since then, the "Macro-Altaic" has been generally assumed to include Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean, and Japanese.

In 1990, Unger, emphasizing the need to establish language relationships rigorously "from the bottom up," advocated comparing Tungusic with the common ancestor of Korean and Japanese before seeking connections with Turkic or Mongolic.<ref name=unger90>J. Marshall Unger (1990): "Summary report of the Altaic panel." In [[Philip Baldi]], ed., ''Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology'', pages 479–482. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.</ref>

However, many linguists dispute the alleged affinities of Korean and Japanese to the other three groups. Some authors instead tried to connect Japanese to the [[Austronesian languages]].<ref name=staro2003/>{{rp|8–9}}

In 2017, [[Martine Robbeets]] proposed that Japanese (and possibly Korean) originated as a [[creole language|hybrid language]]. She proposed that the [[urheimat|ancestral home]] of the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages was somewhere in northwestern [[Manchuria]]. A group of those proto-Altaic ("Transeurasian") speakers would have migrated south into the modern [[Liaoning]] province, where they would have been mostly assimilated by an agricultural community with an [[Austronesian languages|Austronesian]]-like language. The fusion of the two languages would have resulted in proto-Japanese and proto-Korean.<ref name=robbe>Martine Irma Robbeets (2017): "[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320915864_Austronesian_influence_and_Transeurasian_ancestry_in_Japanese_A_case_of_farminglanguage_dispersal Austronesian influence and Transeurasian ancestry in Japanese: A case of farming/language dispersal]". ''Language Dynamics and Change'', volume 7, issue 2, pages 201–251, {{doi|10.1163/22105832-00702005}}</ref><ref name=robb2015>Martine Irma Robbeets (2015): ''Diachrony of verb morphology – Japanese and the Transeurasian languages''. Mouton de Gruyter.</ref>

In a typological study that does not directly evaluate the validity of the Altaic hypothesis, Yurayong and Szeto (2020) discuss for Koreanic and Japonic the stages of convergence to the Altaic typological model and subsequent divergence from that model, which resulted in the present typological similarity between Koreanic and Japonic. They state that both are "still so different from the Core Altaic languages that we can even speak of an independent Japanese-Korean type of grammar. Given also that there is neither a strong proof of common Proto-Altaic lexical items nor solid regular sound correspondences but, rather, only lexical and structural borrowings between languages of the Altaic typology, our results indirectly speak in favour of a “Paleo-Asiatic” origin of the Japonic and Koreanic languages."<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Yurayong, Szeto|date=August 2020|title=Altaicization and De-Altaicization of Japonic and Koreanic|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343576887|journal=International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics|volume=2 |pages=108–148 |doi=10.1163/25898833-12340026 |s2cid=225358117 |quote=Despite the conventional classification of Japonic and Koreanic languages as examples of the Altaic typology (Janhunen 2007, 2014, Tranter 2012a), these languages, both today and in the past, are still so different from the Core Altaic languages that we can even speak of an independent Japanese-Korean type of grammar (see also Vovin 2015a). Given also that there is neither a strong proof of common Proto-Altaic lexical items nor solid regular sound correspondences (Janhunen 1999: 10, 2010: 296, cf. Robbeets 2005) but, rather, only lexical and structural borrowings between languages of the Altaic typology, our results indirectly speak in favour of a “Paleo-Asiatic” origin of the Japonic and Koreanic languages (see also Janhunen 2010, Vovin 2015a). However, through later intense language contacts, Japanese and Koreanic converged by the phenomena of Altaicization and de-Altaicization during the first millennium BC and AD, respectively (see also Janhunen 2010: 290, Vovin 2010: 239–240).}}</ref>

===The Ainu language===
In 1962, John C. Street proposed an alternative classification, with Turkic-Mongolic-Tungusic in one grouping and Korean-Japanese-[[Ainu language|Ainu]] in another, joined in what he designated as the "North Asiatic" family.<ref name=street>John C. Street (1962): "Review of N. Poppe, ''Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen, Teil I'' (1960)". ''Language'', volume 38, pages 92–98.</ref> The inclusion of Ainu was adopted also by James Patrie in 1982.<ref name=patrie78>James Tyrone Patrie (1978): ''The genetic relationship of the Ainu language''. PhD thesis, University of Hawaii.</ref><ref name=patrie82>James Tyrone Patrie (1982): ''The Genetic Relationship of the Ainu Language.'' University of Hawaii Press. {{ISBN|0-8248-0724-3}}</ref>

The Turkic-Mongolic-Tungusic and Korean-Japanese-Ainu groupings were also posited in 2000–2002 by [[Joseph Greenberg]]. However, he treated them as independent members of a larger family, which he termed [[Eurasiatic languages|Eurasiatic]].<ref name=grenberg2000>Joseph Greenberg (2000–2002): ''Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family'', 2 volumes. Stanford University Press.</ref>

The inclusion of Ainu is not widely accepted by Altaicists.<ref name=georg1999/> In fact, no convincing genealogical relationship between Ainu and any other language family has been demonstrated, and it is generally regarded as a [[language isolate]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Dougherty |first=Thomas |year=2018 |chapter=Ainu |editor-last=Campbell |editor-first=Lyle |editor-link=Lyle Campbell |title=Language Isolates |series=Routledge Language Family Series |location=London |publisher=Routledge |pages=100–116 }}</ref>

<!-- NOTE: Please leave the following IDs, which were the previous titles of this section. Many pages link to these section titles.
--><span id="Controversy" ></span> <span id="The controversy over Altaic" ></span>

===Early criticism and rejection===
Starting in the late 1950s, some linguists became increasingly critical of even the minimal Altaic family hypothesis, disputing the alleged evidence of genetic connection between Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic languages.

Among the earlier critics were [[Gerard Clauson]] (1956), [[Gerhard Doerfer]] (1963), and Alexander Shcherbak. They claimed that the words and features shared by Turkic, Mongolic, and [[Tungusic languages|Tungusic]] languages were for the most part borrowings and that the rest could be attributed to chance resemblances.<ref name=clauson56/><ref name=doerfer63/><ref name=shche63/> In 1988, Doerfer again rejected all the genetic claims over these major groups.<ref name=doerfer88>Gerhard Doerfer (1988): ''Grundwort und Sprachmischung: Eine Untersuchung an Hand von Körperteilbezeichnungen.'' Franz Steiner. Wiesbaden:</ref>

===Modern controversy===
A major continuing supporter of the Altaic hypothesis has been [[Sergei Starostin]], who published a comparative lexical analysis of the Altaic languages in 1991. He concluded that the analysis supported the Altaic grouping, although it was "older than most other language families in Eurasia, such as Indo-European or Finno-Ugric, and this is the reason why the modern Altaic languages preserve few common elements".<ref name=staro91/>

In 1991 and again in 1996, Roy Miller defended the Altaic hypothesis and claimed that the criticisms of Clauson and Doerfer apply exclusively to the lexical correspondences, whereas the most pressing evidence for the theory is the similarities in verbal morphology.<ref name=miller91>Roy Andrew Miller (1991), page 298<!--Bibliographic data needed--></ref><ref name=miller96>Roy Andrew Miller (1996): ''Languages and History: Japanese, Korean and Altaic.'' Oslo: Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture. {{ISBN|974-8299-69-4}}. Pages 98–99</ref>

In 2003, [[Claus Schönig]] published a critical overview of the history of the Altaic hypothesis up to that time, siding with the earlier criticisms of Clauson, Doerfer, and Shcherbak.<ref name=schon03/>

In 2003, Starostin, [[Anna Dybo]] and Oleg Mudrak published the ''[[Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages]]'', which expanded the 1991 lexical lists and added other phonological and grammatical arguments.<ref name=staro2003/>

Starostin's book was criticized by Stefan Georg in 2004 and 2005,<ref name=georg2004>Stefan Georg (2004): "[Review of ''Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages'' (2003)]". ''Diachronica'' volume 21, issue 2, pages 445–450. {{doi|10.1075/dia.21.2.12geo}}</ref><ref name=georg2005>Stefan Georg (2005): "[http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jbp/dia/2005/00000022/00000002/art00009?token=005418488f488b387e2a46762c47655d76702a252c2a766c7b673f7b2f267738703375686f4997755709 Reply (to Starostin response, 2005)]". ''Diachronica'' volume 22, issue 2, pages 455–457.</ref> and by Alexander Vovin in 2005.<ref name=vovin2005>Alexander Vovin (2005): "The end of the Altaic controversy" [review of Starostin et al. (2003)]. ''Central Asiatic Journal'' volume 49, issue 1, pages 71–132.</ref>

Other defenses of the theory, in response to the criticisms of Georg and Vovin, were published by Starostin in 2005,<ref name=staro2005>Sergei A. Starostin (2005): "[http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jbp/dia/2005/00000022/00000002/art00008?token=00541ba51aae7dd8d6c573d257025255c232b465340514d3874747c4e7547543c7e386f642f466fad2e3 Response to Stefan Georg's review of the ''Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages'']". ''Diachronica'' volume 22, issue 2, pages 451–454. {{doi|10.1075/dia.22.2.09sta}}</ref> Blažek in 2006,<ref name=blazek2006>Václav Blažek (2006): "[http://www.phil.muni.cz/linguistica/art/blazek/bla-004.pdf Current progress in Altaic etymology.]" ''Linguistica Online'', 30 January 2006. Accessed on 2019-03-22.</ref> Robbeets in 2007,<ref name=robb2007>Martine Robbeets (2007): "How the actional suffix chain connects Japanese to Altaic." In ''Turkic Languages'', volume 11, issue 1, pages 3–58.</ref> and Dybo and G. Starostin in 2008.<ref name=staro2008>Anna V. Dybo and Georgiy S. Starostin (2008): "[http://starling.rinet.ru/Texts/compmeth.pdf In defense of the comparative method, or the end of the Vovin controversy.]" ''Aspects of Comparative Linguistics'', volume 3, pages 109–258. RSUH Publishers, Moscow</ref>

In 2010, [[Lars Johanson]] echoed Miller's 1996 rebuttal to the critics, and called for a muting of the polemic.<ref name=johans2010>Lars Johanson (2010): "The high and low spirits of Transeurasian language studies" in Johanson and Robbeets, eds. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=9zcxQqmkgE0C Transeurasian Verbal Morphology in a Comparative Perspective: Genealogy, Contact, Chance.]'', pages 7–20. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. Quote: "The dark age of ''pro'' and ''contra'' slogans, unfair polemics, and humiliations is not yet completely over and done with, but there seems to be some hope for a more constructive discussion."</ref>

===List of supporters and critics of the Altaic hypothesis===
{{more citations needed section|date=April 2024}}
The list below comprises linguists who have worked specifically on the Altaic problem since the publication of the first volume of Ramstedt's ''Einführung'' in 1952. The dates given are those of works concerning Altaic. For supporters of the theory, the version of Altaic they favor is given at the end of the entry, if other than the prevailing one of Turkic–Mongolic–Tungusic–Korean–Japanese.

====Major supporters====
*[[Pentti Aalto]] (1955). Turkic–Mongolic–Tungusic–Korean.
*[[Anna V. Dybo]] (S. Starostin et al. 2003, A. Dybo and G. Starostin 2008).
*[[Frederik Kortlandt]] (2010).
*[[Karl H. Menges]] (1975). Common ancestor of Korean, Japanese and traditional Altaic dated back to the 7th or 8th millennium BC (1975: 125).
*[[Roy Andrew Miller]] (1971, 1980, 1986, 1996). Supported the inclusion of Korean and Japanese.
*Oleg A. Mudrak (S. Starostin et al. 2003).
*[[Nicholas Poppe]] (1965). Turkic–Mongolic–Tungusic and perhaps Korean.
*[[Alexis Manaster Ramer]].
*[[Peter Benjamin Golden]]
*[[Martine Robbeets]] (2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2015, 2021) (in the form of "Transeurasian"). 
*[[Gustaf John Ramstedt|G. J. Ramstedt]] (1952–1957). Turkic–Mongolic–Tungusic–Korean.
*[[Georgiy Starostin|George Starostin]] (A. Dybo and G. Starostin 2008).
*[[Sergei Starostin]] (1991, S. Starostin et al. 2003).
*John C. Street (1962). Turkic–Mongolic–Tungusic and Korean–Japanese–Ainu, grouped as "North Asiatic".
*[[Talât Tekin]] (1994). Turkic–Mongolic–Tungusic–Korean.

====Major critics====
* [[Gerard Clauson]] (1956, 1959, 1962)
* [[Gerhard Doerfer]] (1963, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1981, 1985, 1988, 1993)
* [[Susumu Ōno]] (1970, 2000)
* [[Juha Janhunen]] (1992, 1995) (tentative support of Mongolic-Tungusic)
* [[Claus Schönig]] (2003)<ref name=schon03/>
* [[Stefan Georg]] (2004, 2005)
* [[Alexander Vovin]] (2005, 2010, 2017) - Formerly an advocate of Altaic (1994, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001), later a critic
* [[Alexander Shcherbak]]
* [[Alexander B. M. Stiven]] (2008, 2010)

====Advocates of alternative hypotheses====
<!-- "Macro-Tungusic" redirects here -->
*[[James Patrie]] (1982) and [[Joseph Greenberg]] (2000–2002). Turkic–Mongolic–Tungusic and Korean–Japanese–Ainu, grouped in a common [[taxon]] (cf. John C. Street 1962).
*[[J. Marshall Unger]] (1990). Tungusic–Korean–Japanese ("'''Macro-Tungusic'''"), with Turkic and Mongolic as separate language families.
*[[Lars Johanson]] (2010). Agnostic, proponent of a "Transeurasian" verbal morphology not necessarily genealogically linked.

==="Transeurasian" renaming===
In Robbeets and Johanson (2010), there was a proposal to replace the name "Altaic" with the name "Transeurasian". While "Altaic" has sometimes included Japonic, Koreanic, and other languages or families, but only on the consideration of particular authors, "Transeurasian" was specifically intended to always include Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Japonic, and Koreanic. Robbeets and Johanson gave as their reasoning for the new term: 1) to avoid confusion between the different uses of Altaic as to which group of languages is included, 2) to reduce the counterproductive polarization between "Pro-Altaists" and "Anti-Altaists"; 3) to broaden the applicability of the term because the suffix ''-ic'' implies affinity while ''-an'' leaves room for an areal hypothesis; and 4) to eliminate the reference to the Altai mountains as a potential homeland.<ref>Martin Robbeets & Alexander Savelyev. "Introduction," ''The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages'' (2020, Oxford University Press), page 1.</ref>

In Robbeets and Savelyev, ed. (2020) there was a concerted effort to distinguish "Altaic" as a subgroup of "Transeurasian" consisting only of Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic, while retaining "Transeurasian" as "Altaic" plus Japonic and Koreanic.