Editing Austroasiatic languages (section)

==Internal classification==
Linguists traditionally recognize two primary divisions of Austroasiatic: the Mon–Khmer languages of [[Southeast Asia]], [[Northeast India]], and the [[Nicobar Islands]], and the [[Munda languages]] of [[East India|East]] and [[Central India]] and parts of [[Bangladesh]] and [[Nepal]]. However, no evidence for this classification has ever been published.

Each family written in boldface below is accepted as a valid clade.{{clarify|date=February 2016}} By contrast, the relationships ''between'' these families within Austroasiatic are debated. In addition to the traditional classification, two recent proposals are given, neither of which accepts traditional "Mon–Khmer" as a valid unit. However, little of the data used for competing classifications has ever been published and, therefore, cannot be evaluated by peer review.

In addition, there are suggestions that additional branches of Austroasiatic might be preserved in substrata of [[Acehnese language|Acehnese]] in Sumatra (Diffloth), the [[Chamic languages]] of Vietnam, and the [[Land Dayak languages]] of Borneo (Adelaar 1995).<ref>Roger Blench, ''2009. Are there four additional unrecognised branches of Austroasiatic?'' Presentation at ICAAL-4, Bangkok, 29–30 October. Summarized in Sidwell and Blench (2011).</ref>

===Diffloth (1974)===
[[Gérard Diffloth|Diffloth]]'s widely cited original classification, now abandoned by Diffloth himself, is used in ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'' and—except for the breakup of Southern Mon–Khmer—in ''Ethnologue''.

{{tree list}}
* '''Austro‑Asiatic'''
** '''[[Munda languages|Munda]]'''
*** North Munda
**** Korku
**** '''Kherwarian'''
*** South Munda
**** '''Kharia–Juang'''
**** '''Koraput Munda'''
** Mon–Khmer
*** Eastern Mon–Khmer
**** '''[[Khmer language|Khmer]]''' (Cambodian)
**** '''[[Pearic languages|Pearic]]'''
**** '''[[Bahnaric languages|Bahnaric]]'''
**** '''[[Katuic languages|Katuic]]'''
**** '''[[Vietic languages|Vietic]]''' (Vietnamese, [[Muong language|Muong]])
*** Northern Mon–Khmer
**** '''[[Khasi language|Khasi]]''' ([[Meghalaya]], India)
**** '''[[Palaungic languages|Palaungic]]'''
**** '''[[Khmuic languages|Khmuic]]'''
*** Southern Mon–Khmer
**** '''[[Mon language|Mon]]'''
**** '''[[Aslian languages|Aslian]]''' ([[Peninsular Malaysia|Malaya]])
**** '''[[Nicobarese languages|Nicobarese]]''' ([[Nicobar Islands]])
{{tree list/end}}

=== Peiros (2004) ===
Peiros is a [[lexicostatistics|lexicostatistic]] classification, based on percentages of shared vocabulary. This means that languages can appear to be more distantly related than they actually are due to [[language contact]]. Indeed, when Sidwell (2009) replicated Peiros's study with languages known well enough to account for loans, he did not find the internal (branching) structure below.
[[File:AustroAsiatic tree Peiros2004.png|thumb|upright=2.27]]

{{tree list}}
* '''Austro‑Asiatic'''
** '''[[Nicobarese languages|Nicobarese]]'''
** Munda–Khmer
*** '''[[Munda languages|Munda]]'''
*** Mon–Khmer
**** '''[[Khasi language|Khasi]]'''
**** Nuclear Mon–Khmer
***** [[Pakanic languages|Mangic]] ([[Mang language|Mang]] + [[Bolyu language|Palyu]]) (perhaps in Northern MK)
***** '''[[Vietic languages|Vietic]]''' (perhaps in Northern MK)
***** Northern Mon–Khmer
****** '''[[Palaungic languages|Palaungic]]'''
****** '''[[Khmuic languages|Khmuic]]'''
***** Central Mon–Khmer
****** '''[[Khmer language|Khmer]]''' dialects
****** '''[[Pearic languages|Pearic]]'''
****** Asli-Bahnaric
******* '''[[Aslian languages|Aslian]]'''
******* Mon–Bahnaric
******** '''[[Monic languages|Monic]]'''
******** Katu–Bahnaric
********* '''[[Katuic languages|Katuic]]'''
********* '''[[Bahnaric languages|Bahnaric]]'''
{{tree list/end}}

{{Clear}}

=== Diffloth (2005) ===
[[Gérard Diffloth|Diffloth]] compares reconstructions of various clades, and attempts to classify them based on shared innovations, though like other classifications the evidence has not been published. As a schematic, we have:

{{clade
| label1='''Austro-Asiatic'''
| 1={{clade
| label1=[[Munda languages|Munda]]
| 1={{clade
   |1={{clade
      |1=[[Bonda language|Remo]]
      |2=[[Sora language|Savara]]
      }}
   |2={{clade
   |1=[[Kharia language|Kharia]]–[[Juang language|Juang]]
   |2={{clade
   |1=[[Korku language|Korku]]
   |2=Kherwarian
      }}
      }}
    }}
| label2=[[Khasi–Khmuic languages|Khasi–Khmuic]]
| 2={{clade
   |2=[[Khasic languages|Khasian]]
   |1={{clade
   |1=[[Khmuic languages|Khmuic]]
   |2={{clade
   |1=[[Pakanic languages|Pakanic]]
   |2=[[Palaungic languages|Palaungic]]
      }}
      }}
   }}
| label3=(Nuclear) Mon–Khmer
| 3={{clade
   |1={{clade
   |1={{clade
   |1=[[Vietic languages|Vietic]]
   |label2=?<ref name=VK />
   |2=[[Katuic languages|Katuic]]
      }}
   |2={{clade
   |1=[[Bahnaric languages|Bahnaric]]
   |2={{clade
      |1=[[Khmer language|Khmer]]
      |2=[[Pearic languages|Pearic]]
      }}
      }}
      }}
   |2={{clade
   |1=[[Nicobarese languages|Nicobarese]]
   |2={{clade
   |1=[[Aslian languages|Aslian]]
   |2=[[Monic languages|Monic]]
      }}
      }}
   }}
}}
}}

Or in more detail,

{{tree list}}
* '''Austro‑Asiatic'''
** '''[[Munda languages]]''' (India)
*** '''Koraput''': 7 languages
*** Core Munda languages
**** '''Kharian–Juang''': 2 languages
**** North Munda languages
***** ''[[Korku language|Korku]]''
***** '''Kherwarian''': 12 languages
** [[Khasi–Khmuic languages]] (Northern Mon–Khmer)
*** '''[[Khasic languages|Khasian]]''': 3 languages of north eastern India and adjacent region of Bangladesh
*** Palaungo-Khmuic languages
**** '''[[Khmuic languages|Khmuic]]''': 13 languages of Laos and Thailand
**** Palaungo-Pakanic languages
***** '''[[Pakanic languages|Pakanic]]''' or '''[[Bolyu language|Palyu]]''': 4 or 5 languages of southern China and Vietnam
***** '''[[Palaungic languages|Palaungic]]''': 21 languages of Burma, southern China, and Thailand
** Nuclear Mon–Khmer languages
*** Khmero-Vietic languages (Eastern Mon–Khmer)
**** Vieto-Katuic languages ?<ref name=VK>Sidwell (2005) casts doubt on Diffloth's Vieto-Katuic hypothesis, saying that the evidence is ambiguous, and that it is not clear where Katuic belongs in the family.</ref>
***** '''[[Vietic languages|Vietic]]''': 10 languages of Vietnam and Laos, including [[Muong language|Muong]] and [[Vietnamese language|Vietnamese]], which has the most speakers of any Austroasiatic language.
***** '''[[Katuic languages|Katuic]]''': 19 languages of Laos, Vietnam, and Thailand.
**** Khmero-Bahnaric languages
***** '''[[Bahnaric languages|Bahnaric]]''': 40 languages of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
***** Khmeric languages
****** The '''[[Khmer language|Khmer]]''' dialects of Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam.
****** '''[[Pearic languages|Pearic]]''': 6 languages of Cambodia.
*** Nico-Monic languages (Southern Mon–Khmer)
**** '''[[Nicobarese languages|Nicobarese]]''': 6 languages of the [[Nicobar Islands]], a territory of India.
**** Asli-Monic languages
***** '''[[Aslian languages|Aslian]]''': 19 languages of peninsular Malaysia and Thailand.
***** '''[[Monic languages|Monic]]''': 2 languages, the [[Mon language]] of Burma and the [[Nyah Kur language|Nyahkur language]] of Thailand.
{{tree list/end}}

=== Sidwell (2009&ndash;2015) ===
[[File:Mekong river basin.png|thumb|right|upright=1.81|[[Paul Sidwell]] and [[Roger Blench]] propose that the Austroasiatic phylum dispersed via the [[Mekong]] River [[drainage basin]].]]
[[Paul Sidwell]] (2009), in a [[lexicostatistical]] comparison of 36 languages which are well known enough to exclude loanwords, finds little evidence for internal branching, though he did find an area of increased contact between the Bahnaric and Katuic languages, such that languages of all branches apart from the geographically distant [[Munda languages|Munda]] and Nicobarese show greater similarity to Bahnaric and Katuic the closer they are to those branches, without any noticeable innovations common to Bahnaric and Katuic.

He therefore takes the conservative view that the thirteen branches of Austroasiatic should be treated as equidistant on current evidence. Sidwell & [[Roger Blench|Blench]] (2011) discuss this proposal in more detail, and note that there is good evidence for a Khasi–Palaungic node, which could also possibly be closely related to Khmuic.<ref name="SidwellBlench2011">Sidwell, Paul, and Roger Blench. 2011. "[http://rogerblench.info/Archaeology/SE%20Asia/SR09/Sidwell%20Blench%20offprint.pdf The Austroasiatic Urheimat: the Southeastern Riverine Hypothesis] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171118041741/http://www.rogerblench.info/Archaeology/SE |date=18 November 2017 }}." Enfield, NJ (ed.) ''Dynamics of Human Diversity'', 317–345. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.</ref>

If this would the case, Sidwell & Blench suggest that Khasic may have been an early offshoot of Palaungic that had spread westward. Sidwell & Blench (2011) suggest [[Shompen language|Shompen]] as an additional branch, and believe that a Vieto-Katuic connection is worth investigating. In general, however, the family is thought to have diversified too quickly for a deeply nested structure to have developed, since Proto-Austroasiatic speakers are believed by Sidwell to have radiated out from the central [[Mekong]] river valley relatively quickly.

Subsequently, Sidwell (2015a: 179)<ref>Sidwell, Paul. 2015a. "Austroasiatic classification." In Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell, eds (2015). ''The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages''. Leiden: Brill.</ref> proposed that [[Nicobarese languages|Nicobarese]] subgroups with [[Aslian languages|Aslian]], just as how Khasian and Palaungic subgroup with each other.

{{clade
| label1=Austroasiatic: {{nowrap|Mon–Khmer}}
| 1={{clade
| 1=[[Munda languages|Munda]]
| label2=Khasi–Palaungic
| 2={{clade
| 1=[[Khasic languages|Khasian]]
| 2=[[Palaungic languages|Palaungic]]
}}
| 3=[[Khmuic languages|Khmuic]]
| 4=[[Mang language|Mang]]{{refn|group=note|Earlier classifications by Sidwell had lumped [[Mang language|Mang]] and [[Pakanic languages|Pakanic]] together into a ''Mangic'' subgroup, but Sidwell currently considers Mang and Pakanic to each be independent branches of Austroasiatic.}}
| 5=[[Pakanic languages|Pakanic]]
| 6=[[Vietic languages|Vietic]]
| 7=[[Katuic languages|Katuic]]
| 8=[[Bahnaric languages|Bahnaric]]
| 9=[[Khmer language|Khmer]]
| 10=[[Pearic languages|Pearic]]
| label11=Aslian–Monic
| 11={{clade
| 1=[[Monic languages|Monic]]
| 2=[[Aslian languages|Aslian]]
}}
| 12={{clade
| 1=[[Nicobarese languages|Nicobarese]]
| 2=?[[Shompen language|Shompen]]
}}
}}
}}

A subsequent computational phylogenetic analysis (Sidwell 2015b)<ref>Sidwell, Paul. 2015b. [https://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/linguistics/conferences/2015-diversity-linguistics/Sidwell_slides.pdf A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of the Austroasiatic languages] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171215184958/http://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/linguistics/conferences/2015-diversity-linguistics/Sidwell_slides.pdf |date=15 December 2017 }}. Presented at Diversity Linguistics: Retrospect and Prospect, 1–3 May 2015 (Leipzig, Germany), Closing conference of the Department of Linguistics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.</ref> suggests that Austroasiatic branches may have a loosely nested structure rather than a completely rake-like structure, with an east–west division (consisting of Munda, Khasic, Palaungic, and Khmuic forming a western group as opposed to all of the other branches) occurring possibly as early as 7,000 years before present. However, he still considers the subbranching dubious.

Integrating computational phylogenetic linguistics with recent archaeological findings, Paul Sidwell (2015c)<ref name="Sidwell2015">Sidwell, Paul. 2015c. ''Phylogeny, innovations, and correlations in the prehistory of Austroasiatic''. Paper presented at the workshop ''Integrating inferences about our past: new findings and current issues in the peopling of the Pacific and South East Asia'', 22–23 June 2015, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany.</ref> further expanded his Mekong riverine hypothesis by proposing that Austroasiatic had ultimately expanded into [[Indochina]] from the [[Lingnan]] area of [[southern China]], with the subsequent Mekong riverine dispersal taking place after the initial arrival of Neolithic farmers from southern China.

Sidwell (2015c) tentatively suggests that Austroasiatic may have begun to split up 5,000 years B.P. during the [[Neolithic transition]] era of [[mainland Southeast Asia]], with all the major branches of Austroasiatic formed by 4,000 B.P. Austroasiatic would have had two possible dispersal routes from the western periphery of the [[Pearl River (China)|Pearl River]] watershed of [[Lingnan]], which would have been either a coastal route down the coast of Vietnam, or downstream through the [[Mekong River]] via [[Yunnan]].<ref name="Sidwell2015"/> Both the reconstructed lexicon of Proto-Austroasiatic and the archaeological record clearly show that early Austroasiatic speakers around 4,000 B.P. cultivated rice and [[millet]], kept livestock such as dogs, pigs, and chickens, and thrived mostly in estuarine rather than coastal environments.<ref name="Sidwell2015"/>

At 4,500 B.P., this "Neolithic package" suddenly arrived in Indochina from the Lingnan area without cereal grains and displaced the earlier pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherer cultures, with grain husks found in northern Indochina by 4,100 B.P. and in southern Indochina by 3,800 B.P.<ref name="Sidwell2015"/> However, Sidwell (2015c) found that iron is not reconstructable in Proto-Austroasiatic, since each Austroasiatic branch has different terms for iron that had been borrowed relatively lately from Tai, Chinese, Tibetan, Malay, and other languages.

During the [[Iron Age]] about 2,500 B.P., relatively young Austroasiatic branches in Indochina such as [[Vietic languages|Vietic]], [[Katuic languages|Katuic]], [[Pearic languages|Pearic]], and [[Khmer language|Khmer]] were formed, while the more internally diverse [[Bahnaric languages|Bahnaric]] branch (dating to about 3,000 B.P.) underwent more extensive internal diversification.<ref name="Sidwell2015"/> By the Iron Age, all of the Austroasiatic branches were more or less in their present-day locations, with most of the diversification within Austroasiatic taking place during the Iron Age.<ref name="Sidwell2015"/>

Paul Sidwell (2018)<ref>Sidwell, Paul. 2018. ''Austroasiatic deep chronology and the problem of cultural lexicon''. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, held 17–19 May 2018 in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.</ref> considers the Austroasiatic language family to have rapidly diversified around 4,000 years B.P. during the arrival of rice agriculture in Indochina, but notes that the origin of Proto-Austroasiatic itself is older than that date. The lexicon of Proto-Austroasiatic can be divided into an early and late stratum. The early stratum consists of basic lexicon including body parts, animal names, natural features, and pronouns, while the names of cultural items (agriculture terms and words for cultural artifacts, which are reconstructible in Proto-Austroasiatic) form part of the later stratum.

[[Roger Blench]] (2017)<ref name="Blench2017">Blench, Roger. 2017. ''[http://southasiabibliography.de/uploads/Blench.pdf Waterworld: lexical evidence for aquatic subsistence strategies in Austroasiatic] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171214014949/http://southasiabibliography.de/uploads/Blench.pdf |date=14 December 2017 }}''. Presented at ICAAL 7, Kiel, Germany.</ref> suggests that vocabulary related to aquatic subsistence strategies (such as boats, waterways, river fauna, and fish capture techniques) can be reconstructed for Proto-Austroasiatic. Blench (2017) finds widespread Austroasiatic roots for 'river, valley', 'boat', 'fish', 'catfish sp.', 'eel', 'prawn', 'shrimp' (Central Austroasiatic), 'crab', 'tortoise', 'turtle', 'otter', 'crocodile', 'heron, fishing bird', and 'fish trap'. Archaeological evidence for the presence of agriculture in northern [[Indochina]] (northern Vietnam, Laos, and other nearby areas) dates back to only about 4,000 years ago (2,000 BC), with agriculture ultimately being introduced from further up to the north in the Yangtze valley where it has been dated to 6,000 B.P.<ref name="Blench2017"/>

Sidwell (2022)<ref name="Sidwell JSEALS Special 8">{{cite journal|last=Sidwell|first=Paul|title=Austroasiatic Dispersal: the AA "Water-World" Extended|editor-last=Alves|editor-first=Mark|editor-last2=Sidwell|editor-first2=Paul|journal=Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society: Papers from the 30th Conference of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (2021)|volume=15|issue=3|date=28 January 2022|issn=1836-6821|url=https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10524/52498|access-date=14 February 2022|doi=10.5281/zenodo.5773247|pages=95–111|archive-date=30 January 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220130075639/https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10524/52498|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Sidwell2021">Sidwell, Paul. 2021. [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GSfNDgaDM_lzWrQxZ5w-Tas8aVKfT-Sj/view ''Austroasiatic Dispersal: the AA "Water-World" Extended''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220217053955/https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GSfNDgaDM_lzWrQxZ5w-Tas8aVKfT-Sj/view |date=17 February 2022 }}. [https://sites.google.com/site/sealsjournal/seals-and-jseals-history/seals-online-2021/seals-2021-program SEALS 2021] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211216175236/https://sites.google.com/site/sealsjournal/seals-and-jseals-history/seals-online-2021/seals-2021-program |date=16 December 2021 }}. ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QREB1UttWTI Video)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220217063156/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QREB1UttWTI |date=17 February 2022 }}</ref> proposes that the locus of Proto-Austroasiatic was in the [[Red River Delta]] area about 4,000-4,500 years before present, instead of the Middle Mekong as he had previously proposed. Austroasiatic dispersed coastal maritime routes and also upstream through river valleys. Khmuic, Palaungic, and Khasic resulted from a westward dispersal that ultimately came from the Red River valley. Based on their current distributions, about half of all Austroasiatic branches (including Nicobaric and Munda) can be traced to coastal maritime dispersals.

Hence, this points to a relatively late riverine dispersal of Austroasiatic as compared to [[Sino-Tibetan languages|Sino-Tibetan]], whose speakers had a distinct non-riverine culture. In addition to living an aquatic-based lifestyle, early Austroasiatic speakers would have also had access to livestock, crops, and newer types of watercraft. As early Austroasiatic speakers dispersed rapidly via waterways, they would have encountered speakers of older language families who were already settled in the area, such as Sino-Tibetan.<ref name="Blench2017"/>

===Sidwell (2018)===
Sidwell (2018)<ref>Sidwell, Paul. 2018. ''[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b_vqZuDTnR9VkcpgAiJZveQ4nlvbxN0D Austroasiatic deep chronology and the problem of cultural lexicon] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230331162655/https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b_vqZuDTnR9VkcpgAiJZveQ4nlvbxN0D/edit |date=31 March 2023 }}''. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of the [[Southeast Asian Linguistics Society]]. [[Kaohsiung]], Taiwan. (accessed 16 December 2020).</ref> (quoted in Sidwell 2021<ref name="WOL-MSEA-11">{{cite book|last=Sidwell|first=Paul|title=The Languages and Linguistics of Mainland Southeast Asia|chapter=Classification of MSEA Austroasiatic languages|publisher=De Gruyter|date=9 August 2021|doi=10.1515/9783110558142-011|pages=179–206|isbn=9783110558142|s2cid=242599355}}</ref>) gives a more nested classification of Austroasiatic branches as suggested by his computational phylogenetic analysis of Austroasiatic languages using a 200-word list. Many of the tentative groupings are likely [[linkage (linguistics)|linkages]]. [[Pakanic languages|Pakanic]] and [[Shompen language|Shompen]] were not included.

{{clade
| label1=Austroasiatic
| 1={{clade
| label1=Eastern
| 1={{clade
| 1={{clade
| 1=[[Bahnaric languages|Bahnaric]]
| label2=Vietic–Katuic
| 2={{clade
| 1=[[Vietic languages|Vietic]]
| 2=[[Katuic languages|Katuic]]
}}
}}
| 2={{clade
| 1=[[Khmer language|Khmeric]]
| 2=[[Pearic languages|Pearic]]
}}
}}

| 2=[[Mang language|Mang]]

| label3=Northern
| 3={{clade
| 1=[[Khmuic languages|Khmuic]]
| label2=Khasi–Palaungic
| 2={{clade
| 1=[[Khasic languages|Khasian]]
| 2=[[Palaungic languages|Palaungic]]
}}
}}

| 4=[[Monic languages|Monic]]

| label5=Southern
| 5={{clade
| 2=[[Aslian languages|Aslian]]
| 1=[[Nicobarese languages|Nicobarese]]
}}

| 6=[[Munda languages|Munda]]
}}
}}

===Possible extinct branches===
[[Roger Blench]] (2009)<ref>Blench, Roger. 2009. "[http://icaal.org/abstract/blench-are.html Are there four additional unrecognised branches of Austroasiatic?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303221221/http://icaal.org/abstract/blench-are.html |date=3 March 2016 }}."</ref> also proposes that there might have been other primary branches of Austroasiatic that are now extinct, based on [[Stratum (linguistics)|substrate]] evidence in modern-day languages.
* '''Pre-[[Chamic language|Chamic]] languages''' (the languages of coastal Vietnam before the Chamic migrations). Chamic has various Austroasiatic loanwords that cannot be clearly traced to existing Austroasiatic branches (Sidwell 2006, 2007).<ref name="Sidwell2006">Sidwell, Paul. 2006. "[http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf8/sidwell2006dating.pdf Dating the Separation of Acehnese and Chamic By Etymological Analysis of the Aceh-Chamic Lexicon] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141108030716/http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf8/sidwell2006dating.pdf |date=8 November 2014 }}." In The ''[[Mon-Khmer Studies]]'', 36: 187–206.</ref><ref name="Sidwell2007">Sidwell, Paul. 2007. "[http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf8/sidwell2002mon-khmer.pdf The Mon-Khmer Substrate in Chamic: Chamic, Bahnaric and Katuic Contact] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150616053041/http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf8/sidwell2002mon-khmer.pdf |date=16 June 2015 }}." In SEALS XII Papers from the 12th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2002, edited by Ratree Wayland et al.. Canberra, Australia, 113-128. Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.</ref> Larish (1999)<ref name="Larish1999">Larish, Michael David. 1999. ''The Position of Moken and Moklen Within the Austronesian Language Family''. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa.</ref> also notes that [[Moklenic languages]] contain many Austroasiatic loanwords, some of which are similar to the ones found in Chamic.
* '''[[Acehnese language|Acehnese]] substratum''' (Sidwell 2006).<ref name="Sidwell2006" /> Acehnese has many basic words that are of Austroasiatic origin, suggesting that either Austronesian speakers have absorbed earlier Austroasiatic residents in northern Sumatra, or that words might have been borrowed from Austroasiatic languages in southern Vietnam – or perhaps a combination of both. Sidwell (2006) argues that Acehnese and Chamic had often borrowed Austroasiatic words independently of each other, while some Austroasiatic words can be traced back to Proto-Aceh-Chamic. Sidwell (2006) accepts that Acehnese and Chamic are related, but that they had separated from each other before Chamic had borrowed most of its Austroasiatic lexicon.
* '''[[Bornean languages|Bornean]] substrate languages''' (Blench 2010).<ref>Blench, Roger. 2010. "[https://digital.lib.washington.edu/ojs/index.php/BIPPA/article/viewFile/10637/10669 Was there an Austroasiatic Presence in Island Southeast Asia prior to the Austronesian Expansion?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230331162718/https://journals.lib.washington.edu/index.php/BIPPA/article/download/10637/10669/0 |date=31 March 2023 }}" In ''Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association'', Vol. 30.</ref> Blench cites Austroasiatic-origin words in modern-day Bornean branches such as [[Land Dayak languages|Land Dayak]] ([[Bidayuh languages|Bidayuh]], [[Bakatiʼ language|Dayak Bakatiq]], etc.), [[Dusunic languages|Dusunic]] ([[Dusun language|Central Dusun]], [[Brunei Bisaya language|Visayan]], etc.), [[Kayan–Murik languages|Kayan]], and [[Kenyah languages|Kenyah]], noting especially resemblances with [[Aslian languages|Aslian]]. As further evidence for his proposal, Blench also cites ethnographic evidence such as musical instruments in Borneo shared in common with Austroasiatic-speaking groups in mainland Southeast Asia. Adelaar (1995)<ref>Adelaar, K.A. 1995. [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.692.6923&rep=rep1&type=pdf Borneo as a cross-roads for comparative Austronesian linguistics] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180703220226/http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.692.6923&rep=rep1&type=pdf |date=3 July 2018 }}. In P. Bellwood, J.J. Fox and D. Tryon (eds.), The Austronesians, pp. 81-102. Canberra: Australian National University.</ref> has also noticed phonological and lexical similarities between [[Land Dayak languages|Land Dayak]] and [[Aslian languages|Aslian]]. Kaufman (2018) presents dozens of lexical comparisons showing similarities between various Bornean and Austroasiatic languages.<ref>Kaufman, Daniel. 2018. ''Between mainland and island Southeast Asia: Evidence for a Mon-Khmer presence in Borneo''. Ronald and Janette Gatty Lecture Series. Kahin Center for Advanced Research on Southeast Asia, Cornell University. ([https://bahasawan.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Cornell-Borneo-handout.pdf handout] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230218201204/https://bahasawan.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Cornell-Borneo-handout.pdf |date=18 February 2023 }} / [https://bahasawan.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Cornell-Borneo-slides.pdf slides] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230218201204/https://bahasawan.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Cornell-Borneo-slides.pdf |date=18 February 2023 }})</ref>
* '''[[Lepcha language|Lepcha]] substratum''' ("'''''Rongic'''''").<ref>Blench, Roger. 2013. [https://www.academia.edu/5562335/Rongic_a_vanished_branch_of_Austroasiatic ''Rongic: a vanished branch of Austroasiatic''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180809120624/http://www.academia.edu/5562335/Rongic_a_vanished_branch_of_Austroasiatic |date=9 August 2018 }}. m.s.</ref> Many words of Austroasiatic origin have been noticed in [[Lepcha language|Lepcha]], suggesting a [[Sino-Tibetan languages|Sino-Tibetan]] superstrate laid over an Austroasiatic substrate. Blench (2013) calls this branch "''Rongic''" based on the Lepcha autonym ''Róng''.

Other languages with proposed Austroasiatic substrata are:
* '''[[Jiamao language|Jiamao]]''', based on evidence from the register system of Jiamao, a [[Hlai languages|Hlai]] language (Thurgood 1992).<ref>Thurgood, Graham. 1992. "[http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf4/thurgood1992aberrancy.pdf The aberrancy of the Jiamao dialect of Hlai: speculation on its origins and history] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180130151402/http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf4/thurgood1992aberrancy.pdf |date=30 January 2018 }}". In Ratliff, Martha S. and Schiller, E. (eds.), ''Papers from the First Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society'', 417–433. Arizona State University, Program for Southeast Asian Studies.</ref> Jiamao is known for its highly aberrant vocabulary in relation to other [[Hlai languages]].
* '''[[Kerinci language|Kerinci]]''': van Reijn (1974)<ref>van Reijn, E. O. (1974). "Some Remarks on the Dialects of North Kerintji: A link with Mon-Khmer Languages." ''Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society'', 31, 2: 130–138. {{JSTOR|41492089}}.</ref> notes that Kerinci, a [[Malayic languages|Malayic]] language of central [[Sumatra]], shares many phonological similarities with Austroasiatic languages, such as [[sesquisyllabic]] word structure and vowel inventory.

John Peterson (2017)<ref>Peterson, John (2017). "[http://southasiabibliography.de/uploads/Peterson.pdf The prehistorical spread of Austro-Asiatic in South Asia] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180411025821/http://southasiabibliography.de/uploads/Peterson.pdf |date=11 April 2018 }}". Presented at ICAAL 7, Kiel, Germany.</ref> suggests that "pre-[[Munda languages|Munda]]" (early languages related to Proto-Munda) languages may have once dominated the eastern [[Indo-Gangetic Plain]], and were then absorbed by Indo-Aryan languages at an early date as Indo-Aryan spread east. Peterson notes that eastern [[Indo-Aryan languages]] display many morphosyntactic features similar to those of Munda languages, while western Indo-Aryan languages do not.