Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
Niidae Wiki
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Sino-Tibetan languages
(section)
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Classification== Several low-level branches of the family, particularly [[Lolo-Burmese languages|Lolo–Burmese]], have been securely reconstructed, but in the absence of a secure reconstruction of a Sino–Tibetan [[proto-language|proto–language]], the higher-level structure of the family remains unclear.{{sfnp|Handel|2008|p=426}}{{sfnp|DeLancey|2009|p=695}} Thus, a conservative classification of Sino–Tibetan/Tibeto–Burman would posit several dozen small coordinate families and [[language isolate|isolates]]; attempts at subgrouping are either geographic conveniences or hypotheses for further research.{{citation needed|date=May 2024}} ===Li (1937)=== In a survey in the 1937 ''Chinese Yearbook'', [[Li Fang-Kuei]] described the family as consisting of four branches:{{sfnp|Li|1937|pp=60–63}}{{sfnp|Handel|2008|p=424}} {{tree list}} * Indo-Chinese (Sino-Tibetan) ** Chinese ** [[Tai languages|Tai]] (later expanded to [[Kam–Tai languages|Kam–Tai]]) ** [[Hmong–Mien languages|Miao–Yao]] (Hmong–Mien) ** [[Tibeto-Burman]] {{tree list/end}} Tai and Miao–Yao were included because they shared [[isolating language|isolating]] typology, [[tone (linguistics)|tone]] systems and some vocabulary with Chinese. At the time, tone was considered so fundamental to language that tonal typology could be used as the basis for classification. In the Western scholarly community, these languages are no longer included in Sino–Tibetan, with the similarities attributed to diffusion across the [[Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area]], especially since {{harvtxt|Benedict|1942}}.{{sfnp|Handel|2008|p=424}} The exclusions of Vietnamese by Kuhn and of Tai and Miao–Yao by Benedict were vindicated in 1954 when [[André-Georges Haudricourt]] demonstrated that the tones of Vietnamese were reflexes of final consonants from [[Proto-Mon–Khmer language|Proto–Mon–Khmer]].{{sfnp|Matisoff|1991|p=487}} Many Chinese linguists continue to follow Li's classification.{{efn|See, for example, the "Sino-Tibetan" (汉藏语系 ''Hàn-Zàng yǔxì'') entry in the "languages" (語言文字, ''Yǔyán-Wénzì'') volume of the ''[[Encyclopedia of China]]'' (1988).}}{{sfnp|Handel|2008|p=424}} However, this arrangement remains problematic. For example, there is disagreement over whether to include the entire [[Kra–Dai languages|Kra–Dai]] family or just [[Kam–Tai languages|Kam–Tai]] (Zhuang–Dong excludes the [[Kra languages]]), because the Chinese cognates that form the basis of the putative relationship are not found in all branches of the family and have not been reconstructed for the family as a whole. In addition, Kam–Tai itself no longer appears to be a valid node within Kra–Dai. ===Benedict (1942)=== Benedict overtly excluded Vietnamese (placing it in Mon–Khmer) as well as [[Hmong–Mien languages|Hmong–Mien]] and [[Kra–Dai languages|Kra–Dai]] (placing them in [[Austro-Tai languages|Austro–Tai]]). He otherwise retained the outlines of Conrady's Indo–Chinese classification, though putting [[Karen languages|Karen]] in an intermediate position:{{sfnp|Benedict|1942|p=600}}{{sfnp|Benedict|1972|pp=2–4}} {{tree list}} * Sino-Tibetan ** Chinese ** Tibeto-Karen *** Karen *** Tibeto-Burman {{tree list/end}} ===Shafer (1955)=== Shafer criticized the division of the family into [[Tibeto-Burman languages|Tibeto–Burman]] and Sino–Daic branches, which he attributed to the different groups of languages studied by Konow and other scholars in [[British India]] on the one hand and by [[Henri Maspero]] and other French linguists on the other.{{sfnp|Shafer|1955|pp=94–96}} He proposed a detailed classification, with six top-level divisions:{{sfnp|Shafer|1955|pp=99–108}}{{sfnp|Shafer|1966|p=1}}{{efn|For Shafer, the suffix "-ic" denoted a primary division of the family, whereas the suffix "-ish" denoted a sub-division of one of those.}} {{tree list}} * Sino-Tibetan ** Sinitic ** Daic ** Bodic ** Burmic ** [[Bodo–Garo languages|Baric]] ** Karenic {{tree list/end}} Shafer was sceptical of the inclusion of Daic, but after meeting Maspero in Paris decided to retain it pending a definitive resolution of the question.{{sfnp|Shafer|1955|pp=97–99}}{{sfnp|van Driem|2001|pp=343–344}} ===Matisoff (1978, 2015)=== [[James Matisoff]] abandoned Benedict's Tibeto–Karen hypothesis: {{tree list}} * Sino-Tibetan ** Chinese ** Tibeto-Burman {{tree list/end}} Some more-recent Western scholars, such as Bradley (1997) and La Polla (2003), have retained Matisoff's two primary branches, though differing in the details of Tibeto–Burman. However, Jacques (2006) notes, "comparative work has never been able to put forth evidence for common innovations to all the Tibeto–Burman languages (the Sino–Tibetan languages to the exclusion of Chinese)"{{efn|les travaux de comparatisme n'ont jamais pu mettre en évidence l'existence d'innovations communes à toutes les langues « tibéto-birmanes » (les langues sino-tibétaines à l'exclusion du chinois)}} and that "it no longer seems justified to treat Chinese as the first branching of the Sino–Tibetan family,"{{efn|il ne semble plus justifié de traiter le chinois comme le premier embranchement primaire de la famille sino-tibétaine}} because the morphological divide between Chinese and Tibeto–Burman has been bridged by recent reconstructions of [[Old Chinese]]. The internal structure of Sino–Tibetan has been tentatively revised as the following [[Stammbaum]] by Matisoff in the final print release of the ''[[Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus|Sino–Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus]]'' (STEDT) in 2015.{{sfnp|Matisoff|2015|pp=xxxii, 1123–1127}} Matisoff acknowledges that the position of Chinese within the family remains an open question.{{sfnp|Matisoff|2015|p=xxxi}} {{tree list}} *Sino-Tibetan **Chinese **Tibeto-Burman ***Northeast Indian areal group ****"North Assam" *****[[Tani languages|Tani]] *****[[Digaro languages|Deng]] ****[[Kukish languages|Kuki-Chin]] ****"[[Naga languages|Naga]]" areal group *****Central Naga ([[Ao languages|Ao]] group) *****[[Angami–Pochuri languages|Angami–Pochuri]] group *****[[Zeme languages|Zeme]] group *****[[Tangkhul languages|Tangkhulic]] ****[[Meitei language|Meitei]] ****Mikir / [[Karbi language|Karbi]] ****[[Mruic languages|Mru]] ****[[Sal languages|Sal]] *****[[Bodo–Garo languages|Bodo–Garo]] *****Northern Naga / [[Konyak languages|Konyakian]] *****[[Kachin–Luic languages|Jingpho–Asakian]] ***Himalayish ****[[Tibeto-Kanauri languages|Tibeto-Kanauri]] *****[[West Himalayish languages|Western Himalayish]] *****[[Bodish languages|Bodic]] *****[[Lepcha language|Lepcha]] *****[[Tamangic languages|Tamangish]] *****[[Dhimal languages|Dhimal]] ****[[Newar language|Newar]] ****[[Kiranti languages|Kiranti]] ****[[Kham language|Kham]]-[[Magaric languages|Magar]]-[[Chepangic languages|Chepang]] ***Tangut-Qiang ****[[Tangut language|Tangut]] ****[[Qiangic languages|Qiangic]] ****[[Rgyalrongic languages|Rgyalrongic]] ***[[Nungish languages|Nungic]] ***[[Tujia language|Tujia]] ***Lolo-Burmese–Naxi ****[[Lolo-Burmese languages|Lolo-Burmese]] ****[[Naic languages|Naxi]] ***[[Karenic languages|Karenic]] ***[[Bai language|Bai]] {{tree list/end}} ===Starostin (1996)=== Sergei Starostin proposed that both the [[Kiranti languages]] and Chinese are divergent from a "core" Tibeto–Burman of at least Bodish, Lolo–Burmese, Tamangic, Jinghpaw, Kukish, and Karen (other families were not analysed) in a hypothesis called ''Sino–Kiranti''. The proposal takes two forms: that Sinitic and Kiranti are themselves a valid node or that the two are not demonstrably close so that Sino–Tibetan has three primary branches: {{tree list}} * Sino-Tibetan (version 1) ** Sino-Kiranti ** Tibeto-Burman * Sino-Tibetan (version 2) ** Chinese ** Kiranti ** Tibeto-Burman {{tree list/end}} ===Van Driem (1997, 2001)=== [[George van Driem]], like Shafer, rejects a primary split between Chinese and the rest, suggesting that Chinese owes its traditional privileged place in Sino–Tibetan to historical, typological, and cultural, rather than linguistic, criteria. He calls the entire family "Tibeto–Burman", a name he says has historical primacy,{{sfnp|van Driem|2001|p=383}} but other linguists who reject a privileged position for Chinese nevertheless continue to call the resulting family "Sino–Tibetan". Like Matisoff, van Driem acknowledges that the relationships of the [[Kuki-Naga languages|"Kuki–Naga" languages]] ([[Kukish languages|Kuki]], [[Mizo language|Mizo]], [[Meitei language|Meitei]], etc.), both amongst each other and to the other languages of the family, remain unclear. However, rather than placing them in a geographic grouping, as Matisoff does, van Driem leaves them unclassified. He has proposed several hypotheses, including the reclassification of Chinese to a Sino–Bodic subgroup: {{tree list}} *Tibeto-Burman ** Western (Baric, Brahmaputran, or [[Sal languages|Sal]]): [[Dhimal languages|Dhimal]], [[Bodo–Garo languages|Bodo–Garo]], [[Konyak languages|Konyak]], [[Kachin–Luic languages|Kachin–Luic]] ** Eastern *** Northern (Sino-Bodic) **** Northwestern (Bodic): [[Bodish languages|Bodish]], [[Kiranti languages|Kirantic]], [[West Himalayish languages|West Himalayish]], [[Tamangic languages|Tamangic]] and several isolates **** Northeastern ([[Sinitic languages|Sinitic]]) *** Southern **** Southwestern: [[Lolo-Burmese languages|Lolo-Burmese]], [[Karen languages|Karenic]] **** Southeastern: [[Qiangic languages|Qiangic]], [[Jiarongic languages|Jiarongic]] **Some other small families and isolates as primary branches ([[Newar language|Newar]], [[Nungish languages|Nungish]], [[Magaric languages|Magaric]], ''etc.'') {{tree end}} Van Driem points to two main pieces of evidence establishing a special relationship between Sinitic and Bodic and thus placing Chinese within the Tibeto–Burman family. First, there are some parallels between the morphology of [[Old Chinese]] and the modern Bodic languages. Second, there is a body of lexical cognates between the Chinese and Bodic languages, represented by the Kirantic language [[Limbu language|Limbu]].{{sfnp|van Driem|1997}} In response, Matisoff notes that the existence of shared lexical material only serves to establish an absolute relationship between two language families, not their relative relationship to one another. Although some cognate sets presented by van Driem are confined to Chinese and Bodic, many others are found in Sino–Tibetan languages generally and thus do not serve as evidence for a special relationship between Chinese and Bodic.{{sfnp|Matisoff|2000}} ===Van Driem's "fallen leaves" model (2001, 2014)=== Van Driem has also proposed a "fallen leaves" model that lists dozens of well-established low-level groups while remaining agnostic about intermediate groupings of these.{{sfnp|van Driem|2001|p=403}} In the most recent version (van Driem 2014), 42 groups are identified (with individual languages highlighted in ''italics''):{{sfnp|van Driem|2014|p=19}} {{div col|colwidth=11em}} *[[Bodish languages|Bodish]] *''[[Tshangla language|Tshangla]]'' *[[West Himalayish languages|West Himalayish]] *[[Tamangic languages|Tamangic]] *[[Newaric languages|Newaric]] *[[Kiranti languages|Kiranti]] *''[[Lepcha language|Lepcha]]'' *[[Magaric languages|Magaric]] *[[Chepangic languages|Chepangic]] *[[Raji–Raute languages|Raji–Raute]] *''[[Dura language|Dura]]'' *''[['Ole language|'Ole]]'' *''[[Gongduk language|Gongduk]]'' *''[[Lhokpu language|Lhokpu]]'' *[[Siangic languages|Siangic]] *[[Kho-Bwa languages|Kho-Bwa]] *[[Hrusish languages|Hrusish]] *[[Digaro languages|Digarish]] *[[Miju languages|Midžuish]] *[[Tani languages|Tani]] *[[Dhimalish languages|Dhimalish]] *[[Brahmaputran languages|Brahmaputran]] (Sal) *''[[Pyu language (Burma)|Pyu]]'' *[[Ao languages|Ao]] *[[Angami–Pochuri languages|Angami–Pochuri]] *[[Tangkhul languages|Tangkhul]] *[[Zeme languages|Zeme]] *''[[Meithei language|Meithei]]'' *[[Kukish languages|Kukish]] *''[[Karbi language|Karbi]]'' *[[Mruic languages|Mru]] *[[Sinitic languages|Sinitic]] *[[Bai languages|Bai]] *[[Tujia language|Tujia]] *[[Lolo-Burmese languages|Lolo-Burmese]] *[[Qiangic languages|Qiangic]] *[[Ersu languages|Ersuish]] *[[Naic languages|Naic]] *[[Rgyalrongic languages|Rgyalrongic]] *[[Kachin–Luic languages|Kachinic]] *[[Nungish languages|Nungish]] *[[Karenic languages|Karenic]] {{div col end}} He also suggested (van Driem 2007) that the Sino–Tibetan language family be renamed "Trans–Himalayan", which he considers to be more neutral.{{sfnp|van Driem|2007|p=226}} Orlandi (2021) also considers the van Driem's Trans–Himalayan fallen leaves model to be more plausible than the bifurcate classification of Sino–Tibetan being split into Sinitic and Tibeto–Burman.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Orlandi |first=Georg |date=2021 |title=Once again on the history and validity of the Sino-Tibetan bifurcate model |url=https://jolr.ru/index.php?article=310 |journal=[[Journal of Language Relationship]] |volume=19 |issue=3–4 |pages=263–292}}</ref> ===Blench and Post (2014)=== [[Roger Blench]] and Mark W. Post have criticized the applicability of conventional Sino–Tibetan classification schemes to minor languages lacking an extensive written history (unlike Chinese, Tibetic, and Burmese). They find that the evidence for the subclassification or even ST affiliation in all of several minor languages of northeastern India, in particular, is either poor or absent altogether. {{blockquote|While relatively little has been known about the languages of this region up to and including the present time, this has not stopped scholars from proposing that these languages either constitute or fall within some other Tibeto-Burman subgroup. However, in the absence of any sort of systematic comparison – whether the data are thought reliable or not – such "subgroupings" are essentially vacuous. The use of pseudo-genetic labels such as "Himalayish" and "Kamarupan" inevitably gives an impression of coherence which is at best misleading.|{{harvtxt|Blench|Post|2014}}, p. 3}} In their view, many such languages would for now be best considered unclassified, or "internal isolates" within the family. They propose a provisional classification of the remaining languages: {{tree list}} *Sino-Tibetan **[[Karbi language|Karbi]] (Mikir) **[[Mruic languages|Mruish]] **{{tree list/branching}} ***{{tree list/branching}} ****[[Tani languages|Tani]] ****Nagish: [[Ao languages|Ao]], [[Kuki-Chin languages|Kuki-Chin]], [[Tangkhul languages|Tangkhul]], [[Zeme languages|Zeme]], [[Angami–Pochuri languages|Angami–Pochuri]] and [[Meitei language|Meitei]] ***{{tree list/branching}} ****Western: [[Gongduk language|Gongduk]], [['Ole language|'Ole]], [[Mahakiranti languages|Mahakiranti]], [[Lepcha language|Lepcha]], [[Magaric languages|Kham–Magaric–Chepang]], [[Tamangic languages|Tamangic]], and [[Lhokpu language|Lhokpu]] ****[[Karen languages|Karenic]] ****[[Sal languages|Jingpho–Konyak–Bodo]] ****Eastern *****[[Tujia language|Tujia]] *****[[Macro-Bai languages|Bai]] *****[[Northern Qiang language|Northern Qiangic]] *****[[Southern Qiang language|Southern Qiangic]] *****{{tree list/branching}} ******[[Varieties of Chinese|Chinese]] (Sinitic) ******[[Lolo-Burmese languages|Lolo-Burmese]]–[[Naic languages|Naic]] ******[[Bodish languages|Bodish]] *****[[Nungish languages|Nungish]] {{tree list/end}} Following that, because they propose that the three best-known branches may be much closer related to each other than they are to "minor" Sino–Tibetan languages, Blench and Post argue that "Sino–Tibetan" or "Tibeto–Burman" are inappropriate names for a family whose earliest divergences led to different languages altogether. They support the proposed name "Trans–Himalayan". ===Menghan Zhang, Shi Yan, et al. (2019)=== A team of researchers led by [[Pan Wuyun]] and [[Jin Li]] proposed the following [[phylogenetic tree]] in 2019, based on lexical items:{{sfnp|Zhang|Yan|Pan|Jin|2019|p=113}} {{tree list}} *Sino-Tibetan **Sinitic **Tibeto-Burman ***{{tree list/branching}} ****Karenic ****Kuki-Chin–Naga ***{{tree list/branching}} ****Sal ****{{tree list/branching}} *****{{tree list/branching}} ******Digarish ******Tani *****{{tree list/branching}} ******{{tree list/branching}} *******Himalayish *******Nungish ******{{tree list/branching}} *******Kinauri *******{{tree list/branching}} ********{{tree list/branching}} *********Gurung-Tamang *********Bodish ********{{tree list/branching}} *********{{tree list/branching}} **********Naic **********Ersuish, Qiangic, Rgyalrongic *********Lolo-Burmese {{tree list/end}}
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Niidae Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Encyclopedia:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
Sino-Tibetan languages
(section)
Add topic