Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
Figures
Introduction
Conclusions
References
FAQs
All Topics
Anthropology
Archaeology

Tai-Kadai and Austronesian are related at multiple levels and their archaeological interpretation

Profile image of Roger BlenchRoger Blench
visibility

…

description

24 pages

Abstract

A relationship between the Daic (Tai-Kadai) and Austronesian language phyla has long been posited, but the evidence is restricted and it has been suggested that this indicates a split at the level of Proto-Austronesian of considerable antiquity. Two proposals model this relationship, one suggesting a direct relation with PAn, the other with PMP (Proto-Malayo-Polynesian). The paper evaluates all existing proposals, comparing them with reconstructed Tai, Kra-Dai and Hlaic, as well as suggesting new comparisons. It suggests that the only convincing explanation of the comparisons with different subsets of Austronesian is to suppose the relationship is multi-genetic, that intense contact across the Taiwan Strait in the early period of Austronesian maritime activity, allowed different elements to make up Daic. This can be compared with the genesis of Malagasy, where multiple islands contributed to the lexicon of present-day Malagasy.

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. The relationship between Daic and Austronesian is multi-genetic, reflecting complex historical interactions.
  2. Approximately eighty cognates are identified, primarily in fundamental vocabulary, indicating genetic connections.
  3. The evidence suggests Daic languages emerged from intense maritime contact around 4000 BP.
  4. Different Austronesian subsets, including Proto-Austronesian and PMP, specifically relate to varying Daic languages.
  5. The study critiques traditional single-origin models, advocating for a more nuanced understanding of language genesis.
Figures (25)
TABLES
TABLES
No reconstruction of proto-Daic exists, although many informal proposals have circulated. Hence reconstructions of individual branches are quoted in this paper. Proto-Tai is best-known from the work of Li (1977) but a more complete reconstruction is Pittayaporn (2009). Oshika (1973) provides extensive comparative wordlists illustrating the relationship of Kam-Sui to Tai, but without reconstructed forms. Thurgood (1988) is a comparative Kam-Sui wordlist with reconstructions but minimal accompanying argument. The Kra languages are reconstructed in Ostapirat (2000) and Hlaic in Ostapirat (2004) and Norquest (2007). The status of Jia Mao, a language related to Hlaic is difficult to determine, since it often retains forms closer to Austronesian than Hlaic proper. The Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database (ABVD) contains comparative data on many Daic lects and these illustrate a variability (for example for Gelao) not represented in the forms cited in Ostapirat (2000). Daic reconstructions are sometimes quite difficult to accept, and seem to be based on abstract principles, trying to account for all surface forms and ending up with starred forms which do not resemble any synchronic language. I have therefore sometimes
No reconstruction of proto-Daic exists, although many informal proposals have circulated. Hence reconstructions of individual branches are quoted in this paper. Proto-Tai is best-known from the work of Li (1977) but a more complete reconstruction is Pittayaporn (2009). Oshika (1973) provides extensive comparative wordlists illustrating the relationship of Kam-Sui to Tai, but without reconstructed forms. Thurgood (1988) is a comparative Kam-Sui wordlist with reconstructions but minimal accompanying argument. The Kra languages are reconstructed in Ostapirat (2000) and Hlaic in Ostapirat (2004) and Norquest (2007). The status of Jia Mao, a language related to Hlaic is difficult to determine, since it often retains forms closer to Austronesian than Hlaic proper. The Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database (ABVD) contains comparative data on many Daic lects and these illustrate a variability (for example for Gelao) not represented in the forms cited in Ostapirat (2000). Daic reconstructions are sometimes quite difficult to accept, and seem to be based on abstract principles, trying to account for all surface forms and ending up with starred forms which do not resemble any synchronic language. I have therefore sometimes
The most comprehensive source for comparative Austronesian data is the ACD' (Blust, in progress). This presents proto-forms and supporting cognate sets for thousands of lexical items, together with commentary. However, it is not a comparative wordlist, and therefore cites only forms considered cognate. The Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database (ABVD)’ is a 200-wordlist of numerous Austronesian languages which now also includes substantial representation from Daic. PAn and PMP forms cited from the ACD are referred to as ‘canonical’. However, individual Formosan languages are cited either from dictionaries or from the vast comparative tables in Ogawa (2006) which draws together many unpublished Japanese sources. The Austronesian languages are better documented Daic. Recognised as early as the seventeenth century (1999, 2013). For the purposes of this paper, only 1 and reconstruction considerably more advanced than the most recent statement of their relationships is Blust s higher phylogeny is relevant. Blust argues that there are nine primary branches apart from Proto-Malayo-Polynesian (PMP), the ancestor of all non-Formosan Austronesian languages (Figure 1). Other models of Formosan are Sagart (2005) and Ross (2012) but these do not radically alter the Proto-Austronesian/PMP nesting. picture of a large number of parallel branches without
The most comprehensive source for comparative Austronesian data is the ACD' (Blust, in progress). This presents proto-forms and supporting cognate sets for thousands of lexical items, together with commentary. However, it is not a comparative wordlist, and therefore cites only forms considered cognate. The Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database (ABVD)’ is a 200-wordlist of numerous Austronesian languages which now also includes substantial representation from Daic. PAn and PMP forms cited from the ACD are referred to as ‘canonical’. However, individual Formosan languages are cited either from dictionaries or from the vast comparative tables in Ogawa (2006) which draws together many unpublished Japanese sources. The Austronesian languages are better documented Daic. Recognised as early as the seventeenth century (1999, 2013). For the purposes of this paper, only 1 and reconstruction considerably more advanced than the most recent statement of their relationships is Blust s higher phylogeny is relevant. Blust argues that there are nine primary branches apart from Proto-Malayo-Polynesian (PMP), the ancestor of all non-Formosan Austronesian languages (Figure 1). Other models of Formosan are Sagart (2005) and Ross (2012) but these do not radically alter the Proto-Austronesian/PMP nesting. picture of a large number of parallel branches without
° Bears are not found in islands adjacent to Taiwan, hence no PMP form for ‘bear’ 7 Though many reflexes with /r/, e.g. Pangasinan ordy
° Bears are not found in islands adjacent to Taiwan, hence no PMP form for ‘bear’ 7 Though many reflexes with /r/, e.g. Pangasinan ordy
' It is very tempting to assume proto-Tai ‘eight’ is has been shifted upwards from ‘seven’
' It is very tempting to assume proto-Tai ‘eight’ is has been shifted upwards from ‘seven’
Kam may retain the Austronesian initial bilabial. The usual reconstruction for Proto-Austronesian is *puja, based on Atayal puga, Thao puza. However, another, but presumably related, set of roots is more like *podo(k)/*puda which appears as a more direct ancestor of the Daic forms (Table 3).
Kam may retain the Austronesian initial bilabial. The usual reconstruction for Proto-Austronesian is *puja, based on Atayal puga, Thao puza. However, another, but presumably related, set of roots is more like *podo(k)/*puda which appears as a more direct ancestor of the Daic forms (Table 3).
Tai languages are unrelated. The Laha form appears to retain the medial -l- of Formosan languages. Hence the proto-Kra given by Ostapirat *d.rat is highly unlikely. The Hlai forms look as if they originate from a lect resembling Siraya, where the medial was weakening but was not yet lost as in Babuza and Paiwan. The usual Proto-Austronesian reconstruction for ‘crab’ is *gaRay which seems to apply to a freshwater sp. Table 6 shows the Formosan forms, which suggest *kalan is equally likely, apparently cognate with Central Hlai *k'a:. 4. Crab
Tai languages are unrelated. The Laha form appears to retain the medial -l- of Formosan languages. Hence the proto-Kra given by Ostapirat *d.rat is highly unlikely. The Hlai forms look as if they originate from a lect resembling Siraya, where the medial was weakening but was not yet lost as in Babuza and Paiwan. The usual Proto-Austronesian reconstruction for ‘crab’ is *gaRay which seems to apply to a freshwater sp. Table 6 shows the Formosan forms, which suggest *kalan is equally likely, apparently cognate with Central Hlai *k'a:. 4. Crab
6. Fish The ACD only reconstructs a verb *pakpak ‘to flap the wings’ and *paNid for the wing itself. However. there seems to be ample evidence for a Formosan noun *-pak or *-pik with Daic cognates (Table 7).
6. Fish The ACD only reconstructs a verb *pakpak ‘to flap the wings’ and *paNid for the wing itself. However. there seems to be ample evidence for a Formosan noun *-pak or *-pik with Daic cognates (Table 7).
The usual Proto-Austronesian reconstruction for ‘fish’ is *Sikan, attested in several Formosan languages and prominent in PMP languages. However, there is an additional root attested in an equal number of Formosan languages with a scatter of external cognates in Borneo and related areas, cognate with the common Daic form for ‘fish’ (Table 8). The pV- initial attested in Kavalan is conserved in Daic.
The usual Proto-Austronesian reconstruction for ‘fish’ is *Sikan, attested in several Formosan languages and prominent in PMP languages. However, there is an additional root attested in an equal number of Formosan languages with a scatter of external cognates in Borneo and related areas, cognate with the common Daic form for ‘fish’ (Table 8). The pV- initial attested in Kavalan is conserved in Daic.
If forms like Thao are cognate, the final would have been -s with a ta- prefix.
If forms like Thao are cognate, the final would have been -s with a ta- prefix.
9. Cloud(y) The canonical reconstruction for ‘star’ in Austronesian is *bitugen. However, the Rukai word clearly h: significant cognates in Philippines languages as well as Daic cognates (Table 10). Daic retains the initial of Austronesian and the Rukai and external cognates probably point to later contact.
9. Cloud(y) The canonical reconstruction for ‘star’ in Austronesian is *bitugen. However, the Rukai word clearly h: significant cognates in Philippines languages as well as Daic cognates (Table 10). Daic retains the initial of Austronesian and the Rukai and external cognates probably point to later contact.
Roger Blench Tai-Kadai and Austronesian relationships Circulated for comment
Roger Blench Tai-Kadai and Austronesian relationships Circulated for comment
11. Boat
11. Boat
13. Nine The ACD reconstructs *kita with the doublet *ita for ‘we (inclusive)’. The puzzle is the source of the nasal coda attested in some Daic languages. This might derive from forms which incorporate a locative, such as Pazeh. Table 14 shows a comparison of the Daic and Formosan forms. Although the canonical PAn reconstruction for ‘nine’ is *Siwa it is hard to see the logic of this, and *siva looks like a better response to the Formosan data (Table 15). Many Hlaic languages have an f- initial. Either these are not related or P-Hlaic was *s.yaiy, the two outputs the results of differential erosion. There is some likelihood these are an early Sinitic borrowing, which would explain the remarkable coincidence with PTB *s.kaw. The alternate possibility is that there was a Formosan form with -v- in C, position and this persists in scattered Daic languages. For example; 12. We (inclusive)
13. Nine The ACD reconstructs *kita with the doublet *ita for ‘we (inclusive)’. The puzzle is the source of the nasal coda attested in some Daic languages. This might derive from forms which incorporate a locative, such as Pazeh. Table 14 shows a comparison of the Daic and Formosan forms. Although the canonical PAn reconstruction for ‘nine’ is *Siwa it is hard to see the logic of this, and *siva looks like a better response to the Formosan data (Table 15). Many Hlaic languages have an f- initial. Either these are not related or P-Hlaic was *s.yaiy, the two outputs the results of differential erosion. There is some likelihood these are an early Sinitic borrowing, which would explain the remarkable coincidence with PTB *s.kaw. The alternate possibility is that there was a Formosan form with -v- in C, position and this persists in scattered Daic languages. For example; 12. We (inclusive)
Roger Blench Tai-Kadai and Austronesian relationships Circulated for comment 4.3 Residual evidence for initials The relationship between Austronesian and Daic languages is broadly similar to that between Western and Eastern Sino-Tibetan, where long complex roots have been reduced to monosyllables. Austronesian roots seem to share features with the sesquisyllabic structures of Austroasiatic and Sino-Tibetan, where the stem is prefixed by a ‘minor syllable’, usually C on the mainland’. However, the retention of initial consonants in Daic is scattered, but not lost. A striking example is Buyang, cited by Sagart (2004), showing conservation of typical Austronesian CV initials (Table 16).
Roger Blench Tai-Kadai and Austronesian relationships Circulated for comment 4.3 Residual evidence for initials The relationship between Austronesian and Daic languages is broadly similar to that between Western and Eastern Sino-Tibetan, where long complex roots have been reduced to monosyllables. Austronesian roots seem to share features with the sesquisyllabic structures of Austroasiatic and Sino-Tibetan, where the stem is prefixed by a ‘minor syllable’, usually C on the mainland’. However, the retention of initial consonants in Daic is scattered, but not lost. A striking example is Buyang, cited by Sagart (2004), showing conservation of typical Austronesian CV initials (Table 16).
Other examples from Table 2 include ‘thigh’, ‘ribs’, ‘bear’, ‘flower’, ‘taro’, ‘moon’, ‘die’, ‘five’, ‘nine’ and ? ‘ten’. This demonstrates neatly that typical Austronesian morphology was retained by Daic after the arrival of speakers back on the mainland and that the reduced forms now typical of most Daic languages are a later development. The pattern of morphosyntactic reduction is identical for the cognates with Kra pointed out by Ostapirat, namely the deletion or assimilation of the first syllable of the Austronesian form in Daic. The retention of these forms, in particular the numerals is a striking testimony to the early diversification of Daic. Hlaic must have branched off at the same time as the Kra languages, retaining some Austronesian lexical items not recorded on the mainland, listed in Norquest (2007:413). Table 17 shows these with a commentary;
Other examples from Table 2 include ‘thigh’, ‘ribs’, ‘bear’, ‘flower’, ‘taro’, ‘moon’, ‘die’, ‘five’, ‘nine’ and ? ‘ten’. This demonstrates neatly that typical Austronesian morphology was retained by Daic after the arrival of speakers back on the mainland and that the reduced forms now typical of most Daic languages are a later development. The pattern of morphosyntactic reduction is identical for the cognates with Kra pointed out by Ostapirat, namely the deletion or assimilation of the first syllable of the Austronesian form in Daic. The retention of these forms, in particular the numerals is a striking testimony to the early diversification of Daic. Hlaic must have branched off at the same time as the Kra languages, retaining some Austronesian lexical items not recorded on the mainland, listed in Norquest (2007:413). Table 17 shows these with a commentary;
Photo 2. Double-spouted pots from the Yuanshan of Taiwan At this period, the Chinese mainland would have presented a very different ethnolinguistic picture from today. The main body of the Chinese population would have been further north and there would have been a diverse body of minority ethnic groups, speaking Hmong-Mien, Austroasiatic and other Tibeto-Burman languages (of which Tujia and Bai may well be the only remnants today) as well as entirely lost language phyla. Norquest (2007) convincingly identifies Sinitic, Hmong-Mien and Austroasiatic borrowings into Hlaic, illustrating both the multilingual environment at this period and the process whereby the core Austronesian vocabulary was eroded. The speakers of Daic would have spread inland slowly, gradually diversifying. Their most ancient branches were then assimilated by the southward expansion of the Han in all the areas near the coast. Widespread bilingualism would have been responsible for the pervasive restructuring of the language, in part tones and the almost complete loss of the Austronesian CV initials. T The proposal advanced here is this problem can be resolved by allowing for multiple relationship: contributing to the genesis of Daic, a so-called ‘multi-genetic’ model. Such models do not usually attrac historical linguists, because they inevitably create untidy sound correspondences. Nonetheless, there is n¢ reason to think this is sociolinguistically unlikely, given a situation of intense maritime contact. Fou housand years ago the regions south and west of Taiwan were busy with cross strait activity of all sorts, i1 particular a thriving trade in nephrite (Hung et al. 2007, 2011) and exploratory voyages to many parts o ISEA (Spriggs 2011). The coast of SE China would still have been inhabited at this period by population: who spoke languages related to the Austronesian spoken in Taiwan. Ships and their crews would have beet by no means monolithic; multiple languages, including those entrenched on Taiwan and those of th voyagers who had moved out, would have formed a mixed community on the mainland and been party to th genesis of Daic. There is really nothing surprising about this; a similar scenario has to be envisaged fo Madagascar, where, despite a core of Barito, lexicon from Malay and South Sulawesi was also incorporatec into the resultant language.
Photo 2. Double-spouted pots from the Yuanshan of Taiwan At this period, the Chinese mainland would have presented a very different ethnolinguistic picture from today. The main body of the Chinese population would have been further north and there would have been a diverse body of minority ethnic groups, speaking Hmong-Mien, Austroasiatic and other Tibeto-Burman languages (of which Tujia and Bai may well be the only remnants today) as well as entirely lost language phyla. Norquest (2007) convincingly identifies Sinitic, Hmong-Mien and Austroasiatic borrowings into Hlaic, illustrating both the multilingual environment at this period and the process whereby the core Austronesian vocabulary was eroded. The speakers of Daic would have spread inland slowly, gradually diversifying. Their most ancient branches were then assimilated by the southward expansion of the Han in all the areas near the coast. Widespread bilingualism would have been responsible for the pervasive restructuring of the language, in part tones and the almost complete loss of the Austronesian CV initials. T The proposal advanced here is this problem can be resolved by allowing for multiple relationship: contributing to the genesis of Daic, a so-called ‘multi-genetic’ model. Such models do not usually attrac historical linguists, because they inevitably create untidy sound correspondences. Nonetheless, there is n¢ reason to think this is sociolinguistically unlikely, given a situation of intense maritime contact. Fou housand years ago the regions south and west of Taiwan were busy with cross strait activity of all sorts, i1 particular a thriving trade in nephrite (Hung et al. 2007, 2011) and exploratory voyages to many parts o ISEA (Spriggs 2011). The coast of SE China would still have been inhabited at this period by population: who spoke languages related to the Austronesian spoken in Taiwan. Ships and their crews would have beet by no means monolithic; multiple languages, including those entrenched on Taiwan and those of th voyagers who had moved out, would have formed a mixed community on the mainland and been party to th genesis of Daic. There is really nothing surprising about this; a similar scenario has to be envisaged fo Madagascar, where, despite a core of Barito, lexicon from Malay and South Sulawesi was also incorporatec into the resultant language.
This non-homogenous community speaking a language with elements from various subsets of Austronesian would have been present on the mainland, presumably in Guangdong more than fout thousand years ago. One group would have set off for Hainan island, while another group moved inland, breaking away as the residual Austronesian populations along the coast were gradually assimilated by the Sinitic expansion. Map 1 expresses this pattern of mutual influences as a graphic. Source: Higham & Thosarat (2012)
This non-homogenous community speaking a language with elements from various subsets of Austronesian would have been present on the mainland, presumably in Guangdong more than fout thousand years ago. One group would have set off for Hainan island, while another group moved inland, breaking away as the residual Austronesian populations along the coast were gradually assimilated by the Sinitic expansion. Map 1 expresses this pattern of mutual influences as a graphic. Source: Higham & Thosarat (2012)
IVEY DIC LULU UNG USL OTESLUT PELALOTOTLIEPS WAU ULALOU LUE COLUIUICTIL been debated, and the way they can be ‘flipped’ in Formosan languages suggests a process similar to the replacement of C initials in the more obviously sesquisyllabic language phyla, such as Sino-Tibetan and Austroasiatic. It is certainly the case that Daic speakers analysed them in this fashion as a consequence of language contact, reducing Austronesian CV- to C or deleting them entirely.
IVEY DIC LULU UNG USL OTESLUT PELALOTOTLIEPS WAU ULALOU LUE COLUIUICTIL been debated, and the way they can be ‘flipped’ in Formosan languages suggests a process similar to the replacement of C initials in the more obviously sesquisyllabic language phyla, such as Sino-Tibetan and Austroasiatic. It is certainly the case that Daic speakers analysed them in this fashion as a consequence of language contact, reducing Austronesian CV- to C or deleting them entirely.

Related papers

2024 Archaeological correlations for the dispersal of the Malayo-Polynesian languages of Southeast Asia, western Micronesia, and Madagascar
Hsiao-chun Hung 洪曉純

The Oxford Guide to the Malayo-Polynesian Languages of Southeast Asia , 2024

View PDFchevron_right
The Wider Connections of Austronesian: A Response to Blust (2009)
Laurent Sagart

This paper responds to the criticisms addressed by Robert A. Blust in his 2009 book to the lexical and phonological component of the Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian hypothesis (Sagart 2005). It describes two models of Austronesian origins: a southern, rice-based, Austro-Tai or Austric model with a homeland in the Yangtze Valley, defended by Blust; and a northern, millet- and rice-based, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian model with a source in northeastern China, defended by the author. Recent findings in archaeology, paleobotany and human genetics supporting the Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian hypothesis are reviewed. Blust’s criticisms are then responded to. His observations on individual lexical comparisons are discussed. His general criticisms on semantics, use of rare and obscure material, and usage of Austronesian ‘roots’ in external comparison, are also addressed. The paper concludes that the phonological and lexical evidence for Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian is limited because of the time depth involved, but robust, and that it agrees with evidence from other disciplines.

View PDFchevron_right
The monosyllabic roots of Austronesian and Tai Kadai: a proof for Austro-Tai
supat charoensappuech

This paper is the conclusion of the historical linguistics study on the relationship between Tai-Kadai and Austronesian under the name of 'คนพู ดไท' (The story of people who speak Tai-Kadai). The study has been made thorough Tai and Indonesian languages and mainly focused on etymological point of view, in particular, the correlation of subsurface etyma, of which may be different from the mainstream studies. However, the subsurface etyma study has provided the interesting results; at least 32 cross-correlated monosyllabic roots have been identified. These roots are interpreted as very ancient as the proto-form of Austronesian and Tai-Kadai or even the earlier date. They are, in fact, considered as the grandparent of disyllabic words in Proto-Austronesian as well as in Proto-Tai-Kadai. They are the roots that can explain the history of Tai-Kadai and Austronesian very well and the most interesting is that they are the strong evidence in proving the existence of Austro-Tai.

View PDFchevron_right
Expansion of Austronesian Languages and their Speakers during the Neolithic as Inferred from Archaeological Evidence and Genetic Diversity in Southeast Asia and Discussed in Five Journals
Michelle Sotaridona Eusebio

Hukay: Journal for Archaeological Research in Asia and the Pacific Volume 17, 2012

""This paper is a journal review on Austronesian expansion in Southeast Asia. Most archaeological research in the Neolithic Age sites across Island Southeast Asia are geared toward supporting or disproving the hypotheses on the origins and dispersal of Austronesian-speaking people. The most mainstream is the “Out of Taiwan” hypothesis, which is a part of the larger farming/language dispersal hypothesis (Bellwood 2005). The geographical scope of this hypothesis explains the geographical focus of this analysis. On the other hand, the most popular alternative to this hypothesis is known as the “Nusantao Maritime Trading and Communication Networks” hypothesis (Solheim et al. 2006). The discourse on the Austronesian expansion in Southeast Asia during the Neolithic was tracked down in the last 15 years, from 1996 to 2010, in American Journal of Physical Anthropology, American Anthropologist, Current Anthropology, Molecular Biology and Evolution, and Antiquity. The focus is on articles discussing bioarchaeology, genetics, and material culture for examining how the two subfields of anthropology, which are bioanthropology and archaeology, covered this discourse. This analysis discusses the treatment of the topic and trends across the five journals, across time, and across subfields and disciplines. Then, general comparisons across categories and concluding remarks follow.""

View PDFchevron_right
Early Austronesians: Into and Out Of Taiwan
Albert Min-Shan Ko

The American Journal of Human Genetics, 2014

A Taiwan origin for the expansion of the Austronesian languages and their speakers is well supported by linguistic and archaeological evidence. However, human genetic evidence is more controversial. Until now, there had been no ancient skeletal evidence of a potential Austronesian-speaking ancestor prior to the Taiwan Neolithic~6,000 years ago, and genetic studies have largely ignored the role of genetic diversity within Taiwan as well as the origins of Formosans. We address these issues via analysis of a complete mitochondrial DNA genome sequence of an~8,000-year-old skeleton from Liang Island (located between China and Taiwan) and 550 mtDNA genome sequences from 8 aboriginal (highland) Formosan and 4 other Taiwanese groups. We show that the Liangdao Man mtDNA sequence is closest to Formosans, provides a link to southern China, and has the most ancestral haplogroup E sequence found among extant Austronesian speakers. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis allows us to reconstruct a history of early Austronesians arriving in Taiwan in the north~6,000 years ago, spreading rapidly to the south, and leaving Taiwan~4,000 years ago to spread throughout Island Southeast Asia, Madagascar, and Oceania.

View PDFchevron_right
Splitting up proto-Malayopolynesian; new models of dispersals from Taiwan
Roger Blench

The current model of proto-Malayo-Polynesian (PMP) holds that a unitary language was spoken in the Luzon Straits roughly four thousand years ago and that this diversified into all the extra-Formosan languages and was responsible for the Neolithic settlement of Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) and Oceania. The paper suggests that this is supported by neither linguistics, archaeology nor the distribution of material culture. Archaeology of ISEA after 4000 BP points to near simultaneous settlement in a wide variety of sites, while analysis of individual lexical items points to geographically biased distributions, suggesting they were selectively carried to different regions. Distributions of material culture items associated exclusively with Austronesian culture show strong geographical biases. Recent phenotypic results from Remote Oceania suggests a direct connection with some populations of Taiwan and Northern Luzon, contrary to previous models of complex mixing at intermediate stages, calling into question elaborate nested models of Austronesian phylogeny. This points to a rather different model of time and place, here called the ‘boiling pot’ which assumes the Luzon Strait was an centre of innovative maritime technology and the starting point for voyages in canoes with multi-ethnic crews. This would then see PMP as a network of related subgroups, which can never fully reconstitute a unitary PMP, because no such entity existed.

View PDFchevron_right
The prehistory of the Austronesian-speaking peoples: A view from language
Robert Blust

Journal of World Prehistory, 1995

Prior to the European colonial expansions of the past several centuries the Austronesian (AN) language family had the greatest geographical extent of any on earth, including in its territory areas that had never previously been settled. Although predominantly distributed in a tropical or subtropical environment, AN-speaking peoples exhibit a wide range of physical types, material cultures, and types of social and political organization. This paper addresses ways in which lingzdstic comparison can contribute toward answering such questions as the following: Where was the AN homeland? What was the nature of early AN material culture, social and political organization? What can we infer about early AN pathology? How did early AN speakers view the spirit world? It concludes with a discussion of culture loss, many examples of which can be inferred both from the Pacific and from insular Southeast Asia.

View PDFchevron_right
Is Malayo-Polynesian a primary branch of Austronesian? A view from morphosyntax
Victoria Chen

Diachronica

An understudied morphosyntactic innovation, reanalysis of the Proto-Austronesian (PAn) stative intransitive prefix *ma- as a transitive affix, offers new insights into Austronesian higher-order subgrouping. While Malayo-Polynesian is currently considered an Austronesian primary branch with no identifiably closer relationship with any linguistic subgroup in the homeland (Blust 1999, 2013; Ross 2005), the fact it displays the same innovative use of ma- with Amis, Siraya, Kavalan, and Basay-Trobiawan and shares the merger of PAn *C/t with this group suggests that Malayo-Polynesian and East Formosan may share a common origin – the subgroup that comprises the four languages noted above. This observation points to a renewed subgrouping more consistent with a socio-historical picture where the out-of-Taiwan population descended from a seafaring community expanding to the Batanes and Luzon after having developed a seafaring tradition. It also aligns with recent findings in archaeology and genetics that (i) eastern Taiwan is most likely the starting point of Austronesian dispersal (Hung 2005, 2008, 2019; Bellwood 2017; Bell- wood & Dizon 2008; Carson & Hung 2018) and (ii) the Amis bear a significantly closer relationship with Austronesian communities outside Taiwan (Capelli et al. 2001; Trejaut et al. 2005; McColl et al. 2018; Pugach et. al. 2021; Tatte et. al. 2021). Future investi- gation of more shared innovations between Malayo-Polynesian and East Formosan could shed further light on their interrelation.

View PDFchevron_right
A revised inventory of Proto Austronesian consonants-Kra-Dai and Austroasiatic evidence
Peter Norquest

This paper examines the Kra-Dai and Austroasiatic evidence for a revised Proto Austronesian consonant inventory that includes three new phonemic distinctions (*f, *g, and *ɭ) and an expanded domain for two others (*ʈ and *c). Corroborative evidence is found in Kra-Dai, strengthening the hypothesis of a genetic relationship (Austro-Tai) between Kra-Dai and Austronesian. Evidence from Austroasiatic is weaker, but still suggestive of a non-accidental relationship with Austro-Tai, through either genetic relatedness or contact.

View PDFchevron_right
Winter 2010 - A note on the higher phylogeny of Austronesian
Bodo Winter
View PDFchevron_right

References (32)

  1. Benedict, Paul King 1942. Thai, Kadai, and Indonesian: a new alignment in Southeastern Asia. American Anthropologist, 44:576-601.
  2. Benedict, Paul King 1975. Austro-Thai Language and Culture, with a glossary of roots. New Haven: Human Relations Area Files Press.
  3. Benedict, Paul King 1990. Japanese/Austro-Tai (Linguistica Extranea Studia 20). Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.
  4. Blench, R.M. 2011. The role of agriculture in the evolution of Southeast Asian language phyla. In: Dynamics of Human Diversity in Mainland SE Asia. N.J. Enfield ed. 125-152. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
  5. Blench, R.M. 2012. Almost everything you believed about the Austronesians isn't true. In: Crossing Borders: Selected Papers from the 13th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, Volume 1. Editors: Dominik Bonatz, Andreas Reinecke & Mai Lin Tjoa-Bonatz. Singapore: NUS Press.
  6. Blench, R.M. 2013. The prehistory of the Daic (Tai-Kadai) speaking peoples and the hypothesis of an Austronesian connection. In: Unearthing Southeast Asia's past: Selected Papers from the 12th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, Volume 1. eds. Marijke J. Klokke and Véronique Degroot. 3-15. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press.
  7. Blust, Robert A. 1999. Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics. In: E. Zeitoun & P. Jen-Kuei Li (eds) Selected papers from Eighth International Conference on Austronesian linguistics, 31-94. Taipei: Academica Sinica.
  8. Blust, Robert A. 2013. The Austronesian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. [Revised online version of hardcopy originally published 2009].
  9. Blust, Robert A. 2014. The higher phylogeny of Austronesian and the position of Tai-kadai: another look. Presentation at the 14th International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics (IsCLL-14)
  10. Diller, Anthony V.N., Jerold A. Edmondson & Luo Yongxian (eds). 2008. The Tai-Kadai Languages. Routledge: Abington, Oxon UK.
  11. Edmondson, J.A. and D.B. Solnit eds. 1988. Comparative Kadai: linguistic studies beyond Tai. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.
  12. Edmondson, J.A. and D.B. Solnit eds. 1997b. Introduction. In: Comparative Kadai: the Tai branch. 1-32. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.
  13. Ferrell, Raleigh 1969. Taiwan Aboriginal Groups: Problems in Cultural and Linguistic Classification. Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica, Monograph series, no. 17.
  14. Haudricourt, A-G. 1953. La place du viêtnamien dans les langues austroasiatiques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 49.1:122-128.
  15. Higham, Charles & Rachanie Thosarat 2012. Early Thailand: from prehistory to Sukhothai. Bangkok: River Books.
  16. Hsiu, Andrew 2015. Kra-Dai and Austronesian: The lexical evidence revisited. Presentation at the 13th ICAL. Taipei.
  17. Hung, Hsiao-Chun et al. 2007. Ancient jades map 3,000 years of prehistoric exchange in Southeast Asia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104.50: 19745-19750.
  18. Hung, Hsiao-Chun, Carson, M.T., Bellwood, P., Campos, F.Z., Piper, P.J., Dizon, E., Bolunia, M.J.L.A., Oxenham, M. & Zhang Chi 2011. The first settlement of Remote Oceania: the Philippines to the Marianas. Antiquity, 85(329): 909-926.
  19. Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2015. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Eighteenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com.
  20. Norquest, Peter K. 2007. A Phonological Reconstruction of Proto-Hlai. Ph.D. Department Of Anthropology, University of Arizona.
  21. Norquest, Peter K. 2015. A Phonological Reconstruction of Proto-Hlai. Leiden: Brill. [NB some material in the 2007 PhD is omitted in this published version]
  22. Ogawa, Naoyoshi 2006. A Comparative Vocabulary of Formosan Languages and Dialects. Tokyo: ILCAA. Ostapirat, Weera 2000. Proto-Kra. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area, 23.1.
  23. Ostapirat, Weera 2004. Proto-Hlai sound System and lexicons. Studies on_Sino-Tihetan Languages,121-175.
  24. Ostapirat, Weera 2005. Kra-Dai and Austronesian: Notes on phonological correspondences and vocabulary distribution. In: Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas (eds) The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics, 107-131. London: Routledge Curzon.
  25. Ostapirat, Weera 2013. Austro-Tai revisited. Presentation for SEALS 23. Pittayaporn, Pittayawat 2009. The phonology of proto-Tai. Ph.D. Cornell.
  26. Ross, Malcolm D. 2012. In defense of Nuclear Austronesian (and against Tsouic). Language and linguistics, 13: 1253-1330.
  27. Sagart, Laurent 2004. The higher phylogeny of Austronesian and the position of Tai-Kadai. Oceanic Linguistics, 43 (2): 411-444.
  28. Sagart, Laurent 2005. Tai-Kadai as a subgroup of Austronesian. in Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, eds., The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics. 177-181. London: Routledge Curzon.
  29. Sagart, Laurent 2015. Why Tai-Kadai is Austronesian. Presentation at the Austronesian meeting. Jena.
  30. Spriggs, M. 2011. Archaeology and the Austronesian expansion: where are we now? Antiquity 85: 10-528.
  31. Thurgood, Graham 1994. Tai-Kadai and Austronesian: the nature of the relationship. Oceanic Linguistics, 33(2):345-368.
  32. Van Driem, G. L. 2005. Tibeto-Burman vs. Indo-Chinese: implications for population geneticists, archaeologists and prehistorians. in Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, (eds.) The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics, 81-106. London: Routledge Curzon.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What are the key lexemes shared between Daic and Austronesian languages?add

The study lists about eighty shared lexemes predominantly in fundamental vocabulary, indicating a relationship between Daic and Austronesian languages.

What explains the multi-genetic model of Daic and Austronesian languages?add

The proposed multi-genetic model suggests that Daic's vocabulary originated from diverse Austronesian roots due to maritime contact around 4000 BP.

How does Daic phonology differ from Austronesian despite their connections?add

Daic languages exhibit tonal and monomorphemic characteristics, contrasting with the non-tonal and affix-rich structure of typical Austronesian languages.

When did significant language contact occur between Tai-Kadai and Austronesian speakers?add

Intense maritime contact between the regions south and west of Taiwan is estimated to have occurred around 4000 years ago.

What are the implications of low cognate rates between both language families?add

Low cognate rates suggest an ancient divergence, but the numbers are typical for phyla undergoing extensive language contact.

About the author
Roger Blench
Papers
717
Followers
16,790
View all papers from Roger Blencharrow_forward

Related papers

The Higher Phylogeny of Austronesian and the Position of Tai-Kadai
Laurent Sagart

Oceanic Linguistics, 2004

This paper presents a new higher phylogeny for the Austronesian family, based on three independent lines of evidence: the observation of a hierarchy of implications among the numerals from 5 to 10 in the languages of Formosa and in PMP; the finding that the numerals *pitu '7', *walu '8' and *Siwa '9' can be derived from longer additive expressions meaning 5+2, 5+3 and 5+4, preserved in Pazeh, using only six sound changes; and the observation that the phylogeny which can be extracted from these and other innovations -mostly changes in the basic vocabulary-evinces a coherent spatial pattern, whereby an initial Austronesian settlement in NW Taiwan expanded unidirectionally counterclockwise along the coastal plain, circling the island in a millennium or so. In the proposed phylogeny, Malayo-Polynesian is a branch of Muic, a taxon which also includes NE Formosan (Kavalan plus Ketagalan). The ancestor language: Muish, is deemed to have been spoken in or near NE Formosan. Further evidence that the The Tai-Kadai languages, contrary to common sense, are a subgroup of Austronesian (specifically: a branch of Muic, coordinate with PMP and NE Formosan) is presented.

View PDFchevron_right
Some observations on “Tai-Kadai and Austronesian are related at multiple levels and their archaeological interpretation”
supat charoensappuech
View PDFchevron_right
THE PREHISTORY OF THE DAIC (TAI- KADAI) SPEAKING PEOPLES AND THE HYPOTHESIS OF AN AUSTRONESIAN CONNECTION
Norsharida88 Mohd Khariri

It is a reserach about prehistoric of the Tai Kadai language

View PDFchevron_right
Lee Hugo, Y.-H. (Oct 2011). Some remarks on reconstructing the prehistoric linguistic relationships of the Tai-Kadai language family and its putative linguistic affiliations with other language families, International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities (IRSSH), 2 (1), pp. 163-175.
Yu-Hsiu (Hugo) Lee (李育修)

From the outset the researcher has approached the topic of this review article with great trepidation. Obviously, the paper does not purport to provide final answers or solutions to problems associated with the reconstruction of the linguistic prehistory of the Tai-Kadai language family or even less definitive conclusions concerning the ethnolingustic affiliations or affinities with other language families. Even so, the researcher has the temerity to review research investigations impinging on this topic in the work of archaeologists, geneticists, historians and linguists. Special attention is directed to recent advances in genetic investigations of the peopling of Asia. It is in the context that the researcher discusses what can be inferred from these investigations concerning the prehistoric linguistic relationships between the Tai-Kadai the Austronesian, and the Austro-Tai language families, on the one hand, and the languages of the Baiyue (Chinese: 百越; Bǎiyuè) peoples on the other. As such, this review article offers suggestions for reclassifying the Tai-Kadai language family and related language families with which it was associated or had affinities so as to include the Bǎiyuè (or Hundred Yue) languages and some of its subdivisions, including proto-Yaht and proto-Vietnamese (Viet) in the prehistory of these language groups.

View PDFchevron_right
Reviewing the place of Proto-Austronesian within Asia
Daniel A Kaufman

A critical look at some posited long distance relationships between Austronesian and other language families of mainland Asia.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Archaeology
  • Languages and Linguistics
  • Taiwan Studies
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2026 Academia. All rights reserved