{"title":"Sinitic as a typological sandwich: revisiting the notions of Altaicization and Taicization","authors":"Pui Yiu si˥tʰou⇃ Szeto pʰuy˧ jiu⇃, Chingduang juʔ˥raʔ˥joŋ˧ Yurayong tɕʰiŋ˧duəŋ˧","doi":"10.1515/LINGTY-2021-2074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Decades of works dedicated to the description of (previously) lesser-known Sinitic languages have effectively dispelled the common myth that these languages share a single “universal Chinese grammar”. Yet, the underlying cause of their grammatical variation is still a matter for debate. This paper focuses on typological variation across Sinitic varieties. Through comparing the typological profiles of various Sinitic languages with those of their Altaic and Mainland Southeast Asian (MSEA) neighbors, we discuss to what extent the variation within the Sinitic branch can be attributed to areal diffusion. Taking into account over 360 language varieties of seven different genetic affiliations (Sinitic, Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Hmong-Mien, Tai-Kadai, Austroasiatic) and 30 linguistic features, we conduct a typological survey with the aid of the phylogenetic program NeighborNet. Our results suggest that convergence towards their non-Sinitic neighbors has likely played a pivotal role in the typological diversity of Sinitic languages. Based primarily on their degree of Altaic/MSEA influence, the Sinitic varieties in our database are classified into four areal groups, namely 1) Northern, 2) Transitional, 3) Central Southeastern, 4) Far Southern. This classification scheme reflects the intricate interplay between areal convergence, regional innovations, and retention of archaic features.","PeriodicalId":45834,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Typology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/LINGTY-2021-2074","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Typology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY-2021-2074","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10
Abstract
Abstract Decades of works dedicated to the description of (previously) lesser-known Sinitic languages have effectively dispelled the common myth that these languages share a single “universal Chinese grammar”. Yet, the underlying cause of their grammatical variation is still a matter for debate. This paper focuses on typological variation across Sinitic varieties. Through comparing the typological profiles of various Sinitic languages with those of their Altaic and Mainland Southeast Asian (MSEA) neighbors, we discuss to what extent the variation within the Sinitic branch can be attributed to areal diffusion. Taking into account over 360 language varieties of seven different genetic affiliations (Sinitic, Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Hmong-Mien, Tai-Kadai, Austroasiatic) and 30 linguistic features, we conduct a typological survey with the aid of the phylogenetic program NeighborNet. Our results suggest that convergence towards their non-Sinitic neighbors has likely played a pivotal role in the typological diversity of Sinitic languages. Based primarily on their degree of Altaic/MSEA influence, the Sinitic varieties in our database are classified into four areal groups, namely 1) Northern, 2) Transitional, 3) Central Southeastern, 4) Far Southern. This classification scheme reflects the intricate interplay between areal convergence, regional innovations, and retention of archaic features.
期刊介绍:
Linguistic Typology provides a forum for all work of relevance to the study of language typology and cross-linguistic variation. It welcomes work taking a typological perspective on all domains of the structure of spoken and signed languages, including historical change, language processing, and sociolinguistics. Diverse descriptive and theoretical frameworks are welcomed so long as they have a clear bearing on the study of cross-linguistic variation. We welcome cross-disciplinary approaches to the study of linguistic diversity, as well as work dealing with just one or a few languages, as long as it is typologically informed and typologically and theoretically relevant, and contains new empirical evidence.