Sino-Austronesian languages

The classification below follows Sagart (2004).

{{tree list}}

• Sino-Austronesian (Sino-Tibetan–Austronesian)
• Sino-Tibetan
• Tibeto-Burman
• Sinitic
• Austronesian
• Luilang, Pazeh, Saisiat
• Pituish
• Atayalic, Thao, Favorlang, Taokas, Papora, Hoanya
• Enemish
• Siraya
• Walu-Siwaish
• Tsouic, Paiwan, Rukai, Puyuma, Amis, Bunun
• Muish
• Northeastern Formosan (Kavalan, etc.)
• Tai–Kadai (Daic or Kra–Dai)
• Malayo-Polynesian

{{tree list/end}}

Sagart suggests that monosyllabic Old Chinese words correspond to the second syllables of disyllabic Proto-Austronesian roots. However, the type A/B distinction in OC, corresponding to non-palatalized or palatalized syllables in Middle Chinese, is considered to correspond to a voiceless/voiced initial in PAN.

{{main|East Asian languages}}

Stanley Starosta (2005) expands Sagart's Sino-Austronesian tree with a "Yangzian" branch, consisting of Austroasiatic and Hmong–Mien, to form an East Asian superphylum.{{cite book | given = Stanley | surname = Starosta | chapter = Proto-East Asian and the origin and dispersal of languages of east and southeast Asia and the Pacific | pages = [https://archive.org/details/peoplingeastasia00blen/page/n210 182]–197 | title = The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics | url = https://archive.org/details/peoplingeastasia00blen | url-access = limited | editor-given1 = Laurent | editor-surname1 = Sagart | editor-given2 = Roger | editor-surname2 = Blench | editor-given3 = Alicia | editor-surname3 = Sanchez-Mazas | location = London | publisher = Routledge Curzon | year = 2005 | isbn = 978-0-415-32242-3 }}

Weera Ostapirat (2005) supports the link between Austronesian and Kra–Dai (Sagart built upon Ostapirat's findings), though as sister groups. However, he rejects a link to Sino-Tibetan, noting that the apparent cognates are rarely found in all branches of Kra–Dai, and almost none are in core vocabulary.{{cite book | given = Weera | surname = Ostapirat | chapter = Kra–Dai and Austronesian: Notes on phonological correspondences and vocabulary distribution | pages = [https://archive.org/details/peoplingeastasia00blen/page/n135 107]–131 | title = The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics | url = https://archive.org/details/peoplingeastasia00blen | url-access = limited | editor-given1 = Laurent | editor-surname1 = Sagart | editor-given2 = Roger | editor-surname2 = Blench | editor-given3 = Alicia | editor-surname3 = Sanchez-Mazas | location = London | publisher = Routledge Curzon | year = 2005 | isbn = 978-0-415-32242-3 }}

Austronesian linguists Paul Jen-kuei Li and Robert Blust have criticized Sagart's comparisons, on the grounds of loose semantic matches, inconsistent correspondences, and that basic vocabulary is hardly represented. They also note that comparing with the second syllable of disyllabic Austronesian roots vastly increases the odds of chance resemblance.{{cite book | chapter = Is Chinese genetically related to Austronesian? | given = Paul Jenkuei | surname = Li | pages = 92–112 | title = The Ancestry of the Chinese Language | editor-given = William S-Y. | editor-surname = Wang | series = Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series | volume = 8 | publisher = Chinese University Press | year = 1995 | issue = 8 | jstor = 23826144 }}{{cite book | chapter = An Austronesianist looks at Sino-Austronesian | given = Robert | surname = Blust | pages = 283–298 | title = The Ancestry of the Chinese Language | editor-given = William S-Y. | editor-surname = Wang | series = Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series | volume = 8 | publisher = Chinese University Press | year = 1995 | issue = 8 | jstor = 23826144 }} Blust has been particularly critical of Sagart's use of the comparative method.{{cite journal | title = Some Recent Proposals Concerning the Classification of the Austronesian Languages | given = Robert | surname = Blust | journal = Oceanic Linguistics | year = 2014 | volume = 53 | number = 2 | pages = 300–391 | doi = 10.1353/ol.2014.0025 | jstor = 43286532 | s2cid = 144931249 }}

Laurent Sagart (2016) responds to some of the criticisms by Blust (2009).{{cite journal | title = The wider connections of Austronesian: A response to Blust (2009) | given = Laurent | surname = Sagart | journal = Diachronica | volume = 33 | number =2 | year = 2016 | pages = 255–281 | doi = 10.1075/dia.33.2.04sag }}

Alexander Vovin (1997) does not accept Sino-Austronesian as a valid grouping, but instead suggests that some of the Sino-Austronesian parallels proposed by Sagart may in fact be due to an Austronesian substratum in Old Chinese.{{cite journal | title = The comparative method and ventures beyond Sino-Tibetan | given = Alexander | surname = Vovin | journal = Journal of Chinese Linguistics | volume = 25 | number = 2 | year = 1997 | pages = 308–336 | jstor = 23756693 }} This view is also espoused by George van Driem, who suggests that Austronesian and Sinitic had come into contact with each other during the fourth and third millennia BC in the Longshan interaction sphere.van Driem, G. 1998. ‘Neolithic correlates of ancient Tibeto-Burman migrations’, pp. 67–102 in Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs, eds., Archaeology and Language II. London: Routledge.van Driem, G. 2005. ‘Sino-Austronesian vs. Sino-Caucasian, Sino-Bodic vs. Sino-Tibetan, and Tibeto-Burman as default theory’, pp. 285–338 in Yogendra Prasada Yadava, Govinda Bhattarai, Ram Raj Lohani, Balaram Prasain and Krishna Parajuli, eds., Contemporary Issues in Nepalese Linguistics. Kathmandu: Linguistic Society of Nepal.van Driem, George. 2016. ‘{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20180524082406/http://himalayanlanguages.org/files/driem/pdfs/2016g.pdf The Eastern Himalayan corridor in prehistory]}}’, pp. 467-524, Vol. II in Elena Nikolaevna Kolpačkova, ed., Проблемы китайского и общего языкознания — Problems in Chinese and General Linguistics. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Studija « NP-Print ».

{{gallery

|width=225

|File:Sino-Tibetan Languages Map.png|Distribution of Sino-Tibetan languages

|File:Taikadai-en.svg|Distribution of Tai–Kadai languages

|File:Chronological dispersal of Austronesian people across the Pacific.svg|Dispersal of Austronesian languages

}}

• Classification schemes for Southeast Asian languages
• East Asian languages
• Austric languages
• Austro-Tai languages
• Dené–Caucasian languages (Sino-Caucasian)
• Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area
• Haplogroup O (Y-DNA)
• Languages of China

{{Reflist}}

• {{cite book | given = Robert | surname = Blust | author-link = Robert Blust | edition = revised | year = 2013 | title = The Austronesian languages | location = Canberra | publisher = Australian National University | hdl = 1885/10191 | isbn = 978-1-922185-07-5 }}
• Miyake, Marc. 2015. [http://www.amritas.com/150411.htm#04102359 Proto-Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian *ponuq 'brain'?]
• Miyake, Marc. 2015. [http://www.amritas.com/150411.htm#04092359 Do Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan share a word for Setaria italica?]
• {{cite journal | given = Laurent | surname = Sagart | title = Proto-Austronesian and the Old Chinese evidence for Sino-Austronesian | journal = Oceanic Linguistics | year = 1994 | volume = 33 | issue = 2 | pages = 271–308 | doi = 10.2307/3623130 | jstor = 3623130 }}
• {{cite journal | given = Laurent | surname = Sagart | title = The wider connections of Austronesian: a response to Blust | journal = Diachronica | year = 2016 | volume = 33 | issue = 2 | pages = 255–281 | doi = 10.1075/dia.33.2.04sag }}

{{Commons category}}

• [https://abvd.shh.mpg.de/austronesian/language.php?id=331 Laurent Sagart's list of Old Chinese words at the Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database]

{{Sino-Tibetan branches}}

{{Tai-Kadai languages}}

{{Austronesian languages}}

{{Language families}}

{{Eurasian languages}}

Category:Proposed language families