Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
Introduction
Mixed Language Hypothesis
Conclusion
References
FAQs
All Topics
Languages and Linguistics
Historical Linguistics

The genetic position of Chinese

Profile image of Guillaume JacquesGuillaume Jacques
visibility

…

description

14 pages

Abstract
sparkles

AI

This paper explores the genetic positioning of the Chinese language within the broader linguistic context, assessing the various proposed models of the Sino-Tibetan language family. It highlights the challenges in determining the genetic relationship of Chinese due to its limited morphological features and critiques the existing classifications while also considering possible superfamilies. The paper concludes with a call for further research and clarification on the historical linkages and morphological developments within Sino-Tibetan languages.

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. The genetic relationships of Chinese within Sino-Tibetan remain highly controversial due to limited morphology.
  2. Bifurcate Sino-Tibetan theory is widely accepted but lacks definitive evidence for subgrouping.
  3. Chinese shares only 94 cognates with other Sino-Tibetan languages, indicating lexical innovation.
  4. Morphological features in Chinese are critical for assessing its genetic position within Sino-Tibetan.
  5. The study of Sino-Tibetan families may benefit from integrating more conservative languages like Rgyalrong and Tibetan.

Related papers

Evaluating the Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian Hypothesis
Georg Orlandi

2018

This paper analyses and evaluates the alleged genetic relationship between Sino-Tibetan and Austronesian, proposed by the French sinologist Laurent Sagart. The aim of the following paper is neither to prove, nor to disprove the Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian superphylum but to argue whether the data presented in favour of this proposed genetic relationship do or do not stand the scrutiny of a historical linguist. This paper also considers the hypothetical homeland of Proto-Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian people, with an eye towards competing hypotheses , such as Sino-Indo-European. It is concluded that Sagart' s approach may be insufficient for proof of controversial cases of disputed genetic relationship, given the non-obvious relatedness of the languages he is comparing.

View PDFchevron_right
Genetic evidence for the multiple origins of Pinghua Chinese
Chuan-Chao Wang

Linguistics and genetics always reach similar results in phylogenetic studies of human populations. A previous study found that populations speaking Han Chinese dialects have closer genetic relationships to each other than to neighboring ethnic groups. However, the Pinghua Chinese population from Guangxi is an exception. We have reported that northern Pinghua people are genetically related to populations speaking Daic languages. In this study, we further studied the southern Pinghua population. The Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroup components and network analysis indicated that northern and southern Pinghua populations were genetically different. Therefore, we concluded that the Pinghua speakers may have various origins, even though Pinghua dialects are similar. Pinghua dialects might have originated when the Daic or Hmongic speakers from different regions learnt to speak the same Chinese dialect hundreds of years ago. Speakers of one language do not always have just one origin.

View PDFchevron_right
The prehistory of Tibeto-Burman and Austroasiatic in light of emergent population genetic studies
George van Driem

Mother Tongue, XI: 160-211.

View PDFchevron_right
To which language family does Chinese belong, or what’s in a name?
George van Driem

pp. 219-253 in Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, Roger Blench, Malcolm D. Ross, Ilia Peiros and Marie Lin, eds., Past Human Migrations in East Asia: Matching Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics. London and New York: Routledge., 2008

View PDFchevron_right
Mixed languages and mixed genes in Northeast Asia
Juha Janhunen

International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics, 2019

Review of: Dan Xu & Hui Li (eds.), Languages and genes in Northwestern China and adjacent regions. Springer Nature.

View PDFchevron_right
Subgrouping of the Sino-Tibetan languages
David Bradley

Evolang 10, 2018

The Sino-Tibetan (ST) languages, including Chinese, are the major family of languages in China and many areas surrounding China in Southeast and South Asia. There have been many proposals about the phylogeny of Proto-Sino-Tibetan (PST) and the possible connections between specific ancient cultures of China and specific subgroups of PST; the basic modern subgrouping followed here is set out in more detail in Bradley (1997, 2002). It has recently been proposed (van Driem 2014) that the entire family should be renamed Trans-Himalayan (TH); others have suggested that the entire family should be called TB, with Sinitic as just one subgroup of TB (DeLancey 2013); both proposals aim to question the central historical position of Sinitic within TB. The general consensus (van Driem 1999, LaPolla 2001) is that PST was spoken during the 仰韶 Yangshao Culture in northwestern China circa 7,000 to 5,000 years before present (7-5K YBP). The Sinitic branch (Chinese) remained in northern central China during the 龙山 Longshan Culture (5-3.9K YBP), then later spread east during the 夏 Xia Dynasty (4.1-3.6K YBP) and 商 Shang Dynasty (3.6-3K YBP) and southeast in later times. Meanwhile, most of the rest of the family probably moved southwest from the Yangshao area and became Proto-Tibeto-Burman (PTB) during the 马家窑 Majiayao Culture (5.3-4K YBP); PTB then gradually subdivided into various branches as groups of speakers moved further south and west. In addition to comparative linguistic evidence, there are five types of external evidence. One is paleoclimate: where in the area would it have been ecologically desirable or at least possible for Neolithic hunters, early pastoralists and early agriculturalists to live at various times in the past? A second is archaeology: where and from when are traces of human settlement found, and what level of material culture is present at each period: what domestic and hunted animals, cultivated crops and other collected plants, artefacts and human remains are found? A third is paleobiology: where were the relevant plants and animals indigenous, when did they start to be associated with human management, and how did they spread? A fourth is genetics; though of course not all speakers of a given language are descendants of earlier speakers of that language, and evidence of male (X chromosome) and female (mitochondrial DNA) genetic descent is sometimes contradictory. Lastly, there is much more recent traditional human evidence: oral traditions concerning origins and migration as embodied in oral history, psychopompic and other funeral-related traditions, and so on, as well as written history. Of course sometimes oral and early written history is unclear or partly mythologized, and so may be less reliable than hard evidence from paleoclimate, archaeology, paleobiology and genetics, but it is still suggestive. Where all of these agree, we can begin to build a picture of early civilization in China and surrounding areas, and attempt to connect particular linguistically-reconstructed subgroups with particular locations and periods. For some efforts in these areas, see Bradley (2011) on crops, Bradley (2016) on animals, and Bradley (2017a, 2017b) on correlating crop and domestic animal information with archaeology and PST subgrouping. Those scholars who wish to rename ST as TH prefer to place the point of origin in what is now the area where northeastern India, northwestern Southeast Asia and southwestern China meet. This proposal is most unlikely on geographical grounds (the area is extremely mountainous and divided by major non-navigable rivers in deep valleys which separate rather than link); on climate grounds (this area has never been a particularly favourable location for pastoral or agricultural activity, and at colder periods much of it has been almost

View PDFchevron_right
Rethinking Sino-Tibetan phylogeny from the perspective of North East Indian languages
Mark W. Post, Roger Blench

2014. In N. Hill, and T. Owen-Smith, Eds. Trans-Himalayan Linguistics. Berlin, de Gruyter: 71-104.

View PDFchevron_right
The diversity of the Tibeto-Burman language family and the linguistic ancestry of Chinese
George van Driem

Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics, 1 (2): 211-270., 2007

View PDFchevron_right
Dated phylogeny suggests early Neolithic origin of Sino-Tibetan languages
Ruth Mace

Scientific Reports, 2020

An accurate reconstruction of Sino-Tibetan language evolution would greatly advance our understanding of East Asian population history. Two recent phylogenetic studies attempted to do so but several of their conclusions are different from each other. Here we reconstruct the phylogeny of the Sino-Tibetan language family, using Bayesian computational methods applied to a larger and linguistically more diverse sample. Our results confirm previous work in finding that the ancestral Sino-Tibetans first split into Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman clades, and support the existence of key internal relationships. But we find that the initial divergence of this group occurred earlier than previously suggested, at approximately 8000 years before the present, coinciding with the onset of millet-based agriculture and significant environmental changes in the Yellow River region. Our findings illustrate that key aspects of phylogenetic history can be replicated in this complex language family, and calls ...

View PDFchevron_right
HLA GENETIC DIVERSITY AND LINGUISTIC VARIATION IN EAST ASIA
Laurent Sagart, Guillaume Jacques

The Peopling of …, 2005

View PDFchevron_right

References (50)

  1. Jacques, Guillaume, "A Shared Suppletive Pattern in the Pronominal Systems of Chang Naga and South- ern Qiang", Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 36/1, 2007, 61-78.
  2. Jacques, Guillaume, "A Possible Trace of Verb Agree- ment in Tibetan", Himalayan Linguistics Journal 9/1, 2010, 41-49.
  3. Jacques, Guillaume, "Argument Demotion in Japhug Rgyalrong", in: Katharina Haude and Gilles Authier, eds., Passive and Ergativity, The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, 2011.
  4. Jacques, Guillaume, "Agreement Morphology: The Case of Rgyalrongic and Kiranti", Language and Linguistics 13/1, 2012, 83-116.
  5. Klaproth, Julius, Asia polyglotta, Paris: A. Schubart, 1823.
  6. Li, Fang-kuei, "Languages and Dialects of China", Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1/1, 1973, 1-13.
  7. Li, Fang-kuei, Handbook of Comparative Tai, Hono- lulu: University Press of Hawai'i, 1977.
  8. Leyden, John, "On the Languages and Literature of the Indo-Chinese Nations", Asiatic Researches 10, 1808, 158-289.
  9. Matisofff, James A., Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruc- tion, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.
  10. Mei, Tsu-lin, "The Causative and Denominative Func- tions of the s-Prefijix in Old Chinese", in: Proceed- ings of the 2nd International Conference on Sinology, Taipei: Academia Sinica, 1989, 33-51.
  11. Meillet, Antoine, Linguistique historique et générale [Historical and general linguistics], Paris: Cham- pion, 1982.
  12. Peiros, Ilia and Sergej A. Starostin, "Sino-Tibetan and Austro-Thai", Computational Analyses of Asian and African Languages 22, 1984, 123-128.
  13. Peiros, Ilia and Sergej A. Starostin, A Comparative Vocabulary of Five Sino-Tibetan Languages, Mel- bourne: University of Melbourne Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, 1996.
  14. Proulx, Paul, "The Linguistic Evidence on Algonquian Prehistory", Anthropological Linguistics 22/1, 1980, 1-21.
  15. Pulleyblank, Edwin, "The Indo-European Vowel System and the Qualitative Ablaut", Word 21, 1965, 86-101.
  16. Pulleyblank, Edwin, "Morphology in Old Chinese", Journal of Chinese Linguistics 28, 2000, 26-51.
  17. Rankin, Robert, "Siouan, Yuchi and the Question of Grammatical Evidence for Genetic Relationship", presidential address, Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas, 1998.
  18. Sagart, Laurent, The Roots of Old Chinese, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1999.
  19. Sagart, Laurent, "Sources of Middle Chinese Manner Types: Old Chinese Prenasalized Initials in Hmong- Mien and Sino-Tibetan Perspective", Language and Linguistics 4/4, 2003, 757-768.
  20. Sagart, Laurent, "The Chinese Names of the Four Directions", Journal of the American Oriental Society 124, 2004, 69-76.
  21. Branner, David Prager, "Common Chinese and Early Chinese Morphology", Journal of the American Oriental Society 122/4, 2003, 706-721.
  22. Callaghan, Catherine A., "An 'Indo-European' Type Paradigm in Proto Eastern Miwok", in: Katheryn Klar, Margaret Langdon and Shirley Silver, eds., American Indian and Indoeuropean Studies: Papers in Honor of Madison S. Beeler, The Hague: Mouton, 1980, 31-41.
  23. Chang Kun, "Sino-Tibetan 'Iron': *Qhleks", Journal of the American Oriental Society 92/3, 1972, 436-446.
  24. DeLancey, Scott, "Language Replacement and the Spread of Tibeto-Burman", Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 3/1, 2010, 40-55.
  25. Djamouri, Redouane, Paul Waltraud and John Whit- man, "Reconstructing VO Constituent Order for Proto-Sino-Tibetan", paper presented at the 18th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Montréal, UQAM, 2007.
  26. Downer, Gordon B., "Derivation by Tone-Change in Classical Chinese", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 22/2, 1959, 259-290.
  27. Downer, Gordon B., "Strata of Chinese Loanwords in the Mien Dialect of Yao", Asia Major 18/1, 1973, 1-33.
  28. Driem, George van, "Sino-Bodic", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 60/3, 1997, 455-488.
  29. Driem, George van, "Tibeto-Burman vs Indo-Chinese: Implication for Population Geneticists, Archeolo- gists and Prehistorians", in: Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, eds., The Peo- pling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics, New York: RoutledgeCur- zon, 2005, 81-106.
  30. Gamkrelidze, Tamaz V. and Vjacheslav V. Ivanov, Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995.
  31. Goddard, Ives, "The Evidence for Eastern Algonquian as a Genetic Subgroup", Algonquian Linguistics 5, 1979, 19-22.
  32. Gong, Hwang-cherng, "The System of Finals in Proto- Sino-Tibetan: The Ancestry of the Chinese Lan- guage", Collected Papers on Sino-Tibetan Linguistics, Taipei: Academia Sinica, 1995, 79-124.
  33. Gray, Russell D. and Quentin D. Atkinson, "Language- Tree Divergence Times Support the Anatolian The- ory of Indo-European Origin", Nature 426, 2003, 435-439.
  34. Handel, Zev, "What is Sino-Tibetan? Snapshot of a Field and a Language Family in Flux", Language and Linguistics Compass 2/3, 2008, 422-441.
  35. Haudricourt, André-Georges, "De l'origine des tons en vietnamien" [On the origin of Vietnamese tones], Journal Asiatique 242, 1954a, 69-82.
  36. Haudricourt, André-Georges, "Comment reconstruire le chinois archaïque" [How to reconstruct Archaic Chinese], Word 10/2-3, 1954b, 351-364.
  37. Jacques, Guillaume, "Jiāróngyǔ yǔ shànggǔ Hànyǔ 嘉绒语与上古汉语" [Rgyalrong and Old Chinese], paper presented at the International Conference on Old Chinese Phonology, Fùdān Dàxué 复旦 大学, 2005.
  38. Sagart, Laurent, "Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian", in: Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez- Mazas, eds., The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics, New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2005, 177-181.
  39. Sagart, Laurent, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez- Mazas, The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics, New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2005.
  40. Schuessler, Axel, ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2007.
  41. Starosta, Stanley, "Proto-East Asian and the Ori- gin and Dispersal of the Languages of East and Southeast Asia and the Pacifijic", in: Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, eds., The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeol- ogy, Linguistics and Genetics, New York: Routledge Curzon, 2005, 182-198.
  42. Starostin, Sergej A., "Гипотеза о генетических связях синотибетских языков с енисейскими и северокавказскими языками" [A hypothesis on the genetic relationships of the Sino-Tibetan lan- guages with the Yeniseian and the North Cauca- sian languages], in: I.F. Vardu, Лингвистическая реконструкция и древнейшая история Востока [Linguistic reconstruction and the ancient history of the East], Moscow: Institute of Orientalistics of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1984, 19-38.
  43. Starostin, Sergej A., "Sino-Caucasian", 2004, starling. rinet.ru.
  44. Starostin, Sergej A., "Altaic Loans in Old Chinese", in: Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, Roger Blench, Malcom Ross and Ilia Peiros, eds., Past Human Migrations in East Asia, London: Routledge, 2008, 254-262.
  45. Sun, Jackson T.-S., "Parallelisms in the Verb Morphol- ogy of Sidaba rGyalrong and Lavrung in rGyalron- gic", Language and Linguistics 1/1, 2000, 161-190.
  46. Sun, Jackson T.-S., "Verb-Stem Variations in Showu rGyalrong", in: Ying-chin Lin, Fang-min Hsu, Chun- chi Lee, Jackson T.-S. Sun, Hsiu-fang Yang and Dah- an Ho, eds., Studies on Sino-Tibetan Languages: Papers in Honor of Professor Hwang-Cherng Gong on His Seventieth Birthday, Taipei: Academia Sinica, 2004, 269-296.
  47. Thurgood, Graham, "A Subgrouping of the Sino- Tibetan Languages: The Interaction between Language Contact, Change, and Inheritance", in: Graham Thurgood and Randy J. LaPolla, eds., The Sino-Tibetan Languages, London: Routledge, 2003, 1-21.
  48. Wagner, Donald B., Iron and Steel in Ancient China, Leiden: Brill, 1993.
  49. Xíng Gōngwǎn 邢公畹, Hàn-Táiyǔ bǐjiào shǒucè 汉台 语比较手册 [Comparative handbook of Sinitic and Taiwanese languages], Běijīng 北京: Shāngwù 商务 印书馆, 2000.
  50. Zhōu Fǎgāo 周法高, Zhōngguó gǔdài yǔfǎ, gòucí biān 中國古代語法，構詞編 [Ancient Chinese grammar: Morphology], Taipei 台北: Zhōngyāng Yánjiūsuǒ 中央研究所, 1962.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What factors contribute to the debate on Chinese being a language isolate?add

The limited morphology in Chinese complicates its genetic classification, as noted by Meillet in 2001. Borrowing of vocabulary further obscures relationships among similar languages, making genetic connections difficult to establish.

How does morphological evidence support Sino-Tibetan family classification?add

The paper finds that morphological features, like the prenasalization process, indicate potential cognates across Sino-Tibetan languages. For instance, the anticausative prenasalization in Chinese relates to similar processes in other Tibeto-Burman languages.

What insights does the voicing alternation of Middle Chinese provide?add

The study shows that Middle Chinese voicing alternation corresponds with specific transitive and intransitive verb forms. This phenomenon, observed in both Chinese and Rgyalrong, suggests a deeper connection in Sino-Tibetan morphological development.

What implications arise from the vocabulary borrowing between Chinese and related languages?add

The analysis reveals that even words phonetically closer to Old Chinese in Tai languages may be borrowings, showcasing lexical innovation. For example, the term for 'iron' is unlikely to trace back to proto-Sino-Tibetan, as it corresponds to cultural developments postdating the 6th century BCE.

How does the debate around Sino-Caucasian theory relate to Sino-Tibetan studies?add

The concept of Sino-Caucasian, linking Sino-Tibetan with distant families, is controversial and lacks comprehensive morphological comparisons. As illustrated, inconsistencies in cognate identification challenge the validity of large-scale linguistic superfamilies.

About the author
Guillaume Jacques
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique / French National Centre for Scientific Research, Faculty Member
Papers
187
Followers
5,228
View all papers from Guillaume Jacquesarrow_forward

Related papers

A new theory on the origin of Chinese
George van Driem

pp. 43-58, Vol. 2 in Peter Bellwood and Ian Lilley, eds., Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin, 18 (The Melaka Papers). Canberra: Australian National University., 1999

The first four sections of this paper provide an abridged historical synopsis of the main developments in linguistic thinking about the genetic relationships of Chinese and other languages of eastern Eurasia. The fifth and last section relates recent insights in Tibeto-Burman phylogeny to the discoveries of archaeologists in China and neighbouring countries. The dispersal of Neolithic cultural complexes is shown to correspond to the present-day distribution of Tibeto-Burman language communities when viewed in light of the new informed phylogeny.

View PDFchevron_right
Sino-Austronesian vs. Sino-Caucasian, Sino-Bodic vs. Sino-Tibetan, and Tibeto-Burman as default theory
George van Driem

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., 2005

There are at least five competing theories about the linguistic prehistory of Chinese. Two of them, Tibeto-Burman and Sino-Tibetan, originated in the beginning of the nineteenth century. Sino-Caucasian and Sino-Austronesian are products of the second half of the twentieth century, and East Asian is an intriguing model presented in 2001. These terms designate distinct models of language relationship with divergent implications for the peopling of East Asia. What are the substantive differences between the models? How do the paradigms differently inform the direction of linguistic investigation and differently shape the formulation of research topics? What empirical evidence can compel us to decide between the theories? Which of the theories is the default hypothesis, and why? How can terminology be used in a judicious manner to avoid unwittingly presupposing the veracity of improbable or, at best, unsupported propositions?

View PDFchevron_right
The Ancestry of the Chinese Language . Ed. by William S-Y Wang
Paul Sidwell

Diachronica, 1997

Reviewed by PAUL SlDWELL & ZHOU XlAOKANG, University of Melbourne* * We would like to thank Neile Kirk of Melbourne University for helpful advice and com ments in the preparation of this review.

View PDFchevron_right
Dan Xu and Hui Li (eds.) Languages and Genes in Northwestern China and Adjacent Regions
Dan Xu

The present book entitled Languages and Genes in Northwestern China and Adjacent Regions consists of an investigation of language contact, focused on Northwestern China. What is new in the book is that the research is not limited to a linguistic perspective but is extended to an interdisciplinary approach, exploiting research results from different domains. This work comes from a collaboration between two different teams (French and Chinese) composed of linguists and geneticists who worked together for nearly four years. The book takes a novel, interdisciplinary approach, joining linguistic, biological, historical and archeological disciplines. This type of book is currently uncommon, but specialists and lay-readers alike are now aware of the significance of such work. There are numerous books dealing with linguistics or biology separately, but there are few books in which linguists and geneticists work together targeting the same languages and the same populations. This book mainly deals with people and languages in Northwestern China. This region has drawn attention from anthropologists, archaeologists and linguists for several centuries. Over the past several decades, linguists and other human science researchers have combined their efforts to better understand the social, anthropological, and linguistic phenomena in this region, but few investigations seem to take advantage of the recent results from natural sciences such as biology. Many articles in the present work try to combine human science and natural science’s approaches to reconsider the diversity of languages in this area based on the results of recent linguistic and genetic research.

View PDFchevron_right
The Ancestry Of Sino-Tibetan Populations And Languages
Mei Shin Wu

2018

This is my oral presentation handout for "The 51st International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics" (2018/09/25-2018/09/28, Kyoto, Japan)

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Diachronic Linguistics (Or Histo...
  • Languages and Linguistics
  • Historical Linguistics
  • Comparative Linguistics
  • Old Chinese
  • Language Classification
  • Kra-Dai languages
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2026 Academia. All rights reserved