Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 39:1 (2022) ► pp.128–158

A Bayesian approach to the classification of Tungusic languages

ORCID logo | Institute for Linguistic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences | Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
 | National Research University Higher School of Economics | Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
 | Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
The Tungusic language family is comprised of languages spoken in Siberia, the Russian Far East, Northeast China and Xinjiang. There is a general consensus that these languages are genealogically related and descend from a common ancestral language. Nevertheless, there is considerable disagreement with regard to the internal structure of the Tungusic family and the time depth of its separation into daughter languages. Here we use computational Bayesian phylogenetic methods to generate a phylogeny of Tungusic languages and estimate the time-depth of the family. Our analysis is based on the recently introduced Leipzig-Jakarta-Jena list, a dataset of 254 basic vocabulary items collected for 21 Tungusic doculects. Our results are consistent with two basic classifications previously proposed in the literature, notably a Manchu-Tungusic classification, in which the break-up of Jurchenic constitutes the first split in the tree, as well as a North-South classification, which includes a Jurchenic-Nanaic and an Orochic-Ewenic branch. In addition, we obtain a time-depth for the age of Proto-Tungusic between the 8th century BC and the 12th century AD (95% highest posterior density interval). Previous classifications of Tungusic were based on both classical historical comparative linguistic and lexicostatistic approaches, but the application of Bayesian phylogenetic methods to the Tungusic languages has not so far been attempted. In contrast to previous approaches, our Bayesian analysis adds an understanding of the statistical robustness of the proposed branches and infers absolute divergence dates, allowing variation of rates of change across branches and cognate sets. In this way, our research provides a reliable quantitative basis for previous estimates based on classical historical linguistic and lexicostatistic approaches.
Keywords: Tungusic languages, language classification, Bayesian phylogenetics, family time depth, basic vocabulary, language phylogeny
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous proposals
    • 2.1Classification
      • 2.1.1Four basic hypotheses
      • 2.1.2Hypothesis 1: North-South with Orochic in the Southern branch
      • 2.1.3Hypothesis 2: North-South with Orochic in the Northern branch
      • 2.1.4Hypothesis 3: Manchu-Tungusic with Orochic clustering with Ewenic
      • 2.1.5Hypothesis 4: Manchu-Tungusic with Orochic clustering with Nanaic
    • 2.2Dating
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Calibration points
    • 3.3Phylogenetic model
  • 4.Results and discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.20010.osk
References (76)
References
Avrorin, Valentin A. 1959. Grammatika nanajskogo jazyka [The grammar of Nanai]. Vol. 11. Moscow – Leningrad: Publishing House of Academy of Sciences of USSR.Google Scholar
Benzing, Johannes. 1955. Die tungusischen Sprachen: Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik. Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 111. 949–1099. Wiesbaden: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz.Google Scholar
Bouckaert, Remco R., Philippe Lemey, Michael Dunn, Simon J. Greenhill, Alexander V. Alekseyenko, Alexei J. Drummond, Russell D. Gray, Marc A. Suchard, & Quentin D. Atkinson. 2012. Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family. Science 337(6097). 957–960. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouckaert, Remco, Joseph Heled, Denise Kühnert, Tim Vaughan, Chieh-Hsi Wu, Dong Xie, Marc A. Suchard, Andrew Rambaut, & Alexei J. Drummond. 2014. BEAST 2: A software platform for Bayesian Evolutionary Analysis. PLoS Computational Biology 10(4). e1003537. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouckaert, Remco & Martine Robbeets. 2017. Pseudo Dollo models for the evolution of binary characters along a Tree. BioRxiv. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouckaert, Remco R., Claire Bowern, & Quentin D. Atkinson. 2018. The origin and expansion of Pama-Nyungan languages across Australia. Nature Ecology & Evolution 21. 741–749. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2018. Computational phylogenetics. Annual Review of Linguistics 41. 281–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire & Quentin Atkinson. 2012. Computational phylogenetics and the internal structure of Pama-Nyungan. Language, 817–845. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castrén, M. Alexander. 1856. Grundzüge einer Tungusischen Sprachlehre nebst kurzem Wörterverzeichniss. St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Chang, Will, David Hall, Chundra Cathcart, & Andrew Garrett. 2015. Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European Steppe Hypothesis. Language 91 (1): 194–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cincius, Vera I. 1949. Sravnitel’naja fonetika tunguso-man’chzhurskich jazykov [Comparative phonetics of Manchu-Tungus languages]. Leningrad: Uchpedgiz.Google Scholar
(ed.). 1975, 1977. Sravnitel’nyj slovar’ tunguso-man’chzhurskix jazykov [Comparative dictionary of the Tungus-Manchu languages]. Vols. 1, 2. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Doerfer, Gerhard. 1978. Classification problems of Tungus. In Gerhard Doerfer & Michael Weiers (eds.), Beiträge zur nordasiatischen Kulturgeschichte: Tungusica, 1–26. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Drummond, Alexei J. & Remco R. Bouckaert. 2015. Bayesian evolutionary analysis with BEAST. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drummond, Alexei J., Simon Y. W. Ho, Matthew J. Phillips, & Andrew Rambaut. 2006. Relaxed phylogenetics and dating with confidence. PLOS Biology 4(5), e88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Michael. 2015. Language phylogenies. In Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 190–211. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dybo, Anna V. 2013. Etimologičeskij slovar’ bazisnoj leksiki tjurkskix jazykov [An etymological dictionary of Turkic basic vocabularies]. (Etimologičeskij slovar’ tjurkskix jazykov 9.) Astana: TOO “Prosper Print”.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 2016. Comparative Nivkh dictionary. (Languages of the world/dictionaries, 62.) München: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Gavryushkina, Alexandra, David Welch, Tanja Stadler, & Alexei J. Drummond. 2014. Bayesian inference of sampled ancestor trees for epidemiology and fossil calibration. PLoS Computational Biology 10(12): e1003919. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georg, Stefan. 2004. Unreclassifying Tungusic. In Carsten Naeher (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Manchu-Tungus Studies (Bonn, August 28 – September 1, 2000), Volume 2: Trends in Tungusic and Siberian Linguistics, 45–57. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Gorelova, Liliya M. 2002. Manchu grammar. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, Russell D. & Quentin D. Atkinson. 2003. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature 4261. 435–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, Russell D., Alexei J. Drummond, & Simon J. Greenhill. 2009. Language phylogenies reveal expansion pulses and pauses in Pacific settlement. Science 323(5913). 479–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenhill, Simon J., Thomas E. Currie, & Russell D. Gray. 2009. Does horizontal transmission invalidate cultural phylogenies? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276(1665). 2299–2306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grollemund, R., B. Branford, K. Bostoen, A. Meade, C. Venditti & M. Pagel. 2015. Bantu expansion shows habitat alters the route and pace of human dispersals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 112(43). 13296–13301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin and Uri Tadmor (eds.). 2009. Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Tracy A., John P. Huelsenbeck, & Tanja Stadler. 2014. The fossilized birth-death process for coherent calibration of divergence-time estimates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 111(29). E2957–E2966. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heggarty, Paul, Cormac Anderson, & Matthew Scarborough (eds.). 2017. Cognacy in basic lexicon for the Indo-European language family. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. [URL]
Holman, Eric W., Cecil H. Brown, Søren Wichmann, André Müller, Viveka Velupillai, Harald Hammarström, Sebastian Sauppe, Hagen Jung, Dik Bakker, Pamela Brown, Oleg Belyaev, Matthias Urban, Robert Mailhammer, Johann-Mattis List, & Dmitry Egorov. 2011. Automated dating of the world’s language families based on lexical similarity. Current Anthropology 52(6). 841–875. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hölzl, Andreas. 2017. Kilen: Synchronic and diachronic profile of a mixed language. Paper presented at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 24th LIPP Symposium, Munich, June 21–23, 2017, Language in Contact: Yesterday – Today – Tomorrow.
Ikegami, Jiro. 1974. Versuch einer Klassifikation der Tungussischen Sprachen. In Gyorgy Hazai and Peter Zieme (eds.), Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der Altaischen Völker, 271–271. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Jakhontov, Sergej J. 1971. Leksika kak priznak rodstva jazykov [Vocabulary as a feature of language genetic relationship]. In O. P. Sunik (ed.), Problema obshchnosti altajskix jazykov. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha. 1991. Material on Manchurian Khamnigan Evenki. (Castrenianumin Toimitteita, 40.) Helsinki: Castrenianum.Google Scholar
. 2005. Tungusic: An endangered language family in Northeast Asia. In International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1731. 37–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The expansion of Tungusic as an ethnic and linguistic process. In Andrej L. Malchukov and Lindsay J. Whaley (eds.), Recent advances in Tungusic linguistics (Turcologica 89), 5–16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kassian, Alexei, George Starostin, Anna Dybo, & Vasiliy Chernov. 2010. The Swadesh wordlist. An attempt at semantic specification. Journal of Language Relationship 41. 46–89.Google Scholar
Kazama, Shinjiro. 2003. Basic vocabulary (A) of Tungusic languages. Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim A2–037. Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
Kitchen, Andrew, Christopher Ehret, Shiferaw Assefa, & Connie J. Mulligan. 2009. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276(1668). 2703–2710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kolipakam, Vishnupriya, Fiona M. Jordan, Michael Dunn, Simon J. Greenhill, Remco Bouckaert, Russell D. Gray, & Annemarie Verkerk. 2018. A Bayesian phylogenetic study of the Dravidian language family. Royal Society Open Science 5, 3. 171504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormushin, Igor V. 1998. Udyhejskij (udegejskij) jazyk [The Udihe language]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Korovina, Evgeniya. 2011. Leksika prirodnogo i kul’turnogo okruzheniya v tunguso-man’chzhurskich jazykach (v istoriko-tipologicheskom osveshchčenii) [Tungus-Manchu vocabulary related to natural environment and cultural activities (in historical and typological perspective)]. Moscow: Russian State University of Humanities, BA dissertation.Google Scholar
List, Johann-Mattis. 2017. A web-based interactive tool for creating, inspecting, editing, and publishing etymological datasets. Proceedings of the EACL 2017 Software Demonstrations, Valencia, Spain, April 3–7 2017: 9–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maturana Russel, Patricio, Brendon J. Brewer, Steffen Klaere, & Remco R. Bouckaert. 2019. Model selection and parameter inference in phylogenetics using nested sampling. Systematic Biology 68(2). 219–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menges, Karl Heinrich. 1968. Die tungusischen Sprachen. Tungusologie. Handbuch der Orientalistik [I. Abteilung, 5. Band: Altaistik, 3. Abschnitt], 21–256. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Messerschmidt, Daniel Gottlieb. Forschungsreise durch Sibirien 1720–1727. T. 2: Tagebuchaufzeichnungen, Januar 1723 – Mai 1724. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1964.Google Scholar
Mishchenkova, Karina O. 2019. Refleksy praevenkijskogo *s v govorax evenkijskogo jazyka v kontse XVII v. i pervoj polovine XVIII v. [Reflections of the Proto-Evenki *s in the Evenki dialects in the late 17th century and the first half of the 18th century]. Uralo-altajskie issledovanija 3(34). 72–83.Google Scholar
Nicholls, Geoff K., & Russel D. Gray. 2006. Quantifying uncertainty in a stochastic Dollo model of vocabulary evolution. In Peter Forster & Colin Renfrew (eds.), Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages, 161–172. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2006. A historical dictionary of Yukaghir. Trends in Linguistics: Documentation, 25. Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Novikova, Klavdija A. 1980. Ocherki Dialektov Evenskogo Jazyka: Ol’skij Govor [Sketches of the Even dialects: Olsky dialect]. Leningrad: Academy of Sciences of the USSR.Google Scholar
Penny, David, Bennet J. McCormish, Michael A. Charleston, & Michael D. Hendy. 2001. Mathematical elegance with biochemical realism: The covarion model of molecular evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution 53(6). 711–723. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pevnov, Alexander M. 1984. Glottoxronologija i tunguso-manchzhurskaja problema [Glottochronology and the Tungus-Manchu issue]. In Zhanna V. Andreeva, Irina S. Zhushchixovskaja, & Alexander M. Pevnov (eds.), Arxeologija i etnografija narodov Dal’nego Vostoka, 31–37. Vladivostok: DVNTS AN SSSR.Google Scholar
2008. Lingvisticheskie puti reshenija tunguso-manchzhurskoj problemy [Linguistic ways of solving the Tungus-Manchu issue]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 51. 63–83.Google Scholar
2012. The problem of localization of the Manchu-Tungusic homeland. In Andrej L. Malchukov & Lindsay J. Whaley (eds.), Recent advances in Tungusic linguistics. (Turcologica 89.), 17–40. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2013. O mongol’skom proisxozhdenii man’chzhurskogo pokazatelja datel’nogo padezha [On Mongolic origin of the Manchu dative case marker]. Pavel O. Rykin (ed.). Mongol’skie jazyki: istorija i sovremennost’: Materialy mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferentsii, Sankt-Peterburg, 21–23 oktjabrja 2013, 79–83. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istorija.Google Scholar
Poppe, Nicholas. 1965. Introduction to Altaic linguistics. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Rambaut, Andrew, Marc A. Suchard, Dong Xie, & Alexei J. Drummond. 2014. Tracer v1.6. [URL]
Robbeets, Martine. 2015. Diachrony of verb morphology. Japanese and the Transeurasian languages. (Trends in Linguistics 291.) Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robbeets, Martine & Remco Bouckaert. 2018. Bayesian phylolinguistics reveals the internal structure of the Transeurasian Family. Journal of Linguistic Evolution 31. 145–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robbeets, Martine, Juha Janhunen, Alexander Savelyev, & Evgeniya Korovina. 2020. The homelands of the individual Transeurasian proto-languages: Where, when and what? In Martine Robbeets & Alexander Savelyev (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Transeurasian languages, 753–771. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sagart, Laurent, Guillaume Jacques, Yunfan Lai, Robin J. Ryder, Valentin Thouzeau, Simon J. Greenhill, & Johann-Mattis List. 2019. Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 116(21). 10317–10322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savelyev, Alexander & Martine Robbeets. 2020. Bayesian phylolinguistics infers the internal structure and the time-depth of the Turkic language family. Journal of Language Evolution 5(1). 39–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Peter. 1915. Etnografija Dal’nego Vostoka [Ethnography of the Far East]. Vivat Academia 11. 30–31.Google Scholar
Schrenck, Leopold von. 1883. Ob inorodcax Amurskogo kraja [On inorodtsy in the Amur region]. Tom I1. St. Petersburg.Google Scholar
Sem, Lidia I. 1976. Ocherki dialektov nanajskogo jazyka. Bikinskij (ussurijskij) dialect [Outlines of the Nanai dialects. The Bikin (Ussuri) dialect]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Starostin, Georgij S. 2013. Jazyki Afriki. Opyt postrojenija leksikostatisticheskoj klassifikacii. T. 1: Metodologija. Kojsanskije jazyki [The languages of Africa. An attempt at lexicostatistic classification. Vol. 1: Methodology. Khoisan languages]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Starostin, Sergej A., Anna V. Dybo, & Oleg A. Mudrak. 2003. Etymological dictionary of the Altaic languages. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Sternberg, Lev J. 1933. Giljaki, orochi, gol’dy, negidal’tsy, ajny [The Giljak, the Oroche, the Gold, the Negidal, the Ainu peoples]. Khabarovsk: Dal’giz.Google Scholar
Sunik, Orest P. 1959. Tunguso-man’chzhurskije jazyki [Manchu-Tungus languages]. Mladopi’mennyje jazyki narodov SSSR. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Tadmor, Uri, Martin Haspelmath, & Bradley Taylor. 2010. Borrowability and the notion of basic vocabulary. Diachronica 27(2). 226–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavaré, Simon. 1986. Some probabilistic and statistical problems in the analysis of DNA sequences. Lectures on Mathematics in the Life Sciences 171. 57–86.Google Scholar
Tsumagari, Toshiro. 1992. A basic vocabulary of Khamnigan and Oluguya Ewenki in Northern Inner Mongolia. Bulletin of the Institute for the Study of North Eurasian Cultures 211. 83–103.Google Scholar
Vasilevich, Glafira M. 1960. K voprosu o klassifikacii tunguso-man’chzhurskih jazykov [About the question of classification of Manchu-Tungus languages]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 21. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
1969. Znachenie dnevnikov Messerschmidta dl’a tungusovedenija [Value of Messerschmidt’s notes for Tungusic studies]. Izvestija Sibirskogo otdelenija Akademii Nauk SSSR, 61, 21. 116–122.Google Scholar
Vovin, Alexander. 1993. Towards a new classification of Tungusic languages. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 651. 99–113.Google Scholar
Yanushevich, Zoya V., Yuri Y. Vostretsov, & Sofiya V. Makarova. 1990. Paleoetnobotanicheskie nahodki v Primor’e [The palaeo-ethnobotanical finds in Primorye]. Vladivostok: Nauka.Google Scholar
Zhang, Menghan, Shi Yan, Wuyun Pan, & Li Jin. 2019. Phylogenetic evidence for Sino-Tibetan origin in northern China in the Late Neolithic. Nature 5691. 112–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Koile, Ezequiel, Simon J. Greenhill, Damián E. Blasi, Remco Bouckaert & Russell D. Gray
2022. Phylogeographic analysis of the Bantu language expansion supports a rainforest route. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119:32 DOI logo
Robbeets, Martine, Remco Bouckaert, Matthew Conte, Alexander Savelyev, Tao Li, Deog-Im An, Ken-ichi Shinoda, Yinqiu Cui, Takamune Kawashima, Geonyoung Kim, Junzo Uchiyama, Joanna Dolińska, Sofia Oskolskaya, Ken-Yōjiro Yamano, Noriko Seguchi, Hirotaka Tomita, Hiroto Takamiya, Hideaki Kanzawa-Kiriyama, Hiroki Oota, Hajime Ishida, Ryosuke Kimura, Takehiro Sato, Jae-Hyun Kim, Bingcong Deng, Rasmus Bjørn, Seongha Rhee, Kyou-Dong Ahn, Ilya Gruntov, Olga Mazo, John R. Bentley, Ricardo Fernandes, Patrick Roberts, Ilona R. Bausch, Linda Gilaizeau, Minoru Yoneda, Mitsugu Kugai, Raffaela A. Bianco, Fan Zhang, Marie Himmel, Mark J. Hudson & Chao Ning
2021. Triangulation supports agricultural spread of the Transeurasian languages. Nature 599:7886 ► pp. 616 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.