Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 39:2 (2016) ► pp.282–297

Once again on methodology and argumentation in linguistics

Problems with the arguments for recasting Sino-Tibetan as “Trans-Himalayan”

 | Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
There have been challenges to the received view of the structure of the Sino-Tibetan language family. This is all well and good, as we should constantly challenge our most basic assumptions. In this paper I look at the arguments presented with a view to convincing us to change our conception of Sino-Tibetan and to change the name of the family to “Trans-Himalayan”, and find them less than convincing, due to problems of fact and argumentation.
Keywords: Sino-Tibetan linguistics, Trans-Himalayan, argumentation, historical linguistics, Tibeto-Burman linguistics, Chinese linguistics
Published online: 2 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.39.2.03lap
References (74)
Aldenderfer, Mark. 2007. Modeling the Neolithic on the Tibetan Plateau. In David B. Madsen, Fa-Hu Chen & Xing Gao (eds.), Late quaternary climate change and human adaptation in arid China (Developments in Quaternary Sciences 9), 151–165. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aldenderfer, Mark & Zhang Yinong. 2004. The prehistory of the Tibetan Plateau to the seventh century A.D.: Perspectives and research from China and the West since 1950. Journal of World Prehistory 18 (1): 1–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauman, James J. 1979. An historical perspective on ergativity in Tibeto-Burman. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 419–433. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: A conspectus (Princeton-Cambridge Studies in Chinese Linguistics II) Edited by James A. Matisoff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1976. Sino-Tibetan: Another look. Journal of the American Oriental Society 96 (2): 167–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradley, David. 1980. Phonological convergence between languages in contact: Mon-Khmer structural borrowing in Burmese. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 61: 259–267.
. 1997. Tibeto-Burman languages and classification. In D. Bradley (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
. 2002. The subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman. In C. Beckwith (ed.), Medieval Tibeto-Burman languages, 73–112. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
. 2015. Minority languages, Vitality of. In Rint Sybesma (ed.), Encyclopedia of Chinese language and linguistics. Brill Online, 2015. Accessed 27 December 2015, <[URL]>Google Scholar
Bradley, David & Maya Bradley. 2002. Language policy and language maintenance: Yi in China. In D. Bradley & M. Bradley (eds.), Language endangerment and language maintenance, 77–97. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Brantingham, P. Jeffrey, Gao Xing, John W. Olsen, Ma Haizhou, David Rhode, Zhang Haiying & David B. Madsen. 2007. A short chronology for the peopling of the Tibetan Plateau. In David B. Madsen, Fa-Hu Chen, & Xing Gao (eds.), Late quaternary climate change and human adaptation in arid China (Developments in Quaternary Sciences 9), 129–150. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2003. How to show languages are related: Methods for distant genetic relationship. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The Handbook of historical linguistics, 262–282. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Hilary M. (ed.). 2015. Diversity in Sinitic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Fahu H., Guanghui H. Dong, Dongju J. Zhang, Xinyi Y. Liu, Xin Jia, Cheng-Bang An, Minmin M. Ma, Yaowen W. Xie, Loukas Barton, X.Y. Ren, Zhijun J. Zhao, Xiaohong H. Wu & Martin K. Jones. 2015. Agriculture facilitated permanent human occupation of the Tibetan Plateau after 3600 B.P. Science 3471 (16 January 2015): 248–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1989. Verb agreement in Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 52 (2): 315–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Driem, George. 1997. Sino-Bodic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 60 (3): 455–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Tibeto-Burman replaces Indo-Chinese in the 1990s: Review of a decade of scholarship. Lingua 1111: 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Sino-Austronesian vs. Sino-Caucasian, Sino-Bodic vs. Sino-Tibetan, and Tibeto-Burman as default theory. In Yogendra Prasada Yadava, Govinda Bhattarai, Ram Raj Lohani, Balaram Prasain, & Krishna Parajuli (eds.), Contemporary issues in Nepalese linguistics, 285–338. Kathmandu: Linguistic Society of Nepal.Google Scholar
. 2011. Tibeto-Burman subgroups and historical grammar. Himalayan Linguistics 10 (1): 31–39.Google Scholar
. 2014. Trans-Himalayan. In Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan Hill (eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics, 11–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 621: 808–845. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaproth, Julius. 1823. Asia polyglotta. Paris: Gedruckt bei J.M. Eberhart. Available at [URL] and [URL]Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1990. Grammatical relations in Chinese: Synchronic and diachronic considerations. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
. 1992a. On the dating and nature of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 55 (2): 298–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992b. Anti-ergative marking in Tibeto-Burman. LTBA 15 (1): 1–9.Google Scholar
. 1993. Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘direct object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 63 (4): 759–813.Google Scholar
. 1994a. Parallel grammaticalizations in Tibeto-Burman: Evidence of Sapir’s ‘drift’. LTBA 17 (1): 61–80.Google Scholar
. 1994b. Variable finals in Proto-Sino-Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 65 (1): 131–173.Google Scholar
. 1995a. Ergative marking in Tibeto-Burman. In Yoshio Nishi, James A. Matisoff, & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), New horizons in Tibeto-Burman morpho-syntax (Senri Ethnological Studies 41), 189–228. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
. 1995b. On the utility of the concepts of markedness and prototypes in understanding the development of morphological systems. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 66 (4): 1149–1185.Google Scholar
. 1996. Middle voice marking in Tibeto-Burman. Pan-Asian Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics , Vol. V1, 1940–1954. Mahidol University, Thailand.
. 2000. Subgrouping in Tibeto-Burman: Can an individual-identifying standard be developed? How do we factor in the history of migrations and language contact? Paper presented at the 33rd International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics , Bangkok and Trang, October 2–6, 2000. (Published as LaPolla 2013.)
. 2001. The role of migration and language contact in the development of the Sino-Tibetan language family. In R.M.W. Dixon & A.Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Case studies in language change, 225–254. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Problems of methodology and explanation in word order universals research. In Pan Wuyun (ed.), Dongfang yuyan yu wenhua (Languages and cultures of the East), 204–237. Shanghai: Dongfang Chuban Zhongxin.Google Scholar
. 2003. An overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 22–42. London & New York: Routledge. (2nd edition to appear in 2017.)Google Scholar
. (Luo Rendi). 2006a. Lishi yuyanxue he yuyan leixingxue (Historical linguistics and typology). Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) 43 (2): 27–30.Google Scholar
. 2006b. Sino-Tibetan languages. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd ed., 393–397. London: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006c. The how and why of syntactic relations. Invited plenary address and keynote of the Centre for Research on Language Change Workshop on Grammatical Change at the Annual Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society , University of Queensland, 7–9 July, 2006.
. 2006d. On grammatical relations as constraints on referent identification. In Tasaku Tsunoda & Taro Kageyama (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations: Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani (Typological Studies in Language), 139–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (Luo Rendi). 2007. Yuyan leixingxue / gongneng yuyanxuepai shiyexia de yuyanxue tianye diaocha (A linguistic typology / functional linguistics view of linguistic fieldwork). Yuyanxue Luncong 361: 42–56.Google Scholar
. 2008a. Constituent structure in a Tagalog text. Keynote presentation to the 10th Philippine Linguistics Congress , University of the Philippines – Diliman, Quezon City, December 10-12, 2008. (Published as LaPolla 2014.)
. 2008b. Questions on transitivity. Keynote presentation to open the Workshop on Transitivity , Research Centre for Linguistic Typology, La Trobe University, 21 August. (Revised version published as LaPolla, Kratockvíl & Coupe 2011.)
. 2012a. Comments on methodology and evidence in Sino-Tibetan comparative linguistics. Language and Linguistics 13.1: 117–132.Google Scholar
. 2012b. Once again on person-marking in Tibeto-Burman: A reply to DeLancey 2010. Paper presented at the 45th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics , Nanyang Technological University, 26–28 October.
. 2013a. Subgrouping in Tibeto-Burman: Can an individual-identifying standard be developed? How do we factor in the history of migrations and language contact? In Balthasar Bickel, Lenore A. Grenoble, David A. Peterson, & Alan Timberlake (eds.), Language typology and historical contingency, 463–474. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. Arguments for a construction-based approach to the analysis of Chinese. In Tseng Chiu-yu (ed.), Human language resources and linguistic typology, Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Sinology, 33–57. Taiwan: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
. 2014. Constituent structure in a Tagalog text. Language and Linguistics 15 (6): 761–774. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. Review of The Language Myth, by Vyvyan Evans. Studies in Language 40 (1): 235–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. On categorization: Stick to the facts of the languages. Invited position paper for special issue of Linguistic Typology 20 (2) on descriptive vs. comparative categories, in press.Google Scholar
. 2016c. On scholarship in Sino-Tibetan linguistics: Review article on Studies in Chinese and Sino-Tibetan linguistics, ed. by Richard VanNess Simmons and Newell Ann Van Auken. Journal of the American Oriental Society 136 (3), in press.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J., František Kratochvíl & Alexander R. Coupe. 2011. On transitivity. Studies in Language 35 (3): 469–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. & Dory Poa. 2006. On describing word order. In Felix Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing, 269–295. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. & Yang Jiangling. 1996. Dulong/Riwangyu dongci de fanshen he zhongjiantai biaozhi (Reflexive and middle marking in Dulong/Rawang). In Dai Qingxia et al. (eds.), Zhongguo minzu yuyan luncong (1) ( Collected essays on Chinese minority languages, 1 ), 13–34. Central University of Nationalities Press. (Published in English as LaPolla & Yang 2005.)Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. & Yang, Jiangling. 2005. Reflexive and middle marking in Dulong-Rawang. Himalayan Linguistics 21: 1–13.Google Scholar
Li, Fang-Kuei. 1936–1937. Languages and dialects. In The Chinese year book, 121–128. Reprinted in Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1 (1):1–13, 1973.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1973. Notes on Fang-Kuei Li’s ‘Languages and dialects of China’. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1 (3): 471–474.Google Scholar
. 2000. On ‘Sino-Bodic’ and other symptoms of neosubgroupitis. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 63 (3): 356–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003 Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1996. The comparative method as heuristic. In Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative method reviewed, 39–71. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pelkey, Jamin. 2008. The Phula languages in synchronic and diachronic perspective. La Trobe University Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2011. Dialectology as dialectic: Interpreting Phula variation (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 229). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poa, Dory & LaPolla, Randy J. 2007. Minority languages of China. In Osahito Miyaoka & Michael E. Krauss (eds.), The vanishing languages of the Pacific, 337–354. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ringe, Donald A. Jr. 1992. On calculating the factor of chance in language comparison. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, 82 (1): 1–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Nostratic factor chance. Diachronica 121: 55–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. The mathematics of ‘Amerind’. Diachronica 13.1: 135–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Language classification: scientific and unscientific methods. In Bryan Sykes (ed.), The human inheritance: Genes, language, and evolution, 45–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rhode, David, David B. Madsen, P. Jeffrey Brantingham & Tsultrim Dargye. 2007. Yaks, yak dung, and prehistoric human habitation of the Tibetan Plateau. In David B. Madsen, Fa-Hu Chen, & Xing Gao (eds.), Late quaternary climate change and human adaptation in arid China (Developments in Quaternary Sciences 9), 205–224. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sagart, Laurent. 1990. Chinese and Austronesian are genetically related. Paper presented at the 23rd International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics , October 1990, Arlington, Texas.
Su, Bing, Chunjie Xiao, Ranjan Deka, Mark T. Seielstad, Daoroong Kangwanpong, Junhua Xiao, Darn Lu, Peter Underhill, Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Ranajit Chakraborty, & Li Jin. 2000. Y chromosome haplotypes reveal prehistorical migrations to the Himalayas. Human Genetics 1071: 582–590. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurgood, Graham. in press. Sino-Tibetan: Areal and genetic subgroups. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 2nd edn. London & New York: Routledge (to appear 2017).
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. & LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function ( Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics Series ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walravens, Hartmut. 2006. Julius Klaproth: His life and works, with special emphasis on Japan. Japonica Humboldtiana 101: 177–191.Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Post, Mark W. & Yankee Modi
2022. Subject autonomy marking in Macro-Tani and the typology of middle voice. Linguistics 60:1 ► pp. 215 ff. DOI logo
Stocker, Joana, Maher Abu-Hilal, Ehab Hermena, Maryam AlJassmi & Mariapaola Barbato
2021. Internal/external frame of reference model and dimensional comparison theory: a novel exploration of their applicability among Arab high school students. Educational Psychology 41:4 ► pp. 483 ff. DOI logo
Pereltsvaig, Asya
2020. Languages of the World, DOI logo
LaPolla, Randy J.
2019. The origin and spread of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Nature 569:7754 ► pp. 45 ff. DOI logo
Post, Mark W.
2019. Topographical Deixis in Trans‐Himalayan (Sino‐Tibetan) Languages. Transactions of the Philological Society 117:2 ► pp. 234 ff. DOI logo
Post, Mark W.
2020. The distribution, reconstruction and varied fates of topographical deixis in Trans-Himalayan (Sino-Tibetan). Diachronica 37:3 ► pp. 368 ff. DOI logo
Post, Mark W.
2022. Classifiers in a language with articles. Asian Languages and Linguistics 3:2 ► pp. 239 ff. DOI logo
van Driem, George
2018. Linguistic history and historical linguistics. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 41:1 ► pp. 106 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 october 2024. 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.