Cover not available
Part of
Austronesian Undressed: How and why languages become isolating
Edited by David Gil and Antoinette Schapper
[Typological Studies in Language 129] 2020
► pp. 483–506

Chapter 11
Concluding reflections

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Purpose
    • 1.2Isolating languages as unnatural
    • 1.3Grounds for my hypothesis
  • 2.Riau Indonesian
    • 2.1Proto-Malayic and Proto-Malayo-Polynesian affixation is fatal to the Mekong-Mamberamo scenario
    • 2.2Why is Malayic so modestly inflected overall?
    • 2.3If Riau Indonesian is a Sprachbund language, why is it so unmixed?
    • 2.4Are there actually dialects of other Indonesian languages as structurally reduced as Riau Indonesian?
      • 2.4.1Javanese
      • 2.4.2Minangkabau
      • 2.4.3Other cases?
    • 2.5A note on the Jambi varieties
    • 2.6An alternative story
  • 3.Flores
    • 3.1The Mekong-Mamberamo scenario leaves more questions than answers
    • 3.2Why are West and East Flores languages more inflected?
    • 3.3Mekong-Mamberamo traits and transferred numerals are compatible with adult acquisition
    • 3.4Central Flores languages are not pidginised Sulawesi ones
  • 4.East Timor
    • 4.1Fossilised derivation
    • 4.2The inflection question
    • 4.3Signs of adult acquisition in Waima’a, Naueti, Tokodede, and Kemak
    • 4.4Papuan languages
    • 4.5Different paths to the same mountaintop?
  • 5.A note on Chamic
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 21 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.129.11mcw
References
Anderbeck, Karl & Aprilani, Herdian
2013 The Improbable Language: Survey Report on the Nasal Language of Bengkulu. Dallas TX: SIL International.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
2013 The origins of Sinitic. Increased empiricism. In Recent Advances in Chinese Linguistics [Studies in Chinese Language and Discourse 2], Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo (ed.), 73–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W.
1997 The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gil, David
1994 The structure of Riau Indonesian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 17: 179–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hull, Geoffrey
1998 The basic lexical affinities of Timor’s Austronesian languages: A preliminary investigation. Studies in the Languages and Cultures of East Timor 1: 97–174.Google Scholar
de Josselin de Jong, J. P. B.
1937 Studies in Indonesian Culture. Oirata: A Timorese Settlement on Kisar, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandische Uitgevers-Maatschappij.Google Scholar
Landmann, Alexandra
2017 Can we reconstruct a “Malayo-Javanic” law area? In Spirits and Ships, Andrea Acri, Roger Blench & Alexandra Landmann (eds). Singapore: ISEAS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1985 Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20: 303–318.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron
2009 Language Contact. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGinn, Richard
1982 Outline of Rejang Syntax. Jakarta: Badan Penyelenggara Seri Nusa, Universitas Atma Jaya.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John H.
2001 The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 5(3–4): 125–156.Google Scholar
2007 Language Interrupted. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008a Inflectional grammar and universal grammar: Post hoc versus propter hoc. In Variation, Selection, Development: Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change, Regine Eckhardt, Gerhard Jäger & Tonjes Veenstra (eds), 337–373. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008b Why does a language undress? Strange cases of Indonesia. In Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 94], Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds), 167–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Linguistic Simplicity and Complexity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Is analyticity normal? Implications of Niger-Congo and Sino-Tibetan for typology and diachronic theory. In Cyclical Change Continued [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 227], Elly van Gelderen (ed.), 49–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 The radically isolating languages of Flores: A challenge to diachronic theory. Journal of Historical Linguistics 9: 177–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, John H. & Good, Jeff
2012 A Grammar of Saramaccan Creole. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moro, Francesca
2019 Loss of morphology in Alorese (Austronesian): Simplification in adult language contact. Journal of Language Contact 19: 378–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moussay, Gerard
1981 La langue minangkabau. Paris: Archipel.Google Scholar
Nothofer, Bernd
1975 The Reconstruction of Proto-Malayo-Javanic. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Paauw, Scott
2007 A North Papua linguistic area? Paper presented at the First Workshop on the Languages of Papua, Manokwari.
Pienemann, Manfred
1998 Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo
2008 Creoles as interlanguages: Inflectional morphology. Journal of Pidgin Creole Languages 23: 114–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ratliff, Martha
2006 Prefix variation and reconstruction. In Variation and Reconstruction [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 268], Thomas D. Cravens (ed.), 165–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, Malcolm
2002 The history and transitivity of western Austronesian voice and voice-marking. In The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems, Fay Wouk & Malcolm Ross (eds), 17–78. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Siegel, Jeff
1987 Language Contact in a Plantation Environment. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah J. & Kaufman, Terence
1988 Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Thurgood, Graham
1999 From Ancient Cham to Modern Dialects: Two Thousand Years of Language Contact and Change. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Van Klinken, Catharina
1999 A Grammar of the Fehan Dialect of Tetun, an Austronesian Language of West Timor. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, C-155.Google Scholar