Indosphere

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Indosphere is a subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman languages as defined by linguist James Matisoff, which includes languages that are typologically and morphologically close to Indo-Aryan languages. It is commonly used in areal linguistics in contrast with Sinosphere, which refers to Tibeto-Burman languages that bear a closeness to the Chinese language.

Influence[edit]

The Tibeto-Burman family of languages, which extends over a huge geographic range, is characterized by great typological diversity, comprising languages that range from the highly tonal, monosyllabic, analytic type with practically no afflixational morphology, like Loloish, to marginally tonal or atonal languages with complex systems of verbal agreement morphology, like the Kiranti group of Nepal. This diversity is partly to be explained in terms of areal influences from Chinese on the one hand and, Indo-Aryan languages on the other.[1] Two large subgroupings formed by areal contact can be distinguished within Tibeto-Burman – the Sinosphere and the Indosphere.[2][3][4] These spheres were proposed by Matisoff as a combination of cultural and linguistic features.[5] A buffer zone between them as a third group was proposed by Kristine A. Hildebrandt, followed by B. Bickel and J. Nichols.[5] Matisoff grouped the languages in the family into the Sinosphere and the Indosphere due to the linguistic and political influence of China and India, respectively, on the languages.[6] Languages of the Indosphere are spoken in the region where Indic languages are the dominant.[7]

Some languages and cultures firmly belong to one or the other. For example, the Munda and Khasi branches of Austroasiatic languages, the Tibeto-Burman languages of Eastern Nepal, and much of Kamarupan branch of Tibeto-Burman, which most notably includes Meitei (Manipuri) are Indospheric; while the Hmong–Mien family, the Kam–Sui branch of Kadai, the Loloish branch of Tibeto-Burman, and Vietnamese (Viet–Muong) are Sinospheric. Some other languages, like Thai and Tibetan, have been influenced by both Chinese and Indian culture at different historical periods. Still other linguistic communities are so remote geographically that they have escaped significant influence from either. For example, the Aslian branch of Mon–Khmer in Malaya, or the Nicobarese branch of Mon–Khmer in the Nicobar Islands of the Indian Ocean show little influence by Sinosphere or Indosphere.[1] The Bodish languages and Kham languages are characterized by hybrid prosodic properties akin to related Indospheric languages towards the west and also Sinospheric languages towards the east.[8] Some languages of the Kiranti group in the Indosphere rank among the morphologically most complex languages of Asia.[9]

Indian cultural, intellectual, and political influence – especially that of Devanagari writing system – began to penetrate both insular and peninsular Southeast Asia about 2000 years ago. Indic writing systems were adopted first by Austronesians, like Javanese and Cham, and Austroasiatics, like Khmer and Mon, then by Tai (Siamese and Lao) and Tibeto-Burmans (Pyu, Burmese, and Karen). Indospheric languages are also found in Mainland Southeast Asia (MSEA), defined as the region encompassing Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand, as well as parts of Burma, Peninsular Malaysia and Yunnan. Related scripts are also found in South East Asian islands ranging from Sumatra, Java, Bali, south Sulawesi and most of the Philippines.[10] The learned components of the vocabularies of Khmer, Mon, Burmese and Thai/Lao consist of words of Pali or Sanskrit origin. Indian influence also spread north to the Himalayan region. Tibetan has used Devanagari writing since 600 AD, but has preferred to calque new religious and technical vocabulary from native morphemes rather than borrowing Indian ones.[1] The Cham empires, known collectively as Champa, which were founded around the end of 2nd century AD, belonged directly to Indosphere of influence, rather than to the Sinosphere which shaped so much of Vietnamese culture and by which Chams were influenced later and indirectly.[11]

Structure[edit]

Languages in the "Sinosphere" (roughly Southeast Asia) tend to be analytic, with little morphology, monosyllabic or sesquisyllabic lexical structures, extensive compounding, complex tonal systems, and serial verb constructions. Languages in the "Indosphere" (roughly the Himalayas and South Asia) tend to be more aggluntinative, with polysyllabic structures, extensive case and verb morphology, and detailed markings of interpropositional relationships.[2][3] Manange (like other Tamangic languages) is an interesting case to examine in this regard, as geographically it fits squarely in the "Indospheric" Himalayas, but typologically it shares more features with the "Sinospheric" languages.[2] Tibeto-Burman languages spoken in the Sinosphere tend to be more isolating, while those spoken in the Indosphere tend to be more morphologically complex.[12]

Many languages in the western side of the Sino-Tibetan family, which includes the Tibeto-Burman languages, show significant typological resemblances with other languages of the South Asia, which puts them in the group of Indosphere. They often have heavier syllables than found in the east, while tone systems, though attested, are not as frequent.[13] Indospheric languages are often toneless and/or highly suffixal.[14] Often there is considerable inflectional morphology, from fully developed case marking systems to extensive pronominal morphology found on the verb. These languages generally mark a number of types of inter-casual relationships and have distinct construction involving verbal auxiliaries.[13] Languages of the Indosphere typically display retroflex stop consonants, postsentential relative clauses and the extended grammaticalization of the verb say.[7] In Indospheric languages, such as the Tibeto-Burman languages of Northeast India and Nepal, for example, the development of relative pronouns and corelative structures as well as of retroflex initial consonants is often found.[6]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c James Alan Matisoff, Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction, pages 6-7, University of California Press, 2003, ISBN 0-520-09843-9
  2. ^ a b c Robert M. W. Dixon, Y. Alexandra, Adjective Classes: A Cross-linguistic Typology , page 74, Oxford University Press, 2004, ISBN 0-19-920346-6
  3. ^ a b Matisoff, James (1990), "On Megalocomparison", Language (Language, Vol. 66, No. 1) 66 (1): 106–120, doi:10.2307/415281, JSTOR 415281 
  4. ^ Enfield, N. J. (2005), "Areal Linguistics and Mainland Southeast Asia", Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 34: 181–206, doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120406 
  5. ^ a b Miestamo, Matti; Bernhard Wälchli (2007), New challenges in typology, Walter de Gruyter, p. 85, ISBN 3-11-019592-5 
  6. ^ a b RJ LaPolla, The Sino-Tibetan Languages, La Trobe University
  7. ^ a b Anju Saxena, Linguistic synchrony and diachrony on the roof of the world – the study of Himalayan languages, Instut för lingvistik och filologi, Uppsala University
  8. ^ Matti Miestamo & Bernhard Wälchli, New Challenges in Typology, page 90, Walter de Gruyter, 2007, ISBN 3-11-019592-5
  9. ^ David Levinson & Karen Christensen, Encyclopedia of Modern Asia: a berkshire reference work, page 494, Charles Scribner's Sons, 2002, ISBN 0-684-80617-7
  10. ^ Martin Haspelmath, The World Atlas of Language Structures, page 569, Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-19-925591-1
  11. ^ Umberto Ansaldo, Stephen Matthews & Lisa Lim, Deconstructing Creole, page 113, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007, ISBN 90-272-2985-6
  12. ^ Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon, Grammars in Contact, page 4, Oxford University Press, 2006, ISBN 0-19-920783-6
  13. ^ a b Carol Genetti, A Grammar of Dolakha Newar, page 3, Walter de Gruyter, 2007, ISBN 3-11-019303-5
  14. ^ Colin Renfrew, April M. S. McMahon & Robert Lawrence Trask, Time Depth in Historical Linguistics, page 334, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2000, ISBN 1-902937-06-6

Further reading[edit]

  • Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honor of James A. Matisoff, David Bradley, Randy J. LaPolla and Boyd Michailovsky eds., pp. 113–144. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
  • Ankerl, Guy (2000) [2000], Global communication without universal civilization, INU societal research, Vol.1: Coexisting contemporary civilizations : Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western, Geneva: INU Press, ISBN 2-88155-004-5 

External links[edit]