Classification of the Japonic languages
This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. (January 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The classification of the Japonic languages (Japanese and the Ryukyuan languages) is unclear. Linguists traditionally consider the Japonic languages to belong to an independent family; indeed, until the classification of Ryukyuan as separate languages within a Japonic family rather than as dialects of Japanese, Japanese was considered a language isolate. Among more distant connections, the possibility of a genetic relationship to the Goguryeo (Koguryŏ) languages, or perhaps to Kara (Gaya), has the most currency. Goguryeo itself may be related to Korean, and a Japonic–Korean grouping is widely considered plausible. Independent of the question of a Japonic–Korean connection, both the Japonic languages and Korean were sometimes included in the largely discredited Altaic family. A 2015 analysis using the Automated Similarity Judgment Program resulted in the Japonic languages being grouped with the Ainu and then with the Austroasiatic languages. However, as languages spoken by populations who have inhabited neighboring territories, it is plausible that similarities between Ainu and Japonic may also be due to past language contact. Analytic grammatical constructions acquired or transformed in Ainu were likely due to contact with Japanese and the Japonic languages, which had heavy influence on the Ainu languages with a large number of loanwords borrowed into the Ainu languages, and to a smaller extent, vice versa.
- 1 Ainu hypothesis
- 2 Japonic migration from Korea hypothesis
- 3 Korean, Altaic and/or Dravido-Korean hypotheses
- 4 Sino-Tibetan theory
- 5 Austronesian and Kra-Dai theory
- 6 Austroasiatic theory
- 7 Other
- 8 See also
- 9 References
- 10 Bibliography
The Japanese linguist Ryumine Katayama found many similar basic words between Ainu and Japanese. Because of a great amount of similar vocabulary, phonology, similar grammar, and geographical and cultural connections, he and Takeshi Umehara suggested that Japanese was closely related to the Ainu languages, and was influenced by other languages, especially Chinese and Korean.
A linguistic analysis in 2015 resulted in the Japonic languages being related with the Ainu languages and to the Austroasiatic languages.However, similarities between Ainu and Japonic are also due to extensive past contact. Analytic grammatical constructions acquired or transformed in Ainu were likely due to contact with Japanese and the Japonic languages, which had heavy influence on the Ainu languages with a large number of loanwords borrowed into the Ainu languages, and to a smaller extent, vice versa.
The Japanese linguist Kanehira Joji believes that the Ainu language is related to the Uralic languages and show similar basic words, similar morphology and phonology, that become more and more similar the closer we get to the proto-languages. He further believes that the “Siberian characteristics” in the today Japanese language is from an Ainu-Uralic influence and refers to the “dual-structure model” of Japanese origin between Jōmon and Yayoi.
Japonic migration from Korea hypothesis
In ancient times, Koreanic languages, then established in southern Manchuria and northern Korean peninsula, are alleged to have expanded southward to central and southern parts of the Korean peninsula, possibly displacing Japonic languages that may have been spoken there and causing the Yayoi migrations. There is disagreement over the protohistorical or historical period during which this expansion occurs, ranging from the Korean Bronze Age period to the Three Kingdoms of Korea period. As there is disagreement among experts when the expansion of Koreanic languages started, there is room for interpretation on the proto-historical and historical extent of the Japonic language presence in the central and southern Korean peninsula. John Whitman and Miyamoto Kazuo believe Japonic speakers migrated from Manchuria to Korea and lasted there until Mumun pottery period in the Korean peninsula. After the Mumun pottery period and beginning with Korean Bronze Age, Koreanic speakers started expanding from Manchuria southward towards the Korean peninsula, displacing the Japonic speakers and causing the Yayoi migrations. On the other hand, Alexander Vovin believes southern Korea was Japonic until the southward migration of Koreanic speakers from Goguryeo during Three Kingdoms of Korea, thus establishing Baekje, Silla and Gaya.
Korean, Altaic and/or Dravido-Korean hypotheses
Similarities with Koguryoic and Korean languages
The Japanese–Koguryoic proposal dates back to Shinmura Izuru's (1916) observation that the attested Goguryeo numerals—3, 5, 7, and 10—are very similar to Japanese. The hypothesis proposes that Japanese is a relative of the extinct languages spoken by the Buyeo-Goguryeo cultures of Korea, southern Manchuria, and Liaodong. The best attested of these is the language of Goguryeo, with the more poorly attested Buyeo languages of Baekje and Buyeo believed to also be related.
A monograph by Christopher Beckwith (2004) has established about 140 lexical items in the Goguryeo corpus. They mostly occur in place-name collocations, many of which may include grammatical morphemes (including cognates of the Japanese genitive marker no and the Japanese adjective-attributive morpheme -sa) and a few of which may show syntactical relationships. He postulates that the majority of the identified Goguryeo corpus, which includes all of the grammatical morphemes, is related to Japanese.
This work has been criticized for serious methodological flaws, such as rejecting mainstream reconstruction of Chinese and Japanese and using his own instead. Other critics like Alexander Vovin and Too Soo Hee argued that the connections to Japanese are due to earlier languages of southern Korea and that Goguryeo language was closer to Sillan and Korean.
But Japanese and Korean languages share also some typological similarities, such as an agglutinative morphology, a subject–object–verb (SOV) normal word order, important systems of honorifics (however, the two languages' systems of honorifics are different in form and usage; see Japanese honorifics and Korean honorifics), besides a few lexical resemblances. Factors like these led some historical linguists to suggest a genetic relationship between the two languages.
William George Aston suggested in 1879 in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society that Japanese is related to Korean. A relationship between Japanese and Korean was endorsed by the Japanese scholar Shōsaburō Kanazawa in 1910. Other scholars took this position in the twentieth century (Poppe 1965:137). Substantial arguments in favor of a Japanese–Korean relationship were presented by Samuel Martin, a leading specialist in Japanese and Korean, in 1966 and in subsequent publications (e.g. Martin 1990). Linguists who advocate this position include John Whitman (1985) and Barbara E. Riley (2004), and Sergei Starostin with his lexicostatistical research, The Altaic Problem and the Origins of the Japanese Language (Moscow, 1991). A Japanese–Korean connection does not necessarily exclude a Japanese–Koguryo or an Altaic relationship.
The possible lexical relationship between Korean and Japanese can be briefly exemplified by such basic vocabulary items as are found in the tables below.
|we||uri||wareware, warera||The Japanese forms are plurals (by reduplication and suffixation, respectively) of Japanese first-person singular personal pronoun ware. The Korean form may be from an earlier *ur-hŭi, with -hŭi as in the second-person plural personal pronoun nə-hŭi and the humble first-person plural personal pronoun jə-hŭi, but the plain first-person singular personal pronoun in Korean is na rather than *ur.|
|not||ani, an||-na-, -nu|
|sun||hae||hi, -bi||IPA approximates /hɛ/ and /hi/, respectively. The Korean word may also mean "year." The Japanese word may also mean "day" or "fire."|
|to be hard||gud-||kata-|
The same possible cognates are often observed in other members of the potential Altaic family, especially among the Tungusic languages. Compare, for instance, Nanai muke "water"; giagda- "to walk on foot"; anaa, anna "not" (from Starostin's database).
Some critics of this hypothesis (such as Alexander Vovin) claim that there are difficulties in establishing exact phonological laws and that Japanese and Korean have few shared innovations. There are also drastic differences between the native Korean and Japanese number systems.
The idea of a Japanese–Korean relationship overlaps the extended form of the Altaic hypothesis (see below), but not all scholars who argue for one also argue for the other. For example, Samuel Martin, who was a major advocate of a Japanese–Korean relationship, only provided cautious support to the inclusion of these languages in Altaic, and Talat Tekin, an Altaicist, includes Korean, but not Japanese, in Altaic (Georg et al. 1999:72, 74).
Similarities with Altaic languages
The Altaic language family was a hypothesized group composed of, at its core, languages categorized as Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic. G.J. Ramstedt's Einführung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft ('Introduction to Altaic Linguistics') in 1952–1957 included Korean in Altaic. Roy Andrew Miller's Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages (1971) included Japanese in Altaic as well. The most important recent work that favored the expanded Altaic family (i.e. that Korean and Japanese could both be included under the Altaic language family) is An Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages (3 volumes) by Sergei Starostin, Anna V. Dybo, and Oleg A. Mudrak (2003). Robbeets(2017) considers Japonic to be a "Transeurasian" (Altaic) language that is genetically unrelated to Austronesian, and argues that lexical similarities between Japonic and Austronesian are due to contact.
The Altaic proposal has largely been rejected (in both its core form of Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic as well as its expanded form that includes Korean and/or Japanese). The best-known critiques are those by Gerard Clauson (1956) and Gerhard Doerfer (1963, 1988). Current critics include Stefan Georg and Alexander Vovin. Critics[who?] attribute the similarities in the putative Altaic languages to pre-historic areal contact having occurred between the languages of the expanded group (e.g. between Turkic and Japonic), contact which critics and proponents agree took place to some degree.
Evidence for this grouping was mostly based upon claimed correspondences in vocabulary, as shown in the following table, although attempts have been made to reconstruct a number of suffixes.
|take 岳 (*taka)||dağ (*dāg)||"mountain"|
|i-, yo- 良い (*yə)||yeğ (*yęg)||"good"|
|ishi 石 (*isi)||taş (*diāĺ)||"stone"|
|yo 四 (*yə)||dört (*dȫrt)||"four"|
|kura 鞍 (*kura)||kürtün (*kürtün)||"saddle"|
|yak- 焼く (*yak-)||yak- (*yak-)||"to burn"||Turkish yak- is exclusively transitive ("to burn (it)", "to light (it) on fire"); intransitive counterpart is yan-|
|kir- 切る (*kir-)||kır- (*Kır-)||"to cut"||Turkish kır- actually means "to break; to split, to chop (wood); to fold; to destroy, to break (resistance, pride, desire, etc.); to reduce (price); to offend, to hurt": cf. Turkish kırma, the deverbal noun derived from the verb kır-: "a pleat, a fold; folding, collapsible; groats; hybrid, mongrel". Turkish kes- is more specifically "to cut".|
|inu 犬 (*inu)||it (*ıt ~ it)||"dog"||cf. Manchu indahŭn, Nanai ida, Ainu seta, Chinese "zodiacal dog" 戌 *zyüt, Jeju gaŋsæŋi "puppy"|
|kuro 黒 (*kurua)||kara (*Kara)||"black"||cf. Ainu kur "shadow", *kur-ne > kunne "black; dark"|
|so-re それ (*sə)||şu (*-sı)||"that"||Turkish is 3rd-person possessive suffix|
|nani 何 (*nV)||ne, neme (*nē-)||"what"||The only Turkic root beginning with *n-. Compare Ainu ne (interrogative stem) as in nep "what" and nen "who(m)," Korean nugu "who(m)"|
But linguists agree today that typological resemblances between Japanese, Korean and Altaic languages cannot be used to prove genetic relatedness of languages, as these features are typologically connected and easily borrowed from one language to the other (e.g. due to geographical proximity with Manchuria). Such factors of typological divergence as Middle Mongolian's exhibition of gender agreement can be used to argue that a genetic relationship with Altaic is unlikely.
A more rarely encountered hypothesis is that Japanese (and Korean) are related to the Dravidian languages. The possibility that Japanese might be related to Dravidian was raised by Robert Caldwell (cf. Caldwell 1875:413) and more recently by Susumu Shiba, Akira Fujiwara, and Susumu Ōno (n.d., 2000). The Japanese professor Tsutomu Kambe found in 2011 more than 500 similar cognates between Tamil and Japanese.
Another famous theory is the Dravido-Korean languages theory which suggests a southern relation. It has been proposed that Korean is also related to Dravidian and Japanese.
Some common features are:
- The two languages are agglutinative,
- they follow SOV word order,
- nouns and adjectives follow the same syntax,
- particles are post-positional,
- modifiers always precede modified words.
The comparative linguist Kang Gil-un proposes 1300 Dravidian Tamil cognates in Korean, which would significantly outnumber the number of Dravidian cognates he claims are found in Tungusic, Turkic or Ainu. Nevertheless, he suggests that among currently researchable languages, the Nivkh language is probably most closely related to Korean. According to his theory, the proto-Korean supposedly related to the proto-Nivkh was influenced by Dravidian, Ainu, Tungusic and maybe Turkic vocabulary.
Another theory was raised by the Japanese linguist Īno Mutsumi. He suggested after his analysis of proto-Sino-Tibetan that Japanese is related to the proto-form of Sino-Tibetan, especially to the Burmese language. Because of similar grammar rules (SOV, syntax), similar non-loan basic-vocabulary and the fact that early Sino-Tibetan was non-tonal like still today some small languages, he proposed the Sinitic origin theory.
The linguist Juha Janhunen found during his analysis of Asian languages strong similarities between proto-Japanese and language like Sino-Tibetan, Tai-Kadai and Hmong-Mien languages. He says, similar to Vovin, that proto-Japanese originated somewhere in southeast China or the Shandong peninsula.
Austronesian and Kra-Dai theory
Several linguists have proposed that Japanese may be a relative of the Austronesian family. Some linguists think it is more plausible that Japanese might have instead been influenced by Austronesian languages, perhaps by an Austronesian substratum. Those who propose this scenario suggest that the Austronesian family once covered the islands to the north as well as to the south. The phonological similarities of Japanese to the Austronesian languages, and the geographical proximity of Japan to Formosa and the Malay Archipelago have led to the theory that Japanese may be a kind of very early creole language, with a Korean superstratum and an Austronesian substratum. Alexander Vovin reconstructed the morphology of Proto-Japanese, and found many similarities between Proto-Japanese and several Southeast-Asian languages.
Vovin (2014) proposed that the location of the Japonic Urheimat (linguistic homeland) is in Southern China. Vovin argues that Proto-Japanese may have been a monosyllabic, SVO syntax and isolating language which are features that the Tai-Kadai languages also famously exhibit. The following lexical comparisons between Proto-Japonic and Proto-Tai are cited from Vovin (2014) and suggest a common origin between Japanese and Tai-Kadai languages or at least a strong influence from Tai-Kadai on Japanese.
|Proto-Tai||Tone in proto-Tai|
|Side||*pia||H||*Ɂbaïŋ ?< OC *bʕâŋ||C1|
|Aunt||*-pa in *wo-n-pa||H||*paa 'elder sister of a parent'||C1|
|Wife, woman||*mia||L||*mia 'wife'||A2|
secondary voicing in Tai
(space & time)
|Edge||*pa, cf. also *pasi||H, HH||*faŋ
|Insert||*pak- 'wear shoes, trousers'||H||*pak||D1S|
|Mountain||*wo 'peak'||L||*buo||A2, A1 in NT|
|Split||*sak-||H||*čaak 'be separated'||D1L, š- in NT|
|Suck||*sup-||H||*ču[u]p onomatopoetic?||D1S/L, š- in NT|
|Get soaked||*sim-||H||*čim 'dip into' ?< Chin.||B1, C1, š- in NT|
|Slander||*sə/o-sir- cf. nono-sir-||H/L?, but
|*sɔɔ 'slander, indicate'||A1|
|Cold||*sam-pu- cf. sam-as- 'cool it',
samë- 'get cool'
|L||NT *ǯam > šam||C2|
but proto-Kam-Sui *to,
pace Thurgood's *tu (1988:211)
|Wing||*pa > Old Japanese pa 'wing, feather'||H||proto-Kam-Sui *pwa||C1|
|Inside||*naka < *na-ka 'inside-place'||LH||proto-Tai *ʔd-naï||SW, Sukhothai A2,|
CT, NT A1
- Proto-Tai items are taken from Li, Fang Kuei 1977. A Handbook of Comparative Tai. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
- Li Fang-Kuei ï is equivalent to ɯ.
- NT = Northern Tai, CT = Central Tai, SW = Southwestern Tai.
Robbeets (2017) lists the following agricultural vocabulary in proto-Japonic with parallels in Austronesian languages, and suggests that Japonic had borrowed the words via a "para-Austronesian" language in the Shandong Peninsula during the Neolithic.
- proto-Japonic *usu ‘(rice and grain) mortar’
- proto-Austronesian *lusuŋ ‘(rice) mortar’ (Blust, 2015)
- proto-Japonic *kəmai ‘dehusked rice’
- proto-Austronesian *Semay ‘cooked rice’ (Blust, 2015)
- Old Chinese 糜 *C.maj ‘rice gruel; destroy, crush’ (Baxter and Sagart, 2011)
- early ripening crop
- proto-Japonic *wasara ~ *wǝsǝrǝ ‘early ripening crop, early ripening rice’
- proto-Austronesian *baCaR ‘broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum)’ (Sagart et al.; Blust, 2015)
- proto-Koreanic *pʌsal ‘hulled variety of grain, rice’ (Vovin, 2015)
Alexander Vovin (1998) suggests that the Yayoi may have spoken an Austroasiatic language based on the reconstructed Japonic terms *(z/h)ina-Ci 'rice (plant)', *koma-Ci '(hulled) rice', and *pwo 'ear of grain' which Vovin assumes to be agricultural terms of Yayoi origin. Vovin also suggests that Japonic was in contact with Austronesian, before the migration from Southern China to Japan, pointing to an ultimate origin of Japonic in southern China. Although Vovin (2014) does not consider Japonic related to Tai-Kadai or Austronesian, he claims that Japonic must have been in contact with them, pointing to an ultimate origin of Japonic in southern China with a plausible genetic relation to Austroasiatic languages.
A 2015 analysis using the Automated Similarity Judgment Program resulted in the Japonic languages being grouped with the Ainu languages, and a Japonic-Ainu clade being further grouped with the Austroasiatic languages. However, this sort of automated analysis is not widely accepted as proof of a genetic relationship between languages, and it is unclear to what extent the algorithm's findings may be ascribed to mutual influence between the Japonic and Ainu languages. Analytic grammatical constructions acquired or transformed in Ainu were likely due to contact with Japanese and the Japonic languages, which had heavy influence on the Ainu languages with a large number of loanwords borrowed into the Ainu languages, and to a smaller extent, vice versa.
Joseph Greenberg (2000–2002) argued for the inclusion of Japanese in his proposed Eurasiatic language family. In contrast to Sergei Starostin, he rejected the inclusion of Korean in Altaic. According to Greenberg, Japanese–Ryukyuan, Korean, and Ainu form a separate subgroup within Eurasiatic.
In contrast to Greenberg, many historical linguists remain convinced that systematic phonological reconstruction is necessary to establish genetic relationships among languages and reject his "mass comparison" methodology and, consequently, the Eurasiatic hypothesis.
- Linguistic reconstruction
- Comparison of Japanese and Korean
- Korean language
- Ainu language
- Common words for Korean and Japanese, mostly foreign words found.
- Proto-Korean-Japanese: A New Reconstruction of the Common Origin of the Japanese and Korean Languages, by Alexander Takenobu Francis-Ratte
- "While 'Altaic' is repeated in encyclopedias and handbooks most specialists in these languages no longer believe that the three traditional supposed Altaic groups, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic, are related." Lyle Campbell & Mauricio J. Mixco, A Glossary of Historical Linguistics (2007, University of Utah Press), pg. 7.
- "When cognates proved not to be valid, Altaic was abandoned, and the received view now is that Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic are unrelated." Johanna Nichols, Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time (1992, Chicago), pg. 4.
- "Careful examination indicates that the established families, Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic, form a linguistic area (called Altaic)...Sufficient criteria have not been given that would justify talking of a genetic relationship here." R.M.W. Dixon, The Rise and Fall of Languages (1997, Cambridge), pg. 32.
- "...[T]his selection of features does not provide good evidence for common descent....we can observe convergence rather than divergence between Turkic and Mongolic languages--a pattern than is easily explainable by borrowing and diffusion rather than common descent," Asya Pereltsvaig, Languages of the World, An Introduction (2012, Cambridge). This source has a good discussion of the Altaic hypothesis on pp. 211-216.
- Gerhard Jäger, "Support for linguistic macrofamilies from weighted sequence alignment." PNAS vol. 112 no. 41, 12752–12757, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1500331112. Published online before print September 24, 2015.
- The Languages of Japan and Korea, edited by Nicolas Tranter
- Ryumine Katayama (2004) "Japanese and Ainu (new version)" Tokyo: Suzusawa library
- Tranter, Nicolas (25 June 2012). "The Languages of Japan and Korea". Routledge. Archived from the original on 30 July 2017 – via Google Books.
- THE PHONO-TYPOLOGICAL DISTANCES BETWEEN AINU AND THE OTHER WORLD LANGUAGES AS A CLUE FOR CLOSENESS OF LANGUAGES - Yuri Tambovtsev Department of English, Linguistics and Foreign Languages of KF, Novosibirsk Pedagogical University, 28, Vilyuiskaya Str., Novosibirsk, 630126, Russia
- Proto-Uralic—what, where, and when? Juha JANHUNEN (Helsinki)
- "日本語の意外な歴史" (in Japanese). Retrieved 2018-08-21.
- 日本語の意外な歴史 第1話 金平譲司 Joji Kanehira
- Bellwood, Peter (2013). The Global Prehistory of Human Migration. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 9781118970591.
- Vovin, Alexander (2013). "From Koguryo to Tamna: Slowly riding to the South with speakers of Proto-Korean". Korean Linguistics. 15 (2): 222–240.
- Lee, Ki-Moon; Ramsey, S. Robert (2011). A History of the Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-66189-8.
- Whitman, John (2011). "Northeast Asian Linguistic Ecology and the Advent of Rice Agriculture in Korea and Japan". Rice. 4 (3–4): 149–158. doi:10.1007/s12284-011-9080-0.
- Unger, J. Marshall (2009). The role of contact in the origins of the Japanese and Korean languages. Honolulu: University of Hawai?i Press. ISBN 978-0-8248-3279-7.
- Miyamoto, Kazuo (2016). "Archaeological Explanation for the Diffusion Theory of the Japonic and Koreanic Languages". Japanese Journal of Archaeology. 4: 53–75.
- Shinmura, Izuru (1916). "國語及び朝 鮮語の數詞について [Regarding numerals in Japanese and Korean]". Geibun. 7.2-7.4.
- Pellard, Thomas (2005). "Koguryo, the Language of Japan's Continental Relatives: An Introduction to the Historical-Comparative Study of the Japanese-Kgouryoic Languages with a Preliminary Description of Archaic Northeastern Middle Chinese (review)" (PDF). Korean Studies. 29: 167–170. doi:10.1353/ks.2006.0008.
- Toh Soo Hee, About Early Paekche Language Mistaken as Being Koguryo Language, Ch'ungnam University
-  Archived May 29, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.
- Vovin 2008: 1
- Trask 1996: 147–51
- Rybatzki 2003: 57
- Vovin 2008: 5
- "Researchers find Tamil connection in Japanese - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2017-05-21.
- Min-Sohn Ho (2001). The Korean Language. Cambridge University Press. P. 29.
- Kang, Gil-un (1990). 고대사의 비교언어학적 연구. 새문사.
- Shin Ōno (1987) "Nihongo izen" and (2000) "Nihongo no keisei"
- 飯野睦毅 (1994)『奈良時代の日本語を解読する』東陽出版
- Taw Sein Ko 1924, p. viii.
- ユハ・ヤンフネン 「A Framework for the Study of Japanese Language Origins」『日本語系統論の現在』(pdf) 国際日本文化センター、京都、2003年、477-490頁。
- Benedict (1990), Lewin (1976), Matsumoto (1975), Miller (1967), Murayama (1976), Shibatani (1990).
- Vovin, Alexander (2008). "Proto-Japanese beyond the accent system". In Frellesvig, Bjarne; Whitman, John. Proto-Japanese: Issues and Prospects. John Benjamins. pp. 141–156. doi:10.1075/cilt.294.11vov. ISBN 978-90-272-4809-1.
- Vovin, Alexander. 2014. "Out of Southern China? – Philological and linguistic musings on the possible Urheimat of Proto-Japonic". Journées de CRLAO 2014. June 27–28, 2014. INALCO, Paris.
- "Javanese influence on Japanese - Languages Of The World". Languages Of The World. 2011-05-09. Retrieved 2018-07-25.
- Robbeets, Martine (2017). Austronesian influence and Transeurasian ancestry in Japanese: A case of farming/language dispersal. Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 210–251.
- Blust, Robert. 2015. Austronesian Comparative Dictionary, version of 14 June 2015. Accessible at http://www.trussel2.com/ACD/ (accessed June 16, 2015).
- Baxter, William and Laurent Sagart. 2011. Old Chinese reconstruction, version of 20 February 2011. Accessible at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265110209_Baxter-Sagart_Old_Chinese_reconstruction_version_of_20_February_2011 (accessed August 28, 2017).
- Vovin, Alexander. 2015. On the Etymology of Middle Korean psʌr ‘rice.’ Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları 25(2): 229–238.
- Vovin, Alexander. 1998. Japanese rice agriculture terminology and linguistic affiliation of Yayoi culture. In Archaeology and Language II: Archaeological Data and Linguistic Hypotheses. Routledge.
- The Languages of Japan and Korea, edited by Nicolas Tranter
- Schmidt, Wilhelm (1930). ""Die Beziehungen der austrischen Sprachen zum Japanischen", 'The connections of the Austric languages to Japanese'". Wiener Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte und Linguistik. 1: 239–51.
- Winfred P. Lehmann. "Proto-Indo-European Syntax". Utexas.edu. Archived from the original on 22 January 2015. Retrieved 15 January 2015.
- Aston, William George (1879). "A comparative study of the Japanese and Korean languages". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Britain and Ireland, New Series. 11: 317–364. doi:10.1017/s0035869x00017305.
- Beckwith, Christopher I. 2004. Koguryo: The Language of Japan's Continental Relatives: An Introduction to the Historical-Comparative Study of the Japanese-Koguryoic Languages. Leiden: Brill.
- Beckwith, Christopher I (2005). "The ethnolinguistic history of the early Korean peninsula region: Japanese-Koguryŏic and other languages in the Koguryŏ, Paekche, and Silla kingdoms" (PDF). Journal of Inner and East Asian Studies. 2 (2): 34–64.
- Beckwith, Christopher I (2006). "Methodological observations on some recent studies of the early ethnolinguistic history of Korea and vicinity". Altai Hakpo. 16: 199–234.
- Benedict, Paul K. 1990. Japanese/Austro-Tai. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
- Caldwell, Robert. 1875. A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages, second edition. London: Trübner.
- Georg, Stefan, Peter A. Michalove, Alexis Manaster Ramer, and Paul J. Sidwell. 1999. "Telling general linguists about Altaic." Journal of Linguistics 35, 65-98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Greenberg, Joseph H. 2000–2002. Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family, 2 volumes. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Greenberg, Joseph H. 2005. Genetic Linguistics: Essays on Theory and Method, edited by William Croft. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Kanazawa, Shōsaburō. 1910. The Common Origin of the Japanese and Korean Languages. Tokyo: Sanseidō.
- Lewin, Bruno (1976). "Japanese and Korean: The Problems and History of a Linguistic Comparison". Journal of Japanese Studies. 2 (2): 389–412. doi:10.2307/132059.
- Martin, Samuel E (1966). "Lexical evidence relating Korean to Japanese". Language. 12 (2): 185–251. JSTOR 411687.
- Matsumoto, Katsumi. 1975. "Kodai nihongoboin soshikikõ: naiteki saiken no kokoromi". Bulletin of the Faculty of Law and Letters (Kanazawa University) 22.83–152.
- Martin, Samuel E. 1990. "Morphological clues to the relationships of Japanese and Korean." In Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology, edited by Philip Baldi. Berlin:de Gruyter.
- Miller, Roy Andrew. 1971. Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Miller, Roy Andrew. 1967. The Japanese language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Murayama, Shichiro (1976). "The Malayo-Polynesian Component in the Japanese Language". Journal of Japanese Studies. 2 (2): 413–436.
- Ōno, Susumu. n.d. "The genealogy of the Japanese language: Tamil and Japanese."
- Ōno, Susumu. 2000. 日本語の形成. 岩波書店. ISBN 4-00-001758-6.
- Poppe, Nicholas. 1965. Introduction to Altaic Linguistics. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
- Riley, Barbara E. 2003. Aspects of the Genetic Relationship of the Korean and Japanese Languages. PhD thesis, University of Hawaii.
- Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
- Starostin, Sergei A. 1991. Altajskaja problema i proisxoždenie japonskogo jazyka, 'The Altaic Problem and the Origin of the Japanese Language'. Moscow: Nauka.
- Starostin, Sergei A., Anna V. Dybo, and Oleg A. Mudrak. 2003. Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages, 3 volumes. Leiden: Brill. (Also: database version.)
- Trombetti, Alfredo. 1922–1923. Elementi di glottologia, 2 volumes. Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli.
- Vovin, Alexander. 2003. 日本語系統論の現在：これからどこへ 'The genetic relationship of the Japanese language: Where do we go from here?'. In 日本語系統論の現在 'Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese Language', edited by Alexander Vovin and Toshiki Osada. Kyoto: International Center for Japanese Studies. ISSN 1346-6585.
- Whitman, John Bradford. 1985. The Phonological Basis for the Comparison of Japanese and Korean. PhD thesis, Harvard University.
- Francis-Ratte, Alexander Takenobu. 2016. Proto-Korean-Japanese: A New Reconstruction of the Common Origin of the Japanese and Korean Languages. PhD dissertation: Ohio State University.
- Janhunen, Juha (2003). "A Framework for the Study of Japanese Language Origins" (PDF). In Vovin, Alexander; Osada, Toshiki. Nihongo keitōron no ima 日本語系統論の現在 [Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese Language]. International Research Center for Japanese Studies. pp. 477–490. ISBN 978-4-9015-5817-4.
- Katsumi, Matsumoto. 2007. 世界言語のなかの日本語 Sekaigengo no nakano Nihongo, 'Japanese in the World's Languages'. Tokyo: 三省堂 Sanseido.
- Lewin, Bruno (1976). "Japanese and Korean: The problems and history of a linguistic comparison". Journal of Japanese Studies. 2 (2): 389–412. JSTOR 132059.
- Martin, Samuel E. 1968. "Grammatical elements relating Korean to Japanese." In Proceedings of the Eighth Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences B.9, 405-407.
- Martin, Samuel E. 1975. "Problems in establishing the prehistoric relationships of Korean and Japanese." In Proceedings, International Symposium Commemorating the 30th Anniversary of Korean Liberation. Seoul: National Academy of Sciences.
- Martin, Samuel E. 1991. "Recent research on the relationships of Japanese and Korean." In Sprung from Some Common Source: Investigations into the Prehistory of Languages, edited by Sydney M. Lamb and E. Douglas Mitchell. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Martin, Samuel E. 1996. Consonant Lenition in Korean and the Macro-Altaic Question. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
- Miller, Roy Andrew. 1980. Origins of the Japanese Language: Lectures in Japan during the Academic Year 1977-78. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
- Miller, Roy Andrew. 1996. Languages and History: Japanese, Korean and Altaic. Oslo: Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture.
- Robbeets, Martine. 2004a. "Belief or argument? The classification of the Japanese language." Eurasia Newsletter 8. Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University.
- Robbeets, Martine. 2004b. "Swadesh 100 on Japanese, Korean and Altaic." Tokyo University Linguistic Papers, TULIP 23, 99–118.
- Robbeets, Martine. 2005. Is Japanese related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
- Robbeets, Martine (2007). "How the actional suffix chain connects Japanese to Altaic". Turkic Languages. 11 (1): 3–58.
- Unger, J. Marshall (2014). "No rush to judgment: the case against Japanese as an isolate". NINJAL Project Review. 4 (3): 211–230. doi:10.15084/00000755.