Sino-Austronesian vs. Sino-Caucasiab, Sino-Bodic vs. Sino-Tibetan

Sino-Austronesian vs. Sino-Caucasiab, Sino-Bodic vs. Sino-Tibetan
Author: George van Driem
Publication date: 2005
Number of pages: 54
Format / Quality: PDF – Excellent
Size: 1.9 Mb

There are at least five competing theories about the linguistic prehistory of Chinese. Two of them, Tibeto-Burman and Sino-Tibetan, originated in the beginning of the nineteenth century. Sino-Caucasian and Sino-Austronesian are products of the second half of the twentieth century, and East Asian is an intriguing
model presented in 2001.

These terms designate distinct models of language
relationship with divergent implications for the peopling of East Asia. What are the substantive differences between the models? How do the paradigms
differently inform the direction of linguistic investigation and differently shape the formulation of research topics?

What empirical evidence can compel us to decide between the theories? Which of the theories is the default hypothesis, and why? How can terminology be used in a judicious manner to avoid unwittingly presupposing the veracity of improbable or, at best, unsupported propositions?

Password: uztranslations

Remarks: Chapter from book

Leave a Comment

Translate »