Explore the vast range of titles available.

This volume elevates historical morpho-syntax to a research priority in the field of Southeast Asian language history, transcending the traditional focus on phonology and lexicon. The eleven chapters reflect work by 13 leading researchers in Austroasiatic language studies.

Austroasiatic (AA)-speaking populations in northern Thailand are of significant interest due to their status as indigenous descendants and their location at the crossroads of AA prehistoric distribution across Southern China, the Indian Subcontinent, and Mainland Southeast Asia. However, the complexity of ethnic identification can result in inaccuracies regarding the origin and migration history of these populations. To address this, we have conducted a genome-wide SNP analysis of 89 individuals from two Lavue and three Lwa-endonym populations. We then combined our outcomes with previously published data to elucidate the genetic diversity and clustering of AA groups in northern Thailand. Our findings align with existing linguistic classifications, revealing different genetic compositions among the three branches of the Mon-Khmer subfamily within the AA family: Monic, Khmuic, and Palaungic. Although the term \"Lua\" ethnicity is confusingly used to identify ethnic groups belonging to both Khmuic and Palaungic branches, our genomic data indicate that the Khmuic-speaking Lua living on the eastern side of the region are relatively distant from the Palaungic-speaking Lavue and Lwa populations living on the western side. The Lavue populations, primarily inhabiting mountainous areas, exhibit a genetic makeup unique to the AA family, with a close genetic relationship to the Karenic subgroup of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Conversely, the Lwa and Blang populations, residing in lowland river valleys, display genetic signatures resulting from admixture with Tai-Kadai-speaking ethnic groups. Utilizing genome-wide SNP markers, our findings indicate genetic heterogeneity among the Lua, Lavue, and Lwa ethnic groups. The intricate interplay of genetics, cultural heritage, and historical influences has shaped these ethnic communities. Our study underscores the importance of accurate ethnic classifications, emphasizing the use of self-identified endonyms, names created and used by the ethnic groups themselves. This approach respects the AA communities in northern Thailand and acknowledges their significant contributions to advancing our understanding of genetic anthropology.

The demographic history of South and Southeast Asia (S&SEA) is complex and contentious, with multiple waves of human migration. Some of the earliest footfalls were of the ancestors of modern Austroasiatic (AA) language speakers. Understanding the history of the AA language family, comprising of over 150 languages and their speakers distributed across broad geographical region in isolated small populations of various sizes, can help shed light on the peopling of S&SEA. Here we investigated the genetic relatedness of two AA groups, their relationship with other ethno-linguistically distinct populations, and the relationship of these groups with ancient genomes of individuals living in S&SEA at different time periods, to infer about the demographic history of this region. We analyzed 1451 extant genomes, 189 AAs from India and Malaysia, and 43 ancient genomes from S&SEA. Population structure analysis reveals neither language nor geography appropriately correlates with genetic diversity. The inconsistency between \"language and genetics\" or \"geography and genetics\" can largely be attributed to ancient admixture with East Asian populations. We estimated a pre-Neolithic origin of AA language speakers, with shared ancestry between Indian and Malaysian populations until about 470 generations ago, contesting the existing model of Neolithic expansion of the AA culture. We observed a spatio-temporal transition in the genetic ancestry of SEA with genetic contribution from East Asia significantly increasing in the post-Neolithic period. Our study shows that contrary to assumptions in many previous studies and despite having linguistic commonality, Indian AAs have a distinct genomic structure compared to Malaysian AAs. This linguistic-genetic discordance is reflective of the complex history of population migration and admixture shaping the genomic landscape of S&SEA. We postulate that pre-Neolithic ancestors of today's AAs were widespread in S&SEA, and the fragmentation and dissipation of the population have largely been a resultant of multiple migrations of East Asian farmers during the Neolithic period. It also highlights the resilience of AAs in continuing to speak their language in spite of checkered population distribution and possible dominance from other linguistic groups.

Background Austroasiatic (AA)-speaking populations in northern Thailand are of significant interest due to their status as indigenous descendants and their location at the crossroads of AA prehistoric distribution across Southern China, the Indian Subcontinent, and Mainland Southeast Asia. However, the complexity of ethnic identification can result in inaccuracies regarding the origin and migration history of these populations. To address this, we have conducted a genome-wide SNP analysis of 89 individuals from two Lavue and three Lwa-endonym populations. We then combined our outcomes with previously published data to elucidate the genetic diversity and clustering of AA groups in northern Thailand. Results Our findings align with existing linguistic classifications, revealing different genetic compositions among the three branches of the Mon-Khmer subfamily within the AA family: Monic, Khmuic, and Palaungic. Although the term “Lua” ethnicity is confusingly used to identify ethnic groups belonging to both Khmuic and Palaungic branches, our genomic data indicate that the Khmuic-speaking Lua living on the eastern side of the region are relatively distant from the Palaungic-speaking Lavue and Lwa populations living on the western side. The Lavue populations, primarily inhabiting mountainous areas, exhibit a genetic makeup unique to the AA family, with a close genetic relationship to the Karenic subgroup of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Conversely, the Lwa and Blang populations, residing in lowland river valleys, display genetic signatures resulting from admixture with Tai-Kadai-speaking ethnic groups. Conclusion Utilizing genome-wide SNP markers, our findings indicate genetic heterogeneity among the Lua, Lavue, and Lwa ethnic groups. The intricate interplay of genetics, cultural heritage, and historical influences has shaped these ethnic communities. Our study underscores the importance of accurate ethnic classifications, emphasizing the use of self-identified endonyms, names created and used by the ethnic groups themselves. This approach respects the AA communities in northern Thailand and acknowledges their significant contributions to advancing our understanding of genetic anthropology.

Background The demographic history of South and Southeast Asia (S&SEA) is complex and contentious, with multiple waves of human migration. Some of the earliest footfalls were of the ancestors of modern Austroasiatic (AA) language speakers. Understanding the history of the AA language family, comprising of over 150 languages and their speakers distributed across broad geographical region in isolated small populations of various sizes, can help shed light on the peopling of S&SEA. Here we investigated the genetic relatedness of two AA groups, their relationship with other ethno-linguistically distinct populations, and the relationship of these groups with ancient genomes of individuals living in S&SEA at different time periods, to infer about the demographic history of this region. Results We analyzed 1451 extant genomes, 189 AAs from India and Malaysia, and 43 ancient genomes from S&SEA. Population structure analysis reveals neither language nor geography appropriately correlates with genetic diversity. The inconsistency between “language and genetics” or “geography and genetics” can largely be attributed to ancient admixture with East Asian populations. We estimated a pre-Neolithic origin of AA language speakers, with shared ancestry between Indian and Malaysian populations until about 470 generations ago, contesting the existing model of Neolithic expansion of the AA culture. We observed a spatio-temporal transition in the genetic ancestry of SEA with genetic contribution from East Asia significantly increasing in the post-Neolithic period. Conclusion Our study shows that contrary to assumptions in many previous studies and despite having linguistic commonality, Indian AAs have a distinct genomic structure compared to Malaysian AAs. This linguistic-genetic discordance is reflective of the complex history of population migration and admixture shaping the genomic landscape of S&SEA. We postulate that pre-Neolithic ancestors of today’s AAs were widespread in S&SEA, and the fragmentation and dissipation of the population have largely been a resultant of multiple migrations of East Asian farmers during the Neolithic period. It also highlights the resilience of AAs in continuing to speak their language in spite of checkered population distribution and possible dominance from other linguistic groups.

This paper shows that 10 Chinese words in rising tone (tone B) have cognates with final -ʔ in Tibeto-Burman languages (Tiddim, Lushai, Chepang), which proves that final *-ʔ is the source of rising tone (tone B) in Chinese. These 10 words are 尾 wěi ‘tail’, hǔi ‘fire’, 苦 kǔ ‘bitter’, 雨 yǔ ‘rain’, 九 jiǔ ‘nine’, 子 zǐ ‘child’, 犬 quǎn ‘dog’, 乳 rǔ ‘breast’, 屎 shǐ ‘excrement’, and 邇 ěr ‘near’. In addition, this paper shows that the word for ‘tiger’ in Proto-Mon-Khmer is *klaʔ, and this word, when borrowed into Old Chinese, became 虎 *khlaʔ and the final -ʔ in PMK klaʔ became tone B in hǔ 虎 ‘tiger’.

This article presents an updated view of the language history of Vietnamese from its native Austroasiatic roots, including key historical phonological, morphological, and syntactic features and developments; a characterization of its Austroasiatic etyma; and the context of this information in Vietnamese linguistic ethnohistory. It is now possible to make better supported claims and more precise characterizations due to improved understanding of the history of Austroasiatic and Vietic and their reconstructions, the nature and effect of language contact with Chinese, and the process of typological convergence of the ancestral language of Vietnamese. This study shows that, while Vietnamese is not a typologically characteristic Austroasiatic language, the Austroasiatic components of the Vietnamese lexicon and linguistic structure are more prominent than previously supposed.

Divergence and diversity at the level of phonology and lexicon in many of the Austronesian languages of Borneo are widely recognized and well studied. However, the source of this divergence is debated. In this paper, lexical items in the languages of Borneo which lack secure Austronesian etymologies are the object of study. Some of these words show potential semantic and phonological matches with Austroasiatic forms, suggesting a possible early period of in situ contact between Austronesian speakers and speakers of Mon-Khmer languages on the island of Borneo.

The Austroasiatic (AA) languages comprise a large language family in mainland Southeast Asia (MSEA) and South Asia. Theoretical, methodological, and material constraints have limited research on the origin and dispersal of AA-speaking populations within historical-comparative linguistics. With the deepening of archaeological and genetic studies, interdisciplinary collaboration has become key to solving this problem. We review the latest hypotheses in linguistics, archaeology, and molecular anthropology and propose insights on the origin and dispersal of AA languages. The ancestors of the AA-speaking populations were suggested to be rice farmers living in the Neolithic Age in southern China. Between 3,000 and 4,500 BP, some of these ancestors who spoke Proto-AA migrated from southern China to northern Vietnam, together with shouldered stone tools and domesticated rice. They mixed with local hunter-gatherers and expanded to the south of MSEA, giving rise to the Mon-Khmer, Aslian, and Nicobarese populations. They also spread to the northeast of India to form the Munda-speaking populations. Another group arrived near Dian Lake in Yunnan about 2,500 BP, where they created the Bronze Drum culture with the Proto-Tai-Kadai (TK)–speaking populations and later spread eastward to northern Vietnam via Guangxi. Finally, the Proto-AA–speaking people who remained in southern China mixed with the Proto-TK–speaking groups from Fujian and Guangdong, leading to a language shift, which we hypothesize was one of the main reasons for the “disappearance” of AA in southern China.

As an intriguing but little understood language group within the Tibeto-Burman family, Qiangic languages are widely reported to have evidentiality, the grammatical means of expressing information source. How does this category function in this language group? Does it show any common features across these languages? And does it have any unique properties? Drawing on data from over a dozen languages and dialects, and cast within an informative typological framework, this study is the first attempt to answer these questions. It is found that evidentiality in Qiangic languages can be classified into three broad types. The study further demonstrates that modern systems cannot be inherited from Proto-Qiangic, and it also reveals certain features of the reported evidential that seem to be typologically rare.