1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 9, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 9, 2023

The Unity and Diversity of Altaic

Abstract

In popular conception, Altaic is often assumed to constitute a language family, or perhaps a phylum, but in reality, it involves a historical, areal, and typological complex of five separate language families of different origins—Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic, and Japonic—to which Uralic also adheres in the transcontinental context of Ural-Altaic. The similarities between the individual Altaic language families are due to prolonged contacts that have resulted in both lexical borrowing and structural interaction in a number of binary patterns. The historical homelands of the Altaic language families were located in continental Northeast Asia, but secondary expansions have subsequently brought these languages to most parts of northern and central Eurasia, including Anatolia and eastern Europe. The present review summarizes the basic facts concerning the Altaic language families, their common features, their patterns of interaction with each other and with other languages, and their historical and prehistorical context.

Keyword(s): areal linguistics, contextual linguistics, diachronic linguistics, language contacts, typological interaction
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-042356
2023-01-17
2024-04-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/9/1/annurev-linguistics-030521-042356.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-042356&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Austerlitz R 1970. Agglutination in Northern Eurasia in perspective. Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics Presented to Shirô Hattori on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday R Jakobson, S Kawamoto Tokyo: TEC Corp. Lang. Educ. Res.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Barfield TJ. 1989. The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China, 221 BC to AD 1757. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
  3. Barrere I, Janhunen J. 2019. Mongolian vowel harmony in a Eurasian context. Int. J. Eurasian Linguist. 1:146–77
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Beckwith CI. 2004. Koguryo, the Language of Japan's Continental Relatives. Brill's Jpn. Stud. Libr. 21 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
  5. Bentley JR. 2008. A Linguistic History of the Forgotten Islands: A Reconstruction of the Proto-language of the Southern Ryūkyūs. Lang. Asia Ser. 7 Folkestone, UK: Global Oriental
  6. Benzing J. 1956. Die tungusischen Sprachen: Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik. Mainz, Ger.: Franz Steiner Verlag
  7. Bickel B, Nichols J. 2006. Oceania, the Pacific Rim, and the theory of linguistic areas. Proc. Annu. Meet. Berkeley Linguist. Soc. 32:22–12
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Blažek V, Schwarz M, Srba O. 2019. Altaic Languages: History of Research, Survey, Classification and a Sketch of Comparative Grammar. Brno, Czech Repub.: Masaryk Univ. Press
  9. Boller A. 1857. Nachweis, daß das Japanische zum ural-altaischen Stamme gehört. Vienna: K. K. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei
  10. Bugaeva A, Nichols J, Bickel B. 2021. Appositive possession in Ainu and around the Pacific. Linguist. Typol. 26:143–88
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Castrén MA. 1846. Anteckningar om Samojediskans förvandtskap med de Finska Språken [Notes on the relationship of Samoyedic with the Finnish languages]. Suomi: Tidskrift i fosterländska ämnen 5:1845177–86
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Castrén MA. 1849. Hvar låg det Finska folkets vagga? [Where was the cradle of the Finnish people located?]. Litterära Soiréer i Helsingfors under hösten 1849 Helsinki: Litteratur-Sällskapets Tryckeri
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Clauson SG. 1956. The case against the Altaic Theory. Cent. Asiat. J. 2:181–87
     [Google Scholar]
  14. de Boer EM. 2010. The Historical Development of Japanese Tone. Part 1: From Proto-Japanese to the Modern Dialects. Part 2: The Introduction and Adaptation of the Middle Chinese Tones in Japan. Veröffentlichungen des Ost-Asien-Instituts der Universität Bochum 59 Wiesbaden, Ger: Harrassowitz Verlag
  15. de Rachewiltz I, Rybatzki V. 2010. Introduction to Altaic Philology: Turkic, Mongolian, Manchu Handbuch der Orientalistik VIII.20 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
  16. Doerfer G. 1963–1975. Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen Vols. 1–4. Akad. Wiss. Lit. Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Komm. 16 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Frank Steiner Verlag
  17. Doerfer G. 1966. Zur Verwandtschaft der altaischen Sprachen. Indoger. Forsch. 71:81–123
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Doerfer G, Hesche W, Scheinhardt H, Tezcan S. 1971. Khalaj Materials. Indiana Univ. Publ. Uralic Altaic Ser. 115 Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ.
  19. Doerfer G. 1973. Lautgesetz und Zufall: Betrachtungen zum Omnicomparativismus Innsbrucker Beitr. Sprachwiss. 10. Innsbruck Austria: Inst. Vgl. Sprachwiss. Univ. Innsbruck
  20. Doerfer G. 1985. Mongolo-Tungusica. Tungusica 3 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Otto Harrassowitz
  21. Doerfer G. 1988. Zetacism/sigmaticm plays no rôle. Cent. Asiat. J. 32:61–63
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Dolgopolsky A. 1998. The Nostratic Macrofamily and Linguistic Palaeontology. Pap. Prehist. Lang. 1 Cambridge, UK: McDonald Inst. Archaeol. Res.
  23. Erdal M. 2004. A Grammar of Old Turkic. Handbuch der Orientalistik VIII.3 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Erdal M. 2019. The Turkic-Mongolic lexical relationship in view of the Leipzig-Jakarta list. Int. J. Eurasian Linguist. 1:178–97
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Frellesvig B. 2010. A History of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  26. Georg S 1990. Some thoughts on the etymology of the Turkic plural suffix -lar/-ler. Altaica Osloensia: Proceedings from the 32nd Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference B Brendemoen 141–52 Oslo, Nor.: Universitetsforlaget
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Georg S. 1999/2000. Haupt und Glieder der altaischen Hypothese: Die Körperteilbezeichnungen im Türkischen, Mongolischen und Tungusischen. Ural-altaische Jahrb. N. F. B 16:143–82
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Georg S 2003. Japanese, the Altaic Theory, and the limits of language classification. Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese Language T Osada, A Vovin, with the assistance of Kerri Russell 429–49 Nichibunken Jpn. Stud. Ser. 31 Kyoto, Jpn: Int. Res. Cent. Jpn. Stud.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Georg S 2021. On perfectly good-looking morphological comparanda and their (sometimes, however, lacking) significance for hypotheses of language relationship: some marginal footnotes on the (still ongoing?) Altaic debate. Historical Linguistics and Philology of Central Asia: Essays in Turkic and Mongolic Studies B Khabtagaeva with the assistance of Zsuzanna Olach 420–28 Lang. Asia Ser. 36 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Golden PB. 1992. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State-Formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East Turcologica 9 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Otto Harrassowitz
  31. Greenberg JF. 2000–2002. Indo-European and its closest relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family, Vols. 1–2 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  32. Grünthal R, Heyd V, Holopainen S, Janhunen JA, Khanina O et al. 2022. Drastic demographic events triggered the Uralic spread. Diachronica 39:4490–524
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Gruzdeva E, Janhunen JA. 2020. Notes on the typological prehistory of Ghilyak. Int. J. Eurasian Linguist. 2:11–28
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Hashimoto M 1986. The Altaicization of Northern Chinese. Contributions to Sino-Tibetan Studies J McCoy, T Light 76–97 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
     [Google Scholar]
  35. He G, Wang M, Zou X, Yeh H-Y, Liu C et al. 2022. Extensive ethnolinguistic diversity at the crossroads of North China and South Siberia reflects multiple sources of genetic diversity. J. Syst. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1111/jse.12827
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hudson MJ. 1999. Ruins of Identity: Ethnogenesis in the Japanese Islands. Honolulu, HI: Univ. Hawaiʻi Press
  37. Itabashi Y. 2003. Altaic and Austronesian language mixing in Old Japanese: evidence of core basic vocabulary and affixes. Eurasian Stud. Yearb. 75:5–58
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Janhunen J. 1981. Korean vowel system in North Asian perspective. Han-geul 172:129–46
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Janhunen J 1995. Prolegomena to a comparative analysis of Mongolic and Tungusic. Proceedings of the 38th Permanent International Altaistic Conference (Kawasaki 1995) G Stary 209–18 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Janhunen J. 1996. Manchuria: An Ethnic History. Mémoires Soc. Finno-Ougrienne 222 Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society
  41. Janhunen J. 1997. Problems of primary root structure in Pre-Proto-Japanic. Int. J. Cent. Asian Stud. 2:14–30
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Janhunen J. 1999. A contextual approach to the convergence and divergence of Korean and Japanese. Int. J. Cent. Asian Stud. 4:1–23
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Janhunen J. 2005. The lost languages of Koguryo. J. Inner East Asian Stud. 2:266–86
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Janhunen J. 2007. Typological expansion in the Ural-Altaic belt. Incontri Linguistici 30:71–83
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Janhunen J 2008. Mongolic as an expansive language family. Past and Present Dynamics: The Great Mongolian State T Kurebito 127–37 Tokyo: Tokyo Univ. Foreign Stud.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Janhunen J 2009. On the Turkicization of Turkey in a Eurasian context. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitt. 32/33:139–50
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Janhunen J 2012. The expansion of Tungusic as an ethnic and linguistic process. Recent Advances in Tungusic Linguistics AL Malchukov, LJ Whaley, Turcologica 89 5–16 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Janhunen J 2013. Personal pronouns in Core Altaic. Shared Grammaticalization with Special Focus on the Transeurasian Languages M Robbeets, H Cuyckens 211–26 Stud. Lang. Companion Ser. 132 Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Janhunen J. 2015. Observations on the Para-Mongolic elements in Jurchenic. Acta Linguist. Petropolitana 11:3575–92
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Janhunen J 2016. Towards Pre-Proto-Turkic: issues of definition and terminology. Eine hundertblättrige Tulpe: Festgabe für Claus Schönig I Hauenschild, M Kappler, B Kellner-Heinkele 189–96 Berlin: Klaus Schwarz
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Janhunen J. 2020. The differential diversification of Mongolic. J. Historical Socioling. 6:220190014
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Janhunen J 2003. The Mongolic Languages. Routledge Lang. Fam. Ser London: Routledge
  53. Jankowski H 2013. Altaic languages and historical contact. Current Trends in Altaic Linguistics: A Festschrift for Professor Emeritus Seong Baeg-in on his 80th Birthday K Juwon, K Dongho 523–45 Seoul: Altaic Soc. Korea
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Johanson L. 2021. Turkic. Cambridge Lang Surv. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Johanson L, Csató ÉÁ, eds. 2021. The Turkic Languages. Routledge Lang. Fam. Ser London: Routledge. , 2nd ed..
  56. Joki AJ. 1952. Die Lehnwörter des Sajansamojedischen. Mémoires Soc. Finno-Ougrienne 103 Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura
  57. Kane D. 2009. The Khitan Language and Script Handbuch der Orientalistik VIII.19 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
  58. Kellgren H. 1847. Die Grundzüge der Finnischen Sprache mit Rücksicht auf den Ural-Altaischen Sprachstamm. Berlin: F. Schneider & Comp
  59. Khabtagaeva B. 2009. Mongolic Elements in Tuvan. Turcologica 81 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Khabtagaeva B. 2017. The Ewenki Dialects of Buryatia and Their Relationship to Khamnigan Mongol Tunguso-Sibirica 41 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
  61. Kiyose GN. 1995. Japanese Grammar: A New Approach. Kyoto, Jpn.: Kyoto Univ. Press
  62. Ko S. 2018. Tongue Root Harmony and Vowel Contrast in Northeast Asian Languages. Turcologica 112 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Ko S, Joseph A, Whitman J 2014. Comparative consequences of the tongue root harmony analysis for proto-Tungusic, proto-Mongolic, and proto-Korean. Paradigm Change in the Transeurasian Languages and Beyond M Robbeets, W Bisang 141–76 Stud. Lang. Companion Ser. 161 Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Kotwicz W. 1951. Studia nad językami ałtajskimi [Studies of Altaic languages]. Rocz. Orientalistyczny 16:1–317
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Lee K-M, Ramsey SR. 2011. A History of the Korean Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  66. Levent S. 2015. Common Asianist intellectual history in Turkey and Japan: Turanism. Cent. Asian Surv. 35:1121–35
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Lewin B. 1976. Japanese and Korean: The problems and history of a linguistic comparison. J. Jpn. Stud. 2:2389–412
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Ligeti L 1970. Le tabghatch, un dialecte de la langue sien-pi. Mongolian Studies L Ligeti 265–308 Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 14 Budapest, Hung.: Akadémiai Kiadó
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Ligeti L. 1971. Алтайская теория и лексикостатистика. [The Altaic Theory and lexicostististics]. Вопросы языкознания321–33
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Logie A. 2019. Diagnosing and debunking Korean pseudohistory. European J. Korean Stud. 18:237–80
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Malchukov A, Czerwinski P. 2021. Verbalization/insubordination: a diachronic syntactic isogloss in Northeast Asia. Int. J. Eurasian Linguist. 3:183–104
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Martin SE. 1966. Lexical evidence relating Korean to Japanese. Language 42:2185–251
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Martin SE. 1987. The Japanese Language Through Time. Yale Lang. Ser New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  74. Martin SE 1990. Morphological clues to the relationships of Japanese and Korean. Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology P Baldi 483–509 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Martin SE. 1992. A Reference Grammar of Korean: A Complete Guide to the Grammar and History of the Korean Language. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co.
  76. Menges KH. 1975. Altajische Studien II. Japanisch und Altajisch. Abh. Kunde Morgenl. 41(3) Wiesbaden, Ger.: Steiner Franz Verlag
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Miller RA. 1971. Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  78. Miller RA. 1996. Languages and History: Japanese, Korean, and Altaic. Bangkok: White Orchid
  79. Murayama S 1975. Altaische Komponente der japanischen Sprache. Researches in Altaic Languages L Ligeti, pp. 181–88. Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 20 Budapest, Hung.: Akadémiai Kiadó
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Németh G. 1912. Die türkisch-mongolische Hypothese. Z. Dtsch. Morgenl. Ges. 66:549–76
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Nichols J. 2012. Selection for m:T pronominals in Eurasia. Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology L Johanson, M Robbeets 47–69 Brill's Stud. Lang. Cognition Cult. 2 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Nugteren H. 2011. Mongolic Phonology and the Qinghai-Gansu Languages LOT 289. Diss. Neth. Grad. Sch. Linguist. Amsterdam:
  83. Orlandi G. 2020. The state of the art of the genetic relationship of Japonic: the Turanian and Altaic Hypotheses. Int. J. Eurasian Linguist. 2:129–69
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Paasonen H. 1917. Beiträge zur finnischugrisch-samojedischen Lautgeschichte. Budapest, Hung.: Franklin-Vereins
  85. Pakendorf B. 2009. Intensive contact and the copying of paradigms: an Èven dialect in contact with Sakha (Yakut). J. Lang. Contact VARIA 2:85–110
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Poppe N. 1955. Introduction to Mongolian Comparative Studies. Mémoires Soc. Finno-Ougrienne 110 Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura
  87. Poppe N. 1960. Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen. Teil I: Vergleichende Lautlehre Porta Linguarum Orientalium, Neue Ser. 4 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Otto Harrassowitz
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Poppe N. 1965. Introduction to Altaic Linguistics. Ural-Altaische Bibliothek XIV Wiesbaden, Ger.: Otto Harrassowitz
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Poppe N. 1975. Altaic linguistics: an overview. Sci. Lang. 6:130–86
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Ramsey SR 1991. Proto-Korean and the origin of Korean accent. Studies in the Historical Phonology of Asian Languages W Boltz, MC Shapiro, pp. 215–38. Curr. Issues Linguist. Theory 77 Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Ramstedt GJ. 1914–1916. Zur mongolisch-türkischen Lautgeschichte, I-III. Keleti Szemle 15:34–150 16:66–84
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Ramstedt GJ. 1939. A Korean Grammar. Mémoires Soc. Finno-Ougrienne 72 Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura
  93. Ramstedt GJ. 1949. Studies in Korean Etymology. Mémoires Soc. Finno-Ougrienne 95 Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura
  94. Ramstedt GJ. 1952–1966. Einführung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft Vols. 1–3. Mémoires Soc. Finno-Ougrienne 104 Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura
  95. Räsänen M. 1949. Materialien zur Lautgeschichte der türkischen Sprachen. Studia Orientalia 15 Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica
  96. Räsänen M. 1957. Materialien zur Morphologie der türkischen Sprachen. Studia Orientalia 21 Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica
  97. Renfrew C, Nettle D, eds. 1999. Nostratic: Examining a Linguistic Macrofamily. Pap. Prehist. Lang. 2 Cambridge, UK: McDonald Inst. Archaeol. Res.
  98. Robbeets M. 2005. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? Turcologica 64 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
  99. Robbeets M. 2015. Diachrony of Verb Morphology: Japanese and the Transeurasian Languages. Trends Linguist. Stud. Monogr. 291 Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
  100. Robbeets M, Bouckaert R, Conte M, Savelyev A, Li T et al. 2021. Triangulation supports agricultural spread of the Transeurasian languages. Nature 599:616–21
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Robbeets M, Savelyev A, eds. 2020. The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  102. Róna-Tas A. 1972. Did the proto-Altaic people know the stirrup?. Studia Mongolica 13:169–71
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Róna-Tas A. 1974. Общее наследие или заимствования? (К проблеме родства алтайских языков) [Common heritage or borrowings? On the problem concerning the relationship of the Altaic languages]. Вопросы языкознания 2:31–45
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Róna-Tas A. 1980. On the earliest Samoyed-Turkish contacts. Congressus Quintus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum 3:377–85
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Róna-Tas A, Berta Á. 2011. West Old Turkic: Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian Parts 1–2. Turcologica 84 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
  106. Rozycki W. 1994. Mongol Elements in Manchu. Indiana Univ. Uralic Altaic Ser. 157 Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ. Res. Inst. Inner Asian Stud.
  107. Schönig C. 1999. The internal division of modern Turkic and its historical implications. Acta Orient. Acad. Sci. Hung. 52:163–95
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Schönig C. 2001. Mongolische Lehnwörter im Westoghusischen. Turcologica 47 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Schönig C 2003. Turko-Mongolic relations. The Mongolic Languages J Janhunen 403–19 London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Shherbak AM. 1966. О характере лексических взаимосвязей тюркских, монгольских и тунгусо-маньчжурских языков. [On the nature of the lexical relations of the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages]. Вопросы языкознания321–35
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Shherbak AM. 1970. Сравнительная фонетика тюркских языков. [Comparative phonetics of the Turkic languages] Leningrad, Russ.: Hаука
  112. Shherbak AM. 1997. Ранние тюркско-монгольские связи (VIII-XIV вв.) [Early Turko-Mongolic relations (8th to 14th cc.)] St. Petersburg, Russ.: Russ. Acad. Sci. Inst. Linguist. Res.
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Shherbak AM. 2005. Тюркско-монгольские языковые контакты в истории монгольских языков. [Turko-Mongolic linguistic contacts in the history of the Mongolic languages] St. Petersburg, Russ.: Hаука
  114. Shibatani M. 1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge Lang. Surv Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  115. Shimunek A. 2017. Languages of Ancient Southern Mongolia and North China: A Historical-Comparative Study of the Serbi or Xianbei Branch of the Serbi-Mongolic Language Family, with an Analysis of Northeastern Frontier Chinese and Old Tibetan Phonology Tunguso-Sibirica 40 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
  116. Shirokogoroff SM. 1931. Ethnological and Linguistical Aspects of the Ural-Altaic Hypothesis. Oosterhout, Neth.: Anthr. Publ.
  117. Starostin SA. 1991. Алтайская проблема и происхождение японского языка [The Altaic problem and the origin of the Japanese language] Moscow: Hаука
  118. Starostin S, Dybo A, Mudrak O, Gruntov I, Glumov V. 2003. Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages Vols. 1–3. Handbuch der Orientalistik VIII.8 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
  119. Szeto PY. 2021. Revisiting the Amdo Sprachbund: genes, languages, and beyond. Himal. Linguist. 20:3123–45
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Szeto PY, Yurayong C. 2021. Sinitic as a typological sandwich: revisiting the notions of Altaicization and Taicization. Linguist. Typol. 25:3507–49
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Toh SH. 2005. About early Paekche language mistaken as being Koguryŏ language. J. Inner East Asian Stud. 2:213–31
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Tranter N, 2012. The Languages of Japan and Korea. Routledge Lang. Fam. Ser London: Routledge
  123. Unger JM. 2001. Layers of words and volcanic ash in Japan and Korea. J. Jpn. Stud. 27:181–111
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Unger JM. 2009. The Role of Contact in the Origins of the Japanese and Korean Languages. Honolulu: Univ. Hawaiʻi Press
  125. Vovin A. 2005. The end of the Altaic controversy. Central Asiatic J. 49:171–132
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Vovin A. 2010. Koreo-Japonica: A Re-evaluation of a Common Genetic Origin. Hawaiʻi Studies of Korea Honolulu: Univ. Hawaiʻi Press
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Vovin A. 2019. A sketch of the earliest Mongolic language: The Brāhmī Bugut and Khüis Tolgoi Inscriptions. Int. J. Eurasian Linguist. 1:1162–97
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Vovin A. 2020. A Descriptive and Comparative Grammar of Western Old Japanese. Handbuch der Orientalistik V.16, Vols. 1–2 Leiden, Neth.: Brill. , 2nd ed..
  129. Vovin A. 2021. Names of large exotic animals and the Urheimat of Japonic. Int. J. Eurasian Linguist. 3:1105–20
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Vovin A, de la Fuente JAA, Janhunen J, eds. Forthcoming. The Tungusic Languages. Routledge Lang. Fam. Ser London: Routledge
  131. Weiers M. 1969. Untersuchungen zu einer historischen Grammatik des Präklassischen Schriftmongolisch. Asiatische Forschungen 28 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Otto Harrassowitz
  132. Whitman JB. 1985. The Phonological Basis for the Comparison of Japanese and Korean. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  133. Whitman J. 2012. The relationship between Japanese and Korean. The Languages of Japan and Korea, ed. N Tranter 24–38 London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Winkler H. 1884. Uralaltaische Völker und Sprachen. Berlin: Ferd. Dümmlers Verlagsbuchhandlung
  135. Winkler H. 1909. Der Uralaltaische Sprachstamm, das Finnische und das Japanische. Berlin: Ferd. Dümmlers Verlagsbuchhandlung
  136. Wu Y, Janhunen J. 2010. New Materials on the Khitan Small Script: A Critical Edition of Xiao Dilu and Yelü Xiangwen. Lang. Asia 9 Folkestone, UK: Global Oriental
  137. Yamakoshi Y 2014. How can we define the “participles” in Mongolic languages: two problems in Shinekhen Buryat. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Central Asian Languages and Linguistics, ed. Ö Özçelik, AK Kent , Vol. 1131–42 Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ.
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Yurayong C, Szeto PY. 2020. Altaicization and De-Altaicization of Japonic and Koreanic. Int. J. Eurasian Linguist. 2:1108–48
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-042356
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error