Hubbry Logo
Austronesian languagesAustronesian languagesMain
Open search
Austronesian languages
Community hub
Austronesian languages
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Austronesian languages
Austronesian languages
Austronesian languages
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Austronesian
Geographic
distribution		Taiwan, Maritime Southeast Asia, Madagascar, parts of Mainland Southeast Asia, Hainan (China), and Oceania
EthnicityAustronesian peoples
Native speakers
(undated figure of 328 million)[1]
Linguistic classificationOne of the world's primary language families
Proto-languageProto-Austronesian
Subdivisions
Language codes
ISO 639-2 / 5map
Glottologaust1307
Historical distribution of Austronesian languages
   Malayo-Polynesian branch
  included islands and archipelagos
   Formosan languages
  included region

The Austronesian languages (/ˌɔːstrəˈniːʒən/ AW-strə-NEE-zhən) are a language family widely spoken throughout Maritime Southeast Asia, parts of Mainland Southeast Asia, Madagascar, the islands of the Pacific Ocean and Taiwan (by Taiwanese indigenous peoples).[2] They are spoken by about 328 million people (4.4% of the world population).[1][3] This makes it the fifth-largest language family by number of speakers. Major Austronesian languages include Malay, Indonesian,[4] Javanese, Sundanese, Tagalog (standardized as Filipino),[5] Malagasy and Cebuano. According to some estimates, the family contains 1,257 languages, which is the second most of any language family.[6]

In 1706, the Dutch scholar Adriaan Reland first observed similarities between the languages spoken in the South East Asia Archipelago and by peoples on islands in the Pacific Ocean.[7] In the 19th century, researchers (e.g. Wilhelm von Humboldt, Herman van der Tuuk) started to apply the comparative method to the Austronesian languages. The first extensive study on the history of the phonology was made by the German linguist Otto Dempwolff.[8] It included a reconstruction of the Proto-Austronesian lexicon. The term Austronesian was coined (as German austronesisch) by Wilhelm Schmidt, deriving it from Latin auster "south" and Ancient Greek νῆσος (nêsos "island"), meaning the "Southern Island languages".[9]

Most Austronesian languages are spoken by the people of Insular Southeast Asia and Oceania. Only a few languages, such as Urak Lawoiʼ and the Chamic languages (except Acehnese), are indigenous to mainland Asia, or Malagasy which is the only Austronesian language indigenous to Insular East Africa. There are few Austronesian languages which have populations exceeding a few thousand, but a handful have speaking populations in the millions; Indonesian, the most widely spoken, has around 252 million speakers, making it the tenth most-spoken language in the world.[10] Approximately twenty Austronesian languages are official in their respective countries.

By the number of languages they include, Austronesian and Niger–Congo are the two largest language families in the world. They each contain roughly one-fifth of the world's languages. The geographical span of Austronesian was the largest of any language family in the first half of the second millennium CE, before the spread of Indo-European languages in the colonial period. It ranges from Madagascar to Easter Island in the eastern Pacific.

According to Robert Blust (1999), Austronesian is divided into several primary branches, all but one of which are found exclusively in Taiwan. The Formosan languages of Taiwan are grouped into as many as nine first-order subgroups of Austronesian. All Austronesian languages spoken outside the Taiwan mainland (including its offshore Yami language) belong to the Malayo-Polynesian (sometimes called Extra-Formosan) branch.

Most Austronesian languages lack a long history of written attestation. The oldest inscription in the Cham language, the Đông Yên Châu inscription dated to c. 350 AD, is the first attestation of any Austronesian language.

Typological characteristics

[edit]

Phonology

[edit]

The Austronesian languages overall possess phoneme inventories which are smaller than the world average. Around 90% of the Austronesian languages have inventories of 19–25 sounds (15–20 consonants and 4–5 vowels), thus lying at the lower end of the global typical range of 20–37 sounds. However, extreme inventories are also found, such as Nemi (New Caledonia) with 43 consonants.[11]

The canonical root type in Proto-Austronesian is disyllabic with the shape CV(C)CVC (C = consonant; V = vowel), and is still found in many Austronesian languages.[12] In most languages, consonant clusters are only allowed in medial position, and often, there are restrictions for the first element of the cluster.[13] There is a common drift to reduce the number of consonants which can appear in final position, e.g. Buginese, which only allows the two consonants /ŋ/ and /ʔ/ as finals, out of a total number of 18 consonants. Complete absence of final consonants is observed e.g. in Nias, Malagasy and many Oceanic languages.[14]

Tonal contrasts are rare in Austronesian languages,[15] although Moken–Moklen and a few languages of the Chamic, South Halmahera–West New Guinea and New Caledonian subgroups do show lexical tone.[16]

Morphology

[edit]

Most Austronesian languages are agglutinative languages with a relatively high number of affixes, and clear morpheme boundaries.[17] Most affixes are prefixes (Malay ber-jalan 'walk' < jalan 'road'), with a smaller number of suffixes (Tagalog titis-án 'ashtray' < títis 'ash') and infixes (Roviana t<in>avete 'work (noun)' < tavete 'work (verb)').[18]

Reduplication is commonly employed in Austronesian languages. This includes full reduplication (Malay anak-anak 'children' < anak 'child'; Karo Batak nipe-nipe 'caterpillar' < nipe 'snake') or partial reduplication (Agta taktakki 'legs' < takki 'leg', at-atu 'puppy' < atu 'dog').[19]

Syntax

[edit]
A 5 dollar banknote, Hawaii, c. 1839, using the Hawaiian language

It is difficult to make generalizations about the languages that make up a family as diverse as Austronesian. Very broadly, one can divide the Austronesian languages into three groups based upon their grammatical typologies: Philippine-type languages, Indonesian-type languages and post-Indonesian type languages:[20]

  • The first group, the Philippine-type languages include, besides the languages of the Philippines, the Austronesian languages of Taiwan, Sabah, North Sulawesi and Madagascar. It is primarily characterized by the retention of the original system of Philippine-type voice alternations, where typically three or four verb voices determine which semantic role the "subject"/"topic" expresses (it may express either the actor, the patient, the location and the beneficiary, or various other circumstantial roles such as instrument and concomitant). The phenomenon has frequently been referred to as focus (not to be confused with the usual sense of that term in linguistics). Furthermore, the choice of voice is influenced by the definiteness of the participants. The word order has a strong tendency to be verb-initial.
  • In contrast, the more innovative Indonesian-type languages, which are particularly represented in Malaysia and western Indonesia, have reduced the voice system to a contrast between only two voices (actor voice and "undergoer" voice), but these are supplemented by applicative morphological devices (originally two: the more direct *-i and more oblique *-an/-[a]kən), which serve to modify the semantic role of the "undergoer". They are also characterized by the presence of preposed clitic pronouns. Unlike the Philippine type, these languages mostly tend towards verb-second word-orders. A number of languages, such as the Batak languages, Old Javanese, Balinese, Sasak and several Sulawesi languages seem to represent an intermediate stage between these two types.[21][22]
  • Finally, in some languages, which Ross calls "post-Indonesian", the original voice system has broken down completely and the voice-marking affixes no longer preserve their functions. Preposed possessor and transitional languages could also fall into this type.

Additional types of Austronesian languages include:

  • Central Bornean-type languages, like the Indonesian type, have both actor voice and undergoer voice, but the latter are realised by a preverbal particle, and applicative voice are absent in these languages. Also, the nasal prefix does not mark any of aforementioned both voices. This type is represented by many indigenous languages of Borneo, such as Land Dayak, Kenyah, and Kayan–Murik branches.[23]
  • Preposed possessor languages, as the name suggests, place modifiers ("possessors") before the possessed objects ("possessum"), and lack original symmetrical voice. Most other languages construct them in reverse ("postposed possessor", a notable exception to this rule is Banggai). This type is represented by Austronesian languages of Timor, Maluku Islands, and Papua, as well as Malay trade and creole languages.[21]
  • Languages that have neither symmetrical voice nor preposed possessor construction are called transitional languages. Many of them have ergative–absolutive alignment and elaborate person marking, but they do not share core features in common. Some languages of Sumatra (e.g. Acehnese, Nias), the southern half of Sulawesi (e.g. Buginese, Makassarese, Muna, Banggai), and East Nusa Tenggara (e.g. Kambera) fall into this category.[21]

Lexicon

[edit]
Main article: Proto-Austronesian language § Vocabulary

The Austronesian language family has been established by the linguistic comparative method on the basis of cognate sets, sets of words from multiple languages, which are similar in sound and meaning which can be shown to be descended from the same ancestral word in Proto-Austronesian according to regular rules. Some cognate sets are very stable. The word for eye in many Austronesian languages is mata (from the most northerly Austronesian languages, Formosan languages such as Bunun and Amis all the way south to Māori).[24]

Other words are harder to reconstruct. The word for two is also stable, in that it appears over the entire range of the Austronesian family, but the forms (e.g. Bunun dusa; Amis tusa; Māori rua) require some linguistic expertise to recognise. The Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database gives word lists (coded for cognateness) for approximately 1000 Austronesian languages.[24]

Classification

[edit]
The distribution of the Austronesian languages, per Blust (1999). Western Malayo-Polynesian and Central Malayo-Polynesian are no longer accepted.

The internal structure of the Austronesian languages is complex. The family consists of many similar and closely related languages with large numbers of dialect continua, making it difficult to recognize boundaries between branches. The first major step towards high-order subgrouping was Dempwolff's recognition of the Oceanic subgroup (called Melanesisch by Dempwolff).[8] The special position of the languages of Taiwan was first recognized by André-Georges Haudricourt (1965),[25] who divided the Austronesian languages into three subgroups: Northern Austronesian (= Formosan), Eastern Austronesian (= Oceanic), and Western Austronesian (all remaining languages).

In a study that represents the first lexicostatistical classification of the Austronesian languages, Isidore Dyen (1965) presented a radically different subgrouping scheme.[26] He posited 40 first-order subgroups, with the highest degree of diversity found in the area of Melanesia. The Oceanic languages are not recognized, but are distributed over more than 30 of his proposed first-order subgroups. Dyen's classification was widely criticized and for the most part rejected,[27] but several of his lower-order subgroups are still accepted (e.g. the Cordilleran languages, the Bilic languages or the Murutic languages).

Subsequently, the position of the Formosan languages as the most archaic group of Austronesian languages was recognized by Otto Christian Dahl (1973),[28] followed by proposals from other scholars that the Formosan languages actually make up more than one first-order subgroup of Austronesian. Robert Blust (1977) first presented the subgrouping model which is currently accepted by virtually all scholars in the field,[29] with more than one first-order subgroup on Taiwan, and a single first-order branch encompassing all Austronesian languages spoken outside of Taiwan, viz. Malayo-Polynesian. The relationships of the Formosan languages to each other and the internal structure of Malayo-Polynesian continue to be debated.

Primary branches on Taiwan (Formosan languages)

[edit]

In addition to Malayo-Polynesian, thirteen Formosan subgroups are broadly accepted. The seminal article in the classification of Formosan—and, by extension, the top-level structure of Austronesian—is Blust (1999). Prominent Formosanists (linguists who specialize in Formosan languages) take issue with some of its details, but it remains the point of reference for current linguistic analyses. Debate centers primarily around the relationships between these families. Of the classifications presented here, Blust (1999) links two families into a Western Plains group, two more in a Northwestern Formosan group, and three into an Eastern Formosan group, while Li (2008) also links five families into a Northern Formosan group. Harvey (1982), Chang (2006) and Ross (2012) split Tsouic, and Blust (2013) agrees the group is probably not valid.

Other studies have presented phonological evidence for a reduced Paiwanic family of Paiwanic, Puyuma, Bunun, Amis, and Malayo-Polynesian, but this is not reflected in vocabulary. The Eastern Formosan peoples Basay, Kavalan, and Amis share a homeland motif that has them coming originally from an island called Sinasay or Sanasay.[30] The Amis, in particular, maintain that they came from the east, and were treated by the Puyuma, amongst whom they settled, as a subservient group.[31]

Blust (1999)

[edit]
Families of Formosan languages before Minnanese colonization of Taiwan, per Blust (1999)

Li (2008)

[edit]
Families of Formosan languages before Minnanese colonization, per Li (2008). The three languages in green (Bunun, Puyuma, Paiwan) may form a Southern Formosan branch, but this is uncertain.

This classification retains Blust's East Formosan, and unites the other northern languages. Li (2008) proposes a Proto-Formosan (F0) ancestor and equates it with Proto-Austronesian (PAN), following the model in Starosta (1995).[32] Rukai and Tsouic are seen as highly divergent, although the position of Rukai is highly controversial.[33]

Sagart (2004, 2021)

[edit]
Nested branches of Austronesian languages according to Sagart. Languages colored red are outside the other branches but are not subgrouped. Kradai and Malayo-Polynesian would also be purple.

Sagart (2004) proposes that the numerals of the Formosan languages reflect a nested series of innovations, from languages in the northwest (near the putative landfall of the Austronesian migration from the mainland), which share only the numerals 1–4 with proto-Malayo-Polynesian, counter-clockwise to the eastern languages (purple on map), which share all numerals 1–10. Sagart (2021) finds other shared innovations that follow the same pattern. He proposes that pMP *lima 'five' is a lexical replacement (from 'hand'), and that pMP *pitu 'seven', *walu 'eight' and *Siwa 'nine' are contractions of pAN *RaCep 'five', a ligature *a or *i 'and', and *duSa 'two', *telu 'three', *Sepat 'four', an analogical pattern historically attested from Pazeh. The fact that the Kradai languages share the numeral system (and other lexical innovations) of pMP suggests that they are a coordinate branch with Malayo-Polynesian, rather than a sister family to Austronesian.[34][35]

Sagart's resulting classification is:[36]

  • Austronesian (pAN ca. 5200 BP)
    •   Saisiyat
    •   Luilang
    •   Pazeh, Kulon
      (These four languages are outside Pituish, but Sagart is ambivalent as to any relationship among them, other than retaining Blust's connection between Pazeh and Kulon)
    • Pituish
      (pAN *RaCepituSa 'five-and-two' truncated to *pitu 'seven'; *sa-ŋ-aCu 'nine' [lit. one taken away])
      •   Favorlang–Taokas
      • Limaish
        (pAN *RaCep 'five' replaced by *lima 'hand'; *Ca~ reduplication to form the series of numerals for counting humans)
        •   Thao–Atayalic
        • Enemish
          (additive 'five-and-one' or 'twice-three' replaced by reduplicated *Nem-Nem > *emnem [*Nem 'three' is reflected in Basay, Siraya and Makatao]; pAN *kawaS 'year, sky' replaced by *CawiN)
          •   Siraya
          • Walu-Siwaish
            (*walu 'eight' and *Siwa 'nine' from *RaCepat(e)lu 'five-and-three' and *RaCepiSepat 'five-and-four')
            •   West WS: Papora–Hoanya
              (pAN *Sapuy 'fire' replaced by *[Z]apuR 'cooking fire'; pAN *qudem 'black replaced by *abi[Z]u, found in MP as 'blue')
            •   Central WS
              (pAN *isa etc. 'one' replaced by *Ca~CiNi (reduplication of 'alone') in the human-counting series; pAN *iCit 'ten' replaced by *ma-sa-N 'one times'.)
              • Bunun
              • Rukai–Tsouic
                (CV~ reduplication in human-counting series replaced with competing pAN noun-marker *u- [unknown whether Bunun once had the same]; eleven lexical innovations such as *cáni 'one', *kəku 'leg')
            • East WS (pEWS ca. 4500 BP)
              (innovations *baCaq-an 'ten'; *nanum 'water' alongside pAN *daNum)
              •   Kavalanic languages
              •   Puluqish
                (innovative *sa-puluq 'ten', from *sa- 'one' + 'separate, set aside'; use of prefixes *paka- and *maka- to mark abilitative)
                • Northern: Ami–Puyuma
                  (*sasay 'one'; *mukeCep 'ten' for the human and non-human series; *ukak 'bone', *kuCem 'cloud')
                • Paiwan
                • Southern Austronesian (pSAN ca. 4000 BP)
                  (linker *atu 'and' > *at after *sa-puluq in numerals 11–19; lexical innovations such as *baqbaq 'mouth', *qa-sáuŋ 'canine tooth', *qi(d)zúR 'saliva', *píntu 'door', *-ŋel 'deaf')

Malayo-Polynesian

[edit]
Main article: Malayo-Polynesian languages

The Malayo-Polynesian languages are—among other things—characterized by certain sound changes, such as the mergers of Proto-Austronesian (PAN) *t/*C to Proto-Malayo-Polynesian (PMP) *t, and PAN *n/*N to PMP *n, and the shift of PAN *S to PMP *h.[37]

There appear to have been two great migrations of Austronesian languages that quickly covered large areas, resulting in multiple local groups with little large-scale structure. The first was Malayo-Polynesian, distributed across the Malay archipelago and Melanesia. The second migration was that of the Oceanic languages into Polynesia and Micronesia.[38]

History

[edit]
Further information: Austronesian expansion
A map of the Austronesian expansion. Periods are based on archeological studies, though the association of the archeological record and linguistic reconstructions is disputed.

From the standpoint of historical linguistics, the place of origin (in linguistic terminology, Urheimat) of the Austronesian languages (Proto-Austronesian language) is most likely the main island of Taiwan, also known as Formosa; on this island the deepest divisions in Austronesian are found along small geographic distances, among the families of the native Formosan languages.

According to Robert Blust, the Formosan languages form nine of the ten primary branches of the Austronesian language family.[39] Comrie (2001:28) noted this when he wrote:

... the internal diversity among the... Formosan languages... is greater than that in all the rest of Austronesian put together, so there is a major genetic split within Austronesian between Formosan and the rest... Indeed, the genetic diversity within Formosan is so great that it may well consist of several primary branches of the overall Austronesian family.

At least since Sapir (1968), writing in 1949, linguists have generally accepted that the chronology of the dispersal of languages within a given language family can be traced from the area of greatest linguistic variety to that of the least. For example, English in North America has large numbers of speakers, but relatively low dialectal diversity, while English in Great Britain has much higher diversity; such low linguistic variety by Sapir's thesis suggests a more recent spread of English in North America. While some scholars suspect that the number of principal branches among the Formosan languages may be somewhat less than Blust's estimate of nine (e.g. Li 2006), there is little contention among linguists with this analysis and the resulting view of the origin and direction of the migration. For a recent dissenting analysis, see Peiros (2004).

The protohistory of the Austronesian people can be traced farther back through time. To get an idea of the original homeland of the populations ancestral to the Austronesian peoples (as opposed to strictly linguistic arguments), evidence from archaeology and population genetics may be adduced. Studies from the science of genetics have produced conflicting outcomes. Some researchers find evidence for a proto-Austronesian homeland on the Asian mainland (e.g., Melton et al. 1998), while others mirror the linguistic research, rejecting an East Asian origin in favor of Taiwan (e.g., Trejaut et al. 2005). Archaeological evidence (e.g., Bellwood 1997) is more consistent, suggesting that the ancestors of the Austronesians spread from the South Chinese mainland to Taiwan at some time around 8,000 years ago.

Evidence from historical linguistics suggests that it is from this island that seafaring peoples migrated, perhaps in distinct waves separated by millennia, to the entire region encompassed by the Austronesian languages.[40] It is believed that this migration began around 6,000 years ago.[41] However, evidence from historical linguistics cannot bridge the gap between those two periods. The view that linguistic evidence connects Austronesian languages to the Sino-Tibetan ones, as proposed for example by Sagart (2002), is a minority one. As Fox (2004:8) states:

Implied in... discussions of subgrouping [of Austronesian languages] is a broad consensus that the homeland of the Austronesians was in Taiwan. This homeland area may have also included the P'eng-hu (Pescadores) islands between Taiwan and China and possibly even sites on the coast of mainland China, especially if one were to view the early Austronesians as a population of related dialect communities living in scattered coastal settlements.

Linguistic analysis of the Proto-Austronesian language stops at the western shores of Taiwan; any related mainland language(s) have not survived. The only exceptions, the Chamic languages, derive from more recent migration to the mainland.[42] However, according to Ostapirat's interpretation of the seriously discussed Austro-Tai hypothesis, the Kra–Dai languages (also known as Tai–Kadai) are exactly those related mainland languages.

Hypothesized relations

[edit]
An example of hypothetical Pre-Austronesian migration waves to Taiwan from the mainland. (The Amis migration from the Philippines is controversial.)
Path of Migration and Division of Some of the Major Ethnicities with their genetically distinctive markers, adapted from Edmondson and Gregerson (2007:732) [1]. The sketched migration route M119-Baiyue from Southeast Asia corresponds to the southern origin hypothesis of early Austronesians.

Genealogical links have been proposed between Austronesian and various families of East and Southeast Asia.

Austro-Tai

[edit]
Main article: Austro-Tai languages

An Austro-Tai proposal linking Austronesian and the Kra-Dai languages of the southeastern continental Asian mainland was first proposed by Paul K. Benedict, and is supported by Weera Ostapirat, Roger Blench, and Laurent Sagart, based on the traditional comparative method. Ostapirat (2005) proposes a series of regular correspondences linking the two families and assumes a primary split, with Kra-Dai speakers being the people who stayed behind in their Chinese homeland. Blench (2004) suggests that, if the connection is valid, the relationship is unlikely to be one of two sister families. Rather, he suggests that proto-Kra-Dai speakers were Austronesians who migrated to Hainan Island and back to the mainland from the northern Philippines, and that their distinctiveness results from radical restructuring following contact with Hmong–Mien and Sinitic. An extended version of Austro-Tai was hypothesized by Benedict who added the Japonic languages to the proposal as well.[43]

Austric

[edit]
Main article: Austric languages

A link with the Austroasiatic languages in an 'Austric' phylum is based mostly on typological evidence. However, there is also morphological evidence of a connection between the conservative Nicobarese languages and Austronesian languages of the Philippines.[citation needed] Robert Blust supports the hypothesis which connects the lower Yangtze neolithic Austro-Tai entity with the rice-cultivating Austro-Asiatic cultures, assuming the center of East Asian rice domestication, and putative Austric homeland, to be located in the Yunnan/Burma border area.[44] Under that view, there was an east-west genetic alignment, resulting from a rice-based population expansion, in the southern part of East Asia: Austroasiatic-Kra-Dai-Austronesian, with unrelated Sino-Tibetan occupying a more northerly tier.[44]

Sino-Austronesian

[edit]
Main article: Sino-Austronesian languages

French linguist and Sinologist Laurent Sagart considers the Austronesian languages to be related to the Sino-Tibetan languages, and also groups the Kra–Dai languages as more closely related to the Malayo-Polynesian languages.[45] Sagart argues for a north-south genetic relationship between Chinese and Austronesian, based on sound correspondences in the basic vocabulary and morphological parallels.[44] Laurent Sagart (2017) concludes that the possession of the two kinds of millets[a] in Taiwanese Austronesian languages (not just Setaria, as previously thought) places the pre-Austronesians in northeastern China, adjacent to the probable Sino-Tibetan homeland.[44] Ko et al.'s genetic research (2014) appears to support Laurent Sagart's linguistic proposal, pointing out that the exclusively Austronesian mtDNA E-haplogroup and the largely Sino-Tibetan M9a haplogroup are twin sisters, indicative of an intimate connection between the early Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan maternal gene pools, at least.[46][47] Additionally, results from Wei et al. (2017) are also in agreement with Sagart's proposal, in which their analyses show that the predominantly Austronesian Y-DNA haplogroup O3a2b*-P164(xM134) belongs to a newly defined haplogroup O3a2b2-N6 being widely distributed along the eastern coastal regions of Asia, from Korea to Vietnam.[48] Sagart also groups the Austronesian languages in a recursive-like fashion, placing Kra-Dai as a sister branch of Malayo-Polynesian. His methodology has been found to be spurious by his peers.[49][50]

Japanese

[edit]
Main article: Classification of the Japonic languages § Proposals relating Japonic languages to Southeast Asian language families

Several linguists have proposed that Japanese is genetically related to the Austronesian family, cf. Benedict (1990), Matsumoto (1975), Miller (1967).

Some other linguists think it is more plausible that Japanese is not genetically related to the Austronesian languages, but instead was influenced by an Austronesian substratum or adstratum.

Those who propose this scenario suggest that the Austronesian family once covered the islands to the north as well as to the south. Martine Robbeets (2017)[51] claims that Japanese genetically belongs to the "Transeurasian" (= Macro-Altaic) languages, but underwent lexical influence from "para-Austronesian", a presumed sister language of Proto-Austronesian.

The linguist Ann Kumar (2009) proposed that some Austronesians might have migrated to Japan, possibly an elite-group from Java, and created the Japanese-hierarchical society. She also identifies 82 possible cognates between Austronesian and Japanese, however her theory remains very controversial.[52] The linguist Asha Pereltsvaig criticized Kumar's theory on several points.[53] The archaeological problem with that theory is that, contrary to the claim that there was no rice farming in China and Korea in prehistoric times, excavations have indicated that rice farming has been practiced in this area since at least 5000 BC.[53] There are also genetic problems. The pre-Yayoi Japanese lineage was not shared with Southeast Asians, but was shared with Northwest Chinese, Tibetans and Central Asians.[53] Linguistic problems were also pointed out. Kumar did not claim that Japanese was an Austronesian language derived from proto-Javanese language, but only that it provided a superstratum language for old Japanese, based on 82 plausible Javanese-Japanese cognates, mostly related to rice farming.[53]

East Asian

[edit]
Main article: East Asian languages

In 2001, Stanley Starosta proposed a new language family named East Asian, that includes all primary language families in the broader East Asia region except Japonic and Koreanic. This proposed family consists of two branches, Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan-Yangzian, with the Kra-Dai family considered to be a branch of Austronesian, and "Yangzian" to be a new sister branch of Sino-Tibetan consisting of the Austroasiatic and Hmong–Mien languages.[54] This proposal was further researched by linguists like Michael D. Larish in 2006, who also included the Japonic and Koreanic languages in the macrofamily. The proposal has since been adopted by linguists such as George van Driem, albeit without the inclusion of Japonic and Koreanic.[55]

Ongan

[edit]
Main article: Austronesian–Ongan languages

Blevins (2007) proposed that the Austronesian and the Ongan protolanguage are the descendants of an Austronesian–Ongan protolanguage.[56] This view is not supported by mainstream linguists and remains very controversial. Robert Blust rejects Blevins' proposal as far-fetched and based solely on chance resemblances and methodologically flawed comparisons.[57]

Writing systems

[edit]
See also: Writing systems of Southeast Asia
A sign in Balinese and Latin script at a Hindu temple in Bali
A manuscript from the early 1800s using the Batak script
Rongorongo glyph, assumed to be the writing system of the Rapa Nui language

Most Austronesian languages have Latin-based writing systems today. Some non-Latin-based writing systems include:

Comparison charts

[edit]

Below are two charts comparing list of numbers of 1–10 and thirteen words in Austronesian languages; spoken in Taiwan, the Philippines, the Mariana Islands, Indonesia, Malaysia, Chams or Champa (in Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam), East Timor, Papua, New Zealand, Hawaii, Madagascar, Borneo, Kiribati, Caroline Islands, and Tuvalu.

Comparison chart-numerals
Austronesian List of Numbers 1–10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Proto-Austronesian *əsa
*isa		 *duSa *təlu *Səpat *lima *ənəm *pitu *walu *Siwa *(sa-)puluq
Formosan languages 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Atayal qutux sazing cyugal payat magal mtzyu / tzyu mpitu / pitu mspat / spat mqeru / qeru mopuw / mpuw
Seediq kingal daha teru sepac rima mmteru mpitu mmsepac mngari maxal
Truku kingal dha tru spat rima mataru empitu maspat mngari maxal
Thao taha tusha turu shpat tarima katuru pitu kashpat tanathu makthin
Papora tal nya turu pat lima lum pitu halu siya ci
Hoanya mital misa miru mipal lima rom pito talo asia myataisi
Babuza nata naroa natool'a napat nahup natap natu maaspat nataxaxoan tsihet
Favorlang natta narroa natorra naspat nachab nataap naito maaspat tannacho tschiet
Taokas tatanu rua tool'a lapat hasap tahap yuweto mahalpat tanaso tais'id
Pazeh/Kaxabu adang dusa tu'u supat xasep xasebuza xasebidusa xasebitu'u xasebisupat isit
Saisiyat 'aeihae' roSa' to:lo' Sopat haseb SayboSi: SayboSi: 'aeihae' maykaSpat hae'hae' lampez / langpez
Tsou coni yuso tuyu sʉptʉ eimo nomʉ pitu voyu sio maskʉ
Hla'alua canni suua tuulu paatʉ kulima kʉnʉmʉ kupitu kualu kusia kumaahlʉ
Kanakanavu cani cusa turu sʉʉpatʉ rima nʉmʉ pitu aru sia maan
Bunun tasʔa dusa tau paat hima nuum pitu vau siva masʔan
Rukai itha drusa tulru supate lrima eneme pitu valru bangate pulruku / mangealre
Paiwan ita drusa tjelu sepatj lima enem pitju alu siva tapuluq
Puyuma sa druwa telu pat lima unem pitu walu iwa pulu
Kavalan usiq uzusa utulu uspat ulima unem upitu uwalu usiwa rabtin
Basay ca lusa cuu səpat cima anəm pitu wacu siwa labatan
Amis cecay tosa tolo sepat lima enem pito falo siwa polo' / mo^tep
Amis ('Amisay) cacay tusa tulu sepat lima enem pitu walu siwa pulu' / muketep
Sakizaya cacay tusa tulu sepat lima enem pitu walu siwa cacay a bataan
Siraya sasaat duha turu tapat tu-rima tu-num pitu pipa kuda keteng
Siraya (Moatao) isa rusa tao usipat hima lomu pitu vao siva masu
Taivoan tsaha' ruha toho paha' hima lom kito' kipa' matuha kaipien
Taivoan (Suannsamna) sa'a zua to'o sipat rima rumu pitu waru siya kaitian
Makatao na-saad ra-ruha ra-ruma ra-sipat ra-lima ra-hurum ra-pito ra-haru ra-siwa ra-kaitian
Qauqaut is zus dor sop rim ən pit ar siw tor
Malayo-Polynesian languages 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *əsa
*isa		 *duha *təlu *əpat *lima *ənəm *pitu *walu *siwa *puluq
Yami(Tao) asa adoa atlo apat alima anem apito awao asiam asa ngernan
Acehnese sifar
soh		 sa duwa lhee peuet limong nam tujoh lapan sikureueng siploh
Balinesea

nul

siki
besik

kalih
dua

tiga
telu

papat

lima

nenem

pitu

kutus

sia		 dasa
Banjar asa dua talu ampat lima anam pitu walu sanga sapuluh
Batak, Toba sada dua tolu opat lima onom pitu ualu sia sampulu
Buginese séddi dua tellu eppa’ lima enneng pitu arua aséra seppulo
Cia-Cia dise
ise		 rua
ghua		 tolu pa'a lima no'o picu walu
oalu		 siua ompulu
Cham sa dua klau pak lima nam tujuh dalapan salapan sapluh
Old Javanese[58] sa/tunggal rwa tĕlu pāt lima nĕm pitu wwalu sanga sapuluh
Javanese[59] nol siji

satunggal

loro

kalih

telu

tiga

papat

sekawan

lima

gangsal

enem pitu wolu sanga sapuluh
Kelantan-Pattani kosong so duwo tigo pak limo ne tujoh lape smile spuloh
Komering nul osay ruwa tolu pak lima nom pitu walu suway puluh
Madurese nol settong dhuwa' tello' empa' lema' ennem petto' ballu' sanga' sapolo
Makassarese lobbang
nolo'		 se're rua tallu appa' lima annang tuju sangantuju salapang sampulo
Indonesian/Malay kosong
sifar[60]
nol[61] 		sa/se
satu
suatu		 dua tiga empat lima enam tujuh delapan
lapan[62]		 sembilan sepuluh
Minangkabau ciek duo tigo ampek limo anam tujuah salapan sambilan sapuluah
Moken cha:? thuwa:? teloj
(təlɔy)		 pa:t lema:? nam luɟuːk waloj
(walɔy)		 chewaj
(cʰɛwaːy / sɛwaːy)		 cepoh
Rejang do duai tlau pat lêmo num tujuak dêlapên sêmbilan sêpuluak
Sasak sekek due telo empat lime enam pituk baluk siwak sepulu
Old Sundanese sa-, hiji, ésé dwa, dua teulu opat lima genep tujuh dalapan salapan sapuluh
Sundanese enol hiji dua tilu opat lima genep tujuh dalapan salapan sapuluh
Terengganu Malay kosong se duwe tige pak lime nang tujoh lapang smilang spuloh
Tetun nol ida rua tolu hat lima nen hitu ualu sia sanulu
Tsat (HuiHui)c sa˧ *
ta˩ **		 tʰua˩ kiə˧ pa˨˦ ma˧ naːn˧˨ su˥ paːn˧˨ tʰu˩ paːn˧˨ piu˥
There are two forms for numbers 'one' in Tsat (Hui Hui; Hainan Cham) :
^* The word sa˧ is used for serial counting.
^** The word ta˩ is used with hundreds and thousands and before qualifiers.
Ilocano ibbong
awan		 maysa dua tallo uppat lima innem pito walo siam sangapulo
Ibanag awan tadday duwa tallu appa' lima annam pitu walu siyam mafulu
Pangasinan sakey duwa talo apat lima anem pito walo siyam samplo
Kapampangan alá métung/ isá adwá atlú ápat limá ánam pitú walú siám apúlu
Tagalog walâ isá dalawá tatló apat limá anim pitó waló siyám sampû
Bikol warâ sarô duwá tuló apát limá anóm pitó waló siyám sampulò
Aklanon uwa isaea
sambilog		 daywa tatlo ap-at lima an-om pito waeo siyam napueo
Karay-a wara (i)sara darwa tatlo apat lima anəm pito walo siyam napulo
Onhan isya darwa tatlo upat lima an-om pito walo siyam sampulo
Romblomanon isá duhá tuyó upát limá onúm pitó wayó siyám napuyò
Masbatenyo isád
usád		 duwá
duhá		 tuló upát limá unóm pitó waló siyám napulò
Hiligaynon walâ isá duhá tatló apat limá anom pitó waló siyám napulò
Cebuano walâ usá duhá tuló upát limá unóm pitó waló siyám napulò
pulò
Waray waráy usá duhá tuló upát limá unóm pitó waló siyám napulò
Tausug sipar isa duwa tū upat lima unum pitu walu siyam hangpu'
Maranao isa dowa təlo pat lima nəm pito walo siyaw sapolo
Benuaq (Dayak Benuaq) eray duaq toluu opaat limaq jawatn turu walo sie sepuluh
Lun Bawang/ Lundayeh na luk dih eceh dueh teluh epat limeh enem tudu' waluh liwa' pulu'
Dusun aiso iso duo tolu apat limo onom turu walu siam hopod
Malagasy aotra isa
iray		 roa telo efatra dimy enina fito valo sivy folo
Sangirese (Sangir-Minahasan) sembau darua tatelu epa lima eneng pitu walu sio mapulo
Biak bei oser suru kyor fyak rim wonem fik war siw samfur
Oceanic languagesd 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Chuukese eet érúúw één fáán niim woon fúús waan ttiw engoon
Fijian saiva dua rua tolu vaa lima ono vitu walu ciwa tini
Gilbertese akea teuana uoua tenua aua nimaua onoua itua wanua ruaiwa tebwina
Hawaiian 'ole 'e-kahi 'e-lua 'e-kolu 'e-hā 'e-lima 'e-ono 'e-hiku 'e-walu 'e-iwa 'umi
Māori kore tahi rua toru whā rima ono whitu waru iwa tekau
ngahuru
Marshallese[63] o̧o juon ruo jilu emān ļalem jiljino jimjuon ralitōk ratimjuon jon̄oul
Motue[64] ta rua toi hani ima tauratoi hitu taurahani taurahani-ta gwauta
Niuean nakai taha ua tolu fā lima ono fitu valu hiva hogofulu
Rapanui tahi rua toru hā rima ono hitu va'u iva angahuru
Rarotongan Māori kare ta'i rua toru 'ā rima ono 'itu varu iva nga'uru
Rotuman ta rua folu hake lima ono hifu vạlu siva saghulu
Samoan o tasi lua tolu fa lima ono fitu valu iva sefulu
Samoan
(K-type) 		o kasi lua kolu fa lima ogo fiku valu iva sefulu
Tahitian hō'ē
tahi		 piti toru maha pae ōno hitu va'u iva hō'ē 'ahuru
Tongan noa taha ua tolu fa nima ono fitu valu hiva hongofulu
taha noa
Tuvaluan tahi
tasi		 lua tolu fa lima ono fitu valu iva sefulu
Yapese dæriiy
dæriiq		 t’aareeb l’ugruw dalip anngeeg laal neel’ medlip meeruuk meereeb ragaag
Comparison chart-thirteen words
English one two three four person house dog road day new we what fire
Proto-Austronesian *əsa, *isa *duSa *təlu *əpat *Cau *balay, *Rumaq *asu *zalan *qaləjaw, *waRi *baqəRu *kita, *kami *anu, *apa *Sapuy
Tetum ida rua tolu haat ema uma asu dalan loron foun ita saida ahi
Amis cecay tosa tolo sepat tamdaw luma wacu lalan cidal faroh kita uman namal
Puyuma sa dua telu pat taw rumah soan dalan wari vekar mi amanai apue,
asi
Tagalog isa dalawa tatlo apat tao bahay aso daan araw bago tayo / kami ano apoy
Bikol sarô duwá tuló apát táwo haróng áyam dalan aldáw bàgo kitá/kami anó kaláyo
Rinconada Bikol əsad darwā tolō əpat tawō baləy ayam raran aldəw bāgo kitā onō kalayō
Waray usa duha tulo upat tawo balay ayam,
ido 		dalan adlaw bag-o kita anu kalayo
Cebuano usa,
isa 		duha tulo upat tawo balay iro dalan adlaw bag-o kita unsa kalayo
Hiligaynon isa duha tatlo apat tawo balay ido dalan adlaw bag-o kita ano kalayo
Aklanon isaea,
sambilog 		daywa tatlo ap-at tawo baeay ayam daean adlaw bag-o kita ano kaeayo
Kinaray-a (i)sara darwa tatlo apat tawo balay ayam dalan adlaw bag-o kita ano kalayo
Tausug hambuuk duwa tu upat tau bay iru' dan adlaw ba-gu kitaniyu unu kayu
Maranao isa dowa təlo pat taw walay aso lalan gawi’i bago səkita/səkami antona’a apoy
Kapampangan métung adwá atlú ápat táu balé ásu dálan aldó báyu íkatamu nánu apî
Pangasinan sakey dua,
duara 		talo,
talora 		apat,
apatira 		too abong aso dalan ageo balo sikatayo anto pool
Ilokano maysa dua tallo uppat tao balay aso kalsada aldaw baro dakami ania apuy
Ivatan asa dadowa tatdo apat tao vahay chito rarahan araw va-yo yaten ango apoy
Ibanag tadday dua tallu appa' tolay balay kitu dalan aggaw bagu sittam anni afi
Yogad tata addu tallu appat tolay binalay atu daddaman agaw bagu sikitam gani afuy
Gaddang antet addwa tallo appat tolay balay atu dallan aw bawu ikkanetam sanenay afuy
Tboli sotu lewu tlu fat tau gunu ohu lan kdaw lomi tekuy tedu ofih
Lun Bawang/ Lundayeh eceh dueh teluh epat lemulun/lun ruma' uko' dalan eco beruh teu enun apui
Indonesian/Malay sa/se,
satu,
suatu 		dua tiga empat orang rumah,
balai 		anjing jalan hari baru kita, kami apa,
anu 		api
Old Javanese esa,
eka 		rwa,
dwi 		tĕlu,
tri 		pat,
catur[65] 		wwang umah asu dalan dina hañar, añar[66] kami[67] apa,
aparan 		apuy,
agni
Javanese siji,
setunggal 		loro,
kalih 		tĕlu,
tiga[68] 		papat,
sekawan 		uwong,
tiyang,
priyantun[68] 		omah,
griya,
dalem[68] 		asu,
sĕgawon 		dalan,
gili[68] 		dina,
dinten[68] 		anyar,
énggal[68] 		awaké dhéwé,
kula panjenengan[68] 		apa,
punapa[68] 		gĕni,
latu,
brama[68]
Old Sundanese hiji, ésé dua teulu opat urang imah, bumi anjing, basu jalan poé bahayu urang naha, nahaeun apuy
Sundanese hiji, saésé dua tilu, talu, tolu opat urang, jalma, jalmi, manusa imah,

rorompok, bumi

anjing jalan poé anyar,
énggal 		urang, arurang naon, nahaon seuneu, api
Acehnese sa duwa lhèë peuët ureuëng rumoh,
balè,
seuëng 		asèë röt uroë barô (geu)tanyoë peuë apui
Minangkabau ciek duo tigo ampek urang rumah anjiang labuah,
jalan 		hari baru awak apo api
Rejang do duai tlau pat tun umêak kuyuk dalên bilai blau itê jano,
gen,
inê 		opoi
Lampungese sai khua telu pak jelema lamban kaci ranlaya khani baru kham api apui
Komering osay ruwa tolu pak jolma lombahan asu ranggaya harani anyar
ompay 		ram
sikam
kita 		apiya apuy
Buginese se'di dua tellu eppa' tau bola asu laleng esso baru idi' aga api
Temuan satuk duak tigak empat uwang,
eang 		gumah,
umah 		anying,
koyok 		jalan aik,
haik 		bahauk kitak apak apik
Toba Batak sada dua tolu opat halak jabu biang, asu dalan ari baru hita aha api
Kelantan-Pattani so duwo tigo pak oghe ghumoh,
dumoh 		anjing jale aghi baghu kito gapo api
Biak oser suru kyor fyak snon rum naf,
rofan 		nyan ras babo nu,
nggo 		sa,
masa 		for
Chamorro håcha,
maisa 		hugua tulu fatfat taotao/tautau guma' ga'lågu[69] chålan ha'åni på'go, nuebu[70] hami, hita håfa guåfi
Motu ta,
tamona 		rua toi hani tau ruma sisia dala dina matamata ita,
ai 		dahaka lahi
Māori tahi rua toru whā tangata whare kurī ara rā hou tāua, tātou/tātau
māua, mātou/mātau 		aha ahi
Gilbertese teuana uoua tenua aua aomata uma,
bata,
auti (from house) 		kamea,
kiri 		kawai bong bou ti tera,
-ra (suffix) 		ai
Tuvaluan tasi lua tolu fá toko fale kuli ala,
tuu 		aso fou tāua a afi
Hawaiian kahi lua kolu hā kanaka hale 'īlio ala ao hou kākou aha ahi
Banjarese asa duwa talu ampat urang rūmah hadupan heko hǎri hanyar kami apa api
Malagasy isa roa telo efatra olona trano alika lalana andro vaovao isika inona afo
Dusun iso duo tolu apat tulun walai,
lamin 		tasu ralan tadau wagu tokou onu/nu tapui
Kadazan iso duvo tohu apat tuhun hamin tasu lahan tadau vagu tokou onu,
nunu 		tapui
Rungus iso duvo tolu,
tolzu 		apat tulun,
tulzun 		valai,
valzai 		tasu dalan tadau vagu tokou nunu tapui,
apui
Sungai/Tambanuo ido duo tolu opat lobuw waloi asu ralan runat wagu toko onu apui
Iban satu, sa,
siti, sigi 		dua tiga empat orang,
urang 		rumah ukui,
uduk 		jalai hari baru kitai nama api
Sarawak Malay satu,
sigek 		dua tiga empat orang rumah asuk jalan ari baru kita apa api
Terengganuan se duwe tige pak oghang ghumoh,
dumoh 		anjing jalang aghi baghu kite mende, ape,
gape, nape 		api
Kanayatn sa dua talu ampat urakng rumah asu' jalatn ari baru kami',
diri' 		ahe api
Yapese t’aareeb l’ugruw dalip anngeeg beaq noqun kuus kanaawooq raan beqeech gamow maang nifiiy

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Austronesian languages

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Austronesian languages form one of the world's largest and most expansive language families, comprising over 1,250 distinct languages spoken by approximately 380 million people across a vast maritime region spanning from in the to Rapa Nui () in the Pacific, and from in the north to in the south. This family ranks as the second largest globally by the number of languages, after the Niger-Congo family, and was historically the most geographically extensive before European colonial expansions. The languages are primarily concentrated in Island , the , , , and the Pacific Islands, with outliers in coastal areas of , , and . Linguists widely agree that the Austronesian homeland lies in , where the family's deepest diversification occurred among Neolithic farming communities arriving from southeastern around 5,200–5,500 years before present. From this origin, speakers expanded southward and eastward in a series of migrations over millennia, carrying innovations in , , and seafaring that facilitated the peopling of remote oceanic islands. The family divides into two main branches: Formosan, encompassing about 25 languages in nine primary subgroups spoken exclusively in Taiwan, which represent the earliest splits; and Malayo-Polynesian, a larger branch including all non-Formosan languages, further classified into Western Malayo-Polynesian (over 500 languages in western Indonesia and the Philippines), Central-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian, and the Oceanic subgroup (around 460 languages across , , and ). Among the most notable Austronesian languages are Indonesian (a standardized form of Malay with over 200 million speakers), Tagalog (basis of Filipino, with around 28 million native speakers), Javanese (spoken by about 84 million), and Malagasy (the sole Austronesian language in , with roughly 25 million speakers). These languages exhibit shared typological features, such as verb-initial word order, extensive use of for grammatical purposes, and rich systems of voice marking, though they display significant diversity due to prolonged isolation and substrate influences. The family's study has illuminated prehistoric human migrations and cultural exchanges across the , with ongoing research integrating , , and to refine models of dispersal.

Introduction and Overview

Scope and definition

The Austronesian languages constitute one of the world's largest and most geographically dispersed language families, characterized by their genetic unity derived from a common ancestral language known as Proto-Austronesian (PAN). This unity is demonstrated through shared innovations across lexicon, , and that distinguish the family from others, including systematic sound correspondences (such as the PAN phoneme *R, realized differently in daughter languages) and morphological patterns like the use of infixes for verbal derivation. Reconstruction efforts, primarily led by linguists like Robert Blust, have established PAN as the proto-language spoken around 5,000–6,000 years ago, likely in , from which all member languages descend through regular sound changes and lexical retentions. The term "Austronesian" was introduced in 1906 by Austrian linguist and anthropologist Wilhelm Schmidt to describe this cohesive family, drawing from Latin auster ("south wind") to reflect its southern and oceanic associations, replacing earlier fragmented classifications. This nomenclature underscores the family's insular and maritime orientation, encompassing major branches such as Formosan (in ) and Malayo-Polynesian (extending to , the Pacific, and ). Comprising over 1,250 distinct languages, the Austronesian family is spoken by approximately 386 million people as of 2023 estimates, making it the second-largest by number of languages after Niger-Congo. These languages are primarily indigenous and inherited, setting them apart from creoles or mixed languages that emerge in contact zones within Austronesian regions—such as certain Pacific pidgins—where vocabulary and grammar blend from multiple sources without a single proto-form. In contrast, Austronesian classification relies on verifiable proto-reconstructions, ensuring the family's integrity as a genealogical unit rather than a typological or areal grouping. Recent interdisciplinary research, including 2023 genetic studies, continues to reinforce the homeland model.

Geographic distribution

The Austronesian language family has its primary homeland in , where the —numbering around 26 in nine or ten primary subgroups—are spoken exclusively by across the island's diverse linguistic subgroups. From this origin, the family extends across a vast maritime expanse, encompassing (including the , , and ), , , and , with speakers distributed from the equatorial zones northward to about 25° N latitude and southward into the southern Pacific. This distribution covers over 206 degrees of longitude, from the western to the eastern Pacific, making it one of the most geographically expansive language families globally. Dispersal patterns reveal dense clusters in certain regions, reflecting historical expansions from Taiwan southward and eastward via maritime routes. Indonesia hosts the highest concentration, with over 700 Austronesian languages spoken across its , including major ones like Javanese, Sundanese, and Malay in the west, and Central Malayo-Polynesian varieties in the east. The Philippines features another significant cluster of over 170 languages, such as Tagalog, Cebuano, and Ilokano, concentrated in its island groups. In contrast, the Pacific islands show sparser distributions, with around 450 spread thinly across (e.g., in the and ), (e.g., Pohnpeian and Marshallese), and (e.g., Hawaiian and Samoan), often limited to one or a few per isolated or due to rapid and small populations. Notable outliers include Malagasy, the sole Austronesian language in the , spoken on by about 25 million people across its dialects as of 2023; it results from a 7th-century CE migration from via Southeast Asian voyagers. Potential traces appear in and southern , such as the (e.g., Cham) in central and southern Vietnam and the Tsat language on Island, representing relic populations from early expansions or later migrations. Environmental adaptations are evident in lexical innovations tied to island ecologies, influencing terminology for , , and . Languages on atolls, such as those in and , feature specialized vocabularies for fishing, management, and low-relief terrains, with reduced phoneme inventories (e.g., 13 segments in Hawaiian) reflecting isolation and simplicity in small communities. In contrast, those on volcanic high islands, like in and , incorporate terms for mountainous , volcanic soils, and diverse inland resources—such as kandoRa for east of the —adapting to rugged, fertile landscapes with more complex affixation systems. Maritime terms, including those for canoes and wind patterns, are widespread, underscoring the seafaring dispersal that shaped these variations.

Speakers and demographics

The Austronesian language family boasts approximately 378 million native speakers as of 2023, making it one of the largest linguistic groups globally. Among its over 1,250 languages, a few dominate in terms of speaker numbers: Indonesian (a standardized form of Malay) has around 44 million native speakers and up to 200 million total users including second-language speakers, primarily in ; follows with about 84 million native speakers concentrated on the island of ; and Tagalog has about 28 million native speakers, serving as the basis for Filipino (the national language of the ) with around 45 million native speakers and over 82 million total speakers as of 2023. Despite the vitality of these major languages, many Austronesian varieties face significant threats, with around 400 classified as vulnerable or endangered according to recent assessments. This endangerment is particularly acute in regions like and the , where over 300 Austronesian languages are spoken amid pressures from dominant creoles, English, and intergenerational transmission gaps, exacerbated by events like the . Demographic trends reveal a complex sociolinguistic landscape. Rapid urbanization in Indonesia and other Southeast Asian nations is accelerating language shift toward national languages like Indonesian, as ethnic diversity in urban areas erodes minority language use among younger generations. In contrast, revitalization initiatives have bolstered endangered languages elsewhere; for instance, Hawaiian immersion programs and cultural policies in Hawaii have increased fluent speakers from near extinction to thousands since the 1980s, while New Zealand's Māori language strategy, including kōhanga reo preschools, has grown enrollment in Māori-medium education to over 25,000 students as of 2023, with continued growth into 2025. Bilingualism is prevalent among Austronesian speakers, especially in , where national languages and English often serve as lingua francas, with rates exceeding 70% in diverse urban settings like the and . Diaspora communities, including Filipino and Indonesian migrants in and , further sustain these languages through heritage programs and media, though assimilation pressures persist in host societies.

Linguistic Typology

Phonological features

The phonological systems of Austronesian languages exhibit considerable diversity, yet they share certain features traceable to Proto-Austronesian (PAN), the reconstructed ancestor of the family. PAN is posited to have had a relatively simple vowel inventory consisting of four phonemes: *i, *a, *u, and *ə (a central schwa-like vowel). This four-vowel system forms a basic triangle with schwa serving as a default or neutral vowel, subject to distributional constraints such as avoidance in word-initial or word-final positions. The consonant inventory of PAN is reconstructed with 22 phonemes, including voiceless stops *p, *T (alveolar), *C (pre-palatal), *k, and *q (a uvular or glottal-like stop); voiced stops *b, *d, *Z (alveolar fricative), *j, and *g; nasals *m, *n, *ñ (palatal), and *ŋ; fricatives *S (possibly uvular) and *s; liquids *l and *r; and glides *w and *y, with an additional homorganic nasal *N. The glottal stop, often represented as *q or *ʔ, holds a debated phonemic status but is widely included due to irregular reflexes across daughter languages. The canonical syllable structure of PAN was (C)V(C), favoring open CV syllables with an optional coda consonant, which permitted limited medial clusters but prohibited complex onsets or codas. A hallmark of Austronesian is the predominance of CV syllables, reflecting the protolanguage's structure and persisting in many modern languages, where words typically consist of disyllabic or reduplicated forms like CVCVC. Tones are rare across the family, occurring primarily in some of , where they may interact with stress or emerge from segmental contrasts, unlike the more common stress-based prosody elsewhere. , involving assimilation of vowel quality (often height or backness) within words or phrases, appears in select subgroups, such as certain where "vowel grades" align in syntactic constructions, as in Tagalog examples where mid vowels raise or lower to match adjacent ones. Phonological variations among Austronesian languages highlight subgroup-specific innovations. In some western Austronesian languages, such as certain Borneo varieties related to Malay, implosive consonants like /ɓ/ and /ɗ/ have developed from voiced stops in specific environments, adding prevoiced ingressive airflow to the inventory, though standard Malay lacks them natively. , a productive morphological process, often influences by triggering vowel copying or consonant alternation, as seen in PAN forms like *buC-buC "to swell (reduplicated)" where the coda *C copies to the onset of the second syllable. In eastern branches, particularly , the uvular *q has been lost entirely, merging with zero or conditioning vowel lengthening, resulting in simplified inventories with only 13-15 and open syllables (V or CV). Prosodic features in Austronesian languages are predominantly stress-based, with primary stress typically falling on the penultimate in disyllabic roots, as inherited from PAN and observable in languages like Indonesian and Maori. However, some exhibit pitch accent systems, where lexical tone or pitch contours distinguish words, combining stress with intonational melodies; for instance, in Paiwan, stressed syllables carry higher pitch, and boundary tones mark prosodic phrases. These patterns underscore the family's shift from simple stress in the protolanguage to more varied suprasegmental systems in peripheral branches.

Morphological characteristics

Austronesian languages display a broad typological spectrum in morphology, ranging from isolating structures with minimal affixation, as seen in Manggarai where words typically lack affixes, to highly agglutinative systems in Philippine languages like Tagalog and Ilokano, which can incorporate 200–300 affixes per language to derive complex forms, and even polysynthetic tendencies in some Oceanic languages through verb serialization and multiple affixes. This diversity reflects the family's vast geographic spread and historical development, with isolating traits more common in western Malayo-Polynesian branches and agglutinative features prominent in Formosan and central Philippine groups. Key morphological processes include extensive use of reduplication, affixation, and pronominal marking. Reduplication, a hallmark of the family, often signals plurality, iteration, or intensity; for instance, Proto-Austronesian *bəŋi 'night' evolves into Tagalog bəŋi-bəŋi 'nights' via full reduplication, while partial CV reduplication in Thao marks distributiveness, as in ta-tusha 'two (humans)' from tusha 'two.' Affixation is equally productive, featuring prefixes like Proto-Austronesian *ma- for stative or resultative verbs (e.g., Tagalog ma-bigát 'heavy' from bigát 'weight'), infixes such as *-um- for actor voice (e.g., Tagalog bilí 'buy' from bilí), and occasional suffixes for nominalization or aspect (e.g., Thao pu-danshir-an 'was protected'). These processes build on phonological patterns like vowel harmony or consonant alternations but primarily serve word-level derivation and inflection. Pronominal systems across Austronesian languages typically distinguish inclusive and exclusive first-person plural forms, a feature reconstructed to Proto-Austronesian as * (exclusive, excluding the addressee) versus *kita (inclusive, including the addressee), preserved in languages like Malay (kami/kita) and (mipela/yumi). Many also mark number distinctions, including dual and in Oceanic subgroups, enhancing the expressive range of pronouns. Noun morphology shows limited , with rare exceptions like semantic distinctions in Paiwan (e.g., uqal y ay for 'male human' versus va-vai-an for 'female human'), and instead emphasizes possession systems, particularly in where alienable items (e.g., possessions) are marked differently from inalienable ones (e.g., body parts, kin terms). For example, in Fijian, alienable possession uses no-na (e.g., no-na vale 'his/her house'), while inalienable uses direct suffixes like -ya (e.g., ulu-ya 'his/her head'); similar patterns appear in Seimat with mina-k 'my hand' for inalienable terms. Numeral classifiers occasionally supplement this, as in Hoava sa rovana boko 'a large number of pigs,' but overall, noun classification prioritizes relational encoding over rigid categories.

Syntactic structures

Austronesian languages exhibit a range of that reflect their typological diversity, particularly in verb-initial and topic-prominent constructions. Many languages in the family display verb-initial word orders, with verb-subject-object (VSO) or verb-object-subject (VOS) being prevalent in Formosan, Philippine, and Oceanic branches, while subject-verb-object (SVO) orders dominate in Malayic and some . These patterns often interact with focus systems, where the verb's morphological marking determines the syntactic role of the focused , such as actor or undergoer. A hallmark of Austronesian syntax is the voice or focus system, which alternates affixes on the verb to promote different arguments to a core syntactic position, typically the subject-like pivot. In like Tagalog, actor voice is marked by infixes such as -um-, as in kumain ('ate' with actor focus), while undergoer voice uses prefixes like in- for patient focus, e.g., kinain ('was eaten'). This system extends morphological affixes from the word level into clause structure, allowing flexible argument alignment without passive constructions. In broader Western Austronesian languages, additional voices for locative, benefactive, or roles further diversify clause patterns. Clause linking in Austronesian languages often involves serial verb constructions, especially in Oceanic varieties, where multiple verbs form a single predicate without overt conjunctions to express complex events. For instance, in Mwotlap (Oceanic), a sequence like mwēlē kēp ('go take') combines motion and action verbs to convey a unified meaning. In contrast, frequently employ topic-comment structures, where a topical is fronted and followed by a comment , emphasizing over strict subordination. This topic-prominence facilitates information structuring, as seen in languages like Puyuma, where the topic sets the frame for the predicate comment. Negation in Austronesian languages typically employs pre-verbal particles, with variations across branches. In Malay, the particle tidak precedes verbal and adjectival predicates to negate clauses, as in tidak makan ('not eat'), distinguishing it from identificational negation marked by bukan. Question formation often relies on particles or intonation rises, particularly for polar questions; for example, in Paiwan (Formosan), a sentence-final particle or rising intonation signals yes/no queries, while content questions use wh-word fronting without movement in some verb-initial varieties. These mechanisms integrate seamlessly with the family's focus-sensitive syntax, allowing pragmatic nuances without major rearrangements.

Lexicon and Vocabulary

Core vocabulary and semantics

The core vocabulary of Austronesian languages exhibits remarkable stability, particularly in items from the Swadesh 100-word list, which are used to measure lexical retention across language families. Studies of basic vocabulary databases reveal high retention rates in Austronesian, often exceeding 30-40% even between distantly related languages, with numerals and body parts showing the greatest persistence due to their cultural and cognitive centrality. For instance, the Proto-Austronesian (PAN) form *əsa 'one' is retained in over 90% of daughter languages, appearing as isa in Tagalog, esa in Malay, and tahi in , while *mata 'eye' persists widely as mata in Indonesian, maka in Hawaiian, and ma'a in Rukai (Formosan). This stability underscores the utility of such lists for reconstructing proto-forms and tracing phylogenetic relationships within the family. Semantic fields in Austronesian core vocabulary reflect the ancestral lifeways of speakers, with robust reconstructions in domains like numerals, body parts, maritime navigation, , and . Numerals beyond *əsa include PAN *duSa 'two', *telu 'three', and * 'five', which maintain consistent forms across Formosan and Malayo-Polynesian branches, evidencing early counting systems based on body-part metaphors. Body part terms form another stable set, such as *qulun 'head', * 'tongue', and *pusuq '', often extending metaphorically to spatial or relational concepts. Maritime vocabulary, indicative of seafaring origins, features PAN *waRi '' (cognate with wari in Javanese and vai in Samoan) and *bangka(y) 'outrigger canoe', highlighting the role of ocean travel in dispersal. Agricultural terms like *pajay ' in the field' (padi in Malay, pai in Atayal) point to wet-rice cultivation practices spreading from . and pronominal systems prominently include an inclusive/exclusive distinction in first-person plural pronouns, reconstructed as PAN * 'we (exclusive)' and *kita 'we (inclusive)', a feature preserved in nearly all Austronesian languages and rare globally, which encodes speaker-hearer . Compounding is a prevalent strategy in many Austronesian languages for deriving complex concepts from core lexical items, often blending nouns or verbs to convey idiomatic meanings. Such compounds are typically head-final, with the primary element following modifiers, and they integrate seamlessly into the agglutinative morphology, allowing nuanced extensions of basic vocabulary without affixation. This process is widespread in but varies, with less emphasis in Oceanic branches where often substitutes. Semantic shifts within core vocabulary illustrate evolutionary patterns, particularly in body-part terms that influence numeral systems. The PAN *lima, originally denoting 'hand' and extending to 'five' via , undergoes divergence in some subgroups; for instance, in like Indonesian, retains 'five' while tangan 'hand' emerges from a separate shift, leading to colexification loss in about 20% of Austronesian languages. This shift reflects cognitive reprioritization, where anatomical references adapt to abstract quantification needs over millennia.

Borrowings and influences

Austronesian languages have incorporated numerous loanwords from external sources due to historical , , and cultural exchange, particularly in and the Pacific. In Malay and related , loanwords entered extensively during the Hindu-Buddhist period from the 1st to 15th centuries, influencing vocabulary in domains such as , , and ; for instance, the Malay word agama ('religion') derives from āgama. Similarly, loanwords proliferated through Islamic and activities starting around the 13th century, contributing terms related to faith, law, and administration, with estimates indicating over 1,000 such borrowings in modern Malay-Indonesian, exemplified by kitab ('book') from kitāb. Chinese () loanwords also entered via , affecting everyday terms like meja ('table') from mjie. In the , Spanish colonial rule from the 16th to 19th centuries introduced hundreds of loanwords into Tagalog and other languages, often in everyday and administrative contexts, such as eskuela ('school') from Spanish escuela. English influences followed in the 20th century, adding terms like telepono ('telephone') in Tagalog, reflecting ongoing . Regional contact patterns reveal bidirectional borrowing between Austronesian and non-Austronesian languages, especially in areas of overlap like eastern and . Austronesian languages have loaned basic numerals and maritime vocabulary to through prolonged interaction, as seen in the spread of numeral systems and words like 'five' (lima) from Proto-Malayo-Polynesian into various Papuan families in . Conversely, in trade languages and creoles such as in , Austronesian substrates contribute significantly, with reverse loans including Papuan terms for local flora and tools entering Austronesian varieties. These exchanges highlight the role of Austronesian as a linguistic in island and the Pacific, facilitating the diffusion of numerals, body-part terms, and cultural concepts across linguistic boundaries. Loanwords in Austronesian languages undergo phonological and morphological adaptation to fit native sound systems and grammatical structures, ensuring seamless integration. Many Austronesian languages lack certain consonants like /f/, leading to substitutions such as /f/ > /p/ in borrowings; for example, Spanish café becomes Tagalog kape ('coffee'), where the is replaced by the stop to align with Tagalog . In Gilbertese, a Micronesian Austronesian , English loanwords like bus are adapted as b'ati, inserting vowels to match the 's CV syllable structure and avoiding illicit consonant clusters. Calques, or loan translations, further demonstrate conceptual borrowing without direct phonetic transfer, particularly for abstract modern ideas; in Tetun (an Austronesian of ), Indonesian influence has produced calques for political terms, such as adaptations for '' structured as 'rule by the people' (pemerintahan rakyat in related Malay varieties). The impact of borrowings varies by language and isolation level, with more contact-heavy varieties showing higher proportions of non-native vocabulary. In Malay, up to 30% of the lexicon consists of loanwords, predominantly from (around 750 terms) and (over 1,000), enriching domains like and while preserving core Austronesian roots. In contrast, isolated Polynesian languages like Hawaiian or Maori exhibit far lower borrowing rates, often under 10%, limited mostly to European introductions in the last two centuries due to geographic remoteness. This gradient underscores how contact intensity shapes lexical evolution across the .

Classification and Phylogeny

Formosan languages

The Formosan languages constitute the indigenous languages of Taiwan, representing the highest level of linguistic diversity within the Austronesian family and serving as evidence for Taiwan as the likely homeland of Proto-Austronesian speakers. According to the classification proposed by Robert Blust, these languages form nine primary branches coordinate with the Malayo-Polynesian branch: Atayalic, Bunun, East Formosan, Northwest Formosan, Paiwan, Puyuma, Rukai, Tsouic, and Western Plains. There are approximately 26 , all of which are endangered, with many facing extinction due to language shift toward and historical assimilation policies. These languages exhibit remarkable internal diversity across phonological, morphological, and syntactic domains, far exceeding that found in the rest of the Austronesian family. Phonologically, some branches feature tone systems, as in Kavalan (an East Formosan language), where lexical tones distinguish word meanings through pitch contours. Morphologically, Formosan languages are known for their complex pronominal systems, which often encode distinctions in person, number, inclusivity/exclusivity, and sometimes genitive or focus alignments, reflecting intricate social and grammatical relationships. This diversity underscores Taiwan's role as a center of linguistic innovation and retention from the proto-language. Representative examples highlight this variability. Amis, the largest Formosan language by speaker population, has around 207,000 speakers primarily in eastern and features a rich inventory of verbal affixes for voice and aspect. In contrast, Rukai (from the Rukai branch in southern ) stands out for its , including glottalized consonants such as ejective-like stops in dialects like Budai Rukai, alongside a structure that permits complex codas. The of the as a single subgroup has been questioned, as Blust's model posits them as multiple independent offshoots from Proto-Austronesian rather than a unified . Additionally, the position of Puyuma remains debated, with some analyses suggesting it as a basal branch due to its retention of archaic features like certain phonological contrasts, potentially isolating it from other Formosan groups.

Malayo-Polynesian branch

The Malayo-Polynesian (MP) branch forms the primary extra-Formosan division of the , encompassing approximately 1,235 languages spoken by over 385 million across , , , , and as far as and . This branch reflects extensive historical migrations and adaptations, distinguishing it through shared innovations from Proto-Malayo-Polynesian (PMP), such as the merger of Proto-Austronesian *ñ and *ŋ into a single velar nasal, and the development of systems that persist in many daughter languages. The internal classification of MP, as established by shared phonological and morphological innovations, divides it into Western Malayo-Polynesian (WMP; approximately 500–600 languages, primarily in the , , , and western ), Central Malayo-Polynesian (CMP; about 120 languages in the and Moluccas), and Eastern Malayo-Polynesian (EMP; over 700 languages, further split into South Halmahera–West New Guinea and Oceanic). Oceanic, the largest EMP subgroup with around 450–466 languages, dominates the eastern Pacific and includes numerous sub-branches such as the languages, Southeast Solomonic, and Central Pacific; within Central Pacific lies the Polynesian subgroup, featuring about 40 closely related languages like Hawaiian, Māori, Samoan, and Tongan. WMP exhibits high diversity in the (e.g., over 100 languages in the Greater Central Philippine group) and includes isolates like Enggano in and Inati in the , alongside dialect continua such as the 65 Malay varieties. Characteristic of MP languages are simplified phonological systems compared to Formosan relatives, with tendencies toward open syllables (CV structure), vowel lenition, and consonant mergers; for instance, PMP *b and *p often merge as /b/ or /v/ in WMP, while in , extreme reduction occurs, as seen in Hawaiian's inventory of just 8 consonants and 5 vowels. Morphologically, MP retains PMP's agglutinative affixation and focus systems—marking , undergoer, or other arguments via prefixes like *a- for voice—but shows innovations in Oceanic, including the *ma- article (a definite marker evolving from a stative verb prefix, as in Fijian ma 'the' and Hawaiian fossilized forms like ma-etaq > mataʔ 'raw'). Some EMP languages further innovate with nasal substitution in active verbs (e.g., PMP pukul 'hit' > Malay məmukul) and reduced voice paradigms, alongside persistent features like inclusive/exclusive pronouns and possessive classifiers (ka- for items, ma- for drinkable). Prominent MP languages include Indonesian (a standardized Malay variety with over 200 million speakers, serving as the national language of ), Cebuano (about 16 million speakers in the central ), and Fijian (around 330,000 speakers, representing Oceanic diversity with its ma- article and VOS options). Other major ones encompass Tagalog (basis of Filipino, ~24 million speakers) in WMP and Samoan (~500,000 speakers) in Polynesian, highlighting the branch's role in official and creolized forms across island nations. The diversity within MP spans small isolate languages like the Chamic group (12 languages in and , such as Cham and Jarai, showing tonal innovations from Austroasiatic contact) to expansive continua like the Bisayan complex in the or the Polynesian chain, where lexical retention varies widely (e.g., 58% shared with PMP in standard Malay versus 5% in some Melanesian outliers like Kaulong). This range underscores MP's adaptability, with over 94% of PMP reconstructions being disyllabic bases and agglutinative morphology yielding complex derivations, such as for plurality (e.g., baba 'carry' > bababa 'carry repeatedly').

Alternative proposals and debates

One prominent debate in Austronesian classification centers on the internal structure of the . Robert Blust's 1999 proposal identifies nine primary Formosan subgroups—Atayalic, Bunun, East Formosan, Northwest Formosan, Paiwan, Puyuma, Rukai, Tsouic, and Western Plains—coordinated with the Malayo-Polynesian branch as the tenth primary branch of the family. In contrast, Paul Jen-kuei Li's 2008 analysis emphasizes the extreme phonological, morphological, and syntactic diversity among . This adjustment aims to better account for shared innovations obscured by contact, though it has not supplanted Blust's framework in broader phylogenies. Laurent Sagart's 2004 model challenges traditional subgroupings by proposing a higher-level phylogeny based on numeral innovations, positioning the Tsouic languages (Tsou, Kanakanavu, and Saaroa) as the earliest split from Proto-Austronesian, followed by other Formosan branches and Malayo-Polynesian. Sagart's approach draws on lexical evidence from numerals like *pitu '7', *walu '8', and *siwa '9', arguing for a hierarchical structure including "Pituish" and "Walu-Siwaish" clades that redistribute Formosan languages differently from Blust. In subsequent work, Sagart incorporated Bayesian phylogenetic methods to refine these relationships, as seen in analyses of Philippine Austronesian languages that support rapid initial expansions from Taiwan with subsequent back-migrations. Critics, including Malcolm Ross, contend that Sagart's data selection overemphasizes numerals prone to borrowing, potentially inflating early splits and undermining genetic subgrouping validity. Additional controversies involve the "Nuclear Austronesian" hypothesis, which excludes certain Formosan languages like Puyuma, Rukai, and Tsou from a core subgroup encompassing all remaining Austronesian varieties, justified by shared morphological innovations such as nominalization-to-verb derivations. Ross (2009, 2012) defends this by arguing that apparent Tsouic unity results from contact-induced convergence rather than inheritance, citing phonological mismatches and syntactic differences. However, this view conflicts with Blust's and Sagart's models, which retain Tsouic as a valid branch based on phonological and lexical evidence. The role of borrowing further complicates subgrouping, as lexical similarities often attributed to common ancestry may stem from areal diffusion, particularly in Borneo and the Philippines, where Austroasiatic and Papuan influences have introduced loanwords that mimic genetic links. For instance, Blust (2023) demonstrates that proposed lexical innovations defining Bornean subgroups fail under scrutiny due to undocumented borrowings, urging caution in relying solely on vocabulary for phylogeny. As of 2025, Blust's 1999 classification remains the dominant framework, with broad consensus on as the Austronesian homeland and forming the family's basal diversity. Computational approaches, such as those in Greenhill et al. (2010), bolster this by applying Bayesian methods to lexical datasets from over 400 languages, yielding phylogenies that place the family's origin in around 5,200 years ago and confirm most traditional subgroups, though with caveats for potential misplacements due to borrowing or incomplete data. These methods highlight ongoing challenges in resolving deep Formosan splits but reinforce the Taiwan-centric dispersal model with quantitative support.

Historical Development

Origins and proto-language

The reconstruction of Proto-Austronesian (PAN), the common ancestor of the , began with the foundational work of German linguist Otto Dempwolff in , who established the basic phonological system and compiled approximately 2,200 lexical reconstructions based primarily on Indonesian and . Subsequent refinements, notably by Robert Blust, incorporated Formosan data and expanded the lexicon to over 4,700 base forms in the Austronesian Comparative Dictionary, correcting earlier errors such as the inclusion of Malay loanwords and refining phonemic distinctions. These efforts have yielded a robust inventory of around 2,000 securely reconstructed roots, capturing core vocabulary related to , environment, and daily life. Key morphological innovations diagnostic of PAN include a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns, such as *i-(k)ita (inclusive, including the addressee) and *i-(k)ami (exclusive, excluding the addressee), which are retained across most daughter languages. Another hallmark is the verb-focus system, featuring four voices—actor voice marked by *-um-, direct object voice by *-en or *-in-, locative voice by *-an, and instrumental voice by *Si-—which aligns arguments through case-marked noun phrases rather than fixed subject-object roles. Linguistic evidence for the proto-language's coherence includes shared retentions like *sajay 'who', reflected in forms such as Tagalog sino, Malay sapa, and Formosan cognates, indicating a unified ancestral stage. The time depth of PAN is estimated at 5,500 to 6,000 years before present, based on rates of linguistic divergence and correlations with archaeological evidence for expansions. This places the proto-language around 3500–4000 BCE, with subsequent innovations like the merger of *t and *C in marking post-Taiwan developments. Evidence for Taiwan as the PAN homeland derives from the island's exceptional linguistic diversity, hosting up to nine primary branches of the family (with Malayo-Polynesian as the tenth), far exceeding that in any other region. preserve archaic features absent in extra-Formosan branches, including unique phonological retentions and a substratum influence evident in Malayo-Polynesian, where Formosan-like elements suggest an early divergence within before southward dispersal. This pattern aligns with archaeological findings of a sudden Neolithic culture in around 5,500 years ago, linked to migrations from mainland Southeast .

Migration and dispersal

The Out-of-Taiwan model, proposed by archaeologist Peter Bellwood and linguist Robert Blust in the late 1980s, posits that Austronesian-speaking populations originated in and dispersed southward in successive waves beginning around 4000–3000 BCE, driven by agricultural expansion and maritime capabilities. This model integrates linguistic subgrouping with archaeological evidence, such as the spread of red-slipped pottery and domesticated plants like and millet from Taiwan to the Philippines by approximately 3000 BCE, and onward to and the by 2000–1500 BCE. The initial migrations likely involved Formosan speakers moving into northern , establishing early Malayo-Polynesian subgroups, before further expansions reached the Pacific islands around 1500–1000 BCE. Linguistic evidence supports these dispersals through subgroup innovations that align with archaeological timelines. For instance, the Proto-Oceanic language, ancestral to over 400 Oceanic Austronesian languages, emerged around 3500 BP and is closely associated with the , a pottery-bearing complex identified with rapid seaborne colonization of from the to , , and between 3400 and 2900 BP. Proto-Oceanic innovations, such as terms for canoes (*waga) and domesticated animals introduced by migrants, correlate with Lapita sites featuring tools and shell artifacts traded across vast distances, indicating a unified cultural-linguistic horizon. The Austronesian dispersal extended westward to , where Malagasy languages represent a distant offshoot settled by Southeast Bornean speakers via an route involving East African intermediaries between approximately 700 and 1200 CE, though estimates vary with evidence type (genetic, linguistic, and archaeological). Linguistic evidence includes Malagasy vocabulary retaining Austronesian roots, such as *lakana 'outrigger canoe' from Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *laŋkaŋ, alongside Bantu loanwords reflecting later admixture, which together confirm a small founding population of Austronesian navigators who adapted to the island's isolation. In Melanesia, Austronesian expansions encountered non-Austronesian (Papuan) populations, leading to extensive hybridization and areal linguistic features through prolonged contact rather than wholesale replacement. This interaction produced mixed languages in areas like the Admiralty Islands and Solomon Islands, where Austronesian syntax incorporates Papuan phonological traits (e.g., extensive consonant inventories) and lexical borrowings for local flora and fauna, fostering convergence zones that blurred genetic boundaries among over 200 Papuan languages.

Writing Systems

Traditional scripts

Many traditional scripts used for Austronesian languages in were derived from Indian Brahmic traditions, introduced through trade and cultural exchanges, and were limited in distribution and application compared to the oral nature of most Austronesian societies. These systems emerged in the Malayo-Polynesian branch, particularly in insular , where they served to record Old Malay and related languages from as early as the 7th century CE. Arabic-derived scripts, such as Jawi for Malay and Sorabe for Malagasy, also developed later through Islamic influences, with Sorabe—an adaptation of letters for the Antemoro of Malagasy—used from around the 15th century for religious, historical, and esoteric texts in . In contrast, Formosan and Oceanic branches largely lacked indigenous writing systems prior to external influences, relying instead on oral transmission and mnemonic aids. Other notable Brahmic-derived scripts include the (Hanacaraka), which evolved from the and was used from the 16th century for Javanese, Sasak, and Madurese languages on and nearby islands, featuring an with about 20 consonants and vowel diacritics for literary, religious, and administrative purposes. Similarly, the , a Brahmic attested from the 14th century, was employed for Buginese, Makassarese, and Mandar languages in , , to record epics, chronicles, and laws on palm leaves and . In , pre-colonial writing systems for Old Malay were based on the , an ancient South Indian introduced via maritime contacts around the 7th century CE. The from 683 CE, found near , represents the earliest known example of Old Malay written in this script, detailing a naval expedition and ritual. These Pallava-derived scripts evolved into local variants, such as the Rencong script (also known as Ulu or Ka-Ga-Nga), used in central and southern from the 14th century onward for recording Malay texts on materials like , bark, and horn. The Rencong script features 18 consonant letters arranged in a traditional Indic order, with diacritics for vowels, and was primarily employed by elites for ritual, legal, and literary purposes rather than widespread literacy. In the Philippines, the Tagbanwa script exemplifies an indigenous abugida adapted for Austronesian languages of and , descending from the of (itself Pallava-derived) through 10th–14th century influences. Used by speakers in for their , this syllabic system consists of 18 basic characters with inherent /a/ vowels modified by diacritics, written vertically from bottom to top in columns read left to right. It functioned pre-colonially for , myths, and daily records until the 17th century, remaining a living tradition among some communities for cultural preservation. Formosan languages, spoken by Taiwan's indigenous Austronesian peoples, were predominantly oral traditions with no indigenous scripts documented before colonial contacts, emphasizing memorized genealogies, chants, and stories passed through generations. Rare adaptations of Han characters appeared in the 19th century under influence, primarily for bilingual records among plains indigenous groups like the Siraya, but these were limited to administrative or missionary contexts rather than native development. Among Oceanic Austronesian languages, no true indigenous writing systems existed, as societies prioritized navigational and over graphic recording. In , however, navigators created mnemonic stick charts (known as mattang or meddo) from coconut fibers, palm strips, and shells to encode wave patterns, currents, and island locations, serving as tools for apprentices rather than linguistic scripts. These devices, developed over millennia, encoded environmental central to Marshallese and other Micronesian cultures, memorized during land-based for open-ocean voyages.

Modern orthographies

The modern orthographies of Austronesian languages predominantly employ the Latin alphabet, a development largely stemming from colonial influences and subsequent post-independence efforts to promote and national unity. In the , for instance, the 1987 revision of the —based on Tagalog, a major Austronesian language—expanded to 28 letters, incorporating the digraph ng as a distinct unit to represent the velar nasal /ŋ/, which functions as both a and a grammatical marker. This system prioritizes phonemic consistency, adapting the to Austronesian phonological features like frequent nasal while accommodating loanwords through additional letters such as ñ. Similar adaptations appear across the family, where the Latin base facilitates education and media but requires modifications for unique sounds. Variations in notation highlight the diversity of Austronesian phonologies within this shared script. In Polynesian languages like Hawaiian, the glottal stop—a consonant essential for word distinction—is represented by the ʻokina, a reversed apostrophe-like symbol that marks a brief closure in the vocal tract, as in koʻu ('my') versus kou ('you'). This diacritic, formalized in the 1970s, ensures phonetic accuracy and has become integral to official writing, though earlier texts often omitted it or used hyphens. In Malagasy, spoken in Madagascar, the Latin orthography employs digraphs and single letters for implosive consonants (e.g., /ɓ/ and /ɗ/ realized as b and d in certain positions), reflecting the language's prevoiced stops influenced by Bantu contact while maintaining a simple 21-letter inventory. These adaptations underscore the script's flexibility for regional sound systems, from glottal features in Oceanic branches to implosive realizations in western Malayo-Polynesian outliers. Standardization initiatives, often supported by international organizations, address the needs of minority Austronesian languages by promoting community-driven orthographies. 's guidelines emphasize phonemic principles—one sound per symbol—and community involvement in script selection, with examples from Pacific Austronesian languages like Hawaiian (12 phonemes) and Samoan illustrating adaptations for vowel-heavy systems without fricatives. In , digital advancements have bolstered these efforts; the 1992 Hawaiian Font Standard ensured compatibility for diacritics like the ʻokina and macron (ā), later integrated into operating systems such as Apple's 2002 OS and keyboards, facilitating online revitalization. Challenges persist due to dialectal diversity and prosodic complexities, complicating uniform . In eastern , differences between New Zealand and Cook Islands dialects—such as varying glottal stops, vowel lengths, and consonants (e.g., r/l alternations)—have led to competing orthographic reforms, with preferences for simplicity clashing against full phonemic marking, exacerbating low fluency rates among diaspora speakers. in face similar issues with tone ; many, like Tsou and Atayal, use diacritics (e.g., acute accents for high tones) or numbers in academic transcriptions to capture register tones or pitch accents, but lags due to endangered status and varying prominence systems. These hurdles highlight the ongoing need for balanced, accessible systems to preserve linguistic heritage.

External Relations

One of the most prominent proposals linking Austronesian languages to other families is the Austro-Tai hypothesis, which posits a genetic relationship between Austronesian and the Kra-Dai (also known as Tai-Kadai) languages of . Originally proposed by Paul K. Benedict in 1942, the hypothesis identifies shared vocabulary, such as the numeral for 'six' reconstructed as *ənəm in Proto-Austronesian and *x-nəm in Proto-Kra, along with phonological and morphological parallels suggesting a common ancestor around 5,000–6,000 years ago. Later refinements by Laurent Sagart in the 2000s positioned Kra-Dai as a within Austronesian, attributing divergences to events, though this view remains debated due to challenges in distinguishing inheritance from borrowing. The Austric hypothesis proposes a deeper connection between Austronesian and the of and , forming a proposed superfamily. First suggested by Wilhelm Schmidt in 1906 and revived in the by Gérard Diffloth, it draws on lexical resemblances and shared morphological features, such as infixes, potentially dating the split to 8,000–10,000 years ago in a homeland near the River. Evidence is considered weak by many linguists, as regular sound correspondences are sparse and alternative explanations like areal diffusion are plausible. Laurent Sagart's Sino-Austronesian hypothesis, developed in the , argues for a genetic link between Austronesian and (the Chinese branch of Sino-Tibetan), based on phonological alignments, shared pronouns, and over 200 proposed cognates. Expanded in the to Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian, it suggests a common origin in the basin around 8,000 years ago, with Austronesian diverging southward. Critics highlight the possibility of ancient borrowing rather than , given the geographic proximity and long contact history. Other proposals include Benedict's 1990 extension of Austro-Tai to incorporate Japanese as a , citing lexical and pronominal similarities like shared forms for 'eye' and 'I', though this lacks broad support due to insufficient regular correspondences. Juliette Blevins (2007) suggested an Austronesian-Ongan link, reconstructing Proto-Ongan (ancestor of Jarawa and in the ) as a sister to Proto-Austronesian based on 100+ cognates, implying an ancient dispersal from . Broader East Asian macrofamily ideas, advanced by Sagart and others, encompass Austronesian, Sino-Tibetan, Kra-Dai, and sometimes Austroasiatic or Hmong-Mien in a single phylum originating in northern .

Evidence and ongoing debates

The investigation of external relations for Austronesian languages faces significant methodological challenges, primarily due to the proposed time depths exceeding years, which allow for extensive phonological divergence that obscures potential forms and complicates the identification of regular correspondences. Additionally, some proposals rely on mass comparison, which identifies resemblances across large lexical sets without requiring systematic phonological rules, contrasting with the comparative method's emphasis on consistent laws and shared innovations to establish genetic relatedness. This approach has been criticized for its susceptibility to chance resemblances and borrowing, particularly in regions with prolonged contact like . Evidence supporting potential links includes lexical similarities, such as notable resemblances in numerals between Austronesian and Tai-Kadai languages (e.g., Proto-Austronesian * 'five' and Hlai *nam 'five'), with systematic correspondences proposed for numerals 5 through 10 forming a core of shared . Phonological features like implosive consonants appear in some Austronesian subgroups (e.g., reconstructed voiced implosives in Proto-Malayo-Polynesian) and are sporadically shared with Tai-Kadai or Austroasiatic forms, though their presence at the proto-level remains debated and may reflect areal diffusion rather than inheritance. Typological parallels, including head-marking strategies in verbal morphology, align Austronesian with Tai-Kadai languages, where possessor marking on the head or agreement patterns show convergent structures, potentially indicating deep historical ties or contact influence. Criticisms of these proposals highlight selective data use and insufficient rigor; for instance, Robert Blust (2013) rejects the Sino-Austronesian hypothesis, arguing that proposed cognates involve cherry-picked semantic matches and lack systematic sound correspondences, rendering the evidence unpersuasive. Similarly, the Austric hypothesis, linking Austronesian and Austroasiatic, is faulted for its reliance on inconsistent lexical sets without demonstrable phonological regularity or shared morphological innovations, leading to inconclusive results. As of 2025, external relation hypotheses for Austronesian languages, including Austro-Tai, remain highly debated with no broad consensus. The Austro-Tai proposal has received some recent linguistic support through studies on tonogenesis and shared phonological developments, such as systematic correspondences between Kra-Dai tones and Austronesian codas, suggesting possible rather than borrowing. Interdisciplinary evidence from and provides tentative corroboration for shared Neolithic origins in southern for Austro-Tai but limited support for deeper links like Sino-Austronesian or Austric, emphasizing the role of contact over genetic relatedness in many cases.

Comparative Linguistics

Phonological reconstructions

Phonological reconstructions of the rely on the to trace diachronic sound changes from Proto-Austronesian (PAN), the hypothesized ancestor spoken around 5,000–6,000 years ago in . These reconstructions, primarily advanced by Robert Blust, posit a PAN inventory with 22 consonants—including stops *p, *t, *k, *b, *d, *j, nasals *m, *n, *ŋ, liquids *l, *R, fricatives *s, *S, *h, and glides *w, *y—and four vowels *i, *a, *u, *ə, plus a *q. Sound changes vary across branches, reflecting subgroup-specific innovations that help delineate the , such as the nine primary Formosan branches and the Malayo-Polynesian (MP) offshoot. In the Oceanic branch, leading to , a series of systematic shifts mark the transition from Proto-Oceanic (POC), an MP descendant. Proto-Oceanic *p, *t, and *k underwent to *f, *s, and *∅ (zero or ) in Proto-Polynesian, with further developments like *f > h in Hawaiian. For instance, PAN *puaq 'fruit, flower' yields reflexes including Hawaiian *hua, Samoan *fua, Tongan *fua, and *hua, illustrating the *p > f > h progression across four . Similarly, PAN *pitu 'seven' shows Samoan *fitu, Tongan *fitu, and Hawaiian *hiku, confirming the shift in initial position. These changes, absent in non-Polynesian MP languages like Tagalog *pito and Malay *tujuh, serve as key subgroup markers. Philippine languages, part of the MP branch, exhibit conditional sound laws, such as the merger of PAN *d and *Z into *r in many Central Philippine varieties, or intervocalic *t > r/l. Blust identifies recurrent innovations, as in PAN *CaliS 'rope' > Tagalog tali, Ilokano talli, and Cebuano tali, compared to non-shifting reflexes in Formosan languages like Atayal qali. Another example is PAN *qateluR 'egg' > Tagalog itlog, contrasting with stable forms in other branches like Malay telur. This shift, supported by over 50 etymologies, distinguishes Philippine subgroups from Formosan and western MP languages. In (western MP), a prominent change is the loss of initial *ŋ > ∅, affecting word-initial velar nasals from PAN. For example, PAN *ŋajan 'name' becomes ngaran in Javanese, ngajan in some Dayak languages like Kantu, and is preserved as ngalan in Cebuano, while Formosan reflexes like Atayal raluy show different developments, and Polynesian forms like Hawaiian inoa derive from POC *ŋacan. This , documented in over 100 forms, marks Malayic innovations and contrasts with nasal retention in neighboring branches. Formosan languages, retaining the most archaic features, show extensive vowel reductions and syncope, often reducing the PAN four-vowel system through mergers or deletions. In Bunun and Thao, *ə deletes in certain environments, as in PAN *baqeRu 'new' > Bunun *baqlu, with parallel reductions in Paiwan *vaqəlu and Rukai *vakuRu. Schwa (*ə) frequently syncopates or centralizes, yielding trilateral systems (*i, *a, *u) in languages like Tsou, where stressed penults resist reduction. These changes, varying across the nine Formosan subgroups, highlight early diversification post-PAN. The PAN *S (a voiceless alveolar or postalveolar ) often weakens to *h in MP branches, including Polynesian, as a broader pattern. PAN *Səpat 'four' > Proto-Polynesian *fafa (via POC *paat, with *S > ∅ initially but compensatory effects), reflexes Hawaiian *eha, Samoan *afa, Tongan *fā, and *whā. This, combined with *h retention or loss, aids in tracing MP dispersal. Comparative evidence from at least three languages per underpins these reconstructions, enabling precise subgrouping.

Lexical comparisons and etymologies

Lexical comparisons in Austronesian rely on identifying sets—words across languages that descend from a common proto-form—to demonstrate genetic relationships and reconstruct ancestral . These comparisons highlight the family's unity despite vast geographic spread and phonological diversity, with reflexes often preserving core meanings in basic like numerals, body parts, and fauna. For instance, the proto-form *Sapuy '' yields widespread reflexes such as Tagalog apoy, Malay api, and in , Hawaiian ahi and ahi, illustrating sound changes like *S- > h- in eastern branches. Etymological derivations further reveal historical developments, including semantic shifts and morphological innovations. The term for 'pig', reconstructed as Proto-Austronesian (PAN) babuy, appears in reflexes like Tagalog baboy, Malay babi, Cebuano bábuy, and Fijian vuaka, where the initial *b- shifts to *v- in due to subgroup-specific innovations. This cognate set underscores the importance of pigs in Austronesian societies, as evidenced by its retention across Formosan, Western Malayo-Polynesian, and Oceanic branches. Similarly, PAN *balabaw 'rat' shows semantic narrowing in some languages, such as reflexes meaning 'mouse' in certain Philippine varieties (e.g., Hiligaynon balabaw ' or '), reflecting distinctions between larger rats and smaller in local ecologies. Basic vocabulary provides stable anchors for reconstruction, with numerals and body parts showing particularly regular patterns. The numeral 'seven', PAN pitu, persists almost unchanged in many languages, including Javanese pitu, Tagalog pito, and whitu, demonstrating resistance to borrowing and minimal alteration over millennia. For body parts, PAN *ulu 'head' yields Tagalog ulo, Ilokano ulo, and in Polynesian, Hawaiian poʻo and upoko, where the proto-vowel *u remains stable while consonants adapt to local phonologies. These examples extend phonological reconstructions by applying sound correspondences at the word level, confirming family-wide regularities. Subgroup innovations add layers to etymologies, as seen in Proto-Oceanic *rua 'two', derived from reduplication of PAN *duSa 'two' (reflexes include Tagalog dalawa, Malay dua). This morphological process, common in Oceanic for numerals, marks a distinct evolutionary stage post-dispersal into the Pacific, distinguishing it from conservative Formosan forms like Atayal dua. Such derivations not only trace historical grammar but also inform cultural adaptations in numeral systems.

References

  1. https://www.ethnologue.com/subgroup/447/
  2. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Austronesian-languages
  3. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012440
  4. https://www.ethnologue.com/language/ind/
  5. https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/how-many-people-speak-tagalog
  6. https://www.ethnologue.com/language/jav/
  7. https://www.ethnologue.com/language/mlg/
  8. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/33813/458826.pdf
  9. https://zorc.net/rdzorc/Blust-RobertA/Blust-2013=Austronesian_Languages.pdf
  10. https://geschichte.univie.ac.at/en/persons/wilhelm-schmidt
  11. https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/Chapter25_OHAL_AustronesianArchaeolinguistics.pdf
  12. https://www.ethnologue.com/family/AUS
  13. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-language-contact/mixed-languages/4002F74803E002083066D92AB340C6B0
  14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242767316_The_integrity_of_the_Austronesian_language_family
  15. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05753-3
  16. https://www.ethnologue.com/subgroups/oceanic
  17. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345673519_Dialects_of_Madagascar
  18. https://www.ethnologue.com/language/mlg
  19. https://www.arts.chula.ac.th/chulaseal/wp-content/uploads/2005/05/PL-569.pdf
  20. https://www.facebook.com/groups/austronesian.languages/posts/1537974993792177/
  21. https://www.ethnologue.com/insights/largest-families/
  22. https://www.mustgo.com/worldlanguages/austronesian-language-family/
  23. https://www.ethnologue.com/language/ind
  24. http://www2.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/g101ilec/intro/clt/cltclt/top100.html
  25. https://www.ethnologue.com/language/tgl
  26. https://preply.com/en/blog/tagalog-language-statistics/
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286043109_Endangered_Languages_of_Austronesia
  28. https://www.ethnologue.com/insights/how-many-languages-endangered/
  29. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/covid-19-impact-indigenous-languages
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339640102_Urbanization_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Language_Shift_in_Indonesia
  31. https://www.uhfoundation.org/saving-hawaiian-language
  32. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/from-near-extinction-to-national-pride-maori-language-enjoys-a-revival-in-new-zealand
  33. https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/maori-education
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320133273_SA_close_look_at_bilingualism_research_in_Asia
  35. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/4148/
  36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4499972
  37. https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/lali.18.2.01blu
  38. https://bahasawan.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Himmelmann-and-Kaufman-to-appear-Austronesian-Prosodic-Systems.pdf
  39. https://zorc.net/RDZorc/Blust-RobertA/Blust-2013=Austronesian_Languages.pdf
  40. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-527
  41. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/31058
  42. https://languagesgulper.com/eng/Austronesian.html
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3198322/
  44. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/begus/files/begus_the_origins_of_voice_focus_system_in_austronesian_ws.pdf
  45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322797061_Introduction_In_The_many_faces_of_Austronesian_voice_systems_some_new_empirical_studies
  46. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04332892/file/Kroeger_Riesberg_2023_VoiceAndTransitivity.pdf
  47. http://alex.francois.online.fr/data/AlexFrancois_2006_Serial-Verbs-in-Mwotlap_in-Dixon-Aikhenvald.pdf
  48. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/5/article/464589/pdf
  49. https://hal.science/hal-00591607v1/document
  50. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/201
  51. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349087412_Perspectives_on_information_structure_in_Austronesian_language
  52. https://www.diu.edu/wp-content/uploads/paul_kroeger/Indon-Neg-v4-Kroeger.pdf
  53. https://academic.oup.com/book/58197/chapter/481323385
  54. https://www.isca-archive.org/speechprosody_2010/chen10_speechprosody.pdf
  55. https://wals.info/chapter/116
  56. https://people.clas.ufl.edu/potsdam/files/NLLT27.pdf
  57. https://lingpapers.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2024/11/UBCOPL_Hotzes_Volume_Griffin.pdf
  58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23995246_The_Austronesian_Basic_Vocabulary_Database_From_Bioinformatics
  59. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/960927
  60. https://izumi-syuppan.co.jp/LLO_PDF/vol_12/12-01.pdf
  61. http://sealang.net/archives/nusa/pdf/nusa-v41.pdf
  62. http://www.pertanika.upm.edu.my/resources/files/Pertanika%2520PAPERS/JSSH%2520Vol.%252023%2520%283%29%2520Sep.%25202015/08%2520JSSH%25201102-2014.pdf
  63. https://scholarship.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/58b58cd8-4db0-4e90-b4db-fbaf839da78d/content
  64. https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/dia.22005.bar
  65. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004529458/BP000001.xml
  66. https://journals.bilpubgroup.com/index.php/fls/article/download/9135/6267/45953
  67. https://www.trussel.com/kir/glossary.htm
  68. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323176803_Language_contact_and_functional_expansion_in_Tetun_Dili_The_evolution_of_a_new_press_register
  69. https://idlethink.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/loanwords-as-social-history/
  70. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345337547_Languages_in_Contact_A_Study_of_Arabic_Loanwords_in_MalayIndonesian_Language
  71. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252984690_The_Formosan_Language_Archive_Linguistic_Analysis_and_Language_Processing
  72. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/context/gc_etds/article/5211/viewcontent/Macaulay_2021___Prosody_and_intonation_in_Formosan_languages.pdf
  73. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228370408_Formosan_languages_and_linguistic_typology
  74. https://www.ethnologue.com/language/ami/
  75. https://admin.library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/23420/1006730.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  76. https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstreams/745f90ca-9a2c-4f73-9130-ea3fdc0f9ba8/download
  77. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242320557_The_Austronesian_Languages
  78. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298903554_The_great_diversity_of_Formosan_languages
  79. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/499708
  80. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236801169_The_Higher_Phylogeny_of_Austronesian_and_the_Position_of_Tai-Kadai
  81. https://stan.hypotheses.org/category/austronesian-phylogeny
  82. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-02546561/document
  83. https://zorc.net/RDZorc/TREES-Language/Nuclear-Austronesian%5BRoss-2012%5D%20-%20j2012_6_06_1278.pdf
  84. https://researchportalplus.anu.edu.au/en/publications/in-defense-of-nuclear-austronesian-and-against-tsouic
  85. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/5/article/913564
  86. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330435658_The_Austronesian_Homeland_and_Dispersal
  87. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009573
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3951936/
  89. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929714000615
  90. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/trade-before-civilization/lapita-longdistance-interactions-in-the-western-pacific/3D85B4112C1F3F42DEF462ECD79AC67C
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3367776/
  92. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1522714113
  93. https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/42070
  94. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.an.22.100193.002233
  95. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-areal-linguistics/languages-of-eastern-melanesia/6DED8E7A42188872073B8F7A9B8E34E7
  96. https://www.academia.edu/86079625/Navy_in_Kedukan_Bukit_Inscription
  97. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27861030
  98. https://www.africanhistoryextra.com/p/theajami-script-of-africa-and-the
  99. https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11091-miller-script-report.pdf
  100. https://biblioasia.nlb.gov.sg/vol-6/issue-2/jul-2010/malay-script-secret-passage/
  101. https://www.omniglot.com/writing/tagbanwa.htm
  102. https://decodeunicode.org/en/scripts/tagbanwa
  103. https://referenceworks.brill.com/abstract/entries/HFLO/COM-101060.xml
  104. https://puyumaproject.org/?page_id=52
  105. https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/navigation-and-transportation/wayfinding-and-navigation/traditional-ways-knowing-polynesian-stick-charts
  106. https://ocean.si.edu/human-connections/history-cultures/navigating-waters-micronesian-stick-charts
  107. https://www.omniglot.com/writing/filipino.htm
  108. https://oleloonline.com/how-to-write-the-okina-glottal-stop/
  109. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Austronesian-languages/Morphology-and-canonical-shape
  110. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000226475
  111. http://www.hawaii.edu/malamalama/2010/04/digital-olelo/
  112. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstreams/060fe12f-d304-42ff-a26b-74329ecd2e82/download
  113. https://www.krisyu.org/papers/luyu24_phonetics_formosan_languages_proofs.pdf
  114. https://os.pennds.org/archaeobib_filestore/pdf_articles/AA/1942_44_4_Benedict.pdf
  115. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00104725v1/document
  116. http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf8/diffloth1987-1988what.pdf
  117. https://starlingdb.org/Texts/Students/Sagart%252C%2520Laurent/Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian%2520%25282005%2529.pdf
  118. https://archive.org/details/benedict-japanese-austro-tai-1990
  119. https://julietteblevins.ws.gc.cuny.edu/files/2016/10/Blevins2007a-Proto-Ongan.pdf
  120. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstreams/3fb37d15-31e1-4af0-8c04-63ddd81cf1ce/download
  121. https://www.academia.edu/35810959/Revisiting_the_question_of_Austronesian_implosives
  122. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279031484_Some_Recent_Proposals_Concerning_the_Classification_of_the_Austronesian_Languages
  123. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/mainland-southeast-asian-languages/typological-overview/746C196F7A46E0744D4C049415009354
  124. https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/dia.24028.lia
  125. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42761-x
  126. https://acd.clld.org/cognatesets/679
  127. https://acd.clld.org/cognatesets/30393
  128. https://acd.clld.org/cognatesets/148
  129. https://acd.clld.org/cognatesets/1691
  130. https://acd.clld.org/cognatesets/1088
  131. https://acd.clld.org/cognatesets/2479
  132. https://acd.clld.org/cognatesets/648
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.