Prosody and typological drift in Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman: Against "Indosphere" and "Sinosphere"

Abstract

In both the Austroasiatic (AA) and Tibeto-Burman (TB) language families, we find a rough overall cline in typological organization. In some languages, we find the following set of features: a complex morphological word, finiteness asymmetries, extensive suffixing, polysyllabic prosody, mostly simple onsets, and mostly monophthongal vocalism. In other languages, we find a relatively simpler morphological word, verb serialization, prefixation, syllabic prosody, occasional onset clustering (or sesquisyllabism), and complex diphthongs. Examples of the first type of language in TB would include Garo, Newar and Kiranti languages, among others, while in AA this typology is found mainly in Mundan. Examples of the second type of TB language include Mizo, Lahu and Lisu, among many others, while in AA this typology is found in Khmer and, especially, in Vietnamese. Seemingly, then, this cline in typological organization is further correlated with geographical location. Languages of the first type are found mainly in the Subcontinent, while languages of the second type are more common to mainland Southeast Asia.