【编者按】
北京师范大学人文和社会科学高等研究院语言科学研究中心主办的《亚洲语言与语言学》期刊创刊号于2020年3月11日正式出版。《亚洲语言与语言学》（Asian Languages and Linguistics，简称ALAL）为北京师范大学和欧洲约翰·本杰明出版社联合出版的语言学英文半年刊，是国际上第一个以整个亚洲的语言为研究对象的语言学期刊，旨在介绍对亚洲语言进行描写与理论分析的高质量研究。该刊由刘丹青、傅爱兰、程工3位教授担任主编，来自12个国家及地区的21位著名学者为编委会成员（见第二篇介绍）。编辑部设在北京师范大学珠海校区。
《亚洲语言与语言学》创刊号刊登了主编序言，并收录6篇研究性论文。刊物创刊号将作为样刊，供所有读者免费下载阅读。具体内容点击下方“阅读原文”，或请参看http://benjamins.com/catalog/alal.1.1https://www.editorialmanager.com/alal/。现推送该刊创刊号主编序言的中文摘译（卢笑予译）及英文原文摘要。亚洲，是一块经常用“最”来描述的土地。她是世界上最广袤的大陆，约占地球陆地面积的三分之一；她的地形地貌差异性极大，同时拥有世界最高峰——珠穆朗玛峰和陆地海拔最低点——死海。她是世界上人口最多的大陆，拥有全球近五分之三人口。他们被分为1000多个族群，同为全球之最。她是世界上不少主要文明和宗教的诞生地。目前，她既拥有世界上最发达的若干经济体，同时也存在最贫穷的国度（Mason 2005）。
在亚洲语言领域，我们同样见证了这种显著的多样性。她是世界上最大的两个语系的摇篮：印欧语系和汉藏语系。她也是最小的语系——古西伯利亚语的家乡，仅有23000名使用者。整个亚洲有超过20个语系的若干语言（包括尚未归类的语言）在被人们使用着，与此相比，欧洲仅有5个语系。她以2303种语言在各大洲中排名第一，是欧洲288种语言的八倍左右（Ederhard et al. 2019）。在这些语言中，汉语（包括其方言）、印地语-乌尔都语和阿拉伯语位列世界母语人口最多的六种语言之中；但在另外一端，亚洲有203种语言使用人口极少，处于濒危状态。此外，在这块大陆的某些部分，特别是东南亚地区，皮钦语和克里奥尔语仍被作为一种交际手段（Ansaldo 2012）。有的亚洲语言，如古典梵语和汉语，拥有数千年的文献记录；而许多语言却缺乏任何书面材料。亚洲语言的多样性，不只表现在语种和语系层面，也可以从语言属性和特征上观察到。亚洲语言涵盖了丰富的语言结构类型特征——从屈折型、黏着型到分析型。他们展现出大量与欧洲语言相异的特性，如分类词（量词）系统、强势代词脱落、连动结构、声调以及复杂的重叠机制。亚洲在语言学研究方面有着深厚的历史传统。由于其丰富的多样性，亚洲语言一直是语言学家的宝库，在此基础上，人们做出了许多重大发现和理论创新。例如，现存最早的描写语法论著是由古印度学者波你尼撰写的梵语语法著作《波你尼经》（直译“八章书“），被公认为传统语法理论的巅峰。在另外一个传统中，中国语文学家在文字、训诂（词汇语义）和音韵（音系学）等方面做出了杰出贡献，例如《说文解字》。梵语和古典汉语的丰富典藏，有力促进了现代语言学对印欧和汉藏两大语系的发现。而在当代语言学中，亚洲语言成为各种语言学理论的试验场。例如，闪米特语言的非串联形态就推动了模板音系学的形成（Kiparsky 1979，1982）和分布式形态学的实际进步（Arad 2003, 2005）。在句法结构研究领域，来自亚洲语言，特别是东亚地区的语言事实，经常成为某些理论或概括的证据，如在黄正德（Huang 1982）、Fukui（1995）、Miyagawa（2003， 2010）和徐烈炯（Xu 1986）等人的研究中均可看到。东南亚大陆语言（Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia）的材料则促使学者在语言接触造成语言相似等重要理论问题上提出不少深刻洞见，例如Nick Enfield（Enfield 2003；Enfield和Comrie 2015）的工作；这些语言事实也能用来证明语法化过程的属性与本质（Bisang 2011，2015）。另外，亚洲语言对我们扩展关于类型学的理解同样非常重要，比如，在名词性短语结构中，采用名词修饰策略远多于使用关系小句（Matsumoto 等 2017）。对亚洲语言的研究当然也有着其自身的价值，因为我们迫切需要提高对这些语言各方面的理解与认识。一个例子就是这个古老大陆上各语言群体之间的谱系关系。众所周知，亚洲语言的分类长期存在诸多争议，各种假设经常被提出、争论、质疑和否定。例如广为人知的关于汉藏语系的构拟，虽然现在学界已广泛接受汉藏语系的存在，但汉藏语系的构拟远不如印欧语系重构那么成熟。因此，该语系中的谱系关系向来是人们热议的话题。许多西方学者不同意李方桂（1937/1973）将侗台（壮侗语）和苗瑶语归入汉藏语族的观点。他们认为应将侗台和苗瑶语归为独立的语系，或者将侗台语和南岛语言合并为澳泰语系（见本尼迪克特 1975）。沙加尔（2005）则提出了汉语和南岛语言之间可能的亲缘关系。许多其他研究者，特别是斯塔罗斯金（1995）认为，可能还存在着几个超级语系（linguistic macrofamilies），其中包含了汉-高加索（Sino-Caucasian）、欧亚（Eurasiatic）以及亚非（Afroasiatic）等语系。与以上这些传统论点相左，Blevins（2007）提出南岛语与Ongan语的专属关系，而Starosta（2005）则将汉藏语、南岛语、侗台语、南亚语、苗瑶语等均作为东亚超级语门（East Asian super-phylum）的一部分。这些令人眼花缭乱的观点恰好表明，我们对亚洲语言的认识仍然十分有限。对亚洲语言展开综合研究还有实际的需求。这块大陆语言使用的多样性，为人们提供了一面了解人口流动复杂模式和丰富接触现象的多棱镜。沙加尔等（2019）和张梦翰等（2019）最近发表的论著就在这方面提供了宝贵的尝试。此外，过去几十年中，亚洲经历了令人瞩目的经济增长与繁荣，各领域沟通和交流也在同步加速。双语和多语制在亚洲许多地方已变得日益普遍。因此，时代呼唤我们应当更全面、更深入地了解亚洲语言及语言学，助推亚洲各个国家之间的学术、文化交流。
诚如第一节所言，由于有对亚洲语言开展深入全面研究这一强烈需求，我们逐渐认识到，应该创办一本全新的学术期刊，将亚洲的所有语言囊括其中，从而使亚洲语言研究领域诸多专家拥有一个讨论与对话的平台。得益于北京师范大学的慨然主办，这个愿望最终在Asian Languages and Linguistics（《亚洲语言与语言学》，以下简称ALAL）的创刊过程中得以实现。北京师范大学的语言学研究在中国境内外享有盛誉，是我们所期待的理想的主办方。
本刊试图为不同理论框架下所展开的亚洲语言及语言学前沿研究提供一个可靠的传播渠道。正如期刊主页所言，ALAL旨在介绍对亚洲语言进行描写与理论分析的高质量研究，涉及主题广泛，包括但不限于以下四方面：1. 对亚洲语言句法、语义、音系、词法和语用的理论研究，以及相关交互和接口研究，如句法-语义接口和句法-形态接口等。2. 对亚洲各语言之间，或亚洲语言与其他语言之间结构多样性和跨语言变异的类型学研究。研究需为基于实际语料的研究或（遵循某种框架的）理论研究。3. 基于历史语言学理论方法，对亚洲语言事实进行详细分析的历时性研究，以及将历史语言学与语料库、语言变异和类型学结合起来的跨领域研究。4. 有助于理解亚洲语言的跨学科研究，如语言学与哲学、心理学、语言处理等领域的交叉研究。（详见http://benjamins.com/catalog/alal）我们希望经过数年努力，她能够成为该领域中最具声望的国际期刊之一，成为亚洲语言学研究、讨论与学术交流的重要载体，并且为中国未来语言学发展提供一种新的标杆。ALAL有幸组建了由国际知名亚洲语言和语言学专家组成的编委会。2019年11月30日至12月1日，ALAL第一次编委会会议暨2019年亚洲语言圆桌论坛在北京师范大学珠海校区举行。大部分编委会成员参加了此次会议和论坛，大家就本刊的高质量、可持续发展等问题开展了广泛讨论，并报告了各自最新的学术成果，交流了体现该领域前沿的思想洞见。作为主编，我们对诸位编委所提出的建设性意见、对刊物的大力支持以及其他各方面的贡献，表达真挚的谢意。我们更有信心，在这样一个高水平编委会的共同努力下，ALAL将如我们所期盼的那样，成为一本能够更好体现亚洲语言特征及其一致性和多样性、并引领亚洲语言研究不断发展的优秀刊物。本期为ALAL的创刊号。虽然篇幅有限，但主题内容广泛，从形态、句法到语义，涵盖了共时与历时的议题，并涉及主要语种和濒危或之前缺少描写的语言。同时，这些论文也代表着不同的方法论取向，既有功能-类型学导向，也有基于形式主义的观点。
首卷以Abbi教授和Vysakh博士的论文作为开篇。她们描写分析了印度孟加拉湾尼科巴群岛上的一种极度濒危语言——Luro语的构词过程。根据从母语者那里收集到的第一手资料，作者详细记录了该语言的各种词缀化和复合构词法，包括名词化、致使结构的形成、否定、代词及其格标记、亲属词和数词系统等。第二篇论文由Walter Bisang教授基于类型学研究强势分析性形态（radical analytic morphology）与强势代词脱落（radical pro-drop）之间的关系。结果表明两者之间并不存在关联，因为在西非的高度分析性语言中，不允许强势代词脱落现象；但在形态分析性程度相当的东亚和东南亚大陆语言（EMSEA）中，却存在这类情况。作者认为，真正的决定性因素是所涉及的祖语是否拥有具备一致性特征（agreement features）的屈折形态范式。EMSEA语言的祖语并没有此类范式，并且绝大多数都允许强势的代词脱落，而西非分析性语言则拥有这种范式，而且没有表现出强势代词脱落情况。他将这种差异归结为两种类型的复杂性策略：基于语法类别的语音标记的“显性复杂性”和经济性驱动的“隐性复杂性”，后者信息必须通过语境进行语用推理而获得。第三篇论文由程工教授和刘莹博士撰写，该文试图运用形式句法理论统一两类看似不同的构词过程：汉语中的复合词和希伯来语中的词根与词型系统（root-and-pattern system）。文章表明，两者基本涉及相同的句法操作，并且遵守同样的局域性限制。具体而言，它提出汉语中众所周知的并列和偏正复合词更像词而动结式与动宾式复合词更像短语这样的一个连续统。文章认为，这一连续统特征同Arad（2003，2005）所做的关于希伯来语基于词根构词和基于词构词之间区别的有力论断很可能是相似的，同样可用这一假设来解释，即前者具备更多的词属性而后者具有更多短语属性。由Izutsu博士和Kim博士所作的第四篇论文从认知语言学角度，研究了韩语和日语中宾格与与格/伴随格之间的交替情况。文章表明交替的基本模式是宾格标记变化（受影响的）的参与者而其他两类标记独立于变化事件的参与者。此外，韩语与日语不同的是，韩语将宾格形式扩展到在话语事件概念中经历了某种虚构（心理）变化的参与者。而另一方面，日语则更倾向于将宾格形式扩展到经历心智/身体经验概念中的虚构性变化的实体上。第五篇论文由罗仁地（R. J. LaPolla）教授撰写，他从语言学史角度反对传统结构主义方法论，认为不应将语言学作为针对抽象语言形式的研究；相反，他认为语言应该被理解为一种参与交际的行为类型，对语言的研究应该能够帮助我们理解人类心智如何创造意义，通过多种不同方式理解世界以及如何影响我们的行为。作者认为，实现这一目标的方法是回到19世纪由威廉·冯·洪堡特等学者所提倡的传统，即把每一种语言作为一种独特的世界观的表现形式，并优先考虑对这些世界观的理解以及这一点上不同文化之间的差异。本卷最后一篇论文由周晨磊博士撰写，主要探讨了中国西北甘肃-青海交界地区特殊的语言接触情况对语言形式的影响。大量汉语方言、安多藏语以及阿尔泰语言在该地区以复杂的方式相互影响，从而导致甘肃-青海语言区域（Gansu-Qinghai linguistic area，GQLA）的产生。作者在格标记方面提出了有趣的研究结果，进而揭示了该地区语言接触的分布与层次。在序言终了，我们希望再次向所有关心支持本刊创刊的人，特别是编委会成员、审稿人和编辑部成员表示衷心的感谢。附：英文原文摘要
Foreword
Danqing Liu, Ailan Fu & Gong Cheng
1. The Facts
Asia is a land frequently described in superlative terms. For instance, it is the world’s largest continent, with roughly one-third of the land surface of Earth; it also has its most physiographic extremes, with both the highest peak –Mount Everest—and the lowest place–the Dead Sea. It is the most populous of the continents, containing nearly three-fifths of the world’s people, but they are divided into approximately 1000 ethnic groups, the world’s largest number. It is home for some of world’s most ancient civilizations and birthplace of its major religions. At present, it contains countries that are considered as the most economically developed in the world, as well as ones that are among the most impoverished (Mason 2005).
Simultaneously great and diverse properties are witnessed in the realm of Asian Languages as well. It is the cradle of the world’s two largest language families in terms of number of speakers: Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan; it is also home for the smallest family—the Paleosiberian, with merely 23,000 speakers; moreover, more than 20 language families, including the isolates, are presently in use on this continent, compared to only 5 in Europe. It leads the world in the number of spoken languages with 2303, about eight times more than in Europe, which has 288 (Eberhard et al. 2019). Among these languages, Chinese (including all dialects), Hindi-Urdu, and Arabic are on the list of the top six languages with the most native speakers; at the other extreme, 203 languages have so few speakers as to be listed as dying languages; In addition, pidgins and creoles still serve as a means of communication in parts of the continent, especially in Southeast Asia (Ansaldo 2012). Many of the languages of Asia, such as classic Sanskrit and Chinese, have millennia of written documentation, whereas others lack any form of written records. The diversity of Asian languages does not stop at the level of languages and their groups; it is observed in various properties and features as well. Asian languages represent a large range of typological features, from inflectional and agglutinating to analytic. They show various properties that are absent from European languages, such as classifier systems, radical pro-drop, serial verb constructions, lexical tones, and a large array of reduplication devices. Asia has an honored tradition of linguistic research. Due in part to the rich diversity, Asian languages have always been a treasure trove for linguists, on the basis of which many significant discoveries and theoretical innovations have been made. For instance, the earliest existing treatise on descriptive grammar was written by Panini of Ancient India. His work on Sanskrit grammar, known as Ashtadhyayi (“Eight Chapters”), is generally recognized as the acme of the traditional grammatical theory and a profound inspiration for modern linguistics (see, for instance, Bloomfield 1933). In a separate tradition, Chinese philologists made outstanding contributions in lexical semantics and phonology, as embodied in Shuowen Jiezi (‘Analysis of Characters’), the earliest dictionary of Chinese characters. The abundant literature of Sanskrit and Classical Chinese facilitated the respective discoveries of the Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan language families in modern linguistics. In contemporary linguistics, many Asian languages have become a testing ground for various linguistic theories. For example, the well-known non-concatenative morphology of Semitic languages stimulated the formulation of Templatic Phonology (Kiparsky 1979, 1982) and the substantial improvement of Distributed Morphology (Arad 2003, 2005). In the study of syntactic structures, data from Asian languages, in particular the relatively better studied East Asian languages, are frequently cited as evidence for or against certain theories or generalizations, as is seen in the work of Huang (1982), Fukui (1995), Miyagawa (2003, 2010), Xu (1986), to name just a few. Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia have provided keen insights into the importance of language contact in shaping linguistic similarities, as evidenced in the work of, for example, Nick Enfield (Enfield 2003; Enfield and Comrie 2015), as well as into the nature and properties of grammaticalization processes (see, for instance, Bisang 2011, 2015). Asian languages have also been important in expanding our understanding of typology, e.g. noun-modifying strategies that go well beyond just relative clauses (Matsumoto et. al 2017).On the other hand, studies of Asian languages are valuable for their own sake, as there is an urgent need for an improved understanding of various aspects of these languages. A case in point is the genealogical relations between and among various groups of the languages on this ancient continent. As is known, the classification of Asian languages has always been shrouded in controversy, with hypotheses regularly formulated, debated, challenged, and frequently discredited. For a well-known example, the reconstruction of the Sino-Tibetan family is much less developed than that of the Indo-European family though its existence is now broadly accepted. As such, the genetic relations in this family have long been a topic of hot debate. For instance, many Western scholars argue against Li's (1937/1973) original inclusion of the Kam-Tai (Zhuang–Dong) and Miao-Yao languages into the Sino-Tibetan family. They instead believe it more appropriate to classify them either as independent families, or group Tai with Austronesian languages, known as the Austro-Tai Family (see, for instance, Benedict (1975)). Sagart (2005) goes one step further in suggesting a genetic relationship between Chinese and the Austronesian languages. Many other researchers, notably Starostin (1995), maintain that there might be several other linguistic macrofamilies, including Sino-Caucasian, Eurasiatic, and Afroasiatic. In contrast to these more traditional proposals, Blevins (2007) suggests an exclusive relationship of Austronesian with the Ongan languages, whereas Starosta (2005) includes Sino-Tibetan, Austronesian, Kra–Dai, Austroasiatic, and Hmong–Mien as part of an East Asian superphylum. Such unceasing rounds of proposals may be taken as indicating the scarcity of sure knowledge on Asian languages.In addition to the aforementioned academic values, there are practical needs for integrated studies on Asian languages as well. The diversity of language families in use on this continent offers a prism into the complex patterns of population movements as well as the wealth of contact phenomena. Recent studies by Sagart et al. (2019) and Zhang et al. (2019) provide valuable attempts in this direction. Moreover, Asia has witnessed unprecedented economic growth and prosperity over the past decades, with a concurrent acceleration of communication and exchanges in areas of politics, economy, culture, and education, among others. Bilingualism, as well as multilingualism, has become much more common in many parts of the continent. A better understanding of Asian languages and linguistics is therefore called for as part of the effort to strengthen ties among the nations.We see the facts outlined above as calling for a better study of Asian languages. We gradually realized the necessity of having a new academic journal which takes all Asian languages in its scope, so that specialists in the field of Asian languages could find a common forum for relevant discussions. This wish was eventually turned into reality when the present journal–Asian languages and Linguistics—was created, thanks to the generous sponsorship of Beijing Normal University (BNU). Needless to say, BNU is the best possible sponsor that we could expect for the journal, for its privileged position in the areas of linguistics and modern languages within and outside of China.This new journal is intended to be an outlet for cutting-edge research on Asian languages and linguistics in any domain conducted under any theoretical framework. As stated on the journal webpage, “Asian Languages and Linguistics aims to enhance high-quality research on the description and analysis of languages throughout Asia. The journal encourages submissions on a wide range of topics, including but not limited to the following: (i) Research on the syntax, semantics, phonology, morphology, and pragmatics of any Asian language, and the interface studies such as syntax-semantics interface and morphology-phonology interface. (ii) Typological or other theoretical analysis on the structural diversities and cross-linguistic variation among Asian languages or between Asian languages and other languages. (iii) Diachronic research based on a careful investigation of Asian language data that contributes to the theory or methodology of historical linguistics, as well as interdisciplinary studies which link historical linguistics to corpus-based research, language variation, and typology. (iv) Cross-disciplinary research involving linguistics and philosophy, psychology, language processing, and other fields that contributes to the understanding of Asian languages.” (See http://benjamins.com/catalog/alal for the full text.) We have high expectations for this journal. To state it briefly, we hope that, after a few years’ efforts, it will become one of the most reputable international journals in the field, as well as an important hub for research, discussion, and academic exchanges on language-related issues of Asia, which could set a new standard for future linguistic studies in China.We consider ourselves lucky to have an excellent board of editors, composed of internationally renowned experts in Asian languages and linguistics. The first editorial board meeting of Asian Languages and Linguistics and the 2019 Asian Languages Roundtable Forum was held on November 30--December 1, at Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai. Most of the members of the editorial board attended the meeting, where they discussed a large range of issues related to the organization and future development of the journal, presented papers and exchanged insights and ideas which reflected the state of the art in the field. As editors, we are grateful to the members of the board, for their constructive suggestions, enthusiastic support, and contributions of all kinds. We are all the more confident that, working together with such a high-standing editorial board, Asian Languages and Linguistics will become the journal we wish it to be, one that could provide a better understanding of properties of Asian languages, their unity and diversity, and one that could lead the research in the field.The present volume is the inaugural volume of Asian languages and linguistics. Though limited by space, it nonetheless features a broad range of topics, from morphology and syntax to semantics, covering both synchronic and diachronic issues, and attending to some major languages as well as endangered or under-described ones. It also represents different theoretical and methodological approaches, including both functional-typological and formal approaches.The volume starts with Abbi and Vysakh’s report of the word-formation processes in Luro, a critically endangered language spoken on one of the Nicobar Islands in the Bay of Bengal, India. Based on first-hand data collected from the native speakers, the authors provide a detailed documentation of the diverse affixation and compounding processes involved in the language, including nominalization, causative formation, negation, pronouns and their case marking, kinship terminology, and numeral system.The second paper by Walter Bisang looks at the relationship between radically analytic morphology and radical pro-drop. It is shown that no correlation exists between the two, as radical pro-drop is prohibited in highly analytic languages of West Africa but is allowed in equally analytic languages of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages (EMSEA). The author argues that the real determining factor is whether the ancestor languages involved had inflectional morphological paradigms for agreement features or not. EMSEA languages did not have such paradigms in their ancestor languages and are overwhelmingly radical pro-drop, while the analytic languages of West Africa had them and show no radical pro-drop. He attributes this difference to two types of complexity strategies: the explicitness-driven “overt complexity” based on phonological marking of grammatical categories and the economy-driven “hidden complexity” whose information must be pragmatically inferred from context.The third contribution by Cheng and Liu attempts to unify two seemingly divergent word-formation processes: compounding in Chinese and the root-and-pattern system in Hebrew. It shows that they involve fundamentally the same syntactic operations and observe the same locality constraints. More specifically, it addresses the well-known continuum in Chinese that the coordinate and attributive compounds behave more like words, whereas resultative and subordinate compounds are much more like phrases. It puts forward the idea that this continuum can be accounted for by assuming the same distinction forcibly argued by Arad (2003, 2005) as existing in Hebrew between word-formation from roots and word-formation from words, with the former giving rise to more lexical properties and the latter more phrasal properties.The fourth paper by Izutsu and Kim studies alternations between the accusative and the dative/comitative cases in Korean and Japanese. It shows that the basic pattern is that the accusative marks a changed (affected) participant whereas the other two mark a change-independent participant. Moreover, Korean differs from Japanese in extending the accusative case to participants that undergo some fictive (mental) change in a discourse-based event conception. Japanese, on the other hand, is more likely to extend the accusative case to entities that undergo a fictive change in the conceptions of mental/bodily experiences.The paper by Randy LaPolla argues against the structuralist view which takes linguistics as the study of linguistic forms in the abstract; Instead, he argues that language should be understood as a type of behavior involved in communication, and that the study of language should be able to help in understanding how the human mind creates meaning and the many different ways it can understand the world, and how that affects our behavior. The way to achieve the goal, according to the author, is to return to the 19th-century tradition initiated by Wilhelm von Humboldt and many others, which takes each language as a manifestation of a unique world view, and to give priority to the understanding of these world views and the differences between cultures in this regard.The last paper in this volume was contributed by Chenlei Zhou and is concerned with the effect on linguistic forms of a particular scenario of language contact in the border area of Gansu and Qinghai, in northwest China, where a number of Chinese dialects, Amdo Tibetan, and Altaic languages interact with each other in complex ways, giving rise to the Gansu-Qinghai linguistic area (GQLA). The author presents interesting findings with respect to case markers, which in turn shed lights on the distribution and strata of the language contact in the area.At the end of this foreword, we would like to once again express our heartfelt gratitude to all the people, especially members of the editorial board, the reviewers, and the editorial office members, for their wholehearted support for this inaugural volume from its inception. Ansaldo, U. (ed.) 2012. Pidgins and Creoles in Asia. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Arad, M. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural language and Linguistic Theory 21: 737-778.Arad, M. 2005. Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morpho-syntax. Berlin: Springer.Benedict, P., K. 1975. Austro-Thai: Language and culture, with a Glossary of Roots. New Haven: HRAF Press.Bisang, W. 2011. Grammaticalization and linguistic typology. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0009.Bisang, W. 2015. Hidden complexity—the neglected side of complexity and its implications. Linguistics Vanguard 1.1: 177-187. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2014-1014Blevins, J. 2007. A long lost sister of proto-Austronesian? Proto-Ongan, mother of Jarawa and Onge of the Andaman Islands. Oceanic Linguistics, 46.1: 155-198.Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., and Fennig, C. D. (eds.) 2019. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Twenty-second edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.comEnfield, N. J. 2003. Linguistic epidemiology: Semantics and grammar of language contact in Mainland Southeast Asia. London: Routledge.Enfield, N. J. and Comrie, B. (eds.) 2015. Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Inc.Huang, C.-T. J. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Kiparsky P. 1979. Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 421–442.Kiparsky, P. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In I.-S. Yang (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul, Hanshin.Li, F.-K. 1937/1973. Languages and dialects of China. The Chinese Year Book, 1936-1937, 121-128. Reprinted in Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1(1): 1-13.Mason, C. 2005. A Short History of Asia (2nd Edition). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Matsumoto, Y., Comrie, B., and Sells, P. (eds.) 2017. Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Reshaping theoretical and geographical boundaries, 91-103. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Sagart, L. 2005. Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian: An updated and improved argument. In Blench, R. Sagart, L. and Sanchez-Maza (eds.) The Peopling of East Asia: Putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics. 161-176. New York: Routledge Curzon.Sagart, L., Jacques, G., Lai, Yunfan, Ryderc, R., Thouzeauc, V., Greenhill, S, J., List, J-M. 2019. Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan. PNAS 116 (21): 10317-10322.Starosta, S. 2005. Proto-East Asian and the origin and dispersal of the languages of East and Southeast Asia and the Pacific. In Blench, R. Sagart, L. and Sanchez-Maza (eds.) The Peopling of East Asia: Putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics: 182-197. New York: Routledge Curzon.Starostin, S., A. 1995. The historical position of Bai. In: S. A. Starostin (ed.): Trudy Po Jazykoznaniju: 580-90. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Cultures.Miyagawa, S. 2003. A-movement scrambling and options without optionality. In S. Karimi (ed.), Word Order and Scrambling: 177-200. Oxford/Berlin: Blackwell Publishers. Miyagawa, S. 2010. Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying Agreement-based and Discourse Configurational Languages. Cambridge: MIT Press. Xu, L.-J. 1986. Free empty categories. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 75-93.Zhang, M., Yan, S., Pan, W.-Y., Jin, L. 2019. Phylogenetic evidence for Sino-Tibetan origin in northern China in the Late Neolithic. Nature 567: 112-116.
