Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:33:18.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2021

N. J. Enfield
N. J. Enfield
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia , pp. 396 - 428
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, A. S. and Svastikula, K. 1983. Intersections of tone and intonation in Thai. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research, SR-74/75, 143–67. www.haskins.yale.edu/sr/sr074/SR074_10.pdfGoogle Scholar
Abramson, A. S. and Thongkum, T. L. 2009. A fuzzy boundary between tone languages and voice-register languages. In Fant, G., Fujisaki, H. and Shen, J. (eds.) Frontiers in Phonetics and Speech Science. 149–55. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Adams, K. L. 1989. Systems of Numeral Classification in the Mon-Khmer, Nicobarese, and Aslian Subfamilies of Austroasiatic. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Adams, K. L. 1991. The influence of non-Austroasiatic languages on numeral classification in Austroasiatic. Journal of the American Oriental Society 111 (1): 62–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adelaar, A. 2005a. Malayo-Sumbawan. Oceanic Linguistics, 44 (2): 357–88.Google Scholar
Adelaar, A. 2005b. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: A historical perspective. In Adelaar, A. and Himmelmann, N. P. (eds.) The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. 1–42. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2000. Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2006. Serial verbs constructions in a typological perspective. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.) Serial Verb Constructions: A cross-linguistic typology. 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. 2013 Possession and Ownership: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. 2017. The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aitken, M. J. and Stokes, S. 1997. Climatostratigraphy. In Taylor, R. E. and Aitken, M. J. (eds), Chronometric Dating in Archaeology. 1–30. New York and London: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Alves, M. J. 2006. A Grammar of Pacoh: A Mon-Khmer language of the central highlands of Vietnam. Shorter Grammars. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Alves, M. J. 2009. Sino-Vietnamese grammatical vocabulary and sociolinguistic conditions for borrowing. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 1. 1–9.Google Scholar
Alves, M. J. 2015. Morphological functions among Mon-Khmer languages: Beyond the basic. In Enfield, N. J. and Comrie, B. (eds.) The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art. 532–57. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Alves, M. J. 2016. Identifying early Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary via linguistic, historical, archaeological, and ethnological data. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 9: 264–95.Google Scholar
Ammerman, A. J. and Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. 1971. Measuring the rate of spread of early farming in Europe. Man 6 (4): 674–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andvik, E. 2003. Tshangla. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 439–55. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, U. 1999. Comparative constructions in Sinitic: Areal typology and patterns of grammaticalisation. Dissertation. Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Arisawa, T. D. 2016. An Iu Mien Grammar: A tool for language documentation and revitalisation. La Trobe University. http://hdl.handle.net/1959.9/561960Google Scholar
Audric, J. 1972. Angkor and the Khmer Empire. London: R. Hale.Google Scholar
Aung-Thwin, M. A. 2005 The Mists of Ramanna: The legend that was lower Burma. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banham, D. 2015. The Old English monastic sign language. In Jepsen, J. B., de Clerck, G., Lutalo-Kiingi, S. and McGregor, W. B. (eds.) Sign Languages of the World: A comparative handbook. 901–10. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Banker, E. M. 1964. Bahnar affixation. Mon-Khmer Studies 1. 99–117.Google Scholar
Barram, A. and Glover, I. 2008. Re-thinking Dvaravati. In Pautreau, J-P. et al. (eds.) From Homo erectus to the Living Traditions: Choice of papers from the 11th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists. 175–82. Chiang Mai: Silkworm.Google Scholar
Barrie, M. 2006. Tone circles and contrast preservation. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1): 131–41.Google Scholar
Bauer, C. 1982. Morphology and syntax of spoken Mon. PhD thesis. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, N. I. 1998. A grammar sketch of Western (Cambodian) Cham. Pacific Linguistics. Series A. Occasional Papers, 89: 1–20.Google Scholar
Baxter, W. H. and Sagart, L. 1998. Word formation in Old Chinese. In Packard, J. L. (ed.) New Approaches to Chinese Word Formation: Morphology, phonology, and the lexicon in Modern and Ancient Chinese. New York and Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baxter, W. H. and Sagart, L. 2014. Old Chinese: A new reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Becker, A. L. 1975. A linguistic image of nature: The Burmese numerative classifier system. Linguistics, 13 (165): 109–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedell, G. 2001. The syntax of deixis in Lai. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 24 (2): 157–71.Google Scholar
Bellwood, P. 1979. Man’s Conquest of the Pacific: The prehistory of Southeast Asia and Oceania. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bellwood, P. 1985. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bellwood, P. 1992. Southeast Asia before prehistory. In Tarling, N. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bellwood, P. 2007. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Revised edition. Canberra: Australian National University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellwood, P., Fox, J. J. and Tryon, D. 2006. The Austronesians: Historical and comparative perspectives. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Benedict, P. K. 1942. Thai, Kadai, and Indonesian: A new alignment in Southeastern Asia. American Anthropologist, 44 (4): 576–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, P. K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: A conspectus. In Princeton-Cambridge Studies in Chinese Linguistics: Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Benedict, P. K. 1975. Austro-Thai language and culture, with a glossary of roots. New Haven: HRAF Press.Google Scholar
Benedict, P. K. 1976a. Austro-Thai and Austroasiatic. In Jenner, P., Thompson, L. C. and Starosta, S. (eds.) Austroasiatic Studies Part I. 1–36. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication No. 13. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Benedict, P. K. 1976b. Sino-Tibetan: Another look. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 96 (2): 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, P. K. 1987. Archaic Chinese initials. Manuscript cited in Ratliff 2010.Google Scholar
Benedict, P. K. 1990. Japanese/Austro-Tai. Linguistica Extranea, Studia 20. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
Benjamin, G. 2012. The Aslian languages of Malaysia and Thailand: An assessment. In Austin, P. K. and McGill, S. (eds.) Language Documentation and Description. 136–230. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
Bentley, R. A. 2006. Strontium isotopes from the Earth to the archaeological skeleton: A review. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13. 135–87.Google Scholar
Bergsland, K. and Vogt, H. 1962. On the validity of glottochronology. Current Anthropology 3: 115–53.Google Scholar
Bertrais-Charrier, Y. 1964. Dictionnaire Hmong (Mèo Blanc)-Français. Vientiane: Mission Catholique.Google Scholar
Bisang, W. 1991. Verb serialization, grammaticalization and attractor positions in Chinese, Hmong, Vietnamese, Thai and Khmer. In Seiler, H. and Premper, W. (eds.) Partizipation: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten. 509–62. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Bisang, W. 1993. Classifiers, quantifiers and class nouns in Hmong. Studies in language 17 (1): 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blagden, C. O., 1919. The Myazedi Inscriptions in Ko, T. S. and Duroiselle, C. (eds.) Epigraphica Birmanica. 59–68. Rangoon: Government Printing. Cited in Moore 2009.Google Scholar
Blench, R. 2011. The role of agriculture in the evolution of Mainland Southeast Asian language phyla. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 125–52. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Blench, R. 2015. The origins of nominal classification markers in MSEA languages: Convergence, contact and some African parallels. In Enfield, N. J. and Comrie, B. (eds.) The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art. 558–85. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Blench, R. and Post, M. W. 2013. Re-thinking Sino-Tibetan phylogeny from the perspective of North East Indian languages. In Hill, N. and Owen-Smith, T. (eds.) Trans-Himalayan Linguistics. 71–104. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Blench, R. and Post, M. W. 2014. Rethinking Sino-Tibetan phylogeny from the perspective of Northeast Indian languages. Trans-Himalayan Linguistics 266: 71–104.Google Scholar
Blood, D. 1967. Phonological Units in Cham. Anthropological Linguistics 9 (8): 15–32.Google Scholar
Blood, D. 1977 Clause and sentence final particles in Cham. In Thomas, D., Lee, E. W. and Liem, N. D. (eds.) Papers in South East Asian Linguistics No. 4: Chamic Studies. 39–51. Pacific Linguistics Series A, No. 48.Google Scholar
Blood, D. 1980. The script as a cohesive factor in Cham society. In Gergerson, M. and Thomas, D. (eds.) Notes from Indochina on Ethnic Minority Cultures. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Blust, R. 1980. Austronesian etymologies. Oceanic Linguistics 19 (1/2): 1–189.Google Scholar
Blust, R. 1994. The Austronesian settlement of Mainland Southeast Asia. In Adams, K. L. and Hudak, T. J. (eds.) Papers from the Second Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. 25–83. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.Google Scholar
Blust, R. 1999. Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: Some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics. In Zeitoun, E. and Li, P. J. (eds.) Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. 31–94. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Blust, R. 2013a. Southeast Asian islands and Oceania: Austronesian linguistic history. In Bellwood, P. (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration. Vol. 1: Prehistory. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blust, R. 2013b. The Austronesian Languages. Revised edition. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bo, W. 2002. A Study of Mulao. Beijing: The Nationalities Press.Google Scholar
Boas, F. 1911. Introduction. In Boas, F. (ed.) Handbook of American Indian Languages. 1–79. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Bodomo, A. 2006. The structure of ideophones in African and Asian languages: The case of Dagaare and Cantonese. In Mugane, J., Hutchison, J.P. and Worman, D.A. (eds.) Selected Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference on African Linguistics: African Languages and Linguistics in Broad Perspectives. pp. 203–13. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Bon, N. 2014. Une grammaire de la langue stieng, langue en danger du Cambodge et du Vietnam. Dissertation. Université Lumière Lyon 2.Google Scholar
Bos, K. J. 2009. Kuy grammar sketch: A basic grammar sketch of the Kuy Ntua language in Cambodia. SIL Mainland Southeast Asia Group. www.sil.org/resources/archives/63484Google Scholar
Bradley, D. 1979. Lahu Dialects. Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Bradley, D. 1997. Tibeto-Burman languages and classification. In Bradley, D. (ed.) Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics 14: Tibeto-Burman Languages of the Himalayas. 1–72. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Bradley, D. 2002. The subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman languages. In Beckwith, C. I. (ed.) Medieval Tibeto-Burman Languages I. 73–112. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, D. 2003. Lisu. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 222–35. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bradley, D. 2007. Language endangerment in China and Mainland Southeast Asia. In Brenzinger, M. (ed.) Language Diversity Endangered. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs. 278–302. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brown, J. M. 1965. From Ancient Thai to modern dialects. In From Ancient Thai to modern dialects, and other writings on historical Thai linguistics. 69–254. Bangkok: White Lotus.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. Question and politeness. In Goody, E. N. (ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brunelle, M. 2009a. Contact-induced change? Register in three Cham dialects. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2: 1–22.Google Scholar
Brunelle, M. 2009b Northern and Southern Vietnamese tone coarticulation: A comparative case study. Journal of Southeast Asian Linguistics, 1, 49–62.Google Scholar
Brunelle, M. 2015. Vietnamese (Tiếng Việt). In Jenny, M. and Sidwell, P. (eds.) The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. 909–53. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Brunelle, M. 2017. Stress and phrasal prominence in tone languages: The case of Southern Vietnamese. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 47 (3): 283–320. DOI: 10.1017/S0025100316000402Google Scholar
Brunelle, M., Dương, N. D. and Hùng, N. K. 2010. A laryngographic and laryngoscopic study of Northern Vietnamese tones. Phonetica 67: 147–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunelle, M., Hạ, K. P. and Grice, M. 2012. Intonation in Northern Vietnamese. The Linguistic Review. 29: 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunelle, M., Hạ, K. P. and Grice, M. 2016. Inconspicuous coarticulation: A complex path to sound change in the tone system of Hanoi Vietnamese. Journal of Phonetics. 59: 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunelle, M. and Hẳn, P. V. 2019. Colloquial Eastern Cham. In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 523–58. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Brunelle, M. and Kirby, J. 2015. In Enfield, N. J. and Comrie, B. (eds.) The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art. 82–110. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Brunelle, M., and Kirby, J. 2016. Tone and phonation in Southeast Asian languages. Language and Linguistics Compass. 10 (4): 191–207.Google Scholar
Brunelle, M. and Kirby, J., Michaud, A. and Watkins, J. 2018 Prosodic systems: Mainland Southeast Asia. In Gussenhoven, C. and Chen, A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Language Prosody. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Buakaw, S. 2012. A phonological study of Palaung dialects spoken in Thailand and Myanmar, with focuses on vowels and final nasals. Doctoral dissertation. Mahidol University, Bangkok.Google Scholar
Bulbeck, D. 2011. Biological and cultural evolution in the population and culture history of Homo sapiens in Malaya. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 207–55. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bunopas, S., and Vella, P. 1983. Tectonic and geologic evolution of Thailand. Proceedings of a Workshop on Stratigraphic Correlation of Thailand and Malaysia. 1: 307–22.Google Scholar
Burenhult, N. 2002. A grammar of Jahai. PhD dissertation. Lund University.Google Scholar
Burenhult, N. 2003. Attention, accessibility, and the addressee: The case of the Jahai demonstrative ton. Pragmatics. 13: 363–79.Google Scholar
Burenhult, N. 2005. A Grammar of Jahai. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Burenhult, N. 2006. Body part terms in Jahai. Language Sciences. 28: 162–80.Google Scholar
Burenhult, N. and Majid, A. 2011. Olfaction in Aslian ideology and language. The Senses and Society. 6 (1): 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burenhult, N. and Wegener, C. 2009. Preliminary notes on the phonology, orthography and vocabulary of Semnam (Austroasiatic, Malay Peninsula). Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. 1: 283–312.Google Scholar
Burenhult, N., Kruspe, N. and Dunn, M. 2011. Language history and culture groups among Austroasiatic-speaking foragers of the Malay Peninsula. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 257–75. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Burling, R. 1967. Proto Lolo-Burmese. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Burling, R. 1983. The Sal languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 7(2): 1–32.Google Scholar
Burling, R. 2004. The Language of the Modhipur Mandi (Garo). Vol. I: Grammar. New Delhi: Bibliophile South Asia.Google Scholar
Burnay, J. and Cœdès, G. 1927. Note sur les tons et les initiales du vieux-siamois à l’époque de Sukhodaya. Journal of the Siam Society. 21(2): 103–18.Google Scholar
Butler, B. 2015. Approaching a phonological understanding of the sesquisyllable with phonetic evidence from Khmer and Bunong. In Enfield, N. J. and Comrie, B. (eds.) The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art. 443–99. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. 2010. Language Isolates and Their history, or, What’s Weird Anyway? In Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistics Society 36. 16–31. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v36i1.3900Google Scholar
Cao, J. 2002. Hànyǔ Shēngdiào yǔ Yǔdiào de Guānxī. [The relation between Tone and Intonation in Chinese]. Studies of The Chinese Language (3): 195–202.Google Scholar
Capell, A. 1979. Further typological studies in Southeast Asian languages. In Liem, N. D. (ed.) South-East Asian Linguistic Studies. Vol. 3. 1–42. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, L., Menozzi, P. and Piazza, A. 1993. Demic expansions and human evolution. Science. 259 (5095): 639–46.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, J. R. 1997. Tai-Kadai Arthropods: A preliminary biolinguistic investigation. In Edmondson, J. A. and Solnit, D. B. (eds.) Comparative Kadai: The Tai branch. 291–326. Dallas: SIL International.Google Scholar
Chandler, D. 1992. A History of Cambodia. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Chang, J. 2009. A reference grammar of Yuanjiang Kucong. PhD. Minzu University of China, Beijing.Google Scholar
Chang, K. 1947. Miaoyaoyu shengdiao wen ti [On the tone system of the Miao-Yao languages]. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 16: 93–110.Google Scholar
Chang, K. 1953. On the tone system of the Miao-Yao languages. Language 29: 374–8.Google Scholar
Chang, K. 1966. A comparative study of the Yao tone system. Language 42: 303–10.Google Scholar
Chang, K. 1972. The reconstruction of Proto-Miao-Yao tones. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 44: 541–628.Google Scholar
Chang, K. 1976. Proto-Miao initials. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology. 47: 155–218.Google Scholar
Chao, Y. R. 1930. A system of tone letters. Le Maître Phonétique 45:24–7.Google Scholar
Chao, Y. R. 1933. Tone and intonation in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 4: 121–34.Google Scholar
Chao, Y. R. 1941. Distinctions within Ancient Chinese. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 5: 303–22.Google Scholar
Chao, Y. R. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chapman, C. 2011. Subordination and coordination in Karen Sgaw. In Brunelle, M. (ed.) Sgaw Karen Papers: Presented to Nimrod Andrew . Papers written for the course LIN 4370/7911 Field Methods, Fall 2010. 85–96. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Chappell, H. 2001. Language contact and areal diffusion in Sinitic languages. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.) Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics. 328–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chappell, H. 2019. Southern Min. In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 176–233. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Chappell, J. and Shackleton, N. J. 1986. Oxygen isotopes and sea level. Nature 324(6093): 137–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, G. 2005. Kemieyu yanjiu [A study of Kemie]. Beijing: Minzu chubanshe.Google Scholar
Chen, M. 1987. The syntax of Xiamen Tone Sandhi. Phonology Yearbook, 4: 109–49.Google Scholar
Chen, P. 2007. China. In Simpson, A. (ed.) Language and National Identity in Asia. 141–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, W. 2011. The Southern Min dialect of Hui’an: Morphosyntax and grammaticalization. PhD. University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Cheng, R. 1974. Causative constructions in Taiwanese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics. 2 (3): 279–324.Google Scholar
Cheung, , Y.-S. (1969). ‘Xianggang Yueyu yinping-diao ji biandiao wenti’ [A study on the upper even tone and tone sandhi in the Cantonese dialect as spoken in Hongkong]. Journal of the Institute of Chinese Studies of the Chinese University of Hongkong. 2 (2): 81–105.Google Scholar
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). 2012. A Dictionary of Modern Chinese. Sixth edition. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Church, P. (ed.) 2003. A Short History of South-East Asia. Third edition. Singapore: Wiley.Google Scholar
Clark, A. L., King, C. L., Buckley, H. R., Collins, C. J., Dhavale, N., Elliott, G. E., Gosling, A., Halcrow, S. E., Ivory, B., Matisoo-Smith, E., McDonald, S. K., Stantis, C., Tromp, M., Ward, S. and West, K. 2017. Biological anthropology in the indo-pacific region: New approaches to age-old questions. Journal of Indo-Pacific Archaeology. 41: 78–94.Google Scholar
Clark, M. 1985. Asking questions in Hmong and other southeast Asian languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 8 (2): 60–7.Google Scholar
Clark, M. 1989. Hmong and areal South-East Asia. In Bradley, D. (ed.) Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics No.11, Southeast Asian Syntax. 175–230. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Clark, M. 1996. Where do you feel? – Stative verbs and body-part terms in Mainland Southeast Asia. In Chappell, H. and McGregor, W. (eds.) The Grammar of Inalienability. 529–64. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Clark, M. and Prasithrathsint, A. 1985. Synchronic lexical derivation in Southeast Asian languages. In Ratanakul, S. and Premsrirat, S. (eds.) Southeast Asian Linguistic Studies Presented to André-G. Haudricourt. 34–81. Bangkok: Mahidol University.Google Scholar
Clynes, A. and Deterding, D. 2011. Standard Malay (Brunei). Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 41, 259–68.Google Scholar
Cœdès, G. 1925. Tamnan akson Thai [History of the Thai writing]. Phra Nakhon: Sophonphiphatthanakon.Google Scholar
Cœdès, G. 1968. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Hawaii: East-West Center Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1985. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (ed.) 1990. The Major Languages of East and South-East Asia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 2007. Areal typology of mainland Southeast Asia: What we learn from the WALS maps. In Kullavanijaya, P. (ed.) Trends in Thai Linguistics [Manusya Special Issue 13], 18–47. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. and Zamponi, R. 2019 Subgrouping and lexical distance in the Great Andamanese family. In Kotin, M. L. (ed.) Wortschätze und Sprachwelten: Beiträge zu Sprachtypologie, kontrastiver Wort- bzw. Wortschatzforschung und Pragmatik. 35–57. Berlin: Lang.Google Scholar
Cooke, J. R. 1968. Pronominal Reference in Thai, Burmese and Vietnamese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. S. 1966. Halăng verb phrase. In Thomas, D. D. (ed.) Papers on four Vietnamese languages. 28–34. Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand.Google Scholar
Coupe, A. R. 2003. A Phonetic and Phonological Description of Ao: a Tibeto-Burman Language of Nagaland, North-East India. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Coupe, A. R. 2007. A Grammar of Mongsen Ao. Mouton Grammar Library 39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupe, A. R. 2017. Mongsen Ao. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 2nd ed. 277–301. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Court, C. 1971. A fleeting encounter with the Moken (the Sea Gypsies) in Southern Thailand: Some linguistic and general notes. Journal of the Siam Society 59: 83–96.Google Scholar
Culas, C. and Michaud, J. 2004. A contribution to the study of Hmong (Miao) migrations and history. 61–96. In Tapp, N. et al. (eds.) Hmong/Miao in Asia. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar
Dancause, K. N., Chan, C. W., Arunotai, N. H. and Lum, J. K. 2009. Origins of the Moken Sea Gypsies inferred from mitochondrial hypervariable region and whole genome sequences. Journal of Human Genetics 54: 86–93.Google Scholar
Davis, J. E. 2010. Hand Talk: Sign Language among American Indian Nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, J. E. 2015. North American Indian Sign Language. In Jepsen, J. B., de Clerck, G., Lutalo-Kiingi, S. and McGregor, W. B. (eds.) Sign Languages of the World: A comparative handbook. 911–31. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
DeFrancis, J. 1977. Colonialism and Language Policy in Viet Nam. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
DeFrancis, J. 1984. The Chinese Language: Fact and fantasy. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. 1986. Toward a history of Tai classifier systems. In Craig, C. (ed.) Noun Classes and Categorization. 437–52. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, S. 2011. Notes on verb agreement prefixes in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics, 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.5070/H910123565Google Scholar
Demeter, F., Shackelford, L., Westaway, K., Barnes, L., Duringer, P., Ponche, J.-L., Dumoncel, J., Sénégas, F., Sayavongkhamdy, T., Zhao, J.-X., Sichanthongtip, P., Patole-Edoumba, E., Dunn, T., Zachwieja, A., Coppens, Y., Willerslev, E., Bacon, A.-M. 2017. Early modern humans from Tam Pà Ling, Laos: Fossil review and perspectives. Current Anthropology 58 (17): S527–S538. DOI: 10.1086/694192Google Scholar
Dempwolff, O. 1934–1938. Vergleichende Lautlehre des Austronesischen Wortschatzes. 3 vols. Beihefte Zeitschrift für Eingeborenensprachen 15, 17, 19. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.Google Scholar
Denny, J. P. 1978. Locating the universals in lexical systems for spatial deixis. Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon. 71–84. Chicago : Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
DiCanio, C. T. 2007. The phonetics of register in Takhian Thong Chong. Phonology Lab Annual Report. 459–82. University of California, Berkeley. http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/phonlab/documents/2007/ChristianDiCanio.pdfGoogle Scholar
Diffloth, G. 1972. Notes on expressive meaning. In Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 440–7. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Diffloth, G. 1994. ‘I: Big, a: Small’. In Hinton, L. and Leanne, J. (eds) Sound Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diffloth, G. 2005. The contribution of linguistic palaeontology to the homeland of Austro-Asiatic. In Sagart, L., Blench, R. and Sanchez-Mazas, A. (eds.) The Peopling of East Asia: Putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics. 77–80. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Diffloth, G. 2011. Austroasiatic word histories: boat, husked rice and taro. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 295–313. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Diffloth, G. and Zide, N. H. 1992. Austro-Asiatic languages. In Bright, W. (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Vol. 1. 137–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diller, A. 2007. Lexical innovation and the ‘genius of the Thai Language’. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 186: 13–28.Google Scholar
Diller, A. 2008. Introduction. In Diller, A., Edmondson, J. A. and Luo, Y. (eds.) The Tai-Kadai Languages. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Diller, A., Edmondson, J. A. and Luo, Y. (eds.) 2008. The Tai-Kadai Languages. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M. 2012. Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass. 6: 654–72. DOI: 10.1002/lnc3.361Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M. 2017. Expressiveness and system integration: On the typology of ideophones, with special reference to Siwu. STUF. 70.2: 363–84. DOI: 10.1515/stuf-2017–0018Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2008. Complement clauses and complementation strategies in typological perspective. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, A. Y. (eds.) Complementation: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, A. Y. (eds.) 2002. Word: A cross-linguistic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, A. Y. (eds.) forthcoming. Word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Đỗ, T. D., Trần, T. H. and Boulakia, G. 1998. Intonation in Vietnamese. In Hirst, D. and Cristo, A. D. (eds.) Intonation Systems: A survey of twenty languages. 395–416. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Do-Hurinville, D. T. and Dao, H. L. 2019. Vietnamese. In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 384–431. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Doan, T. T. and Mai, N. C. 1992. Tiếng Dao [Yao language]. Translated into Chinese by Meihua Pan, 2013, Publishing House of Minority Nationalities, China. Hanoi: Xuá̂t Bàn Khoa Học Xã Hội.Google Scholar
Domeier, M. 2018. Early Paleozoic tectonics of Asia: Towards a full-plate model. Geoscience Frontiers. 9 (3): 789–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2017.11.012Google Scholar
Donegan, J. and Stampe, D. 1983. Rhythm and the holistic organization of language structure. In Richardson, J. F., Marks, M. and Chukerman, A. (eds.) The Interplay of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax. 337–53. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Donegan, J. and Stampe, D. 2002. South-East Asian Features in the Munda Languages: Evidence for the Analytic-to-synthetic Drift of Munda. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Special Session on Tibeto-Burman and Southeast Asian Linguistics, in Honor of Prof. James A. Matisoff. 111–29. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Donohue, M., Hetherington, R., McElvenny, J. and Dawson, V. 2013. World Phonotactics Database. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Downer, G. B. 1963. Chinese, Thai, and Miao-Yao. In Shorto, H. L. (ed.), Linguistic Comparison in South East Asia and the Pacific. 133–9. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
Downer, G. B. 1967. Tone-change and tone-shift in White Miao. BSOAS 30: 589–99.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 2003. Word order in Sino-Tibetan languages from a typological and geographical perspective. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 43–55. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.) 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://wals.infoGoogle Scholar
Dudley, S. 2000, Displacement and identity. Karen refugees in Thailand. DPhil dissertation. University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Dunn, M., Burenhult, N., Kruspe, N., Tufvesson, S. and Becker, N. 2011. Aslian linguistic prehistory: A case study in computational phylogenetics. Diachronica 28 (3): 291–323.Google Scholar
Dunn, M., Kruspe, N. and Burenhult, N. 2013. Time and place in the prehistory of the Aslian languages. Human Biology 85: 383–99.Google Scholar
Edmondson, J. A. and Esling, J. H. 2006. The valves of the throat and their functioning in tone, vocal register and stress: Laryngoscopic case studies. Phonology 23 (2): 157–91.Google Scholar
Edmondson, J. A., and Gregerson, K. J. 1993. Western Cham as a register language. In Edmondson, J. A. and Gregerson, K. J. (eds.) Tonality in Austronesian Languages. 61–74. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Edmondson, J. A. and Gregerson, K. J. 2007. The languages of Vietnam: Mosaics and expansions. Language and Linguistics Compass 1 (6): 727–49.Google Scholar
Edmondson, J. A., and Solnit, D. B. 1988. Introduction. In Edmondson, J. A. and Solnit, D. B. (eds.) Comparative Kadai: Linguistic studies beyond Tai. 1–26. SIL International.Google Scholar
Edmondson, J. A., and Solnit, D. B. 1997. Introduction. In Edmondson, J. A. and Solnit, D. B. (eds.) Comparative Kadai: The Tai branch. 1–32. SIL International.Google Scholar
Ehrman, M. E. 1972. Contemporary Cambodian: Grammatical sketch. Washington: Foreign Service Institute.Google Scholar
Emiliani, C. 1955. Pleistocene temperatures. Journal of Geology 63: 538–78.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K. 2001. Space on hand: The exploitation of signing space to illustrate abstract thought. In Gattis, M. (ed.) Spatial Schemas and Abstract Thought. 147–74. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 1999. Lao as a national language. In Evans, G. (ed.) Laos: Culture and society. 258–90. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2001. ‘Lip-pointing’: A discussion of form and function with reference to data from Laos. Gesture, 1 (2): 185–211.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2003. Linguistic Epidemiology: Semantics and grammar of language contact in mainland Southeast Asia. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2004. On linear segmentation and combinatorics in co-speech gesture: A symmetry-dominance construction in Lao fish trap descriptions. Semiotica 149 (1/4): 57–123.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2005. Areal linguistics and mainland Southeast Asia. Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 181–206.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2006a. Languages as historical documents: The endangered archive in Laos. South East Asia Research 14 (3): 471–88.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2006b. Heterosemy and the grammar-lexicon trade-off. In: Ameka, F., Dench, A. and Evans, N. (eds.) Catching Language, 297–320. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2007. A Grammar of Lao. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2009. Review of Serial Verb Constructions: A cross-linguistic typology edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon. Language 85: 445–51. DOI: 10.1353/lan.0.0124Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (ed.) 2011a. Dynamics of Human Diversity in Mainland Southeast Asia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2011b. Linguistic diversity in mainland Southeast Asia. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 63–80. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2013. Relationship Thinking: Agency, enchrony, and human sociality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2015. The Utility of Meaning: What words mean and why. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2017. Linguistic expression of commands in Lao. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.) Commands: A cross-linguistic typology: 189–205. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2020. Word in Lao. In Aikhenvald, A. Y., Dixon, R. M. W. and White, N. M. (eds.) Phonological Word and Grammatical Word. 176–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. and Diffloth, G. 2009. Phonology and sketch grammar of Kri, a Vietic language of Laos. Cahiers de Linguistique – Asie Orientale 38 (1): 3–69.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. and Wierzbicka, A. 2002. Introduction: The body in description of emotion. Pragmatics and Cognition, 10 (1): 1–24.Google Scholar
Enwall, J. 1994. A Myth Become Reality: History and development of the Miao written language. East Asia Monographs. Stockholm: Institute of Oriental Languages, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Farnell, B. 1995. Do you see what I mean? Plains Indian sign talk and the embodiment of action. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Fedden, S., and Corbett, G. G. 2017. Gender and classifiers in concurrent systems: Refining the typology of nominal classification. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics, 2(1).Google Scholar
Ferlus, M. 1992. Essai de phonétique historique du Khmer (Du milieu du premier millénaire de notre ère à l’époque actuelle). Mon-Khmer Studies 21: 57–89.Google Scholar
Ferlus, M. 2014. Arem, a Vietic language. Mon-Khmer Studies 43 (1): 1–15.Google Scholar
Finot, L. 1959. Laotian writings. In de Berval, R. et al. (eds) Kingdom of Laos. Saigon: France-Asie.Google Scholar
Fix, A. 2011. Origin of genetic diversity among Malaysian Orang Asli: An alternative to the demic diffusion model. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 277–91. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A., and Olson, M. 1985. Clausehood and verb serialisation. In Nichols, J. and Woodbury, A. C. (eds.) Grammar inside and outside the clause: Some approaches to theory from the field. 17–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Forestier, H., Sophady, H. and Celiberti, V. 2017. Le techno-complexe hoabinhien en Asie du Sud-est continentale: L’histoire d’un galet qui cache la forêt [The Hoabinhian techno-complex in Mainland Southeast Asia: The history of a pebble which hides the forest]. Journal of Lithic Studies, 4 (2): 305–49. https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.v4i2.2545Google Scholar
Fuller, D. Q. 2011. Pathways to Asian Civilizations: Tracing the origins and spread of rice and rice cultures. Rice, 4 (3): 78–92.Google Scholar
Fuller, J. W. 1985. Topic and comment in Hmong. PhD dissertation. University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Gage, W. W. 1987. Vietnamese in Mon-Khmer perspective. In Ratanakul, S., Thomas, D. and Premisirat, S. (eds.) Southeast Asian Studies presented to Andre-G. Haudricourt. 493–524. Bangkok: Mahidol University.Google Scholar
Gai, X. 2002. A Study of Tanglang. Beijing: The Nationalities Press.Google Scholar
Gao, Y. 2004. Buxing yu yan jiu / 布兴语研究 [A study of the Buxing language]. Beijing: Min zu chu ban she.Google Scholar
Gedney, W. J. 1947. Indic loanwords in spoken Thai. Doctoral dissertation. Yale University.Google Scholar
Gedney, W. J. 1972. A Puzzle in Comparative Tai Phonology. In Harris, J. G. and Noss, R. B. (eds.) A Conference on Tai Phonetics and Phonology. 52–7. Bangkok: Mahidol University.Google Scholar
Gedney, W. J. 1989. A checklist for determining tones in Tai dialects. In Bickner, R. J., Hartmann, J., Hudak, T. J. and Peyasantiwong, P. (eds.) Selected Papers on Comparative Tai Studies. 191–206. Center for South and Southeast Asian studies, the University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Giaphong, S. 2004. Plang Grammar as spoken in Huay Namkhun village, Chiang Rai province. MA thesis. Bangkok: Mahidol University.Google Scholar
Gil, D. 2005. Word order without syntactic categories: How Riau Indonesian does it, in Carnie, A., Harley, H. and Dooley, S. A. (eds.) Verb First: On the syntax of verb-initial languages. 243–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gil, D. 2015. The Mekong-Mamberamo linguistic area. In Enfield, N. J. and Comrie, B. (eds.) The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art. 266–355. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. 2005. The Languages of East and Southeast Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. 2003a. Hearing Gesture: How our hands help us think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. 2003b. The Resilience of Language: What gesture creation in deaf children can tell us about how all children learn language. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gomi, T. 1989. An Illustrated Dictionary of Japanese Onomatopoeic Expressions. Translated by J. Turrent. Tokyo: Japan Times.Google Scholar
Goody, J. 1977. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. K. 2016. Phonological Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gorman, C. 1969. Hoabinhian: A pebble tool complex with early plant associations in Southeast Asia. Science 163: 671–3.Google Scholar
Gorman, C. 1970. Excavations at Spirit cave, North Thailand: Some interim interpretations. Asian Perspectives. 13: 79–107.Google Scholar
Gorman, C. 1971. The Hoabinhian and after: Subsistence patterns in Southeast Asia during the late Pleistocene and early recent periods. World Archaeology 2: 300–20.Google Scholar
Grant, A. and Sidwell, P. 2005. Chamic and Beyond: Studies in mainland Austronesian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Gray, R. D. and Jordan, F. M. 2000. Language trees support the express-train sequence of Austronesian expansion. Nature 405: 1052–5.Google Scholar
Green, J., and Wilkins, D. P. 2015. Arandic alternate sign language(s). In Jepsen, J. B., de Clerck, G., Lutalo-Kiingi, S. and McGregor, W. B. (eds.) Sign languages of the World: A comparative handbook. 843–69. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1970. Some generalizations concerning glottalic consonants, especially implosives. International Journal of American Linguistics, 36 (2): 123–45.Google Scholar
Greenhill, S. J. and Gray, R. D. 2009. Austronesian language phylogenies: Myths and misconceptions about Bayesian computational methods. In Adelaar, A. and Pawley, A. (eds.) Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: A festschrift for Robert Blust. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Gregerson, K. 1976. Tongue-root and register in Mon-Khmer. In Jenner, P. (ed.) Austroasiatic Studies I. 323–66. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Gregerson, K. 1979. Predicate and argument in Rengao grammar. Dallas, TX: University of Texas at Arlington, SIL.Google Scholar
Gregerson, K. and Smith, K. D. 1973. The development of Tơdrah register. Mon-Khmer Studies 4: 143–84.Google Scholar
Grierson, G. A. 1904. Linguistic Survey of India (II): Mōn-Khmēr and Siamese-Chinese families (including Khassi and Tai). Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing.Google Scholar
Grinevald, C. 2000. A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers. In Senft, G. (ed.) Systems of Nominal Classification, 50–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guion, S. G., and Wayland, R. P. 2004. Aerodynamic coarticulation in sound change or how onset trills can condition a falling tone. In Agwuele, A., Warren, W. and Park, S.-H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2003 Texas Linguistic Society Conference. 107–15. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Guo, J. 1993. Hànyǔ Shēngdiào Yǔdiào Chǎnyào yǔ Tànsǔo [The study and exploration of Chinese tone and intonation]. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hạ, K. P. 2010. Prosody of Vietnamese from an interactional perspective: ờ, ừ and vâng in backchannels and requests for information. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 3 (1): 56–76.Google Scholar
Hạ, K. P. 2012. Prosody in Vietnamese: Intonational form and function of short utterances in conversation. Asia-Pacific Linguistics (SEAMLES).Google Scholar
Hạ, K. P. 2013. Prosodic means in repair initiation as an activity in Northern Vietnamese conversation. In Hole, D. and Löbel, E. (eds.) Linguistics of Vietnamese: An international survey. 35–54. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hạ, K. P. and Grice, M. 2010. Modelling the interaction of intonation and lexical tone in Vietnamese. Paper presented at Speech Prosody 2010, Chicago.Google Scholar
Haas, M. R. 1942 The use of numeral classifiers in Thai, Language 18: 201–5.Google Scholar
Haas, M. R. 1969. Sibling terms as used by marriage partners. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 25 (3): 228–35.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59 (4): 781–819.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 2011. Cambodian: Khmer. London Oriental and African Language Library 16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 2019. Khmer. In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 320–83. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Halcrow, S. E. and Tayles, N. 2011. Human diversity in Mainland Southeast Asia: The contribution of bioarchaeology. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 47–61. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Halcrow, S. E., Tayles, N., and King, C. L. 2016. Infant and child health and disease with agricultural intensification in mainland Southeast Asia. In Oxenham, M. and Buckley, H. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Bioarchaeology in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands. 158–86. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hall, D. G. E. 1966. A History of Southeast Asia. New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Hall, K. R. 1992. Economic history of early Southeast Asia. In Tarling, N. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Vol. 1. 183–275. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, R. 1996. Reconstructing Cenozoic SE Asia. In: Hall, R. and Blundell, D. (eds.) Tectonic Evolution of SE Asia. Special Publication No. 106. 153–84. London: Geological Society of London.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hanihara, T. 2006. Interpretation of craniofacial variation and diversification of East and Southeast Asians. In Oxenham, M. O. and Tayles, N. (eds.) Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. 91–111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hansson, I.-L. 2003. Akha. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 236–51. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harris, R. 1980. The Language-makers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, H. 1987. Time expressions in Daai Chin. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 10 (1): 147–51.Google Scholar
Hartmann, J. 1986. The spread of South Indic scripts in Southeast Asia.’ Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 3 (1) 1986: 6–20.Google Scholar
Hartmann, J. 1998. A linguistic geography and history of Tai Meuang-Fai (Ditch-Dike) techno-culture. Language and Linguistics 16 (2): 67–101.Google Scholar
Haudricourt, A.-G. 1954. De l’origine des tones en Vietnamien. Journal Asiatique, 242: 69–82.Google Scholar
Haudricourt, A.-G. 1965. Les mutations consonantiques et les occlusives initiales en mon-khmer. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 60: 160–72.Google Scholar
Haudricourt, A.-G. 1966. The limits and connections of Austroasiatic in the Northeast. In Zide, N. H. (ed.) Studies in Comparative Austroasiatic Linguistics. 44–56. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Haudricourt, A.-G. 2010. The origin of the peculiarities of the Vietnamese alphabet. Mon-Khmer Studies 39: 89–104. Translated from ‘L’origine Des Particularités de L’alphabet Vietnamien’ (1949) Dân Viêt-Nam 3: 61–8.Google Scholar
Hayes, L. V. H. 1984. The register systems of Thavung. Mon-Khmer Studies. 12: 91–122.Google Scholar
He, Diyong. 1993. Kèjiā Fāngyán Yǔfǎ Yánjiū [A study of Hakka grammar]. Xiamen: Xiamen University Press.Google Scholar
Headley, R. K. 1998. Cham evidence for Khmer sound changes. Pacific Linguistics. Series A. Occasional Papers. 89: 21–9.Google Scholar
Heder, S. R. 2007. Cambodia. In Simpson, A. (ed.) Language and National Identity in Asia. 288–311. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heimbach, E. E. 1979. White Hmong-English Dictionary. Revised edition. Linguistic Series IV, Data Paper no. 75, Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University. Ithaca, NY: Southeast Asia Program.Google Scholar
Heine, B. 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine-Geldern, R. 1956. Conceptions of State and Kingship in Southeast Asia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Henderson, E. J. A. 1952. The main features of Cambodian pronunciation. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 14. 149–74.Google Scholar
Henderson, E. J. A. 1965. The topography of certain phonetic and morphological characteristics of South East Asian languages. Lingua 15. 400–34.Google Scholar
Henderson, E. J. A. 1967. Grammar and tone in South East Asian languages. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig 16 (1/2): 171–8.Google Scholar
Hickman, J. R. 2019. Writing a New World Into Being: Orthographic ideology and millenarian religion in Hmong Society. Paper presented at The Anthropology of Language in Mainland Southeast Asia. Sydney, 19 August.Google Scholar
Higbie, J. and Thinsan, S. 2003. Thai Reference Grammar: The structure of spoken Thai. Bangkok: Orchid Press.Google Scholar
Higham, C. 1989. The Archaeology of Mainland Southeast Asia: From 10,000 BC to the fall of Angkor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Higham, C. 1996. The Bronze Age of Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Higham, C. 2001. The Civilization of Angkor. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Higham, C. 2002. Early Cultures of Mainland Southeast Asia. Bangkok: River Books.Google Scholar
Hill, C., Soares, P., Mormina, M., Macaulay, V., Meehan, W. et al. 2006 Phylogeography and ethnogenesis of aboriginal Southeast Asians. Mol Biol Evol 23: 2480–91. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msl124. PubMed: 16982817Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. and Schultze-Berndt, E. (eds.) 2005. Secondary Predication and Adverbial Modification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hnin Tun, S. S. 2014. Colloquial Burmese: The complete course for beginners. Routledge.Google Scholar
Hoang, T., Lợi, N. V., Phúc, D. V. and Thành, P. X. 1986a. Sách Học Tiếng Bru Vân Kiều [A text to study the Bru language]. Hanoi: Ủy Ban Nhân Dân.Google Scholar
Hoang, T., Thắng, L. T., Thông, T. V., K’breu and K’broh. 1986b. Ngữ Pháp Tiếng Kơho [A Grammar of Kơho]. Lam Dong, Vietnam: Sở Văn Hóa và Thông Tin Lâm Ɖông.Google Scholar
Hoàng, V. H. 1998. Từ Láy Đôi trong Tiếng Mường [Reduplication in Muong]. In Từ Láy: Những Vấn Đề Còn Để Ngỏ [Reduplication: Remaining Issues], 165–93. Hanoi: Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hoàng, V. M. and Tạ, V. T. 1998. Tiếng Bru-Vân Kiêu [The Bru-Van Kieu language]. Hanoi: Nhà Xuất Bản Khoa Học Xã Hội.Google Scholar
Hoijer, H. 1956. Lexicostatistics: A critique. Language 32 (1): 49–60.Google Scholar
Holmer, A. 2009. Atayal clitics and sentence structure. Working Papers in Linguistics 40: 71–94.Google Scholar
Hombert, J.-M., Ohala, J. J., and Ewan, W. G. 1979. Phonetic explanations for the development of tones. Language 55: 37–58.Google Scholar
Hope, G. 2005. The Quaternary in Southeast Asia. In Gupta, A. (ed.) The Physical Geography of Southeast Asia. 24–37. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
House, D., Karlsson, A., Svantesson, J.-O. and Tayanin, D. 2009. The phrase-final accent in Kammu: Effects of tone, focus and engagement. Paper presented to INTERSPEECH, 2009.Google Scholar
Hsiu, A. 2018. Preliminary classification of Mienic languages. East Asian Language Phyla Project. https://sites.google.com/site/eastasianphyla/hm/mienicGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y. 2010. A grammar of Jingxi Zhuang. Master’s thesis. Guangxi University.Google Scholar
Hudak, T. J. 2008. William J. Gedney’s Comparative Tai Sourcebook. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, B., Nyein, L., Maung, W. (Tanpawady). 2001. The origins of Bagan: New dates and old inhabitants. Asian Perspectives 40 (1): 48–74.Google Scholar
Huffman, F. E. 1970. Modern Spoken Cambodian. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Southeast Asia Program.Google Scholar
Huffman, F. E. 1973. Thai and Cambodian – A case of syntactic borrowing? Journal of the American Oriental Society, 93 (4): 488–509.Google Scholar
Huffman, F. E. 1976. The relevance of lexicostatistics to Mon-Khmer languages. In Jenner, P. N., Thompson, P., L. C. and Starosta, S. (eds.) Austroasiatic studies. 539–74. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. 1978. Historical tonology. In Fromkin, V. A. (ed.) Tone: A linguistic survey. 257–69. New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0–12-267350–4.50013–3Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. 2001. Tone systems. In Haspelmath, M. et al. (eds) Language Typology and Language Universals: An international handbook. Vol. 2. 1367–80. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. and Monaka, K. C. 2011. Tonal and non-tonal intonation in Shekgalagari. In Frota, S., Elordieta, G. and Prieto, P. (eds) Prosodic Categories: Production, perception and comprehension. 267–90. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. and VanBik, K. 2002. Tone and syllable structure in Hakha-Lai. Berkeley Linguistics Society, Special Session: Tibeto-Burman/Southeast Asian Linguistics, 15 February. https://bit.ly/39JxbkXGoogle Scholar
Hyman, L. M. and VanBik, K. 2004. Directional rule application and output problems in Hakha Lai tone. Language and Linguistics 5 (4): 821–61.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. H. 1960. Lexicostatistics so far. Current Anthropology 1: 3–44.Google Scholar
Hyslop, G. 2009. Kurtöp tone: A tonogenetic case study. Lingua, 119 (6): 827–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.11.012Google Scholar
Ileto, R. 1992. Religion and anti-colonial movements. In Tarling, N. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Vol. 2. 197–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, S. and Horie, P. I. 2005. A Reference Grammar of Thai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jacques, R. 2002. Portuguese Pioneers of Vietnamese Linguistics Prior to 1650 [Pionniers portugais de la linguistique vietnamienne jusqu’en 1650]. In English and French. Bangkok: Orchid Press.Google Scholar
Jacquesson, F. 2004. Le Deuri: Langue Tibéto-Birman d’Assam. Leuven, Paris and Dudley, MA: Peeters.Google Scholar
Jaisser, A. 1984. Complementation in Hmong. MA thesis. San Diego State University.Google Scholar
Jaisser, A. 1990. DeLIVERing an introduction to psycho-collocations with SIAB in Hmong. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 13 (1): 159–78.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1971. Shifters, verbals categories, and the Russian verb. In Jakobson, R., Selected Writings II: Word and language . The Hague and Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jarkey, N. 2006. Complement clause types and complementation strategies in White Hmong. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald Alexandra, Y. (eds.) Complementation: A cross-linguistic typology. 115–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jarkey, N. 2015. Serial Verbs in White Hmong. Brill.Google Scholar
Jenks, R. D. 1994. Insurgency and Social Disorder in Guizhou: The “Miao” rebellion, 1854–1873. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Jenny, M. 2015. The far west of Southeast Asia: ‘Give’ and ‘get’ in the languages of Myanmar. In Enfield, N. J. and Comrie, B. (eds.) The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art. 155–208. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Jenny, M. 2019a. Mon. In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 277–319. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Jenny, M. 2019b. Thai. In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 559–608. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Jenny, M. and Hnin Tun, S. S. 2016. Burmese: A comprehensive grammar. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jenny, M. and Sidwell, P. (eds.) 2015. Handbook of the Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Jenny, M., Weber, T. and Weymuth, R. 2015. The Austroasiatic Languages: A typological overview. In Jenny, M. and Sidwell, P. (eds.) The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. 13–143. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Jepsen, J. B., de Clerck, G., Lutalo-Kiingi, S. and McGregor, W. B. (eds.) 2015. Sign Languages of the World: A comparative handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ji, X., Kuman, K., Clarke, R. J., Forestier, H., Li, Y., Ma, J., Qiu, K., Li, H. and Wu, Y. 2016. The oldest Hoabinhian technocomplex in Asia (43.5 ka) at Xiaodong rockshelter, Yunnan province, southwest China. Quaternary International, 400 (2): 166–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.09.080Google Scholar
Jiang, P. 2000. The semantics of noun phrases in Chinese reciprocal constructions. Studies in Language and Linguistics 20 (1): 41–50.Google Scholar
Jinam, T. A., Phipps, M. E., Aghakhanian, F., Majumder, P. P., Datar, F., Stoneking, M., Sawai, H., Nishida, N., Tokunaga, K., Kawamura, S., Omoto, K. and Saitou, N. 2017. Discerning the origins of the Negritos, First Sundaland people: Deep divergence and archaic admixture. Genome Biology and Evolution 9 (8): 2013–22. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evx118Google Scholar
Johnson, C. 1985. Dab neeg Hmoob: Myths, legends and folk tales from the Hmong of Laos. St Paul, MN: Linguistics Department, Macalester College.Google Scholar
Jones, R. B. 1970. Classifier constructions in Southeast Asia. Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (1): 1–12.Google Scholar
Jonsson, H. 2011. Ethnology and the issue of human diversity in Mainland Southeast Asia. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 109–22. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Jonsson, H. 2014. Slow Anthropology: Negotiating difference with the Iu Mien. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Southeast Asia Program Publications.Google Scholar
Jonsson, N. L. 1991. Proto-Southwestern Tai. PhD dissertation. State University of New York at Albany.Google Scholar
Kamei, N. 2004. Sign language in Myanmar: One language or two? In Foreign Sign Department, Japan Institute for Sign Language Studies (ed.) Sign Languages of Asia [Asia no shuwa], Vol. 5. 10–19. Tokyo: Japan Institute for Sign Language Studies.Google Scholar
Kang, Z. 2009. Judu Gelao Reference Grammar. PhD thesis. Beijing: Minzu University of China.Google Scholar
Karlgren, B. 1915. Etudes sur la phonologie Chinoise. Leiden: E.-J. Brill.Google Scholar
Karlgren, B. 1954. Compendium of phonetics in Ancient and Archaic Chinese. Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 26: 211–367.Google Scholar
Karlsson, A., House, D. and Svantesson, J.-O. 2012. Intonation adapts to lexical tone: The case of Kammu. Phonetica 69: 28–47.Google Scholar
Karlsson, A., House, D., Svantesson, J.-O. and Tayanin, D. 2007. Prosodic phrasing in tonal and non-tonal dialects of Kammu. Paper presented to the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 2007.Google Scholar
Karlsson, A., House, D., Svantesson, J.-O. and Tayanin, D. 2010. Influence of lexical tones on intonation in Kammu. Paper presented to the INTERSPEECH, 2010.Google Scholar
Kato, A. 2003. Pwo Karen. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 632–48. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kato, A. 2019. Pwo Karen. In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 131–75. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. and Comrie, B. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic inquiry 8 (1): 63–100.Google Scholar
Keller, C. 1976. A Grammatical Sketch of Brao, a Mon-Khmer Language. Grand Forks, ND: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kelly, P., 2018. The art of not being legible. Terrain 70 https://journals.openedition.org/terrain/17103Google Scholar
Kendon, A. 1988. Sign Languages of Aboriginal Australia: Cultural, semiotic and communicative perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kerr, A. D. 1972. Lao-English Dictionary. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
Keyes, C. 1977. The Golden Peninsula: Culture and adaptation in mainland Southeast Asia. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
King, C. L., Halcrow, S. E., Tayles, N. and Shkrum, S. 2017. Considering the palaeoepidemiological implications of socioeconomic and environmental change in Southeast Asia. Archaeological Research in Asia 11: 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2017.05.003Google Scholar
Kirby, J. P. 2014a. Incipient tonogenesis in Phnom Penh Khmer: Acoustic and perceptual studies. Journal of Phonetics 43: 69–85.Google Scholar
Kirby, J. P. 2014b. Incipient tonogenesis in Phnom Penh Khmer: Computational studies. Laboratory Phonology-Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 5 (1): 195–230.Google Scholar
Kirby, J., and Brunelle, M. 2017. Southeast Asian tone in areal perspective. In Hickey, R. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics. 703–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kölver, U. 1991. Local prepositions and serial verb constructions in Thai. In Seiler, H. and Premper, W. (eds.) Partizipation: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten. 485–508. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Konnerth, L. 2014. A Grammar of Karbi. Dissertation. University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Kosaka, R. 2000. A descriptive study of the Lachi language: Syntactic description, historical reconstruction and genetic relation. Doctoral dissertation. Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Kratochvíl, Paul. 1968. The Chinese Language Today: Features of an emerging standard. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Kratoska, P., and Batson, B. 1992. Nationalism and modernist reform. In Tarling, N. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Vol. 2. 249–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kruspe, N. 2004. A Grammar of Semelai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kunyot, T. 1984. General characteristics of Hmong Njua grammar. MA thesis. Mahidol University, Bangkok.Google Scholar
Kurabe, K. 2017. Jinghpaw. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 2nd ed. 993–1010. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kutanan, W., Kampuansai, J., Srikummool, M., Kangwanpong, D., Ghirotto, S., Brunelli, A. and Stoneking, M. 2017. Complete mitochondrial genomes of Thai and Lao populations indicate an ancient origin of Austroasiatic groups and demic diffusion in the spread of Tai–Kadai languages. Human Genetics 136 (1): 85–98.Google Scholar
Kwok, Helen. 1984. Sentence Particles in Cantonese: Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
LaPolla, R. J. 1992. ‘Anti-ergative’ marking in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 15 (1): 1–9.Google Scholar
LaPolla, R. J. 1994. On the change to verb-medial word order in proto-Chinese: Evidence from Tibeto-Burman. In Kitamura, H., Nishida, T. and Nagano, Y. (eds.), Current Issues in Sino-Tibetan Linguistics. 98–104. Osaka: Organizing Committee of the 26th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics.Google Scholar
LaPolla, R. J. 1995. “Ergative” marking in Tibeto-Burman. In Nishi, Y., Matisoff, J. A. and Nagano, Y. (eds.) New Horizons in Tibeto-Burman Morphosyntax. 189–228. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
LaPolla, R. J. 2001. The role of migration and language contact in the development of the Sino-Tibetan language family. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.) Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics. 225–54). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
LaPolla, R. J. 2003. Overview of Sino-Tibetan syntax. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 22–42. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
LaPolla, R. J. 2012. Comments on methodology and evidence in Sino-Tibetan comparative linguistics. Language and Linguistics 13 (1): 117–32.Google Scholar
LaPolla, R. J. 2013. Subgrouping in Tibeto-Burman: Can an Individual-identifying standard be developed? How do we factor in the history of migrations and language contact? In Bickel, B., Grenoble, L. A., Peterson, D. A., Timberlake, A. (eds.) Language Typology and Historical Contingency: In honor of Johanna Nichols. 463–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Larish, M. D. 1993. Who are the Moken and Moklen on the Islands and Coasts of the Andaman Sea? In Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Language and Linguistics, 1305–19. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.Google Scholar
Larish, M. D. 1997 Moklen-Moken phonology: Mainland or insular Southeast Asian typology? In Odé, C. and Stokhof, W. (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. 125–50. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Larish, M. D. 1999. The position of Moken and Moklen within the Austronesian language family. PhD. University of Hawaiʻi.Google Scholar
Larish, M. D. 2005. Moken and Moklen. In Adelaar, A. and Himmelmann, N. P. (eds.) The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, 513–33. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Larson, G. et al. 2010. Patterns of East Asian pig domestication, migration, and turnover revealed by modern and ancient DNA. PNAS 107 (17): 7686–91. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912264107Google Scholar
Lê, M.-H. and O’Harrow, S. 2007. Vietnam. In Simpson, A. (ed.) Language and National Identity in Asia. 415–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leach, E. 1954. Political Systems of Highland Burma. London: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Lee, E. W. 1966. Proto-Chamic phonologic word and vocabulary. PhD dissertation. Indiana University.Google Scholar
Lee, E. W. 1996. Bipartite negatives in Chamic. Mon-Khmer Studies 26: 291–317.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C., Cutfield, S., Dunn, M., Enfield, N. J. and Meira, S. 2018. Demonstratives in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333818Google Scholar
Lexicography Office, Institute of Linguistics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. 2012. A Dictionary of Modern Chinese. 6th edition. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. and Thompson, S. A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Li, D. 2003. A Study of Geman. Beijing: The Nationalities Press.Google Scholar
Li, D. 2004. Sulong Yu Yan Jiu [A study of Sulong]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Li, F. K. 1977. A Handbook of Comparative Tai. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Li, J. 2008. Chadong, a newly-discovered Kam-Sui language in northern Guangxi. In Diller, A., Edmondson, J. A. and Luo, Y. (eds.) The Tai-Kadai Languages. 509–84. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Li, X. 2013. Numeral Classifiers in Chinese: The syntax-semantics interface. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Li, Y. 2003. A Study of Sangkong. Beijing: The Nationalities Press.Google Scholar
Li, Y. C. and Yip, M. 1979. Ba Construction and Ergativity in Chinese. In Plank, F. (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. London and New York: Academic Press, 103–14.Google Scholar
Liang, M. and Zhang, J. 1996. Dong Tai yu zu gai lun [An introduction to the Kam-Tai languages]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Academy Press.Google Scholar
Lidz, L. 2010. A descriptive grammar of Yongning Na (Mosuo). Doctoral dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Lidz, L. 2019. Yongning Na (Mosuo). In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 234–76. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Liem, N. D. 1970. Four-syllable Idiomatic Expressions in Vietnamese. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Lin, P. T. 2015. Taiwanese Grammar: A concise reference. Greenhorn Media.Google Scholar
Liu, H. 2016. Yuèběi Rǔyuán Guòshān Miǎnyǔ Yánjiū [A study of Yuebei Ruyuan Guoshan Mien]. Beijing: Culture and Art Publishing House.Google Scholar
Liu, L. 2013. Analysis of ba marker in Chinese. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 3 (12): 2227.Google Scholar
Liu, L., Wang, H., and Bo, Y. 2007. Xiandai Hanyu fangyan hexinci, tezhengci ji [Core vocabulary and diagnostic vocabulary of Modern Chinese Dialects]. Nanjing: Feng huang chu ban she.Google Scholar
Liu, Y. 2012. Thailand Mien reference grammar. PhD thesis. Minzu University of China, Beijing.Google Scholar
Long, Y. and Zheng, G. 1998. The Dong Language in Guizhou Province, China. Publications in Linguistics, 126. Translated by Norman Geary. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Longley, I. M. 1997. The tectonostratigraphic evolution of SE Asia. In Fraser, A. J., Matthews, S. J. and Murphy, R. W. (eds.) Petroleum Geology of Southeast Asia. 311–39. Geological Society Special Publication 126.Google Scholar
Lu, T. Q. 2008. A Grammar of Maonan. Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers.Google Scholar
Luce, G. H. 1985. Phases of Pre-Pagan Burma: Languages and history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lucey-Weinhold, Meredith. 2011. Serial verb constructions in Sgaw Karen: a comparison of Karenic VP structures. In Brunelle, M. (ed.) Sgaw Karen papers: Presented to Nimrod Andrew. 76–84. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Luke, K. K. 1990. Utterance Particles in Cantonese Conversation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Luksaneeyanawin, S. 1998. Intonation in Thai. In Hirst, D. and Cristo, A. D. (eds.) Intonation Systems. 376–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luo, Y. 2008. Zhuang. In Diller, A., Edmondson, J. A. and Luo, Y. (eds.) The Tai-Kadai Languages. 317–77. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Luong, H. V. 1988. Discursive practices and power structure: Person-referring forms and sociopolitical struggles in colonial Vietnam. American Ethnologist 15 (2): 239–53.Google Scholar
Luong, H. V. 1990. Discursive Practices and Linguistic Meanings: The Vietnamese system of person reference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lutz-Hughes, M. 2016. Defining serial verb constructions in Kri. Honours dissertation. University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Lyman, T. A. 1974. Dictionary of Mong Njua, a Miao (Meo) Language of Southeast Asia. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lyman, T. A. 1979. Grammar of Mong Njua (Green Miao): A descriptive linguistic study. Sattley, CA: Blue Oak Press.Google Scholar
Macaulay, V., Hill, C., Achilli, A., Rengo, C., Clarke, D. et al. 2005. Single, rapid coastal settlement of Asia revealed by analysis of complete mitochondrial genomes. Science 308: 1034–6. DOI: 10.1126/science. 1109792. PubMed: 15890885Google Scholar
Maddieson, I. 2013. Consonant inventories. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://wals.info/chapter/1Google Scholar
Majid, A. and Burenhult, N. 2014. Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition 130 (2): 266–70.Google Scholar
Manley, T. M. 1972. Outline of Sre Structure. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication No. 12. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Manson, K. 2011. The subgrouping of Karen. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, 11–13 May.Google Scholar
Mao, Z. 2004. Yaozu mianyu fangyan yanjiu [A study of the Mien language of the Yao ethnicity]. In China Ethnic Minority Language and Dialect Studies. Beijing: Publishing House of Minority Nationalities.Google Scholar
Mao, Z. and Li, Y. 2002. A Study of Jiongnai. Beijing: Central Nationalities University Press.Google Scholar
Mao, Z. and Li, Y. 2007. Younuoyu Yanjiu [A study of Younuo]. Beijing: Minzu University of China Publishing House.Google Scholar
Marrison, G. E. 1975. The early Cham language and its relationship to Malay. Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 48 (2): 52–9.Google Scholar
Martinson, D. G., Pisias, N. G., Hays, J. D., Imbrie, J., Moore, T. C. and Shackleton, N. J. 1987. Age dating and orbital theory of the Ice Ages: Development of a high resolution 0–300 000-year chronostratigraphy. Quaternary Research 27: 1–29.Google Scholar
Masica, C. 1991. Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maspéro, H. 1911. Contribution d l’ětude du systeme phonétique des langues thai. Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient 11: 153–69.Google Scholar
Maspéro, H. 1912. Phonétique historique de la language Annamite: les initiales. Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient 12: 1–124.Google Scholar
Maspéro, H. 1952. L’Annamite. In Meillet, A. and Cohen, M. Les langues du monde. 581–7. Paris: H. Champion.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 1972. The Loloish Tonal Split Revisited. Vol. 7. Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies, University of California.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 1973a. The Grammar of Lahu. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 1973b. Tonogenesis in Southeast Asia. In Hyman, L. M. (ed.) Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics, No. 1. 72–95. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 1986. Hearts and minds in South-East Asian languages and English: An essay in the comparative lexical semantics of psycho-collocations. Cahiers de linguistique – Asie orientale 15 (1): 5–57. https://doi.org/10.3406/clao.1986.1191Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 1991a. Endangered languages of Mainland Southeast Asia. In Robins, R. J. and Uhlenbeck, E. M. (eds.) Endangered Languages. 189–228. London: Berg.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 1991b. Areal and universal dimensions of grammatization in Lahu. In Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. (eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization. 383–453. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 1991c. Sino-Tibetan linguistics: Present state and future prospects. Annual Review of Anthropology 20 (1): 469–504. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.20.100191.002345Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 1994. Tone, intonation, and sound symbolism in Lahu: Loading the syllable canon. In Hinton, L., Nichols, J. and Ohala, J. J. (eds.) Sound Symbolism, 115–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 1999. Tibeto-Burman tonology in an areal context. In Kaji, S., (ed.) Proceedings of the Symposium ‘Cross-Linguistic Studies of Tonal Phenomena: Tonogenesis, Typology, and Related Topics’. 3–32. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 2000a. On ‘Sino-Bodic’ and other symptoms of neosubgroupitis. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 63 (3): 356–69.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 2000b. Tibeto-Burman tonology in an areal context. In The Fifth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics. 85–151. Ho Chi Minh City: Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City University of Social Sciences and Humanities. http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf8/matisoff2000tibeto-burman.pdfGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 2001. Genetic vs. contact relationship: Prosodic diffusibility in South-East Asian languages. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.) Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics. 291–327. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 2003a. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 2003b. Aslian: Mon-Khmer of the Malay Peninsula. Mon-Khmer Studies 33: 1–58.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 2003c. Lahu. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 208–21. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 2009. Stable roots in Sino-Tibetan/Tibeto-Burman. Senri Ethnological Studies, 75, 291–318.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 2015a. The Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus. Berkeley, CA: The Regents of the University of California.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 2015b. Re-examining the genetic position of Jingpho: Putting flesh on the bones of the Jingpho/Luish relationship. In Enfield, N. J. and Comrie, B. (eds.) The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art. 111–51. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 2019. Preface. In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. v–xvi. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Matsumura, H., and Hudson, M. J. 2005. Dental perspectives on the population history of Southeast Asia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 127 (2): 182–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20067Google Scholar
Matsumura, H. and Oxenham, M., 2013. Population dispersal from East Asia into Southeast Asia: Evidence from cranial and dental morphology. In Bioarchaeology of East Asia, Pechenkina, K., Oxenham, M., eds. (Univ. Press of Florida), pp. 179–209.Google Scholar
Matthews, S. and Yip, V. 1994. Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mayuree, T. 2006. Gong: An endangered language of Thailand. Doctoral dissertation. Mahidol University, Bangkok.Google Scholar
McColl, H., Racimo, F., Vinner, L., Demeter, F., Gakuhari, T., Moreno-Mayar, J. V., van Driem, G., Wilken, U. G., Seguin-Orlando, A., De la Fuente Castro, C., et al. 2018. The prehistoric peopling of Southeast Asia. Science, 361 (6397): 88–92.Google Scholar
Meissner, M. and Philpott, S. B. 1975. The sign language of sawmill workers in British Columbia. Sign Language Studies 9: 291–308.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, A. A. et al. 1996 The tectonic evolution of Southeast Asia: A regional application of the surge-tectonics hypothesis. In Hull, D. M. (ed.) Surge Tectonics: A new hypothesis of global geodynamics. Solid Earth Sciences Library, Vol. 9. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Michaud, J. 2010. Editorial – Zomia and beyond. Special issue. Journal of Global History 5 (2): 187–214.Google Scholar
Milne, L. 1921. An Elementary Palaung Grammar. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. 1999. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mohr, S. 2015. Tshaukak’ui – hunting signs of the Ts’ixa in Northern Botswana. In Jepsen, J. B., de Clerck, G., Lutalo-Kiingi, S. and McGregor, W. B. (eds.) Sign Languages of the World: A comparative handbook. 933–54. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Moore, E. 2009. Place and space in early Burma: A new look at ‘Pyu Culture’. Journal of the Siam Society. 97, 101–28.Google Scholar
Morey, S. 2005. The Tai Languages of Assam: A grammar and texts. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Morey, S. 2010. Turung: A variety of Singpho language spoken in Assam. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Morey, S. 2013. The marking of noun phrases: Some observations on the languages of North East India. In Hyslop, G., Morey, S. and Post, M. W. (eds.) 2013. North East Indian Linguistics. Vol. 5. 171–91. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press India.Google Scholar
Morey, S. and Post, M. W. (eds.) 2008. North East Indian Linguistics. Vol. 1. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press India.Google Scholar
Morey, S. and Post, M. W. (eds.) 2010. North East Indian Linguistics. Vol. 2. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press India.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. 2019. Hmong (Mong Leng). In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 609–52. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Mottin, J. 1978. Eléments de grammaire Hmong Blanc. Bangkok: Don Bosco Press.Google Scholar
Mukdawijitra, Y. 2019. Ethnic inclusive ICT policy: The case of digitising ethnic Tai scripts in Vietnam. Paper presented at the 10th EuroSEAS conference, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. September.Google Scholar
Murphy, E. M. 1998. An osteological and palaeopathological study of the Scythian and Hunno-Sarmatian period populations from the cemetery complex of Aymyrlyg, Tuva, South Siberia. PhD. Queen’s University, Belfast.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. A. 2013. Buddhism and its relationship to Dvaravati period settlement patterns and material culture in northeast Thailand and central Laos c. Sixth–eleventh centuries ce: A historical ecology approach to the landscape of the Khorat Plateau. Asian Perspectives 52 (2): 300–26.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. A. 2016. The case for proto-Dvāravatī: A review of the art historical and archaeological evidence. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. 47 (3): 366–92. DOI: 10.1017/s0022463416000242Google Scholar
Nagaraja, K. S. 2011. Austroasiatic Languages: An introduction. In Nagaraja, K. S. (ed.) Austro-Asiatic Linguistics: In memory of R. Elangaiyan. 1–32. Mysore: CIIL (India).Google Scholar
Namkung, J. 1996. Phonological inventories of Tibeto-Burman languages. Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus Project, Center for Southeast Asia Studies, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Neng, Y. 1987. Hmoob Thaib Teb. Haiv Hmoob 3 (2): 36–7.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. and Vogel, I. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Nettle, D. 1999. Linguistic Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nguyen, A.-T., and Ingram, C. L. 2007. Stress and tone sandhi in Vietnamese reduplications. The Mon-Khmer Studies 37: 15–39.Google Scholar
Nguyễn, H. H. and Nguyễn, V. L. 1998. Tiếng Katu [The Katu language]. Hanoi: Nhà Xuất Bản Khoa Học Xã Hội.Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. 2013. A grammar of Bih. PhD. University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Nguyễn, T. T. H. and Boulakia, G. 1999, Another look at Vietnamese intonation. Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 2399–402. Linguistics Department, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Nguyễn, V. L. 1993. Tiếng Rục (The Ruc language). Hanoi: Nhà Xuất Bản Khoa Học Xã Hội.Google Scholar
Nguyễn, V. L., Hoành, N. H. and Thông, T. V. 2008. Tiếng Mảng [The Mang language]. Hanoi: Nhà Xuất Bản Khoa Học Hà Nội.Google Scholar
Nguyễn, V. L., Phúc, Ð. V. and Thành, P. X. 1986. Sách học tiếng Pakôh-Taôih [Text for studying Pakoh-Taoih]. Hanoi: Ủy Ban Nhân Dân, Tỉnh Bình Trị Thiên.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Niederer, B. 1998. Les langues Hmong-Mjen (Miáo-Yáo): Phonologie historique. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Niederer, B. 2004. Pa-hng and the classification of the Hmong-Mien languages. In Tapp, N., Michaud, J., Culas, C. and Lee, G. Y. (eds.) Hmong/Miao in Asia. 129–46. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar
Nonaka, A. M. 2007. Emergence of an indigenous sign language and a speech/sign community in Ban Khor, Thailand. PhD thesis. University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Nonaka, A. M. 2009. Estimating size, scope, and membership of the speech/sign communities of undocumented indigenous/village sign languages: The Ban Khor case study. Language and Communication 29: 210–29.Google Scholar
Nonaka, A. M. 2010 Interrogatives in Ban Khor sign language: A preliminary description. In Mathur, G. and Napoli, D. J. (eds.) Deaf around the World: The impact of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732548.003.0011Google Scholar
Nonaka, A. M. 2011. Interrogatives in Ban Khor Sign Language: A Preliminary Description. In Mathur, G. and Napoli, D. J. (eds.) Deaf around the World: The impact of language. 194–220. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nonaka, A. M. 2014. (Almost) everyone here spoke Ban Khor sign language – until they started using TSL: Language shift and endangerment of a Thai village sign language. Language and Communication 38: 54–72.Google Scholar
Nonaka, A. M. 2015. Toponyms in Ban Khor sign language. Learning Communities. Special Issue: Indigenous Sign Languages.Google Scholar
Norman, J. 1988. Chinese. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norquest, P. K. 2016. A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Hlai. In The Languages of Asia Series. Leiden and Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
O’Connor, R. A. 1995. Agricultural change and ethnic succession in Southeast Asian states: A case for regional anthropology. The Journal of Asian Studies 54 (4): 968–96.Google Scholar
O’Connor, R. A. 2003. Founders’ cults in regional and historical perspective. In Tannenbaum, N. and Kammerer, C. A. (eds.) Founders’ Cults in Southeast Asia: Polity, and identity. 269–311. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Okell, J. 1969. A Reference Grammar of Colloquial Burmese. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ong, W. J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Oota, H., Kurosaki, K., Pookajorn, S., Ishida, T. and Ueda, S. 2001. Genetic study of the paleolithic and neolithic Southeast Asians. Human Biology 73(2): 225–31.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, S. 2011. MtDNA variation and southward Holocene human dispersals within Mainland Southeast Asia. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 81–108. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Orlandi, Giorgio. 2018. Evaluating the Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian hypothesis. Journal of Language Relationship 16 (1): 1–18.Google Scholar
Ostapirat, W. 2000. Proto-Kra. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 23 (1): 1–251.Google Scholar
Ostapirat, W. 2005. Kra-Dai and Austronesian: Notes on phonological correspondences and vocabulary distribution. In Sagart, L., Blench, R. and Sanchez-Mazas, A. (eds.) The Peopling of East Asia: Putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics. 107–31. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Ostapirat, W. 2008. The Hlai language. In Diller, A., Edmondson, J. A. and Luo, Y. (eds.) The Tai-Kadai Languages. 623–52. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ostapirat, W. 2013. Austro-Tai revisited. 23rd Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistic Society, Chulalongkorn University.Google Scholar
Ostapirat, W. 2018. Macrophyletic trees of East Asian languages re-examined. In Kikusawa, R. and Reid, L. A. (eds.) Let’s Talk about Trees. Osaka: Senri Ethnological Studies, Minpaku.Google Scholar
Ouyang, J. and Zheng, Y. 1983. The Huihui speech (Hainan Cham) of Hui nationality in Ya County, Hainan. Minzu Yuwen 1: 30–40.Google Scholar
Owen, R. W. 2012. A tonal analysis of contemporary Tai Khuen varieties. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (JSEALS) 5: 12–31.Google Scholar
Oxenham, M. and Tayles, N. 2006. Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parkin, R. 1991. A Guide to Austroasiatic Speakers and their Languages. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Payne, T. E. 2017. Morphological typology. In Aikhenvald, A. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology. 39–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pe, H. 1965. A re-examination of Burmese ‘classifiers’. Lingua 15: 163–85.Google Scholar
Peiros, Ilia. 1998. Comparative Linguistics in Southeast Asia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Perkins, R. D. 1992. Deixis, Grammar, and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Peterson, D. A. 2003. Hakha Lai. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 409–26. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Peterson, D. A. 2019. Bangladesh Khumi. In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 12–55. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., and Woll, B. (eds.). 2012. Sign Language: An international handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Pham, A. 2008. Is there a prosodic word in Vietnamese? Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 29. https://bit.ly/31b6HVuGoogle Scholar
Phattharathanit, S. 2012. Identity maintenance in Lanna (Northern Thai). Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 5: 67–84.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. 1973. A Mnong pedagogical grammar: The verb phrase and constructions with two or more verbs. Mon-Khmer Studies 4: 129–38.Google Scholar
Pietrusewsky, M. 2005. The physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia and Southeast Asia: a multivariate craniometric analysis. In Sagart, L., Blench, R. and Sanchez-Mazas, A. (eds.) The Peopling of East Asia: Putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics. 201–29. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Pinnow, H.-J. 1954. Grundzüge einer Phonetik der Kharia Sprache. Unpublished Manuscript, Berlin.Google Scholar
Pinnow, H.-J. 1959. Versuch einer historischen Lautlehre der Kharia-Sprache. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Pinnow, H.-J. 1960. Über der Ursprung der voneinander abweichenden strukturen der Munda- und Khmer-Nikobar-Sprachen. Indo-Iranian Journal 4: 81–103.Google Scholar
Pinnow, H.-J. 1963. The position of the Munda languages within the Austroasiatic language family. In Shorto, H. L. (ed.) Linguistic Comparison in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. 140–52. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
Pittayaporn, P. 2005. Moken as a mainland Southeast Asian language. In Grant, A. and Sidwell, P. (eds.) Chamic and Beyond: Studies in mainland Austronesian languages. 189–210. Canberra: Australian National University. DOI: 10.15144/PL-569.189Google Scholar
Pittayaporn, P. 2007. Prosody of final particles in Thai: interaction between lexical tones and boundary tones. Paper presented to the International Workshop on ‘Intonation Phonology: Understudied or Fieldwork Languages’, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
Pittayaporn, P. 2009. Proto-Southwestern-Thai: A new reconstruction. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2: 119–43.Google Scholar
Pittayaporn, P. 2015. Typologizing sesquisyllabicity: The role of structural analysis in the study of linguistic diversity in Mainland Southeast Asia. In Enfield, N. J. and Comrie, B. (eds.) The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art. 500–28. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ploykaew, P. 2001. Samre grammar. Doctoral dissertation. Mahidol University, Bangkok.Google Scholar
Post, M. W. 2007. A grammar of Galo. Dissertation. La Trobe University, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Post, M. W. 2008. Adjectives in Thai: Implications for a functionalist typology of word classes. Linguistic Typology 12 (3): 339–81.Google Scholar
Post, M. W. 2009. The phonology and grammar of Galo ‘words’: A case study in benign disunity. Studies in Language. International Journal Sponsored by the Foundation ‘Foundations of Language’ 33 (4): 934–74.Google Scholar
Post, M. W. 2011. Prosody and typological drift in Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman: Against ‘Indosphere’ and ‘Sinosphere’. In Srichampa, S., Sidwell, P., and Gregerson, K. J. (eds.) Austroasiatic Studies: Papers from International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics (ICAAL4). Mon-Khmer Studies Special Issue 3. 198–211. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Post, M. W. 2015. Morphosyntactic reconstruction in an areal-historical context: A pre-historical relationship between North East India and Mainland Southeast Asia? In Enfield, N. J. and Comrie, B. (eds.) The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art. 209–65. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Preecha, S. 1993. Correlates of the register complex in Kuay. Mon-Khmer Studies, 22: 245–51.Google Scholar
Premsrirat, S. 1987. Khmu, a Minority Language of Thailand. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Premsrirat, S. 1998a. So (Thavung)-English-Thai glossary Part I. Mon-Khmer Studies 28: 189–218.Google Scholar
Premsrirat, S. 1998b. Language maintenance and language shift in minority languages of Thailand. In Matsumura, K. (ed.) Studies in Endangered Languages. 191–211. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Premsrirat, S. 1999. So (Thavung)-English-Thai glossary Part II. Mon-Khmer Studies 29: 107–32.Google Scholar
Premsrirat, S. 2007. Endangered languages of Thailand. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 186: 75–93.Google Scholar
Premsrirat, S. 2008. Orthography development: A tool for revitalizing and maintaining ethnic minority languages. Journal of Language and Culture 26: 18–34.Google Scholar
Premsrirat, S. 2011. Pearic, a dying branch of Austroasiatic languages and its struggle for survival. In Srichampa, S. and Sidwell, P. (eds.) Austroasiatic studies: Papers from International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics (ICAAL4). Mon-Khmer Studies Special Issue 2. 138–53. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Premsrirat, S. and Rojanakul, Nattamon. 2015. Chong. In Jenny, M. and Sidwell, P. (eds.) The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. 603–40. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Provencher, R. 1975. Mainland Southeast Asia: An anthropological perspective. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Pub. Co.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, E. G. 1970. Late Middle Chinese, Part I, Asia Major 15: 197–239.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, E. G. 1971. Late Middle Chinese, Part II, Asia Major 16: 121–66.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, E. G. 1984. Middle Chinese: A study in historical phonology. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Pulu, J. 1978. Idu Phrase Book. Shillong: Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Arunachal Pradesh.Google Scholar
Purnell, H. C. 1970. Toward a reconstruction of Proto-Miao-Yao. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Purnell, H. C. 2012. An Iu-Mienh –English Dictionary with Cultural Notes. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar
Purnell, H. C., Zanh, G.-F., Burgess, V. A., and Aumann, G. 2012. An Iu-Mienh-English Dictionary: With cultural notes. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, Center for Lao Studies.Google Scholar
Quay, S. 2015. Monastic sign language from medieval to modern times. In Jepsen, J. B., de Clerck, G., Lutalo-Kiingi, S. and McGregor, W. B. (eds.) Sign Languages of the World: A comparative handbook. 871–900. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ramsey, S. R. 1987. The Languages of China. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rastorfer, J-M. 1994. On the Development of Kayah and Kayan National Identity: A Study and Bibliography. Bangkok: Southeast Asian Publishing House.Google Scholar
Ratanakul, S. 1986. Thai-Sgaw Karen Dictionary. 2 vols. Bangkok: Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development.Google Scholar
Ratanakul, S. 1998. Numeral classifiers in Sgaw Karen. Mon-Khmer Studies 28: 101–13.Google Scholar
Ratanakul, S. 2001. Adverbs in Sgaw Karen. Mon-Khmer Studies 31: 127–34.Google Scholar
Ratliff, M. 1987. Tone sandhi compounding in White Hmong, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 10 (2): 71–105.Google Scholar
Ratliff, M. 1990. The influence of geographical change on grammar: The case of Hmong spatial deictics. Paper presented at the 23rd International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, University of Texas at Arlington, 3–7 October.Google Scholar
Ratliff, M. 1992. Meaningful tone: A study of tonal morphology in compounds, form classes, and expressive phrases in White Hmong. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University, Center for Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Ratliff, M. 1998. Ho Ne (She) is Hmongic: One final argument. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 21 (2): 97–109.Google Scholar
Ratliff, M. 2010. Hmong-Mien Language History. Studies in Language Change 8. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ratliff, M. 2015. Tonoexodus, tonogenesis, and tone change. In The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reardon, W., Toriello, H., Downs, C., 2004. Epidemiology, etiology, genetic patterns, and genetic counseling. In Toriello, H., Reardon, W., Gorlin, R. (eds.) 2004. Hereditary Hearing Loss and Its Syndromes. 2nd edition. 8–16 Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reid, L. A. 2005. The current status of Austric. In Sagart, L., Blench, R. and Sanchez-Mazas, A. (eds.) The Peopling of East Asia: Putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics. 132–60. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Riddle, E. M. 1993. The relative marker uas in Hmong. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Berman area 16 (2): 57–68.Google Scholar
Ring, H. and Anderson, G. D. S. 2018. On prosodic structures in Austroasiatic diachrony: ‘Rhythmic Holism’ revisited in light of preliminary acoustic studies. In Ring, H. and Rau, F. (eds.) Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics. 1–35. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Rischel, J. 1995. Minor Mlabri: A hunter-gatherer language of northern Indochina. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar
Rousset, I. 2004. Structures syllabiques et lexicales des langues du monde. PhD dissertation. University of Grenoble.Google Scholar
Ruey, Y.-F. and Kuan, T.-K. 1962. Chuannan Yaqiao Miao de hun sang lisu [Marriage and mortuary customs of the Magpie Miao, Southern Szechuan, China]. Academia Sinica, the Institute of History and Philology Monographs Series A, no. 23. Taipei: Academis Sinica.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M. and Zwicky, A. M. 1985. Speech acts distinctions in syntax. In Shopen, T. (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description. 155–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sagart, L. 1990. Chinese and Austronesian are genetically related. Paper presented at the 23rd International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, University of Texas at Arlington, 3–7 October.Google Scholar
Sagart, L. 1993. Chinese and Austronesian: Evidence for a genetic relationship. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 21 (1): 1–63.Google Scholar
Sagart, L. 1994. Old Chinese and Proto-Austronesian. Oceanic Linguistics 33: 271–308.Google Scholar
Sagart, L. 1999. The Roots of Old Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sagart, L. 2011. The Austroasiatics: East to west or west to east? In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 345–59. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Sagart, L., Blench, R. and Sanchez-Mazas, A. (eds.) 2005. The Peopling of East Asia: Putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Sagart, L., Jacques, G., Lai, Y., Ryder, R. J., Thouzeau, V., Greenhill, S. J., and List, J.-M. 2019. Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 116 (21): 10317–22. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817972116Google Scholar
Samarin, W. J. 1952 Intonation in tone languages. African Studies 11 (2): 80–2. DOI: 10.1080/00020185208706870Google Scholar
Samarin, W. J. 1970. Inventory and choice in expressive language. Word 26: 153–69.Google Scholar
Samarina, I. 2011. Jazyki gelao: Materialy k sopostavitel’nomu slovarju kadajskich jazykov [Gael Languages: Materials for a Comparative Dictionary of Kadai Languages]. Moscow: Academia.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Sarawit, M. E. 1973. The Proto-Tai vowel system. PhD dissertation. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Saul, J. E. 1964. Classifiers in Núng. Lingua 13: 278–90.Google Scholar
Schiering, R., Bickel, B. and Hildebrandt, K. A. 2010. The prosodic word is not universal, but emergent. Journal of Linguistics, 46 (3): 657–709. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226710000216Google Scholar
Schmidt, W. 1906. Die Mon-Khmer Völker: Ein bindeglied zwischen Völkern Zentralasiens und Austronesiens. Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.Google Scholar
Scott, J. C. 2009. The Art of Not Being Governed: An anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 2010. Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sebeok, T. A. 1942. An examination of the Austroasiatic language family. Language, 18 (3): 206–17.Google Scholar
Seiler, H. 1983. Possession as an Operational Dimension of Language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Seng Mai, M. 2012. A descriptive grammar of Wa. MA thesis. Payap University, Chiang Mai.Google Scholar
Shackelford, L., Demeter, F., Westaway, K., Duringer, P., Ponche, J.-L., Sayavongkhamdy, T., Zhao, J.-X., Barnes, L., Boyon, M., Sichanthongtip, P., Sénégas, F., Patole-Edoumba, E., Coppens, Y., Dumoncel, J., & Bacon, A.-M. 2018. Additional evidence for early modern human morphological diversity in Southeast Asia at Tam Pa Ling, Laos. Quaternary International 466 (Part A): 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.12.002Google Scholar
Shafer, R. 1966. Introduction to Sino-Tibetan. Part I. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Shafer, R. 1974. Introduction to Sino-Tibetan. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N. and Niemeier, S. 2008. Culture, body, and language conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Sharp, L. 1962. Cultural continuities and discontinuities in Southeast Asia. The Journal of Asian Studies 22 (1): 3–11.Google Scholar
Shee, N. H. 2008. A descriptive grammar of Geba Karen. MA thesis. Payap University, Chiang Mai.Google Scholar
Shen, X. 1989. Interplay of the four citation tones and intonation in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 17 (1): 61–74.Google Scholar
Shintani, T. 2008. The Palaung Language: The comparative lexicon of its southern dialects. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCCA).Google Scholar
Shorto, H. L. 1960. Word and syllable pattern in Palaung. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 23 (3): 544–57.Google Scholar
Shorto, H. L. 2006. A Mon-Khmer Comparative Dictionary. Edited by Sidwell, P., Cooper, D. and Bauer, C.. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. and Shohet, M. 2013. The problem of peers in Vietnamese interaction. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 19 (3): 618–38.Google Scholar
Sidwell, P. 2006. Dating the separation of Acehnese and Chamic by etymological analysis of the Aceh-Chamic lexicon. Mon-Khmer Studies, 36, 187–206.Google Scholar
Sidwell, P. 2008. The Khom script of the Kommodam Rebellion. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 192: 15–25. DOI 10.1515/IJSL.2008.032Google Scholar
Sidwell, P. 2009a. Classifying the Austroasiatic languages: History and state of the art. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Sidwell, P. 2009b. Proto-Mon-Khmer vocalism: Moving on from Shorto’s “Alternances.” Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 1. 205–14.Google Scholar
Sidwell, P. 2015. Austroasiatic classification. In Jenny, M. and Sidwell, P. (eds.) The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. 144–220. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Sidwell, P. and Blench, R. 2011. The Austroasiatic urheimat: The southeastern riverine hypothesis. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 315–43. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics .Google Scholar
Sidwell, P. and Rau, F. 2015. Austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction: An overview. In Jenny, M. and Sidwell, P. (eds.) The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. 221–363. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Simpson, A. (ed.) 2007. Language and National Identity in Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, A. and Thammasathien, N. 2007. Thailand and Laos. In Simpson, A. (ed.) Language and National Identity in Asia. 391–414. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smalley, W. A., Vang, C. K. and Yang, G. Y. 1990. Mother of Writing: The origin and development of a Hmong messianic script. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Smith, K. D. 1979. Sedang Grammar. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Smith, K. D. 1981. A lexico-statistical study of 45 Mon-Khmer languages. In Gonzalez, A. B. and Thomas, D. D. (eds.), Linguistics Across Continents. 180–205. Manila: SIL International.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. C. and Lu, T. 1997. Wuming Zhuang tone sandhi: A phonological, syntactic, and lexical investigation. In Edmondson, J. A. and Solnit, D. B. (eds.) Comparative Kadai: The Tai branch. 107–37. Dallas: SIL International.Google Scholar
So-Hartmann, H. 2009. A Descriptive Grammar of Daai Chin. STEDT Monograph 7. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Söderberg, S. 2006. The semantic domains of numeral classifiers in Kammu. Thesis. Lund University.Google Scholar
Solnit, D. B. 1985. Introduction to the Biao Min Yao language. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 14 (2): 175–91.Google Scholar
Solnit, D. B. 1988. The position of Lakkia within Tai. In Edmondson, J. A. and Solnit, D. B. (eds.) Comparative Kadai: Linguistic studies beyond Tai. 219–38. Dallas: SIL International.Google Scholar
Solnit, D. B. 1997. Eastern Kayah Li: Grammar, texts, glossary. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Song, J. J. (ed.) 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sposato, A. 2012. Relative clauses in Xong (Miao-Yao). Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 5: 49–66.Google Scholar
Sposato, A. 2015. A grammar of Xong. PhD. State University of New York.Google Scholar
Sproat, R. 2005, Language use and policy in a linguistically fragmented refugee community. Master’s dissertation. Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Srichampa, S. 1997. Serial verb constructions in Vietnamese. Mon-Khmer Studies 27: 137–44.Google Scholar
Srichampa, S. 2008. Patterns of polite expressions in Vietnamese. Mon-Khmer Studies 38: 117–47.Google Scholar
Srisakorn, P. 2008. So (Thavung) grammar. Dissertation. Mahidol University, Bangkok.Google Scholar
Stargardt, J. 2000. Tracing Thoughts through Things: The oldest Pali texts and the early Buddhist archaeology of India and Burma. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
Starosta, S. 2005. Proto-East Asian and the origin and dispersal of the languages of East and Southeast Asia and the Pacific. In Sagart, L., Blench, R. and Sanchez-Mazas, A. (eds.) The Peopling of East Asia: Putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics. 182–97. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Stocking, G. W. 1992. The Ethnographer’s Magic and Other Essays in the History of Anthropology. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Stockwell, A. J. 1992. Southeast Asia in War and Peace: The end of European colonial empires. In Tarling, N. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Vol. 2.325–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stojanowski, C. M. and Schillaci, M. A. 2006. Phenotypic approaches for understanding patterns of intracemetery biological variation. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 131 (S43): 49–88.Google Scholar
Stokoe, William. C. 1960. Sign Language Structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf. Studies in Linguistics: Occasional Papers, 8. Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo Department of Anthropology and Linguistics.Google Scholar
Stoneking, M. and Delfin, F. 2010. The human genetic history of East Asia: Weaving a complex tapestry. Current Biology 20 (4): R188–R193.Google Scholar
Sun, H. 1991. Zangmianyu yuyin he cihui [Tibeto-Burman phonology and lexicon]. Beijing: Chinese Social Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Sun, H. and Liu, G. 2009. A Grammar of Anong: Language death under intense contact. Translated and edited by Thurgood, G., Li, F. and Thurgood, E. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Suwanarat, M. and Reilly, C. (eds.) 1986. The Thai Sign Language Dictionary. Vol. 1. Bangkok: National Association of the Deaf. www.language-archives.org/item/oai:refdb.wals.info:5707Google Scholar
Svantesson, J.-O. 1989. Tonogenetic mechanisms in Northern Mon-Khmer. Phonetica 46: 60–79.Google Scholar
Svantesson, J.-O. and Holmer, A. 2015. Kammu. In Jenny, M. and Sidwell, P. (eds.) The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. 955–1002. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Svantesson, J.-O., Kam, R., Lindell, K. and Lundstrom, H. 2013. Dictionary of Kammu Yuan Language and Culture. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Swadesh, M. 1955. Chemakum lexicon compared with Quileute. International Journal of American Linguistics 21 (1): 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1086/464309Google Scholar
Swastham, P. 1982. A description of Moklen: A Malayo-Polynesian language. MA thesis. Mahidol University, Bangkok.Google Scholar
Taguchi, Y. 2013. On the phylogeny of Hmongic languages. Oral presentation presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, Bangkok. www.jseals.org/seals23/taguchi2013phylogenyp.pdfGoogle Scholar
Tang, G. 2007. Hong Kong Sign Language: A trilingual dictionary with linguistic descriptions. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.Google Scholar
Tang, G. 2015. Hong Kong sign language. In Wang, W. S-Y. and Sun, C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics. 710–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tang, C. 2018. Dialects of Chinese. In Boberg, C., Nerbonne, J. A. and Watt, D. J. L. (eds.) The Handbook of Dialectology. 547–58. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tarling, N. (ed.) 1992a. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tarling, N. (ed.) 1992b, The Cambridge history of Southeast Asia. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tarling, N. 2004. Nationalism in Southeast Asia: If the people are with us. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Taylor, K. 1992. The early kingdoms. In Tarling, N. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Vol. 1. 137–182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thangaraj, K., Chaubey, G., Reddy, A. G., Singh, V. K., Singh, L. 2006. Unique origin of Andaman Islanders: insight from autosomal loci. Journal of Human Genetics 51: 800–4. DOI: 10.1007/s10038-006-0026-0. PubMed: 16924390Google Scholar
Thoj, C. 1981. Kev tsim neej tshiab hauv Asmeslivkas. Washington, D.C: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. D. 1962. On defining the ‘word’ in Vietnamese. Van-Hóa Nguyêt-San 11 (5): 519–23.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. D. 1966. Mon-Khmer subgroupings in Vietnam. In Zide, N. H. (ed.) Studies in Comparative Austroasiatic Linguistics. 194–202. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. D. 1967. Chrau grammar: A Mon-Khmer language of Vietnam. PhD. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. D. 1971. Chrau Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. D. 1992. On sesquisyllabic structure. Mon-Khmer Studies 21: 207–10.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. D. and Headley, R. K. 1970. More on Mon-Khmer subgroupings. Lingua 25: 398–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024–3841(70)90048–3Google Scholar
Thomas, G. 2008. An analysis of the Xiamen tone circle. In Abner, N. and Bishop, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics: 422–30. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Thompson, L. 1965.A Vietnamese Grammar. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, L. 1987. A Vietnamese Reference Grammar. Mon Khmer Studies 13–14. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Thongkum, T. L. 1988. Phonation types in Mon-Khmer languages. In Fujimura, O. (ed.) Vocal Physiology: Voice production, mechanisms and functions. 319–33. New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
Thongkum, T. L. 1989. An acoustic study of the register complex in Kui (Suai). Mon-Khmer Studies 15: 1–19.Google Scholar
Thongkum, T. L. 1992. A preliminary reconstruction of Proto-Lakkja (Chan Shan Yao). Mon-Khmer Studies 20: 57–89.Google Scholar
Thongkum, T. L. 1993. A view on Proto-Mjuenic (Yao). Mon-Khmer Studies 22: 163–230.Google Scholar
Thurgood, G. 1974. Lolo-Burmese rhymes. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 1 (1): 98–107.Google Scholar
Thurgood, G. 1977. Lisu and Proto-Lolo-Burmese. Acta Orientalia 38: 147–207.Google Scholar
Thurgood, G. 1982. Subgrouping on the basis of shared phonological innovations: A Lolo-Burmese case study. In Macaulay, M., Gensler, O. D., Brugman, C., Čivkulis, I., Dahlstrom, A., Krile, K. and Sturm, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 251–60.Google Scholar
Thurgood, G. 1998. The development of the Chamic vowel system: The interaction of inheritance and borrowing. In Thomas, D. (ed.) Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics No. 15: Further Chamic Studies, 61–90. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Thurgood, G. 1999. From Ancient Cham to Modern Dialects: Two thousand years of language contact and change. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication vol. 28. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Thurgood, G. 2002. Vietnamese and tonogenesis: Revising the model and the analysis. Diachronica, 19 (2): 333–63.Google Scholar
Thurgood, G. 2003a. A subgrouping of the Sino-Tibetan languages: The interaction between language contact, chance, and inheritance. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 3–21. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thurgood, G. 2003b. Hrê contact and the origins of the Haroi restructured register system: A case of shared sound changes. In Adams, K. L. et al. (eds.) Papers from the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, Tempe, Arizona. 199–207. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.Google Scholar
Thurgood, G. 2005. Phan Rang Cham. In Adelaar, A. and Himmelmann, N. P. (eds.) The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. 489–512. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thurgood, G. 2010. Hainan Cham, Anong, and Eastern Cham: Three languages, three social contexts, three patterns of change. Journal of Language Contact – VARIA 3: 39–61.Google Scholar
Thurgood, G. 2017. Sino-Tibetan: Genetic and areal subgroups. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 2nd ed. 3–39. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thurgood, G., Edmondson, J. A. and Solnit, D. B. 1988. Notes on the reconstruction of Proto-Kam-Sui. In Edmondson, J. A. and Solnit, D. B. (eds.) Comparative Kadai: Linguistic studies beyond Tai. 179–218. Dallas: SIL International.Google Scholar
Thurgood, G., and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) 2017. The Sino-Tibetan Languages. (2nd ed.). Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thurgood, G., Thurgood, E. and Fengxiang, L. 2014. A Grammatical Sketch of Hainan Cham: History, contact, and phonology. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Tooley, M. J. and Shennan, I. (eds.) 1987. Sea Level Changes. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trần, H. M. 1967. Tones and Intonation in South Vietnamese. Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics No.1, edited by Nguyễn, Đ. L., Trần, H. M. and Dellinger, D.. Canberra: Linguistics Circle of Canberra.Google Scholar
Tun, Win Naing. 2015. Prehistory to proto-history of Myanmar: A perspective of historical geography. Paper presented at the International Conference on Burma/Myanmar Studies Burma/Myanmar in Transition: Connectivity, Changes and Challenges University Academic Service Centre (UNISERV), Chiang Mai University, Thailand, 24–25 July.Google Scholar
Turnbull, C. M. 1992. Regionalism and nationalism. In Tarling, N. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Vol. 2. 585–646. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Umaporn, S. 2007. Backchannel response in Mon conversation. Mon-Khmer Studies 37: 67–85.Google Scholar
van Breugel, S. 2014. A Grammar of Atong. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
van Driem, G. 1997. Sino-Bodic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 60 (3): 455–88.Google Scholar
van Driem, G. 2001. Languages of the Himalayas: An ethnolinguistic handbook of the Greater Himalayan region, containing an introduction to the symbiotic theory of language. Vols. 1–2. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
van Driem, G. 2002. The father tongue hypothesis: Sexually dimorphic dispersals in prehistory. Paper presented at the 17th Conference of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, Taipei.Google Scholar
van Driem, G. 2005. Sino-Austronesian vs. Sino-Causasian, Sino-Bodic vs. Sino-Tibetan, and Tibeto-Burman as default theory. In Yadava, Y., Bhattarai, G., Lohani, R. R., Prasain, B. and Parajuli, K. (eds.) Contemporary Issues in Nepalese Linguistics.285–338. Kathmandu: Linguistic Society of Nepal.Google Scholar
van Driem, G. 2007. Austroasiatic phylogeny and the Austroasiatic homeland in light of recent population genetic studies. Mon-Khmer Studies 37: 1–14.Google Scholar
van Driem, G. 2011. Rice and the Austroasiatic and Hmong-Mien homelands. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of mainland Southeast Asia. 361–90. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
van Driem, G. 2013. Trans-Himalayan. In Hill, N. and Owen-Smith, T. (eds.) Trans-Himalayan Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110310832.11Google Scholar
van Liere, W. J. 1980. Traditional water management in the Lower Mekong Basin. World Archaeology, 11 (3): 265–80.Google Scholar
van Schendel, W. 2002. Geographies of knowing, geographies of ignorance: Jumping scale in Southeast Asia. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20 (6): 647–68. https://doi.org/10.1068/d16sGoogle Scholar
VanBik, K. 1998. Lai psycho-collocations. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 21 (1): 201–33.Google Scholar
Vittrant, A. 2007. Serial verb constructions in Burmese. Paper presented at the Fédération de Typologie et Universaux Linguistiques Trajectoire Project meeting, Lyon, 9 November.Google Scholar
Vittrant, A. 2019. Burmese. In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 56–130. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) 2019. Mainland South East Asia Linguistic Area. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Voris, H. K. 2000. Maps of Pleistocene sea levels in Southeast Asia: Shorelines, river systems and time durations. Journal of Biogeography 27 (5): 1153–67.Google Scholar
Vossen, F. 2011. The Jespersen Cycle in South-East Asia, Oceania and Australia. Studies van de BKL–Travaux du CBL, 6. https://bit.ly/3dLYVaAGoogle Scholar
Wang, F. 1979. Miáoyŭ fāngyán shēngyùnmŭ bǐjiào [The comparison of initials and finals of Miao dialects]. Beijing: Nationalities Research Institute of the CASS.Google Scholar
Wang, F. 1994. Reconstruction of the Proto-Miao language. The Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Wang, F. and Mao, Z. 1995. Miáoyáoyŭ gŭyīn gòunǐ [Reconstruction of Proto-Hmong-Mien phonology]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Wang, J. and Zheng, G. 1980. Mulauyü chienchi.Google Scholar
Wang, J. and Zheng, G. 1993. An Outline Grammar of Mulao. Translated by Luo, Y.. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Wangkumhang, P., Shaw, P. J., Chaichoompu, K., Ngamphiw, C., Assawamakin, A., et al. 2013) Insight into the peopling of Mainland Southeast Asia from Thai population genetic structure. PLoS ONE 8 (11): e79522. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079522Google Scholar
Watkins, J. 2002. The Phonetics of Wa: Experimental phonetics, phonology, orthography and sociolinguistics. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. 2007. Burma/Myanmar. In Simpson, A. (ed.) Language and National Identity in Asia. 263–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. 2010. Sign language in Burma: Two Burmese finger spelling systems used in Yangon. Paper presented at Burma Studies Conference 2010: Burma in the Era of Globalization, 6–9 July, Université de Provence, Marseille. https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/10275Google Scholar
Watkins, J. 2013a. “A first account of tone in Myebon Sumtu Chin.” Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 36 (2): 97–127.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. 2013b. Dictionary of Wa. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. 2019. Wa (Paraok). In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area.432–74. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Watson, R. 2011. A case for clitics in Pacoh. In Srichampa, S., Sidwell, P. and Gregerson, K. (eds.) Austroasiatic Studies: Papers from International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics (ICAAL4). Vol. 2. Mon-Khmer Studies Special Issue 3, 222–32.Google Scholar
Wayesha, A. J. 2010. A phonological description of Leinong Naga. MA thesis. Payap University, Chiang Mai.Google Scholar
Wei, M. 2012. Xia’ao Zhuang reference grammar. PhD thesis. Shanghai Normal University.Google Scholar
Weidert, A. K. 1987. Tibeto-Burman Tonology: A comparative account. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Westaway, K. E., Louys, J., Awe, R. D., Morwood, M. J., Price, G. J., Zhao, J. X., Aubert, M., Joannes-Boyau, R., Smith, T. M., Skinner, M. M., Compton, T., Bailey, R. M., van den Bergh, G. D., de Vos, J., Pike, A. W. G., Stringer, C., Saptomo, E. W., Rizal, Y., Zaim, J., Santoso, W. D., Trihascaryo, A., Kinsley, L. and Sulistyanto, B. 2017. An early modern human presence in Sumatra 73,000–63,000 years ago. Nature 548: 322–5.Google Scholar
White, J. C. 2011. Cultural diversity in Mainland Southeast Asia: A view from prehistory. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 9–46. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, E. L. 2009. Typology of signed languages: Differentiation through kinship terminology. PhD thesis. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Wnuk, E. 2016. Semantic specificity of perception verbs in Maniq. PhD thesis. Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Wnuk, E. and Majid, A. 2014. Revisiting the limits of language: The odor lexicon of Maniq. Cognition 131 (1): 125–38.Google Scholar
Wolfenden, S. N. 1929. Outlines of Tibeto-Burman linguistic morphology: With special reference to the prefixes, infixes and suffixes of Classical Tibetan and the languages of the Kichin, Bodo, Nǎgǎ, Kuki-Chin and Burma groups. London: Royal Asiatic Society.Google Scholar
Wolters, O. W. 1967. Early Indonesian Commerce: A study of the origins of Sri Vijaya. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. 1993. Lexical evidence for the existence of South Asian and East Asian language families. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 4 (2): 91–106.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. 1996. Modern standard Thai Sign Language, influence from ASL, and its relationship to original Thai sign varieties. Sign Language Studies 92: 227–52.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. 2000. Sign languages and sign language families in Thailand and Viet Nam. In Emmorey, K. and Lane, H. (eds.) The Signs of Language Revisited: An anthology to Honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima. 23–47. Mahwah, NJ, and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. 2003. Sign languages and deaf identities in Thailand and Viet Nam. In Monaghan, L., Schmaling, C., Nakamura, K. and Turner, G. H. (eds.) Many Ways to Be Deaf: International variation in deaf communities.283–301. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. 2015. Hai Phong sign language. In Jepsen, J. B., de Clerck, G., Lutalo-Kiingi, S. and McGregor, W. B. (eds.) Sign Languages of the World: A comparative handbook. 351–60. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Woodward, J., and Suwanarat, K. 2015. Original Bangkok sign language. In Jepsen, J. B., de Clerck, G., Lutalo-Kiingi, S. and McGregor, W. B. (eds.) Sign Languages of the World: A comparative handbook. 677–86. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. and Wongchai, T. 2015. Original Chiang Mai sign language. In Jepsen, J. B., de Clerck, G., Lutalo-Kiingi, S. and McGregor, W. B. (eds.) Sign Languages of the World: A comparative handbook. 687–700. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Woodward, J., Bradford, A., Sokchea, C. and Samath, H. 2015a. Cambodian sign language. In Jepsen, J. B., de Clerck, G., Lutalo-Kiingi, S. and McGregor, W. B. (eds.) Sign Languages of the World: A comparative handbook. 159–76. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Woodward, J., Nguyen, T. H., Nguyen, D. M. G., Le, T. T. H., Luu, N. T., and Ho, T. V. 2015b. Ho Chi Minh City sign language. In Jepsen, J. B., de Clerck, G., Lutalo-Kiingi, S. and McGregor, W. B. (eds.) Sign Languages of the World: A comparative handbook. 401–18. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Woodward, J., Nguyen, T. H., Nguyen, H. L., Nguyen, T. L., Nguyen, M. N., and Nguyen, T. T. T. 2015c. Ha Noi sign language. In Jepsen, J. B., de Clerck, G., Lutalo-Kiingi, S. and McGregor, W. B. (eds.) Sign Languages of the World: A comparative handbook. 335–50. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Woodward, J., Suksiri Danthanavanich, S. and Janyawong, P. 2015d. Modern Thai sign language. In Jepsen, J. B., de Clerck, G., Lutalo-Kiingi, S. and McGregor, W. B. (eds.) Sign Languages of the World: A comparative handbook. 629–47. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wright, R. and Ladefoged, P. 1994. A phonetic study of Tsou. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 87: 67–89.Google Scholar
Wrigley, O., Suwanarat, M., Ratanasint, A., Rungsrithong, V., and Anderson, L. B. 1990. The Thai Sign Language Dictionary. Revised and expanded edition. Bangkok: National Association of the Deaf in Thailand.Google Scholar
Wu, M. 2015. A grammar of Sanjiang Kam. PhD. University of Hong Kong. http://hdl.handle.net/10722/221219Google Scholar
Wulff, K. 1934. Chinesisch und Tai: Sprachvergleichende Untersuchungen. Copenhagen: Levin and Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Yang, J. 2015. Chinese sign language. In Jepsen, J. B., de Clerck, G., Lutalo-Kiingi, S. and McGregor, W. B. (eds.) Sign Languages of the World: A comparative handbook. 177–94. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Yang, T. and Edmonson, J. A. 2008. Kam. In Diller, A., Edmondson, J. A. and Luo, Y. (eds.) The Tai-Kadai Languages. 509–84. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yip, M. 2002. Tone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yu, D. 2007. Aspects of Lisu Phonology and Grammar, a Language of Southeast Asia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Yu, J. 2010. Aizhai Miao reference grammar. PhD thesis. Minzu University of China, Beijing.Google Scholar
Zee, E. and Xu, L. 2003. Shanghai. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 131–45. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zeshan, U. 2003. Indo-Pakistani sign language grammar: A typological outline. Sign Language Studies 3 (2): 157–212. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2003.0005Google Scholar
Zeshan, U. 2004. Hand, head, and face: Negative constructions in sign languages. Linguistic Typology 8 (1): 1–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2004.003Google Scholar
Zeshan, U. (ed.) 2006. Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.Google Scholar
Zeshan, U. and de Vos, C. (eds.) 2012. Sign Languages in village communities: Anthropological and linguistic insights. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Zhang, M. and Gong, T. 2016. How many is enough? – Statistical principles for lexicostatistics. Frontiers in Psychology 7 (1916) www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01916Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Lai, Y. and Turnbull-Sailor, C. 2006. Wug-testing the ‘tone circle’ in Taiwanese. Baumer, D., Montero, D. and Scanlon, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. 453–61. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Zheng, Y. 1997. Huihui Yu Yanjiu [A study of Cham]. Shanghai: Yuandong Chuban She.Google Scholar
Zhou, G. 2000 The origin and development of the ‘disposal’ form in Bouyei language. In Burusphat, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Tai Studies. 443–56. Bangkok: Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development.Google Scholar
Zhou, Z. and Yan, Q. 2006. 佤语简志 Wa yu jianzhi [An outline of the Wa language]. Beijing: Min zu chu ban she.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • N. J. Enfield, University of Sydney
  • Book: The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia
  • Online publication: 22 March 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108605618.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • N. J. Enfield, University of Sydney
  • Book: The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia
  • Online publication: 22 March 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108605618.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • N. J. Enfield, University of Sydney
  • Book: The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia
  • Online publication: 22 March 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108605618.011
Available formats
×