{"history":[],"article":{"id":"7f508a67-59ad-4535-8e6e-8f4216cb274b","title":"Austronesian languages","slug":"austronesian-languages","content":":::summary\n**Name:** Austronesian \n**Region:** [Taiwan](https://bliptext.com/articles/taiwan), [Maritime Southeast Asia](https://bliptext.com/articles/maritime-southeast-asia), [Madagascar](https://bliptext.com/articles/madagascar), parts of [Mainland Southeast Asia](https://bliptext.com/articles/mainland-southeast-asia), [Hainan](https://bliptext.com/articles/hainan) ([China](https://bliptext.com/articles/china)), and [Oceania](https://bliptext.com/articles/oceania) \n**Familycolor:** Austronesian \n**Protoname:** [Proto-Austronesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-austronesian-language) \n**Family:** One of the world's primary [language families](https://bliptext.com/articles/language-family) \n**Child 1:** Atayalic \n**Child 2:** Bunun \n**Child 3:** East Formosan \n**Child 4:** Malayo-Polynesian \n**Child 5:** Western Plains \n**Child 6:** Northwest Formosan \n**Child 7:** Paiwan \n**Child 8:** Puyuma \n**Child 9:** Rukai \n**Child 1 0:** Tsouic \n**Iso 2:** map \n**Iso 5:** map \n**Glotto:** aust1307 \n**Glottorefname:** Austronesian \n**Map:** File:Austroneske jazyky.jpg \n**Mapcaption:** The historical distribution of Austronesian languages \n**Ethnicity:** [Austronesian peoples](https://bliptext.com/articles/austronesian-peoples) \n:::\n\n# \nThe **Austronesian languages** are a [language family](https://bliptext.com/articles/language-family) widely spoken throughout [Maritime Southeast Asia](https://bliptext.com/articles/maritime-southeast-asia), parts of [Mainland Southeast Asia](https://bliptext.com/articles/mainland-southeast-asia), [Madagascar](https://bliptext.com/articles/madagascar), the islands of the [Pacific Ocean](https://bliptext.com/articles/pacific-ocean) and [Taiwan](https://bliptext.com/articles/taiwan) (by [Taiwan](https://bliptext.com/articles/taiwan)ese indigenous peoples).\nThey are spoken by about 328 million people (4.4% of the [world population](https://bliptext.com/articles/world-population)).\nThis makes it the fifth-largest language family by number of speakers.\nMajor Austronesian languages include [Malay](https://bliptext.com/articles/malay-language) (around 250–270 million in Indonesia alone in its own literary standard named \"[Indonesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/indonesian-language)\"), [Javanese](https://bliptext.com/articles/javanese-language), [Sundanese](https://bliptext.com/articles/sundanese-language), [Tagalog](https://bliptext.com/articles/tagalog-language) (standardized as [Filipino](https://bliptext.com/articles/filipino-language) ), [Malagasy](https://bliptext.com/articles/malagasy-language) and [Cebuano](https://bliptext.com/articles/cebuano-language).\nAccording to some estimates, the family contains 1,257 languages, which is the second most of any language family.\nIn 1706, the Dutch scholar [Adriaan Reland](https://bliptext.com/articles/adriaan-reland) first observed similarities between the languages spoken in the [Malay Archipelago](https://bliptext.com/articles/malay-archipelago) and by peoples on islands in the Pacific Ocean.\nIn the 19th century, researchers (e.g. [Wilhelm von Humboldt](https://bliptext.com/articles/wilhelm-von-humboldt), [Herman van der Tuuk](https://bliptext.com/articles/herman-neubronner-van-der-tuuk)) started to apply the [comparative method](https://bliptext.com/articles/comparative-method) to the Austronesian languages.\nThe first extensive study on the history of the [phonology](https://bliptext.com/articles/phonology) was made by the German linguist [Otto Dempwolff](https://bliptext.com/articles/otto-dempwolff).\nIt included a reconstruction of the [Proto-Austronesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-austronesian-language) lexicon.\nThe term Austronesian was coined (as German austronesisch) by [Wilhelm Schmidt](https://bliptext.com/articles/wilhelm-schmidt-linguist), deriving it from [Latin](https://bliptext.com/articles/latin) **' \"south\" and [Ancient Greek](https://bliptext.com/articles/ancient-greek) '** (nêsos \"island\").\nMost Austronesian languages are spoken by island dwellers.\nOnly a few languages, such as Malay and the [Chamic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/chamic-languages), are [indigenous](https://bliptext.com/articles/indigenous-language) to mainland Asia.\nMany Austronesian languages have very few speakers, but the major Austronesian languages are spoken by tens of millions of people.\nFor example, Indonesian is spoken by around 197.7 million people.\nThis makes it the eleventh [most-spoken language in the world](https://bliptext.com/articles/lists-of-languages-by-number-of-speakers).\nApproximately twenty Austronesian languages are [official](https://bliptext.com/articles/official-language) in their respective countries (see the list of major and [official](https://bliptext.com/articles/official-language) Austronesian languages).\nBy the number of languages they include, Austronesian and [Niger–Congo](https://bliptext.com/articles/niger-congo-languages) are the two largest language families in the world.\nThey each contain roughly one-fifth of the world's languages.\nThe geographical span of Austronesian was the largest of any language family in the first half of the second millennium CE, before the spread of [Indo-European](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-european-languages) in the [colonial period](https://bliptext.com/articles/european-colonization-of-the-americas).\nIt ranged from Madagascar off the southeastern coast of Africa to [Easter Island](https://bliptext.com/articles/easter-island) in the eastern Pacific.\n[Hawaiian](https://bliptext.com/articles/hawaiian-language), [Rapa Nui](https://bliptext.com/articles/rapa-nui-language), [Māori](https://bliptext.com/articles/m-ori-language), and [Malagasy](https://bliptext.com/articles/malagasy-language) (spoken on Madagascar) are the geographic outliers.\nAccording to [Robert Blust](https://bliptext.com/articles/robert-blust) (1999), Austronesian is divided into several primary branches, all but one of which are found exclusively in Taiwan.\nThe [Formosan languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/formosan-languages) of Taiwan are grouped into as many as nine first-order subgroups of Austronesian.\nAll Austronesian languages spoken outside the Taiwan mainland (including its offshore [Yami language](https://bliptext.com/articles/yami-language)) belong to the [Malayo-Polynesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/malayo-polynesian-languages) (sometimes called Extra-Formosan) branch.\nMost Austronesian languages lack a long history of written attestation.\nThis makes reconstructing earlier stages—up to distant Proto-Austronesian—all the more remarkable.\nThe oldest inscription in the [Cham language](https://bliptext.com/articles/cham-language), the [Đông Yên Châu inscription](https://bliptext.com/articles/ng-y-n-ch-u-inscription) dated to c. 350 AD, is the first attestation of any Austronesian language.\n\n# Typological characteristics\n\n## Phonology\nThe Austronesian languages overall possess [phoneme](https://bliptext.com/articles/phoneme) inventories which are smaller than the world average.\nAround 90% of the Austronesian languages have inventories of 19–25 sounds (15–20 consonants and 4–5 vowels), thus lying at the lower end of the global typical range of 20–37 sounds.\nHowever, extreme inventories are also found, such as [Nemi](https://bliptext.com/articles/nemi-language) ([New Caledonia](https://bliptext.com/articles/new-caledonia)) with 43 consonants.\nThe canonical root type in [Proto-Austronesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-austronesian-language) is disyllabic with the shape CV(C)CVC (C = consonant; V = vowel), and is still found in many Austronesian languages.\nIn most languages, consonant clusters are only allowed in medial position, and often, there are restrictions for the first element of the cluster.\nThere is a common [drift](https://bliptext.com/articles/drift-linguistics) to reduce the number of consonants which can appear in final position, e.g. [Buginese](https://bliptext.com/articles/buginese-language), which only allows the two consonants /ŋ/ and /ʔ/ as finals, out of a total number of 18 consonants.\nComplete absence of final consonants is observed e.g. in [Nias](https://bliptext.com/articles/nias-language), [Malagasy](https://bliptext.com/articles/malagasy-language) and many [Oceanic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/oceanic-languages).\n[Tonal contrasts](https://bliptext.com/articles/tone-linguistics) are rare in Austronesian languages, although [Moken–Moklen](https://bliptext.com/articles/moklenic-languages) and a few languages of the [Chamic](https://bliptext.com/articles/chamic-languages), [South Halmahera–West New Guinea](https://bliptext.com/articles/south-halmahera-west-new-guinea-languages) and [New Caledonian](https://bliptext.com/articles/new-caledonian-languages) subgroups do show lexical tone.\n\n## Morphology\nMost Austronesian languages are [agglutinative languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/agglutination) with a relatively high number of [affixes](https://bliptext.com/articles/affix), and clear morpheme boundaries.\nMost affixes are [prefixes](https://bliptext.com/articles/prefix) ([Malay](https://bliptext.com/articles/malay-language) and [Indonesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/indonesian-language) ber-jalan 'walk' < jalan 'road'), with a smaller number of [suffixes](https://bliptext.com/articles/suffix) ([Tagalog](https://bliptext.com/articles/tagalog-language) titis-án 'ashtray' < títis 'ash') and [infixes](https://bliptext.com/articles/infix) ([Roviana](https://bliptext.com/articles/roviana-language) tavete 'work (noun)' < tavete 'work (verb)').\n[Reduplication](https://bliptext.com/articles/reduplication) is commonly employed in Austronesian languages.\nThis includes full reduplication ([Malay](https://bliptext.com/articles/malay-language) and [Indonesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/indonesian-language) anak-anak 'children' < anak 'child'; [Karo Batak](https://bliptext.com/articles/karo-batak-language) nipe-nipe 'caterpillar' < nipe 'snake') or partial reduplication ([Agta](https://bliptext.com/articles/central-cagayan-agta-language) taktakki 'legs' < takki 'leg', at-atu 'puppy' < atu 'dog').\n\n## Syntax\nIt is difficult to make generalizations about the languages that make up a family as diverse as Austronesian.\nVery broadly, one can divide the Austronesian languages into three groups: Philippine-type languages, Indonesian-type languages and post-Indonesian type languages:\n# [A 5 dollar banknote, Hawaii, c. 1839, using Hawaiian language | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Hawaii///Banknote///5///Dollars///c///1839.jpg]\n\n# Lexicon\nThe Austronesian language family has been established by the linguistic comparative method on the basis of [cognate sets](https://bliptext.com/articles/cognate), sets of words from multiple languages, which are similar in sound and meaning which can be shown to be descended from the same ancestral word in [Proto-Austronesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-austronesian-language) according to regular rules.\nSome cognate sets are very stable.\nThe word for eye in many Austronesian languages is **mata** (from the most northerly Austronesian languages, [Formosan languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/formosan-languages) such as [Bunun](https://bliptext.com/articles/bunun-language) and [Amis](https://bliptext.com/articles/amis-language) all the way south to [Māori](https://bliptext.com/articles/m-ori-language)).\nOther words are harder to reconstruct.\nThe word for two is also stable, in that it appears over the entire range of the Austronesian family, but the forms (e.g. [Bunun](https://bliptext.com/articles/bunun-language) **dusa**; [Amis](https://bliptext.com/articles/amis-language) **tusa**; [Māori](https://bliptext.com/articles/m-ori-language) **rua**) require some linguistic expertise to recognise.\nThe [Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database](https://bliptext.com/articles/austronesian-basic-vocabulary-database) gives word lists (coded for cognateness) for approximately 1000 Austronesian languages.\n\n# Classification\nThe internal structure of the Austronesian languages is complex.\nThe family consists of many similar and closely related languages with large numbers of [dialect continua](https://bliptext.com/articles/dialect-continuum), making it difficult to recognize boundaries between branches.\nThe first major step towards high-order subgrouping was Dempwolff's recognition of the [Oceanic](https://bliptext.com/articles/oceanic-languages) subgroup (called Melanesisch by Dempwolff).\nThe special position of the languages of Taiwan was first recognized by [André-Georges Haudricourt](https://bliptext.com/articles/andr-georges-haudricourt) (1965), who divided the Austronesian languages into three subgroups: Northern Austronesian (= [Formosan](https://bliptext.com/articles/formosan-languages)), Eastern Austronesian (= [Oceanic](https://bliptext.com/articles/oceanic-languages)), and Western Austronesian (all remaining languages).\nIn a study that represents the first [lexicostatistical](https://bliptext.com/articles/lexicostatistics) classification of the Austronesian languages, [Isidore Dyen](https://bliptext.com/articles/isidore-dyen) (1965) presented a radically different subgrouping scheme.\nHe posited 40 first-order subgroups, with the highest degree of diversity found in the area of [Melanesia](https://bliptext.com/articles/melanesia).\nThe Oceanic languages are not recognized, but are distributed over more than 30 of his proposed first-order subgroups.\nDyen's classification was widely criticized and for the most part rejected, but several of his lower-order subgroups are still accepted (e.g. the [Cordilleran languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/cordilleran-languages), the [Bilic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/bilic-languages) or the [Murutic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/murutic-languages)).\nSubsequently, the position of the Formosan languages as the most archaic group of Austronesian languages was recognized by [Otto Christian Dahl](https://bliptext.com/articles/otto-christian-dahl) (1973), followed by proposals from other scholars that the Formosan languages actually make up more than one first-order subgroup of Austronesian.\n[Robert Blust](https://bliptext.com/articles/robert-blust) (1977) first presented the subgrouping model which is currently accepted by virtually all scholars in the field, with more than one first-order subgroup on Taiwan, and a single first-order branch encompassing all Austronesian languages spoken outside of Taiwan, viz.\n**[Malayo-Polynesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/malayo-polynesian-languages)**.\nThe relationships of the Formosan languages to each other and the internal structure of Malayo-Polynesian continue to be debated.\n# [The distribution of the Austronesian languages, per Blust (1999). Western Malayo-Polynesian and Central Malayo-Polynesian are no longer accepted. | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Austronesian///family.png]\n\n## Primary branches on Taiwan (Formosan languages)\nIn addition to [Malayo-Polynesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/malayo-polynesian-languages), thirteen [Formosan subgroups](https://bliptext.com/articles/formosan-languages) are broadly accepted.\nThe seminal article in the classification of Formosan—and, by extension, the top-level structure of Austronesian—is.\nProminent Formosanists (linguists who specialize in Formosan languages) take issue with some of its details, but it remains the point of reference for current linguistic analyses.\nDebate centers primarily around the relationships between these families.\nOf the classifications presented here, links two families into a Western Plains group, two more in a Northwestern Formosan group, and three into an Eastern Formosan group, while also links five families into a Northern Formosan group.\nHarvey (1982), Chang (2006) and Ross (2012) split Tsouic, and Blust (2013) agrees the group is probably not valid.\nOther studies have presented phonological evidence for a reduced [Paiwanic](https://bliptext.com/articles/paiwanic-languages) family of [Paiwanic](https://bliptext.com/articles/paiwanic-languages), Puyuma, Bunun, Amis, and Malayo-Polynesian, but this is not reflected in vocabulary.\nThe Eastern Formosan peoples Basay, Kavalan, and Amis share a homeland motif that has them coming originally from an island called Sinasay or Sanasay.\nThe Amis, in particular, maintain that they came from the east, and were treated by the Puyuma, amongst whom they settled, as a subservient group.\n\n### Blust (1999)\n# [Families of Formosan languages before Minnanese colonization of Taiwan, per Blust (1999) | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Formosan///languages///en.svg]\n\n### Li (2008)\nThis classification retains Blust's East Formosan, and unites the other northern languages.\nproposes a Proto-Formosan (F0) ancestor and equates it with [Proto-Austronesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-austronesian) (PAN), following the model in Starosta (1995).\nRukai and Tsouic are seen as highly divergent, although the position of Rukai is highly controversial.\n# [Families of Formosan languages before Minnanese colonization, per . The three languages in green (Bunun, Puyuma, Paiwan) may form a Southern Formosan branch, but this is uncertain. | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Formosan///languages///2005.png]\n\n### Sagart (2004, 2021)\nSagart (2004) proposes that the numerals of the Formosan languages reflect a nested series of innovations, from languages in the northwest (near the putative landfall of the Austronesian migration from the mainland), which share only the numerals 1–4 with proto-Malayo-Polynesian, counter-clockwise to the eastern languages (purple on map), which share all numerals 1–10.\nSagart (2021) finds other shared innovations that follow the same pattern.\nHe proposes that pMP *lima 'five' is a lexical replacement (from 'hand'), and that pMP *pitu 'seven', *walu 'eight' and *Siwa 'nine' are contractions of pAN *RaCep 'five', a ligature *a or *i 'and', and *duSa 'two', *telu 'three', *Sepat 'four', an analogical pattern historically attested from [Pazeh](https://bliptext.com/articles/pazeh-language).\nThe fact that the [Kradai languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/kradai-languages) share the numeral system (and other lexical innovations) of pMP suggests that they are a coordinate branch with Malayo-Polynesian, rather than a sister family to Austronesian.\nSagart's resulting classification is:\n# [Nested branches of Austronesian languages according to Sagart. Languages colored red are outside the other branches but are not subgrouped. Kradai and Malayo-Polynesian would also be purple. | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Formosan///languages///Sagart///2021.png]\n\n## Malayo-Polynesian\nThe Malayo-Polynesian languages are—among other things—characterized by certain sound changes, such as the mergers of [Proto-Austronesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-austronesian) (PAN) *t/*C to [Proto-Malayo-Polynesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-malayo-polynesian) (PMP) *t, and PAN *n/*N to PMP *n, and the shift of PAN *S to PMP *h.\nThere appear to have been two great migrations of Austronesian languages that quickly covered large areas, resulting in multiple local groups with little large-scale structure.\nThe first was Malayo-Polynesian, distributed across the Philippines, Indonesia, and Melanesia.\nThe second migration was that of the [Oceanic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/oceanic-languages) into Polynesia and Micronesia.\n\n# Major languages\n\n# History\nFrom the standpoint of [historical linguistics](https://bliptext.com/articles/historical-linguistics), the place of origin (in linguistic terminology, [Urheimat](https://bliptext.com/articles/urheimat)) of the Austronesian languages ([Proto-Austronesian language](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-austronesian-language)) is most likely the [main island of Taiwan](https://bliptext.com/articles/taiwan), also known as Formosa; on this island the deepest divisions in Austronesian are found along small geographic distances, among the families of the native [Formosan languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/formosan-languages).\nAccording to [Robert Blust](https://bliptext.com/articles/robert-blust), the Formosan languages form nine of the ten primary branches of the Austronesian language family.\nnoted this when he wrote: \"... the internal diversity among the... Formosan languages... is greater than that in all the rest of Austronesian put together, so there is a major genetic split within Austronesian between Formosan and the rest... Indeed, the genetic diversity within Formosan is so great that it may well consist of several primary branches of the overall Austronesian family.\"At least since, writing in 1949, linguists have generally accepted that the chronology of the dispersal of languages within a given language family can be traced from the area of greatest linguistic variety to that of the least.\nFor example, English in North America has large numbers of speakers, but relatively low dialectal diversity, while English in Great Britain has much higher diversity; such low linguistic variety by Sapir's thesis suggests a more recent spread of English in North America.\nWhile some scholars suspect that the number of principal branches among the Formosan languages may be somewhat less than Blust's estimate of nine (e.g. ), there is little contention among linguists with this analysis and the resulting view of the origin and direction of the migration.\nFor a recent dissenting analysis, see.\nThe [protohistory of the Austronesian people](https://bliptext.com/articles/austronesian-peoples) can be traced farther back through time.\nTo get an idea of the original homeland of the populations ancestral to the Austronesian peoples (as opposed to strictly linguistic arguments), evidence from archaeology and [population genetics](https://bliptext.com/articles/population-genetics) may be adduced.\nStudies from the science of genetics have produced conflicting outcomes.\nSome researchers find evidence for a proto-Austronesian homeland on the Asian mainland (e.g., ), while others mirror the linguistic research, rejecting an East Asian origin in favor of Taiwan (e.g., ).\nArchaeological evidence (e.g., ) is more consistent, suggesting that the ancestors of the Austronesians spread from the South Chinese mainland to Taiwan at some time around 8,000 years ago.\nEvidence from historical linguistics suggests that it is from this island that seafaring peoples migrated, perhaps in distinct waves separated by millennia, to the entire region encompassed by the Austronesian languages.\nIt is believed that this migration began around 6,000 years ago.\nHowever, evidence from historical linguistics cannot bridge the gap between those two periods.\nThe view that linguistic evidence connects Austronesian languages to the Sino-Tibetan ones, as proposed for example by, is a minority one.\nAs states:\"Implied in... discussions of subgrouping [of Austronesian languages] is a broad consensus that the homeland of the Austronesians was in Taiwan. This homeland area may have also included the P'eng-hu (Pescadores) islands between Taiwan and China and possibly even sites on the coast of mainland China, especially if one were to view the early Austronesians as a population of related dialect communities living in scattered coastal settlements.\"Linguistic analysis of the Proto-Austronesian language stops at the western shores of Taiwan; any related mainland language(s) have not survived.\nThe only exceptions, the [Chamic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/chamic-languages), derive from more recent migration to the mainland.\nHowever, according to Ostapirat's interpretation of the seriously discussed [Austro-Tai](https://bliptext.com/articles/austro-tai-languages) hypothesis, the [Kra–Dai languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/kra-dai-languages) (also known as Tai–Kadai) are exactly those related mainland languages.\n# [800x800px | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Chronological///dispersal///of///Austronesian///people///across///the///Pacific.svg]\n\n# Hypothesized relations\nGenealogical links have been proposed between Austronesian and various families of East and [Southeast Asia](https://bliptext.com/articles/southeast-asia).\n# [An example of hypothetical Pre-Austronesian migration waves to Taiwan from the mainland. (The Amis migration from the Philippines is controversial). | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Mainland///pre-Austronesian///cultures.png]\n# [Path of Migration and Division of Some of the Major Ethnicities with their genetically distinctive markers, adapted from Edmondson and Gregerson (2007:732) . The sketched migration route M119-Baiyue from Southeast Asia corresponds to the southern origin hypothesis of early Austronesians. | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Map07TN.png]\n\n## Austro-Tai\nAn [Austro-Tai](https://bliptext.com/articles/austro-tai-languages) proposal linking Austronesian and the [Kra-Dai](https://bliptext.com/articles/kra-dai) languages of the southeastern continental Asian mainland was first proposed by [Paul K. Benedict](https://bliptext.com/articles/paul-k-benedict), and is supported by Weera Ostapirat, [Roger Blench](https://bliptext.com/articles/roger-blench), and Laurent Sagart, based on the traditional [comparative method](https://bliptext.com/articles/comparative-method).\nproposes a series of regular correspondences linking the two families and assumes a primary split, with Kra-Dai speakers being the people who stayed behind in their Chinese homeland.\nsuggests that, if the connection is valid, the relationship is unlikely to be one of two sister families.\nRather, he suggests that [proto-Kra-Dai](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-kra-dai) speakers were Austronesians who migrated to [Hainan](https://bliptext.com/articles/hainan) Island and back to the mainland from the northern Philippines, and that their distinctiveness results from radical restructuring following contact with [Hmong–Mien](https://bliptext.com/articles/hmong-mien-languages) and [Sinitic](https://bliptext.com/articles/sinitic-language).\nAn extended version of Austro-Tai was hypothesized by Benedict who added the [Japonic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/japonic-languages) to the proposal as well.\n\n## Austric\nA link with the [Austroasiatic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/austroasiatic-languages) in an '[Austric](https://bliptext.com/articles/austric)' [phylum](https://bliptext.com/articles/phylum-linguistics) is based mostly on typological evidence.\nHowever, there is also morphological evidence of a connection between the conservative [Nicobarese languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/nicobarese-languages) and Austronesian languages of the Philippines.\nRobert Blust supports the hypothesis which connects the lower Yangtze neolithic Austro-Tai entity with the rice-cultivating Austro-Asiatic cultures, assuming the center of East Asian rice domestication, and putative Austric homeland, to be located in the Yunnan/Burma border area.\nUnder that view, there was an east-west genetic alignment, resulting from a rice-based population expansion, in the southern part of East Asia: Austroasiatic-Kra-Dai-Austronesian, with unrelated Sino-Tibetan occupying a more northerly tier.\n\n## Sino-Austronesian\nFrench linguist and [Sinologist](https://bliptext.com/articles/sinology) [Laurent Sagart](https://bliptext.com/articles/laurent-sagart) considers the Austronesian languages to be related to the [Sino-Tibetan languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/sino-tibetan-languages), and also groups the [Kra–Dai languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/kra-dai-languages) as more closely related to the [Malayo-Polynesian languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/malayo-polynesian-languages).\nSagart argues for a north-south genetic relationship between Chinese and Austronesian, based on sound correspondences in the basic vocabulary and morphological parallels.\nLaurent Sagart (2017) concludes that the possession of the two kinds of millets in Taiwanese Austronesian languages (not just Setaria, as previously thought) places the pre-Austronesians in northeastern China, adjacent to the probable Sino-Tibetan homeland.\nKo et al.'s genetic research (2014) appears to support Laurent Sagart's linguistic proposal, pointing out that the exclusively Austronesian mtDNA E-haplogroup and the largely Sino-Tibetan M9a haplogroup are twin sisters, indicative of an intimate connection between the early Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan maternal gene pools, at least.\nAdditionally, results from Wei et al. (2017) are also in agreement with Sagart's proposal, in which their analyses show that the predominantly Austronesian Y-DNA haplogroup O3a2b*-P164(xM134) belongs to a newly defined haplogroup O3a2b2-N6 being widely distributed along the eastern coastal regions of Asia, from Korea to Vietnam.\nSagart also groups the Austronesian languages in a recursive-like fashion, placing Kra-Dai as a sister branch of Malayo-Polynesian.\nHis methodology has been found to be spurious by his peers.\n\n## Japanese\nSeveral linguists have proposed that [Japanese](https://bliptext.com/articles/japanese-language) is genetically related to the Austronesian family, cf.\nBenedict (1990), Matsumoto (1975), Miller (1967).\nSome other linguists think it is more plausible that Japanese is not genetically related to the Austronesian languages, but instead was influenced by an Austronesian [substratum](https://bliptext.com/articles/substrata-linguistics) or [adstratum](https://bliptext.com/articles/adstratum).\nThose who propose this scenario suggest that the Austronesian family once covered the islands to the north as well as to the south.\n[Martine Robbeets](https://bliptext.com/articles/martine-robbeets) (2017) claims that Japanese genetically belongs to the \"Transeurasian\" (= [Macro-Altaic](https://bliptext.com/articles/altaic-languages)) languages, but underwent lexical influence from \"para-Austronesian\", a presumed sister language of [Proto-Austronesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-austronesian).\nThe linguist Ann Kumar (2009) proposed that some Austronesians might have migrated to Japan, possibly an elite-group from [Java](https://bliptext.com/articles/java), and created the Japanese-hierarchical society.\nShe also identifies 82 possible cognates between Austronesian and Japanese, however her theory remains very controversial.\nThe linguist [Asha Pereltsvaig](https://bliptext.com/articles/asya-pereltsvaig) criticized Kumar's theory on several points.\nThe archaeological problem with that theory is that, contrary to the claim that there was no rice farming in China and Korea in [prehistoric times](https://bliptext.com/articles/prehistory), excavations have indicated that rice farming has been practiced in this area since at least 5000 BC. There are also genetic problems.\nThe pre-Yayoi Japanese lineage was not shared with Southeast Asians, but was shared with Northwest Chinese, [Tibetans](https://bliptext.com/articles/tibetan-people) and [Central Asians](https://bliptext.com/articles/central-asians).\nLinguistic problems were also pointed out.\nKumar did not claim that Japanese was an Austronesian language derived from proto-Javanese language, but only that it provided a superstratum language for [old Japanese](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-japanese), based on 82 plausible Javanese-Japanese cognates, mostly related to rice farming.\n\n## East Asian\nIn 2001, [Stanley Starosta](https://bliptext.com/articles/stanley-starosta) proposed a new language family named [East Asian](https://bliptext.com/articles/east-asian-languages), that includes all primary language families in the broader [East Asia](https://bliptext.com/articles/east-asia) region except [Japonic](https://bliptext.com/articles/japonic) and [Koreanic](https://bliptext.com/articles/koreanic).\nThis proposed family consists of two branches, Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan-Yangzian, with the [Kra-Dai](https://bliptext.com/articles/kra-dai) family considered to be a branch of Austronesian, and \"Yangzian\" to be a new sister branch of Sino-Tibetan consisting of the [Austroasiatic](https://bliptext.com/articles/austroasiatic) and [Hmong-Mien](https://bliptext.com/articles/hmong-mien) languages.\nThis proposal was further researched on by linguists such as Michael D. Larish in 2006, who also included the Japonic and Koreanic languages in the macrofamily.\nThe proposal has since been adopted by linguists such as [George van Driem](https://bliptext.com/articles/george-van-driem), albeit without the inclusion of Japonic and Koreanic.\n\n## Ongan\nproposed that the Austronesian and the [Ongan](https://bliptext.com/articles/ongan-languages) protolanguage are the descendants of an Austronesian–[Ongan](https://bliptext.com/articles/ongan-languages) protolanguage.\nThis view is not supported by mainstream linguists and remains very controversial.\nRobert Blust rejects Blevins' proposal as far-fetched and based solely on chance resemblances and methodologically flawed comparisons.\n\n# Writing systems\nMost Austronesian languages have [Latin](https://bliptext.com/articles/latin-script)-based writing systems today.\nSome non-Latin-based writing systems are listed below.\n\n# Comparison charts\nBelow are two charts [comparing](https://bliptext.com/articles/comparative-linguistics) list of numbers of 1–10 and thirteen words in Austronesian languages; spoken in [Taiwan](https://bliptext.com/articles/taiwan), the [Philippines](https://bliptext.com/articles/philippines), the [Mariana Islands](https://bliptext.com/articles/mariana-islands), [Indonesia](https://bliptext.com/articles/indonesia), [Malaysia](https://bliptext.com/articles/malaysia), [Chams](https://bliptext.com/articles/chams) or [Champa](https://bliptext.com/articles/champa) (in [Thailand](https://bliptext.com/articles/thailand), [Cambodia](https://bliptext.com/articles/cambodia), and [Vietnam](https://bliptext.com/articles/vietnam)), [East Timor](https://bliptext.com/articles/east-timor), [Papua](https://bliptext.com/articles/papua-region), [New Zealand](https://bliptext.com/articles/new-zealand), [Hawaii](https://bliptext.com/articles/hawaii), [Madagascar](https://bliptext.com/articles/madagascar), [Borneo](https://bliptext.com/articles/borneo), [Kiribati](https://bliptext.com/articles/kiribati), [Caroline Islands](https://bliptext.com/articles/caroline-islands), and [Tuvalu](https://bliptext.com/articles/tuvalu).","current_revision":null,"created_by":"kACnuQmH5k9Nr5VNVEpVeg7XpvUmMctD","created_at":"2025-01-25T17:40:06.230Z","updated_at":"2025-01-25T17:40:06.230Z","search_vector":"'austronesian':1 'languag':2","search_content":" \n**Name:** Austronesian \n**Region:** [Taiwan](https://bliptext.com/articles/taiwan), [Maritime Southeast Asia](https://bliptext.com/articles/maritime-southeast-asia), [Madagascar](https://bliptext.com/articles/madagascar), parts of [Mainland Southeast Asia](https://bliptext.com/articles/mainland-southeast-asia), [Hainan](https://bliptext.com/articles/hainan) ([China](https://bliptext.com/articles/china)), and [Oceania](https://bliptext.com/articles/oceania) \n**Familycolor:** Austronesian \n**Protoname:** [Proto-Austronesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-austronesian-language) \n**Family:** One of the world's primary [language families](https://bliptext.com/articles/language-family) \n**Child 1:** Atayalic \n**Child 2:** Bunun \n**Child 3:** East Formosan \n**Child 4:** Malayo-Polynesian \n**Child 5:** Western Plains \n**Child 6:** Northwest Formosan \n**Child 7:** Paiwan \n**Child 8:** Puyuma \n**Child 9:** Rukai \n**Child 1 0:** Tsouic \n**Iso 2:** map \n**Iso 5:** map \n**Glotto:** aust1307 \n**Glottorefname:** Austronesian \n**Map:** File:Austroneske jazyky.jpg \n**Mapcaption:** The historical distribution of Austronesian languages \n**Ethnicity:** [Austronesian peoples](https://bliptext.com/articles/austronesian-peoples) \n \n\n# \nThe **Austronesian languages** are a [language family](https://bliptext.com/articles/language-family) widely spoken throughout [Maritime Southeast Asia](https://bliptext.com/articles/maritime-southeast-asia), parts of [Mainland Southeast Asia](https://bliptext.com/articles/mainland-southeast-asia), [Madagascar](https://bliptext.com/articles/madagascar), the islands of the [Pacific Ocean](https://bliptext.com/articles/pacific-ocean) and [Taiwan](https://bliptext.com/articles/taiwan) (by [Taiwan](https://bliptext.com/articles/taiwan)ese indigenous peoples).\nThey are spoken by about 328 million people (4.4% of the [world population](https://bliptext.com/articles/world-population)).\nThis makes it the fifth-largest language family by number of speakers.\nMajor Austronesian languages include [Malay](https://bliptext.com/articles/malay-language) (around 250–270 million in Indonesia alone in its own literary standard named \"[Indonesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/indonesian-language)\"), [Javanese](https://bliptext.com/articles/javanese-language), [Sundanese](https://bliptext.com/articles/sundanese-language), [Tagalog](https://bliptext.com/articles/tagalog-language) (standardized as [Filipino](https://bliptext.com/articles/filipino-language) ), [Malagasy](https://bliptext.com/articles/malagasy-language) and [Cebuano](https://bliptext.com/articles/cebuano-language).\nAccording to some estimates, the family contains 1,257 languages, which is the second most of any language family.\nIn 1706, the Dutch scholar [Adriaan Reland](https://bliptext.com/articles/adriaan-reland) first observed similarities between the languages spoken in the [Malay Archipelago](https://bliptext.com/articles/malay-archipelago) and by peoples on islands in the Pacific Ocean.\nIn the 19th century, researchers (e.g. [Wilhelm von Humboldt](https://bliptext.com/articles/wilhelm-von-humboldt), [Herman van der Tuuk](https://bliptext.com/articles/herman-neubronner-van-der-tuuk)) started to apply the [comparative method](https://bliptext.com/articles/comparative-method) to the Austronesian languages.\nThe first extensive study on the history of the [phonology](https://bliptext.com/articles/phonology) was made by the German linguist [Otto Dempwolff](https://bliptext.com/articles/otto-dempwolff).\nIt included a reconstruction of the [Proto-Austronesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-austronesian-language) lexicon.\nThe term Austronesian was coined (as German austronesisch) by [Wilhelm Schmidt](https://bliptext.com/articles/wilhelm-schmidt-linguist), deriving it from [Latin](https://bliptext.com/articles/latin) **' \"south\" and [Ancient Greek](https://bliptext.com/articles/ancient-greek) '** (nêsos \"island\").\nMost Austronesian languages are spoken by island dwellers.\nOnly a few languages, such as Malay and the [Chamic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/chamic-languages), are [indigenous](https://bliptext.com/articles/indigenous-language) to mainland Asia.\nMany Austronesian languages have very few speakers, but the major Austronesian languages are spoken by tens of millions of people.\nFor example, Indonesian is spoken by around 197.7 million people.\nThis makes it the eleventh [most-spoken language in the world](https://bliptext.com/articles/lists-of-languages-by-number-of-speakers).\nApproximately twenty Austronesian languages are [official](https://bliptext.com/articles/official-language) in their respective countries (see the list of major and [official](https://bliptext.com/articles/official-language) Austronesian languages).\nBy the number of languages they include, Austronesian and [Niger–Congo](https://bliptext.com/articles/niger-congo-languages) are the two largest language families in the world.\nThey each contain roughly one-fifth of the world's languages.\nThe geographical span of Austronesian was the largest of any language family in the first half of the second millennium CE, before the spread of [Indo-European](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-european-languages) in the [colonial period](https://bliptext.com/articles/european-colonization-of-the-americas).\nIt ranged from Madagascar off the southeastern coast of Africa to [Easter Island](https://bliptext.com/articles/easter-island) in the eastern Pacific.\n[Hawaiian](https://bliptext.com/articles/hawaiian-language), [Rapa Nui](https://bliptext.com/articles/rapa-nui-language), [Māori](https://bliptext.com/articles/m-ori-language), and [Malagasy](https://bliptext.com/articles/malagasy-language) (spoken on Madagascar) are the geographic outliers.\nAccording to [Robert Blust](https://bliptext.com/articles/robert-blust) (1999), Austronesian is divided into several primary branches, all but one of which are found exclusively in Taiwan.\nThe [Formosan languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/formosan-languages) of Taiwan are grouped into as many as nine first-order subgroups of Austronesian.\nAll Austronesian languages spoken outside the Taiwan mainland (including its offshore [Yami language](https://bliptext.com/articles/yami-language)) belong to the [Malayo-Polynesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/malayo-polynesian-languages) (sometimes called Extra-Formosan) branch.\nMost Austronesian languages lack a long history of written attestation.\nThis makes reconstructing earlier stages—up to distant Proto-Austronesian—all the more remarkable.\nThe oldest inscription in the [Cham language](https://bliptext.com/articles/cham-language), the [Đông Yên Châu inscription](https://bliptext.com/articles/ng-y-n-ch-u-inscription) dated to c. 350 AD, is the first attestation of any Austronesian language.\n\n# Typological characteristics\n\n## Phonology\nThe Austronesian languages overall possess [phoneme](https://bliptext.com/articles/phoneme) inventories which are smaller than the world average.\nAround 90% of the Austronesian languages have inventories of 19–25 sounds (15–20 consonants and 4–5 vowels), thus lying at the lower end of the global typical range of 20–37 sounds.\nHowever, extreme inventories are also found, such as [Nemi](https://bliptext.com/articles/nemi-language) ([New Caledonia](https://bliptext.com/articles/new-caledonia)) with 43 consonants.\nThe canonical root type in [Proto-Austronesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-austronesian-language) is disyllabic with the shape CV(C)CVC (C = consonant; V = vowel), and is still found in many Austronesian languages.\nIn most languages, consonant clusters are only allowed in medial position, and often, there are restrictions for the first element of the cluster.\nThere is a common [drift](https://bliptext.com/articles/drift-linguistics) to reduce the number of consonants which can appear in final position, e.g. [Buginese](https://bliptext.com/articles/buginese-language), which only allows the two consonants /ŋ/ and /ʔ/ as finals, out of a total number of 18 consonants.\nComplete absence of final consonants is observed e.g. in [Nias](https://bliptext.com/articles/nias-language), [Malagasy](https://bliptext.com/articles/malagasy-language) and many [Oceanic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/oceanic-languages).\n[Tonal contrasts](https://bliptext.com/articles/tone-linguistics) are rare in Austronesian languages, although [Moken–Moklen](https://bliptext.com/articles/moklenic-languages) and a few languages of the [Chamic](https://bliptext.com/articles/chamic-languages), [South Halmahera–West New Guinea](https://bliptext.com/articles/south-halmahera-west-new-guinea-languages) and [New Caledonian](https://bliptext.com/articles/new-caledonian-languages) subgroups do show lexical tone.\n\n## Morphology\nMost Austronesian languages are [agglutinative languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/agglutination) with a relatively high number of [affixes](https://bliptext.com/articles/affix), and clear morpheme boundaries.\nMost affixes are [prefixes](https://bliptext.com/articles/prefix) ([Malay](https://bliptext.com/articles/malay-language) and [Indonesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/indonesian-language) ber-jalan 'walk' avete 'work (noun)' < tavete 'work (verb)').\n[Reduplication](https://bliptext.com/articles/reduplication) is commonly employed in Austronesian languages.\nThis includes full reduplication ([Malay](https://bliptext.com/articles/malay-language) and [Indonesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/indonesian-language) anak-anak 'children' < anak 'child'; [Karo Batak](https://bliptext.com/articles/karo-batak-language) nipe-nipe 'caterpillar' < nipe 'snake') or partial reduplication ([Agta](https://bliptext.com/articles/central-cagayan-agta-language) taktakki 'legs' < takki 'leg', at-atu 'puppy' < atu 'dog').\n\n## Syntax\nIt is difficult to make generalizations about the languages that make up a family as diverse as Austronesian.\nVery broadly, one can divide the Austronesian languages into three groups: Philippine-type languages, Indonesian-type languages and post-Indonesian type languages:\n# [A 5 dollar banknote, Hawaii, c. 1839, using Hawaiian language | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Hawaii///Banknote///5///Dollars///c///1839.jpg]\n\n# Lexicon\nThe Austronesian language family has been established by the linguistic comparative method on the basis of [cognate sets](https://bliptext.com/articles/cognate), sets of words from multiple languages, which are similar in sound and meaning which can be shown to be descended from the same ancestral word in [Proto-Austronesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-austronesian-language) according to regular rules.\nSome cognate sets are very stable.\nThe word for eye in many Austronesian languages is **mata** (from the most northerly Austronesian languages, [Formosan languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/formosan-languages) such as [Bunun](https://bliptext.com/articles/bunun-language) and [Amis](https://bliptext.com/articles/amis-language) all the way south to [Māori](https://bliptext.com/articles/m-ori-language)).\nOther words are harder to reconstruct.\nThe word for two is also stable, in that it appears over the entire range of the Austronesian family, but the forms (e.g. [Bunun](https://bliptext.com/articles/bunun-language) **dusa**; [Amis](https://bliptext.com/articles/amis-language) **tusa**; [Māori](https://bliptext.com/articles/m-ori-language) **rua**) require some linguistic expertise to recognise.\nThe [Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database](https://bliptext.com/articles/austronesian-basic-vocabulary-database) gives word lists (coded for cognateness) for approximately 1000 Austronesian languages.\n\n# Classification\nThe internal structure of the Austronesian languages is complex.\nThe family consists of many similar and closely related languages with large numbers of [dialect continua](https://bliptext.com/articles/dialect-continuum), making it difficult to recognize boundaries between branches.\nThe first major step towards high-order subgrouping was Dempwolff's recognition of the [Oceanic](https://bliptext.com/articles/oceanic-languages) subgroup (called Melanesisch by Dempwolff).\nThe special position of the languages of Taiwan was first recognized by [André-Georges Haudricourt](https://bliptext.com/articles/andr-georges-haudricourt) (1965), who divided the Austronesian languages into three subgroups: Northern Austronesian (= [Formosan](https://bliptext.com/articles/formosan-languages)), Eastern Austronesian (= [Oceanic](https://bliptext.com/articles/oceanic-languages)), and Western Austronesian (all remaining languages).\nIn a study that represents the first [lexicostatistical](https://bliptext.com/articles/lexicostatistics) classification of the Austronesian languages, [Isidore Dyen](https://bliptext.com/articles/isidore-dyen) (1965) presented a radically different subgrouping scheme.\nHe posited 40 first-order subgroups, with the highest degree of diversity found in the area of [Melanesia](https://bliptext.com/articles/melanesia).\nThe Oceanic languages are not recognized, but are distributed over more than 30 of his proposed first-order subgroups.\nDyen's classification was widely criticized and for the most part rejected, but several of his lower-order subgroups are still accepted (e.g. the [Cordilleran languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/cordilleran-languages), the [Bilic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/bilic-languages) or the [Murutic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/murutic-languages)).\nSubsequently, the position of the Formosan languages as the most archaic group of Austronesian languages was recognized by [Otto Christian Dahl](https://bliptext.com/articles/otto-christian-dahl) (1973), followed by proposals from other scholars that the Formosan languages actually make up more than one first-order subgroup of Austronesian.\n[Robert Blust](https://bliptext.com/articles/robert-blust) (1977) first presented the subgrouping model which is currently accepted by virtually all scholars in the field, with more than one first-order subgroup on Taiwan, and a single first-order branch encompassing all Austronesian languages spoken outside of Taiwan, viz.\n**[Malayo-Polynesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/malayo-polynesian-languages)**.\nThe relationships of the Formosan languages to each other and the internal structure of Malayo-Polynesian continue to be debated.\n# [The distribution of the Austronesian languages, per Blust (1999). Western Malayo-Polynesian and Central Malayo-Polynesian are no longer accepted. | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Austronesian///family.png]\n\n## Primary branches on Taiwan (Formosan languages)\nIn addition to [Malayo-Polynesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/malayo-polynesian-languages), thirteen [Formosan subgroups](https://bliptext.com/articles/formosan-languages) are broadly accepted.\nThe seminal article in the classification of Formosan—and, by extension, the top-level structure of Austronesian—is.\nProminent Formosanists (linguists who specialize in Formosan languages) take issue with some of its details, but it remains the point of reference for current linguistic analyses.\nDebate centers primarily around the relationships between these families.\nOf the classifications presented here, links two families into a Western Plains group, two more in a Northwestern Formosan group, and three into an Eastern Formosan group, while also links five families into a Northern Formosan group.\nHarvey (1982), Chang (2006) and Ross (2012) split Tsouic, and Blust (2013) agrees the group is probably not valid.\nOther studies have presented phonological evidence for a reduced [Paiwanic](https://bliptext.com/articles/paiwanic-languages) family of [Paiwanic](https://bliptext.com/articles/paiwanic-languages), Puyuma, Bunun, Amis, and Malayo-Polynesian, but this is not reflected in vocabulary.\nThe Eastern Formosan peoples Basay, Kavalan, and Amis share a homeland motif that has them coming originally from an island called Sinasay or Sanasay.\nThe Amis, in particular, maintain that they came from the east, and were treated by the Puyuma, amongst whom they settled, as a subservient group.\n\n### Blust (1999)\n# [Families of Formosan languages before Minnanese colonization of Taiwan, per Blust (1999) | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Formosan///languages///en.svg]\n\n### Li (2008)\nThis classification retains Blust's East Formosan, and unites the other northern languages.\nproposes a Proto-Formosan (F0) ancestor and equates it with [Proto-Austronesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-austronesian) (PAN), following the model in Starosta (1995).\nRukai and Tsouic are seen as highly divergent, although the position of Rukai is highly controversial.\n# [Families of Formosan languages before Minnanese colonization, per . The three languages in green (Bunun, Puyuma, Paiwan) may form a Southern Formosan branch, but this is uncertain. | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Formosan///languages///2005.png]\n\n### Sagart (2004, 2021)\nSagart (2004) proposes that the numerals of the Formosan languages reflect a nested series of innovations, from languages in the northwest (near the putative landfall of the Austronesian migration from the mainland), which share only the numerals 1–4 with proto-Malayo-Polynesian, counter-clockwise to the eastern languages (purple on map), which share all numerals 1–10.\nSagart (2021) finds other shared innovations that follow the same pattern.\nHe proposes that pMP *lima 'five' is a lexical replacement (from 'hand'), and that pMP *pitu 'seven', *walu 'eight' and *Siwa 'nine' are contractions of pAN *RaCep 'five', a ligature *a or *i 'and', and *duSa 'two', *telu 'three', *Sepat 'four', an analogical pattern historically attested from [Pazeh](https://bliptext.com/articles/pazeh-language).\nThe fact that the [Kradai languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/kradai-languages) share the numeral system (and other lexical innovations) of pMP suggests that they are a coordinate branch with Malayo-Polynesian, rather than a sister family to Austronesian.\nSagart's resulting classification is:\n# [Nested branches of Austronesian languages according to Sagart. Languages colored red are outside the other branches but are not subgrouped. Kradai and Malayo-Polynesian would also be purple. | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Formosan///languages///Sagart///2021.png]\n\n## Malayo-Polynesian\nThe Malayo-Polynesian languages are—among other things—characterized by certain sound changes, such as the mergers of [Proto-Austronesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-austronesian) (PAN) *t/*C to [Proto-Malayo-Polynesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-malayo-polynesian) (PMP) *t, and PAN *n/*N to PMP *n, and the shift of PAN *S to PMP *h.\nThere appear to have been two great migrations of Austronesian languages that quickly covered large areas, resulting in multiple local groups with little large-scale structure.\nThe first was Malayo-Polynesian, distributed across the Philippines, Indonesia, and Melanesia.\nThe second migration was that of the [Oceanic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/oceanic-languages) into Polynesia and Micronesia.\n\n# Major languages\n\n# History\nFrom the standpoint of [historical linguistics](https://bliptext.com/articles/historical-linguistics), the place of origin (in linguistic terminology, [Urheimat](https://bliptext.com/articles/urheimat)) of the Austronesian languages ([Proto-Austronesian language](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-austronesian-language)) is most likely the [main island of Taiwan](https://bliptext.com/articles/taiwan), also known as Formosa; on this island the deepest divisions in Austronesian are found along small geographic distances, among the families of the native [Formosan languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/formosan-languages).\nAccording to [Robert Blust](https://bliptext.com/articles/robert-blust), the Formosan languages form nine of the ten primary branches of the Austronesian language family.\nnoted this when he wrote: \"... the internal diversity among the... Formosan languages... is greater than that in all the rest of Austronesian put together, so there is a major genetic split within Austronesian between Formosan and the rest... Indeed, the genetic diversity within Formosan is so great that it may well consist of several primary branches of the overall Austronesian family.\"At least since, writing in 1949, linguists have generally accepted that the chronology of the dispersal of languages within a given language family can be traced from the area of greatest linguistic variety to that of the least.\nFor example, English in North America has large numbers of speakers, but relatively low dialectal diversity, while English in Great Britain has much higher diversity; such low linguistic variety by Sapir's thesis suggests a more recent spread of English in North America.\nWhile some scholars suspect that the number of principal branches among the Formosan languages may be somewhat less than Blust's estimate of nine (e.g. ), there is little contention among linguists with this analysis and the resulting view of the origin and direction of the migration.\nFor a recent dissenting analysis, see.\nThe [protohistory of the Austronesian people](https://bliptext.com/articles/austronesian-peoples) can be traced farther back through time.\nTo get an idea of the original homeland of the populations ancestral to the Austronesian peoples (as opposed to strictly linguistic arguments), evidence from archaeology and [population genetics](https://bliptext.com/articles/population-genetics) may be adduced.\nStudies from the science of genetics have produced conflicting outcomes.\nSome researchers find evidence for a proto-Austronesian homeland on the Asian mainland (e.g., ), while others mirror the linguistic research, rejecting an East Asian origin in favor of Taiwan (e.g., ).\nArchaeological evidence (e.g., ) is more consistent, suggesting that the ancestors of the Austronesians spread from the South Chinese mainland to Taiwan at some time around 8,000 years ago.\nEvidence from historical linguistics suggests that it is from this island that seafaring peoples migrated, perhaps in distinct waves separated by millennia, to the entire region encompassed by the Austronesian languages.\nIt is believed that this migration began around 6,000 years ago.\nHowever, evidence from historical linguistics cannot bridge the gap between those two periods.\nThe view that linguistic evidence connects Austronesian languages to the Sino-Tibetan ones, as proposed for example by, is a minority one.\nAs states:\"Implied in... discussions of subgrouping [of Austronesian languages] is a broad consensus that the homeland of the Austronesians was in Taiwan. This homeland area may have also included the P'eng-hu (Pescadores) islands between Taiwan and China and possibly even sites on the coast of mainland China, especially if one were to view the early Austronesians as a population of related dialect communities living in scattered coastal settlements.\"Linguistic analysis of the Proto-Austronesian language stops at the western shores of Taiwan; any related mainland language(s) have not survived.\nThe only exceptions, the [Chamic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/chamic-languages), derive from more recent migration to the mainland.\nHowever, according to Ostapirat's interpretation of the seriously discussed [Austro-Tai](https://bliptext.com/articles/austro-tai-languages) hypothesis, the [Kra–Dai languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/kra-dai-languages) (also known as Tai–Kadai) are exactly those related mainland languages.\n# [800x800px | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Chronological///dispersal///of///Austronesian///people///across///the///Pacific.svg]\n\n# Hypothesized relations\nGenealogical links have been proposed between Austronesian and various families of East and [Southeast Asia](https://bliptext.com/articles/southeast-asia).\n# [An example of hypothetical Pre-Austronesian migration waves to Taiwan from the mainland. (The Amis migration from the Philippines is controversial). | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Mainland///pre-Austronesian///cultures.png]\n# [Path of Migration and Division of Some of the Major Ethnicities with their genetically distinctive markers, adapted from Edmondson and Gregerson (2007:732) . The sketched migration route M119-Baiyue from Southeast Asia corresponds to the southern origin hypothesis of early Austronesians. | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Map07TN.png]\n\n## Austro-Tai\nAn [Austro-Tai](https://bliptext.com/articles/austro-tai-languages) proposal linking Austronesian and the [Kra-Dai](https://bliptext.com/articles/kra-dai) languages of the southeastern continental Asian mainland was first proposed by [Paul K. Benedict](https://bliptext.com/articles/paul-k-benedict), and is supported by Weera Ostapirat, [Roger Blench](https://bliptext.com/articles/roger-blench), and Laurent Sagart, based on the traditional [comparative method](https://bliptext.com/articles/comparative-method).\nproposes a series of regular correspondences linking the two families and assumes a primary split, with Kra-Dai speakers being the people who stayed behind in their Chinese homeland.\nsuggests that, if the connection is valid, the relationship is unlikely to be one of two sister families.\nRather, he suggests that [proto-Kra-Dai](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-kra-dai) speakers were Austronesians who migrated to [Hainan](https://bliptext.com/articles/hainan) Island and back to the mainland from the northern Philippines, and that their distinctiveness results from radical restructuring following contact with [Hmong–Mien](https://bliptext.com/articles/hmong-mien-languages) and [Sinitic](https://bliptext.com/articles/sinitic-language).\nAn extended version of Austro-Tai was hypothesized by Benedict who added the [Japonic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/japonic-languages) to the proposal as well.\n\n## Austric\nA link with the [Austroasiatic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/austroasiatic-languages) in an '[Austric](https://bliptext.com/articles/austric)' [phylum](https://bliptext.com/articles/phylum-linguistics) is based mostly on typological evidence.\nHowever, there is also morphological evidence of a connection between the conservative [Nicobarese languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/nicobarese-languages) and Austronesian languages of the Philippines.\nRobert Blust supports the hypothesis which connects the lower Yangtze neolithic Austro-Tai entity with the rice-cultivating Austro-Asiatic cultures, assuming the center of East Asian rice domestication, and putative Austric homeland, to be located in the Yunnan/Burma border area.\nUnder that view, there was an east-west genetic alignment, resulting from a rice-based population expansion, in the southern part of East Asia: Austroasiatic-Kra-Dai-Austronesian, with unrelated Sino-Tibetan occupying a more northerly tier.\n\n## Sino-Austronesian\nFrench linguist and [Sinologist](https://bliptext.com/articles/sinology) [Laurent Sagart](https://bliptext.com/articles/laurent-sagart) considers the Austronesian languages to be related to the [Sino-Tibetan languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/sino-tibetan-languages), and also groups the [Kra–Dai languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/kra-dai-languages) as more closely related to the [Malayo-Polynesian languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/malayo-polynesian-languages).\nSagart argues for a north-south genetic relationship between Chinese and Austronesian, based on sound correspondences in the basic vocabulary and morphological parallels.\nLaurent Sagart (2017) concludes that the possession of the two kinds of millets in Taiwanese Austronesian languages (not just Setaria, as previously thought) places the pre-Austronesians in northeastern China, adjacent to the probable Sino-Tibetan homeland.\nKo et al.'s genetic research (2014) appears to support Laurent Sagart's linguistic proposal, pointing out that the exclusively Austronesian mtDNA E-haplogroup and the largely Sino-Tibetan M9a haplogroup are twin sisters, indicative of an intimate connection between the early Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan maternal gene pools, at least.\nAdditionally, results from Wei et al. (2017) are also in agreement with Sagart's proposal, in which their analyses show that the predominantly Austronesian Y-DNA haplogroup O3a2b*-P164(xM134) belongs to a newly defined haplogroup O3a2b2-N6 being widely distributed along the eastern coastal regions of Asia, from Korea to Vietnam.\nSagart also groups the Austronesian languages in a recursive-like fashion, placing Kra-Dai as a sister branch of Malayo-Polynesian.\nHis methodology has been found to be spurious by his peers.\n\n## Japanese\nSeveral linguists have proposed that [Japanese](https://bliptext.com/articles/japanese-language) is genetically related to the Austronesian family, cf.\nBenedict (1990), Matsumoto (1975), Miller (1967).\nSome other linguists think it is more plausible that Japanese is not genetically related to the Austronesian languages, but instead was influenced by an Austronesian [substratum](https://bliptext.com/articles/substrata-linguistics) or [adstratum](https://bliptext.com/articles/adstratum).\nThose who propose this scenario suggest that the Austronesian family once covered the islands to the north as well as to the south.\n[Martine Robbeets](https://bliptext.com/articles/martine-robbeets) (2017) claims that Japanese genetically belongs to the \"Transeurasian\" (= [Macro-Altaic](https://bliptext.com/articles/altaic-languages)) languages, but underwent lexical influence from \"para-Austronesian\", a presumed sister language of [Proto-Austronesian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-austronesian).\nThe linguist Ann Kumar (2009) proposed that some Austronesians might have migrated to Japan, possibly an elite-group from [Java](https://bliptext.com/articles/java), and created the Japanese-hierarchical society.\nShe also identifies 82 possible cognates between Austronesian and Japanese, however her theory remains very controversial.\nThe linguist [Asha Pereltsvaig](https://bliptext.com/articles/asya-pereltsvaig) criticized Kumar's theory on several points.\nThe archaeological problem with that theory is that, contrary to the claim that there was no rice farming in China and Korea in [prehistoric times](https://bliptext.com/articles/prehistory), excavations have indicated that rice farming has been practiced in this area since at least 5000 BC. There are also genetic problems.\nThe pre-Yayoi Japanese lineage was not shared with Southeast Asians, but was shared with Northwest Chinese, [Tibetans](https://bliptext.com/articles/tibetan-people) and [Central Asians](https://bliptext.com/articles/central-asians).\nLinguistic problems were also pointed out.\nKumar did not claim that Japanese was an Austronesian language derived from proto-Javanese language, but only that it provided a superstratum language for [old Japanese](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-japanese), based on 82 plausible Javanese-Japanese cognates, mostly related to rice farming.\n\n## East Asian\nIn 2001, [Stanley Starosta](https://bliptext.com/articles/stanley-starosta) proposed a new language family named [[East Asia](https://bliptext.com/articles/east-asia)n](https://bliptext.com/articles/east-asian-languages), that includes all primary language families in the broader [East Asia](https://bliptext.com/articles/east-asia) region except [Japonic](https://bliptext.com/articles/japonic) and [Koreanic](https://bliptext.com/articles/koreanic).\nThis proposed family consists of two branches, Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan-Yangzian, with the [Kra-Dai](https://bliptext.com/articles/kra-dai) family considered to be a branch of Austronesian, and \"Yangzian\" to be a new sister branch of Sino-Tibetan consisting of the [Austroasiatic](https://bliptext.com/articles/austroasiatic) and [Hmong-Mien](https://bliptext.com/articles/hmong-mien) languages.\nThis proposal was further researched on by linguists such as Michael D. Larish in 2006, who also included the Japonic and Koreanic languages in the macrofamily.\nThe proposal has since been adopted by linguists such as [George van Driem](https://bliptext.com/articles/george-van-driem), albeit without the inclusion of Japonic and Koreanic.\n\n## Ongan\nproposed that the Austronesian and the [Ongan](https://bliptext.com/articles/ongan-languages) protolanguage are the descendants of an Austronesian–[Ongan](https://bliptext.com/articles/ongan-languages) protolanguage.\nThis view is not supported by mainstream linguists and remains very controversial.\nRobert Blust rejects Blevins' proposal as far-fetched and based solely on chance resemblances and methodologically flawed comparisons.\n\n# Writing systems\nMost Austronesian languages have [Latin](https://bliptext.com/articles/latin-script)-based writing systems today.\nSome non-Latin-based writing systems are listed below.\n\n# Comparison charts\nBelow are two charts [comparing](https://bliptext.com/articles/comparative-linguistics) list of numbers of 1–10 and thirteen words in Austronesian languages; spoken in [Taiwan](https://bliptext.com/articles/taiwan), the [Philippines](https://bliptext.com/articles/philippines), the [Mariana Islands](https://bliptext.com/articles/mariana-islands), [Indonesia](https://bliptext.com/articles/indonesia), [Malaysia](https://bliptext.com/articles/malaysia), [Chams](https://bliptext.com/articles/chams) or [Champa](https://bliptext.com/articles/champa) (in [Thailand](https://bliptext.com/articles/thailand), [Cambodia](https://bliptext.com/articles/cambodia), and [Vietnam](https://bliptext.com/articles/vietnam)), [East Timor](https://bliptext.com/articles/east-timor), [Papua](https://bliptext.com/articles/papua-region), [New Zealand](https://bliptext.com/articles/new-zealand), [Hawaii](https://bliptext.com/articles/hawaii), [Madagascar](https://bliptext.com/articles/madagascar), [Borneo](https://bliptext.com/articles/borneo), [Kiribati](https://bliptext.com/articles/kiribati), [Caroline Islands](https://bliptext.com/articles/caroline-islands), and [Tuvalu](https://bliptext.com/articles/tuvalu).","revisionCount":0},"hasMore":false,"nextCursor":null}