Cover not available

Article published In: Diachronica
Vol. 42:5 (2025) ► pp.646–698

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Late Malayo-Polynesian

A new model of Austronesian linguistic relations

ORCiD logo with link | Fudan University
Published online: 31 July 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.23062.smi
Abstract
Models of higher-order Austronesian linguistic relations have traditionally involved the grouping of languages into large higher-order subgroups. In the Malayo-Polynesian subgroup, that tradition has led to the creation of subgroups covering great geographical distances all modeled as descending directly from the Malayo-Polynesian node. This research argues that the evidence for those large subgroups does not stand under scrutiny. Rather, the distribution of innovations throughout the Malayo-Polynesian region suggests that those innovations spread within a large network of dialects. That network, here dubbed the “Late-Malayo-Polynesian” network, replaces discrete higher-level nodes in the classical model of Austronesian linguistic relations.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1A new proposal for Malayo-Polynesian subgrouping
    • 1.2Parallels to LMP
    • 1.3A note on contact, Malayo-Polynesian-internal migration, and the LMP model
    • 1.4Outline
  • 2.Types of linguistic relation and corresponding models
    • 2.1Trees and subgroups, waves and linkages
    • 2.2Innovation distribution in linkages
    • 2.3Contact zones
    • 2.4Innovation quality
  • 3.The Philippines
    • 3.1Philippine linkage and the conflation of evidence
    • 3.2Distribution of Philippine evidence
    • 3.3Chamorro and the leveling event
    • 3.4Summary of the Philippine evidence
  • 4.Central Malayo-Polynesian
    • 4.1Central Malayo-Polynesian phonological evidence
      • 4.1.1Glide truncation
      • 4.1.2Postnasal voicing of stops
    • 4.2Lexical innovations
    • 4.3What is CMP?
  • 5.Eastern Malayo-Polynesian
  • 6.Central-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian
  • 7.Remaining subgroups
    • 7.1Western Indonesian
    • 7.2Malayo-Polynesian Isolates
    • 7.3Larger subgroups that evolved within the LMP zone
  • 8.Links in the chain
    • 8.1The Philippines and Northern Borneo
    • 8.2The transition to “CEMP”
    • 8.3From Central-Eastern to Central and Eastern
    • 8.4Summary of the LMP links
  • 9.Conclusion. A new model for Malayo-Polynesian linguistic relations
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (85)
References
Adelaar, K. Alexander. 1994. The classification of the Tamanic languages (West Kalimantan). In Tom Dutton & Darrell T. Tryon (eds.), Language contact and change in the Austronesian world (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 77), 1–41. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: A historical perspective. In K. Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar (Routledge Language Family Series 7), 1–43. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bellwood, Peter. 1984. A hypothesis for Austronesian origins. Asian Perspectives 261. 107–117.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. The earthenware pottery from the North Moluccan excavations. In Peter Bellwood (ed.), The Spice Islands in prehistory: Archaeology in the Northern Moluccas, Indonesia (Terra Australis 50), 81–106. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Billings, Blaine & Bradley McDonnell. 2024. Sumatran. Oceanic Linguistics 63(1). 112–174.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blust, Robert. 1977. The Proto-Austronesian pronouns and Austronesian subgrouping: A preliminary report. Working Papers in Linguistics 9(2). 1–15.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1978. Eastern Malayo-Polynesian: a subgrouping argument. In S. A. Wurm (ed.), Second International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics: Proceedings, 181–234. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1985. The Austronesian homeland: A linguistic perspective. Asian Perspectives 261. 45–67.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993. Central and Central-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian. Oceanic Linguistics 32(2). 241–293.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics. In Elizabeth Zeitoun & Paul J. K. Li (eds.), Selected papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (Symposium Series of the Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica 1), 31–94. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Chamorro historical phonology. Oceanic Linguistics 391. 83–122.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. The position of the languages of Eastern Indonesia: A reply to Donohue and Grimes. Oceanic Linguistics 48(1). 36–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. The Greater North Borneo hypothesis. Oceanic Linguistics 491. 44–118.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. The marsupials strike back: A reply to Schapper (2011). Oceanic Linguistics 51(2). 261–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. The Austronesian languages. 2nd edn. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. The resurrection of Proto-Philippines. Oceanic Linguistics 58(2). 153–256.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. Response to comments on “The resurrection of Proto-Philippines.” Oceanic Linguistics 591. 450–479.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blust, Robert, Stephen Trussel & Alexander D. Smith. 2023. CLDF dataset derived from Blust’s “Austronesian Comparative Dictionary” (v1.2). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bostoen, Koen & Claire Grégoire. 2007. La question Bantoue: bilan et perspectives. Tradition et rupture dans les grammaires comparées de différentes familles de langues (Mémoires de La Société de Linguistique de Paris, Nouvelle Série). Paris XV1. 73–91.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bynon, Theodora. 1977. Historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Victoria, Jonathan Kuo, Maria Kristina S. Gallego & Issac Stead. 2023. Is Malayo- Polynesian a primary branch of Austronesian? A view from morphosyntax. Diachronica 39(4). 449–489.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahl, Otto Chr. 1976. Proto-Austronesian (Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Monograph Series 15). 2nd edn. London: Curzon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daigle, Benjamin T. 2015. A grammar sketch of Batuley: An Austronesian language of Aru, eastern Indonesia. Master’s Thesis, Leiden University. [URL]
Dalby, David. 1976. The prehistorical implications of Guthrie’s comparative Bantu. Part II: Interpretation of cultural vocabulary. The Journal of African History. Cambridge University Press 17(1). 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diamond, Jared & Peter Bellwood. 2003. Farmers and their languages: The first expansions. Science 300(5619). 597–603. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Charles E. Grimes. 2008. Yet more on the position of the languages of Eastern Indonesia and East Timor. Oceanic Linguistics 47(1). 114–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dyen, Isidore. 1965a. The position of the Malayopolynesian languages of Formosa. Asian Perspectives 7(1–2). 261–271.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1965b. A lexicostatistical classification of the Austronesian languages (Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics, and Memoir 19 of the International Journal of American Linguistics). Baltimore: The Waverly Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. Homomeric lexical classification. In Philip Baldi (ed.), Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs), 211–230. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edwards, Owen. 2015. The position of Enggano within Austronesian. Oceanic Linguistics 54(1). 54–109.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. Rote-Meto comparative dictionary. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
François, Alexandre. 2014. Trees, waves, and linkages: Models of language diversification. In Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 161–189. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gray, Russell D., A. J. Drummond & Simon J. Greenhill. 2009. Language phylogenies reveal expansion pulses and pauses in Pacific settlement. Science 3231. 479–483.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grimes, Charles E. & Owen Edwards. to appear. The Austronesian languages of eastern Indonesia and Timor-Leste: Unravelling their prehistory and classification. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath & Sebastian Bank. 2023. Glottolog 4.7. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harvey, Mark. 1982. Subgroups in Austronesian. In Amran Halim, Louis Carrington & Stephen A. Wurm (eds.), Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics: Tracking the travelers, vol. 21, 47–99. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heggarty, Paul, Warren Maguire & April McMahon. 2010. Splits or waves? Trees or webs? How divergence measures and network analysis can unravel language histories. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 3651. 3829–3843.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herman, József. 2000. Vulgar Latin. (Trans.) Roger Wright. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 2021. Principles of historical linguistics (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 34). 3rd edn. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume & Johan-Mattis List. 2019. Save the trees: Why we need tree models in linguistic reconstruction (and when we should apply them). Journal of Historical Linguistics 9(1). 128–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamholz, David Christopher. 2014. Austronesians in Papua: Diversification and change in South Halmahera–West New Guinea. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley PhD dissertation.
Kirch, Patrick. 2002. On the road of the winds: An archaeological history of the Pacific islands. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 2019. The dispersal of Austronesian languages in Island South East Asia: Current findings and debates. Lang Linguist Compass 131. e12325. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larish, Michael D. 1999. The position of Moken and Moklen within the Austronesian language family. University of Hawai`i PhD dissertation.
Li, Fang-kuei. 1973. Languages and dialects of China. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1(1). 1–13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liao, Hsiu-chuan. 2020. A reply to Blust 2019 “The resurrection of Proto-Philippines.” Oceanic Linguistics 591. 426–449.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mead, David. 2003. Evidence for a Celebic supergroup. In John Lynch (ed.), Issues in Austronesian historical phonology, 115–141. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mills, Roger. 1975. Proto-South Sulawesi and Proto-Austronesian phonology. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor PhD dissertation.
Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. 1985. Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics 12(2). 339–384.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norman, Jerry. 1988. Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew & Roger C. Green. 1984. The Proto-Oceanic language community. Journal of Pacific History 191. 123–146.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew & Malcolm Ross. 1993. Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history. Annual Review of Anthropology 221. 425–459. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Posner, Rebecca. 1996. The Romance languages (Cambridge Language Surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prentice, D. J. 1971. The Murut languages of Sabah. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reid, Lawrence A. 1982. The demise of Proto-Philippines. In Amran Halim, Lois Carrington & Stephen A. Wurm (eds.), Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, vol. 21, 201–216. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018. Modeling the linguistic situation in the Philippines. Senri Ethnological Studies 981. 91–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2020. Response to Blust “The resurrection of Proto-Philippines.” Oceanic Linguistics 591. 374–393.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 1988. Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian languages of western Melanesia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Some current issues in Austronesian linguistics. In Darrell T. Tryon (ed.), Comparative Austronesian dictionary: An introduction to Austronesian studies, 45–120. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. Social networks and kinds of speech-community event. In Roger M. Blench & Matthew Spriggs (eds.), Archaeology and language 1: Theoretical and methodological orientations, 209–261. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. The Batanic languages in relation to the early history of the Malayo-Polynesian subgroup of Austronesian. Journal of Austronesian Studies 1(2). 1–24.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Proto-Austronesian verbal morphology: A reappraisal. In K. Alexander Adelaar & Andrew Pawley (eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Robert Blust, 295–326. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. In defense of nuclear Austronesian (and against Tsouic). Language and Linguistics 13(6). 1253–1330.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. Comment on Blust “The resurrection of Proto-Philippines.” Oceanic Linguistics 591. 366–373.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schapper, Antoinette. 2011. Phalanger facts: Notes on Blust’s marsupial reconstructions. Oceanic Linguistics 50(1). 258–272. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Wallacea, a linguistic area. Archipel 901. 99–151.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schleicher, August. 1853a. Die ersten Spaltungen des indogermanischen Urvolkes. Allgemeine Monatsschrift für Wissenschaft und Literatur 31. 786–787.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1853b. O jazyku litevském, zvlástě ohledem na slovanský června [On the Lithuanian language, especially with regard to the Slavonic June]. Časopis Českého Museum 271. 320–334.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmidt, Johannes. 1872. Die Verwantschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1900. Über die Klassifikation der romanischen Mundarten: Probe-Vorlesung, gehalten zu Leipzig am 30 April 1870. Graz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Alexander D. 2017a. The Western Malayo-Polynesian problem. Oceanic Linguistics 56(2). 435–490. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017b. The languages of Borneo: A comprehensive classification. Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaii PhD dissertation.
2018. Kayanic comparative vocabularies. Kaipuleohone Digital Language Archive. [URL]
2020. Nasalization in Enggano historical phonology. Oceanic Linguistics 59(1/2). 347–365. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2023. Evidence and models of linguistic relations: Subgroups, linkages, lexical innovations, and Borneo. Oceanic Linguistics 62(2). 324–365. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2024. Internal classification of Malayo-Polynesian. In K. Alexander Adelaar & Antoinette Schapper (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Malayo-Polynesian languages of Southeast Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Alexander. D. 2025. Supporting datasets for Late Malayo-Polynesian Hypothesis [Data set]. Zenodo. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Starosta, Stanley. 1995. A grammatical subgrouping of Formosan languages. In Paul Jen-kuei Li, Cheng-hwa Tsang, Ying-kuei Huang, Dah-an Ho & Chiu-yu Tseng (eds.), Austronesian studies relating to Taiwan (Symposium Series of the Institute of History and Philology 3), 683–726. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thurgood, Graham. 1999. From ancient Cham to modern dialects: Two thousand years of language contact and change: With an appendix of Chamic reconstructions and loanwords (Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication 28). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ting, Pang-hsin. 1982. Hanyu fangyan qufen de tiaojian. [Qinghua Journal of Chinese Studies] 141. 263–291.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Li. 1936. Zhongguo yinyun xue. [Zhongguo phonology]. Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ward, J. V., J. S. Athens & C. Hotton. 1998. Holocene pollen records from Babeldaob island, Palau, Western Caroline islands. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, Seattle, March 29, 1998.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Stacy F. Teng. 2016. Reassessing the position of Kanakanavu and Saaroa among the Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 55(1). 162–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zorc, David. 2020. Reactions to Blust’s “The resurrection of Proto-Philippines.” Oceanic Linguistics 591. 394–425.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. Axis relationships in the Philippines: When subgrouping fails. Paper presented at the 14th Philippine Linguistics Congress. https://zorc.net/RDZorc/AXIS-relationships[Zorc-Presentation-revised].pdf
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue