In:Language Typology and Historical Contingency: In honor of Johanna Nichols
Edited by Balthasar Bickel, Lenore A. Grenoble, David A. Peterson and Alan Timberlake
[Typological Studies in Language 104] 2013
► pp. 463–474
Subgrouping in Tibeto-Burman
Can an individual-identifying standard be developed? How do we factor in the history of migrations and language contact?
Published online: 13 December 2013
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.104.21lap
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.104.21lap
This paper is an attempt to apply insights and methodologies from Nichols (1996) to help us resolve problems in determining genetic relatedness among Sino-Tibetan languages and in our efforts at reconstructing protolanguages of different time depths. The results from the application of Nichols’s methodology are explained with reference to what we know about the migrations of the Sino-Tibetan peoples.
Cited by (9)
Cited by nine other publications
LaPolla, Randy J. & Keita Kurabe
2023. Manifestations of Jinghpaw influence among Rawang speakers. Asian Languages and Linguistics 4:2 ► pp. 273 ff.
Post, Mark W. & Yankee Modi
Jacques, Guillaume & Thomas Pellard
2021. Phylogenies based on lexical innovations refute the Rung hypothesis. Diachronica 38:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
DeLancey, Scott
DeLancey, Scott
van Driem, George
2018. Linguistic history and historical linguistics. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 41:1 ► pp. 106 ff.
LaPolla, Randy J.
2016. Once again on methodology and argumentation in linguistics. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 39:2 ► pp. 282 ff.
Pelkey, Jamin
Chirkova, Katia
2014. The Duoxu Language and the Ersu-Lizu-Duoxu relationship. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37:1 ► pp. 104 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.