Copyright holder: Tyndale University, 3377 Bayview Ave., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2M 3S4 Att.: Library Director, J. William Horsey Library Copyright: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Copyright license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License Citation: Arsenault, Paul. “Retroflexion in South Asia: Typological, Genetic, and Areal Patterns.” Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 4, no. 1 (2017): 1-53. [Accessed January 11, 2018]. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/jsall-2017-0001 ***** Begin Content ****** TYNDALE UNIVERSITY 3377 Bayview Avenue Toronto, ON M2M 3S4 TEL: 416.226.6620 www.tyndale.ca Note: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Arsenault, Paul. “Retroflexion in South Asia: Typological, Genetic, and Areal Patterns.” Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 4, no. 1 (2017): 1-53. [Accessed January 11, 2018]. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/jsall-2017-0001 Pre-publication draft of: Arsenault, Paul. 2017. Retroflexion in South Asia: Typological, genetic, and areal patterns. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 4(1). 1-53. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsall-2017-0001. Submission for Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics (JSALL) Author: Paul Arsenault Assistant Professor of Linguistics Tyndale University College 3377 Bayview Ave. Toronto, ON, M2M 3S4 parsenault@tyndale.ca and Canada Institute of Linguistics 7600 Glover Road Langley, British Columbia V2Y 1Y1 Canada paul.arsenault@canil.ca Short Title: Retroflexion in South Asia Size: 9,586 words; 62,724 characters (including spaces) Abstract: Retroflexion in South Asia has been the subject of at least two previous typological studies: Ramanujan and Masica (1969) and Tikkanen (1999). Despite their many virtues, these studies are limited by the size of their data samples, their dependence on qualitative data without quantitative analysis, and their use of hand- drawn maps. This paper presents the results of an entirely new survey of retroflexion in South Asia - one that incorporates a larger language sample, quantitative analysis, and computer-generated maps. The study focuses on the genetic and geographic distribution of various retroflex subsystems, including retroflex obstruents, nasals, liquids, approximants and vowels. While it is possible to establish broad statistical correlations between specific types of contrast and individual language families (or sub-families), the study finds that the distribution of most retroflex systems is more geographic in nature than genetic. Thus, while retroflexion is characteristic of South Asia as a whole, each type of retroflex system tends to cut across genetic lines, marking out its own space within the broader linguistic area. Keywords: phonology; retroflex; typology; areal feature [ Page ] 1 Retroflexion in South Asia: Typological, genetic, and areal patterns 1. Introduction In a landmark study, Ramanujan and Masica (1969) sketched the first large-scale phonological typology of South Asia. Their approach was both typological and dialectological, identifying patterns of variation across phoneme inventories and mapping those patterns as isoglosses on a map of South Asia. Among other things, they examined the typology of retroflex consonant systems and their distribution. The authors viewed their study as “more in the nature of a preliminary report than a conclusive statement” (544), and anticipated its “further refinement into a definitive typological inventory of South Asian phonologies by the cooperative endeavor of all concerned” (552). Thirty years later, Tikkanen (1999) presented a revised typology of retroflexion in South Asia, along with a map showing the distribution of the various types that he identified (cf. Parpola 1994: 166).1 Despite their many virtues, Ramanujan and Masica’s (1969) original study and Tikkanen’s (1999) contribution have their limitations. First of all, the original study was limited to data that was available in the late 1960s, and there are notable gaps. For instance, there are very few Tibeto-Burman languages in the survey, and none whatsoever from northwest India or Nepal. Tikkanen (1999) made significant improvements in this area, but given the current state of language documentation and description in South Asia, there is still room for further improvement (see Table 1). Secondly, both studies are purely qualitative, not quantitative. They support their observations by listing examples but do not provide statistics to indicate the relative frequency of phonological patterns. Finally, the maps in both studies are hand-drawn and in some cases cluttered with a lot of information. As a result, they can be difficult to interpret and areal patterns do not always stand out clearly. The present paper takes a fresh look at the question of retroflexion in South Asia. Like the earlier studies, it is concerned with both the typology of retroflex phoneme inventories and their genetic and geographic distribution in South Asia. The current study can be viewed as a revision of earlier observations on the topic, offered in the spirit of “further refinement” anticipated by Ramanujan and Masica (1969). To begin with, it is based on a much larger language sample that incorporates data from the wealth of descriptive studies published in recent decades. This includes a substantial number of Tibeto-Burman languages from northwest India, Nepal, and elsewhere. ______________________________________________ 1 Other typological studies have focused on specific sub-regions, such as Nepal (Michailovsky 1988) or Northeast India (Neukom 1999); focused on phonetics as opposed to phonology (Ramaswami 1999); or covered much of the same ground as Ramanujan and Masica’s (1969) original study (Reddy 2003). [ Page ] 2 Secondly, the study quantifies the frequency of various retroflex phonemes and inventory types, using simple statistics. Finally, it provides improved, computer- generated maps, illustrating the genetic and geographic distribution of typological patterns. The results of the study corroborate many of the key observations in Ramanujan and Masica (1969) and Tikkanen (1999), while at the same time refining them in important ways. It affirms that retroflex segments of one kind or another occur in the vast majority of South Asian languages, including some from each of the main families represented in the region, and that the distribution of languages with retroflexion corresponds very closely to the area of South Asia. However, it also highlights the fact that retroflexion extends well beyond the limits of South Asia into what is commonly considered East Asia (i.e., China), a detail that is not given much attention elsewhere. The study also examines the considerable typological variation in retroflex segment inventories within South Asia. While it is possible to establish broad statistical correlations between specific types of contrast and individual language families (or sub-families), the study finds that the distribution of most retroflex systems is more geographic in nature than genetic. Each type tends to cut across genetic boundaries to some degree, marking out its own geographic space within the broader linguistic area. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews some background information on the study. Section 3 provides a broad overview of retroflexion in South Asia and environs, irrespective of manner of articulation. The rest of the paper focuses on the genetic and geographic distribution of specific retroflex subsystems, beginning with obstruent systems in section 4, and continuing with nasal systems in section 5, liquid systems in section 6, and retroflex approximants and vowels in section 7. Finally, some concluding remarks are offered in section 8. 2. Methodology The current study is based on a survey of phonological literature describing 260 language varieties from South Asia and surrounding regions. Before examining the results of this survey, it will be useful to review some details concerning the methodology employed. The following subsections review details concerning the languages of South Asia, the sample employed for the survey, the mapping of phonological traits, and the nature of those traits. [ Page ] 3 2.1. Languages of South Asia For the purpose of the present study, South Asia is defined as the area comprising the states of India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Maldives.2 Four main language families are represented in this area: Indo-Iranian (a sub-branch of Indo- European), Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic, and Tibeto-Burman (a sub-branch of Sino- Tibetan). The Andamanese languages also fall within the borders of South Asia, along with a few Tai-Kadai languages and isolates. Throughout the paper, these minor families and isolates are lumped together under the category of ‘other’ languages. The geographic distribution of these families is shown in Map 1. Indo-Iranian languages dominate the northern and western parts of South Asia. Most languages of this family belong to the Indo-Aryan branch, with languages of the Iranian branch limited to western Pakistan and adjacent areas beyond its borders. In Afghanistan, the small group of Nuristani languages is considered a third branch of Indo-Iranian. The Dravidian family dominates the south and has no members outside of South Asia. Most Austro-Asiatic languages of South Asia belong to the Munda branch, which is concentrated in eastern India. Apart from a few Khasian languages in northeast India and the Nicobarese languages of the Nicobar Islands, all other Austro-Asiatic branches are concentrated in Southeast Asia. The Tibeto-Burman family is spread across the Himalayas on the northern and northeastern peripheries of South Asia and adjacent parts of China and Southeast Asia. Speakers of Indo-Iranian and Dravidian languages account for about 78% and 20% of the South Asian population, respectively, whereas Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-Burman are limited to minority groups within the region (Ebert 2006). 2.2. Language samples The language sample used for this study is primarily a convenience sample based on availability of data. However, every effort was made to ensure that all language families and geographic regions were well represented. Table 1 shows a breakdown of the sample by language family and (where appropriate) sub-family. The ‘Current Maps’ column represents language varieties included on maps in the current study, whereas the ‘Current Stats’ column represents those used to calculate statistics. A total of 260 language varieties is included on the maps, but statistics were computed on a subset of 205 varieties that fall within the boundaries of South Asia (as defined above). Thus, the statistics reflect facts about South Asian languages, while the maps include data _____________________________________________ 2 Some definitions of South Asia may include extensions into Afghanistan, the Tibetan region of China, and even Myanmar (Masica 1992). More commonly, these countries are classified as Central, East, and Southeast Asia, respectively, although parts of them may constitute transitional zones between those regions and South Asia (e.g., Tikkanen 2008). [ Page ] 4 from surrounding regions in order to provide context and avoid begging the question of a South Asian linguistic area. The columns labelled ‘R&M 1969’ and ‘Tikk. 1999’ represent the samples used in Ramanujan and Masica (1969) and Tikkanen (1999), respectively. They are included here for comparison. With the exception of Iranian, the current study incorporates an equivalent or larger sample for every family and sub- group, compared to the previous studies. Table 1: Language samples Classification Sub-Group R&M 1969 Tikk. 1999 Current Stats Current Maps Indo-Iranian Iranian 4 14 5 13 Nuristani 1 4 0 4 Indo-Aryan 28 39 64 64 Dravidian - 15 20 37 37 Austro-Asiatic Munda 7 7 15 15 Khasian 1 1 2 2 Nicobarese 1 1 2 2 Other AA 1 0 0 4 Sino-Tibetan Tibeto-Burman 8 30 72 96 Chinese 0 1 0 2 Other Isolates 1 1 2 2 Tai-Kadai 0 0 3 5 Andamanese 0 0 3 3 Afro-Asiatic 0 0 0 6 Turkic 0 3 0 4 Mongolic 0 1 0 1 Totals 67 122 205 260 Statistics concerning South Asia as a whole are computed on a sample of 205 language varieties. This sample includes family units such as Iranian, Khasian, Nicobarese, and the various minor families in the ‘other’ category. These family units have very few members within the region. For this reason, the study makes no attempt to characterize them statistically. Instead, statistical comparisons of family units within South Asia are limited to the four units that constitute the majority of South Asian languages: Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Munda, and Tibeto-Burman. Together, these account for 188 (92%) of the 205 language varieties in the South Asian sample. 2.3. Maps All maps presented in this paper were generated using a Geographic Information System (GIS) software called Quantum GIS (QGIS). For convenience, language locations were plotted as points on the map as opposed to areas, a practice that is [ Page ] 5 commonly employed in typological surveys of this kind (cf. Dryer and Haspelmath 2013).3 In most cases, language locations were determined based on their data source. For instance, if the source study indicated that data was collected from a particular locality, then coordinates for that locality were used to situate the language on the map. Where such details were not provided, or in the case of certain major languages spoken over larger areas, an effort was made to situate languages near the centre of the area over which they are spoken. For this purpose, maps from the Ethnologue (Lewis et. al. 2016) were consulted, and in some cases coordinates from the World Atlas of Language Structures (Dryer and Haspelmath 2013) were used. On each map, languages are represented by small circular icons. The genetic affiliation of each language is indicated by an abbreviation within the circles: IA for Indo-Aryan, D for Dravidian, M for Munda, T for Tibeto-Burman, etc. In addition, textured shading is used to highlight the geographic distribution of phonological traits. The genetic distribution of phonological traits can be observed by examining the affiliation of languages that fall within any given shaded area. In this way, the maps illustrate both the genetic and geographic distribution of traits simultaneously. In order to compute the boundaries of shaded areas, binary numeric values were assigned to represent the presence or absence of a trait in each language (e.g., 1 = present, 0 = absent). Shading was then generated using the Inverse Distance Weighting interpolation method in QGIS. This function uses the known values of points plotted on the map to estimate the unknown values of intervening spaces. Application of this function yielded a raster layer with values ranging from 0.0 to 1.0. A contour was extracted from this layer at a value of 0.5, which represents the halfway point between presence (1.0) and absence (0.0) of a feature. This contour was then taken as the feature boundary. It is important to recognize that the shaded areas generated by this method cannot be taken as precise isoglosses for any given feature. They are approximate at best and are included primarily as a visual aid to highlight areal patterns. 2.4. Phonological traits The study is concerned primarily with phonological oppositions, not their phonetic implementation. This means that segments or contrasts that are given different phonetic descriptions in the literature are sometimes treated as equivalent from an abstract phonological point of view. For instance, a distinction is sometimes made between two degrees of retroflexion: a weaker form of apical alveolar or post-alveolar retroflexion and a stronger form of sub-apical palatal retroflexion. The former is said __________________________________________ 3 The kind of data required to map languages as areas is not available in most cases. Moreover, demarcating boundaries between languages is complicated by the fact that they regularly overlap. [ Page ] 6 to be characteristic of many Indo-Aryan and Tibeto-Burman languages, while the latter is associated with Dravidian languages (Ladefoged and Bhaskararao 1983). However, phonetic studies reveal a wide range of variation in languages of both types, depending on the speaker, speech rate, manner of articulation, and vowel context (Reddy 1986; Dixit and Flege 1991; Dart and Nihalani 1999; Khatiwada 2007). Moreover, the distinction is rarely significant from a phonological point of view.4 Thus, the two types are not distinguished in the present study; both are treated as retroflex. All consonants counted as retroflex stand in phonological opposition to some dental or denti-alveolar counterpart with a comparable manner of articulation. Segments that are limited to loanwords were counted only if they were described as frequent and well-integrated in colloquial speech. Otherwise, they were excluded. With these points in mind, we can turn to the survey of retroflexion in South Asia. 3. Retroflexion as an areal feature of South Asia South Asia is widely recognized as a linguistic area - a geographic region in which languages of different genetic stock have come to resemble one another through a history of contact and convergence (Emeneau 1956; Masica 1976; Ebert 2006). Retroflexion is identified as a defining feature of the area (Kuiper 1967; Ramanujan and Masica 1969; Bhat 1973). Most languages of South Asia have retroflex segments of one kind or another, regardless of their genetic affiliation. This section surveys the full extent of retroflexion in South Asia and neighbouring regions, independent of manner of articulation. Figure 1 shows the frequency of retroflexion in the South Asian sample compared to that of the UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database (UPSID), which represents a genetically and geographically balanced sample of 451 languages of the world (Maddieson 1984; Maddieson & Precoda 1990). Retroflexion is a relatively marked feature, cross-linguistically. Only about 20% of languages in the UPSID database have retroflex segments of some kind; while 80% do not. In South Asia, these proportions are inverted; only 22% of languages lack retroflexion, while 78% have retroflex segments of one kind or another. Retroflexion is most prevalent within the Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, and Munda families, and least prevalent within the Tibeto-Burman family, as shown in Figure 2. All Dravidian languages have retroflexion. The Indo-Aryan family is not far behind, with retroflexion in all members except for Assamese. Recall that Dravidian and Indo- _________________________________________ 4 To be sure, a few South Dravidian languages contrast apical alveolar and retroflex consonants. However, this contrast always occurs in addition to the more basic distinction between lamino-dental and apical articulations. This basic contrast is the focus of the present study, and languages that exhibit no further contrast are expected to show more variation in phonetic implementation. [ Page ] 7 Figure 1: Proportion of languages with and without retroflexion [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 1 details. ] Iranian languages together account for as much as 98% of the population. Thus, the vast majority of the population speaks a language with retroflexion. Retroflexion is also reported in all Munda languages, which constitute the majority of Austro-Asiatic languages in the region.5 It does not occur in any other Austro-Asiatic language of South Asia, with the possible exception of Pnar in northeast India.6 Only about half of all Tibeto-Burman and ‘other’ languages of South Asia have retroflexion of some kind. Within the ‘other’ category, retroflexion occurs in Burushaski (isolate) and the Andamanese languages, but not in Kusunda (isolate) or the Tai-Kadai languages. The distribution of retroflexion within Tibeto-Burman warrants further comment. As shown in Figure 3, retroflexion occurs primarily in the Western Tibeto-Burman branch, most notably in the Bodish group (e.g., Ladakhi, Gurung, Tamang, Sherpa, Dzongkha, Tshangla, Tibetan, etc.), and Western Kiranti (e.g., Sunwar, Jero, Thulung, Wambule, etc.). It is also characteristic of Qiangic and rGyalrongic languages in China. Retroflexion does not occur in any Eastern Kiranti language surveyed here, and is rare in other sub-groups, including Central Tibeto-Burman and the so-called ‘Sal’ languages, most of which are concentrated in Northeast India and adjacent parts of China and Southeast Asia. 7 ___________________________________________ 5 Previous studies list Korku and Sora as Munda languages without retroflexion (Ramanujan and Masica 1969; Masica 1992; Neukom 1999). These studies cite Zide (1960) for Korku, and Stampe (1965) for Sora. While these sources report no retroflex contrast among stops, they do report a contrast between /r/ and /r/. Thus, Korku and Sora are treated here as having retroflexion in the class of liquids. 6 Pnar has a contrast between lamino-dental and apico-alveolar stops that might be construed as a weak form of retroflexion (Ring 2015). I have interpreted it as such for the present study. 7 The statistics in Figure 3 are based on the total sample of 96 Tibeto-Burman languages, not just those within the core South Asian countries. The classification scheme is based on the nineteenth edition of [ Page ] 8 Figure 2: Percentage of South Asian languages with retroflexion by language family [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 2 details. ] Figure 3: Percentage of languages with retroflexion in selected Tibeto-Burman subgroups. [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 3 details. ] Map 2 affirms that the main concentration of languages with retroflexion corresponds very closely to the area of South Asia (i.e., the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent). Within South Asia, retroflexion is widespread from the south to the northwest, but fades out in Nepal and northeast India. Significantly, the retroflex area extends beyond the northeast borders of South Asia, well into China (i.e., East Asia). This extension affects a great many Tibeto-Burman languages of China, including many outside of the Tibet Autonomous Region, and reaches as far east as Mandarin (off the map), which belongs to the Chinese branch of Sino-Tibetan. This point is worth stressing because it is not clearly addressed by Ramanujan and Masica (1969) or ___________________________________________ the Ethnologue (Lewis et. al. 2016). The ‘other TB’ category consists of a few Ngwi-Burmese and Karenic languages. [ Page ] 9 Tikkanen (1999), and is rarely acknowledged or discussed in the South Asian literature. As we will see, however, the retroflex consonant systems in Sino-Tibetan languages of China are typologically distinct from those commonly found in South Asia. A closer look at Nepal and northeast India is provided in Map 3. A few observations can be made. First of all, just like areas with retroflexion, areas without it also cut across genetic boundaries. Not only is retroflexion absent from a great many Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal and northeast India, but also from the isolate Kusunda in Nepal, and from Assamese (Indo-Aryan), Khasi (Austro-Asiatic), and the Tai-Kadai languages of Assam, all in northeast India. Secondly, it is possible to draw a line that runs roughly east to west across Nepal, such that all Tibeto-Burman languages with retroflexion are north of the line, and all those without it are south of the line (see the dashed line in Map 3). Thus, within Nepal, Tibeto-Burman languages with retroflexion are concentrated along the northern border, whereas those without retroflexion are concentrated to the south. In sum, the retroflex area affects all language families in the region and covers most of the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent, except for parts of Nepal and northeast India. Significantly, it extends far into China to the northeast. However, looking at retroflexion independent of manner of articulation obscures important differences between languages. The following sections examine retroflex obstruent, nasal, liquid, approximant and vowels systems independently, highlighting differences between language families and sub-regions. 4. Retroflex obstruents The class of obstruents includes stops, affricates and fricatives. As a general rule, most South Asian languages with retroflexion have retroflex obstruents of some kind. Exceptions to this generalization include a few Iranian languages of western Pakistan (e.g., dialects of Balochi and Pashto) and some Munda languages (e.g., Sora, Gutob, Gorum, and possibly Korku). In these languages, contrast between denti-alveolar and retroflex stops is primarily limited to loanwords, while retroflex sonorants (i.e., nasals and/or liquids) are reported in native vocabulary. Figure 4 shows the frequency of retroflex obstruents in each of the main families. Here and elsewhere, the symbols ‘ʈ', ‘tʂ’, and ‘ʂ’ represent natural classes of stops, affricates, and fricatives (respectively), independent of laryngeal features such as voicing and aspiration. Unaffricated retroflex stops are by far the most common type of retroflex obstruent in each family. Retroflex affricates and fricatives are rare in Indo- Aryan and Tibeto-Burman, absent altogether in Munda and other Austro-Asiatic languages, and nearly so in Dravidian. With the exception of Toda, which has a native /g/, retroflex fricatives are typically limited to Sanskrit loanwords in Dravidian. The [ Page ] 10 low frequency of affricates and fricatives in all families is not something unique to retroflexion. South Asian languages have been characterized as ‘poor in fricatives’ on the whole (Ramanujan & Masica 1969; Neukom 1999). Most languages of the region have only one or two fricatives, typically /s/ and /h/, and some Dravidian languages lack them altogether. Figure 4: Percentage of languages with retroflex stops (ʈ), affricates (tʂ), and fricatives (ʂ) by family [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 4 details. ] Within the Indo-Iranian family, retroflex affricates and fricatives are most characteristic of two genetic subgroups: the Dardic branch of Indo-Aryan in northern Pakistan (86%), and the Nuristani languages in Afghanistan (100%). They also occur in Wakhi and a few other Iranian languages of the south Pamir group in Afghanistan, but not in the north Pamir languages (Tikkanen 2008). Outside of these subgroups, retroflex fricatives (and affricates) are rare in Indo-Iranian. With few exceptions, they are typically limited to Sanskrit loanwords. Notable exceptions include Dhivehi, an Indo-Aryan language of the Maldives, which has developed /g/ from independent sources (Cain & Gair 2000), and the southwest dialect of Pashto (Iranian) in Afghanistan, which has /ʂ, ʐ/ as its only native retroflex obstruents (Elfenbein 1997). [ Page ] 11 Tikkanen (1999) proposes two basic retroflex inventory types, A and B, as summarized in (1). Type A has a contrast between dental and retroflex stops (with or without retroflex flaps), while Type B incorporates and augments Type A by adding a contrast between retroflex and non-retroflex (dental and laminal post-alveolar) sibilant fricatives. Each type has several possible subtypes (not shown here) based on the presence or absence of retroflex affricates, nasals, and liquids in the system. However, the basic A/B distinction is defined entirely with respect to retroflex stops and fricatives. Tikkanen (1999) demonstrates that each of these types is the result of a different evolutionary path in the development of retroflexion, and possibly a different substrate influence. Be that as it may, the typology in (1) is of limited use from a cross- linguistic perspective. This is because it excludes certain retroflex obstruent inventories that are attested, even within South Asia (e.g., a system with retroflex affricates and fricatives that does not include retroflex stops, which occurs in Tibeto- Burman). For this reason, Tikkanen’s typology will not be adopted here. (1) Tikkanen’s basic retroflex typology (1999: 139, transcription modified) Type A: ʈ/t and/or ɖ/d ± ɽ/r Type B: A + ʂ/ʃ/s ± ʐ /ʒ/z With three different manners of articulation (and disregarding other features), there are seven logically possible retroflex obstruent systems: stops alone {ʈ}, affricates alone {tʂ}, fricatives alone {ʂ}, or one of four possible combinations of these: {ʈ, tʂ}, {ʈ, ʂ}, {tʂ, ʂ}, {ʈ, tʂ, ʂ}. Figures 5-6 show the relative frequency of each type among languages that have retroflex obstruents. Most of the types are attested cross- linguistically, as shown in Figure 5, but only four occur within the (narrow) South Asia sample, as shown in Figure 6. Approximately 74% of South Asian languages have retroflex obstruents of some kind. Of these, the vast majority (85%) have stops alone {ʈ}; 6% have stops and fricatives {ʈ, ʂ}; 1% have affricates and fricatives {tʂ, ʂ}; and 9% have all three {ʈ, tʂ, ʂ}. Systems with affricates or fricatives alone, {tʂ} or {ʂ}, do not occur in any language within South Asia proper, but are reported for some languages just outside the region (see Map 4). [ Page ] 12 Figure 5: Frequency of retroflex obstruent system types in UPSID languages with retroflex obstruents. [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 5 details. ] Figure 6: Frequency of retroflex obstruent system types in SA languages with retroflex obstruents. [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 6 details. ] Map 4 shows the distribution of retroflex obstruent systems in South Asia and environs. At least three areal patterns are identifiable on the map. The first covers most of the Indian subcontinent and represents the vast majority of Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Munda and Tibeto-Burman languages that have retroflex stops as their only retroflex obstruent (cf. Tikkanen’s Type A in [1] above). The second is the northwestern [ Page ] 13 periphery of South Asia, where languages tend to have retroflex fricatives and affricates in addition to stops (cf. Tikkanen’s Type B in [1]). Within this area, two distinct sub-patterns can be observed. One is a cluster of languages with retroflex stops and fricatives {ʈ, ʂ}, but not affricates. This cluster consists mostly of Tibeto-Burman languages of the Bodish group in northwestern India (e.g., Purik, Ladakhi, Zanskari, Spiti), but also includes Brokskat, an Indo-Aryan language of the Dardic group. The other northwestern sub-pattern is a cluster of languages with a three-way contrast between retroflex stops, affricates, and fricatives {ʈ, tʂ, ʂ}. This cluster includes most Indo-Aryan languages of the Dardic group in northern Pakistan (e.g., Dameli, Kalami, Kalasha, Khowar, Indus Kohistani, Palula, Shina, etc.), and the Nuristani languages in Afghanistan (e.g., Ashkun, Kamviri, Kati, Waigali), together with Wakhi (and other Iranian languages of the south Pamir group), and Burushaski (Isolate). The third major area on Map 4 begins on the northeastern periphery of India and extends far into China. Like the northwestern area, languages in this area favour systems with retroflex affricates and (to a lesser degree) fricatives, but typically without stops. All languages in this area are Sino-Tibetan, but they do not constitute an independently established subgroup of that family. A few Tibeto-Burman languages of the Bodish and rGyalrongic groups are reported to have retroflex affricates {tʂ} as their only native retroflex obstruent (e.g., Kami, Thebo, Caodeng Rgyalrong). More often than not, languages in this area have retroflex fricatives in addition to affricates {tʂ, ʂ}. Systems of this type are reported in the Ngwi-Burmese branch of Tibeto- Burman (e.g., Lisu), the Bodish branch (e.g., varieties of Khams Tibetan, Amdo Tibetan, and Cone), the Qiangic branch (e.g., Qiang, and Niuwozi Pumi), and Mandarin Chinese. Wadu Pumi and Dayang Pumi (both Qiangic) have systems comparable to those of the Dardic/Nuristani/Burushaski type in the northwest. These systems include retroflex stops in addition to affricates and fricatives {ʈ, tʂ, ʂ}. Diachronically, there is a correspondence between retroflex affricates in Tibeto- Burman languages to the east and retroflex stops in Tibeto-Burman languages to the west. Both evolved historically from obstruent-liquid onset clusters (Cr-). Moreover, the retroflex stops of some languages are variably pronounced with a rhotic or affricated release, as in the case of Lhasa Tibetan [ʈa] ~ [tʂa] ‘hair’ (< Old Tibetan skra), [ʈhi] ~ [tʂhi] ‘knife’ (< Old Tibetan gri; Beyer 1992: 28). Since affrication is not consistent or distinctive in these cases, the segments in question are typically treated as simple stops. Thus, Tibeto-Burman languages tend to have either stops {ʈ}, affricates {tʂ}, or variation between stops and affricates {ʈ ~ tʂ}, but rarely a contrast between the two (with the exception of certain varieties of Pumi mentioned above). Of the seven logically possible obstruent systems identified above, only one type is completely unattested. No language in the South Asia survey (Figure 6) or the [ Page ] 14 UPSID sample (Figure 5) is reported to have retroflex stops and affricates without fricatives {ʈ, tʂ}. Contrast between stops and affricates only occurs in systems that also have retroflex fricatives (i.e., {ʈ, tʂ, ʂ}). This suggests the possibility of an implicational universal like that in (2). It might be the case that contrast between continuant and non- continuant retroflex obstruents (/g/ vs. /f/ or /tg/) is more salient than contrast between strident (‘noisy’) and non-strident stops (/tg/ vs. /f/). If so, then we can represent this implicational relation by means of the feature hierarchy in (3), in which less salient contrasts apply only after more salient ones. The hierarchy predicts attested systems, including {ʈ, ʂ}, {tʂ, ʂ}, and {ʈ, tʂ, ʂ}, but not the unattested system {ʈ, tʂ}. (2) Implicational universal If a language distinguishes retroflex stops and affricates, it also distinguishes retroflex fricatives. (3) Feature hierarchy [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for drawing details. ] In sum, contrast between retroflex and non-retroflex (dental or denti-alveolar) obstruents is limited to stops throughout most of the subcontinent. However, languages in the northern peripheries of South Asia exhibit different systems. Those in the northwest favour retroflex affricates and fricatives in addition to stops; while those in the northeast favour affricates and fricatives without stops. The rest of the paper focuses on retroflex sonorants, beginning with nasals. 5. Retroflex nasals Most South Asian languages (about 60%) distinguish stops at five places of articulation: labial, dental, retroflex, palatal, and velar. At a phonetic level, most also have a corresponding set of nasals in homorganic nasal-stop sequences. However, languages differ with respect to the phonemic status of each nasal. Figure 8 shows the [ Page ] 15 overall frequency of the five most common nasal phonemes in South Asia. Figure 7 shows statistics for the same set in the UPSID database. Figure 7: Percentage of languages with selected nasal phonemes in the UPSID database [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 7 details. ] Figure 8: Percentage of languages with selected nasal phonemes in South Asia [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 8 details. ] Minimally, all South Asian languages have /m/ and /n/, but they differ with respect to retroflex /ɳ/ and other nasals. The phoneme /ɳ/ occurs in only about 5% of the world’s languages, making it the least frequent of the five nasals in Figure 7. In South Asia, however, it occurs in about 35% of languages, making it more common than palatal /ɲ/ (29%), but not velar /n/ (70%). Figure 9 shows the frequency of retroflex nasals in each South Asian family. Palatal and velar nasals are included for comparison. Retroflex nasals occur as phonemes in each family, although there are significant differences between them. As [ Page ] 16 a broad generalization, we may say that Dravidian and (to a lesser extent) Indo-Aryan languages favour retroflex nasals over others, whereas Munda and Tibeto-Burman languages favour velar and palatal nasals over retroflex. In both Dravidian and Indo- Aryan, retroflex /ɳ/ is the most frequent nasal phoneme (after /m/ and /n/), occurring in more languages than either palatal /ɲ/ or velar /p/. In Munda and Tibeto-Burman the situation is reversed; retroflex /ɳ/ is the least frequent nasal phoneme, occurring in fewer languages than either palatal /ɲ/ or velar /p/. Within the Munda sample, /ɳ/ is reported as a phoneme exclusively in the North Munda branch (e.g., Mundari, Korwa, Kodaku, Brijia, Bhumij). Elsewhere, its phonemic status is described as marginal or doubtful, if it is listed at all. Retroflex nasals are almost non-existent in Tibeto-Burman. They are reported in only two Tibeto-Burman languages of South Asia (Kinnauri in northwest India, and Thangmi in Nepal), and in none of those surveyed outside the region. Similarly, retroflex nasals do not occur in any of the minor families and isolates. Figure 9: Frequency of retroflex /ɳ/, palatal /ɲ/ and velar /n/ nasals by language family [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 9 details. ] With five nasal places of articulation, we might expect twenty-five logically possible system types (i.e., 5 x 5). However, the number of attested types is much less because all South Asian languages have /m/ and /n/. There are only eight attested types in the South Asia sample, four of which include the retroflex nasal: {m, n}, {m, n, ɳ}, [ Page ] 17 {m, n, ɲ}, {m, n, n}, {m, n, ɳ ɲ}, {m, n, ɳ n}, {m, n,ɲ, n}, and {m, n, ɳ ɲ, n}.8 The statistically dominant type in each family is listed in (4). Two percentages are listed for each family. The first represents the proportion of languages that has precisely the system listed to the left, with no additional nasals (not counting laryngeal distinctions, if they occur). The second represents the proportion that includes that system (i.e., some languages may have additional nasals). (4) Statistically dominant nasal place system in each family a. Indo-Aryan m n ɳ (31 - 52%) b. Dravidian m n ɳ (35 - 76%) c. Munda m n n ɳ (47 - 60%) d. Tibeto-Burman m n n (65 - 97%) The geographic distribution of languages with retroflex nasals is shown in Map 5, along with the distribution of velar nasals for comparison. Notice that retroflex nasals have a much narrower distribution than retroflex stops (cf. Map 4). They are concentrated in a largely uninterrupted area that stretches from the southern tip of India, through western India and Pakistan, into parts of Afghanistan in the northwest. This area represents the primary strongholds of the Dravidian and Indo-Iranian families. Retroflex nasals also appear in a slightly more diffuse cluster of languages in eastern India. This cluster includes a few eastern Indo-Aryan languages (e.g., Oriya, Desiya Oriya), some Central and South-Central Dravidian languages (e.g., Ollari Gadaba, Mudhili Gadaba, Kui, Kuvi, Pengo, Konda), and also some North Munda languages (e.g., Mundari, Korwa, Kodaku, Brijia, Bhumij). Areas with retroflex nasals are not the only ones to cut across genetic lines; areas without them do likewise. Retroflex nasals are absent from a broad swath of languages in central India that includes Dravidian (e.g., Southern Gondi, Parji, Kolami, etc.), Indo-Iranian (e.g., Bhatri, Bahelia, Bundeli, Bhojpuri, Magahi, etc.), and Munda languages (e.g., Gta’, Remo, Gutob, Korku, etc.). The area begins around southern Chhattisgarh and adjacent parts of Orissa, and extents northward through western Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh, to the Himalayas in the north. There it joins the greater area without retroflex nasals, which is rooted in Sino-Tibetan and Austro-Asiatic, and extends across the Himalayas from northwest India, through Nepal and Bhutan, to northeast India and beyond. _____________________________________________ 8 Additional types would be recognized if other place distinctions were considered. For example, a few South Dravidian languages distinguish alveolar nasals from both dental and retroflex (e.g., Malayalam and Paniya). [ Page ] 18 It is interesting to note that languages tend to have either retroflex or velar nasals, but rarely both. Thus, as first observed by Ramanujan and Masica (1969: 567), languages with retroflex nasals are in almost perfect complementation with those that have velar (and to a lesser degree) palatal nasals. This generalization is corroborated by the present survey. The near-complementary pattern is clearly evident in Map 5. In sum, Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages tend to have retroflex nasals, while Munda and Tibeto-Burman languages generally lack them. However, languages with and without retroflex nasals can be found in all families because the distribution of each type is more geographic in nature than genetic. 6. Retroflex liquids The class of liquids encompasses trills, flaps (sometimes called taps), and laterals. Non-lateral retroflex liquids in South Asia are typically described as flaps. Retroflex trills are not common, though they are reported, for instance in Toda (Spajic et. al. 1996). However, no language is reported to distinguish retroflex trills from flaps, and even Toda speakers can vary somewhat between the two. Thus, for the purpose of this study, retroflex trills are subsumed under the category of retroflex flaps. In environments where stops commonly undergo lenition (e.g., between vowels), retroflex stops are often pronounced as flaps. This is especially true of the voiced retroflex stop /ɖ/ and its less frequent breathy counterpart /ɖh/. As a result, retroflex flaps occur very frequently at a phonetic level as allophones of retroflex stops. 9 However, secondary developments in some languages have produced minimal or near- minimal pairs for stops and flaps, so that it is often necessary to recognize the flaps as distinct phonemes from a synchronic point of view. Like other retroflex segments, retroflex liquids are relatively marked cross- linguistically. They occur in only 10% of languages in the UPSID database. Within South Asia, however, they occur in almost half of all languages (45%). Once again there are significant differences between families and sub-regions. Figure 10 shows that retroflex liquids are most characteristic of Dravidian (89%), and least characteristic of Tibeto-Burman, where they are exceedingly rare (3%). Only two Tibeto-Burman languages in the survey are reported to have retroflex liquids: Purik and Spiti in northwest India. Retroflex liquids of one kind or another also occur in the majority of Indo-Aryan (63%) and Munda languages (80%). Among the ‘other’ minor families and isolates, they occur only in some Andamanese languages (e.g., Jarawa and Onge). ___________________________________________________ 9 In fact, retroflex nasals and laterals are also commonly flapped under conditions of lenition. However, no language maintains a contrast between flapped and non-flapped retroflex nasals or laterals. [ Page ] 19 Figure 10: Percentage of languages with retroflex liquids in each South Asian family [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 10 details. ] Taking retroflex flaps and laterals as our basic liquid types, there are three possible systems: flaps alone {ɽ}, laterals alone {ɭ }, or both {ɽ ɭ}. Each of these types is attested in South Asia. Figure 11 shows the frequency of each type in each of the main families. Retroflex laterals do not occur in Tibeto-Burman. Otherwise, both flaps and laterals are attested to some degree in each family. Dravidian favours retroflex laterals over flaps, whereas Indo-Aryan and Munda favour retroflex flaps over laterals. Within Munda, only Juang is reported to have a retroflex lateral. Simpler systems containing a flap or lateral are far more common that complex systems containing both, which are reported only for a handful of Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages. [ Page ] 20 Figure 11: Percentage of languages with retroflex flaps (ɽ), laterals (ɭ), or both, by family. [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 11 details. ] All South Asian languages have a dental/alveolar lateral /l/, and 96% have some form of dental/alveolar /r/, typically described as a flap or trill.10 Adding these to the equation, we can compute the statistically dominant liquid system for each family, as shown in (5). Once again, two different percentages are listed per family. The first represents the proportion of languages that has precisely the system listed to the left, with no additional liquids (not counting laryngeal distinctions, if they occur). The second represents the proportion that includes that system (i.e., languages that have additional liquids are also counted). (5) Statistically dominant liquid system in each family a. Indo-Aryan r l j (34 - 45%) b. Dravidian r l (30 - 54%) c. Munda r l j (73 - 73%) d. Tibeto-Burman r l (86 - 89%) [ Please note, the characters have not translated properly in the OCR production of this file. ] The distribution of the various retroflex liquid systems is shown in Map 6. Here again, each type cuts across genetic boundaries, demarcating its own geographic region. __________________________________________ 10 Languages without /r/ are all Tibeto-Burman or Tai-Kadai languages of northeast India. [ Page ] 21 Systems with a retroflex lateral ft} dominate the south in an area that begins with Dhivehi (Indo-Aryan) in the Maldives, and Tamil (Dravidian) in northern Sri Lanka and southern India, and extends northward through western India as far as Kangri (Indo-Aryan) in Himachal Pradesh. With few exceptions, just about every Dravidian and Indo-Aryan language along this path has retroflex laterals. This area closely resembles that of retroflex nasals (cf. Map 5), except that the nasals extend much farther westward into Pakistan and Afghanistan, whereas the laterals stop somewhere around the India-Pakistan border. While retroflex laterals dominate the south, systems with retroflex flaps {ɽ} dominate the north. They cover a large area that includes most of Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan, and extends (south)eastward across north and central India, all the way to the Bay of Bengal. This broad swath harbours representatives of all the main families, including Iranian (e.g., Balochi, Pashto, etc.), Nuristani (e.g., Ashkun, Waigali, etc.), Indo-Aryan (e.g., Sindhi, Panjabi, Hindi, Bhojpuri, Bengali, and a host of others), North Dravidian (e.g., Brahui, Kurux, Malto), Central Dravidian (e.g., Ollari Gadaba, Parji), all of South-Central Dravidian, except for Telugu (e.g., Gondi, Konda, Kui, Kuvi, etc.), and most Munda languages (e.g., Mundari, Ho, Santali, Gta’, Sora, etc.). Its northern frontier even includes two Tibeto-Burman languages, Purik and Spiti, which are the only representatives of that family with retroflex liquids. The retroflex lateral and flap areas overlap in western India. Thus, there is a cluster of Indo-Aryan languages centred in and around the states of Rajasthan and Punjab that distinguishes retroflex flaps and laterals ɽ, ɭ}. Examples include Marwari, Shekawati, Bagri, Panjabi, Haryanvi, and Kangri. There is also a small cluster of South Dravidian languages in the Nilgiri Hills region with essentially the same system. This group includes Toda, Kota, and Irula. In sum, retroflex liquids occur in most Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, and Munda languages, but they are not characteristic of Tibeto-Burman. Indo-Aryan and Munda show a preference for ft/ over ft/, while Dravidian shows a preference for ft/ over ft/. However, each of these systems constitutes an isogloss that cuts across genetic lines. Retroflex laterals dominate southern and western India, while flaps dominate the north. The two areas overlap in western India, where some languages distinguish both flaps and laterals. 7. Retroflex approximants and vowels Retroflex approximants are transcribed variously as [ɻ] or [ɹ]. Strictly speaking, the first symbol represents a retroflex approximant while the second represents an apical/alveolar approximant. However, even segments transcribed with [j] are often [ Page ] 22 described as having a retroflex quality, and (to the best of my knowledge) no language distinguishes the two. Thus, for the present study both are regarded as retroflex. Retroflex approximants and vowels are exceedingly rare at a phonological level. Only 3.5% of languages in UPSID distinguish retroflex /ɻ/ from some type of non- retroflex rhotic /r/ (almost all of them Australian), and less than 1% distinguish retroflex vowels. 11 The picture is not much different in South Asia, where the corresponding figures are just 2.4% for /ɻ/ (or /ɹ/) and 1% for retroflex vowels. Proto-Dravidian had a retroflex approximant *ɻ (often transcribed *z). It is preserved only in regional and social dialects of Tamil and Malayalam. Elsewhere, it has merged with one of the liquids or /j/, or dropped out altogether (Krishnamurti 2003). Within Indo-Iranian, retroflex approximants occur primarily in the Nuristani branch, where they occur either as independent phonemes (e.g., Kati, Kamviri) or as allophones of /r/ or /ɽ/ (e.g., Ashkun). Some Nuristani languages also have a nasalized retroflex approximant that contrasts with its oral counterpart and/or with /ɳ/ (e.g., Kamviri, Waigali). The phoneme /j/ is also reported in two other nearby languages: Dameli, an Indo-Aryan language of the Dardic group, and the isolate Burushaski. Contrast between /r/, on the one hand, and /j/ or /j/ on the other, is not reported for any Austro-Asiatic or Tibeto-Burman language in the present survey.12 However, some Tibeto-Burman and Tai-Kadai languages of northeast India, Myanmar, and China have an apical/retroflex approximant, [j] or [j], as the primary phonetic realization of the phoneme /r/. Some languages also have a voiceless counterpart realized as [ɹ] (or even [ʂ]). Approximant realizations of /r/ are reported in Ao, Angami, Chokri, Rawang, Wadu Pumi, Mandarin, and many other languages. However, in such cases the retroflexion is not phonologically significant because there is no opposition between the segment in question and some non-retroflex dental or alveolar counterpart. At a purely phonetic level, retroflex vowels occur regularly in languages that have retroflex consonants, especially in VC transitions as a result of coarticulation with a following retroflex segment. This is so pervasive in South Asia as to hardly warrant mention in most descriptions. However, contrast between retroflex and non-retroflex vowels is only reported for two languages in the South Asia sample. The first is Badaga, ___________________________________________ 11 I have not counted Chamorro (West Malayo-Polynesian) as having /j/, though it is listed as such in UPSID, because the language does not distinguish /j/ from another non-retroflex rhotic. 12 Contrast between an alveolar flap /r/ and a retroflex approximant /ɹ/ (or /ɻ/) may occur in Puroik (aka. Sulung), a Tibeto-Burman language of Arunachal Pradesh, India. Two speakers I recorded in 2013 consistently distinguished these sounds in minimal pairs (e.g., [aran] ‘sickness’, |aɹan] ‘inside, under, below’). The language also has a retroflex vowel ɚ], possibly a syllabic variant of /ɹ/ (e.g., [ɚpua] ‘boundary sign’). Puroik is not included in the present survey because I did not have access to a complete and reliable phonological description as of the time of writing. [ Page ] 23 a South Dravidian language of the Nilgiri area. Emeneau (1939) recorded a three-way distinction for Badaga vowels: non-retroflexed, half-retroflexed, and fully retroflexed. The retroflex vowels evolved under the influence of a following retroflex liquid. Subsequent loss of the conditioning liquid promoted the retroflex vowels to phonemic status. However, it is not clear that the contrast has survived. More recent work on the language found no trace of the retroflex vowels in the speech of younger informants (Hockings and Pilot-Raichoor 1992). It is worth noting that many other Dravidian languages of Nilgiri area have developed ‘centralized’, ‘retracted’ or ‘back unrounded’ vowels under similar conditions (Diffloth 1975: 55), but it is not clear whether any of these might qualify as retroflex. The only other case of retroflex vowel phonemes in South Asia is Kalasha, an Indo-Aryan language of the Dardic group in northern Pakistan. In Kalasha, every oral and nasal vowel has a phonemic retroflex counterpart, as shown in (6). Like the retroflex vowels of Badaga, those of Kalasha evolved under the influence of a neighboring retroflex consonant that was subsequently lost. In fact, Morgenstierne (1973) appears to have recorded a retroflex approximant (/ř in his transcription) in environments where subsequent studies have recorded retroflex vowels (Heegård and M0rch 2004). The symmetry and complexity of the Kalasha system make it typologically interesting. Cross-linguistically, retroflex vowel phonemes typically form a reduced subset of the non-retroflex system. In many cases, this subset is limited to a single retroflex (or ‘rhotacized’) vowel (often transcribed /ɚ/). The Kalasha system, with its fully symmetrical set of retroflex vowels, may be unparalleled. (6) Kalasha vowel phonemes (Heegård and M0rch 2004) a. non-retroflex (oral and nasal) i u 1 ũ e o e õ a a b. retroflex (oral and nasal) i- u- 1- u- e- o- e- Ö- a- ä- Map 7 shows the geographic distribution of languages with retroflex approximants and vowels. Unlike the preceding maps, this one includes both phonetic and phonological data. On the legend, the symbols ‘ɻ/’ represent the class of apical and/or retroflex approximants as a whole, irrespective of phonemic status, voicing, [ Page ] 24 nasalization, etc. Similarly, the symbols ‘ɚ/ɭ ' represent the class of retroflex vowels as a whole, regardless of phonemic status, vowel quality, friction, etc. Map 7 demonstrates that languages with retroflex approximants and vowels are concentrated in three areas corresponding to the three extremities of the South Asian ‘triangle’. Each area is associated with a different genetic group. The first area is the southern tip of India where we find Dravidian languages, such as Tamil and Malayalam, with /ɻ/, along with the retroflex vowels of Badaga in the Nilgiri hills. The second area is the northwest periphery of South Asia associated primarily with Indo-Iranian. Here we find retroflex approximants in Nuristani languages, Indo- Aryan (Dardic) Dameli, and the isolate Burushaski. This region is also home to Kalasha with its remarkable retroflex vowel system. These phenomena are interrelated. It was the development and subsequent loss of /ɻ/ that ultimately produced the retroflex vowels of Kalasha (Heegård and M0rch 2004). Not surprisingly, then, we find that retroflex vowels are quite prominent phonetically in languages of the region that have /ɻ/. Thus, Perder (2013) notes that the retroflex approximant of Dameli is primarily realised as retroflexion on adjacent vowels, and that it “might be possible to analyse each vowel affected by this sound as a separate phoneme, in effect a series of retroflex vowels, as has been done for neighbouring Kalasha” (30). Similarly, with respect to the Nuristani language, Waigali, Strand (2011) reports that the phonemes /ɽ/ and /ɻ/ (/r, ň/ in his transcription) are realized “as mere ‘retroflexion’ of a following non-front vowel, without any consonantal turbulence”. Thus, there is a close affinity between the occurrence of retroflex approximants and vowels in the northwest region. The third area of interest is the northeastern periphery of South Asia and adjacent parts of China and Myanmar. This area is anchored in Tibeto-Burman. As mentioned above, retroflexion is not phonologically significant for approximants in Tibeto- Burman. Nevertheless, languages of this area often realize /r/ as an apical/retroflex approximant phonetically. All such cases that were reported in the liturature survey are shaded accordingly on the map. This region is also home to Qiang and Mandarin (beyond the borders of the map), both of which have retroflex vowels that are lexically contrastive. Other languages of the area have a so-called retroflex ‘fricative vowel’, often transcribed [ʅ], which is effectively syllabic [ʐ]. These fricative vowels are often treated as allophones of a high central vowel /ɨ/ after retroflex affricates. Languages of this type include Lisu and varieties of Pumi, some of which also realize /r/ as [j] (e.g., Wadu Pumi, Niuwozi Pumi). While some languages have both retroflex approximants and vowels at a phonetic level, and other languages have one or the other as a phoneme, no language has both as phonemes. This is not surprising given the diachronic relation between them: it is precisely the loss of a retroflex approximant (or liquid) that typically gives rise to [ Page ] 25 retroflex vowel phonemes. Moreover, from a synchronic point of view, approximants and vowels are often different analytical interpretations of the the same phonetic reality. Just as [j] and [w] can often be analyzed as [i] and [u], and vice versa, so the retroflex segments in question can be analyzed as approximants or vowels. Rarely (if ever) would the analyst need to posit both as phonemes. 8. Conclusion The present survey of retroflexion in South Asia corroborates many of the key observations made by Ramanujan and Masica (1969) and Tikkanen (1999), refining them wherever possible. The most general of these observations is that retroflexion is an areal feature that cuts across genetic boundaries and marks out a geographic area corresponding very closely to South Asia, with the exception of parts of Nepal and Northeast India. However, the study also highlights the fact that retroflexion extends far beyond the limits of South Asia into East Asia (China), a point that is not clearly acknowledged in the earlier studies. Tikkanen (1999) observed that retroflex systems in languages on the northwest periphery of South Asia are typologically distinct from those in the greater part of the subcontinent because they favour retroflex fricatives and affricates in addition to stops. To this we can add that languages on the northeast periphery of the retroflex area, while similar to those in the northwest, are also distinct; they favour retroflex affricates and fricatives without stops. Perhaps the most striking fact about the various retroflex subsystems is that each one tends to cut across genetic lines marking out its own geographic space. It is possible to establish a few broad statistical correlations between specific types of contrast and individual language families (e.g., Dravidian favours /ɭ/ over /ɽ/; Tibeto- Burman generally lacks retroflex nasals and liquids; etc.). However, the distribution of most subsystems is clearly more geographic than genetic in nature. It remains to be seen whether these geographic areas can be correlated with other factors, linguistic or otherwise, that might shed more light on their origins. [ Page ] 26 Map 1: Languages of South Asia [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Map 1 details. ] [ Page ] 27 Map 2: Distribution of languages with and without retroflexion [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Map 2 details. ] [ Page ] 28 Map 3: Retroflexion in Nepal and northeast India (with dashed line showing the limits of retroflexion in Tibeto-Burman) [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Map 3 details. ] [ Page ] 29 Map 4: Distribution of retroflex obstruents (stops, affricates, and fricatives) [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Map 4 details. ] [ Page ] 30 Map 5: Distribution of retroflex and velar nasals [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Map 5 details. ] [ Page ] 31 Map 6: Distribution of retroflex liquids (laterals and flaps) [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Map 6 details. ] [ Page ] 32 Map 7: Distribution of retroflex approximants and vowels. [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Map 7 details. ] [ Page ] 33 Acknowledgements Special thanks to Peter Gallagher at Electric Retina (electricretina.com) for technical assistance with the QGIS software used to generate maps for this study. References Beyer, Stephan V. 1992. The Classical Tibetan language. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Bhat, D. N. S. 1973. Retroflexion: An areal feature. Working Papers on Language Universals 13. 27-67. Cain, Bruce D., & James W. Gair. 2000. Dhivehi (Maldivian). Muenchen: Lincom Europa. Dart, Sarah N., & Paroo Nihalani. 1999. The articulation of Malayalam coronal stops and nasals. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 29(2). 129-142. Diffloth, Gérard F. 1975. The South Dravidian obstruent system in Irula. In Harold F. Schiffman & Carol M. Eastman (eds.), Dravidian phonological systems, 47- 56. Seattle: Institute for Comparative and Foreign Area Studies, University of Washington. Dixit, R. Prakash, & James E. Flege. 1991. Vowel context, rate and loudness effects on linguopalatal contact patterns in Hindi retroflex /ʈ/. Journal of Phonetics 19. 213-229. Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) 2013. The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info. Ebert, Karen. 2006. South Asia as a linguistic area. In Keith Brown & Sarah Ogilvie (eds.), Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world, 995-1001. Oxford: Elsevier. Elfenbein, Josef. 1997. Pashto phonology. In Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa, volume 2, 733-760. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Emeneau, M. B. 1939. The vowels of the Badaga language. Language 15 (1). 43-47. Emeneau, M. B. 1956. India as a linguistic area. Language 32(1). 3-16. Heegård, Jan, & Ida Elisabeth M0rch. 2004. Retroflex vowels and other peculiarities in the Kalasha sound system. In Anju Saxena (ed.), Himalayan languages, past and present, 57-76. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Hockings, Paul, & Christiane Pilot-Raichoor. 1992. A Badaga-English dictionary. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Khatiwada, Rajesh. 2007. Nepalese retroflex stops: a static palatography study of inter- and intra-speaker variability. Paper presented at Interspeech 2007, Antwerp. [ Page ] 34 Krishnamurti, Bh. 2003. The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kuiper, F. B. J. 1967. The genesis of a linguistic area. Indo-Iranian Journal, 10(2-3), 81-102. Ladefoged, Peter, & Peri Bhaskararao. 1983. Non-quantal aspects of consonant production: A study of retroflex consonants. Journal of Phonetics 11. 291-302. Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, & Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2016. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Nineteenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com. Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maddieson, Ian, & Kristin Precoda. 1990. Updating UPSID. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 74, 104-111. Masica, Colin P. 1976. Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. Masica, Colin P. 1992. South Asian languages. In William Bright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol. 4, 38-42. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. Michailovsky, Boyd. 1988. Phonological typology of Nepal languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 11(2). 25-50. Morgenstierne, Georg. 1973. Indo-Iranian frontier languages, vol. 4, the Kalasha language. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Neukom, Lukas. 1999. Phonological typology of Northeast India. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 22(2). 121-147. Parpola, Asko. 1994. Deciphering the Indus script. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Perder, Emil. 2013. A grammatical description of Dameli. Stockholm: Stockholm University dissertation. Ramanujan, A. K. & Colin Masica. 1969. Toward a phonological typology of the Indian linguistic area. In T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Current trends in linguistics, volume 5: Linguistics in South Asia, 543-577. Paris: Mouton. Ramaswami, N. 1999. Common linguistic features in Indian languages: Phonetics. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Reddy, K. N. 1986. A palatographic study of Telugu retroflex consonants. In K. Rangan (ed.), Proceedings of the thirteenth All India Conference of Dravidian Linguists, 163-186. Thanjavur: Tamil University. Reddy, K. N. 2003. The vowel and consonant sounds of Indian languages. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 32(2). 32-54. [ Page ] 35 Ring, Hiram. 2015. Pnar. In Mathias Jenny & Paul Sidwell (eds.), The handbook of Austroasiatic languages, 1186-1226. Leiden, Boston: Brill. Spajic, Sinisa, Peter Ladefoged, & P. Bhaskararao. 1996. The trills of Toda. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 26(1). 1-21. Stampe, David L. 1965. Recent work in Munda linguistics I. International Journal of American Linguistics 31(4). 332-341. Strand, Richard. 2011. The sound system of nisei-ala. http://nuristan.info/Nuristani/Kalasha/Nishei/NisheiLanguage/Lexicon/phon.h tml (accessed 4 July 2016). Tikkanen, Bertil. 1999. Archaeological-linguistic correlations in the formation of retroflex typologies and correlating areal features in South Asia. In Roger Blench & Matthew Spriggs (eds.), Archaeology and language IV: Language change and cultural transformation, 138-148. London & New York: Routledge. Tikkanen, Bertil. 2008. Some areal phonological isoglosses in the transit zone between South and Central Asia. In Israr-Ud-Din (ed.), Proceedings of the third international Hindu Kush cultural conference, 250-262. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Zide, Norman H. 1960. Korku phonology and morphophonemics. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania dissertation. [ Page ] 36 Appendices This appendix provides information on the languages and data sources consulted for the typological survey in the paper Retroflexion in South Asia: Typological, genetic, and areal patterns. The appendix consists of two lists: one covering the languages surveyed within South Asia, and the other covering those surveyed in the regions surrounding South Asia. Each list is organized alphabetically by language name. The Ethnologue’s three-letter ISO code is also provided for each language (as best as I can determine it), along with the language’s genetic classification and data source(s). Some language names may correspond to more than one ISO code or vice versa. The following abbreviations are used for language classification: AA Austro-Asiatic IIr Indo-Iranian Nu Nuristani An Andamanese Ir Iranian Pa Palaungic Ch Chinese Kh Khasian ST Sino-Tibetan Dr Dravidian Mu Munda TB Tibeto-Burman IA Indo-Aryan Ni Nicobarese TK Tai-Kadai In many cases, multiple sources were consulted for a given language variety. Only the primary source (or sources) are listed here. Full bibliographic details for the data sources are provided in the list of references at the end of the appendix. Appendix A: South Asia language sample This section lists 205 language varieties that are spoken largely (if not exclusively) within one or more of the South Asian countries (i.e., India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Maldives). Statistics concerning South Asian languages are based on data from these languages and sources. Language ISO Class Sources Aiton aio TK Morey 2005 Andamanese, Great abj, etc. An Manoharan 1989; Abbi 2006 Angami, Khonoma njm ST, TB Blankenship et. al. 1993 Ao Naga, Chungli njo ST, TB Gowda 1972 Ao Naga, Mongsen njo ST, TB Coupe 2007 Apatani apt ST, TB Abraham 1985 Assamese asm IIr, IA Goswami & Tamuli 2003 Athpare aph ST, TB Ebert 1997 Awadhi awa IIr, IA Saksena 1937 Badaga bfq Dr Hockings & Pilot-Raichoor 1992 Language ISO Class Sources Bagri bgq IIr, IA Gusain 2000 Balochi, Eastern bgp IIr, Ir Elfenbein 1997a; Jahani & Korn 2009 Balochi, Western/Southern bgn, bcc IIr, Ir Elfenbein 1997a; Jahani & Korn 2009 Balti bft ST, TB Backstrom 1994 Bareli, Pawri bfb IIr, IA Immanuel & Jane 2003 Bareli, Rathwi bgd IIr, IA Varkey & Vinod 2003 Belhare byw ST, TB Bickel 2003 Bengali ben IIr, IA Bhattacharya 1988; Dasgupta 2003 Bhatri bgw IIr, IA Kirivasan & Amirthamary 2000 Bhil, Dungra duh IIr, IA Mathew & Susan 2000 Bhojpuri, Northern bho IIr, IA Shukla 1981 Bhojpuri, Southern bho IIr, IA Verma, M 2003 Bhumij unr AA, Mu Ramaswami 1992 Bishnupriya bpy IIr, IA Sinha 1981 Bodo (Boro) brx ST, TB Bhattacharya 1977 Brahui brh Dr Elfenbein 1997b Brijia (Asuri) asr AA, Mu Sahu 1980 Brokskat bkk IIr, IA Ramaswami 1975; Bashir 2003 Bundeli bns IIr, IA Jaiswal 1962 Burushaski bsk Isolate Anderson 1997 Byangsi bee ST, TB Trivedi 1991 Camling rab ST, TB Ebert 2003 Chantyal chx ST, TB Noonan 2003a Chepang cdm ST, TB Caughley 1970 Chokri nri ST, TB Bielenberg & Nienu 2001 Dameli dml IIr, IA Perder 2013 Darai dry IIr, IA Kotapish & Kotapish 1973 Deori der ST, TB Jacquesson 2005 Desiya Oriya dso IIr, IA Mathews 2003 Dhanki dhn IIr, IA Kulkarni 1976 Dhanwar dhw IIr, IA Kuegler & Kuegler 1974 Dhimal dhi ST, TB Cooper 1999 Dimasa dis ST, TB Misra 1986 Divehi (Maldivian) div IIr, IA Cain & Gair 2000 Dogri dgo IIr, IA Ghai 1991 Domaaki dmk IIr, IA Lorimer 1939 Dumi dus ST, TB van Driem 1993 Dzongkha dzo ST, TB van Driem 1992 [ Page ] 2 Language ISO Class Sources Gadaba, Mudhili gau Dr Bhaskararao 1980, 1998 Gadaba, Ollari gdb Dr Bhattacharya 1957 Gallong (Galo Adi) adl ST, TB Gupta 1963 Garasia gra IIr, IA Patel 1999 Garhwali gbm IIr, IA Chandrasekhar 1970 Garo (Mande) grt ST, TB Burling 2003 Gondi, Muria emu, mut Dr Steever 1998a Gondi, Southern ggo Dr Subrahmanyam 1968; Lincoln 1969 Gta’ (Gta?) gaq AA, Mu Anderson 2008 Gujarati guj IIr, IA Mistry 1997 Gurung gvr, ggn ST, TB Glover 1970 Gutob (Gadaba) gbj AA, Mu Griffiths 2008 Hakha Lai cnh ST, TB Peterson 2003 Haryanvi bgc IIr, IA Singh 1970 Hayu (Wayu) vay ST, TB Michailovsky 2003 Hindi hin IIr, IA Ohala 1994; Kaye 1997 Hmar hmr ST, TB Baruah & Bapui 1996 Ho hoc AA, Mu Anderson, Osada & Harrison 2008 Humla Bhotia, Limi hut ST, TB Wilde 2001 Irula iru Dr Periyalwar 1979; Zvelebil 1973 Jarawa anq An Abbi 2006 Jaunsari jns IIr, IA Satish 1990 Jero (Jerung) jee ST, TB Opgenort 2005 Jirel jul ST, TB Strahm & Maibaum 1971 Juang jun AA, Mu Patnaik 2008 Kagate syw ST, TB Hoehlig & Hari 1976 Kalami (Kalam Kohistani) gwc IIr, IA Baart 1997 Kalasha kls IIr, IA Heegard & Morch 2004 Kangri xnr IIr, IA Sharma 1974 Kannada kan Dr Sridhar 1990 Karbi (Mikir) mjw ST, TB Jeyapaul 1987 Kasaba (Irula) iru Dr Pillai 1976 Kashmiri kas IIr, IA Wali & Koul 1997 Khaling klr ST, TB Toba & Toba 1972 Kham kjl ST, TB Watters 2002 Khamyang ksu TK Morey 2005 Kharia khr AA, Mu Peterson 2011 Khasi kha AA, Kh Nagaraja 1989 [ Part ] 3 Language ISO Class Sources Khowar khw IIr, IA Bashir 2003 Kinnauri kfk ST, TB Sharma 1988 Kodaku ksz AA, Mu Kuriakkose & Liju 2008 Kodava kfa Dr Balakrishnan 1976; Ebert 1996 Kohistani, Indus mvy IIr, IA Hallberg & Hallberg 1999 Koi kkt ST, TB Lahaussois 2009 Kok Borok (Tripuri) trp ST, TB Karapurkar 1972 Kolami, Northwestern kfb Dr Emeneau 1961; Subrahmanyam 1998 Konda (Kubi) kfc Dr Krishnamurti & Benham 1998 Konkani knn IIr, IA Miranda 2003 Koraga, Mudu vmd Dr Bhat 1971 Koraga, Onti kfd Dr Bhat 1971 Koraga, Tappu kfd Dr Bhat 1971 Korku kfq AA, Mu Zide 1960, 2008 Korwa kfp AA, Mu George & Joseph 2008 Kota kfe Dr Subbaiah 1986 Kui kxu Dr Winfield 1928 Kulung kle ST, TB Tolsma 2006 Kumauni kfy IIr, IA Apte & Pattanayak 1967; van Riezen 2000 Kundal Shahi shd IIr, IA Rehman & Baart 2005 Kurtöp xkz ST, TB Hyslop 2008 Kurumba Kannada kfi Dr Ernest & Ernest 2000 (Coimbatore) Kurumba Kannada kfi Dr Varma 1978a (Pudukkottai) Kurumba, Betta xub Dr Selvaraj & Selvaraj 2003 Kurux kru Dr Pfeiffer 1972 Kusunda kgg Isolate Watters 2006 Kuvi kxv Dr Reddy et. al. 1974; Israel 1979 Kyerung kgy ST, TB Huber 2005 Ladakhi lbj ST, TB Koshal 1976 Lamani lmn IIr, IA Trail 1970 Lepcha lep ST, TB Plaisier 2007 Lhomi lhm ST, TB Vesalainen & Vesalainen 1976 Limbu lif ST, TB van Driem 1987 Lisu lis ST, TB Bradley 2003 Lotha Naga njh ST, TB Acharya 1975 Lushai (Mizo) lus ST, TB Burling 1957 [ Page ] 4 Language ISO Class Sources Magahi mag IIr, IA Verma, S. 2003 Magar, Eastern mgp ST, TB Shepherd & Shepherd 1971 Maithili mai IIr, IA Yadav 1996, 2003 Malayalam mal Dr Asher & Kumari 1997 Malto kmj, mjt Dr Mahapatra 1979; Steever 1998b Manangba (Manange) nmm ST, TB Hildebrandt 2004 Mao Naga nbi ST, TB Giridhar 1994 Marathi mar IIr, IA Pandharipande 1997, 2003 Maria, Hill (Abujhmaria) mrr Dr Natarajan 1985 Maria, Dandami daq Dr Soundararaj & Soundararaj 1999 Marwari rwr IIr, IA Gusain 2004 Meithei (Manipuri) mni ST, TB Chelliah 1997 Mewati wtm IIr, IA Gusain 2003 Mishmi, Digaro mhu ST, TB Sastry 1984 Mising (Miri) mrg ST, TB Prasad 1991 Mundari unr AA, Mu Osada 2008 Naga, Phom nph ST, TB Burling & Phom 1998 Nar Phu npa ST, TB Noonan 2003b Nepali nep IIr, IA Riccardi 2003 Newar, Dolakha new ST, TB Genetti 2007 Newar, Kathmandu new ST, TB Hargreaves 2003 Nicobarese, Car caq AA, Ni Das 1977 Nicobarese, Central ncb AA, Ni Radhakrishnan 1981 Onge oon An Abbi 2006 Oriya ori IIr, IA Ray 2003 Palula phl IIr, IA Liljegren 2016 Paniya pcg Dr Daniel & Stephen 2003 Panjabi, Eastern pan IIr, IA Bhatia 1993; Malik 1995 Pardhi (Bahelia) pcl IIr, IA Srivastava 1968 Parenga (Gorum) pcj AA, Mu Anderson & Rau 2008 Parji (Duruwa) pci Dr Burrow & Bhattacharya 1953 Pashto, Northeastern pbu IIr, Ir Elfenbein 1997c Pashto, Southeastern pbt IIr, Ir Elfenbein 1997c Pengo peg Dr Burrow & Bhattacharya 1970 Phake phk TK Morey 2005 Pnar pbv AA, Kh Ring 2015 Purik prx ST, TB Zemp 2014 Rabha rah ST, TB Joseph 2007 [ Page ] 5 Language ISO Class Sources Rājbanshi rjs IIr, IA Wilde 2008 Remo (Bonda) bfw AA, Mu Anderson & Harrison 2008a Rongmei Naga nbu ST, TB Sreedhar 1979 Sadri (Sadani) sck IIr, IA Jordan-Horstmann 1969 Santali sat AA, Mu Ghosh 2008 Saurashtra saz IIr, IA Norihiko 1991 Sawi sdg IIr, IA Bashir 2003 Seke, Tangbe skj ST, TB Honda 2003 Sema (Sumi Naga) nsm ST, TB Sreedhar 1976 Seraiki skr IIr, IA Shackle 1976 Shekawati swv IIr, IA Gusain 2001 Sherpa xsr ST, TB Kelly 2004 Shina, Gilgit scl IIr, IA Radloff 1999 Shina, Kohistani plk IIr, IA Schmidt & Kohistani 2008 Sikkimese (Denjongka) sip ST, TB Yliniemi 2005 Sindhi snd IIr, IA Khubchandani 2003; Nihilani 1999 Sinhalese sin IIr, IA Gair 2003 Sora srb AA, Mu Anderson & Harrison 2008b Spiti spt ST, TB Sharma, S. R. 1979 Sunwar suz ST, TB Borchers 2008 Tamang, Eastern taj ST, TB Mazaudon 2003 Tamil, Kanniyakumari tam Dr Christdas 1988 Tamil, Madras tam Dr Annamalai & Steever 1998; Keane 2004 Tangkhul Naga nmf ST, TB Arokianathan 1987 Telugu tel Dr Krishnamurti 1998 Thado Chin tcz ST, TB Thirumalai 1972; Haokip 2008 Thakali ths ST, TB Hari 1970 Thangmi thf ST, TB Turin 2004 Tharu, Chitwan the IIr, IA Boehm 1998 Tharu, Danguara thl IIr, IA Boehm 1998 Tharu, Kochila thq IIr, IA Boehm 1998 Tharu, Rana thr IIr, IA Boehm 1998 Thulung Rai tdh ST, TB Lahaussois 2003 Toda tcx Dr Sakthivel 1976 Torwali trw IIr, IA Lunsford 2001; Bashir 2003 Tshangla tsj ST, TB Andvik 2003 Tulu tcy Dr Bhat 1998 Urali url Dr Lal 1991 [ Page ] 6 Language ISO Class Sources Urdu urd IIr, IA Schmidt 2003 Vaagri Boli vaa IIr, IA Varma 1970 Wakhi wbl IIr, Ir Bashir 2009; Satoko 2005 Wambule wme ST, TB Opgenort 2004 Yerava (Ravula) yea Dr Mallikarjun 1993 Yerukala yeu Dr Varma 1978b Zanskari zau ST, TB Hoshi & Tsering 1978; Jerry & Jerry 2013 Appendix B: Languages sampled outside of South Asia This section lists 55 language varieties that are spoken in the regions surrounding South Asia (e.g., Southeast Asia, East Asia, Central Asia, etc.). These languages are included, along with those from section 1 (above), on the maps that accompany the paper Retroflexion in South Asia: Typological, genetic, and areal patterns. Language ISO Class Sources Akha ahk ST, TB Lewis 1968 Amharic amh Semitic Hayward & Hayward 1999 Arabic, Gulf afb Semitic Qafisheh 1977 Arabic, San'ani ayn Semitic Watson 2002 Ashkun ask IIr, Nu Strand 2011d Bai, Yunnan bfs ST, TB Wiersma 2003 Burmese mya ST, TB Watkins 2001; Wheatley 2003 Cantonese yue ST, Ch Zee 1999; Bauer & Matthews 2003 Caodeng Rgyalrong jya ST, TB Sun 2003 Cone (Choni) cda ST, TB Jacques 2014 Dari prs IIr, Ir Rees 2008 Dulong duu ST, TB LaPolla 2003a Harsusi hss Semitic Johnstone 1977 Jiarong (Cogtse) jya ST, TB Nagano 2003 Jinghpo kac ST, TB Qingxia & Diehl 2003 Kamviri xvi IIr, Nu Strand 2011a. Karen, Pwo kjp ST, TB Kato 2003 Kati bsh IIr, Nu Strand 2011b Kayah, Eastern eky ST, TB Solnit 2003 Khmer (Cambodian) khm AA, Khmeric Bisang 2014 Kirghiz kir Turkic Kirchner 1998 Koroshi ktl IIr, Ir Nourzaei et. al. 2015 [ Page ] 7 Language ISO Class Sources Lahu lhu ST, TB Matisoff 2003 Lao lao TK Enfield 2007 Mandaic mid Semitic Malone 1997 Mandarin, Standard cmn ST, Ch Duanmu 2002 Oirat xal Mongolic Birtalan 2003 Palaung, Shwe pll AA, Pa Mak 2012 Parachi prc IIr, Ir Kieffer 2009 Pashto, Northwest pbu IIr, Ir Elfenbein 1997c Pashto, Southwest pbt IIr, Ir Elfenbein 1997c Persian (Farsi) pes IIr, Ir Majidi & Ternes 1999; Windfuhr 1997 Pumi, Dayang pmj ST, TB Matisoff 1997 Pumi, Niuwozi pmj ST, TB Ding 2003 Pumi, Wadu pmi ST, TB Daudey 2014 Qiang cng ST, TB LaPolla 2003b Rawang raw ST, TB Morse 1963 Shughni sgh IIr, Ir Edelman & Dodykhudoeva 2009 Somali som Cushitic Saeed 1999 Tajiki tgk IIr, Ir Windfuhr & Perry 2009 Thai tha TK Tingsabadh & Abramson 1999 Thebo cda (?) ST, TB Lin 2014 Tibetan, Amdo (Labrang) adx ST, TB Makley et al. 1999 Tibetan, Amdo (Ndzorge) adx ST, TB Sun 1986 Tibetan, Khams (Dege) khg ST, TB Häsler 1999 Tibetan, Khams (Dongwang) khg ST, TB Bartee 2014 Tibetan, Khams (Kami) khg ST, TB Chirkova 2014 Tibetan, Khams (Rgyalthang) khg ST, TB Hongladarom 1996 Tibetan, Lhasa bod ST, TB DeLancey 2003; Denwood 1999 Turkmen tuk Turkic Schönig 1998 Uyghur uig Turkic Comrie 1997; Hahn 1998 Uzbek uzn Turkic Boeschoten 1998 Vietnamese, Northern vie AA, Vietic Brunelle 2014 Vietnamese, Southern vie AA, Vietic Brunelle 2014 Waigali wbk IIr, Nu S trand 2011c References Abbi, Anvita. 2006. Endangered languages of the Andaman Islands. Muenchen: Lincom Europa. Abraham, P. T. 1985. Apatani grammar. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Acharya, K. P. 1975. Lotha phonetic reader. Mysore: Central Insitute of Indian Languages. [ Page ] 8 Anderson, Gregory D. S. 1997. Burushaski phonology. In Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa, vol. 2, 1021-1041. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Anderson, Gregory D. S. 2008. Gta?. In Gregory D. S. Anderson (ed.), The Munda languages, 682- 763. London & New York: Routledge. Anderson, Gregory. D. S. & K. David Harrison. 2008a. Remo (Bonda). In Gregory D. S. Anderson (ed.), The Munda languages, 557-632. London & New York: Routledge. Anderson, Gregory. D. S. & K. David Harrison. 2008b. Sora. In Gregory D. S. Anderson (ed.), The Munda languages, 299-380. London & New York: Routledge. Anderson, Gregory D. S., Toshiki Osada & K. David Harrison. 2008. Ho and the other Kherwarian languages. In Gregory D. S. Anderson (ed.), The Munda languages, 195-255. London & New York: Routledge. Anderson, Gregory D. S. & Felix Rau. 2008. Gorum. In Gregory D. S. Anderson (ed.), The Munda languages, 381-433. London & New York: Routledge. Andvik, Erik. 2003. Tshangla. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 439-455. London & New York: Routledge. Annamalai, E. & Sanford B. Steever. 1998. Modern Tamil. In Sanford B. Steever (ed.), The Dravidian languages, 100-128. London & New York: Routledge. Apte, Mahadeo L. & D. P. Pattanayak. 1967. An outline of Kumauni grammar. Durham: Duke University. Arokianathan, S. 1987. Tangkhul Naga grammar. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Asher, R. E. & T. C. Kumari. 1997. Malayalam. London & New York: Routledge. Baart, Joan L. 1997. The sounds and tones of Kalam Kohistani, with wordlist and texts. Islamabad & Horsleys Green: National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University and Summer Institute of Linguistics. Backstrom, Peter C. 1994. A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Western Tibetan. Arlington, TX: University of Texas at Arlington MA thesis. Balakrishnan, R. 1976. Phonology of Kodagu with vocabulary. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University. Bartee, Ellen Lynn. 2014. A grammar of Dongwang Tibetan. Santa Barbara, CA: University o California dissertation. Baruah, P. N. & V. L. T. Bapui. 1996. Hmar grammar. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Bashir, Elena. 2003. Dardic. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 818-894. London & New York: Routledge. Bashir, Elena. 2009. Wakhi. In Gernot L. Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian languages, 825-862. London & New York: Routledge. Bauer, Rober S. & Stephen Matthews. 2003. Cantonese. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 146-154. London & New York: Routledge. Bhaskararao, Peri. 1980. Konekor Gadaba: A Dravidian language. Pune: Deccan College Post- Graduate & Research Institute. Bhaskararao, Peri. 1998. Gadaba. In Sanford B. Steever (ed.), The Dravidian languages, 328-355. London & New York: Routledge. Bhat, D. N. S. 1971. The Koraga language. Poona: Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute. [ Page ] 9 Bhat, D. N. S. 1998. Tulu. In Sanford B. Steever (ed.), The Dravidian languages, 158-177. London & New York: Routledge. Bhatia, Tej K. 1993. Punjabi: A cognitive-descriptive grammar. London & New York: Routledge. Bhattacharya, Krishna. 1988. Bengali phonetic reader. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Bhattacharya, Pramod Chandra. 1977. A descriptive analysis of the Boro language. Gauhati: Gauhati University. Bhattacharya, Sudhibhushan. 1957. Ollari: A Dravidian speech. Delhi: Department of Anthropology, Government of India. Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. Belhare. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 546-570. London & New York: Routledge. Bielenberg, Brian, & Zhalie Nienu. 2001. Chokri (Phek dialect): phonetics and phonology. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 24(2). 85-122. Birtalan, Agnes. 2003. Oirat. In Juha Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 210-228. London & New York: Routledge. Bisang, Walter. 2014. Modern Khmer. In Paul Sidwell & Mathias Jenny (eds.), The handbook of Austroasiatic languages, vol. 1, 677-716. Boston, MA: Brill Academic Publishers. Blankenship, Barbara, Peter Ladefoged, Peri Bhaskararao & Nichumeno Chase. 1993. Phonetic structure of Khonoma Angami. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 16(2). 69-87. Boehm, Edward Daniel. 1998. A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Tharu. Arlington, TX: University of Texas at Arlington MA thesis. Boeschoten, Hendrik. 1998. Uzbek. In Lars Johanson & Éva A. Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 357-378. London & New York: Routledge. Borchers, Dōrte. 2008. A grammar of Sunwar: Descriptive grammar, paradigms, texts and glossary. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Bradley, David. 2003. Lisu. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 222-235. London & New York: Routledge. Brunelle, Marc. 2014. Vietnamese (Tiêng Viet). In Paul Sidwell & Mathias Jenny (eds.), The handbook of Austroasiatic languages, vol. 1, 909-953. Boston, MA: Brill Academic Publishers. Burling, Robbins. 1957. Lushai phonemics. Indian Linguistics 17. 148-155. Burling, Robbins. 2003. Garo. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 387-400. London & New York: Routledge. Burling, Robbins & L. Amon Phom. 1998. Phom phonology and word list. Linguistics of the Tibeto- Burman Area 21(2). 13-42. Burrow, T. & S. Bhattacharya. 1953. The Parji language: A Dravidian language of Bastar. Hertford: Stephen Austin and Sons. Burrow, T. & S. Bhattacharya. 1970. The Pengo language: grammar, texts, and vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cain, Bruce D. & James W. Gair. 2000. Dhivehi (Maldivian). Muenchen: Lincom Europa. Caughley, Ross C. 1970. Chepang segmental synopsis. In Austin Hale and Kenneth L. Pike (eds.), Tone systems of Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal 1: Studies on tone and phonological segments, 279-299. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Chandrasekhar, A. 1970. The phonemes of Garhwali. Indian Linguistics 31(3). 80-85. Chelliah, Shobhana L. 1997. A grammar of Meithei. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Chirkova, Katia. 2014. Kami. In Jackson T.-S. Sun (ed.), Phonological profiles of little-studied Tibetic varieties, 1-75. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. [ Page ] 10 Christdas, Prathima. 1988. The phonology and morphology of Tamil. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation. Comrie, Bernard. 1997. Uyghur phonology. In Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa, vol. 2, 913-925. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Cooper, Kathrin. 1999. Dhimal. In Yogendra P. Yadava & Warren W. Glover (eds.), Topics in Nepalese linguistics, 26-44. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy. Coupe, A. R. 2007. A grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Daniel, Stephen & Lissy Stephen. 2003. A write-up on Paniya phonology. Paniya Urgent Literacy for Social Empowerment (PULSE). Unpublished manuscript. Das, A. R. 1977. A study on the Nicobarese language. Calcutta: Anthropological Survey of India, Government of India. Dasgupta, Probal. 2003. Bangla. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 351-390. London & New York: Routledge. Daudey, Gerdine Henriette. 2014. A grammar of Wadu Pumi. Melbourne, Australia: La Trobe University dissertation. DeLancey, Scott. 2003. Lhasa Tibetan. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino- Tibetan languages, 270-288. London & New York: Routledge. Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Ding, Picus Sizhi. 2003. Prinmi: A sketch of Niuwozi. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 588-601. London & New York: Routledge. Duanmu, San. 2002. The phonology of Standard Chinese (2nd edn.). New York: Oxford University Press. Ebert, Karen. 1996. Kodava. Munchen: Lincom Europa. Ebert, Karen. 1997. A grammar of Athpare. Munchen: Lincom Eurpoa. Ebert, Karen. 2003. Camling. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 533-545. London & New York: Routledge. Edelman, D. I. & Leila R. Dodykhudoeva. 2009. Shughni. In Gernot L. Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian languages, 787-824. London and New York: Routledge. Elfenbein, Josef. 1997a. Balochi phonology. In Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa, vol. 2, 761-776. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Elfenbein, Josef. 1997b. Brahui phonology. In Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa, vol. 2, 797-811. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Elfenbein, Josef. 1997c. Pashto phonology. In Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa, vol. 2, 733-760. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Emeneau, M. B. 1961. Kolami: A Dravidian language. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University. Enfield, N. J. 2007. A grammar of Lao. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Ernest, & Sylvia Ernest. 2000. A summary of Kurumba Kannada phonology. Bangalore: Carey Bible Translators. Gair, James W. 2003. Sinhala. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages 766-817. London & New York: Routledge. Genetti, Carol. 2007. A grammar of Dolakha Newar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. George, Binzy Joseph & Christina Joseph. 2008. A write-up on Korwa phonology. Unpublished manuscript. Ghai, Ved Kumari. 1991. Studies in phonetics and phonology (with special reference to Dogri). New Delhi: Ariana Publishing House. [ Page ] 11 Ghosh, Arun. 2008. Santali. In Gregory D. S. Anderson (ed.), The Munda languages, 11-98. London & New York: Routledge. Giridhar, P. P. 1994. Mao Naga grammar. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Glover, Warren W. 1970. Gurung segmental synopsis. In Austin Hale and Kenneth L. Pike (eds.), Tone systems of Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal 1: Studies on tone and phonological segments, 211-236. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Goswami, G. C. & Jyotiprakash Tamuli. 2003. Asamiya. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 391-443. London & New York: Routledge. Gowda, K. S. Gurubasave. 1972. Ao-Naga phonetic reader. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Griffiths, Arlo. 2008. Gutob. In Gregory D. S. Anderson (ed.), The Munda languages, 633-681. London & New York: Routledge. Gupta, K. Das. 1963. An introduction to the Gallong language. Shillong: North-East Frontier Agency. Gusain, Lakhan. 2000. Bagri. Muenchen: Lincom Europa. Gusain, Lakhan. 2001. Shekhawati. Muenchen: Lincom Europa. Gusain, Lakhan. 2003. Mewati. Muenchen: Lincom Europa. Gusain, Lakhan. 2004. Marwari. Muenchen: Lincom Europa. Hahn, Reinhard F. 1998. Uyghur. In Lars Johanson & Éva A. Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 379-396. London & New York: Routledge. Hallberg, Daniel G. & Calinda E. Hallberg. 1999. Indus Kohistani: A preliminary phonological and morphological analysis. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University and Summer Institute of Linguistics. Haokip, Pauthang. 2008. Phonological structure of Thadou. South Asian Language Review 18(1). 42- 70. Hargreaves, David. 2003. Kathmandu Newar (Nepāl Bhāsā). In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 371-384. London & New York: Routledge. Hari, Maria. 1970. Thakali segmental synopsis. In Austin Hale and Kenneth L. Pike (eds.), Tone systems of Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal 1: Studies on tone and phonological segments, 258-78. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Häsler, Katrin Louise. 1999. A grammar of the Tibetan Sde.dge dialect. Bern, Switzerland: University of Bern dissertation. Hayward, Katrina & Richard J. Hayward. 1999. Amharic. In Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, 45-50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heegård, Jan, & Ida Elisabeth M0rch. 2004. Retroflex vowels and other peculiarities in the Kalasha sound system. In Anju Saxena (ed.), Himalayan languages, past and present, 57-76. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Hildebrandt, Kristine A. 2004. A grammar and glossary of the Manange language. In Carol Genetti (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal: Manange and Sherpa, 1-189. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University. Hockings, Paul, & Christiane Pilot-Raichoor. 1992. A Badaga-English dictionary. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Hoehlig, Monika & Maria Hari. 1976. Kagate phonemic summary. Kathmandu: Summer Institute of Linguistics and Institute of Nepal and Asian Studies. [ Page ] 12 Honda, Isao. 2003. A sketch of Tangbe. In Tej Ratna Kansakar & Mark Turin (eds.), Themes in Himalayan languages and linguistics, 49-64. Heidelberg and Kathmandu: South Asia Institute and Tribhuvan University. Hongladarom, Krisadawan. 1996. Rgyalthang Tibetan of Yunnan: A preliminary report. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 19(2). 69-92. Hoshi, Michiyo & Tondup Tsering. 1978. Zangskar vocabulary: A Tibetan dialect spoken in Kashmir. Tokyo: Institute for the study of languages and cultures of Asia and Africa. Huber, Brigitte. 2005. The Tibetan dialect of Lende (Kyirong): a grammatical description with historical annotations. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH. Hyslop, Gwendolyn. 2008. Kurtöp phonology in the context of North East India. In Stephen Morey, & Mark Post (eds.), North East Indian linguistics, 3-25. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd. Immanuel & Jane. 2003. A write-up on Pawri phonology. FMPB. Unpublished manuscript. Israel, M. 1979. A grammar of the Kuvi language (with texts and vocabulary). Trivandrum: Dravidian Linguistics Association. Jacques, Guillaume. 2014. Cone. In Jackson T.-S. Sun (ed.), Phonological profiles of little-studied Tibetic varieties, 269-375. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. Jacquesson, Francois. 2005. Le Deuri: langue Tibéto-Birmane d'Assam. Leuven: Peeters. Jahani, Carina & Agnes Korn. 2009. Balochi. In Gernot L. Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian languages, 634-692. London and New York: Routledge. Jaiswal, M. P. 1962. A linguistic study of Bundeli. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Jerry, Albert & Hepzibah Jerry. 2013. Zanskari phonemic summary. Dehra Dun: Institute of Languages and Linguistics. Unpublished manuscript. Jeyapaul, V. Y. 1987. Karbi grammar. Manasagangotri, Mysore: Central Institute for Indian Languages. Johnstone, T. M. 1977. Harsūsi lexicon and English-Harsūsi word-list. London: Oxford University Press. Jordan-Horstmann, Monika. 1969. Sadani: A Bhojpuri dialect spoken in Chotanagpur. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Joseph, U. V. 2007. Rabha. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Karapurkar, Pushpa. 1972. Tripuri phonetic reader. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Kato, Atsuhiko. 2003. Pwo Karen. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 632-648. London & New York: Routledge. Kaye, Alan S. 1997. Hindi-Urdu phonology. In Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa, vol. 2, 637-652. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Keane, Elinor. 2004. Tamil. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 34(1). 111-116. Kelly, Barbara. 2004. A grammar and glossary of the Sherpa language. In Carol Genetti (ed.), Tibeto- Burman languages of Nepal: Manange and Sherpa, 193-324. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University. Khubchandani, Lachman M. 2003. Sindhi. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo- Aryan languages, 622-658. London & New York: Routledge. Kieffer, Charles M. 2009. Parachi. In Gernot L. Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian languages, 693-720. London and New York: Routledge. Kirchner, Mark. 1998. Kirghiz. In Lars Johanson & Éva A. Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 344- 356. London & New York: Routledge. [ Page ] 13 Kirivasan & Amirthamary. 2000. Bhatri phonemic summary. Indian Evangelical Mission. Unpublished manuscript. Koshal, Sanyukta. 1976. Ladakhi phonetic reader. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Kotapish, Carl & Sharon Kotapish. 1973. Darai phonemic summary. Kathmandu: Summer Institute of Linguistics and Institute of Nepal and Asian Studies. Krishnamurti, Bh. 1998. Telugu. In Sanford B. Steever (ed.), The Dravidian languages, 202-240. London & New York: Routledge. Krishnamurti, Bh. & Brett A. Benham. 1998. Konda. In Sanford B. Steever (ed.), The Dravidian languages, 241-269. London & New York: Routledge. Kuegler, Klaus P. & Doris Kuegler. 1974. Danuwar Rai phonemic summary. Kathmandu: Summer Institute of Linguistics and Institute of Nepal and Asian Studies, Tribhuvan University. Kulkarni, S. B. 1976. Bhili of Dangs. Poona: Deccan College. Kuriakkose, Liju & Lisa Liju. 2008. A write-up on Kodaku phonology. Unpublished manuscript. Lahaussois, Aimée. 2003. Thulung Rai. Himalayan Linguistics 1. 1-25. Lahaussois Aimée. 2009. Koyi Rai: An initial grammatical sketch. Himalayan Linguistics 4. 1-33. Lal, Sam Mohan. 1991. A descriptive analysis of Urali. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. LaPolla, Randy J. 2003a. Dulong. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 674-682. London & New York: Routledge. LaPolla, Randy J. 2003b. Qiang. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 573-587. London & New York: Routledge. Lewis, Paul. 1968. Akha phonology. Anthropological Linguistics 10(2). 8-18. Liljegren, Henrik. 2016. A grammar of Palula. Berlin: Language Science Press. Lin, You-Jing. 2014. Thebo. In Jackson T.-S. Sun (ed.), Phonological profiles of little-studied Tibetic varieties, 215-267. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. Lincoln, Neville John. 1969. A descriptive analysis of the Adilabad dialect of Gondi. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation. Lorimer, D. L. R. 1939. The Dumaki language. Nijmegen: Dekker and Van de Vegt N V. Lunsford, Wayne A. 2001. An overview of linguistic structures in Torwali, a language of northern Pakistan. Arlington, TX: University of Texas at Arlington MA thesis. Mahapatra, B. P. 1979. Malto — An ethnosemantic study. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Majidi, Mohammad-Reza & Elmar Ternes. 1999. Persian (Farsi). In Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, 124-125. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mak, Pandora. 2012. Golden Palaung: a grammatical description. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics (SEAMLES). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1885/9558. Makley, Charlene, Keith Dede, Hua Kan & Wang Qingshan. 1999. The Amdo dialect of Labrang. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 22(1). 97-127. Malik, Amar Nath. 1995. The phonology and morphology of Panjabi. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers. Mallikarjun, B. 1993. A descriptive analysis of Yerava. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Malone, Joseph L. 1997. Modern and Classical Mandaic phonology. In Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa, vol. 1, 141-159. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Manoharan, S. 1989. A descriptive and comparative study of Andamanese language. Calcutta: Anthropological Survey of India, Government of India. [ Page ] 14 Mathew, Sunil & Maya Susan. 2000. Dungra Bhil phonemic summary. FMPB. Unpublished manuscript. Mathews, Susan. 2003. A summary of Desiya phonology. Koraput District, Orissa: Asha Kiran Society. Matisoff, James A. 1997. Dàyáng Pumi phonology and adumbrations of comparative Qiangic. Mon- Khmer Studies 27. 171-213. Matisoff, James A. 2003. Lahu. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 208-221. London & New York: Routledge. Mazaudon, Martine. 2003. Tamang. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino- Tibetan languages, 291-314. London & New York: Routledge. Michailovsky, Boyd. 2003. Hayu. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 518-532. London & New York: Routledge. Miranda, Rocky V. 2003. Konkani. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 729-765. London & New York: Routledge. Misra, Partha Sarathi. 1986. Phonemes of the Dimasa language. Indian Linguistics 47. 33-37. Mistry, P. J. 1997. Gujarati phonology. In Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa, vol. 2, 653-673. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Morey, Stephen. 2005. The Tai languages of Assam — a grammar and texts. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University. Morse, Robert H. 1963. Phonology of Rawang. Anthropological Linguistics 5(5). 17-41. Nagano, Yasuhiko. 2003. Cogtse Gyarong. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 469-489. London & New York: Routledge. Nagaraja, K. S. 1989. Khasi phonetic reader. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Natarajan, G. V. 1985. Abujhmaria grammar. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Nihalani, Paroo. 1999. Sindhi. In Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, 131-134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Noonan, Michael. 2003a. Chantyal. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino- Tibetan languages, 315-335. London & New York: Routledge. Noonan, Michael. 2003b. Nar Phu. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino- Tibetan languages, 336-352. London & New York: Routledge. Norihiko, Ucida. 1991. The language of the Saurashtrans in Tirupati. Bangalore: Mahalaxmi Enterprises. Nourzaei, Maryam, Carina Jahani, Erik Anonby, and Abbas Ali Ahangar. 2015. Koroshi: A corpus- based grammatical description. Studia Iranica Upsaliensia 13. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. Ohala, Manjari. 1994. Hindi. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 24 (1). 35-38. Opgenort, Jean Robert. 2004. A grammar of Wambule: grammar, lexicon, texts, and cultural survey of a Kiranti tribe of eastern Nepal. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Opgenort, Jean Robert. 2005. A grammar of Jero: with a historical comparative study of the Kiranti languages. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Osada, Toshiki. 2008. Mundari. In Gregory D. S. Anderson (ed.), The Munda languages, 99-164. London & New York: Routledge. Pandharipande, Rajeshwari V. 1997. Marathi. London & New York: Routledge. Pandharipande, Rajeshwari V. 2003. Marathi. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo- Aryan languages, 698-728. London & New York: Routledge. Patel, Victoria. 1999. A preliminary summary of Garasia phonology. Unpublished manuscript. [ Page ] 15 Patnaik, Manideepa. 2008. Juang. In Gregory D. S. Anderson (ed.), The Munda languages, 508-556. London & New York: Routledge. Perder, Emil. 2013. A grammatical description of Dameli. Stockholm: Stockholm University dissertation. Periyalwar, R. 1979. Phonology of Irula with vocabulary. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University. Peterson, David A. 2003. Hakha Lai. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino- Tibetan languages, 409-426. London & New York: Routledge. Peterson, John. 2011. A grammar of Kharia: A South Munda language. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Pfeiffer, Martin. 1972. Elements of Kurux historical phonology. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Pillai, V. Chidambaranatha. 1976. Phonology of Kasaba with vocabulary. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University. Plaisier, Heleen. 2007. A grammar of Lepcha. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Prasad, Bal Ram. 1991. Mising grammar. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Qafisheh, Hamdi A. 1977. A short reference grammar of Gulf Arabic. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Qingxia, Dai & Lon Diehl. 2003. Jinghpo. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino- Tibetan languages, 401-408. London & New York: Routledge. Radhakrishnan, R. 1981. The Nancowry word, phonology, affixal morphology and roots of a Nicobarese language. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research Inc. Radloff, Carla F. 1999. Aspects of the sound system of Gilgiti Shina. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University and Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ramaswami, N. 1975. Brokskat phonetic reader. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Ramaswami, N. 1992. Bhumij grammar. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Ray, Tapas S. 2003. Oriya. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 444-476. London & New York: Routledge. Reddy, B. Ramakrishna, Susheela P. Upadhyaya & Joy Reddy. 1974. Kuvi phonetic reader. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Rees, Daniel A. 2008. Towards proto-Persian: an optimality theoretic historical reconstruction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University dissertation. Rehman, Khawaja A. & Baart, Joan L. G. 2005. A first look at the language of Kundal Shahi in Azad Kashmir. SIL Electronic Working Papers 2005-008, 1-22. http://www.sil.org/silewp/2005/silewp2005-008.pdf (accessed 28 November 2008). Riccardi, Theodore. 2003. Nepali. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 538-580. London & New York: Routledge. Ring, Hiram. 2015. Pnar. In Mathias Jenny & Paul Sidwell (eds.), The handbook of Austroasiatic languages, 1186-1226. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Saeed, John. 1999. Somali. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Sahu, Ram Niwas. 1980. Notes on the phonology of Brijia. Indian Linguistics 41(3-4). 157-160. Saksena, Baburam. 1937. Evolution of Awadhi. Allahabad: The Indian Press. Sakthivel, S. 1976. Phonology of Toda with vocabulary. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University. Sastry, G. Devi Prasada. 1984. Mishmi phonetic reader. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Satish, U. S. 1990. A linguistic study of Jaunsari. New Delhi: Creative. Satoko, Yoshie. 2005. The sound system of Gojal Wakhi. Area and Culture Studies 71. 43-80. Schmidt, Rurth Laila. 2003. Urdu. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 286-350. London & New York: Routledge. [ Page ] 16 Schmidt, Ruth Laila & Razwal Kohistani. 2008. A grammar of the Shina language of Indus Kohistan. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Schönig, Claus. 1998. Turkmen. In Lars Johanson & Éva A. Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 261-272. London & New York: Routledge. Selvaraj, Daniel & Jayakodi Selvaraj. 2003. Betta Kurumba phonemic summary. New Life Computer Institute. Unpublished manuscript. Shackle, C. 1976. The Siraiki language of Central Pakistan. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Sharma, D. D. 1988. A descriptive grammar of Kinnauri. Delhi: Mittal Publications. Sharma, Shyamlal. 1974. Kangari: A descriptive study of the Kangra Valley dialect of Himachal Pradesh. Hoshiarpur: Vishveshvaranand Vishva Bandhu Institute of Sanskrit and Indological Studies, Panjab University. Sharma, Suhnu R. 1979. Phonological structure of Spiti. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 4(2). 83-110. Shepherd, Gary & Barbara Shepherd. 1971. Magar phonemic summary. Tibeto-Burman Phonemic Summaries, 8. Kirtipur: Summer Institute of Linguistics and Tribhuvan University. Shukla, Shaligram. 1981. Bhojpuri grammar. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Singh, Jag Deva. 1970. A descriptive grammar of Bangru. Kurukshetra, Haryana: Kurukshetra University. Sinha, Kali Prasad. 1981. The Bishnupriya Manipuri language. Calcutta: Firma KLM Private Limited. Solnit, David. 2003. Eastern Kayah Li. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino- Tibetan languages, 623-631. London & New York: Routledge. Soundararaj, J. & O. Soundararaj. 1999. A phonological summary of Bison Horn Madiya. Indian Evangelical Mission. Unpublished manuscript. Sreedhar, M. V. 1976. Sema phonetic reader. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Sreedhar, M. V. 1979. Phonemes of Rongmei Naga. Indian Linguistics 40. 41-48. Sridhar, S. N. 1990. Kannada. London & New York: Routledge. Srivastava, G. P. 1968. Bahelia phonology. Indian Linguistics 29. 67-79. Steever, Sanford B. 1998a. Gondi. In Sanford B. Steever (ed.), The Dravidian languages, 270-297. London & New York: Routledge. Steever, Sanford B. 1998b. Malto. In Sanford B. Steever (ed.), The Dravidian languages, 359-387. London & New York: Routledge. Strahm, Esther & Anita Maibaum. 1971. Jirel phonemic summary. [Kirtipur]: Summer Institute of Linguistics and Tribhuvan University. Strand, Richard. 2011a. The sound system of kâmv'iri. http://nuristan.info/Nuristani/Kamkata/Kom/KomLanguage/Lexicon/phon.html (accessed 4 July 2016). Strand, Richard. 2011b. The sound system of kt'ivra i vari. http://nuristan.info/Nuristani/Kamkata/Kata/KataLanguage/Lexicon/phon.html (accessed 4 July 2016). Strand, Richard. 2011c. The sound system of nišei-alâ. http://nuristan.info/Nuristani/Kalasha/Nishei/NisheiLanguage/Lexicon/phon.html (accessed 4 July 2016). [ Page ] 17 Strand, Richard. 2011d. The sound system of saňu-vi:ri. http://nuristan.info/Nuristani/AshkunEtc/SaNu/SaNuLanguage/Lexicon/phon.html (accessed 4 July 2016). Subbaiah, G. 1986. Kota phonetic reader. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Subrahmanyam, P. S. 1968. A descriptive grammar of Gondi. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University. Subrahmanyam, P. S. 1998. Kolami. In Sanford B. Steever (ed.), The Dravidian languages, 301-327. London & New York: Routledge. Sun, Jackson T.-S. 1986. Aspects of the phonology of Amdo Tibetan: Ndzorge Sɶme Xɤra dialect. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia. Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2003. Caodeng rGyalrong. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 490-502. London & New York: Routledge. Thirumalai, M. S. 1972. Thaadou phonetic reader. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Tingsabadh, M. R. Kalaya & Arthur S. Abramson. 1999. Thai. In Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, 147-150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Toba, Sueyoshi & Ingrid Toba. 1972. Khaling phonemic summary. Tibeto-Burman Phonemic Summaries, 12. Kirtipur: Summer Institute of Linguistics and Institute of Nepal Studies, Tribhuvan University. Tolsma, Gerard Jacobus. 2006. A grammar of Kulung. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Trail, Ronald L. 1970. The grammar of Lamani. Norman, Oklahoma: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Trivedi, G. M. 1991. Descriptive grammar of Byansi: A Bhotiya language. Calcutta: Anthropological Survey of India, Government of India. Turin, Mark. 2004. The phonology of Thangmi: A Tibeto-Burman language of Nepal. Journal of Asian and African Studies 67. 63-103. van Driem, George. 1987. A grammar of Limbu. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. van Driem, George. 1992. The grammar of Dzongkha. Thimphu, Bhutan: Dzongkha Development Commission, Royal Government of Bhutan. van Driem, George. 1993. A grammar of Dumi. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. van Riezen, Irena. 2000. An outline of Kumauni phonology. Unpublished manuscript. Varkey, Vinod Wilson & Annie Vinod. 2003. Rathwi Bareli phonemic summary. New Life Computer Institute. Unpublished manuscript. Varma, G. Srinivasa. 1970. Vaagri Boli: An Indo-Aryan language. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University. Varma, G. Srinivasa. 1978a. Kurumba Kannada. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University. Varma, G. Srinivasa. 1978b. Yerukala dialect. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University. Verma, Manindra K. 2003. Bhojpuri. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 515-537. London & New York: Routledge. Verma, Sheela. 2003. Magahi. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 498-514. London & New York: Routledge. Vesalainen, Olavi & Marja Vesalainen. 1976. Lhomi phonemic summary. Kathmandu: Summer Institute of Linguistics and Institute of Nepal and Asian Studies. Wali, Kashi & Omkar N. Koul. 1997. Kashmiri: A cognitive-descriptive grammar. London & New York: Routledge. Watkins, Justin W. 2001. Burmese. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 31(2). 291- 295. [ Page ] 18 Watson, Janet C. E. 2002. The phonology and morphology of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press Watters, David E. 2002. A grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watters, David E. 2006. Notes on Kusunda grammar: A language isolate of Nepal. Himalayan Linguistics Archive 3. 1-182. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/83v8d1wv. Wheatley, Julian K. 2003. Burmese. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino- Tibetan languages, 195-207. London & New York: Routledge. Wiersma, Grace. 2003. Yunnan Bai. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino- Tibetan languages, 651-673. London & New York: Routledge. Wilde, Christopher P. 2001. Preliminary phonological analysis of the Limi dialect of Humla Bhotia. Helsinki: University of Helsinki MA thesis. Wilde, Christopher P. 2008. A sketch of the phonology and grammar of Rājbanshi. Helsinki: University of Helsinki dissertation. Windfuhr, Gernot L. 1997. Persian phonology. In Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa, vol. 2, 675-689. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Windfuhr, Gernot & John R. Perry. 2009. Persian and Tajik. In Gernot L. Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian languages, 416-544. London and New York: Routledge. Winfield, W. W. 1928. A grammar of the Kui language. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal. Yadav, Ramawater. 1996. A reference grammar of Maithili. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Yadav, Ramawater. 2003. Maithili. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 477-497. London & New York: Routledge. Yliniemi, Juha. 2005. Preliminary phonological analysis of Denjongka of Sikkim. Helsinki: University of Helsinki MA thesis. Zee, Eric. 1999. Chinese (Hong Kong Cantonese). In Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, 58-60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zemp, Marius. 2014. Purik. In Jackson T.-S. Sun (ed.), Phonological profiles of little-studied Tibetic varieties, 127-214. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. Zide, Norman H. 1960. Korku phonology and morphophonemics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation. Zide, Norman H. 2008. Korku. In Gregory D. S. Anderson (ed.), The Munda languages, 256-298. London & New York: Routledge. Zvelebil, Kamil V. 1973. The Irula language. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. [ Page ] 19 ***** This is the end of the e-text. This e-text was brought to you by Tyndale University, J. William Horsey Library - Tyndale Digital Collections *****