使用者:Ngguls/南亞語系

  提示：此用戶頁的主題不是Austronesian languages。

Austroasiatic
Mon–Khmer
地理分佈	南亞 and 東南亞
譜系學分類	One of the world's primary 語言系屬分類
原始語言	Proto-Austroasiatic
分支	蒙達語族 Khasi–佤德昂語支 Khmuic Mangic (Pakanic) 越語支 Katuic Bahnaric 高棉語 Pearic Monic Aslian Nicobarese Shompen ?
ISO 639-5	aav
–
Glottolog	aust1305
Austroasiatic languages

The Austroasiatic languages /ˌɔːstroʊ.eɪʒiˈætɪk/, also known as Mon–Khmer /ˌmoʊnkəˈmɛər/, are a large 語言系屬分類 of 中南半島, also scattered throughout 印度, 孟加拉國, 尼泊爾 and the southern border of 中華人民共和國, with around 117 million speakers. The name Austroasiatic comes from a combination of the 拉丁語 words for "South" and "Asia", hence "South Asia". Of these languages, only 越南語, 高棉語, and 孟語 have a long-established recorded history, and only Vietnamese and Khmer have official status as modern 國家語言s (in 越南 and 柬埔寨, respectively). In 緬甸, the 佤語 is the de facto official language of 佤邦. 桑塔利語 is recognized as a regional language of India. The rest of the languages are spoken by minority groups and have no official status.

民族語 identifies 168 Austroasiatic languages. These form thirteen established families (plus perhaps Shompen, which is poorly attested, as a fourteenth), which have traditionally been grouped into two, as Mon–Khmer and 蒙達語族. However, one recent classification posits three groups (Munda, Nuclear Mon-Khmer and Khasi–Khmuic) while another has abandoned Mon–Khmer as a taxon altogether, making it synonymous with the larger family.

Austroasiatic languages have a disjunct distribution across India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Southeast Asia, separated by regions where other languages are spoken. They appear to be the extant autochthonous languages of Southeast Asia (if 安達曼群島 are not included), with the neighboring 印度-雅利安語支, 壯侗語族, 苗瑤語系, 達羅毗荼語系, 南島語系, and 漢藏語系 being the result of later migrations.

Typology

Regarding word structure, Austroasiatic languages are well known for having an iambic "sesquisyllabic" pattern, with basic nouns and verbs consisting of an initial, unstressed, reduced minor syllable followed by a stressed, full syllable. This reduction of presyllables has led to a variety among modern languages of phonological shapes of the same original Proto-Austroasiatic prefixes, such as the causative prefix, ranging from CVC syllables to consonant clusters to single consonants. As for word formation, most Austroasiatic languages have a variety of derivational prefixes, many have 中綴es, but suffixes are almost completely non-existent in most branches except Munda, and a few specialized exceptions in other Austroasiatic branches.

The Austroasiatic languages are further characterized as having unusually large vowel inventories and employing some sort of 音區 contrast, either between modal (normal) voice and breathy (lax) voice or between modal voice and creaky voice. Languages in the Pearic branch and some in the Vietic branch can have a three- or even four-way voicing contrast.

However, some Austroasiatic languages have lost the register contrast by evolving more diphthongs or in a few cases, such as Vietnamese, 聲調. Vietnamese has been so heavily influenced by Chinese that its original Austroasiatic phonological quality is obscured and now resembles that of South Chinese languages, whereas Khmer, which had more influence from Sanskrit, has retained a more typically Austroasiatic structure.

祖語

主條目：原始南亞語

Much work has been done on the reconstruction of 原始孟—高棉語 in Harry L. Shorto's Mon–Khmer Comparative Dictionary. Little work has been done on the 蒙達語族, which are not well documented. With their demotion from a primary branch, Proto-Mon–Khmer becomes synonymous with Proto-Austroasiatic.

Paul Sidwell (2005) reconstructs the consonant inventory of Proto-Mon–Khmer as follows:

*p	*t	*c	*k	*ʔ
*b	*d	*ɟ	*ɡ
*ɓ	*ɗ	*ʄ
*m	*n	*ɲ	*ŋ
*w	*l, *r	*j
	*s			*h

This is identical to earlier reconstructions except for *ʄ. *ʄ is better preserved in the Katuic languages, which Sidwell has specialized in. Sidwell (2011) suggests that the likely homeland of Austroasiatic is the middle 湄公河, in the area of the Bahnaric and Katuic languages (approximately where modern Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia come together), and that the family is not as old as frequently assumed, dating to perhaps 2000 BCE. Peiros (2011) criticized Sidwell's theory heavily and calls it a bunch of contradictions. He show with his analysis that the homeland of Austroasiatic is somewhere near the 長江. He suggests the 四川盆地 as likely homeland of proto-Austroasiatic before they migrated to other parts of central and southern China and than into Southeast Asia. He further suggests that the family must be as old as proto-Austronesian and proto-Sinotibetan or even older.

Georg van Driem (2011) proposes that the homeland of Austroasiatic is somewhere in southern China. He suggests that the region around the 珠江 is the likely homeland of the Austroasiatic languages and people. He further suggests, based on genetic studies, that the migration of 壯侗語族 people from Taiwan replaced the original Austroasiatic language but the effect on the people was only minor. Local Austroasiatic speakers adopted Kra-Dai languages and partially their culture.

The linguists Sagart (2011) and Bellwood (2013) support the theory of an origin of Austroasiatic along the 長江 in southern China.

A genetic and linguistic research in 2015 about ancient people in East Asia suggest an origin and homeland of Austroasiatic in today 華南地區 or even further north.

內部劃分

Linguists traditionally recognize two primary divisions of Austroasiatic: the 南亞語系 of 東南亞, 印度東北部 and the 尼科巴群島, and the 蒙達語族 of 印度東部 and Central India and parts of 孟加拉國, parts of 尼泊爾. However, no evidence for this classification has ever been published.

Each of the families that is written in boldface type below is accepted as a valid clade. By contrast, the relationships between these families within Austroasiatic are debated. In addition to the traditional classification, two recent proposals are given, neither of which accepts traditional "Mon–Khmer" as a valid unit. However, little of the data used for competing classifications has ever been published, and therefore cannot be evaluated by peer review.

In addition, there are suggestions that additional branches of Austroasiatic might be preserved in substrata of 亞齊語 in Sumatra (Diffloth), the Chamic languages of Vietnam, and the Land Dayak languages of Borneo (Adelaar 1995).

Diffloth (1974)

Diffloth's widely cited original classification, now abandoned by Diffloth himself, is used in 大英百科全書 and—except for the breakup of Southern Mon–Khmer—in Ethnologue.

• 蒙達語族
  • North Munda
    • Korku
    • Kherwarian
  • South Munda
    • Kharia–Juang
    • Koraput Munda
• Mon–Khmer
  • Eastern Mon–Khmer
    • 高棉語 (Cambodian)
    • Pearic
    • Bahnaric
    • Katuic
    • 越語支 (includes Vietnamese)
  • Northern Mon–Khmer
    • Khasi (梅加拉亞邦, India)
    • 佤德昂語支
    • Khmuic
  • Southern Mon–Khmer
    • 孟語
    • Aslian (馬來西亞半島)
    • Nicobarese (尼科巴群島)

Peiros (2004)

Peiros is a lexicostatistic classification, based on percentages of shared vocabulary. This means that languages can appear to be more distantly related than they actually are due to 語言接觸. Indeed, when Sidwell (2009) replicated Peiros's study with languages known well enough to account for loans, he did not find the internal (branching) structure below.

• Nicobarese
• Munda–Khmer
  • 蒙達語族
  • Mon–Khmer
    • Khasi
    • Nuclear Mon–Khmer
      • Mangic (莽語 + Palyu) (perhaps in Northern MK)
      • 越語支 (perhaps in Northern MK)
      • Northern Mon–Khmer
        • 佤德昂語支
        • Khmuic
      • Central Mon–Khmer
        • 高棉語 dialects
        • Pearic
        • Asli-Bahnaric
          • Aslian
          • Mon–Bahnaric
            • Monic
            • Katu–Bahnaric
              • Katuic
              • Bahnaric

Diffloth (2005)

Diffloth compares reconstructions of various clades, and attempts to classify them based on shared innovations, though like other classifications the evidence has not been published. As a schematic, we have:

Austro ‑ Asiatic	蒙達語族      Remo     索拉語         Kharia–Juang       Korku     Kherwarian          Khasi – Khmuic      Khmuic       Pakanic     佤德昂語支         Khasian      (Nuclear)  Mon–Khmer        越語支   ? Katuic         Bahnaric       高棉語     Pearic             Nicobarese       Aslian     Monic

Or in more detail,

• 蒙達語族 (India)

• Koraput: 7 languages
• Core Munda languages

• Kharian–Juang: 2 languages
• North Munda languages

Korku

Kherwarian: 12 languages

• Khasi–Khmuic languages (Northern Mon–Khmer)

• Khasian: 3 languages of north eastern India and adjacent region of Bangladesh
• Palaungo-Khmuic languages

• Khmuic: 13 languages of Laos and Thailand

• Palaungo-Pakanic languages

Pakanic or Palyu: 4 or 5 languages of southern China and Vietnam

佤德昂語支: 21 languages of Burma, southern China, and Thailand

• Nuclear Mon–Khmer languages

• Khmero-Vietic languages (Eastern Mon–Khmer)

• Vieto-Katuic languages ?

越語支: 10 languages of Vietnam and Laos, including the 越南語, which has the most speakers of any Austroasiatic language.

Katuic: 19 languages of Laos, Vietnam, and Thailand.

• Khmero-Bahnaric languages

• Bahnaric: 40 languages of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
• Khmeric languages

The 高棉語 dialects of Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Pearic: 6 languages of Cambodia.

• Nico-Monic languages (Southern Mon–Khmer)

• Nicobarese: 6 languages of the 尼科巴群島, a territory of India.

• Asli-Monic languages

Aslian: 19 languages of peninsular Malaysia and Thailand.

Monic: 2 languages, the 孟語 of Burma and the Nyahkur language of Thailand.

This family tree is consistent with recent studies of migration of Y-Chromosomal haplogroup O2a1-M95. However, the dates obtained from by Zhivotovsky method DNA studies are several times older than that given by linguists. The route map of the people with haplogroup O2a1-M95, speaking this language can be seen in this link. Other geneticists criticise the Zhivotovsky method.

Previously existent branches

Roger Blench (2009) also proposes that there might have been other primary branches of Austroasiatic that are now extinct, based on substrate evidence in modern-day languages.

• Pre-Chamic languages (the languages of coastal Vietnam prior to the Chamic migrations). Chamic has various Austroasiatic loanwords that cannot be clearly traced to existing Austroasiatic branches (Sidwell 2006, 2007). Larish (1999) also notes that Moklenic languages contain many Austroasiatic loanwords, some of which are similar to the ones found in Chamic.
• 亞齊語 substratum (Sidwell 2006). Acehnese has many basic words that are of Austroasiatic origin, suggesting that either Austronesian speakers have absorbed earlier Austroasiatic residents in northern Sumatra, or that words might have been borrowed from Austroasiatic languages in southern Vietnam – or perhaps a combination of both. Sidwell (2006) argues that Acehnese and Chamic had often borrowed Austroasiatic words independently of each other, while some Austroasiatic words can be traced back to Proto-Aceh-Chamic. Sidwell (2006) accepts that Acehnese and Chamic are related, but that they had separated from each other before Chamic had borrowed most of its Austroasiatic lexicon.
• Bornean substrate languages (Blench 2010). Blench cites Austroasiatic-origin words in modern-day Bornean branches such as Land Dayak (Bidayuh, Dayak Bakatiq, etc.), Dusunic (Central Dusun, Visayan, etc.), Kayan, and Kenyah, noting especially resemblances with Aslian. As further evidence for his proposal, Blench also cites ethnographic evidence such as musical instruments in Borneo shared in common with Austroasiatic-speaking groups in mainland Southeast Asia. Adelaar (1995) has also noticed phonological and lexical similarities between Land Dayak and Aslian.
• Lepcha substratum ("Rongic"). Many words of Austroasiatic origin have been noticed in Lepcha, suggesting a 漢藏語系 superstrate laid over an Austroasiatic substrate. Blench (2013) calls this branch "Rongic" based on the Lepcha autonym Róng.

Other languages with proposed Austroasiatic substrata are:

• 加茂語, based on evidence from the register system of Jiamao, a 黎語支 language (Thurgood 1992). Jiamao is known for its highly aberrant vocabulary in relation to other 黎語支.
• Kerinci: van Reijn (1974) notes that Kerinci, a 馬來語群 language of central 蘇門答臘, shares many phonological similarities with Austroasiatic languages, such as sesquisyllabic word structure and vowel inventory.

John Peterson (2017) suggests that "pre-蒙達語族" languages may have once dominated the eastern 印度河-恆河平原, and were then absorbed by Indo-Aryan languages at an early date as Indo-Aryan spread east. Peterson notes that eastern 印度-雅利安語支 display many morphosyntactic features similar to those of Munda languages, while western Indo-Aryan languages do not.

Sidwell (2009, 2011)

Paul Sidwell and Roger Blench propose that the Austroasiatic phylum had dispersed via the 湄公河 River 流域.

Paul Sidwell (2009), in a lexicostatistical comparison of 36 languages which are well known enough to exclude loan words, finds little evidence for internal branching, though he did find an area of increased contact between the Bahnaric and Katuic languages, such that languages of all branches apart from the geographically distant 蒙達語族 and Nicobarese show greater similarity to Bahnaric and Katuic the closer they are to those branches, without any noticeable innovations common to Bahnaric and Katuic.

He therefore takes the conservative view that the thirteen branches of Austroasiatic should be treated as equidistant on current evidence. Sidwell & Blench (2011) discuss this proposal in more detail, and note that there is good evidence for a Khasi–Palaungic node, which could also possibly be closely related to Khmuic.

If this would the case, Sidwell & Blench suggest that Khasic may have been an early offshoot of Palaungic that had spread westward. Sidwell & Blench (2011) suggest Shompen as an additional branch, and believe that a Vieto-Katuic connection is worth investigating. In general, however, the family is thought to have diversified too quickly for a deeply nested structure to have developed, since Proto-Austroasiatic speakers are believed by Sidwell to have radiated out from the central 湄公河 river valley relatively quickly.

Austroasiatic: Mon–Khmer	蒙達語族    Khasi–Palaungic    Khasian     佤德昂語支       Khmuic     Mangic     越語支     Katuic     Bahnaric     高棉語     Pearic     Monic     Aslian     Nicobarese     ?Shompen

Subsequently, Sidwell (2015a: 179) proposed that Nicobarese subgroups with Aslian, just as how Khasian and Palaungic subgroup with each other. A subsequent computational phylogenetic analysis of the Austroasiatic language family by Sidwell (2015b) suggests that Austroasiatic branches may have a loosely nested structure rather than a completely rake-like structure, with an east-west division (consisting of Munda, Khasic, Palaungic, and Khmuic forming a western group as opposed to all of the other branches) occurring possibly as early as 7,000 years before present.

Integrating computational phylogenetic linguistics with recent archaeological findings, Paul Sidwell (2015c) further expanded his Mekong riverine hypothesis by proposing that Austroasiatic had ultimately expanded into 中南半島 from the 嶺南 area of 中國北方與南方, with the subsequent Mekong riverine dispersal taking place after the initial arrival of Neolithic farmers from southern China.

Sidwell (2015c) tentatively suggests that Austroasiatic may have begun to split up 5,000 years B.P. during the 新石器革命 era of mainland Southeast Asia, with all the major branches of Austroasiatic formed by 4,000 B.P. Austroasiatic would have had two possible dispersal routes from the western periphery of the 珠江 watershed of 嶺南, which would have been either a coastal route down the coast of Vietnam, or downstream through the 湄公河 via 雲南省. Both the reconstructed lexicon of Proto-Austroasiatic and the archaeological record clearly show that early Austroasiatic speakers around 4,000 B.P. cultivated rice and millet, kept livestock such as dogs, pigs, and chickens, and thrived mostly in estuarine rather than coastal environments.

At 4,500 B.P., this "Neolithic package" suddenly arrived in Indochina from the Lingnan area without cereal grains and displaced the earlier pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherer cultures, with grain husks found in northern Indochina by 4,100 B.P. and in southern Indochina by 3,800 B.P. However, Sidwell (2015c) found that iron is not reconstructable in Proto-Austroasiatic, since each Austroasiatic branch has different terms for iron that had been borrowed relatively lately from Tai, Chinese, Tibetan, Malay, and other languages.

During the 鐵器時代 about 2,500 B.P., relatively young Austroasiatic branches in Indochina such as 越語支, Katuic, Pearic, and 高棉語 were formed, while the more internally diverse Bahnaric branch (dating to about 3,000 B.P.) underwent more extensive internal diversification. By the Iron Age, all of the Austroasiatic branches were more or less in their present-day locations, with most of the diversification within Austroasiatic taking place during the Iron Age.

Paul Sidwell (2018) considers the Austroasiatic language family to have rapidly diversified around 4,000 years B.P. during the arrival of rice agriculture in Indochina, but notes that the origin of Proto-Austroasiatic itself is older than that date. The lexicon of Proto-Austroasiatic can be divided into an early and late stratum. The early stratum consists of basic lexicon including body parts, animal names, natural features, and pronouns, while the names of cultural items (agriculture terms and words for cultural artifacts, which are reconstructable in Proto-Austroasiatic) form part of the later stratum.

Roger Blench (2017) suggests that vocabulary related to aquatic subsistence strategies (such as boats, waterways, river fauna, and fish capture techniques), can be reconstructed for Proto-Austroasiatic. Blench (2017) finds widespread Austroasiatic roots for 'river, valley', 'boat', 'fish', 'catfish sp.', 'eel', 'prawn', 'shrimp' (Central Austroasiatic), 'crab', 'tortoise', 'turtle', 'otter', 'crocodile', 'heron, fishing bird', and 'fish trap'. Archaeological evidence for the presence of agriculture in northern 中南半島 (northern Vietnam, Laos, and other nearby areas) dates back to only about 4,000 years B.P. (2,000 B.C.), with agriculture ultimately being introduced from further up to the north in the Yangtze valley where it has been dated to 6,000 B.P.

Hence, this points to a relatively late riverine dispersal of Austroasiatic as compared to 漢藏語系, whose speakers had a distinct non-riverine culture. In addition to living an aquatic-based lifestyle, early Austroasiatic speakers would have also had access to livestock, crops, and newer types of watercraft. As early Austroasiatic speakers dispersed rapidly via waterways, they would have encountered speakers of older language families who were already settled in the area, such as Sino-Tibetan.

Writing systems

Other than Latin-based alphabets, many Austroasiatic languages are written with the 高棉文, 泰文字, 寮文字, and 緬文 alphabets. Vietnamese divergently had an indigenous script based on Chinese logographic writing. This has since been supplanted by the Latin alphabet in the 20th century. The following are examples of past-used alphabets or current alphabets of Austroasiatic languages.

• 喃字
• 高棉文
• Khom script (used for a short period in the early 20th century for indigenous languages in Laos)
• Mon script
• Mundari Bani (Mundari alphabet)
• Ol Chiki alphabet (桑塔利語 alphabet)
• Pahawh Hmong was once used to write Khmu, under the name "Pahawh Khmu"
• 索拉僧平字母 (索拉語 alphabet)
• 德宏傣文 (德昂語, 布朗語)
• 老傣文 (布朗語)
• Warang Citi (霍語 alphabet)

External relations

Austric languages

Austroasiatic is often included into the 南方大語系, which also includes the 南島語系 and sometimes 日本－琉球語系.

A 2015 analysis using the Automated Similarity Judgment Program resulted in possible support for the Austro-Tai (but emphatically not Austric) languages. In this analysis, the supposed "Austric" family was divided into two separate, unrelated clades: Austro-Tai and Austroasiatic-Japonic. Note however that ASJP is not widely accepted among historical linguists as an adequate method to establish or evaluate relationships between language families.

Hmong-Mien

Several lexical resemblances are found between the Hmong-Mien and Austroasiatic language families (Ratliff 2010), some of which had earlier been proposed by 奧德里庫爾 (1951). This could imply a relation or early language contact along the 長江.

According to Cai (et al. 2011), 苗瑤語系 is at least partially related to Austroasiatic but was heavily influenced by 漢藏語系, especially 藏緬語族.

Austroasiatic migrations

Mitsuru Sakitani suggests that Haplogroup O1b1, which is common in Austroasiatic people and some other ethnic groups in 華南地區, and haplogroup O1b2, which is common in today Koreans, Japanese and some Manchu, are the carriers of Yangtze civilization (百越). Another study suggests that the haplogroup O1b1 is the major Austroasiatic paternal lineage.

Migration into India

According to Chaubey et al., "Austro-Asiatic speakers in India today are derived from dispersal from 東南亞, followed by extensive sex-specific admixture with local Indian populations." According to Riccio et al., the Munda people are likely descended from Austroasiatic migrants from southeast Asia.

According to Zhang et al., Austroasiatic migrations from southeast Asia into India took place after the last Glacial maximum, circa 10,000 years ago. Arunkumar et al. suggest Austroasiatic migrations from southeast Asia occurred into northeast India 5.2 ± 0.6 kya and into East India 4.3 ± 0.2 kya.

See also

• 蒙達語族

Sources

• Adams, K. L. (1989). Systems of numeral classification in the Mon–Khmer, Nicobarese and Aslian subfamilies of Austroasiatic. Canberra, A.C.T., Australia: Dept. of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. ISBN 0-85883-373-5
• Alves, Mark J. Mon-Khmer. Rochelle Lieber; Pavel Stekauer (編). The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2014: 520–544. 
• Alves, Mark J. (2015). Morphological functions among Mon-Khmer languages: beyond the basics. In N. J. Enfield & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: the state of the art. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 531–557.
• Bradley, David (2012). "Languages and Language Families in China", in Rint Sybesma (ed.), Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Linguistics.
• Chakrabarti, Byomkes. (1994). A Comparative Study of Santali and Bengali.
• Chaubey, G.; et al, Population Genetic Structure in Indian Austroasiatic Speakers: The Role of Landscape Barriers and Sex-Specific Admixture, Mol Biol Evol, 2010, 28 (2): 1013–1024, PMC 3355372 , PMID 20978040, doi:10.1093/molbev/msq288  
• Diffloth, Gérard. (2005). "The contribution of linguistic palaeontology and Austro-Asiatic". in Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, eds. The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics. 77–80. London: Routledge Curzon. ISBN 0-415-32242-1
• Filbeck, D. (1978). T'in: a historical study. Pacific linguistics, no. 49. Canberra: Dept. of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. ISBN 0-85883-172-4
• Hemeling, K. (1907). Die Nanking Kuanhua. (German language)
• Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell, eds (2015). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill.
• Peck, B. M., Comp. (1988). An Enumerative Bibliography of South Asian Language Dictionaries.
• Peiros, Ilia. 1998. Comparative Linguistics in Southeast Asia. Pacific Linguistics Series C, No. 142. Canberra: Australian National University.
• Shorto, Harry L. edited by Sidwell, Paul, Cooper, Doug and Bauer, Christian (2006). A Mon–Khmer comparative dictionary. Canberra: Australian National University. Pacific Linguistics. ISBN 0-85883-570-3
• Shorto, H. L. Bibliographies of Mon–Khmer and Tai Linguistics. London oriental bibliographies, v. 2. London: Oxford University Press, 1963.
• Sidwell, Paul. (2005). "Proto-Katuic Phonology and the Sub-grouping of Mon–Khmer Languages". In Sidwell, ed., SEALSXV: papers from the 15th meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistic Society.
• Sidwell, Paul. Classifying the Austroasiatic languages: history and state of the art. LINCOM studies in Asian linguistics 76. Munich: Lincom Europa. 2009. ISBN 978-3-929075-67-0. 
• Sidwell, Paul. The Austroasiatic central riverine hypothesis (PDF). Journal of Language Relationship. 2010, 4: 117–134. 
• van Driem, George. (2007). Austroasiatic phylogeny and the Austroasiatic homeland in light of recent population genetic studies. Mon-Khmer Studies, 37, 1-14.
• Zide, Norman H., and Milton E. Barker. (1966) Studies in Comparative Austroasiatic Linguistics, The Hague: Mouton (Indo-Iranian monographs, v. 5.).
• Zhang; et al, Y-chromosome diversity suggests southern origin and Paleolithic backwave migration of Austro-Asiatic speakers from eastern Asia to the Indian subcontinent, Scientific Reports, 2015, 5: 1548, Bibcode:2015NatSR...515486Z, PMC 4611482 , PMID 26482917, doi:10.1038/srep15486 

Further reading

• Mann, Noel, Wendy Smith and Eva Ujlakyova. 2009. Linguistic clusters of Mainland Southeast Asia: an overview of the language families. Chiang Mai: Payap University.
• Mason, Francis. The Talaing Language. Journal of the American Oriental Society. 1854, 4: 277, 279–288. JSTOR 592280. 
• Sidwell, Paul. Issues in Austroasiatic Classification. Language and Linguistics Compass. 2013, 7 (8): 437–457. doi:10.1111/lnc3.12038. 
• Sidwell, Paul. 2016. Bibliography of Austroasiatic linguistics and related resources.

External links

• Swadesh lists for Austro-Asiatic languages (from Wiktionary's wikt:Appendix:Swadesh lists Swadesh-list appendix)
• Austro-Asiatic at the Linguist List MultiTree Project (not functional as of 2014): Genealogical trees attributed to Sebeok 1942, Pinnow 1959, Diffloth 2005, and Matisoff 2006
• Mon–Khmer.com: Lectures by Paul Sidwell
• Mon–Khmer Languages Project at SEAlang
• Munda Languages Project at SEAlang
• http://projekt.ht.lu.se/rwaai RWAAI (Repository and Workspace for Austroasiatic Intangible Heritage)
• http://hdl.handle.net/10050/00-0000-0000-0003-66A4-2@view RWAAI Digital Archive
• http://lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr/pangloss/languages/AA_Ferlus_en.php Michel Ferlus's recordings of Mon-Khmer (Austroasiatic) languages (CNRS)