Indosphere

Indosphere is a subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman languages as defined by linguist James Matisoff, which includes languages that are typologically and morphologically a closeness to Indo-Aryan languages. It is commonly used in areal linguistics to contrast with Sinosphere, which refers to Tibeto-Burman languages that bear a closeness to the Chinese language.

Context

The Tibeto-Burman family of languages, which extends over a huge geographic range, is characterized by great typological diversity, comprising languages that range from the highly tonal, monosyllabic, analytic type with practically no afflixational morphology, like Loloish, to marginally tonal or atonal languages with complex systems of verbal agreement morphology, like the Kiranti group of Nepal. This diversity is partly to be explained in terms of areal influences from Chinese on the one hand and, Indo-Aryan languages on the other.James Alan Matisoff, "Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction", pages 6-7, University of California Press, 2003, ISBN 0520098439] Two large subgroupings formed by areal contact can be distinguished within Tibeto-Burman: the "Sinosphere" and the "Indosphere".Robert M. W. Dixon, Y. Alexandra, "Adjective Classes: A Cross-linguistic Typology ", page 74, Oxford University Press, 2004, ISBN 0199203466] ] Manange (like other Tamangic languages) is an interesting case to examine in this regard, as geographically it fits squarely in the "Indospheric" Himalayas, but typologically it shares more features with the "Sinospheric" languages.

Some languages and cultures are firmly in one or the other. For example, the Munda and Khasi branches of Australoasiatic, the Tibeto-Burman languages of Eastern Nepal, and much of Kamarupan branch of Tibeto-Burman, which most notably includes Meitei (Manipuri) are Indospheric; while the Hmong-Mien family, the Kam-Sui branch of Kadai, the Loloish branch of Tibeto-Burman, and Vietnamese (Viet-Muong) are Sinospheric. Some other languages, like Thai and Tibetan, have been influenced by both Chinese and Indian culture at different historical periods. Still other linguistic communities are so remote geographically that they have escaped significant influence from either. For example, the Asilian branch of Mon-Khmer in Malaya, or the Nicobarese branch of Mon-Khmer in the Nicobar Islands of the Indian Ocean show little influence by Sinosphere or Indosphere.

Indian cultural, intellectual, and political influence- especially that of Devanagari writing system- began to penetrate both insular and peninsular Southeast Asia about 2000 years ago. Indic writing systems were adopted first by Austronesians, like Javanese and Cham, and Austroasiatics, like Khmer and Mon, then by Tai (Siamese and Lao) and Tibeto-Burmans (Pyu, Burmese, and Karen). The learned components of the vocabularies of Khmer, Mon, Burmese and Thai/Lao consist of words of Pali or Sanskrit origin. Indian influence also spread north to the Himalayan region. Tibetan has used Devanagari writing since A.D. 600, but has preferred to claque new religious and technical vocabulary from native morphemes rather than borrowing Indian ones. Indosphere languages are spread over most of India and Pakistan, as well as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka. Languages of this type are also found in Mainland Southeast Asia (MSEA), defined as the region encompassing Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand, as well as parts of Burma, Peninsular Malaysia and Yunnan. Related scripts are also found in South East Asian islands ranging from Sumatra, Java, Bali, south Sulawesi and most of the Philippines. [Martin Haspelmath, [http://books.google.com/books?id=sCRcARRN9nsC&pg=PA569&dq=indosphere&lr=&ei=cObSR7zSINC4igH0ldirBQ&sig=NZzfitQOiVvLf3LOSI04oXn3Rzs The World Atlas of Language Structures] , page 569, Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 0199255911]

ee also

* Sprachbund

References

Further reading

* Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honor of James A. Matisoff, David Bradley, Randy J. LaPolla and Boyd Michailovsky eds., pp. 113–144. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
*cite book|last= Ankerl |first= Guy |title= Global communication without universal civilization |origdate= |origyear= 2000 |series= INU societal research |volume= Vol.1: Coexisting contemporary civilizations : Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western |publisher= INU Press |location= Geneva |isbn= 2-88155-004-5 |pages=

External links

* [http://pacling.anu.edu.au/catalogue/555.html Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff]
* [http://www.ogmios.org/91.htm Language diversity: Sinosphere vs. Indosphere]
* [http://www.iias.nl/host/himalaya/conferences/hls/1st_abstracts/wow.html Himalayan Languages Project]
* [http://www.questhimalaya.com/journal/turin-tibeto-burman-02.htm Rethinking Tibeto-Burman -- Lessons from Indosphere]
* [http://www.uwm.edu/~noonan/806/Enfield.Areal-SEA.pdf Areal linguistics and Mainland Southeast Asia]