“Classification of the Japonic languages”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

The classification of the Japonic languages (Japanese and the Ryukyuan languages) is unclear. Linguists traditionally consider the Japonic languages to belong to an independent family; indeed, until the classification of Ryukyuan as separate languages within a Japonic family rather than as dialects of Japanese, Japanese was considered a language isolate.

Among more distant connections, the possibility of a genetic relationship to the Goguryeo (Koguryŏ) languages, or perhaps to Kara (Gaya), has the most currency.{{citation needed|date=June 2017}} Goguryeo itself may be related to Korean, and a Japonic–Korean grouping is widely considered plausible.^[1]

Independent of the question of a Japonic–Korean connection, both the Japonic languages and Korean were sometimes included in the largely discredited^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] Altaic family. A 2015 analysis using the Automated Similarity Judgment Program resulted in the Japonic languages being grouped with the Ainu and then with the Austroasiatic languages.^[6] However, as languages spoken by populations who have inhabited neighboring territories, it is plausible that similarities between Ainu and Japonic may also be due to past language contact. Analytic grammatical constructions acquired or transformed in Ainu were likely due to contact with Japanese and the Japonic languages, which had heavy influence on the Ainu languages with a large number of loanwords borrowed into the Ainu languages, and to a smaller extent, vice versa.^[7]

Korean and or Altaic theory

In ancient times, Koreanic languages, then established in southern Manchuria and northern Korean peninsula, are alleged to have expanded southward to central and southern parts of the Korean peninsula, possibly displacing Japonic languages that may have been spoken there and causing the Yayoi migrations.^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12] There is disagreement over the protohistorical or historical period during which this expansion occurs, ranging from the Korean Bronze Age period to the Three Kingdoms of Korea period. As there is disagreement among experts when the expansion of Koreanic languages started, there is room for interpretation on the proto-historical and historical extent of the Japonic language presence in the central and southern Korean peninsula. John Whitman and Miyamoto Kazuo believe Japonic speakers migrated from Manchuria to Korea and lasted there until Mumun pottery period in the Korean peninsula. After the Mumun pottery period and beginning with Korean Bronze Age, Koreanic speakers started expanding from Manchuria southward towards the Korean peninsula, displacing the Japonic speakers and causing the Yayoi migrations.^[11]^[13] On the other hand, Alexander Vovin believes southern Korea was Japonic until the southward migration of Koreanic speakers from Goguryeo during Three Kingdoms of Korea, thus establishing Baekje, Silla and Gaya.^[9]

Similarities with Koguryoic and Korean languages

The Japanese–Koguryoic proposal dates back to Shinmura Izuru's (1916) observation that the attested Goguryeo numerals—3, 5, 7, and 10—are very similar to Japanese.^[14] The hypothesis proposes that Japanese is a relative of the extinct languages spoken by the Buyeo-Goguryeo cultures of Korea, southern Manchuria, and Liaodong. The best attested of these is the language of Goguryeo, with the more poorly attested Koguryoic languages of Baekje and Buyeo believed to also be related.

A monograph by Christopher Beckwith (2004) has established about 140 lexical items in the Goguryeo corpus. They mostly occur in place-name collocations, many of which may include grammatical morphemes (including cognates of the Japanese genitive marker no and the Japanese adjective-attributive morpheme -sa) and a few of which may show syntactical relationships. He postulates that the majority of the identified Goguryeo corpus, which includes all of the grammatical morphemes, is related to Japanese.

This work has been criticized for serious methodological flaws, such as rejecting mainstream reconstruction of Chinese and Japanese and using his own instead.^[15] Other critics like Alexander Vovin and Too Soo Hee argued that the connections to Japanese are due to earlier languages of southern Korea and that Goguryeo language was closer to Sillan and Korean.^[16]

Japanese and Korean languages also share some typological similarities, such as an agglutinative morphology, a subject–object–verb (SOV) normal word order, important systems of honorifics (however, the two languages' systems of honorifics are different in form and usage; see Japanese honorifics and Korean honorifics), besides a few lexical resemblances. Factors like these led some historical linguists to suggest a genetic relationship between the two languages.

William George Aston suggested in 1879 in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society that Japanese is related to Korean.^[17] A relationship between Japanese and Korean was endorsed by the Japanese scholar Shōsaburō Kanazawa in 1910. Other scholars took this position in the twentieth century (Poppe 1965:137). Substantial arguments in favor of a Japanese–Korean relationship were presented by Samuel Martin, a leading specialist in Japanese and Korean, in 1966 and in subsequent publications (e.g. Martin 1990). Linguists who advocate this position include John Whitman (1985) and Barbara E. Riley (2004), and Sergei Starostin with his lexicostatistical research, The Altaic Problem and the Origins of the Japanese Language (Moscow, 1991). A Japanese–Korean connection does not necessarily exclude a Japanese–Koguryo or an Altaic relationship.

The possible lexical relationship between Korean and Japanese can be briefly exemplified by such basic vocabulary items as are found in the tables below.

The same possible cognates are often observed in other members of the potential Altaic family, especially among the Tungusic languages. Compare, for instance, Nanai muke "water"; giagda- "to walk on foot"; anaa, anna "not".^[18]{{Unreliable source?|date=February 2019}}

Some critics of this hypothesis (such as Alexander Vovin) claim that there are difficulties in establishing exact phonological laws and that Japanese and Korean have few shared innovations. There are also drastic differences between the native Korean and Japanese number systems.

The idea of a Japanese–Korean relationship overlaps the extended form of the Altaic hypothesis (see below), but not all scholars who argue for one also argue for the other. For example, Samuel Martin, who was a major advocate of a Japanese–Korean relationship, only provided cautious support to the inclusion of these languages in Altaic, and Talat Tekin, an Altaicist, includes Korean, but not Japanese, in Altaic (Georg et al. 1999:72, 74).

In 2016, the linguist Alexander Takenobu Francis-Ratte claims to have found around 500 cognates including the number 5 and 10 between proto-Japanese and proto-Korean.^[19] A claim strongly criticised by Vovin (2019).^[20]

Similarities with Altaic languages

The Altaic language family is a theoretical group composed of, at its core, languages categorized as Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic. G.J. Ramstedt's Einführung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft ('Introduction to Altaic Linguistics') in 1952–1957 included Korean in Altaic. Roy Andrew Miller's Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages (1971) included Japanese in Altaic as well. The most important recent work that favored the expanded Altaic family (i.e. that Korean and Japanese could both be included under the Altaic language family) is An Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages (3 volumes) by Sergei Starostin, Anna V. Dybo, and Oleg A. Mudrak (2003). Robbeets(2017) considers Japonic to be a "Transeurasian" (Altaic) language that is genetically unrelated to Austronesian, and argues that lexical similarities between Japonic and Austronesian are due to contact.

The Altaic proposal has largely been rejected (in both its core form of Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic as well as its expanded form that includes Korean and/or Japanese) but is still a discussed possibility.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] The best-known critiques are those by Gerard Clauson (1956) and Gerhard Doerfer (1963, 1988). Current critics include Stefan Georg and Alexander Vovin. Critics {{who|date=March 2017}} attribute the similarities in the putative Altaic languages to pre-historic areal contact having occurred between the languages of the expanded group (e.g. between Turkic and Japonic), contact which critics and proponents agree took place to some degree.{{citation needed|date=March 2017}}

However, linguists agree today that typological resemblances between Japanese, Korean and Altaic languages cannot be used to prove genetic relatedness of languages,^[22] as these features are typologically connected and easily borrowed from one language to the other^[23] (e.g. due to geographical proximity with Manchuria). Such factors of typological divergence as Middle Mongolian's exhibition of gender agreement^[24] can be used to argue that a genetic relationship with Altaic is unlikely.^[25]

Austronesian and or Kra-Dai (Austro-Tai) theory

Several linguists have proposed that Japanese may be a relative of the Austronesian family.^[26] Some linguists think it is more plausible that Japanese might have instead been influenced by Austronesian languages, perhaps by an Austronesian substratum. Those who propose this scenario suggest that the Austronesian family once covered the islands to the north as well as to the south. The phonological similarities of Japanese to the Austronesian languages, and the geographical proximity of Japan to Formosa and the Malay Archipelago have led to the theory that Japanese may be a kind of very early creole language, with a Korean superstratum and an Austronesian substratum.^[26] The linguist Ann Kumar believes that some Austronesians migrated to Japan, possibly an elite-group from Java.^[27] The morphology of Proto-Japanese shows similarities several languages in Southeast-Asia and southern China.^[28]

Vovin (2014) proposed that the location of the Japonic Urheimat (linguistic homeland) is in Southern China. There is typological evidence that Proto-Japonic may have been a monosyllabic, SVO syntax and isolating language; which are features that the Kra-Dai languages also famously exhibit. Although he himself is unsure about a genetic relation between Kra-Dai and Japanese, he says that it should not be rejected out of hand.

The following lexical comparisons between Proto-Japonic and Proto-Tai are cited from Vovin (2014)^[30]:

Robbeets (2017)

According to Martine Robbeets (Robbeets et al. 2017)^[31] Japanese (and Korean) originated as a hybrid language, in the today Liaoning province, between an Austronesian-like language and Altaic (Transeurasian) elements. She suggests that proto-Japanese had an additional influence from Austronesian on the Japanese archipelago.

She lists the following agricultural vocabulary in proto-Japonic with parallels in Austronesian languages:

But her view is not uncontroversial as she takes the Altaic/Transeurasian theory for granted.

Austroasiatic substrate theory

According to Vovin (1998), the Yayoi people may have spoken an Austroasiatic language, based on the reconstructed Japonic terms:

Vovin assumes that these words and other terms are agricultural terms of Yayoi origin. According to him (1998) these Austroasiatic tribes of the Yayoi period (Wajin) were assimilated from another group that migrated into Japan during the Kofun period.^[35] Vovin claims an ultimate origin of the Japonic languages in southern China.^[30] Similarly, Juha Janhunen found similarities between Proto-Japanese and several languages of southern China.^[36]

The linguist George van Driem (2017) suggests that Austroasiatic was spoken in southern China and was than replaced or assimilated by Kra-Dai tribes. Although it is not known when this event happened, it is possibly the cause of the Yayoi migration into Japan.^[37]

Other hypotheses

Proto-Asian hypothesis

The “Proto-Asian hypothesis” or “Macro-Asian” (from the linguist Larish 2006) argues for a relation of the languages Southeast-, East- and Northeast-Asia. Japanese is grouped together with Korean as one group of the Macro-Asian languages. (Typically included are: the Austric languages, Kra-Dai, Hmong-Mien, Sino-Tibetan, Korean-Japanese and possibly the Altaic and Uralic languages as well.)^[38]

Sino-Tibetan hypothesis

Another theory was raised by the Japanese linguist Īno Mutsumi. He suggested after his analysis of proto-Sino-Tibetan that Japanese is related to the proto-form of Sino-Tibetan, especially to the Burmese language. Because of similar grammar rules (SOV, syntax), similar non-loan basic-vocabulary and the fact that early Sino-Tibetan was non-tonal like still today some small languages, he proposed the Sinitic origin theory.^[39]^[40]

The linguist Juha Janhunen found during his analysis of Asian languages strong similarities between proto-Japanese and language like Sino-Tibetan, Tai-Kadai and Hmong-Mien languages. He says, similar to Vovin, that proto-Japanese originated somewhere in southeast China or the Shandong Peninsula and was influenced by these languages.^[41]

Dravido-Korean hypothesis

The comparative linguist Kang Gil-un proposes 1300 Dravidian Tamil words about agriculture in Korean,^[44] which would significantly outnumber the number of Dravidian cognates he claims are found in Tungusic, Turkic or Ainu. Nevertheless, he suggests that among currently researchable languages, the Nivkh language is probably most closely related to Korean. According to his theory, the proto-Korean supposedly related to the proto-Nivkh was influenced by Dravidian, Ainu, Tungusic and maybe Turkic vocabulary.

Uralic hypothesis

The Japanese linguist Kanehira Joji believes that the Japanese language is related to the Uralic languages and show similar basic words, similar morphology and phonology, that become more and more similar the closer we get to the proto-languages. He further believes that the “Siberian characteristics” in the today Japanese language is from the Uralic family. Early Japanese got influence from Chinese, Austronesian and Ainu. He refers his theory to the “dual-structure model” of Japanese origin between Jōmon and Yayoi.^[45]^[46]

Ainu hypothesis

The Japanese linguist Tatsumine Katayama found many similar basic words between Ainu and Japanese. Because of a great amount of similar vocabulary, phonology, similar grammar, and geographical and cultural connections, he and Takeshi Umehara suggested that Japanese was closely related to the Ainu languages, and was influenced by other languages, especially Chinese and Korean.^[47]

A linguistic analysis in 2015 resulted in the Japonic languages being related with the Ainu languages and to the Austroasiatic languages.^[6] However, similarities between Ainu and Japonic are also due to extensive past contact. Analytic grammatical constructions acquired or transformed in Ainu were likely due to contact with Japanese and the Japonic languages, which had heavy influence on the Ainu languages with a large number of loanwords borrowed into the Ainu languages, and to a smaller extent, vice versa.^[48]

Today, a relation between Ainu and Japanese (or Austroasiatic) is not supported and Ainu remains a language isolate.^[49]

See also

References

1. ^Proto-Korean-Japanese: A New Reconstruction of the Common Origin of the Japanese and Korean Languages, by Alexander Takenobu Francis-Ratte
2. ^¹"While 'Altaic' is repeated in encyclopedias and handbooks most specialists in these languages no longer believe that the three traditional supposed Altaic groups, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic, are related." Lyle Campbell & Mauricio J. Mixco, A Glossary of Historical Linguistics (2007, University of Utah Press), pg. 7.
3. ^¹"When cognates proved not to be valid, Altaic was abandoned, and the received view now is that Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic are unrelated." Johanna Nichols, Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time (1992, Chicago), pg. 4.
4. ^¹"Careful examination indicates that the established families, Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic, form a linguistic area (called Altaic)...Sufficient criteria have not been given that would justify talking of a genetic relationship here." R.M.W. Dixon, The Rise and Fall of Languages (1997, Cambridge), pg. 32.
5. ^¹"...[T]his selection of features does not provide good evidence for common descent....we can observe convergence rather than divergence between Turkic and Mongolic languages--a pattern than is easily explainable by borrowing and diffusion rather than common descent," Asya Pereltsvaig, Languages of the World, An Introduction (2012, Cambridge). This source has a good discussion of the Altaic hypothesis on pp. 211-216.
6. ^¹Gerhard Jäger, "Support for linguistic macrofamilies from weighted sequence alignment." PNAS vol. 112 no. 41, 12752–12757, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1500331112. Published online before print September 24, 2015.
7. ^[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QB3DD8qSVnAC&pg=PA499&dq=Ainu+language+influenced+by+Japanese&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj34cP1xobVAhXhDsAKHS7CC8sQ6AEILTAC#v=onepage&q=Ainu%20language%20influenced%20by%20Japanese&f=false The Languages of Japan and Korea, edited by Nicolas Tranter]
8. ^{{cite book|title=The Global Prehistory of Human Migration|last1=Bellwood|first1=Peter|date=2013|publisher=Blackwell Publishing|isbn=9781118970591|location=Malden}}
9. ^¹{{cite journal|last1=Vovin|first1=Alexander|date=2013|title=From Koguryo to Tamna: Slowly riding to the South with speakers of Proto-Korean|journal=Korean Linguistics|volume=15|issue=2|pages=222–240}}
10. ^{{cite book|title=A History of the Korean language|last1=Lee|first1=Ki-Moon|last2=Ramsey|first2=S. Robert|date=2011|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-66189-8|location=Cambridge}}
11. ^¹{{cite journal|last1=Whitman|first1=John|date=2011|title=Northeast Asian Linguistic Ecology and the Advent of Rice Agriculture in Korea and Japan|journal=Rice|volume=4|issue=3–4|pages=149–158|doi=10.1007/s12284-011-9080-0}}
12. ^{{cite book|title=The role of contact in the origins of the Japanese and Korean languages|last1=Unger|first1=J. Marshall|date=2009|publisher=University of Hawai?i Press|isbn=978-0-8248-3279-7|location=Honolulu}}
13. ^{{cite journal|last1=Miyamoto|first1=Kazuo|date=2016|title=Archaeological Explanation for the Diffusion Theory of the Japonic and Koreanic Languages|journal=Japanese Journal of Archaeology|volume=4|pages=53–75}}
14. ^{{cite journal|last1=Shinmura|first1=Izuru|title=國語及び朝鮮語の數詞について [Regarding numerals in Japanese and Korean]|journal=Geibun|date=1916|volume=7.2-7.4}}
15. ^{{cite journal|last1=Pellard|first1=Thomas|title=Koguryo, the Language of Japan's Continental Relatives: An Introduction to the Historical-Comparative Study of the Japanese-Kgouryoic Languages with a Preliminary Description of Archaic Northeastern Middle Chinese (review)|journal=Korean Studies|date=2005|volume=29|pages=167–170|doi=10.1353/ks.2006.0008|url=http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/41/11/PDF/review-Beckwith-Koguryo.pdf}}
16. ^Toh Soo Hee, About Early Paekche Language Mistaken as Being Koguryo Language, Ch'ungnam University
17. ^ {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080529111209/http://www.eai.cam.ac.uk/Aston-and-Korea.pdf |date=May 29, 2008 }}
18. ^Starostin's database
19. ^{{Cite thesis|title=Proto-Korean-Japanese: A New Reconstruction of the Common Origin of the Japanese and Korean Languages|url=https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:113782|publisher=The Ohio State University|date=2016|language=en|first=Alexander Takenobu|last=Francis-Ratte}}
20. ^Vovin 2019 in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics
21. ^These examples come from Starostin's database, which contains a comprehensive list of comparisons and hypothetical Altaic etymologies.
22. ^Vovin 2008: 1
23. ^Trask 1996: 147–51
24. ^Rybatzki 2003: 57
25. ^Vovin 2008: 5
26. ^¹Benedict (1990), Lewin (1976), Matsumoto (1975), Miller (1967), Murayama (1976), Shibatani (1990).
27. ^{{Cite news|url=https://www.languagesoftheworld.info/historical-linguistics/javanese-influence-on-japanese.html|title=Javanese influence on Japanese - Languages Of The World|date=2011-05-09|work=Languages Of The World|access-date=2018-07-25|language=en-US}}
28. ^{{cite book|title=Proto-Japanese: Issues and Prospects|surname=Vovin|given=Alexander|publisher=John Benjamins|year=2008|isbn=978-90-272-4809-1|editor1-surname=Frellesvig|editor1-given=Bjarne|pages=141–156|chapter=Proto-Japanese beyond the accent system|doi=10.1075/cilt.294.11vov|editor2-surname=Whitman|editor2-given=John|chapter-url=https://www.academia.edu/19253123/Proto-Japanese_beyond_the_accent_system}}
29. ^{{Cite journal|last=Solnit|first=David B.|date=1992|title=Japanese/Austro-Tai By Paul K. Benedict (review)|url=https://muse.jhu.edu/article/452870/summary|journal=Language|language=en|volume=68|issue=1|pages=188–196|doi=10.1353/lan.1992.0061|issn=1535-0665}}
30. ^¹Vovin, Alexander. 2014. [https://www.academia.edu/7869241/Out_of_Southern_China "Out of Southern China? – Philological and linguistic musings on the possible Urheimat of Proto-Japonic"]. Journées de CRLAO 2014. June 27–28, 2014. INALCO, Paris.
31. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320915864_Austronesian_influence_and_Transeurasian_ancestry_in_Japanese_A_case_of_farminglanguage_dispersal|title=(PDF) Austronesian influence and Transeurasian ancestry in Japanese: A case of farming/language dispersal|website=ResearchGate|language=en|access-date=2019-02-14}}
32. ^Blust, Robert. 2015. Austronesian Comparative Dictionary, version of 14 June 2015. Accessible at http://www.trussel2.com/ACD/ (accessed June 16, 2015).
33. ^Baxter, William and Laurent Sagart. 2011. Old Chinese reconstruction, version of 20 February 2011. Accessible at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265110209_Baxter-Sagart_Old_Chinese_reconstruction_version_of_20_February_2011 (accessed August 28, 2017).
34. ^Vovin, Alexander. 2015. On the Etymology of Middle Korean psʌr ‘rice.’ Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları 25(2): 229–238.
35. ^{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.at/books?id=48iKiprsRMwC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=vovin+japanese+austroasiatic&source=bl&ots=aFKKoa0FHz&sig=ACfU3U1_I6vqJm_EwTLb8L0DY7i3uEeZ8A&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjG4YSA0KLhAhVMz6YKHXncC9YQ6AEwBXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=vovin%20japanese%20austroasiatic&f=false|title=Archaeology and Language II: Archaeological Data and Linguistic Hypotheses|last=Blench|first=Roger|last2=Spriggs|first2=Matthew|date=2003-09-02|publisher=Routledge|year=|isbn=9781134828692|location=|pages=|language=en|quote=However, the above evidence suggests that mounted invaders from the mainland subjugated the native Yayoi population once and for all, assimilating them linguistically... (Page 375 and 376)}}
36. ^ユハ・ヤンフネン「A Framework for the Study of Japanese Language Origins」『日本語系統論の現在』(pdf) 国際日本文化センター、京都、2003年、477-490頁。
37. ^The domestications and the domesticators of Asian rice - George van Driem - Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Bern, Switzerland (2017)
38. ^{{Cite web|url=https://sil-philippines-languages.org/ical/papers/larish-proto_asian.pdf|website=sil-philippines-languages.org|access-date=2019-01-07}}
39. ^飯野睦毅 (1994)『奈良時代の日本語を解読する』東陽出版
40. ^Taw Sein Ko 1924, p. viii.
41. ^ユハ・ヤンフネン「A Framework for the Study of Japanese Language Origins」『日本語系統論の現在』(pdf) 国際日本文化センター、京都、2003年、477-490頁。
42. ^{{Cite news|url=http://timesofindia.com/city/chennai/researchers-find-tamil-connection-in-japanese/articleshow/7308952.cms|title=Researchers find Tamil connection in Japanese - Times of India|work=The Times of India|access-date=2017-05-21}}
43. ^Min-Sohn Ho (2001). The Korean Language. Cambridge University Press. P. 29.
44. ^{{cite book|last=Kang|first=Gil-un|publisher=새문사|year=1990|script-title=ko:고대사의 비교언어학적 연구}}
45. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.jojikanehira.com/|title=日本語の意外な歴史|last=|date=|year=|publisher=|pages=|language=ja-JP|format=|archiveurl=|archivedate=|deadurl=|accessdate=2018-08-21|quote=|periodical=|month=|day=}}
46. ^日本語の意外な歴史　第1話　金平譲司　Joji Kanehira
47. ^Tatsumine Katayama (2004) "Japanese and Ainu (new version)" Tokyo: Suzusawa library
48. ^{{cite web|url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QB3DD8qSVnAC&pg=PA499&dq=Ainu+language+influenced+by+Japanese&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj34cP1xobVAhXhDsAKHS7CC8sQ6AEILTAC#v=onepage&q=Ainu+language+influenced+by+Japanese&f=false|title=The Languages of Japan and Korea|last=Tranter|first=Nicolas|date=25 June 2012|publisher=Routledge|via=Google Books|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170730210909/https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QB3DD8qSVnAC&pg=PA499&dq=Ainu+language+influenced+by+Japanese&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj34cP1xobVAhXhDsAKHS7CC8sQ6AEILTAC#v=onepage&q=Ainu+language+influenced+by+Japanese&f=false|archivedate=30 July 2017|deadurl=no|df=}}
49. ^Vovin, Alexander. 2016. "On the Linguistic Prehistory of Hokkaidō." In Crosslinguistics and linguistic crossings in Northeast Asia: papers on the languages of Sakhalin and adjacent regions (Studia Orientalia 117).