Decades of works dedicated to the description of (previously) lesser-known Sinitic languages have effectively dispelled the common myth that these languages share a single “universal Chinese grammar”. Yet, the underlying cause of their grammatical variation is still a matter for debate. This paper focuses on typological variation across Sinitic varieties. Through comparing the typological profiles of various Sinitic languages with those of their Altaic and Mainland Southeast Asian (MSEA) neighbors, we discuss to what extent the variation within the Sinitic branch can be attributed to areal diffusion. Taking into account over 360 language varieties of seven different genetic affiliations (Sinitic, Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Hmong-Mien, Tai-Kadai, Austroasiatic) and 30 linguistic features, we conduct a typological survey with the aid of the phylogenetic program NeighborNet. Our results suggest that convergence towards their non-Sinitic neighbors has likely played a pivotal role in the typological diversity of Sinitic languages. Based primarily on their degree of Altaic/MSEA influence, the Sinitic varieties in our database are classified into four areal groups, namely 1) Northern, 2) Transitional, 3) Central Southeastern, 4) Far Southern. This classification scheme reflects the intricate interplay between areal convergence, regional innovations, and retention of archaic features.

It is well-known that Tai-Kadai languages have affected the typological profiles of Southern Sinitic varieties. For example, compared with their northern sisters, Southern Sinitic varieties display a stronger tendency towards head-initial structures, as in the N – N compounds for expressing the sex of animals and in post-verbal temporal adverbs. Given that the Tai-Kadai languages in China have been in contact with Sinitic for over two millennia, it is quite natural to find signs of Sinitic influence therein. Most remarkably, pre-verbal adjunct phrases and pre-nominal relative clauses, which are extremely atypical of VO languages but distinctive of Sinitic, are attested in some Tai-Kadai languages in Southern China. The prevalence of such typologically unusual traits among different linguistic groups in the Lingnan region of Southern China provides strong support for its status as a linguistic area. Devising and adopting a ‘mutualist’ approach, we analyse the typological data of over 280 language varieties, which we believe illustrates and strongly supports the idea that Western Lingnan qualifies as a linguistic area in its own right according to criteria widely recognized by areal linguists. The approach proposed in this study can be applied to other putative linguistic areas around the world to study the mechanisms and outcomes of contact-induced change under a specific set of ecological conditions.

This article discusses 40 grammatical features in Japonic and Koreanic in relation to their neighbouring languages in Northeast Asia. The data comprise 66 modern language varieties of 13 different linguistic affinities, and 12 historical languages (including Old and Middle Japanese and Old and Middle Korean). The results generated from a computational phylogenetic tool show a significant distance in the typological profiles of three main clades: Northeast Asian, Japonic-Koreanic, and Sinitic spheres. Typologically, the Japonic and Koreanic languages form a common grammatical type by sharing up to 26/40 features. By tracing their attestation in the historical languages we can see that the converged grammars are likely to be results of typological Altaicization and de-Altaicization. The combination of linguistic and historical evidence points to a chronology in which Japonic and Koreanic had mutually converged by Altaicization and de-Altaicization, respectively, during the 1st millennium BC and AD before eventually diverging in the 2nd millennium AD.

The present study discusses typology and variation of word order patterns in nominal and verb structures across 20 Chinese languages and compares them with another 43 languages from the Sino-Tibetan family. The methods employed are internal and external historical reconstruction and correlation studies from linguistic typology and sociolinguistics. The results show that the head-final tendency is a baseline across the family, but individual languages differ by the degree of head-initial structures allowed in a language, leading to a hybrid word order profile. On the one hand, Chinese languages consistently manifest the head-final noun phrase structures, whereas head-initial deviants can be explained either internally through reanalysis or externally through contact. On the other hand, Chinese verb phrases have varied toward head-initial structures due to contact with verb-medial languages of Mainland Southeast Asia, before reinstalling the head-final structures as a consequence of contact with verb-final languages in North Asia. When extralinguistic factors are considered, the typological north-south divide of Chinese appears to be geographically consistent and gradable by the latitude of individual Chinese language communities, confirming the validity of a broader typological cline from north to south in Eastern Eurasia.

This paper discusses predicative possessive constructions in the East Slavic languages, with a particular focus on the Old Novgorod Slavic dialect, in connection to the neighbouring Ural-Altaic languages. An areal-typological investigation shows that the East Slavic languages prefer the use of a locational possessive (mihi est), while the rest of Slavic and Europe’s Indo-European languages primarily use a have-possessive (habeo). Serving as primary data for this study, the dialect written in the Novgorod Birch Bark documents confirms a preference of the locational possessive over the have -possessive. The current study also evaluates three hypotheses on the origin of the East Slavic locational possessive, proposed in earlier studies: 1) a Uralic substrate, 2) a Slavic archaism and 3) a Northern Eurasian areal pattern. Given the typological survey as well as the empirical and historical comparative investigation, the locational possessive can be considered a preferred areal pattern across Northern Eurasia. Being a part of the macro contact zone of Northern Eurasia, the choice of locational possessive in the East Slavic languages is reinforced by the areal diffusion, especially from the close neighbouring languages, Uralic and Turkic.

This study uses an areal-linguistic approach to investigate etymologies and to illustrate the geographical distribution of generic terms for ‘music’ in 263 languages from around the world. Of main interest is the issue of borrowing, wherein words spread from certain source languages that are culturally dominant in specific areas. In the present study, six source languages with generic terms for ‘music’ in six musical areas are defined. In addition to these areas, there are also languages that do not borrow, but instead keep or invent native terms for ‘music’. This shows the variation among the different degrees of positive and negative attitudes by language authorities toward internationalism and influence from certain cultural centres in the area, which are reflected in the diversity of the general terms for ‘music’.