Papuan languages

Joseph Greenberg proposed an Indo-Pacific phylum containing the (Northern) Andamanese languages, all Papuan languages, and the Tasmanian languages, but not the Australian Aboriginal languages. Very few linguists accept his grouping. It is distinct from the Trans–New Guinea phylum of the classifications below.

Language families of New Guinea, the North Moluccas, and the Lesser Sunda Islands according to Timothy Usher. Languages of Bougainville, the Solomon Islands, the Torres Strait Islands, and Northern Australia were not included in the study, and they are portrayed here according to current consensus.

Timothy Usher and Edgar Suter, with the advice of Papuan researchers such as William Croft, Matthew Dryer, John Lynch, Andrew Pawley, and Malcolm Ross,[7] have reconstructed low-level constituents of Papuan language families to verify which purported members truly belong to them. In many cases Usher and Suter have created new names for the member families to reflect their geographic location. Much of their classification is accepted by Glottolog (though the names are not; Glottolog invents its own names). As of 2020, the following families are identified:[8]

In addition, poorly attested Karami remains unclassified. Extinct Tambora and the East Papuan languages have not been addressed, except to identify Yele as an Austronesian language.

The most widely used classification of Papuan languages is that of Stephen Wurm, listed below with the approximate number of languages in each family in parentheses. This was the scheme used by Ethnologue prior to Ross's classification (below). It is based on very preliminary work, much of it typological, and Wurm himself has stated that he doesn't expect it to hold up well to scrutiny. Other linguists, including William A. Foley, have suggested that many of Wurm's phyla are based on areal features and structural similarities, and accept only the lowest levels of his classification, most of which he inherited from prior taxonomies. Foley (1986) divides Papuan languages into over sixty small language families, plus a number of isolates. However, more recently Foley has accepted the broad outline if not the details of Wurm's classification, as he and Ross have substantiated a large portion of Wurm's Trans–New Guinea phylum.

According to Ross (see below), the main problem with Wurm's classification is that he did not take contact-induced change into account. For example, several of the main branches of his Trans–New Guinea phylum have no vocabulary in common with other Trans–New Guinea languages, and were classified as Trans–New Guinea because they are similar grammatically. However, there are also many Austronesian languages that are grammatically similar to Trans–New Guinea languages due to the influence of contact and bilingualism. Similarly, several groups that do have substantial basic vocabulary in common with Trans–New Guinea languages are excluded from the phylum because they do not resemble it grammatically.

Wurm believed the Papuan languages arrived in several waves of migration with some of the earlier languages (perhaps including the Sepik–Ramu languages) being related to the Australian languages,[9][10] a later migration bringing the West Papuan, Torricelli and the East Papuan languages[9] and a third wave bringing the most recent pre-Austronesian migration, the Trans–New Guinea family.[9]

Foley summarized the state of the literature.[11] Besides Trans–New Guinea and families possibly belonging in TNG (see), he accepted the proposals for,

Malcolm Ross re-evaluated Wurm's proposal on purely lexical grounds. That is, he looked at shared vocabulary, and especially shared idiosyncrasies analogous to English I and me vs. German ich and mich. The poor state of documentation of Papuan languages restricts this approach largely to pronouns. Nonetheless, Ross believes that he has been able to validate much of Wurm's classification, albeit with revisions to correct for Wurm's partially typological approach. (See Trans–New Guinea languages.) Ethnologue (2009) largely follows Ross.

It has been suggested that the families that appear when comparing pronouns may be due to pronoun borrowing rather than to genealogical relatedness. However, Ross argues that Papuan languages have closed-class pronoun systems, which are resistant to borrowing, and in any case that the massive number of languages with similar pronouns in a family like Trans–New Guinea preclude borrowing as an explanation. Also, he shows that the two cases of alleged pronoun borrowing in New Guinea are simple coincidence, explainable as regular developments from the protolanguages of the families in question: as earlier forms of the languages are reconstructed, their pronouns become less similar, not more. (Ross argues that open-class pronoun systems, where borrowings are common, are found in hierarchical cultures such as those of Southeast Asia and Japan, where pronouns indicate details of relationship and social status rather than simply being grammatical pro-forms as they are in the more egalitarian New Guinea societies.)

Ross has proposed 23 Papuan language families and 9–13 isolates. However, because of his more stringent criteria, he was not able to find enough data to classify all Papuan languages, especially many isolates that have no close relatives to aid in their classification.

Ross also found that the Lower Mamberamo languages (or at least the Warembori language—he had insufficient data on Pauwi) are Austronesian languages that have been heavily transformed by contact with Papuan languages, much as the Takia language has. The Reef Islands – Santa Cruz languages of Wurm's East Papuan phylum were a potential 24th family, but subsequent work has shown them to be highly divergent Austronesian languages as well.

Note that while this classification may be more reliable than past attempts, it is based on a single parameter, pronouns, and therefore must remain tentative. Although pronouns are conservative elements in a language, they are short and utilise a reduced set of the language's phonemic inventory. Both phenomena greatly increase the possibility of chance resemblances, especially when they are not confirmed by lexical similarities.

Søren Wichmann (2013) accepts the following 109 groups as coherent Papuan families, based on computational analyses performed by the Automated Similarity Judgment Program (ASJP) combined with Harald Hammarström's (2012) classification.[12] Some of the groups could turn out to be related to each other, but Wichmann (2013) lists them as separate groups pending further research.

9 families have been broken up into separate groups in Wichmann's (2013) classification, which are:

• Biksi (2 groups)
• Dibiyaso-Doso-Turumsa (2 groups)
• Kwalean (2 groups)
• Lower Sepik-Ramu (5 groups)
• Morehead-Wasur (2 groups)
• Nuclear Trans-New Guinea (16 groups)
• Pauwasi (2 groups: Western and Eastern)
• Sentanic (2 groups)
• Sko (2 groups)

An automated computational analysis (ASJP 4) by Müller, Velupillai, Wichmann et al. (2013)[15] found lexical similarities among the following language groups. Note that some of these automatically generated groupings are due to chance resemblances.

Bill Palmer et al. (2018) propose 43 independent families and 37 language isolates in the Papuasphere, comprising a total of 862 languages.[16] A total of 80 independent groups are recognized. While Pawley & Hammarström's internal classification of Trans-New Guinea largely resembles a composite of Usher's and Ross' classifications, Palmer et al. do not address the more tentative families that Usher proposes, such as Northwest New Guinea.

The coherence of the South Bird's Head, East Bird's Head, Pauwasi, Kwomtari, and Central Solomons families are uncertain, and hence are marked below as "tentative."[17][18][19][20]

Glottolog 4.0 (2019), based partly on Usher, recognizes 70 independent families and 55 isolates.[21]