Abramson, A. S. and Svastikula, K. 1983. Intersections of tone and intonation in Thai. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research, SR-74/75, 143–67. www.haskins.yale.edu/sr/sr074/SR074_10.pdfGoogle Scholar

Abramson, A. S. and Thongkum, T. L. 2009. A fuzzy boundary between tone languages and voice-register languages. In Fant, G., Fujisaki, H. and Shen, J. (eds.) Frontiers in Phonetics and Speech Science. 149–55. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar

Adams, K. L. 1989. Systems of Numeral Classification in the Mon-Khmer, Nicobarese, and Aslian Subfamilies of Austroasiatic. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Adams, K. L. 1991. The influence of non-Austroasiatic languages on numeral classification in Austroasiatic. Journal of the American Oriental Society 111 (1): 62–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adelaar, A. 2005a. Malayo-Sumbawan. Oceanic Linguistics, 44 (2): 357–88.Google Scholar

Adelaar, A. 2005b. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: A historical perspective. In Adelaar, A. and Himmelmann, N. P. (eds.) The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. 1–42. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2000. Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2006. Serial verbs constructions in a typological perspective. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.) Serial Verb Constructions: A cross-linguistic typology. 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. 2013 Possession and Ownership: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. 2017. The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Aitken, M. J. and Stokes, S. 1997. Climatostratigraphy. In Taylor, R. E. and Aitken, M. J. (eds), Chronometric Dating in Archaeology. 1–30. New York and London: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Alves, M. J. 2006. A Grammar of Pacoh: A Mon-Khmer language of the central highlands of Vietnam. Shorter Grammars. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Alves, M. J. 2009. Sino-Vietnamese grammatical vocabulary and sociolinguistic conditions for borrowing. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 1. 1–9.Google Scholar

Alves, M. J. 2015. Morphological functions among Mon-Khmer languages: Beyond the basic. In Enfield, N. J. and Comrie, B. (eds.) The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art. 532–57. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Alves, M. J. 2016. Identifying early Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary via linguistic, historical, archaeological, and ethnological data. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 9: 264–95.Google Scholar

Ammerman, A. J. and Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. 1971. Measuring the rate of spread of early farming in Europe. Man 6 (4): 674–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andvik, E. 2003. Tshangla. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 439–55. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ansaldo, U. 1999. Comparative constructions in Sinitic: Areal typology and patterns of grammaticalisation. Dissertation. Stockholm University.Google Scholar

Arisawa, T. D. 2016. An Iu Mien Grammar: A tool for language documentation and revitalisation. La Trobe University. http://hdl.handle.net/1959.9/561960Google Scholar

Audric, J. 1972. Angkor and the Khmer Empire. London: R. Hale.Google Scholar

Aung-Thwin, M. A. 2005 The Mists of Ramanna: The legend that was lower Burma. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Banham, D. 2015. The Old English monastic sign language. In Jepsen, J. B., de Clerck, G., Lutalo-Kiingi, S. and McGregor, W. B. (eds.) Sign Languages of the World: A comparative handbook. 901–10. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Banker, E. M. 1964. Bahnar affixation. Mon-Khmer Studies 1. 99–117.Google Scholar

Barram, A. and Glover, I. 2008. Re-thinking Dvaravati. In Pautreau, J-P. et al. (eds.) From Homo erectus to the Living Traditions: Choice of papers from the 11th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists. 175–82. Chiang Mai: Silkworm.Google Scholar

Barrie, M. 2006. Tone circles and contrast preservation. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1): 131–41.Google Scholar

Bauer, C. 1982. Morphology and syntax of spoken Mon. PhD thesis. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Google Scholar

Baumgartner, N. I. 1998. A grammar sketch of Western (Cambodian) Cham. Pacific Linguistics. Series A. Occasional Papers, 89: 1–20.Google Scholar

Baxter, W. H. and Sagart, L. 1998. Word formation in Old Chinese. In Packard, J. L. (ed.) New Approaches to Chinese Word Formation: Morphology, phonology, and the lexicon in Modern and Ancient Chinese. New York and Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Baxter, W. H. and Sagart, L. 2014. Old Chinese: A new reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Becker, A. L. 1975. A linguistic image of nature: The Burmese numerative classifier system. Linguistics, 13 (165): 109–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bedell, G. 2001. The syntax of deixis in Lai. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 24 (2): 157–71.Google Scholar

Bellwood, P. 1979. Man’s Conquest of the Pacific: The prehistory of Southeast Asia and Oceania. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bellwood, P. 1985. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Bellwood, P. 1992. Southeast Asia before prehistory. In Tarling, N. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bellwood, P. 2007. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Revised edition. Canberra: Australian National University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bellwood, P., Fox, J. J. and Tryon, D. 2006. The Austronesians: Historical and comparative perspectives. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Benedict, P. K. 1942. Thai, Kadai, and Indonesian: A new alignment in Southeastern Asia. American Anthropologist, 44 (4): 576–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benedict, P. K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: A conspectus. In Princeton-Cambridge Studies in Chinese Linguistics: Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Benedict, P. K. 1975. Austro-Thai language and culture, with a glossary of roots. New Haven: HRAF Press.Google Scholar

Benedict, P. K. 1976a. Austro-Thai and Austroasiatic. In Jenner, P., Thompson, L. C. and Starosta, S. (eds.) Austroasiatic Studies Part I. 1–36. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication No. 13. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar

Benedict, P. K. 1976b. Sino-Tibetan: Another look. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 96 (2): 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benedict, P. K. 1987. Archaic Chinese initials. Manuscript cited in Ratliff 2010.Google Scholar

Benedict, P. K. 1990. Japanese/Austro-Tai. Linguistica Extranea, Studia 20. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar

Benjamin, G. 2012. The Aslian languages of Malaysia and Thailand: An assessment. In Austin, P. K. and McGill, S. (eds.) Language Documentation and Description. 136–230. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar

Bentley, R. A. 2006. Strontium isotopes from the Earth to the archaeological skeleton: A review. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13. 135–87.Google Scholar

Bergsland, K. and Vogt, H. 1962. On the validity of glottochronology. Current Anthropology 3: 115–53.Google Scholar

Bertrais-Charrier, Y. 1964. Dictionnaire Hmong (Mèo Blanc)-Français. Vientiane: Mission Catholique.Google Scholar

Bisang, W. 1991. Verb serialization, grammaticalization and attractor positions in Chinese, Hmong, Vietnamese, Thai and Khmer. In Seiler, H. and Premper, W. (eds.) Partizipation: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten. 509–62. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar

Bisang, W. 1993. Classifiers, quantifiers and class nouns in Hmong. Studies in language 17 (1): 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blagden, C. O., 1919. The Myazedi Inscriptions in Ko, T. S. and Duroiselle, C. (eds.) Epigraphica Birmanica. 59–68. Rangoon: Government Printing. Cited in Moore 2009.Google Scholar

Blench, R. 2011. The role of agriculture in the evolution of Mainland Southeast Asian language phyla. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 125–52. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Blench, R. 2015. The origins of nominal classification markers in MSEA languages: Convergence, contact and some African parallels. In Enfield, N. J. and Comrie, B. (eds.) The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art. 558–85. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Blench, R. and Post, M. W. 2013. Re-thinking Sino-Tibetan phylogeny from the perspective of North East Indian languages. In Hill, N. and Owen-Smith, T. (eds.) Trans-Himalayan Linguistics. 71–104. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Blench, R. and Post, M. W. 2014. Rethinking Sino-Tibetan phylogeny from the perspective of Northeast Indian languages. Trans-Himalayan Linguistics 266: 71–104.Google Scholar

Blood, D. 1967. Phonological Units in Cham. Anthropological Linguistics 9 (8): 15–32.Google Scholar

Blood, D. 1977 Clause and sentence final particles in Cham. In Thomas, D., Lee, E. W. and Liem, N. D. (eds.) Papers in South East Asian Linguistics No. 4: Chamic Studies. 39–51. Pacific Linguistics Series A, No. 48.Google Scholar

Blood, D. 1980. The script as a cohesive factor in Cham society. In Gergerson, M. and Thomas, D. (eds.) Notes from Indochina on Ethnic Minority Cultures. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Blust, R. 1980. Austronesian etymologies. Oceanic Linguistics 19 (1/2): 1–189.Google Scholar

Blust, R. 1994. The Austronesian settlement of Mainland Southeast Asia. In Adams, K. L. and Hudak, T. J. (eds.) Papers from the Second Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. 25–83. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.Google Scholar

Blust, R. 1999. Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: Some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics. In Zeitoun, E. and Li, P. J. (eds.) Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. 31–94. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar

Blust, R. 2013a. Southeast Asian islands and Oceania: Austronesian linguistic history. In Bellwood, P. (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration. Vol. 1: Prehistory. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Blust, R. 2013b. The Austronesian Languages. Revised edition. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Bo, W. 2002. A Study of Mulao. Beijing: The Nationalities Press.Google Scholar

Boas, F. 1911. Introduction. In Boas, F. (ed.) Handbook of American Indian Languages. 1–79. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Bodomo, A. 2006. The structure of ideophones in African and Asian languages: The case of Dagaare and Cantonese. In Mugane, J., Hutchison, J.P. and Worman, D.A. (eds.) Selected Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference on African Linguistics: African Languages and Linguistics in Broad Perspectives. pp. 203–13. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar

Bon, N. 2014. Une grammaire de la langue stieng, langue en danger du Cambodge et du Vietnam. Dissertation. Université Lumière Lyon 2.Google Scholar

Bos, K. J. 2009. Kuy grammar sketch: A basic grammar sketch of the Kuy Ntua language in Cambodia. SIL Mainland Southeast Asia Group. www.sil.org/resources/archives/63484Google Scholar

Bradley, D. 1979. Lahu Dialects. Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies.Google Scholar

Bradley, D. 1997. Tibeto-Burman languages and classification. In Bradley, D. (ed.) Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics 14: Tibeto-Burman Languages of the Himalayas. 1–72. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Bradley, D. 2002. The subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman languages. In Beckwith, C. I. (ed.) Medieval Tibeto-Burman Languages I. 73–112. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bradley, D. 2003. Lisu. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 222–35. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bradley, D. 2007. Language endangerment in China and Mainland Southeast Asia. In Brenzinger, M. (ed.) Language Diversity Endangered. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs. 278–302. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Brown, J. M. 1965. From Ancient Thai to modern dialects. In From Ancient Thai to modern dialects, and other writings on historical Thai linguistics. 69–254. Bangkok: White Lotus.Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. Question and politeness. In Goody, E. N. (ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brunelle, M. 2009a. Contact-induced change? Register in three Cham dialects. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2: 1–22.Google Scholar

Brunelle, M. 2009b Northern and Southern Vietnamese tone coarticulation: A comparative case study. Journal of Southeast Asian Linguistics, 1, 49–62.Google Scholar

Brunelle, M. 2015. Vietnamese (Tiếng Việt). In Jenny, M. and Sidwell, P. (eds.) The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. 909–53. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Brunelle, M. 2017. Stress and phrasal prominence in tone languages: The case of Southern Vietnamese. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 47 (3): 283–320. DOI: 10.1017/S0025100316000402Google Scholar

Brunelle, M., Dương, N. D. and Hùng, N. K. 2010. A laryngographic and laryngoscopic study of Northern Vietnamese tones. Phonetica 67: 147–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Brunelle, M., Hạ, K. P. and Grice, M. 2012. Intonation in Northern Vietnamese. The Linguistic Review. 29: 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brunelle, M., Hạ, K. P. and Grice, M. 2016. Inconspicuous coarticulation: A complex path to sound change in the tone system of Hanoi Vietnamese. Journal of Phonetics. 59: 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brunelle, M. and Hẳn, P. V. 2019. Colloquial Eastern Cham. In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 523–58. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Brunelle, M. and Kirby, J. 2015. In Enfield, N. J. and Comrie, B. (eds.) The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art. 82–110. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Brunelle, M., and Kirby, J. 2016. Tone and phonation in Southeast Asian languages. Language and Linguistics Compass. 10 (4): 191–207.Google Scholar

Brunelle, M. and Kirby, J., Michaud, A. and Watkins, J. 2018 Prosodic systems: Mainland Southeast Asia. In Gussenhoven, C. and Chen, A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Language Prosody. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Buakaw, S. 2012. A phonological study of Palaung dialects spoken in Thailand and Myanmar, with focuses on vowels and final nasals. Doctoral dissertation. Mahidol University, Bangkok.Google Scholar

Bulbeck, D. 2011. Biological and cultural evolution in the population and culture history of Homo sapiens in Malaya. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 207–55. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Bunopas, S., and Vella, P. 1983. Tectonic and geologic evolution of Thailand. Proceedings of a Workshop on Stratigraphic Correlation of Thailand and Malaysia. 1: 307–22.Google Scholar

Burenhult, N. 2002. A grammar of Jahai. PhD dissertation. Lund University.Google Scholar

Burenhult, N. 2003. Attention, accessibility, and the addressee: The case of the Jahai demonstrative ton. Pragmatics. 13: 363–79.Google Scholar

Burenhult, N. 2005. A Grammar of Jahai. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies.Google Scholar

Burenhult, N. 2006. Body part terms in Jahai. Language Sciences. 28: 162–80.Google Scholar

Burenhult, N. and Majid, A. 2011. Olfaction in Aslian ideology and language. The Senses and Society. 6 (1): 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burenhult, N. and Wegener, C. 2009. Preliminary notes on the phonology, orthography and vocabulary of Semnam (Austroasiatic, Malay Peninsula). Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. 1: 283–312.Google Scholar

Burenhult, N., Kruspe, N. and Dunn, M. 2011. Language history and culture groups among Austroasiatic-speaking foragers of the Malay Peninsula. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 257–75. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Burling, R. 1967. Proto Lolo-Burmese. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar

Burling, R. 1983. The Sal languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 7(2): 1–32.Google Scholar

Burling, R. 2004. The Language of the Modhipur Mandi (Garo). Vol. I: Grammar. New Delhi: Bibliophile South Asia.Google Scholar

Burnay, J. and Cœdès, G. 1927. Note sur les tons et les initiales du vieux-siamois à l’époque de Sukhodaya. Journal of the Siam Society. 21(2): 103–18.Google Scholar

Butler, B. 2015. Approaching a phonological understanding of the sesquisyllable with phonetic evidence from Khmer and Bunong. In Enfield, N. J. and Comrie, B. (eds.) The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art. 443–99. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Campbell, L. 2010. Language Isolates and Their history, or, What’s Weird Anyway? In Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistics Society 36. 16–31. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v36i1.3900Google Scholar

Cao, J. 2002. Hànyǔ Shēngdiào yǔ Yǔdiào de Guānxī. [The relation between Tone and Intonation in Chinese]. Studies of The Chinese Language (3): 195–202.Google Scholar

Capell, A. 1979. Further typological studies in Southeast Asian languages. In Liem, N. D. (ed.) South-East Asian Linguistic Studies. Vol. 3. 1–42. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Cavalli-Sforza, L., Menozzi, P. and Piazza, A. 1993. Demic expansions and human evolution. Science. 259 (5095): 639–46.Google Scholar

Chamberlain, J. R. 1997. Tai-Kadai Arthropods: A preliminary biolinguistic investigation. In Edmondson, J. A. and Solnit, D. B. (eds.) Comparative Kadai: The Tai branch. 291–326. Dallas: SIL International.Google Scholar

Chandler, D. 1992. A History of Cambodia. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Chang, J. 2009. A reference grammar of Yuanjiang Kucong. PhD. Minzu University of China, Beijing.Google Scholar

Chang, K. 1947. Miaoyaoyu shengdiao wen ti [On the tone system of the Miao-Yao languages]. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 16: 93–110.Google Scholar

Chang, K. 1953. On the tone system of the Miao-Yao languages. Language 29: 374–8.Google Scholar

Chang, K. 1966. A comparative study of the Yao tone system. Language 42: 303–10.Google Scholar

Chang, K. 1972. The reconstruction of Proto-Miao-Yao tones. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 44: 541–628.Google Scholar

Chang, K. 1976. Proto-Miao initials. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology. 47: 155–218.Google Scholar

Chao, Y. R. 1930. A system of tone letters. Le Maître Phonétique 45:24–7.Google Scholar

Chao, Y. R. 1933. Tone and intonation in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 4: 121–34.Google Scholar

Chao, Y. R. 1941. Distinctions within Ancient Chinese. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 5: 303–22.Google Scholar

Chao, Y. R. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Chapman, C. 2011. Subordination and coordination in Karen Sgaw. In Brunelle, M. (ed.) Sgaw Karen Papers: Presented to Nimrod Andrew . Papers written for the course LIN 4370/7911 Field Methods, Fall 2010. 85–96. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.Google Scholar

Chappell, H. 2001. Language contact and areal diffusion in Sinitic languages. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.) Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics. 328–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chappell, H. 2019. Southern Min. In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 176–233. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Chappell, J. and Shackleton, N. J. 1986. Oxygen isotopes and sea level. Nature 324(6093): 137–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chen, G. 2005. Kemieyu yanjiu [A study of Kemie]. Beijing: Minzu chubanshe.Google Scholar

Chen, M. 1987. The syntax of Xiamen Tone Sandhi. Phonology Yearbook, 4: 109–49.Google Scholar

Chen, P. 2007. China. In Simpson, A. (ed.) Language and National Identity in Asia. 141–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chen, W. 2011. The Southern Min dialect of Hui’an: Morphosyntax and grammaticalization. PhD. University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar

Cheng, R. 1974. Causative constructions in Taiwanese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics. 2 (3): 279–324.Google Scholar

Cheung, , Y.-S. (1969). ‘Xianggang Yueyu yinping-diao ji biandiao wenti’ [A study on the upper even tone and tone sandhi in the Cantonese dialect as spoken in Hongkong]. Journal of the Institute of Chinese Studies of the Chinese University of Hongkong. 2 (2): 81–105.Google Scholar

Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). 2012. A Dictionary of Modern Chinese. Sixth edition. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar

Church, P. (ed.) 2003. A Short History of South-East Asia. Third edition. Singapore: Wiley.Google Scholar

Clark, A. L., King, C. L., Buckley, H. R., Collins, C. J., Dhavale, N., Elliott, G. E., Gosling, A., Halcrow, S. E., Ivory, B., Matisoo-Smith, E., McDonald, S. K., Stantis, C., Tromp, M., Ward, S. and West, K. 2017. Biological anthropology in the indo-pacific region: New approaches to age-old questions. Journal of Indo-Pacific Archaeology. 41: 78–94.Google Scholar

Clark, M. 1985. Asking questions in Hmong and other southeast Asian languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 8 (2): 60–7.Google Scholar

Clark, M. 1989. Hmong and areal South-East Asia. In Bradley, D. (ed.) Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics No.11, Southeast Asian Syntax. 175–230. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Clark, M. 1996. Where do you feel? – Stative verbs and body-part terms in Mainland Southeast Asia. In Chappell, H. and McGregor, W. (eds.) The Grammar of Inalienability. 529–64. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Clark, M. and Prasithrathsint, A. 1985. Synchronic lexical derivation in Southeast Asian languages. In Ratanakul, S. and Premsrirat, S. (eds.) Southeast Asian Linguistic Studies Presented to André-G. Haudricourt. 34–81. Bangkok: Mahidol University.Google Scholar

Clynes, A. and Deterding, D. 2011. Standard Malay (Brunei). Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 41, 259–68.Google Scholar

Cœdès, G. 1925. Tamnan akson Thai [History of the Thai writing]. Phra Nakhon: Sophonphiphatthanakon.Google Scholar

Cœdès, G. 1968. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Hawaii: East-West Center Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. 1985. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. (ed.) 1990. The Major Languages of East and South-East Asia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. 2007. Areal typology of mainland Southeast Asia: What we learn from the WALS maps. In Kullavanijaya, P. (ed.) Trends in Thai Linguistics [Manusya Special Issue 13], 18–47. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. and Zamponi, R. 2019 Subgrouping and lexical distance in the Great Andamanese family. In Kotin, M. L. (ed.) Wortschätze und Sprachwelten: Beiträge zu Sprachtypologie, kontrastiver Wort- bzw. Wortschatzforschung und Pragmatik. 35–57. Berlin: Lang.Google Scholar

Cooke, J. R. 1968. Pronominal Reference in Thai, Burmese and Vietnamese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Cooper, J. S. 1966. Halăng verb phrase. In Thomas, D. D. (ed.) Papers on four Vietnamese languages. 28–34. Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand.Google Scholar

Coupe, A. R. 2003. A Phonetic and Phonological Description of Ao: a Tibeto-Burman Language of Nagaland, North-East India. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Coupe, A. R. 2007. A Grammar of Mongsen Ao. Mouton Grammar Library 39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coupe, A. R. 2017. Mongsen Ao. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 2nd ed. 277–301. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Court, C. 1971. A fleeting encounter with the Moken (the Sea Gypsies) in Southern Thailand: Some linguistic and general notes. Journal of the Siam Society 59: 83–96.Google Scholar

Culas, C. and Michaud, J. 2004. A contribution to the study of Hmong (Miao) migrations and history. 61–96. In Tapp, N. et al. (eds.) Hmong/Miao in Asia. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar

Dancause, K. N., Chan, C. W., Arunotai, N. H. and Lum, J. K. 2009. Origins of the Moken Sea Gypsies inferred from mitochondrial hypervariable region and whole genome sequences. Journal of Human Genetics 54: 86–93.Google Scholar

Davis, J. E. 2010. Hand Talk: Sign Language among American Indian Nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Davis, J. E. 2015. North American Indian Sign Language. In Jepsen, J. B., de Clerck, G., Lutalo-Kiingi, S. and McGregor, W. B. (eds.) Sign Languages of the World: A comparative handbook. 911–31. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

DeFrancis, J. 1977. Colonialism and Language Policy in Viet Nam. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

DeFrancis, J. 1984. The Chinese Language: Fact and fantasy. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar

DeLancey, S. 1986. Toward a history of Tai classifier systems. In Craig, C. (ed.) Noun Classes and Categorization. 437–52. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

DeLancey, S. 2011. Notes on verb agreement prefixes in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics, 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.5070/H910123565Google Scholar

Demeter, F., Shackelford, L., Westaway, K., Barnes, L., Duringer, P., Ponche, J.-L., Dumoncel, J., Sénégas, F., Sayavongkhamdy, T., Zhao, J.-X., Sichanthongtip, P., Patole-Edoumba, E., Dunn, T., Zachwieja, A., Coppens, Y., Willerslev, E., Bacon, A.-M. 2017. Early modern humans from Tam Pà Ling, Laos: Fossil review and perspectives. Current Anthropology 58 (17): S527–S538. DOI: 10.1086/694192Google Scholar

Dempwolff, O. 1934–1938. Vergleichende Lautlehre des Austronesischen Wortschatzes. 3 vols. Beihefte Zeitschrift für Eingeborenensprachen 15, 17, 19. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.Google Scholar

Denny, J. P. 1978. Locating the universals in lexical systems for spatial deixis. Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon. 71–84. Chicago : Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

DiCanio, C. T. 2007. The phonetics of register in Takhian Thong Chong. Phonology Lab Annual Report. 459–82. University of California, Berkeley. http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/phonlab/documents/2007/ChristianDiCanio.pdfGoogle Scholar

Diffloth, G. 1972. Notes on expressive meaning. In Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 440–7. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Diffloth, G. 1994. ‘I: Big, a: Small’. In Hinton, L. and Leanne, J. (eds) Sound Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Diffloth, G. 2005. The contribution of linguistic palaeontology to the homeland of Austro-Asiatic. In Sagart, L., Blench, R. and Sanchez-Mazas, A. (eds.) The Peopling of East Asia: Putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics. 77–80. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar

Diffloth, G. 2011. Austroasiatic word histories: boat, husked rice and taro. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 295–313. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Diffloth, G. and Zide, N. H. 1992. Austro-Asiatic languages. In Bright, W. (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Vol. 1. 137–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Diller, A. 2007. Lexical innovation and the ‘genius of the Thai Language’. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 186: 13–28.Google Scholar

Diller, A. 2008. Introduction. In Diller, A., Edmondson, J. A. and Luo, Y. (eds.) The Tai-Kadai Languages. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Diller, A., Edmondson, J. A. and Luo, Y. (eds.) 2008. The Tai-Kadai Languages. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Dingemanse, M. 2012. Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass. 6: 654–72. DOI: 10.1002/lnc3.361Google Scholar

Dingemanse, M. 2017. Expressiveness and system integration: On the typology of ideophones, with special reference to Siwu. STUF. 70.2: 363–84. DOI: 10.1515/stuf-2017–0018Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 2008. Complement clauses and complementation strategies in typological perspective. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, A. Y. (eds.) Complementation: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, A. Y. (eds.) 2002. Word: A cross-linguistic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, A. Y. (eds.) forthcoming. Word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Đỗ, T. D., Trần, T. H. and Boulakia, G. 1998. Intonation in Vietnamese. In Hirst, D. and Cristo, A. D. (eds.) Intonation Systems: A survey of twenty languages. 395–416. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Do-Hurinville, D. T. and Dao, H. L. 2019. Vietnamese. In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 384–431. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Doan, T. T. and Mai, N. C. 1992. Tiếng Dao [Yao language]. Translated into Chinese by Meihua Pan, 2013, Publishing House of Minority Nationalities, China. Hanoi: Xuá̂t Bàn Khoa Học Xã Hội.Google Scholar

Domeier, M. 2018. Early Paleozoic tectonics of Asia: Towards a full-plate model. Geoscience Frontiers. 9 (3): 789–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2017.11.012Google Scholar

Donegan, J. and Stampe, D. 1983. Rhythm and the holistic organization of language structure. In Richardson, J. F., Marks, M. and Chukerman, A. (eds.) The Interplay of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax. 337–53. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Donegan, J. and Stampe, D. 2002. South-East Asian Features in the Munda Languages: Evidence for the Analytic-to-synthetic Drift of Munda. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Special Session on Tibeto-Burman and Southeast Asian Linguistics, in Honor of Prof. James A. Matisoff. 111–29. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Donohue, M., Hetherington, R., McElvenny, J. and Dawson, V. 2013. World Phonotactics Database. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Downer, G. B. 1963. Chinese, Thai, and Miao-Yao. In Shorto, H. L. (ed.), Linguistic Comparison in South East Asia and the Pacific. 133–9. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar

Downer, G. B. 1967. Tone-change and tone-shift in White Miao. BSOAS 30: 589–99.Google Scholar

Dryer, M. S. 2003. Word order in Sino-Tibetan languages from a typological and geographical perspective. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 43–55. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.) 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://wals.infoGoogle Scholar

Dudley, S. 2000, Displacement and identity. Karen refugees in Thailand. DPhil dissertation. University of Oxford.Google Scholar

Dunn, M., Burenhult, N., Kruspe, N., Tufvesson, S. and Becker, N. 2011. Aslian linguistic prehistory: A case study in computational phylogenetics. Diachronica 28 (3): 291–323.Google Scholar

Dunn, M., Kruspe, N. and Burenhult, N. 2013. Time and place in the prehistory of the Aslian languages. Human Biology 85: 383–99.Google Scholar

Edmondson, J. A. and Esling, J. H. 2006. The valves of the throat and their functioning in tone, vocal register and stress: Laryngoscopic case studies. Phonology 23 (2): 157–91.Google Scholar

Edmondson, J. A., and Gregerson, K. J. 1993. Western Cham as a register language. In Edmondson, J. A. and Gregerson, K. J. (eds.) Tonality in Austronesian Languages. 61–74. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar

Edmondson, J. A. and Gregerson, K. J. 2007. The languages of Vietnam: Mosaics and expansions. Language and Linguistics Compass 1 (6): 727–49.Google Scholar

Edmondson, J. A., and Solnit, D. B. 1988. Introduction. In Edmondson, J. A. and Solnit, D. B. (eds.) Comparative Kadai: Linguistic studies beyond Tai. 1–26. SIL International.Google Scholar

Edmondson, J. A., and Solnit, D. B. 1997. Introduction. In Edmondson, J. A. and Solnit, D. B. (eds.) Comparative Kadai: The Tai branch. 1–32. SIL International.Google Scholar

Ehrman, M. E. 1972. Contemporary Cambodian: Grammatical sketch. Washington: Foreign Service Institute.Google Scholar

Emiliani, C. 1955. Pleistocene temperatures. Journal of Geology 63: 538–78.Google Scholar

Emmorey, K. 2001. Space on hand: The exploitation of signing space to illustrate abstract thought. In Gattis, M. (ed.) Spatial Schemas and Abstract Thought. 147–74. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 1999. Lao as a national language. In Evans, G. (ed.) Laos: Culture and society. 258–90. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2001. ‘Lip-pointing’: A discussion of form and function with reference to data from Laos. Gesture, 1 (2): 185–211.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2003. Linguistic Epidemiology: Semantics and grammar of language contact in mainland Southeast Asia. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2004. On linear segmentation and combinatorics in co-speech gesture: A symmetry-dominance construction in Lao fish trap descriptions. Semiotica 149 (1/4): 57–123.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2005. Areal linguistics and mainland Southeast Asia. Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 181–206.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2006a. Languages as historical documents: The endangered archive in Laos. South East Asia Research 14 (3): 471–88.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2006b. Heterosemy and the grammar-lexicon trade-off. In: Ameka, F., Dench, A. and Evans, N. (eds.) Catching Language, 297–320. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2007. A Grammar of Lao. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2009. Review of Serial Verb Constructions: A cross-linguistic typology edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon. Language 85: 445–51. DOI: 10.1353/lan.0.0124Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. (ed.) 2011a. Dynamics of Human Diversity in Mainland Southeast Asia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2011b. Linguistic diversity in mainland Southeast Asia. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 63–80. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2013. Relationship Thinking: Agency, enchrony, and human sociality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2015. The Utility of Meaning: What words mean and why. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2017. Linguistic expression of commands in Lao. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.) Commands: A cross-linguistic typology: 189–205. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2020. Word in Lao. In Aikhenvald, A. Y., Dixon, R. M. W. and White, N. M. (eds.) Phonological Word and Grammatical Word. 176–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. and Diffloth, G. 2009. Phonology and sketch grammar of Kri, a Vietic language of Laos. Cahiers de Linguistique – Asie Orientale 38 (1): 3–69.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. and Wierzbicka, A. 2002. Introduction: The body in description of emotion. Pragmatics and Cognition, 10 (1): 1–24.Google Scholar

Enwall, J. 1994. A Myth Become Reality: History and development of the Miao written language. East Asia Monographs. Stockholm: Institute of Oriental Languages, Stockholm University.Google Scholar

Farnell, B. 1995. Do you see what I mean? Plains Indian sign talk and the embodiment of action. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Fedden, S., and Corbett, G. G. 2017. Gender and classifiers in concurrent systems: Refining the typology of nominal classification. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics, 2(1).Google Scholar

Ferlus, M. 1992. Essai de phonétique historique du Khmer (Du milieu du premier millénaire de notre ère à l’époque actuelle). Mon-Khmer Studies 21: 57–89.Google Scholar

Ferlus, M. 2014. Arem, a Vietic language. Mon-Khmer Studies 43 (1): 1–15.Google Scholar

Finot, L. 1959. Laotian writings. In de Berval, R. et al. (eds) Kingdom of Laos. Saigon: France-Asie.Google Scholar

Fix, A. 2011. Origin of genetic diversity among Malaysian Orang Asli: An alternative to the demic diffusion model. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 277–91. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Foley, W. A., and Olson, M. 1985. Clausehood and verb serialisation. In Nichols, J. and Woodbury, A. C. (eds.) Grammar inside and outside the clause: Some approaches to theory from the field. 17–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Forestier, H., Sophady, H. and Celiberti, V. 2017. Le techno-complexe hoabinhien en Asie du Sud-est continentale: L’histoire d’un galet qui cache la forêt [The Hoabinhian techno-complex in Mainland Southeast Asia: The history of a pebble which hides the forest]. Journal of Lithic Studies, 4 (2): 305–49. https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.v4i2.2545Google Scholar

Fuller, D. Q. 2011. Pathways to Asian Civilizations: Tracing the origins and spread of rice and rice cultures. Rice, 4 (3): 78–92.Google Scholar

Fuller, J. W. 1985. Topic and comment in Hmong. PhD dissertation. University of Minnesota.Google Scholar

Gage, W. W. 1987. Vietnamese in Mon-Khmer perspective. In Ratanakul, S., Thomas, D. and Premisirat, S. (eds.) Southeast Asian Studies presented to Andre-G. Haudricourt. 493–524. Bangkok: Mahidol University.Google Scholar

Gai, X. 2002. A Study of Tanglang. Beijing: The Nationalities Press.Google Scholar

Gao, Y. 2004. Buxing yu yan jiu / 布兴语研究 [A study of the Buxing language]. Beijing: Min zu chu ban she.Google Scholar

Gedney, W. J. 1947. Indic loanwords in spoken Thai. Doctoral dissertation. Yale University.Google Scholar

Gedney, W. J. 1972. A Puzzle in Comparative Tai Phonology. In Harris, J. G. and Noss, R. B. (eds.) A Conference on Tai Phonetics and Phonology. 52–7. Bangkok: Mahidol University.Google Scholar

Gedney, W. J. 1989. A checklist for determining tones in Tai dialects. In Bickner, R. J., Hartmann, J., Hudak, T. J. and Peyasantiwong, P. (eds.) Selected Papers on Comparative Tai Studies. 191–206. Center for South and Southeast Asian studies, the University of Michigan.Google Scholar

Giaphong, S. 2004. Plang Grammar as spoken in Huay Namkhun village, Chiang Rai province. MA thesis. Bangkok: Mahidol University.Google Scholar

Gil, D. 2005. Word order without syntactic categories: How Riau Indonesian does it, in Carnie, A., Harley, H. and Dooley, S. A. (eds.) Verb First: On the syntax of verb-initial languages. 243–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Gil, D. 2015. The Mekong-Mamberamo linguistic area. In Enfield, N. J. and Comrie, B. (eds.) The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art. 266–355. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Goddard, C. 2005. The Languages of East and Southeast Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goldin-Meadow, S. 2003a. Hearing Gesture: How our hands help us think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Goldin-Meadow, S. 2003b. The Resilience of Language: What gesture creation in deaf children can tell us about how all children learn language. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Gomi, T. 1989. An Illustrated Dictionary of Japanese Onomatopoeic Expressions. Translated by J. Turrent. Tokyo: Japan Times.Google Scholar

Goody, J. 1977. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gordon, M. K. 2016. Phonological Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gorman, C. 1969. Hoabinhian: A pebble tool complex with early plant associations in Southeast Asia. Science 163: 671–3.Google Scholar

Gorman, C. 1970. Excavations at Spirit cave, North Thailand: Some interim interpretations. Asian Perspectives. 13: 79–107.Google Scholar

Gorman, C. 1971. The Hoabinhian and after: Subsistence patterns in Southeast Asia during the late Pleistocene and early recent periods. World Archaeology 2: 300–20.Google Scholar

Grant, A. and Sidwell, P. 2005. Chamic and Beyond: Studies in mainland Austronesian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Gray, R. D. and Jordan, F. M. 2000. Language trees support the express-train sequence of Austronesian expansion. Nature 405: 1052–5.Google Scholar

Green, J., and Wilkins, D. P. 2015. Arandic alternate sign language(s). In Jepsen, J. B., de Clerck, G., Lutalo-Kiingi, S. and McGregor, W. B. (eds.) Sign languages of the World: A comparative handbook. 843–69. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. H. 1970. Some generalizations concerning glottalic consonants, especially implosives. International Journal of American Linguistics, 36 (2): 123–45.Google Scholar

Greenhill, S. J. and Gray, R. D. 2009. Austronesian language phylogenies: Myths and misconceptions about Bayesian computational methods. In Adelaar, A. and Pawley, A. (eds.) Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: A festschrift for Robert Blust. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Gregerson, K. 1976. Tongue-root and register in Mon-Khmer. In Jenner, P. (ed.) Austroasiatic Studies I. 323–66. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar

Gregerson, K. 1979. Predicate and argument in Rengao grammar. Dallas, TX: University of Texas at Arlington, SIL.Google Scholar

Gregerson, K. and Smith, K. D. 1973. The development of Tơdrah register. Mon-Khmer Studies 4: 143–84.Google Scholar

Grierson, G. A. 1904. Linguistic Survey of India (II): Mōn-Khmēr and Siamese-Chinese families (including Khassi and Tai). Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing.Google Scholar

Grinevald, C. 2000. A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers. In Senft, G. (ed.) Systems of Nominal Classification, 50–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Guion, S. G., and Wayland, R. P. 2004. Aerodynamic coarticulation in sound change or how onset trills can condition a falling tone. In Agwuele, A., Warren, W. and Park, S.-H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2003 Texas Linguistic Society Conference. 107–15. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Guo, J. 1993. Hànyǔ Shēngdiào Yǔdiào Chǎnyào yǔ Tànsǔo [The study and exploration of Chinese tone and intonation]. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.Google Scholar

Gussenhoven, C. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hạ, K. P. 2010. Prosody of Vietnamese from an interactional perspective: ờ, ừ and vâng in backchannels and requests for information. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 3 (1): 56–76.Google Scholar

Hạ, K. P. 2012. Prosody in Vietnamese: Intonational form and function of short utterances in conversation. Asia-Pacific Linguistics (SEAMLES).Google Scholar

Hạ, K. P. 2013. Prosodic means in repair initiation as an activity in Northern Vietnamese conversation. In Hole, D. and Löbel, E. (eds.) Linguistics of Vietnamese: An international survey. 35–54. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Hạ, K. P. and Grice, M. 2010. Modelling the interaction of intonation and lexical tone in Vietnamese. Paper presented at Speech Prosody 2010, Chicago.Google Scholar

Haas, M. R. 1942 The use of numeral classifiers in Thai, Language 18: 201–5.Google Scholar

Haas, M. R. 1969. Sibling terms as used by marriage partners. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 25 (3): 228–35.Google Scholar

Haiman, J. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59 (4): 781–819.Google Scholar

Haiman, J. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Haiman, J. 2011. Cambodian: Khmer. London Oriental and African Language Library 16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Haiman, J. 2019. Khmer. In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 320–83. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Halcrow, S. E. and Tayles, N. 2011. Human diversity in Mainland Southeast Asia: The contribution of bioarchaeology. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 47–61. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Halcrow, S. E., Tayles, N., and King, C. L. 2016. Infant and child health and disease with agricultural intensification in mainland Southeast Asia. In Oxenham, M. and Buckley, H. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Bioarchaeology in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands. 158–86. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hall, D. G. E. 1966. A History of Southeast Asia. New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar

Hall, K. R. 1992. Economic history of early Southeast Asia. In Tarling, N. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Vol. 1. 183–275. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hall, R. 1996. Reconstructing Cenozoic SE Asia. In: Hall, R. and Blundell, D. (eds.) Tectonic Evolution of SE Asia. Special Publication No. 106. 153–84. London: Geological Society of London.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Hanihara, T. 2006. Interpretation of craniofacial variation and diversification of East and Southeast Asians. In Oxenham, M. O. and Tayles, N. (eds.) Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. 91–111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hansson, I.-L. 2003. Akha. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 236–51. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Harris, R. 1980. The Language-makers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Hartmann, H. 1987. Time expressions in Daai Chin. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 10 (1): 147–51.Google Scholar

Hartmann, J. 1986. The spread of South Indic scripts in Southeast Asia.’ Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 3 (1) 1986: 6–20.Google Scholar

Hartmann, J. 1998. A linguistic geography and history of Tai Meuang-Fai (Ditch-Dike) techno-culture. Language and Linguistics 16 (2): 67–101.Google Scholar

Haudricourt, A.-G. 1954. De l’origine des tones en Vietnamien. Journal Asiatique, 242: 69–82.Google Scholar

Haudricourt, A.-G. 1965. Les mutations consonantiques et les occlusives initiales en mon-khmer. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 60: 160–72.Google Scholar

Haudricourt, A.-G. 1966. The limits and connections of Austroasiatic in the Northeast. In Zide, N. H. (ed.) Studies in Comparative Austroasiatic Linguistics. 44–56. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Haudricourt, A.-G. 2010. The origin of the peculiarities of the Vietnamese alphabet. Mon-Khmer Studies 39: 89–104. Translated from ‘L’origine Des Particularités de L’alphabet Vietnamien’ (1949) Dân Viêt-Nam 3: 61–8.Google Scholar

Hayes, L. V. H. 1984. The register systems of Thavung. Mon-Khmer Studies. 12: 91–122.Google Scholar

He, Diyong. 1993. Kèjiā Fāngyán Yǔfǎ Yánjiū [A study of Hakka grammar]. Xiamen: Xiamen University Press.Google Scholar

Headley, R. K. 1998. Cham evidence for Khmer sound changes. Pacific Linguistics. Series A. Occasional Papers. 89: 21–9.Google Scholar

Heder, S. R. 2007. Cambodia. In Simpson, A. (ed.) Language and National Identity in Asia. 288–311. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heimbach, E. E. 1979. White Hmong-English Dictionary. Revised edition. Linguistic Series IV, Data Paper no. 75, Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University. Ithaca, NY: Southeast Asia Program.Google Scholar

Heine, B. 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Heine-Geldern, R. 1956. Conceptions of State and Kingship in Southeast Asia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar

Henderson, E. J. A. 1952. The main features of Cambodian pronunciation. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 14. 149–74.Google Scholar

Henderson, E. J. A. 1965. The topography of certain phonetic and morphological characteristics of South East Asian languages. Lingua 15. 400–34.Google Scholar

Henderson, E. J. A. 1967. Grammar and tone in South East Asian languages. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig 16 (1/2): 171–8.Google Scholar

Hickman, J. R. 2019. Writing a New World Into Being: Orthographic ideology and millenarian religion in Hmong Society. Paper presented at The Anthropology of Language in Mainland Southeast Asia. Sydney, 19 August.Google Scholar

Higbie, J. and Thinsan, S. 2003. Thai Reference Grammar: The structure of spoken Thai. Bangkok: Orchid Press.Google Scholar

Higham, C. 1989. The Archaeology of Mainland Southeast Asia: From 10,000 BC to the fall of Angkor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Higham, C. 1996. The Bronze Age of Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Higham, C. 2001. The Civilization of Angkor. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Higham, C. 2002. Early Cultures of Mainland Southeast Asia. Bangkok: River Books.Google Scholar

Hill, C., Soares, P., Mormina, M., Macaulay, V., Meehan, W. et al. 2006 Phylogeography and ethnogenesis of aboriginal Southeast Asians. Mol Biol Evol 23: 2480–91. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msl124. PubMed: 16982817Google Scholar

Himmelmann, N. P. and Schultze-Berndt, E. (eds.) 2005. Secondary Predication and Adverbial Modification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hnin Tun, S. S. 2014. Colloquial Burmese: The complete course for beginners. Routledge.Google Scholar

Hoang, T., Lợi, N. V., Phúc, D. V. and Thành, P. X. 1986a. Sách Học Tiếng Bru Vân Kiều [A text to study the Bru language]. Hanoi: Ủy Ban Nhân Dân.Google Scholar

Hoang, T., Thắng, L. T., Thông, T. V., K’breu and K’broh. 1986b. Ngữ Pháp Tiếng Kơho [A Grammar of Kơho]. Lam Dong, Vietnam: Sở Văn Hóa và Thông Tin Lâm Ɖông.Google Scholar

Hoàng, V. H. 1998. Từ Láy Đôi trong Tiếng Mường [Reduplication in Muong]. In Từ Láy: Những Vấn Đề Còn Để Ngỏ [Reduplication: Remaining Issues], 165–93. Hanoi: Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Hoàng, V. M. and Tạ, V. T. 1998. Tiếng Bru-Vân Kiêu [The Bru-Van Kieu language]. Hanoi: Nhà Xuất Bản Khoa Học Xã Hội.Google Scholar

Hoijer, H. 1956. Lexicostatistics: A critique. Language 32 (1): 49–60.Google Scholar

Holmer, A. 2009. Atayal clitics and sentence structure. Working Papers in Linguistics 40: 71–94.Google Scholar

Hombert, J.-M., Ohala, J. J., and Ewan, W. G. 1979. Phonetic explanations for the development of tones. Language 55: 37–58.Google Scholar

Hope, G. 2005. The Quaternary in Southeast Asia. In Gupta, A. (ed.) The Physical Geography of Southeast Asia. 24–37. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

House, D., Karlsson, A., Svantesson, J.-O. and Tayanin, D. 2009. The phrase-final accent in Kammu: Effects of tone, focus and engagement. Paper presented to INTERSPEECH, 2009.Google Scholar

Hsiu, A. 2018. Preliminary classification of Mienic languages. East Asian Language Phyla Project. https://sites.google.com/site/eastasianphyla/hm/mienicGoogle Scholar

Huang, Y. 2010. A grammar of Jingxi Zhuang. Master’s thesis. Guangxi University.Google Scholar

Hudak, T. J. 2008. William J. Gedney’s Comparative Tai Sourcebook. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar

Hudson, B., Nyein, L., Maung, W. (Tanpawady). 2001. The origins of Bagan: New dates and old inhabitants. Asian Perspectives 40 (1): 48–74.Google Scholar

Huffman, F. E. 1970. Modern Spoken Cambodian. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Southeast Asia Program.Google Scholar

Huffman, F. E. 1973. Thai and Cambodian – A case of syntactic borrowing? Journal of the American Oriental Society, 93 (4): 488–509.Google Scholar

Huffman, F. E. 1976. The relevance of lexicostatistics to Mon-Khmer languages. In Jenner, P. N., Thompson, P., L. C. and Starosta, S. (eds.) Austroasiatic studies. 539–74. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar

Hyman, L. M. 1978. Historical tonology. In Fromkin, V. A. (ed.) Tone: A linguistic survey. 257–69. New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0–12-267350–4.50013–3Google Scholar

Hyman, L. M. 2001. Tone systems. In Haspelmath, M. et al. (eds) Language Typology and Language Universals: An international handbook. Vol. 2. 1367–80. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hyman, L. M. and Monaka, K. C. 2011. Tonal and non-tonal intonation in Shekgalagari. In Frota, S., Elordieta, G. and Prieto, P. (eds) Prosodic Categories: Production, perception and comprehension. 267–90. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Hyman, L. M. and VanBik, K. 2002. Tone and syllable structure in Hakha-Lai. Berkeley Linguistics Society, Special Session: Tibeto-Burman/Southeast Asian Linguistics, 15 February. https://bit.ly/39JxbkXGoogle Scholar

Hyman, L. M. and VanBik, K. 2004. Directional rule application and output problems in Hakha Lai tone. Language and Linguistics 5 (4): 821–61.Google Scholar

Hymes, D. H. 1960. Lexicostatistics so far. Current Anthropology 1: 3–44.Google Scholar

Hyslop, G. 2009. Kurtöp tone: A tonogenetic case study. Lingua, 119 (6): 827–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.11.012Google Scholar

Ileto, R. 1992. Religion and anti-colonial movements. In Tarling, N. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Vol. 2. 197–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Iwasaki, S. and Horie, P. I. 2005. A Reference Grammar of Thai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Jacques, R. 2002. Portuguese Pioneers of Vietnamese Linguistics Prior to 1650 [Pionniers portugais de la linguistique vietnamienne jusqu’en 1650]. In English and French. Bangkok: Orchid Press.Google Scholar

Jacquesson, F. 2004. Le Deuri: Langue Tibéto-Birman d’Assam. Leuven, Paris and Dudley, MA: Peeters.Google Scholar

Jaisser, A. 1984. Complementation in Hmong. MA thesis. San Diego State University.Google Scholar

Jaisser, A. 1990. DeLIVERing an introduction to psycho-collocations with SIAB in Hmong. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 13 (1): 159–78.Google Scholar

Jakobson, R. 1971. Shifters, verbals categories, and the Russian verb. In Jakobson, R., Selected Writings II: Word and language . The Hague and Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

Jarkey, N. 2006. Complement clause types and complementation strategies in White Hmong. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald Alexandra, Y. (eds.) Complementation: A cross-linguistic typology. 115–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jarkey, N. 2015. Serial Verbs in White Hmong. Brill.Google Scholar

Jenks, R. D. 1994. Insurgency and Social Disorder in Guizhou: The “Miao” rebellion, 1854–1873. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar

Jenny, M. 2015. The far west of Southeast Asia: ‘Give’ and ‘get’ in the languages of Myanmar. In Enfield, N. J. and Comrie, B. (eds.) The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art. 155–208. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Jenny, M. 2019a. Mon. In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 277–319. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Jenny, M. 2019b. Thai. In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 559–608. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Jenny, M. and Hnin Tun, S. S. 2016. Burmese: A comprehensive grammar. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jenny, M. and Sidwell, P. (eds.) 2015. Handbook of the Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Jenny, M., Weber, T. and Weymuth, R. 2015. The Austroasiatic Languages: A typological overview. In Jenny, M. and Sidwell, P. (eds.) The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. 13–143. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Jepsen, J. B., de Clerck, G., Lutalo-Kiingi, S. and McGregor, W. B. (eds.) 2015. Sign Languages of the World: A comparative handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Ji, X., Kuman, K., Clarke, R. J., Forestier, H., Li, Y., Ma, J., Qiu, K., Li, H. and Wu, Y. 2016. The oldest Hoabinhian technocomplex in Asia (43.5 ka) at Xiaodong rockshelter, Yunnan province, southwest China. Quaternary International, 400 (2): 166–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.09.080Google Scholar

Jiang, P. 2000. The semantics of noun phrases in Chinese reciprocal constructions. Studies in Language and Linguistics 20 (1): 41–50.Google Scholar

Jinam, T. A., Phipps, M. E., Aghakhanian, F., Majumder, P. P., Datar, F., Stoneking, M., Sawai, H., Nishida, N., Tokunaga, K., Kawamura, S., Omoto, K. and Saitou, N. 2017. Discerning the origins of the Negritos, First Sundaland people: Deep divergence and archaic admixture. Genome Biology and Evolution 9 (8): 2013–22. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evx118Google Scholar

Johnson, C. 1985. Dab neeg Hmoob: Myths, legends and folk tales from the Hmong of Laos. St Paul, MN: Linguistics Department, Macalester College.Google Scholar

Jones, R. B. 1970. Classifier constructions in Southeast Asia. Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (1): 1–12.Google Scholar

Jonsson, H. 2011. Ethnology and the issue of human diversity in Mainland Southeast Asia. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The case of Mainland Southeast Asia. 109–22. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Jonsson, H. 2014. Slow Anthropology: Negotiating difference with the Iu Mien. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Southeast Asia Program Publications.Google Scholar

Jonsson, N. L. 1991. Proto-Southwestern Tai. PhD dissertation. State University of New York at Albany.Google Scholar

Kamei, N. 2004. Sign language in Myanmar: One language or two? In Foreign Sign Department, Japan Institute for Sign Language Studies (ed.) Sign Languages of Asia [Asia no shuwa], Vol. 5. 10–19. Tokyo: Japan Institute for Sign Language Studies.Google Scholar

Kang, Z. 2009. Judu Gelao Reference Grammar. PhD thesis. Beijing: Minzu University of China.Google Scholar

Karlgren, B. 1915. Etudes sur la phonologie Chinoise. Leiden: E.-J. Brill.Google Scholar

Karlgren, B. 1954. Compendium of phonetics in Ancient and Archaic Chinese. Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 26: 211–367.Google Scholar

Karlsson, A., House, D. and Svantesson, J.-O. 2012. Intonation adapts to lexical tone: The case of Kammu. Phonetica 69: 28–47.Google Scholar

Karlsson, A., House, D., Svantesson, J.-O. and Tayanin, D. 2007. Prosodic phrasing in tonal and non-tonal dialects of Kammu. Paper presented to the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 2007.Google Scholar

Karlsson, A., House, D., Svantesson, J.-O. and Tayanin, D. 2010. Influence of lexical tones on intonation in Kammu. Paper presented to the INTERSPEECH, 2010.Google Scholar

Kato, A. 2003. Pwo Karen. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 632–48. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kato, A. 2019. Pwo Karen. In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 131–75. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. L. and Comrie, B. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic inquiry 8 (1): 63–100.Google Scholar

Keller, C. 1976. A Grammatical Sketch of Brao, a Mon-Khmer Language. Grand Forks, ND: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Kelly, P., 2018. The art of not being legible. Terrain 70 https://journals.openedition.org/terrain/17103Google Scholar

Kendon, A. 1988. Sign Languages of Aboriginal Australia: Cultural, semiotic and communicative perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kendon, A. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kerr, A. D. 1972. Lao-English Dictionary. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar

Keyes, C. 1977. The Golden Peninsula: Culture and adaptation in mainland Southeast Asia. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

King, C. L., Halcrow, S. E., Tayles, N. and Shkrum, S. 2017. Considering the palaeoepidemiological implications of socioeconomic and environmental change in Southeast Asia. Archaeological Research in Asia 11: 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2017.05.003Google Scholar

Kirby, J. P. 2014a. Incipient tonogenesis in Phnom Penh Khmer: Acoustic and perceptual studies. Journal of Phonetics 43: 69–85.Google Scholar

Kirby, J. P. 2014b. Incipient tonogenesis in Phnom Penh Khmer: Computational studies. Laboratory Phonology-Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 5 (1): 195–230.Google Scholar

Kirby, J., and Brunelle, M. 2017. Southeast Asian tone in areal perspective. In Hickey, R. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics. 703–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kölver, U. 1991. Local prepositions and serial verb constructions in Thai. In Seiler, H. and Premper, W. (eds.) Partizipation: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten. 485–508. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar

Konnerth, L. 2014. A Grammar of Karbi. Dissertation. University of Oregon.Google Scholar

Kosaka, R. 2000. A descriptive study of the Lachi language: Syntactic description, historical reconstruction and genetic relation. Doctoral dissertation. Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar

Kratochvíl, Paul. 1968. The Chinese Language Today: Features of an emerging standard. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar

Kratoska, P., and Batson, B. 1992. Nationalism and modernist reform. In Tarling, N. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Vol. 2. 249–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kruspe, N. 2004. A Grammar of Semelai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kunyot, T. 1984. General characteristics of Hmong Njua grammar. MA thesis. Mahidol University, Bangkok.Google Scholar

Kurabe, K. 2017. Jinghpaw. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 2nd ed. 993–1010. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kutanan, W., Kampuansai, J., Srikummool, M., Kangwanpong, D., Ghirotto, S., Brunelli, A. and Stoneking, M. 2017. Complete mitochondrial genomes of Thai and Lao populations indicate an ancient origin of Austroasiatic groups and demic diffusion in the spread of Tai–Kadai languages. Human Genetics 136 (1): 85–98.Google Scholar

Kwok, Helen. 1984. Sentence Particles in Cantonese: Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar

Ladd, D. R. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

LaPolla, R. J. 1992. ‘Anti-ergative’ marking in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 15 (1): 1–9.Google Scholar

LaPolla, R. J. 1994. On the change to verb-medial word order in proto-Chinese: Evidence from Tibeto-Burman. In Kitamura, H., Nishida, T. and Nagano, Y. (eds.), Current Issues in Sino-Tibetan Linguistics. 98–104. Osaka: Organizing Committee of the 26th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics.Google Scholar

LaPolla, R. J. 1995. “Ergative” marking in Tibeto-Burman. In Nishi, Y., Matisoff, J. A. and Nagano, Y. (eds.) New Horizons in Tibeto-Burman Morphosyntax. 189–228. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar

LaPolla, R. J. 2001. The role of migration and language contact in the development of the Sino-Tibetan language family. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.) Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics. 225–54). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

LaPolla, R. J. 2003. Overview of Sino-Tibetan syntax. In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan Languages. 22–42. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

LaPolla, R. J. 2012. Comments on methodology and evidence in Sino-Tibetan comparative linguistics. Language and Linguistics 13 (1): 117–32.Google Scholar

LaPolla, R. J. 2013. Subgrouping in Tibeto-Burman: Can an Individual-identifying standard be developed? How do we factor in the history of migrations and language contact? In Bickel, B., Grenoble, L. A., Peterson, D. A., Timberlake, A. (eds.) Language Typology and Historical Contingency: In honor of Johanna Nichols. 463–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Larish, M. D. 1993. Who are the Moken and Moklen on the Islands and Coasts of the Andaman Sea? In Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Language and Linguistics, 1305–19. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.Google Scholar

Larish, M. D. 1997 Moklen-Moken phonology: Mainland or insular Southeast Asian typology? In Odé, C. and Stokhof, W. (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. 125–50. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Larish, M. D. 1999. The position of Moken and Moklen within the Austronesian language family. PhD. University of Hawaiʻi.Google Scholar

Larish, M. D. 2005. Moken and Moklen. In Adelaar, A. and Himmelmann, N. P. (eds.) The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, 513–33. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Larson, G. et al. 2010. Patterns of East Asian pig domestication, migration, and turnover revealed by modern and ancient DNA. PNAS 107 (17): 7686–91. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912264107Google Scholar

Lê, M.-H. and O’Harrow, S. 2007. Vietnam. In Simpson, A. (ed.) Language and National Identity in Asia. 415–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Leach, E. 1954. Political Systems of Highland Burma. London: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar

Lee, E. W. 1966. Proto-Chamic phonologic word and vocabulary. PhD dissertation. Indiana University.Google Scholar

Lee, E. W. 1996. Bipartite negatives in Chamic. Mon-Khmer Studies 26: 291–317.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C., Cutfield, S., Dunn, M., Enfield, N. J. and Meira, S. 2018. Demonstratives in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333818Google Scholar

Lexicography Office, Institute of Linguistics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. 2012. A Dictionary of Modern Chinese. 6th edition. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar

Li, C. N. and Thompson, S. A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Li, D. 2003. A Study of Geman. Beijing: The Nationalities Press.Google Scholar

Li, D. 2004. Sulong Yu Yan Jiu [A study of Sulong]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar

Li, F. K. 1977. A Handbook of Comparative Tai. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar

Li, J. 2008. Chadong, a newly-discovered Kam-Sui language in northern Guangxi. In Diller, A., Edmondson, J. A. and Luo, Y. (eds.) The Tai-Kadai Languages. 509–84. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Li, X. 2013. Numeral Classifiers in Chinese: The syntax-semantics interface. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Li, Y. 2003. A Study of Sangkong. Beijing: The Nationalities Press.Google Scholar

Li, Y. C. and Yip, M. 1979. Ba Construction and Ergativity in Chinese. In Plank, F. (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. London and New York: Academic Press, 103–14.Google Scholar

Liang, M. and Zhang, J. 1996. Dong Tai yu zu gai lun [An introduction to the Kam-Tai languages]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Academy Press.Google Scholar

Lidz, L. 2010. A descriptive grammar of Yongning Na (Mosuo). Doctoral dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar

Lidz, L. 2019. Yongning Na (Mosuo). In Vittrant, A. and Watkins, J. (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 234–76. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Liem, N. D. 1970. Four-syllable Idiomatic Expressions in Vietnamese. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Lin, P. T. 2015. Taiwanese Grammar: A concise reference. Greenhorn Media.Google Scholar

Liu, H. 2016. Yuèběi Rǔyuán Guòshān Miǎnyǔ Yánjiū [A study of Yuebei Ruyuan Guoshan Mien]. Beijing: Culture and Art Publishing House.Google Scholar

Liu, L. 2013. Analysis of ba marker in Chinese. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 3 (12): 2227.Google Scholar

Liu, L., Wang, H., and Bo, Y. 2007. Xiandai Hanyu fangyan hexinci, tezhengci ji [Core vocabulary and diagnostic vocabulary of Modern Chinese Dialects]. Nanjing: Feng huang chu ban she.Google Scholar

Liu, Y. 2012. Thailand Mien reference grammar. PhD thesis. Minzu University of China, Beijing.Google Scholar

Long, Y. and Zheng, G. 1998. The Dong Language in Guizhou Province, China. Publications in Linguistics, 126. Translated by Norman Geary. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar

Longley, I. M. 1997. The tectonostratigraphic evolution of SE Asia. In Fraser, A. J., Matthews, S. J. and Murphy, R. W. (eds.) Petroleum Geology of Southeast Asia. 311–39. Geological Society Special Publication 126.Google Scholar

Lu, T. Q. 2008. A Grammar of Maonan. Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers.Google Scholar

Luce, G. H. 1985. Phases of Pre-Pagan Burma: Languages and history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lucey-Weinhold, Meredith. 2011. Serial verb constructions in Sgaw Karen: a comparison of Karenic VP structures. In Brunelle, M. (ed.) Sgaw Karen papers: Presented to Nimrod Andrew. 76–84. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.Google Scholar

Luke, K. K. 1990. Utterance Particles in Cantonese Conversation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Luksaneeyanawin, S. 1998. Intonation in Thai. In Hirst, D. and Cristo, A. D. (eds.) Intonation Systems. 376–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Luo, Y. 2008. Zhuang. In Diller, A., Edmondson, J. A. and Luo, Y. (eds.) The Tai-Kadai Languages. 317–77. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Luong, H. V. 1988. Discursive practices and power structure: Person-referring forms and sociopolitical struggles in colonial Vietnam. American Ethnologist 15 (2): 239–53.Google Scholar

Luong, H. V. 1990. Discursive Practices and Linguistic Meanings: The Vietnamese system of person reference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Lutz-Hughes, M. 2016. Defining serial verb constructions in Kri. Honours dissertation. University of Sydney.Google Scholar

Lyman, T. A. 1974. Dictionary of Mong Njua, a Miao (Meo) Language of Southeast Asia. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

Lyman, T. A. 1979. Grammar of Mong Njua (Green Miao): A descriptive linguistic study. Sattley, CA: Blue Oak Press.Google Scholar

Macaulay, V., Hill, C., Achilli, A., Rengo, C., Clarke, D. et al. 2005. Single, rapid coastal settlement of Asia revealed by analysis of complete mitochondrial genomes. Science 308: 1034–6. DOI: 10.1126/science. 1109792. PubMed: 15890885Google Scholar

Maddieson, I. 2013. Consonant inventories. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://wals.info/chapter/1Google Scholar

Majid, A. and Burenhult, N. 2014. Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition 130 (2): 266–70.Google Scholar

Manley, T. M. 1972. Outline of Sre Structure. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication No. 12. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar

Manson, K. 2011. The subgrouping of Karen. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, 11–13 May.Google Scholar

Mao, Z. 2004. Yaozu mianyu fangyan yanjiu [A study of the Mien language of the Yao ethnicity]. In China Ethnic Minority Language and Dialect Studies. Beijing: Publishing House of Minority Nationalities.Google Scholar

Mao, Z. and Li, Y. 2002. A Study of Jiongnai. Beijing: Central Nationalities University Press.Google Scholar

Mao, Z. and Li, Y. 2007. Younuoyu Yanjiu [A study of Younuo]. Beijing: Minzu University of China Publishing House.Google Scholar

Marrison, G. E. 1975. The early Cham language and its relationship to Malay. Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 48 (2): 52–9.Google Scholar

Martinson, D. G., Pisias, N. G., Hays, J. D., Imbrie, J., Moore, T. C. and Shackleton, N. J. 1987. Age dating and orbital theory of the Ice Ages: Development of a high resolution 0–300 000-year chronostratigraphy. Quaternary Research 27: 1–29.Google Scholar

Masica, C. 1991. Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Maspéro, H. 1911. Contribution d l’ětude du systeme phonétique des langues thai. Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient 11: 153–69.Google Scholar

Maspéro, H. 1912. Phonétique historique de la language Annamite: les initiales. Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient 12: 1–124.Google Scholar

Maspéro, H. 1952. L’Annamite. In Meillet, A. and Cohen, M. Les langues du monde. 581–7. Paris: H. Champion.Google Scholar

Matisoff, J. A. 1972. The Loloish Tonal Split Revisited. Vol. 7. Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies, University of California.Google Scholar

Matisoff, J. A. 1973a. The Grammar of Lahu. University of California Press.Google Scholar

Matisoff, J. A. 1973b. Tonogenesis in Southeast Asia. In Hyman, L. M. (ed.) Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics, No. 1. 72–95. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Google Scholar

Matisoff, J. A. 1986. Hearts and minds in South-East Asian languages and English: An essay in the comparative lexical semantics of psycho-collocations. Cahiers de linguistique – Asie orientale 15 (1): 5–57. https://doi.org/10.3406/clao.1986.1191Google Scholar

Matisoff, J. A. 1991a. Endangered languages of Mainland Southeast Asia. In Robins, R. J. and Uhlenbeck, E. M. (eds.) Endangered Languages. 189–228. London: Berg.Google Scholar

Matisoff, J. A. 1991b. Areal and universal dimensions of grammatization in Lahu. In Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. (eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization. 383–453. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Matisoff, J. A. 1991c. Sino-Tibetan linguistics: Present state and future prospects. Annual Review of Anthropology 20 (1): 469–504. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.20.100191.002345Google Scholar

Matisoff, J. A. 1994. Tone, intonation, and sound symbolism in Lahu: Loading the syllable canon. In Hinton, L., Nichols, J. and Ohala, J. J. (eds.) Sound Symbolism, 115–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Matisoff, J. A. 1999. Tibeto-Burman tonology in an areal context. In Kaji, S., (ed.) Proceedings of the Symposium ‘Cross-Linguistic Studies of Tonal Phenomena: Tonogenesis, Typology, and Related Topics’. 3–32. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar

Matisoff, J. A. 2000a. On ‘Sino-Bodic’ and other symptoms of neosubgroupitis. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 63 (3): 356–69.Google Scholar

Matisoff, J. A. 2000b. Tibeto-Burman tonology in an areal context. In The Fifth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics. 85–151. Ho Chi Minh City: Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City University of Social Sciences and Humanities. http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf8/matisoff2000tibeto-burman.pdfGoogle Scholar

Matisoff, J. A. 2001. Genetic vs. contact relationship: Prosodic diffusibility in South-East Asian languages. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.) Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics. 291–327. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Matisoff, J. A. 2003a. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Matisoff, J. A. 2003b. Aslian: Mon-Khmer of the Malay Peninsula. Mon-Khmer Studies 33: 1–58.Google Scholar