 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "East Papuan languages" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(December 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | This articleshould specify the language of its non-English content using{{lang}} or{{langx}},{{transliteration}} for transliterated languages, and{{IPA}} for phonetic transcriptions, with an appropriateISO 639 code. Wikipedia'smultilingual support templates may also be used.See why.(July 2021) |
| East Papuan | |
|---|---|
| (obsolete) | |
| Geographic distribution | Melanesia |
| Linguistic classification | Proposedlanguage family |
| Subdivisions |
|
| Language codes | |
| Glottolog | None |
TheEast Papuan languages is a defunct proposal for afamily ofPapuan languages spoken on the islands to the east ofNew Guinea, includingNew Britain,New Ireland,Bougainville,Solomon Islands, and theSanta Cruz Islands. There is no evidence that these languages are related to each other, and the Santa Cruz languages are no longer recognized as Papuan.
All but two of the starred languages below (Yélî Dnye andSulka) make a gender distinction in their pronouns. Several of the heavily Papuanized Austronesian languages of New Britain do as well. This suggests a pre-Austronesianlanguage area in the region.
The East Papuan languages were proposed as a family by linguistStephen Wurm (1975) and others. However, their work was preliminary, and there is little evidence that the East Papuan languages actually have agenetic relationship. For example, none of these fifteen languages marked with asterisks below share more than 2–3% of their basic vocabulary with any of the others. Dunn and colleagues (2005) tested the reliability of the proposed 2–3%cognates by randomizing the vocabulary lists and comparing them again. The nonsense comparisons produced the same 2–3% of "shared" vocabulary, demonstrating that the proposed cognates of the East Papuan languages, and even of proposed families within the East Papuan languages, are as likely to be due to chance as to any genealogical relationship. Thus in a conservative classification, many of the East Papuan languages would be consideredlanguage isolates.
Since the islands in question have been settled for at least 35,000 years, their considerable linguistic diversity is unsurprising. However,Malcolm Ross (2001; 2005) has presented evidence from comparingpronouns from nineteen of these languages that several of the lower-level branches of East Papuan may indeed be valid families. This is the classification adopted here. For Wurm's more inclusive classification, see theGlottolog pagehere.
Each of the first five entries inboldface is an independent language family, not known to be related to the others. Languages that are transparently related to each other are listed together on the same line. The first family is a more tentative proposal than the others and awaits confirmation.
Reconstructed pronoun sets for each of the families are given in the individual articles.
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
* Dunn and colleagues found no demonstrable shared vocabulary between these fifteen languages.
** Ross considered these four languages in addition to the fifteen studied by Dunn and colleagues.
These three languages are not thought to be demonstrably related to each other or to any language in the world.
* Dunn and colleagues found no demonstrable shared vocabulary between these fifteen languages.
Wurm classified the three languages of theSanta Cruz andReef Islands as an additional family within East Papuan. However, new data on these languages, along with advances in the reconstruction ofProto-Oceanic, has made it clear that they are in factAustronesian:
Similarly, Wurm had classified the extinctKazukuru language and its possible sister languages ofNew Georgia as a sixth branch of East Papuan. However, in a joint 2007 paper, Dunn and Ross argued that this was also Austronesian.