Sino-Austronesian orSino-Tibetan-Austronesian is a proposed language family suggested byLaurent Sagart in 1990.^[1] Using reconstructions ofOld Chinese, Sagart argued that theAustronesian languages are related to theSinitic languages phonologically, lexically and morphologically. Sagart later accepted theSino-Tibetan languages as a valid group and extended his proposal to include the rest of Sino-Tibetan.^[2] He also placed theTai–Kadai languages within the Austronesian family as a sister branch ofMalayo-Polynesian.^[3] The proposal has been largely rejected by other linguists who argue that the similarities between Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan more likely arose from contact rather than being genetic.^[4][5][6]

The classification below follows Sagart (2004).

Sagart suggests that monosyllabicOld Chinese words correspond to the second syllables of disyllabicProto-Austronesian roots. However, the type A/B distinction in OC, corresponding to non-palatalized or palatalized syllables inMiddle Chinese, is considered to correspond to a voiceless/voiced initial in PAN.

Stanley Starosta (2005) expands Sagart's Sino-Austronesian tree with a "Yangzian" branch, consisting ofAustroasiatic andHmong–Mien, to form an East Asian superphylum.^[7]

Weera Ostapirat (2005) supports the link between Austronesian and Kra–Dai (Sagart built upon Ostapirat's findings), though as sister groups. However, he rejects a link to Sino-Tibetan, noting that the apparent cognates are rarely found in all branches of Kra–Dai, and almost none are in core vocabulary.^[8]

Austronesian linguistsPaul Jen-kuei Li andRobert Blust have criticized Sagart's comparisons, on the grounds of loose semantic matches, inconsistent correspondences, and that basic vocabulary is hardly represented. They also note that comparing with the second syllable of disyllabic Austronesian roots vastly increases the odds of chance resemblance.^[4][5] Blust has been particularly critical of Sagart's use of thecomparative method.^[9]Laurent Sagart (2016) responds to some of the criticisms by Blust (2009).^[10]

Alexander Vovin (1997) does not accept Sino-Austronesian as a valid grouping, but instead suggests that some of the Sino-Austronesian parallels proposed by Sagart may in fact be due to an Austronesiansubstratum inOld Chinese.^[6] This view is also espoused byGeorge van Driem, who suggests that Austronesian and Sinitic had come into contact with each other during the fourth and third millennia BC in theLongshan interaction sphere.^[11][12][13]

• Classification schemes for Southeast Asian languages
  • East Asian languages
  • Austric languages
  • Austro-Tai languages
• Dené–Caucasian languages (Sino-Caucasian)
• Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area
• Haplogroup O (Y-DNA)
• Languages of China

• Blust, Robert (2013).The Austronesian languages (revised ed.). Canberra: Australian National University.hdl:1885/10191.ISBN 978-1-922185-07-5.
• Miyake, Marc. 2015.Proto-Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian *ponuq 'brain'?
• Miyake, Marc. 2015.Do Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan share a word forSetaria italica?
• Sagart, Laurent (1994). "Proto-Austronesian and the Old Chinese evidence for Sino-Austronesian".Oceanic Linguistics.33 (2):271–308.doi:10.2307/3623130.JSTOR 3623130.
• Sagart, Laurent (2016). "The wider connections of Austronesian: a response to Blust".Diachronica.33 (2):255–281.doi:10.1075/dia.33.2.04sag.

Wikimedia Commons has media related toSino-Austronesian languages.

• Laurent Sagart's list of Old Chinese words at the Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database

• Sino-Austronesian languages
• Proposed language families

• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Families rejected by Glottolog
• Commons category link from Wikidata