Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-h5th4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-30T05:00:22.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revisiting Tungusic Classification From the Bottom UP: A Comparison of Evenki and Oroqen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Lindsay J. Whaley ,
Lenore A. Grenoble  and
Fengxiang Li
Lindsay J. Whaley*
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College
Lenore A. Grenoble*
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College
Fengxiang Li*
Affiliation:
California State University, Chico
*
Whaley, Program in Linguistics and Cognitive Science, 6086 Reed, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 [lindsay.whaley@dartmouth.edu]
Grenoble, Program in Linguistics and Cognitive Science, 6085 Reed, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 [lenore.grenoble@dartmouth.edu]
Li, English Dept., California State University, Chico, Chico, CA 95926 [fli@csuchico.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Efforts to determine the genetic relations among Tungusic languages have been dominated by a methodology that categorizes the entire family on the basis of a small number of sound correspondences and some shared inflectional morphology, despite the fact that this evidence can be interpreted in contradictory ways. The approach, styled after traditional classification, which uses a tree model, is even less successful in indicating the relationships among languages at a finer level of detail. This article demonstrates that two Tungusic languages, Evenki and Oroqen, which have long been treated as a single language for classification purposes, are better treated as distinct linguistic varieties. The article raises fundamental questions about the current classification of Tungusic languages and suggests a renewed examination of the role of dialect continua and contact languages in understanding the composition of the family. Finally, we question whether a tree-based model is appropriate for classifying languages that have had a high degree of contact and are found in families or branches of a shallow time depth.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 75 , Issue 2 , June 1999 , pp. 286 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ard, Josh. 1980. A sketch of vowel harmony in the Tungus languages. International Review of Slavic Linguistics 5. 23–43.Google Scholar
Avrorin, V. A. 1960. O klassifikacii tunguso-man'chzhurskix jazykov. XXV mezhdunarodnyj kongress vostokovedov, Doklady delegacii SSSR. Moscow: Izd. XXV Vsemirnogo kongressa orientalistov.Google Scholar
Benzing, Johannes. 1955. Die tungusischen Sprachen, Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik. Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Heft 11, 949–1099. Wiesbaden: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz.Google Scholar
Bulatova, Nadezhda Ja. 1987. Govory èvenkov Amurskoj oblasti. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Bulatova, Nadezhda Ja, and Grenoble, Lenore A. 1999. Evenki. (Languages of the World, 141.) Munich: Lincom, to appear.Google Scholar
Burykin, Aleksej Alekseevich. 1996. Ethnic composition of the population, ethno-cultural contacts and languages of interethnic communication in the northeast of the Asian coastal areas of the Pacific Ocean. Atlas of languages of intercultural communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas, ed. by Wurm, S., Mühlhäusler, P., and Tryon, D., 989–98. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110819724.3.989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, Ke D. O. 1995. Ewenke Yu Yanjiu [A study of the Ewenki language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Cherniakov, Zinovij. 1935. Ob'jasnitel'naja zapiska k karte rasprostranenija jazykov narodov Severa. Leningrad: Uchpedgiz.Google Scholar
Cincius, Vera I. 1949. Sravnitel'naja fonetika tunguso-man'chzhurskix jazykov. Leningrad: Uchpedgiz.Google Scholar
Cincius, Vera I. 1982. Negidal'skij jazyk. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Cincius, Vera I. 1975-77. Sravnitel'nyj slovar' tunguso-man'chzhurskix jazykov, vols. 1–2. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511612060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doerfer, Gerhard. 1971. Bemerkungen zur linguistischen Klassifikation. Indogermanische Forschungen 76. 1–14.Google Scholar
Doerfer, Gerhard. 1978. Classification problems of Tungus. Tungusica, vol. 1, ed. by Doerfer, G. and Weiers, M., 1–26. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Doerfer, Gerhard. 1983. Das Birare. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 78. 7–25.Google Scholar
Dyen, Isidore. 1978. Subgrouping and reconstruction. Linguistic and literary studies in honor of Archibald A. Hill, vol. 3, ed. by Jazayery, Mohammed Ali, Polomé, Edgar, and Winter, Werner, 33–52. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 1986. The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gorcevskaja, V. A. 1959. Ocherk istorii izuchenija tunguso-man'chzhurskix jazykov. Leningrad: Uchpedgiz.Google Scholar
Grunzel, J. 1894. Entwurf einer vergleichenden Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1990. Language families and subgroupings, tree model and wave theory, and reconstruction of protolanguages. Research guide on language change, ed. by Polomé, Edgar C., 441–54. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 48.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110875379.441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, Zengyi. 1986. Elunchun yu jianzhi [A grammatical sketch of Oroqen]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Hu, Zengyi, and Chao, Ke. 1986. Ewenke yu jianzhi [A grammatical sketch of Ewenki]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Ikegami, Jiro. 1974. Versuch einer Klassifikation der Tungusischen Sprachen. Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der Altaischen Volker, ed. by Hazai, G., 271–72. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Ivanovskij, A. O. 1894. Mandjurica. Obrazcy solonskogo i daxurskogo j azykov. St. Petersburg: Akademija Nauk.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha. 1996. Manchuria: An ethnic history. (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 222.) Helsinki.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha, Xu, Jingxue; and Hou, Yucheng. 1989. The Orochen in Xinsheng. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 82. 145–169.Google Scholar
Kilby, David. 1980. Universal and particular properties of the Ewenki case system. International Review of Slavic Linguistics 5. 45–74.Google Scholar
Kolesnikova, V. D., and Konstantinova, O. A. 1968. Negidal'skij jazyk. Jazyki narodov SSSR, vol. 5, ed. by Skorik, P. Ja et al., 109–28. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Konstantinova, O. A. 1964. $EGvenkijskij jazyk: Fonetika, morfologija. Moscow-Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Konstantinova, O. A. 1968. $EGvenkijskij jazyk. Jazyki narodov SSSR, vol. 5, ed. by Skroik, P. Ja et al., 68–87. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter, and Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the world's languages. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1992. Phonology and morphology. The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 2, 1066–1476, ed. by Blake, N. F., 23–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lebedeva, E., Konstantinova, O.; and Monakhova, I. 1985. $EGvenkijskij jazyk. Uchebnoe posobie dlja pedagogicheskix uchilishch. Leningrad: Prosveshchenie.Google Scholar
Li, Bing. 1996. Tungusic vowel harmony: Description and analysis. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Li, Fenxiang, and Whaley, Lindsay J. 1998. The rise and fall of derivational morphology: The case of reduplication in Oroqen. Chicago Linguistic Society 34.000.Google Scholar
Lie, Hiu. 1972. Die Mandschu-Sprachkunde in Korea. (University of Indiana Uralic and Altaic Series 114.) Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Lie, Hiu. 1978. Solonisches material aus dem Huin-gol. Tungusica, vol. 1, ed. by Doerfer, G. and Weiers, M., 126–78. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Luo, Changpei, and Fu, Maoji. 1954. Guonei shaoshu minzu yuyan wenzi de gaikuang [A survey of the languages and writings of the minority nationalities in China]. Zhongguo yuwen 3. 21–26.Google Scholar
Menges, Karl H. 1968. Die tungusischen Sprachen. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung, Fünfter Bd., Dritter Abschnitt, Tungusologie, ed. by Spuler, B., 21–256. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Miller, Roy Andrew. 1994. The original geographic distribution of the Tungus languages. Non-Slavic languages of the USSR, ed. by Aronson, Howard I., 272–97. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Myreeva, Anna N. 1962. Ocherk tommotskogo govora. Ocherki tokkinskogo i tommotskogo govorov, ed. by Vasilevich, G. M., 50–90. Moscow-Leningrad: Akademija nauk.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Igor' V. 1994. Syntactic types of Evenki NPs. The noun phrase sketch book, ed. by Plank, Frans. EUROTYP Working Papers 7/22.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Igor' V. 1997. Evenki. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, Jerry. 1974. A sketch of Sibe morphology. Central Asiatic Journal 18. 159–74.Google Scholar
Novikova, K. A. 1960. Ocherki dialektov Evenskogo jazyka. Moscow-Leningrad: Akademija nauk.Google Scholar
Patkanov, S. 1903-5. Geographie und Statistik der Tungusenstämme Sibiriens. Aus Keleti Szemle (Nachdruck: Indiana University Publication 66:4–6, Bloomington, 1966).Google Scholar
Patkanov, S. 1906. Opyt geografii i statistiki tungusskix plemën Sibili. Zap. imp. Rus. geograf. obshchestva 31.1.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew, and Ross, Malcolm. 1993. Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history. Annual Review of Anthropology 22:425–59.10.1146/annurev.an.22.100193.002233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1995. (Re-)introducing Suffixaufnahme. Double case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme, ed. by Plank, Frans, 7–110. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195087758.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolai, Poppe. 1930. Dagurskoe narechie. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Nikolai, Poppe. 1931. Materialy po solonskomu jazyku. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Nikolai, Poppe. 1965. Introduction to Altaic linguistics. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Ramsey, S. Robert. 1987. The languages of China. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1353/book.124816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romanova, Agnija V. 1962. Ocherk tokkinskogo govora. Ocherki tokkinskogo i tommot-skogo govorov, ed. by Vasilevich, G. M., 9–49. Moscow-Leningrad: Akademija nauk.Google Scholar
Romanova, Agnija V. 1964. Govory ajano-majsix èvenkov. Ocherki uchurskogo, majskogo i tottinskogo govorov, ed. by Vasilevich, G. M., 75–153. Moscow-Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 1988. Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian languages of western Melanesia. (Pacific Linguistics C-98.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 1996. Contact induced change and the comparative method: cases from Papua New Guinea. The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change, ed. by Durie, Mark and Ross, Malcolm, 180–217. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195066074.003.0008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, P. 1915. $EGtnografiia Dal'nego Vostoka. Vladivostok: Sbornik.Google Scholar
Shirokogoroff, S. M. 1929. Social organization of the Northern Tungus. Shanghai: Commericial Press.Google Scholar
Shirokogoroff, S. M. 1944. A Tungus dictionary: Tungus-Russian and Russian-Tungus. Tokyo: Minzokugaku Kyokai.Google Scholar
Sternberg, Lev. 1933. Giliaki, orochi, negidalcy, ainy. Khabarovsk: Dal'giz.Google Scholar
Sun, Hongkai. 1988. Yuyan Shibie yu Minzu [Language classification and nationalities]. Minzu yuwen 2. 9–17.Google Scholar
Sunik, O. 1959. Tunguso-man'chzhurskie jazyki. Mlado-pis'mennye jazyki narodov SSSR, 318–351. Moscow-Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Svantesson, J.-O. 1985. Vowel harmony shift in Mongolian. Lingua 67. 283–327.10.1016/0024-3841(85)90002-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamura, Ken-ichi. 1991. Die Genitivstruktur der tungusischen Sprachen. Doitsu Bungaku Kenkyuu 23. 141–60.Google Scholar
Terrell, John Edward. 1986. Prehistory in the Pacific islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thurston, William R. 1987. Processes of change in the languages of north-western New Britain. (Pacific Linguistics B-99.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Tsumagari, Toshiro. 1992. Shoyuukoozoo to jootokanoosei: tsunguusugo to kinrin no gengo [The possessive structure and alienability in Tungusic and neighboring languages]. Kita no gengo: Ruikei to rekishi, ed. by Miyaoka, O., 261–78. Tokyo: Sanseido.Google Scholar
Tsumagari, Toshiro. 1997. Linguistic diversity and national borders of Tungusic. Northern minority languages: Problems of survival ed. by Shoji, Hiroshi and Janhunen, Juha, 175–86. (Senri Ethnological Studies no. 44) Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
Van der Hulst, Harry, and Smith, Norval. 1988. Tungusic and Mongolian vowel harmony: A minimal pair. Linguistics in the Netherlands, ed. by Coopmans, P. and Hulk, A., 68–78. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Vasilevich, G. M. 1948. Ocherki dialektov èvenkijskogo (tungusskogo) jazyka. Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Ministerstva prosveshchenija RSFSR.Google Scholar
Vasilevich, G. M. 1958. $EGvenkijsko-russkij slovar'. S prilozhenijami i grammaticheskim ocherkom èvenkijskogo jazyka. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo inostrannyx i nacional'nyx slovarej.Google Scholar
Vasilevich, G. M. 1960. K voprosu o klasifikacii tunguso-man'chzhurskix jazykov. Voprosy jazykoznanija 2. 43–49.Google Scholar
von Schrenk, L. 1883. Ob inorodcax Amurskogo kraja. Tom 1. St. Petersberg: Imper Akademija Nauk.Google Scholar
Vovin, Alexander. 1993. Towards a new classification of Tungusic languages. Ural-Altaische Jahrbüchen 65. 99–113.Google Scholar
Wulaxichun. 1989. Xiboyu he Manyu Shumianyu Mouxie Yuyin de Bijiao [Some phonetic comparisons between Xibe and literary Manchu]. Minzu Yuwen 4. 57–65.Google Scholar
Zhang, Xi. 1996. Vowel systems of the Manchu-Tungus languages in China. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation.Google Scholar
Zhang, Yan-chang, Li, Bing; and Zhang, Xi. 1989. The Oroqen language. Changchun: Jilin University Press.Google Scholar
Zhao, Jie. 1989. Xiandai manyu Yanjiu [Studies on modern Manchu]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar