Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
The Greater Central Philippines         Hypothesis         ROBERT BLUST         University of Hawaii
The Evidence for Proto-PhilippinesAll Philippine languages developed in situ, and aredaughters of a single parent language...
BUT, THERE ARE PROBLEMS:Most scholars believed that Proto-Austronesian wasspoken in Taiwan.Direction of theAustronesianexp...
Philippine Microgroups (Blust, 1991)1. Bashiic – Yami of Botel tobago Island and Itbayaten and Ivatan2. Cordilleran – Agta...
Assumption:Tagalog, Bikol, Bisayan complex, South Mangyan(but not North Mangyan), the Palawaniclanguages, all of the langu...
Philippine Language• To any language native to the Philippine  Islands without regard to its genetic  affiliation.• To any...
• Blake   (1906:318)   Languages    in   the  Philippines as a “subdivision of the Malay  branch of the Malayo Polynesian ...
FACTS: Almost the entire central region of the     Bisayas and southern Luzonconstitutes an extended dialect network    wi...
Linguistic diversity showsurprisingly high degree ofhomogeneity...      The linguistic history of the central Philippines ...
Central Philippine languagespredominate to the almost totalexclusion of others.WHY IS THIS SO?
Evidence of GCP expansion:1. Unexpectedly low level of linguistic diversity in   southern Luzon, Bisayas and Northeast   M...
Again, GCP Hypothesis:• History of related languages is not always  a uniform process of differentiation and  divergence… ...
TIMELINE:4 500 BP – earliest radiocarbon dates accepted for a            Neolithic presence (initial Austronesian         ...
Circa 3 500 BP,• Austronesian languages started to be  thinly distributed throughout the  Philippine Islands, but were con...
The Proto-Philippine territorial expansion covered a greater territory and led to more widespread linguistic levelling.Bec...
As a result ofcontact, Austronesian languageswere adopted, and this happened    throughout the Philippine          archipe...
Some words:*alut : shave off        Cebuano – alut        Western Bukidnon Manobo – alut        Maranao – alot        Goro...
Austronesian culture history: some linguistic inferences and theirrelations to the archaeological record            ROBERT...
• Historical linguistics can illuminate  fragments of the human cultural past  that are often irrecoverable from the  arch...
• Comparative method was used. – To reconstruct culture history. – To illustrate the ways in which tools   may complement,...
Striking example of partial agreement between linguistic and archaeological inferences involves the…                      ...
CONCLUSIONS      Austronesian speakers were sedentary             villagers who possessed: (1) Sophisticated maritime tech...
The Greater Central Philippines Hypothesis
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The Greater Central Philippines Hypothesis

1,478 views

Published on

By Robert Blust

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

The Greater Central Philippines Hypothesis

  1. 1. The Greater Central Philippines Hypothesis ROBERT BLUST University of Hawaii
  2. 2. The Evidence for Proto-PhilippinesAll Philippine languages developed in situ, and aredaughters of a single parent language called Proto-Philippines.EVIDENCE: cognate sets For example: Dumagat: amiyan (northeast monsoon) Ilokano: amian Hiligaynon: aminh-an Cebuano: amihan Maranao: amian
  3. 3. BUT, THERE ARE PROBLEMS:Most scholars believed that Proto-Austronesian wasspoken in Taiwan.Direction of theAustronesianexpansion:1. Southwardinto the Philippines2. Westward intoBorneo, mainland Southeast Asia, Sumatra andMadagascar3. Eastward into Sulawesi, Moluccas and the Pacific
  4. 4. Philippine Microgroups (Blust, 1991)1. Bashiic – Yami of Botel tobago Island and Itbayaten and Ivatan2. Cordilleran – Agta, Atta, Balangaw, Bontok, Casiguran…3. Central Luzon – Kapampangan, Bolinao, Sambal4. Inati – Negrito population in Panay5. Kalamian – Kalamian Tagbanwa and Agutaynon6. GCP (Central Philippines, South Mangyan, Palawanic, Manobo, Danaw, Suban un, Gorontalic)7. Bilic – Bilaan, T‟boli8. Sangiric – Northern peninsula of Sulawesi in Indonesia9. Minahasan – vicinity of Lake Tondano in Sulawesi
  5. 5. Assumption:Tagalog, Bikol, Bisayan complex, South Mangyan(but not North Mangyan), the Palawaniclanguages, all of the languages of Mindanao exceptthe South Mindanao group and the Gorontalo-Mongondow languages of Sulawesi continue an immediate protolanguage called Greater Central Philippines.
  6. 6. Philippine Language• To any language native to the Philippine Islands without regard to its genetic affiliation.• To any member of a putative subgroup of Austronesian Language most members of which are located in the Philippine Island.
  7. 7. • Blake (1906:318) Languages in the Philippines as a “subdivision of the Malay branch of the Malayo Polynesian family of Speech”• Philippine subgroup: its members included & only the languages in the Philippine archipelago
  8. 8. FACTS: Almost the entire central region of the Bisayas and southern Luzonconstitutes an extended dialect network with roughly 45 million first- language speakers ofTagalog, Bikol and intergrading varieties of Bisayas
  9. 9. Linguistic diversity showsurprisingly high degree ofhomogeneity... The linguistic history of the central Philippines included a major episode of linguistic expansion/ extinction.Proto-Greater Central Philippines - name of the hypothetical language broughtabout the linguistic levelling in the Bisayas andSouthern Luzon.Expansion of Proto-Greater Central Philippines
  10. 10. Central Philippine languagespredominate to the almost totalexclusion of others.WHY IS THIS SO?
  11. 11. Evidence of GCP expansion:1. Unexpectedly low level of linguistic diversity in southern Luzon, Bisayas and Northeast Mindanao.2. Gorontalic languages of northern Sulawesi linked with languages of the central Philippines3. Presence of „the strereotyped g‟, referring to sporadic instances of *R > g in languages which normally reflect PPH *R as some other phoneme.
  12. 12. Again, GCP Hypothesis:• History of related languages is not always a uniform process of differentiation and divergence… but may be punctuated by important episodes of extinction. Speakers of PGCP underwent a dramatic territorial expansion, probably from ahomeland in northern Mindanao or southern Visayas.
  13. 13. TIMELINE:4 500 BP – earliest radiocarbon dates accepted for a Neolithic presence (initial Austronesian settlement)3 500 BP – break-up of Proto-Philippines; separation of the Philippine Languages - Philippines must have been home to various descendants of Proto-Malayo- Polynesian“The how and why of such an expansion probablywill never be known”, said Blust.
  14. 14. Circa 3 500 BP,• Austronesian languages started to be thinly distributed throughout the Philippine Islands, but were confined to a fairly narrow range of environments, including only the coastal zones of the larger islands.
  15. 15. The Proto-Philippine territorial expansion covered a greater territory and led to more widespread linguistic levelling.Because of Austronesian colonization,1. Linguistic clock was „reset‟.2. Divergence began anew from asingle founding community.3. Language displacement -historical events led to language expansion and extinction.
  16. 16. As a result ofcontact, Austronesian languageswere adopted, and this happened throughout the Philippine archipelago.
  17. 17. Some words:*alut : shave off Cebuano – alut Western Bukidnon Manobo – alut Maranao – alot Gorontalo – waluto*ebu : cough Tagalog – ubo Bikol – abo Aklanon – ubo (h) Cebuano - ubu
  18. 18. Austronesian culture history: some linguistic inferences and theirrelations to the archaeological record ROBERT BLUST University of Hawaii
  19. 19. • Historical linguistics can illuminate fragments of the human cultural past that are often irrecoverable from the archaeological record.• Evidences may be: – Mutually corroboratory – Contradictory
  20. 20. • Comparative method was used. – To reconstruct culture history. – To illustrate the ways in which tools may complement, corroborate, or contradict the independent testimony of archaeology.
  21. 21. Striking example of partial agreement between linguistic and archaeological inferences involves the… PIGSediq (north central Formosa) – babuiKankanabu (south central Formosa) – baburuPaiwan (southern Formosa) – vavuiTagalog – baboySulawesi – wawu
  22. 22. CONCLUSIONS Austronesian speakers were sedentary villagers who possessed: (1) Sophisticated maritime technology (2) Root and grain crops (3) Pig, dog, fowl (4) Pottery (5) Knowledge of iron and loom (6) Indigenous syllabary

×