On a Review of S. A. Wurm: Languages of Australia and Tasmania

Wurm, Stephen Α.

doi:10.1002/j.1834-4461.1976.tb01265.x

Cited by 15 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Secondly, he rejects, as in Dixon (1980), the idea of a large genetic unit corresponding to the 'Pama-Nyungan language family ' that has been widely accepted by Australianists since the 1960s (cf. O'Grady, Voegelin & Voegelin 1966, Wurm 1972) and was supported with new arguments in the late 1980s (Blake 1988(Blake , 1990Evans 1988 ; see now also Koch 2003b, Alpher 2004, O'Grady & Hale 2004. But Dixon remains unconvinced :…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Australian languages: A singular vision

Sutton

Koch

2008

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Australian languages: A singular vision

Sutton

Koch

2008

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Breen (1971) recognized the wider relations of O'Grady, Voegelin and Voegelin's 'Karnic' group and related it to 'Mitakudic' and others in the Lake Eyre Basin. Almost all the subgroupings have been based primarily on lexico-statistical data, whether as part of a wider preliminary survey of languages (O'Grady et al 1966a;Wurm 1972) or a more detailed comparison (Breen 1971). Two of the later classifications, Austin (1990a) and Bowern (2001), also take morphological and lexical reconstruction into account, but because the reconstructions of the two authors are different they come to rather different conclusions regarding subgrouping.…”

Section: Case Study: the Lake Eyre Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…et al 1966a;Wurm 1972;Wurm & Hattori 1981;Bowern & Koch 2004a). Initial classifications were completed using lexicostatistics (O'Grady et al 1966b) and these classifications provided us with approximately 20 primary subgroups of the Pama -Nyungan family, along with the remaining 27 non-Pama -Nyungan families, which are clustered in the far north of the country.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Historical linguistics in Australia: trees, networks and their implications

Bowern

2010

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an overview of the current state of historical linguistics in Australian languages. Australian languages have been important in theoretical debates about the nature of language change and the possibilities for reconstruction and classification in areas of intensive diffusion. Here are summarized the most important outstanding questions for Australian linguistic prehistory; I also present a case study of the Karnic subgroup of Pama-Nyungan, which illustrates the problems for classification in Australian languages and potential approaches using phylogenetic methods.

show abstract

“…Mian is a Papuan language of the Ok family (Healey 1964, Wurm 1982, spoken in Telefomin District of Sandaun Province in Papua New Guinea by approximately 1,400 people. In terms of larger-order affiliation, the Ok languages belong to the Trans New Guinea family (Wurm 1982, Pawley 2006.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of larger-order affiliation, the Ok languages belong to the Trans New Guinea family (Wurm 1982, Pawley 2006.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%