Lably
Skip to content

Andamanese languages

Languages spoken by people of the Andaman Islands

  • 5 min read
  • 3 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Sentinelese, South Asia and Indian subcontinent

Although the languages in the Andaman Islands were once assumed to be in the same language family, it is now widely accepted that Great Andamanese and Ongan have no genealogical relationship. Thus, the term "Andamanese languages" is now a geographic label.

Classification

The attested Andamanese languages fall into two genetically unrelated families:

In addition, there are two unattested languages:

  • Sentinelese: Because the Sentinelese people refuse contact with outsiders, their exact population is unknown and essentially nothing is known of their language. There are likely at least 50 speakers, and perhaps upwards of 250. Anvita Abbi (2020) believes that Sentinelese is most likely Ongan.
  • Jangil: Extinct by 1920s. No ethnically Jangil people survive today. Maurice Vidal Portman observed that Jangil shared similarities with Jarawa, and believed that they were at one point the same language.

The languages of the Andaman Islands have frequently been assumed to be from the same single Andamanese language family. However, the similarities between Great Andamanese and Ongan are so far mainly of a typological morphological nature, with little common vocabulary. Abbi (2009) demonstrated that the Andaman Islands have two unrelated language families: Great Andamanese and Ongan.

Blevins (2007) summarizes,

a relationship between Jarawa and Onge and languages of the Great Andaman group is not widely accepted. Radcliffe-Brown (1914:40) found only seven potential cognates between Onge and Bea/Jeru, and noted that the difference between Onge and the Great Andaman languages "is such that it would not be possible from consideration of the vocabulary alone to prove that they belonged to the same language stock." [...] Abbi (2006:93) is agnostic, stating that "current linguistic analysis does not, with any certainty, indicate any genetic relationship between Great Andamanese and the other two languages." The only positive evidence offered in support of this relationship is a listing of 17 word pairs as proposed cognates in Manoharan (1989:166–67). There are several problems with Manoharan's proposal [such as semantic mismatches and failing to identify loans. ...] Given evidence that shows these languages have been in contact, and the scarcity of data available at present on Great Andaman languages, there remains no persuasive evidence of a family relationship between Jarawa-Onge and the Great Andaman languages. [...] Greenberg (1971:810) is unconvinced of the relation between Great Andaman and Onge-Jarawa, agreeing with Radcliffe-Brown (1914) that "…there are very few vocabulary resemblances between this language [Onge] and those of Great Andaman and the only real point of contact is typological. … A few citations from Onge have been included in the general Indo-Pacific vocabulary, but both its special relationship to the languages of the rest of the Andamans and its assignment to Indo-Pacific must be considered highly provisional."

Controversial classifications

Joseph Greenberg proposed that the Great Andamanese languages are related to western Papuan languages as members of a phylum he called Indo-Pacific, but this is not generally accepted by other linguists. Stephen Wurm states that the lexical similarities between Great Andamanese and the West Papuan and certain languages of Timor "are quite striking and amount to virtual formal identity […] in a number of instances", but considers this to be due to a linguistic substratum rather than a direct relationship.

Blevins (2007) proposes that the Ongan languages are related to Austronesian in an Austronesian–Ongan family, for which she has attempted to establish regular sound correspondences. The proposed connection between Austronesian and Ongan has not been supported by Austronesianists, and Robert Blust (2014) finds that Blevins' conclusions are not supported by her data: Of her first 25 reconstructions, none are reproducible using the comparative method, and Blust concludes that the grammatical comparison does not hold up. Blust, in addition, cites non-linguistic (such as cultural, archaeological, and biological) evidence against Blevins' hypothesis.

Sign in to keep reading

2 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in India