Convergence zones in Central China: Area-specific features and clustering

In recent years, a growing body of literature has explored the areal typology of Sinitic languages (Chappell 2015; Szeto & Yurayong 2021, 2022). However, Central Sinitic has received comparatively less scholarly attention, often being (simplistically) characterized as a group of transitional varieties between Northern and Southern Sinitic (Norman 1988). This paper addresses this gap by focusing on typological variation across Central Sinitic varieties. Through a comparative analysis of 24 phonological, lexico-semantic, syntactic, and grammaticalization features (Table 1) across 30 Central and Transitional Sinitic varieties (including Wu, Hui, Gan, Xiang, Jianghuai Mandarin, and Southwestern Mandarin), alongside 36 Northern and Far Southern counterparts, we investigate the areal distribution and clustering of Central Sinitic varieties. The NeighborNet phylogenetic algorithm is employed for data visualization (Figure 1).
Combining first-hand field data with secondary data from reference grammars and dictionaries, we arrive at a classification scheme largely consistent with Szeto & Yurayong’s (2021) proposal. Importantly, our analysis focuses on internal variation within Sinitic without explicit reference to influence from non-Sinitic languages. This approach reveals three distinct areal groups within Central China: (1) Transitional-Wuyue, (2) Transitional-Inland, and (3) Southeastern (Figure 2). While displaying a mix of Northern and Southern features, each group possesses distinctive areal-specific traits. Transitional-Wuyue is characterized by a passive marker derived from ‘give’, a third-person singular pronoun cognate with ta, and a nasalized diminutive suffer derived from -er. Transitional-Inland features two tonal categories maintaining register differences resulting from the voicing contrast of initial consonants in Middle Chinese (MC). The Southeastern zone is identifiable by the merger of velars and alveolars immediately before *i/y in MC. Meanwhile, several Sinitic varieties in Central China do not form any coherent areal groups, reflecting the complex and multifaceted nature of contact-induced change in the region.
This finer classification highlights area-specific features, demonstrating that Central Sinitic varieties are not merely typological hybrids of Northern and Southern Sinitic. Instead, they exhibit distinctive linguistic traits likely shaped by complex processes of area-specific innovation, retention of archaic features, and areal diffusion. We will also discuss the unique challenges of classifying closely related languages into areal groups. This differs from the study of linguistic areas traditionally focused on genealogically unrelated languages.