|South and Southeast Asia|
|Linguistic classification||One of the world's primary language families|
The Austroasiatic languages, [note 1] formerly known as Mon–Khmer,  are a large language family of Mainland Southeast Asia, also scattered throughout India, Bangladesh, Nepal and the southern border of China, with around 117 million speakers.  The name Austroasiatic comes from a combination of the Latin words for "South" and "Asia", hence "South Asia". Of these languages, only Vietnamese, Khmer, and Mon have a long-established recorded history, and only Vietnamese and Khmer have official status as modern national languages (in Vietnam and Cambodia, respectively). In Myanmar, the Wa language is the de facto official language of Wa State. Santali is recognized as a regional language of India. The rest of the languages are spoken by minority groups and have no official status.
Ethnologue identifies 168 Austroasiatic languages. These form thirteen established families (plus perhaps Shompen, which is poorly attested, as a fourteenth), which have traditionally been grouped into two, as Mon–Khmer and Munda. However, one recent classification posits three groups (Munda, Nuclear Mon-Khmer and Khasi–Khmuic)  while another has abandoned Mon–Khmer as a taxon altogether, making it synonymous with the larger family. 
Austroasiatic languages have a disjunct distribution across India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Southeast Asia, separated by regions where other languages are spoken. They appear to be the extant autochthonous languages of Southeast Asia (if Andaman islands are not included), with the neighboring Indo-Aryan, Kra–Dai, Dravidian, Austronesian, and Sino-Tibetan languages being the result of later migrations. 
Regarding word structure, Austroasiatic languages are well known for having an iambic "sesquisyllabic" pattern, with basic nouns and verbs consisting of an initial, unstressed, reduced minor syllable followed by a stressed, full syllable.  This reduction of presyllables has led to a variety among modern languages of phonological shapes of the same original Proto-Austroasiatic prefixes, such as the causative prefix, ranging from CVC syllables to consonant clusters to single consonants.  As for word formation, most Austroasiatic languages have a variety of derivational prefixes, many have infixes, but suffixes are almost completely non-existent in most branches except Munda, and a few specialized exceptions in other Austroasiatic branches. 
The Austroasiatic languages are further characterized as having unusually large vowel inventories and employing some sort of register contrast, either between modal (normal) voice and breathy (lax) voice or between modal voice and creaky voice.  Languages in the Pearic branch and some in the Vietic branch can have a three- or even four-way voicing contrast.
However, some Austroasiatic languages have lost the register contrast by evolving more diphthongs or in a few cases, such as Vietnamese, tonogenesis. Vietnamese has been so heavily influenced by Chinese that its original Austroasiatic phonological quality is obscured and now resembles that of South Chinese languages, whereas Khmer, which had more influence from Sanskrit, has retained a more typically Austroasiatic structure.
Much work has been done on the reconstruction of Proto-Mon–Khmer in Harry L. Shorto's Mon–Khmer Comparative Dictionary. Little work has been done on the Munda languages, which are not well documented. With their demotion from a primary branch, Proto-Mon–Khmer becomes synonymous with Proto-Austroasiatic.
Paul Sidwell (2005) reconstructs the consonant inventory of Proto-Mon–Khmer as follows:
This is identical to earlier reconstructions except for *ʄ. *ʄ is better preserved in the Katuic languages, which Sidwell has specialized in. Sidwell (2011) suggests that the likely homeland of Austroasiatic is the middle Mekong, in the area of the Bahnaric and Katuic languages (approximately where modern Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia come together), and that the family is not as old as frequently assumed, dating to perhaps 2000 BCE.  Peiros (2011) criticized Sidwell's theory heavily and calls it a bunch of contradictions. He show with his analysis that the homeland of Austroasiatic is somewhere near the Yangtze. He suggests the Sichuan Basin as likely homeland of proto-Austroasiatic before they migrated to other parts of central and southern China and than into Southeast Asia. He further suggests that the family must be as old as proto-Austronesian and proto-Sinotibetan or even older. 
Georg van Driem (2011) proposes that the homeland of Austroasiatic is somewhere in southern China. He suggests that the region around the Pearl River (China) is the likely homeland of the Austroasiatic languages and people. He further suggests, based on genetic studies, that the migration of Kra–Dai people from Taiwan replaced the original Austroasiatic language but the effect on the people was only minor. Local Austroasiatic speakers adopted Kra-Dai languages and partially their culture. 
The linguists Sagar (2011) and Bellwood (2013) support the theory of an origin of Austroasiatic along the Yangtze river in southern China. 
Linguists traditionally recognize two primary divisions of Austroasiatic: the Mon–Khmer languages of Southeast Asia, Northeast India and the Nicobar Islands, and the Munda languages of East and Central India and parts of Bangladesh, parts of Nepal. However, no evidence for this classification has ever been published.
Each of the families that is written in boldface type below is accepted as a valid clade.[ clarification needed] By contrast, the relationships between these families within Austroasiatic are debated. In addition to the traditional classification, two recent proposals are given, neither of which accepts traditional "Mon–Khmer" as a valid unit. However, little of the data used for competing classifications has ever been published, and therefore cannot be evaluated by peer review.
In addition, there are suggestions that additional branches of Austroasiatic might be preserved in substrata of Acehnese in Sumatra (Diffloth), the Chamic languages of Vietnam, and the Land Dayak languages of Borneo (Adelaar 1995). 
- North Munda
- South Munda
- Koraput Munda
- North Munda
Peiros is a lexicostatistic classification, based on percentages of shared vocabulary. This means that languages can appear to be more distantly related than they actually are due to language contact. Indeed, when Sidwell (2009) replicated Peiros's study with languages known well enough to account for loans, he did not find the internal (branching) structure below.
Diffloth compares reconstructions of various clades, and attempts to classify them based on shared innovations, though like other classifications the evidence has not been published. As a schematic, we have:
|Austro - Asiatic||
Or in more detail,
- Munda languages (India)
- Koraput: 7 languages
- Core Munda languages
- Kharian–Juang: 2 languages
- North Munda languages
- Kherwarian: 12 languages
- Khasi–Khmuic languages (Northern Mon–Khmer)
- Khasian: 3 languages of north eastern India and adjacent region of Bangladesh
- Palaungo-Khmuic languages
- Khmuic: 13 languages of Laos and Thailand
- Nuclear Mon–Khmer languages
- Khmero-Vietic languages (Eastern Mon–Khmer)
- Nico-Monic languages (Southern Mon–Khmer)
This family tree is consistent with recent studies of migration of Y-Chromosomal haplogroup O2a1-M95. However, the dates obtained from by Zhivotovsky method DNA studies are several times older than that given by linguists.  The route map of the people with haplogroup O2a1-M95, speaking this language can be seen in this link.  Other geneticists criticise the Zhivotovsky method.
- Pre- Chamic languages (the languages of coastal Vietnam prior to the Chamic migrations). Chamic has various Austroasiatic loanwords that cannot be clearly traced to existing Austroasiatic branches (Sidwell 2006, 2007).   Larish (1999)  also notes that Moklenic languages contain many Austroasiatic loanwords, some of which are similar to the ones found in Chamic.
- Acehnese substratum (Sidwell 2006).  Acehnese has many basic words that are of Austroasiatic origin, suggesting that either Austronesian speakers have absorbed earlier Austroasiatic residents in northern Sumatra, or that words might have been borrowed from Austroasiatic languages in southern Vietnam – or perhaps a combination of both. Sidwell (2006) argues that Acehnese and Chamic had often borrowed Austroasiatic words independently of each other, while some Austroasiatic words can be traced back to Proto-Aceh-Chamic. Sidwell (2006) accepts that Acehnese and Chamic are related, but that they had separated from each other before Chamic had borrowed most of its Austroasiatic lexicon.
- Bornean substrate languages (Blench 2010).  Blench cites Austroasiatic-origin words in modern-day Bornean branches such as Land Dayak ( Bidayuh, Dayak Bakatiq, etc.), Dusunic ( Central Dusun, Visayan, etc.), Kayan, and Kenyah, noting especially resemblances with Aslian. As further evidence for his proposal, Blench also cites ethnographic evidence such as musical instruments in Borneo shared in common with Austroasiatic-speaking groups in mainland Southeast Asia. Adelaar (1995)  has also noticed phonological and lexical similarities between Land Dayak and Aslian.
- Lepcha substratum ("Rongic").  Many words of Austroasiatic origin have been noticed in Lepcha, suggesting a Sino-Tibetan superstrate laid over an Austroasiatic substrate. Blench (2013) calls this branch "Rongic" based on the Lepcha autonym Róng.
Other languages with proposed Austroasiatic substrata are:
- Jiamao, based on evidence from the register system of Jiamao, a Hlai language (Thurgood 1992).  Jiamao is known for its highly aberrant vocabulary in relation to other Hlai languages.
- Kerinci: van Reijn (1974)  notes that Kerinci, a Malayic language of central Sumatra, shares many phonological similarities with Austroasiatic languages, such as sesquisyllabic word structure and vowel inventory.
John Peterson (2017)  suggests that "pre- Munda" languages may have once dominated the eastern Indo-Gangetic Plain, and were then absorbed by Indo-Aryan languages at an early date as Indo-Aryan spread east. Peterson notes that eastern Indo-Aryan languages display many morphosyntactic features similar to those of Munda languages, while western Indo-Aryan languages do not.
Paul Sidwell (2009), in a lexicostatistical comparison of 36 languages which are well known enough to exclude loan words, finds little evidence for internal branching, though he did find an area of increased contact between the Bahnaric and Katuic languages, such that languages of all branches apart from the geographically distant Munda and Nicobarese show greater similarity to Bahnaric and Katuic the closer they are to those branches, without any noticeable innovations common to Bahnaric and Katuic.
He therefore takes the conservative view that the thirteen branches of Austroasiatic should be treated as equidistant on current evidence. Sidwell & Blench (2011) discuss this proposal in more detail, and note that there is good evidence for a Khasi–Palaungic node, which could also possibly be closely related to Khmuic. 
If this would the case, Sidwell & Blench suggest that Khasic may have been an early offshoot of Palaungic that had spread westward. Sidwell & Blench (2011) suggest Shompen as an additional branch, and believe that a Vieto-Katuic connection is worth investigating. In general, however, the family is thought to have diversified too quickly for a deeply nested structure to have developed, since Proto-Austroasiatic speakers are believed by Sidwell to have radiated out from the central Mekong river valley relatively quickly.
Subsequently, Sidwell (2015a: 179)  proposed that Nicobarese subgroups with Aslian, just as how Khasian and Palaungic subgroup with each other. A subsequent computational phylogenetic analysis of the Austroasiatic language family by Sidwell (2015b)  suggests that Austroasiatic branches may have a loosely nested structure rather than a completely rake-like structure, with an east-west division (consisting of Munda, Khasic, Palaungic, and Khmuic forming a western group as opposed to all of the other branches) occurring possibly as early as 7,000 years before present.
Integrating computational phylogenetic linguistics with recent archaeological findings, Paul Sidwell (2015c)  further expanded his Mekong riverine hypothesis by proposing that Austroasiatic had ultimately expanded into Indochina from the Lingnan area of southern China, with the subsequent Mekong riverine dispersal taking place after the initial arrival of Neolithic farmers from southern China.
Sidwell (2015c) tentatively suggests that Austroasiatic may have begun to split up 5,000 years B.P. during the Neolithic transition era of mainland Southeast Asia, with all the major branches of Austroasiatic formed by 4,000 B.P. Austroasiatic would have had two possible dispersal routes from the western periphery of the Pearl River watershed of Lingnan, which would have been either a coastal route down the coast of Vietnam, or downstream through the Mekong River via Yunnan.  Both the reconstructed lexicon of Proto-Austroasiatic and the archaeological record clearly show that early Austroasiatic speakers around 4,000 B.P. cultivated rice and millet, kept livestock such as dogs, pigs, and chickens, and thrived mostly in estuarine rather than coastal environments. 
At 4,500 B.P., this "Neolithic package" suddenly arrived in Indochina from the Lingnan area without cereal grains and displaced the earlier pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherer cultures, with grain husks found in northern Indochina by 4,100 B.P. and in southern Indochina by 3,800 B.P.  However, Sidwell (2015c) found that iron is not reconstructable in Proto-Austroasiatic, since each Austroasiatic branch has different terms for iron that had been borrowed relatively lately from Tai, Chinese, Tibetan, Malay, and other languages.
During the Iron Age about 2,500 B.P., relatively young Austroasiatic branches in Indochina such as Vietic, Katuic, Pearic, and Khmer were formed, while the more internally diverse Bahnaric branch (dating to about 3,000 B.P.) underwent more extensive internal diversification.  By the Iron Age, all of the Austroasiatic branches were more or less in their present-day locations, with most of the diversification within Austroasiatic taking place during the Iron Age. 
Paul Sidwell (2018)  considers the Austroasiatic language family to have rapidly diversified around 4,000 years B.P. during the arrival of rice agriculture in Indochina, but notes that the origin of Proto-Austroasiatic itself is older than that date. The lexicon of Proto-Austroasiatic can be divided into an early and late stratum. The early stratum consists of basic lexicon including body parts, animal names, natural features, and pronouns, while the names of cultural items (agriculture terms and words for cultural artifacts, which are reconstructable in Proto-Austroasiatic) form part of the later stratum.
Roger Blench (2017)  suggests that vocabulary related to aquatic subsistence strategies (such as boats, waterways, river fauna, and fish capture techniques), can be reconstructed for Proto-Austroasiatic. Blench (2017) finds widespread Austroasiatic roots for 'river, valley', 'boat', 'fish', 'catfish sp.', 'eel', 'prawn', 'shrimp' (Central Austroasiatic), 'crab', 'tortoise', 'turtle', 'otter', 'crocodile', 'heron, fishing bird', and 'fish trap'. Archaeological evidence for the presence of agriculture in northern Indochina (northern Vietnam, Laos, and other nearby areas) dates back to only about 4,000 years B.P. (2,000 B.C.), with agriculture ultimately being introduced from further up to the north in the Yangtze valley where it has been dated to 6,000 B.P. 
Hence, this points to a relatively late riverine dispersal of Austroasiatic as compared to Sino-Tibetan, whose speakers had a distinct non-riverine culture. In addition to living an aquatic-based lifestyle, early Austroasiatic speakers would have also had access to livestock, crops, and newer types of watercraft. As early Austroasiatic speakers dispersed rapidly via waterways, they would have encountered speakers of older language families who were already settled in the area, such as Sino-Tibetan. 
Other than Latin-based alphabets, many Austroasiatic languages are written with the Khmer, Thai, Lao, and Burmese alphabets. Vietnamese divergently had an indigenous script based on Chinese logographic writing. This has since been supplanted by the Latin alphabet in the 20th century. The following are examples of past-used alphabets or current alphabets of Austroasiatic languages.
- Chữ Nôm 
- Khmer alphabet 
- Khom script (used for a short period in the early 20th century for indigenous languages in Laos)
- Mon script
- Mundari Bani ( Mundari alphabet)
- Ol Chiki alphabet ( Santali alphabet) 
- Pahawh Hmong was once used to write Khmu, under the name "Pahawh Khmu"
- Sorang Sompeng alphabet ( Sora alphabet) 
- Tai Le ( Palaung, Blang)
- Tai Tham ( Blang)
- Warang Citi ( Ho alphabet) 
According to Chaubey et al., "Austro-Asiatic speakers in India today are derived from dispersal from Southeast Asia, followed by extensive sex-specific admixture with local Indian populations."  According to Riccio et al., the Munda people are likely descended from Austroasiatic migrants from southeast Asia.  
According to Zhang et al., Austroasiatic migrations from southeast Asia into India took place after the last Glacial maximum, circa 10,000 years ago.  Arunkumar et al. suggest Austroasiatic migrations from southeast Asia occurred into northeast India 5.2 ± 0.6 kya and into East India 4.3 ± 0.2 kya. 
- Sometimes also as Austro-Asiatic or Austroasian
- Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin, eds. (2017). "Austroasiatic". Glottolog 3.0. Jena, Germany: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.
- Bradley (2012) notes, MK in the wider sense including the Munda languages of eastern South Asia is also known as Austroasiatic.
- "Austroasiatic". www.languagesgulper.com. Retrieved 15 October 2017.
- Diffloth 2005
- Sidwell 2009
- Sidwell, Paul, and Roger Blench. 2011. " The Austroasiatic Urheimat: the Southeastern Riverine Hypothesis." Enfield, NJ (ed.) Dynamics of Human Diversity, 317–345. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
- Jäger, Gerhard. "Support for linguistic macrofamilies from weighted sequence alignment". PNAS. 112 (41): 12752–12757. Bibcode: 2015PNAS..11212752J. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1500331112. PMC 4611657. PMID 26403857. Published online before print 24 September 2015.
- Alves 2014, p. 524.
- Alves 2014, p. 526.
- Alves 2014, 2015
- Diffloth, Gérard (1989). "Proto-Austroasiatic creaky voice."
- "Some thoughts on the problem of the Austro-Asiatic homeland" (PDF). Peiros (2011).
- Rice and the Austroasiatic and Hmong-Mien homelands from Georg van Driem ( link)
- Reconstructing Austroasiatic prehistory; Chapter in the forthcoming Jenny, M. & P. Sidwell (eds.). forthcoming 2015. Handbook of the Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill. (Page 1: “Sagart (2011) and Bellwood (2013) favour the middle Yangzi”
- Zhang, Xiaoming; Liao, Shiyu; Qi, Xuebin; Liu, Jiewei; Kampuansai, Jatupol; Zhang, Hui; Yang, Zhaohui; Serey, Bun; Tuot, Sovannary (2015-10-20). Y-chromosome diversity suggests southern origin and Paleolithic backwave migration of Austro- Asiatic speakers from eastern Asia to the Indian subcontinent OPEN. 5.
- Roger Blench, 2009. Are there four additional unrecognised branches of Austroasiatic? Presentation at ICAAL-4, Bangkok, 29–30 October. Summarized in Sidwell and Blench (2011).
- Sidwell (2005) casts doubt on Diffloth's Vieto-Katuic hypothesis, saying that the evidence is ambiguous, and that it is not clear where Katuic belongs in the family.
- Kumar, Vikrant; et al. (2007). "Y-chromosome evidence suggests a common paternal heritage of Austroasiatic populations" (PDF). BMC Evolutionary Biology. 7 (1): 47. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-7-47.
- "Figure". www.biomedcentral.com. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-7-47. Retrieved 11 March 2012.
- Blench, Roger. 2009. " Are there four additional unrecognised branches of Austroasiatic?."
- Sidwell, Paul. 2006. " Dating the Separation of Acehnese and Chamic By Etymological Analysis of the Aceh-Chamic Lexicon Archived 5 June 2013 at WebCite." In The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal, 36: 187–206.
- Sidwell, Paul. 2007. " The Mon-Khmer Substrate in Chamic: Chamic, Bahnaric and Katuic Contact." In SEALS XII Papers from the 12th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2002, edited by Ratree Wayland et al.. Canberra, Australia, 113-128. Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.
- Larish, Michael David. 1999. The Position of Moken and Moklen Within the Austronesian Language Family. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa.
- Blench, Roger. 2010. " Was there an Austroasiatic Presence in Island Southeast Asia prior to the Austronesian Expansion?" In Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, Vol. 30.
- Adelaar, K.A. 1995. Borneo as a cross-roads for comparative Austronesian linguistics. In P. Bellwood, J.J. Fox and D. Tryon (eds.), The Austronesians, pp. 81-102. Canberra: Australian National University.
- Blench, Roger. 2013. Rongic: a vanished branch of Austroasiatic. m.s.
- Thurgood, Graham. 1992. " The aberrancy of the Jiamao dialect of Hlai: speculation on its origins and history". In Ratliff, Martha S. and Schiller, E. (eds.), Papers from the First Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 417–433. Arizona State University, Program for Southeast Asian Studies.
- van Reijn, E. O. (1974). "Some Remarks on the Dialects of North Kerintji: A link with Mon-Khmer Languages." Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 31, 2: 130–138. JSTOR 41492089.
- Peterson, John (2017). " The prehistorical spread of Austro-Asiatic in South Asia". Presented at ICAAL 7, Kiel, Germany.
- Sidwell, Paul. 2015a. "Austroasiatic classification." In Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell, eds (2015). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill.
- Sidwell, Paul. 2015b. A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of the Austroasiatic languages. Presented at Diversity Linguistics: Retrospect and Prospect, 1–3 May 2015 (Leipzig, Germany), Closing conference of the Department of Linguistics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
- Sidwell, Paul. 2015c. Phylogeny, innovations, and correlations in the prehistory of Austroasiatic. Paper presented at the workshop Integrating inferences about our past: new findings and current issues in the peopling of the Pacific and South East Asia, June 22nd – June 23rd, 2015, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany.
- Sidwell, Paul. 2018. Austroasiatic deep chronology and the problem of cultural lexicon. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, held May 17–19, 2018 in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
- Blench, Roger. 2017. Waterworld: lexical evidence for aquatic subsistence strategies in Austroasiatic. Presented at ICAAL 7, Kiel, Germany.
- "Vietnamese Chu Nom script". Omniglot.com. Retrieved 11 March 2012.
- "Khmer/Cambodian alphabet, pronunciation and language". Omniglot.com. Retrieved 11 March 2012.
- "Santali alphabet, pronunciation and language". Omniglot.com. Retrieved 11 March 2012.
- "Sorang Sompeng script". Omniglot.com. 18 June 1936. Retrieved 11 March 2012.
- Everson, Michael (19 April 2012). "N4259: Final proposal for encoding the Warang Citi script in the SMP of the UCS" (PDF). Retrieved 20 August 2016.
- Chaubey et al. 2010, p. 1013.
- Riccio, M. E.; et al. (2011). "The Austroasiatic Munda population from India and Its enigmatic origin: a HLA diversity study". Human Biology. 83 (3): 405–435. doi: 10.3378/027.083.0306. PMID 21740156.
- The Language Gulper, Austroasiatic Languages
- Zhang 2015.
- Arunkumar, G.; et al. (2015). "A late Neolithic expansion of Y chromosomal haplogroup O2a1-M95 from east to west". Journal of Systematics and Evolution. 53 (6): 546–560. doi: 10.1111/jse.12147.
- Adams, K. L. (1989). Systems of numeral classification in the Mon–Khmer, Nicobarese and Aslian subfamilies of Austroasiatic. Canberra, A.C.T., Australia: Dept. of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. ISBN 0-85883-373-5
- Alves, Mark J. (2014). "Mon-Khmer". In Rochelle Lieber; Pavel Stekauer. The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 520–544.
- Alves, Mark J. (2015). Morphological functions among Mon-Khmer languages: beyond the basics. In N. J. Enfield & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: the state of the art. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 531–557.
- Bradley, David (2012). " Languages and Language Families in China", in Rint Sybesma (ed.), Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Linguistics.
- Chakrabarti, Byomkes. (1994). A Comparative Study of Santali and Bengali.
- Chaubey, G.; et al. (2010), "Population Genetic Structure in Indian Austroasiatic Speakers: The Role of Landscape Barriers and Sex-Specific Admixture", Mol Biol Evol, 28 (2): 1013–1024, doi: 10.1093/molbev/msq288, PMC 3355372, PMID 20978040
- Diffloth, Gérard (2005). "The contribution of linguistic palaeontology and Austro-Asiatic". in Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, eds. The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics. 77–80. London: Routledge Curzon. ISBN 0-415-32242-1
- Filbeck, D. (1978). T'in: a historical study. Pacific linguistics, no. 49. Canberra: Dept. of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. ISBN 0-85883-172-4
- Hemeling, K. (1907). Die Nanking Kuanhua. (German language)
- Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell, eds (2015). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill.
- Peck, B. M., Comp. (1988). An Enumerative Bibliography of South Asian Language Dictionaries.
- Peiros, Ilia. 1998. Comparative Linguistics in Southeast Asia. Pacific Linguistics Series C, No. 142. Canberra: Australian National University.
- Shorto, Harry L. edited by Sidwell, Paul, Cooper, Doug and Bauer, Christian (2006). A Mon–Khmer comparative dictionary. Canberra: Australian National University. Pacific Linguistics. ISBN 0-85883-570-3
- Shorto, H. L. Bibliographies of Mon–Khmer and Tai Linguistics. London oriental bibliographies, v. 2. London: Oxford University Press, 1963.
- Sidwell, Paul (2005). " Proto-Katuic Phonology and the Sub-grouping of Mon–Khmer Languages". In Sidwell, ed., SEALSXV: papers from the 15th meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistic Society.
- Sidwell, Paul (2009). "Classifying the Austroasiatic languages: history and state of the art". LINCOM studies in Asian linguistics. 76. Munich: Lincom Europa. ISBN 978-3-929075-67-0.
- Sidwell, Paul (2010). "The Austroasiatic central riverine hypothesis" (PDF). Journal of Language Relationship. 4: 117–134.
- Zide, Norman H., and Milton E. Barker. (1966) Studies in Comparative Austroasiatic Linguistics, The Hague: Mouton (Indo-Iranian monographs, v. 5.).
- Zhang; et al. (2015), "Y-chromosome diversity suggests southern origin and Paleolithic backwave migration of Austro-Asiatic speakers from eastern Asia to the Indian subcontinent", Scientific Reports, 5: 1548, Bibcode: 2015NatSR...515486Z, doi: 10.1038/srep15486, PMC 4611482, PMID 26482917
- Mann, Noel, Wendy Smith and Eva Ujlakyova. 2009. Linguistic clusters of Mainland Southeast Asia: an overview of the language families. Chiang Mai: Payap University.
- Mason, Francis (1854). "The Talaing Language". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 4: 277, 279–288. JSTOR 592280.
- Sidwell, Paul (2013). "Issues in Austroasiatic Classification". Language and Linguistics Compass. 7 (8): 437–457. doi: 10.1111/lnc3.12038.
- Sidwell, Paul. 2016. Bibliography of Austroasiatic linguistics and related resources.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Austro-Asiatic languages.|
- Swadesh lists for Austro-Asiatic languages (from Wiktionary's wikt:Appendix:Swadesh lists Swadesh-list appendix)
- Austro-Asiatic at the Linguist List MultiTree Project (not functional as of 2014): Genealogical trees attributed to Sebeok 1942, Pinnow 1959, Diffloth 2005, and Matisoff 2006
- Mon–Khmer.com: Lectures by Paul Sidwell
- Mon–Khmer Languages Project at SEAlang
- Munda Languages Project at SEAlang
- http://projekt.ht.lu.se/rwaai RWAAI (Repository and Workspace for Austroasiatic Intangible Heritage)
- http://hdl.handle.net/10050/00-0000-0000-0003-66A4-2@view RWAAI Digital Archive