MARC Record

001 26047
003 KSL
005 20230117105222.0
008 230117n                       0    und  
100 0 $aManson, Ken.
245 00$aBibliography of Karen linguistics, A.$hOnline{ONL}
250   $a4th revised ed.
260 0 $bAcademia.edu$c2023
300   $a36 p.
500   $aIntro:
$aIntro:
This bibliography is an update from Manson (2017a). Over the last decade there has been an increase of publications, notably Kato’s research on Pwo, Theraphan’s work on reconstructing Proto-Karen, several papers coming out of field methods classes (e.g. Brunelle (ed.) 2011, Mora-Marin (ed.) 2014b) and some MA-level studies. Unfortunately, there is no linguist, except Atsuhiko Kato, in a permanent academic position focusing on this incredibly significant branch of Tibeto-Burman. 

Three PhD level grammars have been written on Karen languages – Solnit (Eastern Kayah); Kato (Pwo); and Manson (Kayan). The most extensive and thorough is Kato’s grammar which unfortunately is written in Japanese and in third place is my grammar. 

I have now transferred the bibliography to Zotero and removed from the preceding bibliography (Manson 2010b) all references to only anthropological work and monolingual resources for the “Karen” audience. I have not systematically searched and collated book reviews or anthropological work, but some book reviews are scattered in this current bibliography. 

The reference style is the Unified Style Sheet for Linguistic Journals. I have alphabetised Burmese, Karen and Thai
names as “first name – last name”.

650  0$aKaren people$xSoutheast Asia.
650  0$aSino-Tibetan linguistics$xBibliography.
852   $aOnline{ONL}$bCanada Institute of Linguistics.{Canad002}$hONLINE$iMAN$p022418
856   $uhttps://www.academia.edu/94281238/A_Bibliography_of_Karen_L
      inguistics_4ed
 
1
This bibliography is an update
      from Manson (2017a). Over the last decade there has
      been
an increase of publications, notably Kato’s research
      on Pwo, Theraphan’s work on
reconstructing Proto-Karen,
      several papers coming out of field methods classes
      (e.g. Brunelle (ed.) 2011, Mora-Marin (ed.) 2014b) and
      some MA-level studies. Unfortunately, there is no
      linguist, except Atsuhiko Kato, in a permanent academic
      position focusing on this incredibly significant branch
      of Tibeto-Burman. Three PhD level grammars have been
      written on Karen languages
–
 Solnit (Eastern Kayah);
      Kato (Pwo); a
nd Manson (Kayan). The most extensive and
      thorough is Kato’s grammar
which unfortunately is
      written in Japanese and in third place is my grammar. I
      have now transferred the bibliography to Zotero and
      removed from the preceding bibliography (Manson 2010b) all
      references to only anthropological work and
      monolingual
resources for the “Karen” audience
. I have not
      systematically searched and collated book reviews or
      anthropological work, but some book reviews are scattered
      in this current bibliography. The reference style is
      the Unified Style Sheet for Linguistic Journals. I have
      alphabetised Burmese, Karen and Thai
names as “first
      name –
 
last name”.

 
1
This bibliography is an
      update from Manson (2017a). Over the last decade there has
      been
an increase of publications, notably Kato’s
      research on Pwo, Theraphan’s work on
reconstructing
      Proto-Karen, several papers coming out of field methods
      classes (e.g. Brunelle (ed.) 2011, Mora-Marin (ed.) 2014b)
      and some MA-level studies. Unfortunately, there is no
      linguist, except Atsuhiko Kato, in a permanent
      academic position focusing on this incredibly significant
      branch of Tibeto-Burman. Three PhD level grammars have
      been written on Karen languages
–
 Solnit (Eastern
      Kayah); Kato (Pwo); a
nd Manson (Kayan). The most
      extensive and thorough is Kato’s grammar
which unfortunately
      is written in Japanese and in third place is my
      grammar. I have now transferred the bibliography to Zotero
      and removed from the preceding bibliography (Manson
      2010b) all references to only anthropological work and
      monolingual
resources for the “Karen” audience
. I have
      not systematically searched and collated book reviews
      or anthropological work, but some book reviews are scattered in this current bibliography. The reference style is the Unified Style Sheet for Linguistic Journals. I have alphabetised Burmese, Karen and Thai
names as “first name –
 
last name”.
$nBibliography of Karen linguistics
856   $uhttps://www.academia.edu/94281238/A_Bibliography_of_Karen_L
      inguistics_4ed
 
1
This bibliography is an update
      from Manson (2017a). Over the last decade there has
      been
an increase of publications, notably Kato’s research
      on Pwo, Theraphan’s work on
reconstructing Proto-Karen,
      several papers coming out of field methods classes
      (e.g. Brunelle (ed.) 2011, Mora-Marin (ed.) 2014b) and
      some MA-level studies. Unfortunately, there is no
      linguist, except Atsuhiko Kato, in a permanent academic
      position focusing on this incredibly significant branch
      of Tibeto-Burman. Three PhD level grammars have been
      written on Karen languages
–
 Solnit (Eastern Kayah);
      Kato (Pwo); a
nd Manson (Kayan). The most extensive and
      thorough is Kato’s grammar
which unfortunately is
      written in Japanese and in third place is my grammar. I
      have now transferred the bibliography to Zotero and
      removed from the preceding bibliography (Manson 2010b) all
      references to only anthropological work and
      monolingual
resources for the “Karen” audience
. I have not
      systematically searched and collated book reviews or
      anthropological work, but some book reviews are scattered
      in this current bibliography. The reference style is
      the Unified Style Sheet for Linguistic Journals. I have
      alphabetised Burmese, Karen and Thai
names as “first
      name –
 
last name”.

 
1
This bibliography is an
      update from Manson (2017a). Over the last decade there has
      been
an increase of publications, notably Kato’s
      research on Pwo, Theraphan’s work on
reconstructing
      Proto-Karen, several papers coming out of field methods
      classes (e.g. Brunelle (ed.) 2011, Mora-Marin (ed.) 2014b)
      and some MA-level studies. Unfortunately, there is no
      linguist, except Atsuhiko Kato, in a permanent
      academic position focusing on this incredibly significant
      branch of Tibeto-Burman. Three PhD level grammars have
      been written on Karen languages
–
 Solnit (Eastern
      Kayah); Kato (Pwo); a
nd Manson (Kayan). The most
      extensive and thorough is Kato’s grammar
which unfortunately
      is written in Japanese and in third place is my
      grammar. I have now transferred the bibliography to Zotero
      and removed from the preceding bibliography (Manson
      2010b) all references to only anthropological work and
      monolingual
resources for the “Karen” audience
. I have
      not systematically searched and collated book reviews
      or anthropological work, but some book reviews are scattered in this current bibliography. The reference style is the Unified Style Sheet for Linguistic Journals. I have alphabetised Burmese, Karen and Thai
names as “first name –
 
last name”.
$nBibliography of Karen linguistics
856   $uhttps://www.academia.edu/94281238/A_Bibliography_of_Karen_L
      inguistics_4ed$nBibliography of Karen linguistics