Advertisement

Journal of East Asian Linguistics

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 101–144 | Cite as

Alignment and word order in Old Japanese

  • Yuko Yanagida
  • John Whitman
Article

Abstract

This paper argues that Old Japanese (eighth century) had split alignment, with nominative-accusative alignment in main clauses and active alignment in nominalized clauses. The main arguments for active alignment in nominalized clause come from ga-marking of active subjects and the distribution of two verbal prefixes: i-for active predicates and sa- for inactive predicates (cf. Yanagida, In: Hasegawa (ed.) Nihongo no shubun genshô [Main clause phenomena in Japanese], 2007b). We review the treatment of non-accusative alignment and argue that active alignment should be analyzed as as a distinct type. We propose a formal analysis of active alignment in nominalized clauses in Old Japanese. The external argument is assigned inherent case, spelled out as ga, in situ in Spec, v. Object arguments are licensed by several distinct mechanisms, including incorporation (Yanagida, In: Miyamoto (ed.) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 2007a) and case assignment by a functional head above vP. The latter accounts for the distinctive O wo S ga V word order of OJ nominalized clauses noted by Yanagida (J. of East Asian Linguistics, 2006). Inability to assign object case is a property of [nominal] v, as proposed by Miyagawa (Structure and case marking in Japanese. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 22, 1989). We discuss the diachronic origins of the OJ active alignment system and point out that it exemplifies a cross-linguistically attested pattern of non-accusative alignment in clauses that originate from nominalizations.

Keywords

Active alignment Ergative alignment Split intransitivity Case Nominalization Verbal prefixes Clitic pronouns Nominal hierarchy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  2. Alexiadou Artemis. (2001) Functional structure in nominals: Nominalization and ergativity. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2008. Structuring participles. In Proceedings of WCCFL 26, ed. Natasha Abner and Jason Bishop, 33–41. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  4. Allen, Nicholas J. 1975. Sketch of Thulung grammar. Cornell University East Asia Papers, vol. 6. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  5. Baker Mark C. (1988) Incorporation. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. Bittner Maria, Ken Hale (1996) The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 1–68Google Scholar
  7. Bricker Victoria. (1981) The source of the ergative split in Yukatek Maya. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2(2): 83–127Google Scholar
  8. Borer, Hagit, and Ken Wexler. 1987. The maturation of syntax. In Parameter setting, ed. Thomas Roeper and Edwin Williams, 123–172. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  9. Chomksy, Noam. 2001. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89– 156. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  10. Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Syntactic typology, ed. Winfred Lehmann, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dahlstrom, Amy. 1983. Agent-patient languages and split case marking systems. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, BLS 9, ed. Amy Dahlstrom and claudia Brugman, 37–46. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  12. Diesing Molly. (1992) Indefinites. Cambridge, MITGoogle Scholar
  13. Dixon R.M.W. (1979) Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dixon R.M.W. (1994) Ergativity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35.3: 355–392.Google Scholar
  16. Franchetto, Bruna. 1990. Ergativity and nominativity in kuikuro and other Carib languages. In Amazonian linguistics: Studies in lowland South American languages, ed. Doris L. Payne, 407–427. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  17. Frellesvig Bjarke, John Whitman (2008) Proto-Japanese. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  18. Gildea Spike. (1998) On reconstructing grammar. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Gildea, Spike. 2000. On the genesis of the verb phrase in Cariban languages. In Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization, ed. Spike Gildea, 65–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  20. Harada Shin-Ichi. (1971) Ga-no conversion and ideolectal variations in Japanese. Gengo kenkyû 60: 25–38Google Scholar
  21. Hendriks Peter. (1998) Kakari particles and the merger of the predicative and attributive forms in the Japanese verbal system. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 7: 197–210Google Scholar
  22. Hoji, Hajime. 1991. Raising-to-object, ECM, and the major object in Japanese. Paper presented at the Japanese Syntax Workshop. University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  23. Johns Alana. (1992) Deriving ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry 23(1): 57–87Google Scholar
  24. Kaufman, Daniel. 2007. The nominalist hypothesis in Austronesian. Paper given at ZAS Berlin, August 14, 2007.Google Scholar
  25. Kinsui, Satoshi. 2001. Joshi kara mita nihongo bunpou no rekisi [A history of Japanese grammar from the view point of particles] Lecture handout. Tokyo university.Google Scholar
  26. Klimov Georgij A. (1974) On the character of languages of active typology. Linguistics 131: 11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klimov Georgij A. (1977) Tipologija jazykov aktivnogo stroja [Typology of languages of the active type]. Nauka, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  28. Konoshima Tadatoshi (1962) Chûkogo ni okeru yôgen rentaikei no yôhô [The use of the participial adjective in medieval Japanese]. Kokugogaku 48: 102–107Google Scholar
  29. Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2003. Subject case in Turkish nominalized clauses. In Syntactic structures and morphological information, ed. Uwe Junghanns and Luka Szusich, 130–214. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  30. Kuginuki Tôru (1996) Kodai Nihongo no keitai henka [Morphological change in earlier Japanese]. Osaka, Izumi ShoinGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuroda Sige-Yuki (1988) Whether we agree or not: a comparative grammar of English and Japanese. Linguisticae Investigationes 12: 2–44Google Scholar
  32. Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 2007. On the syntax of Old Japanese. In Current issues in the history and structure of Japanese, ed. Bjarke Frellesvig, J.C. Smith, and Masayoshi Shibatani, 263–318. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
  33. Lahaussois, Aimee. 2003. Ergativity in Thulung Rai: A shift in the position of pronominal split. Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff. Pacific Linguistics, ed. D. Bardley et al. 101–112. Canberra: Australian National university.Google Scholar
  34. Legate Julie (2008) Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 55–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. 1990. The A/A’ distinction and movement theory. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  36. Manning Christopher D. (1996) Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 4.2, ed. Alexis Dimitriadis et al., 201–225. Philadelphia: Penn Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  38. Meira, Sergio. 2006. Stative verbs vs. nouns in Sateré-Mawé and the Tupian family. In What’s in a verb: Studies in the verbal morphology of the languages of the Americas, Lot Occasional Series, ed. Graz’yna J. Rowicka and Eithne B. Carlin, pp. 189–214. Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  39. Mithun Marianne. (1991) Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67(3): 510–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and case marking in Japanese. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 22. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  41. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1993. Case checking and the Minimal Link Condition. In Case and agreement II, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 19, ed. Colin Phillips, 213–254. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  42. Miyagawa Shigeru, Fusae Ekida (2003) Historical development of the accusative case marking in Japanese as seen in classical literary texts. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 19: 1–95Google Scholar
  43. Miyamoto, Edson T., Kenneth Wexler, Takako Aikawa, and Shigeru Miyagawa. 1999. Case-dropping and unaccusatives in Japanese acquisition. In BUCLD 23, ed. Annabel greenhill et al., 443–452. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  44. Motohashi, Tatsushi. 1989. Case theory and the history of the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  45. Ohno Susumu. (1953) Nihongo no dôshi no katsuyôkei no kigen ni tuite [On the origin of the Japanese verb conjugations]. Kokugo to kokubungaku 350: 47–56Google Scholar
  46. Omodaka, Histaka et al. 1967. Jidaibetsu kokugo daijiten, jôdai-hen [A dictionary of Japanese by period, Old Japanese edition]. Tokyo: Sanseido.Google Scholar
  47. Sakakura Atsuyoshi. (1966) Gokô sei no kenkyǔ [Research on Word Formation]. Kadokawa shoten, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  48. Sasaki Takashi. (1996) Jôdaigo no kôbun to hyôki [The sentence structure and orthography of Old Japanese]. Hituzi Shobô, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  49. Sapir Edward. (1911) The problem of noun incorporation in American languages. American Anthropologist 13: 250–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sapir, Edward. 1917. Review of C.C Uhlenbeck: Het Passieve Karakter... In The collected works of Edward Sapir V (1990), ed. W. Bright, 69–74. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  51. Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. R.M.W. Dixon, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
  52. Starosta, Stanley, Andrew Pawley, and Lawrence Reid. 1982. The evolution of focus in Austronesian. In Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Vol. 2: Tracking the travelers, Pacific Linguistics C-75, ed. S.A. Wurm and L. Carrington. 145–170.Google Scholar
  53. Takezawa, Koichi. 1987. A configurational approach to case-marking in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation. University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  54. Tokieda Motoki. (1954) Nihon bunpô kôgo-hen [Japanese grammar, colloquial language edition]. Iwanami Shoten, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Valin Robert D. (1990) Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66(2): 221–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vovin Alexander. (1997) On the syntactic typology of Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6: 273–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vovin, Alexander. 2005. A descriptive and compartive grammar of Western Old Japanese. vol. 1. Folkestone: Global Oriental.Google Scholar
  58. Washio Ryuichi. (2004) Auxiliary selection in the East. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13: 197–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Watanabe, Akira. 2002. The loss of overt wh-movement in Old Japanese. In Syntactic effects of morphological change, ed. David W. Lightfoot, 179–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Whitman, John. 1997. Kakarimusubi from a Comparative Perspective. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. 6, Ho-min Sohn and John Haig, 161–178. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  61. Whitman, John. 2004. The reconstruction of the rentaikei and origins of the izenkei. Paper presented at the Oxford Kobe Symposium on the History of Japanese.Google Scholar
  62. Whitman, John. 2005. Preverbal elements in Korean and Japanese. In The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, ed. Guglielmo Cinque and Richard Kayne, 880–902. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Wichmann, Søren. 2008. The study of semantic alignment: Retrospect and state of the art. In The typology of semantic alignment, ed. Søren Wichmann and Mark Donohue, 3–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Wichmann Søren, Mark Donohue (2008) The typology of semantic alignment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  65. Woolford Ellen. (1997) Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective, and accusative. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 181–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wrona, Janick. 2006. Why Old Japanese was not an ergative language. ms., Kyoto University.Google Scholar
  67. Wrona Janick. (2008) A study of Old Japanese syntax: Synchronic and diachronic aspects of the complement system. Global Oriental, LondonGoogle Scholar
  68. Yamada, Masahiro. 2000. Shugo hyôji ga no seiryoku kakudai no yôso [The expansion of the use of the subject denotor ga: A comparison between the original Text of the Tale of Heike and Amakusaban Heike]. Kokugogaku 51-1: 1-14.Google Scholar
  69. Yanagida, Yuko. 2005. Ergativity and bare nominals in Early Old Japanese. Paper Presented at Workshop on Theoretical East Asian Linguistics, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  70. Yanagida Yuko. (2006) Word order and clause structure in Early Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 37–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yanagida, Yuko. 2007a. Miyagawa’s (1989) exceptions: An ergative analysis. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 55, ed. Yoichi Miyamoto, 265–276. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  72. Yanagida, Yuko. 2007b. Jôdaigo no nôkakusei ni tsuite [On ergativity in Old Japanese]. In Nihongo no shubun genshô [Main clause phenomena in Japanese], ed. Nobuko Hasegawa, 147–188. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Modern Languages and CulturesUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations