1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Diachronica
  4. Volume 38, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 38, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper investigates two instances of alignment change, both of which resulted from reanalysis of a nominalized embedded clause type, in which the external argument was marked with genitive case and the internal argument was focused. We show that a subject marked with genitive case in the early development of Austronesian languages became ergative-marked when object relative clauses in cleft constructions were reanalyzed as transitive root clauses. In contrast to this, the genitive case in Old Japanese nominalized clauses, marking an external argument, was extended to mark all subjects. This occurred after adnominal clauses were reanalyzed as root clauses. Japanese underwent one more step in order for genitive to be reanalyzed as nominative: the reanalysis of impersonal psych transitive constructions as intransitives.

With these two case studies of Austronesian and Japanese, we show that reanalysis of nominalization goes in either direction, ergative or accusative, depending on the syntactic conditions involved in the reanalysis.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dia.19044.ald
2021-07-23
2024-12-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/dia.19044.ald
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. The Corpus of Historical Japanese (CHJ), the National Institute of Japanese Language and Linguistics
    The Corpus of Historical Japanese (CHJ), the National Institute of Japanese Language and Linguistics, https://maro.ninjal.ac.jp/
  2. Aldridge, Edith
    2004 Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University dissertation.
  3. 2008 Generative approaches to ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass: Syntax and Morphology2(5). 966–995. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2008.00075.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00075.x [Google Scholar]
  4. 2012 Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua122. 192–203. 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.10.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.10.012 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2015 A Minimalist approach to the emergence of ergativity in Austronesian languages. Linguistics Vanguard1(1). 313–326. 10.1515/lingvan‑2014‑1011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2014-1011 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2016 Ergativity from subjunctive in Austronesian languages. Language and Linguistics17(1). 27–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 2017 Intransitivity and the development of ergative alignment. InJessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 501–529. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2018 Reconstructing Proto-Austronesian alignment. Paper presented at the20th Diachronic Generative Syntax conference (DIGS 20), York University, UK.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Allen, Cynthia
    1995 Case marking and reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Anderson, Stephen
    1977 On the mechanisms by which languages become ergative. InCharles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 317–363. Austin: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Baker, Mark
    1988 Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Benveniste, Emil
    1952 La construction passive du parfait transitif. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris48(1)[=1974 192–202].
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bubenik, Vit
    1989 On the origins and elimination of ergativity in Indo-Aryan Languages. Canadian Journal of Linguistics34(4). 377–398. 10.1017/S0008413100024294
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100024294 [Google Scholar]
  14. Butt, Miriam
    2001 A reexamination of the accusative to ergative shift in Indo Aryan. InMiriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Time over matter: Diachronic perspectives on morphosyntax, 105–141. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Butt, Miriam & Ashwini Deo
    2017 Developments into and out of ergativity: Indo-Aryan Diachrony. InJessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 531–552. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Bynon, Theodora
    2005 Evidential, raised possessor and the historical source of the ergative construction in Indo-Iranian. Transactions of the Philological Society103(1). 1–72. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2004.00144.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2004.00144.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Cardona, George
    1970 The Indo-Iranian construction Mana (Mama) Kriam. Language46. 1–12. 10.2307/412403
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412403 [Google Scholar]
  18. Chang, Henry Y.
    2011 Transitivity, ergativity, and the status of O in Tsou. InJung-hsing Chang (ed.), Language and cognition: Festschrift in honor of James H-Y. Tai on his 70th birthday, 277–308. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Chen, Cheng-Fu
    1999 Wh-words as interrogatives and indefinites in Rukai. MA thesis, National Taiwan University.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 2008 Aspect and tense in Rukai: Interpretation and interaction. University of Texas, Austin, dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Chomsky, Noam
    2000 Minimalist inquiries. InRoger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays in Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Comrie, Bernard
    1981 Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Dahl, Eystein
    2016 The origin and development of the Old Indo-Aryan predicated -tá construction. InEystein Dahl & Krzysztof Stroński (eds.) Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective, 63–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.112.03dah
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.112.03dah [Google Scholar]
  24. De Guzman, Videa P.
    1988 Ergative analysis for Philippine languages: An analysis. InRichard McGinn (ed.), Studies in Austronesian linguistics, 323–345. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Center for International Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Dixon, R. M. W.
    1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611896
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fischer, Olga & van der Leek, Frederike
    1983 The demise of the Old English impersonal construction. Journal of Linguistics19, 337–368. 10.1017/S0022226700007775
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700007775 [Google Scholar]
  27. Frellesvig, Bjarke
    2010 A history of the Japanese language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511778322
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778322 [Google Scholar]
  28. Frellesvig, Bjarke, Stephen, Horn & Yuko Yanagida
    2015 Differential object marking: A corpus based study. InD. Haug, (eds.), Historical linguistics: Current issues in linguistic theory, 195–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.334.11fre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.334.11fre [Google Scholar]
  29. Gair, James W.
    1983[1998] Non-configurationality, movement, and Sinhala focus. Paper presented at theLinguistic Association of Great Britain, Newcastle, September 1983. [Published in Gair 1998:50–64].
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 1998 Studies in South Asian linguistics: Sinhala and other South Asian languages. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. van Gelderen, Elly
    2014 Changes in psych-verbs: A reanalysis of little v. Catalan Journal of Linguistics13. 99–122. 10.5565/rev/catjl.154
     https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.154 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gerdts, Donna B.
    1988 Antipassives and causatives in Ilokano: Evidence for an ergative analysis. InRichard McGinn (ed.), Studies in Austronesian linguistics, 295–321. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Center for International Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Gildea, Spike
    1998 On reconstructing grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Hagstrom, Paul
    1998 Decomposing questions. MIT dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Haig, Geoffrey
    2008 Alignment change in Iranian languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198614
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198614 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2010 Alignment. InSilvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds.), Continuum companion to historical linguistics, 250–268. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Haas, Mary R.
    1941 Tunica. InFranz Boas (ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages, 9–143. New York: Augustin.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Harris, Alice & Lyle Campbell
    1995 Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620553
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620553 [Google Scholar]
  39. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    2005 The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. InAlexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 110–181. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Hook, Peter
    1991 On identifying the conceptual restructuring of passive to ergative in Indo-Aryan. InMadhav M. Deshpande & Saroja Bhate (eds.), Pāninian studies: Professor S. D. Joshi Felicitation volume, 177–199. University of Michigan: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson
    1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language56. 251–299. 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth Traugott
    1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Johns, Alana
    1992 Deriving ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry23. 57–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Kaufman, Daniel
    2009 Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics35(1). 1–49. 10.1515/THLI.2009.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2009.001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Keenan, Edward & Bernard Comrie
    1977 Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry8(1). 63–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Kikuta, Ciharu
    2012 Jodai nihongo no ga-kaku nituite [On the case marker ga in Old Japanese] Dosisha Daigaku Jinbun Gakkai [The Literary Association], Doshisha University89, 89–123.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Kishimoto, Hideki
    1992 LF pied piping: Evidence from Sinhala. Gengo Kenkyu102. 46–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 2005 Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory23. 1–51. 10.1007/s11049‑004‑6574‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-6574-0 [Google Scholar]
  49. Klaiman, Miriam H.
    1978 Arguments against a passive origin of the IA ergative. InChicago Linguistic Society: Papers from the 14th Regional Meeting, 204–216. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1977 Syntactic reanalysis. InCharles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 57–139. Austin: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Legate, Julie
    2003 Warlpiri: Theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA.: MIT dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Li, Paul Jen-kuei
    1973 Rukai structure. Taipei: Academia Sinica Institute of History and Philology.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Liao, Hsiu-chuan
    2002 The Interpretation of tu and Kavalan ergativity. Oceanic Linguistics41(1). 140–158. 10.1353/ol.2002.0022
     https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2002.0022 [Google Scholar]
  54. Mahajan, Anoop
    1990 The A/A’ distinction and movement theory. MIT dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Malchukov, Andrej
    2008 Split intransitives, experiencer objects and transimpersonal constructions: (re-)establishing the connection. InMark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 76–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  56. Malchukov, Andrej & Anna Siewierska
    2011 Impersonal constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.124
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.124 [Google Scholar]
  57. Mithun, Marianne
    1994 The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system. InBarbara Fox & Paul Hopper (eds.), Voice: Form and function, 247–277. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.27.11mit
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.27.11mit [Google Scholar]
  58. Ohno, Susumu
    1977 Shukaku joshi ga no seiritsu [The development of the nominative case particle ga], Bungaku45:102–117.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 1978 Bunpoo to goi. [Grammar and lexicon]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Payne, John R.
    1980 The decay of ergativity in Pamir Languages. Lingua51. 147–186. 10.1016/0024‑3841(80)90005‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(80)90005-4 [Google Scholar]
  61. Payne, Thomas
    1982 Role and reference related subject properties and ergativity in Yup’ik Eskimo and Tagalog. Studies in Language6(1). 75–106. 10.1075/sl.6.1.05pay
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.6.1.05pay [Google Scholar]
  62. Pesetsky, David
    1995 Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Pray, Bruce R.
    1976 From passive to ergative in Indo-Aryan. InManindra K. Verma (ed.), The notion of subject in Indo-Aryan languages, 195–211. Madison: University of Wisconsin (South Asian Studies, Publication series 2).
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Rosen, Carol
    1996 LING 401: Typology. Course notes, Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Ross, Malcolm
    2009 Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: A reappraisal. InK. Alexander Adelaar & Andrew Pauley (eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Robert Blust (Pacific Linguistics 601), 295–326. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 2012 In defense of Nuclear Austronesian (and against Tsouic). Language and Linguistics13(6). 1253–1300.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Schachter, Paul
    1976 The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. InCharles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 491–518. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Shibatani, Masayoshi
    1988 Voice in Philippine languages. InMasayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice, 85–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.16.06shi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.16.06shi [Google Scholar]
  69. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. InR. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aborignal Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Slade, Benjamin
    2011 Formal and philological inquiries into the nature of interrogatives, indefinites, disjunction, and focus in Sinhala and other languages. University of Illinois Ph.D. dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 2018 History of focus-concord constructions and focus-associated particles in Sinhala, with comparison to Dravidian and Japanese. Glossa3. 1–28. 10.5334/gjgl.241
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.241 [Google Scholar]
  72. Starosta, Stanley
    1995 A grammatical subgrouping of Formosan languages. InPaul J.-K. Li, Cheng-hwa Tsang, Ying-kuei Huang, Dah-an Ho, Chiu-yu Tseng (eds.), Austronesian studies relating to Taiwan, 683–726. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 2001 Reduplication and the subgrouping of Formosan languages. Paper presented at theInternational Symposium on Austronesian Cultures: Issues relating to Taiwan, Academia Sinica. Published inElizabeth Zeitoun (ed.), Formosan linguistics: Stanley Starosta’s contributions, vol.2, 801–834. Taipei: Language and Linguistics 2009.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Starosta, Stanley, Andrew K. Pawley & Lawrence A. Reid
    1982/2009 The evolution of focus in Austronesian. InAmran Halim, Lois Carrington & S. A. Wurm (eds.), Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Vol. 2: Tracking the travellers (Pacific Linguistics C-65). Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, 145–170 (republished inElizabeth Zeitoun (ed.), Formosan linguistics: Stanley Starosta’s contributions. Vol. 2: Publications on Formosan languages (Language and Linguistics Monograph Series C6–65). Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica, 297–328 [with an expanded version of the paper, with the same title, published for the first time in the same volume, 329–481]).
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Tan, Cindy Ro-lan
    1997 A study of Puyuma simple sentences. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University MA Thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Teng, Stacy Fang-ching
    2008 A reference grammar of Puyuma. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Teng, Stacy F. & Elizabeth Zeitoun
    2016 The noun-verb distinction in Kanakanavu and Saaroa: Evidence. Oceanic Linguistics55(1). 134–161. 10.1353/ol.2016.0015
     https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2016.0015 [Google Scholar]
  78. Tsuboi, Yoshiki
    2001 Nihongo katuyo taikei no hensen [Historical change in the Japanese conjugation system]. Tokyo: Kasama Shoin
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Whitman, John
    1997 Kakarimusubi from a comparative perspective. InHo-min Sohn & John Haig (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 6, 161–178. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. 2008 The source of the bigrade conjugation and stem shape in pre-Old Japanese. InBjarke Frellesvig & John Whitman (eds.), Proto-Japanese, 159–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.294.13whi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.294.13whi [Google Scholar]
  81. Wolff, John
    1973 Verbal inflection in Proto-Austronesian. InAndrew Gonzales (ed.), Essays in honor of Cecilio Lopez on his seventy-fifth birthday, 71–91. Quezon City: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Woolford, Ellen
    2008 Differential subject marking at argument structure, syntax and PF. InHelen de Hoop & Peter de Swart (eds.), Differential subject marking, 17–40. Dordrecht: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 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]. Kokugogaku51(1). 1–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 2010 Kakujoshi ga no Tsujiteki Kenkyu [A diachronic study of the case particle ga]. Hituzi:Tokyo.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Yanagida, Seiji
    1985 Muromachi jidai o kokugo [The language of Muromachi period] Tokyo: Tokyo Do.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Yanagida, Yuko
    2006 Word order and clause structure in Early Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics15. 37–68. 10.1007/s10831‑005‑2165‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-005-2165-2 [Google Scholar]
  87. 2007 Miyagawa’s (1989) exceptions: An ergative analysis. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics55. 265–276.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. 2012 The syntactic reconstruction of alignment and word order: The case of Old Japanese. InAns van Kemenade & Nynke de Haas (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2009, 107–128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.320.06yan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.320.06yan [Google Scholar]
  89. 2017 Genitive/active to nominative case in Japanese: The role of complex experiencer constructions. Paper presented at the23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. 2018a Differential subject marking and its demise in the history of Japanese. InI. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich (eds), Diachrony of differential argument marking. 403–425. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. 2018b Differential argument marking and object movement: A typological perspective: InKunio Nishiyama, Hideki Kishimoto & Edith Aldridge (eds.), Topics in Theoretical Asian Linguistics, 181–205. John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.250.10yan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.250.10yan [Google Scholar]
  92. 2019 The origin of dative subjects and psych predicate constructions in Japanese. Paper given at the24th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Australian National University, Canberra, Australia (to appear in Journal of Historical Linguistics).
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Yanagida, Yuko & John Whitman
    2009 Alignment and word order in Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics18. 101–144. 10.1007/s10831‑009‑9043‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-009-9043-2 [Google Scholar]
  94. Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Stacy F. Teng
    2016 Reassessing the position of Kanakanavu and Saaroa among the Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics55(1). 162–198. 10.1353/ol.2016.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2016.0001 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.19044.ald
Loading
Two types of alignment change in nominalizations
Diachronica 38, 314 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19044.ald
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.19044.ald
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.19044.ald
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): active-inactive; cleft; nominative case; psych predicate; split-ergativity; syntactic reconstruction; unaccusative

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error