The origin of dative subjects and psych predicate constructions in Japanese

References

1. Aldridge, Edith
   2011 Antipassive in Austronesian Alignment Change. Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomesed. byDianne Jonas, John Whitman & Andrew Garrett, 311–345. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582624.003.0017
   https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582624.003.0017 [Google Scholar]
2. Aldridge, Edith & Yuko Yanagida
   2021 Two Types of Alignment Change in Nominalizations: Austronesian and Japanese. Diachronica38:3.314-357. 10.1075/dia.19044.ald
   https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19044.ald [Google Scholar]
3. Alexiadou, Artemis
   2016 English Psych Verbs and the Causative Alternation: A Case Study in the History of English. Questions and Answers in Linguistics3:2.1–14. 10.1515/qal‑2016‑0003
   https://doi.org/10.1515/qal-2016-0003 [Google Scholar]
4. Alexiadou, Artemis & Gianina Iordăchioaia
   2014 The Psych Causative Alternation. Lingua148.53–79. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.010
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.010 [Google Scholar]
5. Anderson, Stephen R.
   1977 On Mechanisms by Which Languages Become Ergative. Mechanisms of Syntactic Changeed. byCharles N. Li, 317–363. Austin: University of Texas Press. 10.7560/750357‑010
   https://doi.org/10.7560/750357-010 [Google Scholar]
6. Aoki, Hirofumi
   1996 Kanoo dooshi no seiritu ni tsuite [On the Formation of Potential Verbs]. Gobun kenkyu81:1–12. Kyushu University.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Baker, Mark C.
   1988 Incorporation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Butt, Miriam & Ashwini Deo
   2013 A Historical Perspective on Dative Subjects in Indo-Aryan. Paper presented at the LFG13 Conference. University of Debrecen, Hungary.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Cardona, George
   1970 The Indo-Iranian Construction Mana (Mama) Kriam. Language46.1–12. 10.2307/412403
   https://doi.org/10.2307/412403 [Google Scholar]
10. Cheung, Candice C-H. & Richard K. Larson
    2015 Psych Verbs in English and Mandarin. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33.127–189. 10.1007/s11049‑014‑9259‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9259-3 [Google Scholar]
11. Comrie, Bernard
    1978 Ergativity. Syntactic Typologyed. byW. P. Lehman, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Creissels, Denis
    2008 Direct and Indirect Explanations of Typological Regularities: The Case of Alignment Variations. Folia Linguistica42:1.1–33. 10.1515/FLIN.2008.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/FLIN.2008.1 [Google Scholar]
13. Dikken, Marcel den, Richard Larson & Peter Ludow
    2018 Intensional Transitive Verbs and Abstract Clausal Complementation. Non-Propositional Intentionalityed. byAlex Grzankowski & Michelle Montague, 46–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198732570.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198732570.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
14. Dixon, R. M. W.
    1979 Ergativity. Language. 55.59–138. 10.2307/412519
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412519 [Google Scholar]
15. Deo, Ashwini
    2003 Valency Change and Case Marking: Marathi Dative Experiencers. Handout from the Pioneer Workshop on Case, Valency and Transitivity.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Frellesvig, Bjarke
    2010 A History of the Japanese Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511778322
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778322 [Google Scholar]
17. Frellesvig, Bjarke & John Whitman
    2018 The Historical Source of the Bigrade Transitivity Alternations in Japanese. Transitivity and Valency Alternations: Studies on Japanese and Beyonded. byTaroo Kageyama & Wesley Jacobsen, 289–310. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Gair, James W.
    1990 Subjects, Cases and Infl in Sinhala. Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languagesed. byMahendra K. Verma & K. P. Mohanan, 13–41. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Gelderen, Elly van
    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]
20. Haas, Mary R.
    1941 Tunica. Handbook of American Indian Languagesed. byFranz Boas, 9–143. New York: Augustin.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Hale, Ken & Samuel J. Keyser
    1993 On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. The View from Building 20: Essyas in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Brombergered. byKen Hale & S. J. Keyser, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Hale, Ken & Samuel J. Keyser
    2002 Prolegomena to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA:MIT press. 10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
23. Harley, Heidi
    2008 On the Causative Construction. Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguisticsed byShigeru Miyagawa & Mamoru Saito, 20–53. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195307344.013.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195307344.013.0002 [Google Scholar]
24. 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]
25. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2004 World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Hook, Peter E.
    1991 On Identifying the Conceptual Restructuring of Passive as Ergative in Indo-Aryan. Paninian Studiesed. byMadhav M. Deshpande & Soraja Bhate, 177–200. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for South and Southeast Asian studies.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Kageyama, Taro & Wesley M. Jacobsen
    2016 Transitivity and Valency Alternations: Studies on Japanese and Beyond. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110477153
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110477153 [Google Scholar]
28. Karttunen, Lauri
    1976 Discourse Referents. Syntax and Semantics, Volume 7: Notes from the Linguistic Undergrounded. byJames D. McCawley, 363–385. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Kikuta, Chiharu
    2012 Jodai nihongo no ga-kaku nituite [On the Case Marker ga in Old Japanese]. Dosisha Daigaku Jinbun Gakkai (The Literary Association) 89.89–123.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Kishimoto, Hideki
    2004 Non Canonical-Case Marking of Transitive Predicates in Japanese. Nihongo no bunseki to gengorukei [Analysis of Japanese and Linguistic typology] ed. byTaroo Kageyama & Hideki Kishimoto, 57–74. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Kishimoto, Hideki
    2016 Stative and Existential/Possessive Predicates. Handbook of Japanese Lexicon and Word Formationed. byTaroo Kageyama & Hideki Kishimoto, 559–598. Berlin:De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614512097‑020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512097-020 [Google Scholar]
32. Koizumi, Masatoshi
    2008 Nominative Object. The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguisticsed. byShigeru Miyagawa & Mamoru Saito, 141–164. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Kuginuki, Toru
    1995 Kodai nihongo ni okeru keiyooshi zoogohoo ni kansuru ichikoosatsu [A study of Adjectives and Their Derivations in Old Japanese]. Literature, Journal of the Faculty of Letters121.199–214. Nagoya: Nagoya University.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Kuginuki, Toru
    1996 Kodai nihongo no keitai henka [Morphological Change in Old Japanese]. Osaka: Izumi Shoin.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Kuno, Susumu
    1973 The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Kuroda, S. Y.
    1965 Causative Forms in Japanese. Foundations of Language1.30–50.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Kuroda, S. Y.
    1992 Case Marking, Canonical Sentence Patterns, and Counter-Equi in Japanese. Japanese Syntax and Semantics: Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory27.222–239. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑2789‑9_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2789-9_7 [Google Scholar]
38. Larson, Richard K.
    2002 The Grammar of Intensionality. Logical Form and Languageed. byGerhard Preyer & George Peter, 228–262. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Legate, A Julie
    2014 Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262028141.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262028141.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
40. Malchukov, Andrej
    2008 Split Intransitives, Experiencer Objects and Transimpersonal Constructions: (Re-)Establishing the Connection. The Typology of Semantic Alignmented. byMark Donohue & Søren Wichmann, 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]
41. McCawley, James D.
    1974 On Identifying the Remains of Deceased Clauses. Language Research9.73–85.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Miyagawa, Shigeru
    1989 Structure and Case Marking in Japanese. (= Syntax and Semantics, 22.) New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004373259
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373259 [Google Scholar]
43. Miyagawa, Shigeru
    2012 Case, Argument Structure and Word Order. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203126844
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203126844 [Google Scholar]
44. Miyake, Toshihiro
    2016 Kanoo dooshi no seiritu [The Formation of Potential Verbs]. Nihongo no kenkyu [A Study of Japanese Language] 12:2.1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Murasugi, Keiko & Tomoko Hashimoto
    2004 Three Pieces of Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame. Nanzan Linguistics1.1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Ohno, Susumu
    1977 Shukaku joshi ga no seiritsu [The Development of the Nominative Case Particle ga], Bungaku45.102–117.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Ohno, Susumu
    1978 Bunpoo to goi [Grammar and Lexicon]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
    [Google Scholar]
48. 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]
49. Pesetsky, David
    1995 Zero Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Pray, Bruce R.
    1976 From Passive to Ergative in Indo-Aryan. The Notion of Subject in Indo-Aryan Languages (=South Asian Studies, 2.) ed. byManindra K. Verma, 195–211. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Ross, John
    1976 To Have and To Not Have Have. Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald Hilled. byMohammad A. Jazayery, Edgar C. Polomé & Werner Winter, Vol.1, 263–270. Lisse: Peter De Ridder Press.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Shibatani, Masayoshi
    1976 The Grammar of Causative Constructions: A Conspectus. The Grammar of Causative Constructions: Syntax and Semantics6ed. byMasayoshi Shibatani, 1–42. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368842_002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368842_002 [Google Scholar]
53. Shibatani, Masayoshi
    1999 Dative Subject Constructions Twenty-Two Years Later. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences29.45–76.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Shibatani, Masayoshi
    2001 Non-Canonical Constructions in Japanese. Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objectsed. byAlexandra Y. Aikehenvald, R. M. W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi, 307–354. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.46.11shi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.46.11shi [Google Scholar]
55. Shibatani, Masayoshi & Prashant Pardeshi
    2001 Dative Subject Constructions in South Asian Languages. The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguisticsed. byPeri Bhaskararao & K. V. Subbarao, 311–347. Delhi: Sage Publications. 10.1515/9783110245264.311
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110245264.311 [Google Scholar]
56. Shibatani, Masayoshi & Prashant Pardeshi
    2018 Non-Canonical Constructions in Japanese: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Handbook of Japanese Contrastive Linguisticsed. byPardeshi Prashant & Taro Kageyama, 57–107. Berlin:De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614514077‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614514077-003 [Google Scholar]
57. Ura, Hiroyuki
    2000 Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Verma, Mahendra K. & K. P. Mohanan
    1990 Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages. Stanford: CSLI Publication.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Whitman, John
    2007 The Source of the Bigrade Conjugation and Stem Shape in Pre-Old Japanese. Paper given at the International Conference on East Asian Linguistics. University of Toronto.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Whitman, John
    2008 The Source of the Bigrade Conjugation and Stem Shape in Pre-Old Japanese. Proto-Japaneseed. byBjarke Frellesvig & John Whitman, 159–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.294.13whi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.294.13whi [Google Scholar]
61. Woolford, Ellen
    2008 Differential Subject Marking at Argument Structure, Syntax and PF. Differential Subject Markinged. byHelen de Hoop & Peter de Swart, 17–40. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Woolford, Ellen
    2015 Ergativity and Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry46:3. 489–531. 10.1162/LING_a_00190
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00190 [Google Scholar]
63. Yamada, Masahiro
    2000 Shugo hyooji ga no seiryoku kakudai no yooso [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]
64. Yamada, Masahiro
    2010 Kakujoshi ga noTsuujiteki Kenkyu [A Diachronic Study of the Case Particle ga]. Hituzi: Tokyo.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Yanagida, Yuko
    2007 Joodaigo no nookakusei ni tsuite [Ergativity in Old Japanese]. Nihongo no Shubun Genshoo [Main Clause Phenomena in Japanese] ed. byNobuko Hasegawa, 147–188. Tokyo: Hituji Shobō.
    [Google Scholar]
66. Yanagida, Yuko
    2017 Genitive/Active to Nominative Case in Japanese: The Role of Complex Experiencer Constructions. Paper presented atthe 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics. The University of Texas at San Antonio.
    [Google Scholar]
67. Yanagida, Yuko
    2018 Differential Subject Marking and Its Demise in the History of Japanese. Diachrony of Differential Argument Markinged. byI. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich, 403–425. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
68. Yanagida, Yuko
    . [forthcoming]. Differential Argument Marking in Old Japanese: Morphology, Semantics, and Syntax. Handbook of Historical Japanese Linguistics ed. by Bjarke Frellesvig, Satoshi Kinsui & John Whitman. Berlin:De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
69. 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]