1887
image of The origin of dative subjects and psych predicate constructions in Japanese
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

There is considerable literature on dative subject or non-canonical subject marking constructions in Japanese, and yet they have been studied mainly from a synchronic point of view. This paper investigates the diachronic dimension of non-canonical case marking constructions in Japanese. Following , I assume that Old Japanese (700–800 A.D.) displays split active alignment. This paper argues that dative subjects arose as a byproduct of a change occurring from active-inactive to accusative alignment. A factor triggering this change was the reanalysis of some particular object experiencer predicates as intransitives due to the loss of the vestigial causative suffix associated with the predicate. Synchronically, these constructions involve a voice alternation of the type identified as the psych causative alternation by : object experiencer verbs behave parallel to causative verbs whereas alternating subject experiencer verbs behave parallel to anticausative verbs.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.20023.yan
2022-04-21
2022-05-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

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
    1996Kanoo dooshi no seiritu ni tsuite [On the Formation of Potential Verbs]. Gobun kenkyu81:1–12. Kyushu University.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Baker, Mark C.
    1988Incorporation. 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
    2018Intensional 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
    2010A 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. 2002Prolegomena 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
    1995Historical 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
    2004World 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
    2016Transitivity 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. 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. 1996Kodai nihongo no keitai henka [Morphological Change in Old Japanese]. Osaka: Izumi Shoin.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kuno, Susumu
    1973The 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. 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
    2014Voice 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
    1989Structure 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. 2012Case, Argument Structure and Word Order. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203126844
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203126844 [Google Scholar]
  44. Miyake, Toshihiro
    2016Kanoo 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. 1978Bunpoo 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
    1995Zero 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. 1999 Dative Subject Constructions Twenty-Two Years Later. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences29.45–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 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. 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
    2000Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Verma, Mahendra K. & K. P. Mohanan
    1990Experiencer 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. 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. 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. 2010Kakujoshi 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. 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. 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. . [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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.20023.yan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.20023.yan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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