Two types of alignment change in nominalizations
Austronesian and Japanese
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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Genitive to ergative in Austronesian
- 2.1Previous connections between Austronesian clause structure and nominalization
- 2.2Reanalysis
- 2.3Summary
- 3.Genitive to nominative in Japanese
- 3.1Two types of genitive markers in Old Japanese
- 3.2After OJ: A change from active to accusative alignment
- 3.3Reanalysis
- 3.3.1Psych predicate constructions
- 3.3.2Impersonal psych transitive constructions in Old Japanese
- 3.3.3After OJ: Psych predicate constructions
- 3.4Summary
- 4.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
- Abbreviations
-
Digitalized texts
-
References
References (94)
Digitalized texts
The Corpus of Historical Japanese (CHJ), the National Institute of Japanese Language
and Linguistics
Aldridge, Edith
2004 Ergativity
and word order in Austronesian languages. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University dissertation.
Aldridge, Edith
2008 Generative
approaches to ergativity.
Language and Linguistics Compass: Syntax and
Morphology 2(5). 966–995.
Aldridge, Edith
2012 Antipassive
and ergativity in
Tagalog.
Lingua 1221. 192–203.
Aldridge, Edith
2015 A
Minimalist approach to the emergence of ergativity in Austronesian languages.
Linguistics
Vanguard 1(1). 313–326.
Aldridge, Edith
2016 Ergativity
from subjunctive in Austronesian languages.
Language and
Linguistics 17(1). 27–62.
Aldridge, Edith
2017 Intransitivity
and the development of ergative alignment. In
Jessica Coon,
Diane Massam &
Lisa Travis (eds.),
The
Oxford handbook of
ergativity, 501–529. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aldridge, Edith
2018 Reconstructing
Proto-Austronesian alignment. Paper presented at the 20th
Diachronic Generative Syntax conference (DIGS 20), York
University, UK.
Allen, Cynthia
1995 Case
marking and reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, Stephen
1977 On
the mechanisms by which languages become ergative. In
Charles Li (ed.),
Mechanisms
of syntactic
change, 317–363. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Baker, Mark
1988 Incorporation:
A theory of grammatical function
changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Benveniste, Emil
1952 La
construction passive du parfait transitif.
Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de
Paris 48(1)[=1974 192–202].
Bubenik, Vit
1989 On
the origins and elimination of ergativity in Indo-Aryan Languages.
Canadian Journal of
Linguistics 34(4). 377–398.
Butt, Miriam
2001 A
reexamination of the accusative to ergative shift in Indo
Aryan. In
Miriam Butt &
Tracy Holloway King (eds.),
Time
over matter: Diachronic perspectives on
morphosyntax, 105–141. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Butt, Miriam & Ashwini Deo
2017 Developments
into and out of ergativity: Indo-Aryan Diachrony. In
Jessica Coon,
Diane Massam &
Lisa Travis (eds.),
The
Oxford handbook of
ergativity, 531–552. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bynon, Theodora
2005 Evidential,
raised possessor and the historical source of the ergative construction in
Indo-Iranian.
Transactions of the Philological
Society 103(1). 1–72.
Cardona, George
1970 The
Indo-Iranian construction Mana (Mama)
Kriam.
Language 461. 1–12.
Chang, Henry Y.
2011 Transitivity, ergativity, and
the status of O in Tsou. In
Jung-hsing Chang (ed.),
Language
and cognition: Festschrift in honor of James H-Y. Tai on his 70th
birthday, 277–308. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Chen, Cheng-Fu
1999 Wh-words
as interrogatives and indefinites in Rukai. MA
thesis, National Taiwan University.
Chen, Cheng-Fu
2008 Aspect
and tense in Rukai: Interpretation and interaction. University of Texas, Austin, dissertation.
Chomsky, Noam
2000 Minimalist
inquiries. In
Roger Martin,
David Michaels &
Juan Uriagereka (eds.),
Step
by step: Essays in Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard
Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Comrie, Bernard
1981 Language
universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and
morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.
De Guzman, Videa P.
1988 Ergative analysis for Philippine
languages: An analysis. In
Richard McGinn (ed.),
Studies
in Austronesian linguistics, 323–345. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Center for International Studies.
Dixon, R. M. W.
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fischer, Olga & van der Leek, Frederike
1983 The
demise of the Old English impersonal construction.
Journal of
Linguistics 191, 337–368.
Frellesvig, Bjarke
2010 A
history of the Japanese language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frellesvig, Bjarke, Stephen, Horn & Yuko Yanagida
Gair, James W.
1983[1998] Non-configurationality,
movement, and Sinhala focus. Paper presented at the Linguistic
Association of Great Britain, Newcastle, September
1983. [Published in
Gair 1998:50–64].
Gair, James W.
1998 Studies in South Asian linguistics:
Sinhala and other South Asian languages. New York: Oxford University Press.
van Gelderen, Elly
2014 Changes
in psych-verbs: A reanalysis of little v
.
Catalan Journal of
Linguistics 131. 99–122.
Gerdts, Donna B.
1988 Antipassives and causatives in
Ilokano: Evidence for an ergative analysis. In
Richard McGinn (ed.),
Studies
in Austronesian linguistics, 295–321. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Center for International Studies.
Gildea, Spike
1998 On
reconstructing grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hagstrom, Paul
1998 Decomposing
questions. MIT dissertation.
Haig, Geoffrey
2008 Alignment
change in Iranian languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haig, Geoffrey
2010 Alignment. In
Silvia Luraghi &
Vit Bubenik (eds.),
Continuum
companion to historical linguistics, 250–268. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Haas, Mary R.
1941 Tunica. In
Franz Boas (ed.),
Handbook
of American Indian languages, 9–143. New York: Augustin.
Harris, Alice & Lyle Campbell
1995 Historical
syntax in cross-linguistic
perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
2005 The Austronesian languages of
Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. In
Alexander Adelaar &
Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.),
The
Austronesian languages of Asia and
Madagascar, 110–181. New York: Routledge.
Hook, Peter
1991 On
identifying the conceptual restructuring of passive to ergative in
Indo-Aryan. In
Madhav 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.
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson
1980 Transitivity
in grammar and
discourse.
Language 561. 251–299.
Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth Traugott
1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johns, Alana
1992 Deriving
ergativity.
Linguistic
Inquiry 231. 57–88.
Kaufman, Daniel
2009 Austronesian
nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study.
Theoretical
Linguistics 35(1). 1–49.
Keenan, Edward & Bernard Comrie
1977 Noun
phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar.
Linguistic
Inquiry 8(1). 63–99.
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 University 891, 89–123.
Kishimoto, Hideki
1992 LF
pied piping: Evidence from Sinhala.
Gengo
Kenkyu 1021. 46–87.
Kishimoto, Hideki
2005
Wh-in-situ
and movement in Sinhala questions.
Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 231. 1–51.
Klaiman, Miriam H.
1978 Arguments against a passive
origin of the IA ergative. In
Chicago Linguistic Society: Papers from
the 14th Regional
Meeting, 204–216. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Langacker, Ronald W.
1977 Syntactic
reanalysis. In
Charles Li (ed.),
Mechanisms
of syntactic change, 57–139. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Legate, Julie
2003 Warlpiri:
Theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA.: MIT dissertation.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei
1973 Rukai
structure. Taipei: Academia Sinica Institute of History and Philology.
Liao, Hsiu-chuan
2002 The
Interpretation of tu and Kavalan ergativity.
Oceanic
Linguistics 41(1). 140–158.
Mahajan, Anoop
1990 The
A/A’ distinction and movement theory. MIT dissertation.
Malchukov, Andrej
2008 Split
intransitives, experiencer objects and transimpersonal constructions: (re-)establishing the
connection. In
Mark Donohue &
Søren Wichmann (eds.),
The
typology of semantic
alignment, 76–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malchukov, Andrej & Anna Siewierska
Ohno, Susumu
1977 Shukaku joshi ga no seiritsu [The development
of the nominative case particle
ga
],
Bungaku 451:102–117.
Ohno, Susumu
1978 Bunpoo to goi. [
Grammar and
lexicon]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Payne, John R.
1980 The decay of ergativity in Pamir
Languages.
Lingua 511. 147–186.
Pesetsky, David
1995 Zero
syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Pray, Bruce R.
1976 From passive to ergative in
Indo-Aryan. In
Manindra K. Verma (ed.),
The
notion of subject in Indo-Aryan
languages, 195–211. Madison: University of Wisconsin (
South Asian Studies, Publication series 2).
Rosen, Carol
1996 LING
401: Typology. Course notes, Cornell University.
Ross, Malcolm
2009 Proto
Austronesian verbal morphology: A reappraisal. In
K. 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.
Ross, Malcolm
2012 In
defense of Nuclear Austronesian (and against Tsouic).
Language and
Linguistics 13(6). 1253–1300.
Schachter, Paul
1976 The
subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the
above. In
Charles Li (ed.),
Subject
and topic, 491–518. New York: Academic Press.
Silverstein, Michael
1976 Hierarchy
of features and ergativity. In
R. M. W. Dixon (ed.),
Grammatical
categories in Australian
languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aborignal Studies.
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.
Slade, Benjamin
2018 History
of focus-concord constructions and focus-associated particles in Sinhala, with comparison to Dravidian and
Japanese.
Glossa 31. 1–28.
Starosta, Stanley
1995 A
grammatical subgrouping of Formosan languages. In
Paul 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.
Starosta, Stanley
2001 Reduplication
and the subgrouping of Formosan languages. Paper presented at
the International Symposium on Austronesian Cultures: Issues relating to Taiwan, Academia
Sinica. Published in
Elizabeth Zeitoun (ed.),
Formosan
linguistics: Stanley Starosta’s
contributions, vol. 21, 801–834. Taipei: Language and Linguistics 2009.
Starosta, Stanley, Andrew K. Pawley & Lawrence A. Reid
1982/2009 The
evolution of focus in Austronesian. In
Amran 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
in
Elizabeth 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]).
Tan, Cindy Ro-lan
1997 A study of Puyuma simple
sentences. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University MA Thesis.
Teng, Stacy Fang-ching
2008 A reference grammar of
Puyuma. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Teng, Stacy F. & Elizabeth Zeitoun
2016 The
noun-verb distinction in Kanakanavu and Saaroa: Evidence.
Oceanic
Linguistics 55(1). 134–161.
Tsuboi, Yoshiki
2001 Nihongo katuyo taikei no hensen [
Historical change in the Japanese
conjugation system]. Tokyo: Kasama Shoin
Whitman, John
1997
Kakarimusubi
from a comparative perspective. In
Ho-min Sohn &
John Haig (eds.),
Japanese/Korean
linguistics, vol.
6, 161–178. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Wolff, John
1973 Verbal
inflection in Proto-Austronesian. In
Andrew Gonzales (ed.),
Essays
in honor of Cecilio Lopez on his seventy-fifth
birthday, 71–91. Quezon City: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Woolford, Ellen
2008 Differential
subject marking at argument structure, syntax and PF. In
Helen de Hoop &
Peter de Swart (eds.),
Differential
subject
marking, 17–40. Dordrecht: Springer.
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.
Yamada, Masahiro
2010 Kakujoshi ga no Tsujiteki Kenkyu [
A diachronic study of the case
particle
ga
]. Hituzi:Tokyo.
Yanagida, Seiji
1985 Muromachi jidai o kokugo [
The language of Muromachi
period] Tokyo: Tokyo Do.
Yanagida, Yuko
2006 Word
order and clause structure in Early Old Japanese.
Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 151. 37–68.
Yanagida, Yuko
2007 Miyagawa’s
(1989) exceptions: An ergative analysis.
MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 551. 265–276.
Yanagida, Yuko
2017 Genitive/active
to nominative case in Japanese: The role of complex experiencer constructions. Paper presented
at the
23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, The University of
Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio.
Yanagida, Yuko
2018a Differential
subject marking and its demise in the history of Japanese. In
I. Seržant &
A. Witzlack-Makarevich (eds),
Diachrony
of differential argument
marking. 403–425. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Yanagida, Yuko
2019 The
origin of dative subjects and psych predicate constructions in Japanese. Paper given at
the
24th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Australian National
University, Canberra, Australia (to appear in
Journal of
Historical Linguistics
).
Yanagida, Yuko & John Whitman
2009 Alignment
and word order in Old Japanese.
Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 181. 101–144.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Stacy F. Teng
2016 Reassessing
the position of Kanakanavu and Saaroa among the Formosan languages.
Oceanic
Linguistics 55(1). 162–198.
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.