Article published in:
Diachronic Dimensions of Alignment Typology
Edited by Eystein Dahl
[Diachronica 38:3] 2021
► pp. 314–357

Two types of alignment change in nominalizations

Austronesian and Japanese

| Academia Sinica
| University of Tsukuba
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.
Keywords: active-inactive, cleft, nominative case, psych predicate, split-ergativity, syntactic reconstruction, unaccusative
Published online: 23 July 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19044.ald
Digitalized texts

Digitalized texts

The Corpus of Historical Japanese (CHJ), the National Institute of Japanese Language and Linguistics
https://​maro​.ninjal​.ac​.jp/

References

Aldridge, Edith
2004 Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University dissertation.
2008 Generative approaches to ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass: Syntax and Morphology 2(5). 966–995. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua 122. 192–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 A Minimalist approach to the emergence of ergativity in Austronesian languages. Linguistics Vanguard 1(1). 313–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 Ergativity from subjunctive in Austronesian languages. Language and Linguistics 17(1). 27–62.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark
1988 Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emil
1952 La construction passive du parfait transitif. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 48(1)[=1974 192–202].Google Scholar
Bubenik, Vit
1989 On the origins and elimination of ergativity in Indo-Aryan Languages. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 34(4). 377–398. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardona, George
1970 The Indo-Iranian construction Mana (Mama) Kriam. Language 46. 1–12. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Chen, Cheng-Fu
1999 Wh-words as interrogatives and indefinites in Rukai. MA thesis, National Taiwan University.Google Scholar
2008 Aspect and tense in Rukai: Interpretation and interaction. University of Texas, Austin, dissertation.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1981 Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dahl, Eystein
2016 The origin and development of the Old Indo-Aryan predicated -tá construction. In Eystein Dahl & Krzysztof Stroński (eds.) Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective, 63–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga & van der Leek, Frederike
1983 The demise of the Old English impersonal construction. Journal of Linguistics 19, 337–368. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frellesvig, Bjarke
2010 A history of the Japanese language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frellesvig, Bjarke, Stephen, Horn & Yuko Yanagida
2015 Differential object marking: A corpus based study. In D. Haug, et al. (eds.), Historical linguistics: Current issues in linguistic theory, 195–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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].
1998 Studies in South Asian linguistics: Sinhala and other South Asian languages. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly
2014 Changes in psych-verbs: A reanalysis of little v . Catalan Journal of Linguistics 13. 99–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike
1998 On reconstructing grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hagstrom, Paul
1998 Decomposing questions. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey
2008 Alignment change in Iranian languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Alignment. In Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds.), Continuum companion to historical linguistics, 250–268. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R.
1941 Tunica. In Franz Boas (ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages, 9–143. New York: Augustin.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice & Lyle Campbell
1995 Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson
1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth Traugott
1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johns, Alana
1992 Deriving ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 57–88.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel
2009 Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35(1). 1–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward & Bernard Comrie
1977 Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1). 63–99.Google Scholar
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 89, 89–123.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki
1992 LF pied piping: Evidence from Sinhala. Gengo Kenkyu 102. 46–87.Google Scholar
2005  Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23. 1–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1977 Syntactic reanalysis. In Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 57–139. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie
2003 Warlpiri: Theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA.: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Li, Paul Jen-kuei
1973 Rukai structure. Taipei: Academia Sinica Institute of History and Philology.Google Scholar
Liao, Hsiu-chuan
2002 The Interpretation of tu and Kavalan ergativity. Oceanic Linguistics 41(1). 140–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop
1990 The A/A’ distinction and movement theory. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Anna Siewierska
2011 Impersonal constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
1994 The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system. In Barbara Fox & Paul Hopper (eds.), Voice: Form and function, 247–277. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ohno, Susumu
1977 Shukaku joshi ga no seiritsu [The development of the nominative case particle ga ], Bungaku 45:102–117.Google Scholar
1978 Bunpoo to goi. [Grammar and lexicon]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
Payne, John R.
1980 The decay of ergativity in Pamir Languages. Lingua 51. 147–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Thomas
1982 Role and reference related subject properties and ergativity in Yup’ik Eskimo and Tagalog. Studies in Language 6(1). 75–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David
1995 Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Rosen, Carol
1996 LING 401: Typology. Course notes, Cornell University.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
2012 In defense of Nuclear Austronesian (and against Tsouic). Language and Linguistics 13(6). 1253–1300.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
1988 Voice in Philippine languages. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice, 85–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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
2018 History of focus-concord constructions and focus-associated particles in Sinhala, with comparison to Dravidian and Japanese. Glossa 3. 1–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. 2, 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]).Google Scholar
Tan, Cindy Ro-lan
1997 A study of Puyuma simple sentences. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University MA Thesis.Google Scholar
Teng, Stacy Fang-ching
2008 A reference grammar of Puyuma. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Teng, Stacy F. & Elizabeth Zeitoun
2016 The noun-verb distinction in Kanakanavu and Saaroa: Evidence. Oceanic Linguistics 55(1). 134–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsuboi, Yoshiki
2001 Nihongo katuyo taikei no hensen [Historical change in the Japanese conjugation system]. Tokyo: Kasama ShoinGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
2008 The source of the bigrade conjugation and stem shape in pre-Old Japanese. In Bjarke Frellesvig & John Whitman (eds.), Proto-Japanese, 159–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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
2010 Kakujoshi ga no Tsujiteki Kenkyu [A diachronic study of the case particle ga ]. Hituzi:Tokyo.Google Scholar
Yanagida, Seiji
1985 Muromachi jidai o kokugo [The language of Muromachi period] Tokyo: Tokyo Do.Google Scholar
Yanagida, Yuko
2006 Word order and clause structure in Early Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15. 37–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Miyagawa’s (1989) exceptions: An ergative analysis. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 55. 265–276.Google Scholar
2012 The syntactic reconstruction of alignment and word order: The case of Old Japanese. In Ans van Kemenade & Nynke de Haas (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2009, 107–128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.
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.Google Scholar
2018b Differential argument marking and object movement: A typological perspective: In Kunio Nishiyama, Hideki Kishimoto & Edith Aldridge (eds.), Topics in Theoretical Asian Linguistics, 181–205. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 18. 101–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Stacy F. Teng
2016 Reassessing the position of Kanakanavu and Saaroa among the Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 55(1). 162–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar