Cover not available
Part of
Topics in Theoretical Asian Linguistics: Studies in honor of John B. Whitman
Edited by Kunio Nishiyama, Hideki Kishimoto and Edith Aldridge
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 250] 2018
► pp. 181–205

Chapter 9
Differential argument marking and object movement in Old Japanese

A typological perspective

| University of Tsukuba
This paper discusses object movement and its diachronic source in what Yanagida and Whitman (2009) (Y&W) label nominalized clauses in Old Japanese (OJ; 8 century). When the subject is marked by genitive ga, the ancestor of Modern Japanese nominative, the object necessarily moves over the subject, resulting in OSV. Y&W argue that OJ ga is licensed by agentive v and that OSV word order is a property of active alignment. From both theoretical and typological perspectives, this paper argues that case marking and word order variations in OJ are best analyzed as instances of the typologically well attested phenomenon of Differential Argument Marking (DAM). It is shown that object movement is a widely attested subtype of DAM. This paper proposes that the so-called Subject-in-Situ Generalization (SSG) (Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 2001) provides a unified analysis of object movement across languages.
Keywords: alignment, word order, genitive, active, nominalization, nominal hierarchy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Object movement
    • 3.1Differential Object Marking
    • 3.2Word order
    • 3.3Topicalization
    • 3.4Object movement in nominal based split languages
    • 3.5Parametrization
  • 4.A historical origin for OSV word order
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.250.10yan
References (63)
References
Aissen, J. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21: 435–448.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Akiba, K. 1978. A Historical Study of Old Japanese Syntax. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Aldridge, E. 2004. Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
2008. Generative approaches to ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass: Syntax and Morphology 2(5): 966–995.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Intransitivity and the development of ergative alignment. In The Oxford handbook of ergativity, J. Coon, D. Massam & L. Travis (eds.), 501–529. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E. 2001. The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 193–231.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anand, P. & Nevins, A. 2006. The locus of ergative case assignment: Evidence from scope. In Ergativity: Emerging Issues, A. Johns, D. Massam & J. Ndayiragije (eds.), 3–25. Dordrecht: Springer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2014. On dependent ergative case (in Shipibo) and its derivation by phase. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 341–379.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bittner, M. & Hale K. 1996. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 1–68.Google Scholar
Bricker, V. 1981. The source of the ergative split in Yukatek Maya. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2(2): 83–127.Google Scholar
Chomky, N. 1981. Lectures in Government and Binding [Studies in Generative Grammar 9]. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomksy, N. 2001. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds.), 89–156. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
de Hoop H. & de Swart P. 2009. Differential Subject Marking. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. & Haspelmath, M. (eds.), 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (28 September 2016).Google Scholar
Enç, M. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22:1–25.Google Scholar
Franchetto, B. 1990. Ergativity and nominality in Kuikúro and other Carib languages. In Amazonian Linguistics: Studies in Lowland South American Languages, D. L. Payne (ed.), 407–428. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Frellesvig, B., Horn, S., & Yanagida, Y. 2015. Differential object marking: A corpus based study. In Historical Linguistics 2013: Selected Papers from the 21st International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Oslo, 5–9 August 2013 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 334], T. T. D. Haug (ed.), 195–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, S. 1998. On Reconstructing Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2000. On the genesis of the verb phrase in Cariban languages. In Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Linguistics and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 43], S. Gildea (ed.), 65–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haig, G. 2008. Alignment Change in Iranian languages: A Construction Grammar Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harada, S. 1971. Ga-no conversion and idiolectal variations in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu 60: 25–38.Google Scholar
1976. Ga-no conversion revisited: A reply to Shibatani. Gengo Kenkyu 70: 23–38.Google Scholar
Harris, A. & Campbell, L. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johns, A. 1992. Deriving ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry 23(1): 57–87.Google Scholar
Kageyama, T. 1980. Goi no kozo (The structure of lexicon). Tokyo: Shohakusha.Google Scholar
Kaufman, D. 2007. Austronesian typology and the nominalist hypothesis. The nominalist hypothesis in Austronesian. Paper given at ZAS Berlin, August 14, 2007Google Scholar
2009. Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35(1): 1–49.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinsui, S. 1993. Kotengo no wo ni tsuite (On the particle wo in premodern Japanese). In Nihongo no kaku o megutte (Perspectives on case in Japanese), Y. Nitta (ed.), 191–224. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
2011. Togoron (Syntax) In Bunposhi (The history of grammar), S. Kinsui, Y. Takayama, T. Kinuhata & T. Okazaki (eds.), 77–166. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 2003. Subject case in Turkish nominalized clauses. In Syntactic Structures and Morphological Information, U. Junghanns & L. Szusich (eds.), 130–214. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. DOM and two types of DSM in Turkish. In Differential Subject Marking, H. de Hoop & P. de Swart (eds.), 79–111. Dordrecht: Springer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, C. 2008. Case in Africa. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Legate, J. 2002. Warlpiri: Theoretical Implications. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 55–101.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manning, C. 1996. Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations. Stanford:CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Marantz A. 1991. Case and licensing. Paper presented at the 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. University of Maryland, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. 1989. Structure and Case Marking in Japanese [Syntax and Semantics 22]. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2011. Genitive subjects in Altaic and specification of phase. Lingua 121: 1265–1282.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Case, Argument Structure and Word Order, New York NY: Routledge.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Motohashi, T. 1989. Case Theory and the History of the Japanese Language. PhD dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Nomura, T. 1993. Jôdaigo no no to ga ni tsuite (On the particles no and ga in Old Japanese). Kokugo Kokubun 62: 1–17.Google Scholar
Ohno, S. (1964). Kakarimusubi no kigen ha donna koto ka [What is the origin of Kakari-Musubi]. Kokubungaku: Kaishaku to Kansho 29–11, 96–102.Google Scholar
1993. Kakari-Musubi no kenkyu (A study of Kakari-Musubi). Tokyo: Iwanami.Google Scholar
Pustet, R. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rezac, M., Albizu P., & Etxepare, R. 2014. The structural ergative of Basque and the theory of Case. Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 32: 1273–1330.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, L. Haegeman (ed.), 281-337. Dordrecht:Kluwer.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical categories in Australian Languages, R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aborignal Studies.Google Scholar
Starosta, S., Pawley, A. & Reid, L. 1982. The evolution of focus in Austronesian. In Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Vol. 2: Tracking the Travelers [Pacific Linguistics C-75], A. Halim, L. Carrington & S. Wurm (eds.), 145–170. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Tokieda, M. 1954. Nihon bunpo bungo hen (Old Japanese grammar). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
Watanabe, A. 1996. Nominative-genitive conversion and agreement in Japanese: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5: 373–410.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. Loss of overt wh-movement in Old Japanese. In Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, D. Lightfoot (ed.), 179–195. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitman, J. 2008. The classification of constituent order generalizations and diachronic explanation. In Language Universals and Language Change, J. Good (ed.), 233–252. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Woolford, E. 1997. Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective, and accusative. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 181–227.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Differential subject marking at argument structure, syntax and PF. In Differential Subject Marking, H. de Hoop & P. de Swart (eds.), 17–40. Dordrecht: Springer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yanagida, Y. 2006. Word order and clause structure in early Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 37–68.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Jôdaigo no nôkakusei ni tsuite (On ergativity in Old Japanese). In N. Hasegawa (ed.), Nihongo no shubun genshô (Main clause phenomena in Japanese), 147–188. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.Google Scholar
Yanagida, Y. 2012. The syntactic reconstruction of alignment and word order: The case of Old Japanese. In Historical Linguistics 2009, A. van Kemenade & N. de Haas (eds.), 107-127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yanagida, Y. 2018 Differential subject marking and its demise in the history of Japanese. In Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, I. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), 403–425. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Yanagida, Y. & Whitman J. 2009. Alignment and word order in Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18: 101–144.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Aldridge, Edith & Yuko Yanagida
2021. Two types of alignment change in nominalizations. Diachronica 38:3 ► pp. 314 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.