Chapter 9
Differential argument marking and object movement in Old Japanese
A typological perspective
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.
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
References (63)
Aissen, J.
2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21: 435–448.
Akiba, K.
1978 A Historical Study of Old Japanese Syntax. PhD dissertation, UCLA.
Aldridge, E.
2004 Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.
Aldridge, E.
2008 Generative approaches to ergativity.
Language and Linguistics Compass: Syntax and Morphology 2(5): 966–995.
Aldridge, E.
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.
Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E.
2001 The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations.
Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 193–231.
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.
Baker, M. C.
1988 Incorporation. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Baker, M. C.
2014 On dependent ergative case (in Shipibo) and its derivation by phase.
Linguistic Inquiry 45: 341–379.
Bittner, M. & Hale K.
1996 The structural determination of case and agreement.
Linguistic Inquiry 27: 1–68.
Bricker, V.
1981 The source of the ergative split in Yukatek Maya.
Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2(2): 83–127.
Chomky, N.
1981 Lectures in Government and Binding [
Studies in Generative Grammar 9]. Dordrecht: Foris.
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.
de Hoop H. & de Swart P.
2009 Differential Subject Marking. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
Dixon, R.M.W.
1972 The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Dixon, R. M. W.
1979 Ergativity.
Language 55: 59–138.
Dixon, R. M. W.
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP.
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).
Enç, M.
1991 The semantics of specificity.
Linguistic Inquiry 22:1–25.
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.
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.
Gildea, S.
1998 On Reconstructing Grammar. Oxford: OUP.
Haig, G.
2008 Alignment Change in Iranian languages: A Construction Grammar Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer.
Harada, S.
1971
Ga-no conversion and idiolectal variations in Japanese.
Gengo Kenkyu 60: 25–38.
Harada, S.
1976
Ga-no conversion revisited: A reply to Shibatani.
Gengo Kenkyu 70: 23–38.
Harris, A. & Campbell, L.
1995 Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP.
Johns, A.
1992 Deriving ergativity.
Linguistic Inquiry 23(1): 57–87.
Kageyama, T.
1980 Goi no kozo (
The structure of lexicon). Tokyo: Shohakusha.
Kaufman, D.
2007 Austronesian typology and the nominalist hypothesis. The nominalist hypothesis in Austronesian. Paper given at ZAS Berlin, August 14, 2007
Kaufman, D.
2009 Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study.
Theoretical Linguistics 35(1): 1–49.
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.
Kinsui, S.
2011 Togoron (Syntax) In
Bunposhi (
The history of grammar),
S. Kinsui,
Y. Takayama,
T. Kinuhata &
T. Okazaki (eds.), 77–166. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
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.
Kornfilt, J.
2009 DOM and two types of DSM in Turkish. In
Differential Subject Marking,
H. de Hoop &
P. de Swart (eds.), 79–111. Dordrecht: Springer.
König, C.
2008 Case in Africa. Oxford: OUP.
Legate, J.
2002 Warlpiri: Theoretical Implications. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Legate, J.
2008 Morphological and abstract case.
Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 55–101.
Manning, C.
1996 Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations. Stanford:CSLI Publications.
Marantz A
1991 Case and licensing.
Paper presented at the 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. University of Maryland, Baltimore.
Miyagawa, S.
1989 Structure and Case Marking in Japanese [
Syntax and Semantics 22]. New York NY: Academic Press.
Miyagawa, S.
2011 Genitive subjects in Altaic and specification of phase.
Lingua 121: 1265–1282.
Miyagawa, S.
2012 Case, Argument Structure and Word Order, New York NY: Routledge.
Motohashi, T.
1989 Case Theory and the History of the Japanese Language. PhD dissertation, University of Arizona.
Nomura, T.
1993 Jôdaigo no no to ga ni tsuite (On the particles
no and
ga in Old Japanese).
Kokugo Kokubun 62: 1–17.
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.
Ohno, S.
1993 Kakari-Musubi no kenkyu (
A study of Kakari-Musubi). Tokyo: Iwanami.
Pustet, R.
2003 Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford: OUP.
Rezac, M., Albizu P., & Etxepare, R.
2014 The structural ergative of Basque and the theory of Case.
Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 32: 1273–1330.
Rizzi, L.
1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar,
L. Haegeman (ed.), 281-337. Dordrecht:Kluwer.
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.
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.
Tokieda, M.
1954 Nihon bunpo bungo hen (
Old Japanese grammar). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Watanabe, A.
1996 Nominative-genitive conversion and agreement in Japanese: A cross-linguistic perspective.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5: 373–410.
Watanabe, A.
2002 Loss of overt wh-movement in Old Japanese. In
Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change,
D. Lightfoot (ed.), 179–195. Oxford: OUP.
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.
Woolford, E.
1997 Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective, and accusative.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 181–227.
Woolford, E.
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.
Yanagida, Y.
2006 Word order and clause structure in early Old Japanese.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 37–68.
Yanagida, Y.
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.
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.
Yanagida, Y. & Whitman J.
2009 Alignment and word order in Old Japanese.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18: 101–144.
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
Aldridge, Edith & Yuko Yanagida
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 june 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.