Chapter published in:
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: nominalization, nominal hierarchy, alignment, word order, active, genitive
Published online: 12 December 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.250.10yan
References

References

Aissen, J.
2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21: 435–448.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W.
1972 The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
1979 Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. & Haspelmath, M.
(eds.) 2013 The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://​wals​.info (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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haig, G.
2008 Alignment Change in Iranian languages: A Construction Grammar Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Case, Argument Structure and Word Order, New York NY: Routledge.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 Loss of overt wh-movement in Old Japanese. In Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, D. Lightfoot (ed.), 179–195. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yanagida, Y.
2006 Word order and clause structure in early Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 37–68.CrossrefGoogle 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 CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar