Cover not available
Part of
Paradigm Change: In the Transeurasian languages and beyond
Edited by Martine Robbeets and Walter Bisang
[Studies in Language Companion Series 161] 2014
► pp. 197–232

Chapter 9. The Japanese inflectional paradigm in a Transeurasian perspective

| Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz
Although the genealogical relationship between Japanese and the Transeurasian languages has been a source of contention for nearly two centuries, scholars seem to agree that paradigmatic morphology could substantially help to prove relatedness. Starting from this consensus, this contribution examines whether the correlations in verb inflections between Japanese and these languages can be characterized as “paradigmatic” and whether they are more likely to result from chance or borrowing than from inheritance. For this purpose, this paper advances Transeurasian cognates for the five basic inflected forms of Japanese grammar as well as one derived stem. Taking into account internal cohesion between ordered sets of cognate forms, shared idiosyncrasies and extended relationships of grammatical patterning, the paper concludes that the correlations in verb inflections are indeed paradigmatic and more likely to be inherited than to be coincidental or borrowed.
Published online: 8 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.161.15rob
References
Bakker, Peter
1997 A Language of Our Own: The Genesis of Michif, the Mixed Cree-French Language of the Canadian Métis. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Beekes, Robert
1995 Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Benzing, Johannes
1955 Die tungusischen Sprachen. Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik. Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 11: 949–1099.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
1985 Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William
1994 The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Poser, William
2008 Language Classification. History and Method. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1976 Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2008 Inflectional morphology and language contact, with special reference to mixed languages. In Language Contact and Contact Languages [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualisam 7], Peter Siemund & Noemi Kintana (eds), 15–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 The role of verbal morphology in establishing genealogical relations among languages. In Transeurasian Verbal Morphology in a Comparative Perspective: Genealogy, Contact, Chance [Turcologica 78], Lars Johanson & Martine Robbeets (eds), 21–31. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Dybo, Anna & Starostin, George
2008 In defense of the comparative method, or the end of the Vovin controversy. Aspects of Comparative Linguistics 3: 119–258.Google Scholar
Erdal, Marcel
1991 Old Turkic Word Formation. A Functional Approach to the Lexicon [Turcologica 7]. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2004 A Grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Frellesvig, Bjarke
2010 A History of the Japanese Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Victor
2009 Turkish presents in Romani dialects. In Turcological Letters to Bernt Brendemoen: Festschrift, Éva Csató, Gunvald Ims, Joakim Parslow, Finn Thiesen & Emel Türker (eds), 109–121. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Gorelova, Liliya
2002 Manchu Grammar. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Jang, Taeho, Jang, Kyungsook Lim & Payne, Thomas E.
In preparation). A Grammar of Modern Spoken Xibe.
Janhunen, Juha
2012 Mongolian [London Oriental and African Language Library 19]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, Lars
2000 Viewpoint operators in European languages. In Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe, Östen Dahl (ed), 27–187. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kane, Daniel
2009 The Kitan Language and Script. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Lee, Ki-Mun & Ramsey, Robert
2011 A History of the Korean Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej
2000 Perfect, evidentiality and related categories in Tungusic languages. In Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages, Lars Johanson & Bo Utas (eds), 441–469. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel Elmo
1987 The Japanese Language through Time. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
1992 A Reference Grammar of Korean. Tokyo: Tuttle.Google Scholar
1995 On the prehistory of the Korean grammar: Verb forms. Korean Studies 19: 139–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 Consonant Lenition in Korean and the Macro-Altaic Question. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
2002 Coming and going: deictic verbs in Korean and Japanese. In Pathways into Korean Language and Culture: Essays in Honor of Young-Key Kim-Renaud, Sang-Oak Lee & Gregory K. Iverson (eds), 373–381. Seoul: Pagijong Press.Google Scholar
2006 What do Japanese and Korean have in common? The history of certain grammaticalizations. Korean Linguistics 13: 219–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron
2009 Language Contact. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menges, Karl Heinrich
1968 Die Tungusischen Sprachen [Handbuch der Orientalistik 1. Der Nahe und der Mittlere Osten 5. Altaistik 3. Tungusologie]. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A.
1978 Universals of language contact. In Universals of Human Language, Joseph Greenberg (ed.), 93–122. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Igor
1995 Converbs in Evenki. In Converbs in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms – Adverbial Participles, Gerunds [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 13], Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds), 97–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1996 The comparative method as heuristic. In The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change, Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds), 39–71. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina Alekseevna
1999 A Grammar of Udehe. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Ōno, Susumu
1953 Nihongo no dōshi no katsuyōkei no kigen ni tsuite. Kokugo to Kokubungaku 350: 47–56.Google Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte
2009 Intensive contact and the copying of paradigms: an Even dialect in contact with Sakha (Yakut). Journal of Language Contact 2: 85–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pellard, Thomas
2011 Ryukyuan perspectives on the Proto-Japonic vowel system. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 20: 1–15.Google Scholar
Polivanov, Evgenij Dmitrvič
1924 K rabote o muzykal’noj akcentuacii v japonskom jazyke (v svjazi s malajskim). Bjulleten’ 1-go Sredne-Aziatskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta 4: 101–108.Google Scholar
Poppe, Nicholas
1954 Grammar of Written Mongolian. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
1955 Introduction to Mongolian Comparative Studies [Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 110]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine
2005 Is Japanese related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? [Turcologica 64]. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2007 The causative-passive in the Trans-Eurasian languages. Turkic Languages 11(2): 235–278.Google Scholar
2009 Insubordination in Altaic. Journal of Philology 31. Ural-Altaic Studies 1: 61–79.Google Scholar
2010 Transeurasian: Can verbal morphology end the controversy? In Transeurasian Verbal Morphology in a Comparative Perspective: Genealogy, Contact, Chance [Turcologica 78], Lars Johanson & Martine Robbeets (eds), 81–114. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2012 Shared verb morphology in the Transeurasian languages: copy or cognate? In Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology [Brill’s Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture 3], Lars Johanson & Martine Robbeets (eds), 427–446. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Genealogically motivated grammaticalization. In Shared Grammaticalization with Special Focus on the Transeurasian Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series 132], Martine Robbeets & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 147–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming a. Areality in the Transeurasian languages. In The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics [Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics], Raymond Hickey (ed.) Cambridge CUP
Forthcoming b. The development of finiteness in the Transeurasian languages. Linguistics Special Issue: Clausal Complementation Strategies.
Forthcoming c. Diachrony of Verb Morphology in Japanese and the Transeurasian Languages [Typological Studies in Language]. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter.
Sakakura, Atsuyoshi
1966 Gokōsei no Kenkyū. Tokyo: Kadokawa shoten.
Google Scholar
Sárközi, Alice
2004 Classical Mongolian. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Sekerina, Irina A.
1994 Copper Island (Mednyj) Aleut (CIA): A mixed language. Languages of the World 8: 14–31.Google Scholar
Starostin, Sergej, Dybo, Anna & Mudrak, Oleg
2003 Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Takeuchi, Lone
1999 The Structure and History of Japanese. New York NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey
1997 Mednyi Aleut. In Contact Languages. A Wider Perspective [Creole Language Library 17], Sarah Grey Thomason (ed), 449–468. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Language Contact: An Introduction. Washington DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Kaufman, Terrence
1988 Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Thorpe, Maner Lawton
1983 Ryukyuan Language History. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Unger, Jim Marshall
2000 Reconciling comparative and internal reconstruction: The case of Old Japanese /ti, ri, ni/. Language 76: 655–681. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vovin, Alexander
2003 A Reference Grammar of Classical Japanese Prose. London: Routledge Curzon.Google Scholar
2005 The end of the Altaic controversy. Central Asiatic Journal 49: 71–132.Google Scholar
2008 Proto-Japanese beyond the accent system. In Proto-Japanese. Issues and Prospects [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 294], Bjarke Frellesvig & John Whitman (eds), 141–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 A Descriptive and Comparative Grammar of Western Old Japanese, Part 2: Adjectives, Verbs, Adverbs, Conjunctions, Particles, Postpositions [Languages of Asia 8]. Folkestone: Global Oriental.Google Scholar
Weiers, Michael
1966 Untersuchungen zu einer historischen Grammatik des präklassischen Schriftmongolisch. PhD dissertation, Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn.Google Scholar
Weinrich, Uriel
1953 Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. New York NY: Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar
Whitman, John Bradford
1985 The Phonological Basis for the Comparison of Japanese and Korean. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Wilkins, David P.
1996 Morphology. In Contact Linguistics. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Zdeněk Starý & Wolfgang Wölck (eds), 109–117. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wrona, Janick
2008 The nominal and adnominal forms in Old Japanese: Consequences for a reconstruction of pre-Old Japanese syntax. In Proto-Japanese. Issues and Prospects [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 294], Bjarke Frellesvig & John Whitman (eds), 193–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yanagida, Yuko & Whitman, John
2009 Alignment and word order in Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18: 101–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ylikoski, Jussi
2003 Defining non-finites: Action nominals, converbs and infinitives. SKY Journal of linguistics 16: 185–237.Google Scholar