Alignment and Word Order in Old Japanese
Author(s): Yuko Yanagida and John Whitman
Source: Journal of East Asian Linguistics, Vol. 18, No. 2 (May, 2009), pp. 101-144
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40345246
Accessed: 13-09-2015 04:35 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of East Asian Linguistics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JEast AsianLinguist(2009) 18:101-144
DOI 10.1007/sl0831-009-9043-2
Alignmentand word orderin Old Japanese
Yuko Yanagida • JohnWhitman
online:16 June2009
Received:2 November2008 /Accepted27 March2009/Published
Science+BusinessMedia B.V. 2009
© Springer
Abstract This paperarguesthatOld Japanese(eighthcentury)had splitalignin
inmainclausesandactivealignment
ment,withnominative-accusative
alignment
for active alignmentin nominalized
nominalizedclauses. The main arguments
of activesubjectsand thedistribution
of twoverbal
clausecomefromga-marking
and
sainactive
for
active
/-for
predicates(cf. Yanagida,In:
predicates
prefixes:
in Japanese],
shubun
clause
no
gensho[Main
phenomena
Hasegawa(ed.) Nihongo
and
of
non-accusative
the
treatment
review
We
2007b).
alignment arguethatactive
We
as
as
a
distinct
should
be
type. proposea formalanalysisof
analyzed
alignment
is
clausesin Old Japanese.The externalargument
in nominalized
activealignment
are
as
in
in
v.
out
situ
inherent
case, spelled
Spec, Objectarguments
ga,
assigned
licensedby severaldistinctmechanisms,
(Yanagida,In:
includingincorporation
in
and
case
MIT
2007a)
assignment
by
Papers Linguistics,
Working
Miyamoto(ed.)
O wo S ga V
head above vP. The latteraccountsforthedistinctive
a functional
word orderof OJ nominalizedclauses noted by Yanagida (J. of East Asian
of [nominal]v, as
2006). Inabilityto assignobjectcase is a property
Linguistics,
in
and
case
marking Japanese.Syntaxand
proposedby Miyagawa (Structure
We
discuss
the
diachronic
Semantics,vol. 22, 1989).
originsof the OJ active
attested
that
it
a
out
and
exemplifies cross-linguistically
point
system
alignment
nominalizations.
in
that
from
clauses
of non-accusative
originate
alignment
pattern
of S.-Y. Kuroda.
This paperis dedicatedto thememory
Y. Yanagida(13)
of Tsukuba,Tsukuba305-8571,Japan
of ModernLanguagesand Cultures,
Institute
University
e-mail:[email protected]
J.Whitman
203 MorrillHall,
CornellUniversity,
of Linguistics,
Department
Ithaca,NY 14853-4701,USA
e-mail:[email protected]
^
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Springer
102
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
• Case •
Keywords Activealignment• Ergativealignment• Splitintransitivity
•
•
•
NominalizationVerbalprefixes Cliticpronouns Nominalhierarchy
1 Introduction
of thetwomajorclause typesin Old
This paperdiscussesthesyntactic
alignment
whatwe label 'nominalized'clauses,
8th
conclusive
and
(1)
Japanese(OJ, century):
in
the
adnominal
examples (2).
by
represented
(1)
Conclusive:
tamamokaru miy-u.
Mi-watas-efcflamawotomyc-domo
seaweed gatherappear-Conc
(MY 17/3890)1
to
be
thescene,thefishermaidens
'When(I) surveyed
gathering
appeared
seaweed.'
look-cross-whenfishermaiden-Pi
(2)
Nominalized(adnominal):
a. feSfcfct^tfcttM
Saywopimyeno
kwo ga
t^iJ*^lJ9rSJ#
pire puri-si
(MY5/868)
yama
Gen child Agt scarf wave-Pst.Adnmountain
Sayohime
'themountain
whereSayohimewavedhercloth'
b. *n«^*fi
fjS#&{&HBft
Wagimokwoga
my.wife
so
£ft&i#&£
(MY 20/4357)
swode mo sipoponi naki-si
Agt sleeves even drenched cry-Pst.Adn
fojmopayu.
Foe
long.for
'I longformywife,who criedso thatevenhersleevesweresopping.'
c. ^*4g
TftMJGIfc
pisakwi0 opu-rw kiywoki kapara ni
riverbankon
catalpa
grow-Adnclear
'on thebanksof theclearriverwherecatalpasgrow'
(MY 6 /925)
We arguethatwhileconclusiveclausesdisplaynominative-accusative
alignment,
also knownas activenominalized
clauseshaveactivealignment.
Inactivelanguages,
verb
stative(Klimov1974,1977;Mithun1991),thesole argument
ofan intransitive
showstwodistinct
intransitive
patterns:
subjectspattern
generally
speaking,
agentive
1 This
andglossingconventions
forOld Japanesein Frellesvig
paperfollowsin generalthetranscription
Ourdata
andWhitman
(2008); howeverwe glossinflectional
endingsonlywhencrucialfortheargument.
is takenfromthe Man'yoshu (My; compiledmid-eighth
on Yoshimura's
based primarily
century),
electronic
textas well as theeditionsby Nakanishi(1978-1983),Kojimaet al. (1995) and Satakeet al.
is attestedin phonocrucialforthe argument
(2002). Examplesare citedonlywhenthe morpheme
in simpletext.
form(transcribed
in italics);material
is transcribed
attested
grammatic
logogrammatically
^
Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in old Japanese
alignment
Syntactic
103
ones pattern
withtransitive
withtransitive
subjects;non-agentive
objects.We see
in(2). In (2a-b) theexternal
thatis,theagentofthetransitive
sucha pattern
argument,
(2b) verbs,is marked
(2a) andunergative
bytheparticle
ga. In(2c), thepatient
subject
verbin(2a): bothare
verbbehavesliketheobjectofthetransitive
oftheunaccusative
bareandoccurimmediately
adjacentto theverb.
morphologically
in therealis(izenkei)
Othernominalizedclause typesincludeclauses inflected
(3b), and nominalclausesin -(a)ku (3c).
(3a), irrealis(mizenkei)conditionals
(3)
a. Realis (izenkei)conditional
ura sipo mid
ku.
Wa ga wor-e-ba
I
Agt be-Rls-when bay tide be.full comes
'WhenI was presentthetidewas highin thebay.'
b. Irrealis{mizenkei)conditional
(MY 15/3707)
masakikute imo ga
ipap-a-ba
wife Agt bless-Irs-if
safely
'if youbless me godspeed'
c. Y-aku Nominal form2
(MY 15/3583)
ni tug-uraku
wotome-ra ga ime
maiden-Pi Agt dream in recount-Noml
in mydream'
'whatthemaidensrecounted
(MY 16/4011)
of
clausetypesin (3) sharetheactivealignment
Each ofthenominalized
properties
withmarking
of theexternalargument
adnominalclausesin (2), beginning
by ga.
in
As described
clausesdisplayanother
nominalized
Transitive
property.
important
detailby Yanagida(2006), whenthedirectobjectis markedwithaccusativewo, it
in nominalized
external
clauses,as shownin (4):
argument
precedesthega-marked
(4) #ts^
mm&$t
Rnmufc
tama
nuku
wotomye-ra ga
pana tatibana wo
thread-Adn
maiden-s
Agt bead
orange blossom Obj
made ni
(MY 19/4166)
until Loc
'untilthemaidensthreadtheorangeblossomson theirbeads'
We develop an analysis of OJ nominalizedclauses that accountsfor the
in (2) andthe[O wo S ga V] object
oftheactivealignment
co-occurrence
properties
inherent
clauses
Nominalized
in
4.
case, spelledoutas ga, to
assign
marking
pattern
in itsbase positionin Spec, vP. Followinga proposaldue to
theexternalargument
Miyagawa(1989), nominalizedverbalprojectionsfail to assignaccusativecase.
2 The term"nominal"fornominalized
clausesin -aku followsWrona(2008). Wronashowsthat-aku
clausesin EMJtexts.
clauserolestakenon byadnominal
nominalclausesfulfill
manyofthesubordinate
derivedfromtheadnominal,
see Sect. 6.
viewthatthenominalendingis historically
For thestandard
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
104
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
Two case licensingstrategies
are availablefordirectobjects:theymaybe assigned
abovevP,as in (4);
ofa functional
case,spelledoutas wo,inthespecifier
projection
if
into the verb
or, theyare non-branching,
theymay undergoincorporation
for
also
available
is
patientsubjects,
(Yanagida2005,2007a,b).The secondstrategy
in a limitedcontext,firstpointedout by Vovin(1997) and deas is wo-marking
scribedin Sect. 5.
Thepaperis organizedas follows.Section2 reviewspreviousanalyses.Section3
of active alignment,
outlinesthe typologicalproperties
emphasizingthatit has
Section4 showsthat
fromthebetterknownergativepattern.
differences
important
in two specificdonominalizedclauses in OJ shareactivealignment
properties
of the
and prefixalcross-referencing
mains:case markingof subjectarguments
on the verb.This sectionpresentsa formalanalysisof active
subjectargument
in OJ. Section5 focuseson objectmarkingin nominalizedclauses.In
alignment
in a broader
Sect. 6 we discussthediachronicsourcesof theOJalignment
pattern
typologicalcontext.Section7 concludesthepaper.
2 Previousanalyses
2.1 Miyagawa(1989) and Miyagawaand Ekida (2003)
Miyagawa(1989) proposesthatin OJandEarlyMiddleJapanese(EMJhenceforth),
The
adnominaland conclusiveclauses have distinctcase assigningmechanisms.
case to theobjectin
conclusiveformoftheverbis trulyverbalandassignsabstract
andhas
underlying
objectpositionwhiletheadnominalformhas nominalproperties
no case assigningability.In adnominalclauses,theobjectis assignedovertstructuralcase in the formof wo in orderto avoid a violationof the Case Filter.
is statedin (3).
Miyagawa's (1989) generalization
(5)
Miyagawa's generalization(1989, p. 206)
case while
AccusativeCase Assignment:
The conclusiveformassignsabstract
thecase assigningfeature
oftheattributive
(=adnominal)formmustbe manifestedovertly
as wo.
Giventhatovertobjectcase marking
is normally
requiredin modernJapanese,
Miyagawa(1989) and Miyagawaand Ekida (2003) proposethatJapaneseunderwenta changefroman abstract
to a morphological
case marking
languageandthat
the drivingforceforthischangeis the increaseduse of the adnominalin main
restricted
clauses.In OJ,nominalized
formsincludingtheadnominalare generally
to embeddedenvironments
and
thecase forirrealisconditionals
(thisis exclusively
the -aku nominalizedform);the matrixuse of the attributive
is predominantly
limitedto thekakarimusubifocusconstruction
(see Whitman1997 andreferences
citedthere).The kakarimusubiconstruction,
however,began to breakdown in
EMJ(cf.Hendriks1998),withtheresultthatadnominalinflection
cameto be used
in mainclauses withouta kakari focusparticleand eventually
replacedtheconclusivein mainclauses.Miyagawa(1989) and Miyagawaand Ekida (2003), based
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in old Japanese
Syntactic
alignment
105
on an extensivesurveyofEMJliterary
ofadnominal
texts,arguethatthereanalysis
formled to theincreaseduse ofobjectmarking
as a mainclausepredicate
withwo.
2.2 Kuroda(2007)
difference
betweenmodernandearlier
Kuroda(2007) proposesthatthediachronic
Parameter
(cf.Kuroda1988):agreement
Japaneseis accountedforbyan Agreement
is forcedin earlierJapanesebutnotin themodernlanguage.In a forced-agreement
is triggered
and optionality
features,
by agreement-inducing
language,movement
does notcomeintoplay.KurodaproposesthatearlierJapanesewas a forced-agreeis obligatory,
andbothsubjectand
movement
mentlanguage;heclaimsthatw/z/focus
In modernJapanese,in contrast,
case marking.
whabstract
objecttakeobligatory
case marking
is
phrasesdo notmove,relativeclauseheadsneednotraise,andabstract
ofOJarecompatible
with
characteristics
optional.We willshowthatthealignment
are forcedin OJnominalized
theviewthatcertain,butnotall, typesof movement
markedby wo obligatorily
move out of VP.
clauses. In particular,
complements
inOJ,is associated
withw/z-movement
movement,
However,thisobligatory
together
in OJsyntax,
clauses.The
withthedomainofactivealignment
namelynominalized
and othertypesof optionality
are allowedin
wordorderflexibility
characteristic
conclusiveclauses,thedomainofaccusativealignment.
2.3 Previousnon-accusative
analysesof Old Japanese
2.3.1 Vovin(1997)
Vovin(1997) suggeststhatthesuffix
-i, analyzedas a subjectcase marker
by traand
infactactivecase,marking
ditionalgrammarians,
subjectsoftransitive
represents
intransitive
verbs.3Vovin
verbsbutnotsubjectsof non-active
of activeintransitive
wo marksabsolutivecase,inthatwo appearsnot
further
arguesthatthecase marker
verbsbutalso withthesubjectofstativepredicates,
onlywiththeobjectoftransitive
with-mi, calledby Vovin"qualitystativeverbs."
in particular
predicatessuffixed
of -/and wo, VovinconcludesthatOJis a languagewith
Based on thedistribution
inmany
ouranalysisofOJactivealignment
activealignment.
paperdiffers
Although
ofthehypothesis
ofplaceas theoriginator
fromhis,Vovindeservesprimacy
respects
is in important
thatOJsyntactic
respectsnon-accusative.
alignment
2.3.2 Yanagida(2005, 2007a,b)
byMiyagawa
changedescribed
Yanagida(2005,2007a,b)proposesthatthehistorical
wellthecross-linguistically
(1989) and Miyagawaand Ekida (2003) instantiates
documented
changefromsplitergativeto accusative.Yanagida's basicclaimis that
thesplitoccurs
Old Japaneseis an ergative-active
languagewitha splitcase system;
betweenmainandembeddedclauses,a typeidentified
byDixon(1994,pp. 101-104).
3 Vovin
thatOJ-i maybe a loanfromKorean.We
(2005,pp. 111-116) revisesthisanalysis,suggesting
to thispointin ourdiscussionof EMJin Sect. 6.3.
return
£l Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
106
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
Main predicatesin the conclusive(shiishikei)formshow accusativealignment.
conPredicatesin thenon-conclusive
forms,i.e., irrealis(mizenkei)conditionals,
tinuative(renyokei),adnominal(rentaikei),and realis (izenkei), show ergativeformwas a vestigial
activealignment.
Yanagida(2007a) proposesthattheadnominal
thedemotedobjectoftheantipassive
andwo wasanobliquecase marking
antipassive
was lostin Old Japbutwas reanalyzedas an accusativecase whentheantipassive
counteranese.4A mainobjectiveofYanagida(2007a) is toexplaincertainapparent
(5). Yanagida(2007b) showsthatin
examplesto Miyagawa's(1989) generalization
clauseswhosesubjectis markedby
theMan'yoshu,thereare90 tokensoftransitive
tokensoccurwith
unmarked.
no orga butwhoseobjectis morphologically
Fifty-five
adnominalpredicates,
as in (2a), repeatedas (6) below.
(6) mkimnnm
vammm
&m
kwo ga pire puri-si
yama
Saywopimye no
Gen child Act scarf wave-PAdn hill
Sayohime
'thenameof thehillwhereSayohimewavedherscarf'
(MY 5/868)
to Miyagawa'sgeneralization.
counter-examples
Exampleslikethisareapparent
However,Yanagidashowsthatwhilebareobjectsdo occurwithadnominalpredthebareobjectsare almost
to thecounter-examples:
icates,thereis a clearpattern
N°s. Based on thesedistributional
without
facts,Yanagida
exceptionnon-branching
on the
proposesthatbareobjectsin nominalizedclauseslike (6) are incorporated,
model of languageslike Chukchee(Spencer 1999). Chukcheehas two typesof
markedantipassiveand the
constructions:
a morphologically
derivedintransitive
in
strategy.
objectincorporation
YanagidaarguesthatOJused objectincorporation
nouns
a similarway.Followingthebasic approachof Baker(1988), non-branching
intotheverb,and
immediately
adjacentto an adnominalpredicateare incorporated
satisfiesthe case requirements
of the incorporee.This preserves
incorporation
is notassigned
thattheobjectoftheadnominal
Miyagawa'sgeneralization
predicate
is a
abstractcase in its base position.5Note importantly
thatobjectincorporation
salientfeatureof languageswithactivealignment
as observedby Klimov(1977,
pp. 125-126); cf. also Sapir(1911).
Inthispaper,weretainYanagida's (2007a,b) analysisofOJas a languageinvolving
andin particular
herincorporation
splitalignment
analysisofexampleslike(6). The
incorporation
analysisis dicussedin Sec. 4. Howeverwe do notretainthehypothesis
thattheadnominal
suffix
is a vestigialantipassive,
forthefollowing
reasons.
of antipassivein ergativelanguagesis to make the clause
First,the function
inassignment
But
ofabsolutivecase totheexternal
[-transitive],
resulting
argument.
are commonin strictly
Antipassives
ergativelanguages:transitive
subjectsare markedby absolutive
case andobjectsbyobliquecase. It is widelyclaimedthatthehistorical
shiftfromergativeto accusative
as accusativetransitives
and Hale 1996).
languagesresultsfromreanalysisof antipassives
(e.g., Bittner
5
to thegeneralization
thatdirectobjects
7) recognizesfourcounter-examples
Miyagawa(1989,footnote
in adnominalclausesare uniformly
markedwithwo in OJ. Miyagawasuggeststhattheexamplesare
noun-verb
In fact,thenumber
ofbareN° + verbexamplesin theMan'yoshiiis muchlarger,
compounds.
andthequantity
andlexicalvariety
oftheseexamplesindicatea productive
processofnounincorporation
ratherthanlexicalizedcompounds.
^
Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in old Japanese
Syntactic
alignment
107
does nothave thiseffectin OJ:theexternalargument
adnominalmarking
in transitiveadnominalclausesis markedwithergative(active)case (ga), notabsolutive.
Second,if adnominalmarkingin relativeclauses was a kindof antipassive,we
wouldexpectit to be associatedonlywithsubjectrelatives.This is becauseof the
Restriction
on A-Barextraction
so-calledAbsolutive
(Aldridge2004),whichallows
toundergorelativization
(recallthatthetransitive
onlyabsolutivearguments
subject
ButtheOJadnominalis usedto formrelatives
becomesabsolutivein antipassives).
of all types(cf (2a), an adjunctrelative).Crucially,theadnominalis also used to
deriveobjectrelatives:
(7) miuz
#a#s
kwo
[taratineno
papa
kap-u]
ga
Mk
Gen motherAct breed-Adnsilkworm
bredby mymother'
'thesilkworms
(MY 12/2991)
if theadnominalwas an antipassivemorpheme.
This is unexpected
The thirdproblemwith the antipassivehypothesisis morphological.Any
foranalyzingthe adnominalas a vestigialantipassiveholds forthe
arguments
othernominalizedclause types as well since they all occur withg<z-marked
agentivesubjectsand wo-markedobjectsin the orderOSV. But each of these
affix:realis-e-/-ure-,
irrealiscondidifferent
clause typesinvolvesa completely
tional-a-, nominal-aku. This meansthattherewould be no specificmorpheme
markingthe antipassive.The fourthand finalproblemis semantic.In ergative
languages,the object argumentin antipassives(if realized at all) is typically
indefinite
or non-referential
(Dixon 1994, p. 148). But wo-marked
objectsin OJ
are typicallydefinite(Motohashi1989). Again, this fact is unexpectedif wo
as theobliquecase markerforobjectsin antipassives.
originated
thatan activelanguageshouldhave an antipassiveis a
In fact,theexpectation
This view has
is a subtypeof ergativealignment.
that
active
the
view
of
product
literature
sinceat leastDixon (1979, pp. 80-85),
beenpervasivein thetypological
in particular,
Klimov(1974,
butitis byno meanstheonlyview.Othertypologists,
1977,pp. 29^-3) have claimedthatthetwoalignment
typesare distinct(see also
Wichmann2008 and thepaperscollectedin Wichmannand Donohue2008). We
arguein thenextsection,on empiricaland formalgrounds,thatthelatterview is
thefeature[itransitive],whichplays a crucialrole in the
correct.In particular,
of
assignment ergativecase and in the derivationof the antipassivein ergative
languages,does notplaythisrolein activelanguages.
of
In the followingsection,we outlinethe typologicaland formalproperties
to
OJ.
beforegoingon to showhow theseproperties
activealignment
apply
3 Activealignment
S refersto thesubjectof an intransitive
In Dixon's (1979) basic terminology,
verb,
verb.
A to thesubjectof a transitive
verb,and O to theobjectof a transitive
£l Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
108
(8)
A
Nominative
^
Ergative
A
_J
S
S
Patient
Absolutive
Accusative
O
Agent
O
In nominative/accusative
languages,A and S receive the same case marking
while
O
is
distinct
(nominative)
(accusative).In ergative/absolutive
languages,S
and O receivethe same marking(absolutive)while A is distinct(ergative).In
subthemorphological
encodingof intransitive
languageswithactivealignment,
Certain
and
their
of
on
the
semantic
arguments.6
properties predicates
jectsdepends
intransitive
subjectswhileothers
subjectspatternwithA, thatis, withtransitive
theseas SA and So.
withobjects.Dixon (1979, p. 80) distinguishes
pattern
3.1 Splitintransitivity
verbsintoactiveandinactive.The exactlexical
Activelanguagesdivideintransitive
verbsare
but the two classes of intransitive
divisiondifferscross-linguistically,
theagent
activeintransitive
subjects(SA, typically
distinguished
by case marking:
have the same markingas transitive
of unergatives)
subjectswhereas
argument
of
inactiveintransitive
subjects(So, typicallythepatientargument unaccusatives)
have thesame markingas transitive
objects.In Hindi,forexample,verbsin per-ne appearson thesubjectof
fectiveaspectshowan activepattern:
thecase marker
butnoton thesubjectof unaccusatives:
transitives
and unergatives
(9)
Hindi(Mahajan(1990))
a. Raam-ne kelaa khaayaa.
Ram-Erg banana Ate
'Ram ate a banana.'
b. Kutte
bhONke.
(ne)
dogs
(Erg) barked
The dogsbarked.'
c. Siitaa
(*ne) aayii.
Sita
(*Erg) arrived
'Sita arrived.'
Lotha (Tibeto-Burman)
also showsactivealignment(Dahlstrom1983); the case
maker-na marksSA, -co So.
6
the
termshave been used to describeactivealignment.
Van Valin (1990) introduces
Manydifferent
termsplitintransitivity;
on Sapir's(1917) originalactive-stative,
othersincludevariations
agent-patient
a wide
S (Dixon 1979, 1994). Klimov(1977) correlates
(cf. Klimov1977; Mithun1991),fluid-S/split
traitswithactivealignment.
varietyof lexicaland syntactic
£l Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in old Japanese
alignment
Syntactic
(10)
Lotha(Dahlstrom(1983))
cho.
echo
a. John-na firo ci
hit
Perf
Det
John-Subj dog
'Johnhitthedog.'
oki
na
b. Mpo-na
hapoi ci
from
outside Det
house
he-Subj
'He wentoutside(fromthehouse).'
a wopan ciag-co
c. Nkolo co
I
family Det-Subj
ago
long
'Long ago myfamilylivedin Wokka.'
109
yi
go
cho.
Perf
Wokka-e van cho.
Wokka-Loc live Perf
in themorphological
case markedon nounsas
can be manifested
Activealignment
head
we have seen,but manyactivelanguagesare strictly
marking:theymark
a- cross-references
on theverb.Thusin Gurarani
withNP arguments
SA;
agreement
se- cross-references
So:
(11)
Guarani(Mithun1991)
'I am sick.'
Se-rasi.
A-xa. 'I go.'
Se-ropehii. 'I am sleepy.'
A-pua. 'I gotup.'
themnow.'
A-gweruaina. 'I am bringing
3.2 The nominalhierarchy
has tendedto classifyactiveas a
literature
We notedin Sect.2 thatthetypological
One argument
againstthisview is thatactivelansubtypeof ergativealignment.
cruciallyfromergativelanguageswithrespectto howergativesplits
guagesdiffer
withSilverstein's
interact
(1976) nominalhierarchy:
(12)
The NominalHierarchy
(Silverstein1976)
>
propernouns > commonnouns
pronouns
human> animate> inanimate
1st>2nd>3rdperson
showsplits,that
Dixon(1979) emphasizesthatlanguagestermed
ergativeinvariably
featuresin certaincontexts.This interactswith the
is, nominative/accusative
thehierarchy
to "roughly
Dixon (1979, pp. 86-87) interprets
nominalhierarchy.
indicatethe overall 'agencypotential'of any givenNP" and observesthat"a
numberof languageshave 'split' case markingexactlyon this principle:an
end up to somepointin the
'ergative'case is used withNPs fromtheright-hand
and an 'accusative'case fromthatpointon, overto the
middleof thehierarchy
extremeleft of the hierarchy."This is exemplifiedby ThulungRai (Tibeto-ka marksA whenwhenit is loweron
Burman),an ergativelanguage.The suffix
Lahaussois
cited
thehierarchy
2003).
(Allen 1975,
by
(13)
ThulungRai (Lahaussois2003)
basi.
s.l-mu
a. Gui pe-pa.hal
dish wash-Nom.infObi
lpl eat-Npst.Prt
'We mustwashthedishes.'
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
110
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
b. Gatsi mam-lai kr.m-.a l.-mu
basi.
2d
mother-Datvisit-Purp go-Nom.InfObi
'You twomustgo visitmother.'
c. Gumimim-ka kam be-mri.
work do-3p/3s.Pst
3p-Erg
do
work.'
They
d. I-lwak-ka
khl.i.
i-mam-lai
2Poss-mother-Dat
2Poss-y.
sibling-Erg
help.3s/3s
'Your youngersiblinghelpsyourmother.'
In ThulungRai, first
case whilethird
and secondpersonA appearswithnominative
and
common
NP
A
follows
an
person
ergativepattern.
A splitbetweenpronounsand nounsis also typicalof languageswithactive
NPs in the
butcrucially,
thenominalhierarchy
alignment,
appliesto theargument
direction
as
first
and
Dahlstrom
First
second
(1983).
opposite
person,
suggested
by
whichareat thetopofthehierarchy,
whilecommonNPs are
showactivemarking,
less likelyto be marked.
(14)
Lakhota(Dahlstrom1983)
a. Wa-lowa.
'I sing.'
lsg.Ag-sing
b. Ma-haska.
'I am tall.'
lsg.Pat-betall
c. Ma-ya-gnaya-pl.
'You pl. trickedme.'
lsg.Pat-2Ag-trick-Pl
(15)
a. Lowa-pl.
They sing.'
sing-Pi
b. Haska-pl.
They(anim.)are tall.'
be tall-Pl
c. Ma-gnaya-pl.
They trickedme.'
lsg.Pat-trick-Pl
d. Wicha-wa-gnaya. 'I trickedthem.'
anim.3Pl.Acc-lsgAG -trick
In Lakhota,the firstand secondpersonpronounswa and ma displayan active
butthirdpersonpluralpi has a nominative-accusative
distribution.
Indepattern,
withmorphological
As Mithun
cases noradpositions.
pendentNPs appearneither
restricted
to
(1991) pointsout, case systemsbased on agency are frequently
nominalsreferring
tohumanbeings.7 ThusKoasatishowsagentivecase marking
on
pronominalprefixeswithinverbs but accusativecase markingon nouns.The
active systemin Batsbi (Tsova-Tush)is limitedto firstand second persons.
7 Mithun
thesemanticbasis of theactivemarkingof variousWestHemisphere
lan(1991) identifies
and diachronically.
guages,bothsynchronically
^
Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Syntacticalignmentin old Japanese
11 1
to humansonly.The
CentralPornohas an active systemin nominalsreferring
to humanbeings.The Yuki systemis reGeorgianactive systemis restricted
the implication
strictedto animates.From these cross-linguistic
observations,
side to therightis used withNPs fromtheleft-hand
followsthatactivemarking
thatis, if a languagehas agentmarkingin
handside of the nominalhierarchy;
thirdperson,it also has agentmarkingin firstand secondperson.This is exactly
theoppositeof theright-to-left
proposedby Dixon for
applicationof thehierarchy
betweenactive markingand the nominal
ergativelanguages.The relationship
hierachyis statedin (16):
(16)
The ActiveMarkingHierarchy
In activelanguages,if activemarking
appliesto an NP typea, it applies
to everyNP typeto theleftof oton thenominalhierarchy.
of activecase is dependent
not
discussionshowsthatassignment
The preceding
on
on
the
of
S
the
nominal
the
verb
but
role
thematic
place
assignedby
juston the
Klimov (1974, 1979) emphasizesthis point,stressingthatin active
hierarchy.
languagesthesemanticsof boththepredicateand thesubjectNP governthedisof activecase.
tribution
Dixon (1979, pp. 80-83) dividesactivelanguagesintotwo groups;"splitS"
and "fluidS" langaugessuchas Batsbi.In split-S
languagessuchas Tupi-Guarani
and whether
verbshave fixedmembership,
of
intransitive
thetwoclasses
systems,
on
their
class
is
based
inactive
or
meaning.In
prototypical
theybelongto theactive
of
each
on
the
divided
fluidS systems,verbsare
meaning
particular
depending
has controlovertheactivity,
token.The activepattern
appearswhentheS argument
andtheinactivepattern
appearswhencontrolis lacking.ConsiderBatsbi,a fluidS
languagecitedby (Comrie1978,p. 366).
(17)
Caucasian
Batsbi:Northeast
naizdrax
Txo
a.
qitra.
fell
to-theground
we-Abs
the
fell
to
'We
ground(unintentionally).'
naizdrax
b. Atxo
qitra.
fell
to-theground
we-Erg
the
'We fellto
ground(intentionally).'
and thesubjectis markedabsolutivewhile
is unintentional,
In (17a) theactivity
and thesubjectis markedergative/active.
in (18b) theactivityinvolvesintention,
of active of SA markingcan varyalong three
the distribution
Summarizing,
theprototypical
dimensions:
meaningof theverb(whetherit is agentiveor nonandtheplaceofS on
thedegreeofcontrolassociatedwiththeS argument,
agentive),
that
thenominalhierarchy.
Legate(2008) providesa framework can capturethese
the
In Legate'sframework,
activefromergativesystems.
anddistinguish
properties
externalargumentin ergativelanguagesreceivesinherentergativecase in its
vPs. [Theanalysisof ergativeas
of [+transitive]
positionin thespecifier
underlying
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
112
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
inherent
withWoolford
case assignedto theexternalargument
in situ originates
as Aldridge(2004)]. In activelanguages,
(1997) and is sharedby suchresearchers
Activecase is assignedto theexternal
transitivity
playsno role:inherent
argument
We proposethatother
in Spec, vP regardless
or notv is [+transitive].
of whether
of inherent
activecase, including
featuresmayalso play a role in theassignment
personfeaturesand semanticfeaturessuch as [ianimate]. This allows us to
of active
account for languages where NP type determinesthe distribution
case.
4 Evidenceforactivealignmentin Old Japanese
in Old JapanesenomiIn thissection,we presentevidenceforactivealignment
and verbalpreflxation.
nalizedclauses,focusingon subjectcase marking
4.1 Agentmarking
withga
becauseitmarks
case marker
In modernTokyoJapanese,
ga is clearlya nominative
of intransitives,
boththeexternalargument
of transitives
andtheinternal
argument
as in (18).
(18)
a. Taroo ga
naita
Nom
Taroo
cried
Taroo cried.'
b. Hana ga
saita
flower Nom bloomed
'Flowersbloomed.'
c. Taroo ga
hon o
katta
Taroo Nom book Ace bought
Taroo boughta book.'
The distribution
of ga in OJ differssignificantly
frompresent-day
Japanese.Ga
in OJ is one of two genitivemarkers;
theotheris no, whichretainsthisstatusin
modernJapanese.In additionto markingpossessorsof NP insideDP, bothga
and no also markthe subjectsof nominalizedclauses. Ga is restricted
to personal nounswhosereferent
is someoneclose to thespeaker,suchas imo 'sister,
wife,lover',or a pronounwitha specifichumanreferent.
No, on theotherhand,
is used withnonspecific
animatenouns,such as pito 'otherpeople', and with
inanimatenouns.8The use of ga dependsnotonlyon thesemanticsof theDP it
marksbut also on the semanticsof the predicate.In nominalizedclauses,ga is
8 Thereare a few
nounssuchas pi 'thesun' or animalsof
examplesin whichspecificbutnonhuman
suchas tadu 'crane'andsiwa 'snipe'aremarkedwithga. Thesearealmostcertainly
specialsignificance
a prominent
rhetorical
devicein theMan'ydshu.
examplesof personification,
^
Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in old Japanese
Syntactic
alignment
113
and transitives
used withactiveintransitives
(19) whileno is used withinactive
intransitives
(20).9'10
(19) a. tk^sjg^s^
pt&mmm
PitO'dumakoro wo iki ni
waga sum.
Obj longfor I.Actdo-Adn
personwife
'I longforanotherperson'swife.'
(MY 14/3539)
kimi ga yuk-u miti
lord Act go-Adn road
'theroadthatmylordtravels'
(MY 15/3724)
b. SaSA.it
c. femmmmA
itn^mm
«*...
yama
Saywopimye no kwo ga pire puri-si
Gen child Act scarf wave-Pst.Adnmountain
Sayohime
(MY 5/868)
whereSayohimewavedherscarf
'themountain
(20) a. JRA75
kȤJLffi
no
Yoki pito
yosi to
yoku mite
well looking
Gen
Comp
good
good people
Yosino
(MY 1/27)
ipisi
yosi to
Yoshino
good Comp say-Pst.Adn
'Yoshino,whichgood peopletooka good look at and called good,
said was good'
b. izm
fexm
tukwi
no
saku
pana
flower Gen bloom month
'themonthwhenflowersare in bloom'
(MY 18/4066)
of the
The firstand secondpronounswa and na are weakpronominal
counterparts
have
the
weak
These
and
ware
nare,
pronouns
respectively.
strongpronouns
marked
with
and
are
of
clitics:
adjacent
appearstrictly
ga
they invariably
properties
9 Stativeverbssuchas wori 'be sit' andunaccusative
verbssuchas ku 'come' appearwithga when
at,
whichare rankedhigheston thenominalhierarchy.
or secondpersonpronominal,
thesubjectis a first
(i) a. *skift
£Hfi
ftJftfe^
medurasiki kimiga ki-mas-aba
Charming lordAct come-Hon-if
lordcomes'
'if mycharming
b. *n»¥*L»
*&ZU
(MY 18/4050)
mw X
miti ku
wa ga wor-eba ura sipo
be.full comes
Actbe-when bay tide
I
'WhenI am therethetidewill be highin thebay.'
10 Notethat
(19a) is an examplefromEasternOld Japanese.
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
114
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
to theverb.11This contrasts
withfullNP subjectsmarkedby ga, whichallow an
adverborevena clauseto freelyappearbetweenthesubjectandtheverb,as shown
in (21).
(21) a. ^SM&ft
P^hMM^X
wotomye-ra ga ime ni
tugur-aku
maiden-Pi Act dream-in tell-Nomnl
'The maidenstoldme in a dream.'
b. *n®€&3£
wagimokwo
my.wife
ga
Act
m£&^&\£Z
mat-amu
wait-will
to
Comp
'whenmywifesaid thatshe wouldwait'
(MY 17/4011)
^ft
toki
ipi-si
say-Pst.Adn time
(MY 15/3701,3713)
are
Given the strictadjacencycondition,we assumethatthe weak pronominals
cliticsadjoineddirectly
to theverb.
We seefromthesemantic
differences
betweenga andno thatga marksNPs higher
on thenominalhierarchy
in (12) whereasno is usedwithNPs locatedloweron the
This generalization
hierarchy.
appliesbothto ga and no as possessorsof NP and
between
ofsubjects(A andS) in nominalized
clauses.Notethatsyncretism
markers
we
For
in
common
non-accusative
and
case
is
languages. clarity,
genitive agentive
and
as
it
a
nominalized
clause
as
when
marks
the
of
Gen(itive)
SA
glossga Act(ive)
whenitmarksthepossessorin DP. No is glossedas Gen(itive)throughout.
Now considertheOJexamplesbelow:
(22) a. mn&X
i!75^«^
Kimi ga yuk-u miti no
nagate
Lord Act go-And road Gen length
'thelengthof theroadmylordtravels'
b. hjb^m
(MY 15/3724)
mm¥^5L
wo paya-ra/
(MY 11/2713)
Asuka-gapa0 yuk-u se
Asukariver
shallows
go-Adn
Obj fast-Mi
'since theshallowswheretheAsukaRiverflowsare fast'
In (22a), thepredicateyuku means 'go.' Its subjectis humanand volitionaland
markedwithga. In (22b) yuku means 'flow.'Its inanimatesubjectAsuka-gapa
'Asukariver'is morphologically
unmarked.
The choiceof subjectmarking
depends
on whether
theeventdenotedby theverbinvolvescontrolor intention:
onlythe
humanparticipant
exercisescontrol.ThusOJnominalclausesare a fluid-Ssystem,
in Dixon's sensedescribedin Sect. 3.1.
11
120 occurrencesof subject(w)a-ga are foundin the Man'ydshii(based on the
Approximately
Yoshimura'selectronic
text);all are immediately
adjacentto theverb.(Data citedhereincludepersonal
withphonographs
butnotthefreestanding
n",whichcan be read withor
pronounswritten
ideograph
without
a case particle.)
£l Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in old Japanese
Syntactic
alignment
115
4.2 Ga/nomarking
and nominalized
clause types
as
Subjectsmarkedwithga andno appearin theclausetypeswe havecharacterized
nominalized:adnominal(rentaikei),realis (izenkei), irrealis(mizenkei) condibut theyneverappearwithpredicatesin the
tionals,and -aku nominalizations,
Let us look morecloselyat theevidencethattheseclausetypes
conclusiveform.12
at theOJperiod.First,as describedabove,
statussynchronically
havenominalized
theirsubjectsappearwiththegenitivecase particlesga and no. The semanticdisthepossessorinDPs is paralleltotheirdistribution
tribution
ofga andno inmarking
clauses:possessorsloweron thenominalhierarchy
in nominalized
appearwithno
suchas personalpronouns,
whileNPs higheron thehierarchy,
appearwithga:
(23) a. *g75^W75
feflUH
Nara no miyakwo no Sapo
Gen Saho
Nara Gen capital
'theriverSahokawain Nara.'
b. OTS3P8K
kawa
river
®%$L%^M
tamoto
tur-u
imo ga
wakayu
young.sweetfishangle-Adn girl Gen wrist
'thearmsof mygirlwho fishesforyoungsweetfish'
(MY 1/79)
(MY 5/857)
clauses:
Second,thefourclausetypesappearin positionstypicalof nominalized
and modifier
embeddedcomplement
including
positionsand focusconstructions,
in East and
questions.Whitman(1997) shows thatit is common,particularly
tobe realizedwithnominalizing
Southeast
Asia,forfocusandinterrogative
patterns
on thepredicate.Adnominalclausesappearas focusand interrogative
morphology
oras thesubjectofa clause.Realisclauses
as theobjectofa postposition
questions,
withtheparticlekoso andas presupposed
appearas questionsas focusconstructions
conditionalstypicallyfollowedby the particles-ba 'as/since'and -do 'even
(though)'.Irrealisconditionalsappearwiththe same two particles.Nominalized
occur
-aku clausesare analyzedas nominalizations
byWrona(2008) andtypically
above are embedded,all comin complement
position.All of the environments
of NP, exceptforthefocusand question
of a verbor particleor modifier
plements
associatedwiththeadnominaland realis.
constructions
involvesa [nominal]feature
In thispaperwe adopttheviewthatnominalization
toT, theheadoftheextendedverbal
associatedwiththelexicalverbandpercolated
12 Sasaki
in whichhe claimsthatga appearswitha
(1996) citessevenexamplesfromtheMan'yoshxx
Z. sincethischaracter
predicatein theconclusiveform.(We excludeexamplesinvolvingthecharacter
canbe readeitheras thecase marker
ga /noorthefocusadverbialsi.) (21b) aboveis one oftheexamples
of his data revealsthatin six out of Sasaki's sevenexamples,as in
citedby Sasaki; closerinspection
(21b), thesubjectis notin theconclusiveto-clausebutin thehigherclause whosepredicateis in the
ofthesesixclauses,as in(21b),is [Subject-gaj
form.The structure
adnominal
[proi...Vconc]Vadn], where
nullpro coindexedwiththega-markedsubjectin thehigher
theembeddedsubjectis a phonologically
adnominalclause.
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
116
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
13
in OJis TP is shownbythe
projection. The factthatthedomainofnominalization
of
the
and
conditional
irrealis
adnominal,realis,
endingsto selecttense,
ability
and
modals
as
-mu.
In
such presumptive
(2a-b), (20a), and (21), for
negation,
form
of
the
we see examplesoftheadnominal
instance,
spelled
pasttenseauxiliary,
in
out as -si. The 'high' locus of nominalization OJ bringsto mindlanguages
is at the clausal level.14The
like Turkish(Kornfllt
2003), wherenominalization
concreterepresentation
we proposeforOJ nominalizedclauses withgtf-marked
to (21b).
subjectsis givenin (24), corresponding
TP
(24)
(=21b)
/\
vp
wagimokwogav'
Act /\
my.wife
VP
T [nominal]
Past
v [nominal]
ipi
say
in
activecase (spelledoutas ga) to external
[Nominal]v assignsinherent
arguments
as
and unergatives
its specifier.Ga thusappearson the subjectsof transitives
describedin Sect. 4.1. In addition,inherent
ga is subjectto additionalfeatural
in Sect. 3.2, such as the
as
discussed
restrictions
of
active
typical
languages
restriction
DP be [animate].
thattheactive-marked
In contrast,
case, assignedby D in DPs suchas (23a).
genitiveno is a structural
We assumethatD is also responsible
forassigning
no tothesubjectsofnominalized
clausessuchas thosein (20), muchas in modernJapanese(see Miyagawa1993for
an analysisofD as thelicenserof/20-marked
genitivesubjectsin modernJapanese).
The mechanism
of subject/to-marking
is discussedin greaterdetailin Sect.4.4.
In thissectionwe havedescribeda dependent
in OJcharaceristic
pattern
marking
In thenext
of activealignment:
of
A
in
nominalized
clauses.
and
SA
ga marking
of
sectionwe show thatOJ also displayedhead markingpatterns
characteristic
activealignment.
13 This contrasts
withapproachesthatposita category-fixing
head n thatselectsan acategorialroot
inOJ,butthecategory-fixing
(Marantz1997)orvP (Alexiadou2001). Suchan approachis notimpossible
head wouldhave to selectT.
is higherthanin OJ:Kornfilt
However,in Turkishthelocusof nominalization
(2003) placesit in the
is spelledoutabove theTense-AspectModal projections.
Agror Finitehead wheresubjectagreement
in thisposition,noris thereanyovertFiniteorC
OJ,likemodernJ,has no overtagreement
morphology
above theTAM (Tense/Modal/Aspect)
etc.
auxiliaries.Insteadwhatwe findare adnominal,
morpheme
of theseauxiliaries.For thisreasonwe interpret
forms
theadnominaland othernominalized
allomorphs
as thespelloutof [nominal]T.
^
Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in old Japanese
alignment
Syntactic
117
4.3 Active/inactive
prefixes
unnoticed
A heretofore
ofOJ
completely
pieceofevidencefortheactivealignment
/-andsa-. Japanesetraditional
havefailed
comesfromtheverbalprefixes
linguists
function
fortheseprefixes.
a consistent
semanticor syntactic
Butcareful
to identify
analysisshowsthat/-is attachedto activeverbs,and sa- to inactiveverbs.These
in nominalized,
as wellas infinitive,
clauses.
twoprefixes
appearalmostexclusively
4.3.1 i- on activeverbs
The prefixi- is richlyattestedin theMan'yoshu,as in (25a-b).
(25)a. mntMn
fewwfc
fi*sm
kawa ni
i-yuki itarite
River-Loc i-go
reaching
(MY 1/79)
'I reachedtheRiverSahokawain Nara.'
Nara no miyakwo no Sapo
Gen Saho
Nara Gen capital
Kume no wakugwo ga i-pure-kyem-u
Act i-touch-PConj-Adn
Kume Gen youth
iswo no kusa no ne
rock Gen grass Gen root
(MY 1/435)
'therootof thegrassthattheyouthof Kumewouldhave touched.'
of
of /-are foundin theMan'yoshu. The distribution
A totalof 74 occurrences
/-parallelsthatof the case markerga: bothappearin nominalizedclauses,i.e.,
irrealis(mizenkei) conditionalsand -aku nominal,adnominal(rentaikei),and
realis(izenkei)clauses.
dataforprefixi-15
(26) Quantitative
Total
Conclusive Imperative
Irrealis Realis AdnominalInfinitive
(Mizen) (Izen) (Rentai) (Renyo) (Shushi) (Meirei)
3
5
19
44
(2)
(1)
74
The prefix/-attachesto activeverbs(all tokensofi- in theMan'yoshuarecitedin
to theunerYanagida2007b). Thereare a numberof cases in which/-is prefixed
to theunaccusative
gativeverbyuku 'go' butno examplesin which/-is prefixed
towhatappearto
verbkuru'come'.Therearea fewexamplesinwhichi- is prefixed
be nonagentive
verbs,suchas (27).
15 The
on thetotalsforconclusiveand imperative
examplesof i- indicatethatall threeof
parentheses
theseexamplesare subjectto alternative
analyses,as discussedbelow.
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
118
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
(27) 3ft75
tlj. . .
&&ffi\h7b
ihm
Miwa no yama. . . Nara no yama
no yamano ma ni
Miwa Gen mountainNara Gen mountainGen mountain among
OTlTTft
itP§
PfeWjftfc
(MY 1/17)
i-kakur-u made miti no
ni
kuma i-tumor-u
made
Loc
i-hide-Adnuntil road Gen bend i-amass-Adn until
'Mt. Miwa. . . untilyouhideyourself
of
the
mountains
Nara,
among
untilyou loomin thebendsof theroad'
wemight
as inactivesincethesubjectMiwa-no
Although
expect(27) tobe interpreted
is
4Mt
Miwa'
as personificathe
inanimate, clause is interpreted
yama
superficially
tionalby all Japanesecommentators.16
The use of /-herethusfitswithourcharacterizationof OJ as a fluid-S language in the previous section: ostensibly
verbsmayappearwithactivemarking
whentheyhavehuman(or pernonagentive
sonified)subjects.
Unlikeactivemarking
ga, i- also appearsin infinitive
(renyokei)clauses.Butin
infinitive
clauses too, theprefixedverbis unfailingly
activein all of the clearly
to a verbin theinfinitive,
interpretable
examples.Of the44 examplesof /-prefixed
18 involvetheunergative
verbyuk-'go'. The overwhelming
ofz+infinitive
majority
clauseshave agentiveempty(pro) subjects.17
In additionto beingrestricted
to activeverbs,we see fromthetablein (23) that
/-occursalmostexclusively
withtheclausetypeswe haveidentified
as nominalized
or in infinitive
clauses withagentivepro subjects.None of the threeepotential
to thisgeneralization
withphonograms.
are written
counter-examples
Kojimaet al.
vol.
the
3, p. 369) interpret singlepotential
(1995,
imperative
example(MYS 3169)
as not involvingprefixal/-but ratherthe honorific
verbof displacement
imasIn
both
of
the
conclusive
'go/come(Honorific)'.18 fact,
potential
examples,MYS
1916 and 3885, are open to this same interpretation,
as bothinvolvehonorific
in Chinesecharacters.
If this
subjectsand a verbwiththe meaning'go' written
is
there
are
no
of
/with
or
interpretationcorrect,
examples
occurring
imperative
conclusivepredicates.
16 Wrona
as a counter-example
to the
(2006) citesthesecondclause of (27) mitino kuma i-tumor-u
that/-appearsonlyon activeverbs,interpreting
thisclauseas 'bendsoftheroadpile up'.
generalization
Thisinterpretation
is also followedbyKojimaetal. (1995) andSatakeetal. (2002). ButNakanishi(1978/
'Mt. Miwa' as thesubjectof bothclauses.Because thispreserves
the
2004) interprets
personificational
evidentparallelismof thetwoclauses,we have followedNakanishi'
s interpretation
here.
17 To be
precise,40 of the44 infinitive
exampleshave humanagentivepro subjects.Two have personificational
subjects,shirakum(w)omo 'whiteclouds too' (MY 317) and amakum(w)o mo 'skycloudstoo' (MY 319), bothoccurring
withunergative
i-YUKI 7+going\BothNPs aremarkedwiththe
subduedfocusmarker
mo 'too/even'suggesting
thattheyareexternalto theinfinitive
clause.Onlytwo
exampleshavepossibleclause-internal
non-agentive
subjects,butbothof these(MY 2145 and3409) are
ofinterpretation.
MY 2145 is particularly
instructive.
problematic
Kojimaetal. (1995,vol.3, p. Ill) note
thattheinfinitive
clausein questionsa-wosikano kowe i-tukii-tuki'thevoiceofthebuck/-continuing,
mustbe interpreted
in contextas an ellipticalrealis(izenkei)conditional:
'whenpro hears
/-continuing'
thevoice of thebuck'.
18 Satakeet al.
(2002, vol .3, p. 205) also acknowledgethisinterpretation.
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in old Japanese
Syntactic
alignment
119
to activeverbs.It occursonly
Summingup,theOJverbalprefix/-is restricted
- thedomainwe have associatedwithergative-active
withnominalizedpredicates
- and infinitives
withagentivepro subjects.
alignment
4.3.2 sa- on Inactiveverbs
The prefixsa- differs
cruciallyfromi- in thatit appearsonlyon inactiveverbs,
as in (28).
(28) a. &&&9m
^i^MMM^
taka pa nak-ye-mu to (MY 17/4011)
sa-narap-yer-u
falcon Top cry-Pst-Presum
sa-be.tamed-Perf-And
Comp
'thatthetamedfalconswouldhave cried'
b. &fezmMfc
mmn\ALi&
ni pa ide-tati
sa-nQ-si
tumaya ni asita
sa-sleep-Pst.Adnbedroom in morningin Top leaving
(MY 3/481)
sinopi
remembering
leavingthebedroomwhere(I) slept'
'remembering,
c. mnmm s*i
opo kimi
sa-niturap-u wa ga
Gen great lord
sa-shine-Adn I
'mygreatlordwho shines'
d. mm*
(MY 3/420)
&¥mmm
sugwi no nwo ni sa-wodor-u kigisi
cedar Gen field in sa-dance-Adn pheasant
field'
'thepheasantthatdancesin thecedar-covered
e. mWiKtiL
¥&T'hM
(MY 19/4148)
kwo sa-basir-i
ni pa ayu
kapa se
river shallow in Top sweetfish fry sa-run-Inf
in therivershallows'
'theyoungsweetfish
running
(MY3/475)
Thereare 30 tokensof theprefixsa- on verbs,includingneru 'sleep', niturapu
'shine',pasiru '(fish)run',wodoru'(birds)dance',wataru'(toads)cross',nebapu
'spreadroots',narabu '(birds)line up', kumoru 'get cloudy',nituku'get redandall havenon-agentive
dened'.All theverbsareintransitive,
subjects(asidefrom
ne- 'sleep', all are nonhuman).
dataforprefixsa(29) Quantitative
Realis -aku AdnominalInfinitive ConclusiveImperativeTotal
(Shushi) (Meirei)
(Rentai) (Renyo)
(Izen)
2
2
14
7
3
2
30
^ Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
120
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
Like /-,the prefixsa- is used overwhelmingly
(25/30 tokens)in nominalized
19
as in sa-yo 'night'
clauses. Sa- also occursin theMan'yoshu as a nounprefix,
while/-does not.This parallelsexactlythedistribution
of agreement
prefixesin
inactive
activelanguagessuch as Satere-Mawe (Meira 2006):
prefixesoccuron
verbs
on
occur active
nounsand inactiveverbswhileactiveprefixes
only.20'21
AlexanderVovin (p.c.) pointsout to us thatone verbin OJ,wataru 'cross',
appearswitheither/-orsa-. Therearefourexamplesofi-watar-in theMan'yoshu
(MY 1742,2081, 4101, and 4126), and six examplesof sa-watar-(MY 800, 971,
1960, 1976,2450, and 2804). The S of i-watar-is [+human]and volitionalin all
fourexamples:'theyoungwoman,''Tanabata' (Vega, theweaverstar),'thefisherfolk,'and 'Vega and Altair.'The S of sa-watar-is [-human]in all six examples:
'toads' (800, 971), 'a cuckoo' (1960, 1976), 'themoon,''a teal'. Typicalexamples
of each pattern
are givenin (30).22
&^ff^1tt&&
(30) a. £jfrt&ft&
ama
sky
gtfcf&S#
mo
watasera-ba sono pe
no gawa past
yu
from
too
over
that
Gen river bridge span-if
Pffl£&fe^-?-
(MY 18/4126)
wo
i-watar-as-am-u
Conj
/-cross-Hon-Prop-Adn
'thoughif one puta bridgeacrosstheMilkyWay,(they=Vegaand
overon that'
Altair)would/-cross
b. mWiji
#EttJ!75
J5HB*S>
kumo ma
ywori sa-wataru tukwi no opoposiku
cloud among from s^-cross moon Gen faintly
fflKT ^
(MY 15 /2450)
misi kwo
api
saw
child
join
likethemoon^-crossingfromamongtheclouds'
'thegirlI saw faintly
I-watar-'cross (overthebridge)'is agentivevolitional,and telic,a stereotypical
actionbutthe
nota completed
activeverb.Sa-watar-is non-agentive
anddesignates
19 Threeof thefive
involvene- 'sleep' withhumansubjects:conclusive(MY 2782)
counter-examples
and two withimperative
(MY 636, 2629). Since sa-ne 'sfl+sleeping'also occursas a noun,these
conclusiveMY 859 and4 156,
The remaining
twocounter-examples,
examplesmaybe backformations.
bothinvolvethecollocationayu sa-basiru'thesweetfish
sfl-runs'.
20 Satere-Mawe
on theverb(cf.
(Tupian)has an activesystemmarkedbytwoseriesofpersonalprefixes
similarto (possessed)
Mithun1991). Meira(2006) showsthatin Mawe nonactiveverbsare strikingly
do not
nouns:thesame set of personalprefixesappearson nounsand nonactiveverbs;theseprefixes
selectactiveverbs.
21 On bothnounsand verbssaon the
rendaku(realizedin OJas prenasalization)
(butnot/-)triggers
sourceof theshape*saN(V). *Sa maybe
voicelessobstruent.
This suggestsan etymological
following
relatedtothemesialpronouns
sa 'thus',so 'that',andsi 's/heit' while*N(V) appearsrelatedtogenitive/
inactiveno.
22
wedescribehere
on(30b),Kojimaetal. ( 1995,vol.3,p. 19 1) observeexactlythedistinction
Commenting
sa-watar-is
betweeni-watarandsa-watar-.Theynotethatwhilei-wataroccursonlywithhumansubjects,
to otherverbs,however.
restricted
tononhuman
subjects.Theyfailtoextendthisdistinction
£i Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in old Japanese
alignment
Syntactic
12 1
moonpassingbeforethe speaker'sview,in otherwords,a stereotypical
inactive
predicate.
We have shownin thissectionthatOJ nominalizedclauses show notjust an
activecase markingsystembut also at least thevestigesof activeprefixalmorbetweenactiveand inactiveverbs
phology.Thisis evidencedby a strictopposition
in bothdependent
and head marking
of activeS by
strategies.
Dependentmarking
thecase markerga is in oppositionto markingof inactiveS by no (and, as we
of activepredicatesby theprefix
discussin thenextsection,zero). Head marking
/-is in oppositionto theprefixsa- on inactivepredicates.23
4.4 Markingof InactiveSubjects
surfacesin nominalizedclauses but notin
As discussedabove, activealignment
mainclauseswhosepredicatetakesconclusiveform.A main/nominalized
splitis
of
also attested
clauses,theinternal
argument
subjects.In nominalized
byunmarked
unaccusative
verbscan be unmarked
while,as we saw in Sect .3.3,
morphologically
verbsis typically
markedby Active
of transitive/unergative
theexternalargument
ga. In almostall cases, barethemesubjectsof nominalizedclauses appearimmedata,see Yanagida2007b). Examples
diatelyadjacentto theverb(forquantitative
are givenin (31).
(3D a. x^n
mnw.fc
ni
kiywoki kapara
pisakwi0 opu-ra
on
clear
riverbank
grow-Adn
catalpa
'on thebanksof theclearriverwherecatalpasgrow'
(MY 6 /925)
pisakata no
pana 0 tir-u
waga sono ni ume no
I Gen garden in plum Gen blossom fall-Adn Epithet Gen
ante ywori
from
sky
'in mygardenplumblossomsfallfromthesky'
(MY 5/822)
verbsare limitedto nonIn Sect. 5 we show thatobjectsadjacentto transitive
The
N°s and are thusanalyzableas havingundergoneincorporation.
branching
23 An
sais foundin MY 804, wherega and prefixal
to thisgeneralization
apparentcounter-example
appearto surfacein thesameclause:
(i) il^Mfa
te2PttH?£4 ^SSrtt&ft
wotomye-raga sa-nasu itado wo osipirak-i
maiden-Pi Act sa-sleep door Obj pushopen-Inf
'pushingopenthedoorwherethemaidenssleep.'
'
possessorofitado
wotomyera
interpret
ga 'maidensGA' as thegenitive
Kojimaetal. (1972),however,
(wooden) door', a metonymic
expressionfor 'bedroom';the entireNP thenhas the interpretation
in (ii):
'pushingopenthemaiden's(bedroom)doorwheretheysleep' and thestructure
wo
sa-nasu
]
itado]]
osipirak-i
(ii) [NPwotomyera ga [[ pro
Gen
maidens
pushopen-Cont
stf-sleep door
Obj
On thisinterpretation
wotmyera
ga is nottheclausematesubjectofsa-nasu 'sra-sleep1.
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
122
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
themesubjects,suchas
incorporation
analysiscan be extendedto non-branching
themesubjectsalso occurin thispopisakwi 'catalpa' in (31a). But branching
sition,as shownby ume no pana 'blossomof theplum' in (31b). This indicates
thatunaccusativesubjectshave a licensingoptionnot available for transitive
objects.
in
Recall thatin Sect. 4.2 we describedtwogenitivesubjectmarking
strategies
nominal
foragentivesubjectshighon the
nominalizedclauses:activegfl-marking
licensedbyD, muchas in adnominalclausesin
andgenitiveJio-marking
hierarchy;
modernJapanese(Harada 1971; Miyagawa1993). A thirdoption,exemplified
by
thatremainin VP. Notethatthis
(31b),is availableforbaresubjectsofunacusatives
thirdoptioncannotinvolvean 'absolutive'case because absolutiveshouldbe
availableforbothSo (unaccusativesubjects)and O (transitive
objects),but,as
mentionedabove and describedin moredetail in Sect. 5, branchingtransitive
bare
position.Notealso thattheVP-internal
objectsdo notappearintheVP-internal
(catalpas,plumblossoms)whilesubjectsmarked
subjectsin (31) are nonspecific,
as in (30b) (the
or specific,
as in (20b) (flowers),
withno maybe eithernonspecific,
moon). These factssuggestthatexampleslike (31) involvean impersonalconwiththebare themesubjectlicensedin situ insidetheVP. Impersonal
struction,
constructions
requirea mechanismforassigningnominativecase to the theme
clausemaybeara case feature
subjectin situ.We proposethatT in OJnominalized
whenT selects'defective'v, thatis, v
circumstances:
butonlyin veryrestricted
ofitsown(Chomsky2001). On thisview,the
anda case feature
lackinga specifier
barethemesubjectin (31b) is assignedcase by T in situ.
the threecase markingstrategiesfor subjectsof nominalized
Summarizing,
clausesare shownin (32).24
a.
(32)
v
VP
DP0
V
TP
/\
v
b.
T
c.
vP
/\
DPga
v
VP
v
DP
/\
TP
D
...DP no...
V
themesubjectsin situare assignedcase by T selectinga defectivevP
Nonspecific
Inherent
(32a).
ga is assignedto activesubjectsin Spec, vP (32b). Genitiveno is
D
to
thatspecificthemesubjects
assignedby
subjectselsewhere.On theassumption
out
of
VP
move
the (Diesing1992),thisexplainswhyspecificthemesubjectssuch
24
forsubjectNPs
pattern
Miyamotoet al. (1999) reportthatJapanesechildrenshowa case marking
of whatwe have describedforOJ. They observethatchildrencommonlyomit
highlyreminiscent
nominative
verbswhileconsistently
usingga forsubjectsof transitives
ga forsubjectsof unaccusative
and unergatives.
(ACDH) (Borerand Wexler1987)
TheyproposethattheA-chainDeficitHypothesis
Froma
and unergatives.
accountsfor why childrentreatunaccusativesdifferently
fromtransitives
it may be worthpursuinga unifiedaccountfor this parallelbetweenthe
learnability
perspective,
acquisitionand syntactic
change.
^
Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Syntacticalignmentin old Japanese
123
25Underthis
thanbaremarking.
as 'themoon'in (30b) receiveno rather
analysis,
is licensedbya higherhead,outsidetheactivealignment
Aio-marking
systemof OJ
clauses.
nominalized
subjectsoccurfreelybothas the
Turningnow to conclusiveclauses,unmarked
of an unaccusative,
of a transitive
and theinternal
as
externalargument
argument
shownin (33).
(33) a. Mmmtii&
fmfeimm&ffl
Ume no pana 0 ima sakari nar-i.
Plum Gen blossom now at.peak be-Conc
The plumblossomsare now at theirpeak.'
b. Rgtm
^m^m-k^^
^jgginMjis
karu
Miwatase-fetf amawotomye-domo
0 tama mo 0
Look cross-when fishermaiden-Pi
pearl seaweed gather
(MY 17/3890)
miy-u.
appear-Conc
'WhenI look around,thefishermaidens
appearto be gathering
pearly
seaweed.
to nominalized
markedby ga and restricted
Whilecliticpronounsare uniformly
clauses as shownin Sect. 3.3, strongpronounsin subjectpositionare unmarked
and neverappearwithga.
morphologically
(34)
a. ^^W
ware 0 kusa 0 tor-er-i
weed take-Perf-Conc
I
' I am
pickingweeds.'
b. £#3Pftit&
nT^^fctiS*
(MY 10/1943)
£*Uft£fi£
no kamwi wo kopitutu are 0
Ametuti
I
Ace pray
heaven.earthGen god
mat-am-u.
wait-Presum-Conc
(MY 15/3682)
I
will
wait.'
and
of
heaven
the
to
earth,
gods
'Praying
Bare objectsas in (33b) in conclusiveclausescan be analyzedas receivingstructuralaccusativecase fromv, as proposedby Miyagawa(1989). Bare subjectsas in
case fromT, as in modernJapanese
(33a) can be analyzedas receivingnominative
and accusative
While
the
exponenceofnominative
(Takezawa1987).
phonological
in OJconclusiveclausesare
forcase marking
mechanisms
thesyntactic
case differs,
between
thesameas in modernJapanese.However,thesharpdifference
essentially
thatOJwas a language
clausesconfirms
in conclusiveandnominalized
thepatterns
with split alignment:while conclusiveclauses follow a nominative-accusative
S/A and O, nominalizedclauses show an activepattern,
distinguishing
pattern,
and
So and groupingSA withA. In thenextsectionwe turnto
SA
distinguishing
in
clauses.
nominalized
objectmarking
25 We leave the
precise landing site of no-marked unaccusative subjects in OJ for futureresearch.
£i Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
124
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
5 Object markingin nominalizedclauses
This sectiondiscussesthetwopatterns
in nominalizedclauses.
of objectmarking
butthesame
We focuson adnominalclauses because of theirhigherfrequency,
holdforthethreeothertypesof nominalizedclauses.
generalizations
5.1 Bare objects
As we saw in Sect. 2.1, Miyagawa(1989) arguesthatin EarlyMiddle and Old
Japanese,adnominalpredicatesfailto assignaccusativecase, and hencean object
mustbe licensedby morphological
case in the formof wo in orderto avoid a
violationoftheCase Filter.Thereare,however,
a number
ofOJexamplesin which
an adnominal
a
takes
an
case,whicharethus
predicate
objectlacking morphological
to
s
(1989)
Yanagida(2007b)
apparent
counter-examplesMiyagawa'
generalization.
showsthatin theMan'yoshuthereare90 tokensoftransitive
clauseswhosesubject
is markedby no or ga and whoseobjectis morphologically
unmarked.
Fifty-five
occurwithattributive
as
in
(35).
predicates,
05) a. femmnZik®
tmmm
Saywopimye no kwo ga pire puri-si
Gen child Act scarf wave-Past.Adn
Sayohime
yama no na
hill
Gen name
'thenameof thehillwhereSayohimewavedherscarf
b. ;tin75fi7KgP:t
(MY 5/868)
Ji±M«S
Sika-no
ama
no
keburi (MY 7/1246)
sipo yak-u
ShikaGen fishermenGen salt burn-Adn smoke
'thesmokyhaze raisingwhenfishermen
of Shikaburnsalt'
thereis a clear
However,whilebareobjectsdo occurwithadnominalpredicates,
to
the
The
bare
are
almost
without
pattern
counter-examples.
exceptionnonobjects
N°s.
Of
the
55
of
this
one
has
a
branching
examples
type,only
phrasalobject,MY
2639 in (36):26
(36) m&mz
^zz^m
Tanome ya
kimi ga waga na
(MY 11/2639)
norikyem-u?
Trust Foc/Q lord Act my name state-PConj-Adn
'Is it because(he) trustsin me,thatmyLordhas statedmyname?'
In relativeclauses,wherethe predicateis realizedin the adnominalform,bare
as in (37) (see Appendix1 forpossible
objectsare systematically
non-branching,
exceptions).
26 It shouldalso be notedthaton theclitic
analysisof pronoun+ ga (4.1, Yanagida2007b),thebare
objectwa ga na 'myname' in (36) is not,strictly
speaking,phrasal.
£l Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Syntacticalignmentin old Japanese
(37) 5^*j
125
m^M-k^
[tamamokar-u] amawotome-domo
seaweedcut-Adn fisherwoman-Pl
'thefisherwomen
who are gathering
seaweed'
(MY 6/936)
Based on thesedistributional
facts,we proposethatbare objectsin nominalized
clauses like (35) are to be analyzedon analogywith incorporated
objects in
Chukchee(Spencer1999):
(38)
Chukchee(Spencer1999)
a. Muri
kimit?-e.
myt-ine-rety-rkyn
we-Abs we-AP-carry-Pres/n
load-Instr
'We are carrying
theload.'
b. Ytlyg-yn qaa-tym-g?e.
father-Abs
deer-killed-3sG
The father
killeda deer.'
Chukcheeis a splitergativelanguagethathas two typesof derivedintransitive
withsemantically
constructions
transitive
verbs(Spencer1999). One is theantiin
where
is
O
marked
with
passive (38a),
oblique case and A is absolutive;the
N°
is
the
restricted
to
in (38b). The
second,
objects,
objectincorporation
strategy
for
is
also
in
attested
American
incorporation
strategy objects
widely
languages
activealignment
(Sapir 1911).
displaying
We proposethat OJ uses the incorporation
strategyfor bare objects,like
Chuckchee.Followingthebasic approachof Baker(1988), non-branching
nouns
intotheverb,and
immediately
adjacentto an adnominalpredicateareincorporated
satisfiesthe case requirements
of the incorporee.This preserves
incorporation
that
the
of
the
adnominal
is notassigned
object
Miyagawa'sgeneralization
predicate
abstract
case in itsbase position.
5.2 Wo-marked
objects
thehypothesis
thatOJis an activelanguage,proposesthat
Vovin(1997),developing
becauseit marksnotonlytheobjectsof transitive
wo is an absolutivecase marker
verbsbutalso thesubjectsofnon-active
intransitives,
primarily
adjectives.Mostof
theseoccurin a pattern
involvingtheadjectivalstemplusthesuffix-mi:
(39) x&mx& zm^w&zM
tmnm
kusa makura tabi wo kurusi-mi kopi
wor-eba (MY 15/3674)
grass pillow travelObj painful-milong.forbe-when
'as I am longingfor(mywife)travelbeingpainful'
Therearealso someexamplesin whicha subjectmarkedbywo occurswithinactive
followedby thecomplementizer
to (40):
predicates
^ Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
126
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
(40) a. mw
^zmuitzm
to
to
yononaka wo u-si
yasa-si
world
shameful-Cone
Comp
Obj dreary-Cone Comp
(MY 5/893)
omop-e-domo
think-Rls-though
and shameful'
'thoughI feeltheworldunpleasant
b. mi¥
prnmtt^
mtz^&
kwo-ra
ki-mas-am-u to
ware wo itu
topi-si
I
Ace when come-Hon-ConcComp ask-P.Adnchild-Affec
(MY20/4436)
'thatdeargirl,who askedwhenI wouldcome back'
Miyagawaand Ekida (2003) proposethatexampleslike (40a-b) are instancesof
exceptionalcase marking(ECM), on the assumptionthatwo is the spelloutof
abstractcase assignedby thematrixverb.Yanagida(2006) arguesthatOJhas no
withfo-clausesas in
ECM construction
and thatwo-marked
subjectsin thepattern
has a nominalized
we
as
verb
of
the
are
observe,
(which,
(40a-b)
higher
arguments
either
Under
realis
and
adnominal,respectively).27
inflection,
analysis,wo is
transitive
the
matrix
but
the
intransitive
not
embedded
predicate by
assigned
by
to whichwe
verb.Notethatthisleavesopenthestatusof theNP wo... -mipattern,
return
at theend of thissection.
isthatthe
vemarker
Thestrongest
argument
againsttheanalysisofwo as anabsoluti
realisor
in
wo
is
never
marked
non-active
intransitive
verb
of
a
adnominal,
by
subject
unmarked
or-aku nominalclauses.Itis eithermorphologically
irrealisconditionals,
ormarkedbygenitiveno, as discussedin section4 andexemplified
by(41-42).
(41) a. ££P£ftft
JU^n^min^
Tatuta yama
mi-ma0 tikaduk-a-ba
Irr-if
Tatsuta mountain Hon-horsecomes.near'If yourhorsedrawsneartheTatsutamountain'
b. m&
RKtJtfEft
(MY 5/877)
Sft*
sono ni ware yuk-amu.
Ume no pana 0 saki tir-u
Plum Gen blossom bloom fall-Adn gardento I
go-will
(MY 10/1900)
'I will go to thegardenwhereplumblossomsbloomand fall.'
(42) a. &m
mz&tiLTh
«t*#
Kono yupupyetumo
no 50-yeda no nagare k-o-ba
this evening mulberryGen branch Gen flow
come-Irr-if
(MY 3/386)
'if thiseveninga mulberry
branchcomesflowingdown'
27 See
in modern
Japanese.
Hoji (1991) fora similaranalysisofso-calledRaisingtoObjectconstructions
S Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Syntacticalignmentin old Japanese
b. ^mttm
127
fexm
u
no sak-u
tukwi
no pana
blossom
Gen
bloom-Adn
month
Gen
utugi
'themonthwhentheutsugiblossomis in bloom.'
(MY 18/4066)
we wouldhave no explanation
If wo was an absolutivecase marker,
forwhythe
in
in
wo
the
contexts
is
never
marked
by
given (41-42).
subject
fromitsdescendant
o in modernJapanesein
The particlewo differs
significantly
thatitmarksnotonlydirectobjectsbutall kindsofVP-internal
arguments
including
and in
(cf.Motohashi1989). In (43a), wo marksthegoal argument,
quasi-adjuncts
In
and
time
wo
it
marks
co-occurs
witha
source,locative,
(43b-e)
adjuncts. (43f-g)
locativeadjunctmarkedby ni, 'in/at'.
(43) a. fl/hM¥
ffM^
no
tame
wogapa wo yuki-te mi-m-u
Gen stream Obj go-ing see-Presum-Adnpurpose
(MY 3/332)
'in orderto go and see theKisa stream.'
Kisa
Kisa
b. %&¥immi
Nara wo k-i
panar-e
Nara Obj come-Inf leave-Inf
'comingawayfromNara.'
(MY 17/4008)
C. JHiI^#M
^ALfem
d. M#$£^
B£A
e. &jh,75
femm
mmmywo
asake
to
kapabe wo parusame ni ware tati nuru
stand get.drenchedComp
riverside Obj springrain in I
(MY 9/1696)
drenchedin thespringrainon theriverside.'
'thatI am standinggetting
MW4^
Ame no puru ywo wo pototogisunaki-te yuk-u nari.
Rain Gen fall night Obj cuckoo
cry-ing go-Adn is
(MY 9/1756)
'Throughthenightwhentherainfalls,a cuckoofliescrying.'
samuki
aki
kaze no
Gen
cold
autumn wind
Sanu no woka
morning Obj Sanu Gen hill
kimi
(MY 3/361)
kwoyu-ram-u
Adn lord
cross-Pr.Conj'mylord,who wouldbe crossingovertheSanu hillin thecold
wind.'
morning
f.%m$gm z^&^&mm
ni wo ki-mas-e.
Aga koromo sita
underneathLoc Obj wear-Hon-Imp
my robe
'Wearthisrobeof mineunderneath.'
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
128
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
g. s^feMi^it
VEX^mx
aip-fejft^
Adisawi
no yapye
saku gotoku yatuyo
Gen
eightgenerations
hydrangeas
eight-layerbloom as
Witt
ni
wo imase.
(MY 20/4448)
Loc Obj live-Imp
so may(mylord)live
'As hydrangeas
have eightfold
flowers,
foreightgenerations.'
to analyzewo merelyas thespelloutof VP-internal
These factsmakeit difficult
case wouldbe
structural
case. In (43f-g),forexample,it is unclearwhystructural
ni.
for
PPs
headed
the
locative
required
by
postposition
aboutthewordorderofOJclauses
Thisproperty
correlates
withthegeneralization
1.
As
shown
wo
mentioned
in
section
by Yanagida(2006), therelative
containing
thatthelatter
is
such
of
and
the
wo-marked
the
alwaysprecedes
object
position
subject
theformer,
as shownin(4) and(19a).28Additional
examplesaregivenforadnominal
(44a), -aku (44b),andrealis(44c) clausesbelow.(See Appendix2 fora preliminary
in theMan'yoshu.)
correlation
ofconjugational
formswithwo-marking
(44) a. »*L3Mfe*fti&
#€ft£#fPillS|c
£«£&£
Ware wo yami ni ya imo ga kwop-i-tutu aru ram-ul
I
Obj dark in Q wife Act longing.for be PConj-Adn
(MY 15/3669)
'Wouldmywifebe longingforme in thedark?
b. im^
%$tm^x*
kimi wo a ga mat-ana-ku ni
lord Obj I Act wait-not-InfLoc
'withoutme waitingforyou'
(MY 17/3960)
wo yupugure ni
Kusaka no yama
Kusaka Gen mountainAce twilight in
wa ga kwoye ku-re-ba
(MY 8/1428)
I
Act cross come-Rls-Cond
'whenI crossoverKusakamountain
in thetwilight'
the
lists
XP
65
of
wo
Yanagida(2007a)
examples
precedingsubjects.In contrast,
Man 'yoshucontains
the
order
one
as
only exampleinterpretedinvolving
Agentga ...
XPwo.29
28 Kinsui
(2001) also observesthisgeneralization.
29The
exampleis:
Yama
no na
to
ipi tug-ye to kamo Saywopimyega
MountainGen nameComp say tell-ImpCompQ
Sayohime
Act
kono yamano pe ni
(MY 5/872)
pire wo puri-kyem-u
this mountaintop on
scarfObj wave-PPresum-Adn
'MightSayohimehave wavedherscarfon thetopof thismountain,
(saying)"Pass it on!
name!"
This mountain's
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in old Japanese
alignment
Syntactic
129
In additionto thisregularity
abouttheirwordorder,it has been observedby
In factthegeneralMotohashi(1989) thatiw-markedphrasestendto be definite.
broader:wo-marked
izationis slightly
phrasesare specific.This can be shownby
can be markedby wo, butwhentheyare,theyreceivea
thefactthatw/i-pronouns
in contrast
tobarew/z-pronouns.
Thisis shownin thecontrast
specificinterpretation
betweenthefollowingtwoexamples.
(45) M^nupf
wm
®gibm**g
itatwo wo osi piraki siweya ide ko-ne
Maki no
wood Gen door Obj push open damn out come-Des
nani se-m-u?
noti pa
(MY 11/2519)
after Top what do-Presum-Adn
'Pushingopenthedoor(I say) "Come out,dammit!"Thenwhatwill
(I) do?'
(46) $3^±#
^mm
w&.
tamamo kari tum-ye ipye no imwo ga
sipo pwi-na-ba
house Gen wife Act
seaweed cut gather-Imp
tide recede-Perf-if
(MY 3/360)
pamaduto kop-aba nani wo simyesa-m-u?
shore.giftwant-if what Obj proffer-Presum-Adn
'If thetidehas gone out,cutand gatherthepreciousseaweed!If mywife
at homeasks forgiftsfromtheshore,which(other)shallI offerher?'
in
In (45), the universeof thingsthe speakermightdo is completelyundefined
thesetof itemsthatthespeakermightoffer
previousdiscourse.In (46), in contrast,
as pamadutwo'giftsfromtheshore'.In thiscase nani wo 'what/
hiswifeis defined
whichObj' picksout specificitemsfromthatset.
of adnominalclausesas in (47):
Yanagida(2006) analyzestheproperties
(47)
realizationin OJ
Case and argument
position
(i) Gfl-marked
subjectsstayin thebase externalargument
(Spec, vP).
intotheverb,
(ii) Bare objectsare incorporated
moveto theouterSpec of vP,
(iii) Wo-marked
objectsobligatorily
feature.
to checktheir[definite]
Herewerevisethisanalysistotakeintoaccountthenewdatareviewedinthissection.
clausesgenerally.
in (47) applyto nominalized
Second,moveFirst,theproperties
featuresincewo-marked
mentof wo-marked
by a definite
phrasesis nottriggered
29 continued
footnote
whereSapywopimega is takenas the
However,thisexampleis opento at leastone otherinterpretation,
of 'thismountain',
i.e., 'On this,Sayohime'smountain,
mightshe have wavedher
possessivemodifier
butthisis
ofYanagida(2006) also citesMY 18/4036as a counter-example,
scarf(saying). . .' A reviewer
of thisexample.
basedon a misinterpretation
£l Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Y. Yanagida, J. Whitman
130
XPs mayincludew/z-phrases
andPPs,amongotheritems.Instead,we wouldlikethe
of wo-marked
oftheirmovement.
specificity
phrasesto be a by-product
ofMiyagawa
tothebasicinsight
We cancapture
thesegeneralizations
byreturning
case.
in nominalized
clausesdoes notassignstructural
(1989): theverbalprojection
We saw in Sect.4 thatundertheactiveanalysisthegfl-marked
agentin nominaized
case there.FollowingMiyagawa's
clausesremainsin Spec,vP andreceivesinherent
that[nominal]v does notbearan accusativecase
originalproposal,we hypothesize
inthecase
Thisleavestwooptionsforcase licensingobjects:incorporation,
feature.
ofnonbranching
bya headabovevP.
objects,orcase assignment
that
As we haveseen,wo is realizedtotheleftoftheexternal
indicating
argument,
itis indeedassignedby a headabove vP. Thereare twopossiblecandidatesforthe
ofthishead.One is T; thiswouldbringOJintolinewithanalysesofcertain
identity
ergativelanguageswhereabsolutivecase is assignedbyT (Aldridge(2004), Legate
(2008)). The drawbackofthisapproachis thatOJwo, as discussedabove,does not
absolutivecase: itdoes notappearon thesubjects
showthedistribution
ofa standard
is to
verb.A possiblewayaroundthisdifficulty
ofinactive(oranykindofintransitive)
case assignedby T in nominalizedclausespreexpandtheanalysisof nominative
sentedin Sect.4.4. We proposedtherethatbarethemesubjectsare assignednominativecase by T selectinga defectivevP in nominalizedclauses. It could be
that
thatnominative
case is also assignedbyT selectingnondefective,
hypothesized
is spelledoutas wo.
inthisinstance
orunergative
vP,butthatnominative
is,transitive
so
An analysisalongtheselinesseemspossible,butithas theflavorofa stipulation,
here.
we willnotpursueitfurther
headbetweenv andT.
The secondoptionis thatwo is assignedby a functional
of AspectP.Washio(2004)
We proposethatwo-marked
DPs residein thespecifier
thatAsshowsthataspectselectionin OJwas sensitiveto transitivity,
suggesting
that
We hypothesize
thanvP,was thelocusfora [itransitive]feature.
pectP,rather
that
[-ftransitive]
Principle)feature
Aspectin OJbearsan EPP (ExtendedProjection
to
in theverbalprojection
attracts
thehighestnon-inherently
case markedargument
its specifier,
as shownin (48).
AspectP
(48)
/\
DP wo
Asp'
/\
vP Aspect[+transitive]
/\
DPagen,
V
/\
VP
v [nominal]
/\
tDPV
£) Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Syntacticalignmentin old Japanese
131
thatbareNPs extracted
fromthenuclearscope of the
Diesing's(1992) hypothesis
ofwo marked
clausereceivea specificinterpretation
explainsthe[specific]
property
phrases.
and the positionof wo-marked
Note thatthisanalysiscorrelateswo-marking
withthepresenceof [+transitive]
AspectPin nominalizedclauses.We
arguments
in theothermajorclausetypes:conclusive,
leave openthequestionof wo-marking
and imperative.
We showin Appendix2 thatwo-marking
also occursin
infinitive,
theseclauses, but as observedby Miyagawa(1989) and Miyagawaand Ekida
In conclusiveclauses,it is largelyrestricted
to prop(2003), it is morerestricted.
ositional attitudeverbs of thinkingor saying while in imperativeclauses
seemsto have been a mid-eighth
centuryinnovation,
probablytrigwo-marking
and imperative
endings.
geredby thephonologicalmergerof certaininfinitive
to Vovin'scharacterization
of thewo ...
The AspectPanalysisextendsnaturally
as thehead of participial-type
nominalin (39). AspectPis identified
-mi pattern
izationin analysessuch as Embick(2004) and Alexiadouand Anagnostopoulou
in (40), thewo-marked
(2008). UnliketheobjectEqui wo-marking
subject
pattern
to a matrixobject(or ECM) analysisbecause
in wo... -miclausesis notsusceptible
reasonorcause.We analyzethe
wo...-mi clausesareadjuncts,
typically
expressing
as adjunctAspPs,analagousto Acc-inggerundssuchas 'travel
wo...-mi pattern
beingpainful'in English:
(49)
[AspP tabiwo [Vpkurusi]mi] kofiwor-eba
be-when
travelAce painful-mi long.for
'as I longformywife,travelbeingpainful'
On thisanalysis,-miis thespelloutof thehead of [+transitive]
AspP. The stipuas one etymology
lationthat-mi is [+transitive]
motivation,
mayhavea diachronic
verbmi- 'see'. Wo... -mi
of thetransitive
for-mi derivesit fromtheinfinitive
withour hypothesis
thatwo is
clauses do notcontaintense,whichis consistent
head lowerthanT.
assignedby a functional
the resultsof this section,we have shown thatOJ had two
Summarizing
andwoclauses:incorporation
forcase marking
mechanisms
objectsinnominalized
to
clauses
accusative
of
v
in
nominalized
The
above
vP.
assign
inability
marking
More generally,
case is a directextensionMiyagawa's (1989) originalhypothesis.
of OJ nomias we discussin detailin Sect. 6.2, the activealignment
properties
nalized clauses fitinto the cross-linguistic
by "nominalist"
patternidentified
suchas Johns(1992) and Kaufman(2007).
alignment
analysesof non-accusative
oftheobject.Objectsmusttherefore
[Nominal]v is unabletocheckthecase feature
of 'absolutive'case byT (Aldridge
be case licensedbyotherstrategies:
assignment
or, in the
2004; Legate 2008), defaultabsolutive(Legate 2008), incorporation,
above
vP.
head
a
functional
instanceof OJ,case assigment
by
6 Alignmentand nominalizationin diachronicand typologicalperspective
to theclause typeswe have
is restricted
We have seen thatOJ activealignment
in -aku, and
called 'nominalized':adnominal(rentaikei),nominalcomplements
^ Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
132
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
realis (izenkei) and irrealis(mizenkei) conditionals.We have shownhow the
nominalizedproperties
of these clauses are intimately
linkedwiththeiractive
properties:nominalizedclauses assign inherentagentivega in Spec, vP, and
to a positionabove the
[transitive]
Aspectin theseclauses attractscomplements
In Sect. 6.1 we discussthe
externalargument,
wheretheyreceivewo-marking.
in OJ.In Sect. 6.2 we show
diachronic
sourcesforthenominalized
clausepatterns
thatnominalizations
sourcefornon-accusative
area widelyattested
cross-linguistic
We focuson a specificcase, Caribanlanguagesas analyzedby Gildea
alignment.
(1998, 2000), and pointout thatit suggestsa possiblesourceforthewo-marking
patternin OJ. Section6.3 discusseschangespossiblyalreadyunderwayin OJ,
markerno.
involvingthegenitive/subject
6.1 The nominalizing
endings
originsof theadnominaland irrealisconditional
or
Konoshima(1962) seemsto have been thefirstto arguethatthenominalizing
anditsNP
oftheadnominal
function
endingswasprimary,
juntaigen'quasi-nominal'
of[+N]
Adnominal
clausesinOJhavethedistribution
function
modifying
secondary.
LikeNPs,theymayserveas subjector
i.e.,NPs anduninflected
categories,
adjectives.
of
function
The NP modifying
objectoftheclauseandbe followedbycase markers.
adnominalclausesis parallelto uninflected
adjectives,whichwereable to directly
NP inOJ.30As we sawinSect.2.1,Miyagawa(1989) alsoanalyzesOJandMJ
modify
adnominalclausesas [nominal].
twoareheld
Oftheremaining
threeclausetypesthatwe havelabelednominalized,
in-aku are
tobe diachronically
derivedfromtheadnominal.
Nominalcomplements
derivedbyOhno(1953) fromtheadnominal
formoftheverbplusa noun*aku,e.g.,
+ aku > kuraku
yuk-u'go-Adn'+ aku > yukaku'going;'kuru'come-Adn'
-urefor
Whitman
(2004) derivestheirrealisendings(-e forquadrigrade,
'coming.'31
otherconjugations)
fromtheproto-Japanese
formoftheadnominalending*-or.
The irrealis(mizenkei)base in OJ is shownby Ohno to be of heterogeneous
origin.It resultsfromreanalysisof the initialvowel in variousauxiliariesand
suffixes
as theendingof theirrealis(mizenkei)base. In the case of the irrealis
the endingwas *-a, probablyrelatedto the nominalizing
suffix*-a
conditional,
Sakakura
This
is
(1966,
286-303).
hypothesized
by
pp.
ending preservedin such
noun-verb
as
tuk'build
:
tuka
'mound;'
pairs
mur(e)- 'gather': mura 'group,
up'
The
irrealis
conditional
village.'
appearsproductively
onlybeforetheconditional
+
which
Ohno
derives
from
locative
ni
-ba,
particle
pa. If Ohno's
topicmarker
is
it
confirms
the
function
of
*-<z
as we expect
correct,
analysis
originalnominalizing
locativeni to selecta [nominal]form.
30 It is
in pre-OJ(Omodakaet al.
late innovation
widelyheldthatinflected
adjectivesare a relatively
thenoun,e.g.,
1967,p. 4). It is easy to findOJ examplesof uninflected
adjectivesdirectly
modifying
kanasi imwo 'dearbelovedgirl.'
31 Ohno's
nounof theform
analysisis generally
accepted,butitsweakpointis thatthereis no attested
*aku. An alternative
thecore of Ohno's insightwouldderiveaku fromtheexistential
verb
preserving
roota- 'exist' plus theadjectivalcontinuative
of a-ku. It has longbeen pointedout thatderivatives
inflections,
partakein "stative"-type
e.g.,conclusive-/ in ar-i 'exists.'Nominalsin -(a)ku wouldthen
derivefromV-adnom+ exist-coNT,
'beingV.'
^
Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in old Japanese
alignment
Syntactic
133
in OJall
Summingup,thefourclausetypesthatshowactive-ergative
alignment
theadnominal,
derivefromnominalizations:
from
nominal,and realisconditional
suffix*-or,and theirrealisconditionalfroma nominalizing
thepJnominalizing
suffix*-a.
6.2 Nominalizations
as sourcesforalignment
structures
as thediachronic
A numberof linguistshave proposednominalization
forlanguagesthatshowsyncresourcefornon-accusative
particularly
alignment,
tismof agentand genitivemarking.Proposalsof thissortare made forMayan
(Starostaet al. 1982; Kaufman2007), and Cariban
(Bricker1981), Austronesian
accountof Inuktitut
(Gildea 1998, 2000). Johns(1992) develops a synchronic
The starting
based on nominalization.32
pointforthese'nominalist'acergativity
is similarto Miyagawa'ssynchronic
treatment
countsof non-accusative
alignment
of adnominalclauses in OJ: nominalizedclauses are unableto assignstructural
T is present,nomiaccusativecase. Dependingon thefeaturesof T, or whether
nominative.The nonnalized clauses may also be unable to assign structural
can be seen in familiarexamof nominalizations
accusativealignment
properties
Thusin thecity'sdestruction
by the
ples,suchas Englishderivednominalizations.
accusativenornominative
case;
barbarians,thenominalprojection
assignsneither
is
is licensedbythepreposition
theexternal
argument
by,andtheinternal
argument
assignedgenitivecase by D.
holdsthatnon-accuthenominalist
Froma diachronicperspective,
hypothesis
clausesare reanalyzedas mainclauses.
resultswhennominalized
sativealignment
richrangeof alignmentand word order
Gildea (1998) discussesa particularly
in Cariban.We focushereon
fromreanalyzednominalizations
resulting
patterns
whatGildea(1998, pp. 190-196,2000, pp. 85-88), citingFranchetto
(1990), calls
the'De-ergative'systemin theCaribanlanguagesPanareand Kuikuro.The source
to Gildea,was an objectnominalization
forthissysteminearlierCariban,according
withinthe
theagentremained
selectedbythematrix
copula.In thissourcestructure,
of thenominalizedverbcornominalizedVP whilethenotionalobjectargument
look at a modernPanare
respondedto thesubjectof thematrixcopula.Let us first
(50).33
pattern
exampleof thede-ergative
(50)
ni-a'kama-piti-hpemen
pi
yu-noh
it
dead Agt.Foc-tell-Iter-Pst
1-grandmother
toldit overand over.'
'My late grandmother
(Gildea (2000, p. 86))
thatGildea(2000: p. 88) positsforthede-ergative
(51) showsthesourcestructure
pattern:
32 See
in thebroadsense,have
thatcertaintypesofergativity,
Manning(1996) fortheglobalhypothesis
to Dan Kaufmanforpointingus in the
We are grateful
theirdiachronicoriginsin nominalizations.
tradition
ofstudieson ergativity,
hisown.
direction
ofthisandotherresearchinthe'nominalist'
including
33 We
of Gildea's Panaredata in (50) for
morphophonemic
representation
provideonlythesegmented
clarityof presentation.
^
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Springer
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
134
Clause
Independent
(51)
/\
Predicate
Subject
/\
NP
Copula
/\
Source: Poss n-V-Nmlzer
1
Result:
A
i
I
DErg-V-T/A (Auxiliary)
1
O
sourcefora sentencelike (50), forexample,wouldinvolvean
The reconstructed
toldoverand over
withthemeaning'whatmygrandmother
nominalization
object
the
matrix
of
this
nominalization
'It'
is
copula.The complete
by
predicated
again.'
reconstructed
sourcefor(50) wouldthushavetheform'It is [whatmygrandmother
is reanalyzedas
told over and over again].' In Panare,this source structure
thenommonoclausal,as shownin (51): thecopulais reanalyzedas an auxiliary,
external
verb
and
the
the
inalizationas a verbalprojection
(A)
argument
containing
in itsbase position,and theoriginalsubjectas theobject(O). Gildea(2000,p. 98)
is
construction
cites constituency
testsshowingthatO in thePanarede-ergative
A
the
verb.
and
externalto theminimalprojection
containing
can result
structure
Gildea's accountshowshow reanalysisof a nominalization
marked
in
a
also
but
not just in non-accusative
cross-linguistically
alignment
of
is exactlythesameas theproperty
ofthisstructure
structure.
The basic property
in
5.2:
Sect.
and
discussed
wo-marked
clausesin OJidentified
byYanagida(2006)
theexternalargument
theobjectsurfacesousidetheminimalprojection
containing
and theverb.
ofa clearlydefined
languagefamilyofgreattimedepth
Japaneseis nota member
like Cariban,so in reconstructing
earlierJapanesesyntaxwe are confinedto the
reconstruction.
Howeverwe wouldliketo concludethissectechniqueof internal
similarto (51) was thediachronic
tionbysuggesting
thepossibility
thata reanalysis
sourceof theobject
in OJ.The etymological
sourceof theO-wo S-genV pattern
marker
wo has longbeendebated,butonefactthathas notbeenobservedis thatthe
verbrootwo-,whichappearsin
shapeof thisparticleis identicalto theexistential
theOJ verbswor- 'exist,sit' and wi- 'be at, sit.'34We suggestthatthatwo originatesas the copularverb in a construction
parallelto the Caribande-ergative
pattern.
34 Some
particlewo, whichis
linguists,such as Tokieda (1954), relatewo to the OJ sentence-final
claimedto be emphatic;Tokieda thusclaims thatthe originalfunctionof object markingwo was
itcannotmean,forexample,focus,sincewo
Whateveris meantby emphaticin thiscontext,
emphatic.
definite
and presupposed.
markedobjectsin OJare typically
^
Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Syntacticalignmentin old Japanese
135
CopP
(52)
/\
DP
/\
Cop
vP
wo
/\
DPagem v
/\
VP
Source:
i
I
[AspP O wo [vPA
VP]]
I 1
Result:
v [nominal]
is reanalyzed
In (52), as in (51), a sourcestructure
involving
copula+nominalization
is
as AspP,
the
The projection
as monoclausal.
containing originalcopula reanalyzed
similarto thereanalysisof thecopula as an auxiliaryin Cariban.The restof the
remainsthesame.The mostcontroversial
structure
aspectof (52) is likelyto be the
have
had
a
earlier
that
right-branching
copula.Butevenat
Japanesemay
hypothesis
functional
such
for
evidence
theOJstage,Japanese
projections,
right-branching
gives
as theaspectualauxiliaryari 'be', themodalauxiliarye 'be able', andthenegative
2005).
na, all ofwhichappearto theleftofthelexicalverb(Whitman
imperative
thatboththe
evidencesuggesting
In thissectionwe have presented
typological
of OJnominalized
clauses
structure
constituent
and transitive
properties
alignment
the
clauses
Nominalized
fitintoa largercross-linguistic
mayprovide diapattern.
wherethe
for
a
and
chronicsourcefornon-accusative
pattern
synchronic
alignment
and
theverb.
the
minimal
the
outside
containing subject
projection
objectappears
6.3 AfterOJ:thereanalysisof no as nominative
is
As we haveseen,inOJthesubjectcanbe markedbyga orno,buttheirdistribution
verbs
but
not
of
external
marks
the
Ga
different.
argument transitive/unergative
quite
like a
of an unaccusative.No, on theotherhand,patterns
theinternalargument
of
a
transitives
inthatitcanmarkboththeexternal
case marker
nominative
argument
as we saw in Sect.4.1:
ofintransitives,
andtheinternal
argument
(53) a. 3&C»Mft|£
fcJfW&IUSgA.
gotoku
kop-u
ga
midorigwo no ti
Gen breast desire-AdnAgt like
infant
'like a childdesiresitsmother'smilk'
b. %J^7hiL
jfl0j4^
naka
makwi no tatu ara
yama
Gen stand rough mountain inside
tree
coveredwithtrees'
'in theroughmountains
(MY 18/4122)
(MY 3/241)
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
136
In (53a) no marksthesubjectof thetransitive,
and in (53b) it marksthesubject
at the
of the unaccusative.The two particlesga and no behave differently
level as well. Yanagida (2006) showsthatwhenthe subjectand object
syntactic
theobjectalwaysprecedesthe subject,as we saw in Sect. 4.2.
are case-marked,
But thereare a few cases of /to-marked
subjectswhichviolatethisgeneralizain (54). (OtherMan'yoshu examplesare 196, 2772,
tion.These are illustrated
2831, 3689.)
(54) a. #M75
S^ft
HtKWR
nuras-aku
Adn
drench(MY 9/1697)
'(that)thespringrain,however(I) tryto avoid it,drenchesme.'
parusame
springrain
no
Gen
b. t^f^JP At
Soko
That
mo ka
too Q
ware wo
yokure-do
Obj
avoid-although I
pito
people
&¥m&!&
no
wa wo
Gen I-Obj
'Do peoplesay thatof me too?'
koto nas-am-u?
things say-Conj-Adn
(MY 512, 1329,1376)
is rarein
thisconfiguration
wo. Although
In (54) no appearsin a positionpreceding
The
in
EMJ.
in kuntenglosseswritten
theMan'yoshu,itbecomeswidespread
early
followingexamplesare takenfromthe Konkomyo Saisho Okyo The Sutraof
are based on Kasuga 1969).
GoldenLight'{kuntentextca. 830; interpretations
(55)
a. yoki
womina no ...
wotoko yoki
sinkyau no
Gen
Gen/Nom
reverent
woman
men
good
good
nasamu
kokoro wo
(K 3-5:46)
mind Ace
produce
mind'
'(that)good menand good women...mightproducea reverent
dou
b. yoki
wotoko yoki
womina no ...
Sanzyou
man
woman Gen/Nom Triyana
way
good
good
wo
(K 3-5:50)
syusemu
Ace
practice
'(that)good menand good womenmightmastertheTriyanadoctrine'
Anothersignificant
revealedin thisearlyEMJ textis thatsubject
development
marking
ga is used onlyin theformof aga 'I.Subj' and naga 'you.Subj';nominal
subjectsare nevermarkedbyga?5 In theMan'yoshuthepronominal
subjectsaga
35 Thereis one
intheKonkomyoSaisho Okyo wherea nonpronominal
subjecttakesga
counter-example
and theobjecttakeswo, in (i).
(i)
5c
#>
¥k%
wotofito ga mi
wo tutete...
waga
myGen brother Agt oneself Ace sacrifice
sacrificed
himself.'
'My brother
(K 10-26:192)
<£}Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in old Japanese
alignment
Syntactic
137
andnaga arestrictly
adjacentto theverb,butin theKonkomyoSaisho Okyo they
can occurin sentenceinitialposition,precedinga wo-marked
object,as shownin
(56).
(56)
toki... (K 8-15:144)
a. wa ga katari wo idas-are-mu
I
Agt words Ace produce-Pass-Presumtime
'thetimewhenI (was able to) producewords'
kono Myaugyau-wau wo rufu-si...
b. na
ga yoku
you Agt successfully this Myaugyau-wau Ace propagate
(K 8-15:146)
thisMyo-kyosuccessfully...'
'you propagating
intheformalsensewe have
Itappearsfromthisdatathatga as an activecase marker,
ofga tofirst
and
inthispaper,was lostearlyintheEMJperiod.Thelimitation
defined
a steponthewayinthisprocess.(Recallthatin
wasprobably
secondpersonpronouns
to first
andsecondpersonalpronouns.)
manylanguages,activecase is restricted
activeprefix
/-in OJ.In
Finally,in Sect.4.3.1 we saw evidencefora pronominal
the Konkomyo Saisho Okyo, however,thereare manyinstancesof the postof transitive/unergative
nominalparticle/ markingtheagentarguments
verbs,as
shownin (57):
(57)
ti
Ware i ...
ga sakai wo tuutatus-eri. (K 8-19:155)
Nom wisdom Ga border Ace pass-Rslt
I
theborderof wisdom.'
'I passedthrough
As we saw in Sect.2.3.1,Vovin(1997) analyzesthepostnominal
particle/in OJas
thefactthatearlykuntentexts
an active(agentive)marker.However,considering
wereheavilyinfluenced
by KoreanglossingforChineseBuddhisttexts,it is pos/.This
marker
oftheKoreannominative
i is a borrowing
siblethatsubjectmarking
withthe view of Vovin (2005) thatthe muchrarersubject
wouldbe consistent
likeno, rather
marker/foundin OJis a Koreanloan. In anycase, EMJ/patterns
thanOJga, in thatit appearsin a positionprecedingwo.
The wordorderfactssuggestthatJapanesewas well on theway to developing
even in nominalizedclausesby theearlyEMJperiod.Tranaccusativealignment
wereassigned
of thephoneticformof theircase marker,
sitivesubjects,regardless
case in a positionhigherthanwo-marked
objects.This case was spelledout as ga
35 continued
footnote
ofga as a nominative
The eventualreanalysis
particlein Tokyoand KansaiJapaneseis a topicthatfar
of ga by
exceeds the scope of thispaper.Yamada (2000) examinesthe increasein the frequency
comparingthe originaltextof the Tale of Heike, whichis believedto reflectthe languageof the
textofHeike,knownas theAmakusa Heike,publishedin
withtheJesuitromanized
fourteenth
century,
1592.He observesthatmanyoftheunmarked
subjectsin theTale of Heike cametobe markedbyga in
The
case in thelate 16thcentury.
as a nominative
AmakusaHeike. Thismayindicatethatga reappeared
as reported
andhonorific
is confounded
matter
functions,
bytheassociationofga andno withpejorative
in theearlyseventeenth
Interestingly,
accordingYamada's observation,
century.
byJesuitgrammarians
verbsandadjectivesbutrarelyon thesubjectsof
ga in thisperiodis usedon thesubjectsofunaccusative
of ga in theMan'yoshu.
withthedistribution
verb.This contrasts
a transitive/unergative
directly
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
138
Y. Yanagida, J. Whitman
(on firstand secondpersonpronouns),/ (on some agentivesubjects),or no (the
elsewherecase).
7 Conclusion
In thispaper,we haveproposedthatJapaneseat itsoldestattested
stage,thecentral
dialectOJoftheeighthcentury,
OJdisplaysa
showsevidenceof activealignment.
Main
in
case
nominalized
clauses.
beween
main
and
(conclusive)
split
marking
in
conclusiveclausesare accusative.Nominalizedclausesdisplayactivealignment
case markingand cross-referencing
of arguments
on theverbthrough
prefixation.
The distinctive
O wo S V pattern
of transitive
nominalizedclauses identified
by
wherethe
witha formalanalysisof activealignment
Yanagida(2006) is consistent
external
receivesinherent
activecase in situ.Cross-linguistic
comparison
argument
as
is a widespreadsourcefornon-accusative
showsthatnominalization
alignment,
well as fora patternwherethe surfacepositionof the objectis higherthanthe
subject.
Appendix1: Bare objectsin relativeclauses
The possible counter-examples
in (5) are given
to Miyagawa's generalization
below.Phrasalobjectscan appearwithadnominalrelativeclause predicateswhen
theyoccurin mainclause initialposition,as shownin (58).
(58)
a. [Tomo-noUra-noiso-nomurwo-no
kwi-01
Tomo Bay Gen beach Gen cypressGen tree
[[promimu-goto-ni
api-misi]imo]pa wasura-ye-me
yamo (MY 3/447)
see wheneversee
aux Q
maid-Top
forget'WheneverI see thecypress-tree
by thebeachbesideTomo Bay, would
I everforgetmydearwho stoodby me and saw it?'
b. [Kadusikano Mama no iriyeniutinabiku
tamamo-0]
KazushikaGen Mama Gen inletin wave seaweed
si
(MY 3/433)
[[prokari-kyemu]tekwona]
omopo-yu
cut-Aux
maidfoc
remembee-Aux
'I remember
themaidwho gathered
thewavingseaweedin theinlet
of Mama of theKazushikaregion.'
The phrasalobjectsin clause-initial
positionin (58) are leftdislocatedto theleft
peripheral
topicposition.A leftdislocatedtopicmay serveas whatis knownas
rhetorical
deviceused throughout
the
stanza',an important
jokotoba 'introductory
stanzaprefacesthecontents
of thesucceedingverse.
Man'yoshu.The introductory
Notethata bareobliqueNP can also be leftdislocatedoutof a relativeclausewith
an intransitive
as in (59).
predicate,
& Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Syntacticalignmentin old Japanese
(59)
139
tukwi]matugotosi.
[Yupuyami-nokonopa 0] [[prokomoreru]
hide
moon wait like
Gen
tree-leave
evening-dark
(MY 11/2666)
'I feelas if I werewaitingforthemoonhiddenbehindan eveningtree.'
verbbutalso thelocativeadjunctof an
In OJ,notonlytheobjectof a transitive
bare.The bareNP in (59) is nota counterverbcan be morphologically
intransitive
on twocounts:first,
itis an adjunctandthus
exampleto Miyagawa'sgeneralization
is notassignedstructural
case; second,it occursin mainclause initialpositionand
as leftdislocated.
thusmaybe interpreted
is at work.
In othercases ofbareNP adjunctswe knowthatthefirst
explanation
The two bare NP adjunctsama no sita 'the land' (lit. 'undertheheavens') and
tamapoko-nomiti 'road' can appearinsidean adnominalclause: thereare four
in (60).
of ama-no-sitaand six of tamapoko-nomiti,as illustrated
occurrences
(For otherexamples,see MY 162,207, 230, 1738,3276,4006, 4098, 4465.)
(60)
ni ama
no
a. [Opotu no
miya
Palace
to heaven Gen
Gen
Otsu
sita 0
(MY 1/29)
sumyeroki
sirasime-kyem-u]
under governed
emperor
'theemperorwho came to thePalace of Otsuto ruletheland.'
tori no
kowe mo
b. naku
kikoye-zu
hear-not
sound Foe
bird
Gen
sing
miti
no
(MY 2/207)
yuku] pito
[tamapoko
Gen street go
people
Epithet
nothearingthesongsof birds'
'peoplewho pass on thestreet,
Ama no sita 'land' and tamapoko-nomiti 'road' are analyzableas compound
The wordtamapokobenounsand thusare probablynottruecounter-examples.
which
makura
kotoba
so-called
of
to
the
'pillowwords'orepithets,
category
longs
thatfollowsthem.Theyare conventionalized
of thereferent
are fixeddesignators
listedbelow.
Thereare twogenuinecount-erexamples,
and oftenunintelligible.
(61)
Sanu no
Sanu Gen
kasa masiwo
lend-Aux-Excl
(MY 3/161)
whentheautumnwindis cold,I wishto lendmy
'In theearlymorning
dressto thelordwho is goingoverthehillof Sano.'
no
swode tuke
b. [Warafa ga mi ni pa
yupipata
young Gen me at Top color-printedGen sleeve with
warewo
(MY 16/3791)
ki-si]
goromo0
wear-P.Adn I-Excl
clothes
'At a youngage, I was like a childwearingclotheswithsleeves
in colors.'
printed
wo
a. [Akikaze no samuki asaake
fall wind Gen cold
earlymorning Obj
oka 0 kwoyu-ramu] kimi ni kinu
lord to dress
cross-AUx
hill
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
140
and conclusiveclauses
Appendix2: Wo in imperative
threeinstancesof wo-marked
objectsin theMan'yoshuarelistedin
Eighthundred
wo used formakurakoKoji (1988). (These do notincludewo-miconstructions,
as
such
withotherparticles
and occurrences
toba epithets,
wo-ba.)36Mostof the
in the
that
803 tokensappearin nominalized
clauses,as expected; is, thepredicates
adnominal
continuative
irrealis(mizenkei) conditionals,
(rentaikei),
(renyokei),
realis(izenkei),and -aku nominalclauses.Thereare,however,someexceptions:
form
intheimperative
ofwo-marked
Six instances
objectsappearwiththepredicate
clauses
and
purposive
(62), and 34 appearwiththeconclusivepredicatein main
markedby to (63-64).
(62)
(6 tokens)
Imperative:
Aki no
(MY 20/4444)
yupupye wa warewo sinopas-e.
autumnGen evening Top me Obj remember-Imp
me.'
'(On) autumnevenings,remember
(63)
Main clause conclusive:(23 tokens)
a. Putarisite musubisi
pimowo pitorisite are pa
I Top
cordObj alone
together tied
mi-zi.
toki
(MY 12/2919)
untie
try-Neg.Conj.Conc
I will surelynotuntiealone.'
'The sash cordsthatwe tiedtogether,
b. Ware-wo wasuras-u na.
(MY 14/3457)
me-Obj forget-ConcNeg.Imp
'Don't forgetme.'
(64)
clauses:(11 tokens)
Conclusivein fo-marked
tama wo pirop-u to
jewel Obj find-ConeComp
'in orderto findthejewel'
(MY 7/1220)
Thereare 119 additionalinstancesof wo-marked
objectsthatprecedeto-marked
ofelliptedhigherverbssuchas omopu
clauses,buttheymaybe takenas arguments
of non'think'or ipu 'say'. In theseexamples,womarkedobjectsare arguments
in (65).
conclusive,non-imperative
clauses,as illustrated
(65)
Kimi
woj [proj sakiku are to]
(omopite)
lord
safe be
Comp (thinking)
Obj
sue-t-u.
(MY 17/3927)
ipapibe
vessel place-Perf-Conc
offering
vessel.'
'(Thinking)of mylord,'May he be safe,'I placedtheoffering
36
wo in theManyoshu.
to Koji (1988), therearea totalof 1,557instancesofobjectmarking
According
^
Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in old Japanese
alignment
Syntactic
141
As discussedin Sect. 5.2, we assumethatOJhas no ECM constructions;
thewoofthehigherverbomopu
markedsubjectoftheinactiveverbis in facttheargument
as underlyingly
'think',whichhas beendeletedin (3927) butstandardly
interpreted
presentin thisand similarexamples.Thereare also in Koji (1988) at leastthree
clauses; thesehowever
examplesof wo-markedobjectsthatprecedeto-marked
shouldbe takenas dislocatedtopics(MY 2/148,MY 10/2228,MY 20/4300).They
of embeddedto-marked
clauses but serveas jokotoba 'introare notarguments
of wo-marked
stanzas',as discussedabove.Therearealso fouroccurrences
ductory
objectsembeddedin -rasi clauses,as in (66) (MY 13, 3145,4111,4427).
(66)
ras-i.
sinop-u
Wagimokosi a wo
Emphme Obj think-Conc seem-Conc
my.girl
of me.'
'My girlseemsto be thinking
(MY 12/3145)
had spreadbeyondnominalized
clausesin theOJ
Thesedatashowthatwo-marking
Most instancesof wo-marking
appearsquiterestricted.
period,butitsdistribution
involve'that'clausessuchas (64-65), and manyof the
withconclusivepredicates
conclusivemainclause examplessuch as (64a) involvetopicalizedobjects.This
to conclusiveclauses.Topicalized
suggestsa scenarioforthespreadof wo marking
attitude
verbsselectinga to-clausecomplewo-marked
objectswithpropositional
fromtheto-clause,especially
mentmayhavebeenreanalyzedas extracted
directly
in contextslike (65), wherethehigherverbis dropped.
in imperatives.
Supportforthisscenariocomesfromtherarityof wo-marking
Koji (1988) citesonlysixexamples.Fourofthese(MY 4009,4444,4177,and4179)
are fromsongsin volumes17-19 of the Man'yoshii,composedby Ootomono
Yakamochior his associatesin the periodaround750. Of the remainingtwo
examples,MY 3764 was composedaroundthe same periodby Nakatomono
Yakamoriwhilewo in MY 2352 is analyzableas a vocativeparticle.This suggests
It mayhavearisen
lateinnovation.
was a relatively
in imperatives
thatwo-marking
clauses,triggered
by a phonological
by analogywithwo- markingin infinitive
predicates
merger.Fourof thefiveclearexamplescitedabove involveimperative
-e had mergedafter
withrootfinal-s; imperative
-ye and lowerbigradeinfinitive
/s/well beforetheeighthcentury.
to ShigeruMiyagawa,KunioNishiyama,
AcknowledgementsWe wishtoexpressourdeepappreciation
The authorsare of course
JEAL reviewerfortheircomments.
AlexanderVovin,and an anonymous
forscientific
researchfrom
Workon thispaperwas supported
foranyerrors.
bygrants-in-aid
responsible
of Science (JSPS) to Yanagidaand a JapanFoundationgrantto
theJapanSocietyforthePromotion
Whitman.
Texts (Primarysources)
Kasuga,Masaji. 1969. KonkomyoSaisho Okyo Koten no KokugogakutekiKenkyu.[A linguistic
of theNishidaiji-bon
Konkyosaisho6-kyo].Tokyo:Benseisha.
studyof theKuntenannotation
intheMany
particles
Koji,Kazuteru.1988.Man'yoshuJoshino Kenkyu.[Researchon thegrammatical
oshu].Tokyo:Kasama Shoin.
& Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
142
Tono. 1971-1975.Man'yoshu(\-4), NihonKoten
Masatake,Kinosita,andHaruyuki,
Kojima,Noriyuki,
Bungaku Zenshu. Tokyo:Shogakkan.
in 1978-2005).
Nakanishi,Susumu.1978-1983.Man'yoshu.Tokyo:KodanshaBunko(reprinted
Satake,Asahiro,Hideo, Yamada, Masao, Ohtani,Yoshiyuki,Yamazaki.1999-2003.Man'yoshu Shin
of classical Japaneseliterature].
Nihon Koten Bungaku Taikei, (vol. 1-4). [New compendium
Tokyo:Iwanami.
Electronictexts
ofVirginiaLibrary,
Electronic
TextCenter,
TextInitiative
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/
University
Japanese
japanese/jti.texts.euc.html
NationalInstitute
of JapaneseLiterature.
http://www.nijl.ac.jp/contents/d_library/index.html
Makoto.http://yoshi01
Yoshimura,
.kokugo.edu.yamaguchi-u.ac.jp/manyou/manyou.html
References
and word orderin Austronesian
languages.Doctoraldissertation,
Aldridge,Edith.2004. Ergativity
CornellUniversity.
Alexiadou, Artemis.2001. Functional structurein nominals: Nominalization and ergativity.
Amsterdam:
JohnBenjamins.
2008. Structuring
Alexiadou,Artemis,and Elena Anagnostopoulou.
participles.In Proceedingsof
WCCFL 26, ed. NatashaAbnerand JasonBishop,33-41. Somerville:CascadillaPress.
East Asia Papers, vol. 6.
Allen,NicholasJ. 1975. Sketchof Thulunggrammar.Cornell University
Ithaca:CornellUniversity.
of ChicagoPress.
Baker,Mark,C. 1988.Incorporation.Chicago:The University
of case and agreement.
determination
Maria,and Ken Hale. 1996. The structural
Bittner,
Linguistic
Inquiry27: 1-68.
Victoria.1981.The sourceoftheergativesplitin YukatekMaya.JournalofMayan Linguistics
Bricker,
2(2): 83-127.
ed. ThomasRoeper
ofsyntax.In Parametersetting,
Borer,Hagit,andKenWexler.1987.The maturation
Reidel.
and EdwinWilliams,123-172.Dordrecht:
In Step by step: Essays on minimalist
inquiries:The framework.
Chomksy,Noam. 2001. Minimalist
89David MichaelsandJuanUriagereka,
syntaxin honorof Howard Lasnik,ed. RogerMartin,
156. Cambridge:MIT.
In Syntactictypology,ed. WinfredLehmann,329-394. Austin:
Comrie,Bernard.1978. Ergativity.
of Texas Press.
University
In Proceedingsof the
Dahlstrom,
systems.
languagesand splitcase marking
Amy.1983.Agent-patient
andclaudia
9thAnnual Meetingof theBerkeleyLinguisticsSociety,BLS 9, ed. AmyDahlstrom
37-46. Berkeley:BerkeleyLinguistics
Brugman,
Society.
Diesing,Molly. 1992.Indefinites.
Cambridge:MIT.
Dixon,R.M.W. 1979.Ergativity.
Language 55: 59-138.
Press.
Dixon,R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
inEnglish.LinguisticInquiry35.3: 355ofresultative
Embick,David.2004.On thestructure
participles
392.
in kuikuroand otherCariblanguages.In AmaBruna.1990. Ergativity
and nominativity
Franchetto,
Studiesin lowlandSouthAmericanlanguages,ed. DorisL. Payne,407-427.
zonian linguistics:
Austin:Universitv
of Texas Press.
JohnBenjamins.
Amsterdam:
2008. Proto-Japanese.
Frellesvig,
Bjarke,and JohnWhitman.
Press.
Gildea,Spike. 1998. On reconstructing
grammar.Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Gildea, Spike. 2000. On the genesisof the verb phrasein Caribanlanguages.In Reconstructing
ed. Spike Gildea,65-106. Amstergrammar:Comparativelinguisticsand grammaticalization,
dam:JohnBenjamins.
Harada,Shin-Ichi.1971.Ga-no conversionand ideolectalvariationsin Japanese.Gengo kenkyu60:
25-38.
formsin the
and attributive
Peter.1998. Kakari particlesand themergerof thepredicative
Hendriks,
Korean Linguistics7: 197-210.
Japaneseverbalsystem.Japanese/
^
Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in old Japanese
Syntactic
alignment
143
at the
ECM, and themajorobjectin Japanese.Paperpresented
Hoji, Hajime. 1991. Raising-to-object,
of Rochester.
JapaneseSyntaxWorkshop.
University
Alana. 1992.Derivingergativity.
Johns,
LinguisticInquiry23.1: 57-87.
in Austronesian.
Daniel. 2007. The nominalist
Kaufman,
Papergivenat ZAS Berlin,August
hypothesis
14,2007.
fromthe
ofJapanesegrammar
Kinsui,Satoshi.2001. Joshikaramitanihongobunpouno rekisi[A history
viewpointof particles]Lecturehandout.Tokyouniversity.
or languagesor activetypology.
Klimov,ueorgijA. 19/4.Un thecharacter
Linguisticsui: l l-ZD.
Klimov,GeorgijA. 1977. Tipologijajazykov aktivnogostroja [Typologyof languagesof theactive
type].Moscow:Nauka.
Konoshima,Tadatoshi.1962. Chukogoni okeruyogenrentaikeino yoho [The use of the participial
adjectivein medievalJapanese].Kokugogaku48: 102-107.
Jaklin.2003. Subject case in Turkishnominalizedclauses. In Syntacticstructuresand
Kornfilt,
and Luka Szusich,130-214.Berlin:Moutonde
ed. Uwe Junghanns
morphologicalinformation,
Gruvter.
changein earlierJapanese].
Kuginuki,Torn. 1996. Kodai Nihongo no keitaihenka [Morphological
Osaka: IzumiShoin.
of Englishand Japanese.
we agreeor not:a comparative
Kuroda,Sige-Yuki.1988. Whether
grammar
12: 2-44.
LinguisticaeInvestigationes
Kuroda,Shige-Yuki.2007. On thesyntaxofOld Japanese.In Currentissuesin thehistoryand structure
263-318.Tokyo:Kurosio.
J.C.Smith,andMasayoshiShibatani,
ofJapanese,ed. BjarkeFrellesvig,
in ThulungRai: A shiftin the positionof pronominalsplit.
Lahaussois,Aimee. 2003. Ergativity
Language variation:Paperson variationand changein theSinosphereand in theIndospherein
honour of James A. Matisoff.Pacific Linguistics,ed. D. Bardleyet al. 101-112. Canberra:
Nationaluniversity.
Australian
and abstractcase. LinguisticInquiry39.1, 55-101.
Legate,Julie.2008. Morphological
MIT.
and movementtheory.Doctoraldissertation,
Mahajan,AnoopKumar.1990.TheA/Aydistinction
and grammaticalrelations.Stanford:
D. 1996. Ergativity:
Argumentstructure
Manning,Christopher
CSLI Publications.
Alec. 1997.No escapefromsyntax:Don't trymorphological
Marantz,
analysisintheprivacyofyourown
lexicon.In University
of PennsylvaniaWorkingPapers in Linguistics,vol. 4.2, ed. Alexis
Club.
PennLinguistics
et al., 201-225. Philadelphia:
Dimitriadis
andtheTupianfamily.In What'sin a verb:
Meira,Sergio.2006. Stativeverbsvs. nounsin Satere-Mawe
Studiesin theverbalmorphologyof thelanguagesof theAmericas,Lot OccasionalSeries,ed.
GraduateSchool of LinGraz'ynaJ. Rowickaand EithneB. Carlin,pp. 189-214. Netherlands
guistics.Netherlands.
and itsmotivations.
case marking
Marianne.1991.Active/agentive
Mithun,
Language 67.3: 510-546.
and case markingin Japanese.Syntaxand Semantics,vol. 22.
Miyagawa,Shigeru.1989. Structure
New York:AcademicPress.
Miyagawa,Shigeru.1993. Case checkingand theMinimalLinkCondition.In Case and agreementII,
MIT WorkingPapers in Linguistics,vol. 19,ed. Colin Phillips,213-254. Cambridge:MIT.
in
of theaccusativecase marking
Miyagawa,Shigeruand Fusae Ekida. 2003. Historicaldevelopment
texts.Journalof JapaneseLinguistics19: 1-95.
Japaneseas seen in classicalliterary
Edson T., KennethWexler,TakakoAikawa,and ShigeruMiyagawa.1999. Case-dropping
Miyamoto,
et al., 443-452.
in Japaneseacquisition.In BUCLD 23, ed. Annabelgreenhill
and unaccusatives
Somerville:CascadillaPress.
of theJapaneselanguage.Doctoraldissertation,
Tatsushi.1989.Case theoryand thehistory
Motohashi,
of Arizona.
University
no kigenni tuite[On theoriginof theJapanese
Ohno,Susumu.1953.Nihongono doshino katsuyokei
verbconjugations].
Kokugo to kokubunsaku350: 47-56.
of Japaneseby
Omodaka,Histakaet al. 1967. Jidaibetsukokugo daijiten,jodai-hen [A dictionary
period,Old Japaneseedition].Tokyo:Sanseido.
Tokyo: Kadokawa
Sakakura,Atsuyoshi.1966. Gokosei no kenkyu[Researchon WordFormation].
shoten.
of Old
and orthography
Sasaki,Takashi. 1996. Jodaigo no kobun to hydki[The sentencestructure
Japanese].Tokyo:HituziShobo.
in Americanlanguages.AmericanAnthroSapir,Edward.1911. The problemof nounincorporation
pologist13: 250-282.
£i Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
144
Y. Yanagida,J.Whitman
Sapir,Edward.1917. Reviewof C.C Uhlenbeck:Het PassieveKarakter...In The collectedworksof
Edward Sapir V (1990), ed. W. Bright,
69-74. Berlinand New York:Moutonde Gruyter.
In Grammaticalcategoriesin
Silverstein,Michael. 1976. Hierarchyof featuresand ergativity.
Institute
of Aboriginal
Australianlanguages,ed. R.M.W. Dixon, 112-171.Canberra:Australian
Studies.
Spencer,Andrew.1999. Chukcheehomepage.http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~spena/Chukchee/CHUKCHEE HOMEPAGE.html
In
Starosta,
Stanley,AndrewPawley,andLawrenceReid. 1982.The evolutionoffocusin Austronesian.
Conferenceon AustronesianLinguistics,Vol. 2: Tracking
PapersfromtheThirdInternational
145-170.
thetravelers,
PacificLinguisticsC-75,ed. S.A. Wurmand L. Carrington.
in Japanese.Doctoraldissertation.
Takezawa,Koichi.1987.A configurational
approachto case-marking
of Washington
University
Tokieda,Motoki. 1954. Nihon bunpo kogo-hen [Japanesegrammar,
colloquial languageedition].
Tokyo:IwanamiShoten.
of splitintransitivity.
Van Valin,RobertD. 1990. Semanticparameters
Language 66.2: 221-260.
of Old Japanese.Journalof East Asian Linguistics
Vovin,Alexander.1997.On thesyntactic
typology
6: 273-290.
Vovin,Alexander.2005. A descriptiveand compartivegrammarof WesternOld Japanese,vol. 1.
Folkestone:Global Oriental.
selectionin theEast.Journalof East Asian Linguistics13: 197-256.
Washio,Ryuichi.2004. Auxiliary
in Old Japanese.In Syntacticeffects
Watanabe,Akira.2002. The loss of overtw/z-movement
of morPress.
179-195.Oxford:OxfordUniversity
phologicalchange,ed. David W. Lightfoot,
InJapanese/Korean
John.1997.Kakarimusubifroma Comparative
Whitman,
Linguistics,
Perspective.
CSLI.
vol. 6, Ho-minSohnand JohnHaig, 161-178.Stanford:
at
of therentaikei
and originsof theizenkei.Paperpresented
John.2004. The reconstruction
Whitman,
the.OxfordKnhft
Svmnnsinm
nnthe.HistnrvnfTflnanese.
Whitman,John.2005. Preverbalelementsin Korean and Japanese.In The Oxford handbook of
comparativesyntax,ed. GuglielmoCinque and RichardKayne,880-902. Oxford:OxfordUniversitvPress.
Wichmann,S0ren.2008. The studyof semanticalignment:Retrospectand stateof the art.In The
typologyof semanticalignment,ed. S0renWichmannand Mark Donohue,3-23. Cambridge:
Press.
CambridgeUniversity
Wichmann,S0ren,and Mark Donohue. 2008. The typologyof semanticalignment.Cambridge:
Press.
CambridgeUniversity
Ellen. 1997.Four-way
case systems:
nominative,
Woolford,
objective,andaccusative.Natural
Ergative,
Language and LinguisticTheory15: 181-227.
Wrona,Janick.2006. WhyOld Japanesewas notan ergativelanguage,ms.,KyotoUniversity.
Wrona,Janick.2008. A studyof Old Japanesesyntax:Synchronicand diachronicaspectsof the
complementsystem.London:Global Oriental.
kakudaino yoso [Theexpansionoftheuse ofthe
Yamada,Masahiro.2000. Shugohyqjiga no seiryoku
betweentheoriginalTextoftheTale ofHeike andAmakusaban
subjectdenotor
ga: A comparison
Heikel Kokugogaku51-1: 1-14.
atWorkshop
andbarenominalsinEarlyOld Japanese.PaperPresented
Yanagida,Yuko.2005.Ergativity
on TheoreticalEast AsianLinguistics,
HarvardUniversity.
in EarlyOld Japanese.Journalof East Asian
Yanagida,Yuko. 2006. Wordorderand clause structure
Linguistics15: 37-68.
Yanagida,Yuko. 2007a. Miyagawa's(1989) exceptions:An ergativeanalysis.MIT WorkingPapers in
265-276. Cambridge:MIT.
Linguistics,vol. 55, ed. Yoichi Miyamoto,
in Old Japanese].In Nihongono
Yanagida,Yuko. 2007b.Jodaigono nokakuseini tsuite[On ergativity
shubungensho [Main clause phenomenain Japanese],ed. NobukoHasegawa,147-188.Tokyo:
HituziShobo.
^
Springer
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:35:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions