Two types of alignment change in nominalizations
Austronesian and Japanese
This paper investigates two instances of alignment change, both of which resulted from reanalysis of a nominalized
embedded clause type, in which the external argument was marked with genitive case and the internal argument was focused. We show
that a subject marked with genitive case in the early development of Austronesian languages became ergative-marked when object
relative clauses in cleft constructions were reanalyzed as transitive root clauses. In contrast to this, the genitive case in Old
Japanese nominalized clauses, marking an external argument, was extended to mark all subjects. This occurred after adnominal
clauses were reanalyzed as root clauses. Japanese underwent one more step in order for genitive to be reanalyzed as nominative:
the reanalysis of impersonal psych transitive constructions as intransitives.
With these two case studies of Austronesian and Japanese, we show that reanalysis of nominalization goes in
either direction, ergative or accusative, depending on the syntactic conditions involved in the reanalysis.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Genitive to ergative in Austronesian
- 2.1Previous connections between Austronesian clause structure and nominalization
- 2.2Reanalysis
- 2.3Summary
- 3.Genitive to nominative in Japanese
- 3.1Two types of genitive markers in Old Japanese
- 3.2After OJ: A change from active to accusative alignment
- 3.3Reanalysis
- 3.3.1Psych predicate constructions
- 3.3.2Impersonal psych transitive constructions in Old Japanese
- 3.3.3After OJ: Psych predicate constructions
- 3.4Summary
- 4.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
- Abbreviations
-
Digitalized texts
-
References
References (94)
Digitalized texts
The Corpus of Historical Japanese (CHJ), the National Institute of Japanese Language
and Linguistics, [URL]
References
Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity
and word order in Austronesian languages. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University dissertation.
Aldridge, Edith. 2008. Generative
approaches to ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass: Syntax and
Morphology 2(5). 966–995. 

Aldridge, Edith. 2012. Antipassive
and ergativity in
Tagalog. Lingua 1221. 192–203. 

Aldridge, Edith. 2015. A
Minimalist approach to the emergence of ergativity in Austronesian languages. Linguistics
Vanguard 1(1). 313–326. 

Aldridge, Edith. 2016. Ergativity
from subjunctive in Austronesian languages. Language and
Linguistics 17(1). 27–62.
Aldridge, Edith. 2017. Intransitivity
and the development of ergative alignment. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Travis (eds.), The
Oxford handbook of
ergativity, 501–529. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aldridge, Edith. 2018. Reconstructing
Proto-Austronesian alignment. Paper presented at the 20th
Diachronic Generative Syntax conference (DIGS 20), York
University, UK.
Allen, Cynthia. 1995. Case
marking and reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, Stephen. 1977. On
the mechanisms by which languages become ergative. In Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms
of syntactic
change, 317–363. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation:
A theory of grammatical function
changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Benveniste, Emil. 1952. La
construction passive du parfait transitif. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de
Paris 48(1)[=1974. 192–202].
Bubenik, Vit. 1989. On
the origins and elimination of ergativity in Indo-Aryan Languages. Canadian Journal of
Linguistics 34(4). 377–398. 

Butt, Miriam. 2001. A
reexamination of the accusative to ergative shift in Indo
Aryan. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Time
over matter: Diachronic perspectives on
morphosyntax, 105–141. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Butt, Miriam & Ashwini Deo. 2017. Developments
into and out of ergativity: Indo-Aryan Diachrony. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Travis (eds.), The
Oxford handbook of
ergativity, 531–552. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bynon, Theodora. 2005. Evidential,
raised possessor and the historical source of the ergative construction in
Indo-Iranian. Transactions of the Philological
Society 103(1). 1–72. 

Cardona, George. 1970. The
Indo-Iranian construction Mana (Mama)
Kriam. Language 461. 1–12. 

Chang, Henry Y. 2011. Transitivity, ergativity, and
the status of O in Tsou. In Jung-hsing Chang (ed.), Language
and cognition: Festschrift in honor of James H-Y. Tai on his 70th
birthday, 277–308. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Chen, Cheng-Fu. 1999. Wh-words
as interrogatives and indefinites in Rukai. MA
thesis, National Taiwan University.
Chen, Cheng-Fu. 2008. Aspect
and tense in Rukai: Interpretation and interaction. University of Texas, Austin, dissertation.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist
inquiries. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step
by step: Essays in Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard
Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language
universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and
morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.
De Guzman, Videa P. 1988. Ergative analysis for Philippine
languages: An analysis. In Richard McGinn (ed.), Studies
in Austronesian linguistics, 323–345. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Center for International Studies.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Fischer, Olga & van der Leek, Frederike. 1983. The
demise of the Old English impersonal construction. Journal of
Linguistics 191, 337–368. 

Frellesvig, Bjarke. 2010. A
history of the Japanese language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Gair, James W. 1983[1998]. Non-configurationality,
movement, and Sinhala focus. Paper presented at the Linguistic
Association of Great Britain, Newcastle, September
1983. [Published in
Gair 1998:50–64].
Gair, James W. 1998. Studies in South Asian linguistics:
Sinhala and other South Asian languages. New York: Oxford University Press.
van Gelderen, Elly. 2014. Changes
in psych-verbs: A reanalysis of little v
. Catalan Journal of
Linguistics 131. 99–122. 

Gerdts, Donna B. 1988. Antipassives and causatives in
Ilokano: Evidence for an ergative analysis. In Richard McGinn (ed.), Studies
in Austronesian linguistics, 295–321. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Center for International Studies.
Gildea, Spike. 1998. On
reconstructing grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing
questions. MIT dissertation.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment
change in Iranian languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 

Haig, Geoffrey. 2010. Alignment. In Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds.), Continuum
companion to historical linguistics, 250–268. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Haas, Mary R. 1941. Tunica. In Franz Boas (ed.), Handbook
of American Indian languages, 9–143. New York: Augustin.
Harris, Alice & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical
syntax in cross-linguistic
perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. The Austronesian languages of
Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. In Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), The
Austronesian languages of Asia and
Madagascar, 110–181. New York: Routledge.
Hook, Peter. 1991. On
identifying the conceptual restructuring of passive to ergative in
Indo-Aryan. In Madhav M. Deshpande & Saroja Bhate (eds.), Pāninian
studies: Professor S. D. Joshi Felicitation
volume, 177–199. University of Michigan: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies.
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity
in grammar and
discourse. Language 561. 251–299. 

Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johns, Alana. 1992. Deriving
ergativity. Linguistic
Inquiry 231. 57–88.
Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian
nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical
Linguistics 35(1). 1–49. 

Keenan, Edward & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun
phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic
Inquiry 8(1). 63–99.
Kikuta, Ciharu. 2012. Jodai nihongo no ga-kaku nituite [On the case marker
ga in Old Japanese] Dosisha Daigaku Jinbun
Gakkai [The Literary Association], Doshisha University 891, 89–123.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 1992. LF
pied piping: Evidence from Sinhala. Gengo
Kenkyu 1021. 46–87.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2005.
Wh-in-situ
and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 231. 1–51. 

Klaiman, Miriam H. 1978. Arguments against a passive
origin of the IA ergative. In Chicago Linguistic Society: Papers from
the 14th Regional
Meeting, 204–216. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. Syntactic
reanalysis. In Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms
of syntactic change, 57–139. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Legate, Julie. 2003. Warlpiri:
Theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA.: MIT dissertation.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1973. Rukai
structure. Taipei: Academia Sinica Institute of History and Philology.
Liao, Hsiu-chuan. 2002. The
Interpretation of tu and Kavalan ergativity. Oceanic
Linguistics 41(1). 140–158. 

Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The
A/A’ distinction and movement theory. MIT dissertation.
Malchukov, Andrej. 2008. Split
intransitives, experiencer objects and transimpersonal constructions: (re-)establishing the
connection. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The
typology of semantic
alignment, 76–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Ohno, Susumu. 1977. Shukaku joshi ga no seiritsu [The development
of the nominative case particle
ga
], Bungaku 451:102–117.
Ohno, Susumu. 1978. Bunpoo to goi. [Grammar and
lexicon]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Payne, John R. 1980. The decay of ergativity in Pamir
Languages. Lingua 511. 147–186. 

Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero
syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Pray, Bruce R. 1976. From passive to ergative in
Indo-Aryan. In Manindra K. Verma (ed.), The
notion of subject in Indo-Aryan
languages, 195–211. Madison: University of Wisconsin (South Asian Studies, Publication series 2).
Rosen, Carol. 1996. LING
401: Typology. Course notes, Cornell University.
Ross, Malcolm. 2009. Proto
Austronesian verbal morphology: A reappraisal. In K. Alexander Adelaar & Andrew Pauley (eds.), Austronesian
historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Robert Blust (Pacific Linguistics
601), 295–326. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.
Ross, Malcolm. 2012. In
defense of Nuclear Austronesian (and against Tsouic). Language and
Linguistics 13(6). 1253–1300.
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The
subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the
above. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject
and topic, 491–518. New York: Academic Press.
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy
of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical
categories in Australian
languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aborignal Studies.
Slade, Benjamin. 2011. Formal
and philological inquiries into the nature of interrogatives, indefinites, disjunction, and focus in Sinhala and other
languages. University of Illinois Ph.D. dissertation.
Slade, Benjamin. 2018. History
of focus-concord constructions and focus-associated particles in Sinhala, with comparison to Dravidian and
Japanese. Glossa 31. 1–28. 

Starosta, Stanley. 1995. A
grammatical subgrouping of Formosan languages. In Paul J.-K. Li, Cheng-hwa Tsang, Ying-kuei Huang, Dah-an Ho, Chiu-yu Tseng (eds.), Austronesian
studies relating to
Taiwan, 683–726. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Starosta, Stanley. 2001. Reduplication
and the subgrouping of Formosan languages. Paper presented at
the International Symposium on Austronesian Cultures: Issues relating to Taiwan, Academia
Sinica. Published in Elizabeth Zeitoun (ed.), Formosan
linguistics: Stanley Starosta’s
contributions, vol. 21, 801–834. Taipei: Language and Linguistics, 2009.
Starosta, Stanley, Andrew K. Pawley & Lawrence A. Reid. 1982/2009. The
evolution of focus in Austronesian. In Amran Halim, Lois Carrington & S. A. Wurm (eds.), Papers
from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Vol. 2: Tracking the
travellers (Pacific Linguistics
C-65). Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, 145–170 (republished
in Elizabeth Zeitoun (ed.), Formosan
linguistics: Stanley Starosta’s contributions. Vol. 2: Publications on Formosan languages (Language
and Linguistics Monograph Series
C6–65). Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica, 297–328 [with an expanded version of the
paper, with the same title, published for the first time in the same volume, 329–481]).
Tan, Cindy Ro-lan. 1997. A study of Puyuma simple
sentences. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University MA Thesis.
Teng, Stacy Fang-ching. 2008. A reference grammar of
Puyuma. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Teng, Stacy F. & Elizabeth Zeitoun. 2016. The
noun-verb distinction in Kanakanavu and Saaroa: Evidence. Oceanic
Linguistics 55(1). 134–161. 

Tsuboi, Yoshiki. 2001. Nihongo katuyo taikei no hensen [Historical change in the Japanese
conjugation system]. Tokyo: Kasama Shoin
Whitman, John. 1997.
Kakarimusubi
from a comparative perspective. In Ho-min Sohn & John Haig (eds.),
Japanese/Korean
linguistics, vol.
6, 161–178. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Wolff, John. 1973. Verbal
inflection in Proto-Austronesian. In Andrew Gonzales (ed.), Essays
in honor of Cecilio Lopez on his seventy-fifth
birthday, 71–91. Quezon City: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Woolford, Ellen. 2008. Differential
subject marking at argument structure, syntax and PF. In Helen de Hoop & Peter de Swart (eds.), Differential
subject
marking, 17–40. Dordrecht: Springer.
Yamada, Masahiro. 2000. Shugo hyôji ga no seiryoku kakudai no yôso [The expansion of
the use of the subject denotor ga: A comparison between the original text of the Tale of Heike and Amakusaban
Heike]. Kokugogaku 51(1). 1–14.
Yamada, Masahiro. 2010. Kakujoshi ga no Tsujiteki Kenkyu [A diachronic study of the case
particle
ga
]. Hituzi:Tokyo.
Yanagida, Seiji. 1985. Muromachi jidai o kokugo [The language of Muromachi
period] Tokyo: Tokyo Do.
Yanagida, Yuko. 2006. Word
order and clause structure in Early Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 151. 37–68. 

Yanagida, Yuko. 2007. Miyagawa’s
(1989) exceptions: An ergative analysis. MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 551. 265–276.
Yanagida, Yuko. 2017. Genitive/active
to nominative case in Japanese: The role of complex experiencer constructions. Paper presented
at the
23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, The University of
Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio.
Yanagida, Yuko. 2018a. Differential
subject marking and its demise in the history of Japanese. In I. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich (eds), Diachrony
of differential argument
marking. 403–425. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Yanagida, Yuko. 2019. The
origin of dative subjects and psych predicate constructions in Japanese. Paper given at
the
24th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Australian National
University, Canberra, Australia (to appear in Journal of
Historical Linguistics
).
Yanagida, Yuko & John Whitman. 2009. Alignment
and word order in Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 181. 101–144. 

Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Stacy F. Teng. 2016. Reassessing
the position of Kanakanavu and Saaroa among the Formosan languages. Oceanic
Linguistics 55(1). 162–198. 

Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Aldridge, Edith
2024.
Proto-Austronesian Interrogative Pronouns and Their Development. In
Studies in Vietnamese Historical Linguistics [
Global Vietnam: Across Time, Space and Community, ],
► pp. 199 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.