Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Historical Linguistics
Vol. 12:2 (2022) ► pp.282–316

The origin of dative subjects and psych predicate constructions in Japanese

| University of Tsukuba
There is considerable literature on dative subject or non-canonical subject marking constructions in Japanese, and yet they have been studied mainly from a synchronic point of view. This paper investigates the diachronic dimension of non-canonical case marking constructions in Japanese. Following Yanagida and Whitman (2009), I assume that Old Japanese (700–800 A.D.) displays split active alignment. This paper argues that dative subjects arose as a byproduct of a change occurring from active-inactive to accusative alignment. A factor triggering this change was the reanalysis of some particular object experiencer predicates as intransitives due to the loss of the vestigial causative suffix associated with the predicate. Synchronically, these constructions involve a voice alternation of the type identified as the psych causative alternation by Alexiadou and Iordăchioaia (2014): object experiencer verbs behave parallel to causative verbs whereas alternating subject experiencer verbs behave parallel to anticausative verbs.
Keywords: alignment change, non-canonical case marking, dative subject, psych predicate, causative, voice alternation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The psych predicate construction in Modern Standard Japanese
    • 2.1Non-canonical case marking
    • 2.2Psych predicates
    • 2.3The OE-SE alternation as a voice alternation
  • 3.The diachrony of the psych predicate construction
    • 3.1Introduction
    • 3.2Alignment change: Active > accusative
    • 3.3The causative alternation
    • 3.4Impersonal psych transitives with an object experiencer
    • 3.5The psych adjective
    • 3.6Reanalysis
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Digitalized text
  • References
Published online: 21 April 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.20023.yan
References (69)
References
Aldridge, Edith. 2011. Antipassive in Austronesian Alignment Change. Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes ed. by Dianne Jonas, John Whitman & Andrew Garrett, 311–345. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aldridge, Edith & Yuko Yanagida. 2021. Two Types of Alignment Change in Nominalizations: Austronesian and Japanese. Diachronica 38:3.314-357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2016. English Psych Verbs and the Causative Alternation: A Case Study in the History of English. Questions and Answers in Linguistics 3:2.1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Gianina Iordăchioaia. 2014. The Psych Causative Alternation. Lingua 1481.53–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1977. On Mechanisms by Which Languages Become Ergative. Mechanisms of Syntactic Change ed. by Charles N. Li, 317–363. Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aoki, Hirofumi. 1996. Kanoo dooshi no seiritu ni tsuite [On the Formation of Potential Verbs]. Gobun kenkyu 811:1–12. Kyushu University.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Ashwini Deo. 2013. A Historical Perspective on Dative Subjects in Indo-Aryan. Paper presented at the LFG13 Conference. University of Debrecen, Hungary.Google Scholar
Cardona, George. 1970. The Indo-Iranian Construction Mana (Mama) Kriam. Language 461.1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheung, Candice C-H. & Richard K. Larson. 2015. Psych Verbs in English and Mandarin. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 331.127–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. Syntactic Typology ed. by W. P. Lehman, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Direct and Indirect Explanations of Typological Regularities: The Case of Alignment Variations. Folia Linguistica 42:1.1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den, Richard Larson & Peter Ludow. 2018. Intensional Transitive Verbs and Abstract Clausal Complementation. Non-Propositional Intentionality ed. by Alex Grzankowski & Michelle Montague, 46–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language. 551.59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deo, Ashwini. 2003. Valency Change and Case Marking: Marathi Dative Experiencers. Handout from the Pioneer Workshop on Case, Valency and Transitivity.
Frellesvig, Bjarke. 2010. A History of the Japanese Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frellesvig, Bjarke & John Whitman. 2018. The Historical Source of the Bigrade Transitivity Alternations in Japanese. Transitivity and Valency Alternations: Studies on Japanese and Beyond ed. by Taroo Kageyama & Wesley Jacobsen, 289–310. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gair, James W. 1990. Subjects, Cases and Infl in Sinhala. Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages ed. by Mahendra K. Verma & K. P. Mohanan, 13–41. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2014. Changes in Psych-Verbs: A Reanalysis of Little v . Catalan Journal of Linguistics 131.99–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haas, Mary R. 1941. Tunica. Handbook of American Indian Languages ed. by Franz Boas, 9–143. New York: Augustin.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Samuel J. Keyser. 1993. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. The View from Building 20: Essyas in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger ed. by Ken Hale & S. J. Keyser, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Prolegomena to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA:MIT press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2008. On the Causative Construction. Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics ed by Shigeru Miyagawa & Mamoru Saito, 20–53. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2004. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hook, Peter E. 1991. On Identifying the Conceptual Restructuring of Passive as Ergative in Indo-Aryan. Paninian Studies ed. by Madhav M. Deshpande & Soraja Bhate, 177–200. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for South and Southeast Asian studies.Google Scholar
Kageyama, Taro & Wesley M. Jacobsen. 2016. Transitivity and Valency Alternations: Studies on Japanese and Beyond. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1976. Discourse Referents. Syntax and Semantics, Volume 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground ed. by James D. McCawley, 363–385. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kikuta, Chiharu. 2012. Jodai nihongo no ga-kaku nituite [On the Case Marker ga in Old Japanese]. Dosisha Daigaku Jinbun Gakkai (The Literary Association) 891.89–123.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2004. Non Canonical-Case Marking of Transitive Predicates in Japanese. Nihongo no bunseki to gengorukei [Analysis of Japanese and Linguistic typology] ed. by Taroo Kageyama & Hideki Kishimoto, 57–74. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.Google Scholar
. 2016. Stative and Existential/Possessive Predicates. Handbook of Japanese Lexicon and Word Formation ed. by Taroo Kageyama & Hideki Kishimoto, 559–598. Berlin:De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 2008. Nominative Object. The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics ed. by Shigeru Miyagawa & Mamoru Saito, 141–164. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuginuki, Toru. 1995. Kodai nihongo ni okeru keiyooshi zoogohoo ni kansuru ichikoosatsu [A study of Adjectives and Their Derivations in Old Japanese]. Literature, Journal of the Faculty of Letters 1211.199–214. Nagoya: Nagoya University.Google Scholar
. 1996. Kodai nihongo no keitai henka [Morphological Change in Old Japanese]. Osaka: Izumi Shoin.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S. Y. 1965. Causative Forms in Japanese. Foundations of Language 11.30–50.Google Scholar
1992. Case Marking, Canonical Sentence Patterns, and Counter-Equi in Japanese. Japanese Syntax and Semantics: Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 271.222–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 2002. The Grammar of Intensionality. Logical Form and Language ed. by Gerhard Preyer & George Peter, 228–262. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Legate, A Julie. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2008. Split Intransitives, Experiencer Objects and Transimpersonal Constructions: (Re-)Establishing the Connection. The Typology of Semantic Alignment ed. by Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann, 76–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1974. On Identifying the Remains of Deceased Clauses. Language Research 91.73–85.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and Case Marking in Japanese. (= Syntax and Semantics, 22.) New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Case, Argument Structure and Word Order. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miyake, Toshihiro. 2016. Kanoo dooshi no seiritu [The Formation of Potential Verbs]. Nihongo no kenkyu [A Study of Japanese Language] 12:2.1–17.Google Scholar
Murasugi, Keiko & Tomoko Hashimoto. 2004. Three Pieces of Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame. Nanzan Linguistics 11.1–19.Google Scholar
Ohno, Susumu. 1977. Shukaku joshi ga no seiritsu [The Development of the Nominative Case Particle ga ], Bungaku 451.102–117.Google Scholar
. 1978. Bunpoo to goi [Grammar and Lexicon]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
Payne, John R. 1980. The Decay of Ergativity in Pamir Languages. Lingua 511.147–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pray, Bruce R. 1976. From Passive to Ergative in Indo-Aryan. The Notion of Subject in Indo-Aryan Languages (=South Asian Studies, 2.) ed. by Manindra K. Verma, 195–211. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Ross, John. 1976. To Have and To Not Have Have. Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald Hill ed. by Mohammad A. Jazayery, Edgar C. Polomé & Werner Winter, Vol. 11, 263–270. Lisse: Peter De Ridder Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. The Grammar of Causative Constructions: A Conspectus. The Grammar of Causative Constructions: Syntax and Semantics 61 ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, 1–42. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Dative Subject Constructions Twenty-Two Years Later. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 291.45–76.Google Scholar
. 2001. Non-Canonical Constructions in Japanese. Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikehenvald, R. M. W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi, 307–354. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi & Prashant Pardeshi. 2001. Dative Subject Constructions in South Asian Languages. The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics ed. by Peri Bhaskararao & K. V. Subbarao, 311–347. Delhi: Sage Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Non-Canonical Constructions in Japanese: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Handbook of Japanese Contrastive Linguistics ed. by Pardeshi Prashant & Taro Kageyama, 57–107. Berlin:De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ura, Hiroyuki. 2000. Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verma, Mahendra K. & K. P. Mohanan. 1990. Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages. Stanford: CSLI Publication.Google Scholar
Whitman, John. 2007. The Source of the Bigrade Conjugation and Stem Shape in Pre-Old Japanese. Paper given at the International Conference on East Asian Linguistics. University of Toronto.Google Scholar
. 2008. The Source of the Bigrade Conjugation and Stem Shape in Pre-Old Japanese. Proto-Japanese ed. by Bjarke Frellesvig & John Whitman, 159–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2008. Differential Subject Marking at Argument Structure, Syntax and PF. Differential Subject Marking ed. by Helen de Hoop & Peter de Swart, 17–40. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
. 2015. Ergativity and Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 46:3. 489–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yamada, Masahiro. 2000. Shugo hyooji ga no seiryoku kakudai no yooso [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.Google Scholar
. 2010. Kakujoshi ga noTsuujiteki Kenkyu [A Diachronic Study of the Case Particle ga ]. Hituzi: Tokyo.Google Scholar
Yanagida, Yuko. 2007. Joodaigo no nookakusei ni tsuite [Ergativity in Old Japanese]. Nihongo no Shubun Genshoo [Main Clause Phenomena in Japanese] ed. by Nobuko Hasegawa, 147–188. Tokyo: Hituji Shobō.Google Scholar
. 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.
. 2018. Differential Subject Marking and Its Demise in the History of Japanese. Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking ed. by I. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich, 403–425. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
. [forthcoming]. Differential Argument Marking in Old Japanese: Morphology, Semantics, and Syntax. Handbook of Historical Japanese Linguistics ed. by Bjarke Frellesvig, Satoshi Kinsui & John Whitman. Berlin:De Gruyter Mouton.
Yanagida, Yuko & John Whitman. 2009. Alignment and Word Order in Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 181.101–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar