Cover not available
Part of
Paradigm Change: In the Transeurasian languages and beyond
Edited by Martine Robbeets and Walter Bisang
[Studies in Language Companion Series 161] 2014
► pp. 177–196

Chapter 8. Old Japanese bigrade paradigms and Korean passives and causatives

 | The Ohio State University
There is a consensus that two Old Japanese (OJ, 8th c. ce) verb paradigms, called bigrade, were not present in proto-Japanese (pJ, 1st millennium BCE). There is less agreement on how the bigrades originated and how many unitary pJ vowels their reconstruction requires. I argue here that bigrade verbs began as a proto-Korean-Japanese (pKJ) passive or inchoative formation, and that six unitary pJ vowels (allowing intrasyllabic glides) suffice to capture the observed alternations of bigrade and all other verb stems. An alleged seventh pJ vowel, *ɨ, is not needed, though it may have been present in proto-Korean-Japanese. The pKJ reconstructed passive may have been an innovation that distinguished it from other Macro-Tungusic branches.
Published online: 8 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.161.14ung
References (29)
References
Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arisaka, Hideyo. 1940. Shiru (知) to miru (転) no kō. Kokugo to kokubungaku 10: 276–288.Google Scholar
Frellesvig, Bjarke. 2008. On the reconstruction of proto-Japanese and pre-Old Japanese verb inflection. In Frellesvig & Whitman (eds), 175–192.Google Scholar
. 2010. A History of the Japanese Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Corpus based studies in Japanese historical syntax: On the verb suru ‘do’ in Old Japanese. International conference on historical linguistics 20, Senri (Japan).
Frellesvig, Bjarke & Whitman, John. 2004. The vowels of proto-Japanese. Japanese Language and Literature 38: 281–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008a. The Japanese-Korean vowel correspondences. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 13, Mutsuko Endo Hudson & Peter Sells (eds), 15–28. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2008b. Studies in Proto-Japanese: Issues and Prospects [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 294]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008c. Evidence for seven vowel in proto-Japanese. In Frellesvig & Whitman (eds), 15–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hashimoto, Shinkichi. 1959. Kokubunpō taikeiron = Hashimoto Shinkichi hakase chosakushū, vol. 7. Tōkyō: Iwanami.Google Scholar
JDH. 1967. Jidai-betsu kokugo daijiten jōdaihen, Omodaka Hisataka et al (eds). Tōkyō: Sanseidō.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel E. 1966. Lexical evidence relating Korean to Japanese. Language 42(2): 185–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987. The Japanese Language through Time. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
. 1988 [1975]. A Reference Grammar of Japanese. Rutland VT: Tuttle.Google Scholar
. 1992. A Reference Grammar of Korean. Rutland VT: Tuttle.Google Scholar
. 1996. Consonant Lenition in Korean and the Macro-Altaic Question. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
MYS. Man’yōshū.
Pellard, Thomas. 2013. Nichi-ryū sogo no bunki nendai. Ryūkyū shogo to kodai Nihongo ni kansuru hikaku gengogakuteki kenkyū.Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. Ryukyuan perspectives on the Proto-Japonic vowel system. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 20, Bjarke Frellesvig & Peter Sellers (eds). Stanford CA: CSLI.
Ōno, Susumu. 1953. Nihongo no dōshi no katsuyōkei no kigen ni tsuite. Kokugo to kokubungaku 350: 47–56.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine. 2009. Review of Frellesvig & Whitman 2008b. Journal of Language Relationship 2: 144–150.Google Scholar
Unger, J. Marshall. 1975. On the kō-type o-ending syllables of Old Japanese. Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese 10(2–3): 201–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993 [1977]. Studies in Early Japanese Morphophonemics. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
. 2000. Reconciling comparative and internal reconstruction: the case of Old Japanese /ti ri ni/. Language 76(3): 655–681. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The Role of Contact in the Origins of the Japanese and Korean Languages. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
. 2012a. The likelihood of morphological borrowing: the case of Korean and Japanese. In Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology, Lars Johanson & Martine Robbeets (eds), 411–425. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. Describing Old Japanese kanji usage: The inadequacy of traditional terminology. Scripta 4: 93–105.Google Scholar
Whitman, John B. 1985. The Phonological Basis for the Comparison of Japanese and Korean. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
. 2008. The source of the bigrade conjugation and stem shape in pre-Old Japanese. In Frellesvig & Whitman (eds), 159–173.Google Scholar