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

Chapter 9. The Japanese inflectional paradigm in a Transeurasian perspective

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