In: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
Published online: 8 October 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.161.15rob
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.161.15rob
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.
References (71)
Bakker, Peter. 1997. A Language of Our Own: The Genesis of Michif, the Mixed Cree-French Language of the Canadian Métis. Oxford: OUP.
Beekes, Robert. 1995. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Benzing, Johannes. 1955. Die tungusischen Sprachen. Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik. Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 11: 949–1099.
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: CUP.
. 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.
. 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.
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.
Erdal, Marcel. 1991. Old Turkic Word Formation. A Functional Approach to the Lexicon [Turcologica 7]. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
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.
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.
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.
Kossmann, Martin. 2010. Parallel system borrowing. Parallel morphological systems due to the borrowing of paradigms. Diachronica 27: 459–487.
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.
. 1996. Consonant Lenition in Korean and the Macro-Altaic Question. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.
. 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.
. 2006. What do Japanese and Korean have in common? The history of certain grammaticalizations. Korean Linguistics 13: 219–234.
Menges, Karl Heinrich. 1968. Die Tungusischen Sprachen [Handbuch der Orientalistik 1. Der Nahe und der Mittlere Osten 5. Altaistik 3. Tungusologie]. Leiden: Brill.
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. Universals of language contact. In Universals of Human Language, Joseph Greenberg (ed.), 93–122. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
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.
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.
Ōno, Susumu. 1953. Nihongo no dōshi no katsuyōkei no kigen ni tsuite. Kokugo to Kokubungaku 350: 47–56.
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.
Pellard, Thomas. 2011. Ryukyuan perspectives on the Proto-Japonic vowel system. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 20: 1–15.
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.
. 1955. Introduction to Mongolian Comparative Studies [Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 110]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
Robbeets, Martine. 2005. Is Japanese related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? [Turcologica 64]. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
. 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.
. 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.
. 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.
. 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.
Seifart, Frank. 2012. The principle of morphosyntactic subsystem integrity in language contact. Evidence from morphological borrowing in Resígaro (Arawakan). Diachronica 29: 471–504.
Sekerina, Irina A. 1994. Copper Island (Mednyj) Aleut (CIA): A mixed language. Languages of the World 8: 14–31.
Starostin, Sergej, Dybo, Anna & Mudrak, Oleg. 2003. Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages. Leiden: Brill.
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.
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
Thorpe, Maner Lawton. 1983. Ryukyuan Language History. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.
Unger, Jim Marshall. 2000. Reconciling comparative and internal reconstruction: The case of Old Japanese /ti, ri, ni/. Language 76: 655–681.
. 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.
. 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.
Weiers, Michael. 1966. Untersuchungen zu einer historischen Grammatik des präklassischen Schriftmongolisch. PhD dissertation, Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn.
Weinrich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. New York NY: Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York.
Whitman, John Bradford. 1985. The Phonological Basis for the Comparison of Japanese and Korean. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
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.
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
