Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T13:29:19.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The development of the exalted function of the possessive construction in Classical Japanese

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Lone Takeuchi
Lone Takeuchi
Affiliation:
School of Oriental and African Studies, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The system of Japanese interpersonally marked linguistic elements (keigo) encodes interpersonal relations between the addresser, the referent of the grammatical subject and the indirect object, as well as the addressee. Basically, the distinction is between a reference axis and an address axis. The reference axis expresses assessment of the status of the subject vis-à-vis the addresser of the communication, and when relevant, also of the indirect object vis-à-vis the subject (and addresser). Expressions of the former relation are termed subject honorifics or exalted forms, those of the latter relation object honorifics or humble forms.

By and large, the verb is the core constitutent of interpersonally marked expressions. To use an example from Classical Japanese (CJ) which is slightly more complicated than Modern Japanese, but more relevant to the following discussion, uramu ‘to bear a grudge’ is a plain, i.e. interpersonally unmarked, form. As such it can be used in reference to the action of the addresser, the addressee, or a third person, whenever the status of the persons involved is equal and the speech situation informal. By contrast, urami tamafu is an exalted form expressing the addresser's consideration of the exalted status of the subject, be it the addressee or a third person. Morphologically, urami tamafu is a combination of a head verb with the auxiliary verb tamafu ‘to deign’.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 260 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akiba, Katsue. 1977. ‘Switch reference in Old Japanese’, in Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 610–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 1987. ‘From auxiliary to desinence’, in Harris, Martin and Ramat, Paolo (ed.), Historical developments of auxiliaries. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam:Mouton de Gruyter. 21–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 1990. ‘The structure of drift’, in Historical linguistics 1987: Papers from the 8th international Conference in Historical Linguistics (8.ICHL) (Lille, 31 August–4 September 1987). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, Noriko. 1991. Historical discourse analysis: grammatical subject in Japanese. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harada, S. I. 1976: ‘Honorifics’, in (ed.) Shibatani, M., Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese generative grammar. New York, San Francisco and London: Academic Press: 499–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraguti, Hirosi. 1974. ‘O_ni naru-koo zokutyoo’, Kokugogaku, 96: 23–32.Google Scholar
Yosio, lwaj. 1976. Genzi monogatari gohoo-koo. Tokyo: Kasama syoin. (= Kasama soosyo 64).Google Scholar
Klaiman, M. H. 1991. Grammatical voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax: anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lewin, Bruno. 1967. ‘Zur Entwicklung honorativer Funktionen im japanischen’, ZDMG, Supplementa IB: 1051–6.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel E. 1987. The Japanese language through time. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, Noriko A. 1976.‘From OE/ME “impersonal” to “personal” construction: What is a “subject-less” S ’ Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax 1976. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society: 192–204.Google Scholar
Mills, D. E. 1970. A collection of tales from Uji: a study and translation of Uji shui monogatari. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morino, Muneaki. 1967. ‘Teineigo safurafu no hattatu katei ni tuite: Tyuuko, Inseiki syutoo ni okeru zyookyoo’, Kokugogaku, 68: 34–58.Google Scholar
Motohashi, Tatsushi. 1989. ‘Case theory and the history of the Japanese language.’ Ph.D. Diss. University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Oono, Susumu, et al. , 1974. Kogo zilen. Tokyo: Iwanami syoten.Google Scholar
Seki, Kazuo. 1976. ‘Genzi monogatari kiwabun ni okeru no settoosi mi, ofon no yoogo’, Gengo tobungo, 9: 150–74.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1979. ‘Where analogical patterning fails’, Papers in Japanese Linguistics, 6: 287–307.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1985. ‘Passives and related constructions’, Language, 61/4: 821–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takeuchi, Lone. 1981.‘Verbs of change and destruction in Ainu and Japanese: a case of derivational irregularity’, Acta Orientalia (Hafniensia), 42: 71–87.Google Scholar
Tukisima, Hirosi. 1969. Heian zidaigo sinron. Tokyo: Tookyoo daigaku syuppan.Google Scholar
Tuzita, Syoozoo. 1977. ‘Kotobagaki no iti: -te faberi no siyoo wo megutte’, Kokugo kokuhun, 46/4 (512): 35–45.Google Scholar
Yamazaki, Hisayuki. 1965. ‘O_aru. O_ varu, yaru no henscn: kinsei taiguugo no henka no keikoo’, Kinseigo kenkyuu. 1. Tokyo: Musasino syoin: 193–214.Google Scholar