Narrog 2016 Insubordination in Japanese Diachronically (Insubordination [TSL 115])

CHAPTER 10
Insubordination in Japanese diachronically
Heiko Narrog
Tohoku University
Abstract
This chapter is designed to give an overview of insubordination in documented Japanese language history,
that is, not including pre-history and reconstruction. While doing so, a number of important issues
concerning insubordination are discussed, including borderline cases between insubordination and
grammaticalization, types of subordinate clauses particularly prone to insubordination, the relationship
between insubordination and inversion, the relationship between insubordination and register, and structural
and semantic correlates of insubordination. I further propose to categorize insubordinate constructions in
Japanese into ‘open insubordinates’, which invite very broad inference with respect to the information
conveyed in the deleted main clause, and ‘closed insubordinates’, which have a fixed interpretation, and can
be understood as conveying a conventional implicature.
1 Introduction
The goal of this contribution is to provide a historical overview of insubordination in Japanese that
is as comprehensive as possible. By presenting a broad picture of the phenomenon through history,
I try to identify patterns and outstanding features that are characteristic for insubordination in this
language. Furthermore I will raise a number of structural, semantic and historical problems
concerning insubordination that emerge from a synchronic and diachronic perspective on the
Japanese data. After a short introduction to subordination in Modern Japanese, and a historical
periodization of Japanese in §1, §2 deals with the problem of delimiting insubordination from other
ellipsis, while §3 constitutes the core of the chapter, providing the overview and discussing all
issues arising from it. A short conclusion (§4) ends the chapter.
1.1 Insubordination in the study of Modern Japanese
Although the term ‘insubordination’ is of relatively recent origin and was previously unknown in
Japanese linguistics, the phenomenon as such is common in the language and has been studied for
some time. The term used in traditional national language studies (kokugogaku) was 言いさしいさし ii-
sashi lit. say-suspension, or more freely ‘breaking off’ or ‘indicating’, and can be found in the
literature at least since the 1960s (e.g. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 1960). This is not an exact
counterpart of ‘insubordination’ but rather a designation for incomplete clauses in general. More
recently, since about the 1990s, the term chūdansetsu ‘interrupted/suspended clause’ can also be
found. Another traditional form of description is in terms of specific morphological elements
involved in subordination. Thus, most subordinating elements are treated either as setsuzoku joshi
‘conjunctive particles’, or as rengo ‘associated words’, if they are multi-morphemic. However, if a
conjunctive particle is frequently used sentence-finally it may be re-classified as a shūjoshi ‘final
particle’. Thus, pertinent categories and labels have existed but, to my knowledge, there is no
systematic description of this phenomenon (nor indeed of insubordinate clauses in general) as
played out in the history of Japanese.
Based on the sort of inferences triggered by an insubordinate clause, one can roughly
distinguish two types of insubordinate construction, with a continuum of actual constructions in
between. First, there are what I will call ‘open insubordinates’. These are insubordinate
2. Heiko Narrog
constructions such as the one with si in (1) and kara in (2), which invite potentially very broad
inferences with respect to the information conveyed in the deleted main clause. The actual
interpretation is determined in context. Note that si, as in (1), will commonly trigger an epistemic
inference, and kara, as in (2), a deontic (speech-act-oriented) one, but this is only a tendency and
not a rule.
(1) Kono riNgo yasu.i=si#

DEM apple cheap.NPS=CAL
‘Because this apple is cheap…’ […that’s why it doesn’t look so good; ….that’s why it’s
selling so well…]
(2) Ima ik.u=kara#

now go=CAL
‘Because I go now…’ [….please wait for me; ….stop calling me…]
Clauses with subordinating particles such as kedo/ga ‘but’; kara, si ‘because’, and with the suffix -
te ‘and’ are of this type. They have been studied by Ohori (1995, 2001) and Shirakawa (2009),
among others. When ii-sashi or chūdansetsu are discussed in Japanese linguistics, these are the
constructions typically referred to. In pragmatic terms, the sentence-final subordinating particle can
be understood as an ‘explicature’ in the sense of Huang (2007: 188–194).1
Secondly, there is a group of insubordinate clauses where the meaning of the deleted main
clause is predictable with no or little contextual information, because the elided main clause itself
belongs to a fixed pattern and has a fixed meaning. These insubordinate clauses may be considered
as a ‘condensation’ of subordinate and main clause into one clause. I will label them as ‘closed
insubordinates’. Sentence (3) with the concessive particle combination no=ni is an example.
(3) SeNseijutsu=wo sit.te i.reba yo-kat.ta=no=ni#

astrology=ACC know.GER be.CON good-VBZ.PST=NMZ=CNC
‘Although [(s)he] should have been familiar with astrology…’ > ‘[(S)he] should have
been familiar with astrology’ (regret)…
Insubordinate clauses with no=ni habitually refer to some unrealized event in the past or present
and express regret or disapproval/criticism of the non-realization. This type of subordination has
been less studied but we have the research by Fujii (2004). Besides the concessives, conditional
constructions with to, and –(r)eba and –Tara also belong to this pattern in Modern Japanese. In
pragmatic terms, the sentence-final subordinating particle can be understood as conveying a
‘conventional implicature’ in the sense of Huang (2007: 54–7).
With respect to the diachronic typology of insubordinate clauses proposed by Evans (2007),
one may understand the ‘closed’ insubordinates as more grammaticalized than ‘open’
insubordinates. However, this is difficult to ascertain empirically because, as will be seen below,
what we mostly find in the historical sources are the ‘closed’ insubordinates, and not the ‘open’
ones which are so typical for Modern Japanese. Furthermore, there is no clear evidence yet of the
open insubordinate developing into closed ones. This may either be an artifact of historical
language documentation (which is necessarily written and thus privileges established patterns) or a
shift in expression type from ‘closed’ to ‘open’ insubordination due to changes in language or
society of modern Japan.
1
“An explicature is an inferential development of one of the incomplete conceptual representations or logical
forms encoded by an utterance. In other words, an explicature functions to flesh out the linguistically given
incomplete logical form of the sentence uttered, yielding fully propositional content” (Huang 2007: 189).
Chapter 10. Japanese diachronically
3
Besides insubordination, ‘functional extension’ in the sense of Mithun (2008) has also been a
flourishing phenomenon in Japanese. Clauses with –Te, both in older and Modern Japanese (cf.
Yamaguchi 1998), and clauses with conditionals in older Japanese may be representative of
functional extension. Traditional Japanese discourse, especially in narratives, can be made up of
long sequences of subordinate clauses with –Te or other forms that formally background the
relevant clauses and prevent the speaker from having to make an assertion. At least in historical
written sources, however, even very long sequences of backgrounded gerund and conditional
clauses at some point end in a finite clause. By contrast, typical insubordinate clauses (redundant)
represent independent speech acts (wishes, requests, complaints, etc.). They can be very short and
mark the end of a turn.
1.2 Periodization
Materials systematically recording colloquial Japanese can be found from the 8th century. A variety
of periodizations has been proposed. The periodization employed in this paper is rather
conventional but differs from some alternative periodizations in setting the borderline between
Middle and Modern Japanese at 1750 rather than 1600 on linguistic rather than historical/political
grounds, and in labeling the period between 800 and 1100 as “Late Old” rather than “Early Middle”
Japanese (this choice depends on the weighting of different structural factors).
Old Japanese (OJ): ca. 600~ca. 1100

Early Old Japanese (EOJ): ca. 600~ca. 800
Late Old Japanese (LOJ): ca. 800~ca. 1100
Middle Japanese (MidJ): ca. 1100~ca. 1750
Early Middle Japanese (EMidJ): ca. 1100~ ca. 1350
Late Middle Japanese (LMidJ): ca. 1350~ca. 1750
Modern Japanese (ModJ): ca. 1750~
Early Modern Japanese (EModJ): ca. 1750~ca. 1870
2 Delimitation of insubordination phenomena in Japanese
Perhaps the most fundamental problem in studying insubordination phenomena in any language, but
particularly in a language like Japanese which is very rich in ellipsis at many levels of grammar, is
how to delimit the object of study from related phenomena. I will refer here to the concept of
insubordination and the definitions provided in Evans (2007). According to Evans (2007: 367, 377)
insubordination is “the conventionalized independent use of formally subordinate clauses”. It is the
result of the ellipsis of a main clause, which becomes conventionalized, and may finally end in the
reanalysis of the erstwhile subordinate clause as a new main clause structure
(‘constructionalization’) (370). ‘Conventionalization’ of ellipsis in turn means narrowing down the
possible interpretations or the restriction of restoration of main clause to a ‘subset of grammatically
tolerated possibilities’ (372) and ‘constructionalization’ means that the restoration of ellipsed
material is not possible, and that features are acquired by the construction that are not available to
subordinate clauses while other features that are only available to subordinate clauses are eliminated
(374). Furthermore, Evans (2007: 384) suggests that the resulting construction should not contain
material from the deleted main clause, even not in cases in which the former main verb is reduced
to a particle or suffix to the erstwhile subordinate verb. Evans (2007) is not explicit with respect to
the reverse case, namely when the remaining material is only a fragment of a former subordinate
clause.
4. Heiko Narrog
Overall, the most fundamental criterion is that the new construction is a former subordinate
clause, and is the result of the ellipsis of a main clause in a former complex clause consisting of at
least two clauses. This sounds straightforward but as the following subsections show, the
application of these criteria is easier in some cases than in others.
2.1 Subordinate vs. coordinate, cosubordinate structures
The first potential hurdle for a construction to be identified as ‘insubordinate’ is its status as
erstwhile ‘subordinate’ as opposed to ‘coordinate’ (i.e., erstwhile main clause). However, this is not
a major hurdle in Japanese, which, at least according to traditional and to structuralist descriptions,
has no true coordinate clauses. First, if a sentence contains more than two clauses, the first of these
clauses always has a predicate in a non-finite form, as in (4), or in a finite form with an adverbial
particle, as in (5).
(4) Taroo=ga ie=ni modot.te kagi=o sime.ta

PN=NOM house=DAT return.GER lock=ACC shut.PST
‘Taro returned home and locked the door.’
(5) Taroo=ga ie=ni modot.ta=ga kagi=o sime-na-kat.a

PN=NOM house=DAT return.PST=AVS lock=ACC shut-NEG-VBZ.PST
‘Taro returned home but didn’t lock the door.’
In both of these cases, information structure, TAM and illocutionary force are constrained to
various degrees that have been subject to study in traditional Japanese linguistics, most famously
Minami (1974, 1997). An English rendering is available in Yoshimoto (2000: 120–121). For
example, (4) cannot contain tense, and (5) cannot contain illocutionary force marking, as shown in
(6, 7) below.
(6) Taroo=ga ie=ni *modot.ta.te kagi=o sime.ta

PN=NOM house=DAT return.PST.GER lock=ACC shut.PST
‘Taro returned home and locked the door.’
(7) Taroo=ga ie=ni *modot.ta=yo=ga kagi=o sime-na-kat.a

PN=NOM house=DAT return.PST=ILL=AVS lock=ACC shut-NEG-VBZ.PST
‘Taro *[really] returned home but didn’t lock the door.’
The degree of subordination can be measured in terms of the number and quality of constraints on
the subordinate clause. These are more numerous in the case of a gerundive clause as in (4) than in
the case of a clause marked with ga as in (5). Ga/keredo ‘and/but’, kara ‘because’, and si ‘and,
because’ form a set of subordinate particles whose clauses have the lowest number of constraints
(cf. Minami 1974: 128) and also have meanings close to English coordinate clauses. So, these may
be considered as the subordinate clauses with the lowest degree of subordination, but they are
arguably still subordinate, and there is no specific structural property that would clearly set them
apart from other adverbial clauses.
2.2 Constructions not considered as insubordination
The previous sub-section provided what I believe is a clear case for the inclusion of phenomena,
based on easily accessible structural criteria, which may be excluded depending on one’s analytic
perspective. This section, by contrast, shows cases of ellipsis that are excluded from the range of
5
phenomena treated as insubordination on the basis of criteria that are likewise purely structural and
easy to verify. Either too much material is deleted to speak of insubordination (§2.2.1), or not
enough material (§2.2.2). Note, though, that Evans (2007) is only explicit about the latter case while
the status of erstwhile subordinate clause fragments (as in §2.2.1) remains ambiguous.
2.2.1 Too much missing: EOJ V+te/A+ku/N(=ni)+mo=ga(=mo/na)

The construction presented here is already found exclusively in elliptical form at the earliest stage
of language documentation. It is thus basically unknown what the deleted material may have looked
like. It consists of an adverbially marked element (adjective + -ku , noun + ni; rarely verb + suffix –
te) followed by the emotive-emphatic particle mo, an interrogative particle of question or doubt
(=ga or =ka), and another emotive-emphatic particle (mo or na). The meaning is a wish.
(8) …ume=no pana ima sakari=nari# mi-m.u pito=mo=ga=mo#

…plum=GEN flower now full.bloom=COP see-FUT.ANP person=EMP=QUE=EMP
‘…the plum flowers are in full blossom now. [I wish there were] someone to see [it].’
(C8; Man’yōshū 850)
Two major elements of clause structure are missing here. First, a matrix clause, which may be
reconstructed as containing a verb expressing desire, and then even the main predicate of the
subordinate clause, which may be reconstructed as an existential. Thus, this construction can be
understood as the fragment of a former insubordinate clause. In Heine et al.’s (this volume) more
liberal concept of insubordinate construction, such fragments are nevertheless classified as
insubordinate constructions, namely as ‘formulaic’ insubordinate constructions.
2.2.2 Not enough missing: Relative clauses with remaining head nouns in ModJ
The reverse case is if too many elements are left in the construction. This is the case with Modern
Japanese relative clause + head noun constructions, recently presented by Matsumoto (2012), for
which an example is given in (9). (10) is the non-relativized sentence. Stylistically this construction
belongs to the realm of creative writing rather than being colloquial.
(9) Mat.te i.ta yoo=ni hirak.u doa#

wait.GER be.PST way=ADV open.NPS door
‘The door, which opens as if it was waiting.’
(10) Doa=ga mat.te i.ta yoo=ni hirak.u#

door=NOM wait.GER be.PST way=ADV open.NPS
‘The door opens as if it were waiting.’
2.3 Problematic cases I: Mono-clausal or bi-clausal structure?
While the cases presented above are relatively clear-cut, the status of many of the constructions
presented in this and the next section cannot be so easily decided. They may be considered as
borderline cases of insubordination.
This section deals with elliptical constructions where the question is whether the deleted
element is a main clause or merely a part of the verbal complex, i.e. an operator. Postposed
predicates in Japanese grammaticalize like auxiliaries in English, to become operators in the verb
phrase. If such a predicate (or operator) is omitted, the question of whether we are dealing with
insubordination depends on the status assigned to these predicates, that is, as lexical predicates
6. Heiko Narrog
forming an independent main clause, or as grammatical operators. In terms of the typology of

insubordination proposed in §1.1, these are all cases of ‘closed’ insubordinates, where the omitted
element is predictable and so to speak absorbed into the resulting construction.
2.3.1 LOJ&ModJ gerund –te with elided predicate of benefactive transfer

Curiously, both in LOJ and in ModJ practically the same construction with a verb ending in a
gerund and a deleted verb of benefactive transfer is used as a request ((11) and (12)).
(11) …“ware=ni gityau kiri.te#”

…I=DAT bat cut.GER
…‘“[Please] cut a bat for me!” (C11; Makura no Sōshi 139 (144))
(12) Mat.te#
wait.GER
‘Wait!’ (ModJ)
Concretely, these constructions can be understood as resulting from the elision of various verbs of
giving / benefaction: tamaf-e (LOJ; (11)) and kure/kudasai (ModJ; (12)). Since both in LOJ and in
ModJ these verbs of transfer grammaticalized into markers of benefactive constructions, the
question is whether they can still be considered as a main clause. They cannot, since they have lost
their own argument structure, as (13), based on (12), illustrates:
(13) Watashi/kare=o/*ni mat.te (kudasa.i)#

I/he=ACC/DAT wait.GER (give.IMP)
‘Wait!’ (ModJ)
(13) shows that the predicate can only take the accusative argument (the ‘waitee’) of the verb mat-
‘wait’ but not the dative argument (the receiver) of the benefactive verb kudasar- ‘give’. Thus, the
benefactive verb forms one complex predicate with the preceding main verb. The same result can be
obtained with other tests, such as insertion of adverbs. The main verb and the benefactive cannot be
modified separately by different adverbs, as the contrast between (14) and (15) shows. The adverbs
modify the whole predicate.
(14) Hayaku kaet.te kure#

quickly return.GER give
‘Come back (for me) in a hurry/quickly!’
(15) *Isoide kaet.te zehi kure#

hurriedly return.GER please give
‘Please come back quickly (for me)!’
In conclusion, the construction must be analyzed as a single clause. We are therefore not dealing
with insubordination here. One could speak of ‘pseudo-insubordination’.
2.3.2 -(a)ide=wa in LMidJ; -(a)nakutya in ModJ

The type of construction broached here is also found in various shapes at least twice in Japanese
language history, and appears to have been ‘recreated’. A negative adverbial with a following
7
negative evaluative predicate expresses a (non-epistemic) necessity or obligation. In ModJ, the

negated conditional -(a)nakutya, -(a)nakya, etc. is followed by specific predicates such as ikenai
‘cannot go’ and naranai ‘does not become’, which are entrenched in this function, and do not make
much sense on their own if the whole expression is viewed compositionally (16).
(16) Haya.ku ik-ana.kereba nar-ana.i#

quick.ADV go-NEG.CON become-NEG.NPS
‘I have to go quickly.’ (lit., ‘if I don’t go quickly, it does not become’)
Ikena.i ‘cannot go’ is a word that can be used in other contexts as well, but then it is confined to a
much smaller range of contexts, where it indicates moral disapproval. In contrast, narana.i is not
commonly used on its own for prohibition or disapproval in the Eastern standard language. Now,
colloquially, these formulaic clause-final evaluative predicates are commonly omitted, as in (17).
(17) Haya.ku ik-ana.kutya#

quick.ADV go-NEG.CON
‘I gotta go quickly.’ (lit., ‘if I don’t go quickly…’)
Already purely intuitively, a claim that the formulaic predicates like ikenai and naranai are a main
clause and the preceding predicate marked as conditional are their corresponding subordinate clause
would seem rather absurd. But there is also good objective evidence that this is not the case.
Hanazono (1999) has shown that the ModJ necessitive constructions ending in ikenai and naranai
are grammaticalized or ‘uni-verbized’, that is, that they form one predicate instead of two with the
main verb, and the structure is no longer bi-clausal. Among other arguments, he shows that they can
no longer be used with adverbs modifying conditionals (although the expression takes the form of a
conditional), a modal adverb can only modify the whole predicate and not one of the two verbs
involved, the conditional can be repeated (which would not be possible with a regular conditional),
and the protasis and apodosis cannot be inverted (as would be possible with a regular conditional).2
So here again, as in the case of the benefactive operators in §2.3.1, the structure that enters the
process of omission/elision is already not a bi-clausal but a mono-clausal construction. Therefore,
we have a clear case against insubordination, unless one directly compares the ancestor
construction, which started to grammaticalize about 300 years ago (cf. Narrog 1999: 62), to the
Modern Japanese construction with the evaluative predicate omitted. The only possible counter-
argument is that given a protasis as in (17), one could freely add any kind of apodosis that makes
sense, as in (18).
(18) Haya.ku ik-ana.kutya basu=ni maniaw-ana.i#

quick.ADV go-NEG.CON bus=DAT be.in.time-NEG.NPS
‘If I don’t go quickly, I will be late for the bus.’
As long as the conditional forms involved in the construction with elided evaluative predicate are
still productive as actual subordinating conditional forms, the possibility of freely adding a real
main clause will remain. However, if we accept the fact that the conventionalized construction with
formulaic evaluative expression corresponding to the insubordinate construction is already mono-
clausal, we can label it as a ‘pseudo-insubordination’, like the benefactive construction in the
preceding subsection.
2
In §4.2 of Narrog (forthcoming), I give an overview of Hanazono’s tests in English.
8. Heiko Narrog
-(a)ide=ka, as in (19), is an equivalent in LMidJ, that can still be found in some modern
Western dialects.
(19) Ik.aide=ka#
go.NEA=QUE
“I gotta go!” (lit., ‘Not going?’) (WesternJ)
-(a)ide is a negative adverbial form and ka an interrogative marker. Note that in earlier periods of
Japanese, the interrogative marker in a clause did not have to be on the final predicate but could be
placed within the clause. Since the form of the main verb is adverbial some final predicate must
have followed, presumably one with positive evaluation, so that the whole must have formed a
rhetorical question like ‘Is not going okay?’. Unfortunately I am not able to reconstruct (or identify
in the literature) the concrete expression on which this presumptive insubordination is based, nor
the process of elision.
2.3.3 –tutu in LOJ~

-Tutu is a suffix that indicated a temporal (simultaneous, continuous), and occasionally concessive,
relationship to the matrix clause (cf. (20)).
(20) Ama zakar.u pina=ni itu-tose sumapi-tutu

heaven be.distant.ANP remote.place=LOC five-years live-DUR
miyako=no teburi wasur-aye-keri#

capital=GEN manners forget-SPN-PRT
‘Living in a remote place for about five years, I have forgotten the manners of the
capital.’ (C8; Man’yōshū 880)
However, especially in poetry, it was often used sentence-finally, as in (21), lending emotional
emphasis to the preceding sentence. The sentence-final use even developed into a fixed stylistic
device in poetry called tutu-dome ‘ending on tutu’.
(21) Yama-zakura wa=ga mi=ni k.ure=ba

mountain-cherry I=GEN see=ALL come.CON=TOP
paru-giri mine=ni=mo wo=ni=mo tati kakusi-tutu#

spring-mist peak=LOC=FOC foot=LOC=FOC arise hide-DUR
‘As I came to see the mountain cherry blossoms, spring mist covered both the top and
the foot of the mountain, and hiding [the flowers], [I had come in vain].’ (C10, Kokin
Wakashū 51)
Now, the problem is that –tutu was also often followed by the light verb ari ‘be’, indicating a
continuation, i.e. ‘continue to do V’ (cf. Iwai 1970: 419). This is illustrated with ex. (22).
9
(22) Karigane=no ki nak-am.u pwi=made mi-tutu ar-am.u

wild goose=GEN come crow-FUT.ANP day=LIM look-DUR be-FUT.ANP
kono pagi~para=ni….#
DEM bush.clover~field=LOC
‘This bush clover field, which I will continue to look at till the day that the wild geese
cry...’ (C8; Man’yōshū 11/2097)
The question then arises whether the deleted material following the phrase in –tutu comprised a true
clause, or just the word ari. Furthermore, the question is to what degree –tutu ari is already
grammaticalized as an aspectual construction in OJ. In the particular case of (22), a literal
interpretation of ari as ‘be, stay’ seems still possible (‘the bush clover field, where I will stay
looking at the clover…’), while in other examples, this is more difficult (e.g. Man’yōshū 16/3818).
If it is ari that is elided, and we assume that the construction ari is already sufficiently
grammaticalized, we would be dealing with an elliptical mono-clausal construction, and not with
insubordination. Modern literary interpretations of the poems remain ambiguous on this point, but
some take the position that a whole clause has been elided, that is, we have insubordination.
2.3.4 –Tara, -(r)eba as advice in ModJ

The conditional inflections –tara and –(r)eba are sometimes used finitely with rising intonation, as
in (23), expressing a tentative suggestion:
(23) Asita it.tara?

tomorrow go.CON
‘[How about] going tomorrow?’
Grammatically speaking, the following interrogative phrase doo=desu=ka? ‘How about?’ is

deleted. This is curious because the interrogative construction [V+conditional doo(=desu=ka)] is
less entrenched and conventionalized than the corresponding non-interrogative construction ending
in the evaluative adjective ii ‘good’ (it.tara ii ‘[you…] should go’).3 Nevertheless, it is the question
rather than the statement which has resulted in ellipsis (cf. Martin 1975: 565).
2.4 Problematic cases II: Extension of adnominal inflection to finite clauses in MidJ
The second case is problematic for a different reason, namely that it is certainly not the result of the
ellipsis of any element, whether clause or only part of the predicate. While the resulting
construction looks like an insubordination, it is not insubordination in terms of process.
The adnominal verb inflection –(ur)u (and the adjectival –ki) were originally used in
complement, relative, and nominalized clauses but gradually replaced finite inflection –(r)u (and
adjectival –si) in finite clauses in Middle Japanese. As a result, modern final verb and adjective are
the formal successors of the Old and Late Old Japanese adnominal forms. A related, but not entirely
parallel development, because it stretched over a much longer period of time, was the development
of the genitive particle ga into a nominative particle (before, the first argument in main clauses was
simply unmarked).
This development is too complex and poorly understood to discuss in detail here, and I
confine myself to a very brief account. First, it should be uncontroversial that clause-final
adnominal forms are not the result of elision of matrix clauses of complement or relative clauses. It
3
A Google search gives four times more hits for -Tara ii than for -Tara doo.
10. Heiko Narrog
is also not the case that complement or relative clauses gradually became more like main clauses.
The most immediate source is information structure-affecting equational constructions with a
(usually) focused first constituent and a nominalized clause following (so-called kakari-musubi; cf.
e.g. Quinn 1999; Nomura 2011), as in (24).
(24) Wa=ga kop.uru kimi=so kizo=no ywo ime=ni miye-t.uru#

I=GEN love.ANP you=FOC yesterday=GEN night dream=DAT be.visible-PFV.ANP
‘It is you, who I love, who appeared in my dream yesterday.’ (C8; Man’yōshū 1/150)
The focus is marked with the particle so. Other prominent focusing particles include ka, namu, koso
and ya. The clausality of these constructions, that is, whether they should be analyzed as bi-clausal
or as mono-clausal, is contested. As these emphatic focusing constructions became used more and
more frequently, and generalized, their focusing potential wore off, and their original motivation
must have become opaque to the language users. According to Nomura (2011: 74–99), this was
already the case by LOJ. As a result, originally finite and adnominal inflection got mixed up in both
the adnominal and the ordinary finite clause structure. The more marked and expressive inflection
won out over the less marked one. However, except for adopting the ending, main clauses did not
become like kakari-musubi clauses. Most focusing particles vanished, or shifted to clause-final
position, so the kakari-musubi constructions simply disappeared. Thus, the process can primarily
described as the generalization of a specific inflectional form to new (main clause) contexts but not
as the generalization of subordinate clause structure to main clause structure. If such a development
is also to be classified as insubordination, I believe it should be distinguished as a different sub-type
with a different label.
2.5 Problematic cases III: Insubordination or subordination?
Subordination in Japanese is generally marked through some morphological element at the end of
the clause. Some of these elements appear both in conjunctive and sentence-final position by the
time of OJ. There are other elements that appear only sentence-finally but have a semantics that
suggests earlier subordinate usage. My default assumption here is that all of them are insubordinate
constructions, and thus they will be discussed in the following §3 (those that are problematic in the
sense discussed here are found in §3.3). However, in the case of the particle wo and noun plus
particle mono ‘thing’ plus wo (cf. §3.3.3 below), which are concessive in subordinate function and
exclamative-emotive in sentence final position, it has been suggested in Japanese linguistics that the
exclamation-like sentence-final use is more original than the connective use (cf. NKD 12, 1369; Itoi
2001: 799). Noticeably, wo was also an accusative case marker. With the case markers ni (locative/
dative) and ga (genitive/nominative), it is well-established that the subordinating use is derived
from the case use, and the same may be assumed concerning accusative wo. Thus the situation with
(mono)=wo is rather complex. While the actual historical derivation is unknown, I have
nevertheless included it among the insubordinate constructions discussed in the next section as well.
3 Historical overview
Based on descriptions of Japanese in standard references such as Iwai (1970, 1971, 1973, 1976),
Yuzawa (1936, 1957, 1958) and Yamaguchi and Akimoto (2001), this section presents a number of
recurring issues and generalizations about historical insubordination in Japanese that apply to the
constructions as defined in the previous section.
11
3.1 Overall generalizations
3.1.1 Indeterminacy of OJ subordinating elements

Subordinating elements and constructions in older Japanese are often ambiguous between various
readings, and the semantic type of interpretation can only be determined in context. Especially
striking is the indeterminacy between concessive and causal subordinators. Subordinating elements
especially prone to such indeterminacy are given in (25):
(25) wo (ACC), ni (DAT), mono yuwe(=ni) (‘thing’ ‘reason’ (=DAT))

If one reading is the result of historical extension from the other, it seems that both directions of
extension are possible. It has been claimed in the literature (NKD, vol. 12; Itoi 2001: 798–799) that
the following subordinators underwent an extension from concessive to causal.
(26) From concessive to causal:
mono=kara shift to causal use in EMidJ

mono yuwe extension to causal use in LOJ
mono=wo alleged extension in EModJ (cf. Itoi 2001: 799)
While (26) presents the view prevailing in the literature, I do not agree on the status of mono yuwe,
since I believe that causal use can be found already at the earliest stage (cf. Man’yōshū 3586), but
for the two other subordinators, the claim seems to be correct. For example, mono=wo is first
documented with concessive meaning, like in (27), but only much later, in Early Modern Japanese,
do we also find uses that are interpreted as causal meaning, like (28), according to Itoi (2001: 799).
(27) (Nubatama=no) sono ywo=no ume=wo tawasure.te wor-azu

black.seed=GEN DEM night=GEN plum=ACC forget.GER break-NEG
ki-ni-keri# omopi.si mono=wo#

come-PFV-PRT think.of.APT thing=CRC
‘Oh, I have come and have forgotten to break off a twig of the plum tree of that night.
Although I had thought of it.’ (C8; Man’yōshū 392)
(28) Iti~mon=kara=no akinai=de higana~iti~niti i.tari tat.tari

one~penny=ABL=GEN business=ESS one.day~one~day be.EXM stand.EXM
s.uru mono=wo hara=mo her.oo=zya nee=ka#

do.NPS thing=ACC stomach=FOC decrease.FUT=[ESS+TOP] be not=QUE
‘This is a business that starts from one penny and I’m there and standing around the
whole day. So it’s clear that I’m getting hungry.’ (C19; Ukiyoburo; cited from NKD 12:
1369)
In the case of mono=wo, the extension took place very late, curiously shortly before mono=wo
became obsolete in colloquial Japanese. In fact, it is not easy to think of contexts that allow for a
shift from concessive to causal meaning, which are practically the polar opposite. A concessive
reading of (28), or a causal reading of (27), for example, would make absolutely no sense. So, in
12. Heiko Narrog
regular subordinate constructions, there is no ambiguity. But the following example (29) may
provide such a context. It is in my view mistakenly classified as causal by Itoi (2001: 799).4
Nevertheless, we can see a possible switch context (cf. Heine 2002) from concessive to causal here.
(29) Niwa=wa ka=bakari yokari.si mono=wo (#), Akasi=yori hune motome-n.aba,

sea=TOP so=LIM good.ANP thing=ACC morning=ABL boat call-PFV.CON
kono asa~biraki=ni usimado=no to=no tomari=wa

DEM morning~departure=DAT PN=GEN port=GEN stop=TOP
o.u=beki#
go.after=DEO
(1) ‘Although the sea was so calm! If we had taken a boat this morning, we would be
close to the port of Usimado [now].’ (concessive)
(2) ‘Since the sea was so calm, we could be close to the port of Usimado [now] if we
had taken a boat this morning.’ (causal) (1C8; Ugetsu Monogatari, Kikukuwa no
chigiri)
The interpretation of mono=wo in (29) hinges on the fact whether the first clause ending on
mono=wo is taken as insubordinate, marking a contrast (and dissatisfaction) with the fact that the
first person referents did not take a boat this morning, or as subordinate. In the latter case it gives a
reason for the counterfactual supposition given at the end of the sentence (‘we would already be
close to our destination’). Since, mono=wo (and Japanese concessives in general) are very
frequently used as insubordinates, the ambiguity of contexts with mono=wo between insubordinate
and subordinate status may explain the extension from concessive to causal despite the semantic
gap.
In contrast, kara=ni originally meant ‘only because’, and appears to have extended from
causal to concessive meaning. (30) is an example for the older, and (31) for the newer meaning.
(30) Miti=no pe=no kusa~buka~yuri=no pana wemi=ni wemi.si=ga

way=GEN place=GEN grass~deep~lily=GEN flower smile=ADV smile.APT=GEN
kara=ni tuma=to ip.u=be.si=ya#

reason=ADV wife=QUO say.ANP=DEO.FNP=QUE
‘Can you call me your wife only because I smiled at you like a deep-grass lily at the
wayside?’ (C8; Man’yōshū 1257)
(31) Sinkwan=to if.an=kara=ni kuni~naka=ni faram-are.te=wa

priest=QUO say.FUT=CAL=ADV country~inside=LOC bear-PAS.GER=TOP
ika=ni kikwai=o=ba itas.u#

how=ADV weird.thing=ACC=FOC do.FNP
4
The text edition of Ugetsu Monogatari that I have consulted also translates the mono=wo clause as
insubordinate and concessive (p. 351).
13
‘Although he is a [high Shintoist] priest, how can he do [so many] weird things, being
born in this country?’ (C13; Uji Shūishū 3/14)
I believe that (31) is a switch context rather than a conventionalized new concessive reading. ‘Just
because he is a high priest’ would also make sense, and in fact, a few lines before this example, we
find an example in the same text with a similar wording, but clearly tilting towards a causal reading.
I believe that the extension from cause to concession in the case of kara=ni is facilitated by the fact
that kara=ni gives a weak or unfitting reason for the main clause. This unfitting reason may
actually be a reason for the opposite conclusion. But as in the case of mono=wo above, these are
somewhat speculative observations that would need to be backed up by detailed historical research.
In any case, if one of the meanings of these polysemous causal-concessive subordinators
becomes insubordinate, it is usually the concessive, and not the causal sense. In contrast, Modern
Japanese subordinators show semantic specialization, and there is no concessive-causal polysemy.
3.1.2 Clause types prone and not prone to insubordination

Table 1 shows which clause types have been particularly prone to insubordination throughout
Japanese language history, according to my own observations and analysis, which follows in the
remainder of this section. I readily admit that these hypotheses are not based on a systematic study
of the phenomenon, let alone of diachronic quantitative data. At this point, we simply don’t have
any systematic studies yet. However, the table may provide a useful starting point for anyone who
might wish to study the phenomenon in more detail.
Table 1. Clause types prone and not prone to insubordination through Japanese language history
type sub-type prone to insubordination?
relative clauses no
complement clauses general no (cf. §2.4)
quotative yes (e.g. §3.4.1)
interrogative-derived yes
adverbial temporal rarely
conditional yes (e.g. §3.2.1, §3.5.3)
conditional concessive no
concessive yes (e.g. §3.2.2, §3.3.3)
causal sometimes (e.g. §1.1, §3.3)
purpose no
exemplative yes
In the last column of Table 1, I have provided cross-references to sub-sections where examples for
the constructions in question are given. Two types that have a “yes” in the last column are not
discussed in the rest of the paper, so I’m giving examples here.
Examples (32) and (33) are interrogatives on a quotation. The elision of the main verb of
saying that is already visible in (32) easily leads to insubordinate use as in (33).
(32) Kopwi~sin=aba kopwi~sin.e=to=ya pototogisu mono~omop.u toki=ni#

love~die=CON love~die.IMP=QUO=QUE cuckoo thing~think.ANP time=ADV
ki naki toyom.uru
come cry resound.ANP
14. Heiko Narrog
‘As if [he were saying], die of love if you [wanna] die of love, the cuckoo comes and
cries noisily, just when I am blue.’ (C8; Man’yōshū 3780)
(33) Wa=ga yadwo=no pana~tatibana=wo mi=ni ko.zi=to=ya#

I=GEN place=GEN flower~green.citrus=ACC see=ADV come.NFU=QUO=QUE
‘[Are you saying] that you don’t want to come to see the flowers of the green citrus at
my place?’ (C8; Man’yōshū 1990)
(34) and (35) represent exemplatives, subordinate (34) and insubordinate (35). (34) is one of the
earliest possible examples for exemplative –tari in Middle Japanese (cf. Narrog 1999: 102). The
exemplative verb form is adverbial, that is, it requires a finite predicate to follow. In this case,
sweeping and wiping are examples for cleaning, the final predicate.
(34) Mi~gurusi.ki mono-domo mina umi=ye ire-sase~tama.ye#=tote

see-painful.ANP thing-PL all sea=ALL put.in-HON~give.IMP=QUO
tomo~ye=ni fasiri~mawari fai.tari nogoo.tari tiri firoi

bow~stern=LOC run~around sweep.EXM wipe.EXM dirt pick.up
tedukara saudi~se-rare-keri#
himself cleaning~do-HON-PRT
‘[The Chūnagon] told [them] to throw everything ugly into the sea, and [started]
cleaning running around the ship himself, sweeping and wiping, and picking up dirt.’
(C8; Man’yōshū 1257)
Insubordinate use is contemporary. (35) is an example from an internet blog, and may be
stylistically rather marked. However, if the light verb s.uru ‘do’ in its gerundive form is added to
the exemplative verb, as in (36), the insubordinate use appears to be fairly common. The effect of
naming just one example is to give a possible reason or circumstance for some other event in the
context.
(35) KiNkyoo hookoku=dat.tari soo=zya na-kat.tari#

recent.situation report=COP.EXM that.way=[ESS+TOP] be not-VBZ.EXM
‘[This is] sometimes a report about how I’m doing and sometimes it’s not.’
(http://jp.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/character/7470473/blog/1454700/)
(36) Aree# Heri=ga naN-ki=mo zyooku=wo seNkai~si.te i.ru#

DEM helicopter=NOM several-CLA=FOC sky=ACC circle~do.GER be.FNP
ZikeN=dat.tari si.te#
event=COP.EXM do.GER
‘[Look at] that! So many helicopters circling around in the sky. Perhaps something
serious has happened.’ (http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/%E3%81%9F
%E3%82%8A%E3%81%97%E3%81%A6.2836004/)
15
Lastly, the “rarely” assigned in Table 1 for temporal insubordinate clauses refers to insubordinate
uses of the gerund –Te outside the conventionalized benefactive request pattern discussed in §2.3.1.
–Te is extremely vague (or polyfunctional) in its meaning, but the basic reading is that it indicates a
sequence of events. In this sense, if it is used without following main clause, as in (37) (note that it
contains the form added to adjectives –kute), leaving open many possible inferences, we may be
able to speak of an insubordinate temporal clause.
(37) Sayoonara~s.uru=no=wa sabisi.kute…#

goodbye~do.NPS=GEN=TOP sad.GER
‘It’s so sad to say goodbye, and so…’
A sentence like (37) can be imagined with many different main clause propositions depending on
context, similar to the insubordinate clauses with si and kara in (1) and (2). More likely than a
purely temporal reading would be a reading as a reason, e.g., ‘…and therefore I’m crying now’, or
‘…and therefore I just can’t say goodbye’, etc. In fact, I have not been able to identify an
insubordinate construction in Japanese language history based on a purely temporal clause.
3.1.3 Favorite insubordinate uses

The following is a list of meanings and pragmatic effects that have been the preferred target of
insubordinate use of subordinate constructions in Japanese language history.
Older Japanese
 Discontent (regret, complaint, etc.): (mono)=wo; -(a)de (cf. (27), (29))
 Being emotionally stirred: (mono)=wo; -tutu (cf. (21))
 Emphasis: quotatives with particles (cf. (33), (52))
 Wish: -(a)ba=ya; -te/ni-sika (cf. (41), (42))
Modern Japanese
 Leaving an (often) epistemic conclusion to the hearer: si, -Te, -Tari, to=ka, ka doo=ka (cf.
(1), (36))
 Leaving an (often) speech-act level/deontic conclusion open to the hearer: kedo (ga), kara
(cf. (2))
 Deontic (suggestion, obligation): conditional constructions (cf. (23); and (17), if (17) is
insubordination)
 Discontent: no=ni, kuse=ni (cf. (3))
Remarkably, all typical Modern Japanese insubordinate constructions are the result of developments
between Early Modern and Modern Japanese (i.e. from second half of 18th century on). Thus, there
is a clear break in Middle Japanese. Furthermore, the functions of insubordinate constructions in
Modern Japanese clearly differ from those in older Japanese. Modern Japanese insubordinate
constructions mostly leave open a conclusion, often to avoid straightforward directive speech acts,
or not to impose the speaker’s opinion (cf. also Ohori 1995, 2001). Thus the ‘open’ insubordinates
in the sense of §1.1 are typical for Modern Japanese.
Older Japanese insubordinate constructions appear to be primarily an expression of emotion.
This difference is most likely due to historical changes in culture and society rather than purely
language-internal changes. However, as a cautionary note, it may also be partially due to
16. Heiko Narrog
differences in registers of the available texts, since the expression of emotion is typical for poetry,
while ‘open’ insubordination is typical for conversation.
3.1.4 Condensation/fusion vs. omission

While insubordination as understood in this chapter is by definition the result of omission, in the
case of a number of ‘closed’ insubordinate constructions, it can also be sometimes conceptualized
as the result of a ‘condensation’ or ‘fusion’ of semantic material of the main clause into the
erstwhile insubordinate clause. In order for that to happen, the contents of the main clause must be
predictable. But here the problem arises that, as discussed in §2.3.1 and §2.3.2, what is
conventionalized and predictable is often already grammaticalized and not an independent main
clause predicate anymore. In those cases, we are not strictly dealing with insubordination, unless
one compares the structure before it grammaticalized with the ‘condensed’ structure. A list of such
constructions is given below in (38).
(38) Semantic condensation with preceding grammaticalization of the main clause

predicate
– directive gerund –Te (cf. §2.3.1)
– deontic conditionals (if insubordinate; cf. §2.3.2);
On the other hand, with the following constructions one might argue that the contents of the main
clause is to some degree predictable, but not yet grammaticalized. So, the expected meaning of a
real main clause may have been ‘condensed’ into the insubordinate construction.
(39) Semantic condensation without preceding grammaticalization of the main clause

predicate
– quotatives like -ttara, -tteba, etc. (cf. §3.4.1);
– de-interrogative complementizers (cf. §3.1.2)
– conditionals and purpose clauses for wish and negation (cf. §3.2.1, §3.5.3);
– no=ni concessives as complaint, regret (cf. (3), (50))
A ‘complaint’ concessive like the one exemplified in (3) may be a good example. We can easily
supply the missing main clause, as in (40) below. The main clause is practically always the negated
counterpart of the proposition in the subordinate clause, so one can arguably conceptualize the
negation as being condensed into the insubordinate construction as in (3).
(40) SeNseijutsu=wo sit.te i.reba yo-kat.ta=no=ni, sir-ana-kat.ta#

astrology=ACC know.GER be.CON good-VBZ.PST=NMZ=CNC know-NEG-VBZ.PST
‘Although [(s)he] should have been familiar with astrology, [(s)he] wasn’t familiar with
it.’
3.2 Insubordinate use without subordinate use
3.2.1 Only or primarily insubordinate from the beginning

One construction, -te/ni.sika (PFV/PFV.CPT) used to express a wish as in (41), was already
exclusively insubordinate by EOJ, the oldest stage of language documentation. Using the term
‘insubordination’ for it is a presumption only, at least in the diachronic sense.
17
(41) Tatu=no ‘ma=mo e-te.sika#

dragon=GEN horse=FOC obtain-PFV.CPT
Awoniyosi Nara=no miyakwo=ni yuki-te ko-m.u tame#

blue.dye PN=GEN capital=ALL go-PFV come-FUT.ANP goal
‘If I could only obtain a fast horse; in order to visit the (blue dye) capital Nara
[quickly].’ (C8; Man’yōshū 806)
From LOJ on we find the insubordinate construction -(a)ba=ya, made up of a hypothetical

conditional -(a)ba plus the interrogative particle ya, used for a wish, as in (42). (43) shows
subordinate use of the same conditional.
(42) Takapama=no sita~kaze sayag.u# Imwo=wo kwopwi tuma=to

PN=GEN below~wind make a noise-FNP girl=ACC love wife=QUO
ip.aba=ya# Siko=to mesi-t.u=mo#

say.CON=QUE sturdy.person=QUO call-PFV.FNP=EXC
‘The wind blows noisily at the shore of Takahama. If I could only call her [or: some
girl] my wife! She even calls me a strong lad [or: even if I have to call her ugly]5’ (C8;
Fudoki; only example in EOJ)
(43) Kokoro-ate=ni or.aba=ya or-am.u#

heart-guess=ADV pick.CON=QUE pick-FUT.FNP
Fatu-yuki=no oki madof-ase.ru sira~giku=no fana#

first-snow=GEN put be.perplexed-CAU.ANP white~chrysanthenum=GEN flower
‘Can I pick it if I pick it just guessing? The white chrysanthenum flower that the first
snow covers and makes us unsure about.’ (C10; Kokin Wakashū 277; no example in
EOJ)
3.2.2 Constructions that became exclusively insubordinate when they became unproductive in
subordinate use
There are several such constructions. A particularly striking one is -(a)m-aku/uraku=nomi (FUT-
NMZ/NMZ=LIM) – the slash indicates two alternative forms, one with and one without a preceding
future morpheme as is presented in (44). The verb form is nominalized, so it should not be able to
be finite on its own. Semantically as well, something is missing, probably the existential predicate
ari ‘be’. If we add it we get the sentence ‘there is only dying’, which is presumably the intended
meaning.
(44) (Tama=no wo=no) taye-te ar.u kwopwi=no midare-n.aba

(bead=GEN tail=GEN) end-PFV be.ANP love=GEN fall.into.disorder-PFV.CON
5
Note that the poem appears to have two readings, one in which there is a particular girl that is fond of the
authors as a sturdy lad, or the other one in brackets, in which the author has no partner yet and would even
take a ‘sturdy’ one.
18. Heiko Narrog
sin-am.aku=nomi=zo# mata=mo ap-azu si.te#

die-FUT.NMZ=LIM=ASS again=FOC meet-NEG do.GER
‘When our love that has ended (like a bead string) starts revolting, dying [is] the only
thing [left to me]. Without meeting you again.’ (C8; Man’yōshū 2789)
Nominalizing forms in –URaku disappeared from the spoken language in LOJ. However, they
continued to be used in Japanese style Chinese writing, where the ending –(a)maku=nomi gained a
life of its own. Isolated from spoken language, and devoid of the original nominalizing function, it
became just an exclamative particle in translation. Chinese writing was the most important medium
of written communication. On the one hand, originally Chinese texts (mostly religious and
philosophical) were given Japanese readings, which often were somewhat unnatural or coerced.
This led to a semantic or functional extension of the Japanese words, at least within this genre of
writing. This semantic extension was further propagated as the Japanese wrote their own Chinese-
style texts. Now, the construction -(a)m-aku/uraku=nomi was pressed into service for translating
the Chinese sentence-final particle sequences 耳 and 而己, where the particle nomi ‘only’ would
have sufficed, and this obscured the original nominalizing character of the construction. Even the
morphological shape was often used ‘incorrectly’, as in (45), where the original future element –
(a)m- is added to another future ending.
(45) Ikadeka hongyaku kyooran sidume.n=makunomi#

somehow treason rebellion pacify.FUT=EXC
‘Somehow we have to pacify [this] treason and rebellion’ (C13; Manjiban Heike
Monogatari 7; as quoted in Matsumura 1971: 664)
In the Edo period, prescriptive grammars of writing successfully advised a return to adding
nomi ‘only’ (cf. Yamaguchi 1971: 664).
A second example are clauses with the erstwhile conditional concessive particle tomo, which
is originally a combination of the status (‘as’) particle to and the focus particle mo. They turned into
an expression of strong affirmation in LMidJ, when the subordinate use became obsolete. (46)
presents the subordinate use, and (47) and (48) insubordinate uses.
(46) Wa=ga mi=wa wonna=nari=tomo, kataki=no te=ni=wa kakar.u=mazi#

I=GEN body=TOP woman=COP =CNC enemy=GEN hand=DAT=TOP fall.FNP=NFU
‘Even if I’m a woman I will not fall into the hands of the enemy’ (C13C13C13; Heike
Monogatari; Sentei minage)
(47) “Oo, oo. sazo soo=de gozar.oo=tomo”#

Oh, oh surely like.this=ESS be(POL).FUT=CNC
‘Oh, surely it is like this’ (17thc; Kyōgen Morai-muko, 344)
(48) “Kore, koti=no hito, kubio=wa yo.i=ka”=to to.eba,

this this.side=GEN person convenience=TOP good.NPS=QUE=QUO ask.CON
“Yo.i=tomo, yo.i=tomo”#
good.NPS=CNC good.NPS =CNC
19
‘When she asked him, “Does this suit you?” [He answered:] “Fine, fine.”’ (1746;
Sugawara Denju Tenarai-kagami)
The use as an affirmation is somewhat remote from the former conditional-concessive use and the
development leading to it has not been clarified, though see Schwenter (this volume) on an
intriguingly similar development with Spanish si. If (47) is an example of a relatively early stage of
this use, one can imagine the omission of a matrix phrase like ‘I agree’/ ‘I think so’(i.e. ‘even if it is
like that, I agree’). –(A)ba=ya (§3.2.1) and -(a)ide=ka (§2.3.2) are other constructions that also
came to be used (almost) exclusively insubordinately.
3.3 Insubordination as a step from inversion (postposed subordinate clauses)?
Japanese is strictly head-final, with subordinate clauses preposed, that is, unlike in an SVO
language such as English, the position of the subordinate clause is not flexible. However, in
conversation and poetry, subordinate and main clause are sometimes inverted, especially with
adverbial clauses. Inversion is especially common at “both ends” of Japanese language history, that
is, Old and Modern Japanese. In Old Japanese, inversion of subordinate and main clause appears to
be deeply entrenched in the structure. Not only adverbial clauses but the cleft-like structures of at
least some kakari-musubi constructions (cf. §2.4) are inverted. Inversion indicates a certain
independence of the subordinate clause from the main clause, or a relatively lower degree of clause
integration, and could thus be a step towards insubordination. It is thus possible to hypothesize that
insubordination may sometimes not be the straightforward result of elision of the following main
clause but rather of a preceding main clause. That is, in terms of process, inversion leads to stranded
subordinate clauses, which in turn lead to insubordination.
A related claim has been made by Higashiizumi (2006: 153) with respect to development of
the insubordinate use of kara ‘because’: “We may assume that the repeated use of inversion may
lead to the use of independent kara-clauses in colloquial discourse in the twentieth century.”
Higashiizumi (2006) shows a clear correlation between increasing inverted and insubordinate
use of =kara in the 19th and 20th centuries. Note, though, that a correlation does not necessary mean
a causal relationship, and a causal relationship can be difficult to establish on the basis of historical
data. The following subsections explore the idea of insubordination arising from inversion by
looking at the correlation of both with specific constructions.
3.3.1 Insubordination without inversion

Constructions with the following subordinating elements have been used in insubordination but
have not been associated with inversion: subordinate clauses with -te (temporal), -(a)de, -(a)ba=ya
(conditional), quotatives in general. The same is of course true for those pseudo-insubordinate
constructions that became monoclausal before elision of the auxiliarized former main clause
elements, such as -Te as request (§2.3.1) the deontics of §2.3.2 and the constructions on the
borderline between mono- and biclausality: -tutu (§2.3.3), and -tara/-(r)eba for suggestions, etc. (cf.
§2.3.4). The conventionalization and auxiliarization of the former main clause predicate only occurs
if the former main clause predicate is immediately adjacent to the preceding subordinate clause.
3.3.2 Inversion without insubordination

In the history of Japanese, particularly in OJ, a number of structures can be found that are
practically always inverted, but are not used insubordinately. I am not aware of such structures in
Modern Japanese.
The particle gane, as presented in (49), which is of unknown etymology, indicated a purpose
or reason for the proposition in the preceding main clause. The main clause is usually deontic.
20. Heiko Narrog
(49) Masurawo=pa na=wo tat.u=be.si#

strong.man=TOP name=ACC establish.FNP=DEO.FNP
noti=no yo=ni kiki~tug.u pito=mo katari~tug.u=gane#

after=GEN world=DAT hear~follow.ANP person=FOC tell~follow.ANP=PUR
‘A strong man must establish his name, so that people in later generations who hear of
him continue to tell about him.’ (C8; Man’yōshū 4187)
Likewise, the suffix combination -(a)n-aku=ni (NEG-NMZ=ADV), that was used to indicate
discontent (regret, etc.) as in (50), also always followed the main clause.
(50) Imwo=ga mi.si aputi=no pana=pa tiri-n.u=be.si#

lover=GEN see.APT bead.tree=GEN flower=TOP fall-PFV.FNP=INE.FNP
wa=ga nak.u namida imada pi-n.aku=ni#

I=GEN cry.ANP tear still dry-NEG.NMZ=CNC
‘The bead tree flowers that you saw are already about to fall – although the tears that I
cry have not dried yet.’ (C8; Man’yōshū 802)
Despite this peculiarity with respect to the order of main and subordinate clause, no insubordination
developed. It looks like this quirk is limited to the genre of poetry, which exhibits a strong tendency
towards inversion (cf. also §3.4.2), and where these constructions are found.
3.3.3 Clauses used both in inversion and insubordination

The representative ‘open’ insubordinate constructions of Modern Japanese, kara, kedo, and si, are
all used frequently both inverted and insubordinate in conversation (cf. e.g. Higashiizumi 2006 for
kara; Shirakawa 2009 in general).
The same holds for OJ (mono=)wo, which was concessive in subordination, and expressed
strong emotion if used sentence-finally.
(51) (Nubatama=no) sono ywo=no ume=wo tawasure.te wor-azu

black.seed=GEN DEM night=GEN plum=ACC forget.GER break-NEG
ki-ni-keri# omopi.si mono=wo#

come-PFV-PRT think.of.APT thing=CRC
‘Oh, I have come and have forgotten to break off a twig of the plum tree of that night.
Although I had thought of it.’ (C8; Man’yōshū 392)
3.3.4 Conclusion
While the idea that insubordination results from inversion is plausible, both processes seem not to
depend on each other. Some cases of insubordination correlate with inversion (cf. §3.3, §3.3.3) but
others do not (cf. §3.3.1, §3.3.2). Semantic types of subordination that are especially prone to both
inversion and insubordination are cause/reason and protest/disagreement, including, for discourse
21
reasons, refutational clauses (cf. Schwenter, this volume) and counter-asssertives (cf. Floyd, this
volume).
3.4 Inversion/insubordination and register
Both inversion of subordinate and matrix clause and insubordination are apparently more frequent
in some registers than in others. The sub-sections below show where specific inverted and
insubordinate constructions occurred in Japanese language history.
3.4.1 Only in conversation

A common assumption is that insubordinate constructions result from strategic use of subordinate
clauses in conversation. However, historically speaking, insubordinate constructions that can be
tagged as ‘only in conversation’ are rare. This is probably simply due to the fact that we are dealing
with written language documents that provide only limited information about conversation.
The quotative LOJ to=yo may be an exception. According to Iwai (1976: 394) this is only
found in represented conversation (or soliloquy) in the Genji Monogatari, as in (52), though it is
found in poetry, etc. in other document.
(52) “Ika=nar.u kaze=no fuki~sofi.te kaku=wa

how=COP.ANP wind=GEN blow~along.GER this.way=TOP
fibiki-faber.u=zo=to=yo”#
resound-POL.FNP=ASS=QUO=ILL
‘What kind of wind is blowing along to make [the koto] resound so much?’ (C11; Genji
Monogatari, Tokonatsu)
In this construction, a verb of saying or thinking that we would expect as the main clause after the
quotative particle to is elided. Instead, the emphatic particle yo follows. (53) is an example of the
regular subordinate construction.
(53) ““Tumi 0.uru koto=zo=to” tune=ni kikoy.uru=wo

sin acquire.ANP thing=ASS=QUO always=ADV say[HML].ANP=CRC
kokoro~u.ku”6…
heart~sad.ADV
‘It’s so upsetting, because I’ve been telling [you] all the time that this is sinful’ (C11;
Genji Monogatari, Wakamurasaki)
To=yo contrasted with the insubordinate quotative to=zo primarily found in narration and
indicating the narrator’s stance, often ending some episode, as in (54):
(54) Turena.ki fito=yori=fa nakanaka afare=ni

unkind.ANP person=ABL=TOP unexpectedly touching=ADV
6
The verb u ‘acquire’ has a zero stem, indicated by “0” in this line.
22. Heiko Narrog
obosar.u=to=zo#
think(RSP).FNP=QUO=ASS
‘He thought of [him] as unexpectedly more amiable than the rather unkind person [his
sister]’ (C11; Genji Monogatari, Hahakigi)
Especially from the 18th century on, relative rich sources of (represented) conversation are available.
Many of the quotative insubordinate constructions in Modern Japanese can be safely tagged as
‘conversational’. For example, there is =tteba, which can be used both as a topic marker (cf.
Shinzato and Suzuki 2007 for a paper in English on part of its development) and clause-finally. It
goes back to the phrase to i.eba (QUO say.CON) ‘if [someone] says that’, which had the
morphological and phonological shape to ip.e=ba (QUO say.CON=TOP) in OJ, and to if.e=ba in LOJ/
EMidJ. (55) presents the original construction with the literal meaning. Note, however, that, as the
example shows, even already in OJ, the construction was often used to introduce topics, and may
already have been formularized to a certain extent.
(55) Simasiku=mo wakar.u=to ip.e=ba kanasi.ku=mo ar.u=ka#

for.a.while=FOC separate.FNP=QUO say.CON=TOP sad.ADV=FOC be.ANP=QUE
‘If you speak about separating just for a while, how sad this is!’ (C8; Man’yōshū 4279)
Formularized use, and accompanying morphological and phonological fusion of the quotative
complement marker to and the ‘say’ verb in its conditional form, led to the development of a topic
marker (not shown here) on the one hand, and the insubordinate construction as in (56) below, on
the other. Clause-final =tteba, which I have tried to translate as literally as possible in the example,
indicates that the speaker (in this case a child) strongly insists on her opinion. The originally
quotative form implies that the speaker has already voiced the same opinion before. This is an
entirely conversational use, although it can also be occasionally found in internet genres like blog
writing. In (56), a man and a woman discuss differences in pink colors of lipsticks, that the man is
unable to perceive.
(56) Male: Datte, dotti=mo onazi pinku=zyan#......

but which-FOC same pink-COP
Female: Tiga.u=tteba# Yoku mi.te=tteba#

differ-NPS=ILL well see.GER =ILL
‘But [the lipsticks] are all the same pink.” – “And if I’m saying no! [I’m saying] take a
close look!” (http://news.livedoor.com/article/detail/6468157/)
3.4.2 Only or primarily in poetry

Inversion is extremely common in poetry. The structure of traditional short poems is such that often
first a more or less factual statement is made, and then supported or augmented with a formally
backgrounded proposition that adds an emotive evaluation, and is marked as subordinate (e.g. the
poems in (50) and (51) above). This rhetorical style may have contributed to the development of
specialized inverted and insubordinate forms in poetry. Inverted constructions are especially
frequent in, or perhaps even exclusive to, poetry. Typical examples are –(a)n.aku=ni, gane (cf.
§3.3.2), and mono yuwe (concessive/causal). So-called tsutsu-dome (cf. §2.3.3) is also an
insubordinate device specific to poetry.
23
3.4.3 Only in Chinese-style writing

–(A)m.aku/uraku=nomi presented in §3.3.2 is a case of insubordination only found in Chinese
written style, that is, in a style that is maximally remote from spoken language. Also note that there
are a number of subordinating elements that once vanished from spoken language and were later
revived, apparently on the basis of written language (e.g. mono=no), or that were “carried through”
in writing although they became insignificant in spoken language (e.g. mono=o, mono yuwe). In
general, in Modern Japanese, colloquially obsolete constructions that survived in written language
have occasionally been revived and re-gained colloquial status, apparently not through dialectal
influence but through writing and education (cf. Narrog and Ohori 2011).
3.5 Structural and semantic correlates of insubordination
In general, insubordinate clauses in Japanese can easily be identified by their morphological

subordinate marking, since this is the way subordinate clauses are commonly tagged in Japanese
(relative clauses in Modern Japanese are an exception), plus the fact that these clauses lack a matrix
clause.
This section thus deals with the question of whether there are any additional features that set
apart insubordinate constructions from their subordinately used counterparts. I will discuss change
of intonation, addition of particles, exclusive or emancipated insubordinate uses, and finally, the
issue of insubordination and narrowing down of meaning.7
3.5.1 Change of intonation

The most consistent and reliable indicator of insubordination in Japanese may be prosody. In
conversation, speakers usually indicate through prosody if they are ready to hand over the turn to
the hearer, which is often the case with insubordinate constructions. The most striking example of
different prosody accompanying insubordination may be the insubordinate conditionals indicating a
suggestion, as in (21), repeated below in (57).
(57) Asita it.tara?↑

tomorrow go.CON
‘[How about] going tomorrow?’
The clause ends in rising intonation, while with a subordinate conditional the contour would be flat,
or only slightly rising if a short pause is made to give the hearer some space for a backchannel
utterance.
However, in historical texts, information about prosodic features is generally lacking.
3.5.2 Addition of particles

Ohori (1995: 202) and Evans (2007: 377) cite the particle ne as delimiting a sentence, as in (58). As
I will show below, this may not be a very reliable criterion.
(58) A: Zyugyoo yasum.u=no?#

class skip.NPS=EMP
'Are you going to skip the class?'
7
Schwenter (2001, this volume) has suggested a number of other very useful criteria, though they don’t seem
to be immediately applicable to Japanese, and for lack of space I will forego their discussion here.
24. Heiko Narrog
B: Tukare-tyat.te=ne#
exhausted-CPV.GER=ILL
‘I’m exhausted.’
In colloquial Japanese, the particle ne can be added to practically any constituent in a clause, and
thus does not constitute a reliable sentence boundary at all. It is not difficult to construe an utterance
like (59), in which the sentence is continued and even contains two additional phrases with ne.
(59) Ima=wa=ne, tukare-tyat.te=ne, tyotto=ne, ik-e-na.i=N=da=yo.#

now=TOP=ILL tire-CPV.GER=ILL a.little=ILL go-POT-NEG.NPS=NMZ=COP=ILL
‘Right now, I’m a little exhausted, and I just can’t go.’
In this manner, the more common so-called ‘final’ particles, especially ne, sa and yo are
simultaneously also prone to intra-clausal use. Therefore, the less common final particles zo, ze and
wa, which are not used within a clause, are potentially more reliable indicators of the end of an
utterance, but unfortunately they are also restricted to specific speech styles.
In historical Japanese, especially the quotative particle to and the conditional –(a)ba were
habitually used insubordinately with particles following them. (60) provides a list of the particles
following each of these.
(60) to + zo/yo/sa/wa (assertive), ya/ka/yara (interrogative), ne (seeking hearer’s agreement)

-(a)ba+ ya (interrogative), koso (contrastive focus)
I am not aware, however, that any of these particle combinations were confined to insubordinate
use, unless the subordinate use as such had become obsolete. Admittedly, though, the addition of a
particle indicates greater independence of the clause and thus raises the likelihood of insubordinate
use.
3.5.3 Exclusive or emancipated insubordinate uses

Occasionally, an insubordinate construction may acquire a meaning that is not available in
subordinate use. In Japanese, this usually happens only when the subordinate use becomes obsolete
and the association with the original subordinate function and meaning becomes weak. Some
examples were already given in §3.2. Here I will elaborate on two constructions of this type that
took particularly unexpected developments.
-(a)ba=ya: conditional + interrogative particle > wish (LOJ). Originally this expressed a wish in
insubordination (cf. §3.2.1; (42); (43) is a subordinate use). Later, in MidJ, when the hypothetical
conditional –(a)ba became obsolete, it also expressed negation or very generally intention, as in
(61), equivalent to future –(a)m.u/–(y)oo/-(y)ooz.uru, which was the common intention marker of
the time.
(61) “Ka=no ôôkami kono fituzi=wo kuraf-aba=ya#=to omofi,

this=GEN wolf DEM sheep=ACC eat-CON=QUE=QUO think
fituzi=no soba=ni tikadui.te yuu=wa….#

sheep=GEN side=ALL approach.GER say(NPS)=TOP
25
‘That wolf wanted to devour the sheep and [thus] approached the sheep and said…’
(1746; Esopo no Fabulas)
Apparently, the specific wish meaning generalized into more general intention, being more
‘expressive’ than the common marker of intention. In the Edo period, prescriptive pressure was
exerted against this use.
-(a)ba=koso CON=CFC > insubordinately emphatic negation (MidJ~). This construction is discussed
for the first time in this chapter. (62) shows subordinate use, and (63) a counterfactual wish,
interpreted as negation.
(62) Ima=wa syuu=no yo=ni imasimas.aba=koso kataki=no kubi

now=TOP master=GEN world=LOC be(RSP).CON=CFC enemy=GEN neck
tot.te mairase.te kunkoo kenzyau=ni=mo adukari-tamaw-am.e#

take.GER present.GER merit reward=DAT=FOC receive-POL-FUT.CON
‘If your master would still be in this world, you could earn merit and reward by cutting
off your enemies’ necks’. (C13; Heike Monogatari 9, 240; Etchū no Senji Saigo)
(63) “Sizen=no koto sauraw.aba, Yorimori kamaye.te tasuke-sase-tamay.e#”=to

nature=GEN thing be(POL).CON PN take.care.GER rescue-RSP-RSP.IMP=QUO
maus-are-ker.e=domo nyoin “ima=wa yo=no yo=ni=te

say(POL)-RSP-PRT.CON=AVS lady now=TOP world=GEN world=ESS=GER
ar.aba=koso”=tote tanomosi-ge=mo nau=zo woose-ker.u#

be.CON=CFC=QUO reliable-EVI=FOC not.be(ADV)=ASS say(RSP)-PRT.ANP
[Yorimori] said, “In case something happens, please rescue me”, but the empress
dowager said, “If only the world were now [still] the world”, and did not sound
confident. (C13; Heike Monogatari 7, 105; Ichimon no Miyako-ochi)
Lastly, mono=wo (concession) originally expressed surprise or discontent sentence-finally in EMidJ

(cf. (51)) and later may have developed into a marker of generalization. This development is not
transparent, however, and therefore no example is given here.
Evans (2007: 374) suggests that the stage of ‘conventionalization of the whole construction
(constructionalization)’ is only reached if the construction “has a specific meaning of its own” and
the deleted material cannot be restored. Everything depends on how strictly this criterion is applied
but it seems to me that in Japanese, as long as the subordinate use remains productive, insubordinate
uses usually remain clearly related to the subordinate use.
3.5.4 Insubordination and narrowing down of meanings

Evans (2007) represents the process of insubordination as a process of narrowing down of possible
meanings, and, accordingly, of functional/semantic specialization. A stage of conventionalization of
ellipsis is reached if “restoration of material is conventionalized to a subset of the grammatically
tolerated possibilities” (372). A stage of constructionalization is reached if “the newly independent
clause acquires a more specific constructional meaning.”
26. Heiko Narrog
It seems to me that in Japanese language history this potential line of development applies to
some cases but not to all. The following is a list of constructions that apparently match Evans’
(2007) assumptions well:
 Insubordinate concessive constructions that specialize in the expression of complaint, protest
and regret (throughout Japanese language history; as presented above)
 Quotatives that specialize in the expression of a certain person’s stance (cf. §3.4.1)
 Insubordinate constructions with obsolete subordinate counterparts (cf. §3.2, §3.5.3)
 Most insubordinate constructions with conditionals; e.g. ModJ –Tara/Reba (§2.3.4),
(a)ba=koso (§3.5.3)
However, the following constructions appear to fit less well.
 The representative Modern Japanese insubordinate constructions in kedo, si, te, and kara,
which have the function of opening room for inferences and vagueness. Their interpretation
may be closely determined in a specific context but cannot be narrowed down in general – cf.
also Evans and Watanabe (this volume) on c-complementizing insubordination in Kayardild,
which “introduces a huge range of possible reconstructable or inferable full constructions.”
This raises the question of whether the poor vs. good match is a matter of the stage of development
of the construction (initial vs. advanced), or of the meaning of the specific construction and the
pragmatic functions associated with it. I believe that both factors may play a role, but the role of the
meaning of the construction, and the pragmatic functions associated with that meaning are more
important. Thus, kedo, si, and –te, for example, are so general in their meaning, also in their
subordinate use, that it may be difficult for a specialized use to conventionalize. Also, it may
exactly be their vagueness that makes them so useful.
In contrast, concessives used insubordinately (e.g. (3)) seem to be immediately associated
with the expression of regret or discontent, and the quotatives as in §3.4.1 also seem to have
specialized without a long preceding development, at least not one that we know of. On the other
hand, functional narrowing seems inevitable in those cases where the insubordinate construction
becomes disconnected from the erstwhile subordinate construction, as in the case of the ‘frozen’
constructions in §3.2, simply because the subordinate construction has become obsolete.
4 Conclusion
In this chapter, I have tried to give an overview of insubordination in Japanese language history
which is as comprehensive as possible. Since insubordination is so prevalent in this language, this is
an almost impossible undertaking, but I hope that a few structures and processes that are typical for
insubordination in Japanese, and also relevant for the study of the phenomenon in general, have
emerged from the discussion. We have found that certain clause types are more prone to
insubordination than others, and that these crystalize around two preferred functions of
insubordinate constructions, namely, (1) the subjective expression of the speaker’s/writer’s
emotions, and (2), the indirect expression of hearer-related speech acts. We have also found that the
uses of insubordination in Modern Japanese differ from those at other historical stages.
Furthermore, I have critically discussed some structural issues, such as ‘pseudo-insubordination’
from constructions where the former main clause has already grammaticalized (auxiliarized), the
relationship between insubordination and clause inversion, and the correlation between
insubordination and certain structural and semantic features.
Insubordination remains a phenomenon vastly understudied in Japanese, especially when we
look at it as a whole suite of developments and not focus on just one particular isolated
construction. Reliable quantitative generalizations cannot be given at this stage of research, and it
will take a major research effort in order to be able to provide them.
27
Abbreviations
~ compound
# sentence final boundary
= clitic boundary
ABL ablative
ACC accusative
ADV adverbial
ALL allative
ANP adnominal present tense
APT adnominal preterite
ASS assertive
AVS adversative
CAL causal
CAU causative
CFC contrastive focus
CLA classifier
CNC concessive
CON conditional
COP copula
CPT conditional preterite
CPV completive
CRC circumstantial
DAT dative
DEM demonstrative
DEO deontic
DUR durative
EMP emphatic
ESS essive
EVI evidential
EXC exclamative
EXM exemplative
FNP finite non-past
FOC focus
FUT future
GEN genitive
GER gerund
HML humilitive
HON honorific
ILL illocutionary modifier
IMP imperative
INE inevitability
LIM limitative
LOC locative
NEA negative adverbial
NEG negation,
NFU negative future
NMZ nominalization
28. Heiko Narrog
NOM nominative
NPS non-past
PAS passive
PFV perfective
PN proper noun
POL politeness
POT potential
PRT (remote) preterite
PST past tense
PUR purpose
QUE interrogative
QUO quotative
RSP respective
SPN spontaneity
STA status
TOP topic
VB verb base
VBZ verbalization
EMidJ Early Middle Japanese

EModJ Early Modern Japanese
EOJ Early Old Japanese
LMidJ Late Middle Japanese
LOJ Late Old Japanese
MidJ Middle Japanese
ModJ Modern Japanese
OJ Old Japanese
References
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations,
Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fujii, Seiko. 2004. Lexically (un)filled constructional schemes and construction types: The case of Japanese
modal conditional constructions.Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective, Mirjam
Fried and Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), 121–155. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hanazono, Satoru. 1999. Jōkenkei fukugō yōgen keishiki no nintei [The recognition of complex conditional
verb forms]. Kokugogaku 197, 39–53.
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. New reflections on grammaticalization,
Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald (eds.) 83–101. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Higashiizumi, Yuko. 2006. From a subordinate clause to an independent clause. A history of English
because-clause and Japanese kara-clause. Tokyo: Hituzi.
Huang, Yan. 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Itoi, Michiharu. 2001. Mono wo [mono=wo]. Nihongo bunpō daijiten, Akiho Yamaguchi and Morihide
Akimoto (eds.), 798–799. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
Iwai, Yoshio. 1970. Nihon gohōshi. Nara, Heian jidai-hen (The history of Japanese grammar: The Nara and
the Heian period). Tōkyō: Kasama Shoin.
29
Iwai, Yoshio. 1971. Nihon gohōshi. Kamakura-jidai-hen (The history of Japanese grammar: The Kamakura
period). Tōkyō: Kasama Shoin.
Iwai, Yoshio. 1973. Nihon gohōshi. Muromachi-jidai-hen (The history of Japanese grammar: The Edo
period). Tōkyō: Kasama Shoin.
Iwai, Yoshio. 1976. Genji Monogatari gohōkō (Thoughts on the grammar of the Genji Monogatari). Tōkyō:
Kasama Shoin.
Jōdaigo Jiten Henshū Iinkai (eds.). 1967. Jidaibetsu kokugo daijiten Jōdaihen [Historical dictionary of the
National Language – Ancient Japanese]. Tōkyō: Sanseidō.
Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo. 1960. Hanashi-kotoba no bunkei (1) – Taiwa shiryō ni yoru kenkyū (Patterns
of spoken language (1): Research based on conversational materials). Tokyo: Shūei Shuppan.
Martin, Samuel. 1975. A reference grammar of Japanese. Yale: Yale University Press.
Muromachi Jidaigo Jiten Henshū Iinkai (eds). 1989~2001. Jidaibetsu Kokugo daijiten Chūseihen (Historical
dictionary of the National Language – Middle Japanese). Tōkyō: Sanseidō.
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 2012. Japanese relative clauses that stand alone. Abstract of presentation at the 22nd
Japanese-Korean Linguistics Conference, Tokyo 13th~14th October 2012.
Matsumura, Akira (ed.). 1971. Nihon bunpō daijiten. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
Minami, Fujio. 1974. Gendai Nihongo no kōzō (Structure of Modern Japanese). Tokyo: Taishūkan.
Minami, Fujio. 1993. Gendai Nihongo bunpō no rinkaku (Outline of Modern Japanese grammar). Tokyo:
Taishūkan.
Minami, Fujio. 1997. Gendai Nihongo kenkyū (Research on Modern Japanese grammar)]. Tokyo: Sanseidō.
Mithun, Marianne. 2008. The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 84(1): 69–119.
NKD: Nihon Kokugo Daijiten Henshū Iinkai (eds.). 2000–2001. Nihon Kokugo daijiten (Great dictionary of
the Japanese language). 2nd edition. 14 vols. Tokyo: Shōgakkan.
Narrog, Heiko. 1999. Japanische Verbflexive und flektierbare Verbalsuffixe. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Narrog, Heiko. Forthcoming. The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese. Syntax, Masayoshi
Shibatani (ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Handbooks of Japanese Language and Linguistics Series].
Narrog, Heiko and Toshio Ohori. 2011. Grammaticalization in Japanese. The Oxford handbook of
grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine (eds.), 775–785. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Nomura, Takashi. 2011. Hanashi-kotoba no Nihonshi (A history of the Japanese spoken language). Tokyo:
Yoshikawa Kobunkan.
Ohori, Toshio. 1995. Remarks on suspended clauses. Essays in semantics and pragmatics, Masayoshi
Shibatani and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), 201–218. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Ohori, Toshio. 2001. Framing effects in Japanese non-final clauses: Toward an optimal grammar-pragmatics
interface. Proceedings of the 23rd annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society February 14–17,
1997, 471–480. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Quinn, Charles J., Jr. 1999. On the origins of Japanese sentence particles ka and zo. Japanese/Korean
Linguistics 6, Ho-Min Sohn and John Haig (eds.), 61–89.
Schwenter, Scott. 2001. Sobre la sintaxis de una construcción colloquial: Oraciones independientes con si.
Annuari de Filologia 21: 87–100.
Shinzato, Rumiko and Satoko Suzuki. 2007. From quotative conditionals to emotive topic markers: A case of
tteba and ttara in Japanese. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 15, Naomi Hanaoka McGloin and Junko
Mori (eds.), 173–183. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
30. Heiko Narrog
Shirakawa, Hiroyuki. 2009. Iisashibun no kenkyū (Research on indicating clauses). Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Van Valin, Robert D. and Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Yamaguchi, Akiho. 1971. Nomi [nomi]. Nihon Bunpō daijiten, Matsumura (ed.), 663–664.
Yamaguchi, Akiho and Morihide Akimoto 2001. Nihongo Bunpō daijiten (Great dictionary of Japanese
grammar). Meiji Shoin.
Yamaguchi, Shōji. 1998. Chūkogo –te ren’yōku to sono shūhen (Adverbial clauses on –te and related
phenomena). Chūkogo no kenkyū, Kiyoji Satō (ed.), 213–247. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
Yoshimoto, Kei. 2000. Tense and aspect in Japanese and English. 2nd, revised edn. Bern: Peter Lang.
Yuzawa, Kōkichirō. 1936. Tokugawa Jidai gengo no kenkyū – Kamigata-hen. Research on the Tokugawa
period language [Kamigata]). Tokyo: Tōkō Shoin.
Yuzawa, Kōkichirō. 1957. Zōtei Edo Kotoba no kenkyū (Research on the Edo Language [expanded and
revised version]). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
Yuzawa, Kōkichirō. 1958. Muromachi Jidai gengo no kenkyū (Research on the language of the Muromachi
period). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
Primary Texts
Genji monogatari vols. 1–6, Nihon Koten Bungaku Zenshū 12–17; with commentaries and a translation into
Modern Japanese by Abe Asao, Akiyama Ken und Imai Gen’e, 1970–1976. Tokyo: Shōgakkan.
Heike monogatari, vols. 1–2, Nihon Koten Bungaku Zenshū 29–30; with commentaries and a translation into
Modern Japanese by Ichiko Teiji, 1973, 1975. Tokyo: Shōgakkan.
Kokin wakashu, Nihon Koten Bungaku Zenshū 7; with commentaries and a translation into Modern Japanese
by Ozawa Masao, 1971. Tokyo: Shōgakkan.
Man’yōshū, Nihon Koten Bungaku Zenshū 2–5; with commentaries and a translation into Modern Japanese
by Kojima Noriyuki, Konoshita Masatoshi, Satake Akihiro, 1970–1975. Tokyo: Shōgakkan.
Ugetsu monogatari, Nihon Koten Bungaku Zenshū 48; with commentaries and a translation into Modern
Japanese by Takada Mamoru, 1973. Tokyo: Shōgakkan.

Narrog 2016 Insubordination in Japanese Diachronically (Insubordination [TSL 115])

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Narrog 2016 Insubordination in Japanese Diachronically (Insubordination [TSL 115])

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 10

Insubordination in Japanese diachronically

1.1 Insubordination in the study of Modern Japanese

(1) Kono riNgo yasu.i=si#

(2) Ima ik.u=kara#

(3) SeNseijutsu=wo sit.te i.reba yo-kat.ta=no=ni#

Old Japanese (OJ): ca. 600~ca. 1100

2 Delimitation of insubordination phenomena in Japanese

2.1 Subordinate vs. coordinate, cosubordinate structures

(4) Taroo=ga ie=ni modot.te kagi=o sime.ta

(5) Taroo=ga ie=ni modot.ta=ga kagi=o sime-na-kat.a

(6) Taroo=ga ie=ni *modot.ta.te kagi=o sime.ta

(7) Taroo=ga ie=ni *modot.ta=yo=ga kagi=o sime-na-kat.a

2.2 Constructions not considered as insubordination

2.2.1 Too much missing: EOJ V+te/A+ku/N(=ni)+mo=ga(=mo/na)

(8) …ume=no pana ima sakari=nari# mi-m.u pito=mo=ga=mo#

(9) Mat.te i.ta yoo=ni hirak.u doa#

(10) Doa=ga mat.te i.ta yoo=ni hirak.u#

2.3 Problematic cases I: Mono-clausal or bi-clausal structure?

forming an independent main clause, or as grammatical operators. In terms of the typology of

2.3.1 LOJ&ModJ gerund –te with elided predicate of benefactive transfer

(11) …“ware=ni gityau kiri.te#”

(13) Watashi/kare=o/*ni mat.te (kudasa.i)#

(14) Hayaku kaet.te kure#

(15) *Isoide kaet.te zehi kure#

2.3.2 -(a)ide=wa in LMidJ; -(a)nakutya in ModJ

negative evaluative predicate expresses a (non-epistemic) necessity or obligation. In ModJ, the

(16) Haya.ku ik-ana.kereba nar-ana.i#

(17) Haya.ku ik-ana.kutya#

(18) Haya.ku ik-ana.kutya basu=ni maniaw-ana.i#

2.3.3 –tutu in LOJ~

(20) Ama zakar.u pina=ni itu-tose sumapi-tutu

miyako=no teburi wasur-aye-keri#

(21) Yama-zakura wa=ga mi=ni k.ure=ba

paru-giri mine=ni=mo wo=ni=mo tati kakusi-tutu#

(22) Karigane=no ki nak-am.u pwi=made mi-tutu ar-am.u

2.3.4 –Tara, -(r)eba as advice in ModJ

(23) Asita it.tara?

Grammatically speaking, the following interrogative phrase doo=desu=ka? ‘How about?’ is

(24) Wa=ga kop.uru kimi=so kizo=no ywo ime=ni miye-t.uru#

2.5 Problematic cases III: Insubordination or subordination?

3.1 Overall generalizations

3.1.1 Indeterminacy of OJ subordinating elements

(25) wo (ACC), ni (DAT), mono yuwe(=ni) (‘thing’ ‘reason’ (=DAT))

(26) From concessive to causal:

mono=kara shift to causal use in EMidJ

(27) (Nubatama=no) sono ywo=no ume=wo tawasure.te wor-azu

ki-ni-keri# omopi.si mono=wo#

(28) Iti~mon=kara=no akinai=de higana~iti~niti i.tari tat.tari

s.uru mono=wo hara=mo her.oo=zya nee=ka#

(29) Niwa=wa ka=bakari yokari.si mono=wo (#), Akasi=yori hune motome-n.aba,

kono asa~biraki=ni usimado=no to=no tomari=wa

(30) Miti=no pe=no kusa~buka~yuri=no pana wemi=ni wemi.si=ga

kara=ni tuma=to ip.u=be.si=ya#

(31) Sinkwan=to if.an=kara=ni kuni~naka=ni faram-are.te=wa

ika=ni kikwai=o=ba itas.u#

3.1.2 Clause types prone and not prone to insubordination

(32) Kopwi~sin=aba kopwi~sin.e=to=ya pototogisu mono~omop.u toki=ni#

(33) Wa=ga yadwo=no pana~tatibana=wo mi=ni ko.zi=to=ya#

(34) Mi~gurusi.ki mono-domo mina umi=ye ire-sase~tama.ye#=tote

tomo~ye=ni fasiri~mawari fai.tari nogoo.tari tiri firoi

(35) KiNkyoo hookoku=dat.tari soo=zya na-kat.tari#

(36) Aree# Heri=ga naN-ki=mo zyooku=wo seNkai~si.te i.ru#

(37) Sayoonara~s.uru=no=wa sabisi.kute…#