Proceedings of International Symposium

Approaches to Endangered
Languages in Japan and Northeast
Asia- Poster Session -Proceedings of International Symposium“Approaches
toEndangered Languages
inJapan and Northeast Asia”– Poster Session –5 August 2018
National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics

Proceedings of International Symposium“Approaches to Endangered Languages in Japan and Northeast Asia”– Poster Session –5 August 2018
National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics
First published 2019edited by Hayato Aoi
Copyright © 2019 Hayato Aoi & Individual Contributors

ISBN 978-4-86337-305-1
This is an electronic publication in PDF format.
This publication is offered under Creative Commons International License
Attribution 4.0.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Published by
Research Institute for
Languages and Cultures ofAsia and Africa (ILCAA)
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
3-11-1, Asahi-cho, Fuchu-shi,
183-8534, Tokyo, JAPANhttps://publication.aa-ken.jp/

International Symposium

Approaches to Endangered
Languages in Japan andNortheast Asia

Dates:

5–8 August, 2018

Venue:

Lecture Hall, National Institute for Japanese Language andLinguistics (NINJAL)

Symposium Website:
https://www2.ninjal.ac.jp/ael/index.html

iThis symposium is sponsored by
National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics (NINJAL);ILCAA Linguistic Dynamics Project 3 (LingDy3);
JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (S): 17H06115.

Proceedings of International Symposium

Approaches to Endangered Languages
in Japan and Northeast Asia
– Poster Session –Contents
On the Accented Moraic Oral Obstruent in the Owase Dialect (Mie
Prefecture)1

Non-Core Vocabulary Cognates in Ryukyuan and Kyushu

8Palatalization and Vowel Coalescence in Jejueo

30‘I’m Afraid of Thunder’: The Dative Stimulus Construction in Japanese
Dialects
39
Far Away but So Close to the HeartLooChoo (Ryukyuan) Language:
Revitalization Movement in Hawaiʻi

50

Zero-Subject in the ‘be done’ Construction in Irish

60

Developing Web-Based Learning Resources while Managing Language
Classes in an Endangered Language73On the Accented Moraic Oral Obstruent in the Owase Dialect (Mie
Prefecture) *HIRATA, Shu

National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics

In this paper, I argue that a moraic oral obstruent on which an accent falls is found in
the Owase dialect. There are four kinds of special morae in Japanese phonology: thesecond morae of diphthongs (/J/), the second morae of long vowels (/R/), moraic
nasals (/N/), and moraic oral obstruents (/Q/). /Q/ has the weakest phonologicalindependence among the four special morae and generally does not receive an accent.
However, interestingly, an accented /Q/ is observed in the Owase dialect, where preaccenting morphemes in compound nouns are found. When the pre-accenting
morpheme begins with /k/ and the morpheme that precedes the pre-accenting
morpheme ends with /ku/, the accented /Q/ appears.
Keywords: Japanese accent, moraic obstruent (Sokuon)

1. Introduction
2. Accent system of the Owase dialect
3. Pre-accenting morphemes
4. The accented moraic oral obstruent
5. Conclusion

1. Introduction
In this paper, I argue that a moraic oral obstruent (促音, sokuon), on which the accent
falls, is found in the Owase dialect. Owase City is located in the southern region of Mie
Prefecture, Japan. Mie Prefecture is a part of Tokai Region, near Nagoya City. Since
the percentage of people aged 65 years and older in the total population of Owase Cityis 42.8% (as of November, 2018), the Owase dialect is in danger of extinction.

HIRATA, Shu. 2019. “On the Accented Moraic Oral Obstruent in the Owase Dialect (Mie Prefecture)”. Proceedingsof International Symposium “Approaches to Endangered Languages in Japan and Northeast Asia (Poster
Session)”. pp.1–7. [Permanent URL: https://doi.org/10.15026/94150]*
This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Research Fellow 14J09547 and JSPS KAKENHI Grant
Numbers JP16H06784, JP18K12362.

2

HIRATA, Shu

Fig. 1 Mie Prefecture

Fig. 2

Owase City

There are four kinds of special morae in Japanese phonology: the second morae of
diphthongs (/J/), the second morae of long vowels (/R/), moraic nasals (/N/), and moraic
oral obstruents (/Q/) (Kawakami 1977: 74−95, Uwano 2003: 69, Kubozono 2015:11−12). Special morae only appear as the second mora of a heavy syllable and neverform an independent syllable alone. In Standard Japanese, the special morae arephonologically weak and do not receive the accent (Uwano 2003: 69, Kawahara 2015:453−454). Uwano (2003: 78) indicates that /J/, /R/, and /N/ receive the accent in someJapanese dialects other than Standard Japanese; however, /Q/ has the weakest
phonological independence among the four special morae and generally does notreceive the accent. /Q/ is basically realized as a voiceless obstruent (Ito and Mester
1995: 819, Saito 2003: 14, Kawahara 2015: 53), and it rarely bears the accent.
(1) Four kinds of special morae in Japanese phonology/J/the second morae of diphthongs/sa.J.ta.ma/

the second morae of long vowels

Saitama
Tokyo

/R/
/N/

moraic nasals

Gumma/gu.N.ma//Q/moraic oral obstruents

Tottori/to.Q.to.ri//to.R.kjo.R/

さいたま

とうきょう
ぐんま

とっとり

However, interestingly, the accented /Q/ is observed in the Owase dialect, where preaccenting morphemes in compound nouns are found. Before describing the accented/Q/ in detail, I examine this dialect’s accent system in the next section.
2. Accent system of the Owase dialect
The Owase dialect has a quite complicated accent system. It has a three-register
accent system with one lexical accent per word (Hirata 2013). “Register” or “式 (shiki)”is the term used in Japanese accentology and it determines the pitch movement of awhole word or a “syntagma” (Uwano 1989: 195), which refers to a noun or a nounOn the Accented Moraic Oral Obstruent in the Owase Dialect (Mie Prefecture)3

followed by one or more particles (Kawakami 1961: 175). The three registers in the
Owase dialect are Registers α, β, and γ, with the following features.
(2) Three registers in the Owase dialect:
Register α: A high pitch lasts for only one mora.
Register β: A high pitch lasts for two adjacent morae.
Register γ: When an unaccented word or syntagma is pronounced independently,
a high pitch lasts from the beginning of the word to its end. On theother hand, when a word in Register γ is accented, a high pitch lasts
from the beginning of the word to the accented mora.
In addition to the three registers, the Owase dialect has one lexical accent per word.
The pitch fall occurs after the mora that bears the accent. There is an unaccented patternin the Owase dialect, and the pitch fall does not occur in the unaccented words. This
lexical accent is called “下げ核 (sagekaku),” or the lowering kernel in Japanese
accentology (Uwano 2012: 1416).
Examples of the four-mora words (including two-mora and three-mora words) in the
Owase dialect are displayed in (3). All the words are given with the topic marker -wa.
“[” stands for pitch rise before a mora and “]” for pitch fall after a mora. The morae
with high pitch are written in bold font.
(3) Examples of four-mora words (including two-mora and three-mora words) in
the Owase dialect
ExamplesGloss

Register

The mora that bears the accenta.

to.mo.da.ci.[wa‘friend’αUnaccentedb.

[ka].pu.se.ru.wa‘capsule’α

1st morac.

e.[ha].ga.ki.wa‘picture postcard’α

2nd morad.

ka.mi.[so].ri.wa‘razor’α

3rd morae.

[me.ji].ru.si.wa‘mark’

β

2nd moraf.

i.[ci.ji].ku.wa

‘fig’

β

3rd morag.

[a.me.wa‘rain’

γ

Unaccented

h.

[mo.me].N.wa‘cotton’γ

2nd morai.

[mu.ra.sa].ki.wa‘purple’γ

3rd mora

Examples (3a−d) are in Register α. (3b−d) are accented, and the high pitch occurs
only on the mora that bears the accent. (3a) follows the unaccented pattern, and the high4

HIRATA, Shu

pitch occurs on the last mora of the syntagma. (3e−f) are in Register β. In the examples
in Register β, the high pitch occurs on two adjacent morae, namely the accented mora
and the mora preceding it. In the examples in Register γ, the high pitch lasts from the
beginning of the syntagmata (3g−i).
Next, we will examine (3b) and (3e). Both (3b) and (3e) have high pitch on the
beginning of the syntagma. In this way, (3b) and (3e) can be assumed to be in Register
γ. However, when the adnominal adjective kono- ‘this’ precedes Registers α, β, and γ,
a difference occurs.
(4) kono- ‘this’ + Register α, β, and γ[ka].pu.se.ru(Register α)→

ko.no.[ka].pu.se.ru[me.ji].ru.si(Register β)→

ko.no.[me.ji].ru.si[a.me(Register γ)→

ko.[no].a.me[mo.me].N(Register γ)→

ko.[no.mo.me].N ~ko.[no].mo.me].N (pitch fall occurs twice)[mu.ra.sa].ki(Register γ)→

ko.[no.mu.ra.sa].ki ~ko.[no].mu.ra.sa].ki (pitch fall occurs twice)

When kono- precedes the words or syntagmata in Register γ, the pitch rises between
ko and no. In contrast, kono- precedes the words or syntagmata in Registers α and β,
but the pitch rise does not occur between ko and no. In this way, we can specify theregister of the words or syntagmata with a high beginning.
3. Pre-accenting morphemes
There are pre-accenting morphemes in the accent of the Owase dialect. If the second
member of a compound noun is a pre-accenting morpheme, the accent falls on thepreceding mora of the pre-accenting morpheme, and the compound noun is in theRegister α. The accent of the first member of a compound noun is irrelevant to that of
the entire compound noun. Examples of pre-accenting morphemes are displayed in (5).
(5) Examples of pre-accenting morphemes in compound nouns-shi ‘city’:-ki ‘machine’:-e.ki ‘station’:-ka.J ‘meeting’,‘party’:[o.wa.se ‘Owase’ + shi
shi.ba.[ka].ri ‘mowing the lawn’+ ki[o.wa.se ‘Owase’ + e.ki
ko.do.[mo ‘children’ + ka.J→→

o.wa.[se].shi ‘Owase City’
shi.ba.ka.[ri].ki ‘lawn mower’→→

o.wa.[se].e.ki ‘Owase Station’ko.do.[mo].ka.J ‘party forchildren’On the Accented Moraic Oral Obstruent in the Owase Dialect (Mie Prefecture)5

In o.wa.[se].shi and shi.ba.ka.[ri].ki, the accent falls on the preceding mora of the
pre-accenting morpheme ‘-shi’ and ‘-ki’. In o.wa.[se].e.ki and ko.do.[mo].ka.J, once
again, the accent falls on the preceding mora of the pre-accenting morpheme ‘-e.ki’ and‘-ka.J’.
4. The accented moraic oral obstruent
As mentioned above, interestingly, an accented /Q/ is observed in the Owase dialect.
To date, the accented /Q/ has been found when the pre-accenting morpheme begins
with /k/ and the morpheme that precedes the pre-accenting morpheme ends with /ku/.
(6) Examples of the accented moraic oral obstruent (/Q/)
se.N.ta.[ku ‘washing’ + ki[o].N.ga.ku ‘music’ + ka.J→→

se.N.ta.[Q].kio.N.ga.[Q].ka.J‘washing machine’‘concert’

In se.N.ta.[Q].ki, the last /u/ in se.N.ta.[ku is truncated and /Q/ is pronounced as [k].
Likewise, the same truncation occurs in o.N.ga.[Q].ka.J. However, this truncation is
not obligatory, as in (7).
(7) Examples of the pattern where the truncation does not occur
re.R.kja.[ku ‘cooling’ + ki
shi.N.bo.[ku ‘friendship’ + ka.J→→

re.R.kja.[ku].ki
shi.N.bo.[ku].ka.J‘refrigerating machine’‘Socializing party’

In the pitch patterns, the accent is realized as an acute pitch fall in the mora following
the accented mora. In the pitch pattern of ka.mi.[so].ri.o ‘razor (accusative form)’,
where the accent falls on /so/, an acute pitch fall occurs on /ri/, the mora following /so/(Fig. 3). In Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, an acute pitch fall occurs on /ki/ and /ka/; therefore, we
can determine that the accent falls on /Q/.

6

HIRATA, Shu

Fig. 3

Pitch pattern of ka.mi.[so].ri.oFig. 4

Pitch pattern of se.N.ta.[Q].ki

Fig. 5

Pitch pattern of o.N.ga.[Q].ka.J

On the Accented Moraic Oral Obstruent in the Owase Dialect (Mie Prefecture)7

5. Conclusion
In this paper, I have argued that the moraic oral obstruent (/Q/), on which the accent
falls, is interestingly found in the Owase dialect. So far, the accented /Q/ has only beenfound in compound nouns. When the pre-accenting morpheme of the compound noun
begins with /k/, and the morpheme that precedes the pre-accenting morpheme ends with
/ku/, the accented /Q/ appears. The question remains as to whether the accented /Q/
occurs in other circumstances. I expect that future research will find more instances of
the accented /Q/.

References
Hirata, Shu. 2013. “Mie-ken Owase-shi Hougen no Fukugo-meishi Akusento ni Tsuite [On the accents ofcompound nouns in the Owase Dialect (Mie Prefecture)]”. Tokyo University Linguistic Papers 34. pp.43−63.
[in Japanese]
Ito, Junko and Armin Mester. 1995. “Japanese phonology”. In John Goldsmith (ed.) The Handbook of
Phonological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. pp.817−838.
Kawahara, Shigeto. 2015. “The phonology of Japanese accent”. In Haruo Kubozono (ed.) The Handbook ofJapanese Phonetics and Phonology. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp.445−492.
Kawakami, Shin. 1961. “On the relationship between word-tone and phrase-tone in Japanese”. Onsei-no Kenkyu
9. pp.169−177.
———. 1977. Nihongo Onsei Gaisetsu [Introduction to Japanese Phonetics]. Tokyo: Ofusha. [in Japanese]
Kubozono, Haruo. 2015. “Introduction to Japanese phonetics and phonology”. In Haruo Kubozono (ed.) The
Handbook of Japanese Phonetics and Phonology. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp.1−40.
Saito, Yoshio. 2003. “Gendai Nihongo no Onsei –Bunsetsuon to Onsei Kigo [Phonetics of Modern Japanese –Segments and Phonetic Alphabets]”. In Zendô Uwano (ed.) Asakura Nihongo Kouza 3. Tokyo: Asakura
Shoten. pp.1−21. [in Japanese]
Uwano, Zendo. 1989. “Nihongo no Akusento [Accent of Japanese]”. In Miyoko Sugito (ed.) Koza Nihongo to
Nihongo Kyoiku 2 Nihongo no Onsei, On-in (Jo). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. pp.178−205. [in Japanese]———. 2003. “Akusento no Taikei to Shikumi [The System and the Mechanism of the Accent]”. In Zendô Uwano(ed.) Asakura Nihongo Kouza 3. Tokyo: Asakura Shoten. pp.61−84. [in Japanese]———. 2012. “Three types of accent kernels in Japanese”. Lingua 122. pp.1415−1440.

Non-Core Vocabulary Cognates in Ryukyuan and Kyushu *JAROSZ, Aleksandra

Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń

The present paper provides an overview of eighteen identified likely cognates from
Ryukyuan and Kyushu regiolects which the author argues have been inherited from
Common Kyushu-Ryukyuan (CKR). The alleged cognates all belong to non-core
vocabulary, the working definition of which adopted here is “vocabulary not foundon the basic vocabulary lists of Swadesh 200 and Leipzig-Jakarta.” Following Hock(1991), the author presumes that in equal relations between language communities –the relations between Pre-Proto-Ryukyuan speakers while they still inhabited the
Kyushu area and speakers of other Kyushu-Japonic regiolects are believed to havebeen such – the so-called basic vocabulary is no more resistant to borrowing than the
non-basic (including culture-specific and environment-specific) lexicon. One can thus
infer that a study of non-core vocabulary would be a valuable contribution to the stateof knowledge on the history of the southern Japonic language area. Consequently, thispaper analyzes the distribution of putative CKR cognates in both Kyushu and the
Ryukyus as well as the typology of shared features among them, discussing theseagainst a broader Japonic background when relevant. Preliminary results show themost shared features between the Ryukyuan and Tokara regiolects, encouraging an
identification of the final stage of Pre-Ryukyuan with Common Tokara-Ryukyuan.
The division of the next lowest order also includes Ōsumi and Koshiki islands,
implying that the pre-final stage of Pre-Ryukyuan was what is here called Common
Insular Kyushu-Ryukyuan.
Keywords: comparative linguistics, Kyushu, Ryukyuan, Kyushu-Ryukyuan, Japonic

1. Background
2. Analysis of the vocabulary
3. Analysis of the outcome

1. BackgroundIn this paper, I will provide a sample of non-basic vocabulary shared by Ryukyuan
languages and mainland Japanese Kyushu dialects which I hypothesize to be likely
descendants of the Common Kyushu-Ryukyuan (CKR) language. By CKR I mean ahistorical regiolect, or a set of closely related regiolects, spoken somewhere in the
JAROSZ, Aleksandra. 2019. “Non-Core Vocabulary Cognates in Ryukyuan and Kyushu”. Proceedings ofInternational Symposium “Approaches to Endangered Languages in Japan and Northeast Asia (Poster Session)”.
pp.8–29. [Permanent URL: https://doi.org/10.15026/94151]

Non-Core Vocabulary Cognates in Ryukyuan and Kyushu

9present-day Kyushu area, from which Proto-Ryukyuan (PR) eventually branched off,as Japonic settlers moved south to the Ryukyus; this movement, according to one of
the conceivable hypotheses, is estimated to have taken place starting in the 10th century(cf. Serafim 2003, Pellard 2015, Karimata 2017).
The division of the Japonic family into Mainland and Ryukyuan groups has been
generally undisputed (Pellard 2015), although the phylogenesis of the eastern Japonic
regiolects including Hachijō is still a subject of debate.1 Consequently, the regiolects
spoken on mainland Kyushu and in the surrounding islands (such as Ōsumi, Tokara, orGotō) have also traditionally been classified as Mainland. Nevertheless, an increasingly
popular agreement is that Japonic speakers came to the Ryukyus from Kyushu, which
appoints Kyushu as the most likely homeland of Proto-Ryukyuan (Thorpe 1983,
Serafim 2003, Pellard 2015, Karimata 2017). This implies that regiolects from the
Ryukyuan group used to be spoken in Kyushu, but have become extinct due to the
expansion of Mainland Japanese; these regiolects likely converged with the dominantlanguage(s) in the process. Such an assumption encourages a revised division of the
Japonic phylogenetic tree into Kyushu-Ryukyuan and Mainland (Central) groups(Thorpe 1983, Igarashi 2018).
Research of shared Kyushu-Ryukyuan innovations (Igarashi 2017, 2018) localizes
the closest relatives of Ryukyuan in Kagoshima Prefecture and the Morokata area ofMiyazakiPrefecture.
An
alternative
approach,looking
at
grammatical/morphophonological features, (Serafim 2003) considers the possibility of
Ryukyuan branching off of the northeastern Kyushu/westernmost Honshu area. Witheither approach, the exact location of the CKR-speaking area remains unidentified, andso do the locations of modern Kyushu regiolects with significant CKR substratum
which would reveal a former CKR-affiliated language.
The goal of this paper will thus be to analyze a number of vocabulary items whichappear traceable to CKR as cognates and localize the Kyushu regiolects that share these
items with Ryukyuan.
To be included into the present analysis, specific vocabulary items need to meet thefollowing conditions:a. The vocabulary items do not represent core/basic vocabulary.
1
Hirako and Pellard (2013: 65) conclude their discussion of conservative and innovative features of Hachijō byproposing that Hachijō is either a sister language of Ryukyuan and Central (Mainland) Japanese or belongs to a
separate group as opposed to a common Ryukyuan-Central group. In contrast, Igarashi (2018: 2, 17) argues that
Hachijō is only one of subdivisions of the Extended Eastern Japanese group (kakudai higashi nihongoha), which
it shares with other modern eastern Japanese regiolects, and not a sister language to the Ryukyuan and Central
groups.

10

JAROSZ, Aleksandra

The working definition of core vocabulary adopted in this paper is simply“vocabulary not found in the Swadesh 200 and Leipzig-Jakarta basic vocabulary lists.” 2
There are two factors that influenced my decision to focus on non-core vocabulary
in this study. First, core vocabulary lists by definition tend to include conservative items
which hardly change over time. Given the relatively low time depth of Proto-Japonic(PJ) split into putative (Pre-)Mainland and (Pre-)Ryukyuan groups (Pellard 2015concludes that the split occurred in the late Yayoi period, meaning sometime aroundthe 3rd century CE; incidentally, Hattori 1957 dates the split of PR from PJ at aroundthe 3rd century CE too, although the lexicostatistical method he used for the calculation
would currently be untenable; cf. Campbell 1998:177–181) and naturally even later
split of CKR, this leaves a relatively low degree of divergence among basic vocabulary
in Ryukyuan, Kyushu, and other Japonic areas, 3 with the consequence that it is notpossible to draw conclusions regarding the shared features between Ryukyuan andspecific Kyushu regiolects merely by comparing the presence or absence of specificvocabulary items. Only through a significant increase of the examinable vocabulary
sample can one investigate patterns of distribution that will imply the existence of a
CKR substratum in the investigated Kyushu regiolects.
Another point is that, although the very purpose of establishing basic vocabulary
lists is to ensure their low degree of borrowability (cf. Tadmor and Haspelmath 2009),
basic vocabulary is in fact borrowable, especially in the case of an equal power relation
between the communities in question. On the other hand, the prestigious sections of thelexicon, such as cultural notions, may be more easily borrowed from a more prestigious
language of a dominant community (Hock 1991: 411). Since one can assume an equal
relationship between the CKR communities and their non-CKR, phylogeneticallydivergent Kyushu neighbors, it seems that, paradoxically, non-core vocabulary would
be less susceptible to borrowings – or, at any rate, no more susceptible – than the socalled basic vocabulary. 4

For Swadesh 200, cf. DiACL homepage. For Leipzig-Jakarta, cf. Tadmor and Haspelmath (2009).
According to Hattori’s (1957: 330) lexicostatistic calculations, the percentage of shared vocabulary in his
examined sample does not fall below 59% (percentage of shared vocabulary between Miyakoan and Tokyo or
Kyoto). The figure rises to 70% when comparing the allegedly most distant Ryukyuan regiolects in Hattori’s
sample, Ishigaki (Yaeyaman), and Yamatohama (Amamian).
4
One might draw an interesting parallel between the putative CKR compared to mainland Kyushu regiolects andEnglish compared to the language of the Nordic people called Danes in Pre-Norman England, with the resultant
abundance of Old Norse borrowings into English precisely in the realm of basic vocabulary (a case presented by
Hock 1991: 409–410).
2
3

Non-Core Vocabulary Cognates in Ryukyuan and Kyushu

11b. The vocabulary items are attested at least in Kyushu and South Ryukyuan.
Items shared only by North Ryukyuan and Kyushu are not considered.
Since the Satsuma invasion of the Ryukyu Kingdom in 1609, which resulted in the
subjugation of the Kingdom to Satsuma as well as the incorporation of the Amami
islands into Satsuma domain, Ryukyuan languages had been exposed to an in-depth,
prestige-related influence of the Mainland language of Satsuma. Even prior to that, theRyukyu Kingdom maintained an animated trade relationship with Kyushu, which
conceivably enabled an influx of cultural loanwords. This is especially the case with
North Ryukyuan languages due to geographic and political factors (cf. also Karimata
2015, 2017, or Igarashi 2018). Similarities between North Ryukyuan and Kyushu are
therefore likely to reflect borrowings rather than inherited CKR lexicon; on the other
hand, similarities between Kyushu and South Ryukyuan islands, which were
geographically isolated and generally exposed to Kyushu only directly via North
Ryukyuan mediation, present a much lower possibility of representing an effect ofborrowing. The likelihood of the tokens under discussion being actual CKR cognates
increases even more if a given item is only found in Kyushu and the Southern Ryukyus,
but not in the Northern Ryukyus, in other words, if a given item is a CKR retention lostin the languages of the Northern Ryukyuan group; as expected, however, such instances
have so far been extremely rare.
c. The vocabulary items represent any of the following:> a shared lexical innovation;> a shared semantic innovation;> a shared sound innovation;> a shared lexical or phonological retention with the condition that otherinstances of such retention are not observed anywhere else in Kyushu.
Be it lexical or phonological, shared retentions are usually not considered inhistorical linguistics due to not being a valid criterion for phylogenetic subgrouping(Harrison 2003). Also, here, retentions will be treated with more caution than items
which appear to be innovations limited to Kyushu and the Ryukyus. Since, however,the purpose of this paper is essentially to search for CKR features remaining as
substratum in modern Kyushu regiolects, those CKR features that are retentions from
PJ or any other earlier (putative Pre-Kyushu-Ryukyuan) proto-language state and are
not distributed elsewhere in Kyushu should still be relevant to the present study as
substratum features that have resisted replacement by the features of the dominant

12

JAROSZ, Aleksandra

Mainland dialects. Also, while retentions are insufficient as a criterion for subgrouping,they are sufficient for excluding certain subgroupings, indirectly testifying against
certain phylogenetic configurations. 5 Thus, although shared retentions cannot be usedin favor of arguing for the existence of CKR, they may be of use as secondary evidenceof conservative features reconstructible for CKR. At any rate, the least that can be said
about such conservative features is that they can be reconstructed for the common
ancestor of the regiolects in question.
In further sections of the paper I will present eighteen vocabulary items that meetthe criteria a–c, which have been categorized semantically as plants, animals, humanbody parts, verbs, and miscellaneous. For each item, I will list the putative cognates asfound respectively in the Kyushu, North Ryukyuan, and South Ryukyuan regiolects.
Then, I will comment on the distribution of each item, its possibility of being aloanword, and, in the case of retentions, hypothetical or attested cognates outside the
Kyushu-Ryukyu area.
In the final part of the paper, I will discuss the outcome of the analysis by identifying
the Kyushu areas where the density of shared putative CKR items is the thickest. I will
also synthesize the innovations that can be attributed to the alleged CKR genetic
subgrouping and suggest conceivable CKR proto-forms for each item.
A disclaimer needs to be made that, although, compared to what is usually thought
about this kind of vocabulary, there is generally a lower likelihood that the non-core
vocabulary discussed in this paper represents loanwords rather than cognates, thepossibility that some are loanwords cannot be discarded, especially since lexical items
are those elements of the language system that tend to be most easily borrowed(Thomason 2001: 70). The method of searching for CKR substrata in Kyushu as
experimentally adopted in this paper should be thought of as supportive andcomplementary to other comparative methods, such as comparisons of core vocabulary
or grammatical systems.
1.1. Terminology
To facilitate the discussion about notions specific to this paper, the following terms
will be used as specified below.
●

Common Kyushu-Ryukyuan: any language natively shared by the
inhabitants of Kyushu and speakers of Pre-Proto-Ryukyuan. I deliberately
avoid the term “Proto-Kyushu-Ryukyuan” in order to avoid the connotations

That is to say that if among languages A, B and C, A and B have a conservative feature X while C has aninnovative feature Y, this precludes grouping A or B together with C.

5

Non-Core Vocabulary Cognates in Ryukyuan and Kyushu

●

●
●
●
●

●

13

of a proto-language being a single-stage synchronic entity fixed at a certain
point of time. As the results of this study will show, there are multiple layers
to Ryukyuan linguistic ancestorship in Kyushu, and until the final part ofSection 3, the term of CKR may refer to any of these layers.
Pre-Proto-Ryukyuan: the direct ancestor language of today’s Ryukyuan
languages spoken in the Kyushu area (understood here as any area to the northof the Amami islands). It can also be conceived of as the last language spoken
by the future Ryukyuan population before it migrated to the Ryukyus.
item: a group of lexemes which can be traced to a single proto-form.
token: specific lexemes as realized in specific regiolects which, put together,
constitute an item.
far south: the area of today’s Kagoshima and Okinawa prefectures.
mainland Kyushu regiolect (spelled with a lowercase <m>, as opposed to“Mainland,” referring to a genetic subdivision of Japonic): a regiolect spoken
on the main island of Kyushu.
insular (remote) Kyushu regiolect: a Kyushu regiolect spoken on thesmaller islands offshore, as opposed to the mainland Kyushu regiolect. This
expression usually refers to the Tokara, Ōsumi or Koshiki islands.

Concerning the treatment of region and regiolect divisions in Kyushu, regiolects
spoken in Kagoshima prefecture are presented in a significantly more detailed way thanthose of any other Kyushu area. The reason behind this is that, as will be made clear
through the vocabulary discussed in Section 2, Ryukyuan shares many more putative
cognates with Kagoshima prefecture regiolects than with any other Kyushu area, which
increases the demand for a relatively precise geographic division of the Kagoshima
linguistic landscape.
Ryukyuan regiolects are presented by indicating the name of the island, followed by
the name of a specific settlement if applicable (example: Miyako-Hirara).
Insular Kyushu regiolects are presented through the name of the island group,
followed by the name of specific island (example: Tokara-Takara), or just by the nameof the island (example: Kamikoshiki).
The mainland regiolects of Kagoshima prefecture are divided into Satsuma, Ōsumi
Peninsula, and Morokata, and are further specified following a hyphen (example:
Satsuma-Ibusuki).
Other Kyushu regiolects are presented by indicating the prefecture, and then theregiolect following the hyphen (example: Kumamoto-Kagamimachi). The lack of a

14

JAROSZ, Aleksandra

hyphen indicates the regiolect of the capital (eponymous) city of the prefecture(example: Fukuoka).
In presenting the vocabulary, the following regiolect group abbreviations will be
used: KY for Kyushu, NR for North Ryukyuan, SR for South Ryukyuan.
1.2. Lexicographic sources
The core of the database utilized in this paper has been provided by Hirayama (1992)(for all of Japan’s area, including the Ryukyus), Hashiguchi (2004) (for the regiolectsof Kagoshima prefecture), Nevskiy (1922–1928) (mostly Miyakoan, but also
containing data on other Ryukyuan, Kyushu, and different Mainland Japaneseregiolects; cf. also the digitalization in Jarosz 2015), and Miyara (1980 [1926])(thematic listing of Ryukyuan as well as Kagoshima’s Hioki and Kagoshima city
vocabulary). The extraction of sample tokens has been supplemented by dictionaries of
specific languages and regiolects, such as Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo (1963) (ShuriOkinawan), Oshio (2009) (Ie-Okinawan), or Miyara (1980 [1930]) (Yaeyaman). The
botanical sources Amano (1979) and Shirai (2008) were consulted for plant-related
vocabulary.
1.3. Note on previous studies
Nohara (1979–1983) contains a comprehensive listing of vocabulary shared by
Kyushu and Ryukyuan. As the label itself implies, however, it is literally a list of
vocabulary with (often superficial) formal and semantic similarities, and not a
historical/comparative study, so its applicability to the research on CKR is limited.
Igarashi (2017, 2018) are reports on a project which scrutinizes the Japonic lexicon,
including the items listed in Nohara’s papers, so as to find regional shared innovations
that will allow for a reevaluation of the traditional division of the Japonic family tree
into Ryukyuan and Mainland. Igarashi’s conclusion is that the shared innovations (andthe consequent phylogenetic subdivisions) in Japan’s far south form a kind of“matrioshka” distribution pattern: the Southern Japanese language group, which
Igarashi proposes as a sister language to Mainland and Eastern Japanese in place of the
traditional Ryukyuan vs. Mainland groups, contains the Southwestern KyushuRyukyuan subgroup, which in turn contains the Southern Kyushu-Ryukyuan group.
Upon eliminating loanwords and retentions, Igarashi’s (2018) revision of Nohara’s
papers contributed to an updated listing (ibid., 7–11) of probable innovative KyushuRyukyuan cognates. I will indicate the items in this paper which also appear on
Igarashi’s list.

Non-Core Vocabulary Cognates in Ryukyuan and Kyushu

15

2. Analysis of the vocabulary
2.1. Plants‘Chinese banyan’, Ficus microcarpa
KY kadzumaru (Ōsumi-Kuchinoerabu), kadzɨmaru (Tokara-Suwanose), kadzumoi(Tokara-Takara), gadʑimaru (Tokara-Io, Ōsumi-Yaku), gadʑimori (Tokara-Akuseki)
NR gadʑimaru (Okinawa-Shuri, Okinawa-Nago, Kikai, Yoron, Okinoerabu,
Amami-Naze), gadzɨmaru (Amami-Yamato, Tokunoshima), gatumaru (AmamiKoniya)
SR gadzɨma-giː (Miyako-Hirara), gatsɨpana-giː (Irabu-Sawada), gadzɨpana-giː
(Ikema 6 -Sarahama), gadzamunjeː (Ishigaki-Shika), gadʑimari (Kuro), gadzamani(Hateruma)
Given that the Okinawan word form gadʑimaru, widely spread in the Ryukyus, wasactually borrowed as a “native” name for the tree in question into standard Japanese,
one can be rather confident that the identical forms in the Io and Yaku islands are
Okinawan borrowings, too. Focusing on the initial morpheme, 7 PR *gadu/gadzu,
however, one can find mostly regular, predictable correspondences between Kyushu
and Ryukyuan tokens. It may be therefore an idea worth entertaining that the remaining
insular Kyushu tokens, or at least some of them, have been inherited from CKR. The
fact that a few of Kyushu tokens have an initial voiceless velar as opposed to
Ryukyuan’s voiced counterpart is perhaps an example of occurrence of the alleged
irregular *k > *g / #___[-high] development in Ryukyuan and its closest Kyushu
relatives, as also observed in ‘crow’ introduced in this paper, and also discussed for‘crab’, 8 ‘whale’, and ‘crow’ in Thorpe (1983).
‘grapevine’, Vitis ficifolia
Sarahama is a settlement located on Irabu, but genetically it is a subregiolect of Ikema, hence the decision toindicate it as a representative of Ikema.
7
Although the meaning of *gadu is unclear, the comparison of the ‘Chinese banyan’ tokens shows that gadʑumaru
cognates are compounds with a boundary following gadʑu. The second composite of the compound, pana-giː
‘flower-tree’, is transparent in the case of Miyakoan.
8‘Crab’ tokens with a voiced initial can also be found in Tōhoku and elsewhere in mainland Japan. Therefore,
either the change *k > *g was a parallel innovation, or these initial velars reflect a yet different sound/soundsequence from PJ. This is a proposal put forward by Vovin (2009b: 20), who claims that this initial PR *g reflects
PJ *nk.
6

16

JAROSZ, Aleksandra

KY kanebu (Saga, Nagasaki, Kumamoto, Miyazaki, Morokata, Kagoshima, Tanega,
Yaku, Koshiki), kaneb (Satsuma-Makurazaki; Ōsumi Peninsula-Kimotsuki)
NR hanifu (Okinoerabu), hanibu (Okinoerabu, Yoron, Okinawa-Kunigami, Nakijin,Ōgimi), kanifu, kanibu, kanɨbu (Tokunoshima), kanɨbu, ganɨbu (Amami-Naze)
SR kaniv (Tarama, Irabu), kaniu (Ikema), kanifun (Ishigaki-Shika), kanifu(Taketomi), kanibu (Yonaguni), kanin (Hatoma, Yonaguni)This item with perfectly matching sound forms with Ryukyuan is encountered in allof the Kyushu prefectures except Fukuoka. Ryukyuan reflexes for their part are also
fairly regular, with little of the idiosyncrasy often encountered in plant names.
The same name is also used with the meaning ‘wild grape’ (Ampelopsis glandulosa
var. heterophylla) in all three regiolect groups.
2.2. Animals‘dragonfly’
KY akedzu (Miyazaki – ‘a brownish subspecies that appears around the time of theobon festival’, Hirayama 1992/4: 3599; Kagoshima-Higashi Morokata, including the
genus Sympetrum, cf. Hashiguchi 2004: 73), akes, akeɕmero (Satsuma proper), akeɕ(Satsuma-Sendai, Ibusuki, Satsuma proper; Kita Morokata, Ōsumi PeninsulaKimotsuki), keːdzu (Kamikoshiki)
NR akeːdʑa (Okinawa-Nakijin), akeːdʑu (Okinawa-Shuri)
SR akidzɨ (Miyako-Hirara, archaic), akeːdzɨ (Tarama), akeːntsɨ (Kohama), aːgettsɨ
(Taketomi), hakeːdʑi (Kuro), kakeːdzɨ (Ishigaki-Shika, Aragusuku)
A cognate of this item, akidzu (akyiNtu in Vovin’s 2009a: 518, 519, 703 rendition),is attested in Old Japanese, therefore it cannot be a CKR lexical innovation. The crucial
link between the Kyushu and Ryukyu tokens comes down to a shared sound which
distances them from the Mainland variant: The Ryukyuan vowel in the second syllable
match the vowel in Kyushu, reconstructible as CKR *akedu/*akedzu, while the OJ
form displays the otsu variant of the vowel <i> (Vovin’s 2009a /yi/, Frellesvig’s 2010/wi/), which is an innovation from PJ *e.
‘butterfly’
KY habiː (Takara-Tokara, Kodakara)

Non-Core Vocabulary Cognates in Ryukyuan and Kyushu

17

NY habura (Amami-Naze), haberu (Okinawa-Shuri), fabeːru (Okinawa-Kin)
SR pabiːz (Miyako-Hirara), pabil (Irabu-Sawada), pabiru (Tarama), pabiru (Ishigaki,
Hatoma, Kuro), papɨru (Hateruma)
The Ryukyuan item ‘butterfly’ seems morphologically complex, and althoughfragmentary matches or at least some formal similarities with this item can be founddispersed discontinuously in mainland Japan (cf. Hachijō heːrume, Hyōgo beːro, Kōchi
hiːru; the bero/beru-related morphemes are also found in vocabulary indicating‘dragonfly’, also in Ryukyuan – cf. Hirara biːz), the only complete match is found in
the cited Tokara tokens. The fact that Tokara habiː seems to produce an exact matchwith Miyakoan Hirara and Sawada forms is especially interesting, as those may beconservative reflexes retained in distant CKR relatives.
Thus, considering the Ryukyuan correspondences, variant CKR and PR forms*paberi and *pabero can be proposed.
Included in Igarashi (2018: 8).
‘spider’KY kobu (Fukuoka-Chikugo, Saga, Nagasaki, Kumamoto-Kagamimachi, Miyazaki),koːbu (Kamikoshiki)
SR kuv (Miyako-Hirara), kuː (Ikema), kuvu (Tarama)
The item ‘spider’ with medial consonant /b/ or prenasalized /mb/ as such is also
found in the Tōhoku area (examples: Hachinohe, Aomori, Akita kɯ̈mbo, Akita-Kawabe,
Hirosaki kɯ̈bo), so this development is not specific to the Kyushu-Ryukyu area anddoes not imply a shared innovation. What sets the Kyushu-Ryukyu cognates apart fromthe rest of the Japonic area is the reflexes of a proto-language mid-vowel *o, as
evidenced not just by the presence of /o/ in the modern Kyushu dialecticisms, but mostimportantly in Miyakoan /ku/ reflexes (PR *ku reflects in Miyakoan as /fu/, as in*kumo > fumu ‘cloud’). Although it is up for debate whether this alleged CKR *ko in‘spider’ is a retention or innovation, the proto-form *kobu was apparently spread in thewhole of the relevant area and carried as such into PR.
Included in Igarashi (2018: 7).
‘lizard’
KY wakagiː (Tokara-Takara)

18

JAROSZ, Aleksandra

NR wahagirja (Amami-Yamato)
SR bakagzza (Miyako-Hirara), bakaddʑa (Ikema), bagɨra (Ishigaki-Shika)
The morpheme kiri as a part of compound items indicating ‘lizard’ has a significantly
wider distribution in Kyushu than the combination waka + kiri, as it can be found bothin mainland and insular Kagoshima as well as Fukuoka, Kumamoto, and Miyazaki. It
is also attested outside the far south area, in Yuki (Hiroshima Prefecture) as dʑoːrikiri
and Yamaguchi as tokakiri. The change *kiri > kira (SR)/kirja (NR) is, however,limited to the Ryukyu area (cf. also djenagirja in Kakeroma-Osai, or tsuma-girja in
Amami-Naze).
The compound that includes the morpheme *waka ‘young’ outside of the Ryukyus
is only attested in Tokara. Apparently it was a shared innovation which further
developed into the respective *-girja (NR) or *-gira (SR) forms. According to a studyby Tōyama et al. (1980: 27–29), in Miyakoan the *wakagiri > *wakagira-related forms
usually refer to the endemic Sakishima species Plestiodon kishinouyei (English name
‘Kishinoue’s giant skink’), but it can be more loosely used to refer to different speciesof lizards.
‘snake’KY hebu (Tokara-Takara), heːbu (Kamikoshiki)
NR habu (Amami-Naze, Okinawa-Shuri, Kadena), fabu (Okinawa-Nakijin)
SR pav (Hirara-Miyakoan), hau (Ikema), poː (Tarama-Shiokawa), pau (TaramaNakasuji, Aragusuku) pabu (Hatoma), paku (Hateruma), papu (Kohama), pan (Kuro)
The important point in this item is the final back vowel, which is opposed to the front
vowel distributed in all of Japan in the vein of standard Japanese hebi. This back vowel
is not found in mainland Kyushu, but is attested on the islands of Tokara and Koshiki,
hinting at a shared CKR innovation. At the same time, no Kyushu regiolect provides
evidence of an *e > a change in the first syllable, leading to the conclusion that putative
PJ *pebi first underwent a change to *pebu in CKR, and then to *pabu in the Ryukyus
only.
The back vowel is also attested in the Hokuriku area of Honshu: hebo in Gokayama(Tōyama prefecture) and heːbɯ in Fukui. Considering the insular nature of theoccurrence of the back vowel in Hokuriku and in the far south, it seems plausible that
this *i > u (and later > o) is an instance of unrelated parallel innovation, although thereNon-Core Vocabulary Cognates in Ryukyuan and Kyushu

19

is also a slight and at the moment undisprovable chance of a randomly shared PJ
retention.
‘crow’
KY garasu (Tokara-Takara, Nakano)
NR garasɨ (Amami-Naze), garasaː (Nakijin)
SY garasa (Miyako-Hirara, Ikema, Hatoma), garaɕa (Tarama)
Voicing of the initial velar, as opposed to standard Japanese karasu and its peers, is
exclusive to Tokara and the Ryukyus, and as such is a good candidate for a sharedinnovation. This is the same environment as the one discussed for ‘Chinese banyan’(2.1.). The assimilation of the final close vowel into [a] is a Ryukyuan innovation
apparently not shared by the Amami regiolects (or at least not by Naze).
‘hermit crab’
KY amamu (Tokara-Takara)
NR aman (Amami-Naze, Yoron, Tokunoshima, Okinawa-Shuri), amamu (AmamiSumiyō, Okinoerabu), amaːmu (Okinawa-Nakijin)
SR amam (Miyako-Hirara, Ikema, Irabu-Nagahama), aman (Kuro, Hateruma), amoː(Iriomote)
The distribution of perfect cognates (both form- and meaning-wise) is limited to the
Ryukyus and Tokara. There is also an alternative set, likely introduced through a laterborrowing, encountered in the northern Amami islands with tokens such as amami(Amami-Kominato) and amjaːmi (Kakeroma) phonologically relatable with the‘cockroach’ item amame broadly distributed across the Kagoshima prefecture (alsoamami ‘cockroach’ in Satsuma-Hioki and Tokara-Toshima, and amami ‘sea roach’ inSatsuma-Miyanojō and Ōsumi Peninsula-Kokubu).
Included in Igarashi (2018: 11).
‘wrasse’ (the family of marine fish Labridae)
Cognates of this item may refer to wrasses in general or to specific species, which
also have been noted below.

20

JAROSZ, Aleksandra

KY kusabi (Satsuma-Izumi; apart from general ‘wrasse’ the name may refer to‘Pseudolabrus sieboldi’, ‘Pseudolabrus eoethinus’, ‘Parajulis poecilepterus’ and a nonwrasse species of ‘Variola louti’ from the Serrenidae family); kusabi ‘Pseudolabrus
sieboldi’, ‘Pseudolabrus eoethinus’, ‘Parajulis poecilepterus’ (Ōsumi islandsTanegashima, Ōsumi Peninsula-Nishino Omote and Kumage); kusabi ‘Halichoeres
melanurus’, ‘Halichoeres biocellatus’, ‘Bodianus perditio’, ‘Choerodon azurio’ (Ōsumi
Peninsula-Kumage)
NR kusabi (Yoron, Okinawa-Shuri), kuɕaba (Okinawa-Shuri)
SR fusabz (Miyako-Hirara, Irabu-Sawada)
The distribution pattern reveals the presence of the item in question in both the Northand South Ryukyus as well as Kagoshima Prefecture, especially in the Ōsumi islands
and the northwestern shore of the prefecture. The scarcity of regions with attested
tokens in the Ryukyus may result from a lack of lexicographic sources that would
include the item in question, rather than breaks in its distribution.
Included in Igarashi (2018: 7).
2.3. Verbs‘to rest’
KY jokou (Fukuoka, Kumamoto-Kagamimachi, Ōita-Notsumachi, Tokara-Takara),jokuː (Miyazaki), jokuˑ (Kamikoshiki, Kagoshima)
NR johojun (Amami-Naze), jufujun (Yoron, Ie), jukuːjun (Okinawa-Shuri, Naha)
SR jukuː (Hirara, Tarama, Irabu-Sawada), juːkuːn (Hatoma), dugun (Yonaguni)
A verb attested in all of the Kyushu-Ryukyu area except for Nagasaki prefecture,
and at the same time exclusive to this area. It is thus a fairly certain top-level CKR
innovation.
Included in Igarashi (2018: 7).
‘to steal, to snatch’
KY bakau (Satsuma proper, Higashi Morokata), bakaːau (Tanegashima)
NR not foundSR bakoː (Miyako-Hirara), bakau (Irabu-Sawada), bakuː (Tarama), bagoːn (IshigakiShika), baːfu (Iriomote)Non-Core Vocabulary Cognates in Ryukyuan and Kyushu

21

Another rare instance of the Kyushu-Ryukyuan lexical continuum broken with no
known attestations in North Ryukyuan. The scarcity of attestations in Kyushu further
increases the believability of this being an old verb traceable to a shared Ryukyu(Kagoshima) Kyushu ancestor language.
Included in Igarashi (2018: 7).
‘to hatch’ (transitive)
KY sudasu (Tokara-Takara)
NR sɨdijun (Amami-Naze; intransitive), ɕirasun (Okinawa-Nakijin)
SR sɨdasɨ (Miyako-Hirara, Sarahama-Ikema, Tarama), ɕidasun (Hatoma)
A perfect match between Ryukyu and Tokara, both phonologically andmorphologically. No attestations outside the Ryukyu-Tokara area.
Included in Igarashi (2018: 11).
2.4. Human body‘skin patch’
KY naba (Kamikoshiki)
NR not foundSR naba (Miyako-Hirara, Kurima), gaba (Ishigaki, Aragusuku, Yonaguni)
Naba is fairly widely distributed up to the Shikoku (Ehime) and Chūgoku (Hiroshima)
areas with the meaning ‘mushroom’. An extension meaning ‘mold’ is attested in
Kagoshima and the Northern Ryukyus, but not in the Southern Ryukyus. Quite
fascinatingly, the meaning innovation ‘skin patch’ is only attested in Kamikoshiki and
the Southern Ryukyus, but not in the Northern Ryukyus, hinting at a rare case of an
innovation retained in (insular) Kyushu and South Ryukyuan without the mediation of
North Ryukyuan.
‘lips’
KY suba (most of the Kagoshima prefecture area, Kamikoshiki, Ōsumi, TokaraTakara, Nakano; Miyazaki), tsuba (Satsuma-Ibusuki, Izumi, Komenotsu, Akune;

22

JAROSZ, Aleksandra

Morokata-Kobayashi, Ōita-Nozu, Kumamoto-Kagamimachi, Fukuoka, Iki, GotōFukue)
NR ɕiba (Amami-Naze, Yara, Okinawa-Itoman, Yoron); kutɕi-nu ɕiba (OkinawaShuri); suba (Kikai, Kakeroma-Hyō)SR sɨba (Miyako-Hirara, Ikema-Sarahama), sɨpa (Irabu-Sawada, Aragusuku,
Hateruma), mba (Yonaguni)With nothing resembling the phonetic shape of this item to the northeast of Kyushu,
this is an unambiguous far south innovation. From the distribution of its two main
variants, the [ts]-initial and [s]-initial, it would appear that the one with [ts] is theconservative form, while the [s]-initial form was an innovation limited to Miyazaki,
Kagoshima, and the Ryukyus.
Included in Igarashi (2018: 9). 92.5. Miscellaneous‘gimlet’
KY iri (Satsuma proper, Morokata-Higashi Morokata, Ōsumi Peninsula-Kimotsuki,Sō), iː (Kamikoshiki, Satsuma-Makurazaki, Ibusuki, Kagoshima, Hioki; Ōsumi
Peninsula-Aira, Sō; Morokata-Kobayashi, Kita Morokata), igiː (Satsuma-Akune, Izumi)
NR iri (Amami-Naze, Kasari, Koniya; Kikai; Tokunoshima; Okinawa-Shuri, Kadena,
Itoman), ʔiriː (Okinawa-Nakijin), iji (Ie)SR iːz (Miyako-Hirara), iː (Ikema), iːl (Irabu-Sawda), il (Tarama), iːru (Hatoma), irɨ
(Kohama, Kuro, Aragusuku), iːrɨ (Ishigaki-Shika, Hirae, Shiraho; Kohama, Aragusuku)
This item’s distribution is limited to southern Kyushu and the Ryukyus. A numberof Kyushu as well as some Ryukyuan regiolects lenite or delete the proto-language *r(iː, il, etc.), which suggests a possibility of variant *iri/*iː forms in CKR.
Included in Igarashi (2018: 9).
‘fish scales’
KY iriko (Tanegashima, Ōsumi Peninsula-Kumage, Nishino Omote), iruko(Kagoshima, Morokata-Kobayashi, Ōsumi Peninsula-Kimotsuki, Sō, Aira), iːko/iko(Saga), ira (Ōita)9
Igarashi 2018 also considers the possibility that it is the [s]-initial form that is conservative and [ts]-initial
innovative.

Non-Core Vocabulary Cognates in Ryukyuan and Kyushu

23

NR iriki (Amami-Naze, Kasari, Yamato, Koniya; Kakeroma-Osai, Okinawa-Itoman),iːki (Yoron), irjeːkiː (Okinawa-Nago), iritɕi (Okinawa-Shuri, Kadena), iːtɕiː
(Okinoerabu)
SR izki (Miyako-Hirara), iriki (Aragusuku), irigi (Hateruma), iragɨ (Ishigaki-Shika,
Shiraho), iragi (Kohama), iraki (Hatoma, Kuro), irja (Iriomote)Uroko is the token predominant in most areas of Japan, as opposed to the Kyushu
and Ryukyuan versions with initial [i] and a front vowel in the second syllable. The
token iroko is also attested in Old Japanese, clarifying that initial [i] is not a CKR
innovation. One should therefore look for CKR innovations in the presence of a front
vowel in the second syllable, and these are found in mainland Kagoshima, on the Ōsumi
islands, and in Saga. On the other hand, the *o > *e innovation in the last syllable isapparently exclusive to the Ryukyus. Many Kyushu and Ryukyuan regiolects also sharethe meaning extension for this item of ‘dandruff’.
It is also worth observing that Yaeyama and Ōita share the [a] vowel in place of areflex of *i in the second syllable, although the chances that this may reflect someinnovative CKR variant form are admittedly slight.
Included in Igarashi (2018: 7).
‘outside (of the house)’
KY arake (Satsuma-Kushikino, Higashi Morokata)
NR araː (Okinawa-Nakijin)
SR ara (Miyako-Hirara, Ikema); ‘outside clothes’ aːra-kɨn (Shika-Ishigaki,
Aragusuku), ara-kin (Kuro, Hatoma), ara-kɨnu (Kohama)
The item traceable to *ara used as a noun and with the specific meaning of ‘outside’
has a very limited distribution both in Kyushu and in the Ryukyus, and no attestations
elsewhere. As seen in the Kyushu and Yaeyama tokens, it is also frequently
encountered in compounds rather than as a standalone lexeme. It is unclear if this item
is an innovation in terms of both form and meaning, or if it is a meaning transfer fromeither of the popular Japonic adjectives/property concept morphemes ara- meaning
respectively ‘new’ or ‘rough, coarse, crude’. 10
According to Hashiguchi 2004:125, the form arake was already attested in the 18th century Russian-Kagoshima
Japanese Gonza-Bogdanov lexicon. It may also be worth considering to etymologically derive ara from ada‘outside’, used in unspecified west Japan regions in 18th century according to the dialectal dictionary Butsurui
Shōko (Tōjō 1941:162).
10

24

JAROSZ, Aleksandra

3. Analysis of the outcome
The outcome of the analysis in Section 2 has been summarized in Table 1.
A discussion of CKR subgroupings/levels that emerge from Table 1 needs to bepreceded by a disclaimer that due to the limits and disproportions of the available
lexicographic sources on Kyushu, the analyzed data may present some biases. For thisreason, not all of the results in Table 1 can be taken at face value. For instance, the factthat of the Tokara islands, Takara seems to share the most features with Ryukyuan does
not make the Takara regiolect the single closest relative of Ryukyuan – it simply meansthat out of the (unfortunately poorly documented) Tokara regiolects, the majority ofsources pertain to Takara. By the same token, the fact that the ‘skin patch’ meaning
innovation is attested for Koshiki, but not for Tokara, does not indicate a closer
relationship of Koshiki over Tokara with Ryukyuan – most likely it simply means thatthe ‘skin patch’ meaning for Tokara has not been recorded.
Vocabulary items in Table 1 have been presented in increasing order concerning thearea range, from the narrowest to the broadest.

25

Non-Core Vocabulary Cognates in Ryukyuan and Kyushu

meaning

Table 1 Non-core CKR cognate candidates
occurrence in Kyushu‘skin patch’Kamikoshiki‘hermit crab’‘lizard’ (compound withthe morpheme ‘young’)‘to hatch’‘butterfly’

Tokara-Takara
Tokara-Takara‘crow’

Tokara-Takara
Tokara-Takara,
Kodakara
Tokara-Takara, Nakano‘Chinese banyan’(gajumaru)

Tokara islands, Ōsumi
islands‘snake’Tokara-Takara,
Kamikoshiki
Satsuma-Kushikino,
Higashi Morokata‘outside of the house’‘gimlet’Satsuma, Ōsumi
Peninsula, Morokata‘to steal, to snatch’Satsuma proper, Higashi
Morokata, TanegashimaŌsumi Peninsula,
Tanegashima,
Kagoshima-Izumi
Miyazaki, Morokata,Satsuma, Ōsumi
Peninsula, KamikoshikiŌsumi Peninsula,
Morokata, Satsuma,
Ōita, Saga
Takara-Tokara andNakano, Ōsumi
Peninsula, Morokata,Satsuma, Miyazaki(narrow), Satsuma, Ōita,Iki, Gotō, Fukuoka(broad)everywhere except thenorthwest area (Sagaand Nagasaki)
everywhere except
Fukuokaeverywhere up to
southern Fukuoka(Chikugo)‘wrasse’‘dragonfly’‘fish scales’‘lips’‘to rest’‘grapevine’ and/or ‘wild
grape’‘spider’shared KyushuRyukyuan characteristic
meaning innovation‘mushroom’ > ‘skinpatch’
lexical innovation
lexical innovation

putative CKR form*naba*amamu*wakagiri

lexical innovation
lexical innovation*sudas-u*paberi/*paberochange of the initial *k>glexical innovation; inTokara-Akuseki andperhaps Io (Tokara) andYaku (Ōsumi) change ofthe initial *k > galleged innovation *bi >*bulexical innovation ormeaning innovation:‘new’ and/or ‘coarse’ >‘outside’lexical innovation; inpart of the regions likely
a shared irregular *igiri> *iri change (Igarashi
2018:9)lexical innovation*garasu

lexical innovation*kusabireflection (alleged
retention) of protolanguage *kesound innovation *iroko> *ireko*akedu/*akedzu

lexical innovation; in the
narrow group innovationof the initial *tsu > *su*suba (narrow group)

lexical innovation*joko-ulexical innovation*kanebureflection (alleged
retention) of protolanguage *ko and*b/*mb*kobu*kadu/*kadzu> later, in a part ofTokara (and perhapsŌsumi), *gadu/*gadzu
*hebu
*ara

*iri

*baka-u*ireko26

JAROSZ, Aleksandra

3.1. Typology of shared features
A definite majority of the examined sample words constitute lexical innovations(there are twelve clear instances of lexical innovations, plus one possible one –‘outside’). Among vocabulary that is also distributed elsewhere in Japonic, there is one
clear (‘skin patch’) and one potential (‘outside’) meaning innovation, three soundinnovations (‘crow’, ‘snake’, and ‘scales’), and two sound retentions (‘dragonfly’ and‘spider’). Among the lexical innovations specific to the Ryukyus and Kyushu, in someitems (namely ‘lips’, ‘gimlet’, and possibly ‘Chinese banyan’) there are further sharedsound innovations observed for the Ryukyus and a smaller number of Kyushu
regiolects, constituting a basis for a subdivision within the CKR area.
3.2. Geographical distribution and its implications
In general, the wider the area covered, the fewer shared items could be found. Thisconclusion matches Igarashi’s (2017, 2018) “matrioshka distribution” theory proposed
for southern Japan and all Japonic-speaking areas in general.
Based on the tendencies inferred from Table 1, one can derive the following roughlayers of CKR, starting from the smallest order (the lower the digit, the lower thephylogenetic/diachronic order), with makeshift labels added for the purpose ofdifferentiation.
1. Common Tokara-Ryukyuan (CKR level 1).
2. Common Insular Satsuma-Ryukyuan (CKR level 2). This layer includes, apartfrom the Tokara islands, Ōsumi islands such as Tanegashima or Yaku, and the
Koshiki islands.
3. Common Satsuma-Ryukyuan (CKR level 3). Here, the areas of CKR level 2 are
joined by the regiolects of the Satsuma district, Ōsumi Peninsula, and Morokata.
4. Common Core Kyushu-Ryukyuan (CKR level 4). To this layer, the regiolects ofMiyazaki prefecture are added.
5. Common Extended Core Kyushu-Ryukyuan (CKR level 5). In addition to
Kagoshima and Miyazaki, this layer is composed of the regiolects of Kumamotoand Ōita.
6. Common Kyushu-Ryukyuan Proper (CKR level 6). This area includes regiolectsfrom virtually the entire Kyushu area. At this point no conclusions can beproposed regarding whether this level should be divided even further through a
graded inclusion of Nagasaki, Saga, and Fukuoka regiolects, although judging
from the data introduced in this paper alone, the mainland Nagasaki andNon-Core Vocabulary Cognates in Ryukyuan and Kyushu

27

northeastern Fukuoka areas in general do not participate in the innovations
considered here.
Although the details such as the perspectives on the Ōita or Nagasaki regiolects differ,
the CKR levels 3–6 as outlined above essentially match the phylogenetic resultspresented in Igarashi (2017 and 2018). As for the CKR levels 1–2, they warrant an indepth consideration as the most likely candidates for the status of immediate kin of the
Ryukyuan languages.
The Tokara islands appear as the obvious option, considering their geographic
proximity to the Amami islands and considering that in the times of the migration of
Pre-Proto-Ryukyuan speakers it was not possible to sail as a larger group of people, alltogether at one time, from mainland Kyushu directly to Amami. The same can be said
about the Ōsumi islands located still closer to mainland Kyushu. On the other hand, thefact that the CKR level 2 also includes the Koshiki islands – in other words, the factthat the Ryukyuan languages share more non-core vocabulary features with Koshiki
than with mainland southern Kyushu, even though the former can hardly be imagined
to just have happened to “be there” when Pre-Proto-Ryukyuan speakers embarked on
their migration journey off the southern Kyushu shore – is fairly intriguing. Thisobservation thus leads to a tentative insular embarkation hypothesis: in other words, itis worth considering that Proto-Ryukyuan branched off from the languages of alreadyinsular populations. The shared prehistory of the Ryukyuan, Tokara, Ōsumi, andKoshiki regiolects may parallel a number of small-scale waves of inter-insularmigrations, which may have been a commonsense solution to some of the easily
imaginable problems of insular communities, such as overpopulation or lack ofresources.
Abbreviations
CKR
Common Kyushu-Ryukyuan
KY
KyushuNR
North Ryukyuan
OJ
Old Japanese
PJ
Proto-Japonic
PR
Proto-Ryukyuan
SRSouth Ryukyuan

28

JAROSZ, Aleksandra

References
Amano, Tetsuo. 1979. Ryūkyō rettō shokubutsu hōgenshū [list of dialectal names for plants in the Ryukyu islands].
Naha: Shinsei Tosho. [in Japanese]
Campbell, Lyle. 1998. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Frellesvig, Bjarke. 2010. A History of the Japanese Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hashiguchi, Mitsuru. 2004. Kagoshima hōgen daijiten, jō/ge [a great dictionary of the Kagoshima dialect, vols. 1
and 2]. Kagoshima: Taki Shobō. [in Japanese]
Hattori, Shirō. 1957. “Nihongo-no keitō 3. On’in hōsoku-to goitōkeigakuteki ‘suishin sokuryō’ [origins ofJapanese language 3. Phonological rules and the lexicostatistical ‘measurement of depth’]”. In Shirō Hattori
1999. Nihongo-no keitō [the origins of Japanese language]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. pp.220–358. [inJapanese]
Heinrich, Patrick, Shinsho Miyara, and Michinori Shimoji (eds.). 2015. Handbook of the Ryukyuan Languages:
History, Structure, and Use. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hirayama, Teruo. 1992. Gendai nihongo hōgen daijiten [a great dictionary of modern Japanese dialects]. Nine
volumes. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. [in Japanese]
Hock, Hans Heinrich. 1991. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Second revised and updated edition. Berlin, New
York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Igarashi, Yōsuke. 2017. “Kyūshū/Ryūkyū dōgengo chōsahyō [a list for the study of cognates in Kyushu and
Ryukyuan]”. A paper presented at Yōsuke Igarashi’s seminar at the Hitotsubashi University, Dec. 9, 2017.
[in Japanese]———. 2018. “Bunkigakuteki hōhō-ni motozuita nihongo/ryūkyūgo shohōgen-no keitō bunrui-no kokoromi [anattempt at genetic classification of Japanese and Ryukyuan dialects based on the cladistic method]”. Paper
presented at a NINJAL symposium Fiirudo-to bunken-kara miru nichiryūshogo-no keitō-to rekishi[perspectives on phylogeny and history of Japonic languages as seen from the field and written sources] inTokyo, Dec. 23, 2018. [in Japanese]
Jarosz, Aleksandra. 2015. Nikolay Nevskiy’s Miyakoan Dictionary: Reconstruction from the Manuscript and its
Ethnolinguistic Analysis. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, written under thesupervision of Prof. Dr. Alfred F. Majewicz. Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University, Faculty of Modern
Languages and Literature, Chair of Oriental Studies. http://hdl.handle.net/10593/14699
Karimata, Shigehisa. 2015. “Ryukyuan languages: A grammar overview”. In Heinrich, Miyara, and Shimoji (eds.),
2015. pp.113–140.
———. 2017. “The linguistic difference between Northern and Southern Ryukyuan from the perspective of human
movement”. International Journal of Okinawan Studies 8. pp.15–26.
Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo (ed.) 1963. Okinawago jiten [a dictionary of Okinawan language]. Tokyo: ŌkurashōInsatsukyoku. [in Japanese]
Miyara, Tōsō. 1980 [1926]. Miyara Tōsō zenshū 7. Saihō nantō goikō [the complete works of Tōsō Miyara, vol.
7. Lexicon from fieldwork in the Southern Islands]. Tokyo: Daiichi Shobō. [in Japanese]———. 1980[1930]. Miyara Tōsō zenshū 8. Yaeyama goi [the complete works of Tōsō Miyara, vol. 8. Yaeyaman
vocabulary]. Tokyo: Daiichi Shobō. [in Japanese]Non-Core Vocabulary Cognates in Ryukyuan and Kyushu

29

Nevskiy, Nikolay Alexandrovich. 1922–1928. Materʹi͡aly dli͡a izuchenii͡a govora Ostrovov Mii͡ako: slovarʹ.
Handwritten lexicographic materials stored in the Waseda University Library in Tokyo. [in XXX???]
Nohara, Mitsuyoshi. 1979–1983. “Ryūkyū hōgen-to kyūshū shohōgen-no hikaku, I–V [a comparison of Ryukyuan
and Kyushu dialects, parts I–V]”. Okinawa Kokusai Daigaku Bungakubu Kiyō Kokubungahuhen 8–12. pp.1–
16; 1–20; 1–16; 1–16; A1–A14, respectively. [in Japanese]
Oshio, Mutsuko 2009. Okinawa Ie-jima hōgen jiten [a dictionary of the dialect of the Ie island in Okinawa]. Ie:
Ie-son Kyōiku Iinkai. [in Japanese]
Pellard, Thomas. 2015. “The linguistic archeology of the Ryukyu islands”. In Heinrich, Miyara, and Shimoji (eds.),
2015. pp.13–37.
Serafim, Leon A. 2003. “When and from where did the Japonic language enter the Ryukyus? – A criticalcomparison of language, archaeology, and history”. In Toshiki Osada and Alexander Vovin (eds.)
Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese Language. Kyoto: International Research Center for JapaneseStudies. pp.463–476.
Shirai, Shōhei. 2008. Zenkoku yūyō shokubutsu chihōmei kensaku jiten. Minami Nihonhen [dictionary of local
Japanese names of useful plants, south Japan edition]. Ōami Shirasato: Seibutsu Jōhōsha. [in Japanese]
Tadmor, Uri and Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2009. Loanwords in the World’s Languages: A Comparative
Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Thorpe, Maner Lawton. 1983. “Ryūkyūan language history”. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern
California.
Tōjō, Misao (revision). 1941. Butsurui Shōko [names for all things: a dictionary of 18th-century Japanese dialects].
Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. [in Japanese]
Tōyama, Masanao, Katsumori Kugai, and Sawaichi Shimajiri. 1980. “Miyako guntō-no ryōsei hachūrui-ni kansuru hōgen [dialecticisms of the Miyako island group concerning amphibians and reptiles]”. Okinawa
Kyōkenkaishi 13. Pp. 17–32. [in Japanese]
Vovin, Alexander. 2009a. A Descriptive and Comparative Grammar of Western Old Japanese. Part 2: Adjectives,
Verbs, Adverbs, Conjunctions, Particles, Postpositions. Folkestone: Global Oriental.
———. 2009b. “Rūkyūgo, jōdaigo-to shūhen-no shogengo. Saikō-to setten-no shomondai [Ryukyuan, OldJapanese, and the neighboring languagees: the problems of reconstruction and contacts]”. Nihon Kenkyū 39.
pp.11–27. [in Japanese]

Online sources
DiACL – Diachronic Atlas of Comparative Linguistics. Editor: Gred Carling. Head developer: Rob Verhoeven.
https://diacl.ht.lu.se/
Online fish atlas Bōzu Konnyaku-no shijō gyokairui zukan [Bōzu Konnyaku’s atlas of fish and shells available on
the market].
https://www.zukan-bouz.com
Online fish atlas Web Sakana Zukan [online atlas of fish].
https://zukan.com/fish/Palatalization and Vowel Coalescence in Jejueo
LIN, Chihkai

Department of Applied Foreign Languages, Tatung University

This study explores palatalization and vowel coalescence in Jejueo, a language spoken
in Jeju Island. This study establishes a corpus based on Hyon (1962) and focuses ondental and velar palatalization. The data reveal different patterns of variants in the two
types of palatalization. In Jejueo, there are three phonetic realizations of vowels in kpalatalization and two realizations in h-palatalization. According to the data, this study
also suggests a chronology: palatalization preceding vowel coalescence.

Keywords: Jejueo, palatalization, vowel coalescence, Seoul dialect

1. Introduction
2. Corpus and data selection criteria
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusion

1. Introduction ∗This paper investigates the interaction of palatalization and vowel coalescence inJejueo, a language spoken in Jeju Island, South Korea. 1 In Korean, palatalization ispervasive in alveolar stops across the Korean Peninsula (Yeon 2002). 2 In the historyof the Korean language, alveolar stops have undergone palatalization from Middle
Korean to Modern Korean, as in the word ‘earth, land’ chi (< ti). In addition to dental
LIN, Chihkai. 2019. “Palatalization and Vowel Coalescence in Jejueo”. Proceedings of International Symposium“Approaches to Endangered Languages in Japan and Northeast Asia (Poster Session)”. pp.30–38. [Permanent
URL: https://doi.org/10.15026/94152]
1
In Korean dialectology, the language spoken in Jeju Island is one of the dialects of Korea, while in western
linguists’ viewpoint, it is a language sharing equal status with Korean. In other words, peninsula Korean and Jeju
Korean are sister languages. Following O’Grady (2015), Brenzinger and Yang (2017), and Yang, Yang, andO’Grady (to appear), this study uses Jejueo ‘Jeju language’ rather than Jeju dialect to refer to the language spoken
in Jeju Island.
2
Yeon (2002) classifies the Korean language into six zones. When palatalization is taken into account, there arethree major areas: (a) without any palatalization, (b) with dental palatalization, but without velar palatalization, (c)with dental and velar palatalization. Although dental palatalization is pervasive across the Korean Peninsula,
Phyongan dialect in the northern area lacks dental palatalization, as in the words ‘to hit’ [tʰida] and ‘firmly’ [kudi].
The second major area corresponds to the central area, i.e., Seoul for example. The words ‘to hit’ and ‘firmly’ inSeoul dialect are [cʰida] and [kudʒi], respectively. In the southern area, there is velar palatalization. In Jejueo, theword ‘road’ is [cil] (= [kil] in Seoul dialect).

Palatalization and Vowel Coalescence in Jejueo

31

palatalization, Korean has other types of palatalization, such as k-palatalization and hpalatalization. According to Chung (1995), Kim (2001), and Yeon (2002), in southerndialects, including Jejueo, velar stops also undergo palatalization, as in (1).
(1)

a. Jejueo
[chi]
[cil]
[cim]
[cire][ciphi]b. Seoul dialect
[khi]
[kil]
[kim]
[khi]
[kiphi]gloss‘rudder’‘road’‘seaweed’‘height’‘depth’In (1), the examples in Jejueo have been palatalized, while the initial velar stop in
Seoul dialect is still k. In addition to k-palatalization, Jejueo has h-palatalization, in
which the glottal fricative h becomes s when it is followed by the high front vowel i or
the palatal glide j. Examples are shown in (2).
(2)

a. Jejueo
[se]
[səl]
[ʃim]
[suɡa][saŋɡi]b. Seoul dialect[hjə][hjəl][him][hjuɡa][hjaŋɡi]gloss‘tongue’‘blood’‘strength’‘vacation’‘fragrance, scent’

The five examples in (2) have twp phonetic realizations. In Jejueo, the initialconsonant is s, whereas its corresponding form in Seoul dialect is h.
The second phonological process explored in this paper is the coalescence of /j/ and/ə/ in Jejueo. (3) shows the fusion of the sequence /jə/ into a front mid vowel, [e].
(3)a. Jejueo[pheŋ][men][penmeŋ][perak]b. Seoul dialect[phjəŋ][mjən][pjənmjəŋ][pjərak]gloss‘bottle’‘face’‘to distinguish’‘lightning’32

LIN, Chihkai

In (3), the syllables in Jejueo contain mid front vowels [e], while the corresponding
syllables in Seoul dialect are a sequence of [j] and [ə]. The examples of the mid front
vowel [e] in (3) are mostly attested after labial onsets.
In Jejueo, palatalization and vowel coalescence are independent processes, as in (2)and (3), but they interact in the sequence of /Cjə/ (C = consonant /k/ or /h/). This
interaction has three possible outputs. First, the onset could be palatalized without
vowel coalescence, as in [cə] or [sə]. Second, it is also possible that vowel coalescence
could take place without palatalization, and the outputs would be [ke] or [he]. The third
output is a complete interaction. In this case, the output is [ce] or [se].
To find out how the two phonological processes interact, this paper adopts a corpusbased approach by analyzing data from two sources: Hyon (1962) and an online
dictionaryof
Jeju
dialect,
locatedathttps://www.jeju.go.kr/culture/dialect/dictionary.htm. To fully explain the corpus,
Section 2 discusses the corpus and data selection criteria. Section 3 reports the results:
k-palatalization and h-palatalization. Section 4 compares the results of the two types ofpalatalization, and Section 5 concludes.
2. Corpus and data selection criteria
A small corpus is established in this paper, and the data are collected from Hyon
(1962)
andan
onlinedictionaryof
Jeju
dialect,
locatedathttps://www.jeju.go.kr/culture/dialect/dictionary.htm. Hyon (1962) conducted ageneral survey on Jejueo and then compiled a Jejueo-Seoul dialect dictionary in twovolumes, comparing Jejueo with Seoul dialect in the first volume, and Seoul dialectwith Jejeuo in the second volume. The data in this dictionary were sorted and, if
necessary, the online dictionary was used.
The gleaned data were classified according to the three criteria in (4).
(4)

a. Place of articulation (k vs. h)b. Variants (yes or no)c. Weight of palatalization and vowel coalescencei. Palatalization outweighs vowel coalescenceii. Vowel coalescence outweighs palatalizationiii. Palatalization interacts with vowel coalescence

The data were first divided into k-palatalization and h-palatalization. The former
refers to a velar stop and the latter to a glottal fricative. In Hyon’s (1962) data, an entry

33

Palatalization and Vowel Coalescence in Jejueo

might have multiple readings. This paper includes all the possible readings and thenclassifies the sorted entries into those with variants and those without. For example, theword ‘road’ can be [cil] and [kil]. In this paper, the word ‘road’ is classified as having
variants. It should be noted that although there are two readings for a word, it is notnecessary to classify it as having variants. The word ‘to carve’ can be [saɡida] or[sɛɡida]. These are not considered variants in this paper because palatalization andvowel coalescence are not involved.
The data were further divided according to the weight of the two phonologicalprocesses. There are three situations: (a) palatalization outweighs vowel coalescence,(b) vowel coalescence outweighs palatalization, and (c) palatalization interacts withvowel coalescence.
This paper focuses on the two processes in the word-initial position because of theconstraint that palatalization is far less frequent in non-initial positions (Kim 2001, Lin2019). Due to the two directionalities of data presentation, the data selection criteria
differ. From Jejueo to Seoul dialect, the four initial sequences of k-palatalization, [cə],[ce], [ke] and [kjə], and those of h-palatalization, [sə], [se], [he] and [hjə], are collected.
In contrast, from Seoul dialect to Jejueo, the examined sequences are [kjə] and [hjə].
The data were sorted, and the results are reported in Section 3.
3. Results
The sorted data are divided into k-palatalization (Section 3.1) and h-palatalization(Section 3.2). In each subsection, the distribution of variants and the weight of the twoprocesses are also discussed. In the discussion, the data from Jejueo to Seoul dialect arepresented first, followed by the data from Seoul dialect to Jejueo.
3.1. k-palatalization
In the data from Jejueo to Seoul dialect, there are 32 examples of k-palatalization, of
which thirteen examples have variants. Table 1 shows the distribution. 3
Table 1

Distribution of k-palatalization from Jejueo to Seoul dialect
yes
13

Variants
Phonologicalprocesses
Tokens3

P
kj ~ c13

kjə ~ ce1

P = palatalization, VC = vowel coalescenceVC
kjə ~ cə11

kjə ~ cə ~ ke
1

P
c
19

no
19

VC
ə
19

34

LIN, Chihkai

There are thirteen words that have variants, and all of them alternate between [kj]and [c], as in the word ‘to be married’, [kjəlhon] or [cəlhon]. Among the thirteen words
with variants, two examples that also undergo vowel coalescence are the word ‘only’,
which can be [ceu] or [kjəu], and the word ‘to be married’, in which there is no
palatalization, but there is vowel coalescence, [kelhon]. There are nineteen examples
with a single reading. All of the examples have undergone palatalization. Meanwhile,in these nineteen examples the vowel [ə] is maintained, as in the word ‘spare time’,[cərɯ(l)] in Jejueo (= [kjərɯl] in Seoul dialect). The data in Table 1 reveal that no
single example resists palatalization in the corpus either in the forms with variants orin the fully palatalized forms. Nevertheless, vowel coalescence seems to be rare, as
there is only one example in the corpus.
Table 2 shows the distribution of the data from Seoul dialect to Jejueo.
Table 2Distribution of k-palatalization from Seoul dialect to Jejueo
yes
22

Variants
Phonologicalprocesses
TokensP
kj ~ c
8

ə~ɒ
12

VC
ə~e
1

ə~e~ɒ
1

P
c
17

no
17

ə
11

VC
e
3

ɒ
3

In Table 2, there are 22 examples of k-palatalization with variants. Eight examples
show the alternation of [kj] and [c], as in the word ‘determination’ [kjəldan] in Seoul
dialect. The Jejueo form of this word can be [kjəldan] or [cəldan]. In the eight examples
that have a velar stop as the onset, seven examples do not have vowel coalescence. The
only exception is the word ‘to be married’, which can be [kjəlhon], [cəlhon], or [kelhon].
The other fourteen examples with variants are attested with vowel coalescence, andtheir onsets are only [c]. There are three types of alternations in the vowels. First, twelve
examples exhibit the alternation of [ə] and [ɒ], as in the word ‘lined clothes’, which canbe [cəp-ot] or [cɒp-ot]. The other two types of alternations have only one example each.
The example alternating between three vowels is the word ‘side’ [kjət] in Seoul dialect.
The Jejueo word ‘side’ can be [cək], [ce] or [cɒk]. The example that alternates between[ə] and [e] is the word ‘a double-layered wall’ [kjəp-tam] in Seoul dialect. The Jejueo
form can be [cəp-tam] or [cɒp-tam].
In the corpus, there are seventeen examples without variants. All of these examples
are palatalized as [c], and these seventeen examples have three realizations of vowels.
Eleven examples are realized as schwa [ə], as in the word ‘to compare’ [kjəncuda] inSeoul dialect. The Jejueo form is [cəncuda]. There are three examples with [ce]. For
instance, the word ‘be difficult to stand’ in Seoul dialect is [kjəpda], which is [ceuda]

35Palatalization and Vowel Coalescence in Jejueo

in Jejueo. There are also three examples with [cɒ]. In the word ‘a lobe of the liver of acow’, the Seoul dialect is [kjət-kan] (= [cɒt-kan] in Jejueo).
The data from Jejueo to Seoul dialect are similar to those from Seoul dialect to Jejueo
in the palatalization of [kj], which is pervasive in the corpus. In Tables 1 and 2, there
are only a few examples of vowel coalescence [e] (< 3). The corpus data also show thatschwa [ə] is lowered to [ɒ] in the data from Seoul dialect to Jejueo.
3.2. h-palatalization
Table 3 shows the distribution of h-palatalization from Jejueo to Seoul dialect.
Table 3Distribution of h-palatalization from Jejueo to Seoul dialect
Variants

Phonologicalprocesses
TokensP
hj ~ s
4

yes
4

VC
ə
4

P
s
11

no
11
e
8

VC

ə
3

There are fifteen examples of h-palatalizationin Table 3. Four examples havevariants, which are attested in the alternation of [hj] and [s]. When palatalization takes
place, vowel coalescence does not occur concurrently. The four examples keep schwa
as their nuclei. For instance, the word ‘cash’ in Jejueo can be [sənɡɯm] or [hjənɡɯm],while it is [hjənɡɯm] in Seoul dialect. In the eleven examples without variants, all are
palatalized as [s]. There are two realizations of the vowel. Eight examples were realized
as [se], and all of these were attested in the word ‘tongue’. The other three examples
lack vowel coalescence, as in the word ‘blood and breath’, [səlɡi] in Jejueo (= [hjəlɡi]
in Seoul dialect).
From Seoul dialect to Jejueo, there are seventeen examples. 4
Table 4

Distribution of h-palatalization from Seoul dialect to Jejueo

Variants
Phonologicalprocesses
TokensP
hj ~ s
5

yes
5

VC
ə
5

P
s
12

no
12
e
7

VC

ə
5

In Table 4, there are five examples of h-palatalization with variants that exhibit thealternation of [hj] and [s]. In the variants, the vowel is schwa [ə], as in the word ‘cash’,
which is [hjənɡɯm] in Seoul dialect, but [sənɡɯm] or [hjənɡɯm] in Jejueo. There are4
In the corpus, the word ‘side door’ is [hjəpmun] in Seoul dialect (= [jəpmun] in Jejueo). This example is notincluded in the corpus because there is no palatalization or vowel coalescence.

36

LIN, Chihkai

twelve examples without variants in Table 4. All twelve of these are palatalized as [s].
The realizations of the vowels are twofold. One realization is [e] (in seven examples),as in the word ‘tongue’ [hjə] in Seoul dialect. 5 The corresponding Jejueo form of thisword is [se]. The other realization is [sə], as in the word ‘brothers’ [hjəŋɟe] in Seoul
dialect (= [səŋɟe] in Jejueo).
The data from Jejueo to Seoul dialect do not deviate much from those from Seoul
dialect to Jejueo in the palatalization of [sj]. No example resists palatalization. In the
corpus, the vowel remains as [ə] or undergoes coalescence as [e].
4. Results
The k-palatalization and h-palatalization in Section 3 show one similarity and one
difference. The similarity is that no single example in the two types resists
palatalization. When there is [kjə]/[hjə], there is [cə]/[sə] as well. If a variant is notattested, the output must be palatalized. The difference is that there is a low vowel [ɒ]in k-palatalization. The low vowel does not appear in h-palatalization, however. With
three vowels, k-palatalization shows more variation than h-palatalization does in Jejueo.
As there are two phonological processes in the data, there might be a chronology inthe development of Jejueo. The two processes can order in two different ways:
palatalization preceding vowel coalescence or vowel coalescence preceding
palatalization. It is also possible that the two processes interact although there is nochronology. Based on the data in Section 3, this paper suggests that palatalization must
precede vowel coalescence; the chronology is explained in the following discussion.
First, when palatalization precedes vowel coalescence, the chronology is that of (5).
(5)
Input

kjə

hjə

Palatalization/kjə/ > [cə]/hjə/ > [sə]

Coalescence

-----

-----

Output[cə][sə]In the corpus, when there is [kj] or [hj], there is [c] or [s]. Thus, in (5), when [kj] or[hj] undergo palatalization, vowel coalescence does not take place.
When vowel coalescence precedes palatalization, the chronology appears as in (6).
5

All the examples of [se] occurred in the word ‘tongue’.

Palatalization and Vowel Coalescence in Jejueo

37

(6)
Input

kjə

hjə

Coalescence/kjə/ > [ke]/hjə/ > [he]Palatalization

-----

-----

Output[ke][he]

The chronology in (6) is not supported by the corpus data, however. There is a single
example of [ke] in the word ‘to be married’ [kelhon], which also has two other variants,[kjəlhon] and [cəlhon]. In h-palatalization, there is no [he]. Therefore, the chronologyin (6) has not been applied in Jejueo.
In addition to the orderings in (5) and (6), the two processes interact, as [kjə] and[hjə] turn into [ce] and [se]. In the corpus, there are sporadic examples of [ce]. As for[se] in h-palatalization, it is only attested in the word ‘tongue’. With this low frequency
attested for only a single example in h-palatalization, it seems that the interaction of thetwo processes is not salient in Jejueo.
5. Conclusion
This paper has used a corpus-based approach to investigate how palatalization andvowel coalescence take place in Jejueo. The results reveal that palatalization outweighsvowel coalescence, suggesting a progressive directionality such that vowel coalescence
without palatalization does not occur in Jejueo. Once the palatalization has occurred,vowel coalescence is blocked. The blocking effect can also be attributed to the low
frequency of [ke] or [he] in the corpus. The data also demonstrate that k-palatalization
has one more variant with the vowel [ɒ], which is not attested in h-palatalization.
Future research on this topic can be extended to the emergence of the low vowel [ɒ]in k-palatalization. As this vowel is not observed in h-palatalization, the restriction is
likely to be related to onsets. The palatalized c (< [k]) differs from s (< /h/) in the degreeof obstruction in the oral cavity. Whether the phonetic factor can be attributed to thisdifference is left open for future research. This issue demands a more detailed phonetic
investigation in the future.

38

LIN, Chihkai

References
Brenzinger, Matthias and Changyong Yang. 2017. “Jejueo of South Korea”. In Corinne Seals and Sheena Shah(eds.) Heritage Language Policies around the World. New York: Routledge. pp.185–198.
Chung, Sung-cheol. 1995. Ceycwuto Pang’en.uy Thongshi Umwunlon [Cheju Dialect Historical Phonology].
Seoul: Taehaksa. [in Korean]Hyon, P’yong-hyo. 1962. Chujudo Pangeon Yeonku: Che 1-chip charyeo phyeon [A Study of Jeju Dialect: vol. 1
data]. Seoul: Chŏngyŏnsa. [in Korean]Kim, Kuang-woong. 2001. Jeju Chiyeoeo uy eumwunron [A Phonological Study of the Cheju Area Dialect]. Jeju:
Juju University Press. [in Korean]Lin, Chihkai. 2019. “Palatalization in Korean: From a comparative perspective of Jejueo and Seoul dialect”. Paper
presented at the 6th International Conference of Center for Korean Culture and Language Education Studies& the 26th International Conference of Chinese Association for Korean Studies. Taipei, Taiwan.
O’Grady, William. 2015. “Jejueo: Korea’s Other Language. Proceeding of the 7th World Congress of KoreanStudies”. (Retrieved from http://congress.aks.ac.kr/korean/files/2_1413765292.pdf.)
Yang, Changyong, Sejung Yang, and William O’Grady. (to appear). Jejueo: The Language of Korea's Jeju Island,
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Yeon, Jaehoon. 2012. “Korean dialects: a general survey”. In Nicholas Tranter (ed.), The Languages of Japan and
Korea. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. pp.168–185.

‘I'm Afraid of Thunder’:The Dative Stimulus Construction in Japanese Dialects*
MATSUOKA, Aoi
Kyushu University

MIYAOKA, Hiroshi
Kyushu University

SHIMOJI, Michinori
Kyushu University

The present study discusses the issue of non-canonical argument marking in Japanesedialects with a special focus on the stimulus argument of adjectival experiencer
constructions (e.g. ‘thunder’ in ‘I’m afraid of thunder’). The stimulus argument inquestion is canonically marked by the nominative case, but in many Kyushu and otherwestern Japanese dialects it is also marked by the dative case. By focusing mainly on
the Omae dialect of Shiiba Village, Miyazaki Prefecture, we discuss the following
facts about non-canonical dative marking (NCDM) patterns in Japanese dialects: (1)NCDM is not a unique phenomenon of Omae, but is found across western Japanesedialects, especially Kyushu dialects and Shikoku dialects, (2) NCDM is restricted toexperiencer constructions and is not found in other two-place adjectival sentences likethe double subject construction, (3) NCDM is most likely to occur in a sentence where
the predicate is a negative psych adjective like ‘feel afraid’, ‘feel uncomfortable’, etc.
Keywords: experiencer, stimulus, dative, non-canonical argument marking, Japanese dialect

1. Introduction
2. Previous studies
3. NCDM in Omae
4. NCDM from a typological perspective
5. Cross-dialectal comparison
6. Conclusion

1. Introduction
The present study discusses the issue of non-canonical argument marking inJapanese dialects with a special focus on the stimulus argument of adjectival
MATSUOKA, Aoi, MIYAOKA, Hiroshi and SHIMOJI, Michinori. 2019. “‘I'm Afraid of Thunder’: The Dative
Stimulus Construction in Japanese Dialects”. Proceedings of International Symposium “Approaches toEndangered Languages in Japan and Northeast Asia (Poster Session)”. pp.39–49. [Permanent URL:
https://doi.org/10.15026/94153]

40

MATSUOKA, Aoi, Hiroshi Miyaoka and Michinori Shimoji

experiencer constructions, as illustrated in (1) from the Omae dialect of Shiiba Village,
Miyazaki Prefecture.
(1)

oraa
kaminari{=ga/=ni}
1SG.TOP thunder{=NOM/=DAT}‘I’m afraid of thunder.’ozyee.
afraid.NPST

In Omae, the stimulus argument, like kaminari ‘thunder’ in (1), is canonicallymarked by the nominative case marker =ga, just as in the case of most Japanese dialects(including Standard Japanese); however, it may also be marked by the dative casemarker =ni as a non-canonical option. Non-canonical dative marking like in (1), in
which one argument of a two-place adjectival sentence may receive non-canonicaldative marking as opposed to canonical nominative marking will henceforth be called
Non-Canonical Dative Marking (NCDM). The present paper demonstrates thefollowing three facts about NCDM by focusing mainly on Omae.
(2) NCDM is not a unique phenomenon of Omae, but is found across western Japanesedialects, especially Kyushu dialects and Shikoku dialects.
(3) NCDM is restricted to a certain subtype of two-place adjectival sentences.
Specifically, it only occurs in a transitive adjectival sentence (TA sentence), which
requires an experiencer and a stimulus as its required arguments, as illustrated in(1).
(4) NCDM is most likely to occur in a TA sentence where the predicate is a negative
psych adjective like ‘feel afraid’, ‘feel uncomfortable’, etc.
2. Previous studies
No previous work exists for NCDM as such, even though it is possible to findexamples of what we call NCDM in past descriptions of individual dialects or in crossdialectal works, text materials, etc. (see Figure 1 and Table 1).

‘I’m Afraid of Thunder’: The Dative Stimulus Construction in Japanese Dialects

41

Fig. 1 The prefectures where dialects with NCDM are spoken
Table 1

Adjectives that occur with NCDM in Japanese dialects#

prefecturePlaceadjectives

sources1
2
3

ToyamaNaganoYamanashi

Himi City
the north
Kitatsuru County

NHK (1966: 34)
Fujiwara (1997: 419)
NHK (1967: 454, 457)

4

Tottori

Yazu County

poor attroublesomeLikepoor at,like
like,
dislike,good at,poor atLike

Fujiwara (1981: 198)

good atlike,good at,afraidlike,
dislike,afraid,good atMakimoto (1925: 44)
Kanazawa (1960: 206),
Kanazawa (1961: 90),
Doi (1997a: 27)

Okinoshima
5

ShimaneIzumo City,
Aki City,
Nita County
Kibi County

6

Okayama7

Tokushima

Kaifu County,
Iya

8

Kochi

Agawa County,
Tosa County etc.

9

Oita

whole area

10

Saga

Kitagata of Takeo City

11
12

MiyazakiKagoshima

Oteno of Shiiba Village
Sato of Koshikishima

Likeafraid,noisy, etc.
Afraidafraid, etc.

Fujiwara (1981: 72)
Hiroto (1949: 82),
Kanbe (1978: 446)

Doi (1958: 268),
Doi (1997b: 57)
Fujiwara (1997: 419),
Mikaziri (1937: 59)
our field data
Kaneda (to appear)
Kubozono (2018)

Each of these works identified just a few attested examples of NCDM, with a simple
descriptive observation that nominative marking in Standard Japanese is somehow
replaced by dative case in the dialects concerned. No detailed analysis has been made

42

MATSUOKA, Aoi, Hiroshi Miyaoka and Michinori Shimoji

about in which cases NCDM is possible and in which cases it is impossible in individual
dialects, why NCDM occurs, how it is characterized in general linguistics, whether
NCDM is a shared retention/innovation of a certain historical group or a paralleldevelopment, etc. The upshot is that almost everything has been left untouched for any
aspect of NCDM except for its seemingly ‘weird’ dative case-marking for the stimulus
argument, compared to the nominative marking expected of ‘standard’ Japanese.
3. NCDM in Omae
3.1. Classification of two-place adjectival sentences
This section gives a descriptive overview of NCDM in Omae. To describe NCDM
precisely, it is crucial to distinguish between two types of two-place adjectival
sentences: the Double Subject (DS) type and the Transitive Adjectival (TA) type.
In a two-place adjectival sentence of the DS type, the two arguments exhibit a kindof whole–part relationship, as illustrated in (5) to (7).
(5)

oraa
zu=no
ityaa.
1SG.TOP (my) head=NOM hurt.NPST‘I have a headache (lit. My head hurts).’ (object and its part)

(6)

oraa
oya=gabyooki=wai.
1SG.TOP (my) parent=NOM ill=SFP‘My parent is ill (lit. As for me, (my) parents are ill).’ (possessor and possessed)

(7)

oraa
se=no
takyaa=wai.
1SG.TOP (my) height=NOM tall=SFP‘I’m tall (lit. As for me, (my) height is tall).’ (theme and its related property)

In semantic terms, the DS-type sentences do not consist of two independentarguments; the existence of the whole (i.e., the first argument in each example, ora) is
a logical pre-requisite for the existence of its part (i.e., the second argument, zu in (5),oya in (6), and se in (7)). Morphosyntactically, one diagnostic for identifying the DS
type is to see whether the first argument and the second argument can be connected by
the genitive =no, which turns the two argument NPs into one. DS-type sentences arethus quite like monovalent (i.e., intransitive) sentences, both in semantic andmorphosyntactic terms.

‘I’m Afraid of Thunder’: The Dative Stimulus Construction in Japanese Dialects

43

By contrast, a TA-type sentence takes two arguments which are semanticallyindependent of each other, that is, the experiencer and the stimulus.
(8)

oraa
oya=gaozyee.
1SG.TOP (my) parent=NOM afraid.NPST
Experiencer Stimulus‘I’m afraid of my parent.’

(9)

oraa
hanako=ga
1SG.TOP hanako=NOM
Experiencer Stimulus‘I love Hanako.’suki=wai.
love=SFP

(10)

oraa
mizu=ga
1SG.TOP water=NOM
Experiencer Stimulus‘I want some water.’hosi-i.
want-NPST

Note that the two arguments of a sentence of the TA type can never be turned into asingle NP with the genitive =no. They are clearly divalent (transitive) even though they
are non-verbal sentences. In fact, a certain kind of stimulus argument, especially ahuman stimulus like oya ‘parent’ in (8) and hanako ‘Hanako’ in (9), behaves like a
direct object in a usual transitive sentence in that it can be followed by =no koto (seeKishimoto 2004 for issues relating to this test as a diagnostic for direct objecthood inStandard Japanese). Previous studies also noted that the stimulus argument of a certain
kind of TA-type sentence may be marked by the accusative marker. For example, thestimulus argument mizu ‘water’ in (10) may be marked by the accusative =oba. These
facts support the view that sentences of the TA type are transitive.
The most important fact about NCDM in Omae is that it is restricted to occurring in
the TA type. Thus, in the following pair of sentences, of which (11) is of the DS typeand (12) is of the TA type, DM is only possible in (12).
(11)

oraa
oya{=ga/=*ni}ozyee.
1SG.TOP (my) parent{=NOM/=DAT} scary.NPST‘As for me, my parent is scary.’

44

(12)

MATSUOKA, Aoi, Hiroshi Miyaoka and Michinori Shimojioraaoya{=ga/=ni}ozyee.
1SG.TOP (my) parent{=NOM/=DAT} afraid.NPST‘I’m afraid of my parent.’

In (11), the first argument oraa ‘as for me’ and the second argument oya ‘parent’ areof the possessor–possessed relationship, and it is possible for them to be connected by
the genitive marker =ga 1 (ora= ga oya ‘my parents’). The adjective ozyee ‘scary’describes the property of the second argument alone, with the first argument serving as
the topic of the sentence. By contrast, (12) is a TA-type sentence in which the same
adjective ozyee ‘be afraid (of something)’ now functions as a transitive adjective, taking
the experiencer argument (which is the locus of the emotion denoted by the adjective)
and the stimulus argument (which is the cause of the emotion). It is impossible for thetwo arguments to be connected with a genitive if the semantic interpretation of (12) isintended.
The fact that NCDM is found in TA-type sentences but not in DS-type ones is not
self-evident and requires an explanation. It will be discussed in Section 5.
3.2. Semantic type of the predicate
Another important fact about NCDM is that it is not regularly found in all TA-type
sentences. Roughly speaking, NCDM is more likely to occur with emotion predicates,
as in the examples noted above, than in bodily sensation predicates, as in (13).
(13)

oraa
tyuusya{=no/=*ba/=*ni}
1SG.TOP injection{=NOM/=ACC/=DAT}‘The injection hurts me.’ityaa.
painful.NPST

Not all emotion predicates allow NCDM, as illustrated in (14) below. Note that inthis particular example, the accusative may be used instead. In Section 4, we will
discuss complementary distribution of dative and accusative in the marking of thestimulus argument, a very important feature which allows for an understanding of theunderpinnings of NCDM.
(14)

oraa
hanako{=ga/=ba/=*ni}
1SG.TOP Hanako(person){=NOM/=ACC/=DAT}‘I hate Hanako.’nikii.
hate.NPST1
In Omae dialect, the genitive marker and the nominative marker take the same morpheme =ga. The genitivemarker is distinct from the nominative marker in terms of its intonation.

‘I’m Afraid of Thunder’: The Dative Stimulus Construction in Japanese Dialects

45

Speakers’ judgments about which predicate allows or disallows NCDM varies
considerably from one speaker to another. Table 2 lists the results of our elicitation inwhich three speakers of Omae (FO, CO, and KO) were asked to judge whether or not
a given adjective may allow NCDM. Eight emotion adjectives and nine sensation
adjectives were chosen for this elicitation. The blank cell indicates that the datum has
not yet been collected.
FO
OK
OK
OK
-

CO
OK
OK
OK
?
-

Table 2

KO
OK
OK
OK
?
-

The predicate of NCDM in Omae

emotionafraidharddislike
dread
hate
glad
like
want

FO
-

CO
OK
OK
-

KO
-

Sensation
Cold
Painfulill-smelling
BitterNoisyhot, spicy
Sour
Sweet
delicious

Table 2 enables us to suggest two important generalizations about NCDM in Omae:(15) If a speaker allows NCDM for any of the sensation adjectives, then they allow
NCDM for at least one of the emotion adjectives. Thus, there is a hierarchicalrelationship between the two lexical classes of adjectives in terms of the likelihoodof NCDM use: Emotion > Sensation.
(16) NCDM is more likely to occur with a stimulus argument that is depicted as
evoking a ‘negative’ emotion or sensation (e.g. ‘afraid’, ‘dislike’, ‘painful’, etc.)
than with one that is depicted as evoking a ‘positive’ emotion or sensation (e.g.
‘glad’, ‘want’, ‘like’, ‘sweet’, ‘delicious’). Again, we can postulate a hierarchicalrelationship: Negative stimuli (i.e., stimuli that causes negative effects on theexperiencer) > Positive stimuli (i.e., stimuli that causes positive effects on theexperiencer). In other words, a speaker who allows NCDM for the lower end of
the hierarchy always allows NCDM for the higher end.
4. NCDM from a typological perspective
NCDM poses a number of theoretical-typological questions. What makes it
particularly interesting cross-linguistically is the fact that it is the stimulus, not theexperiencer, which is dative-marked. In a cross-linguistically common pattern, theexperiencer is non-canonically marked, typically with the dative case (e.g., Haspelmath

46

MATSUOKA, Aoi, Hiroshi Miyaoka and Michinori Shimoji2001). We naturally wonder what is the motivation for the cross-linguistically rarer
non-canonical marking and why the dative case is used for this purpose. In this section
we suggest a hypothesis so that the above-mentioned questions can be answered.
We claim that the use of the dative case for the stimulus argument is synchronicallywell motivated if we pay attention to the semantic similarity between the stimulus
argument of TA-type sentences and the passive agent of a passive sentence. As an initialapproximation, let us characterize the stimulus argument and the passive agent as‘secondary agents’, in the sense that they have the semantic properties of an agent but
they are syntactically not coded as the subject of a sentence. Let us consider (17), which
illustrates NCDM of a TA-type sentence, and (18), which illustrates dative-marking ofa passive agent.
(17)

oraa
kaminari=ni
ozyee.
1SG.TOP thunder=DAT
afraid.NPST‘I’m afraid of thunder.’ (NCDM for the stimulus)(18)

tubo=notaroo=ni
war-are-ta.
vase=NOM Taroo(person)=DAT
break-PASS-PST‘The vase was broken by Taroo.’ (dative-marking for the passive agent)(17) depicts a situation where the experiencer ora (first person) feels afraid due tothe stimulus kaminari ‘thunder’. What is notable about the experiencer is its lack or
considerable reduction of agency. In fact, it is more like a patient in the sense that theexperiencer is emotionally affected. In (17), it is the stimulus argument kaminari‘thunder’ that is more like an agent: it causes the emotion of fear on the part of theexperiencer, and it is an instigator of the emotion/sensation event concerned, a feature
crucially pertaining to a prototypical agent (Dowty 1991, Naess 2007).
In this way, we associate NCDM in (17) with the dative-marking in passive
constructions as in (18), with the assumption that dative-marking in this language
functions to indicate a secondary agent, i.e., a non-subject agent or agent-like argument,i.e., the stimulus kaminari in (17) and the agent taroo in (18). Our analysis accords wellwith the fact that NCDM is possible only in TA-type sentences and not in DS-type
sentences (Section 3.1): there is no agent-like argument in DS-type sentences. Also, as
we noted in Section 3.2, NCDM shows complementary distribution with accusative
marking. This is a natural result of the analysis that NCDM functions to mark an agent,
given that accusative prototypically marks a patient.

‘I’m Afraid of Thunder’: The Dative Stimulus Construction in Japanese Dialects

47

5. Cross-dialectal comparison
The two hierarchical generalizations suggested for Omae (Section 3.2) hold for atleast two other dialects of Kyushu that we surveyed: the Kitagata dialect of Takeo City
(Saga), and the Sato dialect of Koshikishima Island (Kagoshima). The Sato data arefrom Kubozono (2018). Table 3 compares the results of the elicitation of NCDM where
we asked the speakers to judge whether or not NCDM may occur with each of theadjectives listed. The symbols ‘O’, ‘K’ and ‘S’ represent Omae, Kitagata, and Satorespectively. Blank cells indicate that the data have not yet been collected.
O
OK
OK
OK
-

Table 3

K
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK

The predicates with NCDM in Omae, Kitagata and Sato

S
OK
OK
OK
OK

emotionafraiddislike
hard
glad
dread
hate
troublesome
like

O
-

K
OK
OK
OK
OK
-

S
OK

OK

sensation
painfulastringent
ill-smelling
noisy
cold
bitterdelicious
hot, spicysweet

It is unclear at this stage how to interpret the above hierarchies. Haspelmath (2001:
8) suggests that the stimulus argument of an emotion predicate is more likely to betreated like an agent than that of a sensation predicate, with the assumption that emotion
is less rational and is uncontrollable, making the experiencer less like an agent, though
Haspelmath is cautious about this assumption itself. At any rate, if this is a crosslinguistically valid analysis, the hierarchy of Emotion > Sensation can be interpreted asa hierarchy of stimulus arguments that are likely to behave like agents, and our analysis
explains why Emotion is higher than Sensation: dative-marking functions to mark an
agent-like argument. However, as Haspelmath himself admits, we need to be cautious
about the way agency is discussed here, as it is difficult to argue for or against the claim
objectively.
6. Conclusion
The present study has examined a cross-linguistically rare pattern of non-canonicalargument marking found in Omae and other western Japanese dialects: NCDM, noncanonical dative-marking of the stimulus argument of adjectival experiencer
constructions. NCDM in Omae is restricted to sentences of what we call the TA(transitive adjective) type, which take an experiencer and a stimulus as required
arguments; NCDM is not found in sentences of the DS (double subject) type. We

48

MATSUOKA, Aoi, Hiroshi Miyaoka and Michinori Shimoji

argued that this restriction can be explained by assuming that dative marking indicatesa ‘secondary agent’. Since the stimulus behaves like an agent, as it emotionally or
sensationally affects the experiencer, there is a motivation for NCDM in TA-type
sentences, while there is no motivation for NCDM in DS-type sentences, as there is no
agent-like argument. We also suggested two hierarchies that describe the likelihood of
the occurrence of NCDM: Emotion > Sensation, and Positive stimuli > Negative stimuli.
A speaker who allows NCDM for the lower end of these hierarchies always allows
NCDM for the higher end.
Our survey of NCDM is still ongoing and our suggested analyses may well be subject
to modifications and refinement when new data are added. As noted in Section 2,
NCDM is not a unique phenomenon of Omae but is found across western Japanesedialects. It is therefore necessary to broaden our focus to integrate these other dialects
into our analysis in future research.
Abbreviation
1
first person
DAT dative case
NPST non-past
PST past
SG
singular

ACC
NOM
PASS
SFP
TOP

accusative casenominative casepassivesentence final particle
topic

References
David, Dowty. 1991. “Thematic proto-roles and argument selection”. Language 67(3). pp.547–619.
Doi, Shigetoshi. 1958. Tosakotoba. Kochi: Kochishiritsu Shimin Tosyokan. [in Japanese]———. 1997a. “Shikokuno Hogen”. In Inoue Fumio Shikoku Hogenko. Tokyo: Yumani Syobo. pp.15–34. [inJapanese]———. 1997b. “Tosano Hogen”. In Inoue Fumio Shikoku Hogenko. Tokyo: Yumani Syobo. pp.35–74. [inJapanese]
Fujiwara, Yoichi. 1981. Chugoku San’indo Niyochi Hogen. Tokyo: Miyai Syoten. [in Japanese]———. 1997. Nihongo Hogen Zisyo: Syowa Heiseino Seikatsugo. Tokyo: Tokyodo Syuppan. [in Japanese]
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. “Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages”. In Alexandra Y.
Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon, and Masayuki Onishi (eds.) Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects.
Amsterdam: John Benjamin. pp.53–85.
Hiroto, Atsushi. 1949. Sanin Hogenno Gohoo: Izumo, Oki, Iwami, Hoki. Tottori: Shimane Shinbunsya. [inJapanese]
Kanazawa, Osamu. 1960. Awakotobano Jiten. Tokushima: Tokushimaken Kyoikuiinkai. [in Japanese]———. 1961. Awakotobano goho. Tokushima: Tokushima Chuo Kominkan Fuzoku Tosyokan. [in Japanese]‘I’m Afraid of Thunder’: The Dative Stimulus Construction in Japanese Dialects

49

Kanbe, Hiroyasu. 1978. Okihogenno Kenkyu. Tokyo: Kazama Syobo. [in Japanese]
Kaneda, Akihiro. to appear. “Miyazakiken Shiibason Kakuno Syoso”. In Nobuko Kibe, Shiro Takeuchi, andMichimori Shimoji (eds.) Nihongono Kakuhyogen. Tokyo: Kuroshio Syuppan. [in Japanese]
Kubozono, Ai. 2018. “Kagoshimaken Satohogenno Keyoshino Tokutyo”. 43rd Kyushu Hogen Kenkyukai. [inJapanese]
Makimoto, Kusuroo. 1925. Kibigun Minyosyu. Tokyo: Kyodo Kenkyusya. [in Japanese]
Mikaziri, Hiroshi. 1937. Oitakenhogenno Kenkyu. Tokyo: Hobundo. [in Japanese]Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Nihon Hoso Kyokai (ed.). 1966. Zenkoku Hogen Siryoo 3. Tokyo: Nihon Hoso Kyokai Syuppankai. [in Japanese]——— (ed). 1967. Zenkoku Hogen Siryoo 2. Tokyo: Nihon Hoso Kyokai Syuppankai. [in Japanese]Far Away but So Close to the HeartLooChoo (Ryukyuan) Language:
Revitalization Movement in Hawaiʻi *OHARA, Yumiko

University of Hawaiʻi at HiloSLEVIN, Trevor

University of Hawaiʻi at HiloOut of approximately 7,000 estimated languages in the world, about 10 percent ofthem have fewer than ten speakers remaining (The Endangered Languages Project).
Researchers have indicated that without efforts to revive them, not only these 10
percent but approximately half of all languages will become extinct within thiscentury (Grenoble and Whaley 2006, Harrison 2007). With such linguistic situation
becoming clearer and increasingly more attention has been paid to language
endangerment, in 2009, UNESCO designated LooChoo languages as endangered
languages (Mosley 2010). This paper concerns the efforts by the Okinawan diaspora
to revitalize LooChoo languages in Hawai‘i by illuminating three interrelated
activities; 1) monthly LooChoo language and culture workshops conducted at
University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, 2) annual LooChoo identity conferences, and 3) seriesof education tours to Okinawa for the residents of Hawai‘i and the mainland US.
Keywords: LooChoo, Ryukyuan languages, language shift, revitalization, Hawai‘i, Okinawa, diaspora

1. Brief historical background
2. LooChoo Studies workshops at University of Hawai‘i at Hilo
3. LooChoo Identity Conferences
4. Education tours to Okinawa
5. Discussion
6. Conclusion

1. Brief historical background
Language shift is a lengthy process involving various psychological, sociological,
and political components. One of the earliest factors affecting the shift in Okinawa
was the establishment of kaiwa denshūjo ʻconversation academy’ in 1880 by theJapanese government which was a school to train future teachers and interpreters
OHARA, Yumiko and SLEVIN, Trevor. 2019. “Far Away but So Close to the HeartLooChoo (Ryukyuan) Language:
Revitalization Movement in Hawaiʻi”. Proceedings of International Symposium “Approaches to Endangered
Languages in Japan and Northeast Asia (Poster Session)”. pp.50–59. [Permanent URL:
https://doi.org/10.15026/94154]

Far Away but So Close to the Heart: LooChoo Language Revitalization Movement in Hawaiʻi51

between Okinawan and Japanese (cf. Clarke 2012, Kondo 1993, Yoshimura 2013).
About 130 years later in 2009, UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger
listed eight endangered languages in Japan in which six were Ryukyuan languages.
According to the Atlas, Yonaguni and Yaeyama are severely endangered while Miyako,
Okinawa, Kunigami, and Amami are designated as “definitely endangered” (Mosley2010). Heinrich (2007) asserted that inter-generational transmission was interrupted in
the 1950’s and now we find people above the age of 70 or 75 to be fluent speakers andthose aged 50 and over to have some comprehensive ability with a sharp decline foryounger people. Some estimated that these Ryukyuan languages will vanish within thenext 50 years if concerted efforts are not begun soon (e.g., Read 2011).
Currently there are numerous attempts to strengthen these languages (cf. Heinrich2018). For instance, Okinawago fukyū kyōgikai ‘the Society for Okinawan Language
Revitalization’ was established in 2000 to promote local language use (see Ohara &Saft 2014, Hara & Heinrich 2015, Ishihara 2016). Other revitalization efforts that havebeen made in recent years include organizing speech contests, designating shimakutuba
nu hi ‘Okinawan community language day’ in 2006 by Okinawa prefecture, as well as
an increasing number of editorials and essays in Okinawan languages published by oneof the two newspapers in Okinawa, Okinawa Times. There are other such efforts
outside of Okinawa and this paper illuminates efforts taking place in Hawai‘i. Unlike
the examples that were mentioned above, these efforts are not initiated or run by thegovernment office but are grassroots movements. We will focus on three such efforts,
1) monthly LooChoo (‘LooChoo’ being the Okinawan pronunciation of ‘Ryukyu’)language and culture workshops conducted at University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, 2) annual
LooChoo identity conferences, and 3) series of education trips taken by the residents
of Hawai‘i and the mainland US to Okinawa.
Before we describe those, it is necessary to mention the special connection between
LooChoo and Hawai’i. Immigration of Okinawans to Hawai‘i began at the end of the
19th century and today Hawai‘i is the oldest and largest diaspora of Okinawans outsideof Okinawa (Matsumoto 1982) and approximately 50,000 people in Hawai‘i have
Okinawan ancestry (Shimada 2012). Therefore, it is not surprising at all to find that
there are many Okinawa organizations and associations in the state. United Okinawan
Association of Hawaii is one of the largest such organization and it was established in
1951. It was renamed as the Hawaii United Okinawa Association in 1995 and it is theumbrella organization for 50 clubs in the state of Hawai’i. Hui Okinawa and Maui
Okinawa Kenjinkai are association member clubs and many of these clubs are area
based such as Itoman shijinkai ‘association of people from Itoman’ and Yomitan club.

52

OHARA, Yumiko and Trevor Slevin

There are other organizations and associations outside of the Hawaii United Okinawa
Association in Hawai‘i and Ukwanshin Kabudan is one of them. It is an O‘ahu
Okinawan association which is also an Okinawa performing arts troupe working tomaintain traditional culture. They organize educational programs to promote culturalawareness and understanding especially among local Okinawans and Okinawans inJapan. Ukwanshin Kabudan has two founding members, Eric Wada and Norman
Kaneshiro, and both are master teachers of LooChooan traditional arts. Norman teaches
sanshin and Eric teaches traditional Okinawan dance and music and both have been in
their respective fields for over twenty years. These two descendants of immigrants to
Hawaiʻi are the main force behind three closely related language and culture
revitalization efforts that this paper is focused on.
2. LooChoo Studies workshops at University of Hawaiʻi at HiloOnce a month, members of Ukwanshin Kabudan, Hui Okinawa, the Hilo community,
and students at the University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo join the LooChoo Studies workshop
at Ka Haka ‘Ula o Ke‘elikōlani College of Hawaiian Language. Eric Wada and Norman
Kaneshiro fly in from Honolulu each month as the main instructors for the courses
provided in the workshop.
2.1. Background
These workshops have been conducted at the Hilo campus since February 2016, andbefore then at community members’ houses since September 2013. Gary Oshiro, oneof the organizing members of the workshop, stated that he and his wife used to holdthese workshops at their house with about twenty people attending. With the venuechanged to Hale ʻŌlelo, attendance grew greatly to over fifty people each month. HaleʻŌlelo is the Hawaiian language building at University of Hawai‘i at Hilo where theinternationally recognized revitalization and renormalization of Hawaiian language
takes place (Ohara 2016, Wilson 2018). Also, it is well knowing in the field of language
revitalization that the Hawaiian language is seen as one of the very few successful cases(Grenoble and Whaley 2006). It was at the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo in 1982 thatthe Hawaiian language was brought back as a medium of instruction into governmentfunded education, the first time this occurred since the ban of education through the
Hawaiian language in 1896. Hawaiian was thought to be one of the first languages
within Polynesia to be extinct in the 1980’s (Benton 1981), but now it shows somesigns of successful revitalization, including an increase in the number of speakers (e.g.,
Iokepa-Guerrero 2016). It is historically significant to have workshops to aim

Far Away but So Close to the Heart: LooChoo Language Revitalization Movement in Hawaiʻi53

revitalizing LooChoo languages and cultures at this venue and faculty members of the
Ka Haka ‘Ula o Keʻelikōlani are also organizing members of the workshop.

2.2. The schedule/contents
Generally, the schedule consists of a morning session in which Eric or Norman (orboth) conducts a presentation on a certain topic, such as dance, music, cuisine, social
issues, etc. The afternoon session consists of two different classes: the uta-sanshin class,and the uchināguchi class. Often there are additional class for udui (dance) and fwansoo(Okinawan Flute). Alongside all of this is usually a keiki (‘child’ in Hawaiian) class,so the workshop can work as a sort of daycare while exposing both children and theirparents to LooChoo languages and culture. The workshops are generally conductedfrom 10 am to 4 pm.
2.3. The themes
The themes for the workshops vary from linguistic, cultural, historical as well associological issues. The themes from February 2016 onward, when the workshops
moved to the University campus, are presented below.
February 2016 “Uchināguchi (Okinawan language)”
March 2016 “Okinawa Performing Arts”
April 2016 “Culture and Uchinaaguchi (Okinawan Language)”
May 2016 “Okinawa Performing Arts”
June 2016 “Haari and obon”
July 2016 “Living Ryukyuan textiles of Okinawa”
September 2016: “LooChoo identity through music”
October 2016: “The Art of Okinawan dance”
November 2016: “Uchinaanchu Taikai experiences”
January 2017: “Uchinaa New Year”
February 2017: “Mimi-gusui: Life Sustenance Through the Ears”
March 2017: “Defining moments in Ryukyuan history”
April 2017: “ʻImi – Seeking Our Dreams For Future Generations”
May 2017: “Uchinaa Kwacchi (Okinawan Foods)”
June 2017 “45th Anniversary of Okinawa’s reversion – Okinawa yesterday andtoday”
July 2017 “Yeisaa (Eisa) and Yaeyama Obon practices”
Aug 2017: “Okinawa Spirituality and Sacred Sites”

54

OHARA, Yumiko and Trevor Slevin

September 2017: “LooChoo Hairstyles and Clothing”
October 2017: “Sanshin Anatomy 101”
November 2017 “Uchinaanchu Identity”
January 2018 “Loochoo history through music: Edo Nobori”
February 2018 “Okinawa New Year”
March 2018 “Defining Shimanchu: Unity and Diversity of Loochoo People”
April 2018 “Defining Shimanchu: Unity and Diversity of Loochoo People”
May 2018 “Cultural Integrity in the Taketomi Island of Yaeyama: from the past
to the present”
June 2018 “Katachiki, or Bingata stencil dyed fabric”
July 2018 “Obon and Haari”
As it can be seen from these themes, these workshops aim to provide informationand insights for the local Okinawan diaspora in order to deepen their understanding aswell as the tie with their ancestral homeland.
2.4. The participants
The participants range in age from children to elders. While the majority are middleaged and older, students from University of Hawai‘i at Hilo including exchange
students from Okinawa consistently participate as well. While the workshops are
somewhat geared toward Hawai‘i uchinānchu and the majority of them are from thatgroup, anybody is welcome and it is free of charge. Many people who live in Hilo,eastern side of island of Hawai‘i, attend the workshops but residents of Kona, westernside of Hawai‘i Island, drive more than an hour and half to attend the workshop. The
number of participants varies month to month, but often hovers around 40. The largest
number of participants was 55.
2.5. Other workshops in Hawaiʻi
Besides the LooChoo Studies workshops at the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, themembers of Ukwanshin Kabudan hold other various workshops, classes, and study trips.
For instance, on Maui Island, Eric and Norman hold a monthly workshop. Norman
focuses on sanshin and singing, and Eric teaches dance, flute, shimakutuba and lion
and dragon dance. Keith Nakaganeku, another important member of Ukwanshin
Kabudan, teaches classes once a month in Waikoloa on the Island of Hawai‘i. In
Honolulu, Oʻahu, they hold twice a month shimakutuba classes and a weekly sanshinclass. From 2007, Eric and Norman started a monthly lecture series, and by 2009 started
doing classes and workshops including shimakutuba classes.

Far Away but So Close to the Heart: LooChoo Language Revitalization Movement in Hawaiʻi55

3. LooChoo Identity Conferences
The LooChoo Identity Conference (also LooChoo Identity Summit) is a three-day
conference held by Ukwanshin Kabudan. As the name suggests, the purpose is toconnect Okinawans (whether they be the diaspora or from Okinawa itself) with an
identity distinct from that of mainland Japan. With assistance from many community
members and volunteers, these conferences are held once a year in March. Occurring
since 2015, the summits usually alternate between the different Hawaiian islands. The
structure of the conference generally has the following components:
1.
2.
3.

a large presentation or skit to the entire body of participants
breakup into small, assigned groups, where moderators ask questions about
the presentation or skit and a recorder writes down the responses
return to the main conference hall where each group takes turns sharing their
discussions

Each conference or summit has its own theme that directs the various presentations
and skits that the small groups discuss. These themes themselves are guided by a phrase
or word in uchināguchi in order to highlight the relationship between language andidentity. The themes for each, as well as which island hosted that year, are listed below.
Maui 2015, Ninufwa Bushi Mii Ati - Looking to the North Star to Revitalize our
Okinawan Culture for the FutureOʻahu 2016, Fichi Ukiin: Our Responsibility, Our KuleanaOʻahu 2017, ‘Imi: Seeking our dreams
Hawaiʻi 2018, Kataibusan: Sustaining the breath of our native languages
Oʻahu 2019, Washiraran: Never forget
Based on our experience of participating in two of these conferences, we can say thatthe goals of these conferences are to deepen the relationship among the Okinawan
diaspora who reside not only in Hawai‘i but all over the world, and to strengthen therelationship between the Okinawan diaspora and people who currently live in Okinawa.
They also offer the opportunities for every participant to question their own cultural
identity and to explore a role that they can play in deepening and strengthening therelationship among uchinānchu world wide.
4. Education tours to Okinawa

56

OHARA, Yumiko and Trevor Slevin

About 10 years ago, Norman and Eric started to conduct a cultural study trip once ayear. They take a group of Hawaiian Okinawans to Okinawa where they visit several
significant sites and people to learn about Okinawan culture and history. Currently they
are planning to have a cultural trip for people from Okinawa to come to Hawaiʻi andlearn about Hawaiian culture and language revitalization. We will focus on the tour
conducted in 2016 where three professors and one curriculum developer from Ka Haka
Ula o Keʻelikōlani joined Eric Wada and Norman Kaneshiro and other Okinawans from
Hawai‘i. The tour also included attending the Sixth Worldwide Uchinānchu Taikai
which took place in Naha that year. These four representatives from the college were
carefully chosen and two of them, including the dean of the college, have Okinawan
ancestry and one was the former dean of the college. The last one, one of the authorsof this paper, was chosen for her ability to interpret among three languages, Hawaiian,English, and Japanese.
During the tour, the faculty of the college actively participated in a symposium,
conference, and concert. Government officials, teacher representatives, elders andstudent representatives on language revitalization attended the symposium, where we
discussed the following:
1.
2.
3.

how Hawaiian language was brought in to the education system
how the Hawaiian revitalization movement got the attention of thegovernment
how language education in academia is important and connects to theperforming arts and protocols

In this indigenous language conference which was sponsored by Ryukyu University,
the focus of the talk was what makes revitalization successful and each of therepresentatives shared their experiences and opinions. The topics for the conference
were as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

what has Ka Haka ‘Ula o Keʻelikōlani at University of Hawai‘i at Hilo done
to preserve and revitalize Hawaiian language?
why and how the program was started?
how training is done for language teachers?
what you do as a speaker of Hawaiian in your daily life and what you do withyour children to perpetuate the language at home?
what it means to speak and normalize the language?

Far Away but So Close to the Heart: LooChoo Language Revitalization Movement in Hawaiʻi

6.

57

what are the connections of language and culture?

There was also a concert titled “ʻIMI ~ Seeking One’s Self Through Dreams that
Cross the Ocean” where there were video interviews of the people of Ka Haka ‘Ula,
Hawaiian and Okinawan dances and songs. Those professors performed ‘oli ‘chanting’and hula.
5. Discussion
Often, language revitalization is a grassroots effort to take back an ancestral language(cf. Oberly et al. 2015, Cru 2015) and what we have described above are definitely
grassroots movements initiated by the Okinawan diaspora in Hawaiʻi. It is estimatedthat there are 420,000 Uchinānchu immigrants and their descendants in the world,which is approximately 40% of the current population of Okinawa. In Hawaiʻi, it iscommon for people to refer themselves as Okinawan instead of Japanese. For instance,
an article titled “Hawai‘i rainbow of cultures and how they got to the islands” in a local
magazine pointed out three distinct groups of people who migrated to Hawai‘i: Chinese,
Japanese, Portuguese, Hawaiian, Filipinos, Koreans, and Okinawans. “Okinawa is thesouthernmost prefecture of Japan, comprised of hundreds of islands, but Okinawans in
Hawaii rarely refer to themselves as Japanese. They are Okinawans, or Uchinanchu,
and proud of the distinction” (Fox 2017). Scholars such as Shiramizu (2013) indicatethat this distinction became more poplar in early 1980ʻs with strong influence from thecivil rights movement of the 1950ʻs and 60ʻs. Thus, it can be asserted that Uchinānchu
in Hawaiʻi are a more cohesive group than more general “Japanese-Americans” andmany of them have strong interest in issues concerning Okinawa including the
linguistic and cultural issues.
6. Conclusion
As language shift occurred in Okinawa in the 20th century, Okinawan associations
such as Hawaiʻi United Okinawa Association sprung up in the diaspora. When
Okinawans in Okinawa began shifting to a common Japanese identity during the
support of reversion in the 1960s, their cousins in Hawai‘i were seeking ways toconnect to their Ryukyuan roots. These efforts continue to this day, most notably in theform of the inter-island LooChoo Studies workshops and the annual LooChoo Identity
Summit. While these events focus more on building an Okinawan identity for thediaspora, this of course includes language. Efforts for revitalization are growing in
Okinawa itself and at the same time the diaspora in Hawai‘i has been making conscious

58

OHARA, Yumiko and Trevor Slevinefforts to remedy the situation. The workshops allow the diaspora to learn about theirancestral background, compounded by the language, to the point where they callthemselves “Okinawan-Americans/Okinawan-Hawaiians” rather than “JapaneseAmerican”. Furthermore, the annual summits provide an arena for discussion among
different communities on problem solving efforts for Okinawa. Since the context is
Hawai‘i, these brainstorms usually involve inspiration from the Hawaiian revitalization
movement. The leaders of this movement themselves even attended the Sixth
Worldwide Uchinaanchu Taikai in 2016, with their own symposiums, in an attempt todemonstrate the successes of revitalization in Hawai‘i. With governmental andeducational bodies in attendance as well as sponsoring, the Taikai served as a study
session, one that spectators hopefully took valuable knowledge away from. As pointed
out by Hinton et al (2018), the goal and purpose of revitalizing varies according to alanguage; however, sharing remarkable historical and political parallels, the Hawaiian
revitalization movement, with over thirty years of actual experience, can definitely
reveal some of the possible outcomes of revitalization for the Okinawan people. As
times are politically troubling for Okinawa, as revitalization grows in popularity butlacks the proper society-wide commitment and support, the Okinawans in Hawai‘i,with a renewed sense of identity, are active in language and culture revitalization fromislands afar, yet islands nonetheless.

References
Clarke, Hugh. 2012. “The debate over language education in pre-war Okinawa”. Arts the Journal of the Sydney
University Art Association 34. pp.7–26.
Cru, Josep. 2015. “Language revitalisation from the ground up: promoting Yucatec Maya on Facebook”. Journalof Multilingual and Multicultural Development 26, 3. pp. 284–296.
Fox, Catherine Toth. “Hawaii’s rainbow of cultures and how they got to the Islands”. Hawai‘i Magazine. Sept. 26,
2017. accessed on January 5, 2019. https://www.hawaiimagazine.com/content/hawaiis-rainbow-culturesand-how-they-got-islands
Grenoble, Lenore A. and Lindsay J. Whaley. 2006. Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hara, Kiyoshi and Patrick Heinrich. 2015. “Linguistic and cultural revitalization”. In Patrick Heinrich, Shinsho
Mihara, Michinori Shimoji (eds.) Handbook of the Ryukyuan Languages: History, Structure and Use. Berlin,
Boston, Munich: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 649–665.
Heinrich, Patrick. 2007. “Look who’s talking: Language choices in the Ryukyu Islands”. LAUD Working Papers
691. Essen: Duisburg-Essen University.
-----. 2018. “Revitalization of the Ryukyuan languages”. In Leanne Hinton, Leena Huss, and Gerald Roche. (eds.)
The Routledge Handbook of Language Revitalization. New York: Routledge. pp. 455–463.
Kondo, Kenichiro. 1993. “Gakkoo ga ʻyamatoya’ to yobareta koro: Ryukyu shobun chokugo no okinawa ni okeru
gakkoo [Time when school was called ‘yamatoya’: Schools in Okinawa right after disposition of Ryukyu]”.
The Annual Reports on Educational Science, 61. pp. 105–142. [in Japanese?]Far Away but So Close to the Heart: LooChoo Language Revitalization Movement in Hawaiʻi

59

Iokepa-Guerrero, Noelani. 2016. “Revitalization programs and impacts in the USA and Canada”. In Serafin M.
Coronel-Molina and Teresa L. McCarty (eds.) Indigenous Language Revitalization in the Americas. New
York: Routledge. pp. 227–246.
Ishihara, Masahide. 2016. In Ishihara, Masahide, Eiichi Hoshino, Yoko Fujita (eds.) Self-determinable
Development of Small Islands. Singapore: Springer. pp. 67–82.
Matsumoto, Y. Scott. 1982. Okinawa migrants to Hawaii. Hawaiian Journal of History, 16. pp. 125–133.
Moseley, Christopher (ed.). 2010. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, 3rd ed. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Online version: http://www.unesco.org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages/atlas
Oberly, Stacey, Dedra White, Arlene Millich, Mary Inez Cloud, Lillian Seibel, Crystal Ivey, Lorelei Cloud. 2015.
“Southern Ute Grassroots Language Revitalization”. Language Documentation & Conservation 9.pp. 324–
343.
Ohara, Yumiko. 2016. “Re-inventing Hawaiian identity: Conception of ethnicity and language in the language
revitalization movement”. Internationales Asienforum 47, 1–2. pp.57–80.
Ohara, Yumiko and Scott Saft. 2014. “Ryukyushogo no keishoo o torimodosu: Hawaigo fukkoo undoo no rei kara
[To regain the transmission of Ryuukyuu languages: From the example of Hawaiian language revitalization]”.
In Nichinori Shimoji and Patrick Heinrich (eds.) Mezase Ryukyushogo no Iji [For the maintenance of Ryukyu
languages] Tokyo: Koko Shuppan. [in Japanese]
Read, Zachary. 2011. Number of speakers of central Okinawan. The Endangered Language Project. retrieved on
March 7, 2018. http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/lang/5354
Shimada, Noriko. 2012. “The Emergence of Okinawan Ethnic Identity in Hawai‘i: Wartime and Postwar
Experiences”. The Japanese Journal of American Studies, 23. pp. 117–138.
Shiramizu, Shigehiko. 2013. “The creation of ethnicity: Hawaii’i Okinawan community”. Japan Social Innovation
Journal 3, 1. pp. 19–35.
The Endangered Languages Project. Introducing the Endangered Language Project. accessed on March 6, 2018.
http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/
Wilson, William H. 2018. “Higher education in indigenous language revitalization”. In Leanne Hinton, Leena
Huss and Gerald Roche (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Language revitalization. Routledge: New Yorkand London. pp. 83–93.
Yoshimura, Sayaka. 2013. “Gaikugo kara kokugo e: Okinawa ni okeru nihongo kyōikushi [From a foreign
language to national language: History of education in Okinawa]”. Japanisch als Fremdsprache 3. pp. 76–
83. [in Japanese?]Zero-Subject in the ‘be done’ Construction in Irish
YAMADA, Leo

Doctoral Course, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

Irish has two types of zero-subject: impersonal is expressed by a special verb
conjugation; apersonal is expressed by a third-person singular verb form, but nogrammatical subject appears in the clause. The ‘be done’ construction is a periphrastic
perfect construction composed of an auxiliary verb and a verbal adjective (also called
past participle). This paper considers characteristics of these two zero-subjects, basedon data retrieved from an online corpus. As a result, the present paper argues that zerosubjects of the impersonal ‘be done’ construction denote a semantic agent, while thoseof the apersonal ‘be done’ construction denote a semantic patient. In addition, theimpersonal ‘be done’ construction is very rare. It is proposed that this is because the‘be done’ construction takes a semantic patient as a grammatical subject in the vast
majority of cases, and this feature is incompatible with the characteristics of thesubject of the impersonal form.
Keywords: Irish, impersonal, zero-subject

1. Introduction
2. Previous research
3. Problems with previous research
4. Methodology
5. Results and considerations
6. Conclusion

1. Introduction
This paper considers the two types of zero-subjects that can be taken by the ‘be done’
construction in the Irish language 1 (Indo-European, Celtic, Insular, Goidelic).

YAMADA, Leo. 2019. “Zero-Subject in the ‘be done’ Construction in Irish”. Proceedings of International
Symposium “Approaches to Endangered Languages in Japan and Northeast Asia (Poster Session)”. pp.60–72.
[Permanent URL: https://doi.org/10.15026/94155]
1
The Irish language is spoken in Ireland by 44,000 people and labeled as definitely endangered (UNESCO). The
total population on the Island of Ireland is approximately 660 million (480 million in the Republic of Ireland and180 million in Northern Ireland). Irish is the first official language in the Republic of Ireland, but most people
speak the second one, English, in their daily life. These days, the language is spoken in some areas called Gaeltacht.
The preservation of the language is encouraged by the government and it is taught in schools as an obligatory
subject.

Zero-Subject in the ‘be done’ Construction in Irish

61

I will argue that the semantic role (agent or patient 2) of a grammatical subject isrelevant with respect to the use of the two types of zero-subjects with the ‘be done’
construction: one type favors agents and the other favors patients.
First, some previous research (on the ‘be done’ construction, on the two types ofzero-subjects and on zero-subject in the ‘be done’ construction) will be overviewed in§2 and some problems of analysis will be presented in §3. Then, the methodology ofthe study will be given in §4, and the results in §5.
Note that any glosses and translations without a special indication are ours.
2. Previous researchThis section describes previous research on the ‘be done’ construction in §2.1,
research on the two types of zero-subjects in §2.2 (the impersonal zero-subject in §2.2.1,
and the apersonal zero-subject in §2.2.2), and on their combination, zero-subject in the‘be done’ construction, in §2.3.
2.1. The ‘be done’ construction
Modern Irish has a VSO word order, as exemplified in (1). There, the first element
léigh ‘read’ is the main verb, the second one mé ‘I’ (agent) is the grammatical subject,
and the last one an leabhar ‘the book’ (patient) is the grammatical object. In this paper,
such basic clauses will be called the simple tense construction. 3(1) Léigh mé an leabhar.
léigh-Ø méanleabhar-Ø
read-PST 1SG.CNJTV DEF.M.NOM book.M-SG.NOM‘I read the book’
When the ‘be done’ construction is applied to the simple tense construction, the result
is like (2). This clause is composed of the substantive verb bí ‘be’ (tá in the present
tense) and the verbal adjective of the verb léite ‘read’ (< léigh ‘read’). The patient anleabhar ‘the book’, which corresponds to the grammatical object in the simple tense
construction (1), is the grammatical subject in the ‘be done’ construction, while theagent agam ‘by me’, which corresponds to the grammatical subject in (1), is expressedby the preposition ag ‘at’ in (2).

In this paper, the terms agent and patient denote semantic roles, not syntactic arguments.
This concept can be contrasted with the composed tense (e.g., in French, j’aimai ‘I loved’ [simple past] and j’ai
aimé ‘I have loved’ [composed past]).

2
3

62

YAMADA, Leo(2) Tá an leabhar léite agam.
tá-Øanleabhar-Ø
lé-iteag-am
be-PRS DEF.M.NOM book.M-SG.NOM read-VA at-1SG‘I have the book read.’[example and translation from Ó Siadhail (1989: 299–300)]
The ‘be done’ construction is often called the perfective passive, but as Ó Siadhail(1989) points out, it can be applied to intransitive clauses like (3).
(3) Tá sé imithe.
tá-Øsé
im-ithebe-PRS 3SG.M.CNJTV go.out-VA‘He is gone off’
[example and translation from Ó Siadhail (1989: 299–300)]
When the ‘be done’ construction is applied to an intransitive clause, syntactic
manipulations such as the promotion or demotion of arguments cannot occur and thegrammatical subject in the simple tense construction retains its grammatical status evenin the ‘be done’ construction.
In this paper, the author will not consider the features of the ‘be done’ construction
itself, but the way in which it must be related to some sorts of the perfect tense.
2.2. Two types of zero-subjects
Concerning zero-subjects, na Bráithre Críostaí (1999)4 have suggested:
An Saorbhriathar: Is iad uimhir agus pearsa an ainmní a chinneann uimhir agus
pearsa an bhriathair. Nuair nach luaitear aon ainmní úsáidtear foirm ar a dtugtar an
saorbhriathar, sin nó foirm an tríú pearsa uatha gan ghníomhaí. Tá an saorbhriathar saorar uimhir agus ar phearsa. Is gnách foirmeacha pearsanta a thabhairt ar na foirmeacha
briathartha nach saorbhriathra.
The Free verb: It is the number and the person of the subject which determine thenumber and the subject of the verb. When any subject is not mentioned a form, calleda free verb, or the third-person singular form without an agent, is used. The free verb isfree from a number or a person. Personal forms are usually given to the verbal forms
which are not free verbs.
4

En. the Christian Brothers.

Zero-Subject in the ‘be done’ Construction in Irish

63[na Bráithre Críostaí (1999: 156)]
In other words, in Irish, there are two possibilities for the realization of zero-subjects.
In this paper, I follow the terms in Hewitt (2002), which is a study on Breton (the otherbranch of the insular Celtic languages), and call them:
α: impersonal – free verbs
β: apersonal – third-person singular verbs without an agent
2.2.1. Impersonal zero-subject
In the following lines concerning the impersonal zero-subject, na Bráithre Críostaí(1999) use the term impersonal (neamhphearsanta in Irish) in a broad sense, so that it
includes both impersonal and apersonal in this paper:
Is iad na saorbhriathra na foirmeacha neamhphearsanta is coitianta. Úsáidtear iad
nuair nach mian nó nach gá nó nach féidir an gníomhaí a lua.
Is minic a fhreagraíonn an saorbhriathar aistreach don fhaí chéasta atá i dteangacha
eile:
The free verbs are the most common impersonal forms. They are used when it is notdesirable nor necessary nor possible to mention an agent.
It is often the case that the transitive free verb corresponds to the passive voice which
exists in other languages.
[na Bráithre Críostaí (1999: 189)]
The sentence in (4) is an example of such a use, which corresponds to the passive
voice in English.
(4) osclaítear an doras in ainm an rí.
osclaí-tearandoras-Ø
in ainm-Ø
open-HPRS.IMPERS DEF.M.NOM door.M-SG.NOM in name.M-SG.NOM
anrí-Ø
DEF.M.GEN king.M-SG.GEN‘the door is opened in the king’s name’[na Bráithre Críostaí (1999: 189)]

64

YAMADA, Leo

Concerning the impersonal form in the Celtic languages, Hewitt (2002) has
suggested:
All the Celtic languages have “impersonal” verb forms in -r and -d. In Englishlanguage Celtic studies, the term “autonomous” is also used. These forms are said tobe related to the “passive” conjugation of Latin (-itur 5), but there is only one form pertense (at least in the modern languages ...).
[Hewitt (2002: 15)]
In other words, verbs in many languages have six forms per tense (conjugated forthree persons and two numbers), but verbs in the Celtic languages have seven forms
per tense, as shown in Table 1. Note that, however, the paradigm of verb conjugationin Irish is incomplete, so that in the habitual present tense, only the first-person singularand the first-person plural have a conjugated form, while others are expressed
analytically with personal pronouns.
Table 1

Irish Conjugation

dún ‘close’: habitual present

1st
2nd
3rd
impersonal

SG

Dúnaimdúnann tú
dúnann sé
DúntarPL

dúnaimiddúnann sibh
dúnann siad

[from na Bráithre Críostaí (1999: 160)]

2.2.2. Apersonal zero-subject
According to Stenson (1989), some sort of agent can be conceived in the impersonal
zero-subject in Irish. For example, she argues that, as illustrated by examples (5) and(6), the impersonal form cannot be used like in (5) because ‘no agent, even implicit, ispossible’, and the apersonal form is instead used, like in (6).
(5) *Neartaíodh ar an ngaoth.
neart-aíodh
ar anE
gaoth-Ø
strengthen-PST.IMPERS on DEF.F.NOM wind.F-SG.NOM(‘The wind strengthened’)[example and translation from Stenson (1989: 387)]

5This is the indicative passive present third-person singular (e.g., emitur ‘it is bought’).

Zero-Subject in the ‘be done’ Construction in Irish

65(6) Neartaigh ar an ngaoth.
neart-aighar anE
gaoth-Ø
strengthen-PST on DEF.F.NOM wind.F-SG.NOM‘The wind strengthened’[example and translation from Stenson (1989: 386)]
The finite verb in the initial position of (6) is originally the third-person singularform (and sometimes it is referred to in this way), but no grammatical subject can occur
in this type of construction. This is the apersonal zero-subject examined in this paper.
2.3. Zero-subject in the ‘be done’ construction
Stenson (1989) has argued that the impersonal zero-subject can be applied to the ‘bedone’ construction, as in the following example:(7) Táthar buailte againn.
tá-tharbuail-te ag-ainnbe-PRS.IMPERS hit-VA
at-1PL‘They’ve been beaten by us’[example and translation from Stenson (1989: 393)]
As mentioned in §2.1, the grammatical object (patient) of the simple tense
construction is promoted to the grammatical subject in the ‘be done’ construction. The
impersonal zero-subject is then applied to it, like in (7), where the promoted subject(the grammatical object in the simple tense construction) has been deleted and thesubstantive verb bí ‘be’ as an auxiliary is conjugated to the impersonal form táthar.
In other words, when the third-person plural pronoun siad ‘they’ in a personal ‘bedone’ construction like (8) is deleted and the substantive verb tá ‘is’ is conjugated tothe impersonal form, this results in an impersonal ‘be done’ construction like (7).
(8) Tá siad buailte againn.
tá-Ø
siad
buail-tebe-PRS 3PL.CNJTV hit-VA‘They’ve been beaten by us’

ag-sinn
at-1PL

Stenson (1989) seems to consider that even in the impersonal ‘be done’ construction,
as in the impersonal simple tense construction, some sort of subject expressed by theimpersonal form is conceived (a patient in the former, and an agent in the latter).

66

YAMADA, Leo

In addition, instances of the apersonal ‘be done’ construction also occur, although
Stenson (1989) does not take these into considerations. The following are examples
retrieved from an online corpus, Nua-Chorpas na hÉireann (The New Corpus for
Ireland).
(9) Nuair a bhí ite, ólta againn,nuair aL
bí-Ø
i-te
ól-ta
ag-ainnwhen REL.DIR be-PST eat-VA drink-VA at-1PL‘When (it) was eaten, drunk by us,’[icfe9802]

For this paper, a survey was carried out based on this corpus regarding the impersonal‘be done’ construction and the apersonal ‘be done’ construction in order to clarify thedifference between the two.
3. Problems with previous research
The impersonal ‘be done’ construction, as illustrated by Stenson (1989) in (7), in fact,is hardly used in the Nua-Chorpas na hÉireann corpus. In contrast, the apersonal ‘bedone’ construction, like in (9), is used more often.
Regarding the characteristics of the zero-subject of the impersonal form, Stenson(1989) proposes the same interpretation for both the simple tense construction and the‘be done’ construction. However, the zero-subject of the impersonal form issemantically an agent in the simple tense construction and semantically a patient in the‘be done’ construction. Can her interpretation truly be applied to both constructions,even though the semantic role of each of their subjects is quite different (agent andpatient)?
In addition, Stenson does not consider the apersonal ‘be done’ construction.
It is hypothesized in this paper that the subject of the impersonal form is limited toan agent, so that the impersonal form is incompatible with the ‘be done’ construction,
which takes a patient as the grammatical subject.
4. Methodology
As mentioned above, the online corpus used for this study was Nua-Chorpas na
hÉireann (The New Corpus for Ireland). This corpus contains 34,358,267 tokens and29,886,201 words in total. It must be noted, however, that all of the corpus texts wereZero-Subject in the ‘be done’ Construction in Irish

67

used for this study, which means that some texts whose author is not a native speaker
or which have been translated from another language were also included.
The following queries were used for the search:
α: impersonal[lemma=“bí” & tag=“Vm..0”]• substantive verb bí ‘be’• verb (V), main verb (m), all moods (.), all tenses (.), person: impersonal (0)β: apersonal[lemma=“bí” & tag=“Vm..”]• substantive verb bí ‘be’• verb (V), main verb (m), all moods (.), all tenses (.)
When the person is not designated, the third person singular form is obtained.
The data retrieved were then filtered by the regular expression: *(ta|te|tha|the|fa).
These five forms are the possible endings of the verbal adjective. Note that, however,
not all words ending in these five are verbal adjectives.
Last, it must also be noted that too many instances of the apersonal were retrieved toconsider them all, so that only clauses beginning with the substantive verb bí ‘be’ areincluded in this paper, i.e. only clauses where neither an adverb (adverbial phrase) nor
relative clause marker appears before the substantive verb bí ‘be’ will be taken into
consideration.
5. Results and considerations
The type counts of the two zero-subject constructions in the corpus are given in Table
2.
Table 2Frequency in CorpusTypeimpersonal ‘be done’
apersonal ‘be done’

frequency
33
2,429

As expected, the impersonal ‘be done’ construction is very rare. Note that, thefrequency of the apersonal ‘be done’ construction may not be exact, as explained in theprevious section.

68

YAMADA, Leo

5.1. Impersonal ‘be done’ construction
Examples of the impersonal ‘be done’ construction with the following verbs
occurred in the corpus (number of examples noted in parentheses):
tosaigh ‘begin’ (8), tar ‘come’ (4), fág ‘leave’ (2), tabhair ‘give’ (2), oscail ‘open’(2), gabh ‘take’ (2), meáigh ‘estimate’ (2), éirigh ‘rise’ (1), ceangail ‘tie’ (1), tóg‘raise’ (1), imigh ‘go out’ (1), suigh ‘sit’ (1), bailigh ‘gather’ (1), caill ‘lose’ (1), mill‘ruin’ (1), faigh ‘find’ (1), clis ‘jump’ (1), sáigh ‘thrust’ (1)The verb tosaigh ‘begin’ is the most frequent. In the case of this verb, the impersonal‘be done’ construction, the zero-subject should be interpreted as an agent, who
performs the event voluntarily.
(10) Táthar tosaithe ag obair cheana féintá-thartos-aithe ag obair
be-PRS.IMPERS begin-VA at work.VN‘(They) have begun working already’cheana
ever

féin
self

(11) Táthar tosaithe ar chóireáil a dhéanamhtá-thartos-aithe arL cóireáil-Ø
aL
be-PRS.IMPERS begin-VA on treatment.F-SG.NOM to‘(They) have begun to do treatment’[iwx00480]

déan-amh
do-VN[itgm0119]

When motion verbs such as tar ‘come’, éirigh ‘rise’, etc. are rendered in theimpersonal ‘be done’ construction, their deleted subject will be interpreted as an agent 6
and this fact is compatible with the present hypothesis.
(12) táthar tagtha go dtí an staidtá-thartag-tha goE t-íanstaid-Ø
be-PRS.IMPERS come-VA CMPL come-SUBJ DEF.F.NOM stadium.F-SG.NOM‘(they) have come to the stadium’[iwxu0101]

6

Note that, again, this term should be understood as a semantic one; it denotes the entity who performs the event.

Zero-Subject in the ‘be done’ Construction in Irish

69(13) táthar éirithe níos loime.
tá-tharéir-ithe ní-Ø+is
lom-iebe-PRS.IMPERS rise-VA thing.M-SG.NOM+be.COP.PRS.REL.DIR close-COMP‘(they) have risen more closely’[itfo0023]
As a result, in about half of the examples the zero-subjects denote the agent of an
intransitive clause, who performs the event. Some examples with a zero-subject are
difficult to analyze; further research should be done to address such cases.
5.2. Apersonal ‘be done’ construction
Many examples of the apersonal ‘be done’ construction occurred with a transitiveverb. The list of verbs is omitted here, however, because the construction is used withan enormous variety of verbs. In the following two examples, the zero-subject clearly
denotes a patient (the thing which is written or learned).
(14) Tá scríofa sna seanleabhair gurb (...)
tá-Ø scrío-fa i+na
sean=leabhar-i
go+is
be-PRS write-VA in+DEF.PL.NOM old=book.M-PL.NOM that+be.COP.PRS‘(It) has been written in the old books that (...)’[icco1126](15) Tá foghlamtha acu faoin slabhra a nascann na bláthannatá-Ø foghlam-tha ag+iad faoi+an
slabhra-Øabe-PRS learn-VA
at+3PL under+DEF.M.NOM chain.M-SG.NOM REL.DIR
nasc-ann nabláth-annatie-HPRS DEF.PL.NOM flower.M-PL.NOM‘(It) has been learnt by them about the chain which ties the flowers’[icla1496]
The verb tosaigh ‘begin’ occurs in the impersonal ‘be done’ construction, and it isalso used in the apersonal ‘be done’ construction. In the following example, the zerosubject is a patient, and the agent is expressed with the preposition ag ‘at’.
(16) Tá tosaithe ag Mac Scaidín ar rince.
tá-Ø tos-aithe ag Mac-Ø
Scaidín-Ø
arbe-PRS begin-VA at PN.M-SG.NOM PN.M-SG.NOM onrince-Ø
dance.M-SG.NOM

70

YAMADA, Leo‘(It) has been begun by Mac Scaidín to dance’(= ‘Mac Scaidín has begun to dance’)[icco1232]
When example (16) with the verb tosaigh ‘begin’ is rendered in the simple tense
construction, the result is a clause like (17). This is an intransitive clause and only anagent appears in the clause.
(17) Thosaigh Mac Scaidín ar rince.
L
tos-aigh Mac-Ø
Scaidín-Øar rince-ØPM begin-PST PN.M-SG.NOM PN.M-SG.NOM on dance.M-SG.NOM‘Mac Scaidín began to dance’
Even though this clause is intransitive – remember example (3) in §1, where agrammatical subject in the simple tense construction retains its grammatical position inthe ‘be done’ construction – it can derive the apersonal ‘be done’ construction like (16)as if there were a patient as a grammatical object. This method can be formalized withthe symbol Ø for the zero-subject as follows: thosaigh Mac Scaidín Ø ar rince (lit.
‘Mac Scaidín began Ø on dance’) > tá Ø tosaithe ag Mac Scaidín ar rince (lit. ‘Ø isbegun by Mac Scaidín on dance’).
The situation of example (18) is very different from that of example (16). In (18),the zero-subject is expressed by the impersonal form and clearly denotes an agent.
(18) Táthar tosaithe ag obair cheana féintá-thartos-aithe ag obair
be-PRS.IMPERS begin-VA at work.VN‘(They) have begun working already’cheana
ever

féin
self

[iwx00480; identical to (10)]

6. Conclusion
Statistically, the frequencies of the impersonal ‘be done’ construction and theapersonal ‘be done’ construction are very different (33 versus 2479). This is most likely
because of the incompatibility of the impersonal form and the ‘be done’ construction:the ‘be done’ construction takes a patient as a grammatical subject in the vast majorityof cases (transitive verbs and some intransitive verbs) but the impersonal form normallyrequires an agent for its zero-subject.

Zero-Subject in the ‘be done’ Construction in Irish

71

Consider the following simple tense construction ‘they began to dance’:(19) Thosaigh siad ar rinceL
tos-aighsiad
PM begin-PST
3PL.CNJTV
lit. ‘they began on dance’aronrince-Ø
dance.M-SG.NOM

If the agent as a grammatical subject becomes unspecified, i.e., zero-subject, it will
derive an impersonal ‘be done’ construction, exemplified in (20). In this case, theauxiliary verb bí ‘be’ is conjugated to an impersonal form and the agent in the form ofa zero-subject can be said to be placed in the grammatical subject position (just after
the finite verb).
(20) IMPERSONAL
Táthar Ø tosaithe ar rincetá-tharØ tos-aithe ar
be-PRS.IMPERS
begin-VA on‘Ø has begun on dance’

rince-Ø
dance.M-SG.NOM

In contrast, if the agent as a grammatical subject remains specified, it will derive anapersonal ‘be done’ construction, exemplified in (21). In this case. the agent is demoted
to a prepositional phrase and the patient in the form of a zero-subject is promoted to thegrammatical subject position.
(21) APERSONAL
Tá Ø tosaithe acu ar rincetá-ØØ tos-aithe ac-uar
be-PRS
begin-VA at-3PL on‘Ø is begun by them on dance’

rince-Ø
dance.M-SG.NOM

At least within the scope of this study, the impersonal ‘be done’ construction seems
to be quite exceptional. The process for deriving the two types of the ‘be done’
construction with a zero-subject can be illustrated as above, with the same verb, tosaigh‘begin’. This paper has confirmed the hypothesis at the end of §3: the zero-subject of
the impersonal ‘be done’ construction is normally an agent while the zero-subject of
the apersonal ‘be done’ construction is normally a patient.

72

YAMADA, Leo

However, there are a few examples which are difficult to clarify and fit into thistheory. Further and more detailed research should be carried out in the future.
Abbreviations
1
3
CMPL
CNJTV
COMP
COP
DEF
DIR
F
GEN
HPRS
IMPERS

first person
third personcomplementizer
conjunctive
comparative
copuladefinite
directfeminine
genitive
habitual present
impersonal

M
NOM
PL
PM
PN
PRS
PST
REL
SG
SUBJ
VA
VN

masculine
nominative
pluralpast marker
proper nounpresent
past
relativesingularsubjunctive
verbal adjective
verbal noun

References
Hewitt, Steve. 2002. “The impersonal in Breton”. Journal of Celtic Linguistics 7. pp.1–39.
Na Bráithre Críostaí. 1999. GRAIMÉAR GAEILGE. Baile Átha Cliath: An Gúm.
Ó Siadhail, Micheál. 1989. Modern Irish: Grammatical Structure and Dialectal Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Stenson, Nancy. 1989. “Irish autonomous impersonals”. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 7. pp.379–406.
Nua-Chorpas na hÉireann (https://focloir.sketchengine.co.uk/). Retrieved April 25, 2018.

Developing Web-Based Learning Resources while Managing
Language Classes in an Endangered Language
YOKOYAMA, Akiko

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics

This paper proposes a method to develop endangered language materials based on acase study of Amami-Okinoerabu island. First, research on endangered languages isconstantly moving forward, and therefore types of media that can easily allow
revisions and additions are desirable. Second, so that materials will actually be usedby locals, endangered language materials should not only be suited to local needs, butshould also be actively promoted. Considering these points, in this study, I develop
language materials on the web, revising and promoting them through trials in language
classrooms. I observe that this process allows me to create suitable language materials,
which reflect some of the local needs, for the present situation of endangered
languages.
Keywords: language revitalization, Ryukyu language, language education, endangered language, language
materials*

1. Background
2. Development of language materials
3. Effects
4. Future issues

1. Background1.1. Background
The Ryukyu languages are at risk of disappearance, and much ongoing work has
been done to revitalize them. Development of materials for these languages is growing(cf. Toyama 2016, Okinawa Prefectural Board of Education 2014); however, themethods by which such materials are being developed have received less attention. The
creation of instructional materials for minor languages can be quite a different
experience from creating them for major languages such as English or Japanese. This

YOKOYAMA, Akiko. 2019. “Developing Web-Based Learning Resources while Managing Language Classes
in an Endangerd Language”. Proceedings of International Symposium “Approaches to Endangered
Languages in Japan and Northeast Asia (Poster Session)”. pp.73–81. [Permanent URL:
https://doi.org/10.15026/94156]*

74

YOKOYAMA, Akiko

paper proposes an approach that could be used for making instructional materials,
which takes into account some requirements for endangered languages.
1.2. Case study background
This paper describes a case study that I am currently conducting. I am examining
Okinoerabu, a language that is spoken on Okinoerabu Island in the North Ryukyu
archipelago. The population of Okinoerabu Island is approximately 14,000, but only
people over 60 years of age speak Okinoerabu, which has no mutual ineligibility withStandard Japanese. Yamada et al. (2018) reported that university school students inTokyo understand less than 5% of spoken Okinoerabu. This language, like many other
Ryukyu languages, is endangered. Young people living on the island typically speak
only Standard Japanese. According to Kibe (2014), who judged the degree ofendangerment of Okinoerabu using the UNESCO (2003) criteria, the lack of materials
for education in a language is one of the main factors used in determining its status asan endangered language. Although Okinoerabu has several dialectal dictionaries (cf.
Kinoe 2006, Nishie 1968), a vocabulary database (cf. NINJAL, 1 shimamuni
takarabako 2), and grammar descriptions (van der Lubbe 2016, Yokoyama 2017), nosystematic language materials have been created for teaching. Hence, my project isdesigned to develop language materials that can allow Japanese speakers to learn
Okinoerabu as a foreign language.

Fig. 1 Map of Okinoerabu Island

1
2

Endangered languages database: http://kikigengo.ninjal.ac.jp/
Shimamuni takarabako [Treasure box of Okinoerabu language]: http://erabumuni.com/

Developing Web-Based Learning Resources while Managing Language Classes in an Endangerd Language

75

2. Development of language materials
2.1. Basic principles
Instructional materials for minority languages must differ from those used by widely
spoken languages such as English and Japanese. First, research on endangered
languages is constantly moving forward, which means that revisions and additions areoften necessary as that research proceeds. Second, endangered languages faceextinction across the globe, and Okinoerabu might disappear in the next 20–30 years,
considering all present speakers are over 60 years old. Therefore, learning materials
must be distributed as soon as possible instead of waiting until they are perfect.
Furthermore, the purpose for which the materials are being created should not be
forgotten, i.e., to help local people pass their language on to the next generation. For
this reason, we must not only focus on creating materials but also on developing
materials that will actually be used by the members of the community. Thus, materials
should be created that suit local needs, and such materials should be promoted.
2.2. Procedures
Taking into account the above points, I have designed a procedure for developing
materials. The characteristics of these materials are as follows: First, I intend to
distribute them on the web, enabling me to revise them or add more material easily.
Second, I am developing materials while also teaching language classes, and this allows
me to promote my materials and receive feedback on them from the teaching andlearning communities. I follow the “Action Research Cycle” (Figure 2) as I work to
improve the quality of my materials.

76

YOKOYAMA, Akiko< Plan >Create language materials for a topic
Design materials using images taken by professionals< Reflect >Revise the materials based on observationsof their effectiveness and accuracy
Pubish them on the website< Act >
Try the materials in language classes
for adults and children< Observe >Evaluate the materials in classrooms
Receive feedback from teachers and students
Fig. 2 “Action Research Cycle” to be followed for improving the quality of language materials

I create my materials for each topic, like “greetings (conversation lesson 1)” or “casemarkers (grammar lesson 3).” If I can publish such materials separately, i.e., on the web,then there is no reason to wait until the entire series is complete. Hence, I publish themas soon as possible. After finishing a draft, I hire a professional to design images forthe materials. Visual design of language teaching materials is widely considered to be
as important as user content. As a result, my drafts, which resemble Figure 3, are altered
to resemble Figure 4.

Developing Web-Based Learning Resources while Managing Language Classes in an Endangerd Language

Fig. 377

Draft for a chapter on self-introduction

Fig. 4 Final version of a chapter on self-introduction

Second, I use the materials in my language classroom to assess their usability. I canthen simultaneously receive feedback on their usability and comprehensibility fromteachers and students. Currently, I teach two language classes on Okinoerabu Island:
one for adults and the other for children. The former is held every two or three months,
i.e., when I am able to travel to the island. A local native speaker of Okinoerabu assists

78

YOKOYAMA, Akiko

me in teaching, and generally 5–10 people attend my class. Most participants are
migrants from outside the island and are very motivated. The children’s class isconducted monthly. I teach the language when I visit the island, and a local collaborator
teaches it in my absence. This class is based in the Kunigami community, which has
1000 residents. In general, 3–10 children attend the class, or as many as 50 children
attend when the language class collaborates with a local event.

Fig. 5Class for adults (©Okinoerabu Branch Office of Amami Shimbun on facebook, 2018/8/31)

Fig. 6Class for children

Third, I revise my materials using the findings from the preceding steps. After myrevisions are finished, I upload the latest version to the website. The website is accessed
approximately 30–40 times daily, and it has drawn a definite audience.

Developing Web-Based Learning Resources while Managing Language Classes in an Endangerd Language

79

Fig. 7 Top page, overview of materials page, and sample material page on the web

3. Effects
The observed effects of this process include the following:1.

2.

I have been able to tailor my materials to be more suitable for the local state ofaffairs owing to the trials they have gone through and the feedback I havereceived. For example, I changed some of the vocabulary used in the
introduction unit. The expressions I had originally used were chosen for theirunique pronunciation, but then I learned that some are not generally used indaily life and are less suitable for the introductory part.
I have been able to promote awareness of these materials through my classes
and by publishing them on the web. Since I first began my classes, I have been
receiving requests for my materials from local residents and others who arenative to the island but live elsewhere. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, mywebsite receives 30–40 visits daily. In my opinion, the website has enabled
people to access materials other than in book form.

80

YOKOYAMA, Akiko

3.

The materials have led some residents to teach Okinoerabu themselves. Someof those who attend my classes are now teaching themselves, using the materials
I developed. This would not have occurred if I had not shown how they could
be used in classrooms. In the future, more people may be empowered to passdown their language to a new generation.
4. Future Issues

Although this report is based on my observations, the findings are still relevant toother work on endangered language revitalization: I think developing materials on the
web and revising them based on trials in the language classroom have allowed me tocreate materials that suit the current circumstances of endangered languages and thatreflect some of the local needs. However, the final goal of language revitalization
studies is to cultivate local autonomy and to achieve sustainable language revitalization
in a community, and in this sense, since I am currently developing materials on my own,
these activities would not be sustained without me. In order to cultivate local autonomy,
I must increase the involvement of local participants during the initial stages of theprocess of planning materials and provide them with the experience of creating
materials and managing language classes on their own, so that they can be empowered
to sustain language revitalization through their own activities.

References
Kibe, Nobuko. 2014. “Kagoshimaken Okinoerabujima hōgen [Okinoerabu dialect in Kagoshima prefecture]”.
Kikitekina jōkyō ni aru gengo hōgen no jittai ni kansuru chōsa kenkyu hōkokūsho [Research report about
actual situation of endangered languages and dialects]. Tokyo: National Institute for Japanese Languages and
Linguistics. pp.15–27. [in Japanese]
Kinoe, Totetsu. 2006. Shima no kotoba [Language of the island]. Tokyo: Mikasa shobō. [in Japanese]
Nishie, Sarah Ann. 1968. “Asikiramuni: Studies of a Ryukyu Dialect / Dictionary of Okinoerabu dialect”. Master’s
thesis, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology and Faculty of Letters, University of Tokyo. Online
version: http://innowayf.net/download.html#okinoerabu
Okinawa prefectural board of education. 2014. Kōkōsē no tame no “kyōdō no kotoba”: Okinawaken (Ryukyu) no
kotoba [Local language for high school students: Dialects in Okinawa prefecture (Ryukyu)]. Okinawa
prefectural board of education. [in Japanese]
Toyama, Nana. 2016. “Ukumuniipeehanaree [Fastup.or.jp/qrlink/201603/yanbaru/ [in Japanese??]learningofOku

dialect]”.

http://www.kyoto-

UNESCO.
2003.
Language
Vitality
andEndangerment.
Onlineversion:http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/Language_vitality_and_endangerment_EN.pdf
Van der Lubbe, Gijs. 2016. “Ryukyu Okinoerabugo Masana hōgen no kijutsu bumpō kenkyū [Descriptive
grammar of Ryukyu-Okinoerabu Masana dialect]”. Doctoral thesis, Ryukyu University. [in Japanese]Developing Web-Based Learning Resources while Managing Language Classes in an Endangerd Language

81

Yamada, Masahiro, Yukinori Takubo, Shoichi Iwasaki, Celik Kenan Thibault, Soichiro Harada, Nobuko Kibe,
Tyler Lau, Natsuko Nakagawa, Yuto Niinaga, Tomoyo Otsuki, Manami Sato, Rihito Shirata, Gijs van derLubbe, and Akiko Yokoyama. 2018. “Experimental Study of Inter-language and Inter-generational
Intelligibility: Methodology and Case Studies of Ryukyuan Languages.” The 26th Japanese/Korean
Linguistics Conference. Nov. 30, 2018, University of California Los Angeles.
Yokoyama (Tokunaga), Akiko. 2017. “Ryukyu Okinoerabujima Kunigamihōgen no bumpō [Grammar of
Okinoerabu-Kunigami dialect, Ryukyuan]”. Doctoral thesis, Hitotsubashi University. [in Japanese]