A New Reconstruction of the Common Origin of the Japanese and Korean Languages
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Proto-Korean-Japanese: A New Reconstruction of the Common Origin of the Japanese and Korean Languages DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Alexander Takenobu Francis-Ratte Graduate Program in East Asian Languages and Literatures The Ohio State University 2016 Dissertation Committee: James M. Unger, Advisor Charles J. Quinn Brian D. Joseph Copyrighted by Alexander Takenobu Francis-Ratte 2016 Abstract Even after more than a century of linguistic research, the question of whether the Japanese and Korean languages share a common origin remains unanswered. This dissertation presents evidence for a comprehensive theory that Japanese and Korean descend from the same ancestor language, ‘proto-Korean-Japanese’. I employ the Comparative Method of historical linguistics (Campbell 1999, Hock & Joseph, 1996) to propose over 500 Korean-Japanese related words that build on the foundations laid by Martin (1966) and Whitman (1985). I also offer original theories of how the Japanese and Korean grammatical systems can be traced back to a common proto-Korean-Japanese grammar, and explain how such grammatical correspondences are unlikely to be the result of borrowing or chance. This means that related words and grammatical structures can only be explained as inheritances from the same source language. Finally, I discuss how the most reasonable interpretations of non-linguistic evidence from Korean and Japanese history also point to common linguistic ancestry. Crucially, this dissertation is able to identify a significantly greater number of shared Korean-Japanese words than previous research such as Martin (1966) or Whitman (1985), who have previously underestimated the amount of shift in grammar and meaning that has taken place in both languages. This dissertation thus establishes a strong set of core correspondences in the vocabulary of Japanese to that of Korean, and provides a solid basis for positing common origin for these two languages. ii Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank James Marshall Unger. Given how few scholars study the Korean-Japanese relationship, I have been incredibly lucky to study with him, and it is difficult to imagine how this dissertation would have been possible without his guidance and his encyclopedic knowledge of East Asian languages. My most formative moments in graduate school have all involved going into his office and openly discussing reconstructions of proto-history, bouncing ideas off of each other, and challenging the teisetsu. Studying with Dr. Unger has been an empowering and humbling experience, and I owe to him a debt of gratitude that the completion of this dissertation only partly repays. I would also like to thank Brian Joseph for his support. I owe a great deal of my critical understanding of language change to his mentorship, and his classes have caused me to rethink (for the better) much of what I had taken for granted in the study of language. I would also like to thank Charles Quinn for introducing me to the joys of Classical Japanese, for serving on my dissertation committee, and for helping me to understand the importance of functional explanations in the study of grammatical change. Thanks also to Mineharu Nakayama for his guidance and for serving on my candidacy committee, and to Etsuyo Yuasa for her generous and unswerving support of my career as both linguistic and teacher of Japanese. I would like to thank Danielle Ooyoung Pyun, who saw in me the potential to be a Koreanist and has given me opportunities in Korean Studies that I could not have dreamed were possible when I entered the Ohio State iii University. I would like to thank John Whitman, Prashant Pardeshi, and the National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics for their support of my research. In particular, John Whitman’s support and encouragement of my research has helped me see that I can make a contribution to the study of Japanese and Korean prehistory. Thanks also to my long-suffering co-conspirators in the Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures at The Ohio State University, as well as to the historical linguists and graduate students of all walks with whom I have shared courses. I must conclude by thanking my family for their support and their unending patience, and in particular my mother Junko, my first language teacher and my source for all things Japanese. Lastly, this dissertation is for my best friend and husband Joshua. Everything means nothing if I ain’t got you. iv Vita 2004................................................................Iolani School 2009................................................................B.A. Linguistics, Williams College 2011................................................................M.A. Chinese, The Ohio State University 2011 to present ..............................................Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures, The Ohio State University Publications Ratte, Alexander. 2014. Synchrony or Diachrony? Accounting for the Old Japanese particle -tu. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 20.1. Ratte, Alexander. 2015. Towards a stronger theory of proto-Korean-Japanese. In Michael Kenstowicz, Ted Levin, and Ryo Masuda, eds., Japanese-Korean Linguistics, Vol 23. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Francis-Ratte, Alexander T. 2015. Importation or Inheritance? Thoughts on the Japanese lexicon. Buckeye East Asian Linguistics, Vol. 1, 5-8. Columbus: Ohio State University Libraries. Fields of Study Major Field: East Asian Languages and Literatures v Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iii Vita ...................................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xiii Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Foreword ................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Transcription and Romanization ............................................................................... 5 1.4 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ 6 Chapter 2: Methodology and Literature .............................................................................. 8 2.1 Methodology: The Comparative Method .................................................................. 8 2.2 History of Korean-Japanese Comparison ................................................................ 12 2.3 Japanese, Korean, and Altaic .................................................................................. 13 2.4 Vovin 2010 and the Contact Hypothesis ................................................................. 17 2.4.1 Problems with Distributional Criteria ............................................................... 19 vi Chapter 3: Phonology and Phonological Correspondences .............................................. 25 3.1 Fundamental Sound Correspondences .................................................................... 25 3.1.1 Basic Vowel Correspondences ......................................................................... 25 3.1.2 Basic Consonant Correspondences ................................................................... 26 3.1.3 Phonotactics of proto-Korean-Japanese ........................................................... 26 3.1.4 Vowel Correspondences of proto-Korean to Late Middle Korean ................... 28 3.1.5 Consonant Correspondences of proto-Korean to Late Middle Korean ............ 28 3.1.6 Vowel Correspondences of proto-Japanese to Old Japanese ........................... 29 3.1.7 Consonant Correspondences of proto-Japanese to Old Japanese ..................... 29 3.2 Labial Assimilation: pKJ *ɨ > pJ *u ........................................................................ 30 3.3 Pre-MK Imposition of Vowel Harmony: Regressive Assimilation ........................ 30 3.4 Proto-Japanese Final Yodicization of Sonorants .................................................... 31 3.5 Palatalization of coronals in pJ and pK ................................................................... 32 3.6 Pre-MK ‘hardening’ of *o > wo : Evidence from mwoncye / moncyem ................. 32 3.7 Minimal vowel loss in absolute initial position ...................................................... 33 3.8 Final vowel loss in Korean ...................................................................................... 34 3.9 Distinctive Voicing ................................................................................................. 35 3.9.1 Distinctive Voicing in Korean .......................................................................... 36 3.9.2 Distinctive voicing in Japanese / Japonic ......................................................... 39 vii 3.9.3 Distinctive Voicing in proto-Korean-Japanese