- Classification of the Japanese language
The immediate classification of the
Japanese languageis clear: it is a Japonic language, along with the Ryukyuan languages. Traditionally, these are considered dialects of a single language isolate. However, more distant connections remain contentious among historical linguists. The possibility of a genetic relationship to the Goguryeo (Koguryŏ) language has the most currency; a relationship to Korean is widely considered but is problematic; an Altaic hypothesis is less widely accepted. A few linguists support the hypothesis that Japanese is genealogically related to the Austronesian languages.
Possible external relations
There are several hypotheses on the relationship of the Japonic family to other language families. These hypotheses are presented below in approximate descending order of their current acceptance (cf. Vovin 2003).
Extinct Korean-peninsular languages hypothesis
The Korean-peninsular Languages hypothesis dates back to the independent discovery by two Japanese scholars in 1907 that material in the extinct
Goguryeo languagefound in historical sources on the early Korean Peninsula was obviously related to Japanese.Fact|date=June 2008 The hypothesis proposes that Japanese is a relative of the extinct languages spoken by the Buyeo-Goguryeo cultures of Korea, southern Manchuria, and Liaodong. The best attested of these is the language of Goguryeo, with the more poorly-attested Buyeo languagesof Baekjeand Buyeo believed to also be related. Supporters of this theory do not include modern Korean as part of that family because it is thought to have derived from the ancient language of Sillaand it has been shown that the Korean and Buyeo-Goguryeo languages share only a few lexical items, which are typical cultural loanwords. A recent monograph by Christopher Beckwith(2004) has now established that there are about 140 lexical items in the Goguryeo corpus alone. They mostly occur in place name collocations, many of which include grammatical morphemes (including cognates of the Japanese genitive marker "no" and the Japanese adjective-attributive morpheme -"si") and a few of which reveal syntax relationships. The majority of the identified Goguryeo corpus, including all the grammatical morphemes, are clearly related to Japanese. Most discussion of this theory now centers on arguments about the identity of the speakers of the language recorded as Goguryeo, but so far the identification of the language with the Goguryeo people, which agrees with the ancient Chinese accounts, has been shown to be the most secure historically and linguistically (Beckwith 2006a, 2006b).
[http://www.eai.cam.ac.uk/Aston-and-Korea.pdf William George Aston] suggested in 1879 in the "Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society" that Japanese is related to Korean. A relationship between Japanese and Korean was endorsed by the Japanese scholar Shōsaburō Kanazawa in 1910. Some other scholars took this position in the twentieth century (Poppe 1965:137). Substantial arguments in favor of a Japanese-Korean relationship were presented by Samuel Martin, a leading specialist in Japanese and Korean, in 1966 and in subsequent publications (e.g. Martin 1990). Other linguists advocating this position include [http://web.mit.edu/lsa2005/people/bios/whitman.html John Whitman] (1985) and Barbara E. Riley (2004), and
Sergei Starostinwith his lexicostastical research "The Altaic Problem and the Origins of the Japanese Language" (Moscow, 1991). The possible lexical relationship between Korean and Japanese can be briefly exemplified by such basic vocabulary items as Japanese "mizu" (Old Japanese "midu") : Korean "mul" (Middle Korean "myr") 'water', "mot" (MK "mos") 'lake'; J "ku-ru" 'come' (OJ "ko"; also, cf. the forms with irregular root changes in Japanese such as past tense "ki-ta", negative "ko-nai") : MK and K root "ka-" 'go'; OJ and J "kata-" 'hard' : K "kud-yn / kut-yn" 'hard' (MK "kut-"); OJ and J "na" : MK and K "an-" 'not'; J "minna" (OJ "mynna") 'all, everyone' : K. "manh-" 'many' (MK "man-ha-"), etc. (see Martin 1966).
The same possible cognates are often observed in other members of the potential Altaic family, especially among the
Tungusic languages. Compare, for instance, Nanai "muke" 'water'; "giagda-" 'to walk on foot'; "anaa, anna" 'not' (from [http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Calt%5Ctunget Starostin's database] ).
The considerable number of shared words within the basic vocabulary which have been cited by different scholars can hardly be attributed to mutual borrowing. The hypothesis is also based on a high degree of typological and grammatical similarity, almost obvious to anyone familiar with both languages (Beckwith 2004).
Some critics of this hypothesis (such as
Alexander Vovin) claim that there are difficulties in establishing exact phonological laws and that Japanese and Korean have few shared innovations. There are also drastic differences between the native Korean and Japanese number systems.
The idea of a Japanese-Korean relationship overlaps with the extended form of the Altaic hypothesis (see below), but not all scholars who argue for one also argue for the other.
According to its proponents, Altaic is a language family consisting at a minimum of Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic. Since the publication of G.J. Ramstedt's "Einführung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft" ('Introduction to Altaic Linguistics') in 1952-1957, most Altaicists have included Korean in Altaic.
Roy Andrew Miller's "Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages", published in 1971, convinced most Altaicists that Japanese should also be included in Altaic. The most important recent work in favor of this expanded Altaic family is "An Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages" (3 volumes) by Sergei Starostin, Anna V. Dybo, and Oleg A. Mudrak (2003). (See Altaic languagesfor a more detailed treatment.)
The Altaic family is by no means generally accepted, either in its core form of Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic or its expanded form of Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean, and Japanese. The best-known critiques are those of
Gerard Clauson(1956) and Gerhard Doerfer (1963, 1988). Currently active critics include Stefan Georg and Alexander Vovin.
Evidence for this grouping lies in the fact that, like the
Turkic languagesand Korean, Japanese is an agglutinative language. Additionally, there are a suggestive number of correspondences in vocabulary, as shown in the following table.
These examples come from Starostin's [http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query.cgi?root=config&basename=dataaltaltet database] , which contains a comprehensive list of comparisons and hypothetical Altaic etymologies.
While Starostin was a first-class scholar, there are weaknesses with Altaic, not the least of which is the poor quality of the vowel correspondences. Another one is the relative paucity of reconstructions for basic vocabulary terms. Furthermore, Starostin made numerous mistakes with the Japanese data, such as misidentifying Japanese words, reconstructing secondary phenomena in dialects back to the proto-language, overlooking accentual distinctions in Japanese, and ignoring the historical formation (i.e., morphological structure) of certain words. Moreover, he made mistakes with data in other Altaic languages as well. Whatever connection Japanese may have to Altaic languages cannot be demonstrated by the current state of Altaic reconstruction.Fact|date=March 2008
Joseph Greenberg(2000-2002) argued for the inclusion of Japanese in his proposed Eurasiatic language family. In contrast to Sergei Starostin, he rejected the inclusion of Korean in Altaic. According to Greenberg, Japanese-Ryukyuan, Korean, and Ainu form a separate subgroup within Eurasiatic.
Like other language classifications of Greenberg's, the Eurasiatic family is often attacked on the ground that it is based on "
mass lexical comparison"; however, this is a fictitious method. Greenberg's own terminology was originally "mass comparison", which he later changed to "multilateral comparison"; from his first use of it in the 1950s on, it always involved comparison of grammatical formatives as well as of lexical items, along with considerable attention to typologically probable paths of sound change. See Greenberg's "Genetic Linguistics" (2005) for his methodological positions. In contrast to Greenberg, most historical linguists remain convinced that systematic phonological reconstruction is necessary to establish genetic relationship between languages, and consequently view the Eurasiatic hypothesis with skepticism.
The phonological similarities and geographical proximity of Japanese to the
Austronesian languageshave led to the theory that Japanese may be a kind of creole language, with an Altaic superstratumand an Austronesian substratum, or vice versa. However, the lists of suggested Japanese-Austronesian cognates proposed by different scholars do not agree with each otherFact|date=June 2008. Furthermore, the number of words identified as possibly Austronesian is extremely small.
One of the less likely theories is that Japanese is a purely Austronesian language. This is rejected by all mainstream specialists in both Austronesian and Japanese, since the grammar, lexis, and morphology of Japanese are vastly different from those of any known Austronesian language. Proponents of this theory point out examples of convergent lexis, such as Japanese "hina" "doll" and "hime" "princess," as cognate with the Māori word "hine" "girl," or Japanese "kaku" "to write, to sketch" with the Hawaiian "kākau" "to write, to tattoo", or Japanese "ne" "an expression" with the Kapampangan "ne" "an expression", or Japanese "nomu" "to drink" with the Tagalog "inom" "drink."
It is important, however, to note that many totally unrelated languages exhibit chance occurrences of convergent lexis. Furthermore, these alleged "cognates" soon fall apart upon closer analysis. For example, the Japanese word "hime" is clearly a compound word; modern Japanese /h/ comes from earlier /p/; Hawaiian /k/ comes from earlier /t/. Moreover, the time depths for Japanese and Proto-Polynesian do not match, and
Polynesiais far more distant from Japan than Taiwan, the proposed Austronesian homeland. If there were an Austronesian connection, it might be found closer to the Japanese Archipelago. Beyond that, the time depth for Proto-Austronesian, at roughly 6000 years BP, makes it far too old to be compared with Japanese, which may have come to the Japanese islands perhaps 2500-3000 years ago (see the Yayoipage for details on the peopling of Japan). The biggest problem is methodological: the comparative methodrequires the establishment of regular sound correspondences, and no comparison of Japanese and Polynesian has yet reached that level of methodological adequacy.
Those who propose that Japanese and Austronesian are related suggest that the Austronesian family once covered the islands to the north of Formosa (western Japanese areas such as the
Ryūkyū Islandsand Kyūshū) as well as to the south. However, there is no biological or genetic evidence for an especially close relationship between speakers of Austronesian languages and speakers of Japonic languages, so if there was any prehistoric interaction between them, it is likely to have been one of simple cultural exchange without significant ethnic mixing. In fact, genetic analyses consistently show that the Ryukyuansbetween Taiwan and the main islands of Japanare genetically less similar to the Taiwanese aborigines than are the Japanese, which suggests that if there was any interaction between proto-Austronesian and proto-Japonic, it occurred on the mainland prior to the extinction of Austronesian languages on mainland China and the introduction of Japonic to Japan, and not in the Ryukyus. It should also be noted that groups of peoples that inhabited ancient Japan, such as the Kumasoand the Hayato, are hypothesized by some to have spoken an Austronesian-related language, although due to a lack of evidence, this hypothesis may be untestable.
A more rarely encountered hypothesis is that Japanese is related to the
Dravidian languages, mostly spoken in South India, of which the best-documented from an early date is Tamil.
The possibility that Japanese might be related to Dravidian was raised by
Robert Caldwell, the great pioneer of Dravidian studies, in the 19th century (cf. Caldwell 1875:413). A relationship between Japanese and Dravidian has more recently been advocated by the Japanese scholars Susumu Shiba, Akira Fujiwara, and Susumu Ōno(n.d., 2000).
An objection that will occur to many people is that the
retroflex consonants of Dravidian have no parallel in Japanese. However, "The cacuminals [i.e. retroflex phonemes] of Dravidian are of secondary origin, as appears from the fact that they never occur as initials" (Trombetti 1922:76). This objection, at least, is not fatal to the Japanese-Dravidian hypothesis.
This hypothesis has been criticized by other scholarsFact|date=June 2008 of Japanese and Dravidian. Ōno was criticized for making errors in
historyand archaeology, and for various methodological errors in applying the comparative method, such as positing multiple correspondences without giving conditioning factors (for example, Tamil "c" : Japanese "s"; Tamil "c" : Japanese ∅; and Tamil ∅ : Japanese "s"), and several other shortcomings in data and application of theory.
Not all of the hypotheses enunciated above are mutually incompatible. Very often, they involve different time depths. The more accepted relationships tend to be those lower in time, while hypotheses concerning deeper relationships tend to be more controversial at present. Further, some of these hypotheses may involve correct perceptions of relationship, but not resolve the question of whether the similarities noted are due to genetic relationship or areal influence. For example, the following grouping would reconcile all of those above: Japonic-Goguryeo < Goguryeo-Silla < Altaic < Eurasiatic < Nostratic (which includes Dravidian), with an areal influence on Japonic from Austronesian. While only a minority of linguists concerned would endorse such a grouping, it underlines that the difficulties involved in classifying Japanese concern general methodological issues for linguistics, and will probably only be resolved in tandem with these.
* Aston, William George. 1879. "A comparative study of the Japanese and Korean languages." "Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Britain and Ireland, New Series" 11, 317-364.
* Beckwith, Christopher I. 2004. "Koguryo: The Language of Japan's Continental Relatives: An Introduction to the Historical-Comparative Study of the Japanese-Koguryoic Languages, with a Preliminary Description of Archaic Northeastern Middle Chinese." Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers. ISBN 9004139494.
* Beckwith, Christopher I. 2006a. "Methodological observations on some recent studies of the early ethnolinguistic history of Korea and vicinity." "Altai Hakpo" 16: 199-234.
* Beckwith, Christopher I. 2006b. "The ethnolinguistic history of the early Korean peninsula region: Japanese-Koguryoic and other languages in the Koguryo, Paekche, and Silla kingdoms." "Journal of Inner and East Asian Studies", Vol. 2-2: 34-64.
* Caldwell, Robert. 1875. "A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages", second edition, revised and enlarged. London: Trübner & Co. (Original edition: 1856.)
* Greenberg, Joseph H. 2000. "Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family. Volume 1: Grammar." Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000. ISBN 0804738122.
* Greenberg, Joseph H. 2002. "Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family. Volume 2: Lexicon." Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002. ISBN 0804746249.
* Greenberg, Joseph H. 2005. "Genetic Linguistics: Essays on Theory and Method", edited by William Croft. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199257713.
* Kanazawa, Shōsaburō. 1910. "The Common Origin of the Japanese and Korean Languages." Tokyo: Sanseidō.
* Katsumi, Matsumoto. 2007. 世界言語のなかの日本語 ("Sekaigengo no nakano Nihongo", 'Japanese in the World's Languages'). Tokyo: 三省堂 Sanseido.
* Lewin, Bruno. 1976. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/132059 "Japanese and Korean: the problems and history of a linguistic comparison."] "Journal of Japanese Studies" 2.2, 389-412.
* Martin, Samuel E. 1966. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/411687 "Lexical evidence relating Korean to Japanese."] "Language" 12.2, 185-251.
* Martin, Samuel E. 1968. "Grammatical elements relating Korean to Japanese." In "Proceedings of the Eighth Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences" B.9: 405-407.
* Martin, Samuel E. 1975. "Problems in establishing the prehistoric relationships of Korean and Japanese." In "Proceedings International Symposium Commemorating the 30th Anniversary of Korean Liberation." Seoul: National Academy of Sciences.
* Martin, Samuel E. 1990. "Morphological clues to the relationships of Japanese and Korean." In Philip Baldi, ed., "Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology." Berlin: de Gruyter.
* Martin, Samuel E. 1991. "Recent research on the relationships of Japanese and Korean." In Sydney M. Lamb and E. Douglas Mitchell, eds., "Sprung from Some Common Source: Investigations into the Prehistory of Languages." Stanford: Stanford University Press.
* Martin, Samuel E. 1996. "Consonant Lenition in Korean and the Macro-Altaic Question." Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 0824818091.
* Miller, Roy Andrew. 1971. "Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages." Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226527190.
* Miller, Roy Andrew. 1980. "Origins of the Japanese Language: Lectures in Japan during the Academic Year 1977-78". Seattle: University of Washington Press. ISBN 0295957662.
* Miller, Roy Andrew. 1996. "Languages and History: Japanese, Korean and Altaic." Oslo: Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture. ISBN 9748299694.
* Ōno, Susumu. n.d. [http://arutkural.tripod.com/tolcampus/jap-tamil.htm "The genealogy of the Japanese language: Tamil and Japanese."]
* Ōno, Susumu. 2000. 日本語の形成. 岩波書店. ISBN 4000017586.
* Poppe, Nicholas. 1965. "Introduction to Altaic Linguistics." Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
* Riley, Barbara E. 2004. [http://www.kimsoft.com/2004/kr-jp-languageTxt.pdf "Aspects of the Genetic Relationship of the Korean and Japanese Languages"] . PhD thesis, University of Hawaii.
* Schmidt, Wilhelm. 1930. "Die Beziehungen der austrischen Sprachen zum Japanischen", 'The connections of the Austric languages to Japanese'. "Wiener Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte und Linguistik" 1, 239-51.
* Starostin, Sergei A. 1991. "Altajskaja problema i proisxoždenie japonskogo jazyka", 'The Altaic Problem and the Origin of the Japanese Language'. Moscow: Nauka.
* Starostin, Sergei A., Anna V. Dybo, and Oleg A. Mudrak. 2003. "Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages." Leiden: Brill. ISBN 9004131531.
* Trombetti, Alfredo. 1922-1923. "Elementi di glottologia", 2 volumes. Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli.
* Vovin, Alexander. 2003. 日本語系統論の現在：これからどこへ 'The genetic relationship of the Japanese language: where do we go from here?'. In Alexander Vovin and Toshiki Osada (eds.), 日本語系統論の現在 'Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese Language'. Kyoto: International Center for Japanese Studies. ISSN 1346-6585.
* Whitman, John Bradford. 1985. "The Phonological Basis for the Comparison of Japanese and Korean." PhD thesis, Harvard University.
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
Look at other dictionaries:
Japanese language — Japanese 日本語 Nihongo Nihongo (Japanese) in Japanese script Pronunciation … Wikipedia
The Twilight Language — A twilight language (Sanskrit: sandha bhasa , Tibetan: gongpe ke ) is a polysemic language and communication system associated with tantric traditions in Buddhism and Hinduism. It includes visual communication, verbal communication and nonverbal… … Wikipedia
History of the Korean language — The Korean language is attested from the early centuries of the Common Era in Chinese script. The featural hangul script is only introduced in the Middle Korean period, in the 15th century. The periodization of the historical stages of Korean is… … Wikipedia
Sakura Japanese language School — (Japanese language: さくら日本語学校) is a school in District 3, Ho Chi Minh City. This is one of two schools that specializing in teaching Japanese language in this city, the other is Dong Du Japanese language School. Many of the teachers here come from … Wikipedia
Classification of Japonic — The classification of the Japonic languages (Japanese and Ryukyuan) is unclear. The group is traditionally considered to consist of dialects of a single language isolate. The possibility of a genetic relationship to the Goguryeo (Koguryŏ)… … Wikipedia
Japanese grammar — The Japanese language has a highly regular agglutinative verb morphology, with both productive and fixed elements. Typologically, its most prominent feature is topic creation: Japanese has prominent topics (although it is possible for topics and… … Wikipedia
Japanese dictionary — Japanese dictionaries have a history that began over 1300 years ago when Japanese Buddhist priests, who wanted to understand Chinese sutras, adapted Chinese character dictionaries. Present day Japanese lexicographers are exploring computerized… … Wikipedia
Japanese script reform — The Japanese script reform is the attempt to correlate standard spoken Japanese with the written word, which began during the Meiji period. This issue is known in Japan as the kokugo kokuji mondai (国語国字問題, national language and script problem?).… … Wikipedia
Japanese people — 日本人 Lady Murasaki • Nobunaga … Wikipedia
Japanese Industrial Standards — This article is about Japanese Industrial Standards in general; see JIS encoding for the character encoding used in representing the Japanese language for computer software and communication. Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) specifies the… … Wikipedia