THE RUSSIAN GENITIVE OF NEGATION AND ITS JAPANESE COUNTERPART
IVAN G. ILIEV*
       Â
Summary
The paper draws a parallel between the usage of the negative genitive in Russian, in which there is an exchange of the accusative form of a noun for a genitive one in negation, and a similar phenomenon in Japanese â the use of the topic marker -wa instead of the original accusative marker -o. Simultaneously, a use of the topic marker -wa is shown, in which case its function resembles that of the genitive marker -no.
Key Words: Russian language, Japanese language, genitive of negation, sentence topic.
The Slavic Genitive of Negation
There is a phenomenon in Slavic languages called negative genitive (genitive of negation). It is expressed in exchanging the accusative form of the direct object after a verb of negation for a genitive form or in exchanging the subjectâs nominative form again for a genitive form. In Polish, the exchange is mandatory, in Old Bulgarian, as in Russian, it is frequent, and in Czech and Serbo-Croatian it only exists in literary language, and in definite conditions at that (Feuillet 2006: 558; Dalewska-GreÅ 1997: 439). Examples from Polish (Moravcsik 1978: 264; Dalewska-GreÅ 1997: 436):
Mam          czas      âI have timeâ â as against:
have-1sg  time-acc
Nie   mam        czasu      âI donât have timeâ;
neg  have-1sg time-gen
WidziaÅeÅ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â wczoraj   EwÄ?
see-2sg-past    yesterday Eve-acc
âDid you see Eve yesterday?ââ as against:
Nie    widziaÅem     wczoraj     Ewy      âI didnât see Eve yesterdayâ;
neg  see-1sg-past yesterday Eve-gen
Tu      sÄ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â okulary        âThe glasses are hereâ â as against:
here are-3pl glasses-nom
Tu     niema             okularów    âThe glasses are not hereâ.
here have-neg-3sg  glasses-gen
Of the subject genitive in Russian, the most general idea is this one â the accusative marks definiteness, a concrete refrence, and the genitive expresses non-referentiality, indefiniteness or unknownness. Thus contexts are achieved in which, with negation, it is one time the genitive is mandatory, and at another the accusative (Paducheva 2006: 24-28, 41; Dalewska-GreÅ 1997: 436-437):
Ðn  ne  chitaet    gazet
he neg reads     newspapers-gen
âhe (on principle) does not read any newspapersâ (here the genitive signifies a class) â but:
Ðn  ne   chitaet    gazetu
he neg read-3sg newspaper-acc-def
âhe is not reading the newspaperâ (the genitive here signifies a concrete object).
Or:
Polozhi         soli      âPut a little saltâ (a certain quantity) â but:
put-imp-2sg salt-gen
Polozhi        solâ      âPut salt!â (an undefined quantity);
put-imp-2sg salt-acc
Koshka  ne  est        vetchiny
cat       neg eats      ham-gen
âThe cat does not eat hamâ (never) â
Ðoshka ne   est       vetchinu
cat        neg eats    ham-acc
âThe cat is not eating or does not eat hamâ (now or ever);
Ne   em       vetchiny âI do not eat hamâ (at all) â but:
neg eat-1sg ham-gen
Ne   em       vetchinu
neg eat-1sg ham-acc
âHam I do not eatâ (as opposed to other kinds of food);
Ne   lâublâu   gromkoy  muzyki
neg like-1sg loud-gen  music-gen
âI donât like loud musicâ â but:
Ne   lâublâu  sovremennuyu      muzyku
neg like-1sg contemporary-acc music-acc
âI donât like contemporary musicâ (as opposed to other kinds of music).
Negation in Japanese
Besides the Slavic languages, other Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages in Europe comply to the rule of the negative genitive â Lithuanian, Latvian, Gothic, Estonian, Basque, etc. What is interesting, however, is that in Japanese, distant from Europe, such a phenomenon can also be observed. According to Kamiya (Kamiya 1988: 82, 87), in negative sentences the accusative marker -о can be replaced with -wa, which marks the topic (the theme or logical subject in asentence):
Hon-o      yomimasu âIâm reading a bookâ â but:
book-acc read-1sg
Zasshi-wa       yomimasen
magazine-top read-1sg-neg
âI donât read a magazine/magazinesâ;
or, again (TL 2002: Japanese):
Eigo-o         hanasemasu-ka? âDo (you) speak English?â â against:
English-acc speak-?
Eigo-wa       hanasemasen â(I) donât speak Englishâ.
English-top speak-neg
According to Akiyama (Akiyama 2002: 42) the marker -wa in such examples expresses a contrast â as in the Russian examples, mentioned above, with an alternation of genitive and accusative:
Ne  em       vetchinu
neg eat-1sg ham-acc
âHam I do not eat (as opposed to other kinds of food)â â against:
Ne   em        vetchiny âI do not eat ham at allâ and:
neg eat-1sg ham-gen
Ne    lâublâu  sovremennuyu       muzyku
neg like-1sg contemporary-acc music-acc
âI donât like comntemporary musicâ (as opposed to other kinds of music) â against:
Ne   lâublâu  gromkoy  muzyki âI donât like loud musicâ.
neg like-1sg loud-gen music-gen
Akiyama (Akiyama 2002: 42) thinks that the contrast in Japanese is expressed notwithstanding the presence or absence of negation:
â(I) eat fish but I donât eat meatâ, literally: âconcerning fish, I eat, but concernin meat, I donât eatâ
     Sakana-wa tabemasu-ga, niku-wa   tabemasen.
fish-top      eat-but         meat-top eat-neg
Akiyama adds (ibid.) that the object in respect of which a contrast is made may not be indicated but still the contrast is there (itâs even more important that the subject marker -ga here plays the role of the conjunction âbutâ with which a contrast is expressed, too):
Terebi-wa mimasen
TV-top    watch-neg
â(I) donât watch TV (although (I) like doing something else)â.
The topic marker -wa (Kamiya 1988: 67) âis often used in negative sentences to oppose positive to negative ideasâ. The subject is also prone to marking with -wa in negation (Akiyama 2002: 43):
Tegami-ga kimashita âThe letter has arrivedâ â but:
letter-sub   come-past
Tegami-wa  kimasen    deshita
letter-top      come-neg past
âThe letter hasnât arrivedâ.
That can also happen in constructions similar to the Polish one indicated (Tu nie ma okularów âThe glasses are not hereâ), where -wa replaces the subject marker (Kamiya 1988: 67), similar to the genitive in Polish:
Haizara-ga     arimasu âThere are ashtraysâ â against:
ashtray(s)-sub are
Machi-wa       arimasen âMatches (however) there arenâtâ.
match(es)-top be-neg
The Japanese -wa and -no
Itâs clear that in the Japanese examples the topic marker -wa appears as a counterpart to the Slavic genitive endings after a negative verb. The striking similarity between the shown Russian (and Polish) examples on the one hand and the Japanese on the other is supplemented with yet another peculiarity of the Japanese topic marker -wa. In single cases it may resemble, at least apparently and in a definite context, the possessive function of the Japanese genitive. In Japanese, possession is expressed by the genitive marker -no. So, from zÅ âelephantâ there will be
zÅ-no hana âelephantâs noseâ or âthe nose of the elephantâ.
But in the next sentence (after Schmalstieg 1980: 166-167):
ZÅ-wa          hana-ga     nagai,
elephant-top nose-sub   long
which translates as âthe elephantâs nose is longâ or âthe elephant has a long noseâ and actually literally means âconcerning the elephant, its nose is longâ, as the author also points out, itâs hard to determine which is the subject â zÅ-wa or hana-ga. Here the topic marker -wa may be perceived as a genitive case marker, too. In any case, however, the sentence cited is semantically the same (at least in some contexts) as a sentence with a genitive marker -no:
ZÅ-no           hana-ga  nagai.
elephant-gen nose-sub long
More such examples (after KEJLPD 1996: 109, 110, 187):
Kare-wa chooshi-ga  ii
he-top    form-sub  good
âHe is in a good formâ = His form is good (my note â I. I.);
Kono tegami-wa hizuke-ga nai
this   letter-top   date-sub  is-neg
âThis letter has no dateâ = âThis letterâs date is absentâ (my note â I. I.).
Replacing -wa with -ga changes the meaning of the sentence (Shibatani 2002:274, 293, 297):
Zoo-wa hana-ga nagai âan/the elephant is such that its trunk is longâ â but:
Zoo-ga hana-ga nagai âit is the elephant whose trunk is longâ;
Kakehi sensei-wa hige-ga rippa da âProf. Kakehi is such that his beard is impressiveâ â but:Â Â
Kakehi sensei-ga hige-ga rippa da âit is prof. Kakehi whose beard is impressiveâ.
The Japanese subject marker -ga is sometimes used to indicate the direct object after passive verbs (Akiyama 2002: 44-45) â probably a remainder from an old passive construction of the sentence which can also be interpreted as a possessive construction in which possession is again expressed with -wa, as in the cited example âthe elephantâs nose is longâ:
MarÄ«-san-wa, tenisu-ga  jÅzu desu
Mary-ms-top tennis-sub good is
âMary is good at tennisâ = âMaryâs tennis is goodâ (my note â I. I.).
In addition, in some cases the possessive meaning of -wa is doubled by the possessive marker -no (Akiyama 2002: 42):
Asagohan-o   tabeta-no-wa   haji  ji          deshita
breakfast-acc eating-gen-top  8  oâclock  is-past
âthe time (I) ate breakfast was 8 oâclockâ/âbreakfast-eating (time) was at eight oâclockâ.
Conclusion
I may say, in conclusion, that the striking typlogical resemblance between Slavic and Japanese, concerning negation, is hardly haphazard. It is probably a reflection of ancient syntactical processes that have already faded off in contemporary languages. That allows for the possibility for the initial semantics of the negative Indo-European genitive to have been linked to the topic (regarding Indo-European as a topic oriented language see Lehman 1976: 450; Schmalstieg 1980: 166-188), and later additional semantic variations arose, as in any grammatical phenomenon. The same holds true for the Japanese morpheme -wa.
The present paper aims at stating a supposition and not making categorical inferences. Still, the material shown reasonably gives us food for thought and the reason for further researching the matter.
Abbreviations
acc â accusative;
def â definite;
gen â genitive;
imp â imperative;
KEJLPD â The Kenkyusha English-Japanese Learnerâs Pocket Dictionary;
neg â negative;
nom â nominative;
past â past tense;
pl â plural;
sg â singular;
sub â subject;
TL â Transparent Language;
top â topic;
top â topic marker;
1 â first person
2 â second person;
3 â third person;
4 â interrogative.
Bibliography
Akiyama 2002: N. Akiyama, C. Akiyama. Japanese Grammar. Barronâs. China.
Dalewska-GreÅ 1997: H. Dalewska-GreÅ. JÄzyki sÅowiaÅskie. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Warszawa Feuillet2006: J. Feuillet. Introduction à la typologie linguistique. Honoré Champion. Paris.
Kamiya 1988: T. Kamiya. Speak Japanese Today. Tuttle Publishing. Tokyo, Rutland, Singapore.
Lehman 1976: W. Lehman. From Topic to Subject in Indo-European. In: Subject and Topic (Editor: Charles Li). Academic Press. New York, San Francisco, London, p. 447-456.
Moravcsik 1978: E. Moravcsik. On the Case Marking of Objects. In: Universals of Human Language. 4. Syntax. Stanford, p. 249-285.
Paducheva 2006: Paducheva, E. Genitiv dopolneniya v otricatelnom predlozhenii. In: Voprosy yazykoznaniya. 6, p. 21-43.
Schmalstieg 1980: W. Schmalstieg. Indo-European as a Topic-prominent Language. In: W. Schmalstieg. Indo-European Linguistics. A New Synthesis. Pennsylvania State University Press. Pennsylvania.
Shibatani 2002: M. Shibatani. The Languages of Japan: The Ainu Language. The Japanese Language. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
KEJLPD 1996 : The Kenkyusha English-Japanese Learnerâs Pocket Dictionary (Editor: Sh. Takebayashi). Oxford University Press. Tokyo.
TL 2002 : Transparent Language 2002: 101 Languages of the World. Transparent Language, Inc.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4