Knowledge base · source

Shibatani 1988

Shibatani, Masayoshi (1988). Polysynthesis in Ainu and theories of incorporation, 210–211.

db.aynu.org/1988-shibatani-masayoshi-polysynthesis-in-ainu-and-theories-of-incorporation prior-analysis general text held locally OCR gemini-3-flash-preview: 2 leaves, 2 with a printed page

Chapters citing this source

Sentences of the first edition citing this source

1. The density of such accumulation is most visible in Classical Ainu, particularly in the heroic epic genre yukar ; : no page A Typological Profile of Hokkaido Ainu
2. Shibatani (1988) analysed Ainu incorporation as a productive type-I lexical compounding process without semantic bleaching of the incorporated nominal, placing Ainu at the strong end of the polysynthesis scale . no page A Typological Profile of Hokkaido Ainu
3. His 1988 article had placed Ainu noun incorporation within the cross-linguistic typology of polysynthesis, establishing a framework for the incorporation analysis taken up in later work. no page The History of Ainu Language Description and Previous Research
4. The accessible Shibatani source is the 1988 conference abstract, which states that the incorporable nominal is the patient subject of an intransitive clause and the object of a transitive clause — an unaccusative framing stated in terms of semantic role and grammatical relation . 210–211 The Split-Intransitive (Active–Stative) Core
5. The text accessible for this grammar is the 1988 LSJ abstract, which treats noun incorporation and argues that the incorporable nominal corresponds to the patient subject of an intransitive clause or to a transitive object — explicitly invoking an unaccusative analysis . 210–211 Tripartite, Nominative-Accusative, and the Central Alignment Debate
6. A language-level label such as active, ergative, or inverse characterises at most one row accurately: the active label is unverified for the agreement paradigm ; the ergative analysis is a diachronic reconstruction for Proto-Ainu; and the inverse label is Dal Corso's analysis of ‹SA› 210–211 Tripartite, Nominative-Accusative, and the Central Alignment Debate
7. Shibatani argues that a purely grammatical-relation account and a purely semantic-role account each fall short, and that Ainu incorporation must reference both the incorporated noun’s low agentivity and its grammatical position ; . 210–211 Valency, Voice, and Noun Incorporation: Overview
8. Baker's Case-theoretic prediction that applicative formation (P-incorporation) should be impossible on unaccusative bases is falsified by Ainu ; ; . 210–211 Applicative Stacking, Ordering, and the Feeding of Relativization
9. Shibatani identifies the applicativization of intransitive bases in Ainu as a direct refutation: Baker's Case-theory predicts this should be impossible, yet it is productive in Hokkaido Ainu ; ‹contested›. 210–211 Applicative Stacking, Ordering, and the Feeding of Relativization
10. Whether Ainu NI is best analysed as purely lexical, as Baker's syntactic head-movement, or as a hybrid that must reference both grammatical relations and semantic roles as Shibatani proposes is a dispute the sources consulted do not resolve; it is taken up in ; ; ‹contested›. no page Object (Patient) Noun Incorporation
11. Shibatani observed that Ainu subjects do not incorporate freely: only the patient-subject of an intransitive — not the agent — incorporates, and he proposed that this tracks unaccusativity ; . 210–211 Subject Incorporation and Possessor-Stranding