|
|
Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers >
Slavic-Eurasian Research Center >
スラヴ研究 = Slavic Studies >
53 >
ブルガリア語の従属節のevidentiality
| Title: | ブルガリア語の従属節のevidentiality |
| Other Titles: | Evidentiality of the Subordinate Clause in Bulgarian |
| Authors: | ヨフコバ四位, エレオノラ1 Browse this author |
| Authors(alt): | Yovkova-Shii, Eleonora1 |
| Issue Date: | 2006 |
| Publisher: | 北海道大学スラブ研究センター |
| Journal Title: | スラヴ研究 |
| Journal Title(alt): | Slavic Studies |
| Volume: | 53 |
| Start Page: | 217 |
| End Page: | 240 |
| Abstract: | This paper deals with the evidentiality of the subordinate complementary clause in Bulgarian, focusing on the following problems. First, it investigates to what extent the formal features established for the functions of the evidential of the simple sentence are preserved at the subordinate clause level. Second, it examines how the modality of the main clause influences the modality (evidentiality) of the subordinate clause. The functions of the evidential of the subordinate clause treated in this study are in accordance with the functions established for the predicate of the simple sentence, namely "inference," "hearsay," and "admirativity." For every function, we investigate sentences which include an "evidential" verb as the predicate of the main clause and analyse the possible occurrences of the predicate of the subordinate clause. Since the analysis deals with the complementary clause, it takes into account the two types of conjunctions, i.e. "che" and "da," and verifies the possible co-occurrences. In the introduction we describe the formal/functional features established for the l-participle forms of the simple sentence. The first section briefly outlines the complex sentence types and conjunctional differences. The first part of the second section deals with the inferential function. The analysis begins with sentences with an inferential verb in the main clause and tense forms, other than the l-participle forms, in the subordinate clause. It shows that, when the "che" conjunction is used, any tense form can be subordinate to the main clause with the inferential predicate. However, when the conjunction changes into "da," none of the tenses is permitted. Next, we analyse inferential sentences which have an l-participle predicate in the subordinate clause and show how they differ in meaning from those with non-l-participle predicate. The use of the l-participle inferential predicate in the subordinate clause instead of an indicative predicate adds additional aspectual meanings (resultant situation) or limits the meaning of the predicate of the main clause to certain meanings (inference from hearsay). This section also treats some "admirative" usages. Admirativity is discussed in detail in the third part of the second section. As for the formal features of the inferential l-participles in the subordinate clause, the analysis shows that they are preserved in the same way as those of the inferential in the simple sentence. The second part of the second section deals with the "reportive/hearsay" function. One of the great disputes concerning the l-participle in Bulgarian is whether the omission of the auxiliary in the third person is a sufficient condition for distinguishing a paradigm with an invariant meaning of "report/hearsay." We have shown that for the predicate of simple sentences auxiliariless forms can express not only "report/hearsay" but also other functions (i.e. admirativity). However, "pure report" is usually expressed by the auxiliariless form. This part of the study analyses the problem of omission/occurrence of the third person auxiliary of the predicate in the subordinate clause. The analysis shows that, due to the fact that the verb of the main clause makes the report/hearsay explicit, the auxiliary omission in most of the cases is optional. However, there are cases where the omission (or preservation) of the auxiliary has its own purpose, i.e. it distinguishes the tense of the participle (past or present), or eliminates syntactic ambiguity. This part of the study also deals with sentences which have indicative form in the main clause, but evidential (reportive) form in the subordinate and shows that in these cases the l-form in the subordinate clause is always auxiliariless, thus making "report/hearsay" explicit. This part of the study also deals with sentences which have in the main clause an l-participle form for "report/hearsay" instead of a verb for "report/hearsay." In the same section we also investigate the behaviour of the two conjunctions, i.e. "che" and "da." Like inferential sentences, for "che" there are no constraints. "Da" clauses are possible only with predicates in the present tense. Besides, for complex sentences with "da" clauses, the subject of the predicate of the main clause and the subject of the predicate of the subordinate clause should be different. However, unlike the "inference" sentences, "report/hearsay" sentences can contain l-forms in their subordinate "da" clauses. Consequently, "imperatives" can be reported in Bulgarian. The third part of the second section briefly outlines the functions of the l-participle which have nothing in common with the "source of information," or evidentiality, per se, i.e. "admirativity," "disbelief," etc. The third section deals with the relationship of epistemic modality to the notions of "knowledge" and "belief." This section analyses complex sentences with a "knowledge/belief" predicate in the main clause and investigates the behaviour of the subordinate clause predicate and its formal features. It shows that the speaker's attitude toward knowledge expressed by the predicate of the main clause determines the choice of the type of predicate or its meaning in the subordinate clause. The final section summarizes the results of the analysis. |
| Type: | bulletin (article) |
| URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/2115/39265 |
| Appears in Collections: | スラヴ研究 = Slavic Studies > 53
|
|
