Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers >
北方言語研究 = Northern Language Studies >
地域類型論的観点から見たツングース諸語の定動詞における3人称標示 : 数の対立を中心に
|タイトル: ||地域類型論的観点から見たツングース諸語の定動詞における3人称標示 : 数の対立を中心に|
|その他のタイトル: ||Third Person Marking on Finite Indicative Forms in Tungusic from the Perspective of Areal Typology|
|著者: ||白, 尚燁 著作を一覧する|
|発行日: ||2016年 1月20日|
|抄録: ||This study attempts to examine the difference of third person marking on finite
indicative forms in Tungusic from the perspective of areal typology. According to
number distinction in third person, this study employs the following typological
parameters of person marking: (i) obligatorily distinct marking, (ii) optionally distinct
marking, (iii) non-distinct marking, and (iv) non-person marking.
The analysis will show that third person marking on finite indicative endings in
Tungusic varies in accordance with geographical distribution, showing similarities
with neighboring languages. First, North Tungusic (i.e. Evenki, Even, and Negidal) is
considered obligatory distinct type and this is consistent with contiguous Kolima
Yukaghir, Sakha, and Russian. Second, East Tungusic languages (Ulcha, Nanay, Udihe,
and Uilta) are equivalent to adjacent Mongolic (Buryat, Dagur) in that both groups are
optional distinct type. Moreover, East Tungusic except Udihe coincides with these
Mongolic languages in that 3PL can be equally marked by the nominal plural suffix.
As far as Udihe is concerned, the verbal derivational suffix -du is selectively used to
indicate 3PL, which is presumed to originate from the loss of nominal element *-l as a
result of phonological change. Third, South Tungusic is divided into two groups, South
Tungusic 1 (Solon, Hezhen) and South Tungusic 2 (Manchu, Sibe). The former group
does not retain number distinction in third person, as is the case in Kazakh and Uyghur.
It is remarkable that the two different language families, without any direct contact, are
commonly distributed in the Chinese territory. The latter group never encodes person
category in verbal predicate structure, neither in Chinese and Khalkha Mongolian.
In conclusion, the author raises a possibility that the areal-based distinctions
among third person marking on finite indicative forms in Tungusic are attributed to the
influence from the adjacent languages.|
|資料タイプ: ||bulletin (article)|