|
|
Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers >
Graduate School of Humanities and Human Sciences / Faculty of Humanities and Human Sciences >
北方人文研究 = Journal of the Center for Northern Humanities >
第16号 >
アイヌ語の動詞の結合価と3項動詞
| Title: | アイヌ語の動詞の結合価と3項動詞 |
| Other Titles: | Verbal Valency and Three-Place Verbs in Ainu |
| Authors: | 佐藤, 知己1 Browse this author →KAKEN DB |
| Authors(alt): | Sato, Tomomi1 |
| Issue Date: | 25-Mar-2023 |
| Publisher: | 北海道大学大学院文学研究院北方研究教育センター |
| Journal Title: | 北方人文研究 |
| Journal Title(alt): | Journal of the Center for Northern Humanities |
| Volume: | 16 |
| Start Page: | 37 |
| End Page: | 64 |
| Abstract: | アイヌ語の文法において動詞の結合価が重要な役割を果たすことは以前からたびたび指摘されていた。しかしながら先行研究においては既存の結合価の概念がアイヌ語の事例を説明するのに必ずしも万全なものではないことが見逃されていた。本稿では主として3項動詞の分析を通して、人称接辞が示す結合価は役割指示文法（Role and Reference Grammar）における「一般的意味役割（macrorole）」に基づく他動性（M-transitivity）に概略相当するが、アイヌ語ではこの他に名詞抱合や名詞的派生接辞によって具現される別の結合価が存在し、これらをすべて包括するようなより一般的な結合価概念を設定する必要性を述べて、新たに「項スロット」という概念を提案した。「項スロット」は動詞がいくつの統語的な項を取ることができるかという潜在的能力を表しているが、通常の統語的結合価とは異なり、Nichols（1986，1992）による「主要部表示型言語」にアイヌ語が属しているという事実に基礎を置いている。「項スロット」は通常、動詞に付加された人称接辞によって充足され、指示的名詞句（referential noun phrase）は随意要素として動詞の外部に置かれて人称接辞と相互照応（cross-reference）する。しかし、アイヌ語においては、項スロットは人称接辞だけでなく、名詞抱合や名詞的派生接辞によっても充足可能である。さらに、項スロットは潜在的能力であるので、3項動詞の場合のように、人称接辞では表示不能な指示的名詞句が動詞の外側に置かれて項スロットを充足することもあり得る。アイヌ語の文法現象が形態論と統語論を越境する多様性を示す要因は、アイヌ語が主要部表示型という類型論的言語タイプに基づく「項スロット」という結合価を有するためであることを述べた。また、アイヌ語の場合は動詞の最終的な形態構造が示す結合価（形態的結合価）も重要であり、三つの結合価が同時に文法現象をコントロールしていることを述べた。なお、アイヌ語の項スロットの数は通常は個々の動詞に対して厳格に決まっており、他言語における意味的結合価や統語的結合価とは異なり、原則変動することはない。しかし、極めて稀にではあるが、3項動詞の場合に項スロット数が変動しているかにみえる例外的な事例がみられることを指摘し、それらの事例もここで提案された三つの結合価と項スロットの語用論的な充足という概念を用いて説明が可能であることを述べた。 | | Ainu clearly belongs to the language type of head-marking languages according to Nichols(1986) framework. Nichols refers to subject, direct object, and indirect object as the most important factors in verbal coding in head-marking languages. Other things being equal, valency in Ainu is also supposed to be determined by this verbal coding. However, in Ainu, only subject and direct object can be encoded in a verb: indirect object cannot be marked. So it appears the maximal verbal valency in Ainu automatically amounts to two. In fact, this is not the case. Since nominal derivational prefixes and incorporated nominal bases may also be coded in a verb occupying the position for indirect object, we should extend the notion of verbal coding in head-marking languages by Nichols to include such indirect nominal elements in considering Ainu verbal valency. For the moment we name this special notion of a revised version of the valency for head-marking languages such as Ainu as “argument slot”. If we follow the notion of argument slot, the maximal valency of Ainu is supposed to be three, not two. It should be noted that “argument slot” is here a verb-internal abstract property just as gender for a noun and that it does not mean any surface positions in verbal morphology. And we have to assume that there are two further distinct frameworks for verbal valency in Ainu. First, we assume that the person marking is very important and that it corresponds to the concept of M-transitivity advocated by Role and Reference Grammar by Van Valin. According to M-transitivity, the maximal verbal valency of Ainu is not three, but two, namely, Actor and Undergoer. Furthermore, since verbal valency can be reduced by derivation and incorporation, the verbal valency on a surface level may not always match the argument slot valency or the M-transitivity valency. Therefore, in addition to these two valencies, it is necessary to recognize “morphological verbal valency”. Such a valency framework with three different verbal valencies, though very complex, is very useful for explaining examples involving an exceptional valency shift in three place verbs in Ainu.
Chiri (1974[1936]) cites an example of wakka-ta-re-an ‘we make someone dip water’, which should take subject, causee, and theme. Since ‘to make someone dip something’ incorporates wakka ‘water’, it should appear as a two-place verb. However, it is actually realized as a one-place verb. Such irregularity in valency-shift can be explained by simultaneously considering three different verbal valencies, such as argument slot, M-transitivity, and morphological verbal valency. The verb ta-re is a three-place verb according to argument slot. However, the action ‘to make someone dip water’ is common in Ainu culture, and it is likely that usually there is little need to encode the causee. So it would be better to consider that the interpretation by argument slot is modified and that the valency is reduced to two for the pragmatic reason. Ta-re is then interpreted as a two-place verb and is inflected by M-transitivity. Then that is further converted into a one-place verb by the incorporation of wakka ‘water’. In addition, even if it is converted into a one-place verb, the nature of a three-place verb by argument slot is supposed to remain, so the meaning of causee still exists with pragmatic implications. Another similar case is iyomare-an ‘we pour liquor for someone’, which is also an exception to valency-shift for a pragmatic reason and seems to support the analysis proposed here. |
| Type: | bulletin (article) |
| URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/2115/88711 |
| Appears in Collections: | 北方人文研究 = Journal of the Center for Northern Humanities > 第16号
|
|
