open access

https://doi.org/10.14943/106656

https://hdl.handle.net/2115/89067

The Form of Koryak That Doubles as an Infinitive and a Converb

日本語

動詞の副詞的用法

2023-03-20

Japan Association of Northern Language Studies

Northern Language Studies

13

193-211

In Koryak, the suffix -k/-kkə (‘K-form’) derived from a locative case affix is thought to serve both as an infinitive and a converb when suffixed to the verb stem. The present paper explores the syntactic basis for this division of the K-form into two categories. In this analysis, based on the expectation that the two are continuous and that differences arise due to the process of syntactically combining them with main verbs, the following three criteria are established. 1) The order of K-form and MV 2) Commonality of arguments taken by K-form and MV 3) Words that can be placed between K-form and MV The data analysis reveals the following: (a) There is a certain correlation between the order of K-forms and MVs and their adapted commonality of arguments. In other words, the MV-K type has a significantly high percentage of common arguments (94%), while the K-MV type does not show such a bias, and a variety of patterns are distributed. (b) Both the MV-K and K-MV types commonly place various nouns including arguments and oblique nouns between the K and MV forms. On the contrary, the type of the allocated adverb depends on its affiliation towards the MV-K or K-MV type. That is, the former type tends to place modal adverbs, while the latter tends to place temporal adverbs. Additionally, a conjunction expressing an event’s transition appears only in the K-MV type. (c) The MV-K type has a limited number of verbs, while the K-MV type has no restrictions. The above analysis leads to the following assumption of Type I and Type II as the two extremes of the K-form. A) MV-K type, in which the arguments taken by the K-form and MV are common (Type I). B) K-MV type, in which the arguments taken by the K-form and MV are not common (Type II). However, K-forms are not divided only into Type I and Type II, but a few of them also show intermediate characteristics between the two. Considering that K-forms do not have nominative or adjectival usage, but are exclusively adverbial, such a continuity is natural. Deviations from the above can be seen in the following cases where, (1) despite the MV belonging to the MV-K type, there is no commonality between the arguments taken by the K form and the MV, and (2) the same MV shows fluctuations between MV-K and K-MV types. However, due to the small number of data, clarifying the causes of such deviations is a scope for future study. One option would be to consider types I and II as ‘infinitives’ and ‘adverbs,’ respectively, for the sake of convenience. Nevertheless, we still need to be cautious about equating the Russian infinitive, which has a different form from the converb and functions as an adverb, noun, or adjective, with the Koryak K-form, which has the same form and behaves exclusively as an adverb. At present, I think it is appropriate to describe the I and II types of K-forms as ‘two types of adverbial usage of verbs.

紀要論文

Version of Record

2185-7121

AA12516968