コピュラ文における非対称性―「の」節の分析を通して―
松田 結貴 （ワシントン大学）
日本語の文の中で名詞的構成素「の」で終わる「の」節は意味的に曖昧であり，人間·場所·時間·抽象的な概念を指すことができる「の」節と，それが不可能な「の」節とがある．この事実はよく知られているが，どのような条件の下でこのような制約が出てくるのかは明らかにされていない．この論文では主にコピュラ文にあらわれる「の」節をとりあげ，コピュラ文は常に非対称的であると仮定することによって，この「の」節の意味的分布が系統立てて説明できるということを示す．まず，「の」節が項として機能する時には上に述べたような意味的制約を受け，述語として機能する時にはその制約を受けないという一般化を提案する．さらにいわゆる DP 仮説を取り入れ，「の」節の意味的曖昧さを「の」節の範疇と内部構造から予測できることを示す．またこの分析は接続詞「と」による接続可能性をも予測できることを示す．
韓国語の地域変種に対する認識
ダニエル・ロング（東京都立大学）
任 榮 哲（中央大学校）
本論では，「方言認知地図」という手法を用い，韓国の大学生400人余りを対象にしたアンケート調査から，韓国語の地理的変種に対する使用者の認識を追究する．結果としては，まず，方言の認知領域が行政区画である「道」と一致する傾向の強いことがわかった．そして，韓国人は，北部諸方言の詳細な特徴がわからなくても「北のことばは自分たちとは違う」と意識しており，朝鮮半島を南北に分断する政治的境界線がインフォーマントの言語変種意識に強く反映されている．また，ソウルで話されていることばが「最も快適なことば」として全国的に高い支持を得ているものの，それが「標準語」ではなく，「ソウル方言」と認識されているという興味深い結果も得られた．さらに，偏差値を算出すると，それぞれの地方の話者が母方言への愛着を持っている様子が浮き彫りになった．なお，各地で地元の方言が好意的に捉えられている中で，慶尚道だけに「方言コンプレックス」の傾向が現れるという特徴的な現象も見られた．
Subject Verbalization in Japanese Discourse
Masumi Kai(Okayama University)
The aim of this paper is to explore the verbalization pattern of subject, especially that of personal pronoun subject, in Japanese discourse. Wallace Chafe （1972, 1974） remarks that the concepts of speaker and hearer are ‘given’ and are pronounced with weaker stress and lower pitch. However, the Japanese equivalents of ‘I’ and ‘you’ are not always omitted.
In this paper, we shall argue that there are four types of subject in the light of its semantical function, and that this semantical function controls the verbalization vs. non-verbalization of the subject. The four types of subject are: 1） Topic of absolute contrast （Tac） / Nominative of complete exclusion （Nce）, 2） Topic of relative contrast （Trc） / Nominative of partial exclusion （Npe）, 3） Topic of logical uniqueness （Tlu） / Nominative of logical uniqueness （Nlu）, 4） Topic of absolute uniqueness （Tau） / Nominative of absolute uniqueness （Nau）.
In the case Tac/Nce, the subject has to be verbalized. On the other hand, for the case Tau/Nau, the subject is normally not verbalized.
Trc/Npe are divided into two types according to their predictability. When the subject is predictable through the factors below, it is omittable. When it is not, it must be verbalized. The factors which make a subject predictable are ‘Speaker-Hearer Predicates （SHP）’, ‘Shared Information’ and ‘Repetition or Substitution’. SHP indicate certain types of predicates which demand the first person or the second person subject. ‘Shared Information’ is the information shared between a speaker and a hearer. The third factor ‘Repetition or Substitution’ means repetition or substitution of something which has been uttered previously in the discourse. If any one of these factors are present in the predicate or in the context, the hearer can predict the subject, and it can hence be omitted. But in the case that none of these factors are present in the predicate or in the context, the subject must be verbalized.
Tlu/Nlu are uniquely identifiable by shared knowledge between speaker and hearer or from context, and these subjects are omittable.
Linguistic Theories as Viewed from Linguistic Typology
Makoto Minegishi(ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies)
This paper discusses the possibility of making a set of descriptive models for languages according to morphological typology.
Two word properties L （lexcical or semantic） and G （grammatical ro syntactic） are postulated in order to characterize three traditional morphological types of languages. An inflectional language has words with both ｛L, G｝, whereas an agglutinating one, either ｛L｝ or ｛G｝, and isolating one, only ｛L｝.
Further, each language type is re-defined respectively as ‘definite category language’, ‘infinite category language’ and ‘non category language’, according to the the number of variables G, that of the value M for each variable G.
Definite category languages like most of Indo-Europian languages including English have a constant number of variables G. The number of values of each Gi is also fixed.
The constancy of these numbers and the existence of G within a
word domain of the languages give paradigmatic characteristics to their words. On the other hand, indefiniteness of these numbers or the absence of G within a word domain give the rest of the two types syntagmatic characteristics.
The author claims that linguistic theories are based mostly on the knowledge of definite category languages, which would cause difficulties when they are applied to the other types of languages.
For example, the existence of only one definite verb in a sentence is unique to the definite category languages, though most linguistic theories regard this as one of language universals. Applying this principle to an indefinite category language like Japanese would require multiple embedding sentences, thus, it would cause unnecessary complexity in syntactic description.