エレオノラ・ヨフコバ・四位 (東京農工大学非常勤)



Three Stages of Diffusion of Standard Japanese Forms: Railway Distance and Percentage of Standard Usage by 4 Clusters

Fumio Inoue(Tokyo University of Foreign Studies)

In this paper a new technique for representing dialectal differences will be introduced. Two techniques of simplification are applied to represent geographical distribution patterns of standard Japanese. The first one is a representation of two-dimensional geographical distribution patterns by one dimension. The second one is plotting the geographical locations making use of railway distances from cultural centers. By simplifying the two-dimensional geographical distribution into one by railway distance, another dimension can show the average percentage of usage of standard Japanese forms for each prefecture. In order to see the patterns of distribution of the Japanese standard forms, “Kasai data”, or numerical data of the “Linguistic Atlas of Japan”, was utilized.

By comparing railway distances from Tokyo and from Kyoto in the form of scattergrams, the degree of linguistic influence of each of the capitals of Japan was analyzed. The overall pattern showed that railway distances surely correspond to standardization of dialects. The standardization of language in Japan proceeded in two historical stages. The first stage was standardization from Kyoto. The second stage appeared later from Tokyo. These two stages were ascertained by classifying 82 words into 4 clusters. West cluster words showed Kyoto-centered diffusion and east cluster words showed Tokyo-centered diffusion.

An analysis of younger Japanese people through a countrywide postal survey showed that standardization has proceeded with greater speed in recent years. Most of the words of the Kasai data approached the end of diffusion. This third stage of standardization seems to have been influenced by the mass media.

The Biblical Hebrew Suffix Conjugation in the Light of Canaano-Akkadian

Jun Ikeda(University of Tsukuba)

The Biblical Hebrew (BH) verbal system has traditionally been understood as follows:

 basic formsconverted forms

This phenomenon is generally explained as follows: when several verbs occur consecutively, the tense, mood and aspect (TMA) of the first verb can determine that of the following verbs.

In 1986, A. F. Rainey demonstrated in the light of Canaano-Akkadian that the BH wayyiķţol is a survival of the older Northwest Semitic yaqtul preterite, that the BH yiķţol is a reflex of the yaqtulu imperfect, and that the BH jussive and cohortative originate from yaqtul and yaqtula. This radically alters the two-by-two framework above, since the wayyiķţol can now be regarded as a preterite in its own right rather than as a converted ķɔţal.

In this paper, I focus on the BH suffix conjugation (ķɔţal) and demonstrate that the suffix conjugation should be characterized as a form which cannot be marked for TMA. The resulting framework is:

Finite forms, marked for TMA: wayyiķţol, yiķţol, jussive, cohortative;
Non-finite forms, unmarked for TMA: suffix conjugation, infinitive, participle.

I illustrate how the TMA of the suffix conjugation are construed from the Aktionsart of the verb and the context using two text specimens, Genesis 2: 4-8 and 1 Samuel 1: 1-6.

On the Choice between wh-relatives when/where and a Preposition+which in Time and Place Relative Clauses

Yoshihiko Watanabe(Daito Bunka University)

In this paper, we are concerned with establishing the principles governing the choice between a wh-relative and a prep(osition)+which in time and place relative clauses (=RCs), such as (i) the day [{when/on which} …[e]…] and (ii) the street [{where/on which} …[e]…]. We argue, among other things, that the cases where a wh-relative is used, which we call “hamidashi” (or “pressed-out”) RCs, and those where a prep+which is used are two different types of RC. In “pressed-out” RCs the RC defines or characterizes the attribute of its antecedent and restricts the range of the attribute of the antecedent. This function differentiates “pressed-out” RCs from the “prep+which”-type (=restrictive RC). We claim that these semantic differences between the two types of RC can be attributed to the nature of the “gap” (indicated by “[e]” in (i) and (ii)) inside of the RC.

We also suggest that there is a parallelism between pre-modification and post-modification, more specifically, that “pressed-out” RCs (post-modifiers) are comparable with classifying adjectives (pre-modifiers) in their relevant respects.

Finally, we provide syntactic evidence that suggests that “pressed-out” RCs are not complements: rather, both “pressed-out” RCs and ordinary restrictive RCs (including the “prep+which”-type) could be on the same level (both outside complement elements) in the X-bar structure. To reconcile such a situation with the claim that the “pressed-out” RC and the “prep+which”-type are two different types of RC, we propose a hypothesis to the effect that types of RC can be determined according to the nature of the gap regardless of their phrase-structural position.