|
Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers >
Graduate School of Humanities and Human Sciences / Faculty of Humanities and Human Sciences >
北方言語研究 = Northern Language Studies >
第14号 >
チュルク諸語における副動詞の諸相と、中央アジアのチュルク諸語における V-(I)p bol-
| Title: | チュルク諸語における副動詞の諸相と、中央アジアのチュルク諸語における V-(I)p bol- |
| Other Titles: | Issues Related to Converb Use in Turkic Languages and V-(I)p bol- [V-CVB be-] in the Turkic languages of Central Asia |
| Authors: | 日髙, 晋介1 Browse this author |
| Authors(alt): | HIDAKA, Shinsuke1 |
| Keywords: | converb | | Central Asia | | Turkic Languages | | possibility | | semantic map | | 副動詞 | | 中央アジア | | チュルク諸語 | | 可能性 | | 意味領域地図 |
| Issue Date: | 20-Mar-2024 |
| Publisher: | 日本北方言語学会 |
| Journal Title: | 北方言語研究 |
| Journal Title(alt): | Northern Language Studies |
| Volume: | 14 |
| Start Page: | 1 |
| End Page: | 21 |
| CiNii Research CRID: | 1050581533886216192 |
| Abstract: | This study is divided into two parts. In Part I, first, I discuss Ebata (2023), which shows a classification of converbs by comparing their cross-linguistic definitions. Ebata’s (2023) classification is composed of three items: clause linkage, adverbial phrase, and part of complex predicate. Secondly, I explain the use of converbs in Turkic languages. Converbs take many forms and are used frequently in Turkic languages. Therefore, these languages provide rich ground for cross-linguistic analysis of converb use. Finally, I review the literature and provide direction for future research. In Part II, I discuss the meanings of V-(I)p bol- [V-CVB be-] in the Turkic languages of Central Asia based on previous research and the interview examinations I conducted with native speakers. I examine two opinions on the diachronic paths of modal meanings in V-(I)p bol-: Schönig (1987: 15) argued that modal meaning in V-(I)p bol- developed from actional meaning, while Rentzsch (2015: 95) stated that replacing purposive converb V-GAlI in V-GAlI bol- to consequential converb -(I)p led to modal meaning in V-(I)p bol-. Checking their meanings with the semantic map of possibility by Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998), I clarify that each language lacks participant-internal possibility. Lacking participant-internal possibility violates the principle that markers that can express two meanings on an identical path of the modal map can express any meaning between these two meanings. However, lacking participant-internal possibility does not contradict the semantic map if each actional meaning and modal meaning developed independently. Therefore, I support the opinion of Rentzsch (2015), not Schönig (1987). |
| Type: | bulletin (article) |
| URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/2115/92096 |
| Appears in Collections: | 北方言語研究 = Northern Language Studies > 第14号
|
|
