* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Daniel Trott East
Kannada grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ojibwe grammar wikipedia , lookup
Udmurt grammar wikipedia , lookup
Chinese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Polish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Scottish Gaelic grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old Norse morphology wikipedia , lookup
Portuguese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old Irish grammar wikipedia , lookup
English clause syntax wikipedia , lookup
Macedonian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Navajo grammar wikipedia , lookup
Modern Hebrew grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ukrainian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup
Spanish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Proto-Indo-European verbs wikipedia , lookup
Latin syntax wikipedia , lookup
Swedish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Latin conjugation wikipedia , lookup
Japanese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Greek verbs wikipedia , lookup
Germanic strong verb wikipedia , lookup
Georgian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Icelandic grammar wikipedia , lookup
Germanic weak verb wikipedia , lookup
Lexical semantics wikipedia , lookup
Russian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Yiddish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old English grammar wikipedia , lookup
Pipil grammar wikipedia , lookup
German verbs wikipedia , lookup
Research Centre for Japanese Language and Linguistics University of Oxford オックスフォード大学 日本語研究センター www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/research/jap-ling/ Daniel Trott [email protected] East Asian Linguistics Seminar University of Oxford, 5 February 2013 1 Aim: ◦ To show that the OJ -(i)-wor- construction does not only denote activities, but also result states ◦ To discuss explanations of this multifunctionality Structure: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ 1. 2. 3. 4. Introduction Previous accounts Analysis of -(i)-worExplanations (i) for resultative-progressive multifunctionality (ii) for -(i)-wor- specifically 2 3 Periodization: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Old Japanese (8th century) Early Middle Japanese (800–1200) Late Middle Japanese (1200–1600) Modern Japanese (1600–) Varieties: ◦ Central (or Western) Old Japanese ◦ Eastern Old Japanese Main sources: ◦ Man’yōshū (MYS), Kojiki (KK), Nihon shoki (NSK), Bussokuseki (BS) 4 The Infinitive (連用形) of a verb followed by the verb wor- ‘be sitting, be still’ ◦ e.g. iri-wori, mati-woreba, kwopwi-wora-mu There are only 54 attestations ◦ Compare: 948 attestations of Perfective -(i)n5 1. UTTERANCE aspectual construal 2. VERB aspectual potential 3. CONSTRUCTION aspectual function(s) 6 An utterance has an aspectual construal ◦ the way an event is construed aspectually by the speaker ◦ the same event can be construed aspectually in different ways Examples: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ result state activity habitual achievement (punctual directed change) accomplishment (durative directed change) 7 In a subjective result state, the subject of an intransitive verb is construed as having come to be in a particular state: 8 In an objective result state, the object of a transitive verb is construed as having come to be in a particular state: 9 In a possessive result state, the subject is construed as possessing the object in a particular state: 10 An undirected activity is an activity that does not tend towards a qualitative boundary, i.e. one that is atelic: 11 A directed activity is one that tends towards a qualitative boundary, i.e. one that is telic: -yer- and -(i)te ar- cannot express directed activities (Kinsui 1995: 18) 12 A verb does not have a fixed aspectual type ◦ The same verb may be used in utterances with different aspectual construals, cf: He’s broken his ankle. [result state] He broke his ankle. [achievement] Instead, a verb has aspectual potential: ◦ the particular combination of construals it has in different aspect constructions (Croft 2012) Verbs with similar aspectual potential can be grouped into classes ◦ In Old Japanese, the combinations of verbs with the major aspect constructions produce five classes: 13 14 Constructions often allow more than one aspectual construal ◦ E.g., the English Perfect is often analysed as having four: current relevance of anterior event experiential recent past anterior continuing So the first step is to list the aspectual construals of a construction ◦ Then to consider its function(s) 15 Three ways of analysing multifunctionality (Haspelmath 2003): ◦ monosemy ◦ polysemy ◦ homonymy The most reliable way to decide between these is by psycholinguistic experiment ◦ I will remain uncommitted as to the nature of the multifunctionality of -yer-, -(i)te ar-, and -(i)-wor- 16 Cross-linguistic comparison can tell us ◦ what combinations of functions are likely ◦ what changes are common But constructions with the same name in different languages are different ◦ It is not enough to say ‘This is a perfect’ ◦ If cross-linguistic categories exist at all, they are prototype categories (Dahl 1985; Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994) 17 18 -(i)-wor- is usually called a ‘progressive’, e.g. by Vovin (2009) and Frellesvig (2010) ◦ It is seen as a construction formed on activity verbs like the English Progressive be V-ing ◦ This is correct for the examples where it combines with activity verbs (e.g. katarap- ‘talk’, mat- ‘wait’) But it is also found with accomplishment, achievement, and inceptive state verbs ◦ e.g. ir- ‘enter’, sok- ‘become parted’, komor- ‘be shut up’ ◦ In most cases these cannot be interpreted as activities with -(i)-wor19 According to Watanabe (2008), the nonprogressive examples are lexical ◦ The verb wor- still means ‘be sitting’ or ‘be still’ This means that strings like iri wori must be interpreted as sequential events, e.g. ‘go in and be sitting’ or ‘go in and be still’ ◦ But a resultative interpretation always makes better sense than a ‘lexical’ one 20 According to Kinsui (2006) ◦ -(i)-wor- is always progressive ◦ non-activity verbs that appear with -(i)-wor- are behaving as activity verbs in this construction But ◦ These verbs (ir- ‘enter’, komor- ‘be shut up’) do not behave like activity verbs in any other constructions They are directed change or inceptive state verbs ◦ In this construction they do not denote activities 21 Like Stative -yer- and Periphrastic Stative -(i)te ar-, the -(i)-wor- construction denotes ◦ undirected activities with activity verbs ◦ result states with accomplishment, achievement, and inceptive state verbs This is not unheard of, especially in Japanese, and explains the data 22 23 The following verbs that -(i)-wor- combines with appear to be activity verbs: 24 When -(i)-wor- combines with activity verbs it denotes an activity: 25 26 The following verbs that -(i)-wor- combines with appear to be accomplishment or achievement verbs: 27 When -(i)-wor- combines with directed change verbs it denotes a result state: 28 ki-iri-wori, iri-wori, and soki-wori here denote result states ◦ A lexical interpretation of wori is less natural to the sense of the poems 29 The following verbs that -(i)-wor- combines with appear to be inceptive state verbs: 30 When -(i)-wor- combines with inceptive state verbs it denotes a result state: 31 These verbs can denote both an achievement and a state ◦ Here they denote states ◦ -(i)-wor- can be interpreted as denoting the result state of the achievement sense 32 -(i)-wor- should be interpreted as denoting: ◦ activities with activity verbs ◦ result states with achievement, accomplishment, and inceptive state verbs 33 34 Constructions that denote result states (resultative constructions) and constructions that denote activities (progressive constructions) are both common ◦ But constructions that denote both are rare The two functions can be united in some formalizations of aspect ◦ E.g., they denote the rightmost extended temporal phase of an event ◦ But the question of how they develop diachronically is harder to answer 35 Ebert (1995) proposes that some of the activity verbs found in resultative-progressive constructions began as achievement verbs ◦ From being achievement verbs in resultative constructions they were reanalysed as activity verbs in progressive constructions ◦ This caused reanalysis of the construction as allowing both result state and activity construals 36 She uses the example of nite iru ‘resembles’ ◦ which presumably began as an achievement verb in a resultative construction But for reanalysis of the construction, tokens of such verbs must have been frequent ◦ It seems unlikely that many of the OJ activity verbs began as achievement verbs 37 Ebert (1995) proposes that alternatively reanalysis could result from the ambiguity of inceptive state or inceptive activity verbs ◦ So a verb like sak- ‘bloom’ could be reanalysed from an achievement verb in a resultative construction to an activity verb in a progressive construction ◦ Then the construction is reanalysed as denoting result states and activities, and activity verbs can begin to be used But are there enough inceptive state verbs to induce this reanalysis? 38 Similar to proposal (b) ◦ but with a different verb class Activity verbs were first used in these constructions to denote the result state of the inception of an activity, i.e. the activity’s occurring ◦ e.g. mati-woru ‘has begun to wait’ Then the construction was reanalysed to express activities without the implication of their having begun ◦ e.g. mati-woru ‘is waiting’ 39 The ‘inception of activity’ construal of activity verbs seems to have existed in OJ, especially with Perfective -(i)n- ~ -(i)te-: 40 41 Sometimes Perfective -(i)n- seems to denote an undirected activity: 42 These can be seen as the application of the result state function of Perfective -(i)n- to the ‘inception of activity’ sense of activity verbs 43 If activity verbs have a conventionalized ‘inception of activity’ sense, this could be used as input to a resultative construction ◦ Kudō (1983) explains Uwajima dialect -(I)-tor- this way ◦ He glosses arui-toru as ‘has begun to walk’ This need not be the correct synchronic analysis of any resultative-progressive construction ◦ But it is a possible diachronic explanation 44 -(i)-wor- is different from -yer- and -(i)te ar◦ -yer-: 63% result state, 30% activity ◦ -(i)te ar-: 80% result state, 14% activity ◦ -(i)-wor-: 35% result state, 65% activity Why do -yer- and -(i)te ar- express more result states than activities, while -(i)-wor- is the other way round? 45 What are converbs? ◦ ‘a nonfinite verb form whose main function is to mark adverbial subordination’ (Haspelmath 1995) ◦ e.g. the Gerund and the Infinitive Converbs play an important role in forming periphrastic constructions ◦ Anterior converb + stative > result state ◦ Simultaneous converb + stative > activity Converbs can change their meaning over time ◦ The Japanese Gerund broadened in LMJ from being only an anterior converb to also expressing temporal simultaneity (Ohori 1994) 46 The Infinitive shifted from denoting temporal sequentiality to denoting temporal simultaneity at some point pre-OJ (Frellesvig 2010) ◦ This made -(i)-wor- more iconic (and popular) as a progressive than as a resultative construction ◦ -yer- was not affected, since its Infinitive origin was obscured ◦ -(i)te ar- was not affected, since the Gerund still denoted temporal sequentiality -(i)-wor- could originally have been an alternative to -yer◦ like -(i)-imas- 47 -(i)-wor- could denote both result states and activities, like -yer- and -(i)te arIt probably began by denoting result states and expanded to denote activities ◦ Possibly via denoting the ‘result state’ of the inception of an activity The changing function of the Infinitive caused its progressive function to dominate 48 BYBEE, Joan, Revere PERKINS, and William PAGLIUCA. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press. CROFT, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DAHL, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. EBERT, Karen H. 1995. ‘Ambiguous perfect-progressive forms across languages’. In Pier Marco Bertinetto, Valentina Bianchi, Östen Dahl, and Mario Squartini (eds), Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality, Vol. 2: Typological Perspectives, Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier, pp. 185–203. FRELLESVIG, Bjarke. 2010. A History of the Japanese Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HASPELMATH, Martin. 1995. ‘The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category’. In Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König (eds), Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms – Adverbial Participles, Gerunds –, Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–55. ——. 2003. ‘The Geometry of Grammatical Meaning: Semantic Maps and CrossLinguistic Comparison’. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Vol. II, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 211–242. 49 KINSUI Satoshi [金水敏]. 1995. ‘ “Shinkootai” to wa nani ka’ [「進行態」とはなにか, ‘What is “progressive aspect”?’]. Kokubungaku: kaishaku to kanshoo [国文学 解釈と鑑賞, ‘National Literature: Interpretation and Appreciation’] 60–7: 14–20. ——. 2006. Nihongo sonzai hyōgen no rekishi (日本語存在表現の歴史, ‘The History of Existential Expressions in Japanese’). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. KUDŌ Mayumi [工藤真由美]. 1983. ‘Uwajima hoogen no asupekuto’ [宇和島方言のアスペクト , ‘Aspect in the Uwajima dialect’]. Kokubungaku: kaishaku to kanshoo [国文学 解釈と鑑賞 , ‘National Literature: Interpretation and Appreciation’] 48–6. OHORI, Toshio. 1994. ‘Diachrony of Clause Linkage: TE and BA in Old through Middle Japanese’. In William Pagliuca (ed.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 135–149. VOVIN, Alexander. 2009. A Descriptive and Comparative Grammar of Western Old Japanese, Part 2: Adjectives, Verbs, Adverbs, Conjunctions, Particles, Postpositions. Folkestone, Kent: Global Oriental. WATANABE, Kazuha. 2008. ‘Tense and aspect in Old Japanese: Synchronic, diachronic, and typological perspectives’. Cornell University PhD dissertation. 50 Research Centre for Japanese Language and Linguistics University of Oxford オックスフォード大学 日本語研究センター www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/research/jap-ling/ Daniel Trott [email protected] 51