Instructions for use

Title シネヘン・ブリヤート語の2種類の未来表現 : 分詞の定動詞化に関する3類型

Author(s) 山越, 康裕

Citation 北方人文研究, 10, 79-96

Issue Date 2017-03-10

Doc URL http://hdl.handle.net/2115/65819

Type bulletin (article)

File Information 10_06_yamakoshi.pdf

Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers : HUSCAP

https://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/about.en.jsp

2— 3 —

11

2 2

=PRED =POSSV-PTCP.FUT=PREDV-PTCP.FUT=POSS

vs. vs.vs.

V-PTCP.FUT=PRED

1

; 6,000

Jargal Badagarov p.c. Yamakoshi 2011: : a [A a], o [U o], 8, e e @], u, 8, i

: p*, b, t, d, k*, c* [ţ], f* [F], s, z, x, g, h, l, w, j, r, m, n, N * h,w, j, N j

e.g. bj

A O A aO e AA aa OO ee 88 O o u

80 10 2017 3

2

SOV Dependent-Head

enclitic 2 proclitic

finite formconverb

3 participle; verbal noun

1

1:

1 -jAA -ji, -hOO&, -OOzjA&

2 : - /0 : -gtii : -ii& : -AArAi : -AArAgtii

3 -Ag -hAi

: -nA& : -bA&

: -xA& : -AA& : -hAn& : -dAg& : -AAsjA&&

=PRED 2

2

3

participle

2 81

2:

SG HON PL

1 =bi =bj =bdjA

2 =sjA =sj =tA =t

3 =d)4

1 5

6

(1) a. bii

1SG.NOM

jab-na=bj.

-IND.PRS=1SG.PRED

elicit.b. bii

1SG.NOM

idj-ee=bj.

-PTCP.IPFV=1SG.PRED

elicit.c. bii

1SG.NOM

dOndOg=bi.

PSN=1SG.PRED

ns

1a 1c2a 2d

(2)a. V-IND=PRED : e.g. 1ab. V-OPT =PRED

b-1. oo-gtii.

-2PL.OPT

ns

4 35

16

Comrie 1980

82 10 2017 3

b-2. oo-j-ii=sj.

-E-2OPT=2SG

nsc. V-PTCP=PRED : e.g. 1bd. N/Adj=PRED : e.g. 1c

31

Badagarov 2015) 7

V-PTCP.FUT 3

(3) bii

1SG.NOM

ugl88 erte ... ...

......

dONgOd-xO=bj.

-PTCP.FUT=1SG

... 2016: 119

3 2c 28 3

4

3:

SG HON) PL

1 =m ni) =mnAi

2 =sj ni) =tni =tnAi

3 =ni =nj

(4) bii

1SG.NOM

OdOO jab-xa=mni.

-PTCP.FUT=1SG.POSS

bii

1SG.NOM

zaabaha sag-t-aa

-DAT-REFL

xur-xe=mni.

-PTCP.FUT=1SG.POSS

2006: 146

V-PTCP.FUT=PRED 3V-PTCP.FUT=POSS 4

7 Skribnik 2003 Yamakoshi 2011 -OOzjA Badagarov2015 -OOzjA -OOzjA

buu Badagarov2015

8

2 83

V-xA=POSSdeontic/epistemic modality

1 2 35

(5) a. sai-g-aa

-E-REFL

oo-xa=mnai=go.

-PTCP.FUT=1PL.POSS=Q

2011: 75b. dOrOO jab-xa=sj.

-PTCP.FUT=2SG.POSS

elicit.c. xaloon bOl-xO=n.

-PTCP.FUT=3.POSS

nsd. ux-xe=m.

-PTCP.FUT=1SG.POSS

2016: 126

6a 9 6a 6b6a 6b

必须 bi4xu2

4 该 gai1 必须

(6) a. ugl88-g-88r

-E-INS

idjeel-eed

-CVB.PFV

azjalla-xa

-PTCP.FUT

Osj-xO=bj.

-PTCP.FUT=1SG.PRED

2006: 166b. bii

1SG.NOM

mun88 jab-xa=m.

-PTCP.FUT=1SG.POSS

tende xun

.NOM

xuljee-zjai-na.

-PROG-IND.PRS

2006: 170

9 future imperative V-AArAi imperative V- /0 Badagarov2015 2 distal future V-PTCP.FUT=PRED proximal future V-PTCP.FUT=POSS

elicitation 3) 5a, bV-xA=POSS 该 须

distal / proximal

84 10 2017 3

4 vs.SOV

2011: 20 10

2011

Malchukov 2013: 182=7a =7b

(7) E.Evn.a. bej-il

man-PL

hör-ri-ten.

go-PST-3PL(POSS)

The men left. Malchukov 2013: 182b. [bej-il

man-PL

hör-ri-ten]

go-PTCP.NFUT-3PL(POSS)

bi-d’i-n.

be-FUT-3SG

The men probably left. Lit. the men’s leaving will be. Malchukov 2013: 182

7a 2012: 144

vs.

Campbell 19918 epistemic modality

2013 9

(8) Est. naaber

neighbor.NOM

ost-vat

buy-PRS.INDIR

kolm

three

hobust.

horses

They say the neighbor is buying three horses. Campbell 1991: 288

10 Malchukov affirmative mood e.g. Malchukov 2013: 188 2012evidentiality epistemic modality

evidentiality epistemicity

2 85

(9) Skh. Wnax WW-r

-PTCP.PRS

kem kel-leK-e.

-PTCP.NEUT-3SG.POSS

2013: 17

vs.

11

13Yamakoshi 2016 -QU

10)deontic/epistemic modality

(10) Mid.M.

edö’e qarangkui söni ker ol-qun

-PTCP.NPST

bida.

1PL.NOM12 2, 83

172014

Choijungjab et al. eds. 1987

1vs

cf. 2013: 29 3

vs. 4vs.

4

11

12 1997: 66

86 10 2017 3

4: vs.

Udh.

Nan

E.Evn. Est. Skh.

Mid.M.

Oir.

Bur.

+INDIR +MOD V-PTCP.FUT=POSS +MOD

+DIR V-PTCP.FUT=PRED

5 Malchukov 2013 vs.

Malchukov 2013 11insubordination verbalization

(11) Malchukov 2013a. the use of special forms of finite agreement distinct from the possessive suffixes on

the verbb. monofunctionality: exclusive use as a finite predicatec. the possibility of taking agreement suffixes vs. copula supportd. the availability of periphrastic verbal negatione. modification through an adverbf. combination with an accusative object

11

Campbell 1991 12a =812b

(12) Est.a. naaber

neighbor.NOM

ost-vat

buy-PRS.INDIR

kolm

three

hobust.

horses

= 8

They say the neighbor is buying three horses. Campbell 1991: 288b. naaber

neighbor.NOM

ütle-b

says

ost-vat

buy-PRS.INDIR

kolm

three

hobust

horses

The neighbor says he is buying three horses. Campbell 1991: 288

2 87

insubordination Evans 2007Malchukov 2013

11 6

Malchukov 2013

Malchukov 2013 vs.4

sic. 2014: 85 13

14

A is B. AB

evidentiality2012: 159

2013: 4 2012

2010: 57

13

(13) a.

b. vs.c.

413

11

2 1

11a

13

14

88 10 2017 3

11c

Yamakoshi 201614

(14) Mid.M.qači külüg-ün

PSN-GEN

kö’ün qaidu

PSN

nomolun

PSN

eke-deče

-LOC+ABL

töre-ksen

-PTCP.PFV

bü-le’e.

COP-PST15 1, 46

copula support

14

V-PTCP.FUT=PRED

6 V-PTCP.FUT=POSSV-PTCP.FUT=PRED

V-PTCP.FUT=POSSa.

=§6.1 b.=POSS =§6.2

6.1=POSS

8V-PTCP.FUT=POSS insubordination

Malchukov 2013-POSS -POSS COP-PRED

V-xA=POSS COP 16

a 15 b 1615 16 15 ’ 16 ’

15 1997: 2916

2 89

aSkribnik 2003: 118 2011:

75–76 152013: 35–36

V-PTCP=POSS15 ’

4 6

(15) 88d-88

-REFL

xar-xa=sj

-PTCP.FUT=2SG.POSS

am-aar

-INS

huneh-ii=sj

-ACC=2SG.POSS

ab-x-aa

-PTCP.FUT-REFL

bai-na.

-IND.PRS

2016: 123

(15)’ sjinii

2SG.GEN

88d-88

-REFL

xar-xa=sj

-PTCP.FUT=2SG.POSS

am-aar

-INS

huneh-ii=sj

-ACC=2SG.POSS

ab-x-aa

-PTCP.FUT-REFL

bai-na.

-IND.PRS

15

b

16

(16) tere gotal

.INDF

umde-hen=in

-PTCP.PFV=3.POSS

OdOO osjir-gui

-NEG

xordan

bOl-nO.

-IND.PRS

2016: 114

16 ’

90 10 2017 3

(16)’ xen negen-ei

-GEN

tere gotal

.INDF

umde-hen=in

-PTCP.PFV=3.POSS

OdOO osjir-gui

-NEG

xordan bOl-nO.

-IND.PRS

16

2011

17a 17b

(17) a. sai-g-aa

-E-REFL

oo-xa=mnai=go.

-PTCP.FUT=1PL.POSS=Q

= 5a

2011: 75b. sai-g-aa

-E-REFL

ooxa=g=ta.

-PTCP.FUT=Q=2PL

elicit.

6.2

18 19 16 =

(18) a. ene juumen-uud-ei

-PL-GEN

zarim=in

=3.POSS

minii,

1SG.GEN

zarim=in

=3.POSS

minii

1SG.GEN

axai-n.

-GEN

2006: 142b. *ene juumen-uud-ei

-PL-GEN

zarim minii,

1SG.GEN

zarim minii

1SG.GEN

axai-n.

-GEN

12a

(19) negen=in

=3.POSS

malgai

.INDF

negen=in

=3.POSS

gotal

.INDF

umd-eed...

-CVB.PFV

... 2016: 114

2 91

18b 20a

17

(20) a. idj-xe

-PTCP.FUT

juumen tOOxOn sOO, xeregle-xe

-PTCP.FUT

juumen

sjereen deere.

2006: 143b. idj-xe

-PTCP.FUT

juumen=in

=3.POSS

tOOxOn sOO, xeregle-xe

-PTCP.FUT

juumen=in

=3.POSS

sjereen deere.

20a

21 ixen

(21) minii

1SG.GEN

abzjaa

.NOM

xamg-ai

-GEN

ixen=in.

=3POSS

2006: 147

76.2

V-PTCP.FUT=PREDV-PTCP.FUT=POSS vs. +MOD

vs. +MOD

+DIR vs.+MOD

17

cf. 2011

92 10 2017 3

Malchukov 2013 insubordination / verbalization

22

(22) a. verbalization &⇒ vs. +MOD/+DIR

b. re-nominalization & &⇒ vs. + +MOD/+INDIR

c. insubordination⇒ vs. +MOD/+INDIR

55

V-PTCP.FUT=PRED

V-PTCP.FUT=POSS

5: vs.

22a 22b 22c

+NMLZ – +MOD/+INDIR –

+MOD/+INDIR

+MOD/+DIR –

Udh., Nan. Bur., Jap? E.Evn., Est., Skh., Mid.M., Oir.

22 3 22bvs

2012 2014

=jum =23juumen =19

18 23 =jum

18 jum

cf. 2011cf. 18 2015

2 93

19 22b

(23) sOxj-OOd

-CVB.PFV

al-xa=jum

-PTCP.FUT=MOD

g-ee

-PTCP.IPFV

ge-ne.

-IND.PRS

2014: 187

82

1 V-PTCP.FUT=PRED V-PTCP.FUT=POSS

2V-PTCP.FUT=POSS

3 vs a.b.

c.

V-PTCP.FUT=POSS3

152 2016 6 25 26

2014–2016 B#26770146

19

2010: 40 2010

2010: 46

94 10 2017 3

- –= –1 – 12 – 23 – 3ABL –ACC –ADJ –COP –CVB –DAT –DIR –E –FUT –

GEN –HON –IND –INDIR –INS –IPFV –MOD –N –NEG –NEUT –NFUT –NOM –NPST –PFV –

PL –POSS –PRED –PROG –PRS –PSN –PTCP –Q –REFL –SG –V –

Bur. –E.Evn. –Est. –Jap. –

Mid.M. –Nan. –Oir. –Skh. –

Udh. –elicit. –

ns –

2010 29 11 : 40–47.Badagarov, Jargal Bayandalaevich (2015) Two future tenses in Buryat. (Presentation at ILCAA

Forum) ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 2015-12-27.Campbell, Lyle (1991) Some grammaticalization changes in Estonian and their implications. In:

Elizabeth Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization 1 (TSL19),285–299. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Choijungjab, et al. (eds.) (1987) 卫拉特方言话语材料 : .Comrie, Bernard (1980) Morphology and word order reconstruction: problems and prospects.

In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.) Historical Morphology (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Mono-graphs 17), 83–96. Hague, Paris, and New York: Mouton publishers.

2013 3: 11–24.Evans, Nicholas (2007) Insubordination and its uses. In: Irina Nikolaeva. (ed.) Finiteness,

366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2010

29 11 : 48–57.2011 -ča

5: 17–34.2012

2 95

2: 139–162.2001 :

.2015 18 :

.Malchukov, Andrej. L (2013) Verbalization and Insubordination in Siberian Languages. In:

Martine Robbeets & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.) Shared Grammaticalization, 177–208. Am-sterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

, 201483–86. :

.2013 :

3: 1–10.1997 : .

, 2014 :AA

2014 2 5 .. 2014-12-20.

Skribnik, Elena (2003) Buryat. In: Juha Janhunen (ed.) The Mongolic Languages, 102–128.London and New York: Routledge.

2006 :13: 139–180.

2011 1: 63–78.2013 :

3: 25–40.2014 4 2

4: 185–198.(2016) 5

6: 111–129.Yamakoshi, Yasuhiro (2011) Shinekhen Buryat. In: Yasuhiro Yamakoshi. (ed.) Grammatical

Sketches from the Field, 137–177. Tokyo: ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Yamakoshi, Yasuhiro (2016) Predicative participles in ‘The Secret History of the Mongols’.

Altai Hakpo. 26: 85–101.

96 10 2017 3

Two future expressions in Shinekhen Buryat:Three typological models of the verbalization of participles

Yasuhiro YAMAKOSHI(Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa,

Tokyo University of Foreign Studies)

Shinekhen Buryat, one of the northern Mongolic languages, has two forms that indicatefuture situations. The first is the future participle with personal predicative particle(V-PTCP.FUT=PRED), while the other is the future participle with personal possessiveparticle (V-PTCP.FUT=POSS). In this paper, I focus on functional differences foundbetween these two forms, and on the basis of those differences make the followingsuggestions regarding their usage:

1) V-PTCP.FUT=PRED is the ‘unmarked’ future expression, while V-PTCP.FUT=POSS carries modal meanings such as the deontic or epistemic.

2) The opposition in modality between the two forms (V-PTCP.FUT=PRED vs. V-PTCP.FUT=POSS) is parallel to the opposition between finite and participial pred-icate forms in many neighbouring languages.

3) The opposition between two forms occurred through two process of grammati-calization such as i) verbalization of participles and ii) re-nominalization of ver-balized participles.

In addition, I suggest three typological models of the grammaticalization of participialpredicates based on Malchukov (2013), and classify Shinekhen Buryat into the second,‘re-nominalization’ type. These three types are:

a) Verbalization [Participle-finite (default) vs. original finite (+MOD)]: Participlesare highly verbalized, and original finite forms are specialized to carry any affir-mative modal meanings.

b) Re-nominalization [Participle-finite (default) vs. re-nominalized participle(+MOD)]: Participles are also highly verbalized, and other, nominalized formsderived from participles carry any particular modal meanings.

c) Insubordination [Original finite (default) vs. participle-finite (+MOD)]: Partici-ples are not fully verbalized, so that they carry any particular modal meanings asnominal predicates.