| 田中 俊也（たなか としや） | データ更新日：2023.11.16 |
教授 ／
言語文化研究院
言語環境学部門
言語情報講座
| 1. | 田中俊也, English uncouth ’rude, socially unacceptable’, Kyushu University Society for Language Studies (KUSLS) 178th Regular Meeting, 2019.03, 英語の形容詞 uncouth 'rude, socially unacceptalbe' に関する歴史言語学の問題3点について、それらがどのように困難な問題を含んでいて、今後どのようなアプローチが求められるかについて論述した。. |
| 2. | Toshiya Tanaka, Osthoff’s law in Germanic and some aspects of its relative chronology, LVC (Language Variation and Change) Network 2017, 2017.05, [URL], Osthoff’s law refers to the sound change v: > v / __ RC, observable in most Indo-European languages, except for Indo-Iranian and Tocharian. This sound law was first discovered by Hermann Osthoff at the end of the 19th century. As Ringe (2006: 75-78) illustrates, some nominal forms in Germanic show clear effects of this sound law. However, the relationship between verbal forms in Germanic and Osthoff's law has so far been only infrequently dealt with by scholars. This presentation provides various verbal forms that have something to do with Osthoff' law in Germanic, proposing a significant scheme of relative chronology in relation to the sound law at issue.. |
| 3. | Toshiya Tanaka, Verner's law effects and analogical levelling, LVC (Language Variation and Change) Network 2016, 2016.05, [URL], This presentation points out that there are some serious problems about the traditional understanding of the relationship between Verner's law effects and analogical levelling in Old Germanic languages such as Gothic, Old English, Old High German, Old Ice. |
| 4. | Toshiya Tanaka, A Scheme for a Morphological Conflation Approach to the Origin and Development of the Germanic Strong and Preterite-Present Verbs, Japan Society of Historical Linguistics （日本歴史言語学会）, 2015.12, The aim of this oral presentation is to offer an outline sketch of a ‘morphological conflation theory’ which aims to explain how the system of the Germanic strong and preterite-present verbs grew out of the Proto-Indo-European verb system. The current talk will focus on the fact that, although the preterite tense formations of the strong verbs and the present tense formations of the preterite-present verbs in ancient Germanic languages and/or Proto-Germanic tend to be similar in form, there seem to be two crucial morpho(phono)logical differences: (1) Class IV and V plural formations of these two distinct verbs at issue show an outstanding morphological discrepancy, as represented below: strong preterite plurals preterite-present present plurals having a long vowel in the root pointing to an original zero-grade radix Class IV *bǣr-un ‘they bore, carried’ *skul-un ‘they owe, shall, should’ Class V *mǣt-un ‘they measured’ *nuǥ-un ‘they are enough, suffice’ (2) As far as Gothic is concerned, strong class I-VI verbs do not exhibit any Verner’s law effect in their preterite plural formations (e.g. class V preterite plural wesun ‘they were’ but not **wezun), whereas two of the preterite-present verbs retain forms with an outcome of Verner’s law (e.g. áigum and áigun ‘we/they possess’ as well as þaúrbum, þaúrbuþ, þaúrbun ‘we/you/they need’). The proposed ‘morphological conflation approach’ attempts to give a consistent, explanatory account of these two apparently non-interrelated phenomena in the following two terms: (3) The content of the morphological conflation theory in question A: The PGmc. strong preterite tense formation was created from an amalgamation of two types of the imperfect active (i.e. the acrostatic 1 and amphikinetic types) and the reduplicating perfect active. B: The PGmc. preterite-present present tense formation system arose from a mixture of the athematic present middle (more exactly, the medium tantum or root stative-intransitive present; or otherwise, the reduplicating perfect middle) and the reduplicating perfect active. Despite the necessarily limited empirical evidence that is available, only through such a conflation theory does it seem possible to account for the attested Germanic strong and preterite-present verb formations. . |
| 5. | Toshiya Tanaka, The Laryngeal Theory and the Narten Hypothesis: Towards an Explanation of Some Morphophonological Characteristics of the Germanic Strong Verbs, LVC (Language Variation and Change) Reseach Forum 2015, 2015.05, [URL], There are some morphophonological differences between strong and preterite-present verbs in Germanic, which have long remained theoretically unexplained. Although, at first glance, they appear mutually unrelated, some theory might give solutions to them at the same time, disclosing their invisible or concealed interrelationship. A proposed ‘morphological conflation theory’, which might shed a new light on a hidden interrelation between those issues, consists of the following two assumptions (cf. Tanaka 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013ab, 2015): (1) Gmc. strong (at least class I-VI) verbs evolved from a mix of the PIE reduplicating perfect active and athematic root imperfect active (either the amphikinetic or acrostatic 1 = Narten type). (2) Gmc. preterite-present verbs developed from an amalgamation of the PIE reduplicating perfect active and athematic present middle (or reduplicating perfect middle). The assumption in (1) presupposes that the Narten or acrostatic 1 present (and imperfect) formation was at least to some extent productive in the PIE verbal system. In other words, it does not expect that the Narten present/imperfect paradigm was limited only to a small number of PIE verbs. It remains a debatable problem that no IE language shows the Narten or acrostatic 1 present/imperfect inflection in a productive fashion. In Vedic Sanskrit, one of the oldest documented IE languages, for example, only a small number of verbs exhibit Narten present/imperfect active forms (cf. Gotō 2013: pp.102-103 §3.4.2.3). The hypothesis spelled out in (1) and (2) might appear to be simple and elegant, but it is a critical problem that no IE language directly attests the Narten (or acrostatic 1) present/imperfect inflection in a productive manner. Nevertheless, this situation is comparable to how the laryngeal theory had been exposed to criticisms since de Saussure’s (1879) original proposal. It had taken much time before the laryngeal theory was accepted widely, for no daughter lE language showed direct evidence of the three distinctive laryngeal phonemes, *h1, *h2, and *h3. (Hittite velar or pharyngeal fricatives h and hh reflect mainly *h2, possibly along with *h3.) Yet the theory was finally accepted widely at the beginning of the 21st century, probably because around that time sufficient amount of evidence for it had been gathered up and because the laryngeal theory consists of simple and elegant assumptions and is capable of disclosing hidden interrelationship of various apparently independent phenomena observable in IE languages. As for the Narten hypothesis, this talk claims that the Kümmel-Melchert interpretation of a Narten present/imperfect is plausible: A Narten present/imperfect is a derivative formation with an é-infix and a type of characterised present/imperfect. If this idea is correct, any PIE verbal root (either an atelic/durative or telic/momentary radix) was at least potentially capable of deriving a Narten present/imperfect by means of an é-infix. Thereafter, the pre-PGmc. verbal system might have inherited a significant number of Narten presents and imperfects from the PIE system, so Narten imperfects could contribute to newly creating the system of strong preterites, whilst Narten presents had become extinct before the PGmc. period. In any case, in order to make the case that the Narten present/imperfect formation was at least potentially productive in the PIE verbal system, independent pieces of supporting evidence for the Narten present/imperfect ought to be piled up, just as evidence for the laryngeal theory used to be gathered together during the last century.. |
| 6. | Toshiya Tanaka, Remarks on some Morphophonological Differences Between Strong and Preterite-Present Verbs in Germanic, LVC (Language Variation and Change) Research Forum 2014, 2014.05, [URL], This paper focuses on the fact that when, we carefully compare specific morphophonological features of the Germanic strong preterite and preterite-present present tense formations, we find two remarkable differences between them. Recognition of this fact leads to the conclusion that those differences cannot be sufficiently explained by simply assuming that both of them come from the PIE perfect alone; hence, some new explanatory theory is needed. Though no specifically new proposal will be provided in this talk, part of one is spelled out in my previous papers, and remaining issues will be postponed for future studies.. |
| 7. | 田中俊也, ゲルマン語強変化動詞V類過去複数形に散発的に見られる語根末摩擦音の有声化について： *wes- ‘be, stay, dwell’ の事例を中心に, 日本歴史言語学会第2回大会, 2012.12, ゲルマン語強変化動詞の過去形形態の発達について、従来満足な歴史的説明が与えられていない現象が少なからず存在する。本発表ではそのような事例のうち、強変化V類過去複数形に散発的に見られる、ヴェルナーの法則（Verner’s Law）が適用された形態の歴史的由来について論じたい。即ち、強変化動詞I-III類の過去複数形ではゴート語の動詞を例外として、ほぼ規則的に語根末無声摩擦音の有声化が生じているが、強変化V類ではなぜ散発的にのみヴェルナーの法則の適用が見られるのかという問題を取り上げる。この問題について、発表者が提案する形態的混交説（morphological conflation theory）の観点からどのような説明ができるか、*wes- ‘be, stay, dwell’ の事例（過去単数形 *was-, 過去複数形 *wǣz- および *wǣs-）を中心に考察してみたい。提案する形態的混交説は、ゲルマン語強変化動詞の過去形は印欧祖語の完了形と未完了形の混交に由来するというものである。この仮説から、強変化動詞V類過去複数形について、語根に延長階梯母音を持ち、時折ヴェルナーの法則による摩擦音有声化を示す形態がいかにして発達したか、説明を試みる。完了形との形態的混交を受けた未完了形には、アムフィキネティック型（amphikinetic type）とナルテン型（あるいはアクロスタティック１型；Narten or acrostatic 1 type）双方の活用タイプがあり、これら双方が元々持っていたアクセント位置の差異が原因となって、強変化V類過去複数形において、ヴェルナーの法則が適用される形態、および同法則が適用されない形態が生み出されることになったと論じる。. |
| 8. | 田中俊也, ゲルマン語強変化動詞および過去現在動詞IV, V類に見られる形態的差異について： Schumacher (2005) 論考の批判的考察と形態的混交説からの提案, 日本言語学会145回大会, 2012.11, ゲルマン語強変化動詞の過去形と過去現在動詞の現在形は、ともに印相祖語の完了形を継承しているという見解が従来の印欧語比較言語学研究において最も受け入れられてきた。しかしながら、IV、V類動詞については、強変化動詞過去複数形では語根に延長階梯母音をもつ形態が生じ（e.g. *bē1r- ‘carried’, *lē1s/z- ‘read’）、過去現在動詞現在複数形では語根にゼロ階梯母音をもつ形態が生じる（e.g. *mun- ‘thought’, *nuǥ- ‘were sufficient’）。完了形のみからの発達とする従来の説では、この差異について十分な歴史的説明が与えられないように思われる。Schumacher (2005) XI. Fachtagung はこの見解に基づく最新の研究であると言えるが、彼の「bigētun-規則」に基づく論考においても、当該の形態的差異については十分な説明がなされていない。本発表では、Schumacher (2005) の論考も含め、「完了形のみからの発達」とする説に対する批判的考察をまず行い、その後にそれとは異なる立場から、当該の形態的差異が歴史的にどのようにして生み出されたのかについての説明を試みる。それは「形態的混交説」と呼ぶべき立場であるが、これによれば、ゲルマン語強変化動詞の過去形は印欧祖語の完了形と未完了形（the imperfect）との形態的混交に由来するとし、過去現在動詞の現在形は印欧祖語の完了形と語幹形成母音によらざる中動相語根現在形（the athematic root present middle）との形態的混交に由来すると考える。強変化動詞過去形と過去現在動詞現在形は、このように発達過程が異なるために、IV, V類動詞に見られる形態的差異が生じたと論じる。. |
| 9. | 田中俊也, ゲルマン語強変化動詞 IV, V類の過去複数形をめぐる考察, 日本歴史言語学会第１回大会, 2011.12, ゲルマン語強変化動詞の過去形については、印欧祖語の完了形を継承しているという考えが一般的である。強変化動詞 I, II, III類の過去形については、単数形・複数形双方ともこの見解から簡明な説明が可能である。しかしながら、強変化動詞 IV, V 類については、その過去複数形では延長階梯の母音（PGmc. *-ǣ-）が語根に生じ、印欧祖語では語根母音がゼロ階梯となる完了複数形とは、形態的に一致しないように見える。この点についてどのような説明ができるか、これまで様々な学者が提案を行ってきた。それらの説についてどのような未解決の問題が残っているかを、本発表では考察する。特に「語根アオリストとの混交説」と「完了形のみに由来する説」を取り上げて、そこに残る問題を論じる。そして、今後の新たな研究の展開として「未完了形との混交説」の可能性を考える。. |
| 10. | 田中俊也, 九州大学の新カリキュラムについて, 平成17年度国立七大学外国語教育連絡協議会合同シンポジウム, 2005.10. |
| 11. | Toshiya Tanaka, A Non-Brugmannian Approach to the Historical Development of the Germanic Copula: How is the Suppletion to be Explained?, 13th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 1997.08. |
| 12. | 田中俊也, CANの意味変化をめぐって：その統語的特質, 日本英語学会第5回大会, 1987.10. |
| 13. | 田中俊也, 意味変化の Drift： ゲルマン語とロマンス語, 昭和60年度名古屋大学英文学会, 1985.04. |
本データベースの内容を無断転載することを禁止します。