| 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. | Toshiya Tanaka, On the Distribution of the Strong Preterite Plural and the Preterite-Present Present Plural Forms in the Proto-Germanic Verb System, 九州大学大学院言語文化研究院英語科『英語英文学論叢』 Studies in English Language and Literature (Department of English, Faculty of Languages and Cultures, Kyushu University), 33-51, 第70集 No.70, 2020.03, [URL], The aim of this paper is to provide a new idea upon the issue of what formations can be reconstructed at the Proto-Germanic stage for the strong class I-VI preterite plural system and for the preterite-present present plural system, after offering an outline sketch of a ‘morphological conflation’ model which is designed to explain how the system of the Germanic strong and preterite-present verbs grew out of the Proto-Indo-European verb system. The current paper focuses 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 Proto-Germanic tend to be similar in form, there seem to be two crucial morpho(phono)logical differences: (A) Class IV and V plural formations of the 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’ (B) 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’ model attempts to give a consistent, explanatory account of these two apparently non-interrelated phenomena in the following two terms: (C) 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. As predicted by the proposed morphological conflation theory, this paper reaches the conclusion that the preterite plural of a class I-VI strong verb may have had two allomorphic formations such as *wǣzun and *wǣsun ‘they were’ (class V), whereas the present plural of a preterite-present verb must have had a single formation such as *þurƀun (but not †þurfun) ‘they need’, in the Proto-Germanic verb system. . |
| 2. | 田中俊也, ゲルマン語動詞体系における過去現在動詞と強変化動詞形成の相対年代をめぐって：オストホフの法則の観点から, 英語英文学論叢（九州大学大学院言語文化研究院英語科）, 第69集, 23-35, 2019.03, [URL], The aim of this paper is to examine the possibility of gaining some new insight into the relative chronology of the establishment of the present tense formations of the preterite present verbs and that of the preterite tense forms of the strong verbs in the Proto-Germanic (PGmc.) verb system. By scrutinizing the related phonological changes including Osthoff’s law and the morphological development of the two PGmc. verbal categories at issue, it is contended that the completion of the present tense conjugation of the preterite present verbs more likely preceded Osthoff’s law, whilst the fixation of the preterite tense conjugation of the strong verbs in all probability took place after the operation of Osthoff’s law. Through the medium of Osthoff’s law, it is clarified that the present tense forms of the preterite present verbs had been established in an earlier era than the preterite tense formations of the strong verbs..  |
| 3. | 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, 『言語研究』（日本言語学会）, 152号, 89-116, 2017.09, [URL], ゲルマン語強変化動詞（strong verbs）の過去形と過去現在動詞（preterite-present verbs）の現在形は、ともに印欧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類の動詞については、強変化動詞過去複数形では語根に長母音をもつ形態（*bǣr- あるいは *bē1r- ‘carried’, *lǣs/z- あるいは *lē1s/z- ‘collected’など）が生じ、過去現在動詞現在複数形では語根にゼロ階梯母音を反映する形態が生じる（e.g. *mun- ‘think’, *nuǥ- ‘are 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ていない。Schumacher (2005) はこの見解に基づく新たな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。本稿では、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（morphological conflation theory）」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（perfect）と未完了形（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語根現在中動形（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考えられることを論じる。 Indo-Europeanists have so far widely accepted the idea that both the preterite tense formations of strong verbs and the present tense forms of preterite-present verbs developed out of the PIE perfect. However, class IV and V strong verbs show a long vowel in their root (e.g. *bǣr- or *bē1r- ‘carried’, *lǣs/z- or *lē1s/z- ‘collected’), whereas correponding preterite-presents reflect the original reduced grade vocalism in their root (e.g. *mun- ‘think’, *nuǥ- ‘are sufficient’). The traditional view that the PIE perfect underlies all these formations has yet to provide any satisfactory historical explanation for the conspicuous morphological difference observable between these two formation types. Although Schumacher (2005) offers a new proposal about the relevant problem in accordance with the time-honoured view, this paper points out that his ‘bigētun-Regel’ cannot adequately account for the morphological divergence at issue. Instead of the conventional interpretation of both the strong preterite and the preterite-present present tense forms having evolved from the PIE perfect alone, the current paper attempts to present a different formula, which may be called a ‘morphological conflation’ theory. This approach proposes that the preterite tense formations of strong verbs result from a mixing of the perfect and the imperfect, whilst the present tense forms of preterite-present verbs stem from an amalgamation of the perfect and the athematic present middle. It is contended that the difference in morphological conflation style has yielded the remarkable morphological differences between the two kinds of verbs under discussion.. |
| 4. | Toshiya Tanaka, Remarks on Two Morphophonological Differences Between Strong and Preterite-Present Verbs in Germanic, 『英語英文学論叢（Studies in English Language and Literature）』（九州大学英語英文学研究会; The English Language and Literature Society, Kyushu University）, 第65集, 17-29, 2015.03, The verb system of all the Old Germanic languages consists of the four types listed in (1): (1) Germanic Verb System a. Strong verbs: those which are inflected according to ablaut or vowel gradation such as PDE take, took, taken (productive) b. Weak verbs: those which are characterised by dental preterites such as PDE love, loved, loved (highly productive) c. Preterite-present verbs: those which use preterite tense formations as the present tense such as PDE I can and (s)he can (**(s)he cans; cf. I ran and (s)he ran/**rans) (limited in number; only 14 tokens reconstructable for Proto-Germanic) d. Anomalous verbs: those which are inflected anomalously such as PDE be (am, are, is, was, were, been), do (does, did, done), and go (goes, went, gone) (restricted sharply in number) This paper deals with two of these verb types, namely, strong and preteite-present verbs, and leaves aside weak and anomalous verbs. The preterite formations of strong verbs and the present formations of preterite-present verbs are traditionally thought to have inherited the perfect formation from Proto-Indo-European (PIE); see Brugmann (1904: pp.546-547, §710.5), Matzel (1970: 173), Jasanoff (1994: 272 and 277), and others. There are also a number of other theories. For example, one theory assumes that strong preterite formations result from a mixing of the perfect and the root aorist, but this view is not widely accepted; see Tanaka (2013a: §2), where it is argued that this thesis does not suffice to explain some important morphological properties of the forms at issue. 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;1F hence some new explanatory theory is needed. (Yet no specific proposal will be provided in this article. Part of one, however, is spelled out in my previous papers, and remaining issues will be postponed for future studies.) . |
| 5. | 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 『歴史言語学（Historical Linguistics in Japan）』 , 第2号, ３-２０, 2013.11, 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。本稿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る。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、これまでに提案してきた形態的混交説（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-）を中心に考察した。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、説明を試みている。完了形との形態的混交を受けた未完了形には、語根語尾移動型（amphikinetic type）とナルテン型（あるいは語根静止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り、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結論する。 This paper looks at an area in the historical development of Germanic verbal morphology that has yet to meet with any satisfactory explanation, namely why the preterite plural forms of strong class V verbs exhibit only sporadic voicing of their root-final fricative in accordance with Verner’s law, while the preterite plural forms of strong class I-III verbs show regular voicing (except in Gothic). To account for the facts, a ‘morphological conflation’ theory is adopted which postulates that the Germanic strong preterite originates from a morphological conflation of perfect and imperfect formations that were available in the Proto-Indo-European verbal system. Attention is focused especially on the development of the strong class V verb *wes- ‘be, stay, dwell’ (pret. sg. *was-, pret. pl. *wǣz- and wǣs-), and a historical account is given to explain what brought about the plural forms with a long radical vowel (i.e. -ǣ-) and Verner’s voicing of the root-final fricative (*-s- > *-z- etc.). It is argued that the imperfect that conflated with the perfect had two distinct types, amphikinetic and Narten (= acrostatic 1), whence two different accent types were utilised in the pre-Proto-Germanic (or pre-Verner’s-law) preterite plural formation. This situation led to the coexistence of forms with and without the effects of Verner’s law in the Proto-Germanic verbal system.. |
| 6. | 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, 九州大学英語英文学研究会 英語英文学論叢 第63集 2013年3月発行, 第63集, 67-112, 2013.03, 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、今日変化動詞IV, V類については、その過去複数形では延長階梯の母音が語根に生じ、印相祖語では語根母音がゼロ階梯となる完了複数形とは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、本稿では考察したい。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たい。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」の可能性を考えることにしたい。（本稿は、2011年12月18日（日）に日本歴史言語学会第1回大会（大阪大学豊中キャンパス）で発表した原稿に、大幅に加筆、修正を加えたものである。）. |
| 7. | Toshiya Tanaka, Osthoff's Law and the Rise of the Strong I-III Preterite Plural Formations in Proto-Germanic, 『言語文化論究』第２５号（九州大学言語文化研究院）, pp.7-15, 2010.03. |
| 8. | Toshiya Tanaka, The Proto-Germanic Third Person Strong Preterite and the Proto-Indo-European 'Type I' Thematic Present Formations: With Special Reference to the Strong IV and V Classes, 『言語科学』第４４号（九州大学大学院言語文化研究院言語研究会）, 第４４号、pp.1-23, 2009.03. |
| 9. | Toshiya Tanaka, Old English e:t 'ate' and the Preterite Plural Formation of the Strong Class V Verbs, 九州大学英語英文学研究会 『英語英文学論叢』第５６集, 第５６集 pp.13-22, 2006.02. |
| 10. | 田中俊也, 言語民族学の問題としてのタブー：研究の方法と国際協力・社会開発援助への応用, 九州大学大学院言語文化研究院『言語文化叢書IX: 社会開発をめぐって』（徳見道夫編）、pp.51-63, 2004.02. |
| 11. | Toshiya Tanaka, Towards Reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European Inactive Class of Verbs: Five Categories and Sixteen Specimens, 『言語科学』第３８号（九州大学大学院言語文化研究院言語研究会）pp.1-53, 2003.02. |
| 12. | Toshiya Tanaka, The Origin and Development of the *es- vs. *wes- Suppletion in the Germanic Copula: From a Non-Brugmannian Standpoint, NOWELE Volume 40 (Odense University Press), pp.3-27, 40, 3-27, 2002.04. |
| 13. | Toshiya Tanaka, Two Hidden Preterite-Present Verbs in Germanic: An argument for Their Inactive Lineage, 『言語文化論究』第１５号（九州大学大学院言語文化研究院）, pp.21-31., 2002.02. |
| 14. | Toshiya Tanaka, The Indo-European Background of Old English ge-neah 'is sufficient': Application of a Non-Brugmannian Method, 『言語文化論究』第１４号（九州大学大学院言語文化研究院）, pp.127-141, 2001.07. |
| 15. | Toshiya Tanaka, Towards Tracing the Quondam Morpho−Semantic Category of a Given Indo-European Verb: A Method Grounded upon the Hypothesis of Proto-Indo-European as an Active Language, 『言語科学』第３６号（九州大学大学院言語文化研究院言語研究会）, pp.29-59, 2001.02. |
| 16. | Toshiya Tanaka, Where does Gmc. *og- 'fear' Come From?: The Problem of the Original Base Structure, 『言語文化論究』第１３号（九州大学大学院言語文化研究院）, pp.139-148, 2001.02. |
| 17. | Toshiya Tanaka, Prosodic Features of Old English Preterite-Present Verbs: Evidence from Beowulf, 『英語英文学論叢』第５１集（九州大学英語英文学研究会）, pp.1-26, 2001.01. |
| 18. | Toshiya Tanaka, Gmc. *kann 'know' Revisited: A Possible New Explanation., 『言語科学』第３５号（九州大学大学院言語文化部言語研究会）, pp.1-13, 2000.02. |
| 19. | Toshiya Tanaka, Gmc. Preterite-Presents and IE Nouns of Agency: A Test for the Original Stativity, Synchronic and Diachronic Studies on Language; A Festscrift for Dr. Hirozo Nakano (Linguistics and Philology No.19) edd. Masachiyo Amano, Toshiya Tanaka, Masayuki Ohkado, Miho Nishio, Makoto Kondo, Tomoyuki Tanaka, Nagoya University. pp.291-305, 2000.01. |
| 20. | Toshiya Tanaka, A Non-Brugmannian Approach to the Historical Development of the Germanic Copula: How is the Suppletion to be Explained?, 『言語文化論究』第１０号（九州大学言語文化部）, pp.77-94, 1999.03. |
| 21. | Toshiya Tanaka, Remarks on Kurzova's Model of Indo-European Structural Change, from D-F to P-F, Part II., 『言語科学』第３２号（九州大学言語文化部言語研究会）, pp.39-95. , 1997.02. |
| 22. | Toshiya Tanaka, Remarks on Kurzova's Model of Indo-European Structural Change, from D-F to P-F, Part I., 『英語英文学論叢』第４７集（九州大学英語英文学研究会）, pp.93-116, 1997.02. |
| 23. | Toshiya Tanaka, Old English MAGAN and Related Verbs: Further Evidence for a Hyperlexical Approach., 天野政千代、他（編）『言語の深層を探ねて』（東京：英潮社）, pp.489-506. , 1996.10. |
| 24. | Toshiya Tanaka, Paths of the Semantic Developments in Modals: Externalization and Internalization., Linguistics and Philology No. 13 （名古屋：晃学出版）, pp. 1-23. , 1993.12. |
| 25. | Toshiya Tanaka, Mental Representations in Developing Modals: A Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Cultural Review., J. Altarriba (ed.) Cognition and Culture: A cross-cultural approach to cognitive psychology (Advances in psychology 103, Amsterdam: North-Holland), pp. 77-94., 103, 77-94, 1993.10. |
| 26. | Toshiya Tanaka, On the Coexistence of KNOW and CAN in the English Vocabulary: In terms of Germanic peculiarity., 『近代英語研究』編集委員会（編）『近代英語の諸相：近代英語協会１０周年記念論文集』（東京：英潮社）, pp.146-169. , 1993.05. |
| 27. | Toshiya Tanaka, English WIT and Related Verbs: A Semantic Quality., 有馬道子、他（編）『言葉の構造と歴史：荒木一雄博士古希記念論文集』（東京：英潮社）, pp.403-416. , 1991.12. |
| 28. | Toshiya Tanaka, Characteristics of Ability-Signifying Verbs in Earlier English and Other Languages: A Synchronic and Diachronic Investigation., Linguistics Vol. 29, No. 3 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), pp.361-396., 10.1515/ling.1991.29.3.361, 29, 3, 361-396, https://scholar.google.co.jp/scholar?cites=10552038252165214751&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=ja , 1991.08. |
| 29. | Toshiya Tanaka, Remarks on the Semantic Properties of Old English SCULAN: A Hypothesis for the rise of a Necessity Modal Meaning., Linguistics and Philology No. 10 （名古屋：晃学出版）, pp. 1-15. , 1990.11. |
| 30. | Toshiya Tanaka, Semantic Changes of CAN and MAY: Differentiation and Implication., Linguistics Vol. 28, No. 1 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), pp.89-123., 28, 1, 89-123, 1990.05. |
| 31. | Toshiya Tanaka, CANの核意味構造について：意味変化の観点から, 『鹿児島大学教育学部『研究紀要（人文社会科学編）』第４１巻、pp.175-192. , 1990.03. |
| 32. | Toshiya Tanaka, Phonological Analogues in Semantics: Perspectives on Language Change., Linguistics and Philology No. 9 (名古屋：晃学出版), pp.57-69. , 1989.12. |
| 33. | Toshiya Tanaka, From Possibility/Necessity to Necessity/Possibility Modals: Evidence from Germanic Languages., 鹿児島大学『英語英文学論集』第２０号, pp.111-132. , 1989.03. |
| 34. | Toshiya Tanaka, A Note on the History of AGAN: Another Case for Differentiation., Linguistics and Philology No. 8 (名古屋：晃学出版), pp.35-55. , 1988.12. |
| 35. | 田中俊也, CANの意味変化をめぐって： その統語的特質, 名古屋短期大学『研究紀要』第２６号、pp.135-147. , 1988.08. |
| 36. | Toshiya Tanaka, On the Differential Property between OE CUNNAN and MAGAN: Cross-Linguistic Evidence., 名古屋短期大学『研究紀要』第２５号、pp. 51-76. , 1987.12. |
| 37. | Toshiya Tanaka, 'Drift' を考える、 第２部、意味変化のDrift：ゲルマン語とロマンス語, 名古屋大学総合言語センター『言語文化論集』第VII巻 第１号、pp.33-52. , 1985.10. |
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。