• 締切済み

言語学について

言語学の専門書を読んでいるのですが、いまひとつ内容が掴めません。 できればパラグラフ毎の要約を教えてください。 よろしくお願いします。 Nominative／accusative systems usually seem very reasonable to speakers of Indo-European languages since most of these languages exhibit this kind of system. The following examples from Yup'ik (alaska) illustrate another system for grouping S, A, and O. In these examples the case marker "-aq" occurs on the S argument of an intransitive clause and O argument of a transitive clause. If any morphological case marks A alone, it can be called the ERGATIVE case. Similarly, any morphological case that marks both S and O can be termed the ABSOLUTE case. This arrangement, known as an ERGATIVE ／ABSOLUTIVE system, is sporadic in European and African languages. However, it is common in other areas of the world Ergativity occurs as a basic system for organizing grammatical relations in many languages of Australia, Central Asia,and the Americas. It occurs as a partial case marking system in South Asia and in many other languages of the Americas. Many Austronesian languages have also been claimed to exhibit this system. In addition to morphological case marking on pronouns or full noun phrases, languages may manifest ergative／absolutive or nominative／accusative systems in person marking on verbs, and／or constituent order. We have seen above that Quechua manifests a nominative／accusative system in case marking of noun phrases. Quechua also manifests a nominative／accusative system for organizing grammatical relations in person marking on verbs. In examples 28a, the third-person singular S of an intransitive verb is referred to by the suffix "-n". In 28b, first-person S argument is expressed by the suffix "-a"(actually length on the final vowel of the root). Examples 28c shows that suffix "-n" is also used for third-person A argument of transitive verbs. Hence, A and S are treated morphologically alike by the person-making system of Quechua. The fact that, in 28c, the first-person suffix for O arguments is "-ma" rather than "-a" illustrates that O and S are treated as different. Again, this way of treating S and A alike and O differently constitutes a nominative／accusative system. As might be expected, languages can also manifest an ergative ／absolutive GR system in person marking on verbs. Yup'ik will again serve as our example of such a system: In example 29a, the suffix "-nga" indicates a first-person singular S argument of an intransitive verc. In 29b, the suffix "-q" marks the third-person s. In 29c, the suffix "-nga" marks the first-person O argument of a transitive clause. Since this is the same marker that is used for first-person S arguments, this suffix groups S and O together morphologically into an absolutive category. The third-person singular A argument of a transitive clause is expressed by a suffix "-a" . Since this suffix is different from the third-person S suffix, it can be said to identify ergative arguments. Again, this treatment of S together with O as distinct from A constitutes an ergative／absolutive system. Since constituent order is universally one major means of expressing grammatical relations, one might ask whether ergative／absolutive and／or nominative／accusative systems can be manifested in constituent order.

  • 英語
  • 回答数2
  • ありがとう数2

みんなの回答

  • Oubli
  • ベストアンサー率31% (744/2384)
回答No.2

主格(nominative)/対格(accusative)言語と能格(ergative)/絶対格(absolutive)言語について述べた文章です。長文の要約を求めるのは反則だと思いますので回答できません。 日本語も英語も主格/対格言語ですが、基本はこんな感じです： ドアが開いた。（「ドアが」が自動詞の主語[主格]） 私がドアを開いた。（「私が」が他動詞の主語[主格]、「ドアを」が他動詞の目的語[対格]） 能格/絶対格言語では次のような感じになります： ドアが開いた。（「ドアが」が絶対格） 私によりドアが開いた。（「私により」が能格、「ドアが」が絶対格） つまり、主格/対格言語における自動詞の主語と他動詞の目的語が同じ形をとり、他動詞の主語は別の形になります。例文は日本語を無理やり能格/絶対格言語ぽくしたわけですが、通常このような構文になる言語が実際に存在するようです。

回答No.1

こんなにたくさん・・・ 提案ですが、もう少し短くするとみんな答えてくれると思います。 いくつかのsentenceに分けてみては？ えらそうですいません。 僕はまだ高校生でして・・・・ （－。－９）

  1. カテゴリ
  2. 学問・教育
  3. 語学
  4. 英語

関連するQ&A

  • 言語学について

    言語学の専門書を読んでいるのですが、いまひとつ内容が掴めません。 できればパラグラフ毎の要約を教えてください。 よろしくお願いします。 Nominative／accusative systems usually seem very reasonable to speakers of Indo-European languages since most of these languages exhibit this kind of system. The following examples from Yup\'ik (alaska) illustrate another system for grouping S, A, and O. In these examples the case marker \"-aq\" occurs on the S argument of an intransitive clause and O argument of a transitive clause. If any morphological case marks A alone, it can be called the ERGATIVE case. Similarly, any morphological case that marks both S and O can be termed the ABSOLUTE case. This arrangement, known as an ERGATIVE ／ABSOLUTIVE system, is sporadic in European and African languages. However, it is common in other areas of the world Ergativity occurs as a basic system for organizing grammatical relations in many languages of Australia, Central Asia,and the Americas. It occurs as a partial case marking system in South Asia and in many other languages of the Americas. Many Austronesian languages have also been claimed to exhibit this system. In addition to morphological case marking on pronouns or full noun phrases, languages may manifest ergative／absolutive or nominative／accusative systems in person marking on verbs, and／or constituent order. We have seen above that Quechua manifests a nominative／accusative system in case marking of noun phrases. Quechua also manifests a nominative／accusative system for organizing grammatical relations in person marking on verbs. In examples 28a, the third-person singular S of an intransitive verb is referred to by the suffix \"-n\". In 28b, first-person S argument is expressed by the suffix \"-a\"(actually length on the final vowel of the root). Examples 28c shows that suffix \"-n\" is also used for third-person A argument of transitive verbs. Hence, A and S are treated morphologically alike by the person-making system of Quechua. The fact that, in 28c, the first-person suffix for O arguments is \"-ma\" rather than \"-a\" illustrates that O and S are treated as different. Again, this way of treating S and A alike and O differently constitutes a nominative／accusative system. As might be expected, languages can also manifest an ergative ／absolutive GR system in person marking on verbs. Yup\'ik will again serve as our example of such a system: In example 29a, the suffix \"-nga\" indicates a first-person singular S argument of an intransitive verc. In 29b, the suffix \"-q\" marks the third-person s. In 29c, the suffix \"-nga\" marks the first-person O argument of a transitive clause. Since this is the same marker that is used for first-person S arguments, this suffix groups S and O together morphologically into an absolutive category. The third-person singular A argument of a transitive clause is expressed by a suffix \"-a\" . Since this suffix is different from the third-person S suffix, it can be said to identify ergative arguments. Again, this treatment of S together with O as distinct from A constitutes an ergative／absolutive system. Since constituent order is universally one major means of expressing grammatical relations, one might ask whether ergative／absolutive and／or nominative／accusative systems can be manifested in constituent order.

  • 言語学について

    言語学の専門書を読んでいるのですが、いまひとつ内容が掴めません。 できればパラグラフ毎の要約を教えてください。 よろしくお願いします。 Since constituent order is universally one major means of expressing grammatical relations, one might ask whether ergative／absolutive and／or nominative／accusative systems can be manifested in constituent order. Of course, the answer is "yes". English, consistent with its strong nominative／accusative orientation, treats S and A alike in that the S of intransitive verbs and the \a of transitive verbs most neutrally occur in preverbal position. The O of transitive verbs, on the other hand, is treated differently in that it occurs in post-verbal position. In some verb-medial languages the verb and the O argument from a "tight" constituent in transitive clauses. In Kuikuro, a Cariban language of Brazil, SV(intransitive) and OV(transitive) are very rigid structures. The most neutral position for the A argument is following the OV complex(example 30a). In 30a, the S argument of an intransitive verb occurs in preverbal position. In 30b, O argument of antransitive verb occurs in preverbal position, and the A argument occurs in post-verbal position. since both S and O occur in the same position, we can say that this language manifests an ergative／absolutive system in constituent order. One language, Sanuma(a variety of Yanomami spoken in Brazil and Venezuela), is a verb-final language, SV and OV form tight constituents. In transitive clauses A precedes O and V, but if there is any other constituent, call it X, it must occur after A. Thus the orders are AXOV and XSV. Since A is treated distinctly by being separate from the OV complex, this pattern can be considered to be a kind of constituent order ergativity. In summary, any system that treats S and A alike as opposed to O is a nominative-accusative system fir organizing grammatical relations. Any system that treats S and O alike as opposed to A is an ergative／absolutive system. The following section will provide some suggestions to how to approach the analysis of grammatical relations.

  • 言語学について

    言語学の専門書を読んでいるのですが、いまひとつ内容が掴めません。 できればパラグラフ毎の要約を教えてください。 よろしくお願いします。 System for organizing grammatical relations In order to insightfully discuss systems of grammatical relations within a clause, it is convenient to identify three basic "semantico-syntactic roles" termed S, A and O. Similar terms are used by Comrie and Silverstein. These terms assume two prototypical clause types. The S is defined as the only nominal argument of a single-argument clause. This quite different from the S used by Greeberg in his characterization of constituent order typology, as discussed in chapter 7, or the S used in earlier versions of generative grammar to refer to the highest node in constituent structure. While the term S often reminds us of the grammatical relation subject, S as used in this chapter refers informally to the "Single" argument of a single-argument clause. Sometimes this type of clause is referred to as INTRANSITIVE clause. The A is defined as the most AGENT-like argument of a multi-argument clause. Sometimes this type of clause is referred to as a TRANSITIVE clause. If there is no argument that is a very good agent, the A is the argument that is treated morphosyntactically in the same manner as prototypical agents are treated. Usually there will be one argument in every verbal clause that exhibits this property, though there may not be.More complex systems are described below. O is the most PATIENT-like argument of a multi-argument clause (see chapter 4). While the term O often reminds us of the grammatical relation "object", O refers informally to the "Other" argument of a multi-argument clause. Again, if none of the arguments is very much like a PATIENT, then the argument that is treated like a prototype patient is considered to be the O. In this schema, the grammatical relation of SUBJECT can be defined universally(fo all languages, rather than for one particular language) as S together with A, while DIRECT OBJECT, or simply "object" can be defined as O alone. Some languages pay more grammatical attention to these notions than do others. In the following extended discussion, we will discuss the various morphosyntactic systems for expressing S, A and O. Languages may treat S and A the same morphosyntactically, and O differently. The following English examples illustrate this system with pronominal case forms-one form, "he" is used for third-person singular masculine pronouns in both the S and the A roles. A different form, "him", is used for third-person masculine singular pronouns in the O role. The extended circle around S and A in this diagram indicates that S and A are treated by the grammar of English as "the same", as demonstrated by the subject properties discuss above (use of the subject case form, "he", in 24, immediately before the verb). The distinct circle around O indicates that O is treated differently, insofar as a different pronominal form, "him", is used to refer to it. "Him" also appears in a different position in the clause, namely after the verb. This system is often referred to as a NOMINATIVE／ACCUSATIVE system. The morphosyntactic grouping of S and A together can be called the NOMINATIVE case, while the distinct morphosyntactic treatment of the O role is the ACCUSATIVE case. The Quechuan languages (a group of languages spoken throughout the Andes mountains in South America) employ the same arrangement. However, in addition to pronominal forms and constituent order, the Quecha languages express this system in morphological case marking on free noun phrases. In the following examples from Huallaga Quechua the same case marker 0(zero), occurs on noun phrases in both the S and A roles. A dis tinct case marker, "-ta", occurs on noun phrases in the O role (all Quechua examples courtesy of David Weber, p.c.)

  • 言語学書の内容について

    いつもお世話になっております。 言語学書の内容でうまく訳せず、理解できないところがあるので、ヒントやアドバイスなどお願いします。 Grammatical relations can be organized according to a nominative/accusative or an ergative/absolutive system. 文法関係は、主格/対格や能格/絶対格システムによって組織される。 In this section, we will look at some languages which illustrate both nominative/accusative and ergative/absolutive systems, depending on the context. このセクションでは、文脈に依存して、主格/対格、能格/絶対格システムの両方を説明する言語を見ていく。 Such languages are sometimes said to exhibit a "split" system for organizing grammatical relation. そのような言語は文法的な関係を組織化する”分裂”システムを示すと言われる。 In most such split, the appearance of one system or the other is related either to the semantics/pragmatics of intransitive clauses(SPLIT INTRANSITIVITY), or to the semantics/pragmatics of transitive clauses(SPLIT ERGATIVITY). この文章がうまく訳せず、内容が理解できません。 Some languages express S arguments of intransitive verbs in two or more morphologically distinct ways. Such languages are sometimes said to exhibit SPLIT INTRANSITIVITY. いくつかの言語は、二つ以上の形態的に異なる方法で自動詞のＳ項を表現します。そのような言語は分裂自動性を示すと言われる。 The most common split intransitive systems express some S arguments in the same way as A arguments and others in the same way as O arguments.　Other terms that have been used for such systems include STATIVE/ACTIVE, ACTIVE,SPLIT-S,and FLUID-S systems, among others. この文章も理解できませんでした。 There are two kinds of S arguments in Lakhota; Sa arguments are those S arguments that are treated grammatically like transitive A arguments, while So arguments are those S arguments that are treated like O arguments. Lakhota語には、２つの種類のS項がある。Sa項は、S項が文法的に他動詞のＡ項のように扱われるもの。一方でSo項は、Ｓ項がＯ項のように扱われるもの。 Usually there is a fairly obvious semantic basis for the distinction between the two types of S arguments, though the basis is apparently not the same for every language.　For example, in modern colloguial Guarani(Paraguay) intransitive verbs that describe events that involve change fall into the Sa class,while those that describe states fall into the So class. うまく訳せません。。。 長文ですみません。 訳のチェックなど、どんなことでもいいですので何かアドバイスをお願いします。

  • 言語学

    以前、言語学書の内容がいまいち読み取れずに質問したのですが、また分からないところが出てきたので、アドバイス等お願いします。 以下SYNTAXの話です The largest category in phrase structure is a special category, sometimes symbolized by the letter S. 句構造の中で最も大きな範疇は、時たまSという文字で表される特別範疇(？)だ。 In earlier versions of Generative Grammar this was a mnemonic for "Sentence"; however, we will continue to refer to it as "clause", or "the clause level." 生成文法の初期の解釈では、、、その後が分かりません。 mnemonicはどう訳せばいいのでしょうか？ It is generally assumed in Generative Grammar that linguistic structure above the S level is not amenable to phrase structure analysis. 生成文法においては、Sレベルより上の(？)言語構造は句構造分析には左右されないと一般的に仮定されます。 More recent versions of Generative Grammar have eliminated the need for this special category altogether, having subsumed it under the phrasal category labels. 生成文法のもっと最近の見解は、句範疇ラベル下に包括させたので、完全にこの特別範疇の必要性を取り除いている。 We can consider a clause to be the grammatical expression of a PROPOSITION. 私たちは節を命題の文法上の表現とみなす。 A proposition has to do with entities in the message world and semantic relations among them, whereas a clause has to do with syntactic categories and the syntactic relations among them. この文は訳せませんでした。。 We can informally think of a proposition as consisting of a "complete thought." 私たちは非公式に(？)「完全な考え」から成るとして命題について考えることができる。 以下LINEAR　ORDERの話です Linear order is just too strong and obvious a structural variable for languages not to use it in some way to accomplish important communicative work. この文もうまく訳せませんでした。 One characteristic that seems to distinguish human languages from other natural communicative system is that human language exhibits constituency and hierarchical structure. 他の自然なコミュニケーションのシステムと人間言語を区別するように思える１つの特性は、人間の言語が構成要素と階層構造を示すということです。　seems to がうまく訳せません Constituency means that linguistic units "clump together",or "merge"　(Chomsky 1995) in discourse. 構成要素は「群れ？」や「融合」といった統語的単位を意味する。 in discourseはどう訳すのでしょうか。。 Linear order and constituency are two important variable that any syntactic analysis of a language must be able to describe. 線形順序と階層構造は、言語のどんな構造分析も説明できなければならない２つの重要な変動要因です。 以上です。長文ですみません。 どんなことでもいいですので何かアドバイスお願いします。

  • 脳神経科学と言語に関する英文で

    ある英文読解問題集にある次の英文についての設問に関して尋ねいたします。 （問い） 次の英文の最終文にある”making associations”（(2)とします）と同じ内容が述べられている箇所を抜き出せ。（他の設問は省略しました） From both the point of view of neuroscience and linguistics, two related questions about words and grammar are especially germane in relation to the main themes of this chapter. First, what is the nature of the neural machinery that allows us to learn language? And second, why do we have such a profound drive to learn language? The major twentieth-century figure who has grappled with these questions is linguist Noam Chomsky, who, while not interested in brain structure, has argued that the complexity of language is such that it cannot simply be learned. Chomsky therefore proposed that language must be predicated on a “universal grammar” laid down in the evolution of our species. Whereas this argument is undoubtedly correct (the basic language machinery, like all aspects of brain circuitry that support adult behavior, is indeed constructed during the normal development of each individual as a result of inheritance), Chomsky's eschewing of neurobiology avoids the central question of how, in evolutionary or developmental terms, this machinery comes to be and how it actually encodes words and grammar. Whatever the mechanisms eventually prove to be, much of the language we use is obviously learned by making neuronal linkages between arbitrary symbols and the objects, concepts, and interrelationships they signify in the real world. As such, human language provides a rich source for understanding how the relevant parts of the human cortex and their constituent neurons work to produce the enormous facility for making associations, which appears to be a fundamental aspect of all cortical functions. （http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=neurosci.box.1892の第２段落） 解答はその前の文（最後から２つ目の文）にある” making neuronal linkages between arbitrary symbols and the objects, concepts, and interrelationships they signify in the real world”（(1)とします）となっていました。 しかし、私はこの解釈は正しくないのではないかという気がします。 それは、(1)と(2)は同じく大脳皮質におけるニューロン間の「結合」のことを言っているものの、 (1) は言語活動を支える言語プロパーのものであって、恣意的な記号とモノなどとの間での結合である、 のに対して、 (2) は言語活動を含め、認知・記憶・学習・思考・問題解決など多岐にわたる高次認知機能一般を支えるものとしてであり、一般に「連合」と訳されるものをさしている、 と私には思えるからです。 私の読みとりは間違っていますでしょうか、ご教示ください。

  • 和訳してくださいm(_ _)m

    It is easy to say that English will be the dominant language of the 21st century. After all, it is the main language of the world's biggest economy, the United States, and the common language of business. A large percent of the information on the Internet is in English, and worldwide, many countries are rushing to learn English, since they regard it as vital for economic success.For example, English is the working language of the Asian trade group ASEAN. ln addition, in Malaysia English recently replaced Malay as the language used to teach mathematics and science in schools. The dream of many is that English will develop into a truly global language so that wherever we go, we can understand and be understood. This would ease cultural misunderstandings, encourage tourism, enable trade to work smoothly,reduce the conflict between nations, and lead to a more peaceful world. たくさん投稿しますが、よろしくお願いしますm(_ _)m

  • 下の文を和訳していただけませんか？

    下の文を和訳していただけませんか？ If Spender is right about why some objects are personified as female, it doesn’t follow that it’s only men who use language in this way, nor does it mean that every usage of this kind is a conscious one. Spender is talking about a male perspective, or way of viewing the world, that is encoded in the language we all use as a common resource. And it is precisely because we use language without analyzing each and every item that a way of thinking can exist without really being noticed. It is only when our flow of language is disrupted that we become conscious of the thinking that as embedded in language ---- and then we can ask whose thinking it really is. Here is an example of that process in action. The news journalist, Sue McGregor, in covering a world energy conference, is talking to another journalist about Britain’s past record on industrial pollution: ‘ but Britain’s been a good boy, hasn’t she… or he? (nervous laughter) (Today Programme, Rad 4, 9/12/97)

  • VLCでの再生不可について

    本編にスタートをクリックすると以下の英文がでてくる 　this player is incompatible in region marking of this disc 予告編は通常にみられるのになぜ本編が見られないのかわからない

  • 翻訳をお願いいたします

    以下の英文を和訳していただけるかたのみで。 お願いできますでしょうか？ 若干難解な文章かもしれませんが、わかりません。 どうぞよろしくお願いいたします。 What the chart always portrays is your next serious and predestined chance of love. It shows the person who you will meet and fall in love with. The person who will be your next serious chance of making a long term relationship. This love is going is deep and predestined. It may transform your life. I hope it does and into a more wonderful life. But understand the just because a love is shown in the stars as your fate, it does not automatically make it happy and free of problems or pain. This chart is one step of fate, and it is like one rose on a tree. It is the only step of fate dealt with in the reading.

注目のQ&A

カテゴリ

専門家に質問してみよう

職業から探して質問する

あなたにピッタリな商品が見つかる！ OKWAVEセレクト

質問する