Semantic properties of the so-called past tense morpheme in Late Late Middle Japanese
Semantic properties of the so-called past tense morpheme in Late Late Middle Japanese
复制标题
中古日语后期所谓过去时语素的语义特性
DOI：
10.1007/s10831-014-9124-8
复制
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
0.5
通讯作者：
Toshiyuki Ogihara & Takenobu Fukushima
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Toshiya Fukui;Takahiro Yamazaki;Ryuta Kinno;金野竜太;金野竜太;Rytua Kinno;劉志偉;Toshiyuki Ogihara & Takenobu Fukushima
本文首次对中古晚期日语（LLMJ）语料进行了形式语义分析，讨论了中古晚期日语和现代新日语（cNJ）的形容词（非过去式）解释，并分析了它们的异同。我们解释的历史语义变化的-ta和它的前身作为一个渐进的变化，从一个结果，一个完成，然后到一个过去，在遵守马斯洛夫的（在：Nedjalkov（编）。1988年，《论析论》。形容词-tais仅限于cNJ中的前名修饰语情况，但在LLMJ中的前名和矩阵子句情况下都可以找到。假设母句必须是时态的，我们认为-tais作为一个体语素-tastate，动词复合体V-tastate原则上可以后缀一个时态语素。这种分析是LLMJ所需要的，并且与以前处理形容词性cNJ的作品（如Kusumoto）（在Cuervo et al.（eds.）Formal approaches to Japanese Linguistics 3，2001）and Ogihara（Linguist Philos 27：557-608，2004）.根据我们的说法，V-tastate-tapastis在LLMJ和cNJ都是非法的。在LLMJ中，V-tastate-是合法的，而cNJ只接受无时态的V-tastate，这反映了这一结构在日语历史上的逐渐边缘化。这解释了形容词-tain cNJ的分布约束。关于语义解释，V-tastate断言在LLMJ和cNJ中，V-ing的目标状态（Parsons，Events in the Semantics of English：A study in subatomic semantics，1990）现在成立，而不需要V实际上发生在过去。这一语义建议是在对-tastate的内涵分析中提出的。
This article, which provides the very first formal semantic analysis of Late Late Middle Japanese (LLMJ) data, discusses adjectival (non-preterit) interpretations of the so-called past tense morpheme-tain LLMJ and contemporary New Japanese (cNJ), accounting for their similarities and differences. We explain the historical semantic change of-taand its predecessors as a gradual change from a resultative to a perfect and then to a preterit, in compliance with Maslov’s (in: Nedjalkov (ed.) Typology of resultative constructions, 1988) hypothesis. Adjectival -tais restricted to prenominal modifier cases in cNJ, but is found in both prenominal and matrix clause cases in LLMJ. Assuming that a matrix clause must be tensed, we argue that-tais used as an aspect morpheme -tastate, and that a verbal complex V-tastatecould in principle be suffixed by a tense morpheme. This analysis is needed for LLMJ and constitutes a major departure from the previous works dealing with adjectival-tain cNJ such as Kusumoto (in: Cuervo et al. (eds.) Formal approaches to Japanese Linguistics 3, 2001) and Ogihara (Linguist Philos 27: 557–608, 2004). According to our account, V-tastate-tapastis illicit in both LLMJ and cNJ. The form V-tastate-∅presentis licit in LLMJ, whereas cNJ only accepts the tenseless form V-tastate, which reflects the gradual marginalization of this construction over the course of Japanese language history. This accounts for the distributional constraint on adjectival -tain cNJ. Regarding semantic interpretation, V-tastateasserts in both LLMJ and cNJ that a target state (Parsons, Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics, 1990) of V-ing holds now without entailing that V actually occurred in the past. This semantic proposal is couched in an intensional analysis of -tastate.