言語学について

質問

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.)

回答No.2

deadwood

自動詞の主語をS
他動詞の主語をA、他動詞の目的語をO
とすると、

SとAを一つのグループ、Oを別のグループとして扱うタイプの言語がある。
英語の代名詞ががSとAに主格、Oに目的格の形を与えるのがその例。
ケチュア語では代名詞以外の一般名詞でもこの区別をマークする。

という話ですが、このあとおそらくSとOを一つのグループ、Aを別のグループとして扱う能格型の言語の話が続くのでありましょう。

補足

ちなみにこの後の話が以下の通りです。
もしよろしければまた要約の方をお願いしたいのですが…
お手数をおかけしますが、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.

回答No.1

SPS700

長いので要約します。

　「文法関係を整理する組織」
　ここでは意味論的統語的要素の役割によってSAOの三種に分ける。同様の分類は Comrie や Silverstein も行っている。

　Sは今までの用法、すなわち Greenberg や初期の生成文法とは異なる。Sはsingle の略で、間接目的句のようなものである。

　A は agent, O は patient に相当する。

　（おしまいに味噌が出ますが）南米ケチュア語はこの組織を持っている。

といったものです。