著者
菊田 千春 Chiharu Kikuta
出版者
同志社大学人文学会
雑誌
同志社大学英語英文学研究 = Doshisha studies in English (ISSN:02861291)
巻号頁・発行日
no.102, pp.109-139, 2021-03

本稿は日本語の逆接仮定条件を表す命令文(譲歩命令文)のうち、中世の終わりまでに成立したとされる、動詞「する」を用いるタイプの成立過程を構文文法の視点から分析する。構文化におけるチャンク化の意義を踏まえ、「する」の命令形が「もせよ」というチャンクを形成する条件や過程を詳細に検討し、「する」を3つに分類した上で、「もせよ」成立に重要な役割を果たしたのは、名詞や漢語と結びついて動詞を作る補助用法の「する」であると論じる。そしてその成立時期を説明する間接的証拠として、「する」の造語力を高めた中世の漢語の増大との関連を指摘する。
著者
菊田 千春
出版者
同志社大学
雑誌
同志社大学英語英文学研究 (ISSN:02861291)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.79, pp.61-104, 2006-03

格助詞ガが、明確に主格表示として用いられるようになるのは室町期とされ、それは、日本語が古典語から近代語への転換を示す変化の一つと考えられている。生成文法では、格助詞の種類は統語構造上の生起位置を表すと考えられることが多く、主格ガの確立も構造上の変化を映すとされる。 本稿では、格助詞を句構造のみからは論じられないという立場に立ち、主格ガの確立を、格助詞ガの性質の変化と、日本語の文法システムの変化の両面から捉えることを目指す。LFG、HPSGらの制約に基づく句構造文法の語彙主義の主張にしたがい、主語はそれを統語的に選択する主要部の述語により認可され(=主格という抽象格が付与され)、それについては古典語も近代語も変わりはないと想定する。主格の格助詞ガの確立は、その抽象格がいくつかの表現形で表されていたのが、次第に、助詞ガという形態格に固定化していくことと解釈し、その過程を捉える方法を提案する。具体的には、Kikuta (2003)で提案した、上代日本語の助詞のプロファイルや助詞選択にかかわる制約を拡充し、上代から近代語にかけての変化を、そのプロファイルと制約の優先順位の変化という観点から分析する。主格ガの成立は一見複雑に見えるが、本稿では、卓立性や名詞性などの素性とその制約の順序という視点から分析することで、単純で漸進的な一方向的変化が複合的に起こった結果ととらえられることを示す。The establishment of the particle ga as a nominative case marker in the Muromachi-period is supposed to mark the beginning of Modern Japanese. A theoretical question is whether this directly reflects a drastic change in the syntactic make-up of the language. Researchers in Japanese philology (Kokugo-gaku) have implicitly answered this in the negative for a long time, while generative syntacticians explicitly claim the opposite. Although the generative approach claims to be scientific, and therefore close to the truth, it is still doubtful whether the change in behavior of particle ga directly pertains to structural change. In Old Japanese (OJ), ga is only one of the possible nominative markers; the subject argument can be realized in such forms as ga, no, zero, wa (or mo and other kakari-zyosi), and their distribution is syntactically overlapping. If case markers only indicate the structural position where they occur, as generally assumed by generative syntacticians, all the markers (including zero) in OJ should be syntactically distinguished. However, there appears to be a considerable amount of overlap and optionality in the choice of subject markers. The problem, I believe, is that while ga is a case marker, it is not just a label of a syntactic node, but a morpheme with its own content. Along the lines of Kikuta (2003, 2005), this paper proposes to separate abstract case marking as a type of argument licensing on the one hand, and morphological case marking as a choice of the most adequate phonological/morphological realization of the abstract case on the other. Following the ideas of the lexicalist frameworks HPSG and LFG, I assume that the abstract case marking is done lexically by a head predicate selecting (subcategorizing for) the argument. The abstract case, such as the nominative and accusative, will be realized in some appropriate phonological form. The choice of the appropriate form depends on two major factors: the syntactic-functional profile of each marker and the interaction of constraints affecting the choice. The diachronic change leading to the establishment of ga as nominative marker also results from the interaction of the two factors, both of which have changed over time. The case marker ga becomes by far the best choice to mark the subject argument in Muromachi, when (1) ga becomes compatible with verbal arguments while no retains the nominal character and (2) it becomes more important in Japanese for case to be explicitly marked by appropriate morphological case markers. The proposed analysis has a significant implication in that the apparently complex diachronic change in case marking can be seen as a consequence of interactions of separate, gradual, unidirectional changes in the weight of constraints and slight changes in the profile of case markers. This implication is preferable for the obvious reason that language change within a monolingual community ought to be gradual, and lends support to the approach taken in this paper.
著者
石塚 則子
出版者
同志社大学人文学会
雑誌
同志社大学英語英文学研究 (ISSN:02861291)
巻号頁・発行日
no.79, pp.39-59, 2006-03

Set in the 1870s, Edith Wharton's posthumous and incomplete text of The Buccaneers deals with a marriage plot different from that of her previous novels. While The Age of Innocence (1920) records Newland Archer's conflict between social order and personal fulfillment through his attachment to two contrastive woman figures and justifies his adherence to the old New York code to pay homage to conservative social dynamism in the 1870s, The Buccaneers focuses on the social intruders who ambitiously challenge tradition-bound high society both in America and England. Beautiful but undisciplined American daughters of the nouveaux riches challenge the English aristocracy with their social ambitions for "happy" marriages after their failure in Old New York. Forming a strong bond to help one another in a totally different cultural milieu, they achieve brilliant social marriages, which eventually turn out a dreadful mistake. With many characters with varied cultural backgrounds on both sides of the Atlantic, the story develops ramifications under social milieus of hybridity. The middle of the novel marks a shift from a comic tone of cultural amalgamation to an individual conflict between social order and personal fulfillment. Married to one of the most distinguished dukes, Annabel Tintagel (né St. George) undergoes an identity crisis and cannot get along with her new identity as a duchess. Her inner turmoil results from being reduced to a subordinated gender role, but Wharton seems to add another factor to Annabel's unsettlement: transculturation. Guy Thwarte, with whom Nan develops an attachment through their shared kinship toward the soil and historical buildings, also finds his old traditional life at Honourslove disrupted after he comes back from his four-year life in Brazil: he can neither recover the lost self nor fit into a designated future role as an heir. Both of them, after being transplanted from one culture to the other, find their subjectivity in dangling, not being able to achieve any sense of rootedness. The inner turmoil of Guy and Nan seems to project Wharton's sense of dislocation in America and Europe after the World War I. Except the period when she was settled in the Mount at Lenox, Massachusetts, Wharton spent most of her life on travels or switching residences by the seasons. After the sale of the Mount in 1912, she took up her residence in France. Unlike modernist expatriates, she did not remain rootless. Through her transcultural experiences, Wharton had to create a new pattern of connections in exile, constructing an ambivalent point of view on modernist Europe and America. Such view of hers seems diasporic without any Jewish historical context: she is away from "home" in a spatial and temporal sense but adheres to some attachment to "home" in moralistic, emotional terms. Her "home" is Europe and America in the 1870s, in which the core of her self was nurtured. Though physically located away from the heritage of her "home," she still associates herself with it by memory. With her decline in health and deaths of her close friends and relatives in the 1930s, she seems to be in desperate need to get back to her "home" by writing The Buccaneers yet foregrounds the characters who find their subjectivity in dangling transcultural contexts. Guy and Nan seeks some relief from identity crisis in their attachment to the soil. However, Wharton does not allow them to settle in rural England in search of a place for their union but drives them out of England to South Africa without any immediate prospect of returning to their "home." Though Wharton was not able to complete the text, her projected conclusion in which Nan and Guy elope and presumably find a union of true minds and conceptions far away from England might reflect some social changes that had taken place in the course of Wharton's lifetime. While some feminist critics regard this optimistic ending of the promising union as unique in Wharton's marriage plots, the ending seems to project her sense of dislocation in her last years: she never recovers any solid sense of "home" but faces the need to remold her subjectivity in different transcultural contexts.
著者
金谷 益道
出版者
同志社大学
雑誌
同志社大学英語英文学研究 (ISSN:02861291)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.79, pp.23-37, 2006-03

ヘンリー・ジェイムズは"The Art of Fiction"で、小説の唯一の存在理由は「人生の再現」を企てることにあると示唆する一方で、小説の中で「人生の幻影」を作り出すことが小説家の仕事だとも主張する。ジェイムズは小説の虚構性を暴露し、「人生の幻影」を破壊しかねない作中での作者の介入を行うアンソニー・トロロープを非難し、「人生の幻影」を読者に与えるために小説家は歴史家の口調で語るべきだと主張している。ジェイムズは歴史や他の非虚構的作品にあると思われている、「既にあるもの」を忠実に再現するというミメーシス的再現形式こそが読者に「人生の幻影」を与え、小説の虚構性を隠蔽する助けとなると考えていた。ジェイムズがミメーシス的再現をする対象として選んだものは、作家のメトニミー的想像力により得られた人生の「印象」である。整理することなく頭の中で保持された人生の「印象」をまず頭の中で忠実に再現し、その再現した「印象」を書かれた文字によりテクストへもう一度忠実に再現するという度重なるミメーシスをジェイムズは目指したのである。ジェイムズはまた小説作成の法則化や小説の類型化・分類を拒んでいるが、これは彼が法則や類型という準拠しなければならない規範に従って生み出された小説は「因襲的で伝統的な型」を読者に意識させることになり、最後には小説の虚構性を露呈し、「人生の幻影」を破壊してしまうと考えていたからである。"The Art of Fiction" includes a succinct statement of Henry James's artistic credo: the "only reason for the existence of a novel is that it does attempt to represent life." A quick glimpse of a situation, according to James, can give a novelist, endowed with the "power to guess the unseen from the seen, to trace the implication of things, to judge the whole piece by the pattern," impressions that allow him or her to "produce a life" in its complexity. While on the one hand James takes it upon himself to represent life in its complexity, he also sets great store by "the illusion of life." It is for this reason that James often criticizes Anthony Trollope's self-referential authorial intrusions, which expose the fictionality of fictional works and destroy "the illusion of life."James argues that "if [fiction] will not give itself away . . . it must speak . . . with the tone of the historian." Though many narratologists have argued that history is a representation in narrative form, we often think that there is no narrative form imposed by historians on their texts, or that they are immediately transcribing a pre-existing sequence of events. James makes use of this illusion of immediacy, or that of mimesis, to produce "the illusion of life." James makes it imperative not to impose upon "a personal . . . impression of life" the form that we often attribute to fictional works. As suggested in his argument that "[i]n proportion as in what [fiction] offers us we see life without rearrangement do we feel that we are touching the truth," James's purpose here is to produce "the illusion of life," or to achieve the effect of convincing the reader that the "life" they see is true. James also expresses his opposition to Walter Besant's attempt to formulate "laws of fiction." His objection is that these would conform all fictional works to "conventional, traditional moulds"—so conventional and traditional as to allow the reader to perceive the fictionality of the fictional works. James believes that his mimetic rendering of personal impressions will serve the purpose of preventing his works from being perceived as duplicates of "conventional, traditional moulds." However, as implied in his comment on Émile Zola, who, "[q]uarrelling with all conventions, defiant of them in general, . . . was yet inevitably to set up his own group of them," James¬ is also aware that this "art of fiction" will soon be regarded as one of "conventional, traditional moulds."
著者
菊田 千春 Chiharu Kikuta
出版者
同志社大学人文学会
雑誌
同志社大学英語英文学研究 = Doshisha studies in English (ISSN:02861291)
巻号頁・発行日
no.101, pp.83-126, 2020-03

本稿は日本語の順接・逆接仮定条件を表わす命令文を取り上げ、それを意味変化の方向性仮説の反例とする先行研究への反論を試みると共に、通時的構文文法による分析を提案する。特に、「命令から条件」への変化だけでは本質を捉えられず、「命令文と後続文の間に推意として存在した条件という論理関係のコード化」と考えるべきこと、そして、意味に加え、形式の慣習化を考慮することにより、構文化過程を明らかにできると論じる。龍城正明先生 秋篠憲一先生 中井悟先生 斉藤延喜先生 御退職記念号論文(Article)