Gengo Kenkyu 145: 1 26 2014 V V V V V 2 1 2 V * 1. 1 a. b. 1a 1b 2 a. b. 2a 2b * JSPS 23720217 2
2 1 2b V 1 V V 2 1 V V 1a 1b 1991 V V V 3 4 5 2. V V 2.1. V 1 V V V 1 1975 V 1 Ono 2000; Ono 1992
V 3 3 3 1975 3 a. b. c. 3a 3b 3c 1975 V V 3c 1996 Ono 2000 V 3c V V 1997 2009 2011 V 4 a. b. * V 4a 4b V 4 b. 1997 2011 2009 V V V
4 V 2.2. V 1991 1993 1991 V 1993 V V 1 V Takahashi 2012 1993 1995, 1998 V V 1995, 1998 Shinzato 2001, 2002 Mori 2006 2012 1995, 1998 P Q P Q 1998: 144 Shinzato 2001, 2002 Dancygier 1998 Traugott 1989; Hopper and Traugott 2003 2 Mori 2006 V 2012 V 1a 1b 2011 V 2 Traugott 1989 Shinzato 2001, 2002
V 5 V 2.3. V V 4 5 a. V b. V c. V d. V 5a V 5b 5c V 5d V 5a 5a a d 5a d 4 V 1995, 1998 5a 5a 5a Shinzato 2001, 2002 Mori 2006 6 a. b. * c. * d. *
6 V V 3 7 a. * b. c. d. 5a 7b d 5a V 7 a. 5a 7 a 7a 7 a V 4 2012 1a V V 7 V Shinzato 2001, 2002; Mori 2006 3 Evans 2007, 2002: 127 131, 2009 4 Shinzato 2002 5a 5c 5a 7 a 5a 5a
V 7 2012 V 3 V V i ii iii 3. V V 3.1. 1989 1 8 1989: 131 1989 5 8 2 8 1989: 131 1989 5 8
8 V 1989 1989 1989 V V 6 9 a. b. c. d. 9 1 2 8 3 1 2 3 8 1 2 9 9a 9d 1 2 V 6 9 1 1989: 145
V 9 V V 1989 6 2 V 1 8 2 10 a. b. c. d. 2 8 6 V V 3 1 1998 V 4 1989 11 1989: 139 140 11 1
10 12 a. * b. * c. * d. * 13 a. b. c. d. 12 13 7 14 15 13 14 a. b. c. d. 15 a. * b. * c. * d. * 1989 13a d 14a d 5 1989: 10; 1998: 149 1 2 7 1991 3.3 V V
V 11 16 1989: 141 17 a. b. * c. * d. * 17b d V 16 Shinzato 2002: 587 1989 2 18 a. b. 1989: 141 18a 18b 19 1989: 142 1 2 V Yamanashi 2001
12 20 a. * b. c. d. 21 a. * b. c. d. 21a 21a 21a 8 V 8 2 9 V 1998 V 1 V 8 2.2 1995, 1998 P Q 21a 9 9 V 9
V 13 1 V V V V 1 V V V 3 V1 V2 V V1 V2 3.2. V V 22 a. V- - X b. V1- -V2 X 22a V 22b V V V V 22b V2 1989 22 23 23 a. V- - X b. V1- -V2 X X V X
14 X X V X X X X 23a 2012 23b X 23a V Hopper and Traugott 2003 3.3 4.1 24 24 a. V1- - X b. V1- -V2 X 24a 24b 2 1 25 a. [V1- - ] X b. [V1- -V2] X 23 24 X 25a 26a 26 a. [V1]-[ - ] X b. [V1- -V2] X 1 26a 26b V 27a 27 5
V 15 27 a. b. c. d. 27a V 27b 27c 27d 2 2 V V V1 V2 V V2 V V1 V2 V V V V V2 27c V1 V2 V1 V2 V 26a V1 V2 V2 V V1 V2 V V V1 V2 V 2 V V 26a
16 V V 2 V 1998 Shinzato 2002 28 a. b. * c. * 10 d. * 28a 28b 2 28c 28d 28a 1998 V 2 28a V 2 28a V V 2 1 29 a. * b. c.? 11 d. 29a 10 V 28a 11 29c 29b, d 29a 29c V
V 17 29b 30 a. b. 29b c. d. 30b V 30a 30a 29a V V V1 V2 V1 V2 29a 30a 29c 30c V 25a 25b 29 26a 3.3. V 26a V1 V2 V2 Ono 1992; Ono 2000 V V V V non-finite Haspelmath 1995 V V X
18 12 3.2 V V Mori 2006 V V V non-finiteness Givón 1990 Bisang 2007 3.1 31 a. * b. c. d. V 31a V V 26a V X V 26a 26b X 12 Alpatov and Podlesskaya 1995 primary converbs V V V Alpatov and Podlesskaya 1995 V V Nedjalkov 1995 specialized converbs narrative converbs
V 19 26a 26b 3.1 Goldberg 1995 Goldberg 2006 26b X V2 26a V V 26 26 26 a. [[V1]-[ - ] X ] b. [[V1- -V2] ] [ X ] 26 a V 26 b X 1 4. 4.1. 3 V 3 V V
20 2 1 V V V V V V 2012 V 4.2. 3 3 5a V 5b V 5c V 5d V V
V 21 V 1995, 1998 2011, 2012 1995, 1998 2.2 V 1998: 149 V V V 1995, 1998 9 V 2012 1a 1b 2.2 V 1a 1b V 2012 V 2
22 Shinzato 2001, 2002; Mori 2006 V 1a 1b 1a 1b 2012 V V 4.3. 1989 32 a. b. 1989: 149, 151 32 a. * b. 32a 32 a 32b 32 b 32b 32 b 32a 33 a. b. c. d. 33 a. * b. c. d.
V 23 32 32 33 33 33a 13 33a V V 33a V 1989 14 Foley and Van Valin 1984 coordinate subordinate embedded dependent coordination embedded dependent subordination embedded dependent embedded dependent cosubordination 15 embedded dependent V cosubordination Shinzato 2001, 2002 Mori 2006 2011, 2012 V 18 19 V V 13 1b * 14 V 15 Croft 2001 cosubordination converbs medial verb forms Tamil Burushaski
24 Hopper and Traugott 2003 Foley and Van Valin 1984 Lehman 1988 parataxis embedded dependent hypotaxis embedded dependent subordination embedded dependent that parataxis hypotaxis subordination 16 3 V parataxis hypotaxis Hopper and Traugott 2003 V1 V2 V2 Ono 1992; Ono 2000 V1 V2 V2 V 3.2 5. V V V i ii V 16 Foley and Van Valin 1984 embedded dependent Hopper and Traugott 2003 parataxis Hopper and Traugott 2003 Foley and Van Valin 1984 bondedness
V 25 Alpatov, Vladimir M. and Vera Podlesskaya (1995) Converbs in Japanese. In: Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König (1995), 465 485. Bisang, Walter (2007) Categories that make finiteness: Discreteness from a functional perspective and some of its repercussions. In: Irina Nikolaeva (2007), 115 137. Croft, William (2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dancygier, Barbara (1998) Conditionals and prediction: Time, knowledge and causation in conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Evans, Nicholas (2007) Insubordination and its uses. In: Irina Nikolaeva (2007), 366 431. Foley, William and Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (1984) Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Givón, Talmy (1990) Syntax: A functional typological introduction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Goldberg, Adele E. (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Goldberg, Adele E. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haspelmath, Martin (1995) The converbs as a cross-linguistically valid category. In: Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König (1995), 1 55. Haspelmath, Martin and Ekkehard König (eds.) (1995) Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin and New York: Mouton. Hopper, Paul and Elizabeth C. Traugott (2003 [1993]) Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2011 11: 43 59. 2012 13 59 66. Lehman, Christian (1988) Towards a typology of clause linkage. In: John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.) Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 181 225. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1997 5: 1 12. Mori, Hideki (2006) The V-te-miro conditional imperative and other imperative forms: Grammaticalization of lexemes in constructions. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 22: 1 16. 1993 6: 67 115 1995 655 661 1998 96: 143 153. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (1995) Some typological parameters of converbs. In: Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König (1995), 97 136. Nikolaeva, Irina (ed.) (2007) Finiteness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1989 1989 1 56. 1991 1989 1989 1989 131 157. 2002
26 Ono, Kiyoharu (2000) Grammaticalization of Japanese verbals. Australian Journal of Linguistics 20: 39 79. Ono, Tsuyoshi (1992) The grammaticization of the Japanese verbs oku and shimau. Cognitive Linguistics 3: 367 390. 2009 V 9: 132 143. Shinzato, Rumiko (2001) From expressive to textual: A case of Japanese imperatives. In: The Discourse and Cognitive Linguistics Society of Korea (ed.) The first Seoul international conference on discourse and cognitive linguistics: Perspectives for the 21st century, 1018 1031. Seoul: The Discourse and Cognitive Linguistics Society of Korea. Shinzato, Rumiko (2002) From imperatives to conditionals: The case of ~shiro/are and ~te miro in Japanese. CLS 38: 585 600. 2009 Takahashi, Hidemitsu (2012) A cognitive linguistic analysis of the English imperative: With special reference to Japanese imperatives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1996 110: 120 142. Traugott, Elizabeth C. (1989) On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 31 55. Yamanashi, Masa-aki (2001) Speech-act constructions, illocutionary forces, and conventionality. In: Daniel Vanderveken and Susumu Kubo (eds.) Essays in speech act theory, 225 238. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1975 2: 36 51. 910-1195 4-1-1 hmori@fpu.ac.jp 2012 10 12 2014 1 25 Abstract Modality and Reanalyzed Structure of V-te-miro Conditional Imperatives Hideki Mori Fukui Prefectural University V-te-miro conditional imperatives are characterized by imperative form and conditional meaning. This form meaning discrepancy is considered in terms of degrees of modality and subordination. The claim is that V-te-miro conditional imperatives, unlike other imperative forms, have features of a low degree of typical imperative modality and are reanalyzed as converb constructions. This reveals that the conditional implication of V-te-miro conditional imperatives is constructional meaning, whereas that of other types of imperative forms is induced pragmatically. Regarding the correspondence of imperatives and subordinate clauses, the proposed reanalysis of V-te-miro conditional imperatives as converb constructions makes a finer classification on the clausal level and suggests coordinate subordinate continuity on the sentential level. In addition, the present study can offer a new direction for historical investigations into the evolution of V-V complexes into converb constructions.