ヒリモトゥ語の類型：辞順と後置詞 : KWIC資料に基づく通言語的研究

要旨

In this paper I compare certain postpositional particles in Hiri Motuand Japanese. Hiri Motu is one of the SOV type Austronesianlanguages, known as Austronesian Type II, which is spoken around PortMoresby, Papua New Guinea as the principal lingua franca. In particularI compare the use of Hiri Motu topic maker be and actor markerese with Japanese postpositions wa (topic) and ga (nominative) . Thestudy is based on the language data from the Hiri Motu version of theNew Testament (the Gospel) , which has been made into the Key-Wordin-Context (KWIC) at the National Museum of Ethnology. In this text,be and ese are used up to 3,789 and 2,108 times, respectively.Hiri Motu and Japanese apparently follow the same word order, i.e.SOV, but as far as the syntactic device is concerned, the affix order inHiri Motu, i.e. sVo (s: subjective prefix, o: objective suffix) should berecognized as a distinct type of Japanese word order, reflectinganaphorically S and 0 within a sentence and forming a smallest sentencenucleus grammatically.As the result of an exhaustive survey, the present paper points outthat be in Hiri Motu is able to topicalize the whole elements including esephrase in a sentence, such as `taunina ese be ... (the body-actor ...)' (theonly example: Mat vi. 25) , `daika be ... (who ... ?)' (9 examples: Lukix. 46, etc.) , being different from Japanese in that the chaining ga + wa,or interrogatives + wa is ungrammatical, by reason that the ga-markedsubject expresses non-topic in opposition to the wa-marked topic, andinterrogatives cannot be topicalized for their indefiniteness. Regardingthis phenomenon, the chaining `... ga + interrogatives' doesn't occur inJapanese. This improbability is caused by the reason that the chaining`... ga + interrogatives' presumes such an implicitly topicalized sentenceas ' (interrogative + wa) ... ga + interrogative', and that, after all, theinterrogative becomes topic.What is interesting is that the combination `... ese + interrogative'is unacceptable in Hiri Motu too, but this outward coincidence resultsfrom the different reason that the ese-marked actor semantically formsthe exclusive relation with interrogatives in Hiri Motu, and it seems thatthe new tendency is appearing, rather focussing the actor in itselfpragmatically, as seen in such a sentence `Tau ese daika is dogoatao?'(Whom [daika] is the man [tau] holding [dogoatao]?) .

主題