#2065. 言語と文化の借用尺度 (2)[contact][borrowing][loan_word][anthropology][sociolinguistics][speed_of_change][exaptation]


 昨日の記事「#2064. 言語と文化の借用尺度 (1)」 ([2014-12-21-1]) に続き,言語項と文化項の借用にみられる共通点について.言語も文化の一部とすれば,借用に際しても両者の間に共通点があることは不思議ではないかもしれない.ただし,あまりこのような視点からの比較はされてこなかったと思われるので,この件についての言及をみつけると,なるほどと感心してしまう.
 昨日と同様に,Weinreich は Linton (Linton, Ralph, ed. Acculturation in Seven American Indian Tribes. New York, 1940) に依拠しながら,さらなる共通点を2つほど指摘している.1つは,既存の語の同義語が他言語から借用される場合に関わる.すでに自言語に存在する語の同義語が他言語から借用される場合には,(1) 両語の意味に混同が生じる,(2) 借用語が本来語を置き換える,(2) 両方の語が意味を違えながら共存する,のいずれかが生じるとされる.(3) は道具などの文化的な項目の借用についても言えることではないか.Weinreich (55fn) 曰く,

Similarly in culture contact. "The substitution of a new culture element," Linton writes . . ., "by no means always results in the complete elimination of the old one. There are many cases of partial . . . replacement. . . . Stone knives may continue to be used for ritual purposes long after the metal ones have superseded them elsewhere."

 既存の項が役割を特化させるなどしながらあくまで生き残るという過程は,文法化研究などで注目されている exaptation の例にも比較される (cf. 「#1586. 再分析の下位区分」 ([2013-08-30-1])) .
 言語項と文化項の借用にみられる2つ目の共通点は,借用を促進する要因と阻害する要因に関するものである.言語の借用尺度の決定に関与する要因は,構造的(言語内的)なものと非構造的(言語外的)なものに2分される.前者は言語体系への統合の度合いに関わり,後者は例えば2言語使用者の習慣,発話の状況,言語接触の社会文化的環境などを含む(「#1779. 言語接触の程度と種類を予測する指標」 ([2014-03-11-1]) も参照).Weinreich (66--67fn)は,文化人類学者の洞察に触れながら,文化項の借用にも同様に構造的・非構造的な要因が認められるとしている.

Distinctions parallel to those between stimuli and resistance, structural and non-structural factors, occur implicitly in studies of acculturation, too. Thus, Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits . . . distinguish culture traits "presented" (=stimuli) from those "selected" in acculturation situations, and stress the "significance of understanding the resistance to traits as well as the acceptance of them." They also name "congruity of existing culture-patterns" as a reason for a selection of traits; this corresponds to structural stimuli in language contact. When Linton observes . . . that "new things are borrowed on the basis of their utility, compatibility with preëxisting culture patterns, and prestige associations," his three factors are equivalent, roughly, to structural stimuli of interference, structural resistance, and nonstructural stimuli, respectively. Kroeber . . . devotes a special discussion to resistance against diffusion. Resistance to cultural borrowing is also the subject of a separate article by Devereux and Loeb . . ., who distinguish between "resistance to the cultural item"---corresponding roughly to structural resistance in language contact---and "resistance to the lender." These authors also discuss resistance ON THE PART OF the "lender," e.g. the attempts of the Dutch to prevent Malayans, by law, from learning the Dutch language. No equivalent lender's resistance seems to operate in language contact, unless the inconspicuousness of a strongly varying, phonemically slight morpheme with complicated grammatical functions be considered as a point of resistance to transfer within the source language . . . .


 ・ Weinreich, Uriel. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. New York: Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York, 1953. The Hague: Mouton, 1968.

[ | 固定リンク | 印刷用ページ ]

Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow