#904. 借用語を共時的に同定することはできるか[borrowing][loan_word][diachrony]


 [2011-10-14-1]の記事「#900. 借用の定義」で触れた通り,借用 (borrowing) は歴史的な過程であり,共時的な結果ではない.結果として共時的に蓄積されているのは,あくまで借用語彙である.通時的な借用と共時的な借用語彙の間に因果関係があることは言うまでもないが,特に共時的な観点からは両者を明確に区別すべきである.これは,次の問題に関わる."Can loanwords be identified by a student who knows nothing of the previous stages of a language?"

Now it would be impossible to deny that, as we have shown in a preceding section, many loanwords have introduced features of arrangement which are numerically less common than certain other features and which sometimes stand in other relationships to the rest of the language than the previously existent patterns. But to identify the results of a historical process like borrowing is simply not possible by a purely synchronic study. What we find when we study a structure without reference to its history is not borrowing or loans, but something that might rather be described as 'structural irregularity'. This is not an absolute thing: word counts have shown that patterns vary in frequency from the extremely common to the extremely rare, with no absolute boundary between the two. Patterns of high frequency are certain not to sound 'queer' to native speakers; just how infrequent must a pattern be before it begins to 'feel foreign'? (Haugen 229--30)

 たとえ「異質な音韻・形態」を確率的に割り出すことができたとしても,それを示す語彙には借用語のみならず非借用語の一部も含まれることになるだろうし,借用語でありながらそこに含まれないものも出てくるだろう.異質な音韻・形態を示す語彙は,それこそ確率論的に定義されるに語彙にすぎず,"items of LIMITED LEXICAL DISTRIBUTION" (Haugen 230) や "systemic fragments" (Haugen 231) と呼ばれておしまいになるかもしれない.
 通時的な過程である借用の結果としての借用語彙が,話者の共時的な言語知識(特に音韻論や形態論)の中にいかに反映されているか --- 理論的に挑戦をせまる大きな問題である.

 ・ Haugen, Einar. "The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing." Language 26 (1950): 210--31.

[ | 固定リンク | 印刷用ページ ]

Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow