01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
言語接触 (contact) を分類する視点は様々あるが,借用 (borrowing) と言語交代による干渉 (shift-induced interference) を区別する方法が知られている.「#1780. 言語接触と借用の尺度」 ([2014-03-12-1]),「#1781. 言語接触の類型論」 ([2014-03-13-1]),「#1985. 借用と接触による干渉の狭間」 ([2014-10-03-1]) でみたとおりだが,およそ前者は L2 の言語的特性が L1 へ移動する現象,後者は L1 の言語的特性が L2 へ移動する現象と理解してよい.
この対立と連動するものとして,imitation と adaptation という区別が考えられる.英語史における言語接触の事例を考えてみよう.英語は様々な言語から影響を受けてきたが,それらの場合には英語自身は影響の受け手であるから recipient-language ということができる.一方,相手の言語は影響の源であるから source-language ということができる.
さて,英語の母語話者(集団)が主体的に source-language の話者(集団)から何らかの言語項を受け取ったとき,その活動は模倣 (imitation) と呼ばれる.一方,source-language の話者(集団)が英語へ言語交代するとき,元の母語の何らかの言語項を英語へ持ち越すということが起こるが,これは彼らにとっては英語への順応あるいは適応 (adaptation) と呼んでよい活動だろう.別の角度からみれば,いずれの場合も英語は影響の受け手ではあるものの,どちらの側がより積極的な役割を果たしているかにより,recipient-language agentivity と source-language agentivity とに分けられることになる.これは,いずれの側がより dominant かという点にも関わってくるだろう.
Van Coetsem はこれらの諸概念を結びつけて考えた.Fischer et al. (52) の説明を借りて,Van Coetsem の見解を覗いてみよう.
One important distinction is between 'shift-induced interference' or 'imposition' ... and 'contact-induced changes' (often termed 'borrowing' in a more narrow sense). Contact-induced changes are especially prevalent when there is full bilingualism, and where code-switching is also common, while shift-induced interference is usually the result of imperfect learning (i.e. in cases where a first language interferes in the learning of a later adopted language). To distinguish between contact-induced change and shift-induced interference, Van Coetsem (1877: 7ff.) uses the terms 'recipient-language agentivity' versus 'source-language agentivity', respectively, and in doing so links them to aspects of 'dominance'. Concerning dominance, he refers to (i) the relative freedom speakers have in using items from the source language in their own (recipient) language (here the 'recipient' language is dominant), and (ii) the almost inevitable or passive use that we see with imperfect learners, when they adopt patterns of their own (source) language into the new, recipient language, which makes the source language dominant. In (i), the primary mechanism is 'imitation', which only superficially affects speakers' utterances and does not involve their native code, while in (ii), the primary mechanism is 'adaptation', where the changes in utterances are a result of speakers' (= imperfect learners) native code. Not surprisingly, Van Coetsem (ibid: 12) describes recipient-language agentivity as 'more deliberate', and source-language agentivity as something of which speakers are not necessarily conscious. In source-language agentivity, the more stable or structured domains of language are involved (phonology and syntax), while in recipient-language agentivity, it is mostly the lexicon that is involved, where obligatoriness decreases and 'creative action' increases (ibid.: 26).
用語・概念を整理すれば次のようになろう.
imitation | vs | adaptation |
recipient-language agentivity | vs | source-language agentivity |
borrowing or contact-induced change | vs | shift-induced interference |
full bilingualism | vs | imperfect learning |
mostly lexicon | vs | phonology and syntax |
2024 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2023 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2022 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2021 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2020 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2019 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2018 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2017 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2016 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2012 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
最終更新時間: 2024-10-26 09:48
Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow