<研究論文>アイヌ語の wa an 構文における人称接辞について

Abstract

In this paper, I will discuss the usage of personal affixes in the so-called wa an construction in the Ainu language. All my data in this paper is from the Saru and Chitose dialects of Hokkaido Ainu. The wa an construction is used to express the resultative aspect with various verbs, regardless of their transitivity, describing a change of state or location of any kind. It is placed after the predicate of a sentence. The wa an construction consists of a clausal conjunction wa ‘and’ and existential verb an ‘to be(come)/to exist’. The subject of the an verb can be coreferential either with the subject or object of the first (=notional) verb. In the case of an intransitive notional verb, the subject of the an verb is coreferential with the subject of the notional verb and shares with it the same subject marking, but if the notional verb is transitive, there are two possible patterns of agreement to follow. The subject of an can be coreferential with the object of the notional verb and then it does not share the same subject marking with the notional verb (the first verb’s object is the second verb’s subject). The criteria of determining which pattern is to be applied is semantic, namely the affectedness of the subject. If the subject is affected by the change of state or location expressed by the verb, the an verb of wa an will take the same subject agreement as that of the first verb, otherwise the subject agreement will be different from that of the first verb. Nakagawa (1981) stated that certain transitive verbs which can be used with the wa an construction allow only the subject agreement pattern. However, while investigating examples of the wa an construction from data collected by Tamura (1984-1989), I managed to find a few examples of transitive verbs that Nakagawa (1981) described as allowing only the subject agreement pattern, and found out that most of the examples in fact followed the object agreement pattern. In addition to this, I also found an extraordinary example of an intransitive verb that does not agree with its subject. In this paper, I examine these examples in detail and discuss their possible implications for interpreting the wa an construction. I also point out the possibility that the non-agreeing example of an intransitive verb could be explained by the concept of inalienable possession.