Homonymy & Synonymyotoguro.sakura.ne.jp/wisli/files/otoguro_mt21-3_slides.pdf ·...

Homonymy & Synonymy

乙黒亮

早稲田大学法学学術院・言語情報研究所

Morphological Theory in the 21st Century早稲田大学2016.11.19.

乙黒亮 (早稲田大学) Homonymy & Synonymy MT21, 2016.11.19. 1 / 35

Homonymyとは？ Synonymyとは？

1 Homonymyとは？ Synonymyとは？

2 BlockingAronoff (1976)Blockingの拡張Synonymy/homonymy blocking生産性と頻度

3 非パラダイム分析の批判的検討

4 おわりに



Homonymy

(1) “Mine is long and sad tale!” said the Mouse, turning toAlice and sighing. “It is a long tail, certainly,” said Alice,looking with wonder at the Mouse’s tail, “but why do youcall it sad?”

—Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

(2) I’ll meet you by the bank.

(Fromkin and Rodman 1998:163–4)



Synonymy

(3) Please do not annoy, torment, pester, plague, molest,worry, badger, harry, harass, heckle, persecute, irk, bullyrag,vex, disquiet, grate, beset, bother, tease, nettle, tantalize, orruffle the animals.

—As sign in the San Diego Zoo Wild Animal Park

(4) He’s sitting on the sofa. / He’s sitting on the couch.

(Fromkin and Rodman 1998:165)



HomonymyかPolysemyか？

“[O]ne of the very difficult questions facing lexicology (andpractical lexicography) is the question of distinguishingpolysemy from homonymy.”

(Spencer 2013:5)

(5) a. line1: a drawn (straight) line

b. line2: a line of trees/spectators

(6) a. She lined the paper using a ruler and pencil.

b. Trees/spectators lined the avenue.

(Spencer 2013:51–2)



▶ 微妙な意味の違いを同一語彙素 (lexeme) における多義(polysemy) とみなすのか，意味の違いに対応した別々の語彙素を仮定するのか？

▶ 同一語彙素から派生した語同士の相互関係と異なる語彙素から派生した語同士の相互関係には本質的な違いが見られるのか？

▶ パラダイム（あるいは lexical relatedness）と語彙素の関係は？


Blocking




4 おわりに


Blocking Aronoff (1976)




4 おわりに



Blocking

the nonoccurrence of one form due to the simple existence of another

(Aronoff 1976:43)

Xous Nominal +ity #ness

various * variety variousnesscurious * curiosity curiousnessglorious glory *gloriosity gloriousnessfurious fury *furiosity furiousnessspecious * speciosity speciousnessprecious * preciosity preciousnessgracious grace *graciosity graciousnessspacious space *spaciosity spaciousnesstenacious * tenacity tenaciousnessfallacious fallacy *fallacity fallaciousness

表 1: Blockingの例 (Aronoff 1976:44)



Class I 接尾辞 +ion, +ity, +y, +al, +ic, +ate, +ous, +ive接頭辞 re+, con+, de+, sub+, pre+, in+, en+, be+

Class II 接尾辞 #ness, #less, #hood, #ful, #ly, #y, #like接頭辞 re#, sub#, un#, non#, de#, semi#, anti#

表 2: 英語のClass I, II接辞 (Siegel 1979:Ch. 2; Spencer 1991:79–81)

(7) a. productive: productıvity, productiveness

b. fragile: fragılity, fragileness

(8) a. in+legal → illegal, un#lawful → unlawful

b. con+rect → correct, non#racial → non-racial



(9) +ity接辞化a. 直前の音節に強勢が移動

e.g. luminous—luminosity

b. 3音節短化 (trisyllabic shortening) により強勢が置かれる音節は弛緩音になるe.g. mendacious—mendacity

c. -ousの音節省略 (truncation) を引き起こすe.g. simultaneous—simultaneity/*simultaneosity,voracious—voracity/*voraciosity

d. -ousの音節省略は予測不可能で各語に固有の特性(lexically governed)e.g. sedulous—sedulity, fabulous—fabulosity

(Aronoff 1976:40)



Blockingのメカニズム

▶ +ity接辞化が引き起こす特性は特異なもので，+ity接辞化によって形成された語はレキシコン内に記録 (listed) されなければならない．

▶ ところがgloriosityやfuriosityなどで表されるはずの意味はすでにglory，furyで満たされており，これらの語形成は不要となり，ブロックされる（パラダイム基盤）．

▶ #ness接辞化は規則的なもので，#ness接辞化によって形成された語はレキシコン内には記録されていないため，ブロックされない．

▶ 他にKiparsky (1982)によるLevel Orderingなど多数の分析がある．Embick and Marantz (2008)による分散形態論 (DistributedMorphology; DM) での分析は後述．


Blocking Blockingの拡張




4 おわりに


Blocking Blockingの拡張

(10) a. 不規則形による規則形のblockingsang/*singed, went/*goed (Pinker 1999)

b. Synonymy blockingsteal/??stealer/thief (Bolinger 1975:109)

c. 語による句のblockingsmart/smarter/*more smart (Poser 1992)

Sg Pl1 chuirfinn chuirfimis2 chuirfea chuirfeadh sibh3 chuirfeadh se (m)/sı (f) chuirfeadh siad

表 3: アイルランド語アルスター方言のcuir ‘put’の活用 (Andrews 1990)


Blocking Synonymy/homonymy blocking




4 おわりに



名詞から動詞への転移

(11) a. Jane blanketed the bed.

b. Kenneth kenneled the dog.

c. Edward powdered the aspirin.

d. The canoe Titanicked on a rock in the river.

(Clark and Clark 1979)



▶ 名詞から動詞への転移はかなり自由に行われるが，synonymyとhomonymyに基づく制約が存在する．



The Principle of Pre-emption by Synonymy

If a potential innovative denominal verb would be preciselysynonymous with a well-established verb, the innovative verb isnormally pre-empted by the well-established verb, and is thereforeconsidered unacceptable.

(Clark and Clark 1979:798)



Suppletion

▶ car, airplaneなどの動詞への転移はdrive, flyといったsynonymの存在でブロックされる．

(12) a. John bicycled into town.

b. We taxied to the airport.

(13) a. *Jack carred into downtown.

b. *Cannie airplaned to London.

(Clark and Clark 1979:776, 798, 807)



Entrenchment

▶ 同じ意味を持つ動詞化された語がすでに存在する場合，名詞から動詞への転移はブロックされる．

(14) a. *John has been hospitaled.

b. John has been hospitalised.

(15) a. *The official prisoned the thief.

b. The official imprisoned the thief.

(cf. Clark and Clark 1979:799)



Ancestry

▶ 元々動詞が名詞化されてできた名詞の動詞への転移は元の動詞にブロックされる．

(16) a. John butchered the meat.

b. Bill umpired the game.

c. Sue chauffeured the car.

(17) a. *John bakered the bread.

b. *They farmered the hillside.

c. *Mike drivered the car.

(cf. Clark and Clark 1979:799–800)



Principle of Pre-emption by Homonymy

If a potential innovative denominal verb is homonymous with awell-established verb and could be confused with it, the innovativeverb is normally pre-empted, and therefore is considered unacceptable.

(Clark and Clark 1979:800)

(18) a. Jan Chevied to New York. (Chevy ∼ Chevrolet)

b.#Jan Forded to New York.

c.#Jan Dodged to New York.

(19) a. She wanted to summer and autumn in France.

b.#She wanted to spring and fall in France.

c. *She springed and falled in France.


Blocking 生産性と頻度




4 おわりに



▶ ブロックするものとされるものとの関係は離散的 (discrete) なものではなく，量的 (scalar) なものである．(Aronoff andLindsay 2014; cf. Rainer 1988, van Marle 1985, Bauer 2001)



▶ イタリア語の-oso形容詞は-itaで名詞化できるが，形容詞が元々名詞から派生している場合，頻度が-ita名詞化のblockingの有無を左右する．(Rainer 1988:167–8; Haspelmath and Sims2010:126)

名詞形容詞 -ita名詞化頻度coraggio ‘courage’ coraggioso *coraggiosita 52.70desiderio ‘desire’ desideroso *desiderosita 31.92orgoglio ‘pride’ orgoglioso *orgogliosita 10.64fama ‘fame’ famoso *famosita 5.00invidia ‘envy’ invidiso *invidisita 3.55

armonia ‘harmony’ armoniso armoniosita 4.13rigore ‘rigor’ rigoroso rigorosita 3.42boria ‘arrogance’ borioso boriosita 0malizia ‘malice’ malizioso maliziosita 0ignominia ‘ignominy’ ignominioso ignominiosita 0

表 4: イタリア語の名詞化乙黒亮 (早稲田大学) Homonymy & Synonymy MT21, 2016.11.19. 25 / 35


▶ ドイツ語で名詞を-igで形容詞化し，さらに-keitで名詞化する場合，頻度がblockingの有無を左右する．(Rainer 1988:168–9)

名詞形容詞 -ita名詞化頻度Fleiß ‘diligence’ fleißig ??Fleißigkeit 468Durst ‘thirst’ durstig ??Durstigkeit 325Hunger ‘hunger’ hungrig ??Hungrigkeit 316Geiz ‘avarice’ geizig ??Geizigkeit 212Mißgunst ‘envy’ mißgunstig ??Mißgunstigkeit 42

Andacht ‘devotion’ andachtig Andachtigkeit 150Grimm ‘wrath’ grimmig Grimmigkeit 95Einfalt ‘simplicity’ einfaltig Einfaltigkeit 75Hoffart ‘haughtiness’ hoffartigkeit Hoffartigkeit 4Rechtsckraft ‘legal force’ rechtschkraftig Rechtschkraftigkeit 0

表 5: ドイツ語の名詞化


非パラダイム分析の批判的検討




4 おわりに



Embick & Marantz (2008)

(20)n

√Root n

n

a

√Root a

n

(21) Vocabulary itemsn ←→ -ity/XX = Roots (

√Atroc,

√Curious . . . ); [a,able], [a,al]

n ←→ -ness

(Embick and Marantz 2008:21)



(22)n

√Glory [n,∅]

a

√Glory [a,ous]

n

a

√Glory [a,ous]

[n,ness]



(23)n

√Curious [n,ity]

a

√Curious [a,∅]

n

a

√Curious [a,∅]

[n,ness]

(Embick and Marantz 2008:22–3)



問題点

▶ -ityが引き起こす音韻的特性をRootに反映させている．▶ Class I 接辞である-ousに対して，Rootの一部もしくはaの具現形という二重の取り扱いをしている．

▶ 特定環境にしか現れ得ないゼロ形態によるn, aの具現化．▶ 生産性や頻度といった語形間の相互関係が捉えられない．


おわりに




4 おわりに


おわりに

おわりに

▶ 語は語彙素の区分を超えて相互に関係し合う．▶ 1つの語彙素の屈折形態を基準に規定されるパラダイムに加え，派生形態さらに語彙素をまたいだ拡張パラダイムの語彙関係 (lexical relatedness) を形式化することが必要．


おわりに

Andrews, Avery D. (1990) Unification and Morphological Blocking. NaturalLanguage and Linguistic Theory 8, 507–557.

Aronoff, Mark (1976) Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Aronoff, Mark and Mark Lindsay (2014) Productivity, Blocking, andLexicalization. In Lieber, Rochelle and Pavol Stekauer, eds. The OxfordHandbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 67–83.

Bauer, Laurie (2001) Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Bolinger, Dwight (1975) Aspects of Language. New York: Harcourt BraceJovanovich, 2nd edition.

Clark, Eve V. and Herbert H. Clark (1979) When Nouns Surface as Verbs.Language 55, 767–811.

Embick, David and Alec Marantz (2008) Architecture and Blocking. LinguisticInquiry 39, 1–53.

Fromkin, Victoria and Robert Rodman (1998) An Introduction to Language. FortWorth, TX: Harcourt Brace, sixth edition.


おわりに

Haspelmath, Martin and Andreas D. Sims (2010) Understanding Morphology.London: Hodder Education, 2nd edition.

Kiparsky, Paul (1982) Lexical Phonology and Morphology. In The LinguisticSociety of Korea, ed. Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, 3–91.

Pinker, Steven (1999) Words and Rules. New York: Harper Perennial.

Poser, William J. (1992) Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. InSag, Ivan A. and Anna Szabolcsi, eds. Lexical Matters. Stanford, CA: CSLIPublications, 111–130.

Rainer, Franz (1988) Towards a Theory of Blocking: The Case of Italian andGerman Quality Nouns. In Booij, Gert and Jaap van Marle, eds. Yearbook ofMorphology 1988. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publisher, 155–185.

Siegel, Dorothy (1979) Topics in English Morphology. New York: Garland.

Spencer, Andrew (1991) Morphological Theory: An Introduction to WordStructure in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

(2013) Lexical Relatedness: A Paradigm-based Model. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

van Marle, Jaap (1985) On the Paradigmatic Dimension of MorphologicalCreativity. Dordrecht: Foris.


Homonymy & Synonymyotoguro.sakura.ne.jp/wisli/files/otoguro_mt21-3_slides.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of Homonymy & Synonymyotoguro.sakura.ne.jp/wisli/files/otoguro_mt21-3_slides.pdf ·...