総説・解説等

This special issue presents a collection of articles reporting on the use of classifying nominalizers—especially so-called classifiers and gender markers—in deriving grammatical nominalizations in various languages, as framed within the nominalization theory proposed in Shibatani (2009, 2017, 2018a, 2018b, 2019, 2021, 2023; Shibatani and Ferreira this issue). Each article examines whether classifying nominalizers are used obligatorily, optionally, or not at all with different types of structures to derive grammatical nominalizations functioning as the head of a noun phrase or as a nominal modifier, and tests one of Shibatani’s hypotheses concerning their distribution across these structure types. According to Shibatani’s (2021, 2023) hypothesis, which specifically concerns classifying nominalizers including classifiers and gender markers, these markers are more likely to occur obligatorily with structures that rank higher on the implicational hierarchy ‘NUM ((cardinal) numerals) > DEM (demonstratives) > GEN (genitive noun phrases) > ADJ (adjectives) > V-based NMLZ (verb-based nominalizations such as relative clauses)’ than those lower on the scale, while their function remains the same, and are more likely to occur with a given type of structure when it is used as the head of a noun phrase (noun-phrase use, or NP use) than when it is used to modify a nominal (modification use). While this hypothesis has diachronic implications for the development of the use of classifying nominalizers (Shibatani and Shigeno 2013), most of the articles in this issue focus primarily on the synchronic distribution of these marking patterns. This issue comprises two comparative studies—one on Dravidian languages in India and the other on Tukanoan languages in South America—and fifteen investigations of individual languages: four in Africa, nine in Asia, and two in Europe. For two of the nine Asian languages (Marathi and Zauzou), two dialects were investigated. Kazuhiro Kawachi, Prashant Pardeshi, Yu Li, and Maho Naito. Classifying nominalization in cross-linguistic perspective: Introduction to special issue I, 1–19. (1) Masayoshi Shibatani and Marília Ferreira. Dynamic functional typology of Tukanoan classifying nominalizations, 20–100. (2) Masaaki Shimizu and Trang Phan. Nominalization in Vietnamese: Roles of classifiers and the genitive marker của, 101–117. (3) Satoko Shirai. Classifying nominalizers in Northern nDrapa, 118–128. (4) Yu Li and Tetsuya Miyagishi. Nominalization in Guoli Zauzou, 129–150. (5) Tetsuya Miyagishi and Yu Li. Grammatical nominalization in the Jiangmo dialect of Zauzou, 151–181. (6) Yoshihisa Taguchi. Classifiers and nominalization in Lan Hmyo, 182–192. (7) Fang Wu and Hongyong Liu. Classifiers as nominalizers in Gouliang Miao, 193–208. (8) Tatjana Ilic and Kazuhiro Kawachi. So-called gender markers as classifying nominalizers in Swedish, 209–232. (9) Prashant Pardeshi and Andrej Bekeš. Distribution of gender marking in Slovene, 233–252. (10) Shuichiro Nakao. Gender marking and nominalization in Bari (Eastern Nilotic), 253–274. (11) Makoto Furumoto. Noun class system and grammatical nominalisations in the Kimakunduchi dialect of Swahili, 275–292. (12) Kazuhiro Kawachi. Gender marking on grammatical nominalizations in Sidaama, 293–335. (13) Gitanjali Bez. Classifier marking in Assamese, 336–346. (14) Manasi Kelkar and Prashant Pardeshi. Distribution of classifier and gender marking in Southern Marathi as compared to Pune Marathi, 347–372. (15) Tetsuya Miyagishi. Nominalizations with classifiers and gender markers in Sinhala: Usage patterns from online sources, 373–414. (16) Prashant Pardeshi and Govind Mopkar. Distribution of classifier and gender marking in Konkani, 415–445. (17) Niranjan Uppoor. Gender and classifier marking in Dravidian languages, 446–502.

異なる類型的特徴が共存する英語を中心にして、1970年代から移動動詞は形態統語的な定義が可能なカテゴリーを形成しないという論述がなされている。本稿では、比較的一貫した類型的特性を示す言語（ハンガリー語、クプサビーニィ語、ネワール語）において移動動詞に典型的に見られる形態統語的特徴が存在し、それらの特徴は他の意味領域の動詞にもオーバーラップして見られるため移動動詞を定義することができるものではないものの、そのオーバーラップには通言語的にある程度のパターンが見られることを指摘する。さらに、従来の移動経路の表現方法による類型分類に加えて、方向ダイクシスの表現のし方をもとにした言語の類型分類を提案する。

This study examines gender marking on grammatical nominalizations that function as the heads of noun phrases and as nominal modifiers in Sidaama, a Highland East Cushitic language of Ethiopia. Sidaama has two types of classifying grammatical nominalization markers that distinguish feminine and masculine gender. One type is an enclitic used to form a singular noun phrase, while the other consists of the nominative, genitive, and dative-locative case suffixes. The enclitic occurs with ordinal numerals, genitive noun phrases, relative clauses, and complement clauses, whereas the case suffixes attach to cardinal numerals and adjectives. Both types of markers are analyzed as being included in demonstratives. The present study explores how Shibatani’s (2021, 2023) implicational hierarchy accounts for a language with two types of gender nominalization markers. The Sidaama data support his hypothesis concerning the functional dimension, according to which classifying nominalizers are more likely to occur obligatorily with a given nominalization in noun-phrase use than in modification use. However, they diverge from his prediction along the structural dimension, which posits that classifying nominalizers are more likely to occur obligatorily in the following order: numerals, demonstratives, genitive noun phrases, adjectives, and verb-based nominalizations. This paper also discusses why the Sidaama data deviate from Shibatani’s prediction along the structural dimension.

This study examines so-called gender marking—more accurately, classifier-like marking—on grammatical nominalizations in their noun-phrase and modification uses in Swedish. It shows that the distribution of classifying grammatical nominalization markers in this language across different grammatical structures deviates from Shibatani’s (2021: 524; 2023: 35) proposed implicational hierarchy ‘NUM (Numerals) > DEM (Demonstratives) > GEN (Genitive noun phrases) > ADJ (Adjectives) > V-based NMNLs (Verb-based nominalizations)’. Swedish employs two strategies for marking with classifying grammatical nominalization markers: the use of distinct forms (or suffixes) and the use of different singular articles. With the former strategy, a distinction is made for demonstratives, but only to a limited extent or not at all for other types of elements. With the latter, marking occurs with demonstratives, adjectives, and verb-based nominalizations (relative clauses), but not with numerals or genitive noun phrases. This deviation observed for genitive noun phrases is hypothesized to result from the interaction between the identifiability of the possessum relative to the possessor and the redundancy of marking the possessum’s category when it is likely more identifiable than the possessor.