Part 1では「序論」，「方法および結果」，「discussion」を書く際の現在形，現在，過去形，過去の使い方を議論した．今回，引き続き「結論」を書くときの注意点について述べ，その後，冠詞と句読点について議論する．

抄録全体を表示

In conditional sentences of Arabic, “Perfect” form is normally used. Since it, has no time reference, events expressed by “Perfect” are interpreted as past, present or future, depending on the contexts. In Modern Standard Arabic, however, compound forms, kana qad+ “Perfect” and kdna sa-“Imperfect”, are used to mark past and future time, respectively.
In this paper, I examined the meanings and functions of each of the compound forms and specified the conditions when they are used obligatorily. And I pointed out that lexical aspects play an important role for the interpretation of time reference. When a verb has a terminal point in its lexical meaning, kana qad + “Perfect” can refer to present time. This is caused by its implied resultative state. And when a verb is inchoative, kana lam + “Imperfect Jussive”, a negative form of kdna qad + “Perfect”, can be used in non-past contexts. This is related to the fact that the negated verbal form has only one implicature of a state, which can be interpreted as the one continuing up to the present. On the other hand, kdna sa-“Imperfect” form is used for future time reference, especially when the event of protasis takes place after that of apodsis happens.
These compound forms are constituted by the auxiliary verb kana, whose functions differ depending on where it is used, or what verbal form is compounded with it.
These time-marking forms also function in determining the temporal relationship between protasis and apodosis.

抄録全体を表示

Both within and without Indo-European family of speech, so called perfecttense, which indicates perfection or result of an action, is often expressedwith the combinations of verbs meaning“be”, “have”, “do”, etc. andnominal elements.
Modern Greek verbal system, also, has similar compound forms for perfecttense or rather aspect. Laying aside other modal and temporal variations, the fundamental (i. e. indicative present) forms of perfect (representedby a verb δενω, 1st person singular) are as follows:
I.IIA.εχωδεθεe εχωδεμεvoB.εχωδεθηεeμαe δεμεvos
Mr. Seiler, the author of L'aspect et le temps dans le verbe neo-grecconcludes there are three oppositions in these forms, namely
(1) resultative (II): non- resultative (I)
(2). active (IA): medio-passive (IB)
(3) resultative possessive (IIA): resultative essive (IIB)
It is dubious, however, if such rigorous distinctions always exist in (1) and (2). The meaning of oppositions is often obscured or neglected.Some grammarians say that no difference is found between I and II, andsome others say that selection is made according to dialects or individuals.But in so far as two or more different forms coexist, some nuance of meaning, which Mr. Seiler emphasises, may be felt.

抄録全体を表示

  Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, anhand von Beispielen des althochdeutschen Verbalpräfixes gi- in Otfrids Evangelienbuch dessen Funktion sowie das Verhältnis zwischen dem Präfix ge- (ahd. gi- / got. ga-) und dem periphrastischen Perfekt zu erläutern.
  Dabei wird die These aufgestellt, dass die Präteritum-Form des althochdeutschen gi-Verbs in Otfrids Evangelienbuch den Zustand einer vollendeten Handlung bezeichnet, und somit mit dem periphrastischen Perfekt konkurriert. Dieses Präfix hat im Vergleich mit dem lateinischen Perfekt die gleiche Funktion wie das periphrastische Perfekt (z.B. ahd. gizálta = lat. præcepit „es hat vorgeschrieben“; ahd. hábet gizáltan = lat. locutus est „er hat erzählt“). Zudem lässt sich eine Funktion erkennen, die dem althochdeutschen Plusquamperfekt entspricht (z.B. ahd. gihórtun = lat. audierant „sie hatten gehört“; ahd. firnoman hábetun „sie hatten gehört“).
  Der Untersuchung von Yoshida (1979, 1980) zufolge, führte die Konkurrenz mit dem periphrastischen Perfekt zum Untergang der perfektiven Verwendung des Präfixes ge-. Bis heute hat man aber weder einen signifikanten Unterschied noch eine Gemeinsamkeit zwischen dem Präfix ge- und dem periphrastischen Perfekt zufriedenstellend aufzeigen können.
  In der Forschung finden sich gegensätzliche Meinungen über die Funktion des althochdeutschen Präfixes gi-. Während die Untersuchungen von Dorfeld (1885) und Dahm (1909) davon ausgehen, es habe einen perfektiven Aspekt, lehnt Lawson (1965, 1966, 1968a, 1968b, 1970) diese Auffassung ab. Vor einem Vergleich des Präfixes gi- mit dem periphrastischen Perfekt muss also zunächst demonstriert werden, dass das Präfix gi- tatsächlich einen perfektiven Aspekt besitzt. Dies ist durch den Vergleich seines Gebrauchs in Otfrids Evangelienbuch mit den korrespondierenden Simplex möglich. In der vorliegenden Arbeit werden die althochdeutschen Belege zudem mit ihren lateinischen Vorlagen verglichen und die althochdeutschen Beispielsätze anhand korrespondierender Stellen aus der Vulgata und den Homilien lateinischer Kirchenväter präzise zu erklären versucht.
(View PFD for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

The English present perfect tense is studied in junior high schools. However, a study shows that it is one of three grammatical items that university students understand least. Over the years, scholars have claimed that grammar studied in isolation does not enable learners to fully understand the functions of those grammatical items and improve their communicative skills. One wonders, however, have these voices been heard? The latest version of the government curriculum guidelines for English education has finally included a clear statement saying: the purpose of grammar learning is to enhance learners' English communicative skills. Sadly, despite these claims, grammar lessons have continued to be done mechanistically, detached from communicative English learning. This paper focuses on locating "the core" of the present perfect tense in order to discover an effective way to teach it as a part of communicative learning.

抄録全体を表示

The purpose of this paper is to explain why the English finite present perfect form cannot go with adverbials of definite time position (DTP adverbials) such as yesterday or three days ago, while one of its Japanese counterparts, i.e. the -te-iru form, can. It is demonstrated that the difference in tense structure between English and Japanese predicates, together with a certain constraint concerning the compatibility of tense forms with DTP adverbials, gives rise to the compatibility difference at issue. The proposed constraint states that the A (bsolute tense) -component, which is associated with the tense morpheme accompanying finite predicates, and the R (elative tense) -component, associated with the event time of the relevant situation, cannot both be p(osition) -definite. Thus, the English finite present perfect form, which by definition contains the A-component that is inherently pdefinite because of the definiteness of present time, cannot occur with DTP adverbials whereby the R-component is rendered p-definite; on the other hand, the -te-iru form, which consists only of the R-component, can occur with DTP adverbials. This same reasoning can account for not only why both the English pluperfect and its Japanese counterpart -te-ita are compatible with DTP adverbials, but also why the -ta form, which is said to serve as another Japanese present perfect form, is compatible with the same kind of adverbials.

抄録全体を表示

本稿は，英語のHe’ll be back here by five.やHe was dead by then.などに現れる前置詞byの時間用法（by [TIME]）について，以下の記述を提示する。

　by [TIME]は，「時間軸上で[TIME]よりも前の何らかの時点からスタートした心的走査の終点としての[TIME]において，by [TIME]の修飾する動詞句が表す状態（より正確には，状態性動詞句が指示する状態，または非状態性動詞句が含意する結果状態）が成立している」ということを述べるための形式である。センテンス内ないしディスコース内のby [TIME]以外の箇所でも時間軸に沿った（過去側から未来側への）心的走査が行われており，かつ，by [TIME]が修飾する動詞句が，変化の結果状態を指示していると解釈できる状態性動詞句であるような環境（即ち言語的コンテクスト）で用いられるのが，プロトタイプ的な用法である。

　時間義のbyの振る舞いは，このようにby内部の意味とbyを包むコンテクストの性質の両面からアプローチして初めて適切に記述できる。コンテクストを考慮に入れた前置詞の意味分析の一つのあり方として，本稿の分析を提示したい。

抄録全体を表示

En el español de la mayor parte de Hispanoamérica se utiliza el pretérito perfecto simple con más frecuencia que en el español peninsular en los contextos en que éste exigiría los usos del pretérito perfecto compuesto. En Hispanoamérica el pretérito perfecto simple suele usarse para indicar cualquier evento terminado en el pasado independientemente de que ese evento esté lejos o no (temporal o psicológicamente) del momento del habla. El pretérito perfecto compuesto, en cambio, se limita a los contextos donde un evento o su efecto continúe hasta el momento del habla.
Esta situación, a primera vista, parece indicar que el español de América mantiene un estado arcaico en cuanto a los usos de los dos tiempos verbales, puesto que en español medieval podemos encontrar ejemplos similares. En efecto, algunos estudios consideran como arcaísmo los usos americanos de los dos tiempos basándose en la semejanza que se puede observar entre los dos estados de la lengua. ¿Se trata de que había un evidente predominio del pretérito perfecto simple desde el principio de la época colonial y ese estado se ha mantenido hasta la actualidad? Para averiguarlo, en este trabajo intentamos analizar los usos de las dos formas verbales aparecidas en los documentos coloniales de los siglos XVI a XVIII escritos en seis ciudades (Santo Domingo, México, Lima, Santiago de Chile, Tucumán, Buenos Aires).
Primero consideramos la relación que puede haber entre los usos verbales por una parte y el género de texto (carta, informe, etc.), el año, y el lugar de nacimiento del autor o de la autora por otra. A continuación analizamos los ejemplos fijándonos especialmente en los complementos adverbiales temporales y en los contextos.
Lo que nos llama la atencion es el uso que indica un evento terminado en el “presente ampliado”. En el español de América actual este uso suele expresarse con el pretérito perfecto simple. En nuestros documentós no podemos observar una clara tendencia a usarse el pretérito perfecto simple sino que, más bien, se halla una situación de “coexistencia” de los dos tiempos. Creemos que esto significa que en el principio no necesariamente había un predominio de la forma simple sino que desde dicho estado de “coexistencia”, con el tiempo viene estableciéndose la distinción actual.

抄録全体を表示

The aim of this paper is to make some contributions to the diachronic changes in prosaic literature in Classical Arabic (CA). The number of studies concerning the diachronic changes in CA has been relatively small until today due to the general opinion that CA has suffered little changes since its formative period. In this paper many examples of the conditional sentences from CA prosaic works are cited and examined in detail primarily based on the studies of Wright (1896-98) and Fischer (1972). From this analysis the following features are to be pointed out very clearly concerning CA prosaic works. 1. Change of frequency in the usage of three conjunctions ('in, 'ida law) (E.g., 'in, typical for the classical period, is replaced by 'ida in the modern period.) 2. Clear distinction of the conjunctions used 3. Grammatical deviations (E.g., confusion of conjunctions are observed in the literature of certain periods.) 4. Gradual loss of the variation of verbal constructions Thus it is very evident that CA has not escaped from gradual diachronic changes.

抄録全体を表示

When we compare (1) John will finish his work with (2) John will finish his work by seven, we find that, though in both sentences the verbs are in the non-perfect form, sentence (2) has practically the same 'perfective' meaning as that of (3) John will have finished his work by seven, while sentence (1) has no such meaning. This means that the by-phrase expressing time has a special function to 'perfectivize' the meaning of a sentence like (2) where the verb is in the non-perfect form. The purpose of this paper is to show how this special semantic function of the by-phrase expressing time can be formalized within the framework of transformational generative grammar. In the first section we discuss in more detail this 'perfectivizing' function of the phrase in question. In the second section two ways are proposed for handling this function of the by-phrase within the framework of trans-formational generative grammar. One is to handle it solely within the semantic component, without any syntactical discussion of the deep structure of the sentence containing the by-phrase. The other is to regard this by-phrasal function as a syntactical problem and treat it syntactically, discussing fully the deep structure of the by-phrasal sentence. In the third section we examine whether the first way proposed is adequate for the treatment of the by-phrasal function. After the examination it is found to be inadequate. So the second alternative is tried in the following sections. In the fourth section we compare the by-phrasal sentence with the sentence containing the verb in the perfect form as to their syntactical behaviors. The comparison shows that there is enough similarity between their syntactical behaviors to enable us to postulate the same deep structure for the former as that of the latter; in other words, to assume that the deep structure of the by-phrasal sentence contains `deep perfect' as one of its constituents. In the fifth section we discuss of what type the deep structure of the by-phrasal sentence should be. After such discussion, we come to the conclusion that it should be a deep structure of the complex sentence type consisting of a matrix sentence and an embedded sentence. To take sentence (2) as an example, the deep structure of the by-phrasal sentence can be shown in the following way: [[it + [John will finish his work]_S]_<NP> + [[Present + will + Perfect]_<AUX> + [happen]_V + [by seven]_<Time Adv>]_<VP>]_S (which would be transformed into the surface structure It will have happened by seven that he will finish his work if the obligatory transformation alone were applied to it). Thus, as a solution for the problem of the 'perfectivizing' function of the by-phrase expressing time, we propose to posit 'deep perfect' in the deep structure of the by-phrasal sentence.

抄録全体を表示