|
The definition of a direct–inverse language is a matter under research, but it is widely understood to involve different grammar for transitive predications according to the relative positions of their "subject" and their "object" on a ''person hierarchy'', which in turn is some combination of saliency and animacy specific to a given language. The direct construction is the unmarked one. The direct construction is used when the subject of the transitive clause outranks the object in the person hierarchy, and the inverse is used when the object outranks the subject. The existence of direct–inverse morphosyntax is usually accompanied by proximate–obviative morphosyntax. The direct–inverse dimension subsumes the proximate–obviative dimension. Crosslinguistically, obviation almost always involves the third person (second person obviation is reported for some Nilo-Saharan languages), and the direct–inverse alternation is usually presented as being one way of marking the proximate–obviative distinction between two (or more) third person arguments of a sentence. However, there are at least two languages with inverse systems, the Mesoamerican languages Zoque and Huastec, where inverse morphosyntax is never used when both subject and object are third person, but only when one of these arguments is third person and the other is a speech act participant (SAP), i.e., first person or second person. ==Morphosyntactic variation across languages of the inverse type== There is no morphological feature and there is no syntactic feature that is common to all inverse systems. Direct–inverse systems on verbs coëxist with the various morphosyntactic alignments in nouns. In some inverse languages—including all the Mesoamerican inverse languages—the direct-inverse alternation changes the morphosyntactic alignment, in which case the language is said to have hierarchical alignment. Klaiman has suggested four common properties of inverse languages: #Core participants of transitive predicates are ranked on a hierarchy of salience, topicality or animacy. #Only transitive predicates can participate in the direct–inverse alternation. #A morphosyntactic device should be used to signal whether the most salient participant is notional subject or notional object. #Direct–inverse alternation does not entail detransitivization. Some languages that comply with Klaiman's definition of an inverse language are Maasai, Carib, Wastek, Chukchee, the Algonquian languages and some Athapaskan languages like Koyukon and Navajo, Mapudungun and Movima (language isolates), rGyalrong (Sino-Tibetan) and some Mixe–Zoquean languages. On the other hand, the Mixean language Oluteco has been reported to have an inverse system which does not conform to the second rule, because certain intransitive verbs and passives of ditransitives also can take inverse morphology. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Direct–inverse language」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|