090720 nose uralica

14
Comparison between the case functions of Uralic languages and Japanese by visualization Masahiko NOSE Reitaku University [email protected] Abstract This study is an attempt to visualize the case functions of Uralic languages and Japanese. A typological study conducted by Iggesen (2005) showed that the number of cases among the world’s languages varies from zero to more than 10 per language. There are many Uralic languages with more than 10 cases as well as rich case system languages in the Caucasus, Australia, and North America. This paper examines the case forms and functions of 13 Uralic languages and Japanese as samples. Using a biological software, the case functions of the languages are visualized in terms of universally identifiable case functions. Finally, this study claims that the case functions of each language group (Finnic, Ugric, and Samoyed) were largely similar with some exceptions. The case functions of Japanese were shown to be similar to those of Mari. Keywords: case, function, visualization, WALS, Uralic, Japanese 1. Introduction It is well known that there are rich case systems in the Uralic languages. Finnish has 15 cases, and Hungarian has 18 cases. In contrast, Northern Saami has 7 cases, Northern Khanty has only 3 cases, and some Uralic languages have very few cases 1 . This paper examines the functions of cases in the Uralic languages, and attempts to visualize the case functions. Furthermore, the paper explores the functional relationship and differences between the Uralic languages in terms of the case functions. Many previous studies have discussed Uralic case systems in terms of their historical, descriptive, and cognitive background, and have tried to explain the languages’ diverse and complicated case systems (e.g., Abondolo 1998, Koizumi 1994). This study selects a sample of 13 Uralic languages and tries to analyze Uralic case functions using bioinformatic software. This is an attempt to visualize (a part of) Uralic grammar that previous studies have not dealt with, and this type of visualization will help to observe functional relationships among the sample languages. This paper adds Japanese as the sample language. Japanese is a language isolate and not part of the Uralic language family. Nevertheless, it is a language with a rich case system. There are many case forms in some Uralic languages and Japanese, but their case functions

Upload: masahiko-nose

Post on 28-Nov-2014

35 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 090720 Nose Uralica

Comparison between the case functions of Uralic languages and

Japanese by visualization

Masahiko NOSE Reitaku University

mnose@reitaku­u.ac.jp

Abstract This study is an attempt to visualize the case functions of Uralic languages and Japanese. A

typological study conducted by Iggesen (2005) showed that the number of cases among the world’s languages varies from zero to more than 10 per language. There are many Uralic languages with more than 10 cases as well as rich case system languages in the Caucasus, Australia, and North America. This paper examines the case forms and functions of 13 Uralic languages and Japanese as samples. Using a biological software, the case functions of the languages are visualized in terms of universally identifiable case functions. Finally, this study claims that the case functions of each language group (Finnic, Ugric, and Samoyed) were largely similar with some exceptions. The case functions of Japanese were shown to be similar to those of Mari.

Keywords: case, function, visualization, WALS, Uralic, Japanese

1. Introduction It is well known that there are rich case systems in the Uralic languages. Finnish has 15

cases, and Hungarian has 18 cases. In contrast, Northern Saami has 7 cases, Northern Khanty has only 3 cases, and some Uralic languages have very few cases 1 . This paper examines the functions of cases in the Uralic languages, and attempts to visualize the case functions. Furthermore, the paper explores the functional relationship and differences between the Uralic languages in terms of the case functions.

Many previous studies have discussed Uralic case systems in terms of their historical, descriptive, and cognitive background, and have tried to explain the languages’ diverse and complicated case systems (e.g., Abondolo 1998, Koizumi 1994). This study selects a sample of 13 Uralic languages and tries to analyze Uralic case functions using bioinformatic software. This is an attempt to visualize (a part of) Uralic grammar that previous studies have not dealt with, and this type of visualization will help to observe functional relationships among the sample languages.

This paper adds Japanese as the sample language. Japanese is a language isolate and not part of the Uralic language family. Nevertheless, it is a language with a rich case system. There are many case forms in some Uralic languages and Japanese, but their case functions

Page 2: 090720 Nose Uralica

are not considered to be equivalent. This paper will clarify which function(s) Uralic and Japanese have in common, and especially which Uralic language is most similar to Japanese using the function­based visualization.

2. Case functions and classification The Uralic languages have several case forms and case functions, and it is necessary to

define these case forms and functions cross­linguistically. As Blake (1994:1) describes, “[c]ase is a system of marking dependent nouns for the type of relationship they bear to their heads. Traditionally the term refers to inflectional marking, and typically, case marks the relationship of a noun to a verb at the clause level or of a noun to a preposition, postposition or another noun at the phrase level.” Following Blake’s definition, Iggesen (2005) examined 261 languages for the number of cases, as presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Number of cases in 261 languages by Iggesen (2005:202­205) No morphological case marking 100 2 case categories 23 3 case categories 9 4 case categories 9 5 case categories 12 6­7 case categories 37 8­9 case categories 23 10 or more case categories 24 Exclusively borderline morphological case marking 24

Iggesen’s (2005) study is based on “The World Atlas of Language Structures” (Haspelmath et al. 2005, henceforth WALS). Figure 1 shows a geographical map generated by WALS using Iggesen’s (2005) data, where white triangles represent the languages with no case marking and black ones represent the languages with more than 10 cases 2 .

Page 3: 090720 Nose Uralica

Figure 1. Languages with no case marking and languages with more than 10 cases by Iggesen (2005) “Number of Cases” (feature 49, WALS: 202­205)

The black triangles include Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian, Erzya Modrvin, and Udmurt from the Finno­Ugric languages. It is noteworthy that the white triangles are densely distributed in Africa and South Asia while the black ones are scattered across Eurasia and Australia. In this paper, I focus on the Finno­Ugric languages with more than 10 cases, and other Uralic languages with less than 10 cases. To examine the cases in Uralic, this paper uses the following sample languages:

(1) Sample languages in this study: • Finnic: Mari, Erzya Modrvin, Estonian, Finnish, Komi, Northern Saami, Udmurt • Ugric: Eastern Khanty, Northern Khanty, Hungarian, Mansi • Samoyed: Enets, Nganasan • Other (non­Uralic): Japanese

Japanese (non­Uralic) is known for its rich case system, and has been chosen to show contrast. First, I examine the number of cases in each language; then, I examine the forms and functions of cases according to the descriptive grammars. Table 2 presents the approximate number of cases collected from descriptive grammars of the individual languages. In all, this paper examines 13 Uralic languages and Japanese as sample languages.

Page 4: 090720 Nose Uralica

Table 2: Number of cases in the sample languages Mari 11 Northern Saami 7 Mansi 6 Erzya Modrvin 13 Udmurt 15 Enets 8 Estonian 14 Eastern Khanty 9 Nganasan 7 Finnish 15 Northern Khanty 3 Japanese 11 3

Komi 17 Hungarian 18

The number of cases shown in Table 2 varies according to linguists and descriptive grammars. It is apparent that Finnic languages have a rich case system, and Ugric ones do not have many cases, except for Hungarian. Hungarian, in particular, has 18 cases; the case names and forms in Table 3 are based on Keresztes (1995).

Table 3: Hungarian cases: names and forms (Keresztes 1995) Nominative Zero Ablative ­tól/­től Accusative ­t Adessive ­nál/­nél Dative ­nek/­nak Allative ­hoz/­hez/­höz Elative ­ból/­ből Terminative ­ig Inessive ­ban/­ben Essive­formal ­ként Illative ­ba/­be Instrumental ­val/­vel Delative ­ról/­ről Translative ­Vá/­Vé Superessive ­n Causal­final ­ért Sublative ­ra/­re Associative ­ostul

Nose (2006:112­113) identified two problems in collecting and classifying cases: (i) difficulty in counting the exact number of cases; cf. Borin’s (1986) study of counting cases in Hungarian 4 ; and (ii) assigning a single function to different case names, or the same case name to different functions. For example, Finnish, Estonian, and Mordvin have the abessive case, indicating “without” or “lacking,” whereas Udmurt has the caritive case for largely the same function. Moreover, Estonian and Finnish have an allative case indicating “onto,” and the case has a dative function, and Hungarian also has the allative case, but its meaning is “near” and “to,” excluding the dative function. Although the case name is allative, it has a slightly different function in each of the languages concerned.

To solve these problems, several functional descriptions are given to each case form observed in the 14 languages. For instance, Hungarian has 18 cases, and the relevant functional descriptions have been added to each of them (see Table 5, and Table 6 for Nganasan). By assigning several non­strict functional descriptions to the cases, such as

Page 5: 090720 Nose Uralica

[grammatical], [place], and [with], it is possible to classify them in terms of syntactic and semantic functions. Moreover, this study introduces 25 universally identifiable case functions, given in Table 4. These 25 functions are basic functions consisting of grammatical, locative, and adverbial groups, and they help to classify the functional descriptions cross­linguistically (cf. Nose 2006) 5 .

Table 4: Universally identifiable case functions GRAMMATICAL: LOCATIVE: ADVERBIAL:

[1] Nominative [7] General­locative [17] Abessive

[2] Accusative [8] In: Inessive [18] Causal

[3] Ergative [9] Into: Illative [19] Comparative

[4] Absolutive [10] From inside: Elative [20] Terminative

[5] Dative [11] On: Superessive [21] Essive

[6] Genitive [12] Onto: Sublative [22] Instrumental­comitative

­ [13] From ontop: Delative [23] Translative

­ [14] Adessive OTHERS:

­ [15] Allative [24] Relational­concerning

­ [16] Ablative [25] Vocative

For instance, the nominative case in Hungarian is assigned through functional descriptions [grammatical] and [subject], and then it is classified as a “[1] Nominative” in terms of the universally identifiable case functions. In the same manner, the elative case is assigned [place], [from], and [inside], and then “[10] From inside: Elative.” Some cases, such as the so­called associative case in Hungarian, cannot be assigned under the universally identifiable case functions. In Table 4, the associative case is labeled by [together] under functional description, but there is no corresponding universally identifiable case function. Thus, this study classifies the associative case as an exception and does not deal with it.

This study gives such functional descriptions and universally identifiable case functions to Hungarian, Nganasan, and the other 12 sample languages. Thus, the universally identifiable case functions indicate which kinds of case functions the sample languages do and do not carry. We can summarize case functions of the sample languages on the basis of cross­linguistic standards.

Page 6: 090720 Nose Uralica

Table 5: Hungarian cases with functional descriptions and universally identifiable case functions Case names Case forms Functional descriptions of cases Table4 number Nominative Zero [grammatical][subject] [1] Accusative ­t [grammatical][direct object] [2] Dative ­nek/­nak [grammatical][indirect

object][goal][possession] [5]

Elative ­ból/­ből [place][from][inside] [10] Inessive ­ban/­ben [place][in] [8] Illative ­ba/­be [place][into] [9] Delative ­ról/­ről [place][from][on] [13] Superessive ­n [place][on] [11] Sublative ­ra/­re [place][onto] [12] Ablative ­tól/­től [place][from][by][near] [16] Adessive ­nál/­nél [place][be][near] [14] Allative ­hoz/­hez/­höz [place][toward][by][near] [15] Terminative ­ig [till][as far as] [20] Essive­formal ­ként [as][manner[][like] [21] Instrumental ­val/­vel [with][animate][inanimate] [22] Translative ­Vá/­Vé [result] [23] Causal­final ­ért [cause][reason] [18] Associative ­ostul [together] Not available

Table 6: Nganasan cases with functional descriptions and universally identifiable case functions (Wagner­Nagy 2002: 76­81) Case names Case forms Functional descriptions of cases Table4 number Nominative Zero [grammatical][subject] [1] Accusative Zero, ­m [grammatical][direct object] [2] Genitive Zero, ­ŋ [grammatical][possession] [6] Lative ­tə, -ntə [place][to][into][indirect object] [5][9][11][15] Locative ­ntənu [place][in][instrumental] [6][7][12][22] Elative ­kətə [place][from][ablative] [10][13][16] Prolative ­mənu [place][till][along] [20] (In addition to the seven cases shown above, the vocative function [25] (zero case form) is observed in Nganasan (Wagner­Nagy 2002: 76))

Page 7: 090720 Nose Uralica

3. Results and visualization In this section, I present the adjacent relations of the sample languages in terms of the

functions of the case system. We describe the case functions of the sample languages in terms of universally identifiable case functions and we modify the 25 case functions in “having” or “not having” (1 or 0), as shown in (2). According to Table 4, if the language has a nominative case, the first place ([1] Nominative) is 1, and if the language has an ergative case, the third place ([3] Ergative) is 1.

(2) Functional descriptions for visualization: Eastern Khanty 1000001011000111100101100

Northern Khanty 1000001000000000000001000

Mansi 1000001010000011000101100

Hungarian 1100100111111111010111100

Mari 1100110110000111101000100

Estonian 1000010111111000100111100

Finnish 1100010111111000100011100

Komi 1100110111100101110111100

Erzya Modrvin 1100110111000010101001000

Northern Saami 1100011010000000000010100

Udmurt 1100010111001011100101110

Enets 1100011010010011000011000

Nganasan 1100011011110110000101001

Japanese 1100110100000011001100110

As shown in Table 5, Hungarian has the following 17 universally identifiable case functions: [1], [2], [5], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [18], [20], [21], [22], and [23]. Thus, Hungarian is described in (2) as “1100100111111111010111100.” Other languages also can be described with 1 and 0 according to the universally identifiable case functions. These data of each language in (2) will be used to visualize a functional map in Figure 2.

Figure 2 shows an attempt to visualize the results of the above list using a bioinformatic software (SplitsTree4; Huson & Bryant 2005). This software can create a phylogenetic tree of the data for each factor, and recently, it has been used in linguistic areas as well (e.g., Dunn et al. 2005). It will be helpful in visualizing the data more easily and objectively. In this study, we try to create the phylogenetic tree of case functions (cf. Figure 2) based on the data of universally identifiable case functions (cf. (2)). Figure 2 demonstrates similarities between the languages in the distribution of the universally identifiable case functions. When two languages share many universally identifiable case functions, they are visualized as closer,

Page 8: 090720 Nose Uralica

and we can therefore observe linguistic distances in terms of the 25 case functions. For example, cases functions in Finnish and Estonian are similar, and these two languages are situated closer in Figure 2. In contrast, Finnish and Northern Saami are situated far away in terms of case functions, although these two languages are belonging to Finnic group.

Figure 2: Visualization of Uralic languages and Japanese based on case functions using SplitsTree 4

Figure 2 presents some noteworthy observations. First, it is understandable that Estonian and Finnish, and Nganasan and Enets (both are Samoyed) are closer to each other. In fact, cases in Estonian and Finnish are almost the same, and cases in Nganasan and Enets are similar, too. Moreover, Finnic languages such as Estonian, Finnish, Komi, Udmurt, Erzya Mordvin, and Mari consist of a larger group on the left of Figure 2. Some Ugric languages, such as Eastern Khanty, Northern Khanty, and Mansi, are adjacent to each other (upper right of Figure 2). Such neighboring languages indicate that they have similar case functions, and we can observe through this visualization that their case distributions reflect the characteristics of each language group (Finnic, Ugric, and Samoyed) 6 .

In contrast, there is unusual or genealogically unnatural neighboring in Figure 2. Hungarian is situated away from other Ugric languages 7 , and Hungarian is a neighbor of Komi (Finnic). Komi has 17 cases, and those cases in Komi might be functionally similar to

Page 9: 090720 Nose Uralica

the 18 cases in Hungarian. In particular, Hungarian has 9 locative cases, and Komi has 5–8 cases of location. There are some shared locative functions [8], [9], [10], [11], [14], and [16] between Hungarian and Komi. Other Ugric languages (Northern Khanty, Eastern Khanty, and Mansi) have fewer than 10 cases, largely due to a smaller number of locative cases. These Ugric languages have in common the “[7] General locative” function.

Next, Northern Saami, of the Finnic family, is located at a strange place in Figure 2. Northern Saami is genealogically classified as Finnic, but it is situated between Nganasan and Northern Khanty. Northern Saami does not have many cases (7 cases), and it is assumed that the 7 case functions of Northern Saami are similar to those of other languages (Nganasan and Northern Khanty) with fewer than 10 cases.

Third, we consider the place of Japanese in Figure 2. Japanese is not Uralic, but it has 11 cases and several case functions similar to those observed in Uralic languages. Japanese is chosen for a contrastive purpose in this study, and thus, it is located near Mari and Erzya Mordvin; in particular, Japanese and Mari are closer to each other in Figure 2. These three languages share functions [1], [2], [5], [6], [8], [15], and [19].

4. Discussion In this section, this study will discuss the characteristics of the case functions in sample

languages with contrasting Japanese, and the advantages of the visual representation. With regard to the visualization of the case functions, we first examine some

characteristics of the Uralic cases. We observed that the languages of the same group (Finnic, Ugric, and Samoyed) are situated closer together, but it is unusual that Hungarian and Komi are closer to each other, and Northern Saami and Nganasan are closer to Ob­Ugric languages (Mansi, Eastern Khanty, and Northern Khanty). There are two kinds of languages in Uralic: some (e.g. Finnish and Hungarian) have a rich case system, and others (e.g. Northern Khanty and Mansi) do not. Such differences in the number of cases can be comprehended visually in Figure 2. The former is situated to the left, and the latter to the right, respectively. Moreover, the languages with a rich case system can be classified into two groups: some (Hungarian and Komi) have many adverbial functions, and others (Estonian and Mari) do not.

Second, Nose (2006) identified the universally identifiable case functions, and this study adopts all 25 functions. However, there are no ergative or absolutive cases in the sample languages, and it is characteristic that there are many kinds of locative and other adverbial functions in Uralic languages. Thus it is still necessary to construct a better definition of case functions and to visualize them more precisely. Notably, many Uralic languages (Eastern Khanty, Northern Khanty, Mansi, Northern Saami, Enets, and Nganasan) have a general “locative case” ([7] in Table 4), with several functions of location. For instance, Nikolaeva (1999:13) claims the locative case in Northern Khanty carries place and direction; passive

Page 10: 090720 Nose Uralica

agent; patient argument in certain ditransitive constructions; adjunct indicating point in time, measure, instruments or means, distributive and indirect object of some verbs. In contrast, Hungarian, Finnish, and other languages have many kinds of specific locative cases. This study has examined the descriptive grammars of the sample languages and confirms that there are some Uralic languages with a few cases. Languages such as Eastern and Northern Khanty, Mansi, Northern Saami, Enets, and Nganasan do not have many types of locative case. We can observe a group of these languages in the visualization (Figure 2, right).

Third, we discuss functionally common characteristics among the sample languages, and the case functions of Japanese by contrasting it with the cases of Uralic. The sample languages have relatively rich case markings with grammatical, locative, and adverbial functions. Some universally identifiable case functions are observed in many Uralic languages: [1] Nominative, [2] Accusative, [6] Genitive, [8] Inessive, [9] Illative, [22] Instrumental­comitative, and [23] Translative. These universally identifiable case functions are considered to be common characteristics of Uralic languages, and we point out that they are indicative of a kind of Uralic case preference. In contrast, there are no [3] Ergative and [4] Absolutive case functions and very few [18] Causal, [19] Comparative, [24] Relational­concerning, and [25] Vocative case functions. They are considered to be uncommon in Uralic, or rare case functions.

Japanese is a typical nominative­accusative language like Uralic. The case functions of Japanese are similar to those of Uralic (especially Mari) in that there are dative, genitive, and some locative case functions. However, there is no “relational­concerning” function in Uralic, although Japanese does have the topic wa marker. Koizumi (2007) asserts that made is in the terminative case of Japanese, and the terminative can be observed in Hungarian, Komi, Udmurt, and Estonian (cf. see also [20] Terminative function). Moreover, Koizumi distinguishes between the comitative to and the instrumental de in Japanese, and several Uralic languages (Finnish, Komi, and Eastern Khanty) also have such a distinction between comitative and instrumental functions. Thus, Japanese and some Uralic languages are similar in their case functions, in spite of having no genealogical relations. Japanese was considered to be similar in case function to Finnish and Hungarian, but this study clarifies that Japanese is closer to Mari and Erzya Mordvin, according to Figure 2. Future study is necessary to examine the similarities among the three languages by adding lexical (e.g., Swadesh’s list of basic vocabulary) and other grammatical data.

5. Conclusion This paper focuses on one of the WALS features, the “number of cases,” and has applied it

to the numbers and functions of cases in the Uralic languages. We have attempted a visualization of the case functions of the Uralic languages. There are 3 to 18 cases in the

Page 11: 090720 Nose Uralica

Uralic languages and Japanese, and as a result of summarizing cases based on the universally identifiable case functions, the following points have become apparent.

First, the case distributions of Uralic are not always consistent with genealogical or geographical distributions. For example, Finnish and Estonian are similar, and Hungarian and Komi are closer, but Finnish and Northern Saami are separately placed, and Hungarian and other Ugric languages are separate, too. Second, when a language has a rich case system, it has many locative and adverbial cases. When a language has fewer cases, it has at least one locative case which sums up several functions.

Finally, this study has added Japanese for the purpose of contrast. Japanese has 11 cases and is similar to one Finnic language, Mari. The grammatical and locative functions in Japanese are different from those in Uralic, but the two languages share several locative ([15] Allative, and [16] Ablative) and adverbial ([19] Comparative, and [23] Translative) functions.

FOOTNOTES

* Earlier versions of this paper were presented at a seminar at Uppsala University in Sweden (June 2, 2006) through and at a seminar at Kyoto University in Japan (October 18, 2008). I thank the audience for their helpful comments, and I would like to thank several anonymous reviewers and the editor­in­chief for encouraging comments on earlier versions of this paper. I gratefully acknowledge the Grant­in­Aid for Young Scientists (Start­up: 20820033. 2008­2009) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). 1 Northern Saami is alternatively called Northern Lapp, and Northern Khanty is also called Northern Ostyak. In addition to Saami and Khanty, this study has adopted the following language names: Mari (Cheremis), Komi (Zyryan), and Mansi (Vogul). 2 Nose (2006) has already discussed diversity and differences of case functions on the 24 languages with more than 10 cases (the black triangles in Figure 1). In Nose (2006), the Finno­Ugric languages (Estonian, Finnish, Erzya Mordvin, and Udmurt) consist of a group sharing with a functional similarity of cases, and this group is next to the Caucasus languages (Lak and Lezgian) in the visualization. 3 This study has adopted Koizumi’s (2007) study of the Japanese cases. Koizumi describes the cases of Japanese as the following: topic (wa), nominative (ga), accusative (wo), locative (ni), source (kara), allative (e), instrumental (de), comitative (to), terminative (made), and genitive (no), a total of 11 cases. Ikeda (2003: 61–63), on the other hand, claims that there are more than 11 cases in Japanese in terms of semantics. Ikeda illustrates several additional cases: abessive (nashide), vocative (yo), etc. 4 Borin (1986) discusses the possible number of cases in Hungarian. He reviews previous studies of Hungarian grammar and shows the number of Hungarian cases to range from 5 to 26. This study adopted Keresztes (1995)’s data, and the number of Hungarian cases are 18 cases.

Page 12: 090720 Nose Uralica

5 It is probable that we can add possible case functions, such as associative and benefactive, to the 25 universally identifiable case functions. This paper adopted the 25 functions shown in Table 4, and we must decide on a certain number of universal case functions in any case. 6 One reviewer pointed out that the languages with many cases tend to be situated closer in Figure 2. This tendency indicates that the number of cases strongly affects the visualization, and this might cause doubt about the validity of the visualization. This is considered to be a weak point of software­based visualization. Although we can see the relative distances between each language in Figure 2, the visualization and the distances between the languages do not always reflect linguistic or functional relationships. Nevertheless, this study claims that such software­based visualization is helpful in grasping a part of the languages’ grammars in functional­typological terms. 7 Hungarian belongs to the Ugric group, but geographically, it is far away from the other Ugric languages. It is not surprising that the case functions of Hungarian are different from those of other Ugric languages.

References

A. Descriptions of sample languages Mari Kangasmaa­Minn, Eeva 1998. Mari, In: Abondolo(ed.): 219­248. Eastern Khanty Csepregi, Márta 1998. Szurguti Osztják Chrestomathia. Szeged: JATE Finnugor Tanszék. Enets Künnap, Ago 1999. Enets. München: Lincom Europa. Erzya Mordvin Keresztes, László 1990. Chrestomathia Morduinica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. Estonian Oinas, Felix J. 1966. Basic course in Estonian. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Finnish Karlsson, Fred 1999. Finnish: An essential grammar. London: Routledge. Hungarian Keresztes, László 1995. A practical Hungarian grammar. Debrecen: Debreceni Nyári Egyetem.

Rounds, Carol 2001. Hungarian: an essential grammar. London/New York: Routledge. Japanese Koizumi, Tamotsu 2007. Nihongo no kaku to bunkei (Japanese Cases and Sentence Patterns). Tokyo: Taishuukan.

Page 13: 090720 Nose Uralica

Komi Nagyezsda, Manova 1998. Komi­Zürjén nyelvkönyv. Szeged: JATE Finnugor Tanszék. Hausenberg, Anu­Reet 1998. Komi. In: Abondolo(ed.): 305­326 Nganasan Wagner­Nagy, Beáta 2002. Chrestomathia Nganasanica. Szeged/Budapest: SZTE Finnugor Tanszék/MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet.

Northern Saami Sammallahti, Pekka 1998. Saamic. In: Abondolo(ed.): 43­95. Northern Khanty Nikolaeva, Irina 1999. Ostyak. München: Lincom Europa. Udmurt Winkler, Eberhard 2001. Udmurt. München: Lincom Europa. Mansi Riese, Timothy 2001. Vogul. München: Lincom Europa.

B. In­text references Abondolo, Daniel (ed.). 1998. The Uralic languages. London/New York: Routledge. Blake, Barry J. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Borin, Lars 1986. Is Hungarian a case language? Fenno­Ugrica Suecana (Journal of Finno­Ugric Research in Sweden) 8: 1­33.

Dunn, Michael, Angela Terrill, Ger Reesink, Robert A. Foley, & Stephan Levinson. 2005. Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history. Science 309: 2072­2075.

Haspelmath Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie (eds.). 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Huson, Daniel H. and David Bryant 2005. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23(2): 254­267.

Iggesen, Oliver A. 2005. Number of cases. In: Haspelmath et al. (eds.): feature 49 in WALS: 202­205

Ikeda, Testuro 2003. Imiseibun toshite no kaku kouzou (Case structures as sets of semantic components). Uralica :53­68.

Koizumi, Tamotsu 1994. Ural­go tougoron (Uralic syntax). Tokyo: Daigakushorin. Nose, Masahiko 2006. Diversity of cases: Using The World Atlas of Language Structure. Gengo Kenkyuu 130: 109­123,

要旨

Page 14: 090720 Nose Uralica

視覚化によるウラル語と日本語の格機能の対照

本論文では,フィン系,ウゴル系,サモエード系から構成されるウラル語 13言語と日本語

を合わせた 14言語をサンプルとして選び,各言語の格の数と名前,機能を調査した。言語間

で,格の名前と機能が必ずしも一致しないため,本論文では「普遍的に認定可能な格機能」

を 25個設定した。その普遍的な格機能の記述に基づいて,視覚化を行った。格機能の視覚化

の結果,フィン系やウゴル系,サモエード系で隣接する言語がある一方,北サーミ語やハン

ガリー語のように格機能の上では語派から逸脱する言語が存在することが判明した。また,

ウラル語と同様に格を多く持つ日本語は,格機能の上ではマリ語と近い関係にあることが判

明した。