01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2026 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2025 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2024 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2023 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2022 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2021 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2020 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2019 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2018 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2017 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2016 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2012 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
ˤʤäƤޤä̾Ȥơ2פϤ롥
Ѹ February εˤθ츻Ծܤƥǡκפפؤ februa (pl.) ͳ褹Ȥ롥κפεϥꥢȾ륢ڥ˥̮θ̱ӥ˿ͤˤȤ졤פ215˹Ԥʤ줿Ȥ februa ղä februārius (mēnsis) ȷ̾ꡤ줬¯ƥ *fabrāriu(m) ͳơޥؤäťեǤ feverier ʸե févrierˤȤʤꡤ줬Ѹ fever(y)er, feverel ʤɤηäƤѸǤν1200ǯȤ롥
fever(y)er ˤ2Ҳ b ǤϤʤեˤʤä v ߤ뤬15ޤѤ줿ʤfeverel θ l ϰ۲ (dissimilation) ˤΤǤcf. laurel, marble, purple; #72. /r/ /l/ ϴְ㤨!? ([2009-07-09-1]) ⻲ȡ ߤΥƥŪ b ķϡѸǤ februarie ʤɤֻ14鸫졤ˤ v ֻ֤ƤäƥΤη februārius ϡ¤ϸűѸ˼ޤƤȤոƤ
February ȯˤĤƤϡɤΤ뤳ȤΤƤ롥Ūˤ /ˈfɛbruəri/ ȯ뤬, ǽ r ä /ˈfɛbjuəri/ 褯ʹ롥LDP3 Preference Poll ˤȡ㤤ΥꥫѸǤϸԤȯǤ64%ãƤ롥ꥹѸǤбͤ39%褷㤯ʤ⤤ǤϱƤǤŪ㤤ͤȤʤäƤꡤޤˤñˤȯѲ塹ȿʹԤƤΤȤߤƤ褤
űѸǤ solmōnaþ "mud-month" ֤̤ߤηפɽƤޤܸDZ2ΰ۾Ρǡʤ餮ˡפϡΤǹ˾Ȥ⡤ڤιפηΰդȤ⤤
ơǷ̾Τǡʲ˥γƵؤΥĥäƤ
#2910. ̾ͳ ([2017-04-15-1])
#3187. 1Januaryӷ ([2018-01-17-1])
#3229. 2Februaryǡ ([2018-02-28-1])
#2890. 3March ([2017-03-26-1])
#2896. 4April ([2017-04-01-1])
#2939. 5May ([2017-05-14-1])
#2983. 6June̵ ([2017-06-27-1])
#3000. 7Julyʸ ([2017-07-14-1])
#3046. 8Augustշ ([2017-08-29-1])
#3073. 9SeptemberĹ ([2017-09-25-1])
#3103. 10October̵ ([2017-10-25-1])
#3167. 11November ([2017-12-28-1])
#3168. 12December ([2017-12-29-1])
enough θ촴ϰĸ̤ꡤޥƱ줬ǧ롥ޥĸ *ȝanōȝaz Ƹθϡ genoeg, ɥĸ genug, ťΥɸ gnógrȸ ganōhsƸűѸ ġenōh, ġenōg ʤɤǤ롥
űѸˤϡ g Ĺ첻θ̵뤳Ȥ¿/x/ ȯ褦ˤʤäȹͤ롥θ塤16ޤǤ˿ /f/ ȤʤäΤߤ enough ɸȯϢʤȯǤ롥
ʸǤϤʤ˸ g Ͼ嵭ηϩɤʤäϽפǤ롥ȤΤϡƻȤƤθ줬ѤȤűѸѸˤƤϡʤ˱ղäɬפꡤ g ϤƤǤϤʤ뤳Ȥˤʤ뤫㤨СűѸˤơʣʡгʤǤ -e ղäơġenōge Ȥ֤äη֤ˤäƤϡλҲϸλȾ첻˾夲첻ܤʤɤβѲФơѸޤǤ˸ߤ /ɪˈnaʊ/ ˶ᤤȯˤʤäƤenow ֻϡȯȿǤΤǤ롥
Τ褦ˡenough enow ζ̤Ūˤñʣΰ㤤ȹͤ뤳ȤǤ뤬ñ enowʣ enough Ѥ褦ξԤκϤǤѸ餢ä褦Ǥ롥enow ऱƤ enough ΰ̲ϡŪʶ̤ΤˤĤƤ Milton Τ褦ʽ⤤ΤΡ17ˤϳΩƤȤߤ (Jespersen 2.75)
Ȥ⤷Ȥ1755ǯ˽Ǥ줿 Johnson μǤϡenow enough ̤θФǵƤꡤ"The plural of enough. In a sufficient number." Ȥ롥ʸȤͿƤΤ Sydney, Milton, Dryden, Addison ʤɤΤŤʸǤꡤ enow enought Ū˶̤ƤڵȤ櫓ˤϤʤ
ߤμǤϡenow ϡԸդȤ졼٥Ž enough ѤȤƤ뤬嵭Τ褦ˡŪˤ enough ʣ˵ĤȤ¤ϲƤʤѸǤϤСenow Τ̲ۤŪ˻ѤƤ륱¿ȤոƤ
ʤߤˡenough/enow ʿŪȤơplough/plow 뤳ȤǤ롥ˤĤƤϡ#1195. <gh> = /f/ б ([2012-08-04-1]) ȡϢơblond/blonde ˸ˤֶޡפꤢ#504. Ѹ¸ߤͣζޤƻ ([2010-09-13-1]) ɤ
Jespersen, Otto. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part 2. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Heidelberg: C. Winter's Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1922.
ī㡼ɶιֺ֥ڥǤɤѸˡ5ˤ4224ڡˤ˳ޤϡdoubt <b>--- ѸΥڥפꤷơѸ1500--1900ǯˤΥڥ⤷ޤֺ¤Ѥ饤ɻ˥åפƤޤ
ϰʲ3ĤǤ
ͥ˥ƥ줫֤줷ڥ¿и
ڥɸಽ1418ȾФˤƤ©ĹĤߤä
ѸμˤƤ⡤ڥɸಽϴˤãƤʤ
Ȥ櫓츻ŪڥˤĤƤϡܥ֥Ǥ¿εǼ夲ƤΤǡetymological_respelling ʲ饤ɤΥڡȤ˥ĥäƤޤƥ饤ɤϡ֥ؤΥȤƤȤޤ
1. ֺ¡إڥǤɤѸˡ4doubt <b>--- ѸΥڥ
2.
3. (1) 츻Ūڥ (etymological spelling)
4. debt ξ
5. 츻Ūڥ
6. island ϡ츻Ūץڥ
7. 츻Ūڥ黿 Holofernes
8. θȯΡɿסfault ξ
9. եǤ츻Ūڥ
10. ڥεǽɽ
11. (2) ʥڥɸಽ
12. ϥڥɸಽ¥
13. (3) Ѹμˤߤ륹ڥ
14. Robert Cawdrey's A Table Alphabeticall (1603)
15. Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language (1755)
16. ޤȤ
17. ʸ
ǯɽ (cf. timeline) ϡꥹʸػˤάǯɽˤʸػ˳δ˵ƤΤǤ (175--80) ꥹˤܻˤȤδϢդ⤢ꡤįƳڤ롥
| ꥹʸء˴ط | ͻ | |
|---|---|---|
| 410 | ޤ Britain ۽ | |
| 1000 | Ǽҡ١缰ظʪ٤κ | |
| 1066 | Ρޥꥢ¨ (--1087) | |
| 1154 | ץͥåīϤޤ (--1399) | |
| 1167 | Oxford ؤδ | |
| 1313 | ʥ˥ơؿʡ٤κꥢʸĬ | |
| 1337 | ʩɴǯϤޤ (--1453) | |
| 1349 | ʥ˥ܥåإǥ | |
| 1380 | Wyclif Ϥ | |
| 1382 | Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde (--1385. 1484) | |
| 1387 | Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales ɮϡʽ 1478 | |
| 1455 | Ф (--1485) | |
| 1469 | Malory, Le Morte d'Arthur ʽ 1485 | |
| 1475 | W. Caxton, ǽαѸˤʪ | |
| 1485 | إ¨ (--1509) | |
| 1492 | ʥ˥֥Φعҳ | |
| 1513 | ʥ˥ޥ٥ط٤κ | |
| 1516 | More, Utopia | |
| 1517 | 륿νϤޤ | |
| 1519 | ޥ (--1522) | |
| 1534 | The Church of England (or Anglican Church) ΩEngland ν | |
| 1535 | Sir Thomas More (1478--) 跺 | |
| 1543 | ˥ݥȥ͡ | |
| 1557 | England the Stationers' Company ʽҽǶȹ | |
| 1558 | Elizabeth I ¨ (--1603) | |
| 1576 | ǽξ߸ The Theatre | |
| 1579 | Spenser, E., The Shepheardes Calendar | |
| 1587 | Scotland Mary 跺 | |
| 1588 | Drake, Hawkins 顤ڥ̵Ũ (The Armada) ˤ | |
| 1589 | Spenser, E., The Faerie Queene, I?۪II | |
| 1593 | ڥήԤΤɥη줬2ǯޤĺ | ˺ǽdzܰ |
| 1595 | Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet | |
| 1596 | Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream; Spenser, E., The Faerie Queene, IV?۷I | |
| 1597 | Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice | |
| 1599 | ַ쳫 | |
| 1600 | Shakespeare, As You Like It | |
| 1601 | Shakespeare, Hamlet | |
| 1603 | ॹ¨ (--1625) | |
| 1605 | Shakespeare, Othello | ʥ˥Хƥإɥۡơ |
| 1606 | Shakespeare, King Lear; Macbeth | |
| 1618 | ʥɡ˻ǯʽ (--1648) | |
| 1620 | Pilgrim Fathers Mayflower ǥꥫϹ | |
| 1634 | Milton, Comus | |
| 1642 | ̳̿Ϥޤ | |
| 1649 | 㡼륺跺졤ѻߤ졤ꥹϡֶ¹ˤƼͳפȤʤ (--1660) | |
| 1666 | ɥ | |
| 1667 | Milton, Paradise Lost ʽ10ܡ | |
| 1684 | Bunyan, The Pilgrim's Progress, Pt. ii (Pt. i 1678 | |
| 1687 | ˥塼ȥͭϤˡ§ȯɽ | |
| 1688 | ̾̿ (Glorious Revolution) | |
| 1702 | The Daily Courant ϴʥꥹǽʹ | |
| 1707 | England, Scotland ʻ硤Great Britain Ω | |
| 1711 | Addison Steele The Spectator ϴ | |
| 1714 | 硼¨ (--1727) ϥΡīϤޤ | |
| 1719 | Defoe, Robinson Crusoe | |
| 1721 | R. ݡ뤬ȳդꥹǽμȤʤ | |
| 1724 | ˶ι纸 (1635-- | |
| 1726 | Swift, Gulliveris Travel | |
| 1731 | ꥹѸȤƤΥƥ | |
| 1739 | ꥹȥڥ | |
| 1740 | Richardson, Pamela | |
| 1742 | Fielding, Joseph Andreas | |
| 1748 | ʩ˥ƥˡ | |
| 1749 | Fielding, Tom Jones | |
| 1755 | Johnson ΡرѸ켭ŵ | |
| 1756 | ʩ֤˼ǯϤޤ | |
| 1760 | Sterne, Tristram Shandy | |
| 1767 | κꥹȳ̿ | |
| 1774 | ˿ĸزο١ʥɡ˥ơؼ㤭ƥǺߡ | |
| 1776 | ꥫΩ | |
| 1789 | ե̿ | |
| 1791 | The Observer ϴ | |
| 1798 | Wordsworth & Coleridge, Lyrical Ballads | |
| 1801 | ꥹɤʻ硤the Union of Great Britain and Ireland Ω | |
| 1805 | Wordsworth, The Prelude | |
| 1807 | ꥹػ | |
| 1812 | Byron, Childe Harold's PilgrimageϤޤ (--1814) | |
| 1813 | Austen, Pride and Prejudice | |
| 1817 | Byron, Manfred | ˥ꥹ |
| 1819 | Keats, 'Ode to a Nightingale'; Scott, Ivanhoe | |
| 1820 | Shelley, Prometheus Unbound; 'To a Skylark' | |
| 1823 | Lamb, The Essays of Elia | |
| 1836 | Dickens, Pickwick Papers ʽǤ1837ˡꥹкѶϤޤ | |
| 1837 | Dickens, Oliver Twistȥꥢ¨ (--1901) | |
| 1840 | ꥹ New Zealand ʻ硨إϤޤ (--42) | |
| 1847 | C. Brontë, Jane Eyre; E. Brontë, Wuthering Heights; Thackeray, Vanity Fair | |
| 1848 | ޥ륯ᥨ륹ض٤ɥȯɽ | |
| 1849 | Dickens, David Copperfield | |
| 1850 | Tennyson, In Memoriam | |
| 1851 | ɥ | |
| 1854 | ߥ赯 (--1856)˥ڥҡ¿ƾ | |
| 1856 | ꥹɤľ | ܡƽ̾ |
| 1859 | Darwin, On the Origin of Species; G. Eliot, Adam Bede | |
| 1865 | Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland | |
| 1868 | ȲͤȲ | |
| 1871 | G. Eliot, Middlemarch | Ҥ饢ꥫα |
| 1872 | Butler, Erewhon | ʡ͡ȡسΤ |
| 1877 | Ω | |
| 1883 | Stevenson, Treasure Island | |
| 1891 | Hardy, Tess | |
| 1893 | Wilde, Salomé ʩǡǤ1894 | |
| 1894 | Shaw, Arms and the Man; Kipling, The Jungle Book | |
| 1895 | Wells, The Time Machine | |
| 1896 | ƥͤǶ奪ԥå | |
| 1899 | ܡ (--1902) | |
| 1900 | Conrad, Lord Jim | ҡұѳؽΡĽءΩСꥹα |
| 1901 | ȥꥢǡɥɼ¨ | |
| 1902 | The Times Literary Supplement ϴ | ƱΩ |
| 1907 | ˱Ѹ츦ҡʤΤҡ϶ | |
| 1909 | إϥåȡ١ʰʸ弡 | |
| 1913 | Lawrence, Sons and Lovers | |
| 1914 | Joyce, Dubliners | 켡Ϥޤ (--18) |
| 1917 | ̿ | |
| 1920 | ϢΩ | |
| 1922 | T. S. Eliot, The Waste Land; Galsworthy, The Forsyte Saga; Joyce, Ulysses ʥѥǽǡ; Ireland ͳΩ | |
| 1924 | Forster, A Passage to India | |
| 1925 | Woolf, Mrs. Dalloway | |
| 1927 | Woolf, To the Lighthouse | |
| 1928 | Lawrence, Lady Chatterley's Lover; Huxley, Brave New World | |
| 1929 | ܱʸز | |
| 1936 | ɥȬץͤȤη뺧Ӳ硼ϻ¨ (--52) | ڥ (--39) |
| 1937 | Ireland ͳ̾ (Eire) Ȳ | |
| 1936 | Joyce, Finnegans Wake | Ϥޤ |
| 1940 | Greene, The Power and Glory | |
| 1941 | ܡƱѤ۹ | |
| 1945 | Orwell, Animal Farm | ェ |
| 1948 | Greene, The Heart of the Matter | |
| 1949 | Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four; Eire ¹Ireland ¹ȤΩ | |
| 1950 | ˥ƣإ㥿졼ͤ͡ȯ | |
| 1951 | ưݾĴ | |
| 1952 | Beckett, En Attendant GodotʡإɡԤʤ١ˡꥶ٥¨ | |
| 1954 | Golding, Lord of the Flies; Murdock, Under the Net | |
| 1956 | Osborne, Look Back in Anger | |
| 1957 | Braine, Room at the Top | |
| 1958 | Weaker, Chicken Soup with Barley | |
| 1959 | Sillitoe, The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner | |
| 1960 | Pinter, The Caretaker | ƿݾΩ |
| 1963 | ˼ѱѸϤޤ | |
| 1964 | ԥå | |
| 1965 | Pinter, The Homecoming | ɴ |
| 1970 | | |
| 1971 | ʾ٤ˡڤؤ | |
| 1975 | ٥ȥʥ轪 | |
| 1979 | å㡼ꥹνȤʤ | ߥå |
| 1980 | 졼ꥫΤ˽Ǥԥå⥹ | |
| 1981 | 㡼륺ҡʡڥȷ뺧 | |
| 1982 | ˡˬѡѹ² | |
| 1984 | T. Hughes, J. Betjeman ΤȤη˴ͤȤʤ | ԥå륹 |
ϢʤѸνդˤɸಽưϡ1400ǯ˻ϤޤȹͤƤ褤Ǥ14餽ʳȤ٤ư줿15äդ꤫顤餯ŪưŤääƸ߲ƤŪưŤȤϡʩɴǯ (hundred_years_war) κˤäơīֱѸᥤɤιפռȤǤ롥ȤʤСʤѰۤˤƤڥɸಽܻؤ٤ǡ夫μƤɸಽưˡ¦ΰ첡ä뤳Ȥˤʤäīγ Henry IV 鲦̤Ѥ Henry V ϡ1415ǯ襤ˤ뾡Ǥ˹ҤȯȤεªƱѸθҤ褦ȱưΤǤ롥Chancery Standard ϡΤ褦ʷаޤޤ줿Τȹͤ
ΰϢήˤĤơBlake (11) ϼΤ褦ˤߤƤ롥
Some scholars believe that the Lancastrians actively promoted the cause of English in order to increase their appeal to merchants and commoners against the aristocrats who were the leaders of the rebellions against them. Even if this is true, it is not likely that the kings would actively promote a standard as such. At best they would encourage the use of English as the national language, but this in turn would enhance the prospects of a standardised variety of London English being adopted as the variety to be used nationally. In order to follow this policy, the kings would have to rely on the forms of language most accessible to them, and that meant using one of the standardised forms of English used in the Chancery or some other government agency. From 1400 onwards the idea that there should be a single form of 'English' based upon the language of London and its environs became predominant.
ŸƤϡīϡѸɸಽ褦ؤȤϡޤǹȯȤȤŪŪΤ˱ѸȤ褦ؤˤʤȤȤ餯θ˱Ѹ줬ɸಽƤäΤϡ¦ŪǤϤʤष̤Ȥߤ٤
Ϣơ#3214. 1410ǯ夫30ǯˤƤ Chancery English ˨ ([2018-02-13-1])#1207. Ѹνդ ([2012-08-16-1]) ⻲ȡ
Blake, N. F. A History of the English Language. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996.
ε#3223. George Andrews, A Dictionary of the Slang and Cant language (1809) ([2018-02-22-1]) ǡѸ˾¯졦Ѹ콸Thomas Harman A Caveat or Warening for Common Cursetors (1567) ˸ڤѸ˾αѱѼRobert Cawdrey A Table Alphabeticall 30ǯʾƽǤ줿ȤΤ϶ä٤Ȥ˻פ뤫⤷ʤ̤αѱѼ⡤Ѹ콸ΤۤᤤȤΤϡ⤷
ͥΥɤˤ뼭Իηаޤ֤äƤߤȡषήϼǤ롥ޤˤĤƺǽ˺뼭Ѹ콸ϡְܴۤ㤤ʤ켭Ĥޤ bilingual dictionaries/glossaries Ǥ롥ºݡѼʩѼ˱ѼʤɤѸ˾塤˸Ƥ롥ΤȤϡͤƤߤǤ롥ȤäƤ⡤ǤʤññǶƤΤ1Ǥ롥Ǥˤ褯ΤäƤñǸꤹ monolingual dictionaries/glossaries ϡǤͤΤλƤ뤬ˤäƤϡޤΰյϿ͡˥ԥȤʤä
ơ켭˽ऺΤȤơ¯졦 (canting language) Ѹ콸Ԥޤ뤳Ȥˤʤäɤʰ̻̱ˤȤäơcanting language ϳƱǤ롥äơA Caviat ⤢ bilingual glossary äȸäƤ褤ΤǤ롥
³ơ1604ǯ˱Ѹ˾Ρ̤αѱѼפۤɸڤ A Table Alphabeticall Ǥ줿ºݤˤϡ̡פαñΤǤϤʤȤƥƥѸʤɤʤפΤä⸫ˤäƤ bilingual dictionary ȤΤǤ롥θ塤17̤ƱѸ˴ؤ뼭Ǥ줿켭Ǥꡤbilingual dictionaries ΰФƤϤʤäȤͤcf. #609. 켭17 ([2010-12-27-1])ˡ
嵭ηаޤƤȡݤơѸ˾αѱѼѸ콸 A Caviat Ǥ뤳ȤǤ뤫⤷ʤΤˤĤơBlank (231) Ѥ
In fact the original English-English dictionaries, long preceding those produced in the seventeenth century, were glossaries of the canting language. As Thomas Harman and his followers often noted, cant was otherwise known in the period as 'pedlar's French', a term which again reinforced notions of its 'foreign' nature. Harman's popular pamphlet A Caveat or Warening for Common Cursetors (1567) describes the underworld language as a 'leud, lousey language of these lewtering Luskes and lasy Lorrels . . . a vnknowen toung onely, but to these bold, beastly, bawdy Beggers, and vaine Vacabondes'. As a measure of social precaution, he included a glossary intended to expose the 'vnknowen toung', thereby translating the 'leud, lousey' language into 'common' English:
Nab, a pratling chete, quaromes, a head. a tounge. a body. Nabchet, Crashing chetes, prat, a hat or cap. teeth. a buttocke.
and so on through a list that includes 120 terms.
Blank, Paula. "The Babel of Renaissance English." Chapter 8 of The Oxford History of English. Ed. Lynda Mugglestone. Oxford: OUP, 2006. 212--39.
19ȾˤϿ¯켭Ի줿Ū1Ĥˡϥ㡼ʸäϿʤä Johnson μ䴰Ȥä夲 George Andrews ˤ A Dictionary of the Slang and Cant language (1809) ˤϡäȡַŪפ䤬äϡť¯졦˹Τ餷뤳ȤˤꡤȺߤȤΤäμҲܻؤȤäƤ褤⤷ʤCrystal (68) ˤȡμʸȤơΤ褦ƤȤ
One great misfortune to which the Public are liable, is, that Thieves have a Language of their own; by which means they associate together in the streets, without fear of being over-heard or understood.
The principal end I had in view in publishing this DICTIONARY, was, to expose the Cant Terms of their Language, in order to the more easy detection of their crimes; and I flatter myself, by the perusal of this Work, the Public will become acquainted with their mysterious Phrases; and be better able to frustrate their designs.
Crystal (68) ˺ƷǤƤ롤ĤθФʲ˵褦19Ƭťα餯ߤťˤ̤ʤΤʤ
| Adam Tylers | pickpockets' accomplices |
| badgers | hawkers |
| bullies, bully-huffs, bully-rooks | hired ruffians |
| bloods | roisterers |
| buffers | horse killers (for the skins) |
| beau-traps | well-dressed sharpers |
| cloak-twitchers | cloak-snatchers (from off people's shoulders) |
| clapperdogeons (also spelled clapperdudgeon) | beggars |
| coiners | counterfeiters |
| cadgers | beggars |
| duffers | hawkers |
| divers | pickpockets |
| dragsmen | vehicle thieves |
| filers | coin-filers |
| fencers | receivers of stolen goods |
| footpads | highwaymen who rob on foot |
| gammoners | pickpockets' accomplices |
| ginglers (also jinglers) | horse-dealers |
| kencrackers | housebreakers |
| knackers | tricksters |
| lully-priggers | linen-thieves |
| millers | housebreakers |
| priggers | thieves |
| rum-padders | highwaymen |
| strollers | pedlars |
| sweeteners | cheats, decoys |
| spicers | footpads |
| smashers | counterfeiters |
| swadlers (also swadders) | pedlars |
| whidlers (also whiddlers) | informers |
| water-pads | robbers of ships |
ǯ314Ω夲졤ؽؤdzŤ줿˼Ҳء˸θ HiSoPra* (= HIstorical SOciolinguistics and PRAgmatics) 2313ƱؽؤˤƳͽǤץξܺ٤ΰ (PDF)
ǯ1ˤĤƤϡƤ˻äƤаޤ顤ܥ֥ǡ#2883. HiSoPra* ˻ä (1) ([2017-03-19-1])#2884. HiSoPra* ˻ä (2) ([2017-03-20-1]) ˤƲͻҤ𤷤ޤ٤2Ǥ⡤֥ɤη ̸ˤоȤƸƤΡפꤹ륷ݥǡѸɸಽβ˴ؤƾäƤȤˤʤޤΥɷˤоȤơեȵʤθ礦ȤݤǤΩäơܸˤĤ̾¼˹ֱ餷ƤθĤѸˤĤơƳؽؤιɥĸˤĤơȤˤʤäƤޤ3ʥץ饹ˤˤɸಽβоȸŪˤߤȤߤǤä礤ʳ顤¤˶̣֤ΰƱݥȤʣȽ֤ڤߤǤ¾ȯɽ並ͽꤵƤޤ
Ѹɸಽ˴ؤϡܥ֥Ǥ standardisation νǽƤޤδˡƹͤƹԤͽǤ
Algeo and Pyles ϡΰ̣ѲϤκǸạ̇̄ѲԲƳǧƤ롥ǰŪʤΤϡEsperanto ʤɤοФʤ顤Τ褦ʸŪ۶Ọ̇̄ѲԲƤʤȤǮäƤĹ"SEMANTIC CHANGE IS INEVITABLE" ꤹѤ褦 (243--44)
It is a great pity that language cannot be the exact, finely attuned instrument that deep thinkers wish it to be. But the facts are, as we have seen, that the meaning of practically any word is susceptible to change of one sort or another, and some words have so many individual meanings that we cannot really hope to be absolutely certain of the sum of these meanings. But it is probably quite safe to predict that the members of the human race, homines sapientes more or less, will go on making absurd noises with their mouths at one another in what idealists among them will go on considering a deplorably sloppy and inadequate manner, and yet manage to understand one another well enough for their own purposes.
The idealists may, if they wish, settle upon Esperanto, Ido, Ro, Volapük, or any other of the excellent scientific languages that have been laboriously constructed. The game of construction such languages is still going on. Some naively suppose that, should one of these ever become generally used, there would be an end to misunderstanding, followed by an age of universal brotherhood---the assumption being that we always agree with and love those whom we understand, though the fact is that we frequently disagree violently with those whom we understand very well. (Cain doubtless understood Abel well enough.)
But be that as it may, it should be obvious, if such an artificial language were by some miracle ever to be accepted and generally used, it would be susceptible to precisely the kind of changes in meaning that have been our concern in this chapter as well as to such change in structure as have been our concern throughout---the kind of changes undergone by those natural languages that have evolved over the eons. And most of the manifold phenomena of life---hatred, disease, famine, birth, death, sex, war, atoms, isms, and people, to name only a few---would remain as messy and hence as unsatisfactory to those unwilling to accept them as they have always been, no matter what words we use in referring to them.
ιʥפʸϤǤ롥ʤѤκǸ "no matter what words we use in referring to them" ȽҤ٤ƤΤϡonomasiological change/variation ˴ؤ뤳ȤAlgeo and Pyles ϡsemasiological change onomasiological change 碌ợְѲפȤȤ館Ƥ뤳Ȥ狼롥
̣ˤĤƤϡ#961. ([2011-12-14-1]) (4) ȡϢơ#963. Ѹˤȿ ([2011-12-16-1]) ɤޤ#1955. ̣ѲΰŪ ([2014-09-03-1]) ⤴
Algeo, John, and Thomas Pyles. The Origins and Development of the English Language. 5th ed. Thomson Wadsworth, 2005.
ǤϡǥߡΩƹ٤ȤͤޤꡤΦǤϤǥߡΩ줿1582ǯ˥ꥢ Accademia della Crusca ߤ졤1612ǯˤϤԻ줿ꥢ켭νǤߤեǤϡ1635ǯ Richelieu ˤ Académie Française ꡤ1660ǯˤ Grammaire de Port-Royal 1694ǯˤϥե켭Ǥ줿ɥĤǤ17˥ǥߡμݤ˶ᤤĤθ˴ؤ붨Ω夬äƤ
ɤǤϡ1712ǯ Jonathan Swift ˤ륢ǥߡΩƤʤ졤줬ȾŪͳʤäаޤˤĤơ#2759. Swift ˤ륢ǥߡΩƤ̤ʤäͳ ([2016-11-15-1]) Ǥߤ̤Φ٤ư٤ä褦˻פ뤫⤷ʤɤǤѸ륢ǥߡΩȯۤ˨ϥꥶ٥ī1570ǯ夫ߤ줿θ塤1617ǯ Edmund Bolton ΩǥߡΩƤʸؤؤδĤޤȤƤλߤܺäϤΤΡɤǤΦƱͤ16Ⱦʹߤ˥ǥߡΩ˾äȤõ٤Ǥ롥
ơ1660ǯ˲Ťȡθ塤ܳŪʱѸǥߡθȤʤ٤ (The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge) Ω줿22̾βʤꡤʤˤ John Dryden, John Evelyn, Thomas Sprat, Edmund Waller, John Aubrey ̾ϢʤäƤۤȤɤβϱѸ줽ΤΤľܴؿȤϡŪΩΤˡ̾ΤˡѸƥǥߡѤ褦ȤΤǤ롥
Ȥ櫓 Dryden ϡʸȤƤ̾٤ñѤꡤ2ӵֻ (preposition_stranding) ι¤Ǻᤷꤷ (Knowles 113--14) Knowles (114) ϡDryden αѸˡ˴ؤŪʸФäפ˼Τ褦ŪɾͿƤ롥
In making these attacks Dryden is possibly the first person to select examples of the language usage of others and arbitrarily assert that they are intrinsically incorrect. To prove his points, Dryden attempted to find observable evidence in his opponents' texts. The problem was that he did not know enough about language to do this properly, and consequently from a linguistic point of view his remarks are ill founded. Nevertheless he did successfully establish the convention whereby people without any special knowledge of language feel entitled to assert that some other people have failed in the acquisition of their mother tongue.
Knowles, Gerry. A Cultural History of the English Language. London: Arnold, 1997.
űѸ˴ؤ˸ȤơǶ2Ĥεǿ줿cf. #3208. ݥ饤ȥͥäűѸ ([2018-02-07-1])#3211. ù¤ ([2018-02-10-1])ˡ褽 speech_act, politeness, discourse_analysis, information_structure ˴ؤä Traugott γˤäơѸ˴ؤ˸ȤơɤΤ褦ʤΤ뤫Ƥߤ
Traugott ϡϥɥ֥åƬ3ĤŦƤ (466)
(1) "the shift from information-structure-oriented word order in Old English to 'syntacticized' order in Middle English; this in tern led, at the end of the period, to new strategies for marking topic and focus in special ways."
(2) "the development of auxiliary verbs in contexts where implied abstract temporal, modal, or aspectual meanings of certain concrete verbs became salient"
(3) "the appearance of a large set of new discourse types, from romances to drama, scientific writings, and letters"
(1) ϸΥե˴ؤ̤ȤäƤ褤űѸ줫Ѹˤƶޤष礬경ƤäȤˤꡤŪͳʸѤƾ¤ȤάäƤΤ뤳ȤǤʤʤäˡ̤μʤʤʤФʤʤʤäȤȤǤ롥㤨СѸˡټԤɸ by ȼư֤ιʸȯãƤȤϡΤ褦ʾ¤˵ʬ뤫⤷ʤ⤷β⤬ΤǤСŪװѲΰȤʤäȸ뤳Ȥˤʤ
(2) Ūʴޤߤ(1) ȴŪ˴ϢȻפ뤬ư줫ưؤȯãʤŵŪʸˡ (grammaticalisation) λˤΤˡʸ̮˽줿ް (implicature) ͶƳ (invited_inference) ʤɤƻΩƤäƤ븦ؤѸˤ϶ޤοˤ³ˡˡοˤꡤŪؼʤȤˡư줬ȯã뤬ȯãˤŪʥᥫ˥बͿƤǽ롥
(3) ϿäνиǤ롥夬ˤĤ졤λˤϤʤäƥȡפƤ뤳ȤѸ˸¤äݤǤϤʤѸǤΤ˿郎߽Ф줿Traugott ϥޥࡤʳŪʸϡȤäŦƤ뤬¾ˤեʤӥƥˤαƶ뤤Ϻ礷¿Ѥλʸ䱤ʸʤɤ
ۤѸˤϱѸνդɸಽ (standardisation) ⵯϤƤꡤïĤɤɸѼѤΤѤʤäΤȤäҲŪоݤȤʤ
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. "Middle English: Pragmatics and Discourse" Chapter 30 of English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. 2 vols. Ed. Alexander Bergs and Laurel J. Brinton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2012. 466--80.
ī㡼ɶdz֤Ƥֺ֥ڥǤɤѸˡ⡤53ޤ210ڡˤ˳줿3515̤ through --- ѸΥڥפѤ饤ɻ˥åפƤޤ
ϡѸΩڥ濴˿ʤΤ褦Ω֤ɤΤ褦ˤ줬λˤƲäƤȤˤʤäޤݥȤȤưʲ3Ŧޤ
Υޥˤɸֻڥ˱
ȤƼ˴Ťڥ͡ʲ
Ѹڥɸಽ
ΤȤơɸŪڥˡȤȯۤƶḽŪʤΤǤ뤳ȤǧǤΤǤϤʤȻפޤʲ饤ɤΥڡȤ˥ĥäƤޤ褫ΥפޤơȤƤɤ
1. ֺ¡إڥǤɤѸˡ3515̤ through--- ѸΥڥ
2.
3. (1) Υޥڥ
4. ΥޥѸޤǤά
5. 515̤ through (#53, #54), 134̤ such
6. 6ñǤߤѸڥ
7. busy, bury, merry
8. Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales Ƭ
9. 7ܤμܴ (#2788)
10. (2) ڥ͡ʲ
11. (3) ڥκɸಽ
12. ޤȤ
13. ʸ
2֤ε ([2018-02-14-1], [2018-02-15-1]) ³ɡΡܤλ͡٤ꡤʪʲȸѲˤĤƹͤ롥Ʊˤϡ֤ȤȤ˶ո줫鶯դƤ碌뿷ʶո줬ޤ븽ݡʤֶˡ§פȸƤ֤٤ꤢƤս꤬ (349--50) ֲַԡפ̣ñ star ˤޤĤ붯˿Ƥ롥
̸ˤϡͽŪDzʹѤʤ̣ŪʡʲΤ褦ʷõƤ뤳ȤǤ롥ợΥ졼Ȥǡʤ뤤̤γ٤餽СಽȤȤˤʤΥեɥХåξڵ줵ȤС֥פȤñϡޤäޤ̾DẓͥΤȤƻȤƤ줫餽ñϡDzǼоʪΰͤ餸뤯餤̤̣ͥ褦ಽäơޤ̾ȤȤΰ̣᤹ˡñϡ֥ѡפ˥졼ȤʤФʤʤäΤDz襹֥ѡפȤñߤʤʹȤʤ褦ͥˤޤǻȤΤǡ֥ᥬפؤΤʤ륨졼äƤޤǤϡ¿ФΡ֥ᥬפ뤬ʤȤ䤬ޤʹȤʤʪʤΤǡ֤Υ졼Ϥ⤦֥ϥѡפαʹȤˤʤΤȻ褦ΥեɥХåϡ֥աפȤñβͤȤƤޤäñϥեΥաɡ奤̤Ƥꡤ˼Υդ뤤Ḷ́Ƥ롥ϥåեɼŵ˺ܤäƤ̣Ǥ롥ĤޤϿ˼ͤΥդʤϤȤ餯̤ݤĤ̾ΡˤΡ˥å䤫ΥϥС֤Ǥ⤬ʬΤȤ֥աפȸƤӽФη̡ޤǤϡ֥ĹפʤƱȿŪʸޤ路Фʹ褦ˤʤäƤ롥
ɡϡǡ֥פ֥աפΤȤȤΰ̣ߡ (meme) ȤƤȤ館ƤΤ⤷ʤʴϢơ#3188. ߡȤƤθ (1) ([2018-01-18-1])#3189. ߡȤƤθ (2) ([2018-01-19-1])ˡˤ衤Ѳ˲ʹѤޤʤȤǡɡŰƬŰ˥ȤǤ롥
դ˴ؤȤƤϡ#992. ոȡָ³ˡ§ס ([2012-01-14-1]) #1219. ոϤʤब˭٤ ([2012-08-28-1])#2190. μޤäո ([2015-04-26-1]) ʤɤȤ줿
ɡ㡼ɡˡ ͵ƣ ƣ ɥ ءˡ δʴƽˡܤλ͡϶١˼2004ǯ
ε ([2018-02-14-1]) ˰³ɡΡܤλ͡٤ǸˤĤƸڤƤսܤ롥ϡɡʬʬˤĤơʪξȤΰƱŦʤƤʬꤢ褦 (348--49)
ϲ餫ηʬʬƤ鲿ФĤˤĤơߤǤʤʤäƤޤΤǡ餫˿ʲȸ롥ʿΤ⤫¿硹ϡʲθΤγʹκƤ롥ۤʤθϤ餫˻̤äƤꡤΤǰäƤñοˤäƤ餬ɤäƤ뤫Τ¬뤳ȤǤ褦ʪϡάʬʬؤʪȤؤ褯Ƥ롥ʬñο¬֤ΰ㤤ϡޥ¬֤εΥФƥվΥץåȤ줦롥վ˥ץåȤ줿ϤζŪˤɤʷƤ뤫ˤäơ礫ءñˤȻƤ®٤ˤĤƲȤ狼Ϥñϥ̡ˤäưưȤɤΥƤ뤫ˤäƤ㤷ֳ֤ķӰܤäƤĤΤʤǤϡҤȤѰۤΤȤۤȤƱ褦ˤơñϰ®٤Ѳ롥⤷礬˳ΥƤСθϻ֤ФĤˤĤƲ餫οʲŪѲä¾θ줫ʤˤʬƤˤɤϡˤɤ٤ơ̡ˤñθή®٤餫®ޤθϡΥ줿θ⿷̤äƤ롥ݤϡΤǴѻΥѥΤǤꡤȤϤȸХ㡼륺˥ԥ졼Ϳѥΰۤʤäˤե˴ؤ¤̩ܤʥʥΩġ礦ñ줬̡ˤä礫ķӰܤäƤ褦ˡҤĻΤˤä礫ķӰܤäƤ
ºݡʿΤ硹ν֤δطõΤˡŪʼˡѤ븦Ǥ롥ʿΤΥư²θƤ⡤Ȥ˿ŪʼˡŬѤƤʡ#1129. ĸʬϵ5800--7800ǯ ([2012-05-30-1]) ȡˡSwadesh ˤǯؤ⡤ȽƤΤΡƶ̥ϤϴˤϼƤʤ褦˸ʡ#1128. glottochronology ([2012-05-29-1]) glottochronology γƵȡˡǯΥѥؤȯŸ䥳ԥ塼ηϤθˤꡤ׳ (lexicostatistics) ȤʬäƤƤ롥ʪؤˡؤˤѤȤɡȯۤϡľǤ⤢뤷ºݤˤĤˡDZѤƤƤ⤤ΤǤ롥
Ϣơ⤦1սꡤɡƱǸʬʪʬˤʤ館Ƥս꤬롥ǤϡʬǤϤʤ礹뤳Ȥ⤢Ȥǡʪ㤹ȻŦƤ (412)
ʬǤϤʤäƤޤȤ⤢롥ѸϡϤ뤫ʬޥȥޥλǤꡤäƤɤΤ褦ʳŪҤοˤ⤭äޤäƤʤѸϤؤϤɤǸꡤʬŪ˽ʣꤹ뤳Ȥ狼ʪŪʬؤϡФˤΤ褦˸ꤷʤΥ٥ʾʪʲϤĤͤʬǤ롥
ʪˤϺϤʤȤĥʪʲˤơȤȸ˺˦äߥȥɥꥢΤƿ˺˦Ȥ붦⤬Ƥ뤳ȤդƤϽκӤ븽ݤ⤷ʤ
ɡ㡼ɡˡ ͵ƣ ƣ ɥ ءˡ δʴƽˡܤλ͡϶١˼2004ǯ
ɡ̾ܤλ͡١ʸ The Blind Watchmaker (1986)ˤϡʥͥ˥˥κDZνǤ롥ѲˤȤäʪοʲȸοʲѲȤɤޤͭȤϷŪʽäƤꡤⶽ̣šʤΤȤͭȸ³ζܤΤ
ɡξǽɤ뤫ꡤľܡܤ˱ѲǽʲսŦС3褦˻פ롥(1) Ū (teleology) θ(2) ʬʬࡤ(3) ̣ɺȸŪŶ (1) ŪˤĤƹͤƤߤ
ɡ (24--25) ϡʪʲ̵Ūʤܤλ͡ˤĤƼΤ褦Ƥ롥οʲѲˤĤƤ⡤ΤޤƤϤޤȹͤ롥
ͣλͤϡ̤ʤϤ餭ǤϤΤΡܤʪŪʽϤʤΤʪλͤθ̤äƤ롥ʤǾŪƻ֤ХͤǥߤˤɤȤ߹碌뤫פȤ̿ʤ¸ߤ뤫줬ʤŪäƤ褦˸뤫ΤȤơȯΤμϡܤΡռ⤿ʤưŪǤꡤŪäƤʤΤˤϿʤпʤ⤢ϤʤײʤС⡤̤⡤Ÿ˾ⲿʤ⤷λͤ餸ƤȸäƤ褤ʤ顤ܤλͤʤΤ
Ѳ⡤θüԤôäƤˤϰ㤤ʤüԤα餸ȤϤޤ̵ŪΡܤλ͡פǤȹͤ롥ΤˡüԤϤλκΥߥ˥Τ˻ͤդӡºݤȯƤ뤫⤷ʤϤ̤ʤΤˤ줬뤹뤫⤷ʤѲˤĤơǤˤʳüԤǤȤϻפʤѲϤΤ褦ͽꤵƤΤǤϤʤΰ̣ˤ̵ŪǤꡤܤʤΤǤ롥ϡġüԤϡܤλ͡פ餸Ƥ櫓ǤϤʤŪˡֻ͡פݤܤλ͡פݤˤʤΤ
ѲˤŪ˴ؤˤĤƤϡteleology γƵȤ줿
ɡ㡼ɡˡ ͵ƣ ƣ ɥ ءˡ δʴƽˡܤλ͡϶١˼2004ǯ
1410ǯ夫30ǯˤơɸѸľܤĤʤäƤȤ Chancery English ˨꤬Ф롥ɸѸηͤǡ̵뤹뤳ȤΤǤʤפʻǤ롥
ѸδȿɸѼηĬήϡ1413ǯ Henry IV ɷȤƽƱѸǰĤȤϤޤ롥1417ǯˤ϶̼ (Signet Office) Henry V μѸȯԤϤ1422ǯˡǤϥɥξ¤ȹ礬θȤƱѸѤ褦ˤʤäεĻϿѸǽ褦ˤʤΤ⡤ۤƱ1423ǯǤ롥ơ1430ǯˡˡģ̼ɤαѸѼήǡEast Midland ˴פĥ͡ (koine) Ūʽդ˺ѤΤǤLancaster īηαѸѤˤĤƤϡ#1207. Ѹνդ ([2012-08-16-1]) ⻲ȡˡ
λĬήˤơ Chancery Standard ȸƤФ뤳ȤˤʤѼʤˤѤΤҲŪƶϤķ缫Ȥ䤽μդǤä礭Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade (274) ⼡Τ褦˽Ҥ٤Ƥ롥
Chancery English has a precursor in the form of English used by Henry V's Signet Office, the king's private secretariat which travelled with him on his foreign campaigns. It is significant that the selection of the variety which was to develop into what is generally referred to as the Chancery Standard originated with the king and his secretariat: the implementation of a standard variety can only be successful when it has institutional support.
⤦1ġHenry V ѶŪ˱ѸѤطʤˡŪäΤǤϤʤȤܤ٤Ǥ (Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade 274)
. . . the case of Henry V possibly reflects not so much a decision made by an enlightened monarch and his council as political and practical motives: by writing in English, Henry first and foremost identified himself as an Englishman at war with France, while at the same time seeking to curry favour with the the English-speaking merchants, who might be prevailed upon to finance his campaigns.
1410ǯ夫1430ǯˤƤαѸθѲˤɸѸطʤˤϡҲŪϤư餯ͿƤȻפ롥λɸŪʤΤȤƺѤƤȤˤʤ¿ֻ֤嵭Τ褦˺̤ƤǽȤȤΤäƤɬפ
ֻСlight knight ˤߤ <gh> 2Ż (digraph)ʬ˷θȤ <t> ǤϤʤ <d> Ѥ뽬1;ñ̾ˤߤ I ʸѡ¾ which, should, such, much, but, ask ʤɤ Chancery English ħݻƤ롥֤ˤĤƤϡ2;ñ̾ȤƤ ye/you3;ʣ̾ȤƤ they, them, theirƵ̾ȤƤ self/selvesؼ̾ʣ thosetho ˡˡ -ly-liche ˡˡʬ -n λѤ䡤ưθʣ̵-n ˡˤʤɡ¿뤳ȤǤ롥
Nevalainen, Terttu and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade. "Standardisation." Chapter 5 of A History of the English Language. Ed. Richard Hogg and David Denison. Cambridge: CUP, 2006. 271--311.
33ڡˤ4ˤ˺ػëѥˤƳŤָȿʹ֡ (HLC)մߥʡˤơ֡ɤѸ٤ȤƤɸѸȯãáֻʸˡ̻ŪʣŪɤפꤹ뤪äƤȤˤʤޤץ (PDF) Ǥ
ɸѸȯãŪ˳⤹ȤϡѸ줫ѸˤƤθáֻʸˡ˴ؤ̤ǶŪʻ夲ɸѸ夷ƤʤŪФơɤפΤȤФ졤ѤƤȤݤǤΥߥʡΥᥤơޤ֤ȤФˤȤäơɤ ȤϲפȤȤǡäդΡɤפȤɸʱѡ˸Υᥤ˸Ƥ褦ȹͤǤޤ̻ŪʸؤƳȤռơäĤǤ
ݤȤƺʸϤʲ˷ǺܤƤޤޤ֤ΤǡϢĴʤƤͽǤ
䤿ѸˤĤƸȤۤȤơɸѸפǰƬˤƤΤ̤ɸѸϡɤѸפǤ⤢뤫顤оݤȤƺǤդ路ѼǤˤʤϤȡɸѸȤϲȶŪ˹ͤƤȡФȤɸѸɸѸȤˤ구ꤵȤäƤ褯ɸѸϲ鸽ߤ˻ޤǾѲѰ֤ۤĤ͡ʷ¸ߤƤΤǤ롥ޤɸѸ켫Ȥ⡤Τ褦ʣѼΤʤ鸽Ƥ˾λʪäɸѸɤѸפȤۤκõˤϡ̻ŪʣŪʻȤɬפ롥
ֵܹνǤϡɸѸвγά20ʹߤθػˤ˾Ȥ餷Ƽ20ȾФޤǤθؤ϶ŪǤꡤͻоݤȤʤѼϤܾۤɸѼä20Ⱦ21ˤơҲؤȤäѼ¸ߤȤؤȤʤꡤ¿¿ͤʸȤΤǤŻҥѥȤεѤڤɤȤʤäơvariationism ȸƤФʣŪʸѤΩƤѸءѸˤˤƤɸѸ줬вΤǤ롥ǯѸˤʬǤϸ˶ᤤʸ˶Ѹθ椬赤ӤӤƤƤ뤬ϤΤ褦ʲǯ֤θؤ͡Ĭήή̤Ȥߤ뤳ȤǤ롥
ǯɸѸвǤ褦ˤʤäƤȤȤϡ֤СޤɸѸ줬л뤵ĬäȤȤǤ롥ǤϡΤ褦ʰҿɸѸϡġɤǡɤΤ褦ˡʤиΤɸѸεȯãˤϤҤɤʤ꤯ͤäƤꡤҤǤϤʤűѸΥȥ˴Ťˤɸη顤ѸˤɸѸδʤȸѸˤ뿷ɸѸηؤưͳơѸ˿ʤ⡤䤿ΤɸѸ줬ȯãƤˤѤ롥
³ơáֻʸˡγ礫Ѹɸಽ˴ؤŪʻȤƶѸ夲ɸѸˤ˹äƤꡤʣŪʻɤ߲ɬפ뤫äˤĤƤϡꥹѸȥꥫѸˤƤ줾ֽפɽ魯ɸŪʸȤʤä autumn fall Ρʪ̤פηаޤɤֻȤƤϡdoubt <b> Τ褦ʡۻפ夲˼ҲؾˤĤƹͻ롥ʸˡȤƤϡɸѸˤ3ñ -s ˴ؤƤɸѼˤȯãӤʤ顤ʸˡ˿ʻ
ǸˡʾεƧޤɸѸ줬ŪʻʪǤʾ˼ҲŪʻʪǤ뤳ȡƸԤΰ̣ˤƤΤߡɤѸפǤ뤳Ȥǧ롥ΤȤơɸѸ䤽ġθįݤˡ̻ŪʣŪʻȤ뤳Ȥǿȯǽ
Ѹˤ (black_death) ΰյˤĤơ#119. ѸˤΤϥޥͥߤ!? ([2009-08-24-1])#138. ¤ȱѸδطˤĤƺƹ͡ ([2009-09-12-1])#139. ¤ȱѸδطˤĤƺơ͡ ([2009-09-13-1])#3058. ֱѸˤˤ¤ΰյפΤޤȤ饤ɡ ([2017-09-10-1]) ϤȤǹͤƤ
14ȾФι¤衼åѤλѤѤֻƧ (dance of death, danse macabre) ΥդήԤ⤿餹ʤɡʸˤҲˤˤƿʱƶڤܤȤ뤬ĤζϹ٤ˤСΤˤϡֻǧȤʤäפª٤ȤȤªϡź줳ŪǤꡤäΥ衼åѤͭΤϤϤʤष¤ϤŪʸΤʤ˼ޤƤäȤߤ٤ǤϤʤ (19--20) Ѥ롥
̹¤ΡʤϰΥ衼åѤ¿ԻԤ˶̤Ƹ졤ǧȤʤäȤޡϻˡֻƧפɲ褬ꥢ饤˻ޤǹ͵طʤˤϡỴʶθäȥϥۥϡν١ʰǯˤǻŦξԤľܤΰ̴طǷӤĤ뤳ȤûŪȤƤ⡤ֻƧפˤϥɥ⡼Ŧֿȳꡤιζ˽Ϸ̻ʿפȤڥȤλĤħΤޤޤƤϤޤȴ줿Ȥʤ
ڥȤȤθϡʸؤˤϰˤƤȸ뤫⤷ʤܽǰΥݥԥ顼ʻʸإաλ롤ͤԤȻͤλԡѡõˬƧʤɡϡϰ˸ꤵ줿ΤǤϤʤʤȤ衼åѤʣθƱŪ˸ΤФǤ롥ʸػŪʸʤСʸؤ˴ؤƤˤޤ̤դȤΩƤơڥȤȤɤ⤽μѤƤɽ֤䵡ǽ礭ѳפ뤳ȤϤʤäȹͤ뤳ȤǤ롥ºݡڥȤФ˾Τ褦ʿŪȤϵǡषɵڤ̷ϡŷϰۤβФФǤä褦ˡʹ֤ƻŪؤȸ줿ڥȤϻ𤷤Ϳ줿ȳǤꡤξϺǽŪ˶ȤʸؤεǽΤʤ˵ۼơͽĴŪ˽줿ȸ
Ǥߤ褦ˡ¤ȡֻƧפΥդήԤδ֤ľܤΰ̴ط뤫ɤ̤ȤơԤˤƤΥ衼åѤλѤ奢˼ΤȤƺΩäƤ롥 (223) ˤС
λüŪ˻вդȤơν꤫ˤήԤֻƧפ롥ֻƧפȤϡ𤢤뤤Ӥޤޤʳ俦ȡǯԤμäơȤ٤褦ʥƥåפǤؤͶѤΤǡӤԤȤȤʤä̾ﻰȤۤɤѥΥΥϤλϤǼƲβϭ˰ǯ줿ϢɲȤȤ졤ϻˤƥ衼åѳϤ줿ߤǤեꥢɥĤζ濴ˤʤο¸Ƥ롥
°ʹߤο͡ˤȤäơϤޤǰʾ˿ȶˤʤꡤޤκݤˤΤ߶줪ΤΤоݤǤϤʤռ٤оݡĤޤ memento mori ΤΤȤʤäĤϡϤȤơФ줿פɽƤ롥
Ͽʹ֤ˤȤäŪǤϤ뤬ΰʸˤäƤˤäƤѰۤ뤷Ѳ⤹롥ѸѸγΥѥǡֻסֻפ졤ֻפȴϢ륭ʬϤ̻ӤƤߤȡΥդή٤οܤ¬줿ꤹ뤫⤷ʤʸǰƬˤĴоݤȤƤ⤷
δϹ衼åʸؤȰ̤̿λѡ١פͤˡ2017ǯ
ǯù¤δطõ븦椬ƤƤ롥ŪˤäơȸΥեܤƤƤ褦ѸˤǤС㤨иűѸ˴ؤơù¤δطõäꡤȾ¤ؤɵ᤹븦椬Ƥ롥
⤦Ū˽Ҥ٤褦űѸǡ (tense) (aspect) ϷŪɸ졤ϤäѤʸˡŪȤưƤƥȤθǤɽѤʬۤĴ٤ƤߤȡλϾʲô̤λϾطʲôȤ餫ˤʤ롥Сñ졤ưŪֻͭĽϴλɽ蘆졤³ȿ̵Ľ̤λɽ蘆ȤʾϡHopper ˤ Anglo-Saxon Chronicle оݤȤʬϷ̤ǤꡤűѸ̤ƤϤޤ뤫ɤŪʷù¤ѤǽΤȤƶ̣
Ʊ褦ˡŪͳȤűѸθ¤˰äƤȤߤʤ㤬ŦƤ롥Ѹ "then" þa, þonne ϡäΤĤʤȤƺѤ뤳ȤΤƤ롥Ʊˡ줬֤뤳Ȥˤꡤ¾ʸǤŪ֤ƶ뤳Ȥ褯ΤƤ롥ɤνиѰۡù¤3Ԥϡʣ̩ܤ˴ϢäƤ褦ʤΤ㤨СʸϤޤꡤľ onginnan (to begin) ư֤ȡäη³ްդ뤳Ȥ¿Ȥ줬ǡƤСä³ްդȤ
ޤþa, þonne ϤȤ "focus particles" ȤΤ褦ˡξˤؤäƤȤ롥ʸ˸Ȥʬ (topic) Ȥʤꡤʬ (focus) Ȥʤ롥
̻Ūʻ鶽̣ΤϡűѸ줫ѸˤơŪʥꥨ경ƤˤĤơ餬ôäƤù¤뵡ǽषƤäϤǤȤȤǤϡù¤뵡ǽϡ¾Τʤʤˤä줿Τ뤤ʤäΤȸΥեΤΤˡʥߥåѲǽ롥
Lenker, Ursula. "Old English: Pragmatics and Discourse" Chapter 21 of English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. 2 vols. Ed. Alexander Bergs and Laurel J. Brinton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2012. 325--340.
ɸϤդʤΤ˸ؤ evidence ȤƹͤƤߤȤ⤷ΤǤϤʤǰƬ֤ƤΤϱѸǤꡤ٤ƤθƤϤޤ櫓ǤϤʤ褦ʤȤϾʤ̸θˤƤϤޤΤǤϤʤ
̾¸ǽʸ¿ϱʸǤ뤳Ȥ¿ƤʸȤϡ줿λˤƤȤʸظǤꡤäդΤޤȿǤƤΤȲ᤹뤳ȤϤǤʤ夬ˤĤ졤Ȥ櫓ˤΤΤ褦˸ʸλʸȯãˤϡĤޤդäդκṲ̄ޤäƤ褦ʸˤäƤϡ줿ϿäդμΤФȤäưפˤʤäƤ롥ΤȤơ֤ȤȤˡäդ evidence ؤΥݾڤ褦ˤʤäƤ褦ˤߤ롥
ǶˤơɸȤΤȯãƤ¤롥ϡȯãƤʸˤơȤϸŪ˳֤ΤɸǽȤ;ʤ롥ȡθԤܤˤƤΤΤʸϡΤ˱ʸ٤äդȿǤƤǽ⤤ȤϤμ줬ȿǤƤ櫓ǤϤʤˤäƶ줿ѼԼäѼ郎ȿǤƤˤʤȤ⤤롥ΰ̣ǤϡΤ褦ʾڵΡǤΡŪäդФȤʤäƤȸΤǤʤΤȤơ֤ȤȤˡǤäդ evidence ؤΥ˸褦ˤʤäƤȹͤ롥
˵³СʸʸΤȤƤ⡤夬ˤĤ pragmatic mode 뤤 informal discourse syntactic mode 뤤 formal discourse ؤȿܤ "syntacticization" ηŦ Givón Τ褦Ԥ⤢ (Schaefer 1277) äդεʤ pragmatic/informal ϡsyntactic/formal ظḽνդȤƤʤȤϤ롥
嵭Υץ饹ȥޥʥŪ礹ȡŪäդؤΥӥƥϡȤ3ʤ2ⲼȤ餤ΥڡǿʤǤȤϸʤ̸ŪˤΤ褦ʰ뤫ɤϲ⤷ʤ˸ؤ evidence ȤưŪͤơޤǤϤʤ
Schaefer, Ursula. "Interdisciplinarity and Historiography: Spoken and Written English --- Orality and Literacy." Chapter 81 of English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. 2 vols. Ed. Alexander Bergs and Laurel J. Brinton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2012. 1274--88.
ɸಽͤäơ1ȤߤҲ𤷤ƤMilroy and Milroy (27) ˤȤäơstandardisation ȤϸˤǤդѰ۲ǽ뤳Ȥˤۤʤ餺βˤ7ĤʳǧȤselection, acceptance, diffusion, maintenance, elaboration of function, codification, prescription Ǥ롥ϸŵŪʡ#2745. Haugen θɸಽ4ʳ (2) ([2016-11-01-1]) ˴Ťơ̩ΤȤߤ뤳ȤǤ롥Haugen ϡselection, codification, elaboration, acceptance 4ʳ̤Ƥ
Milroy and Milroy 7ʳȤȤߤѤɸѸηŪʬϡ⤷ΤȤƤϡNevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade ͤͥƤ롥ǤϤäѤ鸽ɸѸȯãˤƤ뤬ƱˡDZѸˤˤ羮͡ʡɸಽפڤ뤳ȤǤȽҤ٤Ƥ롥̤ĤΡɸಽפϡ餫ΰ̣ǸĿͤ佸ĤˤͰŪǤǧαĤߤؤƤ롥Ūˤϡ10Υեå粦ˤ줿űѸθŪʺѡʥƥäơˤ䡤Chaucer ʹߤνդȤƤαѸκѡʥեƥäơˤ䡤12 Orm ֻפ䡤19 William Barnes ˤ Dorset dialect Ѥߤ䡤ꥫΩ̿ʹߤ Noah Webster ˤ֥ꥫڤϤʤɤޤ (Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade 273) ߤ˼䵬ϤϰۤʤΤΡΤäȤײ (language_planning) Ȥ٤ΤɸಽפλߤλȤ Milroy and Milroy ήȤߤڤäƤޤȤȯۤϡ¿Ǥ롥
ܸˤǤСɸηȤ濴ŪΤߤʤ餺̾ʸױưѴꡤʤɤ͡ʻ⡤̣ǤɸಽȤƥƥ饤ȤȤˤʤ
Milroy, Lesley and James Milroy. Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge, 1991.
Nevalainen, Terttu and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade. "Standardisation." Chapter 5 of A History of the English Language. Ed. Richard Hogg and David Denison. Cambridge: CUP, 2006. 271--311.
Ѹ˸θԤǡűѸȯù (speech_act) ȤƤ Thomas Kohnen ˤСʸˤƤϸŪʰ̣Ǥ negative politeness ϤۤȤ¸ߤʤäȤä̿ȯù٤ˤơűѸǤϸŪʥݥ饤ȥͥάѤ줺ľŪ Ic bidde eow þæt . . . (I ask you to . . . ) þu scealt . . . (thou shalt . . .) Ѥ줿ȤʸǤϡnegative politeness ϻ¾ǧʤ褦
solidarity ʤ positive politeness άϡuton (let us) ʤɤɽꥹȶŪʸ̮ʤɤǤǧ뤬ȤΩäƻѤ櫓ǤϤʤäɤ饢ʸűѸǤϡͼΥݥ饤ȥͥǤ츽٤ƱƤäȤȤ̸Ūˤ٤ŪꤵƤݥ饤ȥͥѸθŤʳˤƻ¾ԺߤäȤȤϡ̣ǥåȯǤ롥Lenker (328) ˤĤơΤ褦˽Ҥ٤Ƥ롥
Politeness as face work may thus not have played a major role in Anglo-Saxon society. This highlights the intrinsically culture-specific nature of phenomena like politeness and suggests in accordance with other cross-cultural studies that the universal validity or significance of politeness theory --- as devised by Brown and Levinson . . . --- is a gross mistake. Negative politeness in particular is fundamentally culture-specific, reflecting the typical patterns of today's Western, or even more particular, Anglo-American, politeness culture . . . . The study of Anglo-Saxon pragmatics thus does not only affect our understanding of the historicity of verbal interaction but also challenges issues of universality.
Lenker, Ursula. "Old English: Pragmatics and Discourse" Chapter 21 of English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. 2 vols. Ed. Alexander Bergs and Laurel J. Brinton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2012. 325--340.
ΤȤѸɸಽ (standardisation) ˤΤߤʤ餺ɸಽˤĤưŪ˹ͤ뵡¿äƤ롥˴ϢѸȳǰ褦ȡҲؤѸ콸 (Trudgill) Ƥߤ齸ĤνѸȤ˺Τ˵Ƥ
ޤϡѸ˴ؤƤФ "Standard English" ȤѸ줫ʡ#1396. "Standard English" Ȥϲ ([2013-02-21-1])#2116. ֱѸפεۣ ([2015-02-11-1]) ⻲ȡˡ
Standard English The dialect of English which is normally used in writing, is spoken by educated native speakers, and is taught to non-native speakers studying the language. There is no single accent associated with this dialect, but the lexicon and grammar of the dialect have been subject to codification in numerous dictionaries and grammars of the English language. Standard English is a polycentric standard variety, with English, Scottish, American, Australian and other standard varieties differing somewhat from one another. All other dialects can be referred to collectively as nonstandard English.
ǻȤƤ "polycentric" ȤѸˤĤƤϡ#2384. polycentric language ([2015-11-06-1]) ȡ#2402. polycentric language (2) ([2015-11-24-1]) ⻲ȡ
ˡ"standardisation" ȤѸ줫Ť뼰ˤĤѸɤäƤߤ
standardisation The process by which a particular variety of a language is subject to language determination, codification and stabilisation. These processes, which lead to the development of a standard language, may be the result of deliberate language planning activities, as with the standardisation of Indonesia, or not, as with the standardisation of English.
status planning [language determination] In language planning, status planning refers to decisions which have to be taken concerning the selection of particular languages or varieties of language for particular purposes in the society or nation in question. Decisions about which language or languages are to be the national or official languages of particular nation-states are among the more important of status planning issues. Status planning is often contrasted with corpus planning or language development. In the use of most writers, status planning is not significantly different from language determination.
codification The process whereby a variety of a language, often as part of a standardisation process, acquires a publicly recognised and fixed form in which norms are laid down for 'correct' usage as far as grammar, vocabulary, spelling and perhaps pronunciation are concerned. This codification can take place over time without involvement of official bodies, as happened with Standard English, or it can take place quite rapidly, as a result of conscious decisions by governmental or other official planning agencies, as happened with Swahili in Tanzania. The results of codification are usually enshrined in dictionaries and grammar books, as well as, sometimes, in government publications.
stabilisation A process whereby a formerly diffuse language variety that has been in a state of flux undergoes focusing . . . and takes on a more fixed and stable form that is shared by all its speakers. Pidginised jargons become pidgins through the process of stabilisation. Dialect mixtures may become koinés as a result of stabilisation. Stabilisation is also a component of language standardisation.
focused According to a typology of language varieties developed by the British sociolinguist Robert B. LePage, some language communities and thus language varieties are relatively more diffuse, while others are relatively more focused. Any speech act performed by an individual constitutes an act of identity. If only a narrow range of identities is available for enactment in a speech community, that community can be regarded as focused. Focused linguistic communities tend to be those where considerable standardisation and codification have taken place, where there is a high degree of agreement about norms of usage, where speakers tend to show concern for 'purity' and marking their language variety off from other varieties, and where everyone agrees about what the language is called. European language communities tend to be heavily focused. LePage points out that notions such as admixture, code-mixing, code-switching, semilingualism and multilingualism depend on a focused-language-centred point of view of the separate status of language varieties.
diffuse According to a typology of language varieties developed by the British sociolinguist Robert B. LePage, a characteristic of certain language communities, and thus language varieties. Some communities are relatively more diffuse, while others are relatively more focused. Any speech act performed by an individual constitutes an act of identity. If a wide range of identities is available for enactment in a speech community, that community can be regarded as diffuse. Diffuse linguistic communities tend to be those where little standardisation or codification have taken place, where there is relatively little agreement about norms of usage, where speakers show little concern for marking off their language variety from other varieties, and where they may accord relatively little importance even to what their language is called.
Ǹ˵2 "focused" "diffuse" ϸ춦ƱΤѼˤĤѤеηƻǡ¤ʳǰȴȿͤȤȻȤľŪɽǡɸಽ٤ιؤƤ롥Ѹˤʸ̮ǤСѸ a diffuse variety Ǥꡤʶ˸ѸűѸ focused varieties ǤȳɽǤ롥"focused" ΤʤǤ٤ꡤ٤ι⤤Τ "fixed"㤤Τ̣Ǥ "focused" ȤʤСʶ˸ѸԡűѸϸԤɽǤfixed focused ζ̤ˤĤƤϡ#929. ѸɸδפȤʤäͳ ([2011-11-12-1]) ⻲ȡ
Trudgill, Peter. A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
ΥɤˤơɤळȤŤ뽡 (reformation) θ岡ˤꡤΨޤäȤˤĤơ#3066. פȼΨ ([2017-09-18-1]) ǾҲ𤷤פΨװȤʤä櫓ǤϤʤͻӤǿʤ (printing) ڤ礭װäʡ#2927. סѡѸϰ̤θ ([2017-05-02-1])#2937. סѡѸϰ̤θ (2) ([2017-05-12-1]) ȡˡ
Фнפι뤬ݡϸۤ礭װǤϤʤäȤФƤƤ롥षװ餢äؤμפμΨ夲ΤȤľȤľʸ¾ʸΰѤ̤ƤSchaefer (1284) Ҳ𤷤Ƥ롥
. . . counter to what may be expected from the new Christian denomination with its sola scriptura doctrine, the "Reformation, which laid so much emphasis upon the written word, did not provide for everyone to read it" (Orme 2006: 335). And in that respect there is yet another perception which has been recently corrected, namely that, in contrast to previous views, it was much less Protestantism that fostered literacy in England and elsewhere in (Northern) Europe. As Charlton and Spufford (2004: 19) state, "commercial needs for education overrode all others, both before and after the Protestant Reformation", an observation which also accounts for the yet increasing literacy in the following centuries.
ʤСΨθθưϤϡŪŪʾǮȤ⾦ŪŪʼפäȤȤˤʤ嵭ΰѸνƤ
Charlton, Kenneth and Margaret Spufford. "Literacy, Society and Education." The Cambridge History of Early Modern English Literature. Ed. David Lowenstein and Janel Mueller. Cambridge: CUP, 2004.
Orme, Nicholas. Medieval Schools: From Roman Britain to Renaissance England. New Haven, CN: Yale UP, 2006.
Schaefer, Ursula. "Interdisciplinarity and Historiography: Spoken and Written English --- Orality and Literacy." Chapter 81 of English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. 2 vols. Ed. Alexander Bergs and Laurel J. Brinton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2012. 1274--88.
#2358. 饤ɤǤѸǯɽ ([2015-10-11-1])#2871. űѸΥ饤ǯɽ ([2017-03-07-1])#3164. 饤ɤǤѸǯɽ (2) ([2017-12-25-1]) ˰³⤦1ĤΥ饤ɱѸǯɽ롥
ǶεǡAlgeo and Pyles αѸ˳˴ŤǯɽǺܤ (see #3193. űѸμפʽǯɽ ([2018-01-23-1])#3196. Ѹμפʽǯɽ ([2018-01-26-1])#3197. Ѹμפʽǯɽ ([2018-01-27-1])#3200. Ѹμפʽǯɽ ([2018-01-30-1])ˡΥ饤ɤϡ Algeo and Pyles ǤȤ˺ܿŪʤ⡤ĹΤǡɤߤʤؽǤ

Algeo, John, and Thomas Pyles. The Origins and Development of the English Language. 5th ed. Thomson Wadsworth, 2005.
#3198. 2ĬήȤƤ Anglo-American European Continental ([2018-01-28-1])#3203. ʸؤ˸ϲۤʤ뤫 ([2018-02-02-1]) εǡػŪʴ顤ǯȯŸ˸ (historical_pragmatics) ˤĤƹͤϢοʬȤ˼Ҳ (historical sociolinguistics) ƱͤĹƤƤꡤμˤäƤϡ¾塤2ĤʬϹήƤȤäƤ褤̾ϤʬĹʤ뤬˼Ҳ (historical sociopragmatics) ȤʬäƤƤȤȤά "HiSoPra" ȤȤǡ1ǯۤܤǤ⤳̾θ줿ʡ#2883. HiSoPra* ˻ä (1) ([2017-03-19-1])#2884. HiSoPra* ˻ä (2) ([2017-03-20-1]) ȡˡ
20--30ǯۤɤδ֤Ρ˼Ҳء˸˼ҲפȤΰοŸˤĤơTaavitsainen (1469) 䤫˵ҤƤ1ΤǡѤ褦
Historical sociolinguistics was launched more than a decade earlier than historical pragmatics . . . . The focus is on the extent to which change in language is conditioned by the social factors identified as characterizing the dataset. In recent years, historical pragmatics and historical sociolinguistics have converged. If for example a recent definition of pragmatics by Mey . . . is taken as the point of departure, "[p]ragmatics studies the use of language in human communication as determined by the conditions of society", the difference between historical sociolinguistics and pragmatics disappears altogether, and pragmatics is always "socio-" in the European broad view of pragmatics. This reflects the European tradition; in the Anglo-American the difference is still valid. The convergence is also acknowledged by the other side as "sociolinguistics has also been enriched by developments in discourse analysis, pragmatics and ethnography" . . . . The overlap is clear and some subfields of pragmatics, such as politeness and power, are also counted as subfields of sociolinguistics. A recent trend is to deal with politeness (and impoliteness) through speech acts in the history of English . . ., but it is equally possible to take a more sociolinguistic view . . . . The two disciplines have very similar topics, and titles of talks in conference programs are often very close. Further evidence of the tendency to converge is the emerging new field of historical sociopragmatics, which deals with interaction between specific aspects of social context and particular historical language use that leads to pragmatic meanings in understanding the rich dynamics of particular situations, often combining both macro- and microlevel analysis.
Ѹؤʸ̮ǤС˸1980ǯˤĤġJucker ԤΡHistorical Pragmatics (1995) ܳŪ˴Ȥ줿ȤäƤ褤줫20ǯ;δ֤ˡȯʬؤĹƤŪˤϡΩȯƤ˼ҲؤȤͻӤΩͻʬȤƤ˼ҲܤӤĤĤ롥ʾˡ䤿Ϥ롥
Taavitsainen, Irma. "New Perspectives, Theories and Methods: Historical Pragmatics." Chapter 93 of English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. 2 vols. Ed. Alexander Bergs and Laurel J. Brinton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2012. 1457--74.
Jucker, Andreas H., ed. Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1995.
#3198. 2ĬήȤƤ Anglo-American European Continental ([2018-01-28-1]) ǿ줿褦ˡä European Continental ή˸ϡŪʸؤȿ⤤ޤ#2884. HiSoPra* ˻ä (2) ([2017-03-20-1]) ǽҤ٤ȤꡤѸ˸̾ΤȤ˸椵Ƥ¿ϡαѸˤʸŪǡ֤ȤäˤäƤײ꤬¿ʸؤ˸ϡĴ뤫ȤݥȤ並ԤμƤμ˰㤤졤ߤ˶ᤤ֤ˤ뤳ȤϳΤǤ롥ǤϡξԤδ֤Dz̤ƤꡤۤʤäƤΤTaavitsainen ˤĤƹͻƤ롥
ʸؤζߤϡʤȤäƤ̤θѼˤĤƾܤμäƤ뤳ȤѸʸؼԤˤĤƤСűѸѸɤ뷱äƤꡤʸɤ߲פäꤷƤ (Taavitsainen 1463)
ʸؼԤϤޤƱˤʸʸ̮ (context) ˤ̤ƤʤȤԤƤˡ˸̣Ǥʸ̮Ż뤹櫓Ǥ뤫顤ξʬӤĤΤȤ⤤롥˸Ǥʸ̮νŻ뤬ʬ¸ΩפȤ⤤ΰηŪǤħ롥˸ԤȤƤ Taavitsainen (1464) ۩"We need to go beyond the text and consider linguistic, non-linguistic, and situation factors that might reveal communicative functions in a systematic and principled fashion. This is a task not addressed by traditional philology or historical linguistics."
ʸؼԤ˸ԤΤˤϡоݤȤƤɤΤ褦ʥƥȤ֤ȤǤ⺹롥ʸؼԤƤʸŪͤΤƥȤФ뷹롥ΰ̣Ǥϡʸػˤˤܤ롥˸ԤϡषŪǡ¾ʤץƥȤַ롥Taavitsainen (1467) ϼΤ褦˽Ҥ٤Ƥ롥
In the times of traditional philology, literary, and religious texts, or texts with curiosity value, were considered worthy of study. These choices had consequences for historical linguistics as early studies of the language of past periods were based on these editions. The paradigm has shifted to more everyday and ephemeral materials like the interest in private correspondence, notes, (auto)biographies and handbooks. With contextual assessments, the approaches to data have become more refined, and it is interesting that literary texts are gaining an important position in historical pragmatics . . . .
٤Ȥ館Х꤬ʤɤΤȤʸؼԤǤ⤢˸ԤǤ⤢븦ԤϾʤʤ˸ʸؤݤ줿ºŤĤĤȯŸƤǡʸؤ˸Ȥ٥ΤȤ˳赤ŤƤФ褤ΤǤϤʤ
Taavitsainen, Irma. "New Perspectives, Theories and Methods: Historical Pragmatics." Chapter 93 of English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. 2 vols. Ed. Alexander Bergs and Laurel J. Brinton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2012. 1457--74.
Ѹ˸1ͼԤǤ Jucker ϥɥ֥å1ǡʬˤӤ뤤ȹͤ3ĵƤ롥ȯù (speech_act) ŪѲ (dialogue) ηȯŸäΰȯŸǤ롥ֺݤλͤȤʤ褦ϢսѤƤ
At present, three areas of research appear to be particularly promising. First, the research on the history of speech act has only just started to attract more than just occasional research efforts. . . .
Second, the research of the evolution of forms of dialogue is still in its infancy. . . . Culpeper and Kytö (2010: 2) [= Culpeper, Jonathan and Merja Kytö:. Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: CUP, 2010.] ask: "what was the spoken face-to-face interaction of past periods like?" in a systematic way and approach this question from various angles. In particular they look at the structure of conversations, at what they call "pragmatic noise", i.e. pragmatic interjections or discourse markers, and social roles and gender in interaction.
And third, the evolution of domains of discourse appears to be a very promising field of research. The existing work on courtroom discourse, the discourse of science and news discourse needs to be continued, and other domains should be tackled.
ä˺äƤ顤Ѹ˸θǰƬˤ뤤ϤŪѤǤ륳ѥԻ¿Ԥʤ褦ˤʤäƤ㤨СCorpora of Early English Correspondence (CEEC), Corpus of Early English Medical Writing (CEEM), Corpus of English Dialogues 1560-1760 (CED), Corpus of English Religious Prose (COERP), Old Bailey Corpus (OBC), The Corpus of Early English Recipes (CoER) ʤɤƤۤˤ Corpus Resource Database (CoRD) õ줿
Jucker, Andreas H. "Linguistic Levels: Pragmatics and Discourse." Chapter 13 of English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. 2 vols. Ed. Alexander Bergs and Laurel J. Brinton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2012. 197--212.
2026 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2025 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2024 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2023 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2022 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2021 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2020 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2019 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2018 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2017 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2016 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2012 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
ǽ: 2026-07-01 06:06
Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow