ɸϡޤޤ˸뤳ȤǤ롥ֲˡ§ϵ§ŪԵ§߽Фˤ¤Ե§§߽ФפȤ⤤뤷ַˤƵ§ŪʲѲϥȥԡ礵Ե§ŪѤϥȥԡפȤ⤤롥Ѳ (sound_change) (analogy) γơħޤɽΤǤʺε#5548. Ѳν̤ƹͤ ([2024-07-05-1]) ȡˡΰ⤤ˤĤƤϡʲδϢ뵭Ƥ
#1693. §ŪʲѲԵ§ŪʷѲ ([2013-12-15-1])
#838. ηϤȥȥԡ ([2011-08-13-1])
#1674. ѲȶοʿˤĤƤŪͻ ([2013-11-26-1])
ζǽ˽Ҥ٤ΤïäפФȤƤFertig ɤǤơ Sturtevant Ǥȶ줿Fertig (96) ꡤϢʬѤ롥
Long before there was a Philosoraptor, historical linguists had 'Sturtevant's Paradox': 'Phonetic laws are regular but produce irregularities. Analogic creation is irregular but produces regularity' (Sturtevant 1947: 109). It is catchy and memorable. It has undoubtedly helped generations of linguistics students remember the battle between sound change and analogy, and, on the tiny scale of our subdiscipline, it is no exaggeration to say that it has 'gone viral', making appearances in numerous textbooks . . . and other works . . . .
Τ˥åʶǤ롥Fertig ϤΥå椨˸ʤʤäƤʬΤǤϤʤȷپĤ餷Ƥ롥
Fertig, David. Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2013.
Sturtevant, Edgar H. An Introduction to Linguistic Science. New Haven: Yale UP, 1947.
Ӹ (comparative_linguistics) ζȤ٤ǯʸˡ (neogrammarian) ˤֲѲ㳰ʤפθ§ (Ausnahmslose Lautgesetze) ϡѲ (sound_change) (analogy) ̤ȤΩ衤θѲ2ĤθϡƤʤΡʤΤȤƲᤵƤ2ˤꡤäˤŪʸѲκƤޤȤۤɤθ̤Ǥ롥
ŪʥơФȿ⡤³ŪФƤ㳰ʤȤ벻Ѳ⡤ѤаΧŬѤ줿ȤƲǤΤǤϤʤȤո¤ΤȤ伫ȤóȻ (lexical_diffusion) ᤰΤʤǡ2θѲθϡߤܶᤷΤǤϤʤȹͤȤä
νפˤĤơFertig (99--100) ŸƤ롥Fertig 2̤٤ȤŪʸΩäƤϤ뤬εϥƥϡFertig Τ褦ΩΩĺҤ٤Ƥ1Ѥ (95) ñȯˤ϶ʤɿΰ۷ (variants) ȤҲθˤǤ롥
The restriction of the term 'analogical' to processes based on morpho(phono)logical and syntactic patterns has long since outlived its original rationale, but the distinction between changes motivated by grammatical relations among different wordforms and those motivated by phonetic relations among different realizations of the same wordform remains a valid and important one. The essence of the Neogrammarian 'regularity' hypothesis is that these two systems are separate and that they interface only through the mental representation of a single, citation pronunciation of each wordform. The representations of non-citation realizations are invisible to the morphological and morphophonological systems, and relations among different wordforms are invisible to the phonetic system. If we keep in mind that this is really what we are talking about when we distinguish analogical change from sound change, these traditional terms can continue to serve us well.
Ѳݤˤϡ٤äꤳ˸礦ɬפȹͤƤ롥
Fertig, David. Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2013.
Ѳ (language_change) δŪʸưϤ1ĤǤ (analogy) ˴ؤܳŪʸFertig Analogy and Morphological Change ˤĤƤεǼ夲Ƥ
Fertig Ȥcontamination ʺˤȸƤФ륿פѤˤĤƹͤƤߤֺפȤμդθݤΤʬ뤫ɤˤĤƤϵꡤ#5419. blending contamination ([2024-02-27-1]) ǤϢ夲ҤȤޤ contamination ̤ǤΤΤʤ2ĤΥפȤƳsyntagmatic contamination paradigmatic contamination Ǥ롥ȤȤ Fertig δϢսѤ (64)
Paul's initial conception of contamination (1886) involved influence attributable exclusively to paradigmatic (semantic) relations between forms, but he later (1920) recognized that lexical contamination often involves items that are not only semantically related but also frequently occur in close proximity in utterances. The importance of these syntagmatic relationships is emphasized in almost all modern accounts of contamination (Campbell 2004: 118--20 being the only exception that I am aware of). The most frequently cited examples involve adjacent numerals, which often influence each other's phonetic make-up: English eleven < Proto-Gmc. *ainlif under the influence of ten; Latin novem 'nine' instead of expected *noven under the influence of decem 'ten'; Greek dialectal hoktō 'eight' under the influence of hepta 'seven' (Osthoff 1878b; Trask 1996: 111--12; Hock and Joseph 2009: 163). Similar effects are attested in a number of languages among days of the week and months of the year, e.g. post-classical Latin Octember < Octōber under the influence of November and December.
Such contamination attributable to syntagmatic proximity of the affecting and affected items is often characterized as distant assimilation. Some scholars characterize contamination as a kind of assimilation even when it is purely paradigmatically motivated. Anttila calls it 'assimilation . . . toward another word in the semantic field' (1989: 76). Andersen (1980: 16--17) explicitly distinguishes such 'paradigmatic assimilation' from the more familiar 'syntagmatic assimilation'. As an unambiguous example of the latter, he mentions the influence of one word on another within a formulaic expression, such as French au fur et à mesure 'as, in due course' < Old French au feur et mesure (Wackernagel 1926: 49--50). Contamination involving antonyms, such as Late Latin sinexter < sinister 'left' under the influence of dexter 'right' or Vulgar Latin grevis < gravis 'heavy' under the influence of levis 'light', could be both paradigmatically and syntagmatically motivated since antonyms frequently co-occur in close proximity within an utterance, especially in questions: Is that thing heavy or light? Should I turn right or left? Wundt's view of paradigm leveling as a type of assimilation should also be mentioned in this context (Paul 1920: 116n 1).
syntagmatic contamination paradigmatic contamination 2̤ƤȤϡŪˤϽפºŪˤξԤϸߤ˾Ƥꡤʬ̤ΤǤϤʤȻפ롥paradigmatic ʴطˤ2Ԥ syntagmatic ˤ and ʤɤ³ǷФ뤳Ȥ¿դ syntagmatic ˶䤹2Ԥ paradigmatic ˤ̣Ū˶Ǥ˷ӤĤƤΤ̤
ġλ㤬줫Υפ contamination Ǥ뤳ȤǤΤɤ뤤ϤǤȤƤ⡤ȽǤƤ褤ϲȤ꤬ĤäƤ褦˻פ롥
Fertig, David. Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2013.
Ĺ餯̾ʣˤ椷ƤȤűѸǸԵ§פʣ -ru -n 줾ĸʳǤäȤΤʤäԤ ċildru "children" ʤɤˤߤ뤬ư̾äȤԤ ēagan "eyes" ʤɤˤߤ뤬̲ΰ̣ôä褦
ˤĤơFertig (38) ޥʣܼάˤʤ鶽̣äƤ롥
There are a couple of cases in Germanic where an originally derivational suffix acquired a new inflectional function after regular phonetic attrition at the ends of words resulted in a situation where the suffix only remained in certain forms in the paradigm. The derivational suffix *-es-/-os- was used in proto-Indo-European to form action nouns . . . . In West Germanic languages, this suffix was regularly lost in some forms of the inflectional paradigm, and where it survived it eventually took on the form -er (s > r is a regular conditioned sound change known as rhotacism). The only relic of this suffix in Modern English can be seen in the doubly-marked plural form children. It played a more important role in noun inflection in Old English, as it still does in modern German, where it functions as the plural ending for a fairly large class of nouns, e.g. Kind--Kinder 'child(ren)'; Rind--Rinder 'cattle'; Mann--Männer 'man--men'; Lamm--Lämmer 'labm(s)', etc. The evolution of this morpheme from a derivational suffix to a plural marker involved a complex interaction of sound change, reanalysis (exaptation) and overt analogical changes (partial paradigm leveling and extension to new lexical items). A similar story can be told about the -en suffix, which survives in modern standard English only in oxen and children, but is one of the most important plural endings in modern German and Dutch and also marks a case distinction (nominative vs. non-nominative) in one class of German nouns. It was originally a derivational suffix with an individualizing function . . . .
child(ren), eye(s), ox(en) ˴ؤϡޤǤ͡˼夲ƤʲΥƥȡ
hellog #946. ̾ʣˤγס ([2011-11-29-1])
hellog #146. child ʣ children ʤ櫓 ([2009-09-20-1])
hellog #145. child children 첻Ĺ ([2009-09-19-1])
hellog #218. ʣ ([2009-12-01-1])
hellog #219. eyes ɽ172ֻ̤ ([2009-12-02-1])
hellog #2284. eye ȯˡ ([2015-07-29-1])
hellog-radio ʢ heldio ȡ #31. ʤ child ʣ children ʤΤǤ
heldio #202. child children 첻Ĺ
heldio #291. ͺ ox ʣ oxen
heldio #396. ʤ I eye ƱȯˤʤΡ
Fertig, David. Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2013.
ѸˤǤϡؼ that 괧 the ʬΩǤ뤳ȤΤƤ롥űѸ괧ʵŪˤϻؼǤꡤޤ괧ȤƤˡǤ˳ΩƤϤʤäص夳Τ褦˸ƤǤˤ se ʤ˱ƶޤ͡ʷ֤äΤʤñʡгʤη֤ þæt ä줬Ѹλؼ that η־Ǥ롥θűѸλ˴դߤȡthat the 1֤ˤʤȤȤˤʤ롥
Ǥϡʤθ that the ֥롼פȴФΩؼȤȯãΤűѸ줫Ѹˤơ괧͡ʶ֤ the ȤƱ֤ؤȿʿƤäή줬³Сthe 1ˤʤ that 䤬ƾä椯̿ǤϤäȤthat ϻؼȤ̤εǽä椯̿æ뤳ȤǤΤǤ롥ΤˤСȤ the ȤˤؼεǽϤäȤˡλؼεǽ the å褦ˤ that ΩȤȤĤޤꡤؼ that εǽ the ߤƤȤˤʤ롥θ塤¸ΡֶΡפλؼ this ȤʬĴ˿ʤߡthat ϡֱΡפλؼȤƳΩ˻ä
Fertig (37--38) ϡΰϢθѲŬ (exaptation) λȤƾҲ𤷤Ƥ롥
A simple example can be seen in the modern survival of two singular forms from the Old English demonstrative paradigm: the and that. The contrast between these two forms originally reflected a gender distinction; that (OE þæt) was an exclusively neuter form, while the predecessors of the were non-neuter. One would expect one of these forms to have been lost with the collapse of grammatical gender. They survived by being redeployed for the distinction between definite article (the) and demonstrative (that).
ؼ that ȯãȴϢơʲ heldio hellog ΥƥĤȡ
heldio #493. ؼ this, that, these, those θ츻
hellog #154. űѸη se ζޡ ([2009-09-28-1])
hellog #156. űѸ se ʻϲ ([2009-09-30-1])
Fertig, David. Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2013.
ػˤΥϥɥ֥åɤǤ롥Mufwene θεʲ˴ؤϤǤϡޤǤƤƤ͡ʸ쵯ʲҲ𤵤Ƥꡤɤβͤ롥
褯Ѥʵ1ĤˡθʣäΤ뤤ñäΤȤε˴ؤΤ롥ʲδϡʳ鸽ޤǸñ㲽ƤΤʣƤΤȤϢ뵿䤬Ƥ롥
ʬʤΩˤĤƤԤ롥㤨СԤΤ Jespersen ȡԤ Bickerton ϹоȤʤMufwene (31) βѤ褦
His [= Jespersen's] conclusion is that the initial language must have had forms that were more complex and non-analytic; modern languages reflect evolution toward perfection which must presumably be found in languages without inflections and tones. It is not clear what Jespersen's position on derivational morphology is. In any case, his views are at odds with Bickerton's . . . hypothesis that the protolanguage, which allegedly emerged by the late Homo erectus, was much simpler and had minimal syntax, if any. While Bickerton sees in pidgins fossils of that protolanguage and in creoles the earliest forms of complex grammar that could putatively evolve from them, Jespersen would perhaps see in them the ultimate stage of the evolution of language to date. Many of us today find it difficult to side with one or the other position.
ξرĤȤȼ˴ŤƤꡤ⤽ΤɤǧʤʤΤǡʿɤ餶ʤޤʣñȤϲȤ̤ΩϤ롥ǸˤĤƤϡ#1839. ñ㲽Ȥϲ ([2014-05-10-1])#4165. ʣˤĤƺƹ͡ ([2020-09-21-1]) ʤɤȡ
Mufwene, Salikoko S. "The Origins and the Evolution of Language." Chapter 1 of The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics. Ed. Keith Allan. Oxford: OUP, 2013. 13--52.
ī6ˡܥ֥λǤȤ⤤벻֥ Voicy ֱѸθ츻ȤˤĤ饸 (heldio)ۿƤޤ2024ǯ heldio ΥơޤѲ (language_change) Ǥ礭ʥơޤʤΤǼ夲Ƥ¿ˤ錄ޤ̤ʤΤ1Ĥʸˡ (grammaticalisation) ޤܥ֥Ǥ#417. ʸˡȤϡ ([2010-06-18-1]) ϤȤơ¿εܤƤޤ
轵heldio ˤ5Ϣ³ʸˡĶȤʤϤޤŪʸˡƳȤʤޤ˥ޤȤƤޤ
#988. 夦夦ñȤñ --- Ƹȵǽ
#989. ƸȵǽΤ줾ħӤ
#990. ʸˡȤϲ
#991. while ʸˡ
#992. while ʸˡ³ˡ
ʰʲ嵭
#1001. ѸʸˡˤĤΤꤿʤ --- ݺƻͺˡʸˡѸ١ʳҡ2014ǯˡ
#1003. There is an apple on the table. --- Ϥɤ졩
ʸ嵭ޤǡ
5äϥࡼˤĤʤäƤΤǡİƤȤ褤ȻפޤüİȤϡ濴Ȥʤ#990. ʸˡȤϲǤ⥷ȤϤĤȻפޤ
äܳŪʸˡؤӤȤϡܥ֥ grammaticalisation γƵä˽פʵĤƤޤ
#1972. Meillet ʸˡ ([2014-09-20-1])
#1974. ʸˡȯŸȳ (1) ([2014-09-22-1])
#1975. ʸˡȯŸȳ (2) ([2014-09-23-1])
#2575. Ѳΰ ([2016-05-15-1])
#2576. æʸˡȸò ([2016-05-16-1])
#3273. Lehman ˤʸˡμ١6 ([2018-04-13-1])
#3272. ʸˡ2ĤΥᥫ˥ ([2018-04-12-1])
#3281. Hopper and Traugott ˤʸˡܼ ([2018-04-21-1])
#5124. Oxford Bibliographies ˤʸˡγס ([2023-05-08-1])
ε#5381. ʸˡƻڤʸˡ٤ޤѥ ([2024-01-20-1]) ǡWischer ȤʸˡƻڤȡȴϢѥҲ𤷤Ȥʸˡ (grammaticalisation) ȤˤϡŪñ̤Ūñ̤ؤѲδŪʥѥȤǧƤĤޤꡤޤ̿ǤʸˡŪѲȤƤȤ館ƤΤǤ롥
̿ꥹפιƥ (text) (discourse) Ȥ٥˴ؤ롤⤦1ĤΥפʸˡ뤳Ȥ狼äƤWischer (356) Traugott Ȥư (unidirectionality) ްդ뼡ηϩƤ롥
proposition text discourse
òȤ⤤٤פʸˡϡפʸˡȤ¿ǰۤʤäƤ롥ºݡѥϡΥפˤϤޤƤϤޤʤ(1) attrition ˤĤƤϡΤ˲ν̣̾ɺʤȤ櫓Ѳˤ䤹ȤϤ롥(2) paradigmaticization ϤޤäƤϤޤʤ(3) obligatorification ˤĤƤϡʸˡ줿٤ϹޤΤΡʸˡ§Τ褦ʵ̳ϵʤ(4) condensation ˴ؤƤϥפ϶ޤΤǤϤʤषȤ뤷(5) coalescence ʤ(6) fixation ˤĤƤϡŪ֤ˤϷ뤬ɬ⸷̩˸ꤵ櫓ǤϤʤ
ʸˡεǤϡΤ褦2ĤΥפƤΤΡ줾줬ȼħäƤ뤿ᡤ̤Ƥ٤
Wischer, Ilse. "Grammaticalization versus Lexicalization: 'Methinks' there is some confusion." Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English. Ed. Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach, and Dieter Stein. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000. 355--70.
Traugott, E. C. "From Propositional to Textual and Expressive Meanings: Some Semantic-Pragmatic Aspects of Grammaticalization." Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Ed. W. P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1982. 245--71.
ѲΥᥫ˥ȤƸ椬ޤäƤƤʸˡ (grammaticalisation) ˤĤƤϡ#417. ʸˡȤϡ ([2010-06-18-1]) Ϥ¿εǼ夲Ƥϡ¿ԸȤ Wischer ʸƬʬͤˡʸˡŵŪƻڤʸˡ٤ޤѥҲ𤹤롥
ޤ Wischer (356) Givón (1979: 209) ȤĤġʸˡ1ĤŵŪʷϩȤưʲΥѥƳ롥
discourse syntax morphology morphophonemics zero
ʸˡǤϡ˼Ѳ (unidirectionality) ФȤʤ롥
³ Wischer (356) ϡLehmann (1985: 307--08) ȤĤġʸˡ٤ޤѥ
1. "attrition": the gradual loss of semantic and phonological substance;
2. "paradigmaticization": the increasing integration of a syntactic element into a morphological paradigm;
3. "obligatorification": the choice of the linguistic item becomes rule-governed;
4. "condensation": the shrinking of scope;
5. "coalescence": once a syntactic unit has become morphological, it gains in bondedness and may even fuse with the constituent it governs;
6. "fixation": the item loses its syntagmatic variability and becomes a slot filler.
ƤСʸˡȤϡ«ʤŪñ̤٤¤줿ʸˡŪǤƤƤȤȤ館뤳ȤǤ롥
Wischer, Ilse. "Grammaticalization versus Lexicalization: 'Methinks' there is some confusion." Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English. Ed. Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach, and Dieter Stein. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000. 355--70.
Givón, Talmy. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic P, 1979.
Lehmann, Chr. "Grammaticalisation: Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change." Lingua e stile 20 (1985): 303--18.
Fertig (76) "Analogical non-change" ꤹΤʤǡѸε§Ūʣ -s ˤơ (analogy) ˤĤäʻƤ롥
. . . stasis over time can be just as interesting a historical phenomenon as change (Janda and Joseph 2003: 83, 86). Although accounts of analogy rarely call attention to the fact, there are a number of examples in the literature where the mechanisms of morphological change are invoked to account for an absence of overt change, i.e. for the survival of an element, construction or distinction. Saussure (1995 [1916]: 236--7) reminds us that analogy2 is just as much responsible for the lack of change in the inflection of most forms that have always belonged to dominant, regular classes as it is for change in other, primarily irregular items. English speakers, for example, form the plural of dozens of nouns such as stone, eel, oath, comb, stool, etc. essentially the same way they were formed in Old English, not because each of these plurals has been transmitted perfectly across all the generations, but rather primarily because analogy2 yields exactly the same results as if the forms had been transmitted perfectly. These nouns all belong to the dominant class that formed their plurals with -as in Old English so even if English speakers never memorize any of them and always rely on analogy2 to recreate them, they continue to come up with the same forms that were used in the past.
Fertig ϡѲΤߤʤ餺̵ѲطʤˤؿԤǤ롥#4228. ˸ؤϡ֤ʤѲפǤʤ֤ʤѲʤäפ䤦 ([2020-11-23-1]) Ǥ⡤Fertig νפʻŦѤƤ롥̵ѲˤյȤˤĤƤϡ#2115. ݻȸѲؤ ([2015-02-10-1])#2208. Ѹư̤ζޤʤΤϤʤ ([2015-05-14-1])#2220. ѸǸƬͭʤäͳ ([2015-05-26-1])#2574. ־ѰۤꡤѲäƤס ([2016-05-14-1]) ⻲Ȥ줿
ǯ Voicy ֱѸθ츻ȤˤĤ饸 (heldio)פμѲ (language) Ʊ̵ͤѲ夲Ƥǯ2ۿ⤼Ҥİ
#945. ʤѲΤ (2024/01/01)
#947. ʤѲʤΤ (2024/01/03)
Fertig, David. Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2013.
heldio #955. ̯ʱʸ̣臘ʥʤӴϢˡۿܥ֥ǤƱСƤ
#4229. Fertig ˤ analogy ([2020-11-24-1]) #5336. Fertig ˤ analogy ܳŪܼ ([2023-12-06-1]) ǾҲ𤷤 Fertig analogy ˴ؤ븦ƬϡΤ褦ʱʸ㼨Ǿ롥
A book about analogy and morphological change? That is so not what I was expecting. I never imaginated there'd ever be such a book. I guess I had another thing coming. Who'd of thunk it?
αʸˤ (analogy) ӤȴϢβ㤬4ġʤ뤤5ġ˴ޤޤƤ롥٤Ƥλ㡤뤤˻ƤǤ롥줾⤹1ѤƤ
The short paragraph above contains at least four recognizable examples of some of the different kinds of innovations that we will be exploring in this book. That is so not . . . is an example of analogical change in syntax. Until recently, the intensifier so could only be used directly before an adjective or adverb. Now some speakers regularly use it in other syntactic contexts, such as before the negative particle not. This change can be attributed to the analogy of other intensifiers such as really . . . . The next sentence contains the verb imaginate, which sounds very odd to many English speakers today but has been around since 1541. It means the same thing as the much more common and older verb imagine and may have been created by backformation from the noun imagination, on the analogical model of pairs like speculation--speculate, dedication--dedicate, etc. The fourth sentence contains an altered version of the familiar expression to have another think coming, meaning 'to be seriously mistaken about something'. For at least a century, English speakers/learners have sometimes mistaken the word think in this expression for thing. This kind of change is called folk etymology. It occurs when speakers identify one element in an expression with a different, often historically unrelated element. The word of (for 've) in the final sentence of the paragraph could also be considered folk etymology. Finally, thunk is obviously an innovative past-participle form corresponding to standard thought. It is based on analogical models such as sink--sank--sunk or stick--stuck.
ɽΤΤޤᤤĤɤȽȡinnovations, analogical change, backformation, analogical model, folk_etymology ʤɤäƤ롥Fertig ܤǤϡѸ䳵ǰǫ˵ƤˤʺѡˤθɬɽǤ롥

Fertig, David. Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2013.
ī6ˤϤƤ Voicy ֱѸθ츻ȤˤĤ饸 (heldio)2024ǯơޤϡָѲ (language_change) ǤΡhellog~Ѹ˥֥פǤĹˤ錄äܤƤȥԥåǤǥ heldio Ѥơ깭֤ʤȥФѲΤפȤ̥ŪϤƤȻפޤꤤޤ
heldio ͥ2021ǯ62˳ߤ2ǯ7ۤɤδ֡īѸˤ˴ؤ뤪äϤƤޤheldio 2ǯ2023ǯ62ˤϡͭǤȤʤץߥꥹʡۿֱͥѸˤ (helwa)פ⥪ץޤʤ轵ڤθ6ۿƤޤˡ
ϥ֥ Voicy Υǥ̤ơֱѸˤδ֤ˡƤȤåȡȤƤޤhelסʱѸ˳ưˤʤƤ椯ֽÿ͡פˤϤޤ褦ˤʤޤդ˴ޤhelÿͤΤˤޤʲˤҲ𤷤ޤ
khelfʷѸ˥եˤΥСhelפκαΤǤرѸ˿ʹǴԤƤޤHP ǤιΤۤXʵĥå˥ @khelf_keio hel桥
heldio/helwa ΥꥹʡγۿؤΥȡSNS ̤Ƥιؤλá¾helǤäˤʤäƤޤȤ櫓Ƕܤ٤SNSǤγưȤƤϡ
- ꥹʡ umisio ˤ2024ǯֱѸˤء77ױѸ츻ŵɤࡥΡȴֱѸˤθŵŪ̾ Baugh and Cable ɤ34ˤΥΡȤäɡ
- ꥹʡ kitako ˤheldio2024ǯ1
- Ʊ kitako ˤǤ heldio ۿξҲ
ܤĥޤ
heldio/helwa ̽бԤθԤγˤ⤪äˤʤäƤޤä˽б¿ΰϡȻפäƤޤ̤ϰʲΤȼˤޤȤƤΤɤ
- 콤ءˤ HP
- ڹʷܳرءˤ HP
Ƥܥ֥ɤߤƤ볧ˤⴶդޤθ X @chariderryu ȯƤޤΤǡҥեꤤפޤ
helٱ˴դޤ³ֱѸˤδ֤ˡפαꤤޤƱݤεȤơ#5256. heldio/hel ([2023-09-17-1]) ⤴С
ε#5265. ĤߡĴظܼ١2023ǯˡ ([2023-09-26-1]) ǾҲ𤷤ȯŪƤ뿷ظܼꡥ
ܽΥᥤε̣ɤͤ뤳Ȥϴְ㤤ʤäΤܽκǸŪ桦ǡָ縶§Ƥ뤳Ȥ֥ۥåȤθĥäơɮԤιָͤ縶§פҤ٤ơܽꤿ (257) ȽҤ٤Ƥ롥
ƹܤγƲվˤĤƸƤƤȤ⤷ȤʣͤǵƤΤ⥨ƥΤˡ7վΤޤްѤƤ (257--61)
ܼŪħ
(1) ̣뤳
ϰ̣ɽ
ηϰ̣ˡ̣Ϸ˷ӤĤƤơξԤδطˤ
ϥޡĶۤãǽˤ
ϰտޤäȯä졤ȯäϼˤäƲᤵ
̣ϿˤäƺФ졤ˤäƲᤵ
ääȯðտޤʹβפȤϸ¤ʤ
(2) Ѳ뤳ȡ
ϤȡʷỌ̇̄¤ƴæ褦ȤϤδ֤襤Ǥ
ŵŪʷ̣ΰ̲ȤƤϴ˹äƤƤ⡤˽ʤСָפ뤤ϡԼפȸʤ
쥳ߥ˥ƥȾʷ̣ȤС줬¸η̣Ȥο魯
ѲԲǤ
(3) ŪǤ뤳
ϾơǥŪ˵沽
沽Τϥߥ˥ƥʸ˰¸롥Ĥޤꡤΰ̣ʸ˰¸
ʸ¿ͤǤΤǡɬŪ¿ӤʤꡤʤäƤ
(4) ƥǤ뤳
ǡñܼʤɡˤϡñȤǤϰ̣ʤ
Ǥ椵졤۲뤳Ȥǰ̣ĥƥǤ
ñΰ̣ϰϤϡƥγǰʬˤ¾ñ췲ȤδطˤäƷޤ롥Ĥޤꡤñΰ̣ǰʬɤΤ褦ڤʬ졤¤Ƥơñ줬Ǥɤΰ֤뤫ˤäƷޤ롥Ȥˡ̣ܤñȤκۤˤäƤñΰ̣ޤ
äơ֥פ֥륯פΤ褦ˤäȤγŪǶŪʳǰؤñǤΰ̣ŪǤ
(5) ĥŪǤ뤳
ŪǤ롥ǤФǤߤȤ߹碌뤳Ȥdzĥ
ΰ̣ϴȡȤˤäƹ
ƥǤΰ̣η֤Сñ줬
μĥѻĶ̥ᥫ˥ǽˤ
ϼŪĹĥʲƤ
(6) ŪǤ뤳
ʣδХƥˤƿΤϤƤ
ΰ̣Ǥϸϥޥ⡼¸ߤǤ
ϤĤͤˤλȤǤʹ֤ξ˱褤䤹褦˼η
ϥޥ⡼˿ΤϤȡˤäƳĥ졤ηϲ
βˤäƥҥȤϤȤФ˿ΤȤΤĤʤȴ롥Ū˻ƤʤƱΤˤ褦ˤʤꡤȤȤγŪȶ̤ĤʤʤŪȯȥء
ʸ˺Ūϡ¿ࡥϿŪʤĤʤȯĥƼ¸Ƥ롥ΤȤˤꡤϡʹ֤Ǥʤ褦ʳĥλϤʤޤ콬ǽôݤƤ
(7) ѹդξΩäƤ뤳
ϿŪǤ뤬ƱŪǤꡤŪǤ
ʤĤͤѲʴȤϤȿ¤褦ȤϤζѹա
¿ͤǤʤ顤ƱŪ¦̤ޤ
ϡΥߥ˥ƥˤơŪ̻Ūݼ颫ΰæ¿ʤɡʣμˤĤȿ˸٥ȥζѹΩ
Ĥߡ ظܼ --- ȤФϤɤޤ졤ʲ١2023ǯ

οظܼسǤϤǤ¿ΥǥǼ夲졤ȤʤäƤ롥ҤΥȤǤߥߤƤꡤ夬ͻҤ狼롥
䤬ƱνΰʼȤȤ˱ĤƤ YouTube ΡְʼδѸظإͥפǤ#141. ٥ȥ顼ܡĤߡĴظܼ٤äƤߤޤ2ۤ˾Ҳ𤷤Ƥ롥ޤ͵ YouTube/Podcast ֤ͥإ饸Ǥ⡤ܽԤ1ͤǤ뺣Ĥνбޤ¿δϢۿƤ롥
ܽǤϡ(1) θظǤϼŪʰƤΥޥȥ (onomatopoeia) ʲ콬νʳˤƤ礭餸Ƥꡤ(2) δפξˡ (abduction) Ȥҥȸͭο˶ưǡǽϤȯŸ夷Ƥʡ֡ȥȥåԥ˥ǥ뤬ƤƤ롥ǥǤϤΤΡ˭٤Ը˴ŤĤȯãؤμ¾ڼ¸Ǥ줿ˤϡŪʳ롥
ܽϡѲѰۤͤǤ⼨ŪʻŦ٤ࡥϤǤ7Ρָ縶§פƤƤ뤬2ܤˡѲ뤳ȡפǤƤ롥Ѥ (258)
ϤȡʷỌ̇̄¤ƴæ褦ȤϤδ֤襤Ǥ
ŵŪʷ̣ΰ̲ȤƤϴ˹äƤƤ⡤˽ʤСָפ뤤ϡԼפȸʤ
쥳ߥ˥ƥȾʷ̣ȤС줬¸η̣Ȥο魯
ѲԲǤ
ϡݻ褦ȤϤѲ褦ȤϤɹȶѹդˤꡤɤѲƤȤϤηϤȤƤϰݻƤȤޤưŪʿ (dynamic_equilibrium) θԻĤ¸ߤǤ뤳ȤǤƤ롥
ظܼҤɤ
Ĥߡ ظܼ --- ȤФϤɤޤ졤ʲ١2023ǯ
Voicy ֱѸθ츻ȤˤĤ饸 (heldio)ˤơ#844. ¾ưȤϲ --- ¼Ȥ̡ۿޤ30ʬۤɤǻ̩ transitivity ̵ǤΤ#5184. ¼إꥹůؼԤαѸ١ʳҡ2023ǯˡ ([2023-07-07-1]) ε˴Ť̵ȤʤäƤޤΤǡ⤴ФȻפޤ
̤ǤƤ̤ꡤ¾ưȤŪʻɸȤϡŪϢ³ŪǥץȥŪʻɸǤ¾ưꤹѥ͡ޤˤöλϰۤʤޤ줯餤٤ι⤤ǰǤϤޤ餳Ūʸνݤ˴ؤäƤΤǤꡤŪˤⶽ̣Ȥʤ櫓Ǥ (agentivity) Ѳ (subjectification) ȤǰȤʣ˴ϢƤ褦ǡ碌ƸѲĬήҤͭ˾ƻΩƤȤʤꤽǤ
¾ưˤĤƤϡܥ֥Ǥ⼡εƤޤͤޤǡ
#5202. ¾ư (transitivity) Ȥϲ ([2023-07-25-1])
#5204. ¾ư (transitivity) Ȥϲ (2) ([2023-07-27-1])
#5209. ¾ư (transitivity) Ȥϲ (3) ([2023-08-01-1])
Ϣͭ̾˴ؤϤƤ롥
̾̾ˤ褯ߤ뤬ƱؼоݤǤʤ顤ˤäưۤʤ̾ǸƤФ륱롥̻Ū̾Ѳ (name change) Ǥ롥ƱˡƱؼоݤФʣ̾ͿƤ륱롥Ū¿̾ (polynymy) Ǥ롥ͭ̾ǤϤʤ̾ǤС줾ָ֤ (onomasiological change) ȡƱ (synonymy) б
ε#5246. hydronymy --- ̾椹ʬ ([2023-09-07-1]) ǻȡѤ Strandberg (111) Ǥϡ̾ name change polynymy ˤĤơȤȤƳʤƤ롥
Name change is a common phenomenon in the history of hydronyms. In England, Blyth was replaced by Ryton, Granta by Cam, Hail by Kym, Writtle by Wid, etc. During a transitional stage of polynymy, there must often have existed both an older name and a new one. Trent (< Terente) is an alternative name for the river Piddle in Dorset. In Denmark, an older Guden and a younger Storå(en) were for a long time used in parallel for the same river.
Polynymy may also involve the simultaneous existence of different names for different parts of a (long) river. There are, for example, cases where the upper and lower reaches of a river have different names. The upper part of the Wylye in Wiltshire, England is called the Deverill, and the source of the French river Marne has the name Marnotte. A present-day name for a long river may have replaced several old ones denoting different stretches of it. The Nyköpingsån is a long and large river in Sweden; its name is formally secondary, containing the town name Nyköping. Two lost partial names of the Nyköpingsån (Blakka, Sølnoa) are recorded in medieval sources, while others, like *Sledh and *Vrena, may be or probably are preserved in names denoting settlements on the river; the current partial name Morjanån most likely goes back to an OSwed. *Morgha.
̾ǤСƱʪܤ˲̾ (name change)˥å͡䤢̾ʣ (polynymy) Ȥͭ̾κΰյϡؼоݤƱ̾ˤ깱Ū˳ݤˤϤȹͤƤ̾Ѳ¿̾ϡषεդԤΤǤ롥̣븽ݤ
Strandberg, Svante. "River Names." Chapter 7 of The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming. Ed. Carole Hough. Oxford: OUP, 2016. 104--14.
ʸˡ (grammaticalisation) ϡޤؤμפΰƤ롥ϸˡ˸ءѲʸ̮鸽ƤǰߤǤǧθؤ䥳ѥؤȤӤĤʸˡˤưĬήƤ롥ʸˡζŪϡ̣ǥСΤ¿ΤΡФвˡʤɳƼ̤ؤϤ߽ФƤΤạ̇̄Ǥ1ĤθؤȤߤʤƤ褤ۤɤǤ롥
Oxford Bibliographies ϡʬȤŪ˥åץǡȤĤľҲ𤷤Ƥפʥ "Grammaticalization" ιܤΩƤƤ롥D. Gary Miller Elly van Gelderen ˤǡǽ2016ǯǽӥ塼2022ǯȤʤäƤ롥ʸ˥ˤϥ֥饤֤ɬפǤ롥ǤϡA4ǰ13ڡۤɤˤ錄Ƭʬ "Introduction" ΤߤѤƤ *
The essence of grammaticalization is the evolution of a lexical category to a grammatical one or of a hybrid/functional category to another grammatical category. The first involves changes such as that of the verb have from "possess" to the marker of the perfect tense. The second involves changes such as that of to from a preposition (a hybrid category in English) to an infinitive marker or such as that of a demonstrative (e.g., the Latin ille 'that') to a definite article (the Italian il, the Spanish el, and so on). These changes have attracted attention for hundreds of years and are very well known. More recently, additional conditions and stipulations have been placed on this leading idea, but the essence remains the same.
Oxford Bibliographies ξҲ𥷥 hellog Ȥơʲ⻲ȡ
#4631. Oxford Bibliographies ˤ̣Ѳγס ([2021-12-31-1])
#4634. Oxford Bibliographies ˤѸ˸ˡ ([2022-01-03-1]) ⻲ȡ
#4742. Oxford Bibliographies ˤѲγס ([2022-04-21-1])
Voicy ֱѸθ츻ȤˤĤ饸 (heldio) ǤϡkhelfʷѸ˥եˤرС3̾ȤȤ#600. إ˥¼ŵ٤ --- ѸȥθˡϤޤȥʲҤ˴ؤ륭ɤˤĤơإ˥¼ŵ٤νǤǿ6ǤޤǤ١Ѹˤ칶4ͤ䤳Ȥ٤ꤷƤޤճȯ꼡ǡ夬Ȥʤޤ30ʬۤɤĹǤ֤ΤȤˤİФȻפޤVoicy Υȵǽˤꡤۤʤɤ⤪ޤȴǤ
Ӥإ˥¼ŵ٤6ĤǤνǯޤȤƤޤ5--8ǯߤǡ褽Ū˽ǤƤꡤ1ĤΥŵDZѸεҤ̻Ūɤ뤳ȤǽȤʤäƤޤ
| ǯ | |
|---|---|
| G1 | 1987ǯ |
| G2 | 1993ǯ |
| G3 | 2001ǯ |
| G4 | 2006ǯ |
| G5 | 2014ǯ |
| G6 | 2022ǯ |
#4952. ˤҿ (prestige) Ȥϡ ([2022-11-17-1]) ȡ#4953. ˤ (stigma) Ȥϡ ([2022-11-18-1]) ǡˤҿ (prestige) ƳѲˤʤΤǤꡤѸˤͤǤ⸰Ȥʤ복ǰѸǤ롥
üԡʽġˤϡܤͿƤΰҿꡤռŪ뤤̵ռŪˡθưƤ롥Ĥޤꡤΰҿ˶ŤȤꡤΰҿΥ֤Ȥ뤳ȤǡμҲˤΩ֤ͭˤ褦ȹưƤΤǤ롥η̤ȤƸѲ륱롥Τ褦ˤѲϡüԤռŪ˸ưƤˤ change from above ȸƤФ졤̵ռξˤ change from below ȸƤФ롥ռΡ־夫פѲʤΤֲפѲʤΤȤȤǤ롥
־夫פѲϼҲؤξνĤȷӤĤħָ뤳ȤꡤȿФˡֲפѲϼҲؤβνĤθħָ뤳Ȥ롥ĤޤꡤռΡ־岼פȼҲؤΡ־岼פϢư뤳Ȥ¿Labov ˤäƳ줿ꥸʥ "change from above" "change from below" ϡޤüԤΰռξ夫ȤܤǰѸǤ뤳ȤĴƤ
Trudgill Ѹ켭ŵꡤ줾Ѥ롥
change from above In terminology introduced by William Labov, linguistic changes which take place in a community above the level of conscious awareness, that is, when speakers have some awareness that they are making these changes. Very often, changes from above are made as a result of the influence of prestigious dialects with which the community is in contact, and the consequent stigmatisation of local dialect features. Changes from above therefore typically occur in the first instance in more closely monitored styles, and thus lead to style stratification. It is important to realise, however, that 'above' in this context does not refer to social class or status. It is not necessarily the case that such changes take place 'from above' socially. Change from above as a process is opposed by Labov to change from below.
change from below In terminology introduced by William Labov, linguistic changes which take place in a community below the level of conscious awareness, that is, when speakers are not consciously aware, unlike with changes from above, that such changes are taking place. Changes from below usually begin in one particular social class group, and thus lead to class stratification. While this particular social class group is very often not the highest class group in a society, it should be noted that change from below does not means change 'from below' in any social sense.
Trudgill, Peter. A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
#4892. ͽΡإ˥¼ŵ6ǤοߥֱѸQ&AפξҲ ([2022-09-18-1]) ǤΤ餻ޤ8ǯ֤βǤȤʤإ˥¼ŵ6Ǥ118ȯȤʤޤ36ñΤȤǥֱѸQ&AפƤƤƤޤꤤޤ

6ǤޤƬˡ8ǯ֤ۤɤαѸ괬ˡѲΤͤפäȤƤޤ
إ˥¼ŵ5ǤȯԤ줿2014ǯʹߡǥ벽γ硤ͥåȤοƩĹʲҡ˴ؤҲѲʤɤȿǤơѸθáʸˡʸ̤ѲΤ꤬ͤ䤨ʤää̤ǤϾ嵭μҲݤȿǤ뿷ä SDGs, LGBTQ ʤɤάˤѲȤʸˡ̤ˤⲡϡΤ heפοࡤñ theyפƬǤ롥Ѹ1400ǯƬˤ顤Ѹ1600ǯȾˤˤƵä첻ܡ (The Great Vowel Shift) ˤʤ館ƻˡThe Great Pronoun Shift ̾ܡˡפȤƤФ졤̾Ȥߤ뤫⤷ʤۤɤѲǤ롥ʸΡʥԡ٥ˤ˴ؤƤȡޤǤϽȤС(())äȤС((ά)) ȤǰäͥåȤ SNS ֥ʤɤǤϡä褦˽פȤΤήǡΡä褦˽ץ뤬ͥåȰʳνȤФˤ礷ơΤȤƤߤСȤФΥեޥ벽ʤǤ롥
ˤϡǯαѸѲΤ꤬ͤΤ褯ޤȤƤ롥Τ˿̾ܡȤФΥեޥ벽ΤλŦ⡤˼Ҳؤ˸Ω줫륿Ǥ롤ޤΤ褦ʷ餯֤äƤȤϤΤ鷺ǯۤɤδ֤߲ƤȤˤϲƶäؤʤۤɸѲ⥹ԡɤ®Τ
إ˥¼ŵ٤οǤϡ嵭Τ褦ʱѸʤӱѸؽˤ괬ǶѲ˴դߡ礭8Ĥ¦̤ˤƲäȤ (1) Ͽäθľ(2) ѥѤΥθľ(3) ȯɽθľ(4) 졦˴ؤŪʸľ(5) ˡν¤ȥåץǡȡ(6) ֤ĤʤʶˡפȤƤƳ(7) ֱѸQ&AפȡָΤߡפοߡ(8) ̥ǥΰ쿷8Ǥ롥
䤬ɮƤֱѸQ&AפοߤϡǶαѸѲΤͤȤδߤСŵˤŪʥݥȤˤߤ뤫⤷ʤ嵭Τ褦˺ѸϤû֤δ֤ˤĤѲ뤲Ƥꡤ⤳ή³ƤȤͽۤ롥ĤޤꡤѸؽԤϤΤ褦ʸѲȤɬǤ餤ĤƤȤ;ʤΤǤ롥θѲ®١ࡤϤ˵Ťб뤿ˤϡȤƸΩĻαѸƤѲ®١ࡤϤƤȤΩġ
αѸѲϳΤϲαѸƤѲαĹˤ뤳ȤΤǤ롥Ѹˤ˿ƤळȤϡв뤳Ȥ˹ޤˤŪª뤳ȤǽˤƤ
ʥǤϤޤֱѸQ&AפΤ褦ʴ̣äƤйǤ
ˡԽ紴ˡإ˥¼ŵ6ǡ罤۽Ź2023ǯ
Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow