補文標識「の」「こと」の名詞性とその選択について

概要

論文の詳細を見る
In comparison of Kudo(1985) and Okuda(1963), we find the correspondence of NO and concrete noun, and KOTO and abstract noun. In this paper, we examine these correspondences. We find that NO is a marker that shows the end of complement sentence, and that NO has no substantial meanings. The first reason is that NO doesn't have the function to prescribe the category, which is the function of formal noun. Second is that NO is originally used to show the adnominal function. For these reasons, NO has no substantial meanings and has no categorical meanings. Hence, NO has a limited distribution and NO is used when the verb that takes a concrete noun as its complement combines with a sentence. We find that KOTO is a formal noun. We prove two facts as follows. KOTO has two functions: Koto prescribes the category and renders a concrete noun abstract. These functions characterize KOTO as an abstract noun. KOTO is used when the verb that takes an abstract noun as its complement combines with a sentence. From these aspects of KOTO we claim that it has the similar distribution as common noun takes.
奈良教育大学の論文