MOD. ST. E. [a:]昔の発達経路について
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
It has generally been believed that Mod. St.E. [a:] before [f, s, θ] and before r or r and a consonant developed from ME. a [a] in this way: a>[ae]>[ae:]+[a:]>[a:]. This process of development, however, seems to me to be the least plausible one. The reasons are as follows: (I) It is safe to assume that there existed in some earlier Mod. E. period [ae] or [ae:] for a before [f, s, θ] in London dialect which ultimately became Standard English, but there is no evidence whatever of the existence of this sound in London dialect from the end of the 15th century to the middle of the following century, during which period ME. a in an independent position had been fronted to [ae]. (2) For a before r or r and a consonant, there is no conclusive evidence, if any, of the existence of [ae] or [ae:] in London dialect before the second half of the i 7th century. (3) And what is most important, there is conclusive or nearly conclusive evidence showing that there had existed [a:] or [a:] for a before [f, s, θ, r] as early as the second half of the 16th century. Therefore, if we accept the current view, we must assume that such a complicated sound change as fronting, lengthening and then retracting was accomplished within less than one hundred years. This is too much in too short a time. It is chiefly on this score that I find it impossible to accept the current view. Then, what can be a more plausible line of development? I think there are two which may be more reasonable. One is the line of development Prof. Kokeritz assumes. In his view, Mod. St.E.[a:] before [f, s, θ] comes from nothern dialect, which did not front ME.a to [ae] but retained it. as [a] and the one before r or r and a consonant is a direct lengthening of ME.a. This can be plausible enough. The other is the way in which ME. a not only before r or r and a consonant but also before [f, s, θ] was never fronted to [ae], but was directly lengthened to [a:] in London dialect, whence Mod. St.E.[a:] developed. When we take this view, some explanation is naturally required of [ae] or [ae:] for a before [f, s, θ] in London dialect in the earlier period, for which there is conclusive rhyme or jingle evidence. The explanation is that it came from southern dialect, where a before these consonants is generally pronounced [ae] or [ae:] even nowadays. I believe this line of development can be at probable as the one Prof. Kokeritz assumes.
- 財団法人日本英文学会の論文
- 1955-03-30
著者
関連論文
- 中尾俊夫著, 『音韻における通時的普遍-最小変化の原理-』, リーベル出版, 1996年, xx+403pp.
- 生成音韻論の動向(第六部門,日本英文学会第58回大会報告)
- 中尾俊夫著, 『音韻史』(英語学大系II), 大修館書店, 昭和60年, xxx+565pp., \5800
- Masa T. Ikegami, Rhyme and Pronounciation, Some Studies of English Rhymes from Kyng Alisaunder to Skelton, 慶応義塾大学法学研究会, 昭和59年, xv+402pp., \8,700
- 音変化のメカニズム(第六部門,日本英文学会第55回大会報告)
- Studies in English Linguistics No.5, 朝日出版社, 昭和52年, 321pp., \4,500
- Randolf Quirk;The Linguist and the English Language,1974(海外新潮)
- MEeの発達過程について(日本英文学会第46回大会報告)
- Robert P. Stockwell & Ronald K. S. Macaulay (eds.), Linguistic Change and Generative Theory, Indiana University Press, 1972., xvii+301pp.
- 第五部門 変形生成文法と英語学(日本英文学会第41回大会報告)
- 服部四郎著, 「英語基礎語彙の研究」, 三省堂, 昭和43年, 1,400円(批評紹介)
- 5. 英語音声史家の課題(第四室,研究発表(第二日),日本英文学会第39回大会報告)
- Hans Kurath, A Phonology and Prosody of Modern English, Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press., 1964., 158 pp.
- MOD. ST. E. [a:]昔の発達経路について
- Joan C. Beal English Pronunciation in the Eighteenth Century Thomas Spence's 'Grand Repository of the English Language'