Knowledge base · source

Takahashi 2013

Takahashi Yasushige 髙橋靖以 (2013). 十勝方言における証拠性と叙述類型[Evidentiality and predication types in the Tokachi dialect].

prior-analysis hokkaido text held locally

Chapters citing this source

Examples cited from this source

Sentences of the first edition citing this source

1. Six further dialect areas enter the description where sources allow: Shizunai (SHI), documented most fully by ; Horobetsu (HOR), the subject of Takahashi's morphosyntactic studies ; Tokachi (TOK), whose dialect is documented in Takahashi's Tokachi example collection and evidentiality and deixis studies ; Ishikari (ISH), described by ; and the more sparsely attested Asahikawa (ASA) and Yakumo (YAK) areas. no page The Dialect Sample and the Corpus-Quantification Method
2. Takahashi's study of Tokachi Ainu shows that individual-level (permanent) property predicates select the trace nominalizer ru rather than the visual nominalizer sir, because the visual form is restricted to stage-level (transient) predicates . 131–133 Property-Concept (Adjectival) Predication without a Copula
3. Dialect evidence reinforces the contrast: southern Hokkaido (Saru, Chitose) uses the possessed forms in the clause-final evidential frame, while Tokachi and Ishikari close the clause with the bare concept forms ru, sir, haw, hum ; . 129–131 Lexical-Head and Formal-Noun Nominalization (kur, uske, ruwe/hawe/siri/humi)
4. Mapped onto Aikhenvald's evidential typology , the Ainu system belongs to the C1 type: visual, non-visual sensory, inferred, and reported sources of information are grammatically distinguished ; . 129 The Nominalization-plus-Copula Evidential Schema
5. It is adopted by Takahashi , Dal Corso , Nakagawa , and Hirosawa . 129 The Nominalization-plus-Copula Evidential Schema
6. The predication-type framing (Takahashi 2013) adds a dimension orthogonal to source channel: in Tokachi, the visual nominalizer sir is restricted to stage-level (transient, scene-describing) predication, and individual-level (permanent) properties take ru regardless of the information channel . 131–133 The Nominalization-plus-Copula Evidential Schema
7. The bare polar-question frame is an instance of insubordination — a once-embedded nominalized clause promoted to main-clause use . 132 The Nominalization-plus-Copula Evidential Schema
8. Takahashi's Tokachi study shows that the visual nominalizer sir is restricted to stage-level (transient, scene-describing) predication; for individual-level (permanent property) predicates — even those known by sight — Tokachi uses ru, which is unmarked for information type . 131–133 The Nominalization-plus-Copula Evidential Schema
9. The diachronic path is already stated in the early grammars: the source nouns function first as lexical nouns, then as clause-nominalizing heads in embedded complements, then as clause-final evidential sentence-enders ; . 134 The Nominalization-plus-Copula Evidential Schema
10. Tokachi (and frequently Ishikari) close the clause with the bare concept forms ru / sir / haw / hum rather than the possessed forms ; . 129–131 The Nominalization-plus-Copula Evidential Schema
11. Allomorphs sin (for sir) and aw (for haw) are attested . 130–131 The Nominalization-plus-Copula Evidential Schema
12. Mapped onto the typology of , the system is of the C1 type — visual, non-visual sensory, inferred, and reported — realized analytically, through a native nominalization-plus-copula construction ; . 129 ruwe ne — the Inferential / Visual-Trace Evidential
13. On this reading Dal Corso's unresolved ‘why ruwe and not siri when sight is available’ and Takahashi's Tokachi finding that individual-level — cognitively stable — properties take ru while transient scenes take sir become two faces of one contrast: siri profiles the accessible appearance, and ruwe the cognized fact extracted from it ‹speculative›. 131–133 ruwe ne — the Inferential / Visual-Trace Evidential
14. The bare polar reduction is an instance of insubordination — a once-dependent nominalized clause used as a main clause — analysed for the Tokachi cognate by . 132 ruwe ne — the Inferential / Visual-Trace Evidential
15. Of the four, only sir carries this restriction; hum, haw, and ru work at both levels . 131–133 ruwe ne — the Inferential / Visual-Trace Evidential
16. Tokachi (and frequently Ishikari) close the clause with the bare concept forms ru / sir / haw / hum instead of the possessed forms ; . 129–131 ruwe ne — the Inferential / Visual-Trace Evidential
17. Takahashi analyses the Tokachi cognate pattern as 脱従属節化 . 132 siri ne — the Direct-Perception / Situational Evidential
18. An individual-level (permanent) property, even one visually accessible, takes ru instead — the unmarked member that imposes no predication-type restriction . 131–133 siri ne — the Direct-Perception / Situational Evidential
19. Among the four Tokachi nominalizers, only sir carries this restriction; hum, haw, and ru operate at both predication levels ‹consensus›. 133 siri ne — the Direct-Perception / Situational Evidential
20. Takahashi draws a parallel with the English perception-verb constraint on individual-level complements: a stage-/individual-level distinction that in English appears on the complement-type of the matrix verb, but in Ainu appears on the nominalizer itself . 133 siri ne — the Direct-Perception / Situational Evidential
21. Tokachi uses the bare concept form sin (allomorph of sir) in clause-final position — not the possessed siri — and applies the stage-level restriction discussed above ; . 129–131 siri ne — the Direct-Perception / Situational Evidential
22. The polar reduction hawe! follows the insubordination pattern documented for the other bare-nominalizer forms: a once-dependent nominalized clause used as a main clause to express surprise or strong emotion at the reported content ; . 132 hawe ne — the Reportative / Hearsay Evidential
23. Tokachi (and frequently Ishikari) — the bare concept form haw closes the clause rather than the possessed hawe; aw is an attested Tokachi allomorph; iruska haw ne 'was angry (reportedly)' exemplifies the pattern ; . 130–131 hawe ne — the Reportative / Hearsay Evidential
24. Tokachi (and frequently Ishikari) close the clause with the bare concept form hum rather than the possessed humi; the declarative frame attested by Takahashi appears as … ran hum ne awan ; . 129–131 humi ne — the Non-Visual Sensory Evidential
25. In Stage I dialects the bare concept form closes the clause where Saru uses the possessed form: Tokachi iruska haw ne 'she was angry', tuk ru ne 'it emerged', alongside Saru iruska hawe ne and tuk ruwe ne ; . 130–131 Mirativity, Evidential Scope, and Grammaticalization to Sentence-Final Particles
26. The allomorphs sin (for sir) and aw (for haw) are Tokachi-specific . 130–131 Mirativity, Evidential Scope, and Grammaticalization to Sentence-Final Particles
27. Whether the Tokachi bare-concept-form preference (ru/sir/haw rather than possessed ruwe/siri/hawe) found in Takahashi's elicited data also holds in sakorpe verse is unknown ‹speculative›. 129–131 Narrative TAM and Evidential Patterning by Genre
28. This partial grammaticalization is reflected in synchronic dialect layering: Tokachi and Ishikari use the bare concept forms ru / sir / haw / hum where Saru and Chitose use the possessed forms, and Horobetsu has extended the possessed forms into conjunctive and adverbial-clause roles ; . 129–131 Internal Reconstruction and Grammaticalization Pathways
29. The forms at each stage are not synonymous across all contexts, and the distributional differences between stages reveal the grammaticalization constraints: the possessed form (ruwe) has wider contextual distribution than the bare concept form (ru), and the bare form retains combinatorial restrictions that the possessed form has shed ; . 129–131 Internal Reconstruction and Grammaticalization Pathways
30. A Tokachi example using siwnin in an evidential construction appears in (taan imo siwnin ru an 'this potato is green', ), where the individual-level property takes the trace-nominalizer evidential rather than the visual. 131–133 Synopsis of Lexical-Semantic Fields