1991 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary
A corroborative study of aspect and modality in Thai
| Project/Area Number |
01510295
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for General Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Research Field |
言語学(含音声学)
|
|---|
| Research Institution | University of Tsukuba |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
AYABE Hiroko Univ. of Tsukuba, Institute of Modern Languages and Cultures Associate Professor, 現代語・現代文化学系, 助教授 (30117056)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
1989 – 1991
|
| Keywords | Aspect / Modality / Perfective / Imperfectve / Progressive / Stative / Thai |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
The writer conducted a semantic study of aspect and modality in Thai, wi, reference to Japanese, and occasional reference to Chinese. Twelve volumes of Thai language textbooks for primary school were analyzed and sorted into cards with different labels. The following points were made more or less clear :
1. The essential difference between the progressive form kamlaeta and the stative form yuu.
2. The forms pay and naa denote both aspect and modality, and have both perfective and imperfective aspect, and at the same the fore pay functions as a modality marker.
3. The form way is an aspect marker signifying both perfective and enperfective aspect.
4. The form sia is a perfective aspect marker and a modality marker signifying regret for irreversible events.
5. The form may day negates not only past and present perfect, but also all the cases where the entire proposition of the sentence is negated.
6. The form ca is an aspect marker signifying[-anterior], but changes the meaning of such modal forms as aat, t*eta, khoeta, khwan, as opposed to the general understanding that the addition of ca does not affect the meaning at all.
7. Speech Act considerations bring about difference of use of khwan<should>and t*eta<must>between Thai and Japanese, but otherwise modality markers tend to be rather similar between the two languages.
|
Research Products
(2 results)
