福澤諭吉‐丸山眞男らの近代日本理解を批判。通説を覆す気鋭の問題作!徳川期は旧弊なる儒教社会であり、明治はそこから脱皮し西洋化する―という通説は誤りである!明治以降、国民が、実は虚妄であるところの“主体 化”によって“序列化”し、天皇中心の思想的枠組みを構築する論理を明快に暴き出す野心作である。.

The mystery of the rise of the affirmative, declarative (periphrastic) use of do in the thirteenth century and its decline by the start of the eighteenth century remains one of the principal unsolved problems for linguists working in historical research. Some of the main arguments on the origins of do discuss the needs of poetic rhyme (e.g., Engblom 1938), the positioning of the adverb (e.g., Ogura 1993), the elimination of awkward consonant clusters (e.g., Stein 1990), and the ambiguities of (...) object referents in questions (Hudson 1997), much of the earlier historical research relying on hypotheses relating to internal problems of the system. The present study examines the early causative origins of do, viewed from a diachronic, construction-based approach, and offers an explanation in which the reanalysis and subsequent loss of do as a declarative, affirmative auxiliary took place via a process known as hyperanalysis (Croft 2000), resulting in the gradual process of co-lexicalization of the causative verb meaning within the semantics of the main verb across an ever-increasing range of main verb environments. (shrink)