@article{oai:minpaku.repo.nii.ac.jp:00004463,
 author = {庄司, 博史 and Shoji , Hiroshi},
 issue = {2},
 journal = {国立民族学博物館研究報告, Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology},
 month = {Aug},
 note = {It is widely known that coordinate conjunctions in the Uralic
languages are of comparatively late origin. But it should not be
assumed that there was no device to express coordinative relationships
between nouns, other than straightforward juxtaposition.
On the contrary, there existed various ways to compensate
for the lack of coordinate conjunctions. And many scholars have
hitherto turned their attention to the phenomena of the Uralic
coordination, which might have appeared curious compared
with those of modern Indo-European languages.
It was not until Ravila's work (1941) that an attempt was
made to examine Uralic coordination on a broad scale. Ravila
explained the coordination of nouns, in which each juxtaposed
noun contains an identical element(s), in connection with the
basic principle of the Uralic word order, i.e., the modifier always
precedes the modified. According to Ravila, identical elements,
such as dual and plural indicators, or case and possessive suffixes,
may function only to signal that the nouns containing them belong
to the same grammatical category. But he gave no
satisfactory answer to the question of why the very curious dual
and plural suffixes may be attached, even when each noun
indicates a singular object. Ravila explains that the numerus
suffixes of nouns have developed in concordance with the numerus
conjugations of verbs, and that these suffixes later began to signal
coordination when repeated in each noun. However, this
hypothesis offers a somewhat conceptual impression without
supporting evidence. Moreover, the earlier studies of Uralic
coordination, including that of Ravila, could not deal with coordination
in general but could only pose arbitrary examples,
because their notion of coordination was apparently too abstract.
In this paper, I adopt the generally accepted theory of transformational
grammar for the definition of coordination: i.e.,
there are two types of coordination in the deep structure of a
sentence, namely, sentence conjunction and phrasal conjunction,
each having different characteristics, although they might optionally
take the same surface form. Using this framework, I
attempt to account for the pecuarlities of all possible coordination
types in the Uralic languages. I have classified Uralic coordination
into the following 8 types:—
I. Juxtaposition of nouns, each having an identical element(s) ;
2. Juxtaposition of nouns without any identical elements;
3. Coordination based on a numerus indicator;
4. Coordination based on a comitative (instrumental) indicator;
5. Coordination based on a nomenp ossessorisd erivational suffix;
6. Coordination based on an enclitic particle of emphathy or
augmentation;
7. Coordination by an independent coordinate conjunction
derived from a native morpheme stock; and
8. Coordination by a coordinate conjunction of foreign origin.
After examining these cases, I reached the following conclusions.
Devices for phrasal coordination developed earlier
than those for sentence coordination, because the latter could
have as well been expressed by a simple juxtaposition of sentences.
Type 1 occurs widely among the Uralic languages, when compared
to Type 2. This may support Ravila's hypothesis that there
needed to be some device to indicate nouns belonging to the same
grammatical category, when they were juxtaposed. In this
sense the parallel affixation of identical elements has developed
as a productive way of coordination. Type 3, 4 and 5 appear to
have derived from the peripherical use of their original functions
due to the connotation of simultaneousness or accompaniment.
Type 3 was used when things expressed by coordinated nouns
were regarded as forming a semantic whole. On the other
hand Types 6 and 7 have idiosyncracy of sentence coordination.
I assume that sentence coordination in the deep structure was
reduced to a simple sentence first by means of an enclitic or
independent particle which could function as an adverb of
augmentation or addition. Present-day Uralic languages seem
to have a tendency to develop proper coordinate conjunctions,
which can be equally used for both types of coordination, and
which, therefore may correspond to the coordinate conjunctions
of the well known modern Indo-European languages, from their
own stock side-by-side with those of foreign origin. It should be
observed, however, that they still retain a shade of their original
characteristics in usage and meaning.},
 pages = {424--488},
 title = {ウラル語族における等位表現の類型},
 volume = {8},
 year = {1983},
 yomi = {ショウジ, ヒロシ}
}