@article{oai:glim-re.repo.nii.ac.jp:00003184,
 author = {安部, 清哉 and ABE, Seiya},
 issue = {13},
 journal = {人文},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {application/pdf, 日本語方言の地理的分類には各種の理論がある。研究史上、初めは共時的な解釈が多く行われ、後に通時的な研究が中心になった。その理論の1 つである東条操の「方言区画論」は、その後の研究への影響が大きい。今も東条の方言区画論に沿った各種の区画案によって地理的分類がされることが多い。本稿では、日本語方言の歴史的形成の解釈においては、方言境界線群（bundle of isogloss）や方言圏（dialect region）をもっと重視し、通時的視点もより考慮した地理言語学的分類が必要であることを、実例を提示しつつ提唱する。それに先だって、方言分類理論の課題を明確にするために、東条の提唱した方言区画論の受容と諸家による区画案を検証し、ついで、歴史的に重要な方言境界線・方言圏とを改めて提示して検する。東条の区画論は、通時的視点をもむ理論と見なせる。しかし、その受容では共時・通時で立場が別れることになり、そのことがの研究者の区画案の相違にも影響した。共時的分類の代表的な解釈は、東日本、西日本、琉球方言の3 地域に区分する案であり、もう1 つは、さらに西日本を、九州とそれ以外にわける4 区分案である。一方、地理言語的研究の進展によて、方言区画論の区画分類とは異なる方言境界線が解明されるようになった。さらに、区画や境界線とも異なる「方言圏」の点でも、地理的分類を再検討する必要があると認められる。日本語方言は、方言区画、方言境線、方言圏のそれぞれの共通点や異なる観点、矛盾点を止揚して総合的に解釈していく必要がる。区画論・分類理論を比較検討すると、日本語の方言形成は、より複雑な過程を経ていると解釈できる。その方言境界線、方言圏を通時的点から検討すると、日本語方言はアジア・太平洋の言語との直的関係も視野に入れて考察する必要があることがわかる。, The geographical classification of Japanese dialect has been proposed in a variety of dialect theories.Misao Tojo's “Dialectal region theory”, which was the first theory in the history of dialect studies, had the strongest impact on subsequent studies. Subsequently, the dialectal boundaries were clarified by the geolinguistic studies. Furthermore, the necessity of the re-examination of geographical classification was identified from a "Dialectal Region" perspective, different from the viewpoints of the region or dialectal boundaries.In this paper, the validity of geolinguistic regions takes better account of the diachronic view and is advocated by presenting examples in terms of the interpretation of the historical formation of the Japanese dialects, with greater emphasis placed upon the dialectal boundaries and regions compared with the studies of dialectal region theory.Now, the Tojo's dialectal region theory can be considered as a theory including the diachronic view.However, its acceptance was divided intc or diachronic perspectives and affected the subsequent studies. At the beginning, most interpretations of his theory were synchronic, and then studies shifted towards diachronic interpretation. In this paper, firstly, Tojo's dialectal region theory and dialectal region proposals by various linguists were compared in order to clarify the issues of the dialect classification theory. In addition, this paper presents a bundle of dialect boundaries,"dialectal boundaries", which were revealed after Tojo's theory, and peculiar dialect distribution areas, "Dialectal regions", in order to verify the important differences from the conventional region boundary.In the early representative synchronic region theories, it was proposed that the dialect regions were divided into three areas; East Japan, West Japan, and Ryukyu, or four areas with West Japan divided into two with Kyushu. However, they do not explain the positions of the dialect boundaries sufficiently.Meanwhile, regional theories proposed by Kindaichi and Fuijwara were both diachronic and were excellent in that they could be interpreted with a bundle of dialectal boundaries.General theoretical reviews of dialectal regions, dialectal boundaries, and dialectal areas identified the differences and inconsistencies of geographical interpretations. The historical interpretation of the dialect distribution need to be re-examined through a diachronic perspective to eliminate the inconsistencies. Seen from the diversity of these dialects, the formation of Japanese dialect can be inferred as having passed through more complicated processes than previously thought. Finally, this paper introduces how Japanese dialects need to be examined in the perspective of direct influence of Asia-Pacific languages.},
 pages = {21--55},
 title = {方言区画論と方言境界線と方言圏の比較研究},
 year = {2015},
 yomi = {アベ, セイヤ}
}