Papers from the Thirty-Sixth Conference
November 24-25, 2018
and fromthe Eleventh International Spring ForumMay 12-13, 2018of
The English Linguistic Society of JapanJELS 36

日 本 英 語 学 会 第 36 回 大 会 （ 横浜国立大学）
第 11 回国際春季フォーラム（北海道大学）
研究発表論文集

The English Linguistic Society of Japan
2019

The English Linguistic Society of Japan
c/o Kaitakusha
1-5-2, Mukogaoka,
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0023, JAPANPresident, Takane ITO, University of Tokyo
Secretary-General, Tatsuya ISONO, Seijo University

JELS 36
Papers from the Thirty-Sixth Conference
November 24-25, 2018
and fromthe Eleventh International Spring ForumMay 12-13, 2018of
The English Linguistic Society of Japan

Edited by
The Conference Organizing Committee
Toru SUZUKI, Yamagata University (Chair)
Mikinari MATSUOKA, University of Yamanashi (Vice-Chair)
Tomoko ENDO, Seikei University
Kaori HATA, Osaka University
Kairi IGARASHI, Ryukoku University
Taro ISHIGURO, Meiji University
Norimi KIMURA, Hirosaki University
Yusuke KUBOTA, University of Tsukuba
Madoka MURAKAMI, Jissen Women’s University
Taichi NAKAMURA, University of Fukui
Hiroki NARITA, Tokai University
Masaharu SHIMADA, University of Tsukuba
Masako TSUZUKI, Chukyo University
Kiyoko YONEYAMA, Daito Bunka University
Ichiro YUHARA, Tokyo Metropolitan University

日 本 英 語 学 会 第 36回 大 会 （ 横浜国立大学）
第11回国際春季フォーラム（北海道大学）
研究発表論文集
The English Linguistic Society of Japan
2019本書は、2018年5月12日、13日に北海道大学にて開催された日本英語学会第11回国際春季フォーラム、および同年11月24日、25日に横浜国立大学にて開催された日本英語学会第36回大会における研究発表論文、Symposium Reports、およびWorkshop Reportsを収録しています（投稿辞退分は除く）。発表採用決定日および投稿受理日は以下のとおりです。
＜発表採用決定日＞
日本英語学会第11回国際春季フォーラム：2018年1月17日
日本英語学会第36回大会：2018年6月3日＜論文投稿受理日＞
2019年1月11日
本論集は、執筆者から提出された原稿を、大会運営委員会で書式を確認の上、全体の統一を図るため最低限の修正を施して掲載しております。個々の修正箇所については、時間的な制約もあり執筆者への確認を省き大会運営委員会の責任で補正しました。ご了承ください。
なお、各論文の内容はすべて執筆者の責任に帰されるべきものです。
第36回大会運営委員長
鈴木 亨

JELS 掲載論文の査読論文としての取り扱いについて
JELS に掲載されている論文（Symposium Reports および Workshop Reports を除く）は、発表応募時に査読を受けており、また最終稿が大会運営委員会の確認を受けているので、当学会では査読付き論文として見なしますが、あくまでプロシーディングズ論文であり、この内容を改稿し、フルペーパーとして学術誌に投稿することは妨げられません。

CONTENTS
I. Papers from the Thirty-Sixth Conference
On the Conditions of Rhetorical Imperatives
浅野真菜（Mana Asano）・井原 駿（Shun Ihara） ········································ 3
音放出を伴う Hit 動詞について―bang, bump, thump を中心に
藤川勝也（Katsuya Fujikawa） ·································································· 10
制限関係節における再構築と主語の移動に関して―POP+と BEA の観点から―
林

愼将（Norimasa Hayashi） ································································· 17

総称文の謎を認知能力の複合性から解く
岩部浩三（Kozo Iwabe） ········································································· 24
直接目的語制約に従わない結果構文
岩田彩志（Seizi Iwata） ·········································································· 31
Extraction out of Subject Phrases and Labeling Theory
菅野 悟（Satoru Kanno） ······································································· 38
定冠詞の非特定的使用について
北村 久（Hisashi Kitamura）··································································· 45
Comparison of Prosody of American and British English Using a Speech Corpus: A Preliminary
Analysis
小松雅彦（Masahiko Komatsu） ································································ 52
事態把握様式における他者―認知文法から見た２つの間主観性―
町田 章（Akira Machida）······································································ 58
Fragmentary Questions in Japanese
前田雅子（Masako Maeda） ····································································· 65
ラベル付けに基づく不定詞関係節の派生について
松元洋介（Yosuke Matsumoto） ································································ 72
素性の上方志向の継承と残余
三輪健太（Kenta Miwa） ········································································· 78
助動詞 ought の歴史的発達について
森 敏郎（Toshiro Mori）········································································ 85
On Two Types of Adjectives Derived from the Same Stem in Japanese
森田千草（Chigusa Morita） ····································································· 92
Multiple Case Valuation and the Middle Construction
永盛貴一（Takakazu Nagamori） ······························································· 99
日英語の移動表現：経路概念の合成と空動詞
並木翔太郎（Shotaro Namiki） ································································ 106
We talked over coffee.タイプ文の意味的・統語的特徴について
西原俊明（Toshiaki Nishihara） ································································ 113
日本語属格主語文の通時的縮約と最小構造の原理
小川芳樹（Yoshiki Ogawa） ···································································· 120

A Comparative Study of Unaccusativity Alternation and Its Theoretical Implications
奥聡（Satoshi Oku）・邱 林燕（Linyan Qiu） ········································ 127

from に後続する前置詞句の補語句用法について－BNC の調査を通じて－
大谷直輝（Naoki Otani） ········································································134
A Phonological Analysis of VP-Ellipsis
齋藤章吾（Shogo Saito） ········································································141
The Effectiveness of the Control Cycle for an Analysis of Directionality of to-Infinitives
佐々木昌太郎（Shotaro Sasaki） ·······························································148
wh 融合体の形態・統語構造について

佐藤元樹（Motoki Sato） ········································································155
フェイズに基づくコントロール理論
島 越郎（Esturo Shima） ······································································162
Spelling Out the Spell-Out of an XP-YP Structure: A Case of Coordinate Structure
塩原佳世乃（Kayono Shiobara） ·······························································169
Proposal of a Hierarchy for Manner Salience Affecting Motion-Framing Choices in English: At
What Point Did I Make This Weird?
Ryan Spring ··························································································175
Labeling Algorithm に対する経済性条件と抜き出し
田中祐太（Yuta Tanaka） ·······································································182
助動詞の XX 構文への関連性理論によるアプローチ
時政須美子（Sumiko Tokimasa） ······························································ 189
ラベル付けアルゴリズムとカートグラフィー
戸塚 将（Masashi Totsuka） ·································································· 196
Economy in Pronominal Binding
堤 博一（Hirokazu Tsutsumi）································································ 203
補部としての述詞関係節－亜種の属性分析と再解釈－
渡辺良彦（Yoshihiko Watanabe） ····························································· 209
Small Clauses Further Specifying Verbal Meaning
安原正貴（Masaki Yasuhara） ·································································· 216<Symposium Reports>
名詞句をめぐる拡張の諸相
金澤俊吾（Shungo Kanazawa）・藤 正明（Masaaki Fuji）
前川貴史（Takafumi Maekawa）・中澤和夫（Kazuo Nakazawa） ···················· 223
異文化理解と多文化共生―ミクロ・マクロアプローチからみる『ことば』の諸問題
村田和代（Kazuyo Murata）・秦 かおり（Kaori Hata）
山口征孝（Masataka Yamaguchi）・ジュリアン・チャプル（Julian Chapple） ··· 227

ツリーバンク開発と言語理論
吉本 啓（Kei Yoshimoto）・プラシャント・パルデシ（Prashant Pardeshi）
鈴木彩香（Ayaka Suzuki）・窪田悠介（Yusuke Kubota）・Alastair Butler・
Stephen Wright Horn・
福島一彦（Kazuhiko Fukushima） [ディスカッサント] ································· 231<Workshop Reports>
併合手続きを再考する

小町将之（Masayuki Komachi）・北原久嗣（Hisatsugu Kitahara）
内堀朝子（Asako Uchibori）・瀧田健介（Kensuke Takita） ··························· 235
形態論から見た統語論・意味論：軽動詞構文、程度表現、オノマトペ
漆原朗子（Saeko Urushibara）・岸本秀樹（Hideki Kishimoto）
渡辺 明（Akira Watanabe） ···································································237

II. Papers from the Eleventh International Spring ForumThe Structure of Free Relatives and Decomposition of Wh Operators
Norimasa Hayashi ·················································································· 241
A Monster in English
Sumiyo Nishiguchi ·················································································248
Labeling and Feature Sharing in Wh-In-Situ Questions
Jun Omune ························································································· 254
Lexical Creativity: Contrastive Focus Reduplication and Constructional Reduplication
Naoyuki Ono ························································································ 261

The Verbal Noun Use of Borrowed English Prepositions in Japanese Recipe Names
Yuichi Ono ··························································································· 268
The Role of the Past Tense Morpheme in Japanese Epistemic Conditionals
Mari Sakaguchi······················································································275
How Japanese Speakers Use Nanka in Quasi-Internal Monologues during Interactional Discourse
Hiroko Shikano and Miki Sugisaki ······························································· 282
A Generative Analysis of Reduced Relative Clauses in English
Katsuya Sugiura ·····················································································288
Eliminating String-Vacuous Movement: C-Deletion and Phasehood InheritanceShin-ichi Tanigawa ·················································································295
Be on the Point of -ing and Its Variant Forms in Early Modern English
Takuto Watanabe ···················································································302
Expressiveness from a Bayesian Perspective
Akitaka Yamada ····················································································308
Break a Branch off a Tree: An Account Based on Further Specification
Masaki Yasuhara ····················································································315

Adnominal Adjectives and Definiteness Marking in Old English
Hee-Cheol Yoon ···················································································· 322<Workshop Report>
Using Treebanks for Linguistic Research
Yusuke Kubota・Misato Ido・Ayaka Suzuki・Nobuyoshi Miyoshi ······················· 329
書式規定 ··········································································································331

[I]Thirty-Sixth Conference
November 24-25, 2018

RIs. Let us briefly define RIs as “utterances
which have an imperative form but interpreted
differently from ordinal imperatives.” Based on
this, we divide RIs in the following four types,
On the Conditions of Rhetorical Imperatives*

as exemplified in (1)-(4). Note that these RIs canalso be interpreted as ‘ordinal’ (non-rhetorical)

Mana Asano (Osaka University)

imperatives as commands or directives in

Shun Ihara (Osaka University/JSPS)

out-of-the-blue contexts, i.e., in situations
without the special contexts given below.

Keywords: imperatives, rhetorical imperatives,(1) Idiompresuppositions, Japanese

type

(RIs

which

are

used

1

idiomatically)[Context: the addressee has told a lie to the
1. Introduction

speaker. Then the speaker says;]

The meaning of “rhetorical” has been drawn

Uso(-o)tsuk-e!
tell-IMPconsiderable

attention

in

many

fieldsinlie(-ACC)

Linguistics,

especially

in

the

works

on

[lit.] ‘Lier!’ (≈ Don’t tell me such a lie!)

Rhetorical Questions (henceforth ‘RQs’) (e.g.,(2) Biased type (RIs which convey the bias

Sadock 1971, Sprouse 2007, Fujii 2015,

toward the possibility of the realization ofCaponigro & Sprouse 2007). Caponigro &the proposition described by the imperative)

Sprouse (2007), for instance, claims that[Context: the speaker thinks that it isquestions turn into RQs if and only if answers to

impossible for the addressee to get a fullthe questions are shared in the common groundscore on an examination.]of the speakers and the addressees. Besides

Mantentor-e-ruquestions, imperatives can convey a sort offull.scoreget-can-Pres C

rhetorical flavor as well; however, these{tor-e/tot-temir-o}!

accounts are not typically presented in a formal

get-IMP / get-try-IMP

linguistic theory.

[lit.] ‘Get full score if you can!’ (≈ You

The aim of this paper is to figure out theconditions

ofcannot get it anyway, though.)(3) Complaint type (RIs which convey that themeanings, what we call “Rhetorical Imperatives

speaker complains about the action which(henceforth ‘RIs’).” We claim that (i) RIs are

has already taken by the addressee.)2

divided into four types, and (ii) the interpretation(Mou!) zenbu

taber-oof each type of RIs is pragmatically determinedhonestly everything

eat-IMP SFP

depending[lit.] ‘Eat everything!’ (≈ Why didn’t you

presuppositions

with

if

rhetoricalonimperatives

mono nara

how

they

of

ordinary

violatetheimperativesyo!

eat everything!)

presented by Kaufmann (2012).

(4) Irony type (RIs which convey the ironicalattitude toward an addressee.)

2. Basics[Context: the speaker and the addressee are

In this section, we observe the basic data ofenjoying

3

shopping

together.

But

the

addressee comes to feel tired and starts

imperative is possible, but not a foregone

saying that she wants to go home.]

conclusion; that is, both p and ¬p are possible.

(Sonnanii-unara) kaer-eyo!

Finally, the presupposition in (5c) ensures that

so.muchsay-Pres if

go-IMP SFP

the ordering source g in w (e.g. our tasks, what

[lit.] ‘Go home, then!’ (≈ Actually, I don’t

the speaker wants, or the normal course ofwant you to go home, though.)events, Kratzer 1983) must be ‘prioritizing’(Portner 2007) or ‘speaker bouletic’: intuitively,

Considering these different kinds of RIs, two of

the speaker prefers p to be true. Roughly, forthe big questions which one might pose are: (i)examplehow the interpretations of the four types of RIs

presuppositions in (6b) is necessary for theare different from one another, and (ii) what

speaker to utter the ordinary imperative in (6a)makes the difference among them.

felicitously.

3. The Semantics/Pragmatics of Imperatives(6) a.

Before moving on to illustrate our proposal,

b.

in

(6),

the

saturation

of

the

Go to bed!
(6a) is defined iff (i) [the addressee

we give the assumption of the semantics andgoes to bed] occurs at or following

pragmatics

byutterance time, (ii) the speaker believes

Kaufmann (2012). She proposes that imperatives

that both [the addressee goes to bed]

are deontic modalized sentences like should(p)and [the addressee does not go to bed]or ought(p), in the sense that they involve

are possible, and (iii) the speaker

quantification over possible worlds (Kratzer

prefers [the addressee goes to bed] to1983), which allows us to analyze imperatives

be true.

ofimperatives

proposed

on a par with modalized sentences. She also
adds to the semantics of imperatives several

We do not go into further details of Kaufmann’s

presuppositions

analysis due to limitations of space, but her

that

make

imperatives

non-truth-conditional, as shown in (5).

approach works well enough to derive theinterpretations of RIs.

(5) The presupposition of IMP(p):3a.

Temporal Condition (TC):b.

Epistemic Uncertainty Condition

4. Proposal
We

argue

that

violations

of

the

presuppositions of imperatives suggested by(EUC): For the precontext c' of c,

Kaufmann (2012) signal that uttered imperatives
are RIs. Specifically, how an imperative isinterpreted rhetorically depends on how manyc. Affirmation Condition (AC):

and

which

presuppositions the imperative

First, the presupposition in (5a) ensures that theviolates. We propose that the presuppositions ofimperative can or will occur in the future (morethe four types of RIs exemplified in Section 1

formally, at or following utterance time). The

are defined as (7)-(10), respectively.

second presupposition in (5b) ensures that the(7) The presupposition of idiom type RIs:

speaker (cS) believes that fulfillment of the4because (1) is uttered to refer to the past inwhich the addressee told a lie. The context for(1) also implies that there is no possibility that¬p (p: ‘the addressee tells a lie’) occurs because
p has already occurred when (1) is uttered,(8) The presupposition of biased type RIs:

which leads to the violation of ‘EUC’ in (5b).
Thus, we assume that a violation of TC
generally entails a violation of EUC.4 The
example (1) violates ‘AC’ in (5c) as well(9) The presupposition of complaint type RIs:

because the speaker does not regard p as apreferable content.
We can confirm these violations as follows.
(11) a.

(10) The presupposition of irony type RIs:

Hashir-e! #Nande (sonna-huuni)
run-IMP! why

such-likehashit-ta n-dayo.

run-Past C-COP SFP‘Run! Why did you run (like that)!’b.

Hashir-e! Ore-wa omae-ni
run-IMPI-TOP you-DAT

To say that RIs presuppose that the violations

hasit-te hoshiin-da

are entailed in the context of utterance is to say

run-GEN want

C-COP SFP

that they signal that the violations are already‘Run! I want you to run.
(12) a.

yo.

Uso(-o)tsuk-e!

Nande

current proposal provides an account of thelie(-ACC)

tell-IMPwhyrhetorical effects of imperatives in parallel with(sonna) uso tui-ta

that of RQs. That is, while RQs require thesuchpresupposition of ordinary questions (i.e. the‘Tell a lie! Why did you tell such a

speaker does not know the answer of thelie!’part of the common ground. In this sense, theb.

question) to be violated, RIs require the

n-da

yo.

lie tell-Past C-COP SFP

Uso(-o)tsuk-e!

#Ore-wapresuppositions of ordinary imperatives (in (5))

lie(-ACC) tell-IMP I-TOP

to be violated. In the next section, we show how

omae-nithe proposal can handle the contrast among the

you-DAT lie-ACC tell-GER wantfour types of RIs.

n-da

yo.

C-COP

SFP

5. Analysis

uso(-o) tsui-te

hosii‘Tell a lie! I want you to tell a lie.’

Let us first show how the idiom type RIs
violatethepresuppositionsofordinary(11a) demonstrates that an ordinary imperative isimperatives. Consider (1) “Uso(-o) tsuk-e!” ‘Tell

infelicitous if it is followed by an utterance

a lie!’ for example. (1) violates TC in (5a)which describes that p has already occurred.

5This ensures that the ordinary imperative

shit-teiru.

#Hashir-e!

satisfies TC. (11b) suggests that an ordinaryknow-PROG.PRS

run-IMP

imperative is compatible with an utterance that

‘I know that you cannot run because

describes that p is preferable for the speaker,

you broke a bone. Run!’

which ensures that the ordinary imperative(15) Omae-ga

satisfies AC. (12a) and (12b), the idiom type

you-NOM

full.score-ACC

counterparts for (11a) and (11b) respectively,

tor-e-nai

no-wa

show that idiom type RIs violate TC and AC,

get-can-NEG C-TOP

unlike ordinary imperatives. Moreover, as we

shit-teiru.

Mantentor-e-

have pointed out, since a violation of TC

know-PROG.PRS

full.scoreget-can-generally entails a violation of EUC, we can say

ruthat idiom type RIs violate EUC.

PRS C

mono

The same tests are applicable for biased typetot-temir-o}!

RIs. Consider (13a) and (13b), the biased typeget-try-IMP

counterparts for (11a) and (11b) respectively.

manten-onara{tor-e /if

get-IMP /5(15) is the biased type counterpart of the(13) a.

b.

Manten tor-e-ru mono nara {tor-e/

ordinary imperative in (14). The ordinary

tot-temir-o}! #Nande (sonna-huuni)

imperative in (14) is infelicitous because themanten tot-ta n-da yo.

preceding utterance describes that the speaker‘Get full score if you can! Why did

believes that p (p: ‘the addressee gets full score’)

you get full score (like that)!’would never occur. This ensures that the

Manten tor-e-ru mono nara {tor-e/

ordinary imperative satisfies EUC. In contrast,

tot-temir-o}!

the felicity of the preceding utterance in (15)#Ore-waomae-nimanten tot-te hosii n-da yo.

indicates that the biased type RIs does not‘Get full score if you can! I want you

satisfy EUC.
Let us see the case of the complaint type RIs,

to get full score.’as shown in (16).
Since (11a) and (13a) are the same in that both
(16) a.

are judged infelicitous, the biased type RIs does

(Mou!) zenbu taber-o yo! Nande

not violate TC. The oddness of the subsequentzenbu tabe nakat-ta n-da yo.

utterance in (13b) indicates that biased type RIs‘Eat everything! Why did not you

violate AC.

eat everything!’

As for EUC, the following pair of examplesb.

(Mou!) zenbu tabe-ro yo! Ore-wa

demonstrates whether it is violated (: (15)) or

omae-ni tabe-te hosii n-da yo.

not (: (14)).

‘Eat everything! I want you to eat
everything.’(14) Omae-ga (kossetsu-de)
you-NOM breaking-a.bone-because(16a) and (16b) are the complaint typehasher-e-nai no-wa

counterparts for (11a) and (11b) respectively. We

run-can-NEG C-TOP

can see that (16a) is felicitous unlike (11a),6

which leads to the violation of TC. Since theinterpretation of RIs is determined depending on

violation of TC entails that of EUC, thehow they violate the presuppositions of ordinary

complaint type RIs violate EUC as well. As forimperatives. In addition, the distribution of theAC, it is satisfied by the complaint type RIs

violations seems to suggest that the more RIs

because (16b) is judged felicitous in the same

violate the presuppositions, the more rhetoricallyway as (11b).

they are interpreted. For instance, idiom type RIs,
which violate the three presuppositions, convey

Lastly, let us move on to the diagnose for6

almost the reverse meaning to the literal one

irony type RIs. Consider (17).

while irony-type Ris, which violate only one(17) a.

b.

(Sonnani i-u-nara) kaer-e yo. #Nande

presupposition, are rhetorically weaker thankaet-ta n-da yo.

others in that the meaning conveyed by them

‘Go home, then! Why did you go

differs from that of ordinary imperatives only inhome!’

their ironical interpretations.

Omae-ga(shuuden-onogashi-te)
6. Conclusion

kaer-e-nai no-wa shit-teiru. #(Sonnani

This paper has argued that the four types of

i-u nara) kaer-e yo!

c.

‘I know you cannot go home because

RIs

are

you lost the last train. Go home, then!’presuppositional violations. This analysis lends(Sonnani i-u nara) kaer-e. #Ore-wa

supportomae-ni kaet-te hosii n-da yo.

interpretation of speech act is generated at a

‘Go home, then! I want you to go

level of pragmatics (e.g. Caponigro & Sprousehome.’(2007) for rhetorical questions). Our claim cantocharacterized
the

view

in

that

terms
the

of

rhetoricalalso be counted as a support for Kaufmann
Given the observations in (17a) and (17b), the(2012)’s analysis that imperatives require theirony type RIs do not violate TC and EUC. As

special presuppositions.

for AC, the oddness of the subsequent sentence

There are still some remaining issues for RIs.

in (17c) demonstrates that AC is not satisfied in

First, we should explore the detail characteristics

the irony type RIs.

of each RI. For example, we need to figure out
what kind of predicates are available for

Putting it all together, the analysis in this

idiom-type RIs (cf. footnote.1). Moreover, asection can be summarized as follows.

crosslinguistic analysis should be done as well
Idiom

TC

EUC

AC

Total

(e.g. Demirok & Oikonomou (2018) for Turkish).







(TC,EUC,AC)

Finally, in addition to these issues, extending the(EUC,AC)

current(TC,EUC)

framework initiated by Farkas & Bruce (2010)

(AC)will contribute to a better understanding of RIs.

Biased
Comp.
Irony






analysistotheformaldiscourse

TABLE 1
*We are grateful to Shintaro Hayashi, Hiroshi
Mito, Yoichi Miyamoto, Takanori Nakashima,

As shown by the table above, we claim that theMasao Ochi, Takumi Tagawa, Hideharu Tanaka,7(11), (12), (14) and (15) for the glosses for the

Yuta Tatsumi and LCCC members in Osaka
University for the helpful comments andtest sentences.

discussions.

6

The irony type RIs can be regarded as the ones

NOTES
“Bakai-e!/Hozake!/Huzakero!” ‘You must be(cf. Portner 2010, Kaufmann 2012, Condoravdi

kidding me!’ are some of the examples of idiom& Lauer 2012).

1

which describe ‘permission’ or ‘acquiescence’

type RIs. Their idiomatic characteristics is
attributed to the fact that they would not convey
the rhetorical meaning in the case that they are

Asano,REFERENCES
Mana (2018) On Semantics

andused in other than imperative form (e.g. ‘Uso-(o)Pragmatics of Rhetorical Imperatives in{tsuk-u

Japanese,

yooni/tsuku-koto/tsui-te}!’).

Further

discussion is needed for the reason why only the

B.A.

thesis,International

Christian University.

imperative form is available. One of the possible

Caponigro, Ivan and Jon Sprouse (2007)

accounts is to regard idiom type RIs as the“Rhetoricalexpressions which convey the conventional

Proceedings of SuB 11, 121-133.

implicature (cf. Conventional Implicature; GriceQuestionsas

Questions,”

Condoravdi, Cleo and Sven Lauer (2012)1975).

“Imperatives: Meaning and Illocutionary

2

Tagawa (2015) calls this kind of imperatives

Force,” Empirical Issues in Syntax and‘complaintive imperatives.’ He suggests that

Semantics 9, 37-58.
Davis,

they sound more natural when they are

Christopher(2011)

Constraining

accompanied by the sentence-final particle yo

Interpretation: Sentence Final Particles inwith the falling tone (cf. Ihara and Noguchi

Japanese, Doctoral dissertation, University2017). This may be related to one of theof Massachusetts, Amherst.

characteristics of yo, that is, yo with the falling

Demirok, Ömer and Despina Oikonomou (2018)

tone conveys the speaker’s emotion toward“Difficult Imperatives in Turkish,” poster

propositions (Oshima 2014). See Oshima (2014)

presented at WAFL 14, MIT, Cambridge,

and Davis (2011) for details.

MA.

3

Farkas, Donka F. and Kim B. Bruce (2010) “On

To put it more precisely, Kaufmann (2012)

proposes

the

forth

presupposition

Reacting

calledtoAssertions

and

Polar

“Authority Condition,” which is not relevant in

Questions,” Journal of Semantics 27,

the current study. This ensures that the speaker

81-118.

in c(ontext) is in an ‘epistemically privileged

von Fintel, Kai and Sabine Iatridou (2017) “Theposition’ with respect to the conversational

Modest Proposal for the Meaning of

backgrounds: the modal base f (‘what is known’)

Imperatives, Modality across Syntactic

and the ordering source g (Kratzer 1983).
The violation of TC does not necessarily imply

Categories,” Time and Modality, ed. by

4Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme,

the violation of EUC (Takanori Nakashima,115-141, Springer, Dordrecht.
Fujii, Tomohiro (2015) “Wh-Shujigimon nip.c.).
5

Glosses are omitted in (13), (16) and (17)okeru Shima no Koka ni tsuite no Oboe

because of the limitation of space. Please refer togaki (A Note on the Island Effects in

8

Wh-Rhetorical Questions),” The Deep/Trueof the Japanese Discourse Particle yo in

Phase of Language Essays Presented to

Declaratives,”

Professor Yukio Oba on the Occasion of

Semantics and Pragmatics, ed. by Erin

His Retirement from Osaka University,

McCready, Katsuhiko Yabushita and Kei

267-273, Eihosha, Tokyo.

Yoshimoto, 251-271, Springer, Dordrecht.
Portner,

Grice, H. Paul (1975) “Logic and Conversation,”Paul

Formal(2004)

Approaches“The Semantics

toofSyntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts,

Imperatives within a Theory of Clause

41-58.

Types,” Proceedings of SALT 14, 235-252.
(2017)

Portner, Paul (2007) “Imperatives and Modals,”“Meireikeishikibun no Togokozo: Togo

Natural Language Semantics 15, 351-383.

Keitai Imi no Intafesu kara (The Syntactic

Portner, Paul (2010) “Permission and Choice,”

Structure of the Imperative Form Sentence

Discourse and Grammar: From Sentencein Japanese: At the Syntax, Morphology

Types to Lexical Categories, ed. by Güntherand Semantics Interface),” Proceedings ofGrewendorf and Thomas Ede Zimmermann,the 41st Annual Meeting of the Kansai

43-68, Mouton de Gruyter, New York.

Ihara,

Shun

and

Yuya

Noguchi

Sadock, Jerold (1971) “Queclaratives,” Papers

Linguistic Society, 25-36.

from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the

Inada, Toshiaki and Noriko Imanishi (2016) “A

CLS, 223-232.

Note on Rhetorical Questions in Japanese

Schwager,and English: An Exploration of Uniformity

Magdalena(2006)and Variability of Human Languages (1),”Imperatives,

Center for Language Studies Nagasaki

University of Frankfurt, Main.

dissertation,

theSprouse, Jon (2007) “Rhetorical Questions andUniversity 4, 1-23.
Kaufmann,DoctoralInterpreting

Magdalena(2012)Wh-Movement,” Linguistic Inquiry 38,

Interpreting572-580.

Imperatives, Springer, London.
Notional

Tagawa, Takumi (2015) “Shuenbu no Shuenbu

Category of Modality,” Words, Worlds, andto Keitai no Bunpu: FinP, ForceP to

Contexts:

Kussetsu, Shujoshi (A Periphery of a

Kratzer,

AngelikaNew(1981)“The

Approaches

to

Word

Semantics, ed. by Hans J. Eikmeyer andPeriphery

and

the

Hannes Rieser, 38-74, Mouton de Gruyter,

Morphology: FinP, ForceP, Reflection, andBerlin.

Sentence-Final Particles),” paper presented

DistributionofMedeiros, David J. (2013) Formal Approaches

at the workshop “Shuenbu no Togoron toto the Syntax and Semantics of Imperatives,

Keitairon (Syntax and Morphology of a

Doctoral dissertation, the University of

Periphery),” in the 33rd Conference of theMichigan.

English Linguistic Society of Japan, KansaiMori, Hideki (2014) “V-te-miro Jokenmeireibun

Gaidai University, Osaka.

no Modaritii to Saibunsekikozo (Modality
and Reanalyzed Structure of V-te-miro
Conditional Imperatives),” Journal of the
Linguistic Society of Japan 145, 1-26.
Oshima, D. Yoshikazu (2014) “On the Functions

9

Levin (1993)によれば、Hit 動詞は(2), (3)のような「動能交替」「With/Against 交替」と言った交替現象に参与する（以後、(2b)を動能構
文、(3a, b)の構文を接触所格構文 (Contact
Locative Construction) (Pinker 2007)と呼ぶ）。

音放出を伴う Hit 動詞について―bang,
bump, thump を中心に*

(2) Conative Alternation（On Sound Emission Verbs in Hit Verbs: With

a. Paula hit the fence (with the stick).

Special Reference to Bang, Bump, and Thump）

b. Paula hit at the fence (with the stick).
(3) With/Against Alternation

藤川 勝也（Katsuya Fujikawa）

a. Paula hit the stick against/on the fence.

富山大学（University of Toyama）(Doesn’t imply: Paula hit the stick.)
キーワード：音放出動詞, Hit 動詞, 動詞クラb. Paula hit the fence with the stick.

ス, Against/With 交替(Implies: Paula hit the fence)(Levin (1993: 148-149))
しかし、(4)に示すように bang, thump は動1. はじめに
本稿では、bang, bump, thump の三つの動詞

能構文に生起できるが、bump は生起出来なの語彙的意味と統語的振る舞いについて考い（但し、ここで言う動能構文とは、前置詞察する。1 これらの動詞は、本来オノマトペ

として at ではなく on が生じるものであり、であり、「衝突時に生じる音」を記述すると「～をめがけて叩く」の解釈ではなく、対象いう点で共通している。例えば、Longmanとの接触が実際にあり「反復」の解釈になる

Dictionary of Contemporary English (LDOCE)

ものである（cf. 中右 (2003), 草山 (2010)））。

には名詞用法として、(1a-c)のように「音」(4) a. John {banged/thumped} on the door.

の記述がある。

b. *John bumped on the door.
(1) a. bang: a sudden loud noise caused by
さらに、(5), (6)に示すように、三つの動詞

something such as a gun or an
object hitting a hard surface

とも接触所格構文に生起するが、ここでもbump は bang, thump とは異なった振る舞いb. bump: the sound or sudden movement ofsomething hitting a hard surfaceを示す。

c. thump: the dull sound that is made when(5) I {banged/thumped} the table (with my fist).

something hits a surface(6) I bumped the table (with my bag).

(LDOCE, 下線は筆者)
また、Levin (1993)はこれら三つの動詞をWith 句がある場合は、それぞれ「私はテーいずれも Hit 動詞に分類しており、この点でブルを拳で叩いた」「私はテーブルに鞄をぶも共通している。2

つけた」を意味する。bang, thump は with 句

しかし、これらの三つの動詞は意味的・統が省略されても、「私はテーブルを何かで叩語的に異なった振る舞いを示す。例えば、いた」の意味になるが、bump の場合、with

10

句が省略されると「私はテーブルに何かをぶ

being late. (COCA)つけた」ではなく、「私がテーブルにぶつか

b. Glancing at his watch, he softly banged
the steering wheel. (Stella Bagwell, Theった」の意味になる。

Ranger and the Widow Woman, online)

このように、これらの三つの動詞は同じ
Hit 動詞であり、「衝突時に生じる音」を記述しているという点で共通しているにも関わ

次に、Dux (2016)に従い、COCA で「動作らず、異なった意味的・統語的振る舞いを示

主を伴う衝突」を表す例を約 100 例集め、最す。本研究の目的は bang, bump, thump の語も頻度の高い統語パターンと、その統語パタ

彙的意味を明らかにし、これらの統語的振るーンに生じる最も頻度の高い名詞を抽出し舞いの相違を説明することである。

た。検索は、[bang].[v*]の形式で行った。bangの最も頻度の高い統語パターンが(9)-(11)で

2. 意味的・統語的特徴ある（括弧内の数字は生起件数を示す。例え

本節では、辞書の記述を検討すると共にば、(9)であれば、この統語パターンは 100

Corpus of Contemporary American English

件中 34 件生起したことを示す。以下、出典(COCA)から抽出したデータに基づいて、各の記載の無い例文は COCA から採ったもの）。

動詞の意味的・統語的特徴を明らかにする。
(9) [NP1 __ on NP2] (34/100)
2.1. bang

He came banging on the window and the

まず bang は、Oxford Advanced Learner’sdoor and telling me to call 911. (70%)

Dictionary (OALD)では、(7)にあるように「大(10) [NP1 __ NP2 on NP3] (18/100)
a. She’d banged her face on the sink when

きな音を立てるように叩く」以外に「大きshe passed out. (77%)

な音を立てて閉める」「乱暴に置く」の意味

b. He banged the stick on the table. (22%)

が挙げられている。

(11) [NP1 __ NP2] (17/100)(7) 1. [I, T] to hit sth in a way that makes a louda. The three men started banging pots andnoisepans. (29%)

2. [I, T] to close sth or to be closed with ab. And at night, they camp along the cliffs

loud noiseand bang drums around a fire. (23%)

3. [T] to put sth somewhere suddenly andviolently

Bang は on 形の動能構文が最も多く、次に4. [T] to hit sth, especially a part of the body,on 形の接触所格構文と他動詞構文がほぼ同

against sth by accident

じ割合で生じる。
ここから分かることは、bang は「叩いたしかし、(8a, b)に示すように、bang は「開け結果、音が出る」だけでなく「音を出すためる」の意味でも用いられるし、softly とも共に叩く」の意味で用いられるということであ起できる。従って、(7)の語義が bang の語彙る。例えば、(10a)では「気を失って顔をシン的意味だとは考えられない。

クにぶつけた結果、bang という音が鳴った」
わけだが、(9)や(11)では、何らかの行為の結(8) a. Instead, Eleonora banged open the door

果、偶然音が鳴ったわけではなく、音を出す

and strode in smiling, apologizing for

ために「叩く」という行為を行っている。つ11

b. He thumped the cushion with the flat of

まり、この場合、bang は「叩く」という行為ではなく「音を出す」ことに焦点がある。

his hand. (30%)

以下では、これを「音指向の用法」と呼ぶ。
また、これに関連して bang は「叩く」以

他動詞構文が最も頻度が高く、その次に接外にも様々な様態を表すことができる。例え

触所格構文がほぼ同じ割合で生じる。どの統ば、(12a)は「演奏する」を意味し、(12b)は語パターンでも「背中や胸を叩く」といった「置く」を意味する。

身体部位との接触を表す例が比較的多いが、bang 同様、多様な名詞と共起する。例えば、(12) a. He came up and began banging on the(13b)と(16b)のように、叩く対象は硬い物か

piano.

ら軟らかい物まで生起できる。さらに、(14c)b. Gremlins bang clear stone cups on the

は物同士の接触である。

bar made of wiliwili wood.

また、bang 同様、(17)に示すように「何かの衝突の結果、偶然音が出る」のではなく「音2.2. thumpを出すために何かを叩く」という音指向の用

Thump も bang と並行した振る舞いを示す。 法がある。
まず thump がとる最も頻度の高い統語パタ(17) a. I thumped hard on the front door, …

ーンと、これらの統語パターンで生起する頻b. … the visiting musicians sawed at

度の高い名詞が(13)-(16)である。

strings, blew into tubes, thumped(13) [NP1 __ NP2] (28/100)

tympani.

a. “My hedgerow. Bill,” he says, thumping(17a, b)では、音を出すためにドアを叩いたり、

his chest. (50%)
b. Skylar thumped the table, shifted in her

ティンパニーを叩いている。
さらに thump も様々な行為の様態を表す

seat. (32%)

ことができる。例えば、(17a)は hard がある(14) [NP1 __ NP2 on NP3] (16/100)
a. He thumped his fist on the book. (31%)

ため「強く叩く」を意味するが、(18)では Tap

b. He thumped one stony hand on his chestが後続していることから分かるように、「かfor emphasis. (12%)

なり弱く叩く」の意味である。

c. She’d be thumping a broomstick on her(18) She thumped a finger against my sternum.

ceiling at any minute. (56%)

Tap. Tap. Tap.

(15) [NP1 __ NP2 against NP3] (14/100)
a. She began thumping her head against thewindow, so Juliette rolled it down. (35%)

以上、bang も thump も多様な様態を表せ

b. She thumped a finger against my sternum.

るが、これらの様態を語彙化しているとは考えられず、「衝突時に生じる音が bang、ある(28%)

いは thump と認識される限り、これらの動詞

c. Agnes thumped her tail against one of thetable legs. (28%)

を用いることができる」と言える。

(16) [NP1 __ NP2 with NP3] (13/100)

これは名詞派生動詞の語彙的意味と共通

a. She thumped his chest with her palms.

し て いる 。例えば 、名詞 派 生動詞で あ るfeather は 、「 矢 に 羽 を つ け る (feather an

Come on. (30%)

12arrow)」という「付加」の意味にも、「羽をように、動詞の用法では「音」の記述がない。

むしる (feather a goose)」という「除去」の(21) [I, T] to hit or knock against something

意味にもなる (Buck (1997))。この現象に関して、Iwata (2008)は、動詞自体はおよそ(19)のようなスキーマ的な意味しかなく、正反対

次に bump がとる最も頻度の高い統語パターに見える意味は百科事典的知識から生じる

ンと、各統語パターンに生じる頻度の高い名と分析している。

詞が(22)-(24)である。

(19) denominal verbs の意味：“an event/state(22) [NP1 __ NP2 (複数名詞)] (30/85)

which saliently involves N” (Iwata 2008:

a. There will be times where they bump112)

heads and have to fight throughadversity.

例えば feather an arrow では feather は「矢にb. Then they bump fists and wiggle their

関して feather が持つ顕著な事象」として「羽fingers in a private ritual. (93%)

をつける」の意味になるのであり、feather(23) [NP1 __ NP2 against NP3] (15/85)
a. She bumped a hip against the screen

自体が「羽をつける」「羽をむしる」というdoor to open it. (66%)

意味を語彙化しているわけではない、と考え

b. Arnaud cries, and bumps his lips against

るのである。
上述のように bang, thump も多様な様態を

my cheek. (20%)

語彙化しているとは考えられない。従って、

c. He laughed quietly, and she bumped herfeather と同様に、bang も thump も語彙的に

hip against him as they sat. (13%)

は(20)のように「bang、あるいは thump とい(24) [NP1 __ NP2 with NP3] (13/85)
a. “Hoorah,” he kept saying, bumping me

う音に顕著に関わる事象または行為」を意味

with his forearm. (30%)

し、さまざまな様態は百科事典的知識から生b.

じると考えられる。

The man walked down the aisle,
intentionally(20) a. bang: an event/action which saliently

bumpingthedriver’s

shoulder with his hip before stepping

involves the sound of “bang”

down the stairwell. (23%)

b. thump: an event/action which saliently

c. She stood, bumping her desk with her

involves the sound of “thump”

swollen belly. (23%)

音放出動詞が、オノマトペの名詞が動詞に

他動詞構文が最も頻度が高く、その次に接転換されたものである、という主張は影山

触所格構文が続く。他動詞構文で最も頻度の(2006)でも論じられており、これ自体は目新

高いものは、(22a, b)に示すように、目的語にしいことではない。しかし、次節で見るよう複数名詞が生じる例で 30 例中 28 例が「頭同に、同じオノマトペである bump は異なった士」「拳同士」などの「身体部位同士をぶつ振る舞いを示す。

ける」の例で 93%を占める。さらに接触所格
構文では、(23), (24)に示すように、必ずしも

2.3. bump「身体部位同士」ではないが、「身体部位をまず LDOCE の記述を見ると、(21)に示す

伴った衝突」を表し、「動作主を伴う衝突」

13

で bump がとる全統語パターンの 97%が「身とを裏付ける（臼杵岳氏のご指摘による）。

体部位を伴う衝突」を意味し、bump は「身体部位との衝突」に特化している。32.4. 意味的・統語的振る舞いの相違

また、bang や thump のように「音を出す以上の相違を踏まえると、冒頭で見た問いために叩く」のような「音指向の用法」は、に答えることができる。まず、(25a, b) の動収集した 1,000 件の中には見当たらない。

能構文の生起可能性については以下のよう

さらに、bump の特徴として、表 1 に示すに説明できる。

ような相違がある。
(25) a. I {banged/thumped} on the door.
動作主を伴う動作主を伴わ衝突

ない衝突

b. *I bumped on the door.

bang

100 / 330

21 / 330

先行研究で指摘されているように、他動詞構

thump

100 / 489

94 / 489

文は、目的語に何らかの点で影響があること

bump

85 / 1,000

234 / 1,000を含意するが、動能構文は目的語への影響を含意しない（中右 (2003), 草山 (2010), Perek

表 1: 動作主の有無による相違(2015)）。さらに、1 節で触れたように on 形
Bang の場合、「動作主を伴う衝突」は 330 例の動能構文は「反復」の解釈になる。(25a)

中 100 例であるのに対し、「動作主を伴わなは「ドアを叩く」の意味だが、この場合、音

い衝突」は 21 例である。Thump は 489 例中を出して注意を引くためにドアを叩くので100 例が「動作主を伴う衝突」で 94 例が「動あって、ドアに何らかの影響を与えるわけで作主を伴わない衝突」になる。これに対し、はない。また、通常、ドアを叩くときは繰りbump は「動作主を伴う衝突」は 1,000 例中返し叩く。しかし、bump は音を出すことで85 例で、「動作主を伴わない衝突」は 234 例

はなく衝突することに焦点がある。さらに、になる。4 つまり、bump は典型的には「動作物がぶつかる場合、通常一回限りの事象であ主を伴わない衝突」を表し、さらに、通常「身り、「反復」とは解釈されない。このように、体部位を伴った衝突」を表すと考えられる。

bump が動能構文に生起できないのは、bump

以上から、bump は、bang, thump とは異なの語彙的意味と動能構文の構文的意味が合致しないためだと考えられる。

り、語彙的には「二つのモノが衝突する」を次に、(26a, b)における解釈の相違について意味し、典型的には「身体部位との衝突」を考察する。

表すと言える。
これを支持する証拠として、-er 名詞にお(26) a. I bumped the table with my bag.

ける意味の相違が挙げられる。Banger は「爆b. I bumped the table.

竹」や「騒音を出す車」を意味するが、これは「大きな音を立てる」の意味から生じたものである。一方、bumper は「緩衝器」の意

1 節で見たように、(26a)は「テーブルと鞄が味で「ぶつかる」の意味から生じたものであぶつかった」を意味するが、(26b)は「私がる（thumper という語は存在しない）。これは、

テーブルにぶつかった」を意味する。一方、bang が「大きな音を立てる」を意味するの

bang, thump は、with 句が無くても「私がテに対し、bump が「衝突する」を意味するこーブルにぶつかった」の意味にはならない。
これは喚起されるフレームの相違として

14説明するのが最も良いと思われる。つまり、

b. She watched it [= a train] rattle down tobump は with 句が生起している場合、必然的

Finchley Road. (BNC, Iwata (2018)からに with 句と目的語指示物との衝突になるた

引用)

め、Cause_impact フレームが喚起され、主語は Agent か Causer として解釈される。5

これは、何かが転がれば当然、そこには音が従って、「主語指示物が目的語指示物と with

付随しており、逆にガタガタという音が生じ句との間に衝突を引き起こす」と解釈される。 れば、そこには何らかの様態が存在している
しかし、with 句が無い場合、bump は語彙的からである。Roll や rattle という動詞は、そには「二つのモノが衝突する」を意味するたの際立った一方を語彙化しているに過ぎな

め、Impact フレームが喚起され、主語はい（Iwata (2018)）。つまり、音と様態は図 1

Agent としても Causer としても解釈されず、のように、表裏一体の関係にあり、実際には

Impactor（衝突するもの）として解釈される。

roll が表す音も rattle が表す様態も存在する

これに対して、bang, thump は「この音とのである。

顕著に関わる事象」の意味であり、with 句のevent

有無に関わらず、主語は「その音を引き起こすもの」、つまり Agent か Causer として解釈

soundmanner

図 1: 音と様態の表裏一体性される。従って、with 句が無くても「何かでテーブルを叩いた」の意味になる。
以上、bang, bump, thump の意味的・統語的同様に、bang, bump, thump も動詞として用振る舞いの相違は、音に焦点があるか、様態いられた場合、bang, thump は音の側面を語に焦点があるかの相違から生じることを見彙化しているのに対し、bump は様態の側面てきた。しかし、1 節でも見たように bump

を語彙化している。なぜ bump が、様態の側は本来オノマトペである。実際、(27)では面を語彙化しているのかと言うと、bump はbump は音を記述している。なぜ bump は動動詞で用いられた場合、ほとんどの例が「身詞用法では音ではなく様態を語彙化してい体部位」との衝突である。通常、身体部位がるのか。以下では、この点について考察する。

何かに衝突する場合、焦点になるのは「どのような音か」ということではなく衝突そのも(27) Then she heard: “Bump! Bump! Bump!

のである。そのために音の側面が背景化し、Bump!” Whatever Bump was, it was

それに伴い「衝突する」という様態の側面がcoming toward her. (Bert Paul, Out of

前景化し、「二つのものが衝突する」というOrder Murder Mystery, online)

意味に特化したと考えられる。
4. おわりに

3. 音と様態の表裏一体性
この問いに対して、Iwata (2018)の議論が参以上、bang, bump, thump は本来オノマトペ考になる。(28a)では roll（転がる）という様であり「衝突時に生じる音」を記述している態が聞かれており、(28b)では rattle（ガタガという点では共通しているが、bang, thump

タ鳴る）という音が見られている。

は「音指向」であるのに対し、bump は「様態指向」であると考えられる。そして、これ(28) a. He heard it [= a stone] rolling faster and

らの動詞の意味的・統語的振る舞いの相違は、

faster, then the noise stopped.

この語彙的特性の相違によるものであり、こ15

の語彙的特性の相違は、音と様態が表裏一体

Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia.

であることから説明できることを論じた。

Iwata, Seizi (2018) “Putative Resultatives II:
Verbs of Sound Emission Followed by a

* 質疑応答で、西原俊明先生、眞田敬介先生、

Path PP,” ms., Kansai University.
影山太郎 (2006)「音放出動詞を伴う移動構

岩田彩志先生から貴重なコメント・ご質問を文と結果構文」, 『英米文学』第 50 号,頂いた。心から感謝申し上げたい。

57-73, 関西学院大学.

注
Hit 動詞に含まれる音放出動詞は他にもあ草山学 (2010)「英語の動能交替現象におけるが、これらの三つの動詞は、類似した音をる事態認知と意味シフト」, 『地域政策伴う強い衝突を表す。例えば、(i)の下線部を研究』12 巻 4 号, 117-136, 高崎経済大学.

1

Levin, Beth (1993) English Verb Classes and参照されたい。

Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation,(i) I stared out the window, watching thefield grow closer and closer, until finally:

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

K-RRR-THUMP, BANG, BANG,

中右実 (2003)「英語の「動能」構文」, 語学教

BUMP, BUMP, BUMP… (Bill Myers, My

育研究所（編）『市河賞 36 年の軌跡』,

Life as Crocodile Junk Food, online)

150-158, 開拓社, 東京.

同時に、Levin (1993)は bang, thump を音放

Perek, Florent (2015) Argument Structure in

出動詞にも分類しているが、bump は音放出

Usage-Based Construction Grammar, John

動詞に含んでいない。なぜオノマトペである

Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia.

bump が音放出動詞に含まれないのか、といPinker, Steven (2007) The Stuff of Thought:

う点が不明であり、この点も考察する必要がLanguage as a Window into Human Nature,ある。

Viking Press, New York.

2

Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam

3「動作主を伴わない衝突」では「身体部位を伴う衝突」は約 84%である。

Petruck, Christopher Johnson and Jan

4

Scheffczyk (2010) FrameNet II: Extended

第 36 回大会 Conference Handbook では 234

例ではなく 250 例になっているが、データをTheory

再度、精査したところ、重複していた例文がComputer

見つかりそれらを排除した。

<http://framenet.icsi.berkely.edu.>

5andPractice,

Science

International

Institute,

Berkeley.

Cause_impact フレーム、Impact フレー
コーパス

ムの定義は Ruppenhofer et al. (2010)を参照。

Corpus of Contemporary American English(COCA)

参考文献
Buck, Rosemary (1997) “Words That Are Their
Opposites,” Word 48, 1-14.

辞書

Dux, Ryan (2016) A Usage-Based Approach toLongman Dictionary of Contemporary English

Verb Classes in English and German,(LDOCE), Pearson Education Limited,

Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas

Harlow.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (OALD),

at Austin.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Iwata, Seizi (2008) Locative Alternation: A
Lexical-Constructional

Approach,

John

16

pair-Merge の特性を概観する。4 節では 2 節
で見た問題が、pair-Merge を用いて解決できることを示す。5 節は結論である。
2. RRC をめぐる 2 つの非対称性

制限関係節における再構築と主語の移動に*関して―POP+と BEA の観点から―

2.1. RRC と再構築の非対称性（Reconstruction and Subject Movement in(1) の 例 で は イ デ ィ オ ム 表 現 makeRestrictive Relative Clauses: In Terms of POP+

headway の一部が RRC の先行詞となっていand BEA）る。この例に関し、Aoun and Li (2003) は that
RRC は適格になる一方、wh RRC は不適格に

林 愼将 （Norimasa Hayashi）

なるという観察を行う。この非対称性を説明

九州大学大学院（Kyushu University）

することが本稿の 1 つ目の目標である。
(1) The headway that/??which Mel made t was

キーワード：生成文法, ラベリングアルゴリ

impressive.

ズム, 英語, 制限関係節, that-trace effect(Aoun and Li (2003: 98), 一部修正)
1. 導入

RRC には 2 つの代表的な分析がある。1 つ

本稿では、英語の 2 種類の制限関係節:

目は operator movement analysis: OMA であり、RRC について、wh operator と null operator の(2b), (3b) の派生のように、null operator: op

特徴の違いから先行詞の再構築の非対称性

あるいは wh operator: wh が RRC 内から spec

を理論的に説明することを目標とする。次に、 CP に移動する。Chomsky (1977) は島の効果
that-t(race) effect と RRC における主語抜き出が that RRC に も み ら れ る こ と か ら wh

し の 際 の that の 有 無 の 違 い に 着 目 し 、

operator と同様の移動が that RRC にも含まれChomsky (2015): POP+ の枠組みでの RRC のることを示唆し、2 つの RRC が統一的に派生を議論する。Chomsky (2004): BEA のoperator 移動を含むという分析が始まった。1pair-Merge を受ける要素は移動後の copy が(2) a. the girl that john likes

Minimal Search: MS から可視的になることを導き RRC と that-t effect の違いを説明する。

b. [DP the [NP girl [CP op that John likes
op]]]

本発表の構成は以下の通りである。まず 2(3) a. the girl who john likes

節では、that を用いた RRC: that RRC と whb. [DP the [NP girl [CP who C John likes

operator が含まれる RRC: wh RRC では、先行who]]]

詞の再構築について違いがあることを観察する。また、RRC をめぐるもう一つの非対称性として、RRC では that の後ろから主語

RRC の 2 つ目の分析は、Kayne (1994) にの移動が可能になるのに対し、疑問文では不代表される raising analysis: RA である。この可能であることを観察し、これが POP+の理分析では、(4b), (5b) の派生のように、先行論の問題となることも確認する。3 節では、詞が RRC 内から spell out 位置まで移動する。

RRC が complement ではなく adjunct であることを議論し、adjunct を導入する BEA の17

(4) a. the girl that John likes(=(2a))

algorithm に基づいた説明を提供する。

b. [DP the [CP girl that John likes girl]](5) a. the girl who John likes(=(3a))(7) a. Who do you think (*that) t likes Mary?

b. [DP the [CP girl [C´ who girl [C´ C Johnb. I know the man *(that) t likes Mary.

likes who girl]]]](8) に labeling algorithm がどのように働くか
ここで先行詞の再構築を再び考えると、を示す。POP+では、Merge によりできた構

OMA では先行詞は RRC の外に規定生成す

造はラベルを持たなければならないとするるので RRC 内への先行詞の再構築は予測さ

Chomsky (2013)の考えに従い、ラベルの決めれない。一方、RA では元々先行詞は RRC方に着目した議論を行う。

内にあるので先行詞の再構築が予測される。
(8) a. [α H, XP]

どちらか一方の分析のみで両方の種類の(α=H)

RRC が派生されると考えると、(1) に示した

b. [α [X[F], ZP], [Y[uF], WP] (α=<F, uF>)

RRC の種類と先行詞の再構築可能性の対応

c. [β ...YP... [α XP, YP]]

(α=X)

が捉えられない。従って、Aoun and Li (2003)
は、イディオム表現の関係節化が許される

ラベルは以下のように決定されると考えらthat RRC は RA、イディオム表現の関係節化れている。Merge が作った構造に Minimalの際に不適格になる wh RRC は先行詞の再Search: MS が適用され、初めに見つかる head

構築を許さない OMA で派生されると主張すがその構造のラベルとなる。(8a) の head とる。しかし、Aoun and Li (2003) の分析は、

phrase の Merge の場合、MS を適用すると観察に適切な分析をそれぞれの種類の RRC

head が最初に見つかるため head H がラベルに当てはめたに過ぎず、RRC の種類と派生となる。(8b, c) は phrase 同士からなる構造

方法の組み合わせに対して原理的な説明はの場合である。(8b) では、MS を適用すると提供されない。従って、(6) に再掲する再構

X と Y は構造的に等距離にあるため、ラベ築の非対称性は依然として問題となる。

ルが一つに決まらないが、ここで、X と Yが agreement feature を持っている場合、その(6) The headway that/??which Mel made t was
impressive.

feature がその構造のラベルとして機能する。

(=(1))(8c) のように YP が移動した場合、移動により残された copy は更に上に別の copy ができ

2.2. RRC と疑問文の非対称性

る。この場合下位の copy は MS に不可視とされ、移動しない XP がラベルとなる。

前節で、理論的な説明は残るにせよ、that
RRC には先行詞の移動が関与することをイ

上記に加え、Chomsky は (9) に挙げる 2

ディオム表現を含む RRC の例から見た。(7)つの想定を行い that-t effect を説明する。

に示すように、wh 疑問文と主語の that RRC
では、両者ともに that の後ろから主語の移動(9) a. 英語の T は head であるが弱く、[phi]があるにもかかわらず、wh 疑問文の場合にfeature agreement が無いとラベルになは that が現れることができず、that RRC の場れない。

合 that が省略されてはならない。wh 疑問文

b. MS の後 C が削除されると、phasehoodの例は that-t effect としてよく知られており、を継承した T の complement が transfer

こ の 現 象 に 対 し 、 POP+ で は 、 labeling

される。

18

1 つ目は T に関する想定で、英語のように、在する場合、その後ろから主語を移動させよ[phi] feature agreement の屈折が乏しい英語でうとしても何らかの問題が起こる。

は T が弱く、(8a) のように単に phrase と次に that を省略した派生を以下に示す。

Merge しても T はラベルになれない。T がラ(11) a. Who do you think likes Mary?

ベルになるには一度 (8b) のように featureb. [δ that [γ who[phi] [β T[uphi] [α who[phi]agreement に基づくラベルによって T を強化

likes Mary]]]]する必要がある。この想定で、Chomsky は英(α=R-v*, β=T, γ=δ=<phi, phi>)

語の EPP 特性を引き出す。2 つ目の想定はthat の省略に関するものであり、phrase level
operation である MS によりラベルが決められこの派生では、who は γ に留まり、phase level

た後、C が削除される操作が随意的にかけら

operation として、feature inheritance と MS がれる。この C deletion が起こった場合、feature

適用され、ラベルが決まった後に C deletion

inheritance によって phasehood を継承した T

により、that の省略が行われる。その結果、が phase head と し て 振 る 舞 い 、 Transfer

T が phase head となり、Transfer domain が T

domain は T の complement に移る。

の complement に移る。その結果、who はそ以上の想定に従うと、(7a) の that-t effectの後の派生でも移動ができ、ラベルも決まっを示す文は以下のように派生される。

ているために適切な派生となる。以上のように POP+は that-t effect を説明する。

(10) a.* Who do you think that likes Mary?

しかしここで主語の that RRC が問題とな

b. [δ that [γ who[phi] [β T[uphi] [α who[phi]る。主語の that RRC も that の後ろから移動

likes Mary]]]があるため、T のラベルの問題が出てくるこ(α=R-v*, β=T, γ=<phi, phi>)と が 予 測 さ れ る 。 POP+ の 枠 組 み で that-tc. [ε who[phi] [δ that [γ who[phi] [β T[uphi]

effect と主語の that RRC を統一的に説明する[α who[phi] likes Mary]]]]]

ことが本稿の第 2 の目標である。

(α=R-v*, β=??, γ=??)3. RRC の統語的ステータスと pair-Merge(10b) は Merge により構造が作られ、phase

本節では、RRC の統語的ステータスを議

level operation として feature inheritance、MS、論する。Chomsky (1995) は、(12a, b) の例をTransfer がかかった段階である。この派生で挙げ、RRC は complement ではなく adjunctは、who がいわゆる spec TP に Merge し、そであることを述べる。

こで T との agreement により γ に<phi, phi>ラ(12) a.* Which claim that Johni was asleep was

ベルを提供する。この派生では、who は

hei willing to discuss t?

Transfer domain に存在し、その後 who は主節(Chomsky (1995: 204), 一部修正)に移動することができない。(10c) はあらかb. Which claim that Johni made was hei

じめ who を Transfer domain から移動させた

willing to discuss t?

場合である。この場合、移動後の copy とな
る who は γ で不可視となり、<phi, phi>ラベ(Chomsky (1995: 204), 一部修正)

ルが得られず、T は弱いという前述の想定の下、ラベルの決まらない集合ができるため、(12a) は clausal complement を 伴 う wh

派生は crash する。以上のように、that が存

operator だが、文頭の wh が元位置の t に copy

19

を残すと考えると、he は John を c-command

operator は wh operator から restriction を除いするため、同一指示解釈はできない。しかし、たものだと考えると、動詞の selection を満た(12b) の clausal adjunct である RRC の場合、すためには null operator だけでは不十分とな同一指示が可能となる。
この argument/adjunct

り、RRC の先行詞が RRC 内に基底生成する

asymmetry を説明するため、Chomsky (2004):

ことが必要となり、that RRC は RA をとるこ

BEA は adjunct は pair-Merge と呼ばれる操作とが導かれる。このように考えると、(14) ににより派生されると主張する。pair-Merge を再掲した that/wh RRC の先行詞の非対称性に用いた (12b) の構造を (13) に示す。

適切な説明を与えることができる。

(13) <Which claim [that John made]> was he(14) The headway that/??which Mel made t was

willing to discuss <which claim [that John

impressive.

(=(1))

made]>
4.2. RRC の派生
点線で囲われた RRC は、set-Merge が行われ

まず、RRC を派生するための想定を挙げ

る primary plane とはある種別次元の、separate

る。

plane で Merge される。primary plane に存在する he は separate plane に存在する RRC 内の(15) a. op は疑問文、関係節、感嘆文の C かJohn を c-command できず、Binding Condition

ら値を得る unvalued operator feature

C の違反を免れ同一指示が可能となる。

([uop] feature) を持つ。

pair-Merge により導入され separate plane に

b. 先行詞の NP と op が Merge すること存在する adjunct は、インターフェイスで解で、NP が op の restriction として働く。

釈されるために SIMPL という操作で primaryc. 先行詞は internal pair-Merge を行う。

plane の要素に変換される。SIMPL は Spell
Out、現在の Transfer の一部であり、optional(15a) は operator は unvalued feature を持つとoperation とされる。(14b) では、wh operator

いうもので、通常[uQ] feature と呼ばれる。

の移動後に SIMPL が適用される。

POP+では、wh 疑問文において、wh operator
が[uQ] feature、C が valued [Q] feature を持つ

4. 提案と想定する。ここで、wh operator は疑問文だ

4.1. wh operator の分解

けでなく、関係節や感嘆文にも使われること

本節では、operator の中身を議論する。

を考慮し、[uQ]に限定するのではなく、汎用

Kuroda (1969)、Chomsky (1995)等に従うと、性のある[uop] feature と名前を変更する。次wh operator は 2 つの要素からなると考えられに、(15b) のように、wh operator と異なりる。operator-variable の関係を作る operator

restriction が内包されていない null operatorと operator を制限する restriction である。例を含む that RRC では、null operator と先行詞

えば、who は operator と PERSON というNP が Merge することで先行詞 NP が null

restriction により形成される。この考えから

operator の restriction として働くと考える。先wh RRC は OMA をとることが導かれる。す行詞が NP であることに関して、(16) を挙げ

なわち、wh operator が持つ restriction によりる。(16) はイディオム表現に D が含まれて動詞の selection が満たされるため、RRC のはいけないことを示す。

先行詞は RRC 内に基底生成できない。null20(16) *We made the headway on that problem.

4.3. 主語の RRC(Browning (1987: 130))

本節では、(19) に示す主語の that RRC の派生を考える。2(1) では先行詞は the headway の形だが、この DP が RRC 内部にあると考えると、誤っ(19) I know the man that likes Mary.

て (16) と同様不適格と予測されるが、先行

(20)

ε

詞が NP ならば問題が起きない。
最後に、
(15c)

op

δ

は、前節で RRC の adjunct としての性質を見[uop] thatγ[REL] man

たので、ここでは RRC は adjunct であり、

β[phi] T

pair-Merge が用いられると考える。

[uphi]

以上の想定から、イディオム表現の一部を

α{op, man} likes Mary

関係節化した派生を (17), (18) に示す。
先行詞の man は null operator と Merge した状(17) a. the headway that Mel made態で派生に導入される。(20) に示す CP phaseb. the headway [β op[uop] [α that[REL]

が 作 ら れ た 後 、 先 行 詞 man が internal

Mel T made [op[uop] headway]]]

pair-Merge により移動し、RRC は separate(α=that, β=<REL, REL>)

plane で Merge される。

(18) a.??the headway which Mel madeb. the headway [β which[uop] [α C[REL](21) ζ

Mel T made which[uop]]]man(α=C, β=<REL, REL>)

ε
op

δ

[uop] thatγ[REL] man(17) は that RRC の場合で、先行詞 headway
は null operator とともに RRC 内に基底生成し、[phi] Tβαnull operator はその後 RRC の spec CP へ移動[uphi] {man, op} likes Mary

し、<REL, REL>ラベルを付与する。headway(α=R-v*, β=T、γ=<phi, phi>, δ=that, ε=<REL,

はそこから internal pair-Merge により移動す

REL>, ζ=(man))る 。 こ こ で 、 Kayne の RA は RRC を
complement と想定するが、本稿では adjunctこの構造に MS が適用されると、γにあるであると考える。また、Kayne は null operator

man は、separate plane に存在するため、は考えないが、本稿では null operator がある

primary plane にあるζの man から c-commandと想定し、それにより適切なラベルが与えらされない。そのことにより、RRC 内の γ にれると考える。(18) は wh RRC を用いたイデある man は最上位の copy とみなされ、移動ィオム表現の関係節化である。この場合、をしたのにも関わらず MS に可視的となり、

whoperator のみが RRC 内の argument 位置

γ=<phi, phi>が得られる。これが that の後ろに生成し、そこから wh operator は RRC 内のからの主語の移動が RRC の場合に許される

spec CP 内に移動し、ラベルを提供する。先理由となる。先行詞 man が Transfer され、ζ行詞は RRC 外に規定生成し、RRC は先行詞に MS がかか る段階 では 、 Transfer 時 にに external pair-Merge を行う。その結果、make

SIMPL により RRC が primary plane に変換さheadway の string が得られず不適格となる。

れているとすると、ζ は XP, YP configuration

21

となり、agreement feature もないためにラベPOP+と同様 C deletion を考える、或いは null

ルが決まらない。しかしここで、BEA のC を想定することにより、(23) はラベルの問

pair-Merge に 関 す る 想 定 で は 、 SIMPL が題がなく派生される。この例を排除するため、ordered pair を unordered set に変換したとし

Kim (2008) による RRC の制限を用いる。

ても、インターフェイスはその集合がpair-Merge により作られた集合だという情報(24) The relative clause must start with a wordを利用できるということが示唆されている。

that signals the beginning of a new clause:

このことを考慮すると、(21) において、ζ の

a word like an overt C, a subject, or a

ラベルが無かったとしても、インターフェイ

wh-word.

(Kim (2008: 304))

スは ζ が pair-Merge による集合だということが分かり、man の集合であると適切に解釈でこれは語用論的、或いは音韻論的な制約のよきると考える。代替案として、phase level

うに思われるが、統語的に(23) を非文とす

operation において、MS の方が SIMPL よりべきではない例として、まず (25) に示すよも先だと考えると、ζ にラベルを与える時にうに、特定の環境では standard English でもは RRC は separate plane に存在し、MS は man

同種の RRC が可能となる。

しか見えないため、man がラベルとなる。
(25) a. There’s a man lives in China.

本発表での提案では、(30) のような例は(Quirk et al. (1985: 959))

適切に排除される。

b. There’s a table stands in the corner.
(22) I met the man (that/who) you think (*that)saw Mary.

(Smits (1989: 70), 一部修正)(Douglas (2016: 261))
次に、
Belfast English を考えると、Henry (1995:

この例は、RRC の that ではなく declarative125) では、individual を談話に導入する文脈

that の後ろから先行詞移動が起こると that-tでは主語の RRC で that の省略が許されるとeffect が起きることを示す。that の後ろから述べている。この例は、この RRC の制限が主語の移動ができる RRC では、その移動が語用論的であることを示唆する。興味深いこinternal pair-Merge だったので、RRC の方がとに、(26a, b) の対比に示すように、Belfast

separate plane で Merge されることで移動しEnglish でも that-t effect が見られる。
従って、た要素の copy が MS に可視的になるという

that-t effect と主語の RRC で that の分布にかものであった。しかし (22) では、間に phase

かる制限が異なっていることが示唆される。

が存在するため、一度 set-Merge で移動する(26) a. John is the person could help you with

必要がある。従って、その移動で that-t effectthat.

同様のラベルの問題が生じ、非文となる。

(Belfast English)(Henry (1995: 125))b. Who do you think (*that) left?

4.4. that が省略された場合の主語の RRC(Belfast English)

本発表の枠組みでは、以下の例が適格とな(Henry (1995.: 128)、 一部修正)ることを予測する。
(23) I know the man t likes Mary.

5. まとめ
本稿では、wh operator の内部構造を考察す22

Projection,” Linguia 130, 33-49.

ることで、観察レベルだった RRC の先行詞

Chomsky,の再構築の非対称性に理論的な説明を与えNoam(2015)“Problems

Extensions,”of

た。また、that-t effect の説明と矛盾すること

Projection:

Structures,

なく、POP+の枠組みで RRC の派生を考察しStrategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour

た。

of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di
Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona* 本稿は筆者の日本英語学会第 36 回大会にMatteini,

3-16,

おける口頭発表の内容に基づいている。発表

Amsterdam.

John

Benjamins,に先立ち貴重なコメントをいただいた西岡

Douglas, Jamie (2016) “The That-Trace and

宣明先生に感謝申し上げる。また、発表の際

Anti-That-Trace Effects: Unification andに司会の労を執ってくださった成田広樹先Theoretical

生、宮本陽一先生、前田雅子先生をはじめと261-276.

NELS

46,

Henry, Alison (1995) Belfast English and

するご質問・ご指摘をいただいた先生方にもStandard English, Oxford University Press,

感謝申し上げる。

Oxford.

注1

Implications,”

Kayne, Richard (1994) The Antisymmetry of

厳密には、Chomsky (1977) では null

operator は想定されず、移動した wh operator

Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

が削除を受けて that RRC が派生される。

Kim, Kwang-sup (2008) “English C Moves(20), (21) では説明のため tree notation を用

Downward as Well as Upward: Anいる。

Extension of Bošković and Lasnik’s (2003)

2

Approach,” Linguistic Inquiry 39, 295-307.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1969) “English Relativization

参考文献
Aoun, Joseph and Yen-Hui Audrey Li (2003)
Essaysonthe

Representationaland Certain Related Problems,” ModernandStudiesin

English:Readings

inDerivational Nature of Grammar: The

Transformational Grammar, ed. by David

Diversity of Wh-Constructions, MIT Press,

Reibel et al., 264-287, Prentice-Hall,

Cambridge, MA.

Englewood Cliffs.

Browning, Marguerite (1987) Null Operator

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey

Constructions, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Leech

Chomsky, Noam (1977) “On Wh Movement,”

and

Jan

Svartvik(1985)A

Comprehensive Grammar of the English

Formal Syntax, ed. by Peter Culicover,Language, Longman, London, New York.

Thomas Wasow and Adrian Akmajian,Smits, Rik (1989) Eurogrammar: The Relative

71-132, Academic Press, New York.
Chomsky,Noam(1995)

The

and Cleft Constructions of the Germanic

Minimalist

and Romance Languages, Foris, Dordrecht.

Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2004) “Beyond Explanatory
Adequacy,” Structures and Beyond, ed. by
Adriana

Belletti,

104-131,

OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, New York.
Chomsky,Noam(2013)“Problemsof23総称文を Striking Generic と呼び、人間にとって生死にかかわるような危険性を述べた例
が多いことを指摘している。また、Gelman etal. (2015)は、all や some などの明示的数量詞
総称文の謎を認知能力の複合性から解く *が 4 歳以降まで習得されないのに対し、総称（Compound Cognitive Abilities and the Puzzle

文は 3 歳以前に習得されていることを明ら

of Generic Sentences）

かにしている。このように、総称文が生まれつきのデフォルト的認知能力 2 と結びつき、

岩部 浩三（Kozo Iwabe）

十分な言語能力が身につく前から使用可能

山口大学（Yamaguchi University）

であることは生存面でも有利であるに違いないし、総称文の基盤がここにあることも確

キーワード：総称文, 量化, 冠詞, 認知能力かであろう。

2. 総称文の多様性とデフォルト的認知能力
1. 総称文とデフォルト的認知能力について

英語には 3 種類の総称文がある。無冠詞複

近年、S. J. Leslie が人間の認知能力を基盤

数形(Bare Plural, 以降 BP)が最もよく使われとする一連の総称文研究 1 を発表し、英語総適用範囲も広い。他に不定単数形(Indefinite

称文の研究が新しい展開を迎えている。本論

Singular, 以 降 IS) と 定 単 数 形 (Definite

は、総称文に対する基本的認識を Leslie と共Singular, 以降 DS)があるが、後者２つにはそ有し、それを一歩前進させるとともに、今後れぞれ用法に制限があることが知られていの総称文研究のための新しい枠組みの提示る。特に IS 総称文は「種に固有の必然性」

を目指している。

を 表 す と さ れ て い る (Greenberg(2003),

総称文については、量化(Quantification)に基づく分析が長く主流であった。それにより、
言語学的に有意義な知見が多くもたらされたが、総称文と有形の数量詞の間に違いがあPrasada(2010))。そのため BP では容認されても IS では不自然になる例がある。
(3) a.

ることはそれ以前からも認識されていた。

Dogs have four legs.
（犬は 4 本脚である）

b.

(1) Tigers are striped.

A dog has four legs.
（犬というものは 4 本脚である）3(2) Sharks attack bathers.

(4) a.

Tables have four legs.
（テーブルは 4 本脚である）

例えば(1)については、縞模様のトラが all あb.

るいは most に相当すると考えられるのに対?A table has four legs.

（?テーブルというものは 4 本脚であし、海水浴客を襲うサメの数は極めて少なく
せいぜい some に相当する程度である。また、疑問文 How many tigers are striped? に対して
all や most を含む数量詞文では答えられるが、(1)の総称文では答えにならない。

る）
犬は、事故などの理由がない限り 4 本脚であるため(3ab)ともに容認される。テーブルは、４本脚のものが一般的であるため(4a)が容認

Leslie(2008)は、(2)のように、ごく少数のされるが、真ん中に太い脚が１本ある丸テー個体にしか当てはまらなくても容認できる24

ブルなど、４本脚以外のものも普通に存在す
DS については、Carlson(1977)や Krifka et al.

るので(4b)は不自然である。

(1995)によってそれが「良く確立された種

また、Striking Generic の IS も不自然であることが観察されている(Leslie et al. (2009))。 (Well-established Kind)」を表すことが指摘されている。
(5) a. Sharks attack bathers.
(7) a. The bottle has a narrow neck.

b. ? A shark attacks bathers.

b. The Coke bottle has a narrow neck.
複数形が種全体を漠然と指すのに対して、単c. ??The green bottle has a narrow neck.

数形は一つひとつを取り上げて数え上げるd.

Green bottles have narrow necks.

という量化を伴い、それによって必然性が含意されるからであろう。数量詞の理解が４歳「瓶」や「コーラ瓶」は種としてどのような以降までかかるとすれば、２歳半で使用されものであるかが話者と聞き手の間で共有さる BP 総称文は量化を前提としないはずであれているので定冠詞を使うことができるが、る。

「緑瓶」はこのような種として認識されず、BP（＝「緑色の瓶」）を使用しなければなら

3. 認知能力の複合性仮説ない。このような確立された種に関する知識

Leslie は、基本的に総称文全体をデフォルを獲得し、相手もそれを共有していることをト的認知能力に結びついた非量化表現であ推測する能力もまた大人の認知能力と考えると考えている。それに対し、岩部(2016)はられる。

英語総称文の 3 形式について、デフォルト的

総称文は、言語学的に見ると謎の多い現象

認知能力に対応するのは BP だけであると仮であるが、(6)の仮説に照らしてみれば、そ定し、(6)の「認知能力の複合性仮説」を主の背景が明らかになる。そもそも総称専用の張している。

言語形式がなく、どの言語においても複数の総称文形式が見られるのはなぜか。IS や DS

(6) 認知能力の複合性仮説 (岩部(2016))にはそれぞれ特化した意味があるのに対しa. デフォルト的認知能力に対応する英て、BP はそれらすべてを包含しているよう

語総称文の形式は BP である（無標の形式）。

に感じられ、この３形式の分担範囲が均等で

3 歳以前の幼児は他の認知能力が未発達であないのはなぜか。意味と形式が１対１に対応

り、IS や DS で区別されるような多様な読みするのが言語学的には通例であるとすると、は未分化の状態にある。

これらはかなり特異な現象である。しかし、

b. 大人になるにつれて（数理的・論理

認知能力の複合性仮説の下ではこの特異性

的）認知能力が発達し、総称文の読みの多様も自然に説明できる。また、有標の総称文形性が生じ、BP 総称文が多義的に感じられる

式が、数理的・論理的認知能力など大人の認ようになる。多義性を区別するため、特定の知能力を前提とした解釈のみに対応するこ

読みに対応する別の形式が求められるようとも当然の帰結となる。

になり、IS や DS など有標の形式がそれを担
4. デフォルト的認知能力と社会的偏見う。ただし、デフォルト的認知能力は大人に

第 2 節で、Striking Generic は IS では不自なっても失われず、BP はゆるやかで未分化な読みを表すこともできる。

然であり、BP においてのみそれが可能であ25

る こ とを 見た。この違いは重要であ り 、においても定冠詞が使われる。

Leslie(2017)が指摘する「デフォルト的認知能
力と結びついた社会的偏見」という問題の解(9) Les chats sont intelligents.

決にもつながる。例文(2)では、サメのごく(Cats are intelligent.)

一部に危険な個体が混じっている場合でも総称文を受け入れ、じっくり考えを巡らすこ

また、不定単数形と定単数形はそれぞれ英語となく直観的にサメ全体を避けることで迅の IS や DS と同様の使い方がなされることに危 険を 逃れることができた。 Strikingが観察されている（ここでは不定単数の例のGeneric に従ってこのように行動することはみを採り上げる）。

生存のため、とりわけ幼児にとっては有意義である。しかし、同じ理屈が(8a)のように人(10) Un carré a quatre cotés.

間に適用された場合、社会的偏見という負の(A square has four sides.)

効果をもたらす。
不定複数形(des)は、英語には対応する形式が(8) a. Muslims are terrorists.

なく、やや特殊な文脈で生じる。

b. ? A Muslim is a terrorist.
(11) Des jumeaux se resemblent dans les plus
デフォルト的認知能力は大人になっても維

petits détails. (双子の片割れ同士は細か持されており、このような直観的判断とりわ

い点までよく似ているものだ)

け危険回避行動の基盤となることがある。し(12) Twins resemble each other to the smallest

かし、同時に IS 形式の(8b)が不自然であるこ

detail.

とを正しく認識すれば社会的偏見という負(11)では双子２人一組ずつを取り上げて数えの面を避けることができるはずである。

上げる量化が行われている。英語にはこの構文が存在せず、単数主語はここでは意味的に

5. 英語以外の言語における総称文「認知能力の複合性仮説」は英語総称文を不可能であるので、(12)のようにデフォルト基に定式化されているが、認知能力の複合性

形式の BP に頼るしかない。しかし、(12)の自体は個別言語の違いを超えて普遍的であBP 主語は双子全体を漠然と捉えたものであると考えられる。そうすると、どの言語にもるため、世界中の双子が似ているという読み複数の総称文形式があって使い分けられてまでも許容する（ただし、そのおかしさは通いることが予測される。ここでは、フランス

常意識されない）。このような事情にもかか

語、ドイツ語、日本語を採り上げてみたい。

わらず、フランス語においてよく使われるのは、意外にも(11)ではなく、(12)に相当する
デフォルト形式の(13)の方である。

5.1. フランス語
フランス語では、総称文として定複数形(les)、定単数形(le)、不定単数形(un)、不定複(13) Les jumeaux se resemblent dans les plus

数形(des)の 4 形式がある(Mari et al. (2013))。

petit détails.

最も一般的なのが定複数形であり、これが英語の BP に相当する。フランス語は基本的に(11)は、いわば英語 IS の複数版に相当し、量無冠詞を許容しないため、デフォルト総称文化という脳に負担を強いる構文であるため、

26一般的には負担の少ない(13)の方がよく使に繰り返すが、英語の IS と「というもの」

われるのであろう。ただし、じっくり考えたの容認度がほぼ重なっているように思われ時には(13)に対しても(11)に相当する「読みる。

込み」がなされると考えられる。英語の(12)でも同様であろう。言語的に漠然としたもの(3) a.

を場面に応じて細かく読み込むことは可能

Dogs have four legs.
(犬は 4 本脚である)である。これが(6b)で述べた BP 総称文の「多b.

義性」の原因である。

A dog has four legs.
(犬というものは 4 本脚である)(4) a.

Tables have four legs.
(テーブルは 4 本脚である)

5.2. ドイツ語b.

Schaden(2013)によれば、ドイツ語総称文で?A table has four legs.

は定冠詞複数と無冠詞複数の両方が相互互(?テーブルというものは 4 本脚であ換的に使われる。4る)(14) a.

(*The) whales are mammals.

ここで、「犬というもの」という表現は論理b.

*(Les) baleines sont de mammifères.

形式における dog(x)という変項表示を引きc.

( Die) Wale sind Säugetiere.

起こし、結果的に量化の解釈を導いているよ
うに感じられる。

英語の無冠詞複数(14a)、フランス語の定冠詞

また、述語の部分に変項を含み自由関係詞

複数(14b)に対して、ドイツ語(14c)では定冠節を形成する(15a)に対して、表面的にはよく詞が随意的であり、3 言語におけるデフォル

似た(15b)においては「ものだ」がモダリテ

ト総称文の形式が異なっている。冠詞の定不ィ化して文全体にある種の法性（必然性）を定に関する基本的な用法は 3 言語において加えている。

共通であることを考えれば、この違いは謎である。デフォルト総称文は、共通して単数形(15) a.

犬は[吠えるもの]だ。

ではなく複数形を要求するように見えるが、b.

犬は吠える[ものだ]。

定冠詞の使用はそれぞれの言語において偶然的であり、意味論的な必然性はないように(15)の 2 つの文に派生関係があるかどうかは思われる。これはデフォルト総称文の使用が不明であるが、変項や法性の解釈は洗練され冠詞の厳格な使い分けの習得よりも先行す

た言語能力を前提とするものであり、脳に負るためではなかろうか。

担のかかる操作を必要とするであろう。
(15b)のような明示的なモダリティ表現を

5.3. 日本語

含む文はもはや総称文とは呼べないかもし

日本語にも無標総称文（デフォルト形式）

れない。もっとも、英語やフランス語ではたと有標総称文の使い分けが存在するであろ

またま冠詞や単複によって総称文が一定のうか。冠詞がなく単数複数の区別をしない日

形式に収束しているように見えるだけであ

本語においては、有標総称文はどのような形って、いずれにしても総称専用の形式がある

式をとるのであろうか。岩部(2016)は有標総

わけではない。また、このような言語におい称文の候補として「というもの」「ものだ」ても、明示的数量詞やモダリティを含むいわという表現に注目している。例文(3)(4)を下ば総称周辺構文が存在していることに変わ27

な記述を目指した理論は明らかに不十分でりはない。

ある。量化という概念はむしろ IS にふさわ
6. 今後の研究に向けてしいと考えられる。

最後に、本論の主張を以下の表 1 にまとめ

また、Striking Generic を記述するのに、法るとともに、今後の総称文研究の見通しを示

性や二重否定との類似性に基づいた研究もしたい。

ある。5 法助動詞や二重否定を含む(16bc)は、ともに海水浴客を襲うサメが少数であることを含意するが、(16a)の Striking Generic とい思考(システム１)：子供の認知能力同等に扱うことは出来ない。

(危険回避・直観的行動、社会的偏見、脳の負担小)(16) a.

デフォルト総称文：冠詞の使い分けが(厳格で)ない、複数形の使用(BP)、Striking
Generic 可能

Sharks attack bathers.

b.

Sharks may attack bathers.

c.

It is not the case that sharks do notattack bathers.

遅い思考(システム２)：大人の認知能力(社会的偏見を避ける論理的行動、脳の負法性がある種の量化であるとすれば、(16b)

担大)は大人の認知能力に基づいたものであると

総称周辺構文：冠詞の使い分け(不定冠詞思われる。また二重否定にも脳に負担のかか

単数(IS)、定冠詞単数(DS)、不定冠詞複数)、

る論理演算が伴われると思われる。6Striking Generic はごく少数であっても危量化(数量詞、法性）、二重否定

険な個体が存在すれば受け入れられる。しか表１

しながら、Cimpian et al. (2010)によれば、一旦受け入れられた総称文の含意は非常に強従来の総称文研究は主として BP を対象にい。例えば、(16a)を前提とした上で「どのくして来ており、IS や DS の研究は少ない。こらいの数のサメが人を襲うか」を尋ねると回れは、BP が総称文において最も一般的で制答はかなり大きな割合になるということで限のない形式であることからも一応は妥当ある。総称文には、受け入れに必要なわずかな選択のように見える。たしかに、デフォルな証拠と受け入れ後の強い含意という非対ト的認知能力を反映した称性があり、それを利用して危険回避に役立い思考に基づき、

危険回避行動に結びついた Striking Genericてているのである。実際、(16a)を教えられたが BP で表現されることからも、総称文の根

幼児はすべてのサメを避けようとするであ源が BP にあることは間違いないであろう。

ろう。大人になって、危険なのはわずかなサ

しかしながら、この総称文の根源と思われる

メだけであることを知ってもなお(16a)は受部分は言語学的分析にはなじまない。むしろ

け入れられ続ける。ちなみに、most のよう

非言語的とも言える側面を持っている。幼児な数量詞においては、受け入れと含意の非対は早い段階で総称文を習得するが、数量詞の称性は見られない。Striking Generic の非量化

習得時期から考えて、量化という操作はその的な特徴がここでも際立っているおり、社会段階ではまだ身についていないと考えられ的偏見はまさにこの図式から生じるものでる。とすれば、usually などの量化副詞との類ある。それに対して、(16c)のような二重否定

似性に基づき、量化によって総称文の統一的文が人間に適用されても社会的偏見にただ28

ちにつながりはしない。(16a)に対して、場合ている。

によっては(16b)や(16c)のような内容を読み

3

込むことは可能であるが、両者は決して同等当する日本語として「というもの」という表のものではない。

現を当てている。
4

Leslie は、総称文全体についてそれが非量

後述（第 5.3 節）のように、IS 総称文に相Schaden によれば、ドイツ語総称文の定冠

詞は通常の前方照応の用法とは異なる。前方化表現である、と述べている。

照応の用法では、先行する不定名詞句を受け
closelyて定冠詞が使われるが、総称用法では不定=>

resemble those of quantified statements. I

定、不定=>不定、定=>定、定=>不定のいず

will

れの順序も可能である。

(17) Certainly,
argue

their

logical forms

that,

despiteappearances,5

generics are in no sense quantificational.

岩部(1999)は、総称文の存在読みが生じる

条件を論理的に説明しており、そこでは二重(Leslie(2007:379))

否定が重要な役割を果たしている。
Leslie et al. (2009) においては、心理学者との6共同研究により彼女自身が BP と IS/ DS とのかったと考える理由はない』と言うつもりだ

比較を行い、Striking Generic を許すのは BPった」という釈明をしたことがある。言語学だけであることを確認している。それにもか

者は二重否定の計算くらいは苦もなくこな

かわらず、BP と IS/DS を区別するという方せるので、これで何の言い訳になるのか理解

向には向かっていない。また、他の場所でもに苦しむかもしれない。「二重否定って、や

量化の３部構 表示が BP 総称文に必要であやこしくて訳がわからなくなってしまうよ

ることを認めてもいる。すでに見たように、ね。だから、つい間違えて『ロシアが介入し大人の認知能力が身につけば、BP 総称文をたと考える理由はない』と言ってしまったの

あたかも量化表現のように読み込むことはだよ」ということらしい。少なくともそれで可能であるが、総称文研究の枠組みとしてま一定の同情が得られるという計算があった

ずは表１の上下の区別を立てることが重要ものと思われる。

である。77

トランプ氏がかつて「『ロシアが介入しな

日本英語学会第 36 回大会において本論の内容を口頭発表した際、フロアから「表１の* 本研究は科学研究費基盤研究(C)(H28～

い思考は人間以外の動物とも共通性があH30)「人間の認知能力の複合性と総称文の多るのではないか」という趣旨のコメントをい様性」（研究課題／領域番号 16K02771）にただいたが、その可能性は高いと考えられる。

よるサポートを受けている。

危険回避という生存上重要な能力は人間だ

注

けでなく、動物にも当然備わっているはずだ

https://www.princeton.edu/~sjleslie/においてからである。たしかに、人間は総称文というLeslie の論文の多くが入手可能である。
Leslie によれば、デフォルト的認知能力はことばを用いて、幼児に警告し、他者と認識

Kahneman (2011)の「い思考」に相当する。

にはプリミティブなものであり、冠詞の使い

人間は、論理的・数量的であるが脳に負担の分け、量化、法性などの洗練された言語能力

かかる「遅い思考（=システム 2）」と、直観を前提としていないと予測される。洗練され的で脳に負担のかからない「い思考（=シた言語能力が人間を他の動物と区別するもステム１）」の両方を備えていると考えられのであるとすれば、原始的な言語能力だけを12を共有できるが、デフォルト総称文は言語的

29

求めるデフォルト総称文は人間と動物の間Leslie, Sarah-Jane (2007) “Generics and theの連続性を解明するカギにもなりそうであStructure of the Mind,” Philosophicalる。

Perspectives 21-1, 375-403.
Leslie, Sarah-Jane (2008) “Generics: Cognition
and Acquisition,” Philosophical Review

参考文献
Carlson, Gregory N. (1977) Reference to Kinds
inEnglish,Doctoral

117-1, 1-47.
Leslie, Sarah-Jane (2017) “The Original Sin ofdissertation,

Cognition:

University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
A.

Gelman(2010)

but

Have

and

114-8, 1-29.

“Generic

Leslie, Sarah-Jane, Sangeet Khemlani, Sandeep

Statements Require Little Evidence for
AcceptancePrejudice

Generalization,” The Journal of Philosophy

Cimpian, Andrei, Amanda C. Brandone and
Susan

Fear,

PrasadaPowerfuland

Sam Glucksberg(2009)

Implications,” Cognitive Science 34-8,“Conceptual and Linguistic Distinctions

1452-1482.

between Singular and Plural Generics,”
Proceedings of the 31st Annual Cognitive

Gelman, Susan A., Sara-Jane Leslie, Alexandra

Science Society.

M. Was and Christina M. Koch (2015)
ofMari, Alda, Claire Beyssade and Fabio Del Prete“Children's

Interpretations

GeneralQuantifiers,

Specific

Quantifiers,

and(2013) “Introduction,” Genericity, ed. byGenerics,”

Language

Cognition

andAlda Mari, Claire Beyssade and Fabio Del
Prete, 1-92, Oxford University Press,

Neuroscience 30-4, 448-461.
Greenberg,

Yael(2003) Manifestations

Oxford.

ofGenericity, Routledge, New York.

小田涼・岩部浩三・二宮哲・東郷雄二 (2018)

岩部浩三 (1999) 「存在的総称文と一般化の「総称文の対照言語学--英語・スペイン

階層性」, 稲田俊明・岩部浩三・大庭幸

語・フランス語における総称--」, 『フ男・水光雅則・武本雅嗣・西村秀夫（編）ランス語学研究』52, 113-121, 日本フラ『言語研究の潮流』, 51-66, 開拓社, 東

ンス語学会.
Prasada,京.

Sandeep

Representation

岩部浩三 (2016)「総称文の多様性と認知能(2010)
and“Conceptual

Some

Forms

of

力の複合性--社会的偏見の克服に向け

Genericity,” Kinds, Things, and Stuff, ed. byて」, 『英語と英米文学』第 51 号, 1-16,

Francis山口大学.

University Press, Oxford.

OxfordGenericity, ed. by Alda Mari, Claire

Krifka, Manfred, Francis J. Pelletier, Gregory N.
ter

36-59,

Referring to Generalities in German,”

Slow, Penguin, London.
Alice

Pelletier,

Schaden, Gerhard (2013) “Two Ways of

Kahneman, Daniel (2011) Thinking, Fast andCarlson,J.

Meulen,Beyssade and Fabio Del Prete, 157-175,

GennaroOxford University Press, Oxford.

Chierchia and Godehard Link (1995)“Genericity: An Introduction,” The GenericBook, ed. by Gregory N. Carlson andFrancis J. Pelletier, 1-124, The Universityof Chicago Press, Chicago.

30

叙述になっている。
(2) The wise men followed the star out of
Bethlehem. (Wechsler (1997: 313))
直接目的語制約に従わない結果構文*（Resultatives That Do Not Obey the Direct

しかし follow は移動を含意する。だからこれ

Object Restriction）

は移動動詞の後に経路句が続いているだけであって、そもそも結果構文ではない(vander Leek 2000, Kay 2005)。だから、「例外」で岩田 彩志（Seizi Iwata）
関西大学（Kansai University）

も何でもないことになる。
本稿で問題にするのは、これとは違う現象である。(3)を見てほしい。

キーワード：結果構文, 直接目的語制約,
causal chain, force に基づかない結果構文(3) a. The 39-year-old Briton drove his
Renault-Williams car to victory in thePortuguese Grand Prix …

1. to victory(WB)

英語の結果構文には、様々な制約があるこ

b. … but when you sailed your yachtとが知られている。その一つが、結果句は直Sayonara to victory in Australia in that

接目的語しか叙述の対象に出来ない、というterrible hurricane …

(COCA)

ものである。これは Simpson (1983)が最初に指摘した事実である。例えば(1a)で結果句(3a)で to victory が叙述しているのは、主語でdead は直接目的語の him についての叙述であって目的語の車ではない。同様に、(3b)である。ところが(1b)では、「私は鋼鉄を溶かも to victory が叙述しているのは、主語であす作業をしていて、しまいには体が熱くなっって目的語のヨットではない。

てしまった」という解釈があってもよさそう

ここで、直接目的語制約を維持したい、とであるが、実際には、このように結果句 hot

思う人達からは、次のような反論がなされるが主語について叙述している解釈は許されかしれない。これらのレースで勝つのは、確ない。

かに主語の人間だが、その人間が乗っている車やヨットも、レースをする上で重要な役割(1) a. I shot him dead.

を果たしている。だから、人間と同様に「勝b. *I melted the steel hot.

って」いると言えるのでないか。そうすると、主語だけでなく直接目的語も to victory の叙

Simpson (1983)のこの観察は、後に Levin &述の対象となり、少なくとも部分的には直接Rappaport Hovav (1995) に よ っ て 、 Direct

目的語制約を満たしているではないか、と。

Object Restriction（直接目的語制約）と呼ば

しかしこれはかなり苦しい理屈である。まず、(4)のように直接目的語を省略することれることになる。

が可能である。

この直接目的語制約に関しては、既に「例外」とされるものが議論されている。例えば(2)で前置詞句 out of Bethlehem は、目的語の(4) a. He won his first grand prix in his second

the star でなく主語の the wise men についてのrace and drove to victory in two others that31

year.

(WB)

出したお陰でカナダチームが勝利した、ということを伝えている。明らかに、to victory

b. AHT sailed to victory once again …

が叙述しているのは、動詞 kick に後続する(BNC)

名詞句 Canada である。さらに重要なのは、これらの文で、to victory が叙述しているのは、 (7)が示すように、この Canada が kick により下位範疇化されていない、という事実である。

紛れもなく主語である。そしてこのように直接目的語がない場合と、直接目的語がある場(7) *FLY-HALF Gareth Rees kicked Canada.

合とで根本的な解釈上の違いがあるようには思われない。

このように下位範疇化されていない目的語

また(5)のように、乗っているものが比喩を取れる、というのは英語における結果構文的である実例も見つかる。

の疑いない特徴の一つである。
(5) a. It was a strong anti-government message

以上をまとめると、to victory は直接目的語

that helped Rand Paul ride the Tea Party

制約に反して、主語について叙述を行うことwaveが出来る。しかし直接目的語制約に従う場合

tovictory

intheKentuckyもある。では to victory を含む結果構文は、

Republican Senate primary.
b. Republicans successfully mobilized their
own

core

votersandrode

なぜ直接目的語制約に従ったり、従わなかっanたりするのか？

anti-incumbent vote to victory.
2. 直接目的語制約はなぜ成立するのか？

(共に COCA)

この問題を解くためには、そもそも直接目
それぞれ「Tea Party の波に乗って勝利した」、的語制約がなぜ成立するのか？を解明する「反現職の票に乗って勝利した」という意味必要がある。その前提として、ここでは結果であるが、the wave と the vote が勝者とはと構文に対して causal chain 分析を採用する。

うてい考えられない。

例えば Tracy wiped the table clean に対する
causal chain は(8)のようになる。

これらの事実からすれば、to victory はやはり主語についてのみ叙述を行っている、と見(8)なすのが妥当であろう。つまり、直接目的語

Tracy

制約に対する真の反例ということになる。

ACT ONCHANGE

table

clean

ここで、直接目的語制約をどうしても保持したい人は、さらに次のように言うかもしれ

この分析は Croft (1990, 1991) が言い出したない。
「to victory はそもそも結果句でないのものだが、後に Rappaport Hovav & Levinだ」と。ところが、to victory を含む表現は通(2001) も 採 用 し て い る 。 た だ し Croft 、常の結果構文のように振る舞うこともある。

Rappaport Hovav & Levin とも、ACT ON と(6)を見ていただきたい。

CHANGE を同じ矢印で表しているが、両者はやはり性質が違う。そこでここでは(6) FLY-HALF Gareth Rees kicked Canada to a

CHANGE の矢印を太いものにしてある。

convincing victory in Port Elizabeth. (WB)

Causal chain 分析は、特に目新しいものではない。しかし Croft、Rappaport Hovav &Levin とも気づいていない側面がこの分析のこの文は、あるサッカー選手がキックを繰り

32

て、もう一度 to victory を含む文を見てみよ中にある。これは、(8)の causal chain を(9)のように書き換えてみると、よりはっきりする。 う。(10)では、直接目的語の位置に現れている実体は、勝利することに直結するような(9)force を受けていない。だから直接目的語制

X acts on Y, and as a result Y becomes Z.

約に従わないのは、当然のことである。
force-recipient

host of predication(10) PHILIPPE ROZIER … rode the same(9)のように書き換えてみると、Y 項が act onhorse to victory for France in the Euroされる対象であり、force-recipient であるだけ

Horse Trophy in Gothenberg yesterday.

でなく、Y 項が Z の叙述の主体（host of(BNC)

predication）であることが明示される。つまり直接目的語制約と実質的に同じことがここのように考えれば、(10)のような例が直こに表されている訳だが、(9)を見てみれば、

接目的語制約に従わないことは説明がつく。

直接目的語制約を言わば「因数分解」するこ

しかしこれは同時に、重要な帰結をもたらす。

とが可能になってくる。

す な わ ち 、 (10) の よ う な 例 は (8) の よ う に

まず何故 force-recipient としての Y 項が、

causal chain で分析できる結果構文とは別のhost of predication としての Y 項と同一にならものだ、ということになる。つまり、force

ねばならないかだが、これは正に causal chainに基づかない状態変化を表す結果構文だとの意味から導かれる。(8)の causal chain が表いうことである。

しているのは、「ある実体に力を加えて、そ3. Force に基づかない状態変化の結果、その実体の状態が変わる」ということである。そして、ある物に力を加えてそのでは、force に基づかないで状態変化を起

結果、状態変化が起こるならば、変化するのこす、とはどのようなことか？ここで結果句

は、何か別の物でなく、必ずその力を加えらの形に注目してみよう。通常、to-前置詞結果れた物である。これは言わば当たり前の事で句は、towards 句で置き換えることが出来なある。この logic により、host of predicationい。(11b)の形はコーパスでも見当たらず、もは必然的に force-recipient とイコールになる。

し使われることがあったとしても、おどけて使われる場合だけであろう。

次に、英語では行為による働きかけがある
場合は、主語でなく直接目的語が(11) a.

force-recipient になる。この二つを足し算すれ

He drank himself to death.

b. *He drank himself towards death.

ば、host of predication は直接目的語とイコールになる。つまり直接目的語制約とは、forceが加えられたらどの実体に変化が生じるか

これは、to 結果句が goal 句としての性質がと、英語における直接目的語位置の意味的な

弱まっているためと考えられる。
これに対して、to victory では towards a

役割とが組み合わさった結果、自動的に導か

victory の形もコーパスで実例が見つかる。

れることになる。
そしてこの理屈に従えば、逆に force が加えられていなければ、たとえ直接目的語であ(12) In fact, it was an “A” team player whoっても、host of predication と同一になるべき

helped them towards a good victory over

理由がないことになる。このことを頭に入れ

highly placed Malshanger on Wednesday

33

last week.

(BNC)

ファーにより関連づけられている、と分析できる。二つの領域間の写像は図 1 のようになる。1ということは、to victory は一見形が同じでありながら、移動の経路としての性質を、todeath よりも強く維持していると考えられる。
そこで to victory は、force に基づく状態変

mover

actor

goal of motion

goal to be

化でなく、メタファー的移動に基づく状態変achieved

化を表している、という分析を提案する。すmoving activity

activity done to

なわち、to victory は、メタファー的に解釈

achieve a goal

された移動文における、メタファー的な goalreach a goalを表している、ということになる。

achieve a goal

では何故メタファー的移動に基づく状態変化と考えるべきなのか？ここで goal とい

図１：２つの“goal”の対応関係

う語が二通りの解釈を許すことに注意してほしい。(13a)で goal とは、空間的に移動し移動者が行為者に、移動の goal が達成すべて行って到着する goal である。一方(13b)でき goal に、移動の行為が goal を達成するたの goal とは、「goal を達成する」という意味

めに成される活動に、それぞれ対応している。

での goal である。

このメタファーにより、状態変化が抽象的な位置変化として捉えられることになる。

(13) a. When you reach the goal, ask the name

このように考えれば、何故 victory というof the city and give flowers to the first

語が to 前置詞句に現れるかも、納得がいく

person you meet.

であろう。victory とは、正に様々な努力をし

b. CB is also most unlikely to reach itsて「達成する goal」である。そして「達成すambitious goal of generating half its

る goal」は、メタファーにより「到着するearnings outside France by 1992.

goal」と結びついている。その結果、to victory(共に BNC)という表現が可能になる。つまり、（少なくとも英語においては）「勝つ」とは、苦労し同じ goal という語で表されているため、見て進んで行った結果、goal にたどり着くこと、落としてしまうかもしれないが、この二つのと概念化されている。

意味の goal は別物である。

更に、実際にレースでは、先に goal に到

そしてこの「達成する goal」は、しばしば着することが、正に勝利することである。こ「到着する goal」になぞらえて理解されていの点からも、to victory という表現は動機づける。そのため、「達成する goal」でも、(14)られているのであろう。2のように towards 句に生じることが出来る。

ではこの見方を具体例に当てはめてみよう。(15)は、競馬で競争馬が戦い抜いて勝利(14) As Europe moves towards its goal of a

する、という状況を表している。

common internal market … (BNC)(15) Every time I watch that horse battle to
そこで、二つの意味の goal は ACHIEVING

victory it sums up what National Hunt

A GOAL IS REACHING A GOAL というメタ

racing is all about.

34

(WB)

(17) a. And 70-year-old Florence Nagle galloped

この表現は、空間的移動を表す(16)の run toto victory in the courts.

the store と平行している。
b.

… as he ran to victory. (共に WB)(16) She ran to the store.
このように、ここまで見てきた to victory
両者の平行性は、図２・図 3 のように表すこを含む文は、要するにメタファー的な移動をとが出来る。白い○は goal を表している。

表す表現だということである。これは、(18)でも変わらない。

running (=spatial motion)(18) PHILIPPE ROZIER … rode the same horse
to victory for France in the Euro Horsestore (=physical goal)

Trophy in Gothenberg yesterday.

図２：She ran to the store(BNC)

この文で直接目的語は、「競馬で走る」といbattling (=metaphorical motion)

う行為にとって単に付随的なものである。そしてメタファー的移動文において、直接目的

victory (=metaphorical goal)

語が to victory により叙述されなければなら

図３：The horse battled to victory

ない理由は見当たらない。寧ろ、移動文であ(16)の run to the store は、図２に示したよ

れば、移動の主体についての叙述になる。そうに、running という空間的移動をした結果、してこの場合、移動の主体は主語である。だ

物理的な goal である store に到着している。

から to victory が主語についての叙述になるそれに対して、battle to victory は、battling をのは、当然のことである。

した結果、勝利に至る訳だから、図３のよう

最後に、to victory が現れながらも、直接目に、battling というメタファー的移動をした的語についての叙述になっている場合を考結果、メタファー的な goal である victory にえてみよう。

到着することになる。
このように to victory とは「goal を達成す(19) FLY-HALF Gareth Rees kicked Canada to

るための活動＝メタファー的移動」をした結a convincing victory in Port Elizabeth.

果、
到着する goal を表していることになる。
これは、移動動詞に to victory が続く場合(18)と(19)の大きな違いは、(18)が単なる移動であっても変わらない。例えば(17)の gallop

文であるのに対して、(19)は使役移動文であto victory や run to victory のように移動動詞る点である。つまり、(19)では kick することが to victory と共起する場合がある。ここでが抽象的な force を行使することと捉えられ

gallop や run は確かに空間的移動を表すが、ており、その抽象的な force が「カナダチー

実は単なる空間的移動というよりも、競技とムを勝利へ押しやった」ということを述べてしての gallop・run として捉えられている。

いる。

そしてその競技としての galloping・running

どちらの文でも、to victory が抽象的な goalが、図３の battling と同じく、メタファー的を表していることに変わりはない。しかし移動と解釈されている。

(18)の文では、主語の表す実体が、自ら移動

35

して goal に到達するのに対して、(19)では、やはり直接目的語制約に従わない。

主語が別の実体に働きかけて、その働きかけ

この事実も、やはり force に基づかない結を受けた実体が、victory という goal に到達

果構文だと考えれば、説明がつく。ただし toしている。このように使役移動文であるから

victory の場合と違って、ここでは空間的移動

こそ、wipe the table clean のような例と同じが関わっている。Sweetser (1999)では、safe

く、force に基づく結果構文の事例となる。

のフレーム意味論的分析を行っているが、そのため、直接目的語制約を満たすことにな

safe という状態が成立する一つの状況は、る。

「危害が及ばない場所にいる」ことだという以上をまとめると、直接目的語制約が成立趣旨のことを述べている。だから to safety とするのは、force に基づいて状態変化が起こ

は、この意味の safe に対応しており、“to aるようなタイプの結果構文の場合だけであplace where one is safe”「安全なところへ」とる。しかし状態変化は、必ずしも force に基いう意味であると考えられる。つまり、「誰づく必然性はない。to victory を伴う結果構文

かを safe にする」とは、その人を危険でないは、メタファー的移動に基づいた状態変化を場所へ連れていくことであり、「safe になる」

表すから、force に基づかない結果構文になとは、危険でない場所に移動することである。

りうる。そしてその場合は、直接目的語制約

つまり、先ほどまで見てきた to victory はメに従わない。ただし to victory を伴う結果構

タファー的移動により状態変化が生じてい文が、使役移動文である場合は、force に基たが、to safety では、空間的移動により状態

づいて状態変化を起こしていることになる変化が生じていることになる。
空間的移動を表す文だから、直接目的語のから、直接目的語制約に従う。

the border は force-recipient で は な い 。
4. 空間的移動により引き起こされる状態変

Jackendoff (1987)の言い方を借りれば、単な化

る landmark である。だから直接目的語制約に従わないことも、別に驚くべきことではな

ここで当然生じてくる疑問は、force に基
づ か な い で 状 態 変 化 を引 き 起 す の は 、 toい。

victory の場合だけだろうか、ということであそして動詞が空間的移動を表しているかる。数は少ないが、そのような結果構文は確ら、空間的移動が辿った経路を表す前置詞句

かに存在する。以下ではその幾つかを見ていを、to safety と同時に表すことも可能である。

くことにする。
(20)の例は、「伝えられるところによると、(21) a. … the heroine pilots the wounded herothrough the desert to safety …

既に約百万人が、国境を越えた結果、安全に

b. FIREFIGHTERS rescued a pensioner

なった」という意味であり、結果構文と考え

from an upstairs bedroom after hisられる。

daughter jumped to safety from their(20) About 1 million had reportedly alreadycrossed the border to safety.

blazing home.

(共に BNC)（COCA）
ここで through the desert・from their blazing

しかし、ここで安全になるのは直接目的語のhome は空間的移動の経路を表し、to safety

the border でなく、主語の表す約百万の人達がそのような経路を辿った結果としての状

である。
つまり、
to safety を含む結果構文も、態変化を表す、という恰好になっている。

36

この to safety とよく似ているのが、to約に従ったり、従わなかったりする。この一

freedom である。まず to freedom を伴う結果

見不可思議に思える事実も、どのように状態

構文は、直接目的語制約に従わない。

変化を引き起こすか、に関して少なくとも 2
種類あると考えれば説明がつく。

(22) a. Well, not so long ago many Germans
crossedtheborders

illegally

まずこれまで先行研究で挙げられていたような例は、causal chain 分析でうまく扱え

tofreedom to West Germany …

ることからも分かるように、force に基づい

b. … each departing Cuban must pay theて状態変化を起こすタイプの結果構文であstate $612 before they can escape Cuba

る。このタイプの結果構文では、直接目的語

to freedom.

が force-recipient である。そして force を加え(共に COCA)て状態変化を起こすとなれば、その(22a)(22b)はそれぞれ、「国境を越えた結果、

force-recipient の状態変化でしかありえない。

自由になった」「キューバを逃れた結果、自このため、直接目的語制約があてはまる。

由になる」という意味である。ここで自由に

しかし to victory を含む表現は、メタファ

なるのは、主語の Germans・Cuban であり、ー的移動に基づく状態変化を表している。こ

直接目的語の the borders・Cuba ではない。

のタイプでは、直接目的語が現れていても、次に、空間的経路を表す前置詞句が toforce-recipient ではない。だから直接目的語制

freedom と共起することも可能である。

約が成り立つ理由は何もない。寧ろ、移動文であるから移動の主体である主語が、結果句の 叙 述 対 象 と な る 。 他 に も to safety・ to(23) a. When a hardened criminal jumps over the

freedom 等を含む表現が、移動に基づく結果

wall to freedom …
b. When American hostages – mostly構文と考えられる。

women and children – fly to freedom* 本 研 究 は 、 科 研 費 （ 基 盤 (c) ： 課 題 番 号

from Iraq and Kuwait … (共に WB)

16K02786）の助成を受けている。
これらの事実は、完全に to safety の場合と同注

じように説明出来る。つまり、to freedom と1

は「拘束されない場所へ」ということであり、の PURPOSES ARE DESTINATIONS とほぼ

このメタファーは、Lakoff & Johnson (1999)

これらの文は空間的移動による状態変化を同じものである。

表していることになる。だから(22)で直接目

2

的語の the borders・Cuba は、単なる landmark

すべての勝利が、goal に到着することによっを表しており、その結果、直接目的語制約にて達成される訳ではないので、多分これは二従わない。また空間的移動を表す文だから、次的なものとみなすべきであろう。

William Croft 教授よりのコメント。ただし、その空間的移動の経路を表す前置詞句が to
freedom と共起することも、何ら問題がない。

コーパス
British National Corpus (BNC)

5. 結論

Corpus of Contemporary American English

to victory を含む表現は、「動詞の表す行為(COCA)
Wordbanks Corpus (WB)をした結果、勝利する」という意味だから結果構文と考えられる。ところが直接目的語制

37

(4) The inactivity condition applies at the C-I
interface.
I show that this proposal is able to account forthe data in (1) to (3), exemplified in Chomsky

Extraction out of Subject Phrases andLabeling Theory*(2008), and further demonstrate that the proposal
is

able

to

capture

data

that

constitute

Satoru Kanno

counter-examples to Chomsky’s account. Finally,

Tokyo University of Science

I will offer various consequences for the
adoption of this proposal.

Keywords：Inactivity Condition, Labeling,
sub-extraction, subject phrase

2. Inactivity Condition
In this section, I compare Chomsky’s (2008)
inactivity condition with the proposal in (4), thatis, the inactivity condition that is applied at the

1. Proposal
The purpose of this paper is to discuss

C-I interface. Chomsky (2008) claims that the

sub-extraction phenomena in labeling theory.

inactivity condition applies in the following

Chomsky (2008) offers data in (1) to (3),case:arguing that sub-extraction out of subject(5) [wh-phrase … [DPi wh-phrase ] … [DPi ]]]phrases is impossible in transitive sentences
while possible in passive or raising sentences.

X(1) *It was the CAR of which [the driver [tIn (5), the noun DP moves and is assigned acaused a scandal]] (Chomsky (2008: 153))

Case feature. After the valuation of the Case(2) It was the CAR of which [the driver wasfeature, the DP becomes inactive in the syntax,

found](ibid.: 147))

which means that the wh-phrase within the(3) It is the CAR of which [the driver is likely

inactive DP cannot undergo internal Merge with[t to [t cause a scandal]]](ibid.: 153)

an outside item. Chomsky’s claim can then besummarized as follows:

In order to account for the grammaticality of thesentences in (1) to (3), Chomsky (2008)(6) a. An argument with an unvalued Case

proposes the inactivity condition as a constraint

feature becomes inactive in the syntax.

on internal Merge.

b. A wh-phrase within this argument cannot

In this paper, I will offer an alternative

undergo internal Merge with an outsideaccount based on a labeling theory. In a recent

item.

labeling theory, Merge, internal or external, isassumed to be free in its application (Chomsky

On the other hand, this paper proposes that(2013, 2015)). Given this assumption, I propose

the inactivity condition should apply at the C-I(4) as a licensing condition of copies created byinterface. A different picture emerges from (6).

the free application of internal Merge.

First, the DP activity cannot be identified in38terms of the Case features, since Case featuresthat our proposal can correctly account for theare uninterpretable features and are not sent togrammaticality of those data.

the

C-I

interface.

However,the(1) has the embedded CP structure shown in

activity(9):

identification is possible through labeling.
Specifically, when a DP moves to its final(9) [CP of which [<φ, φ> [the driver tPP] [vP [thelanding site, it enters into a φ-sharing relation
with another item such as T to offer a label. In

driver tPP] caused a scandal]]]this case, the φ-shared argument DP is identified
as the inactive item at the C-I interface. Second,

In this structure, the upper DP enters into theunder the recent labeling theory (Chomsky

φ-sharing relation and becomes inactive at the(2013, 2015)), Merge applies freely. Therefore,

C-I interface. As a result, the wh-phrase within

now some mechanism is needed to license a

the DP cannot be identified as the same copy as

copy created by the free application of internalin [Spec, CP]. Note that within the lower copy ofMerge. The proposal in (4) indicates that such athemechanism is our C-I version of the inactivity

inaccessible. Chomsky attributes this to the edge

condition. Therefore, the proposal gives rise tocondition (Chomsky (2008)), but I appeal tothe claims in (7), which are illustrated in (8),another reason, which will be discussed innoting the differences between (7) and (6).

section 4.3.

subjectDP,thewh-phrase

is

also

In the grammatical sentences in (2) and (3),(7) a. A φ-shared argument DP becomes inactive

the DP has the possibility to be interpreted at theat the C-I interface.

C-I interface in a position that is irrelevant to ab. A wh-phrase within the inactive argument

φ-sharing relation, and then the copy within thecannot be licensed as the same copy as

DP is licensed at the interface. As a result, thein [Spec, CP].

sentences are grammatical.

(8) [ wh-phrase … [<φ, φ> [DPi wh-phrase] [DPi ]]]X

3.2. Counter-Examples to Chomsky (2008)
Chomsky (2008) assumes that the inactivity(at the C-I interface)condition is a syntactic constraint. However, in(8) shows that once the DP internally merges

thissection,

I

offer

five

types

of

and undergoes the φ-sharing relation, thecounter-example, and argue that these arewh-copy within the DP cannot be licensed as the

explained using the current proposal that thesame wh-copy as in [Spec, CP].

inactivity condition applies at the C-I interface.
First, Chomsky’s account cannot make a

3. Analysis

grammaticaldistinction

ingrammaticality

3.1. Data from Chomsky (2008)

between sentences with a stage-level predicate
and those with an individual-level predicate.

In this section, I first show that the data in(10) is specific examples.

(1) to (3) from Chomsky (2008) can be properly
captured by our proposed C-I version of theinactivity

condition.

Then,

I

(10) a.

give

Of which masterpiece is [onereproduction tPP] already available?

counter-examples to Chomsky (2008), to show

39

operation can successfully apply to clausal

b. ?* Of which masterpiece is [onegerunds in a subject position. Before giving

reproduction tPP] absolutely perfect?

concrete examples, I first show that clausal(Bianchi and Chesi (2015: 50))

gerunds do not enter into φ-sharing relations
with TP, as shown in (11).

Offering the contrast shown in (10), Bianchi andChesi (2015) argue that the subject of the(11) ?*Him winning and you losing arestage-level predicate available can successfully

wonderful.

undergo a sub-extraction operation while the(Ross (1973: 147))

same operation cannot apply to the subject of theindividual-level predicate perfect. The contrast

This sentence indicates that clausal gerunds doin (10) shows that some additional assumption

not enter into φ-sharing relations, since theneed to be added to (6) in order to account for

be-verb cannot inflect in its plural form eventhe difference.

when two gerunds are coordinated. A prediction

On the other hand, the current proposal isthat comes from the current proposal is thatable to give an appropriate account for thisso-called sub-extraction phenomena should becontrast as follows. First, the subject noun

observed in clausal gerunds. This prediction isphrases move to [Spec, TP] regardless of theirborne out in (12) and (13).

interpretations in overt syntax. Moving to the(12) a. For what reason did [PRO bursting into

position (that is, [Spec, TP]), they enter into therooms t] get John fired

φ-sharing relation with TP, and then the wholeb. How would [PRO holding off a tiger t]clause is labeled <φ, φ>. Second, the whole
structure is sent to the C-I interface, and themake one famous (Hegarty (1992: 119))interface chooses one subject position for the(13) Who does baking ginger cookies for tire
you out?

semantic interpretation of the DP. When a(Kluender (2004: 119))sentence contains an individual-level predicate
as in (10b), the subject must be semanticallyFurthermore, the licensing of a wh-copy

interpreted in the higher position. However, thiswithin the clausal gerunds is also successful,is the same position at which the subject entersregardless of the predicate types; that is, either

into the φ-sharing relation. Therefore, due to (4),stage-level

the wh-phrase within the DP cannot be licensed

predicateas the same copy as in [Spec, CP], and thefollowings:

predicatecanappear,orindividual-level

as

shown

in

the

sentence is ungrammatical. On the other hand,(14) a. Who is preparing rump steaks to alreadywhen the sentence contains a stage-level

ready?

predicate, the subject can be interpreted in the(stage-level adjective)

b. Who is serving rump steaks to very

lower position, that is at [Spec, vP]. In this case,important?

the wh-phrase within the lower subject phrase is(individual adjective)correctly licensed as the same copy. Then, theThe grammaticality of the sentences in (14)sentence is judged as a grammatical sentence.
Second, contrary to the expectations inindicate that a clausal gerund, whether it be inChomsky’s (2008) account, the sub-extraction

the higher position or the lower position at the40

C-I interface, does not enter into a φ-sharing

Note that (16) is not perfectly grammatical.

relation. The discussion here indicates that the

However, as Saito (1985) emphasizes, what is

possibility of the successful sub-extraction

important is that the sub-extraction out of

operation cannot be reducible to predicate types

subject phrases causes the same degree ofas Bianchi and Chesi (2015) show in (10). The

degradation as in object phrases. Then, Saito

relevant factor is the positions available to a(1985) concludes that there is no independent

subject at the C-I interface.

principle such as subject condition in Japanese.

Third, the subject phrases in infinitival

Fifth, a counter-example can also beclauses also constitute counter-examples toobserved in rich-agreement languages such as

Chomsky’s analysis. It has been assumed that

Spanish and other Romance languages, in which

the raising infinitival T has an unvalued person

there is a descriptive generalization that thefeature, [uPerson] (Chomsky (2001)). Given thissub-extraction out of subject DPs is possible forassumption, the infinitival T does not establish a

post-verbal subjects while not to pre-verbal

φ-sharing relation with its subject DP. It thensubjects (Uriagereka (1988)). When a subject

follows that a sub-extraction operation arephrase occurs in the pre-verbal subject position,

possible for infinitival subjects. This prediction

it enters into the φ-sharing relation. The

is actually borne out, as follows:

sentences containing the sub-extracted item thenbecome ungrammatical. On the other hand, in(15) Of which majori is it important for [[thecases where the subject occurs post-verbally, it

students ti] to take a course in physics]?

is a little pro that enters into the φ-sharing
relation with TP. Therefore, a subject phrase in(Egashira (2015: 151))

the post-verbal position does not enter into a
φ-sharing

The fourth counterexample to Chomsky’s

relation,

which

means

that

a

claim comes from agreeementless languages

wh-phrase within the post-verbal subject can besuch as Japanese. Japanese is considered to havelicensed at the C-I interface without violating theno φ-agreement system (Fukui (1986)). If thisinactivity condition.

claim is true, sub-extraction phenomena should

To summarize, this section has shown that

be able to be observed in Japanese. Actually, thisthe current proposal can correctly give an

prediction is borne out, as the following example

account for not only the data that are shown infrom Saito (1985: 272) shows:

Chomsky (2008), but also those that constitutecounterexamples to Chomsky’s assumptions.

(16) ??Nani-oJohn-ga[Mary-gatWhat-Acc John-Nom [Mary-Nom
katta]

koto]-ga

mondai-dat

4. Consequences

to]4.1. Partial LabelingThisbought] fact]-Nom problem-is Compsub-section

discusses

severalomotteru no?

consequences of the current proposal, focusing

think

on cases where in merging of XP and YP, either

Q‘What, John thinks [that [the fact [thatof them are φ-incomplete. In the previous

Mary bought t]] is a problem’

section, following Chomsky (2001), I haveassumed that the infinitival T has only an

41

unvalued person feature, [uPerson]. Under thisrelation and offers <number, number> to theassumption, infinitival clauses have the label oflabel of the small clause consisting of the set<person, person> due to the sharing of the{DP, PPon the wall}. In other words, it is assumed[Person] with the subject DP, as shown in (17).

that the lower associate only enters into a partial
labeling algorithm, which in turn indicates that(17) It is important for [<person, person> [DP thethe sub-extraction phenomena are not excludedin there constructions.

students] [TP to learn English]].
In (17), the infinitival T only has [Person], and4.2. Speakers’ Variation

the labeling algorithm cannot find a full set of

It has been claimed that speakers’ judgment

φ-features, but only find part of the full set, thatregarding the sub-extraction out of subject

is, [Person] feature on the DPthe students and thephrases varies considerably from person to

infinitival T. Therefore, [Person] works as the

person. For example, some speakers judge bothprominent feature for labeling purposes.

sentences in (10) to be ungrammatical and others

I assume that this labeling occurs infind the grammatical status of (10a) to be only

infinitival clauses, and I name the labelingmarginally grammatical. Specifically, not allalgorithm a partial labeling. Similarly, thespeakers can successfully access a lower subject

labeling in merging a clausal gerund and TP

phrase. For those who cannot, (10a) is

becomes <person, person> since the clausal

ungrammatical. In addition, even when thegerunds do not have a complete φ-features (seelower(11)).

potentially degrades in dealing with the lower

copy

is

accessible,

grammaticality

copy, which accounts for slight degradation

The discussion here indicates that (7) holds

observed by some speakers.

only if both XP and YP are φ-complete inImportantly, the (in)accessibility of themerging XP with YP.

copies in A-movement is not exclusive to the

The plausibility of the relation between thepartialsub-extraction phenomena. For example, whenlabeling comes from there constructions inobserving so-called quirky subject constructions

which sub-extraction is possible for associates,in Icelandic, Holmberg and Hróarsdóttir (2004)

as shown in (18).

distinguish

sub-extraction

phenomena

and

the

Icelandic

speakers

into

three

different groups (speakers A, B, and C).
Speakers A and B are classified as being unable(18) Who is there [a picture of t] on the wall?

to “see” the lower copies left behind by(Stepanov (2001: 34))

A-moved items and speaker C is classified as
The expletive there is considered to have abeing sensitive to the presence of these copies.

valued3rd]

Therefore, the differences in sensitivities to(Chomsky (2001)). Therefore, the TP enters into

A-traces in speakers are found not only inthe partial labeling relation with the expletive

extraction out of subject phrases but also somethere with the clausal labeling becoming

other<person, person>. On the other hand, the lower

constructions.

third-person

feature,[Person:associate DP enters into a partial labeling42

constructions

likequirkysubject

the sub-extraction operation from applying to

4.3. The Edge Condition

noun phrases that are headed by the definite

The current paper has not so far discussed

article the.

the edge condition, which plays an important
role

in

Chomsky’s(2008)

accountofsub-extraction phenomena. The current paper

4.4. Extraction out of Objects

argues here that the edge condition as such does

As the final consequence of the current

not have an independent theoretical statusanalysis, I now turn to object phrases. It has

because some counter-examples have alreadybeen generally assumed that it is possible tobeen reported. Specifically, Chomsky himself

extract a wh-phrase out of object phrases, asshows that (19) is a grammatical example.

shown in (21) with its structure in (22).

(19) Of which books did the authors receive the(21) Who did John hear stories about t?

prize?

(Chomsky (1973: 249))(Chomsky (2008: 160, n. 39))(22) [CP whoi … [Subj [vP vhear [<φ, φ> [DP stories
In (19), the transitive verb receive appears but it

about ti]j √hear [DP stories about ti]j ]]]]

is judged as a grammatical sentence. In addition,
Jiménez-Fernández (2009) offers (20):

Important to the current analysis are thepositions available to objects. Given Chomsky’s(20) a.

[Of which car]i did some pictures ti(2013, 2015) recent assumption, an object that iscause a scandal?

originally generated in the complement positionof a verb moves to a higher position. That is,b.?? [Of what]i did some pictures ti cause athere are two positions available to an object at

scandal?

the C-I interface. In the higher position, thec. (?)[Which car]i did some pictures of tid.

cause a scandal?

object enters into a labeling relation for the [φ][What]i did some pictures of ti cause afeatures with another maximal projection (that is,scandal?

the set of √hear and DP in (22)).

(Jiménez-Fernández (2009: 121))

The lower object position is not for a labeledposition, and the sub-extraction operation isIn (20), the transitive verb cause is used, which

licensed.

is acceptable when subjects are the indefinite
subject phrase some pictures (of). Of these four

5. Conclusion

sentences, (20b) is slightly marginal, but theseTo summarize the discussion of the current

four sentences are relatively fine, or at least,

paper, I have proposed that the activity condition

better in grammaticality than (1), which isapplies at the C-I interface. This proposal isoriginally shown in Chomsky (2008) to rule out

plausible under the current labeling theory.

sentences with sub-extraction out of subject

Furthermore, the current proposal can correctly

phrases. Therefore, I claim that it is not

capture the sub-extraction data.

necessary to have an independent edge conditionin linguistic theory, and it can be reduced to*An earlier version of this paper was presented(say) the definiteness condition, which prohibits

at the 36th Meeting of the English Linguistic

43

Amsterdam.

Society of Japan, held at Yokohama National
University in November, 2018. I would like toEgashira, Hiroki (2015) “Syugo kara-no Wh-Ido

express my gratitude to the audience for theirno Kanousei-ni Tuite [On Possibilities on

valuable comments. All remaining errors and

Wh-Movement

inadequacies are my own. This work was partly

Untiring Pursuit of Better Alternative, ed.

supported

by Hiroki Egashira, Hisatsugu Kitahara,

byaGrant-in-Aid

for

Young

out

of

Nakazawa,

Subject],”

Tadao

In

Scientists (B), No. 17K13472 from the Japan

Kazuo

Nomura,Society for the Promotion of Science.

Masayuki Oishi, Akira Saizen and Motoko
Suzuki, 150-159, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Fukui, Naoki (1986) A Theory of Category

REFERENCES
Bianchi, Valentina and Cristiano Chesi (2015)

Projection and Its Applications, Doctoral
dissertation, MIT.

“On a PP/DP Asymmetry in Extraction,”
Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies

Hegarty, Michael (1992) Adjunct Extraction andin Honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa

Chain Configurations, Doctoral dissertation,

Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann andMIT.
Holmberg, Anders and Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir

Simona Matteini, 47-65, John Benjamins,(2003) “Agreement and Movement in

Amsterdam.
Chomsky,Noam(1973)“Conditions

Icelandic Raising Constructions,” Linguaon113, 997-1019.

Transformations,” A Festschrift for MorrisHalle, ed. by Stephen A. Anderson and PaulJiménez-Fernández, Ángel J. (2009) “On the

Kiparsky, 232-286, Holt, Rinehart andComposite Nature of Subject Islands: A

Winston, New York.

Phase-Based Approach,” SKY Journal of
Linguistics 22, 91-138.

Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”
Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. byKluender, Robert (2004) “Are Subject Islands

Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,

Subject to a Processing Account?” WCCFL

Cambridge, MA.

23, 101-125.
Phases,”Ross, John R. (1973) “Nouniness,” ThreeFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:

Dimensions of Linguistic Theory, ed. by

Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud,

Osamu Fujimura, 137-257, TEC Company,

ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero andTokyo.

Chomsky,Noam(2008)“On

Saito, Mamoru (1985) Some Asymmetries in

Mari Luisa Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT

Japanese

Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,Noam(2013)“Problems

Noam

Projection:(2015)

Syntactic Theory, Doctoral dissertation,ofUniversity of Connecticut.

Structures,

Uriagereka,

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour

Juanof Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di

DoctoralDomenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona

Connecticut.

Matteini,

3-16,

John

Theoretical

Stepanov, Arthur, V. (2001) Cyclic Domains in“Problems

Extensions,”

Their

Implications, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

of

Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky,andBenjamins,

44(1988)

dissertation,On

Government,

Universityof場合、その定目的語はそれの動詞によって特定しにくい。ここでは定冠詞の用法は非特定的である。(3)では「ドリブルする」という行為は様態に関する情報を含むから「ボー定冠詞の非特定的使用について*ル」という存在者に対して情報量が豊かであ（On the Non-Specific Use of the Definite

る。この場合、その定目的語はそれの動詞に

Article）

よって特定しやすい。ここでは定冠詞の用法
は非特定的ではない。こうした例に基づき、

北村 久（Hisashi Kitamura）

本研究は以下の仮説が成り立つと主張する。

北海道大学専門研究員（Hokkaido University）(4)仮説
キーワード：定冠詞, 非特定性, 動詞, 情報

定冠詞を持つ目的語名詞句に焦点を当て

量, 個別化る。これが非特定的であるのは話し手が談話内でそれを処理するときにそれによって喚起される存在者を含む確立した談

1. はじめに話指示対象の参照集合の中からそうした

定冠詞を持つ名詞句の機能の一つは特定存在者を選び出すことが難しいことに応の存在者を指すことである。しかし、以下にじてであると提案する。この仮説は以下示すように、この種の名詞句は非特定的・総の三つの要因を持つ。即ち、(a)第一の要称的であり得る。

因は動詞がそれに対して情報量が乏しいことである。なぜならその動詞情報に基(1) Who invented the telephone? (Swan (1995:

づいて定目的語の存在者を参照集合から64))選び出すことが難しくなるからである。
(b)第二の要因はそれが動詞によって個

本研究はこの種の用法に焦点を当てる。本研

別化されないことである。なぜならこの究の目的は定冠詞を持つ目的語の非特定的ことが定目的語の存在者を参照集合から使用に対するいくつかの言語環境を指定す

選び出すことを難しくするからである。

ることである。

(c)第三の要因はある時制や副詞などが、それが発話状況内で存在を確立したまた二人の米国人の英語母国語話者が本分析は確立するのを成り立たせないことであのデータを判定した。

る。なぜならこの種の定目的語の存在者

本研究の主な論点を説明するために、以下は参照集合に属さないという事実がこのの例を見て行こう。

種の存在者を参照集合から選び出すこと(2) John took the train, though I am not sureをそもそも不可能にするからである。

which one.
(3) #/?John dribbled the ball, though I am not

本研究はこの仮説の各要因を確証する。

sure which one.
2. 先行研究(2)では「乗る」という行為は「列車」とい先行研究を概観する。Hawkins (1978, 1991)

う存在者に対してあまり情報量がない。このと Lyons (1999)と Abbot (2004)などは定性と45

3. 基本的分析いう概念とそのデータに包括的な仕方で取(7)では定冠詞の使用は非特定的である。

り組んでいる。Heim (1982)は定冠詞の適格性を familiarity の点から説明しかつこの概念を(7) John took the train, though I am not sure

形式化する。Russell (1905)や Kadmon (1990)

which one.

や Gundel, Hedberg and Zacharski (1993)など
は定冠詞をその名詞句が一意的に同定可能

ここで(4)の仮説を提案する。この仮説に於であるかどうかの点から取り扱う。
本研究はいわゆる weak definite article がどける個別の各要因を確証するつもりである。

んなときに現れるかを検討する。Birner and

このことに加えて、以下の定義を採用する。

Ward (1994)や Birner (2013)などはこの種の(8)あまり情報量がない要素の定義

冠詞に焦点を当てる。Birner (2013: 127)は以ある要素のもう一つの要素に対する情報下の例を挙げる。

量はそれらの間の情報上の関係の非総称(5) Place that book on the shelf.

性の程度であると定義する。無標の場合、ある言語的要素は、それを否定すること

彼女はこの例が二つ以上の棚に関わるかもができない程度に応じて、情報量があましれず、かつ、この場合は一意性の読みを標りない。

示しないと言う。さらに彼女は話者が特定の
この定義が与えられると、以下の例が上の一つの個別の列車や車をコード化すること

仮説を確証する。

を意図していないと定めて以下の例を挙げる。

(9) #Participant A: John took the train.
Participant B: No, he did not take the train(6) To get to my office, I suggest you take thetrain / #the car.

but approached it.

(ibid.)

彼女は列車が予め決められた経路を有する(7)の定目的語は動詞の情報によって特定しので名詞“train”は一意的に同定可能になり、にくい。その理由は(9)が(8)の特性を持つか

このことは名詞“car”には当てはまらないらである。

と言うことによってこの対比を説明しよう

異なる要因を探すために以下の例を見てと試みる。しかし、「予め決められた経路」

ほしい。ここでは定冠詞の使用は完全に非特という用語は不明確で特定的すぎる。さらに

定的ではない。

どのようにこの概念が名詞“train”を一意的(10) ?John played the piano, though I am notに同定可能にするか明らかでない。当該の非sure which one.

特定的な使用に対する言語環境を指定する(11) ?John destroyed the piano, though I am not

ことが重要な課題であることに注意してほsure which one.

しい。しかし、この課題はこれらの先行研究
で十分に取り扱われていない。このことに対して、本研究はこの問題に取り組み、この現一人の査読者は動詞句“play the piano”は有象により一般的で十全な説明を与えようと標であるからこの動詞句を動詞句“take the試みる。

train”と比べることは正しくないかもしれな46

(14) (?)John will play the piano, though I am not

いと言及する。しかし、前者は無標の動詞句

sure which one.

“destroy the piano”と同様に振る舞い、この(15) (?)John will destroy the piano, though I am

無標の動詞句は無標の目的語を持つ動詞句

not sure which one.

“destroy the ball”と同様に振る舞う。動詞
句“destroy the ball”の例を(16)で見ることになろう。よって、定目的語の非特定性に関す

これらが容認可能であり得るという事実はる問題に関して動詞句“play the piano”を有

以下のように説明される。未来時制がこれら標な表現として取り扱う理由はない。上の仮の定目的語が発話状況内で存在を確立する

説は定冠詞を持つ目的語の非特定的使用がのを妨げる。要因(c)により、このことは(10)得られやすいのは動詞が定目的語にとってと(11)の定目的語よりもこれらの定目的語を

情報量があまりないときであることを含意

特定しにくくする。容認可能な判定を持つ話する。上の定義を念頭に置いて、以下の完全者は動詞“play”や動詞“destroy”の個別化に容認不可能ではない例を見てほしい。

能力が弱いという直観を持っているのに対してあまり容認可能でない判定を持つ話者(12) ?Participant A: John played the piano.

は動詞“play”や動詞“destroy”の個別化能

Participant B: No, he did not play the piano

力が強いという直観を持っていることが非

but repaired it.

常にありそうである。もしこのことが真であ(13) Participant A: John destroyed the piano.

れば、要因(c)と前者の論点の背後にある要因

Participant B: No, he did not destroy the(b)の間の相互作用が容認可能な判定を説明

piano but removed it.

するのに対して要因(c)と後者の論点の背後にある要因(b)の間の相互作用があまり容認(13)が適格であるという事実は(11)が完全に可能でない判定を説明する。

不適格であることを予想するように導くが、上の分析を補強するために以下の例で無

これは事実でない。ある意味で、ピアノを壊

標の目的語を試そう。ここでは定冠詞の使用

すという行為は情報量が豊かである。この点は完全に非特定的ではない。

で(13)は適格である。しかし、動詞“play”(16) ?John destroyed the ball, though I am notや動詞“destroy”は目的語“piano”を個別

sure which one.

化する。もし話者はジョンがピアノを弾いたと断定すればそのとき話者は普通どれが関わっているか認識することができる。もし話上の仮説は定冠詞を持つ目的語の非特定的者はジョンがピアノを壊したと断定すれば使用を得やすいのは動詞が定目的語にとっそのとき話者は普通どれが関わっているかて情報量があまりないときであることを含認識することができる。要因(b)により、こ意する。同じ種類のテストを使う。対応するのことは「ピアノ」という目的語を特定しに例はあまり容認可能でないのではなく適格くくする。この定目的語は動詞“play”や動である。

詞“destroy”の下で幾分特定しにくいので、(17) Participant A: John destroyed the ball.

この例は完全に不適格ではなくあまり容認

Participant B: No, he did not destroy the

可能ではない。

ball but removed it.

異なる要因を探すために以下の例で未来時制を試そう。

47

(17)が適格であるという事実は(16)が完全にれらの定目的語をより特定しやすくする。よ不適格であることを予想するように導くが、って、これらはあまり容認可能ではない。そこれは事実でない。ある意味で、ボールを壊れに対して、もう一方の話者は(14)と(15)のすという行為は情報量がある。この点で(17)対と(18)と(19)の対があまり容認可能でないは適格である。しかし、話者は動詞“destroy”と判定する。両方の場合に於いて、動 詞

が目的語“ball”を個別化することを認識す“destroy”の個別化能力が強いという直観をる。もし話者はジョンがボールを壊したこと持っていることが非常にありそうである。もを断定すれば話者は普通どれが関わっていしこのことが真であれば、そのことがこのパるか認識することができる。要因(b)により、ターンの背後にある理由である。

このことは「ボール」という目的語を特定し異なる要因を探すために、以下の例で様態にくくする。この定目的語は動詞“destroy”の成分を持つ動詞を試そう。ここでは定冠詞の下で幾分特定しにくいので、この例は完全の使用は非特定的ではない。

に不適格ではなくあまり容認可能ではない。
(20) #/?John dribbled the ball, though I am not

上の分析を補強するために未来時制を持sure which one.

つ例とある副詞を持つ例を試そう。以下の例
で、定冠詞の使用は完全に非特定的ではない。

上の仮説は定冠詞を持つ目的語の非特定的(18) ?John will destroy the ball, though I am not

使用が得にくいのは動詞が定目的語にとっsure which one.

て情報量があるときであることを含意する。

(19) ?John often destroys the ball, though I am

同じ種類のテストを使う。対応する例はあまnot sure which one.

り容認可能でない。
(21) ?Participant A: John dribbled the ball.

確かに、一人の話者は(14)と(15)が適格であると判定する一方で(18)と(19)があまり容認

Participant B: No, he did not dribble the

可能でないと言う。その未来時制やその副詞

ball but kicked it.

がこれらの定目的語が発話状況内で存在を確立するのを妨げる。この判定を持つ話者は確かに、「ドリブルする」という行為は「ボ

動詞“destroy”の個別化能力が強いという直ール」という存在者に十分な仕方で関連する。

観を持っていることが非常にありそうであしかし、様態の成分がこの行為に於いて決定る。ピアノの一部の機能を壊すことはピアノ的である。このような様態の成分は有標であを壊すことであるのに対して、ボールを壊する。後者の要因が前者の要因より強い。一般

ことはボールの大部分を破損することであに、様態の成分はその語が情報量に関して豊ることに注意してほしい。強い影響関係と弱かであるという証拠を構成する。ある言語的い影響関係の間の違いが動詞“destroy”によ要素が情報量に関して豊かであるという証って目的語“piano”よりも目的語“ball”を拠が少なくとも一つあれば、他の要因に関係独立した存在者として同定するのを容易になくその要素は情報量があることが帰結すすることを示す。このことが意味するように、 る。要因(a)により、当該の様態の成分は(20)
前者の場合の個別化能力が後者の場合の個の定目的語を特定しやすくする。従って、別化能力よりも強い。要因(b)により、この(20)は不適格である。
あまり情報量がない要素のテストを使う

ことは(16)の定目的語と並行する仕方でこ48

(24) John is taking the train, though I am not

方法に注意しなければならない。一人の話者

sure which one.

は与えられたすべてのテストが容認可能であると判定する。この判定はその話者が情報量に関するこの種の直観を持っていないこ

行為が進行しているときそれに対する目的とを示す。

語を特定しやすいと言う人がいるかもしれない。しかし、この例がこの効果に従わない

4. 他のデータ

ほどこの動詞は情報量がないと推測する。対ここで他のデータを検討する。この目的を応する完全な説明を将来の研究にゆだねる。

念頭に置いて、助動詞“has to”を持つ例を

上の仮説を確証するために、この進行形を未来形または副詞“often”を持つ現在形で置試そう。

き換えよう。
(22) John has to go to his workplace.

But his(25) John will take the train, though I am not

car broke down, so for the time being hesure which one.

has to take the train, though I am not sure(26) John often takes the train, though I am notwhich one.

sure which one.

(23) John has to destroy the train, though I am
not sure which one.

「乗る」という行為は「列車」という存在者
明らかに、「破壊する」という行為は「列車」

にとって情報量があまりない。さらに、助動という存在者を個別化する。しかし、(23)の詞“will”と副詞“often”はこれらの定目的

助動詞“has to”は定目的語が発話状況内で語が発話状況内で存在を確立したまたは確存在を確立したまたは確立するのを妨げる。

立するのを妨げる。これらの定目的語は特定

後者の要因が前者の要因より強いが、それにしにくい。よって、これらの例は適格である。

対する理由を明らかにするのは未解決の問

上の仮説を確証するために句“be good at”

題である。このことに対して助動詞“has to”

がどのように働くか探求しよう。

は確立された存在を阻止する能力に関して(27) #/?John is good at dribbling the ball, though

未来時制や副詞“often”よりも強いと推測す

I am not sure which one.

る。もしそうであるなら、このことは後者の(28) #/?John is good at destroying the ball,要素を持つ例があまり容認可能でない場合

though I am not sure which one.

があるのに対して(23)が適格であるという事実を説明する。いずれにせよ(23)は適格である。明らかに、「乗る」という行為は「列明らかに、「破壊する」という行為は「ボー車」という存在者にとってあまり情報量がなル」という存在者を個別化する。しかし、句い。さらに、(22)の助動詞“has to”は定目的“be good at”は主語に関わる動詞句の行為

語が発話状況内で存在を確立したまたは確の特定的性質である。この句は有標で、行為立するのを妨げる。この定目的語はこの助動の性質の情報量増大の証拠になる。この定目

詞の下で特定しにくい。よって、(22)は適格

的語は当該の句の下で特定しやすいの でである。

(28)は不適格である。確かに、「ドリブルする」という行為はボールという存在者に関連

このこととの関連で、進行形を持つ例を検する。しかし、それは様態の成分を含むので

討しよう。

49

「ドリブルする」という行為は「ボール」と(31)では動詞句は情報量があまりない。(32)

いう存在者にとって情報量がある。さらに、

では動詞句は情報量がある。後者の特性にも句“be good at”は主語に関わる動詞句の行

拘わらず、(32)は適格である。いずれにせよ、

為の特定的性質である。この句は有標で、行

句“bread from the bakery”はあまり情報量が為の性質の情報量増大の証拠になる。この定ないことは疑いなく成り立つ。これらの例の目的語はこの句の下で著しく特定しやすい

各定表現は特定しにくい。よって、これらのので(27)は不適格である。

例は適格である。

上の仮説を確証するために、この句を未来上の仮説を確証するために、これらの過去形または副詞“often”を持つ現在形で置き換形を未来形や副詞“often”を持つ現在形で置えよう。

き換えよう。

(29) #/?John will dribble the ball, though I am

(33) (?)John will buy bread from the bakery,though I am not sure which one.

not sure which one.

(34) (?)John often buys bread from the bakery,(30) #/?John often dribbles the ball, though I am

though I am not sure which one.

not sure which one.
「ドリブルする」という行為は有標で様態の(33)では動詞句はあまり情報量がない。(34)

成分を含む。一般に、様態の成分は有標であでも動詞句はあまり情報量がない。句“breadる。よって、この行為は「ボール」という存from the bakery”はあまり情報量がないこと

在者にとって情報量がある。しかし、助動詞は疑いなく成り立つ。さらに、助動詞“will”“will”や副詞“often”はこれらの定目的語と副詞“often”はこれらの定目的語が発話状が発話状況内で存在を確立したまたは確立

況内で存在を確立するのを妨げる。それらのするのを妨げる。前者の表現の組み合わせは

定表現はこれらの要素の下で著しく特定し後者の要因に関係なく文の構成に於いて出にくいのでこれらの例は適格である。 一人現する。従って、前者の要因が後者の要因にの話者がこれら二つをあまり容認可能でな関係なく働く。一般に、様態の成分はそれをいと判定している。これに対しては、低い文持つ成分が情報量に関して豊かであるとい法関係の階層の先行詞“bakery”は助動詞

う証拠になる。ある言語的要素が情報量に関“will”と副詞“often”の下で代名詞“one”

して豊かであるという証拠が少なくとも一で指しにくいということが受け入れられる。

つあれば、その要素は他の要因に関係なく情
5. おわりに

報量が豊かであることが帰結する。これらが意味するように、これらの例は不適格である。

本研究の目的は定冠詞を持つ目的語の非動詞句の振る舞いを検討してきた。次に、

特定的使用に対するいくつかの言語環境を異なる例を調べるために句“bread from the

指定することであることを思い起してほしbakery”を取り上げよう。

い。本研究では以下の対比に注目した。

(31) John bought bread from the bakery, though(35) John took the train, though I am not surewhich one.

I am not sure which one.

(36) #/?John dribbled the ball, though I am not(32) John stole bread from the bakery, though I

sure which one.

am not sure which one.

50

Publishing, Oxford.

これを踏まえて以下の仮説を提案した。

Birner,Betty

J.

(2013)

IntroductiontoPragmatics, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.

(37)仮説Birner,

定冠詞を持つ目的語名詞句に焦点を当て

Betty

and

Gregory

Ward(1994)る。これが非特定的であるのは話し手が“Uniqueness, Familiarity, and the Definite

談話内でそれを処理するときにそれによ

Article in English,” BLS 20, 93-102.

って喚起される存在者を含む確立した談

Gundel, Jeanette, Nancy Hedberg and Ron

話指示対象の参照集合の中からそうした

Zacharski (1993) “Cognitive Status and存在者を選び出すことが難しいことに応

the Form of Referring Expressions in

じてであると提案する。この仮説は以下

Discourse,” Language 69, 274-307.

の三つの要因を持つ。即ち、(a)第一の要

Hawkins, John A. (1978) Definiteness and

因は動詞がそれに対して情報量が乏しい

Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference andことである。なぜならその動詞情報に基Grammaticality Prediction, Croom Helm,

づいて定目的語の存在者を参照集合から

London.
Hawkins, John A. (1991) “On (In)definite

選び出すことが難しくなるからである。
(b)第二の要因はそれが動詞によって個

Articles:Implicatures

and別化されないことである。なぜならこの(Un)grammaticality Prediction,” mournal

ことが定目的語の存在者を参照集合から

of Linguistics 27, 405-442.

選び出すことを難しくするからである。

Heim, Irene (1982) The Semantics of Definite(c)第三の要因はある時制や副詞などが、

and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Doctoral

それが発話状況内で存在を確立したまた

dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

は確立するのを成り立たせないことであKadmon, Nirit (1990) “Uniqueness,” Linguistics
and Philosophy 13, 273-324

る。なぜならこの種の定目的語の存在者

Lyons,

は参照集合に属さないという事実がこのChristopher(1999)

Definiteness,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

種の存在者を参照集合から選び出すこと

Russell, Bertrand (1905) “On Denoting,” Mindをそもそも不可能にするからである。

14, 479-493.
我々はこの仮説に於ける各要因を確証した。

Swan, Michael (1995) Practical English Usage,
Second Edition, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, New York.

*Richard Stone 氏の例文作成に関する助言とJoseph Karuzis 氏と Joseph Tomei 氏の本研究のデータの判定に感謝する。また本研究の口頭発表に際し、多くの有益なコメントをいた
だいた。コメントしてくれた方々に感謝する。
参考文献
Abbott, Barbara (2004) “Definiteness andIndefiniteness,”

The

Handbookof

Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence R. Horn and
GregoryWard,122-149,

Blackwell51

AE intonation has fewer rapid pitch changes andthe rises and falls are more spread out than BE,
leading to AE sounding “monotonous” to British
speakers and BE “exaggerated” or “affected” toComparison of Prosody of American and

the Americans. Takebayashi (1996: 467-468)

British English Using a Speech Corpus:

and Kawagoe (2007: 198) state that the pitch in

A Preliminary Analysis*

BE sentences is often high at the start andgradually declines, while in AE, it is often flat

Masahiko Komatsu

before the nucleus. Takebayashi and Saito

Kanagawa University(2008: 186) note that some tones are used more
often in either AE or BE.

Keywords：American and British accents,

Part of the difficulty in the comparison of

prosody, speech corpus, MULTEXT Prosodic

prosody is in its variability; any sentence can be

Database

spoken at any speed with a number of intonation
patterns, depending on the situations and the
speaker’s intention. In addition, there are diverse
social and regional accents, particularly in the

1. Introduction
This

paper

presentsapreliminary

UK. Nevertheless, the rhythm and intonation ofcomparative analysis of prosodic characteristics

the two accents might be compared in aof American English (AE) and British English

quantitative manner, if we focus on the same(BE) using a speech corpus. These accents havetexts in the same contexts. This has motived thewell-known differences in segmental (vowels/

use and expansion of a speech corpus called

consonants) pronunciation and word stress, but

MULTEXT.

there has been little research on differences in

The MULTEXT prosodic database (1998)

rhythm and intonation.

consists of the recordings of 40 different

Although they seem to be quite similar topassages, each of English, French, Italian,each other, some authors have pointed out

German, and Spanish. The same passages aredifferences. Regarding rhythm, Collins andtranslated into each language. The translation is

Mees (2013: 163) describe the impression of AE

rather free, and the expressions, such as properas “drawled” and BE as “clipped,” attributing

names, are often changed to be adapted to thethese to the lengthened /æ/ and apparently

local culture. The English speech is spoken byslower delivery rate of AE and the elimination of

10 speakers: Each speaker reads 15 of the 40

weakly stressed vowels and apparently morepassages, allowing each passage to be read by

rapid delivery rate of BE. According to Ogawa

threeand McKechnie (2015, 2-13), BE sounds

confirmed that the English speech included is“tekipaki” (‘brisk’), or fast, because of several

British standard. MUTEXT is a popular speechreasons, including the shortness of /ɒ, æ/, thecorpus for cross-linguistic research and has

reduction or elimination of weak vowels, and theseveralloss

MULTEXT (2004) and Chinese MULTEXT

of

secondarystresses.

Concerning

intonation, Collins and Mees indicate that the(2010).

52

or

four

speakers.

derivations,The

includingcollaborator

Japanese

The American speech corpus is currently
underdevelopment

First,

Church Street only. The Park Avenue approach

expressions and proper nouns in the original BE

has been closed for road repairs. Chester Grange

script in the MULTEXT were minimally

Hospital has been informed, and awaits is

modified to make the script natural in AE. Then,

waiting for their arrival.

theFigure 2. Passage P2. Strikethroughs andscript

was

by

the

recordedauthor.

be moved. Access to the Close Court is via

byprofessional

American narrators. (These processes have notunderlines indicate changes from BE to AE.

been completed but are under way.) This paper
reports a preliminary analysis using the alreadyIn the author’s overall impression, BrF1 andavailable American speech and its British

BrF2 spoke fast, albeit with some differences

counterparts included in the original MULTEXT.

among

the

passages.

BrM1

showedtheintonation pattern where pitch starts high and
2. Analysis and Discussion

gradually declines, which was not observed in

2.1. Datathe speech of the AE speakers.

This study analyzed five passages (Passages

Note that figures include analysis results forP1-P5), each of which was read by three AE

only Passage P1 due to space limitations,speakers (2 males and 1 female: henceforth,although results of other passages are discussed

AmM1, AmM2, and AmF1) and three BE

in the paper as well.

speakers (1 male and 2 females: henceforth,
BrM1, BrF1, and BrF2). Passage P1 was exactly

2.2. Speedthe same for AE and BE (see Figure 1); however,First, the speech data was segmented into

passages P2-P5 were slightly modified from BE

phonemes and syllables using the web services

to AE (see Figure 2 for an example).

of the Bavarian Archive for Speech Signals(BAS services, Version 2.21, https://clarin.

We

are

enquiringinto

possiblecatering

phonetik.uni-muenchen.de/BASWebServices/arrangements for a large meeting. We wouldinterface) (see Schiel (1999), Kisler et al.

need to have the food delivered to the premises(2017)). Based on the segmentation results, thein a manner that would allow immediate

speaking and articulation rates were calculated.

consumption. There are no facilities for setting

Figure 3 shows the results for Passage P1.

out the food in a separate room. We were

The calculated rates mostly conformed to thethinking of a selection of sandwiches, meats,

author’s impression that BrF1 and BrF2 spoke

cheeses, and fruit. Do you have special corporate

fast and AmM2 sometimes spoke fast. For

rates for academic institutions?

example, according to the author’s impression,

Figure 1. Passage P1. The passage is exactly thethe speed of Passage P1 of AmM2, BrF1, andsame for AE and BE.

BrF2 was very fast. This matches the rates
shown in Figure 1, where these three speakers

Send an ambulance to sixteen Chadwick Close

have higher rates than the others in any of the

Court as soon as possible. An old man has

speaking rates and the articulation rates (words

slipped on the ice and broken his leg, and can’t

per s and syllables per s).

53

inverse distribution was observed for Passage P5,

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

though the reason for this is not clear. This was
the only passage in which the author did not
perceive the BE speakers to be faster than the
AE speakers, though it is not clear if thisimpression of speed was related with theAmM1 AmM2 AmF1

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

BrM1

BrF1

distribution shown here.

BrF2

As for Ramus et al.’s (1999) indices,

articulation rate (syl/s)

Passages P1 (see Figure 5) and P5 showed aspeaking rate (syl/s)

distribution

articulation rate (wd/s)

indicating a lower durational variability of

speaking rate (wd/s)

consonantal intervals, while Passages P2-P4

Figure 3. Speed of speech (Passage P1)
AmM1

wherein

AE

had

lower

∆C,

showed an inverse distribution. It is not clear
why the distribution of Passage P1 was different

BrF2

For Passages P3 and P5, on the other hand,

between the measures of Grabe and Low andthe calculated rates did not exactly reflect the

Ramus et al., while those of Passages P2-P5

author’s impression. This suggests that multiple

were the same.

factors, such as pauses and intonation as well as

These measures were considered effective in

the actual speed, may have affected thediscriminating between the rhythms of AE andimpression of the speed. For instance, according

BE because the distributions were consistent into Ogawa and McKechnie (2015, 10-11), one ofmost of the passages. However, these indices are

the reasons for BE to sound fast is that British

text-dependent,

females tend to utter many words in one breath.

discussion, it would be necessary to examine the

Therefore, perception tests would be necessary

effects

to reveal the factors that affect the impression ofphonological indices (Komatsu et al. (2005),

speed.

Matsui et al. (2018)).

2.3. Rhythm Measures
The outputs of the BAS services were also
used for the rhythm measures that have been
proposed by Grabe and Low (2002) and Ramus
et al. (1999). Figures 4 and 5 show these resultsfor Passage P1.
Figure 4 indicates Grabe and Low’s (2002)
indices for Passage P1. For Passages P1-P4,
intervocalic rPVI (raw Pairwise Variability
Index) was higher in AE speech than in BE
speech. This distribution of greater durationalvariability of consonantal intervals in AE may
imply that AE is more stress-timed than BE. An

54

of

and

therefore

differenceinfor
scripts

furtherusingthe pitch contours. The slopes were: AmM180

−2.15, AmM2 −1.71, AmF1 −1.04, BrM1 −2.00,

vocalic nPVI

75
70

BrM1

AmF1

65
60

BrF1 −3.02, and BrF2 −2.36. This may suggest
AmM1

that the BE intonation tends to be a little more
falling.

AmM2

55

BrF2

50

0.05

BrF1
0.07

intervocalic rPVI

st

0.09

20
BrF1
BrF2

15

mean

Figure 4. Grabe and Low’s indices (Passage P1)

AmF1

10

0.04

ΔC

0.06

0.08

0.1

5

0.12

30

0

%V

35
40

AmM2
BrM1

BrF2
AmM2

45

0

AmM1
BrF1

2

SD

AmM1
4

6

st

Figure 6. Pitch mean and SD (Sentence 1 of

BrM1
AmF1

Passage P1)

50

st 30

Figure 5. Ramus et al.’s indices (Passage P1)
20

2.4. Pitch

10
y = -1.0397x + 14.426

Figure 6 presents the means and SDs of the0

pitch of the first sentence in Passage P1. The-10

scale was semitone (st) re 100 Hz: 0 st

0corresponds to 100 Hz, 7 st to approximately
150 Hz, 12 st to 200 Hz, and 16 st to

1

2

3

4

3

4

s

st 30

approximately 200 Hz. The male speakers had
lower pitch means than the female speakers.

20

Moreover, AE speakers clearly had greater SDs

10
y = -3.0247x + 20.416

in Passages P4 and P5, although it was not so0clear in Passages P1-P3.

-10

Figure 7 indicates the pitch contours of the0

first sentence in Passage P1 of Speakers AmF1

1

2

s

and BrF1. Although other speakers’ results are

Figure 7. Pitch contours (Sentence 1 of Passage

not printed here due to space limitation, the AE

1). AmF1 (Top) and BrF1 (Bottom)

speakers tended to have larger ups and downs,
indicating the tendency of AE being more

3. Summary

dynamic and BE being more monotonic.

In this study, a speech corpus was used toFurthermore, the BE speakers tended to have acompare prosodic characteristics of AE and BE.

slightly steeper slope in the linear regressions of

To compare prosody, controlled speech is55

necessary

becauseprosodyhasvariations* This research is partially funded by Kanagawa

depending on the situations and the speaker’s

University

intention. The use of MULTEXT enabled the

grant-in-aid for collaborative research. Part ofcomparison of almost the same sentences in thethe development of the AE corpus was

same contexts.

conducted by Editage and Cripton (Cactus

Severalmethods

were

employed

Centerfor

Language

Studies’forCommunications K.K.). I also thank Jane Setter

quantitative analyses. As for the speed of speech,

for checking the accents of English speech

speaking rates and articulation rates were

included in MULTEXT.

calculated. These roughly conformed to theauthor’s impression of speed but did not matchexactly. Apparently, multiple factors affect the

REFERENCES
Collins, Beverley and Inger M. Mees (2013)

impression of speed, and perceptual tests are

Practical Phonetics and Phonology: A

necessary for further investigation. As for

Resource Book for Students (3rd ed.),rhythm, AE and BE were discerned for many

Routledge, London.

passages both in Grabe and Low’s (2002) andGrabe, Esther and Ee Ling Low (2002)

Ramus et al.’s (1999) indices. The results“Durational Variability in Speech and thesuggested that AE may be more stress-timed

Rhythm Class Hypothesis,” Laboratory

than BE. The effects of difference in texts must

Phonology 7, ed. by Carlos Gussenhoven

be excluded for further research. As for pitch,

and Natasha Warner, 515-546, Mouton de

AE sentences tended to have a larger pitch

Gruyter, Berlin.

variation than BE, and BE sentences tended to

Kawagoe, Itsue (2007) Eigo no Onsei ohave a slightly steeper slope, i.e., a little more

Kagaku-suru (Science of English Speechfalling.

Sounds)

These results showed the effectiveness of the(Newedition),Taishukan

Publishing, Tokyo.

analysis methods presented in this paper.

Kisler, Thomas et al. (2017) “Multilingual

Although simple global acoustic parameters (e.g.

Processing of Speech via Web Services,”means and SDs of pitch over all passages) did

Computernot show any prosodic differences between AE

326-347.

Speech&Language45,

and BE (data not shown), such differences were

Komatsu, Masahiko et al. (2005) “OGI_TS

found through passage- and sentence-wise

Onsei Raberu ni Mirareru Nihongo Jihatsu

analyses within the same context.

Onsei no Rizumu: Onsosū no Bunseki kara

To derive definite conclusions about theOnseichō no Bunseki e (Rhythm ofdifference in prosody between AE and BE, itJapanese Spontaneous Speech Observed inwould be necessary to analyze a larger amount

Phonetic Labels of OGI_TS: From theof data and to exclude differences among

Analysis of the Number of Phonemes to theindividuals and the effects of texts. Moreover, it

Analysiswould be better to record BE speech too, instead

Segments),” Proceedings of the 19thof using MULTEXT released in 1998, to control

General Meeting of the Phonetic Society offor the speakers’ generation and profession.

Japan, 107-112.

of

the

Lengthof

SpeechMatsui, Sanae et al. (2018) “Speech Rhythm in56

Japanese,

RussianandSpanish:An

Analysis Based on Both Phonetic PVI of
Speech and Phonological PVI of Language
Materials,” paper presented at Phonology
Forum 2018, Nagoya University.
Ogawa, Naoki and Nadia McKechnie (2015)
Motto Igirisu Eigo de Shaberitai!: UK
Intonēshon Pāfekuto Gaido (Let’s SpeakBritish English! 2: The Perfect Guide toUK

Pronunciation

andIntonation),

Kenkyusha, Tokyo.
Ramus, Franck et al. (1999) “Correlates ofLinguistic Rhythm in the Speech Signal,”
Cognition 73, 265-292.
Schiel, Florian (1999) “Automatic Phonetic
Transcription of Non-Prompted Speech,”
Proceedings of the 14th International
Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 607-610.
Takebayashi, Shigeru (1996) Eigo Onseigaku(English Phonetics), Kenkyusha, Tokyo.
Takebayashi, Shigeru and Hiroko Saito (2008).
Eigo Onseigaku Nyūmon (Introduction to
EnglishPhonetics)(New

edition),Taishukan Publishing, Tokyo.
CORPORA
Chinese MULTEXT Corpus (MULTEXT-C),
National Institute of Informatics Speech
Resources Consortium, Tokyo. (Ed. by
Masahiko Komatsu, 2010)
Japanese

MULTEXT(MULTEXT-J),

Prosodic

National

CorpusInstituteofInformatics Speech Resources Consortium,
Tokyo. (Ed. by Shigeyoshi Kitazawa, 2004)
MULTEXT

Prosodic

Database,

European

Language Resources Association, Paris.
(Ed. by Estelle Campione, 1998)57

図１と図２の(b)はぞれぞれの事態把握様式
を認知文法の枠組みで図式化したものである。太線はプロファイル、C は認知主体、OSはオンステージ領域を表している。
例えば、(1)のような表現では、図１に見事態把握様式における他者―認知文法から見た２つの間主観性―*

られるような話し手の主観的「見え」がその（Other Participants in Event Construals:

まま表現されているように感じられる。

A Cognitive Grammar Approach to Two Typesof Intersubjectivity）(1) a. 新横浜駅が近づいてきた。
b. まず、フライパンを温めます。

町田 章（Akira Machida）
広島大学（Hiroshima University）(1a)において新横浜駅が近づいてくるのは話し手に対してであり、料理番組などでよく聞キーワード：間主観性, グラウンディング,

かれる(1b)でも、フライパンを温めるのは話

事態把握様式, 認知文法, 自己の客体化し手であるが、通常、この話し手は言語的に表現されない。2 これは、図１で示したような事態内視点をとっているため、認知主体で

1. はじめにある話し手が意識に上らないためであると考えられる。

事態把握の様式は、主観性（主体性）の指標を用いて２種類に分類されることがある

しかしながら、このような事態把握の様式（cf. Langacker 1985, 中村・上原 2016 など）。

には疑問点も残されている。例えば、自己を

1

例えば、読者自身がボクシングをしている

もう一人の自己が別の場所から眺めるとい光景を絵に描いてみたら、おそらく、図１とう事態外視点は現実にはあり得ないはずで

図２に示されるように、少なくとも２つの可ある。町田 (2016) によれば、事態外視点は能性があるだろう。図１(a)は認知主体が事態

事態内視点における認知主体が客体化され参与者として事態に参加している構図であることによって得られるとしているが、これり、図２(a)は、認知主体が事態の外から傍観はどのような認知メカニズムによって生じ者的に自分自身を眺めている構図である。町るのであろうか。また、言語は本質的に間主田 (2012) では、前者を事態内視点、後者を観的であるとするならば、話し手の主観的な

事態外視点と呼んで区別している。

「見え」だけを表す事態内視点はそもそも存(a)

在しうるのであろうか（cf. 小柳 2014）。

(b)

本研究では、上記の２つの疑問に答えるこ

他者とを通して間主観性には２つの種類（対峙型

OSと同化型）が存在することを示し、この違いCがグラウンディングの仕方の違いを生み出

図１ 事態内視点
(a)

(b)
自己

他者

すことを提案したい。
C’
OS

2. 提案

C

はじめに、事態外視点を生み出す自己の客

図２ 事態外視点

体化について検討したい。これに関して

58

Langacker は、(2)に示すように、認知主体は

事態外視点

自己の感情を分析したり、他の経験と比較し

代理自己

他者

たり、自分がそのような経験をしていることを意識したりすることによって、自己を客体視すると述べている。
他者

自己(2) ... suppose I experience an emotion, such asfear, desire, or elation. If I merely undergo
他者の視点that experience nonreflectively, both the

自己の視点

図３ 事態外視点の創発

emotion and my own role in feeling it are
subjectively construed. But to the extent

実際、自己に言及する表現は、通常、相手that I reflect on the emotional experience --との関係で相対的に決まる。例えば、日本語

by analyzing it, by comparing it to other

では、話し手は自身について「私」「僕」「俺」

such experiences, or simply by noting that I「お父さん」など様々に表現できるが、そのam undergoing it -- the emotion and my

選択には聞き手が大きく影響している。3role therein receive a more objective

以上の議論から事態外視点は本質的に(4)construal. (Langacker 1990:317-8)に示すような意味での間主観性を有していると結論づけることができる。

これに対し、Tomasello は言語習得の観点から子どもは大人の視点をモニターするこ(4) まず、共同主観の成立はシナリオ的に捉とにより自分を外から見るようになると述えられる。まずは Traugott の意味で「話べている。

者が聴者の意識に注意を向け」たりする
形で始まり、更に Verhagen が述べる「聴(3) ... as the child begins to monitor the adults’

者の意識や理解を調整・修正する」といattention to outside entities, that outside

う段階を経て、自己と他者との間で体験

entity sometimes turns out to be the childが共有された結果「共同主観」が成立す

herself—and so she begins to monitor

る、というシナリオである。

adults’ attention to her and thus to see（早瀬 2016: 221, 傍線筆者）

herself from the outside, as it were. She
also comprehends the role of the adult from

次に、事態内視点は話し手の主観的「見え」

this same outside vantage point, and so,だけを表すのかという点については、言語事

overall, it is as if she were viewing the

実を見ると明らかに否であることがわかる。

whole scene from above, with herself as

例えば、(5a)のように「ね」を付けることがjust one player in it. (Tomasello 1999:99-100)できる。これは、(5a)が話し手の主観的「見え」だけでなく、聞き手の「見え」も表して

ここでは、Tomasello (1999) に従い、事態いることを示している。また、(5b)では、行

外視点は他者の視点を通して自己をモニタ為者「私」を明示すると不自然となる。これリングすることによって創発すると考える。

は、明示されていない行為者には話し手だけ

その際、図３に示すように、他者の視点と自でなく聞き手（この場合、テレビの視聴者）

己の視点の融合(blend)が起こると考える。

も含まれているためである。

59

(5) a.

新横浜駅が近づいてきたね。

存在感という点では対照的な関係にあり、同

b. ?? まず、私がフライパンを温めます。

化型における他者は話し手と同化すること
により存在感が薄くなる。

このように考えると、主観的事態把握と考え

上記の議論に従って、町田 (2012, 2016)

られていた事態内視点も明らかに間主観的などでこれまで提案されてきた事態把握様であるということになる。ただし、事態内視式の説明を以下のように修正したい。先に図点の間主観性をとらえるためには、(4)の規１(a)は事態内視点を表していると述べたが、定では少し強すぎる。理由は、事態内視点に

ここでの「他者」が聞き手である場合には、おける間主観性においては「話者が聴者の意

聞き手は話し手と対峙しており対峙型のス識に注意を向け」るとは限らないからである。 タンスをとっていることになる。そのため、むしろ事態内視点における間主観性では聞図１(a)のような場面においては、聞き手の視き手の存在が意識されていない。そこで、も点を通した自己の客体化が必ず生じること

っとも緩い Zlatev et al. (2008) の間主観性のになり、結果として事態外視点になる。つま規定(6)を採用した上で、事態外視点と事態り、図１(a)も「他者」が聞き手である場合に内視点の間主観性の差異について検討する。

は事態外視点であったということである。図１(a)と図２(a)の違いは、前者は話し手と聞(6) Intersubjectivity: the sharing of experiential

き手の二項関係を表した場合であり、後者はcontent (e.g. feelings, perceptions, thoughts,

これに客体化された自己を含む対象物（客and linguistic meanings) among a plurality体）を加えた三項関係を表した場合である

of subjects. (Zlatev et al. 2008:1)（cf. Langacker 2008:261）。これにより、図１が真に事態内視点を表すのは、OS 上の「他浜田 (1995) の考察を踏まえた上で、大薗者」が聞き手以外の事態参与者を指し、聞き(2018:34) は、話し手と聞き手の関係には相手が認知主体 C として話し手に同化された

補的スタンスと同型的スタンスの２つの型場合のみということになる。

があると述べている。また、本多 (2005:230)

これを踏まえて、ここで２種類の間主観性も「キャッチボール」と「みんなで玉転がし」について提案したい。対峙型間主観性(7a)は、になぞらえられるような会話のモデルを提(4)と同じであり、「他者にはこう見えている

案している。本研究でもこの知見に従い、話はずだ」という感覚をもとに話し手と他者のし手と聞き手の関係には対峙型と同化型が間に間主観を成立させる。一方、同化型間主あると提案する。対峙型とは、例えば、デー

観性(7b)は、「他者も自分と同じように事物トなどで話し手が聞き手と向かい合って座を見ているはずだ」という感覚をもとに間主る場合などに生じる関係である。この場合、観を成立させる。他者を話し手の視点に同化

話し手は聞き手である相手を意識すると同させるため、他者の存在が消滅する。

時に相手から自分がどう見えているかも意識することになる。これに対して、同化型と(7) a. 対峙型間主観性：話し手が他者の視は、映画館の座席のように話し手と聞き手が点（意識）をシミュレート (simulate)並ぶ場合であり、話し手の意識の中からは相することによって成立する。

手の存在が消えてしまい、相手がその映画をb. 同化型間主観性：話し手が他者の視どのように見ているかなどもあまり意識し点を自己に同化 (assimilate) させるなくなる。つまり、対峙型と同化型は他者のことによって成立する。

60

tomorrow.

この２種類の間主観性を用いて(8)の事態(Bridget Jones’s Diary, Helen Fielding)

把握の違いを検討してみよう。まず(8a)は否(10) a. This door opens easily.

定表現であるため間主観的であるが（cf.
Verhagen 200）
、同時に、主語である認知主体

b. A cool breeze feels good on a hot day.

が客体化されていないため事態内視点であc. このきのこは食べられる。

るといえる。つまり、他者の視点をシミュレ
ートしない同化型間主観に基づいた表現だ(10)の例はそれぞれ中間構文、知覚構文、属ということになる。図４(a)は(8a)に対応して性可能文であるが、これらの非明示的な行為

おり、tr である認知主体（S/H）は主体とし者・経験者は話し手以外の他者も含みうる。

て把握されているため OS の外に位置付けら(10a)の中間構文を例にとり、従来の分析とれている。4 なお、以後の図では、スラッシ

本研究の分析を比較してみよう。図５(a)はュ（/）で自己と他者の同化を、矢印（⇠⇢）

Langacker が提案している中間構文の分析でで自己と他者の対峙をそれぞれ表すことにあり、図５(b)は同化型間主観性を取り入れする。

た本研究の提案である。Langacker の分析の問題点は、open という動詞の結果側面だけ(8) a. Don’t really know.

にプロファイルが当たっており、行為側面が

b. I don’t really know.

プロファイルから外されていることである。

(Langacker 1985:126)

easily が修飾しているのは明らかに「開ける」という行為であることからもわかるように、

tr

中間構文において行為側面がプロファイル

S’

tr

OS

されていないとは考えにくい。また、行為者

Hが特定の個人ではなく、しかも by によって(b) 対峙型

行為者を明示することができないという中

OS
S/H

S

(a) 同化型

図４

間構文の特徴も図５(a)の図式では予測することができない。5

これに対し、(8b)は話し手が客体化を受けてI として表現されていることから事態外視点(a)であることがわかる。自己の客体化は他者の

(b)

tr

tr

視点を通して行われるので、対峙型間主観がOSC成立しているといえる（図４(b)）。

(cf. Langacker 2008:385)
C = anybody

もちろん、間主観性は話し手と聞き手の間

図５ 中間構文(10a)の認知図式だけに成立するものではない。第三者、最終的には世間一般の人にまで拡散(diffuse)する。

これに対し、中間構文は事態内視点におけ実際、(9)における主体として把握され明示る同化型の間主観が最大限拡散したもので化されない概念化者は話し手のみであるが、あると捉えることにより、図５(b)の図式を(10)に示すように認知主体である概念化者

用いて上述の問題に認知的な説明が与えらが世間一般にまで拡散することがある。

れることになる。図５(b)における C は話し
手・聞き手のみならず世間一般の人々（=(9) a. あー

anybody）を指すが、事態内視点をとってい眠い。

b. Hate Sunday night. ...... Have got to

るために OS の外に位置付けられ明示化でき

write catalogue copy for Perpetua before

ないのである。

61

3. 帰結ばならないことの方がむしろ余剰的であるからである。

このような間主観性の立場をとると、グラウンディングの概念を再考せざるを得なくなる。なぜなら、(11)に示すように、グラウ(13) In the context of an ongoing discourse, theンディングは間主観性と深く関係している

matter is usually clear: ...... So if anything isからである。特に、「話し手が聞き手の注意

problematic, it is the redundancy of anを対象に向けさせる」とあることが示唆してEnglish-type

いるように、従来、グラウンディングは聞き

indication has to be given of something

手を意識した対峙型間主観に基づいて分析

apparent on other grounds.

system,where

explicit(Langacker 2008:496)

されてきたことがわかる。
(11) Through nominal grounding (e.g. the,

この問題に対する本研究からの回答は、以this ......) the speaker directs the hearer’s

下の通りである。英語によく見られる対峙型

attention

間主観は話し手と聞き手の主観を調節する

to

the

intended

discoursereferent, ...... (Langacker 2008:259)

間主観であり、「聴者の意識や理解を調整・修正する」する必要がある。そのため、冠詞

それでは、聞き手の存在を意識しない同化などのグラウンディング要素によって、間主型間主観性はグラウンディングに関与しな観の成立を常に相手に促す必要がある。それいのであろうか。これに関しては、(12)で示に対し、日本語によく見られる同化型間主観されるような、日本語のグラウンディングのは話し手の主観が聞き手の主観と一致して問題と関係づけて議論したい。

いるという感覚に基づいているため、グラウ
ンディングは成立済みであることが前提と(12) グラウンディング要素が明示的かつほなっている。要するに、話し手は常に自分のぼ義務的に名詞表現に存在する英語と言葉の指示対象が何であるかは知っているは異なり、日本語にはそのような明示的ため、聞き手が話し手に同化された場合には、文法要素は存在しない。
（早瀬 2018:68）

聞き手にとっても指示対象が何であるかは自明ということになる。この前提に立つと、

英語のように明示的なグラウンディング要

同化型間主観においてはグラウンディング

素（冠詞など）を持たない日本語はグラウン

要素は不要ということになる。実際、日本語

ディングをしなくてもよいのであろうか。も話者によく見られる「あいづち」は、聞き手

ちろん、日本語でもグラウンディングは必要

が話し手と同じスタンスをとっていることであり、非明示的グラウンディング(Covert

を積極的に示すことによって、グラウンディ

Grounding)が行われていると考えるしかな

ングが成立していることを話し手に示すとい。グラウンディングしなければ聞き手は指いう側面がある（cf. 本多 2005:209-212）。

示物を特定することができないことになる以上を踏まえて、(14)の the man と「男」からである。実際、Langacker は(13)のようににおけるグラウンディングの成立過程につ述べ、むしろ英語に見られる余剰性のほうがいて認知図式を用いて検討する。

問題であると述べている。談話の中では、話(14) a. The man ran away.

し手が何を指しているのかはむしろ自明でb. 男が逃走しました。

あり、自明な指示物を明示的に指示しなけれ

62従来の分析では、グラウンディングされた名に指示する必要性がそもそも生じないから

詞要素は図６のように図示される。この図式である。このように考えると、冠詞の有無は自体は誤りとは言えないが、冠詞の有無の差

間主観性の様式の違いに起因しているとい異を図式化できないという問題点がある。

うことになる。
4. まとめ本研究では、間主観性には２つの種類（対OS

峙型と同化型）が存在することを示し、このG違いがグラウンディングの仕方の違いを生図６ グラウンディング（従来型）

み出すと提案した。そして、このモデルによ

これに対して、本研究では、Langacker

り、話し手主語のゼロ化や冠詞の有無などに(2017:280)の記述目標（DT: descriptive target）

見られる認知メカニズムも明らかにするこという概念を援用することにより、明示的グとができた。

ラウンディングと非明示的グラウンディン

また、本研究の議論に従うと、町田 (2012,

グの区別を図式化する。Langacker (2017) の2016) などで提案されてきた事態内視点・事枠組みでは、認知主体は記述目標内にある要態外視点という対立は、概念化者 C が事態

素を注意の窓(window)ごとに OS 上で言語化把握の主体であると同時に事態の参与者ですると想定している。この枠組みで考えた場もある場合にのみ有効であることがわかっ

合、グラウンディングとは、記述目標内の要た。そして、概念化者が事態の参与者ではな

素と OS 上の要素の一致が図られることと捉い場合も含めた事態把握の様式一般を決定

え直すことができる。この一致を聞き手に対しているのは、話し手とともに事態把握の主して明示的に指示または誘導するのが明示体となる他者を話し手がどのように捉える的グラウンディングである。図７(a)に示すよかである。他者の存在を意識しない場合が同うに話し手が聞き手に対し記述目標内のあ化型間主観であり、他者の存在を意識した場る要素に注意を向けるように指示するので合が対峙型間主観である。

ある。

今後の課題としては、これまでのグラウン
the manDTw

ディングに関する分析が対峙型間主観に基男
DTづいていたことを踏まえて、同化型間主観にw

よるグラウンディングの認知メカニズムを明らかにすることが挙げられる。これにより、

S

日本語などの文脈依存型と呼ばれる言語の

OS

OS
H

特徴を認知文法の枠組み内で詳細に記述・分S/H

析することが可能になるはずである。
(a) 対峙型

(b) 同化型

図７ グラウンディング（本稿の提案）*本研究は JSPS 科研費 17K02682 の助成を受一方、非明示的グラウンディングの場合にけたものです。また、口頭発表の際に本多啓は図７(b)に示すようにそのような指示がな

先生より本多 (2005) の主張と本研究の主い。理由は、同化型間主観が成立している場張の類似点をご指摘いただきました。記して合には、聞き手は話し手と同化している（同

感謝の意を表します。

じ視点をとっている）ため、話し手が聞き手

63

1

注

Langacker, Ronald W. (1990) Concept, Image

主観性（主体性）から見た事態把握様式のand Symbol, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

分類に関しては、中村・上原 (2016) を参照。
2

RonaldW.

(2008)

Cognitive

Grammar: A Basic Introduction, Oxford(1b)のような主語のない文の存在について

University Press, Oxford.

は、三上 (1960) などで指摘されている。
3

Langacker,

Langacker,

これらの表現は廣瀬・長谷川 (2010) が主

RonaldW.

(2017)“Cognitive

張する公的自己に当たり、本研究の主張とも

Grammar,” The Handbook of Cognitive

一致する。また、私的自己を指す「自分」はLinguistics, ed. by Barbara Dancygier,Langacker の言う内省による自己の客体視(2)262-283,の際に現れると考えられ、他者の視点をモニ

Cambridge.

Cambridge

University

Press,

タリングしないという点では、後で検討する

町田章 (2012)「主観性と見えない参与者の同化型間主観に見られる自己言及表現であ

可視化－客体化の認知プロセス－」,

ると思われる。

『日本認知言語学会論文集』第 12 巻,

4

246-258.

定義上、tr は必ずプロファイルを受けなけ

町田章 (2016)「認知図式と日本語認知文法

ればならないが、Langacker (2008:469) では
例外を認めている。

―主観性・主体性の問題を通して―」,5

山梨正明他(編) 『認知言語学論考』No.13,

ここでの議論は、本多 (2005:111-112) の指35-70, ひつじ書房, 東京.

摘と軌を一にする。

三上章 (1960)『象は鼻が長い』くろしお出
版, 東京.

参考文献

中村芳久・上原聡 (編) (2016)『ラネカーの浜田寿美男 (1995)『意味から言葉へ』ミネ（間）主観性とその展開』開拓社, 東京.

ルヴァ書房, 京都.
早瀬尚子 (2016)「懸垂分詞構文から見た

大薗正彦 (2018)「ドイツ語の事態把握をめ(inter) subjectivity と (inter) subjectifica-

ぐって－日独英対照の観点から－」, 堀tion」, 中村・上原(編), 207-229.

田優子他(編) 『ことばのパースペクティ
ヴ』, 28-40, 開拓社, 東京.

早瀬尚子 (2018)「名詞の認知文法論」, 西村

Tomasello, Michael (1999) The Cultural Origins

義樹(編), 『認知文法論Ⅰ』, 25-116, 大of Human Cognition, Harvard University

修館書店, 東京.

Press, Cambridge, MA.

廣瀬幸生・長谷川葉子 (2010)『日本語から

Verhagen,

見た日本人』開拓社, 東京.

Arie(2005)

ConstructionsofIntersubjectivity, Oxford University Press,

本多啓 (2005) 『アフォーダンスの認知意味

Oxford.

論』東京大学出版会, 東京.
小柳智一 (2014)「「主観」という用語―文法

Zlatev, Jordan, Timothy P. Racine, Chris Sinha

変化の方向に関連して―」, 青木博史・

and Esa Itkonen (2008) “Intersubjectivity:

小柳智一・高山善行(編) 『日本語文法史

What Makes Us Human,” The Shared Mind,研究』2, 195-219, ひつじ書房, 東京.

eds. by Jordan Zlatev et al., 1-14, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Langacker, Ronald W. (1985) “Observations andSpeculations on Subjectivity,” Iconicity inSyntax, ed. by John Haiman, 109-150, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.

64

scant attention in the literature, except for
Nagatsugu (2017) for Japanese and Wei (2013)
and Li (2016) for Chinese. The primary object of
this paper, therefore, is to reveal its syntactic
Fragmentary Questions in Japanese *properties and highlight its theoretical implications
for contemporary theories of ellipsis. I argue that

Masako Maeda

the derivation of FQ involves movement + deletion

Kyushu Institute of Technology(cf. Merchant (2004) for Fragment Answers) bypresenting data concerning linguistic antecedents,
bound pronouns, Condition A/C of the Binding

Keywords：Fragmentary Question, contrastive

Theory, islands, and quantifier scope.

topic, binding, quantifier scope

2. Proposal
I propose that FQs in Japanese be analyzed

1. Introduction
This paper investigates syntactic properties ofas in (2). The underlying structure of A’s second

Fragmentary Questions (FQs) in Japanese andutterance in (1) is a full-fledged wh-question.

offers a movement + deletion approach for theHere,construction. FQ is illustrated in Speaker A’s

topicalized, undergoes movement to Top-FocP

second utterance in (1), which involves deletion of(see Erteschik-Shir (2007) for the assumption

the wh-interrogative clause that mirrors thethat a contrastive topic is endowed with both apreceding wh-interrogative part of Speaker A’s first

topic feature and a focus feature, and see Bocci

utterance, leading to the interpretation represented(2007) for the argument that a contrastive topic

in A’.

moves to Top-FocP in a cartographic CParemnant,

which

is

contrastively

periphery). In addition, a wh-phrase moves to(1) A: Nomikai-de-wa

min’naFocP in a cartographic CP structure (cf. Rizzi

party-at-TOP

everyone(1997)). Subsequently, FocP is elided as shownnani-onondeita no?

in (2), resulting in a truncated wh-question.

what-ACC

drankQ(2) [Top-FocP XPi [FocP whk [TP ti‘What did everyone drink at the party?’
B: Yuki-wa

biiru-onondeita yo.

Yuki-TOP beer-ACC drankA:tk ]]]In section 3, I show the syntactic properties ofPART‘Yuki drank beer.’

FQ that suggest the presence of an underlying

Takasi-wa? (FQ)

full-fledged CP structure and movement of a

Takashi-TOP

contrastively-focused remnant.

A’: Takasi-wa

nani-onondeita no?

Takashi-TOP what-ACC drank

3. Syntactic Properties of FQ

Q‘What did Takashi drink?’

3.1. Linguistic AntecedentFirst of all, FQ reflects the interpretation of a(Nagatsugu (2017), slightly modified)linguistic antecedent; FQ in (1) is interpreted as awh-interrogative sentence, while FQ in (3) isTo the best of my knowledge, FQ has received

65

interpreted as a Yes-No question, both of which

3.2. Contrastive Topicreflect the interpretation of the preceding utterance.

Remnants in FQs require contrastive-topic

These indicate that FQ is a kind of ellipticalmarker -wa, as illustrated by the obligatory presence

construction.

of a topic marker in (5).

(3) A: Kinoo,B:A:

Yuki-wa gakko-ni(5) A: Kyoo-wa Yuuta-ni ringo-oitta no?

ageta.

yesterday, Yuki-TOP school-DAT went Q

today-TOP Yuta-DAT apple-ACC gave

‘Did Yuki go to school yesterday?’‘Today, I gave Yuta an apple.’Un.

B: Kinoo *(-wa)?

/ Ken-ni *(-wa)?

‘Yes.’

yesterday*(-TOP)

Takasi-wa?

‘(Intended.)Yesterday, what did you give

Takashi-TOP

to Yuta?/What did you give to Ken?’

Ken-DAT*(-TOP)‘(Intended.)Did Takashi go to school
The assumption that remnants in FQs yield

yesterday?’contrastive topic interpretation is supported by the
One might assume that the second utterance of A inremnants’ incompatibility with the exhaustive(1) is derived from Takasi-wa dou? ‘How aboutmarker dake ‘only’ and the universal quantifier

Takashi?’ construction by deleting dou ‘how’.

subete-no ‘all’ (cf. Li 2016).

However, not all FQs are derived from XP-wa dou(6)construction. When a remnant is marked with dativeA:

Yuki-dake-wa kootya-o nonda yo.

marker, the remnant may appear in FQ, but not in a

Yuki-only-TOP tea-ACC drank PART

XP-wa dou construction.

‘Only Yuki drank tea.’B:(4) A: Maki-wa Yuri-ni

nani-oageta no?

Rumi(-*dake)-wa?
Rumi(-*only)-TOP

Maki-TOP Yuri-DAT what-ACC gave Q‘(Intended.)What did only Rumi

‘What did Maki give to Yuri?’drink?’

B: Oningyoo da
doll

(7)

yo.

A:

nani-oOhno-teacher-TOP what-ACC

COP PART

A: Ken-ni-wa?

Oono-sensei-wa(FQ)

nonda no?

Ken-DAT-TOP

drank Q‘(Intended.)What did Maki give to Ken?’‘What did Prof.Ohno drink?’A’: *Ken-ni-wa

dou? (XP-wa dou)B:

Ken-DAT-TOP how

Koohii.
‘Coffee.’A:‘How about Ken?’

Oka-sensei-wa?
Oka-teacher-TOP

Hence, I assume that FQ is different from XP-wa‘(Intended.)What did Prof.Oka drink?’

dou construction, although their outputs may
coincide.

A’: *Subete-no

sensei-wa?

all-GEN

teacher-TOP‘(Intended.)What did all the teachers
drink?’

66

Here, a question arises whether a contrastive

3.3. Binding

topic phrase is licensed in situ or it moves to a

The assumption that FQ is derived from a

dedicated position in the left periphery (seefull-fledged CP structure is supported by the fact

Neeleman et al. (2009) and Vermeulen (2012,that FQ remnants can be bound variables. For

2013) for the latter assumption). The fact that the

instance, zibun ‘self’ in (10B) can be interpreted as acontrastive topic in (8B) appears in thebound pronoun that takes subete-no otokonoko

TP-internal position indicates that a contrastive‘every boy’ as its antecedent. Given the general

topic does not overtly move to the CP peripheryassumption that a bound variable needs a

position.

c-commanding antecedent, it follows that FQ in(10B) is underlyingly a clause structure where the(8)

A: Mari-wa

paatii-de keeki-oquantified subject c-commands the remnant.

tabeta?

Mari-TOP party-at cake-ACC ate(10) A: Class-no‘Did Mari eat cake yesterday?’B:[subete-no otokonoko]i-ga

I don’t know about Mari, but…

class-GEN every-GEN boy-NOM

Paatii-de Yuki-wa keeki-ozibuni-no hahaoya-ni hana-oparty-at Yuki-TOP cake-ACC

self-GEN mother-DAT flower-ACC

tabeta

yo.

ageta

rasii

ate

PART

gave

heard PARTyo.

‘(I don’t know about Mari, but)Yuki‘I heard that [every boy]i in the classate cake at the party.’

gave flowers to hisi mother.’
B: Zibuni-no titioya-ni-wa?

The next question would be whether aselfi-GEN father-DAT-TOP

contrastive topic undergoes covert movement to‘(Intended.)What did [every boy]ithe left periphery. Maki (1992) argues that thegive to hisi father?’answer is positive, by showing that a contrastive
topic is subject to a complex NP island.

The Condition A/C of the Binding Theory further
supports the underlying c-command relationship(9) a. Mary-ga[sono mise-de

between the subject and the remnant.

Mary-NOM thestore-atsono hon-wa

katta]

hito-o]thatboughtpersonbook-TOP(11)

A: Keni-wa Yuki-ni
Keni-TOP Yuki-DAT

chocolate-ochocolate-ACC

sagasiteita.

katta.

looking.forbought‘Mary was looking for the man who‘Keni bought chocolate for Yuki.’bought that book.’

B: Karezisini-ni-wa?
himselfi-DAT-TOP

I assume that contrastive topics undergo covert‘(Intended.)What did Keni buy for

movement in non-elliptical clauses, while theyhimselfi ?’undergo overt movement in FQs.

67(12) A: Karei-wa Yuki-ni

chocolate-ohe-TOP

chocolate-ACC

Yuki-DATkatta.

relative scope between two quantifiers throughboughttheir surface order, as shown in (14a). Scope‘Hei bought chocolate for Yuki.’

ambiguity obtains when the object is scrambled
to the position c-commanding the subject, as

B: * Keni-ni-wa?

shown in (14b) (Kuroda (1970), Hoji (1985)).

Keni-DAT-TOP‘(Intended.)What did hei buy for(14) a.

Keni ?’
3.4. Complex NP Island
FQs in Japanese are subject to the complex

Dareka-ga(kono heya-no)

someone-NOM

this room-GEN

subete-nohon-oevery-GENbook-ACC readyonda.

NP island, as illustrated in the ungrammaticality‘Someone read every book in thisof A’s second utterance in (13); in this case, theroom.’ (some » every, *every » some)large-scale pied piping is required, as shown in(Kuroda (1970: 136))

A’.

b. [(Kono heya-no)
thissubete-no

room-GEN every-GEN(13) A: Kimi-wa [[Syoota-ga

katta]

hon-o]iyou-TOPboughtbook-ACC someone-NOM

Shota-NOM

omotya]-o dare-ni
toy-ACC

ageta no?

dareka-ga

ti yonda.
read‘Someone read every book in thisroom.’(some » every, every » some)

who-DAT gave Q(Kuroda (1970: 137))‘Who did you give the toy Shotabought?’
B:

Yuki

da

Yuki

COP PART

Now, let us consider scope possibilities inyo.

elliptical clauses. Fox (2000) proposes that

A: * Yuuta-wa?

syntactic derivation is constrained by an

Yuta-TOPeconomy principle, which prohibits movements‘(Intended.)Who did you give a toythat do not yield a new interpretation at thethat Yuta bought?’

interface. According to the economy principle,

A’: [[Yuuta-ga katta]
Yuta-NOM bought

omotya]-wa?

when movement is covert and does not

toy-TOP

contribute to a new output for the phonologicalinterface, the movement should yield a new

I argue that the island-sensitivity indicates thatinterpretation for the semantic interface. Fox

the derivation of FQ involves focus movement,

argues that covert operations such as Quantifier

which obey islands (see Nishigauchi (2011) on

Raising (QR) obey this economy condition,

Japanese stripping and Wei (2013) on Chinese

prohibiting scopally vacuous QR.

FQs).
(15) Scope Economy (Fox (2000: 75))
Covert optional operations cannot be

3.5. Quantifier Scope
Finally, let us consider scope ambiguities inscopally vacuous (i.e., they must reverse

FQ. Japanese has been regarded as a scope-rigid

the relative scope of two noncommutative

language, that is, a language which reflects

quantificational expressions).

68Fox assumes that scope vacuity is dependent on

scope-shifting operations such as QR are

whether QR reverses the relative scope of two

allowed only when the antecedent clause and thequantificational expressions. If QR does notelided clause are both scopally informative.

change scope possibilities, the sentence isFurthermore, Takahashi (2008a) argues thatregarded as scopally uninformative. Scope

Scope Economy and Parallelism are at work with

Economy disallows the vacuous application of

AE in Japanese as well (see also Takahashi

QR on the scopally uninformative sentences,(2008b, c, 2013) and Maeda and Takahashi

leading to obligatory surface scope. Fox (2000)(2016)). In Japanese, scope ambiguity under

proposesscope

ellipsis obtains iff (i) both an antecedent clausepossibilities; that is, ellipsis must obey theand an elliptical clause are scopally informative

Parallelism(i.e. they contain more than two quantifiers), andanother

restriction

condition,asstated

on
in

(16).

(ii) scrambling occurs in both clauses.

Parallelism ensures that in ellipsis environments
two sentences will have isomorphic syntactic

Now, let us consider FQs in Japanese.

representations at LF. Specifically, Parallelism

Suppose that the antecedent clause of FQ

dictates that the antecedent and the elided

exhibits scope ambiguities, with one of theclauses have the parallel scope under ellipsis.

quantifiers undergoing scrambling over another.
If(16) Parallelism (Fox (2000: 32))Inanellipsis/phonologicaltheellipticalclause,

FQ

with

a

quantificational remnant, also exhibits scope
reduction

ambiguities, it should indicate that FQ has anrelationshipunderlying full-fledged structure, which contains

among the elements in βA must be

two quantifiers. As the examples (17)-(18) show,

identical to the scopal relationship among

this expectation is borne out; the second

the parallel elements in βE.

utterances show scope ambiguities that obey

construction

thescopalScope Economy and Parallelism.
The combination of Scope Economy andParallelism yields an interesting prediction(17) A： Dansei-kyoosi hutari-ni

regarding scope possibilities between two

male-teacher

two-DATsentences S and S′. Scope Economy licenses

zyosi-gakusei

san’nin-ga

inverse scope if S is scopally informative, that is,female-student three-NOM

if S is semantically distinct under surface andnani-oinverse scope. In such a case, Parallelism allows

what-ACC gave

for inverse scope in S′. On the other hand, if S is

‘What did three female students give

scopally uninformative, that is, S is semanticallyto two male teachers?’ (2 » 3, 3 » 2)

equivalent under surface and inverse scope, thenB:

Scope Economy does not allow inverse scope in

ageta

no?
Q

Chocolate.
‘Chocolate.’

S. In such a case, it follows from Parallelism that

A： Zyosei-kyoosi hutari-ni-wa?

inverse scope is not allowed in S′. Given thatfemale-teacher two-DAT-TOP

Parallelism is a condition under ellipsis, S and S′‘(Intended.)What did three female

can be restated as the antecedent clause and thestudents

elliptical clause, and vice versa. Therefore,teachers?’ (2 » 3, 3 » 2)

69

give

to

two

female‘Yuki drank beer.’(18) A： Takusan-no kigyoo-o

A: Takasi-wa

many-GEN company-ACC
zyosi-gakusei-ni

Takashi-TOP

dare-gafemale-student-DAT who-NOM
syookaisitano?

introducedQnani-o?
what-ACC‘(Intended.)What did Takashi drink?’A’: *Nani-oTakasi-wa?

what-ACC

Takashi-TOP‘Who introduced many companies
to a female student?’

Furthermore, the fact that a contrastive topic(many » one, one » many)
B: Tanaka-sensei

element must precede a wh-phrase in multiple FQ,

da yo.

as shown by the ungrammaticality of (19A’), sheds

Tanaka-teacher COP PARTa new light on the cartographic left periphery of‘Prof. Tanaka.’

Japanese (cf. (2)).

A： Dansi-gakusei-ni-wa?
male-student-DAT-TOP* I would like to express my sincere gratitude to‘(Intended.)Who introduced many

Nobuaki Nishioka, Yosuke Sato and Daikocompanies to a male student?’

Takahashi for insightful comments. I am also

(many » one, one » many)thankfulto

Shintaro

Hayashi,TakashiKayashima, Norimi Kimura, Yoichi Miyamoto,
This section gives evidence for the assumption

Kento Nagatsugu, Taichi Nakamura, Taisuke

that FQ is derived from a full-fledged CP

Nishigauchi, Tomonori Otsuka, Rumi Takaki,

structure, and a contrastive topic remnant moves

Hideharu Tanaka, Kensuke Takita and otherto the CP periphery.

participants at the 36th Conference of the English
Linguistic Society of Japan at Yokohama

4. Conclusion

National University (November 24, 2018). This

This paper investigates syntactic properties

research

has

been

supportedby

theof FQs in Japanese. FQ is an intriguing

Grants-in-Aid

construction in that the ellipsis site contains a#18K12412) and the Grants-in-Aid for Scientificwh-phrase, a kind of focus. Furthermore, FQ

Research (C) (grant #18K00654).

forYoung Scientists (grant

may have implications for the theory of Max
Elide (Takahashi and Fox (2005), Merchant(2008)), given that the ellipsis of a wh-phrase is

REFERENCES
Bocci, Giuliano (2007) “Criterial Positions andoptional in FQs, as shown in A’s second

Left Periphery in Italian: Evidence for theutterance in (19) (cf. (1)).

Syntactic Encoding of Contrastive Focus,”
Nanzan Linguistics Special Issue 3, 35-70.

(19) A: Nomikai-de-wa min’na

Erteschik-Shir,

Nomi(2007)

Information

party-at-TOP

everyone

Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface,nani-onondeita no?

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

what-ACC

drank

B: Yuki-wa biiru-oFox, Danny (2000) Economy and Scope

Q

Interpretation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

nondeita yo.

Yuki-TOP beer-ACC drankHoji, Hajime (1985) Logical Form Constraints

PART

70

Takahashi, Daiko (2008a) “Quantificational Nulland Configurational Structures in Japanese,
Doctoraldissertation,

University

Objects and Argument Ellipsis,” Linguisticof

Inquiry 39, 307–326.

Washington.

Takahashi,

Kuroda, S.-Y. (1970) “Remarks on the Notion of

Daiko(2008b)“Noun

PhraseOxfordHandbook

Subject with Reference to Words like also,

Ellipsis,”

even, or only,” Annual Bulletin 4, 127–152,

Japanese Linguistics, ed. by Shigeru

Research Institute of Logopedics andMiyagawa and Mamoru Saito, 394–422,

Phoniatrics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Li, Haoze (2016) “Fragment Questions: Deleting

The

of

Takahashi, Daiko (2008c) “Scope Interaction in

Question Items,” NELS 46, 279-292.

DPs with NP-Deletion in Japanese,” The

Maeda, Masako and Daiko Takahashi (2016)

State of the Art in Linguistic Research: The“NP-Ellipsis in the Nagasaki Dialect ofInterface of Form and Meaning, ed. by

Japanese,” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 23,

Yoshiaki Kaneko, Akira Kikuchi, Yoshiki119-131.

Ogawa, Etsuro Shima and Daiko Takahashi,

Merchant,

Jason(2004)“Fragments

397-407, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

andEllipsis,” Linguistics and Philosophy 27,

Takahashi, Daiko (2013) “A Note on Parallelism

661-738.

for Elliptic Arguments,” MIT Working

Merchant, Jason (2008) “Variable Island Repair

Papers in Linguistics: Formal Approaches

under Ellipsis,” Topics in Ellipsis, ed. by

to Japanese Linguistics (FAJL) 6, 203–213.

Kyle

Johnson,132-153,

Cambridge

Takahashi, Shoichi and Danny Fox (2005) “Max

University Press, Cambridge.

Elide

Nagatsugu, Kento (2017) “Kanryaku Gimon

and

the

Re-binding

Problem,”

Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic
Theory XV, 223-240.

Bundampen no Wh-Kaisyaku nituite (OnFragmentary

Vermeulen, Reiko (2012) “The Information

Questions),” paper presented at the Third

Structure of Japanese,” The Expression ofAnnual Meeting of the Fukuoka Linguistic

Information Structure (The Expression ofSociety, Fukuoka University, Fukuoka.

Cognitive Categories 5), 187-216.

the

Wh-InterpretationofNeeleman, Ad, Elena Titov, Hans van de Koot

Vermeulen, Reiko (2013) “On the Position ofand Reiko Vermeulen (2009) “A Syntactic

Topics in Japanese,” The Linguistic Review

Typology of Topic, Focus and Contrast,”

30, 117-159.

Studies in Generative Linguistics 100,

Wei, Ting-Chi (2013) “Fragment Question and

15-51.

Ellipsis in Chinese,” Studies in Chinese

Nishigauchi,

TaisukeFragments,”(2011)

Theoretical“DerivingandLinguistics 34, 151-198.

Applied

Linguistics at Kobe Shoin, 81-106.
Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of theLeft Periphery,” Elements of Grammar:
Handbook in Generative Syntax, ed. by
LilianeHaegeman,

281–337,

Kluwer,Dordrecht.

71examples on the basis of which to decideamong the slightly different alternative
analyses.

(石居 (1985: 73))

ラベル付けに基づく不定詞関係節の派生に(1b)のような派生をどのようにして排除

ついてするかについて、これまでさまざまな解決案（On the Derivation of Infinitival Relativeが提案されてきた。例えば、極小主義の枠組

Clauses Based on Labeling）

みにおいて、不定詞関係節 CP を補部に持つ
空 の 前 置 詞 を 仮 定 す る 分 析 (Hasegawa

松元 洋介（Yosuke Matsumoto）(1998), 西前 (2014)) や、不定詞節頭へ移動

中京大学（Chukyo University）

した wh 語または句によって不定詞関係節の範 疇 が 変 わ る 分 析 (Pesetsky and Torrego

キーワード：labeling, infinitival relative clause,(2006)) などが提案された。しかしながら、

infinitival interrogative clause, (un)interpretable

これらの提案は規定的なものであるように

tense feature

思われる。本稿の目的は、この不定詞関係節のみに課せられる顕在的関係詞の生起の制約について Chomsky (2013, 2015) で提唱さ

1. はじめにれるラベル付けの分析に基づき原理的説明(1)に示されるように、英語の不定詞関係を与えることである。

節において関係詞は単独では現れることが
2. 不定詞関係節の意味上の主語

できず前置詞に随伴される場合にのみ、音形を持つ関係詞が現れる。一方、(2)に示され本節ではまず Berman (1974) による不定

るように、顕在的な wh 語が現れる不定詞疑

詞関係節の意味上の主語と考えられる for

問節にはこのような制約はない。

NP が実際には不定詞関係節には属さないことを示す証拠を確認する。
第一に(4)に示されるように、for NP 内の照(1) a. I found an usher from whom to buy
tickets.

応形は主節の主語に束縛されることが可能であり、for NP 内の代名詞は主節の主語と同

b. * I found an usher whom to buy tickets
from.

一指示ができない。従って、for NP は不定詞

(cf. Emonds (1976: 192))(2) a. I didn’t ask from whom to buy tickets.

関係節ではなく主節に属しています。

b. I didn’t ask who(m) to buy tickets from.
(4) a. John brought a book for himself to read.
b. * Johni brought a book for himi to read.

また(3)に示されるように、単に wh 句が何か

(Berman (1974: 38))を随伴していればいいわけではなく、随伴された要素が全体として PP を構成していなけ
ればならない。

第二に、(5)に示されるように、不定詞関係
節には TP 指定部に生起するとされる虚辞(3) a. * He bought a book the content of which tothere が生じることができず、イディオムチ

discuss with Mary.

ャンクを形成することができない。

b. It would be interesting to find clearer72DP は v の持つ[iT]と Agree する。さらに、(8b)(5) a. * He has some books for there to be in thelibrary.

にあるように、名詞句内に[iT]があることで、DP 内部で[uT]への値付けが行われる場合がb. * Here is an opportunity for advantage tobe taken of.

(Berman (1974: 39))あり、その名詞句内の[iT]は前置詞や内在格として具現される。

第三に、(6)に示されるように、不定詞関係(8) a. Case is an uninterpretable T-feature (uT)節の意味上の主語を修飾する数量詞の遊離on D.

が不可能である。これは、意味上の主語がvP 指定部から TP 指定部に移動する際に allb. When a nominal bears an interpretable

を残置するという派生が不可能であること

T-feature (iT) on its head, the iT isを示す。

realized as a preposition or inherentcase.

(6) I baked a cake for (all) the children to (*all)eat.

(Berman (1974: 39))3.2. Chomsky (2013, 2015)
Chomsky (2013, 2015) は併合によってで第四に、(7)に示されるように、不定詞関係

きた統語体はインターフェースで解釈され節の for NP には移動が適用されるが、これるためにラベルが付される必要があり、そのは for NP と to VP が構成素を形成していない

手順は最小探査の一種である(16)のラベルことを示す。

付けアルゴリズム (Labeling Algorithm: LA)に従うと主張する。

(7) a.

For whom did you buy a book to read?
(9) a. In {H, YP}, where H is a head but YP is

b. * For whom would you prefer to leave?

not, H is the label.

(Berman (1974: 40))

b. In {XP, YP}, where neither XP nor YP is
以上のことから、意味上の主語として現れ

a head, (i) by moving either XP or YP,

る for NP は統語的には不定詞関係節に属さ

the remaining head is selected as the

ないと考えられるため、本稿では for NP をlabel, or (ii) the label is the most

含まない不定詞関係節のみを考察の対象とprominent features that XP and YPする。

share.

3. 理論的枠組み(9b)のラベル付けが適用される例として定3.1. Pesetsky and Torrego (2001, 2004)

形節の主語 DP の移動が挙げられる。

Chomsky (2000) 以降、構造格付与は φ 素(10) a. [β T [α DP-sbj. [v*P v*-V DP-obj.]]]性の Agree の結果として名詞句の持つ値を

b. [β<φ, φ> DP-sbj. T [α<v*> DP-sbj. [v*P v*-V

持たない格素性[uCase]へ値付けされることで行われると仮定されてきた。これに対して、

DP-obj.]]]Pesetsky and Torrego (2001, 2004) は[uCase]を仮定せず、(8a)のように、格は D の持つ解釈(10a)において、α のラベルは主語 DP と v*P

不可能な時制素性であると主張する。主語という XP レベル同士の要素の併合なので決DP の[uT]は TP 主要部と Agree し、目的語定されない。また Chomsky (2013, 2015) によ73

ると、英語における T はそれ自体ではラベルれるように、C に顕在的な要素が現れない場

付けができない弱い主要部であるので、β の合は C から T への素性継承と同時に C のフ

主要部も決定されない。従って(10b)にある

ェイズ性も T に継承され、C は削除される。

ように、主語 DP が移動することによって、(11a)にあるように、不定詞節の T はラベル

α のラベルは<v*>に決定し、β のラベルは DPになることができるので、α のラベルは T にと TP の共有する素性のペア<φ, φ>に決定す決定する。次に α と PRO が併合し β を形成る。

する。(8b)にあるように、PRO は内在格を持つので iT を持つ。また T が iT を持つことは

4. 分析

明らかなので、β のラベルは共有する素性の4.1. 不定詞関係節の派生ペアである<iT, iT >に決定する。次に(12b)に以上の枠組みに基づき不定詞関係節の派

示されるように、移動した wh 前置詞句の生を考察していくが、その際に(11)を仮定す

from whom が β と併合し γ を形成する。前置る。

詞句 from whom は iT を持ち、β のラベルも<iT, iT>であるので、γ のラベルは共有する素(11) a. Infinitival T is not a weak head, and canbe a label.

性のペア<iT, iT>に決定する。以上のように

1ラベル付けは適正に行われるので前置詞随b. PRO has an inherent case (cf. Chomsky

伴の不定詞関係節の派生は収束する。

(1986)).

次に関係詞が前置詞を随伴せずに現れる(1b)のような不定詞関係節がなぜ非文法的Chomsky (2013, 2015) によると、英語の主節になるのかを考察しよう。

の T は一致が豊かでないという点で弱く、そ(13) a. C→Ø [β< iT, iT> PRO [α<T> [C/T to] [v*P buy

れ自体でラベル付けができないため、(9bii)の方法でラベル付けが起こる。一方不定詞節

inheritance of uF and phasehoodでは一般的に主語と動詞の一致は起こらな
いので、不定詞節の T は φ 素性を持たない

tickets from whom]]]b. [γ<unlabeled> whom [β< iT, iT> PRO [α [C/T to]と考えられる。従って、(9bii)によるラベル[v*P buy tickets from whom]]]]

付けは行われず、(11a)に示すように(9a)の方法でラベル付けが行われる。

(13a)は(12a)と同じ段階であり、C の持つ解釈

まず音形を持つ関係詞が前置詞を随伴し不可能素性とフェイズ性が T へと継承され、た不定詞関係節(1a)の派生を考察しよう。

C は削除され、α のラベルは T に、β のラベ(12) a. C→Ø [β< iT, iT> PRO [α<T> [C/T to] [v*P buy

ルは<iT, iT>に決定する。次の段階として、(13b)に示されるように、移動した whom と βが併合し γ を形成するが、ここで whom と βinheritance of uF and phasehood
tickets [PP from whom]]]]の間には共有する素性がないことに注意すb. [γ< iT, iT> [PP from whom] [β< iT, iT> PROべきである。すなわち、whom は(12)におけ[α<T> [C/T to] [v*P buy tickets [PP fromる from whom とは異なり iT を持たず、またwhom]]]]]

元位置の前置詞句内 (from whom)で uT も既に値が付与され消去されている。whom と βとの間には共有する素性がないため γ のラ

Chomsky (2013, 2015) に従うと、(12a)に示さ

74

ても文法的となる。

ベルが決定されず、派生は破綻する。
以上が(1)の対比についての分析であるが、ここで関係詞が現れない(14)のような不定(17) a. I didn’t ask from whom to buy tickets.

詞関係節に対する説明が必要となる。すなわ

b. I didn’t ask who(m) to buy tickets from.

ち、関係詞として wh 語が現れない場合でも、音形のない wh 語である空演算子があると一

本稿は、不定詞関係節と不定詞疑問節の対比

般的に仮定されており、その仮定の下ではは C の持つ素性の種類の違いとそれによる(14)は(13)と同じ理由で非文法的になると誤構造の違いに起因するととらえる。具体的にった予測がされてしまう。

は、(18)のように主張する。

(14)(18) Infinitival

I found an usher to buy tickets from.

interrogative

C

bears

an

interpretable Q feature (iQ) and other
しかし、本稿では関係節形成に空演算子移動

uninterpretable features, while infinitival

はないと主張する。その理由として、もしrelative C has only uninterpretable features.

wh 語とパラレルに動く空演算子移動を仮定
するなら、(15a)と同じく空演算子も前置詞を

これは(19)に示されるように、間接疑問文の随伴して移動することが予測されるが、C は解釈可能な Q 素性とその他の解釈不可(15b)は許されない。

能素性を持つが、自由関係節の C は解釈不可能素性しか持たないという Ott (2011)の提(15) a.

the boy to whom Mary talked

案を拡張したものである。

b. * the boy to Op Mary talked.
(19) a. (I wonder) [what CQ[iQ][uF] you cook].

(長谷川 (2014: 155))b. (I eat) [what CFR[uF] you cook](cf. Ott (2011: 183))

ここでは長谷川(2014)に従い、関係節形成には移動ではなく元位置で長距離削除を受ける代名詞があると仮定する。従って、(16)にOtt (2011)によると、C の持つ解釈不可能な素示されるように、(12a)(13a)と同じ段階で派性[uF]は T に継承されるが、解釈可能な Q 素

生は収束する。

性[iQ]は C に残り、それによって主節述語
wonder の選択特性を満たす。同様に、不定(16)C→Ø [β< iT, iT> PRO [α [C/T to] [v*P buy

詞疑問節は主節述語の選択特性を満たすた
めに C が解釈可能な Q 素性[iQ]を持つ必要がinheritance of uF and phasehood

あるが、不定詞関係節の C は Q 素性を持た

tickets from pronoun]]]]ない。(18)から、不定詞疑問節は素性継承の後も C に解釈可能な素性[iQ]が残るのに対し

4.2. 不定詞疑問節との対比て、不定詞関係節は素性継承の後に C に素本節では不定詞関係節と同じく wh 移動が性が何も残らないということが導かれる。こ起こるにもかかわらず(1)のような分布が見のことからさらに、Q 素性を持つ不定詞疑問られない不定詞疑問節について考察する。

節において C のフェイズ性は保持されるが、(17)に例示されるように、不定詞疑問節は疑

不定詞関係節において C のフェイズ性は T

問詞が前置詞を随伴しても、裸のままで現れに継承されると仮定することには問題はな

75

いだろう。

部はラベルを付与することができると主張

不定詞疑問節の派生は(20)のようになる。

されており、これに従うと値を持たない φを持たない不定詞節の T はラベルが付与で(20) a. [γ CQ [β<iT, iT> PRO [α<T> [T to] [v*P buy

きることが導かれる。

inheritance of uF

参考文献
Berman, Arlene (1974) “ Infinitival Relative

tickets from whom]]]]b. [γ<Q, Q> from whom/who(m) CQ [β< iT, iT>

Constructions,” CLS 10, 37-46.

PRO [α [T to] [v*P buy tickets …]]]]

Chomsky,Noam(1986)

Knowledgeof

Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use,
Praeger, New York.

(20a)にあるように、C の持つ解釈不可能素性は T へと継承されるが、C には解釈可能素性

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

Q が残っているのでフェイズ性は継承され

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

ず保持されることに注意されたい。α と β のMinimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

ラベル付けは 4.1 節で見た不定詞関係節と同

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David

じように行われる。次に(22b)に示されるよMichaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155,

うに、移動した wh 句は前置詞句 from whom

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,

であっても、あるいは裸の who(m)であってNoam(2013)“ProblemsofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.

も、C と素性 Q を共有しているので、γ のラ

Chomsky,

ベルは<Q, Q>に決定し、派生は収束する。

Noam

Projection:(2015)“Problems

Extensions,”of

Structures,

5. 結語
本稿では音形を持つ関係詞が現れる不定

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour

詞関係節の派生について生成文法の最新のDomenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona

枠組みであるラベル付けに基づく分析を提Matteini,

案した。格と前置詞を異なる種類の時制素性

Amsterdam.

of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di
3-16,

John

Benjamins,

として分析する先行研究に従い、前置詞を随Emonds, Joseph (1976) A Transformational

伴する不定詞関係節が文法的になり、関係詞

Approach to English Syntax, Academicが裸で現れる不定詞関係節が非文法的とな

Press, New York.
Hasegawa, Hiroshi (1998) “English Infinitival

るのは、時制素性の共有によるラベル付けの可否によるものであることを示した。さらに、

Relativesas

Prepositional

不定詞疑問節の疑問詞の生起に制限がない

English Linguistics 15, 1-27.

Phrases,”

長谷川欣佑 (2014) 『言語理論の経験的基のは、いずれの場合も Q 素性の共有による盤』開拓社, 東京.

ラベル付けが成立するためであると主張し石居康男 (1985) 「I have a topic on which to

た。

work」,『英語教育』
第 34 巻第 5 号, 72-74.
Mizuguchi, Manabu (2017) “Labelability and

注
主要部のラベル付与能力に関する議論につInterpretability,” Studies in Generative

いては Mizuguchi (2017) を参照。そこでは、

Grammar 27: 2, 327-365.

1

Ott, Dennis (2011) “A Note on Free Relative

値未付与の素性を持たない場合にのみ主要76Clausesinthe

TheoryofPhases,”

Linguistic Inquiry 48, 183-192.
Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego (2001)“T-to-C

Movement:

CausesandConsequences,” Ken Hale: A Life inLanguage, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz,
355-126, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego (2004)“Tense, Case, and the Nature of Syntactic
Categories,” The Syntax of Time, ed. by
Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme,
195-537, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego (2006)“Probes, Goals and Syntactic Categories,”
The Proceedings of the Seventh Tokyo
Conference on Psycholinguistics, 25-60.
西前明 (2014)「英語の不定詞演算子節について」, 『日本英語英文学』第 24 巻, 1-28.

77

の是非を議論するにあたり、(2) の例の統語派生を検討し、下線部の主格名詞句が補文内から主節へと移動しており、補文の主要部 Cから主節内の V への上方に継承された素性
素性の上方志向の継承と残余*との一致によって主格が与値されることを（Upward Inheritance and Residue of Features）

示す。

三輪 健太（Kenta Miwa）(2) 補文外主格名詞句構文

茨城キリスト教大学（Ibaraki Christiana. 山田は 旅先が 京都が 最適だと

University）

思っている
b. 山田は 京都が 旅先に 最適だと

キーワード：一致, 素性継承, 格

思っている
なお、下線部の主格名詞句を、補文外に移1. はじめに動しているとみなすことから「補文外主格名

本稿では、素性継承が起こる際に、素性が詞句」、そして、(2) の構文を「補文外主格

継承される方向と継承後の素性の分布につ

名詞句構文」と呼ぶことにする。また、補文

いて議論する。伝統的には、素性継承は、(1a)外主格名詞句を除く (2a) の主格名詞句をに示すように、C から T、または v*から V「補文内主格名詞句」とし、(2b) の与格名というように、構造的に上位の主要部から下

詞句を補文内与格名詞句と呼ぶことにする。

位の主要部へと継承される下方志向の素性

本稿の構成は、以下のとおりである。2 節

継承に限定されていた。これに対し、Citko

では、(2) の下線部の名詞句が主節の要素で(2014) は、(1b) に示すような、C から V、あり、かつ、補文から主節へと移動した要素

または v*から T というように、下位の主要であることを示す。3 節では、補文外主格名部から上位の主要部への上方志向の素性継

詞句への主格の与値が、主節内の φ 素性との承の論理的可能性を指摘している。

一致ではなく、補文内の φ 素性との一致によって可能になることを指摘する。また、補文(1)a. CP/v*P

b.

VP/TP

内の C から主節の V への上方志向の素性継承を仮定することで、後者の一致が可能とな

C/v*

TP/VP

V/T

CP/v*Pることを示す。さらに、上方志向の素性継承を仮定するにあたり、継承される素性の分布

T/V

C/v*

について議論する。4 節では、上方志向の素性継承を仮定することで想定される過剰生

ただし、Citko は、上方志向の素性継承につ成について議論する。5 節はまとめである。

いて経験的証拠を上げることなく、論理的可

なお、議論の前提として、本稿では主格、対格の与値は、Chomsky (2000, 2001) に倣い、能性に言及するに留まっている。
本稿では、これらの素性継承に関する可能C 及び v*から継承された φ 素性と名詞句が性について、従来の想定されていた下方志向持つ φ 素性との一致の結果得られるものとの素性継承に加え、上方志向の素性継承が存する。

在することを主張する。上方志向の素性継承

78

2. 補文外主格名詞句構文

対し主節にかかる副詞句「不適切にも」を挿

本節では、(2) の下線部の名詞句（補文外

入すると、(5) 及び (6) に示すとおり、補文

主格名詞句）が主節に生起しており、かつ補外主格名詞句のみがこの副詞句に先行する

文内から主節へと移動した要素であることことができる。

を主張する。
(5) a. 山田は 旅先が 不適切にも 京都が2.1. 補文外主格名詞句

最適だと 思っている
b.*山田は 旅先が 京都が 不適切にもはじめに、補文外主格名詞句が補文外に生起していることを示す。このことを支持する

最適だと 思っている(6) a. 山田は 京都が 不適切にも 旅先に証拠の一つとして、主節にかかる副詞句の生起位置が挙げられる。Kuno (1976) は、(3) の最適だと 思っている
b.*山田は 京都が 旅先に 不適切にも目的語繰り上げ構文における補文主語の位最適だと 思っている

置を議論する中で、主節にかかる副詞句の生起位置により判断できると主張している。
(4) の対比からもわかるとおり、主格主語

補文外の要素のみ主節にかかる副詞句に先「田中が」は、主節の述語にかかる副詞句で行するはずであるから、もし補文外主格名詞

ある「愚かにも」に先行することができない

句が補文内に生起するならば、補文外主格名のに対し、対格主語「田中を」は「愚かにも」詞句が副詞句に先行する (5), (6) ではいずの前に現れることができる。

れも非文となるはずである。しかし、(5) では、補文外主格名詞句が副詞句に先行する(3) a. 山田は 田中が 馬鹿だと 思っている(5a) は文法的となり、補文内主格名詞句が副b. 山田は 田中を 馬鹿だと 思っている

詞句に先行する (5b) のみが非文となる。ま(4) a. *山田は 田中が 愚かにも 天才だとた、(6)でも、補文外主格名詞句が副詞句に先行する (6a) は文法的であるが、補文内与思っている

格名詞句が副詞句に先行する (6b) は非文

b. 山田は 田中を 愚かにも 天才だと

となる。

思っている

次に、補文外主格名詞句が主節に生起して(4) の文法性の違いは、副詞句の起こる位置いることを示す証拠として、かき混ぜの可否が関与していると考えられる。(4a) は、副詞があげられる。Saito (1985) によると、(7) に句「愚かにも」が主節にかかる要素であるにみられるように、補文内の主格主語はかき混もかかわらず、補文内の主格主語「田中が」ぜができないのに対し、対格主語はかき混ぜに後続することで補文内に介在してしまうが可能である。

ことから非文となっている。一方、(4b) に(7) a. *田中 i が 山田は ti 馬鹿だと 思っておいて対格主語「田中を」が主節に繰り上がっているとすると、たとえそれが「愚かにも」いるb. 田中 i を 山田は ti 馬鹿だと 思ってに先行したとしても、ともに主節内の要素となるために文法性に影響がない。このように、いる

主節にかかる副詞要素の位置により、名詞句の現れる節を特定することができる。1

補文外主格名詞句構文に現れる名詞句を

この事実を基に、補文外主格名詞句構文にかき混ぜする場合、補文内主格名詞句のかき79

混ぜをした (8a) は非文となるのに対し、補b.*山田は どこが [旅先に 最適だと]

文外主格名詞句をかき混ぜした (8b, c) は文も 思っていない(11) a. 山田は 旅先が [どこが 最適だと]も法的となる。このことは、補文外主格名詞句
が補文の主語として生起していないことを思っていないb. 山田は 京都が [何に 最適だと]も示している。

思っていない(8) a. *京都 i が 山田は 旅先が ti 最適だと思っている

以上の事実は、補文外主格名詞句が補文外、

b. 旅先 i が 山田は ti 京都が 最適だと

つまり主節の要素であることを示している。

思っている
c. 京都 i が 山田は ti 旅先に 最適だと

2.2. 補文外への移動
次に、補文外主格名詞句が繰り上げによっ

思っているて主節に移動していることを示す。このこと
主格名詞句が補文外に生起することを示を示す証拠として、適正束縛条件が挙げられすさらなる証拠として、不定語束縛が挙げらる。適正束縛条件とは、移動の痕跡が先行詞れる。Kishimoto (2001) によると、(9) にみによって束縛されていることを求める条件

られる「誰」などの不定語は「も」によってである。(12) では、対格主語を伴う補文がc 統御されなければならない。(9a) では、補対格主語のみを残して文頭に移動している

文主語が不定語になっており、これは補文のが、この移動は非文法的である。Saito (1992)

主要部 C に付加する「も」に c 統御されるたは、この非文法性を対格主語が主節の目的語

め、(9a) は文法的となる。一方、(9b) では

位置へと繰り上がったためだと説明する。

主節主語が不定語となっており、補文の C(12) a. *[ ti 馬鹿だと]j 太郎は 愚かにもに c 統御されないため、非文となっている。

花子 i を tj 思っている
b.*[ ti 馬鹿だと]j 太郎は 花子 i を(9) a. 山田は [CP 誰が 馬鹿だと]も愚かにも tj 思っている

思っていないb.*誰 i が 山田は [CP ti 馬鹿だと]も思っていない

これを基に、補文外主格名詞句構文の補文
述語のみを移動させると、(12) と同様に、これを基に、補文外主格名詞句構文での不非文となる。

定語の振る舞いを示すと (10), (11) のようになる。(10) は第一主格名詞句に不定語を(13) a. *[ti 京都が 最適だと]j 山田はとるものであるが、ともに非文となっており、

旅先 i が tj 思っている
b.*[ti 旅先に 最適だと]j 山田は

これらの要素が補文外に生起していること

京都 i が tj 思っているを示している。一方、(11) は補文内主格名詞
句や補文内与格名詞句を不定語に変えたもこの事実は、補文外主格名詞句が、補文からのであるが、ともに文法的となっている。

主節へと繰り上げにより移動していること(10) a. *山田は 何が [京都が 最適だと]もを示している。

思っていない80

3. 上方志向の素性継承と素性の残余

わらず、非文となっているからである。もし3.1. 上方志向の素性継承

補文外主格名詞句である「京都が」の主格が本節では、補文外主格構文内の主格名詞句

主節の T によって与値されるのであれば、2が主格を得る仕組みを考察し、補文 CP の主(14b) は文法的となるはずである。それにも要部 C から主節内の V へと継承された素性かかわらず (14b) が非文であることから、によって与値されることを示す。

補文外主格名詞句構文に生起する主格名詞
句の主格は、主節内の時制辞 T によって与値

補文外主格名詞句が主節の要素であるとされるものではないことがわかる。

すると、それに主格を与値する主要部の第一の候補として、主節の T が挙げられる。この(14) の対比からわかることは、補文外主

予測が正しいとすると、補文の主要部の範疇

格名詞句構文の主格主語は、補文が CP であにかかわらず、主格が与値されることが予想る場合のみ主格が与えられるということでされる。しかし、その予測に反し、補文外主ある。1 節で、従来の下方志向の素性継承だ

格名詞句構文の補文を (14a) のような CP でけでなく、上方志向の素性継承の可能性を指はなく、(14b) のような小節 (SC) にすると摘したが、ここで、補文外主格名詞句構文の非文となる。

主格名詞句は、(16) に示すように、補文の Cから主節の V へと上方に継承された素性と(14) a. *山田は 旅先が 京都が 最適にの一致によって与値されると仮定する。

思っている
b.*山田は 京都が 旅先に 最適に一致(16) [CP … [NP [CP C … ] V] T]

思っている

[Nom]

[uφ] 上方志向素性継承

Takezawa (1987) は、主格主語及び対格主語をとる補文において、(15a) のように時制辞

この仮定に基づけば、補文外主格名詞句は、T を含む CP では、主格主語と対格主語の両主節の T によらず主格が与値されることが方が認められるのに対し、(15b) のように T可能となり、(14b) の非文法性を捉えることを含まない小節では、主格主語が認められなができる。つまり、(14b) は補文が小節であいことを指摘している。この観察を基に、り、主格を与値する T を欠いているにもかか

Takezawa は、主格を与値する要素が時制辞

わらず、補文外の名詞句に主格が与値されてであると結論づけている。

いるために非文となっていると説明できる。

(15) a. 山田は [CP 花子が/を 美しいと]3.2. ラベル付け

思っている

上方志向の素性継承は、ラベル付けの観点

b. 山田は [SC 花子*が/を 美しく]からも支持されるものであるといえる。
2 節では、補文外主格名詞句構文における思っている

第一名詞句が補文外の要素であり、かつ補文(14a) の非文法性は、補文内主格名詞句が小から主節へと繰り上がったものであること

節内に含まれるためであるとも考えられるをみた。このように仮定すると、次なる問い

が、ここで問題となるのは、(14b) が非文ととして、主節のどの位置に移動しているかとなる点である。なぜならば、(14b) は小節内いう問いが生じる。第一に C の端 (edge) へには主格名詞句が生起していないにもかかの移動が想定されるが、この想定はラベル付

81

け アルゴ リズム の観点 から棄 却される。

が起こり、値が与えられている。すると V

Chomsky (2013) に よると、 ある統語体がの端に移動した「旅先が」と V の間で共有{XP, YP} 構造となる場合、どちらか一方のする φ 素性が得られることになり、この φ

句が移動するか、XP と YP の間で共有され素性を共有素性として β のラベルを決定す

る素性がなければ、そのラベルを決定するこることができるようになる。

とができない。
3.3. 素性の残余

このことを念頭に置きながら、補文外主格
名詞句が C の端に移動した構造を検討する。
(17a) では、移動した「旅先が」と補文 CP

続いて、上方志向の素性継承が起こる際の素性の分布について議論する。

によって構成される統語体 α が、{XP, YP} 構

はじめに、補文内主格名詞句を伴う補文外
主格名詞句構文 (=(2a)) における主格与値造を成している。

について再考する。補文外主格名詞句に与値(17) a. … [V [α 旅先が [C …]]] …

される主格が、補文の C から主節の V への

b. … [β 旅先が [V [α 旅先が [C …]]] …

上方志向の素性継承により可能となることは、すでに述べたとおりである。一方、このラベル α が決定されるためには、補文外主格

構文では補文内主格名詞句にも主格が与値

名詞句である「旅先が」と補文 CP の主要部されている。この主格は、(18) に示すとお間で何らかの素性が共有されているか、もしり、補文の C から T へと下方に継承された

くは「旅先が」がさらに移動するしかない。

素性との一致により与値されると考えられ可能な共有素性として φ 素性があげられるる。すると、同一の C から補文内 T 及び主が、これらの φ 素性をラベル α とすることは節内 V への素性継承が起こっている事になできない。なぜならば、もし C が補文内にる。もし素性継承等の統語操作が位相レベル

おいて φ 素性を T へと継承しているならば、で行われるとすると、3 C から V への上方志

両者が共有する素性が得られず、ラベル α は向の素性継承は、C から T への下方志向の素決定されないからである。また、たとえ C

性継承の後に起こっていることになる。このに φ 素性が残余したとしても、その φ 素性ことから、上方志向の素性継承が起こる際は、は一致を受けておらず値が与えられていな

素性継承が起こった後でも素性は継承元のいことから、共有素性としては認められず、主要部に残余することがわかる。

ラベル α が決定されないことになる。つまり、いずれの場合においてもラベルを決定する

一致

一致(18) [ … [NPExt [ C [ NPInt T … ]] V] T] 4

ことができないために、補文外主格名詞句は[Nom]

さらなる移動が求められることになる。

[Nom]

[uφ]

[uφ]

下方志向素性継承

ではその後の派生についてであるが、さら上方志向素性継承

なる移動先として (17b) のような V の端が想定される。ここでも補文外主格名詞句「旅先が」と V を主要部とする統語体は {XP,一方、補文内与格名詞句を含む補文外主格

YP} 構造を成しており、再び次のラベル β

名詞句構文 (=(2b)) では、補文内に主格名詞を決定しなければならない。ここでは V に句が現れない。このことから、この構文では、上方に継承された φ 素性は C の端にある補補文内において C から T への下方志向の素

文外主格名詞句が持つ φ 素性との間で一致

性継承が行われないと考えることができる。

82ただし、補文外主格名詞句に対する主格の与継承された φ 素性は、主語名詞句が持つ φ値が求められることから、(19) に示すとお素性との一致により対格与値を行うことにり、補文内で C から T へと継承されずに残なり、(21b) のような多重対格を擁すること余した φ 素性が主節 V へと継承され、補文になる。しかし、(21b) は当然非文であり、外主格名詞句との一致により主格が与値さ

この事実は上方志向素性継承が過剰生成をれるものと考えられる。

予測してしまうように見える。
(21) a. 太郎が りんごを 食べる

一致(19) [ … [NPExt [ C [ NPInt T … ]] V] T]
[Nom]

[Dat]

b.*太郎を りんごを 食べる[uφ]

上方志向素性継承

この問題に関しては、上方志向素性継承自体の問題ではなく、それに付随する副次的要

Ouali (2008) は、素性継承の際の継承され因によって引き起こされるものであると考る素性の分布について、(20) に示す 3 つのえる。まず、v*から V への下方志向の素性

可能性を主張している。(20a) は、素性が継継承が起こることで、目的語「りんご」への承され、継承元の主要部に残余しないもので対格与値が可能となる。次に、(22) に示すある。(20b) は、素性継承後に、継承元の主とおり、v*から T への上方志向の素性継承に

要部にも素性が残余する例である。(20c) は、より、一致の結果、主語「太郎」への対格与そもそも素性継承が起こらず、主要部に素性値が引き起こされる。

が残余する例である。
一致(20) a. C/v*[_]

T/V[F]

b. C/v*[F]

T/V[F]

c. C/v*[F]T/V[_](22) [CP C [TP NPi T [v*P ti v*… ]]
[uφ]

[Acc]

[uφ]

上方志向素性継承

ただし、(21b) を非文にしている要因は、以上のことから、補文外主格名詞句構文は、

これらの素性継承及びその結果得られる一Ouali (2008) が指摘する素性継承における素致ではなく、C に残余する φ 素性であると考性の残余の証拠の一つとして捉えることがえられる。C が持つ φ 素性は本来 T へと継承できる。5されるものであるが、このとき T はすでにv*からの素性継承を受けているために、C か

4. 過剰生成らの素性継承を受け付けることができない。

最後に、上方志向の素性継承を仮定するこ

すると、解釈不可能な φ 素性が C に残余すとで懸念される過剰生成の是非について考ることになり、その派生は破綻し (21b) が察する。査読者の一人から、上方志向の素性

非文となると説明できる。

継承を認めることで、(21b) にみられる過剰

このように、上方志向素性継承を認めるこ

生成が予期されるとの指摘を頂戴した。つまとで懸念される過剰生成の問題は、上方志向

り、補文の C から主節の V への上方志向の素性継承自体の問題ではなく、それによって素性継承が認められるならば、v*から T への引き起こされる上位の主要部が持つ素性が上方志向の素性継承も論理的には可能であ

一致を受けられないことに原因を求めるこ

るはずである。すると、v*から T へと上方にとができる。

83

5. まとめ

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

本研究は、補文外主格名詞句構文の分析か

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, Davidら、上方志向の素性継承が存在することを明Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-115,

らかにした。また、上方志向の素性継承が起

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

こる際には、以前の派生における素性継承のChomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”

際、位相主要部に素性が残余することになる

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. byことを指摘した。

Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.

* 本稿は、日本英語学会第 36 回大会で行な

Chomsky,Noam(2013)“ProblemsofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.

った口頭発表の原稿に加筆・修正を加えたものである。ご指導いただいた平田一郎先生や、 Citko, Barbara (2014) Phase Theory, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.

口頭発表にてご司会いただいた柚原一郎先Hiraiwa, Ken (2005) Dimensions of Symmetry in

生から貴重な助言を頂戴した。ここに謝意をSyntax:

表したい。

and

ClausalArchitecture, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

注
1

Agreement

ただし、Hiraiwa (2005) は、語順による証

Kishimoto,

Hideki(2001)“Binding

拠は対格主語の繰り上げの証拠としては不Indeterminate

十分であると指摘している。

Structure in Japanese,” Linguistic Inquiry

232, 597-633.

こ の 場 合 、 Hiraiwa (2005) の 多 重 一 致

PronounsandofClause(Multiple Agree) が起こると仮定し、主節の T

Kuno, Susumu (1976) “Subject Raising,” Syntaxに継承された φ 素性が、主節の主語と補文外and Semantics 5: Japanese Generative

主格名詞句の 2 つの名詞句と一致すること

Grammar, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani,

で複数の主格が与値されると考えることに

17-49, Academic Press, New York.
Ouali, Hamid (2008) “On C-to-T φ Feature

する。
3

ここでは、併合 (MERGE) を除く全ての統Transfer: The Nature of Agreement and語操作が位相レベルで適用されるものと仮

Anti-Agreement in Berber,” Agreement

定する。

Restrictions, ed. by Roberta D’Alessandro,

4

Suann

図中の NPExt 及び NPInt は、それぞれ補文外Fisher

名詞句と補文内名詞句を表す。

Hrafnbjargarson,

5

Gruyter, Berlin.

Ouali (2008) による素性継承の際の素性のandGunnar159-180,

Hrafn

MoutondeSaito, Mamoru (1985) Some Asymmetries in

分布に関する議論は、(20) の分布の優先順
位にまで及んでいる。本稿では、補文外主格

Japanese

名詞句構文における上方志向の素性継承がImplications, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Saito,

起こる際の素性の分布の優先順位までは考andMamoruTheir(1992)

Theoretical“Long

Distance

察の対象としていない。この点については、

Scrambling in Japanese,” Journal of East

今後の課題としたい。

Asian Linguistics 1, 69-118.
Takezawa, Koichi (1987) A Configurational
Approach to Case-Marking in Japanese,

参考文献
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

Doctoral

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

dissertation,

Washington.

84

Universityofえて適用されない統語操作が、特に不定詞節を越えて適用されている現象を指す。(2)では to 不定詞節内の目的語 hit ‘it’が主節の領域に移動しており、かつては ought が再構成
助動詞 ought の歴史的発達について*を許していたことが分かる。

（On the Historical Development of the English

本論文では、歴史コーパス YCOE, PPCME2,

Auxiliary Ought）

PPCEME を用いた調査により、ought を含む
文における再構成、すなわち(2)に見られる

森 敏郎（Toshiro Mori）

ような to を越える目的語の左方移動が 14 世

名古屋大学大学院（Nagoya University）

紀中に消失したことを示す。また、その原因は同時期までに完了した ought の助動詞化でキーワード：ought to, to 不定詞節, 再構成,あると提案する。さらに、この提案に基づき、目的語移動

通常の to 不定詞節と ought が従える to 不定
詞節における再構成の消失時期の違いが正
しく説明されることを示す。

1. 序
2. ought to における再構成

義務を表す助動詞 ought は、(1)に例示される所有を表す古英語の本動詞 agan を起源

ought to における再構成の歴史的発達を明に持つ。そして(2)に示されるように、義務らかにするために、to 不定詞節の目的語が toを表す ought の用法は古英語から観察される。 を越えて左方移動する現象について調査を行った。この調査では、A バー移動の適用を(1)

þa

Deniscan ahton wælstowe

the Danesof-battle-field

除外し(Wurff (1999))、CP 領域への話題化のgeweald

可能性を排除するために、目的語が to に先

power

行し主語に後続している(3)-(6)のような例‘Danes had power (control) of the battleを収集した。1 再構成を受けた目的語は囲み

place’

線で示され、ought が従える to 不定詞には下(ChronE(2)

had

受けると考えられる数量詞付きの目的語を(Irvine)833.1(Plummer

線が引かれている。調査結果は表 1 にまとめ

63.9-11) / Kaita (2015: 110))られているが、後期中英語 2 件の年代は 1390

nan man hit nah

年と 1400 年であり、目的語の左方移動が 14

no man ittonot-ought to

世紀中に消失したことが分かる。

geahnianne
claim as one’s own

古英語‘no man ought to claim possession of it’(-1150)

初期中英語(1150-1350)

13

10

後期中英語

近代英語

初期英語において、助動詞は再構成(1350-1500)(1500-1710)(restructuring)を引き起こすことが可能であ

20(colaw2cn,LawIICn:24.3.79 / YCOE)ったと指摘されている(Biberauer and Roberts

表 1: ought to における再構成の分布(2005))。なお再構成とは、通常は節境界を越

85

(3)

þus

ahte ech of us him seluen

Tanaka は(7)の仮定の下で、古英語と中英

thus ought each of us himself

語の to 不定詞節は(8)に示される構造を持つ

to cnowenのに対し、後期中英語に(9)に示される構造

to knowが新たに出現したと提案している。(8)では‘thus each of us ought to know himself’

不定詞節は前置詞である不定詞標識 to を主(CMTRINIT,123.1648 / PPCME2)(4)

hie awhhe

要部とする PP であるが、これは to 不定詞節

gode

to beseken

が前置詞句と等位接続可能であったこと、まought Godto beseech

た、to が不定詞に格付与(古英語：与格-enne、‘he ought to beseech God’

中英語：目的格-en/e)していたことにより支持される。2 一方、新たな構造(9)では to が

(CMVICES1,143.1776 / PPCME2)(5)nan man hit nah
no man it

to機能範疇 T としての位置付けを持つ。

not-ought togeahnianne(8)

古英語・中英語[PP to [vP Venne/en/e-v [VP tV … Obj ...]]]

claim as one’s own‘no man ought to claim possession of it’(vP is not a phase)(colaw2cn,LawIICn:24.3.79 / YCOE)(6)

im min unȝewill
I

my

awh

(9)

aure ma

後期中英語[TP PRO [Tʹ to [vP tPRO V-v

willfulness ought ever more…]]]]te þoliȝen

(vP is a phase)to suffer‘I[VP tV … Obj

ought

to

suffermywillfulness(8)では to による格付与の下で不定詞形態素

evermore’が外項として機能するため、vP はフェイズ(CMVICES1,15.167 / PPCME2)

でないのに対し、(9)では機能範疇としてのto が不定詞に格付与しないため、vP はフェ

3. 通常の to 不定詞節における再構成
ought to の歴史的発達および再構成の消失

イズとなる。再構成に関わる目的語移動がフについて論じる前に、通常の to 不定詞節に

ェイズのエッジを経由しない A 移動である

関する議論から始める。Tanaka (2007)は、受とすると(Tanaka (2009))、フェイズ不可侵条

動形態素は項であるという提案(Baker et al.

件(cf. Chomsky (2000))により、(8)の構造にお(1989))を不定詞形態素に拡張し、(7)の条件

いてのみ再構成が許されることになる。田中を提案している。その帰結として、不定詞形(2012, 2016)によれば、(10)に示されるように、態素が存在する時期においては、それが項と通常の to 不定詞節における再構成、すなわ

して機能し不定詞節の外項が抑制されるた

ち to を越える目的語の左方移動は 16 世紀まめ、受動文の vP と同様に不定詞節の vP がフで観察されるが、(8)の構造は 16 世紀におけェイズではないことが導かれる。

る不定詞形態素の消失に伴い利用不可能になるため、再構成も同時期に消失したという(7)

事実が正しく説明される。

The infinitival morpheme functions as anargument iff its Case feature is licensed(10)(via Agree or inherent Case assignment).

a. from that tyme hytherwarde, was there
neuer so vndeuowte a Kinge, that durst(Tanaka (2007: 48))

86

that sacred place violate, or so holye aought が古英語において既に(12)の段階にあBishoppe that durste it presume toったことを示唆する。

consecrate(MORERIC-E1-P1,28.68 / PPCEME /(13)Þonne agan weofodðenas to smeagennethen

田中 (2012: 71))b. I am come to you a little matter tohave priests

to consider

symble, þæt [...]

breakealways that

(UDALL-E1-P2,L813.75 / PPCEME /‘Then priests always ought to consider

田中 (2016: 124))

that [...]’(Wpol 2.1.1 (Jost) 209 / Kaita (2015: 50))

4. ought to の歴史的発達
ought to は、所有を表す本動詞から発達し第二に、(14)に示されるように、agan が従たという意味的側面、および to 不定詞節をえる to 不定詞節には、faran ‘go’のような自補部にとるようになったという統語的側面

動詞が生起可能であった。

において、have to と 類似している ( 中島(1979), 宇賀治 (2000))。have to については、

(14)

Nah

naðer to farenne ne Wilisc

概略(11)に示される歴史的発達を遂げたこと

not-has neither to goがいくつかの文献において論じられている。

man on Ænglisc land ne Ænglisc on(11a)では have が to 不定詞節に修飾される

man to English land nor English to

NP を補部にとるのに対し、(11b)では have

Wylisc ðeが不定詞節を直接補部にとっている。

Welsh that further except-for settledma,nor Welshbutangesettanlandmen(11)a. [have [NP [to V]]]native-man→ b. [have [to [V NP]]]‘Welsh man ought not to go to the(cf. Heine (1993), Krug (2000))English land nor (ought) English (man)(to go) to the Welsh (land) the further,
except for native one as settled’

本論文では、本動詞としての ought は既に古(LawDuns 6 / Kaita (2015: 51))

英語において(11b)に対応する(12)の段階にあったと仮定する。なお、(12)は通常の to 不定詞節に関する前節の提案を踏まえた構造(11)に示される have to の発達においては、である。

(11b)に示されるような他動詞が生起している段階からさらに進むと、自動詞が生起可能(12)

Subj … [VP ought [PP to [vP Venne/en/e-vになるという発達の流れがいくつかの文献[VP tV NP]]]]において論じられている。have to の発達に関する以上の議論を鑑みると、(14)に示されこの仮定は 3 つの証拠により支持される。

る自動詞の生起可能性もまた、ought が古英第一に、(13)に示される古英語の例において、 語において既に(12)の段階にあったことをthat 節は agan ではなく smeagenne ‘consider’

示唆する。
第三に、独自の調査により得られた YCOEの目的語であり、that 節を含む to 不定詞節全体が agan の補部となっている。この事実は、からの例も有力な証拠となる。

87

(15)

… ne

he nahb. [TP T [ModP ought [InfP to [vP V-v …]]]]

mid rihte oðres

nor he not-ought rightfully anothermannes(17)[TP ought [NegP not [ModP tought [InfP to …]]]]

to onfonne

person.GEN to receive

以上の議論が正しければ、英語史において‘... nor ought he to receive another person

ought to の構造が(12)から(16b)へと変化した

rightfully’

ことになるが、この構造変化の時期および動(colaw1cn,LawICn:22.6.133 / YCOE)

機を探るために、ought の助動詞化について概観する。宇賀治 (2000)によれば、owe/oughtagan は対格目的語をとるが、(15)では agan

はもともと表 2 の上側の欄のような時制パに後続する oðres mannes ‘another person’はラダイムを持っていたが、12 世紀末に現在

onfonne ‘receive’が付与する属格を持つため時制において ought が owe を駆逐した。さら(小野・中尾 (1980))、その名詞句は agan でに、本来の現在形 owe は 15 世紀に-ed の屈はなく不定詞節の目的語であると分かる。し折を持つ新たな本動詞用法を発達させた

たがって、(15)の例からも ought が古英語に(Ono (1989))。以上の観察に基づき、ought はおいて既に(12)の段階にあったことが示唆

初期中英語に助動詞化され始め、14 世紀中される。

に本動詞用法と分化することにより、助動詞

次に、現代英語における ought to の構造にとして確立したと結論づけられる。

ついて考察する。助動詞と不定詞標識 to が共に TP の主要部を占めるという標準的仮定

中英語

は、ought to の構造分析にとって常に問題と現在過去なってきた。仮に ought と to が複合主要部と

owe, oughte

oughte

して T の位置を占めるとすると、“ought not

初期近代英語to”のように not が ought と to の間に生起する現在という事実を説明することができない。ここought

で は こ の 問 題 を 解 決 す る た め 、 Harwood

過去(cf. 宇賀治 (2000: 233))(2014)における精緻化された動詞句領域の表 2: owe/ought の時制パラダイム構造を採用する。(16a)では法助動詞が Modの位置に基底生成され、原形屈折を担う専用

助動詞化により ought が項構造を失ったこの機能範疇 Inf(initival)P を選択する。
その後、とが、(12)から(16b)への構造変化の動機とな

助動詞は T の位置に移動し時制屈折と結合る。古英語では ought は表層の主語を自身のする。本論文では、法助動詞に関するこの提項としてとっていたが、初期中英語に助動詞

案を ought に拡張し、ought は(16b)のように化が始まり項構造を失うことになる。項構造

to を主要部に持つ InfP を選択すると仮定すを失う際、(12)の構造では不定詞形態素が外る。(16b)の構造を採用すれば、TP と ModP

項となるため、表層の主語が to 不定詞節内の間に NegP が投射されることにより、(17)に基底生成されることは不可能である。(12)に示されるように“ought not to”という語順の構造のままでは表層の主語が認可されなが正しく派生される。

いため、助動詞化が完了する 14 世紀に構造変化が強いられた結果、(16b)に示されるよ(16)

a. [TP T [ModP will/can [InfP -ø [vP V-v …]]]]

うな、外項の抑制を伴わず、表層の主語を外(cf. Harwood (2014))88項とする vP を含む構造に取って代わられた。 (19)ought の助動詞化により出現した構造

ought to を含む文では ought が TP の主要部をSubj … [ModP ought [InfP to [vP tSubj V-v

占めているため、to が T の位置を占める通常[VP tV … Obj …]]]]の不定詞節とは異なり、to は機能範疇 Inf へ(vP is a phase)(= (16b))と変化したと考えられる。次節では、この構造変化の提案に基づき、ought to における再構成の消失、すなわち to を越える目的語の3 節で述べたように通常の to 不定詞節にお左方移動の消失について説明を試みる。

ける再構成は不定詞形態素が消失する 16 世紀まで可能であったのに対し、ought to の場

5. 分析

合は ought の助動詞化により 14 世紀中に

ought to における再構成の歴史的発達は、4(16b)への構造変化が強いられるため、両者節の提案に基づき、以下のように説明される。 において再構成の消失時期が異なることがまず、再構成が観察される古英語から 14 世

導かれる。

紀に関して、(18)に示されるように、ought
がとる to 不定詞節では外項が抑制されてお

6. 結語

り vP はフェイズではないため、目的語移動

本論文では、ought が従える to 不定詞節にが可能であったという事実が説明される。

おける再構成の消失が、通常の to 不定詞節における消失時期である 16 世紀よりも早い(18)

古英語から 14 世紀

14 世紀中に起こったことをコーパス調査に[VP ought [PP to [vP Venne/en/e-v [VP tV …

より明らかにした。そして、14 世紀中に完了した ought の助動詞化に伴って、ought to

Obj …]]]](vP is not a phase)の構造が(12)から(16b)へと変化したという(= (12))

提案に基づき、通常の to 不定詞節とは異なる ought to における再構成の歴史的発達を説明した。

次に、前節の提案によれば、初期中英語に始まった ought の助動詞化により(16b)の構造が新たに出現したが、この構造では外項が抑* 本論文は日本英語学会第 36 回大会（2018

制されておらず不定詞節の vP がフェイズと年 11 月 24 日、於：横浜国立大学）におけるなるため、(19)に示されるように、目的語の口頭発表原稿に修正を加えたものである。本

左方移動はフェイズ不可侵条件により許さ

研究を進めるに際し、大室剛志先生、田中智

れない。(12)と(16b)の構造は競合を経て、之先生、そして柳朋宏先生からは貴重な助言

ought が助動詞として確立した 15 世紀以降を頂いた。また、研究発表では、多くの諸先は(16b)の構造に一本化されたため、ought to

生方より、大変有益なご指摘や助言を頂いた。

において 14 世紀中に目的語の左方移動が消

この場を借りて感謝の意を表する。なお、本失したという事実が正しく説明される。

論文における不備や誤りは全て筆者の責任
による。
1

注
(3)-(6)の例から明らかであるように、本調

査では代名詞目的語と完全名詞句である目的語が区別されていない。これは、収集され89た例に関する限りにおいて、両者を区別する

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

ことが再構成の分布に関して重大な影響をMinimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

与えないためである。

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David

2

Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155,(8)では前置詞が動詞句を補部にとる構造

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

が示されているが、この構造には、Tanaka

Harwood,(2007)で指摘されるように、不定詞形態素のWilliam(2014)

“Rise

of

the

起源が関係していると考えられる。Los (1999,

Auxiliaries: A Case for Auxiliary Raising2005)によれば、古英語以前において、不定

vs. Affix Lowering,” The Linguistic Review

詞形態素はもともと名詞派生の接辞と屈折

31, 295-362.

接辞から成るものであった。古英語以前の toHeine, Berned (1993) Auxiliaries: Cognitive

不定詞の形式を例示した(i)では、動詞語幹

Forces and Grammaticalization, Oxford

ber-に名詞派生接辞-*anja-および与格単数のUniversity Press, Oxford.
Kaita, Kousuke (2015) Modal Auxiliaries from

屈折接辞-*i が付加されている。
(i)

Primitive Germanic: *to beranjōi

Late Old to Early Middle English, Herbert(OE: to berenne)

Utz Verlag, München.
Krug,

to (preposition) + ber- (verb stem) +Manfred(2000)

Corpus-Based

English-*anja- (derivational suffix) + -*i (dat sg

Modals:inflection)

Grammaticalization, Mouton de Gruyter,(cf. Los (2005: 156))

A

Emerging

Study

of

Berlin and New York.

派生接辞-*anja-はその他の名詞派生接辞とLos,の競合に勝利し、古英語以前の段階で屈折接Bettelou(1999)Infinitival

辞へと変化したため、それに伴い不定詞は名

Complementation in Old and Middle

詞的範疇から動詞的範疇へと変化した。ゆえEnglish, Thesus, The Hague.
Los,に、(8)に示されるように、前置詞が動詞句

Bettelou(2005)

The

Rise

of

the

を補部にとる構造が支持される。さらに、以To-Infinitive, Oxford University Press,

上の発達の流れを踏まえると、不定詞形態素

Oxford.
中島文雄 (1979)『英語発達史（改訂版）』岩

は名詞的性質の名残であると考えられるた

波書店, 東京.

め、上述(7)の条件における不定詞形態素がOno, Shigeru (1989) On Early English Syntax

格素性(および Agree に関わるファイ素性)をand Vocabulary, Nan’un-do, Tokyo.

持つという仮定が支持される。

小野茂・中尾俊夫 (1980)『英語史Ⅰ』大修館書店, 東京.

参考文献
Baker, Mark, Kyle Johnson and Ian Roberts(1989)“Passive

Arguments

Tanaka, Tomoyuki (2007) “The Rise of Lexical
Subjects in English Infinitives,” Journal ofRaised,”Comparative Germanic

Linguistic Inquiry 20, 219-251.
Biberauer, Theresa and Ian Roberts (2005)

Linguistics 10,

25-67.

“Changing EPP Parameters in the History

Tanaka, Tomoyuki (2009) “Scrambling fromof English: Accounting for Variation andInfinitival Clauses: A Case Study of

Change,”Restructuring in the History of English,”EnglishLanguage

andLinguistics 9, 5-46.

Ivy Never Sere: The Fiftieth Anniversary

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

Publication of The

90

Society of English

LiteratureandLinguistics,

NagoyaUniversity, ed. by Mutsumu Takikawa,
Masae Kawatsu and Tomoyuki Tanaka,475-492, Otowa-Shobo Tsurumi Shoten,
Tokyo.
田中智之 (2012)「再構成と非定形節における機能範疇の出現」, 『名古屋大学文学部研究論集』58, 69-88, 名古屋大学.
田中智之 (2016)「英語史における OV 語順の消失」, 田中智之・中川直志・久米祐介・
山村崇斗 (編)『文法変化と言語理論』,
119-133, 開拓社, 東京.
宇賀治正朋 (2000)『英語史』開拓社, 東京.
Wurff, Wim van der (1999) “Objects and Verbs
in Modern Icelandic and Fifteenth Century
English: A Word Order Parallel and Its
Causes,” Lingua 109, 237-265.
コーパス
Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini and Lauren
Delfs (2004) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed
Corpusof

EarlyModernEnglish(PPCEME), University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia.
Kroch, Anthony and Ann Taylor (2000) The
Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle
English,SecondEdition(PPCME2),

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Taylor, Ann, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk
and

Frank

Beths

(2003)The

York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of
Old English Prose (YCOE), University ofYork, York.

91

siro-iooki-i

ie

white

large

house

‘large white house’
b.

tall

On Two Types of Adjectives Derived from theSame Stem in Japanese

taka-i huru-i too /

*

old

tower

huru-i taka-i too
old

tall

tower

‘tall old tower’

Chigusa Morita
Toita Women’s College

Given that only direct modification adjectives
Keywords：adjectives, classifying modifiers,

obey the hierarchy in (2), it has been proposed

direct/indirect modification, Japanese, relativethat adnominal adjectives in Japanese areclausesindirect modification adjectives (Baker 2003).
According to Sproat and Shii (1991), indirectmodification

adjectives

modifyanoun

predicatively and form a part of a relative clause.

1. Introduction
adnominal

In fact, Japanese prenominal adjectives exhibit

adjectives has been observed in many languages.

some properties of relative clauses in English.

The

rigid

ordering

among

First, adnominal adjectives in Japanese usually(1) a. a large white house/??a white large house

have only an intersective reading. In English,

b. a small round table/??a round small tableprenominal adjectives have both an intersective
and a nonintersective interpretations, while
relative clauses have only the former one.

This fact can be explained by the proposal that
adnominal adjectives obey the hierarchy in (2),(4) Olga is a beautiful dancer. (ambiguous)

which specifies the merge positions of adjectives

a. ‘Olga is a dancer and she is beautiful.’

according to their semantic classes (Scott 2002

(intersective)

among others).

b. Olga is a dancer who dances beautifully.’(nonintersective)(2) Hierarchy of Attributive Adjectives
subjective comment > ?evidential > size >(5) Olga is a dancer who is beautiful.

length > height > > speed > ?depth > width >(intersective, #nonintersective)(6) Olga-wa

weight > temperature > ?wetness > age >utukusi-i odoriko-da.

Olga-Top beautiful-I dancer-Pred.Nonpast

shape > color > nationality/origin > material‘Olga is a beautiful dancer.’(Scott 2002: 114)

(intersective, #nonintersective)
In Japanese, on the other hand, adjectives do
not exhibit the rigid ordering in most cases.1

Second, as observed in (3), Japanese adjectives
do not show the rigid ordering. The same fact(3) a.

ooki-isiro-iie /can be found in the case where multiple relative

large

white

house

clauses modify a noun in English, as in (7).

92

(7) a. the house that’s large that’s whitefrom the same stem. In (11) and (12), the i-formb. the house that’s white that’s large

is interpreted ambiguously while the na-form is
not.

Contrary to these observations, this paper
demonstrates some cases in which adnominal(11) a. ooki-ianiadjectives in Japanese do not behave as indirect

big-I

modification adjectives and examines their‘elder brother who is physically big’syntactic and semantic properties.

‘older elder brother’elder.brotherb. ooki-na ani
2. Two Types of Adjectives Derived from the

big-NA elder.brother

Same Stem‘elder brother who is physically big’#‘older elder brother’

In Japanese, there are two morphologicaltypes of adjectives; one is the i-form (or i-(12) a. yawaraka-ihon

adjective), whose stem the morpheme -i attaches

soft-I

book

to, and the other is the na-form (or na-adjective),‘soft book,’ ‘accessible book’

whose stem the morpheme -na attaches to in theb. yawaraka-nahon

prenominal position. Either -i or -na attaches tosoft-NAbook2‘soft book,’ #‘accessible book’

an adjectival stem in most cases.

b. sizuka-na heya

The following subsections demonstrate thathigh-I building

quiet-NA room

the i- and na-forms derived from the same stem‘high building’‘quiet room’

have some syntactic properties different from

(8) a. taka-i biru

(9) a. *taka-na

biru

b. sizuka-i

high-NA building

quiet-Iother adjectives in Japanese.

heya
room

2.1. Syntactic Behaviors of the I-Forms
As observed in (11) and (12), the i-form has

Some adjectival stems, on the other hand,

the reading that the na-form derived from theallow both -i and -na to attach to.

same stem lacks. But the i-form is not always(10) a. ooki-i/ooki-na
big-I /big-NA

teinterpreted ambiguously. First, the i-form ooki-i

hand‘big,’ for example, cannot have the interpretation‘being older’ when another modifier intervenes‘big hand’b. tiisa-i/tiisa-na
small-I/small-NA

between the i-form and the modified noun.

koe
voice

(13) a. ooki-na ooki-i ani‘small voice’

big-NA big-I

c. yawaraka-i/yawaraka-na nuno
soft-I/soft-NA

elder.brother‘older elder brother who is physically

cloth

big’

‘soft cloth’
Sasaki (2002) observes that there is a semantic
difference between the i- and na-forms derived

93

b.??ooki-i

ooki-na

ani

big-I

big-NAelder.brother(14) a. kogara-na(16) kare-no me-no

ooki-i ani

small-NAbig-I

ooki-i/??-na

he-Gen eye-Gen big-I/-NA

elder.brother

koto
fact

‘(the fact that) his eyes are big’

‘older elder brother who is physicallysmall’
b. *ooki-i
big-I

Second, only the na-form can be used in

kogara-na ani

idiomatic expressions. Given that only direct

small-NA elder.brothermodification adjectives can have idiomatic
The example in (13b) sounds odd and redundantinterpretations (Cinque 2010), the na-forms inbecause the two adjectives ooki-i and ooki-na(17) directly modify a noun.

have the same meaning ‘physically big.’ (14b) is(17) a. ooki-na/??-i kao-o

ungrammatical, since the meaning of ooki-i is

su-ru

big-NA -I face-Acc do-Nonpast

contradictory to that of kogara-na ‘small.’‘swagger around’

Second, when the i-form is used predicative-b. ooki-na/??-i osewa

ly, it only has the same meaning as the na-form.

big-NA -I care(15) a. Ani-ga‘Non of (your) business’ooki-i.

elder.brother-Nom

c. oki-na/??-i kuti-obig-I.

kik-u‘The brother is physically big.’

big-NA -I mouth-Acc say-Nonpast#‘(My) brother is older.

‘boost’b. Hon-ga

yawaraka-i.
soft-I

Thus, it seems that the na-forms are direct‘The book is soft.’

modification adjectives; they do not have the#‘The book is accessible.’predicative use, and they can give rise tobook-Nom

idiomatic readings.
These observations suggest that the i-form
with a certain meaning behaves differently from

3. Syntactic Structures of the I- and Na-other adjectives in Japanese. Although theForms Derived from the Same Stemordering among adnominal adjectives usually

We have seen that both the i- and na-forms

does not matter in Japanese, the i-form must bederived from the same stem do not behave asadjacent to the modified noun. The i-form does

indirect modification adjectives. In this section, I

not seem to form a predicate of a relative clause,

propose that some na-adjectives directly modify

since it cannot be used predicatively.

a noun, while the i-forms do not.

2.2. Syntactic Behaviors of the Na-Forms

3.1. The I-Forms as Classifying Modifiers

There are some cases where the na-forms

As in (11) and (12), the meaning of thehave some properties of direct modification

i-form is ambiguous, while that of the na-form

adjectives. First, some na-forms cannot be usedderived from the same stem is not. I propose thatpredicatively.

the i-form serves as a classifying modifier when
it has a different meaning from the na-form.
Let us consider the case where the i-form

94

ooki-i ‘big’ is interpreted as ‘being older,’ forthe meaning ‘being older’ and the modified noun,

example. Notice that ooki-i ani has the meaning

as in (13) and (14). It has been observed that‘(the) older elder brother,’ but it does not mean

nouny modifiers appear closer to the head noun

‘elder brother who is old.’ Since the ooki-i has

than other modifiers (Vendler 1967). Since thethe comparative meaning ‘being older,’ it isi-adjective merges with an empty noun andpresupposed that there exists more than one

forms an NP to function as a classifying modifier,elder brother. That is, the i-adjective ooki-i with

it appears closer to the modified noun than otherthis meaning classifies the subtype of elder

adjectives.
A similar analysis applies to the case of thebrothers; the i-adjective singles out the elder

adjective yawaraka-i ‘soft’ with the meaning

brother who is older than other elder brothers.
But it is not adjectives but nouns that serve‘accessible.’ The i-adjective merges with anas classifying modifiers: nouns refer to objects

empty pronoun, which denotes type, and forms

and kinds, while adjectives denote properties ofan NP to serve as a classifying modifier. I

a single object and cannot refer to kinds

suppose that the DEG head in this case does not(Carlson 1980, Shimamura 2014). In Japanese,contain the feature [CMPR], because yawaraka-iclassifying modifiers usually have the “nouncan be modified by the degree adverb totemo-no” form, as in (18).

‘very.’(18) a. tyuugoku-no kabin(20) [ [NP [DegP [AP yawaraka-i] ] [N eN] ] [NP hon]]

Chinese-NO vase
‘Chines vase’b. aka-no

In sum, in order to function as a classifying

wain

modifier, the i-form merges with an empty noun

red-NO wine

and forms an NP.

‘red wine’
3.2. The Na-Forms as Direct Modification
Given that the i-adjective with a certain meaning

Adjectives

also functions as a classifying modifier, I claim

This subsection shows some cases of na-

that the adjective merges with a phonologicallyadjectives as direct modifiers.

empty pronoun and projects an NP, which serves

Recall that the na-form can be used in4

as a classifying modifier, as in (19).

idiomatic expressions, as in (17). In English,
some adjectives can appear both prenominallyand postnominally. But postnominal adjectives(19) [ [NP [DegP Ø[CMPR] [AP ooki-i]] [N eN] ]cannot give rise to idiomatic readings, as in (21).

[NP ani]](21) a. a white lie

I suppose that the i-adjective projects DegP,b. *a lie white in spiritc. *a lie which was white

whose head has the feature [comparative(on the intended meaning)(CMPR)], based on the fact that ooki-i has the(Cinque 2010: 88)comparative meaning ‘being old.’This proposal explains the fact that anotherAccordingmodifier cannot intervene between ooki-i with95

toCinque(2010),

prenominal

adjectives in English are ambiguous between

both forms are indirect modification adjectives;

direct and indirect modification adjectives, while

they have an intersective interpretation and do

postnominal adjectives are always indirect

not exhibit the rigid ordering.

modification adjectives. From the fact observed

But the i- and na-forms have some differentin (21), he claims that only direct modification

syntactic properties. First, as in (16), the i-form

adjectives can have idiomatic interpretations.

can be used predicatively while the na-form

Following his claim, I suppose that the na-forms

cannot. Second, Shibata et al. (1982) observein idiomatic expressions are direct modificationthat the subject of the i-form can be marked

adjectives.

either with nominative Case or with the genitive
Case, while the subject marked with nominative

There are other cases where na-adjectives

Case is degraded in the na-form, as in (24).

directly modify a noun. When na-adjectives
denote the degree of the modified noun, they(24) a. kuti-ga/-nobehave as direct modification adjectives. In (22)tiisa-i kabinand (23), na-adjectives such as kanzen-na

mouth-Nom/-Gen‘complete’ and oohaba-na ‘big’ have noninter-‘vase whose opening is small’b. kuti-no/??gasective readings, and they must appear adjacentmouth-Gen/-Nomto the modified noun.

small-I vasetiisa-nakabinsmall-NA vasebaka

Given that the T head assigns nominative Caseburningly.curious-I complete-NA foolto the subject, the i-form projects TP, while the‘burningly curious complete fool’na-form only projects PredP, as in (25).

(22) a. monomidaka-ib.*?kanzen-na

kanzen-na

monomidaka-i

baka(25) a. [ [TP [PredP [AP ooki-]-i]-Ø] [NP ani] ]complete-NA burningly.curious-I fool(cf. Ayano 2010)(23) a. kyuugeki-na oohaba-na
sudden-NAb. [ [PredP [AP ooki-]-na] [NP ani] ]

neage

big-N

rise.in.price3.4. A Semantic Difference between the I-and‘sudden sharp rise in price’b. *?oohaba-na
big-NA

Na-Forms

kyuugeki-na neage

Last, let us return to the fact that the na-form

sudden-NA rise.in.pricehas a restricted meaning than the i-form derived(Morita 2017)from the same stem, as observed in (11) and (12).
We have seen that these two forms exhibit

We have seen two cases where na-adjectives

different syntactic properties. First, the na-forms

directly modify a noun; the case of idiomaticdo not have the predicative use, as in (16).

expressions, and the case in which na-adjectives

Second, only the na-forms can be used infunction as degree modifiers of the head noun.

idiomatic expressions, as shown in (17). Theseobservations suggest that the na-form is strongly
connected to the modified noun than i-form.

3.3. The I- and Na-Forms as Indirect

Based on the above facts, Obata and Morita

Modification Adjectives
When the i- and na-forms derived from the(2018) propose that the morpheme -na issame stem have the same meaning, I claim thatrealized if the functional head Pred(ication)96

φ-agreement, which causes semantic restriction.

triggers φ-agreement with a nominal argument;
the morpheme -i is realized as the default form if
the Pred head does not trigger agreement.5 Obata* I thank the audience at the 36th meeting of theand Morita claim that the ambiguous meanings

English Linguistic Society of Japan and at theof the i-form is restricted to a single meaning inmeeting of Lexicon Study Circle (LSC) for theirthevaluable comments and suggestions. Needless tona-formby

φ-agreement.

Asimilarobservation can be made in Cape Verdeansay, all remaining errors are mine.

Creole, as in (26).
1(26) a. Elsa e
Elsa Cop

un bonamudjer.

prenominal modifiers, such as nationality/origin

good woman.

and material, must be adjacent to the head noun.

‘Elsa is a good woman.’b. Elsa e
Elsa Cop

tiisa-naki-nohasi /

mudjer.

small

woodenbridgegood woman.

??ki-noun boaa

NOTES
It has been observed that certain types of(i)‘Elsa is an attractive woman.’woodern(Baptista 2002: 68)

tiisa-na

hasi

small

bridge‘small wooden bridge’ (Watanabe 2012: 507)
2

Following Nishiyama (1999), I assume that theIn (26a), the adjective bon ‘good’ does not show

functional category Pred(ication) is an extended

morphological agreement with the noun. When

projection of AP. I suppose that the morphemes

agreement takes place, the adjective changes to-i and -na are the overt realizations of the Predthe form boa and its interpretation is restricted tohead. See Morita (2017, 2018) for more details.

‘attractive,’ which is one of the meanings of3‘good,’ as in (26b).

the matrix clause, the morpheme -da, an

When na-adjectives are used predicatively in

To sum up, with the stems that allow both -i

allomorph of -na, attaches to a stem. But -da

and -na to attach to, the na-form is obtained bycannot attach to the stems such as ooki- ‘big’ andagreement, which results in semantic restriction.

tiisa- ‘small.’(i) a.

4. Summary
This paper showed some cases where the i-*Ani-gaooki-da.

elder.brother-Nom

big-DA‘(My) brother is big.’and na-forms derived from the same stem

b. *Imooto-ga

exhibit some different syntactic properties fromsister-Nom

other adjectives in Japanese. First, I proposed

tiisa-da.
small-DA‘(My) sister is small.’that i-adjectives with certain meanings serve as

4classifying modifiers, by merging with a phono-“noun-no” form and i-adjectives as classifying

logically empty noun. Second, I claimed thatmodifiers: the i-form does not only classify thesome na-adjectives directly modify a noun.

subtype of the head noun but also requires theThird, I showed that the two forms derived fromnoun to have the property denoted by thethe same stem have different syntactic structures

adjective. Suppose that both forms in (i) refer toalthough they have the same interpretation. Last,

the Keikyu Main Line, most of whose rolling

I proposed that the na-form is obtained bystocks are red.

97

There is a semantic difference between the(i)aka-no/-idensyaNishiyama, Kunio (1999) “Adjectives and the

red-NO/-I

train

Copulas in Japanese,” JEAL 8, 183-222.
Obata, Miki and Chigusa Morita (2018)‘red train’
But some rolling stocks of the Keikyu Main

“Syntactic Agreement as a Disambigua-

Line are not red but yellow. To refer to a yellow

tionrolling stock of the Keikyu Main Line, only the

Adjectives,”

example in (iia) is possible.

workshop “Ambiguity: Perspectives on

Task:

Evidence
paper

from

presented

Japaneseatthe(ii) a. akaku-nai

aka-nodensyaRepresentation and Resolution,” in ESSLLI

red-Neg

red-NO

train

2018, University of Sofia, Sofia.
Sasaki, Fumihiko (2002) “‘Ookii Koe’ to‘the red train which is not red’
b. *akaku-na

aka-i‘Ookina Koe’ (‘Big Voice’ and ‘Loud

densyared-Neg
red-I
train
As mentioned in footnote 2, Obata and Morita

Voice’),” Meikai Nihongo 7, 137-145,(2018) also suppose that the Pred head is overtly

Scott, Gary-John (2002) “Stacked Adjectival

realized either as -i or as -na. We also suppose

Modification and the Structure of Nominalthat φ-agreement occurs only in the case of thePhrases,” Functional Structure in DP andstems allowing both -i and -na to attach to.

IP, ed. by Guglielmo Cinque, 91-120,

5

Meikai University, Chiba.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.
REFERENCES
Ayano, Seiki (2010) “Revisiting Beautiful

Shibata, Takeshi, Yoshiro Nagashima, Yuriko

Dancers and Complete Fools in Japanese,”

Yamada (1982) Kotoba no Imi 3: Jisyo ni

Proceedings of WAFL 6, 97-111.

Kaite Nai Koto (Meanings of Words: What

Asano, Tetsuya Kunihiro and Susumu

Are

Baker, Mark (2003) “‘Verbal Adjectives’ as
Adjectives

without

Not

in

Dictionaries),138-145,

Heibonsha, Tokyo.

Phi-Features,”

Shimamura, Reiko (2014) Go to Ku to

Proceedings of 4th TCP, 1-22.
Baptista, Marlyse (2002) The Syntax of Cape

Nazuke-kinoo: Niti-eigo no “Keiyoosi +Verdean Creole, John Benjamins Publishing

Meisi” o Tyuusin ni (Words, Phrases andCompany, Amsterdam.

the Naming Function: With a Focus on“Adjective + Noun” Forms in Japanese andCarlson, Gregory (1980) Reference to Kinds in

English), Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

English, Garland, New York.

Sproat, Richard and Chilin Shih (1991) “TheCinque, Guglielmo (2010) The Syntax of
Adjectives, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Cross-Linguistic Distribution of Adjective

Morita, Chigusa (2017) “A Note on theOrdering Restrictions,” Interdisciplinary

Morphology, Semantics and Syntax ofApproaches to Language, ed. by Carol

Attributive Modifiers in Japanese,” JELS

Georgopoulos

34, 112-118.

565-593, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Morita,Chigusa(2018)Morphological“Notes

Forms

of

on

and

RobertaIshihara,

Vendler, Zeno (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy,

Two

Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Japanese

Watanabe, Akira (2012) “Direct Modification in

Adjectives,” Bulletin of Toita Women’s

Japanese,” Linguistic Inquiry 43, 504-513.

College 60, 37-43.

98

It is defined as a set-formation operation thattakes two syntactic objects (SOs), α and β, andforms a new SO.
(2) Merge (α, β) → {α, β}Multiple Case Valuation and the Middle
Construction*

Merge has two modes of application, namely
Takakazu Nagamori

External Merge (EM) and Internal Merge (IM).

Sophia University

EM takes two SOs that are distinct from eachother, whereas IM takes two SOs that are notdistinct from each other.

Keywords：multiple Case valuation, phases,

In recent minimalism, however, EM and IM

Transfer, Agree, the middle construction

have been reanalyzed as instantiations of thesingle operation Merge (cf. Chomsky 2013,2015, Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely 2014). The

1. Introduction
This paper aims to argue for the system ofsingle operation Merge is the same in both cases,

multiple Case valuation and to offer a new

the only difference being that α and β are

syntactic analysis of the English middle

distinct in one case (EM), while one of α and β

construction like (1).

is part of the other in the other case (IM). It is
now also assumed that Merge, in its simplest
form, applies freely. That is, Merge applies with

(1) This book reads easily.

no such trigger as EPP or the edge feature.
Specifically, I argue that Case may be assigned

Merge is now free to apply, or not apply withto a nominal more than once and that the DP this

only certain choices converging (cf. Chomsky

book in (1) receives both accusative Case and2015). If Merge applies freely and if EM and IM

nominative Case in the course of the derivation.

are instantiations of the single operation Merge,then both EM and IM apply freely.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2
outlines some theoretical assumptions and the2.2. Phases, Transfer, and PIC

system of multiple Case valuation (cf. Nagamori2018). Section 3 discusses some empirical

Minimalist theory assumes that the syntactic

properties of the English middle construction

derivation proceeds by phase (cf. Chomsky 2000,

and offers a new syntactic analysis based on the

2001, 2007, 2008, 2013, 2015). Phases include

system of multiple Case valuation. Section 4(transitive) vP and CP. Within phase theory, thetouches on the realization of multiple Case

phase edge, the phase head, and the phasevalues. Section 5 concludes the paper.

complement are distinguished from each other.

2. Multiple Case Valuation via Agree(3) [XP [H [YP]]

2.1. Free Merge
Merge is assumed to be the fundamental

In (3), XP is the phase edge, H is the phase head,structure-building operation in human language.

and YP is the phase complement. With these992.3. The Timing of Agree and Transfer

distinctions in mind, Chomsky (2000) proposes

In the conventional Agree model advocatedthe following constraint.

by Chomsky (2000, 2001), it is assumed that theunvalued Case feature of a nominal is valued by(4) Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC)
In phase α with head H, the domain of Hmeans of Agree. That is, in this model, in order[i.e., the complement of the phase head] is

to value the unvalued Case feature of a nominal,

not accessible to operations outside α, only

the functional head has to establish an agreement

H and its edge are accessible to such

relation with the bearer of the Case feature (Toperations. (((((((((((cf. Chomsky 2000: 108)for nominative, v for accusative, etc.). It is also
widely assumed that once an agreement relation

PIC states that once a phase has been formed,

is established between the functional head andthe complement of the phase head becomes

the bearer of the Case feature, the latter is

inaccessible to any further syntactic operations.

inactivated and further access to it is barred byThis

the Inactivity Condition (cf. Chomsky 2000,

periodic“forgetting”

ofderivational

2001).

information is known as Transfer. Importantly,
however, PIC also says that although the

However, Bruening (2001) and Narita (2007)

complement of the phase head becomessuggest the possibility that Agree only values theinaccessible to any further syntactic operations,unvalued Case feature of a nominal and thethe phase head and its edge are exceptions. They

inactivation of it is done by Transfer at eachare still accessible to any further syntactic

phase in a cyclic manner. That is, Agree only

operations. This implies that the complement ofvalues the unvalued Case feature of a nominal

the phase head can bypass the effects of PIC by

and the inactivation of it is suspended till themoving to the phase edge before/at Transfer.

point when the Case feature of a nominal

That is, the phase edge acts as an escape hatch

undergoes Transfer. This implies that as long as

for elements that would otherwise not be able to

the Case feature of a nominal is not affected byescape Transfer. This escape hatch effect isTransfer, it still remains active and retains its

necessary because movement can apply acrossability to receive another Case value via further

multiple clauses, as shown below.

Agree. Following this line of reasoning,
Nagamori (2018) argues that even after a(5) a.

What do you think that John bought?

nominal has received a Case value via Agree,b.

[CP what do [TP you [vP <what> thinknothing would prevent it from undergoing free

[CP <what> that [TP John [vP <what>

IM into the edge of a phase before/at Transfer. If

John bought <what>]]]]]]

it undergoes free IM into the edge of a phase,
escaping Transfer, it still remains active andAs shown in (5b), the wh-phrase what needs toretains its ability to receive another Case value

move to the phase edge before/at Transfer.

via further Agree. This is the basics of the

Otherwise, it would be trapped inside thesystem of multiple Case valuation via Agree, asTransfer domain. As I will argue later, the escapeillustrated below (cf. Nagamori 2018).

hatch effect also plays an important role inmultiple Case valuation.

100

(6)

Agree

c-commands it at some syntactic level (cf.

Agree

H2[uϕ]…XP[vϕ][Case2]…H1[uϕ]…XP[vϕ][Case1]

Belletti and Rizzi 1988). For Stroik (1992), theInternal Merge

relevant NP is the Agent argument, which issyntactically realized as PRO in the VP adjunctIn (6), H1 agrees with XP and XP is assigned aposition. Then, the grammaticality of (8) can be

Case value. Here, Agree only values the

explained

unvalued Case feature of XP. Then, XP

subject-contained anaphor has been moved fromundergoes free IM into the phase edge before/at

the position lower than the Agent argument (i.e.,

Transfer. Hence, XP is still active and agrees

the object position).

if

weassumethatthewith H2. As a result, it is assigned another CaseOn the other hand, according to Hoekstra

value. In English, when a nominal receives moreand Roberts (1993), the Agent argument is pro,than one Case, the last one received will bewhich is generated in the canonical external

realized morphologically (see Nagamori 2018

argument position (i.e., specvP). In this paper, I

for further discussion).

will remain agnostic as to the exact nature of theAgent argument and simply represent it as

3. The Middle Construction in English

PRO/pro. The important point is that the verb in

3.1. Implicit Agents and v [+Tr]

the middle construction projects two arguments:

In this section, I argue that the middle

the overt Theme argument which manifests itself

construction in English can be best analyzed asas the surface subject and the non-overt Agent

involving multiple Case valuation. The middle

argument PRO/pro.
Further evidence showing that the Agent

construction has a verb with active morphology,

argument is present in the middle construction

as shown in (7).

comes from the following examples.
(7) This book reads easily.
(9) a.

This window opens easily with a knife.
(Marelj 2004: 116)

But, like the passive construction, the surface
subject

isobligatorily interpreted

as

b.

the

This cup breaks easily (*all by itself).
(Fujita 1994: 75)

underlying object of the verb. The Agentc. This car fixes easily even unaided.

theta-role is not usually expressed overtly.

(Fujita and Matsumoto 2005: 118)

However, Stroik (1992, 1995, 1999, 2006)

d. That book reads quickly for Mary.

convincingly argues that the Agent theta-role is(Stroik 1992: 131)

structurally present.

(10) a. Books about herself read quickly forMary.

(8) Books about oneself never read poorly.
(Stroik 1992: 129)b. * Books about oneself read quickly forMary.

In (8), an anaphor like oneself can emerge in thec. * Books about himself read quickly for

subject position. Stroik (1992) argues that if

Mary.

oneself is to be properly licensed in (8), it mustd. * Books about themselves read quickly

be bound by a non-overt NP argument thatfor Mary.

101(Stroik 1992: 136)

In (9a), the instrument phrase with a knife

reflexive pronoun in the middle construction isrequires the presence of the Agent argument. In

not an adverbial element.

contrast, the phrase all by itself in (9b) does not(12) a.

require the presence of the Agent argument,This book sells itself here.

b. * This book sells here itself.

hence the ill-formedness. In (9c), the secondary(Tokizaki 1998: 244)

predicate unaided requires the Agent argument
as its subject. In (9d), the Agent argument isovertly realized as a for-phrase. As shown in

In (12b), the adverbial element here intervenes(10a-d), Stroik (1992) further argues that since

between sell and itself, blocking accusative Case

the Agent argument is syntactically realized as a

assignment to itself (i.e., the condition of Case

for-phrase, the anaphor licensed by the Agent

adjacency). Therefore, according to Tokizaki

argument must agree in features with the(1998), the reflexive pronoun in the middle

argument. Thus, it can be concluded that theconstruction is an object of the verb, not anverb in middle construction projects its Agent

adverbial element. This means that the verb inargument.

the middle construction is v [+Tr] in the sense of
Collins (1997). That is, it assigns both an

Here, I would like to adopt Collins’s (1997)
implementationof

Burzio’sexternal theta-role (i.e., Agent) and accusative(1986)

Case.

generalization, which treats v as either active[+Tr] or inactive [–Tr], where the active head v
assignsboth

anexternal

theta-role

3.2. Derivation:CaseNom+CaseAcc

andaccusative Case, and the inactive head v assigns

Given the discussion above, I argue that theneither an external theta-role nor accusative

DP in (13) moves from the object position into

Case. The following examples may be taken to

the subject position and that the DP receives two

indicate that the verb v in the middle

Case values in the course of the derivation.

construction is [+Tr].
(13) {this book, {T, {this book, {PRO/pro,(11) a.

This book just sells itself.

{v, {easily {read, {this book}}}}}}}}(Levin 1993: 84)b.

Dieses Buch

liest*(sich)leicht

The DP this book is first merged as the object of

this book-NOM read RP-ACC easily

the verb and valued as accusative via Agree with‘This book reads easily.’v. Recall that under the proposed system, Agree
only values the unvalued Case feature. Then, the(Steinbach 2002: 1)

DP undergoes free IM into the phase edge
In (11a), the verb takes a reflexive pronoun as its

before/at Transfer. This makes it possible for the

direct object. In (11b), the verb in the German

DP to be revalued as nominative via Agree withmiddle construction takes a reflexive pronoun as

T since it is still active. In this way, the DP in

its direct object. However, one might argue that(13)

the reflexive pronoun in the middle construction

nominative Case in the course of the derivation.

is an adverbial element (cf. Fiengo 1980).

I assume that in English, when a nominal

However, Tokizaki (1988) demonstrates that thereceives more than one Case, the last one

102

receives

both

accusative

Case

and

received will be realized morphologically (cf.

On the assumption that minimality is calculated

Nagamori 2018).

at the phase level (cf. Chomsky 2007, 2008), at

Note

that

the

proposed

analysisthe stage of the derivation (16), the occurrenceisof this book at the edge of v is a lower copy in acompatible with data such as the following.

movement chain, thus invisible to Agree.
(14) a.

New seedlings water t flat easily.

Therefore, T can successfully agree with John,b.

Those cookies break t into pieces

assigning nominative Case to it and John moves

easily.

into SpecTP. Then, the following topicalization

My running socks don’t scrub t clean

structure results.

c.

easily.
d.

(17) a.

Permanent press napkins iron t flatb.

easily. (Carrier and Randall 1992: 218)

This book, John read.
{this book, {C, {John, {T, {this book,{John, {v, {read, {this book}}}}}}}}}

Since the resultative predicate can only be
predicated of an object (cf. Simpson 1983), theThe DP this book at the edge of C is interpreted

surface subjects in (14a-d) must originate in theas a topicalized element. The grammaticality ofobject position. Therefore, these data lend(17) thus lends further support to the hypothesis

further support to the movement analysis.

that Merge, external or internal, applies freely
with only certain choices converging (cf.
Chomsky 2015).

3.3 Full Interpretation
Under the proposed analysis, the object in a

4. A Note on Multiple Case Values

regular transitive sentence would also be

I am proposing that a nominal can receive

expected to undergo free IM into the edge of v

more than one Case and that in English the last

before/at Transfer, as shown in (15b).

Case value received will be the one that is(15) a.
b.

John read this book.

realized morphologically (cf. Nagamori 2018).

{T, {this book, {John, {v, {read, {thisHowever, when a nominal receives more thanbook}}}}}}

one Case, there are in fact three possibilities toconsider.

The DP this book in (15b) undergoes free IM
into the phase edge before/at Transfer. If T

(18) a.

Case2+Case1

agrees with this book, then John remainsb.

Case2+Case1

Case-less, hence crashes at the interfaces. The

c.

Case2+Case1

only way to “rescue” the derivation (15b) is to
move the DP this book into the edge of C before

In (18a), the last Case value received is realized.

T-agreement takes place, as shown below.

In (18b), the first Case value received is realized.
In (18c), all the Case values received are(16) {this book, {C, {T, {this book, {John, {v,realized. The second and the third possibilities{read, {this book}}}}}}}}are instantiated by Icelandic and Cuzco Quechua(and Korean), respectively (cf. Bejar and103

Massam 1990, Svenonius 2005, Narita 2007,

Carrier, Jill and Janet Randall (1992) “TheBaker 2015, Nagamori 2018). If this is correct, it

Argument Structure and the Syntactic

lends further support to the hypothesis that a

Structurenominal can receive more than one Case. See

Inquiry 23, 173-234.

Nagamori (2018) for further discussion.

ofResultatives,”

Linguistic

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:
The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

5. Conclusion

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

In this paper, I have argued for the system of

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David

multiple Case valuation and proposed that theMichaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155,

derivation of the English middle construction

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

involves multiple Case values. That is, the DP

Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”

receives both accusative Case and nominative

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by

Case in the course of the derivation. This

Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,

analysis opens up the possibility that a whole

Cambridge, MA.

class of lexical rules which manipulate argument

Chomsky, Noam (2007) “Approaching UG fromstructure can be eliminated from the grammar

Below,”(cf. Hoekstra and Roberts 1993).

Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and theInterfaces+

Recursion=

View from Semantics, ed. by Uli Sauerland* I would like to thank Naoki Fukui andand Hans-Martin Gärtner, 1-29, Mouton de

Takaomi Kato for their helpful comments andGruyter, Berlin.
Chomsky,suggestions. I would also like to thank theNoam(2008)“On

Phases,”audience of the 36th conference of the ELSJ forFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory,

their insightful comments.

ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero andMaria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.

REFERENCES

Chomsky,

Baker, Mark (2015) Case: Its Principles and Its

Noam(2013)“ProblemsofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.

Parameters, Cambridge University Press,

Chomsky,Cambridge.
Bejar, Susana and Diane Massam (1999)

Noam

Projection:(2015)“Problems

Extensions,”of

Structures,

Strategies, and Beyond: Studies in Honor of“Multiple Case Checking,” Syntax 2, 65-79.
and Luigi Rizzi (1988)

Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico,“Psych-Verbs and Theta-Theory,” Natural

Cornelia Hamann and Simona Matteini,

Language

3-16, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Belletti, Adriana
andLinguistic

Theory6,Collins, Chris (1997) Local Economy, MIT

291-352.

Press, Cambridge, MA.

Bruening, Benjamin (2001) Syntax at the Edge:
Cross-Clausal Phenomena and the Syntax

Epstein, Samuel, Hisatsugu Kitahara and Daniel

of Passamaquoddy, Doctoral dissertation,

Seely (2014) “Labeling by Minimal Search:

MIT.

ImplicationsforSuccessive-Cyclic

A-Movement and the Conception of the

Burzio, Luigi (1986) Italian Syntax, Reidel,

Postulate ‘Phase’,” Linguistic Inquiry 45,

Dordrecht.

104

Lexical-Functional Grammar, ed. by Lori463-481.

Levin, Malka Rappaport and Annie Zaenen,

Fiengo, Robert (1980) Surface Structure: The
InterfaceofAutonomous

143-157, Indiana University Linguistics

Components,

Club, Bloomington, IN.

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Steinbach, Markus (2002) Middle Voice, John

Fujita, Koji (1994) “Middle, Ergative andPassiveinEnglish:Approach,”
Connection

The

A

Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Minimalist

Stroik,Morphology-Syntax(MIT Working

PapersMovement,”inPhillips,

71-90,

MIT(1992)“MiddlesandLinguistic

Inquiry

23,(1995)“Onthe

A Replyto127-137.

Linguistics 22), ed. by Heidi Harley andColin

ThomasStroik,Press,

ThomasFormation:

Cambridge, MA.

MiddleZribi-Hertz,”

Linguistic Inquiry 26, 165-171.

Fujita, Koji and Masumi Matsumoto (2005) Goi

Stroik,hanchuu (I): Doosi (Lexical Categories (1):Thomas

Reflexivity,”

Verbs), Kenkyuusha, Tokyo.

(1999)“MiddlesandLinguistic

Inquiry30,

119-131.

Hoekstra, Teun and Ian Roberts (1993) “Middle
Constructions in Dutch and English,”

Stroik, Thomas (2006) “Arguments in Middles,”Knowledge and Language. Volume II:

Demoting the Agent: Passive, Middle andLexical and Conceptual Structure, ed. by

Other Voice Phenomena, ed. by Benjamin

Eric

Lyngfelt and Torgrim Solstad, 301-326,

ReulandandWernerAbraham,John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

183-220, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Levin, Beth (1993) English Verb Classes andSvenonius, Peter (2005) “Case Alternations in

Alternations, University of Chicago Press,

the Icelandic Passive,” ms., University of

Chicago.

Tromsø.
Tokizaki, Hisao (1988) “Saikidaimeishi toMarelj, Marijana (2004) Middles and Argument
Structures across Languages, Doctoral

Chuukantaikoubun

dissertation, Utrecht University.

and Middle Constructions),” JELS 15,

Nagamori,

Takakazu

Multiple(2018)

Case-Values:

241-250.

“Spelling-Out

Evidence

from

English and Icelandic,” Studies in English
Linguistics and Literature 28, 111-136.
Narita,HirokiCase-Values:(2007)In“Spelling-Out

View

of

Passive

Constructions, with Special Reference toJapanese Possessor Passive,” Proceedingsof the 21st Annual Meeting of the Sophia
University Linguistic Society, 23-49.
Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr (2016) “Circumventing
the Ban on Improper Movement in
Icelandic,” NELS 46, 179-192.
Simpson, Jane (1983) “Resultatives,” Papers in

105(Reflexive

Pronouns(1-2)(3)(3) a.
*

b.

(1b)

(1c)
(2b)

Motion Expressions in English and Japanese:(2c)Path Composition and Empty V
Shotaro Namiki(3a)

The University of Nagano

(3b)

,

(2007)

,

,
2
(3a)

1.

(2007)
3(2007)ev(3b)

4(1) a.

3

Mary came into/in the room.

b.

5

John walked into/in the room (fromthe outside).

c.

Bill danced into/??in the room (from2.

the outside).

2.1.

(2) a.

(3a)(2007)Kaga (2007)

b. ??

(AGENT)c. *(1a, b)

Larson(LOCATIOIN)(LOCATUM)

into the roomin the room
(Nikitina 2008, Svenonius 2010)(1c)(4) [VP1 AGENT [V′1 V1 [VP2 LOCATION [V′2
(2)

(2a)

(2b, c)V2 LOCATUM]]]](Kaga 2007:9)
VP1

(2b)

(2c)
(cf.

VP2
2002)

106

VP2

(6) a.
b.

John hammered the metal flat.
[VP1 John [V′1 V1 [VP2 the metal [V′2hammered-ev flat]]]](2007:185)(6)
hammer

ev

2.2.

(3a)

(2007)(2007)

(3a)

ev
ev

ev
(2007)(7-8)(2007)(7) a.
b.
(5) a.
b.

I froze the ice cream solid.

Mary came into the room.

(= (1a))[VP1 [V′1 V1 [VP2 into/in the room [V′2came Mary]]]][VP1 I [V′1 V1 [VP2 the ice cream [V′2froze solid]]]](come
2007:184

)

(7a)

Mary

VP2

into the room
(5a)in the room
freezeVP2

V2(8) a.
b.

Mary swam to the shore.
[VP1 [V’1 V1 [VP2 to the shore [V’2swam-ev Mary]]]]V2(

2007:202-203)
swim

(8)

107

swim

ev

V2

2.3.

(3b)

(3b)
ev
dance
(9b)

into

in
(1c)
dance

(9) a. ??
b.

(= (3b))[VP1[V′1 [VP2

in
(1b)

(1c)

]
in

]]
ev
(12) a.

(10)

The mouse crawled on the table.
(Levin and Rapoport 1988:281)b.

When I opened the door to say hello,
however it [=the kitten] scurried

(10)
ev

under the porch.
(Levin et al. 2009:11(13) a.

(2007:203))

A famous singer danced onto/??onthe stage.

(Namiki 2018:71)

b. ?? They danced under the chandelier(8)

from the door.
(Estigarribia and Levin 2007:1)
(11)
(3b)
(2007)(11) a. * Sam joked into the meeting.

3.

(3b)

b. * Dorothy sang out of the room.
(

ev

(14)

2007:202)(14) a.

(3a)
ev

b.
(2b, c)

108

ev

(17)

(14a)

ev

(14b)
Jackendoff (1983) Talmy (2000)(2017)

ev(route)

(1b)

(1c)

(18) ??Bill danced in the room.
(15)[VP1 [V’1 V1 [VP2 in
Bill]]]](= (1c))the room [V’2 danced-ev

|

|

|

≠
(18)
(14)

(1b, c)(2b, c)(16) John walked into the room.
[VP1 [V’1V1 [VP2 intoJohn]]]](= (1b))the room [V’2 walked-ev

|

[

ev

ev

|
]

(1b, c)(16)

into the room
in

to

(14)

(1b)

(1c)

the room(19) ??
[VP1(17) John walked in the room.
[VP1 [V’1 V1 [VP2 in
John]]]]|(= (1b))[V′1 [VP2]|

the room [V’2 walked-ev|(= (2b))

|
(19)

109

|

]]
|

(22) a.

(17)

{
/

}

b. *

{
/

(20)

}

(18)
(21-22)(20) *[VP1(= (3c))[V′1 [VP2

]
|

|

]]
|

≠
(23-24)(19)ev(23) a.

John {ran / walked} a certain
distance.

b. * John {roved / danced} a certain(20)

distance.
(Zubizarreta and Oh (2007:131))(24) a.

{
/

}

b.

4.

{?
/*

(3b)

}

Zubizarreta and Oh (2007)

crawl
(25)

crawl

(25) We kept crawling and crawling andcrawling, and then we crawled some more.
Even though it felt like we crawled a mile, I(21) a.

Mary {ran / walked /crawled} theknew we had really only crawled for about

street to the station.

20 feet. (Charlie McCarthy, Wave ofb. * Mary {roved / danced} the street to

Destruction

the station.

110)

untiluntil(Beavers
2008)

until
[+route](26) a.

??

[-route]John {ran / walked / crawled} until??

*

the station.
b. ?? John {roved / danced} until thestation.
(27) a.

{

b.

/

}

{?

/??

}
*

36

Ryan Spring
5.

(2007)
ev

Beavers, John (2008) “On the Nature of Goal
Marking and Delimitation: Evidence ofJapanese,” Journal of Linguistics 44,(3)

283-316.

(28)

Estigarribia, Bruno and Beth Levin (2007)“When Under Means ‘Under To’: Evidence(28) a.

(3a)(2007)

from a Unified Locational Semantics forev

English Prepositions,” paper presented at
8th Stanford Semantic Fest, Stanford

b.

(3b)

ev

University, Stanford.
Jackendoff,Ray(1983)

Semantics

andCognition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kaga, Nobuhiro (2007) Thematic Structure: A
Theory111

ofArgument

LinkingandCambridge, MA.

Comparative Syntax, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
(2007),(), 178-215,,.

. (2002),.

Levin, Beth, John Beavers and Shiao Wei Tham(2009) “Manner of Motion Roots acrossLanguages: Same or Different?,” paper
presented at the workshop “Roots: Word
Formation from the Perspective of Core
Lexical Elements,” Universität Stuttgart,
Stuttgart.
Levin Beth and Rapoport Tova (1988) “Lexical
Subordination,” CLS 24, 275-289.
() (2017),.

Namiki, Shotaro (2018) Path Coercion andCompositionality: A Comparative Study of
MotionExpressions

in

EnglishandJapanese, Doctoral dissertation, Universityof Tsukuba.
Nikitina, Tatiana (2008) “Pragmatic Factors andVariation in the Expression of Spatial
Goals,” Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P,
ed. by Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlačil, Berit
Gehrke and Rick Nouwen, 175-196, John
Benjamins

Publishing

Company,

Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
Svenonius, Peter (2010) “Spatial P in English,”
Mapping Spatial PPs, ed. by Guglielmo
Cinque and Luigi Rizzi, 127-160, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Talmy, Leonard (2000) Toward a Cognitive
Semantics, Vol. 2: Typology and Process inConceptual

Structuring,MIT

Press,

Cambridge, MA.
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa and Eunjeong Oh(2007) On the Syntactic Composition ofMannerandMotion,MIT

Press,

112

(2) a….to help keep their families going over the
winter.
b.

My friends had a marvelous time over
the New Year.

We talked over coffee.
c.

*

The number will increase considerably
over the next decade.

On the Constructions with Accompanying
Circumstances
(2)

over

over
Time is space. (Lakoff (1993)

Toshiaki Nishihara)

Nagasaki University(), over-

over

,

,

(2a)
(2b)
(2c)

1.
(1)

accompanying circumstances(AC

Quirk et al. (1985)

AC

over-

(2)

over-

)

AC

)
(

over

(2)

over

(1) We discussed it over a glass of wine.
(Quirk et al. (1985:685)

)
AC

i) AC
ii) over(3) chat, discuss, explain, linger, read, relax, sit,iii) over-study, say, talk(3)

2. overAC

AC

COCA

overAC

AC

(3)

over
over

Lakoff (1987) Dewell (1994)

(

AC

(4)

we were laughing over a(

Tyler and Evans (2001, 2003)
over

game

AC
(

113

(

AC

(7)

(4) And the night before that, we were laughing(7)

over a game of Trivial Pursuit with my sisterand brothers,…

((COCA)(7) a.…and years later out of the blue she would
clear her throat while I doze overACaCivil War volume in the evening…

((COCA)(5)-(6)b….dozing over a game of Scrabble…

(6)(COCA)

COCA(7)(5) a. Over a glass of wine he confided that aACfriend had suggested he place a personal
doze

ad.
b. Ellen gave her the news over coffee in a
Forbes Avenue Starbucks.

over-

(7a)

(7b)

)

(COCA)

c. She spoke to me for the first time over a
glass of wine.
d. He had a heart attack and died over hisbreakfast.

AC)(Wasow (p.c))(8)(6) a. Mr. Trump said one of the conversations
came over dinner as Mr. Comey was(8) a. We partied the night away over cocktails.

making a pitch…

(time-awayb M any business meetings occur over)b. The audience laughed the actor off the

breakfast or lunch…

stage over dinner.

c….over a glass of fourteen-year-old(caused-motion)

Talisker, my proposal was accepted.
(8a)
(5)

time-away(8b)(caused-motion

over-

)

(8)
AC
AC

over(2b)(5)

confide

give

die

)
over-

speak to me for the(8a)first time
(6)
occur

come

(8b)

(

accept

(
(6)

(3)

(
(

give

2

come occur

114

over

(9)

(

)
(
AC

(9) a.

over-

over

b.

over-

(11)

c over(11) a. She told me her secrets over [the last cupof coffee he ever had].
b. We chatted over [a quick lunch] and a
2

AC

over-

glass of our favorite beverages.
(11a)the last cup of coffee

3. over(11b)

AC

a quick lunch

over
(7a)

)

AC

over)

.

over-

(
over
(10a)

over-

- (10c)for-until(12)(10) a. We talked over [drinks / (a bottle of)until around midnight for a couple ofbeer, wine / two glasses of whisky]
b.

(12)

hours

over-

We talked over [(a plate of) breakfast /lunch / dinner / pasta].

c. We talked over [(a game of) chess /(12) a. Customers are welcome to linger over

one-on-one basketball / cards].

coffee until around midnight.

d.*Some of the people in the room discussed(Collins COBUILD on-line Dictionary)it over a series of lectures.

b. Sometimes he would linger over dinnere. We talked over *(a glass of) water.
AC

(10d)

(

for a couple of hours,…
AC

.
1

over(
over-

over
(10e)

(COCA)

(

water
water
AC

.

115

(13)

(13) a. W e chatted over dinner during the((conference with recent alumni.
b. They often sat together on their porches(15) Jackson knows that perceptions, whether ofand talked, over coffee in the morning

an individual or of a team that lost its firstand beers in the evening.

eight games before finishing 4-12 last year,(COCA)

can only be changed over time throughc. Guests normally join their host now andperformance.

sit and chat over a glass of wine while(COCA)

the meal is being prepared.
4.

(English Web 2015)

overover-

(13a)

(

duringover diner)((13b)(13c)in the morning in the evening(16) a. the student with long hair in the corner

while

over

b. the student in the corner with long haircoffee(Radford ((1988:189))

over a glass of wine
(16)

(14)

with long hair

(14)

(

in the corner)(

overACover-(17) - (18)line: in the morning(17) a. We discussed the issues [over lunch][with a group of students].

(14)

b. We discussed the issues [with a group of
students] [over lunch].
(18) a. We discussed it [in more detail] [overover coffee

lunch].
(9)b. We discussed it [over lunch] [in more

(14)
)
(9)

AC
over

over

detail].

2

)
(17)

(15)

overin-

over-

with-

over-

) (18))(17) - (18)

over-

over-

)
over-

116

(21)
(21) a. John came into the room to fix the sink,over-and Mary did, too.
b….and come into the room to fix the room

(adjunct condition)2(

he did.

(19)(Rochemont and Culicover (1990: 85))

over-

(20)
over-

(19) *What did you discuss the problem over a

(
that
over-

glass of?
VP

vP-shell)(19)
overover-)AC(over(22))(22) a. That night over dinner, Beth’s brotherover-kept asking Tom Toolan what he did forover-a living.

(COCA)

b. Back in December, he had spent the night
wrestling with angels or some crap likethat because, after being MIA for almost(20) a.

I got together over dinner to strategize athirty years, he had showed up on myresponse.

front porch, expecting hugs, tears, and a(COCA)

heartfelt chat over cups of International

b....he’d announced over breakfast that as

Foods coffee.

soon as he could get away from thec. After a friendly introduction over tea andoffice,…they were going on a twoweek vacation.

(COCA)

cookies on the veranda of the Capital, the(COCA)

governor made clear that he would brook(20a)(20b)
over-

VP

(COCA)

d. When he comes home, over cups of hot

Rochemontand Culicover (1990)
ellipsis) VP

no dissent.

that

chocolate, she tells him about the(VP

wonderful novel she read and… (COCA)(VP topicalization)
VP(22a)-(22c)

117

over-

that

nighta heartfelt chat1

a friendly introduction

2 = over-

)

)
(21d)

(

over-

over-

(14)

whenover-

1

)
(25)

)
over-

2

(

)

over-

)
(25) Over dinner that evening, at our favorite
Spanish restaurant,…

(COCA)(23) a. a one-on-one discussion [over dinner](25)[that lasted as long as an hour…](COCA)

afterthoughtb. a one-on-one discussion [that lasted aslong as an hour…][over dinner](23)(

overi)

aone-on-one discussion

ii)

that

over-

(

)
(

overAC)

over5.

)

AC

over-

over
AC
i) overii) AC(24) a. But at home that night over dinner hetried not to think about that,…

(COCA)
iii) over-b. Ms. Orman has her own approach,scheduling her financial check-ins with(her wife on a relaxing Saturday nighti) over-over a glass of wine.

ii)

(24)
over-

.

(COCA)
iii)

over(24a)

(

)

118

Leech

*

and

Jan

Svartvik(1985)A

Comprehensive Grammar of the English

Thomas Wasow

Language, Longman, London.
Rizzi, Luigi (1990) Relativized Minimality, MIT)

Press, Cambridge, MA.
Rochemont, Michael and Peter Culicover (1990)
1

over-

English Focus Constructions and the Theory.

of Grammar, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

(

Tyler, Andrea and Vyvyan Evans (2001)

over-

days

.

“Reconsidering

Prepositional

Polysemyover a series of

Networks: The Case of Over,” Language 77,724-765.

(
AC

enjoy

(

Tyler, Andrea and Vyvyan Evans (2003) The(

Semantics of English Prepositions, Spatial
Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

2

Huang (1982)

Chomsky (1986) Rizzi (1990)
Corpus of Contemporary American English(COCA)English Web 2015

Chomsky, Noam (1986) Barriers, MIT Press,

Global Web-Based English

Cambridge, MA.
Dewell, Robert B. (1994) “Over Again: ImageSchemaTransformations

inSemantic
Collins COBUILD Dictionary (online)

Analysis,” Cognitive Linguistics 5 (4),351-381.
Huang, James (1982) “Move WH in a Language
without Wh-Movement,” The Linguistic
Review 1, 369-416.
Lakoff, George (1987) Women, Fire, andDangerous

Things:What

Categories

Reveal about the Mind, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lakoff, George (1993) “The Contemporary
Theoryof

Metaphor,”

MetaphorandThought (2nd ed.), ed. by Andrew Ortony,
202-251,

Cambridge

University

Press,

Cambridge.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey

119

Miyagawa(2011)

defective TP
2(3) Hiraiwa (2002)*[CP [TP DP-Gen [T´ [[vP … V]] T]] C-ADN]

The Diachronic Shrinking of the Genitive(

Subject Clause in JapaneseC)(4) Miyagawa (2011)

and the Minimal Structure Principle

a. [CP [TP DP-Nom [T´ [[vP … V]] T]] C]
(

C

TP

)

Yoshiki Ogawa

b. [DP [TP [vP [VP DP-Gen V] v] T] NP D]

Tohoku University

(

,

D

TP

)

,

,

1.

(2a,b)
100
100(1a,b)
100(2a,b)(5) (6)(5)(1) a.

(4a)
100

b.
(6a)

(2) a.

(6d)

(6)

b.

:
a. Dialect A: [DP [CP [TP [VoiceP [vP [VP/AP DPGen V/A] v] Voice] T] C] (NP) DGen]
b. Dialect B: [DP [TP [VoiceP [vP [L-AspP [VP/AP
Hiraiwa (2002)

adnominal CP

DP-Gen V/A] L-Asp] v] Voice] T] (NP)
DGen]

120

Harada (1971)

c. Dialect C: [DP [L-AspP [VP/AP DP-Gen V/A]

HaradaL-Asp] (NP) DGen]

1970

d. Dialect D: [DP [VP/AP DP-Gen V/A] (NP)DGen]
40
(6a-d)(7a,b)

100
(6a)

CP
20

1950

CP
(6b)

TP
(6c)

(6d)

AspP

VP/AP
Dialect A
D

Dialect B

Dialect A

Dialect B(7) a.

(?*)

2

CP→TP→AspP→VP/APDb.

Miyagawa (2011)(?*)

Harada (1971)
Hiraiwa (2002)
C

HaradaDialect B

1000
Ogawa (2018)100(5)-(6)2.
100
100
Nambu (2014)

121

Nambu

100
73%
(8b-f)

100(8g,h)

90%
80%

(8i)
Ogawa (2018)
2010

130

45

57

64%

1890
(8j)

28

130

51%

74%

15723
(8k,l)(8) a.

73%

b.
3.

99%
c.
(cf. (8a))

95%

d.
95%

SOV

SVO

V-to-I

e.

do
91%

f.
(cf. (8b))

90%

g.

Kemenade 1987; Lightfoot 1991
80%

Roberts (2007: 451)

h.

(9)

Logical Problem
80%

of Language Change

i.
64%

(9)

j.

In the context of the idea that languagechange arises through the language

51%

74%

acquisition process, the problem of whyk.

acquirers would converge on a systemdifferent from that which produces the1920~30

primary linguistic data they are exposed to:if that system generates the data, how arel.

acquirers led to postulate a distinct system?
1940~
50

Bybee (2015: 243)122

2
gradient

1

1
Ambridge 2010; Lieven 2010;
Rinke & Elsig 2010
PLD

Lightfoot and Westergaard (2007:411) (10)Bybee(2015)
Snyder (2017: 241)(10) If parameters and cues are of a smaller

grammaticallyscale than has previously been thought,
incompatible

then one will not say, for example, that a

A

B

PLD

V2 language changes into a non-V2
language from one generation to the next,[...] On the other hand, it is also notnecessary to argue that change is always
gradual, spanning several hundred years.

SnyderOn our view, change may affect one(micro-)cue at a time, a series of smallerscale bumps, giving the impression that
(8a-l)

there is gradual change over centuries.

(5)-(6)
Bybee (2015)(11)
Bošković (1997)

Minimal

Structure Principle; MSP(11) High-frequency forms are resistant tochange on the basis of the structure of otherforms or patterns, and more likely to serve(12) Provided that lexical requirements ofas the basis of such change in lowfrequency forms.

relevant elements are satisfied, if two(ibid.: 102))

representations have the same lexical
structure and serve the same function, then123

→ Lower AspectP

the representation that has fewer projections
is

to

be

chosenasthe(cf. Travis 2010)g.

syntactic

representation serving that function.

→
MSP

VP/AP

4.
PLD
PLD
PLD
CP
TP

(14) a.

(12)
TP(CP>TP>vP>VP/AP)

CP

b.
CP

CP

TP
TP

CP
Dialect B, C, D

(13a-g)(10)

1, 2, 3

micro-cues

(13g)

40

Dialect A

20

Dialect B
Harada4

Harada (1971)

3

Dialect A/B

100

Dialect A/B

TP, vP,(6a,b)

Dialect A

AspP
MSP

(6b), (6c),(= (7a))(6d)(= (7b))CP(13) a. CP

wh(2016)

→ CP

TP

b.

C
→ CP

T

EPP

Miyagawac.

(2011: 1274)→ TP

d.
(> vP)(cf. Diesing 1992)(7a,b)→ VoiceP

CP(cf. Collins 2005)

Dialect A
Dialect

B

TP

e. vP
→ vP

Harada (1971)

f.

20
45

124

65~74e. (15a,b)(1a,b)
2018
45~54

1

65~74

25~34
5.

3
100

600

65~74
B

45~54
(6d)

(6c)

(6b)

Dialect

Dialect C

25~34

(i)

Dialect D(PT)
Travis (2010)(15a,b)Higher Aspect
6

(ii)

(EU)

24
12

vP

36

Middle AspectP
1~5

VoiceP(iii)

5(SV/ADJ)

VP/AP

Ogawa, Niikuni, and Wada (2018))
3(15) a.

{}Dialect B, C, D

3
TP

; PT
b.

{

AspP VP/AP}(15a,b) (1a,b)

; EU

(SV)

(ADJ)

(1a,b)
D GCE

5

A D

cf.
(2017)

57

)

06-E

/

DG 4 EC5

6

2 5 5

A D

() )(

) +(

5 5

3 EC5

75

(

06-E
SMP

b. (15a,b)) (DG 1 EC5

D GCE(16) a. (15a,b)c. (15a)(6b-d)

) (

() )(

) +(

5 5

3 EC5

75

75

L JSMP)
H5(14a,b)(15b)d. (15a,b)

125

Lower

Linguistic Compass 1, 396-415.

*(

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2011) “Genitive Subjects in(2017)

Altaic and Specification of Phase,” Lingua

Ogawa, Niikuni, and Wada (2018))

121, 1265-1282.

JP16K02753

Nambu, Satoshi (2014) On the Use of Case

JP17K13438

Particles in Japanese: Corpus and Experimental Study, Doctoral dissertation, Osaka
University.

Ambridge, Ben (2010) “Book Review: Insa

(2017)

Gülzow & Natalia Gagalina (eds.) Frequency
Effects in Language Acquisition: Defining theLimits of Frequency as an Explanatory

Bošković, Željko (1997) Nonfinite Complement-

150,

137-171.

ation: An Economy Approach, MIT Press,

Ogawa, Yoshiki (2018) “Diachronic Syntactic

Cambridge, MA.
(2015),(2016)

Journal of Child Language 37, 453-475.

Joan

24,

395-409.

Concept. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2007,”

Bybee,,

Language

Change and Language Acquisition: A View

Change,from Nominative/Genitive Conversion in

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Japanese,”

Collins, Chris (2005) “A Smuggling Approach toInterdisciplinary

Information

Sciences 24(2), 91-179.

the Passive in English,” Syntax 8, 81-120.

Ogawa, Yoshiki, Keiyu Niikuni and Yuichi Wada

Diesing, Molly (1992) Indefinites, MIT Press,(2018) “Syntactic Gradience between Finite

Cambridge, MA.
Harada, Shin-ichi (1971) “Ga-No Conversion andClauses and Small Clauses: Evidence from a

Idiolectal Variation in Japanese,” Gengo

Diachronic Change in Genitive Subject

Kenkyu 60, 25-38.

Clauses in Japanese,” paper presented at theconference The Shaping of Transitivity andHiraiwa, Ken (2002) “Nominative-Genitive
Conversion

Revisited,”

Argument Structure, University of Pavia, Italy.

Japanese/Korean

Rinke,

Linguistics 10, 546-559.

MartinElsig(2010)

Syntax,” Lingua 120, 2557-2568.

Morphological Case in the History ofRoberts, Ian G. (2007) Diachronic Syntax,

English, Foris, Dordrecht.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Lieven, Elena (2010) “Input, First Language
Evaluating

and“Quantitative Evidence and Diachronic

Kemenade, Ans van (1987) Syntactic Case andAcquisition:

Estherthe

Role

Snyder, William (2017) “On the Child’s Role inofFrequency,” Lingua 120, 2546-2556.

Syntactic Change,” Perspectives on theLightfoot, David (1991) How to Set Parameters:

Architecture and Acquisition of Syntax:

Arguments from Language Change, MIT

Essays in Honor of R. Amritavalli, ed. by

Press, Cambridge, MA.

Gautam Sengupta et al., 235-242, Springer,
Dordrecht.

Lightfoot, David and Marit Westergaard (2007)“Language

Acquisition

andTravis,LanguageLisa(2010)

Inner

Aspect:Articulation of VP, Springer, Dordrecht.

Change: Inter-relationships,” Language and

126

The

turn

to

acquireunaccusativity

when

the

resultative secondary predicate denotes a changeof location (“unaccusativity alternation”, UA
henceforth). As shown in (3), the fake reflexive
is not allowed with run when the secondary

A Comparative Study of Unaccusativity

predicate is a change of location phrase.

Alternation and Its Theoretical Implications *(3) a. John ran clear of the car.

Satoshi Oku

b. * John ran himself clear of the car.

Hokkaido University
Linyan Qiu

Yamada (1998) proposes that there is a light

Jiangxi Agricultural University

verb GO which attaches to an unergative andKeywords: Unaccusativity Alternation, light

induces UA. GO is phonologically null inverb GO, Transitivity Alternation, labeling

English and can be realized as teiku ‘and-go’ inJapanese; andGO semantically requires achange-of-location phrase, thus run in (3a) can
1. Introduction
Under

the

be analyzed as a complex verb [V run-GO].
unaccusativity

hypothesis

In this paper, we first argue that Japanese(Perlmutter 1978, Levin and Rappaport 1995

also has the covert version of GO as well as the(L&R), among others), the single argument NP

overt -teiku (Section 2). Secondly, expandingof an unergative verb is the “D-structure

Qiu’s (2017) observation and analysis, we argue

subject,” while the single argument NP of anthat Chinese also has an instantiation of both

unaccusative verb is the “D-structure object.” As

overt realization and covert counterpart of theone of the unaccusativity diagnostics (Grimshaw

light verb in question (Section 3). Finally, in

1986, L&R), an English verb freeze, for instance,

Section 4, we will briefly discuss implications

allows a resultative secondary predicate as infor the theory of verbal structure building.

(1a) but the fake reflexive itself cannot co-occur
as in (1b), a typical property of unaccusative

2. Unaccusativity Alternation in Japaneseverbs. A motion verb run, on the other hand,

In this section, we first discuss the Japaneserequires a fake reflexive to have a resultative

UA case induced by teiku, based on and revisingsecondary predicate, shown in (2a) and (2b),Yamada (1998) (Section 2.1). Then we argue

indicating that run is an unergative verb.

that the null GO can also induce Transitivity
Alternation (TA, henceforth) in Japanese.

(1) a. The river froze solid.
b. * The river froze itself solid.

2.1. GO’s Overt Realization teiku and(2) a. * John ran exhausted.

Unaccusative Structureb. John ran himself exhausted.

It is known that in Japanese Floating
Quantifier (FQ) is allowed with the object NP

Interestingly, it has been observed (e.g., L&R)

(4a) but not with the subject NP (4b and 4c).

that unergative verbs (a manner of motion type)

However, FQ is possible with the surface subject

127

of unaccusative verbs as in (4d) (Miyagawa

English, there is a null light verb GO

1989,

corresponding to Japanese -teiku, which is

Tsujimura

1994,

Kageyama

1993,

responsible for UA we saw in (3a) above. The

Kishimoto 2005, among others).

underlying structure is shown as in (6).
(4) a. Kodomotati-ga[VP

children-NOM

mikani-o(6) Yamada (1998)

orange-ACC

VP

san-koi tabeta].
3-CL

NP

ate

V’
V

‘Children ate three oranges.’b. * Kodomotatii-ga[VP

children-NOM(XP = change-of-location)

san-nini tabeta].

There are, however, some problems in (6). First,

3-CL

although the single argument NP is within VP, it

ate
[VP

children-NOM

hiroba-de

is not clear whether the NP is in the selected

ground-in

position by the verbal complex head. Further,1

san-nini

hasitta].

the adjunct XP (which is not a theta-assigned

3-CL

ran

selected element by the complex verb) is directly

Kodomotatii-ga[VP

children-NOM

hiroba-ni

adjoined to V0. Therefore, we modify Yamada’s

ground-in

original structure in (6) to (7) below, where thesan-nini

ita].

argument NP is the complement (i.e., the sister)

3-CLexistedof the complex verb making a VP, and thechange-of-location phrase is adjoined to the VP.

lit. ‘Children were three in the ground.’(7) Our proposal

Miyagawa (1989) argues that this is because thesurfaceGOorange-ACC

c. * Kodomotatii-ga

d.

run

mikan-oXPsubjectofunaccusative

verbs

is

VP

base-generated at the object position where it

PP

and the Numeral Quantifier c-command each(change-of-location)other. Now, if we add a light verb -teiku ‘and-go’

VP
NP

V

to hasi ‘run’, FQ becomes much better than (4c):VGO(the head-complement order irrelevant)(5) Kodomotatii-ga[VP

children-NOM

hiroba-e
We are proposing that the change-of-location

ground-to

san-nini

hasit-teitta].

phrase PP c-commands the argument NP at the

3-CL

run-and-went

underlying structure. One piece of evidence forthis proposal is obtained from scope interaction.

lit. ‘Children ran-and-went to the ground.’Japanese is claimed to be a scope rigid language
Yamada argues that the light verb -teiku ‘and-go’
makes

the

verbalcomplex(e.g. Kuno 1973, Lasnik and Saito 1992).

hasit-teiku‘run-and-go’ an unaccusative verb and thus FQ(8)becomes possible. Yamada further claims that in

128

Onnanoko-ga

hitoridono

girl-NOM

one

every

b.

otokonoko-mosuisensita.

boy-MO

recommended[NP kodomo-ga hitori]i‘A girl recommended every boy.’(9) a.

∃>∀

b. * ∀ > ∃child-NOM

one

hiroba-ni-mo[VP ti[VP donoevery
ita ]]

ground-in-MO

existedFor (8), it is very hard to get the inverse scope

Given this, it is predicted that if we add –teiku

interpretation (9b). The same scope rigidity‘and-go’ to the verb hasi ‘run’ in (10), theapplies between the subject and the location

inverse scope reading becomes possible sincephrase with an unergative verb. The inverse

the verbal complex is unaccusative and thescope reading is not easy to obtain in (10).

underlying structure as shown in (7) where thechange-of-location(10) kodomo-ga hitori

donochild-NOM one

every

hiroba-de-mo

hasitta.

ground-in-MOranphrasec-commands

argument NP. The prediction is borne out.
(13) kodomo-ga hitori

donochild-NOM one

every‘A child ran in every ground.’hiroba-e-mo

hasit-teitta.

a.

ground-to-MO

run-and-went

∃>∀

the

b. * ∀ > ∃‘A child ran-and-went to every ground.’Oku (2018) argues, however, that when the verba. ∃ > ∀b.

∀>∃is unaccusative, the inverse scope is easily
available as in (11).

In the next subsection we are going to show thatthe null light verb GO also exists in Japanese.

(11)

kodomo-ga hitori

donochild-NOM one

every

2.2. Japanese Null GO and Transitivity

hiroba-ni-moita.

Alternation

ground-in-MO

existedWhen we change the location adjunct in (4c)

‘A child was in every ground.’and (10) to change-of-location adjunct, as showna. ∃ > ∀in (14a, b), FQ and inverse scope interpretationb. ∀ > ∃become available while both are fairly degraded
It is natural to assume that the surface subject ofas shown in (4c) and (10) above.

the unaccusative verb ita ‘existed’ in (11) is theunderlying

complement

and

thus

is

(14) a. Kodomo-ga san-nin

dono

c-commanded by the universally quantified

child-NOM 3-CL

location phrase underlyingly as in (12a), wherekoen-ni-mo hasitta. (3>∀: ∀>3)

the “∀ > ∃” scope reading is obtained.

park-to-MO

ran

every
(cf. (10))‘Children three ran to every park.’(12) a.

[VP dono hiroba-ni-mo

b. Kodomo-ga dono koen-ni-mo

every ground-in-MO

child-NOM every park-to-MO[VP[NP kodomo-ga hitori] ita ]]child-NOM

san-nin hasitta.

one existed

3-CL

129

ran

(FQ)

came-off

Based on these facts, we claim that it is the nulllight verb GO that requires a change-of-location
adjunct but not a location adjunct; thus GO is

FQ is much better in (16b) than in (16a).

responsible for the UA. We propose the

Furthermore, we also find that difference

underlying structure as shown in (14c) in which

between (15a, b) can be attested by the inverse

PP c-commands the argument NP.

scope interaction as shown in (17a, b).

(14) c. [[VP [PP to every park] [VP [NP children(17) a. Kodomo-ga

san-nindono

child-NOM

3-CL

every

three] [V run-GO]]]-Past]

heya-modeta. (3>∀: ??∀>3)

Furthermore, as Kuno (1973) and Teramuraroom-MO

came-off(1982) report, there are some types of Japanese‘Three children left every room.’

verbs which can mark the source phrase either

b. Kodomo-ga

san-nindono

by accusative -o or by oblique kara ‘from’ aschild-NOM

3-CL

every

shown in (15).

heya-kara-mo

deta. (3>∀: ∀>3)room-from-MO came-off(15) a.

Kodomo-ga

heya-ochild-NOM

room-ACC came-off‘Three children came out of every

deta.

room.’‘A child left the room.’b.

Kodomo-ga

heya-kara deta.

As a transitive version in (17a) inverse scope

child-NOM

room-from came-off

interpretation is not easily available, but as anunaccusative version (17b) can make an inverse‘A child came out of the room.’

scope interpretation. Given the underlying
Fukuda (2012) convincingly shows that whenstructure in (7), it is reasonable to assume thederu ‘leave’ has the oblique marked sourcenull light verb GO makes deru in (15b)phrase as in (15b), the verb is syntacticallyunaccusative.

unaccusative. (15a) is, with the accusative

structure as shown in (18a, b) respectively.

We

analyzetheunderlying“object,” the transitive version of the verb deru(18) a.

‘leave’ of the same verb. Fukuda reports thefollowing contrast shown in (16a, b).

[v*P NPsubj [VP2v*]<transitive>b. [VP PP(16) a. * Kodomotati-ga heya-o

NP-ACC V][VP NP [V-GO]]]

san-nin<unaccusative>

children-NOM room-ACC 3-CL
3. Unaccusativity Alternation in Chinese

deta.

In

came-offb.

Chinese,the

distinction

betweenlit. ‘Children came three out of theunergative and unaccusative has long beenroom.’

acknowledged: unaccusative verbs allow the

Kodomatati-ga heya-kara san-nin

single argument NP to appear in the post-verbal

children-NOM room from 3-CL

position as in (19), while unergative verbs do notdeta.

as in (20): surface Unaccusativity (Sybesma130‘run-and-enter’ an unaccusative verb and thus

1999, Xu 2001, Huang 2007, among others)

surface Unaccusativity emerges. Further, we find(19) a.
b.

that Chinese also has TA. Look at (23) and (24).

Xuduo rensi-le.

many people

die-ASPSi-le(23) chu ‘leave’ = transitive

xuduo ren.

die-ASP many people(20) a.

a. Xudou ren

chu-lewuzi.

‘Many people died.’many people

Xuduo renpao-le.

‘Many people left the room.’

many people

run-ASP

b.?? Chu-le‘Many people ran.’b. * Pao-leleave-ASP

xuduo ren.3

leave-ASP room
wuzi

xuduo ren.

room many people(24) chu-qu ‘leave-go’ = unaccusativea.

run-ASP many people

Xudou rencong wuzi

chu-qu-le.

many people from room
leave-go-ASP

Qiu (2017) observed that when we add ab.

change-of-location phrase such as jin fangjian

Cong wuzi chu-qu-lexudou ren.

from room leave-go-ASP many

‘into room’ to (20b), the sentence becomespeoplegrammatical as in (21a). Moreover, when theverb jin ‘enter’ attaches to pao ‘run’ as shown in‘Many people left-and-went out of(21b) surface Unaccusativity emerges.

the room.’(21) a. Pao-le xuduo renb.

Surface Unaccusativity is not observed in (23)jin fangjian.

run-ASP many people into room

where chu ‘leave’ is a transitive. However, as

lit. ‘(There) ran many people into theshown in (24b) the complex verb chu-quroom.’‘leave-go’ allows the single argument xudou ren

Fangjian pao-jin-le‘many people’ to appear in the post-verbal

xuduo ren.

run-enter-ASP many people

position, suggesting that chu-qu ‘leave-go’ is an‘(There) ran-and-entered many people

unaccusative. We claim that qu ‘go’ is an overt(the) room.’realization of light verb GO which is responsible

room

for the surface Unaccusativity.
Qiu takes these as instances of UA and argues

Expanding Qiu’s (2017) observation andthat in (21a) there is a null light verb GO whichanalysis, we argued that in Chinese there is also

attaches to the unergative verb pao ‘run’ andabstract verb GO inducing UA. The verb GO in

induces the UA as shown in (22).

Chinese either can be a null light verb, or can berealized as a lexical verb jin ‘enter’ or qu ‘go’.

(22) Pao-GO-le xuduo ren

jin fangjian.
4. A Speculation on Verbal Structure Building

run-GO-ASP many people into room

In the sections we argued above that UA is
Qiu further claims that jin ‘enter’ in (21b) is aninduced either by a null light verb GO or by an

overt realization of the light verb GO; jin ‘enter’

overt lexical verb in Japanese and Chinese. On

makes

the other hand, English seems to have only atheverbalcomplexpao-jin131

phonologically empty version but not have an

weak verbal √R becomes a strong head with theovert realization. One serious question at thisaid of v. Further, to account for the fact thatpoint is why this is so. In this section, we will

object argument ellipsis is possible in Chinese

briefly consider this question in terms ofbut not in English, Saito (2016: 170) suggests

labeling mechanism (Chomsky 2013, 2015).

that v is merged with VP only after the internal

According to Chomsky’s labeling algorithm,

NP merges with the root V in English, while inif two heads merge as a set {H1, H2}, there must

Chinese, v can be merged with a root V before

be some mechanisms to decide which is the head,the object argument is merged. In other words,

otherwise the set remains unlabeled and thus

Chinese has an option that a root V and v

uninterpretable at the interfaces. Chomsky (2013)

directly merge. When v merges with V2, V2 is asuggests that roots are weak heads and do not

unique strong head in {V1, V2} and thus thequalify as a label, while functional heads such aslabel of the complex. If this line of argument is

n, v will determine the label of the complex.

on the right track, Chinese has a mechanism

Expanding this idea, we assume that the null

which determines the only one of the verbal

light verb GO is an abstract functional head.

heads in {V1, V2} complex as the unique head.

Then, we assume that if a verbal root merges

This is compatible with the fact that verbal

with GO which is a strong head, GO is always

complexes are very productive in Chinese.

the label and there is no labeling problem. As far
as the labeling of the complex verb is concerned,

5. Summary{V1 + GO} is universally available, which

In this paper, we argued for UA in English,

accounts for the fact that this pattern is possible

Japanese, and Chinese. The phenomenon inin all three languages we discussed in the current

question is induced by an abstract light verb GO.

paper.

The inducer GO may be phonologically null or

What if V2 is an overt lexical verb? Saito

realized as an overt lexical verb in Japanese and(2016) suggests that preverbal form of V1

Chinese. However, English has only the(renyookei) in Japanese has an anti-labelingphonologically null version of GO but not anfeature [γ]) and thus {V1, V2} is labeled as V2.

overt realization. The differences might beEnglish V1, however, does not seem to have this

attributed to the differences with respect toanti-labeling feature [γ]; hence, English GO haslabeling systems for verbal complexes: Japanese

no overt realization because of the labelingV1 can be preverbal form with anti-labelingproblem. This accords with the fact that infeature [γ], Chinese can have a device to makeEnglish, V-V compounds are rare and not

V0 strong within a verbal complex, while

productive. Now, how about the situation in

English has neither of them.

Chinese? Verbal compounds are very common
and productive in Chinese but Chinese complex*We thank Masahiko Takahashi, Koji Hoshi,

verbs have no specific preverbal form like

Hideki Kishimoto, Kimihiro Ohno, and Mamoru

renyookei in Japanese. When V2 is a lexical verb

Saito for invaluable comments on earlier

such as jin ‘enter,’ what makes it the head in theversions of this work. This is partly supported bycomplex of {pao, jin}, without causing any

JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 18K00519 andlabeling issue? Chomsky (2015) suggests that a

JXUHSSR Grant Number YY18107.

132

α, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

NOTES
1The judgment is Yamada’s (1998: 32). Some

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav (1995)

speakers of Japanese may find (4c) not that bad

Unaccusativity, MIT Press, Cambridge,

but we find there is a sharp contrast between

Mass.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (1989) Structure and Case(4c) and (5) in the desired direction.
Fukuda’s (2012) data is based on judgment task

Marking in Japanese, Academic Press, San

experiment and thus the result in Fukuda is

Diego, California.

2Oku, Satoshi (2018) “Labeling and Overt/Covert

presented as a statistic data.
Pao may mean ‘escape’ as well as ‘run’, andMovements,” Nanzan Linguistics 13, 9-28.

when pao means ‘escape,’ the sentence in (20) is

Perlmutter, David (1978) “Impersonal Passives

grammatical. Throughout the paper, we will

and the Unaccusativity Hypothesis,” BLS 4,

stick to the second meaning of pao, i.e., ‘run,’ in

157-189.

3

Qiu,

which case (20) is not acceptable.

Linyan(2017)

Chuugokugo

Kekkakoobun-no Toogoronnteki Kenkyuu
Chomsky,(A Syntactic Study of Chinese Resultative

REFERENCES
Noam (2013) “Problems

Constructions),ofDoctoraldissertation,

Hokkaido University.

Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
ofSaito, Mamoru (2016) “(A) Case for Labeling:

Structures,

Labeling in Languages withoutφ-Feature

Strategies and Beyond, ed. by Elisa diAgreement,” The Linguistic Review 33,

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona

129-175.

Chomsky,

Noam

Projection:

Matteini,(2015)“Problems

Extensions,”

3-16,

John

Benjamins,

Sybesma, Rint (1999) The Mandarin VP,

Amsterdam.
Fukuda,Shin

Alternations

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
(2012)
in“Accusative-Oblique
JapaneseandTeramura, Hideo (1982) Nihongo no Shintakusu

theto Imi I (Japanese Syntax and Semantics I),

Unaccusativity Hypothesis,” FAJL 5, 49-58.

Kuroshio, Tokyo.

Grimshaw, Jane (1986) “Unaccusatives – An

Tsujimura, Natsuko (1994) “Resultatives andOverview,” NELS 17, 244-259.

Motion Verbs in Japanese,” Studies in the

Huang, C.-T. James (2007) “Thematic Structures

Linguistic Sciences 24, 429-440.

of Verbs in Chinese and Their Syntactic

Yamada,Yoshihiro(1998)“Doosano

Projections,” Linguistic Sciences 4, 3-21.

Yootaidoosini

Mirareru

Hitaikakuseino

Kageyama, Taro (1996) “Dooshi Imi-ron (Verb

Kootainituite(On

Unaccusativity

Semantics),” Kuroshio, Tokyo.

Alternation in Manner of Motion Verbs),”

Kishimoto, Hideki (2005) “Toogo-Kouzoo to

Northern Review 26, 13-44.

Bunpoo-Kankei (Syntactic Structure and

Xu,

Jie

(2001)

PubianyufayuanzeyuGrammatical Relation),” Kuroshio, Tokyo.

Hanyuyufaxianxiang (Universal Principles

Kuno, Susumu (1973) The Structure of theand Grammatical Phenomena in Chinese),Japanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito (1992) Move

133

Peking University Press, Peking.

(2) [[前置詞 1][前置詞句 2]]
本稿では、[[前置詞 1][前置詞句 2]]が持つ形
式的・意味的な特徴を明らかにするために、
from に後続する前置詞句の補語句用法につ[[前置詞 1][前置詞句 2]]の組み合わせの中で、

いて－BNC の調査を通じて－最も頻繁に生じる[[from][前置詞句 2]]に対し（A Corpus-Based Analysis of ‘from +て、British National Corpus (World Edition)をPrepositional Phrase’）用いて以下の 3 点を検証する。

大谷 直輝（Naoki Otani）(3) (a) [[from][前置詞句 2]]に現れる前置詞

東京外国語大学（Tokyo University of Foreignの頻度

Studies）(b) [前置詞句 2]が表す意味の分類(c) [前置詞句 2]の機能的な分類

キーワード：前置詞句の補語句用法, from,
BNC, 強調用法と参照点用法

結論を先取りすると、[前置詞句 2]の機能は、名詞句が表す領域を強調する「強調用法」と、名詞句が表す領域に関連した領域を表す「参1. はじめに照点用法」に大別され、両用法では使用される動機づけが異なる。

本稿では、前置詞句の補語句用法（＝[[前置詞 1][前置詞句 2]]）を分析するために、[[前2. 前置詞句の名詞的用法

置詞 1][前置詞句 2]]の組み合わせの中で、最も頻繁に生じる[[from][前置詞句 2]]を考察対

前置詞句の名詞的用法には前置詞句が主象として、[前置詞句 2]内に現れる前置詞と語位置に現れるものと、前置詞の補語位置に名詞句の傾向を定量的に明らかにする。

現 れ る も の が あ る （ Quirk et al. 1985;

英語の前置詞は補語句として名詞句をとHuddleston and Pullum 2002）。多くの文献は、る品詞と定義される（Quirk et al 1985）。一方

前置詞句が主語位置に現れる前置詞句主語

で、英語の前置詞には補語句として前置詞句用法を考察している（Jawarska 1986; 坪井をとる用法が指摘されている。

1990; 出原 1998; 岩﨑 2009）。これらの分析
では、前置詞句主語構文は空間的用法が最も(1) (a) He picked up the gun from under the

多いと同時に、指示性が高い前置詞句が主語

table.

位置に現れやすい点を指摘している。

(b) We didn’t meet until after the show.

一方、前置詞句主語に比べて、前置詞の補(c) Food has been scarce since before the

語となる前置詞句の研究は進んでいない。

war.

Huddleston and Pullum (2002）では、前置詞句(Quirk et al. 1985: 658n)

補語をとる典型的な前置詞は from, since, till,(1)では、下線部が引かれた前置詞の補語句

until であり、句全体の意味は空間的意味とが前置詞句となっている。文法書において、

時間的意味に限られると述べている。しかし、前置詞は補語句として名詞句をとる品詞とコーパス内の実例を見ると、[前置詞句 2]（す定義されるように、(2)のような構造は、一

なわち、前置詞句補語となる前置詞句）は均

般的な文法規則の例外となる。

質的なカテゴリーを形成するのではなく、先134

行研究では指摘されていない様々なタイプや値段を表す意味（from between $150-の用法が見られる。

$2,400）も存在する。
(10) [[前置詞 1][前置詞句 2]]は機能に注目すると 3 種類に分類できる。

(4) His mother’s voice was cold from behind(i) 強調型：補語句となる前置詞句が主

the make-up towel.
(5) Mr. Gonzalez has also come in for criticism

要部となる前置詞の意味を強調する（例: from within the company, fromfrom within his own party.

around the world, through till April）(6) The price of the base DCE license costs(ii) 特定型：補語句となる前置詞句が主from between $150-$2,400

要部となる前置詞の意味を特定す(4)は空間的意味を持つ用法であるが、前置る（例: from under the table, from

詞句の名詞的な用法が表す領域の指示性はbehind the make-up towel）

高くない。つまり、タオルの向こう側の領域(iii) 付与型：補語句となる前置詞句が主は必ずしも周囲から明確に区切られている要部となる前置詞に意味を付与す

わけではない。(5)は前置詞句の名詞的な用る（例: e.g. from across the field, until

法が表す領域が、空間や時間的なものではな

after his death）

く組織を表す例である。(6)も同様に、前置
詞句の名詞的な用法が値段を表している。こ

本発表では、大谷（2015）の調査を進め、他のように、前置詞句の補語句用法に注目するの前置詞の組み合わせに比べて、出現頻度がと、前置詞句が名詞的に使われる用法は均質著しく高い、[[from][前置詞句 2]]に対して、的ではなく、様々な用法が含まれていること

BNC を用いた網羅的な調査を行うことで、が示唆される。

前置詞の補語句用法が持つ特徴を明らかに

このような状況の中、大谷（2015）では前する。

置詞の補語句として現れる前置詞句につい3. データと方法論て、45 の主要な前置詞を、BNC を用いて定本発表では、[[from][前置詞句 2]]の事例を量的に調査することで、以下の点を明らかにした。

収集するため、BNC の網羅的な調査を行った。第一に、BNC に付属のコンコーダンサ(7) [[前置詞 1][前置詞句 2]]の[前置詞 1]にはーを用いて、[前置詞 from + 前置詞]の検索をfrom が最も定着している（T スコアが有行い、ヒットした全 4162 例を前後の文脈と意に高い前置詞の組み合わせで、15/17

ともに、Excel に抽出した。第二に、抽出さが from を含んでいた）。

れたデータに基づいて、前置詞句補語句内に(8) [[前置詞 1][前置詞句 2]]の[前置詞句 2]に現れる前置詞と名詞句の傾向を調査した。最は、二音節以上の接頭辞 a-, be-を含むも後に、BNC の調査に基づいて、[[from][前置のが非常に多い（behind, beneath, among,

詞句 2]]の機能に対して認知言語学の観点か

across, between など）。

ら考察を行った。

(9) [[前置詞 1][前置詞句 2]]全体の意味は空間的意味が多いが、先行研究では指摘さ4. 結果と考察れていない集団や組織を表す意味（from4.1. 考察 1: [[from][前置詞句 2]]に現れる前within the group; from outside experience）

置詞の頻度

135

最初に、[[from][前置詞句 2]]に現れる前置[[from][前置詞句 2]]内で 610 回出現する一方詞の頻度の考察を行った。表 1 は from に後で、BNC 内の総頻度は 19,073 回、前置詞全

続する前置詞を頻度順に並べたものである

体の使用頻度順では 33 位である。また、表（括弧内は前置詞の使用頻度順位）。表 1 で2 は[前置詞句 2]の主な用法と前置詞句内には、各前置詞の主な用法とコーパス内での総現れる代表的な名詞をまとめたものである。

頻度を記している。例えば、behind は、
#

前置詞

頻度

主な用法

総頻度

#

前置詞

頻度

主な用法

総頻度

1

behind610

空間19073 (33)11

beyond77

空間10137 (41)2

within587

組織・抽象44420 (21)12

amongst73

組織4447 (45)

3

under

472

空間

54804 (18)13

outside73

抽象・空間

11186 (39)4around283

空間25986 (26)14throughout

67

空間・時間

11451 (40)

5

among

233

組織・空間

22439 (29)

15

off

62

空間

29452 (24)6across217

空間20704 (30)

16

over

62

空間

80369 (15)7beneath180

空間4403 (45)17

before53

時間

45272 (20)8

between

115

数字・空間

88930 (14)

18

up

42

空間

22542 (28)

9

about

110

時間・数字

150569(11)

19

down

38

空間

17465 (34)10

out of95

空間・抽象46796 (19)20

beside33

空間5359 (44)

表 1 from に後続する前置詞

1

前置詞

主な用法

補語の性質とおもな補語

1

behind空間

cloud, desk, counter, door, wheel, screen (見えない場所)

2

within組織

10 miles, program, party, community, Europe (組織、PC、距離)

3

under

空間

feet, nose, nail, brow, stone, lash, tree (身体、身近な物)

4around空間

world (多い), Britain, Europe, neck, mouth (地理、身体部位)

5

among

6

across空間

world (多い), country, Britain, Atlantic (国、道、河など地理）

7

beneath空間

lash, tree, bed, bottle (身近な物)

8

between

数字、空間 10am and 4pm, 15% and 20%, teeth, fingers, stars (数字、身体部位)

9

about

時間、数字 10.5% to 11.5% , mid-1870s, the year, their back (大体、空間もあり)

10

out_of

空間、抽象 bag, nowhere, hands (身近な物、身体部位)11

beyond空間

grave, wall, mountain, stars (高さがあるもの)

12

amongst組織

number, members, workers, list (人、選択肢)

13

outside組織、空間 a number of people, member, grass (人、選択肢が多い)

抽象、空間 university, interference, competition, contact (抽象名詞、空間)

14 throughout 空間、時間 Britain, Africa, UK, year (国、時間もあり)
15

off

空間

table, nose, earth, Florida (動的、静的)

16

over

空間

boarder, horizon, shoulder (離れた上の領域)

17

before時間

century, war, birth (世紀、出来事)

136

18

up

空間

there, here, north, lane, hill (場所、方向、直示)

19

down

空間

river, road, valley, there (場所、直示)

20

beside空間

bed, wall (身近)

表 2 [前置詞句 2]の主な用法と前置詞句内に現れる代表的な名詞
表 1 と表 2 の結果から、from の補語句としてin < within, out < outside, through < throughout

現れる前置詞と名詞に関して次の 4 つの傾のように、頻度が低く典型的でない前置詞の向が明らかになった。第一に、各前置詞の方が[前置詞句 2]内に現れやすい。第四に、[前BNC 内での出現頻度と、from に後続する前置詞句 2]は、空間的な位置を表す用法が多い

置詞の頻度はかなり異なる。at, in, on, to, forが、時間的・抽象的な用法も見られる。

等、総頻度が高い前置詞は、[前置詞句 2]の位置には現れない。2 第二に、出現頻度がそ

4.2. 考察 2: [前置詞句 2]が表す意味の分類

れほど高くなく、形態的にも二音節以上の前

次に、考察 1 の分析を進め、[前置詞句 2]

置詞が前置詞句補語の主要部として現れるが表す意味を分類すると表 3 にようになる。

傾向がある。第三に、類義的な前置詞では、

空間：
位置

強調型
特定型

（静的）

付与型

空間：経路（動的）時間

It came from within the cottage / Guests came from around the world / Child care experts havegathered from throughout Scotland.
The sun came out from behind a cloud / Something had crawled from under a stone.
There was a rival from across the Atlantic too / She waited for the shouts from beyond thetrees / if you're from outside the village ...
We’ll soon wipe the smile from off your face. / … an urgent hiss came at her from down thegallery
this is a statement from before the war. / … choose from throughout the year. / Wine andCider will increase by two pence a bottle from after Christmas.
… elected from among the members … （組織）/ You … write about it from outside

その他

experience.（経験）/ Dating from between 1875 and 1885 （年代）/ This varies from about
2.5% to around 10%.（単位）/ … immigrants came from within a 10-mile radius（距離）表 3 [前置詞句 2]の意味の分類
表 3 は、[前置詞句 2]の意味を空間、時間、型は、from within the cottage のように、[前置その他に大別したものである。調査の結果、

詞句 2]全体が表す領域と、[前置詞句 2]内の名[前置詞句 2]では、空間を表す意味を持つも詞句が表す領域は一致するものである。対照のが最も頻度が高く多様な機能を持ってい的に、特定型（from under the table など）、付る点が確認された。また、前置詞の名詞的用

与型（from across the field）と進むにしたが法を扱う先行研究では、一般的に、空間的なって、[前置詞句 2]全体が表す領域と、[前置位置関係を表す静的な用法が指摘されてい詞句 2]内の名詞句が表す領域は離れていく。

たが、本稿の調査では、経路を表す動的な用

特定型と付与型は、[前置詞句 2]が表す領域法も観察された。さらに、静的な位置関係をが参照点となり、名詞句を基準とした相対的表す用法は、大谷（2015）の分類に基づくと、な領域が、前置詞によって表される点で共通

強調型、特定型、付与型に分けられる。強調

している。

137

広く定着している点を明らかになった。

また、空間関係を表す用法には[前置詞句2]が動的な経路を表す用法も見られる。例え

4.3. 考察 3: [前置詞句 2]の機能的な分類

ば、wipe the smile from off your face おいて前

表 3 の分類をさらに進め、[前置詞句 2]を置詞の off は位置関係ではなく、顔から離れ機能的に分類すると[前置詞句 2]は、(i) [前置る経路を表している。
さらに、今回の調査では、[前置詞句 2]に、

詞句 2]全体が名詞句的な属性を持つものと、

大谷（2015）等の一部の先行研究を除いては(ii) [前置詞句 2]内の前置詞が副詞的になり後指摘されていない、組織、経験、単位、距離

続する名詞句全体を修飾するものに分けらなどを表す意味が見られ、抽象的な意味が幅れる。
(iii) 強調用法(i) 前置詞句全体が名詞的
前置詞句の補語句用法(iv) 参照点用法(ii) 前置詞が形容詞・副詞的（後続する名詞（句）を修飾）
図 1 前置詞句の補語句用法の分類

最初に、(i)の前置詞句全体が名詞句的な属全体が表す領域が一致するものと、(iv)のよ性を持つものに注目すると、その中には、(iii)

うな一致しないものに分かれる。

のような、名詞句が表す領域と[前置詞句 2]
一致するタイプ

一致しないタイプfrom within the company, from among the members,from behind the curtain, from under the bed, from acrossfrom across the world, from throughout the country

the channel, from beneath a tree, from beyond the grave

表 4 [前置詞句 2]とその 中の名詞句が表す領域
本稿では、(iii)の一致するタイプを前置詞句

領域と名詞句が表す領域が一致するかどう

補語の「強調用法」と呼ぶ。強調用法では、かが異なると同時に、前置詞句が名詞的に用名詞が表す領域全体の境界が強調される。名いられる動機づけも異なると考えられる。強詞句が表す領域と[前置詞句 2]全体が表す領調用法は、前置詞によって客観的な事態に変域が一致するため、from (within) the company,化が起こるわけではなく、話者が、名詞句がfrom (among) the members のように、[前置詞表す領域を強調するために用いられる。これ

2]内に現れる前置詞を省略しても客観的なは 4.1 節で示したように、類義的な前置詞に事態は変わらない。一方、本稿では、(iv)の

おいて、より強い意味を表す前置詞が多用さ一致しないタイプを「参照点用法」と呼ぶ。

れ る こ と か ら も 支 持 さ れ る （ news from

参照点用法では、名詞句が表す領域と[前置{outside/throughout/within} the country など）。

詞句 2]全体が表す領域が一致しない。from

対照的に、参照点用法では、前置詞が現れる

behind the curtain を例にすると、「カーテンことで、表される事態が変化する。参照点用の後ろから」というように、名詞句の the法では、「名詞句の｛うしろ、わき、した、

curtain が参照点となり、カーテンからの相対向こう｝」などの空間的な位置関係が表され的な関係が前置詞の behind によって表されるが、これらの領域は名詞句を用いて適切にる。

表すのが難しい領域であるため、名詞句が参照点となり、名詞句が表す領域からの相対的強調用法と参点用法では、前置詞句が表す138れており、両者の間には境界が存在する。他な位置関係が前置詞によって表されていると考えられる（from outside the company など）。 にも、from behind the make-up towel や from
また、前置詞句補語句には、(ii)のように、

under the table のような参照点用法の例でも、[前置詞句 2]内の前置詞が副詞的に名詞句全タオルの後ろやテーブルの下の領域は必ず体（あるいは形容詞的に名詞）を修飾するもしも区切られた指示性の高い領域ではないのもある。

が、話者の視点を中心に考えると、[前置詞句 2]は、話者の視界からは見えない境界の向(11) (a) The event runs from between 10am and

こう側の領域を指していると言える。

4pm.

さらに、[前置詞句 2]には、from between(b) As the baby grows up, 24-hour rhythms

10am and 4pm. のように、[前置詞句 2]内の前begin to appear from about the second

置詞が副詞的に名詞句全体（あるいは形容詞

month of life onwards.

的に名詞）を修飾していると考えられるものもある。この用法は、前置詞句の補語句用法(11)では、between や about が後続する名詞句と言っても、[[前置詞 1][前置詞句 2]]のような全体を修飾しており、前置詞が副詞的な機能

一般化ではなく、[[前置詞 1][[前置詞の副詞を持つと言える。

的用法][名詞句]]]のような捉え方が妥当かもしれない。4

前置詞句主語の先行研究では、前置詞句が名詞的に使用される場合は指示性が高いと

5. まとめされてきた。しかし、前置詞句の補語句用法
が示すように、前置詞句の名詞的用法には

本稿では、BNC の網羅的な調査に基づい様々なタイプが含まれる。参照点用法の中にた[前置詞句 2]の分析を行うことによって、は、前置詞句が表す領域の指示性が高くなく、 前置詞句補語句は、名詞句が表す領域を強め
名詞句が表す領域を参照点とした漠然としる強調用法と、名詞句が表す領域に関連するた領域を表すものもある（from outside the領域を表す参照点用法に分類できる点を明

3

library, from beyond the wall）。 参照点用法がらかにした。後者は必ずしも、指示性が高い

表す領域の場合、前置詞句が表す領域は必ずわけではなく名詞句が表す領域を参照点としも周りから区切られた指示性の高いもの

した漠然とした領域を表すこともある。
また、本稿では、図 1 のように、前置詞句になるとは限らない。
一方で、参照点用法にも一つ共通点が見らの補語句用法は均質的なカテゴリーを構成れる。それは、[前置詞句 2]全体が表す領域

するのではなく、異なる機能を持つことを示がそのほかの領域から少なくとも一つの境した。前置詞句の補語句用法は、一般的に、界によって区切られる点である。例えば、標準的な文法規則からは外れるが、それぞれfrom outside the library では、outside the libraryに異なる動機づけを持つ具体的な下位構文が表す区域全体が周りから区切られているとしても捉えられるであろう（Taylor 2012）。

とは考えにくいが、図書館の内側と外側の領

今後の課題としては、通時的・共時的な域が対比され両者の間には明確な境界が存[[from][前置詞句 2]]の広がりの考察が考えら在する。また、from beyond the wall でも同様れる。現在、予備的な調査を行っており、通に、壁の向こう側の区域が区切られた空間で時的なコーパスである、Corpus of Historical

あるとは必ずしも言えないが、話者のいる場

American English (COHA)を用いた調査では、

所とは壁の向こう側では視覚的にも区切ら

from under, from behind, from within は近年増139

『英語青年』4 月号, 22.

えている一方で、from among, from off は近年減っている等の、各前置詞における顕著な違Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum

いが確認されている。また、方言が収集され(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of theている、Corpus of Global Web-based English

English Language, CUP, Cambridge.

(GloWbE)による調査では、US, GB, Canada,

出原健一 (1998)「前置詞句主語構文に関す

Ireland, Australia, New Zealand の 6 つの方言る一考察 ―認知文法とアフォーダンス

の振る舞いが比較的似ている点や、Pakistan

理論―」, 『人文科学論集＜文化コミュニ

方言で多用される from among, from amongst

ケーション学科編＞』第 32 号, 25-36.

のように、一部の方言だけと結びつきが強い岩崎宏之 (2009)「前置詞句主語と指示性」
JELS 26, 81-90.

[[from][前置詞句 2]]がある点が確認されていLangacker, Ronald W. (1993) “Reference-Point

る。

Constructions,” Cognitive Linguistics 4,

考察の範囲を広げ、様々な変種に注目する

1-38.

ことで、非標準的とされる[[前置詞 1][前置詞
句 2]]がどのような形で知識として定着して大谷直輝 (2015)「前置詞の補語句として用

いるかについて今後も探っていきたい。

いられる前置詞句の名詞的用法について」JELS 32, 98-104.
Quirk, Randolph, Sydney Greenbaum, Geoffrey

注1from に後続する前置詞の調査では、from, in,Leechto, on のような前置詞も出てきたが、ほとんComprehensive Grammar of the English

どが、言い直し、自動詞の受動態+前置詞でLanguage, Longman, London.

Svartvik(1985)A

Language Is Represented in the Mind, OUP,

ただし、表 1 を見ると、前置詞の出現回数

Oxford.

が 14 以上の前置詞と 15 位以下の前置詞では

坪井栄治郎 (1990)「『前置詞句主語』と主語系統が多少異なる。
3Jan

Taylor, John R. (2012) The Mental Corpus: Howあったため、表 1 からは除外した。
2

andに対する範疇の指定」, 『電気通信大学紀英語において、前置詞句の名詞的用法の参照点用法が発達している理由として、英語は、

要』第 1 号, 173-182.

空間的な位置を「上、下、前、後ろ」のような名詞で表す日本語のような言語とは異な

コーパス

り、関係を表す前置詞で表すことが挙げられ

BNC: British National Corpus (Available at

るであろう。前置詞の中には、He appeared

http://www.corpora.jp/~scn/bnc.html?page=t

from {behind/beneath}.の behind や beneath のop)
COHA: Corpus of Historical American English

ように名詞的に使われるものもある。
4

実際、辞書の中には、from between 10am and(Available at https://corpus.byu.edu/coha/)

4pm や from around 9 o’clock の between や

GloWbE: Corpus of Global Web-based English

around を副詞に分類しているものも多いが、本稿では、BNC の品詞タグに基づいた分類をしているため、前置詞としている。
参考文献
有村兼彬 (1987)「前置詞句主語について」,

140(Available at https://corpus.byu.edu/glowbe/)host via the restructuring operation.
2. Previous Analyses and Their Problem
In
*

this

section,I

previous

phonological analyses in Zwicky (1982) andA Phonological Analysis of VP-Ellipsis

O’Flynn (2008).

Zwicky assumes that an

infinitive marker to is phonologically too weak

Shogo Saito

to stand alone.

Tohoku University

Therefore, an infinitive marker

requires a prosodic host.
Keywords

review

This assumption is

supported by the following examples, where two

VP-Ellipsis, infinitival clause,short answers are contrasted.

phonological phrase, intonational phrase, focus
restructuring(2) Do you want to leave, or not to?
a.

Not to.

b. * To.

1. Introduction(Zwicky (1982: 7))

The goal of this paper is to propose a newphonological analysis of VP-Ellipsis (VPE) in(2a), as opposed to (2b), is grammatical because

infinitival clauses.

the infinitive marker co-occurs with its prosodic

The VPE is licensed in ahost (the negation not).

complement of a predicate, as in (1a), but it

Zwicky observes that the phonologicalcannot be allowed in a subject infinitival clause,
as in (1b).

dependency is usually established between an

A missing VP is indicated byinfinitive marker and a following element likeunderline “__” here and below.

(3a), and that, in the absence of the following(1) a.

Bill wants to leave, but Mary doesn’t

element as a result of VPE, it (re)attaches to thewant to __.

preceding element like (3b).

indicated by round bracket with Φ “( )Φ” here

b. *You shouldn t play with rifles becausetoA Φ-phrase isis dangerous.

and below.

(Johnson (2001: 445))(3) a.
This restriction has been analyzed in terms ofb.

(We want)Φ (to leave)Φ
(We want to)Φ __phonology by Zwicky (1982) and O’Flynn(2008).

However, their analyses do not provide

Zwicky formulates this prosodic restructuring

a sufficient account in that they involve someproblematic structural assumptions.
analternative analysis

byoperation as follows.

I proposeassuming that

(4) To Reattachment (Zwicky (1982: 29))

phonological phrases (Φ-phrases) in a VPE

When it does not form a VP constituent

sentence are restructured by applications ofwith an immediately following VP, theFocus Restructuring Rule in Kenesei and Vogel

English infinitive marker to attaches to the(1995), and that VPE is permitted if an infinitive

constituent immediately to its left, to form amarker to can form a Φ-phrase with its prosodic

phonological phrase with it.

141In addition, Zwicky proposes that applications ofsubject clauses are CPs.

(4)

has the phonological representation in (8b).

isrestrictedinparticularsyntactic

Then, sentence (1b)

The CP boundary is indicated by round bracket

environments, as stated by the condition of (5).

with CP “( )CP.”(5) The Own-S Condition
An infinitive marker cannot move out of its(8) a. *You shouldn’t play with rifles because

surface-structure S.

[CP tob.

Furthermore, O’Flynn (2008) articulates the] is dangerous (= (1b))

you shouldn’t play with rifles because((to)Φ)CP is dangerous

concept of “S” which prevents restructuring
operations, and then defines the boundary for the

As in (8b), Φ-phrase restructuring across the CP

operations as follows.

boundary is blocked.

As a result, the infinitivemarker stands alone within a Φ-phrase, and(6) S-boundary is a CP boundary.

hence the phonological output is illegitimate.

(cf. O’Flynn (2008: 15))

Therefore, the VPE is disallowed.
Although this kind of analysis solves the

As a result, restructuring across a CP boundary

distribution of VPE in infinitival clauses, theyis prohibited, while restructuring which crosses a

are not without problems.

TP is permitted.

suggests, there is no convincing support to take aNow, I briefly review O’Flynn’s analysis of
the data in (1).

complement clause of a control verb as TP.

First, let us see how the VPE isallowed in (1a).

In

fact, control predicates have been assumed to

O’Flynn assumes that acomplement infinitival clause forms a TP.

As O’Flynn herself

take a CP, but not a TP.

This is supported byThis

the difference in the movability between ameans that there is no CP boundary between acomplement clause of a control verb and that ofverb selecting an infinitival clause and ana raising verb, as exemplified in (9).

infinitive marker of the clause.

I roughly

schematize a syntactic structure of (1a) in (7a),(9) a. ? It was to win the race that we wanted.

and its phonological representation in (7b).

b. *It was to be winning the race that she
seemed.

(7) a.

Bill wants to leave, but Mary doesn’t[VP want [TP tob.

(O´Flynn (2008: 19))

In (9a), the complement clause of a control verb]] (= (1a))

Bill wants to leave, but Mary doesn’t

can move into the focus position of the cleft(want to)Φsentence, while, in (9b), that of a raising verb
cannot.

The contrast can be attributed to theIn (7b), restructuring makes a Φ-phrase containstructural difference: control verbs take CP

both the infinitive marker and its host.

The

complements, which can move, whereas raising

resulting prosodic structure is legitimate, andverbs take TP complements, which cannot move.

thus the sentence is grammatical.

This suggests that the structural assumption thata complement infinitival clause in (7a) forms TP

Next, let us turn to how O’Flynn blocks VPE

is incorrect.

in infinitival clauses in (1b). She assumes that142Φ-phrase.

3. Proposal and Analysis

See the examples in (12), where

In this section, I propose a new phonologicalstress is explicitly expressed, and a focused

analysis which does not appeal to a particularword is marked by bold font with square bracket

syntactic constituent to regulate restructuring

“[

].”

operations.
To begin with, I make two assumptions for(12) a.

my argument. First, following Samko (2014)

football team)Φ.

and Lopez and Winkler (2000), I assume that

→ … (to outcláss)Φ (Délaware’s football

VPE involves focus which is realized on a
T-element.

1

It’s hard (to outcláss)Φ (Délaware’s team)Φ
b.

Specifically, VPE in infinitival

It’s hard (to outcláss)Φ ([Délaware’s]football team)Φ.

clauses is licensed by the focus on an infinitive→ … (to óutclass [Délaware’s])Φ

marker. This assumption is supported by the factthat VPE is not licensed by a contracted form of(football team)Φ …

to, which Wilder (1997) observes is not(Kenesei and Vogel (1995: 19, 22))compatible with focus:
In (12a), two stresses are adjacent, but neither of(10)*John is leaving, and I wanna __ too.

them shifts to avoid the clash of the stresses(Zagona (1988: 96))

because they do not exist within a Φ-phrase.
However, when focus is placed on the latter

The ungrammaticality of (10) suggests that VPE

word, the Rhythm Rule may apply, as shown in

in infinitival clauses requires the infinitive(12b).

marker to be focused.

2

This fact follows from the restructuring

rule in (11).

to the Φ-phrase on its left via the Φ-phrase

Second, I adopt Focus Restructuring Rule
proposed in Kenesei and Vogel (1995).

That is, the focused word is added

restructuring, and then Rhythm Rule applies.

They

Notice that Kenesei and Vogel argue thatargue that English has the Focus Restructuring

applications of the rule in (11) is restricted inRule in (11).

particular circumstances such as (13), where twostresses are separated by an Intonational Phrase(11) Focus Restructuring Rule: English
If some word in a sentence bears focus,(ι-phrase) boundary.

place a Φ-phrase boundary at its right edge,

indicated by round bracket with a symbol ιand join the word to the Φ-phrase on its left.

“( )ι.”

According to this rule, a focused word is(13)Martha, (according to Paulíne,)ι ([ówns])Φ

phonologically separated from the word on its

the house.

right side even if they form a Φ-phrase in a
non-focus circumstance.

An ι-phrase boundary is→*... (to Páuline)Φ)ι ([ówns])Φ (the house)Φ

Instead, such a(ibid.: 29)

focused word is added to a preceding Φ-phrase.
This restructuring rule is motivated by the effect

Rhythm Rule does not apply to (13) even if theon the Rhythm Rule, which prevents the clash ofverb owns has focus.

two adjacent primary word stresses within a

Focus Restructuring does not apply over an

143

This data suggests thatι-phrase boundary, and the two stresses exist in a

blocked by the ι-phrase boundary.

different Φ-phrase.

infinitive marker stands alone within a Φ-phrase,
the obtained prosodic structure is illegitimate,

As a consequence of the above assumptions,and hence the sentence is ungrammatical.

an infinitive marker that is focused in VPE

In contrast, if an infinitive marker co-occurs

contexts undergoes Focus Restructuring, and it
is added to a preceding Φ-phrase.

with a negation as shown in (16a), VPE is

However,such restructuring is blocked if an ι-phrase

possible.

boundary is intervened between an infinitive

given in (16b).

marker and its preceding word.

Its phonological representation is

I propose that(16) a.

the restructuring explains the distribution of

You should unload rifles because not
to __ is dangerous.

VPE in infinitival clauses.

(Johnson (2001: 447))

Now, let us turn to my analysis of the
distribution of VPE shown in (1).
consider (1a).

Since theb.

First,

because (([not to])Φ (unload)Φ (rifles)Φ)ι

Following Selkirk’s (2005)

observation that there is no ι-phrase boundary

In (16b), the infinitive marker is combined with

between a verb and its complement clause, (14a)a preceding element not.

undergoes the Φ-phrase restructuring as in (14b).

weak word can depend on the preceding material,

The phonologicallyand therefore the sentence is grammatical.
(14) a.

Bill wants to leave, but Mary doesn’twant tob.

. (= (1a))

4. Consequences… (want)Φ ([to] leave)Φ

4.1. Extending the Data Range
The current proposal predicts that VPE is→ … (want [to])Φ (leave)Φ

always impossible if the operation strands an
As shown in (14b), the focused infinitive marker

infinitive marker alone within a Φ-phrase as acan be combined with a preceding verb via

result of blocking Focus Restructuring.

Focus Restructuring.

subsection, I provide further data to show that

The legitimate prosodic

In thisthe prediction is borne out.

structure is obtained, so that the sentence is

The first data involves parentheticals andgrammatical.
Following An (2007)

non-restrictive relatives (NRR), which are

and Selkirk (1981), I assume that a subject

well-known to form an ι-phrase on their own

clause forms an ι-phrase.

(see Selkirk (1984)).

Next, consider (1b).

Then, sentence (15a)My proposal predicts that

VPE stranding an infinitive marker is disallowed

obtains the phonological representation of (15b).

if the phonologically weak word directly follows
a parenthetical phrase or an NRR.

(15) a. *You shouldn’t play with rifles because
to
b.

This

prediction is borne out by the data in (17a, b),

is dangerous. (= (1b))

whosebecause (([to] play)Φ (with rifles)Φ)ι

phonologicalrepresentations

presented in (18a, b), respectively.

→ because (([to])Φ (play)Φ (with rifles)Φ)ι
(15b) shows that incorporation of to into a
preceding Φ-phrase is impossible because it is

144

are

is prohibited in a remnant of gapping, which(17) a. *For John to help Mary will make her
happy and for Bill, as she hopes, toSelkirk (2005) argues forms an ι-phrase on its

will make her happier.

own.

The VPE data and its phonologicalrepresentation are presented in (21).

b. *For John to help Mary will make her
happy and for Bill, who she likes thebest, to(18) a.

(21) a. *John wants not to leave, but Bill, to.

will make her happier.

b.

For John to help Mary will make her
happy and for Bill, (as she hopes,)ι

John wants not to leave, ((but [Bill])Φ)ι
(([to])Φ)ι

([to])Φ will make her happierb.

For John to help Mary will make her

The

VPE

is

prohibited

because

Focus

happy and for Bill, (who she likes the

Restructuring is prevented and the infinitive

best,)ι ([to])Φ will make her happiermarker stands alone.
The grammaticality of VPE improves if an

In (18), Φ-phrase restructuring is prevented byinfinitive marker co-occurs with a negation

ι-phrase boundaries,

within the formed ι-phrase.

sentencesareand hence the VPE

ungrammatical.

The

phonological analysis is supported by the fact(22) a.

that VPE is allowed if a parenthetical phrase orb.

an NRR follows an infinitive marker.

The

John wants to leave, but Bill, not to.
John wants to leave, ((but [Bill])Φ)ι
(([not to])Φ)ι

relevant examples are presented in (19) with
their phonological representations in (20).

In (22), the infinitive marker can be combinedwith its host, and thus the VPE is licensed.

(19) a.

For John to help Mary will make her
happy and for Bill tob.

(20) a.

The third context is brought from the case of, as she hopes,

rightward-movement of a clausal constituent.

will make her happier.

An (2007) proposes that this kind of moved

For John to help Mary will make her

constituent forms an ι-phrase.

happy and for Bill to

an infinitive marker in such a rightward-moved, who she likes

VPE stranding

the best, will make her happier.

position is impossible, as shown in (23a).

For John to help Mary will make her

relevant prosodic structure is schematized inhappy and (for Bill [to])Φ, (as she(23b).

The

hopes,)ι will make her happierb.

For John to help Mary will make her(23) a. *John wants for some reason to leave,

happy and (for Bill [to])Φ, (who she

and Bill wants for another reason to __.

likes the best,)ι will make her happierb.

… Bill wants, for another reason(([to])Φ)ι

In (20), the infinitive markers are not separated
from their host by ι-phrase boundaries, andSentence (23a) is degraded because Focus

therefore the legitimate prosodic structures can

Restructuring is blocked and the infinitive

be obtained by Focus Restructuring.

marker stands alone within a Φ-phrase.
In contrast, VPE is allowed if the infinitive

Second, VPE stranding an infinitive marker

145In contrast, the ungrammaticality of (25b) ismarker co-occurs with a negation within aaccounted for with an additional phonologicalmoved clause:

operation, Copy Deletion.
(24) a.

b.

The VPE sentenceJohn wants for some reason to leave,roughly has the syntactic structure in (27a), andand Bill wants for another reason not

obtains the phonological representation in (27b)to __.

as a result of VPE and Copy Deletion.

… and Bill wants for another reason(27) a.

(([not to])Φ)ι

who did you want who to resignb.

who did you (want)Φ (who [to])Φ

The grammaticality of VPE improves in (24)(resign)Φ

because the infinitive marker can be combinedwith its prosodic host.

In (27), the infinitive marker forms a Φ-phrasewith a copy of the wh-word via Focus

4.2. Effect of Copy Deletion

Restructuring.

This subsection shows that VPE in infinitival

However, it loses the prosodic

host as a result of Copy Deletion.

Hence, theclauses is also affected by another phonologicalphonological output is illegitimate, and the VPE

factor other than restrictions on Φ-phrase

is disallowed.

restructuring.

Specifically, VPE cannot be

In this subsection, I have shown that VPE inlicensed if an additional phonological operation,

infinitival clauses is also affected by another

Copy Deletion, destructs an existing legitimate

phonological factor, Copy Deletion: The ban on

prosodic structure.

VPE with the movement on wh-word can be alsoThis is shown by thecontrast in (25), where an infinitival clause has

accounted for in terms of phonology.

an overt subject (and it strands in (25a) but
moves in (25b)).

5. Conclusion
In this paper, I have proposed a new(25) a.

I want John to leave, and you want Billphonological analysis of VPE in infinitival

to __.

clauses.

The public wanted Shultz to resign;phonological approaches to the VPE, and have

* Who did you want to __?

pointed out their problem regarding theirb.

(Zagona (1988: 103))

I

have

structural assumption.

reviewedprevious

My claim is that VPE is

possible if an infinitive marker forms a
The grammaticalityof sentence (25a) is

phonological phrase with a preceding word via

straightforwardly accounted for by the current

Focus Restructuring, and that the restructuring

proposal.

operation is prevented by an ι-phrase boundary.

It

has

the

phonologicalrepresentation in (26).

Then, the legitimacy of VPE depends on theapplicability of the prosodic phrase restructuring.

(26)… and you want (Bill to)Φ (leave)Φ

The proposed analysis is supported by additionaldata.

In addition, I have shown that VPE in

Since the infinitive marker is added to theinfinitival clauses ispreceding Φ-phrase, the VPE is allowed.

phonological factor, Copy Deletion.

146

affected by another* An earlier version of this paper was presented

Laka, ltziar (1990) Negation in Syntax: On theat the 36th meeting of the English Linguistic

Nature of Functional Categories andSociety of Japan held at Yokohama National

Projections, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

University on November 24-25, 2018. I would

López, Luis and Susanne Winkler (2000) “Focus

like to express my gratitude to Etsuro Shima andand Topic in VP-Anaphora Constructions,”

Yoshiaki Kaneko for invaluable comments and

Linguistics 38, 623-664.

I am grateful to the audience at

O’Flynn, Kathleen (2008) “VP Ellipsis in

the meeting for their helpful comments andInfinitival Clauses,” ms., University ofquestions.

California at Santa Cruz.< http://babel.ucsc.

suggestions.

All

remainingerrorsandedu/~hank/oflynn_thesis.pdf >inadequacies are, of course, my own.
NOTES
This is known as Verum Focus, which isSamko, Bern (2014) “Verb-Phrase Preposing as

marked on Laka’s (1990) Σ and is usually

Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society

realized on T-elements.

of America, Minneapolis Hilton, MN.

1

2

Verum Focus,” paper presented at the 88th

Selkirk, Elisabeth (1981) “On Prosodic Structure

One might doubt this assumption because an
I

and Its Relation to Syntactic Structure,”

assume with Zwicky that this fact follows from

Nordic Prosody II, ed. by Thorstein

the inherent status of an infinitive marker: it isFretheim, 111-140, Tapir, Trondheim.

phonologically too weak to stand alone even

Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984) Phonology and Syntax:

infinitive marker cannot have focus stress.

when it is focused.

The Relation between Sound and Structure,

Remember that an

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

infinitive marker cannot be stranded alone as a

Selkirk,

Fragment Answer, as illustrated in (2).

Elisabeth(2005)

Intonational

at

the

Phrasing

inonEnglish,”Prosodies: With Special Reference to

REFERENCES
An, Duk-Ho (2007) “Clauses in NoncanonicalPositions“Comments

Iberian Languages, ed. by Sónia Frota,
Marina Vigário and Maria João Freitas,

Syntax-Phonology

11–58, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Interface,” Syntax 10, 38-79.

Wilder, Chris (1997) “English Finite Auxiliaries

Bošković, Željko (2018) “On Movement out ofMoved Elements, Labels, and Phases,”in

SyntaxandPhonology,”

Clitics,

Linguistic Inquiry 49, 247-282.

Pronouns and Movement, ed. by James R

Johnson, Kyle (2001) “What VP Ellipsis Can Do,

Black and Virginia Motapanyane, 321-362,

and What It Can’t, but Not Why,” TheJohn Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

HandbookofContemporary

Zagona, Karen (1988) “Proper Government ofSyntactic

Theory, ed. by Mark Baltin and Chris

Antecedentless

Collins, 439-479, Blackwell, Oxford.

Spanish,” Natural Language and Linguistic

Phonological

Structure,”inEnglishandTheory 6, 95-128.

Kenesei, István and Irene Vogel (1995) “Focus
and

VP

Zwicky, Arnold M. (1982) “Stranded to andms.,

University of Szeged and University of

Phonological

Delaware. <http://www.nytud.hu/kenesei/p

Linguistics 20, 3-57.

ubl/kenesei_vogel_1995.pdf>

147

Phrasing

inEnglish,”directionality of to.

However, they argue thatan example like (1d) does not evoke any senseof directionality.
(1) a. Jethro went (out) to feed the pigs.1

The Effectiveness of the Control Cycle for an
Analysis of Directionality of to-Infinitives *b. He does those things to annoy his mother.
c. They want to start a new job.

Shotaro Sasaki

d. It is difficult/easy to repair a VCR.

National Institute of Technology, Kochi College(Smith and Escobedo (2001: 553-555))/ Prefectural University of Kumamoto
However, they do not make explicit the factors
Keywords：cognitive grammar, to-infinitives,that motivate the classification of each example

directionality, control cycleand effect a similar sense of directionality in theexamples within the same class.

In this paper,by analyzing examples with to-infinitives interms of the control cycle (Langacker (2009)), I

1. Introduction
There have thus far been many previous

claim that the meanings of the directionality instudies about the directionality observed in

the use of to-infinitives are globally divided into

various uses of to-infinitives.

For example,

three groups, and make explicit the factors that

Wierzbicka (1988) ascribes a future orientation

motivate the groupings and effect a similar sense

to to-complement constructions, and Verspoorof directionality in the examples within the same

(1999) argues that to-infinitives always expressclass.

movement toward an action, but not being there

The organization of this paper is as follows.

yet, just projecting toward it. Also, Smith andSection 2 reviews the notion of the control cycle,

Escobedo

with resource to Cognitive Grammar (Langacker(2001)

divideexamplesof

to-infinitives into four groups as in (1a-d),(2009)).

depending on the meaning of the matrix

that motivate the groupings and effect a similar

predicates. For example, they claim that in asense of directionality in the examples within thesentence like (1a) to keeps its spatial path-likesame class, basing my analysis on the control

sense which clearly overlaps with the path-like

cycle.

sense of the matrix verb, while an example likewith to-infinitives in which the meaning of the(1b) evokes purpose (itself directional), which

directionality is not specific.

motivates to in this context. The subjects inconclusion of this paper.

In Section 3, I will explain the factors

Also, I will examine some examples
Section 4 is theboth (1a) and (1b) perform the actions in order
to attain the goals. But while the matrix verb in

2. The Control Cycle(1a) evokes the path-like sense, the one in (1b)

At the outset of our discussion, let us briefly

does not. As for a sentence like (1c), they state

look at the notion of the control cyclethat it evokes future-oriented volition; the matrix(Langacker (2009)), which will provide the basis

predicate strongly evokes future intention andfor my later analysis of the directionality ofvolitionality,

to-infinitives.

which

reflects

theinherent

148

According to Langacker (2009),

terms of the control cycle.

the control cycle is a general cognitive model
applicable to many aspects of human experience.

Langacker (2009: 307) states that “theHe (2009) sketches the basic form of the model

Control Cycle represents a fundamental pattern

as in Figure 1, and raises an instance of physicalinherent in many aspects of living andcapture, as when a cat catches a mouse, as thefunctioning in the world.”

prototype of the cognitive model.
Potential

Baseline

F

T

A

A
D

D

F
<stasis><tension>

ActionResult

A

A

T

D

F

F

D
<stasis><force>A=actorT

T=target

D=dominion

F=field

Figure 1 The basic form of the control cycle (Langacker (2009: 130))
According to Langacker (2009: 306-307), a cat

For example, he (2009: 307) claims that bodily(A) is normally in a state of relaxation (Baselinefunctions like breathing, eating and drinking

Phase (BP)), but if a mouse (T) should wander

instantiate the control cycle, as do the directing

into its field of view (F), this creates a state ofand focusing of attention, and meeting someone

tension (Potential Phase (PP)).

new.

In the next

Given that it applies to a wide range ofphase (Action Phase (AP)), the cat releases thephenomena, it follows that matrix clauses

tension by pouncing on the mouse. If the cat is

involving a to-infinitive, which symbolize somesuccessful, the mouse is under its control (D)part of such a world, also reside in a certain(Result Phase (RP)).

phase of the control cycle.

Based on the control

Besides, acycle, Langacker (2009) analyzes examples with

to-infinitival clause is one that elaborates part ofthat-clauses: he divides each example into a

the matrix clause in a certain phase of thecertain phase of the control cycle, depending oncontrol cycle. Therefore, in the next section, I

the meaning of the main predicates. However,divide examples with to-infinitival clauses intohe (2009) does not analyze to-infinitives inseveral groups in terms of the control cycle, and149

whether the main clauses are within the potential

examine the directionality of to-infinitives.

phase, the action phase, or the result phase, as in(3a-c).

3. To-Infinitives and the Control Cycle
3.1. A Classification Based on the Control(3) PP: a. When I danced with him, I wanted toCycle
In Section 3.1, I utilize the concept of theescape from him.

control cycle to specify the factors that motivate

AP: b. When I danced with him, I stepped on

the classification of examples with to-infinitives

his toes.

and effect a similar sense of directionality in the

RP: c. I knew he was nervous, when I

examples within the same class.

danced with him.

First, let us consider some examples of
to-infinitives, dividing them into three phases asOnin (2).

the

other

hand,

to-infinitives

areconceptually more dependent on the main

(2) PP: a. They want to start a new job.

(=1c)

b. Mary intends to read the article.

clauses.

For example, to-infinitival clauses

dependonthematrixclausesfortheidentification of their trajector (Langacker(Smith and Escobedo (2001: 553))(2008: 438)).

AP: c. Jethro went (out) to feed the pigs.

In addition, the matrix clauses

predetermine the tense-mood of the to-infinitival(=1a)

clauses, and the outcome of the to-infinitival

d. He does those things to annoy his

clauses are typically dependent on the agent ofmother.

(=1b)

the main clauses (Croft (2001: 352)).

RP: e. I know Mary to be a Mormon.

Itfollows therefore that they are conceptually(Wierzbicka (1988: 51))

dependent on the matrix clauses.

f. It is difficult/easy to repair a VCR.

Due to theirconceptual dependence on the matrix clauses,(=1d)

to-infinitival clauses are semantically affectedby them: matrix clauses in the potential phase

Later, I claim that the meaning of thecauses their to-infinitival clauses to evoke

directionality is influenced by whether the main

‘directionality of intention’, matrix clauses in theclauses are within the potential phase, the action

action phase motivate their to-infinitival clauses

phase, or the result phase.

to mean ‘directionality toward a purpose’, andBeforeanalyzingthedirectionalityinmatrix clauses in the result phase do not evoke

to-infinitives in terms of the control cycle, let us

specific directionality in their to-infinitival

verify that it is plausible to apply the control

clauses.

cycle to the analysis of to-infinitives.

My

Let us examine the examples in (2) in detailclaim is based on the fact that to-infinitives havein terms of the control cycle. First, sentences

a higher degree of dependence on main clauses.

(2a-b) are grouped into the same class, because

First, other adverbial clauses like the underlined

both of them are in the potential phase, where

portions in (3a-c) are relatively independent of

the target (T) designated by the to-infinitives is

the main clauses.

Therefore, the meaning ofwithin the clausal subject’s field of awarenessthe adverbial clauses is not influenced byand intended to be carried out by the subject.

150

The to-infinitival clauses are used with matrix

sense of directionality, which motivates the use

clauses being within the potential phase, whichof to-infinitives, is not specific compared to themotivates the directionality of intention toward

other examples within the potential phase andthe event (T) to emerge at the composite

the action phase.

structure level.

Section 3.2.

I will explain the issue in

Also, sentences (2c-d) are grouped into thesame class, because both of them are within the

3.2. Examples within the Result Phase

action phase, where the actor physically moves

Let us now consider why the examples(as in (2c)) or performs a concrete action (as inwithin the result phase whose directionality is(2d)) in order to bring the target (thenot specific do take to-infinitival clauses.

to-infinitival clauses) under the actor’s control.

in order to entertain the proposition ‘I know

The matrix clauses being within the action phase

Mary to be a Mormon’ as in (2e), it is necessary

motivates the directionality toward a purpose toto go through the potential phase and the action

emerge at the level of the composite structures

phase of (2e) as in (4a, b).

First,of the matrix clauses and the to-infinitival(4) PP: a. I believe Mary to be a Mormon.2

clauses.
Finally, the reason why sentences (2e, f) are

AP: b. I discovered Mary to be a Mormon.

grouped into the same class is that both of themarewithintheresultphase,

wherethe

The examples in (4a, b) evoke relatively specificconceptualizer incorporates the target as part of

directionality.

his knowledge (D), and says he knows this ofentertains the mental attitude ‘believing (4a)’ or

Mary (‘she is a Mormon’) or shows his

carries out the action ‘discovering (4b)’ in orderjudgment toward the target (‘difficult/easy’).

to incorporate the process into his knowledge

The matrix clauses in the result phase, unlike(D). Therefore, in (4a, b), the directionality is

those in the potential phase or the action phase,evokeddo not evoke any intention or action to carry out

designated by the to-infinitival clauses: thethe target.

Therefore, the meaning of themental attitude in (4a) or the action in (4b) leads

directionality is not specific even at the level ofthe subject to the conclusion that Mary is athe composite structures of the matrix clauses

Mormon.

and the to-infinitival clauses.

In the diagram, the bold circle represents Mary,

Thus,

the

sense

of

directionalityofThat is, the clausal subject

between

Mary

and

the

process

Figure 2 represents the directionality.

and the box the process designated by theto-infinitives is not haphazard but divided into

non-finite clause.

the three discrete groups in the range of thethe directionality from Mary to the process.

control

cycle.

Each

examplewith

The bold arrow representsato-infinitival clause is within a certain phase ofRT

the control cycle, which motivates the groupings
and a similar sense of directionality in theCexamples within the same class.
However, it is not still evident why sentences

Figure 2(2e, f) take to-infinitives; in these examples, the151What should be noticed here is that the reference

The diagram indicates that the conceptualizer

point ability is immanent in the directionality in(C) directs attention to the matrix clause3

As shown by the thin arrows in Figure

expressing his judgment ‘easy/difficult’ as a2, the conceptualizer (C) directs attention toreference point (R), and via the reference point

Mary as a reference point (R) to establish mental

he accesses ‘to repair a VCR’ as a target (T) out

contact with ‘Mary is a Mormon’ (target (T)) (cf.

of a set of potential targets (e.g. to drive a car),Langacker (2015: 73)).

The reference point

all of which are in the vicinity of the judgement

ability that is inherent in the to-infinitival(dominion (D)) and hence accessible via theclauses with the specific sense of directionality

reference point.

(4a, b).

as in the potential or action phases is also
applied to (2e) in the result phase, where theobjective notion of directionality is attenuated,D

as shown in Figure 3.

T

C

T

R

R

Figure 4C
Also, the conceptualizer directs his judgment
toward the target, which is represented by the

Figure 3bold arrow from R to T. Therefore, sentence
The objective notion of directionality fades away,(2f) evokes the directionality of the judgement

but when the conceptualizer (C) apprehends thewith the reference point ability, which motivates

relationship between Mary and a Mormon, thethe use of the to-infinitival clause in (2f).

reference point ability that is immanent in theobjective

directionality

still

remains(cf.

4. Conclusion

Langacker (2009: 84-85)): the diagram shows

This paper has examined examples ofthat the conceptualizer (C) first invokes Mary as

to-infinitives and analyzed them in terms of thea reference point (R) to mentally access thecontrol cycle.

4

Dividing the examples into

I claim thepotential phase, action phase and result phasecognitive operation is the one motivating the use

depending on the meanings of the matrix clauses,of the to-infinitive in (2e). Thus, it is possible

I have specified the factors that motivate theto explain the motivation for the use of thegroupings and effect a similar sense of

to-infinitive even in examples like (2e), where

directionality in the examples within the samethe objective notion of directionality fades away,class.

target (T) Mary is a Mormon.

by examining such examples in terms of thecontrol cycle as a whole, including the potential* An earlier version of this paper was presented

phase and the action phase.

at the 36th ELSJ Conference.

The reference point ability is also immanent

I am grateful tothe audiences there for their helpful comments

in examples like (2f), as shown in Figure 4.

and questions.

152

My thanks also go to Dane

Hampton for his help in improving the writing insubjectification.

this paper.

inherent in a certain kind of experience are

1

NOTES
Smith and Escobedo (2001) quote sentence

That is, “mental operations

applied to situations with respect to which theiroccurrence is extrinsic (Langacker (2008:(1a) from Langacker, Ronald W. (1992)528)).”“Prepositions as grammatical(izing) elements,”

fictive motions in (ia, b) as examples ofLeuvense Bijdragen 81.

subjectification.

2

Langacker (2008: 528) gives theDuring and after the presentation, Keisuke(i) a. An ugly scar runs from his elbow to his

Sanada and Mariko Higuchi pointed out that (4a)wrist.

could be regarded as being in the result phase.

b. An ugly scar runs from his wrist to his

According to Langacker (2009: 132-133), theelbow.

verb believe can indicate either that the
proposition is already establishedinc. The pitcher ran from the bullpen to thethemound.

conceptualizer’s epistemic dominion (i.e. the(Langacker (2008: 529))

result phase) or that the conceptualizer inclines
toward accepting the proposition as part of theconceptualizer’s view of reality (i.e. the potential

He (2008: 529) states that in expressions like (ia,phase) (see also (Langacker (2009: 312-313)).

b), “cognitive operations inherent in theThis paper treats (4a) as being in the potential

conception of spatial motion are applied to static

phrase.

scenes as a way of mentally accessing them.”

3

The reference point model is “a fundamental

one conceived entity (a reference point) for

REFERENCES
Croft, William (2001) Radical Construction

purposes of establishing mental contact with

Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typologicalanother (the target) (Langacker (1991: 552)).”

Perspective,

Langacker (2008: 83) cites the following

Oxford.

cognitive model based on our capacity to invoke

OxfordUniversity

Press,

Dixon, Robert M. W. (1984) “The Semantic

example (i).

Basis of Syntactic Properties,” BLS 10,
583-595.

(i) Do you see that boat out there in the Lake?

Duffley, Patrick J. (2003) “The Gerund and theThere’s a duck swimming right next to it.

to-Infinitive as Subject,” Journal of English(Langacker (2008: 83))

Linguistics 31 (4), 324-352.
Egan,

In (i), “the speaker wants to direct the hearer’sThomas(2008)

Non-Finite

attention to the duck, but from a distance theComplementation: A Usage-Based Study ofboat is easier to pick out (Langacker (2008:

Infinitive and -ing Clauses in English,83)).” Therefore, Langacker (2008: 84) states

Rodopi B. V., Amsterdam, New York.

that, in the case of (i), the reference point is the

Langacker, Ronald W. (1991) Foundations of
Cognitive Grammar, vol.2: Descriptive

boat, and the target is the duck.
4In

cognitive

grammar,such

Application, Stanford University Press,

linguistic

Stanford.

phenomena are examples of what is called153

Langacker, Ronald W. (1999) Grammar andConceptualization, Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin, New York.
Langacker,

RonaldW.

(2008)

Cognitive

Grammar: A Basic Introduction, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Langacker, Ronald W. (2009) Investigations in
Cognitive Grammar, Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin, New York.
Langacker, Ronald W. (2015) “On Grammatical
Categories,”

Journalof

Cognitive

Linguistics 1, 44-79.
Langacker, Ronald W. (2016) Nominal StructureinCognitive

Grammar:The

LublinLectures, ed. by Adam Głaz, Hubert
Kowalewski and Przemysław łozowski,
Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press,
Lublin.
Smith, Michael B. and Joyce Escobedo (2001)“The Semantics of to-Infinitival vs. -ing
Verb

Complement

Constructionsin

English,” CLS 37, 549-563.
Verspoor, Marjolijn (1996) “The Story of -ing: A
Subjective Perspective,” The Construal ofSpace in Language and Thought, ed. by
Martin Pütz and René Dirven, 417-454,
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.
Verspoor, Marjolijn (1999) “To Infinitives,”
Issues in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Leonde Standler and Christoph Eyrich, 505-526,
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1988) The Semantics ofGrammar, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

154

wh

*

wh

On the Morpho-Syntactic Structure of
Wh-Amalgams
whMotoki Satowh

Fukushima University
,

,

wh

,

Spell-Out,

1.
2. wh

wh

wh
2

Huddleston and

Pullum (2002)(2014)(1)whpeople(1) John invited you’ll never guess how many
people to his party.

(1)(Lakoff 1974: 321)

peoplewh(= John invited a lot of people to his party,

peopleinvitedbut you’ll never guess how many.)(2016)
whinvited(1)(3) a. John invited {people/*books/*cars} to his
party.
b. John invited you’ll never guess how many

you’ll never guess{people/*books/*cars} to his party.
(2)
he

(

2016: 127)

Almost every student
whguess how many

you’ll nevera lot of(2) *Almost every studenti kissed hei didn’t evenwhremember how many classmates.
(Johnson 2014:258)

wh

155

wh

if

wh

TP

(Ross 1969, Lobeck 1995, Merchant 2001)(sluicing)(7) *The Pentagon leaked that it would close thewhPresidio,but

no-one{whether/if}.

know

knew

for

sure

(Merchant 2001: 56)(4a)whether

whif
whunclear(4b)wh

wh
Swiping(4) a. John became I don’t know how sickyesterday.

(Johnson 2014: 259)

(sluiced

wh-wordinversion

preposition in Northern Germanic)

with

wh

b. He devoured it’s completely unclear how
many cookies. (Johnson 2014: 277. fn. 13)

Swiping
wh

(4)

know

unclearwh(Merchant 2002) Grosu (2010)

CP

wh

wh
CP

wh

TP
(8) Mary seems to have eloped only God knows
who with an hour ago.

(Grosu 2010: 183)

(5) a. John became I don’t know [CP how sicki[TP he became ti]] yesterday.

Swipingb. He devoured it’s completely unclear [CPwhhow many cookiesi [TP he devoured ti]].
wh
wh

wh
whetherif1wh(6) *The truth is only God knows {whether/if}.
3.
(6)

wh

wh
whether156

whb. She invited you’ll never guess how many
people to her wedding party, and herhusband {did / did so} too.

Kluck (2011)(pair-Merge)

par-Merge (Parenthetical Merge)
invited(11) John sold Mary, his best friend, a lemon,and Max did too.

wh

= Max sold Mary a lemon.
2≠ Max sold Mary, who was his best friend,a lemon.
0(Peterson 1999: 247)

(12) John talked to us, it seems, about literature,(9) [CP John invited [NP e <ParP Par [CP you’ll
never guess how many peoplei [TP he invited

but Mary would never do that.

ti to his party]]>] to his party.]= Mary would never talk to us about
literature.
≠ Mary would never talk to us, it seems,
about literature. (Kaltenböck 2007: 35)

wh3

Guimarães (2004)

Johnson (2014)
Parallel

Merge

wh
wh
(13)
how many mistakeswh(13) There {are/*is} I don’t know how many
mistakes in this paper.

(

2016: 127)

be(14) a. My favorite food, pork chops, {is/*are}(10) a. John ate I don’t know what yesterday,

not on the menu.

and Mary {did / did so} too.

b. Car accidents, the major cause of deaths(adapted from Johnson 2014: 261. fn. 4)

in Australia, {are/*is} increasing.

157

(Peterson 1999: 246)

you’llnever guess how many

how manywhwhyou’ll never guess

Haspelmath(1997)(indefinite

marker)(17) John invited [Q [indefinite marker you’ll neverguess] [Q how many]] people to his party.
4.
whyou’ll never guess how many
(15)

how

peopleQP

many(15) John invited you’ll never guess how many(18) John invited [QP [Q [indefinite marker you’ll neverpeople to his party.

guess] [Q how many]] [NP people]] to his
party.

how many(2002)

Huddleston and Pullum(2014)

how manypeople(2014)

you’ll never guess how many

how many
1213wh(19) …I’m a victim of extreme, bizarre behavior

whthat went unchecked for 12, 13 and God
knows how many years…

(COCA)(16) John invited [you’ll never guess how many
people he invited to his party] people to his
party.

God know how many
how manywh4(20) This is a school for kids who are on their I

Uriagereka (1999)

don’t know how many (-th) chance.

Spell-Out(20)

Spell-Out(Williams 1981)

158

how many

be

-th
5

(Agree)-th

how many(23) There {are/*is} [QP [Q I don’t know how
how manymany] [NP mistakes]] in this paper.

whI

don’t know whatwh(21) John ate I don’t know what yesterday.
(24) *Almost every studenti kissed hei didn’t(21)

even remember how many classmates.

what
(22a)
Spell-Out (Uriagerka 1999)
Spell-Out(24)

whhe didn’t even remember how many

what

Postal (1969)
Anaphoric Islands(1995: 189-192)

Bresnan and Mchombo
Lexical Integrity Principle(22) a. John ate [I don’t know what he ate]
yesterday.
b. John ate [indefinite marker I don’t know [D(25)what]] yesterday.
I don’t know what(25) ?Hei had been kissing the professoriate(himself) didn’t remember how many
students.

5.

(Johnson 2014: 258)

wh
(24)

classmates

how many
6

how many(26) Almost every studenti kissed you can’t

159

imagine how many of hisi classmates.
(Johnson 2014:261)
Johnsonpair-Merge

Parallel Merge(2014)
4(16)

how manyTPNP6.
(i) John invited [you’ll never guess [QP how

whmany [NP people]] [TP he invited to his party]]
people to his party.
5

wh

(20)

(i)

(20)

-th

Ackema and Neelman (2004)(i) These are not kids who are getting theirsecond chance. This is a school for kids who*

are on their I-don’t-know-how-many chance.

36<https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-orl
eans-school_us_583e3b29e4b0ae0e7cdac9a3>
JSPS

6

18K12359

18FD014
Guimarães (2004)

Kluck (2011)1

Ackema, Peter and Ad Neelman (2004) Beyond

2

par-MergeMorphology: Interface Conditions on Word

(9)
Par0

par-Merge

Formation,

CP

par-Merge“The Lexical Integrity Principle,” NaturaldeLanguage

par-Merge

andLinguistic

Theory13,181-254.

Kluck
3

Press,

Bresnan, Joan and Sam A. Mchombo (1995)

ParP(2011)

University

Oxford.

par-Merge

Vries (2012)

OxfordGuimarães, Maximiliano (2004) Derivation and

Griffiths (2015)

Representation of Syntactic Amalgams,(null argument)

Doctoral160

dissertation,

UniversityofStudies in Comparative Germanic Syntax,

Maryland.

ed. by C. Jan-Wouter Zwart and Werner

Griffiths, James (2015) “Parenthetical Verb
Constructions, Fragment Answers, andAbraham,

Constituent

Amsterdam.

Modification,”

Language

andLinguistic

NaturalTheory33,295-321,

John(2014) Wh

191-229.
Grosu,,

Alexandru(2010)

“On

the

64

Pre-Theoretical Notion Phrasal Head,”(2016) WH

Properties, ed. by Anna Maria, Di Sciullo( )and Virginia Hill, 151-190, John Benjamins,

126‒130,

,
,

,

.

Peterson, Peter (1999) “On the Boundaries of

Amsterdam.

Syntax,” The Clause in English, ed. byHaspelmath, Martin (1997) Indefinite Pronouns,

Peter Collins and David Lee, 229-250, John

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Huddleston, Rodney D. and Geoffrey K. Pullum

Postal, Paul M. (1969) “Anaphoric Islands,”(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the

CLS 5, 205-239.

English Language, Cambridge University

Ross, John Robert (1969) “Guess Who?” CLS 5,

Press, Cambridge.
Kyle, 87-94,.

Edges, Heads, and Projections: Interface

Johnson,Benjamins,(2014)“Recoverability

252-286.

of[Reprinted

inSluicing:

Deletion,” Identity Relations in Grammar,

Cross-Linguistic Perspectives, ed. by Jason

ed. by Kuniya Nasukawa and Henk van

Merchant and Andrew Simpson, 2012,

Riemsdijk, 255-288, Mouton de Guryter,

14-39, Oxford University Press, Oxford.]

Berlin.
Kaltenböck,

Uriagereka, Juan (1999) “Multiple Spell-Out,”
Cunther

Parenthetical(2007)

Clausesin“SpokenEnglish:Working Minimalism, ed. by Samuel D.

A

Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 251-281,

Taxonomy,” Parentheticals, ed. by Nicole

MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

Dehé and Yordanka Kavalova, 25-52, John

Vries,

Benjamins, Amsterdam.
dissertation,(2012)“Unconventional

University

by Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria and Vidal

of

Valmala, 143-166, Oxford University Press,

Groningen.

Oxford.

Lakoff, George (1974) “Syntactic Amalgams,”

Williams, Edwin (1981) “On the Notions

CLS 10, 321-344.

‘Lexically Related’ and ‘Head of a Word’,”

Lobeck, Ann (1995) Ellipsis: Functional Heads,
Licensing,deMergers,” Ways of Structure Building, ed.

Kluck, Marlies (2011) Sentence Amalgamation,
Doctoral

Mark

and

Identification,

Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245-274.

OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.
Merchant, Jason (2001) The Syntax of Silence:

Corpus of Contemporary American English

Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Merchant, Jason (2002) “Swiping in Germanic,”

161(COCA)

(2) a. Our*sonshouldapologize

after

embarrassing himself.
b.* Mary thought that our son should

The Phase-Based Analysis of Control

apologize after embarrassing herself.
Etsuro Shima
Tohoku University(2a)
our son, PRO,

PRO

(2a)

(2b)

our son

PRO

(2b)
1.
Manzini (1983),

Chomsky (2000, 2001)
Landau (2001)
PRO(3) a. We thought that to expose herself would
help Mary.
b. We thought that to expose ourselves
would help Mary.

2.
PRO
(3a)
Mary

PRO

(3b)

PRO

We

PRO

(1) a. John hated to nominate himself.
b.* Mary

realizedthat John hated toPROnominate herself.
(1a)
John

PRO

John

PRO

himself
(1a)

(1b)
John
John

PRO
PRO

herself

(1b)

162

(5a)

PP

vP
vP

Hornstein (1999, 2003)
Hornstein
(5a)

(5b)

(5b)

3.

(5a)

PP

our sonHornstein (1999, 2003)

vP

(5a)

(5b)
(1a,b)

vP(5c)(4a,b)

PP

(5c)
T

TP

TP

our son

(5d)

(5d)

Phonetic Form (PF)(4) a. [TP John1 [vP t1 hated [TP t1 to [vP t1
nominate himself ]]]]
b. [TP Mary1 [vP t1 realized that [TP John2 [vPTP

our sonTP

our sonC2

t2 hated [TP t1 to [vP t1 nominate

1
our sonherself ]]]]]]
(2a)
(4a)

John

(2b)

vP
(6)

TP
vP

TP
(6) [vP v0 thought that [TP our son2 should [vP [vPJohnnominate

t2 apologize] [PP after [TP Mary to nominate

hate

herself ]]]]]
A
(4b)

Mary

(2b)

John

(6)

Mary

vP
PP

(4b)

(1b)
(2a)

(2b)

(5) a. [PP after [TP our son embarrassing(3)

himself ]](7)0[vP v [VP apologize]]b. [vP our son v0 [VP apologize]](7) a. [CP C [TP Mary1 to [vP t1 to expose

c. [vP [vP our son apologize] [PP after [TP ourherself ]]]V = help

son embarrassing himself ]]]b. [VP help Mary]d. [TP our son1 should [vP [vP t1 apologize][PP after [TP our son embarrassingc. [vP [CP Mary1 to [vP t1 to expose herself ]]v0 [VP help Mary]]himself ]]]]

163

d. [TP we1 [vP t1 thought that [CP Mary1 to [vP
t1 to expose herself]] would help Mary ]]
pro
(7a)

CP

2
X

help

Y
2

CP
Mary

Mary

help

(7b)
VP

v

vP

CP

(7a)
(1b)

(7c)
vP

(1b)

would

TP

TP

(4b)

Mary

CP
pro

(7d)
PF

CP

(10)

Mary

(3a)
(10) [TP Mary realized that [TP John hated [TP pro

(3b)
(3b)

(8)

to nominate herself ]]](8) [vP we1 v0 thought that [CP t1 to [vP t1 to expose

(10)

pro

(1b)

ourselves]] would help Mary ]
(8)

we

Mary

Boeckx,vP
Hornstein and Nunes (2010: 205-206)

CP(3b)Hornstein(11) a. Parsers move from left to right andproproject(3b) (9)structure

rapidlyanddeterministically on the basis of local
information.

(9) [TP we thought that [TP pro to expose

b. Parsers are transparent with respect toourselves] would help Mary]grammars. So, if grammars encode a
(9)

pro

condition, parsers respect it.

we
(3b)

(12) a. A parser prefers to treat a potential gap

we

as a copy/trace rather than a pro if it can.
b. A parser likes to assign interpretations to

Hornstein

empty categories very quickly.
A

164

(12a)

(11a)

(13b)

(13b) (13a)(14) a. John said/shouted(11b)

to behaveoneself.
b.* John1 said/shouted [t1 to behave2

oneself].
c. John said/shouted to Marytobehave herself.
(12a)
gap

(14a)

oneself

procopy/trace(12b)

said/shouted
Mary

(11a)

(14c)
herself(11-12)

(13a)

(14a)

to

(11-12)

(13b)
(13c)

Mary

(14a)

2

(14a)
(15)

(13) a. Mary realized that John hatedto(15) a. John said/shouted [PP P pro1] [pro1 tobehave oneself].

nominate himself.

b.*John1 said/shouted [PP P pro] [t1 tob. Mary realized that John1 hated t1 tonominate himself.

behave oneself].

c.*Mary1 realized that John hated pro1 to(15a,b)nominate himself.

pro
(13b)

(15a)
to

copy/trace

(13c)
(13b)

(15b)

1
copy/trace

John

John
John1 seemed to Mary t1 to be happy.

(13c)
pro
Mary

(12)
2

(15b)
(15b)

165

(14a)

(15a)

4.

(11-12)(14a)CP(16) * Mary’s colleagues hated

to nominatevP

Chomsky (2000, 2001)

PRO
(18)

herself.
(16)

hate(18) PROherself

Logical Form (LF)

(16)
PRO

Mary

PRO

(16)

PRO

(17)
LF
(17) a. [CP C [TP Mary1 to [vP t1 to nominatePRO

herself ]]]N = colleagues
b. [NP Mary’s colleagues]c. [vP [NP Mary’s colleagues] v0 [VP hate [CPPRO

Mary1 to [vP t1 to nominate herself ]]]]
d. [NP Mary’s colleagues] hated [CP Mary1 to(19)[vP t1 to nominate herself ]]
(17a)

(19)

CP

colleagues

CP

CP

Mary

vP

Mary

colleagues
NP

CP

(17b)

(18)

vP
(17c)

vP
TP

T

TP

NP

(20a)

PF
CP

(17d)

(19)

(20b)

Mary
(20) a. John hated to nominate himself.

(17d)
Mary

herselfb. [vP John v [VP hate [CP Op C [TP PRO1 to[vP t1 v [VP nominate himself ]]]]]]

(17)
vP
PRO

PRO

hate
Op

166

(20b)
CP
(19)

(20b)

(22) a. Our

PRO
VP

(18)

b.

CP

Op

apologizeafter[CP C [TP our son1 should [vP [vP t1 v [VPapologize] [CP after [TP PRO2 [T´ –ingOp

[vP t2 v [VP embarrass himself ]]]]]]]]]LF

CP

λx. [x nominate himself]

(22b)

CP

Lebeaux (1984, 1985),
Clark (1990)

shouldembarrassing himself.

CP TP vP
PRO

son

CP

our son

hate

vP

vP

TP

(19)

(22b)

PRO

John

CP

Chierchia (1989)

(20a)

PRO

TP vP

TP

John

vP

(18)
PRO

PRO

PRO

our sonour son(1b) (16)(14a)PRO(21) a. John said/shouted

to behave(23a)oneself.
b. [vP John v [VP [PP P pro] [v´ say/shout [CPOp C [TP PRO1 to [vP t1 v [VP behave(23) a.* Mary thought that our son should

oneself ]]]]]]]

apologize after embarrassing herself.
(21a)

(21b)

b. [CP C [TP our son1 should [vP [vP t1 v [VPPRO

apologize] [CP after [TP PRO2 [T´ –ing [vPVP

t2 v [VP embarrass herself ]]]]]]]]]

say/shout
PRO
Op

CP

(23a)

(23b)

LF
say/shout

PRO
CP

PRO

λx. [x behave oneself]

our sonPRO

our sonLF
herself

(22a)

(23a)

(24a)

(22b)

(24b)

167

(24) a. We

thoughtthattoexposeBoeckx, Cedric, Norbert Hornstein and Jairo

herself/ourselves would help Mary.

Nunes

b. [CP that [TP [CP C [TP PRO1 to [vP t1 v [VP

Controlas

Movement,

Cambridge University Press, New York.

expose herself/ourselves ]]]]2 would

Chierchia,[vP t2 v [VP help Mary]]]]c.

(2010)

Gennaro(1989)“Structured

Meanings, Thematic Roles and Control,”[CP We thought [CP that [TP [CP C [TPexposeProperties, Types and Meanings II, ed. byherself/ourselves ]]]]2 would [vP t2 v [VP

Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara Partee andhelp Mary]]]]]

Raymond Turner, 131-166, Kluwer Academic

to

PRO1

[vP

t1 v

[VP

Publishers, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

(24b)
vP

TP

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

(19)

(24b)

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik,CPed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels andPRO
TP

CP TP vP

Juan

vP

Cambridge, MA.

89-155,

MIT

Press,

Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”PRO

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by

(18)
LF

Uriagereka,

MichaelPRO

Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,

Cambridge, MA.
(24c)

Clark, Robin (1990) Thematic Theory in Syntax

LF

and Interpretation, Routledge, London.

PRO
Mary

Hornstein, Norbert (1999) “Movement andWe

Control,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69-96.
Hornstein,

Norbert(2003)“On

Control,”

Minimalist Syntax, ed. by Randall Hendrick,5.

6-81, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Landau, Idan (2001) “Control and Extrapostion:
The Case of Super-Equi,” Natural Language

Hornsteinand Linguistic Theory 19, 109-152.

(1999, 2003)

Lebeaux, David (1984) “Anaphoric Binding andthe Definition of PRO,” NELS 14, 253-274.

PRO

Lebeaux, David (1985) “Locality and Anaphoric
Binding,” The Linguistic Review 4, 343-363.

*(C)

Manzini, M. Rita (1983) “On Control and

17K02803

Control Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry 14,
421-446.

168

the interfaces;b.

Syntactic Object (SO) = {XP,YP}
needs to be modified to be labeled.

This analysis of coordinate structure is not

Spelling Out the Spell-Out of an XP-YP
Structure: A Case of Coordinate Structure*

without problems. Theoretically, although alabel is taken as a necessary condition for

Kayono Shiobarainterpretation, how an SO is interpreted at theTokyo Woman’s Christian University

Sensori-Motor (SM) interface is not clear. In
particular, the conjunction (Conj) is phonetically

Keywords

realized as and or a prosodic boundary (PB) in

XP-YP, coordinate structure,spell-out, syntax-prosody interface

English, but the system of phonetic realizationof Conj is not formulated. Having said these, theaim of this paper is to (i) reexamine theexamples of English and Japanese coordinate

1. Introduction
Much work has been done on the syntax andstructure with focus on their phonologicalsemantics of coordinate structure. For example,

properties; and (ii) spell out the spell-out of

Munn (1993) analyzed the whole coordinate

coordinate

structure as a projection of a coordinator (ConjP).

component.

structureinthephonological

In more recent years, Chomsky (2013: 45-47)
takes coordinate structure as an instance of2.

Examples of Coordination in English and

XP-YP structures, and analyzes its derivation as

Japanese
Let us first look at coordination with twoin (1):

conjuncts in English (3) and Japanese (4):(1) a.
b.

[

[

Conj

[	
  XP

YP]]]

XP [

Conj

[	
  XP

YP]]]

(3) a.
b.

[John] and [Mary] went to the movies.
John always [pushes the table] and[makes the vase fall].

The underlying structure of coordination (XPand YP) is (1a), capturing the semanticc.

symmetry of coordination. To label β, one of XP(4) a.

[What] and [when] did you eat?
[Tatu] to/,[Minami] (to)-ga,

or YP must raise, say XP, yielding (1b). Then, βTM

receives the label of YP. Due to minimal search,eiga-oγ receives the label of XP. It follows that Conj

movie-Acc. went.to.watch

and the construction α that it heads are not‘T and M went to watch a movie.’b.

toto-Nom.

miniitta.

Tatu-wa

itsumo[teebru-o

visible for determining the structure) (Chomsky

T-Top.

alwaystable-Acc(2013: 46, fn.40)). The underlying assumptionsosi]-(te),[kabin-ootosu].

behind the derivation depicted in (1) are:push-tevase-Acc.

dropavailable as a label (but Conj must still be‘T always pushes the table and drops(2) a.

the vase.’

A label is required for interpretation at

169

c.

[Nani-o], (sosite) itu

or a PB in English, and to or a PB in Japanese,tabeta-no

setting aside te and sosite in Japanese.

what-Acc. sosite when ate-Q‘What did you eat, and when?’

3. Analysis
The (a) sentences involve the coordination of

3.1. Two Structures for Coordination: Winternominals,(2018)(b),verbalphrases,and(c)interrogative phrases. In English, Conj is

Following Winter (2018), I postulate therealized as and optionally accompanied by a PB,

structures (7) and (8) for coordinate structure

whereas in Japanese Conj is realized as to or acomplexes

PB in (a), a PB with optional te in (b), and a PB

respectively:

in

English(5b)(7) [XP

[Conj

[YP

(8) a.

[XP

[Conj

b.

[XP

[YP [Conj

and

(5a),

with optional sosite in (c).
Next, let us look at what Winter (2018) calls“coordinate structure complexes”:(5) a.
b.
(6) a.

ZP]]]]ZP]]
ZP]]]

Dylan, Simon, and Garfunkel wrote
songs in the sixties.

Notice that Winter does not assume internal

Dylan and Simon and Garfunkel wrote

merge in coordinate structure, and in (8), thesongs in the sixties.

second conjunct YP is “Penultimate-Merged”??

[Minami], [Tatu], ( to/sosite)

into the structure after the first conjunct XP isM.

to/sositemerged.

T.

[Kazu]-ga, siai-de
K-Nom.

tatakatta.
3.2.

competition-at competed

Derivation

andSpell-Outinthe

Phonological Component‘M, T, and K competed in a

First, let me introduce the assumptions as tocompetition/competitions.’
b.

[Conj

[Minami] to [Tatu] to [Kazu] (to)-the spell-out of an SO in the phonologicalM

component:

ga

to T

to K

to-

siai-detatakatta.

Nom. competition-at

competed(9) Assumptions specifically for coordinationa.

‘M, T, and K competed in a

Conj determines a phase boundary.
(cf. Miwa (2014))

competition/competitions.’b.

Conj determines a phonologicalAccording to Winter (2018), distributive andphrase (Φ) boundary. (cf. Dobashi

collective readings are available in (5a), and in(2017a,b))(5b), in addition to distributive and collective(10) General assumptions for spell-out

readings, a subgroup reading (i.e. ‘one artista.

Head position is determined

wrote songs by himself while the other two

phonologically upon spell-out. (cf.

wrote songs together’) is also available. In the

Nespor et al. (2008), Tokizaki (2011))

Japanese counterparts, all three readings areb.

A complement PO receives prosodic

available in both (6a) and (6b). In the following

prominence in each Φ in the unmarked

section, we will focus on coordination with andcase. (cf. Cinque (1993))

170

Based on these assumptions, SOs in (7) and (8)(14) PO) = < POXP, POYP > must be modified inare spelled out as in (11) and (12) below,

order to determine prosodic prominence.

respectively. Note that (8) can be spelled out intwo different ways depending on the timing ofThis condition works to modify the PO in (12b)spell-out of XP-ZP and Penultimate Merge of YP.

into (12a), inserting a PB between POXP and(A phonological phrase is indicated by ) below.)

POYP,

whereby

POXP

and

POYP

receiveprominence in their own prosodic domain.
(11) [)

POXP ](12) a.

[)b.

[) and POYP ]Alternatively, it may be supposed that the[) and POZP ]POXP ] [) and POZP ] →condition requires that the derivation of (8)[) POXP ] [ POYP ] [) and POZP ]follow the course of (12a) from the beginning,(spell-out before Penultimate Merge) ornot (12b).

[) POXP POYP]

Turning back to (13), now we understand that[) and POZP ](penultimate merge before spell-out)whatlabelling

the

XP-YP

structureforinterpretation means at the SM interface isThus, in (11) and (12a), it is predicted that there

determining the pattern of prosodic prominence.

should be a prosodic boundary (PB) between all

In other words, to modify the XP-YP structure in

conjuncts, whereas in (12b) it is predicted that(1a) into (1b) is an operation that obviates thethere should be no PB between XP and YP. The

POXP-POYP sequence before it happens.1 Once it

observational fact is that there is (or can be, at

happens, the phonological condition in (14)least) a PB between XP and YP in the case likeworks to insert PB between POXP and POYP. It(7) (Dobashi (2017a: 16)), which is consistentseems that in satisfying the condition in (14), thewith the analysis in (11), whereas there should

principle of minimal computation works here tooccur a PB between XP and YP in (8b), whichchoose covert PB over any other overt

raises a problem for the analysis depicted incoordinator (Chomsky (2013: 41)).

(12b) (though not for (12a)).

Now let us look at how the present analysis

Going back to the simpler case of coordinate

applies to the derivation of coordinate structure

structure of SO = {XP, YP} like (1) with thein Japanese. Since subgroup readings areconcrete example (3a), it should be wrongly

available in Japanese coordinate structure

spelled out as in (13) at the point where Conj iscomplexes (see sec.2), the structure should bemerged (i.e. (1a)), where the coordinator andthe same as (7), and based on the assumptions inprecedes, not follows the first conjunct XP:(9) and (10), it should be spelled out as in (15):(13) [)(15) [) POXP (to)] [) POYP (to)] [) POZPand POXP POYP](to)-ga]
At this point, let us focus on the fact that the
problematic cases in (12b) and (13) contain theThis is consistent with the observational fact thatphonological XP-YP sequence, i.e. PO = <POXP,

there is (or can be, at least) a PB at the left edge

POYP>, and propose the phonological conditionofin (14):summarizes the syntax and phonology of

each

conjunctinJapanese.

coordination in English and Japanese:

171

Table

1

EnglishandPhonetic
realization ofConj

4.2. Presence or Absence of Coordinators
The next issue has to do with the fact that insyntaxJapanese, (i) it is natural to have only a pause

phonology

Coordinate
structurecomplexes

Japaneseto or PB

(7) or (8)(7)(PB) between conjuncts and (ii) it is possible torepeat Conj to after the last conjunct, neither of(cf. (1))(11) or (12)which is allowed in English.

(15)

For the first matter, the principle of minimal
computation seems to work to choose a PB over(head-initial) (head-final)

an overt coordinator in Japanese. English is anintonation language and an overt conjunct

Table 1: Summary: coordination in English andnormally gets deaccented and functions the same

Japanese

way as a PB.
In this connection, and for the second matter,

We saw that the coordinator and in English andthe coordinator to and a PB in Japanese are

it

is

worth

pointing

out

that

Japanesephonetic realizations of the syntactic category

coordination has commonalities with that inConj, whereas a PB in English is inserted after

Nunggubuyu (Australian) in that (i) they employ

spell-out by the phonological condition in (14).

intrinsic coordinators (16), they do not need an

This is consistent with the fact that English is an

overt coordinator (17a), and (iii) they can repeat

intonation language and its prosody is morea coordinator at the edge (17b) in multiple

mobile than that of Japanese, a language withcoordination (Kubo (2017)):lexically determined pitch-accents.
(16) Coordination with two conjuncts in
Nunggubuyu (Kubo (2017: 48))

4. Remaining Issues
4.1. Intrinsic Coordinator and Inheritinga.

mari NP mari NP

Coordinatorb.

ŋa VP ŋa VP(17) Coordination with multiple conjuncts in

The first remaining issue has to do with the

Nunggubuyu (Kubo (2017: 49))

Japanese example we saw in (4). We noted that
the Conj to coordinates nominals and the Conj te,

a.

NP

NP

NP…

predicates. That is to say, the selection of Conj isb.

mari NP mari NP mari NP…

sensitive to the syntactic category of conjuncts.
In order to capture a fact like this, Winter (2018),

Kubo (2017) analyzes this language from thefollowing Zhang’s (2010) analysis of Chinese

viewpoint of evolution and takes it as ancoordination, and contra Chomsky (2013),

example of “living fossil” with non-hierarchicalassumes

intrinsic

structure. Although there is enough evidence

categorical features (e.g. Japanese, Chinese) asthat suggests Japanese should have hierarchicalwell as coordinators which inherit categoricalstructure for coordination and in general, thesefeatures from their external conjunct (e.g.

commonalities

betweenJapanese’andEnglish) do label the coordinate structure. We

Nunggubuyu’s

coordination

seem

worth

can assume the same for the present analysis of

exploring from an evolutional linguistic point ofEnglish and Japanese coordination.

view.

that

coordinators

with

172

4.3. Other Types of Coordinators

own.

Yet another remaining issue has to do withNOTES

the Japanese example we saw in (3c): Japanese

1. Takaomi Kato pointed out that the PO in

employs yet another coordinator sosite. I argue(13) can be modified by the condition in (14),that this example cannot be treated along the line

deriving “[) and POXP][) POYP].” This suggestsofisthat we need to distinguish between the two

prosodically different from other coordinators tocases where the condition (14) works afteror te in that it constitutes a prosodic unit with thespell-out (e.g. (12b) modified to (12a)) andfollowing element, and it is used in clausal

before spell-out as a look-ahead condition (e.g.

coordination as well (Kasai (2016)). I leave(1)). This makes a big loose end of the present

further analysis of sosite for future research.

analysis, which, however, I cannot pursue

thecurrent

analysissincesositefurther at this point.

5. Conclusion
This paper analyzed coordination in English
and Japanese as an instance of general XP-YP

Chomsky,

structures, with focus on their phonologicalstructureforinterpretationofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.

properties. My main claim is that labelling theXP-YP

REFERENCES
Noam (2013) “Problems

Cinque, Guglielmo (1993) “A Null Theory ofmeans

Phrase and Compound Stress,” Linguistic

determining the pattern of prosodic prominence

Inquiry 24, 239-298.

at the SM interface. This implies that syntactic

Dobashi, Yoshihito (2017a) “Labeling andmodification of the XP-YP structure should be

Phonological Phrasing,” Phonologicalan operation that obviates the phonological

Externalization 2, ed. by Hisao Tokizaki,

XP-YP sequence before it happens. In order to

1-23, Sapporo University, Sapporo.

test the adequacy of the present analysis, it

Dobashi, Yoshihito (2017b) “Syntactic Labels

should be promising to examine the relationshipand the Phonological Component,” paper

betweenpresented

theprosodyandthepossibleattheworkshop“Oninterpretations of coordinate structure complexes

Externalization: Linearization, Language

in English and Japanese in detail, and XP-YP

Variation

structures other than coordination, which I haveInterface,” in the 32nd meeting of Sophia

just started.

University

and

the

Linguistic

Syntax-Phonology
Society,

SophiaUniversity, Tokyo.
* This paper is based on the talk I gave at the

Kasai, Hironobu (2016) “Coordinated Wh-

36th annual meeting of the English Linguistic

Questions in Japanese,” Lingua 183, 126-

Society of Japan (Yokohama National University,

148.

24-25 November 2018). I am indebted to the

Kubo, Yoshihiro (2017) “Shinkagengogaku kara

audience there for thought-provoking questions

Mita Takoutouikouzou (Multiple Co-

and

and

ordination from the Biolinguistic Pers-

theoretical. Thanks also go to Chris Tancredi for

pective),” Kyushu Studies in English

stylistic suggestions. Needless to say, any

Literature 34, 41-51.

comments,

bothobservational

remaining errors or misunderstandings are my

Miwa, Kenta (2014) “Touisetsuzokuku ni okeru

173Raberingu no Mondai to Touikouzou
Seiyaku (Labelling Problem in Coordinate
Phrase and Coordinate Structure
Constraint),” Gakushuindaigaku Eibungakkaishi, 73-91, Gakushuin University,
Tokyo.
Munn, Alan (1993) Topics in the Syntax and
Semantics of Coordinate Structures,Doctoral dissertation, University of
Maryland, College Park.
Nespor, Marina, Mohinish Shukla, Ruben van deVijver, Cinzia Avesani, Hanna Schraudolf
and Caterina Donati (2008) “Different
Phrasal Prominence Realization in VO andOV Languages,” Lingue e Linguaggio 7-2,
139-168.
Tokizaki, Hisao (2011) “The Nature of Linear
Information in the Morphosyntax-PF
Interface,” English Linguistics 28, 227-257.
Winter, Nicholas (2018) “The Syntax of
Coordinate Structure Complexes,” WCCFL
35, 438-447.
Zhang, Niia Ning (2010) Coordination in
Syntax, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

174

typology, a number of studies have pointed tocontradictory evidence, such as the fact that
English, a satellite-framed language, contains
path verbs like enter, and therefore can also
Proposal of a Hierarchy for

produce verb-framed expressions. However, it isManner Salience Affecting

generally accepted that though many languages

Motion-Framing Choices in English:

allow both satellite and verb-framed expressions

At What Point Did I Make This Weird?

to some extent, and thus there has been muchdebate about what factors influence event

Ryan Spring

conflation (e.g. Beavers, Levin and Tham, 2010;

Tohoku Universityetc.). However, while many studies focus on the
resources and factors influencing where and how

Keywords：motion events, cognitive linguistics,

to conflate path (Beavers et al., 2010; Imbert,

typology, manner verbs

2012; etc.), this study argues that the quality ofthemannerofmotion may alsobeaconfounding factor.
1. Introduction
Talmy (1985) introduced the idea that two

2. Confounding Factors in Motion Event

events could be conflated and thought of as one

Conflation

single macro-event. By far, the most studied

A number of studies have shown that English

example of this type of conflation is motion

does indeed tend to favor satellite-framing

events, in which the path and manner of an(Slobin, 2004; Spring & Horie, 2013; etc.), but

object in motion are encoded into a single

the exact reasons for this are still a mystery.

expression, as in (1), wherein both the pathThough Talmy (2000) seems to suggest that the(entering the room) and manner (running) of

choices were linked to cognitive factors (i.e.

motion are expressed in one sentence.

focus), Beavers et al. (2010) argue that thetendency for speakers of a particular language tofavor one type of framing over another could be(1) Jack ran into the room.

explained by available lexical resources and ease
Talmy (1991) suggested that a linguisticof processing. For example, they claim thattypology was possible depending on where each

Japanese speakers note the manner of motion

type of information was generally encoded. Forless often than English speakers because of what

example, Talmy (1991) called English a

expressions are allowed in the two languages

satellite-framed language because generally inand the processing difficulty of each. First, theyEnglish, the manner of motion is encoded in thearguemain verb of a sentence (e.g. ran), and the pathsatellite-framed expressions because manner ofof motion is encoded in a satellite (such as a

motion verbs are often not able to combine withparticle or preposition; e.g. into) as in (1).

particles, as illustrated by (2a, b). They continue

However, since the introduction of his initial

to say that Japanese speakers are then less likely

theory of event conflation and corresponding

to encode the manner of motion because to do so

175

that

Japanesespeakers

use

fewer

would require them to use more syntacticallydegree to which they choose satellite-framing tocomplex sentences, such as (2c). Furthermore,

describe videos or pictures depicting motion

Beavers et al. (2010) argue that English speakers

events (Brown, 2015; Hendriks & Hickmann,

encode the manner of motion more commonly

2015; Slobin, 2004; Spring & Horie, 2013; etc.).

than

(i)

While part of the reason for these discrepancies

satellite-framed expressions are not as limited as

may be due to variance in sample sizes, it should

they are in Japanese, and (ii) adding manner of

not go unnoticed that the materials used to test

motion information to them does not add tonative speakers in these conditions were

processing difficulty, since expressions such as

different, from original videos (Spring & Horie,(2d) are no more syntactically complex than (2e).

2013) to wordless picture books (Slobin, 2004)

However, this ignores the fact that English also

and highly stylized cartoons (Brown, 2015).

allows verb-framed expressions such as (2f),Some studies have noted that there is even

which

(and

variance in English speaker conflation methods

usedfor individual motion events (Brown, 2015;

preferentially by native English speakers (Spring

Spring & Horie, 2013). However, it is not clear& Ono, 2014; Slobin, 2004; etc.). Spring andwhy this occurs.

Japanesearesemantically)even

speakers

lessbecausesyntacticallydifficult, and

yet

not

Ono (2014) argued this point, and showed that

Some papers argue that since path israther than ease of processing, native English

considered to be the main event in motion

speakers seemed to be more influenced by which

expressions, it is therefore likely to be the mostframing type they encountered more from a

influential factor on framing choices andyounger age, a notion also suggested by (Choi,

therefore warrants more attention (Imbert, 2012;2011).

Talmy, 2009). Many such works point to the factthat the boundedness of the path can influenceeki

ni itta.

framing choices made by native speakers of

Nom station

Dat wentromance languages such as French (Hendriks &(2) a. John ga

Hickmann, 2015; etc.) and other verb-framed‘John went to the station’b. *John ga

eki

ni

languages such as Japanese (Beavers et al.,hashitta.

2010). However, this paper takes the stance that

Nom station Dat ran

manner is equally important, as conflated motion‘John ran to the station.’ni itta.

expressions must contain both, and speakers of

Nom run.and station Dat went

satellite-framed languages such as English tendc. John ga hashitte,eki‘John ran and went to the station.’

to focus more on the manner of motion (Talmy,d. John went into the room.

1991; Slobin, 2004; etc.). Specifically, this papere. John ran into the room.

hopes to investigate whether the type andf. John entered the room.

noticeability of the manner of motion (mannersalience) might also affect English native

Furthermore, recent studies applying Talmy’s

speaker’s conflation patterns. As pointed out by(1985) typology to SLA have found that native

many works such as Slobin (2004) and Brown

speakers do not always make the same choices,(2015), speakers of satellite-framed languages

and English speakers also show a highly variable

tend to notice and encode the manner of motion176more often than speakers of verb-framed

3. Experimentation

languages, and thus many studies looking at

I surveyed 39 native English speakers (34motion event typology focus on whether or notfrom U.S. / Canada, 4 from the UK, and 1 fromspeakers made any note of the manner of motion

Australia) and asked them to conduct anor simply didn’t express it at all (e.g. Brown,

acceptability test of a number of sentences in

2015; Slobin, 2004; Spring & Horie, 2013).

English, on a 4 point scale (acceptable = 3,

However, it would seem that some types of

strange = 2, very strange = 1, unacceptable = 0)

manner of motion are more salient than others,

following common linguistic studies on event

which would make them more likely to beconflation. Each sentence contained one of theencoded than ignored. For example, somefive verb types: non-volition (caused motion),studies have noted that caused motion isagentive, speed, deictic, and path. With theconflated differently and more frequently than

exception of sentences containing path verbs,

other types of motion (Fukui, 2013; etc.). Spring

sentences conflated the path into a particle and& Horie (2013) also noted that there is athen one type of manner into the main verb andpossibility that since deictic information can be

another separate type of manner outside of theconflated on the main verb in English in themain verb. The scores of sentences with the twosame ways as other manners of motion, theretypes of manner in question conflated alternately

appears to be some competition as to which toin and outside of the main verb were thenencode in the main verb when both deictic

compared. For example, when comparing deictic

manner and other manner types are shown in themanner (coming towards the speaker) andsame video. Thus, it is possible that theagentive manner (running), the scores of thedifference in framing choices in native English

sentences ‘He ran in the room towards me’ andspeakers observed in various previous studies‘He came in the room, running’ were compared.

could be due, in part, to the fact that the manner

Sentences with the path conflated into the mainofdifferent.

verb and each type of manner conflated outside

Furthermore, it also begs the question, whichof the main verb (e.g. ‘He entered the room,

types of manner are more salient, and whichrunning’) were also scored and compared to

types of manner will be more likely to beother sentences. Sentences with only one type of

encoded in the main verb? As there are not many

manner of motion, conflated in the main verb,

other studies that look specifically at the salienceand the path of motion conflated in a satelliteof manner as an influential factor in English(e.g. ‘He ran into the room’) were also

motion-framing choices, this study seeks toconsidered, as were sentences with only the pathinvestigate:conflated in the main verb with no manner of(i) To what degree does manner saliencemotion information included at all (e.g. ‘He(specifically type of manner) influence English

entered the room’). Two types of path, entering

native speaker motion-framing?

(boundary-crossing)(ii) Does manner salience determine the(non-boundary-crossing) were considered, butpreference given to the main-verb position inno significant differences were found between

motion expressions?

the results in any of the sentences with these two

motionbeing

depicted

wasandascendingtypes of path, so the answers were combined in177the final results. The resulting sentence types aresentences with one type of manner conflated insummarized in Table 1.

the main verb over another type was considered
to be evidence that it draws more focus, and is

EncodedConflated on Conflated

thus more salient. For example, to determine

information

main verb

outside of thewhether agentive manner or deictic manner was

main verb

more salient, the ratings of sentences such as

non-volitionJohnpushed He‘He ran up the hill towards me’ and ‘He came

~from

him ~

John’s push

up the hill, running’ were compared, and if one

agentive

He ran ~~, runningsentence was scored significantly higher than the

speed

He hurried ~~ in a hurryother, the manner type encoded in the main verb

deictic

He came ~~ towards meof the more highly scored sentence waspathenteredtheconsidered to be more salient. Chi-square tests

room / ~upwere used to check for significance between

the hillpairs of sentences, as the data was ordinal.

/ ~intoascended

Table 1. Types of sentences considered
4. Resultscompletely

The results of the native English speakeracceptable by all participants received an

acceptability test are represented in Table 2,

average score of 3, and sentences that were rated

below. It indicates that sentences with thecompletely unacceptable by all participantsmanner of motion conflated into the main verb

would receive an average score of 0. Sentences

and the path of motion conflated outside of thethat received an average score higher than 2.5

verb, with no other manner conflated into thewere considered to be generally acceptable,sentence, were all rated as perfectly acceptablesentences scored between 2 and 2.5 wereby all participants. Furthermore, though notconsidered to be strange (but acceptable) andreported in Table 2, all sentences with only thesentences scored between 1 and 2 were

path of motion conflated in the main verb, andconsidered to be very strange (but still

no manner conflated in the sentence at all (‘Heacceptable), and sentences scored lower than 1

entered the room’ and ‘He ascended the hill’)

were considered to be unacceptable.

were also all rated as perfectly acceptable by all

Sentences

The

that

strength

were

of

rated

mannersalience

participants, earning each sentence of this typewasan average score of 3.

determined by comparing the average scores ofpairs of sentences in which different types ofmanner were conflated respectively into andoutside of the main verb, with the path being
conflated outside of the main verb. Since theinformation encoded on the main verb is argued
to be focused on (Talmy, 1985; 1991; Slobin,
2004; etc.) and therefore more salient in the
speakers’ mind, significant higher ratings for178

priority to this slot than path information (χ2(3,In main verb
2.6

2.9

3

78) = 10.57, p=0.005 and χ2(3, 78) = 50.34,

Agentive

2.4

X

2.9

2.9

3

p<0.001, respectively). This indicates that native

Speed

1.4

2.3

X

3

3

speakers are most likely to conflate verbs of

Deictic

1.6

2.2

2.8

X

3

non-volition in the main verb, followed by

Path

1.7

2.5

2.5

2.3

X

agentive, then speed and deictic verbs andPath only

Deictic

Speedfinally path verbs, creating the following basic
Agentive

Non-volition

2.8

main verb

X

Outside ofNon-volition

hierarchy:
non-volition > agentive > speed, deictic > path

Table 2. Average scores of sentences

Sentences with only path information, encoded*Gray coloring indicates strange sentences,in the main verb, and no manner of motion

black coloring indicates very strange sentences,

information

and X indicates non-considered sentences as
they

would

resultin

information

included

were

also

rated

significantly higher than sentences in which pathbeing

was encoded in the main verb and any of the

reduplicated both in the main verb and outside

manner types was encoded outside of the mainof it

verb: vs. non-volition outside χ2(3, 78) = 111,
p<0.001, vs. agentive outside χ2(3, 78) = 41.85,

The results of Chi-square tests to see if there

p<0.001, vs speed outside χ2(3, 78) = 10.57,

was a statistically significant difference in the

p=0.005, vs. deictic outside χ2(3, 78) = 50.34,

preference of one manner type or the otherp<0.001.

revealed significant differences for all manner
types except for speed and deictic information.

5. Conclusions and Discussion

Non-volition manner was shown to most salient,

The results of this study indicate that manner

as it was significantly more highly rated when it

salience is likely a contributing factor to English

was conflated in the main verb than agentive

motion event conflation, and that certain types(χ2(3, 78) = 14.69, p=0.002), speed (χ2(3, 78) =of manner seem to be more salient than others.

11.08, p=0.004), deictic (χ2(3, 78) = 102,First, statistically significant different results

p<0.001) or path (χ2(3, 78) = 111, p<0.001)

were found, indicating that native English

information. Agentive manner was shown to be

speakers showed a clear preference for encoding

the next most salient, with it being preferred incertain manner verbs in the main verb position

the main verb when compared with speed (χ2(3,over others. Though this was not apparent when78) = 50.29, p<0.001), deictic (χ2(3, 78) = 25.09,

only one type of manner was encoded in the

p<0.001) or path (χ2(3, 78) = 41.85, p<0.001)

sentence (i.e. all sentences with only one manner

information. Speed and deictic information

type encoded in the main verb were all scoredseemed to be of relatively equal salience, as

perfectly), it became evident when native

native speakers showed no preference for either

speakers were forced to make a choice as toto appear in the main verb (χ2(3, 78) = 0.693,

which type of manner should take the main verb

p=0.41), but both were given significantly moreslot in sentences that contain multiple pieces of179manner of motion information. Second, since thementioned in Section 2. It suggest that when

information encoded in the main verb is said to

conducting studies in which native speakers

be foregrounded and most focused on (Talmy,

describe motion events, the type of the manner

1985; 2000; Slobin, 2004; etc.), it seems thatof motion seems to be an influential factor onsome manner types were more salient (i.e. drew

framing choice. Therefore, when comparing

more focus) than others. Though only two types

results within and across studies, due regardof path and five types of manner were tested, themust be given to the manner types used in the

results of Table 2 seem to show that non-volition

response stimuli, not only the path type.

is the most salient type of manner, followed by

However, it should be mentioned here that inagentive motion, then followed by speed andorder to further show how salient manner typedeictic information, which seem to be equallyactually is, more experimental studies should besalient.

conducted. For example, future studies mightSome other notable results should also be

include categorization tasks, such as those useddiscussed here. For one, it is striking that all ofin Soroli and Hickmann (2010) to see if manner

the English native speakers surveyed gave

type will influence the preference of native

perfect scores to verb-framed sentences with noEnglish speakers to prioritize categorizing

manner conflated in the sentence, but scored all

motion events with the same type of mannersentences with any manner of motion manner

together over motion events with the same typeconflated outside of the main verb and pathof path. Such results should also be tested

conflated in the main verb as at least somewhat

againststrange, resulting in significantly different scores.

languages to see if manner type influences its

This suggests that for motion events, where thesalience universally across languages.

nativespeakersofverb-framedmanner of motion is conflated (i.e. inside themain verb or outside of it) is more influential to

REFERENCES
Beavers, John, Beth Levin and Shiao W. Tham

native English speakers’ conflation preference
than where the path is conflated. When coupled(2010)

with the fact that sentences with only one type ofRevisited,” Journal of Linguistics 46,

manner conflated in the main verb and no other331-377.
Brown,

manner conflated outside of it also resulted in“The

Typology

Amanda(2015)

ofMotion“Universal

perfect scores, it becomes apparent that native

Development and L1–L2 Convergence in

speakers of English seem to prefer any manner

Bilingual Construal of Manner in Speech

information (regardless of type) to be encoded inand Gesture in Mandarin, Japanese, andthe main verb, rather than outside of it. However,English,” The Modern Language Journal

when there is competition for the main verb slot,

99 (Supplement), 66-82.
Fukui,

preference for certain manner verbs over others

Ryuta(2013)“On

Caused-Motion

can be observed, which suggests some mannerConstructions with Change-of-State Verbs,”

types are more salient than others.

Publication of the Studies in Ibaraki
Prefectural University of Health Sciences

These results could help to explain some of18, 41-44.

the conflicting results of previous studies

Hendriks, Henriette and Maya Hickmann (2015)

regarding native speaker framing preferences as180

“Finding

One’s

Path

into

480-519.

Another

Talmy, Leonard (2000) Toward a Cognitive

Language: On the Expression of Boundary
Crossing by English Learners of French,”

Semantics:

Typology

The

Concept

Structuring,

ModernLanguage

Journal99

andProcess
MITin

Press,

Cambridge, MA.

(Supplement), 14-31.
Imbert, Caroline (2012) “Path: Ways Typology

Talmy, Leonard (2009) “Main Verb Properties

Has Walked Through It,” Language andand Equipollent Framing,” Crosslinguistic

Linguistics Compass 6 (1), 236-258.

Approaches

to

the

Psychology

ofLevin, Beth (1993) English Verb Classes andLanguage: Research in the Tradition of

Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation,

Dan Isaac Slobin, ed. by Jiansheng Guo,

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Elena Lieven, Nancy Budwig, Susan

Choi, Soonja (2011) “Language-Specificity of

Ervin-Tripp, Keiko Nakamura and Şeyda

MotionEvent

ExpressionsinÖzçalışkan, 389-402, Psychology Press,

Young

New York and London.

Korean Children,” Language, Interaction
and Acquisition 2(1), 157-184.
Soroli, Efstathia and Maya Hickmann (2010)“Language and Spatial Representations in
FrenchandEnglish:Evidencefrom

Eye-Movements,” Space in Language, ed.
by Giovanna Morotta, Alessandro Lenci,
Linda Meini and Francesco Rovai, 581-600,
Editrice Testi Scientifici, Pisa, Italy.
Spring, Ryan and Kaoru Horie (2013) “How
Cognitive

Typology

Affects

SecondLanguage Acquisition: A Study of JapaneseandChineseLearnersofEnglish,”Cognitive Linguistics 24(4), 689-710.
Spring, Ryan and Naoyuki Ono (2014) “PathDoubling: Evidence for the Existence ofPrototype

Schemain

MotionEvent

Framing Choices,” Studies in Language
Sciences: Journal of the Japanese Society
for Language Sciences 13, 166-191.
Talmy, Leonard (1985) “Lexicalization Patterns:
Semantic Structure in Lexical Form,”
Language

Typology

andSyntactic

Description Vol. 3, ed. by Timothy Shopen,
36-149, CUP, Cambridge, MA.
Talmy, Leonard (1991) “Path to Realization: A
Typology of Event Conflation,” BLS 17,

181

(4) a. [On which table]j did Lee say that [onlythese books]i would she put ti tj?
b. * [On which table] j did Lee say that[these books]i she will put ti tj?
Labeling Algorithm に対する経済性条件と(cf. Koizumi (1999: 141))(5) a. [Of which article]i did [a review ti] come

抜き出し
（Economy Condition on Labeling Algorithm

out yesterday?

and Extraction）(cf. Mizuguchi (2009: 322))
b. [Of which car]i was [the driver ti]

田中 祐太（Yuta Tanaka）

awarded a prize?

名古屋大学大学院（Nagoya University）

c. * [Of which car]i did [the driver ti] cause ascandal?

(cf. Chomsky (2008: 147))

キーワード：labeling, 自由併合, 抜き出し
(2)において、間接疑問節からの抜き出しが許されるのに対して、自由関係節からの抜き
1. 導入

出しは許されない。(3)において、通常の叙

最近の極小主義の枠組みにおいては、移動

実節からの抜き出しが許されるのに対して、は(1)に示す Merge に統一され、自由に適用

it を伴う叙実節からの抜き出しは許されなされると仮定されている(以下、自由併合)。

い。(4)において、焦点要素を越える移動が許されるのに対して話題要素を越える移動(1) Merge (X, Y) = {X, Y}

は許されない。(5)において、内項主語からの抜き出しが許されるのに対して、外項主語

したがって、移動を駆動する EPP 素性や EFからの抜き出しは許されない(主語の島)。

等に頼らずに移動(抜き出し)現象に説明が
2. Chomsky (2013, 2015)

与えられなければならない。
本稿の目的は、Chomsky (2013, 2015)によChomsky (2013, 2015)は、Merge によって構って提案された Labeling Algorithm (以下、築された統語対象がインターフェイスで適LA)に修正を加え、LA に対する経済性条件

切に解釈されるにはラベルが必要であるとを提案し、(2)-(5)に示す抜き出しの対比に関して、(6)に示す 3 種類の LA を提案している。

して統一的な説明を試みることである。
(6) a. {α H, XP}(2) a. ? [To whom]i did you know what John
sent ti?

(α = H)b. {XPi, {α ti, YP}}

(α = YP)c. {α XP[F], YP[F]}(α = <F, F>)

b. * [To whom]i did you destroy what John
sent ti?

(6a)の主要部 H と句 XP からなる H-XP 構造(Cecchetto and Donati (2015: 99))

では、H がラベルとして決まる。2 つの句か

(3) a. (?)Whoi does John regret that he offended

らなる XP-YP 構造の場合は、(6b)のように、ti?

XP が移動することにより、XP がコピーとな

b. ??Who i does John regret it that he

り LA にとって不可視的となるので YP がラ

offended ti? (cf. Melvold (1991: 107))

ベルとなる。あるいは、(6c)のように XP と182

YP が卓立した素性を共有することにより、し、この時点では α のラベルは決まらない。

<F, F>がラベルとなる。これらを踏まえ、(8b)のように、wh 句が移動した後にもう 1

Chomsky (2015)では that 痕跡効果は(7)のよ度 LA が適用され、α のラベルは CP と決まうに説明されている。

る。この派生においてラベルを決めることに関して問題はない。しかし、α に 2 度 LA が

(7) Who do you think read the book?

適用されていることに関しては、極小主義が

a. [CP C [α who[φ]i [TP T[φ] [v*P ti [VP…]]]]]

指針とする最小計算や経済性の観点から好b. [CP C [ α who[φ]i [TP T[φ]ましいとは言えない。1 この問題を解決する]]](α = <φ, φ>)c.

ために、(9)を提案する。

whoi do you think [<φ, φ> ti T [v*P ti …]](9) LA に対する経済性条件(7a)において、埋め込み節の C 主要部が併合ある統語対象に 1 度 LA が適用されると、され、C から T にファイ素性が継承される。

その統語対象はラベル付けされたかどう

Chomsky によると、操作はフェイズレベルでかに関わらず、再び LA を受けることが適用されるので、(7b)において、転送の一部できない。

として、α のラベルはファイ素性の共有により、<φ, φ>と決まる。この時、C 削除が適用(9)の条件は 1 度 LA を受けた統語対象が再びされ、C のフェイズ性が T において活性化す

LA を受けることを禁じる条件であり、よりる。結果として、TP がフェイズとなり、T厳密に phase-level memory を捉え直したものの補部の v*P が転送される。したがって、(7c)であるが、ラベルが決まる・決まらないに関のように、wh 句は主節に移動することが可

わらず、その情報が保持されることが含意さ能となる。Chomsky はフェイズ内で決まったれる。また、(9)の提案に加えて、本稿では、情報は保持されるという趣旨の phase-level

Chomsky (2001)で提案された弱いタイプのmemory を仮定しており、たとえ、(7c)におPIC を採用する。

いて、wh 句が移動によりコピーになったとしても 1 度決まったラベルの情報は保持さ(10) Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC)
The domain of H is not accessible toれるので問題は生じない。

operations at ZP; only H and its edges are
3. 提案

accessible to such operations. (HP and ZP

Chomsky の枠組みでは、
目的語疑問文は(8)are phases.) (cf. Chomsky (2001: 14))のように派生すると考えられる。
このタイプの PIC の下では、あるフェイズの(8) What do you think that John read?

ラベル付けは次のフェイズ主要部が併合さ

a. [ α whatj [CP that [<φ, φ> Johni T [v*P ti readtj]]]]

れる時点で適用されることになる。さらに(α = ?)

Epstein, Kitahara and Seely (以下、EKS) (2016)b. whatj do you think [ α tj [CP that [<φ, φ>

に従い、架橋動詞などは R と v*の外的対併Johni T [v*P ti read tj]]]]合により、フェイズ性を失った状態で派生に(α = CP)

導入されると仮定する。
(8a)の埋め込み節が完成した時点で、フェイ(11) Phase Cancellationズである CP 全体に LA が適用される。ただ

183(cf. EKS (2016))

ファイ素性を欠いた動詞(架橋動詞・受れ る と 仮 定 す る (cf. Caponigro (2002),

動動詞・非対格動詞)は、R と v*との外Cecchetto and Donati (2015)) 。 本 稿で は 、的対併合により、フェイズ性を失った状

Cecchetto and Donati (2015)の分析を採用し、態で派生に導入される。

what が D 主要部として機能すると仮定する。

(表記上は v*と v を区別しておく)

加えて、CP と v*P と同様に DP もフェイズを構成すると仮定する。これを考慮すると間これらを踏まえ、目的語疑問文の派生は

接疑問節からの抜き出しは(14)のように派(12)のように進むと主張する。

生する。

(12) a.

(14) a.

[CP C…[β whati [vP you think [ α ti [CPthat [<φ, φ> John T read ti]]]]]] (α = CP)b.

[β [to whom]j [α whati C [<φ, φ> John
sent ti tj ]]][<Q, Q> whati do youj [ β ti [vP tj think [ CP tib.

[CP that [<φ, φ> John T read ti]]]]]][vP [to whom]j you know [β tj [α whati
C [<φ, φ> John sent ti tj ]]]]

(β = vP)c.

[CP C… [<φ, φ> youk [vP [to whom]j tk
know [ β tj [ α whati C [<φ, φ> John sent ti(12a)に示すように、α を含む埋め込み節のtj]]]]]](α, β = <Q, Q>)

CP に LA が適用されるのは主節の C 主要部が併合される時点である。この時、α に含(14a)のように、中間着地点に to whom が移動

まれる wh 句は主節の vP への移動によりコ

した時点で α と β のラベルはまだ決まらない。

ピーとなっているので、α のラベルは CP と(14b)の時点で to whom は主節の vP に移動す決まる。最終的には(12b)のように、他のラる。そして(14c)の主節の C が併合された時ベルも適切に決まる。重要なことに α のラベ点で、埋め込み節の CP に LA が適用され、αルは 1 度だけの LA によって決まる。

のラベルは素性共有により<Q, Q>と決まる。
β のラベルも to whom がコピーとなっている

4. 分析

ので<Q, Q>と決まる。

本節では前節での提案の下で、1 節で概観

一方で、自由関係節からの抜き出しの派生

した(2)-(4)の対比を説明する。

は(15)に示される。

まず(13)に再掲される間接疑問節と自由(15)

関係節からの抜き出しの対比について考察[DP whati [ β [to whom]j [ α C [<φ, φ> John
sent ti tj]]]]する。
(13) a. ? [To whom]i did you know what John(α = CP, *β = ?)to whom が中間着地点の CP に移動し、そのsent ti?

後に D 主要部(what)が併合された時点で β を

b. * [To whom]i did you destroy what John

含む CP 全体に LA が適用されるが、β のラsent ti?

ベルは決まらない。(9)の条件により 1 度 LA

(Cecchetto and Donati (2015: 99))を受けた β は再び LA を受けないので、β のラベルは未決定のままとなる。提案された分

間接疑問節の構造が CP までの構造しか持た析は、(16)に示す Bošković (2015)によって導ないのに対して、自由関係節はその名詞性にかれた一般化を自由併合を保持した形で説基づき、CP の上にさらに D 主要部が併合さ明することができる。

184

(16) フェイズが連続する配列は抜き出しに(cf. Koizumi (1999: 141))

とって島となる。
(cf. Boškovič (2015: 634))

Totsuka (2013)は Rizzi (1997)が提案する左周辺部の中でも(20)のように ForceP に当たる
最上位の CP と TopP がフェイズであると主似た配列として、regret が補部としてとる
叙実節が挙げられる。(17)に再掲されるよう張している。

に、it を伴う場合は叙実節からの抜き出しは(20) CP = [ForceP [TopP [FocP [FinP [TP…

許されない。

(cf. Totsuka (2013: 205))(17) a.(?)Whoi does John regret that he offendedti?

本稿でも(20)を仮定し、それぞれの派生をb.??Who i does John regret it that he(21)に示す。

offended ti? (cf. Melvold (1991: 107))(21) a.
it を伴わない通常の叙実節が CP 構造までし[CP C…[vP whj Lee say [ CP C (Force)[ α tj [FocP XPi Foc [TP…ti tj]]]]]](α = FocP)

か持たないのに対して、it を伴う場合は構造b.

がより複雑になっていると考えられる(cf.
Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1971))。Kiparsky and[CP C (Force) [ α whj [TopP XPi Top[TP…ti tj]]]](*α = ?)

Kiparsky の分析を援用し、この it を D 主要部と仮定する。これを考慮するとそれぞれの(21a)の焦点要素を越える移動の派生では、埋派生は(18)のように進む。

め込み節の FocP に焦点要素 XP が移動し、その FocP を中間着地点として wh 句が移動

(18) a.
b.

[CP C…[vP whati John regret [ α ti [CPする。埋め込み節の C 主要部が併合された

that … ti]]]](α = CP)

時点では、FocP はフェイズではないので α[vP regret [DP D (it) [ α whati [CP thatに LA は適用されず、wh 句が主節に移動す… ti]]]]

ることができる。主節の C 主要部が併合さ(*α = ?)

れた時点で α に LA が適用されるので、FocP(18a)のように it を伴わない場合は、α は適切と正しくラベルが決まる。一方で、(21b)ににラベルが決まるのに対して、it を伴う場合

示す話題要素を越える移動の場合は、wh 句は(18b)のように DP と CP のフェイズが連続

が中間着地点としてフェイズである TopP にするため、(15)と同様に抜き出しが許されな移動する。しかし、その直後に C が併合さいことが説明される。

れるため、α に LA が適用されるがラベルは決まらず、(9)の条件により α のラベルは未同じように(19)に再掲される焦点要素を越える移動と話題要素を越える移動の対比

決定のままとなる。

も説明される。
5. 主語の島(19) a.

[On which table] j did Lee say that

提案された分析は(22)に再掲される主語の島の対比にも拡張することができる。2[only these books]i would she put ti tj?
b. * [On which table] j did Lee say that[these books]i she will put ti tj?

(22) a.

185[Of which article]i did [a review ti]

come out yesterday?
b.

形成した DP と vP が併合する。その後、(24b,(cf. Mizuguchi (2009: 322))c)のように wh 句は vP に、DP は TP にそれ[Of which car]i was [the driver ti]

ぞれ移動する。そして(24d)において C 主要

awarded a prize?

部が併合された時点で、α に LA が適用され

c. * [Of which car] i did [the driver t i]

る。wh 句はすでに α から移動しているため、

cause a scandal?

α のラベルは DP と決まる。そして(24e)のよ(cf. Chomsky (2008: 147))

うに他のすべてのラベルも適切に決まる。
(24)では、フェイズではない vP が中間着地

まず外項主語からの抜き出しは、(23)のよう点として機能している。これは、外項からのに説明される。

抜き出しであっても中間着地点として利用可能な非フェイズが加われば、外項からの抜(23) a.

[v*P [α whi [DP DP ti]] v* …]

き出しも可能になるという予測を生む。このb.

[TP [α whi [DP DP ti]]j T [v*P tj v*…]]

予測は、繰り上げ・ECM 述語の補部節の外c.

[CP C [<φ, φ> [ α whi [DP DP ti]]j T [v*P tj

項からの抜き出しが可能であるとする

v* …]]]

Chomsky (2008)の観察により支持される。

(*α = ?)

(23a)に示すように、DP はフェイズであるの(25) a.

で wh 句が DP の末端に併合された状態、す[Of which car]i is [the driver ti] likely
to cause a scandal?

なわち XP-YP 構造として、v*P と併合する。

b.

[Of which car] i did they believe

Chomsky (2015)によると、(23b)に示すように、[the driver t i ] to have caused a

C が併合される前に外項は TP に移動する。

scandal? (cf. Chomsky (2008: 153))(23c)の C 主要部が併合された時点で、DP フ
ェイズ全体に LA が適用される。この時、α繰り上げ述語の補部節の外項からの抜き出

は XP-YP 構造であるのでラベルは決まらず、しは(26)のように説明される。

(9)によりラベルは未決定のままとなる。
(26) a.

一方で内項主語からの抜き出しは、(24)のように説明される。
(24) a.

[TP whi to [v*P [α ti [DP DP ti]] v*…]]c.

[CP C [<φ, φ> [ α ti [DP DP ti]]j is likely[TP whi to [v*P tj v*…]]]]b.

[vP whi R-v [α ti [DP DP ti]]]c.

[TP [α ti [DP DP ti]]j T [vP whi R-v tj]]d.

[CP C [<φ, φ> [ α ti [DP DP ti]]j T [vP whie.

b.

[vP R-v [α whi [DP DP ti]]]

R-v tj]]][v*P [α whi [DP DP ti]] v*…]d.

(α = DP)[<Q, Q> whi C [<φ, φ> [ DP ti [DP DP ti]]j islikely [TP ti to [v*P tj v*…]]]](α = DP)v*P に外項が併合されるまでは、(23)と同じ[<Q, Q> whi C [<φ, φ> [ DP ti [DP DP ti]]j T

ように派生は進む。しかし、(26b)の時点で T[vP ti R-v tj]]]

主要部の to が併合された後に、wh 句は中間着地点として TP に移動することができる。

EKS に従い、架橋動詞と同様に非対格動詞、(26c)において外項の DP が主節の TP に移動

受動動詞も非フェイズ主要部として派生にして、C が併合された時点で、DP に LA が導入されると仮定する。まず(24a)のように、適用される。この時、wh 句はすでに移動しwh 句が DP の末端に移動し、XP-YP 構造をた後なので、α のラベルは DP と決まる。そ186

して wh 句が CP に移動した後に他のすべての節主語からの抜き出しは許されないが、節のラベルも適切に決まる。ECM 述語の補部

的動名詞主語からの抜き出しは許される。

節の外項からの抜き出しの派生も同じよう(29) [CP C [<φ, φ> [ α whoi [CP that she can…ti]]j Tに進む。

[v*P tj give her…]]](27) a.

(*α = ?)

[v*P [α whi [DP DP ti]] v*…]b.

[TP whi to [v*P [α ti [DP DP ti]] v*…]]

定形の節主語は CP であるので、wh 句が CPc.

[ v*P R-v*(believe)[ <φ, φ> [ α t i [ DP DPの末端に移動した後に、その CP が v*P と併

ti]]j tR [TP whi to [v*P tj v*…]]]]

合する。そして主節の C が併合された時点

d.
e.

(α = DP)で、節主語である CP に LA が適用される。

[ v*P wh i they R-v*(believe) [ <φ, φ>

しかし、当該の CP はラベルの決まらない[ DP ti [DP DP ti]]j tR [TP ti to [v*P tj v*…]]]]

XP-YP 構造であるため、(9)の条件により、[CP C [<φ, φ> theyk T [v*P whi tk believe

ラベルは未決定のままとなる。これに対して、[ <φ, φ> [ DP ti [DP DP ti]]j tR

Pires (2007)に従い、節的動名詞は C を欠いた]]]]

TP までの構造しか持たないと仮定する。TPまでの構造しか持たないということは、節

この派生も(27b)までは、(26)の派生と同じで的動名詞はフェイズを構成しないというこある。(27c)において、埋め込み節の TP と Rとになる。したがって、(30a)に示すように主が併合される。そして、R の指定部に埋め込

節の C が併合された時点でも、α はフェイズ

み節の外項が移動する。v*が併合された時点ではないので LA は適用されない。結果としで、α のラベルが DP と決まる。Chomskyて、(30b)のように、wh 句が移動した後の LA(2015)によると、v*から R に素性継承が適用

適用時に α のラベルは適切に TP と決まる。

され、R が v*に対併合すると RP がフェイズとなる。(27d)で wh 句が v*P に移動し、(27e)(30) a.

で主節の C が併合された時点で、フェイズ[CP C [<φ, φ> [α whoi [TP being able to…ti]]j T [v*P tj give her…]]]となった RP に LA が適用され、R の補部がb.

[<Q, Q> whoi C [<φ, φ> [ α ti [TP being able
to…ti]]j T [v*P tj give her…]]] (α = TP)

転送される。wh 句はすでに主節に移動しているため、PIC に違反しない。
6. 結語

さらに、外項がフェイズではない場合も抜き出しが許されるという別の予測が生じ

本稿では、Chomsky (2013, 2015)により提る。これは Kluender (2004)の観察により支案された LA に修正を加え、(9)に示す LA に持される。

対する経済性条件を提案した。この条件の下で、(2)-(5)に示す対比に統一的な説明を与え(28) a. * Whoi does [that she can bake ginger

た。

cookies for ti] give her great pleasure?
b.

Whoi does [being able to bake ginger

注cookies for ti] give her great pleasure?

1(cf. Kluender (2004: 117))

Chomsky (2015)では、LA がフェイズ全体に適用されるのか、あるいはフェイズ主要部の補部に適用されるのかは明言されていな

Kluender によると、(28)に示すように、定形いと思われる。もし後者であれば、経済性の187

Amsterdam.

問題は生じない。しかし、フェイズ主要部の補部に LA が適用されるならば、当該のフェEpstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara and T.

イズの最上位のラベルは次のフェイズで決Daniel Seely (2016) “Phase Cancellation

まる。そうすると、フェイズが A バー移動

by External Pair-Merge of Heads,” Theを受ける場合、ラベル未決定の統語対象がイ

Linguistic Review 33, 87-102.
Kiparsky, Paul and Carol Kiparsky (1971)

ンターフェイスに送られるという問題が生じる。

“Fact,”

ProgressinLinguistics:

A

2

Kobayashi (2013)においても、LA と(10)のCollection of Papers, ed. by Manfred

タイプの PIC に類する制約によって(22)の対Bierwisch and Karl E. Heidolph, 143-173,比が説明されている。

Mouton, The Hague.
Kluender, Robert (2004) “Are Subject Islands
Subject to a Processing Account?,” WCCFL

参考文献
Bošković, Željko (2015) “From the Complex NP
Constraint

toEverything:

Extractions

across23, 101-125.

On

Deep

Kobayashi, Keiichiro (2013) “Labeling andCategories,”

The

Problems of Extraction,” Kagaku/Ningen

Linguistic Review 32, 603-669.

42, 1-11, Kanto Gakuin University.

Caponigro, Ivano (2002) “Free Relatives as DPs

Koizumi, Masatoshi (1999) Phrase Structure in
Minimalist Syntax, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.

with a Silent D and a CP Complement,”
Proceedings of the Western Conference on

Melvold,

Linguistics 2000, 140-150.

Janis(1991)“Factivity

andDefiniteness,” MIT Working Papers in

Cecchetto, Carlo and Caterina Donati (2015)

Linguistics 15, 97-117.

(Re)labeling, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Mizuguchi, Manabu (2009) “Extraposition andChomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”

Cyclic Syntax,” English Linguistics 26,

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by

293-328.

Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,

Pires, Acrisio (2007) “The Derivation of Clausal

Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,NoamGerunds,” Syntax 10, 165-203.
(2008)“On

Phases,”Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of theFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:

Left Periphery,” Elements of Grammar:

Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud,

Handbook of Generative Syntax, ed. by

ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and

LilianeMaria L. Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT Press,

Dordrecht.

Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,

Noam
Noam

Projection:(2013)“ProblemsofKluwer,Split CP Hypothesis,” English Linguistics(2015)

30, 204-215.

“Problems

Extensions,”of

Structures,

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour
of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di
Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona
Matteini,

281-337,

Totsuka, Masashi (2013) “On Phase Head in

Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky,

Haegeman,

3-16,

John

Benjamins,

188

item to its central or prototypical meaning,
and if functional items lack the appropriate
sort of semantic variation, then CR should notoccur with functional items. This prediction is
助動詞の XX 構文へのborne out by the ungrammatical examples
below.

関連性理論によるアプローチ*Are you sick, or are are you sick?

（A Relevance Theoretic Approach to the[Auxiliary]”

XX Construction of Auxiliaries）(Ghomeshi et al. (2004:313))(3) A: I'm going to buy a new house.
B: You are are, or probably are going to buy a

時政 須美子 （Sumiko Tokimasa）
奈良女子大学 （Nara Women's University）

new house?

キーワード：XX 構文, 手続き的情報, 助動

本稿では、(3)の事実に基づいて、以下の詞, モダリティ, アスペクトことを主張する。
[1] (2)の助動詞の XX 構文は非文であるという主張に対して、機能的項目である助動詞の1. はじめにXX 構文は存在するということを示す。そのある言語表現 X を繰り返すインフォーマ

際、助動詞 BE の XX 構文にはアスペクトがルな重複型表現形式について、本稿では、関わり、法助動詞の XX 構文にはモダリティ

XX 構文と呼ぶことにする。例えば、(1)の例

が関わるということを指摘する。

文中の French French が XX 構文である。
「彼[2] 助動詞の XX 構文の解釈は、助動詞にコ

はいわゆるフランス人か、あるいはルーツもード化された手続き的情報と、時政 (2018)

生まれも育ちも、生粋のフランス人なのか」の規定する XX 構文の手続き的情報との 2 つというニュアンスの解釈が可能である。

の手続き的情報がそれぞれ同時に満たされGhomeshi et al. (2004)では、このような XXて成立する。XX 構文の手続き的情報は次の構文を contrastive focus reduplication (CR) と通りである。

呼んでいるが、(2)に示すように、XX 構文に「XX 構文の手続き的情報は、X にコード

は機能的項目は生起しないとして、Are you

化された情報と文脈に沿って、『X を単独で

sick, or are are you sick? を非文としている。

用いた場合の発話の解釈』もしくは『X』を、

しかし実際には(3)のような機能的項目としそれらとは異なる話し手の意図の方向に狭ての助動詞 BE の XX 構文の例が存在する。

め、限定して解釈することを求めるものであ(3)の B では、A に対して、本当に確実に家る。
」(時政 (2018:38))

を買おうと思っているのかどうかを確かめ[3] 助動詞の XX 構文には、「法助動詞 X のている。

モダリティの狭めを要求するもの」と「助動詞 BE を単独で用いた発話文全体の解釈の狭(1) Is he French or French French?

めを要求するもの」の 2 つのタイプがある。

(Corpus of English Contrastive Focus

同様のことが概念語の XX 構文にもいえる。

Reduplications)

例えば概念語の XX 構文 salad salad は、グリ

(2) “If the function of CR (contrastive focus

ーンレタスだけのサラダであると解釈されreduplication) is to restrict the meaning of anる。これは、概念語である salad が XX 構文

189

の手続き的情報によって狭められることに来 事がおこることを示す ( 柏 野 (1999:40),

よるものである。一方で、このような語の狭citing Bland (1996:221))。さらに、この WILL

めではなく、概念語 X を含む発話の解釈全

WILL に強勢が置かれると、の用法において、体の狭めを要求するタイプのものがある。助100 パーセントに近い確率で出来事が起こる

動詞の XX 構文と概念語のＸＸ構文にはこと解釈される(柏野 (1999: 40))。XX 構文は、のような類似性が観察されることを指摘す

第一の X に必ず強勢がかかることが特徴でる。

あるため、You will will like him.は、You will[4] 法助動詞のモダリティに関わる XX 構文

like him.の解釈をさらに確信のあるものに限は、X を単独で用いた発話文の高次表意の上

定し、I'm confident you will like him.という話

位節を強調する働きをしていることを示す。

し手の意図を伝達する。

2. XX 構文の事例(5) 助動詞 WILL②

本節では、助動詞による XX 構文が存在す

A: I don't wanna eat carrots, I 'm not gonna...
B: You will will eat your carrots.

ることを指摘し、それぞれの例がどのような解釈を受けるかを観察する。法助動詞 のWILL, CAN, MIGHT, それから助動詞 BE のインフォーマントによれば、(5)の B は You

順に事例を示す。なお、法助動詞に関する関

will will eat carrots,..or...を含意し、「絶対に食連性理論を用いた分析は 4 節で行う。

べなさい。そうしないと…」という「脅し」として機能する。この WILL は、二人称主語(4) 法助動詞 WILL①に用いられて、聞き手に対する話し手の指Devon: Well, I just got two (tickets) for, uh,

示・命令を表す (中野 (2014:131))。話し手は、

for you and me.

命令的な態度を伝達することで、聞き手によ

Lily: Oh, well, um, can you get two more?

ってその行為が確実に遂行されると確信しDevon: I don't know. Why?

ている。したがって、この WILL は話し手とLily: 'Cause I know you guys will hit it off,

聞き手の間の上下関係が明らかな場合に使われる (柏野 (1999:46))。例えば、上司と部and...

Devon: I'm not really interested in hitting it

下、親と子のような関係がこれにあたる。

off with your date.

Lily: No, no, no. No, no, no. No, you will will(6) 法助動詞 CAN

like him, and what I meant to say that's

A lot of people with CP (cerebral palsy) don't

even better is that his cousin is gonna bewalk, but my parents didn't believe in “can't”.

in town that weekend, so I said that you'd

My father's mantra was, “You can do it. Yes,

go out with her. (Young and Restless

you can can.” ...My name is Maysoon Zayid,2007) (SOAP)

and if I can can, you can can.
(NHK: E テレ「スーパープレゼンテーショ

Lily の発話である you will will like him.は、ン」2018.02.15)「間違いなく 100 パーセント、あなたは彼を気に入るわよ。
」という解釈が可能である。

女優でありコメディアンであるパレスティ

この二人称主語に用いられている WILL は、

ナ系アメリカ人が、出生時の医療ミスで障が話し手の認識的判断が加わり、高い確率で出いをもち、多くの困難を乗り越えてきたこれ

190

までのことを語っている場面である。父親の現形式のうち、進行相の助動詞の BEEN のみ

言う You can can. 及びメイスーン・ザイード

が XX 構文を形成している。XX 構文 been

自身の言う If I can can, you can can. は、You

been が、単独の X=been を用いた場合の発話

can do it.の do it を省略して、XX 構文で強調

で あ る she has been working a lot of double

したものと考えられる。インフォーマントに

shifts.の解釈全体を狭めるように要求するのよれば Nothing is impossible.と解釈される。

で、(8)における Paul の最後の発話は、「働く」
動作の継続してきた期間が for a long time で(7) 法助動詞 MIGHT

あるということ、すなわち「彼女は、たくさ

A: Can you watch my kids tonight?

んのダブルシフトをしてずっとずっと長い

B: It's possible. I might might be able to

間働いてきた」ということを伝達する。XX

watch them for you.

構文は、少ない言語情報で効率的かつ豊かに

A: That would be a big help, if you could.

話し手の意味を伝達することが可能である。
(3) 助動詞 BE②

MIGHT は「発話時点(＝現在）における話者の tentative な気持ちを表すために用いられ

A: I'm going to buy a new house.

る。ここで tentative というのは、話者が発言

B: You are are, or probably are going to buy a
new house?

内容に対して確信が持てず、何らかの条件付
きで発話している (したい) という思いを持っているということである」(中野この擬似法助動詞 BE GOING TO は、「形式(2014:85))。法助動詞 MIGHT の機能は、法助的にはアスペクト(継続・未完了)である。し動詞に続く動詞部分の叙述性を弱める (中かし、概念においては予測性を持ち、モダリ

野 (2014:86))ことである。(7)は、その MIGHT

ティを表すと考えられる」(西川 (2005:100))。

を含む XX 構文であり、話し手の確信度の度

よって、助動詞 BE の XX 構文の解釈は、ア

合いはさらに半減し、実現性がきわめて低く

スペクトとモダリティのどちらの要素も持なることを聞き手に推論させることができつと考えるべきである。
澤田 (1992:237) は、発話前から意図してる。

いたことを述べる BE GOING TO を「語用論(8) 助動詞 BE①

的に見て特殊な用法」として、「話し手が聞Paul : Gwen has money?

き手の未来の行為について言及しているこWill : Yeah, out of nowhere.

とに含意されているのは、その行為が実行さPaul : She didn't tell you where it came from?

れるかどうかを話し手が確かめる」ものであWill : No.

ると述べている。また、B の発話は形式的にPaul : Well, she has been been working a lot

はエコー疑問文である。先行発話の一部あるof double shifts.

いは全部を繰り返すエコー疑問文の働きは、(As the World Turns 2005) (SOAP)「先行発話の形式および内容を明らかにすることで、確認したり念を押したりする」

Paul の発話の BEEN は進行形助動詞である。

(東森・吉村 (2003:121))ことであり、「話し手

完了進行相の動詞は work という活動動詞で、はエコーすることによって、もとになる表示「いずれは終わる活動の持続」を表す。進行に対して自分の態度を示す」 (東森・吉村

形 been working のアスペクトの明示的な表(2003:127) citing Noh (1995:126))。擬似法助動191

詞 BE GOING TO の一部である BE のみの XXトが関わっていると考えられることである。

構文は、Ａの予測される未来の行為が実際な

WILL, CAN, MIGHT の法助動詞は、モダリテされるのか確かめたいという話し手 B の心ィに関する意味的特徴を備えていて、法助動的態度を経済的に伝達している。さらに、こ詞の XX 構文は、法助動詞 X が持つモダリの XX 構文 are are が probably are との対比で

ティ、つまり話し手の心的態度、命題的態度使用されることによって、新しい家を買うとを狭めて解釈されると考えられる。

いう行為が本当に実行されるのか不確定な

一方、助動詞 BE の XX 構文は、助動詞 BEのかを尋ねようとしている話し手の意図をという語自体のレベルの狭めではなく、助動明確に示しており、聞き手はそのことをより

詞 BE を含む発話全体の解釈を狭めて解釈す

容易に推論できる。

るようにガイドすると考えられる。例えば、(8) の助動詞 been + ing の完了進行相は、活3. 理論的前提

動動詞 work の時間的継続（未完了）の概念

本稿では、関連性理論における手続き的情を表す。XX 構文 been been は、発話全体に報についての標準的な説明に基づいて考察

関わる時間的概念の継続性を「長期間」といする。すなわち、ここでの手続き的情報とは、

う一定の方向へ狭めるようにガイドする。(3)

聞き手が行う推論処理の仕方に制約を課すでは、be going to + 原形動詞で表現されるア情報のことをいう。手続き的情報は、聞き手

スペクトは、ある時点ではまだ実現していなが、話し手によって意図された解釈にたどりいが、これから起こる事態を表す一方で、擬着くために探さなくてはいけない解釈仮説

似法助動詞としての話し手の心的態度も関の範囲を狭める働きをする。

わると考えられる。形式的には擬似法助動詞
BE GOING TO の一部の助動詞 BE のみで構成された XX 構文 are are の手続き的情報は、(9) [T]he standard relevance-theoretic account ofprocedural

meaning

expressions

astreatsprocedural

BE GOING TO を含む発話全体のアスペクト、

inferential

モダリティの両方に関わる解釈の狭め及びcomprehension process by constraining the

限定を要求する。つまり、「発話前にすでにconstruction of contexts and/or the derivation

意図され、かつ、これからゴールに向かってof cognitive effects.

起こる事態の方向性」と「実現性の確認とい

guidingthe(Wilson (2014:145))

う話し手の心的態度」を強調する方向へ狭め
4. 考察

ることになる。

2 節の事実観察をふまえて、３つのことをこのように、助動詞 X はアスペクトやモ考察する。まず第一は、法助動詞と助動 詞

ダリティに関する解釈的指示をコード化し、BE の XX 構文の違いを整理し、明確にする。

助動詞の XX 構文は、「助動詞 BE を単独で第二に、法助動詞 CAN を例に、関連性理論用いた場合の発話の解釈」あるいは「法助動

での法助動詞へのアプローチを説明する。第詞Ｘのモダリティ」を、単独の助動詞だけで三に、助動詞の XX 構文と概念語の XX 構文

は表現できない話し手の意図の方向に狭め、の解釈を対比し、その類似性を明らかにする。 限定する。そして、助動詞自体が備えている
手続き的情報と助動詞の XX 構文が備えて4.1. 法助動詞と助動詞 BEいる手続き的情報に衝突はなく、両者が同時第一は、法助動詞と助動詞 BE の XX 構文に満たされる。

の解釈には、それぞれモダリティ、アスペク

192

4.2. 法助動詞の意味確定度不十分性に、X を単独で用いた場合の発話の解釈を話

例えば、法助動詞 CAN は、能力、可能性、し手の意図に沿って狭め限定するものである(時政 (2018:38))。

許可などのいろいろな意味がコード化されていると考える多義性の議論がある一方で、関連性理論では、法助動詞の意味はきわめて【概念語 X の狭めの例】「意味確定度不十分」であって、完全な、あ(1) Is he French or French French?

るいは具体的意味は、聞き手の推論によって【概念語 X を単独で用いた発話の解釈の狭めの例】

確定するという立場に立つ。関連性理論の枠組みによる Papafragou (1998) の法助動詞の(10) [Dialogue between a married couple,

分析では、「CAN が符号化しているのは、『法

recently separated and now living apart]

助動詞を抜いた裸の命題は事実的命題領域

A1: Maybe you'd like to come in and have

中のどの命題とも両立する』というところま

some coffee?

でにすぎず、より具体的意味は、聞き手の推B1: Yeah, I'd like that.

論を通じた肉付けによって得られる」(今井A2: Just coffee coffee, no double meanings.

(2001:131)) と説明される。事実的領域とは(Ghomeshi et al. (2004:315))「現実の世界を記述したもの、つまりさまざ
まな出来事やものごとに関する一般的常識(1)の概念語 French は「いわゆるフランス人」

や、特定の時間的空間的枠内での個々の人物という一般的な解釈がなされる。それと対比や出来事に関する記述」(今井 (2001:122)) とされる形での French French という表現は、1される。このことを、(6)の法助動詞 CAN を節で示したように、単独の French とは異な例に説明すると、父からみた娘に関するこれる、単独の French では表現できない話し手

までのさまざまな経験、娘の属性に関する事の意図が込められた解釈となる。

実的命題（百科事典的知識）が、裸の命題で(10)での coffee coffee は、コーヒーらしいコ

ある you do it と矛盾しないということで、聞ーヒー、濃いめのコーヒーなどのような語そき手は CAN の意味を能力もしくはそれからのものの狭めの解釈では、話し手の意図する広がる可能性に確定していくことになる。そ意味にはたどり着けない。A1 の発話は、その結果、XX 構文 can can は、「絶対にできる、の文脈や会話の状況から、単なるお茶への誘

不可能なことはなにもない」というよう にいとする解釈と、関係修復を含意した誘いの

you can do it を強調した解釈となる。

解釈とが可能であるが、XX 構文が前者の解釈に限定して解釈する方向に聞き手を向か

4.3. 概念語の XX 構文と助動詞の XX 構文のわせる。つまり、XX 構文 coffee coffee が、解釈の類似性A1 の発話全体の解釈に関わるということで概念語の XX 構文と対比して、助動詞のある。

XX 構文の特徴を掘り下げる。

一方、すでにみてきたように、助動詞 の概念語の XX 構文には、その手続き的情報

XX 構文も手続き的情報による狭めには 2 つによって 2 タイプの狭めがあることはすでのタイプがあることを確認する。法助動詞のに指摘した (時政 (2017, 2018))。一つは、(1)XX 構文は、法助動詞 X のモダリティ、つまのような French という概念語 X を、話し手

り、話し手の心的態度を狭める語レベルの狭の意図に沿って狭めるように聞き手に推論めであり、(1)の概念語の狭めに類似する。

させるものである。もう一つは、(10)のよう

助動詞 BE の XX 構文は、助動詞 BE を含む

193

eat his/her carrots.

発話全体の解釈の狭めを要求するもので、(10)と類似する。

【(5)の XX 構文を含む発話の高次表意】

このようにみていくと、助動詞の XX 構文→(16) The speaker insists more threateninglyと概念語の XX 構文には、どちらにも、XXthat the hearer will eat his/her carrots.

構文が持つ手続き的情報によって「語レベルの狭め」あるいは「発話全体の解釈の狭め」

助 動 詞 WILL を 単 独 で 用 い た You will eatが起こる 2 タイプがあると考えられ、両者のyour carrots.の発話行為に関する話し手の態類似性が指摘できる。

度は、(14)に示される表出命題を埋め込んだ
高次表意として(15)のように表すことがで

4.4. 助動詞の XX 構文の性格

きる。法助動詞の XX 構文を含む発話は、法まず法助動詞に関して、(4)の you will will

助動詞のモダリティを強調して狭めるといlike him.の WILL と同様の例として、(11)をうことを 4 節で説明した。WILL の XX 構文示す。この this will work の WILL は、「このを含む発話(5)は、(13)と基本的に同じ表出命

ことが絶対うまくいく」という話し手の確信題を持ち、かつ話し手のさらに強い心的態度的な態度を示す。しかし、この(11)を XX 構を表す。(5)の話し手の心的態度は、(16)のよ文にした場合は、(12) に示すように容認さうな高次表意で表される。すなわち、下線部

れない。
I guarantee と言う表現を使用すると、で示す(16)の上位節は、XX 構文が持つ手続

will will という XX 構文による重複は余剰とき的情報によって、法助動詞 WILL のモダリなり、容認されなくなるのである。このこと

ティに関する意味が狭められた（この場合はから観察されることは、this will will work に強調された）ことにより得られるものである。

おける will will の働きは、I guarantee (you)とこの説明に沿って、2 節で挙げた法助動詞について、XX 構文の高次表意の例を考える

いう上位節の機能と近いと考えられる。

と以下のようになる。
(11) Well, how can I guarantee you this will
work? (G. Gipe, Back to the Future,柏野(4)の will will

(1999:40))→(17) The speaker assumes more confidently(12) *Well, how can I guarantee you this willthat the hearer will like him.

will work?

(6)の can can→(18) The speaker believes more strongly that

以上の観察に基づいて、(5)の WILL によ

the hearer can do it.

る XX 構文の例を考えてみる。

(7)の might might→(19) The speaker suggests to the hearer more

【XX 構文】

tentatively that the speaker might be able

(5) You will will eat your carrots.

to watch them.

【単独の X】(13) You will eat your carrots.

(17) (18) (19) のそれぞれの上位節は、法助【(5), (13)の表出命題】

動詞のＸを単独で用いた場合の発話の高次→(14) The hearer will eat his/her carrots.

表意を狭め強調したものになる。
一方、助動詞 BE に目を向けると、XX 構【(13)の高次表意】→(15) The speaker insists that the hearer will

文の手続き的情報が、発話全体が表す事態の194

1992)

アスペクト解釈に関する狭めを要求するこ

Ghomeshi, Jila, Ray Jackendoff, Nicole Rosenとで、その発話の解釈が成立する。
冒頭の(2)の are are は、純粋に文法機能のand Kevin Russell (2004) “Contrastive

みの項目、つまり意味の実体のない語であり、Focus Reduplication in English,” Natural

狭める対象がないために XX 構文は生起でLanguage and Linguistic Theory 22,

きないと考えられる。

307-357.
今井邦彦 (2001)『語用論への招待』大修館

5. 終わりに書店, 東京.
柏野健次 (1999)『テンスとアスペクトの語

本稿での議論をまとめると以下の通りである。

法』開拓社, 東京.

[1] 機能的項目は XX 構文に生起できないと

東森勲・吉村あき子 (2003)『関連性理論のいう指摘に反し、機能的項目とされる助動詞

新展開 認知とコミュニケーション』研の XX 構文の例が実際に存在する。機能的項

究社, 東京.

目、そのうちの助動詞については、「純粋に

西川盛雄 (2005)「時間概念のカテゴリー

文法機能のみを担うもの」と「何らかの意味

化」, 成田義光・長谷川存古 (編)『英語的特徴をもつもの」（法助動詞では、モダリのテンス・アスペクト・モダリティ』 阪

ティ、助動詞 BE ではアスペクト）とに区別

大 英 文 学 会 叢 書 2, 9 5 - 1 0 6 , 英 宝 社 ,される。個々の機能的項目について意味的に

東京.

詳細に観察した上で XX 構文への生起可能

中野清治 (2014)『英語の法助動詞』開拓社,

性を議論すべきである。

東京.

[2] 助動詞と XX 構文がコード化しているそPapafragou, Anna (1998) “Inference and Word

れぞれの手続き的情報は同時に満たされる。

Meaning: The Case of Modal Auxiliaries,”[3] 助動詞の XX 構文と概念語の XX 構文に

Lingua 105, 1-47.

は、どちらにも、XX 構文が持つ手続き的情

時政須美子 (2017)「関連性理論による重複報によって「語レベルの狭め」または「発話型 表 現 へ の ア プ ロ ー チ 」 JELS 34,

全体の解釈の狭め」が起こる 2 つのタイプが200-206.

あると考えられ、両者の類似性が指摘できる。 時政須美子 (2018)「英語の重複型表現―XX[4] XX 構文の解釈は、本来、語彙化に逆らう

構文―の手続き的情報」, 『英語学英文

もので、文としては完全に表現しえないもの

学論集』第 44 号, 37-48, 奈良女子大学.
Wilson, Deirdre (2014) “Relevance Theory,”である。しかし、あえて表現を試みた場合、モダリティに関する法助動詞の XX 構文の

UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 26,

働きは、X を単独で用いた発話の高次表意の

129-148.

上位節を狭めて強調させるものとして表す
ことができる。

コーパス
Corpus of English Contrastive Focus
Reduplications

参考文献
Coates, Jennifer (1983) The Semantics of the

Corpus of American Soap Operas (SOAP)

Modal Auxiliaries, Croom Helm, London.
( コーツ, ジェニファー. 澤田治美訳『英語法助動詞の意味論』研究社, 東京,

195あらかじめ構造化された機能投射の配列が存在するという形では説明ができないことになる。さらには複雑に階層化された機能投射がどのように創発されたかという進化的な観点からの問題である。1

ラベル付けアルゴリズムとカートグラフィカートグラフィーグラフィー*

この点を踏まえ、本論の目的は、Chomsky（Labeling Algorithm and Cartography）(2013, 2015)のラベル付けアルゴリズムがカートグラフィーの対象になっている文の左戸塚 将（Masashi Totsuka）

方周縁部の現象にどのように適用できるか

旭川医科大学（Asahikawa Medical University）

を検証することである。具体的な現象は英語の話題化構文と焦点化構文である。これらのキーワード：カートグラフィー, ラベル付け

構文はカートグラフィーで中心に扱われる

アルゴリズム, 話題化構文, 焦点化構文, 主

ことが多いが、Chomsky (2013, 2015)では特文現象に扱われていない。そのため、これらの構文のラベル付けアルゴリズムを考察することによって両者の統合を図ることが言語理論

1. 序の深化に貢献できると思われる。

本論では、カートグラフィーによる知見が以下、2 節ではラベル付けアルゴリズムを

Chomsky (2013, 2015)のラベル付けアルゴリ

概観する。3 節では、話題化構文と焦点化構ズムによってどのように捉えられるかを検文に対してのラベル付けアルゴリズムを提証する。Chomsky et al. (2017)では、カートグ

案する。4 節では話題化構文と焦点化構文のラフィーが仮定する階層化された機能範疇

非対称性が本提案から説明できることを論の構造をそのままの形で扱うことが理論上じる。5 節はまとめである。

難しいことが指摘された。具体的には、素性
2. ラベル付けアルゴリズムの乱立、機能投射の乱立があげられる。この背景としては、自由併合 (Free Merge)の考え

Chomsky (2013, 2015)において、ラベルは方に基づく素性による移動の破棄や投射

意味と音韻の両インターフェースが解釈す(“Projection”)を併合操作から切り離しラベ

るために必要な情報であるとしている。この

ル付けアルゴリズムによる捉え直しが行わ

ラベルの決定は、併合操作とは独立したものれたことがある。これによりカートグラフィであると考えており、Chomsky (2013, 2015)

ーが仮定する機能投射の構造を作り出すたでは最小探査によりラベルが決定されるとめの道具立てが使えなくなった。特に、トピしている。具体的なラベルの決定は(1)、(2)

ック基準やフォーカス基準等の考え方によで示したものである。2

り、機能投射の主要部がそのの指定部へと要素を移動させることがカートグラフィーに(1) a. {α H, XP}

とっては重要であったが、移動自体に素性の(2) a. {YP, Z {α XP, tYP}} ⇒ α = XPb. {α XP, YP}

作用が無いとするとその移動の動機付けを
b. {α XP<F>, YP<F>} ⇒ α = <F, F>

保証することができなくなる。また、投射の概念が併合操作から独立したものであり、投射自体が構造関係によって決まることから、196(1a)のように主要部 H と最大投射 XP が併合

よって捉え直すことを試みる。

した場合はラベル付けアルゴリズムによって、主要部 H がラベルになる (α = H)。(1b)3. 提案のような最大投射同士の場合は、二つの可能性でラベルが決定されるとしている。一つ目

話題化構文や焦点化構文は、それぞれ話題

は、一方の最大投射、(2a)では YP、が移動す化要素と焦点化要素が文頭へと移動する。

ることで移動した要素の元位置がコピーと(4) a. Your book, you should give to Paul, (notなり、ラベル付けアルゴリズムからは不可視となる。
これにより残った要素、(2a)では XP、

to Bill).

(話題化構文)b. YOUR BOOK you should give to Paul,がラベルとなる。二つ目は、(2b)のように XPと YP が共有している素性がラベルとなる。

(not mine).

(焦点化構文)

ラベルはインターフェースでの解釈に重要な情報であるとすると、次の可能性が出てカートグラフィーでは、それぞれの移動にくる。これまでの主語、述部といった文法機

トピック素性、フォーカス素性を仮定し、そ能の決定や項構造におけるθ役の決定がラれらが主要部を成す機能投射が形成され、そ

ベルによって決まるという可能性である。なの指定部にそれぞれの要素を移動させるとぜならば、唯一の統語操作の併合 (Merge)は考えてきた。様々な文法素性が仮定されてい2 つの統語対象物を組み合わせるだけなので、 るが、Rizzi (2004)はその文法素性の分類を行
この操作自体から文法機能やθ役を決める

い、大きく 4 クラスに分かれること、さらにことは難しいと考えられる。この点を踏まえそれぞれのクラスにどのような素性が属すて、例えば(3)で示すように、主語と述語のるかを提示している。

叙述関係は従来 TP とラベル付けされていた部分での素性共有によるラベル<φ, φ>がイ(5) a. Argument: person, number, gender, case

ンターフェースで解釈された結果だと捉え

b. Quantificational: Wh, Neg, measure,focus ...

ることができる。

c. Modifier: evaluative, epistemic, Neg,
(3) [CP C [<φ, φ> DP<φ> T<φ> [vP ….]]]
主語

frequentative,celerative,

measure,manner ...

述語

d. Topic(Rizzi 2004:243, 下線・強調は著者による)本論ではこの可能性を踏まえて、Chomsky(2013, 2015)では扱われていない英語の話題化構文と焦点化構文のラベル付けを探求しここで注目したいのは焦点化要素と wh 要素ていく。これらの構文はカートグラフィーでが同じクラスに属していること、話題化要素

は、トピックやフォーカスといった素性が仮が独立したクラスを形成していることであ定され、その素性がそれぞれの機能投射を持る。本論では、この素性のクラス分けを基につものとされている。しかし、前節で触れたして、この違いがラベル付けアルゴリズムに

Chomsky et al. (2017)の指摘により再検討がよるラベルの決定の仕方の違いから生じる必要とされている。これまでの素性ありきのものであると考え、(6)を提案する。

考え方ではなく、ラベル決定における構造関係が重要であるとする観点から、次節では、(6) a. 焦点化構文は、焦点化要素が Q 素性をこれらの構文をラベル付けアルゴリズムに持ち、C 主要部との素性共有によりラ197

(8)の構造は持つことになる。この構造の特ベルが決定される。
b. 話題化構文は、ラベルを持たない{XP,

異性が話題化要素が独立したクラスを形成

YP}構造を持つ。

している理由であると考える。結果的にこの構造はインターフェースでトピックである

先ず、(6a)について考える。wh 要素と同じと解釈される。さらに、{XP, YP}構造となっクラスの焦点化要素は、wh 疑問文で起きるていることが話題化要素と後続文の間に「トラベル付けが適用できると考えられる。

ピックとコメント」という一種の叙述関係を

Chomsky (2013, 2015)では、wh 疑問文は移動形成することにも繋がる。

した wh 句が持つ Q 素性と C 主要部が持つ Q(8) [α XP C [TP … __ ]]：{α XP, YP}

素性が素性共有を行うことで<Q, Q> (= (7a))⇒ unlabeled = Topicというラベルを持つとしている。これと同様のラベル付けが焦点化構文でも起こると考えられる。というのも、どちらも移動した要

Chomsky (2013, 2015)ではインターフェー

素と元位置との間に演算子・変項関係を持つ

スによる解釈にラベルが必要であると考えため、ラベル決定の際にこの関係を保証するているが、本論ではラベルを持たない構造ものが素性共有によるラベル付けアルゴリズ

実際の統語派生では許されると考える。ただムであると考えられる。wh 疑問文と同様に、し、このラベル付けされない構造が許される移動した焦点化要素が持つ Q 素性と C 主要のは統語派生が収束する段階に限られると部が持つ Q 素性が素性共有して<Q, Q> (=仮定する。この仮定により、この構造が許さ(7b))というラベルを持つ。このラベルは結果れる環境がいわゆる主文現象であると考え的にインターフェースで、演算子・変項関係られる。

の量化の解釈として読み取られる。さらに焦(9)の話題化構文、(10)の左方転移構文、(11)

点化構文では、焦点化要素と後続する文とのの定形節の文主語、そして、(12)の非定形節間に、「焦点と前提」の関係も形成される。

の文主語は、それぞれ埋め込み文での生起が許されない。3(7) a. [α Wh<Q> C<Q>[TP … __ ]]: α = <Q, Q>(9) a.

John, the article really bothered.

b. ?*I regret that Mary, my antics upset asb. [α Focus<Q> C<Q>[TP … __ ]]:α = <Q, Q>

much as they did.

⇒ Focusc. ?*Mary wishes that John, the article
bothered more than it did.

次に、(6b)について考える。Rizzi (2004)は話
題化要素が独立したクラスを形成すると論(Alrenga (2005: 179))じている。本論ではこの特性はラベルの特性(10) a. This movie, you wouldn’t like it much.

に還元されるものと考え、(6b)の提案により

b. *John’s sister, she won’t do anythingrash.

(8)の構造を持つとする。(8)の構造は、話題(Emonds (1976: 32))c. *I told you that this movie, you wouldn’t

化要素が移動した後にラベル付けがされな

like it much.

い{XP, YP}構造が形成される。ラベル付けがされていないという点で、素性共有によるラd. *Bill hopes that John’s sister, she won’t

ベルや一方が移動し残った要素がラベルとdo anything rash. (Emonds (1976: 33))なるといった構造とは、全く異なる性質を(11) a. Although the house’s emptiness depresses

198you, it pleases me.

b. (YOUR BOOK you should give tob. ?*Although that the house is empty

Paul.)IntP(焦点化構文)depresses you, it pleases me.
(Alrenga (2005: 178))(13a)の話題化構文はコンマが話題化要素(12) a. I regret that our smoking bothers her soと後続節との間に置かれ、IntP がそれぞれにmuch.

形成される。一方、(13b)の焦点化構文はコ

b. Mary wishes that our smoking bothered

ンマは置かれずに全体が一つの IntP を形成

her more than it did.

する。この違いを本提案から考えると、先ず、

c. ?*I regret that for us to smoke bothers her(13b)は(7b)で示したように素性共有が行わ

so much.

れラベル付けがされた構造となる。このラベ

d. ?*Mary wishes that for us to smoke

ルがインターフェースで解釈される時に全bothered her more than it did.

体が一つの単位として解釈されて IntP が全(Alrenga (2005: 178))

体で一つに形成される。一方、(13a)は(8)で示したようにラベル付けされない{XP, YP}

これらの構文は基本的に主文のみで許され構造を持つ。この時、XP である話題化要素

4る。 埋め込み文でこれらの構文が許されなと YP である後続節は一つの単位としてでは

いのは、埋め込み文は統語派生が収束する段

なく、それぞれがインターフェースで解釈さ階ではないため、話題化要素、左方転移要素、れることになる。その結果それぞれが IntP

文主語のそれぞれが(8)のラベル付けがされを形成することになり、その音調上の区切りない構造を持つことになるとインターフェ

としてコンマが置かれることになる。

ースでは解釈ができないからである。派生の4.2. 語順の制限

途中にラベル付けがされていない構造があるとその文が非文法的になることは、(14)に示すように話題化と焦点化が同時

Chomsky (2013)での連続循環移動と関節疑に起きるときには、必ず話題化要素が焦点化

問文で議論されていることである。

要素に先行する必要がある。

4. 話題化構文と焦点化構文の非対称性(14) a.

This booki to ROBINj I gave ti tj.

b. * To ROBINj this booki I gave ti tj.

本節では、話題化構文と焦点化構文の非対(Culicover (1991: 33))

称性について、本提案からの説明を与えていく。具体的に見る違いは、音韻上の違い、語順の制限、そして、話題化の統語的な島の形

本提案によれば、(15a)に示すように、先ず焦成についてである。

点化要素が移動し C 主要部との素性共有を行い、次に話題化要素が移動すると、派生の4.1. 音韻上の違い

収束段階でのラベル付けがされない構造を(13)に示すように話題化構文と焦点化構持つことができるので、インターフェースで

文では Intonational Phrase (IntP)の形成に違い解釈ができる派生になる。一方、(15b)が示がある。

すような派生では焦点化要素は、話題化要素が介在するため、最小探査による C 主要部(13) a. (Your book)IntP, (you should give toPaul.)IntP.

との素性共有が行えずインターフェースが(話題化構文)解釈できない派生になる。もしくは、話題化

199

要素と C 主要部との間でのラベル付けされうに派生は破綻する。本提案からはこの島のない{XP, YP}構造が派生の収束しない段階

形成について説明が可能である。4.2.の語順

において現れてしまためにインターフェーの制限と同様に、wh 要素が話題化要素を超スが解釈できない派生になる。そのため、語えているときには、wh 要素と C 主要部の素順の制限について非対称的になると考えら性共有ができないため非文法的となる。またれる。

は、ラベル付けされない構造が派生の途中の段階に存在するために非文法的となる。これ(15) a.

? unlabeled = Topic

により、Rizzi (2004)では捉えられなかった話
題化の島の説明ができる。

This book

本発表での提案は、Goto (2016)の抜出しに<Q, Q> ⇒ Focus

対する提案、これはラベル付けがされていな
い{XP, YP}構造からの抜出しができないと

To ROBIN<Q>
C<Q>

TP

する提案とも関連するかもしれない。つまり
話 題 化 構文 は ラ ベル 付け が さ れな い {XP,b. *YP}構造を持つという本提案が正しければ、? ⇒ 素性共有ができない(16b)の話題化要素が抜出しができない統語
To ROBIN <Q>?

unlabeled

環境を形成することになる。このことは、文法機能やθ役の決定だけではなく、ラベルがThis book

持つ役割は島の形成といった統語環境にも
C<Q>

TP

役割を果たすことを示していると思われる。
5. まとめ4.3. 話題化の島 5

本論では Chomsky (2013, 2015)のラベル付
けアルゴリズムが話題化構文と焦点化構文

話題化要素は統語的な島を形成するが、焦という文の左方周縁部における現象にどの点化要素は島を形成しない。

ような形で適用出来るかを考察してきた。具
体的には Rizzi (2004)の素性のクラス分けに(16) a. These pricesi, to whomj should we giveti tj?

(Watanabe (1988: 129))

基き、焦点化構文は Q 素性を持ち wh 疑問文

b. *To whomj these pricesi, should we give

同様に素性共有によるラベル付けが行われti tj?

(Pesetsky (1989: 13))

ること、話題化構文はラベル付けがされない{XP, YP}構造を持つことを提案した。そして、(17) a. Suzannej, what elsei, does shej do ti torelax?

本提案によりカートグラフィーで捉えられb. *What elsei, Suzannej, does shej do ti torelax?

てきた知見の一部が極小主義のラベル付け(Emonds (2012:38))

アルゴリズムによってとらえられる可能性を示唆した。

Rizzi (2004)の素性に基く相対的最小性によ本論では、Chomsky (2013, 2015)とは異なれば、wh 句と話題化要素は同じ素性のクラり、ラベル付けがされない構造が許されるこスではないのでどちらかの要素が他方の要と仮定した。この構造が他の現象についても素に対して、移動の障壁にはならないと予測見られるかは重要な点である。1 つの可能性する。しかし、実際は(16b)、(17b)に示すよと し て は 、 Hornstein and Nunes (2008) や200

Hornstein (2009)の付加詞が挙げられるかもあり、今後の課題としたい。

6

知れない。 彼らは、付加詞は構造を作って5いく段階でラベルを持たないまま付加するて、（狭義の）統語部門と意味・談話部門にことを提案している。ラベル付けの考え方が関わる性質からも導ける可能性についてのChomsky (2013, 2015)とは異なっているもの

示唆を頂いた。この点は今後の課題としたい。

の非常に興味深い考え方である。本論とどの6程度合致したものであるか、または、どのよたことに感謝申し上げる。

星浩司先生より、話題化の島の形成につい宮本陽一先生より、この点を示唆して頂いうな違いがあるかという点は今後の研究課題となるが、ラベルを巡る議論は理論研究と記述研究を統合する上で非常に重要な役割

参考文献
Alrenga, Peter (2005) “A Sentential Subjectを果たすものであるといえるかもしれない。

Asymmetry in English and Its Implications
for Complement Selection,” Syntax 8,
175-207.

* 発表の際には、土橋善仁先生、藤田耕司先Chomsky,生、星浩司先生、Jason Ginsburg 先生、前田Noam(2013)“ProblemsofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.

雅子先生、宮本陽一先生、瀧田健介先生、富Chomsky,

澤直人先生から大変貴重な示唆を頂いた。まNoam(2015)“Problems

Extentions,”

of

た、発表の準備段階においては、菅野悟先生、Projection:

三好暢博先生、戸澤隆広先生から大変有益なStrategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour

コメント頂いた。ここに記して感謝申し上げ

of Adriena Belletti, ed. by Elisa Diる。本研究は JSPS 科研費 JP16K16854 の助

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona

成を受けている。

Matteini,

1-16,

John

Structures,

Benjamins,

Amsterdam.

注
藤田耕司先生より、階層化された機能投射

Chomsky, Noam, Ángel J. Gallego and Dennisの構造については文化進化の観点からの検Ott (2017) “Generative Grammar and the

討が重要であるとのコメントを頂いた。今後

Faculty of Language: Insights, Questions,の課題としたい。

and2<https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003507/curre1

本論では主要部同士のラベル決定につい

ms.,

MIT.

nt.pdf?_s=ST2L50DHHhWJ9cKK>ては扱わない。
3

Challenges,”

Culicover,

瀧田健介先生より、文主語の TP 指定部で

Peter
and

(1991)“Topicalization,の素性共有に関して指摘して頂いた。この点

Inversion

Complementizers

inに関しては、文主語の特性をどのように捉え

English,” ms., The Ohio State University.

るかが重要な点である。富沢直人先生から、Emonds, Joseph (1976) A Transformational

文主語が φ 素性を持たない可能性について

Approach to English Syntax, Academic

示唆していただいた。これらの点を踏まえて

Press, New York.
Emonds, Joseph (2012) “Augmented Structure

今後の課題としたい。
前田雅子先生より、話題化構文の埋め込み

Preservation and the Tensed S Constraint,”

文での生起が可能であることの指摘を頂いMain Clause Phenomena: New Horizons,

た。理論的な面で、転送 (Transfer)の役割がed. by Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliana Haegeman

関係するかもしれないと考えているが、このand Rachel Nye, 23-46, John Benjamins,

事実に関しては、筆者も把握していることでAmsterdam.

4

201

Goto,

Nobu(2016)“Labelability=

Extractability: Its Theoretical Implications
for the Free-Merge Hypothesis,” NELS 46,
335-348.
Hornstein, Norbert (2009) A Theory of Syntax:
MinimalOperations

andUniversal

Grammar, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Hornstein, Norbert and Jairo Nunes (2008)“Adjunction, Labeling, and Bare Phrase
Structure,” Biolinguistics 2, 57-86.
Pesetsky,David(1989)

Principle,”“The

Earliness

ms.,

MIT.

<http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/facul
ty/pesetsky/earliness.pdf>
Rizzi,

Luigi(2004)“Locality

and

Left

Periphery,” Structures and Beyond: The
Cartographyof

Syntactic

Structures

Volume 3, ed. by Adriana Belletti, 104-131,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Watanabe,

Akira(1988)“On

Some

Root/Non-Root Asymmetries,” MITAWPP
1, 129-152.

202

(4) Which professori do hisi students admire ti?
(3) and (4) indicates that adding a focus particle
to the crossed constituent obviates weak
Economy in Pronominal Binding*crossover effects (Postal (1993)), and that
D-linking triggered by the use of which-NP in

Hirokazu Tsutsumi

the sense of Pesetsky (1987) has the same effectTohoku University(Falco (2007)), respectively. As the proposed
condition

mentioned

above

targetstheKeywordspronominal binding, crossover,generalization (1), they all fail to account for the

global economy, comparison of derivations

amelioration effects in (3) and (4) without any
additional stipulation. The aim of this paper is toprovide a unified account for (1), (3), (4), and

1. Introduction

other binding phenomena in line with Ruys’

Since Postal’s (1971) seminal work, it has
beenrecognized

that

the

distribution(1994) global economy analysis of weakofcrossover,which

involves

comparisonofbound-variable pronouns is restricted in ainterpretively identical derivations (see alsosystematic way. Among others, how to treat

Chomsky (1992)). The story is this: When aweak crossover discovered by Wasow (1972)derivation competes with another, the more

has been one of the most controversial issues in

economical one excludes the other. The degree

generative grammar. A weak crossover effect isof economy is measured by movement length,

exemplified by the contrast in (1). A descriptivei.e., the shorter movement a derivation involves,

generalization is given in (2):the more economical the derivation is.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows:(1) a. ?* Whoi does hisi mother love ti?
b.

Section 2 outlines the analysis of Ruys (1994).
Since, as Ruys admits, his formulation is

Whoi ti loves hisi mother?
asomewhat tentative and leaves room forconstituent dominating a pronoun andimprovement, I propose to add details to his

variable-bind it at the same time.

general ideas in section 3. In section 4 I analyze(2) Anoperatorcannotmove

acrossthe data above of focus particles and D-linking.
Section 5 concludes this paper.

Various accounts have been offered to (1) in theliterature including Chomsky’s (1976) leftness
condition,

Reinhart’s

condition,and(1983)

Koopmanandc-command

2. A Global Economy Analysis

Sportiche’s

Ruys (1994), building on Chomsky (1992),(1982-1983) bijection principle, to name a few.

applied the general idea of global economy to

However, the generalization (1) itself faces athe domain of pronominal binding. According to

number of systematic counterexamples like:

this, derivations that are equivalent in a relevant
sense are compared to each other (he is(3) a. Whoi did only hisi clients hate ti?

indecisive about how some derivations but notb. Whoi did even hisi clients hate ti?

others forming an equivalence class. This matter

203will be the topic of section 3). Those derivations

island. (6) exemplifies this point. (6a) covertly

that are chosen to compete with each other willraisesbe ranked based on the movement length.

containing the bound pronoun, while its

Shorter derivations are preferred to longer ones

potential alternative (6b) would need QR out ofas economical and global economy excludes thethe subject clause to yield the intended binding

latter in favor of the former.

relation, resulting in the sentential subject

thequantifier

acrossthesubject

To be more concrete, Ruys argues that a

condition. Thus, (6a) has no competitor and is

weak crossover derivation like (1a), repeatedlicensed despite its apparent weak crossover

below in (5a) is excluded as a result of theconfiguration.

trans-derivational comparison with the possessor
binding derivation (5b).1 They are assumed to(6) a. that people hate himi disturbs every

compete since they form an equivalence classpresidenti.

because of both entailing ‘for whom x, x’s

b.* that people hate every presidenti disturbs

mother loves x.’ As mentioned above, Ruys put

himi.

(Ruys (1994: 226))

aside the exact characterization of the competing
derivations. Suffice it for now to say that one

With this much in place, we can move to thecan come up with a competing alternative to aanalysis of the counterexamples to weaktarget sentence by altering the positions filled bycrossover (3-4), but before that let me focus inan antecedent operator and a bound pronoun.

the next section on the problem of defining the“equivalence” of derivations left unanswered in(5) a. ?* Whoi does hisi mother love?
b.

Ruys (1994).

Whosei mother loves himi?
3. What Derivations Compete?

Notice that (5a) involves wh-movement from theRuys considers, several possibilities ofobject position while (5b) only moves thedefining the class of compared derivations:wh-phrase from the subject position. Clearly, theD-structure identity, LF identity, and logicalmovement involved in (5b) is shorter than that inequivalence. As for the first candidate, Ruys(5a), and hence (5b) excludes the weakdismisses that on a conceptual ground thatcrossover derivation (5a) by global economy.

minimalism should do away with such a level of

An interesting point about Ruys’ analysis isrepresentation, but I argue that D-structurethat the system is built in such a way that it

identity is also empirically incorrect. That would

allows of apparent weak crossover derivations

prohibit comparison of (5a) and (5b) because

under certain conditions. That is, a derivation isthey differ with respect to the base-generated

chosen by default if its potentially competing

positionsalternative derivations are all ungrammatical on

D-structure. LF identity is also argued to be too

a dependent ground. This is because anstrong because different paths of operator

ungrammatical derivation does not compete inmovement

the first place; only the grammatical derivations

representations. These two approaches thus

are compared. This point is relevant for example

would ban any competition and incorrectly

when a bound pronoun occurs inside a syntactic

license weak crossover derivations.

204

of

operators

would

lead

and

to

pronouns

differentat

LF

The third possibility, logical equivalence, iscondition may employ: first, a semantic

more permissive than the first and the second.

interpretation that a derivation yields; second,

However, as Ruys himself notices, it might

the hierarchical structure that leads to thethreatenofcompetinginterpretation handed from narrow syntax; third,

leading

toanthe numeration for the derivation, i.e. the list ofundergeneration problem. For example, such alexical items that constitute the structure. I

system would make (7a) and (7b) compete, an

propose that the global economy condition fully

unwelcome result:

employs these pieces of information; thetoderivations

make
too

classeslarge,

condition compares grammatical derivations that
share(7) a. which booki did you file ti without readingthesemantic

interpretation(logicalequivalence in Ruys’ terms) and the numeration,pgi?

and it assigns a different status to eachb which booki did you file ti without readingiti?

derivation regarding to its movement length read

(Ruys (1994: 232))

off from the structure. Here, by grammatical, I(7a) and (7b) contains a parasitic gap and amean those derivations that do not involve any

pronoun in the adjunct respectively. If both ofsyntactic or semantic violation. The definition isthem are interpreted as a bound variable, thesegiven in (9).

sentences will be logically equivalent (‘for(9) If a numeration allows more than one

which book x, you filed x without reading x’).

derivation

Now, what should we do in order to come up

with

the

same

logicalwith a better formulation of competition classes?

interpretation, rank them based on the

To this end, it is suggestive to consider where in

length of movement chain.

the language faculty the global economy
condition is operative. I assume the current

With this much in place, it can be confirmed

framework of the Minimalist Program given inthat whoi does hisi mother love and whosei(8):

mother loves himi can actually compete because
they are both grammatical and share the(8) each language incorporates a mechanism
that

determinesaninfinite

arrayinterpretation ‘for whom x, x’s mother loves x’ofand the numeration (C, T, v, V, mother, he,’s).2

hierarchically structured expressions that

who,

are transferred for interpretation to twocorrectly distinguishes between (7a) and (7b);interfaces: the sensorymotor system SM foreven if they are both grammatical and areexternalization,

conceptual-interpretively equivalent, their numerations areintentional system CI for thought (broadly

different in whether a null operator or a pronoun

understood).

is contained in them, so they do not compete

and

the

(Chomsky (2013: 35))

Furthermore,thisformulation

with each other for economy.
Since the global economy condition must accessIn the next section, I return to theto the interpretation of each derivation, I assume

counterexamples

that it is operative at CI interface. Now it

generalization and show that these are accounted

becomes clear what information the economy

for in terms of the theory developed.

205

to

the

weak

crossover4. Analysis

because they are the only ways to convey the

4.1. Focus Particle

meaning they do. Potential alternatives to them
are independently excluded from the economy

Let us move on to the analysis of the focus

competition due to the focus intervention effecteffects in (3), repeated here as (10):or the left-branch condition violation.
(10) a. Whoi did only hisi clients hate ti?
4.2. D-Linking

b. Whoi did even hisi clients hate ti?

The global economy principle has been seen
Recall from the discussion of (6) that the theory

to determine statuses of competing sentences ingives a better status to a derivation if and only if

the cases discussed above. However, it is

it

more

economical

than

any

other

possible to imagine such a situation that thegrammaticalcompetingderivation.

Those

economy principle itself is suspended for some‘exceptionally’ acceptable sentences can bereason. In such a case, if any, it is predicted thatproved to be allowed by showing that thesentences do not compete with each other evensentence is in fact the most economical of all

though they share numeration and interpretation.

because an otherwise more economical one is

As a result, I argue, two seemingly competing

actually ungrammatical on an independent

sentences will be both acceptable because no

ground.

trans-derivational comparison ranks one of themisover the other.

As we expect, (10a) and (10b) are the only
derivations that yields the intended interpretation

I propose that this pattern is attested bywith the given numerations. The (b) examples in

D-linked wh-questions. The numeration (13)(11) and (12) are known to be bad due to theallows the crossover derivation in (14a) and thefocus intervention effect, which bans any

possessor binding derivation in (14b) at the same

configurations

time:

where

a

focus

particle

c-commands a wh-phrase as well as a focus(13) (C, T, v, V, which, famous, professor, he,(Pesetsky (2000), Beck (2006), Kotek (2014),

students)

and Li and Law (2016), among others). And(14) a. Which professor i do his i students

whatever explains the left-branch condition will
exclude the (c) examples in (11) and (12) fromadmire ti?

the class of competing derivations.

b. Which professor’s i students admirehimi?

(11) a.

Whoi did only hisi clients hate ti?

b. * Only whosei clients hated himi?

The question to ask is why the economyc. * who(se)i did only ti(’s) clients hate ti?

principle

ceasestooperatein

D-linked

Whoi did even hisi clients hate ti?

wh-questions. I speculate that the economy

b. * Even whosei clients hated himi?

principle is rooted to the preference for reducing

c. * who(se)i did even ti(’s) clients hate ti?

processing cost. Therefore, if D-linking on a(12) a.

wh-phrase

plays

a

role

in

reducing

Summarizing sentences like whoi did

computational load on parser engaged inonly/even hisi clients hate ti? are grammaticalfiller-gap resolution between the wh-phrase and206

its trace, it provides a good reason to assume

its Case value unspecified and it is assigned inthat D-linking helps suspend the economy

the course of derivation or at the interfaces. I

constraint. This line of reasoning seems

capitalize nominals to show that their Case is notsupported by what Goodall (2015) shows based

yet determined. In addition, note that (5a) andon experiments. According to him, questions(5b) differ in whether do-support occurs or not. I

with a D-linked wh-phrase are in general better

assume with Lasnik (1999) that do is inserted at

accepted than questions with non-D-linked

PF and is not contained in the numeration.

wh-phrases.
REFERENCES
Beck, Sigrid (2006) “Intervention Effects Follow

5. Conclusion
This paper proposed to modify Ruys’ (1994)

from Focus Interpretation,” Natural

global economy analysis of weak crossover by

Language Semantics 14, 1-56.

articulating the definition of the class ofChomsky, Noam (1976) “Conditions on Rules ofderivations that compete for economy; those that

Grammar,”are grammatical and share the numeration and303-351.

the interpretation do so. The theory offered aunifiedaccount

for

the

weak

Linguistic

Analysis2,

Chomsky, Noam (1992) A Minimalist Program

crossoverfor Linguistic Theory (MIT Occasionalamelioration effect of D-linking and focus

Papers in Linguistics 1), MIT Press,

particles as well as typical weak crossover

Cambridge, MA.

effects.

Chomsky,Noam(2013)“ProblemsofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
* This is a revised version of the paper presented

Falco, Michelangelo (2007) “Weak Crossover,at the 36th Conference of the English Linguistic

Specificity and LF Chains,” Coreference,

Society of Japan, at Yokohama National

Modality, and Focus, ed. by Luis Eguren

University on November 24-25, 2018. I would

andlike to thank Yoshiaki Kaneko and Etsuro ShimaBenjamins, Amsterdam.

Olga

Fernández,

19-44,John

Goodall, Grant (2015) “The D-Linking Effect onfor their invaluable comments and suggestions. I
am also grateful to the audience at the meeting

Extraction

fromIslands

andfor their questions and comments.

Non-Islands,” Frontiers in Psychology 5,

NOTES
1
Choice of the theory of possessor binding does

1493-1503.
Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche

not bear on the discussion. For concreteness, I(1982-1983)

assume with Chomsky (1992) that whose mother

Bijection Principle,” The Linguistic

is converted to an operator part who x and a

Review 2, 139-160.

atspec-CP

and

the

the

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

latterLasnik, Howard (1999) Minimalist Analysis,“reconstructed” to the base position. Then, theBlackwell, Oxford.

operator (and antecedent) comes to c-command,

Li, Haoze and Jess Law (2016) “Alternatives inor take scope over, the pronoun at LF.
2

andKotek, Hadas (2014) Composing Questions,

restrictor part x’s mother with the former
interpreted“Variables

Different Dimensions: A Case Study ofI assume that nominals enter a derivation with

207

Focus Intervention,” Linguistics andPhilosophy 39, 201-245.
Pesetsky, David (1987) “Wh-in-Situ: Movement
andUnselective

Binding,”

The

Representation of (In)definiteness, ed.
by Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen,
98-129, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Pesetsky, David (2000) Phrasal Movement and
Its Kin, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Postal, Paul M. (1971) Cross-Over Phenomena,
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Postal, Paul M. (1993) “Remarks on Weak
Crossover Effects,” Linguistic Inquiry
24, 539-556.
Reinhart, Tanya (1983) Anaphora and Semantic
Interpretation, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Ruys, Eddy G. (1994) “A Global Economy
Analysisof

Weak

Crossover,”

Linguistics in the Netherlands 1994,
223-234.
Wasow, Thomas (1972) Anaphoric Relations inEnglish, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

208

念が措定されているが、①「補部」（述語の項となり得る）と「関係節」（空所を含み、X 束縛と R 束縛が同時に成立）という 2 つの全く異なる概念をどのように整合させるのか、②述詞としての主要部名詞（元来 1 項述補部としての述詞関係節－亜種の属性分析
と再解釈－

*

語）の「意味的空所」の存在をどのように導（Predicative Relative Clauses as Complements:

出するのかに関する考察が不十分であった。

A Property Analysis of Subkinds and2.2. GK (2007)の「亜種の属性分析」

Reinterpretation）

GK (2007: 465)によると、(2)の kind of N 先
渡辺 良彦（Yoshihiko Watanabe）

行詞関係節は、分類学上の階層(taxonomic

大東文化大学（Daito Bunka University）

hierarchy)を前提とし、主要部名詞の表す種または属性と分類学的関係にある種または属キーワード：種—亜種, 意味タイプ, 再解釈,

性 の い ず れ か を 指 示 す る 。 GK (2007:「命題」らしい関係節, 意味的空所

465-466)は「亜種の属性分析」を仮定し、「関
係「亜種」」(a relation SUBKIND)を措定する。
この関係「亜種」により、先行詞の属性（た1. はじめにとえば(2)の‘mathematician’の属性）が取り出

本稿では、(1)の下線部にあたる述詞関係され、その下位属性(subproperty)―亜種の成節（be の述詞を空所（‘＿’の部分）とする関分となる追加的特徴を共有する存在者（=関係節）の意味機能と空所の性質は何かという係節主語のこと）に妥当するような属性―に問いに対して、Grosu and Krifka (2007)（以下、写像される。制限節 2 のための標準的な積GK とする）の「亜種の属性分析」を援用し、(intersection)の意味解釈により、関係節主語

先行詞と関係節との間に「種—亜種」関係をBill’s mother に も 適 用 さ れ る よ う に認めることにより答える。

mathematician の亜種を定義する述語の集合
P が措定される（P⊆MATH が含意される）。

(1) Bill is the doctor (that) John is＿.

(3)に、意味の合成の手順を示す。

(1)の関係節は先行詞名詞の亜種 1 を定義す

(2) Bill is [DP the (kind of) mathematician [CPthat his mother was t ]].

る成分の一部として不可欠と考える。亜種の属性分析を踏まえて述詞関係節の「補部」機(3) a.〚[CP (thati) his mother was tset, 1]〛(i)

能を導出する。さらに、主要部名詞の亜種の= λP1 [P1 (i)(BILL’S MOTHER(i))]

属性は補部としての述詞関係節が埋めるべb.〚[NP (kind of) mathematician]〛(i)

き「意味的空所」となる可能性を指摘する。

= λP [SUBKIND(i)(MATH)(P)]c. 〚 [NP [NP (kind of) mathematician] [CP

2. 先行研究(thati) his mother was tset, 1]]〛(i)= λP [〚[NP [NP (kind of) mathematician]]2.1. 長原 (1990)の補部の関係節
長原 (1990)では、補部の関係節の空所は〛(i)(P)

総称的概念(generic concept)を表すとされる。

⋀〚[CP (thati) his mother was tset, 1]〛

述詞関係節も補部として空所には総称的概(i)(P)]

209

= λP [SUBKIND(i)(MATH)(P) ⋀and Dwight’s baby, my grandson, to be theP (i)(BILL’S MOTHER(i))]

way he is－a useless mockery of a human(Grosu and Krifka (2007: 465))

being.

(SM, 358)(6) Noah Townsend, now fifty-eight, had for
本稿では、GK (2007)の亜種の属性分析を

many years appeared to represent everything

拠り所とするが、GK の分析では亜種を定義

a seasoned, experienced physician should be.

する述語 P の根拠が不十分であるとする。

He was conscientious, treating all who cameto him, whether wealthy or poor, with equal

3. 述詞関係節を含む総称的 DP の指示対象

concern.

(SM, 81)

本節では、P によって定義される下位属性(7) … it is reasonable to suggest that only

つまり亜種の属性は、形容詞などの形式でしdefinite determiners are associated with D

ばしば文脈内に述語として具体化実現する

and its projection DP. (…) D is definiteness

ことをみる。本稿の提案の背後にある分析的(…) and DP is a definiteness phrase. So the

直観は、John is [Pred a doctor]の述詞の関係詞

grammatical category which I have claimed化による（非指示的）表現[DP the doctor [thatdefiniteness is has its representation inJohn is＿]]の外延は〚DP〛の意味論的値でsyntax in the form of this functional head.

ある上記の形容詞などの実現形で、関係節の(Christopher Lyons, 1999, Definiteness,

空所の要素によりその存在が「前提」とされ298 の地の文)るとするものである。まず(4)をみてみよう。
(5)(6)の a useless mockery of a human being/(4) It’s quite clear he’s after her job. He’s quite

conscientious が種「有り様/属性」の下位属性

ambitious, you see. I believe that the kind ofでさらに亜種の属性（「誰かの有り様/属性」

person which this letter shows him to be isの集合の総体）の個物でこれが外延である

not fit to be our boss.

（-thing は属性の代用表現とする）。Kind of N
関係節同様、主要部を介して空所に措定され(4)では下線部の総称的複合 DP3 の指示対象

た‘way/-thing<ek, t>’に亜種の属性の具体化の（外延）は文脈内の(He’s) quite ambitious の部存在が前提とされる。(7)では文脈内の D が分と考えられる。外延としての(He’s) quite

種‘gram. cat.’の亜種の属性（‘definiteness’に当

ambitious は DP the kind of person which … himてはまる下位属性）の外延である。空所に亜to be 全体によって表された person の「下位種‘gram. cat.<ek, t>’を措定する。

属性」であり、（種‘person’の）「亜種の属性」

Dayal (2004: 423)によると、(8)の lion は（量（つまり、「彼の人となり」の集合の総体

化された）すべての亜種のライオンの集合に(totality)）の個物

4

ついて真となる述語として解釈される（ライ（としての属性）とみなオンの種類すべてが絶滅したと述定）。

せる。この亜種は主要部を介して空所（‘kindof person<ek, t>’を措定）にその存在が前提とされると仮定する。5(8) Every (kind of) lion is extinct.

次の(5)-(7)の kind of N 先行詞でない関係節(Dayal (2004: 423))の場合でも、同様の事象が観察できる。
同様に、(9)の述詞関係節でも way/-thing の亜(5) […] I’m the one, I alone, who caused Juliet’s

種の属性の集合が every によって量化されて210

いる（[…]/(…)は複合 DP の外延とみなせる）。

(11) Bill is the mathematician that his father was,

たとえば(9a)は「ベテラン内科医のあるべき

but John is not such a mathematician, as

有り様すべての種類（亜種）」の解釈である。

has often been claimed.

(9) a. I’m sure that Mr. Townsend represents

インフォーマントの判断によると、(11)のevery way that an experienced andsuch a mathematician は ‘the same kind of

seasoned physician should be. [He ismathematician as Bill’s father is’の読みをもつ。

conscientious, …].

したがって、the mathematician that his father

b. He is everything I hoped he would be

was は mathematician の表す種の亜種である。

(intelligent, non-sexist, vegetarian, etc.).

(11)の種－亜種関係は(10c)の単純な名詞句(Partee (1987: 134))の例から独立に支持されるといえる。
次に、先行詞と関係節との間の「部分集合」

4. 亜種と「部分集合」関係

関係に関し、[DP the [way [CP that Bill’s motherwas＿]]]の関係節 CP の指示対象〚CP〛につ

これまでの議論から、述詞関係節の意味機
能は先行詞名詞の種に対する亜種の属性（空いて考える。

所の要素として措定される）を定義するもの(12) {X⊆K│〚B’s moth. was (way<ek, t>)〛⊆であることが明らかとなった（先行詞と関係X}節との間に「種－亜種関係」を仮定する点は(K は種領域を示す)(13) a. { bill’s_moth_way<ek, t>1,

GK の亜種の属性分析との相違である）。

bill’s_moth_way<ek, t>2, …}

本節では、上記の種－亜種関係は「部分集b. bill’s_moth_way<ek, t>1∈X,合」(subset)関係にもとづくと主張する。
Carlson (1977: 230ff.)の観察によると、亜種をbill’s_moth_way<ek, t>2∈X, …

指示する such N の such はそれが修飾する N

c.〚B’s moth. was (way<ek, t>)〛⊆Xの「部分集合」を選び出し（cf. (10a)）、such
Ns は「種」を形成しうる個体の集合でなけ(12)の集合論の表記は X の部分集合、すなわ

ればならない（cf. (10b)）。さらに、such が名ち〚B’s moth. was (way<ek, t>)〛という亜種の詞句全体を後方指示する場合、その名詞句は集合（cf. (13a)）（GK の述語 P により定義さsuch が修飾する N（種）の「亜種」を指示しれる）を含む全ての K の部分集合から成る

なければならない。(10c)の mammals は種集合を表す。X は種 WAY とする。B’s motheranimals の部分集合でかつその亜種となってがいろいろな way<ek, t>という属性をもつので、いる点に注意されたい（Carlson (1977: 233)）。

それぞれの「有り様」は X のメンバーであり（cf. (13b)）、この X は B’s mother のすべて??

の「有り様」に共通の亜種 way<ek, t>の属性（のb. people in the next room … ??such people集合）ということになり、X（= 種 WAY）

c. mammals … such animalsの部分集合ということである（cf. (13c)）。こ(10) a. future teachers … such teachersのように考えると、(9)において亜種の属性
が every により量化されている事実が説明さ(11)の‘such’テストの結果から明らかなように、（kind of N 先行詞でない）述詞関係節れる。
X の中から、B’s mother の「有り様」の 1

でも、先行詞と関係節との間に種－亜種関係

つとしての下位属性（亜種）（たとえば、bill’s_が認められる。

211

moth_way<ek, t>i）を部分集合として定義する

すなわち「学生」の内包に含まれる要素に制述語 P（3 節冒頭の意味での P）により、(14)限されるのである。Student の意味内部にあの CP の意味論的値として(15)が定義される。

る「専門分野」が代入された「物理学専攻学
生」は「学生」の亜種、したがって「物理学の」(PP of physics)は補部となれるという説明(14) [DP the [way [CP (that) [IP Bill’s mother wask[way<e , t>]]]]]をするわけである。一方(19)では、「髪形」
k(15)〚B’s moth. was (way<e , t>i)〛= B’s moth.

は付随的、偶然的性質であり、長髪の学生のwas [Pred α] (e.g., [Pred α] = [Pred very

集団は学生の亜種を構成できず、髪形は「学conscientious])生」の内包に含まれない。PP の意味内容は「無制限的」(unrestricted)であるので「長髪の」(PP with long hair)は補部でないことが帰5. PP 補部・PP 付加詞と亜種結するという説明となる。

本節では、亜種の属性を定義する述詞関係
節は「補部」であるとする間接的議論の 1 つ

次に、(20)の述詞関係節について考える。

として（補部として議論の余地のない）PP
の亜種の議論を展開し、仮説(16)を提案する。 (20) a. the way that Bill’s mother isb.「x は[Pred way]である」⊃「x の下位属
(16) 仮説：補部の意味内容は亜種を形成で性は空所において[Pred [DP way]]としてきるものに制限される。

関係節主語 s について述定する」

まず、総称を表す特徴づけ文(17a)は条件文

述詞関係節は、後件が亜種の属性について成(17b)でパラフレーズできる（前件は後件を立する陳述である点では PP 補部と同様であ含意し、後件はライオンの亜種についても成る。既述のとおり、述語 P により関係節主語

立すると仮定する）。(17)を(18)(19)の「学生」

s、つまり亜種になるための成分を共有するの総称性（亜種）に援用してみる。
（(18)-(20)個体に適用されるように空所の亜種[Pred [DPの「A⊃B」は「A（前件）は B（後件）を含

way]]が定義されるのであるから、P は先行詞意する」の意。普通名詞[N student]の意味タが表す種の亜種の属性でなければならない

k

こと、よって述定の対象としての s を必要とイプは<e, <e , t>> (2 項)である。
）

することが述詞主要部の内包に含まれる。よ(17) a. A lion has a bushy tail.

って、述詞主要部[Pred way]の内包に含まれる

b. If x is a lion, x has a bushy tail.

P により後件が含意されることになる。これ(18) a. student of physics

は（way に限らず）、D の補部である（裸の）‘NP’述語を先行詞（種の属性を表す）とする

b. 「x は[N student]である」⊃「x は常に関係節一般の性質である可能性がある。この専門分野を研究する」(19) a. student with long hair

ような関係節は付随的、偶然的性質では決し

b. ?「x は[N student]である」⊃「x は常にてなく、主要部の内包に対し「制限的」である。なぜならば、先行詞が表す種の「亜種」

ある髪形をしている」の属性と関係節 CP が（空所を介して）「結(18)では後件は学生の亜種について成立す

びついている」(associated)からである。6 結る陳述となっている。PP の意味内容の実質果として、複合 DP 全体も主要部を通じて亜が主要部「学生」にとって「制限的」(restricted)、 種（「Bill’s mother の有り様」の総体）を指示

212

することになる。したがって、形容詞などにり先行詞が空所に仮定された擬似変項を束よる文脈の具体化実現形がこの亜種の属性

縛すると仮定すると、関係節における R 束の外延となることが帰結する。述詞 DP の外縛が説明される。

延を(21)に示す（P はすべての属性の集合、[2]「命題」らしい関係節：

Xs は関係節主語 s の下位属性、[Pred α]は文脈

上述の擬似変項は文脈に生じる形容詞な内に生じた形容詞の属性をそれぞれ表す）。

どから補充されそれを意味論的値として指示対象とするので、擬似変項は「代名詞的」であると考えられる。この点で、擬似変項は(21)〚DP〛= f : P → {1, 0} :For all Xs ∈ P,s

「変項らしくない」変項といえ、関係節 CPsf(X ) = 1 iff X is [Pred α].

は（制限節の場合のような）命題関数という以上のように述詞の複合 DP が亜種の属性

よりもむしろ命題―「真偽が問える」形式―を表すとすると、仮説(16)により、次に述詞に類似しているといえる。

関係節が「補部」である可能性が出てくる。

[3]「再解釈」とその条件：
述語 P によって先行詞の種の部分集合と

6. 提案：再解釈―関係節から補部へ―して亜種が定義される（4 節参照）というこ

ここまで、述詞関係節は先行詞の亜種の属とが正しいとすると、関係節の残りの表現性を定義する機能をもつこと、さらに補部でBill’s mother (is)は先行詞（種）自身の亜種をある可能性があることをみてきた。本節では、 定義する成分の一部であることから結果と元来 1 項ソータル述語の普通名詞が述詞として先行詞名詞にとって関係節は不可欠として先行詞である場合、なぜ主要部名詞が関なると考えられる。しかし、不可欠であるこ

係節を補部にとれるのかについて「再解釈」とが直ちにそれが「補部」要素であることに(reinterpretation)という一種の再分析規則にはならないであろう。そこで本稿では、①主より答える。以下[1]-[6]について考察する。

要部 way と関係節の空所とが‘way<ek, t>’の要[1]「関係節」としての側面：素を共有し（ソータル内部解釈による）、か①派生において wh 移動を含む。(4)(7)では

つ②文脈上の具体化実現形（外延）により空顕在的(overt)な移動（which）、(5)(6)では空演所の擬似変項の意味が補充されることの 2

算子が移動する。関係詞（wh 句・空演算子）つを条件として、先行詞－関係節を「述語－と空所の痕跡 t との間に（同一指標関係にも項」の関係へ「再解釈」することを提案する。

とづき）X 束縛が成立する。②関係節 CP の再解釈により way は 1 項（<ek, t>）から 2 項

意味は合成的に組み立てられる。Wh 移動後

述語（<<<ek, t>, t>, <ek, t>>（下線部は内項））の空所の痕跡 t は[Pred [DP way<ek, t>]]（way の亜となるので、内項としての関係節（<<ek, t>,

種の属性）と解釈され、〚CP〛は Bill’s mothert>）との併合に際して合成規則として関数適の亜種の属性の集合の解釈となる。空所[Pred用(Functional Application, FA)の適用条件を完[DP way<e , t>]]については、〚DP〛の意味論的全に満たす。関係節 CP は<<ek, t>, t>タイプ

値が、亜種の外延としてその存在の前提読みであり（よって制限節と異なり述部ではなが空所[Pred [DP α]]に生じると仮定するので、い）、これは e タイプとともに項となり得る

この[Pred [DP α]]は亜種の「変項」を措定する

名詞句の一般的意味タイプ<<e, t>, t>と基本のに似る（仮に「擬似変項」(quasi-variable)7

的に同じであるので、述詞関係節は項としてと呼ぶ）。③ソータル内部解釈（関係詞と先機能する資格をもち、意味関数がとる関数項

行詞との間の同一指標関係にもとづく）によの 1 つとして機能できる（真の命題は t タイk213プであるが、擬似変項の値が補充され<<ek,

DP the way that Bill’s mother is の統語構造とt>, t>は実質的に t タイプとなると考える）。

各節点の意味タイプのみ示すにとどめる。

[4]「補部」としての側面：
DP<ek, t>(24)

主要部 way は（述語として）CP を内項に←「述詞」
（総称的 DP）

とりそれを N′/NP（文脈内の亜種の属性）に╱写像する意味関数である。補部である述詞関D< ? >

NP<ek, t>

係節は厳密下位範疇化に関与する。また、述││詞関係節が補部であるなら、(22)の非文法性│

N′ <ek, t>

はその帰結となる。なぜなら通常補部は付加│詞（(22)の at Oxford）の外側に生じられない│ Nからである（(22)は student at Oxford が亜種で│ │ないため述詞関係節を不可とする説明（5 節）

the way [that B’s moth. is [Pred [DP way<ek, t>]]]

╲

╱

←述語
←述語

╲
CP<<ek, t>, t>╱╲とも矛盾しない）。一方、(23)は補部（ofphysics）+補部（that he is）で文法的である。

空所には先行詞 way の亜種の唯一の属性（文
脈内の実現形のこと）が存在し、定冠詞はそ(22) *I am not the student at Oxford that he is.

のような唯一の属性の存在を前提としてい(23) I am not the student of physics that he is.

る。
これにより述詞 DP の定性が説明される。

[5]「意味的空所」の説明：

7. 結論

再解釈を仮定すれば、元来 1 項ソータル述

伝統文法以来、英語の関係節は制限節と非語である普通名詞が述詞関係節を項として制限節の 2 つに大別されてきた。述詞関係節

とって（2 項となる）、それが統語的補部とも制限節として分類される。しかし、近年関して埋めるべき「意味的空所」を主要部に措係節の細分化の研究が進むにつれ、これまで定できることが帰結する。しかし、(23)から制限節とされてきたものの中に、実はそれと補部の述詞関係節では必ずしも主要部名詞は全く性質の異なるタイプの関係節が存在の語彙的意味の中に意味的空所が存在する

することがいろいろと指摘されている。
「細必要はない。(23)では student の意味的空所は分化」とは、構造と意味の対応をよりきめ細PP 補部によりすでに埋められており、そのかく述べる規則を立てることである。空所の結果 student は 2 項述語（関係）から、項を性質により名詞句全体の性質が合成的に決とって全体が 1 項述語（属性）となっている。

まるとすると、空所の性質をよりきめ細かく

本稿では、主要部名詞（述詞）の亜種の属見極める研究が細分化には求められる。本稿

性が、部分集合を定義する述詞関係節が埋めでは、述詞関係節の意味機能は先行詞名詞のるべき意味的空所として機能していると主亜種の属性を定義するものであり、空所はこ張する。(23)では、student of physics という亜の亜種の属性（しばしば文脈内に表される）

種のそのまた「亜種」の成分が意味的空所との存在を前提とする擬似変項あるいは「代名して機能し、それを関係節が埋めていると考詞的」要素であると主張した。

えるのである。このような意味的空所の存在

さらに、空所がこのような性質であるとす

は「亜種の属性分析」の帰結である。

ると関係節は命題関数ではなく「命題」らし[6] DP の統語構造と各節点の意味タイプ：

い性質を帯びることを論じた。さらに、関係

本稿では意味計算は割愛し、(24)に述詞の節が命題らしい性質をもつことが、関係節が214

「補部」として再解釈される引き金となると詞が空所内で意味解釈に貢献する）と仮定す主張した。河野 (2012)は、制限節とされるる。したがって、制限節と異なり、先行詞名

ものの中にも「非制限的な制限節」が存在し、詞は関係節と独立に集合を形成しない。

そのような関係節は「制限的制限節」が命題

6関数であるのに対して命題であると主張しタル内部解釈を想定することで説明される。

ている。もしも制限節の中に命題として扱わ

7

れる関係節があるとすると、本稿の述詞関係

of N では語彙的な‘kind’を亜種の変項とする。

この「制限的」の条件は先行詞名詞のソー
正確には「亜種の変項付き」種である。Kind

節を命題と考えることは命題としての関係
節の存在に対するさらなる証拠事例となる。

参考文献
Carlson, Gregory N. (1977) Reference to Kinds* 本稿は日本英語学会第 36 回大会（2018 年

in

11 月 25 日、於横浜国立大学常盤台キャンパ

University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

ス）における口頭発表の内容に加筆・修正をChierchia, Gennaro (1998) “Reference to Kinds

加えたものである。司会の島田雅晴氏およびacross Languages,” Natural Language

発表会場の佐々木一隆氏より大変有益なごSemantics 6, 339-405.

English,Doctoraldissertation,

Dayal, Veneeta (2004) “Number Marking and指摘やご助言を賜った。ここに記して、感謝(In)definiteness in Kind Terms,” Linguistics

申し上げたい。

and Philosophy 27, 393-450.

注
本稿では、Chierchia (1998: 348-352)の意味

Grosu, Alexander and Manfred Krifka (2007)

での「種」（ある個体概念によって表象する“The Gifted Mathematician That You Claim

ことができ、この個体概念とはたとえば種

to‘dog’を例にとると、可能世界からすべての‘Reconstruction’‘dogs’なる個物の集合の総体へと写像する全and Philosophy 30, 445-485.

1Be:

Equational
Relatives,”

和泉悠 (2016)『名前と対象

体関数）を想定する。また、和泉 (2016: ch. 5)

Intensional
Linguistics

固有名と裸名詞の意味論』勁草書房, 東京.

に倣い種の下位区分である亜種に対しても河野継代 (2012)『英語の関係節』開拓社, 東

個物の集合体を仮定することとし、そのよう京.

な亜種の集合体に先立って亜種が抽象的存在者として存在しているとは考えない。本稿

長原幸雄 (1990)『関係節』大修館書店, 東京.

では亜種の属性を<ek, t>タイプと仮定する。

Partee, Barbara Hall (1987) “Noun Phrase(3c)にあるように、集合の「積」により、Interpretation

概略「「P = kind of person かつ he is P」である

Principles,”P の集合」の解釈となる。

Representation Theory and the Theory of3

長原 (1990)同様に、述詞を総称的概念を表

Generalized Quantifiers, ed. by Jeroen

す DP と考える。本稿では、述詞に生じる限Groenendijk and Martin Stockhof, 115-143,

定詞 the の意味タイプは無視する。

Foris, Dordrecht.

24Studies

Type-Shiftingin

Discourse

本稿での亜種を構成する「個物」とは、文
引用作品

脈内に生じる形容詞などの属性に対応するHailey, Arthur (1984) Strong Medicine, Panと仮定している。
5

andBooks, London.

述詞関係節では先行詞名詞は「ソータル内部」(sortal-internal)に解釈される（先行詞名

215

[SM]

In previous studies, it has been analyzed thatthe direct object and the secondary predicate inthis type of sentence form a small clause (e.g.,
Hoekstra (1988)).
Small Clauses Further Specifying Verbal
Meaning*(4)

Masaki Yasuhara(5)

Ibaraki Universitya.

They drank the pub dry.

b.

They drank [RSC the pub dry ].

a.

The professor talked us into a stupor.

b.

The professor talked [RSC us into a
stupor ].

Keywordsfurther specification, small clause,change-of-position, hole construction, apart

Notice that the event denoted by the external

reciprocal alternationargument and the verb (i.e., they drank and theprofessor talked in (4)) are causally related tothe event designated by the small clause (i.e.,

1. Introduction

the pub dry and us into a stupor). The former

The verb drink generally takes an object

denotes a causing event and the latter a resultthat refers to liquid, and the verb talk is used as

event. For this reason, we will call this type of

an intransitive verb.

small clause a resultative small clause (RSC)
hereafter.

(1)

a.

John drank a cup of coffee.

b.

They were talking on the phone.

There is another type of small clause,
however, which we will call co-extensive small
clause (CSC) (Yasuhara (this volume)). This

These

verbs,

however,

can

take

a

type of small clause is exemplified by thenon-subcategorized object when it is followed

following example.

by a secondary predicate.
(6)
(2)

a.

They drank the pub dry.

John { hit/knocked/beat/pounded }the stone against the wall.

b. The professor talked us into a stupor.
(Goldberg and Jackendoff (2004: 536))

The sentence in (6) has two interpretations: (i)John hit the stone and it came into contact withThe direct objects the pub and us in (2) are not

the wall, and (ii) John held the stone andselected by the verbs. In fact, these sentences

brought it into contact with the wall. Yasuhara

will become unacceptable if the secondary(thispredicates dry and into a stupor are omitted.

interpretation is associated with a CSC. We canvolume)observes

that

the

secondassume the structure in (7) for this sentence.
(3)

a.* They drank the pub.
b.* The professor talked us.

(7)(Goldberg and Jackendoff (2004: 536))

John { hit/knocked/beat/pounded }[CSC the stone against the wall ].

216

The purpose of this paper is to argue for thethe stone against the wall.

empirical validity of the CSC analysis byi.

(= (6))

John hit the stone and it came into
contact with the wall.

showing that it can be applied to various typesii.

of phenomena.

John held the stone and brought it
into contact with the wall.

The organization is this paper is as follows.
Section 2 will give an overview of RCS and
CSC. Section 3 will argue that the CSC analysis

The sentence in (9) has two interpretations, (i)can be applied to at least four types ofand (ii). In interpretation (ii), this sentence

phenomena. Section 4 will provide concluding

cannot omit the PP against the wall, as shown

remarks.

by the following sentence in (10).

2. Two Types of Small Clauses(10) #

John { hit/knocked/beat/pounded} the stone.

This section offers an overview of the two
types of small clauses, RSCs and CSCs. Let us

The sentence in (10) is acceptable in thefirst consider RSCs in (8).

interpretation related to (i), in which John
(8)a.

The professor talked us into a stupor.

brought something into contact with the stone,b.

The professor talked [RSC us into a

but this interpretation is not relevant here. The

stupor ].

sentence in (10) is unacceptable in thec. * The professor talked us.

(= (5))

interpretation related to (ii), in which John held(= (3b))the stone and brought it into contact withsomething. In other words, the object of

The underlined text in (8a) forms a small clause.

sentence (9) in interpretation (ii) requires theThis observation is supported by the fact that

occurrence of the PP against the wall. Further,

the object us is predicated of by the secondary

this PP is predicated of the object; the stone

predicate into a stupor. Further, the object is

moved against the wall. Based on these facts,

licensed by the secondary predicate rather thanwethe verb talk, as evidenced by (8c). These twointerpretation (ii) includes a small clause.

canconcludethat

sentence(9)in

The event denoted by the external argument

pieces of evidence indicate that a small clause

and the verb (e.g., John hit) is not causallyis involved in sentence (8a).
The question that arises here is which typerelated to the small clause event (i.e., the stone

the small clause is. The event expressed by theagainst the wall). Instead, the small clause

external argument and the verb the professor

further specifies the meaning of the verb.

talked is causally related to the small clauseIn other words, the verbal event occurs at theevent us into a stupor. Therefore, we cansame time, or is co-extensive, with the small

conclude that sentence (8a) includes an RSC.

clause event (Yasuhara (this volume)). Thus,
we refer to the small clause involved in thisA CSC is exemplified by the following

sentence as a CSC, as shown in the following

sentence in interpretation (9ii).

structure in (11).
(9)

John { hit/knocked/beat pounded}217

brought it into contact with the table. The same(11) John { hit/knocked/beat/pounded}is true of the other sentences in (12).

[CSC the stone against the wall].

Bodily motion expressions do not allow the
Sentence (9) in interpretation (i) includes an

occurrence of the object if the directional

RSC. In this interpretation, the event denotedphrase is absent, as shown by the following

by the external argument and the verb is

examples.

causally related to the small clause event.
To sum up, this section showed that there(13) a.# He slapped his hand.

are two types of small clauses, RSCs and CSCs.

b.# John wiped his hand.

The former is causally related to the verbal

c.# John pushed his hands.

event whereas the latter further specifies thed.# John threw his arms.
(Nemoto (2007: 390))

verbal event.
3.

The

Phenomena

That

The # mark on the sentences in (13) indicate

Involvethat

Co-Extensive Small Clauses

they

are

not

acceptable

in

the

the

interpretations corresponding to the sentences

applicability of the CSC analysis and show thatin (12). Sentence (13a), for example, is

it can be applied to at least four types of

acceptable in the interpretation in which he hit

phenomena: bodily motion expressions, hole

his hand, but this interpretation is not relevant

constructions, apart reciprocal alternations, andhere. The point is that this sentence ischange-of-position expressions.

unacceptable in the interpretation in which heThissectionwill

investigate

moved his hand and brought it into contact withsomething. This fact indicates that the object of

3.1. Bodily Motion Expressions
The first phenomenon that we will consider

the sentences in (12) is licensed by theis related to bodily motion expressions (Nemoto

directional phrase rather than the verb. Further,(2007)), as exemplified by the following

the object is predicated of by the directional

sentences in (12).

phrase. In sentence (12d), for example, his arms
were moved around her neck. For this reason,(12) a.
b.

He slapped his hand on the table.

we can assume that these sentences involve aJohn wiped his hand across his

small clause.
In the sentences in (12), the verbal event ismouth.
c.
d.

John pushed his hands into his

co-extensive with the small clause event. In

pockets.

sentence (12d), for example, John’s throwing

John threw his arms around heraction and his arms’ moving around her neckneck.

occur at the same time. The same is true of theother sentences. For this reason, we can(Nemoto (2007: 390))

concludethatbodilymotionexpressions

Bodily motion expressions describe the motion

involve CSCs, as shown by the followingof a body part of an agent. In sentence (12a),structures.

for example, he moved his own body part and218

(14) a.
b.
c.
d.

He slapped [CSC his hand on thelocative phrase such as in the rice paper screen

table ].

is absent. This fact suggests that the object isJohn wiped [CSC his hand across his

licensed by the locative phrase rather than themouth ].

verb. Notice that there is a predicative relation

John pushed [CSC his hands into his

between the object and the locative phrase inpockets ].

the sentences in (15). A hole is located in theJohn threw [CSC his arms around herrice paper screen in (15a), in an existingneck ].

window in (15b), and in a wall in (15c). These
facts indicate that a small clause is involved inhole constructions.

3.2. Hole Constructions
will

Our next task is to reveal to which type theinvestigate is called a hole construction, whichsmall clauses belong. The verb poke means

is exemplified by the following examples inmaking a hole in something, and the verbs cut(15).

and smash also denote making a damage or a

The

next

phenomenon

that

we

hole in something. The small clauses [SC a hole(15) a.

Matilda poked a hole in the ricein the rice paper screen ], [SC a hole in an

paper screen (with her cane).

existing window ], and [SC a hole in a wall ](Levin and Rapoport (1988: 278))b.

also indicate that a hole exists in something.

It is possible to cut a hole in an

The small clause event further specifies theexisting window, but stresses in theverbal meaning. Therefore, we can conclude

glass will sometimes cause it tothat hole constructions in (15) involve CSCs.

crack.
(Albert Jackson and David Day, Popular(17) Matilda poked [CSC a hole in the rice

Mechanics Complete Home How-to)c.

paper screen ].

He smashed windows and broke ahole in a wall and killed two dogs

The sentence in (17) instantiates the structure oflooking for you.

sentence (16a).

(Colin Harrison, Bodies Electric)

Hole constructions are also compatible withverbs, such as kick, that do not imply the

In hole constructions, the NP a hole occurs increation of a hole.

the object position. The object a hole of holeconstructions has to be followed by a PP

(18)

denoting the place where the hole is located.

Frances kicked a hole in the fence(with the point of her shoe).
(Levin and Rapoport (1988: 278))(16) a.

Matilda poked a hole in the rice(19)

paper screen.

Frances kicked { the fence/*ahole } (with the point of her shoe).

b.* Matilda poked a hole.

(Nogawa (2008: 3))(Nogawa (2008: 3))
The presence of a locative phrase such as in the
Sentence (26b) is not acceptable because afence is obligatory, and the object is predicated219

of by the locative phrase. These facts suggest

the following in (22).

that sentence (18) also involves a small clause.
In sentence (18), however, the verbal event is(22) a.

causally related to the small clause event.

b.

The door blew open.
The lid of the box snapped shut.

Frances made a hole in the fence by kicking it.

(Horton (1996: 330))

Therefore, we can assume that this sentence
involves an RSC.

This type of expression describes a situation inwhich the shape or position of an object

3.3. Apart Reciprocal Alternation

changes. For example, in sentence (22a) the

The alternation between a pair such as (20)board of a door moved and as a result the door

is called an apart reciprocal alternation (Levinbecame open, and in sentence (22b) the lid of a(1993)).

trap moved and as a result the trap became shut.
The result phrases open and shut in these(20) a.
b.

I broke the twig off (of) the branch.

sentences are predicated of the subject NPs the

I broke the twig and the branchdoor and the trap, and they cannot be omitted,

apart.

as shown by the following in (23).

cf.* I broke the twig and the branch.
(on roughly the interpretation of the(23) a.

(a) sentence)

The door blew open.

=/=? The door blew.
(Levin (1993: 166))b.

The lid of the box snapped shut.

=/=? The lid of the box snapped.
The occurrence of apart in (20b) is obligatory(Horton (1996: 330))

and the object the twig and the branch ispredicated of by apart, so we can assume that a

Based on these facts, we can assume that thesmall clause is involved in sentence (20b).

sentences in (22) include a small clause.

The verb break denotes the separation of an

Notice that the verbal event (i.e., blew orobject and the small clause the twig and thesnapped) occurs at the same time with the small

branch apart also designate the separation of aclause event (i.e., the door open or the trap

twig and a branch, so the latter further specifiesshut). Thus, we can say that these sentences

the former. Based on this observation, we can

include a CSC. The following structuresconclude that sentence (20b) involves a CSC.

illustrate the structures of the sentences in (22).

(21) I broke [CSC the twig and the branch ].

(24) a.
b.

blew [CSC the door open ].
snapped [CSC the trap shut ].

The sentence in (21) instantiates the structure ofsentence (20b).

4. Concluding Remarks
This paper demonstrated that there are two

3.4. Change-of-position Expressions

types of SC: RSCs and CSCs. RSCs are

Finally, we will look at expressions thatassociated with verbs that denote causing

denote change-of-position, as exemplified byevents, whereas CSCs are associated with verbs

220

that they further specify. It argued that the CSC

Yasuhara (2013) argues that there are

analysis could be applied to at least four types

several cases in which an internal argument andof phenomena in which the occurrence of aa secondary predicate denote a causing event

non-subcategorized object is licensed by theand the verb designates a result event, aspresence of a secondary predicate.

exemplified by the following in (29) and (30).

Although this paper restricted our attention
tophenomena

associated

with

a

(29) John broke the vase against the wall.

non-subcategorized object, I suppose that the(30) The refrigerator door clicked open.

distinction between RSCs and CSCs can also be
appliedtostrongandweak(Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995: 191))

resultative

constructions (Washio (1997)), respectively.

Sentence (29) describes a situation in whichJohn hit a vase against the wall and it broke.

(25)
(26)

strong resultative

Sentence (30) denotes that a refrigerator door

John pushed the door (open).

opened and it made a short, sharp sound. Since

weak resultative

the internal argument is predicated of by theJohn broke the vase (into pieces).

secondary predicate in these sentences, we canassume that a small clause is involved in these

The occurrence of the object the door or thesentences.

vase is permitted even if the result phrase open
or into pieces is omitted. The object is(31) John broke [SC the vase against the wall ].

predicated of by the result phrase in these(32) [vP v [VP clicked [SC the refrigerator

sentences, so they involve a small clause. Since

open ]]].

the small clause event the door open is causally
related to the verbal event John pushed in

The small clause in the sentences in (31) andsentence (25), this sentence involves a CSC. In(32), however, denotes a causing event and thesentence (26), on the other hand, the small

verbal event expresses a result event, so it isclause the vase into pieces further specifies theneither an RSC nor a CSC. Thus, it seems to bemeaning of the verb break, so the small clausemore reasonable to generalize that there are two

involved in this sentence is a CSC.

types of SC, one further specifies the verbal
event and the other is not. Assuming that there(27)

John pushed [RSC the door open ].

are only a causing event and a result event in a

(28)

John broke [CSC the vase into

complex event structure, the latter designates

pieces ].

either a causing event, as in (31) and (32), or a
result event, as in (27). I would like to leavefurther exploration of this issue for future

In this way, the distinction between RSCs

research.

and CSCs is determined by their relationshipwith the verbal event. The small clause has
status as an RSC when its event is causally* I would like to express my thanks to the chair,related to the verbal event, whereas it is a CSC

Mikinari Matsuoka, and the audience for theirwhen it further specifies the verbal event.

invaluable comments on an earlier version of221this paper. Needless to say, any remaining

Yasuhara, Masaki (2013) “One Eventuality pererrors and shortcomings are my own. This work

Subevent: An Event-Based Account ofwas

Argument Structure,” Language Sciences

supported

by

JSPS

KAKENHI40, 251-262.

Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) Grant

Yasuhara, Masaki (2019) “Break a Branch off a
Tree: An Account Based on

Number 16K21380.

Further Specification,” JELS 36, 315-321.

REFERENCES
Goldberg, Adele and Ray Jackendoff (2004)“The English Resultative as a Family ofConstructions,” Language 80, 532-569.
Hoekstra, Teun (1988) “Small Clause Results,”
Lingua 74, 101-139.
Horton, Bruce (1996) “What Are Copula
Verbs?” Cognitive Linguistics in the
Redwoods: The Expansion of a New
Paradigm in Linguistics, ed. by Eugene
Casad, 319-346, Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin, New York.
Levin, Beth (1993) English Verb Classes andAlternations, Chicago University Press,
Chicago, IL.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav(1995)

Unaccusativity:

At

the

Syntax–Lexical Semantics Interface, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Levin, Bath and Tova Rapoport (1988) “Lexical
Subordination,” CLS 24, 275-289.
Nemoto, Noriko (2007) “A Constructional
Analysis of Bodily Motion Expressions,”
English Linguistics 24, 389-420.
Nogawa, Ken'ichiro (2008) “On the Categorial
Constraint on the Resultative Phrases in
Detransitivized

Resultative

Constructions,” Journal of Bunkyo Gakuin
University,

DepartmentofForeign

Languages 8, 1-12.
Washio,Ryuichi(1997)

Compositionality

andVariation,”of

Journal“Resultatives,
Language
East

Asian

Linguistics 6, 1-49.

222

(1) a. It wasn’t a GOAT.

<Symposium Report>b. It wasn’t a GOAT-goat.
a goat が、(1a) では他の動物と対比されるの名詞句をめぐる拡張の諸相に対して、(1b) ではヤギのカテゴリー内の（Aspects of the Grammatical Extension of

成員と対比される。本発表は、Ghomeshi et al.

Noun Phrases）(2004) の分析を援用し、(2) のように反復が見られる名詞句の意味的特徴を明らかにす

金澤 俊吾（Shungo Kanazawa）

る。

高知県立大学（University of Kochi）(2) a. … you still have a life, a good life.

藤 正明（Masaaki Fuji）(SOAP)

東京海洋大学（Tokyo University of Marine

b. Because you believe that they make for

Science and Technology）

a good life, a fulfilling life.

前川 貴史（Takafumi Maekawa）(SOAP)

c. … he has a good life, a better life than

龍谷大学（Ryukoku University）

he would ever have here.

中澤 和夫（Kazuo Nakazawa）(SOAP)

青山学院大学（Aoyama Gakuin University）
名詞句の反復は、文法形式 [N, A-N] または、
[A-N, A-N] によって表される。また、意味

キーワード：名詞句, 意味論, 統語論, 拡張

的には、1 番目の名詞句（以下、第 1 要素）による実体の状態を、2 番目の名詞句（以下、第 2 要素）が詳述する場合 ((2a), (2b)) と、

1. はじめに第 1 要素による状態の程度の度合いを、第 2

このシンポジウムは、統語論・意味論・語要素が詳述する場合 (2c) がある。

法などの点において英語名詞句が拡張的に用いられる構造について、実証的に議論を深特に [A-N, A-N] において、第 1 要素内、めることを目的とする。英語の名詞あるいは形容詞の語彙的意味に内在する境界性

名詞句のかかわる現象のうち、これまであま(boundedness (Paradis (2001))) が、第 2 要素のり注目が集まらなかった拡張的な構造につ

形容詞の分布を決定付ける重要な役割を果

いて各講師それぞれの立場から着目し、英語たしている。また、第 1 要素が外延を表し、の多様な姿を解明することを目指す。

第 2 要素が、その外延の成員を詳述する、意味的分業が見られる。その上で、当該名詞句

2. （発表 1）英語における名詞句の反復に見が、状態を詳述するか、状態の程度を詳述す

られる意味的特徴について（金澤）るかが決定される。

英語の話し言葉において、名詞句が反復さ

さらに、第 1 要素内の形容詞の境界性の種れる場合がある。名詞句に対比的焦点

類 (Scalar, Extreme, Limit) によって、具現化(contrastive focus) が置かれる場合、句が反復の程度に違いが見られる。状態を詳述する場

される場合と、されない場合とでは、対比の合、第 1 要素には、Scalar に分類される形容

対 象 に 違 い が 見 ら れ る (Ghomeshi et al.

詞 (ex. a good life, a safe life) が生起し易く、(2004: 317))。

次いで Limit に分類される形容詞 (ex. a newlife, a happy life) が生起し易い。Extreme の場

223

b. Mom is as tall as Dad.

合、第 2 要素に形容詞修飾の用例が見られな
い (ex. a great life, a life with you)。また、状態の程度を詳述する場合も、第 1 要素には

次に、AWA は、等位接続詞（CC）構文 (1c)

Scalar に分類される形容詞が生起し易く (ex.

をモデルとして、CC としての属性を発達さ

a happy life, a much happier life)、次いで、Limit,

せる。その際、NP に意味的に類似した範疇

Extreme に分類される形容詞が続く (ex. aから徐々に等位接続可能範疇が拡張される

new life, a brand-new life; a great life, a really（cf. 3a）。しかし、[+tense]を持つ範疇（T’）

great life)。

に到達すると、制約(4)が適用され、等位接本分析により、名詞句の反復の多様性は、続が困難になる（cf. 3b, 3c）。定形文（TP）
は一切等位接続が許されない（cf. 3d）。

類像性のうち、量の原理 (quantity principle)
によって動機付けられること、また、同族目(3) a. NP⇒PP⇒AP⇒VP⇒*/??/OKT′⇏*TP

的語構文において、名詞句の反復が制限され

b. *She [T′ continued her own works] as

るのは、動詞と同族目的語との間で、動作を詳述していることに起因することを示した。

well as [T′ helped me].
c. Characters [T′ sang] as well as [T′ acted].

3. （発表 2）動的な構文拡張の基盤としての

d. *[TP The president is incompetent] as

名詞句：付加的不変化詞から等位接続詞へ

well as [TP the governor is crooked].
(4) 等位項対比制約：等位項が対比的な時の（藤）
擬似等位接続詞 as well as（AWA）に関す

み、T′ 接続が可能となる。

る藤 (1986a,b) の動的文法理論による分析を拡張する。6 歳頃習得される as well（AW）

動的分析の利点として、まず、AWA 構文

構文には、意味と形式の乖離がある。(1a) のの等位項 T′ が対比的であることを要求する

AW 構文は、「（Misty に加えて）Tigger も好

制約が、AW 構文が持っている個体同士を対きだ」というような個体同士を対比する意味

比するという属性を引き継いでいることがを持つ。この括弧内の意味は、(1a) の第一文挙げられる。

が談話レベルの意味表示に導入する指示物

第二に、(3) の諸例を説明する際に利用しMisty を、次の AW 構文が文レベルの意味表

た NP を始発点とする範疇拡張という仕組み

示に取り込む談話表示理論上の仕組みによが、Haspelmath (2004) で実質的に提案されり実現する。この結果、AW 構文には、意味た等位接続可能範疇原理（CCP）とその例外の一部を音形上表すことができないというの導出にも応用できる（cf. 5, 6, 7）。

事態が生じる。しかし、意味と形式の乖離を埋めようとする UG の原理により、習得の次(5) CCP：等位接続を支配する範疇階層（e.g.,の段階で（8 歳頃）、同等比較構文 (2) をモ

NP>PP>AP>VP>TP）が存在し、各言語

デルとして、 AWA 構文(1b) が派生的に習得の CC は単独又は複数で同階層上の領域され、この乖離が解消される。

を、連続してかつ余すところなく占有しなければならない。

(1) a. I love Misty. I love Tigger as well.

(6) CCP の例外：範疇階層の中間部の範疇

b. I love Tigger as well as Misty.

（e.g., AP）のみが等位接続できない言語

c. I love Tigger and Misty.

が存在する。

(2) a. Dad is tall. Mom is as tall.

(7) 動的説明の概略：範疇階層自体が両端か224

ら意味的類似に基づき動的に形成されHead-driven Phrase Structure Grammar（Pollard

る。並行して、各 CC は範疇階層の両端

and Sag (1994)）の枠組みで提案している名詞からそれぞれ内側に向かって徐々に接句の構造では、限定詞の義務性と数の一致は続可能領域を拡張してよい。ただし、そ別々のメカニズムが担っており、(2) の各名の拡張は途中で止まることも許されて

詞句の構造も、一般的な名詞句とまったく同いる。（cf. Kajita 2007）

じように説明できる。
言語というものは一般性の高い現象から

4. （発表 3）英語の限定詞と名詞の統語的関

特殊な現象までが連続体となっており、経験

係：特殊と一般（前川）的に妥当な言語理論はそのような現象をす

英語においては、単数形可算名詞と限定詞

べて説明できなくてはならないとすると、今の統語的関係について次のような一般化が回の提案はまさにその目的にかなうもので成り立つ。

あると考えられる。

(1) 単数形可算名詞とそれが義務的にとる

5. （発表 4）潜伏名詞句の意味論と統語論をさぐる（中澤）限定詞の間には、数の一致がなければな

本発表は (1) の角括弧部分を分析する。

らない。

(1) It is our impression that there are very few

本発表では、 (2) に挙げるような名詞句のpure

統語構造に特に注目したい。

syntactic

constructions,

that

is,

constructions which have no specific(2) a. these thousand students

semantic or pragmatic functions associatedb. these size shoes

with them and which mention no specificc. these sort of skills

lexical items. [The closest we can come tothat] is the subject-predicate construction ofEnglish. [italics original authors’]

これらの構造から限定詞を省略すると非文法的となる（e.g., *(these) thousand students）。

(Fillmore and Kay 1987: 13)

これは下線部の単数形可算名詞 thousand /size / sort が限定詞を必要としているからで(1) には奇妙な点がある。角括弧部分は主あると言える。しかし (2) ではこれらの名語であり、その意味的主要部は「純粋に統語詞は一般化 (1) に反して限定詞と数の一致

情報のみを持つ構文に最も近似のもの」といを示していない。つまり、限定詞を必要とす

う、あるスケール上の 1 点を表わす名詞句でる要素とその限定詞が数の一致をする要素ある。しかし、統語的には、この部分の主要にズレが存在すると言える。

部は the closest で、これは名詞句ではなく形

従来の統語論では、数の一致を引き起こす

容詞句である。何故なら、角括弧の中で theメカニズムと限定詞の義務性をつかさどる

closest を元の位置に戻すと we can come (the)メカニズムとが一体となったシステムが採

closest to that は可ゆえ the closest は形容詞句用されており、限定詞を必要とする要素とそだが、*we can come (the) closest point/place toの限定詞が数の一致をする要素にズレがあthat は不可ゆえ the closest に名詞句の主要部

る (2) の構造には適用できない。

として point や place などを補えず、これはし か し 、 Van Eynde (2006) な ど が名詞句ではないことがわかる。上例の the225closest のような形式は、形は名詞句に非ず、しかし意味は名詞句ゆえ、本発表ではこれを参考文献
Fillmore, Charles. J. and Paul Kay (1987)

潜伏名詞句 concealed NP と呼ぶ。

“Construction Grammar Lecture,” course
textbook, LSA Summer Institute, Stanford

本発表の主張は以下の通り。(1) の構文は、University.

(2) を基体とし、統語的モデル・意味的モデ
ルをそれぞれ (3) と (4) とした上での構文

藤正明 (1986a) 「擬似等位接続詞について拡張の結果 (5) (= (1)) である（ここで px = a-as well as を中心に (1)」, 『英語教育』

place that is the closet to x とする）。

5 月号, 68-70.
藤正明 (1986b) 「擬似等位接続詞について-as well as を中心に (2)」, 『英語教育』(2) we can come the closest to that

6 月号, 72-74.

[GO (w, pt(GOAL))](3) Relativization of APSuperlative: The state’s

Ghomeshi, Jila, Ray Jackendoff, Nocole Roseneconomy is [the worst it has been in recent

and Kevin Russell (2004) “Contrastive

history].

Focus Reduplication in English (The
Salad-Salad Paper),” Natural Language(4) Relativization of ‘y(GOAL)’ in ‘GO (x,and Linguistic Theory 22, 307-357.

y(GOAL))’ as in: “John visited the plant. [GO(x, y(GOAL))]” Î “the plant (that) John

Haspelmath,Martin(2004)“CoordinatingAn

Overview,”

Constructions:visited”

Coordinating Constructions, ed. by Martin(5) [The closest we can come to that] is the

Haspelmath,subject-predicate construction of English.

3-39,

John

Benjamins,

Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
Kajita, Masaru (2007) “Generative Grammar

本分析では、構文拡張において、そのモデルとして意味表示を用いたが、実は従来の拡and張分析においても意味表示に言及していた。

Synthesis,” paper presented at the Lecture

さらに興味深いこととして、意味表示のみにSeries on Linguistic Universals, Senshu

言及する構文拡張も存在し、その一例として

University, Tokyo.

名詞句 this side の前置詞化を指摘しておく。

Paradis,Typology:

CaritaToward(2001)aDynamic“Adjectives

andBoundedness,” Cognitive Linguistics 12,
47-64.

(6) The river Trent was chosen as the dividing
line: the two officers were styled “Justice of

Pollard, Carl. J. and Ivan. A. Sag (1994)

the Forest this side Trent” and “Justice ofHead-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar,

the Forest beyond Trent”, according toUniversity of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Van

where the king was at that particular time.

Eynde,

Frank(2006)“NP-Internal

Agreement and the Structure of the Noun

(BNC)

Phrase,”Journalof

Linguistics

139-186.

本発表は、潜伏名詞句の分析には、その拡張の過程で意味に言及する必要があることを明らかにし、さらに、意味のみに言及して拡

コーパス

張が促される場合さえあることを、this side

British National Corpus (BNC)

を以て例証した。

Corpus of American Soap Operas (SOAP)

226

42,

<Symposium Report>

次に山口は日本在住カナダ人調査によって、移民から学ぶという発想の転換を提案する。
3 番目に村田は、さまざまな海外での職場談話研究事例を考察し国内での研究可能性を

異文化理解と多文化共生―ミクロ・マクロア
プローチからみる『ことば』の諸問題*(Intercultural Understanding and進例としてのニュージーランドの教育制度

Multiculturalism: Micro and Macro Approaches

を論じ、日本は海外から何をどのように援用

to Language Issues)

すべきかを論じた。以下、各報告の要約を記論じる。さらに、チャプルは多文化共生の先す。
村田 和代（Kazuyo Murata）
龍谷大学（Ryukoku University）
秦 かおり（Kaori Hata）
大阪大学（Osaka University）
山口 征孝（Masataka Yamaguchi）
神戸市外国語大学（Kobe City University ofForeign Studies）
ジュリアン・チャプル（Julian Chapple）
龍谷大学（Ryukoku University）

2. （発表 1）異文化理解と多文化共生－在英
邦人女性調査からの提案－（秦）
本発表は、Brexit の賛否を問う国民投票後に実施した在英邦人移民に対するインタビ
ュー調査を通じて、大きな社会変動期に移民として生きる人々がその社会の中でどう振る舞い、どのような「多文化共生」を結び直そうとしたかについて検討した。

キーワード：ミクロ・マクロアプローチ, 共

発表では、2010 年から実施している在英生の取り組み邦人女性約 30 名に対する継続調査から国民
投票直後の 2016 年から 2018 年までの 3 年間を取り上げ、そのナラティブのミクロレベル

1. はじめにからの分析を報告した。特に２組４名を取り近年活発になっている移民・移住などの人

上げ、経年変化を例証した。その結果、彼女的流動は、人口減少、高齢化、グローバル化

らは夫の国籍、居住地域、居住年数、職業、といった現象と密接に関わっている。

義父母の居住地域、人種などの属性によって本シンポジウムは、その関わりが持つ可能

新たな社会秩序における自らの社会的立ち

性と引き起こし得る諸問題をミクロ・マクロ

位置の確保を行い、様々な反応を行なっていアプローチから炙り出し、異文化理解と多文化共生につなげることを目指すものである。
とりわけ、言語使用や言語政策に焦点をることが明らかとなった。共通することは、
今後の先行きを不安視し、移民への差別を実際に経験・体感しながらも、日本への帰国は絞り、異言語が存在する教育現場や職場にお念頭におかず、「英国との共に生きる関係」

ける異文化摩擦と共生の取り組み、政府の言から「ロンドンと共に生きる関係」に結び直語政策とその効果等について、各講師が報告すことで、自らをその社会に積極的に適応さを行う。

せようとする様子が観察されたことである。

まず、秦は、Brexit に流れる風潮に象徴さ

今回の調査では、長期調査という調査方法

れる、移民に厳しい英国の社会変動期に生きと談話分析という分析手段を用いて研究をる英国日本人移民調査から、それでも英国に行うことで、一見虐げられているようには見住み続けるという彼女らの声に耳を傾けることで日本の多文化共生の可能性を探った。

227

えない EU 移民でも難民でも経済難民でもな
い日本人移民も、EU 離脱の国民投票で揺れる英国社会で相応の影響を被っていること

移民が語る経験をその「真実性」ではなく、が明らかになった。そしてそれでも全てを笑

非調査者の普段は語られない「内面世界」をい飛ばしてそこで「生活者」として生きる生

知る機会となり得る点、非調査者の普段言語の声が 1 年毎の心理変化を通して描かれた。

化されない「文化的前提」を知る機会となり本発表を通して、英国という功罪併せ持つ得る点、更に、非調査者と調査者の「社会的移民先進事例の 1 つを紹介すると共に、談話

関係性」を知ることができる点の 3 点に留意

分析、特に長期調査が、多文化共生、移民研して調査を行うとした (Hill 2005)。
具体的分析では非調査者であるカナダ人

究にいかに貢献できるかについて論じた。

の学生が大阪の難民収容施設で行った「サー3. （発表 2）異文化理解と多文化共生－日本

ビスラーニング」と呼ばれるボランティア活在住カナダ人の視点からの提案－（山口）

動をすることで学びの機会を得る教育活動

本発表では、カナダから来日し 30 年以上について語った部分に焦点を当てた。ここで教育に専心しているカナダ人女性へのインはカナダ人女性の移民の受け入れ国である

タビューから、日本の異文化理解と多文化共日本へのスタンス及び調査者との関係性を生に貢献し得る実践例を含むナラティブを明らかにするために、人称代名詞 we/us 及び提示した。まず、社会科学的ナラティブ研究

they/them の使用による「自己」と「他者」の背景説明と考察を行った(秦ほか 2017)。その創造に注目した (van Dijk 2018)。その結果、

こで、「調査者」対「被調査者」の社会的関日本人である自分の学生を「自己」の一員と係性を常に念頭に入れた分析の必要性につし(us)、難民受け入れ局の日本人を否定的にいて論じた。具体的データ分析では、「他者」(them)として表した。つまり、ステ

NPO/NGO のボランティアという形でのサーレオタイプ的「日本人(them)」vs「カナダ人ビスラーニングを日本人大学生が実践した(us)」ではない微妙な関係性 がナラティブ分例を用いた。このナラティブの内容は、サー析で解明された。

ビスラーニングを移民・避難民のコミュニテ

異文化理解と多文化共生に対する貢献のィーで実践することで、「異文化理解」を教可能性に関しては、研究者が、移民の話に耳育に取り入れられるというものである。更に、 を傾け常に、初心者の役割を担う意思を持つ
インタビュー場面での関係性を考慮にいれ重要性を強調した。そうすることで「移民にたコンテクスト分析で、「移民から学ぶ」とついて」だけではなく「移民から」学ぶといいうナラティブを聞くことで、調査者自身もう二重の学びが可能であると結論づけた (cf.

非調査者であるカナダ人移民から学ぶこと

Ochs1996)。

ができるというナラティブ研究の利点を論
4. （発表 3）異文化理解と多文化共生－職場じた。

上記の方法論的考察に関して詳述すると、 談話研究からの提案－（村田）人々が自らの経験をリサーチ・インタビュー

本発表では、実際の職場談話の分析や、で語る際の、真実性の度合いについて文化人

国内で働く外国人・海外で働く日本人へのイ

類学の方法論の観点から考察した(Bernard

ンタビューを通して、職場談話の特徴や企業

2006)。その際、注意すべきは、人間の記憶の国際化を阻むコミュニケーション上の課の限界とインタビュアーに対する配慮など

題について考えた。

からデータには必然的にバイアスが入り込

まず、最初に、国内で働く（働いた経験

んでしまう点である。そこでインタビューでのある）外国人および海外で働く日本人への228

ビジネスの場でのコミュニケーションにつ

could benefit both language learning andいてのフォーカスインタビューの結果を紹

integration policies. Using examples from New

介した。共通して指摘されるのが、日本におZealand’s education system, as well as the

ける職場の上下関係が言語行動に反映されresults of interviews with Japanese migrants

ることや、対人関係機能面に関わる言語行動

living there, it illustrates the importance ofがミスコミュニケーションにつながる場合

family and home language policies and the valueが多いということであった。

of schools being involved.

続いて、実際のビジネスミーティングにJapan is now at a crossroads and will

みられるユーモアの特徴を紹介した。3 社にgradually need to face up to the reality that a

共通しているのが、職場内の「パワー」がユ

greater number of migrants will be needed toーモアをめぐる言語行動に大きく影響を及

meet labour demands (as witnessed by law

ぼしているという点を指摘した。

changes implemented late in 2018). In order to

発表後半では、職場談話研究プロジェク

ensure the successful societal integration ofトとして大規模展開している Language in thethese increasing numbers of migrants, education

Workplace Project（ビクトリア大学、ニュー

policies (in particular language related ones)

1

ジーランド、以下 LWP） を紹介した。LWP

need

to

be

reformed

andmodifiedtoは、1996 年に設立し、これまでに 33 機関、

accommodate the needs of everyone - both

700 名以上の協力のもと 2200 以上の職場談

migrant and native.

話を収録し、リーダーシップ、異文化間コミ

A re-examination of the content and deliveryュニケーション、マネージメント、ユーモア、of education, and particularly language policies,

ナラティブ等多様なテーマで実際の談話にis essential. Some of the issues most pressing in

基づいた実証研究を進めてきた。研究成果のterms of education relating to migrants which

学術的発信は言うまでもなく、社会貢献にもwere

積極的に取り組み、海外からの移住者向けのinsufficient

多様な教育プログラムを開発してきた。

training opportunities), a lack of language

identified

assistants,

発表では、先進事例の考察をベースに、

includespecialized
an

such

thingsas

JSL teachers (andoverwhelming

bias

towards

談話研究が異文化理解と多文化共生にどのEnglish and a disregard for first language

ように貢献できるかや、国内においてどのよ

maintenance.
The presentation addressed findings from

うな研究の可能性があるかについても論じinterviews with teachers and parents in New

た。

Zealand, Japan and the USA. The suggestions
5. （発表 4）Intercultural Understanding andthe findings revealed were that schools need toMulticulturalism

foster students capable of living anywhere and-

Suggestions

fromcommunicating

International Education （Chapple）

with

peopleofdifferentThis presentation discussed the potential

backgrounds by utilizing 4’C’s (Critical thinking,benefits for Japan that could be gained throughCollaboration, Creativity and Communication).

the education system from greater openness toFurther, they showed that education systems

diversity and collaboration with international

need to ‘future proof’ their systems byforms of education. In particular, it looks at what

addressing greater diversity. In concrete terms

opportunities are being missed and how reforms

this refers to substantial reforms ranging from229

teacher training, curriculum content, delivery

注and methods to classroom layout and the role of1

technology.

https://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/centres-and-instit

In conclusion, the presentation reiterated the
fact

that

intercultural

understanding

LWP について詳細は、

utes/language-in-the-workplace.

andmulticultural education are some of the mostsignificant vehicles for facilitating the political,

参考文献
Bernard, H. Russell (2006) Research Methods ineconomic and socio-cultural integration of

Anthropology, Altamira Press, Lanham,migrants and the linguistic resources theyMD.

represent need to be recognised and utilized by

秦かおり・岡本多香子・井出里咲子(2017)

authorities for the benefit of Japan’s youth as『出産・子育てのナラティブ分析－日本

well as those from overseas.

人女性の声にみる生き方と社会の形』
大阪大学出版会, 大阪.

6. まとめHill, Jane H. (2005) “Finding Culture in

4 件の発表の後、短時間ではあったが、オ

Narrative,” Finding Culture in Talk: Aーディエンスとの活発な議論が行われた。外Collection of Methods, ed. by Naomi Quinn,

国人材の受け入れはすでに始まり、今後ます

157-202, Palgrave MacMillan, New York.

ます増えることは必至である。フロアからは、 Ochs, Elinor (1996) “Linguistic Resources for
自分自身の研究から、多文化共生や異文化理

Socializing

Humanity,”

解にどうすれば貢献できるのか、本シンポジ

Linguistic Relativity, ed. by John J.

ウムへの参加を通してあらためて考える契Gumperzand機となったというコメントや、各講師が紹介

407-437,

Cambridge

した具体的な多文化共生の取り組みについCambridge.

StephenRethinking
C.

Levinson,

University Press,

Van Dijk, Teun A. (2018) “Discourse andてさらに詳しい説明を求める場面も見られ

Migration,”

た。

European

本シンポジウムでは、ミクロとマクロを

Qualitative
Migration

Research

Studies,

ed.

in
by

つなぐアプローチを採用し、異文化理解と多Ricard Zapata-Barrero and Evren Yalaz,

文化共生の可能性の実態に迫った。海外の先227-245, Springer, New York.

進事例と日本の事例を並べ、単純に取り入れるのではなく、村田がまとめるように、それをどこまで日本の今後に貢献させていくかが重要である。それを、引き続き本研究のテーマとしたい。
* 本研究は、龍谷大学国際社会指定研究「異文化理解と多文化共生―人口減少社会を見据えたミクロ・マクロからのアプローチ」（2017～2019 年度）の研究成果の一部である。

230<Symposium Report>

いてディスカッションを行うことを目的としてこのシンポジウムを企画した。
2. (発表 1) 趣旨説明 (パルデシ)

ツリーバンク開発と言語理論*

文の統語解析情報 (句構造) を付加した（Development of Treebank and Theoretical

ツリーバンクは、すでに以前から先進諸国にLinguistics）

おけるコーパス開発の主流となっている。日
本語に関して従来公開されてきたコーパス

吉本 啓（Kei Yoshimoto）

は、文の文節への分析を基礎として、形態素

東北大学（Tohoku University）

解析情報および文節間の係り受け関係をタ

プラシャント・パルデシ（Prashant Pardeshi）

グ付けしたものが中心である。しかし、言語

国立国語研究所（NINJAL）

研究に必要となる階層的な深い情報を文節

鈴木 彩香（Ayaka Suzuki）とその係り受け関係から自動的に得ること

国立国語研究所（NINJAL）には限界がある。そこで、現在、国立国語研

窪田 悠介（Yusuke Kubota）

究所で文の統語解析情報 (句構造) をアノ

筑波大学（University of Tsukuba）

テートした NINJAL Parsed Corpus of Modern

Alastair Butler

Japanese (NPCMJ)の開発が進められている

弘前大学（Hirosaki University）(バトラー他 2016)。本コーパスはペン通時

Stephen Wright Horn

コーパス (Santorini 2010) のアノテーション

国立国語研究所（NINJAL）

方式を採用している。統語情報のアノテーシ

ディスカッサントョンは表層的、中立的なものであり、特定の福島 一彦（Kazuhiko Fukushima）

形式言語理論にコミットしていない。本シン

関西外国語大学（Kansai Gaidai University）

ポジウムでは NPCMJ の開発、このコーパスを検索するための検索ツールおよびコーパ

キーワード：コーパス, 日本語, 統語論

スに基づく言語研究の可能性について最新の研究成果を報告する。
3. (発表 2) 言語研究と統語・意味解析情報

1. はじめに付きコーパス (吉本)

世界の言語研究においてコーパスはすでに重要な研究手段となっているが、日本語に本発表では、NPCMJ 開発の動機、その特関しては従来形態素情報を中心とするコー

色、アノテーションの方法について説明する。

パスしか存在しなかったため、その用途は限さらに、検索利用による日本語の実態の解明られていた。

について具体例を挙げ、NPCMJ により日本

国立国語研究所では平成 28 年度より、文語の量的研究と質的研究の統合がもたらされることを述べる。

の統語・意味解析情報を付加したコーパス(ツリーバンク) の開発を開始した。その文

従来の日本語コーパスは、文の文節への分法情報を利用することにより、これまでは出析を基礎として、形態素解析情報および文節来なかった、構文や文型にもとづく柔軟で正間の係り受け関係を付加したものが中心で確な言語データの検索が可能となる。ツリー

あった。しかし、これらによっては、文の意

バンク開発の動機、意義、および使用法につ味を反映する適切な統語情報を得ることは231

できない。それは、文節の中で自立語に後続

意味の近接する、推量・推定を表す「ようだ」

する付属語が独立した機能を果たすことが「そうだ」「らしい」がきわめて従属節となあること、および係り受けだけでは統語情報

りやすいことが目につく。
日本語には推定・推量を表す助動詞の数がとして不十分なことによる。
NPCMJ は、文に対し統語解析情報 (句構多く、NPCMJ はこれらの間の違いに関して造) をタグ付けした初の本格的な日本語コ

貴重なデータを提供する。「だろう」がそのーパスである。さらに、意味解析情報 (述語他の助動詞に対して有する特異性は明白で論理式) も各文に対してタグ付けされていある。「らしい」「そうだ」「ようだ」についる。これにより、文中の語句間の文法的関係ても、従属節や関係節の中での用法を詳しく(依存関係) をすべて把握することができる。 検討することにより、互いの使い分けについてヒントが得られる。

ペン通時コーパスの方式に従い、文の統語構造をラベル付きの括弧によって表示する。

4. ( 発 表 3) 構 文 検 索 ツ ー ル NPCMJ

すべての単語に対して品詞情報を表す品詞

タグが、句に対しては統語タグが付加される。 Explorer (鈴木、窪田、パルデシ)
NPCMJ の統語解析の基礎をなすのは X-bar

本発表では、ユーザーフレンドリーなイン理論だが、そのスキーマは考えられる限りフターフェースの整備、および言語研究とコー

ラットなものである。また、上記の品詞タグ

パス構築の連携の必要性について報告する。

や統語タグに対して必要に応じてさらに機

従来のコーパスにもとづく文法研究は、大能タグを付加して、曖昧な統語構造からの正名 (2017) が指摘するとおり、「要素の異同

確な意味情報の抽出に利用する。

と線形順序から機械的操作により得られる

アノテーションは以下の原則を立てて行

情報に基づき抽出可能な言語現象についてわれている。まず、いくつかの単語が緊密に

はデータが得やすいが、（終端連鎖の線形順連結して 1 つの機能語として働くものは、1

序以外の）統語情報、意味情報、語用論的情つの助詞 (P) やモーダル助動詞 (MD) とし報は利用が困難か不可能であり、無形の要素て扱っている。「内の関係」の関係節の場合や局所化できない意味を含む例の検索も困

は、関係節内に空所に相当するノードを与え難か不可能である」という欠点があった。

て文法役割を明示する。さらに、主語や目的

Kubota & Lee (2015)では日本語・韓国語の語が文中で表現されていない多くの場合に

並列構文制約 (CSC) について、線形順序でついて、それらをゼロ代名詞として明示する。 検索を行った。これは、日本語および韓国語
NPCMJ を利用したパイロット・スタディについてツリーバンクが利用できなかったとして、日本語のモダリティ表現に関する調ためである。これに対し、Kubota & Kubota

査を行った。
9 つのモダリティ表現について、(2018) が示したように、NPCMJ を利用する

コーパスの中から、各々が出現する全用例、ことにより、CSC のような構文を持つ言語

過去時制マーカー「た」が後接する例、従属

データの検索が可能になる。しかし、データ節の述語を構成する例、および関係節を構成の検索には一定の技術が必要であり、一般のして名詞を修飾する例をすべて抽出した。

文法研究者には利用しにくい。

結果を検討すると、まず、関係節となるこ

ツリーバンクで具体的な現象を検索しよとが非常にまれな「だろう」および「かもしうとした時、問題になりやすい点として、第れない」と、きわめて頻繁に関係節となる「べ一に、ツリーバンクの検索言語に慣れていな

きだ」および「そうだ」とが目につく。次に、

いこと、および検索言語を理解していても、232具体的な言語現象とツリーバンクのアノテ

for Japanese and English, respectively, there isーションが結びつかないことが挙げられる。

considerable overlap. There is a significant

上記の問題を解消し、かつ日本語の言語現

amount of parallel data, both from original

象とアノテーションの結びつきを網羅的にJapanese translated into English, and original示す構文検索ツールとして、NPCMJ Explorer

English translated into Japanese, and covering aを開発した。自分で検索式を書くのではなく、 wide spectrum of genres and language abilities,
あらかじめ用意された検索式に従ってデーfrom simple textbook examples and children's

タを観察できる。また、具体的な言語現象に

fiction, through to newswire, Ted talks, general

対応した項目を備え、 用意された検索式にfiction, and examples from written law. But what

対して、独自の指定を加えることも可能であis especially notable is that the analysis isる。初心者にとっては、ツリーバンクに最初

maximally shared. Also, the results of analysisに触れる目的で使用でき、上級者にとっては、 can be seen through a single web-interface.
For their analysis, both corpora adopt parsing

言語現象の索引のためのツールとなる。
開発の工程は以下のとおりである。まず、

schemes influenced by the Penn Historical

日本語研究において主要と考えられる現象

Corpora scheme (Santorini 2010) and theを網羅的にリストアップした。益岡・田窪

SUSANNE scheme (Sampson 1995). The Penn

(1992)の特定の文法現象を扱っている節項

Historical Corpora scheme has informed the

目を対象に、検索式を用意した。検索式は、“look” of the annotation, and the CorpusSearch

著者のうちの１人が用意し、共著者間で確認

format (Randall 2009). From the SUSANNEした。記述の一部のみを満たす場合は、項目

scheme, there is adoption of constructionをさらに細分化した。さらに、生成文法の教

analysis,

科書 (Kishimoto (in press)) に、NPCMJ のデ

information, and methods for representingータを参照して解く問題をふくめる予定でcomplex expressions.

functionalandgrammatical

The results of annotation are made availableある。また、中級者向けインターフェースのthrough a shared web-interface that has been

開発の可能性も検討している。
NPCMJ Explorer で用意することのできた

designed to allow for sophisticated searches of

文法項目は、益岡・田窪 (1992) の 136 の節

syntactic structure using a flexible path based

項目のうち、73 項目であった。これらのう

query language, and flipping between results for

ちの多くは、統語的な構造と意味が直接結び

either

つきにくい現象である。言語研究の蓄積をコ

visualisations for highlighting different aspects

ーパス構築へより有機的に結びつけていくof the parsed analysis, including views to

必要性が示唆される。

explore syntactic dependencies across tree

resource,

structures

in

as

well

discourse,
dependencies,assophisticatedtrackfollowmultiple

5. (発表 4) A Unified Interface for Exploring

modifier-headcross-English and Japanese (Butler)

sections of valence information, and observe

This paper introduces: the NINJAL Parsed

resulting displays from semantic calculations

Corpus of Modern Japanese (NPCMJ) (which isthat produce predicate language based formulas.

also available in an early release form as theThe `Word dependencies' interface facilitates

Keyaki Treebank) and the Treebank Semantics

exploring dependencies based on word selection.

Parsed Corpus (TSPC). While these corpora are

Basic string search allows you to search for233

sequences of characters in the text of the corpus.

15H03210 および国立国語研究所共同研究

This is particularly helpful for finding out about

プロジェクト「統語・意味解析コーパスの開

the segmentation of words. Tree search provides

発と言語研究」の助成を受けています。

a text area into which a TGrep-lite search
expression can be entered. The TGrep language

参考文献
Butler, Alastair (2015) Linguistic Expressions

allows formulating queries to find trees withexpressions that are able to match tree nodes andandrelationships defining links or negated links to

Heidelberg.

Semantic

Processing,

Springer,other tree nodes. Once the parsed analysis has

バトラー, アラステア他「統語・意味解析情

been reached, different analysis views are

報付き日本語コーパスのアノテーショ

available to look into the result.

ン」, 『言語処理学会第 22 回年次大会
発表論文集』, 589-592, 東北大学, 仙台.

6. ( 発 表 5) English/Japanese Contrastive

Kishimoto, Hideki (in press)

Study Based on Normalization: a Step in theJapanese

Syntax:Key

Semantic Processing (Horn, Butler)

Analysis, Hituzi, Tokyo.

ExploringConcepts

andIn a Scope Control Theory (Butler 2015)

Kubota, Yusuke and Ai Kubota (2018) “Probing

driven corpus, annotation directly encodes local

the Nature of an Island Constraint with adependencies like head::complement, predicate::

Parsed Corpus: A Case Study on theargument, clause::subject. Other dependencies

Coordinate

likeJapanese,” ms., Tsukuba University.

pronoun::antecedent,

extraction

site::beindirectly established

Constraint

in

Kubota, Yusuke and Jungmee Lee (2015) “Theextracted element, controller::null subject, etc.
can

Structure

Coordinate

by reading

Structure

Constraint
Principle:

asageneralized structural definitions into a semantic

Discourse-Oriented

Further

calculation. Whether for Japanese or for English,

Evidence from Japanese and Korean,”

if the annotation is sufficiently principled, it can

Language 91(3), 642–675.

be normalized into input for the calculation. Put

益岡隆志・田窪行則 (1992)『基礎日本語文

into practice in the treebanks, the relationship

法−改訂版−』くろしお出版, 東京.

between the annotation and the normalization,

大名力 (2017)「コーパスと生成文法」赤野and the language-specific aspects of the

一郎・堀正広 (編)『英語コーパス研究

normalization program itself, both encapsulate

シリーズ第７巻』19-49, ひつじ書房, 東

contrasts between Japanese and English.

京.
Randall, Beth (2009) CorpusSearch 2 Users

We have shown how expressions in natural

Guide.

languages of different types can be normalised
into forms that serve as inputs to the same

Sampson, Geoffrey (1995) English for thesystem of semantic calculation. We hope thisComputer, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

brief sketch suggests how the same approach

Santorini, Beatrice (2010) Annotation Manualscales to complex structures including non-local

for the Penn Historical Corpora and thedependencies, anaphoric relationships, etc.

PCEEC (Release 2), Tech. rep., Dep. of
Computer and Information Science, Univ.
Pennsylvania.

* 本研究は日本学術振興会科研費基盤 (B)234

<Workshop Report>

は、併合操作が並行して独立に二つの統辞体を形成し、さらにそれらを一つの統辞体として併合する必要があるが、この一連の作業には、背後に共通の作業空間（Workspace: WS）

併合手続きを再考する*を仮定せざるを得ない。この概念はこれまで（Generative Procedures Revisited）

明示化されてこなかったが、たとえば
Chomsky (1995)においても、併合操作は、「二小町 将之（Masayuki Komachi）

つの統辞体に適用して一つの統辞体を形成

静岡大学（Shizuoka University）

し、適用前の二つの統辞体を除去する」もの

北原 久嗣（Hisatsugu Kitahara）

として特徴づけられていた。このとき、どこ

慶應義塾大学（Keio University）

から除去するのかを考えれば、WS を暗黙の

内堀 朝子（Asako Uchibori）

うちに仮定していたと考えるべきであり、そ日本大学（Nihon University）の概念的必要性は明らかである。

瀧田 健介（Kensuke Takita）
3. Merge から MERGE へ

明海大学（Meikai University）「併合操作が第三要因の原理に従う形で派生を進める」という図式において WS が明キーワード：極小主義, 併合操作, 第三要因

示化されれば、併合操作の対象を個々の統辞体から WS へ転換し、派生を WS の状態遷移
1. はじめにの過程と捉えることができる。この転換を、
Chomsky et al. (2017) の表現を借りて Merge

言語の計算システムでは、(1)に定義される併合操作が働くと仮定されてきており、そから MERGE への移行と捉えよう。

の連続適用から人間言語に固有の性質であ(2) MERGE (WS) = WS’

る階層性を導くことができる。

a. WS = [ SOi, SOj ](1) Merge (α, β) = {α, β}b. WS' = [ SOi+j ]さらにこの定義により、構造構築のための操

WS を更新する手段は、MERGE を適用する

作 と 考 え ら れ て い た 外 的 併 合 （ External

場合に加えて、語彙項目をレキシコンから加Merge: EM）と、構造を変形する移動操作とえる場合も考えられる。

考えられてきた内的併合（Internal Merge:

ここでの新たな課題は、MERGE を第三要IM）が、単一の操作であることが原理的に因を含む合理的な条件のもとで適切に定義説明できるようになった（Chomsky 2004）。

し、その入出力にあたる WS にどのような要本ワークショップの目的は、この併合操作

素が含まれるかを検討することである。よりの手続きを見直し、それを支える基礎的な仮

具体的には、従来提案されてきた様々な併合

説群を再検討することである。研究発表はの変種（EM、IM のほか、Parallel Merge、

個々に独立させず、各発表者が分担し、全体

Sideward Merge や Late Merge など）が、適切でひとつの発表となるように構成した。

に定義された MERGE から妥当なものとして導かれるかを検証することである。

2. 隠れた仮説としての作業空間
4. MERGE の定義と決定性

Chomsky (2017)の指摘によれば、{XP, YP}

今 回 の ワ ー ク シ ョ ッ プ で は 、 Chomsky（例えば、NP-VP の構造など）を形成するに

235

(p.c.)によるものを具体案として取り上げた。

項目の位置づけについても具体的な提言が具体的な定義は発表資料に譲るが、この定義可能となる。

では、入力の WS にある二つの統辞体に併合
操作は対称的に適用され、また、その出力の* 準備段階において慶應義塾大学言語文化

WS が決定性をもつように定式化されている。 研究所「生成文法研究会」の協力を得ました。
決定性の概念は第三要因の原理と考えられまた、ワークショップ当日は多くの聴衆のる。これが遵守されるには、WS の各段階に方々から貴重なコメントと質問をいただき

おいて、アクセス可能なターム（term）が一ました。ここに感謝いたします。当日使用しつであるように、MERGE が適用されなくてた配布資料は、微細な修正を加えたうえではならない。

『慶應義塾大学言語文化研究所紀要』第 50

このような定義の帰結として、MERGE は、号に掲載予定です。

従来 EM と IM で捉えられてきた過程のみを妥当なものとし、それ以外の「拡張版」による過程はあり得ないものとして除外される。

Chomsky,

参考文献
Noam (1995) The

Minimalist

Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
5. 関連する仮説群の再検討

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

決定性の概念を仮定すると、ある WS に、

The Framework,” Step by Step, ed. by Roger

あるタームのコピーが複数含まれる場合、アMartin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka,

クセス可能ではないが可視的なタームも考89-155, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2004) “Beyond Explanatory

慮に入れる必要があり、これら二つの概念を

Adequacy,” Structures and Beyond, ed. by

区別する必要がある。
このために、可視性を探索によって定義し、Adriana

Belletti,

104-131,

OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

あらゆるタームを可視的であるとするとこ

Chomsky,

ろから始める。さらにフェイズ不可侵条件

Noam(2013)“ProblemsofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.

（Chomsky 2000）を仮定すれば、フェイズ主Chomsky, Noam (2017) A lecture presented at

要部の補部にあるものは MERGE にとってthe University of Reading on May 11, 2017.

アクセス可能でないことが導かれる。
同一フェイズ内に複数コピーが残る場合<https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?initについては、MERGE 適用の際に構造的によ=quick&q=University%20of%20Reading%

り高いコピーを選ぶことを求める「最短移動20chomsky&tas=0.21866556606255472>の帰結」（Chomsky, p.c.）を、最小探索の帰Chomsky, Noam (Personal Communication)

結として仮定する。これによって、「αのすべ

Excerpts from the E-mail Discussionsての生起が領域 D のタームであるときにの

among

み、αは領域 D 内に生じている」とする規定

Kitahara, and Seely in 2017-2018.

（Chomsky 2013）をあえて設けなくてよい。

Chomsky,

Huijbregts,

Epstein,

Chomsky, Noam, Ángel Gallego and Dennis Ott.
(2017) “Generative Grammar and theFaculty of Language: Insights, Questions,

6. 本研究の含意

and Challenges.” <lingbuzz/003507 (2nd

MERGE の具体的な定義と関連する基礎的version)>

仮説群によって、Chomsky (2017)において提示された「七つの要望（seven desiderata）」各236

<Workshop Report>

項に与える意味役割を持たないとする
Grimshaw and Mester (1988)の考え方と、「する」が項に与える意味役割を持つとする考え方が対立する（後者については Uchida andNakayama (1993)などを参照）。本論では、軽形態論から見た統語論・意味論：
軽動詞構文、程度表現、オノマトペ*

動詞構文の「する」が意味役割を持つという（Syntax and Semantics from the

考え方に対する支持を与える新たな経験的Morphological Point of View:

なデータを提示した上で、動名詞と軽動詞がLight Verb Construction, Degree Expressions

複雑述語を形成するのではなく、軽動詞が動and Onomatopoeia）

名詞を項にとる構文を形成し、項の意味役割の付与が動名詞と「する」のそれぞれの領域

漆原 朗子（Saeko Urushibara）

で起こることを示した。さらに、動作主主語

北九州市立大学（University of Kitakyushu）

構文と非動作主主語構文で「する」の持つこ

岸本 秀樹（Hideki Kishimoto）とができる項構造が異なることも論じた。特神戸大学（Kobe University）に、動作主構文の主語の意味役割が「する」

渡辺 明（Akira Watanabe）に由来するのに対して、非動作主主語構文の東京大学（University of Tokyo）

主語の意味役割は動名詞に由来することを示した。

キーワード：軽動詞, 程度表現, オノマトペ
3. （発表 2）名詞の最上級？（渡辺）
本発表は、「一番」という最上級をあらわ
1. はじめにす程度修飾表現が名詞に直接結びついてい

本ワークショップでは、日本語の軽動詞構るように見える場合の分析として、音形のな

文、程度表現、オノマトペを英語などの他言

いサイズ修飾語が構造上存在しており、通常語と比較しながら分析することによって、その最上級のように「一番」は名詞ではなくサ

れぞれについてこれまで一般的に想定されイズ修飾語の方と結びついていると考えるてきた枠組みや分析に一石を投じるようなのが妥当であると提案した。主たる根拠は、経験的証拠を提示することを試みた。そして、 当該のパターンが可能な名詞が、「だい」やそのことを通して形態論と文法の各部門の「おお」の接頭辞、または、「だいの」によ関係、とりわけ、辞書部門（the lexicon）のる修飾を受け入れて程度の意味をあらわす

存在と語彙的操作、統語構造と意味の対応な名詞とほぼ重なるという事実である。意味的

どについての理論的帰結を考察した。

におおよそ対応すると見られる英語の名詞が big による修飾を許しているという、

2. （発表 1）軽動詞構文に現れる項の認可にMorzycki (2009) による観察もこれを後押しついて（岸本）する。このことに、最上級で補充形態がみら「動名詞+する」の形式を持つ軽動詞構文

れる数少ないパターンにサイズ修飾語が含では軽動詞「する」に（構文に対して実質的まれているという Bobaljik (2012) による類な意味を与える）動名詞が組み合わされ、複型論的知見を加えれば、音形なしの形態も補雑述語のようにふるまう。この軽動詞構文に充法の一種であると理解でき、本提案をさら関しては、軽動詞の「する」がそれ自体ではに補強する材料となる。発表では、最上級以237

外にも音形のないサイズ修飾語を想定した参考文献方がよいと思われる場合を日本語や英語そBobaljik, Jonathan David (2012) Universals inの他でいくつか指摘した。

Comparative

Morphology:

Suppletion,

Superlatives, and the Structure of Words,
4. （発表 3）オノマトペの述語化（漆原）MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

本発表では分散形態論の枠組みで日本語

Embick,オノマトペの様々な形態的実現を分析した。

David“Distributed

and

Rolf

Noyer

Morphology(2007)

andtheHalle and Marantz (1993)、Embick and Noyer

Syntax/Morphology Interface,” The Oxford(2007)、等によれば、統語論における終端節

Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, ed. by

点には音形表示のある語根と音形表示を持Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss,

たない抽象的形態統語素性があり、 語根は289-324, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

範疇を持たず、範疇は機能範疇によって決定

Grimshaw, Jane and Armin Mester (1988)

される。オノマトペはその本質から範疇が明“Light Verbs and θ-Marking,” Linguistic

確とは言えず、特に日本語はその豊富さと範Inquiry 19, 205-232.
Halle, Morris and Alec疇的実現の多様性から DM の主張を検証す

Marantz(1993)

る事例となる。一方、認知言語学、語彙意味“Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of論等でオノマトペの様々な意味的特性が指Inflection,” The View from Building 20, ed.

摘されてきたが、DM の枠組みでは論理形式

by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser,

での解釈にかかわるすべての素性は統語論

111-176, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince (1995)に存在しなくてはならない。
そこで、オノマトペの韻律的・鋳型的な一“Prosodic Morphology,” The Handbook of

般化と生産性を捉えるための道具立てとし

Phonological Theory, ed. by John A.

て、範疇決定にかかわる機能範疇の内部に意Goldsmith, 318-366, Blackwell, Oxford.

味的な素性を仮定し、韻律（例えば Mester and

Mester, R. Armin and Junko Ito (1989) “Feature

Ito (1989)が提案する口蓋化による liquid 素性Predictability

andUnderspecification:の付与（「パタパタ」→「パチャパチャ」）やPalatal Prosody in Japanese Mimetics,”

鋳型（「すっきり」「はっきり」等 cf. McCarthy

Language 65, 258-293.

and Prince (1995) 他）が Spell-Out 後に語彙項

Morzycki, Marcin (2009) “Degree Modification

目として挿入されると分析し、日本語オノマ

of Gradable Nouns: Size Adjectives andトペの形態と意味の規則的対応の統語的分

Adnominal Degree Morphemes,” Natural

析が可能となると提案した。

Language Semantics 17, 175-203.
Uchida, Yoshiko and Mineharu Nakayama* 本ワークショップは日本学術振興会科学(1993)

研究費補助金基盤研究（C）「分散形態論のConstructions,” Linguistics 31, 623-666.

批判的検証：日本語オノマトペの述語化と英語の転換に着目して」（課題番号：17K02816
研究代表者：漆原 朗子 連携研究者：岸本
秀樹・多田 浩章・渡辺 明）の助成を受けたものです。ワークショップ参加者の皆様からの有意義なコメント・ご質問に感謝します。

238“Japanese

VerbalNoun[II]Eleventh International Spring ForumMay 12-13, 2018

2. Five Empirical Data
2.1. Simple FRs and Embedded Wh
Interrogatives
The first and second data concern dichotomy
between

The Structure of Free Relatives andDecomposition of Wh Operators*

simpleFRs

andembeddedinterrogatives. See (4) and (5), which are
examplesNorimasa Hayashi

of

FRs

and

embeddedwhinterrogatives, respectively.

Kyushu University(4) I will eat what you cook.

(=(2))(5) I wonder what you cook.

Keywords：syntax, free relatives, wh operators,labeling algorithm

The first controversy is whether the two clauses
have the same structure or not. Cecchetto andDonati:

1. Introduction

C&D(2015)

discussthetwo

In this paper, we will explore the structure ofconstructions uniformly. They propose theFree Relatives: FRs. And I will propose that bylabeling algorithm based on the one of Chomsky

decomposing wh operators FRs count as head in(2008). According to their labeling algorithm, in

Chomsky’s (2015) labeling algorithm.

FRs, what projects by its lexical property. In wh

First, I will make a brief introduction. FRsinterrogatives, since C probes and attracts the whshown in (2) and (3) are relative clauses which

what, C projects. The structure of FRs andhave no antecedent, unlike a restrictive relativeembedded wh interrogatives in their analysis areclause: RRC shown in (1).1

shown in (6) and (7).

(1) I will eat the staff (that/which) you cook.

(6) I will eat [DP what [CP you cook what]](RRC)(2) I will eat what you cook.
(3) I will eat whatever you cook.

(7) I wonder [CP what you cook what](FR)(Ever-FR)In this way, C&D derive two different
interpretations of what you cook. Although theyThis paper is organized as follows. First, we

assume the same underlying structure, some data

will see the empirical data to be explained inshow that the internal structures are different. In

section 2. In addition to the empirical data, we

Bulgarian and Greek, the morphologicallywill

problems

distinct wh operators are involved in the twoconcerning FRs in section 3. Then, to explain theconstructions, as in (8). C&D’s analysis cannot

empirical data and to solve the theoretical

capture these crosslinguistic data.

introduce

twotheoreticalproblems, we will make some assumptions in
section 4. With the assumptions, we will

(8) a. kojto

consider the derivation of FRs in section 5.

koj(Bulgarian)‘whoFR’ ‘whowh’

Section 6 contains some concluding remarks.

b. o-pjos

pjos‘whoFR’ ‘whowh’241(Izvorski (1998: 165))(Greek)(Izvorski (1998: 165))

b. I’ll live in whatever town you live e

2.2. FRs with Wh Phrases
The third data makes C&D’s analysis harder(13)

You live *(in) the town.

to adopt. This concerns FRs with wh phrases like(9).

(12b) shows the gap by e. As shown in (13), justfilling the gap by DP is not sufficient to(9) Give me what books you have on thesubject.

complete FRs. We need to assume PP in the gap.

(Declark (1991: 546))

These FRs are problematic for the head
hypothesis, which regards FRs as RRCs whose

Since their analysis of FRs hinges on the lexical

antecedent is a wh operator. See also Bresnan

property of the wh operator, wh phrases cannot

and Grimshaw (1978) for this analysis. Simple

project.2 To make matters worse, C cannot

FRs have the structure like (14b) under thisproject either, since (9) is an FR, not an

hypothesis. A null operator in the RRC is shown

interrogative clause, because give does not selectas op.

interrogatives, and C does not probe what.
Therefore, C&D’s analysis cannot derive (9).

(14) a. I will eat what you cook.

(=(2))

b. I will eat [DP what] [CP op you cook op]
2.3. Binding Condition in FRs
The forth data is concerned with the Binding

In PP FRs, since PP cannot act as antecedents,

Condition C. Consider (10).

the structure like (15b), where the PP antecedentand a PP operator are involved, is prohibited.

(10)

Shei will marry whom shej / Maryi likes.
(15) a. I’ll live in whatever town you live.

This ill-formedness can be attributed to the(=(12a))violation of Binding Condition C. This data is

b. [PP in whatever town] [CP opPP you live

important because it rejects the Riemsdijk’s

opPP](2006) multidominance structure like (11). (11)cannot explain the ill-formedness of (10).3

The next possibility is to assume the DP
antecedent and a PP operator like (16). However,

(11)

CP
C

CP
TP

she

C
T´

will

the RRC counterpart (17) is ill-formed, so the
TP

Mary
VP

null PP operator cannot be assumed also in (16).
T´

T

marry

Therefore, PP FRs are problematic for the Headhypothesis.4

VP
likes

whom

(16) [PP in [DP whatever town] [CP opPP you live
opPP]](17) a. *the town you live

2.4. PP FRs
The last data is PP FRs like (12a).

b. [DP the town] [CP opPP you live opPP](12) a. I’ll live in whatever town you live.

So far, we have seen the empirical data. Next,(Bresnan and Grimshaw (1978: 351))

we will see theoretical problems on FRs.

242

3. Two Theoretical Problems

that

wh

operators

3.1. Unvalued Feature

quantificational

havefeature,anunvaluedfollowing

KurodaThe first one concerns an unvalued feature of(1965), Nishigauchi (1990), and Saito (2017).

wh operators. It is assumed that wh operators

Second, I propose that in FRs, their unvalued

have an unvalued feature. See also Kuroda

features are valued by D or ever, which is part of(1965), Nishigauchi (1990), Chomsky (2015),

a wh operator. Third, we deconstruct wh

and Saito (2017). Although C assigns a value tooperators into two parts: the operator part andan unvalued feature of wh operators in wh

the restriction part, following Kuroda (1969) andinterrogatives, it is unclear how the unvalued

Chomsky (1995), Di Sciullo (2005), and Kayne

feature is valued in FRs.

(2005). I summarize them in (18).

3.2. Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) System(18) a. Wh

Before introducing the second problem, weoperators

have

an

unvaluedquantificational feature: [uQ].

must touch on Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) labelingb. The [uQ] feature is valued by D or everalgorithm: LA, on which we are based. In

in FRs.

Chomsky’s system, Merge counts as a freec. Wh operators are decomposed into

operation, and the LA evaluates the derivation.

operator and restriction.

According to the LA, Head serves as the label ofthe set of Head and phrase. When both members

Let us consider each assumption. The firstare phrases, an agreement feature provides theassumption is based on crosslinguistic data. Inlabel. The second case is involved in wh

Japanese, Saito (2017) observes that different

interrogatives, where an unvalued feature and C

particles yield different interpretations of whprovides the <Q, Q> label.

operators:kainterpretation andyieldsthemo theinterrogative
universal

one.

Following Saito (2017), we argue that ka and mo3.3. The Status of Wh Operators
Within this system, we clarify the othervalue the [uQ] feature of wh operators andtheoretical problem. It concerns the status of thedetermine their interpretations in Japanese. Next,

wh operator. In FRs, DP, not CP projects because

recall the previously-mentioned Bulgarian andof the selectional property of the matrix verb.

Greek data, where morphologically complex wh

Therefore, we can assume that wh operators

operators are used in FRs. In these languages,

count as head in the LA. However, wh operators

the affixes attached to wh operators are derived

should be regarded as phrases in interrogatives,

from definite articles. I propose that in English

in order to provide the <Q, Q> label. If the wh

as well, the null D affix is involved in FRs andoperator counts as head in interrogatives, thethat the affix values the [uQ] feature of whwhole label would become DP. So, wh operators

operators. In ever FRs, the overt ever values theseem to have contradictory statuses.

[uQ] feature. This affix ever is derived from theuniversal quantifier every, so ever FRs receive
the universal interpretation.

4. Assumptions
Now, we will set the stage for my proposal
by making three assumptions. First, I assume243

(19) a. kojto → koj + -to

Bulgarianb. o-pjos → pjos + o-

Greek

whFR

whint

5. Derivations
Now, we will discuss the derivation of FRs

D affix

and the related issues individually. First, we will(20) a. wh[uQ] + D[def]b. wh[uQ] + ever[universal]

Englishdiscuss

Englishstructure of the embedded clause is as in (25b).

Moreover, it naturally follows from our analysis

embeddedwhinterrogatives.

(25) a. I wonder what you cook.

that FRs show the definiteness effect in (21)b.

because of the presence of the internal D.

(=(5))<Q, Q>??
REST op(21) *There is what he cooked on the table.

TheC
C <phi, phi>

[THING] [uQ] [Q](Izvorski (1998: 162))

you
T

T
R-v*

{cook {REST, op}}
Next,

we

will

considerthesecondassumption. Kuroda (1969) proposes that wh

I make some comments in order. In (25b), op

operators

structure.

and REST merge. This set is eventually spelled

Although we change his proposal slightly forout as what. The [uQ] feature of what is valued

simplicity’s sake, we adopt his proposal andvia the agreement with C. However, indeconstruct wh operators into operator anddetermining the labels by the LA, we face a

restriction. The operator is a ufeature-holder andproblem with the labeling within wh operators.

the restriction satisfies the selection of matrix

Both op and REST are regarded as head andverbs. (22) shows that different restriction yields

there is no shared agreement feature. Chomsky

different wh operators.

(2013, 2015) argue that this H-H set is formed in

have

some

complexthe first Merge, where the merged objects are(22) op [uQ] + restriction (REST) [THING/

some categorizer and a semantic root. In thisPERSON/PLACE...] → what/who/where...

case, a semantic root is too weak to serve as thelabel, and the categorizer serves as the label. We

As shown in (23), this deconstruction directly

adopt a similar solution. In the configuration ofreflects the semantics of wh operators.

operator and restriction, I tentatively assume thatthe operator is weak because there is similarity(23) a. Who likes Mary?

between operators and roots in that theirb. [who x: x a person] [x likes Mary]

interpretations are determined by other objects.
Therefore, the undefined label ?? becomes

Finally, we get the wh operators in interrogatives

REST in (25b).

and FRs shown in (24).

Next, we will discuss the derivation of FRs. I
assume that wh operators in FRs have the(24) a. whatint: op[uQ] + REST [THING] →structure like (26).

what [uQ]b. whatFR: op[uQ] + D + REST [THING](26) <REST REST [<D, D> op[uQ], D]>→ what[D]244

First, the set Merge applies to the operator with

Next we will discuss FRs with wh phrases.

the [uQ] feature and D, and this set pair-merges

Here, I assume that the internal D selects the NP,

to the restriction. Following Chomsky (2004),

and that the set pair-merges to the restriction so

the pair-merged object merges at a separatethat the restriction counts as head. The relevant

plane, and therefore, wh operators in FRs countexample and structure are shown in (29).

as head, since the only item visible in syntax isthe restriction. In interrogatives, the matrix V(29) a. Give me what books you have on theselects the <Q, Q> label, so the operator with thesubject.

[uQ] feature must be visible in syntax, and thepair-Merge

optionisprohibited.

(=(9))b.

Unlikegive

interrogatives, what is required in FRs is the

RESTi

restriction, which is selected by the matrix V.

REST

The structure of FRs are shown in (27), where I[THING]

show pair-Merge by a dotted box.

RESTC

<D, D> Cdec <phi, phi>op

D
D books

you

T
T

R-v*

{cook RESTi}(27) a. I will eat what you cook.

(=(2))b.

Finally, I focus on the PP FRs. Since we will use
eat

REST

RESTi

R-to-v* external pair-Merge, which is discussed
C

by Epstein, Kitahara and Seely: EKS (2016),

REST <D, D> Cdec <phi, phi>
[THING]

op

D

you

[uQ] [D]T

first we will review their proposal. They argueTthe derivation of the bridge verb. In Chomsky

R-v*(2015), the agreement between R and internal{cook RESTi}

arguments provides the <phi, phi> label.
Chomsky assumes that R remains weak without

I assume that the declarative C, not interrogative

this <phi, phi> label. So, the agreement between

C is involved in FRs, since FRs do not act as

R and internal arguments is essential. However,questions. After merging C with the traditionalin the bridge verb construction, R selects CP,

TP, the pair including REST is internally merged.

which has no [phi] features. Therefore, theREST serves as the label in the FR because it

bridge verb construction poses a problem forcounts as head. Then, the whole structure is

Chomsky’s (2015) system. To derive thisselected by matrix R. By replacing D with ever,construction, EKS pair-merge R to v* before thewe get the structure of ever FRs.

derivation. By this external pair-Merge, because
R-v* amalgam can serve as the label, the(28) a. I will eat whatever you cook.

(=(3))

labeling problem is solved. EKS also assume

b. [REST <REST REST [<Q, Q> op, ever]> [C C

that[<phi, phi> you cook <REST [op, ever]>]]]

phase is cancelled by theexternalpair-Merge. Now, let us consider the derivationof PP FRs with external pair-Merge.

In our derivation, since FRs are selected by thematrix R, the violation of Binding Condition C
should be observed in an example like (10).

245

(30) a.

I’ll live in whatever town you live.

satisfied by the restriction.

(=(12a))b.

6. Conclusion
R-v*

P
P

To conclude and sum up, we have seen the
REST

RESTi

empirical data which pose problems for theCprevious analyses. We have also seen that there

REST <D, D> Cdec <phi, phi>
[THING]

op

D

you

[uQ] [D]Tare theoretical problems about an unvalued

Tfeature and the status of wh operators. I haveR-v*

proposed to deconstruct wh operators and{R-v* {P, RESTi}}

postulate null D or ever to value the unvalued
feature. Finally, we have checked the proposed

Because of the phase cancellation by thederivations, which are including reprojection,

external pair-Merge, PP is not transferred in theand found that they do not cause the problem ofv*P phase. After C merges, the restriction and P

overgeneration.

internally merges in order, and the consequent
projection becomes PP, which the matrix R-v*

* I am greatly indebted to Nobuaki Nishioka for

selects.

providing me with invaluable comments. I

Finally, let us consider the second Merge ofwould like to express my gratitude for fruitful

the restriction and preposition. If second Mergecomments to the audiences in the English

of P is allowed, one may suspect that the present

Linguistic Society of Japan 11th International

analysis would derive the sentence like (31).

Spring Forum. I am also truly thankful to
Edmund Cruz Luna for suggesting stylistic(31) *I’ll search for that you searched t books.

improvements. Needless to say, all remaining
errors are my own.

(31) would be derived as follows. P merges in

NOTES
We will not treat concessive clauses with wh

the initial position, marked by t. After the1

embedded clause is completed, P merges with

operators and indefinite FRs in this paper.

the embedded CP to make the clause PP, which

Izvorski (2000) discusses that concessive clauses

the matrix V selects. In fact, even if there is no

like (i) has a different structure from the one ofproblem with labeling, (31) results in gibberishFRs.

because selectional requirement of for cannot besatisfied by CP. That is why the second Merge of(i) Whatever John cooks, he will win the

P is blocked in this derivation. Unlike for, thecooking contest.

(Izvorski (2000: 233))

restriction of wh operators have no concrete
meaning. It is just an abstract feature such as

See Izvorski (1998) for the properties of[THING] or [PERSON]. Therefore, they have noconcessive clauses.

selectional requirement. That is why we canIndefinite FRs do not exist in English. Grosu

remerge the restriction in FRs. Once the(2004) and Kotek and Erlewine (2016) observe

restriction serves as the label, P can remergethat they have different properties from FRs.

now because the selectional requirement can be2

246This problem is also noted by Tozawa (2015).

In this paper, I use tree diagrams for complex

Semantics, ed. by O. M. Tomić: 405-438,

structures, but just for expository purposes.

John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

3

Izvorski, Roumyana (1998) “Non-Indicative

Moreover, I sometimes omit details of thestructure because of space limitation.

Wh-Complements

4

Existential Predicates,” NELS 28, 159-173.

To derive PP FRs, Bresnan and Grimshaw

ofPossessive

andIzvorski, Roumyana (2000) “Free Adjunct Free

(1978) stipulate null P or pro in English.

Relatives,” WCCFL 19, 232-245.
REFERENCES
Bresnan, Joan Wanda and Jane Grimshaw

Kayne, Richard (2005) Movement and Silence,(1978) “The Syntax of Free Relatives in

Kotek, Hadas and Yoshitaka Erlewine (2016)

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

English,” Linguistic Inquiry 9, 331-391.

“Unifying Definite and Indefinite Free

Cecchetto Carlo and Caterina Donati (2015)

Relatives: Evidence from Mayan,” NELS

(Re)labeling, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,Noam(1995)

The46, 241-254.

Minimalist

Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) Generative Grammatical

Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Studies in the Japanese Language, Doctoral

Chomsky, Noam (2004) “Beyond Explanatory

dissertation, MIT.

Adequacy,” Structures and Beyond, ed. by
Adriana

Belletti,

104-131,

Kuroda, S.-Y. (1969) “English Relativization

Oxfordand Certain Related Problems,” Modern

University Press, Oxford, New York.
Chomsky,Noam(2013)“Problems

StudiesofNoam

Projection:(2015)David“Problems

Extensions,”

English:Readings

inTransformational Grammar, ed. by Reibel,

Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky,

in

of

et

al.:

264-287,

Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs.

Structures,

Nishigauchi, Taisuke (1990) Quantification in

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour

the Theory of Grammar, Kluwer Academicof Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di

Publisher, Netherland.

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona
Matteini,

3-16,

John

Riemsdijk, Henk, van (2006) “Free Relatives,”

Benjamins,

The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, ed. by

Amsterdam.
Declark, Renaat
Descriptive

M. Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk:(1991)A Comprehensive

Grammarof338-382. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken,

English,NJ.

Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

Saito, Mamoru (2017) “Japanese Wh-Phrases as

Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (2005) Asymmetry in

Operators

Morphology, MIT Press, Cambridge.

withUnspecified

Quantificational Force,” Language andEpstein, Samuel, Hisatsugu Kitahara and Daniel

Linguistics 18: 1-25.

Seely (2016) “Phase Cancellation by

Tozawa, Takahiro (2015) “On Labeling in Free

External Pair-Merge of Heads,” Linguistic

Relative Clauses in English,” English

Review 33, 87-102.

Linguistics 32: 22-58.

Grosu,

Alexander

Syntax-Semantics
Wh-Constructions,”of(2004)

“The

Modal

Existential

BalkanSyntaxand247

reference points (RP) from the context. The
context is a tuple <agent, (addressee,) time,
place,

RP>, and the verbs come and go referto a RP supplied in the context. Go requires
A Monster in English *that no member of RP be at the goal of
movement while come needs to have some RP

Sumiyo Nishiguchiat the goal. The speaker is always a member ofTokyo University of ScienceRP, and the addressee is preferably a member
as well. A third person can be included only

Keywords：come, go, past, context, RP

when neither speaker nor addressee is the
subject.
Although Oshima (2006) explains why
come and go can take goals other than the

1. Introduction
This

paper

analyzesthespeaker’s location, it is questionable whether

followingprimitive context parameters can includesentences:additional parameter RPs, for Kaplanian(1) a.
b.

I am coming now.

context parameters evaluate the meaning ofI found it. The book was here.

indexicals before deriving an intensional
meaning.

The motion verb come is used for movement
toward the addressee in (1a), even though,2.2. Fillmore (1997)

from the perspective of the speaker, her

According to Fillmore (1997), comemovement is rather going from or leaving her

indicates motion towards the location of either

location. Coming is chosen in accordance withthe speaker in (2a) or the addressee in (2b), at

the viewpoint of the addressee (Fillmore

either the time of utterance (coding time) or(1997)). In (1b), the past tense is used for thethe reference time.

current location of the book. These datasuggest the existence of the Kaplanian(2) a. Mary is coming here. (toward themonster, the context change function thatspeaker’s location at the utterance

maneuvers the context of utterance

time)(Kaplan(1977, 1989)).

b. I am coming. (toward the hearer’s
location at the utterance time)c. I am coming to see you even when you

2. Previous and Alternative Analyses
Before I present my analysis, in thisare not home. (toward the hearer’s

section I provide an overview of threemetonymical location)

analyses of motion deictic verbs come and go.
What Fillmore (1997) calls the “home base”
of the discourse participant can also be the2.1. Oshima (2006)
Oshima (2006) considers the deictic verbs

destination of come in (2c). In (2c), thecome and go to be indexicals that pickdestination is not the addressee’s location but

248her home even though she is away from it.

Ithe addressee’s location in (2b).

take such a case as metonymy whereby thehome base is identified with the location of(6) a.

λx,y.come(x)(y)participant. Thus, if come is an indexical, it is[ I ]= s <e>taken[ come ] = λx,y.come(x)(y) <e,et>tobepolysemous

betweenthe

movement toward the speaker’s location andb.

the hearer’s.

(s: speaker)[ I come ] = [come] ([ I ])= λx.come(x)(s)= come(h)(s)(3) a.
b.

<ac,hc,tc,lc,wc>,<ai,hi,ti,li,wi>[come]=
λe.come(e) & goal(e) = lc

However, such an analysis overgenerates<ac,hc,tc,lc,wc>,<ai,hi,ti,li,wi>

unlikely readings. Even though Kenya is not[come]=
λe.come(e) & goal(e) = lieither the speaker’s or the hearer’s location, thegoal argument of coming may be bound by

In (3), context (c) and index (i) are tuples: < a, h,Mary or someone else contextually salient but

l , t, w >—author (a), hearer (h), location (l),such a reading is difficult to obtain.

time (t), and world (w). c =<ac, tc, wc> and i= <ai, ti, wi> (cf. Lewis (1980)).

(7) a. # Mary is coming (to Kenya). (Thespeaker is in Japan and has neverbeen to Kenya)

2.3. Binding Approach
Another possible analysis would take ab.

Mary λx,y.come(x)(y)binding approach in which come carries with

= λx.come(x)(m)it an additional deictic parameter that is= come(m)(m)(8) a. # A typhoon is coming to Alaska. (I am

treated as a free or bound variable in the1

now in Cairo.)

object language. (2b) would be something
like (4) where the goal argument of come isb.

bound by the addressee.

A typhoon is coming to xi to
Alaskai.

(4) I am telling you 1 λx.I am coming to x1.

Thus,

the

binding

approach

generates

impossible readings.
The intransitive verb come is usuallyconsidered a one-place predicate, a function

3. Proposal

from an individual to truth-values.

3.1. Monster
Instead, let us assume that there is a(5) λx.come(x)context shifter called the monster, OP, whichchanges the context location to the hearer’s

The binding approach assumes that come islocation, instead of positing an additional

insteadaadditional

two-placegoal

predicateparameter,

that

with

an

context parameter RP, as Oshima (2007)

can

be

argues.

saturated with either a speaker, hearer, or acontextually salient goal, which in this case is

249

(9)

context = < a, h, t, l, w>|[OP come]index; (b) OPper only applies to first and second<ac,hc,tc,lc,wc>,<ai,hi,ti,li,wi>

person pronouns, namely, the agent a and the=<ac,hc,tc,li,wc>,<ai,hi,ti,li,wi>

hearer h; and (c) OPauth exclusively shifts the[ come]= λe.come(e) & goal(e) = li

reference of the first person, or author. Given
that the location parameter is overwritten in

The advantage of this approach is thethe case of come, the monster in English is astraightforward adoption that it permits of the

fourth type (d) that maneuvers the location

Kaplanian and Lewisian notion of context.

parameter, as the example in (12b) indicates.

The context parameters do not contain(12) a. Type I: [ OP∀ φ] g c,i = [ φ] gi,ianything other than agents, location, time anda world (cf. Lewis (1980)).

c,ib. Type II: [ OPper φ] g =Claiming the existance of a monster iscontra Kaplan (1977, 1989) who claimed that[φ] gindexicals such as I, you, here, now, andc. Type III: [ OPauthyesterday are directly referential, meaning that

(Anand and Nevins (2004), Anand (2006))

utterance. Except for direct quotations as in(10a), I can only refer to the speaker or writer,d. Type IV: [ OP φ] gc,i =loc

as in (10b). The locative indexical here refers[ φ]g<ac,hc,li,tc,wc>,ito Tokyo, which is the location of the speaker,
instead of Okinawa in (11).

b.
(11)

φ]gc, i =[φ]g<ai,hc,lc,tc,wc>,itheir reference is fixed by the context of(10) a.

<ai,hi,lc,tc,wc>,i(13) a. [ OP come ] g c,i =loc

Baali said “I am genius.”[ come ]g

Baali said that I am genius.

<ac,hc,li,tc,wc>,ib. [ OPloc go ] gJohn said (in Okinawao) Mary wasc,i= [ come ] g<ac,hc,li,tc,wc>,i

herei=/=o.
3.2. A Possible Counterexample
The goal of movement is

Kaplan’s claim has inspired much debate on

notlimitedwhether contexts are shiftable. Schlenker (2003)

to a singular individual. In (14), there are

and Anand and Nevins (2004), among others,

three individuals that the movement targets.

have argued that context shifters, referred to as

Also, neither the speaker nor the addressee ismonsters, exist in languages such as AmharicRP.

and Zazaki. Further, Anand and Nevins (2004)
and Anand (2006) claim the existence of three(14) At least three students came to talk tokinds of Kaplanian monsters selected bythree professors.

different attitude verbs in Slave.
There

are

three

kinds

(Oshima (2006, 114))ofmonstrous

operators: (a) OP∀ maneuvers all indexicals in

When the speaker or the hearer is not

its scope so that the person, locative, temporal,

affiliated with the same school as the three

and world parameters are all overwritten by thestudents

250

and

three

professors,

(14)

is

infelicitous. Therefore, the location of the

The past tense is used for cancelled or forgotten

three professors is identified with the speakerfuture as in (21b). (21b) is the speech of aor the hearer’s location in a broad sense. The

student who had forgotten about the exam ahead.

example in (15) is felicitous if the speakerlocation is Tokyo which is identified with(21) a. There was an exam tomorrow but it

Ueno Park there, but infelicitous in otherwas postponed.

locations.

b. I had a party tomorrow but I haveforgotten about it.
c. Weren’t(15) a. li = lcb.

c,i

[ OP come ] =

we

going

to

a

movie

tomorrow or was it next week?

<ac,hc,li,tc>,<ai,hi,li,ti>[ come ](16) Many people come to Ueno Park to see

When requesting forgotten information,

pandas but few come for gorillas.

the use of the past tense implies that the(The speaker is in {Tokyo/*China})

speaker is supposed to already know theanswer:So,

thephenomena

accountablebyrelatedpositing

a

to

come

is

context-change(22) a. Where did you live, again?

function.

b. Osumai-wa dochira-deshi-ta-ka.
residence-TOP where-HON-PAST-Q‘Where did you live?’

4. Shifty Tense
This section further argues that temporal

The past tense can be used when the speakerparameter is also shiftable in English.

suddenly finds something that was lost
(Teramura 1984, among others). Such ‘fake’4.1. Surprise Past

past has also been analyzed as evidence of the(19) is the utterance when the speaker has

context shift (Nishiguchi 2006).

been looking for her lost book and just foundit (Nishiguchi (2006, 2007, 2014, 2015)).

(23) [ OP PAST ]c,i = [ PAST ]<ac,hc,lc,ti,wc>,i(19) I found it. The book was here.
As in (23), the temporal parameter of the
There have been discussed parallel examples

context is overwritten using the monstrous

in Japanese, called hakken-no -ta ‘-ta offunction so that the interpretation of the past

discovery.’tense marker differs. Then, a fifth type of amonster seems to shift time in English:(20) a. Koko-ni

at-ta. (Japanese)

here-LOC(24) Type V: [OPloc,tense φ]gc,i =

be-PAST‘It was here.’[ φ ]gb. A,

densha-ga

ki-ta.

ohtrain-NOM

come-PAST<ac,hc,lc,ti,wc>,i4.2. Temporary Mismatched Past
It is also remarkable that temporal‘Oh the train is coming.’251

(28) [ PAST φ]<c,i> = 1 iff there is ti suchmismatch occurs between temporal adverbials
and the past tense morpheme when recalling athat ti < tc and [φ] <c[ti/tc],i>future schedule as in (25), in which the(“t1 < t2” means t1 precedes t2 in time)speaker had forgotten about a future event.
The future adverbial asu “tomorrow” and the

However, with the fake past tense, thepast tense marker seem to show a mismatch.

context parameter itself is shifted to the past sothat the past tense morpheme is interpreted as(25) a.
b.

It was off tomorrow. I forgot about it.

having present reference, as in (29a). We canAsu-wayasumi-dat-ta.

also assume the semantic type of a monster to be

tomorrow-TOP

off-be-PASTa function from one function from a product ofcontext and index to truth-values to another‘Tomorrow was a day off.’

function from a product of context and index
Ogiharadiscuss(2000)

andmismatched

Ippolito(2003)

to truth-values.

counterfactual(29) a. [ OP φ ] <c,i> = 1 iff [ φ ] <c[ti/tc],i> = 1

conditionals, in which the past tense without apast time interpretation co-occurs with ab. OP : ((c × i) → t) → ((c × i)future adverbial e.g., tomorrow or next week :→t)
The monstrous operator OP manipulates the(26) a. If it rained tomorrow, I would go
shopping.

temporal parameter of the context. The
semantic type of OP is a function from ((cb. If Lucy played with Charlie tomorrow,× i)→ t) (a function from the context and

she would make him happy.

index to a proposition) to another function
from the context and index to a proposition.

4.3. Context Shift
Such a “fake” past has also been analyzed

The above discussion has revealed thatas evidence of the context shift (Nishiguchi

locative and temporal context parameters are(2006)).

shiftable in English. They also shift together
in the following examples:(27) [ OP PAST ]c,i =[ PAST ]<ac,hc,lc,ti,wc>,i(36) a. I was coming tomorrow. I haveforgotten about it.
b. Three students were coming to three

As in (27), the temporal parameter of theprofessors on Tuesday.

context is overwritten by the monstrous
function so that the interpretation of the past

Therefore, the sixth type of the monster shifts

tense marker differs.

both tense and location:

In the framework of the double index
system developed based on Lewis (1980), theindex time of ordinary past tense sentences is(37)

located prior to the utterance time:c,iType VI: [ OP loc,tenseφ ] g =[ φ ]g252<ac,hc,li,ti,wc>,iContent, Reidel, Dordrecht.

5. Conclusion
This paper discussed the fact that the

Nishiguchi, Sumiyo (2006) “Fake Past and a

motion verb come indicates the presence of

Monster,” Stony Brook Occasional Papers

the context-shifter OP, which overwrites thein Linguistics 1, 152-171.

context location so that the goal of motion isshiftedfromthe

speaker’s

Nishiguchi,

location.

SumiyoDynamic(2007)

Semantics“TemporalofFactualFurthermore, the past tense of discovery andCounterfactuals,”amnesiac signals context change. The given

Artificial Intelligence JSAI 2003, JSAI

data suggests the existence of different types

2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Scienceof monsters in addition to the other three types

3609, ed. by

posited in Anand and Nevins (2003) and

Hasida and Katsumi Nitta,

Anand (2006).

Berlin, Heidelberg.

New

Frontiersin

Akito Sakurai, Koiti
Springer,

Nishiguchi, Sumiyo (2014) “Mirative Past in* The origin of this paper traces back toJapanese,” Semantics-Syntax Interface,

2003-2004 when I presented a paper at a118-132.

seminar at UCLA. I thank Tim Stowell for

Nishiguchi, Sumiyo (2015) “Fake Past anddrawing my attention an example. This paper is

Awareness,”also the extension of the project supported byConference of the Japanese Society for

JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 16K02643.

Artificial Intelligence.

29th

AnnualOgihara, Toshiyuki (2000) “Counterfactuals,

NOTES
1

The

Temporal Adverbs, and Association with

I owe this idea to a reviewer.

Focus,” SALT 10, 115-131.
Oshima, David. Y. (2006a) “Go and ComeREFERENCES
Anand, Pranav (2006) De De Se, Doctoral

Revisited: What Serves As a Reference

dissertation, MIT.

Point?,” BLS 32.

Anand, Pranav and Andrew Nevins (2004)“Shifty

Operators

inOshima, David Y. (2006b) Perspectives inChanging

ReportedContexts,” SALT 14, 20-37.

Schlenker, Philippe (2003) “A Plea for

CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Monsters,” Linguistics and Philosophy
26, 29-120.

Ippolito, Michela (2003) “Presuppositions and
Implicatures in Counterfactuals,” Natural

Teramura,

Language Semantics 11, 145-186.
An Essay on the Semantics, Logic,
Epistemology

Hideo(1984)

NihongoShintakusu to Imi II, Kuroshio, Tokyo.

Kaplan, David (1977, 1989) Demonstratives:andDoctoraldissertation, Stanford University.

Fillmore, Charles (1997) Lectures on Deixis,

Metaphysics,

Discourse,ofDemonstratives and Other Indexicals,
Oxford University Press, New York,
Oxford.
Lewis, David (1980) Index, Context, and

253

no

<a, b> (see EKS (2016)). Although thisconception of Merge does not yield labels (andprojections), the interpretive systems (i.e. theSM and CI systems) require labels forLabeling and Feature Sharing in Wh-In-Situ

interpretations. To label a syntactic set, minimal

Questions*search, conforming to a third-factor principle (i.e.
Minimal Computation), locates one head (e.g. C

Jun Omuneor T) and selects it as a label, where the otherKansai Gaidai University

possible head is invisible or simply does notexist. For example, {DP, v*P} is labeled as v*P

Keywords  freely applying Merge, feature

because the lower copy DP is, by definition,

sharing, labeling, Q-feature, wh-in-situ questions

invisible.1 In addition, labeling by minimal
search locates a pair of matched features<valued, unvalued> in the so-called Spec-Head

1. Introduction

relation (see Chomsky (2013, 2015), EKS (2017,

In this paper, I first point out that the system2018),

Kitahara(2017))

andselects

itsof feature sharing (i.e. agreement) in the current

shared-prominent feature (e.g. <Q, Q> and <Phi,minimalist model (Chomsky (2013, 2015), EKSPhi>) to be a label, when identifying the label of(Epstein, Kitahara and Seely) (2017, 2018) anda

structure

{XP,

YP}.

This

Kitahara (2017) among others) potentially raises

shared-prominent-feature

optioniscalledsymmetric2

a problem of feature sharing in wh-in-situ

agreement. According to Chomsky (2015) andquestions such as echo questions and quiz-show

EKSquestions in English. Then, I resolve this(unvalued Q), and CQ bears lexically/inherently

problem by proposing a new type of application

valued Q. Given these basic assumptions, theof Merge, which applies freely in any order

structure and the derivation of who did John hit

whether it is external or internal. Finally, it isare as follows:3(2017,

2018),

wh-phrases

bear

uQ

shown that the analysis based on this proposal
not only explains the structure and the derivation(1){α who[uQ], {β <Tdo, CQ>, {John, {Tdo ,of wh-in-situ questions in English and Japanese{John, {<Rhit, v*>, {δ who[uQ] , {γ Rhit ,but also suggests an interesting generalization of

who[uQ] }}}}}}}}

cross-linguistic wh-in-situ phenomena.

i.

Merge externally forms {γ Rhit,
who[uQ]} and internally forms {δ

2. Analytic Assumptions and a Potential

who [uQ], {γ Rhit, who[uQ] }}.

Problemii.

In the current framework of the Minimalist

Merge externally forms {John,{v*[uPhi],

Program (Chomsky (2013, 2015)), Merge,{δ

who[uQ],

{γ

Rhit,

who[uQ] }}}}.

which freely applies, takes two objects, say aiii.

Rhit inherits features from v*, andand b, and forms the simplest set {a, b}.

labeling by minimal search takes

Pair-Merge, which also freely applies, takes twoplace: δ and γ are labeled as <Phi,

objects, say a and b, and forms the ordered pair

Phi> and RP, respectively (who[uQ]254is assumed to bear a set ofreadily raise a potential problem of featurelexically/inherently

sharing in echo questions as in (2):valuedphi-features).
iv.

(2)

Pair-Merge internally forms <Rhit,a.

B: You hit what? (echo question)v*> with v* affixed: such a v*
becomes

invisible,

and

A: I hit ASIMO.

b.

the

A: John kissed Mary.
B: Johnphase-hood is activated on Rhit .

kissed

who?

(echo

question)

Thus, the complement of Rhit gets
transferred.
v.

vi.

Merge externally and internally

Let us suppose that the structure of the echo

forms {α who[uQ], {β CQ, {John, {T,question in (2a) is as follows: {CQ, {you, {T,{John, {<Rhit, v*>, {δ who[uQ] , {γ{you, {<Rhit, v*>, {γ QPwhat [uQ], {RP Rhit , QPwhat

Rhit , who[uQ] }}}}}}}}.

[uQ] }}}}}}}. Given that feature sharing holds forT inherits features from CQ, anda pair <vF, uF> in the Spec-Head relation, thelabeling takes place: α and β areuQ of QP, which is a wh-phrase, remains

labeled as <Q, Q> and CQP,

unshared with a Q-feature. This uQ violates Fullrespectively (note that the Q feature

Interpretation and causes the derivation to crash.

of CQ does not disappear even after(3)

feature inheritance).
vii.

A Potential Problem:

Pair-Merge internally forms <Tdo,

The uQ of QP remains unshared with Q in

CQ>, and Transfer applies.

a structure of a wh-in-situ question suchas follows: {CQ, {you, {T, {you, {<Rhit,

Notice that Rhit, which is the root of hit, alone isv*>, {γ QPwhat [uQ], {RP Rhit , QPwhat

too weak to serve as a label, but it becomes[uQ] }}}}}}}.

labelable when its feature is shared in theSpec-Head relation (see (1i–iii)). The T of the

3. A New Type of Application of Merge

English-type languages is also weak and unable

To solve the problem of feature sharing in

4echo questions in (3), I propose the following

to serve as a label without agreement.

structure and derivation of the echo question:

Furthermore, Chomsky (2015: 12) mentions thatinternal pair-Merge that forms <Rhit, v*> is “a(4)

unique operation, with special properties.” In{α C, {you, {T, {you, {<Rhit, v*>, {βother words, the internal pair-Merge of heads

QPwhat [uQ], {γ Rhit , {δ QPwhat [uQ] , {ε CQ,

could be affected by externalization (seeQPwhat [uQ] }}}}}}}}}

Nomura (2017: 399, fn. 3)). Therefore, internali.

Merge externally forms {ε CQ,

pair-Merge of heads applies after labeling,

QPwhat [uQ]} and internally forms

which is part of Transfer (see Chomsky (2013,{δ QPwhat [uQ], {ε CQ, QPwhat [uQ] }}.

2015)). It is also important that the <Q, Q> inii.

Labeling by minimal search takes(1vi) is interpreted as a wh-question by theplace: δ and ε are labeled as <Q,

interpretative systems.

Q> and CQP, respectively.

However, these premises demonstrated in (1i)

iii.

255

The

complement

of

CQ

gets

iv.

v.
vi.

transferred.

wh-in-situ questions. Because the proposed

Merge forms {you, {v*, {β QPwhat,

analysis can explain the derivation of the{γ Rhit, {<Q, Q> QPwhat , {CQP CQ,

wh-in-situ questions as in (2) and (5), it is

QPwhat }}}}}}.

plausible that this analysis also explains that of

The relevant computations in thethe other types of wh-in-situ questions. Let us

v*P phase occur.

consider below echo questions with how, when,

Merge forms {α C, {you, {T, {you,where or which.

{<Rhit, v*>, {<Phi, Phi> QPwhat, {RP Rhit ,
{<Q,

Q>

QPwhat ,

{CQP

(6)

CQ,

room? (echo question)

QPwhat }}}}}}}}}.
vii.

John hit Mary how/when/where/in which

T inherits features from C, andlabeling takes place: α is labeled as

The wh-phrases listed above are all adjuncts,

CP.

contrary to (2). As has been argued, the structureof these wh-phrases can be illustrated as {<Q, Q>

viii. Transfer applies.

QPwh [uQ], {CQP CQ, QPwh [uQ] }}. Labeling by
Step (i) is remarkable in this derivation. This

minimalapplication of external and internal Merge isbearing uQ and CQ bearing Q in this structure.

logically available under freely applying Merge.

The pair of uQ and vQ, <uQ, vQ>, then induces

The

the

agreement by feature sharing in the so-calledshared-prominent-feature agreement between uQ

Spec-Head configuration. In other words, theand Q in step (ii). Because CQ is a phase head,label of the entire structure of the wh-phrases

labeling and feature sharing occur whenbecomes <Q, Q>. Accordingly, there is nophase-by-phase Transfer applies. Therefore, theunshared uQ left in (6).

mergerleads

tosearchsimultaneously

locatesQ

In an in-situ language, such as Japanese,

problem in (3) is solved. Interestingly, thewh-phrases can remain in situ in wh-questions:structure in (4) has two C heads, C for
declaratives and CQ for interrogatives. The labels(7)given by these two C heads seem to cause theTaro-wa

dare-otatakimashi-ta ka?

Taro-TOP who-ACC hit-PAST

special interpretation of echo questions.
The problem of feature sharing in (3) could

CQ‘Who did Taro hit?’occur in quiz-show questions, as wh-phrases
remain in situ.

The analyses above suggest that in Japanese, CQ
and a wh-phrase externally merge in a

(5)

They thought JFK was assassinated in

wh-question.

which Texas city?

set-theoretic notation for the structure of this(Chomsky(2013:

The

relevant

part

of

the

construction is as follows:5

44))
We can explain this case as well by assuming(8)

that the relevant parts of the structure and the{α {β Taro-wa, {δ QPdare [uQ], {ε QPdare [uQ] ,Cka [Q] }}, tatakimashi-ta}, Cka [Q]}derivation of (5) are essentially similar to thoseof (4). Thus, the problem in (3) does not occur in

As in (4), QPdare [uQ] first externally merges with256

QP[uQ], {CQP CQ , QP[uQ] }}}}}}Cka [Q] and then internally merges with ε, whichis going to be labeled as CQP. Given thatagreement effects are the instantiation of the

Recall that the existence of both C for

Spec-Head relation, this internal merger isdeclarative and CQ for interrogative in (9) could

essential to share Q-features between the headyield the special interpretation of wh-in-situ

ka and the head of dare. Because of this featurequestions such as echo questions and quiz-show

sharing, δ is labeled as <Q, Q>. Crucially, Cka [Q]questions in English. In contrast, we do not needfurther internally merges with β as illustrated in

to assume that the two different Cs occur in(8). In other words, Cka [Q] generates within v*PJapanese, since Japanese is an in-situ language.

phase and moves to {β Taro-wa…}. Since Cka [Q]But what if such semantic implications by theis the closest head for labeling α, the entire

existence of both C and CQ are just an illusion?

structure or set α is labeled as CQP, which leads

In this case, there is no place for the assumption

to the interpretation of general questions. Theof the secondary effect of <Q, Q>. Let us

interpretation of wh-questions is yielded by theconsider (4) again, without the two assumptions:label <Q, Q> (i.e. δ).

(i) special interpretations by CQ and C (ii) andthe inactivation of uPhi as the secondary effect

4. Cross-linguistic Generalizationof <Q, Q>. After QP and CQ externally merge,

The analyses so far suggest that CQ does notand the former subsequently internally merges atinternally merge with the structure in the higher

the very first point of the derivation, the Q

CP phase (i.e. {EA, {T,…,}}) in English becausefeatures of QP and CQ are shared. When thisthe internal merger of CQ causes the agreement

sharing occurs, the uPhi of CQ remains “active”

failure.

6

In (4), for example, the external

unless we assume that the secondary effect ofargument you must share phi-features with T that

<Q, Q> exists. When the derivation is reachinghas inherited uPhi from C. It seems that sharing

the final step, the CQ internally merges with thethe prominent feature Q makes the uPhi of CQ

entire set {EA, {T,…,}}. Then, T inherits theinactive as a secondary effect of labeling <Q, Q>.

“active” uPhi from CQ. Due to this uPhi of T and

If this assumption is on the right track, then T

the appropriate structural configuration, featurecannot inherit the “active” uPhi from CQ after CQ

sharing/agreement

has internally merged. In contrast, in a language

derivation converges. The derivation just shown

without the phi-agreement such as Japanese, CQ

above works and poses no problem but does not

can internally merge, as external arguments do

capturenot share phi-features with T. If this analysis isSpecifically, this alternative derivation does not

tenable, the following generalization holds,

account for why wh-phrases necessarily remain

abstracting away word order:

in situ in the echo/quiz-show questions in

the

takes

place,

cross-linguistic

and

the

phenomena.

English and why they freely remain in situ or(9)English (wh-in-situ question):

freely move higher in Japanese. Thus, the{CP C, {EA, {T,…,{<R, v*>,…,{<Q, Q>

assumption of the secondary effect of <Q, Q>

QP[uQ], {CQP CQ, QP[uQ] }}}}}}

seems to be necessary.
This secondary effect, however, might be

Japanese (wh-in-situ question):“optional”{CQP CQ, {EA, {T,…,{<R, v*>,…,{<Q, Q>

257

in

Englishif

weconsidermultiple-wh-questions. We will explore thisRecall that C for declarative emerges in echopossibility in the next section.

questions or quiz-show questions. Contrary to
those cases, CQ (i.e. C for interrogative) is

5. Multiple Wh-Questions

introduced at step (vi) in (10). This is because

The analyses, which we have reviewed, canalso

explainthederivationofmultiple wh-questions usually do not have amultiple

specialinterpretationasecho/quiz-show

wh-questions. The derivation of who bought

questionshave.

Meanwhile,what, for example, is shown below.

wh-questions bear another special interpretation

multiplecalled “pair” reading.
(10) {α CQ, {ζ QPwho [uQ], {T, {QPwho [uQ] , {<Rhit,

In multiple wh-questions, we have twov*>, {β QPwhat [uQ], {γ Rbuy , {δ QPwhat [uQ] , {εinterpretations, which are pair-list reading and

CQ, QPwhat [uQ] }}}}}}}}}

single-pairreading.

Leti.

Merge externally forms {ε CQ,

following

examplesconcerning

QPwhat [uQ]} and internally forms {δinterpretations:usconsider
the

the
two

QPwhat [uQ], {ε CQ, QPwhat [uQ] }}.
ii.

(11) Who bought what?

Labeling by minimal search takesa.

place: δ and ε are labeled as <Q, Q>

bag, Bill bought a cup. (pair-list

and CQP, respectively.
iii.

The

complementofCQ

reading)gets

b. ?? John bought a book. (single-pairtransferred.
iv.

reading)

Merge forms {ζ QPwho [uQ], {v*, {β(12) Who just bought what?

QPwhat, {γ Rbuy, {<Q, Q> QPwhat , {CQP

a. ?? John bought a book, Mary bought a

CQ, QPwhat }}}}}}.
v.
vi.

John bought a book, Mary bought a

The relevant computations in thebag, Bill bought a cup. (pair-list

v*P phase occur.

reading)b.

Merge forms {α CQ, {ζ QPwho [uQ], {T,John bought a book. (single-pairreading){QPwho [uQ] , {<Rhit, v*>, {<Phi, Phi>
QPwhat, {RP Rhit , {<Q, Q> QPwhat , {CQP
vii.

CQ, QPwhat }}}}}}}}}.

As a possible reply to each multiple wh-question

T inherits all features of CQ

in (11)–(12), pair-list reading (11a) is preferable

including Q, and labeling takes

in the former while single-pair reading (12b) isplace: α and ζ are labeled as CQP

preferred in the latter. The proposed analyses inand <Q, Q>, respectively.

(10)

can

shed

light

on

these

linguistic

phenomena from a derivational point of view.

viii. Transfer applies.

Assuming that the “a-type” answer (i.e. (11a)Following the basic assumptions in Chomskyor (12a)) is the default, the derivation in (10) is(2015), T inherits the Q feature of CQ along withfor pair-list reading. In contrast, the derivation

the phi-features. Accordingly, it is unnecessary

for single-pair reading is as follows:that QPwho merges with α because the uQ of(13) {α CQ, {ζ QPwho [uQ], {T, {QPwho [uQ] , {<Rhit,

QPwho is shared with the Q of T at the Spec-T.

258

v*>, {β QPwhat [uQ], {γ Rbuy , {δ QPwhat [uQ] , {εsecondary effect of <Q, Q> does not occur.

CQ , QPwhat [uQ] }}}}}}}}}

Therefore, we should assume that this secondaryi.

Merge externally forms {ε CQ,

effect is optional (see the relevant discussions in

QPwhat [uQ]} and internally forms {δ

the immediately former section). Why it is

QPwhat [uQ], {ε CQ, QPwhat [uQ] }}.

optional needs to be explained, but I leave thisLabeling by minimal search takes

issue to the future research.

ii.

We did not see any case of Japanese multiple

place: δ and ε are labeled as <Q, Q>

wh-questions, but the analyses in (10) and (13)and CQP, respectively.
iii.
iv.

v.
vi.

The

complementof

CQ

can apply to Japanese cases. Given that a CQ cangetstransferred.

internally merge easily in languages lacking

Merge forms {ζ QPwho [uQ], {v*, {β(overt) phi-agreement, it is the null hypothesis

QPwhat, {γ Rbuy, {<Q, Q> QPwhat , {CQP

that another CQ can be introduced in the multiple

CQ, QPwhat }}}}}}.

wh-question. Thus, it is expected that the

The relevant computations in the

proposedv*P phase occur.

cross-linguistically, although we need further

Merge forms {α CQ, {ζ QPwho [uQ], {T,investigations.

analysescanbetenable{CQ , {QPwho [uQ] , {<Rhit, v*>, {<Phi,
Phi> QPwhat, {RP6. Concluding Remarks

Rhit , {<Q, Q> QPwhat ,This paper has argued that QP, which are{CQP CQ , QPwhat }}}}}}}}}}.
vii.

T inherits all features of CQ

wh-phrases such as who and what, can merge

including active uPhi, and labelingwith CQ externally, before the argument structure

takes place: α and ζ are labeled as

has been built. It has also been shown that the

CQP and <Q, Q>, respectively.

new application leads to account for some
empirical linguistic phenomena, specificallyviii. Transfer applies.

wh-in-situ

questions(e.g.

echo/quiz-show

The steps shown in (vi)–(vii) are crucial.

questions, in-situ-questions in Japanese). As a

Compared with (10), the CQ that merges withresult,QPwhat internally merges with ζ in this derivation.

cross-linguistic generalization of the structure ofInterestingly, this internal merger of CQ seems to

wh-in-situ questions between English andcontribute the non-default interpretation (i.e.

Japanese, leaving the technical issue concerning

single pair-reading) because the relation between

inactivation of uPhi as the secondary effect ofwhat and who becomes stronger via one CQ. In<Q, Q>.

theanalyses

have

led

to

the

other words, this CQ plays a role of “proxy”
which makes the unique connection between the* I would like to express my sincere gratitude to

two wh-phrases. Also, notice that T inherits uPhi

Daisuke Hirai for the valuable comment on thefrom the CQ along with other features like Q

very first draft of this paper. I also thank theafter CQ has internally merged with ζ. We canaudience at the ELSJ 11th international spring

assume that this inherited uPhi is still active

forum, particularly Hisatsugu Kitahara, Hiroki

although the CQ has undergone the Q sharing at

Narita and Satoshi Oku, who asked criticalthe very first point of derivation. That is, thequestions in my presentation. All remaining259

Chomsky, Noam (2016) “Puzzles about Phases,”

mistakes in this paper are, of course, my own

unpublished ms., MIT.

responsibility.

Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara and T.

NOTES
1

Daniel Seely (2016) “Phase-Cancellation

The letters in framed boxes denote the lower

copies.

by Pair-Merge of Heads,” The Linguistic

2

Review 33, 87-102.

Epstein, Obata and Seely (2017) argue that

Probe-Goal Agree as in Chomsky (2000, 2001)

Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara and T.

still holds for the free Merge model. See also

Daniel Seely (2017) “Successive Cyclic

Chomsky (2016) on this view.

Wh-Movement without Successive Cyclic

3

Crashing,” paper presented at ELSJ 10th

We assume that <Tdo, CQ> is formed byinternal pair-Merge (see (1iv)) just as <Rhit, v*>

International Spring Forum.

is.
4

Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara and T.

Another option of making R and T “strong” isDaniel Seely (2018) “A Simpler Solution to(external) pair-Merge of heads. See EKS (2016),

TwoKitahara (2017), Mizuguchi (2016), Nomura

Composite-operation

Problems

Revealed

about

Agree,”

the
paper

th

(2017) and Sugimoto (2016) among others.

presented at JSLS 20 Annual International

5

Conference.

The word order is irrelevant in the set-theoretic

Epstein, Samuel D., Miki Obata and T. Daniel

notation.
6

Seely (2017) “Is Linguistic Variation

EA: external argument.

Entirely Linguistic?,” Linguistic Analysis
41, 481-516.

REFERENCES

Kitahara,

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

Hisatsugu(2017)“Maximizing

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

Syntactic Minimization: Five Preliminary

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

Studies,” Reports of the Keio Institute of

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David

CulturalMichaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155,

239-265.

Nomura, Masashi (2017) “Pair-Merge andMichael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,

Feature-Valuation via Minimal Search:

Cambridge, MA.
(2013)“Problems

Evidence from Icelandic,” WCCFL 34,

of395-403.

Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Noam

Projection:

48,

33, 108-118.

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by

Chomsky,

Studiesthrough Pair-Merge,” English Linguistics

Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”

Noam

Linguistic

Mizuguchi, Manabu (2016) “De-activation of Φ

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Chomsky,

and(2015)“Problems

Extensions,”

Sugimoto, Yushi (2016) “De-phased by ExternalofPair-Merge

Structures,

of

C

to

T

and

Its

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour

Consequences,” Proceedings of Conferenceof Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Diof the Student Organization of Linguistics

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona

in Europe XXIV, 237-253.

Matteini,

3-16,

John

Benjamins,

Amsterdam.

260

there are some fundamental differences between
them. In what follows, I will show that they
exhibit some parallelisms in form and meaning,
but at the same time they differ crucially from
Lexical Creativity: Contrastive Focus

each other. Finally, I will attempt to explicate

Reduplication and Constructional

the reason that superficially similar lexical

Reduplication

processes differ from one language to another.

Naoyuki Ono

2. Contrastive Focus Reduplication
Contrastive Focus Reduplication is a type of

Tohoku University

reduplication (the doubling of the base word),which is said to pick out a prototypical

Keywords : reduplication, lexicon, Japaneseinterpretation of the reduplicated word. Some
examples are taken from Ghomeshi et al. (2004)
as in (2):

1. Introduction
In the present paper, I would like to address(2) a. I’ll make the tuna salad and you makethe question of lexical creativity, i.e. how thecoining of new words takes place in the lexicon

the SALAD-salad.

and how existing words are manipulated into

b. Look at all the yellow vans on the road.

novel lexical combinations, through a discussion

Not vans like ours [i.e., minivans], butof a certain type of word formation in English

VAN-vans.

and Japanese. The word formation process that I

c. She wasn’t a fancy cow, a Hereford or

will focus on is the so-called Contrastive Focus

Black Angus or something, just a

Reduplication (CFR) in English (Ghomeshi et al.

COW-cow.

2004), exemplified in (1a) and Constructionald. Should I wear a HAT-hat? [as opposed toReduplication (CR) in Japanese (Ono 2015)

a yarmulke]

exemplified in (1b).

1e. And Charley is no more like a DOG-dog
than he is like a cat.
f. I had a JOB-job once. [a ‘real’ 9-to-5(1) a. I’ll make the tuna salad, and you makethe salad-salad.

office job, as opposed to an academic job]

(Ghomeshi et al. 2004)

b. Onnanoko-onnanoko sita onna-wa
girlsukidesuka.

girl

LV woman-TOP

The term “Contrastive Focus” is used by(Ono 2015)

Ghomeshi et al. because the first element of a

like

reduplicated word is copied from the base and‘Lit. Do you like a girl-girl woman?’obtains a contrastive stress. Thus, “one meaningof the [reduplicated] word is being contrasted

As the names suggest, both of them are awith other possible meanings” (ibid. 317). The

type of reduplication, thus they have somesame construction has been discussed in thesimilar formal and semantic properties inliterature in the last 15 years under various

common. But despite their apparent similarities,

different names, such as Lexical Clone (Horn2612006, Huang 2009), Identical Constituent

b. Literal meaning

Compounding[From a wife to her husband] I’m going(Hohenhaus

2004)

and

Reduplicated Compounding (Lieber 2009). The

home-home.

varied names represent that this type ofc. Value-added or intensifying meaning

reduplication is still under intense debate.

A: [To B, who is about to give a recital]
Are you nervous?

Most research on CFR in English has largely
focused on its semantic properties (Horn 2006,

B:

Yeah,

but,

Ghomeshi et al. 2004, Song and Lee 2014,

nervous-nervous.

you

know,

no

among others). Researchers agree, more or less,that any particular CFR picks out a prototypicalThe context-dependency of CFR may

reading of the reduplicated word; for instance,

follow from, or at least be closely related with,the reduplicated expression salad-salad in (2a)the fact that CFR is a phenomena of colloquial

is said to denote a prototypical instance of alanguage. Widlitzki (2016) has pointed out that,category denoted by the base noun, i.e.

based on a corpus study she conducted, CFRs

something like “a green salad” in this case. Thus,

most frequently emerge in contexts where the

CFR serves to single out, as Horn (2006: 15)intended meanings are clarified by the speakerputs it, “an element or subset of extension of the(see the examples in (2)) and they tend to appear

noun corresponding to a true, real, default, orin blogs maintained by women and young

prototype category member”.

speakers.

What is more interesting about the semantics

Some researchers have pointed out that aof CFR is that the interpretation of a

prototypereduplicatedheavilyaccount for the semantics of CFR sincedependent on contextual factors. The meanings

prototypes of a category vary depending on theof CFR vary depending on the context in which

contexts and speaker’s background knowledge.

they occur. Researchers have pointed out that anThis fact leads Song and Lee (2011) to propose

instance of CFR, e.g. coffee-coffee, can signal aa “dynamic” prototype analysis where CFRs are

literal meaning, in contrast with its figurative

only interpretable in relation with relevant

meaning, with no reference to prototypicality

alternative categories in the discourse. Another(Ghomeshi et al. 2004: 315). Thus, a CFR

approach to the prototype meaning of CFR ismerely picks out a contextually salient reading

taken

and the reference to prototype is one of the

Pragmatics

possible senses, as pointed out by, e.g. Horninterpretation typically involves the construction(2006), who claims that there are at least twoof an ad hoc concept or occasion-specific sense,

more readings, depending on the context they

based on interaction among encoded concepts,

are used in, that a typical CFR often represents.

contextual

expression

is

often

by

analysisdoes

Lexicaladoptsnotsatisfactorily

Pragmatics.

Lexicalidea

lexicalaninformation

and

that

pragmatic

expectations or principles (Wilson and Carston(3) a. Prototype meaning

2007: 230). CFR is one of the ad hoc concept

I’ll make the tuna salad and you make theconstructions in English, where the lexical

salad-salad.

meaning (a truth-conditional sense) is narrowed
down to a prototypical sense of the reduplicated262

c. yasai-yasai

element (Horn 2006, Huang 2009).

siteiru suupu

vegetable-vegetable LV‘soup that contains a lot of vegetables’

3. Constructional Reduplication
Now,

let

us

turn

to

soup

Constructional

Reduplication (CR) in Japanese. In contrast with

They represent a prototypical or default instance

the CFR in English, scarce research has beenof the category denoted by the reduplicatedconducted so far on CRs. To the best of myword; onnanoko-onnanoko sita in (4a), forknowledge, Ono (2015) is the only systematic

example, signals the most prototypical meaning

analysis of the CR. In what follows, I will showof the reduplicated word.3 Note that thesome of the findings discussed in Ono (2015).

interpretation of CR may vary depending on

There are three major types of reduplication

contextual factors. In (4c), the CR yasai-yasaiin Japanese: (i) noun-based reduplication (e.g.

siteiru usually picks out a sense of an ample

yama-yama mountain-mountain ‘(a series of)amount of (or sometimes an excessive amount

mountains’,

basedof) the entity expressed by the noun; thus, thereduplication (e.g. hiro-biro wide-wide ‘very

CR in this case does not mean a prototypicalwide’, and (iii) mimetic-based reduplication (e.g.

amount of vegetable. In other contexts, however,sube-sube mimetic-mimetic ‘smooth’). In theit may denote the prototype of vegetable.

(ii)

adjective-stem

2

Japanese lexicon, (i) and (ii) are lexicalized. In

As shown with the examples in (4), a CR

other words, they are conventionalized andconsists of two parts: the reduplicated baseunproductive.

reduplications

nouns followed by the light verb suru ‘do’. In

express plurality of individual entities orthe above examples, the light verb appears as

repetition of events, or the intensifying meaning,

the adnominal form, which modifies the head

which is a commonly observed property ofnoun. Though the CRs in (4) are attributively

reduplication across the world (Hurch 2011).

used, they can be used predictively if the head

However, this is not the case in reduplication ofnoun appears as the grammatical subject. I will

onomatopoeic or mimetic words. There arepoint out some of the characteristics of CR

numerous mimetic reduplicated words in the

below.

Conventional

First and foremost, it should be noted thatJapanese lexicon and they are produced by aCRs

powerful lexical process.

areconventionalOno (2015) has revealed that CRs are

much

more

productive

reduplications.

As

than

mentioned

conventional

above, conventional reduplications are fixed andnoun-based or adjective-based reduplications.

lexicalized, i.e., there are a limited number ofTake a look at the examples of CRs below.

conventional reduplications in Japanese, thus

completely

different

from(5a, b) are existing lexemes in Japanese but (5c,d) are not.

(4) a. onnanoko-onnanoko sita onna
girl-girl

LV woman(5) a. yama-yama‘a woman who behaves like a girl’

mountain-mountainb. kodomo-kodomo sita onna
child-child ‘(a series of) mountains’

LV woman‘a woman who behaves like a child’

263

girl

b. hito-bito

LV woman

person-person
In this respect, it is important to note that‘(a group of) people’

obligatory doubling of the base is also observed

c. *inu-inu

in mimetic reduplications.

dog-dog‘dogs’(8) a. sube-sube

d. *neko-nekosita hada

cat-catmime.-mime. LV skin‘cats’‘very smooth skin’
b. *sube sita hada
mime. LV skin

In contrast, CRs are remarkably productive. The
reduplications of dog and cat, which do notexist as conventional reduplications as shown in

We will discuss later that the parallelism(5c, d) above, are in fact possible if they appear

between CRs and mimetic reduplications is ain the form of CR. Thus, we find that (6a, b) arestrong piece of evidence that they are produced

acceptable.

on the same ground.
The third point that CRs are different from

(6) a. inu-inu sita inu

conventional reduplications is that sequential

dog-dog LV dog

voicing, which is often referred to as Rendaku in ‘a typical dog’Japanese linguistics, does not apply to CRs. As

b. neko-neko sita ugoki

we have seen in (5b), the initial consonant of the

LV motion

second element of reduplication is subject to a‘a typical motion of cat’voicing rule (hito > bito) under certain

cat-catconditions. However, sequential voicing does
This shows that the reduplication forms in (6)not take place in CRs (Oho and Yamada 2011).

are not based on existing forms of conventional

See the contrast in (9) and (10), where in (9a)reduplication. In fact, if we perform an online

andsearch, we can find numerous instances of novel

conventional reduplications and in (9b) andCRs, which one may never have encountered(10b) the same base words do not undergo

before. One may find not a few instances ofvoicing in CRs.

(10a),

sequential

voicing

nonce expressions as well.
(9) a. sima-zima

The second fact that I would like to point
out is that reduplication of a base noun isisland-island

mandatory, i.e., base words must be doubled.

‘island’b. sima-sima siteiru sima

Thus, the single occurrence of the base in (7b) isisland-island LV island

not acceptable.

‘a typical island’(10) a. ki-gi(7) a. onnanoko-onnanoko sita onna
girl-girltree-tree

LV woman‘trees’b. *onnanoko sita onna

264

occursinb. kii-kii

4. Lexical Resources

sita iewood-wood LV house

We have seen so far that CFR and CR show

‘a very woody house’some parallelisms but differ crucially from eachother. The question is why this is so. I would

Here again, I would like to point out that CRs

like to suggest that the difference is boiled downparallel with mimetic reduplications since

to the lexical resources that CFR and CR makemimetic

use of when the coining of novel lexical

reduplication

does

not

requireexpressions takes place. I would claim that thesequential voicing.
Finally, the semantics of constructional

lexical resource that delivers CFRs to thereduplication is different from conventional

English lexicon is compounding; whereas the

reduplications. In Ono (2015), I have pointed

lexical resource that creates CR in Japanese isout that CRs serve as gradable modifiers. Being

reduplication of mimetic words, such asa gradable modifier, a CR can be modified bysube-sube ‘smooth’. Compounding and mimetic

adverbs such as totemo or sugoku (very).

reduplication are highly productive lexical
processes

girl-girllanguage.

Thus,

the

the productivity of their lexical resources.

LV woman

The whole picture that I would like to‘a very girly woman’suggest in the present paper is the following.

b. sugoku oosaka-oosaka sita matinami
very

each

productivity of CFR and CR crucially hinges on(11) a. totemo onnanoko-onnanoko sita onna
very

in

Osaka-Osaka LV street‘a very Osaka-like street’
This semantic function of CR is remarkably
distinct from conventional reduplications.
Note that CRs and mimetic reduplications
are parallel in this respect as well. As shown
below mimetic reduplications can be modified
by the adverb totemo ‘very’.
(12) a. totemo sube-sube
very

Figure 1

siteirusmooth-smooth LV
In English, CFRs are derived on the basis of‘very smooth’b. totemo gotu-gotu
very

structural properties of compounds. Especially,siteiruthey take over endocentric structure fromrugged-rugged LV

nominal compounds. Thus, salad-salad looks‘very rugged’

like

an

equipollent

combination

of

the

This is another piece of evidence that CRs are

reduplicated word; however, it should be noted

morethat its structural property is in fact endocentric.

like

mimetic

reduplications

than

The first element, being a dependent, serves toconventional ones.

modify the second element, which is the head of265the reduplication. Semantically, the dependent

simple adjective such as aoi ‘green’ vs. a

noun functions to narrow down the denotation

reduplication aoao ‘green’), and (iii) theof the head noun. As pointed out by many

expression of sensational and emotion. Thus, a

researchers (see Section 2), prototypical reading

CR is often used in colloquial speech to expressof CFR follows from the narrowing-down

the speaker’s emotive feelings about individualfunction of the modifier element.

entities that he or she wants to describe.

In contrast, CRs in Japanese exploit a
different lexical resource. I have pointed out that

5. Summary and Conclusion

CRs exhibit some parallelisms with the mimetic

Throughout the present paper, I havereduplication, such as (i) Productivity, (ii)attempted to answer the question of lexical

Obligatory doubling of the base, (iii) Lack of

creativity, i.e. how the coining of new words

sequential voicing, and (iv) Implication of

takes place in the lexicon and how existing

gradable interpretation. Structurally, there is nowords are manipulated into novel lexical

head-dependent relation in CR. Unlike CFR, thecombinations. I have discussed some formal andtwo elements of reduplication are concatenatedsemantic properties of CFR in English and CR

equally. I assume that the formation of CRs is

in Japanese. CFR and CR exhibit somebased on a template that is derived from existing

parallelisms in form and meaning, i.e., (i) they

mimetic reduplications.

primarily represent the prototypical meaning,

Ono (2015) has observed that CR in(ii) the interpretation is context dependent, andJapanese does not exhibit as much contextual(iii) they are used productively in colloquialvariability as English CFR does. Instead, a CR

speech.

is viewed as a degree modifier in which a

I have claimed that the CFR and CR exploit

denotation of the reduplicated noun is turned

different lexical resources when novel lexical

into a scalable object. Ono proposed a scale

expressions are coined in the lexicon. I havestructure analysis of CR and claimed that thesuggested that CFR uses compounding as its

prototypicality of a category signaled by CR

resource and CR, mimetic reduplication. CFR

follows from a scalar interpretation of theand CR are creative lexical formations at theobject.

levelofcolloquial

speech.

Thus,

the

Moreover, CR takes over the expressive

productivity of CFR and CR crucially depends

power of mimetics. It is often the case thaton the productivity of the lexical resources. I

speakers intentionally choose CRs to express anhope to have explained the lexical creativity as aemotive meaning, or to describe the object orfunction of lexical resources from which thesituation

lexical processes originate and contextual

withgreater

vividness.

These

performative effects are, according to Sadanobu(2016),

characteristics(onomatopoeia).

He

claimsoffactors in which the lexical processes are used.

mimetics

mimetics

are

NOTES

characterized as (i) the direct coding of1

sensation (visual, auditory, tactual senses), (ii)constructional reduplication, reduplicated words

the addition of vividness and vitality to a factual

are obligatorily followed by the light verb suru,

description (as shown by the contrast between awhich appears in the adnominal or predicative

266

LV stands for light verb. As we discuss later, inform.

Megutte2

Formation:

There are a limited number of verb-based(Constructional

Reduplication

Onnanoko-onnanokosita

reduplications, which are fixed and lexicalizedonna),” Goiimiron no Atarasii Kanoosei o

as adverbs, such as kasane-gasane ‘repeatedly’.

Sagutte (Exploring the New Possibility of3‘Stereotypical’ would be perhaps more

Lexical Semantics), ed. by Yoko Yumoto

appropriate to describe the meaning of CR thanand Naoyuki Ono, 463-489, Kaitakusha,‘prototypical’. This is because speakers tend to

Tokyo.

select a CR when they want to express the

Sadanobu,

Toshiyuki(2015)“Suikooteki

emotive meaning related with the object they

Tokusituni Motozuku Nihongo Onomatope

describe.

no

Rikatuyoo(Performative

Use

of

Japanese Mimetics),” The Japanese Society
REFERENCES

for Artificial Intelligence 30, 353-363.

Ghomeshi, Jila, Ray Jackendoff, Nicole Rosen,Song, Myounghyoun and Chungmin Lee (2011)

and Kevin Russell (2004) “Contrastive“CF-reduplication in English: Dynamic

Focus Reduplication in English (ThePrototype and Contrastive Focus Effects,”

SALAD-Salad Paper),” Natural Language

Proceedings of SALT 21, 444-462.
Widlitzki, Bianca (2016) “Talk Talk, Not Just

and Linguistic Theory 22, 307-357.
Hohenhaus, Peter (2004) “Identical Constituent

Small Talk: Exploring English Contrastive

Compounding: A Corpus-based Study,”

Focus Reduplication with the Help ofFolia Linguistica 38, 297–332.

Corpora,” ICAME Journal 40, 119-142.

Horn, Laurence (2006) “Speaker and Hearer in

Wilson, Deirdre and Robyn Carston (2007) “A

Neo-Gricean Pragmatics,” Waiguoyi 164,

Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics:

2-26.

Relevance,

Inference

and

Ad

hoc

Concepts,”

Pragmatics,

ed.

by

Noel

Huang, Yen (2009) “Neo-Gricean Pragmatics
and the Lexicon,” International Review of

Burton-Roberts, 230-259, Palgrave, New

Pragmatics 1, 118-153.

York.

Hurch,

Bernhard(2011)

Studieson

Reduplication, Mouton de Gruyter, The
Hague.
Lieber, Rochelle (2009) “Identical-constituent
compounds,” The Oxford Handbook of
Compounding, ed. by Rochell Lieber andPavolŠtekauer,364-365,

OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.
Oho, Atsushi and Masahiro Yamada (2011) “A
Japanese

Salad-salad

Paper,”

Talk

presented at GLOW in Asia Workshop for
Young Researchers.
Ono, Naoyuki (2015) “Koobunteki Tyoohukugo
Keisei--Onnanoko Onnanoko Sita Onna o267

According to Namiki’s analysis, the linker in in(1) is not an English preposition. If it were, it
should project the left-headed structure [Noun1 +[in + Noun2]], in which Noun1 should be the
The Verbal Noun Use of Borrowed English

head of the entire expression. The expression in*

Prepositions in Japanese Recipe Names(1) is strictly right-headed, instantiating a
structure in which Noun2 is the head of the entire

Yuichi Ono

expression and the in takes Noun1 as its

University of Tsukuba

complement. In reality, (1) is not a type of hairrinse but a type of shampoo. Namiki further

Keywords

prepositional borrowing, recipe

argues that the in is used as a morphologicalalternate for the native deverbal noun “iri (names, psycholinguistics).”
Shimada and Nagano (2014) and Nagano
and Shimada (2018) extend this “in as a verbal

1. Introduction
It is generally agreed that the differencenoun” analysis to creative and productive recipe

between Japanese and English concerns head

names in Japanese, intensively and extensively

position. English is a head-initial language, andexamining the CookPad database. CookPad is an

English prepositions such as in and with takeattractive corpus for its size, its popularity, andlocative

complements,

for being up-to-date. In most cases, people who

respectively. On the other hand, Japanese, apost their recipe attempt to make their titles

head-final language, does not use prepositions.

original to enhance their appeal. For that reason,

However, as is shown in the present study, a

CookPad is a resource for the spontaneous

great many examples where in and with are usedproduction of novel names by average Japanesein Japanese recipe names can be observed in the

speakers (Shimada and Nagano, 2014). The

database of CookPad.2 One of the questions inmost crucial findings concern ambiguity in cases

contact linguistics is whether the recipientin which two different structures refer to thelanguage (here Japanese) is able to borrowsame locational relationship in a dish. In (2),prepositions from the donor language (in thiswhat we call TYPE I, examples with right-head

case, English).

structure are given. Note that the head NP is inandinstrumental

1boldface.

Namiki (2003, 2005) closely investigated theuse of the borrowed preposition in appearing in(2) TYPE I: [[Noun1 + in/on] + Noun2]

the structure [Noun1 + in + Noun2]. A
well-known example is given in (1):a. chīzu

inhanbāgucheese in hamburger(1) rinsu in shanpū“cheese-stuffed hamburger”

rinse in shampoo(https://cookpad.com/recipe/5425243)“shampoo with rinse in it”b.

kasutaado on

koohii pan(Namiki 2005: 8,

custard topped coffee bread

gloss and translation are mine)“coffee bread topped with custard”

268

b. Shinsengumifesuta in Hino

(https://cookpad.com/recipe/2541312)
Their survey of the website revealed a certain

Shinsengumi festival in Hino

amount of data involving different structures.

“The Shinsengumi festival in Hino”
c. Seimitsukōgakkai

Some examples are given in (3), where we call

Precision-engineering-society

the structure TYPE II.

Shūkitaikai Gakujutsukōenkai in Sendai
autumn-meeting lecture in Sendai(3) TYPE II: [Noun1 + [in/on + Noun2]]a. hanbāgu in chīzu3“The Precision Engineering Society’s
autumn meeting lecture in Sendai”

hamburger in cheese(Nagano and Shimada (2018: 72))

“cheese-stuffed hamburger”(http://recipe.sp.findfriends.jp/?pi

In all the examples in (4), the glosses andd=recipe_detail&id=11637)

translations

b. tomato on siokonbu

show that the [in+ Noun]tomato on salty seaweed

combination is structurally and semantically“tomatoes with salty seaweed”

similar to an English locative in-phrase. The
complement is not an ingredient but a location,(https://cookpad.com/recipe/1401320)

which makes it impossible to interpret in as a
A series of studies by Shimada and Nagano

deverbalized nominal with the meaning of “iri.”(2019) and Nagano and Shimada (2018)

Thus, Nagano and Shimada (2018: 73) suggest

proposed an analysis to deal with two structuresthat the use of in the examples in (4a-b) shouldreferring to the same recipe. Their solution is

be seen as “a replication of the preposition in,

based

retainingontheutilizationofgeneralized

itsword-orderandselectionalborrowing strategies proposed by Muysken

properties.” The present paper simply assumes(2000); that is, “insertion” and “adjunction.” To

that in in these examples marks an English

the right-headed pattern, i.e., TYPE I, theprepositional phrase (PP), as indicated in the“insertion” strategy is applied to produce theheading for TYPE III in (4).

structure [[Noun1 + in/on] + Noun2], while theWe have observed that there are three types

application of “adjunction” to the left-headedof borrowed in, in line with the analysis of

structure, i.e., TYPE II, results in the structure

Shimada and Nagano (2014) and Nagano and[Noun1 + [in + Noun2]].

Shimada (2018). In the sections that follow, we

Shimada and Nagano (2014) and Nagano

would like to present supporting evidence

and Shimada (2018) further observed a new typeobtained from the acceptability judgement testof structure, here called TYPE III. Examples ofthat especially concerns the parallelism between

this type are given below in (4):

TYPE I and TYPE II and the contrast between
TYPES I/II and TYPE III. In addition, this paper
shows that this analysis is applicable to(4) TYPE III: [Noun1 + [pp in + Noun2]]a. samurai in Atene

borrowed with by showing the data obtained

samurai in Athensfrom the same acceptability judgement test.

“samurais in Athens”

Lastly, this paper points out the unique behaviorof with, which raises an important issue for a269

futureresearch

agendaconcerning

(6)

the

Part 1 [Word Order Difference]a. (i) potato-gratin in hamburg

acceptability–frequency mismatch.

− (ii) hamburg in potato-gratina. (i) fried pork in Shanghai

2. Acceptability Judgement Test: Three− (ii) Shanghai in fried pork

Types of inPart 2 [Type Difference]

In order to examine whether or not theb. fried pork in Shanghai

predicted contrasts between verbal nominal in− potato-gratin in hamburg

and English prepositional in are real, a total ofd. Shanghai in fried pork

240 university students (men: 38, women: 202)

− potato-gratin in hamburg

participated in this questionnaire survey. Before
starting the survey, we confirmed that most of(7) Descriptive

the participants are fond of visiting the CookPad

Statistics

ofAcceptabilitysite regularly by administering a five-point

Judgment Test on in

Likert scale survey (mean=3.381, SD=1.103,

Mean

SD

SE

min=1, max=5). Thus, the participants can bea-iright-headed

2.92501.207800.07796

thought of as a representative sample from thea-ii

left-headed

2.5875

1.247860.08055b-iright-headed

3.06721.08095

0.07007b-ii

left-headed

1.83611.024200.06639c-i

right-headed

2.92891.208840.07819

type difference of the same structure as in Part 2

c-ii

left-headed

3.06691.07869

0.06977(6c-d). Participants took a look at the picture andd-iright-headed

2.5816

1.247110.08067

the description of the recipe, as shown on thed-ii

left-headed

1.83681.022100.06611

population of young people who have sharedcreative and productive recipe names. We
constructed several minimal pairs with the soledifference of word order, as in Part 1 (6a-b), and

CookPad site. However, they were not allowed
to see the actual title posted on the web. The(8) Results of Paired t-test

question sheet is illustrated in (5), and the pairs

t-scorefor analysis in this study are given in (6a-d)
below:(5) Question Sheet
Example Question

p-valuera (i-ii)

2.403

0.017

0.15

b (i-ii)

12.5560.000***

0.63

c (i-ii)

1.355

0.177

0.09

d (i-ii)

7.901

0.000***

0.46

Note. ***: p<0.001

1:'9#UP;28$-*:(
 %7:53,-+:)" 
1.  /90:& !
3,&6 !


Regarding Part 1 of (6), the examples (a-i)
and (a-ii) are typical of TYPE I and TYPE II,

2. .:49& <4=respectively. We expected that both forms would

1 3,&6in/90:&
2 /90:&in3,&6

be structurally possible given the framework
given in Nagano and Shimada (2018), whichwasindeedthecaseaccordingtoouracceptability judgement test. The ambiguity was270confirmed by findings of little or no significant

remon with onion-salt-yakisoba

difference between the two structures. However,“Salt-seasoned fried noodles with lemon

regardingdressing”

TYPE

III,

where

the

English(https://cookpad.com/recipe/501182)

preposition-like in was concerned, only the
structure [Noun1 + [pp in + Noun2]] was

TYPE III: [Noun1 + [pp with + Noun2]]permitted, whereas that of [[Noun1 + in] +c. osashimihu saamon-no karui sumooku

Noun2] was not allowed since this structurewith ohashi

violated the headedness condition. This was

Sashimi-style salmon-no (GEN) lightly

proven by the p-value significance (indicated assmoked with chopsticks“***”) and the large effect size shown in (8).

“Lightly-smoked sashimi-style salmon

Note that r=0.63 is the value of a large effectsize (Field (2005)).

with chopsticks”

4(https://news.mynavi.jp/article/20170528-a073/)

Part 2 in (6) compares the verbal noun in andthe prepositional in in either structure. The

Type I and Type II of with are almost similar

crucial pair is (f), where a significant difference

to those of in. These examples were created byin acceptability would be expected since theJapanese people who posted on CookPad. The

structure of *[[Noun1 + in] + Noun2] ispotential counterparts to with are Japanese “soeimpossible if the in is an English preposition.

(

The resultwith is considered as a preposition selecting an

was in accordance with our)” or “kake ().” As for TYPE III, theexpectation; that is, statistical significance wasinstrumental

complement

NP.

Ohashiobtained (indicated as “***”) with a “medium”(chopsticks) is not an ingredient but rather

effect size (r=0.46).

something to eat especially Japanese food with.
Thus, this example cannot be thought of as aOverall, the result showed that the assumed

verbal noun from a semantic point of view.

structural knowledge for these examples are

In order to confirm whether the samereflected onto the acceptability judgment test.

analysis of in should be applied to with, another

3. Acceptability Judgement Test: withacceptability judgement test was conducted. A

In addition to borrowed in, we can observe a

bit fewer but almost the same number of

lot of examples involving with among thestudents as in the previous survey participated inJapanese recipe names in the CookPad database.

this survey (N=207). The procedures andAgain, we can observe all the three types, as

instrument are the same as what was used in theseen in the case of in. See the examples below:

survey of in. We constructed several minimal
pairs with the sole difference of word order (Part(9) TYPE I: [[Noun1 + with] + Noun2]

1) and type difference of the same structure (Parta. tara-no munieru with kinoko kuriimu
tara-no munieru with mushroom cream2). Participants took a look at the picture and the“Cod meunière with mushroom creamdescription of the recipe, as shown on thesauce”

CookPad site. However, they were not allowed(https://CookPad.com/recipe/1640783)

to see the actual title posted on the web. The

TYPE II: [Noun1 + [with + Noun2]]target examples for analysis are given in (10)b. remon with negi-shi-o yakisoba

and the results were obtained as in (11) and (12).

271

(12) Results of Paired t-test(10)

Part 1 [Word Order Difference]e.

(i) tara-no munieru with kinoko
kuriimu−(ii) kinoko kuriimu with tara-nomunieruf. (i) negi-shi-o yakisoba with remon−(ii) remon with negi-shi-o yakisoba

t-scorep-valuere (i-ii)

26.3450.000***

0.88

f (i-ii)

27.3830.000***

0.89

g (i-ii)

11.0150.000***

0.61

h (i-ii)

13.7740.000***

0.70

i (i-ii)

1.819

0.070

0.08

g. (i) osashimihu saamon-no karui sumooku
The contrast is not clear in the case of with,

with ohashi

compared with that of in. In the result given in−(ii) ohashi with osashimihu saamonno karui sumooku(11), the difference in acceptability in Part 1 isPart 2 [Type Difference]larger as indicated by the p-value and r-value.
However, note that the example (9b) was posted

h. (i) osashimihu saamon-no karui sumookuwith ohashi

by a native Japanese people and that the worse−tara-no munieru with kinoko kuriimu

examples in the pairs are not very unacceptable.
As shown in Ono (2018), the examples arei. (i) ohashi with osashimihu saamonno karui sumooku

significantly better than the structure [Noun2 +−(ii) kinoko kuriimu with tara-no

Noun1 + with] or [with + Noun1 +Noun2], wherewith and its selected Noun are not constituent.

munieru

Thus, it can be considered that some otherindividual factors might have affected thejudgment.

(11) Descriptive Statistics of Acceptability

Secondly, what is crucial in this paper is the

Judgment

difference in acceptability shown in (12h-i).

Test on with
Mean

SD

SE

Verbal noun use of with and its P-use showed ae-i left-headed

3.74750.57350.0403clear contrast as indicated by the p-value ande-ii right-headed

1.74750.88130.0620f-i

left-headed

3.6766

0.67820.0478f-ii right-headed

1.58210.82730.0584g-i left-headed

2.6436

1.16830.0822

We have thus far not only shown that each of

g-ii right-headed

1.60400.8986

0.0632the borrowed prepositions in/with in Japaneser-value. Thus, the parallelism between in andwith was confirmed.
4. On the Acceptability-Frequency Mismatch

recipe names are of a trifold composition interms of word-order and the status of theborrowed item but also provided supporting
evidence for the claim that each of the structures
must be treated differently; that is, the in/with of
TYPE I and TYPE II are deverbal nominals that
constitute the recipe titles through strategies of272

“insertion” and “adjunction,” respectively, while

below (Shimada and Nagano (2018)). This paperthat of TYPE III applies a prepositional property

does not reject the possibility of the former typeto the selection of its complement.

of in might be borrowed into Japanese. Note that
this might be related to the result of (11) andAlthough we have confirmed that the(12).

contrast between TYPES I/II and TYPE III was
real, we found that there is a sharp difference
between in on the one hand and with on the(i) a.

other hand. In the case of in, of the 5,847b.

John came in.

PARTICLEa man in the room

STATIC PREP

instances obtained on the site, 3,499 instances(59.8%) were of the structure TYPE I: [[Noun1 +2in] + Noun2], while 2,079 instances (35.6%)

visitors can search through user-created recipes.

were of TYPE II: [Noun1 + [in + Noun2]]. In the

Shimada and Nagano (2017) point out thecase of with, however, the number of instancesadvantage of using this database due to the vastof TYPE I: [[Noun1 + with] + Noun2] was only

quantity and the freshness of the data of ordinary

56 (4.7%) out of 1,192 instances, and almost all

speakers’ spontaneous linguistic expressions.

of the instances (1,113; 95.1%) were of theAnother advantage, they point out, is that thestructure TYPE II: [Noun1 + [with + Noun2]]. In

pictures and instructions of the dishes help us

the face of the difference, the following two

check and identify the intended interpretationquestionsand the grammatical structure of a given recipe

on

the

acceptability–frequency

CookPad is Japan’s biggest recipe site wheremismatch arise: (i) Why is with almost

name.

exclusively used in [Head + with + Mod]? and3(ii) Why is [Mod + with + Head] possible inacceptability of this example. However, we findsuch an exceptional fashion? Since space is too

it acceptable, as witnessed the example in thelimited for us to discuss this issue, we would

following blog post by a legendary Japaneselike to propose that these questions could bechef, Katsuyo Kobayashi, repeated here below:

solved with reference to a Japanese native

http://recipe.sp.findfriends.jp/?pid=recipe_detailparticle de in the near future.

&id=11637
4

An anonymous reviewer challenged the

It is generally suggested that descriptors for* I would like to thank two anonymous

magnitudes of r= 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 are for weak,

reviewers. Also, I am grateful to Masaharu

medium, and strong effect size, respectively.

Shimada, Akiko Nagano, Masako Tsuzuki, and(Field (2005), Mizumoto and Takeuchi (2008))

Taro Ishiguro, for their comments and questions.
This research is financially supported by JSPSREFERENCES
Field, Andy (2005). Discovering Statistics Using

KAKENHI Grant Number 16K13234.
1

SPSS (2nd edition), Sage Publications,NOTES
The author tentatively employed in as aborrowed

preposition.

However,

London.
Muysken, Pieter (2000) Bilingual Speech: A

Englishprepositions consist of “directional” type, also

TypologyofCode-Mixing,

called particle, and “static” type and in is

University Press.

Cambridge

Namiki, Takayasu (2003) “On the Expression

ambiguous in the donor language as given in273

Rinse in Shampoo: A New Type of“Basics and Considerations for Reporting

Japanese Compound Coined from English

Effect Sizes in Research Papers,” Studies in

Words,”English Language Teaching, 31, 57-66.

Empirical

andTheoretical

Investigations into Language: A Festschrift
for Masaru Kajita, ed. by Shuji Chiba et al.
538-550, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Namiki, Takayasu (2005) “Nihongo no Atarashii
Taipu no Fukugōgo: Rinsu-in Shanpū toRinsu-iri

Shanpū

(A

New

Type

of

Compound in Japanese: Rinsu-in Shanpū
and Rinsu-iri Shanpū),” Gendaikeigaironno

Chōryū

(Current

MorphologicalStudies), ed. by Tsuyoshi Oishi, Tetsuo
Nishihara,

&

Koji

Toyoshima,

1-19,

Kurosio, Tokyo.
Nagano, Akiko and Masaharu Shimada (2018)
“On

Two

Linguistic

Strategies

ofBorrowing Prepositions and Particles,”paper

presented

at

Word-Formation

Theories III Typology and Universals in
Word-Formation IV, Pavol Jozef Šafárik
University, Košice.
Ono, Yuichi (2018) “Behavioral Similarities andDifferences

in

Head

and

Modifier

Relationship between Borrowed English
Prepositions in and with in Japanese Recipe
Names,” paper presented at Seminar in
Linguistics, University of Tsukuba.
Shimada, Masaharu and Akiko Nagano (2014)“Borrowing of English Adpositions inJapanese,” paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Linguistics Association ofGreat Britain.
Shimada, Masaharu & Akiko Nagano (2017)“Use of English Prepositions as JapanesePredicates:A

Challenge

to

NLP,”

Proceedings of the 23rd annual meeting of
the Association for Natural Language
Processing, 294-297.
Mizumoto, Atsushi and Osamu Takeuchi (2008)274

consequent clause of the Japaneseepistemic

conditionals

decidestheinterpretation of the entire conditional
sentence.
The Role of the Past Tense Morpheme
in apanese Epistemic Conditionals*

Section 1 provides an introduction andbriefly

discusses

previous

approaches

toMari Sakaguchi

conditionals by Arita (2006, 2009) and Ogihara

Notre Dame Seishin University(2014). Section 2 discusses the morphologicalrestrictions of modals in the consequent main

Keywords：Epistemic Conditionals,

clauses. It will be shown that modals in Proposal

counterfactuality, Temporal Interpretation

A turn out to be mostly deontic modals, andmodals in Proposal B are epistemic modals.
Section 3 analyzes the temporal relations in theJapanese epistemic conditionals.

1. Introduction

Section 4

gives the concluding remarks.

It has been argued that Japanese conditionals
do not have an explicit tense marker ofI will exclude from the analysis here thecounterfactuality in the antecedent clause (Arita

conditionals which do not allow the insertion of

2006, 2009). On the other hand, it is proposed

adverbials “mosi” (if) or “man-iti” (provided) asthat some languages such as English andin (1). These conditionals are what Iori

Modern Greek convey counterfactuality by past(2001:209-213) calls “definite conditionals,

tense morphology in the consequent clause

constant conditionals, and factual conditionals.”(Iatridou 2000).
Ogihara (2014) proposes that the Japanese(1) (*Mosi) zyuzi-ni nat-tara, syppatusi-masyo.

past tense morpheme -ta in the consequent*if 10 o clock become-TARA leave-let s

clause is a marker of counterfactuality.

[When/*if ](it s) 10 o clock, let s leave.

In this paper, following Iatridou (2000) andOgihara (2014), I will claim that Japanese -ta inThis paper treats only tara conditionals andthe consequent clause of the conditional cannara conditionals. Other conditional expressions

signal counterfactuality.

with the subordinators “-to” and “-ba” are notSpecifically, I will

make the following three proposals for Japanese

discussed

conditionals.

morphologically selects verb stems and -nara

here.

The

subordinator-tara

selects propositions with -ru forms, -ta forms
A. Modals which can be made into pastand negation. Historically -tara is said to betense may signal counterfactuality.

derived from -ta+ra.

B. Modals that cannot be made into pasttense morphologically, but which may

1.1. Previous Approaches to Conditionals

select a past-tense proposition, canTable 1 shows the classification of threesignal counterfactuality.
C.

The

past-tense

marking

types of conditionals of the form “if p, then q”
inthebased on Arita (2006, 2009). The feature of the275truth value of p being determined at the time ofshows that modals have a restriction on whether

utterance is called “settledness.”or not they can select past-tensed propositions.
Section 2.2 shows that modals which cannot

Table 1. Classification of conditionals based on

select past-tensed propositions, can be made into

Arita (2006:133)

past tense.

Classification

These modals, mainly deontic

Truth

Spea er smodals, can receive counterfactual reading whencondition of p

attitude

the consequent clause is in past tense (Proposal

at utterance

to ard p

A). It is also shown that the modals which cantime

select past-tensed propositions, i.e. epistemic

Predictive

not determined

modals can signal counterfactuality (Proposal

conditionals(- settled)B).
2.1. Morphological Restrictions on Modal

Epistemic

determined

does notconditionals( settled)know theExpressions
Modal expressions in Japanese can betruthclassified according to the following three

Counterfactual

determined

knows thecriteria, which are considered to be theconditionals( settled)truth

selectional properties of each modal expressions.

(p is F)(2) 1) modals which do not select verb stems andTable 1 shows that conditionals are ambiguous

which can follow [Verb stemru], [Verbbetween epistemic readings and counterfactual

stem ta], or negation

readings.

Just by looking at the truth value of2) modals which do not select verb stems

the antecedent p one cannot disambiguate theand which can follow [Verb stem ru], but

two readings of conditionals.

cannot follow [Verb stem ta], or negation
3) modals which cannot follow [Verb stem

This paper supports the claim of Ogihararu], or [Verb stem ta], or negation, and(2014) that the past tense marking in thewhich must follow directly the verb stem

consequent q is a sufficient condition for thecounterfactual reading. Ogihara (2014) proposes

The morphological properties of seventwo functions of -ta based on Iatridou (2000): 1)

modals in Japanese are summarized in Table 2.

-ta excludes context time (utterance time), 2) -ta
excludes context world. The former will result in
the interpretation of epistemic conditionals about

Table 2. Forms of propositions selected by

the past time. The latter will result in themodal expressions
Modalscounterfactual interpretation.

erb

-ru

stem
(A)

2. Morphology of the Conse uent Clausehazu-da( inferential

Section 2 gives the description of theshould)morphological properties of modal expressions
that constitute the consequent clause. Section 2.1

276

*

-ta
negation

Yes

Yes

(B)

daro (will)

*

Yes

Yes

(C)

ni-tigainai

*

Yes

Yes

Taro must go.
In the next section, it will be shown that the(inferential

deontic modals (E)-(G), which cannot select

must)
(D)

(E)

kamosirenai*

Yespast-tensed propositions, can be made into pastYes(possibility

tense and signal the meaning of counterfactuality.

may)

I will also show that epistemic modals thatbeki-da (had*Yescannot be made into past tense, can signify*

counterfactulity.

better)(F)nakerebanar

Yes

*

*

anai

2.2. Modals interacting(obligatory

morpheme
In this section, I will show that deontic

must)
(G)

ith the past tense

nakutemo yoi

Yes*modals,*whichcannotselectpast-tensed

propositions, can be made into past tense and(not have to)convey the meaning of counterfactuality. Table 3
Modals (A)-(D) satisfy the criterion 1) in (2).

shows the possibility ofThese modals are regarded as epistemic modals.

co-occuring with -ta forms.

modals themselves

The modal (E) beki-da satisfies the criterion 2)
in (2). Modals (F) and (G) satisfy the criterion 3)

Table 3. Possibility of modals co-occurring within (2). Modals (E)-(G) are deontic modals. The-ta forms

following

examplesillustrate

Modalstheir

co occurrence
ith ta form

morphological restrictions.
(A)hazu-da ( inferential

Yesshould)(3) Taro-wa [*ku-/ku-ru/ki-ta/ko-nai]
T-top[*come/come-pres/come-pst/come-neg](B)daro (will)*hazu-da.

(C)

ni-tigainai (inferential

?*

must)

HAZU-cop(D)

Taro shall {come/ have come/ not come}kamosirenai?*(possibility may)

(4) Taro-ga [*ku-/ku-ru/*ko-nai/*ki-ta]
T-nom[*stem/come-pres/*come-neg/(E)beki-da (had better)Yes*come-pst](F)nakerebanaranai

Yesbeki-da.

(obligatory must)

BEKI-cop(G)

nakutemo yoi (not have to)Yes

Taro had better come.
(5) Taro-ga [ika-*ik-u/*i-tta/*ika-nai]

The following examples illustrate that Proposal

T-nom [go(stem)/*go-pres/*go-pst/*go-neg]

A holds. Modals (A) and (E)-(G), which can benakerebanaranai.

made

NAKEREBANARANAI

counterfactuality.

277

into

past

tense,

may

signal(4 ) Taro-wa [mosi kikai-ga at-tara ] [ik-u](7) Mosimo Einstein-ga iki-tei-tara

T-top if chance-nom have-TARA go-presifbeki-dat-ta.

[a-e-ta/*a-e-ru] ni tigainai.

BEKI-cop-pst

see-po-pst/*see-po-pres NITIGAINAI“Taro should have gone if he had a chance.”“If Einstein were alive, (I) could have surely

a. Demo ika-nakat-ta.

seen (him).”but go-neg-pst

live-asp-TARA(8) Mosimo Einstein-ga iki-tei-tara“But (he) did not go.”ifb. ? Sosite it-ta.

E -nomlive-asp-TARA[a-e-ta/*a-e-ru] kamosirenai.

“and (he) went.”

see-po-pst/*see-po-pres KAMOSIRENAI(5 ) Hanako-wa [Taro-ga ika-nakat-tara]
H-top

E -nom“If Einstein were alive, (I) might have seen

T-nom go-neg-TARA(him).”[ika-] nakerebanaranakat-ta.
go- NAKEREBANARANAI-pst

The past tense -ta in the proposition of the“Hanako would have had to go if Taro didconsequent in (6), (7), and (8) indicates thatnot go.”these sentences can receive the counterfactuala. Demo ika-nai-de sun-da.

interpretation.

but go-neg finish-cop.

“But she ended up not having to go.”3. Interpretation of Epistemic Conditionals
In this section, I will show that the past tenseb. # Sosite, kanozyo-wa it-ta.
andmarking in the consequent clause of Japanese

she-top go-pst

epistemic“and (she) went.”

conditionals

determines

theinterpretation of the entire conditional sentence
The sentences in (4 b) and (5 b) above indicate(Proposal C). Furthermore, a temporal sequential

thecounterfactual

analysis of the conditional clause using notations

implicature. It seems that their counterfactual

based on Mihara (1992) reveals that the

implicatures are not readily cancellable.

counterfactual reading may be obtained evencancellability

of

the

when the epistemic reading is not available.

Proposal B is verified by the following
examples which show epistemic modals, whichcannot be made into past tense, but may select a

3.1. Temporal Interpretation of Epistemic

past-tensed proposition. They can indicate

Conditionals
In this section, I will examine Proposal C:

counterfactuality when accompanied by theantecedent clauses.

1

the past tense marking in the consequent clauseof the Japanese epistemic conditionals decides
the interpretation of the entire conditional(6) Mosimo Einstein-ga iki-tei-taraif

E -nomsentence.

live-asp-TARA

In relation to Proposal C, a case will[a-e-ta/*a-e-ru] daro .

be shown in which the past tense -ta in the[see-po-pst/*see-po-pres] DARO

consequent“If Einstein were alive, (I) could have seen

counterfactual reading.

(him).”

example is obtained through the temporal

278

unambiguously

signalsthe

The unambiguous

event q : p< qanalysis of the epistemic conditionals.

3) the event q temporarily precedes the

The following examples show that the tense

event p : q< pform of the antecedent does not affect the4) the event p and the event q overlaps ininterpretation of the conditional sentences.

time, and the event q follows p : p< q(9) a. (Mosi) kono kusuri-o(If)5) future ut<p,qthis medicine-acc[non-dara/nom-u-nara/ non-da-nara],

pastp,q < ut

presentp,q= ut

drink-TARA/drink-pres-NARA/-pst-NARA

The following examples show that thebyoki-ga nao-ru daro.

interpretation of tense of the antecedent p

sickness-nom cure-pres DARO

depends on the tense of the consequent q. The“If (you) drink this medicine, the sickness

notations in parentheses in (11a, b, c) indicate

will be cured.”

the temporal relation between p and q.

b. (Mosi) kono kusuri-o(If)

this medicine-acc(11) a. Mosi [John-ga ku-ru]-nara, [asu[non-dara/? nom-u-nara/ non-da-nara],

If J-nom come-pres-NARA tomorrow

drink-TARA/ drink-pres-NARA/

Mary-wa kaer-u]-daro. (ut<p<q)-pst-NARA

M-top go=back-pres-DARO

byoki-ga naot-ta daro.

“If John comes, Mary will go backsickness-nom cure-pst DARO

tomorrow.”
b. Mosi [(*asu ) John-ga ku-ru]-nara,“If (you) drank this medicine, the sickness
would be cured.” (epistemic)

If (*tomorrow) J-nom come-pres-NARA“If (you) drank this medicine, the sickness[Mary-wa kaet-ta]-daro. *(q< ut<p)would have been cured.” (counterfactual)

M -top go=back-pst -DARO“If John comes, Mary will go back.”

The interpretation of (9a) is determined by thec. Mosi [John-ga san-nen-mae ki-ta]-nara,present tense -ru in the consequent. Two

If J-nom 3-years-ago come-pst-NARA

readings of (9b) are decided by the past tense -ta

Mary-wa kare-o[*yurus-u/yurusi-ta]

in the consequent.

M-top go he-acc *forgive-pres/ -pst

To specify the temporal relation of thedaro. *(p< ut<q)antecedent p and the consequent q, I will adopt

DARO

the following notations for temporal sequence“If John came 3 years ago, Mary would

used in Mihara (1992), where ut stands forhave forgiven him.”utterance time.
In (13) the tense of the antecedent and the tense(10)

Mihara (1992)

on the consequent are explicitly specified by the1) the event p and the event q occurs

time adverbials such as “asu” (tomorrow) andsimultaneously : p=q“san-nen-mae” (three years ago). (11a) shows

2) the event p temporarily precedes thethat “asu” in p is compatible with the present279

A. Modals, which can be made into past tense,

tense form of the verb “kae-ru” in q. (11b)shows that “asu” in p is incompatible with themostlydeontic

past tense “kae-tta” in q, assuming the temporal

counterfactuality.

modals,maysignaladverbial

B. Epistemic modals, which cannot be made“san-nen-mae” in p requires the verb forms both

into past tense, but which may select ain p and q to be in the past tense form.

past-tensed

interpretation.

In

(11c)

the

can

signalcounterfactuality.

A temporal restriction on the epistemic

C. The past tense marking in the consequentconditionals in (11) seems to be that theclauseantecedent p and the consequent q cannot beintervened by the utterance time.

proposition,

2

of

the

Japanese

epistemic

conditionals decides the interpretation of
the entire conditional sentence.

It is interesting to note that although (11b)does not have an epistemic reading, in which

Furthermore,

Mary went back tomorrow, it could have afollowing

pointsare

discussed.

counterfactual reading as follows:

1) The past tense morpheme -ta in the(11b’) Mosi [asu John-ga ku-ru]-nara,Iftheconsequent

tomorrow J-nom come-pres-NARA

clauseisasufficient[Mary-wa kae-tta]-daro(-ni). (p< q)condition (but not a necessary condition)

M-top go=back-pst -DARO(-NI)

for the conditional to be interpreted as

Demo John-wa ko-naka-tta.

counterfactual.
2) The relative temporal relation between the

but J-top come-neg-pst“If John came tomorrow, Mary would

antecedent p and the consequent q does

have gone back, but he wasn’t coming.”

not differentiate the epistemic readingfrom the counterfactual reading.

This reading, which is expressed by (p< q), is3) The counterfactual reading is possible

called future counterfactual reading in Ogihara

when the conditional is interpreted in3(2014). “Asu” in the antecedent clause in (11b’)unspecified time (i.e. the time not related

does not specify the event occurring at the future

to the utterance time).

time. It indicates “fake future” in the sense of
Iatridou (2000). Crucially, utterance time is notMore studies should be done in the future on

indicated in the temporal relation.

when the time adverbial in the antecedent canfunction as a fake marker of tense, which isrelated to 3).

4. Concluding Remar s
In this paper, I have presented someexamples to show that the past tense morpheme* I am deeply grateful for the invaluable-ta in the consequent of conditionals can signal

comments and suggestions from the anonymouscounterfactuality. The examination of thesereviewers, Sumiyo Nishiguchi, and the audienceexamples seems to confirm that my Proposals A,

and

the

chair

B, and C are supported.

held

at

HokkaidoattheSpringUniversity.

Forum
All

the

remaining errors and inadequacies are my own.

280

1

(i) (Mosi) asu yakyu-ga a-ru-nara,

NOTES
It has been pointed out that epistemic modals

if tomorrow baseball-nom exist-pres-NARA

with a past-tensed proposition cannot have a

mi-ni it-ta-daro (-ne).

counterfactual reading by themselves. They needwatch go-pst-DARO

the

“If

antecedent

followingclause.

examplecounterfactual

For

does

reading,

instance,
not

but

the

have

a

indicates

the

there

had

been

a

baseballgame

tomorrow, (I) would have gone to watchit.”Ogihara (2014:16)

speaker’s inference about Taro’s completed
action.

REFERENCES
Arita, Setsuko (2006) “Ziseisetusei to Nitieigo(i) Taro-wa imagoro gakko-e it-ta daro.

no

Zyokenbun,”(Tensed-nessandT-top by=now school-to go-pst DARO

Conditionals in English and Japanese)“Taro would have gone to school by now.”

Zyokenhyogenno

Taisyo(Contrastive

Studies of Conditional Expressions), ed. by
It is interesting to note that the sentence in (i)Takashistill shows that the speaker does not know that q

Tokyo.

Masuoka,

127-150,

Kuroshio,

Arita, Setsuko (2009) “Tensed and Settledness inis true at the utterance time. Thus the past tense-ta in (i) seems to indicate irrealis.

Japanese

Conditionals,”

2

The temporal sequence ut<p<q is possible in

Modality:

Exploring

epistemic conditionals, but the sequence q<ut<pInterpretation, ed. by Barbara Pizziconi anddoes not seem acceptable since (ii) below shows

Mika Kizu, 117-149, Palgrave, Macmillan.
Iatridou,

a semantically and pragmatically impossible

SabineIngredientsinference.

its(2000)
ofJapanese
Scope

and

“Grammatical

Counterfactuality,”

Linguistic Inquiry 31, 231-20.
Iori, Isao (2001) Atarasi Nihongogaku Nyumon:(i) Mosi [John-ga asu ku-ru]-nara, [Mary-wa
If J-nom tomorrow come-pres-NARA M-top

Kotoba no Sikumi o Kangaeru (Newasatte kaer-u]-daro. (ut<p<q)

Introduction to Japanese Linguistics: A

day=after=tomorrow go=back-pres-DARO

Probe into the System of Language), Three“If John comes tomorrow, Mary will go back

A Network, Tokyo.
Mihara, Ken-ichi 1992 Zisei Kaisyaku to Togothe day after tomorrow.”

Gensyo(ii) ?*Mosi [John-ga asu ku-ru]-nara,(Interpretation

of

Tense

and

Syntactic Phenomena), Kuroshio, Tokyo.

If J-nom tomorrow come-pres-NARA

Ogihara, Toshiyuki (2014) “The Semantics of ta[Mary-wa kino kaet-ta]-daro. ?*(q<ut<p )M-top yesterday go=back-pst-DAROin Japanese Future Conditionals,” The Art?*“If John comes tomorrow, Mary would

and Craft of Semantics : A Festschrift for
Irene Heim vol.2, ed. by Luka Crnic andhave gone back yesterday.”Uli Sauerland, MIT Working Papers in
3

Linguistics 71, 1-21.

Ogihara’s examples are as follows (with minor

modification):281

study tries to tie the two together to illustrateunique aspects of social interaction.
Regarding internal monologues, there are
two possible situations in which nanka is used.
How Japanese Speakers Use Nanka in

The first is when a person is literally alone andQuasi-Internal Monologues during

the second is when someone else is present. It is

Interactional Discourse

the second situation that will be considered here.
In this situation, the monologue produced isHiroko Shikano

what Noda calls “a quasi-internal monologue”

Jichi Medical University(2006). This study will concern itself with the

Miki Sugisaki

use of nanka in quasi-internal monologues, andJapan Women’s University

will use that term when analyzing data.

Keywords：quasi-internal monologues, nanka,

2. Previous Studies

interactional discourse, TV program

When a speaker produces a quasi-internalmonologue, the speech volume is lowered to a
murmur and the speed of speech is slowed(Mimaki 2013). In terms of non-linguistic

1. Introduction
In their daily lives, the Japanese tend tofeatures, the speaker inclines his or her head or

speak their own internal monologues out loud,pulls his or her eyes away from a particularwhether they are in the presence of others or not.

object (Mimaki 2013). In addition, Shikano

A good example of this is when someone(2016) says that the final particle of -kanawandersarefalling intonation (hereinafter abbreviated as

doko-yatta-kana?” (Nanka…, where did that↓ ) can be easily seen in quasi-internalaroundsaying,“Nanka…,

1

withthing go?), subconsciously and to no one inmonologues. Nitta (1991) shows the clear

particular. However, another party might bedifferences between the final particle of -ka? andnearby and respond with, “Shinbun? Sakki,-kana↓. The final particle of -ka with a risingojii-chan ga yon-de-ta-yo.” (The newspaper?

intonation turns the sentence into a question.

Your grandpa was reading it a minute ago.) Once

This means that the speaker provides sufficientthe monologue is replied to, it leads to a

information for a recipient to give a response.

conversation between the two. Vygotsky (1962)

On the other hand, the final particle of -kanastates that a monologue occurs when a speaker’swith a declining intonation is used when thepsychological mental state fluidly floats between

speaker is trying to resolve a particular problem

the thinking and speaking regions of his or her

on his or her own. Having said that, the final

brain.

internal

particle -kana↓makes the speaker’s utterance

monologues, they use the word nanka quite

oblique to the recipient even when the utterance

often. (The meaning of nanka is complex andis produced in the presence of others (Shikano

will be discussed later.) These two, internal2016). Moreover, the author

monologue and nanka, have been studied

speaker of a quasi-internal monologue does notindependently and separately. Therefore, thispursue a recipient’s response because the focus

Whenpeopleproduce282

says that a

of the monologue is on the speaker’s thoughts

the local people.

rather than anyone else’s.

In terms of quasi-internal monologues, either

The earlier section stated that people

the host or the guest is considered to be thefrequently use nanka in their quasi-internal

speaker or recipient, depending on who ismonologues.

thetalking at any given time. During those times

dictionary, Daijirin (1995), the literal meaning

when the host or the guest is alone in a scene,of nanka is “some, any, something, andthe recipient is considered to be the TV viewer, aanything,” and it shows uncertainty, the meaning

member of the TV crew, or a local person.

Althoughaccordingtoof nanka is actually untranslatable because it

For the data, those quasi-internal monologues

changes meaning depending on context. The

from the TV show that used nanka wereprevious research, Takubo & Kinsui (1997),

extracted, and related words and phrases weresuggests that nanka works as a filler or softener.

analyzed. In terms of methodology, analysis

Uchida (2001) says that nanka is not “a habit ofconcerned both the linguistic and non-linguistic

saying” to make introductory remarks, but afeatures in this study: speech volume is lowered

discourse marker which introduces new concepts

to a murmur, speed of speech is slowed, and thefor listeners. Iio (2006) states that nanka serves

speaker inclines his or her head or pulls his or

several functions, such as turn initiator, filler,

her eyes away from a particular object.

and softener. Furthermore, Sugisaki (2018)
reveals nanka in self-disclosure functions to

3.2. Monologues or Discourse?

show the speaker’s inner feeling co-occurring

In order to show the clear differenceswith filler or repair words. Although there are

betweenseveral previous studies about nanka, it has notmonologues, all the targeted quasi-internalbeen studied much within the context ofmonologues with nanka were input into thequasi-internal monologues. Considering thesescientific software application PRAAT. PRAAT

previous studies, this study serves to moreisdefinitively answer the following two questions:investigates aspects of speech sounds. One such(1) What is the function of quasi-internal

aspect is the amplitude of waveforms, as in themonologues? (2) What is the function of nanka

following:andiscourse

acousticandintonation

quasi-internal

analyzerthatin the context of quasi-internal monologues?
3. Data
3.1. Data and Methodology
The data for this study came from a Japanesewari-to koma-ga

are-nano-kanaTV program called Tsurube no kazoku ni kanpai(or Tsurube’s Toast to Families), which was

Figure 1: Utterance contains a partial

broadcast on NHK. In this study, fifteen

quasi-internal monologue

75-minute-long episodes were used. In each
episode, the host, Mr. Tsurube, travels with a

Figure 1 shows the waveform in PRAAT for theguest to a rural area of Japan. When they arrive,

utterance “wari-to koma-ga are-nano-kana.”

they wander around and have conversations with

The utterance to the left of the dotted line,283

“wari-to

koma-ga,”shows

mountain-likechau-kana,waveforms. Whereas the utterance to the right oferai-san.”

([He

is]

doing

something. [He is an] executive.)the dotted line, “are-nano-kana,” which shows a

In his quasi-internal monologue, A expresses

flat waveform, is treated as an example of

his inner feelings of wondering to himself byquasi-internal monologue in this study.

using the final particle -kana↓ with a fallingintonation. A’s expression of his inner state both

4. Results and Data Analysis

echoes and is supported by the findings of

4.1. With a Final Particle -kanaShikano (2016).

In the first example, the host (Mr. Tsurube,

Withinthis

excerpt,

quasi-internal

abbreviated as A) and the guest (abbreviated asmonologue shows when the A has uncertainB) are wondering where they should visit. Whenfeeling about going to the university. It is a

A tells B that the college A used to attend is justchallenge for both the host and the smootharound the corner, B insists they go there:

filming of the TV program. Upon hearing B’s
wish of going to the university, A confirms going

1:A:

son-nan"yu-n-ya-tta-ra,daigaku

there. However, he then becomes concerned

iko-u-ka?

about two things. He doesn’t know if the TV“(If you) insist on that, shall we go tocrew can enter the university premises without

the university?”

permission and he doesn’t know if they will be

Fujimoto-yu-te-ne ， ore-no mukou-no

able to film there.

oendan-no tomodachi-ga-ne.

He starts trying to shift responsibility away“(There is) Fujimoto, a friend of mine,from himself when he mentions his friend

from cheerleading group.”

Fujimoto, an administrator who might be able tohelp. In his quasi-internal monologue, A says,

2:B: …
→ 3:A: are-ga mukou-no jimu-no, nanka“nanka ya-tto-n-no chau-kana ↓ , erai-san.”ya-tto-n-no chau-kana↓ , erai-san.

(He is doing something. [He is an] executive.)“(Fujimoto) may be working as anThis idea gives him a positive feeling about theiradministrator and doing something.

attempt to film at the university, and helps him(He is an) executive.”

overcome his worry.

1

4:B:....

In the previous study of Shikano (2016),
quasi-internalmonologueisexplainedas

A is surprised to hear B’s request, but he accepts

revealing a speaker’s

it,“son-nan

and implies that he or she is having troubling

yu-n-ya-tta-ra, Daigaku iko-u-ka?” (If you insist

thoughts. When nanka is used with the utterance

on that, shall we go to the university?) Upon

within the falling intonation of -kana↓ in the

hearing A’s utterance, B simply glances at him

context

without saying anything. Then A initiates goingproduction

to the university, saying monologically in his

enhances a speaker’s feelings of uncertainty andthird line that there is a man called Fujimoto,his or her deliberation over a problem. Moreover,

who possibly works as an administrator in thethe A does not even pursue a response from B.

university.

This is because the speaker of a quasi-internaluttering,

in

He

his

says,

first

line,

“nankaya-tto-n-no

284

of

feelings of uncertainty

quasi-internalofamonologue,

quasi-internalthemonologuemonologue is not concerned with a recipient’s

In this example, C finds a shop that he wants

reply, since the speaker is not talking directly toto visit, but he reveals his inner feelings by

the recipient (Shikano 2016). Therefore, it could

hesitantly saying nanka aloud to confirm withbe said that the speaker of a quasi-internal

either the TV crew or TV audience that it is okaymonologue effectively considers himself orfor him to go inside the shop. Because he is notherself to be alone when speaking. This is why A

completely aware of the reason behind his desireinterpreted B’s non-responsiveness as approval

to go in.

of going to the university—and why the TV

says, “cho-tto nanka” (for some reason). This

program continued to go smoothly.

shows both his preference to drink coffee and his

In his quasi-internal monologue, hehesitation to make a decision. Moreover, bothcho-tto and nanka show the meaning of

4.2. Direct Quotation
In this example, C is walking around a street

uncertainty. Therefore, nanka in the context ofwith TV crews, when he finds a coffee shop. He

quasi-internal monologue can be used when awonders if he should enter the shop.

person feels uncertain about what he or sheshould do next.

→1:C: Aa, tezukuri-koohii-mame-koubou” “Ah,(thereis)ahome-madecoffee4.3. Interjection(shop).”Ah,

For a third and final example, D is about tocho-ttonanka

enter an old man’s house:koohii-demo

non-n-de-mitai-na, nan-tu-tte.
→1:D: o-jama shi-masu,“For some reason, now, (I) want todrink coffee or something like“Excuse me,”that.”

waa, sugoi kirei-na,(As C enters the coffee shop,)“wow, very nice,”

Shitsurei-shi-masu.

nanka ii-nioi-ga suru,“Excuse me.”“somehow (it) smells nice,”natsukashii-nioiAt

first,

heloudlysays,“Aa“(It) smells familiar.”tezukuri-koohii-mame-koubou,” (Ah, [there is] ahome-made coffee [shop]) and points to the shop.

When she says, “o-jama shi-masu” (excuse me),Then, he monologically utters, “Ah, cho-tto

she is browsing the house and looking fornanka

non-n-de-mitai-na,

something to show to the TV audience. However,nan-tu-tte.” (For some reason, now, [I] want toshe has not yet found something suitable. The

drink coffee or something like that.) C uses

video shows her hesitating and acting uncertain

the phrase nan-tu-tte (like that) as if he isabout the items she looks at. Instead of showing

expressing his inner feelings with the use ofsomething she’s found, she expresses hernanka.

surprise by saying, “waa, sugoi kirei-na” (wow,

expresses

koohii-demo

Abe (1999) states that inner speechaspeaker’s

profoundfeelings.

verynice),

out

loud.

Then,

she

says,

Moreover, according to Sugisaki (2018), nanka

monologically,is used to introduce a speaker’s words in mind.

(somehow, it smells nice). Her quasi-internal

285“nankaii-nioi-gasuru”

monologue

then

with

want to do without consulting anybody else.

familiar),

They reveal their disorganized or uncertain innerindicating something reminds her of her past.

feelings through their use of nanka in their

However, she does not reveal what it is.

quasi-internal monologues.

“natsukashii-nioi”

continues(itsmellsTo explain these expressions grammatically,

In addition, since a specific feature of

she uses two adjectives: kirei (or nice) andquasi-internal monologue is that it does notnatsukashii (or familiar). These adjectives reveal

require a recipient’s reply, speakers should

her inner feelings about what the house looks

receive a hint from the expressions of recipientslike and how the house smells. In this example,

when deciding what to do next.

using these adjectives with her quasi-internal

Several aspects of the use of nanka withinmonologue indicates her profound feelings.

quasi-internal monologues should be noted or

As she enters the house, D politely talks toreiterated:the owner of the house using forms of speechending in masu. When she uses these polite(1) In an interactive discourse, a speaker’s

forms of speech, the owner recognizes that D is

quasi-internalpayinguncertain feelings of “if I do this, maybe thisherrespect.

However,inherquasi-internal monologue, D does not continuemonologue

canproducekind of situation will happen.”

to use this polite form of speech. This means that

(2) Nanka can serve to reveal a speaker’s inner

rather than showing her respect to the owner offeelings.

the house, she is revealing her inner feeling(3) Speakers should receive a hint from a(Shikano 2016).

recipient’s response concurrently.

In this example, D’s compliments about the(4) Nanka in the context of quasi-internalhouse ensure that the owner of the house ismonologue helps create social integration

comfortable with the unexpected disturbance ofbetween speakers and others.

a TV crew. The simple quasi-internal monologue(5) Both quasi-internal monologue and nanka

creates social integration between the speaker

function as communicative devices.

herself, the TV crew, and the owner. While D istrying to be social with the owner of the house,

6. Conclusion

she is also trying to find something to introduce

This study discussed one type of social

to the TV audience.

interaction among the Japanese: quasi-internal

In this example, nanka expresses a speaker’s

monologues that use the word nanka. The data

feelings of uncertainty. Moreover, this instancehas shown that speakers unconsciously produceof quasi-internal monologue does not necessitate

quasi-internal monologue out loud in thea reply from the recipient.

presence of others, but that speakers mostly only
speak only when they feel something intuitively
without the second thought, and often without an

5. Discussion
Within the quasi-internal monologues seenawareness of a recipient. This study also showedon this TV show, nanka is used when it isthat quasi-internal monologues often indicate arequired by the host or a guest. They use it when

speaker’s feelings of uncertainty and doubt.

they decide where they want to go or what they286

NOTES
1

Arrow pointed down, ↓ , indicates the‘Nanka’ no

Sokkyosei

From

Use

the

(Improvisation:

of

Nanka

Journalof

speaker’s intonation shift to an especially low

Self-Disclosure),”tone.

Women’s University 24, 81-92.

in
Japan

Takubo, Yukinori and Satoshi Kinsui (1997)

REFERENCES
Abe, Jiro (1999) “Iwayuru Shinnai-Hatsuwa ni“Outoushi/Kandoushi no Danwateki Kinou

tsuite – Hatsuwa Doushi to shite Mita(On

‘Omou’ (On 'Inner Speech': Omou as aInterjections),” Bunpoo to Onsei (Grammar

Verb of Saying),” Journal of Tsukuba

andApplied Linguistics Studies 6, 85-100.

Kenkyukai, 257-279, Kurosio Publishers,

Iio, Makiko (2006) “Tandaisei no Hanashi

theDiscourse

Speech), ed.

Functionby Onseiof

BunpooTokyo.

Kotoba ni Miru Danwahyoushiki Nanka no

Uchida, Lala. (2001) “Kaiwa ni Mirareru

Ichikousatsu (A Study of the Discourse‘Nanka’Marker Nanka in Junior College Students’-Hyougen’ no ‘Nanka’ wa Kuchiguse ka

Daily Language),” The Bulletin of Touyou(Nanka in Ordinary Conversation and Its

Women College 38, 67-77.

Grammaticalization: Is Nanka Only ‘A

Mimaki,Yoko(2013)

Poraitonesu

toBunpouka–‘Maeokino

Habit of Saying’ to Make Introductory

Danwabunseki: Shotaimen Komyunikeshon

Remarks?),” The Academic Reports. The

no Sugata to Shikumi (Discourse Analysis

Faculty of Engineering, Tokyo Polytechnic

on Politeness: How People Interact at First

University 24(2), 1-9.

Encounters), Kurosio Publishers, Tokyo.

Vygotsky, Lev S. (1962) Thought and Language

Nitta, Yoshio (1999) Nihongo no Modariti to(2nd ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge.

Ninshou (Modalities and Personal Pronouns

NHK. Tsurube no kazoku ni kanpai (Tsurube’sin Japanese), Hituzi Syobo Publishing,

Toast

Tokyo.

<http://www4.nhk.or.jp/kanpai/>

Noda,

Harumi(2006)“Gijidokuwa

ga

Monologue Occurs),” Nihongo Bunpo no
Shin-Chihei 2 Bunron-hen (A New Horizon…

in Japanese Grammar: Style), ed. by
Matuoka,

193-213,

Shikano, Hiroko (2016) “Gijidokuwa ni okeru
‘Are’

o

Mochiita

Toki

TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONSPause within same turn↓
Bold

Kurosio

Publishers, Tokyo.
Shijishi

Families).

DICTIONARY
Daijirin (1995) 2nd. ed. Sanseido, Tokyo.

Shutsugen Suru Toki (When Quasi-Internal

TakashitonoHanashi-te no Shiten (The Speaker’s
Viewpoints in the Use of Demonstratives‘that’ in Quasi-Internal Monologues),”
Journal of Japan Women’s University 22,
15-26.
Sugisaki, Miki (2018) “Jikokaiji Bamen ni okeru

287

Low pitch
The length of quasi-internal monologue

2. Theistinction bet een Reduced Relative

Clauses anderundive Clauses

Reduced relative clauses and gerundive
clauses are similar in the two points: First, theyboth appear in Case positions. Second, they have

A enerative Analysis of Reduced Relative
Clauses in English*

a similar surface form: the noun phrase followedby V-ing, as shown in (1) and (2).

Katsuya Sugiura(2)

Aichi Gakuin University

John quickly leaving surprised
everybody.

(Pires (2006: 17))

Keywords：aspect, external determiner,
However, they should be distinguished fromfunctional category

the syntactic and semantic viewpoints in thethree points. First, an adverb currently, which
expresses an ongoing action, is possible in the

1. Introduction
The purpose of this study is to attempt toreduce relative clause, as shown in (3a), while

reveal the syntactic structure of reduced relative

currently is impossible in the gerundive clause,clauses in English within the framework of

as shown in (3b, c).

generative grammar. I examine the noun phrase(3) a.

postmodified by the present participle, itsargument and adjuncts, as shown in (1).

the womble [currently making an assof himself]b. * Currently stealing socks is a common(1) a.

Look at the boys [playing tennis overhabit of wombles.
c. * Uncle Bulgaria’s currently stealing

there].
b.

(of) my socks is really ruining the

Tell me about a man [living in Tokyo].

party.

(cf. Harwood (2017: 11))

I refer to the bracketed part in (1) as reduced
relative clause, and the underlined part in (1) as

Second, perfective have is not acceptable inhead noun or head noun phrase.

the reduce relative clause, as shown in (4a),This paper is organized as follows: in section

while it is acceptable in the gerundive clause, as

2, I will show that reduced relative clauses areshown in (4b).

distinguished from gerundive clauses from thesyntactic and semantic viewpoints. In section 3,(4) a. * The womble [having stolen my bike]

I will reveal the function and role of Asp inproceeded to ride round the village

reduced relative clauses. In section 4, I will give

naked.

the derivation of reduced relative clauses. Inb.

Uncle Bulgaria’s having stolen my

section 5, I will show that the proposed structure

bike was a disappointment toanswers the question about the historicaleveryone.

(cf. Harwood (2017: 11))development of reduced relative clauses. Section
6 concludes this paper.

Third, an idiom be dying to, which means be288

idiomatic(1999, 2000), Krause (2001), Thompson (2001),

interpretation only in the progressive form.

Bhatt (2002), Doron and Reitinges (2005),

When we look at the reduced relative clause inBelikova (2008), Tozawa (2013, 2014), Sugiura(5b), we find out that dying to has the idiomatic(2014, 2015, 2017), Douglas (2016), Harwoodinterpretation but it does not in the gerundive(2017) and Suzuki (2017).

keen

to,

as

in

(5a),

has

the

This subsection reinforces Thompson (2001)

clause, as shown in (5c).

which argues for an AspP analysis of reduced(5) a.

The wombles are dying to see the new

Many scholars observes that reduced relative

Star Wars film.

b.

relative clauses.

=The wombles are keen to see theclauses do not have CP or TP. First, the reduced

new Star Wars film.

relative

The person [dying to see the new Star

complementizer, as shown in (6).

clausedisallows

the

overt

Wars film the least] is probably(6)

Geroge Lucas.

* The passengers that waiting for flight= The person keen to see the new Star

307 complained to the flightWars film the least is probably Geroge

attendant.

(Thompson (2001: 297))

Lucas.
c.

Second, reduced relative clauses disallow

Dying to see the new Star Wars film
does not necessarily make one asentence-level

hardcore fan.

unfortunately, honestly and probably, as shown(cf. Harwood (2017: 12))adverbssuchasevidently,in (7).

The semantic difference between (5b) and (5c)(7) a. * I met the boy evidently/unfortunately/

implies that the idiomatic interpretation of dying

honestly reading the book.
(Tozawa (2014: 222))

to might be licensed by some feature in theb. * The person probably playing the

reduced relative clause.

music you heard used to be myThus, reduced relative clauses and gerundive

roommate.1

clauses are readily distinguished.

(Thompson (2001: 297), attributed toWilliams (1975: 251))

3. An AspP Analysis of Reduced Relative
ClausesThis section reinforces an AspP analysis of

Third, the absence of TP in reduced relative

reduced relative clauses by Thompson (2001),

clauses is also supported by the grammatical factpaying attention to the function and role of Asp.

in (8a, b): in (8a), the past tense form of thematrix verb complained is only compatible withthe past event represented by the reduced

3.1. Thompson (2001)
There are many previous studies of reduced

relative clause, while in (8b), the future tense

relative clauses within the framework ofform of the matrix verb is only compatible withgenerative grammar: Williams (1975), Burzio

the future event denoted by the reduced relative(1986), Kayne (1994), Siloni (1995), Bianchi

clause.

289

(8) a. * A passenger waiting (yesterday/b.

agreement, but this paper distinguishes -ing from*tomorrow) for flight 307 complained

other inflectional suffixes such as -(e)d and -(e)sto the flight attendant.

because the inflectional suffixes are involved in

A passenger waiting (*yesterday/

agreement and Case assignment, while the suffix

tomorrow) for flight 307 will-ing is not involved in agreement or Casecomplain to the flight attendant.

assignment.

(Thompson (2001: 292))

Based on the assumption that the suffix -ing
has the [ progressive] feature, I claim that whenI assume that Thompson’s AspP analysis is

the AspP has the [ progressive] feature, aninsufficient in that she does not reveal what roleaction denoted by the verb is interpreted as

the Asp plays. The next subsection discusses the

progressive. I assume that stative verbs such asfunction and role of Asp.

live bear the [ stative] feature, and adverbs
expressing frequency or habit such as frequently
or often bear the [ habitual] feature.

3.2. The Function and Role of Asp
Following Van Valin and Lapolla (1997: 40),

Following Mizuno (1999), I assume that

I assume that aspect expresses “the internal

adverbs expressing frequency or habit adjoin to

temporal structure of the event itself,” and it also

AspP. Thus, at the time when -ing adjoins to theshows whether the event is completed, isverb, the syntactic structure of reduced relative

ongoing,clauses that have a frequency adverb is (11).

orisrecurring.

Based

on

the

assumption that the functional category AspP
bears these roles, I assume the clausal structure(11)[[ P Subji ][AspP [Asp Adverb[ habitual]in (9), where AspP expresses whether the event[Asp tj ] [vP ti [v V-v-ingj[ progressive]]]]]]

represented by vP is ongoing or not, habitual ornot, and completed or not.

I claim that the aspect represented by the
reduced relative clause is determined by what

(9)

[AspP Asp [vP Subj [v V-v ]]]features the AspP has. I will illustrate it with theexamples in (12) and (13).

Next, I examine the function of the present(12) a.

participle suffix -ing. I suggest that -ing merges

Look at the boysin the head of Asp, bearing the [ progressive][AspP playing[ progressive] tennis overfeature. After it merges and the Subject noun

there].

raises into the upper position, -ing lowers ontob.

the verb in PF under adjacency without

Tell me about a man[AspP living[ stative][ progressive] in Tokyo].

undergoing agreement, as shown in (10).

(13) a.

His grotesquely amusing accountpresents the entire family(10)[[ P Subji ][AspP [Asp [Asp tj ][AspP frequently[ habitual][vP ti [v V-v-ingj[ progressive]]]]]]

communing[ progressive] with ghosts].
(cf. Collins, brbooks, BB-Ym02210, biog)

It is traditionally assumed that inflectionalb.

suffixes adjoin to the host by undergoing

But many more are known only in aheavily condensed form

290

[AspP often[ habitual]

Geroge Lucas.

consisting[ stative][ progressive] of no more

= The person keen to see the new Star

than a few lines of text].

Wars film the least is probably Geroge(cf. Collins, brbooks, BB-Bm89-693, culture)
In (12a), the AspP playing tennis over there

Lucas.
4. A ead Noun Raising Accountrepresents an ongoing action because it has theI have provided the intermediate structure of[ progressive] feature. In (13a), there is an

reduced relative clauses in (11), where I did notadverb expressing frequency frequently before

reveal the landing site of the head noun. Section

the present participle communing. The AspP

4 deals with the syntactic structure of the noun

frequently communing with ghosts represents aphrase postmodified by the present participle

habitual and ongoing action because it has thephrase.

[ habitual] and [ progressive] features; theTo start with, I follow Cecchetto and Donati[ habitual] feature is carried by frequently; the(2015) in assuming that NPs can merge in the[ progressive] feature is carried by communing.

complement of unaccusative and passive verbs

In (12b), the reduced relative clause consistsin past participle reduced relative clauses, asof the present participle of a stative verb live andshown in (15), since it is not the Case position.

its argument in Tokyo. The AspP living in Tokyo
expresses an ongoing state because the AspP has(15)

the [NP philosopher [VP admiredthe [ stative] features. I stipulate that the suffix

philosopher (by Marx) ]]-ing does not make semantic contribution when(cf. Cecchetto and Donati (2015: 77))

it adjoins to stative verbs. Lastly, in (13b), a
stative verb consist occurs with a frequency

Based on this idea, I claim that NPs can also

adverb often. The AspP often consisting of nomerge in spec, vP because spec, vP is also not

more than a few lines of text denotes that a state

the Case position. Next, I adopt the head noun

often occurs. This is because the AspP has theraising analysis of relative clauses given by[ habitual],[ progressive]

Kayne (1994), Bianchi (1999, 2000) andfeatures; the [ habitual] feature is carried by

Radford (2016). Extending their analysis to theoften; the [ stative] and [ progressive] features

reduced relative clause, I propose that theare carried by consisting. Note that the suffix

reduced relative clause has the structure in (16),-ing does not make semantic contribution

where D takes NP as its complement, and NP

because it adjoins to stative verbs.

selects AspP. The head noun phrase NP raises[ stative]

andRecall that in (5b), repeated as (14), I statedfrom spec, vP inside the reduced relative clausethat some feature would license the idiomaticto spec, NP without involving the determiner. I

interpretation of dying to. I argue that whatassume that the determiner is merged outside thelicenses the idiomatic interpretation of dying to

reduced relative clause.

would be the [ progressive] feature of -ing.
(16)
(14)

[DP D [NP NPi [NP]The person [dying to see the new Star

[AspP [Asp Adv[ habitual] [Asp tj ]Wars film the least] is probably[vP ti [v V-v-ingj[ progressive] ]]]]]]

291

(20) a. * the Paris

Let me explain why the head noun promotesb.

from the base position, and why the determiner

the Paris I love(cf. Bianchi (1999: 42))

must be merged outside the reduced relative
clause. To start with, I will consider the example
of full relative clauses. Headway of an idiom

Based on these data, Kayne and Bianchi

make headway can be relativized, as shown inargue for the syntactic structure of relative(17a, b). (17c) shows that headway cannot beclauses in (21), where the external D selects CP

used without make.

as its complement and the head noun is in spec,
CP.

(17) a.
b.

We made headway.
(21) a.

The headway that we made wassatisfactory.

[DP the [CP [picture]i [that [IP Bill liked
ti ]]]]

c. * (The) headway was satisfactory.

b.

(cf. Schafter (1973: 31))

[DP the [CP [DP [NP picture][DP which t]]i [IP Bill liked ti ]]](Bianchi (2000: 124))

This means that headway receives the idiomaticinterpretation at the complement of make, andRadford (2016) modifies (21) because thethen raises to the antecedent position, as shownhead noun can be a phrase such as photo of John,in (18).

and argues for the derivation in (22), where
which

(18)

photo

of

John

originatesof

hates,

and

in

the

The headwayi [that we made ti] wascomplement

satisfactory.

WH-movement to spec, CP. And then, the headnounphrase

photo

of

it

John

undergoes
undergoes

Antecedent raising to spec, NP.

In addition, we should notice that in (17b)
headway involves the determiner the, while, as(22)

shown in (19), we cannot say make the headway.

[DP [D the [NP photo of Johni [NTherefore, the in (17b) does not raise with[CP [which photo of Johni]j [Cheadway from the complement of make; instead,[TP he hates which photo of

the would be merged outside the relative clause.

Johnj ]]]]]]](cf. Radford (2016: 434))(19)* We made the headway on thatproblem.

(Browning (1987: 129))

Let us return back to reduced relative clauses.
We can get the same grammatical facts. (23) and

There is another piece of evidence for the(24) show that headway and the proper noun can

external determiner analysis of full relative

be the head nouns postmodified by the reduced

clauses. A proper noun Paris cannot have the, as

relative clauses. Please notice that headway inshown in (20a), but when it is modified by the(23) and America and Paris in (24) have therelative clause, the Paris I love becomes

determiner the.

grammatical, as shown in (20b).
(23)

292

In other words, you are of the opinion

that the Government was becoming

5.

istorical Consideration
Finally, I would like to consider the external

increasingly alarmed at the headway[being made by the Communists]?

determiner analysis of reduced relative clauses(cf. Hearings, written by United States.

in relation to the emergence of the functional
category D in the history of English.

Congress. House. Committee on
Un-American Activities, p. 1942)(24) a.

b.

Sugiura (2014, 2015, 2017) investigate the

The America [withdrawing from thehistorical development of reduced relative

Paris Accords] will not be a world

clauses and report that they appeared around theleader.

thirteenth century. (26) is one of the first

The Paris [being visited byexamples of reduced relative clauses.

Japanese] is different from the one
being visited by Indians.2(26)

and alle heore teres beo berninde
and allhertears areberning

gleden glidende ouer heore a ene

On the basis of the facts in (23) and (24), andextending Radford’s analysis in (22) to theglede

reduced relative clause, I propose the derivation

nebbeof the reduced relative clause in (25).

neb

glidingover herown‘and all her tears are bearing kites(25) a.

gliding over her own neb’

Look at the girl from Italy [always
speaking Japanese].3b.

(1225, (CMLAMB 1,43.554),
from PPCME2 Corpus)[DP the[u-N] [NP girl from Italyi[i-N]
AGREE

[NP

] [AspP [Asp always[ habitual] [Asp tj ]Then we have two questions: first, why did
reduce relative clauses appear around the[vP ti [v speak-ingj Japanese]]]]]]

thirteenth century? Second, why were there no
In (25b), an NP girl from Italy merges in spec,

reduced relative clauses before the thirteenthvP without being assigned Case, and moves tocentury?

spec, NP. Applying Bianchi’s (2000: 129) idea, I

The answer is that, following Osawa (2000),

assume that this movement is triggered bythere was no functional category D before the

AGREE between the determiner the and thethirteenth century. Osawa (2000: 75) proposes

head noun phrase girl from Italy. The determinerthat ‘no syntactic case assignment was operative

the serves as Probe because it bears anin earlier English,’ and ‘around the 13th century,

uninterpretable N feature which is related tostructural case assignment became activated.’

categorial selection, and the head noun phrase

This would suggest that the functional category

girl from Italy serves as Goal because it has an

D was introduced into the determiner systeminterpretable N feature. Finally, the DP the girlaround the thirteenth century.

from Italy always speaking Japanese receives

Please remember that in the structure (25b),Case from the preposition at and is licensed as

the functional category D is indispensable sincean argument.

the determiner is merged outside the reduced
relative clause. Therefore, I assume that before

293the thirteenth century, speakers could notprobably

produce reduced relative clauses because they

Therefore, I assume that sentence adverbs are

did not have the functional category D, but afterusually disallowed in reduced relative clauses.

thethirteenth

century,

along

with

modifyingplaying

themusic.

This means that they lack TP.

theintroduction of the D system, speakers came to2(24a, b) were provided by my informant.

produce reduced relative clauses that have the3(25a) was also provided by my informant.

structure in (25b).
REFERENCES (Selected)
Bianchi, Valentina (2000) “The6. Conclusion
This paper discussed the function and role ofRaising

Analysis of Relative Clauses: A Reply to

the Asp and the derivation of reduced relative

Borsley,” Linguistic Inquiry 31, 123-140.

clauses. In section 3, I compensated for the

Cecchetto, Carlo and Caterina, Donati (2015)

deficiency in Thompson (2001) and claimed that(Re)labeling, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

the aspect denoted by the reduced relative clause

Harwood, William (2017) “Reduced Relatives

depends on what features the AspP has. In

andsection 4, I showed that reduced relative clauses

Analysis of the Inflectional Restriction on

are explained correctly under the head noun

English Reduced Relative Clauses,” Studia

raising account. Finally, in section 5, I showed

Linguistica 72, 428-471.

ExtendedPhases:aPhase-basedthat the proposed structure answers the two

Mizuno, Eiko (1999) “On the LF-Movement ofquestions about the emergence of reduced

Adverbs,” English Linguistics 16, 303-328.

relative clauses in the thirteenth century.

Osawa, Fuyo (2000) “The Historical Emergenceof DP in English,” English Linguistics 17,
51-79.

* An earlier version of this paper was presented
at the ELSJ 11th International Spring Forum

Radford, Andrew (2016) Analyzing English

held at Hokkaido University on 13 May, 2018. I

Sentences, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

would like to thank the audience at the forum.

Thompson, Ellen (2001) “Temporal Dependency

All remaining errors are my own.

and the Syntax of Subjects,” Journal of

NOTES
1Some scholar may consider the example like

English 37, 287-312.
Tozawa, Takahiro (2014) “The Head Raising

the one in (7b) to be fine. According to my six

Analysis of Reduced Relative Clauses in

informants, three of them answered that (7b) is

English,” JELS 31, 221-227.

ungrammatical, and the rest of them, that is,
three

informants

answered

that

(7b)

is

CORPORA

grammatical. However, two out of the three

Kroch, Anthony and Ann Taylor (2000) The

informants that judged (7b) to be grammatical

Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle

answered that

English,probably modifies the matrix

Secondedition(PPCME2),

University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.

predicate used to be my roommate, and only one

The Collins Wordbanks Online (Collins)

informant answered that probably modifies the
reduced relative clause playing the music. Thus,
five informants disallow the interpretation of294

2. Whuestions and Wh Sub ects

Chomsky (2015) proposes C-Deletion andPhasehood Inheritance for null-that-clauses suchas in (1a), according to which C is deleted andphasehood is inherited from C to T.

Eliminating String acuous MovementC*

eletion and Phasehood Inheritance(1) a.

I think John read the book.

b.

Shin-ichi Tanigawa[ C[u ] [ John[ ] T[u ] tsubj. read theNagasaki University

book ] ]c.

[ I think

Keywords: String-Vacuous Movement,[ John T[u ] tsubj. read thebook ]]

C-Deletion, Phasehood Inheritance,
Only-Subjects, Topic-Subjects

In (1b), the embedded C and its non-headundergo deletion as soon as C discharges
unvalued-features [u ] to T.1 Due to thedeletion of C and1. Introduction
Adopting the POP framework of Chomsky, the phasehood of C isinherited by and activated on T, and(2013, 2015), this paper proposes an analysis inmergeswith the matrix verb think.

which string-vacuous movement of subjects is

This analysis is extended to matrix sentences

eliminated due to C-deletion and phasehoodand Wh-subject questions by Tanigawa (2017).

inheritance. More specifically, building on

In matrix sentences such as (2a), C and its

Chomsky (2015) and Tanigawa (2017), thisnon-headpaper claims that C-deletion and phasehood

discharged from C to T.

undergo deletion once [u ] isinheritance take place uniformly in a variety of
constructions with A -movement—Wh-question,
Negative

Inversionand(2) a.

Topicalization—inb.

John likes cats.
[ C[u ] [ John[ ] T[u ] tsubj. like cats ] ]which string-vacuous movement of subjects has
been postulated. It is argued that this analysis

In (2b), T becomes the derived phase head in thecaptures peculiar properties of subjects observedsame way as in (1b).2 This deletion is feasible

in the constructions.

based on (3a).

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2
gives an overview of Chomsky’s (2015) analysis(3) a. C and its non-head are deleted if allof null-that-clauses and Tanigawa’s (2017)

features are discharged from C and if noanalysis of Wh-subject questions. Section 3 andlexical item sits in C or SPEC-C.

Section 4 apply their analyses to Negativeb. Due to the deletion of C, the phasehood

Inversion

andTopicalization,

respectively,of C is inherited by and activated on T.

demonstrating the advantages of the proposed
analysis. Section 5 makes the concluding

The implementation of phasehood inheritanceremarks.

stated in (3b) is a necessary consequence from
(3a).

295

Tanigawa (2017) employs (3a, b) to resurrecttheVacuous

Movement

Hypothesis

According to Chomsky (2013, 2015), the lower

for

copy of who in SPEC-T is invisible to LA at

Wh-subject questions proposed by George

phase level(1980) and Chomsky (1986) among others, as

is subject to agreement by virtue of < , u >, theillustrated in (4).

dislocation of who from SPEC-T de-labelsin (6). Even though { wh-DP, TP}{ wh-DP, TP}, which induces the derivation to(4) a.
b.

Who saw Mary?

crash. Under the framework of Chomsky (2013,[ C[u ][Q] [ who[ ][uQ] T[u ][Q] twho see2015), therefore, the inheritance of [Q] from C

Mary ] ]to T is mandatory to the derivation ofWh-subject questions for successful labeling.

In (4b), the wh-subject, which bears an unvalued

This feature inheritance is accompanied by

Q-feature [uQ], does not undergo string-vacuous

C-deletion and phasehood inheritance.
Themovement from SPEC-T to SPEC-C. Instead, it

C-deletion

analysis
of

the

fact

a

remains in SPEC-T, while a valued Q-featurestraightforward[Q] is inherited from C to T concomitantly with

Wh-subject questions lack Subject-Auxiliary[u ]. This feature inheritance empties C, which

Inversion (hereafter, SAI), as is clear from theelucidates the deletion of C andcomplementary distribution between (7) and (8).

and theaccount

providesthat

inheritance of phasehood from C to T.
(7) a.

Consequently, { wh-DP, TP} obtains the labelsof < , > and <Q, Q>, and due to the dual labels,

Who saw Mary?

b. * Who did see Mary?
(8) a. * Who John saw?

SPEC-T is regarded both as A-position andb.

A -position. In the remainder of this paper, thiswh-subject
wh-object

Who did John see?

analysis is referred to as the C-deletion analysis.
According to this analysis, the derivation ofThis paper assumes that the interrogative C in

Wh-subject questions is differentiated from thatthe matrix clause, that is, C with [Q] is affixal toof Wh-object questions, in which wh-objects are

attract an auxiliary verb. This is why SAI must

dislocated to SPEC-C, as shown in (5).

be present in Wh-object questions such as (8b).
In this respect, the C-deletion analysis makes a(5) a.
b.

Who did John see?

significant difference to Wh-subject questions[ who[uQ] C[u ][Q] [ John[ ] T[u ] tJohn

such as (7a). Under the C-deletion analysis, thesee twho ]]affixal C disappears from the derivation due toC-deletion. The disappearance of C then resultsin the absence of SAI.

Note that the following derivation, in which thewh-subject undergoes string-vacuous movement

In addition, the C-deletion analysis has nofrom SPEC-T to SPEC-C, gives rise to a crucialdifficulty dealing with the distributions ofproblem of labeling.

interrogative intensifiers such as on earth andthe hell. Pesetsky (1987) observes that these(6)[ who[ ][uQ] C[u ][Q] [ twho T[u ] twho

intensifiers modify wh-phrases in SPEC-C, but

see Mary ]]do not modify wh-in-situ, as shown in (9a, b).

296

(9) a.

Who on earth did John see?

As shown in (11b), C andundergo deletion,b. * Who saw what on earth?

and phasehood is inherited from C to T.

c.

This also means that { DP, TP} obtains theWho on earth saw Mary?

labels of < , > and <Foc, Foc>, which lends
In this respect, (9c) would pose a problem to theSPEC-T its dual status as occupying both

C-deletion analysis, according to which the

A-position and A -position.

wh-subject is located in SPEC-T rather thanThe major advantage of this analysis is that

SPEC-C. The C-deletion analysis successfully

it provides a straightforward account for why

handles

SAI is suspended in negative subjects. Consider

thisproblembyreformulating

Pesetsky’s generalization: the intensifiers at

the difference between (12) and (13).

issue modify wh-phrases in A -position. Recall
that in the C-deletion analysis, SPEC-T is(12) a.

regarded both as A-position and A -position due

Only Mary likes John.

subjects

b. * Only Mary does like John.

to the dual labels. As a result, the wh-subject(13) a. * Only John Mary likes.

who in (5c) can host the intensifiers, since it isb.

objects

Only John does Mary like.

3

located in A -position.

Assuming that C with [Foc] is affixal to attractan

3. Negative Inversion and Only Sub ects

auxiliaryverb,

the proposed

analysis

This section applies the C-deletion analysis

guarantees the absence of SAI in negative

to another type of A -movement, Negative

subjects in (12) as C, the locus of the

Inversion. This paper assumes that unmarked

head-moved auxiliary, disappears from theexamples of Negative Inversion such as (10a)derivation.

have a derivation in (10b), in which negativeIn

addition,theproposed

analysisiselements bearing an unvalued focus featureappealing in that it deals with the peculiar[uFoc] move up to SPEC-C while C is endowed

licensing of negative polarity items (hereafter,with a valued focus feature [Foc].

NPIs) observed by Progovac (1993, 1994).
Consider (14).

(10) a.

Only to Mary did John give any(14) a.

flowers.
b.

Only to his girlfriend did John give
any flowers.

[ only to ... [uFoc] C[u ][Foc] [ John T[u ]give any flowers tPP ]]b.

(Progovac (1993: 176))[CP only to ... C=did [TP John ... any ]]With this assumption, this paper proposes that

Progovac claims that only-phrases license NPIs

negative subjects, even though they are assigned

if they occupy SPEC-C, i.e. A -position,[uFoc], remain in SPEC-T and that [Foc] is

proposing that Negative Inversion as in (14a) is4

the typical environment for this licensing. In fact,

discharged from C to T. Consider (11).

as shown in (15), only-objects, which lack overt(11) a.
b.

movement to SPEC-C, do not license NPIs.

Only John gave any flowers to Mary.
[ C[u ][Foc] [ only Mary[ ][uFoc] T[u ][Foc]tsubj. show any respect ... ] ]

297

(15)

clause-initial elements (see also . Kiss (1995)).

?* John gave only his girlfriend any
flowers.

In essence following Miyagawa (2001, 2010),(Progovac (1993: 176))

this paper proposes that the topic-prominent
In this respect, the question arises as to why theproperty of Japanese is attributable to theonly-subject in (16) can license any even thoughmandatory inheritance of a valued topic feature

it is located in SPEC-T, which has been

[Top] from C to T, and that phasehood

traditionally defined as A-position rather thaninheritance from C to T reanalyzes SPEC-T as

A -position.

the derived topic position. According to thisanalysis, any element with an unvalued topic(16)

Only Mary showed any respect for thefeature [uTop] undergoes movement to SPEC-T,

visitors.

as shown in (17) and (18).

(Progovac (1993: 176))(17) a.

To overcome this problem, Progovac assumes
thatonly-subjects

undergostring-vacuous

movement from SPEC-T to SPEC-C at LF andb.

in SPEC-C at S-Structure or LF. However, these
rule

in

(15):

not

totta.

John-TOP

picture-ACC

took[ [ John-wa[uTop] [ tsubj. syasin-o totta ]T[Top] ] C[Top] ]assumptions are unilluminating because theywronglysyasin-o‘John took a picture.’that only-phrases license NPIs if they are locatedwould

John-wa(18) a.

only

only-subjects but also only-objects could be

Kono syasin-wa

John-ga

totta.

this picture-TOP

John-NOM

took‘This picture, John took.’

eligible for LF-movement to SPEC-C.

b.

This problem is successfully handled by the[ [ kono syasin-wa[uTop] [ John-ga tobj.
totta ] T[Top] ] C[Top] ]C-deletion analysis in (11b) without assuming
LF-movement. According to (11b), SPEC-T is

When a non-subject targets SPEC-T, as in (18),

regardedandthe subject remains within vP (see Kuroda

A -position due to the dual labels. In light of this(1988) and Miyagawa (2001, 2010)). If Saito’s

analysis, only-subjects count as proper NPI(2014, 2016) analysis, in which C in Japaneselicensers, occupying SPEC-T as the derived

potentially lacks [u ], is adopted, [Top] is

A -position.5

obligatorily inherited from C to T while C andastakingboth

A-position

its non-head are deleted. Consequently, SPEC-T
counts as the unmarked topic position, and3. Topicali ation and Topic Sub ects

{Topic- P, TP} is labeled <Top, Top>.

This section extends the C-deletion analysis
toyetanother

type

of

With

A -movement,

respecttothesubject-prominent

Topicalization. According to the well-known

property of English, this paper adopts thetypology proposed by Li and Thompson (1976),

standard assumption that [u ] is inherited fromJapanese is a topic-prominent language, in

C to T. Yet, this paper departs from traditional

which clause-initial elements are not necessarily

analyses in that [Top] is inherited from C to T

subjects but instead, topical/thematic elements,

only when subjects bear [uTop].

while English is a subject-prominent language,
in

which

subjects

count

as

(19) a.

unmarked298

He likes Mary.

b.

[ C[u ][Top] [ he[ ][uTop] T[u ][Top] tsubj.

argue that the proposition of sentential subjects

like Mary ] ]is necessarily presupposed. Roughly speaking,this is equivalent to saying that sentential
like

subjects necessarily serve as a topic of the

English, there is a case where SPEC-T counts assentence. In the proposed analysis, the topic

the topic position. When subjects bear [uTop],status of sentential subjects is attributed to their[Top] as well as [u ] is inherited from C to T,

possession of [Top] and the label of <Top, Top>

which enables [uTop] to undergo agreement withassigned to { SS, TP}.

Even

in

subject-prominent

languages[Top] inherited to T (cf. Agbayani (2006)).

One of the peculiar properties of theNamely, what are called topic-subjects do notsentential subject construction is that it isundergo string-vacuous movement from SPEC-T

incompatible with SAI, as shown in (22).

to SPEC-C even in English; regardless of thetypological difference, topic-subjects are treated(22)* Is that John won the first prize true?

in the same way, as shown in (17) and (19).6, 7
One well-attested example of topic-subjects

The C-deletion analysis in (21) straightforwardly

in English is the sentential subject construction,accounts for the absence of SAI by assuming

such as in (20).

(23a, b).

(20) a.

(23) a.

b.

That John won the first prize is true.

There is only one occurrence of C in

For John to win the first prize isthe matrix left periphery in English (cf.

impossible.

Rizzi (1997)).
b.

The sole C is endowed with only one

This construction is analyzed by Tanigawa[F], in which F is either Q, Top or(2018),

Foc.8

who

criticizes

thestring-vacuous

movement approach proposed by Stowell (1981)
and Takahashi (2010). Details aside, Tanigawa

Given these assumptions, [F] in C is realized as

proposes the derivation in (21), which is on a par[Top] in the derivation of sentential subjects, aswith (19b).

shown in (21), which rules out the possibility
that [Q] occurs in C. The inheritance of [Top](21)[ C[u ][Top] [ SS[ ][uTop] T[u ][Top] tSS is

and [u ] from C to T contributes to the deletion

true ] ]of C. Consequently, the auxiliary verb has no

SS = sentential subject

place to head-raise in the structure, and theungrammaticality of (22) follows.

In this analysis, sentential subjects remain in
SPEC-T rather than undergo string-vacuous
movement to SPEC-C. Instead, [Top] as well as

4. Concluding Remar s
Analyses[u ] is inherited to C, and C and its non-head are

have

been

proposed

where

deleted. As a result, { SS, TP} obtains the label

string-vacuous movement is eliminated in aof <Top, Top>.

variety of constructions involving A -movement.

With respect to the information structure of

It has been argued that only-subjects andthis construction, Hooper and Thompson (1973)

topic-subjects, as well as wh-subjects, remain in

299

SPEC-Tdue

tofeatureinheritanceand7

The question remains as to whether the same

C-deletion. Peculiar properties of these subjects,

analysis should be given to topic-subjects in thesuch as those in the interrogative clause, haveembedded clause. Because of space limitations,

been dealt with in terms of C-deletion andthis paper leaves in-depth discussion of thisphasehood inheritance.

issue for future research.
8

Unlike Tanigawa (2018), this paper assumes* This paper was presented at the 11th

with Chomsky (2008, 2013, 2015) that C bears aInternational Spring Forum of the English

valued feature [F] while phrases in SPEC-C bear

Linguistics Society of Japan, held at Hokkaido

anUniversity in May 2018. The author is grateful

however, the author believes that the opposite

to the audience for their valuable comments. All

must be true. For detailed discussion of thiserrors and inadequacies are entirely the author’s

issue, see Tanigawa (2018).

unvaluedcounterpart[uF].

Personally,

responsibility.
1

REFERENCES
Chomsky, Noam (1986) Barriers, MIT Press,

NOTES
This paper leaves aside an unvalued caseCambridge, MA.

feature [uCase], which must be assigned to DPs.

Chomsky,

See Goto (2015) and Tanigawa (2018) for theNoam(2008)“On

Phases,”contribution of [uCase] to labeling.

Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory,2

ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero andFeature inheritance, as a form of feature

movement,

must

observeconstraints

Maria L. Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT Press,onmovement. The deletion of C avoids a violation

Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,of the Proper Binding Condition. Without the(2013)“ProblemsofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.

deletion of C, the trace of [u ], which remains in

Chomsky,C, is not bound by its antecedent inherited by T.
3

Noam
Noam

Projection:

In addition to interrogative intensifiers, the(2015)“Problems

Extensions,”of

Structures,

C-deletion analysis deals successfully with other

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour

phenomena such as selectional restrictions,of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di

wh-islands, and sluicing. For details, see

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona

Tanigawa (2017).

Matteini,

4

Amsterdam.

String-vacuous movement does not apply to.

only-subjects from SPEC-T to SPEC-C. As

Kiss,

3-16,

John

Benjamins,

Katalin(1995)

Discourse

Languages,

Oxforddiscussed in (6), this movement would de-label

Configurational{ DP, TP}.

University Press, Oxford.

5

George,This paper leaves open the question of why

Leland(1980)of

NaturalAnalogical

NPI licensing requires that only-phrases must be

Generalizations

Languagelocated in A -position.

Syntax, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Topic-subjects do not undergo string-vacuous

Goto, Nobu (2015) “On the Necessity of

movement of from SPEC-T to SPEC-C. As

Labeling in Narrow Syntax: Exploring a

discussed in (6), this movement would result inThird Approach,” paper presented at Keiothe de-labelling of { DP, TP}. See also note 4.

Linguistic Colloquium.

6300

Hooper, Joan and Sandra Thompson (1973) “On

Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque and Yoshio

the Applicability of Root Transformations,”

Endo, 269-297, Hituzi Syobo Publishing,

Linguistic Inquiry 4, 465-497.

Tokyo.
Saito, Mamoru (2016) “(A) Case for Labeling:

Kuroda, Shige-Yuki (1988) “Whether We Agreeor Not: A Comparative Syntax of English

Labeling in Languages without-feature

and Japanese,” Lingvisticae Investigationes

Agreement,” The Linguistic Review 33,

12, 1-47.

129-175.
Stowell, Timothy (1981) Origin of Phrase

Li, Charles and Sandra Thompson (1976)“Subject and Topic: A New Typology ofStructure, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Language,” Subject and Topic, ed. by

Takahashi, Shoichi (2010) “The Hidden Side ofCharles Li and Sandra Thompson, 457-489,

Clausal Complements,” Natural Language

Academic Press, New York.

and Linguistic Theory 28, 343-380.

Miyagawa,

Shigeru(2001)“The

Tanigawa, Shin-ichi (2017) “In Defense of the

EPP,

Scrambling, and Wh-in-Situ,” Ken Hale: A

Vacuous

Life

Wh-Subjects:

inLanguage,

Kenstowicz,

ed.

293-338,

byMichaelMIT

Press,

Configurational

Tanigawa,

theBinding,”

The

Representation of (In)definiteness, ed. by
Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen, 98-129,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Progovac, Ljiljana (1993) “Negative Polarity:
Entailment and Binding,” Linguistics andPhilosophy 16, 149-180.
Progovac, Ljiljana (1994) Negative and Positive
Cambridge

University(2018)

Linguistics 34, 302-330.

Pesetsky, David (1987) “Wh-in-Situ: Movement
Unselective

Shin-ichi“Agreement,

Labeling and Sentential Subjects,” English

Languages,

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Press,

Cambridge.
Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of theLeft Periphery,” Elements of Grammar, ed.
by Liliane Haegeman, 281-337, Kluwer,
Dordrecht.
Saito, Mamoru (2014) “Case and Labeling in a
Language without

from

Number 58, 57-76.

Move? Unifying Agreement-Based andPolarity,

Perspectives

forStudies in English Literature English

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2010) Why Agree? Why

andHypothesis

Framework of Chomsky (2013, 2015),”

Cambridge, MA.

Discourse

Movement-feature Agreement,”

On Peripheries: Exploring Clause Initial
and Clause Final Positions, ed. by Anna

301

point and notes that “To be at the point [of -ing]
is an unusual variant [...]. In older English to beat the point is also found construed with an
infinitive [...]. The archaic to be at point appears
to stand regularly with an infinitive [...]” (seeBe on the Point of -ing and Its Variant Forms
in Early Modern English*

also Poutsma (1914-1929: Pt. II, Sec. II, 246,728)). However, his observation is sketchy and

Takuto Watanabe

fails to pay attention to other variant forms. It

Kumamoto Gakuen University

might be said, though, that these scholars had nochoice but to be satisfied with making brief

Keywords：Early Modern English, EEBO,

comments on this matter because the use of berivalryon the point of -ing and its variant forms has
been rather infrequent throughout the history ofEnglish. In other words, without large-scale
corpora, it is quite hard to carry out a detailed

1. Introduction
Be on the point of is said to be a calque ofsurvey of expressions with low frequency of use.

the French phrase être sur le point de and was

Accordingly, this paper seeks to give a more

first attested in English as early as the thirteenthdetailed account of the rivalry between be on the

century, but its form in early times varied

point of -ing and its variant forms with the help

considerably. Mossé (1938: 162-163), collectingof Early English Books Online (EEBO) (Davies

some examples of be on the point of -ing and its2017)—a large-scale corpus of Early Modern

variant forms, summarises that the variation was

English (EModE) with 755 million words fromseen in the choice of the first preposition (on,25,000 texts. The specific aim is to tackle theupon, at, etc.) and the second preposition (ofquestion why be on or upon the point of -ing

followed by a gerund/noun or the infinitival to).

became the norm while other forms, especially

To Mossé’s observation, the presence or absence

those ending with to do, died out.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows:of the before point may be added as yet another

Section 2 shows the methodology adopted in theindicator of variation (see below).

study. Section 3 presents details of the rivalry ofHowever, little has been known about therivalry—between

be on the point of -ing and its variant forms.

those variant forms of be on the point of -ing.

Section 4 discusses possible factors that led to

Mossé (1938: 162-163) comments that upon was

the establishment of be (up)on the point of -ing.

the most favoured preposition corresponding to

Section 5 concludes the study.

historical

relationship—orthe French sur, but he does not go further than
this. The OED (s.v. point n.1) merely labels as

2. Methodology
The data for the study was collected from“archaic” or “obsolete” such forms as at (the)EEBO, by using the following search queries:

point to (D.1.c), in point to or of (D.4.f), and on
or upon the point to (D.5). Poutsma (1914-1929:
Pt. I, second half, 909), in the description of be(1) a.

Prep (THE) POINT OF _v?g*on the point of -ing, refers to the form at (the)b.

Prep (THE) POINT TO _v?i*302

(Prep=UPON, AT, IN, ON)1

gerund or to followed by an infinitive.
As summarised in Figures 1 and 2, the most

These queries were intended to include all of thefavoured preposition preceding (the) point ofvariant forms cited in the literature introduced in-ing is upon, and its frequency rises from the2

Instances with variant

mid-seventeenth century onwards. They also

spellings were collected by conducting lemmashow that in of -ing variants, the use of thesearches (i.e. by capitalising the search words).

before point is almost mandatory. Some early

The query in (2a), for example, matches theexamples of upon (the) point of -ing are quoted

instance in (2b):in (3a-b):(2) a.

(3) a.

the section above.

b.

AT THE POINT OF _v?g*they [theeues] were euen vpon theeuen after the charges of the curepoint of opening his chamber doore

serued, the Tenthes and Subsidie paied,

where he laye (The morall philosophie

and at the poincte of receiuyng that,of Doni, 1570)b.

whiche was before labored for anddeserued(Adefenceofpriestes

whether it be likely, that hannibal was
vpon point of flying out of Italie,mariages, 1567)3

when the romans pressed him to fight(The history of the world, 1617)

In total, the corpus search yielded more than
2,000 relevant instances.
Although the size of EEBO is much larger
than any existing corpora of EModE, it should
be borne in mind that the number of words andtexts by decade is quite imbalanced, and thismight affect the results in some way or another.
As indicated on the webpage of the corpus4,
most of the texts and words are distributed in the
Figure 1: Frequency of Prep the point of -ing5

second half of the seventeenth century. In thesixteenth century, in contrast, the size of the
corpus is very small. Despite such shortcomings,
however, the data from EEBO adequately
reveals the rivalry between the variant forms of
be on the point of -ing, as will be shown in thenext section.
3. Details of the Rivalry
3.1. The Choice of the First Preposition
The results show that the choice of the first

Figure 2: Frequency of Prep point of -ing

preposition varies depending on the second
preposition, that is, whether it is of followed by a303

In variants ending with to do, the choice of(4) a.

and all full of oon ryght good will

the first preposition is different according to thedesired the medles / whan hercules had

presence or absence of the before point. In

achieuyd his exortacon he wente to thevariants with the, at is most frequent throughout

bataill / for hit was at the point tonearly the entire period as in Figure 3; infighte: (The historyes of Troye, 1474)

variants without the, meanwhile, the mostb.

johan launoy who was in the steple /frequent preposition is in until the mid-sixteenth

seinge hym selfe at the poynt to be

century, when it changes to at, as in Figure 4.

brent / cryed to them without /Thesesupplement

raunsome raunsome: and offred his

Poutsma’s description of at (the) point that “Incote / whiche was full of florens toolder English to be at the point is also foundsaue his lyfe: (Sir Iohan Froyssart ofconstrued with an infinitive […]. The archaic tothe cronycles, 1523)

findings

supportandbe at point appears to stand regularly with an(5) a.

Almyghty god that saueth alman kynde

infinitive” (Poutsma (1914-1929: Pt. I, second/ Haue on custaunce &; her child [s]um

half, 909)). Early instances of at (the) point tomynde / that fallen is in hethen londand in point to are quoted in (4) and (5):eftsone / in poynt to spille as i shaltelle you sone (The Canterbury Tales,
1477)
b.

than he tolde vnto ponthus how he wasrobbed &; in poynte to be deed / andhow yt he came beggy[n]ge his brede
fro dore to dore (The noble history ofKing Ponthus, 1511)

3.2. With or without The before Point
As shown in Figure 5, except for the early

Figure 3: Frequency of Prep the point tosixteenth century, the period when in point to isfrequently used, variants without the are
infrequent. From the mid-sixteenth century
onwards, variants with the continue to be
dominant.

Figure 4: Frequency of Prep point to304most common pattern is where point is followed
by death. According to Orr (1962: 104), whosuggests a parallel between at the point of deathand sur le pointe de la mort, this very phrase,
too, is probably a borrowing from French. Some
examples of Prep (the) point of death are quoted
in (6a-c):(6) a.

Figure 5: Frequency of Prep (the) point to andneuertheles he [the ypocryte] hath acondycyon within hym self / that is toPrep (the) point of -ing

w[it] / that he shold rather see a man at
the poynt of dethe / than for to saue

3.3. The Choice of the Second Preposition

his lyf of an halfpeny (The subtyl

Figure 5 also shows changes in the second

historyes and fables of Esope, 1484)

preposition. Up to the end of the sixteenthb.

century, the to do variants are favoured

luke wryteth of a man that laboured in(especially at the point to and in point to), but ingoynge from Ierusalem vnto ierico:the seventeenth century, the of -ing variants

luce:: and theues fell vpon hym,

(especially upon the point of -ing) gradually

spoyled hym, robbed hym, wounded

become dominant.

hym and lefte hym for deade: there
lyeynge soore wounded at poynte ofdeathe, it chaunced a priest to passe

3.4. Summaryby: (A sermonde made before the

The findings presented so far reveal the

kynge, 1538)

rivalry between be on the point of -ing and its
c.

variants from the historical perspective. Up toto whom he answered, you see mythe early sixteenth century, the most frequent

friend i am now vpon the point ofform is in point to; in the sixteenth century, atdeath, it is no time to dissemble; (Athe point to; and finally in the seventeenthcatalogue of the bishops of England,

century, upon the point of -ing. The next section

1601)

discusses why upon the point of -ing became theIn the seventeenth century, nouns other thannorm.

death begin to appear—victory in (7), executionin (8), and marriage in (9):4. The Establishment of Upon the Point of -ing
This section addresses two factors which are
likely to have led to the establishment of upon(7) so the horsemen who had the upper hand(later on) the point of -ing: the structure “Prepbefore, and were at point of victorie, were

the point of + event noun,” in which of is the

now with a foule feare discomfited &;only possible preposition, and the development

scattered, (The Romane historie, 1600)(8) heof complex prepositions in EModE.

[…]

discouered

alexandras

secretThe structure “Prep the point of + event

enterprise to the king: who dissembling thenoun” is attested from very early times. The

matter vntill it was vpon the point of305

execution, surprised her at such time as she

1500-1700: in common with, in conjunction with,thought to flye, and yet notwithstanding hein favour of, in need of, in relation to, in searchpardoned her that fault (The famous andof, on behalf of, on top of, with regard to, andmemorable vvorkes of Iosephus, 1602)

withrespect

to.

All

of

these

complexprepositions, to different degrees, increased in(9) it hapned that the kings sonne of theoffrequency, especially in the second half of themarriage, was very desirous himselfe inseventeenth century. Similarly, an increase inperson, against that time to hunt: (Cyrus lefrequency was observed in the use of upon theGrand, 1632)

point of -ing towards the end of the seventeenthassyrians,

being

upon

the

point

century (Figure 1). Thus, it would be reasonable
When followed by an event noun as in (6)-(9),to say that, in the course of the establishment of

the second preposition should always be of but

complex prepositions, the variants ending withnever to. The repeated use of this structure might

to do gave way to those ending with of -ing,

have assisted the reduction of the variation in theespecially upon the point of -ing.6

choice of the second preposition (of or to)
because it is not economical for an expression tohave multiple forms when there is no semantic
or functional difference between them. It would
be thus natural to assume that the spread andestablishment of the pattern “Prep the point of +event noun” led to the supremacy of upon the
point of -ing over variants ending with to do.
Another factor is the development ofcomplex prepositions in EModE (Akimoto 1999,

Figure 6-1: Frequency of complex prepositions

Hoffmann 2005). According to Hoffmann (2005:

established between 1500-1700 (1)86):
By the beginning of the seventeenth century,thesequence‘preposition

+

noun

+

preposition’ was already well established asa potential unit-like structure via a number of
combinations. In addition, the continuously
strong French influence on English—where
the same construction (e.g. en faveur de) can
also be found—may have contributed to its

Figure 6-2: Frequency of complex prepositions

familiarity.

established between 1500-1700 (2)Figures 6-1 and 6-2 show changes in frequencyof the ten complex prepositions which Hoffman(2005: 62) lists as those established between

306

5. Conclusion

argument seems equally applicable to those withThis paper has revealed the rivalry between

an article since the category of complex

variant forms of be on the point of -ing in

prepositions is gradient (Quirk et al. 1985:

EModE with the data retrieved by searching

670-671). Poutsma (1914-1929: Pt. II, Sec. II,

EEBO, the detail of which is summarised in728) includes upon the point of -ing and its

Tablevariant forms in the list of complex prepositions

1.

The

findings

presented

here

complement and elaborate on what has been(“group-prepositions” in his terminology).

described in the literature. The paper has alsosuggestedpossible

factors

behindthe

REFERENCES
Akimoto, Minoji (1999) “Collocations andestablishment of upon (later on) the point of-ing: the structure “Prep the point of + event

idiomsnoun”

complex

Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of

prepositions in EModE. Both of these are likely

Composite Predicates in the History of

to have assisted the prevalence of variations

English, ed. by Laurel J. Brinton andending with of, especially upon the point of -ing,

Minoji Akimoto, 207-231, John Benjamins,in the seventeenth century.

Amsterdam.

and

the

development

of

in

Late

ModernEnglish,”Davies, Mark (2017) Early English Books
Table 1: Rivalry between variant forms of be on

Online (EEBO). Part of the SAMUELS

the point of -ing in chronological orderproject. https://corpus.byu.edu/eebo/
Hoffmann,

Sebastian(2005)

up to the early 16th c.

in point toin the 16th c.

at the point toGrammaticalization and English Complex

in the 17th c.

upon the point of -ing

Prepositions:A

Corpus-BasedStudy.

Routledge, London.
* I would like to express my gratitude to Christie

Mossé, Fernand (1938) Histoire de la forme

Provenzano for stylistic improvements. Thispériphrastique être + participe présent enwork was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant

germanique, C. Klincksieck, Paris.
Orr, John (1962) Old French and Modern

Number JP16K16858.

English Idiom, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

NOTES
1“_v?g*” and “_v?i*” are POS tags for a gerund

Poutsma, Hendrik (1914-1929) A Grammar ofand an infinitive, respectively.

Late Modern English, 5 vols., P. Noordhoff,

2

Groningen.

However, up the point to (Mossé 1938: 163)

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey

was not included because no instance of it was
found in EEBO.

Leech

3

Emphases in example sentences are mine.

Comprehensive Grammar of the English

4

https://corpus.byu.edu/eebo/help/texts.asp

Language, Longman, London.

5

In all of the figures, frequencies are normalisedJan

Svartvik(1985)A

DICTIONARY

per million words.
6

andThe Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Oxford

Although Hoffmann (2005) only deals with

University Press, Oxford.

complex prepositions without an article, his307

(1) Mary-ga

ringo-otabe-masi-ta.

Mary-NOM apples-ACC eat-HONA-PST(i) ‘Mary ate the apple.’ (ii) ‘I respect you.’(2) a. Akitaka is a Jap. b. Akitaka is Japanese.
*

Expressiveness from a ayesian Perspective

While the language system only provides
Akitaka amadacategorical distinctions (e.g., ‘Jap’ vs. ‘Japanese’Georgetown University

or the plain form vs. the des-mas form inJapanese), the intensity of our feeling is

Keywords：expressiveness, addressee-honorifics,

continuous. The main goal of this paper is

Bayesian statistics, dynamic pragmatics,

propose a pragmatic model that links (i) the

variation theory

discrete choice in our language and (ii) theunderlying continuous, latent, extra-linguistic
variable(s).
Previous studies have proposed that real

1. Introduction

numberExpressive elements are linguistic units thatintervals

areappropriate

for

the

performatively express the speaker’s emotive

denotation of expressive meanings as well as theattitude which are independent from the regular

information stored in the context (Potts 2007;

descriptive content of the sentence (aka., theMcCready 2014; cf., Potts and Kawahara 2004).

at-issue meaning), such as (anti)honorifics, slurs,

While such real-based approaches give us

and epithets (Potts 2003, 2007; Potts andflexible accounts for the semantics and the

Kawahara 2004; Sells and Kim 2007; Hompragmatics of expressive elements --- with2010; McCready 2014, to appear; Hedger 2013;

McCready (2014) being the most recent,Blakemore 2015; Cepollaro 2015; Croom 2015;

sophisticated model ---, there are some issuesoon 2015; Davis and McCready 2016; amada

not2018; amo.). For example, the sentence in (1)approaches. The first issue is a conceptual one.

has two independent messages. The at-issue

Under the previous approaches, discourse

meaning is given in (i); i.e., Mary ate the apple.

participants are assumed to know a particular

The expressive meaning in (ii) (in this case, therange as the semantics for these expressive

honorific meaning) is subsidiary information

elements. But it remains unclear how they know

associated with this sentence but orthogonal towhat the range should be. I will argue that athe speech act of reporting Mary’s apple-eatingslight modification of some assumptions under

event. Likewise, when we compare (2)a withthe real-based approach can circumvent the(2)b, it is clear that they both share the same

criticism about acquisition of the denotation ofprimary information about Akitaka’s nationality

an expressive element. The second issue is about(the at-issue meaning) but (2)a departs from (2)bthe record of the expressiveness. Previous

in that it also encodes the speaker’s negative

theories only compare the interval of the current

attitude toward a group of people to which hesentence with the interval of the immediate

belongs (the expressive meaning) (Cepollarocontext. But I will show that the information of2015).

expressiveness in much earlier contexts should

308

extensively

discussedintheextantnot be dismissed. In improving these real-based

3. Issues

approaches, I will propose that (i) we can adopt

Although the basic idea that expressivea categorical denotation for the semantics ofmeanings dynamically update the structured

expressive elements (ii) while maintaining thediscourse context is attractive, there is room forgradability in our feelings expressed in the

improvement.

context if we regard the context shift in

The first issue comes from the assumption

expressiveness as a Bayesian update of athat each discrete linguistic expression isrelevant parameter/parameters stored in theassociatedstructured discourse context.

real-based range. Some researchers, while

with

a

particular

continuous,

admitting the gradability or the continuity of thescale in the conceptual/extralinguistic system,

2. McCready s 2 14 Proposal
The

most

elaborated

versionofhesitate to incorporate the gradability (i.e., thethereal-based approach is given by McCreadyreal-based(2014) who proposes that the appropriateness of(Portner et al. to appear). If we adopt .75, .9 forexpressivenessthethe range of des for illustration purposes, thiscompatibility of (i) an interval proposed by themeans that the meaning is different fromsentence (a subinterval of 0,1 ) and (ii) an.75, .89 or .750001, .9 . In this framework, ainterval given by the context (also a subintervalchild born to the Japanese speaking society is

0,1 ; the degree of expressiveness is

expected to identify the interval for thesereflected in the magnitude of the interval, e.g.,

expressions. Since, by definition, .75, .9 isHigh ⊑ .6, 1 , Mid ⊆ .3, .7 , Low ⊑ 0, .4 ). If

sharply

there is an overlap, the sentence is judged

finding a unique range does not sound like aappropriate in the given context. The context

plausible task.

ofisdeterminedbydenotation)

into

distinguished fromthesemantics.750001, .9 ,update is triggered when the utterance interval is

The second issue is the record of the

not wider than the context interval. For example,

expressiveness in the discourse. Under previous

suppose the given context has the interval of .9,

approaches, once the context interval is updated

1.0 and the sentence gives the interval .0, .1 .

at the time of ti, the information on what level ofClearly, there is no overlap between the two, so

expressiveness had been maintained before ti

the use of the sentence is inappropriate (e.g.,

becomes inaccessible, which seems unlikely. To

saying a casual word in a very formal setting)see this, compare the two scenarios below.

but the fact that the utterance interval is not(Scenario A) Previously, the speaker A had

wider than the context interval updates the

produced sentences with low range of intervals,

context interval. For illustration’s sake, shesuch as .2, .5 , .3, .4 , … and .2, .3 . However,adopts the arithmetic average for the newat a point, he shifts to a high register and thecontext interval: .9 .0 /2, 1.0 .1 /2.4, .45 . In contrast, if the sentence gives thecontext interval of the immediate context is set

interval .5, .95 , the context interval does not(Scenario B) Previously, the speaker A hadchange because the utterance interval is wider (=produced sentences with a relatively high range

less informative) than the interval of theof intervals, such as .9, 1.0 , .8, .9 , … and .7,

immediate context.

1.0 . And now the context interval is set toto .75, .8 , for example.

309

.75, .8 .

lengthy list of past expressive states in (3)b, inIn both scenarios, the context interval of the

my model h is a set of a few representative

immediate context is the same. Suppose,parameters that summarize what the past

however, that in the next move the same speakersituations were like. For simplicity’s sake, I

A has produced a sentence whose utterance

adopt a model with two summary parameters.3, .4 . If we only track the(for reasons stated below). Under this model, theimmediate context, what we take into account iscontext update is seen as a function fromthe relation between the immediate context

hi-1

interval .75, .8 and the utterance interval of thearchitecture in (4).

interval is

αi-1,βi-1 to hi

αi, βi , leading to the

new sentence .3, .4 . We would predict that the(4) a. cn = <cg, qs, tdl, …, hn

new sentence should be surprising in both cases.

b. hn = α n, β n

But if we are in Scenario A, the new utterance
range is indeed a familiar register despite thefact that it is far from the context interval of the

However, the question remains of how toimmediate context. If we correctly predict thatfind a reasonable set of summary parameters thatthe move in Scenario B is more surprising, we

capture the past states. Below, I will propose thatsomehow want to look at the record of thea Bayesian interpretation of the context update

expressive

contexts.

in expressiveness gives us a clue as to how to set

Certainly, one can propose a discourse context

up these parameters. To this end, we will begin

such as in (3), where, in addition to our familiar

with a brief introduction on the philosophy ofcomponents of the discourse context, we havethis statistic framework and then discuss how thedimensioninearlier(n)context parameters are updated.

h , which stores ALL the previous context
intervals up to the current n-th utterance. But if
our conversation continues, h becomes a lengthy

4.1.

list, suggesting we remember too many past

Semantics Pragmatics

ayesianStatistics

andDynamic

states. Is there any better model in which the

The main purpose of the inferential statistics

history of prior contexts sufficiently influences

is to make an inference about the parameters of aour decision in measuring the surprisingness or

statistical model from the available data. In thethe appropriateness of the current utterance

Bayesian paradigm, (i) probability is used towithout serious memory overload?

measure any subjective uncertainty and, thus,(ii) parameters of a statistical model are given a
probability distribution if we have some(3) a. cn = <cg, qs, tdl, …, hn
(1)

(2)

(3)

(n)

uncertainty about them; cf., these assumptions

b. hn = <h , h , h , …, h >(i)where h ∊ α, β : 0

α

β

1.

are not made in non-Bayesian approaches.
For example, assume that we have a coin,
which can be fair but may be biased. If we keep

4. Proposal
We can kill two birds with one stone if weflipping the same coin, we will gain a sequence

adopt some ideas from the Bayesian statistics. I

of outcomes and, based on them, we can infer

maintain the assumption that the context iswith what probability the coin lands on heads.
Suppose the outcome of the coin toss follows

modeled as in (3)a, but instead of having a

310

Beta(2,2)

Beta(5,2)-0.2 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0.0

0.6

0.0

0.8

0.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.2

2.0

1.4

1.5

Beta(1,1) = Uniform(0,1)-0.2 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

-0.2 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Figure 1. Modeling our uncertainty.
the Bernoulli distribution with an unknown

as in Figure 1. If we refer to the previous

parameter π. We will keep updating our

uncertainty and the new uncertainty as U and U',

estimation of this parameter every time we see

and the data as D, the process of our estimation

the outcome. Since the uncertainty is captured in

is expressed as in (5)b. The similarity is evident.

the form of a probability distribution in this(5) a. C S C'

framework, the estimation process is understoodb. U D U'

as an update of the probability distribution for π.
For instance, before we see the results, we might

4.2. Context Shift in Expressiveness is ahave been completely agnostic about theayesian pdate

possible value for π; it can be very small,

The main thesis of this paper is to adopt (5)be.g., .05 or .08; it can be very high, e.g., .97

for the update mechanism in the expressive

or .94; or, it can be fifty-fifty. The probability

dimension of the discourse, which leads to the

distribution in the leftmost panel in Figure 1, forarchitecture in (4)b. The probability distribution

example, represents this agnostic state. But, afteris uniquely identified once we have specified theseeing the data, we update our uncertainty aboutparameter(s) of that model. Thus, the nature ofπ. If we observe one head and one tail, we may

the update in (5)b is seen as the change of theinfer that this is a fair coin (the center panel invalues of these parameters. When we model a

Figure 1, in which the values around .5 are mostvariable that ranges between 0 and 1, i.e., in our

likely). But, if we have seen three heads in a row,case π, it is common to adopt the Beta

we are more inclined to believe that π should

distribution for its simplicity, which have twotake a high value, though it remains true that weparameters α and β. Certainly, if we want tonever know the definite value for π (theassume a more complicated model, a different

rightmost panel in Figure 1).

set of summary parameters are used in place of

We can understand this estimation process as(α, β . But, for simplicity’s sake, I will keepa particular type of context update. Under theusing the Beta distribution and regard (α, β as

tradition of dynamic approaches to the discourse,

the summary parameters (= (4)b).

the meaning of a sentence is regarded as a

In the case of flipping coins, we estimate thecontext change potential; the new context C' isparameter of the Bernoulli distribution π byderived from the previous context C and theobserving the number of heads and tails. Bycurrent utterance S. This process is expressed as

analogy, we can interpret the pragmatics ofin (5)a. What the Bayesian statistics does isaddressee-honorification as an update of our

update our uncertainty with our new data ---subjective uncertainty parameter of the speaker’s

which is expressed as a probability distribution

consistency of the des-mas form by observing

311

how many des-mas forms we have heard in prior

4.3. Solution to the Problems

contexts. For example, when we meet a new

Notice that we depart from the assumption of

person, we do not know how consistently thisthe interval-based approach that the denotation

person uses an addressee-honorific marker whenof expressive elements is an interval. In (6), theaddressing us. So, again, the leftmost panel inmeaning of des/mas is an instruction to change

Figure 1 is a fair starting distribution. There isthe context parameter. No interval is assigned to

uncertainty about this π. If this person keeps

the denotation of des/mas. This is a desirable

producing an addressee-honorific marker, weconsequence because our model is not sensitive

start getting a skewed distribution as in theto very small differences in real number

rightmost panel in Figure 1. If this person wants

intervals. As pointed above, in the previous

us to have a good impression of him, he will try

interval-based approach, a new born child needs

to produce as many utterances with des/mas as

to identify the right intervals for des and mas

he can so that we end up having a very skewed

and is expected to be sensitive to the difference

distribution. In other words, the goal of

between .75, .9 and .750001, .9 . On the otherproducing an addressee-honorific marker is tohand, our theory assumes the only thing a child

let the hearer make a Bayesian update. By

is supposed to realize is that we add one tointerpreting hα, β as the set of parameters forwhen we encounters des/mas. Sensitivity to thethe probability distribution for π (the parameters

difference between .75, .9 and .750001, .9of the Beta distribution), the nature of thenever arises in our semantics.

context update is seen as the change from the

The other problem is sensitivity to the past

αi-1,βi-1 to the new state

conversation. The two parameters α and βprevious state hi-1
hi

αi,βi .

succinctly and sufficiently summarize what theIn our model, the semantic contribution of

past expressive states were like. Since thethepresence of an addressee-honorific marker only

information that we gain when we see a head inincrements the value of α, but not β, thethe coin toss; i.e., they are context change

magnitude of α reflects how much exposure wepotentials updating α and β. In the coin-flipping

have to des/mas forms in the past. Likewise, thesetting, with little mathematics, it can be easily

magnitude of β summarizes how often we haveshown that (i) every time we see a head, weseen the plain form in earlier contexts. Though

increment α by one and (ii) every time wewhat we keep tracking are only two things, α

observe a tail, we add one to β. The dynamicity

and β, and not the entire conversation, we can

of

the

still to some extent reconstruct what past

addressee-honorific marker and the plain form

interactions were like by interpreting the(which has no morphological realization; so I

magnitude of these values.

des/mastheisessentiallycontext

thechangesame

triggeredasbyFigure 2 displays some instances of Beta

use ϕ to refer to this form) is defined as in (6).

distributions(6) a. hi-1

⟦des/mas⟧

where hi-1
b. hi-1⟦ϕ⟧

where hi-1

αi-1 1,βi-1

parameter

value, the spread of the distribution gets smallerand smaller, suggesting we are confident inhi
αi-1,βi-1 and hi

different

specifications. When α and/or β take a largehi

αi-1,βi-1 and hi

with

αi-1,βi-1 1

possible range for π.

312

0.5

1.0

1.0

Beta(3, 105)

0.5

1.0

Beta(2, 106)

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

106
0
39.5
0.0

0.0
29.5

1.0

0.5

1.0

Beta(105, 105)

0.0

Beta(3, 106)

1.0

0.5

1.0

Beta(106, 3)

0.0
0.0

…

0.5

Beta(106, 2)

0.0

0.5

1.0

Beta(106, 105)

0.0

0.5

11.6

0.0

0.5

Beta(105, 3)

11.6

39.1

0.0

0.0

Beta(2, 105)

0.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

Beta(105, 106)

0.0
11.6

1.9
1.0

0.0

0
0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0
39.5

0.5

Beta(1, 106)0.5

Beta(3, 3)

0.0

0
0.0

0.0

Beta(106, 1)

0.5

1.0

Beta(106, 106)

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.5

Beta(105, 2)

0.0

1.8
1.0

0.0

Beta(1, 105)

0.0

29.2

0.5

Beta(2, 3)

1.8
1.0

39.1

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

3
0
0.0

0.5

Beta(3, 2)

0.0

1.5
1.0

0.0

11.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

Beta(1, 3)

105

0.5

Beta(2, 2)

0.0

2
0
0.0

106

0.0

29.2

1.0

29.5

0.5

Beta(1, 2)

0

0

1
0.0

…

Beta(105, 1)

0

105

Beta(3, 1)
3

Beta(2, 1)
2

Beta(1, 1)

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

Figure 2. Beta distributions.
emotional state, this paper has proposed that theIf we have enough exposure to, for example,
plain forms, as assumed in Scenario A in Section

contextual updateof suchanexpressive

3, our expressive state is something like Beta (1,dimension (in our case h) is better understood as105). Even though the speaker temporarily uses

a Bayesian update. The denotation of expressivea few utterances with des/mas, that is, even if weelements is seen as an instruction on how to

update the expressive state to Beta (3, 105), wechange the parameters. No interval needs to be

still have a relatively large value for β and thus

assumed for the denotation of expressive

we can predict, as expected, that the speaker willelements and the influence of non-immediate

go back to his original tone and will consistently

contexts is sufficiently captured.

keep producing the plain form, as illustrated in

In future studies, we can extend this analysis

the panel for Beta 3, 105 , whose distributional

in many ways. First, we can elaborate thepeak is still leaned toward to the left. Thus, evenexpressive state by taking into account different

though we see a new utterance without des/mas,discourse participants. Alice’s consistency in

we will not be surprised at all.

using des/mas to Bob would be different fromIn this way, we can quantitatively predict

Bob’s consistency in des/mas to Alice. By

which form is more likely to be used in the next

replacing (4)b with the set of triples as in (7), weutterance without remembering all the pastcan track as many dimensions as we want.

honorific/expressive states.
(7) hnAlice, α n,β n , Bob ,Bob, γ n,δ n , Alice ,5. Conclusion and Future Directions
Inheriting the insight from previous studies
that a specific component in the structured
discourse context represents our real-based

Second, we can also flesh out the structure313

for π. Alice’s consistency in des/mas can be

139-154.

affected by many factors. Some are global

Davis, Christopher and E. McCready (2016)indices such as the gender(s) of the participants,“Expressives in Questions,” SALT 26,

the social hierarchy and the age difference, while1119-1138.
Hedger, Joseph A. (2013) “Meaning and Racial

others are temporary, such as emotional state(e.g., anger), power management, face-threat

Slurs:and sarcasm (McCready 2014; Brown 2015;

Semantics/Pragmatics Interface,” Language

Portner et al. to appear). Incorporation of suchand Communication 33, 205-213.

factors in the model is achieved by relating πnHom,with such variables via a link function, e.g.,logit πnChristopher

Epithets(2010)

andthe“Pejoratives,”

Philosophy Compass 5, 164-185.

λ0 λhier xhier, n λage xage, n ….

McCready,E.

Honorifics

This formula is equivalent to the Bayesianinterpretation of the formula used in

Derogatory(2014)“A

Semantics

with

Reference

tofor

Thai,”PACLIC 28, 503-512.

ariation

McCready, E. (to appear) The Semantics andTheory (Cedergren and Sankoff 1974). Attempts

Pragmatics of Honorification.

to improve the discourse model, thus, end up

Portner, Paul, Miok Pak and Raffaella anuttini

crossing a bridge between sociolinguistics andformal semantics/pragmatics, which have been

(toconceived of as rather independent domains in

Relationlinguistics ( amada 2018).

Interface,” Language.
Potts,

appear)at

Christopher“The

Speaker-Addressee

theSyntax-Semantics(2003)

The

Logic

of

REFERENCES
Blakemore, Diane (2015) “Slurs and Expletives:

Conventional Implicatures, PhD thesis,

A Case against a General Account ofPotts, Christopher (2007) “The Expressive

Expressive Meaning,” Language Sciences

Dimension,” Theoretical Linguistics 33,

52, 22-35.

165-197.

University of California, Santa Cruz.

and

Potts, Christopher and Shigeto Kawahara (2004)

Politeness,” The Handbook of Korean“Japanese Honorifics as Emotive Definite

Linguistics, ed. by Lucien Brown and

Descriptions,” SALT 14, 235-254.

Brown,

Lucien(2015)“Honorifics

Jaehoon eon, 303-319, Wiley & Sons: US.

Kim, Jong-Bok and Peter Sells (2007) “Korean

Cedergren, Henrietta J. and David Sankoff

Honorification: A Kind of Expressive(1974) “ ariable Rules: Performance as a

Meaning,”

Statistical

Linguistics 16 (4), 303-336.

ReflectionofCompetence,”

Eastfrom Semantics/Pragmatics to

Cepollaro, Bianca (2015) “In Defence of a
AccountofAsianamada, Akitaka (2018) “Bayesian Update:

Language 50, 333-355.
Presuppositional

Journalofariation

Theory,” presented at GURT.

Slurs,”

oon, Suwon (2015) “Semantic Constraint andLanguage and Sciences 52, 36-45.
Croom, Adam M. (2015) “Slurs, Stereotypes,

Pragmatic Nonconformity for Expressives:and In-Equality: A Critical Review of ‘How

Compatibility Condition on Slurs, Epithets,

Epithets and Stereotypes are Racially

Anti-Honorifics,

Unequal’,”Mitigators,” Language Sciences 52, 46-69.

Language

Sciences

52,314

Intensifiers,anda Co-extensive Small Clause (CSC). Finally, I
aim to reveal to which type of verb classes
CSCs can be applied.
The organization of this paper is as follows.
Section 2 will propose a new type of Small

Break a Branch off a Tree: An AccountBased on Further Specification*

Clause, which we will call a CSC. I will showthatchange-of-state

verbs

can

take

a

Masaki Yasuhara

non-subcategorized object when it is a part of a

Ibaraki University

CSC. Section 3 will show that the CSC analysis
has a consequence for the Unique Path

Keywords : further specification, small clause,

Constraint. Section 4 will show that the CSC

change-of-state

analysis can be applied to various verb classes.
Section 5 will give concluding remarks.

1. Introduction

2. A Co-extensive Small ClauseIn this paper, we will discuss transitive or

Rappaport and Levin (2010) argue that

intransitive change-of-state verbs that take averbs can be divided into two types, mannernon-subcategorized internal argument. Suchverbs and result verbs, as shown in (2).

verbs are exemplified by the following in (1).
(2)(1)

Manner verbs: nibble, rub, scribble,

a.

John broke a branch off a tree.

sweep, flutter, laugh, run, swim…

b.

I cut all the branches off the tree.

Result verbs: clean, cover, empty, fill,c.

Mary tore the leaf off a tree.

freeze, kill, melt, open, arrive, die,d.

The sticker on the computer hasenter, faint…

been ripped off.
e.

A branch split off from the tree.

Manner verbs specify a manner of carrying out
an action, and result verbs specify the coming

In sentence (1a), for example, the verb breakabout of a result state.

takes the object NP a branch, which is not

The manner/result verb distinction is closely

subcategorized for by the verb. The object NP

relatedis selected by the directional phrase off a tree.

non-subcategorized

object.

The interpretation of the object NP will be

generallythedifferent if the directional phrase is absent. The

non-subcategorized object when it is followedsame is true of the other sentences in (1).

by a secondary predicate, as exemplified by the

The purpose of this paper is three-fold.

to

the

permitavailabilityofManneroccurrence

a
verbs

of

following examples in (3) and (4).

Firstly, I aim to explain what makes it possible
for change-of-state verbs such as break to take(3)

a non-subcategorized object, as in (1). Secondly,a.

Cinderella scrubbed her knees sore.

b.* Cinderella scrubbed her knees.

I aim to propose that these sentences include a(4)

specific type of Small Clause, which I will calla.

Cinderella scrubbed the dirt off thetable.

315a

example, the object NP a branch is not selected

b.* Cinderella scrubbed the dirt.

by the verb break. The object NP is licensed by(Beavers and Koontz-Garboden (2012))

the secondary predicate off a tree. This is
These are examples of the manner verb scrub.

confirmed by the fact that the interpretation of

In sentence (3a), for example, the object NP her

the object NP is different when the secondary

knees is not subcategorized for by the verb

predicate is omitted. The examples in (7)–(11)scrub. It is licensed by the secondary predicate

show that the sentences in (a) and (b) aresore. This sentence will be unacceptable if thedifferent not only in the presence or absence of

secondary predicate is omitted, as in (3b).

a secondary predicate but also the interpretationof the object NP.

Result verbs, on the other hand, generally
do not permit a non-subcategorized object, as(7)shown by the following sentence in (5).
(5)

(8)

a.* The toddler broke his hands bloody.
b.# The toddler broke his hands.

(9)(Rappaport and Levin (2010:22))a.

John broke a branch off a tree.

b.=/=

John broke a branch.

a.

I cut all the branches off the tree.

b.=/=

I cut all the branches.

a.

Mary tore the leaf off a tree.

b.=/=

Mary tore the leaf.

(10) a.

The intended interpretation of the sentence in

The sticker on the computer has
been ripped off.

(5a) is that a toddler broke something and his orb. =/= The sticker on the computer has

her hands became bloody, but this sentence isbeen ripped.

not acceptable. The result verb break cannot(11) a.

take the non-subcategorized object his hands,

A branch split off from the tree.

b. =/= A branch split.

even if it is followed by the secondary predicate
bloody. In this way, the manner/result verb
distinction was considered to be correlated withFor example, a branch was removed from a tree

the availability of a non-subcategorized object.

in (7a), whereas it was broken in (7b). The
same is also true of the cases in (8)–(11).

However, the following examples in (6) are

The question that arises here is, why can

problematic for this generalization.

these result verbs take a non-subcategorized(6)a.

John broke a branch off a tree.

object? This question can be accounted for byb.

I cut all the branches off the tree.

proposing that the object and the directionalc.

Mary tore the leaf off a tree.

phrase of the type of sentences shown in (6)d.

The sticker on the computer hasform a Small Clause (SC) that further specifies

been ripped off.

the meaning of the verb. Result verbs can take a

A branch split off from the tree.

non-subcategorized object only when it ise.

included in the SC that further specifies the(= (1))

meaning of the verb. I will demonstrate how
The sentences in (6) include result verbs such

this analysis works by taking the verb break foras break and cut, but they can take aexample.
Let us start by looking at the meaning of thenon-subcategorized object. In sentence (6a), for316

verb break. The definition of this verb is shownentailed in the verb is further specified by thein the following in (12).

CSC in (14).
In this way, result verbs such as break can(12) break: if you break something, you maketake a non-subcategorized object only when

it separate into two or more pieces.

they(LDCE, underlining is mine)

take

a

CSC.

This

explainstheunacceptability of sentence (5a).

Notice that break entails the meaning of(15)* The toddler broke his hands bloody.

separation, as indicated by the underlined text.

(= (5a))I propose that the sentence in (6a) has the(16)* The toddler broke [SC his hands bloody].

following syntactic structure.
This sentence includes a SC, as shown in (16).
(13) John broke [SC a branch off a tree].

However, it is not a CC because the event of the
SC does not further specify the event denoted

The object and the secondary predicate form aby the verb. The SC his hands bloody means

SC. The SC means ‘a branch came off a tree,’‘his hands became bloody.’ Such a meaning is

which

of

not entailed in the verb break, so there is no

separation entailed in the verb break (i.e., thefurther specification relation between the SC

event of the SC is included in the event of theand the verb. As a result, no CSC is involvedverb). The meaning of separation entailed in thehere and the verb break cannot take theverb break is co-extensive with the meaning of

non-subcategorized object his hands.

further

specifiesthemeaning

separation denoted by the SC, so we will call
3. A Consequence for the UPC

this type of SC a CSC, hereafter. Result verbs
can take a non-subcategorized object only when

Our CSC analysis has a consequence for theit is a part of a CSC. The same analysis holds ofUnique Path Constraint (hereafter the UPC)

the other examples in (6) as well. The structures(Goldberg (1991)), which is defined as followsof these examples are shown in the following inin (17).

(14).
(17) Unique Path Constraint: if an argument(14) a.
b.

John broke [SC a branch off a tree].

X refers to a physical object, then more

I cut [SC all the branches off thethan one distinct path cannot betree].

predicated of X within a single clause.

c.

Mary tore [SC the leaf off a tree].

d.

The sticker on the computeri has

The UPC is a constraint that prohibits the

been ripped [SC ti off].

co-occurrence of a change-of-state expression

A branchi split [SC ti off from theand a change-of-location expression in a singletree].

clause when they denote distinct events. Thee.

UPC explains the unacceptability of sentencessuch as (19).

Not only break but also cut, tear, rip, and split
imply separation. The separation meaning

317

(18) a.

Sam kicked Bill black and blue.

b.

Sam kicked Bill out of the room.

c.

Bill tore a page from his notebook
into pieces.

d.

(19) a.* Sam kicked Bill black and blue out

The sticker on the computer has
been ripped off into pieces.

of the room.
b.* Sam kicked Bill out of the room

In sentence (21a), for example, the result verb

black and blue.

cut co-occurs with the directional phrase off(Goldberg (1991: 368))

chicken, and

they

are

followedby theEither the change-of-state expression black andresultative phrase into small pieces, which

blue and the change-of-location expression out

specifies a change-of-state. The same is true ofof the room can occur in a single clause, as in

the other examples in (21).

(18), but they cannot co-occur, as in (19). This

These sentences, however, are not true

co-occurrence restriction can be attributed tocounterexamples to the UPC. The UPC

the violation of the UPC. The UPC applies toprohibits the co-occurrence of a change-of-state

result verbs co-occurring with a directional

expression (i.e., a result verb or a resultative

phrase as well. In sentence (20), for example,

phrase) and a change-of-location expression

the result verb break cannot co-occur with the(i.e., a directional phrase) in a single clausedirectional phrase into the garbage pail.

when they denote distinct events. In otherwords, they are compatible in a single clause if(20)# I broke the mirror into the garbage pail.1

they denote a single event, i.e., one further
specifies(Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995: 61))theexpressions

other.
and

the

The

change-of-statechange-of-location

The verb denotes a change-of state and theexpression in the examples in (21) have a

directional phrase denotes a change-of-location,

further specification relation, and they do notandviolate the UPC.

they

refer

to

distinct

events.

The

Let us look at the example in (21a),

unacceptability of this sentence is due to therepeated here as (22), for example.

violation of the UPC.
Since result verbs denote a change-of-state,(22) Cut white meat off chicken into small

one might expect that result verbs generally

pieces …

cannot co-occur with a directional phrase.
Recall the examples in (6), however. These
sentences include a result verb and a directional

The verb cut in this sentence denotes separationphrase, but they are acceptable. Thus, theseof an object. The CSC meat off chicken also

they appear to be problematic to the UPC. Seedenotes the separation of meat from chicken, so

also the following examples in (21).

it further specifies the meaning of the verb. The
resultative phrase into small pieces indicates(21) a.
b.

Cut white meat off chicken intothat an object was made to become in pieces, so

small pieces … (Matsumoto (2006))

it also further specifies the meaning of the verb.

I cut meat off the bone into smaller

As a result, these three change-of-state andpieces.

change-of-location expressions refer to a single318

change, and no violation of the UPC follows.

interpretation, the occurrence of a directional

The same explanation applies to the otherphrase is obligatory. If a directional phrase inexamples in (21) as well.

omitted, as in (27b), the interpretation of the

In this way, this section has shown theobject NP becomes completely different. This

examples in (21) (and (6)) are not true

sentence means that he hit something against

counterexamples to the UPC. I have shown that

his head. Thus, we can say that the object NP

the CSC analysis makes it possible to accountand the directional phrase form a SC.
The question is whether the SC involved infor these examples uniformly under the UPC.

this sentence is a CSC, or not. We can reveal
4. The Application of the Co-extensive Smallthe status of the SC by looking at the semantic

Clause Analysis to Other Verb Classes

relation between the verb and the SC. The
meaning of hit is defined as follows.

In the previous sections, I showed that
result verbs such as break and cut can take a(28) hit: to touch someone or something

non-subcategorized object when it has a CSC.
In this way, our discussion was restricted toquickly and hard with your hand, a stick

cutting and breaking verbs. In this section, I

etc.

will show that our CSC analysis can be applied(LDCE, underlining is mine)

to not only cutting and breaking verbs, as
shown in (23), but also several other verb

The underlined text indicates that the verb

classes, as shown in (24)-(26).

entails motion. This motion meaning is further
specified by the SC his head against the wall,(23) Cutting and breaking verbs:

which denotes that his head came into contact

break, cut, tear, rip, split, …

with the wall. Thus, there is a further(24) Manner of hitting verbs:

specification relation between the verb and thehit, pound, beat, knock, kick, slap, …

SC. We can conclude that the type of SC(25) Clearing verbs:

involved in this sentence is a CSC, as shown inclear, clean, drain, empty, …

(29).

(26) Manner of wiping verbs:
wipe, sweep, rub, …

(29) John hit [SC his head against the wall ].

We will start with manners of hitting verbs

The same analysis applies to the other instancesin (24). We will take the verb hit, for example.

of manners of hitting verbs.

Observe the following sentence in (27).

Next, we will look at clearing verbs. We
will take the verb clear, for example, as shown(27) a.

John hit his head against thein (30).

wall.
b.=/=

John hit his head.

(30) a.

Mary cleared the dishes from thetable.

The sentence in (27a) denotes that his headb.* Mary cleared the dishes.

came into contact with the wall. In this(Fong, Fellbaum and Lebeaux (2001: 773))

319

Sentence (30a) means that Mary removed theconfirmed by the different interpretation of thedishes from the table. The object NP is not aobject NP in (33b), which has no secondary

subcategorized object but is selected by thepredicate. Thus, we can assume that sentence

secondary predicate. In fact, this sentence(33a) has a SC.

becomesungrammatical

if

the

The meaning of wipe is shown below.

secondarypredicate is omitted, as in (30b). This fact(34) wipe: to rub a surface with something

indicates that the object NP and the secondary
predicate constitute a SC.

in order to remove dirt, liquid etc.

Let us look at the definition of clear in (31).

(LDCE, underlining is mine)(31) clear: to make somewhere emptier

The underlined text in (34) indicates that theor tidier by removing things from it.

verb wipe entails the meaning of rubbing. The
action of rubbing inherently includes motion, so(LDCE, underlining is mine)

we can say that this verb entails motion. ThisAs shown by the underlined text, this verb

motion meaning is further specified by the SC

entails the meaning of removing. This meaning

his hand across his mouth, which means thatis further specified by the SC the dishes fromhis hand moved across his mouth. Thus, we canthe table, which designates that the dishes wereconclude that the sentence in (33a) involves aremoved from the table. As a result, we can

CSC, as shown in (35).

conclude that the sentence in (30a) includes a(35) John wiped [SC his hand across his

CSC, as in (32).

mouth].
(32) Mary cleared [SC the dishes from the
The same analysis is possible for the othertable ].

members of manners of wiping verbs.
To sum up, this section has shown that theAgain, the same analysis is applicable to the

CSC analysis is applicable not only to cutting

other verbs of this verb class.
Finally, let us consider manner of wiping

and breaking verbs but also manner of hitting

verbs. We will investigate wipe, for example, asverbs, clearing verbs, and manner of wipingin (33).

verbs.

(33) a.

5. Conclusion

John wiped his hand across his

This paper dealt with the cases in whichmouth.

result verbs such as cutting and breaking verbs

b.# John wiped his hand.

take a non-subcategorized object. Although it(Nemoto (2007: 390))

was observed that result verbs do not take a
Sentence (33a) means that John wiped his

non-subcategorized object, I showed that theymouth by moving his hand across it. The object

can take a non-subcategorized object when part

NP is not subcategorized for by the verb but isof a CSC. This analysis explains apparent

licensed by the secondary predicate. This iscounterexamples of the UPC as well. Further, I

320

showed that the CSC analysis can be applied

Matsumoto, Yo (2006) Constraints on the

not only to cutting and breaking verbs but also

Co-occurrence of Spatial and Non-spatial

to manner of hitting verbs, clearing verbs, andPaths in English: A Closer Look at themanner of wiping verbs.

Unique Path Constraint. Paper presented attheFourthInternational

Construction* I would like to thank the chair, Kairi Igarashi

Grammar Conference, the University ofand the audience for their invaluable comments

Tokyo.

for earlier version of this paper. Needless to say,

Nemoto, Noriko (2007) “A Constructional

any remaining errors and shortcomings are myAnalysis of Bodily Motion Expressions,”

own. This work was supported by JSPS

English Linguistics 24, 389-420.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin

KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists(B) Grant Number 16K21380.
NOTES(2010) “Reflections on Manner/Result

1

Levin and Rappaport (1995) judge thisSemantics, and Event Structure, ed. bysentence as ungrammatical. This sentence is in

Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron, andfact unacceptable in an interpretation where I

Ivy Sichel, 21-38, Oxford University Press,

broke the mirror into pieces, and then, he put all

Oxford.

Complementarity,”

Syntax,

Lexicalof the pieces into the garbage pail at one time.

Yasuhara, Masaki (2013) “A Modification of

However, this sentence becomes acceptable in

the Unique Path Constraint,” JELS 30,

an interpretation where I divided the mirror into

355-361.

pieces little by little and put each piece into the
DICTIONARY

garbage pail (see Yasuhara (2013)).

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English(4th edition) (LDCE), Longman, London.

REFERENCES
Beavers, John and Andrew Koontz-Garboden(2012) “Manner and Result in the Roots of
Verbal Meaning,” Linguistic Inquiry 43,
331-369.
Fong, Sandiway, Christiane Fellbaum andDavid Lebeau (2001) “Ghosts, ShadowsandResultatives:

Representation

of

The

Lexical

Verbs,”

Traitement

Automatique des Langues 42, 755-784.
Goldberg, Adele (1991) “It Can't Go Up the
Chimney Down: Paths and the English
Resultative,” BLS 17, 368-378.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav(1995)

Unaccusativity:

At

the

Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface, The
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

321

The highlighted adjective yfel here carries
distinct inflectional endings, even if it agrees
with the nouns in the same gender, case, andnumber. In (1a), it follows the adnominal
Adnominal Ad ectives and efinitenessdemonstrative þære, taking the weak adjective

Mar ing in Old English

ending -an for agreement with the feminine
dative singular noun sceonesse. In contrast, theadjective

Hee-Cheol Yoon

yfel

in

(1b),

which

lacks

an

accompanying determiner, takes the strong

Duksung Women’s University

adjective ending -re as an inflectional marker for
agreement with the feminine dative singular

Keywords: weak adjective, definiteness, DWA

noun bysene.
Considering that OE had neither a definite
nor an indefinite article, the dual adjective

1. Introduction
Just as most Germanic languages, Oldparadigms certainly involved the representation

English (OE) had double inflectional paradigmsof (in)definiteness. However, the demarcation

for an adjective to mark gender, case, andbetween weak and strong adjectives was notnumber agreement with the noun or the pronoun

always determined by the presence of ait modified. The weak (aka definite) declension

determiner. Weak adjectives devoid of anyof an adjective was adopted after an adnominal

determiner could sometimes appear in OE. This

demonstrative, an adnominal possessive, a

study focuses on the synchronic and thenominalordinal number.

diachronic implications of the determinerless

Elsewhere, the strong (aka indefinite) declension

weak adjective (DWA) regarding definitenesswas used. The morphological contrasts between

and aims to propose its syntactic analysis.

genitive,or anthose two paradigms can be confirmed in theexamples below.

2. ual Ad ective Paradigms andAmong(1) a. mid

theA

Proto-Indo-European(PIE)subfamilies, it was only the Germanic languages

re yfelan sceonesse

with that evil:F.DAT.SG charm:F.DAT.SG

including

beswac one restan wifmon

inflectional paradigms for adjectives. The

deceived that first woman

original PIE paradigms for adjectives gave way‘(It) deceived the first woman with the evil

to the paradigms for pronominal adjectives thatsuggestion’

were inflected like demonstratives in PIE. In(BlHom 5:1)

OE

that

adoptedthedoubleaddition, new paradigms were invented based onb. ic hit mid yfelre
I it with evil:F.DAT.SG

the n-stems of nouns (Ringe 2006:169). The

bysene inc forgylde

older and the new paradigms for Germanic

example:F.DAT.SG to-you-two reward

adjectives are conventionally referred to as‘I will recompense it to both of you withstrong and weak respectively.

an evil example’(BlHom 189:25-6)

322

2.1. istributions of(3) g da lareow eallA

good:M.NOM.SG master:M.NOM.SG all

Contrary to the aforementioned syntactic
generalization on the dual adjective declensions,

is ic geheold of minre geogu e

the weak adjective could appear without athis I kept from my youth

determiner as exemplified below.

‘Good master, I observed all this from myyouth’(2) sy(OGsp Mark 10:20)

an Beowulfe bradeafterwards to-Beowulf broad:N.NOM.SG

The weak adjective g da in (3) should berice on hand gehwearf

exceptional, in that the strong form g d was

kingdom:N.NOM.SG onto hand passed

predicted to appear in the determinerless context.

‘afterwards the broad kingdom passed onto
the hands of Beowulf’(Beo 2207-8a)

2.2.

A and efiniteness
It is noticeable that the noun phrases

The highlighted adjective brade carries the weakcontaining the DWA in (2) and (3) involve

adjective ending -e rather than the predicted

definiteness contextually. In fact, the textual

strong adjective null ending, in a determinerlessinvestigation of the DWA in OE texts reveals

noun phrase. The frequency of the DWA inthat noun phrases including the DWA are all

poetry can be confirmed in Table 1 from Amos

associated(1980) and Yoon (2014), which shows the ratio

Cameron et al. 1981, Mitchell 1985, and Yoonof the DWA to the weak adjective with an

2014, inter alia). The vocative phrase is also

accompanying determiner.

relevant to definiteness, since it presupposes anwithdefiniteness

(Amos

1980,

object being addressed. Considering that with
<Table 1> Number of Weak Adjective Tokens

the absence of a determiner as well as a definite

with and without a Determiner in Selected OE

article, the weak adjective should be the solePoemsmarker to express definiteness. Subsequently,
DWA

Weak

136 (66 )

70 (34 )Genesis25 (22 )

88 (78 )Andreas26 (31 )

58 (69 )Maldon2 (20 )

8 (80 )

1 (7 )

13 (93 )Poems

adjective ending in the DWA functioned as awith a Det

Beowulf

Chronicle

the hypothesis looks plausible that the weakAdjformal indicator to represent definiteness.
The idea of the weak adjective declension asa definiteness marker receives further support
from the diachronic fact that the weak adjective
paradigms of Germanic languages were cognatewith the PIE individualizing particle *-ne-. The
particle existed in many early Indo-European
languages and coalesced with an adjectival or a

The DWA appeared in OE prose as well,nominal element to produce various lexicaleven if its tokens were restricted to the vocative

semantic contents such as individualizing,phrase (Mitchell 1985: 114).1

singulative, and permanent quality, all of whichwere more or less equated with definiteness(Colman 2014:224 and Sleeman, Van de Valde,

323

In

& Perridon 2014:3). Classical Greek, for
h

(4),

the

highlighted/ag t :n/andweardum

(‘the

from

the

generalization on the dual adjective. After thehproximalone’)

originatedcombination of the adjective

ó /agat s/

tocomplyadjective

instance, had the nickname
good

fails

strongdemonstrativewithðisum,

the

the
weak

(‘good’) and the individualizing suffix *-(o)n.

adjective andweardan is expected to appear for

The weak adjective paradigms newly adopted byagreement with the neuter dative singular noun

Proto-Germanic were based on n-stems as well,geswince. Surprisingly, this sporadic deviationeven though not all the weak adjective endings

was not haphazard but restricted in Alfredianhad /n/ in early Germanic languages. Based on

andthe aforementioned etymological as well as

strong adjective ending -um replaced thesemantic grounds, Ringe (2006:170) suggests

expected

that the n-stem suffix of the weak adjective

agreement with the masculine or neuter dative

paradigm in Germanic languages should be

singular noun, not the other way round (Mitchelloriginally a definite article. His argument

1985: 118 22).

lfric’s prose to the context in which theweakadjectiveending-anforimplies that the function of the weak adjective

The unilateral confusion between -um and -paradigm as a definiteness marker could be

an can be explicable only by the assumption that

redundant or pleonastic within the noun phrase

the strong adjective represented the default

including the adnominal demonstrative, due toadjective inflectional paradigms in OE. Further

the inherent definiteness of the demonstrative.

evidence to support the assumption can be
drawn from the predicative adjective and the

2.4 Strong Ad ectives

inflected adnominal possessive, both of which

efault Ad ective

followed the strong adjective paradigms as

Paradigms

exemplified below.

Whereas the weak adjective could serve as anautonomous definiteness marker, the strong
adjective could represent the default or the basic(5) seo o er acennednys is gastlicadjective paradigms irrespective of definiteness.

the other birth:F.NOM.SG is

As mentioned earlier, the morphology of thespiritual:F.NOM.SGstrong adjective was related to the PIE adjective‘the second birth is spiritual’(CHI, 22:158-9)

inflection. Besides, morphosyntactic evidence(6) Ne inre for fore swa neah is

supports the idea that the strong adjective was

not your:F.DAT.SG death:F.DAT.SG near isrepresentative of the basic adjective paradigms‘It is not so near to your death’(Bede 348:2-3)

of OE.
(4) he underfeh into ecere reste fram isum

The highlighted strong adjective gastlic in (5) is

he accepts us into eternal rest from thisnot used adnominally but predicatively. In a way,and eardum geswince

a predicative adjective can be neutral withpresent toil

respect to the strong/weak dichotomy, standing‘he accepts us from this present toil intoalone

eternal rest’

inflectional possessive þinre in (6) takes the(CHII 5:215-6)

without

modifying

a

noun.

The

strong feminine dative singular ending -re, in324

spite of its inherent definiteness.

3.2. Syntax ofAWith regard to the syntactic status of the
3. Syntax of

DWA in OE, Yoon (2014:85) proposes the

A and iachronic Change

3.1. Anti uity ofminimalist analysis under which the weakA

adjective ending constitutes a functional head

The figures in Table 1 demonstrate thefor definiteness.

tendency that the frequency of the DWA wasgenerallyinproportion

to

the

date

of
(7) [AdjP [Adj’ [nP [n’ weak adjective inflection [NPcomposition. The epic Beowulf, which is widelybelieved to preserve the linguistic features of theNP ]]]]]

early stages of OE, shows the highest frequencyof the DWA. In contrast, late OE poems such as

The derivation (7) assumes that the weak

Maldon and Chronicle Poems exhibit relatively

adjective ending is first merged into thelow frequency. Lichtenheld (1873) indeedfunctional head n associated with definiteness orsuggested that the ration of the DWA among thereferentiality.3

occurrences of the weak adjective should serve

undergoes encliticization into the Adj head,as the criterion for the determination of relative

forming the weak declined adjective. The weakchronological order between OE poems.2 Given

adjective depicted in (7) represents the early

that the DWA was an autonomous definitenessstages of OE when it still sustained syntactic andmarker representative of the earlier periods ofsemantic autonomy as a definiteness marker. On

OE, they had more chance to survive in poetry,the other hand, the co-occurrence of a definite

owing to its inclination towards antiquity or

determiner and a weak adjective signifies thatearly Germanic linguistic traits.

the latter had its role as a definiteness marker

Next,

the

weak

inflection

In case of the vocative, its retention of thebleached while the former emerged as a

DWA is related to extragrammaticality or non-substitute. This process of diachronic change canintegration. Vocative phrases are separated frombe interpreted in terms of the cline of

the grammatical structure of a clause and thus

grammaticalization epitomized below.

less susceptible diachronic changes. One classic(8) content item > grammatical word > clitic >example for this generalization can be found in
BulgarianandMacedonian,

where

affix

the

morphological case markings for nouns havecompletely vanished, except for the vocative

In accordance with (8) and Ringe’s hypothesis,

case (Girvin 2013). In contrast with poetry, thethe weak adjective ending in (7) derived from ademise of the DWA could not be withheld in

definite article, an independent grammaticalprose, which was relatively free from the various

word. It suffered weakening into clitichood, but

linguistic as well as nonlinguistic requirements

still maintained both semantic and syntactic

imposed by Germanic versification. It is

status as a definiteness marker. Definiteness intherefore no wonder that the vocative phrase

the weak adjective paradigm underwent further

became the sole locus for the survival of thebleaching in OE. Then, the weak adjective

DWA in prose.

ending failed to retain its syntactic status0and

was subject to reanalysis into the adjectival325

suffix. As an alternative definiteness marker topostulate that another definiteness cycle canthe weak adjective, the demonstrative wasexist anterior or posterior to the one introduced

usually adopted in the definite noun phrase toin (10). Out of the weak adjective paradigms andform the regular pattern of demonstrative

weak

their presumable PIE and PGmc predecessors,noun. The introduction of thethe hypothesis can be made that OE initially had

demonstrative for a definiteness marker is an

an unattested definiteness marker whose origin

exemplaryin

was the PIE individualizing particle *ne. Next, it

grammaticalization, a process whereby existing

weakened to become a definiteness marker

meaning or function takes on a new form

encliticized into the adjective. Evidence for this(Hopper & Traugott 2003:122). The derivations

stage can be found in the DWA from Beowulf

below demonstrate how the proposal suggested

and some early poems. Finally, the weak

here analyzes snotra fengel ‘(the) wise king’adjective lost its own function as a nominal(Beo 1527), a noun phrase with the DWA and se

definiteness marker only to represent agreement.

snotra sunu ‘that wise son’ (Beo 3120), a noun

This stage was well represented in OE prose,phrase with the regular weak adjective.

except for the vocative phrase. After the weak

adjective

case

for

renewaladjective paradigms, the demonstrative wasadopted(9) a. [AdjP [Adj’ snort ai [nP [n’ ti [NP fengel ]]]]]

fornominaldefinitenessthroughrenewal and became subject to the definitenessb. [DP sei [ D [AdjP [Adj’ snotra [nP ti [n’ n [NPcycle generalized in (10), a specified type ofsunu ]]]]]

grammaticalization.
Syntactic evidence for the weakening of the

3.3. efiniteness Cycle Revisited

demonstrative can be already found in the OE

Greenberg’s (1978) definiteness cycle and its
minimalist

reinterpretation

offer

a

possessive-demonstrative construction.

morecomprehensive explanation for the diachronic(11) he a onsende his one wuldorf stan gastchanges of nominal definiteness.

he then sent his that glorious spirit
to helle grunde(10) a. demonstrative>definite article>case/non-to of-hell abyss

generic>class marker
b. specifier ( P) > head (0‘then he sent his glorious spirit to the abyss) > affix > zeroof hell’(Roberts & Roussou 2003, van Gelderen(BlHom 85:3-4)

2007)
As its Modern English translation shows, theIn spite of crosslinguistic variations on thedemonstrative þone in (11) has its deictic

division between the stages, the core idea of themeaning bleached completely and makes nocycle is the irreversible trend of unidirectional

contribution to the definiteness as well as thechange into a simple agreement marker. The cue

meaning of the phrase.

of the change is the initial loss of the deictic
aspect in the demonstrative (Lyons 1999).

4. Summary

Once nominal definiteness is regarded as a

Bifurcation of the adjective inflections into

universal requirement, it is reasonable to

the weak and the strong paradigm represents the326unique properties of early Germanic languages

nonlinguistic trait.

including OE. The distributions of weak3

adjectives in most OE texts generally accord

functional head n represents referentiality in Old

with the rule based on the presence of a definite

Norse (ON), another early Germanic language.

determiner. However, some OE poems including

See Lohndal (2007) and van Gelderen (2007) for

Beowulf exhibit remarkably high frequency ofthe empirical and conceptual motivation of the

weak adjectives within determinerless NPs.

functional head n.

Etymologically,

the

OE

weak

The analysis comes from the idea that theadjective

REFERENCES

paradigm originated from the individualizing

Amos, Ashley C. (1980) The Linguistic Meansparticle *-ne- in PIE, which yielded the effectsof Determining the Dates of Old Englishof specifying or designating an object. Although

Literary Texts, Medieval Academy ofsome missing links remain unattested, it isAmerica.

convincing to stipulate that weak adjectives

Angus

et

al.

(1981)“A

could represent definiteness on their own. In

Reconsideration

of

the

Languageoftandemweak

Beowulf,” The Dating of Beowulf, ed. by

variations

Colin Chase, 33-75, University of Toronto

adjectives

withdiachronic

exhibitchanges,

synchronic

Cameron,regarding definiteness.
AccordingtothePress, Toronto.
minimalist

analysis,

Colman, Fran (2014) The Grammar of Names insynchronic fluctuation of weak adjectives is

Anglo-Saxon England: The Linguistics andinterpreted as the asymmetry in their syntactic

Culture of the Old English Onomasticon,

status. In case they are a sole indicator for

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

definiteness, the weak adjective ending enjoys

Gelderen, Elly V. (2007) “The Definitenessthe status of a head. In contrast, it suffers

Cycle in Germanic,” Journal of Germanic

reduction to the status of an affix if the

Linguistics 19, 275-308.

demonstrative is introduced to mark definitenessGirvin, Cammeron (2013) “Addressing Changes

as well as deixis. The analysis suggested here

in the Bulgarian Vocatives,” Vocative!:

not only illuminates the involvement of the weak

Addressing

adjective paradigm with nominal definiteness in

Performance, ed. by Barbara Sonnenhauser

early OE but also paves the way to understandand Patrizia N. A. Hanna, 157-188, Walter

the definiteness cycle throughout the history ofde Gruyter., Berlin.

English.

SystemandGreenberg, Joseph H. (1978) “How Does aLanguage

1

BetweenAcquireGenderMarkers,”

NOTES

Universals of Human Language vol. 3, ed.

Since the presence of an addressee is aby Josheph Greenberg, 47-82, Stanford
University Press, Stanford.

prerequisite for vocatives, many prose texts in
OE were devoid of vocatives. Consequently, theHopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth C. Traugott

tokens of the DWA in prose are mainly attested(2003) Grammaticalization (2nd edition),in homilies and gospels (Yoon 2015).

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

2

See Neidorf (2013) for the evidence that the

Lichtenheld, Adolf (1873) “Das Schwache

DWA should be syntactic archaism rather than a

Adjectiv im Ags,” ZFDA 16, 325-393.

327

Lohndal, Terje (2007) “On the Structure andDevelopmentofNorwegian,”

NominalTypology,

NominalContext

Phrasesin

Determination:

Constraints,

andHistorical Emergence, ed. by Elizabeth
Stark,

Elizabeth

Abraham,Leiss

287-310,

and

John

Werner.

Benjamins,

Amsterdam.
Lyons,

Christopher(1999)

Definiteness,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mitchell, Bruce (1985) Old English Syntax, The
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Neidorf, Loenard (2013) “Lexical Evidence for
the Relative Chronology of Old English
Poetry,” SELIM 20, 7-48.
Ringe, Don (2006) A Linguistic History ofEnglish. Volume I. From Proto-IndoEuropean

toProto-Germanic,

OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.
Sleeman, Peter, Freek V. de Valde and Harry
Perridon (2014) Adjectives in Germanicand Romance, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Yoon, Hee-Cheol (2014) “Weak Adjectives andDefiniteness in Old English,” Studies inModern Grammar 80, 69-95.
Yoon,

Hee-Cheol(2015)“Vocatives

andDeterminerless Weak Adjectives in Old
English Prose,” English Language andLinguistics 21, 85-105.

328

As a case study using the NPCMJ corpus,<Workshop Report>

this presentation examined a phenomenon inwhich adverbial negative polarity items (NPIs)
in Japanese are licensed by negation beyond
clause boundaries. It is known that Japanesesing Treeban s for inguistic Research*

NPIs must normally appear in the same clause as
Yusuke Kubota (University of Tsukuba)

negation unlike English NPIs such as any.

Misato Ido (NINJAL)

However, it has been pointed out in the literature

Ayaka Suzuki (NINJAL)

that adverbial NPIs can be licensed beyond

Nobuyoshi Miyoshi (University of Tsukuba)

clause boundaries in copular sentences withpredicative

Keywords：treebank, NPCMJ, syntax, semantics

nominal(Matsui

2003).

This

presentation demonstrated that the rich syntactic
annotation of NPCMJ makes it possible toextract attested data from the corpus verifying

1. Introduction

this phenomenon. Furthermore, a qualitative

The use of corpora in theoretical linguistics

analysis of the search results identified anotheris still at an early exploratory stage. One reason

group of adverbs that are similar to NPIs, which,for the lack of interest among theoretical

together with NPI adverbs, point to a hitherto

linguistics in the use of corpora is that corpora

unnoticed generalization.

representing detailed grammatical information
are not easily available (Ogawa et al. 2016). A

3. Paper 2 (Su u i) Temporal Interpretations

new type of corpus called the NINJAL Parsed

and Tense Forms of the Toki Clause

Corpus of Modern Japanese (NPCMJ) is

This paper argued that observations obtained

currently being developed at the Nationalfrom NPCMJ contribute to clarifying theInstitute of Japanese Language and Linguistics

interpretive

to overcome this situation. NPCMJ is a treebank

toki-clause. Previous studies on the toki-clause(i.e. a syntactically annotated corpus) primarily(e.g. Funahashi 2006) have focused on thedesigned as a resource for linguistic research. It

combinations of tense forms in the subordinate

contains

information

clause (SC) and the matrix clause (MC) in theirindispensable for serious linguistic research, andeffects on the overall temporal interpretations.

is expected to facilitate a new type of linguistic

However, the patterns reflected in the attested

research and will ultimately bring theoretical

data in NPCMJ suggest that a different,

linguistics research into a new stage as a true

previously

empirical science. This workshop introduced

whether the SC tense is in the ru-form

three case studies of linguistic research using the(non-past) or the ta-form (past). By focusing on

NPCMJ corpus, which, though preliminary,

this factor and by taking the fundamental

already corroborate this expectation.

meaning of toki to be ‘simultaneity’, it becomes

fine-grainedsyntactic

mechanism

overlooked

of

the

factorisJapanese

relevant:

possible to provide a natural explanation for the
2. Paper 1 (Ido)

icensing of Adverbial NPIs

tendency found in the corpus data while at the

beyond Clause Boundaries

same

329

time

capturingthedescriptive

linguistics and corpus linguistics.

generalization about the possible combinationsof tense forms noted in the literature.

* This workshop was supported by the NINJAL
4.

Paper

3

(Miyoshi)

Non Restrictive
ifferent Text

istributionofCollaborative Research Project Development ofClauseinand Linguistic Research with a Parsed Corpus

Adnominal
enres

and JSPS KAKENHI JP15H03210.

Adnominal clauses in Japanese are known tohave both restrictive and non-restrictive uses.
Some previous studies (e.g. Masuoka 1995)

REFERENCES
Mizuki (2006) “Tokisetsu-no

Funahashi,

have discussed the discourse functions andKaishaku-ni-kansuru

semantic classifications of the non-restrictive

Koosatsu

use. However, the function of the non-restrictive

Interpretation of Toki-Clauses),” Nihongo

use in actual discourses has not been studied in

Bunpoo 6, 106-121.

study

attempted

toclarify(Pragmatic

Factorsinthe

Masuoka, Takashi (1995) “Rentaisetsu noadequate detail in the previous literature. The
present

Goyooronteki

Hyogentheto

ShumeishinoShudaisei

distribution and function of the non-restrictive(Expression of Adnominal Clause anduse by closely examining its distributions in

Topicality of Head Noun),” Nihongo nodifferent text genres using NPCMJ. Some

Shudai to Toritate (Topic and Toritate inpreliminary results showing that the main

Japanese), ed. by Takashi Masuoka et al.,functions of the non-restrictive adnominal

139-157, Kurosio, Tokyo.
Matsui,clauses differed depending on the text genre

Haruko(2003)“Hitei-Kyokusei-

were obtained, suggesting that grammatical

Koomoku-no Setsu-o Koe-ta Kooo (NPI

information (such as a fine-grained classification

Agreement across Clause Boundaries),”of adnominal clauses) is relevant for stylistic

Nihongo Bunpoo 3, 117-126.

studies,apossibility

openedup

Ogawa, Yoshiki, Akiko Nagano, and Akira

by

Kikuchi

syntactically-annotated corpora such as NPCMJ.

(2016)

Henka/Hen’i-no(Overview:

5. Conclusion“Gaikan:Gengo-

Kenkyuu-to

Koopasu

Language

Change/Variation

and Corpora),” Koopasu-kara

The three papers at this workshop made it

Wakaruclear that the traditional introspection-based

Gengo-Henka/Hen’i-to

Gengo-Riron

approach in theoretical linguistics can be(Discovering

Changefruitfully complemented in various ways with aLanguage Variation from Corpora), ed. by

more data-oriented type of approach based on

Yoshiki Ogawa, Akiko Nagano, and Akira

attested data. At the same time, the use of

Kikuchi, 1-28, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

Languageandtreebanks in theoretical research raises a numberof technical, conceptual and methodological

CORP S

issues, some of which were addressed in the

NINJAL Parsed Corpus of Modern Japanese

three papers. It is hoped that the type of research(NPCMJ), http://npcmj.ninjal.ac.jp/

represented at this workshop will facilitate
furthercollaboration

betweentheoretical330

【JELS 原稿（和文原稿）の作成上の注意】＜英文原稿作成については、Guidelines for Submission of Manuscripts to JELS を参照すること＞(1) 原稿枚数：
本文・注・文献を含めて A4 用紙に 7 枚以内（ワークショップ・リポートは 2 枚以内）とする。原稿は、2 段組とし、各段 40 行とすること。
(2) 書式：
必ず、添付ファイルで送られてきた、「JELS_サンプル（和文原稿）.doc」を使用し、ファイル名を変更した上で上書き保存して使用すること。また、ファイル形式は「 .doc」のまま使用し、「.docx」に変更しないこと。（変更すると正しく表示されない場合がある。）① マージンは上（2.2 ㎝）、下（3.0 ㎝）、右（2.5 ㎝）、左（2.5 ㎝）に設定する。
② 文字サイズは 11 ポイント以上にする。
③ 第 1 頁の一段目は上部に 4 行の余白を 取り、論文題名・氏名・所属・キーワード（語または短いフ
レーズ、5 項目まで）を中央寄せにして入れる。論文題名と氏名の間、及び所属とキーワードの間は
各 1 行空白とし、キーワードの後 2 行あけて、本文を始める。
（キーワード： メタファー, 関連性理論,
usage-based model のような形式でキーワードを書く。キーワードの間は半角カンマと半角スペースで区切る。）④ 論文題名は太字にする。
⑤ 謝辞を書く場合は、アスタリスクを付け、注の上に書く。
⑥ 注は、本文（または謝辞）の後ろ（文献表の前）にまとめ、「注」とタイトルを付す。なお、MSWord の脚注機能を使用してはならない。脚注機能を使わずに注を書くこと。本文中の注番号（上付き数字）は、ピリオドの後ろにくるようにする。

⑦ 和文原稿の場合、読点・句点は、「、」と「。」を使用する。
⑧ 文 献 表 を 含 め 、 そ の 他 の 書 式 の 細 部 に つ い て は 、 English Linguistics の“Information forContributors” に従うが、abstractは不要。

331

(3) その他：① 和文原稿には和文題名をつけること。また、著者名と所属機関名の横にそれぞれの英語（または原語）表記を（）に入れて記す。著者名の英語表記では、ファーストネーム ファミリーネームの順番で、語頭のみ大文字で書くこと（例：「日本英子（Eiko Nihon）」）。また、和文題名の下に英文題名を（ ）に入れて示す（この場合も、英文題名の中の内容語はすべて、語頭を大文字で記載すること）。

② 発表時のタイトルからの変更は一切認めないが、日本語による口頭発表でも Conference Handbookに記した英文題名を使用すれば、英文原稿を提出できる。なお、Spring Forum での発表の場合は、英文原稿のみ受け付ける。
③ ページ番号は入力しないこと。
④ 作成原稿のフォントの埋め込みを必ず行ってから提出すること。CD-ROM からの読み出し時に、パ
ソコン環境によってはフォントがうまく再現されず異なる記号などに変換されてしまう危険性がある
ため、必ず確認の上、提出すること。
⑤ 論文内に図やイラストなどを使用する際には、著作権に十分留意すること。
⑥ 締め切りは、大会翌年の 1 月11 日午前11:59（日本時間）（必着）で、日本英語学会の JELS 原稿受付
アドレス（conference-elsj@kaitakusha.co.jp）に WORD ファイルと PDF ファイルを送付する。ファイ
ル名には発表者の氏名をローマ字で記入すること（ 例：NihonEiko.doc / NihonEiko.pdf）。 メールのタイトルは、秋の大会の発表か国際春季フォーラムの発表かに応じて、「大会: JELS 日本英子」もしくは「SF: JELS EikoNihon」と記すこと。なお，締切日時を過ぎていても JELS 原稿受付アドレスの自動応答システムによって「受領した」旨のメールが返信される場合があるが，大会運営委員会としては受領しない。
⑦ 規定に違反している原稿は掲載できない。

（2018 年 11 月 1 日改定）332

日本英語学会大会運営委員会
日本英語学会事務局

JELS 日本語執筆の場合の注および参考文献の書式について（補足資料）

JELS を日本語で執筆する場合の注と和文参考文献の例を以下に示します。外国語で書かれた参考文献については、JELS を英語で執筆する場合と同様，English Linguistics の参考文献の書式（2007 年度会員
名簿巻末掲載）を参照して下さい。

注
1. 河上誓作（私信：XX 年YY 月ZZ 日）によると、以下の例は…………….
2. Oba (1997)にも指摘されているとおり、………………
3. 杉本 (1998:34)では、以下のような類例が紹介されている。
(i) I long for …………
(ii) I manage to ………………………
4. Takami (1996:51)には、以下のような………………

参考文献
小泉保 (1997)『ジョークとレトリックの語用論』大修館書店, 東京.
松本曜・田中茂範 (1997)『空間と移動の表現』研究社出版, 東京.
盛岡ハインツ・梶田優(編) (1994)『海外言語学情報』（第7 号）大修館書店, 東京.

333

和書の場合福岡言語学研究会(編) (1993)『言語学からの眺望』（福岡言語学研究会20 周年記念論文集）九州大学出版
論文集の場合会, 福岡.
吉村あき子(1996)『否定極性現象』博士論文, 大阪大学.

博士論文の場合

福井直樹 (1998)「極小モデルの展開」, 田窪行則他(編) 『生成文法』（岩波講座言語の科学第六巻）, 161210, 岩波書店, 東京.

論文集収録論文の場合

大阪太郎 (未公刊)「Donkey 文の解釈について」, 未公刊論文, 日本英語大学.
未公刊論文の場合
藤田耕司 (1997)「最適派生理論の最適化に向けて」, 『英語青年』5 月号, 74-76, 研究社出版, 東京.
大津智彦 (1993)「現代イギリス英語における目的語節を導くthat の有無について」, 『論集』第 9 号, 41-50,
大阪外国語大学.

雑誌論文の場合

東京花子 (印刷中)「英語統語論について」, 『日本英語学研究』, 日本英語出版．
雑誌掲載が決定しているが未公刊の論文の場合
塚本聡 (2013)「大名力『言語研究のための正規表現によるコーパス検索』」書評, 『英文学研究』第90 巻，
155-160，日本英文学会.

書評の場合１

廣瀬幸生 (1996)「Adele E. Goldberg: Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure」
書評『英文学研究』73 巻1号, 170-174, 日本英文学会.
書評の場合２（洋書の書評を和文で執筆）
桐生和幸 (1997)「結果述語構文の言語類型論的研究」関西言語学会第 22 回大会口頭発表.
口頭発表の場合
川瀬義清 (1998)「認知的観点から見た進行形の意味」KLS (Kansai Linguistic Society) 18, 155-165.
学会等のプロシーディングスの場合
Freud, Sigmund (1905) Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious, Moffat Ward, New York. （フロイト, ジグムン
ド. 生松敬三訳『機知—その無意識との関係』人文書院, 東京, 1970）
翻訳の場合
Radcliff, Allan (1940) “On Joking Relationships,” Africa 13, 195-210. （ラドクリフ, アラン. 青柳まちこ訳『未開社会における構造と機能』「（第4 章）冗談関係について」新泉社, 東京, 1975）
論文の翻訳が本の一部として公刊されている場合

334

Guidelines for Submission of Manuscripts to JELS
<If you write in Japanese, refer to the Japanese guideline on the ELSJ website>
Last revised November 2018
(1) Length
The length of an oral presentation manuscript, including notes and references, must notexceed seven A4 pages; that of a workshop report must not exceed two A4 pages. The
manuscript should use a two-column format with 40 lines per column. Care should be taken
to avoid overcrowding of characters or letters within the line.
(2) Format
Use the English sample file attached to the e-mail. Do not change the file extension (.doc)
when you save the file. Note that presenters at the Spring Forum are not allowed to submit aJapanese manuscript.
a. Leave margins of 2.2cm at the top, 3.0 cm at the bottom, and 2.5cm on both sides.
b. The font size should be at least 11 point.
c. There should be 4 lines of space between the top of the page and the first paragraph on thefirst page. The title, the name and affiliation of all authors, and keywords (up to five words
or short phrases) should all be centered. One line of blank space should be left between
the title and the author name(s) as well as between the author affiliation(s) and the
keywords. Two lines of blank space should be left below the keywords, at which point themain text should begin. Keywords should be written in the following format:
Keywords: xxx, yyy, zzz (e.g. Keywords: syntax, Case assignment, Multiple Agree, lightverb).
d. The title should be in bold type. Capitalize the first letter of every content word in the title.
e. Write the author’s name in the order “First name - Surname” and capitalize only the initialletters. (e.g. Jane Smith).
f. Write acknowledgements above notes, if any. Put an asterisk at the beginning of theacknowledgements.
g. Notes should follow the main text but precede the references, with the heading“NOTES.” DO NOT use MS-Word’s command for inserting automatic footnotes andendnotes. Footnote numbers in the body of the text should be written as superscript
numerals, and should be placed after punctuation marks.
h. Other details (including the references) should be formatted in accordance with
Information for Contributors and the latest version of the EL style sheet. No abstract isnecessary.
(3) Other instructions for submission
a . Manuscripts written in English should be checked by a native speaker of English.
Under no circumstances may the title of the manuscript be changed in any way fromthat used at the time of presentation. English manuscripts are acceptable even when theoral presentations were made in Japanese if the English title listed in the Conference
Handbook is used in the manuscript. Presenters at the International Spring Forum may
submit only English manuscripts.
b. Do not include page numbers.
c. Please embed all fonts when creating pdf files in order to ensure that the fonts used areavailable on readers’ computers. (JELS is published as a CD-ROM.)
d. Make sure that any figures or illustrations in the paper are consistent with copyright
restrictions.
e. Manuscripts must be submitted by 11:59 am on January 11th (JST) of the year
following the Spring Forum and the annual Conference. Manuscripts should be sent as
attachments in both pdf and doc format to <conference-elsj☆kaitakusha.co.jp>*. The
file name should include the author’s name in Roman letters (e.g.
NihonEiko.pdf/NihonEiko.doc). The title of e-mail should be “Annual Conference: name”
or “Spring Forum: name” (e.g. “Annual Conference: Jane Smith”). Please note that amanuscript that has reached after the above deadline will not be accepted by the
Conference Organizing Committee even if an automatic reply message confirms yoursubmission.
f. Please note that manuscripts not in strict compliance with the Rules for JELS and thepresent guidelines will not be accepted. 335

*The “@” in the e-mail address has been replaced by “☆” for security reasons.

336

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2019年2月28日発行
編集
日本英語学会大会運営委員会
代 表 者
伊藤たかね
印 刷 所
株式会社あるむ
発 行 者
日本英語学会（〒113-0023）
東京都文京区向丘1-5-2
開拓社内
電話(03) 5842-8900Ⓒ日本英語学会 2019----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------